View Story | 335 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
Productivity is up but median income is down. People are making more, while they're making less. snip What does all this mean in real terms? It means that our system rewards wealth, not work
Productivity is up but median income is down. People are making more, while they're making less.
snip
What does all this mean in real terms? It means that our system rewards wealth, not work
America isn't a casino and the Wall Street isn't the 'house.' We need to level the economic playing field to reward work and open up real opportunity for everyone.
Mass Eyes and Ears
by AJ WI on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 09:38:56 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
How do you know a Republican is lying? Ask one: If the Republicans can lower gas prices for 60 days before an election, why won't they do it all the time?
by ca democrat on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 10:19:47 AM PDT
http://www.sfgate.com/...
(08-15) 09:22 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards is moving staff out of Nevada to focus on other early voting states, a reflection of the uncertainty about the prominence of the first Western contest and Edwards' tight resources. Two Edwards campaign officials said Wednesday that the Nevada staffers were being relocated to Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. They would not disclose how many staffers were being moved but characterized it as a handful. Democratic Senate Leader Harry Reid of Nevada responded with a warning: "Any candidate who chooses to ignore Nevada and its rich diversity does so at their own peril." The Democratic National Committee gave Nevada a new early role in the presidential nominating process, allowing it to schedule its caucus on Jan. 19, between the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary. But New Hampshire has said it may go earlier than the Jan. 22 date set by the DNC to maintain its historic role in choosing the nominee, possibly moving Nevada back in the voting order. The most recent Nevada poll, taken in late June by Mason-Dixon, showed Edwards in third place with 12 percent of the vote. New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton was leading with 39 percent, followed by Illinois Sen. Barack Obama with 17 percent.
(08-15) 09:22 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --
Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards is moving staff out of Nevada to focus on other early voting states, a reflection of the uncertainty about the prominence of the first Western contest and Edwards' tight resources.
Two Edwards campaign officials said Wednesday that the Nevada staffers were being relocated to Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. They would not disclose how many staffers were being moved but characterized it as a handful.
Democratic Senate Leader Harry Reid of Nevada responded with a warning: "Any candidate who chooses to ignore Nevada and its rich diversity does so at their own peril."
The Democratic National Committee gave Nevada a new early role in the presidential nominating process, allowing it to schedule its caucus on Jan. 19, between the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary. But New Hampshire has said it may go earlier than the Jan. 22 date set by the DNC to maintain its historic role in choosing the nominee, possibly moving Nevada back in the voting order.
The most recent Nevada poll, taken in late June by Mason-Dixon, showed Edwards in third place with 12 percent of the vote. New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton was leading with 39 percent, followed by Illinois Sen. Barack Obama with 17 percent.
Clinton '08 // Putting People First
by Berkeley Vox on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 10:45:39 AM PDT
I do not think he is "giving up" on Nevada. The unions there will support him.
I always find it interesting that Clinton supporters never talk issues. It is just "she will win."
We need real change. Clinton is just DLC.
"The answer is to end our reliance on carbon-based fuels." Al Gore, 7/17/08
by TomP on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 10:47:43 AM PDT
...which is the most crucial NV endorsement. That's why Edwards is pulling out -- the writing is on the wall for him. He hasn't spent much time campaigning there, either.
by Berkeley Vox on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 10:56:51 AM PDT
by CAL11 voter on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 10:58:23 AM PDT
The guy from the Ralston Report thinks it will be for a wild card, and it will be for Edwards.
by benny05 on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 11:02:56 AM PDT
... pulling out staff.
by Berkeley Vox on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 11:07:19 AM PDT
Edwards has been connected with them since his former days in the senate. I wouldn't bet on it. We'll know more in another month.
by benny05 on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 11:11:53 AM PDT
to move staff to places where they are more needed.
by nannyboz on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 12:12:02 PM PDT
"In the end we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends." MLK, changed to this during the 2008 FISA fight
by bewert on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 02:26:13 PM PDT
on your part about the Culinary Workers.
The Edwards campaign seems to be just focusing on Iowa and early states with the schedule change.
Again, if you rteally thought Clinton has it won, you would not worry so much about Edwards. That you feel the need to tell everyone that Clitnon has it won suggests you are worried. You should be.
Clinton will not win. People want change.
by TomP on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 11:07:21 AM PDT
I've never bought into her whole "inevitability" strategy, but I concede her obvious advantages. While Edwards remains my favorite candidate, I'm not sure that he has the resources to compete w/ her and Obama.
While Rove was wrong about a lot of things, his worship at Mark Hannah's altar may've had a point. There may be something other than $ that matters in politics, but it's hard to compete against 2 candidates who are both outraising you by that margin. It becomes even harder when they're sucking up most of the oxygen at the debates.
I love what Edwards is doing, and I worry that, if he falls flat on his face, it'll be at least 20 years before some one else picks up the populist banner. I know that 2004 demonstrates how volatile the primary process can be. I'm not going to make categorical statements writing off HRC, however.
Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?
by RFK Lives on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 11:18:43 AM PDT
"concern" is duly noted. Why have you mentioned Karl Rove and Mark Hannah in a discussion about John Edwards? That's history. And that's GOP stuff.
"I have very strong feelings about how you lead your life. You always look ahead, you never look back." ~ Ann Richards (Governor of Texas, 1990-94)
by suswa on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 11:50:09 AM PDT
that matter in politics. Money is the first, and he forgot what the 2d was. Edwards is struggling largely b/c his fundaising visibly lags that of both HRC and Obama. That's not history--that's a painful present reality.
by RFK Lives on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 12:17:17 PM PDT
weren't expected to generate a lot of corporate moolah. And although Obama and Hillary supporters have exerted much effort smearing our most viable Progressive candidate - he's still in.
Dems will not hold impeachment hearings while Bill is campaigning with Hillary.
by annefrank on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 02:25:36 PM PDT
Edwards is "struggling." Money may be what has always mattered in the past. I'm really not interested in what Mark Hannah thinks, either. You don't seem to be in sync with your RFK signature.
"I see things that never were, and ask why not"?
by suswa on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 08:54:56 PM PDT
(about #615) in her blog "On the Road in Iowa" at DailyKos, and I hope you'll read and respond, because I feel that Hillary is sucking up a lot of MSM energy and getting most of the attention. The Republicans, who control the MSM, are either afraid of John and Barack and are pushing her, or they want her because she is not a populist. She is the most conservative Dem running.
When I have an opinion, it may be found here
by walkabout on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 08:46:23 PM PDT
Instead of bringing yet another off topic post in a diary to distract from the issue at hand, why not comment on the diary and the points it stresses? I see you do this all the time, and I think it's becoming so redundant and pointless. BTW, the article says a handful of staffers, so he's obviously not pulling out, just rearranging a few staffers.
Netroots Director for Oregon Senate Candidate Jeff Merkley. Kossacks Donate to Merkley Here!
by sarahlane on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 01:18:04 PM PDT
You don't seem to have anything to say about Clinton except that she will win.
Be Prepared
by The Scoutmaster on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 01:49:19 PM PDT
He's taking definitive positions for the middle class - opposed by the corporatists.
by annefrank on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 02:20:12 PM PDT
Edwards couldn't in NV.
"The people have spoken, the bastards." Dick Tuck, as classy as his name implied.
by liberaltruthsayer on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 11:04:24 AM PDT
your comment since it is based on a false premise. As for personalizing you comment to me, it is a bit boring.
by TomP on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 11:22:29 AM PDT
to TPM:
Edwards deputy campaign manager Jonathan Prince sends me the following statement: “Our strategy is unchanged -- four states and $40 million. As the calendar fluctuates, with Iowa and New Hampshire moving up significantly, we need to accelerate hiring there to hit our organizing targets, so we’'re shifting some trained staffers there, but we are as committed as ever to winning Nevada.”
Edwards deputy campaign manager Jonathan Prince sends me the following statement:
“Our strategy is unchanged -- four states and $40 million. As the calendar fluctuates, with Iowa and New Hampshire moving up significantly, we need to accelerate hiring there to hit our organizing targets, so we’'re shifting some trained staffers there, but we are as committed as ever to winning Nevada.”
by TomP on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 11:08:27 AM PDT
Well im pretty sure she is awfully blue. Maybe a Blue Heeler.
Bushco crime family. "We torture, disappear, enrich our cronies and spy on all of you." Whatta ya gonna do about it?----IMPEACH----
by GWboosebag on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 11:10:45 AM PDT
http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/...
I am an Edwards Democrat.
by jsamuel on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 10:50:40 AM PDT
The campaign says it's a response to the accelerated primary calendar, adding that the change nonetheless doesn't represent a change in strategy towards Nevada. Edwards deputy campaign manager Jonathan Prince sends me the following statement: "Our strategy is unchanged -- four states and $40 million. As the calendar fluctuates, with Iowa and New Hampshire moving up significantly, we need to accelerate hiring there to hit our organizing targets, so we''re shifting some trained staffers there, but we are as committed as ever to winning Nevada."
The campaign says it's a response to the accelerated primary calendar, adding that the change nonetheless doesn't represent a change in strategy towards Nevada.
"Our strategy is unchanged -- four states and $40 million. As the calendar fluctuates, with Iowa and New Hampshire moving up significantly, we need to accelerate hiring there to hit our organizing targets, so we''re shifting some trained staffers there, but we are as committed as ever to winning Nevada."
by jsamuel on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 11:15:28 AM PDT
Candidates want to compete in the early states, and lots of states -- IA, NH, SC -- look to be moving earlier than the current calendar has them. I've never read anything about Nevada moving.
As Nevada becomes less and less an 'early state', Edwards commits less resources.
by Neil Sinhababu on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 10:51:50 AM PDT
by Berkeley Vox on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 10:55:49 AM PDT
NV is doing just fine, JRE has plenty of support there.
by America08 on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 11:01:12 AM PDT
And that is what the response is about.
by benny05 on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 11:03:51 AM PDT
and her campaign are as vapid, devoid of substance, and annoying as you are.
And that "you're invisible" ad that Your Girl is running in Iowa is the biggest piece of shit I've seen in years. Keep running garbage like that, and you won't have to worry about a general election campaign.
Which would be nice, since the Democrats could probably actually win Nevada if Your (and Rupert's) Girl is not the nominee.
Now get back to your Celine Dion tunes.
A Vote For John Edwards Is A Vote For Yourself. Iowa Underground
by ThunderHawk13 on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 11:15:27 AM PDT
Hillary has yet to actually declare her presidency? She is still running her campaign out of the "Exploratory Committee" whereas the other candidates have all moved beyond the exploratory committee phase. I am just curious...
From Hillary's website: Paid for by Hillary Clinton for President Exploratory Committee
From Barack's website: Paid for by Obama for America
From John's website: Paid for by John Edwards for President
From Dennis' website: Paid for by Kucinich for President 2008, Inc.
From Bill's website: Paid for by Richardson for President, Inc.
From Chris' website: Paid for by Chris Dodd for President, Inc.
From Joe's website: Paid for by Biden for President, Inc.
From Mike's website: Mike Gravel for President 2008
"A great empire, like a great cake, is most easily diminished at the edges." ~Ben Franklin
by rickyscorpio on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 11:18:42 AM PDT
It is good strategy to put people where they can be the most effective. I for one have great confidence in the Edwards campaign.
by SharonColeman on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 11:57:55 AM PDT
he understands how primaries work. Kerry pulled all his resources out of NH in '03 because he knew Iowa would remake the race in NH.
The only polls that matter are the ones in Iowa.
All the rest are just so much hot air...
See me dairy, which shows that the winner in Iowa gets about a 15 point bounce into New Hampshire here: http://www.dailykos.com/...
by fladem on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 12:30:13 PM PDT
HuffPost
by rickyscorpio on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 01:24:11 PM PDT
by annefrank on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 02:15:24 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 335 comments