In the Globe. Best line:
Instead of the right and the left, he is focused on right and wrong.
Worst line:
The Bush administration has been ineffective in foreign policy and absent in domestic policy.
The Bush administration has hardly been absent in domestic policy. They have worked hard, and with much success, to divide the country, undermine the middle class, and dismantle the programs and policies on which our prosperity depend, because they are radical ideologues determined to enrich a minority at the expense of everyone else.
Best reality-based argument:
That is why Obama consistently polls higher with independents and Republicans than any other Democrat. That is why he is greeted by crowds made up of every kind of person, from all kinds of backgrounds. That is why he won the Iowa caucuses on Thursday. That is why he has received more than 750,000 donations, mostly from small donors, and signed up a half-million supporters from all age groups, states, races, and political affiliations – many of them involved in the process for the first time.
Conclusion:
Once in a generation, a candidate comes along who is both book smart and street smart, who is equally at ease with the meek and the mighty – and perhaps most especially with himself. Once in a generation, we get the opportunity to take a quantum leap forward in our politics.
A fine fellow, that Governor of ours.
what role would Patrick play in an Obama administration? Cabinet Secretary? Supreme Court justice perhaps? Or would Obama know to allow Patrick to turn things around at home?
The problem with the democrats has been that they haven’t been partisan enough. Whenever there’s a tough vote, the Democrats roll over. We don’t need Democrats and Republicans working together to create bipartisan legislation; current elected Republicans are completely incapable of that – cooperation, to them, is a weakness. We need strong and proud Democrats, willing to take up the fight and bring home strong, progressive legislation.
<
p>Both Obama and Edwards have been talking “change.” Obama’s rhetorical of change is that we need more unity and working together. It’s niave, simple and never. going. to. happen. Republicans will not work with Obama. That’s all there is to it. Edwards, on the other hand, has targetted his change as a change in the way politics is done – where the moneyed interests don’t run government, where K Street isn’t the deciding factor of what bills get passed and what don’t. Take the money out of lobbying and suddenly true health care reform, decent farm bills, good, quality public education (including higher education) and strong economic job growth doesn’t become impossible – and fiscal insanity is reigned back in.
Lightiris used the best word: pablum. If you don’t educate the public by pointing out where the problems are, then you’re not addressing the problems. It’s just putting a “pretty” veneer on bidness as usual. Change won’t happen if you can’t make a case for why. At least Edwards is attempting to explain the obvious.
Has he delivered any significant legislative accomplishments in his short experience in public service?
<
p>What’s naive is thinking you can get change without actually winning. What’s naive is believing that you don’t need consensus to deliver reforms.
<
p>Obama, on the other hand, has an impressive track record of delivering at the legislative level – there’s good article summarizing his work in Illinois that I’ve previously posted about here on BMG. He’s been a force behind ethics reforms that passed in Illinois and at the national level. That’s not just hoping for change or talking about it – that’s actually building coalitions and consensus to produce it.
<
p>Our system isn’t set up for extreme partisanship. The Republican party is self-destructing this cycle because it forgot this and thought it could run the country for the benefit of its big donors, rather than the common good. There’s a chance for a big realignment this round if Democrats don’t make the same mistake.
A very telling moment in the debate last night is when Obama pointed to eliminating lobbyist lunches as major accomplishment, and got laughed at by the moderator.
<
p>His major accomplishment in Illinois was a health care bill that he let the insurance industry write
<
p>http://www.boston.com/news/nat…
<
p>Obama’s caucus win was impressive, but remember that his only general election campaign was a shoo-in against carpetbagger Alan Keyes.
<
p>Edwards won in a very red state against an entrentched arch-conservative.
And had no signfificant legislative accomplishments. He supported rural agricultural interests over environmental priorities, despite his current rhetoric and being the darling of some BMG progressives. In 2004, he couldn’t even bring in his own state in for the Democratic ticket. Look, I think Edwards is sincere, but I’m sick of his adherents acting like he’s the only progressive in the race based on … nothing. Trumpet Edwards’ achievements, if there are some I’ve overlooked. I’m glad to learn something new about him. But this running down of Obama’s record, based on either lack of knowledge or willful deception, is tedious and unworthy.
<
p>Perhaps you might bother to read the NYT article I cited above. Obama served in the Illinois senate when the Republicans controlled it, and was able to broker ethics reform legislation. He led on tax credits for low-income workers, subsidies for child care, legislation against racial profiling by police, use of videotaping in homicide investigations, and death penalty reforms. In the US Senate, the Open Government Act alluded to in the debate last night, and which you ridicule, was a collaboration with Russ Feingold that limited gifts from lobbyists and required disclosure for the first time of bundled contributions. Unlike the legislation that Edwards cited as his proudest accomplishment, it actually passed. Obama also co-authored the Transparency Act, with Republican co-sponsorship, which requires the OMB to disclose on the web the recipient, purpose and amount of all grants and contracts awarded by federal agencies. What ethics reforms that became law did Edwards spearhead?
<
p>And Obama didn’t have one general election campaign prior to this presidential campaign cycle – he’s had five. He won 3 State Senate elections in Illinois, lost a US Congressional campaign, and then won the US Senate race. Although that general election turned out to be a cakewalk for Obama (he won with 70% of the vote over Keyes, who was a late replacement for the previous Republican in the race, Ryan, who imploded in a sex scandal), he had to win a tough contested Democratic primary to get there.
A NC senator supporting rural agricultural interests???
<
p>Say it ain’t so!!
Thanks for enlightening me!
His rhetoric makes that clear.
<
p>He’s appealing to the low-information masses.
<
p>Quite honestly, I don’t give a frack what he did as a state legislator in Illinois. Should I recite all the wonderful things I did as a member of the Student Council? Believe me, some of them are wonderful. Would they be relevant to any position that I could run for today?
<
p>Obama is running for President now because he thinks he has a better shot at winning with almost no record as a Senator, than 6+ years of being in that body. That’s what this whole election has been about. It would be one thing if he really was a progressive darling. Believe me, I wanted to support him, but it’s clear that between his rhetoric and his policy decisions, he wants no part with being a real progressive.
<
p>I don’t think Edwards is necessarily a progressive, either. However, he’s a) the closest person to it and b) at least has the guts and, indeed, audacity (as Obama may say) to take on the biggest problem with government today: the entrenched lobbyists.
<
p>I’m sorry, but I don’t think I’ve ever been so thoroughly unenthused by a supposed movement candidate as Obama. He had so many opportunities to really side with the people, but has consistently failed all the tests. Pretty speeches doesn’t mean he deserves support from progressives – and certainly doesn’t mean he should be able to be the POTUS.
Should I recite all the wonderful things I did as a member of the Student Council? Believe me, some of them are wonderful.
<
p>I’m sure they were, but please leave your member out of this.
<
p>Nice sleight-of-wording đŸ™‚ Because Obama’s primary win was a stunning shocker that made him the shoo-in he became in the general. Republicans were trying to recruit credible candidates but nobody wanted to try to run a credible campaign against Obama because it didn’t seem possible (and perhaps it wasn’t). Remember that when Obama first won the Democratic nomination, he was running against Ryan, not Keyes. It was only when Ryan resigned in scandal (after Obama already had a huge lead in the polls) that Republicans tried to find a replacement candidate, and by then, nobody wanted to run against Obama.
<
p>That US Senate primary was a statewide campaign in which two frontrunners were duking it out and Obama was one of several other candidates expected to come in distantly behind. Instead, he trounced them both, getting 52% in a six-way race. It was the wave he got from late in the primary season, and his big win, that made him almost inevitable in the general election. To use that to imply that he hasn’t been able to win any real campaigns yet is quite unfair.
<
p>The above-mentioned quote from your post articulates exactly what has been pointed out regarding the Democrats by many posters here and on other forums. While it’s true that, with rare exceptions, the Democrats have a long history of parting their butt-cheeks and rolling over when tough votes come in, it’s also true that the Republicans have been so well-organized, so crafty at making their agenda mainstream and respectable, and have been so vicious that the Democrats have often been cowed by them. Has anybody ever seen the documentary movie OutFoxed? This is a well-done documentary about how Fox News has been the big cheerleader for the Republicans and for our war in Iraq, but, equally importantly, it involves interviews with former Fox News employees, where they stated that they were told exactly what to say, and essentially manipulatled into foillowing their line every inch of the way. It also points out how a culture of raw fear and intimidation has been instilled into the Democrats in that way, so, it’s not altogether the Democrats’ fault. This film, imo, is recommended.
thanks for pointing us toward OutFoxed, mplo. just reading about it, however, reaffirms for me that we need the strongest fighter in office, not the most inspirational, bipartisan hoper or the one most experienced on Day 1. i think we lose a grand opportunity if we don’t elect Edwards. with the other two, i think we’ll only nibble around the edges of corporate domination, doing little of substance for the losing side (90+% of us) in the ongoing Class War. Edwards offers the best chance of reform and i’d rather risk a one-term Edwards Administration, in which he fights the good fight, taking on the corporate behemoths and showing up the craven Congress when necessary, than endure a two-term Democratic administration that constantly trims its change agenda for futile bipartisan expediency. somehow i still have faith that a person who fights for principle can actually triumph (although i’m sure some of the wise political realists who frequent bmg will shoot that theory down). btw, remember that a CNN poll last month showed Edwards trouncing all the Republicans!
What I wonder about, however, is if too many people still associate Edwards with the disastrous candidacy of John F. Kerry four years ago and will be reluctant to vote for him. I agree that there must be the strongest fighter in office for reform, with a strong vision, also.
It’s understandable that we should think that there is no cooperation possible with Republicans. Their strategy over the last 30 years has been to ridicule Democrats and clear-minded thinkers, dissimulate their own agenda and otherwise pull the wool over the eyes of the American public.
But there may be an alternative to both rolling over before the GOP and declaring war on the them. Let’s face it neither of the latter is working; Americans, in general, don’t want partisan warfare and gridlock and progressives don’t want appeasement. It seems to me that Obama is betting on an alternative. And it’s conceivable that, by his ability to appeal to people across party and demographic lines, that he could force a change in the nature of the debate, making it impossible for the GOP to engage in the type of BS that has been at the heart of it’s very successful strategy for a long time.
Edwards’ message of reform ought to appeal across party lines as well, except to the wealthiest Republicans, who only constitute a minority of Republican voters. I would like to see Edwards reach out explicitly to Republicans and Independents in his speeches about the benefits to ALL of us of reducing the out-of-control influence of corporations and Wall Street interests on public policy and our laws.
<
p>This is true. However, the fact remains that the Republicans have declared war on the Democrats. Ask Max Cleland. I mean, we could go for appeasement (our starting offer can be agreeing that Social Security is in crisis and that trial lawyers are bad) but somehow I don’t think it will work.
the Edwardian burn-down-the-house vision for America is somewhat delusional with regard to implementation. Which 269 members of Congress are going to support the legislation required to implement this vision? The current crop of Ds who can’t muster sufficient support on moderate energy legislation? Farm legislation? Foreign policy? If Edwards’ vision and prospective leadership are so compelling where is the progressive support from those we find progressive – Jim McGovern, Barney Frank, Ted Kennedy, etc.? Edwards’ ideas may make certain interest groups and those suffering the most from the past 8 years feel good but actually implementing any of his ideas will not happen. He will either fail across the board in moving policy forward (less likely) or he will quickly move to the position articulated by Obama which will require collaboration and cooperation – to change and move forward we need to work together (more likely). The notion of working together to pass effective legislation supported by members of Congress from Virginia, MA, Wyoming, Arizona and Iowa is not illogical. It’s been done before, just not in the past several years. I think many of us, severely bloodied from 7 years of getting kicked in the head, believe that the only response is reversal. This is both unappealing to most people and far less likely because Congressional Democrats are far more moderate than their Republican counterparts. Part of Edwards imminent failure is that most people who find his passion appealing also find his vision unrealistic.
Someone who won’t admit to the problem (the influence of lobbyists) and will do absolutely nothing to change it
<
p>or
<
p>Someone who gets the problem, but will face steep resistance?
<
p>At the very least, Edwards as President could use the bully pulpit to shame the legislative branch into crafting some kind of serious reform, even it if isn’t perfect or what we’d all hope for. Furthermore, if you never try, you can never know what will happen. Presidents in the past have accomplished more difficult goals in times of need. Now is a time of need, but we’ll only have a chance of accomplishing something with a President who gets it.
<
p>Edwards doesn’t necessarily get along well with DC – for obvious reasons. Frank is a lot of good things, but sadly he’s part of the estabishment. Furthermore, Edwards seemed a long shot a long time ago – and still is a fairly big long shot. There’s not much in endorsing someone that you don’t think will win, whereas a lot more in it to try to pick the winning candidate. Plus, I’m pretty sure there’s some McGovern-Clinton connections, it’s just been a while since I read about it.
They can sit around and sing kumbaya all they want, what matters is how Republicans operate. They’re authoritarian by nature and won’t, I repeat, won’t cooperate with an Obama (or Edwards) administration. What we get by trying to cooperate is a lot of wasted time, as the few ‘reasonable’ voices out there sit as nice bait to rile up the entire base and kill the entire bill. See immigration, SCHIP and countless other examples. If we have POTUS and win a few more Senate seats, we’ll have the opportunity to really create reform, but only if we can keep the Dems in line. That will only happen if the Democrats become more partisan. Otherwise, the Republicans will ride us anyway.
An Obama/Edwards ticket, maybe?
<
p>If so, sounds like a good, interesting possibility. What do you think?
Personally, I don’t think Veep makes that much difference in how the vote will come to play, so ‘balancing’ the ticket, to me, is far less important than finding someone who identifies with where the dem candidate’s at.
<
p>Assuming my choice for POTUS were to win the nomination – and Edwards were the guy, I guess Richardson would make a lot of sense. To silly pundits, he’d appear to “balance” the ticket and could actually bring a state with him (his home state). More importantly, though, he could actually prove useful in diplomatic matters for the Edwards campaign – and foreign relations is an area where I think Edwards a bit weak. However, Richardson would have to buy into the fact that we need to address K Street – and I just don’t know enough about where he fits in there.
<
p>I like Dodd even more than Richardson, but I think he needs to stay in the Senate (and hopefully replace a certain useless Dem there soon, as the leader).
<
p>As far as Obama and Veep is concerned, I’d rather see Hillary (at least she has experience – and doesn’t have defeatist democratic rhetoric). But, I wouldn’t want to see Hillary at all.
I like Dod too, and Richardson as well, and Edwards too, but I don’t think Richarsdson stands a ghost of a chance, since he was so far down towards the bottom in the popularity polls. (a measly 2-3%, I believe. Let’s just see what comes about. I still don’t know who I’m backing yet, but I’ll support whoever gets the Democratic nomination.
Was about Obama saving the planet. What is he, Optimus Prime? Let’s keep our feet on the ground, Deval. I like Obama,too, but he’s not Superman.
<
p>He is a transformative figure, after all.
http://www.docudharma.com/show…
<
p>Obama+Deval, kindred spirits.