THE TIME HAS COME TO ADMIT WE ARE IN DEEP TROUBLE

[ClericJohnPreston]

And by doing so, ask what the appropriate response is to what is happening in our Nation right now.

I have been dancing around this idea throughout many thread responses. Others here with an astute eye have also seen the same things that I see.

What do we do as good citizens, if we learn that our votes and our freedoms, are merely phantoms, illusory beliefs, as we are really operating under a strictly controlled environment?

Look at our "choices":

McCain
Romney
Hillary
Obama

Barring yet some other unforseen event, the four above represent the "pool" of talent Americans will be asked to choose from for POTUS in nine months.

While there is certainly experience and talent in the Democratic choices, look at who couldn't make the cut on the Democratic side:

John Edwards
Joe Biden
Chris Dodd
Dennis Kucinich
Bill Richardson

See a pattern there? Besides all being immensely talented and offering policies and programs that speak to a REAL, not FIGURATIVE, "CHANGE", they have all been thoroughly silenced in this campaign.It is my opinion, that the the two candidates left standing, are the only two who assure the continuation of the status quo.

What status quo?

The CORPORATE domination of the United States.

We are in a stranglehold over our society, held by a cadre of Corporations, who will not permit their dissolution, or even a weakening of that hold.

Yes, our politics now proves what I have always said.

There is no viable reason I can discern, for John Edwards to have suddenly left the political arena. NONE! He has cash, support, delegates, and everything necessary to play deal-maker at a brokered convention.

Add to that Obama's soon to be REZKO affair being highlighted and there is truly, some strong questions that demand answer.

WHY EXACTLY IS JOHN EDWARDS LEAVING THIS RACE???? EVEN JRE DID NOT EXPLAIN IN HIS TERSE REMARKS, ANY REAL RATIONALE FOR THAT DECISION.

If we don't have any freedom of choice, but the ILLUSION OF CHOICE, what are we to do? You can be sure that all of Bush's rendition plans, the eavesdropping, have all been constructed as contingency plans for anyone that gets too interested in asking these questions.

Afraid yet? You should be. If John Edwards can be silenced, we all can be silenced. If we are silenced, it has been by people who don't hold elective office.

Do you just want to be mere uninformed cattle, believing they we have a part in our Government? Can you even see that this is happening right under our noses, without any outcry, while Corporations control all of the messages and ideas?

I, for one, would like some answers. But, we will never get them , if we all acquiesce and fail to insist on an answer.

Even if you support Hillary or Obama and are happy with these choices, you ought to be concerned when a viable candidate leaves the stage, as John did, AND NOT ONE TV COMMENTATOR, ANYWHERE, ASKED , "WHY"? WHY, is the most obvious question, yet it was never discussed, only accepted.

So, as an experiment, ask yourselves, "why"?

Please, all smarmy non-thinking responses are only additional distractions, we don't need in this conversation.

*edited for spelling*

[raccoon]

1. K&R. nt

[balantz]

2. He left the race because nobody voted for him.

:sarcasm:


Sorry, I had to get that one out of the way.

[ClericJohnPreston]

7. No problem balantz

I know you as an Edwards supporter.

John quitting now, is totally inexplicable as he had money, his best momentum, and the real oportunity to run at 15% or better, to lock down delegates. He could have insured a brokered convention.

What is most disturbing to me, was his terse delivery of a speech, he did not seem too connected to. It was rushed, stated in a formulaic fashion, atypical of John Edwards.

WHY?

[yodermon]

16. YES i got that same impression.

He was even stumbling over the copy he was reading near the beginning.
It was *totally* out of character with his demeanor even up to a few days ago.

[zabet]

37. He was waaaay off of his

normal demeanor. Another
anomaly is Edwards rarely,
if ever reads scripted statements
or speeches.

[ChiciB1]

129. I Picked THAT Up RIGHT Away... What A Shame... A REAL Shame!! n/t

[Land Shark]

142. stumbled over the stark phrase "let history take its course" as highlighted on Daily Show

[Richard D]

217. Yeah . . .

. . . you'd expect that if he had a gun at the back of his head.

[pauldg0]

301. I hope he has just begun to fight ....our country is failing us....

Our most sacred treasure, our press has failed us...

This is very critical to our nation and democracy........I am an engineer and have lost my job....
Because of corporate greed John Edwards has talked passionately about, I have been out of work for four years in Detroit....This is very personal to me and a to millions of hard working people like me throughout America. There should be a neutral press established to mention what is happening and it should not be NPR as I have heard they too are already bought out by lobbyists from large corporations.

Personally, I feel John Edwards should be our candidate. He has for sure been cheated. We Americans have been cheated too. The new Americans now beginning to view the primaries do not know what has happened over the last 12-monthes. They don't know that they like myself have been raped. I have donated many dollars to my candidate. I have been raped not once, but twice. That is, first we lose our jobs and second, we lose our campaign donations to try to support a great honest man in John Edwards. I skipped over from the Republican Party 5-years ago because I saw that he was the answer to strengthening this weak economy. I'm getting carried away because I'm pissed. I don't write this much!!

All said, I don't think there is time for him to get back in the race unless it is through another party, lets call it the "TRUE DEMOCRATIC PARTY", or something of that nature.

If endorsed as Attorney General through Obama or Clinton, JE could get this taken care of, but I am not sure they would want him as they themselves are corporate Democrats.

Now, who's to say that who ever wins the Democratic nomination will get the same treatment, I don't know. Hillary or Obama are already entrenched with corporate lobbyists. Enough said....I think this has been a well planned conspiracy for maybe the past 5-10 years. Enough said, but for all of you who need to know, let's get together America. We have a big fight ahead of us.......also, please educate yourselves about what is happening!!

[JustDavid]

356. I can agree with your sentiment

but who hasn't had a job in four years?

You said..."hard working people like me" right after you said..."I have been out of work for four years"

Can you see the irony in that statement?

Hell, I haven't had a vacation in four years.....

[Name removed]

400. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[still_one]

430. On what basis are you calling someone a "Freeper", that is against DU rules

Perhaps you aren't aware

[Andrea]

441. I'm not aware of that rule

And it seems obvious to me. After a mere ten posts he chooses to attack someone in such a gratuitous manner. However, I will check the rules and if need be I'll edit my post.

[Andrea]

446. the editing period has passed, but I will rephrase my post

You are making an uncalled for, cruel remark about an unfortunate person who has been unemployed. No one seeks to be unemployed. Please don't attack that person for that reason.

And I'm sorry you haven't had a vacation. It sounds like you need one.

[pauldg0]

521. Thanks Andrea..........

..I am unemployed, because I am 60-years old and live in Detroit. We are basically in a Depression here.

[lakeguy]

508. i hope you can't breed.

you can't be hard working without a job? i know many retired people who work harder (and think harder) than you do...no job. living life while looking for work is 10 times harder than having a good, paying job.

not taking a vacation day in 4 years is nothing to brag about. think about that when you're on your death bed. considering you don't take time off, that's probably coming up quicker than you think.

[Patriot Abroad]

541. Welcome to DU?

:P

[sean]

518. Then maybe here is OUR CHANCE

If we set up an open account (meaning transparent - anyone can see what the amt. is and where it is being spent, ie: salaries, expenses, etc) and ask for donations to buy a majority stock in a major MSM network, such as MSNBC, we can start to break this stranglehold by corporations, by presenting the REAL TRUTH. I know this sounds a little farfetched, but if we start out with say $50k, put ads in regional papers of what we are doing, etc., it just might become a reality. All one really has to lose is $5 or $10, but what we have to gain is a whole country. Not a bad investment if you ask me.

[pauldg0]

523. Sean, welcome and thanks for support..........

..I think that is a tremendous idea. Could someone on this string that understands investing follow up on this!!!????

[ClericJohnPreston]

638. Great idea!

[classykaren]

438. I agree with that n/t

[onetinsoldier]

487. edwards personality

only a white southern male of edwards generation or older can really read him,he has a passive/aggressive quality to his personality,he comes across as a weak,plastic,goody two shoes phony

[Labors of Hercules]

41. It was literally like someone was holding a gun to his head.

It freaked me out to see him this way, and I sensed he was hiding some serious fear or fury (it was hard to tell which). :shrug:

[ClericJohnPreston]

54. Agreed

at some point, we have to go with what we as humans, see as atypical emotional or NON-EMOTIONAL, unusual responses.

John Edwards was not John Edwards yesterday. As a partisan, I have seen him under all situations. This man is a seasoned TRIAL LAWYER and debater, accustomed to tough situations, without losing his demeanor.

He was brusque, terse and almost begging questioning his appearance.

[yodermon]

88. Was he tracking to get 15% on Tuesday?

Someone didn't even want him to get to *that* point.

All indications were that he wanted to leverage his delegates in a brokered convention.
He telegraphed as much on Letterman:
"I'm in it for the long haul..it's hard for any one candidate to get to 50% when there are 3 of us taking a sizable chunk of the vote"
(gee, hmm what might he do with his "chunk"?)

Now he just.. gives the fuck up? reads a little speech and that it? *before* super Tuesday even?

How do you get from "I'm in it until the convention" to "I'm quitting before Super Tuesday" in the span of mere *days*?

Not buying it.

[Morereason]

244. Blackmail? Makes you wonder...

Why in the world would he not have waited till after Tuesday??? It just does not make sense..

[Lugnut]

334. That's what grabs my attention.

I can't understand why he couldn't hang on for one more week.

[amborin]

380. not blackmail or anything else

just read the NY Times for starters

Edwards was eclipsed early on by Obama's star power

Obama also appropriated Edwards' message

Edwards came across as too angry and shrill to moderate voters

and his populist rhetoric was contradicted by the 3 H s....hair, house, hedge fund

he saw the handwriting on the wall long ago

losing Iowa was the worst he was finished from that point on....don't you remember how all along his campaign had said he absolutely HAD TO WIN IOWA

thank goodness Edwards does not have the self-centered ness to try to be spoiler or kingmaker....his two remaining options

give him credit for heaven's sake

[Andrea]

404. Funny!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

At first I thought you were a master of irony - using the press to bolster your argument in a thread about the corporate control of the media. Then, I read the comments in your profile.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[MelissaB]

409. Holy shit! I've never seen a profile like that.

Lets you know why this person is here.

[ClericJohnPreston]

494. Good work!!!

[pokercat999]

548. Ignore this message

[D23MIURG23]

418. "losing Iowa was the worst he was finished from that point on"

Its interesting that the word "losing" is used here to dennote a 2nd place finish. Obama and Edwards finished first and second, and this somehow led to the narrative that this was a two way race between Obama and Clinton in the days immediately following...

I wonder how that happened exactly...

The NY times wouldn't have had anything to do with it would they... ?

[K Gardner]

159. Agreed.. and it is very troublesome.

[southerncrone]

188. ............

[femrap]

245. If he had waited until after Super

Tuesday to 'suspend' his candidacy (assuming he did very poorly), maybe I would have bought it. Something else is going on...that's for sure. And of course he has family members to protect.

Go watch the movie, 'Network!!!!!!'

[pleah]

281. I got the same impression.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

282. If threatened a real citizen would go public.

[balantz]

290. See post #271

It could be possible that threats might be other than personal.

[classykaren]

444. Not if he had little children and a sick wife he wouldnt

[kelligesq]

529. Ross Perot was threatened & went public.MSM made him out to be loonie after that.........

everybody listened to the MSM and made him a laughing stock

[iris5426]

347. I know!

The whole thing has me enraged and depressed all at the same time. Something is off, I really don't think this was his choice.

[RaleighNCDUer]

432. Or to Elizabeth's head. nt

[fortyfeetunder]

502. I also suspect there is more to the Edwards story.

and I'll respect him on that.

We'll know sooner or later.

[ClericJohnPreston]

504. I hope it is sooner

rather than later......

[orleans]

522. (so...i wonder what's new with the bilderberg gang) n/t

[bpeale]

38. i have to say this in response to the Thank You email i got

i went over to his website not only to unsubscribe so i don't ever hear from him again, but i gave him a piece of my mind via the contact link while i was there. do i regret that now? no. would i do it again? yes. will i vote for someone else now that he is out of the race? no.

my vote, however, is for sale for 100,000 euros to ... whoever.

[Land Shark]

144. caution my friend, it may be a crime in your state to offer to sell a vote, not just to sell a vote.

I know you're joking but persecutors are often humorless in the extreme.

[bpeale]

40. self delete

[emmadoggy]

107. That really bothered me too.

He was really stumbling on his words and it seemed like he was really unfamiliar with the speech, somehow, like it was all so hastily put together that he really didn't have time to prepare. It was very atypical of him.
I was also struck by the fact that he commented on the folks he spoke to at his campaign stops in just the past couple days - those who pleaded with him to keep up the fight, to be their voice - that they almost changed his mind. It made me feel like this is something he REALLY did not want to do (drop out). I really got the feeling that he has been very heavily pressured by someone/something to drop out. It came so suddenly and was so against all that he and his campaign had been saying, right up to the night before.

None of it makes much sense to me.

[Land Shark]

146. Question: CAndidates dropping out is usually because the big donors drop out even if not grassroots

so, does anybody know about edwards bigger $$ supporters, were they souring for any reason?

[Andrea]

196. That's a good question

I hope someone knows and can post about it here.

[november3rd]

324. Super delegates

I know that at least a couple of his super delegates in Western states defected after South Carolina. It seems that it is likely big donors were waiting to see how he did there.

Still, there was something very odd about his "suspension" speech. I will go back and watch it carefully a few more times.

I'm sure that if there is a SUBtext it will be visible in some way -- though not obviously. I suspect he would even have consciously used the opportunity to subliminally signal his supporters as to the real nature of his decision to withdraw.

I didn't think it was THAT unusual as to warrant such scrutiny of his final speech until I read this post, but now some of my early suspicions are confirmed about the anomoly of the whole thing.

I'm going to watch the speech again and see what he was REALLY saying.

[JDPriestly]

327. I had the feeling someone else had written his speech for him.

I never had that feeling before.

Also, Elizabeth and he held hands a couple of moments, but then one of them, I think Elizabeth, dropped the other's hand. Maybe there is a problem there. Emma Claire seemed very upset. (Just a mom's intuition.) It might be something personal.

Elizabeth Edwards was not active in the campaign for many days prior to yesterday's speech. There was no word of her whereabouts for days before the speech.

[kelligesq]

530. I was wondering where she was - I think she wasnt active almost a month -

it could be something to do with Elizabeth's health - a turn for the worse?

I know he said she was in good health - but if it was very serious, he wouldnt
be obligated to expose her to that public scrutiny.

[Shine]

272. Yes, I agree. Something was amiss in his delivery.

He was stumbling over his words as if he didn't really want to get them out.

[kimmerspixelated]

335. This is really a nightmare.

It's so hard to believe, he's out. Thanks for your post. My thoughts exactly.

[dsharp88]

389. Because he didn't want a brokered convention...

His realistic chance of winning had passed and he put the good of the nation and the party ahead of his own particular ego and power trip. He wanted there to be consensus going in. He didn't want to fracture the vote.

I was a supporter before. If it's possible, I'm even more of an admirer now.

[rucognizant]

427. I read this a while back!

I think it was in WOnkette which is a totally self serving, irreverent DC gossip column.I just dismissed it because it was so out of character...... That John had a pregnant girlfriend somewhere.
My Uncle was a state Senator back in the 50's. He and my Aunt were one of the most devoted couples I have ever seen right up to her death a few years ago! they had 6 kids...........A rumor circulated about his being suprised at a sexual encounter with a young chickie ( IN THE KITCHEN SINK!) bizarro............ WHen his district was reapportioned he stepped back in favor of the older Senator and never ran for office again! And that rumor was still being regurgitated around NJ 20 years later!

It is one think for Elizabeth Edwards to CHOOSE to travel around the country in a clean, high minded campaign, even tho ill........
It's an entirely different matter to be slammed with an ugly swiftboat campaign!

I DON'T BELIEVE FOR A MINUTE THAT THIS IS TRUE!


OK they both paid homage to John Edwards and his poverty platform ( debate beginning)

[Andrea]

448. Yes, those rumors tried to get started in the fall

But they were throughly debunked and they never got legs. Maybe it was something else they were going to create out of thin air. I don't know.

[Virginian]

515. He didn't read the whole speech.

See his website. They printed the prepared speech. He only gave the first part of it -- there was a lot more.

All the talking heads are trying to figure out where his supporters will go. This supporter will still check off the box beside his name. Wouldn't it be confusing to those talking heads if he still got more than 15% and accumulated more delegates on Super Tuesday and the following week.

The remaining candidates don't really address any of my issues. What do we have to do the get him to un-suspend the campaign? After all, he didn't terminate it, he just put it on hold.

[Andrea]

591. You raise an interesting question.

Does anyone think there is anything to be gained by starting a campaign to get him back in? Even though it would probably be unsuccessful, it would make a statement if it got coverage. The Draft Gore movement got coverage, admittedly in conjunction with his Nobel Peace Prize. Still, maybe this would get coverage if it was large enough because it would be an unusual occurrence. This would dovetail nicely with the plans of so many of us to still vote for him.

[krkaufman]

534. It's very likely that John's delivery of the speech was affected ...

... by his deep sadness at leaving the race, and knowing he was disappointing millions of Americans.

As for why he left, I believe he may have determined that he *wasn't* going to be able to cover the 15% threshold in many/any of the Super Tuesday states, and so didn't want voters voices being discarded. John stepping out before Super Tuesday allows his supporters to speak for themselves as to which of the remaining candidates they prefer, if any. And, knowing that his supporters -- more than of other candidates -- are likely not wealthy, he didn't feel their money should be spent on buying ad-time (to counter the media blackout) that would produce little to no result.

All just speculation, but short of Elizabeth having taken a turn for the worse, I'm not sure what else would explain it.

[kelligesq]

8. When the MSM wont give him time, the country doesnt get to know him

so how can they vote for someone they are not seeing and hearing.

Next: write the FCC and MSNBC and CNN - boycotting their sponsors for their
dishonest coverage of Jhn Edwards and other democratic candidates who didnt
support corporate domination of the country.

[amborin]

536. Iowans did

he spent years there after the 2004 election

he had won Iowa in 2004

he needed to come in first this time, but didn't

are you going to blame that on the media?

[DaLittle Kitty]

488. Total Fucking Bullshit... "The Voice of Corporate America" WON for Their Cause... FASCISM!

It's the Corporations stupid... NOT THE ECONOMY ... this time... and their VOICE, THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA GOT THE JOB DONE! That is why John suspended his campaign.......

It is FASCISM... America is no longer the land of the free unless you say that we are .. FREE TO FOLLOW! :shrug: :puke: :nuke:

[liberal N proud]

549. I am sick of hearing that

They don't want to talk about why people didn't vote for him. In Edwards case it wasn't because he didn't have a clear message and didn't stand for the people.

The people didn't vote for him because the media made him a third candidate before the race even started.

[bulloney]

553. Edwards could see the writing on the wall.

The media have annointed their slate of candidates for POTUS and Edwards was not on their list.

I get so damned sick of hearing these media gerbils telling us what this candidate said in this debate and who scored the most points on this topic on that debate. I think I'm reasonably intelligent enough to make a judgment on my own.

The Democrat candidates listed on the top post had one thing in common. They tried to buck the status quo. The media decided they can't have any of that. So, they ignore these candidates. Make them irrelevant to where these candidates cannot raise the money to continue running for office.

[foxer]

566. Or the Horsehead in his Bed

[Benhurst]

3. ...

Recommended :kick: #6

[kelligesq]

4. Correct - that's why I'm still gonna vote John Edwards-Give John the Power

John Edwards has framed the issues all along - Single Payer healthcare, not

Universal, lobbyists out of the elections, America taking care of and giving a

chance for affordable college, taking care of our Vets, bringing home our

people from Iraq within a year without permanent bases in Iraq, restoring

America and every issue until Obama and Clinton "borrowed" his populist stance.

But "borrowing" words is not a commitment to carry them out whichever

one gets the nomination for the general election.

That is why we must must must continue to vote for John Edwards on Feb 5

The more delegates he collects even though he has "suspended" his campaign (I

suspect because of the MSM essentially boycotting coverage of him and the

failure of the feds to match funds until March) the more power John will have to

extract a written committment from either or both candidates to adhere to John's

and our populist issues

[Andrea]

42. I'm still going to vote for him, too, but

The OP is asking what is our overall response. This is just one little step. We need to sort this out and formulate a plan.

[OneGrassRoot]

55. He'll get my vote as well. I posted below...

a link another DUer posted a few days ago.

citizenclassaction.com

This is a good start, IMHO.

[JDPriestly]

330. Edwards has my vote. No question.

I got an e-mail from Obama folks, but no way I am leaving Edwards. Edwards speaks to every issue that is important to me.

[balantz]

340. We must vote for John.

We must be heard and this is one great chance for us to make it loud and clear

But then, there are the voting machines and such.

[ChiciB1]

253. Would It Be Possible To Contact Trippi Or Someone Close To Them

and TRY to formulate A PLAN?? I for one DO NOT take this lightly! If there is SOME WAY to fight back, I will gladly join in!

I just don't know HOW! I live in Florida and pardon the pun... there's not a snowball's chance of getting ANYTHING started!!

[Andrea]

407. Speaking of Trippi

He was on Tweety tonight. I couldn't divine too much from his appearance or what he said, but his overall mood seemed sad, tired and a bit angry (the anger could very well have been because Tweety kept interrupting him) and I don't remember seeing him look like that before.

He didn't say anything that would give any insight into why John "suspended". He didn't talk about that at all. Tweety did say something mildly interesting, though. He suggested Edwards for Secretary of Labor. I hadn't heard that before. I keep hearing AG. Anyway, Trippi said this isn't about John or any job he might want, it's about poverty.

[ChiciB1]

496. Just Checked Back In Here Tonight... Haven't Watched ANY MSM

since Edwards gave his speech. I have to admit that I'm terribly suspicious about this whole thing. The abrupt turn around doesn't sit well with me. My cynicism has reached a very high level and I'm VERY bitter.

What I'm feeling IS NOT good and I think I have more FEAR now than ever before. Do I have anything factual to point to? No, can't say I do... but my rabbit ears are SPARKING with red hot wires! I'm not a psychic, but I have had quite a few Deja Vu experiences. Some very good ones when I bet on something, some very bad ones that I wish I never felt. This one feels BAD! Still I can't explain what "the bad" is, but it's there for me anyway!

Too many people are acting much too cagey. It's almost like there's been a lock down and very few people in high places are even talking about it. As I said, I haven't watched MSM since the very odd speech Edwards gave, and THAT speech spoke volumes to me. John Edwards DOES NOT flub up like he did yesterday. I've watched him over and over and he doesn't stumble and stutter, but he sure did yesterday. And what you just said about Trippi just reinforces what I'm thinking.

I don't like it Sam I Am, I Don't Like Green Eggs and HAM! That's kind of what it feels like! Very off the wall!!!

[cobalt1999]

5. One shot at answering WHY.

Historically, substantial change candidates win when there are huge problems in the country. FDR & Reagan benefited from a horrible economy and international situations. You think FDR would have been elected in 1928? Not a chance.

If this election was in 2009/10 once we are in a full blown long term recession/depression, then Edwards would probably be winning easily.

Things are going to have to get a lot worse before radical changes appear in the government. Like it or not, things will be getting a lot worse and quickly.

[ClericJohnPreston]

46. There is but two choices left

CHANGE via "untraditional" methods ( read that as you want ) or CHANGE after an economic upheaval.

Neither is very palatable, but if the decks are stacked against the measures required, these two are the only way left.

[cobalt1999]

60. There is always change after economic upheaval

And major economic upheaval is on the horizon.

Like I said, the election is just 1-2 years too early for Edwards.

[Andrea]

47. Actually, this answers

why he didn't get more votes, but it does not answer why he dropped out now. As the OP enumerates, there were many. many reasons for him to stay in.

[cobalt1999]

56. Isn't the fact he wasn't getting enough votes to win, reason enough to drop out?

Sure there were other reasons to stay in, but campaigning is difficult, time-consuming, and personally exhausting.

Just because those other reasons are still important to some on here, are they important enough to Edwards to continue? I believe he got into this to win, not to be a 15%'er and attempt to leverage that into some deal.

Why isn't the realization that he wasn't going to win enough of an explanation?

[Andrea]

70. Several reasons

First, to advance his agenda in the debates.

Second, the results were moving and it is far too early to determine he couldn't win. Maybe after February 5th, maybe not, but certainly not now.

Third, to influence the party platform at the convention.

Fourth, because he said he would stay in.

I'm sure there are other reasons, but these are off the top of my head.

[cobalt1999]

79. But are those reasons enough for him to continue the campaign grind?

First, to advance his agenda in the debates.
--- If his agenda isn't resonating with the American public by now, one more debate isn't going to change anything.


Second, the results were moving and it is far too early to determine he couldn't win. Maybe after February 5th, maybe not, but certainly not now.
--- Moving in his direction, yes. However, it was not too early to determine he wasn't going to win. I'm sure his own internal polling numbers showed him that too. While many here had hopes, eventually reality wins the day.


Third, to influence the party platform at the convention.
--- Again, is that why he got into the race. Important for some here, but that wasn't his goal when starting this. His goal was to win. Maybe it wasn't enough for him. To be honest, it wouldn't be for me. I'd want to win.


Fourth, because he said he would stay in.
--- I'm sure that was when he thought he still had a good chance to win this.

Edwards always struck me as the go-getter type A personality. People like him aren't going to be motivated with 3rd place and maybe have some say in an agenda...maybe.

[Andrea]

89. I'm sorry, I just don't agree with you.

There is no point reiterating my points. In my opinion your refutations do not hold water. With regard to the fourth point, though, I received email as late as the night before the announcement where he said he would stay in.

I would like to thank you for discussing this in a civilized manner, although we don't agree.

[cobalt1999]

94. Hey, it was fun.

We'll agree to disagree then. Have a great day.

[Stardust]

525. I agree with you. As for his demeanor...well, it sucks when your message

resonates with only 1 1/2 out of every ten voters. (I don't mean to sound snarky...I really admire the guy.) I'm somewhat concerned to see people essentially give up their votes for him now. A brokered convention just doesn't seem like his style or his ambition so why not vote for whomever can win against the real enemy.

[ChiciB1]

257. Edwards.. A Go-Getter Type... That Says VOLUMES! He Never Seemed

like a quitter to me, but I feel in my bones that SOMETHING happened. I think THE WORD CAME DOWN from somewhere and the MESSAGE was DIRE!!

Even his speech yesterday seemed "contrived" almost like he was "saying" one thing, but sending a message too. I don't know, I just DON'T KNOW! What I DO KNOW is that I'm much more afraid than I have ever been living in this country.

I would like some evidence of ANY REAL progress that has been made since 2006. That's just a start too! How is it that this country has been flummoxed by THOSE IN POWER?? A simple question, and NOT ONE ANSWER!!!

[kelligesq]

532. His parents. What about his parents? he had them with him on campaign - could be

something to do with his Father who I saw him hugging. Quiet unassuming people.

Maybe it was a number of things to do with various people's health, the surprise of the matching money delayed by the gubmint til March, fighting to help people
who didnt appreciate him enough to vote for him, financial pressures, children,
ill wife, he had the flu, exhaustion - the stress adds up ...........and I had heard that John or someone in his campaign had said "What does he have to do
to get the media's attention - set himself on fire?"

But the media chose who they would manipulate the public into accepting as candidates. Maybe that finally got to him.

[RaleighNCDUer]

440. Winning is NOT everything.

He was not running so he could be #1. He was running so that he could influence the direction the country is going. And while winning the presidency would be best for that, having the only dissenting voice in the national debate works nearly as well. Look at what he's already done. He forced both Hillary and Obama to give lip service to populist ideas, which they didn't bother with before. He had the 2nd, and 2nd best, healthcare plan (after Kucinich) - Hillary borrowed heavily from that (what happened to her long experience and cred with healthcare?) and now that he's gone the better parts of her plan will slide away into oblivion as she has no desire to antagonize her big donors.

His voice helped shape the campaign, and the longer he was in it the more people would hear it.

This is NOT a horserace, and the nomination is NOT the winner's wreath.

[TreasonousBastard]

96. Those are your reasons for him staying in, but...

you're not running.

His agenda was to become President, and staying in a losing race isn't necessarily the best way to push for an "agenda." How many other losing contenders had real effects? How many losers significantly influenced the party platform without being major dealmakers?

After the showings so far, including dismally in his home state, I don't doubt his internal pollsters saw things just getting worse next week. Does he have the money and ground troops to push through all the states he might have won? Only his campaign knows for sure.

He promised to stay in-- that's true. But, promises from a politician...

[Andrea]

102. You are assuming that he only had one agenda and

that it was impossible for his agenda or agendas to change over time. Also, I might point out, you are no more capable of discerning his true motivation than I am.

[TreasonousBastard]

113. Well, what I'm assuming is that if he has...

things he is looking to accomplish, there's a point at which the Presidential run doesn't seem the way any more.

No, I don't know for sure why he dropped out, except for the obvious point of not seeming to be in the running ao far. I have long suspected, however, that he has the Presidential bug and might be another perpetual candidate.

[RaleighNCDUer]

445. SC is NOT his home state. He hasn't lived there since he was

a kid. He went through HS and college in NC, was a lawyer in NC, and a senator in NC. SC is just a good neighbor, not home.

[factanonverba]

321. you should look at this

over http://www.onegoodmove.org there is a post that explains Edwards decision

read it, since what you think.

[Andrea]

326. Thanks for pointing me toward that.

I read it, but I'm not sure I buy it. I'm afraid that Obama and Clinton will be more petty and more divisive without Edwards to temper their tendencies. Also, since neither of them is particularly electable against McCain, I think we would be in better shape if we still had our most electable candidate in the race.

This sounds like a plausible bill of goods to convince people that it was best for John to drop out, but if you look at it critically, I think it falls apart.

[ClericJohnPreston]

82. You are actually

giving YOUR rationale for "why". Unfortunately, not being part of the political process, we are forced to imprint our own bias and rationale on a question with a large blank space. As a Trial lawyer, I have studied the way people, "think", or NOT.

I fear that there are many reasons, we are not privvy to, or can only guess at, not being a part of the process. Your explantion is lucid, but conformed by "conventional thought".

Think outside the box, here. EDwards had a strong enough shoeing at 19% to collect delegates and this was at least his support in many States this Tuesday. With Edwards in, there was certainly the chance he blocked Hillary and Obama.

So, if that is the political reality, WHY did he abruptly stop?

[factanonverba]

313. why edwards may have suspended his campaign

check out onegoodmove.org

[amborin]

533. exactly

right after Florida, it was more and more obvious he'd either be 'kingmaker' or 'spoiler'

both highly repugnant roles

why can't Edwards' suppporters accept that maybe he finally realized this?

[zalinda]

133. He was getting pressure from the dem party

The dem party was already peeling off his super delegates. The dem party wanted a historic campaign and Edwards didn't fit into it. He looked like he was gaining momentum, so they slammed him down hard. That's why when he was in Mo and people asked him to help, he almost relented in quitting the campaign.

And, to be honest, I wouldn't put it past some zealot dem party operative reminding Edwards how his daughter was in a minor accident, and that it could have been major.

zalinda

[balantz]

145. I never did look past the headlines on that accident.

Did you?

I dismissed conspiracy thoughts when it happened and accepted the facts presented, especially since the Edwards campaign said all was well.

[zalinda]

168. So did I.

And for all we know, it was just a minor dust-up. I'm not saying that anyone was out to hurt his daughter. But, if some zealot said something that could have made Edwards think that there was more to it, wouldn't you take a harder look at that accident if you had already had a son killed? With pressure from the dem party, no press to speak of, and someone mentioning that his daughter could have been hurt worse, what would you do? There had to be something that put him over the edge, and that would do it. That would shake him to his core.

If you read the mud cat interview here: http://www.mensvogue.com/business/politics/interviews/articles/2007/06/david_mudcat_saunders you would begin to understand why I don't think he stepped down willingly. But, here's the telling clip:
MEN'S VOGUE: Some people give Edwards grief because he's rich and he wants to talk about the poor.

SAUNDERS: Oh, I've gotten that for sure. It's like Harry Truman said, "The president of the United States is the lobbyist for the regular people." It drives me berserk when someone says that Johnny's a wuss or something. Let me tell you something, John Edwards is one tough son of a bitch.

MEN'S VOGUE: Did you have a fight with him or something?

SAUNDERS: No, I just know him. Look at his track record. He's born poor as a church mouse. And his dad works up a little bit so by the time he gets out of school, he's pretty much middle class even though he didn't have much. So he decides he's going to earn a football scholarship at Clemson University, so he goes down there and he's one of these Rudy guys and he gets the absolute dog crap beat out of him. The guy is quicker than a hiccup, he really is, but he weighed a hundred and nothing and they beat the hell out of him. And he did that for a year, and at the end of the year they said no scholarship is coming, so he transferred to NC State. Then he starts his career as a trial lawyer and he immediately takes on the biggest, toughest, baddest legal firms in America and whips their asses taking up for little people. You don't do that unless you're tough. And I will say this: I'd hate to fight him cause you'd have to kill him, because he would fight you to the last second. I want that toughness in my president, because we can't win on a freakin' haircut.

The above is why I'm not buying that he quit because he was losing.

zalinda

[balantz]

171. I love that! Thanks!

And I fully agree, he didn't just decide to quit for simple reasons, he had to quit for as yet unknown reasons. We Edwards lovers know he is a fighter.

[ChiciB1]

269. Just On That Alone... The Question Is WHY?? Tell Me Why... But

don't give me some stupid answer that "his message" wasn't resonating! Or that he couldn't get the votes. THAT'S NOT THE REASON WHY!!

We WILL know someday, but since it's almost too late now... we'll be WAY past Over-Time by then!!

Beware The Ides Of March! I just keep hearing those words and I'm worried and I'm afraid!

[kelligesq]

535. OK. I was suspicious of the accident Kate had. Awfully suspicious that

the libruls kids all have auto accidents, police arrests, when their fathers
are running for high office.

Al Gore's son. more than once.

I dont want to mention what has happened to some libruls like Wellstone. And others not as well known but who were rummaging around investigating.

[foxer]

567. Planes only crash with Dems in them, never Repubs

[RuleOfNah]

219. I noted it.

I did the same when Clooney got in an accident. I don't assume the worst, I note things and monitor the worst piles.

Edwards won't be able to explain voice/quitter sufficiently, whatever the reasons and motives. Only the suspicious and cynical will remember during future discussions, as designed. I note that stuff too.

I knew Edwards was dead when he brought up the FCC/media issue. The surprise was the exit strategy, though he did have the guts to frame it in NO.

I knew it would come down to Obama and Clinton a year ago, because the (R) and (M) biases were already obvious.

I often wonder exactly how much redress must be sought...

[redqueen]

49. In other words - Nader is right. (nt)

[Labors of Hercules]

58. I hope it gets worse sooner rather than later...

It would suck for us to finally get a Dem back in the White House and have everything tank AFTER they take the oath of office, (which is what the Pukes are counting on if they can't get one of their own elected).

[cobalt1999]

64. That is a extremely valid point.

You are correct, whoever is in office when the shit hits the fan will take the fall. I hate to wish for things to go downhill quicker, but, in this case, it may be best in the long run.

[zonmoy]

242. are they merely counting on it

or are they going to make it happen on purpose unless a repuke gets elected.

[femrap]

243. That's why the Fed keeps throwing $$$

at this problem and now lowering the interest rates 1 1/4% over the past 2 weeks. They are just trying to get the big collapse into next year....which is silly cuz even the stupidest of citizens know W loves the rich and hates the middle, working and poor classes.

[OneGrassRoot]

328. That's another reason candidates need to start telling the hard truth...

that it's going to take the bulk of one term - heck, probably two terms - to turn the Titanic around. They need to somehow balance the message that they'll make it better with the reality that it's going to be bad for the near future because of the last eight years.

[balantz]

343. John was telling the truth.

But he wasn't mob-owned.

How can we expect the others to talk true?

I only feel deception from them.

[OneGrassRoot]

345. Telling the truth will entail a battle; compromise, IMHO...

maintains status quo.

It's gonna take a lot of guts and an army of sorts to start exposing the realities of our national situation.

[RaleighNCDUer]

436. You seriously think we are NOT in a horrible situation today?

Involved in TWO foreign wars, and a third one on the horizon, the dollar is collapsing, housing bubble is bursting, housing lenders in collapse and threatening to bring down the biggest banks in the country with them, oil going to 125bbl and gas to $4gal...

Things ARE worse.

[cobalt1999]

586. All this shit has a delayed reaction in the economy though

Yes, things are worse, but right now we are in the comparative "calm before the storm". Just wait until the shit really hits the fan.

[rhett o rick]

470. Damnit, i agree with you. nm

[Skinner]

6. Are you suggesting that Edwards was forced out?

In other words, are you saying that you think JE would have stayed in the race if it were up to him, but someone else or something else made him quit?

[ClericJohnPreston]

11. Skinner

I can't get an answer. That leads a thinking person to ask, WHY?

No one in Edwards campaign is answering.

Did you hear any explanation yesterday? I didn't.

What is John Edwards rationale for suddenly pulling the plug on his campaign?

We have already seen the press marginalize him. WHY?

Why? Why? Why?

Your questions are welcome. I don't pretend to have all the answers. But, asking WHY, is a good start.

[ChiciB1]

273. I, For One Do Think There Was Force... Or Maybe An Actual PUSH!

Conspiracy Theory?? Not for me! I know too many people who supported him and truly believed in him! I could NEVER understand what was really going on! Still don't, but my gut tells me a lot!!

[balantz]

278. I'm taking off my tinfoil hat for this one!

In fact it is a disgrace to think of wearing one in the light of all this.

[ChiciB1]

295. KICK!!! n/t

[classykaren]

449. Look what fox media just did to Montel Williams

It was on the daily kos Montel was on Saturday talking about fox supporting the troops and not on all this time about Britney and Ledger and the cut him off mid sentence broke to comercial and he was off the show and now his show owned by fox was all of a sudden not renewed after 17 years this man is a marine and a hero what a lot of guts

[Stardust]

500. And if anyone insults me with an explanation that he got the ax for

any reason other than revenge, I'll :puke:

Mike Malloy played the clip on his show and I was simply astonished that Montel cared about the "war" so passionately. He was so eloquent and soft-spoken, trying vainly to suggest to the Foxbots that their priceless airtime might be better served discussing subjects that actually matter.

[surfermaw]

480. My thoughts do we already have dictators,

[tom_paine]

14. Whether or not that is the case is besides the point. The point is the reality of what is.

Our System of Checks and Balances is deeply and devastatingly broken. We can argue about whether it is possible to still repair the system using the broken system (and God help us all if it is not still possible, as I suspect), and we can argue about why Edwards left the race or why he could gain no traction nor votes in spite of the fact that he constantly won the post-debate polls, but at this late date, none of that really matters.

Whether Edwards was forced out by Men in Backrooms with Cigars (which incidentally, is a theory I do NOT subscribe to) or the inexorable money pressures and media pressures (not to mention the media's "soft control" of the dialogue through the time-tested principles of advertising, marketing and PR, that appears to grow more concrete which each "kabuki theater" election), or for any other reason, doesn't even matter anymore.

To discuss such minutiae is to distract from the reality of WHAT IS. That our System, all of it, media, primaries, voting, courts, legislative, and most of all, executive, is breaking down at a shattering rate. This is no longer in any way, shape or form, our country. It belongs to the top 0.5%, lock stock and barrel. We just slave here.

We have exactly as much say in our nation's governance as a Russian or Chinese citizen, although we are personally left alone more (for the moment) and we have pretty window-dressing and spectacles to look at to soothe ourselves if we collectively get a bad feeling that something is horribly, grotesquely wrong.

That, too, is the reality.

[ClericJohnPreston]

18. I CONCUR 100%

It is a figurative freedom we enjoy.

Does our populace see the illusion, yet?

[OneGrassRoot]

23. I also concur 100%...

with you and the OP.

"To discuss such minutiae is to distract from the reality of WHAT IS. That our System, all of it, media, primaries, voting, courts, legislative, and most of all, executive, is breaking down at a shattering rate. This is no longer in any way, shape or form, our country. It belong to the top 0.5%, lock stock and barrel. We just slave here.

We have exactly as much say in our nation's governance as a Russian or Chinese citizen, although we are personally left alone more (for the moment) and we have pretty window-dressing and spectacles to look at to soothe ourselves if we collectively get a bad feeling that something is horribly, grotesquely wrong.

That, too, is the reality."


I've started and engaged in threads here in the last two weeks asking why (and HOW) informed citizens such as those at DU could NOT see that this is our reality? I have been dismayed to see that so many don't acknowledge Corporate America's control over...everything.

Perhaps I was dismissed as an Edwards supporter whining about no coverage, but I made the clear distinction that this isn't about one or two candidates and a lack of coverage. It is the OVERALL MANIPULATION OF COVERAGE and lack thereof for the vast majority of Bushco's crimes that is staring us in the face.

I don't have an answer either, short of some sort of revolution. I do believe it will require such a revolution, not compromise. That top 1% will not relinquish the control they've fought long and hard for any time soon, nor will they do so easily and definitely not willingly. Why would they?

On edit: This isn't meant to be snarky, but I'd like to know if those who don't agree with the observation that we are living in a corporatocracy are in the upper income brackets. Perspective is everything, after all.

[iris5426]

358. Not snarky

Just a sad, sad reality. I really do believe it will take a revolution, and unfortunately the masses are too busy watching American Idol to pay attention to America disintegrating right in front of them.

[KoKo]

575. The DU'ers who see it and have watched it all progress in the

last two decades are here. Some post, many lurk....many have left. How much more can we talk about it? There needs to be action....and we thought our Democratic Party could stop it....little did we know that there's little difference in the parties...and third parties and candidates for change...can't get any traction.

It's not like citizens haven't tried, but look at all the Protests agains the War in Iraq..even before the invasion. Media won't cover it, so the average citizen isn't aware that there is anyone who is working for change.


Chalmers Johnson's prediction of "Nemesis" seems to be coming true. The financial collapse that he said might be the only thing that stops the "Empire" is around the corner. Maybe then there can be a re-building. What's sad is that all of this didn't need to happen.

[Andrea]

62. Exactly

This has been the case. Edwards withdrawal brought this to a crisis point for me because he was the last hope visible for repairing this.

[OneGrassRoot]

71. And, I think some - not all - but some supporters...

of the other two candidates are indeed afraid media manipulation could happen to their candidate in a way that is devastating. So far the media has basically set up a nice two-person catfight...they set it up that way before the primaries began. Nothing devastating as yet has "come out" to destroy anyone else thus far. They usually save that strategy until the end.

And it doesn't have to be factual. It doesn't even have to be SIGNIFICANT. It can be completely frivolous yet shoved down the viewers' throats to the point it affects their votes.

If informed citizens here at DU aren't afraid and outraged, they aren't paying attention and I say THEY are the ones living in an alternate reality wearing rose-colored glasses.

[Andrea]

85. Some of the posts in this thread

Show how far we have to go when even people here at DU do not recognize what has been done.

"And it doesn't have to be factual. It doesn't even have to be SIGNIFICANT. It can be completely frivolous yet shoved down the viewers' throats to the point it affects their votes."

This is their preferred MO. We've seen it time and time again. If one of these candidates doesn't fall by the wayside on their own soon enough to suit the corporate media, they will employ this to knock one out, leaving their choice (probably Hillary I think) standing.

When the GE comes along, they will do the same thing.

[femrap]

251. I believe that the Corporates are

laughing their asses off at us...especially those 5 rich white guys who own 80% of the media. They employed a very old tool, 'divide and conquer.' So surprise! Here we have a black man and a white woman pitted against each other. Now all the Dems are fighting amongst themselves. The only 'uniter' imho was Edwards who was working for all of the working people.

He was pushed out. And pushed hard.

[Andrea]

308. One of the reasons he was knocked out

is probably precisely because he was a uniter. With him out, the schism is assured.

[Lilith Velkor]

160. "we are personally left alone more"

Actually, the US has a much higher percentage of its population in prison than either Russia or China, and that's not even counting the ones on probation/parole who have tracking devices on their ankles.

It's easy to put it out of one's mind because it's so frightening, but I think a lot of folks are aware on a subconscious level that it could happen to them if they piss off the wrong people.

[hfojvt]

184. I am not sure what a copacetic situation would look like to you

"We" have no say in our government. Isn't that because "we" are outnumbered? Outnumbered by sheeple, we might say, but there seems to be a strong contingent of something like 10-20% or more of DUers who are happy about the suzerainity of Clintons. Did some people feel disenfranchised when FDR was elected to a 3rd and then a 4th term? If he had been younger or healthier could he have gone for 5 or six terms?

And most of us don't really "slave" here. We have jobs that pay reasonably well and have decent benefits. Look at all the people here who are on DU while they are supposed to be working.

Anyway, things seem not that much different than when Clinton won the primary in 1992, except that now I have a better job and high-speed internet. I am just not sure what you are after. Is it all about the media blackout of Edwards and Kucinich? Or even before that, the way the media went after him about haircuts, houses and such? His own behaviour on some of these things has not been the best, and I say that as a pretty strong supporter.

Is it about Bush's seeming super-teflon? Lots of things suck badly IMO, but I am not ready to call it FUBAR. It seems more like a SNAFU.

[tom_paine]

203. For one, a "copacetic" siatuation is one which wasn't so corporate money driven

that all but five candidates from BOTH parties were out with the actual election 10 months away and 45 states still yet to have primaries (it wasn't always that way)

Or a media dedicated to the Public Good (relatively-speaking) as it was in the 60s and 70s, when news divisions were considered more social obligations (they often lost money) instead of profit-centers and the Fairness Doctrine ensured that at least to some degree all points of view would be heard.

And remember, as Goethe said, the best slaves are the ones convinced they are free. We are very comfortable and pampered slaves, at least for a little while longer though alltrends seem to be reversing there and there are fewer seats on the lifeboat these days.

Anyway, you are free to disagree, and yes, it isn't terribly obvious yet. That's the point. If it was obvious, the Bushies couldn't so easily impose it on us without a whimper of protest.

What it is about is the breakdown of our System of Checks and balances and I'll give you a hint: by the time it starts seriously impinging on your personal life, it's too late to do anytthing about it.

[hfojvt]

227. I am not sure it is corporate money

Here are some numbers. Suppose 10 million Edwards supporters donated a mere $25. Wouldn't that be $250 million? I think we have power over corporations that we do not bother to use because we do not seem to care enough.

edit: That was what I found so inspiring about the end of V for Vendetta, all those people marching, and they could not be stopped.

[balantz]

229. And suppose the media gave him equal attention.

I would guess that a lot more people would have chosen to support him if they had been given more opportunity to view him and his message on their boob-tubes.

[Vilis Veritas]

307. V gained control of the media...he took back control.

Without that we will never march.

Oh yea, and the other fantasy thing was that the tyranny in the world of V was bad across all demographics, not just with the poor. America has an underclass that gets the load of crap dumped on them while the lower middle/middle and lower upper classes get cake, yummmy corporate cake. Tivo, PS3's, xBox's, snickers, Scrubs, Dancing with the Stars, Super Bowl Sunday, SUV's, Guns...etc...all YUMMY ILLUSIONS of FREEDOM.

Why march when I got Blockbuster Video to help me escape?

Peace.

[Andrea]

312. Sure it would, but could they?

I gave several donations in the $20-30 range and it was a sacrifice each time. Many people are worse off than me and absolutely could not give. Furthermore, many people who could give, but for whom it would be a hardship, probably decided not to because the media repeatedly told them it was a losing proposition. When you resources are scarce, you must be very careful.

[JDPriestly]

332. Edwards had enough money.

Many people gave a lot more than $25. Money can't buy you time on the evening news. That's what ordinary people watch. And the only Democratic candidates discussed in the evening news were Hillary and Obama.

[earth mom]

275. The sheeple do NOT outnumber us. We are the MAJORITY who have been silenced by the media.

You should know that if you've been on DU long enough.

How many War protests in DC has the corporate media actually given a correct figure of? Exactly ZERO. They frame it as it's just the "fringe" element protesting, just a few thousand, when it's really the mainstream with hundreds of thousands marching not just in DC but all over the country.

You know something else? My dh has what is considered a DAMN GOOD paying job. You could say that we are doing a helluva lot better than a lot of people. But that didn't come until YEARS as the working poor and we will NEVER forget what that was like! Not only that, but this great pay raise has been reduced by rising gas, food and utility prices. We are still living paycheck to paycheck trying to figure out how to buy a new roof and new heating system! It's NO better really except that we aren't totally on the edge like before. To not give a damn because "we got ours" is absolutely selfish and self absorbed.

WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER. PERIOD.

And don't kid yourself this is some kind of "snafu". What a JOKE! :eyes:

THIS COUNTRY IS FUBAR!

Your attitude and obvious self absorption is exactly what is wrong with this country! :puke:

[hfojvt]

452. well I am glad I could contribute somehow

I make about $11,000 a year after insurance and mandatory retirement contributions, and I work cleaning toilets.

So I am not exactly singing "I've got mine" every day.

But other than self-flagellation and wearing sackcloth and ashes, is there anything I am supposed to do? Will complete agreement with the FUBAR-gang help anything?

Also, I was at a war protest in February 2003. A very cold day for Kansas, and I had to rent a car and drive 30 miles to get there. There were about 1500 protestors in a college town of 70,000.

[OneGrassRoot]

558. This link may be a start:

www.citizenclassaction.com

:)

[kelligesq]

539. Excuse me - what does FUBAR stand for?

[OneGrassRoot]

557. pssssst.....

it means "Fucked Up Beyond All Recognition" - I think it started during the Vietnam War...maybe sooner.

[kelligesq]

588. Thanx Timefor :)

[Two Americas]

299. that is the problem

"And most of us don't really 'slave' here. We have jobs that pay reasonably well and have decent benefits."

There is a distinct bias as a result of that.

[rhett o rick]

471. I am ok but my kids are having a hell of a problem. Even a college education doesn't mean much

any more.

[OneGrassRoot]

333. As usual, I agree with Two Americas...

"And most of us don't really "slave" here. We have jobs that pay reasonably well and have decent benefits. Look at all the people here who are on DU while they are supposed to be working."


I've been wondering if this may be the mindset of those who don't seem as concerned with the control of Corporate America (we should come up with another term, eh? It's global now, not just here). Those who are reasonably comfortable financially.

As an insight, hfojvt, I work 80 hours a week but am fortunate to be able to do so from home so I have never had to pay for childcare. Single mom working pretty much nonstop just trying to keep a roof over our heads. No vacations, no health benefits, heck, no benefits at all.

I am indeed on here more than I should be, but it's not a frivolous escape for me. It is serious business this task of staying informed and being an activist. I see things as being very, very dangerous now for our democracy, and it frightens me even more when others seem to be oblivious.


:hi:

[hfojvt]

447. it's one experience of corporate America

some members of my family are doing well working for them.

Who is oblivious? I have put a fair amount of time, money and effort into opposing Bush, electing Democrats and trying to help Edwards. I'm not happy about the way things have gone or the way things are, but I am also not panicking nor overwhelmed with despair.

Even if the analysis of FUBAR is correct, my question remains, what are we supposed to do about it? What are we gonna do about it?

[OneGrassRoot]

545. My bad, hfojvt...

I shouldn't have made my "oblivious" comment sound as though it was directed to you. It wasn't. It was a broad stroke about other posts, but I apologize for the way it sounded.

[Not Sure]

501. If you hadn't said "single mom"

I would have thought my wife had made a post on DU. That's our situation to a tee, only I drive to work at my job while she does what you described. And we're broke as hell despite the hours we slave away.

I'm completely deflated in the wake of JE's announcement of the campaign suspension. I don't care for the two choices we have left at all. I only hope that the campaign is just "suspended" and not over.

[Yael]

53. Trippi just kicked off a fundraising effort on Monday

Trying to get to $4mm for the month.

It is the 180 that was done without warning that has all of us confuzzeled.

He pledged to stay in to "give us a voice". He had supporters and the homeless on Tuesday tell him, "don't forget us". That kind of thing goes to the soul (unless you are a neo-con and have no soul).

It is such a sudden about face that we are all just questioning this on the meaning and more importantly, the timing.

[femrap]

260. EXACTLY!!

If he had waited until after Super Tuesday, maybe I wouldn't have had as many questions as I do now.

What or who got to him?

And always in the back of my mind is 'Martial Law.' That is what W and his neocons NEED...and I know they have the power to set events so that they arrive at it. I will be amazed if we get to an election in November. Are the jackals going to be let out of their cages?

This regime is pure evil...I put nothing past them. Nothing.

[balantz]

271. Interesting possibility.

If the left wing of the Republicrats wasn't allowed to go forward unhindered with the fascit sanctioned plans they could have threatened a world disaster and martial law. Imagination can come up with countless REAL possibilities of how that could be accomplished on any scale, and countless locations.

Tonight at the debate, arguably the most watched in history, John would have been able to get his message out and possibly sway the direction of the voting public DRASTICALLY! It is no secret that he has outperformed the other two at debates and has led the way in the focus of the discourse.

[Andrea]

315. That threat of martial law is why

it is so hard to start real change. They will use it if they deem it necessaary or even just desirable. Hence, we need to walk a narrow line.

[2hip]

84. See post #81

[pacalo]

212. Edwards had said he's "in it until the end". What happened?

[factanonverba]

336. check this out

http://www.onegoodmove.org

[pacalo]

370. Interesting -- thanks for the link.

The theory that he bowed out to prevent further bloodshed between Obama & Hillary, which could possibly cause permanent damage to the Democrats' hopes of winning the presidency, makes sense. However, it's the timing that doesn't make sense; he said after Nevada (& the writer of the "One Good Move" article says the most-recent Florida primary didn't factor into Edwards' decision) that he "was in this until the end for the sake of the middle class".

[amborin]

537. makes sense, evident in tonigt's debate, too

clinton and obama both toned down the squabbling

[flyarm]

252. i sure as hell believe that!! and i was at his rally in SC and i worked with his camp in Iowa and SC

something happened and it stinks to high heaven!

oh and Saturday and saturday night I talked directly to Bonior and Trippi and they were seeing great numbers in Tn and OkLA...and lots of $$ had come in..

something stinks here..

oh and Thursday and Friday voting was trending to John in SC everyone was abuzz of it..

then it falls Saturday?

I worked a precinct outside..and the precinct i was in a French canadian reporter came and was inside for a couple hours..she said she had been to 5 precincts..she said in very freinch englis..HILLARY HILLARY..thats all they were hearing in Canada..but all 5 precincts she was sent to she only found 2 Hillary voters!

oh and In Columbia where i was .they used Diebold machines.......

enough said.

fly

[bdamomma]

419. I believe he was silenced, at that last rebate he slammed down

Obama and Hillary, and he was gaining momentum, he was silenced, his message was getting out there, and someone or somebody wanted him out.

Why did he leave so abruptly, why didn't he wait until Super Tuesday, this whole thing stinks.

This whole election seems like a set up with the media and the powers that be want another repig in the WH.

[orleans]

526. bookmarked. n/t

[TheWatcher]

465. Yes. I for one do.

[THUNDER HANDS]

9. is it that hard to figure out why he left?

because he couldn't break 15% in his own damn state, that's why.

He didn't want to get embarassed on Super Tuesday.

[Andrea]

13. Congratulations!

Your idiotic response has earned you a place on my Ignore list!

Bravo!

[RichGirl]

50. That wasn't an idiotic response...it was the truth.

He's a human being and it would be perfectly normal to be embarrassed to lose your own state.

Why can't you just believe what he said...that he didn't have the delegates.

[redqueen]

59. "he didn't have the delegates"?

He said that? It's nonsensical... the VAST majority of delegates are still up for grabs.

[ClericJohnPreston]

66. I won't get angry...

only respond gently.

You illustrate an important point. Your interests are served SUPERFICIALLY by having your candidate still viable in the race. I say superficially, because unless you are in the top 1% of income, you will have lip-service to your real needs. It is the way of politicians who have DEBTS to their monied backers.

Anyway, as you are not a TRIAL LAYER, and I am, I can assure you, we have hides as thick as the toughest leather. We are bred by FIRE, and anyone who has made it to a Presidential Race, is not going to be EMBARRASSED.

EMBARRASSED is a fiction of the M$M!

See MCcamy Taylor's excellent thread on the M$M's role in Corporate America, guiding the narrayive:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4306897&mesg_id=4306897

[pamela]

527. Speaking of trial lawyers...

look what Terry McAuliffe was up to last weekend. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/27/AR2008012702192.html

[femrap]

267. Just your name alone puts you on the Ignore List.

Maybe you should change it to StupidRichGirl. buh bye....

[earth mom]

279. Have you forgotten the stolen elections of 2000 & 2004?!

:eyes:

[Joe Chi Minh]

317. Bingo.

[flyarm]

402. no some of us have not forgotten the stolen elections and for us in Fla it has been

2000, 2002, 2004 and 2006!

and now 2008 primary

what the f is wrong with some nof you people ..are your memories so bad you can't remember shit?

in 2004 this nation was told that Kerry/Edwards lost Fla because of the Dixiecrats..not the opitcal scan machines..hell no it was not the damn machines..no way no how..right..do you remember??

well so this tuesday 11 counties in Fla voted Edwards the top candidate..and what counties in Fla were they??

the most conservative Dixiecrat counties..11 of them..

Edwards carried more counties than Obama in Fla and they were all dixiecrat counties.



wake the fuck up !!

fly

[eowyn_of_rohan]

579. Thanks for bringing this up...exasperating that there so little discussion of this around here

I will NEVER believe John Edwards only got 18%, and Obama 55% of the vote in South Carolina, a state that uses ES&S iVotronic touch-screen voting machines WITH NO PAPER TRAIL. In case this is new to anyone, ES&S is as corrupt as Diebold and Sequoia, their machines are as hackable, and many malfunctions and suspicious election results have been attributed to their equipment. Last year they were gigged by the California Sec of State for selling non-certified voting machines without telling the counties that bought them that they had never been certified.

Voting machines malfunctioned in the Repub. primary in all 100 precincts of Horry County, SC (contains Myrtle Beach and North Myrtle Beach). The machines were down from the time polls polls opened -7am - and were not reading activation cards. Workers were handing out paper ballots but one precinct had only 23 on hand. Election workers took the machines home on voting machine "sleepovers" the week before both the Repub and Democratic primaries...

After 2 stolen Presidential elections, over 20 states still do not mandate a paper trail!

I remember John Edwards saying after the Nevada primary where he supposedly only got *4* % of the vote, "What happens in Nevada stays in Nevada" with an odd sort of laugh. I had the feeling he meant more than that he merely wanted to forget about the Nevada primary.

[troubleinwinter]

239. I have just joined you in that.

[flyarm]

262. HE BROKE 15% IN HIS OWN DAMN STATE..what are you talking about S.C.?? HE HAD 18% EOM

[GodlessBiker]

10. They have been silenced by the voters. They had a choice. They could have voted for others.

"There is no viable reason I can discern, for John Edwards to have suddenly left the political arena. NONE!"

Perhaps he and his wife have been told she does not have much time left with us, and they have decided to spend it together. The personal should trump the political now and then.

[ClericJohnPreston]

15. Then

it is all supposition, isn't it. Neat little tricks of the mind we come up with as convenient explanations, for larger truths we don't really have answers to.

I, for one, will keep asking. WHY?

Why was Edwards marginalized from the outset? If you're an Edwards supporter, you took notice.

If it were for health reasons, there is still no reason, Edwards couldn't be on the stump for one more week. Elisabeth has been with John as a couple all the way through.

As an Edwards supporter, I was getting solicited and given updates up to yesterday morning! WHY?

It seemed a rather, "sudden" departure.

[Seabiscuit]

33. It was so "sudden" and so inexplicable, and so shocking that it forces one to consider

the possibility of something truly nefarious going on behind the curtain. More than a mere threat of the ordinary kind - JRE proved during his 20 years as an attorney that he fears no one and is willing to fight the good fight. So I too suspect something along the rendition kind of line - something truly nefarious. Because the timing of his departure flies in the face of the reality of his campaign at that moment in time - money, momentum, excitement - plans for spending $6 million on TV ads, etc., etc., etc.

I too also wondered if it had to do with some medical report on Elizabeth's health. But again, unless she has but days to live (and doctors never really have a perfect crystal ball), why couldn't he have held out at least through next Tuesday?

And the lack of media coverage of his campaign? That was something JRE has become used to - he combatted it just last week with appearances on Letterman, Olbermann and Tyra Banks.

So...

Why?

[balantz]

43. While not wanting to get into imaginative conspiracies,

I don't want to overlook the fact that the powerful mega-corporations that DO run the show were being threatened by an Edwards administration, they even said so out loud.

One mustn't discount the possibility that the powers that be are capable of drastic measures to insure their control. Horrific threats is not out of the question. Perhaps not threats to Edwards, but maybe threats of some kind that would hurt innocent people somewhere.

I mean, come on, some of these people make a living off of a gigantic war machine, and manufacture events and propaganda to keep that machine rolling.

[Seabiscuit]

73. That's precisely one of the scenarios I had in mind when using the word "nefarious".

[balantz]

Yes I figured so.

And that kind of possibility is the explanation that fits best thus far in my mind.

[kelligesq]

542. Wait a min. As a Prez candidate John had Secret Service protection -

so how could a threat come to him?
And where could that threat come from?
And if there was a threat who would have delivered it?

who, what when, where,how, why?

Was John traveling all over by bus as seen on tv, or was he using a plane?

Just asking.

[Andrea]

594. Actually, no, he didn't.

Obama had protection from early on, due to some threats. Clinton automatically has protection because she is a former first lady. None of the other primary candidates had protection. Having seen him at a couple events this year, I can tell you there was hardly any security in evidence at all. People could walk right up to him, if they were lucky enough to be in the front of the crowd.

Only once a candidate becomes a nominee does she/he become eligible for SS protection.

Even if he would have had it, there are certainly many ways around that. For example, a threat against a third party.

[RichGirl]

67. Asking why he was marginalized...

is easier to answer. The media. Cable news is not news, it's entertainment with the goal being ratings. Edwards wasn't exciting, he wasn't history-making. Even when they were talking about and to the history-making candidates they spent more time on the trivial things like handshakes. And they made mountains out of molehills to create problems between Hillary and Obama. Even debates spent way too much time on trivial personality things and slights. Edwards may have done much better if he'd pretended he was gay. He would have had center stage. He got more attention getting an expensive haircut and criticizing the color of Hillary's dress.

I'm sad to see Edwards go but I'm fine with Hillary or Obama.

[Seabiscuit]

77. "Edwards wasn't exciting, he wasn't history-making".

On the contrary, Edwards' initiatives on all the issues were what made him "exciting" to anyone who cared about those issues, as it was to those of us who have been his staunchest supporters. And the changes he could have made as President on those issues would truly have been "history making". Far more so than the race and gender fluff the MSM has been yammering endlessly about all year.

That's precisely what frightened and angered not just the corporate media, but the entire military-industrial complex, the entire insurance and pharmaceutical industries, all the right-wing think tanks, and all the powers that be in Washington. With the Patriot Act and the shredding of the Constitution by this administration, they feel free to squash anyone and anything that threatens their fascist grip on their illegitimate power.

That's why I fear something truly nefarious has gone on behind the curtain that even JRE won't mention in public. If they can silence him they can silence all of us.

That's something those who support the two media-selected candidates have simply never yet understood, because their candidates remain pawns of corporatist Amerika. Sorry to have to say it, but it's true.

[Andrea]

93. Right, they don't see it because

their candidates happened to coincide with the corporate media selection. I fear they never will see it. Somehow this crisis has to be recognized.

[RichGirl]

95. I agree with you....

I meant that to the media he wasn't exciting.

I don't think it was anything nefarious or that he was silenced. It's an apathetic public, who didn't vote for him because he wasn't allowed by money driven media to get his message out.

Those of us here at DU are informed. We know the media can't be trusted, yet many of us did not support John Edwards. I voted for Edwards in the 2004 primaries. I'm very familiar with his message. I've seen him speak and he was outstanding. Still...I know how limited a president is in what he can do...and...all things considered I want real, dramatic change. A kind of "shake up the right wing" change. I think any of the three would make excellent presidents, but Hillary can shake em up better and fight better than the other two. IMO.

[Virginia Dare]

119. He was fighting an un-winnable uphill battle..

against the out-sized "personalities" of Obama and Hillary Clinton. Unfortunately this is how our Presidential races are decided. The media makes "celebrities" out of their chosen candidates, and in this way they manipulate and shape the way it will be fought. The media was intent on a battle between Obama and Hillary and they got it. It's all about public interest and ratings, and right along with that, money of course.

[ClericJohnPreston]

90. Not entertaining???

Now we have really fallen into Roman Bread and Circuses. If you believe that, you are a willing accomplice, at the very least. But, I fear, you are just coming up with a facile conclusion.

It has more to do with the CORPORATE DOMINATION of the airwaves and GUIDING THE NARRATIVE, then with any defect in Edwards.

Again, please read MCCamy Taylors great thread on the media control of dialogue:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4306897&mesg_id=4306897

[bvar22]

181. Condoleezza Rice is "historic".

Colin Powell is "historic".

Nancy Pelosi is "historic".

Hows all this "historic" stuff working out for ya?

NOT a good reason to support a candidate.

[balantz]

182. Correctamundo!!!

[earth mom]

283. Take your LIES elsewhere. Because you are GLOATING that Edwards is gone. NOT sad.

:puke:

[AmBlue]

138. The other thing out of character about that explanation is...

...that when Elizabeth was diagnosed they shared it with the world, even down to very private moments, to explain the rationale. If it were Elizabeth's health, it would be out of character for them not to say so. It would be perfectly reasonable and understandable.

You're right ClericJohnPreston: Why, indeed?

[kimmerspixelated]

348. I think you may be right. Good point.

[orleans]

528. i'm thinking that it has nothing to do w/elizabeth & her health because

1. not only did they tell us about her up front at the onset
but
2. i believe he would have easily offered this in order to give supports a clear understanding why he was "suspending"

as it is...it's all hanging in the air, there are no set conclusions, no rationale, no clear explanation.

[ClericJohnPreston]

580. Except what I hear, which is worse

That John was unceremoniously asked to drop out by the SNC, to make room for Hillary and Obama.

So much for the National Party's concern for all the disenfranchised for whom John lent his voice.

[Andrea]

595. I think you meant DNC (not SNC) - just a typo

This would certainly fit with what I have heard lately about him not being well-liked in DC, to which I say, "Tough Luck, DC". It's not supposed to be about what they want, it's supposed to be about what we want.

[kimmerspixelated]

346. I hope that's not the reason, but maybe that's it.

God Bless her.

[napi21]

12. I don't think you can comlpletely blame society's choices of candidates

on corporations. People have always made their choices based upon the "guy they like", and since the advent of TV, it's also become a beauty contest. I don't mean the physically most attractive, but the combination of apparent personality, appearance, & mannerisms combined. That stupid story abot "who would you rather have a beer with" was silly, and sounded stupid, but it was REAL! Sure there are a few who make their decision based on ideology or some single issue, but most make their final choice because "I just LIKE him/her better!

[redqueen]

25. Except when they come out and say stuff like 'I like Edwards but I'm voting for X,

because Edwards can't win'

How did people come to the conclusion that Edwards couldn't win, after only one or two states?

Why was he invisible after his second place finish in IA? Why was he excluded from head-to-head matchups after the voting started?

[unapatriciated]

351. That is it in a nut shell

I phone banked for Edwards in SC and I got that answer a lot. What was even more surprising was the high numbers of Dems who voted Repug because they didn't want Clinton or Obama. they would all tell me that they liked Edwards but was not going to risk X (depending on who they disliked) getting the nomination. It's sad, they allow the media to choose for them.

[Andrea]

39. But can't you see

That who people see as "the guy they like" (and you even point out "since the advent of TV") is determined by what they are shown of the candidates. The messages are highly edited. The emphasis is on nonsense. Change candidates are portrayed as eccentric or extreme. Many people are just followers. The media can lead them around by their noses.

Since corporations control the media, they control the picture people get of the candidates. As years have gone by, network news has been less and less governed by the ethics of journalism and more and more subject to the control of the corporations that own the networks. Add to that the demise of the Fairness Doctrine and the rise of cable networks, and the average person no longer gets any fair reporting. (For those who may not know, since cable networks do not technically broadcast, they are not subject to FCC rules).

People who are more motivated can seek out other viewpoints in the written press and on the internet (and to some extent still on NPR), but most people aren't that motivated and/or don't realize that they are being sold a bill of goods. Furthermore, as the internet has grown, the corporate media have increased the public hunger for tabloid news and distractions. This means that those who have some flicker of desire to seek out more viewpoints and news are quickly knocked off course. As soon as they head to the net, they are bombarded with silly YouTube videos (not that they aren't fun) and headline stories about the latest misadventures of Britney Spears. Do you think this is a coincidence?

[napi21]

108. I agree with you on most of what you say, BUT that doesn't

explain the "death march they played for McCain a few months ago". I remember even seeing shots of McCain carrying his own bags to the plane, and everyone saying how sad it was. Then there is the small but popular following of Ron Paul.

[balantz]

112. But McCain is puppet fodder.

Edwards is not.

McCain can fit their agenda if need be, he can be molded.

[femrap]

276. And you have no idea of how much $$$$

came to McCain's aid....or the people. His staff was entirely change. McCain made a deal with the devil family. He's their boy. No doubt whatsoever.

And he'll add Huckabee onto the ticket so the wingnuts will vote for him.

[Yael]

57. Like Barack Obama said

There is a woman, an african american.... and John.

[Occam Bandage]

17. It's pretty obvious why he left.

Nobody was voting for him. Nobody was giving him money. His campaign was dead in the water, and he knew the longer he stayed in it, the more he was hurting his brand. Perhaps he wanted to be able to negotiate terms for a coming endorsement.

But really, to suggest that some shadowy force "made" DK and JRE leave? That's silly. At their times of withdrawal, neither had a chance in hell of winning the White House--what would the benefit be? (And Richardson, Biden, and Dodd are all just as corporate as BHO and HRC.)

[Andrea]

78. You are mistaken

Perhaps you should research the delgate count, the number of delegates not yet determined, the poll results, the fundraising trends etc. before you toss about terms like "dead in the water".

And don't forget, before you get so harsh, that your candidate is likely next.

[Occam Bandage]

98. Denial is strong, I see.

Edwards was a distant third in every state but Iowa, and polled a distant third in nearly every state going forward. His fundraising was atrocious compared to Obama or Clinton. He was going nowhere and out of options. After his Iowa loss, Intrade had him at a 1.8% chance to win the nomination; that steadily dropped until he withdrew.

At the moment, Obama is at about 40%, and Clinton around 60%. She's favored, yes, but Obama's certainly still in it.

[balantz]

101. That kind of reasoning is buying into what is promoted by the corporations.

The corporations manipulated "their media" coverage and any other factor they needed to to push Edwards out.

[Occam Bandage]

104. You guys are starting to sound like the Gravel and Kucinich supporters.

Seriously. People just didn't like Edwards. That's all there is to it.

Media? Corporate evil? Come on; he was a media darling in '04.

[OneGrassRoot]

150. Hello to my favorite pompous ass...

B-) (just kidding...kinda... ;-) )

If we've had this discussion already, please forgive me. I AM a very old 44, after all, and my memory is poor.

I've asked others who support other candidates this same question: aren't you concerned about the overall media manipulation in general?

Take Edwards and DK and the others out of the mix. Their lack of coverage isn't the point right now.

It's the overall manipulation of MSM for reasons that we don't always seem to know that is my fear. That "they" can take what seems like a scream (Dean) during a rally and systematically destroy a candidate is disturbing, no?

Ever since the news departments were made part of the profit centers, our ability to get facts - rather than entertaining opinion as we see in cable news - has essentially disappeared. B*shco has gotten a free pass. We can agree on that, can't we?

And most Americans still get their "news" from mainstream media.

I'm truly asking whether or not you feel there is any threat whatsoever to the democratic process given the media as it exists today?

Not about Edwards. I'm asking about the overall picture and the effect on campaigns and our democracy in general.

[Occam Bandage]

166. Hey la. Yeah, I am concerned about the media in general. I think they're lazy and incompetent,

and they're lazy and incompetent because that is what the general viewing public demands. The public doesn't want to be challenged, and it doesn't want to pay attention to the issues. They want to hear about soap-opera feuds and horseraces. They want to feel informed, but they don't want to be informed; the media therefore works to validate opinions rather than assist people in forming more intelligent opinions. There will always be people who want to watch FoxNews instead of PBS, and people who prefer listening to Rush or Randi Rhodes than to NPR.

And that's the way that things will go in a free media market. I don't see a way out of it; that's the way things have always been. If you want a jolt of reality, take a Chicago Tribune (or your hometown paper of record) from this week, go to your nearest library with microfilm archives (probably at the closest state university, though many large public libraries do as well) and compare it to a paper from 50, 75, 100 years ago. People have always wanted sensation in their news; the papers of 2008 are downright academic by comparison to the papers of 1908 or 1928. American journalism has historically been more New York Post than New York Times.

Not only is this not new, but it isn't the first case of progressives being demolished by a lack of PR ability. The socialist movement in America was utterly destroyed twice due to media influence. In the age of literacy, politics is and has been an advertising battle of epic scale. Wars have been fought to further a brand; governments overthrown by force of a slogan.

Would it be better if everyone were smarter, if everyone were more intellectually active, if everyone demanded a higher quality of news? Sure. But to paraphrase Rumsfeld, you go to November with the electorate you have, not the electorate you might wish to have or hope to have. A candidate who cannot influence media narratives is as useful as a tank without a gun.

[OneGrassRoot]

172. Thank you, Occam...

I truly appreciate your response. And I see that perspective as well. The old "what came first, the chicken or the egg" scenario: controlling, manipulating interests or the dumbed-down, rather shallow populace. I absolutely see what you are saying.

It would be interesting to compare newspapers during different time periods. I may assign my daughter that task for a history assignment. :hi:

[amborin]

540. no, i think people aren't that stupid

the evidence/examples you cite are all anecdotal and easily explained away

i watched dean that night, the minute he let out that scream i knew he was finished, it was maniacal....over the top....of course the media will run with something like that

same thing with that thug Allen, from the south, the one who called a male supporter using a racist slur...he was republican, yet effectively persecuted by the media thereafter

if anything, the corporate media is counterbalanced by the plethora of informal media that report everything to all.....there's no more 'backstage' anymore

[Andrea]

597. You are not making your argument

If people "weren't that stupid" they wouldn't be influenced by inconsequential things like the "Dean scream" or some misinformed reporting on John Edwards haircut. Or maybe if the MSM exposed them to some serious, balanced coverage of the candidates and their positions, they would have something else to consider other than these stupid trivialities.

It is ridiculous to compare the "Dean scream" with a racial slur. Absolutely absurd on the face of it. (And by the way, he wasn't calling a supporter that. He was referring to a Webb staffer who was there to film the event.)(Regarding the Dean scream, I saw it, too. It did look a bit weird on TV. I shook my head a couple times. But, if you dug one millimeter deeper, you would have heard that people who were there said it was incredibly noisy in there and that was the only way he could be heard.)

Informal media can only report on small discrete (not discreet)incidents which have a sensationalist quality that the MSM will pick up on. I'm sure there are people who have posted YouTube videos with reasoned discussions of their preferred candidate's position on the issues, or maybe routine stump speeches. Will these be picked up by the MSM? No, they won't. They never have been. What gets picked up is "Obama Girl". Occasionally we are lucky and something significant is also sensationalist, hence the coverage of the "Mukaka" remark.

[readmoreoften]

468. Wait? You're supposed to be on my ignore list. Why can I see you?

[Mnemosyne]

481. Level 2 n/t

[amborin]

538. exactly

enough with the conspiracy theory stuff

you guys are staring to sound really whacko

[OneGrassRoot]

547. I'm not really talking conspiracy in this case...

though I certainly believe in some things others would call conspiracies.

What I'm really speaking of in this particular post is the power of the message essentially being in very few hands given the media consolidation back in the late 90s and news departments now being lumped in as profit centers.

Those whose companies own large chunks of the media have very well-known beliefs and political opinions. That's reflected in programming, commentary, etc. And, with the news department now required to generate profit, that affects the flow of "real" news based on what the programmers feel is entertaining, what their advertising sponsors will agree with, etc., rather than them acting like the Fourth Estate.

Whether one believes that programming, commentary, etc. are left-leaning or right-leaning, it concerns me that it can happen AT ALL.

Too much power consolidated in too few hands is my concern. I don't believe that is a conspiracy theory.

[amborin]

584. agree with all you just wrote

nonetheless, edwards' loss is not b/c the media feared him...as someone wrote, he was a media darling in the 2004 campaign

he just didn't impress voters, including the ones he spent much time with on the ground

[Andrea]

600. Sorry, you are just not following the discussion

Whether or not he was a "media darling" in '04 is irrelevant. The point is, he had a platform that threatened the status quo this time around and he didn't fit into their plans.

[amborin]

605. voters on the ground didn't like him

he spent much time in Iowa interacting with folks there.....he proclaimed all along he'd win Iowa....there were too many negatives about him....i'll wager i'm way more to the left than any edwards supporter, but i wouldn't have voted for him

[Joe Chi Minh]

318. You mean like the man whose family voted for him, but then they didn't, officially...

[robcon]

19. I don't think it's corporate domination, but domination of Democratic voters' preferences.

Democracy is very, very healthy in the Democratic party.

Those candidates that dropped out couldn't get enough people to vote for them.

[cobalt1999]

24. Occam's Razor is almost always correct.

However, making up conspiracies is much more fun and emotional.

[tom_paine]

68. Corollary: Occam's Razor decreases in it's frequency of "correctness', when applied in socio-

-political circumstances (as opposed to "hard sciences" like physics, chemistry, biology) in inverse proportion to the freedom of a given society within which Occam's razor is applied.

Example: To use the most extreme cases to bring my corollary into sharp relief, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. In such un-free societies, Occam's Razor was literally turned on it's head. Almost EVERY SINGLE thing which Occam's Razor would have dismissed as "Conspiracy Theory" was TRUE.

For example:

It would be economically counter-productive to divert a massive amount of resources, materials, rolling stock, etc. to the eradication of "undesirables" such as Jews, Liberals, Gays, Gypsies, Poles, etc. Such a massive diversion might even be the pivot of the balance upon which the German War Effort would succeed or fail, making it even more self-defeating. Finally, it would involve a simply massive conspiracy to keep such things silent from the rest of the world, which also adds to the fact that Occam's Razor cuts the idea of the German Efforts at Industrial Extermination of Undesirables to ribbons. It just doesn't make sense on so many levels, that Occam's Razor STRONGLY suggests another, simpler explanation for the many mysterious disappearances of "undesirables".

Perhaps they are all soldiering on the eastern Front, where communications are weak.

You see, you are both right and wrong in your use of Occam's Razor. It IS a valid idea, but when applied to sociopolitical matters, decreases in efficiency as freedom decreases.

Now, tell me how "emotional" that logical construct and corollary I just laid out is.

Because to rip me, even though I have just taken pains to logically deconstruct your point about Occam's razor, how much more fun and emotional is it for you to dismiss it out of hand and call me a loony?

[ClericJohnPreston]

97. Silence

deafening silence. Yes, it isn't so easy when we ask people to AWAKEN, to THINK, after they are used to facile explanations, given without a moments rumination.

[Andrea]

99. I'm in love with you

Just my kind of person - bringing logic to bear, thinking rationally and explaining yourself cogently.

Any chance that you are male and single?

[Occam Bandage]

118. Your example is deeply flawed, as it

does not properly take into account the fact that those people were gone, and does not provide a legitimate counter-explanation. Yes, the Holocaust was rather unlikely. However, it would be extraordinarily more unlikely for all the Jews and Gypsies in German-controlled territories to suddenly disappear without explanation. "They're all soldiering on the Eastern Front," applied to the ten million minorities who vanished without a trace, is ridiculously unlikely; it's about as realistic as "perhaps they have all forgotten to check their mail." It would be a reasonable explanation for the disappearance of one man; it is preposterous for the disappearance of ten million.

Moreover, the Holocaust was not as unfeasible as you suggest; the words, actions, and previous laws passed would have supported that theory (while diminishing the likelihood that every single Jew was fighting in Russia; as Germans believed Jews were backstabbers and would not have relied so heavily on Jewish soldiers).

Occam's razor does not suggest that the unlikely is impossible, or that the unlikely must be discarded, or that the counterintuitive is false. Your analogy suggests a grave misunderstanding of the principle.

Finally, your assertion that "almost every thing OR would have dismissed was true?" That's obviously ridiculous as well. Say, we have a Chinese working at a small factory in the rural heartland during the Great Cultural Revolution. He does not show up at home one evening. Occam's Razor would suggest he was drunk or working late. Occam's Razor would suggest he was not abducted by aliens, killed by American spies, struck with a desire to join the circus, stampeded by zebras, or bribed by a different family to become their father. In nearly every single case, the first two would have been true. In most of the remainder, the only slightly less likely case of injury or death at work was true, and perhaps a few others were mugged or arrested. I highly doubt that any Chinese were abducted by aliens or stampeded by zebras.

Perhaps you meant to say, "every single thing which was true would have been dismissed by Occam's Razor." However, that's strange too; many Germans went about their daily lives, cooking and working and eating, and Occam's Razor would suggest that they were doing exactly that. Perhaps you meant "every single thing which was true and also endemic to unfree societies." However, as I tried to point out in the first paragraph, that, too, is a flawed statement. Occam's razor does not mandate that the unlikely be discarded; it mandates that the superfluous be discarded.

[cobalt1999]

140. Your reply was more accurate than mine.

You are correct too, the example is flawed with a misunderstanding of the principle.

I should have thrown in a few aliens in my example to make it better.

[tom_paine]

162. Interesting, but your rebuttal is deeply flawed. For several reasons.

Your comment that these people were gone is only something you can say for certain because you know what history has unfolded.

To the people of the day, and I have read extensively on this, particularly "I Will Bear Witness" by Victor Klemperer, there was debate as to what happened to the missing and where they were. And that was among their friends, family, and community...let alone distant "observers" from the "outside world".

Eventually, the circumstantial evidence became so great, that among their family, friends, and community, eventually it became accepted (wholly without a shred of concrete proof) that to be sent away was a death sentence. And yet, to to outside observers, for which their IS ample historical evidence, there was MUCH debate and disbelief, right up until the end.

When a copy of the Wanasee Protocol was smuggled out of Germany and found it's way to the State Department, it was immediately dismissed as "Jewish Propaganda".

The ten million did not disappear without a trace all at once, but over a long period of time, minimizing the missing. Sure, had they disappeared all at once, it would have been more obvious. Your fallacy here is that you speak of them as if they disappeared all at one, instead of by dribs and drabs over the course of a decade, from thousands of communities in an age where communication was lacking, relative to today.

As to your Chicom example, it is interesting that you left out the actual explanation for tens of millions, that they were sent to Detention Camps or Work Camps and then killed.

Further, you make your Holocaust arguments from more the mistaken assumption (and with the hindsight of history which allows you to "cheat" and know the answer, which allows you to retrofit the facts to fit your counter-hypothesis) that a complex, massive, conspiratorial and resource-sucking operation was, in fact, the simplest explanation.

It wasn't. Whatever the other explanations we come up with, a complex, massive, conspiratorial and resource-sucking operation of industrial Liquidation was most definitely NOT the simplest explanation. For the other "simpler" explanations, we would have to crack open the books and view the many wieldings Occam's Razor by State Department officials in the 40s.

But you retrofit it to match what you know. The counter-explanation, whatever it would be, is presupposed. It is also irrelevant for the purposes of our discussion. Just the fact that they were there and existed. People have always reached for Occam's Razor to dismiss wild conspiracy theories like the Holocaust. THAT is what is deeply flawed here, as is the assumption, flying in the face of all of human history, that such complex conspiracies don't exist or can be dismissed by Occam's Razor.

Someday, perhaps, I will sit down and give a good researching to all the "simpler explanations" that permeated the USA in the 40s. Honestly, I cannot enumerate them, but I know of their existence, as do you. Go ahead and try to deny it, you merely deny established history That the United States was NOT convinced the Holocaust was actually happening until the camps were liberated.

Yes, I am well aware of Occam's Razor and what it means. But the Holocaust is NOT the simplest explanation. For that matter, the Enron Conspiracy to deprive California of energy was by far not the simplest explanation for THAT. Market forces, spot power outages, fuel shortages, and anything BUT a conspiracy involving hundreds of people, successfully kept quiet until bankruptcy proceedings forced the books open years later, were definitely simpler explanations that Occam's Razor would favor over the complex conspiracy turned out to be.

You say I don't understand Occam's Razor, but it is you who continually ignores the fact that for the Holocaust, for Enron, for Watergate, and for all the rest, the simplest explanations, the superfluous explanations, turned out to be the TRUE explanations.

Thus, you selectively ignore the fact that Occam's Razor fails much more often in the realm of the sociopolitical than experimental "hard sciences", perhaps for the very reason that sociopolitical and other human endeavors have an infinitely more complex causality than most processes of the physical sciences.

I stand by what I said. You have stated that you thought my understanding of Occam's Razor was fallacious, but then you retrofitted your hypothesis to match what you already know from history, and made connection that could not be realistically made without knowing the history that already happened.

Finally, by your explanation, simply EVERYONE could have wielded Occam's Razor and come to the "obvious" conclusion that the Holocaust was taking place. But they didn't.

The point is that while Occam's razor is a fantastic tools and quite often 100% useful and effective, it breaks down when confronting human passions and endeavors, which quite often are not the simplest means, but much more complex for the very reason that their convoluted complexity triggers people's denial and misuse of Occam's Razor in places where it is less effective due to the human psyche and condition (lust for power, domination, control, wealth, comfort, and and extraoridnary psychological desire to achieve these things at any cost).

[Occam Bandage]

186. I never claimed that Occam's Razor would have suggested that the Holocaust must have occurred.

I suggested that invocation of Occam's Razor to defend an alternate hypothesis would have been more flawed, especially for the example you gave. When information is as spotty and suspect as it was in WW2, any invocation of Occam's razor is pointless; at times it would be like trying to fit a sine wave to two points. However, that is not to say that it was not suspected by many; in fact, and as you say, many had ample evidence to determine the Holocaust was occurring, and refused to believe it. Occam's razor does not suggest that humans are incapable of denial, nor does it suggest that they cannot be affected by group-thought problems. If nobody believes in a Holocaust, nobody is likely to begin believing in a Holocaust, no matter how convincing the evidence.

The Enron conspiracy was indeed not the simplest explanation for a power shortage. And, in fact, in the overwhelming majority of cases of power outages, there was no conspiracy. In fact, nobody even suspected a conspiracy until more evidence was uncovered. Occam's razor obviously does not work when critical information is hidden, but that does not mean that it is not functional. Noteworthy examples of masterfully-obscured conspiracies do not disprove Occam's razor, nor do they suggest that other conspiracy theories are valid.

And, again, for the Holocaust: it was not "the superfluous explanation" that was true. It was one of many explanations, each competing for evidence, and each with flaws and advantages. You're grossly oversimplifying history. Same with Enron and the power shortages. Watergate is a whole other can of worms, and I don't think it particularly helps your case at all.

Fails more often? I'd deny that proposition outright. Occam's razor does not preclude new information arising. In fact, it demands all relevant information be accounted for; it fails in the hard sciences when data is missing, and it fails in the soft sciences when data is missing. However--and this is crucial--data is generally not missing.

It is noteworthy that you had to invoke the greatest scandals of the past hundred years to defend your point. There is a reason why the Holocaust and Enron stuck out in your mind--because those are rare cases in which information was obscured (in the latter) and ignored (in the former), and thus people were shocked to find the truth.

"When you hear hooves, think horses," the old saying goes. The existence of zebras does not render it false. Rather, it recognizes that zebras exist, but also recognizes that they're so infrequent as to be nearly irrelevant when deciding.


(China was quite open about re-education; it made those who were sent away public examples. It put a positive spin on it often; many cadres pseudo-voluntarily went out for re-education in farms. That's why I didn't mention it; if a family had a capitalist roader in the house, they would certainly know about it, and their re-education or execution would be public in nature.)

--------

I recognize that this post is incredibly disjointed. However, it is such by necessity. You're failing to provide a unified argument. Rather, you're throwing up a pack of what-ifs and exceptions; I've attempted to address them each individually.

[cobalt1999]

193. It is noteworthy that you had to invoke the greatest scandals of the past hundred years to defend...

And he talks about "retrofitting to match known events" when his entire argument is based on retrofitting. There is a logical disconnect or he really doesn't understand what he is typing.

[tom_paine]

206. Keep repeating it "logical disconnect" "logical disconnect"

maybe if you repeat it enough it will become true.

As I said below, it is difficult to use logic to apply to the notoriously illogical nature of human beings.

But I am done watsing time with you. Occam's Bondage is giving me some very thought-provoking stuff that adds something to the converstaion.

You are not. I am done answering you, because you have nothing but your cute little smear to reply.

Keep repeating it.

[Andrea]

205. You are making our point for us

"Occam's razor obviously does not work when critical information is hidden" - the whole POINT of this is that critical information IS hidden.

No, one cannot prove the existence of critical information if it is entirely hidden, but one can infer it's existence from inconsistencies that are apparent.

Why are you assuming that no critical information is hidden? I doubt you have some inside track that no one else here is privy to, but if you do, please illuminate the matter.

[tom_paine]

208. Well said, Andrea. In human endeavors, critical information is almost always hidden.

I thank you for cutting this Gordian Knot, as I was not seeing it from that angle, but that is in fact the heart of the matter.

That is why I think Occam's Razor fails more often (not always, not by a long sight, and I do agree with Occam's Bondage on that point) in the realm of human endeavors not just because we humans are often highly illogical, and the higher in the power structure and heirarchy we go, the less logical people are...but also because as you point out the denial of critical data is a key feature of human power heirarchies when moving from higher levels to lower levels.

Hell, denial of data is the raison d'etre of the entire Bushie Imperium to blind us as a means to an end...in this case power and wealth.

[tom_paine]

218. This is a very interesting and thought-provoking post. Much to consider.

You are correct that Occam's razor, even where it is used on human or sociopolitical endeavors, STILL works most of the time.

As Andrea stated below, your fallacy here as it applies to human sociopolitics is the comment that data is generally not missing.

While this is true for experimental science, is is much much MUCH more often false when dealing with human power structures and hierarchies. Therein lies the single most important reason behind my initial corollary.

One might express it this way As human societies become less free, the amount of critical data withheld rises in direct proportion, making the use of Occam's razor more problematic in the absence of the full data set.

I also agree with you that my posts have become progressively "less logical" as we have gone forward from my first corollary posted. The reason for that is that I am trying to describe an inherently illogical phenomena, human hierarchical power structures and how they function to gain and hold unchecked power.

This is in and of itself part of our primate nature, which we have not even come close to overcoming. So at it's heart it is basically illogical.

Using logic to describe illogical workings is always difficult.

Where we disagree is that it is unusual for information to be withheld. I believe it is much more closer to the norm (though somewhere in between) and that in and of itself is proportional to the openness and freedom of a society.

Finally, another thing which poisons and weakens the modern use of Occam's Razor (again let me say it is still an incredibly effective tool in many situations nonetheless) is the massive orders of magnitude in the sciences of psychology, PR, advertising and marketing...perceptiona nd mental control, really.

These give the hierarchical power structures the ability to micromanage which is the keystone piece of data which will lead to a predetermined conclusion in their "target audience". This way, 99% of the data is released, but the 1% of the data that is missing is key to the full understanding of the dataset.

It gives the power structure (whichever self-interested segment we are talking about depends on the given issue) the ability to say, "Look, we've given you all the data," and the fact that only a tiny but keystone piece is missing makes it very difficult to uncover.

But I am again digressing, falling down the rabbit-hole of trying to describe systems that are inherently illogical and self-interested, to say the least.

All I can do here is wrap up and reiterate that it sure would be nice if humanity behaved logically and forthrightly, that Occam's razor could be used with 100% efficiency, that critical data was never withheld rather than often withheld from the common people.

But it isn't. Hence, my lapse as I try to flesh out the illogical.

You think the deep and convoluted explanations behind Watergate were the most logical and simplest. I submit that G. Gordon Liddy proposing cruise ships full of hookers and the assassination of Jack Anderson, let alone his whole serious of crazy illogical and convoluted plots were among the least simple and most sliceable by Occam's razor. But Nixon and his bunch were also illogical, driven mad by power lust, so as crazy and complex the watergate machinations, they turned out to be true.

AND critical data was withheld as long as possible to confuse any neutral observer trying to analyze the situation with Occam's razor.

Finally, I chose the the Holocaust because the extremity of the situation deeply highlighted t he points I was trying to make, but I think you are in error if you assume I chose them because they were the only events these could be applied to. Their extremity brought out my points into stark relief.

Whew! My fingers are tired. It's almost time to just agree to disagree.

[Joe Chi Minh]

322. No, the lamp just broke, Tom. Can't you see what they're trying to tell you?

Stuff happens. Poltergeists. All sorts.

[cobalt1999]

134. You misunderstand Occam's Razor.

If we take the general meaning "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." and apply it to your holocaust example.

It has nothing to do with what makes economic sense, it has nothing to do with what is productive or counter-productive.

In your example, the facts a person would have are:

1) They have a government that has repeatedly demonstrated hated towards "undesirables".
2) They have a government which has espoused the death or removal of "undesirables".
3) They have a government that has not only encouraged but participated in violence against those groups.
4) The government is in a world war and resources are extremely tight.

The situation requiring assumption is "What is the government doing with all the Jews it is rounding up and railroading away"

You can imagine multiple answers:

1) They are all being resettled to wonderful little towns full of milk and honey, given nice homes, and jobs. (doesn't match the known facts and behavior of the day and why divert resources to this wonderful towns?)
2) They are being shipped to other countries (in the middle of a war?)
3) They are being rounded up and killed. (That one wins as the simplest and most logical answer based on the facts)

[tom_paine]

175. And you are retrofitting the data to match your conclusions. See post #162.

It is a matter of history that MANY people denied what was going on, right up until the time the camps were liberated.

You, on the other hand, take what you KNOW and assume the natural conclusion as the simplest, thus validating the use of Occam's razor to uncover a very complex conspiracy.

Curiously, the people of the time, who did NOT know with certainty that the Holocaust was happening, failed to do this and in fact, wielded Occam's razor to disprove such a complex conspiracy theory as the Holocaust.

You imagined only the three answers which retrofitted to your fallaciosu conclusion, at least as history states, otherwise the Holocaust would have been commonly accepted long before the camps were liberated, whcih they were not.

Much, but not all of the rest of post #162 applies equally to your fallacious obervation of my supposed misunderstanding of Occam's Razor.

But the Holocaust was not the simpelst explanation, and only by contorting the facts can you make it become the "simplest explanation".

[cobalt1999]

183. You are a bit all over the map here.

If you are discussing the Germans who wondered where the Jews had gone, then the only ones who denied it were the ones IGNORING Occam's Razor not the ones wielding it. I could have listed 50 more and more wild explanations of what happened to their Jewish neighbors the government hated and shipped off, but based on what they knew at the time (no retrofitting - I've read the accounts myself as a history buff), the answer for most was obvious and unpleasant. Psychologically, many preferred not to think about where the conclusions led, or, at least, tried to convince themselves otherwise. Those are the ones who failed to apply the principle, not the other way around as you state.

No contorting of anything, in fact, I paraphrased what interviews of many Germans that the time said.

I don't think you understand because your arguments are not following a logical construct.

[tom_paine]

197. It is difficult to explain human illogic with logic.

Also, I believe you are being disingenuous in your assertions that border on smears.

My first post, was in fact a logical construct of a corollary to Occam's Razor as it applies to human and sociopolitical endeavors. You dissmissed it out of hand by saying that I misunderstood Occam's Razor.

And again, your retrofit to make your conclusions "true", by stating that any Germans who got it wrong were failing to use Occam's Razor. Why?

You're so sure that you are so very logical, why would choosing the most complex answer, a conspiracy involving the silence of thousands and millions, be a MISapplication of Occam's razor when the simplest explanation are usually TRUE, according to Occam's Razor?

That's just bad science, cooking the data to falsify a conclusion. So tell me, and be sure to adhere to the strictures of logic. Why does the most complex answer fot with Occam's Razor that the simplest explanation is usually true.

Now, you can smear me, say I don't understand logic or whatever. But it is YOU who is adjusting the data to make your conclusion true.

A wild and complex conpiracy of millions, breakingthe back of the German war Effort, the SIMPLEST explanation? Come come, now, please don't insult my intelligence.

So, tell me, WHY was the most complex answer, the Holocaust, obvious by Occam's Razor which states that the simplest explanation has to be true.

A simple explanation like, "They were taken to factories to work for Germany."

I think you don't understand how serious a violation of scientific principles to cook the data so that your predetermined conclusion looks "true".

Just don't get caught doing that in your job, if you even work in science (do you?). If it gets around you will have a very hard time getting another job.

In conclusion, I can appreciate your devotion to logic. But human beings and human endeavors are NOT logical much of the time, not even close. Human history is rife with counter-intuitive conpsiracy.

It is pretty funny for you to make the assertion that logical analysis of the Nazis 9or the Bushies, for that matter) leads people to automatically figure out their most heinous misdeeds, when it is a historical fact that such logical applications to illogical "evil" leads people inthe opposite direction.

It was not logical to assume the Nazis were going to destroy so much of their economy to exterminate the 'undesriables', butthey did it anyway.

It's not logical for the Bushies to eviscerate our military, or weaken the dollar to Third World levels, or destroy the middle-class when it is hostoric and economic fact hat our nation was strongest when the middle-class was strongest.

But like the old experiment with the monkeys and the cocaine, monkey pressed the cocaine button to the exclusion of all else, even food, until the monkey died. He did it because it felt so GOOD!

[cobalt1999]

226. People are not always logical

That much we agree on.

Beyond that we disagree on the meaning and logical application of the principle.

Getting back to the original post...

There are 1000's of candidates in elections that quit when they realize they aren't going to win.
John Edwards quit while trailing in the polls.

The simplest theory is that he quit because we wasn't going to win. I choose to believe that.

You have all the fun you want with your conspiracy theories.

I'm done with this.

[tom_paine]

176. Duplicate. Self-delete. n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

560. Have paid any attention at all to what has happened over the last

two decades? From the deliberate and overt conspiracy to destroy the Clinton presidency to the all too convenient and required 'pearl harbor' of 9-11, to the now well documented conspiracy to take this nation into a criminal war through outright fraud and deception - we are in the midst of a massive and well planned conspiracy by the corporatist right to reshape the world to their twisted vision. Wake the fuck up pal. Might I suggest 'Shock Doctrine' as a good starting point?

[redqueen]

27. Right but why?

Why didn't they vote for him? Many didn't vote for him not because they didn't prefer him... but because they'd got the impression nearly from the outset that he "couldn't win"... ironically, he did best in the head-to-head matchups he was included in.

[tom_paine]

44. You can always be counted on, rob, to think inside the box.

You're not a particularly mean person, and sometimes you make very good points. That's why I have not put you on ignore. But NEVER do you think outside the narrow constraints of Conventional Wisdom. Never.

Twenty or even thirty years ago, such conventionalism and inability to look behind the curtain, as it were, would not have hindered you. But the United States was a relatively strong and healthy Republic back then, and as such relatively straightforward and conventional, though human history shows that there are always curtains to peer behind and speculate about. Those were the days and I would love to pay a visit back there, with all it's faults and flaws it was a great place to live. Back then, the United States of America really WAS the greatest country in the world, and a beacon of freedom, instead of a blueprint for tyrants wishing to seize power without disturbing a critical mass of serfs. How I miss that old country!

Ever studied advertising, marketing, psychology and PR? These fields of endeavor have advanced in power by orders of magnitude in the past three decades. Each of these sciences in their own way have the stated purpose of deception (except psychology, who's stated purpose is deception only where it intersects with the other three sciences mentioned) in order to sell a product or idea. Inherently immoral and goal-oriented, these sciences now, in conjunction with a media-saturation before unimagined, work to create deceptions and false realities in ways before unimagined.

But in robcon's world, everything is straightforward, everything is as it seems, and there is no "behind the curtain" to peer through.

In some ways I envy that naive worldview, unsupported by any of human history, even the relatively "good times".

I know, I know, you have nothing but contempt for me and my worldview. Big surprise there.

[ClericJohnPreston]

103. Again

a perfect 100% analysis.

I have used the term, "behind the curtain", so often. Like you "Tom", I have a restless mind that sees through all the deception, because I've ben trained to see it. Also, I have an inate sense of manipulation.

For those who argue it's just TV, WHO CONTROLS TV????????? We have an unquestioning populace, because they have been guided since birth to accept what they see; to not ask the "hard" questions.

[OneGrassRoot]

131. I find I'm "following" you and Tom here...lol

But it's your training that I feel may indeed lead to a concrete action. The attorneys who have joined forces regarding impeachment of Cheney...there is a movement there.

It's easy to marginalize the average citizen as being "wingnut treehuggers" who think as we do, but to marginalize respected professionals in the legal field, well, that's another thing.

I do realize the stigma some try to place on trial lawyers, but that's another red herring; it's trial lawyers such as JRE who they indeed fear.

I posted a link to citizenclassaction.com downthread which another DUer posted about several days ago. Perhaps something like this could gain momentum, especially if grassroots news reporters who see what's being done and disagree (and aren't beholden to MSM as yet) can join this movement to expose the truth. I'm sure there are legitimate journalists out there of integrity who are tired of others besmirching their profession.


Edit for typos which are always present as I'm always rushing to post while in the midst of trying to get my "real" work done! LOL

[Virginia Dare]

124. I think it's very naive to think that the media does not have a large part..

in shaping people's opinions. That is their job. The media works in conjunction with corporations to MAKE MONEY. They shape opinions and attitudes every day. I do think that plays a large part in our election process, and the people who run these campaigns understand that, as evidenced by their pandering to the media. John Edwards could not get his voice heard above the drama that the media was creating around Obama and Clinton.

I think there was always a sense of inevitability surrounding both of them.

[femrap]

350. Not only does the MSM control our

news, but think of the shows they air and how gender roles, fashions, language, etc. are affected. Today, no more Roseanne, Murphy Brown, or Designing Women. Look at today's sitcoms (I can do so for research reasons)...all very good-looking and shapely wives/girlfriends with ordinary, bordering on not attractive husbands. And the sexual innuendo is non-stop.

Yes, I believe the young women of today have gotten the message that if they are not sexy, they are not likable.

Or go back to after WWII and the huge propaganda crusade that went on to get women out of the work force and back into the kitchen and pregnant. Some of the posters are unreal...but everyone fell for it....alas, we have the big Baby Boomer generation and the women of that generation demanded entry into the work force. Ironic, huh?

TV used to show great art, performances, etc. Now reality TV...they have taught people to crave fame.

[Digit]

506. The morning news shows are the worst...

GMA, The Today Show, geez, whatever they call themselves, they are crap.

I used to turn on the news in the morning to hear "NEWS", but now I hear crap about how to chose a cruise line, what styles are "IN" this year...complete with fashion show, how to tell if your spouse is cheating, and what to serve at your next dinner party. Oh, and then there is the gossip of what is going on in Hollywood as if I gave a damn.

I already gave up Satellite TV because I am not going to pay all that money for alot of infomercials and re-runs.

Now, I turn the TV off after I hear the weather, or if it is going on too long, I go to my computer for the forecast.

They only tell us what they WANT us to hear. I have heard speeches made by Edwards (online) which were clipped by the MSM or not even televised.

You bet the corporations control the message.

[femrap]

596. I don't turn TV on until I am ready to go to bed...

and I'll put on something to veg out on for a bit. And you're right about those morning shows. It's like nails on the blackboard to me.

I wonder if those shows still have the people in the background (NBC, I think)...would be fun to have a protest with signs saying: "NBC Hates Real Journalism," "NBC stands for Not Being Candid.' That would be fun! And then we could nationalize the protest and have it done across the country at all of the local NBCs!! Between all of the Edwards and Kucinich folks, we could probably get a good showing!

[HughBeaumont]

442. Goddamned Defcon 3.

Always spilling my Red X Toilet all over the floor.

[chapel hill dem]

20. Maybe Elizabeth is having a set-back and he wants to be w/ her. n/t

[ClericJohnPreston]

30. See my response #15 above...

Thank you!

[demnan]

21. I'm not that sure

Edwards talked a good game but has never done anything to lead me to believe he would be different than the other two top candidates.

I liked Edwards but I don't necessarily believe he would have been the transforming reformer some of his followers believe him to be. He may have realized that the race wasn't going to be about him, as he said in his speech.

When my candidate, Kucinich, was truly silenced by being forced out of the debates did John Edwards stand up and say anything? No, on the other hand, the Republicans insisted that Ron Paul be included.

Be glad he ran a good campaign and perhaps he decided that he would leave before he wasn't allowed in to debate anymore.

[Apollo11]

22. John Edwards found himself stuck in 3rd place.

He always wanted to be the winner, but could not find a way to break out of 3rd place (except in Iowa).

The result in South Carolina (which he won 4 years ago as a "native son") was the last straw.

Edwards had no interest in staying in the race just to take votes away from the other two.

He also did not want the Democratic Party to be divided thru to the Convention.

After the Convention, there will be less than 10 weeks left until the general election.

Now, with only 2 serious candidates left in the race, the nominee will likely be known in April.

Then we will still have 6 whole months to concentrate on beating the Republican ticket.

Knowing he could not win the nomination, John put the interests of the party first.

[redqueen]

28. In the first caucus, he came in 2nd.

Weird how that is so easily forgotten, unless one takes into accout the media's bizarre behavior in giving him next to NO coverage afterward, preferring to focus on the other candidates.

[balantz]

29. That's the first glaring fact that many choose to overlook.

There is no good explanation why the media did not announce his second placing in Iowa.

They were told to bury the name of Edwards.

[OneGrassRoot]

35. Yes, it was BLATANT.

I was watching coverage that night - and off and on the next day - with a non-political but repub-leaning friend. I didn't have to say anything, he noticed it on his own, knowing I support Edwards. He said, "I heard them say once that Edwards came in second, and his name wasn't said beyond that. It was all 'Clinton and Obama'."

Yep, it was, has been, and shall be.

People here can pull whatever other excuses they want out of their collective asses to make them feel better, but they are probably trembling deep down inside, knowing it can happen to their candidate. But, shhhhhh, if I don't speak of the THREAT or better yet, denounce it, it won't affect me or my candidate.

[balantz]

52. Honestly

my ten year old child pointed it out to me. He said it was unfair.

[Apollo11]

75. Then came New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina

After the 4 early states, Edwards found himself stuck in 3rd place.

Obama has the most delegates. Hillary is second (unless you also count Florida).

[redqueen]

76. And you think the press's Goreing of Edwards had nothing to do with that?

Have you seen this?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4306897


Why tell me about who has how many delegates? Do you think I don't know?

[OneGrassRoot]

80. It would benefit all of us if those of you who...

are only paying attention to what's in front of you at any given moment step back and look at the BIG PICTURE being discussed throughout this thread and others.

[ClericJohnPreston]

105. I note

your frustration is the same as mine, "Revolution".

Time to force-feed the red pill.....we should put an end to "The Matrix", once and for all.

[balantz]

110. How on Earth could we wage such a thing?

Not only do they have all the guns, they have EVERYTHING. Even a quiet, peaceful, internet revolution would be squashed. Small, neighborhood level, grassroots revolution is peachy, but would hardly change the system. And such a thing would have to be fully self-sufficient. That's kind of hard these days except in small ways. I hope I am overlooking a valid path to change. If so please point it out to me, because I sorely want things to be brighter for the world. We are facing an uphill battle just trying to convince a few hypnotized people that there is something rotten in Denmark. If things get real bad people might wake up some, but then what?

[Andrea]

121. These are exactly the questions we need to explore.

Thank you!

[ClericJohnPreston]

127. I'm open to suggestion, Balantz!

The first step, in any problem, IS TO RECOGNIZE THERE IS ONE.

You have seen in this thread, there are those that "get it", those who don't want to see it at all.

The latter has some elements of laziness and probably, cognitive dissonance.
It is easier to dismiss a disquieting thought as mere lunacy.

Unfortunately, the enemy to reason is all too real. Wishing it weren't so or denying it, won't change that it exists.

As someone said earlier, only when all is gone or taken away, will people wake up. By then, it may be too late.

BY THE WAY. WHILE WE WERE "SLEEPING", BUSH AND CONGRESS REAUTHORIZED HIS ILLEGAL EAVESDROPPING. DEMOCRATS VOTED FOR IT.

HAVE A NICE DAY!

[Andrea]

323. very small idea

One thing I am thinking of putting into practice immediately is to divert all my future donations that would have gone to the Democratic Party or individual candidates to the ACLU, of which I am already a member.

What do people think of this? (Well, some people I can guess what they think, but I'm referring to the rest of you. :) )

[balantz]

325. Good idea.

I'm just a regular low-income guy, not really been involved in politics 'til a few months ago, but I'll think up some things. There are major boycotts we could all join in and promote for instance.

I hope we all continue some constructive dialogue on all of this.

[OneGrassRoot]

342. I have this vague idea floating around....

It's hard for me to put into words, and I fully realize it seems contradictory, but please bear with me.

We are a consumer nation now, right? To a large degree, we our politics are bought and sold...highest bidder and all.

I know mass media has been given some sort of free pass with legislation in recent years, whereas there used to be a "truth in advertising" law/rule/whatever. (sorry...I'm exhausted and trying to throw these ideas out quickly before having to run again and I'm not well-versed in the terminology.)

And, speaking of this "truth in advertising," many, many adults grew up feeling safe that if something was being "advertised" on TV, it was legitimate because of regulations. I believe the majority of people over 40 would be shocked if they new the amount of falsehoods they receive on a daily basis through mass media.

Anyway, every local station has a consumer reporter, focusing on righting wrongs imposed on consumers.

I keep picturing this grassroots effort to enlist these local reporters in revealing the false and/or lack of information and/or misinformation provided to the American public about important matters which affect our decisions (politics).

I realize it would be like biting the hand that feeds them, but perhaps they are at a level where they still have integrity and passion and would want to do the right thing.

A huge "consumer alert" movement exposing the manipulations of mass media and how it affects each and every one of us every day.

[kelligesq]

543. You are describing Keith Olbermann-tonight he called junior treasonous among

other things...all that he said was true - but I have begun to worry about his
safety. He's one of the few who has the fearlessness and outrage...another Edward R Murrow, only Murrow stood up only once to McCarthy - Olbermann, who btw has won Edward R. Murrow awards, calls junior out for his treasonous behavior on a rather regular basis. Half hour biting tirades, well thought out and extremely pointed His latest, from tonight should have the transcript on his blog.

Actually he is the only one in the news who does this. And it is Msnbc

There have been several stations that have tried to control him or clamp down on
him. He gets up and quits.

[OneGrassRoot]

554. I just watched it....

I think that was his best Special Comment to date! (and that's saying something)

I wish KO and Dan Rather could team up and start exposing the MEDIA's complicitness in the crimes of this administration and how they manipulate everything.

Maybe if local reporters saw those at a national level putting themselves "out there" on a regular basis - more than just KO, as he seems to be the lone national voice (am I missing someone? Rachel Maddow isn't a known commodity YET) - they would start beating the war drums of truth and transparency.

[femrap]

361. I stopped donating to the ACLU when they

said that Free Speech meant women taking off their clothes so men could look at them while drinking liquor. I never realized that I spoke from any other orifice besides my mouth. And why don't I see nude men....don't men want Free Speech???? I would like to watch men Speaking Freely while dancing stiffly and erectly.

I just give to the candidates/issues of my choice...no middle person involved.

[Andrea]

423. I'm no big fan of exploitation, either

But as far as I know, they are the only organization expressly and exclusively dedicated to preserving the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, even as applied to people I don't agree with or approve of.

[kimmerspixelated]

352. Your message needs to be heard or read everyday!

People have forgotten about the constitution and the message in the articles! We need to have a radio station that blasts the words of the constitution day and night till people get it. Then maybe they will do something. ...What has happened is the boiling frog syndrome....they've turned up the heat slowly and with stealth and now we're cooked!

[balantz]

355. All but a few of the airwaves are corporate-owned.

[ChiciB1]

250. By Then It's TOO LATE!! I Agree With What You Are Saying And I Too

wonder HOW we can start a REVOLUTION! I called for this many many months ago and so many here told me that REVOLUTIONS don't work anymore!

As a Boomer, it's much harder to swallow this. I think we DID make a difference. But what is so amazing is that even THOSE BOOMERS from back then have NOW capitulated or have become part of the SYSTEM that I feel is on a PATH to RUIN!!

The ONLY thing we can do is REVOLT, but I as you, don't even know how or where to start!!!

[femrap]

339. Circumstances may change very quickly

that enable a revolution....such as a major collapse of the stock market and people's pension plans. The Straits of Hormuz are closed and oil prices go sky high...which means food prices go sky high or food becomes scarce. Ice caps melting and parts of the east coast start to disappear.

I think one has to take advantage of circumstances and then be creative...read Saul Alinsky's old book, Rules for Radicals for some creative ideas.

[balantz]

353. It would be suicide to stage a revolution.

[balantz]

26. Those who can't see beyond the "lack of voters" excuse

are not able to accept the big picture of what is going on in this country, and in the world.

It's difficult I guess to accept the truth of the total corruption when one's candidate doesn't address that it is the engine driving the control over our government.

Not one of the two remaining candidates speak about busting the corruptors.

That's why I can't put my heart behind either one.

[OneGrassRoot]

31. I've been in a slight state of shock the last few weeks...

as I've discussed this same subject here at DU, realizing that many DUers don't SEE the corporatocracy and the subsequent control over...everything. Including our media.

This isn't about John Edwards and the others not getting coverage. That's only part of it.

I keep trying to get the Obama and Hillary supporters to wake up to the realization that the media is also manipulating the storyline for YOUR candidates.

If it goes the way you want, you're thrilled; if not, you're pissed.

Don't people see the big picture here? That there is a storyline in place from the beginning and it's a coordinated effort to continue that storyline throughout? Aren't those of you not focused on this fundamental issue concerned that the media (Corporate America), for whatever reason, will try to take down your candidate? It's very easy to do...we've seen it happen many times over the years.

Or are you comforted by the fact that, because your candidate(s) aren't speaking out loudly about this issue, that they are "safe"? Do you silently believe this is a huge threat and hope that, even if your candidate isn't speaking out about it now - because you know he/she can't without being targeted beyond the "catfight" scenario at present - he/she will develop a huge backbone once in office and clean out the corrupt influences?

Or do you really, really, really not see this influence in our every day lives and how we are far from having a democracy or a free press?

[balantz]

34. Good post!

Good questions.

[Girlieman]

288. Excellent post

Exactly what I've been trying to figure out how to say.

[kelligesq]

546. those who lived through nazi Germany

have spoken out quietly about what is and has been happening in this country.
They know it's fascism and have said so. It is exactly what they experienced some 60 years ago. They say it happened so quickly and yet so slowly that the people became accustomed to losing each right, each freedom.

No child left behind has left us with a generation of people dumbed down, unable to think critically, purposely, so can you expect them to have the antennae and recognition which people educated prior to the trilateral/bilderburg plans were fully flowering ?

They have laid these plans and waited since the end of WW2. These people think in long periods of time. They fully expect that as the earlier baby boomers and Vietnam era rebels die off, those generations they have dumbed down will completely forget about The Constitution and the Rights and freedoms guaranteed Americans. Conspiracy theory? Henry Kissinger, one of the Bilderburg New World Order planners/attendees said at a meeting in 1992 "When there is an attack on the country you will see how quickly they will give up their freedoms for the promise of safety". Prophetic or planned? I vote for the latter. And Bill Clinton said one day when he was President "Well they'll have to give up some of their freedoms". I've never forgotten that. The hair stood up on the back of my neck,although I dont recall the context he said it in. But we have come to see it all pass - WTO, IMF, "Homeland" Security, National Guard at airports carrying machine guns, checkpoints, body frisks, tapped phones, internet, faxes....."It happened so quickly but so slowly...."

Americans have not been a docile people in years past, but when "they" demand people wear yellow, white, and blue stars I'll bet this generation of cowed Americans will do it. What do they know of history - they've only been taught the answers to the Fcat test - to which juniors brother, the same one famous for
Silverado and BCCI, has the franchise on supplying all schools with the cd's the children must study. And who now owns the publishing companies for school books?
Why none other than Rupert Murdoch. Have you looked at your children's history books lately to see what revisionist history they are being taught?

We dont have a free media? David Rockefeller, one of the master planners of the
so-called "New World Order" and founder of the Trilateral Commission along with pappy booooooosh, at another Bilderburg meeting thanked the owner of
Time , which is now Time Warner and I gather some reporters for keeping "their" secret for 60 years "for we never would have succeeded without your cooperation". He's in his 90's and you have to wonder when he and his cohorts will give up the ghost. Originally it was a handful of major bankers - those that formed the Federal Reserve (which is not a govt. agency but a network of private bankers worldwide) but now it is all the major houses of the stock market involved in this conspiracy of enslaving countries and people in credit and debt- and by now many probably don't even know what they're involved in - membership passed down to heirs - and the people working for these banking corporations just cogs in the wheel, not realizing what they are perpetrating on the rest of the country.

Don't "they" have it all covered!

And they've been working at it for almost 70 years. Education, finances, banking, credit, mortgages, stocks and bonds, media ownership and outlets,books, newspapers and magazines, reporters, private armies Blackwater, manufacturing, jobs, the fate of countries and its people.

Conspiracy theorist? Nope. It's all true. Start googling.

[kelligesq]

550. This thought comes to me. The meltdown of the $ and the mortgage meltdown may be a good thing.

Not for the individual losing his/her home, but collectively - the major bankers in their greed, worldwide bought these subprimes and the banks are collapsing. maybe if they totally collapse because of their own greed, the people of this country and other countries can be rid of this "Federal Reserve" financial system that bleeds the people dry and allows all wealth to accrue to the few.

Let the dollar collapse and start over, without the bankers of the Federal Reserve.

Buy silver coins pre 1994 immediately. And google "history of the Federal Reserve".

[Andrea]

602. It's chilling.

I worry about this all the time. You expressed it so well.

[shenmue]

32. I am not someone who gives up.

I work with what we have, and I think we have some good choices.

I don't lose hope. I have more.

[TexasObserver]

36. I'm betting on one thing alone: John has principles

I believe in him, and so I believe that he looked at the results thus far, considered the treatment he gets in mainstream media, considered the personal and economic costs of continuing, took the counsel of party leaders and others, weighed the impact it might have on Super Tuesday, and concluded rationally that he was doing the right thing.

Forced out? No. Plotted against by major media and business? Yes, but that's an issue that has been around for a year. He made a decision that I feel was made because he sincerely believes Democrats need a clear two person choice on Super Tuesday, and he's trying to create that.

Let us honor him for his courage and dedication to purpose. He won't be president, but he will be something, probably an AG or a Supreme Court Justice. Never fear. We have not seen the last of Courageous John Edwards.

[zulchzulu]

45. Two words for you: Move on...

John Edwards dropped out of the race. Get it?

Either move on or get out of the way. If you don't want to support Clinton or Obama, there is plenty of other things you can do.

Your apparent wishful thinking that the Rezko case will mean anything come up against the truth that Patrick Fitzgerald has stated that Obama has done no wrongdoing.

In terms of thinking that Edwards was somehow the only candidate that was "viable", I assume you think that those who didn't vote for him aren't as smart as you. When Edwards didn't do well in Iowa after practically living there for two years, those of us who have been paying attention knew it was a matter of time before he would drop out.

Is it our fault he dropped out? No.

[OneGrassRoot]

63. Do you not see any tendency of the media to manipulate?

This isn't about Edwards or DK or any of the other candidates marginalized.

Aren't you the least bit concerned that the "powers that be" (Corporate America) are determining the storyline for your candidate and the voters have no control? We've seen time and time again how a seemingly frivolous story gets traction (which it's intended to do) and destroys a viable candidate.

Forget Edwards. Forget Edwards supporters. This isn't about any of us. It's about the democratic process and free press. Do you not feel either are in jeopardy?

[balantz]

69. That is the important issue.

[zulchzulu]

86. I understand the media. I work IN the media. I know how it works.

I know who has the puppet strings and who has them attached to their shoulders.

That said, you have to face facts. Edwards didn't get the votes he wanted to get. He didn't get the contributions he wanted to get.

I wish he had decided to stay in the race until at least February 5th. No one was stopping him. He could have gotten more delegates, he could have continued his message and he could have stayed in the race.

Did he? No. He dropped out of the race. Period.

You can imply it's all some huge conspiracy that he dropped out all day for all I care. He made the decision to drop out. The theory that he was forced out of the race is unproven and frankly preposterous.

Move on. Grieve perhaps as long as you need to, but move on.

[OneGrassRoot]

106. This isn't about Edwards. I said that clearly and I asked a clear question...

that no one ever answers.

"Aren't you the least bit concerned that the "powers that be" (Corporate America) are determining the storyline for your candidate and the voters have no control? We've seen time and time again how a seemingly frivolous story gets traction (which it's intended to do) and destroys a viable candidate."

If you know who pulls the strings, why is there no concern that your candidate - OR ANY CANDIDATE - can be negatively affected due to manipulations rather than true journalism.

Why is it everyone turns it back on Edwards, when my question clearly isn't about him?

[ClericJohnPreston]

109. And here is the problem....

Move on.....sorry, that is the consolation prize and recipe for doom. Just blindly accept what you are told and don't ask questions. Just be happy little consumers.
Watch "American Idol" ( which everyone is now learning is FIXED ).

Quiz Shows were rigged as long ago as 50 years. Elections can be rigged.

You want to move on from that? As Revolution pointed out, you Obamites are in your comfort zone now. Just wait until the M$M pulls the plug on that one.

What are you going to do then?

You also point out the worst case scenario for people like me, Revolution and Tom Paine.

It is easier to just try and clamp down on those disquieting voices that make you THINK, rather than entertain one second's worth of disturbing information.

That, my friend, is COGNITIVE DISSONANCE!

[Andrea]

115. This is the type of thinking

we are up against. People won't rise up against their oppressors if they don't see they are being oppressed. Some people are blind to the manipulation. I hope more wake up so we don't have to descend all the way into a complete totalitarian nation.

[foxer]

194. Not very inquisitive for being in the media, Why?

[Andrea]

421. Yeah, a perfect example

of the problem.

[femrap]

367. Are you the one who holds up the cue cards?

Or push the 'applause' button?

[OneGrassRoot]

369. LOL!

I needed that. Thanks. :rofl:

[balantz]

371. That made me laugh too!

Thanks!:rofl:

[Andrea]

424. Good one!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

I needed it, too.

[Name removed]

453. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rhett o rick]

486. yeah I get it. Status quo forever. Hope you like it. nm

[spooky3]

48. another possible problem I see is

that the factors that make a candidate appealing to Democratic voters are not the same as those who make him or her appealing in the general election. The situation is complex and I don't want to oversimplify. But here is one example: while many women and minorities, who form substantial proportions of the Dem. voters in the primary states to date, are obviously excited finally to have the opportunity to vote for strong candidates who are not also white and male, they do not form as high a proportion of non-Democratic voters. They are not representative of voters in general, by design. People are voting with enthusiasm for these candidates and turning out in record numbers but in the general election, the other side will also come out in high numbers, no matter who our candidate is, because the policies our candidates represent are quite different from those offered on the right.

In 2004, Dem. voters seemed very aware of this and weighed "electability" very strongly; many may have voted in the primaries for Kerry not because they thought he was the best qualified candidate, and probably not on the basis of charisma. They hoped his serious approach and veterans background would appeal to moderates in the general election, and in some ways they were right. However, many voters may have thought they got "burned" by being "sensible" and trying to think about who might appeal to independents, so this year, they are going for the people who most appeal to them, and the heck with anyone else.

[Apollo11]

83. You seem to be saying that only a white man can be elected President.

Maybe you forgot that women are more than 50% of the population.

As for minorities - what happened to embracing diversity and equality?

Are you saying most voters will never vote for a black candidate?

Obama doesn't appeal to independents - what about Iowa & NH?

As Democrats, why should we take racism into account? :eyes:

[spooky3]

151. That is not at all what I said.

Please re-read it.

And as for your pointing out that Obama did well in some predominantly "white" states, again you are missing my point. None of our candidates has been subjected to the general election; they have competed only in primaries and caucuses, in which the vast majority of voters are Democrats who are engaged enough to participate. You should know from Kerry's dominance of the later primaries in 2004 that winning primaries says nothing about his ability to win in the general election.

[Apollo11]

Maybe you need to think again about what you wrote.

I read what you wrote. I understood what you were trying to say. And I disagree with you.

Why is that so hard for you to accept? :eyes:

Apparently, you think Obama supporters are all "OK so Obama won't get many votes from independents but I like him so I am gonna vote for him anyway".

In fact, most Obama supporters are more the opposite. They almost wish he would be more aggressive and partisan, but they know his optimistic approach is exactly the kind of campaign that will help him attract support from independents, first time voters and ex-Republicans.

The point about Iowa and New Hampshire is not just that many white people voted for Obama, but mostly that lots of independents went out and voted for him. It's a small indication that his appeal extends beyond the traditional "Democratic base".

[femrap]

372. So you've talked to Obama and he has

told that his Republican-Lite talk is just being deceptive....he is just trying to get all of indies, newbies, and repugnants on board with him. And he's just taking all of that Corporate Money because he needs it....and would NEVER feel obligated in any way whatsoever....Is that what Obama told you?

Wow. I guess we see what we want to see. And the imagination is alive and well.

Happy Talk is alive and well.

[Andrea]

132. You make some important points.

People may be feeling burned by having picked the "elecatble" candidate in '04. Unfortunately, the media smeared him. Maybe none of our candidates could have been elected in '04. We needed a candidate who could rack up a large enough margin to negate all their efforts to steal the election and we didn't manage that. Maybe if Kerry had fought back more forcefully he could have. It's impossible to know, because the election was stolen.

[spooky3]

You're absolutely right that without voting integrity

who knows what happened and what may happen? We really need to get that set of problems solved, and soon.

[OneGrassRoot]

51. Citizen Class Action

Another DUer posted this a few days ago. This is a start. A good start in the right direction.

http://citizenclassaction.com/

[Andrea]

135. thanks for posting this link

I've just started checking them out, but it looks very promising. I encourage everyone on this thread to take a look.

[Steely_Dan]

61. Great Post...

Funny, many Biden supporters were saying the same thing after Biden quit.

-P

[Straight Shooter]

65. Frank Zappa on voters in America

"It's fairly obvious, since Richard Nixon, that there is no such thing as a fair deal for any voter in the United States — You're just not gonna get it. It's a joke — the people that you vote for, they're the next best thing to criminals. But of course they have money for advertising campaigns that make them look a little bit better than they actually are."

Zappa is a little harsh in his assessment, but he's basically correct.

A candidate needs a powerful machine and media exposure, positive exposure, to generate interest to raise campaign funds. Edwards' campaign reminds me of the movie, Who Killed The Electric Car. I want to know, Who Killed The Edwards Campaign.

[balantz]

72. I see nothing harsh in Zappa's words.

Just the plain old truth of what is happening.

[Straight Shooter]

199. I disagree that they are the next best thing to criminals.

Unless, perhaps, he was thinking of Republicans.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

478. "Congress is America's only distinctly native criminal class." -- Mark Twain n/t

:rofl:

[Zorra]

74. Read this entire essay to get a solid grasp of the big picture:

"The global power of the financial centers is so great, that they can afford not to worry about the political tendency of those who hold power in a nation, if the economic program (in other words, the role that nation has in the global economic megaprogram) remains unaltered. The financial disciplines impose themselves upon the different colors of the world political spectrum in regards to the government of any nation. The great world power can tolerate a leftist government in any part of the world, as long as the government does not take measures that go against the needs of the world financial centers. But in no way will it tolerate that an alternative economic, political and social organization consolidate. For the megapolitics, the national politics are dwarfed and submit to the dictates of the financial centers. It will be this way until the dwarfs rebel . ."

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/mexico/ezln/1997/jigsaw.html

Subcomandante Marcos succinctly explains the causes and effects of forced economic and cultural globalization.

[KoKo]

111. That's an excellent read! n/t

[2hip]

81. zalinda offered the most cogent explanation in my mind

The Democratic Party wants to make history with a race or gender candidate and "we the people" weren't a consideration.

[Seabiscuit]

87. I don't buy it.

Howard Dean chairs the DNC, and he would never stoop to killing Edwards' campaign over such insignificant fluff.

[2hip]

148. You make a valid point

Yet Edwards' farewell Thank You email to his Supporters says "Now, it's time for me to step aside so that history can blaze its path" so I have to wonder if a contingent of powerful Dem bigwigs (Kennedy, for one) pulled an inner-party coup re: this issue.

[kelligesq]

563. BINGO 2hip - I've just come to the same conclusion by looking

up that stupid phrase 'NOW ITS TIME FOR ME TO STEP ASIDE SO THAT HISTORY CAN
BLAZE ITS PATH"

you're right and the mystery is solved.

Posting it at the bottom of this thread.

[zalinda]

155. Dean is not well liked in the "old guard" of the dem party

We may love him, but they don't. In case you've missed it, a lot of people have said that if Clinton gets in, Dean is out. I really think was by passed and marginalized by the party "elders".

zalinda

[Common Sense Party]

91. Disgruntled Democrats should do what I'm doing: Go Gravel.

He's the only non-DLC guy left in this race.

[Seabiscuit]

92. I'm voting Edwards on Super Tuesday. His campaign is merely "suspended", meaning

he can still accumulate delegates and act as kingmaker in a brokered Convention.

[Common Sense Party]

100. That's a fine choice, too.

But if Hillary has some "dirt" on Edwards (FBI Files?) or some sort of underhanded coercion is going on, will he be able to do much?

[redqueen]

114. While Edwards might not get more delegates...

it's a lock that Gravel won't...

[Seabiscuit]

122. There is NO "dirt" on Edwards. And even if there were, it could only hurt him if he's a candidate.

That wouldn't stop him from bringing his delegates to the convention for use in insuring the party platform that gets adopted is more consistent with his positions.

You don't really think the right-wing media, out to destroy Edwards from the git-go, couldn't have dug up some "dirt" on Edwards over the past 13 months? All they've got is the "I feel pretty" hair video to smear him with.

[balantz]

123. And even that haircut wasn't dirt

as I have recently learned the true story behind the $400.00

[foxer]

191. Maybe not, but his delegates could

[Common Sense Party]

224. They aren't really "his" delegates anymore, are they?

They are free to go wherever they want.

They should GO GRAVEL!

[redqueen]

228. I don't think he has released them... and he hasn't endorsed anyone.

So yeah, they're his for now.

[Common Sense Party]

234. I just heard some Iowa delegate on NPR the other day...

He had been for Edwards, now he said it was up to him to decide where to put his support in the county and state conventions. He was leaning toward Obama. At least in his case he wasn't "locked in" for Edwards.

[redqueen]

237. I don't know about that...

his support is not his alone... it belongs to the people who cast the votes in his district. He is free to change if Edwards doesn't get 15% support... but if not, he's not free to just do wahtever he likes... at least that's my understanding.

[Tatiana]

116. The same thing happens time and time again.

In '04 we had Clark and Dean: two candidates I thought offered more unique vision for the nation and were outside of the Beltway.

Of course, they were promptly dismissed in favor of the establishment candidate.

Dean continues his message as current leader of the Democrats nationally, yet he still faces opposition to a sound 50-state strategy.

Clark worked tirelessly in 2006 to help get Democrats elected at the local level, something many following the Presidential "horse race" forget about.

So I have no doubt that Edwards, Biden, Dodd, Kucinich, and Richardson will continue to fight for the voiceless and frustrated Americans like me. But it hurts like hell to realize that we will probably never elect someone who is truly the best this nation has to offer due to corporate media influence.

[ClericJohnPreston]

117. I appreciate all of your responses

The key is to make this argument NOW.

I will always be able to come back here and resurrect this thread, after the easily predictable boom is lowered on the next candidate.

Anyone who thinks this will be permitted to go to a brokered convention, has their head in the clouds. The agenda is clear. There will be only ONE CLEAR CANDIDATE BEFORE MID-MARCH, AFTER THE MEDIA NARRATIVE DISPATCHES ANOTHER CANDIDATE.

IT IS EASY TO FIGURE WHO WILL BE LEFT STANDING. WHY DO YOU THINK OBAMA IS SPINNING AND TACKING SO FAR TO THE "MODERATE" AND CONSERVATIVE BASE? HE ISN'T STUPID. HIS DAYS ARE NUMBERED IF HE ISN'T SEEN AS MORE PRO-CORPORATE THAN HILLARY.

I will be happy to say, "I told you so", if it will finally get people angry enough to act!

[ClericJohnPreston]

120. P.S.

I am grateful too, to learn in this thread, those who also share my view.

[TheDeathadder]

125. I understand where you are coming from

as I used to work for Dennis Kucinich.

But I'll take Clinton and Obama over McCain and Romney any old day.

I am 100% for Clinton but will be just as happy if Obama wins. If we rally and win more power in the House and senate, as well are able to appoint more judges...well i think with democrats across the board, men like Kucinich, Biden, Dodd, Edwards and Richardson will be very active
active in our new government and will have plenty of saw.

We need to get behind Clinton and Obama like we did behind FDR and be completely in control of this government and I got a feeling there will be some New Deal type agendas that will and should get through.

The country has gone through all of bad years recently and it's going to take some baby steps before we're going at a sprint. I've been in a lot of elections and work for alot of people. Clinton and Obama are both fine democrats and if we win this thing either one of them will be fine Presidents.

Ok cool...I'm ready to be ripped a new one or told how I'm blind ;)

[ChiciB1]

126. I've Poured Out My "Soul;" Since Yesterday... You Speak For Me And

I GLADLY support THIS MESSAGE!! Would write more, but it's ALL been said. WHAT we have lost is very telling and many many people have HAD IT and will no longer believe in very much. Our political system has been hijacked and it was STUPID of me to think there was a chance FOR CHANGE!!

[Desertrose]

167. I agree...it has been hijacked....but

what do we do?

Almost makes a person want to just give up.....but probably be better to get angry & stay angry...least it'll give the energy to do something....just what exactly do we do??

We HAVE to do something, that is clear.

I am glad to see so many people finally waking up about what is really goin gon in the Corporate State of America.

[bdamomma]

128. it was between the media and the powers that be that

marginalized John, he was not part of the script, Obama and Hillary are, and there next puppet John McCain, who will the media go after next play the race card with Obama, and then there was one, Hillary. Hillary against McCain, this is what the media is manipulating maybe through the Rove playbook. You never know.

[ClericJohnPreston]

130. THE POINT IS

The first step, in any problem, IS TO RECOGNIZE THERE IS ONE.

You have seen in this thread, there are those that "get it", those who don't want to see it at all.

The latter has some elements of laziness and probably, cognitive dissonance.
It is easier to dismiss a disquieting thought as mere lunacy.

Unfortunately, the enemy to reason is all too real. Wishing it weren't so or denying it, won't change that it exists.

As someone said earlier, only when all is gone or taken away, will people wake up. By then, it may be too late.

BY THE WAY. WHILE WE WERE "SLEEPING", BUSH AND CONGRESS REAUTHORIZED HIS ILLEGAL EAVESDROPPING. DEMOCRATS VOTED FOR IT.

HAVE A NICE DAY!

REVOLUTIONS ARE ALREADY NOTED.....BUT, DON'T WORRY. THIS IS AMERICA, RIGHT?

[AngryAmish]

136. All caps, now that is persuasion!

[ClericJohnPreston]

143. No

it is a way for you to thouroughly ignore the message, in preference to form.

Form over substance.

We don't stand a chance where that is standard operating procedure!

[Andrea]

137. Thank you very much

for starting this important thread and making these important points. We have our work cut out for us, but we must wake this country up.

[ClericJohnPreston]

147. No

Thank you, for listening and then adding to the conversation!

[flyarm]

139. I stared at this all day yesterday..from the most crooked state in the Union...

and please do not tell me you don't know Fla is the most crooked state in the Union to vote..look at this and tell me what you see...

John Edwards got only 14.4% of the vote in the state many of us told you for almost a year now that the Fix was in for Hillary.

take a look at this..John got only 14.4% of the Vote in Fla...but he took 11 counties..and what were those counties..the very same counties that we were told as a nation in 2004 that did not vote for Kerry/Edwards..the Dixiecrats!

http://enight.dos.state.fl.us/

Florida Department of State
Division of Elections


2008 Presidential Preference
Democratic Primary

UNOFFICIAL ELECTION NIGHT RETURNS
(may not include absentee or provisional ballots)
Page Generated: 1/31/2008 10:51 AM

U.S. President

Joseph Biden Jr. 0.9%
(DEM) Hillary Clinton 49.8%
(DEM) Christopher Dodd 0.3%
(DEM) John Edwards14.4%
(DEM) Mike Gravel 0.3%
(DEM) Dennis Kucinich 0.6%
(DEM) Barack Obama 32.9%
(DEM) William Richardson III 0.9%
(DEM)


Prepared by the Florida Department of State, Division of Elections from reports submitted by the Florida Supervisors of Elections


why today with all we know are we believing these results?..Fla voted with DRE's in the primary in the counties that did in 2004..
several counties including mine had extremely slow returns the night of the election..just like they did in 2004 when the state votes were very much under question .


but look further people..it takes 15% to gain any delegates...

was edwards told..look we will make damn sure you don't get delegates unless you get out..then they proved it to him..

again i go back to the fact that we were told in 2004 ..that Kerry /Edwards did not win Fla because of the Dixie crats..

so now all of a sudden the Dixiecrats came out and voted over whelmingly for Edwards...

oh please..spare me.

and the counties with the highest number of progressives and progressive activists did not vote for edwards and only gave him 12% of the vote..i am not buying that fantasy!

I believe Edwards knows he had a shit load of votes stolen in SC and that the secret powers/government proved to him they would not let him get delegates!

wake up america...we are fucked.


check out these maps and tell me what you see!!

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/states/FL.html

fly

[balantz]

156. This is what I have been thinking as well.

Thanks for putting it together here.

[Andrea]

158. Oh no. You looked where the evidence would be

and you found it. Yep. 14.4%, that's pro forma vote stealing. Here we go. This sucks. I'm scared, but I'm trying to be angry because we have to fight.

[ChiciB1]

240. I Also Live iN FLORIDA & For A While He WAS Getting 15% Or More...

and in the END, it's very clear!

What REALLY bothers me MOST OF ALL, especially HERE at a place that's called DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND, is the nonchalant attitude that John Edwards was simply "unable" to get votes... therefore it's meaningless to wonder why!!!

So many say "WE MUST STAY & FIGHT" but I wonder how we find out WHO TO FIGHT!! As it's been said, and I got the emails too, saying that Edwards was getting record breaking donations, for his campaign at least, and then.... HE'S OUT!

Do I TRUST this country anymore... I think NOT!! It HAS NOTHING to do with being a sore loser as many may suggest. It has EVERYTHING to do with MANIPULATION of the SYSTEM! For those of us who supported him and all his efforts, it's not very hard to see that something smells and it smells to HIGH HEAVEN!!

Why fight?? I NEVER thought I would believe that America had a "control center" but I do now! I don't think my voice will EVER be heard if I don't go along with THE POWER! I know several names that we could call it, but none that sound like DEMOCRACY!!

[earth mom]

303. I can't believe that EVERYONE on DU doesn't realize that they have stolen ALL the primaries.

There was weird stuff happening in Iowa & NH etc., and it got barely a blip of attention here on DU!

WAKE UP DU!

[flyarm]

331. you are 100% correct.,.like busses of kids being bussed into Iowa!!

and the media knew it and the candidates knew it and the campaigns knew it and the people knew it.

fly

[Andrea]

341. You are absolutely right

I was very suspicious of the things that came out after NH. Before I had a chance to thoroughly look into it, NV was upon us. After that I was extremely depressed, but still thought those results couldn't have been correct. I got pumped up again after the last debate and was a bit suspicious about SC, but still really hopeful until this happened. I have failed to keep my eye on the ball and I'm not the only one.

I had thought, somewhat naively, that Bushco's controllers would be hands off the Dem primaries and just steal the election from whichever Dem won. For whatever reason, they did not go with that strategy. Either they were afraid they wouldn't be able to steal enough votes in the general, or they thought this would be easier or easier to get away with, some combination of the above, or something else - but they obviously decided to undermine our primaries.

[balantz]

368. They did what they have become very good at,

do whatever it takes; however, whoever and whenever to get done what they need to get done to stay in power.

It goes beyond the Republicans, it is a corporate thing. Call it an oligarchy, a corporautocracy, a cabal, a mob of banking elite fascists, or whatever, it controls the whole picture. Like a giant octopus, or a cancerous tumor.

[Helga Scow Stern]

426. Yes, of course. Why would this election be any different

from the past two? They are just getting better at it.

[Ninga]

Let's all vote for Edwards in our primary's. The real measure of our passion comes in

the days and months ahead.

We either scamper back to our cubes, retreat into our lazyboys, be numbed by cable or we finds ways to start fires, in which to hold feet to.

[Ninga]

141. Let's all vote for Edwards in our primary's. The real measure of our passion comes in

the days and months ahead.

We either scamper back to our cubes, retreat into our lazyboys, be numbed by cable or we finds ways to start fires, in which to hold feet to.

[Ninga]

153. Although CJP's post is to the bigger picture. Right now, voting for Edwards gives us

the last word in this sad chapter of the 2008 primary mess.

I do not like or believe for one moment, Edwards went willinginly.

He had a choice to win the battle and lose the war.


Winning is NOT everything, it is what you are able to accomplish after the win that matters.

Winning is only the beginning, and knowing inside DC as I do, I can only picture that Edwards was the victim of a come-to-jesus talk...in which walking away was the only option left.

Believe me....control, money, politics, money, power, money.....trumps all.

[balantz]

225. I'll be voting for Edwards.

This time such a "statement" purely strikes my soul.

[Ninga]

233. A soul is a good thing. Sometimes we neglect our souls, glad you will be feeding it with your vote

:thumbsup:

[ChiciB1]

246. I've Said Almost 50 Times Since Yesterday... Let's STAY With Edwards...

NO MATTER WHAT!! I know some have already defected, and that's a REAL SHAME! I don't want to say what I'm about to say... but there have been OTHER leaders in OTHER countries who "fooled" their own people! They went along and devastated millions, and it took a long time to "SEE THE LIGHT" only after the destruction.

My stomach is in knots, my heart hurts and my head is spinning AND all I can do is stand by THIS MAN, and vote for him... NO MATTER WHAT!

I DO NOT CARE what other's think about my decision, but I DO CARE that so many seem to be BLIND!! If this offends you, I offer NO APOLOGIES... I'm NOT SORRY for standing my ground!! I do it because it's ALL I HAVE LEFT!!!

[balantz]

249. I'm with you sista'!!

My vote was taken from me, but I INSIST on casting it anyway, as long as there is a ballot and a place to put my "X"!

[earth mom]

306. I'm with you too!!! nt

[readmoreoften]

390. I will vote for him if he's on the ballot. How can I find out if he will be?

I'll be voting in Texas.

[BootinUp]

149. Sorry this thread is rated EC-10

Cleric John Preston missed his interval again. ;)

Seriously,

it was your fellow democrats that decided against this kind of Edwards/Kucinich anti-corporate screed. The reason? We would like a Dem in the white house and too many of your fellow Americans while they would back good sense regulations, they are fearful of anyone who gets a little too raucus against the business community. These things take time to turn around and we have been moving in the wrong direction for quite awhile.

I think the Dems have a good chance over the next 8 years to reverse a good bit of the damage.

[Ninga]

161. If I were brand new to politics I might agree with you. But I don't. And the reason I don't

is because I am an elected official, have run in 4 elections, lost 2, won 2. I have been very involved in national races and governor and senate race in Ohio as well as congressional.

I have seen the sausage being made. And it is ugly.

A wonderful well spoke pol, can promise on one hand, and knife in the back with another.

Power is heady. People do not want to give up power.

And it was a combination of many many things all meeting at the intersection that helped to push Edwards out.

It was orchestrated, it was promoted and it was fed to the media. And it worked.

The polls tell the story. Edwards beat any and all Republicans in head to head match ups. GE, MSNBC, CNN, and the DLC just could not let that happen.

[BootinUp]

174. I'm not really impressed

with your ability to understand politics. Edwards had plenty of time to get his message out in Iowa, it was rejected in favor of the Obama lets hold hands message. Edwards use of netroots rhetoric was a poor decision for someone running for the Presidency. He should have stuck with a similar message as in 2004.

On the other hand I salute you for being involved as you have been. Keep working on it.

[Ninga]

187. Also, in Iowa, in the intersection were bus loads of Obama-ites from Ill. Money

talks.

Even people in Iowa didn't start paying attention until late Nov. by the end of the day, Edwards was out spent by 300% in Iowa.

History, combined with money, and media complicity gave no quarter to Edwards 2nd place showing in Iowa. Dynamics do matter, and power and money drives dynamics.

Then Hillary cried and New Hampshire voted.

End of story.

[flyarm]

230. voting in the caucus's as well..Obama is a liar and a cheater..wake up america! eom

[SlavesandBulldozers]

412. you mean we're not gonna have a president as pure as the driven snow?

oh this is horrible! we only have HIllary and Obama to choose from!

I'm sorry to come across as sarcastic, but I rather like the choices that are out there. I like Edwards too.

And I'm not disagreeing with your the OP's sentiments about corporate rule. But I do find the overall tone of the OP to be rather alarmist - coming off of the worst of the worst presidencies humanly imaginable - I'm actually relieved about our prospects.

[ClericJohnPreston]

437. Yes

it is UNFORTUNATE. It is unfortunate that millions of people for whom NEITHER candidate speaks, have no voice in this election. And yes, it is as bad , if not worse, than the picture I painted in the OP.

You must not have paid attention, or are willfully being ignorant. You have only the appearance of choice, not real choice. Whichever candidate you choose, will press a CORPORATE AGENDA, not an agenda which is empowering to people. Both candidates are already bought and paid for by corporate dollars.

John Edwards was the stopgap candidate. He suddenly isn't running. That should concern you, as I can't find any reason for that.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

646. no actually I know that.

what seems willfully ignorant on your behalf is this idea of a golden era when we weren't governed thusly. bonus points for thinking that John Edwards would be a departure from it.

I remember watching the debate Edwards had with CHeney. Didn't really do anything for me. I remember the excitement, finally David was going against -forget goliath - Satan. What would be the outcome. Turns out he didnt go for the jugular. He didn't have the balls, son. Too careful. The one chance he had, he just couldn't finish the job. That was a shame.

[flyarm]

392. and what do you know about the caucus's in Iowa? and what do you know about the busses of kids

brought in to caUcus from ILLINOIS? what do ypu know about the cheating that went on by Obama? and Hillary..but mostly by Obama?

psssssssssss..no one is asking you to be impressed..we are asking that you listen to the damn truth ! and stsnd up for truth and honesty..is that too much for you ..or do you enjoy drinking jim jones type kool aide?

John did not cheat..Obama sure as fuck did..

at the precinct i was a Co-captain at..obama cheated his ass off!

i can only tell you what i saw..but the stories by those who worked as co-captains for Edwards were appalling!

fly

p.s. i have my own name for those kids..the "ipod kids"...

[earth mom]

310. Thank you for the insider view. Many of us know the score but far too many are in denial. nt

[flyarm]

413. you know how that works ..people deny.. till they get fucked! and one way or another

another candidate will be fucked over..and the Octopus will have won again..all against the good wishes of the american populous.

we never learn..most of this country are nothing but ignorant sheeple..

and unfortunately it is usually those who can afford it the least, who are the easiest target for these blood suckers...and vote against themselves and totally fuck themselves!

fly

[mtnsnake]

152. K&R because of the awesome thought & interesting speculation you put into your post

I'm not sure why Edwards dropped out when he did, I've got some ideas, but kudos to you for opening up such an interesting discussion with your well-worded speculative post. :thumbsup:

[ClericJohnPreston]

178. Thanks mtnsnke

You know already you are one of my favorite posters :)

[PATRICK]

154. The nutshell is the "why?"

Maybe the answer is simple but not forthcoming. I am tired of speculating. More likely it is complex dealing with things fairly harmless and non-conspiratorial but nearly impossible to say to people. The sense is probably accurate, that the final point of being for the good of the party seals the decision. In every scenario Edwards would be mostly pretending to have a chance while in fact becoming a spoiler/kingmaker you choose which sounds better. Campaigns would go broke and vulnerable, Edwards would only be able for all that to squeak out agenda concessions not much more than what he could do by dropping out now. He would not and could not parlay his new role(that all his people did not sign for) for a Veep again. Nor would he like to come out now and say his gambit lost even if it came close. Expecting Obama to collapse and it did not happen. Gambling against the big money campaigns in a caucus state and falling short against the guy he needed to see fade long before. Seeing that his argument and campaign was not going to sway the predetermined mass of Hillary voters more than Obama's approach.

They did us the unusual favor of letting slip their main strategy of expecting one of the two to fade. that didn't happen and the campaign chests and endorsements and organizations swelled. The sea never parted. DK won debates too. It was useless to expect much from that or TV ads or stump travels. The numbers weren't moving anywhere except down when the Obama/Clinton contest rolled into town. The mass of voters sympathetic and appreciative could not be moved and the excitement drained away from Edwards' challenges. His one real challenge was in Iowa and they came in suckered, bleeding and punching and risking, all he could dream for. That was the last best hope really. The electorate seems more in tune for the discontent and light-headedness of 1958 rather than 2008. There are reasons beyond even the ugly media influence. In any event no time now for enough change. I am sure he had polls to back up some of this unwanted gloom. No one is sharing internals from any campaigns, at least none that you should trust. Likely neither Edwards nor the others wants to say the divisiveness is starting to cost the likely winner, but does suggest that the best now is for a quicker end. There is nothing automatically great about a deal or brokered convention. The primary system has been set up to be cheap, telecast, quick and unifying. The moral cost for that has to be eaten silently.

Maybe there are simpler answers. It may well be clearer after Super Tuesday. Psychology 101 tells me you should start seeing some strain or elation on the part of the other candidates if this blatantly helps one or the other with whom he had long discussions. Seems not much yet so let's wait, and vote.

I may make up my mind with all the reasons in the world to vote for one of the remaining candidates, but
if I see the Edwards name on the ballot they will vanish like the wind and I will cast my vote as I would have days ago knowing as well as Edwards how unlikely a cause it was. The other campaigns would have to do a LOT in my case to change that wayward hand. By their chosen methods of campaigning it is most unlikely.

[Kokonoe]

157. Losing sucks

It makes us learn something at the exact time our brain is occupied with what really matters.

As a John Edwards supporter, I say he did it with truth and guts. He knows when to quit, not me.

A populist message will only garner 15% support. The Bush type can always help the little man by giving to the wealthy. Just ask Them.

I support Obama now, Obama is like Clinton as Gore is like Bradly

[OneGrassRoot]

165. In a nation where the gap between haves and have-nots and have-littles...

has increased significantly and continues to do so, doesn't it beg the question of WHY the populist message isn't deemed of interest?

Perhaps it has been stigmatized, as has the word "liberal," for example.

All messages are being manipulated. Everything is being labeled.

Who is doing the manipulating and labeling? And why?

We have many ideas regarding this, but getting people to realize the extent of the manipulation is the first step in finding out WHY and what to DO ABOUT IT, as the OP has stated.

One either has to work within the system very, very craftily or call the truth out from the rooftops and hope you are heard before your voice is silenced.

P.S. The thought that some people may not associate with the word "poverty" is valid; but most speaking out about this issue have been very clear to also include the middle class, the "working poor." Given the current economic climate, while many may not openly admit to resonating with it, deep down inside they must. Foreclosures, cost of gas, food...everything increasing.

[Desertrose]

169. Absolutely. The message is bing manipulated, therefore so are we.

Who is doing the manipulating and labeling?
Clearly it is those who have the power and finances to do so.

And why?
To make sure they retain that power & control.

[ClericJohnPreston]

177. BINGO!

He who controls the language, controls the message!!!!!

[Kokonoe]

192. The populist message is still deemed of interest

As you say " In a nation where the gap between haves and have-nots and have-littles "

We are halved and halved again, untill we are listening to ourselves, both in agreement.


As tom_paine says i post 68

It would be economically counter-productive to divert a massive amount of resources, materials, rolling stock, etc. to the eradication of "undesirables" such as Jews, Liberals, Gays, Gypsies, Poles, etc. Such a massive diversion might even be the pivot of the balance upon which the German War Effort would succeed or fail, making it even more self-defeating. Finally, it would involve a simply massive conspiracy to keep such things silent from the rest of the world, which also adds to the fact that Occam's Razor cuts the idea of the German Efforts at Industrial Extermination of Undesirables to ribbons. It just doesn't make sense on so many levels, that Occam's Razor STRONGLY suggests another, simpler explanation for the many mysterious disappearances of "undesirables".

Perhaps they are all soldiering on the eastern Front, where communications are weak.

Were not going to find out who is contol of the media on TV

I told you if you really care all you can do as a single person is vote for Obama

[femrap]

384. Since 1980 (I mark as the Beginning of the End),

Greed has been gaining momentum. The movie, "Wall Street," in 1987 stated that 'Greed is good.' This fits in nicely with our ever advancing Consumerism and Materialistic culture. Along with Greed, there is the message of 'Watch out for Number One' and if you don't, you are a stupid schmuck.

Our culture tries to make its citizens believe that if you are NOT making it financially, it is YOUR fault. If you got downsized from your corporate job, you weren't doing a good enough job. So people blame themselves for their lack of moving up the ladder. But they do have credit cards and this is a way to make themselves feel financially bigger! And why not take a Home Equity Loan, too?

Even if the citizens don't go all the way to Greed is Good, they sure have become at least selfish. 'THAT'S MINE!' 'I NEED MORE.'

We are seeing the beginning of the end of this 'Monster' materialistic culture we have created. As the financial house of cards begins to fall in earnest, maybe the Edwards message will sound more like music to the ears of millions.

Also in conjunction with this Greed message, there is the Machismo message...lots of war, violence, and destruction. This mess of a message can't last much longer....do you think?

[mojowork_n]

163. On last night's "Daily Show", Jon Stewart offered a theory

...while he was interviewing WSJ columnist, Peggy Noonan.

His take:

'I think he dropped out to help Barack.'

And then he got off into a "who was smarmier" comparison, Bill Clinton comparing Barack's win in South Carolina to Jesse Jackson's, or The Chimp, being his normal, nasty self, emphasizing the third syllable of the word "democrat," in pronounciation.

I like Jon Stewart, he's almost always funny, if not inevitably insightful, and this seems like it could be one of those times. A throwaway line, a shot in the dark.

On the other hand, if there is an official endorsement before Super Tuesday (with Obama currently being framed as the challenger, running uphill to catch up with the Clinton Machine), it's worth noting.

[K Gardner]

170. Its not only the sudden "suspension" of the campaign, John's demeanor in the presser and lack of

real explanation that bothers me.. if he was doing this to help steer the nomination to Barack then why no endorsement? For JE to keep quiet and neutral about such an important matter is also NOT like him and something truly contrary to his nature, much like the sudden suspension of his campaign. This tells me that something or someone is behind this, pulling some invisible strings.. and it wasn't just an overnight decision by John.

[Apollo11]

179. I think he trusts his supporters to make up their own minds

Part of me wishes he would endorse Obama, because I would love to see Obama win the Presidency.

But most people prefer to make up his own minds, not be told who they should vote for.

Also it would look like Edwards and Obama and Ted Kennedy were "piling on" Hillary.

So I think it is much smarter for Edwards to sit on the sidelines during the primaries and keep pressuring both Obama and Hillary to adopt more of his ideas and proposals.

[K Gardner]

180. Good points, all.

[flyarm]

201. absolutely..this is a trial lawyer who didn't use notes in court!..damn it..wake up people..

something happened here..i was in SC i was at his presser right next to the podium..he looked me in theeye and smiled and said a happy resounding hi..and squeezed my arm on his way to the stage..

this is a man who was not stopping..

and Bonior took the stage before John and stated clearly..Clinton did not win till the eighth state of Georgia..

the polls were showing Edwards might be winning Tennessee..and was heavy strong in OKLa..

a debate was tonight..John got huge bump last week during the debate..many in fact most doors were were going to said if they had not had the repuke vote the week before most people said they would have voted for John instead of McCain..

that answer was overwhelming.

then this???????

and John's body language was totally off..

he read a script ..and even flubbed it and had to correct it..

Folks i was a Kerry/Edwards delegate in 2004..i housed their field rep in 2004 and i was in charge of their rally's in my area of Fla. and the volunteers who worked it..i was always next to the stage..always..and i have talked extensively many times with John and Elizabeth..i have never ever ever ever seen him read a speech..never.

he was being very cautious with the exact words he was using..

he wasn't taking any chances to flub anything he was saying yesterday..

there is more here that does not pass the smell test.

we were told in 2004 ..the Dixiecrats defeated Kerry/Edwards..now the dixiecrats vote for Edwards..and Edwards carries 11 of their counties?????

the stink is overwhelming..from where i sit..


I have a huge pit in my stomach and i have since he spoke yesterday..

something is very wrong here..

John is a fighter..

something or someone took him out ..right now..and he did not withdraw and don't goive me the bullshit of the matching money..that is a crap..he would get the money either way.

but he did not withdraw..

he suspended..

just like the Chicago Trib endorsed Obama..but then did a caveat..shortly after it was breaking news that Rezko was arrested Monday morning...

hmmmmmmmmmm

my antennea is at full mast.

and not going down any time soon.

fly

[mojowork_n]

221. RE: "Antenna at full mast"

On the Randi Rhodes show the other day, before the primary, someone called in from the Florida panhandle to say that the only lawn signs visible for any Republican candidate all said "Ron Paul" on them. But in the official total from the state website, his final tally was 3 %.

If you're suggesting that John Edwards decision to "suspend" his campaign is somehow related to an electronic voting invisible "suspension of democracy", in this country (plus whatever other personally intimidating tactics or leverage may have been put to bad use), the Ron Paul example may be just as revealing.

If it's a new form of thought crime to be against the WOT, it must be three strikes to run that kind of campaign as a Republican.

[flyarm]

235. ron paul's signs were all over my county in Pinellas as well, only saw one Romney sign

i was holding signs for John at 4 precincts election day and then at the biggest intersection and i saw the guy putting up all the Ron Paul Signs,..there were hundreds of them all over the damn place..saw none for anyone else in my county..except one Romney..like i said..

fly

[ChiciB1]

294. Anyone Who Has Watched John Edwards KNOWS He Really Blew

that speech! This WAS NOT a John Edwards I've ever seen. I have watched him for a very long time, he speaks off the cuff. He HAS NO speech writer, and I have NEVER seen him "read" a speech either! I completely agree with you... SOMETHING IS VERY VERY WRONG!!

To you naysayers, maybe you just don't UNDERSTAND. Maybe you haven't watched as we have because of your support for someone else. The John Edwards we saw YESTERDAY is not a JOHN EDWARDS I've ever seen.

Am I hitting the ALARM BELL??? You bet I AM!!!

[iris5426]

387. exactly.

As I've been reading all of the excellent, insightful responses to this excellent insightful OP, you've put my thoughts from the last 24 hours into words perfectly. Something is not right with this. Everything is not right with this. There is absolutely more going on here than meets the eye and it speaks of the larger problem being discussed here and in my mind confirms it. Unfortunately most of the people I know will look at me and tell me to take off my tin foil hat (though probably not in those words not being DUers) and dismiss everything. I can't help feeling like V for Vendetta was a window to the future.

[OneGrassRoot]

450. I feel the same as those in this little subthread...

and probably only those who have paid attention to our candidate so intently would have noticed. Very, very off.

And Elizabeth's words saying it's not a sad day, "it's complicated."

And his words in the conference call Truth2Tell spoke of.

The latter two things wouldn't seem so...interesting...if it weren't for his demeanor and atypical presentation during his speech.

I'm trying to look on the bright side and think something indeed very complicated is going on, and he and Elizabeth were just trying to wrap their minds around it yesterday, but it may end up being something to make us all very, very happy. Maybe the script that has been written will be shaken up after all.

I think us continuing to vote for him (for those so inclined) can indeed send a message.

If he and Elizabeth and staffers take any time to read here, they will see the tremendous support they have. Here. At one website. A huge army.

[iris5426]

598. He does have an army here...

And Harry Potter nut that I am, all I could think when I read that was Dumbledore's Army and how fitting that is for what is being discussed...

[OneGrassRoot]

607. I'm a big Harry Potter fan as well, so that is very apt. :) n/t

[TheUnspeakable]

555. flyarm-thank you so much for all you've done..

and for your posts in this thread. They confirm what I've been feeling in my gut for a while.
I gotta admit I'm pretty hopeless right now

[kelligesq]

561. trouble reading the words"time to step aside so that history can blaze its path"

he told a supporter a week ago, he didnt have speech writers, " I write all my
own".

He didnt write that. And "history can blaze its path"

Who talks like that? We've never heard John speak like that.

time to google that phrase and see if it's ever been used before



how about "A Long and Twisted Blaze through History".....a book about

The Earl of Louisiana....(politician Huey Long)

So - did Edwards have a visit from a politician from Louisiana?

or

phrases 'blaze' ... Fire colored balls to make sets of three, but don't let the chain reach the golden skull or you're history!

or Irish language:" Blaze of Colour" - a phone call from Uncle Teddy ?

Maybe John was upset by the betrayal of friendship...Kennedy is said to have been a mentor of John when he was first in the Senate - and Uncle Teddy really has it in for the Clintons over a petty misspeak of giving credit to Johnson who passed JFK's bills, but HRC did not mention JFK - so did he ask John to get out of the race so that it would be easier for Obama to win?

Reports were that Kerry's endorsement of Obama didn't bother John, but Kennedy's did. Also Kerry that sleezey piece of work said on tv he was going to call John after he dropped out. Kerry is capable of talking/writing in that stilted speech.

Mystery solved? nefarious yes. They ganged up on John to clear the path for Obama.

[foxer]

202. He was "rattled" and he Doesn't Rattle!

[flyarm]

236. he read the speech..he never reads a speech..ever..and he screwed it up and read it again

to correct himself.

i have never ever seen him do that..

fly

[foxer]

304. Somethings very not right here!

[femrap]

386. So do you think someone NOT on his staff

told him to read this? I made sure that I watched him yesterday and I agree....something was not right. Please let us know if you hear anything. I am sick.

"It's the Rothschild/Rockefellers, Stupid."

[publicatlarge]

164. Agree with your premise. Is Obama the Orwellian candidate?

How does the mysterious rise of Barack Obama figure into this scenario? Something I have been highly suspicious of. Maybe Hillary Clinton is not the great satan she is portrayed to be, IF the corporatists are creating Obama as a candidate to take her out.

The Telecom Act of 1996, to deregulate media consolidation, was signed by Clinton, as passed by the 'Contract for America' Congress. Would his veto have been overridden? Media consolidation has played huge role in all of this.

If Hillary Clinton is controllable, or complicit - why the mysterious rise of Obama from out of nowhere? All I need to know about Obama is, just as soon as he had been elected to the US Senate, he turned to a known, corrupt figure for 'advice' on securing a mansion, etc. Obama seems to have his nose open for money and power more than anything else.

As Obama is promoted and his campaign driven by the MSM over Hillary Clinton, he must be considered more controllable. Is this something which should be considered? Or, is there any difference, given what we have to deal with here?

[Prefer]

173. Listen to Obama repeact duplicitous neoCON talking points about H1Bs

http://pradeepc.net/blog/?p=193

He tries to blame the American worker for having his job taken away so a corp can pay someone less...

"BO: Highly skilled immigrants have contributed significantly to our domestic technology industry. But we have a skills shortage, not a worker shortage. There are plenty of Americans who could be filling tech jobs given the proper training. I am committed to investing in communities and people who have not had an opportunity to work and participate in the Internet economy as anything other than consumers."

"I will support a temporary increase in the H-1B visa program as a stopgap measure until we can reform our immigration system comprehensively. I support comprehensive immigration reform that includes improvement in our visa programs, including our legal permanent resident visa programs and temporary programs including the H-1B program, to attract some of the world’s most talented people to America. We should allow immigrants who earn their degrees in the U.S. to stay, work, and become Americans over time. As part of our comprehensive reform, we should examine our ability to replace a stopgap increase in the number of H1B visas with an increase in the number of permanent visas we issue to foreign skilled workers."

If there is a skills shortage, the wage should go UP. But what is happening is they are firing the Americans and replacing them with cheap foreigners. That is NOT a skills shortage. Barack is a corporate LIAR.

So far, no O-Bot has been able to defend Barack's statement or explain why he is selling Corporate Neocon talking points.

[publicatlarge]

185. How about that?

...also robo-programmed to tailor his candidacy to appeal to the immigrant voters in California?

We have jumped into a parallel universe - oh, somewhere along the timeline, say, November 2000. Bushco was not the problem. The controllers of bushco are.

'A community will evolve only when
the people control their means of communication'
- Frantz Fanon

[ClericJohnPreston]

189. Again...BINGO

It is the POTUS, who has merely been a puppet, an ENABLER. Bushco has been merely the "public face" of those who are in control of this Government.

Does anyone really believe Bush is the "decider".

[ClericJohnPreston]

190. Isn't it fun

to leave conventional thinking in the box behind and travel a ways down the rabbit hole?

It is complex and labyrinthine.

A structured reality usually is.

[Prefer]

195. Barack or Hillary is really about plausible deniability for the theft plot

all they have to say is "America wasn't ready" after the theft.

For Edwards, they ignored him the whole time, and then when he finally quit, they pronounce "He just couldn't get his message out".

Sick, isn't it?

[Andrea]

216. Yep.

Plausible deniability. Yep.

Sick. Yep.

[totodeinhere]

309. You are so right I am afraid.

When the polls show Obama winning and he still "loses," they will explain away the theft by claiming that it's the "Bradley Effect" that did Obama in. Or the same with Clinton. And of course the corporate media will buy it hook line and sinker.

[Wednesdays]

460. "Buy it hook, line and sinker," nothing!

Shoot, the M$M will author that meme!

[femrap]

395. A friend is writing a

political thriller....a candidate is selected by the Top Elite. He is chosen because of his race. Because he Black, it will be assumed by many that he is of course 'liberal.' And he is young (for a politician)...again, another reason to assume he is progressive. His parents are deceased. He has worked hard. He likes power. He thinks he deserves power. And power brings MONEY. He like most can be easily manipulated...to the point of believing his own press. He is given not only compliments, but money from very powerful people. He is the Chosen One.

He finally wins the nomination. He is campaigning against his republican opponent who is elderly and old school in his answers to problems. In the early part of October, while out campaigning in Tennessee, he is shot and killed. Chaos. Martial law.

That was how far he had gotten in the book last time I visited him last...

[ChiciB1]

509. Didn't See This Comment Earlier... But I've Always Said That The Idiot

had a permanent "key" inserted into his back so they could wind him up every day, after they programmed him the night before.

And, as it is with many things "technical" some glitches appear and most "programs" on machines have "down times!" These "down times" are always evident with The Idiot because then he's had to "ad lib" and he's inherently incompetent in this realm!!

[balantz]

200. I believe the mysterious rise of Obama

was cultivated to pose an alternative "progressive" candidate so as to divert attention from an Edwards, or a true populist/progressive. I'll wager it was known that Edwards or someone would attempt to gain the presidency against all odds this time around. So they put up Obama to increase their odds. And the public has for the most part fallen in line. Couple that with election fraud and media complicity and you've got a "progressive" choice pushed by the machine. Now, which one do the powers that be really want? Hillary, or Obama?

[2rth2pwr]

198. You are in stage 1 and stage 2 right now

# Five Stages Of Grief

* 1. Denial and Isolation.
* 2. Anger.
* 3. Bargaining.
* 4. Depression.
* 5. Acceptance.

What you are feeling is normal, but you will move on.

[Jim Sagle]

455. I'll give you the same answer I gave another asshole upthread.

Take yer condescension and shove it back up yer ass where it came from.

[2rth2pwr]

519. You on the other hand are fully in stage 2.

"Whenever one's identity and social order face the possibility of destruction, there is a natural tendency to feel angry, frustrated, helpless, and/or hurt. The volatile reactions of terror, hatred, resentment, and jealousy are often experienced as emotional manifestations of these feelings."

[Jim Sagle]

564. As if you had a clue.

[sellitman]

204. I have a sneaking suspision that....

This has to do with Elizabeth and her failing health. John didn't want to hang this on her so he didn't. That is the kind of Husband he is.

Just my .02

[ClericJohnPreston]

207. A candidate for POTUS

is always in the public spotlight.

John knew what was in store and Elizabeth's illness was out there, even as part of a campaign issue ( would Edwards be distracted ).

Do you really believe, after going so far, that is what just happened?

Look at Edwards delivery of the "message"...he read it like it wasn't his and made several errors. He literally RUSHED through the letter. Why? He was anxious to get back to building?

Not buying it.

[sellitman]

210. Maybe there is more info on her illness they are keeping private?

I hope not but it's a very plausible explanation.

Perhaps he may never say this for fear of making her feel bad.

I don't know.

This sucks. :(

[Helga Scow Stern]

268. I had some thoughts on this on my post #255.

Thank you for bringing all of this up. We are in deep trouble. But that is nothing new.

[FlyingSquirrel]

289. I both hope you're right and hope you're wrong.

It's the only explanation that makes much sense. Could have been the deciding factor.

[lisainmilo]

209. I wasn't even going to log on today

But, I had to look, even briefly to see what was going on, on the board. Yes, Cleric, I agree with you. The illusion of change. I was taught that the Democratic party was the backbone for the workers and the Republican party was for the corporations. The line between the Democratic party and the Republican party are hardly defined as different anymore, as each have their own set of corporate backers. The way I see it, there are some extremely powerful people in charge of who gets elected. We are being forced to buy into an illusion of change, carved out by sound bites handed to us by the corporate media.
I feel powerless, stripped of dignity, and depressed, but I for one am not disillusioned if that even matters.

[pacalo]

214. I totally feel the same way. Every word.

[ClericJohnPreston]

215. You know we are amigos Lisa...

At the risk of some humor, I feel your pain!

This usurpation of individual rights must end here.

Let this at least be a watershed moment when people realize who really is in control. Waking upn bto this nightmare is as painful as anything you can face. The mind wants to reject the belief in knee-jerk fashion, but taking the long view, shows it is all to real.

The big picture shows the common citizen is in a pickle right now. For what it is worth, even Bush doesn't make his own decisions.

The Corporation is an artificial entity that has grown to monstrous proportions. It's growth, except for Teddy Roosevelt and his trust-busting days, has gone largely unchecked. Today, they have a world-wide network. This is your real Bilderburg group.

Corporations profit at the expense of YOU and me.
They make a profit on death.
That is why we have war. This isn't a war for Democracy, but a war for oil; a war for Shell and Exxon and the death-merchants, the Military-Industrial-Complex.

It is time we fought back.

[lisainmilo]

643. HOW?

I have signed countless petitions to impeach Bush and Cheney. I have signed countless petitions to protect our right to privacy. Nothing ever comes from it. Wexler hearings provide some hope, JRE provided hope and I guess signing petitions provided me some hope also. How does a poor or middle class citizen fight this "MACHINE"? I can only do what is the right thing to do, right now. I have a plaque that says,

I shall pass through this world but once. Any good therefore that I can do or any kindness that I can show to any human-being let me do it now. Let me not deter or neglect it, for I shall not pass this way again.

To me seeing JRE helping those out in LA fits this plaque. To me JRE telling me about those who live under the bridge fits this plaque. In January 2008, 17000 jobs were lost. I believe many more will follow. JRE was my hope that justice would be restored. If there is anything else I can do other than what is in my little corner of the world to make a change or join a campaign against this phenomenon, please let me know.

[SusanLarson]

211. If you don't know what the OP is talking about check this out

One hundred and fifty years ago, the corporation was a relatively insignificant entity. Today, it is a vivid, dramatic and pervasive presence in all our lives. Like the Church, the Monarchy and the Communist Party in other times and places, the corporation is today’s dominant institution.

You can watch the an official release of the video there as well provided you have the free divx web player...

The film makers offers an official download via streaming DIVX from Stage6. This requires that you have the free DIVX web player installed on your computer in order to play either of the two videos below.

http://www.clarksvilleonline.com/2008/01/07/watch-the-corporation/

[JohnyCanuck]

222. You can also watch "The Corporation" on Youtube

The pathology of commerce: Case histories

To assess the “personality” of the corporate “person,” a checklist is employed, using diagnostic criteria of the World Health Organization and the standard diagnostic tool of psychiatrists and psychologists. The operational principles of the corporation give it a highly anti-social “personality”: it is self-interested, inherently amoral, callous and deceitful; it breaches social and legal standards to get its way; it does not suffer from guilt, yet it can mimic the human qualities of empathy, caring and altruism. Four case studies, drawn from a universe of corporate activity, clearly demonstrate harm to workers, human health, animals and the biosphere. Concluding this point-by-point analysis, a disturbing diagnosis is delivered: the institutional embodiment of laissez-faire capitalism fully meets the diagnostic criteria of a “psychopath.”

SNIP

Democracy LTD.

Democracy is a value that the corporation just doesn’t understand. In fact, corporations have often tried to undo democracy if it is an obstacle to their single-minded drive for profit. From a 1934 business-backed plot to install a military dictator in the White House (undone by the integrity of one U.S. Marine Corps General, Smedley Darlington Butler) to present-day law-drafting, corporations have bought military might, political muscle and public opinion.

And corporations do not hesitate to take advantage of democracy’s absence either. One of the most shocking stories of the twentieth century is Edwin Black’s recounting IBM’s strategic alliance with Nazi Germany-one that began in 1933 in the first weeks that Hitler came to power and continued well into World War II.

http://www.clarksvilleonline.com/2008/01/07/watch-the-corporation/

You can also watch the documentary online at Youtube.com where it is posted in 23 episodes. The link to all 23 episodes on Youtube is: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=FA50FBC214A6CE87 This link is taken from the documentary's official web site www.thecorporation.com so I think it safe to assume they approve of this listing on Youtube and don't consider it a copyright infringement. However, if you can pass them a few bucks for a donation, or buy the DVD I am sure they would appreciate the gesture.

[SusanLarson]

297. 2 Parts Clarksville Online vs 23 parts on youtube

2 Parts vs 23 parts, HRM I wonder which I would pick. As for copyright infringment the film makers made it available on stage6 and when they did so said it was ok to embed in a web site. The video clearly says "This is the official shareware version of the Corporation."

[desertflamingo]

213. remember...

remember that jre and elizabeth lost their teenage son in a traffic accident. remember that bobby kennedy, THE agent of change, was cut down after winning the california primary. i do not believe it was sirhan sirhan. too tidy. too weird. remember paul wellstone? secretary ron brown? vince foster. hell, jfk and mlk, jr? all of the above were starting to rock the boat in a way that was going to upset the apple cart of the BIG power. even 9/11 came what, a day after 2 TRILLION had been announced as missing from the pentagon funds? i always say, if something doesn't sound right it's 'cause it isn't. john edwards' family was no doubt SERIOUSLY threatened by the real people who run this country and the world. HE got the message and we might as well stop asking because to date, we haven't gotten the REAL answers to any of the above questions. nefarious? you're damned right. if the msm had given jre even half the coverage the other two "historical" figures get, this country would be up in arms. the powers that ARE could not afford that message to get out to the super tuesday voters and beyond. when people actually get a chance to hear what jre has to say, they change their allegiance, so... personally i'm glad THIS happened rather than a lone assassin bullet to his head before the election - which i've feared since day one. nefarious... an understatement to be sure.

EDWARDS forever

[balantz]

220. Tonight's debate,

to be watched no doubt by millions who are eyeing super Tuesday, would have fully revealed to more Americans than ever John's populist message and the conviction behind his fight for America. I was so looking forward to it. It would have truly been a defining moment in American political history. There is no logical reason to me why John missed this all important opportunity. I'm absolutely certain he was looking forward to it. I'm also certain it could have changed the whole course of this race.

edit for clarification

[ChiciB1]

512. I Posted On Another Thread A Little While Ago... I Came VERY Close

to saying exactly what you said here. I DIDN'T want to say it, and I didn't... but I do FEEL it!! Do I want to live or do I want to be remembered?? Something like that, huh?

Have we forgotten BOBBY?? Or any of the others whose lights went out because they dared to speak THE TRUTH?

This may well be "part" of the answer, but I think there's MORE!

[GrimReefa]

223. So, why did John Edwards step aside?

1. He obviously didn't WANT a brokered convention. With the Repubs sprinting towards a McCain nomination, Edwards knew that if the Dems went into convention without knowing who the nominee would be, it would be bad for the party and, ultimately, the country.

2. South Carolina was his home state. He was born there, and he was a Senator from right next door. If he had any hopes of establishing any kind of momentum, it would have been after a strong showing in SC, which did not happen.

3. He wanted to get out of Obama's way before Super Tuesday. If you can't see this, you are as blind as a bat. Edwards has been saying all along that only he and Obama represent change. Not just in the debates, but in his stump speeches. I saw him at an event in Nashua, NH, and it was clear as day that, while he wanted to win, of course, what he really did NOT want was for Clinton to win. By getting out of the way now, he is hoping to slingshot his supporters in the 2/5 states to Obama.

4. This guy is probably exhausted. He has been running on 3-4 hours of sleep a night for weeks. With his campaign getting less and less traction, he was having a more and more difficult time explaining to himself why he should continue to sacrifice himself like that to stay in a race that ... and this is very important ... he COULD NOT WIN.

[femrap]

405. Just go smoke another doobie and let the adults take care of this.

[ChiciB1]

513. One Ringie-Dingie For YOU femrap!!! That Was GOOOOOOOD! n/t

[kelligesq]

565. GRIMREEFA - good post - close but no cigar :)

[memory]

231. I'm afraid and very disheartened.

Unfortunately, I am convinced that Edwards was forced to quit by the "man" behind the curtain. The "man" being the forces behind BCCI and the whole Sibel Edmonds mess.

http://www.chris-floyd.com/Articles/Articles/The_Bomb_in_the_Shadows%3A_Proliferation%2C_Corruption_and_the_Way_of_the_World/

To quote from that article:

<<<This is the way the world works. Behind the glitz and gossip of presidential campaigns, behind all the earnest "policy debates" on Capitol Hill, behind all the "position papers" and "vision statements" of think tanks and political parties, behind all the great panoply of state and our august Establishment institutions, thieves and murderers have their way, in league with the great and good.

Anyone who ascends to national power has to make a deal with the devil: either directly to plunge their hands into filth and blood, or else swaddle themselves in "plausible deniability," looking away from the grubby details but knowing full well that their minions, agents and backers are doing "whatever it takes" to keep the machine of power and money rolling on.<<<

I don't think John Edwards was willing to be their puppet and something happened that made him decide to suspend. The timing of it just does not make sense. Why drop out with 1 week to go until Super Tuesday? Plus all of the other reasons already eloquently laid out by other posters above. Also the fact that he said he almost changed his mind listening to people in MO and OK.

They had already marginalized him to where he could not win, but he was still interfering with what they wanted to happen and the message that he was promoting kept seeping into the other's campaigns.

Yeah, I know it is tinfoily as hell, but if you read the above article and the other threads about Sibel Edmonds that are here on DU and KOS, you have to don the tinfoil and wonder.

I am personally scared and sick with worry about my Country and the future that my child will have here.


:cry:

[femrap]

398. It's the Rothschilds/Rockefellers, Stupid!

And all of those other disgusting rich families that go back centuries....and with way too much inbreeding, I'd say.

[ChiciB1]

517. Tinfoily Or Not... Spot On For Sure!!! And I Too Am AFRAID!!

But I also need to get to sleep tonight. It was the end of my day and I wanted to read ALL of this thread, but I see I'm not going to make it tonight!

Thanks to EVERYONE here who posted so much insight about what may be going on. The fact that there are SO VERY MANY, just here at DU who are wondering and asking questions about what happened says it all! I don't know what's going on at the other blogs, haven't had time to check any others... but if it's anything like this one, I have only one question to ask.

Is THE POWER listening and do THEY EVEN CARE??

[Cleita]

232. You pointed out the problem. The status quo is being

maintained so the same pigs can keep eating at the trough. If we do get a Democratic President, my feeling is that we, the unwashed masses, are going to have to badger them to start governing from the left. We haven't been able to do this with BushCo, but I think we can with HillaryCo or ObamaCo.

President Bush and Vice President Cheney have accumulated despot-like powers for the executive offices. It will be a mandate for we the people to push them to use those powers for bringing our country back to democracy and government for the people and by the people. We also need to make them lose those unwarranted powers while they are in office so if the next President should happen to be a Republican he can't abuse the power of that office like Bush/Cheney have.

[balantz]

247. How do you suppose we will have the power to make the Dems.

do much of anything for us? If the corporations basically own them politically, why would they work for us? It isn't happening for us with Congress. They are not working for our interests, no matter how much they try to sugar-coat it.

[Cleita]

254. I think they will be more responsive to our protests, emails, phone

calls and letters than the Repubs. The Repubs could afford to ignore us because they knew they didn't have our vote. The Dems will need to listen to us to get reelected.

[balantz]

259. Well they sure haven't done it yet!

I don't know how many letters and emails and petitions I've done.

Wexler has collected over 200,000 signatures from us, what happened there?

Just talking about these Dems. is making my friggin blood boil!!

[Cleita]

264. That's because we still have Bush in office. If we keep

and improve on a Democratic Congress and get a Democratic President, then we really can start scaring them into doing the right thing. Historically, it has happened in the past. FDR came up with the New Deal because he was pressured into it by we the people.

[balantz]

277. Are you forgetting that this administration has commited LISTS of crimes

and still go unpunished?

You say he is still in office and is in the way.

I say WHY is he still in office when there is every reason to have impeached him many months ago.

WHAT THE FUCK IS UP WITH THAT?

Do you see what I'm trying to say about this Congress?

[Cleita]

284. No, I'm not forgetting any of that and I can't impeach him.

I can only hope that a Democrat as President can be pressured to do the right thing. Smarter people than me have said the same thing. My final hope for Bush. if he isn't impeached this year, is that there will be lawsuits leveled at him and Cheney after they leave office so that they can be investigated and brought to justice. I would like to see Iraq file a complaint with the World Court at the Hague for war crimes.

[truedelphi]

354. I'm with you on this. Just got yet another email from the

"Courage Campaign" telling me how important it is to call Feinstein on some issue.

I did call on two other issues in the past, and for my efforts all that happened was that
her staff sent me a form letter thanking me for supporting the very issue I opposed!

[Prefer]

263. They sure aren't, are they

With Bush, you expect to get fucked, but with congress, you expect them to stand up for you and the just don't. They can't bite the hand that feeds them.

[Javaman]

238. Since the media is basically the propaganda arm for the corporations...

why would they promote someone who is actively campaigning against their best interests?

Less coverage over all, less coverage in the debates, highlighting very stupid angles, smearing him through one divisive means or another and in the end he's left with low numbers. Which translates to the mouth breathers in the US as "unelectable".

Yeah, we decide alright. We decide who gets elected based upon what is force fed us via MSM.

divide and conquer.

who will the hatchet fall upon next?

[bobbolink]

241. We can't even talk about the real problem on DU.

I see no other choice but that this will eventually bring down the party.

Too bad, but people don't want to look at what's really happening.

We wait until the inevitable crisis.

DU will continue as always.... inviting those of us on the left to leave.

[earth mom]

258. Yup, how long before this topic is in the dungeon?

:argh:

[Andrea]

359. Thankfully it is still here

and that is a testament to the good intentions of the admins.

[ChiciB1]

360. Was Just Making Dinner & THIS Was The Thought I Wanted To Make...

How Long?? How SOON we forget! Bob Dylan wrote a song a long time ago... "Blowing In The Wind" and the words still ring true today!!!

[Andrea]

357. I'm afraid you might be right.

So far, though, this thread is still here.

It's so strange for me to think of myself as being on the far left. I have always considered myself a moderate because of the positions I take: for the rule of law, for checks and balances, for the sanctity of the constitution and the electoral process. Basically, trying to preserve the vision of our founding fathers.

Yet somehow, these have become extreme viewpoints.

[bobbolink]

416. We ARE moderates! The party has left US..... we aren't leaving the party because we're weird,

contrary to popular, and DU opinion!

In any other industrialized country, we would be seen as conservative! Or at least nearly so.

On the otherhand, remember that our founders were also "extremists", and scared the living shit out of those who were worried for their own safety.

We're doing our best to walk in their shoes, and getting the slings and arrows because of it.

:hi:

[Andrea]

456. Thanks, Bobbolink!

I'll hang onto my Moderate label and wear it proudly.

Moderate is the new Extreme.


:hi:

[bobbolink]

458. Careful where you wear that "moderate" label! Some of us really sick

DLC haters might have to beat you up.

:rofl:

:hi:

[Phred42]

248. Exactly ! K&R

Unfortunately

We Are Screwed.

The Corporatists have won.

[Helga Scow Stern]

255. Here is my take on it...

The night before the Florida primary I got kind of frantic, because I felt that some powerful manipulation was going on, some very cleverly orchestrated propaganda to divide the Democratic party, at the very least, likely in addition to something far more nefarious. The sudden hatred between Clinton and Obama camps had become a powder keg. A lot will rest on how the two of them can overcome that between them. I agree that the media touched this off intentionally, not just for ratings but because it was strategically on their given list of talking points. I think it has caught fire due to some very deep issues in the collective psyche...any good propagandist knows how to work those. I don't know how it will unfold, but there is no way the powers that be are going to relinquish power without using every dirty trick. Let's hope the mantle of corruption doesn't settle on a Dem. The last two elections have already been stolen, and still safeguards are not in place.

I kind of agree with Will Pitt when he said in another thread that Edwards wanted to get his message out and influence the discussion, even though he knew he might not be able to go all the way, especially because of Elizabeth's health. It also might be that in this intensely divisive climate, he and Elizabeth made a strategic move of stepping aside. This decision may have been influenced by her facing a possibly fatal disease. Also, I do believe that Edwards' true ambition is not the presidency itself(otherwise he'd do anything, like the others) but, as a means to really make a difference. He's a strategist, and so is Elizabeth. This opportunity to change the conversation by entering the race may have been something that they decided to go for, even if they couldn't win, especially with her life hanging in the balance. That kind of reality makes you see things very differently, you want to give life all you can.

And can you imagine what the media would have done with any negative developments in Elizabeth's health, used as a reason for dropping out? Announcing it now would not have been a smart move. It easily could have ruined his chances later, besides to put the family through a thrashing when that's the last thing they need. I am sure he and Elizabeth strategized this together, with full knowledge of what they were doing.

So I think those are good reasons why he looked so struck. And he almost teared up when he said "I will not forget you, I will not forget you!" He quickly hid it, but we saw it. He's not gone away for good.

Edwards also said he had "suspended" his candidacy for the presidency.

[earth mom]

256. I've been asking WHY all last night and all today. Your OP is dead on. It does NOT make sense.

And that conference call thread yesterday just made me question WHY??? all the more because nothing said there made one damn lick of sense.

I've put my :tinfoilhat: on because all of this REEKS of being the work of the GLOBAL POWERS THAT BE. Just some HEAVY DUTY EVIL SHIT.

Remember who we are dealing with here. Some serious MO FOs who think nothing of MIHOP/LIHOP 911, or MLK Jr., or RFK or JFK.

Those evil bastards are NOT gonna let John Edwards stop them.

NO WAY NO HOW.

So, hell yes, we are in SERIOUS TROUBLE. But we've been in serious trouble for years and years. We just didn't know how pervasive and rotten to the core it all actually is.

:yoiks:

[Shine]

261. Well that was totally fucking depressing....although I completely agree with you.

ugh. :(

[treestar]

265. The Presidency is only one third of the power

and of the federal power, and not the state.

Not to worry. As long as we get a Dem President, we are in good shape.

Try to have a Dem Congress, too. Hopefully enough to repeal the Patriot Act and the various and sundry doctrines of the Chimpadministration. That's the number one priority.

[Prefer]

270. we have a dem congress

they left us high and dry. they are going to gloss over the crimes and thereby legitimize them

[balantz]

287. There is only the corporate power.

There is no three parts to this system anymore.

It is all a play, a fabrication to keep us under the false impression that our government is a Democracy.

And now that power has become more solidified into a singular all-powerful cabal.

It is a fascist government orchestrated by the few, of the few, and for the few.

Lincoln and company are spinning in their graves.

[kelligesq]

568. BALANTZ - you are really something. You get it !

:bounce:

[philly_bob]

266. Why? Maybe he made a deal...

Suppose he worked out a deal -- say for Attorney General -- with both Obama and Clinton. He hinted at some sort of deal in his resignation letter, saying he had talked to each of them. As a litigator, he understands courtroom-steps, cut-your-losses deal-making. That fits his bluster-to-the-last-minute behavior. This may also explain why he ran knowing his wife was sick -- he didn't intend to go all the way, just far enough to get a cabinet position.

As the Oracle in Matrix said, "What's really going to bake your noodle later on" is whether Edwards' populist stance -- more populist than his senatorial voting record -- was just a pose to lock up the party's progressive wing in order to give him leverage to make such a deal.

Of course, this explanation doesn't explain his whipped, confused demeanor in his speech. That scares me!

Like many of you, I am depressed and dumbstruck at Edward's sudden resignation. I'll vote for whichever Democrat wins the nomination in 2008, but I'm hoping for a floor fight at the convention -- a fresh look at our choices -- and unless the Democratic Party changes its corporatist nature, I'll even take another look at the possibility of a third party.

[Leo 9]

274. I like Obama.

I think he will make a great president, and be much better at pushing our agenda through than would've been any other candidate.




http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/semr?source=SEM-register-google-obama-search-national

[ChiciB1]

280. I Haven't Read All The Posts Here... I've Been Posting Myself... But Has

it occurred to ANYONE that the mere FACT that there is SO MUCH discussion about this tells the WHOLE story???

Did any of this happen when the other candidates dropped out?? Has anyone else seen this type of thing happen before. If so many of us here "feel" this "thing" then WHY doesn't it seem obvious that WE may be correct in our thinking? Too many here aren't BUYING what went down!!

I think this thread says it most of all! Too many of us just don't like the SMELL of it and it's NOT SOUR GRAPES either! JMHO, but one if fiercely believe!

[Prefer]

285. After all the years of this, it just fits the same old pattern of corruption

I could see how if you were a college student and hadn't seen it so much already, you might buy into to hoping for change.
But having seen it before, I fully expect the powers of corruption to do all they can to deceive us and continue the rape of our nation.

Bottom line - those bombs will be dropped on Iran. As long as we continue to deceive ourselves about what's really going on and let their minions pose as us to deceive us, nothing will change. New illusions will be cast. that's all.

[ChiciB1]

300. I Have NO BLINDERS ON... Just Saying That There Is A Ground-Swell

HERE, and it makes me wonder how much more is OUT THERE! I've seen PLENTY... but this time smells so very very FOUL!!

[Andrea]

431. Right

And actually, both sides of the argument prove the argument. On the one hand, that so many of us know down to our core that something is seriously, tragically, terrifyingly wrong , and on the other hand, that so many are unwilling or unable to even look at what is happening.

Good point!

[troubleinwinter]

286. A simple, obvoius graphic illustration of JE's invisibility, Dems' made into cartoon soap operas:

(from flyarm's link in post #139 http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/states/FL.html )

This is from the New York Times, today, January 31st.

Look at the "exit poll" questions. The republicans are asked about an issue of importance to them. The Dems are asked about the constructed soap opera, "Obama attacked Hillary/Hillary attacked Obama/Both"... Clinton and Obama are the subject, not issues. Edwards is not to be seen at all.

[onethatcares]

302. that's exactly what I see, as progressives we're supposed to

worry more about who the hell Oprah is backing, or who didn't shake someones hand, than what the hell is going on with our country. All we get from the media is that.

Why???

[ChiciB1]

365. Yeah, I Saw That Earlier... Says A Mouthful!! Have We Descended To

Kindergarten yet?? John Edwards was talking about issues and HE IS the ADULT! America WILL discover what it could have, but DIDN'T DO!! Even here at DU, it goes on day after day... even WITH the OTHER TWO, who can't seem to stop sniping... perhaps it WILL be a Repuke... ONCE AGAIN!!

Since I've decided to vote Edwards anyway, I suppose I shouldn't talk, but in the end... I think America has ALREADY lost!

[flyarm]

397. amazing isn't it????????..idiot questions for dems ,.and ignore John.,.

my fear is he was told ..get out of the debate..get out or you will get no delegates and they proved to him they would and could do it in SC and Fla..

remember he was surging Thursday and Friday in SC..and then pffft election day..

it was so bad on the tues before election Hillary took her whole crew out of there..but some were sent back Thursday night..and how do i know..because they had been at the top hotel in Columbia..they gave up their rooms Tuesday..but when they returned they could not get back in there..and many were sent to my hotel the #2 hotel..Ann Lewis sat at the table next to me Thurs night in Columbia SC..she was sent in because John was Surging a ton..

but gee that all changed election day..but remember SC uses Diebold.

wake the hell up people!!

fly

[Andrea]

434. Absolutely right

Heck, it was looking possible he would even win SC because of the way things had turned around for him after the debate.

[leveymg]

291. What's the mystery? Edwards was silenced to help HRC. Edwards retaliated by releasing his votes,

most of whom he knows will go to Obama on Super Tuesday.

Edwards didn't come out and admit that was his purpose in doing what he did when he did it, of course, but it's the obvious explanation.

What's the mystery?

Yes, we are in trouble. But, not for the reason you stated.

[Morereason]

406. Yours is a quite plausable expanation

If he prefers Obama over Hillary it would make sense as his voters will tend toward Obama...

[troubleinwinter]

292. I agree. We are left with the "WHY" over a completely nonsensical, illogical situation.

[ErnestoG]

293. If you are looking for the perfect non-corpo candidate, stop looking

You will just give yourself indigestion. FACT - they aint out there.

So in this case, we have to select the LEAST evil of the bunch. For me, that's Obama. I'm sorry but this is the best we can do in the given situation; and that situation won't be changing anytime soon. America is just not ready to give up its need for corpo candidates. There is still too much of a tie between big business and government here, which really bothers me because that is the Mussoliniesque definition of corpo-fascism.

[ananda]

296. "We" have been in deep doodoo..

.. for quite a while, and the shit's only
going to keep piling up no matter what.

Whether "we" admit it or not doesn't
change a thing.

[FATCATs]

298. Yes and no could be and perhaps

We could have said the same about Gore in 2000, What was up with not asking
for all the votes to be recounted right away ?

John Kerry in 2004, Remember, It wasn't the Kerry campaign that raised a fuss.
Kerry just threw in the friggin towel,
Kerry Quote” Not till every vote is counted”, Remember ?

And now, Edwards.

Your either right about this, Or as many have said, The Democrats just lack spine. And if you go by their Congressional record, There’s a very good case to be made for that argument.

Hell, I just heard Howard Dean say..
Quote: “Now that we're there (In Iraq) we cant just leave”

Now, Does that sound like the old screaming Howard Dean ?

Hell No !

Leadership my friends, We’ll see which of the Democrats that are left if any possesses it.

[geiger]

305. It really bothered me how Kucinich also abruptly shut down his campaign

He's got competition for his House seat now, but the timing was eery. Another voice effectively silenced. Even though I think he's a goofy guy, he says all the right things.....He's excellent on constituent services, calls people back personally, demonstrates an authentic moral indignation when it's appropriate, outside of the publicity stunts.

[kelligesq]

570. Rahm Emanuel at work. probably running another dem against Dennis

[november3rd]

311. Sounds like you know why

Information warfare

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB177/index.htm

[Joe Chi Minh]

314. He could see the game was rigged. What was the point?

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

316. Has anyone stopped to consider...

That Elizabeth's health may have taken a turn for the worse, a turn they could not justify campaigning during, any longer?

Because I would see him putting his wife first.

[memory]

337. I don't think so

He said during his speech yesterday that talking to people in OK and MO almost made him change his mind. I don't think he would have said that if Elizabeth's health were a factor. I think saying that would have made her feel terrible and he just would not do that because he loves her too much.

Out of everything he said yesterday, that one thing troubles me the most. That he almost changed his mind the day before.

[IronLionZion]

349. I don't think DUers ever stop to consider...anything.

This site has taken a turn for the worst. The site is now full of speculation, heresy, unsupported assertions, rumor, gossip, personal opinions stated as if they were fact. It's become the things we hate about internet blogs.

I hope it gets better after the primaries.

[balantz]

375. I would rather investigate, question and discuss,

than just accept everything at face value.

Of course some may think that everything is fair and balanced in the power halls of politics and corporate interests and their property of propaganda, the media of America.

Heck, some probably think shrubby actually got elected...and so forth.

[IronLionZion]

379. Yeah, the candidates' issue positions, voting records, financing, etc. is all publicly available

online for free. Yet, the bullshit flies freely on here about every candidate. It's sick. And it rarely involves issue policy or plans or anything substantial at all. It's just negative energy meant to arouse emotional reactions.

[balantz]

381. Nobody is making you read this thread.

You are participating of your own accord.

I see many threads I don't go into if they are not my interest.

I'm sure you have a corner or two that makes you happy here at the very vast D.U..

Peace, and thanks for participating in this discussion.
:)

[pacalo]

374. See post #336.

Elizabeth's health, nor the Florida primary results, didn't factor into his abrupt decision, according to the blog at the link provided @336.

[Vilis Veritas]

319. Two tickets come Nov...

Hillary
vs.
McCain

The Government Media Complex has spoken. All the other fluff is illusion.

My Opinion.

[lisainmilo]

644. agreed! that is the way I see it too! n/t

[Deep13]

320. Oh yeah, we're screwn.

I figured that was a given.

[Pooka Fey]

329. Gosh. I'm intrigued by your thread.

I came to all these conclusions in 2004. The only thing I can add to the discussion is they (the masters) get away with all their assaults on our liberty because they know that we (regular Americans) won't react. We'll bitch, we'll blog, but the few thousands of people who physically protest the junta's policies will be kept OFF the news, arrested and/or beaten up by the cops, have their names put on the "no-fly" list and that's the end of the story. "If nobody hears about it, it didn't happen."

This whole election debacle is really an enormous tragedy. As hindsight is always 20-20, I can write with certainty now that the time to react to the theft of our liberty was in the 1980's when Reagan fired all the striking air-traffic controllers. The unions and the people should have shut the country down - a General Strike big-time!!!! But we had it too good, and we had no historical precedent to warn us that perhaps one day our American freedom could disappear. Other cultures and countries have seen this happen in their recent history. Now it's America's turn to witness how a democracy can become a dictatorship. The Halli burton detention camps have already been built. They've won. Sorry to be so dark about it.

The only positive note I can add is that we do have at least a 200 year old history of democracy. As it is nearly impossible to impose a democratic system in a region that has no experience of this form of government (for example, the former USSR), I believe it will be as impossible to completely extinguish the democratic system in the USA - as in at the local/city/county and maybe even at the state level. A Vermont secession movement and a new Vermont Republic is being talked about. The national level is completely out of our hands or influence at this point - as your thread so eloquently pointed out.

Just my .02

on edit- nice tag line, ClericJohn - W.B Yeats "He Wishes for the Cloths of Heaven" - one of my favorite poems.

[Andrea]

435. I didn't know this about Vermont.

Thanks for mentioning it. Maybe now I won't have to move quite so far away. I wish Ohio was bluer so we could secede. The cities are very blue, but the rich folk in the suburbs are bright red.

[judaspriestess]

338. After the Kerry/Edwards loss in 2004

Elizabeth Edwards herself posted a wonderful message on DU. I wonder why she/they are not doing it this time around.

[IronLionZion]

344. He was on the ticket as VP in 2004

How can you say Big Corp is keeping him down? To be fair, I suspect Kerry and Edwards might have won that election but still, he was on the ticket. Al fucking Gore was on the ticket and won in 2000 and he's no corporate stooge.

Just because a candidate is doing well, doesn't mean Big Corp is pulling the strings. Money and the media can only do so much. There are reasons why Iowa and NH are first. Do you really think all the corporations are conspiring together on this?

As for John Edwards, did you ever think his reasons are not public because they might be personal? He does have a sick wife who he loves dearly.

[femrap]

414. Gee, with Money and the Media

what could I do? Ever heard of The Business Round Table? The Fortune 500? It's the Rothschild/Rockefellers, Stupid.

If a General can command an army of thousands, how hard could it be to get a bunch of rich, white guys to act in their own self-interest???

Obama was right about one thing....those excesses of the '60's and '70's scared the hell out of the rich, ugly white guys on The Business Round Table.

Check out the book, 'When Corporations Rule the World.' OK?

[swag]

362. "Smarmy."

I don't think that work means what you think it means.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

363. Why didn't he wait until after Super Tuesday?

I am in California and have supported Edwards from day 1. I feel totally screwed over for obvious reasons. Besides... Now I have to take the bumper sticker off that was covering a dent in the tailgate.

No, really... WHY COULDN'T HE HAVE WAITED TO TAKE THE PULSE OF THE REST OF US? He left because of Florida? We already know they can't count votes correctly there.

[polichick]

364. What's the big mystery??

Edwards is horse trading behind the scenes, just like any politician. We'll learn the details when it serves his purpose (and hopefully ours).

[sagetea]

366. Thank you,

for saying this, I wanted to but with the number of posts I have, I would have just been buried.
After DK left, I had one hope, yesterday that hope was lost.
Not that I dislike Hillary or Obama, They seem like okay people, I just can't get behind them.
For the first time in my life, my country just got alot smaller (3.5 acres) and my world just got a little bit bigger.
It hurts too much to care, I doubt I can ever stop, I will give where I can and help who I can, but I'm afraid that I can no longer trust a stranger to provide the help this country needs.
I want to fight, I want to do anything, everything I can, but with all I've done, protests, e-mails, letters, phone calls, was just not enough.
What more can we do?
I really do feel like I've lost faith in the human Spirit, where a person cannot even admit that maybe just maybe, we should have pulled together to heal this country.
Anyway, thanks again for having the courage to write this, may we all live to see the light at the end of the tunnel.
Ho`

[Just-plain-Kathy]

373. I never thought the criminals who stole the last two elections would give up their power.

[rodeodance]

376. Money, media attention, selective "facts" that dribble out. I agree, this

whole process sucks.

[McCamy Taylor]

377. Edwards had to leave, because the corporate media made it impossible for him to survive.

Here is how in a nutshell (see my journal "The Press v. John Edwards" for the details)

One year ago Edwards was second to Hillary in recognition and favorability. He had better numbers for negativity.

The press started by a major attack labeling him a "phony". They did this from January to July. Then, they suddenly cut off almost all coverage, while giving Hillary and Obama nonstop coverage as if it was a Two Man Race. Even when Iowa was a three way dead heat. E.J. Dionne Jr. on Countdown would only talk about Obama and Hillary. To do KO credit he was the first to mend his ways, after the Iowa caucuses. But by then it was too late.

When Edwards came in second in Iowa, his national poll numbers began to rise. Ordinarily, the national press would have begun paying attention to an "upstart" who beat a front runner like Hillary. This would have gotten him much needed money as well as new supporters. However, the MSM pundits declared that his second place finish meant that his campaign was "finished". This meant that no one would give him money, and it actually caused some of his supporters to start thinking about switching to Hillary or Obama. That lead to his decreased numbers in New Hampshire.

Bless his heart, KO tried to correct the harm his fellow journalists had done. And outlets like the WaPo and the NYT and tv news stations were shamed into giving Edwards so more coverage in the wake of his stellar performance in the pre-South Carolina debate. However, they only did this because they knew that they had crushed his campaign after Iowa.

The last insult was when they concocted a new lie in late December and early January. Edwards strength lay in the fact that he appealed to a wide range of voters. So, we began to see the Big Lie "Edwards is a communist" or "Edwards is an angry anarchist". This was spread around the MSM and right wing sites. The purpose was to make Edwards unpalatable to middle America so that he would no longer win match ups against McCain. Note that the most recent head to head polls between Dems and GOPers no longer included Edwards. The MSM was attempting to deny him his final strength as a contender. They probably had the numbers. When they came up with some that showed him losing to McCain, they would release them and announce to the world "Look, Edwards is perceived of as a 'red'"

Edwards never had a chance against the combined force of all the tv news networks and all the major newspapers. They would be damned if they would have a populist like FDR spoiling their good thing.

I predicted all of this--the blackout, "Edwards is a phony"--a year ago and posted about it, but there is only so much that individual bloggers can do.

We need to use our powers as news consumers and voters to tear the corporate news media apart. We can do it through boycotts of parent companies and subsidiaries and by switching to rival news organizations or creating new ones and by outing individual whores and by electing a Democratic president to clean up the FCC.

It is time to return Common Sense of the Tom Paine variety to journalism.

[balantz]

382. THANK YOU!

Indeed!

And that is enough of a conspiracy to get our blood boiling.

Although I for one think it may get nastier than this. If the corporate giants have the need they will likely stop at nothing.

[kelligesq]

572. McCAMY - now that's a plan ! But you do need to make it a

separate thread and lay it out step by step.

Wouldn't hurt to get people out to get permits and picket in front of
the stations, newspapers, media building of the offenders.

Look how successful the writer's strike has been - maybe we need to get some
union help behind us.

Maybe American citizens need to form a union. not kidding :)

[tavalon]

378. I don't have the why,

but then, that isn't the question I'm asking right now. I'm asking what a citizen does to combat fascism, especially fascism that cloaks itself in the traditions of a representative republic? That Edwards left just allows one more peek behind the curtain and what is back there, is more Lovecraftian than Wizard of Oz. We are in deep shit and I don't see your question as getting to the answer of what we must do now. I don't have that answer but I'm asking that question. I'm also looking at contingencies because extraordinary rendition is not on my list of exciting things to do in the next few years. I'm keeping my ear very close to the tracks and I hope that's enough.

[amborin]

383. read the papers, for heaven's sake

all the analysis you could possibly want

for starters:

1. Edwards' message was too shrill for moderate Iowans

they were turned off by the shrillness and anger which played okay in the solidly working class areas but no where else

Iowa was a crucial win for Edwards and once he lost it, the game was up


2. Edwards' ran into consistency problems with the working class types

the 3 H s did him harm:

haircuts.....too much of a disconnect for working class stiffs
house......too large, costly, on a 100 acre clear cut area outside Chapel Hill....too much
hedgefund....to "learn about the economy" such disingenuousness.....also....it was buying from the very mortgage companies that were foreclosing on new orleans' citizens

3. many dems (myself included) were DISGUSTED at his 2004 behavior....he so let Kerry down when K was being viciously attacked....a VP candidate is supposed to be vocal and fight back...say things the main candidate can't say....Edwards turned mute and invisible

He's a lightweight both on foreign policy and in terms of his own senate record

he didn't run for a second term and all the newspaper articles said he would not have won if he had run



Plus:

[erpowers]

388. Disagree Completely

I disagree with you completely. I really do not think the things you stated were the real reason Edwards did not do so well. I think a number of people liked his platform and ideas, but just did not think he could not or would not win. In addition, in 2004 Edwards was silent because Kerry wanted it that way. Throughout the campaign Kerry wanted the Democratic side of the ticket to be seen as the good guys. No matter what anyone told him he wanted to be nice. If you remember, at the Democratic convention, the only person who was allowed to be as harsh as the wanted was Jimmy Carter, mainly because he was a former president and he was not going to allow Kerry or anyone else to make him play nice.

[amborin]

391. agree, few though Edwards could implement his agenda

given his track record....

or win the general election.....too thin a record in too many areas and too many inconsistencies

also---he went back and reversed his decisions and statement too many times....

this undermined his authenticity

true--he articulated some good programs and ideas....so did Kucinich, who also WALKED his TALK

[readmoreoften]

394. Read the papers! Now there's a solution...

:crazy:

"The papers"--in fact almost every news outlet in the nation--are owned by 5 corporations: Viacom, Newscorp, Bertlesmann, Disney, TimeWarner/AOL.
Where does all your news come from? AP, Reuters, and (rarely) AFP in print.

All your "news" is controlled, standardized, and groomed to provoke particular results. If Edwards' 'hair' resonated at all--which it didn't, in fact he totally diffused it quite brilliantly the other day on Letterman--it is only because media consumers assume it resonated because they were told it resonated. Of course, then the candidate's enemies, like yourself, insist it resonated and even offer useless anecdotes about how it resonated with their aunt's uncle's mother-in-law's pet groomer. But it didn't resonate.

It's called the simulation of reality and its what we live in.

[amborin]

503. Baudrillard?

simulation of reality...right out of Baudrillard

that aside, you don't have to limit yourself to us papers....try reading some international publications

[readmoreoften]

520. Well Baudrillard wasn't exactly a fiction writer.

We have been moving towards simulation for a few decades now. New York City 2008 looks more like Second Life than it does New York City of 1988. But putting that aside, capitalism is global and most publications are controlled by corporate interests (although not as tightly as it is here.) Reuters? AFP? International Herald Tribune? BBC? What? The Economist? These are not the answer. The Guardian is good. But, regardless, a few honest news articles overseas will not counteract the effect of a non-stop barrage of disinformation, spin, editorializing, and event-construction from CNN/FOX/MSNBC.

These disinformation systems are ubiquitous: at the gym, at bars, at the hairdressers, at the taco shop, in Times Square. They give the average citizen the sense that they are well-informed, but they are (as they say in Israel according to one of my students) "news poisoned".

[amborin]

531. was thinking of the manchester guardian

but there are others, too

as for fox/cnn/etc....

just don't watch

remember marcuse said tv was a form of 'passive totalitarianism'

[Morereason]

401. Too shrill? Naw, just a talking point. Every debate study group tended to *like* him and his rhetori

You are falling for a media "talking point".

[amborin]

505. not really

look, the voters in iowa had years to observe Edwards

they had a good look, yet he did not win the state

sorry if he was your candidate

[MelissaB]

417. Heck of a profile you've got there.

[kelligesq]

574. Is that you John Kerry? For sure it is. You ARE boring . Edwards was the draw in yr campaign

and you know it.

[amborin]

601. nope, i went door to door for kerry despite edwards

[erpowers]

577. Another Issue

This is another issue I thought about this morning. Look at how the media treated George W. Bush versus how it treated John Edwards. You talked about Edwards' 100 acre property. Bush as a 1000+ acre property and you barely here anything negative about that property. You only here that he is or wants to be a rancher. The media never talks about the fact that Bush only bought the property in 2000 just before he started his run for president. In addition, the media barely talks about how much money Bush has or his family.

[MissDeeds]

385. It would appear that we are losing

the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. I do not want a candidate who is a quasi or neo Democrat. I want the real deal.

[DogPoundPup]

393. Perhaps He Couldn't Compete.....

in the neutered network of MSM for what he was (which is not to say he wasn't Great, after Kucinich I would have given him my vot) but back to my point...THESE ARE HISTORIC TIMES FOLKS. OH YES SIRREE, IT'S SHOWTIME IN MSM 'RIVERCITY', IT'S A BLACK MAN AND, AND A WOMAN RUNNING FOR YOUR PREZ AND OH YES, THE MEDIA HAS TO GET YOU ALL FIRED UP ABOUDDIT! Edwards you say? MSM "Oh that white guy."

[JDPriestly]

396. It is January 30. Maybe it is easier to suspend

his campaign before the February 5 primary than after it. Maybe it is easier to suspend the campaign and calculate the payroll on January 30 than it would be later. There may be very practical reasons for Edwards' decision.

All this discussion leads to only one certain conclusion: we do not really know why Edwards decided to end his campaign yesterday. Perhaps, when he met with staff after South Carolina, they agreed to commission one more poll and, when they got the results, decided to suspend the campaign. Maybe John Edwards spoke with Jimmy Carter and discussed alternatives with him. We just do not know.

[zulchzulu]

399. I am going to lay down the cold, hard truth about why John Edwards left the race

It wasn't the corporate media.

It wasn't the dark forces behind the teleprompter that Ken and Barbie Doll news readers are employed by.

It wasn't the people who were too interested in other candidates who decided that they voted for someone else.

It wasn't the people who talked about the various screwups in the Edwards campaign regarding the hair, the house or whatever else.

It wasn't the fault of other candidates or their supporters that made John Edwards leave the race suddenly.

It wasn't the voters who decided to vote for someone else besides John Edwards.

Ahem...

IT WAS JOHN EDWARDS WHO DROPPED OUT OF THE RACE BASED ON HIS OWN DECISION.

Face it. Russ Feingold nailed it when he said in a recent interview:

The one that is the most problematic is Edwards, who voted for the Patriot Act, campaigns against it. Voted for No Child Left Behind, campaigns against it. Voted for the China trade deal, campaigns against it. Voted for the Iraq war … He uses my voting record exactly as his platform, even though he had the opposite voting record.

When you had the opportunity to vote a certain way in the Senate and you didn't, and obviously there are times when you make a mistake, the notion that you sort of vote one way when you're playing the game in Washington and another way when you're running for president, there's some of that going on.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/Feingold_Edwards_is_running_on_my_record.html

I remember people coming up to me at the Madison Farmers Market Obama table and telling me that Edwards is the only choice because America won't vote for a black guy. Others said that Edwards was more progressive than Obama, even though that is devoid of the truth based on Edwards' record as Senator. Other Edwards supporters were very nice and just disagreed that Obama would even make it to Iowa.

Whatever...

The point is that Edwards ran a flawed campaign. Joe Trippi miscalculated again. I had heard from several people during the Obama table times that had either worked in the Edwards campaign or knew someone in the Edwards campaign in Iowa that decided to leave due to lack of organization, supplies or coordination. Edwards had to win Iowa and should have due to having been there for two years. He did OK, but he had to win.

I remember talking with John Nichols (The Nation) several times about the Edwards campaign here in Madison. He is/was an avid supporter but as far back as last October had expressed that Edwards was not going to go far.

I think this thread makes some good points about the power of the media and how it can turn a candidate's viability into mush. I also find it difficult and somewhat darkly amusing that people aren't looking at the obvious reason why John Edwards left the campaign just a day before he said he was going to take it all the way to Denver.

As Stephanie Miller said this morning to a caller, it was John Edwards who left you standing at the altar.

Support whoever you want. I wish you the best of luck in whatever you do.

[amborin]

604. voters didn't like Edwards

for many diverse reasons

among them, his reversal of one position after another....once or twice can be explained, but repeatedly? it cast strong doubt on his credibility

voters on the ground in Iowa had 2+ years to interact with him close-up....don't blame it on the media that Edwards didn't win the crucial Iowa primary that he banked his campaign on

let's not forget Edwards work for the hedge fund.....which he explained using weasle words that he wanted to 'learn about the economy'

this same hedge fund was foreclosing on katrina victim folks in new orleans

[truedelphi]

403. Although I have not yet heard Lou Dobbs ask this question,

I believe he will be asking it.

He had postings yesterday from a viewer who remarked:"I watched the State of the Union Address delivered by the least popular President ever, and yet every 5 seconds those in the audience clapped and applauded this man. Why?"

This remark comes pretty close. And Lou made comments that were supportive. Somethng like, "Why indeed?"

[readmoreoften]

408. If you haven't noticed, they've turned Edwards into the candidate of "white supremacy".

NPR ran a story yesterday that provoked outrage. Two commentators said that "white men" no longer had a candidate they could identify with, insinuating that "whiteness" was what Edwards brought to the table. As if wealthy white jingoistic Democrats and undecideds (the ones most likely to be so racist as to demand a white candidate) would see Edwards--the anti-poverty candidate--as a kindred spirit.

Notice that Edwards sudden withdrawal was "to make room for history". Now this debate between Obama and Clinton is being called "historic" on CNN and everywhere else: "a white women and a black man for the first time in history." Have Clinton and Obama not debated before this? Or was Edwards' "whiteness" so blinding that it overshadowed "this historic moment"?

Suddenly the only thing that matters is identity politics? Did the positions of Colin Powell and Condeleeza Rice transform the landscape for African Americans. God no. Has Nancy Pelosi's "madame speaker" position done a damn thing for women? Of course not.

The corporations are happy to give us the consolation prize. Global capital itself has no real interest in perpetuating racism or sexism: nationalism/tribalism don't benefit capital in the least. Women are just as useful as men. We are all equal under the yoke.

But Edwards was threatening capital itself. It's simply not allowed. A female or Black president will be our consolation prize. Women and African-Americans will fare no better in 2009 than they will this year.

My guess is that Edwards was told that he could get out of the race or they were going to make him the "white supremacy" candidate. Barack Obama started it with his "a white woman, a black man, or John" comment. The fact that, in this election, the white male candidate happened to be most progressive is tragic, but the identity voters don't care about that. They know that no Democratic candidate, especially one as progressive as John, could survive such a smear (it would ruin more than this election, it would ruin his life.)

That's my guess. But I don't really know. All I know is that everything has that "aura" of being managed again, like it did in 2004 on the night of the elections.

It's not Barack or Hillary that's the problem--it's the system that's the problem. It's the party that's the problem. It's capitalism that's the problem. And the only way it's ever going to get better is if we become offensive and affirmative. We need to be more creative then they have been. We being the democratic wing of the Democratic party, they being global capitalism and its apologists.

I'm turning off my TV. I won't be watching the digital circus to come. This battle is over. We need a burst of creative energy and a new strategy to fight the rest of the war.

[mother earth]

410. I'm standing with John, until I am told straight out that he has a place

in the next administration, they will not get my vote!

You hear that, Obama/Clinton? You want to win my vote, you earn it! You earn it ONLY by including John Edwards in your administration.

So here it is, straight up, you want my vote, give me JOHN!:kick:

[asdjrocky]

411. I'm asking why, and I'm keeping my eyes open.

[Skittles]

415. I absolutely agree

I am disgusted that not only did the corporate media pick our front-runners, but that so many DUers fell for it too

[robinlynne]

420. spectacular post.

[UpInArms]

422. I am not satisfied with what has been said

and I am certain that my tinfoil hat is just a little too tight - with all of that out front - I am going to say

I have seen John Edwards in person speak at least 5 times - he never needed a note to say what he wanted to say in front of him

I have never heard John Edwards run away from a problem that faced this country - he faced all them head on and never shirked a question from the crowd

I watched he speak on CNN yesterday - using notes and making no sense about his reason for leaving the race prior to Super Tuesday - where he didn't need to spend another penny to be on the ballot of 24 primaries - where he had - just as recently as Tuesday - spoken out about being in the race to the Democratic Convention (Jefferson City, Missouri)

What happened?

Why did Clinton release at 9:11 on Wednesday morning to the AP that Edwards had "talked" with her about "dropping" out

and what in the world was that crap that the Clinton and Obama people had agreed to put poverty (after all this time?) on their agenda?

I don't buy it and I am withholding my vote in the GE

I will vote for Edwards in the primary next week and maybe, if I'm still in country) I cast another vote - or maybe not :shrug:

So far, no one else has earned my trust or my vote.

[NoSheep]

425. YOU have said it all. Thank you. That said... i'm scared.

[poppysgal]

428. Behind the scenes

I also wonder at the timing of John Edward's announcement to "suspend"
his campaign. What prompted this decision a week before Super Tuesday? Why was a candidate that I met in person and watched give a speech without any notes and for that matter I really don't recall ever seeing him give one with notes at any time reading from them yesterday (this was brought to my attention by a fellow-duer. I am not attempting to read more into this than what has been released so far but-yet I do wonder..what went on that we aren't aware of? Was it funding?

[still_one]

429. The point is, at least for 2008 this is what we have, and it comes down to

either what the Democrats have or what the republicans have, that is the only game in town at this time

As far as John Edwards getting out, it could have been for various reasons, including the health of his wife

It could of also been because he could see that he wasn't getting the votes. The turnouts were large, and most of those that voted were not part of some corporate agenda, they were regular people, who voted for someone else.

In the state he was born, South Carolina, if he would have gotten second, I feel he would have stayed in the race. He decided, hopefully not because of his wife's illness, that the odds of getting enough support via delegates would not change his position in the race

The simple question for the other candidates is they didn't have the votes of the regular people. Perhaps if they hadn't changed the primary system where every state is so anxious to move their primary up, we would have more time to analyze the candidates, but that is not the way it is

It comes down to pragmatism, do you want what the republican candidates stand for or the Democratic candidates, and if you say there is no difference, then vote someone else, but consider this:

It will be either a Democrat or a republican who will win the White House in 2008. Every Democratic candidate has said they would appoint Supreme Court judges who honor the right to privacy. Every republican candidate has said they would appoint judges in the mold of scalia and thomas. Except for ron paul, every republican candidate has said we would stay in Iraq indefinitely. Every Democratic candidate has proposed some sort of withdrawal plan, maybe not ideal, but it does involve withdrawl.

Between healthcare, social security, medicare, the difference between the Democrats and republicans are major

If you still believe there is no difference, than start at the grass roots either for a third party, or to get new people into the Democratic party

[the other one]

433. Tinfoil time. John was forced out the same day as

Ghouliani to divert journalists from asking why. They were too busy reporting on 9u11iani that they didn't have a word for Edwards. How convenient.

[ClericJohnPreston]

439. No tinfoil needed friend

Only a healthy dose of cynicism and pathos for people that refuse to acknowledge realities that are staring right back at them.

As they say, "there are none so blind as those who will not see".

Humor is not your forte.

[mzmolly]

443. This Edwards supporter disagrees. I'll be happy to support Obama or Clinton.

:hi:

[classykaren]

451. Please read the daily Kos and see what Fox media just did to mon

Montel williams what a gutsy Hero he is

[MISSDem]

454. Instead of getting out your tinfoil hats why not just

acknowledge that it was not meant to be for John.

[ClericJohnPreston]

466. Yes

it is just that simple, right?

Why wasn't it meant to be? Hmmm? Expound on that, please...without resort to M$M talking points.

[readmoreoften]

467. Just like it wasn't "meant to be" for Kerry and Gore. /nt

[The Doctor.]

457. Ooops... straight to the camps with us. n/t

[Jim Sagle]

459. It's very simple, really.

They showed him the chainsaw.

[LibDemAlways]

461. I was watching his speech expecting something, some

kind of hint as to what was going on. When I listened to nothing but a bunch of platitudes with only one telling line thrown in, about not getting in the way of history, I knew instinctively that something was not right.

To me the fact that he offered no explanation speaks volumes. He was unwilling to lie to America, and the truth is probably too awful to contemplate.

[RBInMaine]

462. We are NOT in big trouble.

Compared to what we've had for the last 7 years, either Hillary or Obama would be a Godsend.
Edwards was my first choice, but he didn't make it for a host of reasons. That's all academic now. We have two formidable candidates, either of whom would be MUCH better than any of the R candidates.
Whomever is the D nominee, we all better unite like around the D ticket and focus like a laser on defeating the Rs. And as a white male I think it's WONDERFUL that our party is the party that will be the first in our history to nominate either a woman or an African American for the highest office in the land. And who knows, maybe they'll both be on the ticket. Chin up and look at the extraordinary opportunity we have here.

[Beam Me Up]

463. I'm beginning to think we should BOYCOT THE 2008 ELECTION en mass

It wouldn't work if there was only a minority. But if we could give this idea legs and get millions and millions of fed-up voters to STAY HOME on election day -- that could send a very clear message.

To all those who say this will allow them to put a McCain in the WH my answer is -- that is what they are intending to do anyway and if you haven't figured that out yet, you aren't paying attention. What those who run the elections WANT is a so called "close" election which can be "thrown" in such a way that it can never be proven. What would happen if they threw an election and, comparatively, no one showed up? What if we all went to our respective polling places and picketed without voting!

We want our electoral system back under our control. We will NEVER get that playing the same old dog and pony show political game.

[HughMoran]

464. The PIed piper has played his tune

We must all follow him into the darkness...

[Name removed]

469. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[readmoreoften]

473. Thanks for the heads up.

It's so freakish. I have close to 30 Obamacans on ignore. I don't like Clinton at all--she was the line I refused to cross until I learned more about Obama--but I never had a single Hillary supporter on ignore. I think that Hillary supporters are largely the weary, jaded pragmatic politico Democrats who desperately want to win at all costs, and that Obama supporters are the true Republican wing of the Democratic party in both their relentlessly centrist ideology and their starry-eyed, almost frightening football-fan style hero-worship.

[HughMoran]

476. wasn't I agreeing with your posts yesterday?

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic

[Name removed]

474. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ClericJohnPreston]

483. Hugh

I apologize. I had you confused with another poster. I'm always willing to admit an error. Sorry!

[HughMoran]

493. No problem

I may not always agree with you, but I think I've only responded to a few of your posts.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

472. In at Rec # 165

No doubt we are a "labor farm" for our corporatist farmers. It is time for a revolution.

[greyghost]

475. Time to move on kiddies...

I lived through the real coup on November 22, 1963.

I'm a Edwards supporter and I'm sad he couldn't gain traction but that's the breaks. He spent his life in Iowa and couldn't win and he came in a distant third in SC. He simply got no traction because he DID NOT WIN. The MSM would have been all over him if he had. (Having Hillary's or Obama's $ wouldn't have hurt either.)

Looking back I can see where he made his mistake. His message should have been "champion of the middle class" the whole way. Taking care of poverty is fine but it's like 13th. on the list of concerns of most Americans. John was also tied to the loser from Massachuetts.

He ran a good campaign and went out with class. If you supported him I suggest you do the same.

[ClericJohnPreston]

482. Its the same coup

Greyghost, by the same players.

I always said that the first test run of the the new found power of Eisenhower's "Military-Industrial-Complex" was the assassination and coverup of Kennedy in Dallas, November 22, 1963.

On that day, the power of a corrupted group of military indisutrialists, lobbying for a war in Vietnam, was put to the test. They succeeded.

Ever since that moment, they have built a power base that exyends from the Pentagon to the White House. The current resident at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, is a mere tenant, paying his dues to the Corporatacracy that installed him. His dues are WAR and more War, for profit.

Selecting our President, then is a risky business. They have to be sure to influence all the right people, and silence those voices that are the most shrill and threaten their stability. Unfortunately, Edwards failed because he was a threat to the Corporatacracy, actually naming them in his speeches, as the enemy. This would not do. He was to be marginalized, so the memo went out and voila! No more Edwards in the news.

Believe what you will. Edwards had the right message. Unfortunately, hearing it required a little social empathy and concern for your fellow man.

[greyghost]

491. There is no doubt that this...

country is all about war. Just like the Roman Empire it will run its course. No argument there, in fact it would be foolish to try considering that the UNSC is comprised of the biggest arms dealers on earth.

Even after Katrina, poverty remains low on the political list for many because they feel that private charities do a better job then the government. After eight years of Dumbya who am I to argue that.

John, I believe, was really hurt by the 2004 run with Kerry and the fact that he wasn't taking K ST. $.

I'm sad that he dropped out but can't honestly say I didn't see it coming. I simply wish that his other supporters would show a little bit of his class.

[MissDeeds]

477. Something that strikes me as weird

Hillary and Obama have been acting like they want to rip each other apart for quite some time now, yet tonight, in the CNN debate, they were rather chummy. Why? Edwards has been out for just one day and they are now amicable? That's one heck of a quick turn around.

None of this makes sense. Not one bit of it.

[balantz]

479. I'm pasting my words from a debate thread

I think they were relieved to have John out of the way because they were incapable of following the script with him interrupting them with truth and real issues, like the issue John always brings up about the corporate machine they work for that needs to be smacked, and HARD, so we can begin to get our country back. Cardboard corporate hacks saying all the pretty things to get them in. We'll see how much they will be able to really accomplish for all us common folk. What about NAFTA? What about getting out of Iraq COMPLETELY?

[HughMoran]

485. It's genius

They know that voters are overloaded due to the negativity lately and decided not to feed the media with more to bash them with.

I thought it was a brilliant move.

[balantz]

492. Successfully lulling the public to sleep is "genius"?

Yes, I guess you could put it that way.

[Riktor]

484. My smarmy, non-thinking response

"Corporate America" is a minute section of the population, and could easily be overpowered by any popular movement of middle and lower class Americans. Before you break out your Che T-Shirts (which were manufactured by exploited children in Honduras, by the way), I'm not talking about La Revolucion, but a block of middle and lower class voters using the system to their benefit.

Sadly, this didn't happen. The people ran out and voted precisely how the press predicted they would have voted.

Who's to blame here? The MSM doesn't kidnap drunks off the street and usher them into the polls to vote for the candidates they predicted to win. "Corporate America" hasn't started slipping mind control drugs into the drinking water... yet. So what the fuck, you may ask.

The answer is simple. We're a lazy, mindless, pathetic lot of slobs that deserves every bad thing that comes our way. It shouldn't make a difference whether or not Tweety endorses Adolf Hitler's mustache repeatedly, every night, on his spectacle of a program. The problem is people actually listen to him, and that's sure as shit not his fault. I mean, really. CNN.com's "top" headlines, tabulated by the sheer number of visitor's hits, consistently involve the mental stability of Britney fucking Spears! There's a goddamn war on, and the majority of people visiting CNN.com care more about the nervous breakdown of a talentless has-been they've never met than what the president plans to do about our floundering economy.

People are capable of thinking for themselves. They just choose not to.

[balantz]

490. We can blame ourselves for buying the hype and the skew if we want to,

but the corporate media is certainly dishing it out in heaps, and has invested fortunes designing the meal.

[Auggie]

551. People vote emotionally...

whether for familiarity, celebrity, appearance, and in this election, gender or race. You're dead on, Riktor -- it's easier to rationalize your vote that way than to research what the candidates stand for.

For MSM it's about ratings. Isn't the race for POTUS between a Caucasian woman and a Black man HUGE NEWS? That's why Clinton and Obama get the air time.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

489. The stage has been set

or more accurately put- Manipulated.

At this point I remain somewhat detached from the entire process as it unfolds in it's predictable and corrupted manner. As those who hold out "hope for change" are then left to wonder "Why they were sold out" the answer is that they/we were not. We the people were never in the equation and those that believe so simply haven't looked into it very deeply.

Thanks for putting the straight truth out into the ether. Fortunately there are also alot of people who do get it they just see no avenue for their energies.

K&R

[factanonverba]

495. why edwards may have suspended his campaign

this is interesting

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2008/01/why_john_edward.html

[ClericJohnPreston]

499. Very interesting indeed

So John had to take one for the corporate arm of the Democratic Party. I hope he has the last laugh.

[kelligesq]

576. uh -uh No -No. Dont buy that one. Answer is coming a few posts down

[indigoblue]

629. He was probably forced out by the higher-up in the democratic party

The stupid One America speech was probably prepared by them. He did it to save his party although he didn't want to do it (he almost changed his mind for us!).

That explains why the debate yesterday was so civil. They are now standing together against McCain-Huckabee ticket.

[Lena inRI]

497. Yessiree, cjpreston. . .sharp observations . . .

. . .and my answer to "why" is:

MULTINATIONALMEGLOMANIACALCORPORATAUCRACY

THIS MONSTER has bought out both party's core members to prevent the power transfer to the people.
In other words, McCain versus Hillary. . .the monster's duel of choice is tweed le-dee-tweed le-dum. .
.either one winning is a win-win for the MONSTER. Geezus. . .they're the best of friends!

Track both candidates' donations.. . .you'll find yourself going in the same circle of "friends."

PLUS candidates like Kucinich and Edwards will never succeed UNTIL:
--the archaic ELECTORAL COLLEGE is eliminated by AMENDMENT so real election choices are MADE BY
MAJORITY VOTE OF POPULAR ELECTION on a SUNDAY or national holiday so most would vote (90+% turnout)
--year-long several primaries are replaced by ONE NATIONAL PRIMARY after only 3-4 months of campaigning
--there's an end to ANY CAMPAIGN FUNDING. PERIOD. Free access to a series of debates and rallies would truly make the quip "Anyone can be President" more believable.

So 2 enormous obstacles--the filthy rich and intractable election laws--take away our democratic choice of candidates. . .

So what do we do now for 2008?

ABC first off! And then watch OBAMA very closely. . .I'm hoping he's really a "DARK HORSE" candidate who will "CHANGE" somehow these 2 obstacles. . .HOPE. . .that's all I have left. . .


:shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug:

[stickernation]

498. BLACKMAIL !?

i just read a thread on DailyKos where someone commented that they ran into John at the Tar Heels game tonight.

John was shaken and sounded sad to me; he said, "i'd be debating tonight if i was still in the race".

i am really freaked out to think that John still WANTED to be in the race - at least to DEBATE tonight, for pete's sake, if nothing else - but "something" convinced him to stop.

i really don't put anything past the powers in charge, whoever they may be. i am trying to paint a picture of a John Edwards who "knows too much", in the classic Fox Mulder style.

there are two basic types of blackmail:
1) we know you did something and we'll spill the beans
2) we could really hurt someone or something you love if you continue

the picture of edwards, threatened, dropping out of the race at this particular time really scares me. there is very powerful dark magic afoot and i am feeling it wash over these hollywood streets in waves tonight as the empty words of the two remaining democratic candidates echo through the hollow homes of the media-brainwashed television electorate. someone or something did not want him here and I want to know exactly what that entity is !!!!!!!!

does anyone else here sense the echo of the 2004 post-election "we aren't going to fight for each and every vote actually, john" pullback? when kerry didn't ACTUALLY fight like edwards really WANTED to after the election and obvious vote fraud. THAT WAS WHEN I BEGAN TO SUSPECT THAT JOHN WAS A TRUE REBEL FORCE IN THE PARTY.

:tinfoilhat:

[autorank]

507. His departure was part of the script.

Co sponsor, Iraq War Resolution, Yes on the Patriot Act, Yes on the 2001 Bankruptcy Bill.

Here's the question: Why did he change and become such an advocate of the people?

Here's another: When all three were asked if their term would end with the US still in Iraq,
Clinton, Obama, AND Edwards all refused to promise they'd be out of Iraq by the end of their
first terms. How daring an answer is that by Edwards?

And here are other questions:

Why didn't Edwards once mention the 1.0 million plus Iraqi civilians who have died due to the war due to sectarian violence, etc. caused by the breakdown of that society caused by the invasion?

Why didn't Edwards once mention the 5.0 million Iraqi orphans?

(Reference location for figures: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0801/S00011.htm)

Why didn't we hear about a breakup of the media monopolies?

Because the candidacy was not about populism, it was about appeasing those who care about the
people. Didn't you ever find yourself saying, when is this guy going to break loose?

Well, he didn't but his candidacy sure sucked a lot of energy out of the left/progressive cause
and it was headed by someone who is not throwing a monkey wrench in the works.

Didn't we all get that message when he said he'd support a Democrat, no matter who the winner is.

Here's the phrase for the tee shirts: "The American Left: Had Again! Edwards 2008.

[balantz]

511. A correction:

Edwards firmly stated in the last three debates that he would have the troops out in his first year in office. He even held the other twos' feet to the fire on this issue in the last debate, but they wiggled out of answering and wouldn't commit to doing the same.

[leftchick]

544. I agree 100% Auto! Sucked us dry!

Much like the Dean steal in 2004. When will we learn there is no room left for progressives at Nancy's table?

[Umbram]

510. What are the stages of grieving again? Clearly denial is up. nt.

[ClericJohnPreston]

516. THE IRONY OF YOU TALKING ABOUT DENIAL

is noted. Do you always accept the sudden retirement of a candidate without explanation or at face value? Do you ever ask, why?

I guess not.

[bridgit]

514. .......

[Fire Walk With Me]

524. BushCo have used the tactics of fear and manipulation to produce a sense of helplessness.

And most people won't lift a finger to change something until it becomes personally inconvenient.

[BuelahWitch]

569. Not until their beer and football is taken away

Maybe moreso than their children being drafted into illegal foreign wars...

(edited to add "illegal")

[Clark2008]

552. Edwards wasn't slienced - he wasn't believed.

I agree, in theory, with your point that corporate America has far too much influence on our media and our lives and need to be brought down a peg, but that wasn't Edwards' problem. His was that he'd voted with the corporatists for most of his Senate career and now was challenging that domination. People saw him as a phony because his rhetoric didn't match his (rather corporate) record.

[TheUnspeakable]

556. k&r-thanks for starting this thread / eom

[newportdadde]

559. I thought it odd he dropped out just before Super Tuesday, like quiting a marathon within view of th

finish line.

You spend all that time and money.. sure your not doing well, you realize your probably not going to be president but wouldn't you want to wait out the week and see how you do on Super Tuesday? The timing just seems so strange to me.

[MissDeeds]

571. And especially since he had gained momentum

following his appearance in the last CNN debate. The money was coming in, the media was finally beginning to take note of him, he was appearing on talk shows. And the statements he made just a few days ago about being in it for the long haul... Why quit now? This whole thing is just bizarre. It simply doesn't add up.

[ClericJohnPreston]

581. I believe

he was unceremoniously "asked" to leave this race by the DNC, as they feared he wouldn't let the voting public, settle on one candidate quickly.

Please notice, that not fearing any challenge to their lies or records, how "civil" the tone was last night in the debate.

The losers for these candidate'snewly discovered passivity? The voters who have a right to see and hear truth , which only arises when lies are challenged.

[balantz]

587. This "government" of ours is just a sham.

It exists now solely for the elite. And they make a living off of fooling the little peoples, and killing and terra-rizing the world in the guise of promoting Democracy.

There is no more Democracy in America. There are no elected presidents or representatives, just cardboard props with recorded lies.

[balantz]

599. Sorry for the pessimism,

I've just felt quite let down lately.

[underpants]

562. K&R

because, frankly, someone has to

[Politicub]

573. I don't know about you, but I'm fired up about our choices

Perhaps you are in one of these parallel universes we keep hearing about, since I see two fantastic candidates who would steamroll any of the republican grumpy old men.

Change is in the air, and the dem party is poised to deliver it.

[kelligesq]

578. Well that's a great fantasy. You see two corporate owned candidates

beholden to the 100 million dollar donators each.

As John said " Do you think they gave you that money cause they like you - and they dont expect anything in return?"

And you didnt hear Obama or Hillary answer did you? well Hillary didnt, but Obama
says he never received pac or corporate money..slight ommission on his part - which the Chicago Tribune, his home paper keeps hitting him over the head with - tell the truth,tell the truth (about a different money matter)

[Politicub]

583. So - since you're perfect and all, what are you going to do this November?

Perhaps there is a dem frontrunner that I'm missing? :shrug:

[kelligesq]

585. Not perfect, but I do try :D Voting for John Edwards in GE

[Politicub]

590. Great! Whatever helps you sleep at night. n/t

[kelligesq]

582. Cleric John Preston - Why? mystery solved

John Edwards took a 1-2 punch

The first he was surviving, the treatment of him by the Main Street Media - a gallant fight - and he was learning to work around them by booking himself on tv
talk shows. Nevertheless with thanks to McCamy Taylor & Daily Kos, this graph shows how the 5 corporate MSM's were shutting him out:





Next - the harshest blow:


Everyone including people who have spent time with John Edwards knew he had

trouble reading the words"time to step aside so that history can blaze its path"

he told a supporter at a debate a week ago on tv, he didnt have speech

writers, " I write all my own speeches".

He didnt write that: "history can blaze its path"

Who talks like that? We've never heard John speak like that.

time to google that phrase and see if it's ever been used before



how about "A Long and Twisted Blaze through History".....a book about

The Earl of Louisiana....(politician Huey Long)

So - did Edwards have a visit from a politician from Louisiana?

or

phrases: 'blaze' ... Fire colored balls to make sets of three, but don't let the

chain reach the golden skull or you're history!


or BINGO (and "2" about 500 posts above got it without the research)

Irish language:" Blaze of Colour" -

If you know any American Irishmen they all use phrases and words from the old

country they remember from their parents, like: bolloxed, blaze of colour,

Now who do we know who is an Irishman who could and would tell John to get out

of the race and John would do so ?

Well hello Uncle Teddy

a phone call from an enraged Ted Kennedy or with the help of Up In Arms or some

others, we might be able to find out if they were in the same place at the same

time, or if anyone saw them together.

Highly plausible John was upset by the betrayal of friendship...Kennedy is said

to have been a mentor of John when he was first in the Senate - and Uncle Teddy

really has it in for the Clintons a) because he had a phone conversation with

Bill and ordered Bill to disappear-didn't happen- the clash of the Titans and b)

over a petty misspeak of HRC giving credit to Johnson who passed JFK's civil

rights bills, but HRC did not mention JFK - So Uncle Teddy showed up with his

niece, John Kerry, his son, and declared what a wonderful candidate Obama was.

All to carry on a vindictive blood feud with the Clintons. ( By the way, it is

my recollection that the Kennedys would not allow Sammy Davis Jr. in their

house - because he was married to a white woman - my how times have changed)


Let us suppose that the Lion of the Senate called up John Edwards and roared

"get out of the race - I'm backing Obama and you're taking votes from him.

Reports were that Kerry's endorsement of Obama didn't bother John, but Kennedy's

did. Also Kerry that sleezey piece of work said on tv he was going to call John

after he dropped out. Kerry is capable of talking/writing in that stilted speech

also. But one of them delivered/faxed that piece of paper with the weird

phraeseology to John Edwards for John to read as his departure speech.


Kennedy himself and Kerry ganged up on John to clear the path for Obama, in

order to satisfy revenge - likely the bore partaking in his own personal revenge

since John had not spoken to him in 4 years.

Nefarious? yes. A threat made: could be, but could we believe Uncle Teddy would

threaten physically? Hard to believe, but who would believe a man we have

revered as the champion of the Liberals for decades would do this to John's

career. Was anything offered to John in return for his bowing out? I think that

is also highly unlikely. Just shoved aside by a man he had always admired and

was proud to show people around Ted Kennedy's old office on the Hill which John

now occupied.


What am I (hopefully we) going to do about it?

1) Now I'm not only going to vote for John Edwards in the primary, I'm going to write him in on the General Election ballot.(ant tell Teddy so)

2) I'm going to write and call Ted Kennedy and tell him I had heard he demanded John Edwards get out of the race so that Kennedy could pay back the Clintons for not listening to him and for forgetting to mention JFK was the author of the Civil Rights Bills, and that was the reason he was supporting Obama so voraciously. And what I think of him for doing this to John Edwards and the country when Edwards could be the best president this country has had since JFK.

3) Next, what goes around comes around; spread this all over the blogs. Uncle
Teddy wants to ruin another man's career and opportunity for the highest office in the land for petty revenge - the people should know why they are being denied
their candidate of choice.

[MissDeeds]

592. The "history " remark struck me as all wrong when I heard it

Edwards believed that what HE was doing was historic in bringing a voice to those who had been ignored in our society. To say that he was stepping aside so "history could blaze its path" would be to dismiss his own race as being insignificant. Anyone who runs for the presidency likely assumes he/she is shaping history. All that aside, the phraseology simply was not John's.

In reading students' papers in college, I always watch for a shift of tone or a style that is not consistent (a warning sign of plagiarism). Edwards' speech suspending his campaign was certainly not consistent with how he has spoken in formal and informal settings, and during the debates for that matter.

BTW, I emailed Ted Kennedy the day he endorsed Obama over Edwards and told him exactly how I felt about it. I also told him I would be voting for John Edwards in the primary and in the GE. I'm sure some will come on here to flame me for that, but as a Democrat I will fight for each and very voter to cast a ballot as he/she chooses. I think that's fundamental to being a Democrat and an advocate for the rights of the people.

[balantz]

593. Thanks for giving your effort in sending that letter.

[kelligesq]

609. Occurs to me this dem party has no place for liberals & populists

I wish John would just go over and run on the independent ticket.

The dem party has abandoned him anyway - he didnt drop out - they PUSHED him.

[MissDeeds]

614. The Party does seems to be of two minds

There is the faction, like those of us who support Edwards, who are populists, and then there are those who are moving a bit (or more) to the center. I love what Howard Dean said some time ago, obviously voicing his own frustration: "I'm from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party".

I too wish Edwards would run as an independent. I think there is enough dissatisfaction with both parties that he could have a real chance. And it is curious indeed that he said he was "suspending" his race. Quite a bit different than "pulling out of the race". Was that part of the script, or was JE inserting his own words? Curious.

[lisainmilo]

645. I did the same thing with McCaskill n/t

[2hip]

621. Kennedy wanted to create a "legacy" for himself

Kennedy is an old geezer that wanted to serve his own ego by bringing the JFK civil rights initiative full circle with the nomination (and his endorsement) of the first black candidate. That it screwed the Clintons in the process was icing on the cake. John was an unfortunate casualty.

[ClericJohnPreston]

654. Agreed!

[ShadesOfGrey]

589. I live in JE's home town and I've followed his career for a long time...

through both his losses and his wins. Gut instinct tells me that something is seriously wrong. He's not the type of person to take a 180 degree turn in two days without an explanation, without his staff knowing, without any hint whatsoever. Something happened.

I agree with what you said about his rushed speech in NO, he was NOT himself. Our local news covered his homecoming that night and he was rushed and distracted. He was definitely NOT himself. He can handle losses just fine. I've seen him handle many. Something is different this time.

[kelligesq]

608. SHADES - think I'm right? or you think a serious

threat of harm?

To deny a man his career when he's trying for the Presidency of the United States, and when he's worked for it for the past 4 years could be enough to
really devastate even John Edwards. Having the rug pulled out from you - being closed out by not only the media but your own party.

The powerful Senator is absolutely doing this to harm the Clintons.he's in a rage and garnering all the old Senators, Governors and buddies to his candidate - not caring what it has done to John Edwards. A total betrayal of trust. Been there - it can be crushing.

John couldnt even read those words and tripped over them, if not choking on them:
"step aside for the blaze of history". meaningless. nuts. John certainly never wrote those words.

What do you think ShadesofGrey?

[OneGrassRoot]

610. Rachel Maddow....

I respect her, and some have said she is an Edwards supporter.

Has anyone heard her comment about his suspension of the campaign? I'd be interested to hear her thoughts.

I live in Raleigh, and I saw a brief TV shot of he and, I believe Cate, at a UNC basketball game. I was glad to see him doing something fairly normal, relaxing...

We may never know what happened, but I'm still hoping something surprising - earth-shattering in a positive way - may manifest. That things are not as they seem.

[balantz]

611. I hold that small hope far off in a corner.

I have to have something there, just to know it is alive somehow. Then I just go about my business not grabbing for it, just keeping it locked away precious, because I know it is so very small.

[kelligesq]

612. OK - here's earth shattering

John Edwards had asked Rhode Island to remove him from the ballot.

Within the last two days I assume, he has called up and requested his name be
LEFT ON THE BALLOT.

I wouldn't be surprised if Elizabeth has been reading our decisions to vote for him FEb 5 and keep getting votes and delegates for him.

The dem party we no longer know may have dumped him - but he knows now that
we Edwardians DO. He makes a difference ! If he fights for himself, he fights
for us too.

I am so pleased !!

[OneGrassRoot]

618. Reeeeeeellllly? That's rather awesome...

hmmm...curiouser and curiouser

:)

[AnneD]

626. from your lips...

to God's ears. I want him to have a platform at the convention and I want the candidates to give us more than lip service. I want folks to listen to John and I trust him to cut a good deal for us.

I'd kick if I could.

[kelligesq]

630. Yes Anne. Exactly n/t

[Andrea]

632. Kellie

Can you provide a link?

Also, why would he have previously asked to be removed from the RI ballot? do you have a link for that.

This would be encouraging, but I don't think we can really tell what it means. Nonetheless, I want to know as much as possible about it. Thanks.

[kelligesq]

613. REV, i think she's good too -but thought she was for Obama n/t

[iris5426]

603. Error: You've already recommended that thread.

But I can still :kick:

This is just too important...

[readmoreoften]

606. Kick

We must demand real answers.

[blues90]

615. I have the very same concerns and questions .

[Andrea]

616. I'd like for somebody again to try to convince me that

Hillary is not the candidate of choice the vast corporate machine. They are shoving her down our throat. Check this out: Ann Coulter picks Hillary over McCain. She says if that is the match-up in November, she'll campaign for Hillary, because Hillary is more conservative than McCain.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

[ClericJohnPreston]

617. Thank you to all

Dear fellow Truthseekers:

I want to thank each and every one of you who has responded to this thread, for keeping the memory of an injustice alive and well, even while the National Party is doing their best to hide their complicity.

John may be bound by his promise to them, but we are not stupid, and recognize this action was not taken of his own accord.

So, ONCE AND FOR ALL, LETS DO AWAY WITH THE FICTION THAT JOHN'S DECISION WAS EITHER VOLANTARY OR DUE TO HIS WIFE'S MEDICAL CONDITION!!!!!

I have such bile built up against the DNC for dictating who should be running or not. Lets keep this thread alive, much like the McClurkin thread, to let the DNC know that we are angry.

Lets also vote Feb. 5th for John Edwards as protest over the flavor of Corporate candidate they want us to choose from.

[kelligesq]

619. CLERIC JOHN - did you read- John is back in !!! also

did you read the post about 10 above addressed to you?

I suspect this thread and some others helped bring him back., and I also
suspect that Elizabeth has been lurking.. so glad if true - we have done a
service to a good man and for our country.

[kelligesq]

620. This thread is unwieldy - how about starting a second thread with URL back to this one? u can

use the same header or another....but 630 posts to scroll through is a bit much.
(:

[ClericJohnPreston]

623. Dear Kelli

A campaign, after being formally disbanded and with your staff now fleeing to other active campaigns, renders our efforts here both heroic and the true essence of "grass roots".

I don't know if John or his lovely wife are lurking here, but I suspect, as fervent as your beliefs are, that any participation in any cabinet or VP position, hinges on him disappearing from public life for awhile. The decision to literally come out of retirement now, would be so momentous, it would be on a par with the return of Amelia Earhart.

In other words, I think John still is weighing future possibilities, trying to make lemonade from lemons. He has made a promise which is almost airtight and tough to renege on. I would hope he would reconsider, but at least leaving his name on the ballot would have symbolic value.

The same for this thread. This thread should symbolize OUR rejection of CORPORATE politics,of being forced to select from two different flavors of corporate candidates, with nothing about them to distinguish one from the other, except superficial features.

John Edwards stood for a POPULIST MOVEMENT, which recognized that there were TWO AMERICAS, not one of FAKE political homogeneity. We have an American caste system right now, where the lower class has been completely shut out from mainstream America. That was never the Democratic Party I knew. If winning at all costs means you cut off the weakest among us, I say that is a PYRHICC victory at best, as you have sold your soul for a win. The purchaser?

Corporate America, of course.

I am for the empowerment of people and the neutering of corporations.

This post is for those who feel the same way.

[Silent3]

622. I could delve into far more substantive points of contention...

...but other people have already addressed much of what I might say, with the results being about as effective and banging one's head against a brick wall.

So I'll go for the cheap emotion argument instead: I find the self-styled, self-anointed label of "truthseeker" cloyingly repugnant, and that in and of itself sets my BS detector off well before anything else has to issue forth from your keyboard.

[ClericJohnPreston]

624. You were of a mindset before you came in this thread

and just went for the cheap shot. Thats okay too. As far as any ridiculous attack of the messenger, and not the message, be aware that:

1. It is a paean of sorts to Mike Malloy and his hardy band of ultra-fighting Democrats and

2. It fits well the fact there is an active inquiry, by the hardest core in this thread, to reveal those responsible for putting the pressure on Edwards to retire his active campaign.

Anyone who would believe Edwards resigned for "personal" reasons should avoid all offers to purchase swampland in Florida.

Have a nice day :hi:

[Silent3]

631. "Mike Malloy and his hardy band of ultra-fighting Democrats"

Ultra-fighting?

Caught up in the romance of your own ultra-fighting self image much? The world is divided into three groups, right? You and your ultra-fighters, the evil (or at least crass and selfish) corporatists, and their dupes, right?

Anyone who would believe Edwards resigned for "personal" reasons should avoid all offers to purchase swampland in Florida.

I think he quit the race because he was disappointed with his own results, and realized he had very little chance of winning.

If you think, on the other hand, that the only reason Edwards ended up in that untenable position was because of some vast corporatist conspiracy, hatched in some secret lair where all the rich folk get together, in perfect harmony, to decide the monolithic coordinated course of action that somehow works out best for all of them, decided "This Edwards fellow is too dangerous, and must be destroyed!", then sent the memos out to their minions in the MSM who, fearing for either their careers or their children's lives, dutifully ignored or belittled Edwards in their coverage until Edwards was, in fulfillment of The Plan, destroyed -- then I think that (and even any toned-down, not-so-snarky version of that) is an illogical and very unlikely case.

All you have to do is watch these DU forums, and see the stupid trivia that throws this place into spasms, like Handshake Gate, and it's clear that it takes nothing more than sensationalism, laziness, and a bunch of other uncoordinated human foibles to get the fast-food quality mess that is the MSM, and the resulting focus or lack thereof on particular candidates, no purposefully directed conspiracies to destroy particular people required.

[Andrea]

633. Kerry4Kerry

My professional background is in criminal investigations, mostly economic crimes.

Some investigators are successful and rack up lots of arrests. Some are not successful and get to go home at 5:00 every night.

The successful ones know that crimes are being committed. They start from that mindset and keep digging until they find the evidence. They have an eye for finding what doesn't fit, whether in a paper trail or in a person's demeanor.

The unsuccessful ones always think everything is just fine and doesn't warrant closer inspection. They are unflinching in their beliefs. Everything is just as it seems. When the rare case comes along that is so painfully obvious that they can't help but notice it, it shakes them down deep. But it never changes their mindset. And they always get to leave at 5:00.

[Silent3]

640. You must know that investigators have to come up with solid evidence...

...whereas most Grand Conspiricists settle for an idea merely being remotely possible as more than enough proof in their own minds, count all of the pluses they can construe as being in favor of the conspiracy du jour, ignore all contrary evidence, or even twisting contrary evidence and lack of evidence into positive evidence by virtue of seeing all contrary evidence and lack of evidence as signs of a cover-up.

Unlike good investigators, who generate arrests and convictions that stick, the "truthseekers" merely rant about how the whole game fixed against them accomplishing anything, beyond getting a few others to join them in the game of pissing and moaning about how the game is fixed.

You complain about people who "always get to leave at 5:00". Most of the so-proclaimed "truthseekers" never even show up for work, they're just permanently out to lunch.

It's hardly like I have a view of the world as being innocent and pure until proven otherwise. There's plenty of wrong doing to go around out there, that's quite real. What I object is adamant insistence on conspiracies that would require vast networks of people who would have to operate with incredible efficiency and secrecy and competency to execute an agenda somehow agreed upon as mutually beneficial among the rich and powerful -- people who are fiercely competitive among themselves, not always that disciplined or competent, and hardly in great agreement on what would mutually benefit all of them in the first place.

[Andrea]

641. Of course I do

And I know that the only way to find solid evidence is to look for it, and you won't look for it if you don't concede it may exist,

I think this term "truthseeker" triggers something for you. You seem to latch onto it and have a host of negative associations with it. Out of 600 odd posts, that one word is not too important.

I'm not complaining about people who "always get to leave at 5:00", I'm just pointing out that they maintain consistency more than they obtain results.

This conspiracy would not be nearly as difficult to place in motion as you think.

First, motivation. When one is dealing with corporations, that is predetermined. By law, a corporation is required to put the interests of it's shareholders first. Therefore, the one and only motivation is money without regard for any of the consequences. (That is the main problem with the creation of the concept of corporations - legal entities with an identity separate from any of their members.)

Second, all the mainstream media in this country is owned by five companies. Five CEOs. Not too vast, not too hard to reach agreement, not too hard to coordinate.

I'm just asking that you think about the big picture and not get fixated on someone's use of the word "truthseeker".

[Silent3]

649. I've worked at coorporations, I work at one now...

...and the people I work with aren't soulless robots who automatically execute every direct or implied mandate of The Powers That Be.

I've known very few people who would react quietly or cooperatively to some corporate-mandated action against a particular political candidate. Where are these corporations who are manned with such dutiful corporate soldiers? I've never worked at one, or had friends who worked at one. Even if you could get five media company CEOs to agree on exactly who is dangerous to their interests, and who they should all support instead, and exactly what strategy best achieves that end (which in and of itself seems unlikely to me), how are they going to execute on that plan?

Many of my corporate superiors are good at what they do, but everyone is also quite familiar with the phrase "rising to the level of their incompetence", and knows a few bosses that leave a lot of people scratching their heads about how such people keep their jobs. It stretches credulity for me to imagine either a company so fully staffed with soulless robots that they'd all dutifully and quietly execute on a plan to attack, ignore, or marginalize a particular political candidate, all in the name of the Sacred Bottom Line, or a company staffed with such skilled executives and managers that they could successfully execute such a plan without their employees catching on, or without someone who is both competent and principled spilling the beans.

I'm not complaining about people who "always get to leave at 5:00", I'm just pointing out that they maintain consistency more than they obtain results.

And I'm pointing out that many who proclaim themselves "truthseekers" don't have much in the way of results to show either.

[Andrea]

655. The Peter Principle, isn't it?

Yes, I'm familiar and it does exist, but doesn't refute my argument.

I think you are overlooking the fact that employees of media corporations have even less job security that most people. It's amazing what people will do when their job is on the line.

Also, there are so many ways to coerce people, it boggles the mind.

You don't believe this, but it did happen. Look at the history of the campaign. Look at how Edwards was ignored even though he polled the best in the head to heads against all the Republican candidates.

I just wanted to mention that I embody the open mindedness I ask you and others to employ. I'm going to check out the website in your sig line.

[balantz]

634. That doesn't explain at all why he dropped out so abruptly

right before the all important L.A. debate and Super Tuesday. What kind of reasoning could possibly explain why he didn't give it a go and see what would come of it? It wasn't in his character or at all logical to quit days before the biggest vote in American history, especially after having put so much time and energy to get to that point. It wasn't like he didn't at least have a good gambler's chance. What on earth did he have to lose by going through with it until at least Super Tuesday?

[ClericJohnPreston]

642. You are mighty full of yourself Kerry

so this will be fun.

Ordinarily, I don't take the time to do "special responses", but your post screams for it, so, I'll oblige.

Lets work backwards, shall we? Your sig line, "A new Constitution". Yeah, that old one is just so darn cumbersome and ancient. It could really use an upgrade. So, why don't we pedantically sit around our computers and design a virtual Constitution!

Yeah, thats the ticket! First, some disclaimers. I'm not a lawyer, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. Of course you know I'm kidding about the Holiday Inn, because.......

You're a software writer. A computer software writer. Anyone visiting your site will be treated to such incredible revelations such as, "I'm an American...". My favorite, though, is: " I find myself wishing that American culture was closer to European culture in regard to religion...", in which you tortuously try to express your feeling that there is just too much religion in American politics.

Last time I was in Europe, which is frequent, Poland was still a bastion of Catholicism, along with Italy, Ireland, Spain and France. Great Britain was a nation formed by the politization of religion and the formation of the Anglican Church.

Yeah, wouldn't it just be great if America had as little religion in it's politics as apolitical and non-religious Europe????

Time to knock you down a few pegs Skippy. Though you are not a lawyer ( AS IF....we couldn't see that right away ) I AM.

What you don't know, and so cavalierly put on display, could fill an auditorium.
Though I have accumulated wealth from the practice of law, and know a little bit about what "rich folk" think, I have a stronger social conscience, than fealty to my pocketbook. Therefore, I side with those whose interests are for the greater good of society as whole, not their own self-interest, or the pedantic exercise of creating a virtual Constitution with their programmer background.

I learned long ago how to crush someone who is stupid enough to fall into the trap of assuming they know everything. They are the type of personality who believes you need to change silly American novelties like the Constitution or perhaps, the Branches of Government next.

You clearly believe you are the person to correct me in my understanding of Corporations. Perhaps you want to match your work experience as a software designer with my Trial work against Corporations, the heart of my EVERDAY work. Hmmmmm? I wonder which one of us has a greater insight into the Corporate manipulation of politics?

Do you have such a poor understanding of outward affect and appreciation for stilted speech, that you are unable to notice when a person reads a text which belies their demeanor? Do you not notice when a speech, given to announce the conclusion of a campaign, NEVER PROVIDES A REASON?

Now, why don't you quietly shuffle off to some corner where you can play lawyer and lecture from on high about political machinations you couldn't even begin to comprehend with your closed little mind. Okay? See ya.......

[Silent3]

647. You talk about others being full of themselves...

...yet twice now you've ended your posts with "See ya" or the equivalent, knowing (in the fantasy inside your head) that you've said the ultimate, final, definitive word on the subject, and now with a wave of you hand you can dismiss with a flourish the petty nuisances who have intruded upon your attention.

And this?

I learned long ago how to crush someone who is stupid enough to fall into the trap of assuming they know everything.

Boasting about how you've learned to crush people!? Oh, yes! Come look, everyone! See the Master at work! I can barely type now that my crushing is so complete! :eyes:

Yes, I've admitted I'm not a lawyer, and I'll admit I'm not a psychologist either, but from my oh-so-limited perspective, you refering to me as "full of yourself", and then emiting this sad little rant of yours, strikes me as a classic case of projection.

Oh... don't let me forget the necessary closing that proves the monumental finality of my pronouncements, and which also informs you that you are now dismissed...

Buh bye!

[ClericJohnPreston]

652. A post

full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

You did get one thing right, I did dismissively wave you off. You earned it.

[Silent3]

653. All that sound and fury signifying nothing...

...is crammed into your own little mind, although how it finds enough room to fit in alongside your imperious ego is a mystery.

[ClericJohnPreston]

658. Its no problem

Other than your weak ego and attempt at shooting the messenger, by bashing me. I am in no way the ego you paint me to be.

Do I suffer fools easily? Absolutely not, especially when they are erstwhile "intellects" like you, who judge and then play victim when the tables are turned.

You were right about projection. You do it all the time.

[Silent3]

659. I'd glady accept the judgment of any bystanders...

...to this conversation, who didn't have a dog in this fight regarding Edwards and MSM conspiracies, concerning my conduct and attitude vs. yours. I might not come off as a saint, but after gems like "Time to knock you down a few pegs Skippy", and "I learned long ago how to crush someone," I feel quite confident that I'd fare far better than yourself in the side-by-side comparison.

[ClericJohnPreston]

660. I'll stand by the OP

I'm not fighting for hearts and minds against individuals like you, just the slam on hundreds of posters who KNOW Edwards was silenced, for the good of the Party. Care to gamble on the outcome of that question?

I don't care if you believe we are all tin foil hats. That is your opinion and your right.

However, I will defend , to the end, our right to our beliefs, for the hundreds of fine reasons provided.

As far as my own hyperbole, you can't be a Trial Attorney and not have a killer instinct in your character. I never back down. Thanks for participating.

[Silent3]

661. Is that a nice way of saying...

...you're professionally required to be a complete dickhead? Yes, I can believe you aced the qualifying exams for that. I'll take it that you aren't beyond ridiculous exaggeration and deliberate mischaracterization of what your "opponent" says, if, in Trial Attorney mode, that's what you think it takes to win.

Thank you for helping to expose the dishonest charade you conduct when driven by "killer instinct".

[LWolf]

625. Agreed. n/t

[balantz]

627. Kick!

For the truth!

[ClericJohnPreston]

628. Isn't it great

To stand up to Corporate dogma?

F you Corporate guy and your control of the Democratic Election process. You may think you got John out, but you set off a spark, we'll keep fanning.

And we'll still ask questions. The hard ones. Questions like, who was it exactly that approached Edwards and made him an offer he couldn't refuse?

Don't worry. We will find out. At the very least, we will continue to ask.

[TheWatcher]

635. Another Kick For you John

People need to listen to this. They need to read it, they need to process it.

Most do not want to, most cannot bring themselves to face it. They want to feel good again, and desperately believe that it cannot happen here.

What they do not, and seemingly cannot face it that IT HAS HAPPENED HERE.

And wishing it away in a whitewash of cheap political theater is not going to change the reality of where we are.

We must wake up. We must wise up. We must grow up. We must STAND UP.

For our time is almost up.

Keep fighting, keep posting, keep talking, keep spreading the word.

Hopefully, more and more will get it.

[balantz]

636. Hear here! I'll kick for that!

And John!
:kick:

[ClericJohnPreston]

637. We

can only "hope"... ;) the dreamers on marshmallow clouds "get it", for their fall from fantasy will be the hardest.

[OneGrassRoot]

648. I've been intrigued with how many can't begin to process this...

I'm 44. People my age and older that I have interacted with throughout my life are quite willing to accept - and actually fervently believe - that JFK's assassination was a conspiracy, not a lone gunman. They believe the same about RFK and MLK. They don't invest a lot of energy trying to figure out WHO was involved in the conspiracy but they have no problem believing the government has lied continuously about these matters.

Watergate cemented this lack of trust of government. "Nothing would surprise me," is what I've heard throughout my life when it comes to political events. However, these people are not news junkies or political junkies, so these are rather detached observations. In general, they feel they have no input - that everything is rigged and we have very littl say in our democracy - so they don't expend the energy in worrying about or considering these issues.

I could be wrong, but I believe the above describes the majority of Americans in the lower and lower-middle class (ah, hell, the middle class is really disappearing, so it's hard to classify it any longer), especially those over 40.

Given the above mindset, I have been AMAZED how these same people - when dealing with fairly CURRENT events rather than historical hindsight - negate any idea of current conspiracy theories. The word "conspiracy" like others such as "liberal" has been railroaded into being words used to ridicule. Yet, I point out to them that they indeed are conspiracy theorists with regard to the above three assassinations.

When I had an in-depth conversation with my mom several months ago and asked her why people can't accept at least the possibility that Bushco has committed horrible crimes which were premeditated (yes, including the MIHOP and LIHOP 9/11 theories) she said, "It's too awful to even consider. That our government would intentionally cause harm...it's too much for people to accept."

Interesting...

[balantz]

651. I see this too.

It's like a combination of denial and programming.

The denial of the reality that something so diabolical can occur under our noses and we are helpless to do anything about it.

And the programming we are fed all of our lives to just accept the illusion that everything is A.O.K. in the land of the free and the brave.

Just turn on your tube, put your feet up, crack a cold one and forget about it.

That's a good sheeple.

[Andrea]

656. VERY interesting

You've added a new context to something I have been trying to understand for a long time. Thank you.

I think part of it is just what your mom said. They are afraid to contemplate something so horrible. I know I feel that way, too, but I always find my curiosity and skepticism push me beyond the point at which my fear wants to stop. Maybe these other conspiracies are far enough in the past that they have now lost their edge.

Another part is, I think, that if you believe that recent crimes such as LIHOP/MIHOP and perhaps the "push" of JRE, are part of a conspiracy, it forces you to either decide what to do about it or decide you are impotent. For me, being impotent would be heartbreaking. That leaves me with the challenge of figuring out what to do. And that is not easy.

Just because I am an incurable jokester, I must make this observation in light of the language I used above: Now I know why Bob Dole did all those ads for "the little blue pill". ;)

[ChiciB1]

639. I'm Giving This ANOTHER Kick... Those Of You Who Can Vote On The 5th

should STILL vote for Edwards. There's another thread going and we're going to try to get this done!

An explanation about what may have happened has been posted by kelligesq, and we want to get something going. I see so many names here and I'm sure lots of you still will have a chance to vote on Super Tuesday.

VOTE FOR EDWARDS! He didn't go WILLINGLY! Anyone with eyes who watched his speech MUST know that!!!

[MissDeeds]

650. Something to contemplate

As an undergraduate, my cultural anthropology professor uttered four simple words that have shaped my life: "Question everything. Doubt nothing"

Years later, I continue to share this bit of wisdom with my own students.
I think it bears repeating here.

[Andrea]

657. Words to live by!

Thanks!

[TheWatcher]

662. Another Kick.

America, it is time to Learn.

And more importantly, UNLEARN.


As a matter of fact, I propose not to let this thread die.

We should keep the discussion going.

[Hoof Hearted]

663. they did ask why. n/t

[balantz]

664. Kick