John Edwards: Rises to the occasion.
Barack Obama: Fails to live up to expectations. Again.
Hillary Clinton: Stumbles.
Questions:
Why are Dennis Kucinich and Joe Biden entitled to participate in this argument, but Mike Gravel is not? Are they any more likely to win than he is? Have they had any more impact on the campaign than he has? Are their comments any more material than his? If we're going to start getting serious about these matches, shouldn't the arena be closed to all but Clinton, Edwards and Obama?*
Why was Tim Russert pimping for the Bush/Cheney policy on Iran? And kudos to the Dems for not falling for it.
Lighting Round?** No wonder the networks are losing ground; who can take them seriously? And why does someone aspiring to be the leader of the world submit to this kind of humiliation?
* Maybe we should keep Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson on the program, so we can get to know our vice president.
** If we are going to use the game show as the model for attracting ADD-hobbled viewers, why not go all the way? At the end of each episode, you phone a 900 number (at $.99 a call, the election could end up turning a profit) in the name of the contestant you least want to see again. No voting for candidates, because then the outcome would pretty much reflect the polls, with the more financially endowed campaigns paying organizers to turn out the vote. Debate 1: Biden - gone. Debate 2: Gravel - gone. Debate 3: Kucinich - gone. Debate 4: Dodd - gone. Debate 5- Richardson - gone. Now it gets interesting. Debate 6: Where will the fans of the palookas already eliminated land? Do you try to motivate your supporters to call in against your stronger rival? How do you do that without attracting negative calls yourself? And who really is your strongest competitor, anyway? Finally, Debate 7: One contestant goes home in tears with a bouquet of roses; the other moves on to the next round, bound to be a highlight of the fall 2008 tv viewing season. It would be better than Big Brother.
2008: John Kerry was "inevitable," too
"I want to see if John Edwards will say to Hillary Clinton in front of everyone: 'You're not electable, and you know it, and you're going to hurt people down the ballot.' It's time to stop whispering. It's getting to be midnight." -- Democratic strategist Donna Brazille.
The rest of the story: The Philadelphia Inquirer.
The rest of the story: The Philadelphia Inquirer.
Red Cross volunteer information
The American Red Cross of Santa Monica has responded to the brush fires in Malibu and other Southern California communities by making training available for new disaster workers, among other activities. It has already placed staff and volunteers in fire-struck areas, but more help is needed throughout Los Angeles, San Bernardino and San Diego counties. Volunteers who have had no formal American Red Cross disaster training must take two 3-hour classes, in Mass Care and Shelter Operations, before they can take part in a relief operation. Classes will be held Thursday, October 25; Tuesday, Saturday, October 27; Tuesday, October 30 and Thursday, Nov 1st at the Santa Monica chapter at 1450 11th Street in Santa Monica. Call 310-394-6571 for the class schedules, times, registration and other information.
Persons who have taken these classes previously, such as after Hurricane Katrina, are still eligible for "disaster duty." Those wishing to go out to a brush fire location and volunteer should call the Santa Monica chapter at 310-394-3773 and ask to sign up.
The Santa Monica chapter is located at 1450 11th Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401; 310-394-3773.
Persons who have taken these classes previously, such as after Hurricane Katrina, are still eligible for "disaster duty." Those wishing to go out to a brush fire location and volunteer should call the Santa Monica chapter at 310-394-3773 and ask to sign up.
The Santa Monica chapter is located at 1450 11th Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401; 310-394-3773.
Why isn't John Edwards standing higher in the polls?
As I travel about the country, I ask nearly everyone I meet whom they support for president. Nearly universally, the answer is John Edwards. Admittedly, though it includes cab drivers and baggage handlers and bank tellers and real estate agents and baristas and people in queues of every kind, this sample is small and unscientific. Still, as you look at the polls, you have to wonder why the former U.S. Senator and vice-presidential candidate isn't the favorite. I think there are at least eight reasons.
1) His narrative doesn't suit the needs of the media: "John Edwards To Be 44th White Male President" can't match the "Hillary Clinton To Be First Woman President" and "Barack Obama To Be First Black President" story lines.
2) Barack Obama's presence has altered the dynamics of the campaign in Clinton's favor. His vaporous politics has offered Clinton cloud cover. If the Illinois senator weren't in the race, the contrasting visions of America's future being offered -- New Deal populism vs corporations über Alles -- would stand in clearer contrast; the media narrative would be "can idealism and bold ideas beat money;" the romantics in the party would have to make some hard choices, instead of patting themselves on the back for backing the black guy; and Clinton would be unable to position herself above the fray -- she must feel as lucky as Mary Chapin Carpenter: "Hey, Lyle. Hey, Dwight. C'mon, boys, you don't have to fight" -- and would be subjected to tougher scrutiny.
3) And partly as a corollary to 2), Edwards has a fraction of the money available to his two rivals, reducing his ability to present his case and making it harder to compete everywhere.
4) The front-loading of the primaries has given the moneyed candidates an even bigger edge than they already had (a similar dynamic on the GOP side hurts Mike Huckabee's dark-horse strategy).
5) As the only liberal with a chance of being president, when Edwards does get attention from the corporate media, he is frequently treated negatively.
6) Edwards has run a solid, issues-oriented campaign, but he hasn't played sufficiently to his strengths, especially "the only real Democrat" and "the Happy Warrior." Also, and this is ironic, with enough money, he could have made his "log cabin" narrative as compelling as the "first woman" and "first black" fairy tales.
7) Hillary Clinton has run a disciplined campaign, so far, undistracted by boldness or originality.
8) Most important: the fix is in. In 1992, the corporations wanted Bill Clinton. The big money poured into his campaign, and the media helped him ignore or mitigate a series of scandals and embarrassments, while they diminished his Democratic opponents in the primaries and ridiculed and belittled George the First in the general election. The same is happening now: it is clear from the pattern of contributions that the corporate interests see Hillary Clinton as the most reliable aspirant for the job, and from her speeches and policy proposals it is evident that she is happy to be their champion.
The odds are pretty long on an Edwards victory today, but politics is a volatile game. There is a lot of good will towards him in the party; party activists vote in the primaries out of all proportion to their numbers; Clinton could stumble; the peace movement could wake up to the fact that the New York senator is another run-of-the-mill politician in service to the empire; the unions could decide that another Democratic retainer on the payroll of capital might not be the best advocate for the interests of labor; and the demand for change could overwhelm the battlements of the status quo, at last.
It ain't over 'til the fat lady votes.
[For comments on this post, visit John Edwards Blog.]
1) His narrative doesn't suit the needs of the media: "John Edwards To Be 44th White Male President" can't match the "Hillary Clinton To Be First Woman President" and "Barack Obama To Be First Black President" story lines.
2) Barack Obama's presence has altered the dynamics of the campaign in Clinton's favor. His vaporous politics has offered Clinton cloud cover. If the Illinois senator weren't in the race, the contrasting visions of America's future being offered -- New Deal populism vs corporations über Alles -- would stand in clearer contrast; the media narrative would be "can idealism and bold ideas beat money;" the romantics in the party would have to make some hard choices, instead of patting themselves on the back for backing the black guy; and Clinton would be unable to position herself above the fray -- she must feel as lucky as Mary Chapin Carpenter: "Hey, Lyle. Hey, Dwight. C'mon, boys, you don't have to fight" -- and would be subjected to tougher scrutiny.
3) And partly as a corollary to 2), Edwards has a fraction of the money available to his two rivals, reducing his ability to present his case and making it harder to compete everywhere.
4) The front-loading of the primaries has given the moneyed candidates an even bigger edge than they already had (a similar dynamic on the GOP side hurts Mike Huckabee's dark-horse strategy).
5) As the only liberal with a chance of being president, when Edwards does get attention from the corporate media, he is frequently treated negatively.
6) Edwards has run a solid, issues-oriented campaign, but he hasn't played sufficiently to his strengths, especially "the only real Democrat" and "the Happy Warrior." Also, and this is ironic, with enough money, he could have made his "log cabin" narrative as compelling as the "first woman" and "first black" fairy tales.
7) Hillary Clinton has run a disciplined campaign, so far, undistracted by boldness or originality.
8) Most important: the fix is in. In 1992, the corporations wanted Bill Clinton. The big money poured into his campaign, and the media helped him ignore or mitigate a series of scandals and embarrassments, while they diminished his Democratic opponents in the primaries and ridiculed and belittled George the First in the general election. The same is happening now: it is clear from the pattern of contributions that the corporate interests see Hillary Clinton as the most reliable aspirant for the job, and from her speeches and policy proposals it is evident that she is happy to be their champion.
The odds are pretty long on an Edwards victory today, but politics is a volatile game. There is a lot of good will towards him in the party; party activists vote in the primaries out of all proportion to their numbers; Clinton could stumble; the peace movement could wake up to the fact that the New York senator is another run-of-the-mill politician in service to the empire; the unions could decide that another Democratic retainer on the payroll of capital might not be the best advocate for the interests of labor; and the demand for change could overwhelm the battlements of the status quo, at last.
It ain't over 'til the fat lady votes.
[For comments on this post, visit John Edwards Blog.]
2008: Giuliani -- Cynical...Or Nuts?
Not being able to tell where pandering leaves off and self-parody begins, Rudy Giuliani, who only days ago promised to keep us safe from space invaders, has now advocated that blind people be allowed to carry guns. What's next, drivers' licenses? Found on Gun Guys ("Where everybody's a straight shooter"): Giuliani: Blind should be able to carry guns
Links: Southern California Wildfire Resources
Senator Barbara Boxer has put together links to Southern California Wildfire Resources:
<http://boxer.senate.gov/calfire.cfm>
<http://boxer.senate.gov/calfire.cfm>
2008: Déjà vu all over again?
This agonizingly protracted and criminally costly nominating process might have been worth enduring if 
it came down at last to a contest between John Edwards-Bill Richardson and Mike Huckabee-Chuck Hagel. Such a competition would be issues-oriented and civil out of all proportion to our custom, with the American voter getting to decide between clear and contrasting visions of the nation's future. 
Instead, we appear to be headed for another race between Tweedledum and Tweedledee, played this political season by Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani, and we can expect the campaign to be muddled and brutish in the manner to which we are so painfully habituated, with an outcome unlikely to disturb the rest of even the lightest sleeper in the luxuriant bed of the status quo.
it came down at last to a contest between John Edwards-Bill Richardson and Mike Huckabee-Chuck Hagel. Such a competition would be issues-oriented and civil out of all proportion to our custom, with the American voter getting to decide between clear and contrasting visions of the nation's future. Instead, we appear to be headed for another race between Tweedledum and Tweedledee, played this political season by Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani, and we can expect the campaign to be muddled and brutish in the manner to which we are so painfully habituated, with an outcome unlikely to disturb the rest of even the lightest sleeper in the luxuriant bed of the status quo.
Social Contract: Income-Inequality Gap Widens; Highest Since 1920's
Greg Ip of The Wall Street Journal reports, "The richest Americans' share of national income has hit a postwar record, surpassing the highs reached in the 1990s bull market, and underlining the divergence of economic fortunes blamed for fueling anxiety among American workers."
The rest of the story: The Wall Street Journal
See also, "As Logging Fades, Rich Carve Up Open Land in West": The New York Times
See also, "new gilded age": Google
The rest of the story: The Wall Street Journal
See also, "As Logging Fades, Rich Carve Up Open Land in West": The New York Times
See also, "new gilded age": Google
quote unquote: Aristotle on the last refuge of scoundrels
A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider God-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, wrongly believing that he has the Gods on his side. -- Aristotle: Politica
2008: Romney, Clinton health care plans similar, say the experts
Those of us who argue that the Hillary Clinton administration, should it come to be, will be a continuation of the Reagan-Bush I-Clinton I policies -- militarist, corporatist, anti-middle class -- have new evidence in Hillary's vaunted "universal" health insurance plan, like the proposal she backed during Bill Clinton's term, essentially health care for insurance companies.
Mitt Romney loves to take swipes at Democratic front-runner Clinton, Reuters says, calling her plan, which would require every American to have health insurance, "European-style socialized medicine" inspired by "European bureaucracies."
But experts say Clinton's plan borrows heavily from one Romney signed into law when he was governor of Massachusetts, making the state the first in the nation with near-universal health insurance.
"Hillary's plan is just like the Massachusetts plan. There's not a whole lot of difference," says Jonathan Gruber, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology economics professor who was an adviser to Romney on the state's health care reform law.
And, what do you know, as it did with the Bill Clinton campaign, corporate money is flooding Senator Clinton's coffers. Perhaps it won't come as a complete surprise to the Hillary-the-inevitable crowd, then, when progressives, labor activists and the peace movement start shopping around for a third party alternative a year from now.
The rest of the story: Reuters
See, also: Are Clinton, Obama, Edwards All The Same?: Despite What Fans Say, Differences Between Top Three Dems Aren't Clear by Katha Pollitt
Mitt Romney loves to take swipes at Democratic front-runner Clinton, Reuters says, calling her plan, which would require every American to have health insurance, "European-style socialized medicine" inspired by "European bureaucracies."
But experts say Clinton's plan borrows heavily from one Romney signed into law when he was governor of Massachusetts, making the state the first in the nation with near-universal health insurance.
"Hillary's plan is just like the Massachusetts plan. There's not a whole lot of difference," says Jonathan Gruber, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology economics professor who was an adviser to Romney on the state's health care reform law.
And, what do you know, as it did with the Bill Clinton campaign, corporate money is flooding Senator Clinton's coffers. Perhaps it won't come as a complete surprise to the Hillary-the-inevitable crowd, then, when progressives, labor activists and the peace movement start shopping around for a third party alternative a year from now.
The rest of the story: Reuters
See, also: Are Clinton, Obama, Edwards All The Same?: Despite What Fans Say, Differences Between Top Three Dems Aren't Clear by Katha Pollitt
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
