History will judge us

Nice quote. Didn't help him win his home state in the general four years ago though. Edwards is a multi multi millionaire. Far and away the richest guy in the race, I have a hard time ignoring the irony of mega zillionaire trial lawyers who live in huge mansions calling themselves the champions of the poor. If he's a champion of the poor, he can sell his mansion and his lexus, give most of his money away like bill gates, and send his kids to public school. When Barack Obama, on the other hand, graduated magna from Harvard Law and could have been a millionaire lawyer, he instead went back to Chicago to live and work in the projects as an organizer and legal aid volunteer. You tell me who is better qualified to talk about this topic. Obama has been there. Edwards has been in his thirty room gatd mansion with his servants.

Besides I still haven't heard him explain why he was bashing WalMart and at the same time secretly having one of his people try to get him a new Playstation there.

...attacking the guy who's probably going to be the nominee. Truly sickening.

1. The man stands for nothing.
2. History will judge us well. Compare the modern US to all the great nations of the past.
3. http://drudgereport.com/flash2.htm

Why is Edwards "probably going to be the nominee"? Is it because he's the most credible white male in the race, and while female, black, hispanic or other minority candidates may be nice and symbolic and all, to win the party MUST nominate a white male, and preferably a white southern male, in order to win? Is that what you are saying?

I don't dislike Edwards. If you re-read my post, the first thing I said was that it was a "nice quote" I don't think however that Edwards as president changes anything, it doesn't make any statements about inclusiveness, it doesn't break any glass ceilings. The Democratic Party should have the courage to blaze new trails. Obama, Clinton, even Richardson. Somebody who for once isn't a white southern male (and *I* am a white southern male, so I am not prejudiced against Edwards or anything)

Bouldin, you thought it was so hugely symbolically important to nominate an african american in brooklyn cd 11, and you went on and on about how blacks and minorities are underrepresented in government, then surely you can see what it could mean to so many people if just for once the president of the united states wasn't a white southern male.

Edwards was a one term senator from NC, is there anything that stands out about his term? He ran as moderate/conservative, had to in order to get elected, and given that his voting record in office was more liberal than how he ran, he was very unlikely to get re-elected. So he ran for President instead. It can be argued that since Edwards never let the voters of North Carolina validate how they felt about his first term, that we don't know how they felt about how good a Senator he was. Other than that they voted for Bush in the general, so they must not have cared whether he was going to be vp.

Hillary had a distinguished first term, won a seat on the armed services committee and pushed her pet causes. She got re-elected in a landslide in a state where she was a carpetbagger. What has Edwards done?

I think there is a double standard. Edwards, because he is a good looking white southern male, does not have the same questions being asked regarding his experience and accomplishments, that Hillary and Obama get asked. It is as if his whitesouthernmaleness MAKES him more accomplished and qualified than they are right? I see Hillary and Obama as stars of the party, best selling authors, figures of national stature. Edwards is the white southern male candidate. Hillary and Obama have to work a lot harder than he just to be seen as Presidential than he does. This is just a fact. There IS a double standard in this country.

...people can't stand Hillary, and as noted, she stands for nothing. Barack is lovely as a VP candidate.

He, by contrast, is likable, electable, and has a solid track record on poverty issues and addressing the economic concerns of voters. Thing is, all the starfucking practiced by HillaryBot Wallner aside, we need someone who can win, and he's shown he can do that.

Edwards is a solid Progressive, and he can do it; check out his issues page. It's no surpise to me that he's currently the only Dem nominee who polls better than the R candidates. That's because people are hungry for fresh leadership, which rules out Hillary, and at the same time want someone with more experience than, sorry, Barack (Illinois state Senate, whatever) has to offer.

So yeah, he's a white Southern male. So effing what? Edwards is pretty much the clear netroots favorite right now, which in itself goes some way in explaining why he's probably the guy to beat. It's just surprising to me that the man's solid agenda is being disparaged by HillaryBots pushing for a far more corporate DLC candidate; but hey.

I am not *pushing* Hillary. I am simply defending her as electable and against unwarranted attacks. If she was so heavily disliked, she would not have gotten re-elected in a landslide would she? But I am leaning towards Obama, as I have previously stated.

Does it not matter to you that Edwards all but disappeared as the vp candidate in '04, that his retail politicking skills that played well in Iowa didn't translate to wholesale politicking in the general? Or that more north carolina voters voted for bush in '04, with Edwards on the ticket, than for bush in '00? Clearly that should tell you that NC voters didn't think Edwards was this great senator.

Edwards is a solid Progressive, and he can do it; check out his issues page.
********
Ugh! These pages are always so uninspired. I hate to even go to them to find out a candidate's positions.

Candidate X loves America blah blah blah foreign oil blah blah poverty is bad blah blah education and healthcare are good blah blah blah. . .

And, yet, he's the pick of the litter as far as I can tell so far.. .

Nance

Bouldin said: (So yeah, he's a white Southern male. So effing what? )

I said the same thing about David Yassky in the cd11 race and you blasted me for it. In the CD11 race, it sure seemed to matter to you that Yassky was white. You preached on and on about how blacks are underpresented in government, how all minorities, even women are underepresented. But for you, it seems to be one thing to elect a black in a black majority district and quite another to elect a black or minority outside of majority minority districts.

You supported DLC-ite David Yassky, and now, you're supporting DLC-ite Hillary every chance you get, Wallner.

It looks like I was wrong calling you a HillaryBot, Wallner. In point of fact, you're a DLCbot. Thank you for pointing that out to me.

And now, someone needs to explain to me what a supporter of the rightwing DLC is doing on a Progressive blog. What, are you getting paid to undermine the netroots, Wallner? Is that why you spend all effing day spreading your reactionary message here? Are you the emissary of the status quo sent here to infiltrate the Progressive movement?

Pray, do tell.

You are lying again. I did not support Yassky. I supported Chris Owens (ask Chris, he'll tell you) I simply supported Yassky's right to run against all of you who were disqualifying him because of his skin color. Thats all. And I intensely dislike the DLC and supported Howard Dean in '04 in part because he was properly bashing that organization. This year I am likely to support Barack Obama, who is not a DLC member. But that doesn't mean I hate Hillary or won't defend her right to run, as I did Yassky.

The fact remains Bouldin that your support of Chris Owens was situational. To you, a liberal african-american like him is fine, even good, to represent a majority minority district like brooklyn cd11. But outside minority majority districts its a different story. A black or a woman running in a non-minority majority district or nationally and you don't want to go there. Is this ideological segregation you support? Barack Obama is a lot like Chris Owens-- in fact I think Chris is supporting him-- but you don't want to go there. Because that isn't cd11, majority minority voting rights district, thats a national race. And nationally, you want the liberals and minorities to stay in their place...

...you "hate" the DLC so much that you spend months shilling for their candidates. You loved Chris Owens so much you never gave him a dime or volunteered for his campaign from at least three months before the election. You're such a good liberal that you spend your days and nights spamming up Progressive blogs with two messages, a) that you love DLC-ite Hillary, and b) that as a white Southern male, you're competent to tell black people not to talk about racism, because that offends poor troubled little souls, specifically your own.

Loser.

Once again I hit you with substantive attacks and you make it personal and start making personal references and calling me names. I petioned for Chris, I flyered for Chris, I still have materials in my closet somewhere. I went door to door (ask Tracey Denton if you don't believe me) I wasn't in a position financially to contribute as I'd like to have. Also I was not living full time in the city from early August until recently so I had valid reasons for not being on the ground so much there as I had been, but you make whatever assumptions you want. I did support Chris. Once again, you make reality what you want it to be, and call people names because you get arrogant when the heat is on and want to change the subject.

I did not support Yassky, I don't like the DLC and I am probably not supporting Hillary. But if I defend Hillary's qualities as a candidate, or Yassky's simple right to run, I'm a supporter? You are really shallow...

...and might I note that, as you always have done, you have again made a full thread

All.

About.

You.

You have some serious issues, dude, and your DLCbottery is the least of them.

You are also a hypocrite on the DLC issue, because your candidate, John Edwards IS also a DLC member. Was one of the organizers. Or did you not realize that? He keynoted the 2003 DLC meeting I believe. And which DLC member keynoted in 2005? Mark Warner, the candidate you were supporting before Edwards. Both DLC guys. The DLC would be perfectly happy for Edwards to be the nominee. The one among the contenders who is NOT an DLC member is Barack Obama, the candidate I prefer at the moment. So who's the DLC'er here? sounds like you are bouldin...

I type in my legitimately held opinions about hillary, or defend her against attacks I feel are unwarranted,

This thread was originally dedicated to John Edwards.

Then came you.

Hey I'm trying to turn the conversation back to Edwards. I am not trying to be the center of attention, you are the one who draws me out and then makes the personal attacks, flames me and then puts me down for responding to the flames.

re: way back there, mole said: ( Your assumption that Hillary is a Bill clone is sexist and insulting)

I never said any such thing. Again you are choosing to deliberately misinterpret something in the most negative possible way. Never in any way, shape, or form did I say she is a Bill clone. She is more liberal than Bill is. Everybody knows that. I knew plenty of democrats back in '92 who thought Bill was too moderate and only voted for him because he had promised to bring hillary in on policy issues, and she was seen as more liberal. I don't think he could have won the nomination without her that year.

She is far from a Bill clone. But in as much as they are political partners, a team in essence, it is logical to assume that they influence each other pretty substantially. It is no way sexist to claim that, as clearly she influenced him as much as he might influence her. If Bill Clinton is a populist, and she has spent half her life in his corner as his strongest backer, wouldn't you think that maybe, just maybe, without any sexist connotations at all, that she might be a populist too? And vice versa?

Let it go, Wallner. I'm tired of talking about you and with you.

From mediamatters.org on [Ed. note: Edwards was never a member of this organization.] DLC member John Edwards:

[b]Edwards's average liberal rating for the five years he has served in the Senate (1999-2003) is 75.7 percent -- 20 points lower than his 2003 rating, which Republicans are touting. According to National Journal, in 2002, Edwards received a 63 percent rating; in 2001, he received a 68.2 percent rating; in 2000, he received an 80.8 percent rating; and in 1999, he received a 72.2 percent rating.

Furthermore, according to a January 31, 2003, National Journal profile (NationalJournal.com subscription required) of "The Presidential Wanna-bes," "Among the other presidential contenders, Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina has been in the moderate-to-conservative range of Senate Democrats during his four years in the chamber." And in 2002, Edwards made National Journal's list of "Senate Centrists" [/b]

[Ed. note: That's a bit better than the voting record of you-know-who the obsessive triangulator, torture-condoner and flag-burning-amendment sponsor.]

mole also said: (Too bad she wasn't more forward thinking about Iraq. I have the same criticism of my other Senator, the guy who isn't Hillary. They both showed amazingly stupid or cynically cowardly approaches to Iraq. THAT is the kind of experience I take into account when I judge Hillary. )

Well I hope you take that same kind of experience into account when you judge John Edwards, because he voted for that bill authorizing the Iraq war too in 2002.

[Ed. Note: True enough, however, Edwards has recanted his vote and spoken out strongly and consistently against the war. Coincidentally, there was never a 'bill authorizing the Iraq war'; there was a Use of Force resolution, which again, Clinton refuses to back away from.]

If the Iraq war is the key issue, and I don't think it should be but if it is, and progressives were lukewarm to Kerry in 2004 because of voting for the bill, and won't vote for Hillary for the same reasons, why support Edwards?

[Ed. note: See above.]

Why does Edwards get a pass on the Iraq war issue-- is it because he's a white southern male, whereas Hillary isn't that she gets hung over it?

[Ed. note: Now that's just an unbelievably stupid statement.]

The only major candidate who has been perfectly consistent on the Iraq war is Obama, who openly and strongly criticized the war from the outset. Of course he wasn't in the Senate at the time and didn't face the same pressures Kerry, Clinton AND John Edwards did in making the decision.

Giving folks who work in the lowest skilled labor jobs a few bucks? OK. The increased labor cost will either be passed on to the users of the service, or absorbed by cost reducing the product or service.

The concept of "Value Engineering" is rarely seen as a value outcome.

If folks want to really take a living wage conversation seriously, I don't think those jobs will come from McDonald's, or cleaning rooms in hotels, or any number of other low skill employment settings. It will come from training working people (who hopefully have at least High School diplomas) new skills in employment growth industries.

Perhaps if we want to move our country forward, in an ever increasingly technological intensive world we should look at transforming our funding / enrollment / participation in the Community College system?

It might be fun to see an analysis of State by State funding / participation and resulting economic benefit / performance.

For example, perhaps the States who do the poorest jobs of supporting the Community College system, also lag behind in providing something other than minimum wage jobs?

Now just watch you-know-who regurgitate every single argument from the last year. It's going to happen, and the complaint will be that you're mean, unfair and wrong and are picking on some poor, defenseless soul just trying to speak his mind amidst the slings and arrows of outrageous haters.

As to the minimum wage, really, these wingnut talking points should have been discredited by now, because they're the one example of trickle-down that actually works. Raise the minimum wage and you see an immediate economic uptick, because at that level, people spend everything they have.

Last year, one guy, a hedge-funder I think, in New York earned one billion dollars in gross compensation. As far as I'm concerned, that's a danger to democracy and the future of the commonwealth right there. Why? Because these kinds of demonic wealth gaps are obscene and socially without value. We should be working on giving everyone an economic stake in this society.

Edwards was on the losing ticket four years ago. When has a candidate on a losing national ticket in a general election (be it president or vp), a candidate the public didn't elect, ever come back to get elected president? When you run nationally in a general and lose, it usually means the public has looked at you and passed.

[Ed. note: Nixon, Reagan.]

In this case, if Edwards is the nominee, you can fully expect that they will tie John Kerry around his neck like a noose. They will show pictures of Edwards and Kerry together constantly, and re-run Kerry's controversial quotes. They will call him John "Kerry" Edwards.

[Ed. Note: Sure, that beats 'Hitlery'. Heh.]

I am not sure Edwards will have a better chance of winning the general this time than if Kerry had run again and been re-nominated himself.

[Ed. note: based on what empirical evience?]

I think we need a fresh ticket. No disrespect to Edwards, I'd like to see him be Secretary of Labor in an Obama admnistration

[Ed. note: Obama will be great as Edwards' Veep.]

Bouldin, will you please quit editing my posts. Unless I have misspelled words or made some egregious statement that needs censoring, it is out of line to put your own comments in another user's posts. It is a misuse of moderator's functions to do that. Just respond to me in your own posts. Otherwise I will just assume you want your responses to be nameless and faceless so you don't have to answer for them

Also mole, will you quit analyzing style and who's irritating who and all that, and just stick with substance of the topic. It is not your job to tell people I'm irritating or why, nor is it your job to lecture me or any other user on proper posting etiquette. Your recent posts offtopic drift analysis of my posting style or steamgeek's were out of line. Nobody wants to hear your *expert* analysis of style and technique. So give it up.

And no Hillary wouldn't exactly be fresh either, although unlike Edwards, she has not been a member of a losing national ticket. Neither was Reagan or Nixon for that matter. I will repeat-- NO CANDIDATE who lost a general election in modern times (at least the twentieth century) has ever come back four, eight or a hundred years later and won the white house. Why would those Florida and Ohio voters who did not vote Edwards into office in the general four years ago do so now?

Actually there's an argument that Kerry might have won had he chosen Gephardt instead of Edwards as vp, because while Edwards couldn't deliver North Carolina, Gephardt might have delivered Missourri and as a strong pro-union, might have swayed more industrial union voters in neighboring Ohio. Edwards did nothing for the party as the vp candidate.

I would merely point out that this is a privately-owned site, one which you, Wallner, use at the discretion and pleasure of the people who run it.

So it's maybe a bad idea to lecture these people, including Mole and self, on what it is that we can and cannot do. It is actually precisely Mole's job to tell you when you're irritating, and you're well-advised to heed his advice. You post here as a result of choices you make, but you do not dictate the terms under which this site may have that privilege.

Re: editing your posts, stick to the facts, and it won't happen. Here too, it's really not appropriate to present your opinions as facts. It's also, frankly, severely ill-advised, when the consensus seems to be going gainst you, to provoke others by posting claims as fact which are firmly in the realm of opinion.

It may be privately owned but it is still not proper blogosphere etiquette. This site isn't worth anything if you can't get people to come here and participate. You can correct all my posts you want in your own post, you don't need to do them in the body of mine.

Note on previous post about candidates who have been rejected nationally and never winning, as stated I don't think Nixon counts. This because Nixon was elected nationally first. He was vice president. The public had accepted him on a national ticket before they rejected him on a later national ticket. Edwards has never been "accepted", as in was elected, on a national ticket. There is no candidate who has been on a national ticket in a general (not a primary) and lost, without ever having won before, who came back and later won.

Wallner, we determine what's proper here. If you don't like it, then leave.

End of story.

mole said: (You irritate people so much that you have been banned from a site with roughly the same editors who are here. You take umbrage at anything anyone says to you unless they agree with you 99.9%, leaving no room for polite debate)

At least you admit I was banned from daily gotham because I was irritating, NOT because I libeled anything so maliciously.

[Ed. note MB: Nope. Though Wallner was as disagreeable on Daily Gotham as he is here, he was banned for posting libel against a reader of the site, repeatedly. The thread in question is here. True, being an utter fucktard made the decision easier.]

Listen, you can't avoid irritating some people in political discourse particularly on the 'net where you can't often tell intonation. Most of my posts are well intentioned, I don't lecture anyone, I simply make forceful opinions.

[Ed. note MB: one can disagree on that.]

If someone takes a forceful, impassioned response too personally, that is not the fault of the typer IMO, it is the fault of the reader for making the wrong conclusions about what was typed, or at least not having room for accepting that there may be more than one conclusion.

[Ed. note MB: "Really, it's not me, it's you"]

Your posts come off as lecturing as often as mine or anyone else's do. Again and again, you make yourself seem the expert on style, diction, and even definitions and facts. For instance, you can find upteen different definitions for progressive, but you insisted the one you posted was the only one substantially correct. Who made you the great expert?

[Ed. note MB: the site owner.]

Michael Bouldin has used profanity toward me in his posts again and again, he has called me a loser, said I need professional help, made continued and varied derogatory remarks intended for no other reason than to make me feel bad.

[Ed. note MB: you forgot 'sniveling little fucktard' and 'self-righteous little creep'. Please quote accurately and in full]

Yet to you, an editor on this board, his behaviour is and has been acceptable and mine has not. I call that hypocrisy and favoritism of the highest order. You can't expect people to post here when they get opened to ridicule and then editors with their own agendas won't step in and do common sense moderating to keep order. I can't take anything you say seriously since you won't say a word, not one word, against Michael Bouldin's rude, insensitive, crass, vulgar [MB: right on topic, accurate, fully appropriate] behaviour, which also includes editing his comments into my posts [MB: kinda like right now]. You want to be taken seriously, you treat people the same way. Thats the Democratic way [, you totalitarian stooge].

Otherwise, these boards will never be much more than a clique, its what happens when moderators are out more to serve their own needs and not try and cultivate other bloggers and make them feel welcome. I have posted in the spirit of good blogging here, and I have gotten flogged over it because I type forcefully and that forcefulness is misread [sic!] as some form of condescension and lecturing. [Imagine that.] I am telling you that is wrong, a misinterpretation, and if you have any common courtesy you will believe me and lay off. [After all, it is Wallner's blog.] All I want to do is post here and not have you or Bouldin, [because no one else in their right mind has the patience for this] and it is only you two, come after me for every least little thing.

I hope it means that there won't be any more lecturing on style and diction, and that I don't-- purely in the act of defending myself-- have to become the subject of endless drift. Nobody wants to read that. I just want the benefit of the doubt that I am well intentioned. We have attended enough of the same meetups and such that you should know that already. I am a polite person. I never stand up and scream and I respect everyone's opinions. I only get defensive when I come here out of my interest and passion about politics, and find that my own opinions can't get respected in the way that I respect others. I find it hurtful.

...that's probably not what it means.

that you all could leave the pissing contests at home and let the rest of us get back to enjoying this site.

Which, with its wonderful new format, I am clicking onto ever so much more.

DH survived the dentist and is now nicely doped up so I'm off to find the grownups around here.

Nance

I would love to get back on topic. But every time I do I get ripped apart. Some people can't just disagree with my or others' opinions, they have to state as a fact they are wrong and use vulgarity and call them losers, just for not thinking the same way they do. They criticize lecturing BY lecturing themselves. You can't blame a person for defending himself. Even if he gets banned for having the misguided notion that he ought to protect his own honor.

Also I did not libel anyone, except in Bouldin's mind. Of course he links to the item where he claims it happened, but you'll note he erased my posts in question so the point can't be argued. Typical cowardly act.

I want to post and participate here as an honest, enthusiastic member of the community, and I want to be able to be a passionate supporter of whatever candidate I decide to back, or happen to like. Thats the american way right? And I don't want moderators censoring or telling me what opinions to have. Freedom of speech ya know. I thought the problem in society today is not enough people having strong political opinions. But around here, it seems some of the moderators see the problem as just the opposite. They want a nice, quiet board where everyone agrees with them about everything, and candidates and ideas are only pushed that THEY pushed. If you push any other candidates or ideas too hard, they threaten to ban you.

I did not apologize in the case you mention because I believed the complaining poster had badly misinterpreted what I was typing. Sometimes when you type things they make sense to you and others can see it in just the wrong way. I am sorry she saw it in the wrong way, but she did overreact. That is an opinion to which I am entitled and it is out of line for the moderators to demand I have their opinions or that I apologize where I honestly, in my heart, don't think one was warranted.

Nevertheless I was pm'ed this afternoon by a moderator telling me point blank not to talk up Hillary or Obama anymore. The candidates I like. Or else I'll get banned. I'm also not entitled to speak my opinions about the behaviour of one of the other moderators. Because managers are managers and anyone else using their service must kiss their ass?

I am not the one who makes myself the center of drift in these items. I get drawn into defending myself by bouldin, who ridicules me and makes me the issue. Yet I am not allowed to comment on his crude, vulgar behaviour. Or I'll get banned.

This is supposed to be a progressive board. A board that practices the same ideals we want our leaders to practice in government, inclusiveness, compassion. community spirit. Elimination of class divisions. Yet I come here and find the moderators want class systems, behaviour they won't accept from some is accepted in moderators.

I have never called anyone racist or sexist here. I have said that some are more sensitive than others on race or sex, and sometimes thats a good thing and sometimes its not. Its a fair thing to point out. I hold myself to that, sometimes I am either too sensitive or not sensitive enough too. I tried to make a lengthy post to explain a situation where I thought the race issue was overstated, and a user got offended. I stated in the past that I thought the race issue was overplayed in the cd11 race where a good candidate, not the one I voted for, got called a racist and worse. Yet I don't get the benefit of the doubt that such comments were well intentioned, I get assumptions of the worst kind from moderators and some readers who had kneejerk reactions. I regret that. Maybe its an object lesson on what issues to stay away from.

I can be a better poster. I have told them and am saying here I will try. But I will not have moderators calling me vulgar names and making personally degrading remarks and not defend myself, and I will not be accused of calling others racist and sexist incorrectly and not defend myself. None of you would allow your honor to go undefended either would you?

gentlemen can keep from tripping over your dicks long enough to read what else is being posted around here. . .

How about those community colleges? http://www.culturekitchen.com/jj_ross/blog/whats_wrong_with_those_guys

Nance

from Daily Gotham, btw? As the editorial managers see it I mean -- less NY centric, more national? More oriented to culture commentary rather than specifically Dem party politics, more literary, etc?

Would any of you four editor-moderators care to expound for our general edification, or amusement?

Sorry not to be more clear on this after blogging here a year! I nervously hope in all that time I haven't strayed too far off the reservation, still feel very new and curious about everything including you guys, but at least I can say I haven't received any corrective notes or demerits yet -- I guess that's a good sign?

When I lived in the City in late 1940s I used to love a good streetcorner freeforall. 72nd and Broadway was good then. But nothing was as good as the Wall Street area on a sunny day at lunch break. Brooklyn was out of my territory.
Difference here is it's all down for perpetuity. It will surely contain the nubbin for some PhD's thesis topic.
Would you all just read what Gary Kamiya wrote in salon.com on Jan. 30? It pertains to their objectives in blogging, with some changes coming forth.
Now, I'm not one to back off of a few well-c