Context (0.00 / 0)

Isn't the paper under new management and isn't the editorial board actually new? If that is true, this is just further signs of media consolidation since its not really an independent voice in media talking but rather one that should have been expected- I guess, if I am right about ownership- my question is why does this surprise you?

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Sun Dec 16, 2007 at 01:37:27 AM CST

I said it didn't really surprixe me (0.00 / 0)

I just thought Obama would win. He gets favorable media coverage, and media types seem to love "let's all come together" bipartisan rhetoric.

---

by: Chris Bowers @ Sun Dec 16, 2007 at 02:45:19 AM CST

[ Parent ]

And he was clearly their second choice (0.00 / 0)

but above all they respect real safety and were probably conservative in their for that reason (conservative little c, not political). There is still a chance that Obama is an unknown quantity- despite what Clinton supporters think (their "she has to do it to get into office and then she will win legislation as  true progressive" shtick)-- I believe and she has shown, what we see, is what we will get. Mostly if she wins, the next 4 years of the present Congress will be transferred to the WH. A lot of capitulation, counter intuitive political bs. No real leadership. She hasn't shown any real leadership in Congress and won, why should she when she becomes President? Everyone sort of knows this, if they are honest.

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Sun Dec 16, 2007 at 10:07:57 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Don't worry Chris... (0.00 / 0)

The video endorsement for Senator Clinton took pains to mention something like Obama had "fired their imaginations".

(We all have "imagined" what he might be, or what he might have said, or what he should have said.)

By the way, they didn't say that "policy proposals don't matter". What they said was that they found that most of the six candidates at their so-called debate were in substantial agreement on matters of policy. They therefore endorsed Senator Clinton because they felt she had a deep track record of public service. I must admit that I do also.

(They insured some of the equanimity on policy by excluding Kucinich and Gravel from the discussion.)

---

by: lentinel @ Sun Dec 16, 2007 at 08:22:15 AM CST

The corporatist agenda must be served! (0.00 / 0)

The elites and business continue their drift to the Reich. Just how much do they think the citizenry are going to put up with. Energy prices, healthcare soaring and we get this sort of thinly veiled attack on Edwards.

Hell, I guess I'll go get fitted for my cardboard box house. That's all that these greed heads seem to want to let me keep.

I'd be surprised if Edwards doesn't use this in his campaign. Something like,

You see that I was not endorsed by the Des Moines Register. They think my rhetoric is 'harshly anti-corporate...' They think that because I'm talking about the problems that face us. They think that because the corporations have gone hog wild in sending your jobs overseas. They think that because the corporations put profit above health. They think that you, you my friends, don't see it like it is. The untrammeled greed of a few in corporate boardrooms across our country is hurting our nation. They at the Register are wrong. I will fight for you and your children and your parents. Join me and lets put America on the people track not the corporate track!

Stuff writes itself.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

---

by: ACitizen @ Sun Dec 16, 2007 at 08:24:30 AM CST

Does it matter? (0.00 / 0)

My gut is that the endorsement doesn't matter as much this year. The 2004 race, with the exception of Gephardt, had a lot of candidates who were less well known, and people hadn't formed really strong opinions of them. This time everyone feels like they know the top 3 really well.

---

by: Mike Lux @ Sun Dec 16, 2007 at 09:22:39 AM CST

Agreed (0.00 / 0)

Anyone who would be swayed by endorsements or the media is probably already supporting Clinton anyways.

---

by: Kanamit @ Sun Dec 16, 2007 at 11:57:35 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Not Really (4.00 / 1)

The thing about this endorsement is that it points back to "preparedness" and Clinton certainly has that over Obama. Remember three years ago he was just a state senator.

The issue of preparedness has been lost in the last month or so due to the attacks on both flanks by Obama and Edwards. Voters will be reminded of who is more prepared for what the new President inherits from Bush - from Iraq to Afghanistan to Israel/Palestine, to the faltering economy. Obama has no real world experiences in those areas.

---

by: progressivesouls @ Sun Dec 16, 2007 at 14:50:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't think people care (0.00 / 0)

about "preparedness" anymore. They want change. The Des Moines Register is not going to change the debate with a single endorsement.

---

by: Kanamit @ Sun Dec 16, 2007 at 18:52:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Completely disagree (0.00 / 0)

I don't think people want another inept Bush Admin, so preparedness is important to lots of us.

---

by: RalphB @ Sun Dec 16, 2007 at 20:03:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Preparedness (0.00 / 0)

already is part of the debate in case you haven't been following the elections in the last year. The Des Moines Register just happened to move it front-of-mind again.

If preparedness was not part of the debate then why has Obama been touting things like his experience living overseas as a child? He very clearly said that helped make him better prepared to understand other cultures and lead. Opps!

Now of course living overseas as a child is not exactly like spending 8 years in the WH and traveling the world and meeting  and talking to world leaders - but that is another conversation.

---

by: progressivesouls @ Sun Dec 16, 2007 at 21:10:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm not saying that it isn't part of the debate... (0.00 / 0)

just that it isn't quite as important in the debate as change, and I doubt one newspaper will change that, especially seeing as there's only a week or so left in the Iowa campaign.

For the record, I'm not an Obama supporter. I'm an Edwards supporter. I'm just arguing the politics of it. I don't care to argue the relative merits of change and experience, everything in that argument has already been said ten thousand times over already. I'm just offering my completely amateur view of what the effect of the endorsement will be.

---

by: Kanamit @ Sun Dec 16, 2007 at 21:36:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I actually agree with some of the editorial (0.00 / 0)

The job requires a president who not only understands the changes needed to move the country forward but also possesses the discipline and skill to navigate the reality of the resistant Washington power structure to get things done.

A Democratic Congress would do to Edwards or Obama what they did to Carter in the 80s.

I'd still like to see Edwards do well in the primaries, at least to change the terms of the debate.  He's already put health care on the agenda for everyone else.

OTOH with the recent embarrassing incompetence of the Clinton response to Obama attacks (If you're looking for the AA vote, how the fuck can you be so stupid as to insinuate that your AA candidate was a drug dealer?  Talk about playing to racist stereotypes.  With accusations like that, you had better shoot to kill, not to wound.), I am starting to reconsider if she can stand up to the RW firestorm that will come next year, and afterwards if she is elected.

---

by: Taylor @ Sun Dec 16, 2007 at 09:51:59 AM CST

....70s.... (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Taylor @ Sun Dec 16, 2007 at 09:57:41 AM CST

[ Parent ]

This would all be nice if it were true (4.00 / 3)

Where has Clinton  in an actual political fight shown she has the political skill to fight and win? The key word is "win." This has the same wiff of Kerry 2004 where everyone was convince without any real proof that Kerry would be the best candidate because he was "electable" without thinking much about it beyond the rhectoric and sentiment. Been there as a voter, done that. This time around if my candidate fails to win, that's bad, but I won't be basing it on faulty non substantiated general feelings. It's nice at the end that you realize that this may not be true of Clinton, but I would and can present evidence that it's deeper than that going back to her failure with healthcare, her under performing Gore in 2000 when she first won the Senate race in NY against essentially a rather patethic opponent, her lack of impressive legislative leadership, her poor judgement with regard to Iraq and Iran, and on and on. The idea that she is some kind of political savant who is going to take on the GOP better than anyone else- seems mostly to me- a fabrication of groupthink.

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Sun Dec 16, 2007 at 10:00:47 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Oddly (0.00 / 0)

Clinton and Obama have the shortest and least substantive "record of public service" of anyone in the field, including Mike Gravel! Well, maybe they and Edwards are tied, but at least he has run for Prez before and was a VP candidate.

Being first lady doesn't count.

---

by: ColoDem @ Sun Dec 16, 2007 at 11:00:56 AM CST

Being first lady doesn't count? (4.00 / 1)

Funny you didn't explain why.

It's ludicrous to say having an office in the West Wing as Hillary Clinton did and having first hand knowledge of just about everything that happened in the WH domestically and in regards to foreign policy from the President himself "doesn't count". Obama or Edwards certainly had nothing close to that kind of first-hand-behind-the-scenes knowledge and insight in their entire lives.

Many First Ladies have been influential in their time in the WH - that is no secret. Hillary is one. I do think that Eleanor Roosevelt would disagree with you that "Being first lady doesn't count".

---

by: progressivesouls @ Sun Dec 16, 2007 at 15:03:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Maybe the assumption was that (0.00 / 0)

in America a fellow american would understand why familial relationships doesn't count as experience. When we start having a aristocracy, I suppose there would be a reason to be confused.

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Sun Dec 16, 2007 at 15:41:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Then why (0.00 / 0)

are so many private businesses handed down to family member if Americans don't count family who have earned their experience as Hillary has? She was elected a Senator on her own and has functioned as one on her own also.

I think you grossly underestimate peoples openness to family relationships when it comes to giving those family members credit for their experience.

---

by: progressivesouls @ Sun Dec 16, 2007 at 16:45:20 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You can not seriously be equating (0.00 / 0)

a private sector example to understand how government power should be obtained? Look-  go  take some basic courses in political science. My being an asshole here is unavoidable. I am not here to teach you the basics regarding the history of aristocratic power among other concepts that you ignorantly gloss over.  I am tired of Americans not even understanding the rudimentary level of how political systems work. Just because you have the right to vote doesn't equal your having the necessary knowledge base to understand these things. Look them up. Understand them. Then come back to me and make such a ludicrous analogy.

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Sun Dec 16, 2007 at 17:41:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I took plenty of PoliSci thankyou (2.00 / 2)

and nowhere does it say what American law abiding citizen can run for or be President. Sounds like you are the one who needs lessons. Other than constitutional term limits the field of who can run is wide open.

You are the one who does not understand how political systems work or how democracy works. You can't make up your own rules and obviously a lot of people disagree with you and your personal prejudice.

But you are right about one thing. You being an asshole here is unavoidable. But then you choose to be so just as you choose to ignore our political system and democracy itself.

Please show us where in our political system it says a wife of a politician cannot run for office. I suppose Jean Carnahan should have never been seated in Mel Carnahan's Senate seat or his daughter can't be Secretary of State in her home state because of her father.

Or that a Wellstone should never run in Minnesota again because they have the wrong last name? That's idiocy.

You say your tired of things. Well I'm tired of people with personal prejudices like you who make shit up just to justify their favored candidates and reject the competition.

You don't make the rules. You can't change the rules...

Go  take some basic courses in political science and quit talking out your backside.

No need to respond because you obviously don't play by the rules and prefer to make up your own right here in front of god and everyone. You should be embarrassed to try to pass such hyperbole as fact.

---

by: progressivesouls @ Sun Dec 16, 2007 at 18:40:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I majored in it and I dont believe (0.00 / 0)

anyone comparing someone in the private sector passing along their company to a relative to the Presidency has taken one course in the subject.

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Sun Dec 16, 2007 at 18:59:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Ha Ha (0.00 / 0)

You SO obviously ignore my points made about what the law and the constitution say about who can run for President.

Cat got your tongue?

For a guy who majored in PoliSci you sure know more about BS than you do about who can run for office. Maybe you were a C and D student like Bushie. Majoring in something doesn't necessarily mean you learned anything.

Back to the rabbit hole for you. ;)

---

by: progressivesouls @ Sun Dec 16, 2007 at 21:15:20 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Let me just add-- I am extremely saddened (0.00 / 0)

by your post. You represent way too much of what passes for the thinking in the american electorate. There are very real reasons why we don't allow status- one's position as the wife of the President-- or for that matter son of the President or brother to count as experience. The foremost of them is accountability. We elect our leaders. Well, at least until this stops being a democratcy, and in which can artistocratic arguments can be made.

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Sun Dec 16, 2007 at 15:44:17 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Experience is earned as I said above (0.00 / 0)

You are to hung up on one word IMO - aristocratic.

If Hillary didn't have bona fide credentials on her own she would be considered at the same level as Kucinich instead of how she is.

As bad as Bush was/is he was still elected as governor and re-elected. That was on his own - not because of his daddy. Although name recognition is not a negative it doesn't seal the deal - you must bring something to the table.

You forget to think about how many children or other family members in our countries history have been hired in private companies because of another influential family members. Is that bad also? Don't be naive.

---

by: progressivesouls @ Sun Dec 16, 2007 at 16:56:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I am hung up on understanding (0.00 / 0)

power, accountability and concepts that apparently you have no basis in understanding. Good luck.

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Sun Dec 16, 2007 at 17:41:39 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You are hung up on (0.00 / 1)

concepts that you just to MAKE UP.

Again - show us where the spouse of a present politician or former politician running for public office is against the law and the constitution.

You can't - so live with it and quit making shit up. You are making a fool of yourself. Seriously you are.

---

by: progressivesouls @ Sun Dec 16, 2007 at 18:45:17 PM CST

[ Parent ]

you are ignorant (0.00 / 0)

and sadly you don't even know it. like i said, good luck. like much of this country i feel you will need it.

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Sun Dec 16, 2007 at 18:58:26 PM CST

[ Parent ]

No You Are The One Who Is Ignorant (0.00 / 0)

And now that you have been called on it due to your absurd screed on who you think can and cannot run for office all you can do is name-call - LOL. You would do well in Pakistan my friend!!! Why don't you move there so you can be with like minded people.

And while you are at it why don't you shoot off a letter to Ted Kennedy and tell him what an ass he is for being in the Senate on the coattails if his brother John. Be sure to tell him that his other brother Robert has no business running for President either because he was trying to create an aristocracy - LOL

PoliSci major my ass! More like a poser.

Ignorant is thinking you can make up your own rules on who can run for President and ignore what is reality...

And dude - - you are Ignorant Squared.

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!

---

by: progressivesouls @ Sun Dec 16, 2007 at 21:26:13 PM CST

[ Parent ]

the last little bit of your post tells me all I need know (0.00 / 0)

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Sun Dec 16, 2007 at 21:31:39 PM CST

[ Parent ]

YUP (0.00 / 0)

Pretty much sums you up doesn't it?

---

by: progressivesouls @ Sun Dec 16, 2007 at 21:38:26 PM CST

[ Parent ]

But ER never planned to run for President (4.00 / 1)

She was reluctant to take the delegate to the UN formation role, but Harry Truman called her the First Lady of the World and knew she was an asset.  She accept the charge and help craft the first Human Bill of Rights.  But ER was independent for a long time after FDR passed away because of the relationships she had built on her own.  If anything, her relationships helped FDR more than the other way around.

---

by: Benny @ Sun Dec 16, 2007 at 18:03:57 PM CST

[ Parent ]

She was also not asking people to elected (4.00 / 1)

her as President based on the fact she was first lady. Let's not gloss over the true flaw with the comparison- namely for what purpose are we using the information.

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Sun Dec 16, 2007 at 18:43:21 PM CST

[ Parent ]

What A Dim Bulb You Are (0.00 / 0)

Hillary is running on her total life experiences not just a being a First Lady. What is she supposed to deny that she was? Is she supposed to deny the unique experiences and knowledge she gained from being First Lady?

You forget she was an activist like the rest of us in college. Yo forget that she is an accomplished attorney just like Obama. You forget she was not only in the WH but in the Governors mansion which also gave her unique experiences none of the other candidates except Richardson have.

Man! When the wattage was handed out to operate you were not even in line. Probably out fantasizing how you would run a country and who could and could not run for office - all at your whim. Right General Musharraf?

---

by: progressivesouls @ Sun Dec 16, 2007 at 21:37:42 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The Point of ER (0.00 / 0)

was that being a First Lady can count for experience. Obviously Truman and many other world leaders sure thought so. I guess that fact went over your head.

The other point is that if she wanted to run for President she could have as it is perfectly legal and ethical.

---

by: progressivesouls @ Sun Dec 16, 2007 at 21:29:39 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Watershed Comment in a Watershed Election (4.00 / 3)

This statement in the Des Moines endorsement of Clinton is a gem:

"His harsh anti-corporate rhetoric would make it difficult to work with the business community to forge change."

Finally, the pro-corporate establishment has gotten the message that the revolutionary paradigm shift that is taking place in American politics is being driven by popular resistance to the ravages of the corporatocracy, as articulated by Edwards, Kucinich and Gravel.

Make no mistake, this statement is a watershed moment in American politics. It shows that Clinton has clearly and wilfully positioned herself on the corporatist side of the equation and that Edwards has articulated a message that is the clarion call to revolutionary change in American life.

Opinion polls have shown that the large majority of Americans think that corporations have too much power and make too much money. (See Pew Research Trends in Political Values and Core Attitudes: 1987-2007.) These polls have also shown that the vast majority of Americans recognize that their elected representatives do not defend their interests but those of their corporate campaign contributors, the majority of whom are wealthy individuals and large corporations.

Edwards' increasingly pointed criticisms of corporate power accurately reflect the views of discerning voters, especially those whose livelihoods, health and retirements have been compromised by corporate greed and legislators who refuse to enforce laws prohibiting windfall and excess profits.

The inexorable march to a progressive takeover of American society is being propelled forward by the spreading economic and financial ruin of American workers whose costs of living are outstripping their stagnant real incomes.

Edwards is standing with many Iowa voters who understand these ruinous dynamics. I hope he wins the Iowa primary but even if he doesn't, the die is cast. The corporatists and their candidates like Clinton and Obama, together with the political parties they have co-opted by buying the electoral process, are on their way out, whether it is this presidential election or the next.

---

by: Nancy Bordier @ Sun Dec 16, 2007 at 11:33:29 AM CST

I certainly hope you're right, but... (4.00 / 1)

...if awareness of and resistance to corporate power is becoming pervasive among Americans, and especially (I would think) Democrats, why are so many of these Democrats still supporting Clinton in the primary? Because she's not just a corporatist, she's pro-war as well.

  In a strictly logical universe, Hillary Clinton would be but a blip on the primary charts, given how un-Democratic she is on the issues across the board. But while her campaign's struggled of late, she remains in a strong position overall, and retains overwhelming establishment support.

  John Edwards should be running away with it, if the voters really were all that anti-corporatist. Chris B. said that Hillary's appeal likely comes more from identity-based support than issue-based support, but I wonder if there's anything more to it...

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

---

by: Master Jack @ Sun Dec 16, 2007 at 11:45:43 AM CST

[ Parent ]

because they are democrats general identity (4.00 / 1)

not understanding on any deep level of what any of these candidates stand for. its pretty much that simple. or as the girl i know at my day job said to me  "you know i support clinton, but i just realized i really can tell you why."

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Sun Dec 16, 2007 at 11:55:31 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I think we are going to see.... (4.00 / 1)

............ a clearer picture once they actually caucus in IA. Despite what Chris and others are saying I believe that no one actually knows what's happening there.

I look for a massive surprise. To my untrained eye it looks as if Obama/Hillary and the pundits are all engaging in a conversation completely disconnected from the reality of American life. All this talk about 'experience', 'hope', 'vetted', Oprah, Shaheen etc. ignores:

Exploding economic chaos in housing, jobs and healthcare....

Gridlock in D.C....

Moral bankruptcy at the national level in politics....

Massive stupidity about culture and society...

The obscene rush to secure even more of the shrinking pie for the uber-rich....

The total abdication of any action by Congress and the Executive to do anything other than continue to line the pockets of those who put the leaders of both in power is now becoming clear to the public.

The only question is is do enough see it to constitute a majority now or will be have to wait another cycle?


Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

---

by: ACitizen @ Sun Dec 16, 2007 at 12:00:59 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Why Democrats are still supporting Clinton (4.00 / 2)

It is going to take time for voters to connect the dots between their weakening economic and financial status and the corporations that dominate the economy AND call the shots politically in terms of who runs and wins elective office AND dominate the legislative process through the votes they buy via campaign contributions.

But the majority of voters will make this connection eventually because erosion of their livelihoods and real income will continue. Corporations will not leave one dollar on the table unless they are forced to do so by elected officials who pass laws:

a) increasing corporate tax burdens and those of wealthy corporate households;

b) prohibiting corporations from reaping windfall and excess profits;

c) raising minimum wages and

d) more equitably distributing the tax burden among those most able to pay, so as to allow working Americans to keep more of their income.

There is no compromise here because as Edwards has pointed out and knows from experience corporations act to maximize their profits by reducing their labor costs and operating expenses. Corporations that leave money on the table are punished by their investors, shareholders and the stock market.

What needs to happen - and what will eventually happen - is that progressive elected officials like John Edwards force corporations  to reduce their share of national income, which has been rising in recent years as corporate executives increase their compensation and corporate profits and hold down wages and salaries of employees below the executive level. The Wal-Marts of the world that refuse to pay living wages to their employees will not alter their self-serving profit-maximizing practices until popularly elected governments force them to do so.

Many voters have already figured this out. Increasing numbers of them are reading the writing on the wall just by looking at their deteriorating economic and financial status.

But just as it took 30 years for corporate interests to get a stranglehold on our democracy, it is going to take time for voters to connect the dots and elect representatives who will protect and defend their vital interests against those of economic and financial predators.

The more voters whose economic and financial fortunes are wiped out by predatory corporations aided and abetted by the legislators in their pockets, the faster the American political system will be taken over by progressive forces.

Edwards, Kucinich and Gravel are the 21st century messengers of these progressive voters who have connected the dots and their friends, neighbors and co-workers who are on their way to becoming the majority and taking over the American political system. It's only a matter of time.

---

by: Nancy Bordier @ Sun Dec 16, 2007 at 12:54:32 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I guess you missed things like her (0.00 / 0)

speech in 2006 and proposed legislation where she not only wanted to take a way big oils tax current breaks but to also impose a temporary fee on big oil profits that exceed a 2000-2004 profit baseline to help pay for the clean energy transition.

You also ignored her 'Progressive Rating' by many groups as has been front paged here many times - a rating by the way which far exceeds Obama's. Oprah also neglected to mention that to the voters.

http://www.senate.go...

---

by: progressivesouls @ Sun Dec 16, 2007 at 15:13:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Clinton's Overall Track Record (4.00 / 2)

You are correct to point out that Clinton has espoused progressive policies on key issues from time to time.

But she has also espoused policies that are harmful to progressive causes and remained silent on these causes when she should have spoken out against them.

Moreover she has not come out strongly on the core issue, which is the need to cut back corporate power in Washington, particularly through campaign finance reform that limits their contributions to campaigns like hers and support of the 36,000 lobbyists who stalk the halls of Congress and call the shots.

In a major debate last summer sponsored by DailyKos, she could have and should have strongly condemned the overwhelming influence of lobbyists in Washington. But instead she actually came to their defense by pointing out that certain lobbyists do defend the public interest rather than private interests. 

Clinton tries to be all things to all schools of thought with her triangulating rhetoric but when you get right down to it she is not leading the charge against the source of most of the miseries from which working Americans are suffering, which is excessive corporate profiteering and control of legislative decision-making.

John Edwards has staked out this terrain with conviction while Clinton continues to mince her words and sidestep taking a principled position. Excessive corporate power is emerging as one of the key issues of the 2008 presidential campaign but Clinton continues to sit on the fence on this and other pivotal issues of our time.

---

by: Nancy Bordier @ Sun Dec 16, 2007 at 18:06:37 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Progressive Ratings are a bogus statistic (0.00 / 0)

These rating really tell us nothing.  The GOP has controlled Congress for the past 12 years.  Any Democrat who has come into office in the past 12 years has little to show but their reliability as part of the opposition.  While this is important, it tells us little about how progressive they really are as a policy maker.  This is what scares me about all these candidates. 

Clinton and Obama haven't impressed me in their role as opposition in Senate.  Sure they may vote the right way but neither has shown me anything as a leader.  Give me Russ Feingold.  Dodd has really shown up since he has been a candidate, but that too is disappointing since he hasn't been reliably vocal in the past.  I think the three top tier candidates have been disappointing in their roles as Senators.

At this point their progressiveness can only be judged by their platforms on the stump.  Clinton and Obama are not progressive.  Edwards is barely there. Let's give the candidates progressive ratings based on what they would proposed to do as president.  Kucinich would probably be the only one to score highly.

 

---

by: Ricky @ Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 10:30:10 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Well Put! (0.00 / 0)

It's been easy for 'Democrats' to pose as such. Being in the minority all they had to do was give 'lip service' to the concerns of the citizenry. They always had the excuse that their 'hands were tied' by the Republicans.

Now we, and the citizenry, are seeing that far from their 'hands being tied' folks such as Reid, Clinton, Shumer, Emmanuel, Pelosi, Feinstein and yes even Boxer have their hands stuck in the pockets of Corporate America and the MIC and are finding that they can't get their hands out of said pockets.

We must help the citizenry understand this and also understand that  if they will educate themselves on the issues that they can reform, a word that needs to be heard much more often, the political process so that they....

The citizens of this nation.

Are represented.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

---

by: ACitizen @ Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 18:02:26 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Des Moines businesses (0.00 / 0)

The largest private employers in the Des Moines area are insurance companies and hospitals (some of them may be not for profit).  The profitability of insurance companies depends mostly on how well the stock market does.  Secondarily, the performance of government agencies like FEMA and the Army Corpos of Engineers in preventing or limiting disasters is also a big factor.  W was terrible for this industry; Bill Clinton much better.

The other businesses in the area depend on general prosperity particularly home repair and renovation and new home construction: Pella Windows and Doors, Maytag (now part of Whirlpool), Jenn-Air (ditto), and maybe Amana.  These businesses were doing great for a while as housing boomed but not of late.

Some of the traditional auto and farm equipment jobs have been pretty much ravaged.  John Deere was the only name like that I recognized as a top employer.  The state and the school systems (including colleges) are big employers but don't seem to get much credit.  The University if Iowa Hospital, for example, domninated the foulups in naming a new university President.

I don't think they are talking about Pella here.  Betcha it is the insurance companies and (secondarily) the hospitals.  Single payer?  Not if the business community has its way.

Anybody know if I'm way off base?

---

by: David Kowalski @ Sun Dec 16, 2007 at 15:46:42 PM CST