When is the last time, before Edwards, that we actually had a major candidate

[Jackpine Radical]

stand up and take an anti-corporate stance? FDR, maybeI would say. Among the Dem Presidents since FDR, Truman was the first Cold Warrior. Kennedy was another hardliner--remember the "missile gap," etc. LBJ brought us civil rights and a deepening invlovement in Vietnam. Carter was never a real threat to the corporations, and Clinton befriended them.

The more I think about Edwards, the more excited I get. I was born in FDR's last term, and Edwards would be the first President since then to explicitly seek fundamental changes in the power structure of America.

[whirlygigspin]

1. good luck with that

Venezuela has an anti-corporate President, how's that working out?

I think it might not be good for the economy.

[Zorra]

8. Pretty good. Venezuela's economy grew 8.5% in the past year,

and they paid off their debt to the World Bank five years ahead of schedule.

Under Chavez, Venezuela has adopted a low to no cost health care system that is the most advanced in South America.

Chavez was elected by a huge margin, 63% of the vote.

[rAVES]

11. lol.. ignorance.

Shocking.. from a Biden supporter too.. I was under the impression you guys knew your shit, would expect that from Hillbots.

[1corona4u]

15. Care to elaborate, or do you just post snipes?

[whirlygigspin]

28. much ado about nothing?

sorry to confuse you--I meant that Chavez, was able to get some growth,yes but with at least one assassination attempt (I think from the US) and a hell of a lot of trouble, even though he has/had HUGE public support and $100/barrel of oil

even so, most of the money people in Venezuela tried everything they could to kill/destroy/get rid of him...and would still try.


I wonder if JE is really up to it?

or maybe

he's playin' ya?

his record doesn't jive, I mean I hope he's sincere but I don't see it

[K8-EEE]

35. It is dangerous to take a stand against corporate abuse, maybe

It should be rewarded, IMO -- I'm voting Edwards.

[papau]

2. a major candidate" would include those of the 68 and 72 races?

[Jackpine Radical]

7. Yeah, I know.

I cited the Presidents to avoid being boring. '68 and '72 were dominated by the Vietnam war. In '68 Humphrey came on as an LBJ apologist against McCarthy and Bobby. Bobby promised to restore Camelot, and Gene was a single-issue candidate. '72 saw McGovern again running almost solely on the war issue. Neither year produced anyone who promised to reach deep into the machinery of the nation and change how it worked.

[papau]

47. Humphrey and Bobby promised much more "left" than O, same as Hill, less than Edwards - in 72

McGovern wanted a guaranteed annual income supplement for every American - $1200 a year for every man women and child paid in cash as $100 every month. Still a good idea.

McCarthy was the anti-war/listen to the people candidate.

Humphrey was pro LBJ on social issues - as anyone on the left would be. He was also cautious of being labeled as soft on communism as that was a time that such a label was career ending. His list of proposals - proposals that were enacted into law - is better than anyone currently running in terms of reaching "deep into the machinery " of the nation that existed in his time and changing how that machine worked.

But this election is about youth and "it's our turn" - and indeed that was a major part of JFK's appeal on campus (Obama ran the table and won because of the age 17 to 29 vote - Male and female). Iowa and perhaps the rest of this election cycle may well be about "it's our turn". :-) And it is the new generation's turn, if the 18 to 29 (18 being the legal age rather than IA's caucus's age 17) actually turn out to vote in the general.

[1corona4u]

3. Oh, give us a break....

Jesus. he won't do ONE thing he has promised. Mark my words. Other than fuck up Iraq.

[thoughtcrime1984]

5. I like the message, but....

I don't believe he'll follow through, either. He was nowhere close to this stance the last time he held public office.

[Armstead]

6. Yes he was - just not as strident about it

I read some of his speeches from the past. Corporate reform has been one of his consistent themes.

[Jackpine Radical]

9. People evolve.

A guy like Edwards sees things and learns. 2004 taught him a lot.

[thoughtcrime1984]

16. If he gets back into public service, not the Pres

and shows that he is indeed a fervent populist, then I would gladly support him in 2016.

[1corona4u]

18. Uh huh.

[cascadiance]

23. So, I guess Biden hasn't "evolved" from being a servant of the credit card companies then?

after he pushed for the bankruptcy bill without any useful ammendments, if you don't believe that people "evolve"?

Or is it that you would LIKE our president to be a servant of the credit card companies, and you view Edwards now as a threat if in fact he has evolved.

[1corona4u]

41. The big difference is,

Joe's not known to be a liar. He's a poor senator, in fact, the 2nd poorest senator. John, on the other hand, while preaching about taking out the big corporations, still has money in offshore Fortress funds. He's still heavily invested in big corporations.


I'd like a truthful president.

This obsession with Edwards reminds me of how some people were so "sure" about Bush too.

Enough said. Good luck to you and your candidate.

[IsItJustMe]

10. I guess you assume Iraq is going pretty good then. I think Iraq is already F'cked. I guess you

think more of the same is the answer, good luck with that. Millions more dead, trillions more spent.

[1corona4u]

13. No, but it can get a whole lot worse.

That is more my point.

I'd appreciate it if you left out the condescending remarks, and the twisting of what I actually said. If you needed further clarification of my point, you should have asked. Nicely.

I guess I think JOE BIDEN has the best plan for Iraq. That's what I think.

[IsItJustMe]

22. I wasn't trying to condescend or twist., but if that's the way you took it, so be it. You made a

blanket statement and all one can do with such a statement is fill in the blanks.

[ThatPoetGuy]

14. More of the same?

John Edwards is the ONLY top-tier candidate who wants to bring our troops home quickly.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/us/politics/02edwards.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

"Mr. Edwards staked out a position that would lead to a more rapid and complete troop withdrawal than his principal rivals, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, who have indicated they are open to keeping American trainers and counterterrorism units in Iraq."

Barack Obama plans to keep 60,000 troops in Iraq indefinitely. SIXTY THOUSAND.

[1corona4u]

19. So, he brings them home. Then what?

..........

[rodeodance]

4. don't know.

[Clark2008]

12. We still don't.

I hear Edwards saying all these things, but, when he had a chance to actually do something about it, he chose, instead to join the DLC and be one of it's biggest cheerleaders.

I'm sorry, but in my book, actions speak much, much louder than words.

[Rowdyboy]

17. I'm with you.....Edwards is a chance to see just what is possible with this system....

Lets hope he gets a chance to show us.

[slipslidingaway]

20. Iraq Oil Law..Edwards has remained silent on this issue and even

paid for a TV ad about the supplemental bill that made the passage of the draft Oil Law one of the benchmarks.

He could have spoken out against the draft Oil Law, he did not.

Is he really the anti-corporate candidate???

:shrug:


http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/06/14/1866/

"...It is being sold to the American people as a way to equalize revenues to various segments of Iraqi society.

But the true reason for it is to line the pockets of U.S. oil executives.

“The law would transform Iraq’s oil industry from a nationalized model closed to American oil companies except for limited (although highly lucrative) marketing contracts into a commercial industry, all-but-privatized, that is fully open to all international oil companies,” Antonia Juhasz, author of “The Bush Agenda,” wrote in an op-ed for The New York Times on March 13.

“The Iraq National Oil Company would have exclusive control of just 17 of Iraq’s 80 known oil fields, leaving two-thirds of known—and all of its as yet undiscovered—fields open to foreign control,” Juhasz wrote. “The foreign companies would not have to invest their earnings in the Iraqi economy, partner with Iraqi companies, hire Iraqi workers or share new technologies. . . The international oil companies could also be offered some of the most corporate-friendly contracts in the world.”

[GreenArrow]

27. Let's put it this way.

You won't see Edwards renouncing American imperialism which is predicated on corporatism. The business of America is, indeed, business, and Edwards knows that. You might see Edwards give a token pruning of the branches, but the roots will persist.

[slipslidingaway]

38. EXACTLY my thoughts, thanks for stating it so well! :) n/t

[Froward69]

21. edwards is NO FDR

:puke:

[cascadiance]

25. And the rest are far LESS like FDR!

Who amongst those that has a shot at getting elected do you feel is a better option to get rid of corporate power over us than Edwards? I'd be interested in hearing your explanation.

[Froward69]

31. none is on par with FDR

to answer your question...
Joe says it best.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pA8HC_IBhcc&mode=related&search
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jilpix0_6P8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbOa989IRYw

Joe Biden is not wealthy.
Unlike Edwards

so hedge funds are not corporatist??

[cascadiance]

37. Why is being wealthy necessarily EVIL...

Being wealthy in one sense makes one LESS prone to being told what to do by campaign financiers when one can independently finance their own campaign instead of accepting donations that have too many paybacks expected for them.

I've said before, that with the current set up we have now, probably the best option we have is to find the person that is independently wealthy that truly has a decent moral compass and is willing to fight for the rest of us. The system doesn't allow decent people with average means that resists bribery to get anywhere.

If we reject people just because they are wealthy, we are doomed right from the start IMHO.

Vote for the mandate when one votes for Edwards. If he goes back on what he says, then we still can yell at him and all of the other pols that this isn't what America wants. If he does follow through on his promises, then we have someone that might be an FDR. If you vote for others that don't champion what his campaign has, then you have no mandate, and nothing will change!

[Froward69]

45. Evangelicals

Forget this part. Greed needs to have a definition. (it does in religious texts) for me, it is Hording generational wealth. That is, if you have more than it takes to provide for your self,spouse,significant other, and Kids. savings to vacation is fine. however Having more than enough to spend in ones own lifetime. Without helping fellow man. Thats Greed. Thats Evil.

[K8-EEE]

36. Who else will get the people of NOLA back rebuilding the city?

His plan for NOLA sounds very FDR. I like Edwards. I think he can get stuff done.

[GreenArrow]

24. Ralph Nader

Or maybe Dennis Kucinich, who has actually backed up his rhetoric with a real record.

[cascadiance]

26. Which is probably why Nader has endorsed Edwards...

... and said he wouldn't run if Edwards is the nominee...

[GreenArrow]

29. he actually said that Kucinich was much better

but unelectable. Edwards, as per Nader, offers a "glimmer of hope".

Whatever the case, it's a scream to see Edwards mouthing platitudes straight out of the Nader script book and have the fans lap it up.

[whirlygigspin]

32. so this is what the rabbit hole looks like!

know I know, thanks Alice!

[cascadiance]

34. So which would you rather elect then, someone who's honest about being a corporate whore...

... or not even dealing with those issues?

If I have a choice between candidates that:

1) Speak to the progressive viewpoints I can support such as combatting corporate influence over our government, but who SOME of you out there claim without any way of backing up your claim that they are just pandering to us.

or

2) Don't even try to speak to our progressive viewpoints.

It seems like it's better to gamble on a bet that you MIGHT get something back on versus something you KNOW you won't!

If you have a better choice of a candidate of someone who has a shot at winning, please make their case!

[bvar22]

42. I'm with you.

I would rather take a chance on Edwards than vote for the sure thing (Republican Lite) we will get with HillBama or Biden.

[geiger]

30. how about Theodore Roosevelt? I was thinking about just this very thing the other night.

[frogmarch]

33. I agree, Jackpine

Edwards is for change - real change, right down to the roots. He's the candidate - and president - America needs, now more than ever before.

K&R

[PATRICK]

39. Truman

went ballistic against the GOP and their business base. Unfortunately every candidate that invoked him afterward did so at the time they too thought they were threatened or branded as losing in the media. So they turned up the heat but not the clear substance of Truman's sudden midwestern unionist populism. Edwards has taken this road very early on from behind, admittedly, but just as clear as Truman(if less earthy). The power to unleash victory is in the message, in the man as fighter. Campaign advisers will keep being Job's questioners and give the opposite advice such that the way to win the Super Bowl is caution, and hope the other guy will just lose and blow away.

On the past record and sincerity level Edwards matches as well as any previous candidate and better than some surprising ones. At the very least it is a force to rally the nation and to win, not concede polite points to the piratical GOP and corporate renegades.

[ProSense]

40. When?

Before or after Edwards'evolution?

John Kerry on Corporations

[asdjrocky]

43. I'm with ya Jack-

The excitement here in Iowa is amazing.

[FrenchieCat]

44. Very good, and relatively recent conversion......

since the anti-Corporate talk is very new......So let's just hope that Edwards will do what Edwards promises.



Cause that's all that I have to go on!

[Egnever]

46. Last go arround

Howard Dean was anti corporate.