I agree that not just anyone elected as a Democrat is going to be what everyone expects (same with Republicans--some were mighty mad at Westlund when he was a maverick R, and I understand there were some in the Senate R caucus not too happy with St. Sen Frank Morse).

Personally, I'd prefer someone as outspoken as Jim Webb to someone who runs votes by various contributors/interest groups before taking a stand on an issue (or worse yet, determines beliefs based on focus groups).

Good for Edwards for saying this. We need more outspoken candidates like him.

And no, I don't mean the DSCC bashing that goes on here, I mean people at the state level questioning the legal status of pass-throughs, and people like Tim Russert today on Meet the Press grilling Gulliani on his business associations and whether that would influence him as president.

For instance, if there is a vote on changing the tax status of hedge fund managers, which candidates took money from hedge fund managers?--same with any other occupation.

And although it does take 60 votes to get anywhere in the Senate, does it take anything but spine for Sen. Democrats to say "OK,you want a fillibuster, have at it. We can start right now and go until Tuesday if you wish, then all your members can have a chance to talk" sort of thing.

We need more open debate and less behind the scenes decision making.

Wow! I can't believe I agree with everything LT has to say. Great comments!

This is just one of the many reasons I am supporting John Edwards in this election. Its really sad to see his support in Iowa evaporating at such a steady clip. He could certainly use a rockstar like Bill or Oprah.

Busy week though for some of the candidates. Barack Obama brought Oprah to his rally, Hillary Clinton brought Chelsea to her rally, Dennis Kucinich brought Sean Penn to his rally and John Edwards brought his hairstylist to his. :)

Erik

Thanks for the compliments.

In the end, Iowa will be decided by unpredicatable caucus goers. It may be that with all the famous people endorsing candidates, what really decides the election may be the most skilled caucus goers.

And Erik, that is a very old joke. In 2004 someone in the Bush White House made a joke about Edwards looking like a Breck girl, and ABC's THE NOTE provided a link to an advertising museum site with classic pictures of people with Breck hair.

LT,

No it's really not a joke. Edwards brought his hairstylist--he couldn't find a celebrity to endorse his campaign. It is sad. ;)

~Erik

Same here. The totally skewed distribution of income and wealth in this country, and what that does to democracy, is the biggest issue facing the nation. I'm hoping any Democratic nominee will address this issue, but only Edwards is doing so now.

So here's something to play with: what happens if Hillary tanks? Goes 0 for Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina and is suddenly out of the race? Where will her supporters end up? Edwards, Obama or someone else?

Not gonna happen, of course, because she's got so much money and so many connections. Just like local pol Jim Francesconi.

Same here. The totally skewed distribution of income and wealth in this country, and what that does to democracy, is the biggest issue facing the nation. I'm hoping any Democratic nominee will address this issue, but only Edwards is doing so now.

So here's something to play with: what happens if Hillary tanks? Goes 0 for Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina and is suddenly out of the race? Where will her supporters end up? Edwards, Obama or someone else?

Not gonna happen, of course, because she's got so much money and so many connections. Just like local pol Jim Francesconi.

I could live with Edwards as President. I would gladly vote for him in a general election (unlike, say, Hillary, for whom I wouldn't vote). But I really believe that the best chance for progressive change lies with Obama.

Barack, in my opinion, has the power to communicate that you need in a transformative President (see, e.g., Ronald Reagan). Edwards, by contrast, comes across as a used car salesman -- and the idea of his recently building a 30,000 square foot home and earning big bucks from a firm that is hardly a friend of the poor suggests that his "two Americas" rhetoric may simply be a role he is playing. He will forever be known as the poverty fighter with the bazillion dollar haircuts -- a rather Bozo-like juxtaposition of images, especially for someone who is nouveau riche (we Americans are much more tolerant of limousine liberalism when practiced by those born to aristocracy).

Finally, let's not forget where Messrs. Obama and Edwards were on the decision to go to Iraq. A lot of people want to bury that moment in time -- "All that matters is what your proposed solution is. The past is the past." With all due respect, I think that is propaganda. I can't prove this, but my hunch is that the next President will have a much easier time selling a sane foreign policy if s/he could say "I opposed the war from the beginning" and, unlike Bill Clinton, really mean it.

Anyone supporting Obama should read Paul Krugman's recent article about O's use of groundless conservative arguments against health care reform to critique his opponents' proposals. There's a clearly and consistently progressive contender out there--Edwards.

End "corporate personhood."

http://www.healingadd.com/economiccycles.shtml

If we could do this, reinstate the fairness doctrine and institute public-financed campaigns, "the people" would rule again, like it's supposed to be.

"When, in your opinion, did "the people" rule? " Before 1886

"Was there "corporate personhood" during that time?" No, not legally.

Did you read the article?

SJ,

That was an interesting article you cited. I am not so sure if corporatism is really anything other than a bogeyman we have created in our own minds. Corporations may have gained their legal rights through the courts, as the article postulates. But their existence is sanctioned by the statutes of every state and nation. In business school we all learn that the distinguishing features of a corporation owned business is that (1) it has a lower tax rate than individuals, and (2) its shareholders are not held accountable for its debts. These two characteristics are enshrined in every state's statutes.

I often wonder what a world without corporations would be like. How would businesses organize? I don't know the answer, but I am willing to find out. What I would like to see is for the various legislatures to repeal the two great protections corporations have: (1) tax them like individuals; (2) make shareholders liable for corporate debts - what would the world be like if the Enron shareholders had known they would be personally liable for its unpaid debts? Would shareholders be more active in watching and supervising corporate activities?

People use corporate forms in order to lower their taxes and to protect themselves from liability. The states all have it within their power to eliminate those advantages, at least within their own states. I have always been a little surprised that people who rail against corporatism don't make a direct attack on its two strongest props: limited taxation and shareholder liability protection. Corporations and corporatism can be legislated out of existence. Demagogues tell us that they only want to tame corporations, not eliminate them. The past one hundred and fifty years of history disproves that theory. Do you really want to have a world without corporations?

SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!

So let me restate my question. When, in your opinion, was there a progressive governance created by "the people's" rule? And how does eliminating corporate personhood get us closer to that? ///

One could say the progressive movement began to show it's effects on governance with Women's Sufferage and the monopoly busting of Teddy Roosevelt, and the reaction of America as the Great Depression began, and the eventual Greatest Generation that saved the free world.

Then the push back from McCarthyism to the progressive agenda of LBJ. We had Carter for a short time, and he was a true progressive.

No, we have never been a completely progressive nation, yet when the abuses happened the progressives answered the call until, like spoiled children, America fell back to our same old habits that got us in trouble to begin with.

Happy Thoughts;

Dan Grady

DavidS --

I've been reading Krugman on Obama. It doesn't change my bottom line.

I'm not saying Obama is more progressive than Edwards. I'm saying that his communication skills -- his charisma, that is -- will allow him to do more for progressive causes than Edwards. It really doesn't help if you want progressive changes and don't have the political capital to bring them about. I think Obama can unify the country to a large degree and build coalitions in support of more far-reaching legislation.

<h2>Reagan, as I said, did much of the same thing for the GOP. I'm looking for a Democrat with Reagan's communication skills and popularity.</h2>