By now, most on the progressive blogs know John Edwards has suspended his campaign for POTUS. I am very proud of my candidate, and since dozens of volunteers went around to obtain signatures to put his name on the ballot here, I will continue to vote for him anyway. Follow me under the fold as to why I believe my vote will count regardless for this fine progressive on February 5th.
Looking at the ballot for February 5, I noticed something for the first time. Delegates.
This is probably the first presidential primary I'm voting in. I've always been good about general elections, but not so good with primaries. And, I have a question for the more politically knowledgeable, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.
consistent reports out of iowa and new hampshire call the democratic primaries there a virtual tie. one assumes that what they mean is that these races are polling within the statistical margin of error, with who leads the specific poll dependent on the screen the pollster uses to determine who will vote. we have witnessed a dramatic fall of hillary clinton from her perch.
yet this was widely predicted by those who opposed hillary. hillary's lead in the polls, people observed, was based largely -- if not solely -- on her tremendous advantage in name recognition. hillary was universally known by the electorate. people had opinions about her, and they felt secure in their opinions about her. if pushed, which pollsters are paid to do, democrats had no problem saying they would vote for hillary. the question always was, what will they do when all the campaigns started communicating on a mass scale with voters. those who opposed hillary's candidacy consistently predicted that their candidates' support numbers would rise and hillary's would fall.
hillary's supporters consistently predicted that democrats universally loved hillary, and that the people who supported other candidates were in a small minority. hillary's opponents would come home, they predicted. hillary would run the table. they were wrong.
trying to get all the old stuff off my desk before the new year. i have a couple of videos to upload from yearlykos, the first of which is this one, the complete presidential forum at yearlykos.
to me, this seemed the most relaxed and humorous debate of the ones i've seen.
it's in mp4 format, which you can apparently download and play on your video ipod from the google page...
The subject must have been really unimportant if only two of the seventeen Democratic and Republican candidates could be bothered to answer a survey. What inane questions must have been on the candidate questionnaire to have elicited a batting average only slightly better than the Cubs' "Big Three" against Diamondback pitching in the playoffs? Did they ask about the Puerto Rican beauty queen? Paris Hilton? UFO's? Obama girl? How much do you pay for a haircut? The answer will shock and amaze you.
After our recent Northside DFA forum on global warming (which was a big success, BTW), I felt motivated to try to compare the presidential candidate's positions on this issue. I found a GREAT website from the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) where you can see the candidates responses to their questionnaires:
I did a side-by-side comparison of the Dem candidate's answers, below are the ones I thought were the most interesting. I included answers by Edwards, Richardson, Obama and Clinton. I would have included Kucinich but he did not fill out the questionnaire.
Once again I really, really like what Edwards has to say. Yes, his cheerleading at the start of the war is extremely troubling. But all of the candidates have given me reasons to mistrust them, so at very least I'd like to go with the one that SAYS what I most agree with. Because if they can't even SAY it, then how are they going to do it? And I think that it is clear that the ambitious nature of Edwards health care proposal combined with his vigorous campaign is what made Hilary come out with an almost identical one -- so that no one could use it as a point against her. If Edwards had not done that, I doubt she would have done anything even close to what she finally did. So if for no other reason than his ability to pull the "frontrunner" -- and it really makes me choke to call Hilary that -- in a more progressive, populist direction, I think Edwards is worth supporting.
Yesterday John Edwards marched with the hotel workers who have been picketing the Congress Hotel since 2003. I got an email about it while I was at the Yearly Kos convention at McCormick Place, and it seemed like too good of an event to miss, so I decided to duck out of the convention and go march with him. An hour before the event I went over to the John Edwards booth, rounded up three other Edwards supporters, we grabbed a cab and headed over.
Here is my best photo from the event, which I took while marching in the picket line with John:
More photos, and more info, and a poll below the fold.
(Updated with PHOTO and brief event description. Scroll to bottom of extended text to see it.)
I just got an email forwarded to me saying that John Edwards will be appearing at a grassroots fundraiser in downtown Chicago on Wednesday, with a ticket price of just $15. Which is kind of funny because in my same batch of emails was an invitation to a $1,000 a head fundraiser for Edwards, and I was feeling a bit left out, and then I got this one saying I could see him for the bargain price of $15. Sweet!
The details are below the fold. Perhaps we can also consider this an "open thread" about Edwards?
Most of us probably remember Senator Durbin's admission a week or two ago that as an Intelligence Committee member, he had been privy before the invasion of Iraq to information that proved that the Bushies were lying in their justifications for said invasion.
Durbin, as we know, offered amendments which may have derailed the war, and voted against the war when they failed, but did not reveal information he'd had which might have swung other Senators' votes. Whether this was the right thing to do is debatable. On the one hand was his oath not to reveal classified information. On the other hand was his oath to defend the Constitution, and the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and thousands of Americans might've been saved had he made a different choice.
But, as author Kevin Zeese points out, someone else we know was on the Intelligence Committee at the time, someone who not only voted for the war but against Durbin's amendment.
"We are one signature away from ending the Iraq war."
Barack Obama has now pointed out where things lie. The American people have spoken. Congress has listened to it's constituents and responded. The only thing left is for President Bush to acknowledge reality and sign the bill providing for our troops to come home. With one signature, Bush can begin rebuilding our decimated military. With one signature, Bush can begin rehabilitating our international image. With one signature, Bush can begin returning Iraq to the Iraqis.
Responses from the big three Presidential contenders above the fold... More below.
"We are one signature away from ending the Iraq War. President Bush must listen to the will of the American people and sign this bill so that our troops can come home."
"I opposed this war from the start. I said then that it would distract us from pursuing those who attacked us and would entangle us in an occupation of undetermined length, cost and consequences. This war has no military solution, and the Iraqi people need to take responsibility for their own future."
"That's why I believe that my plan for a phased withdrawal with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31st, 2008 is still the best way to pressure the warring factions to reach a political settlement necessary to end this war. This similar plan responsibly redeploys our troops from Iraq while protecting our interests in the wider Middle East. It ensures that we are as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in."
"All of us have been touched by the heroic sacrifices troops have made in service to our country. With the stroke of a pen, President Bush can bring them home to the families who love them and to a country ready to give honor them for their service."
"Today, the Senate passed a bill that would fund the war in Iraq while bringing the conflict to a close. Both Houses of Congress have now given voice to the will of the American people that we must end the war in Iraq. The President has said he will veto this legislation, which will defy the American people and deny our troops the funding they need. The President will be the one blocking support for our troops, not Congress. If the President does proceed on this stubborn path, Congress must not back down in a false game of chicken. They should send the same bill back to the President -- and should do this again and again, as many times as it takes for him to understand that the American people are right and the war must be brought to an end."
"With this vote, Congress has provided funding for our troops while also putting forward sensible provisions to begin the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. I call upon the President to work with Congress in order to ensure the troops receive these funds and that we change course in Iraq.
I am also pleased that with passage of this bill, we have made an important step toward meeting our responsibility to address the growing health needs affecting those exposed to the toxic air around Ground Zero in the wake of 9/11. I am proud that this bill includes $50 million in funding for 9/11 health, which will not only help provide treatment to those affected in the New York metro area, but also to responders from all over the country who are suffering from 9/11 health effects. This funding will help meet immediate health needs and allow 9/11 health programs to continue operating. I will continue to fight, along with my colleagues in the New York delegation, to secure the federal commitment and funding required to meet 9/11 health needs in the long-term."
So today Kos has a post up today where, in his usual "no dog in the fight" brand of fence stradling, he tells what he thinks about the upcoming primary scene:
Bottom line? I like these guys just fine. They would all win a general election in 2008. But there's little to motivate me to support one above any of the others. And thats why I'm neutral on the primary race.
Gee, I'm surprised. Kos is playing fence sitter. Well, I'm not a big supporter of fence sitting. I find it's usually done to keep options open, play a crowd, and is generally a real pain in the ass. I know it's politically prudent to do so, but to me it's annoyingly predictable. Take a side. Have an opinion. Make a decision.
One thing that always bothered me about Bush was that, thanks to him, changing one's mind has been characterized as a sign of weakness. To that I call BS. There's nothing wrong with taking a side. And there's nothing wrong with changing that side as things develop. So after the jump, I'm getting off the fence and taking a side just because I'm sick of the fence sitting.
