Among my LeftAhead topics:
- My support for Edwards has only grown. If I thought writing endorsements actually helped, there'd be a Ryan's Take "I [Heart] Edwards" post. Luckily, I know endorsement posts are next to useless, especially in a Democratic primary, so no one will have to pretend to read it. Suffice it to say, I want a fiery POTUS who gets what's wrong with DC (lobbyist money) and that guy has been John Edwards for almost this entire campaign.
- There's little that's pissed me off in this race more than Barack Obama. (Memo for Obama: you'll never, in a million years, bring the Republican Party to the bargaining table. With their Authoritarian Minds, compromise is only a sign of weakness. We don't need less partisanship; we need to keep the DINO Dems in line.)
- I've never liked Hillary more. I don't care what the pundits say, Hillary getting a little weak in the voice yesterday was one of her finest moments ever. For the first time, we genuinely know why she's in this race: she actually wants to improve America. If only she had the right vision, I'd switch my support. At this point, I'd much prefer Hillary to Obama. A Moderate Democrat is better than a Defeatist Democrat any day of the week.
- Frack "Change." If I hear that word one more time, my ears will bleed. Pundits, candidates - will it ever stop? Has there ever been a campaign theme that's been more vague and intangible? Worst. Concept. Ever. Hillary, Edwards (and Romney, for that matter), need to get off the bandwagon ASAP. All Hillary, Edwards and Romney have done for the past few days is sell Obama's message. Talking about a meaningless "change" is a sure-fire way to get Obama nominated by February 5th, in a breeze.
Posts
3 comments:
Ed Muskey cried, look where it got him.
Down here inside the Beltway, Hillary is so thoroughly despised that it's laughable. She's as much an insider as one can be.
In reading your other posts, it's admirable you're a fan of true democracy. Sadly, such a thing doesn't exist in the United States. The reality is that politics is about (old) money and connections, thus the reason for Obamamania. You deride Obama on his naivete, but your own words are just as dreamy.
I was at the Edwards' headquarters on primary night. His NH supporters are truly enthusiastic and loyal. And they looked like NH - a mix of men and women, young and old. They had worked their hearts out against two well-financed machines. They did not seem beaten. They didn't expect to win and they felt very good about their candidate. They want him to keep fighting as long as he can.
Now the media, who should be humiliated by their ridiculous performance re Obama and Clinton before the primary, are up to its old tricks. The drumbeat is starting. They want a two-person race and they want it now. "Edwards can't win." "He should drop out." "Obama will get Edwards' supporters and beat Hillary." Yadda-yadda-yadda.
Not me. I want Edwards in there. He has already gotten Obama talking about "fighting special interests" rather than meeting with them in a conference room and Clinton is going to "take on the oil companies and corporations" rather than defending them as "good people, too." Heck, Clinton liked Edwards' healthcare plan so much, she cribbed it. Maybe she will consider adopting his Fair Trade Plan and his economic plan if he gets more support in future primaries.
I wish that Edwards had the money, charisma, media backing, or insider friends it takes to win. But then he wouldn't be Edwards. He is a plugger and I'd really like to see him in the White House. As Bill Greider asked in the title of his 1990 book, "Who Will Tell the People?" I believe Edwards would. As an outsider president, he would give the rest of us a peek into how the Washington club works. The media can ignore Edwards and his message now, but if he were president, it would be much harder to do so.
My question: if someone tells the people and the media doesn't cover it, did it really happen?
Post a Comment