You're right, Karol. It doesn't do anything to help us feed our kids and afford health care. Nothing at all. It's much more important than that.

How can we progressives help folks feed their kids and afford health care? By electing progressives who will make those things happen. But how do we know that a given politician will actually make those things happen?

A politician or would-be politician who is willing to lie about one thing can't be trusted not to lie about anything else. That they might be using progressive rhetoric doesn't change that reality nor do it make them any more trustworthy.

So how can we possibly get representation in Congress which will enact progressive legislation if we can't trust those representatives to be honest with us? What good is progressive rhetoric unless we can trust that it's a true expression of that politician's actual beliefs and values?

Karol,

I am so with you it hurts. It's unfortunate that my comments were used in the last post to further this endorsement debate, because I am over and done with it. Thanks for a very needed post today!

For what it's worth, sadie, I completely agree with your analysis.

Sorry, Ron, but the only thing Hillary demonstrated last night is that she's willing to win at all costs. This may seem like toughness, but it's really a losing strategy for the long-run because eventually you've ended up screwing everybody for short term gain and have no allies left (see reference: "Painting Yourself into a Corner" by G. W. Bush, with an introduction by Bill Clinton.)

Obama is learning that when you run against a ruthless candidate who's only agenda is power and winning, you're going to get tarnished. I think he came off pretty well against the Clinton sleaze-machine last night, but there's no way he's going to walk away from a fight with her without getting sullied.

In Oregon we're seeing the senate campaign largely fought by proxy. Except for Novick's early digs at Merkley's voting record (which was a safe attack for someone who doesn't HAVE a voting record), the sniping has been done by their supporters. Unfortunately, with the poor fund-raising showing by both Novick and Merkley so far, the noise of their supporters is drowning out direct messages from their campaigns. What does Novick stand for? Staging endorsements and sophistry! What does Merkley stand for? National organizations fixing state races! Why is either better than Gordon Smith? Who knows?!? Most voters haven't heard yet because all the front page news has been about the mudslinging, none of which is landing anywhere near Pendleton. You're hurting the party with this stuff, folks. Listen to Karol.

backbeat12: You mean, Obama wasn't pandering to the horrible, hateful Reaganites last week?

No, he was "pandering" to me - someone who has long believed we needed a Reagan-of-the-left to dramatically shift the politics of the country back on track.

But by your usage of :LOL:, it's clear you're a DU purity troll, backbeat12. So you should go back there and engage in more pure and utter hate of 90% of the Democratic party and its candidates, which is what the DU has become a forum for.

If you want any credibility here, you have to tell us what you've actually done to help change the country and/or the Democratic party for the better. And no, anonymous trolling doesn't count.

Karol:

I so understand you. Our rent just went up $105/month, and let me tell you, that wasn't easy to fit into the budget. And don't forget the increase in the PGE bills that is coming up - there was a notice of that on a recent bill. Our electricity use is near $100/month even thought we rarely use the heaters - we use the fireplace, lots of blankets, etc. I'm sure that's partially because of old appliances, which apartments always buy the cheapest most inefficient models and then only replace them when they completely quit working.

I like debate as well. Last night's show really felt more substantive than I've seen since I started this wonky stuff. But a couple of notes: I wish that Obama would acknowledge more the impact on electing an AA would impact the Black culture at large. I also noted that since I started loving this political game at around 12, democrats have been talking about substantive health care. I'm now 30.

Last night's debate was pretty ridiculous. We've already got the press trying to bait candidates into fight with eachother and Obama and Hillary gave them what they wanted. I was put off by Obama and Hillary bickering, in particular because it was MLK day. You'd think they would show a little more tact. I am an Edwards supporter, so I am biased, but at least he spoke about the struggles like you and many other Americans are going through. I wish we could have a real debate where every candidate HAD to lay out their policy proposals one by one, and then debate about the differences.

Sadie:

I liked that Obama was fighting back last night, although neither Obama or Hillary acted Presidential. Edwards may be the big underdog in the race, but he is the most electable of the three. I've talked to numerous Dems who like Edwards the best but feel forced to choose one of the annointed frontrunners. It's disappointing to say the least. Edwards polls the strongest against McCain in swing states and red states, yet the Dems don't seem to notice. I'd also like to add that Obama may have a great message and movement going, but when you look at the actual proposals on the table, Edwards policies will actually create the biggest and boldest changes in America.

LT, "DU" is short for the www.democraticunderground.com. It's run by a very nice guy whose nickname is "Skinner". Unfortunately in this primary season, it's also become the place to read some of the most vile, disingenuous, mudslinging that can be found anywhere on the net. So I really can't recommend it.

And OK, backbeat12, it sounds like you are one of the rare people writing on these boards that has an actual reason to maintain anonymity, and if you really are someone who actually volunteers rather than being one of the dozens of purity trolls who just criticize, I owe you an apology.

But even with such an apology, I think you need to contemplate the irony of you posting a dismissive one line attack as a reply to the headline topic decrying Democratic party mudslinging. So don't act surprised. If you don't want to be flamed, don't post flamebait.

LT: I've read over all three candidates issues pages, and yeah...I was surprised at the lack of detail on Obama's page. When it comes to Edwards proposals on reining in on credit card co. abuses to creating a Green Collar Jobs program, everything is right there. I know how he's going to pay for it, and I know the details of his proposals. I appreciate that kind of detail because if a pol tries to propose something different when they're elected you can hold their feet to the fire.

Sadie:

I agree that Edwards has effectively pushed the other candidates on not funding the war to talking about UHC. However, I honestly hope that Edwards gets an opening and becomes the nominee. His proposals on a new energy economy and poverty in America, are by far the strongest IMO. If we're going up against McCain in the general, Edwards has been polled to beat him in states like Ohio and Oklahoma, while the other two candidates do not. While I may think that Obama is more electable than Hillary, I actually trust Hillary more on the environment and pushing UHC. I'm sticking with Edwards through to the convention, and I can't help but not support either Obama or Hillary unless they are the eventual nominee.

Sarah

Obama has a 97% rating from the LCV, which is higher than Edwards had & higher than Kucinich. do the research first.

backbeat, Obama did invoke Kennedy. did you actually read his words? he said Kennedy and Reagan were "transformative" in a way Nixon & Clinton were not. do you have a dictionary that defines "transform" as "superior"? at no point has Obama said Reagan was a better president than Clinton or that the ideas he brought to the fore -- the ideas Rs have been using to ruin the country since 1981 -- were better than Clinton's. just that they have dominated. find me a quote where he praises Reagan or Republican ideas. everything in Obama's professional and political career has stood in stark opposition to what anyone would consider Reaganite: he's pro-choice, an environmentalist, for full public education, for universal health care (has stated his preference is single-payer but it's not feasible in 2009), would work with the rest of the world instead of trying to rule it, against the death penalty ... the list is long. find me the evidence, in deed or word, that he's a closet neocon. please.

until you do, try sticking with what he said and now how HRC et al distort it for your viewing consumption.

from The State, SC's largest newspaper, endorsing Obama:

Sen. Obama’s campaign is an argument for a more unifying style of leadership. In a time of great partisanship, he is careful to talk about winning over independents and even Republicans. He is harsh on the failures of the current administration — and most of that critique well-deserved. But he doesn’t use his considerable rhetorical gifts to demonize Republicans. He’s not neglecting his core values; he defends his progressive vision with vigorous integrity. But for him, American unity — transcending party — is a core value in itself.

He’s not neglecting his core values; he defends his progressive vision with vigorous integrity. But for him, American unity — transcending party — is a core value in itself.

And this is the crux of it. If Obama turns out to be that Inspirational Candidate, he needs NAVs and A couple of Repubs to win the general.

There are a lot of NAVs and Repubs (inclding my old Da, who is slightly to the right of Ghengis Khan) who will never vote for McCain anad a few doctrinaire evangelicals who will never vote for Romney.

These guys are also looking for a way out of having to resample the old race-baiting, gay smearing, anti-abortion, platters being rewarmed at the Big Republican Buffet.

Either Obama or Edwards could capture these Wassamatta with Kansas refugees.

People seem to be missing the other point that Karol made: the insider's shit fit over the PDA endorsement is the same sort of behavior for which posters are criticizing HRC and BO during the debate.

Or am I mischaracterizing, Krol?

You are right, Paul. I mean, please attack on issues, resumes - or lack thereof - but really, an endorsement over a group no one's heard of? It's not worth it.

TJ:

Oh, I have done the research. Edwards record from the LCV was mediocre largely because of his absent votes during the 2003/2004 campaign season. The LCV treats an absent vote as a negative vote. When I've studied all of the energy proposals on the table from Hillary, Edwards and Obama, I think Edwards proposal is the strongest. He is investing the most money into green collar job creation here at home which is incredibly important to me.

There are differences in their stances as well. Edwards is proposing a moratorium on new coal plants while both Hillary and Obama are not. Edwards is against building any new nuke plants, while Obama and Hillary are not. Obama just recently co-sponsored a coal to liquid bill with Bunning. Granted, after he received quite a bit of backlash from environmental groups he stepped back. He only agreed to the bill after it was made clear that he'd only support coal to liquid if they could develop coal to liquid that would emit 20% less carbon emissions than gasoline.

That's great and all, but I like how Edwards is opposed to coal to liquid. I don't want to put a bunch of money into building new nuke plants and into coal to liquid research that might not even pollute as little as they hope. I'd rather put those resouces into wind, bio-fuels and solar. But...heck, I've met many people who believe that a less polluting coal to liquid is a good route to go.

Oops. Above post meant for T.A. Not T.J. lol

Posted by: Karol | Jan 22, 2008 4:02:32 PM

I agree in general with what you are saying about mudslinging and focusing on the issues and resume/record. Most of us agree that this is a relatively minor endorsement (and as I have posited, of potentially dubious benefit in the General given the propensity of the GOP to do the real-deal swift-boating). But this does bring up real and legitimate questions and issues.

That said, it is worth pointing something I have mentioned in many venues long before anyone ever entered the race, someone with elected responsibility is only as good and as effective as those around them.

So for as much as this may strike people as 'inside baseball' or "mudslinging", this incident does speak to very relevant and serious issues beyond just campaigning and endorsements. Issues which are really at the crux of the real problem this incident raises... conflict-of-interest and ethical behavior.

As I pointed out in other threads already, there are myriad ways that abuse can take place to game the process because of the inherent conflict-of-interest in the particulars of PDA endorsement process this exposed. When ethical issues compromise the integrity of the process of said endorsement they should be addressed and corrected, not ignored or obfuscated with cries of "smearing". Novick's staffer may very well be a person with the most noble and pure of intention person on the planet. Someone who would never think of doing anything like gaming it for her employer, but because of the inherent conflict of interest, part of Novick's campaign has hopelessly compromised the process in this particular incident. But that is in and of itself not the real issue, just the surface noise which exposes substantive questions about serious matters.

That plain as day conflict-of-interest ethical problems with this didn't set off alarm bells with Steve Novick himself, or Jake Weigler (the campaign manager) from someone who seeks to holds some of the highest levers of power in our nation, it is most definitely important and in this case, a little disturbing. If the team a candidate/elected official has around them, or even the candidate themselves, don't grasp the issues of clear conflicts-of-interest and the ethical code of conduct that is expected at this level, it is disturbing indeed.

This is a reason why clear and open processes and polices be established and should be followed if you hope to have legitimacy, so that conflict-of-interest and concerns about abuses are mitigated, not ignored or swept under the rug.

I don't dispute that conflicts of interest can be very bad. It does amuse me that those beating the drum loudest in this particular episode are all deniers / defenders of Mandate Media's legion of conflicts of interest.

There is zero equivalency in your nonsense Stephanie, as has been pointed out numerous times over the past, particularly as to the particulars in this incident.

that's ok, Sarah, the least of my problems is getting confused with tj (though i tend to foam less at the mouth these days).

possibly the least relevant part of any candidate's campaign is policy. legislation is, as the cliche goes, a sausage-making machine. no matter how detailed a candidate's policy page may be, it's just a wish list. nothing more. especially when you're talking about president. the Congress will have its say. everyone in Congress will be carrying water for someone, and we on the left aren't going to like all that is being offered. especially the corporate (and uber-religious) stuff.

John Edwards can claim he's got a plan for everything and the means to pay for it. that's sweet. a line i always remember from an old Peter Sellers movie: "Only one thing wrong with your theory. It's stupid." a president sets the agenda and leads the way. Congress does most of the details; those they don't do are done in conjunction with the president. and does Edwards guarantee his funding will survive the next 364 days of Bush? just because he has a plan for everything (and Hillary has a plan for everyone) doesn't mean it's realistic. it's just planning, and anyone can write plans. people do it every day -- and the plans then go poof.

i prefer to look at Obama's track record in Illinois, one of the rougher places to do politics in the country (just ask Nixon). he was successful despite the brutal opposition of Republicans; he was so successful, he gained the support of many Republicans in the state. has he set the world on fire in 3 years in the Senate? not in a way that captures headlines, but newbie Senators don't play lead roles. he has done enough to earn the respect of his colleagues and the endorsement of several.

and more important than merely putting together long to-do lists is leadership. leadership is not about being smarter or harder working or having a better mousetrap. a leader is someone who inspires and connects. people become leaders because they represent something extraordinary, something their followers identify with, believe in, long for. Hillary has it to some degree, and Edwards has it with a certain class (not the best word) of Dem, but Obama has It. he represents something special to millions of Americans, something more vital than policy (at which he is excellent, and in near alignment with the other two), more meaningful that being part of the supporting cast for 20 years. don't forget: he started more than 2 years after John Edwards, and well after Hillary; he had no plan to run in 2008 but the demand from across the country that he step forward (granted, as i've said before, in large part because Gore is not running) became compelling.

that's a leader: the person who is there to fill the need of the "masses". it's not Obama's movement at all; it's our's, and the last thing we need is a set of promises that are long in detail and short in reality. Obama's given us more than enough policy details (however much others try to deny it). what he's given in abundance, and why Edwards is about done and Hillary is frightened, is the thing he is mocked for: hope. and why, in god's name, would anyone mock hope?

That's the ticket LT.

They could have exactly the same positions on all "substantive" issues, and further they could ban all attempts to draw distinctions based on character, ethis, etcetera.

They could then evenly divide the votes in the general and serve simultaneously.

<hr/>

Of course in the primaries each assumes that he is The Leader who will "bring the sides together."

<hr/>

T.A. The League of Conservation Voters is only one of many environmental organizations.

And Obama's voting record only reflects what was there to vote on.

Has he taken leadership in bringing environmental issues forward to be voted on?

Many of the important issues have not had votes and are questions of future policy. Obama has enunciated two clearly on his website with which I disagree in terms of how we should respond to global warming: he continues to support coal fired power plants, and he wants a cap & trade system to reduce carbon emissions rather than a carbon tax.

Those positions are not reflected in LCV vote ratings.

T.A. There's no doubt that Obama has inspired a lot of people in America. I totally agree with many of your points. However, on a personal level, I don't measure a leader by what the masses demand. Or, when someone steps up to the plate. I measure a leader by how they actually lead. FDR became a great leader, but he sure didn't campaign on what he eventually led on. I wouldn't call any one of our candidates leaders, not yet. I think many have led on issues, and brought them into the national spotlight. A big reason I support Edwards so forcefully is because of his work on poverty issues. For me, Edwards inspires me the most because of his focus on the people who have the least.

Regardless of our candidate preferences, I sure hope whoever the Dem nominee is...becomes a great leader. Lord knows this country needs some serious leadership.

Ditto Sarah.

Posted by: Chuck Butcher | Jan 23, 2008 12:00:35 AM somebody has the nerve to call her progressive? What, in comparison to GWB?

Well, yes ... and Huckabee the crypto-dominionist and McCain the warmonger & too conservative even if the hard right doesn't think so & Romney the evidence that Gordon Smith is part of a secret Mormon-Republican cloning project somewhere in the wilds of the West & Giuliani who will make the trains run on time.

But you're dead right here:

Ask yourself about the "excesses of the '60s & '70s, there might be an awful lot of them you admire...

You also seem to itching for a fight about the 2nd Amendment and gun control. Personally I wouldn't mind having a discussion about it, but I don't see any percentage if, as you said on another thread, your starting point is that only one reading of the 2nd Amendment is "honest," when I don't share that opinion in general (i.e. only one honest reading) because I don't think any of the BOR is self-interpreting, and also, or because, I don't think the point you mentioned (right as an individual right) exhausts the issue even on that point even if true.

Just as the BOR is the whole BOR, the 2nd Amendment is the whole 2nd Amendment, which includes the word regulation, to that it must be the case that there are regulations that don't abridge the right to keep and bear.

Now what those are and aren't we could discuss. But if the discussion has to begin with the premise that I'm intellectually dishonest because I disagree with you, there hardly seems a point, does there?

<hr/>