The Edwards Factor: Is There A Push To Dump Remaining Dems While GOPers Linger?
The TV talking heads sure seem in a hurry to narrow down the presidential nominee field which seems almost totally exclusive to Democrats, while a few of the piss-poor-showing Republicans, included among them those with big bucks, do not appear to be subjected to the same rush despite their poorer showings.
Steve Benen at The Carpetbagger Report discusses the big question(s) before 2008 Dem presidential candidate (and John Kerry’s VP choice in the 2004 race), John Edwards, regarding whether it’s time for him to pack it in or continue on toward the Dem convention this summer which is what Edwards has said he will do.
As I’ve said, I’m undecided at this time. However, Edwards (along with Dennis Kucinich) comes closer to my “ideal” candidate than do Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama who, IMHO, are too willing to make concessions I don’t like, don’t believe are good for the country in its current shape (which isn’t all that good). To me, both represent the DLC approach to Democrats which I find too much like middle ground Republicanism to help Democrats as a whole. If the Republicans don’t want to elect moderate Republicans, why should Dems do it for them?
Interestingly enough, I did NOT support Edwards in 2004 though I came to support the Kerry-Edwards’ ticket simply because Edwards was on it and I saw a progressive-ism growing in him that seemed utterly absent from Kerry. The Edwards running today is a much-changed man, I believe, from 2004 and I do NOT believe this is an act. John Edwards’ approach on universal health care, the working class, and so many other issues.
Right now, his campaign isn’t doing super great. But what’s strange is that he’s got at least half the delegates of Obama and Clinton WHILE, where Republicans like Thompson and Giuliani barely have a handful of delegates BETWEEN them, pundits aren’t shouting to push Fred and Rudy off the campaign trail as they are with Edwards. Why? What’s the difference? Could it be that Edwards is simply not “corporate money” enough for the DLC crowd while among Repugs, Rudy and Fred will definitely sell their souls?
What’s your take?
Edwards is the only candidate who could beat all Republican candidates, aays a series of CNN polls. Obama and Clinton would lose in head-to-head against two of the top four Repugs, and would have high undecided against the other two. Edwards clear majority winner against all four, though.
(That’s why I think CNN is now leaving him out of their polls. Did you hear the CNN “analyst” after last night’s debate? Claiming Obama was clear winner of the debate!)
January 22nd, 2008 | #
I did; it was something else.
And good point about the CNN polls.
January 22nd, 2008 | #
Simply not “corporate money” enough for the DLC crowd?????
God, where have you been? We Edwards supporters have been saying that tirelessly since day one. It is not tin-hat thinking. It’s self-evident.
January 22nd, 2008 | #
Gee, I’ve been supporting Edwards AND writing about the DLC’s love affair with the corporate money machine Republicans so embrace. That’s where I’ve been.
January 23rd, 2008 | #
To confirm the source of for candidates go to:
http://www.opensecrets.org
Notice that the various catagories of the financial services industry (it’s broken into several categories) have given millions to Clinton and Obama and only a tiny sum to Edwards.
Remember that Edwards forced Clinton and Obama to adopt a progressive policy agenda and positions on issues.
Among the reasons the media has trashed and ignored Edwards and now wants him to quit the race is because they had adopted a storyline. And God help you if you interfere with the storyline.
Part of it is also his progressive policy agenda. Seriously overpaid national political reporters call him inauthentic because they can’t believe that a rich guy would raise taxes on himself. THEY WOUDN’T raise taxes on themselves and they can’t believe anyone else would. Apparently they missed that little bit about altruism and FDR, the Kennedys, etc. Read carefully some of their columns/articles and they betray themselves. A recent Jonathon Alter column said that the reason Edwards was trailing is because his message doesn’t resonate with voters. Total crap. If the media allowed his message to get out voters would respond. Notice how often they refer to Edwards as the ‘angry populist.’
I’ve been giving Edwards every spare buck possible since last January and will continue to do so.
That said, I will however,vote for the Democratic Party nominee whoever that may be.
If a Democrat wins the White House, I feel that all of us working together will be able to influence policy in a way not possible in the past.
Also bear in mind that a vote for a President isn’t just for one person. The President has the power of appointing those people who will lead each federal agency. Those agencies have a profound impact on our lives. A Democratic President (all of the candidates) will appoint people from the same general pool. DLC type or no, appointees will be competent and dedicated to operating their agencies as they were intended. Remember that Democrats created most of those agencies.
January 23rd, 2008 | #
Thanks, Kate !! Excellent and timely post.
I just laugh at the MSM but then I see McCain and s.mitt winning caucuses.
Whoo shivers up and down my spine.
Both of them would choose jeb666 as a running mate.
Awesome blog.
Wish I had more time to read.
Thanks again for the good words on John.
I’d rather have dennis and have written a few times to ask them to get TOGETHER.
They are actually the closest on the issues with Dennis being nearly perfect. Gee no wonder the MSM can’t seem to get his name up in lights. huh….
January 23rd, 2008 | #
Something a little off subject that I forgot to mention, but, is useful information.
Clinton said something very important a few months ago that got almost no attention but is absolutely HUGE.
She pledged to get rid of federal contract employees and replace them with civil servants.
During my last 11 plus years working in state government a Republican governor replaced thousands of civil servants with contract employees. He bragged about cutting the state work force but actually did no suchn thing. He vastly increased costs and garnered contributions from contractors. Among the many problems with so many private employees was that they ended up making day to day decisions that involved THEIR version of public policy. They were beholden first to their employer never to the state and its citizens. Privatization of public interests is horrible public policy and reversing it may not be sexy but eight years of hellbent privatization it’’s one of the more important issues facing our nation.
DLC taint or no, Clinton displayed an understanding of good government.
January 23rd, 2008 | #
Wow, amazing, intelligent comments by everyone.
Voxy, thanks for the kind words for our humble little blog. Hope to see your comments in the future.
January 24th, 2008 | #