John Edwards

It is kind of saddening to see the venal, petty, disgruntled potshots some of the A-list blogpundits are taking at Barack Obama. For them, it seems he's just not enough the hard-line liberal, not enough the Party man. (Funny, that, considering you don't have to look too far back to see these same blogpundits attacking as demanding "ideological purity" critics of the now-discredited and clearly unreliable Yellow Dog Democrats.)

One expects a Dominionist candidate like Mitt Romney, a traditional neo-authoritarian candidate like Rudi Giuliani, and knuckleheaded television clowns to attack Obama. After all, they will attack any Democrat for any number of reasons -- mainly daring to be so unpatriotic as to refuse to be a Republican at least by name.

And one even expects Democratic candidates to criticize other Democrats so as to set themselves apart, for whatever reason. Which is why Hillary Clinton, the darling of some bloggers, is attacking Obama as being too progressive.

When I look at Barack Obama, I look as a skeptic of all the candidates. But of the Democratic offerings, I see someone who's not waving anti-corporate rhetoric like a machine gun (like John Edwards), and who's not invisible behind the managed and massaged messaging of handlers (like Hillary Clinton). Maybe what bothers the blogpundits is that Obama is actually appealing to Republicans.

And it's an appeal unlike what, say, Joe Lieberman has. For one thing, Obama is against the war on Iraq. For another thing, Obama doesn't dress up like a Republican while calling himself a Democrat. (Some of the blogpundits' favorite Yellow Dogs of the past can't make the same claim.) But I think the main thing is that Obama uses measured rhetoric. He's not much of a centrist in terms of policy, but he uses centrist rhetoric.

What that means is that Obama appeals to Republicans who are utterly disgusted with their own party's slate of idiots. This unlike Hillary Clinton, who couldn't not help but mock what Republicans might have supported her (by "seeing the light"). And unlike John Edwards, who I doubt even wants to get any support from Republicans.

Will he win? Of course I have no idea. But he does appeal to me for the mere fact that he's winning independents and conservatives over to his generally progressive views. That, I feel, is the opportunity he offers to changing the political climate in this country.

It means bad news for blogpundits who thrive on divisiveness, whose bank accounts could be severely impacted by the rise of a more of consensus political climate. But they shouldn't worry so much. There always will be idiots to oppose and rant about, and we still may see the Republican Party implode and reinvent itself for the first time in 40 years, and that certainly would be entertaining fodder.

...the actual candidates try to get a word in edge-wise. Why did Wolf Blitzer feel he had to interrupt every answer? It's like only the questions mattered to CNN. They didn't care about the answers.

And what was with that last question about diamonds or pearls?

This wasn't a debate -- it was a group interview, CNN style. Meaning no questions of substance -- such as, "What is your healthcare plan?" And certainly no time for any answers of substance.

This was CNN trying to assert its alpha dog status over the politicians. All with the highest ethical standards, don't you know. (I.e., selling commercials.)

The post-debate show was like watching a post-game wrap-up. David Gergen, James Carville and company used just about every sports metaphor in the book. "Hillary Clinton was rested and ready."

What are they? Horses?

Is it any wonder we turn to the internet for real news? CNN's "debate" show was a joke. How sad for our country.

Via Alas, a blog, we learn of the gender ratios of paid and volunteer staffs for the various presidential campaigns:

At The Huffington Post, Zephyr Teachout and Kelly Nuxoll provide a breakdown of presidential campaign staffs by gender. (They also provide links to an explanation of their methodology and a spreadsheet of their data)....

Just two of 15 senior Edwards staffers are women, with women filling 37 percent of the top-paid roles. Three of Obama’s 12 senior staffers are women, and women fill 45 percent of the highest-paying jobs. In fact, of all the leading candidates (the list also includes Huckabee, Richardson, Romney, and Thompson) the only candidate who did not favor male staffers was Clinton. On her campaign, eight of 14 senior staffers, 12 of the top-20 staffers, and 52 percent of the highest-paid staffers are women. Women are also much more likely to play important strategic roles in the Clinton campaign; in the other campaigns, women are more likely to work in finance and internal operations.

This may seem like petty stuff, but I think it foreshadows the gender breakdown of executive staff under a Clinton administration. As I’ve written before, gender matters. Women understand, and care about, women’s interests, which is one reason many women are supporting Clinton despite reservations about her politics.

Play of the Day: Romney's No Democrat

Well, duh! The guy is trying to be the scariest man since Himmler.

Edwards labels Clinton an Insider

Oooooh! I never saw that coming! Gotta admit, though: the MSM love a good fight (and will do what they can to spur it on).

Giuliani talks about his prostate cancer

And the issue is not whether he's healthy enough to take on this demanding office. No. It's the hook for his own health insurance plan. Thanks, AP. That's a great headline. Very informative.

Clinton, Giuliani top scary costume poll

Once again, Hillary Rodham Clinton leads in a poll. This time, she's the top choice when people are asked which major 2008 presidential candidate would make the scariest Halloween costume.

What does this mean? Is AP trying out for the writing staff of Saturday Night Live?

This one I just love:

Clinton dominates campaign news

This one we have to hand to Reuters. Nothing like the news media reporting their own behavior as news. I guess that's one way to try to boost circulation.

Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton has dominated news coverage of the 2008 White House race, partly due to negative segments about her on conservative talk radio, according to a new study released on Monday.

At some point, someone new is going to be hired in journalism schools that is going to shake the orthodoxy up a bit. "Today a somebody said something about someone, according to something we heard somewhere, at some point." Now that's a way to hook a reader!

Giuliani blasts Clinton

Do you detect a theme here? I have yet to come across any other presidential candidate in my feed reader today. --Whoops! I'm back to yesterday!

Oh, wait. I did miss this:

Obama singer wins cheers despite protest

A Grammy-winning singer whose role in a Barack Obama campaign event riled gay activists served as master of ceremonies of a gospel concert promoting the Democratic presidential hopeful Sunday night.

I guess that is news. I'm not sure it's good news, though.

Oh, wait. I see the pattern now. Late night Sunday night is the time to post articles about Richardson, Dodd, McCain, Huckabee, Thompson, Putin -- oops.

Interesting how there are so many invisible candidates.

Ah, but at least the mainstream media are onto their own game.

When it comes to presidential politics, the news media loves front-runners. And seems to hate them, too.

Don't you feel reassured? Doesn't that just make you want to read more mainstream media manufacture?

Oh, and by the way, Ron Paul supporters, nada regarding your man in the past several days, though the "liberal" New York Times found you.

Smugness in mainstream obscurity, apparently. Morons indeed. Ha!

What's absent through all the coverage? Substance. What do the candidates actually say about healthcare? The deficit? National security? Social Security? Global warming? Energy policy? Education?

Not a whole lot. That crap is boring! Or so say the "news" editors of these mainstream outlets.

And of course we'll get a story about how we don't know much about the positions of any of the candidates.

That is what we call "news."

Good night, and good luck!

Russell Shaw calls for progressives to unite around whatever Democratic Party nominee for president:

I look at this past week's 5-4 Supreme Court vote against "partial birth abortion." Then I hold up the ages of liberal Justices John Paul Stevens (87), and an increasingly feeble Ruth Bader Ginsburg (74) against the actuarial tables.

I just pray these two are able to serve on the Court until that hopefully blessed morning of January 20, 2009.

At Noon on that day, a Democrat will- from my mouse to the Goddess' ears- take the Oath.

I'd love for the oath-taker to be Al Gore, or John Edwards, or Bill Richardson. But if it comes down to saving Roe, I'd settle for Hillary. With more campaign funds than her Democratic opponents, her nomination is likely. I can see where Obama will fade, Edwards may need to drop out, and Gore will stay out.

At this point in time, though, I can see a scenario that causes ideological purists on our side of the fence to do something stupid that will cause Hillary to fall short, and thus, pave the path for another anti-choice, Justice-appointng [sic] Republican to get into the White House.

Despite the fact that Russell Shaw is echoing radical right-wing (as well as Markos Moulitsas) talking points about "ideological purity" -- a Rovian expression if I ever heard one -- I can see his point. Just this morning, I was thinking about how any of the top four -- Obama, Edwards, Richardson or even Clinton -- would get my vote. And while I know not nearly enough to choose any one above the others, at this point, my sense is that one of them would suffice for me come November next year.

Making that decision so much easier is the fact that the Republicans have so far offered up boobs, bigots and bobbies. Given the radical and, yes, misogynist and, yes again, racist and, yes, obviously, homophobic values at the core of the right wing, I don't see myself voting for any Republican for president any time soon. Add in their modern penchant for fascistic governmental control over individuals -- making the phrase "the party of Goldwater" an oxymoronic joke -- and I don't see myself voting Republican in my lifetime.

However, Congress is a different matter. Do we continue to vote for pro-forced-pregnancy Democrats? How do we, as progressives, in good conscience cast our lot with men (yes once more, I'm afraid) who consider women's right to privacy to be non-existent, women's medical choices to be controlled by politicians, women's health to be a distraction, women's lives to be important only when not distracting from other interests, and women's bodies to be, ultimately, Property of the U.S. Government?

I wonder how many Democratic and independent voters even realize that their Democratic Senator(s) and/or Representative is an advocate of forced pregnancy.

The question is pertinent right now, pre-primaries, while we look at what kind of future we want to forge in the can't-come-soon-enough post-Bush America. Now is the time to ask the questions. Now is the time to choose. Now is the time to push for the progressives that will defend privacy and equal rights and civil rights and human rights for everyone, not just the ruling men who look upon the rest of us as "peasants."

It's not an easy thing, when the Democratic Party, whose vague favoring of progressive values stands out like a monument to all things noble and just when compared with the venal depravity that describes the power centers of the GOP, has such a slim and weak hold upon Congress.

It's all the more difficult when you consider that men claiming progressive values have historically dismissed our alarms about the Handmaid trends happening in our politics -- our politics. And it sure as heck doesn't help that ignorance and willful ignorance on the part of ostensibly well-intentioned men when it comes to issues women face continue.

The demographics are with us, though. More GOP seats in the Senate are up for election next year. Americans in general are suspicious of an overly invasive Government. And, while meaningful statistics are lacking (at least from what I can tell), based on anecdotal evidence there are quite a number of so-called "pro-life" Americans who oppose abortion until the issue comes home to roost in their own families, in their own lives.

So what's it going to be, boys? When you throw women's lives into the mix, does women's equality count as "important shit"?