http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/05/us/politics/05edwards.html?th&emc=th
He's in racing form, sez the Gray Lady, but she draws this sober conclusion:
Mr. Edwards is a credible contender, like anyone running an insurgency against the establishment candidate, he will not be able to fall back on the top-tier institutional and financial support that will rescue Mrs. Clinton if she should stumble in the early states where Mr. Edwards appears strongest.Yup, Edwards is an "insurgent", according to the view from Times Square anyway -- an insurgent not like the marvelous mister McG in '72, but rather like my closet hero, Gary Hartpence in '84.
I guess you are judged by the company you're forced into, and if it's the thin high air of the candidate summit, where only Mother Clinton and a covert corporate conjury we call Obama can cavort -- well then, I guess our Johnny is doing it under-doggy style.
PS -- Gomer Edwards would still keep the Patriot Act, so long as its domestic super-snooper prick gets lopped off. How long would that bargaining chip last, I wonder?
Comments (4)
I watched Ralph Nader on Comedy Central last night, and his comments reminded me of why I voted for him in '96 and '00: the two parties we have simply are not representative of the values of American citizens. They are not democratic, and thus a candidate such as John Edwards can be considered an "insurgent" in this rarefied and calcified world.
America is the land of choice; why must we be saddled with only two parties? It's more like Mexico's erstwhile "perfect dictatorship" under the PRI.
That country now has three major options at the ballot box, plus dozens of other real political parties.
Can we aspire to be more like our neighbor to the South and bust the asphyxiating political duopoly?!!
Posted by Michael Blaine | February 8, 2007 10:13 PM
Posted on February 8, 2007 22:13
stop the occ update
john v walsh http://www.counterpunch.org/walsh02082007.html
"Congressmen cannot be against the war and for its funding.
"If the Democrats continue to fund the war, then they own it. It is their war as well Bush's"
"It takes only one senator to begin a filibuster against any bill.
And then it takes only 41 votes to uphold that filibuster "
"... the present authorization for defense funding ... can be stopped cold
if it contains funds for the war on Iraq"
"We should have a version of the Occupation Project ... target our Senators
to join a filibuster and commit to upholding it by voting against cloture"
Posted by owen paine | February 9, 2007 2:32 PM
Posted on February 9, 2007 14:32
m blaine:
"America is the land of choice; why must we be saddled with only two parties??"
ask wall street
Posted by owen paine | February 9, 2007 2:33 PM
Posted on February 9, 2007 14:33
but putin can kick back
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/11/world/europe/11munich.html?th&emc=th
according to vlad these days
we live on a planet with....
" One single center of power. One single center of force. One single center of decision making. This is the world of one master, one sovereign....It has nothing in common with democracy, of course..Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force in international relations — military force.”
details:
" The process of NATO expansion has nothing to do with modernization of the alliance..We have the right to ask, ‘Against whom is this expansion directed?’ "
the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe has been morphed ...
“into a vulgar instrument of ensuring the foreign policy interests of one country"
Putin Says U.S. Is Undermining Global Stability
Timm Schamberger/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
Vladimir V. Putin gave a blunt address on American power to a security conference in Munich Saturday.
E-Mail
Print
Single Page
Reprints
Save
Share
Digg
Facebook
Newsvine
Permalink
By THOM SHANKER and MARK LANDLER
Published: February 11, 2007
MUNICH, Feb. 10 — President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia accused the United States on Saturday of provoking a new nuclear arms race by developing ballistic missile defenses, undermining international institutions and making the Middle East more unstable through its clumsy handling of the Iraq war.
In an address to an international security conference, Mr. Putin dropped all diplomatic gloss to recite a long list of complaints about American domination of global affairs, including many of the themes that have strained relations between the Kremlin and the United States during his seven-year administration.
Among them were the expansion of NATO into the Baltics and the perception in Russia that the West has supported groups that have toppled other governments in Moscow’s former sphere of influence.
“The process of NATO expansion has nothing to do with modernization of the alliance,” Mr. Putin said. “We have the right to ask, ‘Against whom is this expansion directed?’ ”
He said the United States had turned the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which sends monitors to elections in the former Soviet sphere, “into a vulgar instrument of ensuring the foreign policy interests of one country.”
The comments were the sternest yet from Mr. Putin, who has long bristled over criticism from the United States and its European allies as he and his cadre of former Soviet intelligence officials have consolidated their hold on Russia’s government, energy reserves and arms-manufacturing and trading complexes.
Rubble from the Berlin Wall was “hauled away as souvenirs” to countries that praise openness and personal freedom, he said, but “now there are attempts to impose new dividing lines and rules, maybe virtual, but still dividing our mutual continent.”
The world, he said, is now unipolar: “One single center of power. One single center of force. One single center of decision making. This is the world of one master, one sovereign.”
With the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, the American defense secretary, Robert M. Gates, and a Congressional delegation sitting stone-faced, Mr. Putin warned that the power amassed by any nation that assumes this ultimate global role “destroys it from within.
“It has nothing in common with democracy, of course,” he added. “Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force in international relations — military force.”
"Primarily the United States has overstepped its national borders, and in every area"
American military actions ???
"unilateral..illegitimate...have not been able to resolve any matters at all..They bring us to the abyss of one conflict after another..Political solutions are becoming impossible"
"
Posted by owen paine | February 11, 2007 3:01 PM
Posted on February 11, 2007 15:01