Could have to do with the putative Clinton Dynasty having their hands on the levers of said machinery.

Edwards/Obama 08!

An Edwards/Obama ticket would be unbeatable...

It's clear the GOP is afraid of facing Edwards. That's why Drudge and company promote Hillary's chances at every turn. Meanwhile the Rove-ettes go after Edwards as the Breck Girl, etc....The only time I was really disappointed with Edwards was in the debate with Cheney. I thought this smooth country lawyer would be able to set off the vicious, twisted rage of Dick Cheney and we'd have a "You can't handle the truth" moment. I thought Edwards wimped out badly in that debate, and I thought he let down America that night.

Yeah Bill, seems Cheney is brighter than you think. He made Edwards look like the complete, hypocritical ass that he is that night. Especially when he lamely tried to bait Cheney concerning his lesbian daughter.

It was classless, yet true to form for Silky Pony.

No, Edwards would rather have someone in charge of mine safety that knows nothing about mines or mining. I'd prefer it if he stuck to preaching at us to give up our SUV's from the porch of his 28,000 sf house on 102 acres of deforested property in North Carolina.

If you're a Cheney fan and you saw Cheney's earlier comments about the problems of going into Iraq, I'd avoid calling anyone else a complete, hypocritical ass.

Baiting Cheney over his lesbian daughter? That's a laugh. It is the Republican Party that has put "family values" in its platform at every national convention for the past quarter century, and that opposes even the most basic anti-discrimination laws relating to housing and employment with respect to sexual orientation. (In Oregon, Karen Minnis would not even let the bill come to a vote in the House when she was speaker.) It is entirely reasonable to point out that the man who ran for Vice President on a platform that opposed anti-discrimination laws for gays and lesbians has a daughter who actually might need those anti-discrimiation laws someday. Or does Dick Cheny think that it would have been perfectly all right for Coors Brewery to fire his daughter simply because she is a lesbian?

"No, Edwards would rather have someone in charge of mine safety that knows nothing about mines or mining."

Not sure where you're getting that from, Salvador. According to the NYT article, Edwards' next sentence was:

"We will have somebody who actually understands what needs to be done to keep workers safe who are toiling in the mines every single day."

He means somebody who will actually protect mine workers' safety over mining companies' profits, rather than the fox-guarding-the-henhouse situation Bush has created for most federal regulatory departments.

"Silky pony"? "28,000 sq ft house"? You forgot "Breck Girl."

You guys are so scared of Edwards, it's comical.

It seems to me that it's perfectly legitimate for anyone to call Edwards a "...complete, hypocritical ass".

It's either true or it's not; independent of whether you consider yourself anyone's "fan". Certainly, being an Edwards "fan" hasn't stopped anyone here from calling Cheney a variety of names.

I meant Dick Cheney is a complete, hypocritical ass for saying it wouldn't be worth American lives to do what he later supported and sold to the public. In fact, calling him that is going easy on him.
Edwards never got thousands of our soldiers killed with a plan he clearly knew was a mistake. Of course, with Cheney you have to pick and choose among his many lies, so perhaps he was lying back then, too.

"Afraid" of Edwards? Why? Because of his vast governing experience and cogent thoughts on the issues? Or perhaps because of the fearsome debating prowess he exhibited against Cheney? Don't make me laugh. Edwards at the top of the ticket is another Dukakis waiting to happen. To those of us that aren't panting fans of him, he comes across as a milktoast lightweight.

Jack, no offense, but, The Silky Pony? Seriously?

Right Bill, I guess a person shouldn't be able to change his mind, huh?

Just like Edwards supporting the war, and now not supporting the war?

"I mean, we have three different countries that, while they all present serious problems for the United States -- they're dictatorships, they're involved in the development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction -- you know, the most imminent, clear and present threat to our country is not the same from those three countries. I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country."

Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)
During an interview on CNN's "Late Edition"
February 24, 2002

I think that it might not be a question of a single, well-oiled machine being responsible for choosing the candidate. (Remember how in the last Democratic presidential primary there was much early talk of Wesley Clark being the choice of the Democratic "establishment," including the Clintons?) Yes, corporations and other moneyed interests play an inordinate role in selecting the candidates, but other important factors are also at play: such as name recognition, celebrity status, the general rightward shift in political outlook in this country, and the more particular disinclination of voters to identify with and care about the least fortunate members of society.

The Reagan era turned selfishness from a sin to a virtue in the popular imagination, and demonizing the poor and union members became widely acceptable. I personally think Edwards' main messages are great--though I think his actual policy proposals are too tame--but I don't think those economic and social justice issues play all that well with the populace at large. Americans in general are more wrapped up in fearing and resenting strangers than in trying to love and care for their neighbors. Many of my fellow citizens have become so fearful and resentful that, in my view, they've become blind even to their own best interests and therefore voted for our current President, a man devoid of compassion for common people and who invariably serves the interests of the wealthiest few.

Maybe that will change. Maybe a brighter and better era will dawn. (Things could hardly get darker, after all.) But a different kind of rhetoric needs to prevail, and some pretty thick and ugly ignorance has to be fought through, before things are going to get radically better.

You've got to know Karl Rove tries to get the candidate he wants to face. He came right out and said he wanted Howard Dean at one point last time around, and he believes Hillary has fatal unfavorable ratings. Either he said that because he's worried about Hillary or he's trying to steer the support to Hillary by attacking her. You've got to know he's playing this game at a very involved level. To say they're afraid of Edwards is just a way of saying they're afraid of losing and they think Edwards could beat them while Hillary can't. I'm not saying he's right, but that's what he might be thinking.

"vast governing experience and cogent thoughts on the issues"

"fearsome debating prowess"

Edwards is certainly superior to George W. Bush in all three of the above categories.

It is obvious to anyone who is not a panting Bushie that "milktoast lightweight" is a perfect description of George W. Bush, who was born into wealth, privilege and family legacy, unlike Edwards who is a self-made millionaire.

I don't see the resemblance to Dukakis. My fear about Edwards (and about Hillary) is that he is another Kerry waiting to happen, in light of their bone-headed votes to authorize Bush to attack Iraq in 2002. I think Democrats' best bet is someone like Richardson, Kucinich, Obama or Gore, who have clean records of opposing the Iraq invasion, and are not vulnerable to stupid quotes like the one submitted by Mr. McMullen, above.

I think Democrats' best bet is someone like Richardson, Kucinich, Obama or Gore...

By all means, I wholeheartedly agree!

After I saw this I could no longer take Edwards seriously.

http://tinyurl.com/32qhs2

Just couldn't.

Edwards? please. Not a chance in hell of being elected.

I had to giggle at his thought of forcing everyone to see a doctor for a checkup once a year. Now I understand the thought behind it, but can you imagine the huge, costly bureaucracy that would be required for mandating that?
And just how forceful would they be? Gestapo style? And people think we live in a fascist country now?

Hence the term "Silky Pony" Zeb.

He sure looks like a real, salt-of-the-earth commoner, don't he? Mr. Two Americas spends more time and money on his hair than most people spend on their homes.

I personally would rather see Paul Wolfowitz licking his comb.

Zeb and Chris:

Y'all is a wee bit superficial, I think. I bet Giuliani and Fred Thompson would love to have the ability to fuss with their hair for two minutes. Have they somehow gained integrity or competence by virtue of the loss of their hair? Dick Cheney certainly has not.

Being rich and looking good on TV is a pre-requisite to being elected president, but it doesn't preclude the president from promoting policies that help the salt of the earth commoners. Look at FDR, JFK, etc.

Edwards, who was born poor, certainly has more capacity to empathize with the poor than Bush, whether he fusses with his hair or not.

Chris, you say "Mr. Two Americas" derisively as if Edwards is lying about it. Do you deny there is a significant wealth gap in the US? Do you deny Bush's policies have greatly widened that gap?

I'm not going to bash him other than to say that I'm unable to take him seriously.

"I had to giggle at his thought of forcing everyone to see a doctor for a checkup once a year."

Why? Most if not all countries with universal health care allow coverage only for individuals who meet certain criteria for basic health maintenance, for the obvious reason that ongoing neglect leads to more expensive and less beneficial emergency treatment. Many private insurance policies have similar requirements.

In fact, it's not all that different from the philosophy behind product warranties: for instance, if you don't meet certain servicing and check-up standards for your car, your warranty is void.

Are you actually defending the health care "system" we have now in the US? If not, what do you suggest?

Sam, it's obvious that no matter how many facts are thrown your way, you'll never change your opinion on the 'poor' and the 'wealth gap' in this country.

That said, the 'poor' in this country are better off than most of the middle class in Europe and Asia. Poor Americans own more than two televisions, have air conditioning and a large percentage own their own homes -- two-thirds have more than two rooms per person. 75% of poor Americans own a car, 31% own two cars. 2% of poor Americans say they often don't have enough to eat, meanwhile their protein and nutrient intake is 100% above recommended levels.

Poor Americans have access to 12 years of free schooling (to the tune of $100,000) and free higher ed in most cases. Poor Americans pay a tiny percentage of total taxes, meanwhile the top 10% of Americans pay the vast majority. Poor Americans have access to some of the best health care in the world. Only very rarely is anyone turned away from treatment for lack of insurance.

Interesting how liberals complain that there's huge masses of unwashed poor in this country. Yet Democrat programs such as welfare, Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security have done nothing to change the plight of our poor citizens.

The left's (read Edward's) position of throwing more money at the 'problem' is just plain stupid. The fact he's a hypocritical, shyster narcissist is just icing on the cake.

"I'm not going to bash him other than to say that I'm unable to take him seriously."

Saying you are unable to take him seriously is bashing him.

You're unable to take him seriously because he fussed with his hair for 2 minutes before appearing on TV?

That is superficial, in my opinion.

Are you actually defending the health care "system" we have now in the US?

No, just amused..maybe a bit gun-shy, at our government being in control of it.

the 'poor' in this country are better off than most of the middle class in Europe and Asia.

No kidding...I read today that 46 percent of all "poor households" actually own their home.

Must be nice.

I read today that 46 percent of all "poor households" actually own their home.

I see where you got your information. Judging by some of the responses here, it seems the article is the new meme among the Right. Where exactly did the author get his "statistics"? Just waving your hand and saying "it's all true" doesn't cut it. I learned that in the fifth grade.

Why don't Democrats back Edwards?

Let's try "Because Edwards is a sleaze bag trial lawyer."

Next.

Because Edwards is a sleaze bag trial lawyer.

Because Edwards Fred Thompson is a sleaze bag trial lawyer lobbyist.

Hmmmm....

"just amused..maybe a bit gun-shy, at our government being in control of it."

I hear remarks like that all the time about health care, so I guess your notion should be looked at and taken seriously.

It seems to imply that somehow now individuals are in control of their health care. But that's just, as a factual matter, not the case for the great majority of us. A sizeable minority of people, as everyone must know, has no health insurance coverage at all. A majority has coverage that is tightly controlled by insurance companies that are intent, as a matter of basic business philosophy, on providing as little coverage as possible under their agreements with businesses and individuals.

And then there is a tiny minority of people in this country who are wealthy enough to buy for themselves the best health care that's available in the world. But there are so few of them that they hardly count as part of the overall picture. And in any case, they'll continue to be able to buy extra individual health coverage for themselves no matter what universal plan gets enacted--just as, for instance, people of means can buy a private-school education for their children despite the availability of public schools.

You can say that the government doesn't always act in the public's best interest, but insurance companies never do, and there's no hope of changing that. Insurance companies are not going to extend coverage to people who cannot pay the currently exorbitant health care premiums, and they're not going to stop taking a profit for their owners and shareholders. So if we want everyone in this country to have decent health care, and if we want to provide it at a reasonable price, we have to put the government in charge of it and severely limit, or eliminate, the role of private insurance companies.

John Edwards is rich, but he came from dirt and made his own wealth by hard work and smarts. That's the exact opposite of the Chimp, whose personal intellect and discipline would have him dead, in jail, or on the streets by now if he weren't born into the establishment.

John Edwards made his wealth by being a sleazy trial lawyer utilizing junk science to sue non-liable doctors and hospitals. He made his fortune by claiming that maternity-ward mistakes caused infants to develop cerebral palsy. The theory that doctor error was a common cause of cerebral palsy was dubious at best when Edwards sued these non-liable doctors/hospitals 1980's and 1990's, and is universally rejected as false by experts today. The well dried up and he's moved on to politics. The irony is that he now decried the United States' health care system, and he probably contributed as much as anybody to screwing it up. What a prince.

"Poor Americans pay a tiny percentage of total taxes, meanwhile the top 10% of Americans pay the vast majority."

Oh, woe is the plight of Paris Hilton and the overburdened leisure class. Thank god Bush has gutted the estate tax and capital gains tax so Paris can buy more purses, cocaine and chitzus.

Seriously, please cite your source for this little "fact" you have thrown my way--preferably something other than NRO, Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage.

"Only very rarely is anyone turned away from treatment for lack of insurance."

As they say, I am ROTFLMAO. You obviously have not tried to get treated by an ER doctor at Legacy Emanuel without an insurance card lately.

Of course, people who HAVE INSURANCE are regularly denied needed treatment by their own insurance companies, under BS "exclusions." People who HAVE INSURANCE are routinely forced into bankruptcy or mortgage foreclosure because they cannot afford to pay their astronomical premiums, plus astronomical co-pays and deductibles. But hey, if you stick your fingers in your ears and recite Rush's talking points over and over long enough, maybe they will come true: day will become night, black will become white, etc.

"Interesting how liberals complain that there's huge masses of unwashed poor in this country. Yet Democrat programs such as welfare, Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security have done nothing to change the plight of our poor citizens."

Done nothing? Are you kidding?

Are you suggesting the old and disabled weren't dying of starvation prior to the New Deal?

Please identify exactly what Republicans have done to improve the plight of our poor citizens. I can think of plenty Republicans have done to worsen said plight, but no improvements spring to mind.

he probably contributed as much as anybody to screwing it up

Yeah, that sounds right.

Sorry he frightens you so.

To those of us that aren't panting fans of him, he comes across as a milktoast lightweight.

Actually, to earn the scorn of rude blowhards like yourself is an achievement of sorts.

BTW, regulars out there, welcome back "butch," a regular troll who's now changed his coward moniker to "Salvador." IP address = 67.189.111.44. Send greetings soon, though -- he's on his way out of here again...

"Coward moniker"? I thought it was kinda cool. I'll try to behave.....

"Coward moniker"?

Well, yeah. I think if you're going to be the biggest and baddest truth-teller with multiple posts in the same thread, it might be nice to know who you are.

Aw, Jack....

I'm still bemused with his phrasing of:

"John Edwards made his wealth by being a sleazy trial lawyer utilizing junk science to sue non-liable doctors and hospitals."

Non-liable doctors and hospitals? Like OHSU?

And, a "sleazy trial lawyer", too. I find it interesting that this one's a sleazy trial lawyer, while his attorney is probably "wise and experienced counsel". That he became a millionaire doing trial law seems to speak to his being able to present compelling evidence to juries and judges regarding the malfeasance of said "non-liable doctors and hospitals"....not to mention health insurance companies.

Thanks, Salvador, rr and all you troglodytes throwing ad hominims at Jacky Edwards. I hadn't considered him until today.

As for the "hair thing"...Have any of you seen footage of Ronald Reagan preparing for a media presentation? It's very, very similar. Just as much fussing as Edwards, plus the speculation that he actually dyed his hair while in office is considerable....if it's vanity that concerns you, look no farther than most Republican candidates. Likewise for any candidate who has hair...try Mitt, for example.

try Mitt, for example.

It's not quite the same. Mitt's isn't actually hair.

Truth be told, my real name isn't 'butch' either....and I only changed because I thought if it showed up here again, you'd just instantly ban it for past transgressions. I really have been trying to conform to the rules. If you really don't ever want my input on anything ever again, I'll go quietly. Although, I think we probably agree on much more than we disagree on. But hey, its your blog....

Try not to out-rant me.

Butch, you're not really even Butch?
My blogging world is shattered.
Next I'll find out we didn't really go into Iraq for the reasons your hero President Bush said.
Way to keep it real.

What can I say Bill. I'm a Multnomah County resident, and folks around here aren't particularly receptive to people of my political slant. I prefer not to spend my weekends buffing out key marks on my car and washing egg yolks off my house.

Meanwhile, over in the Clinton camp...

Let's face it- NO POLITICIAN REALLY GIVES A DAMN ABOUT THE GENERAL PUBLIC-they are in the fray for themselves and no one else. Period the end.

That he became a millionaire doing trial law seems to speak to his being able to present compelling evidence to juries and judges regarding the malfeasance of said "non-liable doctors and hospitals"....not to mention health insurance companies.

Or...that he's a great liar and a master at telling people what they want to hear...
Which makes him a perfect politician.

But hey, if you stick your fingers in your ears and recite Rush's talking points over and over long enough, maybe they will come true: day will become night, black will become white, etc.

And there it is..."everyone who disagrees with me must listen to Rush.."

Whatever.

I never said you must listen to Rush, just that you're reciting his talking points.

I guess enough Oxycontin to make you deaf really helps with that.

Sam, stay in denial if you must, but a cursory search will bring up scads of objective data showing the 'rich' really do pay the vast majority of taxes.

Obviously you have a totally jaded attitude toward those who have achieved in life and get rewarded for it. What a sad and pathetic state.

As to your assertion that the New Deal has been such a boon to America -- it seems you haven't been paying attention. Entitlements (SS, medicare, etc) are going to bankrupt the country within the next couple decades.

But I guess forcing future generations into abject poverty is okay with you. As they say: misery loves company.

Thanks, Salvador, rr and all you troglodytes throwing ad hominims at Jacky Edwards. I hadn't considered him until today.

Now, calling someone a "troglodyte" is an ad hominem (note the correct spelling) statement, godfry. What I wrote earlier about Bill McD's comment about a comment is something quite different. But whatever.

As for your statement that "I hadn't considered him (Edwards) until today.", where have you been, in a cave?

"but a cursory search will bring up scads of objective data showing the 'rich' really do pay the vast majority of taxes"

How about providing us a link to just a single scad? Please?

"Obviously you have a totally jaded attitude toward those who have achieved in life and get rewarded for it."

You mean like the attitude you have toward John Edwards? I will admit to a jaded attitude toward Paris Hilton, George W. Bush, and others who, unlike Edwards, were born into great wealth and privilege. Perhaps it is sad and pathetic. Touche.

"Entitlements (SS, medicare, etc) are going to bankrupt the country within the next couple decades"

If we do nothing, SS is solvent until 2042, at which point payouts will be made at a slightly smaller rate. This is not a crisis; it is easily fixable within the next 35 years. You must be one of the few gullible enough to have swallowed GWB's failed privatization campaign a few years back.

It is true that Entitlements (corporate welfare, pension bail-outs, no-bid contracts for the VP's corporation, $9 billion disappearing in Iraq, etc) are going to bankrupt this country a lot sooner than a couple of decades.

But I guess our tax dollars are better spent in Cheney's pockets than on feeding our old and disabled, right?

But I guess our tax dollars are better spent in Cheney's pockets than on feeding our old and disabled, right?

Right out of the loony lefty litany... I'd name a counterpart to Rush if a legitimate one existed.

I swear with your last breath you were implying that reciting talking points was somehow unworthy.

Ah...

...as usual, that's just for those with whom you disagree.

Oh, and here.

Chris,

Medicare is not a New Deal program.

The New Deal started SS, also FDIC, rural electrification, the SEC, and the Wagner Act. I'm wondering which of these you'd like to get rid of.

Your statistics on the wealthy and taxes are correct--but only because the wealthy control the highest share of income of any industrialized society (and the highest in our nation's history).

Your "facts" on the quality of life of the poor are grossly misleading (car ownership is not a relevant comparative statistic with nation's that don't rely on auto transport; similarly number of rooms per person is not a measure of wealth given the vast disparities in population per. sq km) is not utterly wrong (infant mortality rates and life expectancy in this country for those in lower income brackets place us at or near the bottom of the industrialized world).

Free public education? What industrialized nation does *not* provide this?

Yes, you are right, the food supply system in the US is the best in the world.

Go to credible sources, like the OECD, UN, IMF, or even the US government, for comparative stats on income distribution, health care, consumer spending, and then we can talk.

Chris never said Medicare was a New Deal program - he used the New Deal as the starting point for "entitlement programs". Nor did he advocate "getting rid of" ANY programs...

...of course you knew that.

and Chris,

Go to credible sources, like the OECD, UN, IMF, or even the US government, for comparative stats on income distribution, health care, consumer spending, and then we can talk.

aaaaaack!

rr:

The problem with Rush's talking points is they are not true.

However, it is true that Cheney has a sweet deferred compensation package and stock with Halliburton, which has been paid exorbitant amounts of US Treasury for work in Iraq, NOLA, etc. and failed to deliver.

Any failure of social security will derive from Bush/Cheney's reckless tax cuts and spending on military and defense contracts--not from the comparatively cheap promotion of the general welfare of our poor, elderly and disabled social security provides.

"Promoting the general welfare" of "we the people" is a purpose of the federal government listed in the Preamble to the Constitution.

Welfare of corporations and defense contractors with close ties to high-ranking federal government officials are not mentioned.

BTW, "legitimate" might not be the right adjective for a thrice-divorced, temporarily deaf Oxycontin-addict who used his money and fame to negotiate a community service plea deal with the State of Florida to avoid prescription fraud charges, and was subsequently caught smuggling Viagra prescribed to someone else into the Dominican Republic.

"relatively cheap" Sam? You've got to be kidding.

Entitlements are close to 50% of the federal budget and will only get worse as boomers age. Defense is less than 20%.

http://www.publicagenda.org/issues/factfiles_detail.cfm?issue_type=federal_budget&list=8

I totally agree with you regarding cutting corporate welfare and shady defense contractors, but to think this is a construct of only the current administration is pure, blind partisanship.

BTW, are you now ready to admit the rich really do pay most of the taxes?

"to think this is a construct of only the current administration is pure, blind partisanship."

Really? Was Clinton invading and occupying Iraq and giving Halliburton no-bid "reconstruction" contracts?

"are you now ready to admit the rich really do pay most of the taxes?"

Never denied it. The rich have most of the money; they darn well better pay most of the taxes, and they better pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than the poor do, since their income is so much higher. It's called "progressive taxation."