Feingold will not endorse Edwards!

Not surprised (4.00 / 1)

Obama has voted with Feingold an awful lot, and so it's not too surprising that he would support Obama. I am surprised, a little, that he's OK with Hillary too.

I'm glad Feingold pointed out his objections to Edwards. These are all the things that have troubled me about Edwards too. How does he speak out and vote one way as a Senator, then claim he's someone else as a Presidential candidate? Either he's suddenly grown a second brain and gotten a lot smarter, or he's just full of beans.  

---

by: CaptCT @ Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 20:48:16 PM UTC

My 08 fave as well (4.00 / 2)

would have been Feingold, if he ran.

I'm surprised he's taken that line against Edwards so harshly, but I understand why.

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 22:19:09 PM UTC

Easily would have been the progressive champ (4.00 / 1)

But, I'm thinking he is smarter than all of us by deciding to stay in the Senate.

The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice. --Martin Luther King, Jr.

---

by: connecticutyankee @ Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 00:55:27 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hardly surprised.... (0.00 / 0)

I don't know how people can come to any other conclusion other than that Edwards is an opportunistic phony considering during his Senate tenure, he had a DLC, southern conservative voting record, and all of a suddden he found religion and got on the populism wagon. It's an act. He won't win. Let's get over John Edwards.

---

by: OGDem @ Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 03:33:24 AM UTC

Let's get over John Edwards (0.00 / 0)

and start swooning over Obama.  Is their a fainting couch sale at Bob's?  If so I'm there.

---

by: snorwich @ Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 19:12:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Also, let's not forget.... (0.00 / 0)

that Feingold is in a tough spot in terms of a Hillary/Obama endorsement, because whoever doesn't win the nomination is going to be working with him in the Senate. If he pisses off either one of them with an endorsement to the other, that just creates another obstacle in his way. He obviously is leaning toward Obama: like Feingold, Obama is a Midwestern liberal with a knack for stirring things up with the Dem establishment. If you read the new Feingold biography, the opening paragraph details a fairly heated argument between Feingold and Hillary during a Senate Dem caucus meeting, over campaign finance reform. Hillary told Feingold, in front of all the other Democratic senators, that he "wasn't living in the real world." This is the kind of hopeless DLC cynicism that we have to defeat.

Full disclosure, I interned in Feingold's office last summer, and am proudly biased in his favor

---

by: OGDem @ Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 03:40:06 AM UTC

I too am a Feingold fan (0.00 / 0)

But Obama's record is troubling too.  He has absented himself, or voted "present" too many times. And don't forget, Joe Lieberman was Obama's senatorial mentor; that is not a good sign. . .  Some people grow as they age and experience situations.  Edwards seems to have learned a thing or two since he left the Senate.  Obama has the same potential; but I think it's too early to tell how he might evolve. [Frankly, I wish he had waited another four years or so before making a Presidential run.]  But if you are looking at history, Hillary has changed her course in recent years by 180 degrees -- in this case making her a very unattractive candidate to many of us who might have supported her previously.  Her interpretation of ". . . living in the real world," is to take lots of money from questionnable sources and become Republican-Lite.  

---

by: Ann Galloway @ Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:14:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Digging deeper on Obama and the "present" issue (0.00 / 0)

Apparently, voting "present" is a fairly unique feature of Illinois political culture that Obama was often using not to avoid taking a stand on an issue, but to register a protest vote. The campaign's website has a whole page dedicated to refuting this charge against him. Also, check out this New York Times article about Obama's "present" votes in the Illinois legislature. It features some of his allies from his time in the State Senate coming to his defense on the matter.

As far as Joe Lieberman being his Senate mentor: freshmen senators are assigned mentors by the Democratic leadership. Even if Obama went out of his way to choose Lieberman to guide him through Senate rules and protocol (the main task of the mentor), it's not the most substantial argument in the world to say Lieberman is Obama's mentor, thus Obama must agree with Lieberman on the issues. Senator Obama opposed the war while Hillary Clinton and John Edwards voted for it. He ran a primary campaign in Illinois against several establishment Democrats whose positions on the war were closer to the party line at the time than his were, and he won --- winning in a lot of the downstate, majority-white districts where a South Side liberal named Barack Obama should never have been competitive.

Hillary was for the war and has not apologized. She was one of only a handful of Senate Democrats to support Joe Lieberman's bellicose Iran amendment. John Edwards ran for the Senate in 1998 as a conservative southern Democrat, and ran for the presidency in 2004 as a moderate "consensus" candidate whose main asset was a southern accent, that alleged prerequisite to electability pre-2008. To say he has "learned a thing or two" is a nice way of saying he has put his finger to the political wind, found which way it was blowing, and tried to run in front of the crowd so he could lead it.  

---

by: OGDem @ Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 15:38:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

This Really Hurts (0.00 / 0)

Me, anyway as a strong supporter of Edwards, and an even stronger admirer of Feingold. I have been mulling this over ever since Sufi first posted it.

What matters more - where Edwards came from or where he is now? He IS saying what I want to hear, much more so than Obama, and I do believe he means it. Yes Obama's track record IS better, and despite his move to the center and his somewhat questionable institutional support, he does have the POTENTIAL for real progressivism.  But it would be nice to hear more about it instead of change and hope.

Hillary? Forget it.

I guess the bottom line is my support for Edwards is now a little less fervent, and my lack of enthusiasm for Obama a little less absolute.

Thanks, Russ?

---

by: Jon Kantrowitz @ Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 13:35:54 PM UTC

I feel the same way (0.00 / 0)

I feel the same way, Jon. I was a stronger Edwards supporter before I read this article. I admire Feingold, Lamont, and Kucinich--their opinion carries a lot of weight with me--and all of them appear to prefer Obama over Edwards.

Nader, on the other hand, prefers Edwards over Obama...but Nader has never been part of Congress so he has an outsider's perspective on the candidates.

Did you scroll down and take a look at the comments section under the article?

I think the comments are worth reading--especially the speculation as to why Feingold would even consider Hillary over Edwards.

Perhaps, it's because although, Hillary (like Edwards) hasn't voted as a progressive but isn't running as a anti-corporatist and anti-war candidate like Edwards is. Edwards is running against his record and Hillary really isn't. So maybe Feingold disagrees with Hillary but doesn't see her as a hypocrite or opportunist? I don't know. I'm only guessing. Maybe, he thinks Hillary is more "electable" on account of Bill whereas Obama still has to deal with the political burden of having a Muslim father and stepfather (factors that may contribute to his downfall in the general election)?

I think Hillary's attack on Obama for being "too far left" for once supporting universal healthcare is just unforgivable.

I would like to see what Feingold thinks about that.  

"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."--James Madison

---

by: sufi @ Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 14:58:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Kucinich to Edwards to Obama... (0.00 / 0)

Sounds like a double play combination; but is actually the trajectory I have followed this campaign season. In the wake of Obama's Iowa victory, I am convinced that something very special could be afoot.

I like John Edwards, but as his chances have faded, his rhetoric has become too hot and it has hurt him in electability. It is his dime, but I can't help but believe that his continued presence in the race only helps Clinton. I have seen polling that indicates that his support would go to Obama by perhaps 2-1.

Call me a romantic; but how wonderful would it be, if a tall, lanky man from Illinois emerged in 1860 to free the nation from the scourge of slavery and then in 2008 a tall, lanky man from Illinois came forward to bring us together and bring the country to the next level.

But let justice roll down like waters...Amos 5:24a

---

by: Jake Blount @ Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 15:57:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Quite A Few Democrats... (0.00 / 0)

...have followed your trajectory.  And, many Democrats worry that Edwards might become our intra-party Nader by siphoning off enough progressive votes to throw the nomination over to the corporatist/DLC wing of the party.

In any event, at least we know we'll get "Change!" no matter who wins.  

See:  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

I just hope our "Change!" doesn't come to us in the form of a few worthless wooden nickels.

---

by: Brian @ Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 17:04:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Presidential Trajectories (0.00 / 0)

I am following a different trajectory ref "Kucinich to Edwards to Obama..."  I am beginning to despise the process as well as the media reports on the process. This horserace mentality is just making me ill.

I am swinging between John Edwards and The Anarchist Party. ('Cause the Anarchists have at least organized behind one powerful symbol... and the videos are swell)

Cheerleaders for Anarchy

Never Mind The Haircuts...Here Come the Original Sex Pistols


"I am not a Blogger...But I play one on the internet."

---

by: tessa @ Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 17:36:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Leahy Endorses Obama (4.00 / 1)

Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) endorsed Senator Barack Obama for President, citing his unique ability to restore America's standing in the world, end the war in Iraq, provide health care for all Americans, and rally this nation around a common purpose.

Chairman Patrick Leahy said, "Barack Obama is the best candidate to reintroduce America to the world - and restore hope in our country. Barack Obama represents the America we once were and want to be again. When Barack Obama is President we will lead with hope, opening the doors of opportunity to all, realizing the potential of our great nation for its citizens and as a leader of the free world. Barack Obama will be a President who once again believes, 'Yes, we can.' That is why I am endorsing Barack Obama to be the next President of the United States."

Senator Obama said, "I am proud to have the support of Senator Leahy. Senator Leahy had the judgment and courage to vote against the Iraq war, and he's been a champion of our rights here at home, and of human rights around the world. He is a leader guided by integrity, respect for our Constitution and a love of this country. I look forward to working with him to stand up to the special interests, rally Democrats and Republicans together to get things done, and bring about change we can believe in."

Leahy was elected to the United States Senate in 1974 and is currently serving his sixth term. Leahy is the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and is a senior member of the Agriculture and Appropriations Committees. He also chairs the Appropriations Committee's Subcommittee on State and Foreign Operations.

---

by: Jon Kantrowitz @ Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 16:45:53 PM UTC

Impressive (4.00 / 1)

This endorsement speaks volumes. If Obama could get endorsements from either side of his party's political spectrum from conservative Ben Nelson to progressive Patrick Leahy, then maybe there is something to his ability of pulling people together across America.

I like Leahy. I believe in what he stands for.

The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice. --Martin Luther King, Jr.

---

by: connecticutyankee @ Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 17:11:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

My #1 choice for Dem Prez candidate is... (0.00 / 0)

"None of the Above"

None of the Dem candidates inspire me.  I will not vote for Hillary in the primary or general election because she supports shipping my job to India.  Edwards was a one-term wonder in the senate, but I do like his current rhetoric, but his past in the Senate is obviously catching up with him.  I've got the Audacity of Cynicism and Doubt with Obama.  I had high hopes for Obama when he first got into the senate but more and more he's sounding like Lieberman.  Obama's bi-partisan rhetoric is almost directly verbatim out of Lieberman's playbook.

Ironically, I'm actually enjoying the Republican primary battle.  It's like watching a Monty Python/Peter Sellers comedy.

Guess I'll be sitting out the Prez race this year.

---

by: Larkspur @ Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 20:58:46 PM UTC

Bold and Brave Larkspur! (0.00 / 0)

The Vote for Nobody is the Vote that dare not speak it's name.

I have been beating my brains out for a few years now at my DTC. I am despised by a majority of the members for submitting a resolution in June of 2006 that would demand that DTC members stand together for whoever won the Democratic Primary on a hot day in August. I am distrusted and demeaned on a regular basis. Some members refuse to shake my hand. One of them won't look at me. I have brought in new members, and they have won public office. I have, in fact, brought in five of the 25 members of my district, plus myself, significant other, and co-worker who ran for Mayor.

Now I am backed into a corner by the Hillarians. Interesting how many of them were LieberCrats. And some have admitted to voting for Rell instead of DeStefano.

I have been totally discouraged all week.

But Larkspur hath given me hope. I now see the alternative.  After all, it's not like Romney or McCain or Huckabee can win, right?

oh crap, Larkspur, we are trapped.

"I am not a Blogger...But I play one on the internet."

---

by: tessa @ Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 04:47:59 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Of course (4.00 / 1)

It also sounds like you are well on your way to controlling your town committee, though! I know Larkspur was also in a similarly high-ranked position (don't know if that's changed lately from intrigue or burnout).

Think of it this way - in the long term, you run the party, the Liebercrats are dead, and the new kids will be wondering why the old-timers maintain those bonds and loyalties from some old Senate primary. Actually you can despair and never show up to another meeting and this will still come to pass (if recent history is any guide), your work ethic just accelerates the process.

Do you have enough votes to get a seat on State Central yet?

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 06:00:20 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Power vs. Principle (0.00 / 0)

This goes back to the reasons why people joined the Democratic Party, or Republican Party, in the first place. Over the years, many people joined these parties, not for Principle, but for Power -- to have a say in how their town was governed, and to leverage that power for political and business favors.

It wasn't always that way. FDR defined the Democratic Party with his tax policies, works programs, labor support, and social welfare programs. Those programs are why my grandparent-immigrants didn't starve during the Depression, were able to get union-paying jobs in CT factories, and ultimately afford to raise children who could send their kids to college. With FDR, the Democratic Party came to represent Middle Class America, equality, justice, and the common good.

The overwhelming popularity of FDR's policies helped to cement the power of the Democratic Party all through CT. Anyone who wanted a say in municipal government in CT's big cities needed to win the Democratic Primary -- and therefore BE a Democrat. In some cases, if you wanted a job in municipal government -- as a teacher, policeman, fireman -- it helped if you were a Democrat. And, over time, many people became Democrats not to help the middle class, but for a share of power and all the trappings that come with it.

In some smaller wealthier towns, it's the Republicans who have always held power. And, regardless of Party, that power is relinquished reluctantly. I see it happening now in one heavily Republican town: members of the party clawing at each not for the benefit of the community but for control of their Party, a Party that's becoming irrelevant as young middle class families and unaffiliateds move in and make up a larger segment of the population.

So it comes back to principle again: What does your Party stand for? Sensible government. Open government. Doing what's best for the people of your community. If that's what your Party stands for, people will join it.

So, keep bringing in people who believe that the Democratic Party stands for doing what's best for the community -- your community, the American community and the global community. It's the only way to ensure the long-term survival of the Democratic Party and have it actually be the institution that FDR created.

Oh, and one other thing.... Vote. In February vote for the candidate YOU like best, and then do the same in November. In November, we'll have a choice between a Republican who wants to bomb Iran and destroy the middle class, or a Democrat who wants a more sensible foreign policy and will help the middle class. We may not agree to what extent the Democrats WILL help middle class Americans, but they WILL do more than Republicans.

Also, if a Republican wins in November, it's a huge setback for the progressive movement. Republicans will see it as a mandate to continue to weaken essential government institutions, to ignore the middle class, to continue to try to destabilize the Middle East on Israel's or Halliburton's behalf, to continue to protect their corporate backers. Nothing could be worse than a Republican president.  

---

by: CaptCT @ Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 15:32:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm the Secretary of my DTC (0.00 / 0)

and I already told my chair that I will not vote for Hillary if she is the Dem nominee because she supports shipping my job to India.  My chair understood.

My chair supports Obama.  She fears Hillary's negatives will hurt down ticket candidates in purple districts around the nation.

In the primary, I may vote for Obama just because I like seeing Hillary having to battle for the nomination.  I'd prefer Edwards to Obama, but Edwards campaign most likely will be over after the SC primary.

---

by: Larkspur @ Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 21:09:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Why do DTC chairs support anyone publicly? (0.00 / 0)

I feel like Nicole Hollander's Venusian Gernif who always asks questions, the answers to which earthlings (and political junkies?) feel are self evident.

If the DTC is there to support a Democrat being elected, then why doesn't the DTC chair support getting out everyone to do phone banking e.g. for ANY DEM they support and let the people decide in the end who the candidate will be?  That is to say, why is participation and getting a full reading of support not the point, rather than the lining up of sides?

This lining up of factions and power brokers seems to me to leave an important ingredient out:  the retail voter.

Notes from a Venusian election rube.  

---

by: greenpeas @ Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 21:18:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Because the pay is so bad (0.00 / 0)

In all seriousness, town chairs do it for passion, most of them, and many would rather resign than pretend to act disinterested in who's nominated.

I do think it's wise for election administrators to stay out of making endorsements, though.

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 21:22:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Such as the SOTS? n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: greenpeas @ Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 21:31:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

My DTC Chair has not publicly endorsed any candidate for Prez (0.00 / 0)

She told that to me over the phone when we discussed the Prez race.

Our DTC is divided over the Dem Prez race.  The old timers most likely will favor Hillary.  The more progressive types will favor Obama or Edwards.  And then there are some who are uncomitted.

I seriously doubt that our DTC will publicly endorse anyone for Prez before Feb. 5.

---

by: Larkspur @ Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 23:53:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Same Here w/DTC (0.00 / 0)

Our DTC Chair tries to keep things cool-calm-collected (good luck with that, Dude) but our crowd is splitting along the same lines.

The Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party echoes the "Kucinich is unelectable, so I am for..." pattern, then goes mostly Obama. But they get testy if you ask them if it is just because he is black. Then they admit that is a good part of the reason.

Some of the Hillarious also will admit to FemBias, but they are not moving moderate from liking Kucinich. No way.

People look generally blank if you bring up anyone else for the Dems. That's when I accuse them of being for McCain.

"I am not a Blogger...But I play one on the internet."

---

by: tessa @ Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 00:27:50 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Look into Obama's black gold dust (0.00 / 0)

Recently I watched a video of Mark Crispin Miller about the condition of our election system.  He talked about the various frames into which voting integrity activists are cast. one of them was "it's a black thing", based on the Congressional Black Caucus standing up to not certify voting results in the Bush/Gore Debacle.  (Note to file:  Obama did not support the CBC in this effort)

Second, my vague memory is that the narrative was that some numbers of African American voters stood beyind Clinton or certainly rolled their eyes at many aspects of the Lewinsky/impeachment thing.

Ergo, is it possible that some voters have stored away in their unconscious an impresssion that voices of sanity in recent years, voices that didn't buy into some of the BS that went down, were the voices of many in Black leadership?

And could Obama be the unwitting benefactor of "Black means we don't tolerate bullshit," even though he had nothing to do with the CBC stand for Al Gore?

I'm not attached to this....a passing thought...but just as gay anything just doesn't have the piquancy as a wedge issue that it once did, maybe the attempted put down of "it's a black thing", intended to discredit those who said that election and impeachment were baloney -- is actually turning into a stereotypical positive (to the chagrin of spinmeisters who are counting on that not being so?) "You can count on "them" to call bullshit, and Obama is one of "them"."

---

by: greenpeas @ Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 04:49:24 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Wait a minute (4.00 / 1)

(Note to file: Obama did not support the CBC in this effort)

Since you were referring to the Bush/Gore debacle, that seems like a pretty unfair statement. At the time, Obama was in no position to help the CBC with their effort, as he was a State Senator in Illinois, and not yet in the U.S. Senate.

---

by: OGDem @ Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 16:56:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I like Edwards... (0.00 / 0)

but his campaign has been over for a while now. It's his dime, but he has to know he is only helping Clinton at this point. The list of Progressives that have endorsed Obama is impressive. Pat Leahy and Ned Lamont are true Progressives and their endorsements mean a lot to me. Dennis Kucinich obviously prefers Barack to Hillary.

But let justice roll down like waters...Amos 5:24a

---

by: Jake Blount @ Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 19:38:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Obama to me is the lesser of 2 evils (0.00 / 0)

if I just look at Hillary and him.

Obama is not a strong progressive and he has not attempted to change the Right Wing narrative that dominates the corporate controlled media.  His remarks about Reagan told me volumes about Obama's true progressive soul.  That's why I can't get excited about Obama, despite what Ned Lamont, Russ Feingold, etc. say about him.

---

by: Larkspur @ Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 16:15:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hillarians, thats hilarious! (0.00 / 0)

You have my sympathies Tessa, but there will be a day when the last Liebercrat finally drops dead.

I also share the sentiments of Larkspur and Tessa; I was dismayed to see that Hillary won Nevada last night.  All I am waiting for now is for them to start playing Fleetwood Mac's Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow.  Gosh, it'll be 1992 all over again!  Yeeehaaaa!  Will we Jeb Bush in 2016?  God or any other being, help save us from ourselves.

I am not quite ready to get behind Obama, much to this the disbelief of some in the MLN community who are probably reading this sipping their coffee while wearing their Obama pajamas, but I look at the prospect of a Hillary Administration with just a little less dread than any Republican administration.

---

by: snorwich @ Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 16:08:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Just curious... (0.00 / 0)

Which policies of Hillary's or Obama's do you believe are the same as the "best" Republican candidate?

---

by: CaptCT @ Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 17:26:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's Funny... (4.00 / 2)

...my position is almost exactly the opposite: While none of the Dem candidates is perfect, all of them are very good; while I prefer Obama (because I'm not cynical and doubtful, and in inspirational personal presence is a nontrivial qualification for the job of president), I'd feel happy and confident with any of the remaining top 3 candidates (as I would have with almost all of the Dem candidates who've fallen by the wayside).

The Republicans are, as you point out, entertaining, but as prospective presidents, each one is more horrifying than the next.

Frankly, I'm not sure there's been a worse time in my lifetime -- and possibly not in the entire history of the nation -- for Democrats to be "sitting out the Prez race." Far too much is at stake.

---

by: dauphinb @ Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 04:50:30 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

None of the Dem Prez candidates inspire me to (0.00 / 0)

donate my hard earned cash or spare time to their campaigns now or in November.

I definitely will not donate my $$ or spare time to Hillary since she supports shipping my job to India.  And I can't bring myself to vote for her knowing that she is completely callous to those of us who work for a living.

I do plan on voting in November.  I just don't plan on donating my spare time and dollars to the Dem Prez nominee.

---

by: Larkspur @ Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 19:40:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Money and Time for Candidates Clarification (0.00 / 0)

Yes, Larkspur. Voting, of course. So far, I haven't missed an erection election.

Money: No more to the Presidential.
Time: Not now. Perhaps Democratic Party GOTV [GetOutTheVote] work in Late October/early November.

I am putting all the loose change and free time into "causes".
Sexual Health, Mental Health, Civil Rights, No More War.

2008 motto: Just Be Cause.

"I am not a Blogger...But I play one on the internet."

---

by: tessa @ Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 20:00:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

probably healthy (0.00 / 0)

That was the point of my carping about Kucinich -- which actually had practically nothing to do with him -- namely, that all the good work we do building power can be all too easily squandered in the world of presidential politics.  

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 20:33:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ahem (4.00 / 1)

If it wasn't for Kucinich's candidancy, I and many others would be even less interested in this Madison Ave. production.  The two most important issues to me are single-payer health coverage and ending the occupation of Iraq, and the only candidates that come close to addressing these issues are Edwards and Kucinich.

Absent these two, what choice do progressives really have?  Obamas health plan is a mish mash that is too complicated and doesn't curtail insurance companies near enough and it will take 16 months to get out of Iraq.  To his credit, Obama is against permanent bases in Iraq, but wants to expand the military.  The military we have is just fine, we just need to close the hundreds of bases we have around the world.  Do we really need to be in Europe anymore?  Central Asia?  Japan and South Korea?  It is time to condense our presence around the world and to stop embarking on reckless military ventures that benefit nobody but defense contractors.

I will vote for Obama if Edwards and Kucinich are out come 2/5, but I will need some heavy duty convincing and a flask of scotch on election day to vote for the Hil.  Too many ties to Wall St, union busters, and everything that is wrong with the Democratic Party.

I agree with Tessa and Larkspur about money and time; I really can not afford giving money due to high health care costs and the rising prices of the commodities one needs to survive and time...well we'll have to see.  I'm not too pleased with Courtney at the moment, my state rep will probably be uncontested, and Edith Prague is a Liebercrat.  There isn't too much to be excited about, but there is a lot of time until November.

---

by: snorwich @ Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 02:11:08 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

There's always Amann... (0.00 / 0)

You can move to Milford and Primary him for State Rep. I think I heard that "any idiot" can "crush" him with only 601 votes.

But you will have to change your name to smilford, and that is not nearly as funny as SnoreWitch.

"I am not a Blogger...But I play one on the internet."

---

by: tessa @ Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 04:22:33 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hillary Clinton (0.00 / 0)

... is now, as she has always been, a Goldwater conservative.

In 2008, that puts her to the left of a good deal of the party and the majority of her colleagues in the Senate. It's just a sign of how far right we've come.

(I'm surprised Obama didn't strike back on that front, actually. I believe that Clinton appeared in a Goldwater documentary not too long ago.)

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 20:43:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

To everyone who is so worried about Obama's "bipartisanship" (4.00 / 1)

Bipartisanship is a political strategy, not an ideology in its own right --- and it is not synonymous with caving in to the right.

Senator Russ Feingold is, for good reason, a hero to many in the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. He is also a staunch advocate of bipartisanship as a strategy for advancing progressive legislation. I think it's time some of us lose the knee-jerk negative reaction to the word.

---

by: OGDem @ Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 18:10:36 PM UTC

But the way Obama has described it (4.00 / 1)

reminds me of Lieberman's definition of it -- caving into the Right.

---

by: Larkspur @ Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 18:31:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Other Than The Word Bipartisanship Itself... (0.00 / 0)

...what part of Obama's message sounds like "caving in to the right" to you? Working across the aisle is a Feature, Not A Bug, as long as you keep your feet planted on your own side. Just because LIEberman couldn't manage that doesn't mean it's impossible. In fact, it's what great political leaders must do.

---

by: dauphinb @ Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 00:33:20 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

He is campaigning (0.00 / 0)

... not governing. This is a time for building strength, not trading it away.

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 00:52:39 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Bipartisan=status quo (0.00 / 0)

I think it's time some of us lose the knee-jerk negative reaction to the word.

Ouch! I just stubbed my toe against the wall when I read that.

---

by: snorwich @ Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 18:52:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I Agree (0.00 / 0)

The whole point of moving in a progressive direction is to make the country better, and it's hard to see how that's meaningful unless we bring along folks who aren't already on our side in the process.

One of the worst things about Joe Lieberman is that he's given a bad name to the idea of bipartisanship. As you point out, bipartisanship is about how you pursue your ideals; it need not mean that you've abandoned said ideals... regardless of the fact that Holy Joe did.

---

by: dauphinb @ Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 00:30:25 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm favoring Obama now (0.00 / 0)

... but I also believe pretty strongly that to move the country in a progressive direction, you must aggressively build a mandate for progressive ideas, not a mandate for compromise. The problem with what BO is saying comes later, when we want more change than he can accomplish with his mandate. To dig up an old, unfavorably-regarded chestnut from the B. Clinton days, NAFTA would have been great alongside environmental and worker protection standards, but if you have a mandate to "always seek the middle," you don't have the ability to shut down the hard right in the negotiations.

Actually, Clinton is doing this in the primary much more effectively than Obama. The OpenLeft guys have been saying that Obama's reluctance to display partisanship is what prevented him from taking advantage of his early caucus win and momentum, and I think that's a pretty persuasive argument.

Around here, we are judging the candidates very heavily based on knowledge of them gathered over a long time, and most of us don't change opinions of candidates very quickly. I'm not surprised that the rank-and-file who work year in and year out for the Democrats (and find them all basically acceptable) would be much more impressed with Clinton's rhetoric on the stump.  

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 00:48:11 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

These Concepts... (0.00 / 0)

... but I also believe pretty strongly that to move the country in a progressive direction, you must aggressively build a mandate for progressive ideas, not a mandate for compromise.

...only appear to be in opposition because of the way they've been abused by b@st@rds like LIEberman. I don't think it's about compromise as much as it is about cooperation. If we hope for deep, sustainable progressive change, we can't let progressive ideas continue to be identified with a sort of liberal "ghetto." If we want our ideas to command the nation's future, we must make them mainstream.

By which I do not mean water them down or move them to the right; I mean move the mainstream to our ideas. And that can't be done through ideological combat alone.

I don't think Obama is talking about "seeking the middle" ideologically; I think he's talking about reaching out to the middle and bringing it to us.

Viewed that way, bipartisanship is not only not a bad thing, it's the only thing.

---

by: dauphinb @ Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 01:16:16 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Bipartisanship is dead (4.00 / 1)

Ever since the Gingrich Infection of 1994, the Republicans have scoffed at any notion of working with the Democrats, even when they actually agreed on the same issue.  The real problem lies in the fact that there are still way too many DINOs that need to be purged.  We did half the job here in CT by giving Lieberman the boot, but failed to deliver the coup de grace.

It seems that the only time bipartisanship works is when it works against progressive causes or the American people.  Lieberman's failure to hold hearings on Katrina was compounded by the failure of anyone on the committee to speak up about it is a prime example.  Hey, wasn't Obama on that committee?  Katrina is chock full of reasons why bipartisanship, or collaboration with Republicans is bad.  I can't remember the name, but who was it that said of the poorer districts of NOLA "we couldn't clean them up, but God did it for us"?  These are people that can not be trusted; not only are they bad for America, they're bad for humanity.  If Mitch McConnell lay in front of me clutching his chest gasping "I'm dying", well... I going to want some proof, that's how untrustworthy they are.

As bad as people want the Democrats to win this year, they are willing to hold their noses and cast an intra party bipartisan vote, and that is sad.  Face it, Clinton, Landrieu, Nelson, Salazar, Hoyer, and Feinstein are not our allies; they lie in the so-called center, afraid to take a stand with American people because the Republicans will call them names and unable to take that final step towards darkness for whatever reason.  Maybe the best thing for the party is a schism, a 21st century version of the Great Awakening, where the New Lights cast out the Old Lights and their stagnant ideas and methods.  

There are some dark economic times ahead, thanks to bipartisanship, and it is imperative to hold our representatives accountable for their actions.  Fuel prices have increased the cost of all commodities, foreclosures are on the rise, healthcare is strangling both businesses and individuals, and this sinful and seemingly endless war is dragging the nation down.  This is not the time to be preaching bipartisanship, it is time for entirely new direction, and I don't trust Hillary with the map.  As far as Obama, I am adopting a wait and see attitude.  

---

by: snorwich @ Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 01:45:49 AM UTC

[ Parent ]