Change, the Status Quo Way

by: Matt Stoller

Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 13:36


Paul Krugman again demonstrates why Obama is a just a problem candidate for Democrats.
Matt Stoller :: Change, the Status Quo Way

O.K., that's politics. But now Mr. Obama has lashed out at Mr. Edwards because two 527s - independent groups that are allowed to support candidates, but are legally forbidden from coordinating directly with their campaigns - are running ads on his rival's behalf. They are, Mr. Obama says, representative of the kind of "special interests" that "have too much influence in Washington."

The thing, though, is that both of these 527s represent union groups - in the case of the larger group, local branches of the S.E.I.U. who consider Mr. Edwards the strongest candidate on health reform. So Mr. Obama's attack raises a couple of questions.

First, does it make sense, in the current political and economic environment, for Democrats to lump unions in with corporate groups as examples of the special interests we need to stand up to?

Second, is Mr. Obama saying that if nominated, he'd be willing to run without support from labor 527s, which might be crucial to the Democrats? If not, how does he avoid having his own current words used against him by the Republican nominee?

Part of what happened here, I think, is that Mr. Obama, looking for a stick with which to beat an opponent who has lately acquired some momentum, either carelessly or cynically failed to think about how his rhetoric would affect the eventual ability of the Democratic nominee, whoever he or she is, to campaign effectively. In this sense, his latest gambit resembles his previous echoing of G.O.P. talking points on Social Security.

Beyond that, the episode illustrates what's wrong with campaigning on generalities about political transformation and trying to avoid sounding partisan.

It may be partisan to say that a 527 run by labor unions supporting health care reform isn't the same thing as a 527 run by insurance companies opposing it. But it's also the simple truth.

The reality is that Obama just doesn't take health care very seriously.  He embarrassed himself at the SEIU health care in Nevada by coming unprepared, and his arguments and attacks on progressives advocating for health care policy changes suggest that he just doesn't care that much about the problem.

Here's what I mean.

"I don't think in ideological terms. I never have," Obama said, continuing on the healthcare theme. "Everybody who supports single-payer healthcare says, `Look at all this money we would be saving from insurance and paperwork.' That represents 1 million, 2 million, 3 million jobs of people who are working at Blue Cross Blue Shield or Kaiser or other places. What are we doing with them? Where are we employing them?"

Kos lays it out perfectly.

The lawyer for California teen Nataline Sarkisyan charged today that the only reason Cigna Health Care officials changed their minds and approved a liver transplant for the desperate girl was they knew it was too late and they wouldn't have to pay for it.

Sarkisyan, 17, died Thursday just hours after Cigna reversed its decision and approved the procedure it had previously described as "too experimental…and unproven." Now the Sarkisyan family hopes manslaughter or murder charges will be pressed.

Their lawyer, Mark Geragos, says he will refer the case to prosecutors for possible criminal charges against the insurer, Cigna HealthCare.

Insurance companies are run by murderers, but Obama just doesn't seem very interested in that problem.  I just don't see how this is any change from the status quo.


Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
All of the Obama supporters .. (4.00 / 1)
are gonna accuse you of being an Obama hater ...  a lot of them elsewhere are already ganging up on Krugman ... because they see him as a hater .. even though, he like you, lays out his case with Obama's own words and deeds

Heh. (4.00 / 1)
Your prophecy was fulfilled in only eight minutes.

[ Parent ]
...and the post in question seems to have been removed (0.00 / 0)
while I was typing mine.

[ Parent ]
Matt, I think you missed the point of Kos's post (4.00 / 4)
It seemed pretty obvious he was saying that giving the insurance companies EVEN MORE money via mandates is NOT the solution. 

Exactly (0.00 / 0)
I think back to 15 years ago when my wife and I were barely scraping by and couldn't afford health insurance, and scratch my head over all these so-called liberals thinking its a great idea to force people to purchase something, rather than pay for it out of tax revenue.

I mean what's next for us lefties?  Should we get rid of public schools and tell parents that they need to just find a good private school to send their children to (with a bit of subsidy if you're lucky) or face a huge fine?

Or how about rather than give volunteer soldiers better pay and support we just reinstate the draft and so that we take away young people's freedom and force them to die for Bush against their will?  Oh, wait... 


[ Parent ]
winning (0.00 / 0)
Insurance companies are run by murderers, but Obama just doesn't seem very interested in that problem.  I just don't see how this is any change from the status quo.

I suspect thats because he wants to actually win rather than just vent.

So cozying up to the Insurance industry is... (4.00 / 1)

......................gonna help him 'win'? What planet are your from pal? Voters are gonna vote for Obama because he wants to protect insurance company jobs!

Where was Senator 'SellOut' on CAFTA? Oh...I guess, somehow, in Obama's 'I am never wrong' universe that don't count.

Ah, never mind....

Any of the ReThug candidates, except maybe 'Turkeyneck' Thompson, would beat Obama like a drum in GE so it really doesn't matter what sort of bottomless pit Obama is digging for himself.

And he's not  even gonna get that far.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.


[ Parent ]
Ummmm... (0.00 / 0)
Obama voted against CAFTA.  What the hell are you talking about?

BTW, where was Edwards on the China trade deal when he was a Senator?  So-called "right-to-work"???  For that matter, didn't he co-sponsor the AUMF while in the Senate?


[ Parent ]
Whoops! (4.00 / 1)
I am wrong...but looky...looky here. This is what Obama said in the Chicago Trib:

I wish I could vote in favor of CAFTA. In the end, I believe that expanding trade and breaking down barriers between countries is good for our economy and for our security, for American consumers and American workers. CAFTA would benefit farmers here in Illinois as well as agricultural and manufacturing interests across the country.

We also shouldn't kid ourselves into believing that voting against trade agreements will stop globalization--especially ones like CAFTA, where the countries involved have combined economies one-sixth the size of Illinois'.

Globalization is not someone's political agenda. It is a technological revolution that is fundamentally changing the world's economy, producing winners and losers along the way. The question is not whether we can stop it, but how we respond to it. It's not whether we should protect our workers from competition, but what we can do to fully enable them to compete against workers all over the world.

You see he's really against it only he voted for it! Makes it hard to say what he's for or against. And if you hang around here you will find out that that's sorta...well...it's....

What he does all the damn time.

As far as what JRE did in 200whatevere take that tired argument back to dKos and leave it there. Edwards has done something neither Senator Waffle or Senator Cackle have.

He's evolved. He's changed his position on more than one issue. Every time for the better. If your really want someone who refuses to adapt and evolve in the light of changing circumstances or thinking about how the problems that face the nation might be solved.

Why you must really like 'Dubya'. And Clinton would be 'your girl'.

Sorry to get snippy but I've had more than enough about how Edwards did this or that five years ago. What did Obama do five years ago....

Besides vote 'present'.

Get the point?

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.


[ Parent ]
I don't see the problem (0.00 / 0)
In the stuff you quoted, Obama seems to be saying that globalization is an irreversible technological trend.  We can't stop it, we can only hope to have a say in how it plays out. He's not against trade agreements in principle, just against one particular agreement based on the specifics it contains.  If that is what he is actually saying, then I wholeheartedly agree.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
So, You Can't Quite Be Sure What He's Saying? (4.00 / 1)
If that is what he is actually saying, then I wholeheartedly agree.

It's called the Rorschach theory of politics.  It's a wonderful way to campaign.  Governing, though. Not so much.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
No, I disagree- this isn't on Obama it's on his supporters (4.00 / 1)
He's being a smart politician. Frankly, I don't blame him for that. However, no way should they be accepting these less than answers from him. Less than a month and half ago they were excoriating Clinton for her none answers and double speak, and now when Obama does it- its sage politics. Nope- don't think so. Wrong with her, wrong with him. If they owned up to it, and said triangulation is the strategy they endorsed- that would at least be honest and debate worth. But this game of let's play deny the facts- I mean what has Obama done in the last 4 years of being a Senator to merit this passion? Show me the record in the last 4 years, and then let's talk. If you got to go back 4 years, that should tell you something right there.

[ Parent ]
I Was Just Gently Questioning The Wisdom (0.00 / 0)
of praising someone for something you're not sure they said.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Okay, the usual..... (0.00 / 0)

.....Obama dialogue. We could easily spend all week on the sort of thing.

But....

I've got a much more serious problem with him on this. Where is it written that 'Globalization' as he defines it, no worker or environmental protection no unions allowed, is inevitable.

This is the real core of the problem. Obama accepts 'conservative' frames and worse he accepts their 'reality'.

If he wants to be Joe  Lieberman let him join Joe's 'Party of One'. He's just as dumb as Reid. And yes I've come to understand that these folks who went to Harvard and legislate in the deliberative bodies of the most educated and informed society that ever existed are just not.....

Smart enough to get the job done.

They wouldn't last a year in small business on their own merits. 'Course the oligarchy doesn't really want smart people in the Senate or House.

Too hard to manipulate.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.


[ Parent ]
Well, Sure (0.00 / 0)
If you want to actually think.

But can't you just feel the love?

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Bullshit. (0.00 / 0)
You always knew Obama voted against CAFTA.  You just wish someone hadn't called you on it.  It's a great way to smear fellow Democrats...in addition to calling them "Cackle" and Waffle."

All Obama says in that quote is that he supports trade deals that are written well (i.e. strong worker, environmental, child labor, etc. provisions), which unfortunately CAFTA was not.  I don't know that there are any of us here who don't support fair trade.


[ Parent ]
And what pray tell do you mean by (0.00 / 0)
'fair trade'. I think you might be surprised by what 'some folks' think of that around here.

And if you don't like my opinions about Senators Cackle and Waffle that of course is your prerogative.

But....

It's not going to change my opinion that both these candidates are Democrats in Name Only and I vehemently oppose their nomination. Both have repeatedly lied about their positions on issues of extreme importance for our nation and neither has any interest in the progressive agenda.

Don't like that?

Tough.


Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.


[ Parent ]
What?!? (4.00 / 3)
That represents 1 million, 2 million, 3 million jobs of people who are working at Blue Cross Blue Shield or Kaiser or other places. What are we doing with them?

You've got to be freaking kidding me. 

Is that how Obama thinks?  "I wish fewer Americans would be murdered by firearms.  Oh, wait, think of all the people who work for Smith & Wesson.  I wish we could develop alternative energy.  But not without costing any oil company executives their jobs, of course."

Sheesh.


No he's not kidding! (4.00 / 2)
He just thinks he's sooooooooo smart and soooooooooo audacious that you won't notice that....

His policy positions don't make any sense.

Unless your are a rich fan of the Lieberman caucus.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.


[ Parent ]
None of them seem very interested (0.00 / 0)
In going to the problem. Only Dennis Kucinich has a real plan but he has no chance of winning. Do you know who else didn't think in ideological terms? Paul Wellstone. He was bad at the health care forum, he doesn't support universal health care. I'm not going to defend him from that. I have repeatedly contacted him and talked with his team pushing them to move to support a Medicare for All system. I helped start a group on My.BarackObama.com pushing for that. But all you do is attack him. And don't try to say I hate Paul Krugman. I probably have more books of his then anyone here defending him. I have been reading his stuff for a long time.

However all you do is attack him. Just a problem canidate? The 527 attack is lame, the health care attack is lame. But you're attack is lame. If you want to seriously push this issue then push it like you did residual forces. It's much more important a issue. Don't just attack Obama. Attack them all, none of them are right. Just attacking Obama makes it seem like you're just attacking Obama. Do something about it. Push all the candidates towards single-payer.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power


Right (4.00 / 1)
The problem is, he has argued, as has Krugman, that in the very least, Edwards IS right, in the sense that he has been forceful on Health Care Reform, supported Mandated Coverage, and has taken stronger ideological positions. You can't just say "none of them are right," because the fact is, Matt and Krugman disagree, and have arguments to support it.

As well, I don't quite understand why people always seem to get so upset when Matt or Chris attack the positions of someone. I am an Edwards supporter, but he messed up with his early harsh Iran rhetoric, and they were RIGHT to bust him for it. Seriously, you should support a person for their positions, not for their persona, and if someone has a valid criticism of a position of your candidate, you should take it into consideration, and not just accuse the person of being biased.

Former Edwards Supporter, Obama Supporter since January 30, 2008


[ Parent ]
Here's The Irony (4.00 / 1)
Edwards is suppossed to be this emotional, ideological dude, just this side of demagogery, while Obama is the flexible voice of reason.

But on the internets, at least, one cannot criticize Obama rationally and get a primarily rational response.  Though there may be one or two voices of reason, the predominant Obamaphile reaction is personalized, emotional and cultish.  OTOH, there are plenty of Edwards supporters like you around who don't agree with him on everything, and can readily engage in rational debates on the issues.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Sure you can. Here's mine. (0.00 / 0)
I disagree with you.
I cannot prove that you're wrong--just as you can't prove that I am.  Not that that makes our opinions equal; it doesn't.  We're largely arguing about predictions about the future that will only be partially tested.

Obama's approach will lead to this; Edwards' to that.  And so on.  Only one will happen so there's no strictly objective basis for comparison, even in the future.

Ironically, part of what we're arguing about is the political viability of differing approaches to political competition.  Edwards, Obama, Clinton and their supporters -- and others -- are trying out different tactics/strategies.  Can Obama develop and sell an alternative to old-fashioned economic populism or centrism?  What does he do when challenged with methods he eschews?  Can Edwards compete and withstand similar challenges without opening himself up to charges of hypocrisy or non-viability over the long haul?  Can Clinton win a "change" election? 

Part of this competition is exactly what we're doing here.  You poke at a candidate; people respond.  People poke back at you; you respond.

From my perspective, your responses are often a very sophisticated version of what you complain about:  there's essentially an emotional nugget, like kryptonite, that evokes an emotional response.  Obama and Dixiecrats.  Obama supporters and cultishness.  You wrap it up in extended analysis--but there's a reason rational, rationale, and rationalization derive from the same word--when human beings talk, think about important things, emotions are essential, challenging, and almost always not entirely accounted for.

The difference is more a matter of degree and presentation than I think you allow for, IMHO.  You are operating at a much "higher" level of advocacy than mere commenters responding to your posts (so of course the rational stuff is stripped down).  And much of what you write can be boiled down to the same emotions and assumptions other human being make.  Of course I may be wrong and none of this in any way discredits you or your positions.  But it does point to a possible answer to your question about why Obama and his supporters seem so different, irrational, or incoherent to you.


[ Parent ]
I still return to the central problem (4.00 / 1)
We've tried what Obama is proposing for almost 2 decades as a party. The only reason you see the strife you see- is that the right as attacked no matter how many times we've tried it. It's the central failing of your argument that you assume that you can unilaterally do this. So long as you don't understand that you are arguing esssentially the same things that have been tried and failed before (new packaging doesn't matter - no more than anything Madison avenue says substantively matters about a product), you will always miss the points being made to you. This isn't complicated- when a strategy fails and fails and fails- the analysis can not be- "well, this idea is still viable." No- it's not.

[ Parent ]
Actually, no we haven't. (0.00 / 0)
We've had Clinton buying moderate support by joining the conservative attack on liberalism per se.

We've had liberals who are clearly inept against the vast right wing noise machine because they don't really understand people who aren't liberal -- or at least the kinds of things that might lead such people to support liberal causes.

We liberals like to talk about reality having a well-known liberal bias.  We like to think we're good at understand people and communicating with them.  We like to think that we govern and lead well.  We've obviously been wrong about something, somewhere along the line. 

If it were just a matter of being more liberal and "fighting" harder, well ... Paul Wellstone, Ted Kennedy, Bernie Sanders ... C'mon.

That strategy has been around forever and by itself it just doesn't work.  Obama is proposing something that really hasn't been tried before--not on a large scale:  a relatively sophisticated, liberal political populism.

IMO.


[ Parent ]
You have no idea what you are talking about (4.00 / 2)
Seriously, arguing with someone like you is exhausting. We are, first, referring to the leadership of the party, not random people you can name. Sanders is not even a Democrat, and actually disproves your point because he's a Socialist who won in a state not known for its socialism. Dascle tried what you said. Clinton started his Presidency in 1993 where Obama is now and got eatten alive his first year. I can frankly go on, but you won't listen, and I really lack the patience to argue with you over what you could easily find out on your ownif this were about something more than a belief you settled on due to the candidate you support. ANd yes, I mean to insult you. I mean- really- ineptness at the right wing machine when you candidate pulled a Kerry by asking the GOP to refrain from using the 527s against him?If you don't understand why this is a problem- it's about strength. LIke with the swiftboating of Kerry- Kerry lost the minute he asked bush to call off the attack dogs. It came across as weakness. As does Obama's actions. Again, you probably don't see it that way. Ironically because you think you are speaking to conservatives. Nearly every conservative I know when talking about Kerry mentions that incident - not the swiftboating- as a turning point in their view of Kerry as weak. "Nearly everyone of them- admittedly moderate conservatives- have said to me- "if he can't fight a bunch of ads, how is he going to fight terrorists.' WHat you think of as Obama's ability to "work" with them will come off as unprincipled. It's really that simple.

[ Parent ]
You're confused about what I wrote. (0.00 / 0)
Sanders is not being used by me as an example of a Democrat (as you seem to think); he's being used as an example of someone who's pretty liberal and willing to fight. 

You actually kind of prove my point.

Sanders--and pretty much everyone else using the if-we-would-just-be-more-liberal-and-fight-harder school of political salvation--is right where they started.  On the left of a coalition trying to achieve progressive goals but not getting very far. 

Being liberal and fighting for it is necessary but insufficient. 

We disagree on where Obama fits into that.



[ Parent ]
But There IS Evidence! (4.00 / 1)
We've tried Obama's way for 30-40 years now.  Contrary to his Lieber-speak, the Democrats are not relentlessly partisan just like the Republicans.  It is simply a lie to say so.  L-I-E--lie.

Democrats have repeatedly tried to make nice, and the GOP has eaten them alive for their troubles.  This is not opinion, it is historical fact.  It happened when Reagan/Bush broke the law and violated separation of powers with the Iran/Contra scandal, and the first thing the Democrats said, even before hearings started was, "Nobody's talking about impeachment."  It happened when John Kerry still had a spine, and the rest of the Senate just ignored his investigations.  It happened when Special Prosecutor Walsh--a lifelong Republican--issued his final report saying that Bush was involved in Iran/Contra and his last-minute pardons paid off those who might have rolled on him, and the Democrats said, "What's on TV?"

It's happened over, and over, and over again as many times as Lucy has pulled the football on Charlie Brown.  And I've got to say that by now, anyone who thinks they can play nice with these guys--you've got to pass the Lucy primary first.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
I agree with almost all that you say here. (0.00 / 0)
I don't think Obama is repeating much.
You obviously don't see what I see--which is fine.
Maybe I'm wrong.

Tell me this.  What are you proposing that is different?
Fight harder? 

I think we need to fight smarter.


[ Parent ]
You Can't Fight Smarter If You're Not Fighting At All (0.00 / 0)
Obama is parroting the Versailles CW: the problem is polarization, not movement conservatives. Liberals are to blame as well as conservatives.  This is repeating the Gospel According To Broder.

Now, of course I'm not going to advocate fighting stupidly.  But to a very large extent, fighting harder is fighting smarter, when you've been too stupid to fight at all.  Capice?

That said, of course there are all sorts of smart things Dems can do.  This past year, for example, just off the top of my head, they should have:

(A) Investigated the shit out of everything the Bush Admin has done, not just a few things.

(B) Begun impeachment investigations.  Conyers had already done the early spadework needed, so there was no question of sufficient grounds to begin investigations.  If people were too squemish, or afraid there wasn't time or whatever, then fine.  They could say in advance, "We're going this because it's necessary to go on record that such activities are damaging to the Republic, and to prevent future abuses.  This is absolutely necessary, regardless of whether this President and Vice-President are impeached.  And any honest Republican, looking forward to the strong possibility of a Democratic President in 2009, ought to agree."

(C) Forced the GOP to fillibuster in the flesh every time they wanted to stop something.

(D) Held field hearings all over the US about the hidden costs of the Iraq War--the mistreatment and neglect of troops and veterans, the damage done by extensive use of the National Guard, abusive and deceptive recruitment practices, etc., etc., etc.

(E) Refused to spend any more money to stay in Iraq.

(F) Held extensive hearings on (1) the failure to capture bin Laden, and the overall resurgence of al Qaeda, (2) the flawed logic of Bush's response to 9/11, and (3) how to craft a truly effective response to 9/11.

There's a simple principle underlying all of the above: The best defense is a stong offense.  It may not be very complicated.  But it is smart.  As in, it wins.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
That's wrong (0.00 / 0)
You do not criticize OBama in a rational way. You attack him. If you want to point out on the issues where he is wrong I will happily agree with you most of the time. I could write a 10 page essay on ways that Obama is wrong but what would the point of that be?

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

[ Parent ]
To expand on my earlier comment (0.00 / 0)
Does anyone else think that the tone of edward's supporters is partially responsible for his general fall in the polls? 

IE if you look at stoller's comment it clearly isn't going to win over any undecideds who like both Obama and Edwards and is trying to choose.  Its going to force them to justify their like for Obama and end up defending him.

Due to the way the caucuses work with second choices being important I think that edwards supporters might be able to turn off a lot of people who might otherwise come to him on the actual day of the election.


Edwards (0.00 / 0)
A) He in no way endorsed Edwards in that post, nor has he elsewhere, despite saying he might quasi-endorse him as the lesser of Evils (which isn't exactly the kind of thing a candidate celebrates).

B) Edwards hasn't fallen in polls, and if I recall correctly, some had him slightly going up.

C) Your argument doesn't really make any sense, as I fail to see how any candidate would really suffer that much just because they critiqued another's positions. Perhaps this would make sense if some sort of character attack were present, but this is not the case. He is critiquing a position and political tactic. Just making the claim "undecideds won't like the meanie" sort of reduces our political discourse to a beauty contest, instead of a debate between ideologies where people distinguish themselves from one another, as it should be. If trying to distinguish one's self from another is considered to have a negative tone, then we have a big problem coming. Besides that, as I noted earlier, Matt isn't exactly a spokesperson for Edwards campaign, so it is silly to just call him "an Edwards supporter."

Former Edwards Supporter, Obama Supporter since January 30, 2008


[ Parent ]
supporters (0.00 / 0)
B. http://www.pollster....

Clinton and Obama have both gone up as Edwards went down

C. I wasn't really referring to Matt specifically. After all he doesn't live in Iowa.  The frothy rage he exhibits just reminds me of that.

I can just imagine some Iowan edward supporter going "Obama refuses to call insurance companies murderers and he hates unions as well".  And well those undecided people are going to say "I don't call insurance companies murderers and Obama actually has a really good documented record on unions.

They aren't going to be willing to do the parsing that Stoller does to make Obama look bad.  So in effect they will only be able to preach to the converted while turning everyone else off.


[ Parent ]
Yeah, Those Abolitionists Are Never Going To Get ANYWHERE! (4.00 / 2)
They're always, like, harshing my buzz!

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
I am 30 something (4.00 / 1)
Your post is been there, read and heard that for me. Look, the truth is Obama is the latest flavor for a lot of people. I've got a friend going to volunteer for him who variously voted for Nadar in 2000 and Dean in 2004. He's a NY hipster, and voting for Obama is the cool thing to do. I like my friend, but his political thought process (this is a guy who says he is a kin to an anarchist, etc) leaves a bit to be desired. So when you asked do I blame Edwards because there are a lot of stupid people in the electorate? No- no more than I blame Edwards because people voted Bush into office not once, but twice. No more than I blame him because I've got friends who say they voted for Bush because one day they want to be wealthy and Bush cuts taxes for the wealthy. Nevermind they were middle class. The point I am making? Don't confuse ability to have an American Idol like appeal with talent. That guy this season who couldn't sing a lick should prove that popularity isn't the same as talent or the voter being right. It's just a fact of American life. Voters aren't require to be civic or even be logical in their thought process.

[ Parent ]
That's one theory (4.00 / 1)
Do you think that theory has any validity at all outside the interwebs?

Do you think that maybe:
a) being the southern white guy in a Democratic party that's much less southern, white and male than it used to be and keen to show this;
b) having less money than Clinton and Obama and;
c) getting significantly less (and often much more negative) press coverage than Obama and Clinton;
might have hurt him somewhat more?

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog


[ Parent ]
Nah.... (0.00 / 0)
..............................the fact that Edwards has as much as said, 'I'm comin' fer ya all. You oligarchs and yer PunpKinHaided, Tweety bird enablers and I'm gonna take whatever amount of cash I gotta take, just like I usta in court, to make my clients citizens whole again!' has absolutely nothing to do with the huge amounts of cash Obama and Clinton have raised from corporate America.

Not. A. Thing.

Please move along now....nothing to see or do here! Please move along!

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.


[ Parent ]
symptoms (0.00 / 0)
b,c are symptoms of edward's failure.  Not causes.

a is going to help him in Iowa.  Its a good explanation for why he is doing so terribly in the democratic party outside of Iowa. 


[ Parent ]
another who has no idea what he's talking about (0.00 / 0)
b) his money situation is a result of limiting from whom he took money unlike your candidate.

And please don't discuss outside of the early states- your guys not doing so well there either- what explains that?


[ Parent ]
That's Not Really Logical (4.00 / 1)
"C" is not a symptom of Edwards failure.  He is doing much better in the polls than the amount of media coverage he's getting. 

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
With all the new jobs that can be afforded (0.00 / 0)
now that real businesses don't have to spend it on health care. It will work a lot batter than the new jobs created by tax cuts because it will be real.

Jeff Wegerson

Donate to Open Left








Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search