Really Disappointed in you,Democrats,really...

Yes disappointed.
 I guess I thought that this election  would be different. Democrats would be talking a storm about the issues ,the policies,the caring,the truth, the transparency ,and the  honest feeling that we don't care and will not care how much money a candidate will be raising because we care about the person and not the purse!

I was wrong. Here we go ,boasting about who got more donations, more donors, more donors who donated under $200.-, donors above.

 What happenned to"We will educate ourselves on the candidates and we will choose the one who shows and proves to us that she/he care."?What happenned to who has the best healthcare policy? Would Michael Moore approve? Who is answering questions about the world and diplomacy?Who really cares about our high schoolers and has done something about it? Who is the first candidate who has announced the support for Open Source Voting Machine? Does anyone know who that candidate is? Probably some, others no because they are drowning in the number game which I thought we were not going to play.

 Open Source Voting Machine-the thing that we are screaming to have.

 What else do Democrats want?....Oh,yeah, getting out of Iraq?
   Who has repeatedly, over and over again,taken a stand about this?

  Isn't this what we want, someone taking a bold ,strong as a rock-will-not-budge stand on getting out of Iraq? Yes Democrats and Republicans voted for wanting this stand, in the last election.

Who in Congress hesitated before taking a vote on funding for that war? Did that show leadership? Is that ok with you?

 What about corporate money,corporate support?

 Who best shows that they will accept absolutely no corporate,PAC or lobbyist money? But also who has confronted the Pharmaceutical Companies,Insurance Companies and Agribiz Companies?

 Anyone knows that confronting the Big guys means you will be severely attacked back.Yet who has decided that it was time someone did it?

  You don't want the overpowering pharmaceticals,you don't want the high insurance and you don't want to support factory farming!!!Yet do you support that candidate?
  ..

  Who has been the candidate who has been the FIRST to respond to MoveOn,Progressive Democrats of America and DFA? The groups that are actively working at grassroots level to bring back our Democracy.Not that this fact is  so important...but it does show that that candidate prioritizes those groups.

 I guess I thought Democrats would be banning together and saying, yes the campaign money is important but not that important. What is important are the issues the candidates stand for,the boldness ,the I'm-not-scared-of-corporate-America.I will stand up to them during the campaigning.

 Yes we need change,but who is the one who is showing us NOW what they would do, and who has everything to loose for it.

 America, Who is the candidate that truly understands every woman and what she risks loosing,every child and what that child risks loosing and every man and what that man risks loosing...

...but are you paying  close attention or are you swimming in the  glory of the number game....

Tags: Candidates, Democrats (all tags)

Comments

64 Comments

Really stupid diary

THis diary is really really stupid.  It merely demonstrates that the diarist is an idiot.

You see, the candidates are discussing issues.  Go to the websites.  Since you can't find them, due to total cluelessness, use Google.  They discuss issues.  They are having debates.  In the debates, they discuss issues.  Who discusses money?  Mostly the useless morons in the media.

Additionally, do you know WHY they discuss finances and money?  FEDERAL LAW.

I just get so FUCKING tired about CLUELESSNESS.  Yes, politics is full of crap, but to blame the candidates for things beyond their control is just so fucking stupid.

by dataguy 2007-07-02 04:32AM | 0 recs
This comment is being troll

rated by me.  It is full of personal insults. Unless you learn how to communicate without insulting, you do not belong here.  

by littafi 2007-07-02 05:34AM | 0 recs
there's truth to this post

what the media talks about is very limited and mostly to  almost only talks about horse race stuff.

I don't consider this a healthcare plan...

really how much time do you think was spent on this ?  an hour?

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/hea lthcare/

by TarHeel 2007-07-02 04:54AM | 0 recs
Re: there's truth to this post
Didn't Obama unveil a health care plan about a month after he entered the race?
Of course the corporate media talking heads claim Hillary and Obama both have UHC plans, along with Edwards, but there's never any discussion of the plans.
Seems like Clinton and Obama supporters would see the ruse - but that's not likely.
by annefrank 2007-07-02 06:14AM | 0 recs
Is it the people who

rule in a democracy or money?  People or profits.

Money has voted.  But people still have a vote.

Iowa, Nevada, NH and SC will begin the rebirth of our democracy from the fat cats.  California willl show that they cannot buy the office of President.  

by littafi 2007-07-02 05:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Is it the people who
I'm counting on it,as well,littafi!
California wants a true Democrat!
by yann123 2007-07-02 06:38AM | 0 recs
California will show that money doesn't matter????

If it's still a contested primary by the time that CA comes around, money will have a big, big part to play.  It's an absurdly expensive state to try to run for President in.  

by Valatan 2007-07-02 07:24AM | 0 recs
Iowans do not care about the money race

I look forward to helping my fellow Iowans prove this about six months from now.

by desmoinesdem 2007-07-02 05:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Iowans do not care about the money race

How many times has the Dem fundraising leader at the time actually won Iowa?

by clarkent 2007-07-02 06:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Iowans do not care about the money race

desmoines dem,thanks for the reply. Glad to know they won't be swayed by money but hopefully by the truth ,honesty ,boldness in policies and sincerity that one of these candidate shows strongly.

Thank you Iowans.Can't wait for their answer.

by yann123 2007-07-02 06:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Really Disappointed in you,Democrats

>>>>What happenned to "We will educate ourselves on the candidates and we will choose the one who shows and proves to us that she/he care."?

Unfortunately, some "progressives" were easily swayed by the corporate media's shiny new objects. It doesn't matter how much money Obama raises, the Reality is that he can't win the presidency and Hillary would not choose him as a VP running mate.
The goal is to minimize Edwards and Progressive ideas - which Obama supporters once held - and opposed by sponsors of the corporate media and the DC elites.
Now that the "movement" is more important than the issues, "progressives" are quite happy to ignore Obama's coal bill, ignore Obama's claim that BushCo's actions don't rise to the level of impeachment, ignore Obama's huge contributions from the healthcare industry, ignore Obama's huge contributions from corporate bundlers, and on and on - because they're fully convinced that Obama (and his supporters) can't be ignored because He has LOTS OF DONORS AND HAS RAISED THE MOST MONEY!
It's very sad that so many people have been misled. :(

by annefrank 2007-07-02 06:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Really Disappointed in you,Democrats

We did.

We did just that. Now, we are supporting that candidate. It's not our fault that low information voters picked their candidate without researching them or picked their candidate because of what they ran on last time. It's not our fault that others are more obsessed with the last name of a candidate and what their husband did as opposed to the issues. It's not our fault that others are too scared that America is racist so they pick someone to appease that. That's not our fault. We did our research. We did our research BEFORE we went to the rallies, heard the speeches and we like what we see. Now, we are putting our money where our mouths are.

ALL 350,000 of us!

by ObamaEdwards2008 2007-07-02 06:17AM | 0 recs
An old union saying

It's not our fault that low information voters picked their candidate without researching them or picked their candidate because of what they ran on last time.

There's an old union saying about losing an organizing vote: "You don't blame the people who voted against you. You blame yourself because you didn't explain it well enough."

by Michael Bersin 2007-07-02 12:07PM | 0 recs
Holier than thou
I don't understand your attitude at all.  Why the circular firing squad to point out who is the purest progressive?
Referring to sponsoring research into coal liquidification as a "coal bill" is blatantly misleading.  If we're going to reduce greenhouse emissions and create energy independence, then we need to look at all alternatives, since we all know ethanol doesn't have a prayer of matching demand --- and people I have a lot of respect for like Brian Schweitzer of Montana have been selling trying to look into trapping emissions from coal.  Obama has made abundantly clear he would only sponsor subsidies for coal liquidifcation if the technology becomes cleaner.
I, like lots of other progressives, don't necessarily think impeachment is a useful tool --- the Senate can't pass even a modest timeline for the war or a punitive immigation bill, and they're supposed to vote for impeachment?  Talking about it just distracts us further from genuine progressive goals.
As for talking about "the issues," your post does none of this but mostly engages in innuendo about health care and corporate contributors --- which you back up with no statistics and who also give generously to your candidate.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select .asp?Ind=H01
by psericks 2007-07-02 06:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Holier than thou

Obama has made abundantly clear he would only sponsor subsidies for coal liquidifcation if the technology becomes cleaner.

Well, except for the bill that he's currently sponsoring.

by clarkent 2007-07-02 06:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Holier than thou

He said he would vote against the bill unless it contained an amendment mandating a certain lower level of carbon emissions, and when it didn't, he voted against the bill and it died --- two weeks ago.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2007/06/23/AR2007062301424. html?nav=E8

Obama has also committed to bringing down greenhouse gas emissions 80% by 2050 and has been proposing legislation about it in the Senate long before he was running for president.  One of my favorite proposals of his was to strike a compromise with the auto industry to take over the burden of some health care costs in exchange for concessions on clean technology: February 2006 http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archive s/individual/2006_03/008330.php

by psericks 2007-07-02 07:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Holier than thou

Yeah, after MoveOn and environmental groups put pressure on him to remove his support.

by clarkent 2007-07-02 09:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Holier than thou

Not so, his public statements were the same throughout: coal liquidification should be on the table if the technology is there to keep it clean through effective carbon capture in the production process.

by psericks 2007-07-02 09:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Holier than thou

I know what Obama said and I know what he did. He sponsored a bad bill that subsidized CTL and only placed some incentives on the table for CTL plants to use carbon capture technology. Even if the carbon were captured, the entire process (including the burning of the liquid fuel) would still emit about the same amount of carbon as we do now and cost billions to do so. Thankfully, Obama relented when he was publicly pressured by environmental groups and MoveOn.

by clarkent 2007-07-03 12:35AM | 0 recs
You missed the point!
There is no "holier than thou" from me - only sadness that people have been misled.
While other Dems have said impeachment would be a "waste of time" - Obama doesn't even think it's warranted.
IOW - Bush hasn't violated the Constitution enough to warrant impeachment. I'm not aware of any other Dem making THAT claim.
by annefrank 2007-07-02 06:48AM | 0 recs
A wake up call,not a firing squad

I didn't want to get into the specifics of the issues because it would make the post too long. You know that. What I want people to do is:research,dig deep,really deep and see who we should support for our Presidency but also as a world connector. We are not an island.

 I was disgusted by the number game from all the candidates and all the supporters.. That's why my post went up.

 Kind of like watching a great game of soccer with amazing players,but no one pays attention because they're keeping track of only the score.

  That's what makes me sad and mad at the same time.

by yann123 2007-07-02 06:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Holier than thou

>>>>>As for talking about "the issues," your post does none of this but mostly engages in innuendo about health care and corporate contributors --- which you back up with no statistics and who also give generously to your candidate.

If you can't see the difference in Obama COURTING Washington lobbyists and raking in $265K vs. Edwards $46K, and primarily from OUTSIDE Washington -
the facts aren't likely to matter.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/060 7/4481.html

by annefrank 2007-07-02 07:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Holier than thou

POLITICO?

ROFLMAO!

by ObamaEdwards2008 2007-07-02 07:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Holier than thou

Has Obama refuted the figures from Politico?? NO!

by annefrank 2007-07-02 09:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Holier than thou

Obama has been open in saying that declining funds from registered federal lobbyists is only a first step.  Neither candidates have a perfect filter for sorting out all special interest money, but I give them both credit for making the statement:

The data showed that both Edwards and Obama accepted money from federal lobbyists -- $500 and $12,440, respectively. Psaki said the Obama campaign has refunded all donations from federal lobbyists; Edwards' campaign is refunding the money, Prince said.

Brad Smith, chairman of the Center for Competitive Politics, said both Edwards and Obama have made a calculation that the political mileage of not taking donations from lobbyists outweighs the cash they would take in.

Excuse me, but what in the world is the difference between 256K and 46K when these candidates are raising funds in the tens of millions of dollars?  The Politico article merely insinuates that Obama must be courting them because he raised more, but frankly the difference isn't that substantial in the grand scheme of things.

by psericks 2007-07-02 07:17AM | 0 recs
Fortress. Fortress. Fortress.

by jforshaw 2007-07-02 07:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Fortress. Fortress. Fortress.

Obama is raking in HUGE contributions from hedge funds. Edwards isn't.

by annefrank 2007-07-02 09:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Fortress. Fortress. Fortress.

Really?  Then how is a hedge fund his largest contributor?

by Adam B 2007-07-02 12:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Holier than thou

Why the circular firing squad to point out who is the purest progressive?

Because this country is totally fucked up from top to bottom, left to right, and all around town?

We need the strongest, boldest candidate at our backs because it's going to be tough getting us back on track and I don't really think Obama is up to it and I know Hillary won't. She's all about keeping power in the hands of the few. And that's assuming they can win the presidency, which is highly doubtful & extremely risky on our part to nominate either.

by cosbo 2007-07-02 07:08AM | 0 recs
Firing Squad
I simply disagree with you.  We need a candidate who won't just be shrill (otherwise Kucinich would be my man) but who has a record of building consensus and bringing new people to the table.  That's the only way we'll ever create positive change in this country.  I simply don't think that a President Clinton or a President Edwards would be able to get any of their plans through a divided Senate --- you need a knack for that, a talent for speaking to the other side, for striking compromises.  
And that's ok that we disagree about approach, but that doesn't mean you need to decry me or Obama as a former "progressive" or claim that either of us isn't working conscientiously on the same issues you are.
by psericks 2007-07-02 07:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Firing Squad
Yes - that's the Lieberman approach of "bipartiCONship" and "consensus" - and Lieberman is Obama's mentor.
But history has shown that "bipartiCONship" leads to more compromises by the Dems than the Repubs - resulting in a center/right nation.
by annefrank 2007-07-02 07:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Firing Squad
Whatever.
You can run whatever kind of movement you want, but if you don't bring in independents and moderates you'll never win in a red state and you'll never build the majority you need to pass the legislation you care about and to end the war in Iraq.  
Conflating Lieberman and Obama is just pointless.  Obama opposed this war from the start and Lieberman will support it to the end --- they couldn't be further apart.
And for the record, Lieberman was assigned to Obama.
by psericks 2007-07-02 07:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Firing Squad

as is evident by Edwards current "support" or lack thereof.

by ObamaEdwards2008 2007-07-02 08:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Firing Squad
Obama isn't smeared by the corporate media 24/7 either - a fact his supporters simply dismiss. They're just glad it's Edwards and not Obama - unable to see the corporate media's determination to squash Progressive ideas.
Also Obama and Hillary have been silent on death wishes for Dem candidates - but they have SS protection.
by annefrank 2007-07-02 09:44AM | 0 recs
Yeah, when does the issue primary begin?

Or, more to the point, which issues does Edwards win?

A. Health Care
B. Economic Inequality
C. Climate Change
D. Trade
E. All of the Above

If you haven't picked E, you haven't been paying attention.

by david mizner 2007-07-02 06:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Yeah, when does the issue primary begin?

You mean talked about?

by ObamaEdwards2008 2007-07-02 06:18AM | 0 recs
I've been paying attention

To issues like permanent MFN status for China, while voting against Wellstone's amendments to protect religious dissidents and labor organizers in China?

As you said, "No one should be surprised or disturbed that Edwards--new to politics, representing North Carolina, hailed as the next Clinton, coming of political age in the mid-nineties--cast some bad votes."

by Adam B 2007-07-02 12:35PM | 0 recs
Yeah

Obama is now making some of the same mistakes that Edwards made years ago.

by david mizner 2007-07-02 01:27PM | 0 recs
I agree Yann!
And it's just more proof of the POWER of the Corporate Media.
Even when people are firm and resolute in their convictions, the media - whose goal is to persuade - can quickly change minds. And once people are invested via contributing money and time for a "cause" and especially encouraging others to invest,  Facts and Reality are more easily ignored.
That's why people keep investing in a stock they "believe" will "eventually" produce.
by annefrank 2007-07-02 06:24AM | 0 recs
Re: I agree Yann!

Thanks,Anne.I hope that if people see differently they won't let their pride get in the way and will be able to turn to the candidate that can become our President.

by yann123 2007-07-02 06:31AM | 0 recs
Why Condemn The Winner?

The condemnation shouldn't be on one candidate because he is getting more money. The question should be asked, if those who support other candidates believe in their candidate, why are they not backing it up? I'm not wealthy, but I give 25.00 here. 10.00 there and I do it on a continual basis. Instead of getting a Pizza, I just click the donation button. So, why can't supporters of other candidates give up their pizzas and that new CD? Why is it hard for them to give up that $5.58 number 2 with an Apple Pie? Those McDonalds meals add up. You know you don't need that $50.00 pair of shoes to match that skirt. Go to Payless. I hear they are having a sale. LOL. I have given up on a lot of unnecessary things and I didn't realize how much money I was wasting until I did. It's all about budgeting. Of course. In all fairness, I did become a Vegan several months ago and that's dramatically reduced my grocery spending........not to mention, my waistline. Supporting Barack Obama is just good for my Health. But in all seriousness, I find this Diary to be very condescending because I know full well that if the success of the Obama Campaign were in the hands of the author's choice candidate, they would not be "lamenting" the system.

by ObamaEdwards2008 2007-07-02 06:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Why Condemn The Winner?

What did he win? Mario Cuomo is right. Both Hillary & Obama are doing the money race to avoid talking about the issues.

by cosbo 2007-07-02 07:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Why Condemn The Winner?
If Edwards were raking in lots of moolah WHILE advocating for the working poor and smeared by the media 24/7 - I'd know something was amiss.
Obama can speak all he wants about the travesties of the Bush admin that have increased people's hopelessness and despair - just so long as he doesn't call out corporate policies that contribute to it.
Some people seem unable to discern the difference in voicing The People's problems and actually advocating specific solutions that conflict with the Corporate agenda.
by annefrank 2007-07-02 07:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Why Condemn The Winner?

If Edwards were raking in lots of moolah WHILE advocating for the working poor and smeared by the media 24/7 - I'd know something was amiss.

You mean, like the first two quarters of 2007?  Because $23,000,000+ is "lots of moolah".

by Adam B 2007-07-02 12:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Condemn The Winner?

I already replied to that previously saying that I am upset with ALL the supporters of ALL sides that play the money game.

 I am sickened by the focus on the $$.

That's why I excluded any names of the candidates so that people could focus on the message .

by yann123 2007-07-02 07:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Why Condemn The Winner?

>>>>Supporting Barack Obama is just good for my Health.

Well - it's even better for capitalism.
A campaign is a business - generating local jobs and income from candidates' rallies and events. More supporters mean more income for corporations and the media - generating more corporate donations to Obama.
IOW - Obama supporters are funding capitalists while being led to believe he can win the presidency.
It's just sad - very sad.

by annefrank 2007-07-02 09:57AM | 0 recs
Disappointed? No, proud.

You say you want discussion of the issues but what you want is a biased discussion of your candidate, which just goes further to shut down real debate.  There is something very powerful about what is going on in the money race - people for the very first time are beginning to yank the races away from the PACs and the Lobbysists and claim it for their own.  The Obama figure comes from the largest 2nd Quarter base in the history of politics - and done without PAC or federal lobbyist money (Corporate money by law is not allowed for any of the candidates).  John Edwards, although raising far less, has built up a donor base which in other times would be considered impressive.  If you add the two, we have 350,000 every day people, Democrats, who have come together to create a people powered campaign.

Stop trying to skew the facts to artificially prop up your candidate.  There is something very important happening that we all as Democrats should be very proud of.  

by Doug Dilg 2007-07-02 07:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Disappointed? No, proud.
Doug - the amount of money and number of donors has little to do with the presidential race.
Obama can't win the presidency. His role is to distract from Edwards. Surely you can see that the media is leading this agenda.
If it were a "level playing field" - regardless of Obama's innocence in the Rezko deal - the media would be discussing it. They'd also be discussing Hillary's relationship with InfoUSA and Mark Penn. And of course, the sexual harassment charges against Richardson.
But nada! Only Edwards hair and wealth are important - essential for minimizing Progressive ideas.
by annefrank 2007-07-02 07:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Disappointed? No, proud.

The amount of donors have little to do with the Presidential race? How's that, because people who donate to a campaign don't actually vote?  You say there's an unfair playing field stacked against Edwards and make the sweeping statement that Obama can't win the Presidency - and that is based on what? That he's black or too young?  Talk about unfair playing field.

The Rezko deal was discussed but there's nothing sinister there and Obama came forward and was very clear about making a mistake, that appearances are important, and he should have thought about that.  

I think Edwards is a good man who is getting terrible advice from his handlers who are running a horrible campaign. He/They are responsible for much of what has hurt his campaign.  The haircut never should have happened, it shouldn't have been paid by campaign funds and frankly he shouldn't have paid that much.  The house is excessive in anyone's world.  Like the Rezko deal, I can buy land from my gangster neighbor, I can get a $400 haircut and build a 28,000 foot home but I am not running for President.  Appearances count in politics.  I don't want to get into the legitimacy of the NYT/AP article again, but the Edwards campaign had the choice of opening the books prior to the article, or immediately following, and they chose to do neither.  From my perspective, a lot of the wrath of Edwards supporters has been misdirected.  He needs to shake up his staff.

by Doug Dilg 2007-07-02 07:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Disappointed? No, proud.
I haven't provided a judgement on Obama and Rezko. What I wrote was that the corporate media COULD make a case about it - they COULD plant seeds of doubt about Obama's character - 24/7. They COULD. But they don't.
The media could also hammer Obama's "Punjab" deal with Hillary. They COULD. But they don't.
Edwards' haircuts are preferable. You don't see the disconnect?
by annefrank 2007-07-02 10:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Disappointed? No, proud.

No matter how you spin it, going backward in fundraising from Q1 to Q2 is a problem.  Somewhere along the line, the Edwards supporters need to stop blaming everyone else and take a serious look in how the campaign is being run.  

by Doug Dilg 2007-07-02 10:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Disappointed? No, proud.

Actually, it's quite normal. Campaigns often raise less in Q2 than in Q1. BTW, Kerry only raised 2.3 mil in Q4, worse than his 1st quarter.

by clarkent 2007-07-03 12:48AM | 0 recs
Off the deep end

"Obama can't win the presidency. His role is to distract from Edwards."

Not sure where to begin. "Obama can't win the presidency." Because he's black? Why?

"His role is to distract from Edwards." His role as set up by who? The corporate media you are always on about? Are you actually suggesting Obama is nothing but a puppet, set up to run Edwards out of the race?

Oh, also: "the amount of money and number of donors has little to do with the presidential race." Yeah, because you don't need money or supporters when you run for president.

With comments like these, you show your increasing disconnect from reality.

by This Machine Kills Fascists 2007-07-02 12:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Disappointed? No, proud.


This is what I'm proud of. and this is what I'm talking about dig very deep....

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/060 7/4481.html

by yann123 2007-07-02 07:55AM | 0 recs
this is the correct link,sorry!

sorry wrong link.I had checked out what someone had sent to this blog.

This is the link I meant to send:

http://skirsch.com/politics/president/co mparison.htm

by yann123 2007-07-02 07:57AM | 0 recs
Re: this is the correct link,sorry!
Wow!  Obama's and Hillary's emails really tell us a lot about their focus.
On them - not the issues.
by annefrank 2007-07-02 10:08AM | 0 recs
A great Huff Po article on this

about how the media, and many of us by extension, use the wrong metric at times to judge "who is winning", about there is much more than just the "horse race" and the media knows this.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jay-rosen/ whos-ahead-no-serious_b_52344.html

by okamichan13 2007-07-02 08:51AM | 0 recs
Too important to be misrepresented.

I am sure if you asked each candidate all of them would be for open-source voting machines if they are for voting machines at all.  But the is the reason this isn't being talked about much in the campaigns is because it is not a federal issue.  This is a state issue and this fight must be waged on a state level.  To make it into a campaign debate, especially at the Primary time, is to risk lulling people into a false sense that to vote for Edwards, or any other Dem Presidential candidate, takes care of this problem.

If you want to fight voter machine fraud, you do it by electing a Democrat as your Secy. of State, take that back, that's not even good enough, you do it by electing a Secy. of State who makes this the centerpiece of their campaign - as Debra Bowen did in California.  And if not every State has their elections run by the Secy. of State, then you find out what the office is which runs the election and you make that election of tantamount importance. And you do it on the County level as well.  This is too big an issue to misdirect the energy.  

by Doug Dilg 2007-07-02 09:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Too important to be misrepresented.

thank you,doug.I do understand what you are saying about this...

by yann123 2007-07-02 10:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Too important to be misrepresented.

Some states do not elect their Secretary. They are appointed by the government.

Even in California, when Schwarzenegger warned Kevin Shelley to back off Diebold or else, he unjustly accused Shelby of taking election money. Shelby was forced to resign in order to defend himself. He was exonerated, but Arnold got what he wanted...since Shelly left in mid-term, Arnold got to appoint an interim. (that is till California voters said FORGET THAT and we voted in Debra Bowen).

That interim appointment promised not to approve the machines until they were inspected, but he approved them anyway on a Friday night. How much were the machines without source codes used in that election? I don't know -- no way of knowing, but Arnold got what he wanted which was apparently to get the State of California to back off of Diebold.

Ohio's governor gets to choose the Secy of State, not the people.

One thing about all of this, I have paid more attention than ever before. Things that never used to seem to matter that much have been used and exploited by the republicans and usually Rove is behind it all.

Democrats had better realize the elections can be stolen, at least in some areas. Kerry seemed to ignore this altogether and it drove me nuts because who loses? WE DO. What would have happened if Kerry had taken out an ad showing how easily hackable the machines are UNDETECTED before election? It could be less than 5 minutes. People in states would have gone crazy and demanded more safe ways to vote. But Kerry acted like it wasn't important and if you read Greg Palast, it is quite possible Kerry actually won 2004. Even with a lot of his bonehead campaign decisions.

If you watched "Hacking Democracy" you probably now have questions as to whether Kerry really lost -- or not, as I do.

Even though it is a state-to-state issue, maybe it shouldn't be. After all, fair elections is the cornerstone to democracy. What think?

I was impressed that Edwards even knew what "source code" was. None of the other candidates seem to care. Even though voting is under a state's jurisdiction, it still counts in presidential elections AND COULD COST THEM THAT ELECTION as we know.

by sharinsharalike 2007-07-02 06:12PM | 0 recs
About the issues

I've had a close look at the Senate records of Hillary, Obama and Edwards and they are all good progressives. Personally I find Obama the most compelling, but I understand why others would prefer Edwards or Hillary. The important thing to remember is that reasonable people can and do disagree. It's only the unreasonable people who think that they or their camp is absolutely right and others just cannot see or understand the facts...

In any case, it's not just about the details of the candidates' current policy proposals because they probably won't get them through Congress exactly as they wish, and if they could then they'd probably push for even more progressive policies on health care and other issues, maybe even single-payer health care. So I place less weight on what the candidates say now and more on what their records say and what they've managed to accomplish in the past.

And there's been plenty of discussion about the various health care plans, Iraq stances and what not, but right now the 2Q fundraising numbers have just come out so obviously people will spend a few days analyzing and talking about those. Nothing wrong with that.

by End game 2007-07-02 10:17AM | 0 recs
Edwards Insurance Plan

This post got me to go look at the various plans of the candidates. Here's Edwards

http://johnedwards.com/about/issues/heal th-care/

Krugman says about Edwards' Plan:

"So this is a smart, serious proposal. It addresses both the problem of the uninsured and the waste and inefficiency of our fragmented insurance system. And every candidate should be pressed to come up with something comparable."

Paul Krugman
The New York Times

by sharinsharalike 2007-07-02 01:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards Insurance Plan

Sharin,when people really look at the issues,like you just did there is no doubt in my mind that if you are a Democrat-true blue- Edwards is the candidate we should be supporting.

The objective of my diary was for people to check out ALL the candidates. Glad you are doing that!

by yann123 2007-07-02 03:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards Insurance Plan

Yann, yes you did get me to look into it. For the life of me I cannot understand what Hillary proposes, if anything.

Obama's plan is not bad, but the problem is that he is not making it mandatory. This leaves loopholes and it leaves too many things to get in the way and too much compromise. I can just hear them saying - well, we'll get to it in time...and then a year goes by and then two years and then it is not even being discussed.

Obama says he is doing that because he does not want to scare Americans who want to continue to keep their own insurance, but Edwards has made it very clear, those Americans can not only still do that, but they would not be as vulnerable to insurance companies to exclude their illness (or find ways of not paying).

BTW, this is why Edwards is scaring them. The insurance and pharma companies know that he means to clamp down on them...and so they influence the media who they sponsor with their ads. But you know, I think Americans get it now and know what they are up to. For sure, I think we democrats get it and HATE BEING BAMBOOZLED. Even and especially by our own.  

This is such a huge issue for all of America that I think we all need to look at this carefully because this will be the direction of that candidate, and it also shows his/her strength to go up against the worst of them all -- insurance and pharma companies.

Sometimes compromise is necessary, but on this one, I do not want compromise. It's already sinful what those insurance companies and big pharma do to the people in this country. There's no excuse for it and it is not going to change unless we have a president who is firm about it.

Insofar as Edwards and his haircuts...who cares...a few years ago the white house decided that they should be able to have haircuts in privacy and so spent thousands of OUR dollars to set up their own salon. LOL For all I know, we also pay for their facelifts and so on. YIKES.

I think there is a lot to be said about a person with money who has not foresaken the poor, who fights for them. All of the republicans with money are into keeping it and not helping the poor or even middle-class. I think this goes to Edwards' credit so I don't pay much attention to that.

BTW, if anyone can figure out what Hillary is saying about health care, clue me in.

by sharinsharalike 2007-07-02 06:56PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads