Friday Quick Hits and Straw Poll

by: Chris Bowers

Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 09:54


Some quick hits:
  • In 2007, union density increased as a percentage of the workforce for the first time since such statistics were kept.

  • Following Jim Walsh's retirement in the NY-25, now Shotgun Randy Kuhl might retire in the NY-29.  And, like Dan Maffei in NY-29, Eric Massa in NY-29 in on the Blue Majority page.

  • Speaking of Blue Majority, Mark Pera's primary against Dan Lipinski is in just 11 days time (February 5th), and Donna Edwards faces off against Al Wynn only one week later. The time to give to them is now.

  • Feingold continues to attack Edwards:

    Asked to explain what precisely he found problematic, Feingold offered that Edwards had "taken in" voters by switching positions on several key issues.

    "You have to consider what the audience is, and obviously these are very popular positions to take when you are in a primary where you are trying to get the progressive vote. But wait a minute -- there were opportunities to vote against the bankruptcy bill, there was an opportunity to vote against the China [trade] deal. Those are the moments where you sort of find out where somebody is. So I think, people are being taken in a little bit that now he is taking these positions."

    There is no one in the Senate who I respect more than Senator Feingold. While I disagree with him on this one,  I have to admit that Edwards did not engage the big fights he needed to while he was in the Senate.

  • Mark Penn claims that Bill Clinton fundamentally changed the country:

    President Clinton put this country on a fundamentally different path. He changed the fiscal nature of this country, he changed the international relations of this country…He left the country on a totally different trajectory where people felt they were prepared for the 21st century."

    Whatever. "Fundamental change" is not something that can be immediately wiped away by the next President.  Outside of Kosovo, I can't think of anything that Bill Clinton did, against Republican objections, that Bush has not entirely reversed. Considering that "Clintonian" has come to mean a series of incremental, targeted government programs, I can't see how anyone would think that Bill Clinton fundamentally changed the country.

  • Now that we are down to just three candidates, primary straw polls become much simpler. So, I have included one in the extended entry. I'm interested to know where Open Left readers stand.

This is an open thread. Tell the world what is on your mind.

Chris Bowers :: Friday Quick Hits and Straw Poll
Poll
2008 Democratic Primary Straw Poll
Clinton
Edwards
Obama
Other
No Preference

Results


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Friday Quick Hits and Straw Poll | 60 comments
Just Three Candidates? (4.00 / 2)
You do realize you're about to feel the fiery wrath of all those Mike Gravel supporters out there.
Man, you got that right! (4.00 / 15)

[ Parent ]
Best. Comment. Ever. (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
Yep ... (4.00 / 3)
I know that, like most bloggers, I have lost all credibility, proven myself to be anti-progressive...

If you had picked my candidate, if you had focused your attention on the Bushy lies of all the other candidates, if you had actually written about what is without a doubt the most important issue of the 21st Century, if you had followed the only logical progressive approach on Iraq, if you understood anyf'nthing at all, you might be allowed back into the club, Chris. And, frankly, given your record, why should I believe you when you say Edwards wasn't in those polls?


I find Feingold's comments baffling (4.00 / 8)
He criticizes Edwards for making similar votes as Clinton at the time, even though Edwards is running on a more progressive platform than Clinton or Obama. Fine. I can accept that. So why doesn't he just endorse Obama?

I wonder if Feingold's trying to make sure Edwards doesn't get any headway because Edwards is not leading the pack while running on the same platform as Feingold would have. That way, Feingold can attribute the loss to "inconsistency", rather than the issues.

It's silly, but it's a better explanation than the one Feingold gave.

Join us at the Missouri community blog Show Me Progress!

Whats Feingold's problem? (4.00 / 5)
right now Edwards is the only one saying anything about telco immunity. So he's shooting down an ally. Just endorse Obama or whatever like clarkent says; these people really screw their own causes when they go this way shooting down would-be allies on their pet issues.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
It almost sounds personal (4.00 / 2)
Did Edwards screw Feingold's (ex-)wife?  Did he promise votes to Feingold on a few bills then go back on his word?  It's as if Feingold's personal dealings with Edwards outside of the public eye has colored his view against Edwards.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
[ Parent ]
He's said good things about Edwards in the past (4.00 / 1)
especially for his help on McCain-Feingold.

Join us at the Missouri community blog Show Me Progress!
[ Parent ]
Disagreement == EVIL (4.00 / 2)
Yes, Feingold disagrees with your assessment of Edwards and thus he must have some ulterior and sinister motivation.

Or, perhaps, he really believes this and either 1) he is wrong about Edwards or 2) you are wrong about Edwards.

Funny how easily we all become tribal.  If someone attacks our own the opposition must be evil.  The fact that reasonable people can disagree tends to be forgotten.

[ Parent ]
Oh come on.... (4.00 / 5)
Edwards votes were years ago.  Clinton and Obama's votes are TODAY.  I don't see Obama or Clinton walking away from trade deals or funding Bush's war.  Feingold doesn't walk on water anymore than Obama does.  Everybody makes mistakes.  You don't find it remarkable that MLK's son endorsed Edwards over the black guy and the wife of the first black president?  I do, and I think that speaks louder than Feingold's criticisms any day. 
[ Parent ]
Water Walking (4.00 / 1)
It turns out that Obama, Clinton, Edwards and Feingold are all humans who rarely partake in water walking.

My complaint is the need to justify Feingold's criticism by way of some external reason.  Obviously, the part about Elizabeth was a joke, but the basic idea runs throughout the complaints on this thread.  No one seem willing to make the obvious interpretation that Feingold simply has a different opinion.  Instead, we instantly resort to character assassination.  That's just stupid.

All politicians are opportunists and panderers to some degree, including Edwards.  Is Feingold correct that he is the worst of the bunch?  Perhaps.  Perhaps not.

This isn't about Feingold as an authority figure.  This is about Feingold as someone who's judgment and character has a track record.  His opinion is just a data point to help us form our own opinions, nothing more and nothing less.

[ Parent ]
As the only Senator to vote against the Patriot Act in 2001 (0.00 / 0)
among other things, Feingold has distinguished himself as the only principled, staunch civil libertarian in the Senate.  He is the only one who has proven that he will stand firm on his principles even when it means he has to stand alone.

Feingold represents what the Democratic Senate caucus needs to be; a proud progressive who is able to win bipartisan support for good legislation, yet principled and partisan when appropriate. 

His opinion is and ought to be very highly valued.

[ Parent ]
Problems with Feingold's Attack (4.00 / 1)
There was a long thread on this at the Huffington Post.  The comments fell into three categories, Feingold's right, vote for Hillary; Feingold's right, vote for Obama; and Feingold's wrong, stick with Edwards.  I'm in category 3, and here are some reasons why: 

1) Feingold could have been the progressive candidate with the great voting recorde but chose no to run.  Big disappointment.

2) He echoes Charles Krauthammer (see yesterday's WaPo), never a good thing.

3) Feingold's "for a liberal his past votes are a problem" attack is a more coherent variant on the "how hypocritical for a friend of the poor to have money and nice hair" argument that's been used on JE. It's like saying you couldn't support FDR in 1932 because he because he was wealthy, from a conservative family, and had a checkered legislative past. In fact, this is exactly what Republicans told wavering Democrats throughout the Depression in a cynical effort to undermine the New Deal.

4) Glass houses? Feingold was the only Dem to side with Republicans in bringing Clinton's impeachment to trial and he refused to vote no on both articles of impeachment. He voted yes on John Roberts' Supreme Court nomination, and was 1 of 7 Democrats to back Ashcroft for AG (Edwards voted no) in a 58-42 vote that was the Dems' main test of Bush's 2001 nominations. Feingold voted yes on other Bush loser-cronies including Rice at State, Leavitt at EPA, Chertoff at Homeland Security, and Norton at Interior. Also troubling were yes votes on Welfare Reform, Bush's prescription drug boondoggle (Edwards voted no), and a border fence.

Should progressives worry that Feingold's conning them? Of course not. These are a few bad votes measured against his incredible support for progressive issues. Even if Edwards has a higher ratio of centrist votes, Feingold's purity politics argument is an old, self-defeating habit that progressives need to abandon.

5) Are HRC's and BO's voting records better? Without going into detail, the frontrunners have many center-right votes to defend. I don't get why this is particularly damning of JE.

6) Given that Edwards is standing up for progressive issues more than Obama and Clinton, who the hell else should progressives support?
 

[ Parent ]
Yes, It will be interesting to see what position (4.00 / 3)
Feingold takes if Hillary and Obama don't show up for the cloture vote on Monday.
[ Parent ]
Yes, I simply don't (4.00 / 6)
understand why Feingold chooses now to become an anti-Edwards attacker..  He obviously is putting some other interest, personal or otherwise, above the progressive movement.  Feingold has a profound disappointment to me lately.  These comments have caused me to leave Progressive Patriots.  I don't need Russ Feingold to bundle my money.  I can find people like Darcy Burner on my own and contribute to them directly.

Feingold could not get elected in a Red State. I, for one, think Edwards was quite liberal for a Red State senator and I'm glad he became more antiwar.

Feingold seems to not want to let anyone into the club. Nobility in losing seems wasteful to me.  I'd rather change things.

[ Parent ]
Totally agree! (0.00 / 0)
Oh - and I've never heard Feingold say anything about Obama flip flopping on the war and voting with Repubs to fund a war he "opposed."
And never heard Feingold say anything about Edwards voting AGAINST war funding.
Apparently, Feingold is "progressive" when compared to the Senate's club of Centrists. Yikes!

[ Parent ]
Totally agree! (0.00 / 0)
Oh - and I've never heard Feingold say anything about Obama flip flopping on the war and voting with Repubs to fund a war he "opposed."
And never heard Feingold say anything about Edwards voting AGAINST war funding.
Apparently, Feingold is "progressive" when compared to the Senate's club of Centrists. Yikes!

[ Parent ]
Wisconsin is very purple (4.00 / 1)
So your comment is bullshit. Feingold's margin of victory in 2004 was made up of Bush supporters who split tickets.

I disagree with the manner (though not the specifics) of his criticisms of Edwards - you go with the candidates you have, not the candidates you wish you had - but it's got nothing to do with 'purity' or some other silly notion. Feingold just doesn't trust Edwards enough.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
Feingold (4.00 / 3)
Feingold is trying to say that what bothers him about Edwards is that he perceives him to be insincere, running on a different platform than the one he supported in the Senate and ran for President with in 2004 (and using a vastly different style to do it).

While I like Edwards a lot and agree with most of what he's been saying this campaign, Feingold's hitting on some of the reasons why I support Obama. I don't necessarily doubt Edwards' sincerity or anything, I'm just a little uncomfortable with the fact that he could be a member of the DLC one campaign and in a couple of years morph into something completely different. Like Chris has said before, I'm delighted that his views have moved closer to my own. I guess I'm just looking for something a little different.

[ Parent ]
Edwards was never DLC (4.00 / 10)
He's shifted left, sure, but he did NOT do a 180 degree turn.

And as I've said before, given two people occupying the roughly the same point on the ideological spectrum, I'll take the guy who is moving in my direction over the guy moving away and taking potshots at me.

Join us at the Missouri community blog Show Me Progress!

[ Parent ]
I uncomfortable with Obama's votes in the senate (4.00 / 7)
on the war.  I wonder about his sincerity.  And then there is lately the differing positions on single payer. 

I attribute Feingold's comments to supporting the two sitting senators still part of the club.  I find this surprising and disappointing. I question his sincerity now.

I think Feingold is acting just like Kucinich who resented Edwards effectiveness in raising the profile of lefty issues.

Edwards has done more in the last 12 months to raise progressive issues in the public eye than Feingold or Kucinich have done in the last 8 years.  Not everything happens in the senate.

Join other progressives at EENRblog

[ Parent ]
It is irrational to say you agree with Feingold's (4.00 / 3)
criticisms of Edwards and yet say they are part of why you support Obama.

Obama has not fought for the positions he espoused prior to being in the Senate.  Edwards has good explanations and apologies for voting wrong on China and the war authorization. 

I've yet to hear an apology or real explanation from Obama on why he voted to fund the war once in the Senate.  It wasn't until last spring he finally said no to funding.  He displayed zero leadership on Iraq once in the Senate, despite being handed one of the biggest megaphones in histroy by corporate media.  He has not shown leadership for working Americans on the free trade agreements while in the Senate.  He rationalized in the last debate that he will be the one enforcing the treaties.  Meanwhile, the treaties do not look out for our workers or the environment and George Bush is enforcing them.

Hillary doesn't even try to be convincing as a progressive.

My estimation of Russ Feingold plummeted with his vulture-like attacks on John Edwards.  I unsubscribed immediately from his Progressive Patriots.

[ Parent ]
Insincere is exactly how I would describe Obama. (4.00 / 1)
Insincere is exactly why I can't support Obama.  Insincere is exactly what I would vote for Hillary before Obama.  I may not like everything the Clinton's stand for, but I know who they are.  Obama talks a good game, but there is no meat.  He reminds me of a traveling revivalist/evangelical preacher.  He brings the crowds to their feet, passes the basket, and then leaves town with them saved and him lots richer. 
[ Parent ]
look at RFK ... (0.00 / 0)
so Edwards can change? .. can't he?
[ Parent ]
Edwards' record in the Senate is... (0.00 / 0)
actually much more conservative than that of Clinton. Edwards is my second choice and Hillary is way down the list for me, but that's based on his positions today. What Feingold is criticizing, rightly or not, is the votes Edwards cast when he was in the Senate. See how advocacy groups rates his votes, compared to that of Clinton in the same years:

http://www.dailykos....

[ Parent ]
Superficially, Bill Clinton's legacy was quite deep (0.00 / 0)
Which, I think, is what Penn is really saying, whether or not he means to. We don't know if Obama would be substantively any better, but there's little reason I see to believe that Hillary would. I've heard of the "deep shallow", which I think is Bushism in a nutshell. Well, I'd say that Clintonianism is the "shallow deep". Make of that what you wish.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton
I find the Senatorial endorsements interesting (0.00 / 0)
Obviously, as a supporter of a particular candidate, I can find ones that agree with my views or not.  But it just seems to me, that as people who have worked on terms of (more or less) equality with 2 or 3 of the candidates, they have a very interesting perspective.

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.
What the hell is Feingold's problem? (4.00 / 7)
For Pete's sake, a candidate is out there advocating for the things Feingold believes in, and all he can do is take shots at the guy? It's not like Edwards is even in striking distance of the nomination. These comments are totally gratuitous, and I can't help but think they're motivated by some personal animus.
His problem (4.00 / 2)
is that Edwards has been advocating for policies that as a senator he voted against, while he, Feingold, has been speaking AND voting for them all along. Perhaps this would have seemed less nasty had someone else said it about Edwards and Feingold, but that doesn't make it any less true. I commend Edwards on his newfound progressivism and hope that it's genuine--it seems to be to me. But where was he when it counted and he was in a position to actually advance progressivism? Question Feingold's motivation for saying this and the wisdom of saying it right now, but you can't reasonably dispute its fundamental truthfulness.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton
[ Parent ]
And Edwards (0.00 / 0)
still hasn't really explained his transformation as far as I can tell.  He says "I was wrong" on all the major votes, but I still haven't seen him give a convincing argument about his transformation.  And his position is incidentally always in line with what is most politically wise at the time.
[ Parent ]
Er, no (4.00 / 7)
Edwards was the first prowar figure to publicly disavow the war, before Murtha did. He didn't have any political cover, and the public had not turned sharply against the war yet.

Even if you take the cynical view that Edwards shifted left purely out of political considerations, if we are going to give people a cold shoulder who listen when progressives shout, why are we shouting in the first place?

Join us at the Missouri community blog Show Me Progress!

[ Parent ]
When was this? (0.00 / 0)
I sometimes have some trouble remembering everything from four years ago, so I went about using google to get some idea of when Edwards became a dove.  Apparently not before November 2003.  I don't know if you recall, but shortly thereafter Howard Dean shot to the top of the polls in the Democratic primary.  By the convention, Edwards was anti-war.  Perhaps the public hadn't turned sharply against the war before Edwards did, but the constituency Edwards was interested in appealing to (Democrats, as he was trying to become our nominee in this time-period) had.  Am I missing something?

(Note: I am very glad Edwards has turned around, and think he and his progressive positioning have had a salutory effect on the race this time.  I'm mostly interested, at this moment, with the factual claim.)

[ Parent ]
I'm not talking about being critical of the war (0.00 / 0)
Most Democrats criticized the war on some level by early 2004, if not before. But Edwards was the first prowar politician to say, "I was wrong to support the war. It was an incorrect decision even given the information I had back then." I don't know if many prowar politicians who have recanted their war vote ever said "I'm sorry, I was wrong." He did so in 2005, and he also called for an immediate drawdown of American troops followed by a complete withdrawal.

That was one week before Jack Murtha did the same thing.

Join us at the Missouri community blog Show Me Progress!

[ Parent ]
Edwards HAS explained what motivates him now (4.00 / 2)
A quick synopsis:
  • In the 2004 campaign--surrounded by political consultants and message managers, he saw how the Democratic presidential candidate sausage was made.  He did not like what he saw. It is no secret that he and the Kerry campaign managers/staff had differences over what to do and how to do it.

  • Immediately after the 2004 election, Elizabeth was diagnosed and John Edwards was faced with the possibility of losing his best friend and helpmate.  This only 8 years after losing his son. After the election and while his wife was undergoing her initial treatments, Edwards has said he did a lot of reassessing.  He came out of that period more determined than ever to focus on what he believes is important.

    • But his reassessment wasn't 180 degrees overall.  For example, by the time the first funding bill came before the Senate after the Iraq invasion, Edwards was already opposed to the war and the way Bush was executing it.

    [ Parent ]
    He really doesn't trust Edwards (4.00 / 4)
    I like Edwards, but I can see Feingold's point. Edwards spent his time in the Senate being a champion for many things that Feingold opposed--such as the war and trade deals. And now that he's out of the Senate and can no longer vote to make a difference, Edwards has turned around and opposes what he once supported.

    Feingold doesn't trust Edwards' rhetoric now and probably doesn't believe he would govern as a progressive. After all, last time he was in an elected office he sure didn't vote like a progressive.

    [ Parent ]
    Feingold's comments about Edwards are (4.00 / 3)
    disproportionate to the situation. If you look at his comments, they are less about who he might support or why and more about an effort to hurt Edwards.

    Often when someone is overreacting, as Feingold appears to be doing, something else is going on.  I don't presume to know what that "something else" is for Feingold, but it's clear that his desired effect is to hurt Edwards.  Given that Edwards hasn't "hurt" (that anyone has been able to discern or at least reported, the only conclusion I can come to is that something else is going on for Feingold. Others have surmised jealousy that Edwards is running as the progressive candidate that Feingold once toyed with being. I don't know, but something's going on and it diminishes Feingold in my eyes.

    [ Parent ]
    If I am not mistaken .. (0.00 / 0)
    RFK is one of Feingold's heroes ... so frankly I think the world of Russ ... but he should know history .. hell .. I told Russ to his face 15 months ago that he should run ... is he pissed that Edwards stole the mantle .. for now? .. I think Edwards is sincere ... hell .. look at Al Gore .. and look how outspoken he's become .. it took Bush's fuck ups to unleash Gore's passion .. are you telling me Edwards isn't allowed to change? .. I mean shit .. Jim Webb was Navy Sec. in the Ray-gun admin. ... and now he's somewhat of a netroots hero
    [ Parent ]
    Yes (4.00 / 5)
    Either "personal animus" or perhaps a need to kiss-up to his fellow members of the Senate-club. Don't get me wrong, I have deep respect for Feingold, but he's just showing how time and time again, the Democratic leadership fails to understand that the reason they get their butts kicked by the Republicans is because the Republicans will drop past grievances and coalesce behind a unified platform of specific ideas: tax "relief," increased defense spending, business deregulation, authoritarian government, etc. That's why they continue to outflank a majority-Democratic Congress. Democratic leaders prefer to quibble and let the endgame escape them.

    Save Our Schools! March & National Call to Action, July 28-31, 2011 in Washington, DC: http://www.saveourschoolsmarch...
    [ Parent ]
    Courting Liberal Blogosphere (4.00 / 3)
    Edwards has moved from his previous positions and aligned basically 100% with the liberal blogosphere.  I think there are very good reasons to be suspicious.

    I do trust Edwards on issues of poverty.  He talked of this in his Two Americas speeches and seems legitimately committed, even if he did vote for the bankruptcy bill.

    But I have no clue what his real belief in foreign policy and have no good reason to trust what he says now.  He certainly seems to be saying what everyone wants him to say.  I trust he'll pull out the troops like he promised, but what will he do in office when actual problems come up?  I don't get the impression he has any strong beliefs to guide him.

    You can certainly make a case that none of this really matters.  Even if he is faking it (which would be an exaggeration of what I believe), he is still running on a platform he'll be held accountable to pass.

    [ Parent ]
    Like the liberal blogosphere has (4.00 / 4)
    repaid him.

    You're "suspicious."  Edwards could have done better moving to the middle and flanking Obama and Clinton to the right.  His beliefs are real.

    Vote for one of the two corporate candidates.  That is what Feingold is doing.

    [ Parent ]
    If all he cared about was getting elected, why (4.00 / 2)
    would he align with the liberal blogosphere, which is pretty much useless when arrayed against the great uninformed masses, instead of aligning himself with the great corporate powers that be.  Following the status quo of the path to power would have been easy.  It just would have been an empty victory if he could not accomplish what he clearly went into politics for originally.  Read Four Trials, written before this election cycle, to get insight into what motivates Edwards.  He is defined by strong beliefs, that I know.

    Edwards has had plenty to say on foreign policy - all with the kind of long range perspective and forward thinking we have ceased to expect from our "leaders."  Of course, you have to go beyond what GE would like you to know about him, but there is plenty there.

    [ Parent ]
    I'll say it again .. (0.00 / 0)
    do you know what state Edwards represented in the Senate? .. Do you know who the biggest employers are in NC(and more specifically Charlotte)? ... do you know how many bank have HQ in NC? ...  sometimes Senators have to vote their state's interest and not necessarily what they think is best
    [ Parent ]
    People change (4.00 / 3)
    I don't understand this obsession with backwards-looking consistency. Do we really expect that people's political views won't change over time? Are your views exactly the same as they were ten years ago (when Edwards was elected to the Senate)? Five years ago even?

    I mean, it's not like Edwards went 180 degrees. He went from being essentially center-left to mainstream left. He changed his views on a handful of issues, like a lot of people over the years.

    With anybody else - writers, bloggers - we welcome those who've become more progressive. E.g., Paul Krugman. But Edwards, somehow, is fatally and inexorably tainted.

    Furthermore, and this is perhaps the most important point, why, exactly, should we care how 'sincere' Edwards is? Say he's just pandering - so what? Only wankers like David Broder care about 'authenticity' in this sense. We care about results. If Edwards is pandering, I really don't care, as long as he would continue to do so throughout his presidency.

    This much is undeniable: right now, John Edwards is doing more for progressivism than Russ Feingold is. Feingold could have run for president; people were practically begging him to. He decided not to. Fine. But now someone is out there, passionately advocating for the causes he believes in, forcing the two front-runners to the left ... and Feingold's bagging on him?

    [ Parent ]
    Uh. (0.00 / 0)
    This much is undeniable: right now, John Edwards is doing more for progressivism than Russ Feingold is.

    I deny this.

    [ Parent ]
    Really? (4.00 / 4)
    Edwards has pushed Hillary and Obama, one of whom will probably end up being president, far to the left of where they would have otherwise been.

    He is traveling around the country, preaching a fairly militant progressivism.

    I don't mean to pooh-pooh the work that Feingold has done and continues to do, but right now, as a major presidential candidate, Edwards is helping the movement more than anyone else in the country.

    [ Parent ]
    No record of change (4.00 / 1)
    If Edwards was still in the Senate and had a record of change to back him up I would agree with you completely.  But he doesn't.  We literally have nothing to go on other than what he says.

    Heck, I've even come around to believing Edwards, but that doesn't change the fundamental point that this is a pure leap of faith with nothing to back it up.

    [ Parent ]
    But it's irrelevant (0.00 / 0)
    Right now, there is little to no chance that Edwards will end up being the next president.

    So who really gives a rat's ass if someone doesn't believe Edwards is being sincere? It doesn't really matter. He's doing the cause a great service by being a prominent spokesman for it. He won't end up in office so he'll never be able to pass the test that would prove his sincerity to you.

    All Feingold is doing by calling Edwards a phony is undermining his message, because at this point Edwards just IS his message. His personal character is completely irrelevant now.

    And at a certain point, a person has to get the benefit of the doubt. Edwards has changed his perspective over the years, he's repudiated the decisions he's made in the past, and he's put his heart and soul into fighting for a full-throated progressivism. And smug blog commenters sit back and say, "Nah, I don't buy it." Which, fine, you don't buy it. Who cares?

    [ Parent ]
    Irrelevant (4.00 / 1)
    Sorry, I hadn't realized that Edwards the primary candidate and Edwards the potential president had seized to exist and all that is left is Edwards the progressive movement.

    I stand by what Edwards says nearly 100%.

    [ Parent ]
    But (0.00 / 0)
    ...it's true, though, right? The only reason I can imagine why it would matter if Edwards "really" means what he says is that you suspect if he got into office, he wouldn't live up to his rhetoric because he's a closet Blue Dog. I don't share this suspicion, but I can understand it.

    But given that this isn't going to happen, barring unforeseen circumstances, I can't see why such suspicions have any relevance to anything at this point.

    [ Parent ]
    Perhaps (0.00 / 0)
    But all my comments are based on suspicions of how good a president he would be, as are Feingold's, I assume.  Even now, I think that is the fair starting point for any conversation.  He can be discussed in other ways, but I need to know the rules up  front.  :-)  I definitely agree he has been good for the race overall, even if I don't want him to win.  But Gore has been good for the race as well, and he isn't even running.

    We Democrats tend to "fall in love" with our favorite candidates.  Some will claim that is a bad thing, but I disagree.  The good news when our guy loses is we also tend to get over it by the time the convention comes around.

    [ Parent ]
    Clinton and transformation (4.00 / 6)
    Actually, I think it is fair to say that Clinton was transformational -- as President he pretty well trashed the Democratic brand as standing for the mass of the people. All that budget cutting, poor women stomping (welfare reform) and triangulating, was nearly enough to show the country that the Dems just represent a different segment of the moneyed elite than the Repubs. Only a Pub disaster of GWB proportions was enough to resuscitate Dem roots.

    And for all that, I'll vote for the current Clinton if I have to in November. But my efforts go into seeding the lower levels with better progressives.

    Can it happen here?

    he transformed me (4.00 / 1)
    He transformed my view of politicians. After spending a lifetime excusing their bad behavior, I will no longer tolerate or excuse the lies, the manipulation or the infidelity.

    [ Parent ]
    I Like Edwards This Week... (4.00 / 2)
    ...because he's keeping Obama alive in South Carolina, but overall I agree with Feingold.  Bankrupty laws and trade deals and the Iraq war were fundamental issues during Edwards' time in the Senate, and he came down on the wrong side of all of them.  I think he cuts his cloth too easily.
    John Edwards, not Donna (0.00 / 0)
    Pardon the schoolmarmism, but your bullet point "Feingold continues to attack Edwards" comes right after a *Donna* Edwards mention. Gave me a double take for about 0.1 microseconds (what the he$$ is Russ doing bashing Donna too?). You may want to add "John" to that there bullet.
    bill clinton's fundamental changes (0.00 / 0)
    the end of welfare as we know it
    and feingold voted for it (0.00 / 0)
    . . .  glass houses, see above.
    [ Parent ]
    Finally a prominent blogger points out what I have been saying for months. (4.00 / 4)
    That Clinton's legacy is of nothing because a real legacy cannot just be wiped away right after the opposite party gains the presidency.  FDR, LBJ, even Nixon, had true legacies.  New Deal, Social Security, Worker's protections, Medicare, Medicaid, Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, Head Start, EPA, OSHA.

    Clinton?  Welfare "reform" and NAFTA.

    His tiny legacy has the word "Republican" written all over it.

    For some reason, it seems that Obama has some pathological and deep-seated psychological need for Republicans to like him.  Seriously.  It's weird.

    Feingold said, (4.00 / 1)
    when asked his position on Impeachment that

    '....it would be too trying for the nation.'

    He allowed Abu Gonzo to laugh in his face at the Senate hearings into Gonzo's political use of the DOJ.

    Feingold is just another member of 'Versailles'; perhaps a little closer to the progressive end of the continuum but no more eager to see a real populist like Edwards in the WH than Bill, The Hill or Crazy Joe and his boy Obama.

    Ummmmmm...less see is he on the floor with Dodd?

    Can't quite make him out.

    Feingold is not better than he should be.

    Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

    IA-03: Boswell is taking Fallon seriously (0.00 / 0)
    Has a big poll in the field testing Fallon's messages against him:

    http://www.bleedingh...

    Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

    LBJ fundamentally changed the country (0.00 / 0)
    Voting Rights Act, Medicare, and other things that left their mark for decades.

    Bill Clinton did not fundamentally change the country. In fairness to him, though, if the Supreme Court had not robbed Gore, we would probably all be saying that Clinton's fiscal policy fundamentally changed the country.

    Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

    Friday Quick Hits and Straw Poll | 60 comments
    		USER MENU

    Open Left Campaigns

    SEARCH

       

    Advanced Search

    QUICK HITS
    STATE BLOGS

    Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

      © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

    Powered by: SoapBlox