• Hillary did it for Tom Vilsack last year.

  • on a comment on MoveOn Closes Its 527 over 6 years ago

    Or they mistakenly believe this adds to their tax bill.  It doesn't.

  • comment on a post MoveOn Closes Its 527 over 6 years ago

    If "I'm pure because I accept public financing" was something that voters gave a tinker's dam about, it would have helped John Edwards among Dem primary voters.  It didn't.

  • It is absolutely bizarre to suggest that elected officials should weigh in on who should scrutinize them.

  • on a comment on Warner out of VP contest over 6 years ago

    Hadn't thought about it, but is seen as more traitorous by the GOP base than even McCain.  Palin would be formidable, but I wonder if personal circumstances take her out of the running in this cycle.

    And I'd have risked that VA-SEN race (or had Warner run in both) to go Obama-Warner this year.  Sigh.

  • He got better.

  • comment on a post The "other" Clinton over 6 years ago

    She needs to accomplish something in her own life first -- some form of public service, etc.  I have no doubt that she can.

  • It's hard to think of someone better qualified to serve as VP under Obama than Kerry, even if electorally he's not the best option.

    But isn't Jack Reed where charisma goes to die?

  • on a comment on Obama VP Buzz over 6 years ago

    Well, Congress can't really expand what the Constitution meant in this case, can it?  It can't a "35 year old" to include 32-year-olds.

  • on a comment on Obama VP Buzz over 6 years ago

    As natural born as McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal Zone.

  • I miss giving you a hard time.

  • A few months later:

    As we sat in a hotel hospitality suite in New Hampshire's north country last month, accompanied by a Muzak version of Chicago's "If You Leave Me Now," Edwards said he might consider pressuring the Fed to lower interest rates in order to tighten labor markets, but he wasn't sure. Similarly, he said he was wary of raising the tax rate on capital gains too high, fearing that it would cause capital to flee the country. He sounded equally unenthused about returning to the days of steeper levies on the superrich (beyond the tax-cut rollback he has proposed on those making more than $200,000), even though his official position is that he would consider them. "Would I be willing to consider higher rates on the highest-earning Americans -- you know, people who make millions of dollars?" he asked. "It's something I'd be open to. It's not something I'd propose."

    In fact, the more you talk to Edwards, the more apparent it is that the populist label doesn't quite fit. While he talks incessantly about economic injustice, Edwards isn't proposing anything -- beyond an oil-company windfall tax, which Hillary Clinton has also embraced -- that would strike a serious blow against multinational corporations or the top tier of American earners. Even in his rhetoric, Edwards seems to deliberately avoid stoking resentments or pitting one class against another the way a true populist would, unless you count taking a few easy shots at Wal-Mart.

    "Rhetorically, if you're calling Edwards an economic populist, it's true he cares a lot about the poor," says Robert Reich, who isn't yet supporting a candidate. "He evinces a lot of concern for the middle class and middle-class anxieties. But he's not in any way attacking the rich or corporations." Reich says this with a note of disappointment. "He's not explaining one fundamental fact of modern economic life, which is that the very rich have all the money."

    When I asked Edwards if he blamed large corporations or the wealthiest Americans for inequality, he appeared briefly confused by the question. "No -- no," Edwards repeated, shaking his head. "I just don't think blaming helps, to be honest with you. What's the point?"

  • It's "the DNC rules should not apply to 'important' states," with "important" defined situationally.

  • Fair enough.  I would never criticize her for the "sin" of being a determined advocate.

  • No, it wasn't okay, but nor did it have anything to do with any of Clinton's opponents.

    There are no "halves" in the Democratic Party.  There is one party, in which some people preferred Obama and some preferred Clinton.


Advertise Blogads