• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

White House Wannabe's

A

Anonymous

Guest
What I gather out of this article is " Vote for None of the Above" :wink: :lol:

Certainly by any normal political calculation the Democrats should win the election without any difficulty. But by any normal calculation, neither of the two leading Democrats, Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, can possibly be the victor. This is not because, as the cliché would have it, one is a woman and one is black, but rather because this particular woman and black man have particular problems.

The woman in question is no beloved national figure, no multi-term Congresswoman of solid, centrist views. We are talking about Hillary Clinton, whom some 40 per cent of Americans view with almost hysterical distaste. Because she's the wife of a former president, the very idea of her campaign smacks of nepotism and oligarchy. Because we already know too much about her private life, the thought of her (and her First Husband) in the White House fills us with something like embarrassment.

Because she's Hillary - staged, calculating, chilly Hillary - we don't even really know what she stands for, or what kind of president she would be. Yet she is well ahead of the pack.

Her closest competitor, Barack Obama, isn't an ordinary black politician, a Colin Powell - a treasured national hero with a biography that would be familiar to any American (immigrant parents, pulled up by his bootstraps, long career in the army) - or a civil rights movement veteran like Jesse Jackson. Though clearly brilliant - he writes fluid, best-selling books and was top of his class at Harvard law school -
Obama is the son of a Kenyan father he hardly knew and a white mother from Kansas. He spent part of his childhood in Indonesia - and his middle name is "Hussein".


It's an impossible biography, one would imagine, for middle America to accept. Yet in the first six months of this year Obama raised more money than any other candidate. Go figure.

But then, none of the Republicans is any more plausible. Each has at least one fatal flaw that should, on the face of it, disqualify him. By any normal reckoning, the candidate should be Senator John McCain. Fantastically well-versed in foreign affairs, adored by the Washington press corps, with a war-hero biography and a long political career, McCain is nevertheless faltering, badly. He's thought too old - he's 70 - as well as too unwell, with a history of war injuries and skin cancer.

Far more importantly, his party's deep-pocketed funders aren't giving him any money. It seems that his long reputation as a moderate, even a maverick, willing to disagree with the party elders (and the religious Right) in public has come back to haunt him. His campaign is broke.

Though McCain should be the leader, the actual leader is Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of New York, best known as the man who helped the city recover from the trauma of 9/11. He, too, has much going for him - charisma, energy, fame - but many things which, in any normal electoral cycle, would seem to disqualify him, both as the Republican nominee and as a national candidate. He supports abortion rights, is on his third wife, and has children who don't speak to him (so much for Republican-style "family values"). He's famously autocratic, and tends to speak before he thinks. Worst of all, he's from New York, the most unrepresentative city in the nation and one that is heartily loathed by most Americans. How can he win?

But if he can't win and if McCain can't win, neither can Fred Thompson, a former Senator and Hollywood actor without many known opinions. Thompson has the advantage of looking like a president, having played the president so many times in the movies. Yet as a Senator he has a thin record. In fact, as a politician he has a thin record. "Lazy," they whisper about him in Washington - not a great harbinger of success.

That leaves Mitt Romney, a stiff former governor of Massachusetts who has a kind of cookie-cutter averageness that voters tend to like. Romney, however, is a Mormon, a religion that many Americans, particularly evangelical Christians, consider to be strange. The Republican Party being what it is, he can't deny his religion - one is required, it seems, to believe in something - but neither can he be too openly fervent about it.

There are others, of course. The Democrats could also choose Bill Richardson, governor of New Mexico, who is certainly admired in his own state. John Edwards, the one-term Senator and former vice-presidential candidate, is still hanging around. But neither has yet broken through at a national level. Nor, so far, have Senators Joe Biden (Democrat of Delaware) and Sam Brownback (Republican of Kansas), or Governor Mike Huckabee (Republican of Arkansas).

With more than a dozen potential candidates, with the current mayor of New York, Mike Bloomberg, threatening to throw his hat into the ring, with no incumbent and no obvious front-runner, anything can happen. At the very least, don't believe anyone who cites conventional wisdom to predict the winner. After all, this might just be the year that conventional wisdom is overturned - even the year that Americans vote for someone female or black.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/08/23/do2302.xml
 

Cal

Well-known member
Now I don't understand why any of this makes any difference at all because I seem to remember reading on here that the US is going to go under martial law, Bush will be our dictator, and the US, Canada, and Mexico will become one nation, with a new currency...secretly created by the all powerful George Bush (I'm geussing with a wave of his magic wand).... with a new 1/4 mile wide secret superhiway connecting all three countries that Bush will have built (in secret, of course) without the knowledge, much less approval, of congress. Long live Elvis!! :???: :???: :roll:
 

Goodpasture

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
......Romney, however, is a Mormon, a religion that many Americans, particularly evangelical Christians, consider to be strange.

No, the LDS church is not considered strange by evangelicals. It is considered a Satanic cult on the order of Scientology.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Cal said:
Now I don't understand why any of this makes any difference at all because I seem to remember reading on here that the US is going to go under martial law, Bush will be our dictator, and the US, Canada, and Mexico will become one nation, with a new currency...secretly created by the all powerful George Bush (I'm geussing with a wave of his magic wand).... with a new 1/4 mile wide secret superhiway connecting all three countries that Bush will have built (in secret, of course) without the knowledge, much less approval, of congress. Long live Elvis!! :???: :???: :roll:

You didn't read far enough-- that ain't til 2010.--Could be Queen Hillery you deal with rather than King George... :wink:

Her and slick Willie are Bilderbergers too.....

John Edwards on Hillary:
Edwards also planned to tell voters they can't simply 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." He criticized "ideas and policies that are tired, shopworn and obsolete."
 

Cal

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Cal said:
Now I don't understand why any of this makes any difference at all because I seem to remember reading on here that the US is going to go under martial law, Bush will be our dictator, and the US, Canada, and Mexico will become one nation, with a new currency...secretly created by the all powerful George Bush (I'm geussing with a wave of his magic wand).... with a new 1/4 mile wide secret superhiway connecting all three countries that Bush will have built (in secret, of course) without the knowledge, much less approval, of congress. Long live Elvis!! :???: :???: :roll:

You didn't read far enough-- that ain't til 2010.--Could be Queen Hillery you deal with rather than King George... :wink:

Her and slick Willie are Bilderbergers too.....

John Edwards on Hillary:
Edwards also planned to tell voters they can't simply 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." He criticized "ideas and policies that are tired, shopworn and obsolete."
Now I understand... :D :D ....I thought that was pretty steep expectations for someone who bombed out so badly with both Harriet Meiers and the Dubai port deal.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
You know old Hitlery getting in the White House is really scarey-- thats the reason so many conservatives and a few Repubs are pushing the Congress to challenge old GW...Because every time he bends or erodes the Constitution or goes against past protocol- he is setting precedent...And you darn well know that someone like her is not going to miss any chances for power and control- and will take advantage of any Presidential precedent set....

I only wish this Democrat controlled Congress had a few more gonads to challenge GW, Cheney, Gonzales, etal on the Constitutional issues...

I read the other day- where the 2nd in charge of the Attorneys Generals office (can't remember his name)- who would take Gonzales place if he leaves-- is a real law and order man- with a long history of going after political corruption and wrongdoing....Until then I couldn't figure why GW was keeping Gonzales around as a totally political debit and anchor around his neck-- until I reallized that its the better choice, with him protecting GW and the boys backs, than possible impeachment/censure/prison walls....But it has made our whole US Justice Department quite morally and operatively neutered.... :(
 

hotdryplace

Active member
I've got two questions?
1; Who's going to enforce the 'BIG TAKEOVER'?
2; Where do you guys go to get your hats? I don't recall any places back home that specialize in custom made aluminum foil headgear and what frequencies do I need to block?
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
hotdryplace said:
I've got two questions?
1; Who's going to enforce the 'BIG TAKEOVER'?
2; Where do you guys go to get your hats? I don't recall any places back home that specialize in custom made aluminum foil headgear and what frequencies do I need to block?
:lol2: Some here remind me of some foil in the attic sales men a few years back around town. They were pushing the idea you need tin foil in the attic to keep the govt. from scanning your house to find out how much money you have hidden there. It was about the time the magnetic strip was installed in our money. A man and I were talking about it and he thought it might be prudent to install the foil. I asked him if he could get all his hundreds in a shoe box or a suit case and just line that with foil. He looked like he got hit with a ton of bricks. :lol: Never thought of that I guess. I've found it best to spend the money as fast as it comes in , that way you don't have to worry about it. :wink:
 

MoGal

Well-known member
I'm guessing you mean "the big takeover" ... are you talking about martial law or what? Google martial law and it even comes back to martial laws by states.......

Several years ago my Dad was at a VA Hospital and some of veterans he talked to were talking about Gore wanting to give the USA water rights away to the United Nations (when you control the water, you control the people as you have to have it) .................. you know I asked my mom the same thing....... now If they gave that water away and it was needed by Americans what American soldier would hold a gun on another American over a drink of water???

The answer was that they could send soldiers over from other countries to guard it......... wouldn't mean anything to them to kill an American......
 

Cal

Well-known member
MoGal said:
I'm guessing you mean "the big takeover" ... are you talking about martial law or what? Google martial law and it even comes back to martial laws by states.......

Several years ago my Dad was at a VA Hospital and some of veterans he talked to were talking about Gore wanting to give the USA water rights away to the United Nations (when you control the water, you control the people as you have to have it) .................. you know I asked my mom the same thing....... now If they gave that water away and it was needed by Americans what American soldier would hold a gun on another American over a drink of water???

The answer was that they could send soldiers over from other countries to guard it......... wouldn't mean anything to them to kill an American......
Yes, dearie, having soldiers from other countries come over here and gaurd our water supply is a huge risk....and you know King Al could have done it all by himself! Here's your hat! :twisted:
 

Texan

Well-known member
The martial law rumors are always rampant near the end of a President's term. I remember distinctly there being a lot of talk among some far-right groups that Clinton would do the same thing - find any excuse to declare martial law and remain emperor for life. It was bullsht then and it's bullsht now....
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
Texan said:
The martial law rumors are always rampant near the end of a President's term. I remember distinctly there being a lot of talk among some far-right groups that Clinton would do the same thing - find any excuse to declare martial law and remain emperor for life. It was bullsht then and it's bullsht now....
The emperor with no clothes I presume.
 

hotdryplace

Active member
MoGal said:
I'm guessing you mean "the big takeover" ... are you talking about martial law or what? Google martial law and it even comes back to martial laws by states.......

Several years ago my Dad was at a VA Hospital and some of veterans he talked to were talking about Gore wanting to give the USA water rights away to the United Nations (when you control the water, you control the people as you have to have it) .................. you know I asked my mom the same thing....... now If they gave that water away and it was needed by Americans what American soldier would hold a gun on another American over a drink of water???

The answer was that they could send soldiers over from other countries to guard it......... wouldn't mean anything to them to kill an American......

MOGAL.......PLEASE.. Think about what your saying. Just some of the obvious reasons this water conspiracy can't happen are:
Any invading army would have to scatter to cover all of the possible water sources. This is what the 2nd amendment is all about and the chance for the gun owners of America to excercise that right.....rather that responsibility would place that invading army on the wrong end of a nation size shooting gallery. I would imagine not a bounty, but a daily limit would have to be placed on these invaders or it would be over in one season.

Even more dangerous, is the lure of American freedom.... or big tired pickups, big tvs, big houses, big lawnmowers, big malls, big women in little clothes, five acres and a big horse, would turn many an invader into a wannabe American.

Most dangerous and unsubtle of all, is the American WMD (Weapon of Mass Defection), the American Femme Fetal, the Paris Hilton's, Linsday Lohan's, Britney Spears and their endlessly crying, whining, pouting simpering sisters. What young foreign male could resist defecting for them. Why, with those riveting heart shaped pink rimmed Raybans and glacial experience, no doubt our own beloved and spectacular Kolanuraven could entice whole battalions to desert. With a few weeks of sermons by Goodpasture and political reeducation by MOGAL and Oldtimer these deserters would become screaming fanatics that would make the taliban look like a highschool young republicans club.
 

Texan

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
Texan said:
Clinton...emperor for life.


<<Deep sigh>> I wish!!!!! :wink:
Dream on, Nappy. No lifetime internship for you. :wink:


kolanuraven said:
Hey Tex....wait till ya read up and see what you've missed!!!!! :shock: :shock: :lol: :lol: :lol:
:lol: I'm sure you've been behaving yourself? Anything specific? I've been kinda busy lately. Too busy to post much, but I've tried to keep up as best I could. However - Ranch Talk got a little too much for me to keep up with for a while. It was getting deeper in there than it gets in Bull Session.


kolanuraven said:
Hope all is well!
Thanks, kola. Going pretty good in East Texas. I hate it that you guys got our dry weather of the last couple of years, but this is the best summer I can remember in a long time.

But I'm not gonna brag about it too much. When every day is just more of the same - blowing dust, burned up grass and POOR cows - there's nothing more frustrating than having to listen to somebody else talk about how good it is, or to hear them bitching about too much rain. I always TRY to keep that in mind. :wink:

I hope everything gets better for all of you guys in the southeast soon.
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Texan said:
kolanuraven said:
Texan said:
Clinton...emperor for life.


<<Deep sigh>> I wish!!!!! :wink:
Dream on, Nappy. No lifetime internship for you. :wink:


kolanuraven said:
Hey Tex....wait till ya read up and see what you've missed!!!!! :shock: :shock: :lol: :lol: :lol:
:lol: I'm sure you've been behaving yourself? Anything specific? I've been kinda busy lately. Too busy to post much, but I've tried to keep up as best I could. However - Ranch Talk got a little too much for me to keep up with for a while. It was getting deeper in there than it gets in Bull Session.


kolanuraven said:
Hope all is well!
Thanks, kola. Going pretty good in East Texas. I hate it that you guys got our dry weather of the last couple of years, but this is the best summer I can remember in a long time.

But I'm not gonna brag about it too much. When every day is just more of the same - blowing dust, burned up grass and POOR cows - there's nothing more frustrating than having to listen to somebody else talk about how good it is, or to hear them bitching about too much rain. I always TRY to keep that in mind. :wink:

I hope everything gets better for all of you guys in the southeast soon.


Well, on the behaving front...it seems that a Southern chick who weighs less than 130lbs now can make big, bad rootin' tootin' cowboys cry and run off!!! :roll: :roll: :roll: Have yet to figure that one out!!!


On the weather front.....WE GOT RAIN. Man ,it wasn't much but it was more than the 8 drops we got yesterday. Yeah, it was 8 drops as I counted them on the driveway!! :cry: :cry:

But, right now....dancing in the puddles, yeah baby!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

MoGal

Well-known member
Texan - Yes they say there has always been a martial law on the books however the difference this time is that Bush has slaughtered the Constitution to almost nothing.

OT - You gave me hope there that maybe someone was on the up and up but I found this and I think this is the same attorney that you were talking about.

--------------------------------------------

ByThe Globalist Rule of Law
Patrick Wood

To the global elite, the meaning of the phrase “Rule of Law” has been redefined according to a global philosophy that does not embrace the Sovereignty of nation-states nor the U.S. Constitution.

A perfect example is John B. Bellinger, the Legal Adviser to the Secretary of State and the principal adviser on all domestic and international law matters to the Department of State, the Foreign Service, and the diplomatic and consular posts abroad. He is also the principal adviser on legal matters relating to the conduct of foreign relations to other agencies and, through the Secretary of State, to the President and the National Security Council.

Mr. Bellinger is the consummate globalist lawyer. His title of a mere Legal Advisor disarms the fact that his staff consists of 171 highly educated globalist lawyers, along with their supporting staff.

Further, Bellinger cut his legal teeth with Wilmer Cutler & Pickering from 1991 to 1995. The late Lloyd Cutler, a founding member of the elite and globalist Trilateral Commission, also founded the law firm that bears his name. Since 1973 WCP has had continuous representation within the Trilateral Commission membership, and has played a major role in applying the global agenda to courts around the world.

So, when Bellinger speaks, he speaks with authority for the global elite. This includes his current bosses, Secretary of State Rice and President Bush.

Bellinger declared the purpose of his speech, The United States and International Law, which he delivered at The Hague on June 6, 2007:

“My goal here is to clear up some common myths and misperceptions - including that international law is not truly binding in our system.”

This sets the tone for a revealing look at how the traditional concept of “rule of law” has been reborn into a globalist context. The magnitude of this new body of law is seen in Bellinger’s comments:

“Every year we negotiate and conclude hundreds of international agreements and treaties. We entered into 429 last year alone… And just recently, this Administration put forward a priority list of over 35 treaty packages that we have urged the Senate to approve soon, including the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.”

According to Bellinger, as a treaty or agreement is negotiated, the question is considered, “Will we be in a position to implement, or will there be complications because of domestic law?”

In a subsequent statement, Bellinger tackles his international critics:

“I have heard people say that the United States, and this Administration in particular, does not regard international law as "real law" - in effect, that we cast international obligations aside when they would interfere with our immediate interests. To the contrary…”

The stark implication is that international law is being practiced and enforced in U.S. courts, regardless of pre-existing U.S. laws to the contrary. If domestic law is just too contrary, then strike down domestic law!

Here is a case-in-point.

In the so-called Avena decision, the International Court of Justice ordered the U.S. to review the cases of 51 Mexican nationals who had been duly convicted of atrocious capital crimes, including the murder of children.

Bellinger notes,

“The ICJ judgment required us to disregard the normal rules of procedure for our criminal trials. The President, acting on the advice of the Secretary of State, nonetheless decided to require each State involved to give the 51 convicts a new hearing.”

Ironically, the President’s home state of Texas was the first state to be challenged. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that the President “had no power to intervene in its affairs, even to obtain compliance with an order of the ICJ.” (This is a proper interpretation of States Rights, by the way, but are the President’s directives an attempted violation of the Constitution’s Separation of Powers?)

So how does President Bush respond to Texas’ rebuff? According to Bellinger,


“This Administration has gone to the Supreme Court of the United States to reverse this decision. We expect a ruling from that Court this time next year.”

The clear message to Texas and the other states where these convicted criminals are incarcerated is, “We will hammer you until you comply with what WE say is right!”

If the President prevails in the Supreme Court, you can be certain that taxpayers will pay for all the attendant legal fees to re-open these 51 cases, not to mention the enormous cost of launching a Supreme Court case against Texas.

Bellinger is not the first or only globalist with this unorthodox view of “rule of law.” In fact, it’s not new at all. President George H.W. Bush (also a member of the Trilateral Commission) delivered a speech in 1990 and stated,


“We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations, a New World Order, a world where the rule of law, not the law of the jungle, governs the conduct of nations. When we are successful, and we will be, we have a real chance at this New World Order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promising vision of the U.N. founders.”

When Bush, Sr. says “when we are successful, and we will be,” there was no hesitation, pause or uncertainty in his voice

On June 14, 2007, during a hot debate on immigration policy between White House spokesman Tony Snow and nationally syndicated talk-show host Laura Ingraham, Snow stated that the three common goals of President Bush’s immigration policy are “Secure the border, restore the rule of law and make sure citizenship means something.”

For the purpose of this discussion, the phrase “restore the rule of law” jumps out. This is an official talking point of the Bush Administration, but its meaning and relevance are never explained.

How would this phrase be interpreted in light of the above discussion?

First, if one is talking about U.S. law, then “restoring the rule of law” is an issue of enforcement, not legislative action. If existing immigration laws are not enforced, why would the passing of new laws increase the odds of enforcement of those new laws? Of course, it wouldn’t.

Secondly, “restoring” implies that we have fallen from a previous period when immigration laws were correctly enforced. The progression of poor enforcement has been clear enough, but that progression has come at the hands of poor policy from the same people who now promise us that new laws will fix everything.

Rather, if Bush’s “rule of law” is the same as the one referenced by his father in 1991, then it refers to the body of international law, rules and regulations as promulgated by the United Nations, the World Trade Organization and buried in a myriad of free trade treaties and agreements.

If immigration laws are passed in 2007, they will undoubtedly contain, even if hidden in footnotes, elements of new international laws that have been historically contrary to U.S. law. Otherwise, why would the Administration pull out all the political stops and risk losing 86 percent of its public support? Why stress over creating laws that already exist?

If the ICJ’s Avena decision can be enforced by using the Supreme Court as a sledgehammer, then why not browbeat the U.S. Congress into enacting new labor and immigration policy that didn’t previously exist?

This writer is reminded of Trilateralist Richard Gardner’s 1974 treatise titled “The Hard Road to World Order” in which he declared that the new world order would be better achieved, in lieu of a frontal attack, by “an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece…”

Indeed. The next time you hear the phrase “rule of law” dripping from the lips of the globally elite, don’t take any comfort that they might actually have the best interest of our country at heart. In fact, if Bellinger gets his way, we are all in a lot of trouble.


Ed. Note: If an external authority dictates certain constraints upon your actions and powers, then you are not sovereign; the external authority doing the dictating is the real sovereign. Hugo Grotius, the eminent Dutch legal theorist of the 17th century, whose writings many of the Founding Fathers greatly admired, put it this way: "That power is called sovereign whose actions are not subject to the legal control of another, so that they cannot be rendered void by the operation of another human will."

© Patrick Wood, The August Review
 

MoGal

Well-known member
Hot Dry Place - Yes I understand what you are saying.......... BUT, BUT
they couldn't do it today right now, but look around and start thinking about things..............

Who would have thought that our entire manufacturing industry would be gone?
Who would have thought we would have a president who thinks the Constitution is just a "GD piece of paper"
Who would have thought our country would be reduced to a nation who cannot live without imports?

They didn't do that overnight, it was over a period of time......... and over a period of time ......... think about it.

The European nations don't allow individuals to own guns........ that's the plan for us too you know............. and how do you propose to go against someone who has a gun and you don't? Have you seen Quigley Down Under? Are we gonna be the ones on the mountain with sticks?

Just some thoughts.
 

MoGal

Well-known member
Maybe there is some hope for one Democrat wannabe: at least it sounds good..... now, is it all talk? or can he walk it as well? But at least here is an insight to what is wrong with congress and we need to enact laws to KEEP OUT LOBBYISTS!!!!

Edwards Goes After the 'Corporate Democrats' -- Is This a Turning Point for His Campaign?
By Joshua Holland, AlterNet
Posted on August 26, 2007, Printed on August 26, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/story/60748/
On August 23, John Edwards showed his populist mettle, firing a broadside against corporate America and, more significantly, corporate Democrats, the likes of which hasn't been heard from a viable candidate with national appeal in decades.

Edwards is en fuego right now, and if he keeps up the heat, his candidacy will either be widely embraced by the emerging progressive movement or utterly annihilated by an entrenched establishment that fears few things more than a telegenic populist with enough money to mount a credible campaign.

"It's time to end the game," Edwards told a crowd in Hanover, New Hampshire. "It's time to tell the big corporations and the lobbyists who have been running things for too long that their time is over." He exalted Washington law-makers to "look the lobbyists in the eye and just say no."


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.


[The system is] 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.

It's a structural argument, and Edwards didn't pull punches in calling out his fellow Democrats, saying: "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 rhetoric was a clear signal that Edwards is going to beat the drums of reform as a contrast to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in the primaries.

About a third of the speech focused on the trade deals that Bill Clinton championed, and his argument that those "wedded to the past" can't provide the answers was a barely-veiled rebuke of the Clintonian arm of the party, and the media's chosen "front-runner" for the nomination.

If Democrats are engaged in an existential struggle between the party's establishment and its grassroots, Edwards is obviously betting that the grassroots' passion and energy will trump the Machine Democrats message apparatus -- this was a speech that was not written by the usual coterie of Beltway consultants.

The most striking aspect of Edwards' speech was his implicit argument that class still exists. For years, both parties have obscured the divisions that are so prominent in modern American society, painting a picture of a country in which we're all part of an entrepreneurial class with more or less similar interests -- a key ingredient in the false "center" to which politicians and Beltway pundits kow-tow. "Let me tell you one thing I have learned from my experience," Edwards said last week. "You cannot deal with them on their terms. You cannot play by their rules, sit at their table, or give them a seat at yours. They will not give up their power -- you have to take it from them."

It was an explicit rebuke of Obama's "new politics" -- Obama recently told the Washington Post that "the insurance and drug companies can have a seat at the table in our health-care debate; they just can't buy all the chairs." Obama's approach to "cleaning up Washington" is not bad, but ultimately tinkers around the edges of a corrupted legislative system.

Edwards is not so conciliatory on the subject. "For more than 20 years, Democrats have talked about universal health care," he said. "And for more than 20 years, we've gotten nowhere, because lobbyists for the big insurance companies, drug companies and HMOs spent millions to block real reform."

Contrast that naked confrontation of corporate power with the tepid appeals to working Americans that were a trademark of John Kerry's 2004 campaign. In announcing his candidacy, Kerry offered a bit of demagoguery about CEOs -- he segued from bashing Cheney and Halliburton --and boldly promised to end tax breaks "that help companies move American jobs overseas." Also in his plan for corporate accountability: "No more contracts for companies, no matter how well-connected they are, until they decide to do what's right."

Hillary Clinton's economic proposals track with the thinking popular among the ostensible "progressives" at the DLC and the Third Way -- policies that give Americans the "opportunity" to save for retirement, a decidedly centrist approach to spiraling college costs and other familiar policies from the 1990s. She's not a fair trader nor a free trader, she says -- she's for "smart trade," "pro-American" trade.

Edward's speech about the economy isn't the only time that he's strayed from the bounds of "respectable" discourse in Washington. In May, he said that the "war on terror" was a political "bumper sticker" that the administration used to "justify everything [Bush] does: the ongoing war in Iraq, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, spying on Americans, torture."

Edwards isn't the only candidate in the race making such bold statements, of course. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) has long spoken of economic issues in the kinds of terms Edwards used last week. But John Edwards was the vice presidential nominee on a presidential ticket that won 59 million votes and he's raised $23 million in the current cycle (20 times what Kucinich has raised), and that means that corporate media is forced to cover him. So far, they've mocked him, written stories about his haircuts, pushed shadowy innuendo about his personal business dealings and suggested his focus on poverty is disingenuous or hypocritical, but they simply can't write him off as a member of the fringe. Unlike Kucinich, they can't ignore him.

John Edwards is becoming a very different kind of candidate, and his growing message of empowerment and attack on the corporate class may prove to be the most interesting story of campaign 2008.

Joshua Holland is an AlterNet staff writer.



http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/26/ftn/main3204737.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_3204737

(CBS/AP) Congress should continue to push for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq regardless of what top military advisers say in their progress report next month, Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards said Sunday on Face The Nation.

"I think they should not submit a single funding bill to the president for the war that doesn't have a timetable for withdrawal," Edwards told Bob Schieffer. "And I think they should use whatever legislative tool is available to them, including filibuster."

The former North Carolina senator started the last day of his four-day bus tour of New Hampshire outside Manchester's City Hall, where he told several hundred people that they should ask themselves two key questions when the report is released. First, has Iraq made progress toward a political solution? And second, how long will troops be deployed if there is no progress?

Edwards has said if he were president, he would remove about 50,000 American troops immediately, with the rest redeployed over about nine months. A troop withdrawal would show the Iraqi government that it needs to find a political compromise to end the conflict, he said.

"There has to be some compromise between Maliki and the Shia-led government and the Sunni leadership," Edwards said. "Otherwise there'll never be stability and security in Iraq. And Maliki, who has been, clearly, a weak leader, needs to be focused on that job."

Meanwhile, Sunday, Iraq's beleaguered prime minister lashed out at Democrats who have called for his ouster.

"There are American officials who consider Iraq as if it were one of their villages, for example Hillary Clinton and Carl Levin. They should come to their senses," al-Maliki said.

Al-Maliki struck back in the final days before the American commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus is due in Washington for his September progress report.

The Shiite prime minister said a negative report by Petraeus would not cause him to change course, although he said he expected Petraeus would "be supportive of the government and will disappoint the politicians who are relying on it" to be negative.

Edwards said the prime minister is focusing on the wrong issue.

"I think that Maliki should quit worrying about Democrats and the presidential campaign in America and start worrying about what he needs to do in his own country," Edwards said.

"I mean, everyone knows that at the end of the day, as the Iraq Study Group has said and most of us have said at this point, there can be no military solution in Iraq. There has to be a political solution," he said.

Edwards stopped short of saying al-Maliki should resign.

"I think that's something for them to decide, not for us to decide," Edwards told Schieffer.

The former Senator from North Carolina said that there was no way of predicting what would happen if the U.S. withdrew its troops from Iraq.

"The truth is there are no good choices and no one can predict with any kind of accuracy exactly what's going to happen in Iraq," Edwards said. "We're going to maximize the chances of success, we're going to do this in an orderly and responsible way, but there's no way to know with certainty what will happen."

© MMVII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.

**** has been put here under the fair use act.... for discussion and education purposes. *****
 
Top