« On Bringing Me into the Feed | Main | OSP: The "administration" hangs its hat on wordplay »

February 08, 2007


It's easy to dismiss bloggers as hyperbolic, but they are right on this one. If it hasn't been said in this way, here it is: this really is a signal event - if the Democratic candidates would stand up together with shared messaging of condemnation, it would greatly strengthen the eventual nominee.

The other campaigns need to echo Edwards' message on this. The R's already have damaged their brand with dirty play in 2006....this is an opportunity to continue.

The Pelosi plane story is a warning shot - we can beat this crap, but there must be coordination. The media can't ignore a large chorus of voices.

I'm increasingly intrigued by the way Edwards is running his campaign. For many people I talked to in 2003 and early 2004, part of his appeal was that he ran clean -- he rarely sniped at the other candidates, and that stood out. A recent front-page nytimes profile suggested he would be running hotter this time -- the headline could well have been, "Edwards: He's Not Just For Vice-President Anymore" -- but in reality I'm wondering if he will continue to keep his hands clean after all. It seems to me that he has set his sights on Clinton, and twice now has gone after her without getting splashback, first with his comments about sitting Senators needing to stand up to Bush on Iraq (which didn't mention Clinton at all, but which was a shoe that apparently fit so comfortably that someone in her campaign felt it necessary to fire back at Edwards for his "attack" on Clinton) and second by coming out with his own health care plan before any of the others, stealing thunder on an issue that could have been Clinton's (on the other hand, perhaps his move gave her cover to come out with a competing health care plan on her own that will now be comapred with Edwards' rather than with her plan from the 1990s). I'm also impressed with what I've read of his campaign manager, and I generally like how he dealt with this blog nonsense, though I would have responded more strongly if he had made the story about the folks who were manufacturing the controversy and directly shot back at them regarding the much more hateful remarks of their own associates -- and the much more damaging consequences of following those hateful ideas from the Right. In fact, what refrains me from embracing him more completely is that he still seems to feel the need to appease, even while outright denying he's doing so:

“I’ll admit I’m personally conflicted about these issues,” he said. “I am not personally for gay marriage, but it troubles me that I’d use my own experience as the basis for a policy decision.” He said that while he opposed same-sex marriage, he supported civil unions for gay couples and all anti-discrimination laws.

Mr. Edwards said later that had he been asked the same question in 2004, “I would have finessed it and given a formulaic answer.”

(from the NYT piece linked above.) I'm not sure how that much more finessed or formulaic that answer could get, short of refusing to answer altogether. On the other hand, it's almost exactly the kind of answer Dean gave in 2003/4 (maybe that's why it seems "formulaic" three years later) and I liked it well enough then. But it's that apparent desire to compromise slightly for far-right groups -- even while giving the appearance of taking a strong stand against them -- that gives me pause.

Of all the Democrats, I like Edwards the best despite those two bloggers.

I split my vote between the Republicans and Democrats in my two presidential elections. I had high hopes for BUSH in 2000 which were dashed by 2004, and then reluctantly with my hand trembling I voted for KERRY as the "least evil."

McCain, I just don't like, but then who else is there on the Republican side?

I fear that I won't even have a lesser evil like Edwards to choose from in 2008.

Edwards is shedding the softie,breck girl image though...here's video proof:

ABC News condones hate speech.

I do not like Edwards as a presidential candidate much, he seems to only have ambition as his motivation for running. If Edwards had shouted down the Donohue fellow as an intrusive bigot immediately, I might have had more respect for him. The way it worked out, I think Edwards is more hollow now than before.

I had to go over to Edwards website and see what bloggers do for him. It is just editorializing. Having paid bloggers performing propaganda work is different than having bloggers help him use the medium of the internet to enhance his campaign. I read some of the FDL blog during the Senate primary campaign and understood that blog was advocating for Lamont out of a real desire to defeat Leiberman. If the blogger had been paid to write for Lamont, it would have eliminated the credibility and I would not have bothered reading it. I will not bother to read Edwards' paid bloggers' words. Besides, you have to register to comment, which is something I avoid.

Tim Tagaris was (I presume) compensated for writing on the Lamont campaign blog. I didn't think it diminished his credibility. In fact, he regularly cross-posted at other major blogs where his posts were very well-received. So, I think it can be done well -- whether the Edwards campaign will in fact do it well is naturally an open question.

On Edwards and naked ambition: I may have just missed it, but I also took note that he didn't use his wife's recent bout with breast cancer as a political tool when bringing out his health care plan, which I could imagine some politicians doing. I think there is some sincerity there behind the ambition.

(and frankly I don't really want to support a candidate who is not extremely ambitious for the Presidency)

Unfortunately, what we now know is that Edwards DID NOT PLAY IT RIGHT with the bloggers. THEY WERE FIRED and then re-hired only because the left blogosphere "went postal" on Edwards.

Combining this with Edwards' statement that he doesn't support gay marriage because of his "heritage" of being raised a bigot in the Southern Baptist Church, and he clearly demonstrates he is not the candidate we need. He's a Squish, who was willing to fall to the ground and curl in a ball as a result of a very small righty attack, one that will be as nothing compared to what he'd get next year as the candidate. We saw what happens with a Squish for a candidate in 2004 with John Kerry and the swiftboat campaign.

Right now I don't know who should be the candidate, but it is clear that Edwards ain't that guy. He's an embarassment.

I invite to look at my collection of the pipes published on a resource http://www.pipes.su
You will find following masters of pipes in my collection:
Bo Nordh, Jorn Micke, Jess Chonowitsch, Lars Ivarsson, Anne Julie, Bjorn, Dunhill, Eltang, Former, S.Bang, Sixten Ivarsson, Tao, Teddy Knudsen, M.Revyagin, A.Kharlamov.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad