Hot Potato Mash

VIDEO EXCLUSIVE: Senator John Edwards Stirring Speech At Los Angeles Rally

Senator John Edwards took his presidential campaign to Los Angeles yesterday, speaking to a crowd of about 1,000 at the Southern California Public Service Workers' headquarters. While Edwards spent the bulk of his nearly 20 minute speech going after special interests, corporations and lobbyists, he also took a few shots, without naming anyone, at his main Democratic challengers:

“You don't bring about change by shuffling papers, and you don't bring about change by just giving a speech. We have to actually have some guts, some determination and some fight if we want to bring the change that America so desperately needs.”

Edwards also said that he was the “underdog” and challenged the crowd to start a grassroots movement on his behalf that will spread across the country like a “tidal wave of change.”

A Survivor's Question

John & Elizabeth Edwards in Portsmouth, New Hampshire.

'Washington Is Rigged And Our Government Is Broken'

Is this guy trying to win my vote or what?

But small thinking and outdated answers aren't the only problems with a vision for the future that is rooted in nostalgia. The trouble with nostalgia is that you tend to remember what you liked and forget what you didn't. It's not just that the answers of the past aren't up to the job today, it's that the system that produced them was corrupt -- and still is. It's controlled by big corporations, the lobbyists they hire to protect their bottom line and the politicians who curry their favor and carry their water. And it's perpetuated by a media that too often fawns over the establishment, but fails to seriously cover the challenges we face or the solutions being proposed. This is the game of American politics and in this game, the interests of regular Americans don't stand a chance.

Real change starts with being honest -- the system in Washington is rigged and our government is broken. It's rigged by greedy corporate powers to protect corporate profits. It's rigged by the very wealthy to ensure they become even wealthier. At the end of the day, it's rigged by all those who benefit from the established order of things. For them, more of the same means more money and more power. They'll do anything they can to keep things just the way they are -- not for the country, but for themselves.

Politicians who care more about their careers than their constituents go along to get elected. They make easy promises to voters instead of challenging them to take responsibility for our country. And then they compromise even those promises to keep the lobbyists happy and the contributions coming.

Instead of serving the people and the nation, too many play the parlor game of Washington -- trading favors and campaign money, influencing votes and compromising legislation. It's a game that never ends, but every American knows -- it's time to end the game.

And it's time for the Democratic Party -- the party of the people -- to end it.

The choice for our party could not be more clear. We cannot replace a group of corporate Republicans with a group of corporate Democrats, just swapping the Washington insiders of one party for the Washington insiders of the other.

The American people deserve to know that their presidency is not for sale, the Lincoln Bedroom is not for rent, and lobbyist money can no longer influence policy in the House or the Senate.

It's time to end the game. It's time to tell the big corporations and the lobbyists who have been running things for too long that their time is over. It's time to challenge politicians to put the American people's interests ahead of their own calculated political interests, to look the lobbyists in the eye and just say no.

And it's time for the American people to take responsibility for our government -- for in our democracy it is truly ours. If we have come to mistrust and question it, it is because we were not vigilant against the forces that have taken it from us. That their game has played on for so long is the fault of each of us -- ending the game and returning government of the people to the people is the responsibility of all of us.

READ THIS INCREDIBLE SPEECH IN ITS ENTIRETY

Maher On O'Reilly

Bill Maher sets Bill O'Reilly straight on many subjects but none better than on John Edwards starting at about the 5 minute mark. Maher's HBO show starts manana!

SuperNews: Democratic Debates

(hat tip Cliff Schecter)

CNN Limits Time Of Riffraff In Debate

Back on July 12th Hillary Clinton and John Edwards were caught on tape making anti-Democratic remarks about the need to shrink the field of presidential candidates (video below).

But it turns out that they were worrying over nothing as CNN took care to limit the time of the riffraff. The graph below was provided by Chris Dodd's campaign.

The John Edwards Road To One America Poverty Tour

And as long as we're on the viral smear campaign video tour...



What I don't get is that you have to be rich to run for president, but according to this video and many pundits, if you are rich you cannot legitimately have concern for the poor. Doesn't that mean that we could never have a president that cared about the poor? Oh wait, I get it now.

'CHENEY WANTS TO BLOW SOME IRANIAN SHIT UP -- BIG TIME'

Now that I have your attention, click your way over to Anything They Say, where Bhc has returned after a short hiatus with a powerful sweeping piece, PIPELINES AND IMPERIAL MISSIONS, on the Bushies and the Middle East that will take your breath away. I cannot remember an article so breathtaking in its scope and I read Harper's!

Bhc covers all the well-known angles and facts, starting with the now familiar 1992 Defense Planning Guide which outlines the case for American empire. Additionally, he pulls in his unparalleled knowledge of all things oil, from pipelines to the Iraqi Oil Law, which are key to understanding the Bushies foreign policy. And before all is said and done, Bhc takes readers on a tour de force of the ever important currency and commodity markets and the actions and reasoning behind moves from recently emerging powers Russia, China and Iran. And this is but a cursory view of the subjects covered in the post. Like I said, it is truly sweeping.

But, don't let the scope and length of the article scare you away. Where Bhc shines, and has always shined, is in tying so many seemingly disparate facts into one wholly readable story. By the end, what now appears to be a tangled web of unrelated stories, propaganda and political maneuvering, is unraveled into a perfect web that is supported by the facts and common sense. All of which makes it odd that this story will be entirely new to many, if not, most.

With the above in mind, those who get their news solely from the mainstream media are advised to proceed cautiously and prepare themselves to be shocked by the truth. Of course, we Americans don't much like the truth. “We'd rather be lied to about war and then get pissed about the lie than admit to why we really went there.”

Read Pipelines and Imperial Missions!

JOHN EDWARDS ON COULTER AND RIGHT WING HATEMONGERING

John Edwards explains Ann Coulter and the regular Swift Boating of Democrats from the right wing fanatics.  He covers the reasons why they do it and how to combat it.  Be sure to check out the last minute when Edwards shows big time class going to bat for Hillary and Barack Obama.

Chris Matthews, Ann Coulter, Elizabeth Edwards, Drunks and Bartenders

This is a much watch video. Elizabeth Edwards, who is truly the epitome of “good people”, calls up Chris Matthews on the air to politely ask his guest, Ann Coulter, to stop personally attacking her opponents.  Coulter's endless list of grossly distasteful and inappropriate attacks include calling John Edwards a “faggot” and, I kid you not, stating that Edwards made campaign bumper stickers that said, “Ask me about my son's death in a horrific car accident”. There are no words that can adequately describe the level of distaste involved in Coulter even mentioning the tragedy that took the life of the , never mind the unfathomable context of her quote. Reprehensible, disgusting, revolting and beyond the pale all fail to convey the hate, spite and hurt of her words on their target and the damage such vitriol does to society. 

And one should not underestimate the damage that Coulter does to society. It is because of people like her, Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh that hate speech which would have been condemned 10 to 15 years ago is now part of the daily Republican lexicon. This hurts political discourse (which is the main point) and divides the country (also the point) so that the open debate necessary to make democracy work vanishes. This enables government's to carry out policies that benefit corporations at the expense of the people and still win reelection by demonizing their opponents. Red state America might be struggling like never before with fewer, lower paying jobs, expensive healthcare and rising energy and education costs, but will that matter when they are faced with voting for a “faggot” for president?

Now, while everything I've written thus far is certainly true, it is misplaced. This isn't really about Ann Coulter. Maybe someone doesn't know the story about Coulter and the bumper stickers but we all certainly know that Ann Coulter has made a living off of unconscionable hate speech. A quick google search turns up site after site after site after site evidencing Coulter's endless transgressions. Thus, the real question we should be asking is why is she being given a public forum to espouse her hate. Elizabeth Edwards is correct to confront the hate but she really should be directing it at Chris Matthews and MSNBC. He should be ashamed of himself, booed, picketed and avoided until he stops giving voice to such hatemongers like Coulter.  Yes, this also means that Fox 'News' should be boycotted altogether irrespective of the fact that it is a right wing propaganda machine.

Simply put, we should be outraged with Chris Matthews for enabling Coulter by giving her a microphone. He gave voice to outrageous and unacceptable hate speech that he knew had often caused harm in the past and was likely to do so again.  And since Matthews was in a position to prevent this harm and chose not to, he should be held accountable.

Matthews position is akin to that of a bartender. We rely on bartenders to stop serving highly inebriated patrons in order to protect society from harm often caused by very drunk people. History tells us that as people get drunker the likelihood for accidents, fights and drunk driving increase, all of which take a toll on society. Thus, bartenders can and should be held liable when they fail to act responsibly and harm ensues.  And the same should be true for Matthews.

Sweet Home GoreObama

I could live with it as long as they appoint John Edwards to Secretary of Poverty, their newly created cabinet post.

And The Husband

And Elizabeth's husband on Iraq. Not quite as inspirational as his wife, the former Senator still deserves credit for continuously giving far more detailed and complete answers on Iraq and every other subject than any other candidate from either party.

RAGE FOR JUSTICE!

Elizabeth Edwards for God! If you want to know why the mainstream media and the punditocracy, made up mostly of think tank “scholars” whose salaries are paid for by corporate donors, are so adamantly opposed to an Edwards presidency, look no further than this incredible speech. Elizabeth Edwards pulls not punches and speaks truth to power over and over again. WATCH THIS SPEECH! (Part 1 above and Part 2 below).

And then RAGE FOR JUSTICE!

Technorati Tags: Elizabeth Edwards, Justice, puppy

Have You Ever Met A Diehard Hillary Supporter?

Go to Slate Political Futures

While I certainly trust gamblers more than pundits, this democratic presidential futures chart seems about as in tune with public sentiment as President Bush is on Iraq. My problem stems from the fact that, despite reading and talking politics all day everyday, I don't think I have ever come across an outright Hillary supporter. Sure, she has a huge team of loyalists leftover from her husband's presidency, and there are plenty of people like me who find her plenty smart and would likely vote for her over any of the GOP candidates. But it is near impossible to find non-insiders ecstatic about the Senator from New York. On the flip side, finding a Democrat with a negative opinion of the former first lady is about as difficult as finding a Republican with an unhealthy infatuation with Ronald Reagan. They are both a dime a dozen.

So what gives? While I firmly believe in statistics (which is how I know Bush lost both the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections) and do not dispute the polling and oddsmakers which both suggest Hillary is the likely Democratic presidential nominee, my gut tells me that the numbers are measuring name recognition instead of any inclination to vote for Hillary. Here are some factors to consider:

1. Americans lack political knowledge. This basic nine question Pew News IQ Quiz substantiates this claim. For example, barely half of all Americans know the approximate number of US troops killed in Iraq despite the recent uptick in media coverage due to Memorial Day and the 2,973 (people killed on 9/11), 3,000 and 3,500 killed milestones.  Hell, only 73% of participants correctly answered the question below. And yet, the establishment has already handed Hillary the nomination. This seems doubly foolish in the “Macaca” era.

2. The importance of name recognition, especially this far out, should not be underestimated.  While Americans are, as a whole, not the most informed, we certainly don't like to appear stupid so we tend toward the herd mentality.  There is safety in numbers which helps explain the surge in flock size at radical Christian churches despite their messages of crazy and hate.

It is also the natural tendency of humans to gravitate towards the familiar when we don't something. Note the difference (at right) between the results in recall recognition when questions are posed as open-ended versus multiple choice. Hence my contention that Hillary's lead is mainly reflective of her high name recognition.

Under normal circumstances this would be a great advantage as name recognition is half the battle. Just ask Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, Dennis Kucinich and Chris Dodd who have about as much national name recognition as the Downing Street Memos.

Gallup Website

3. While name recognition is important, even necessary, to winning the Democratic nomination and presidency, it fails to account for whether people actually like or dislike the person in question.  And when it comes to Hillary, many people know her and dislike her. And whether this is justified or the result of 15 years of smearing from the right wing noise machine is really irrelevant. The fact is that a lot of Americans on both sides of the political spectrum do not like Hillary.

Note that while Hillary's numbers drastically improve when Republicans are filtered out of the equation, her unfavorable rating is still 39% and 50% higher than Obama and Edwards respectively.

As the Democratic primaries get closer, the field will narrow and the media attention on the remaining candidates will be greater, thereby narrowing Hillary's name recognition advantage. And unless Hillary succeeds in narrowing her unfavorable gap, she will not win her party's nomination, never mind the presidency. Hillary is clearly aware of these numbers too which is why she is constantly stating that there is little difference between the Democratic candidates. She wants name recognition to be the deciding factor.

Again, based completely on my own anecdotal evidence I think her negatives are too much to overcome. Why? Because I have yet to meet any non-insider, non-pundit, excited about her campaign. Meanwhile, Obama might as well be Bono on the campaign trail with the huge crowds he attracts of diehard followers that view him almost mythically. And while Edwards may never generate the groundswell of support that Obama has, his populist, anti-corporatist message, continues to win over progressives, unionists and even the heartland.  I've noticed that Edwards is the favorite among people I consider politically informed.  Of course, Edwards's message has also earned him the wrath of the mainstream corporate media which certainly hurts his chances. Finally, my math abilities are not good enough to count the number of times I've heard someone wish for Al Gore to join the race.

By comparison, the number of times I've heard anyone refer to Hillary as a rock star, claim excitement by her proposals and message or talk about her in wishful terms is a big fat zero. Anecdotal evidence for sure, but statistically telling, nonetheless.

Presidential Words

The most commonly used words in the recent democratic primary debate for the top three candidates. From my perspective, you have to love Edwards's tag cloud, hate Obama's and find Clinton's fairly neutral. Which shows what I know as the latest Rasmussen poll has Obama leading Clinton for the first time today.

See the tag clouds for the remaining five candidates at pollster.com

(h/t Liz)

Technorati Tags: election