Look this isn't Journal of Medicine. It's a political blog. Gibson's comments on Ledger are utterly sick, and his only "crime" was that he played a gay man in a movie. (God knows what they'll say when Anthony Hopkins dies). How many gays and lesbians work for Fox News whose hate speech makes the lives of open gays and lesbians more difficult and in many cases more dangerous. How many gay and lesbians work for congressmen (or are elected themselves) who support legislation that makes gays and lesbians lives more difficult and serve as political punching bags every two years.
These closet cases are sick individuals who should be outed and humaliated -- pointing out the GOP's hypocracy in shielding them goes a long way to defusing homophobia as an electoral wedge issue.
Yeah, Reagan did get blown out of the water in the first 84 debate-but he came back in the 2nd one with that famous "I won't hold my opponent's age against him" line, which went a long way to defusing the question of his age.
Bush did suck in the 2000 debates, but Gore did worse and in the low-expectation game it made Bush look like a winner.
Kerry beat Bush pretty decisivly in all thre debates, and yes he didn't win, but it did go a long way to making him more competitive than he probably would have.
Soundbites matter. Do you think most Americans actually spend two hours watching debates? What they hear are the zingers and one liners -- and the fuck ups -- on TV and radio the next day and Edwards got off his best of the campaign.
I woke up Tuesday morning hearing a loop of Obama and Clinton insulting each other and Edwards acting like the voice of reason. It does go a long way.
I hope Edwards is getting ready to run commericials with that clip in SC ASAP. If he can afford to spend the ad money reminding SC voters why he did so well in the debate, he might squeeze in a 2nd place.
At one point, stopping Hillary was a major priority. As much as I find Obama as a person appealing, his numerous right-wing "slips" has me very concerned. Right I'm looking for a candidate who can convince that he/she will make universal health care a priority, will stand up with unions and pass the Free choice act and and pass some serious transforming legislation that will save and grow the middle class. So far Edwards has been a driving force on all these issues. As long as he continues to be the fire on the feet of Clinton and Obama, he needs to stay and fight.
Edwards was out front on almost every single progressive issue and managed to define the issues on health care, green jobs, free trade. He made populist politics legit again. However the race turns out, the Democratic party is better off thanks to Edwards beining in it.
Edwards was never as nearly as centrist as many pundits claim -- he was actually Sen. Kennedy's first choice in 2004 before Kerry got in the race -- but the question is: which is more problematic? A centrist moving towards a progressive populist position in a presidential race -- like Edwards -- or a candidate with a solidly progressive background -- like Obama -- moving further to the right the closer he gets to the nomination?
Reagan was the most ideological president of the late 20th century. So what the hell is Mr. post-partisan/post-conflict talking about? If he's planning to run as the progressive Reagan more power to him, but he ain't doing that.
This clearly isn't Obama's fault, but it does show the problem with last minute, "horse-trading" endorsements. I have no doubt that the Culinary workers would have backed Edwards had he come in first in Iowa; he spent years marching their picket lines; getting to know their leaders and rank-and-file. Not to mention he best stnads for their issues.
But the big mo went to Obama -- who really didn't spend any time at all with union members before then --. The union wanted to spike Hillary and get with the presumed frontrunner. I can understand the real-politic involved in this decision, but to pretend that you can get tens of thousands of your members to turn on the dime like that is far-fetched.
Union endorsements can lead to votes if the cnadidate has spent the time building relationships with the rank-and-file. It's one reason many SEIU locals have candidates actually meet with rank-and-file members to see how they do before they consider endorsement. Obama didn't do that with the Culinary workers. I bet we are going to hear more complaints come Saturday from members feeling pushed to vote for someone besides their first choice.