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"?

As is inevitable in American politics, the election horseraces this past week have been evaluated on the basis of money raised -- all the more so in how the mainstream media is measuring the Democratic contenders. On Barack Obama's numbers, I cannot count how many times I've heard the words "shocking" and "astonishing" on the few television news programs I can stomach.

The numbers aren't really a surprise to me, nor I suspect for anyone who's paying attention to what the people are thinking. The pundits continue to insist on their realities, but here's a milepost where they find themselves way behind the rest of us. We can expect more of that in the coming year.

On other words, the revolution in electoral politics orthodoxy will not be televised. At least not until the mainstream media pull their collective heads out and start paying attention to what the people are saying. It's willful ignorance on their parts -- it's not hard to find alternative views, after all -- but sooner or later they will have to realize that Press Club yuks and K Street cocktail parties don't automatically qualify them as authorities on what the people want.

And the fundraising numbers are a case in point....

On CultureKitchen last Thursday, mole333 wrote:

Some may see it as business as usual, but I see it as a shift in how
politics is functioning. Not a fundamental shift, but still a
significant one.

Well, the demise of the Democratic Party has been predicted for some
time...and when Howard Dean became head of the DNC more people than
ever predicted it would spell doom and destruction for the party of the
Donkey.

Since then, we did unexpectedly well in 2005 elections (NYC aside).
Then in 2006 we kicked ass. Now it is too early to say what 2008 will
bring, but my gut feelings about our candidates vs. their candidates may be playing out in the most important arena there is: fundraising.

On Friday, Kos posted an interesting observation about how Barack Obama's campaign differed so much from Hillary Clinton's, when it came to fundraising and emphasis:

No, it's not because so many people already hate her. It's not because she's married to Bill. And no, it's not because she's a woman.

It can be explained in these two paragraphs of insightful truth from David Mixner:

Today, the Clintons run the political machine trying to save the status quo in the Democratic Party. Their fundraising operation is notorious for its ruthlessness and elitism. Their circle of advisors and friends are tough and aggressive with anyone who refuses to pledge allegiance. They are surrounded by money collectors like Terry McAuliffe who shakedown donors with warnings that they will be punished if they give to another candidate. Senator Clinton's position on the Iraq War is by far the most calculated of any candidate. And on so many other issues, her positions are measured and break no new ground. Each appearance is predictable and perfectly arranged. Whether by necessity or choice, the spontaneity, exuberance and hope we saw in both of the Clintons in 1992 is gone.

In many ways, Senator Barack Obama is today's Bill Clinton. Like Clinton in 1992, he is packing arenas with young voters, campaigning in shirtsleeves, and calling America to believe in a new generation of politics. His candidacy stands in stark contrast to the safe predictable status quo Clinton campaign. Unlike Senator Clinton, he understood the consequences of invading Iraq and refused to support the war from day one. Like President Clinton in 1992, he is mobilizing thousands of cynical and disenfranchised voters and welcoming them back into the Democratic Party.

He goes on about Edwards, too. Read the whole thing.

Oh, and someone tell the mainstream media.

They just can't seem to stand how Rudy Giuliani continues to lead the Republican contenders for the White House. I can't count how many times I've heard the "expert" reporters on Washington Week, This Week, the NewsHour and other mainstream media outlets crow how Giuliani's private life, support of gay rights and acknowledgment of women's authority over their own bodies mean that he is in for trouble as the primaries approach -- even as his political star rises week by week when it comes to what the people want.

While there's no doubt that the front-runners today can't be considered de facto front-runners come 2008 -- witness how Hillary Clinton continues her slow implosion of being right but not very presidential with each and every public appearance -- it's funny how the media treats the candidates.

Note how the same pundits claim that Clinton is unstoppable.

Thesis: The folks in the media love a good story, and conflict makes for a good story. A Giuliani nomination would be rather dull conflict-wise, since on social issues he's much more like a Democrat. It's hard to paint black-and-white -- "right" vs. "left" -- political storytelling with Rudy carrying the GOP banner. (And if he by chance does win the nomination, then the media figures can delight in how he "defied expectations" -- just their own expectations, but never mind that.)

On the other hand, these folks love the idea of a polarizing figure like Hillary Clinton getting the Democratic nod. Then there will certainly be a nice and ugly campaign to cover, full of overblown rhetoric that will make writing political stories so much easier and fun.

In other words, the drama the mainstream media are painting arises out of their own preconceptions, their own inside-the-Beltway brand of conventional wisdom.

[Personally I don't plan to vote for Rudy, even if he's up against Hillary (who is at best 4th in my Democratic nomination preferences, behind Barack Obama, John Edwards, Bill Richardson -- and Al Gore, too, if he runs), but he's a hell of a lot less frightening than the brown-nosing John McCain, the two-faced Mitt Romney, the Dominion-minded Sam Brownback, the slicker-than-Willie Newt Gingrich and the other ugly-of-uglies in American politics.]

By now, many of you have probably already seen this, or at least heard about this: Ann Coulter calling John Edwards a "faggot." (Why, I have no idea. If the epithet fits anywhere, it's on the homophobic politicians who so obsess over other people's sex lives. But anyway...)

What's truly telling is the reaction of the audience. These are conservatives -- or at least the loudest conservatives out there.

I'm quite certain there are many people who see themselves conservative and don't suffer from trembling homophobia.

Links:

• C&L run-down
• Think Progress on Mitt Romney's praise of Coulter
• Pam Spauling, on Pandagon, lacerates the Democrats for failing to confront how the conservativist agitators debase the entire political dialogue:
  

  I can’t even begin to address the fact that the Edwards campaign used this as an e-fundraising tactic right out of the box. It cheapens the message beyond all reason. This required a separate response not tied to an ATM request.

And yet, as the likes of Bill Donohue, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin and James Dobson continue to get loving camera time from mainstream media -- you know, the people that like to crow about how superior they are by focusing on "what's important" and all that -- there seems to be precious little push-back.

So typical of mainstream media reporting today, Jocelyne Zablit's AFP article on the "controversy" over former John Edwards campaign bloggers Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan tells only enough to distort reality.

The bloggers, Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan, resigned following outrage over allegedly anti-Catholic rhetoric they had posted on their own blog posts before they joined the Edwards campaign last month.

The 350,000-strong Catholic League, a conservative religious group, had demanded that Edwards fire the two women and threatened to unleash a public relations blitz against his campaign.

The moral of the story? According to Zablit, bloggers are the problem.

--And she's found an "expert" on blogging, who may or may not have a blog himself but does have a book to sell, to back her angle.

"This probably is the year we learn and write new rules about how to integrate all of these new interactive instant media technology such as blogs, Facebook or YouTube into campaigns and elections," David Perlmutter, a professor and associate dean of graduate studies at the University of Kansas school of journalism, told AFP.

"Right now, a lot of people are experimenting and speculating and really just making stuff up as they go along but we're going to learn some lessons ... because nobody has written the rule book yet," added Perlmutter, author of "Blogwars: The New Political Battleground".

Be sure to run out and buy your copy.

Meanwhile, Zablit focuses on Marcotte and McEwan, while giving professional bigot Bill Donohue a pass:

The blog entries and other comments they had posted earned them the wrath of Catholic League president William Donohue who described them as "anti-Catholic, vulgar, trash-talking bigots."