Flash! Edwards Dropping Out
And there goes the Democrats’ best chance to win in the fall. I hope he’ll unite with Obama or Hillary in exchange for the nod as vice president, since that would mean all the difference. Amazingly, the Republicans appear once again to have benefited from liberal numbskullery. The trouble is, this economy can’t take any more Republican supply-side bullshit.
19 Comments.
I'm looking forward to Willard's List or McCain bombing Hanoi.
With all the complaining I hear from my liberal and moderate friends about corporate control of government and of our economy being gamed in favor of multi-nationals, it seems so strange to me that the ONLY candidate to not take any special interest money at all is the one dropping out today. Bummer!!!
Until the voting public learns to truly distrust the media, we are pretty well fucked like this, over and over.
I doubt Edwards will take another veep spot, but he may hold out on endorsing anyone until one or the other makes a serious pledge to address whatever issue he holds most dear – my guess, that being poverty.
ted, i think you're basically correct, and that the dems have just lost their single best candidate. one quibble, though– he wasn't their best chance to win in the fall. their best chance would be to somehow eliminate all electronic voting nationwide (or at least in dem-controlled states) and to institute a less cheater-friendly system instead. that they have not yet done this tells us that they are either a) even dumber than republicans or b) in on the election-stealing (i personally believe the correct answer is b, and so i won't feel too sorry for them when they lose in november (i'll just feel sorry for us)).
but anyway, yeah, if we're going to pretend that america is a democracy and that all individual votes are counted and weighted equally (LOL!), then yes, edwards was the dems' best shot in november; now they'll be going with an unelectable candidate instead. and i'll be very surprised if either clinton or obama chooses edwards for a running mate, since that would be following in kerry's footsteps (and of course, as we all know, he "lost").
Ted,
Please explain to me how our economy can't take any more of this? I'm not sure what that means.
Dave
http://www.naderexplore08.org/
Friends,
Here’s a safe bet: the two major political parties will nominate
Presidential candidates from the corporate wings of their parties.
What will that leave us in this election year?
Corporate control as usual.
If this happens, we have two choices throw in the towel.
Or fight back.
If we choose to fight back, here’s a good option:
Join with a person whose life is one of dedicated service to the
public interest.
To help him organize a political campaign in every state against
corporate control over our lives.
Luckily, that person Ralph Nader is considering such a
campaign.
But he will need active and informed citizens in every Congressional
district in the country.
He will need volunteers.
He will need funds.
He will need dedication.
That’s why we’ve signed on at Nader’s exploratory
web site: http://www.naderexplore08.org
Check it out.
And spread the word.
In 2008, it’s either sit back and watch the drift.
Or get off the couch and fight back.
Hope you will join us.
Thank you.
The Nader Team
there goes the Democrats' best chance to win in the fall. I
Yeah, because Edwards polled so well against the GOP candidates, compared with Obama or Hillary…right?
Come on now — I like Edwards a lot, but describing him in those terms is silly.
I'd love to see him throw his support to Obama, as you suggested in part, because I think the two of them have much more in common philosophically than Edwards and Hillary. Plus, given the popularity of the whole JFK paradigm with Obama's buzz right now, I'd love to see an Attorney General Edwards in an Obama administration. JFK & RFK redux!
However, even though Hillary just strikes me as an opportunistic DLC-centrist, I'll vote for her if she wins instead. Anything's better than more GOP crap.
there goes the Democrats' best chance to win in the fall. I
Yeah, because Edwards polled so well against the GOP candidates, compared with Obama or Hillary…right?
Right.
Please explain to me how our economy can't take any more of this? I'm not sure what that means.
This deserves a whole column. I'm mainly thinking about the runaway deficit spending, high unemployment and underemployment, and shrinking middle class that characterizes Republican presidential administrations.
"I'm mainly thinking about the runaway deficit spending, high unemployment and underemployment, and shrinking middle class that characterizes Republican presidential administrations."
Ted,
I agree with you that these things have happened and will continue to happen at an accelerated rate. And that it will be worse under a Republican administration because the social supports that governments can offer to help their citizens adjust will continue to be diminished.
This will continue the process of pauperizing the population and destroying the society that you and I both love and admire. However, my reason for asking the question is because I think it's the intellectual burden of those of us who recognize that this is not inevitable that 'can't take any more Republican supply-side bullshit,' not the economy, and certainly not the country.
The implementation of good values requires that enough people go to bat to maintain those values in practice, and while there are a lot of decent people in this country, our civil society is failing (for a number of reasons) to produce a robust defense of those good values. If Germany survived the Nazis, the United States can certainly survive the Republicans. It's not a matter of the survival of something called The United States, it is about the maintenance of a quality of life.
Once we start talking about the maintenance of a quality of life, what is being threatened here runs far deeper than simply political ideology, to the way in which we reproduce ourselves and our lifestyle.
Deep down I think that threat is so paralyzing to people that they would prefer to hang on to a delusion for as long as possible, believing up until the bitter end that tomorrow will be sunny.
Most importantly, I think this reality will persist after next November in spite of who is president -EVEN RALPH NADER, though I do prefer the personal satisfaction of it being one who will at least pay lip service to a better answer, if not take action toward that goal.
I think this is important to understand because 'the best' is often the enemy of 'the good,' and also the mortal enemy of the 'could be a whole lot worse.' A McCain victory is better than a Romney victory, but in reality neither of them make the overall task of sustaining a good quality of life for most people any less daunting.
Even electing Edwards, Gore or Nader President would not diminish the veracity of the struggle.
Ted,
Love your stuff.
And yes, with JE out and DK out there is no one left to vote for.
This country is in a corporate stranglehold.
Are we doomed. Yes. Are other countries. No. Is it time to move, maybe. [and to any of the America First idiots who post for me to get out of their America, FU too.]
I suppose in the end I'm not very patriotic, and I'm not at all nationalistic. I have nothing but the best wishes for anyone who seeks comfort moving elsewhere.
I've thought about this on numerous occasions and it may yet still happen. To offer my advice for consideration, since I've thought about this and even looked into it;
Dorothy was right.
There is no place like home. And I have come to the conclusion that this is my home. I've thought about moving so that my tax dollars don't support the war machine, etc, or to invest my faculties (such that they are) in a place that is looking in the right direction. I don't doubt that this may be the answer for some folks and if it is I admire them for it.
It's definitely not the answer for me.
Wolfgang: For anyone who tells you to get out of 'their America,' kindly explain to them that human cognition is based on socialization, therefore the adage of "It's not what you know, it's who you know" is a false dichotomy…who you know is often what you know and vice versa.
Therefore anyone who would say that to you probably doesn't live in your America, and you don't live in theirs.
This is what motivates me to be productive: the excuse to surround myself with people who are smarter than me.
Damn.
I guess it'll have to be Hillary, then. At least she's a fighter, though I'm not happy about who she's likely to fight for.
Yeah, I'll vote for whichever corporate-bought Democrat gets the nod, but I sure hope it's not that appeaser, Obama.
Damn.
Jana C.H.
Seattle
Saith Will Cuppy: I forget exactly why Rome fell. It was probably just one of those things.
If Germany survived the Nazis, the United States can certainly survive the Republicans.
After the world decimated the fledgling German nation state for the second time, Germans did what they should have done years earlier, and banned the party. The nazi ideology, and its many variants, had to be thoroughly excised from all of Europe.
The people and organizations who did business with and funded the nazis, however, were spared.
"If Germany survived the Nazis, the United States can certainly survive the Republicans." (~aggie)
The difference is that the USA was able and willing to rebuild the infrastructure and industry they had bombed to pieces in the process of "Liberating" Germany. The Nazis ran Germany pretty efficiently too.
Yes..yes, there are a lot of differences….they spoke German for one…
My point is that we should be clear about what it is we're trying to save…is it the physical reality of a nation-state occupying a specific geographic coordinate, or is it a quality of life.
Germany "survived" the Nazis because it still exists, but it's a far different place in many respects. It was simply the tag line of a broader point I was trying to make, which is that the push to establish and sustain a satisfactory quality of life for all individuals does not end with who gets elected.
I had dozens of friends who declare that if Kerry lost in 2004 they would leave the country. They're all still here -the one who actually left spent a year in Iraq and never made such a claim.
There will be no great collapse, no great revolution, and no great reform. The best we can hope for is ecological sustainability, but that's not even on the platform of any politician who has run for office since William Jennings Bryant.
I think a great deal of the moral suffering of liberals or the material suffering of the disenfranchised is that a great deal of it is caused by factors that the democratic process is structurally incapable of addressing.
It's all professional wrestling, but if only for symbolic reasons, Edwards was the one I was going to vote for in Mass primary, might write him in, will write somebody in.
Primaries function as soap operas and money-suckers.
There will be no great collapse, no great revolution, and no great reform.
But there already have been great collapses and revolutions here. We ought to be doing whatever we can to limit the influence of certain parties in the aftermath of the next one. Giving a shit is the first step. Annoying everyone you know with the facts is a decent second step. Pulling media pranks should be a priority for all of us. We need to get imaginative. Remember the "Raelians" who where going to kill their pets in the park to protest of the war? The stupid media showed up, the police were there. They basically hacked the news to get their anti-war message across. And lets not forget Grafitti Resaerch Lab, who are using home-made projectors and free software to put messages like "Impeach the Fucker" on the sides of buildings.
Sloppy, I know, but it is a start..And do you think I am going to publish my simple plan to defeat anti-freespeech zones at the next RNC and DNC? he he he.
btw, airong a local commercial during primetime on Fox News is still under $30 in LA.
As you know, first step is giving a shit.