You may say I'm a dreamer

No better liberal ever lived. Even after her husband squandered his good will and good ideas, she stayed relevant and dignified.

Bon Voyage, Elizabeth.

And to honor Elizabeth, John Lennon (9 October 1940 – 8 December 1980) offers Imagine:

Oh yeah, I'm the type of guy that likes to roam around

From a wingnut on an email list I'm on:

I'm really surprised to see that there have been no members of this list leaping to the defense of John Edwards this last week.

Right, Bucko.

There has been plenty of criticism of Edwards on the lefty lists I'm on. While under any other circumstances an affair is between the couple themselves, in this case it goes beyond that, because of political aspirations:

1. Both John & Elizabeth Edwards moved forward with his campaign knowing that this time-bomb could drop at any time.

2. The campaign gave donated money to Rielle Hunter's video company while the affair was ongoing.

On policy points, both Edwards' get plenty of support. But for a foolish notion to run for office while this could be used by the idiot traditional media and the wingnut Right as negative ads and ammunition, no support.

And while we're on the topic of the traditional lazy-ass media, has there been any mention of McCain's shoddy treatment of his first wife, including an affair with current wife Cindy?

David Fiderer at HuffPost adds this:

"Is this another skeleton in the Democratic closet that Barack Obama must struggle to overcome?" David Gregory on the revelation of John Edwards' extramarital affair.

OK, so now we know the new ground rules. The private life of John Edwards, who currently neither seeks nor holds public office, is a legitimate story for mainstream media because he was a hypocrite and because he lied.

He mentions several Republican hypocrites, and that doesn't even include the prize: McCain, who as the Repub standard-bearer, should be held to at least the same standard as a guy who isn't running for anything anymore:

McCain, who is about to become the GOP nominee, has made several statements about how he divorced Carol and married Hensley that conflict with the public record.

In his 2002 memoir, "Worth the Fighting For," McCain wrote that he had separated from Carol before he began dating Hensley.

"I spent as much time with Cindy in Washington and Arizona as our jobs would allow," McCain wrote. "I was separated from Carol, but our divorce would not become final until February of 1980."

An examination of court documents tells a different story. McCain did not sue his wife for divorce until Feb. 19, 1980, and he wrote in his court petition that he and his wife had "cohabited" until Jan. 7 of that year -- or for the first nine months of his relationship with Hensley.

Although McCain suggested in his autobiography that months passed between his divorce and remarriage, the divorce was granted April 2, 1980, and he wed Hensley in a private ceremony five weeks later. McCain obtained an Arizona marriage license on March 6, 1980, while still legally married to his first wife.

Until McCain filed for divorce, the Reagans and their inner circle assumed he was happily married, and they were stunned to learn otherwise, according to several close aides.

"Everybody was upset with him," recalled Nancy Reynolds, a top aide to the former president who introduced him to McCain.

And what about Vicki Iseman?

A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, visiting his offices and accompanying him on a client’s corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself — instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity.

When news organizations reported that Mr. McCain had written letters to government regulators on behalf of the lobbyist’s client, the former campaign associates said, some aides feared for a time that attention would fall on her involvement.

Criticize McCain much? Anyone? Anyone?

How I wish you were here

While it's been apparent for some time that he really had no chance, John Edwards' campaign pushed the agenda to the Left, and that was important, and valuable. If anyone asked, he was our (Pam's and my) guy, because of his positions on poverty and health care.

Today, he said this:

Now, I've spoken to both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama. They have both pledged to me and more importantly through me to America, that they will make ending poverty central to their campaign for the presidency.

And more importantly, they have pledged to me that as President of the United States they will make ending poverty and economic inequality central to their Presidency. This is the cause of my life and I now have their commitment to engage in this cause.

And I want to say to everyone here, on the way here today, we passed under a bridge that carried the interstate where 100 to 200 homeless Americans sleep every night. And we stopped, we got out, we went in and spoke to them.

You hear that, Hillary and Barack? We're listening, and hoping . . .

And he doesn't need a goddamn teleprompter, like Grandpa John.

Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord

This is really late, and should have been covered before, but I think it's important to know that Martin Luther King's son supports John Edwards (note: PDF file):

January 20, 2008

The Honorable John E. Edwards
410 Market Street

Suite 400

Chapel Hill, NC 27516

Dear Senator Edwards:

It was good meeting with you yesterday and discussing my father's legacy. On the day when the nation will honor my father, I wanted to follow up with a personal note.

There has been, and will continue to be, a lot of back and forth in the political arena over my father's legacy. It is a commentary on the breadth and depth of his impact that so many people want to claim his legacy. I am concerned that we do not blur the lines and obscure the truth about what he stood for: speaking up for justice for those who have no voice.

I appreciate that on the major issues of health care, the environment, and the economy, you have framed the issues for what they are - a struggle for justice. And, you have almost single-handedly made poverty an issue in this election.

You know as well as anyone that the 37 million people living in poverty have no voice in our system. They don't have lobbyists in Washington and they don't get to go to lunch with members of Congress. Speaking up for them is not politically convenient. But, it is the right thing to do.

I am disturbed by how little attention the topic of economic justice has received during this campaign. I want to challenge all candidates to follow your lead, and speak up loudly and forcefully on the issue of economic justice in America.

From our conversation yesterday, I know this is personal for you. I know you know what it means to come from nothing. I know you know what it means to get the opportunities you need to build a better life. And, I know you know that injustice is alive and well in America, because millions of people will never get the same opportunities you had.

I believe that now, more than ever, we need a leader who wakes up every morning with the knowledge of that injustice in the forefront of their minds, and who knows that when we commit ourselves to a cause as a nation, we can make major strides in our own lifetimes. My father was not driven by an illusory vision of a perfect society. He was driven by the certain knowledge that when people of good faith and strong principles commit to making things better, we can change hearts, we can change minds, and we can change lives.

So, I urge you: keep going. Ignore the pundits, who think this is a horserace, not a fight for justice. My dad was a fighter. As a friend and a believer in my father's words that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, I say to you: keep going. Keep fighting. My father would be proud.

Sincerely,

Martin L. King, III

I'm pretty sure that counts for something.

And I won't back down

Edwards isn't done yet:

We are the ones that will make you feel better

I thought the Nataline Sarkisyan story was only local CA news. Apparently not:

ABC News' David Muir Reports: The family of teenager Nataline Sarkisyan, who died while waiting for a liver transplant, stood beside John Edwards at a campaign rally in Manchester, New Hampshire today urging voters to elect Edwards.

On the stump, Edwards has repeatedly talked about the Sarkisyan family's fight with Cigna Healthcare to get the insurance company to cover the transplant. Cigna initially denied coverage for the procedure, but after protests and pleas from nurses and doctors the company reversed its decision. The 17-year-old Sarkisyan died before she could get the transplant.

"My heart is a hole. This isn't just about Nataline; it's about all of us," Hilda Sarkisyan, Nataline's mother said. "We fought them, but what about the families who don't have a voice?"

Fighting back tears, Sarkisyan's brother Bedig said he promised his dying sister everyone would know her story and thanked Edwards for helping in the fight against insurance companies.

"This is not right. Not in America," Sarkisyan's father Grigort said.

Indeed. Good for Edwards.

Hang on John, we've got to get on with this

John Edwards is finishing up his "Marathon for the Middle Class" in Iowa:



From the campaign:

Another day, another poll showing John Edwards growing momentum and the strength of our campaign in Iowa: Clinton 30%, Edwards 29%, Obama 22%.

But even more interestingly, the polling firm - InsiderAdvantage - adjusted for second choice preferences of people whose first choice candidate didn't reach the required 15 percent threshold. InsiderAdvantage used this methodology to correctly predict the outcome of the 2004 caucuses.

Using this methodology, the polling firm projects a result of:

Edwards: 41%
Clinton: 34%
Obama: 25%

Way too early to put any major support toward anyone, but that said, I likes me some John Edwards. But Peter Fenn, at The Hills' Pundit Blog, and who is usually not insane, has this today:

His central theme is that Washington is corrupt. Lobbyists and money control the process. He alone can fight it and fix it.

Even if you accept that this rather over-arching, simplistic notion has some merit, Edwards is probably not the best one to be making the argument.

After all, he is the recipient of over $6.5 million in trial lawyer money by July of this year alone, and he and his surrogate organizations, One America and Alliance for America, respectively, took over $750,000 from one donor (“Bunny” Mellon, a descendant of the Mellon family of whom Edwards recently spoke disparagingly as part of the “Gilded Age” of America, though he has since dropped the reference). And, as we know, he never attempted to change the system as a senator.

Yep. Wake the neighbors, call the kids, Edwards took money from 527 PACs. And from trial lawyers. The same trial lawyers who the far right would like put out of business, the kind of trial lawyers who, like Edwards, make Big Business™ and Corporations take responsibility for their actions.

All trial lawyers aren't Johnnie Cochran, or even Gloria Allred. They're also guys running solo practices like an anonymous blogger I know who specializes in employment contract law. Yep, if you've been discriminated against in your job by WalMart, this is the guy you'd go to, to make it right for the little guy.

Look, I'm sorry we don't have goddam publicly financed elections like many sensible countries. Here, all candidates have to be $100,000 per night whores to whoever will support them. That doesn't always predict how they'll behave once in office, Cheney/Halliburton notwithstanding.

But I can think of a lot worse supporters than trial lawyers.

Corporate lawyers, for example, like Scooter Libby and Al Gonzales.

a country boy named of Johnny B. Goode

It seems a lot of people thought John Edwards did really well in yesterday's debate:

Chris Cilizza at the WaPo:

John Edwards (First 45 minutes): Edwards is, without question, one of the most gifted (if not the most gifted) debater on any stage. And, for the first 45 minutes of the debate his populist "us versus them" message really hit home.

Vaughan Ververs at CBS News:

If there was a winner, it may have been Edwards. His answers to almost every question hewed to his populist themes of sticking up for the disadvantaged and sticking it to corporate America. That should play well among Democrats in Iowa.

Iowa Bleeding Heartland blog:

I'm going to argue that John Edwards did indeed win the debate. He articulated a coherent message that blamed corruption, greed, and entrenched interests for the problems America faces. He also clearly told viewers that the only way to enact the policies and proposals that the candidates have promised is to elect a president that will unite America to stand up and fight back against these people. His criticisms were constant, his answers honest, and his leadership potential was clear. He told us how he is fighting for the middle class, and how he's the candidate to truly enact change.

Interesting. I didn't watch, so I have no opinion . . . yet.

You've got to stand and deliver, with your body and soul

(picture of Edwards today at NBC joining the striking WGA and supporting
union members, taken by my friend Bear of Bruin Design)

John Edwards took issue with Hillary laughing about NAFTA last night:

One moment from the debate stuck with me – when Senator Clinton was asked about NAFTA and she tried to joke about charts and laugh about it.

"For the one million Americans who lost their jobs because of NAFTA, this isn't a laughing matter.

Indeed. David Sirota put together this video, showing the laugh-fest along with some sobering facts:



I was invited to participate in a conference call today by David Bonier, Edwards' Campaign Manager. Also on the call were:

• Congressman Michael Michaud (D-ME), Co-Chairman House Labor and Working Families Caucus,
  
• United Steelworkers International President Leo Gerard
  
• Transport Workers Union International Vice President Roger Tauss
  

All pretty interesting stuff. They were all reading from talking points, no surprise there, but I was surprised by the passion these guys showed, all of them. Bonier I would suspect it from, but the others, well, I was surprised.

One of the points they made was HRC saying that:

"NAFTA was a mistake to the extent that it did not deliver on what we had hoped it would..."*

That's pretty tepid criticism of something most on the left think was a bad idea on the best of days, and one of the major disappointments of Bill's Presidency. It appears that either because of ideology, or spousal support, HRC hasn't moved past that issue.

But now she is supporting the pending Peru Trade Agreement. Here's what Edwards says about that:

Despite strong efforts by many Democrats in Congress, labor organizations and fair trade advocates to embed international labor standards into the Agreement, what resulted were references to general principles and not specific standards. And the Agreement still replicates and in fact expands all of the other most damaging aspects of past trade agreements. In short, this agreement does not meet my standard of putting American workers and communities first, ahead of the interests of the big multinational corporations, which for too long have rigged our trade policies for themselves and against American families.

Well. HRC may be leading the polls, and she'd clearly be better than any Republican, but as my favorite Dem. candidate?

Eh, not so much.



* HRC quote from the NYTimes video and transcript of the debate.

'cause it dont take much of the right thing

The food chain for the Democratic Presidential candidates has been established thus (Gallup Poll-11/07):
Top tier:

• Clinton 50%
  
• Obama 22%
• Edwards 15%
  

2nd tier

• Richardson 4%
  

bottom tier:

• everyone else 1%

Edwards is making a smart move this week. On a 4 day West Cuast trip he's speaking before a League of Conservation Voters Forum Sat., 11/17 (I'll be there).

But even more importantly to the party base:

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2007
1:45 PM
Senator Edwards to join striking Writers Guild Members on the picket line in front of NBC Universal Studios
NBC Universal Studios
3000 W. Alameda Avenue
Burbank, CA

Excellent move. Good publicity, good photo ops, good cause to support. Right-wingers who hate unions will be outraged of course, but they're also outraged that as an attorney Edwards helped actual people sue actual corporations for actual damages for bad stuff they did.

Since corporations can do no wrong for the Right-wing base, he's already Satan. Or something.

Good idea, John.