Huckabee is dangerous because he has a sense of humour. It's hard to trash a guy who is funny and seems down to earth. He's dangerous because he really does seem like a down to earth real guy that "you would like to have a beer with." We see where that got us last time, but it's powerful with voters.
It's a stupid question. If someone was hectoring John Kerry at this time in '03 if was planning to support Howard Dean, what do you think he was going to say? "Yes I plan to support the presumptive frontrunner".
Do you really think Edwards is going to support some third-party candidate if he dosen't get the nomination? Or is it more like he didn't want to create a soundbite about how supportive of Clinton he is before the first primary vote even happens?
Why don't you find out if Clinton plans to support Obama or Edwards if they get nominated-see what she says.
08 will be about change. Not just getting rid of a guy named Bush; but real progressive change on the order of Progressive era, the New Deal, and the Great Society. A lot of new Democratic freshmen get it. Edwards gets it. I'm not convinced Clinton or Obama gets it yet. Any new President will need to deliever some bold new reforms (like health care) in his/her first term if they hope to see a progressive Democratic majority solidfied. I really hope we don't see the opportunity dissolve into the political soap opera of the mid-90's.
Slimny and/or anonymous attacks, no we don't need them. Serious political critiques of a candidaates actual position, yes. Its kind of arrogant to assume that any candidate deserves to steam roll his or her way to the nomination without anyone asking tough questions.
"And here's how Tom Blumer over at Newsbusters ("Exposing and combating liberal media bias") reacted to the affair: "Maybe I'm missing something, but when you want to form a union, isn't it sort of necessary that there be a mean, oppressive employer, or a group of them?"
No, not always. The first labor unions in the US were not so much based on everyone working in the same workplace united against one boss (which you did see in the 30's), but on your particular trade. So the first unions were made up of bakers, cigar rollers, carpenters etc. They got together not to fight a particular boss as much as pooling their resources to create joint funds for health coverage and unemployment insurance and to gain some collective control over the labor market.
That remains the basic idea behind most building trades unions, though on a much larger and more sophisticated basis. An average carpenter or electrician might work for dozens of contractors each year. They still need protection and mutal aid from their fellow workers, in addition to shaping working standards throughout the industry. Don't see why that idea can't apply to bloggers.
Edwards should grow up? For what, supporting striking workers? Do you think he was out there to create an anti-Hillary incident? As a union member, I can say we appreciate any candidate or politician who bothers to at least show up to walk the walk, something Edwards does a lot.
It seems like its the company owner who needs some maturity lessons. He didn't do his favored candidate by waving around a Hillary sign at striking Teamsters who were never on the best terms with the Clintons' in the first place.
If we learned one thing out of Iraq (which the Russians learned in Afghanistan) is to never commit non-Muslims ground troops in a muslim country. Of course no one likes foreign occupational troops very much, but for us to act unilateraly in Pakistan would be a disaster.
I'm no fan of the Pakistani government and they have dragged their heels in going after Al-Qaeda. But I don't think its because they are secret buddies of Osama like many in Saudi Arabia are. The nation is very precariously balanced and for us to go in and just start bombing targets as Obama suggests is probably the best way to cause the country to collape into anarchy. Just plain stupid talk from someone who should know better.
First off, Obama did not say that Hillary and George W were the same. He said her foreign policy prescription were "Bush-Cheney" lite.
She belives in unipolar world where we use our military might to enforce our will and vision on other nations. She supports a large and permanent US military presence in Iraq and she doesn't just mean some border guards in Kurdistan. If you actually read a lot of what she says -- not just her soundbytes -, its hard to not see some linkage with neoconservatism.
There is a reason that she the National Review's and William Kristol's preferred Democractic nominee.
I wouldn't get too excited. Hillary remains DLC to the bone; she just skips their events too fool the left. Her campaign platform is drawn directly from the DLC planbook. Her description of herself as a "modern progressive"? Classic Will Marshall. If things keep going the way they are, the DLC will be back in the White House before too long. And progressives will be on the outs once Hillary wraps up the primaries. Do you really think she will be running to defend Daily Kos on Fox News this time next year?
Every time I hear her in one of these debates, it only confirms what Michael Crowly and John Judis wrote in the New Republic back in March: Clinton in office would mean a neocon lite foreign policy. We need a big change in the way we relate to the world. Obama was strong enough to say that. Clinton threw in a bs oneliner that she knew would be broadcast endlessly.
This is her only a few years ago:
"There is a refrain ... that we should intervene with force only when we face splendid little wars that we surely can win, preferably by overwhelming force in a relatively short period of time. To those who believe we should become involved only if it is easy to do, I think we have to say that America has never and should not ever shy away from the hard task if it is the right one."
Clinton wants to end the Iraq war, the way Nixon wanted to end the Vietnam war.
If you think that was over the top, why don't you pull out an average speech by Roosevelt(both of them) to see what they said at the time about special corporate elites. They would make Edwards comments seems pretty mellow in comparision.
Edwards is right. The insurance and drug industry and the oil lobby will fight tooth and nail to crush any kind of legislative program that tries to reign in their power and profits in the name of the public good. To pretend otherwise is to ignore reality and history.
What Americans will be turned off by this? Oil executives? Drug lobbyists? Are they the new swing voters. If you went out and asked your neighbors (I don't care if its Utah or New York) what they thought about the industries trashed by Edwards, what would they say? I doubt they would be running to defend them.