In What World

is this not the headline story?

MOSCOW - Russia launched airstrikes yesterday deep inside Georgia and mobilized columns of tanks after Georgian forces embarked on a major offensive to reassert control over South Ossetia, a separatist province. Political leaders on both sides said that war had begun. The United States, an ally of Georgia, and other governments appealed for a cease-fire.

This threatens to be a full scale war. Russia's knocked out many of Georgia's tanks; Georgia's shot down several of Russia's planes. Thousands, it's likely, are already dead. Meanwhile, Georgia's pleading to the US to ship their 2,000ish troops out of Iraq to defend their homeland - from a war they kinda, sorta started. None of it is good, but all of it is important for people to read about.

Except, this is what's drowning the story out:

Former North Carolina senator John Edwards, a leading Democratic presidential candidate this year and in 2004 who became one of the party's most influential voices, acknowledged yesterday that he had an extramarital affair with a former campaign aide and had lied about it repeatedly.

Stop the presses!

I wish I could blame the Boston Globe on this, but it's a universal phenomenon across the media. Well, the American media. The international press seems to get it.

While a politician cheating on his or her spouse should, in reality, be a non story (so long as it wasn't illegal - a la Spitzer), at the very least the Edwards affair is the third story of the day, behind the newest war and the opening ceremony at the Olympics - one of the most ostentatious events ever (with a $300 million dollar price tag - ten times more expensive than the next most expensive opening ceremony). What is the American media's obsession with political affairs?

Now That John's Out

I don't feel there's a voice for people like me - people who think corporate influence is too great and that people who work hard every day ought to be justly rewarded, regardless of whether they're a janitor or a CEO.

Obama's message is downright repulsive, in my view, because the US is never going to be hippy-dippy, let's-sing-kumbayah Purple America. The Republican Leadership just doesn't work like that. They'll obstruct, block and play to the greater devils of people's nature as they climb back to a majority status sooner or later, as they paint the Democrats as do nothing Democrats - even if it won't be true. The window to create important change through a super majority is almost always small, and only comes from the type of bold leadership that rejects the fundamental notions of our opponents. Someone who stumps on how we need to reform social security now isn't the kind of person who'll do anything to create an actual, long-lasting progressive movement.

I went from not being excited about any of the candidates a few months ago, to being heart broken John Edwards isn't at least carrying on his message through Super Tsunami Tuesday. Can I actually, in good conscience, vote for Hillary? I don't think so... and there's less than a week to decide. Ryan's not a happy camper.

Scary Polling Data

There was some real scary polling data on MSNBC's Countdown last night. Keith Olbermann talked about a poll MSNBC commissioned, featuring the two top democrats versus McCain. Nationally, Obama vs. McCain was a 42-42 tie, while Hillary actually lost to McCain by about 2% (I think it was 44-46). As mentioned Wednesday, the two don't even fair well against McCain in Massachusetts! Hillary, in the Bay State SUSA poll, beat McCain by about 4% - Obama actually lost to McCain by a whopping 5% (a 9% swing in this state, compared to Hillary's number).

Now, polls are only a snapshot in time and there'd be plenty of moons for the two to shore up the Commonwealth, but if either candidate actually had to defend a state like Massachusetts from a Republican, it doesn't bode well for the rest of the country.

In fact, there's only two reasonable deductions to make from the MSNBC poll: we all need to hope John Edwards can actually make a race of this, as he's the only one who consistently defeats McCain in national polls. Secondly, let's all pray the Christian Right does the stupid right thing and helps the Grand Old Party nominate Willabee (either Willard or Huckabee, better yet - a ticket!). It'll be the Republican version of nominating McGovern - and they're actually stupid enough to be doing their best to make it happen (Romney's starting to take the lead in Florida). Otherwise, the prospects of McCain versus either Hillary or Obama is an utter nightmare few should dare to dream.

Eek!

This doesn't bode well for Obama: in Massachusetts, Barack Obama would lose to John McCain. MASSACHUSETTS! As I've said over at BMG a few times, and perhaps here, Clinton outperforms Obama among Democrats, while Obama has relied on Independents to overcome the fact that he loses the Democratic vote to his rivals. Clearly, I'm not alone in thinking Obama isn't exactly a proud Democrat - he turns off a lot of voters, even more so than Hillary.

In what shouldn't exactly be the shocker of shockers, given the previous two sentences, Barack Obama doesn't fare well against John McCain, who also appeals to Independents. In the poll, Hillary beat McCain by a 4% margin. Obama would lose by 5% - that's a 9% swing, folks. Glaringly missing in the survey is the fact that John Edwards isn't included. However, in matchups from other surveys, John Edwards consistently performs best among Democrats versus John McCain.

For years on this blog, I've been telling people to not vote based on their gut feelings of who they think is most electable. Barack Obama may appeal toward broader coalitions in Democratic Primaries, but those people clearly don't necessarily follow him over to the general election. They also don't vote as much. We can't take chances in '08, so people ought to be very careful about voting for Obama. He's not the best candidate out there by any measure.

Hat tip to Susan at Below Boston, who's the best Mass Blogger on the POTUS scene.

Update: Here's one of the reasons why I say Susan's election coverage has been the best. Read her comment on that blog, too.

Edwards Gets It

Compare this to Barack Obama.

The Gazette Journal endorsed Obama for the Democratic caucuses saying he "demonstrates the courage to stand his ground where necessary, willing for instance, to salute both President John Kennedy and President Ronald Reagan as agents of change in times when the country needed change."

Edwards got this crowd of between 200 and 300 people to rise to its feet by criticizing Obama. Edwards said Reagan "openly fought against the union and the organized labor movement in this country." Edwards said Reagan did "extraordinary
damage to the middle class and working people. . . . Extraordinary damage to the environment."

Edwards closed the attack by saying: "I can promise you this: This president will never use Ronald Reagan as an example for change."

While I've realized for months now that John Edwards gets it, it's only recently becoming clear that I have to work a lot harder to make sure Barack Obama doesn't win. We can't let this Reagan mythology continue, it's just not good for the country. America would be a far better place if Ronald Reagan was never its president.

My God Was That a Fun Night

Here's why NH tonight was great: no matter who's nominated in the Democratic Party, they're going to have to go through a much longer vetting process. My heart's in Edwards's camp, but I can't deny being a little excited seeing Obama go down. I'll tell you, even though I disagree with Democratic Party members very frequently, I'm a loyalist at heart: a movement needs a party and the Democratic one is the only one we've got. That's why I have such a hard time stomaching Obama's message. Sure, Deval Patrick spoke about reaching across partisan lines when he was getting elected, but it was never as important to his stump as it has been for Obama - and all Patrick's 'reaching across' to other interests, so far, have been exactly the sort of interests that really make me sick to my stomach.

So, here we are. Hillary won New Hampshire, pulling off what's probably one of the biggest political upsets I've ever seen. Now, we're heading for a long and drawn out primary season, just like the Republicans. It's a good day for Democracy.

NH Primary Thoughts Live!

Mike, Lynne and I are holding a very special LeftAhead podcast today at 2:30, focusing on the NH primary. We'll be live and fired up.

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.

Prez Candidates Must Deal With Equality

Today must have been a scary day for Jonathan Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, et al.

A Polk County judge on Thursday struck down Iowa's law banning gay marriage. The ruling by Judge Robert Hanson concluded that the state's prohibition on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional and he ordered Polk County Recorder Julie Haggerty to issue marriage licenses to several gay couples.

I'm curious to see how the campaigns - all opposed to same-sex marriage - will react. Obviously, since this happened in Iowa, it's going to be on the radar. Hopefully, we'll see the Big 3 praise the courts and encourage the further spread of equality. Consider this one of the campaign's first big tests: it's one thing to say you're for equality, it's another thing to support it.

PACs and Lobbyists Aided Obama's Rise and...

Just about every other elected state or national official across the country, except maybe a certain 5th Congressional Candidate that I'm very found of.

But the Globe has a story on Obama. To be honest, I'm not really inspired read it. As anyone who frequently reads my blog or listens to my podcast would know, none of the current Presidential candidates has really caught me. My support for Edwards is of the default variety, as if it's almost waiting to shift to Al Gore if he ever runs. However, while Obama certainly has a healthy variety of money coming in the form of big donations from sources that wouldn't thrill me, he does have far more small donors - regular people contributing to his campaign - than any of his competitors (and probably any Presidential candidate ever). So, I find a story on this subject that specifically relates to Obama a little disheartening; why not spend those Globe inches on a compare-and-contrast of the top 3 or 4 candidates running?

Wanted: Decent Presidential Candidate

Reward: My political support (for whatever that counts).

Over and over again, all I keep hearing from everyone is how the Republicans have such a "weak field" and how the Democrats are so inherently stronger. Rubbish. The Republicans have a very bad war, but their candidates are not inherently weaker than our's - because our candidates have been greatly overrated. Name me the one candidate who's truly anti-war, pro-equality and doesn't mince words? Not a single candidate supports marriage equality and our current front-runner, Hillary Clinton, who is leading by wide margins in today's polls (which are as meaningful as my political support at this point), was as much of a war hawk as anyone in the Senate. She wants to leave Iraq as much as Senator Lieberman did; let's not make the same mistake as the people of Connecticut and think her pandering is any different than Holy Joe's. Hillary's plan calls to leave troops in Iraq, to 'train' and 'counteract terrorism.' That, my friends, would amount to over a hundred thousand of them in Iraq, permanently.

So, who do we turn to? Sadly, there just doesn't seem to be that much else. Looking for a candidate seems to be reminiscent of those commercials from that Christian charity organization, showing the family searching the garbage heaps for some hidden treasure - when the far greater likelihood is they will be met with useless stink. For a while, the Obama buzz was really buzzing. Now, it seems more like the buzzing noise are flies surrounding a political carcass. The man never won a tough election - and it shows.

However, I could deal with inept campaign moves - heck, sometimes they can be endearing. When John Edwards has screwed up, he kinda looks cute. 'Whoops, sorry guys, you caught me building a real, big house.' It sort of reminded me when my Governor, the very progressive and awesome Deval Patrick, was lambasted by his campaign opponent for building a nice house. That campaign opponent got big media excitement for calling it the "Taj Deval," while he was firmly whooped in the actual primary. Edwards's house may have gotten bad press, but anyone can relate to someone who grew up poor wanting a very, very nice house... so those words fall on deaf ears, especially when every man (and woman) running for President owns a very, very nice house.

The real problem here isn't stupid moves. Like I said, I could deal with a few stupid Obama mistakes. However, it's these kinds of mistakes that really get me. Here's a gist of what Americablog had to say,

I never thought I'd have to be calling out Barack Obama for race-baiting, but herewe are. And he's not race-baiting whites, or Asians, or even Latinos. No, the African-American Senator from Illinois is race-baiting dark-skinned people. (A bit like me race-baiting Mediterraneans.)

And sure enough, the Obama memo talks a good deal about outsourcing, though in ways that do seem to skirt the line of racism or at least xenophobia (calling her "HILLARY CLINTON (D-PUNJAB)") and noting that "Hillary Clinton Accepted Almost $60,000 In Contributions From Employees Of Cisco Systems, Which Laid Off American Workers to Hire Indian 'Techies.'" (I was a bit uncomfortable with the use of the word "Indian" over and over and over again in the memo.) But I still wasn't sure that we had moved from outsourcing to racism until we hit the paragraph about all the money and support that Hillary has received from "Indian Americans." Sure, the rest of the memo deals with how one of Hillary's top Indian-American supporters is allegedly a bit shady, and that's fair game, but the memo is about more than that. The memo is clearly trying to make the point that Hillary gets lots and lots of support from Indian-Americans, and apparently there's some kind of problem with that. I guess because their kin back home are stealing all of our good white jobs. (No word on whether they're sleeping with our women too.)

This is more than a stupid mistake. This is, well, revealing. I'm not even going to pin this on Obama himself, but even if this came from his campaign people it's disturbing. First, these are the guys he is hiring - that does not inspire confidence. Second, it truly invokes the win-at-all-cost-now attitude that Obama has created for himself during this entire campaign. He didn't want to create a large Senate record - so he's running now. He's afraid of, well, standing on the issues - and it shows. Not to mention the fact that he's convienantly the "anti-war" candidate without ever making so much as a peep before he decided to run for President. Just as bad, as a minority who's likely had to deal with racism at some point in his life, he refused to truly support glbt-equality by not standing up for gay marriage.

Clearly, Barack Obama doesn't want my support. However, John Edwards - a man who is bleeding his support in the polls - has little in the way of credentials and while solidly anti-war, just 'isn't there yet' on marriage equality. The real weird thing here is he supports the repeal of DOMA - the Defense of Marriage Act - which would effectively create marriage equality by mandating every state honor marriages from Massachusetts. Is it some sort of code that Edwards is using? I'll be honest, I don't want a President who speaks in tongues. If you fully support equality, don't shy away from it - embrace it.

Governor Bill Richardson's poll numbers are improving - and, in many ways, they should be. Out of all the candidates in this race, his credentials are by far the most impeccable. He's been the Ambassador to the United Nations - clearly someone who would make a great President-Diplomat and could do a lot to restore the leadership of this country around the world. In just the last few years, he's made deals in both Darfur and North Korea. The day Richardson would be elected, Iraq would be all but over. He's the popular Governor of New Mexico - and helped make a good deal of progress in that state. He was Bill Clinton's Secretary of Energy and has a decent track record on green issues.

Furthermore, he's wined and dined with the likes of the Human Rights Campaign, the highest-funded GLBT rights organization, but his record sadly doesn't match his rhetoric. When Richardson was a Congressman - did I mention he was a Congressman yet? - he voted for the most vile piece of homophobic legislation ever, DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act. DOMA is the reason why people with a same-sex marriage or civil union can't, for example, receive federal benefits - like filing federal taxes together. It's why if one partner dies, when he or she worked for the Federal Government, the other won't receive that partner's pension, like any married couple would. It's why gay citizens can't bring their married immigrants to this country. The worst part of this whole thing is that Governor Richardson still sticks by that vote today.

So, who? Mike Gravel? Good on gay rights and Iraq, crazy as a bed-bug - he wants the freaking Flat Tax. He wants English as the Official Language. Don't even start about Kucinich: one of America's worst mayors ever, and while the fact that he believes weird mystical crap isn't really a problem, the fact that he'd turn that into a new Federal Department is a big one. Oh, and he was pro-life until the day he first ran for President - even a man with no chance panders.

There isn't a single candidate in this race that inspires me. There isn't a single candidate who's built a true netroot following, either. The candidates, this year, have divided everyone - none of the major blogs seem to be all that supportive of anyone. Barrack Obama could have so easily been that person, but his friendship with Joe Lieberman clearly made an impact - and not the good kind. If someone had a gun pointed to my head today, I'd vote for John Edwards. Let's just say, I'm proud to be in favor of gun control, because this race is really starting to scare me - hence, the Wanted Sign.

Cross posted at Progress Now