View Story | 771 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
by davidsirota on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 08:49:06 AM PDT
I believe that we need a strong progressive who is going to listen to everyday people, not shut us out of the debate. I agree that John Edwards is that person.
by Newzie on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 08:55:45 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
in a little bar in Newmarket, NH a week or so ago. That was all it took for me to know I would support him. He was sincere, engaging and very human. He wants the troops out of Iraq and health care for every American.
"Neither a man nor a crowd nor a nation can be trusted to act humanely or to think sanely under the influence of a great fear."
by sydluna on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 12:37:46 PM PDT
health care and Iraq are the biggies for me, and of course fighting poverty. I really don't think there's much of a contest between candidates if health care and poverty are your big issues. Edwards platform to alleviate poverty is the strongest of all the candidates.
Netroots Director for Oregon Senate Candidate Jeff Merkley. Kossacks Donate to Merkley Here!
by sarahlane on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 03:15:11 PM PDT
The place was packed, standing room only, mostly middle aged and some elderly people as well as young people. This was a little restaurant/bar in tiny Newmarket NH at 1pm on a weekday and lots of people showed up. Edwards really shined. I think he will do well here.
by sydluna on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 03:55:47 PM PDT
by Yoshimi on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 09:02:13 AM PDT
'I speak, therefore I act' is the great American illusion of politics.
by snout on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 04:51:19 AM PDT
China being in the W.T.O, David?
Kucinich was the only one willing to criticize that.
Join the College Kossacks on Facebook. Hat Thief
by DemocraticLuntz on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 09:14:17 AM PDT
talking about corporate takeover.
by DemocraticLuntz on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 09:15:45 AM PDT
MFN should be revoked. And Chinese industries that have proven to be unsafe should be sancxtioned with tariffs. Once the Chinese clean up the abuses MFN could be reinstated.
"It's a race to decide who the British goverment will follow blindly for the next 4 years" Kennedy/Kerry '08
by Salo on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 09:59:15 AM PDT
I usually agree with you, but on this account we are dealing with an economy that is enormous in China and we need to sell our goods there.
What, I think, we need is to have a President who will enforce the agreements from the World Trade Organization. Chineese and any other companies that send the US tainted goods need to be punished and prevented from endangering our citizens.
An Edwards administration would enforce the rules with China.
by Funphil on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 10:17:11 AM PDT
We do not produce any goods in this country any more - what goods are we trying to sell? Agriculture? So we have sold out all other industries and manufacturing base in our country so that we can see corn to China? Look at our trade deficit - I would say 10 years of this policy is not working well.
Bring back our base, produce a skilled work force and sell our products again.
by totallynext on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 10:55:37 AM PDT
I agree with you. As I told some bankers the other day who want me to invest trust funds in equities, the time is not right now and if it were not for all the business American companies are getting in China, we'd be close to stagflation now. For those who don't know, that is inflation plus stagnation in capital investments. Once again, we see that trickle down doesn't work.
The problem with investing in Chinese equities is that it is a country running so fast they don't know what they are doing and there are no regulations insuring investors, depositors and consumers against really stupid Chinese businessmen. Without our regulations, we'd have a lot more really stupid American businessmen.
By enforcing the rules, China might have to slow itself down long enough to build a regulation's infrastructure, something that makes Republicans gag but something that makes pure capitalism work.
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis
by cpa1 on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 10:58:09 AM PDT
market that we just can't live without, why do we have such a huge trade deficit? If somebody is making money is China, it sure as hell isn't us.
...once you're willing to say whatever it takes to win, you lose. ~~Dean
by dkmich on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 03:00:24 PM PDT
We hardly make anything anymore. The knowledge to make whatever we did once manufacture has been transferred there and to other countries. Whatever intellectual property we did have, if we haven't given it away, it's been stolen. Along with manufacturing, the brilliant American companies are outsourcing research and development like it's going out of style.
The playing field is so tilted that it's a tragic joke. There is no fair market with China. It's a one-way deal, unless they want to buy our weapons, and hell, they've probably got all that technology too. They are scouring the world for raw materials.
Why would they buy anything from us when they can make it themselves and/or steal whatever they want because they don't honor our copyrights or anything else?
We can't sell anything to China in any appreciable way because... we have been sold out.
"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." --Samuel Johnson
by joanneleon on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 04:30:00 AM PDT
if China didn't have the ability to sink our currancy.
Help us pay for our ballot statement! ActBlue
by Ellinorianne on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 10:23:04 AM PDT
The people in this country are in a fight for their financial lives against the corporations. People need to do what is right. They need to take the medicine and get it over with so we can quit worrying and talking about it and move ahead. I am tired of being stalled in the 80s. They weren't all that good even back then.
by dkmich on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 03:04:03 PM PDT
Knowing what they perceive to be their opportunities and their keys to success is the best way to find out what they will do
So what candidates talk about while campaigning is in fact what they do while in office?
A) That it is supposed to be that way is not an earth shattering revelation.
B) There is not great evidence that it actually is that way.
Your take is that Edwards will focus on this not because he believes in it, but becuase he is preaching it now. In fact, that seems to support the inference that Edwards would NOT focus on these things. (I think Edwards probably does believe in what he is saying, but I really don't know).
Also, this idea you parrot that once in power, people are beholden to their "base," is a bit fanciful. Many politicians in office also take positions because of a) the same special interests that you write about (and hopefully Edwards means this when he says that he pleads guilty to this in the past, but no longer...) b) again how certain actions might appear to others, including all those affected, and c) probably the most important, their own point of view.
You also write what has become an almost overbearing theme:
Are so bitter and angry and jealous to attack progressives for getting their message out
Not only do I believe that the vituperative attacks are counterproductive, but I have written about it. In fact, I wrote a diary recently that used your short piece on Clinton as somewhat of an example.
In the comments to your piece therein, you repeatedly attacked people for "attacking you." And while there was some of that, you also often confused people disagreeing with you as a personal attack of some sort. As if, if someone does not share your opinion, they must be full of it.
Consistently, you did not see that a title "Clinton thinks Iowans are stupid" was a bit of an attack on Clinton, nor that it was possible that Clinton could have supported a particular trade agreement, not have supported others, and at the same time believe we need to take a step back and look at them all.
There is far too much name calling among Democrats, and at the same time, confusing actual substantive disagreement with "attacking" someone, when it is nothing of the sort.
Saying that a candidate thinks Iowans are stupid because you don't agree with her point of view or that it is hypoctitical (when others don't), is a bit of an attack. Pointing out to you the arguments and facts as to why her position was not necessarily hypocritical, is not.
by Ivan Carter on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 03:37:38 PM PDT
I'm sure the assumption is they've done more than listen to
...what candidates talk about while campaigning...
There is seeing who they meet with, who they go to for money, what they say in informal settings, people who have had dealings with the candidates in days past. On top of that, official patter when analyzed, shows what they want people to think, or not think, about. Reporting is not just stenography, although that is indeed the corporate custom of today.
Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do.
by Jim P on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 06:23:03 PM PDT
A main point of the comment you are responding to was the assumptions made. So in responding to it, you make yet another one.
And the assumption you make is a little off topic. The diary itself uses a video of Edwards speaking, and the subject of Edwards focus as its main examples. (And even the diary itself points out that this has been somewhat of a change from days past).
Also, aside from using what Edwards says and the issues he has taken up as the examples of what he means, Sirota also specifically defined what he was referring to (and which you redefine in your assumption), as:
The only thing that really matters is what they see their opportunities grounded in - that is, what they see their political base as and who they believe they rely on for their current and future political survival and advancement.
The prior comment addressed that as well, and suggested that there was more to it than who they may be appealing to right now.
To the extent politicians take positions in office that overlap their base, a large part of that may likely be due to the fact that their beliefs may be generally similar to some of their base; not so much because of it.
Therein, I listed three factors that may play a more direct role than specifically trying to appeal to one's base while in office
A) The same special interests that Sirota writes about (and hopefully Edwards means this when he says that he pleads guilty to this in the past, but no longer...), B)how certain actions might appear to others, including all those affected (which means those who may not vote for them automatically), and C) probably the most important, their own point of view.
That said, again, of course there is some merit in judging what a candidate seems to be driven by and what they are responding to, and that was mentioned in the original comment as well.
by Ivan Carter on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 08:58:20 PM PDT
Clintonistas for Obama
by atdnext on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 09:20:18 AM PDT
also shatter that myth, so they must be ignored.
by mcinma on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 09:24:31 AM PDT
I'd like to know. I know it's generally condisered to be a poor bill from a leftwing perspective. But what is the specific objection to it?
by Salo on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 10:02:26 AM PDT
I love the framing of that. As if restricting access to bankruptcies -- a majority of which are caused by medical bills -- is some partisan issue. It wasn't good for average people of any political stripe, just financial institutions. Or so they thought.
Bankruptcy Law Backfires as Foreclosures Offset Gains (Update1) By Kathleen M. Howley Nov. 8 (Bloomberg) -- Washington Mutual Inc. got what it wanted in 2005: A revised bankruptcy code that no longer lets people walk away from credit card bills. The largest U.S. savings and loan didn't count on a housing recession. The new bankruptcy laws are helping drive foreclosures to a record as homeowners default on mortgages and struggle to pay credit card debts that might have been wiped out under the old code, said Jay Westbrook, a professor of business law at the University of Texas Law School in Austin and a former adviser to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. ``Be careful what you wish for,'' Westbrook said. ``They wanted to make sure that people kept paying their credit cards, and what they're getting is more foreclosures.''
Bankruptcy Law Backfires as Foreclosures Offset Gains (Update1) By Kathleen M. Howley
Nov. 8 (Bloomberg) -- Washington Mutual Inc. got what it wanted in 2005: A revised bankruptcy code that no longer lets people walk away from credit card bills.
The largest U.S. savings and loan didn't count on a housing recession. The new bankruptcy laws are helping drive foreclosures to a record as homeowners default on mortgages and struggle to pay credit card debts that might have been wiped out under the old code, said Jay Westbrook, a professor of business law at the University of Texas Law School in Austin and a former adviser to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.
``Be careful what you wish for,'' Westbrook said. ``They wanted to make sure that people kept paying their credit cards, and what they're getting is more foreclosures.''
Dennis Perrin's Savage Mules: The Democrats and Endless War
by darrelplant on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 11:51:03 AM PDT
IIRC Biden sponsored that bill.
by zazzlin on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 12:00:07 PM PDT
and voted against a Wellstone amendment that would have excluded bankruptcies caused by medical bills.
by mcinma on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 12:27:17 PM PDT
I'm sure WaMu was happy with the earlier bankruptcy restrictions that Edwards voted for, too.
It's not as if this is something that just snuck up on us. Rational economists have been warning for years that Americans were living on a waterbed of credit of mortgage and debt service. Buy a home, run up credit card debt, sell the house for a profit pay off the cards, buy another house with the rest, run up more credit cards, etc. Some people (like the banks) thought it would go on forever, despite the lessons of history. They thought if they could prevent people from accessing bankruptcy, they could put all of the onus for self-control on the consumer and just keep reeling in the profits from credit cards and mortgage fees and interest.
But there's a limit to how much expensive housing Americans can afford. Eventually, people can't sell their house to pay off their debts because there aren't enough buyers. So they walk away from the money they've paid on their mortgages and start over somewhere.
Irrational exuberance, indeed.
by darrelplant on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 01:14:56 PM PDT
Check your facts.
Biden didn't sponsor it. He wasn't even one of the 12 co-sponsors of it.
Edwards also voted for very similar bankruptcy legislation in 2000and 2001.
So yeah...watchyerback.
"The Irish were not wanted here. Now an Irishman is President. There is no question that in the next forty years, a Negro can achieve the same position." - RFK
by Matisyahu on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 01:27:16 PM PDT
The pre-2004 Edwards was a bit of a triangulator, it would seem. The bankruptcy vote, the AUMF vote, plus I'm sure there's other stuff.
On the other hand, his message since I've been aware of him has consistently been one of greater economic justice. I think he sees and comprehends the situation of ordinary working class Americans.
Regarding his AUMF vote, he has explicitly copped to playing a game of political expediency at the time. He has represented that that was not the real John Edwards talking, and he has expressed regret in a way that certainly sounds sincere.
Each of us can decide who we think the "real" John Edwards might be. But Sirota's point is different. He is not concerned with the essential nature of the man (which ultimately we cannot know anyway), but rather with where Edwards thinks his advantage lies and therefore, by extension, what he is likely to do once in office.
I will go a bit farther than Sirota does-- I do support Edwards, because I have decided that I do believe he really is committed to greater economic justice.
by DBunn on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 10:58:09 AM PDT
before we went into Iraq. However, I was not a Senator given phony intelligence information that was basically sworn to by the Administration. If I was a Senator and I was wrong and I was part of a majority to stop the invasion of Iraq, I could have caused a lot of tragedy. My entire point of view would be different and I am not so sure if that extra responsibility would have at the very least authorize military action to scare the shit out of Saddam Hussein.
Obama, had absolutely NO responsibility so he and I were in the same place, hating Bush and the Republicans. There is no telling what he would have done at that time had he been a Senator the, especially after he voted to confirm Condoleezza Rice for Sec'y of State. Look at that hypocrite who had Bush so much and mistrusted Bush so much that he confirmed the biggest of the Bush public liars. How much credit should he get, none!
So, the AUMF was one thing but once Bush decided to ignore everyone, including attempts by Saddam to fell Iraq, that is when the Democrats should have stopped him in his tracks and not do what Kerry and Clinton were mantraing about. The I did the right thing, mantra.
Edwards admitted that he got fooled by a criminal Administration and he did the wrong thing. To me that shows not only character but an understanding of the kind of politician we need from here on in. Clinton talks like her broomstick is stuck up her ass and Obama is not ready as he is still relying on a vote he never had to make in an obsessive way not different that Giulian's 9/11 mantra. Edwards understands and he is the kind of politician we want in the 21st century.
by cpa1 on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 11:19:16 AM PDT
Do you agree or disagree with David's point? Yes or no?
The only thing that really matters is what they see their opportunities grounded in - that is, what they see their political base as and who they believe they rely on for their current and future political survival and advancement. These are the factors that tell us how politicians will behave in office, who they will act on behalf of, and what constituencies they think they answer to.
These are the factors that tell us how politicians will behave in office, who they will act on behalf of, and what constituencies they think they answer to.
by dkmich on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 03:10:19 PM PDT
not even Kucinich has been perfect on every issue or vote for that matter. Edwards as a whole has a solid record as a Senator, had a great career fighting big corp. and has done lots of work fighting poverty. I think it's impossible to find a candidate that has voted perfectly liberal on every vote that came to the floor.
by sarahlane on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 03:20:41 PM PDT
The point is that he should discuss China.
by DemocraticLuntz on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 09:25:12 AM PDT
and been pretty good on it in my opinion.
by DemocraticLuntz on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 09:32:10 AM PDT
that it was important to bring China into the WTO and the issue has more to do with the lack of regulation and enforcement of laws that already exist?
Is this a fair description of why he voted the way he did?
by Ellinorianne on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 09:44:46 AM PDT
that we could be taking action on China through the WTO, but that the Bush administration hasn't done so (because they need the Chinese to finance their deficit-spending).
by DemocraticLuntz on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 09:46:33 AM PDT
to impose tariffs or export ban on certain Chinese products. MFN doesn't stop safety inspection or the imposition of bans and tariffs.
by Salo on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 10:01:00 AM PDT
very hard to actually listen to when he explains himself, he's not afraid to answer these questions (Edwards) and doesn't shy away from them, I think this is why I don't have issues with his sincerity, if he really couldn't explain himself or if he was unable to answer the question, then I get worried.
by Ellinorianne on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 10:14:03 AM PDT
Against monitoring of slave labor, against support for labor organizers in China ...
Pass S. 223. Call Your Senators Today.
by Adam B on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 10:15:29 AM PDT
can you link to a source? Thank you.
by Ellinorianne on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 10:21:18 AM PDT
of Edwards and the other candidates on their votes on issues like this are invalid.
We all know how laws are made around here and there aren't many that get through without so many amendments that the original bill is practically unrecognizable. Politicians add nasty amendments to good bills with the hopes of killing them all the time.
While it is important to scrutinize a candidate's votes, I think it is possible to go overboard looking for a gotcha moment.
However, I was not aware that Edwards supported the Bankruptcy Bill. Helping out the credit card companies was the main thrust of this legislation and if he did support it, I'd like to hear his reasoning.
"The meek shall inherit nothing" - F. Zappa
by cometman on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 10:35:41 AM PDT
And Edwards has apologized for his bankruptcy vote.
by Adam B on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 10:47:36 AM PDT
that is good to know.
by cometman on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 10:56:02 AM PDT
.
by Adam B on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 10:47:07 AM PDT
vote number?
by America08 on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 10:33:56 AM PDT
To require that the Congressional-Executive Commission monitor the cooperation of the People's Republic of China with respect to POW/MIA issues, improvement in the areas of forced abortions, slave labor, and organ harvesting, and for other purposes.
To require that the President certify to Congress that the People's Republic of China has responded to inquiries regarding certain people who have been detained or imprisoned and has made substantial progress in releasing from prison people incarcerated for organizing independent trade unions.
by Adam B on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 10:46:54 AM PDT
you cite but the YEA votes are an interesting mix - Kennedy, Wellstone, Feingold, but also Hatch, Helms, Sessions, Specter, Thurmond. This is clearly not a black-and-white vote.
by dannyinla on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 11:01:26 AM PDT
... human rights unites the far-left and far-right.
by Adam B on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 11:06:24 AM PDT
by dannyinla on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 11:14:31 AM PDT
by Adam B on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 11:15:28 AM PDT
Not so much when the human rights abuser was a US authoritarian client regime.
A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves. ~Edward R. Murrow
by ActivistGuy on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 02:27:01 PM PDT
voted with the majority. Why, I can't tell you, but there are others who I respect who voted the same way as he did.
by Ellinorianne on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 11:38:36 AM PDT
by Adam B on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 12:30:42 PM PDT
I most certainly did say they were right.
by Ellinorianne on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 12:48:19 PM PDT
I meant to write didn't
by Ellinorianne on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 12:55:45 PM PDT
Populist Progressive" and acknowledges that he like all the other candidates is an oppurtunist. But right now Edwards is coming up with the best plans and is surrounding himself with people like David Bonior.
by Ricardo11 on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 09:50:49 AM PDT
Or is Edwards being written about because he's more popular?
by Partially Impartial on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 10:26:48 AM PDT
by America08 on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 10:34:37 AM PDT
in some ways than Kucinich and worse in other ways. Kucinich can be very uncompromising which is good in some situations, but very impractical in others. Some of Edward's plans are more realistic and likely to be passed than Kucinich's. Also many of Edward's plans are more detailed and more thought out than Kucinich's. Kucinich is better on some issues like gay marriage. Kucinich can be very uncompromising which is good in some situations, but very impractical in others. I think some of his ideas are wierd and because of his uncompromising style he will have trouble getting a lot of things done.
And of course Kucinich doesn't have much of a chance to win the nomination for two reasons: most of the democrat primary voters are not really informed, and he is kind of a wierd guy.
by Ricardo11 on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 10:46:33 AM PDT
Do you have some sort of macro key that spits out "uncompromising"?
Which of Edwards's plans are more detailed and thought out than Kucinich's. For someone interested in detail, you don't give many.
Hopefully, Edwards game more thought to his plans than he gave to consideration of the Iraq war. Because if he'd done any research on that one, he'd have known that there wasn't a chance in hell that Saddam had a WMD program. Kucinich gave speeches on the floor of the House detailing why he didn't think Iraq was a threat in 2002, while Edwards was giving George Bush the green light.
by darrelplant on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 11:57:59 AM PDT
is more "electable". His populist stance also appeals to disenfranchised Republicans and Independents. He can win in the South. (nevermind the 2004 Kerry/Edwards numbers - the vote tallies are seriously suspect...)
I love Kucinich, but I fear he hasn't a prayer against the Republican Machine.
However, Edwards' primary mission is "taking on the Machine"...
Next time I tell you someone from Texas should NOT be president of the United States, please pay attention. In Memory of Molly Ivins, 1944-2007
by truebeliever on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 11:36:07 AM PDT
could win a general election? IMO, he wouldn't have a shot. Therefore you go with the guy who can win big in the general, wants out of Iraq, wants UHC for all and has the best platform to fight poverty. It's a no brainer for me, but then again I've been supporting him since 2003.
by sarahlane on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 03:32:19 PM PDT
he's gone out of his way to say that he is not pure and that he had turned his head to many things he shouldn't have, when it mattered and he had the power.
Not many in politics have the courage to admit such flaws.
And all of you know about some of the challenges we have faced in my family. But there came a time, a few months ago, when Elizabeth and I had to decide, in the quiet of a hospital room, after many hours of tests and getting pretty bad news -- what we were going to do with our lives. And we made our decision. That we were not going to go quietly into the night -- that we were going to stand and fight for what we believe in. As Elizabeth and I have campaigned across America, I've come to a better understanding of what that decision really meant -- and why we made it. Earlier this year, I spoke at Riverside Church in New York, where, forty years ago, Martin Luther King gave a historic speech. I talked about that speech then, and I want to talk about it today. Dr. King was tormented by the way he had kept silent for two years about the Vietnam War. He was told that if he spoke out he would hurt the civil rights movement and all that he had worked for -- but he could not take it any more -- instead of decrying the silence of others -- he spoke the truth about himself. "Over the past two years" he said, "I have moved to break the betrayal of my own silence and speak from the burning of my own heart." I am not holier than thou. I am not perfect by any means. But there are events in life that you learn from, and which remind you what this is really all about. Maybe I have been freed from the system and the fear that holds back politicians because I have learned there are much more important things in life than winning elections at the cost of selling your soul. Especially right now, when our country requires so much more of us, and needs to hear the truth from its leaders. And, although I have spent my entire life taking on the big powerful interests and winning -- which is why I have never taken a dime from Washington lobbyists or political action committees -- I too have been guilty of my own silence -- but no more. It's time to tell the truth. And the truth is the system in Washington is corrupt. It is rigged by the powerful special interests to benefit they very few at the expense of the many. And as a result, the American people have lost faith in our broken system in Washington, and believe it no longer works for ordinary Americans. They're right.
And all of you know about some of the challenges we have faced in my family. But there came a time, a few months ago, when Elizabeth and I had to decide, in the quiet of a hospital room, after many hours of tests and getting pretty bad news -- what we were going to do with our lives.
And we made our decision. That we were not going to go quietly into the night -- that we were going to stand and fight for what we believe in.
As Elizabeth and I have campaigned across America, I've come to a better understanding of what that decision really meant -- and why we made it.
Earlier this year, I spoke at Riverside Church in New York, where, forty years ago, Martin Luther King gave a historic speech. I talked about that speech then, and I want to talk about it today. Dr. King was tormented by the way he had kept silent for two years about the Vietnam War.
He was told that if he spoke out he would hurt the civil rights movement and all that he had worked for -- but he could not take it any more -- instead of decrying the silence of others -- he spoke the truth about himself.
"Over the past two years" he said, "I have moved to break the betrayal of my own silence and speak from the burning of my own heart."
I am not holier than thou. I am not perfect by any means. But there are events in life that you learn from, and which remind you what this is really all about. Maybe I have been freed from the system and the fear that holds back politicians because I have learned there are much more important things in life than winning elections at the cost of selling your soul.
Especially right now, when our country requires so much more of us, and needs to hear the truth from its leaders.
And, although I have spent my entire life taking on the big powerful interests and winning -- which is why I have never taken a dime from Washington lobbyists or political action committees -- I too have been guilty of my own silence -- but no more.
It's time to tell the truth. And the truth is the system in Washington is corrupt. It is rigged by the powerful special interests to benefit they very few at the expense of the many. And as a result, the American people have lost faith in our broken system in Washington, and believe it no longer works for ordinary Americans. They're right.
by Ellinorianne on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 10:32:11 AM PDT
I think that Edwards' unequivocal stance on taking money from lobbyists, as well as his decision (a politically risky one) to accept the limitations of public financing, help to solidify a sense that Edwards is sincere about his political transformation.
That being said, we'll see what the Beltway will do to any of these candidates. I'm not holding my breath that any of them, once in office, will be able to resist the siren call of establishment approval and corporate influence.
Nothing requires a greater effort of thought than arguments to justify the rule of nonthought. -- Milan Kundera
by Dale on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 01:31:06 PM PDT
by Salo on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 09:57:48 AM PDT
The China PNTR (trade agreement) makes NAFTA look like the kiddie pool. It's no joke. Required education and training of the Chinese (on the corporate dime), required partnership with state owned corporations, required technology and manufacuturing expertise transfer to China.
Now, look at their tariffs. These guys are smart in that they play the game of lowering tariffs, only after they have decimated the US market, gotten US companies to move their manufacturing overseas.
Since Sirota is promoting his worthy book, let me put in a plug for some of my diaries on China.
Trading Away the United States of America where I am using McMillion's graphs on China trade details. There are also statistics on the results of NAFTA, but if you compare the two, China is the true trade and economic threat to the US.
NoSlaves.com | The Economic Populist
by BobOak on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 11:57:05 AM PDT
hat burglar -- another change to your sig?
John McCain, you are _not_ my friend.
by LarryInNYC on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 05:48:43 PM PDT
I am an Obama supporter, but I respect--and appreciate--your work for CHANGE.
Unity
by DemDog on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 09:17:32 AM PDT
I loved the book and have used many of the facts cited in the book in my discussions with my friends.
Keep up the good fight. We need more people like you beating the drum for what is right.
Economic Left/Right: -6.25 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.51
by Democratic Hawk on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 09:20:15 AM PDT
Thanks so much - when I hear comments like that, it makes me feel like the work is really worth it. The goal of the book is to arm people with the facts so that they can make the best progressive case in their communities.
by davidsirota on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 09:22:34 AM PDT
That is why Hillary sucks, because she is a blazing corporatist.
The corporatists would love for Dem voters to stupidly focus on "breaking the final glass ceiling" in 2008, which is a diversion away from what we truly need to break in 2008, corporatism.
That is why I am an Edwards guy.
As for fighting a class war, it was Bush who declared this current class war, the day Bush took his WH oath.
Now we need to fight back, fight back against that Bush-declared class war.
by bonusarmy on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 10:16:14 AM PDT
In my diary on Vincente Navarro and Health care he said
A continuing shift to the right (erroneously called the center) has been the Democratic Party's strategy for the past 30 years, abandoning any commitment to the New Deal and the establishment of universal entitlements that make social rights a part of citizenship...I told Mrs. Clinton that the only way of winning, and of neutralizing the enormous power of the insurance industry and large employers, was for the President and the Democratic Party leadership to make the issue one of the people against the establishment. It was a class war strategy that the Republicans most feared. My good friend David Himmelstein, a founder of Physicians for a National Health Program, told Mrs. Clinton the same thing. And as I judged by her response, she seemed to think we did not understand how politics works in the U.S. The problem is, we understood only too well how power operates.
"It is not be cause things are difficult that we do not dare; it is because we do not dare that they are difficult." Seneca
by MontanaMaven on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 11:24:57 AM PDT
by bonusarmy on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 11:45:41 AM PDT
uses the "class warfare!" cant all the time.
They fear it. They make it sound like it's something that we're trying to do, when in fact they're the ones who've been engaging in it forever.
And they've been winning. The surest way for them to avoid losing it is if we don't fight it, and the surest way to keep us out of the fight is to make "class warfare" a bad thing, a bogeyman.
Je suis inondé de déesses
by Marc in KS on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 12:51:04 PM PDT
the "little guy/gal".
I am now about to take on a second job to make ends meet (and I'm single and a law school grad) since gas prices, food, and just about all the other "essentials" seem to keep drawing down my paycheck faster than I can say "what savings account?"
I'm not interested in making the military/industrial complex, or the telecoms, or the media moguls any richer. It's time that we average Americans get to benefit from all our hard work that contributes to our standing as the wealthiest nation.
Edwards seems to understand that.
Move over, Congress. We'll drive.
by Tross on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 09:28:52 AM PDT
by zazzlin</
