The Edwards campaign just sent out this video. It's incredibly moving. In the interest of full disclosure, I was a delegate for John Edwards to the 2004 Democratic National Convention. I was for him in 2004 because he inspired me to believe that we could fight for a better America.
Thus far in the campaign, I haven't really felt the same way about his candidacy. I just can't put my finger on it, but something seems out of kilter....then I see something like this and begin to wonder if it is still there.
Showing posts with label John Edwards. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Edwards. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
Are we safer since 9/11?
John Edwards has been bringing up the idea that America is not safer since September 11. Hillary completely disagreed with him during the Presidential Forum at the YearlyKos Convention. I think they've both got good reasons for what they are saying, but I also think that Edwards is barking up the wrong tree.
Hillary's point is that we have spent a lot of time and effort providing more training and better equipment to our nation's first responders. She also cites increased security procedures that have been put in place to secure transportation infrastructure and government institutions.
Edwards contends that the rogue foreign policy of the Bush Administration has indeed made America less secure because of the damage done to America's reputation. After all, we have recently been told by the government that Al Qaeda is stronger than ever. This is surely due, in no small part, to increased recruitment in direct response to our reckless Middle East policies.
Like I said, I think they both have valid points. But, herein lies my problem with Edwards position here. He is promoting the same agenda of fear that we've been hearing from the Bush-Cheney-Rove Administration for six and a half years. Frankly, I'm sick of hearing what color the terrorist alert is and I'm sick of Leaders thinking the way to the hearts of voters is through fear.
Edwards is going down a slippery slope on this argument. I'm sure it somehow figures into his strategy to be the anti-establishment, populist candidate. If that's true, then I think they have made a miscalculation that could be very damaging to them in the long run. I'm sure I'm not the only one who is sick of fear being used to motivate votes. Americans are looking for someone who will make them feel good about the future. Edwards is usually pretty good at that, so he needs to drop this whole fear bit. He'll be a better candidate for it.
Hillary's point is that we have spent a lot of time and effort providing more training and better equipment to our nation's first responders. She also cites increased security procedures that have been put in place to secure transportation infrastructure and government institutions.
Edwards contends that the rogue foreign policy of the Bush Administration has indeed made America less secure because of the damage done to America's reputation. After all, we have recently been told by the government that Al Qaeda is stronger than ever. This is surely due, in no small part, to increased recruitment in direct response to our reckless Middle East policies.
Like I said, I think they both have valid points. But, herein lies my problem with Edwards position here. He is promoting the same agenda of fear that we've been hearing from the Bush-Cheney-Rove Administration for six and a half years. Frankly, I'm sick of hearing what color the terrorist alert is and I'm sick of Leaders thinking the way to the hearts of voters is through fear.
Edwards is going down a slippery slope on this argument. I'm sure it somehow figures into his strategy to be the anti-establishment, populist candidate. If that's true, then I think they have made a miscalculation that could be very damaging to them in the long run. I'm sure I'm not the only one who is sick of fear being used to motivate votes. Americans are looking for someone who will make them feel good about the future. Edwards is usually pretty good at that, so he needs to drop this whole fear bit. He'll be a better candidate for it.
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Thoughts on YearlyKos
I just returned yesterday from the 2nd Annual YearlyKos Convention. So, I've had a couple days to digest everything that occurred while I was there. Out of the thousands of moments that transpired, there are a handful that I think bear recounting for their possible impact in the future.
First, this is the last YearlyKos Convention, at least by this name. Next year's gathering will be named Netroots Nation. I'd been given a heads up that this was happening and I think it's incredibly appropriate. Markos Moulitsas was incredibly generous to loan the DailyKos brand to get this project off the ground, but the event is less about Kos and bloggers, per se, than it is about building an entirely new progressive movement -- one that is a collaboration between bloggers, readers, progressive organizations, grassroots organizers, political activists, and anybody else who cares enough to do something to move our country in a progressive direction. I'm glad that the new name will reflect the vast alliance that exists to build this people powered movement.
The Washington Post ran a piece yesterday by Jose Antonio Vargas about the lack of diversity at YearlyKos. It's true. The make-up of the progressive blogosphere is mostly white and mostly men. However, we're collectively working to fix that. KidOakland, a frequent and popular diarist at DailyKos raised enough money to recruit 17 upcoming minority bloggers to attend the conference. He plans to continue his effort to increase minority representation. I intend to do my own effort to increase LGBT representation next year. After all, the event is only two years old and there is a long way we can go in improving lots of things about it.
Hillary Clinton was the subject of lots of speculation. She is notoriously unpopular with the progressive blogosphere. She is the subject of endless posts that are critical of pretty much everything about her. There was an initial situation which caused confusion about whether she would attend a breakout schedule in addition to the Presidential Forum. When it was all said and done, she packed the room. Many people expected there to be boos. (There was a moment of booing, but it was when she proclaimed that she was a Cubs fan. She followed it up with "Hey, I've still got the t-shirt that says 'No Lights at Wrigley', so it was a nice recovery.) Having been an intern at the White House and having encountered her on numerous occasions, I expected her to win many people over. The end result is that she showed herself to be self deprecating, incredibly knowledgeable, and willing to take on some of her harshest critics in the Party. Overall, I'd say she comes out a winner.
The other winner for the weekend would be John Edwards. He solidified his populist credentials by lashing out against Lobbyist cash to campaigns. His challenge to other candidates to stop taking it put Hillary in a very uncomfortable position to defend Washington Lobbyists. I do have to say, however, that I thought this was a disingenuous position for Edwards because I thought he accepted Political Action Committee money. However, his campaign staff has confirmed that he does NOT take PAC money either. While I don't believe taking either kind of money amounts to being a sellout, I think he hit a nerve that many at YK responded to. I've heard about it today on some of the news networks, so he make get some mileage out of it.
I'd have to call the Netroots Movement the biggest winner of the event. I realize that the millions of us who are proud to be a part of this movement achieved a major moment of legitimacy Friday when the Democratic Presidential candidates filed on stage one by one. It was quite a sight to see and incredibly moving for most in the room. The nostalgia, however, quickly turned into a robust exchange of ideas and policy. What transpired was the liveliest exchange between the candidates. Of course, what else would you expect from a bunch of bloggers?
While the official events of the conference were varied and educational, the best action was in the hallways, bars, and atrium between the hotel and the connecting McCormick Convention Center. It was here that acquaintances were made, faces were connected with names, and ideas were hatched to further the goals of the progressive netroots movement.
There is a big question lingering my my mind. In a short time, the Netroots Movement has come to fruition. During the maturation of other movements, there is always a time of frustration between competing factions and philosophy about the direction of the movement. This will be forced upon us as well. I believe that it will be met with enthusiasm and grace. If it isn't, it threatens to destroy something that is very much needed in American political discourse.
I don't think that will happen, but in the meantime, I'll continue to do what I can to advance this movement and help it grow.
First, this is the last YearlyKos Convention, at least by this name. Next year's gathering will be named Netroots Nation. I'd been given a heads up that this was happening and I think it's incredibly appropriate. Markos Moulitsas was incredibly generous to loan the DailyKos brand to get this project off the ground, but the event is less about Kos and bloggers, per se, than it is about building an entirely new progressive movement -- one that is a collaboration between bloggers, readers, progressive organizations, grassroots organizers, political activists, and anybody else who cares enough to do something to move our country in a progressive direction. I'm glad that the new name will reflect the vast alliance that exists to build this people powered movement.
The Washington Post ran a piece yesterday by Jose Antonio Vargas about the lack of diversity at YearlyKos. It's true. The make-up of the progressive blogosphere is mostly white and mostly men. However, we're collectively working to fix that. KidOakland, a frequent and popular diarist at DailyKos raised enough money to recruit 17 upcoming minority bloggers to attend the conference. He plans to continue his effort to increase minority representation. I intend to do my own effort to increase LGBT representation next year. After all, the event is only two years old and there is a long way we can go in improving lots of things about it.
Hillary Clinton was the subject of lots of speculation. She is notoriously unpopular with the progressive blogosphere. She is the subject of endless posts that are critical of pretty much everything about her. There was an initial situation which caused confusion about whether she would attend a breakout schedule in addition to the Presidential Forum. When it was all said and done, she packed the room. Many people expected there to be boos. (There was a moment of booing, but it was when she proclaimed that she was a Cubs fan. She followed it up with "Hey, I've still got the t-shirt that says 'No Lights at Wrigley', so it was a nice recovery.) Having been an intern at the White House and having encountered her on numerous occasions, I expected her to win many people over. The end result is that she showed herself to be self deprecating, incredibly knowledgeable, and willing to take on some of her harshest critics in the Party. Overall, I'd say she comes out a winner.
The other winner for the weekend would be John Edwards. He solidified his populist credentials by lashing out against Lobbyist cash to campaigns. His challenge to other candidates to stop taking it put Hillary in a very uncomfortable position to defend Washington Lobbyists. I do have to say, however, that I thought this was a disingenuous position for Edwards because I thought he accepted Political Action Committee money. However, his campaign staff has confirmed that he does NOT take PAC money either. While I don't believe taking either kind of money amounts to being a sellout, I think he hit a nerve that many at YK responded to. I've heard about it today on some of the news networks, so he make get some mileage out of it.
I'd have to call the Netroots Movement the biggest winner of the event. I realize that the millions of us who are proud to be a part of this movement achieved a major moment of legitimacy Friday when the Democratic Presidential candidates filed on stage one by one. It was quite a sight to see and incredibly moving for most in the room. The nostalgia, however, quickly turned into a robust exchange of ideas and policy. What transpired was the liveliest exchange between the candidates. Of course, what else would you expect from a bunch of bloggers?
While the official events of the conference were varied and educational, the best action was in the hallways, bars, and atrium between the hotel and the connecting McCormick Convention Center. It was here that acquaintances were made, faces were connected with names, and ideas were hatched to further the goals of the progressive netroots movement.
There is a big question lingering my my mind. In a short time, the Netroots Movement has come to fruition. During the maturation of other movements, there is always a time of frustration between competing factions and philosophy about the direction of the movement. This will be forced upon us as well. I believe that it will be met with enthusiasm and grace. If it isn't, it threatens to destroy something that is very much needed in American political discourse.
I don't think that will happen, but in the meantime, I'll continue to do what I can to advance this movement and help it grow.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
SC Dem Presidential Debate: Pre-Debate Analysis
I wrote a piece for Huffington Post this morning and just forgot to repost it here. So, I'll put it below. I'm also going to be doing a post-debate analysis as well for Huffington. I'll be sure to put here for you as well.
I hope you catch the debate. Let me know what you think!
Lane
Tonight's Presidential Debate: A Lot on the Line
Huffington Post
Tonight's Democratic presidential debate in South Carolina provides the first nationwide platform for the Democratic candidates to sell their candidacies to voters. In addition to being broadcast by MSNBC, it will be carried by all local NBC affiliates in South Carolina, one of the four early Primary or Caucus States. Candidates will need to appeal not only to Democrats nationally, but will also need to pay special attention to the still maturing ground of South Carolina Presidential Primary voters.
The Palmetto State was chosen for an early Primary position largely because of a significant presence of African American voters, which was previously lacking in the early contests. South Carolina's Primary is the best opportunity for this largely Democratic constituency to influence the nomination contest between the most diverse field of candidates ever fielded by the Democratic Party. African American voters are expected to comprise 50-55% of the Primary voters and could very well choose the winner.
When the Debate kicks off at 7pm on the campus of South Carolina State University, a Historically Black College, there will be a lot on the line. The first thing that each campaign will strive to do is to prevent a major gaffe. At such an early stage, it could be a deadly blow to any of the campaigns, particularly those of the lower tier.
John Edwards won the South Carolina Democratic Primary in 2004. Then, it was largely written off by the other candidates, so it is an unknown factor how he will play there in 2008. As a native South Carolinian and former Senator from North Carolina, he does have somewhat of a home court advantage. During the debate, the populist themes that he has been pitching to audiences across the nation should be well received by both his South Carolina audience and national Democrats. His work on poverty is a defining issue of his campaign and one that many Democrats will feel is returning to the mission of their Party. He is also a leading voice among the contenders in opposing the Iraq War, which he should emphasize as soon as possible so he can capture the anti-war Primary voters who will only support a viable candidate. His biggest challenge will be to convince those same voters that he is indeed a viable candidate. With Clinton and Obama receiving the lion's share of the media coverage, he will need to muster all of his abilities to speak to the average person and inspire them to believe in his campaign.
Hillary Clinton is as well known in South Carolina as she is anywhere else. That carries the same benefits and challenges as it does nationwide. People trust her experience and judgment. She is a rock star and draws large crowds. In spite of all that, she doesn't seem to connect on an individual level with voters in the same manner as some of the other candidates. After more than six years of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, Democratic voters will be looking for someone who inspires them to believe there is something better. While they remember fondly the days of the Clinton Presidency of the 1990's, it does not translate into an immediate belief that she carries the same magic of her husband. Hillary will undoubtedly remain firmly on her well vetted message and deliver her points with poise and confidence. Her biggest challenge will be to add some "warm fuzzy factor" to how voters perceive her and to convince them that she hasn't been living in a bubble since 1992. If she can win in the South Carolina Primary, it could very well cement her race for the nomination. In a State where John Edwards and Barack Obama would presumably have major advantages, this could be where Hillary puts them away.
Barack Obama is the least experienced candidate in the Presidential campaign, yet has attracted a large and diverse national following. His transformational style of speaking has inspired many people and fueled a stronger than expected fundraising operation. He speaks eloquently and is well polished. Given the large African American population in South Carolina, he may come into the State's Primary with the best advantage of all of the candidates. However, he cannot count on that support to gravitate to him simply because of his historic candidacy. African American voters are complex people and have a long history of being disappointed. Obama will have to work to earn their respect and support. The average African American voter in South Carolina will not share his experience of being a Harvard graduate and successful big city lawyer. He will have to tell a compelling personal story to make this an asset rather than a quality that separates him from voters who do not share his recent experiences. Given his lack of experience under such scrutiny, I believe he is at greater risk of making a mistake than Edwards or Clinton. Part of his challenge will be to maintain his transformational style of speaking while fielding a wide range of questions during the debate. Should he be able to walk the fine line between the two and not lose his golden touch, he could come out as the winner.
Bill Richardson is arguably the most experienced candidate on the Democratic side of the Presidential race. Yet, he is largely unknown to a national audience as well as South Carolina voters. Richardson will need to sell his wide-ranging experience in elected and appointed office and make it relevant to the average voter. To do this, he will need to speak with authority on a wide range of issues and stake out positions that set him apart from the other candidates. This will help him overcome his biggest challenge in this debate: to make the jump to a top-tier candidate. He's got the ability to do that, but it remains to be seen if he will.
The other candidates participating in the debate all share the same goals. They all need to increase name identification and distinguish themselves from the rest of the lower-tier candidates. This will be a difficult challenge, given the number of candidates and the amount of attention that will be given to the top-tier competition.
There always remains the chance that somebody will score a major one-liner that will earn a massive amount of free media. Those are the moments that propel an unknown into a competitive race or cement front-runner status. Those moments are also what keep the attention of millions focused on every step of a Presidential race. We may witness a landscape changing moment tonight that will go down in history. Maybe not. Either way, it proves to be an exciting night for the Democratic Presidential Campaign and an opportunity to see the candidates at their best.
I hope you catch the debate. Let me know what you think!
Lane
Tonight's Presidential Debate: A Lot on the Line
Huffington Post
Tonight's Democratic presidential debate in South Carolina provides the first nationwide platform for the Democratic candidates to sell their candidacies to voters. In addition to being broadcast by MSNBC, it will be carried by all local NBC affiliates in South Carolina, one of the four early Primary or Caucus States. Candidates will need to appeal not only to Democrats nationally, but will also need to pay special attention to the still maturing ground of South Carolina Presidential Primary voters.
The Palmetto State was chosen for an early Primary position largely because of a significant presence of African American voters, which was previously lacking in the early contests. South Carolina's Primary is the best opportunity for this largely Democratic constituency to influence the nomination contest between the most diverse field of candidates ever fielded by the Democratic Party. African American voters are expected to comprise 50-55% of the Primary voters and could very well choose the winner.
When the Debate kicks off at 7pm on the campus of South Carolina State University, a Historically Black College, there will be a lot on the line. The first thing that each campaign will strive to do is to prevent a major gaffe. At such an early stage, it could be a deadly blow to any of the campaigns, particularly those of the lower tier.
John Edwards won the South Carolina Democratic Primary in 2004. Then, it was largely written off by the other candidates, so it is an unknown factor how he will play there in 2008. As a native South Carolinian and former Senator from North Carolina, he does have somewhat of a home court advantage. During the debate, the populist themes that he has been pitching to audiences across the nation should be well received by both his South Carolina audience and national Democrats. His work on poverty is a defining issue of his campaign and one that many Democrats will feel is returning to the mission of their Party. He is also a leading voice among the contenders in opposing the Iraq War, which he should emphasize as soon as possible so he can capture the anti-war Primary voters who will only support a viable candidate. His biggest challenge will be to convince those same voters that he is indeed a viable candidate. With Clinton and Obama receiving the lion's share of the media coverage, he will need to muster all of his abilities to speak to the average person and inspire them to believe in his campaign.
Hillary Clinton is as well known in South Carolina as she is anywhere else. That carries the same benefits and challenges as it does nationwide. People trust her experience and judgment. She is a rock star and draws large crowds. In spite of all that, she doesn't seem to connect on an individual level with voters in the same manner as some of the other candidates. After more than six years of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, Democratic voters will be looking for someone who inspires them to believe there is something better. While they remember fondly the days of the Clinton Presidency of the 1990's, it does not translate into an immediate belief that she carries the same magic of her husband. Hillary will undoubtedly remain firmly on her well vetted message and deliver her points with poise and confidence. Her biggest challenge will be to add some "warm fuzzy factor" to how voters perceive her and to convince them that she hasn't been living in a bubble since 1992. If she can win in the South Carolina Primary, it could very well cement her race for the nomination. In a State where John Edwards and Barack Obama would presumably have major advantages, this could be where Hillary puts them away.
Barack Obama is the least experienced candidate in the Presidential campaign, yet has attracted a large and diverse national following. His transformational style of speaking has inspired many people and fueled a stronger than expected fundraising operation. He speaks eloquently and is well polished. Given the large African American population in South Carolina, he may come into the State's Primary with the best advantage of all of the candidates. However, he cannot count on that support to gravitate to him simply because of his historic candidacy. African American voters are complex people and have a long history of being disappointed. Obama will have to work to earn their respect and support. The average African American voter in South Carolina will not share his experience of being a Harvard graduate and successful big city lawyer. He will have to tell a compelling personal story to make this an asset rather than a quality that separates him from voters who do not share his recent experiences. Given his lack of experience under such scrutiny, I believe he is at greater risk of making a mistake than Edwards or Clinton. Part of his challenge will be to maintain his transformational style of speaking while fielding a wide range of questions during the debate. Should he be able to walk the fine line between the two and not lose his golden touch, he could come out as the winner.
Bill Richardson is arguably the most experienced candidate on the Democratic side of the Presidential race. Yet, he is largely unknown to a national audience as well as South Carolina voters. Richardson will need to sell his wide-ranging experience in elected and appointed office and make it relevant to the average voter. To do this, he will need to speak with authority on a wide range of issues and stake out positions that set him apart from the other candidates. This will help him overcome his biggest challenge in this debate: to make the jump to a top-tier candidate. He's got the ability to do that, but it remains to be seen if he will.
The other candidates participating in the debate all share the same goals. They all need to increase name identification and distinguish themselves from the rest of the lower-tier candidates. This will be a difficult challenge, given the number of candidates and the amount of attention that will be given to the top-tier competition.
There always remains the chance that somebody will score a major one-liner that will earn a massive amount of free media. Those are the moments that propel an unknown into a competitive race or cement front-runner status. Those moments are also what keep the attention of millions focused on every step of a Presidential race. We may witness a landscape changing moment tonight that will go down in history. Maybe not. Either way, it proves to be an exciting night for the Democratic Presidential Campaign and an opportunity to see the candidates at their best.
Friday, February 9, 2007
Edwards Gets Tough
Many of us lefty types were hoping that John Edwards would get tough, stand up to the right wing, and defend his staff. He did that. And if you believe this, he stood up to the media too!
It's hilarious.
It's hilarious.
Thursday, February 8, 2007
Anti-Semit Bigot Loving to Hate John Edwards
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are consistently called "rock stars" by journalists describing their public appearances on the campaign trail. John Edwards doesn't get those kinds of props from the journalists. But, we're finding that the right wing loves to talk about John Edwards.
Usually the tactics they are using on John Edwards would be reserved for the General Election. However, they've gone hard and early on the former Senator from North Carolina.
A few weeks ago, the Carolina Journal, a monthly publication of the John Locke Foundation printed this article on Senator Edwards' new home in North Carolina. It was an attempted smear to cast Edwards as an elitist out of touch with the average person. However, a closer look at the Locke Foundation shows that they are a conservative organization who aligns themselves with some of the most right wing groups in Washington. This link shows organizations who they suggest their readers to consult for information on "important issues." Among this A-List of conservative groups is the Heritage Foundation, which is a juggernaut of the right wing movement.
After Matt Drudge linked to the article on the Carolina Journal website, they posted a message that their website was temporarily down because of all of the traffic generated by the link. While I think it was more of a function of dedicating ALL of their server space to handle the hits they were getting, I think they also didn't want to make it easy for visitors to discover their conservative bend. I suspect that very few people have returned to the website to learn more about them since the initial link from Drudge.
Most recently, Edwards Bloggers Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan came under attack from conservative, anti-Semite, self-appointed spokesperson of Catholics, Bill Donohue. In fact, he called these fine young women "anti-Catholic, trash talking bigots." Let's see what insights supposed religious leader Donahue can offer us:
He doesn't sound anything like someone with the moral authority to judge anyone, much less two young women who passionately advocate things like women's health. I'm not a Catholic, but if I were, I'd be standing up and screaming that this right wing, bigoted anti-Semite does NOT represent me. I know many Catholics and they're nothing like this jerk. By the way, criticism of Catholic policies is nothing new. There is plenty of internal debate among loyal, dedicated Catholics about the direction of their Church. There always has been. There always will be.
All day yesterday, the Netroots folks sat on pins and needles wondering if such pandering right-wing jerks would be able to sever the relationship between them and John Edwards. Edwards faced tremendous pressure from both the Conservatives and the progressive blogging community. Matt Browner-Hamlin has a post here on HuffPost that is an awesome description of how it all played out.
Many of us feared Edwards would listen to conventional Washington political consultants and throw these bloggers under the proverbial bus. However, it appears that Edwards has personally intervened to determine the action of the campaign. He released a statement today. The following line shows me that he not only understands the support the Netroots has shown him, but that he's got conviction, loyalty, and that he's not going to let the right wing tell him how to run his campaign:
The score:
John Edwards: 1
Netroots Movement: 1
Conservative Jerks: 0
Please go to Democracy in Action to send an email to the Press supporting these two bloggers. It will send a message that we will not cede public debates to jerks like Bill Donohue. Here is what he had to say about it all:
Don't let this jerk get away with this. It's time for the progressive movement to proudly defend the high ground and put this issue to rest. We will NOT surrender anything to vicious right wingers.
Usually the tactics they are using on John Edwards would be reserved for the General Election. However, they've gone hard and early on the former Senator from North Carolina.
A few weeks ago, the Carolina Journal, a monthly publication of the John Locke Foundation printed this article on Senator Edwards' new home in North Carolina. It was an attempted smear to cast Edwards as an elitist out of touch with the average person. However, a closer look at the Locke Foundation shows that they are a conservative organization who aligns themselves with some of the most right wing groups in Washington. This link shows organizations who they suggest their readers to consult for information on "important issues." Among this A-List of conservative groups is the Heritage Foundation, which is a juggernaut of the right wing movement.
After Matt Drudge linked to the article on the Carolina Journal website, they posted a message that their website was temporarily down because of all of the traffic generated by the link. While I think it was more of a function of dedicating ALL of their server space to handle the hits they were getting, I think they also didn't want to make it easy for visitors to discover their conservative bend. I suspect that very few people have returned to the website to learn more about them since the initial link from Drudge.
Most recently, Edwards Bloggers Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan came under attack from conservative, anti-Semite, self-appointed spokesperson of Catholics, Bill Donohue. In fact, he called these fine young women "anti-Catholic, trash talking bigots." Let's see what insights supposed religious leader Donahue can offer us:
"We've already won. Who really cares what Hollywood thinks? All these hacks come out there. Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. It's not a secret, OK? And I'm not afraid to say it. ... Hollywood likes anal sex. They like to see the public square without nativity scenes. I like families. I like children. They like abortions. I believe in traditional values and restraint. They believe in libertinism. We have nothing in common. But you know what? The culture war has been ongoing for a long time. Their side has lost." [MSNBC's Scarborough Country, 12/8/04]
He doesn't sound anything like someone with the moral authority to judge anyone, much less two young women who passionately advocate things like women's health. I'm not a Catholic, but if I were, I'd be standing up and screaming that this right wing, bigoted anti-Semite does NOT represent me. I know many Catholics and they're nothing like this jerk. By the way, criticism of Catholic policies is nothing new. There is plenty of internal debate among loyal, dedicated Catholics about the direction of their Church. There always has been. There always will be.
All day yesterday, the Netroots folks sat on pins and needles wondering if such pandering right-wing jerks would be able to sever the relationship between them and John Edwards. Edwards faced tremendous pressure from both the Conservatives and the progressive blogging community. Matt Browner-Hamlin has a post here on HuffPost that is an awesome description of how it all played out.
Many of us feared Edwards would listen to conventional Washington political consultants and throw these bloggers under the proverbial bus. However, it appears that Edwards has personally intervened to determine the action of the campaign. He released a statement today. The following line shows me that he not only understands the support the Netroots has shown him, but that he's got conviction, loyalty, and that he's not going to let the right wing tell him how to run his campaign:
"We're beginning a great debate about the future of our country, and we can't let it be hijacked. It will take discipline, focus, and courage to build the America we believe in."
The score:
John Edwards: 1
Netroots Movement: 1
Conservative Jerks: 0
Please go to Democracy in Action to send an email to the Press supporting these two bloggers. It will send a message that we will not cede public debates to jerks like Bill Donohue. Here is what he had to say about it all:
"I have news for him--the Catholic League--not Edwards--will decide what the debate will be about, and it won't be about the nation."
Don't let this jerk get away with this. It's time for the progressive movement to proudly defend the high ground and put this issue to rest. We will NOT surrender anything to vicious right wingers.
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
Blogger Controversy?
We all know I'm not new to blogger controversy, but this recent issue over two of John Edwards' bloggers is ridiculous. Let me see if I can correctly frame the issue for ya.
The Edwards campaign recently hired two bloggers, Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan. They are both very talented bloggers, otherwise they wouldn't be attached to a top tier Presidential candidate.
About a week ago, the right wingers started attacking these junior level campaign staffers as if they were baby killers. As bloggers sometimes do when extremely passionate about something, they used profane words throughout some of their posts. Maybe we don't want our kids reading those posts, but what is really profane is the issues they were talking about: Americans dying in an unjustified war, healthcare for millions of uninsured folks, women's reproductive rights, etc.
So, instead of standing up to right wingers who are making a habit of smearing our '08 Presidential candidates, the Edwards campaign may fire these two bloggers. Salon.com has reported that they have been fired, but there are still conflicting reports of what's really going on. I hope the Edwards campaign will let us know very soon how this issue will play out.
My advice would be to retain the bloggers and defend them for the passionate and dedicated people that they are. Further, they should attack the hipocrisy of people like Bill Donohue and Michelle Malkin, who have been peddling this story to the main stream media. I'm not done yet. We should also start letting folks know about the ethically challenged staffers on Republican campaigns. There are plenty.
One another note, the blogosphere is an incubator for ideas. It is a place for ongoing dialogue between bloggers and readers. Just as we wouldn't want to be judged by every word we have spoken, I hope this doesn't hinder present and future bloggers from fully expressing their ideas and opinions. If the Edwards campaign seizes this precedent setting opportunity to defend their bloggers, we'll have much more of an opportunity to continue the good work of the blogosphere.
The Edwards campaign recently hired two bloggers, Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan. They are both very talented bloggers, otherwise they wouldn't be attached to a top tier Presidential candidate.
About a week ago, the right wingers started attacking these junior level campaign staffers as if they were baby killers. As bloggers sometimes do when extremely passionate about something, they used profane words throughout some of their posts. Maybe we don't want our kids reading those posts, but what is really profane is the issues they were talking about: Americans dying in an unjustified war, healthcare for millions of uninsured folks, women's reproductive rights, etc.
So, instead of standing up to right wingers who are making a habit of smearing our '08 Presidential candidates, the Edwards campaign may fire these two bloggers. Salon.com has reported that they have been fired, but there are still conflicting reports of what's really going on. I hope the Edwards campaign will let us know very soon how this issue will play out.
My advice would be to retain the bloggers and defend them for the passionate and dedicated people that they are. Further, they should attack the hipocrisy of people like Bill Donohue and Michelle Malkin, who have been peddling this story to the main stream media. I'm not done yet. We should also start letting folks know about the ethically challenged staffers on Republican campaigns. There are plenty.
One another note, the blogosphere is an incubator for ideas. It is a place for ongoing dialogue between bloggers and readers. Just as we wouldn't want to be judged by every word we have spoken, I hope this doesn't hinder present and future bloggers from fully expressing their ideas and opinions. If the Edwards campaign seizes this precedent setting opportunity to defend their bloggers, we'll have much more of an opportunity to continue the good work of the blogosphere.
Friday, February 2, 2007
'08 Hopefuls Stump Under Same Roof for First Time
The General Session at today's Democratic National Committee meeting dealt with a little party business. However, the main attraction, which packed the ballroom at the Washington Hilton, was the convergence of the men and woman seeking the Democratic Party's nomination for President.
Every speech given was well received by those gathered. Each speech had its own merits. During my little bit of downtime before another event, I wanted to give you the "highlight" of the Obama, Edwards, and Clinton speeches. And when I say "highlight", what I mean is: what I thought about it.....
Barack Obama was greeted like a rock star. He gave a thoughtful, straight forward speech. He returned to campaign themes that he has used before: "it's not about hype", "our politics are too small", and about "the need for a genuine debate about concrete ideas." His speech contained many inspirational notions, but it seemed to contradict reality. Were it not for hype, he would never be considered a Presidential contender, after two years in the U.S. Senate. While his lofty notions and ideas appeal to the rank and file, they lack the concrete specifics he calls for at the same time. I understand that you can't talk detailed policy in a stump speech, but the main criticism coming from activists is that they're not sure what Obama wants to do for America besides raise the level of political discourse. I hope in the near future, Obama will begin to deliver his ideas on how to get us out of Iraq, how to keep jobs in America, how to provide Universal Healthcare, and on many more important issues.
John Edwards entered to the tune of a country song that I recognized, but don't know the name of. The recognizable lyric was "This is my country"....or something like that. He started out slowly, talking about people in different situations. I wasn't quite sure where he was headed with it, then he brought it all together in a rousing, momentum building rally cry to "Stand with" each of the people whose stories he had just told and to "Stand with America." From that moment on, Edwards was on fire. He spoke to the historical values of the Democratic Party to take care of children, carry the mantle on education, and help eradicate poverty. He talked about working people worrying about losing their pensions and having no safety net after thirty years of work. The unions were mentioned several times and cheered loudly in response. His words about the War in Iraq were by far the strongest in opposition, which was very well received. Edwards' message was populist, inspiring, and incredibly popular. And....he won the standing ovation competition.
Hillary Clinton also entered the room like a rock star. She delivered a traditional stump style speech that was well received by those in the cavernous room. She covered all the right points: Bush's failed leadership, the need for healthcare, the economy, jobs, and Iraq. There was one thing I just couldn't get out of my head, though: the vote she cast to go to war in 2002. I'm very confused about my opinion on this. On one side of the room, Code Pink, an anti-war organization, staged a small protest. They each had a letter on their shirts that altogether read "NO WAR" and with their left hands, held up in peace signs. I know that Hillary has said many things about the vote that she cast to go to war. Today, she even said "If I was President in 2002, we would not have gone to war in Iraq." So, she's danced all around saying her vote was wrong and apologizing for it. I just don't understand why she won't do that. For me and many other party activists, that will remain an issue in the back of our minds. It may end up being an issue that will make room for someone else to gain support. That being said, she also gave a great speech and she's still the front-runner among the establishment.
I'd say each of these three will be well-received around the country. But, each of their speeches were different. As they take their campaigns from State to State and City to City, people will decide which ideas and style they want to represent them in November 2008. Given that each of their approaches is different enough, we may see a narrowing of the field sooner than we all think.
Every speech given was well received by those gathered. Each speech had its own merits. During my little bit of downtime before another event, I wanted to give you the "highlight" of the Obama, Edwards, and Clinton speeches. And when I say "highlight", what I mean is: what I thought about it.....
Barack Obama was greeted like a rock star. He gave a thoughtful, straight forward speech. He returned to campaign themes that he has used before: "it's not about hype", "our politics are too small", and about "the need for a genuine debate about concrete ideas." His speech contained many inspirational notions, but it seemed to contradict reality. Were it not for hype, he would never be considered a Presidential contender, after two years in the U.S. Senate. While his lofty notions and ideas appeal to the rank and file, they lack the concrete specifics he calls for at the same time. I understand that you can't talk detailed policy in a stump speech, but the main criticism coming from activists is that they're not sure what Obama wants to do for America besides raise the level of political discourse. I hope in the near future, Obama will begin to deliver his ideas on how to get us out of Iraq, how to keep jobs in America, how to provide Universal Healthcare, and on many more important issues.
John Edwards entered to the tune of a country song that I recognized, but don't know the name of. The recognizable lyric was "This is my country"....or something like that. He started out slowly, talking about people in different situations. I wasn't quite sure where he was headed with it, then he brought it all together in a rousing, momentum building rally cry to "Stand with" each of the people whose stories he had just told and to "Stand with America." From that moment on, Edwards was on fire. He spoke to the historical values of the Democratic Party to take care of children, carry the mantle on education, and help eradicate poverty. He talked about working people worrying about losing their pensions and having no safety net after thirty years of work. The unions were mentioned several times and cheered loudly in response. His words about the War in Iraq were by far the strongest in opposition, which was very well received. Edwards' message was populist, inspiring, and incredibly popular. And....he won the standing ovation competition.
Hillary Clinton also entered the room like a rock star. She delivered a traditional stump style speech that was well received by those in the cavernous room. She covered all the right points: Bush's failed leadership, the need for healthcare, the economy, jobs, and Iraq. There was one thing I just couldn't get out of my head, though: the vote she cast to go to war in 2002. I'm very confused about my opinion on this. On one side of the room, Code Pink, an anti-war organization, staged a small protest. They each had a letter on their shirts that altogether read "NO WAR" and with their left hands, held up in peace signs. I know that Hillary has said many things about the vote that she cast to go to war. Today, she even said "If I was President in 2002, we would not have gone to war in Iraq." So, she's danced all around saying her vote was wrong and apologizing for it. I just don't understand why she won't do that. For me and many other party activists, that will remain an issue in the back of our minds. It may end up being an issue that will make room for someone else to gain support. That being said, she also gave a great speech and she's still the front-runner among the establishment.
I'd say each of these three will be well-received around the country. But, each of their speeches were different. As they take their campaigns from State to State and City to City, people will decide which ideas and style they want to represent them in November 2008. Given that each of their approaches is different enough, we may see a narrowing of the field sooner than we all think.
Saturday, January 20, 2007
Edwards: "It's time for Americans to be patriotic about something other than war."
I just watched this video, which contains excerpts from John Edwards' speech at Riverside Church in New York City on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. It's the same pulpit from which Dr. King delivered an inspirational speech opposing the Vietnam War a year before his tragic death.
Edwards delivers an eloquent and thoughtful speech. He looks comfortable speaking to a largely African American church. His message is moving. His politics are on point. It's nine minutes long, but worth listening to when you have the time. The line that stood out for me, in the title of this post, comes at around 8 minutes and 30 seconds. That's the kind of message that will truly resonate with so much of America.
Edwards delivers an eloquent and thoughtful speech. He looks comfortable speaking to a largely African American church. His message is moving. His politics are on point. It's nine minutes long, but worth listening to when you have the time. The line that stood out for me, in the title of this post, comes at around 8 minutes and 30 seconds. That's the kind of message that will truly resonate with so much of America.
Sunday, December 31, 2006
The McCain Doctrine
Newly minted Presidential candidate John Edwards today showed his political prowess and willingness to play hardball. In an interview on ABC's This Week, Edwards took on Republican frontrunner John McCain:
"I actually, myself, believe that this idea of surging troops, escalating the war -- what Senator McCain has been talking about -- what I would call now the McCain doctrine ... (is) dead wrong," said Edwards.
Some of the criticism that progressives have had with an Edwards candidacy is that he is "too soft." This direct challenge to McCain should help quell some of those concerns. That it is also couched in terms of ending the war in Iraq should also further his credibility with progressives.
This tactic should also show that Edwards is in this to win it. I'll be looking forward to how this will play out. So far, there's no comment from McCain.
Friday, December 22, 2006
Don't Count out Edwards
Senator Hillary Clinton holds a large lead in national polls. These numbers are meaningless right now. The polls in Iowa, however are fairly telling. The Des Moines Register recently released a poll showing John Edwards at 36% and Clinton trailing by twenty points. Obama is two points behind Clinton. This is extremely good news for Edwards.
Despite Edwards' standing in Iowa, most national media coverage focuses only on Senators Clinton and Obama. They are unknowingly providing tremendous help to Edwards in downplaying expectations.
Two factors play into the Iowa Caucus: winning the vote and winning the expectations game. Things may change over the course of the next year, but if Edwards wins outright, then he will almost certainly beat expectations as well. John Kerry, in effect, won the nomination the night he won the Iowa Caucus. Edwards could expect the same bump out of Iowa that Kerry received.
That, combined with Edwards' extensive work with Labor over the past two years would serve him well in both Nevada and New Hampshire. If he were to win all three and then cap it all off with a victory in South Carolina, where he won in 2004, then he could be unstoppable to win the nomination.
For Edwards, it may just come down to winning it all in Iowa.
Despite Edwards' standing in Iowa, most national media coverage focuses only on Senators Clinton and Obama. They are unknowingly providing tremendous help to Edwards in downplaying expectations.
Two factors play into the Iowa Caucus: winning the vote and winning the expectations game. Things may change over the course of the next year, but if Edwards wins outright, then he will almost certainly beat expectations as well. John Kerry, in effect, won the nomination the night he won the Iowa Caucus. Edwards could expect the same bump out of Iowa that Kerry received.
That, combined with Edwards' extensive work with Labor over the past two years would serve him well in both Nevada and New Hampshire. If he were to win all three and then cap it all off with a victory in South Carolina, where he won in 2004, then he could be unstoppable to win the nomination.
For Edwards, it may just come down to winning it all in Iowa.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
