I'm not saying much other than Digby calls it the way I sort of see it about the primaries. I think she is leaning Obama, but overall, she tries to be fair to both Clinton and Obama.
The Citizen, the newsletter of the KSG, interviewed Elizabeth during her visit. They are now just getting around to publishing it. She was asked about her influence as a spouse with voters on the campaign trail, media reform, and being a parent on the campaign trail.
Q: You’ve now done a presidential campaign twice. Has the role of a candidate’s spouse has changed?
The people who broke the mold on campaigning [as the spouse of a presidential candidate] are people that nobody ever thinks about: Betty Ford and Roslyn Carter. Roslyn Carter would go out and sit in the kitchens of people in Iowa and talk about the price of fertilizer. We didn’t have CSPAN or other things that followed her around and got to see that this was what she was doing, but she did a lot of that-campaigning without [her husband]. Betty Ford doing the same thing, campaigning and being out there and speaking her own mind.
I think spouses are nearly irrelevant. I don’t want to say totally irrelevant.
But can you really make a positive difference? Probably not.
Then EE pauses with this question:
And should you make a difference at all? I think no. I think you’re role is so minimal, largely ceremonial. You can take on issues, but the likelihood of a presidential first spouse taking on a truly controversial issue-reading, literacy, childhood vaccination, beautifying our highways-this is the stuff of first ladies. We’re not talking about anything that’s truly groundbreaking. So what difference does it make?
I had a slightly different bent. I was interested in military families, having come from one. But that’s not controversial. So why in the world should I matter? Or Michelle [Obama] or Cindy [McCain]? We should not matter. We’re picking the leader of the free world and yet there’s this fascination [with the candidate’s spouses]. It’s this celebrity culture. … I expect a tremendous fixation on it. When we’re making this choice I think is really counter-productive.
Q: In your Forum address, you were pretty critical of the media for putting entertainment ahead of substance. Do you think that part of the problem with the media is more of a demand problem? The analogy that comes to mind is, everyone wants a Big Mac even though they know it’s bad for them. And we have a public that wants to find out the latest on Britney Spears. So how do you disentangle what people want from what they should want?
A: I think a lot reasons people eat a Big Mac as opposed to a salad is because they can drive through and get the Big Mac and eat it while they drive. And they can’t eat the salad. If somebody put a salad out in front of them, people might eat that instead. But we make it very easy to eat the Big Mac, very hard to eat the salad. And therefore people make the choices that they do.
We make it very hard to get really good information about candidates or about issues, certainly on investigative things, and very easy to hear about what’s happening with Britney Spears or Lindsay Lohan or-and this is the most incredible to me-Anna Nicole Smith is sort of a freakish kind of character. Not a major star in any way. Yet we spend how many hours of certainly the cable news time and also on the national news on who is the father of Anna Nicole Smith’s baby? A completely useless piece of information about a completely minor character on the waterfront. Is that because that’s what we asked for? I’ve heard the press say it in embarrassed tones, “We wouldn’t be doing this kind of coverage if that’s not what people wanted,” but I’m flipping channels and I got nothing but Anna Nicole Smith!
Amen, Elizabeth. The next question was about ratings, so what should the media do? Elizabeth couched her answer more in terms of real journalism:
I want journalists nationwide to stand up and say, “That’s it. We’re going to be serious journalists. … We are not going to do this stuff anymore. You can hire some jacklight person.” And for the rest of us to say, “As long as Charmin is advertising the Anna Nicole Smith trial, I’m not buying Charmin.”… But I do think we need to at some point say “This is too important an issue.” We’re not going to get the general public to do it. So it’s probably going to require journalists to say, “I cannot, will not, be a part of this.” … I do think that there are some efforts to change the landscape. But there are still too many people who get their news from the network news. And the network news is just sorry. … I actually quit watching the national network news. Unless I know my husband is going to be on the national network news, I don’t watch it. I find it boring. I’ll watch [the NewsHour with Jim] Lehrer and I’ll watch BBC.
I know what she means. I hardly ever watch Network News, or Cable News. I get mine mainly from C-SPAN.
It's in the 4th quarter, but Clinton came back with wins in Rhode Island, Texas, and Ohio.
Good for her. She had Bill out in all of the rural areas in Texas, and she won votes that way. She also got the Latino vote. She won San Antonio, which she needed to squeak her by.
Congrats to Obama in winning Vermont.
But I gotta tell ya, neither come close to John Edwards. My heart and mind are with his ideas.
Turns out my nephew, Z, is a Longhorn booter for Obama.
My sister broadcasted his possible interview on GMA on the e-mail with this message this morning:
Hey Everyone-
My son, is working for the Obama Campaign in Austin, where the debates are going to be on tomorrow evening. He said the town is filled with all different types of media and he feels strongly for Obama, and has recently gotten involved to support him by being a precinct manager.
He got interviewed by Good Morning America about 6pm last night, and they asked him his views on Obama. He said that they also interviewed alot of other people around the campaign and so he wasnt sure whether he would get picked to go on TV.
So we have no idea if he will be on there or not... But even if he didnt get on...
It sure did make us grin today... lets all stay tuned--
Ay-ya-ya. I just read this article (h/t Truthout).
"Unlike other states that allocate delegates by congressional districts, Texas distributes 126 of its delegates among its 31 state Senate districts using a formula based on Democratic voter turnout in the 2004 and 2006 general elections. The 31 districts contain from two to eight delegates. The March 4 primary vote in each Senate district will allocate that district's delegates.
The turnout formula has assigned more delegates to urban centers with a lot of young or black voters that tend to favor Obama and fewer delegates to poorer Hispanic areas expected to favor Clinton. Austin, which includes the University of Texas, gets eight; Houston gets seven and Dallas gets six."
My nephew is a UT student, and he's definitely in the Obama camp.
Maybe it was just as well that JRE didn't compete there. He would have done better in Houston and the rural areas, but the rural areas are redder than a hot chili pepper.
Don't forget: debate in Austin tonight at 7 pm. CNN is the host network. I predict Obama will come out looking better because CNN is more into theater than dealing with specific agendas.
According to the News-Observer, State Dem Party chairman Jerry Meek did not list John Edwards as a presidential candidate. I don't know how accurate the quote is, but this is what Rob Christensen reported:
"Meek said he based his decision on the law, which says the ballot should include "all candidates whose candidacy is generally advocated and recognized in the news media throughout the United States or in North Carolina."
So Edwards, who has been on many local stations, and only suspended his campaign, is being kicked off the ballot?
Does anyone believe that essentially Mike Gravel is generally advocated and recognized throughout the news media or in NC more than John Edwards? Meh.
I don't live in North Carolina, but to me, this smells of petty politics.
Seems to me Tarheel Dems, and yes, I'm talking not only to the regulars on this blog, but also to Larry Kissell, Rep. Brad Miller, Rep. Heath Schuler, Rep. Mel Watts, and new candidates such as Harry Taylor need to urge Chairman Meek to put Edwards back on the ballot. Tarheels deserve the opportunity to vote for its native son.
Meeks' contact info:
Jerry Meek Chair 919-821-2777 Ext. 106 email: jmeek@ncdemocraticparty.org
This morning I was looking for the county by county results of the election in Illinois. Obama won handily in my county and I knew he would since I live in a college town.
But here's one county that caught my attention as I had not heard of the name of it before.
# Precincts Clinton Obama JRE
Union
20/20
2,151 47%
1,721 38%
542 12%
That was Edwards' best showing, and of course, in a county called Union.
I thought it was interesting that Obama lost that one to Clinton.
This morning I woke up about 5:30 and read the paper. I discovered the precinct polls would be open at 6:00. Wearing a turtle neck, a pair of navy blue paints, and my poverty band that is identical to the one I gave JRE in June 2006 (and he wore for weeks), I cast my ballot at approximately 6:10. I voted for John Edwards and all of his delegates.
As the man handed me a "I voted" sticker, I took the time to write on it, "for JRE".
There were mainly Repugs who voted in my precinct. With the weather being mild, I think there will be a good turnout.
I went home, retrieved my yard sign, and took it back to the polling place and stuck it prominently where everyone could see it. I figured, what the hell, it would be better served there. The polling place is on one of the major thoroughfares in town, so everyone can see it.
I was surprised there were no Obama or Hillary signs. The other sign was for Ron Paul.
Despite many on the Daily Kos and actually one person on Taylor Marsh's site who tried to persuade me that my vote would be wasted and to vote for either Hillary or Obama, I do not believe it was. I voted for the voiceless. I voted a person who cared the most about the 46 million who do not have health care. I voted for the person who wanted to end poverty for the 37 million who may have gone to bed hungry along with their children, or the 200,00 veterans who were homeless.
I voted for a man who stood for principles. I voted for a man who had the decency to suspend his campaign and let all of us make our own decisions. And I voted for the most progressive ideas.
I voted proudly --albeit bittersweet--for John Edwards.
Update: links about similar thoughts by JRE supporters who are voting for him today or in upcoming primaries:
Gelbin has penned an excellent diary at the Daily Kos, using the theme of Joni Mitchell's Big Yellow Taxi, as to why s/he still intends to vote for John Edwards in the primary. The analysis is excellent, and supports why I intend to vote for JRE tomorrow. I have obtained permission to reprint its entirety here.
Sounds like s/he is a lot like many of us: a John Edwards Democrat.
------------------ Hello again,
Many of you have been asking me what my plans were now that John Edwards has "suspended" his bid for the presidency. Lucky for you all, I have been pretty busy over the last few days and so you didn't get a rash answer filled with tearful expletives. However, I am sure that this still won't be a straight answer...Once again, this is in the vein of a true diary, somewhat stream of consciousness, but thought out over the last few days.
The cliff notes: Edwards was right, and still is right. My second and third choices are a distant second and I don't feel worthy of a vote in either of their favor. So I am going to vote my conscience, and oppose the media and money domination of politics. I will vote for John Edwards. My analysis follows...
For those wondering how I got there, I tried to distill my thoughts below. There is a lot more that could be said about each of the candidates and more support for each of my thoughts, but I tried to provide only the necessary support for where I ended up.
My Initial Thoughts...
Well, lucky for me I was literally knee-deep in swamp muck when John took the mic in New Orleans to announce that his campaign was suspended and so I did not hear the initial coverage. But my first thought was, "wow, John is getting more media coverage on the day that he quit his campaign than in the 10 months that he campaigned." That thought quickly became a reality. Perhaps this is a slight exaggeration, but certainly only slight. The fact is that the media has avoided covering John, or perhaps, assuming there is no conspiracy, has simply irresponsibly chosen to selectively cover the other two candidates. I have had friends that literally did not realize John was still running up until the day he quit. However, I have no doubt that by now they know that he has dropped out.
In the ensuing coverage, there were a few more things that I found very revealing. First, in covering John's departure, many in the media, including NPR, initiated discussion of the Democratic race by stating, "now that it is down to a two person race between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton..." Wait, what? The media has been saying it was down to a two person race between these two since the Iowa caucuses. How disingenuous is that? Now they are right, it is a two person race. But geez, at least recognize that in part it is a two person race because in fact, you willed it to be so and were covering it as such for the last month!
In addition, I found some of the coverage of the recent debate to be pretty hilarious. I heard a review of the debate on NPR and the commenter was discussing the celebrity audience that was in the studio for the debate but went on to say, "but the two biggest celebrities were up on stage..." Ok. John did not get much media attention and the attention that he did get was full of statements like, "John Edwards, who likes to refer to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton as 'celebrity candidates'...." Funny. It was basically an insult to John, something like a Badge of the Incessant Whiner, when it was John that was answering questions in the press as to why he was not doing as well as he had hoped. But now, by gosh, it is the same press that finally can admit the two people it has been choosing to cover all along, two celebrity candidates. Woo hoo. It is finally not offensive or irresponsible to talk about their celebrity status because it is not going to offend the white male in the room who happens to have a fraction of the money.
We Paved Paradise and Put Up a Parking Lot
Not sure how many know the song, but it has been in my head recently and therefore I feel it must have some relevance. In any case, I feel that as a nation, we missed a huge opportunity to bring about some radical change in our government and truly restore a sense of decency, responsibility, and virtue by giving a voice back to the American people. We are at a historic moment, perhaps an all-time low in our nation's history where people are so unhappy with our current government that we are open to new ideas and serious change. I think that in all but a very modest sense, we passed up that opportunity by failing to see what John had to offer and failing to insist that the press give him the coverage that we deserved.
Though my emails, discussions, and the videos I have tried to show how remarkable a candidate John actually is. John gave at least one more distinction to add to the list when he gave his final speech from New Orleans on Wednesday, he stopped his campaign bus under a bridge to talk to the number of homeless people there aching for their voices to be heard. As my friend said in the car when we heard this, "what presidential candidate does that?" Answer: none that are left. And on that note, after he gave his speech, he went to work on a Habitat for Humanity house. Leading by example...something truly fresh in politics.
John was not just an idealistic populist, he was also the leading Democratic candidate on the issues. He was the first to detail a universal healthcare plan (later copied by Hillary), the first to take on global warming with specific plans and policies, and took the most aggressive stance on getting our troops home from Iraq. Don't take my word for it though, Paul Krugman had a great column in Friday's New York Times looking at John's impact on the Democratic race. http://www.nytimes.com/... We Eat our Own
I am not surprised that Hillary and Barack did not make efforts to show us what a great candidate John was. And I am not surprised that the Republicans or the corporate media did little to show us John's potential. But what does upset me is that the progressive and people's movement failed to point out the significant opportunity that John presented and, in doing so, failed itself and the American people. This includes progressive politicians (and ex politicians), including Al Gore, labor groups, religious leaders, and environmental groups. In fact, with few exceptions, most of these people and organizations stood silent as we watched the somewhat inevitable decline of the Edwards' campaign due to scant media coverage and self-fulfilling predictions leading to a feedback loop of dwindling support.
To illustrate, I offer two examples from contrasting corners of the progressive movement. The first, and perhaps the most frustrating, is Jim Wallis, evangelical minister and author of God's Politics and several other books on the christian social movement. Jim's frequent theme is that our politicians, despite invoking religion when it was politically suited, have done little to actually address the moral issues of our time, most importantly the problem of poverty. Along these lines, Jim sent out an email to his sojo.net mailing list just last week chiding the Democratic candidates for not discussing the important issue of poverty, ending the war in Iraq, healthcare, and global warming. He could not have intentionally picked issues more closely tied with the core of the Edwards campaign. Not only was his statement completely false, but in my view it smacks of that commandment we were given not to bear false witness against our neighbor. The fallacy of his statement is clear even if you pay just a few minutes to what John has been saying. While it may be true that if John was not included in the dialogue the two front-runners, content to throw jabs at each other for various political and character flaws, John was there to draw the discussion back to the issues. More often than not John brought the audience back to poverty, healthcare, the working poor, or global warming. What makes this so infuriating is that Jim has to be aware of the fallacy of his statement as he is extremely politically engaged and leaves me wondering whether he either was playing for another favorite or simply wants to sell more books (that point out that politicians don't do what he is saying they don't do, that John actually was doing).
The second example comes more from the mainstream "left," that is, moveon.org. Moveon had taken continuing polls and regularly showed that Edwards had the majority of support with moveon's members. However, like a good coward, moveon failed to take any position on John's candidacy until the day after John dropped out. Now that it was down to the two "change" candidates (gender change and race change), moveon initiated its final poll to determine who to throw their weight behind. How convenient.
Now, perhaps I am being far too cynical about moveon's motives, but the primary criticism that I have for moveon is not that they did not endorse the Edwards campaign, especially since moveon did have many members backing both Obama and Clinton. My criticism is that moveon failed by not taking on the mainstream media for their inadequate coverage of John's campaign and never raising their voice about the failure of our democratic system when the outcome of an election is so directly tied to big money. Where was their progressive voice for the last few months?
In contrast, there was one voice that did break the silence about John's campaign, and that was Ralph Nader. Once again, Ralph Nader spoke up for an American populace that is too busy watching reality TV to engage in the reality of the upcoming election.
Considering the Options
It appears that perhaps at least a slight majority of Edwards' supporters will be supporting Obama through the remaining primary season. This is perhaps expected as John and Barack were somewhat aligned early based on a platform of change in contrast to Hillary's long career in and around politics that more easily dubs her the status quo. For me, however, there are several reasons why I can't just simply move on to this convenient second choice. First of all, I have developed a fairly strong distrust of Obama. I see him as a personally ambitious politician that has cut the corners of truth if not directly lied to the voting public. He has downplayed his ties with the Chicago slum lord as well as lobbyists in both the state and federal governments. He called on John and Hillary to end their support from 527 groups (like swift boat, moveon, etc) in Iowa only to benefit from their unlimited money later in the primaries. http://www.nytimes.com/... The smug hypocrisy sickens me in a way that goes beyond typical politician pandering.
Then there is the question of issues. Obama launched his campaign with little or no direction on the issues. It seems that his plan from the start was to capitalize on his BArock star status to create a campaign of quantity but little quality. Yes, he inspires people to be involved with the idea of the "new American majority" whatever that is. But at this historic point in our political history, is "bipartisanship" what we really need? Isn't it bipartisanship that got us into Iraq? Rather than returning like the battered spouse to the painful bedroom, why aren't Democrats using the failures of the current administration to illustrate the reality that the Republican party simply does not represent the majority of Americans? Whether it is standing stubbornly committed to a war based on lies and misinformation or preserving Exxon Mobil's record profits while the majority of Americans suffer due to the high price of gas and heating oil, the Republican values simply are not shared by most Americans. With a Republican party so completely out of touch, the Democrats should not be talking about compromise but should be charting the new course, dictating that the government be responsive to the people. Instead, the language of the Obama Democrats sounds like we should be begging for mercy in hopes that they let us in on their game.
(More about the Obama's New American Majority: Obama has been campaigning on the claim that Hillary's voters will vote for him but that his voters will not vote for her. Does not compute. Or wait, I see. More scary stuff from Barack. What he seems to be saying is that he can inspire people to come out and vote for him, but not for anyone else. Huh. So for Barack, the election is not about the Democratic party, which I agree for the most part, but he is also saying that it is not even about the issues. It is not even about ending the Iraq war. It is not about making access to healthcare for all Americans a priority. Clearly issues that are a priority for Hillary and not for John McCain (or Mitt Robtney or....). It is becoming more and more clear, these are the politics of an overly self ambitious guy where the election is much more about HIM than it is about the party, the issues, or even the American people. Certainly there is far less difference between Hillary and Obama than McCain and Obama. But Barack does not seem to care. His statements make it clear that he is not attempting to pull people in to the Democratic party, or even to the important issues of this election season where the Democrats have the strongest and most popular positions, he just wants to pull them in to him and his celebrity. Self serving. Immature. Even divisive, perhaps? (what happened to unity, Mr. O.?) At the very least, simply unable to see the great opportunity that the Democrats have in this election and to capitalize on it. I have to say, this idea of the New American Majority is starting to really sicken me, as is the idea of an Obama in the white house.)
Then there are the negatives on substance. I still have not been able to determine how either Obama or Clinton can be both against Yucca Mountain yet be in favor of permitting and building new nuclear plants. But so it goes, Obama continues to support new nuclear plants as an environmental solution (as does Clinton). This is not only an ineffective solution to global warming, but is also terrible environmental and public health policy. Edwards was clear when he took his position against nuclear power. The same can be said for so-called clean coal. First, there is no such thing as "clean" coal. Remember, both coal and nuclear power require mining, not only energy intensive operations, but also ones that leave behind a path of environmental devastation. The error of Obama's support for clean coal, which was no doubt driven by the fact that the first coal plant with CO2 sequestering was to be built in his home state, has been made unquestionably clear in the last few days when the Department of Energy publicly changed its support for the idea based on increasing costs and unrealistic projections. Despite heavy subsidies from the government, this technology is simply not cost effective or realistic. Obama's positions on both coal and nuclear power seem to be directly driven by political donations and support rather than environmental or energy policy. There is also the weakness of Obama's healthcare plan, one that does not cover everyone and one that, according to Krugman, is not likely to happen at all. http://www.nytimes.com/... Krugman gives the upper hand to Clinton's plan, which if we remember was nearly a carbon copy of Edwards' plan announced before Hillary's. And then, of course, there is the Rezco dealing, which cannot be adequately addressed here, but the Chicago Tribune has done extensive reporting on all of which indicates that this was not simply a case where five hours of work were done for this client...
Hilary suffers from many of the same criticisms, some to a much greater degree. She leads the candidates, for both Democrats and Republicans, for money taken from the Washington inside, lobbyists, and PACs. Then there is the issue of Bill's shady fundraising and what "return" donors to his foundation will be looking for with a Clinton presidency. http://www.nytimes.com/... On the issues, perhaps the most frightening aspects of Hilary's recent political career is her stubborn refusal to acknowledge that her support for the Iraq war authority was a mistake. This combined with her recent vote to recognize the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a "terrorist group," which sounds eerily familiar to the rhetoric that led up to the invasion of Iraq, make many, including myself, fear that Hillary lacks appropriate restraint when beating the war drum. Interestingly, in confirming Hillary's vote on the Iranian Guard issue, I noticed that again Obama was simply not there to vote on this resolution. Providing yet another act of political cowardice on the part of the leader of the New American Majority. At least Hillary had the guts to pull the lever, right or wrong. Overall however, there are simply way too many things that scare me about HIllary, the PACs, the lobbyists (who she boldly stated "represent the American people" - how counterfactual can you get), the defense contractor fundraising parties, the war drum that she is too wiling to bang for my personal comfort, in addition to the personal distaste for a 2 family dynasty in American politics and the divisive nature that Hillary brings as a political candidate in the general election.
A Crazy Idea, Why not Vote Republican?
I am amazed that I will even write a paragraph about this idea, but from what I have heard, I needed to look at this briefly before deciding what I would do. Looking at McCain, sure he does say one or two things that make you like the guy. I mean, he did call pharmaceutical companies "evil" and has no hesitation, unlike the majority of his Republican compatriots, calling waterboarding torture. Those two things, and his campaign finance reform may make your finger hover over his name on the touch screen for just a second. I urge you not to give in to that mirage of level-headedness. A "moderate" Republican is still a Republican. That means, in general, they will still come down on the side of big business, they will still come down against the environment, they will still come down against civil liberties, and the list goes on. Beyond the person in office, the party in control will give power to political appointees at agencies like the FDA and EPA and they will also have the opportunity to appoint federal judges, including potentially new judges on the Supreme Court. Voting for a Republican, even a McCain, is not a sound option. And let's not forget that John McCain expects us to be in Iraq for the next century!
And Romney, well, given that he is little more than a corporation wrapped in white skin, I don't feel a need to address him.
So...
I don't trust Obama. Hillary sat on the board of Walmart, the retail definition of "the man," and remained silent during the board's discussion of its anti-union efforts. http://www.dailykos.com/... Both of them have taken way too much money from the washington inside for me to be comfortable that they will execute US policy objectively. Both of them ran campaigns with little substance whatsoever, injecting it as needed to fend off John Edwards' and the much too forgiving press. Where Hillary scares me because of her deep ties to entrenched Washington special interests, Obama scares me with his lack of substance, his anesthetic rhetoric, his ability to lie and to mislead, and his tendency to color his presentation to the audience of the day. I still don' t know who Barack "Change & Hope" Obama is (and that superbowl commercial did less to inform than to reinforce) and I still don't know who has bought and paid for Hillary Clinton.
That gets me to where I am now. I refuse to waste my vote on a candidate that had to be shamed into taking positions on the issues or proposing policy, even on the most fundamental issues facing the nation today, healthcare and global warming among others. I refuse to let the media dictate who will be our next President. I refuse to let special interest money and money from America's most wealthy dictate who will be our next president when poverty and the working poor continue to struggle. I refuse to let celebrity dominate our discussion instead of issues. I want my vote to be against all of these things.
So, I am voting for Edwards. He is the only candidate I am comfortable voting for, and a vote for Edwards also is against all of those things that I oppose. John Edwards has not withdrawn from the Democratic primary, but merely suspended his campaign. So for now, he should be keeping his delegates and our voices still should be heard. In fact, the Edwards' campaign had at one point asked that John be removed from some state's (I forget which) ballot, but since asked to have it reinstated. In the early throes of the Democratic primary, John Edwards emerged as the prophet Jeremiah, bringing the important message and issues to the forefront. I can't give anyone else the credit that he and his campaign, and only he and his campaign, deserve. Anything else would be throwing my vote away.
I would urge you all to consider doing the same - vote your conscience. If not Edwards, consider voting for some other third party candidate. Maybe one day mainstream politics will grow to reflect real people and real issues. For now, all we can do is vote.
---
Well said, Gelbin. I think there is going to be a lot of voters' remorse.
Here's the song, as sung by Joni Mitchell. I think the song was written by Bob Dylan.
For those who prefer the Counting Crows version, which is pretty good too, here's their version.
Today JRE was in Dublin, and sounds like he got to eat some good down home cooking while he was there. The Macon Telegraph reports that he met with a group of Blue Plate Diners and got asked quite a few questions, including his stance on guns. He replied, "I support the Second Amendment". That answered seemed to ease the man's mind.
Here's a video clip, courtesy of the Macon Telegraph.
You will note he went back and said hello to the cooks and wait staff too.
Later, he went to Macon and was greeted by 400 folks. I liked it when he said this:
"The truth is, I understand what's going on in your lives and I don't treat Georgia as a place you fly over between Miami and New York City," Edwards said. "I treat Georgia as a place I know."
Attention Dodd and Edwards Supporters: Contact the FEC by Noon Tomorrow
The FEC says that ActBlue is not a valid place to make donations that can be matched by Federal Funds. I think this is old fashioned, Republican thinking. Of course, it is legitimate. ActBlue is not a PAC for special interests or seeking special favors from Congress or the White House. It is an online donation distribution network to support candidates.
The Wall Street Journal picked up this important issue on their blog.
Both Chris Dodd and John Edwards have requested matching funds for public financing of the 2008 Primaries. It is their way to say we need to take the money out of politics, but they are not asking for extraordinary help.
You can help extend democracy by telling the FEC to get out of the 20st century and reverse its old fashioned thinking. We have until noon on Thursday, December 13th to have comments entered into the public record for consideration.
You can use this simple form on the John Edwards website, or you can e-mail FEC commission secretary, Mary Dove directly at MDove@fec.gov
Major progressive bloggers helped spread the word. Beginning the crusade at DailyKos on Monday, Markos explained the issue:
Take action now. E-mail and crash the gates of the FEC.
Our democracy is at stake, and we don't want or need any more election unfairness. It's time the FEC acted on behalf of the public, not just for those politicians with fat wallets.
Over at the Daily Kos, JamesS has laid out an excellent diary, complete with charts, about how much contributions corporations via lobbyists had handed to Congress and Senators, and the top 20's in each list. Then you can see who fed at their troughs and passed out the welfare checks, tax breaks, or favorable regulations.
John will give them hell to get more progressive legislation through, to the extent he can, by using the veto pen if the bills are too full of special interest and not for the America people, especially in terms of global warming and universal health care.
There's nothing better than a bit of Southern expression about politics to stir up some discussion. Dave "Mudcat" Saunders may not try to play the part of Mark Twain as a satirist, but his Will Rogers style speaks to me as though I'm sitting on a dock near Lake Ruralsville, reaching for a can of Diet Coke in the cooler; he's handing me some peanuts he picked up at the fishin' store, and we are playing "Go Fish", a simple card game while we take a break.
Yesterday at the Huffington Post, Mudcat had a good hook to talk about the recent local and state elections in by using a song that the Clintons had for their campaign song, 'Don't Stop Thinking about Tomorrow' in bringing our Reagan Democrats back to the cabin. He observed:
I think yesterday answered one huge question concerning red state politics. Will the Reagan Democrats who left our party in the eighties continue their return? When a Democratic candidate can get through the red state culture as Steve Beshear did in Kentucky, the answer is a resounding yes. However, if a Democratic Presidential candidate can't get through the culture, or worse, hits the cultural wall head-on, a Democrat can't win. The science is literally everywhere.
You can guess what this is leading to, so I'll post a little more:
I know people say "trust me", and then you think they must be lying. But as a red state Democrat who has been fighting these Republicans for a long time, just trust me this one time when I tell you that John Edwards is the only Democrat who understands and can get through the red state culture and psyche.
I actually know a Central Illinois Dem who would say the same thing about JRE. Mudcat continues to deal the cards here:
That is one of two reasons I am with John. He can head to a red state, connect with the people, and look like he was born on that stump. The absolute truth is with the eminent coming of the Republican onslaught in '08, John is the only electable Democrat. And believe it or not, the Republicans are coming with the fury of Hell. For those who think the Republicans are done for, we must never, never, never forget they are like a cornered animal and will do anything next year. A snake can still bite you until you cut off its head.
But as he picks up another card and discards one, he makes his strongest point about why we should be in John's corner:
Money has now completely taken over our electoral process and government. It's nuts. Somebody has got to do something and now. We need somebody who is mean enough and not afraid to fight the incredible money and power of the huge corporations and special interests. John is perfectly suited for the tough job that lies ahead, and I promise you, there will be a fight to get our government back.
Mudcat concludes with a heartfelt comment as he lays down the winning hand:
John will fight them. Of that, I am sure.
Now I have to have to shuffle the cards again. And we will go invite more to come back to the cabin, and give those rural Dems toothpicks and cards or dominoes as they sit in coffee shops, hoping the government will work for them and not for those rich folk.
JRE Buzz Special Edition: The Son of a Millworker Takes on the Madam of Special Interests: Clinton
Critics lauded JRE and are falling over themselves about his performance at last night's debate. Here's a sampling:
TIME’s Mark Halperin Gave Edwards’ Debate Performance an “A”; Edwards “Came Across As Presidential, Optimistic and Patriotic — Essential for a Winner.” “Impressively he remained above the Clinton-Obama fray (no "look at me" antics) but swept in to best them while the media waited for the pair to duke it out. Calm and cool, he went after Clinton on (let's face it) character, and only occasionally seemed to be trying too hard. Hit both his Democratic and Republican targets with acute precision and impact. Appeared tough enough to perform well in a general election, with the kind of articulate passion he formerly demonstrated in the courtroom. Came across as presidential, optimistic and patriotic - essential for a winner.”
David Yepsen: “John Edwards Emerged As the Evening’s Most Effective and Articulate Challenger to Clinton.” In a blog post titled, “Johnny Be Good,” Yepsen wrote, “John Edwards emerged as the evening’s most effective and articulate challenger to Clinton. She turned in an uneven, sometimes waffling performance…Edwards came ready for the scrap and he helped his candidacy.” [Des Moines Register, 10/30/07]
New York Times: Obama “Was Frequently Overshadowed by Former Senator John Edwards.” “But for all the attention Mr. Obama drew to himself coming into the debate, he was frequently overshadowed by former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, who — speaking more intensely and frequently — repeatedly challenged Mrs. Clinton’s credentials and credibility. ‘Senator Clinton says that she believes she can be the candidate for change, but she defends a broken system that’s corrupt in Washington, D.C.,’ Mr. Edwards said. ‘She says she will end the war, but she continues to say she’ll keep combat troops in Iraq and continue combat missions in Iraq. To me, that’s not ending the war; that’s the continuation of the war.’ He added, ‘I think the American people, given this historic moment in our country’s history, deserve a president of the United States that they know will tell them the truth, and won’t say one thing one time and something different at a different time.’” [New York Times, 10/31/07]
ABC’s George Stephanopoulos: “I Think It Was a Good Night for John Edwards. I Think One of His Best Nights of These Debates So Far.” George Stephanopoulos: “I think it was a good night for John Edwards. I think one of his best nights of these debates so far. He was very, very clear. He didn’t back down at all. He knew exactly what he wanted to say about Hillary Clinton, again, that she can’t bring about change.” [ABC, “Good Morning America,” 10/31/07]
CQ’s Craig Crawford: “I Thought It Was Edwards’ Best Performance So Far.” On MSNBC: Chris Matthews: “Who was ready to be her number one challenger between now and January?”… Craig Crawford: “I thought it was Edwards’ best performance so far.” Crawford later wrote, ““John Edwards was truly passionate about taking on Clinton, targeting her centrist views as ‘doubletalk’ and accusing her of falling in line with hawkish ‘neo-conservatives’ on Iran. Indeed, it was the former North Carolina senator’s most forceful debate performance so far.” [MSNBC, 10/30/07; 10/31/07]
The Nation’s Ari Melber: “John Edwards Had the Strongest Showing.” “John Edwards had the strongest showing, pounding Clinton as the status quo candidate. ‘If you believe that combat missions should be continued in Iraq [with no timetable],’ he said, ‘then Senator Clinton is your candidate.’ Edwards repeatedly presented himself as the most credible ‘change’ candidate.” [ “Edwards & Obama Confront Clinton In Dem Debate...” 10/30/07]
Daily Kos Readers Declared Edwards the Winner. According to the Daily Kos poll following the debate, “Who do you think won the debate,” John Edwards led the pack with 33% of the 8,588 votes cast, followed by Obama at 21%, and Clinton at 16%.
CBS’s Jeff Greenfield: “It Was Former Senator John Edwards Who Used the Toughest Language” On Iran. “But it was former Senator John Edwards who used the toughest language, at one point reacting with incredulity to her claim that a vote to brand the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as terrorists was a way of opposing the president.” [“The Early Show,” CBS, 10/31/07]
The Nation’s John Nichols (first reaction): Edwards “Ended the Night as the Candidate Who Had Done the Best Job of Defining Himself as the Alternative to Hillary Clinton.” “It wasn't just a fight about Iran, however. Edwards hit hard, and effectively, on every front. After detailing the front-runner's contributions from defense contractors and other corporate interests, he said. ‘If people want the status quo, Senator Clinton's your candidate.’ That's tough talk. Blunt talk. The sort of talk that Barack Obama seemed to suggest that he was going to deliver Tuesday night. But it came from John Edwards, who ended the night as the candidate who had done the best job of defining himself as the alternative to Hillary Clinton.” [h, 10/30/07]
Then Nichols added this later: “Edwards, Not Obama, Hits Clinton Hardest, Smartest.” “It was supposed to be the night Barack Obama took Hillary Clinton down. But, when all was said and done, Obama was a bystander…Where Obama was unfocused and ineffectual, John Edwards landed plenty of blows. The former senator from North Carolina began by suggesting that ‘it's fair’ to talk about essential differences between the candidates. Then he highlighted a big one. ‘(Clinton) says she'll stand up to George Bush,’ argued Edwards. "In fact, she voted to give George W. Bush the first step to war on Iran...’… It was a smart, at times intense dialogue…But Edwards owned the moment. Accusing Clinton of voting for an Iran resolution that read like it was ‘written literally by the neo-cons,’ the 2004 vice presidential nominee declared, ‘We need to stand up to this president. We need to make it absolutely clear that we will not let Bush, Cheney and this administration invade Iran.’”
NBC’s Tim Russert: “Edwards Was More Aggressive, More on the Offense than Barack Obama.” Meredith Viera: “So did Edwards emerge?” Tim Russert: “I think Edwards emerged as the most aggressive candidate against Hillary Clinton…But clearly, looking at their performance last night, Edwards was more aggressive, more on the offense than Barack Obama.” [NBC’s “Today Show,” 10/31/07]
Marc Ambinder: “John Edwards’s Instruments of Persuasion Were Sharper and Louder.” “In this discordant symphony – ‘A Clintonian Lament’ -- John Edwards’s instruments of persuasion were sharper and louder; Barack Obama’s were more resonant and more subtle. In music terms, Edwards played the French horn; Obama played the violin. Or, as the New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza told me during a commercial break, ‘It’s the difference between someone who goes to law school and becomes a prosecutor and someone who goes to law school and becomes a law professor.’” [, 10/30/07]
ABC’s Rick Klein: “It's Rare That a Highlight Comes This Late in a Debate, But Edwards Picks up on That Inconsistency On Immigration.” “10:56 pm ET: It's rare that a highlight comes this late in a debate, but Edwards picks up on that inconsistency on immigration: ‘Sen. Clinton said two different things in the course of about two minutes.’ Obama: ‘I was confused on Sen. Clinton's answer.’ And Obama calls the Spitzer plan ‘the right idea.’”[ 10/30/07]
Then added Klein: “Edwards Still Seems Better, Though, at Finding Compelling Ways to Set Himself Apart.” “11:05 pm ET: Rick Klein wrapping it up -- Hillary Clinton gave a truly bad answer at the end, on illegal immigration, one that feeds the argument Obama and Edwards were making all night. Did Obama clear the bar he set for himself? Probably yes, but not with much room to spare. Edwards still seems better, though, at finding compelling ways to set himself apart. ” [10/30/07]
NBC's Domenico Montanaro: “Clinton Blurring the Lines AGAIN, Now on Illegal Immigrant Driver's Licenses… Edwards Called Her on It.” “Is Clinton blurring the lines AGAIN, now on illegal immigrant driver's licenses. She said the plan makes sense, but can't commit apparently. She said she didn't say she supports the plan, when Dodd said she did. Russert tried to pin her on it, and she obfuscated again. Edwards called her on it, evoking Bush-Cheney, saying Americans were tired of ‘double talk.’ Obama nodded and got called on and he got to chime in as well. Does this become a problem for her? Can she directly answer a question?” [ “Clinton having it both ways... again?” 10/30/07]
The Politico’s Ben Smith: “John Edwards Kept Up the Pressure Most Skillfully on Clinton… Drove His Point Home When She Refused to Say Whether She Supports” Spitzer’s Plan. “John Edwards kept up the pressure most skillfully on Clinton, putting his courtroom skills to use to build a case, at times mockingly, against the New York senator … Edwards drove his point home when she refused to say whether she supports New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s plan to give drivers’ licenses to illegal immigrants.” [, 10/31/07]
CNN’s Candy Crowley: Edwards “Stepped Up His Game.” Appearing on CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360, Candy Crowley said, “John Edwards, who has never been shy about going after the frontrunner, stepped up his game, questioning her candor.” [CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360,” 10/30/07]
CQ’s Craig Crawford: “I thought Edwards made a good point when he said Republicans talk about you so much, because they want to run against you.” [MSNBC, 10/31/07]
"But, of the three heavyweights, I was most impressed by Edwards. He combined toughness and vision. Somehow I can imagine that Edwards' agenda for America would have a name like "New Deal" or "Great Society" in other words a rubric that suggests that his program for America would be larger than just his persona. I like that. I'm not so sure about the others.
I think Edwards will win Iowa and then we'll have a real race, one with an almost level playing field. It is not over. That is the main thing I learned last night.
Not over by a long shot."
I'm happy to hear the praise of the critics, but it's very clear none of them believed him when he said he has taken on the big interests before in the court rooms, and beat them at their game.
Madame Clinton, you, along the Re-thugs, represent those big interests and the double talk from the 1990's.
I would not underestimate the one who is the most authentic and will bring about positive change for our country: John Edwards. He's the son of a millworker.
This blog is for my friends and acquaintances who were formerly with the John Edwards campaign, which had the most progressive agenda. I am a progressive liberal, musing about politics and life.
