View Story | 623 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
they don't have to do anything. They would have to pass a bill to take away their health insurance. Instead, they'll let it die in committee.
Even IF JRE was able to use it to get them to pass his health insurance plan (which won't happen), he will pass absolutely 0 after that. Congress doesn't take kindly to my way or the high way. At least not from Democrats. sigh
OBAMATHON! We CAN Believe Again!
by JustAngry on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 07:51:09 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
ready to give up before even trying.
Visit EENR blog for Progressives
by pioneer111 on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 08:00:25 AM PDT
Some of the comments by Obama-philes display a cynicism about substantive change coming to our country.
It seems like they think as long as Obama is president things will just be sorta hunky-dory, a little on the naive side I would say.
Well I've been from Tucson to Tucumcari... Tehachapi to Tonopah--Lowell George/Little Feat
by frandor55 on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 08:29:23 AM PDT
take Edwards solely on his word, and discount his prior tenure in government, and his current lack of a public service position, and the fact that he will have to work within a huge government structure?
by msanthrope on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 08:37:41 AM PDT
Your point applies to all the candidates. Obama has cut a sorry figure on a number of issues that are critical to me, such as FISA and funding the war. As has Clinton and Edwards was no saint while he was in the Senate.
The issue is who will be the strongest most effectiove progressive. What I see now is Edwards running as a "populist." I see HRC running as a "statesman" and I see Obama running as a "conservative" Dem.
Unfortunately, Obama's "conservatism" has become more apparent of late, while Edwards's "progressivism" has become more pronounced. On Clinton, I just don't know, but I have a wierd sense that I understand what moves her wheels.
I suppose at this stage, I find Edwards the most credible, Obama the least credible and Clinton somewhere in the middle. (I'm talking about credibility, not politically).
"Terror is nothing other than justice...; it is ... the general principle of democracy applied to our country's most urgent needs." M. Robespierre
by Bartimaeus Blue on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 08:51:06 AM PDT
However, I think Edwards' increased populism is a direct result of him not being in public office, and having the freedom to make statements that he in no way has to back up. If he wins the primaries, I suspect that would be dialed back significantly.
I don't see Obama as conservative at all. The fact that he knows he has to make his ideas palatable to a majority is just a given, and something that even Edwards would admit to if (in my opinion) he wasn't so heavily pandering.
I am not such a fan of HRC, but having seen her campaign recently, she is probably the most disciplined campaigners that I have seen, ever (and living in MO/close to IA, I have seen a bunch). Even not being a fan, I think there is a possibility she could pass more legislation that I like in the end, even though Edwards and Obama have more legislative ideas I like in the beginning.
by msanthrope on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 09:04:38 AM PDT
farther from the center in the primaries and moves towards the center for the general election. Any candidate who starts closer to the center will end up farther to the right. No thank you. Start as far left as you dare to. Move to the right as little as you have to.
by Heart of the Rockies on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 09:24:47 AM PDT
who will his supporter's believe?
Their lying eyes (and ears)?
Never fear: Saint Obama can do no wrong, Saint Obama can do no wrong. Rinse and repeat.
If Obama is talking right, or slandering Dems, it all means nothing to the faithful. They'll find a way to excuse it, or ignore it.
by judybrowni on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 10:39:31 AM PDT
Come see TV from the reality-based community at RealityBasedTV.com
by MarkInSanFran on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 11:17:23 AM PDT
Was Obama's campaign thinking?!
Or - even worse - did they INTEND this?
by Timothy J on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 01:59:01 PM PDT
atlleast not the Obama campaign.
I think this pic is of Obama campaigning for Lieberman in 2006.
by MarkInSanFran on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 02:09:41 PM PDT
by Bartimaeus Blue on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 02:24:20 PM PDT
as did Clinton.
Only Edwards supported Lamont.
So followers of Saint Obama, how do you like your boy now?
(Whhhhhhy do I even bother to ask? Saint Obama can do no wrong.)
by judybrowni on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 02:52:48 PM PDT
the primary, very stupid.
Confucius say: Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves.
by bluecayuga on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 03:29:32 PM PDT
Really wish Obama hadn't done that either, though.
by Timothy J on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 04:38:53 PM PDT
here.
by kidneystones on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 04:14:06 PM PDT
of that picture.
There are fences around each house.
The fences have been placed because there are people living nearby that are desperate enough to commit crimes.
Mandating everyone to buy "coverage as good as your Congressman gets" or plans chosen by $50,000 a year+ bureaucrats really is silly when one candidate talks about children being hungry.
by SingleVoter on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 07:11:35 AM PDT
....Bush, that Bush, the righteous anointed messenger of the Almighty, can do no wrong. Here we go, again!
by calibpatriot on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 11:29:52 AM PDT
allowed to have his own opinion... that is not putting down Edwards. Edwards has changed his stripes so many time, I think it's amazing he has gotten this die hard progressive support when he was as far from being a progressive 4 years ago as Hillary is. I think it's great Edwards is singing another tune but back off Obama... he's been the same man for many years now. Let's find the real enemy here... HILLARY. Want the same old same old? Then let Hillary win... want change, pick the guy who called George Bush's war 'stupid' when it counted. Calm down.
by bluecayuga on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 03:27:15 PM PDT
and feared a Clinton win, but the longer this campaign goes, the more it appears Obama is the most likely to continue the SOS. I jumped the gun on Clinton and bought the media hype about Obama. So, I'm still undecided between Clinton and Obama, but Edwards is still by far my first pick. I don't trust any of them completely, but at least Edwards is really talking the talk.
by poxonyou on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 06:17:21 PM PDT
did my comment generate this reply? Mystifies me.
by Heart of the Rockies on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 05:33:22 PM PDT
H ecosponsored the Patient's Bill of Rights and helped pass it.
That is the biggest falsehood: That Edwards was not progressive.
Yet Obama peddles right wing lines TODAY and you ignore it.
Sorry, I think Michael Moore and Granny D are right.
"The answer is to end our reliance on carbon-based fuels." Al Gore, 7/17/08
by TomP on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 08:58:28 AM PDT
Edwards was a founding member of the DLC.
While in the senate he was to the right of the Democratic party on most issues.
http://www.dlc.org/...
by nisleib on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 09:58:34 AM PDT
member? Because he joined 8 other Democrats to form a "New Democrat" coalition in 2000? Check your facts. The DLC was founded WAY before 2000. Besides, in 2000, the DLC hadn't gone completely batshit crazy yet.
As for the issues, membership in a group doesn't automatically mean that he was to the right of most Democrats on the issues. So, try again.
"The Power to change this party, and the power to change this country is in your hands, not mine." - Gov. Howard Dean, MD
by deaniac83 on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 10:19:22 AM PDT
Do you think that Moore is endorsing Edwards?
A veteran is someone who, at one point in his/her life, wrote a blank check made payable to The USA for an amount of "up to and including my life." - unknown
by AJsMom on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 06:14:28 PM PDT
Reading his comments indicates to me that he is leaning toward Edwards a little. But he cleary says he is not endorsing anyone now.
by TomP on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 06:29:02 PM PDT
by AJsMom on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 07:04:58 PM PDT
I'd say Bush's message has been "my way or the highway," and how have the Democrats responded to that? They've given him everything he wanted.
There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious...that you've got to put your bodies on the gears...and make it stop. -- Mario Savio
by Boston Boomer on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 09:00:13 AM PDT
It's not just gonna "die in committee" when there is a President who is using his bully pulpit everyday to raise hell about it. Not when there is a president who is reminding Americans daily that Congress is keeping their health care and denying them any. Not when there is a president who will make sure that whichever Congressman or Senator is blocking this bill will get a visit in his home district from the President of the United States reminding his or her constituents of his or her selfishness. The other things you are not taking into account are:
First, assuming Democrats are still in the majority, the House will pass a bill backing the Democratic President and forcing Republicans to negotiate, and when the Senate blocks it, there's going to be more coverage and more embarrassment, and more people calling.
Second, the president has this power called veto. If it comes to that, Edwards can start vetoing spending bills that fund Congressional and cabinet health care.
by deaniac83 on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 10:11:46 AM PDT
The country isn't going to elect a president whose plan is chaos, stalemate and more hostility between congress and the president. They don't like it now...I can't imagine what makes you think they'd like more of the same.
I get it that you think this is how it could come about but there is no way John Edwards - or anyone who's been inside the government - would pursue such a strategy to accomplish a policy goal.
There are many books illustrative of the relationships (positive and negative) between congress and the executive and some presidential and staff biographies and autobiographies pointing the way to success. None of them mention your plan...
Tell me how you spend your time and how you spend your money -- I'll tell you what your values are.
by oldpro on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 01:36:36 PM PDT
Edwards as a bully? Yeah right. I don't think we've ever heard if he actually "punched that kid in the nose" like his daddy told him to back in elementary school.
535 Congress people will not ever be bullied into passing some bullshit that is going to hurt them. What is most likely to happen is passing a compromise plan that brings people together and across the aisle. That's why Obama's plan makes the most sense - its the most realistic.
by conntexdem on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 04:07:16 PM PDT
if he can get it passed in the next congress and get President Clinton to sign his bill!
by oldpro on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 11:23:31 PM PDT
It's not just gonna "die in committee" when there is a President who is using his bully pulpit everyday to raise hell about it. Not when there is a president who is reminding Americans daily that Congress is keeping their health care and denying them any. Not when there is a president who will make sure that whichever Congressman or Senator is blocking this bill will get a visit in his home district from the President of the United States reminding his or her constituents of his or her selfishness
Did JRE say he was going to do this? In all honesty, there is absolutely no way he can do this. For one thing, he will have a lot of things on his plate and for another people will get tired of him harping on one issue. If he shuts down the govt via veto, he will be a one term president.
by AJsMom on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 06:33:28 PM PDT
Did JRE say he was going to do this?
Umm, yes, he did say pretty much exactly this. And no, people will not get tired of the President trying to ensure universal health care. People WILL get tired of their Congresspeople cheating them out of it, and then throw them out. You saying the president's bully pulpit won't work is giving up the fight before it even begins. It WILL work.
If he shuts down the govt via veto, he will be a one term president.
Really? Hmm... when the Republicans in Congress shut down the government, remind us how they immediately lost their majority in Congress. Well?
by deaniac83 on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 10:02:11 PM PDT
Many of our Democrats have taken walking order from Bush-Cheney for 7 years. Surely, they will listen to a President from their own party that wins over 50% of the vote even with more than 2 running for office.
Eisenhower- "We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage."
by NC Dem on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 02:16:17 PM PDT
Congress doesn't take kindly to my way or the high way." ?
It looked like thats all they play...Bush's way or the high way...and what did we have? Bush's way. In a new Congress, we may see more cooperation than the last 7 yrs. We may have voted in new people with a spine and good intentions. We may have the rest of those old hangers-on starting to see the light, by their barely scraping through that election and vowing to ahem do the right thing or begin their stints elsewhere. Edwards' ideas aren't that unpalatable that he would have untold opposition, in fact common sense could often prevail across the board...remember the people are enraged and engaging. We are going to get CHANGE... Or else?
by rylly on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 09:37:13 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 623 comments