Edwards: "My view is, you give them a seat at the table, they eat all the food."

[Bluebear]

"What I’ve heard him (Obama) talk about is hope & giving the opponents a seat at the table. My view is, you give them a seat at the table, they eat all the food! You cannot compromise with these people. They are very, very good at what they do. And When you negotiate with them, they win. You have to beat them. You have to take them on. You have to bring America with you in the effort. But you have to beat them. It’s the only way you can actually be successful."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pmxzcv0Tvdc

For your discussion.

[Mythsaje]

1. He knows the score.

I'm not sure the other candidates do.

[Bluebear]

5. I've changed my avatar, this "Coburn has become a good friend" did me in.

[Mythsaje]

6. I found that worrisome myself...

But, then again, the whole "unity" thing rubbed me the wrong way. Yeah, I'm all for unity and bipartisanship--with decent human beings. In the Republican camp, there don't seem to be all that many of them.

[yellowdogintexas]

16. strange friendships have emerged from the Senate: Orrin Hatch and Ted Kennedy

for example.

Polar Opposites, politically most definitely.

but good friends personally.

Sen Kennedy publicly credited Sen Hatch as a major source of support in his battle with alcohol abuse. So much so that he doesn't think he could have done it had it not been for Hatch.

so it does happen, and LBJ's power as Senate Majority Leader was not just because the Dems had the majority.

Working together absolutely has to happen

but there is housecleaning to be done, no doubt about that. Some has already happened, like the defeat of Santorum for example.

Edwards is my candidate, no doubt about it from day ONE, but I said it before and I will say it again: We Have The Best Field of Candidates since 1960 in this primary/nomination race. Our worst possible nominee who ever that turns out to be is better than anyone the other side can produce.

[Bucky]

29. I want a president who can make good friends with Republicans.

I don't want a president who can't make friends with people he disagrees with.

[bluestateguy]

2. I dream of a president who will shut the door to the White House and refuse to meet with lobbyists

In other news, Hillary has not released her health care plan because the insurance companies are not through writing it yet.

[Hieronymus]

3. Yes, just look what a great job they did on Medicare D.

:sarcasm:

[bananarepublican]

4. We don't need a democratic 'Chamberlain' in the White House! (K&r!)

We need John 'Churchill' Edwards!

[deacon]

7. John Edwards '08

[spindoctor]

8. Obama has a point in the sense that the polarisation has to be reversed.

The gap between red and blue is rapidly growing. At some point, we will either have to come to terms with each other or we might as well divi up the states.

But Edwards is right in his mistrust for the GOP leadership. They're the ones who created this situation, they're the ones profiting from it and they're the ones who will do anything to maintain the status quo.
If the republicans can send some respectable guests, only then can we sit and talk.

[The Backlash Cometh]

15. "Polarisation has to be reversed."

I think what he has to remember is that we were wronged and damaged by the Republican dirty tricks department. That hurt won't go away by just voting in a Democrat. We still want justice and we want restitution.

All he has to do is remember that it's been more than forty years since they changed the laws to protect black people from white male abuse. And forty years later, there are still some hurts open and festering. An election is not enough. And changed legislation is not enough. When you have this much go wrong, somebody needs to go to jail.

[warren pease]

24. I don't think it can be reversed...

This country is so bipolar now -- thanks in large part to, for those on the right, the constant stream of hatred spewing from wingnut radio and Fux Snooze, and for the left, the sheer hatred of this disgusting administration and fury at the people who voted for it (and would again, the mindless swine) -- that I doubt we even see each other as humans anymore.

To the right, we're terrorist sympathizers, commie rats, sexual perverts, atheists and secular humanists and elitist pseudo-intellectuals who have been wrong every single time about the great job BushCo is doing.

To the left, the other side is composed of heartless, conniving fascists, dull-normal rubes, violent reactionaries, fundie nut cases and world-class hypocrites.

There's not a lot of common ground except among converts to one side or the other. The polls suggest there are far more moving to the left than to the right, which is great for the moment. But when (if) the Iraq occupation finally ends, BushCo actually leaves, a demo is installed in the white house (I can no longer use the word "elected" in this country), and things return to some version of normal, polarization will be back and more virulent than ever.

I think this is because the converts object to *this* war because it's a failure and costs a mint. They're not against war in general, which leaves them vulnerable to the hype preceding the next imperialist resource grab. They're not necessarily against fascism; they're against BushCo because they've turned everything they've touched to merde, except for their ultra-rich pals.

But I doubt there's a lot of awareness out there that these are basic republican objectives -- not mistakes. War without end; bankrupting the poor and middle class; transferring wealth to the arms and oil conglomerates via the tax code on the one hand and by ignoring any research into sustainable energy on the other; Katrina as a model of privatization and not a failure at all. Infrastructure decay another problem for the private sector. And so forth.

If we survive BushCo -- if we manage to avoid the imposition of a fascist dictatorship, blow-back from an attack on Iran, the looting of the US treasury, the credit and mortgage fiascoes -- the same old right/left affiliations will coalesce quickly and so much for attempting to reduce polarization.

So I think that Obama once again proves that he would be a centrist as president, which is like saying he'll be run over by an angry, energized right wing who's pissed about losing the '08 elections, as well as scorned by demo progressives who once again will be marginalized.

Edwards has the right idea: No trust for these GOP pigs, no retreat, no compromise, no accommodation, no appeasement, no respect.

For the past 27 years, bi-partisanship has meant caving to the GOP. I'm sick of bi-partisanship portrayed as a positive value. Bi-partisanship has brought us to the brink of a first-strike nuclear attack on Iran, the endless occupation of a country that regards killing US troops as a ticket to heaven, and a domestic lock-down that looks, walks, smells and behaves very much like fascism. Enough bi-partisanship, thank you.

And if the red states want to secede, don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way to Jesusland.


wp

[sandnsea]

9. keep your enemies closer

Obama says you try to convince them that YOU'RE right, and if you can't do that you beat them.

A seat at the table doesn't mean they get a plate.

[merbex]

10. When they get a seat at the table

count the knives when they get up

[AspenRose]

21. WORD

And hope one doesn't end up in your back....

[symbolman]

11. Fuck Unity

ALL Republicans need to be Tarred and Feathered and RUN out of this Country on a RAIL.

BANISHED FOR LIFE.

They are EVIL ASSHOLES and have done nothing but Damage to this country. There is NO Middle with them, NO meeting of the Minds.

Period.

RIght ON Edwards, I'm leaning towards him more all the time :)

[King Coal]

19. He's a true democrat. Not so sure of Hillary and Obama.

[SalmonChantedEvening]

12. When you reach across the aisle

Use the hand that already has a hook on it.

Go John!!!!

[Vidar]

13. He's got that right.

[Vinca]

14. He's absolutely, positively right.

To hell with bipartisanship, let's get something done.

[depakid]

17. That's a classic comment!

If he could consistently pull zingers like this out at the debates, he'd be the front runner hands down.

[TheUnspeakable]

18. this is exactly why he's my candidate

[midnight]

20. Sad to say this, but Mr. Edwards is right, and apparently is not

going to let the american people continue to be left with nothing when they get to the table.

[Norquist Nemesis]

22. Spot on there John!! Just ask Grover Norquist what his definition of

compromise is.

[porphyrian]

23. That's the way I understand it. - n/t

[Blue_In_AK]

25. Excellent quote. I couldn't agree more. n/t

[bleedingheart]

26. Politics is like Tug of War...always has been...

moderation is what you get when you have two parties fighting one another..basically two sides pulling...with the knot staying in the "moderate middle" when the two sides are working hard for their own interests...

... the moment any one of the two parties start to become "moderate"...they get dragged...and the knot gets dragged over to one side or another...

it is utter bullshit to play unity unless you are "playing at it"...and you wrap your arm around your opponent and strangle him with your fake unity...

[WinkyDink]

31. You can omit the " like Tug of".

[bleedingheart]

32. you are correct...

[lvx35]

27. I totally back him on that. Looks like he's learning from Kucinich.

That crazy idea that we can actually win is quite energizing.

[mitchum]

28. Give 'em hell, John!

No quarter for those thieves and fascists

[iverglas]

30. and one more voice of agreement, foreign though it is

Quite apart from the fact that there really are things on which one simply doesn't compromise -- there really are people with whom one simply cannot compromise.

They couldn't care less about reconciliation or unity or accommodation of difference. They want their own way. And they will take whatever you give, and swallow it, and demand more.

Reproductive rights provide an instructive example. What have women gained in the US since Roe v. Wade? Nothing. What have women lost? Lots and lots. What has the right wing ever offered in order to accommodate people with different values and beliefs and policy choices and needs? Nothing. So what compromise has there ever been? None. And yet the reproductive rights landscape has changed dramatically in those three plus decades. There are undoubtedly some who thought that each inch they conceded, whether in their rhetoric or in their votes, would gain them some goodwill from the other side. Surely the other side's pure ill will, in this just as an obvious illustration and in so many other things, should be obvious by now.


Give them an inch and they'll demand a mile, inch by inch though it may be. They're not ever, ever going to give a millimetre themselves. That's not compromise, it's surrender, and if that's what you're going to do, you really might as well do it all at once and get it over with.

I admire Edwards' forthrightness in saying this straight out, as quoted in the opening post (and pretty much everything else said in the video). Up here on our Canadian chesterfield, we kinda liked him the last time around, and we still like him this time.

Maybe some day before long there will be powerful women and people of colour in US politics who think they can risk this kind of straight talk too. If Edwards keeps it up, the chances get better. ;)