Confessions of a bleeding-heart, elitist, overeducated, underachieving, Marxo-fascist liberal. Because there just aren't enough blogs about media, culture, politics, pugilism, and karmic justice.
With all that talk at the State of the Union about upordownvotes and whims and laws and such:
On matters of justice, we must trust in the wisdom of our founders and empower judges who understand that the Constitution means what it says. (Applause.) I've submitted judicial nominees who will rule by the letter of the law, not the whim of the gavel. Many of these nominees are being unfairly delayed. They are worthy of confirmation, and the Senate should give each of them a prompt up-or-down vote. (Applause.)
one would have thought the meaning of the word "nuance" was lost on old GW.
Apparently, however, GW finds his way to disregard certain nuances of the 2008 defense act:
WASHINGTON - President Bush this week declared that he has the power to bypass four laws, including a prohibition against using federal funds to establish permanent US military bases in Iraq, that Congress passed as part of a new defense bill.
Bush made the assertion in a signing statement that he issued late Monday after signing the National Defense Authorization Act for 2008. In the signing statement, Bush asserted that four sections of the bill unconstitutionally infringe on his powers, and so the executive branch is not bound to obey them.
"Provisions of the act . . . purport to impose requirements that could inhibit the president's ability to carry out his constitutional obligations to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, to protect national security, to supervise the executive branch, and to execute his authority as commander in chief," Bush said. "The executive branch shall construe such provisions in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President."
One section Bush targeted created a statute that forbids spending taxpayer money "to establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq" or "to exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq."
The Bush administration is negotiating a long-term agreement with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The agreement is to include the basing of US troops in Iraq after 2008, as well as security guarantees and other economic and political ties between the United States and Iraq.
The negotiations have drawn fire in part because the administration has said it does not intend to designate the compact as a "treaty," and so will not submit it to Congress for approval. Critics are also concerned Bush might lock the United States into a deal that would make it difficult for the next president to withdraw US troops from Iraq.
Heil to the Decider! And (Applause.) to the Good Congress for their friendly faint-hearted opposition to the Bush Doctrine (from Glenn Greenwald):
Lurking around the blogosphere after Edwards' campaign suspension announcement has been a learning experience. It has been quieter than usual, and overall, there has been a general feeling of tremendous loss. Shakesville:
I continue to believe that our nation needs John Edwards at this time, and I am profoundly sad that we will not have him. I believed in him; I believed in his message; and I hope that he will take Waveflux's sage advice and find a role for himself as the vital and vibrant leader he is and can be, in the mold of Al Gore. And I hope we will assess why our two finest statesmen cannot find their way to the White House, and realize how bereft of genuine, tangible, spirit-lifting change we will be without them.
I was proud to support you, Senator Edwards. Thank you for trying.
With John Edwards dropping out of the Democratic presidential race, we are losing a fierce and committed voice for change and for justice. I, for one, feel that loss like an ache.
One of the signature issues of his campaign -- one that is near and dear to my own heart -- was Edwards' commitment to giving voice to those who have none in our money-driven political process. The Democratic party has long been the champion of the downtrodden and folks in need. Although we have sadly forgotten that obligation to the least of these our bretheren the last few years, the message still resonates here in Appalachia and all over this nation where people are in need of hope, and a little dignity.
...Edwards was the only candidate to have directly addressed the problem of the media in this country. He recognized the danger of unregulated corporations controlling access to the media megaphone that all candidates and initiatives rely on if they harbor any hope of success. His own candidacy was a victim of the exclusionary predilections of Big Media.
“I am not particularly interested in seeing Rupert Murdoch own every newspaper in America.”
“High levels of media consolidation threaten free speech, they tilt the public dialogue towards corporate priorities and away from local concerns, and they make it increasingly difficult for women and people of color to own meaningful stakes in our nation’s media.”
“It’s time for all Democrats, including those running for president, to stand up and speak out against this [News Corp./Dow Jones] merger and other forms of media consolidation.”
“The basis of a strong democracy begins and ends with a strong, unbiased and fair media — all qualities which are pretty hard to [ascribe] to Fox News and News Corp.”
But then, there are others who are both sad to see Edwards go, yet ready to move on:
I've been going through my mourning for a while for his campaign not getting more traction, so his withdrawal announcement didn't shock me. But sad as I am about his departure, I feel good about being able to switch my support to Barack Obama, and will do all I can to help him win.
At Some of Nothing, our loyalties are swayed in a different direction. We liked Edwards for many reasons that aren't answered by either of the two candidates. Specifically, his big idea for making our government more democratic was the most compelling:
We, at SoN, talk of three big things we want to see our candidates stand for: 1. Publicly financed clean elections 2. Commitment to diversified media 3. Vastly improved educational system We figure everything after these things will pretty much take care of itself. Edwards was the candidate making strong statements on those issues. As a consequence, we knew he was talking to us.
Some of Nothing has made no secret of the fact that Obama is next in line to receive our humble yet vocal support. Nonetheless, we're not easily moved. We're impressed that Obama stepped up his rhetoric after South Carolina. We think he saw the writing on the wall and made a smart strategic decision, and this speaks well of his chances of standing up to Republicans in the general election. And he made a decent speech after Edwards' campaign suspension. But again, it was a little empty, and it's hard to make up for so many months of essentially dissing us. So, until Obama either gets an endorsement from Edwards or really turns it up a notch, we're sticking with our own brand of identity politics through the general election: AnyoneButTheWhiteGuy '08. We figure that, unless everyone but Gravel drops from the democratic ticket, this is a gimme.
Whatever hopes people might have had that Mr. Clinton would usher in a new era of national unity were quickly dashed. Within just a few months the country was wracked by the bitter partisanship Mr. Obama has decried.
This bitter partisanship wasn’t the result of anything the Clintons did. Instead, from Day 1 they faced an all-out assault from conservatives determined to use any means at hand to discredit a Democratic president.
For those who are reaching for their smelling salts because Democratic candidates are saying slightly critical things about each other, it’s worth revisiting those years, simply to get a sense of what dirty politics really looks like.
No accusation was considered too outlandish: a group supported by Jerry Falwell put out a film suggesting that the Clintons had arranged for the murder of an associate, and The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page repeatedly hinted that Bill Clinton might have been in cahoots with a drug smuggler.
Krugman goes on to extract two lessons from his analysis:
The point is that while there are valid reasons one might support Mr. Obama over Mrs. Clinton, the desire to avoid unpleasantness isn’t one of them.
Second, the policy proposals candidates run on matter.
Much has been debated about this column, and I can see both sides of the argument. Some say that this is a different time and that level and depth of support of a candidate matters in how opponents treat him. I think there's some truth to this. Bill Clinton barely won his first election, so at the time, Republicans could easily find it in their hearts to allege ad infinitum without much concern about a strong reaction from either side. However, we should point out that we're still a long way from the general election. There may be more Tony Rezkos waiting in Obama's closet. And Bush's approval rating is still around 30%, which means that nearly 1/3 of this country is either completely ignorant or just crazy (or maybe both). Plus, we continue to have the same laissez faire media who, when they are not spitting out "both sides" of an actual story, still think that stuff like this is news. So, Obama's riding high now, but for how long? And what about after he gets in the White House?
We don't need any tea leaves to tell us what methods Republicans are going to use in their attempt to take him out. Jon Swift has humorously laid out a version for us in some detail. In reality, they started their Obama-is-a-Muslim whispering campaign many moons ago. This whisper is all they need to keep their 30% happy. Now, they're sending that tool, Jonah Goldbrick, out to try to connect liberalism to fascism by reducing liberalism down to a gooey homogeneous "unity" mass with a little sprinkling of organically grown totalitarianism on top (and they wonder why we accuse them of projecting). Toss in David Brooks' hint that Obama's "unity" virtue is less "classical" and more Islamic-al, and you've got yourself a full-on Islamic Fascist in the White House (complete with his own week-long celebration) post election day.
David Brooks and the other neocon uni-tards in the media are going to provide the path for them to get their argument out of the 30% crazy land mass and moved toward the middle. They'll start by continuing to drip this "fascist liberal unification" concoction into everyounce of their rhetoric. And when you bring up the reality that everyone runs on bridging divisions, you'll get, "GW Bush, Uniter, Not a Divider? Clearly, you're a crazy revisionist historian." They'll keep throwing in a few "Osama (oh, I mean, Obama)'s" here and there along with some "Hussein"s just to keep their 30% on message. Then, the neocon media middlemen will start using every possible Obama hiccup to withdraw whatever faux support they claimed to have mustered for Obama during the campaign. Many of these "hiccups" will look to the rest of us like rational progressive leadership.
Eventually, Brooks is going to recant his former championing of him--maybe when Obama reveals his true Muslim roots by starting to extract us from Iraq or by refusing to get us into Iran--and admit that he just can't find it in his heart to support his old pal anymore. Brooks will talk about his own special goodness as a uni-tard and how he really, really tried his hardest, but that crazy Islamic Fascist Obama is tricky and suckered him in with his snake charming tongue. Eventually, after they've eroded away about 50%, they'll try to get Obama up on some little trivial land deal that didn't make any money but might have something to do with how he's helping out his friends, the terr'ists. Bring in a special prosecutor and no Libby-style justice will be good enough for the Muslim man.
Or maybe they'll take a different route with similar twists and turns--the thing about neocons is that they tend to keep a lot of branding irons in the fire. Just in case.
So, what's the lesson that I learn from all this? I already know that no one is immune--not even my man, Edwards. But if I were going to take a lesson from the neocon history books, it will be a phrase I learned from our 30% dear GW Bush. And I say to neocons everywhere: "Bring it on!"
(of course, unlike Bush, I will be doing some of the fighting)
"Democrats do better when people think." -Bill Clinton (former president and former thinker)
"Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand." -Albert Einstein (former assistant patent officer and theoretical physicist)
The Some of Nothing Blog has, for the most part, ignored the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton. What little attention we have paid to it has come in the form of criticism of the media for their coverage of the New Hampshire primaries and the trumped up "Hilsterics" that we've come to know and loathe. This lack of attention has been for two reasons: 1. there has been no shortage of other news coverage of Hillary Clinton (whether we like it or not), and 2. our thoughts about Hillary's campaign have been ambivalent, at best. We, here at Some of Nothing, have a tendency to view our representatives as children who need a firm but loving parental hand when it comes to encouraging them to behave properly. And in this primary, we've viewed Edwards as our favorite child--overlooking past indiscretions as we see him start to mature into being a contributing member of our society. We've seen Obama as the second favorite--our love and hope for him is displayed only in asking why he can't be more like his brother. And as for Hillary, she's the delinquent we've given up on--hoping nothing more than she stay out of jail and try to ween herself off of her various addictions. So, when the Clinton campaign started to behave more erratically than usual, we just looked at it as a typical cry for help and ignored it.
However, there's one element of Clinton's cry that we cannot ignore: it's the anti-intellectualism, stupid. If there is one thing that I appreciated about the original Bill Clinton as a campaigner and as a president, it was his ability to meet people on their level and raise them up. He recognized that we, as a country, were smarter than we were given credit for, and all we needed was a bit of encouragement to really see beyond initial barriers and prejudices in order to make the best decisions for ourselves and our country. For evidence of this, let's look back to Clinton's "debate moment" from back when he was running against Bush Sr. and responding to a question about how the economic depression has impacted him:
The genius of this Bill Clinton is fairly self-evident. He is empathetic, not dismissive, and thoughtful in his response. However, at the point near the end of his comment, when he says:
...What I want you to understand is, the national debt is not the only cause of that [depressed economy]. It is because America has not invested in its people; it is because we have not grown...it is because we are in the grip of a failed economic theory. And this decision you're about to make better be about what kind of economic theory you want...
that is where he truly shines. Because when Bush Sr. had talked down to this woman, Clinton talked up. He viewed her as an adult with the capability of rational thought and challenged her to look at the big picture and understand the reality of the issues she faces.
Now, let's contrast that Bill Clinton with the Shill Clinton we see today when asked about the success of the Obama campaign:
...Jesse Jackson won in South Carolina twice...
While the circumstances surrounding the two comments were not exactly the same, I can't help but wonder how the Bill Clinton of yesteryear would have handled the Obama question of today. In reality, the only acceptable excuse for Clinton's narrow and demeaning response here would be temporary insanity. Because in insinuating that Obama is just "the black candidate," not only is he minimizing the success of Barack Obama, but he's blatantly and unabashedly disrespecting the intelligence of the American people. He's having a Bush Senior moment. By failing to put himself in the minds of Obama voters, Clinton is perpetuating many of the crass and shortsighted stereotypes trumpeted by Beltway politicians and media. And in the process, he undermines his own credibility when he criticizes those stereotypes. Nonetheless, we can only hope that, when Americans contemplate their willingness to be talked down to and to base decisions on abject prejudice, Bill Clinton will be hoisted on his own petard. And we will firmly but lovingly remind him of the simple fact that we're not stupid!
In spite of Sam Seder's valiantly sappy effort to boost morale, I am skipping democratic primary school today to revel in recent achievements in the fight for information freedom.
* Heather McKee at EcoGeek shares the news about an "eco-patent commons":
In a partnership with the World Business Council for SustainableDevelopment (WBCSD), IBM, Sony, Nokia, and Pitney Bowes are giving away the rights to 31 environmental technology patents to anyone willing to use them.
Inspired by open source movement behind Creative Commons and the Linux OS, the WBCSD and these companies believe that by sharing patents that reduce pollution and waste, they will provide a spawning ground for new collaborations in efficiency and sustainability.
I am particularly looking forward to learning about Fluid jet impregnation. Who knew being good could sound so bad?
*Oyster's Garter highlights some exciting breakthroughs in "open-source science":
Most academic science is funded by the government, so the results essentially belong to the people. But the data that is paid for by these grants rarely appears outside of expensive, subscription-only journals. The Public Library of Science (PLoS), a free online scientific journal, is a great approach to making science results available to the public. And, very soon, Google will be another! Wired Magazine reports that Google’s next huge world-changing project will be a home for terabytes of scientific data.
Ahhh...Google. How do I love thee? Let me count the ways: 10googol.
* Read/Write Web discusses the latest trend in free traditional media:
Monthly political and cultural editorial magazine, The Atlantic, announced in an editor's note this week that it would be ditching its subscriber registration requirement to view online content. The magazine's printed content, including archives from 1995-present, is now free for the general public on its web site. Archives dating back to 1857 are available as part of a for-pay premium pass program (though some of those articles should be in the public domain, right?), excluding articles from January, 1964 - September, 1992, which are left out for copyright purposes. ... The Atlantic follows other old guard US media properties that have recently set their online content free.
This means that we can now read stuff besides Matthew Yglesias. Oh happy day!
I don't know about you, but I was pretty excited at the beginning of this primary season. We had a slew of great Democratic candidates to choose from, a lot of ethnic diversity in the ranks, and a healthy range of solution-oriented ideas and agendas to inspire us. There were Dodd and Gravel giving us our straight talk, Kucinich being a progressive's progressive, Richardson showing some international insight, and Biden radiating a healthy glow of machismo. We also had Edwards' fire, Obama's optimism, and Clinton's...well...we'll go with gravitas. Back then, the future was so bright, I had to wear Biden's shades.
Cue Harry Reid discussing the FISA bill, including telecom amnesty:
[I]f people think they are going to talk this to death, we are going to be in here all night. This is not something we are going to have a silent filibuster on. If someone wants to filibuster this bill, they are going to do it in the openness of the Senate.
Even if I don't factor in the Nevada debaucus and the ditch Obaminton have driven the campaign into, I'm finding it hard to be a Democrat right now. The most recent telecom immunity capitulation has elucidated the fact that, no matter how vivid and inviting the future looks, the democrats are still just riding piggyback on Bush's dinosaur. This immunity issue compels us to recall the hope we had when Democrats won the Congress in 2002, and it compels us to recall every single subsequent disappointment thereafter. Back in the day, accountability was going to replace Scooter Libby, facts were going to replace "intelligence", and justice was going to replace Abu Ghraib. Instead, telecoms are the new Scooter Libby, Iran is the new Iraq, and Mukasey is the new Gonzales. This really isn't what I voted for.
So, when Bolton and Miers can blithely flout the rule of law by disregarding congressional subpoenas, and a Democrat representing my interests has to perform the first real filibuster against his very own party (supposedly my party), am I going to assume that my vote this November will actually bring me what I want? Because, in the long run, what I want has little to do with getting a few extra dollars in the form of a tax rebate and more to do with getting justice and equal representation. When I have these two things, I don't need or want the government to save me from anything. Why would I? With justice and equal representation, I have the power to save myself.
It looks like we're going to party like it's 2002. Again. An unnecessary national security vote is being forced down the throat of a Democratic congress by the otherwise totally obstructionist Republicans, and the Democrats are anxious to sweep it under the rug so they can avoid being called cowards. Election year greatest hits: give them what they want so we can move on to "our issues." Get ready to hear this stale old tune a lot.
Well, the fact is that telecom immunity and congressional subpoenas are our issues, and we simply cannot move forward until we acknowledge that. And without the ability to move forward, democrats are losers--in every sense of the word.
That's it. It's clearly time for a moratorium on majority leaders from cesspool states such as Nevada. The state can't even hold a decent primary. Caucusing in casinos?!? Way to prioritize, dumbasses. Ken Layne from Wonkette uncovers the real Las Vegas:
Horrible smog. Chewed-up desert. Wind storms. Endless vistas of foreclosed stucco boxes. For Sale signs and Payday Loan joints. Crushing unemployment. No water. Rampant crime, prostitution, drug addiction, gambling addiction — all squirming around the edges of a never-finished vulgar theme park that should be blown up and reassembled in Dubai, where it belongs.
That may be true, but still the worst thing about Nevada right now is actually Harry Reid. As Glenn Greenwald explains:
Harry Reid -- who has (a) done more than any other individual to ensure that Bush's demands for telecom immunity and warrantless eavesdropping powers will be met in full and (b) allowed the Republicans all year to block virtually every bill without having to bother to actually filibuster -- went to the Senate floor yesterday and, with the scripted assistance of Mitch McConnell and Pat Leahy, warned Chris Dodd, Russ Feingold and others that they would be selfishly wreaking havoc on the schedules of their fellow Senators (making them work over the weekend, ruining their planned "retreat," and even preventing them from going to Davos!) if they bothered everyone with their annoying, pointless little filibuster.
To Reid's credit, maybe he's just trying to make his state actually look good in comparison with himself. His re-election campaign slogan: "You think rampant crime, unemployment, and drug addiction is bad? Just wait until I get back in the Senate." Odds are he won't make it back.
We knew it was coming. According to Glenn Greenwald, the telecom immunity issue is back with a vengeance. But this time, John Edwards is being recruited into the fight. From Firedog Lake:
John Edwards is the perfect person to lead with this message. Such an action would illustrate his genuine commitment to change and fighting vested interests in Washington, and hopefully it will channel that intense anti-immunity passion toward his campaign. He won't be able to participate in the filibuster himself, but by offering to leave the campaign trail and go back to DC with Clinton and Obama he'll be able to show leadership in challenging all Democrats to put thoughts of personal gain aside and join together in the fight to save the constitution.
Without the help of the presidential candidates, we are doomed to lose this fight. And all their calls for change will ring hollow if they allow George Bush to railroad this bill through a supine Democratic-controlled Senate because of their absence.
Dear Senator Edwards- Your supporters need your help! We need you to demonstrate your commitment to bringing the government back to the people by helping to lead the fight against immunity for telecommunication companies. This plan to give law-breakers amnesty from their actions is simply unjustifiable and is just another example of why we have learned to distrust our government. You have spoken to the nature of this distrust in the past, so we know you understand the problem. Now, please help lead us to a solution. Thank you for your time!
Possible FREE Stuff: If you email John Edwards and would like an item from the Some of Nothing closet, post the text from your email into the comments section here. You will be entered to win something fabulous (and negotiable).
That guy who was in 10 Things I Hate About Youdied yesterday. So, in honor of him, and another dead guy, William Shakespeare, here are More Than 10 Things I Hate About the Primaries (in non-iambic pentameter, yet sonnet-ish style):
When Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada speak, Apparently, the rest of US must heed; For primary season has already reached its peak, Built on corn, granite, and muck from Lake Mead.
And thou, whose paper and TV news displays Little more than hair, skin, and slightly un-dry eyes, Must sift through garbage all the days Only to learn about war, poverty, and government spies.
With such a task, it comes as no great shock That important issues and platforms are ignored; And power is still gained through cash and stock In GE, Time-Warner, and Fox "News" corps.
So, when in frustration, a faux sonnet you wrote, I certainly shan't blame you, but you still have to vote.
*Bottle of Blog comments on the news of the US intelligence restructuring that took place in 2004:
In the case of the Iran report, the about-face was made possible in part by a 2004 restructuring that gave intelligence chiefs more autonomy. New procedures for vetting and authenticating reports also helped insulate analysts from White House involvement.
"White House involvement" is, of course, a common journalistic term of art for "fucking it up" or "getting it wrong".
Yes, but we all know that GW never made a mistake.
I associate the name Ronald Reagan with deadly indifference and fear.
Yes, Mr. Obama—he changed the trajectory of America. You are correct. And yes—he buried his transformative agenda beneath a veneer of optimism. You are correct. And I don't care. I know you aren't praising his policies. I know you aren't putting him on a pedestal. I know what you were saying, and it still stinks.
Or, as I like to say, "Obama to Progressives: Go f*** yourselves!"
*Alas, a blog highlights Tom Toles' take on the Hilsterics to which we've been subjected:
More proof that Toles is the best mainstream political cartoonist…
There is, in fact, someone who "would love to see ‘In God We Trust’ stricken from our money and replaced with ‘In Muhammad We Trust'."
And apparently, that someone is this Republican dude from Michigan:
WASHINGTON - A former U.S. congressman and delegate to the United Nations was indicted Wednesday, accused of being part of a terrorist fundraising ring that allegedly sent more than $130,000 to an al-Qaida and Taliban supporter who has threatened U.S. and international troops in Afghanistan.
The former Republican congressman from Michigan, Mark Deli Siljander, was charged with money laundering, conspiracy and obstructing justice for allegedly lying about lobbying senators on behalf of an Islamic charity that authorities said was secretly sending funds to terrorists.
A 42-count indictment accuses the Islamic American Relief Agency of paying Siljander $50,000 for the lobbying — money that turned out to be stolen from the U.S. Agency for International Development.
Well, Virgil. When you're right, you're right. We all owe you a big apology.
I've been surprised that it's taken so long to get our "liberal" press corps on to this story. It seems to me that, either they didn't want to have to apologize to ol' Virgil for disregarding his huckleberry wisdom, or they were waiting for a chance to somehow connect this guy to a democrat:
Siljander, who served four years in the U.S. House of Representatives, was appointed by President Ronald Reagan to serve as a U.S. delegate to the United Nations for one year in 1987.
... I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. ...
Actually, I'm sure the press were just trying to get all their facts straight so as not to informoffend anybody. But I'm still looking forward to the new 6 degrees of Ronald Reagan game!
At the risk of turning Some of Nothing into the John Edwards blog (if I haven't done that already), I want to post some of what a few other Edwards supporters are saying about him.
Edwards should be Democratic nominee because he is the most progressive and electable of the top three candidate and the only one who understands that entrenched interests like the telecoms, banks, credit card issuers, health insurers and oil companies aren't voluntarily going to make some sort of "bipartisan happy consensus" that costs them billions of dollars and a ton of power, whether doing so saves millions of lives, trillions of dollars and makes the country prosperous and safe or not.
In my opinion, there is the one candidate that will fight for the change that America needs, and that is the insurgent that is above 1% in the polls, John Edwards. Let's see, I remember Edwards putting out his proposals long before the other two on healthcare and other issues. And when the other two put out their proposals, imagine what we find. The same ideas that Edwards had proposed. Even though the others were against Edwards proposal from the start. He has been minimized by the media, Democratic operatives, and the normal talking heads. But yet, he still hangs on to 15-20% of the electorate in the Democratic Party nationwide.
...[I]f our corporately controlled "liberal" media let more Americans know that Edwards was a serious threat to the pervasive and corrupt influence of corporate lobbyists on our American democracy, they might actually fucking vote for the guy.
The guy could actually wind up President! And then where would we be?
I'll tell you: we'd be in some crazy fucked up society where a corporation with a post office box in the Cayman Islands has less say on where tax dollars go than a taxpayer in the United States.
Delivering a consistent message of economic populism at home and abroad, Edwards is the only front-runner who seems to know what he wants to do with the office, and the only one whose specific proposals on health care, regulatory reform and economic justice seem targeted toward addressing the real issues that ail our nation. While other candidates promise hope or experience or competency, Edwards is the only Democrat truly promising change… and change is what we’ll most desperately need after eight years of a Bush Administration that has left our nation balancing precariously on the edge of abandoning the core values that have long nurtured our democracy and our economy.
Politics is a fight and the quest for fairness in our current gilded age won’t be accomplished without a determined struggle. Edwards as we all know rose from humble beginnings to take on predatory corporations in the courtroom and he won big. Whenever Republicans talk about tort reform it's code, to prevent advocates such as John Edwards from helping regular folks against entrenched corporate power. The fact Edwards earned a fortune at the expense of predatory corporations only angers the predatory conservative establishment even more. Remember the plutocracy considered FDR a traitor to his class too.
Since I added the John Edwards graphic to my blog, I occasionally get emails admonishing me for not supporting Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. "We need a woman to lead us," they say. Or, "How can you not support a black man running for president?" This kind of thinking drives me nuts. It diminishes the candidate in question. Aren't there better reasons to vote for Clinton and Obama? And it diminishes my rights as an American citizen to vote for whomever represents my best interests, those of my country and the world. Are women and ethnic minorities doomed to have a more limited choice of candidates? Is that the equality that we've been fighting for?
I have examined where the presidential candidates stand on the issues that I think are most important and I have come to the conclusion that John Edwards is the man for the job. Here are just a few reasons why:
I think that a large number of society's ills, including those within the black community, are the result of poverty. I support Edwards' strong focus on ending poverty by 2036.[...]
There are many reasons to support Edwards, but from this list, you can see a common theme. Many of us want a wo/man with a plan, and we see that John Edwards clearly has one. Obviously, this is just a tiny sample (because I'm lazy). So, if you have written something about your own reasons for supporting Edwards or have seen anything on the net that you think should be included here, just leave a link in the comments. Maybe this list will grow and grow.
UPDATE: FYI-The Edwards campaign is doing a major fund raising push today. Some of the proceeds from Some of Nothing schwag have already ended up at the campaign. Maybe, we'll find a little more in between the couch cushions today.
Once again, Obama plays to the rightwing, and once again, the Obamapologists come out to explain to us simpletons what their candidate really meant. Just for the record, let's count a few of the more egregious Obamantics: 1. Obama brings on gay minister to balance out anti-gay minister. Yes, unreasonable intolerance is just as valid as plain old acceptance of the way someone conducts his personal life. You betcha! 2. Obama hates on Social Security. Sure. It's fair to re-frame the Social Security debate using right wing propaganda as long as it takes you to the White House. There's no way that could possibly have a more long-term negative impact. No. way. 3. Obama hates on Krugman. Why not just toss the single most rational progressive voice in the traditional media out the window? That won't be a problem. Because clearly rational progressive voices won't be needed during the next presidency. 4. Obama praises Reagan. Great. Add another volume to the Reagan myth. Who cares how he actually behaved as president? Nobody remembers those silly little arms deals anyway, and best we keep it that way.
Whether or not Obama believes what he's saying, at this point, is somewhat irrelevant. He's using Clinton's centrist style in his rhetoric, which may bring him a win, but at what cost? Do we think the right wing noise machine has gone anywhere? Do we think that the second Obama gets elected Fox "News", Limbaugh, Medved, Savage, Coulter, Malkin...are just automatically going to become more rational? They'll have to be more careful in the beginning, for sure. But they'll just chip, chip, chip away until it turns out Obama has somehow sold whites into slavery and eaten their children for breakfast. Because when the new captain of our ship has, since the very beginning, listed toward Cape Crazy Hope, there's really nothing else to do but keep going. And in the end, cue the next GWackjob because Americans have become a cowering mass of intellectual weaklings that can't even stand up against the likes of Rupert Murdoch.
No thanks, man. I'm tired of cowering.
UPDATE: I almost forgot Obamantic #5. Obama hates on Gore and Kerry. It's true. Those elections were straight up the failure of Gore and Kerry and had nothing to do with faulty ballots, voter suppression, or corruption, in any way. And certainly nothing to do with Fox "News", etc. Good one!
The Writers Strike, courtesy of the AMPTP, is having a variety of negative impacts. From the Telegraph:
Organisers of this year’s Oscars are drawing up contingency plans for an alternative celebrity-free ceremony in case the awards show suffers the same fate as the Golden Globes because of the ongoing Hollywood writers’ strike.
LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - Director John Singleton is among the latest casualties of the Hollywood writers strike, losing his production deal at Warner Bros. TV as part of a sweeping cost-cutting action by major studios.
But most significantly, the strike is killing TheA Daily Show. Specifically, Jon Stewart is having a difficult time finding guests who are willing to cross the picket lines as evidenced by the fact that he hosted that Fascist Jonah Goldberg (calling people fascist is apparently all the rage now, and I didn't want Goldberg to feel left out) last night. Given the political implications of the writers strike, I hesitated in posting the A Daily Show interview here. But Jon Stewart's take-down of Goldberg is so inspiring and educational that I think it's in the public interest for everyone to see it:
With all that talk at the State of the Union about upordownvotes and whims and laws and such:
Lurking around the blogosphere after Edwards' campaign suspension announcement has been a learning experience. It has been quieter than usual, and overall, there has been a general feeling of tremendous loss.
John Edwards finally gets some real attention from the press! (because he's dropping out of the race)
From Paul Krugman's latest column:
"Democrats do better when people think."
In spite of Sam Seder's valiantly sappy effort to boost morale, I am skipping democratic primary school today to revel in recent achievements in the fight for information freedom.
I don't know about you, but I was pretty excited at the beginning of this primary season. We had a slew of great Democratic candidates to choose from, a lot of ethnic diversity in the ranks, and a healthy range of solution-oriented ideas and agendas to inspire us. There were Dodd and Gravel giving us our straight talk, Kucinich being a progressive's progressive, Richardson showing some international insight, and Biden radiating a healthy glow of machismo. We also had Edwards' fire, Obama's optimism, and Clinton's...well...we'll go with gravitas. Back then, the future was so bright, I had to wear Biden's shades.
That's it. It's clearly time for a moratorium on majority leaders from cesspool states such as Nevada. The state can't even hold a decent primary. Caucusing in casinos?!? Way to prioritize, dumbasses. Ken Layne from Wonkette uncovers the real Las Vegas:
We knew it was coming. According to Glenn Greenwald, the telecom immunity issue is back with a vengeance. But this time, John Edwards is being recruited into the fight. From Firedog Lake:
That guy who was in 10 Things I Hate About You died yesterday. So, in honor of him, and another dead guy, William Shakespeare, here are More Than 10 Things I Hate About the Primaries (in non-iambic pentameter, yet sonnet-ish style):
*Bottle of Blog comments on the news of the US intelligence restructuring that took place in 2004:
There is, in fact, someone who "would love to see ‘In God We Trust’ stricken from our money and replaced with ‘In Muhammad We Trust'."
At the risk of turning Some of Nothing into the John Edwards blog (if I haven't done that already), I want to post some of what a few other Edwards supporters are saying about him.
Once again, Obama plays to the rightwing, and once again, the Obamapologists come out to explain to us simpletons what their candidate really meant. Just for the record, let's count a few of the more egregious Obamantics:
The Writers Strike, courtesy of the AMPTP, is having a variety of negative impacts.
