Irregular Times Diaries: Unfit Discussion
In a time of the spring, old paths are obscured and new growth begins.
Irregular Times Diaries: Unfit DiscussionIn a time of the spring, old paths are obscured and new growth begins.
It’s becoming more clear that the real contest in the 2008 Democratic Party nomination is between Barack Obama and John Edwards. Hillary Clinton depended on the institutional support of right wing Democrats like James Carville, and a parade of corporate executives and lobbyists. She even hired the president of the PR firm that defended Blackwater mercenaries in Congress to be her campaign manager. She’s a longtime member of the right wing Democratic Leadership Council.
Put simply: Hillary Clinton is the Republican candidate of the Democratic Party, the Joseph Lieberman of 2008 presidential election.
So, it’s between Barack Obama and John Edwards to get the core of the Democratic Party vote - the support of voters who are smart enough to look for more than just nostalgia for the 1990s with the name of Clinton.
John Edwards got the support of Ralph Nader this week. Barack Obama got the support of Dennis Kucinich. That shows the world of difference between Barack Obama and John Edwards.
John Edwards spent just one term in the U.S. Senate, then quit when he couldn’t get re-elected. He’s done good work outside of the government, but he just can’t seem to manage to effectively use any government position. Isn’t Ralph Nader kind of like that?
Barack Obama, on the other hand, has been successful in using the power of government to do good from the state legislature in Illinois all the way on up. Obama sticks with it. Isn’t Dennis Kucinich kind of like that?
I say that in 2008, we need a President who is good at government, not someone who is good at picking from the outside.
(115 votes, average: 2.96 out of 5)
Irregular Times
New Button Designs
65 queries. 0.920 seconds
Top Article Last Week
January 3rd, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Of course, Kucinich gave his support to John Edwards in 2004, for whatever that means.
That’s why I don’t pay attention to endorsements. I’m an intelligent human being and can investigate and choose my own candidate.
Besides, who knows why Kucinich does anything? I mean, come on. UFO’s?
“Obama sticks with it” stuck in my craw. The man has 3 1/2 years in the Senate to Edwards 6, and Obama started running for President almost the minute he stepped into the Senate. Obama had a cakewalk election to the Senate in Democratic Illinois while Edwards won against an incumbent Republican south of the Mason-Dixon line. This was after he gave up a hugely successful law practice to run for office. He didn’t quit because he couldn’t be re-elected, he quit to run for President. His legislative record wasn’t a huge positive, since he served when Democrats were in the majority. He did play a significant part in the defense of Clinton during the impeachment trial.
At that time, Obama was…oh, yeah, voting Present in the Illinois legislature.
Obama is an ok guy and will make a fine Senator, if he stays at it. He’s good at compromising, which is a fine thing for a Senator. Not for a President.
January 3rd, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Democrats weren’t in the majority when Edwards was in the Senate.
My bad.
January 3rd, 2008 at 7:34 pm
So, you’re okay with John Edwards’s vote in favor of starting the Iraq War, given the lack of evidence to support George W. Bush’s claims about WMD at the time?
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:23 pm
A lot of families with cancer–does anyone think Edwards will get the cancer vote?
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:49 pm
That’s not the most reliable, for the get-out-the vote effort.
Cancer is a personal issue, not a policy.
January 4th, 2008 at 1:32 am
Do people vote policy or do they vote emotion–hope, etc. I suspect they vote for someone who they perceive as having the same values as them who would make similar decisions.
January 4th, 2008 at 2:19 am
“Cancer is a personal issue”
Personal is political….
okay I know that’s a feminism slogan from the 70s but you get the idea. It goes along with “politics is local.”
January 4th, 2008 at 11:11 am
Since when is the Democratic Leadership Council a “right wing” organization? Compared to what? Certainly not true “right wing” organizations like the National Enterprise Institute. If you mean that the Democratic Leadership Council is conservative on the spectrum of Democratic organizations, you should say so. Calling Clinton a conservative, as opposed to a moderate, will not make her so, just as calling the DNC a “right-wing” organization does not make it so.
January 4th, 2008 at 11:41 am
Oops, that should be DLC, not DNC in my last sentence.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
jerseydem, the Democratic Leadership Council is pro-war, anti-tax, anti-gay marriage, and often anti-choice, pro-Military Commissions Act, pro-Patriot Act, pro-Protect America Act. It’s the political home of Joseph Leiberman, for goodness sakes!
January 4th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Well, for goodness sake, Frank Liberal, why don’t you just try to substantiate those claims. As for Lieberman, the DLC is hardly his home, given that he ran and was elected as an Independent. The RNC is more like it.