Obama & Edwards: saving the best for last

What do they say—timing is everything?

GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. — John Edwards, the former senator from North Carolina who bowed out of the presidential race in January, endorsed Senator Barack Obama at a rally here tonight.

Officials announced the news of Mr. Edwards’s endorsement shortly after Mr. Obama landed here late this afternoon. The campaign timed it to coincide with the start of the major evening newscasts, which would have otherwise focused on Senator Hillary Clinton’s landslide victory in West Virginia, which raised new questions about Mr. Obama’s strength with white working class voters.

Edwards has been out of the race for months, and yet still polled 7% in West Virginia. Doing this today—and in Michigan, no less—is a media coup.

Add to this NARAL’s endorsement of Obama earlier today, and this interesting statement from Senator Clinton, also from earlier today, and you can now see (not the end, not the beginning of the end, but) the end of the beginning.

John Edwards just gave a heck of a speech. In the words of Barack Obama at the same event: “I haven’t been seeing John as much—I forgot how good he is.” If Edwards can move Obama to the left on healthcare and poverty issues in exchange for his help with blue collar and more liberal Democrats, this could be a big win-win.

Your thoughts?


(cross-posted on The Seminal)

the day after the day after

From the New York Times’ Matt Bai’s post to The Caucus:

Yesterday, on a day when two languishing campaigns finally succumbed, I called Tracy Russo in Chapel Hill to find out what was happening. The 26-year-old Russo was in charge of John Edwards's blog strategy; you might say she fulfilled the traditional role of a press secretary, only for the netroots. I'd gotten to know her earlier this year through some other bloggers, and I knew she was a passionate believer in her candidate and his liberal cause. . . .

Ms. Russo had been keeping it together since the campaign's chairman, David Bonior, had finally informed the staff of Mr. Edwards's impending withdrawal a few hours before his speech yesterday. "I'm a basket of emotions," she said. "Campaigns are like families. It hit everybody at different moments this morning." Russo still had a job to do; she was still talking to bloggers on the phone and trying to get them the video of Mr. Edwards's exit speech in New Orleans. She had no idea where she'd be going next, or when. "At least now we have time to sleep in and go see the doctors we haven't gone to in six months," she said, trying, unsuccessfully, to sound upbeat.

. . . . When a campaign ends, the candidate goes on to campaign for someone else or to the lucrative life he had before, but the staff is left to figure out the numbing logistics of leases and U-hauls and W-2 forms. Those of us who cover campaigns never write about that part of the process; we check out of hotels and turn our attention elsewhere. For the people who work on losing campaigns, moving on takes longer. For them, today is all about the grief.

Over the course of the last couple of months, I had the good fortune to correspond (and even once actually have a phone conversation!) with Tracy, and I can corroborate Bai’s assessment of her passion and dedication. I will also add that she was just damn nice. I was amazed at how, even in the midst of the busy pre-Iowa crunch, Tracy would take a chunk of time to talk with a little ol’ C-list blogger such as myself. And not just about logistics, either. Tracy talked about politics at large, and talked about the Edwards campaign with enthusiasm, yes, but also with an unexpected degree of candor.

In fact, I found all the people that I met on this campaign to be open, honest, and, to a person, nice. If, as folks say, a campaign is a reflection of its candidate, then it speaks very well of John Edwards. I am sad that I will not get to work longer with Tracy and the others on this campaign. I am sad that I will not get to work longer to make Edwards our president.


(cross-posted on capitoilette)

George Packer: "Hillary Clinton will hedge her bets on Iraq"

(I was going to work this into a bigger piece on JRE and Iraq, but, well, events got ahead of me, so I’ll just report on this point that seems to have, like so many substantive points in this race, gone underreported.)

Appearing on WNYC’s The Brian Lehrer Show last week, George Packer, New Yorker writer and author of The Assassins' Gate, got to comparing the (then) three major Democrats left in the race. He had these two things to say (transcribed from the audio):

If a Democratic primary voter is concerned with getting out of Iraq as quickly as possible, then there is only one clear choice, and that is John Edwards.

. . . .

If you want to get out of Iraq as quickly as possible and you are trying to choose between Obama and Clinton—there is no way to choose.

I should note that Packer was not explaining his take on Edwards as a way of promoting him—quite the contrary. Indeed, Packer (a semi-repentant advocate of the 2003 invasion) believes US troops should not leave, as best I can tell, any time soon.

Instead, the man who just completed a multi-thousand word piece on Hillary Clinton sought to pay an odd compliment to the New York Senator by saying this: “Hillary Clinton will hedge her bets on Iraq.”

After reading that New Yorker piece (which focuses on Clinton, but also devotes a good amount of space to her now one remaining rival), I get the sense that he expects Obama to also “wake up” to what Packer sees as the necessity of an extended military commitment. Apparently, as he explained on the radio, because the US has enlisted so many collaborators that our government will not now—to any meaningful extent—allow to immigrate here, Packer thinks that we need to stay and protect them there. (I’m all for aiding the people who have risked so much in service to the US, but I question how much we are helping anyone by maintaining our current posture.)

Alas, after listening to him on WNYC, and reading his New Yorker article “The Choice,” Packer has made the choice now thrust upon me very much harder.

As if it weren’t hard enough.

(heart) breaking news

The AP is reporting:

Democrat John Edwards is exiting the presidential race Wednesday, ending a scrappy underdog bid in which he steered his rivals toward progressive ideals while grappling with family hardship that roused voters' sympathies but never diverted his campaign, The Associated Press has learned

The two-time White House candidate notified a close circle of senior advisers that he planned to make the announcement at a 1 p.m. EST event in New Orleans that had been billed as a speech on poverty, according to two of his advisers. The decision came after Edwards lost the four states to hold nominating contests so far to rivals who stole the spotlight from the beginning — Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama.

The former North Carolina senator will not immediately endorse either candidate in what is now a two-person race for the Democratic nomination, said one adviser, who spoke on a condition of anonymity in advance of the announcement.

(Update: The Washington Post has reported the same.)

Just once—once—I would like to have my first choice still in the race by the time the primaries made it to my state.

The fact that one of the most progressive Democrats, and, according to previous polls, the Dem with the best shot in the general election versus any of the Republican frontrunners, has to bow out before any of the large states have voted, before any of the major urban areas have weighed in (I am not counting MI and FL since they were not sanctioned primaries), and before any state with a diversified economy could be heard from says that this system is really, really broken.

I say that with my heart. . . and my head.


Update 2: From the Department of Zero Class

Hillary Clinton went on air in Seattle at just after 7am PST (10am EST) and spoke of how Edwards had called her to say that he was getting out of the race. Clinton then made a blatant play for Edwards voters. This was well before John Edwards’s scheduled 1pm EST event where he is to make an official announcement.

It’s another example of HRC’s ambition drowning out any sincere desire she might have to embrace any of JRE’s issues. What a political tin ear. Ick.

let’s talk about sex. . . and FISA

If you tuned in last Thursday, then you might know that there is a crucial cloture vote on the revisions to FISA as reported out of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence scheduled today for 4:30 PM. As you probably have read by now, the SSCI version of the bill is bad news on may levels, the most obvious of which is the proposed amnesty for telecommunications companies that cooperated with the Bush Administration in breaking the original FISA law and violating the Fourth Amendment.

Republicans have moved for cloture to cut off amendments to this bill and to preclude a vote on a one-month extension of the (frankly terrible) Protect America Act, due to expire on February 4th. It is crucial to the legislative process and to our civil liberties that at least 41 Senators vote against cloture.

Now you think that would be easy, given that the Democrats theoretically control 51 seats, that this version of the bill gives Dick Cheney and his henchmen retroactive cover for past wrongs, and everything they want to exploit their power in the future. Alas, securing these 41 votes will actually require effort.

You can play your part. Call your senators. Fax your senators. Write your favorite presidential candidate—tell them all that this is important to you. (Information on how to do all of this can be found here.)

Senators Clinton and Obama are in Washington for the State of the Union speech, and have both said that they will be present to vote “no” on cloture. But, they could do more, as Ari Melber points out, each have several colleagues that have endorsed their candidacies, but who, at present, have not committed to a vote against cloture. It is crucial for any senator auditioning to be president to show some leadership skills on this issue. Both Clinton and Obama need to expend some political capital to make sure that the Senate does not vote out a bad FISA bill.

(For the record, as I noted on Thursday, former Senator John Edwards weighed in against telecom immunity and this version of the bill last week. I should also note that Republican Senator and presidential candidate John “Asshole” McCain is skipping both this vote and the SOTU.)

Now, perhaps you think this is all academic. “What’s the big deal?” you say. “I lead a clean life; this won’t affect me.” Well, think again.

Finally, if you still want to talk about sex. . . and race. . . then click through to my post on capitoilette.

gray lady endorses gray lady

Why am I not surprised? Why am I still bothered?

woke up it was a FISA morning

This morning, at approximately 9:30, Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd continues his fight to prevent George Bush, Dick Cheney, rubberstamp Republican senators, and a troubling number of Democratic Senators from taking another bite out of the Constitution. In other words, he is fighting to stop the horrible SSCI version of the FISA revision that includes retroactive immunity for the telecommunications industry.

Because of jaw-droppingly bad “leadership” by Majority Leader Harry Reid, Dodd is forced to threaten filibuster against his own party. Dodd has shown real leadership on this issue, taking time away from his presidential campaign in Iowa, the last time this bill hit the Senate floor.

This time around, Dodd is out of the presidential race, but two other sitting senators are still claiming they have what it takes to lead us out of our Bush/Cheney-authored hell. Yes, I am talking about you, Barack. . . and you, Hillary.

You don’t need a vision for change, and you don’t need experience, you just need to be in Washington, DC, on the floor of the Senate, doing the job that voters elected you to do.

Why? Well, how about because a clear majority of Americans are opposed to telecom immunity and two-thirds believe that the government should have to get a warrant before it taps into the communications of its citizens (even if those Americans are calling overseas).

Or, how about because absolutely anything that Dick Cheney is for is something that you should be against. And Vice President Cankles has a hard-on (well, whatever passes for hard-on in his sclerotic world) for telecom immunity.

Or, how about because US code already provides cover for companies that can demonstrate that they acted in good faith, so telecom immunity is really Bush/Cheney immunity—pure and simple.

Or, how about because the only good faith that the telcos ever show is their good faith in the almighty dollar—if they’re so hell-bent on doing their patriotic duty, then how come they are disconnecting the wiretaps because the government hasn’t paid their bills?

Or, how about because your hard-charging competition for the Democratic nomination has dared you to step up and show America that you would really fight for our interests when Bush comes to shove.

John Edwards:

“In Washington today, telecom lobbyists have launched a full-court press to win retroactive immunity for their illegal eavesdropping on American citizens. Granting retroactive immunity will let corporate law-breakers off the hook and hamstring efforts to learn the truth about Bush's illegal spying program.

"It's time for Senate Democrats to show a little backbone and stand up to George W. Bush and the corporate lobbyists. They should do everything in their power -- including joining Senator Dodd's efforts to filibuster this legislation -- to stop retroactive immunity. The Constitution should not be for sale at any price."

Or, how about because it is just plain and simple the right thing to do—and if you can’t see that on an issue as clear as this one, then how am I supposed to trust your judgment down the line?

(Obama and Clinton have made “statements” opposing telecom immunity in response to inquiries made by Markos for his Wednesday post on The Hill, but BHO and HRC are both sitting senators, so it’s time they put their butts where their mouths are. . . or something like that.)

In December, both Barack and Hillary pledged to support Chris Dodd’s filibuster, but neither of them left their presidential campaigns to return to DC and actually do so. Today is their chance at a do-over. As Jason has noted, Obama, Clinton, and twelve other senators pledged their support for Dodd’s filibuster in December—why not give them a call to se where they stand (and where they are literally standing) today.

Fax / Phone

Feingold (202) 224-2725 / (202) 224-5323
Dodd (202) 224-1083 / (202) 224-2823
Obama (202) 228-4260 / (202) 224-2854
Sanders (202) 228-0776 / (202) 224-5141
Menendez (202) 228-2197 / (202) 224-4744
Biden (202) 224-0139 / (202) 224-5042
Brown (202) 228-6321 / (202) 224-2315
Harkin (202) 224-9369 / (202) 224-3254
Cardin (202) 224-1651 / (202) 224-4524
Clinton (202) 228-0282 / (202) 224-4451
Akaka (202) 224-2126 / (202) 224-6361
Webb (202) 228-6363 / (202) 224-4024
Kennedy (202) 224-2417 / (202) 224-4543
Boxer (415) 956-6701 / (202) 224-3553

(cross-posted on capitoilette, The Seminal, and Daily Kos)

John Edwards helps me blog for choice

Tuesday was the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, and the folks at NARAL Pro-Choice America wanted all of us bloggers to say a little something about why it’s important that we vote pro-choice. I was out all day, so I thought I’d turn the keyboard over to Senator John Edwards:

Roe v. Wade was an important step on the road to full equality, opportunity and dignity for women. On the 35th anniversary, it is important to reflect how far we've come as a nation, but more importantly how far we still have to go.

I strongly support a woman's right to privacy and reproductive choices. That right has been under attack though -- by President Bush and his anti-choice agenda and by the Supreme Court, which has been moving the right-wing's agenda faster than we've seen in decades. The hard right turn of the Supreme Court is a stark reminder of why Democrats cannot afford to lose the 2008 election. Too much is at stake - starting with a woman's right to choose.

As President, I will guarantee the right to choose and ensure that women can make choices in their lives with dignity and can participate in our society fully, as equals.

Thanks, John!

I plan to vote for a presidential candidate that I can trust to appoint staunchly pro-choice judges to every level of the federal bench. I also plan to vote for the presidential candidate that I can trust to appoint advocates for reproductive rights, privacy rights, and intelligent, scientifically sound sexual health education to all of the federal agencies concerned. And, very importantly, I am voting for the presidential candidate that offers the best plan to achieve truly universal health coverage—because access to good medical and gynecological care is also very important to a country that aspires to respect women and respect choice.

I am taking all of that into account on primary day (February 5th for me), and that is why I plan to vote for a presidential candidate named John Edwards.

(Check out many other bloggers great reasons to vote pro-choice over at Bush v. Choice.)

(cross-posted to Daily Kos)

I support John Edwards—and I’m not wearing pants!

David Letterman’s production company, Worldwide Pants, has cut their own deal with the WGA—which means that you can watch his show without feeling like a scab. It also means that candidates who understand how important unions are to America’s working men and women, and to our economy and our culture as a whole, can appear on The Late Show with a clear conscience.

John Edwards knows the significant role that unions have had in providing workplace protection and economic leadership. He has called organized labor “the most important anti-poverty movement in American history,” and has made strengthening the labor movement an important part of his campaign to end poverty and reinvigorate the economy. As is spelled out in his Plan to Build One America:

Unions made manufacturing jobs the foundation of our middle class, and they can do the same for our service economy. That's why Edwards has helped more than 20 national unions organize thousands of workers over the last few years. Union membership can be the difference between a poverty-wage job and middle-class security. Federal law promises workers the right to choose a union, but the law is poorly enforced, full of loopholes, and routinely violated by employers. Edwards supports the Employee Free Choice Act to give workers a real choice in whether to form a union, and making penalties for breaking labor laws tougher and faster, so unions can compete on a level playing field and the right to join a union means something. Edwards also supports banning the permanent replacement of strikers so unions can negotiate fairly.

So, it makes perfect sense that while Republican presidential contenders have been crossing WGA picket lines to appear on Leno, John Edwards will do his national late night star turn on The Late Show with David Letterman.

Edwards will attempt to run the establishment news media blockade and deliver his message directly to some 5 million viewers—and you can help.

Though most tickets for the Tuesday taping were distributed many months ago, the scene outside before ticket holders are seated often garners more attention than the studio audience. If Edwards supporters show up at the Ed Sullivan Theater to loudly and proudly greet the Senator when he arrives, tape of the scene has a good shot at making the local CBS news in a media market that reaches three Super Tuesday states. If the supporters outside are boisterous enough, some of the goings on might even make it on to the Letterman show—it has happened before.

So, New York Metro Area Edwards supporters, it’s time to take action!

Pry yourself away from your computer.

Put on your coat and hat—and your John Edwards ’08 buttons.

Come out and meet your fellow JRE supporters.

Come out and show JRE how much you support him.

Come out and show 5 million Americans you care about our country more than you care about squabbling celebrities. . . and show 5 million Americans John Edwards cares more about our country than those squabbling celebrities do, too.

What: John Edwards on The Late Show with David Letterman
Where: The Ed Sullivan Theater, Broadway at 53rd Street, NYC
When: 4 PM (one hour BEFORE the taping)


Show Corporate America and greedy media producers who wears the pants!


Stand up for John Edwards, and he will stand up for you.

(cross-posted to capitoilette, The Seminal, and Daily Kos)

give today—so that everyone gets heard tomorrow

I can’t go into the weekend without taking a moment to contrast the candidate interviews aired on Thursday’s All Things Considered with the interview of John Edwards that aired on Wednesday (which I wrote about yesterday).

First up on Thursday was Barack Obama, who got to start his interview by answering a series of questions on the economy. After that, he was asked to detail his “vision” for the presidency, and that was followed-up with a chance to restate his relatively straight and well received answer to the stupid (and substance-free) “name your biggest weakness” question from Tuesday’s Nevada debate.

The second hour included the John McCain chapter of this series, which sounded more like an audio mash note than an interview. Michele Norris referred to the Asshole from Arizona as “very honest, very straight” and called his “straight talk” “courageous.” Norris also asked about how McCain could withstand all those “scurrilous rumors” (without saying what any of those rumors might be), why “people think they can do this” to McCain—and only McCain—and then ventured that after you “got through something like that. . . I imagine you emerge stronger.”

Puh-lease. Get a room.

It is hard for me to imagine that an NPR editor, confronted with the Edwards, Obama, and McCain interviews played side by side could even begin to call their coverage fair or equitable.

But that was yesterday—this is today. Today everyone who is confused, upset, or disgusted by the treatment John Edwards has received from the establishment media has a chance to start toward setting things right. Whether you are a dyed in the wool Edwards supporter or someone who is in favor of letting the voters rather than the media moguls and moneyed interests decide the election for you—or both—today is your chance to make some noise, for today we go for the gold. Seven million dollars worth of it.



And tomorrow, Saturday:

Those of you in Nevada, please get out and caucus!

Those of you in the New York area, please come out and rally!

Rally for the Middle Class
Saturday, January 19th, 11:00 am - 2:00 pm
Union Square, NYC (northwest corner of the park, B'way & 17th St.)

Wear your Edwards buttons, hats, stickers, etc.
Bring signs & banners (homemade ones are great!).
Also, bring your mobile phone & charger!

After the rally, there will be an opportunity to make calls to the voters of South Carolina and tell them why you believe John Edwards is a great choice for president.

Every voice counts. Every vote counts. Make this and every day count—from now till November!


(cross-posted on capitoilette, The Seminal, and Daily Kos.)

Michele Norris wastes some of John Edwards’s time. . . and ours

As has now been acknowledged by practically everyone, John Edwards don’t get no respect. . . at least not when it comes to the establishment media. Not only is equal time for JRE pretty much an alien idea for media outlets, when Edwards does get airtime or column inches, reporters practically bend over backwards to avoid talking about his platform or proposals. To say that these reporters are too focused on covering the horserace is really an insult to sports reporting.

I have written in the past about the pettiness and whining that the New York Times tries to pawn off as equitable coverage; today, let’s examine what NPR calls campaign coverage.

Iowa caucus random wrap-up

For people who appreciate the finer points, here are a couple of additional decimal places:

Obama: 37.58%
Edwards: 29.75%
Clinton: 29.47%
Richardson: 2.11%
Biden: .93%
Uncommitted: .14%
Dodd: 0.02

That rounds out to Obama 38%, Edwards 30%, and Clinton 29%. Or, if you care about the delegate count (which you should, even though the establishment media won’t), Obama 16, Edwards 15, and Clinton 14. . . I think (it’s complicated).

Dodd and Biden have withdrawn from the race; Richardson vows to fight on.

I’ll admit that I am not filled with unbridled joy by the “Obama wins” headlines, but I can’t help but feel great about the overwhelming turnout of Democratic voters—212,000, up from 125,000 four years ago. And 22% of those caucus goers were under 30, which outperforms their demographic representation by a few percentage points, and establishment expectations by leaps and bounds. Congratulations all around—now y’all better show up for the November general!

More numbers: All three of the top Democrats garnered more votes than Republican winner Mike Huckabee.

Of course, how does the New York Times cover the events of Thursday night? The headlines evolve as the morning wears on, but they continue to echo the same theme: “Obama takes Iowa. . . Clinton falters.” Times writers have apparently been freed from their roughly one-week-long requirement to cover the “strident populism” of John Edwards.

Indeed, most of what I have read and heard this morning seem, dare I say, pathetically over-eager to relieve the reporters and their outlets of the “burden” of having to cover a three-way race. After all, there are only two fighters in a boxing ring or two teams in a professional sporting match; three is just so complicated!

Indeed, it might come as a shock to the establishment media, but this is the beginning and not the end of the primary election cycle, so today’s assessments are more post-partum than post-mortem. Still, I like what Ezra Klein has to say:

The talking heads on MSNBC just spent a few minutes puzzling over John Edwards' concession speech. "It had no concession," they fretted. It didn't talk at all about the horserace, or the vote totals. Instead, Edwards spoke of the downtrodden, the uninsured, the insecure, the exploited, the oppressed, the wronged, the scared, the hungry, the homeless, and the poor. It was a fitting speech. It was not about the candidate or the race, but about the ideas, and the individuals they are supposed to help. In that way, it was Edwards' candidacy distilled to its core: A search for justice, a cry for equality, a demand for empowerment.

Barack Obama won tonight, but, in a sense, John Edwards' campaign also triumphed. The progressivism of the race, the focus on ideas, the courage of the Democrats -- all were products of his early example. He began the campaign by talking about poverty, announced his candidacy in the mud of New Orleans, set the agenda with the first universal health care bill, and closed Iowa speaking of the uninsured. This is Barack Obama's victory, and it's richly deserved. But Edwards, running as a full-throated populist, set the agenda and finished second, ahead of the Clinton juggernaut. He said his role was to speak for the voiceless. He now barrels towards New Hampshire with ever more volume. And while his shot at the nomination is long at best, his candidacy, even if it fails, will have been far more successful than most.

Time Magazine also sees some life left in the Edwards campaign.

BBC Radio is leading with two stories this morning: The Iowa Caucuses and Britney Spears. (I kid you not.)

Oh, and, lookie here, NPR’s Morning Edition uses Chris Lehane as their Democratic analyst opposite Republican Mike Murphy—without disclosing that Lehane is an advisor to Hillary Clinton’s campaign (and, if you have any doubt about his affinities, just listen to him spin).

As for personal spin: I was correct in predicting Clinton’s third place finish, and was also right on the money with McCain’s 13%. If I had anything else to trumpet, you know I’d be trumpeting—read that as you must.

More on Mr. 13%: It looks like Senator John “asshole” McCain has earned himself a revised nickname: The Hundred Years’ Asshole.

And, finally, I watched all of the speeches, victory and otherwise, on CSPAN, and was amused by what various candidates chose as their walk-off music. For instance, Edwards went with Bruce Springsteen ("The Rising"), and Obama went with Stevie Wonder ("Signed, Sealed, Delivered"), but was that John Philip Sousa’s "Liberty Bell March" that I heard as Mike Huckabee stepped from the stage? You say you’re not familiar with the "Liberty Bell March?" I bet you are.


(cross-posted on The Seminal)

not quite an endorsement. . . but damn close

That doesn’t mean me—I quite clearly endorse John Edwards, and I encourage each and every one of you to vote for Edwards if you get the chance—I am, in this case referring to Michael Moore, who has interviewed Barack Obama and John Edwards one-on-one (he wanted to interview Hillary Clinton, but she refused), and has posted a lengthy glimpse into his thoughts on the race. We pick it up about half-way through:

And then there's John Edwards.

It's hard to get past the hair, isn't it? But once you do -- and recently I have chosen to try -- you find a man who is out to take on the wealthy and powerful who have made life so miserable for so many. A candidate who says things like this: "I absolutely believe to my soul that this corporate greed and corporate power has an ironclad hold on our democracy." Whoa. We haven't heard anyone talk like that in a while, at least not anyone who is near the top of the polls. I suspect this is why Edwards is doing so well in Iowa, even though he has nowhere near the stash of cash the other two have. He won't take the big checks from the corporate PACs, and he is alone among the top three candidates in agreeing to limit his spending and be publicly funded. He has said, point-blank, that he's going after the drug companies and the oil companies and anyone else who is messing with the American worker. The media clearly find him to be a threat, probably because he will go after their monopolistic power, too. This is Roosevelt/Truman kind of talk. That's why it's resonating with people in Iowa, even though he doesn't get the attention Obama and Hillary get -- and that lack of coverage may cost him the first place spot tomorrow night. After all, he is one of those white guys who's been running things for far too long.

And he voted for the war. But unlike Senator Clinton, he has stated quite forcefully that he was wrong. And he has remorse. Should he be forgiven? Did he learn his lesson? Like Hillary and Obama, he refused to promise in a September debate that there will be no U.S. troops in Iraq by the end of his first term in 2013. But this week in Iowa, he changed his mind. He went further than Clinton and Obama and said he'd have all the troops home in less than a year.

Edwards is the only one of the three front-runners who has a universal health care plan that will lead to the single-payer kind all other civilized countries have. His plan doesn't go as fast as I would like, but he is the only one who has correctly pointed out that the health insurance companies are the enemy and should not have a seat at the table.

I am not endorsing anyone at this point. This is simply how I feel in the first week of the process to replace George W. Bush. For months I've been wanting to ask the question, "Where are you, Al Gore?" You can only polish that Oscar for so long. And the Nobel was decided by Scandinavians! I don't blame you for not wanting to enter the viper pit again after you already won. But getting us to change out our incandescent light bulbs for some irritating fluorescent ones isn't going to save the world. All it's going to do is make us more agitated and jumpy and feeling like once we get home we haven't really left the office.

On second thought, would you even be willing to utter the words, "I absolutely believe to my soul that this corporate greed and corporate power has an ironclad hold on our democracy?" 'Cause the candidate who understands that, and who sees it as the root of all evil -- including the root of global warming -- is the President who may lead us to a place of sanity, justice and peace.

Yours,

Michael Moore (not an Iowa voter, but appreciative of any state that has a town named after a sofa)

Throw in the Nader endorsement of Edwards and Obama’s choice to slam Al Gore, and JRE has pretty much got the left flank of this battle wrapped up, right? OK, not quite—but what does your gut tell you?

canvassing for Edwards takes moxie

. . . and pizza, apparently.

I spent the weekend in New Hampshire volunteering for John Edwards, and I will tell you all about it just as soon as I catch up on my sleep. . .

. . . and eat some vegetables.

Happy New Year, everybody!

‘2k turns 2!

My word! Or, should I say, my 10,000 words (give or take). guy2k was born on this day in 2005, and after two years and nearly 800 posts (between here and my other blog, capitoilette), it is still hard for me to believe that I have a blog. . . and even harder to say to folks that I’m a blogger.

Like last year, I have this feeling that I should be greeting the next year with a selection of links to my favorite posts from the last twelve months, but, like last year, I will have to disappoint myself (and maybe you?). I am just getting back from New Hampshire after a weekend of volunteering for John Edwards (more on that later), so there was just no time for such a self-indulgent trip down memory lane (or such a shameless attempt to generate more hits).

So, before this anniversary day ticks away, let me, as I did last year, wish all of you a healthy, happy, and peaceful new year filled with progressive politics, enjoyable popular culture, and tasty mixed drinks.

Now, without further ado, year three!

—“guy”

compare and contrast; US presidential candidates on the assassination of Benazir Bhutto

From CNN:

John Edwards:
"Benazir Bhutto was a brave and historic leader for Pakistan. Her assassination is a sad and solemn event, and our hearts go out to her family and to the Pakistani people. But we will not let this contemptible, cowardly act delay the march of progress in Pakistan for a single second.

"I have seen firsthand in Pakistan, and in meetings with Prime Minister Bhutto and President Musharraf, the instability of the country and the complexity of the challenges they face. At this critical moment, America must convey both strength and principle. We should do everything in our power to help bring the perpetrators of this heinous act to justice and to ensure that Bhutto's movement toward democracy continues."

Chris Dodd:
"Today's news from Pakistan is both shocking and saddening. As a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I have had the opportunity to travel to Pakistan and come to know Former Prime Minister Bhutto very well over the years. I spoke to her personally several weeks ago and have stayed in close contact with her since. She was a respected leader who played an important part in moving Pakistan toward democracy.

"As we recognize the loss of a leader today, we must also recognize the implication of today's tragedy to the security of the region and to that of the United States.

"At this critical time we must do everything in our power to help Pakistan continue the path toward democracy and full elections. Our first priority must be to ensure stability in this critical nuclear state.

"The United States should also stand ready to provide assistance in investigating this heinous act. And as Pakistan perpetrators to justice, it should also demonstrate that it will not allow such violence to derail democracy and proceed with elections in a timely manner."

Mike Huckabee:
"I am deeply troubled by the news accounts this morning of Pakistani opposition leader and former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto's assassination in a suicide attack. This is devastating news for the people of Pakistan, and my prayers go out to them as we follow developments regarding this dire situation.

"The terrible violence surrounding Pakistan's upcoming election stands in stark contrast to the peaceful transition of power that we embrace in our country through our Constitution. On this sad day, we are reminded that while our democracy has flaws, it stands as a shining beacon of hope for nations and people around the world who seek peace and opportunity through self-government."

Joe Biden:
"This is a terrible day. My heart goes out to Benazir Bhutto's family, friends and followers.

"Like her father before her, Benazir Bhutto worked her whole life – and gave her life – to help Pakistan become a democratic, secular and modern Muslim country. She was a woman of extraordinary courage who returned to Pakistan in the face of death threats and even after an assassination attempt the day of her return, she did not flinch. It was a privilege to know her these many years and to call her a friend.

"I am convinced Ms. Bhutto would have won free and fair elections next week. The fact that she was by far Pakistan's most popular leader underscores the fact that there is a vast, moderate majority in Pakistan that must have a clear voice in the system. Her assassination makes it all the more urgent that Pakistan return to a democratic path.

"This fall, I twice urged President Musharraf to provide better security for Ms. Bhutto and other political leaders – I wrote him before her return and after the first assassination attempt in October. The failure to protect Ms. Bhutto raises a lot of hard questions for the government and security services that must be answered.

"I know that Benazir's followers will be tempted to lash out in anger and violence. I urge them to remain calm – and not play into the hands of the forces of destruction. I urge Pakistan's leaders to open a fully accountable and transparent investigation. We must find out who was behind this and bring those responsible to justice. And the United States should offer any assistance necessary, including investigative teams, to get to the bottom of this horror.

"The way to honor Benazir Bhutto is to uphold the values for which she gave her life: democracy, moderation and social justice. I join with the Pakistani people in mourning the loss of a dear friend."

Bill Richardson:
"Benazir Bhutto was a courageous woman. Her death, and the deaths of so many of her supporters, is more than just a tragedy. It is a testament to the will of the Pakistani people to see democracy restored. My thoughts and prayers are with the families of those who died today.

"Ms. Bhutto knew the dangers to her safety. But she would not be intimidated. We also must not be intimidated.

A leader has died, but democracy must live. The United States government cannot stand by and allow Pakistan's return to democracy to be derailed or delayed by violence.

We must use our diplomatic leverage and force the enemies of democracy to yield: President Bush should press Musharraf to step aside, and a broad-based coalition government, consisting of all the democratic parties, should be formed immediately. Until this happens, we should suspend military aid to the Pakistani government. Free and fair elections must also be held as soon as possible.

It is in the interests of the US that there be a democratic Pakistan that relentlessly hunts down terrorists. Musharraf has failed, and his attempts to cling to power are destabilizing his country. He must go."

Hillary Clinton:
"I am profoundly saddened and outraged by the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, a leader of tremendous political and personal courage. I came to know Mrs. Bhutto over many years, during her tenures as Prime Minister and during her years in exile. Mrs. Bhutto's concern for her country, and her family, propelled her to risk her life on behalf of the Pakistani people. She returned to Pakistan to fight for democracy despite threats and previous attempts on her life and now she has made the ultimate sacrifice. Her death is a tragedy for her country and a terrible reminder of the work that remains to bring peace, stability, and hope to regions of the globe too often paralyzed by fear, hatred, and violence.

"Let us pray that her legacy will be a brighter, more hopeful future for the people she loved and the country she served. My family and I extend my condolences and deepest sympathies to the victims and their families and to the people of Pakistan."

John McCain:
"I was deeply saddened today to learn about the death of Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto. My deepest condolences go out to the family and supporters of this remarkable woman, an individual who paid the ultimate price for her embrace of moderation and rejection of extremism.

"The death of Benazir Bhutto underscores yet again the grave dangers we face in the world today and particularly in countries like Pakistan, where the forces of moderation are arrayed in a fierce battle against those who embrace violent Islamic extremism.

"Given Pakistan's strategic location, the international terrorist groups that operate from its soil, and its nuclear arsenal, the future of that country has deep implications for the security of the United States and its allies. America must stand on the right side of this ongoing struggle.

"In my numerous visits to Pakistan - to Islamabad, to Peshawar, even to the tribal areas of Waziristan - I have seen first hand the many challenges that face the political leadership there, challenges so graphically portrayed by today's tragedy. There are, in Pakistan, brave individuals who seek to lead their country away from extremism and instability and into the light of a better day. America, I believe, must do all we can to support them."

Mitt Romney:
"We are still learning the details of today's tragic events in Pakistan, but this is a stark reminder that America must not only stay on high alert, but remain actively engaged across the globe. Pakistan has long been a key part in the war against extremism and radical jihadists. For those who think Iraq is the sole front in the War on Terror, one must look no further than what has happened today. America must show its commitment to stand with all moderate forces across the Islamic world and together face the defining challenge of our generation – the struggle against violent, radical jihadists.

"At this difficult time, our thoughts and prayers go to the family of Benazir Bhutto, and to all the people of Pakistan who are fighting against extremist forces that would commit such heinous acts as the whole world has witnessed today."
Video: Romney blames extremists

Barack Obama:
"I am shocked and saddened by the death of Benazir Bhutto in this terrorist atrocity. She was a respected and resilient advocate for the democratic aspirations of the Pakistani people. We join with them in mourning her loss, and stand with them in their quest for democracy and against the terrorists who threaten the common security of the world," said United States Senator Barack Obama.

Rudy Giuliani:
"The assassination of Benazir Bhutto is a tragic event for Pakistan and for democracy in Pakistan. Her murderers must be brought to justice and Pakistan must continue the path back to democracy and the rule of law. Her death is a reminder that terrorism anywhere — whether in New York, London, Tel Aviv or Rawalpindi — is an enemy of freedom. We must redouble our efforts to win the Terrorists' War on Us."

So, lemme see. . . Giuliani works in an oblique reference to 9/11 (we’d be disappointed if he didn’t), and Clinton is the only one who chose to refer to the late PM as “Mrs. Bhutto” (odd because Bhutto kept her father’s name after her marriage to Asif Ali Zardari).

Anybody else notice anything interesting?


(h/t JW via JR)

america’s most whiniest

Remember the old joke—the food’s lousy and the portions are small? Well, New York Times “reporter” Julie Bosman has done that one better.

the robust go bust

Just before Thanksgiving, New York Times public editor Clark Hoyt wrote that a) yes, the Times had covered Senators Clinton and Obama on the front page to the near total exclusion of all the other candidates, and had done an especially poor job of covering the Edwards campaign, b) we should just wait, because there’s stuff on the other candidates coming up, and c) what you don’t see on the front page of the paper is made up for on the Times’s website, like on their “robust” blog, The Caucus. Since that column, the front page of the paper has seen (on the Democratic side) one mostly irrelevant hit piece about the relationship between John Edwards and John Kerry in 2004, then, a month later, a photo of Edwards with a jump to a back page featuring a sloppy, snarky, assertion-laden profile from that manufacturer of conventional wisdom, Adam Nagourney, and, of course, many, many more stories about Barack and Hillary.

More on capitoilette. . . .

tweety has a man-crush

But, in this case, I'm OK with that (though we might have to change the name of the show to Softball).

distribution requirements

No time for a big write-up today, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t news. . . plus, I get to fulfill header-mandated distribution requirements!

Politics:

It’s only one poll, but hey!

Who needs Oprah when you’ve got Ralph. . . sort of.

It’s always nice to say thank you. (Watch the video—I think it’s nice that the Senator says “thank you”; how you want to say “thank you, too,” is up to you.)

Speaking of saying thanks, guess which presidential contenders will be saying thank you to the telecommunications industry this season (gosh, I guess by missing the debate on Monday, they kind of already did, no?).

Shocked! Shocked to discover that the White House was directly involved in discussions about whether to destroy those CIA torture tapes.

And about those tapes—it’s not just that they showed torture, they showed that the torture didn’t work.

NYT makes fun of Greenspan’s favorite book. . . or maybe they’re just makin’ fun of Greenspan. (h/t Gem Spa)


Popular Culture:

Wow! If only our sex scandals could be this cool.


And, finally, Mixed Drinks!

For the love of grog—someone please have a holiday party, invite me, and make this!