Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Why Erica Is (Mostly) Wrong on Barack Obama

1

Cat Fight! Cat Fight!

Posted by StrangerDanger | January 4, 2008 5:30 PM
2

They all leave me cold and depressed that Gore didn't enter the race.

Posted by I Got Nuthin | January 4, 2008 5:34 PM
3

Obama DOES NOT want to treat all Americans alike. He DOES NOT think everyone should enjoy the same rights he enjoys. I can't support a man like that. How can you support a man that wants to keep the discrimination of some Americans intact? (Psst, I think your paper's Editor is one of those folks of whom I speak).

Posted by Sargon Bighorn | January 4, 2008 5:40 PM
4

Are you serious about this:
'I hate the idea that the first woman to have a real shot at the presidency is running on the achievements of her husband'?
I am not a Hillary fan but I think you are oblivious to reality if you think she's running on the achievements of her husband. Hillary has plenty of her own achievements to stand behind and her husband is more of a liability than an asset.
Get off your high horse while you follow the crowd.

Posted by WTF? | January 4, 2008 5:42 PM
5
Posted by Luigi Giovanni | January 4, 2008 5:42 PM
6

That blog cited @ 5 is weaker than the Slog ever is - it's all hearsay. No credence whatsoever.
Think. Please think. This is important.

Posted by give me a break | January 4, 2008 5:50 PM
7

Glad Obama won Iowa. Saw him speak at NYU last time, and the crowd loved him. I think he will be a good office administrator who can get the job done.

Posted by Nascar | January 4, 2008 5:51 PM
8

@4: Dead serious. She has a perfectly competent record in the Senate and she could have run on that. She chose not to. It was the Billary '90s nostalgia show in Iowa, and it's shaping up that way in New Hampshire too.

Posted by annie | January 4, 2008 5:51 PM
9

Cat Fight! Cat Fight!

I'm waiting for the takedown.

Posted by JMR | January 4, 2008 5:52 PM
10

Paul Krugman isn't an Obama hater. He's also right on his policy criticisms of Obama:

a) Social Security isn't in crisis. It may need fixing down the road. But they are minor fixes that could be done 4 or 5 Presidents away. Rising health care costs though threaten to bankrupt the federal government. Medicare is in near-crisis stage, however.

b) Obama's plan to fix health care wouldn't have worked because it suffered from the "free-rider" problem. However, he's recently talked about adding penalties for free-riders, and that might make his plan work. Clinton's method was mandated insurance. Krugman has, in fact, written appreciatively about Obama's recent tweaks to his plan regarding free-rider penalties.

Posted by King Rat | January 4, 2008 5:53 PM
11

@3: None of the D candidates support gay marriage. All of them support civil unions. The difference is, Obama believes the federal Defense of Marriage Act should be repealed, whereas Clinton believes it should be modified. Edwards is downright weird on gay issues. Believe me, if it's civil rights you're after, Obama is your best bet.

Posted by annie | January 4, 2008 6:03 PM
12

agreed. esp the pragmatic part. i can't understand how anyone could think that's a bad quality for a president to have. sometimes you have to cross party lines in order to get things done effectively.

and all this hair-splitting over the word "crisis" is just silly. every single one of the dems thinks social security needs help. whether or not they say it's in crisis seems rather trivial.

Posted by brandon | January 4, 2008 6:05 PM
13

King Rat- yes SS can be fixed 4 or 5 presidents later - but at that time it will require much heavier lifting. With minor tweaks made today, SS can be solvent forever.

One of these eases fixes is to raise the current cap which only taxes wages on the first $97k. After that those who make $1million pay the exact amount as those who make $97k a year!

Sen. Clinton doesn't support raising the cap because it hurts the middle class. If 6 figure salaries are middle class, than I must be below the poverty line.

Posted by Poll Watcher | January 4, 2008 6:06 PM
14

@11 Kucinich does support civil marriage equality. And it's not "gay marriage" there is no such thing. It's simply Marriage. The American Taliban used the phrase "gay marriage" to make people think some how Gay Americans want a special right that no one else enjoys. Silly them.

Posted by Sargon Bighorn | January 4, 2008 6:07 PM
15

Wait! Who said Gore is out? I was still holding out for Gore.

Posted by elenchos | January 4, 2008 6:08 PM
16

@13 - do you live in an alternate reality? Please invite me there. Yes, six figure salaries are middle class, sad as that is.
and
@11 - have you studied the policies of John Edwards? Far stronger on civil rights than Barack Obama. John Edwards is the civil rights candidate in the bunch. It's unfortunate for him that he's such a polished attorney - tends to make people not trust him. Oh right, that problem again: we can't compare Obama's policies because they don't exist.

Posted by whatevs | January 4, 2008 6:13 PM
17

@14: You know Kucinich told his people to support Obama where he wasn't viable, right? You can label extending marriage rights whatever you like, but the policy differences remain. And Kucinich is not going to get the nomination.

Posted by annie | January 4, 2008 6:13 PM
18

Right. And Ralph Nader (who's more noble than any of these candidates but not electable) threw his support behind Edwards because he's the most decent one in the bunch. It's clear as day - open your eyes and do your homework.
Annie, are you a 'Barack Star'?

Posted by whatevs | January 4, 2008 6:16 PM
19
Do you want to alienate prospective D voters by forcing them to pay money out of their own pockets to a third-party insurer? Until the candidates nail down a price for premiums and show me the subsidies for people who can’t afford it, I will never support a mandate. It’s political suicide. It won’t pass Congress, and it will hurt the Democratic party.

As someone pointed out in the previous thread, Obama was arguably pushing for a mandate, too - he was just doing it through the "softer", potentially more palatable method of offering tax credits for getting insurance, which is just the flipside of fining people for not getting insurance.

Posted by tsm | January 4, 2008 6:16 PM
20

Social Security is a ponzi scheme that relies on population growth that's not sustainable.
Don't raise the cieling, get rid of the fucking thing.

Posted by Andrew | January 4, 2008 6:18 PM
21

Kudos to Annie for a well-argued response.

There are two radically different ways of raising the SS lid, and Obama cagily doesn't say which one he wants.

One is to raise the lid and proportionately raise the payout lid. Saying that this helps solvency is a bit of a fraud. It helps solvency in the 30 years that SS would get additional pay-in without having to make any additional pay-outs, but once those high-income people retire and start drawing proportionately high benefits, SS is right back where it started. It's like "saving" a person on the verge of bankruptcy by giving him a $1M loan.

The other is to raise the income lid without raising the payout lid. This turns a program which is now essentially a mandatory retirement annuity (albeit with a rather poor return) into a pure redistributive tax. Progressives might like this, but it's a radical change for which there is no mainstream support. It's taking a fraction of income as large as the typical American's income tax and changing it from something being saved for him into something being given to someone else. Trying to force this down the typical American's throat would make him very angry.

Posted by David Wright | January 4, 2008 6:18 PM
22

@16- I live in a reality where according to the US Census Bureau, the median household income in 2006 was $48 a year. That's not average income per person but per household. Median means middle. 6 figure salaries are DOUBLE the median household income. That's not middle class. That may be the salary you need to live what you consider a middle class life style, but the sad thing is, the American middle class is nowhere near 6 figure salaries.

Now go ahead and educate me about the real world.

Posted by Poll Watcher | January 4, 2008 6:20 PM
23

ooohh....is that what you call 'soft policy'? Like i sort of mean it but i might be wrong?
Hats off to Barack for winning Iowa but holy shit if he becomes president. I have no doubt he'd try to do his best but he needs experience. Skill. Acumen. Aptitude. Not hope.
I could try to be the CEO of Microsoft but i'm sure i'd suck at it.
It's his job to know this.

Posted by WTF? | January 4, 2008 6:21 PM
24

@22 - I stand corrected. Thanks for doing the research.

Posted by whatevs | January 4, 2008 6:23 PM
25

@21 Which part is the well-argued response? Erica's piece was brilliant whether you love or hate Obama. I can hardly follow Annie's piece and she, perhaps wisely, defers the policy issue until later because it's the hardest to defend when there's nothing there.
Hope Hope Hope. Policy Policy Policy.
I'll take policy any day.

Posted by truthteller | January 4, 2008 6:27 PM
26

I would like to hear what Obama thinks about the Gay civil rights movement being compared to the black civil rights movement. It would be interesting to hear, since he is bi-racial and before 1967 Blacks and Whites were not allowed to marry. Doesn't domestic partnerships for teh gays and marriage for the straights smack of "separate but equal"?

Posted by Y.F. | January 4, 2008 6:34 PM
27

@26 C'mon now. We don't want to ask for analysis or policy decisions from someone who's building a campaign on hope. Please. It might take away from his speech practice time.

Posted by Marie | January 4, 2008 6:38 PM
28

annie, read the available policy discussions. universal health insurance has no chance at all without a mandate.

you have to make sure as many healthy people as possible are signed up in order to offset those who will need care more often. subsidies are impossible otherwise.

more importantly, are you fucking serious that you think Democrats will be turned off paying into universal health insurance?! nailing down specifics now is a sure bet to help kill the proposal. Republicans are guaranteed to fight it, and offering them the ammunition is stupid, but offering people health insurance isn't a losing proposition... if your candidate is as progressive as he claims.

Posted by jason | January 4, 2008 6:44 PM
29

Paul Krugman rocks, and invoking him in this context does your argument no good whatsoever.

Personally, I'll happily vote for any of the big three Dems in the general, but I have serious doubts as to whether a majority of the good ol' US of A would cast their ballot for Clinton or Obama.

Since everyone here is most likely a Democrat (a few deluded Ron Paul pothead fans notwithstanding), I'd suggest using less vitriolic language against fellow members of your party.

You can bet they're getting a big kick over this intramural pissing match over at Sound Bullshit, to be sure.


Posted by Mr. X | January 4, 2008 6:49 PM
30
annie, read the available policy discussions. universal health insurance has no chance at all without a mandate.

you have to make sure as many healthy people as possible are signed up in order to offset those who will need care more often. subsidies are impossible otherwise.

Hold up now. If you (1) offer publicly funded insurance, (2) permit people to opt out of buying insurance, but (3) give people tax credits for buying insurance, how is this a problem? This is, AFAIK, the Obama plan, and those who don't buy insurance wind up subsidizing the others anyway through their increased tax bill. The issue here, however, would be the public plan, and who it is available to.

Posted by tsm | January 4, 2008 6:57 PM
31

^ ... and whether or not the extra tax $ are sent straight to the public plan.

Posted by tsm | January 4, 2008 6:59 PM
32

The year after losing the general election with Kerry Edwards earned over half a million dollars working part time for less than one year by giving advice to hedge funds. In other words, trading on his influence. I'm sure he helped a lot of mill town workers with that.
Fact is, whenever Edwards is not running for President he is whoring around for the highest dollar. Yet some of you take his assertions serious. All he is doing is saying what he thinks will get him elected. The majority of Iowans saw through it as facts like his part-time/half million dollar gig for corporate interests were regularly reported in the state's major newspapers.
I get why people may support Hillary, Richardson or Kucinich. I don't think they are remotely as inspirational as Obama but I still get it. But it's beyond me why people can't see the difference between the real Edwards and the one he plays in campaigns. Even the majority of Democrats in his home state prefer someone else for the democratic nominee. Doesn't that tell you just a little something.

Posted by Mike | January 4, 2008 7:00 PM
33

@5... you're linking to a blog from a South Carolinian? Lame. Did you know SC sucks? Fuckabee Land, I'll bet you a million.

Posted by M | January 4, 2008 7:03 PM
34

give me a break @ 6

The report and observations of the writer are first-hand. His report isn't heresay.

Give me a break.

Posted by Luigi Giovanni | January 4, 2008 7:05 PM
35

I'm quite certain that being the Director of the Poverty Center (which is what he's been doing) is not a high-paying corporate gig.
I disagree with you completely.
Edward walks the walk.
ps. Has it occurred to you that it's ridiculously expensive to run for President? A smart contender would mix some high-paying consulting work in with their thankless non-profit work.

Posted by Sarina | January 4, 2008 7:06 PM
36

I despise the notion of converting food resources into fuel, but ethanol is a permanent factor on the American political landscape and possibly the only way to get heartlanders interested in global warming. I trust both Obama and Edwards to focus money in research directions that do not lead to world-wide food shortages, and that could be done, for instance, by investing in research on cellulosic ethanol, derived from corn stalks and other sources, while still pandering to the agriculture lobby.

Global warming and peak oil are not going to be solved by any single energy source, not ethanol, wind, thermal heat, solar, hydrogen fuel cells, 'clean' coal, nuclear or hydroelectric. I favor the renewable sources, as should anyone with a shred of intelligence, but the likelihood is that they are only part of the answer. I'm far more interested right now in a politician who seems likely to engage people's enthusiasm to solve the challenge of energy than in the minor differences between the top three Democrats on the specifics, which will necessarily change over the coming years with the emerging science.

Posted by Erica T. | January 4, 2008 7:37 PM
37

@18

Any nobility Ralph Nadar once had went down the crapper when he made his ill fated run for president, thereby directly contributing to Bush's election.

Today he's a sad megalomaniacal shell of his former noble self. And the fact that he continues to talk about running for president makes one wonder about his mental state.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/4/1/19220/29611

Posted by I Got Nuthin | January 4, 2008 7:44 PM
38
...have you studied the policies of John Edwards? Far stronger on civil rights than Barack Obama. John Edwards is the civil rights candidate in the bunch.

Are you kidding, the candidate who isn't "there yet" on same sex marriage? I bet he lusts after women in his heart.

Posted by keshmeshi | January 4, 2008 7:51 PM
39
...before 1967 Blacks and Whites were not allowed to marry.Wrong. In a few states black and white people weren't allowed to marry each other. Most states had rolled back antimiscegenation laws. The Supreme Court took care of the last holdouts.

Frankly, I don't see a better outlook for the current struggle for marriage equality. It's going to have to go state by state until Congress or the Supreme Court wises up. I wouldn't hold my breath.

Posted by keshmeshi | January 4, 2008 7:57 PM
40

M @ 33

The origin of the blog isn't significant. The content of the report is what counts, about which you offer nothing.

BTW, Obama will stomp all contenders in SC.

Posted by Luigi Giovanni | January 4, 2008 8:02 PM
41

still waiting to hear who's gonna set aside some sweet light rail dollars.

Posted by Cale | January 4, 2008 8:04 PM
42

keshmeshi, i believe you must live in a rarefied universe where candidates who openly and unequivocally come out for gay rights can be elected in 2008 in the usa. oh, and he should say he's an atheist, too, just to prove to you his integrity? so everyone will vote for him, right?

Posted by ellarosa | January 4, 2008 8:18 PM
43

Luigi @40. I don't need to offer comment about the content. The State is a conservative piece of shit as are all papers there. I know because, unlike you (most likely ), I am from there. And if Obama rocks it, more power to him.

Posted by M | January 4, 2008 8:47 PM
44

Obama is running a general election campaign. Talk about social security and hiring Republicans—vague talk to be sure—is a subliminal message to Independents and moderate Republicans: “join us, join us, join us….”

It’s working. Big time.

As for hiring Republicans…there’s only one boss, and that’s the President. You either toe the line or you’re out. Bush hired a D to run the US Transportation Dept, and the funding rules got re-written to favor rail projects in sprawling suburbs over projects in dense cities. Which is, incidentally, why there won’t be a First Hill Station in the Sound Transit line.

Posted by BB | January 4, 2008 9:25 PM
45

@42,

I don't believe that. I'm just challenging other commenters who claim that Edwards is so much better on equality than Obama. I've yet to see any evidence of it. Unfortunately, I think we have years until we see a viable candidate embrace full equality. We'll wait decades after that before we see the last remnants of state sanctioned homophobia swept away.

Posted by keshmeshi | January 4, 2008 9:29 PM
46

"All he is doing is saying what he thinks will get him elected."

Isn't that what every candidate has done in every election year? How many of them have followed through on every promise they made? I'd love to see the statistics for that!

Posted by huh | January 4, 2008 10:03 PM
47

@ #4 are YOU serious?

She is TOTALLY running on her husband's credentials.

That's how she ever became known enough to get hired in the state of New York as a senator. Due to her name recognition she got placed on important committees that "groomed" her to "acquire" the necessary phony credentials of a foreign policy guru or state diplomat etc...

Like I stated in another comment section:

"Quarterback for the Packers...

In a news conference Deanna Favre announced she will be the starting QB for the Packers this coming Sunday. Deanna asserts that she is qualified to be starting QB because she has spent the past 16 years married to Brett while he played QB for the Packers. During this period of time she became familiar with the definition of a corner blitz, and is now completely comfortable with other terminology of the Packers offense. A survey of Packers fans shows that 50% of those polled supported the move.

Does this sounds idiotic and unbelievable to you? Well, Hillary Clinton makes the same claims as to why she is qualified to be President and 50% of democrats polled agreed. She has never run a City, County, or State. When told Hillary Clinton has experience because she has 8 years in the white house, Dick Morris stated "so has the pastry chef". "

Now except for some contrived "experience" gained as a junior senator who sat on committees based on her husband's cred, what REAL experience does the b!tch have?

Reality Check

Posted by Reality Check | January 4, 2008 10:13 PM
48

Barak’s mentor in the Senate was Jo Lieberman : http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/03/31/obama_rallies_state_democrats_throws_support_behind_lieberman/ Barak is a neocon just like HRC: If either of these two win, the Neocon agenda will continue. If you love war and hate things like mass transit, by all means vote for Barak or HRC. This country has trillion dollar debt, and crumbling infrastructure. Whatever Edwards was in the past, he is now against the neocons and their wars. He will pull troops out of Iraq by 2009.

PS. The war is not going well just because the msm tells you so.

Posted by . . . . | January 4, 2008 10:21 PM
49

The fact that Stranger writers and sloggers are arguing over the policy aspirations of candidates is confounding. I mean, are we electing a king? An emperor? Are we not supposed to elect someone who represents the wishes and aspirations of the public at large? Are Obama, Edwards, Clinton, etc. really geniuses with answers to all of society's ills? You're falling all over yourselves to defend the supposed policy decisions and solutions of a bunch of people striving to be sovereign. Think for yourselves and wake up. This supposed "democracy" is a farce and so are all the candidates.

Posted by oh my | January 4, 2008 10:23 PM
50

Dear Mr. Check: Last evening I had the occasion to reply to a right-wing neocon acquaintance of mine after he posted that silly First Lady v. Pastry Chef ludicrous comparison, not to mention the Favres.

Unless the pastry chef was a woman, he wasn't sleeping with the president. Do you fail to understand that First Ladies are frequently smarter, more adept than their husbands - e.g. Lady Bird, Betty Ford, Eleanor Roosevelt, Edith Wilson to name a few. Edith Wilson was virtual president throughout Wilson's final stroke years in office. Lady Bird created the media fortune for the family. Eleanor was considered First Lady of the World - not based on her lack of feminine attractiveness but because she was incredibly intelligent.

Just say you don't like Hillary because you don't like her - don't come up with something lame like "no experience" - because it's not true. What woman would meet your high standards, Reality? Do tell.

Assuming Hillary is a "bitch" - what are you calling the male candidates in your fair & balanced rant?

Posted by RHETT ORACLE | January 4, 2008 10:37 PM
51

Wow - this is an incredibly odd comments section discussion. All of the big 3 would be a drastic improvement over what we have now and over anything that other party can hope to offer to us. That being said, I'll be voting for and strongly hoping for Obama.

The policy differences can be discussed all day long, but ultimately, all 3 if elected would end up in substantially similar places. Being president doesn't give you the power to unilaterally implement a campaign promise. The differences they have will be worked out in the long-run and will go through the long, painful process guaranteed by the Constitution.

What I care about is leadership - not just of my party or my segment of my party - but of the country. I love Hillary and what she stands for and truly thank her for everything good she's done for the country, but there is no way that she can lead the country into the future. Maybe she can lead 50%, but not more. Obama has the potential to lead more. He has the power to inspire and lead even those who may not agree with him. That's something that's been painfully lacking for decades. He may not be perfect and he may not have the exact policy positions I would hope for (though he comes pretty damn close), but he embodies an ideal that I want to support and that I want to influence the country from here on out.

I love the top candidates. I'll gladly support whoever is the nominee of our party, but I think that Obama truly has the power to change the country for the better, not just to lead us into 4 more years of partisan hackery.

Posted by Ed | January 4, 2008 11:53 PM
52

The three leading candidates have only marginal differences in their positions. They're all moderate liberals.

Obama, however, is the only one who can transform American politics and the world's perception of this country. And he'll be far better able to govern effectively than the other two.

Posted by amocat | January 5, 2008 12:18 AM
53

I'm hoping. Hope hope hope. Hoping some more. I feel hopeful. Hope hope hope. Let's all hope together. Hope. I got hope. Hope hope hope.

Posted by dream on | January 5, 2008 12:31 AM
54

@53: If the fact that a gifted black person has a legitimate shot at the presidency -- after years and years of struggle against racism -- inspires only ridicule of the notion of "hope" rather than its embrace, you've got big, scary problems.

Posted by amocat | January 5, 2008 1:13 AM
55

@51
Wow Ed, what planet have been on lately? Have you not witnessed the brutal assault our Federal government has perpetrated on Iraq? Do you not realize America’s war machine, if it was an actual country, would be #3 in oil consumption? We wonder why the ice caps are melting away. Connect the dots. Not one Democrat that ran for office in the last go around lost because AMERICA WANTS THE FUCKING WAR TO END!!!!! The republicans are on the brink of complete electoral defeat in the next election, and Oboma is already making concessions with them. Why is that? To any rational educated person who loves peace and wants our fucking planet to live, the last eight years of Republican rule has been a knife in our backs. We do not need tepid, half assed polices watered down by Republican input, we need smart rapid change that is actually going to make a difference. Clinton is a Republican with a D before her name, and she will not end the war. Oboma is an appeaser with a party that believes in Revelations, and not is global warming. That leaves Edwards, who has seen the err of his ways like Dan Savage, and wants to do something about it.

Posted by . . . . | January 5, 2008 1:17 AM
56

Believe me, it kills me that the white guy is the best person for the job. I so deeply want to vote for a woman or a person of color to be our next president.
But we're in trouble here and we need great leadership to deal with the complexity of corruption this country is now mired in. So solid policy, strategy and a willingness to fight the powers that be are barebone minimum requirements for our next president. Hope just doesn't cut it. I embrace hope. I simply require policy.

Posted by Hope is not a policy | January 5, 2008 1:28 AM
57

Paul Krugman is a professional hater, he's been doing this for how long, 30? It would hurt his career if he were right.

Posted by NYT sucks | January 5, 2008 4:13 AM
58

Annie is right, Erica is wrong, and look at what Clinton has to say about why Obama is bad - all the reasons I like him!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/04/hillary-hits-obama-for-op_n_79918.html

oh yeah, death penalty reform:
http://www.samefacts.com/archives/barack_obama_/2008/01/obama_against_police_torture.php

What is not to love?

Posted by Phoebe | January 5, 2008 4:16 AM
59

I still hold a grudge -- that McClurkin bullshit really pissed me off. That made it clear to me where he really stands.

Posted by joey | January 5, 2008 6:20 AM
60

Yes...I've heard a lot of people say Paul Krugman is nothing but a rabid George Bush hater.

Er...I mean Obama hater. Sorry...

Posted by Bruce Garrett | January 5, 2008 6:42 AM
61

Dear Hillary supporters, the playbook has changed in New Hamshire. You aren't supposed to be arguing he is too middle of the road anymore, now you are supposed to be asserting he's too liberal. Hillary is pushing this line now in hopes of discourging independent voters from supporting him. And here is your primary talking point. He is soft on crime as evidenced by the fact that 1) he is against mandatory minimum sentencing and 2) he held up a crime bill in the Illinois legislature until it included a provision that required suspect interrogations to be videotaped. Please start paying better attention or your attacks on Obama will contradict your candidate's campaign strategy.


Dear Edwards supporters, Just wake up already. In 2006 he took a job working for the industry that perhaps best symbolizes the overprivileged: a hedge fund, a partnership that specializes in high-return investments for the richest and most exclusive of clients. According to Edwards his work for the firm, Fortress Investment Group LLC, was just part time and ended in late 2006 as he started gearing up for the Iowa caucuses.


This came to light after the firm, which heavily invested in subprime mortgages, began foreclosing on poor people throughout the country, including Hurricane Katrina survivors. For his part Edwards told the Iowa press that his role at Fortress was as an adviser, not a decision-maker. “It was just being a consultant on the phone,” he said. “They would call and ask what I saw happening in Washington, sort of macro view of what was happening in Washington with the economy. What I saw happening in the world. Those were the kinds of things we talked about.” In other words, they paid him to trade on his political influence, or perhaps simply as a way to get in bed with him in the event he was successful in his political endeavors.

And it was a pretty good gig for him, he earned nearly $480,000 as a part-time consultant in 2006, and still has the majority of his reported net worth of $30 million invested in Fortress funds. Employees at the hedge fund have also given more than $150,000 in campaign contributions to Edwards, making the partnership one of his largest sources of funds.


But of course none of that matters now does it. He says he is anti-corporation. And please, arguing that a supporter of the invasion of Iraq is the strongest anti-war candidate is another absurdity. Have you no memory at all. Don't you recall that when he was running against Dean, and Dean said that neither the war nor capturing Saddam made us safer Edwards was among those who said this type of statement showed Dean was unqualified to be President.

Posted by Mike in Iowa | January 5, 2008 7:54 AM
62

I just read in the newspaper that only 6% of Iowa's registered voters turned out for the caucuses. Tell me why we let these people determine who's going to win the presidential election? The population of Iowa is about 3 million, of those 218 thou voted for the Democrats and 93 thou for the Republicans. Why are 311,000 people determining the leadership of a country of over 300 million?

Posted by Y.F. | January 5, 2008 8:52 AM
63

^apparently iowa lowered their voting age to 0. in fact i think they would have to go prenatal in order for your numbers to make any sense.

Posted by brandon | January 5, 2008 9:54 AM
64

@61 So was Edwards hedgefund advising before or after he was the director of the Poverty Center?

Posted by so be it | January 5, 2008 10:14 AM
65

And doesn't it make sense that capital investment companies would need consultants to keep them apprised of economic issues? If I ever invested in a hedgefund, I'd want someone to keep a finger on the pulse of the economy. And paying a consultant for that knowledge is not dirty. Your points about Howard Dean are well-taken but other than that, you just want to hate.

Posted by Marie | January 5, 2008 10:34 AM
66

@55:
You call Obama's policies "tepid, half assed" and call for "smart, rapid change" that "makes a difference". The problem is this: smart, rapid change makes no difference at all on our most terrifying problems. Smart, rapid change on energy dependence and global warming would involve alienating so many interest groups and voters that Democrats would lose control of one or both houses of Congress in 2010 and then hand the White House to Guiliani or Romney or Jeb Bush in 2012 or 2016 at the latest. Energy and global warming require decades-long solutions (cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050 as all 3 major Democratic candidates are calling for), so rapid action, however smart, will ultimately fail to make a difference if it does not build a permanent majority of Americans who believe in it. Any politics that uses the current voter discontent merely to pass legislation for a few years with the attitude that those who are out of power can go screw themselves, will ultimately spend all of that political capital and hand control back to the other side, in a see-sawing motion that moves us up and down but never forward.

Goddamn, believe me I'm angry at how much these idiots have fucked up our nation and our world. But here's the thing: the first most important thing is that we fix what they've fucked; the second most important thing is that we prevent them from re-fucking it; and making all the beautiful improvements we'd like to see in the world comes in behind those two priorities. If Democrats overplay their hand, ramming through progressive legislation that is the right policy but that a large percentage of centrist/independent voters aren't ready for, we ultimately screw ourselves. Obama is plotting a careful course that relies on convincing people of the right policy (either with rational argument or with his awesome charisma) rather than pushing them kicking and screaming. His is the smart politics, and ultimately he's moving as rapidly towards a permanent solution as the political reality will allow.

Posted by Exile in West Seattle | January 5, 2008 11:53 AM
67

Krugman is shilling for Edwards, with an indiscriminate mix of arguments that work and arguments that don't.

When Edwards drops, I expect he'll switch to shilling for Obama.

Posted by RonK, Seattle | January 5, 2008 12:39 PM
68

So many things wrong with this original post.

1) Qualifications about energy not being a major environmental policy, and anyway saying that the candidates are beholden to their local corporate interests so it's ok to support nuclear energy!

2) Straw man

3) Unsupported character assassination substituting for argument.

4) Confuses will of corporations-- in particular insurance industry and drug companies-- with the will of voters on health care policy. But the politics of hope doesn't let us talk about that...

Posted by Trevor | January 5, 2008 1:13 PM
69

@66
You and your candidate are suppose to be about hope? All I see is fear in you well polished post. Enough already, the republican revelation is over, but they still have power? Why is that? Fear. Why, when the country wants us out of Iraq, are we still there? Democrats like Oboma, that is why.
Fear! Fear! Fear! Really, America in 2009 needs to make tepid republican friendly policies because Giuliani is waiting in the shadows of 2016!!! Our policies are so shitty, the Republicans need to be discarded like a diaper. But you want us to keep carrying it around.

Posted by . . . . | January 5, 2008 2:05 PM
70

Media spin & John Edwards:
Why is John Edwards angry with corporations?

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/010308J.shtml

The real question is...are you?

Posted by call me a snot | January 5, 2008 2:36 PM
71

Annie, I have no idea what the 70 posts above me say, and I frankly don't really care. I just wanted to let you know how please I am that you're arguing so eloquently on behalf of Obama. Erica's piece on Clinton was a huge letdown to me, and not simply because I don't support Clinton. I just think she dropped the ball with her reasoning. I'm looking forward to your policy piece.

Posted by Graham | January 5, 2008 5:07 PM
72

After reading post @66 and then post#69 and thinking about the arguments for awhile.......I think i'm going to agree with #66.
That was well said#66 and I understand it all now.
another thing is with Obama or Edwards we will finally have a president that we can reach as a populace together and help then make decisions and policies that we need. yes and even clinton. The republicans and dems could with the new generations of voters and movers and shakers rich or poor, can unite and have a bit of oversight on the doings of our leaders. that is something this country lost when some of our elders who thought they had the nations best interest at heart, invited the GOPistapo.
That lead to our nation being divided and no real reprisentation because of all the special interests divided on so many issues. And the wall that the Gop and Reagan / bushes put up. It was like the whitehouse became a military base and no one was aloud a voice if they were left thinking. Or centrist.
I believe that is not what the White House was meant for. We have the Pentagon for that. And somehow the two got mixed up with who was really in charge of our country.
I can see why everyone is going Democrat this time and especially Obama.
Because we were all sick and tired of Rumsfeld like characters wispering sweet nothings of war into our presidents ears.
If there is a seperation of Church and State, there ought to be also a seperation of Soldier and State. Not saying that religous people be ignored, or the military(I am ex military by the way), I am saying they should butt out of the business of guiding our presidents policies and leadership in the whitehouse. If the President says all gays should be married and grants Civil Rights to all People then he should do so. If he knows an act of War is wrong he should do so. Because he listened to the peoples voice and opinions and thought them out. And instead of just speeches of what they will do, ask the people what they want.
'For the people, by the people.'
That was not a policy either, it was an Ideal. And like those Presidents and leaders during the 1700s, I think Obama and Edwards deliver.
Policies don't make amends. Ideas do. and thats what this country needs. No more partisanship.
After reading more on Obama and Edwards, I no longer only trust them on face value but also I also trust the ambition and belief of the voters voting for him. And that is a lot of people from all walks of life. Not only in this country, but for the world as well.

Posted by now I see the light. | January 6, 2008 9:39 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).