Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Chivalry is Alive and Well and Living in Las Vegas

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 07:46 PM
Original message
Chivalry is Alive and Well and Living in Las Vegas
Chivalry is Alive and Well and Living in Las Vegas
Saturday, 17 November 2007
by Jayne Lyn Stahl

Both Democratic presidential contenders Barack Obama and John Edwards were treated to boos and jeers, last night, when attempting to corner the first woman candidate for president, Hillary Clinton, on the issue of health care, and special interests, but it was Clinton herself who said "if you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen." Too bad someone didn't tell that to the president before his now infamous meeting with then Prime Minister Tony Blair, on Downing Street, where the two commanders-in-chef cooked the books with respect to fraudulent evidence that took us to war in Iraq. Hillary Clinton also added that she's comfortable in the kitchen;that's what concerns me; that's what John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich worry about, too.

While I'm being facetious when I say that the audience was being chivalrous in its defense of Hillary, make no mistake the omnipotent, and egregious disapproval of the audience for Clinton's challengers' attempts at hardball effectively muted the substance of their charges. Ironically, too, those who watched last night's debate, whether they were in Vegas or in New Orleans, and those who will choose the next Democratic Party nominee, are the ones who needed most to hear what John Edwards had to say about the politics of privilege, big business, and obdurate devotion to corporate profit.

Those who most need to hear what both Edwards and Kucinich had to say about class struggle in America, about unions, about NAFTA, about economic disenfranchisement were coming to the defense of the one candidate who has yet to take a decisive stand against outsourcing jobs, and who has conspicuously aligned herself with the other boys when it comes to defending Roe v. Wade on the basis of a "right to privacy," rather than on the basis of a woman's right to choose. Oh, yes, and man or woman, choice is the issue now as it will be for generations.

While Barack Obama has routinely paid lip service to poverty, and hunger in America, only John Edwards has taken on that subject squarely, and only Edwards and Kucinich dare to expose America's dirty little secret of poverty, privilege, and those who gain most by preserving the status quo. There's talk of changes to tax laws, but the underlying issue, that it is those who are most disadvantaged among us who will be first on the front lines of war, is swept under the rug by both frontrunners of this campaign.

Edwards and Kucinich are the only candidates taking strident aim at extraordinary rendition, torture, electronic surveillance, and the USA Patriot Act; this is flat out unacceptable. What does Edwards get for his persistent attack on the lords of the manor, and his dogged insistence upon openness in government? He gets accused of being a pit bull. Why? Can it be because Edwards is the only one with the courage to come out and say what we all dread to hear, that the process is corrupt, and rigged.

The days of the iron hand in the velvet glove are over. The gloves are off, and whether they're ready or not, all candidates for elected office must be prepared to get down and dirty, as well as come clean about where their allegiances lie. We can no more afford eight more years of sacrificing our sons and daughters on the altars of oil profits than we can eight more years of attempts to cover up who gets sacrificed, and why.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Reno.Muse Donating Member (307 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 08:25 PM
Response to Original message
1. Don't forget, Harry Reid's son is Hillary Clinton's State campaign chair
Clark County Commissioner Rory Reid was center in the front row that night smiling big. Reid controls our state. This debate was a sham.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 08:30 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. I had no idea, not that that in itself is a bad thing.
Edited on Sat Nov-17-07 08:31 PM by babylonsister
But I agree about the debate; it seemed very one-sided to me as it did to a lot of other people.
The deck was stacked!

Edit to add: welcome to DU! :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
0007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-18-07 01:05 AM
Response to Reply #1
6. You got that one right. A spurious imitation.
It was false and empty. Genuine, NOT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
texpatriot2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-18-07 12:33 AM
Response to Original message
3. That explains why I like Edwards and Kucinich the best. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Lugnut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-18-07 01:05 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. I'm torn between the two of them.
At this point I've narrowed my choices to Dennis and John if Al Gore doesn't step up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
weeve Donating Member (427 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-18-07 12:48 AM
Response to Original message
4. Thanks for the post, babylonsister !
It's refreshing to hear well-reasoned arguements around here these days. Still hoping that Gore will somehow find a way to get into this at the last minute, but until he does I'm gung ho for Edwards. My politics are more in line with Kucinic, but I fear what the Media would do to him in the General election ( hell ... they've been doing it for quite some time now already ).

Making Hillary the nominee ( as Big Corporate Media is doing everything they can to accomplish ) would be the closest Democratic voters could do to handing the election to the Republicans. Why go with the candidate that about half the country wouldn't vote for in ANY circumstances ? Why start from the weakest position? There's just too much at risk, when a Republican President could likely appoint three conservative Supreme Court Justices next term. 8-1 decisions for decades to come ? No thanks. No Hillary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Jan 22nd 2018, 06:21 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC