BS: 'Mudcat' for Edwards

Subject: BS: 'Mudcat' for Edwards
From: GUEST,GUEST
Date: 26 Jan 08 - 10:51 AM

OK, so not this Mudcat. But over at Huffington Post, there is a great blog piece by Dave "Mudcat" Saunders. I don't normally cut and paste, but so many folks during the election season won't click a link (besides you have to log in, etc), so I'm doing the naughty here. It is a colorful, well written piece.

Only John Edwards Can Beat McCain
Posted January 22, 2008 | 06:01 PM (EST)


I'll be 60 eight days before the election in November. This is a bad thing and a good thing. The bad thing is it ain't going to be a real long time before I'm dead. The good thing is I've traveled a few miles and have picked up something along the way, and that something is called "institutional memory".

As I watched news coverage of Monday night's debate, the ever-escalating "I know you are, but what am I?" fight between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton suddenly struck a memory from 28 years back. The feud between Teddy Kennedy and Jimmy Carter rushed into my mind like a horrible memory of an old girlfriend. My recollection of their self-destructive hostilities reminded me how their battles went a long ways toward giving this nation Ronald Reagan.

It was 1980, and the Democratic Party had two supposedly strong national candidates--one an incumbent president, the other a scion of America's national family. They were going up against a Republican Party that was searching for an identity and would go deep on the bench to nominate the host of "Death Valley Days".

I remember this as an election we shouldn't have lost. But as we have done so many times in the past, we Democrats figured out a way to step on our Johnson.

In that 1980 nominating battle, our two candidates went after each other like Sherman went after Georgia. The result? Unbelievably, half of Washington is now named after Ronald Reagan--though I'll still say I'm flying into National Airport until the day the Good Lord or the Devil calls me home.

Surely, I'm not the only one who can see this six-foot rabbit named Harvey. John McCain is going to be the Republican nominee. How do I know? Because "institutional memory" also reminds me that the Democratic Party I love can't count. And regardless of what you think of the Republicans, they can.

It should be clear to anybody with over a 50 IQ that my boy John Edwards, with his combination of red state electoral experience and toughness, is the only candidate who can beat John McCain. Whether you believe polls or not, polls from CNN to Rasmussen say just that.

And it should be equally as clear to anybody with over a 25 IQ that Obama and Clinton are going to render each other totally unelectable against any Republican, especially John McCain, by the time we get to the convention.

All the Republicans have to be loving this. Because the Democrat they don't want to face, John Edwards, is getting sandwiched between the coverage of this murderous cat fight between two so-called "historical" candidates who, when all is said and done, will be just that. HISTORY.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Mudcat' for Edwards
From: GUEST,GUEST
Date: 26 Jan 08 - 11:16 AM

And don't forget Edwards has the Ralph Stanley vote.

I would think Edwards would be tailor-made for this forum's constituency.

BTW, Mr. Mudcat Saunders, in addition to being a Democratic party hack, is apparently a bluegrass man as well.

You can check him out at Wikipedia, You Tube, etc

Subject: RE: BS: 'Mudcat' for Edwards
From: Big Mick
Date: 26 Jan 08 - 11:37 AM

As I have said from the beginning, this is my favorite candidate. He is the only one who is unapolagetic with regard to his stand against corporatocracy (?) and for the lower 60% on the wealth level.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: 'Mudcat' for Edwards
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Jan 08 - 11:59 AM

I was originally for Edwards--ever since Kerry picked him--til about last fall-- with Obama as VP. His "Two Americas" theme rings true. But there's no question now which way the ticket has to go--and Edwards as VP would be excellent.

Edwards at this point just doesn't have the firepower, money, and especially the army of inspired followers. As I've said before, I just wish that after New Hampshire, Edwards had volunteered to be Obama's VP. They could have just about knocked Hillary out by now.

Read a very interesting article recently, however, speculating that Edwards now is angling to be kingmaker at the convention, which he will almost certainly be if he gets 350 delegates. At that point, if he gets that many, he would, I strongly suspect, throw his support to Obama, sensing among other things that he is making history, rather than selling out to the old bitter partisanship with Hillary.

Obviously, we'll see. And that would hinge on his delegate count. As for his being a compromise candidate after several ballots--not likely.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Mudcat' for Edwards
From: GUEST,GUEST
Date: 26 Jan 08 - 01:21 PM

Well, the reason why I can't get on board with Edwards is because of his run with Kerry, his membership in the Democratic Leadership Council/New Democrats Republican CEO-led club, and (in my view) his blatantly political votes to support the invasion of Iraq. However, since finishing with the Kerry campaign, he does seem to be distancing himself from the corporate right wing of the Democratic party. I just don't know whether he is doing it for political expediency, or because of a true change of heart. Most politicians, I wouldn't spend a second wondering. But this is a guy who has been a professional chameleon his whole adult life, so I see an internal consistency that genuinely seems driven by personal growth and development. Of course, he is still a blindly ambitious convention politician, so I won't go to the polls to vote for him. But...

...he is, without a doubt, the most improved candidate of 2007. I love that he changed course on his previous votes on the war, though he hasn't explained why in a way that satisfies me personally. I can accept that now, because it is all water under the bridge at this point--what matters is where we go in the future, not where we've been in the past. Besides, the US political system is in such a royal clusterfuck at this point, even god can't explain it.

I also didn't like Edwards' connection (getting a paycheck) from the Wall Street firm that was involved in the subprime mortgage scandals in post-Katrina New Orleans. But hey--when he found out about it, at least he divested & pulled money out of his own pocket to help the families screwed over by subprime vultures associated with that investment firm.

That fiasco was both used cynically by his campaign in my book (he launched his campaign from a New Orleans back yard), but it also forced him to take a position that is the most progressive of all the top 3 Dems (which ain't sayin' much), on legislation to reign it in. But then, he was a very successful plaintiff's trial lawyer, so I'd be surprised philosophically to see him take any other position.

Too bad nobody on his team can figure out how to sell him to the American MSM as a character out of a John Grisham novel. He'd be a shoe-in then, with his charming southern drawl, his handsome and youthful face, and that confident air of trial lawyer for the plaintiff money about him.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Mudcat' for Edwards
From: Alice
Date: 26 Jan 08 - 02:02 PM

I posted the video of Mudcat for Edwards weeks ago and it got no response here on Mudcat. So, I started the thread John Edwards.

I still am for John Edwards. When it comes to the general election, I think he has the best chance of winning.
Too many people hate Hillary for her to become president.
Obama is too young and will be shredded by the "swift boat" type of tactics.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Mudcat' for Edwards
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Jan 08 - 02:10 PM

I'd be comfortable with Edwards, as I said weeks ago....but I don't see how he might win. I am almost sure he continues in order to be either a KingMaker or Broker at the convention. It may well be that he'll have enough delegates to gain concessions from Obama or Clinton on various measures....whether he is on the ticket or not.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Mudcat' for Edwards
From: GUEST,GUEST
Date: 26 Jan 08 - 02:16 PM

Why Bill D, you have a remarkable and uncanny ability to parrot what you are hearing on CNN.

If you can't see how Edwards might win, perhaps you should turn off the TV.

The way Edwards can win is by piling up enough delegates between now & the end of February, to make him "a contender". The same way John McCain can win his party's nomination. Remember, two weeks ago ALL the pundits were saying "they just didn't see how McCain might win" too.

That's what happens when you are stuck in an inside the Beltway/MSM echo chamber.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Mudcat' for Edwards
From: GUEST,GUEST
Date: 26 Jan 08 - 02:18 PM

PS Bill D--you did read the opening post, I hope? You know, the part where the guy says "Democrats can't count"?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Mudcat' for Edwards
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 26 Jan 08 - 02:26 PM

Not in this lifetime!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Mudcat' for Edwards
From: GUEST,GUEST
Date: 26 Jan 08 - 02:31 PM

Of course, I could be 100% wrong, but I agree w/the assessment that Edwards still has a strong chance of being the nominee. I say that because of his strong showing in Iowa, and the fact that it is Clinton who has been losing ground in the polls for months. To Obama, of course. But the biggest upset I think would have to happen is that the Super Tuesday Dem voters will be very pragmatic, rather than idealistic, once it becomes clear that the Repub nominee well might be McCain.

I think most people, regardless of their party affiliation, realize that neither Obama or Clinton can beat McCain. So I think a whole lot of Dem voters on Feb 5th will jump ship from both the "idealistic" (sic) camps of Clinton and Obama, and vote for Edwards, who has a much better shot at going one on one with McCain.

It ain't as easy to swift boat one of the countries smartest trial lawyers as it is silver foot in mouth, not very intelligent (in the Bush sense) Ivy Leaguer like Kerry.

Edwards relishes going up against the big boys. Kerry is one, and not exactly the brightest bulb in the box at that.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Mudcat' for Edwards
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Jan 08 - 02:36 PM

After seeing that last debate, I would definitely back Edwards over Obama or Clinton. And yes, he can win it for the Democrats.

Obama and Clinton's squabbling with each other is very likely to destroy their chances of winning the future election.

It's most unfortunate that the media appear to be fixated on the Obama-Clinton battle and are downplaying Edwards, because the public's perceptions are moulded by the media. The tail, basically, is wagging the dog. He who controls the flow of information controls the entire process.

Considering who owns the media....I'm not surprised that they are downplaying Edwards. Why should they back a candidate who speaks out so strongly against the corporatocracy?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Mudcat' for Edwards
From: michaelr
Date: 26 Jan 08 - 02:59 PM

Edwards is the Dems' only hope for the presidency this time. Unfortunately, the Dems have proven time and time again that they do nothing as well as shooting themselves in the foot.

Please don't give in to the temptation to vote for "a woman" or "a black man". That's what the Repubs want you to do, because they know neither has a chance with Middle America. Edwards is the only one who does.

Cheers,
Michael

Subject: RE: BS: 'Mudcat' for Edwards
From: Alice
Date: 26 Jan 08 - 03:50 PM

The Media can make money from playing up the Obama and Clinton campaigns, so the media focusses on that. By ignoring Edwards for the most part, they have given the impression to people that he doesn't matter. He is actually the only one of the three who has talked about the details of his plans in most of his speeches. The details of issues bore people. They are drawn to the media hype.

I am embarrassed by Obama and Clinton squabbling with each other on camera.

It's Edwards for me when I vote, even though he is a long shot.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Mudcat' for Edwards
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Jan 08 - 04:29 PM

I didn't see the debate, but I heard some humorous news commentator remark (I don't know if it's true or not) that while Clinton and Obama were squabbling with each other, Edwards was heard to mutter, "I represent the mature wing of the Democratic Party. . . ."

Sound about right to me.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: 'Mudcat' for Edwards
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Jan 08 - 05:43 PM

why, Guest-Guest....and if I had another opinion, would I be parroting Fox News? Do you suggest I dream up an opinion that NO ONE else has, so you can be assured that I actually have opinions that I have thought about? I suppose YOU watch CNN regularly, so you'll be prepared to critique others.

You have no idea how I decide things.

(and yeah, I read that C&P up above....it seems to me that silly remarks like "can't count" have little relevance to whatever might be the real reasons why the Democrats didn't win last 2 elections.)

Subject: RE: BS: 'Mudcat' for Edwards
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Jan 08 - 05:47 PM

(oh...and by the way, part of the reason we don't have a Democrat in office right now is election fraud in places like Florida & Ohio. The Republicans sure DO know how to count....and how to affect the count by one means or another.)

Subject: RE: BS: 'Mudcat' for Edwards
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Jan 08 - 06:47 PM

Yes, he who counts the votes controls the result. I also think there was fraud in Florida and Ohio, and that the Democrats very probably DID win the last 2 presidential elections...but not officially, that's all.

Therefore it isn't that they can't count...it's that they have not had people placed in the right spots to control the counting in certain strategic locations in the last 2 elections.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Mudcat' for Edwards
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 26 Jan 08 - 09:01 PM

Get over past elections, Hawk and Bill D. You can scream fraud 'til the cows come home, but it didn't happen.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Mudcat' for Edwards
From: mg
Date: 26 Jan 08 - 11:22 PM

I want him for attorney general and I want him to look at all election discrepencies for this election and the last couple and put a system in place that would be tamper-resistant. mg

Subject: RE: BS: 'Mudcat' for Edwards
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 12:42 AM

It may have happened, John. Neither you nor I nor Bill D have any way of being 100% sure about that, so it would be foolish to act like we KNEW, wouldn't it? You have no way of knowing categorically that it "didn't happen", you just like to think it didn't.

I suspect there has been some voting fraud in most of the past presidential elections, and I suspect that both parties have gained from it on occasion. I suspect that they both always attempt to cheat and steal some votes if they can figure out any way possible to do it...and they can! For instance, I think that the Democrats stole a good many votes in 1960 in the greater Chicago area, courtesy of the corrupt civic political machine they had in power there...and Kennedy was the one who benefited from it that time...if they did steal those votes.

Notwithstanding that I always liked Kennedy way better than Nixon, I still think the Democrats probably stole some votes in that election.

My position on the matter is not partisan.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Mudcat' for Edwards
From: GUEST,GUEST
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 08:54 AM

Well, there is one demographic the Democrats have been chasing ever since Ronald Reagan won in 1980--southern white males. And he didn't win them by being a reactionary fascist racist, either. He didn't win them by pandering to the old southern Democrat party, without Blue Doggin' anybody.

Instead, he has positioned himself--really smartly I think, as the Democrat's ethnically diverse and cosmopolitan "New South" candidate, and is doing it going around the Democratic Leadership Council, which is looking very old school and dated this year, for sure.

Also, didn't Edwards win SC in 2004 as I recall? I mean, it isn't like he can't win among black voters. His message has a lot of appeal to them, but he needs some help finding better ways of reaching that audience. Because he clearly didn't connect with them this year the way he did in 2004. I think that is because the SC race, like in 1988, very much split down racial lines. It doesn't matter how much Obama says he appeals to everyone and is the unity candidate. He has to be able to do far better in the other demographics on Super Tuesday than he did last night in SC.

Remember--there still hasn't been a state vote with a sizable Latino vote yet.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Mudcat' for Edwards
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 10:25 AM

John on the SC..I am 'over' it...but don't tell me it didn't happen.

It is widely believed that Joe Kennedy bought the 1960 election for JFK by getting the Chicago Mafia to bring votes in. No one can 'prove' that either. That got us JFK instead of Nixon.

But there is even MORE evidence that the Republican party took Florida away from Al Gore in 2000 by disenfranchising many poor & black voters with various forms of lying & intimidation. That got us 8 years of Bush.

Neither scheme should have happened, but one worked out a lot beter for the country than the other. I'd hate to have had Nixon in office for the Cuban missle crisis, but I sure wish the Democrats had been there for 9/11.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Mudcat' for Edwards
From: GUEST,GUEST
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 10:55 AM

Gerrymandering and vote stealing are nothing new in the US. The election in 2000 was stolen by the US Supreme Court, actually.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Mudcat' for Edwards
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 12:30 PM

No, the theft was just formalized and set in stone by the court.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Mudcat' for Edwards
From: GUEST,GUEST
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 01:21 PM

Bill, the judiciary--in 2000 that ultimately ended up being the Supreme Court, as they trumped the state Supreme Court--is the only institution with the power to stop the vote count.

One needs to understand the arcane system of the electoral college system, to understand why Gore needed to throw in the towel (besides the fact that once the US Supreme Court overruled the Florida Supreme Court, there was no other remedy to pursue). The sitting vice president, in 2000 that was Gore, receives the electoral votes of electors, who meet 41 days after the election is held. One month after that, a joint session of Congress meets and it's presiding office (the sitting vice president) declares the president and vice presitent elect.

As it happened, in 2000, Gore won the popular vote, but because of the electoral college system, lost the electoral college vote because of the way delegates get apportioned.

Now, in order to keep fighting (as some suggested he should have) he would have had to throw the country into a constitutional crisis, because he not only was the popular vote winner, but the constitutional officer charged with certification of the election.

So that put Al in a bit of a spot. I think he did the right thing.

It wasn't Republicans or Diebold or sell out Democrats responsible for the election outcome. History will show it was intervention by the US Supreme Court--by stopping the very legal recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court. I don't fault the Republicans for trying to get the courts to stop the recount--the Dems would have done the same had it gone the other way in Florida. That's just what they do.

Did they throw out votes of black voters in Florida--yes, the absolutely did. Was it a travesty? Yes. Should the system be changed? I absolutely think so. But IMO, it was the most extraordinary judicial activism by the Supreme Court that "stole" the election.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Mudcat' for Edwards
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 02:30 PM

"I don't fault the Republicans for trying to get the courts to stop the recount--the Dems would have done the same had it gone the other way in Florida. That's just what they do."

Correct. Both those parties are like all political parties...they are totally ruthless, ammoral, and they are concerned with only one thing: how to win. Not fairness. Not legality. Not honesty. Just..."How can we win this thing?"

The great shame is that the Supreme Court stopped the recount. In so doing, they betrayed the electorate.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Mudcat' for Edwards
From: Peace
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 02:32 PM

The Supreme Court are nominated and appointed. They seem to have NO responsibility to any electorate.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Mudcat' for Edwards
From: GUEST,GUEST
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 02:36 PM

Which is just the way it should be, Peace. You don't want the judges to be in a position of being bought and/or bribed.

Judges shouldn't be responsible to the electorate. They should be responsible to the rule of law, as set forth in constitution.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Mudcat' for Edwards
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Jan 08 - 04:01 PM

gee...I can agree with your synopsis of how the court works, how the Florida challenge worked, and what Gore did 'right'...but that doesn't alter my opinion of what constituted theft and what the ultimate role the court played. THEY didn't rig the voting...they merely said "gosh..we'll just pretend we don't see what a travesty it was".

Subject: RE: BS: 'Mudcat' for Edwards
From: Genie
Date: 28 Jan 08 - 04:43 AM

Quote: [[GUEST,GUEST - PM
...
I think most people, regardless of their party affiliation, realize that neither Obama or Clinton can beat McCain. So I think a whole lot of Dem voters on Feb 5th will jump ship from both the "idealistic" (sic) camps of Clinton and Obama, and vote for Edwards, who has a much better shot at going one on one with McCain.

It ain't as easy to swift boat one of the countries smartest trial lawyers as it is silver foot in mouth, not very intelligent (in the Bush sense) Ivy Leaguer like Kerry.

Edwards relishes going up against the big boys. Kerry is one, and not exactly the brightest bulb in the box at that.
...]]

Quote:[[Subject: RE: BS: 'Mudcat' for Edwards
From: Little Hawk - PM   Date: 26 Jan 08 - 02:36 PM

After seeing that last debate, I would definitely back Edwards over Obama or Clinton. And yes, he can win it for the Democrats.

Obama and Clinton's squabbling with each other is very likely to destroy their chances of winning the future election.

It's most unfortunate that the media appear to be fixated on the Obama-Clinton battle and are downplaying Edwards, because the public's perceptions are moulded by the media. The tail, basically, is wagging the dog. He who controls the flow of information controls the entire process.

Considering who owns the media....I'm not surprised that they are downplaying Edwards. Why should they back a candidate who speaks out so strongly against the corporatocracy?]]

You are both right.    A number of polls by reputable pollsters such as Zogbie show that Edwards would beat any of the potential Republican nominees in the general election by a wider margin than Clinton or Obama would.

That makes sense, of course.   Especially in the South, there are quite a few voters who would not only never vote for a woman or a non-white but would be energized by such a candidacy to get out to vote and campaign against such a candidate.   Add to that the fact that, justified or not, Hillary Clinton has very strong negatives among the voting public at large.   A Hillary Clinton nomination would motivate a lot of Republican voters to get off their duff -- despite their own candidates' lack of ability to excite them -- and get to the polls.   If Clinton or Obama would win the Presidential vote, I fear it would be by such a narrow margin as to make it way to easy for yet another election to be stolen. E.g., by voter disenfranchisement (e.g., "caging" and electronic vote flipping) or voter suppression (e.g., putting lots of obstacles in the way of getting registered and voting).

Edwards has less in the way of strong negatives.   Plus, as a Southern white male, other things being equal, he stands a better chance of carrying a few Southern and midwestern states than either Clinton or Obama do.

Let's not forget that Edwards' 2nd- and 3rd-place finish in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, S Carolina, etc,, does not necessarily mean the voters are "rejecting" him.   All it means is that a lot of voters had Obama or Clinton were more people's FIRST choice (for whatever reasons).   Heck, the Democratic primary voters, for all we know, could be OK with ALL of their possible candidates. (The Republicans should be so lucky.)       If we had IRV, we'd know,    But Edwards could well be nearly every Democrat's first OR second choice, plus far more acceptable to independents and even some Republicans.

At any rate I really want John to stay in at least through Super Tuesday.    I detest the idea that a small handful of states' primaries/caucuses get to dictate who our nominees will be, as early as Jan. 31!

Subject: RE: BS: 'Mudcat' for Edwards
From: GUEST,JMRnKY
Date: 28 Jan 08 - 12:31 PM

Clinton and Obama have much more "sex appeal" for the news people, pundits, etc. The nightly news ignores Edwards if they run short of time. He's too vanilla for them. If he would just be anorexic, have a fat girlfriend or not wear a flag pin, that would make him interesting we would be hearing more about him.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Mudcat' for Edwards
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 28 Jan 08 - 01:22 PM

Edwards' background as a high-stakes litigator has always bothered me personally. I'm aware of the argument that he "stood up for the little man against the Giant Corporations" while making his tremendous fortune, but in my mind a great deal of the problems in American society come as a result of excessive litigation. When I see a drug that could help myriads of people not being introduced because it has a side effect that could possibly harm a miniscule fraction of patients, or when a drug that has helped millions is withdrawn for the same reason, I see tort litigation at work. Make no mistake...there are instances where litigation is absolutely right and proper. But in our world, litigation is having such side effects as choking off the supply of obstetricians, because of the high risk of lawsuits in that profession, and of the prohibitive costs of malpractice insurance.
Anyway, I realize that this debate is not about the impact of litigation on society...but it sure impacts my feeling about Edwards.
I say let the contest continue to the Dem Convention. I love an old fahioned floor fight. Besides, McCain is not a horrible alternative. He's a decent, honest man and stands head and shoulders above the scumsuckers currently in power.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Mudcat' for Edwards
From: Stringsinger
Date: 28 Jan 08 - 01:34 PM

Edwards picked up a lot of his rhetoric from Kucinich. He is a trial lawyer and a
good debater but here's my problem with him. He plays the religious card.
He also supports a possible incursion into Iran. "It's not off the table".
He is trying to be a Teddy Roosevelt populist but he has skeletons in his closet.
He gets the biggest bundling from campaign finances and you can bet there
are some corporate donors out there as well as union funds.

What you see is not necessarilly what you will get.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: 'Mudcat' for Edwards
From: Donuel
Date: 28 Jan 08 - 01:41 PM

Edwards would be a fine VP