Top seven reasons why John Edwards will be the Democratic nominee:
1. Candidacies flare and die like roman candles. Edwards hasn’t had his flare, Obama’s will soon die down. It was right about now that Kerry began to reemerge in 04.
2. Obama’s green. I don’t like to think so, but Lucianne Goldberg says it, my wife says it, the writer Dan Swanson says it. They must be right. Voters will want him to season before they let him run the country.
3. Hillary has no inner life. This was the clear thrust of the big Times profile last week wondering if she’s "real," or too "hardened." It is why people focus on the cackle, and her strange comment about, This is when the fun begins–speaking of the negative campaigning. They wonder if it is not a genuine expression of the hidden Nixon. I think she’s such a public perso, has been for so long, that there’s nothing true and Hillary going on inside, she hasn’t cultivated her inner self since who knows when.
4. The south. Edwards says that the last two Dem presidents talked like him.
5. Populism. Edwards actually has a real idea way bigger than himself. It’s about greed and the gulf between the rich and the poor. He can tell his personal story to fit that view of the world. He’s the anti-elitist candidate, and right now that’s hugely appealing.
6. Chris Matthews is excited by him suddenly.
7. Elizabeth Edwards.
Obama caves to pressure from Israel firsters over Mearsheimer/Walt book
“>link to philipweiss.org
Click on the pic of Newt Gingrich at the following URL to see him get hammered about his association with the JINSA/PNAC Neocons up at AEI:
http://NEOCONZIONISTTHREAT.BLOGSPOT.COM
Edwards is owned by the pro-Israel lobby as well (look what he said against Iran in Israel despite what he says for public consumption in the USA):
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Edwards_Iran_must_know_world_wont_0123.html
Edwards attacking rivals only indirectly
http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?p=403318#403318
I agree with Phil that Edwards would be vastly electable than Obama (or Hillary) but I would bet against Dem primary voters realizing that in time. The enthusiasm among "progressives" for electing someone who seems more like a "citizen of the world" than an American is boundless. I'm no jingoist, and not going to condemn that sentiment, but I'm pretty sure it's not what would appeal to average heartland voters in a time of crisis. I live in Washington, and when you suggest to a Dem. that someone named Barack Hussein Obama is unlikely to fly outside the wine/cheese/latte and hard core progressive set you get looks of complete befuddlement.
About Edwards, Obama, Hillary, being "owned" by the Israel lobby, this seems more than a little reductionistic. A candidate running for office is pretty dependent on Jewish money. A President in office has much wider reservoir of potential contributors to tap. And ability to mobilize and move public opinion on this issue by playing the more sensible parts of the Israel lobby (two state solution advocates who favor a generally realist foreign policy) against the less sensible parts. We don't know who Hillary, or Obama, or Edwards would appoint to key positions, but "the lobby", influential as it may be, wouldn't have the last say in the matter.
If Breck Girl is so seasoned and strong and a Southern Everyman, how come he is not a factor in his own birthstate, South Carolina (which he won in the '04 primaries)? Obama too green? Dowd has been saying this forever too. It's the kind of thing elderly white ladies say. (And don't forget this one: "he is too thin! He really needs to eat more").
Obama has built a bigger political tent than Edwards. The biggest political tent anyone has built since Reagan. It's a different world out there.
Speaking of Reagan: He was too old in 1980, remember? A spent force.
I think Edwards is the best candidate, not for his electibility, but for his populism.
He represents a non-racist, non anti-semitic populism, which is a breath of fresh air.
He remembers and applies that prosperity comes from work and not from speculation. He strikes me as genuinely committed to the social good, and not merely ambition or pandering.
I think Edwards is the Gore-like zionist friend:
From the transcript of the Oct. 22, 1992 conversation with President David Steiner of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) recorded without his knowledge by New York businessman Haim (Harry) Katz.
http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/1292/9212013.html
—————————-
HK: Let me ask you, [talks about getting cheated in business by Gentiles]. Let me ask you, Clinton, if he becomes, I mean what will he do for Israel, better than Bush, if he becomes, I know Bush gave you a hard time, this and that. ..
DS: I'II tell you, I have friends on the Clinton campaign, close associates. Gore is very committed to us.
—————————-
Yes, Witty, Edwards also "strikes me as genuinely committed…"
Be sure to check out the comments section of the following blog entry by Phil:
Jewish Chauvinism in Feith's, and Friedman's, Back Pages
http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2007/12/jewish-chauvini.html
What is incredible that that Phil's piece (for 'The Nation') is the only one that shows up when one does a search for 'Mearsheimer' at www.cbsnews.com:
Ferment over the 'Israel Lobby':
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/28/opinion/main1560594.shtml?source=search_story
Check this Robert Parry article out about how Hillary is a hack for the neocon agenda as well (like we didn't already know though with her vote for Kyl-Lieberman and being all for the Iraq war as well):
NEOCONS DOWN, NOT OUT:
http://tinyurl.com/2w7k5b
You could post in the relevant topic.
Its not hard.
But Richard, it is related because Hillary's neocon connection is mentioned by Parry in that piece of his that I linked above..
Letters to the Editor of the Daily Princestonian by Mearsheimer/Walt & retired CIA analyst Bill Christison
http://tinyurl.com/2jekk2
So, talk to yourself in your own blog.
You must be a Hillary supporter by the sound of it.. Sorry you don't like the truth about her apparently.. Click on the pic of USA Today correspondent Barbara Slavin at the following URL as Hillary is owned by AIPAC as well:
AIPAC Pushing US to War with Iran for Israel:
http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot.com/2007/10/re-aipac-is-pushing-us-to-war-with-iran.html
http://NEOCONZIONISTTHREAT.BLOGSPOT.COM
Who could be greener than Edwards? He held on office, not even PTA, before a relatively easy win for one term in the Senate (Obama has at least 11 yrs in politics, even more in advocacy). He abandoned that post (and his constituents)halfway through to campaign for himself.
The other candidates have put in decades of public service, Edwards has not. He has no experience marshalling any cause–other than his own– from concept to completion. He has no record of advocacy in NC. (The afterschool program he started is currently begging for basic office supplies, chairs, snacks for the kids.) Other people fought the fights for healthcare, pre-school programs, predatory lending without Edwards.
As far as I know (and I used to head one of the groups), Edwards has no history of membership with groups that fight special interests.
I don't think he's even done pro-bono attorney work, like thousands of others in NC. (He gave but $50 to a campaign to help provide legal services to poor people, while other lawyers gave both time and $100.)
Edwards is a phoney.
Even in East Tennessee issues seem to trump old cliches. For however it will play out, voters seem to take the subject of immigration seriously. When an economic slowdown comes, this region's manufacturing and commerce get hurt badly. Edwards talks about jobs. We'll have to see how things look after Christmas bills start coming in and heating prices go up.
Just as in the rest of the country, turnout at the polls will matter more this time around.