Late Night Presidential Straw Poll

Vote in the late night Presidential poll. Please vote only once.

One of my Christmas wishes is that it will become possible to conduct online 2008 polls that prevent poll stuffing. In particular, I would love to have the ability to conduct a poll where it is only possible to vote when you are signed in at MyDD, with each member only voting once, and when only those people who were members for at least a week can vote. If such a poll were possible, then I might conduct a straw poll every month (or even more frequently), starting now.

Alas, such a poll is not possible, and does not exist. Thus, I am forced to take drastic measures, and instead conduct a 2008 straw poll during the middle of the night, when I suspect few people will be around to stuff the poll. I do not expect that this will solve the problem completely, but the MyDD electorate from 2 a.m. eastern until 9 a.m. eastern should be pretty much unstuffable.

It isn't that I think stuffing is wrong. On a moral level, there is nothing wrong with it at all. It is just that I would love to see what regular readers of MyDD actually think about the 2008 Democratic primaries. Please, I urge you, do not taint this poll by sending your blog readers, you email list, your MySpace group, your Facebook group, or your Yahoo group to alter the results. Think about this for a moment--wouldn't it be better to know where your candidate stands among MyDD readers, than it would to overtly skew the results of a poll to make it seem as though MyDD readers are behind your candidate when, in fact, they are not? Don't you want to know where you candidate actually stands among MyDD readers? If I were behind one candidate, I would want to know where my candidate stood. Skewing the results tells you nothing except that you are able to skew the results.

Vote.

Anyway, you can't skew the results without my knowing. I have access to every vote made in polls like this, including a history of votes in chronological order, and as such I know when stuffing is taking place. Whether that stuffing is for Clark, Edwards, Feingold, Richardson, Bayh, Gore or whoever (I have seen stuffing on behalf of every candidate I named), is it really more useful to you to have me broadcast on the front page of MyDD that you stuffed the poll than it is to know where your candidate stands among the potential contenders? Please tell me it is not.

So, anyway, go vote in the late night Presidential poll. I plan to pull the links when I wake up. I just want to know where the community actually stands on 2008 right now. Rest assured, if you stuff it while I sleep, I will know you did so. Please, just let the poll run its course. Information like this is almost impossible to come by. Let us just have a brief moment where we can know where the community stands. I beg you--vote in the poll, don't stuff the poll. I would hope that at this point we would be more mature than freepers, and that the pursuit of useful political information would trump the desire to childishly make your voice the only one that is heard.

Vote.

Update: OK, bedtime. Arond 140 votes are in. I am already suspicious of stuffing taking place. We will have to see what it look like in the morning. I really hopes this works and people are respectful of the process. Until then...



Display:


Re: Late Night Presidential Straw Poll (none / 0)

Hee hee.  Someone voted for Mike Gravel.


Swing State Project: Campaign & Election News - Covering Key Races Around the Country
by HellofaSandwich on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 02:25:29 AM EST

Re: Late Night Presidential Straw Poll (none / 0)

And Gavel's tied with Edward?

More interesting "Not Sure" has a head start on HRC.


Bob Brigham Blog
by Bob Brigham on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 02:29:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Late Night Presidential Straw Poll (none / 0)

Woo-hoo! Go "not sure!"

The Bayh stuff odesn't surprise me. Maybe left over Wanrer people? The lack of Edwards votes in a poll with gore doesn't surprise me either, even tough I ranked Edwards higher than Gore (2nd and 3rd, I think). I think one tends to cancel out the other for many voters.

I can't wait to see how Gore voters went on second chocies.
by Chris Bowers on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 02:35:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Late Night Presidential Straw Poll (none / 0)

I'm just wondering if Richardson will do better in this poll due to the time zone advantage.


Bob Brigham Blog
by Bob Brigham on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 02:36:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Late Night Presidential Straw Poll (none / 0)

Oh, hell, he sponsoered MyDD duirng the campaign season, so I don't care about that.

Truthfully, however, I don't think time zone matter for people this late at night. These are the ultimate junkies, who think apart from things like region.
by Chris Bowers on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 02:41:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Late Night Presidential Straw Poll (none / 0)

It's not even 12 way out here on the Left. But I suppose I'm also kinda crazy.


by Lucas O'Connor on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 02:42:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Late Night Presidential Straw Poll (none / 0)

I've always thought MyDD should put you in England, Jonathan in Hawaii and keep Stoller in DC. (right now Jonathan would be passing the torch from the end of his shift to the start of yours).


Bob Brigham Blog
by Bob Brigham on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 02:46:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Late Night Presidential Straw Poll (none / 0)

I could live in England again. I'd probably make a killing off netroots advising. And, well, I am an Anglophile.
by Chris Bowers on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 02:48:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Late Night Presidential Straw Poll (none / 0)

You should so do it. Not only that, but you would have the super-human power to know everything, each day, before the DC crowd even woke up.


Bob Brigham Blog
by Bob Brigham on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 02:50:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Late Night Presidential Straw Poll (none / 0)

Ummm....scones.

I enjoyed my year in England, but I think I've lived in California too long to relocate to a place like that.


by danielj on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 01:40:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Late Night Presidential Straw Poll (none / 0)

I'd be pretty concerned if "not sure" was much lower.  lot of time yet to go.


by Lucas O'Connor on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 02:41:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Late Night Presidential Straw Poll (none / 0)

Stuffing polls isn't morally wrong? It's hideously immoral.


by meekermariner on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 02:34:07 AM EST

Re: Late Night Presidential Straw Poll (none / 0)

If every Hillary supporter stuffs the ballot all night, I'll she can be up to a dozen votes by the time Bowers wakes up.


Bob Brigham Blog
by Bob Brigham on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 02:35:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

gore (3.00 / 1)

At least right now, it seems that Gore is clearly the first choice. However, he seems to be no one's second choice. He starts out with around 45-46%, but it take sforever for him to reach 50%.

I alos can't wait to see how gore voters borke with their second choices.

I also wonder if there is anyhting Gore could ever say that would convince his supporters he is not running. It seems like he could say "I absolutely will not run for Prsident in 2008 no mater what" and his supporters online would write, en masse, "Gore leaves the door open for 2008."
by Chris Bowers on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 02:39:48 AM EST

Re: gore (none / 0)

That's what the second choice is for.


by Lucas O'Connor on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 02:42:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

my 2nd choice was (none / 0)

Richardson (I take it everyone knows my first choice by now :)). Obama would have got my second choice if he had more experience.

One term Governor plus one term US Senate (a good VP  tenure counts for both) makes a good package for the Presidency in my view.


by NuevoLiberal on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 03:03:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: gore (none / 0)

Probably there's some internal objection to voting for someone who isn't a candidate :) The eventual drift to Gore comes down to Obama supporters, or whoever, saying "Hillary or write-in?"


by scvmws on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 03:13:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: gore (none / 0)

That reminds me of the sketch, I think it was Saturday Night Live (late 70's), when the faux-Senator Kennedy was asked no question at a press conference or interview (can't recall), except, "Are you going to run for President," and finally says something like: "I keep telling you that I am not going to run for President. I don't known any other way to say it. What is it that you want to hear?"

"What about, 'If nominated I will not run, if Elected I will not serve.'?"

"WHAT? And ruin my chance to be President?"


*John Edwards* ... and the JE08 Supporters Blog
by BruceMcF on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 01:18:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: gore (none / 0)

He was my second choice, so that must be "Gore is almost nobody's second choice". I'm sure an obscure economist qualifies as almost nobody.

(Insert famous LBJ quote about making a political speach about economics here)


*John Edwards* ... and the JE08 Supporters Blog
by BruceMcF on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 01:20:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Late Night Presidential Straw Poll (none / 0)

Obama/Edwards

Edwards/Obama

I don't care which order. That's what I'm going to push here in my state for the primaries.


by FreedomOFSpeechFromTheDNC on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 02:52:20 AM EST

Re: Late Night Presidential Straw Poll (none / 0)

Me too - my first preference is for Obama/Edwards, my second is for Edwards/Obama. I changed the name of my blog to delaware4obama.blogspot.com.


Visit Election Inspection for analysis, polls, and predictions!
by X Stryker on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 11:46:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Chris, is it OK if I promote this poll at DailyKos (none / 0)

(in an open thread or a diary with no promotion for any candidate in particular)? Or would you like to sample myDD readership only in this poll?

ps: thanks!


by NuevoLiberal on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 02:54:23 AM EST

Re: Chris, is it OK if I promote this poll at Dail (3.00 / 1)

Please don't.

I think the whiny rant I have for this poll here will help prevent stuffing. If people go directly the the poll without the whiny rant, then it is probably off to the races in a way that I don't want to see.

If you feel compelled to link to the poll on Dailykos, link to this post, not to the pol itself. And for the love of God, don't send anyone an email about this.

But I would rather you didn't link to it at all.
by Chris Bowers on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 02:59:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Chris, is it OK if I promote this poll at Dail (none / 0)

who cares what those jokers think anyways?


by Lucas O'Connor on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 03:02:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Chris, is it OK if I promote this poll at Dail (none / 0)

I agree. I don't think it's a good idea. I want to see as much independent representation as possible so that I can have a better idea of who really is the front runner.

From polls from all the different Blogs, I'm seeing Obama, Edwards and Clinton as the frontrunners. This is coming from the most passionate progressive to independents so, I am confortable with calling it a "general consensus". If we are all taking the same survey and passing it around like a ......well. Let's just say I don't think it's a good idea and leave it at that.

;p


by FreedomOFSpeechFromTheDNC on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 03:17:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

asdf (none / 0)

Your appeal not to do candidate-specific promotion hopefully will keep supporters of all candidates in check (you can rest assured with me on my front). In fact, I take maintaining sample purity seriously as I had been posting 2008 polls myself over the course of this year, and hence understand how a handful of votes coming from candidate-specific promotion by one group or the other can skew the results badly. I won't post this poll at DKos either, to keep things simple.


by NuevoLiberal on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 03:22:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Late Night Presidential Straw Poll (none / 0)

Would it be possible to do something similar to random-digit-dialing to get your sample -- random UID sampling?

Come to think of it, couldn't one's preferences just be part of the user profile? I'd think that info would be available to you in aggregate, and you could even weight by commenting frequency if you were so inclined (to limit sockpuppet accounts from stuffing)...


by scvmws on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 03:16:55 AM EST

Re: Late Night Presidential Straw Poll (none / 0)

Chris,

You stopped the poll?

What were the results? I'm curious.


by FreedomOFSpeechFromTheDNC on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 03:23:12 AM EST

Did Hell Freeze Over? (none / 0)

First, after many screechy dogmatic rants against using the term "mainstream media" or MSM, by Stoller, ("They're not mainstream, call them corporate top-down, duh, period!") he actually uses MSM in a front page diary.  

Now, after two years of lectures by Bowers, explaining ad nauseum why he will not put Gore in a straw poll, he just pops him in there like its nothing.  This is huge.  I always thought that it would be easier to convince Gore to run that it would be to get Bowers to put him in a straw poll.  

Chris, do we get any insight into why the policy shift?  You drunk?  Just asking.  Was it disgust with better stuffing co-ordination that caused you to exclude Gore?

I will say it again, I did not join MyDD as a Gorista.  I converted around 8/05, after careful consideration of '08 Dem presidential candidate possibilities.  As to what I need to hear to abandon hope, something like "I am not running" would do it.  

Note the difference in the phrases "I am not running" (a la Feingold or Warner) vs "I am not planning to run" (like HRC and Richardson.)  Right now, Al is "not planning to run."  If he moves into the "I am not running camp" that will be enough for me.  


John McCain loves war.
by Winston Smith on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 03:25:24 AM EST

One interesting factor not discussed much: (none / 0)

Which caucus, Democrat or Republican, will the majority of independents in Iowa choose to attend? In 2004, about 20% of those attending the Democratic caucus were not self-described Democrats (you can show up that night and declare party affiliation). That could have a significant influence on the outcome for both parties.


John Edwards 2008
by MeanBoneII on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 03:28:31 AM EST

Go to both (none / 0)

In 2008, they're a week apart.


by scvmws on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 03:48:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Perhaps a few will, but caucuses take time... (none / 0)

...I think most people will pick one. And in a sense, there will be a general election quality to that in 2008, because it's wide open on both sides. Candidates for both parties will be campaigning all over the state, and independents will be picking their favorites and showing up to support them at their caucus.

This could influence how the candidates campaign, to some extent. Usually, you run to the left (or right if you're GOP) to win the nomination. But with independents in play, that could temper it somewhat, and far-left or far-right candidates could see their support diminish.


John Edwards 2008
by MeanBoneII on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 03:58:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I want Howard. I am 46, I am SICK (none / 0)

of this 1/10 of a loaf bullshit.

6 billion people need clothes, clean water, safe food, reliable health care, transportation, education ...

there is plenty of work to do,
plenty of opportunity to do EVERYTHING better,

and I just see a bunch of lame asses who are afeard of scaring the middle or we'll lose.

I'm feeling Clark is more than an empty suit with a great resume who will NOT fall victim to the ivy assholes geniuses tween the k-school and georgetown ...

rmm.


by seabos84 on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 03:47:06 AM EST

Stat drafting Howard Dean, then (3.00 / 1)

I will join you if Gore decides not to run. We might finally agree on something, after all :)


by NuevoLiberal on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 03:51:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

wow (none / 0)

There's one real serious Bayh supporter out there, who picked Bayh plus nobody. I'd be interested (for the larger polls) in seeing how many of each candidates supporters have a "my way or the highway"-style preference.


by scvmws on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 03:53:53 AM EST

One Idea (3.00 / 2)

Assuming that MyDD's backend is similar to the Soapblox sites, you should have a pretty large bank of users and the emails they signed up to the site with. I believe that DemoChoice allows you an option to set up a poll and invite people to vote in it by email, and only those emails can actually case ballots. Simply load those e-mails into the poll, invite them, and whala! Might be a bit Zogby Interactive-ish but then again, you are polling just your readership right? Now that I think about it, I should do that for Burnt Orange Report and get a Texas sample.
Follow Texas Politics at Burnt Orange Report
by KTinTX on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 03:56:46 AM EST

Re: One Idea (none / 0)

Though I think in reading their site they have a 600 or 800 email cap. Talking with them though, this could get lifted, I'm sure it's just a line in the database or something. I can't imagine it's a hard cap that couldn't be changed.
Follow Texas Politics at Burnt Orange Report
by KTinTX on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 04:02:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

one problem with it? (none / 0)

Readership of myDD and DKos far exceeeds membership which in turn far exceeds active membership (those logging in and posting comments and diaries). For example, if I am not mistaken, DKos has about 5-7K active members, 100K+ members, but between 0.5-1 million readers (on a weekday).

The method you propose would tend to measure preferences among active members, I think. But, it would be better to measure it for the much larger readership community.


by NuevoLiberal on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 04:20:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

maybe (none / 0)

But then again, it's the most active membership that 'leads' the opinion in contests like this. Or at least are the people who are in a position to guide others.
Follow Texas Politics at Burnt Orange Report
by KTinTX on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 05:48:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One Idea (none / 0)

i've been meaning to install scoop at home and hack around a bit. ... maybe i'll see if i can put together a prototype straw poll feature.


by snappy on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 10:21:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One Idea (none / 0)

good for you... i was going to ask, why is a straw poll feature, available only to registered users, such a pie-in-the-sky idea?  drupal has had them for like 1,000 years already.  well, in internet time anyway.


Strengthening the progressive movement through liberal entrepreneurship http://www.plantingliberally.org
by Shai Sachs on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 10:49:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One Idea (none / 0)


i've been meaning to install scoop

Is "scoop" the name of the software that mydd runs?  I'm also a Software guy and can't figure out why a members only poll is not possible and wouldn't mind seeing if You/I/We can't fix that.
by maddogg on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 11:02:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One Idea (none / 0)

Somebody's already done this, but I can't put my finger on where the code is.  Here's a potential starting point:  http://scoop.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/11/ 23/82615/907


Dennis Kucinich, Progressive Democrat for President in 2008
by hoose on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 02:12:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Late Night Presidential Straw Poll (none / 0)

I am glad there was a straw poll.   I was thinking about this a lot today.  Here are my thoughts:

HRC can never win.  She has alienated her base by convienently morphing into a neocon when it seemed like a good political move, and she has huge high negatives on the right.  Saying Hillary Clinton to someone on the right is like saying Newt Gingrich to someone on the left.  Too bad.  If she had taken a Feingold-like stance on the war, and wasnt so hated by a lot of the country, she would be a great candidate, and would make a great president.  God, I would fucking love to see Bill back in the White House.  

Gore could win the nomination, and the general election.  I really dont know if he will run.  I dont understand why he just doesnt say that he is not running if he is not running.  I mean, he must be running if he's not planning to run.  That is the code after all.  It would crush me if he said he's not running, because I actually trust him to make good decisions, and I think he is easily the most electable candidate in the general election.

Clark would be awesome if he had won at least one election before, and he didnt come over like a wet-blanket.  I might have supported him if Dean wasnt in the '04 race.  I would like to have the phrase "Allied High Commander" on my resume, but the clips I saw of him were uninspiring.  And let's be honest, he was as competative as he was because he had the support of the Clinton camp in '04.  I suspect that the Clinton crowd will be backing a different candidate in '08.  

Barack Obama.  Damn, he is a good speaker.  I love the guy.  I know he made some progressive netroot folks pissed off, but I think he is great.  I hate to say it, but noone named Hussein is gonna be elected President of the United States this lifetime.  Four years in the Senate and with the baggage of the name Barack Hussein Obama is not a key to the White House.  If his middle name was Jefferson, I would be like "maybe" but not Hussein.  Let's be real.  

Edwards.  After Gore the best chance so far, and that really pisses me off.  This is a nobody who won one election ever in his life (after grammar school) and could not even hold his Senate seat after one term in a world of 99% incumbent victory statistics.  He is trying to slither his way into the White House using the despised GWB strategy of having no substantial political record, and then travelling around the country saying things that are easy to mouth, hard to criticise, and impossible to legislate.  GWB was about compassion, and "givin the country back to the people!"  Edwards is "against poverty."  Whoa!  Slow the fuck down.  One question, sir.  How did you fight against poverty when you were actually in government?  

Everyone else, off the radar.  If Gore says he's "not running" something else better start bleeping.  


John McCain loves war.
by Winston Smith on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 04:08:02 AM EST

Not trying to change your mind, but for the record (none / 0)

It's incorrect to say that Edwards "could not even hold his Senate seat" -- he decided to run for president and opted not to run for re-election to the Senate.


John Edwards 2008
by MeanBoneII on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 04:13:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not trying to change (none / 0)

Yeah, like Kerry, Lieberman, Nelson, et al?  Dont get me wrong, Edwards seems like a swell chap, but he used some of his 50 million dollar plus fortune to buy a senate seat, and didnt run for re-election because he was guaranteed to lose.  

I dont mean to be so anti-Edwards, but I considered this a lot in 2000.  Gore actually made substantive comments in his stump speeches.  Bush never did.  I was very keenly aware that Bush was trying to win the Presidency by saying nothing controversial and he ended up saying nothing.  And the American people ate this shit up.  I thought Bush was stupid but harmless.  I am so angry that I didnt see the danger of a Bush presidency.  

Right now, by making these "I am against poverty" speeches, Edwards is trying to pull a Bush into the White House.  Is good old John gonna have to courage to get specific, advocate controversial ideas.  I doubt it.  It offends me that his empty, Bush strategy may actually win him the Democratic nomination.  


John McCain loves war.
by Winston Smith on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 04:35:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Exit polls in NC: He was not 'guaranteed to lose' (3.00 / 1)

Scroll down to NORTH CAROLINA HIGHLIGHTS

In the senate race, the Republicans gained the seat formerly held by John Edwards. If Edwards had run for reelection against Republican Richard Burr, it appears Edwards would have held on to his seat by a 53 percent -- 47 percent margin. Seven percent of those voters that would have voted for Edwards voted for Burr.

Edwards also is currently outpolling John McCain in North Carolina.

As for his focus on poverty, individually it's not an issue that rates very high for most voters, but I think it does blend economic populism with "morals and values" in a potentially very effective manner (GOP policies are making more and more people poor). I'm sorry you don't think he's genuine about it, but if you consider his biography and his legal career, he does come from the working class and he did represent "the little people" against giant corporations.


John Edwards 2008
by MeanBoneII on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 04:46:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

asdf (none / 0)

he does come from the working class

What was his father's job in the mill? Wasn't he a supervisor? Then that fall in the working lower middle class, not working poor.

and he did represent "the little people" against giant corporations.

Well, he made a fortune ($70 million, was it) doing that.  An impressive career but I don't see it as a noble or charitable endeavor.

Howard Dean promoted the notion of Democrats being the party of "moral values" for quite sometime now.


by NuevoLiberal on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 05:49:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

That's why I didn't say working poor. (none / 0)

I said he came from the working class, which is true. He was the first one in his family to go to college.

Sure, he made a lot of money, for himself and his deserving clients, by taking negligent corporations that had injured people to the cleaners. I didn't say it was charitable, but a talented advocate who can win large awards that keep reckless companies from acting dangerously does benefit society.

I don't recall saying Edwards was the only one promoting the concept of "moral values" -- I said he's combining a populist message with a "morals and values" theme by emphasizing poverty.


John Edwards 2008
by MeanBoneII on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 06:01:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: asdf (3.00 / 1)

Since when is making money a crime?  How many poor people are running for President?


by Lucas O'Connor on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 11:45:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: asdf (none / 0)

I never said it was a "crime."

I said: "An impressive career but I don't see it as a noble or charitable endeavor."

in response to some sort of a eulogistic descripion of Edwards by Mean Bonell.

Do you see the word crime or its equivalent in this sentence or any other sentence of my comment?


by NuevoLiberal on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 01:11:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: asdf (none / 0)

So one can't be noble if being paid?

No, you didn't use the word crime.  But you certainly seek to indict the moral character of John Edwards based on the fact that he got paid for what he did.


by Lucas O'Connor on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 02:57:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: asdf (none / 0)

So one can't be noble if being paid?

If you are obscenely overpaid for a job, that doesn't count for a noble deed in my book.

You can still be a "noble person" overall, but the job where you've personally gained enormously doesn't count, as far as I am concerned.

No, you didn't use the word crime.  But you certainly seek to indict the moral character of John Edwards based on the fact that he got paid for what he did.

Please stop using loaded words like "crime" and "indict". I was pointing out my opinion that it wasn't a charitable or noble deed that he made a good personal career as a trial attorney. Good for him. I used the "impressive" adjectice in fact, genuinely.

To give you a couple of examples, take Bill Gates, eg. He literally shook the planet with his innovative thought and effort in computing, but he also got filthy rich along the way. That part of his work is commercial (and exceedingly impressive),  but it not noble. He has done some charitable work that counts for some degree of generosity.

On the other hand, inventor of the popular operating system called Linux, Linus Torvalds, made his entire invention free and open source. That's noble.

Before someone brings it up, yes, Gore's movie/book/DVD have a charge, but all of his share of the proceeds are being donated by the Gores towards his global warming training program (in particualar to pay for folks that apply and are selected for the program but can not pay for the costs, from what I gather).


by NuevoLiberal on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 03:37:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I believe Gore also made a crapload of money... (none / 0)

...investing in Google, and good for him. No doubt, it helps him advance his important work.

The fact that you can make a lot of money as a lawyer by nailing negligent companies obviously helps to draw talented people to the profession. Of course, you can also make a lot of money as a lawyer by defending brutal murderers, but that's not what Edwards chose to do. His work served as a deterrent to those who otherwise would write off their reckless behavior as the cost of doing business; it protected consumers.

Clearly, Edwards is ambitious, and I don't view that as a fault by any means. You have to have that ambition, that drive, to make a serious run at the presidency. And regardless of the amount of money he made (which allows him now to focus on public service), I think that in advocating for the victims of dangerous actions by corporations, he served a good and noble purpose.


John Edwards 2008
by MeanBoneII on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 04:05:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

But, I didn't project that (none / 0)

as anything positive or negative (much less noble).

I think that in advocating for the victims of dangerous actions by corporations, he served a good and noble purpose.

That makes it a positive career choice, but it isn't noble when you make a ton money. Advocating for free instead of pro-bono would be noble.

To take another example, teaching is a noble profession partly because teachers make peanuts. If they started making 500K/yr, then it would still be a positive career, but no longer noble.

Nobility takes some sacrifice.


by NuevoLiberal on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 04:15:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Right, you just didn't mention it at all :) (none / 0)

Whether Edwards' career as an attorney was noble or just good, we can agree to disagree. I see nobility in standing up for victims against powerful forces. It's not something you see many people doing, regardless of the compensation.


John Edwards 2008
by MeanBoneII on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 04:38:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: asdf (none / 0)

What if he would have done it even without the money? You're projecting your own opinions without any knowledge of Edwards' personal motivations, which is entirely unfair.  Chris Bowers, for example, clearly would blog no matter what as long as there was a roof over his head.  If alluva sudden, someone decided to pay him a million dollars a day to blog, would that cheapen what he does?


by Lucas O'Connor on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 06:09:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think (none / 0)

you are failing to see that I didn't criticize Edwards' career (in fact, I praised it as being impressive). What I disagreed with was making it out to be "noble" when that career came with lavish reward (to extend your logic, one would have to know his motives to search and find nobility here, which I assume Mean Bonell or you are not privy to either. please correct me if I am wrong about that last assumption).

Basically I don't accord the nobility tag unless there is sacrifice. Saying that I do not consider something to be "not noble" is not the same as saying that it is "bad". I think you are missing that point.

Chris Bowers, for example, clearly would blog no matter what as long as there was a roof over his head.  If alluva sudden, someone decided to pay him a million dollars a day to blog, would that cheapen what he does?

I would consider it a good financial and career development for Chris, and I'd be happy for him. If on other hand, someone offered him $10 million not to blog but he rejects that and continues blogging, then I'd call him highly dedicated to the mission and since the mission is progressive, I'd call his choice noble.

I really think we spent too much debating this point already.


by NuevoLiberal on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 07:06:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Edwards has been working on issues. (none / 0)


http://oneamericacommittee.com/action/in crease-the-minimum-wage/

"Columbus Dispatch: Edwards stumps for higher wages; Former senator revs up meeting of activists"
http://oneamericacommittee.com/news/head lines/cd20060710/


Check out the New Progressive Blog EENRBLOG
by dk2 on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 09:36:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Late Night Presidential Straw Poll (none / 0)

And Richardson.  I like him.  Far more substantial than Edwards.  So far, no buzz and no cadre of netroot supporters.  I suspect that right now, he is a lot of people's second choice.  With Gore out, I would support him or Clark or Obama.  


John McCain loves war.
by Winston Smith on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 04:15:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Late Night Presidential Straw Poll (none / 0)

I agree.  Richardson is definitely a sleeper once people start getting over the shiny toys.


by Lucas O'Connor on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 11:46:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Late Night Presidential Straw Poll (none / 0)

After talking with sociologists, Edwards has actually come out with a number of substantive proposals about how to fight poverty.  Ezra Klein had a post on them a while ago, and I'd recommend it to anyone who's interested.  To quote some of Edwards' analysis, and one of his proposals:


The trouble is that for too many Americans--not just in the Gulf but everywhere--the American Dream has become too distant. You can see it in the numbers: millions of parents work full-time but still live in poverty. The typical white family has about $80,000 in assets; the typical Hispanic family, about $8,000; the typical African-American family, about $6,000.

"Income is what you use to get by, but assets are what you use to get ahead." This huge asset gap is one reason so many families are barely getting by. And again, it's not just the poor: middle-class incomes are stagnant, and more people file for bankruptcy than graduate from college each year...

We need to help every American develop the assets they need to get ahead--to send their kids to college, buy a home, or just have the piece of mind that there's a little breathing room should catastrophe -- in the form of a hurricane or lost health insurance - -comes into their lives.

First, let's help folks buy a home they can actually keep. Today, the rich get subsidies while the poor get ravaged by predatory lenders. We should do something different: crack down on those lenders and offer a new deal to poor families just going into the workforce: for the first five years you are working, we will set aside up to $1,000 in an account to help you make home payments. After five years, you'll have up to $5,000 for down payments.


by Neil the Ethical Werewolf on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 04:35:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Late Night Presidential Straw Poll (none / 0)

Refer to my previous comments.  Easy to mouth, hard to criticise and impossible to legislate.  He is gonna crack down on lenders?  How?  He is gonna propose more governmental regulation?  And "we" are gonna set aside $1,000 a year.  Who's we?  Taxpayers?  So is Edwards gonna raise taxes or pile more unto the national debt?  And who's poor?  And who's a family?  What if you arent married?  Gay?  Dont have kids?

What a steaming pile of bullshit.  The details would be controversial.  So lets just use broad strokes, eh?  (And when we get into the White House, we can invade Iran, and do all kindsa crazy shit!)  

Of course, because he is not in congress anymore, Edwards doesnt have to do anything except make speeches.  


John McCain loves war.
by Winston Smith on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 04:48:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Late Night Presidential Straw Poll (none / 0)

And who's poor?  And who's a family?  What if you arent married?  Gay?  Dont have kids?

This is ridiculous.  At this stage in the process, nobody has a fully written-out plan for anything.  (This is largely because nobody except Gravel is even officially running.)  What you're seeing was his policy from a full year ago, and it's more fleshed out than anything anybody else has got.  


by Neil the Ethical Werewolf on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 04:54:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Late Night Presidential Straw Poll (none / 0)

I dont require specific policy statements.  I want to see the courage of saying bold things.  Being "against poverty" is not that.  


John McCain loves war.
by Winston Smith on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 05:56:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The courage of saying bold things... (none / 0)

Edwards isn't just "against poverty." Earlier this summer, he gave a major speech in which he called for ending poverty within 30 years, and outlined the steps we should take toward doing exactly that.

National Press Club Policy Address

I think that in this materialistic consumer-ocracy we call America, that's a pretty darn bold vision. Heard anybody else even suggest that we should attempt that?


John Edwards 2008
by MeanBoneII on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 02:48:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Invade Iran? (none / 0)

I seriously doubt he has any invasions of Iran planned.

Now cracking down on payday lenders, yes. How? Making the outrageous rates they charge illegal would be a good first step.

How to help poor people save? Get rid of Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy, for starters.

Who's poor? Well, last year was the first year on record that someone working full time at the federal minimum wage could not afford even a one-bedroom apartment at average market rates. So Edwards helped campaign to raise state minimum wages, and the ballot measures passed in all six states (AZ, CO, MO, MT, NV, OH).


John Edwards 2008
by MeanBoneII on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 04:57:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Late Night Presidential Straw Poll (none / 0)

Which Presidential candidates have you been listening to that have outlined a fully detailed platform?


by Lucas O'Connor on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 11:47:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Late Night Presidential Straw Poll (none / 0)

He is gonna crack down on lenders?  How?

Revoking the licenses to steal that have been given to them over the past 12 years. That is not rocket science, its a matter of restoring some of the protections that used to exist.

We have, after all, given the sociologists a laboratory experiment in what previously not allowed lending practices do the most harm to low-income people and households, with the US as the laboratory and all of its citizens as the lab rats. Now its time to put what has been learned to use.


*John Edwards* ... and the JE08 Supporters Blog
by BruceMcF on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 01:35:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Late Night Presidential Straw Poll (none / 0)

Those sound like a lot of his work with ACORN has rubbed off. If that's what it is, it's not only a discrete set of policies but a position within an entire social movement.


by CT student on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 04:02:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Late Night Presidential Straw Poll (none / 0)

Richardson can't be president for two very stupid, but very real, reasons:

1. He is too fat and
2. He has had sex with too many women

Junkies like us think stuff like his resume is important, most people want someone who looks the part. If I was particuarly cynical, I'd add:

3. He's Latino.

This brings me to a point that I think will be important in 08: America is ready for a black candidate. Specifically, I think an Afro-American has a better shot than a Latino of getting elected President. A large portion of white America (even racists) would love to vote for a black candidate - think of it as the new "I have a black friend." Whether or not it reflects an actual shift in attitudes towards race more generally, the idea of a black President isn't as incendiary as it was even 10 years ago.

As evidence I would suggest we consider the importance of representations of black authority figures in pop culture. On television, for example on the show 24 features a black President. In the Matrix, Morpheus and many of the leaders of Zion, including Cornel West, are Black. These types of representations are important predecessors of changing power relations that condition and precede actual changes. I am hard pressed to find a comparable example of a Latino commanding whites in a work of pop fiction.


by Ozymandias on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 04:44:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Late Night Presidential Straw Poll (none / 0)

DUDE!!!  BATTLESTAR GALACTICA.. THE BEST TV SHOW EVER MADE!


John McCain loves war.
by Winston Smith on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 04:49:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Late Night Presidential Straw Poll (none / 0)

This being the same show that celebrates insurgents throwing off the yoke of their occuption through the use of terror. Not that I'm criticizing the show for it's use of satire, but it is a total inversion of established norms, so I'm not sure how relevent it is in terms of advancing the argument that Latinos could make effective rulers. I hear it's a mighty fine show though.

Also, to be clear, I would vote for Richardson in a heartbeat because I think he's eminantly qualified, but I don't think he's got a snowballs chance in hell of making it anywhere for the reasons I outlined.  


by Ozymandias on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 04:56:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Late Night Presidential Straw Poll (none / 0)

Ah, but it wasn't the Latino leader that pushed the terror, it was the old white guy who was his 2IC.


*John Edwards* ... and the JE08 Supporters Blog
by BruceMcF on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 01:38:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Late Night Presidential Straw Poll (none / 0)

Matt Santos on the West Wing.  Not that I disagree with the overall point.


by conantd on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 09:01:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Late Night Presidential Straw Poll (3.00 / 0)

Senator Hillary Clinton has all her ducks in a row.  You have to follow the press about her and actually pay attention to what she is doing and the order in which she is doing it.  In every poll undertaken by the major polling institutes, she's been at the top for two years.  Check out her team - Wolfson, Solis-Doyle and about 38 others - they're the best in the country.

And they are not Bill Clinton's old team.  Hillaryland; HillaryPac, PAC, Friends of Hillary - these are her own associates and organizations.Don't underestimate her.  And she'll wipe the floor with Rudy Giuliani, clearly the toughest candidate the Repubs could nominate.  

Al Gore, if he runs, would be a viable competitor for Hillary in the primaries, but she's got too much on the guy, beginning with an uninterrupted political record and some pretty impressive Bills and crafting of legislature (Katrina, FEMA, Election Reform, PlanB, Armed Services Committee and an incredible amount of work for VETS, etc.) Gore has "An Inconvenient Truth", but guess what?Hillary just got placed near the top of the Environmental Committee by the new Dem congress.

And she's considered a Centrist, well so is Al Gore.  That hasn't changed.  However, Hillary is waiting to take the gloves off.  

I used to think she was wasting her time in elected office.  Not anymore.  She knows exactly what she's doing.

However, whoever wins the Dem nomination, will get my support, my contributions and my vote.  I just hope it's someone who is tough, thick-skinned and really really strategic because Rudy Giuliani is going to be one tough guy to beat.  And he plays dirty.    


by marycontrary on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 05:01:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Late Night Presidential Straw Poll (none / 0)

If by "really really strategic" you mean "not oppose the invasion of Iraq" or "triangulate away basic human values" I could not disagree with you more.  

Clinton would have a weak shot against Giuliani, because it would force a right-wing third party candidate to run, but McCain has the GOP nom. sewed up.  The only way McCain doesnt take the GOP nom is if he has some major health issue come up in the next year (Like Rudy's cancer that caused him to drop out of the 2000 senate race.)  

God, a HRC vs McCain race would be such a slaughter it may cost us the house.  


John McCain loves war.
by Winston Smith on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 05:21:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Late Night Presidential Straw Poll (none / 0)

Nicely written comment. My response follows.

Don't underestimate her.

agree.

beginning with an uninterrupted political record

he has 8 years each as Representative, Senator and VP. She'd had 8 years as senator.

and some pretty impressive Bills and crafting of legislature (Katrina, FEMA, Election Reform, PlanB, Armed Services Committee and an incredible amount of work for VETS, etc.)

Her election Reform bill was a show (she had a few other cleverly designed bills that she didn't do much with after floating them). Nothing came out of it.

Not sure if she was the lead author of those other bills you're talking about. Can't tell which of these passed and which didn't, without knowing specifics.

She is a hard worker. But she doesn't inspire.

Gore has "An Inconvenient Truth", but guess what?

Well, he must have crafted tons of stuff as Rep+Sen.

What we do know is that he was the leading politician that champion the internet like no other politician did.

Gore has actually worked on global warming for a couple of decades, beginning with the first congressional hearing on it.

Gore also gets a strong measure of credit for the Clinton/Gore economy:


ROBERT RUBIN, FORMER SECRETARY OF TREASURY: I worked with the vice president for 6 1/2 years. He was deeply involved in every major economic decision we made.

Hillary just got placed near the top of the Environmental Committee by the new Dem congress.

The Clintons have been putting a lot of moves to take on Gore for quite sometime now. This is the latest one.

And she's considered a Centrist, well so is Al Gore.

I don't care much for labels, but if I am to put one, I'd calling him a modern progressive populist.

Overall, Gore brings a more solid and vetted package than Hillary, even before we get to the war.

However, Hillary is waiting to take the gloves off.

If Gore steps in, I am sure that he will have his strategy to deal with her as well.

I used to think she was wasting her time in elected office.

In my opinion, she will be a better supreme court judge than President. She lacks vision, fails to inspire, and lately does not instill much trust either.

Remember one thing though: many primary goers likely do not know that Hillary and Bill both supported the war and Gore was the first leading politician to oppose it two weeks before the vote on the IWR took place, and apparently stirred other Democrats to oppose it as well:
<<<--------
Gore's speech against the war, 9/23/2002

September 23, 2002
   Prepared Remarks

   "If Saddam Hussein does not present an imminent threat, then is it justifiable for the Administration to be seeking by every means to precipitate a confrontation, to find a cause for war, and to attack?"

"I believe we should focus our efforts first and foremost against those who attacked us on September 11th and have thus far gotten away with it. "

        "the coalition assembled in 1991 paid all of the significant costs of the war, while this time, the American taxpayers will be asked to shoulder hundreds of billions of dollars in costs on our own."

Hardball College Tour: Al Gore

Dec. 11, 9 p.m. ET Lehman College, The City University of New York
Updated: 3:25 a.m. CT Nov 26, 2002

MATTHEWS: But you would have voted against it.

GORE: I would have voted against that resolution. I would have voted against it.

posted October 3, 2002 (October 21, 2002 issue)
Al Gore, democrat

Eric Alterman

But he sure galvanized Tom Daschle and other Democrats to face up to a frightening juggernaut for war they would have preferred to duck for the sake of re-election. Naderites take note. It was not "smart" in the Washington sense. It was not strategic. But damn it, it was brave.

Alterman's recent preference Gore/Obama'08
-------->>>

Gore was then the leading Democratic prospect for 2004 by a large margin, and about 57% of Americans supported an attack then. So, Gore had much to lose, but he still bucked the tide to oppose the war because I think he foresaw the utter disaster that it had now turned into.

That in my opinion marks the key distinction between Gore and the triangulation tactics of Bill and Hillary which are useful in some cases, but not where principle and morality count above all else.


by NuevoLiberal on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 08:06:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Late Night Presidential Straw Poll (none / 0)

It's ridiculous to rule someone out because of their middle name. You are seriously underestimating the country's intelligence.


by scaryice on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 08:21:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Late Night Presidential Straw Poll (none / 0)

Not in an era of immigration insanity.


by Lucas O'Connor on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 11:50:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Late Night Presidential Straw Poll (none / 0)

Even if Gore doesn't want to be president anymore, even if he doesn't think he can win, he has an almost moral obligation to run.  He must make the environment a campaign issue in 2008.  

Simple as that.  He has to run.  If he doesn't want to stick around, he can make a deal to give someone his votes if they agree to make the environment a centerpiece.  

However, I think he will run.  And I think he will win.  


by JJCPA on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 10:59:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Late Night Presidential Straw Poll (none / 0)

Ya know what might be even better?  If the party hired Gore to moderate one debate per state.


by Lucas O'Connor on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 11:54:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Late Night Presidential Straw Poll (none / 0)

Since Gore can probably enter the race later than anyone else and still threaten the position of those already in the race, he doesn't have to make a deal. He can keep on playing "will he or won't he" for the next six months, and occassionally express disappointment that more candidates are not giving the climate crisis the attention it deserves, and let the other candidates compete for his support.

And if still necessary to keep the climate crisis front and center, he can enter.


*John Edwards* ... and the JE08 Supporters Blog
by BruceMcF on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 01:44:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

suprised about Gore vs. Obama (none / 0)

I'm suprised at how much of a lead Gore has over Obama. I know netroots folks were pissed about some of Obama's comments about the party and his vote on AG, but he is very progessive, competent and (dare this former Dean intern say) electable. I love what Gore has done since 2000, but try telling someone who doesn't follow politics as closely as you do that he should run again. I really hope that Obama runs and the netroots unite around his candidacy.


by Ozymandias on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 04:27:26 AM EST

Eh (none / 0)

Who needs a candidate who talks trash about the party? Obama can learn some sense, stop saying that Dems have no respect for religious people, and come back in 2012.

Learned too much from Lieberman his first year, I think.


by scvmws on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 05:01:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Eh (none / 0)

ummm, hopefully he'd have to wait until 2016.


by Lucas O'Connor on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 11:58:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: suprised about Gore vs. Obama (none / 0)

try telling someone who doesn't follow politics as closely as you do that he should run again.

I have, and I have enjoyed a pretty good success rate in convincing those that I have engaged about Gore in offline discussions. Why? People do appreciate a substantive and solid record of accomplishments, a long and interesting career of public service, and a vision for the future, not to mention global warming.


by NuevoLiberal on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 05:24:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Late Night Presidential Straw Poll (none / 0)

Not trying to diss, but when I read arguments like this;

"Barack Obama.  Damn, he is a good speaker.  I love the guy.  I know he made some progressive netroot folks pissed off, but I think he is great.  I hate to say it, but noone named Hussein is gonna be elected President of the United States this lifetime.  Four years in the Senate and with the baggage of the name Barack Hussein Obama is not a key to the White House.  If his middle name was Jefferson, I would be like "maybe" but not Hussein.  Let's be real."

I grow more and more confident that Barack Obama is the candidate. Why? Simply because this argument is the weakest and most idiotic argument I have ever read .It's not against his position on policy. It's not against his ideology. It's his name.....his flipping name.

I would be willing to bet that the same argument was made about newely elected Rep. Ellis (D-Mi) who's a MUSLIN.I wonder if they said the same thing about Sen. Russ Feingold the very first time the Jewish Democrat ran for Senate in the state that has the most concentration of GERMAN ancestors.Ha Ha Ha !

Like I said, this post just gave me great hope for an Obama/ Edwards 2008 ticket!

Thanks


by FreedomOFSpeechFromTheDNC on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 04:34:27 AM EST

Re: Late Night Presidential Straw Poll (none / 0)

I like Obama a lot myself --  hilzoy's post on his legislative accomplishments was a real eye-opener.  He's been able to engage in the good kind of bipartisanship, where you find people on the other side who genuinely want to get something done, and you do it with them.  I do wonder a little about whether he'll be willing to push for big important things like single-payer health care, but I don't have any serious evidence telling me that he won't.  

But I'll tell you what has me all worried.  There's one big skeleton in his closet, and it's the cocaine use from his younger days.  There's a really ugly racist narrative ready to be launched against a black presidential candidate who used cocaine, even if it was forever ago.  


by Neil the Ethical Werewolf on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 04:42:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Late Night Presidential Straw Poll (none / 0)

That is a facile argument that can be disproved with a simple counterfactual: George W. Bush refused to answer questions about his previous cocaine use in 2000, which was a tacit admission of guilt and he was (sort of) elected.


by Ozymandias on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 04:47:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Late Night Presidential Straw Poll (none / 0)

Wish I could agree with you, but I think it's going to trigger a whole scary set of racist stereotypes.  There's a lot of white people who think they're not racist because they believe that not all black people fit the worst black stereotypes.  But give them some info connecting those stereotypes to a particular person, and they'll make the connections in a way that they wouldn't for a white president's son.  


by Neil the Ethical Werewolf on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 04:59:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I disagree (none / 0)

To the contrary, I think that a young black man experimenting with a few drugs but later turning his life into a phenomenal and admirable success (eg. Obama headed Harvard Law Review) is a cindrella story of sorts.

The boneheaded preemptive war and Edwards' leading promotion/support of/for it will be (and should be) a bigger factor than Obama doing a few joints when he was young (but turning out great anyhow).


by NuevoLiberal on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 05:35:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The ability to relate is the key issue. (none / 0)

A lot more voters will be able to relate to initially supporting the removal of Saddam Hussein, and later regretting ever giving Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld the benefit of the doubt. The key for them is being on the right side of the issue now. Hint to John McCain: People don't want to send more troops, you're not winning anyone over.

But I don't tend to think a little drug use as a youth, by itself, is likely to derail anyone's chances in this day and age. The racial hurdle does remain an obstacle, however.


John Edwards 2008
by MeanBoneII on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 05:51:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The ability to relate is the key issue. (3.00 / 1)

more voters will be able to relate to initially supporting the removal

Most voters, excepting a few dozen congress person's were reacting to what the rightwing and pro-war media was feeding them.

It was the job of the congress to do its job right and demand Bush to put up (accurate intelligence) or shut up (take a hike on the invasion). John Edwards and many other 2008 prospects were members of that conrgess, and Edwards in particular was on the senate intel cmte as well, which was exposed to not only the lack of evidence, but also the apparent drama being pulled by the administration with intelligence.

Edwards as a technique side swith what is currently popular, but that's called poll-pandering, not leadership.


by NuevoLiberal on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 06:11:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

What he believed at the time... (none / 0)

...and what you think he should have believed will never match up, so be it. To assume that most voters will base their support on this obviously contradicts all of the current polling.


John Edwards 2008
by MeanBoneII on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 06:36:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]