If Edwards gets the nomination I believe America is ready for

[Jackpine Radical]

an ass-kickin' anti-corporate revolutionary for President.

And just in the nick of time.

[saracat]

1. Amen! We MUST prevail. Failure is NOT an option!

[DaLittle Kitty]

74. KICK IT... AGAIN!

:smoke:

[democraticmuslim]

95. He might not win...

Edwards might not win, but his message is spot on. Everyone knows it is the corporations that cause most of the economic problems in America. At least with lawyers like Edwards, they have to look over their shoulder and carefully examine their actions. The corporations in America are the reason that Capitalism is a failure and is hated all over the earth. They are the reason that government controlled healthcare is so badly needed... and government controlled retirement programs.

[90-percent]

104. Correction to the above statement

"Everyone knows it is the corporations that cause most of the economic problems in America."

That may be self evident to us well informed DU'ers, but, due to the efforts of Corporate MSM over the last 25 since Reagan years, I think Joe Sixpack has been conditioned to think that most problems with America are due to welfare queens, not enough defense spending and too many restrictions on Walmart. Oh, and there still aren't enough tax cuts.

I love how all these tax cut advocates are completely oblivious to our insta-depression triggering NATIONAL DEBT?


Edwards is spot on, but the challenge is to break through the foggy stranglehold MSM has on Every day Americans and feed them some facts. If enough facts get through to the masses, Americans will storm DC with pitchforks!

-90% Jimmy

[Two Americas]

107. don't agree

This is the one issue that Joe Sixpack has been ahead of us on for quite a while now.

[Yael]

2. Off to the greatest with ye!

[Jackpine Radical]

35. Thank you my friend.

[OneGrassRoot]

3. I was waiting for the "If Edwards gets the nomination..." thread.

Thanks!

:hi:

[Snotcicles]

4. Me too. I can go to bed now thanks. nt

[DaLittle Kitty]

5. This IS Mandatory! As Above... Failure IS NOT AN OPTION!

Lock Stop Total Fascism is the consequence with ALL that that entails...:think: :eyes:

[SammyWinstonJack]

17. I agree. Failure IS NOT AN OPTION!

Go John E. Go!

[DaLittle Kitty]

6. This IS Mandatory! As Above... Failure IS NOT AN OPTION!

Lock Stop Total Fascism is the consequence with ALL that that entails...:think: :eyes:

[DaLittle Kitty]

7. K&R Great Post!

:eyes:

[balantz]

8. K & R

[DaLittle Kitty]

59. Kick It!

:)

[balantz]

60. KICK!

:hi:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. I'll believe he's a revolutionary when he sings the Internationale at the convention.

Methinks you exaggerate his qualifications.

[KG]

16. word.

[tomp]

49. word word. nt

[TAGGLINES]

55. HASTA LA VICTORIA SIEMPRE

The Proof of the Pudding...is in the Eating

Hope he's for real...got some disturbing info about JE from DK's site...Seems as though some of JE's investments don't ring true to his 'wordsmithing'


:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Dear Supporter,

For the record:

New Hampshire is the first state where we are aggressively campaigning. Due to the Party lockout in Iowa, we chose to focus on New Hampshire.
I am the only person running for President who voted against the war, against funding the war 100% of the time, against the Patriot Act, and who stands for a universal single-payer not-for-profit healthcare system. Nevertheless I was excluded from Saturday night's ABC Presidential debate, or four tone monologue as it was.
In answer to your questions about why I didn't support former Senator John Edwards on the second ballot in Iowa: I have serious concerns about his connections to a Wall Street hedge fund, Fortress Investment Group. While attacking others for accepting campaign money from Washington lobbyists, he is up to his ears in money from Wall Street special interests.
He made half a million dollars in a single year for attending a few meetings for Fortress and has invested a substantial part of his own personal wealth in the hedge fund whose portfolios are responsible for sub-prime predatory lending practices, Medicare privatization, and an entire range of corporate sharp dealings that are driving the middle class into poverty.

:wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf:

While I indicated Senator Obama as a preferred second choice in Iowa, Progressives have fundamental disagreements with him and all of the other Presidential candidates on most of their major positions on the issues.

We must have the courage of our convictions to fully support and vote for what it is we really want. For once, we must realize our power, stop playing tactical games, and vote as a bloc - which, as you know, is what the religious right does and why they often win.

We Progressives are in the majority in this election. We will win only when we refuse to compromise and vote with integrity.

Dennis Kucinich

[JDPriestly]

83. Kucinich does not have to invest his money because he will

get a pension for serving in Congress. Those of us who "invest" what meager savings we have in 401(K)s probably have money invested in sub-prime mortgages whether we like it or not. When the whole sub-prime mortgage scandal came to light last summer, I reviewed my 401(K)s. The money I had in cash in one account was mostly actually invested in the very companies involved in the scandal. So you can keep your money in cash and in fact be involved in one of those schemes.

I'm sure Kucinich would be as shocked as I was to learn that the people who put in the money, even when they put it in by choice and have access to all the facts about their "investments" don't know what is done with the money after they "invest" it. And you really don't help matters by pulling your money out of the funds. That would leave the borrowers really high and dry.

The only answer is good regulation and full disclosure to begin with. Edwards will improve the oversight and regulation of corporate activity in America. That is what we need.

[alllyingwhores]

86. Wait a second...aren't most of the major lenders responsible for...

sub-prime predatory lending practices--including Countrywide, Chase, Fannie Mae, etc.?

"While I indicated Senator Obama as a preferred second choice in Iowa, Progressives have fundamental disagreements with him and all of the other Presidential candidates on most of their major positions on the issues." So...why did Kucinich prefer Obama?

Obama (and of course, Hillary) are completely entrenched and continuously spew about either nothingness ("The Audacity of Audaciousness") or about how they can't wait to continue to extend a kiss-ass hand across the aisle...to suck up even more to the NeoCons--if that's even possible!

Has Edwards responded to this?

[Two Americas]

109. absurd

No one is, and no one with a brain in their head would try to promote a candidate by portraying them as farther to the left than they are - that is the kiss of death in this red-baiting political culture the right wingers have created - so I doubt very much that anyone here would try to convince us that Edwards is Lenin or Che or Castro.

The "qualifications" criticism is misleading, as well, since I don't think many are claiming that Edwards is the most qualified, and since "qualified" never gets defined.

[midnight]

10. Yep, that's what I'm hoping for.

[Ninga]

11. We are witness to Edwards most amazing campaign. If he wins, it will be historic.

[pamela]

12. Hot damn. I wish I could recommend this twice.

"If Edwards gets the nomination I believe America is ready for an ass-kickin' anti-corporate revolutionary for President."

Love it! I'm going to steal it for my sig line if that's alright with you.

[Jackpine Radical]

14. Welcome to it.

[pamela]

18. Thanks.

I just changed my signature for the first time in 3 years. Changed my avatar while I was at it, too.

[Jackpine Radical]

34. I'm honored.

[OhioChick]

13. Hear, Hear!

:toast:

K&R
:kick:

[BrklynLiberal]

15. K & R!!!!!!!

[frogmarch]

19. We're here for you, John! K&R nt

[bdamomma]

20. John Edwards may surprised us all. Keep if you can donations

to his campaign because we know that the other two candidates are shelling out alot of money for their campaigns and advertising.

He may just pull it off, and Iowa and NH are just the beginning.

[peacock]

61. Yes! Keep the donations rolling in

Even a few dollars count and remember to give via http://johnedwards.com/

[Blackhatjack]

21. K & R ----- TWO BIG THUMBS UP !!!!!

[upi402]

22. I think you're right. Since Kucinich has been victimized by "democracy"

we have no other choice to fight corporatism. Kucinich would kick corporatism in the nads. At least Edwards wont tickle 'em though.

[Left coast liberal]

23. You got that right! Wahoo! Good luck tomorrow, JE!

[bagimin]

24. And if monkeys could fly.........

are you Edwards people watching the tv?

[Donnachaidh]

26. you mean that corporate ass-kissing fest?

No dear - we listen to the PEOPLE, not some corporate shill pushing Obama because they know he'll get reemed in the GE.

But you go right ahead and believe the "Audacity of Hype". :rofl:

[liberalla]

30. "Audacity of Hype" (!)

that is good! :rofl:

[Binka]

70. No. We'll Let The Ass Clowns Watch The TV n/t

[SammyWinstonJack]

76. ...

:spray: :thumbsup:

[Swamp Rat]

25. "an ass-kickin' anti-corporate revolutionary for President."

Love it! :patriot: :kick:

[havocmom]

29. Swampy, dear, will there be a graphic of the ass kickin anti corp revolutionary Prez?

we await your genius touch!

[Jim Sagle]

27. Fuckin' A!

[ihavenobias]

28. Yes, but is the Corporate Media ready?

The bias and lack of coverage for Edwards is awful. Did you see the Hardball interview with Elizabeth Edwards? If you watch it, jump to the 6 minute mark and be prepared to be floored by his outrageous statements shortly thereafter.

That's why I largely avoid the mainstream media for election coverage and opt for something better: http://bravenewfilms.org/election

[Jackpine Radical]

33. Somebody just did a content analysis of TV news (CNN?) after Iowa, and

Edwards got almost no coverage despite coming in second. It was all Hillary & Obama.

[liberalla]

31. "And just in the nick of time."

So true! We're cutting it very close.

:kick: for John Edwards!

[Critters2]

32. A friend in Iowa saw my Edwards button and asked,

"You're not supporting the woman?". I replied, "You're not supporting the Progressive Populist?"

Go Edwards!!

[Horse with no Name]

36. Preach it Brother Jackpine!

K&R

[tom_paine]

37. K & R

[Nutmegger]

38. R&K!!!

:thumbsup::kick:

[tavalon]

39. LOL

Great tag on!

[bonito]

40. K&R!

[OneGrassRoot]

41. I live in Raleigh and the local news had a brief interview with Elizabeth Edwards...

They asked her about polling and she said (paraphrased) "Look at John McCain. He was counted as out of this race last summer, and now he's poised to win New Hampshire. You can't rely on polls."

And, if our democracy has any chance, we need to let the process play out so everyone has a chance to really examine these candidates. It makes me nervous for ANYONE to be coronated so early. And I would include Edwards in that if he were the frontrunner. This process should take time, we need to allow it (as does the media, obviously).

[peacock]

62. Exactly!

[OzarkDem]

42. I think he will

and corporations really have little to fear. Making them work towards a strong economy in the US will be as good for them as it will for the rest of the country.

[SammyWinstonJack]

77. The corps don't care about this country or a strong economy for some reason.

:shrug: It's all about the bottom line. Nothing more, nothing less.

[riona]

43. He has my support

[mother earth]

44. Absolutely! We need Edwards to return power to the people.

:kick:

[peacock]

63. Power to the People, Right On!

[onehandle]

45. Hold corporations accountable.

Not that they've done anything wrong for the last eight years.

[Time for change]

46. Yes, I would say they are

According to the latest Rasmussen polls, Edwards is:

+16 over Romney, +7 over McCain, +9 over Thompson, +12 over Huckabee, even with Giuliani (though other polls have him ahead of Giuliani)

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/favorables/election_2008_democratic_candidates_running_in_2008_presidential_election

[TomClash]

47. A hedge fund revolution?

I like Edwards and will work hard for him if he is the nominee, but let's not go overboard. He's no revolutionary - he's a reformer at most.

[MissDeeds]

48. K&R!

Edwards will be a president of the people, by the people, and for the people.
:kick:

[earth mom]

50. Yes...but thought someone else was supposed to post this thread. nt.

[AlertLurker]

51. If Edwards gets the nomination I hope America will be ready for

an ass-kickin' anti-corporate revolutionary for President in 2012.

Not that I believe the other two mainstream candidates are any better, but if Edwards gets the nomination, An ass-kissing, lying, corporate lickspittle is all America will get.

[redqueen]

57. Who do you support, then? (nt)

[kcass1954]

52. I believe America needs an ass-kickin' anti-corporate revolutionary for President...

even if some of us don't realize it yet.

[jwirr]

53. Yes, indeed. And it will not be easy.

[redqueen]

54. Hahahaha... was there not a Skinner version for Edwards?

Glad someone made one for him. :)

[balantz]

56. C'mon America, see through the crap

and pick the right one, not a corporate-cardboard prop.

[fascisthunter]

58. . (nt)

[Bake]

64. I'm for Edwards, and I agree 10000%.

And assuming he has a Dem majority in both houses of Congress, there could be some ass-kicking indeed! Some much-needed ass-kicking.

And don't think the corporations don't know it!


Bake

[Evoman]

65. But will America vote for a white, rich man with a non-offensive, sterile hair-cut?

I am concerned.......

:hide:

[liberal N proud]

66. America needs an ass-kickin' anti-corporate revolutionary

for President

[FlyingSquirrel]

67. Yopp!

:bounce:

[Plucketeer]

68. Amusing to see

some of the troll's commentary here. Derogatory comments with no alternative solutions. Kidde-time stuff. Hey trolls - go pick on someone your own minescule size! :puke:

GO Johnny GO!:kick:

[Clinton Crusader]

69. He IS the person to be president..

and I so so so so so hope.....

but this media machine behind Obama, I dunno, it's like a steamroller. The sheep are just followin' along, esp. with NBC. Anyone watchin' NBC will be left out if they don't vote for Obama. If they vote for JE or HRC, they'll feel left out or like a loser. Between Tweety, Scarborough, Mika, Robinson et al. and this constant disgusting, offensive invoking of the memory of Bobby Kennedy and drumming into everyone's head that Obama is the reincarnation of Bobby Kennedy, I'm about ready to scream myself into insanity of chuck the TV off my porch!

If ANYONE comes even CLOSE to sounding like Bobby Kennedy, talking constantly about the disenfranchised, the poor, the uninsured, parents who can't feed or cloth their children, the left out, the stepped on, the pushed to the side, the middle class who can't pay their bills, don't get paid what they should, can't find a job it's JOHN EDWARDS. OBAMA as Bobby Kennedy? PLEASE! Someone get me a drink.

:crazy:

[Clinton Crusader]

71. Just doin' a major K&R!

:bounce:

[lisainmilo]

72. Yes....and he is in it all the way to convention!

:patriot:

[Cronus Protagonist]

73. Right on Skinner!! You finally got it right!!!

Oh, sorry, I thought you were Skinner for a second... :P

[wake.up.america]

75. I will be sooooo disappointed, if Edwards does not become President.

I think Edwards is mad and knows exactly what he has to do. The country needs to wake up and start taking care of its people. The world for that matter, needs to stop the B.S.from the few who ruin it for everybody else. I am sooo sick of piggy wiggy selfish idiots.

[SammyWinstonJack]

78. You and me both!

[vanbean]

79. Heard a lister on Stephanie Miller make a good point today.

He remarked that Obama's followers are inspired by his cushy ideas of unity while Edwards stresses that work is going to be needed for the people to undo the 8 years of damage Bush as left us with, and he is right on. Edwards is the only one who is being realist in the need for change and how that will come about.

[EFerrari]

81. Welcome to DU, vanbean.

:)

[SammyWinstonJack]

85. Welcome to DU.

:hi:

[wake.up.america]

88. Delete

[EFerrari]

80. When you think about it, all of our candidates provide and antidote

for some part of the destructive Republican program.

Of course, John is the most comprehensive one. :evilgrin:

[Maestro]

Amen to that. If Kucinich can't get the nomination,

Edwards would be my choice then. I like what he has to say.

[Mrspeeker]

82. hell I'm ready

K&R

[mzmolly]

84. LOL

:toast:

[Phx_Dem]

87. K&R

[hiway]

89. John EDWARDS and the Michigan State Primary

The Michigan State Primary is a mess. I want to vote for John EDWARDS but cannot because the Democratic National Committee (DNC) sanction Michigan because the primary date was moved up AND John EDWARDS, Obama, Biden, and Richardson removed their names from the Michigan ballot.

Independents MUST choose Democrat or Republican to vote in the January Primary OR vote Uncommitted.

My only choices are to vote for those named on the ballot - OR - vote UNCOMMITTED. We are being told to vote UNCOMMITTED and if there are enough uncommitted votes delegates will be assigned AND THESE DELEGATES WILL CAST THEIR VOTES AS THEY SEE FIT IN THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION. This stinks! Watch this video on YouTube -- http://youtube.com/watch?v=1a5y75EiRsc

I am going to pass on the January Primary vote and wait until the August, 2008 Primary to cast my vote of John EDWARDS. I suggest all others who wished to vote for him or the other candidates NOT on the ballot to do the same. Here is a link to view the Michigan State Democratic Party's video telling us to vote UNCOMMITTED. Please watch it and pass the word to all Democratic and Independen voters of Michigan. http://youtube.com/watch?v=1a5y75EiRsc

Hiway

[sandyj999]

97. I get Do-over In Michigan

I received my ballot two weeks ago and it said you could choose one of the few choices or write in. So I wrote in John Edwards as did my husband. A week later they finally start announcing if you wrote in, your ballot is scrapped. Needless to say it made me very angry. This morning I called the clerk's office, explained what had happened and they are mailing me two new absentee ballots. I will probably be voting uncommitted as that is the only choice I am comfortable with.

[grantcart]

90. A distinction and an important difference

Edwards is not against corporations.

Edwards is against corporate greed of some companies. More specifically greed that comes at the expense of public policy for the greater good; energy policy, universal health care, combating poverty.

He would like to jump start a new corporate culture that will for example bring new innovation in green technologies that will curb greenhouse gasses for example.

Not trying to nitpick and realize that you are in full agreement with it but Edwards has been very clever in focusing his attacks very specifically on the greed and not all corporate entities. Some people who hear a more general attack on corporations in general will not join us and we need them.

[pauldg0]

96. ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!!!

I Wish people would have some common sense.

EDWARDS 08.

[Two Americas]

110. only part of the story

There is nothing that makes some corporations greedy and some not, since by definition corporations are not directed or controlled by any individuals - good or bad - they are driven by the absolute imperative of returning the maximum return to investors. That is to say, they must by law maximize ROI, and should they wish to survive they are compelled to be "greedy."

Edwards talks about curbing corporations, because of the inherent structural bias of corporations that guarantees that when unregulated they will act against the best interests of the society and for the benefit of the few. They are designed to do just that. This is not ideology or philosophy or opinion, it is a matter of historical fact.

The important point to make is that being anti-corporation is not being anti-business. If we eliminated corporate charters altogether, no businesses would be harmed and in fact we would have a much healthier and productive business climate.

While the fanciful notion that we could make corporations be more responsible citizens by rewarding them with yet more tax breaks, doles and incentives (they should not be citizens of any kind at all, of course) is attractive in some upscale liberal circles as an imagined painless way to effect good social policy without having to confront the tyrants, it has not proved to be successful. I recently talked with a person involved in one of the showcase "greening of corporations" projects in Colorado, and all parties now agree that the concept just does not and will not work. Sooner or later, return of maximum moolah to investors MUST be the priority for any corporate management team or they will be out of their jobs.

I have talked to thousands of blue collar workers and minority people all over the country for 25 years, including in very conservative districts, and I have never had anyone defend corporations when I talk about how they are ravaging the country. Most people know that they are rackets for enriching the few at the expense of all of the rest of us. If you can't run with an anti-corporate theme, I don't know what kind of Democrat you would be.

[grantcart]

112. an american anomaly

We have a situation that is completely different than that of other developed countries where corporations are limited to what they can do in the political sphere. You are right that corporations will always manipulate whatever advantage they can to promote themselves and that will not change. What is unique in America is that the government oversight of corporations is weak and their ability to bribe legally is unrestricted.

I have lived 20 years outside of the US and for a time was a CEO of a small corporation and I can tell you that where the political connection is severed and all the corporations are limited to simply manipulating purely commercial factors like productivity, branding etc. these corporations (in Europe and Canada for example) that I am very familiar with have a completely different ethos than American corporations. I worked with corporations in Canada that were owned by Mennonites and some of the largest corporations in Europe, for example IKEA, who before they buy one thing from you first investigate how you treat your employees. Ingmar Komprad the owner of IKEA came to my factory we spent a day working on products and what not and at the end of the day he left. Five minutes later his car returned and he came to my office and the 4th richest man in Europe said that he apologized but he forgot the most important thing and went around and thanked personally each one of the 167 workers we had for working so hard to make good products for him.

Your own provincial experience has limited your access to historical fact. Simply because we have developed a particularly predatory kind of capitalism and corporations does not mean that other countries like Sweden, Canada, Denmark, etc. have.

Despite what you think John Edwards is saying you need to re read his statements and he is very careful in his choice of language he is not running a class campaign and he is not against corporations. He is for transforming the nature of the relationship between corporations and the political structure. Eliminating the greed and legalized bribery. By expanding the rhetoric beyond that you only help condemn this reform movement to an even smaller minority than it already is.

What kind of Democrat am I? Well I am not the kind of Democrat that is doctrinaire and then holds that narrow standard in judgement of "what kind of Democrat" other people are. And for your information my current professional service is 100% limited to union people and organizers none of whom I have met have either the hostility or the narrow vision you profess. Unless you are an elected union official representing official union opinion please limit your ideological, economic and historical presentation to your own rhetorical stand.

[Two Americas]

113. assumptions

I think we might both be making assumptions here about what the other guy is saying that are false, grant.

We are in complete agreement on this statement you made:

"You are right that corporations will always manipulate whatever advantage they can to promote themselves and that will not change. What is unique in America is that the government oversight of corporations is weak and their ability to bribe legally is unrestricted."

Yes.

As for the rest, there seems to be some disagreement, but I am not certain what it is. Bear with me and I will make a stab at it.

I don't believe that the American corporate experience is the anomaly, but rather the rule. We can discuss that in more depth and I would look forward to that. I have no doubt that some corporations operate in a mre socially responsible manner - particularly when one person or a small group of people maintain control of the corporation and can impress socially responsible policies on the organization over time. Your point about the corruption of government an politics by corporations in the US being an anomaly is well taken and I agree.

I didn't advocate elimination of corporations, let alone suggest that this was Edwards position, I said that corporations - the government granted charters - could be eliminated without necessarily harming businesses. What are the nature of the charters in these other countries in the examples you are referring to, by the way? The charter is what makes the corporation a corporation.

I am glad to hear that the 4th richest man in Europe is a nice guy, and never have suggested that rich people are evil.

I don't think I have a hostile or narrow viewpoint about this, but I am willing to be persuaded otherwise. I also do not think my viewpoint is "doctrinaire."

First, I didn't say that Edwards is "against corporations," I said that one need not be anti-business to be anti-corporation. I said Edwards favored curbing corporations.

You say that Edwards "is not running a class campaign." Not sure what you mean by "class campaign." He certainly is acknowledging that there is an existing class war that is already going on. What else does he mean by "two Americas?" He has also made it clear which of the two Americas is getting the shaft, and which he champions.

As to my “what kind of Democrat” remark. I wasn’t sufficiently clear. What I mean is, what sort of Democrat would be unwilling to take up the cause of labor? Why would they hesitate to advocate for regulation of capital when labor was being mistreated? Defending labor is not the same thing as saying that all business is bad. But again I am not sure what you heard me say, nor what you mean by your response. You say what kind of Democrat you are not—the kind that you assume I am.

[Jemmons]

91. Kicking Ass!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9IvT7RF2QM

[veniceboy]

92. Oh yeah, America loves rich lawyers!

The guy is built to lose the general election. This country is far more conservative than the members of this board acknowledge.

[stickernation]

94. autodelete

[SammyWinstonJack]

99. Feel better now?

[kenfrequed]

93. Well

He isn't ideal as a candidate, but he isn't the worst Democratic candidate running either. I suppose he is the best our corporate masters are comfortable with the progressive left to aspire to.

[MadHound]

98. Yes I believe America is ready for such a president,

I just hope that Edwards turns out to be that sort of president. Frankly I don't trust any populist come lately, which is what Edwards is. Nor does his donor list inspire much confidence that he is going to do much beyond talking a good game. I would love to be proven wrong, but:shrug:

[harmonicon]

100. If Edwards gets the nom, we'll need one after he's through.....

[KoKo]

101. Good Point....and his lack of Government Experience means he's "Cleaner" than the rest!

I was just thinking about that today. One of my problems with Edwards was that he wasn't in the Senate very long and had no governing or legislative experience and so wouldn't be as qualified as the rest. But, someone posted an article from Harpers of a Ken Silverstein article from '06 talking about Obama and how he's been financed and vetted by the same folks who bankrolled the Clintons...and who is involved in his Senate PAC called "HOPE" (I kid you not ...that's name of his PAC) and I realized that given the dirty money and influence that's in the Senate and House today...it may be a very good thing that Edwards is just a Trial Lawyer and maybe his stint with that Hedge Fund was to give him some credibility in learning about how a Hedge Works and Wall St. It might have been very valuable experience for him given that Wall St. is Imploding and many of our banks will be soon.

Nothing against Obama and I support Kucinich (since Gore isn't running) but Edwards is starting to look mighty clean given Hillary & Obama's ties.

I hope his promise to stay through the Convention is firm. Because it's looking like he might have a chance ... Clinton's meltdown today...with Bill attacking Obama sure didn't look good and I'd like to still have an alternative since I and others can't vote until May 5th for my primary. I'd like to see that Dem Convention shaken up with uncommitted Delegates...Super Delegates who will have to choose...

[SlowDownFast]

102. K&R. Go Edwards! n/t

[robertpaulsen]

103. Corporate Ass Kicker for President.

Edwards seems to recognize that there are some people -- like the health care executive he cited who retired from his job with over $100 million in the policy-holders loot -- who don't deserve to come together with anything except a grand jury. Edwards is willing to gaze past the kindergarten emotions of primary politics and see the stupendous ugliness and unfairness of a land that is being sucked dry by corporate vampires. I believe he will righteously kick their asses, and that they need to get their asses kicked, so I'm more inclined to support Edwards. I believe he means it, too.

I was impressed that night by the TV commercial that followed Obama's speech. The commercial promoted a hydrogen car that General Motors is pretending to develop. It was very slick, of course, since GM can get the best TV production talent money can buy. It featured a light-skinned African-American man (not unlike Obama) playing a sort of Mr. Science Teacher role among a flower-strewn meadow full of schoolchildren with a modest GM sedan at the center of the picture. Mr. Science Teacher was telling the kids how this new GM wonder car would run without any nasty gasoline, and out of its tailpipe would come nothing but pure clean water, and wasn't the future-according-to-General-Motors a fabulous thing! It was all very heartwarming, except it was complete mendacious bullshit. GM will never produce a commercial line of hydrogen-powered cars, and America will never set up a supporting infrastructure of hydrogen production and retail fueling stations. And GM knows all this.

General Motors deserves to have its ass kicked for misleading the public so shamelessly. I think Edwards is the only candidate who would kick their ass. I'm not quite sure how he would do it, or what he would say, but here's how I suggest he should frame the issue. "General Motors, can you take some of the money and human capital that you devote to misleading the public about hydrogen cars, and see if you can apply it instead to producing some decent up-to-date rolling stock for the US railroad system, which we have got to get up-and-running again -- or I WILL KICK YOUR ASS." Something like that.

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Archives2008/KunstlerGeneralMotors.html

[ozone_man]

105. I'm ready, the country may be ready.

Let's go kick some corporate ass!

[calteacherguy]

106. Edwards is O.K., but he does not inspire the people like Obama.

We need to create a massive movement for change, and Obama is our best option for that.

[Two Americas]

111. no doubt about that

But of course both of them pale in comparison to Britney Spears.

"Creating a massive movement for change" is necessary, but not sufficient. Massive movement of whom, for whom, and with what goal? "Change" is not a goal. Every charismatic demagogue and tyrant throughout history has "created a massive movement for change."

[Dem_4_Life]

108. Amen to that.