RantDuJour

I figure that a guy that has gone 0 for 8 in presidential elections is enough of a joke that nobody need really talk to or about him. But, funny story here, the Beltway is a world unto itself.  So, Shrum has been doing the rounds, even The Daily Show had the guy on. Of course, Stewart doesn’t suffer fools gladly, so I don’t think that Shrum got as much a free ride as other places. I listened to him on some CNN show (aren’t they all really the same?) And, his responses really focused on why I dislike him so much.

He was commenting on the Democratic debate. He ripped into Edwards for not being nice. I swear to god, his complaint boiled down to that. He felt that all the candidates should be nice to prepare themselves for the national general election. This reminded me that both Gore and Kerry had conventions that didn’t rip into bush. And, both conventions gave neither Gore nor Kerry any bump at all. On the other hand, bush let his people rip without impunity during both conventions. Not only did the networks love it (no surprise there, they’re all in the rightwing pocket) but bush got a huge bump out of both of his conventions.

Clearly, Shrum was the catalyst behind both Democratic candidates being nice. And, just as clearly, the American public had no clue what a disaster bush was. The Beltway media didn’t help. They just tossed the guy softballs and made excuses for him. It was up to Gore and Kerry to highlight in the clearest possible way, the differences between Bush and sanity. They failed. Shrum failed. And, nobody has called Shrum to account. Compare Gore and Kerry’s conventions with Clinton’s convention. Clinton ripped Bush Sr. and Dole BigTime. Even thought the Beltway media ripped him, it made a big difference in the election

I can only pray that the Democrat who wins the primary is aware of the disaster that is the last couple of elections. That’s why when I look for a primary candidate, I look for someone who can fight and who doesn’t mind mixing it up. That immediately rules out Clinton and Obama. Clinton is running this milquetoast campaign, which I hate. And, Obama is afraid to mix it up. Edwards jumped in in the early part of the last debate and ripped both Obama and Clinton, despite having some weaknesses in the area of the war himself. Clinton gave a lame response, something about Edwards being on the outside. *yawn* Obama’s response was on point (you voted for the war and I voted against it) but way out of date and completely irrelevent to the point being made (you just limped up to the vote, waited until the last minute, and said nothing about bush’s illegal war.)

I don’t think that Obama or Clinton will fight, though Clinton with her husband’s help, might. I think that Edwards has learned from his lame responses to the war back in 2003/2004. He is really carving out a path that requires some sharp words. And, as a former trial lawyer, he has that skill set.

I dont’ think that anyone else in the race has a chance.

No Responses »

“Raise your hands”. “How many of you think that Wolf “I am a rightwing tool” Blitzer is a dweeb?”

God, do I hate the raise your hands motif. What possible point could there be to having such a simple black and white question and response? There are no easy answers, except to Wolf and his beltway media pals. For her response to Wolf, I applaud Clinton for telling Wolf to piss off. Although, it was presumptious of her to speak for everyone.

The media, of course, thought that it was presidential and that Clinton took the initiative. Blech.

What is presidential is not saying that ‘we are safer now than we were in 9/11′, which is what Clinton said. It’s clear to me that, aside from her triangulating and trying to have it both ways problem, the bigger problem is that she is a hawk.  Based on that one response alone, I have categorically ruled out voting for Clinton. The fact that she has other issues that I have problems with (see afore-mentioned triangulation and both ways problems.)

I like Obama. But, I’m not ‘in love’ with him. He speaks well, and he’s on the ‘right’ side of most issues, though he’s voted with Clinton on just about every issue.

Another thing that I didn’t like about Clinton was her continuing to say, despite all evidence to the contrary, that all the Democratic candidates agree on all issues and that they’re just disagreeing with bush. That’s not the case. There are plenty of differences between the candidates. This was yet another example of Clinton being very annoying and inaccurate. She did that a few times during the debate.

My favorite candidate, Edwards, did very well, I thought.  He had a nice line, widely quoted, about how Obama and Clinton sneaked up to the voting area and voted against the Iraqi war funding at the last minute. Obama came back with a non-sequitor that Edwards was 4 1/2 years late. Yawn. Try to address the point, dude. And, Clinton made a lame comment about how people on outside (pointing to Edwards) not really having the standing to comment on what people on the inside are doing. It was yet another annoying response by Clinton.

Edwards talked about getting out of Iraq, helping poverty in America, becoming a good ambassador to the world again, working with the world on Global Warming. Edwards talked about getting bold. All of these issues were consistent with what I saw when I saw him in San Jose last week.

Oh, good, I’m listening to Bob Shrum on Chris Matthews show. He doesn’t think that Edwards is doing well. Almost by definition that means that Edwards is doing well.

On the other side, I think that Kucinich and Gravel have used up their 15 minutes. Both are a complete waste. Democrats who call up rightwing spin to attack the entire Democratic party suck.

The other controversial moment in the debate came when Wolf asked Edwards about his ‘bumper sticker’ comment, i.e. the war on terrorism is a bumper sticker phrase. He defended it, not well, IMO for people who don’t know what the subject is. But, Clinton’s response was just scary. She laid into the 9/11 phrasebook and said that we are fighting a war on terrorism and that we’re safer. While a line like that makes the entire beltway media and rightwingers drool, it’s not a true statement. Neither part is true. I’ve already talked about the joke that the we’re safer now than at 9/11. (i.e. terrorist activities are up dramatically since 2001, recruiting is up dramatically since we invaded Iraq, etc.) It’s also not true that we’re fighting a war on terrorism. Where is Osama? Where is the head of the Taliban? Where are we fighting terrorists? Nowhere. Our military is completely tied up in the Iraqi civil war.

Shrum just pissed me off again.  Saying that attacking other Democratic candidates is not a good way to go. That’s a whole new post that I will get to. For now, I’m glad that he’s ‘retired’. What a joke. He’s cost Democrats elections and has not a clue that he’s responsible.

2 Responses »

John Edwards visited San Jose, CA this evening. He was at San Jose State University for a public speech ($15). I sent him my contribution and then showed up for the speech. I arrived by 5 and Edwards showed up by 5:30. He talked until 6, shook hands until 6:30 and then was gone.

It was an interesting crowd. It was a smallish room that was filled. I estimate that there were roughly 700 people there. There were people of all ages and types. It appeared to me that there were more women than men. There wasn’t a lot of diversity however. It was a primarily white and asian audience. People were dressed in everything from suits to shorts. I didn’t see a lot of students, aside from the volunteers. The vast majority of people looked like they had just come from work.

So, at 5:15 we get a speech by a local politician. He thanks all of the other politicians in attendence. There were probably 2 or 3 dozen other local politicians. It was a very impressive showing in my book. I don’t know what else the guy said because it really wasn’t important.

Edwards shows up and starts speaking at 5:30. He’s got his rolled up sleeves and no tie motif thing going. He starts his speech talking about the fund Iraq vote that passed last week. He hits his favorite line that Congress should have continued passing the same funding with the requirement of bringing the troops home again and again after bush vetoed the bill. I agree with this, however, it wasn’t, I believe, possible. So, while it’s a good line and Congress should have done it, the votes weren’t there. And, since he isn’t in Congress, it’s easy for him to say.

Moving beyond that point, after a 10 minute riff on Iraq, he says, ‘The first thing that I”ll do as president, on the first day, is to close Guantanamo, stop torture, and stop the government from spying on Americans.’ Works for me!

He talked about traveling the world as an ambassador. Talking to the people, rather than the ‘leaders behind closed doors’. He wants to help improve the imagine of America around the world.  He talked about how since the world basically hates us (my words), we can’t lead on anything. We have to improve our standing in the world before we can lead.

And, leading was really a theme for Edwards. He talked about being bold. And, some of his ideas require serious boldness.

He talked about ending poverty in America in 30 years. He talked about the living wage. A family that is working shouldn’t be starving. He talked about improving unions so that they have strength again.

He implored people in the audience to work towards getting someone they like elected. He didn’t say himself. He talked about how just voting isn’t enough. It should be. But, it isn’t. People have to work.

He finished up with a quote by Ghandi. I doubt that I remember it. It went something like ‘you have to be the change. You can’t watch the change.’ Meaning that you have to work for change rather than just being a passive observer.

He started shaking hands. I missed him on both sides of the room. But, it was fun seeing him up close. I took some pics with my phone that I’ll upload later.

All in all, it was a good experience. My problem with him is probably not unique to Edwards. He has great plans and great ideas, but the Democratic party is timid and the Republicans are obstructionist. Anything that he gets passed will have to passed over the GOP’s dead body (better sooner than later) and with less than a unanimous Democratic vote. I have to know how he’s going to convince a reluctant Congress to go along with his very bold ideas. He talks about cutting back bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy. No biggee there because I think that those tax cuts have an end of life. But, enforcing a living wage will not get any gop votes and will lose Democratic votes. Possibly getting more protection for the unions might get through the Democrats. Health care for the poor will face a very tough fight.

More on this later.

No Responses »