West Virginia Blue
The Best Blogging Community in West Virginia Democratic politics, progressive policies, the good life and free living in Wild, Wonderful West Virginia.
This is why the media circus around John Edwards is so disappointing to me, a former supporter. Few in the political limelight speak for the poor in this country; they don't make political contributions. The elite traditional media that mocked his Poverty Tour before will feel good about themselves.
Anyone who has read my diaries or comments may have gathered that I hold the social justice issue of my faith on the outside of my sleeve. We have had decades of failed "trickle down" economic policies that have resulted in the upward distribution of wealth. Shelley McCapito recent concern for affordable housing does not disabuse me of the notion the she supports the outrageous tax cuts for the upper 1% that John Pimp-My-Wife proposes. By their logic a 0% tax rate will produce infinite revenue.
On Friday I got a forwarded email from my father sent to him by a former Navy base coworker who now lives in Tennessee. It lamented the destruction of this country as a Christian Nation because the union at a Tyson plant in Tennessee negotiated comp time for Moslem employees, allowing them to trade Labor Day for Eid al-Fitr. (A re-vote restored Labor Day and added an extra "personal" paid holiday. We have that for Good Friday where I work.) My response was to cut and past the Treaty of Tripoli and some Thomas Merton.
The kids went to the fair on Tuesday and Thursday, so that was not on my agenda Friday night. When I got home, I refilled my Anne Barth for Congress water bottle, propped up my feet and prepared to be outraged by another Expose on Bill Moyers Journal on PBS. I was not disappointed.
The Attorney Generals in the Appalachian states of West Virginia, Ohio and Kentucky were mentioned in the reporting, along with health debt collection practices in the Ozarks of Arkansas. Whether your credit file is thin or thick, follow me over the fold at a look at how one of Shelley McCapito's biggest contributors squeeze blood from all of us non-millionaire turnips.
Wow. So, that's what his suddenly scheduled trip to New Orleans is all about. John Edwards to announce at 1pm today that he's dropping out of race.
So much for a brokered convention scenario. It's possible that super-delegates will get to decide, but Edwards doesn't have enough delegates to make a difference.
Based on recent voting patterns, this helps Clinton. Clinton and Edwards have been splitting the white male demographic.
Apparently, Edwards is not making an immediate endorsement of either Clinton or Obama.
I feel a lot like Hunter. I've had have some mild preferences among Edwards, Obama and Clinton, but I haven't fallen in love with any of the three. Every time I come close to falling for one, I'm reminded of something else I like even more about another. The differences in style are as large as the differences in policy are small.
I'll happily work hard to help any of Democrats beat McCain, Romney or Huckabee. (Of course, barring major shake-ups its now coming down to Clinton or Obama vs. Romney or McCain.)
If I lived in an early primary state would it be easier to get emotionally involved in this process? I doubt it. I've watched (and participated) in enough presidential primaries before where I did fall in love with a candidate.
There's too many good choices from the Democrats and no one major standout for me.
I've made up my mind whom to endorse and support for the Democratic nomination for president. I made up my mind just this past week.....
former U.S. Senator John Edwards of North Carolina.
Sadly Senator Edwards has been lost in the shuffle of the Main Stream Media, who just wants a story more than anything else and thus give Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama all the attention in this race.
Really I don't blame either Senators Clinton or Obama at all. They are victims of the Main Stream Media just as much if not more as Senator Edwards himself. They lose by getting too much attention and Senator Edwards on the other hand loses by not getting nearly enough of it.
While I do love Senators H. Clinton and B. Obama and will support them 100 percent if they win the nomination I believe 100 percent, I fully believe 100 percent that Edwards is the most qualified candidate this time out.
First of all, Senator Edwards is the only one of the three to admit 100 percent he was wrong in initially supporting this awful Iraq War.
Second, his economic and health care policies favor the middle-class more than either Clinton's or Obama's.
Third of all, he is the best "fighter" we Democrats have right now against the Republicans and the one least likely to compromise with the Republicans.
Bipartisanship to me is just a myth. We Democrats have actually been way too guilty of that in my honest opinion. In fact the Main Stream Media expects us Democrats to work with and compromise with the Republicans in Congress...
while the Republicans shown absolutely no intentions of doing the same themselves in return....
In fact the Republicans in the United States Senate have obstructed and/or filibustered just about every bill we Democrats have opposed since we took over Congress in 2006.
That gets very little if any Main Stream Media coverage. In fact the MSM actually blames Senate Democrats for not courageous and persistent enough and standing their ground like they should.
While I do admit 100 percent that the Democrats in the Senate have not done nearly enough in that regard, it's very difficult to do that in a 50/50 senate where a simple 51 votes is just not good enough and there have always been at least 41 and usually more Republican votes, and sadly a few "Blue Dog" and "Bush Dog" Democrats as well, to filibuster and obstruct passage of crucial and vital legislation...
much less Bush's veto pen which was almost non-existant - and his first veto didn't occur until the 6th year of presidency against stem-cell research - during the dreadful 6 years of a Congress run by his own Republican Party - only to re-discover it again since we Democrats officially took over Congress again Jan. 2007 in the very few cases where some of his fellow Republicans have worked with the Democrats in a "bipartisan" manner...
i.e. the SCHIP bill which would have kept in place children's health care for low and middle-income working families....
while Bush instead favors spending billions if not trillions of dollars on the Iraq War, and for subsidizing defense contractors, BigPharma, insurance companies, and oil companies.
Yet the MSM for some strange reason lets the Republicans slide by as far as "bipartisanship" is concerned. For the most part Republicans have made absolutely no effort at all in being "bipartisan" at all.
Senator Edwards has been the only one of the three Democratic frontrunners who has been willing and able to take on the Republicans and their supports head on and fight for what we Democrats stand for on a consistent basis:
namely getting out of Iraq and helping the poor and middle class persons and families.
Fourth and most important of all Edwards is tne most electable of the three. He leads and probably beats all Republican frontrunners in major polls: Romney, Huckabee, Giuliani, Thompson, and most of all....
yes and most importantly US Senator J. McCain of Arizona....
whom on the other hand leads both Sens. Clinton and Obama in almost all major polls.
Edwards IMHO also carries West Virginia while Clinton and Obama are slightly behind McCain right now.
And to me that is most important thing of them all right now. I know Sens. Clinton and Obama probably have more political experience than Edwards....
but in this election electability does matter, simply because this country cannot take four more years of Republican rule under Romney, Huckabee, Giuliani, Thompson...
and yes good ol' "maverick" John McCain...
who votes with Bush over 90 percent of the time and is arguably the biggest supporter of the illegal Iraq War right now, even just half-way joking we'll be over there 100 years.
And right now Edwards is our best, and even perhaps our only shot, at beating McCain, whom I now think is the Republican most likely to win their party's nomination.
Even though the Republican base can't stand McCain, they still would prefer him 100 percent over Edwards that's most definitely certain.
Sadly Republicans have always been more intelligent as far as nominating winning candidates than us Democrats have, with the exception of one William Jefferson Clinton.
That's why I am supporting 100 percent former US Senator John Edwards for president in 2008.
That said I will still support the Democratic Presidential nominee 100 percent, whether it be Clinton, Obama, or Edwards.
We cannot afford another 4 years of a Republican president in the White House, whether it be Romney, Giuliani, Huckabee, Thompson, and yes good ol' Republican "maverick" John McCain.
Here at West Virginia Blue (see the user diaries over on the right-hand side bar), modernamerica thinks it's all about what Clinton did and Wabi-Sabi questions the "epic proportions" of her victory.
At DailyKos, diarist rimjob has a thorough analysis (with lots of pretty charts!) on reasons why the polls were so very wrong.
I get all my news from the Internet. For the TV-watchers out there, do you agree with Kevin Drum and Josh Marshall that older woman (in particular) were responding to the final 24-hours of media coverage of Clinton?
What next?
Whatever the reason for Clinton's unexpected victory, I'm thrilled by the outcome. I have no major emotional investment in the outcome of the primaries -- I'll happily support Edwards, Obama or Clinton in the general. The delegate counts actually mean something. For a political junkie like me, this is incredibly exciting.
Keeping our candidates in the news, turning out record numbers of voters, meaningfully involving more states in the process, these are all great things for democracy.
Update: Polls close at 8PM ET. Here's a site that looks like a good choice for online results.
-----------------
Here's your place to talk about all things related to the New Hampshire primary today. I'll keep making updates here as I find anything interesting today to add to the discussion.
To kick things off, this is the single best piece I've seen on the challenge Clinton faces in overcoming Obama's new-found position as front-runner.
Edwards current strategy appears to be informally teaming up with Obama to knock out Clinton... then survive long enough to take on Obama one-on-one... or, if both Obama and Clinton survive until the convention, Edwards may well have enough delegates to crown the victor.
Any predictions for today?
As far as I can tell, the conventional wisdom is an Obama victory, Clinton in second, Edwards in third. Something like 40-30-20 numbers.
On the Republican side the press is pushing McCain as a come-back kid with Romney and Huckabee fighting for second. If Romney finishes anything less than 10 points back from the winner he's in big trouble. Any decent showing from Huckabee is a win for him in the "non-evangelical" state of New Hampshire (never mind that he also has populist appeal, it's the evangelical angle that gets all the attention -- plus he's put almost no time or money into New Hampshire).
In November, I wrote a nationally syndicated column for Creators Syndicate entitled "The Huey Longs of Iowa" about both Huckabee and John Edwards. I once again noted that these two underdog candidates were competing in the Iowa caucus despite being outspent precisely because both men were running as bare-knuckled economic populists. As the only nationally syndicated columnist to write something like this, I was largely dismissed and laughed off by national political reporters, pundits and many readers, with most telling me the Iowa race was between only Romney and Giuliani on the Republican side, and only Clinton and Obama on the Democratic side.
Sirota's item has lots of links. Click the link above follow them to his earlier columns.
When it comes to Huckabee, all the talk is about religious conservatism, even as conservative publications like the Weekly Standard have very recently acknowledged that Huckabee's economic message is what has propelled him to victory. Similarly, when it comes to Edwards miraculously being in the middle of the race despite being outspent, all the talk is about the horserace. It is as if the Washington media and political Establishment will do anything to pretend that the public's anger at corporate greed and economic inequality simply does not exist.
They don't want to admit this anger exists because it fundamentally indicts the corrupt system that has allowed such economic oppression to flourish - a corrupt system brought on by the hostile takeover of our government by big money interests that I described in my first book. But, as they say, the numbers do not lie. They are there for all to see - and they prove what I and many progressives have been saying for years.
As I said at the beginning of the day, no matter what the final exact tallies, we the progressive movement - and We The People - are already winning.
Reading around the web this evening, the conventional wisdom now appears to be an Obama - Clinton - Edwards finish for Dems and a Huckabee - Romney finish for Republicans.
Of course, there's another possiblity not getting much discussion -- a tie. It's quite possible that support for the top 3 Dems will be so closely bunched as to decide nothing.
Update 2 from Carnacki: Someone heat up a big old serving of crow (but keep a watch on the carving knife) for former Senate Minority Leader and Republican blogger Vic Sprouse to eat. Remember how he mocked Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul for being against the Iraq war?
I've held off and held off and held off on this post, but it's time to set the record straight about Ron Paul.
First, let me say this, and there are a few avid readers of this blog who I respect, but simply don't support who they support. So, because of them, I have really held off writing anything negative about Texas Congressman Ron Paul because, well, he and his candidacy are irrelevant.
Now, don't get me wrong, I love people being involved in the political process. And, everyone out there has a right to their own opinions about who they support for President.
And, there is no doubt, the small amount of people who support Ron Paul are fervent in their beliefs.
At the beginning of the convention process, I said an outsider candidate with little support, but with a strong grassrooots organization, could come in and make a statement because of the wide open set-up of our new party primary convention.
Let's be honest here.
Any Republican advocating surrender and immediate withdrawal from Iraq, allowing that country to completely implode is not going to get more than 2% of the Republican Party. And, that's exactly what Ron Paul has.
How did Vic's favorite presidential candidate, uber war supporter Rudy Guiliani do?
Giuliani 3,053 4 percent
Paul 8,549 10 percent
Can Sprouse pick them or what? Now we're just dirty hippy bloggers proud to support whoever the Democratic nominee is and Sprouse is a professional Republican politician who likes to talk a big game about wars he'll never serve in.
But once again the amateur Democratic bloggers were right and the professional Republican politician was wrong.
I've never been one to say, "I hate to say I told you so." Heck, I love saying it most of the time. This is one of those times.
As Gorilla Monsoon would say, Stick a fork in Rudy Guiliani. He's done.
If Vic Sprouse tells you something, you can probably believe the opposite and be right every time.
Update 3 from Carnacki
I've said it before and I'll say it again, anyone of our Democratic candidates would be better than any of the Republican candidates. If voter turnout is any sign, many agree with me. Via kos, the Group News Blog:
Percentage of total vote
24.5% Obama
20.5% Edwards
19.8% Clinton
11.4% Huckabee (R)
When the 3rd placed Democratic finisher nearly doubles the Republican who ran away from the pack of other Republican candidates, it's a great sign for Democrats.
It's a highly instructive piece for anyone trying to understand why some candidates pick up strong Netroots support when others -- even with more progressive policy positions -- don't.
With a week remaining before the early state results arrive from Iowa and New Hampshire, John Edwards is starting to draw significant Netroots endorsements. In the last few days, I've read several:
I find it no coincidence that as John Edwards has (a) sharpened his populist rhetoric and (b) improved his standing in the race that (c) more progressive bloggers are ready to jump in with support.
Consistently, the candidates and politicians who have gained the most Netroots attention (Dean, Lamont, the veteran in Ohio whose name I can't remember now, Darcy Burner, Gore v. 2008, Senator Dodd v. 2008) are the ones who clearly articulate contrasts between Democratic and Republican values. Of the top 3 Democratic contenders, John Edwards is drawing the sharpest contrasts.
It's been a while since I chimed in on the 2008 race for the White House. Today I'm going to start with the Democrats. In a later post I'll discuss the Republicans.
Here are my general observations:
* Al Gore is not going to run. In the 1 in a 100 possibility of a brokered convention maybe he'd show up as a possibility, but I just don't see that scenario unfolding.
* Despite the efforts of the DNC and other states, the outcome in Iowa and New Hampshire is still highly likely to decide the nomination. Iowa has set its caucus date for early January. The N.H. date isn't set yet, but the best indications are it will be 3-7 days after Iowa.
* Michigan and Florida are looking irrelevant in their unauthorized efforts to jump to early dates. Michigan is running into court challenges with their date. Florida has been effectively frozen out with DNC delegate sanctions. It's hard to see how Nevada and South Carolina can save any candidate before Super Tuesday on Feb 5. The media narrative from Iowa and N.H. will be overwhelming.
* Iowa is up for grabs. Because of its unique caucus system, Iowa is notoriously difficult to accurately poll. Second place choices matter. Being competitive in every precinct is more important than a typical primary system. The lengthy process requires dedicated participants. The complicated process favors campaigns with strong field operations and experienced caucus goers who can convince first-time participants to show up and stick with a candidate through multi-round voting.
* At times both Richardson and Dodd have looked like they might make a run to stay in the solid second tier of this race. Lately Biden -- on the strength of his consistently strong debate performances -- has generated talk of being the "dark horse." It doesn't matter. With three strong candidates at the top, no one else has a chance. They are all running for VP, cabinet posts, or (heaven forbid) 2012.
* I will be shocked if Edwards, Clinton or Obama stumbles badly enough to fall out of the top 3 in Iowa. If Edwards finishes 3rd in Iowa his campaign is done for. The media is itching to turn the race into a Clinton vs. Obama story.
* Supporters of Edwards, Clinton, and Obama can all point to evidence for a good showing in Iowa. They each have recent polls they like and recent polls they dislike. A lot can change in the next six weeks.
In his most recent syndicated column, David Sirota discusses the The Huey Longs of Iowa.
What explains the unlikely rise of these two dark horses?
It's the populism, stupid.
Huckabee and Edwards are the only two major candidates staking their campaigns on an indictment of economic inequality, corporate power and corruption. As the latest Democracy Corps poll shows, these are the very societal ills angering a middle class whose real-life struggles with stagnant wages, layoffs, debt, foreclosures and health care costs chafe against a pop culture and political system that glorify fabulous affluence. The country, in short, seems ready to embrace Huey Long's "Share Our Wealth" ethos, and these two southerners are resurrecting the best of the famed Louisiana governor's legacy.
Just look at the stump speeches.
Over at Open Left, he further expands on the theme of the Money Party and the People Party:
This is truly a battle between what I have called the Money Party and People Party - and it is happening right within the Democratic Party. As the New York Times reports this morning, those inside the Democratic Party pushing this NAFTA-style trade policy are "getting sizable campaign contributions from the sectors that are benefiting the most from the global economy" including "financial services firms, computer chip makers and other high-tech manufacturers." Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-NY), who is the architect of this deal, basically admitted as much, telling CNN after the vote that if you are a worker who is struggling right now, "if you're hurting, then [the Peru agreement] is a bad deal."
[snip]
This is precisely what Edwards has been railing on, not only in his specific critique of NAFTA-style trade policies, but in his general critique of lobbyists and the status quo.
But this dynamic is also playing out on the Republican side as well, as evidenced by new polls out this week showing the populist Huckabee continuing to surge - a phenomenon that continues to frighten the corporate cronies who populate the Republican Party apparatus in Washington.
This is the aspect of John Edwards' candidacy I've long found attractive. His "two America's" theme in 2006 foreshadowed his willingness to speak to the issues of a People's Party.
(Well said, bluemcdowell. Thanks for writing this. - promoted by Carnacki)
First I have a confession to make. I did not watch the AFL-CIO debate last night. I don't care too much for watching televised debates especially more than a year before the November general election.
I personally think it's way too early to even have debates like this in the first place. Americans including me are already sick of debates, and we haven't even had our first state primary election yet.
I'll save that for another day. Now for a more important if not more disturbing issue: Senator Joe Biden's dismissive attitude toward a Sago Miner's Widow.
Now there is a spirited debate here in coal country in W. Virginia, Kentucky, and Virginia on whether Joe Biden went too far or not. I personally think he did. But I also can understand why many think he didn't as well.
I personally don't know the name of the woman asking the question. But I do know why she would feel let down by the government. She received a huge ovation from the crowd there, and deservedly so.
Senator Biden did give his sympathies to the woman but nearly long enough in my honest opinion. All he said was that he supported "implementing all the commission's findings." I have to be brutally honest and admit I'm 100 percent stupid in not knowing what congressional body who is head of all these findings. I take 100 percent blame for that.
Sadly I am too apathetic most of the time like everybody else in the United States it seems. I take full 100 percent responsibility for it. I just wish my fellow Americans Democratic, Republican, and most definitely independents would join me in doing the same. Apathy is by far the most serious thing that's killing our beloved nation today.
But back to Senator Biden's comments. It is 50/50 I guess as to whether he fully answered the hurting and grieving widow's question or not. He might have in a way, but still I bluemcdowell and probably 99 percent of Appalachian coalfield residents wanted more in the way of specifics. And all Sen. Biden said was a somewhat half-hearted "I'm sorry for your loss" statement and the "implementing the commission findings" statement and that was it. All general stuff and no specific stuff. Typical American way of thinking. Sad but true.
What had happened earlier in the debate was that on Sen. Biden's last comment when he was talking about Pakistan he was cut off by moderator Keith Olbermann due to time constraints. I've even heard criticism in some circles about Keith Olbermann's moderation believe it or not. Well everybody is human and Keith is no exception. He makes mistakes just like you and me. And to Keith's credit he almost always admits his very few mistakes the few times he does slip it and sincerely apologizes 100 percent of the time without exception, unlike our current Commander-in-Chief...
In his haste to say all he wanted to about Pakistan he just "comforted" the woman and said "he'd implement all the commission's recommendations" and that was it.
Whether that was sufficient enough is really not mine to decide. It's the voters in McDowell, Wyoming, Mingo, Logan, and Boone Counties in West Virginia; Floyd and Pike Counties in Kentucky; and Dickenson and Buchanan Counties in Virginia. It's up to them not us.
I personally didn't approve of the way Sen. Biden handled himself. But many good people disagree with me. And that's fine. It's OK for friends to disagree, at least for now. Sadly it may not be much longer after the controversial bill that permits the federal goverment to spy on Americans without a warrant bill is signed by Bush. Very very sad but very very true.
Well just like Keith Olbermann I guess Hillary Clinton is human too. She has uncharacteristically struggled and made some very unheard of mistakes in the last two Democratic debates especially last night. And her two main Democratic opponents Edwards and Obama especially to their credit both took 100 percent full advantage of it. There have been a few times Senator Clinton has slipped up before but had gotten away with it. Not the last two debates however. Obama especially took 100 percent advantage of this golden opportunity and pounced on it immediately. And Edwards has done so too but not quite as much as Obama.
This primary and general election both are really just beginning. I honest don't know who either party's presidential nominee will be. Right now I still give a slight edge to Sen. Clinton on the Democratic side but I have absolutely no idea whom the Republicans will nominate.
We still got a long way to go folks. The election to replace Bush has really just begun.
Jan. 21, 2009 can't come soon enough. And even more so the election Tuesday in 2008....
Copyright 2009 West Virginia Blue
Site content may be used for any purpose without explicit permission unless otherwise specified.
This site exists thanks to financial support from BlogPAC, the tireless efforts of volunteer contributors and continued participation from this community. The views expressed at West Virginia Blue belong soley to their respective authors.
