Edwards Speech

Though, Edwards came in second it is somewhat of a victory for him. His populist campaign has been wonderful and victorious. And his speech was beautiful. Probably the best one of the night. If you didn't see it watch it here. It is what the democratic party should stand for.

A Big Night for Obama?

From Political wire:

Iowa Independent: "Gov. Bill Richardson's campaign is expected to direct their supporters to caucus for Sen. Barack Obama in the second round of voting at Thursday's caucuses in precincts where he is not viable. Two sources familiar with the plan told Iowa Independent that the New Mexico Governor's organizers have been instructed to direct supporters to Obama in the places where they fail to reach the 15% threshold for viability."

The last Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby tracking poll before today's caucuses shows Sen. Barack Obama and John Edwards gaining ground overnight with Sen. Hillary Clinton faling four points to third place -- "a finish that, if it held, would deal a dramatic setback to the one-time Democratic front-runner."Obama leads with 31%, followed by Edwards at 27% and Clinton 24%.Said pollster John Zogby: "There is a clear Clinton fade. None of it has been dramatic, but it has been steady."

I have also thought about the progressive campaigns of Obama and Edwards. Why people are so adamantly for one or the other. I think it is one thing and one thing only. With Obama it is about the messenger and with Edwards it is about the message.

In Obama, supporters (which I am one) feel he is a once in a life time candidate, Kennedyesque or even Abraham Lincoln qualities. After all Lincoln was a one term failed congressman who lost almost every election until becoming the greatest American President. Obama stands out in his thoughtfulness, his kindness and his imaginative oratory skills. He also stood against the war and stands for change. Some Edwards supporters might say change in what? Is it the politics of derision or division or is it going to be a progressive agenda? Obama supporters are for him and for him alone.

In Edwards, supporters see a message that they have been looking for in a top tier candidate. The economic populism that he is so eloquently speaking about, reforming a system that is all about corporate greed (this to me is the #1 problem in this country). It spills into the war with contractors, FEMA with New Orleans, and just about everywhere in the business sector. Giving health care to all, and taking a real stand on the issues such as the war (albeit a bit late).

So, the question is are you about the messenger or the message?

Hillary's Planted Question(s)

I have been reluctant to comment on the story. But, enough has been reported and it stinks. The student who asked the planted question is now talking and says she was not the only one. I tried to get the videos to place on the blog, but on youtube they are all disabled (Clinton campaign maybe?). So, here is the link to the question and the student interview. Here is a CNN video of the report:


Who knows if Hillary knew that questions were being planted, but this smacks of a campaign who thinks they have a divine right to the throne and can sauce her way in. No thanks. I oppose her nomination for one reason mostly and that is dynastic politics. We need someone fresh and Edwards and Obama seem to be the real deal, albeit with some flaws. At the very least they are not the most well funded campaign by defense, insurance and health care like Mrs. Clinton.

Here is John Edwards latest commercial. I like it:

Edwards Connects Hillary to Blackwater

From Politico.com:

Edwards today in Iowa, according to his campaign:

"Bush has been a perfect example of cronyism, because Blackwater has given hundreds of thousands of dollars to Republicans and to President Bush. I also saw this morning that Sen. Clinton’s primary adviser, Mark Penn, who is like her Karl Rove – his firm is representing Blackwater. I think it is important for Iowa caucus-goers to understand the choices they have in this election. And it is the reason I continue to say we don’t want to replace a group of corporate Republicans with a group of corporate Democrats. I think it is important for caucus-goers to see this choice."

Edwards is right. Mark Penn is like her Karl Rove. He is also a famously anti-union buster. Are we sure we want the Clintons back?

The Insanity of the Politics of this War

Baghdad - A car bomb killed at least 13 people Wednesday in a Shiite part of Baghdad, and the U.S. command announced the deaths of eight more American soldiers - some victims of a weapon the American command believes comes from Iran.

Above is a headline from the associated press and in bold is American Propaganda at work. Doesn't that sound like we are builiding momentum to bomb Iran? Any link to Iraq is the key.

Regardless, at least 44 Iraqis were killed or found dead nationwide Wednesday, according to police reports. The toll marked an uptick in the daily carnage as President Bush prepares for a showdown in Congress over the future of the U.S. mission.

Now, Congress is in a showdown with Bush with the Iraq policy. There are reports suddenly, oh aghast am I the democrats want to compromise with the Republicans. With a mixed picture emerging about progress in Iraq, Senate Democratic leaders are showing a new openness to compromise as they try to attract Republican support for forcing at least modest troop withdrawals in the coming months.

Where is the anti war candidate this time around? The election is set to heat up and most remain quiet outside of Dennis Kucinich. Though, it seems Edwards is not starting to show some muscle. "It's time for the Congress to stand its ground," he said on a conference call with reporters. "If there's no timetable, there should be no funding."

Edwards is calling for the immediate withdrawal of 40,000 to 50,000 US troops and the redeployment of the rest over about nine months. This needs to happen quickly. What is Congress thinking? How can they be constantly fooled by this administration over and over again? How can they be so chicken shit as to compromise? It is time for the surge to end, it is time for the war to end, it is time to bring the troops home, to restore sanity to that region and our nation.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama better take a stand about immediate withdrawal or bifurcated timetable or they will lose our support here and I can only assure them they will lose the blogoshpere quickly. But, they must take a stand, not just vote against a terrible measure. It is time to show leadership.

John Kerry wrote a piece to the Huffington Post yesterday that is note worthy and says with enraged indignation: I chaired a hearing on the GAO Report yesterday, the report that stated that Iraqi civilians overall aren't any safer, that the political benchmarks aren't being met in Iraq, that, in short, none of the rationales for the escalation in Iraq have come to pass. It unfolds with maddening, enraging regularity: the Administration claims goals for their policy, they gradually back off of those goals and substitute smaller, less easily measured goals, and then muddy the waters hopelessly on whether even those modest new goals have been met. Time and again we've been through this.

"This war must end."