• and yes, we do rock!

  • comment on a post MLK Jr., weekend events bring many thoughts. over 6 years ago

    sorry I couldn't get here earlier but was having technical problems earlier.

    Thanks for this diary.  There is so much going on around the country that gets drowned out by the corporate media.  Thank you for bringing us news that is real.

  • for staying positive, and for being active.  This primary race isn't over by a long shot.  Edwards is showing he's in this for the long haul, and I'm right there with him.

  • comment on a post Best Edwards Ad Yet? over 6 years ago

    Clinton continues to accept money from lobbyists and PACs.

    Obama stopped accepting money from lobbyists and PACs shortly after announcing his candidacy.

    Edwards has never accepted money from lobbyists and PACs.

    The by-industry numbers are somewhat misleading because they reflect a donor's employer sector, not whether the money came from someone seeking to influence.  For example, a secretary at a hospital = money from the health care industry.

    Nonetheless, when you look at the sectors for bundlers or maxed out donors, you can get a better sense of who is giving to whom for what.

  • many of us have seen for a long time.

    And this means so much to Edwards, I'm sure.

  • on a comment on In Response to "Party of Ideas" over 6 years ago

    precisely. Jerome has a FP story up now, pointing out that Obama was meeting with conservative editorial board and so played the Republican lines to gain their endorsement.  He tried to walk that fine line of making a factual statement (Reagan changed the trajectory of the country) without any qualification so that his listeners could interpret his words in their best context.  And he succeeded, they endorsed him.  But he failed to gauge the reaction of those outside the room to his words unqualified.  And thus the furor began.

  • on a comment on In Response to "Party of Ideas" over 6 years ago

    We know Kos has said he voted Reagan.  Don't know about Obama except he has said he didn't vote for Reagan.  I'm a straight Dem for President since my first vote in 1972 for McGovern.

  • on a comment on In Response to "Party of Ideas" over 6 years ago

    He says in his book that he didn't vote for Reagan, and even describes the impact of Reagan's policies on Chicago where he went for that 2-year community organizing job.  Which makes his current use of language regarding Reagan appear more calculating.

  • on a comment on In Response to "Party of Ideas" over 6 years ago

    I don't look back on that time with any fondness in terms of government or politics or the jarring direction the country veered off into.

  • on a comment on In Response to "Party of Ideas" over 6 years ago

    you appear to be mirroring the rant I had to delete because I was up on my soapbox again, ranting away!

  • on a comment on In Response to "Party of Ideas" over 6 years ago

    One commenter at DK said that "lefty boomers" should grow up.  In my head, I saw a kid pounding away at a computer whose parents probably are those "lefty boomers" he's referring to and I heard them talking in their room about "what are we going to do with him? is he ever going to grow up and leave so we can finally relax?"

  • on a comment on In Response to "Party of Ideas" over 6 years ago

    The thanks really go to those who express the frustration and amazement than someone running to be the leader of the Democratic Party would use the image of Reagan's success over the Party as an example to emulate.

    There may be lessons to be learned from what he did or how he did it.  But that is not the same as promoting it.

  • on a comment on In Response to "Party of Ideas" over 6 years ago

    Thanks back.  I've largely stayed out of this mess with only a few mild comments, but that front page post today was the real strawman that broke my silence.

    Others with greater talent to say what I'm thinking have made it very clear why Obama's call to Reagan (again I might add, he does it in his book as well) is antithetical to the Democratic Party and the progressive movement.

    I don't believe that we should rewrite history as the Republicans have done, but an honest appraisal of that time is vastly different than the one Obama seems to be conveying.

  • Certainly if he indicated a preference for Edwards, then Edwards supporters such as Adam or me wouldn't be criticizing him.  So that statement is just plain silly.

    But the criticism here and elsewhere about Feingold's statement largely because he chose a petty tone to rebuke Edwards and chose 3 specific votes as examples where one of his "preferred" choices voted exactly like Edwards.  He could have chosen to indicate his preference for Obama and Clinton without attacking Edwards, and I doubt you would have heard a peep out of Adams.  In this case, tone and substance indicate something more personal than politics or policies.

  • but they are what they are.  The Sarkisyans went to the group of which they are active members (the Armenian National Committee of America) to find a way to contact John Edwards.  ANCA called the Edwards campaign HQ in Chapel Hill, and were told how to reach Senator Edwards.

    Before Nataline's death, the family was already thinking of becoming health care activists because of the run-around they were getting. On Thursday night, as Hilda Sarkisyan watched Edwards deliver his speech after the Iowa caucuses, she realized the time was now and John Edwards was the candidate to help them get Nataline's story out to a wider audience.  They are determined that other families not suffer as they have, that other children not die because of the callous indifference of another insurance company.

    These may be facts that you don't care about, but your indifference doesn't change them.  It merely shows your lack of empathy.  You could support another candidate without ridiculing this family; instead you are demonstrating a disregard for taking in new information and the truth.


Advertise Blogads