Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Clinton, Obama and Edwards Need to "Put Up Or Shut Up"

Posted by Jane Hamsher, Firedoglake at 6:04 AM on January 12, 2008.


If the Democratic frontrunners all want to be considered agents of change, what exactly are they doing to change anything?
democand
Democrats

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get Election 2008 in your
mailbox!

 

Dan Froomkin raises an important question -- if the Democratic frontrunners all want to be considered agents of change, what exactly are they doing to change anything?

[R]eporters should be asking them a simple question: What kind of leadership are you showing right now? Why should we believe you have great leadership ability if you're not showing any on critical issues currently facing Congress and the nation?

By contrast to the Republican presidential candidates who talk as if President Bush doesn't exist (see my recent piece for NiemanWatchdog.org, Rating Bush on a scale of 1 to 10), the Democrats talk about him a lot. But they act as if he wasn't still very much in charge, still ramming legislation through Congress to fund his war in Iraq and generally subvert other key Democratic goals.

It's understandable that the presidential candidates themselves want to focus on what they would do once elected. And sure, being president is awfully different than being just one member of a political party whose majority, at least in the Senate, is tenuous. But to the extent that part of their promise to the American people is that they will be strong leaders, that they will have the courage of their convictions, and that they will reach across party lines and build working political coalitions - why shouldn't journalists ask for evidence in the here and now?

Very good questions, Dan, I'm glad you asked them. If Hillary Clinton does want to stand up to George Bush, why doesn't she go back to Washington DC and do it? The opportunities are multitudinal. And if Barack Obama wants to get Republicans to reach across the aisle and join with Democrats to carve out important legislation, why doesn't he shut down the nay-sayers by doing so now? What's stopping him? John Edwards doesn't hold elected office at the moment so he doesn't have the same number of opportunities, but he could certainly lead an anti-war demonstration. A march on the White House would be nice.

The point is -- campaign promises are a dime a dozen. If these people all want to be "agents of change," they've got the spotlight and the power at the moment to do so.

In common parlance -- "put up or shut up."

Digg!

Tagged as: clinton, obama, edwards

Jane Hamsher is the founder of FireDogLake. Her work has also appeared on the Huffington Post, Alternet and The American Prospect.


Report: Obama Prepared to Talk to Hamas
Barack Obama is reportedly planning to ditch President Bush's strategy of isolating Hamas, and will instead move to open contacts with the group.
Post by Faiz Shakir. January 8, 2009.
Obama Can Learn from Bush: 'We Tried' Ain't Enough
We will need to remind Obama again and again that for those voters concerned about immigration, 'almost' just ain't gonna cut it come 2012.
Post by Paco Fabian. January 8, 2009.
Rachel Maddow on 'Daily Show': 'Insulted,' 'Embarrassed' By Bush
Jon Stewart and Maddow talk Bush, Obama, Bill Clinton, MSNBC and the Munsters.
Post by Danny Shea. January 8, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
oldfreedomdude
Posted by: oldfreedomdude on Jan 12, 2008 7:24 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Those are exactly my sentiments, neither Clinton nor Obama have shown any real leadership. Kocinich and Dodd have shown leadership, and now Dodd is out, and Kocinich is ignored.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» kucinich is the best candidate... Posted by: undrgrndgirl
jeanruss
Posted by: jeanruss on Jan 12, 2008 7:25 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Edwards has consistently laid out concrete plans for what he will do as President. He has a PUBLISHED booklet on his policies. Corporate lobbyists have stated at Reuters that Edwards is who they fear most as a President because he will shake up the status quo. I am really surprised at how Tone deaf people seem to be about his message. Are people unable to really listen anymore?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It comes down to trust Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
» RE: It comes down to trust Posted by: Basenjis
» i prefer KUCINICH's plans... Posted by: undrgrndgirl
» RE: i prefer KUCINICH's plans... me too! Posted by: Betsy L. Angert
EDWARDS IS THE ONLY ONE WITH A PLAN
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Jan 12, 2008 8:06 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's all he can have. He is not the president. But he has made his positions clear and doesn't just babble on about 'change'. We all know Hillary. Obama is a mystery. I know very little about him. He has to open up very soon. It puzzles me that Edwards isn't the favorite. What is it that people really want? There's too much distraction by the race/gender thing. That's not why we vote. thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Edwards Is A Change Agent Now
Posted by: Luci63 on Jan 12, 2008 8:28 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Edwards has been courageous in demonstrating change in the election process by taking the Federal match. The other two leading candidates have appropriated Edwards' talk on corporate greed , albeit to a lesser extent. They don't make the strong promises to "take them on" that Edwards does. To me, his courage is in itself change! Look at the price he's already paying in the mainstream corporate media. His candidacy has been either marginalized, criticized or trivialized by them.

Fortunately, I've read Edwards' substantive policy proposals, watch a lot of C-Span and tune in to public broadcasting. While the Democrats offer us good, solid candidates, John Edwards is the one who has earned my respect and my vote.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

They've got us where they want us
Posted by: flapdoodle on Jan 12, 2008 10:54 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They know that when it comes down to it we the ever faithful democrats will vote for them, because we always do. Then they will proceed to ignore us and get down to their real business- which is themselves. Nancy Pelosi. Nuff said?
I'll probably get through my usual angst attack, hold my nose and vote for Edwards, if for no other reason than that I'm still a sucker for a good bedtime story.
But for whatever it isn't worth, it's the corporations that are the true deciders now, but that's another topic.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: They've got us where they want us Posted by: left_libertarian
well said
Posted by: cwilsondrum on Jan 12, 2008 12:51 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
any takers out there? I didn't think so.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Tell Me About Their Plans For Iraq?
Posted by: left_libertarian on Jan 12, 2008 2:32 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Immediate withdrawal, phased withdrawal, contingency troops?

Since the war was started with false premises, the troops should immediately leave. Nothing less will do.

Plus a majority of the Iraqi people want us gone.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Shun all war criminals
Posted by: Julian on Jan 12, 2008 7:56 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Which prospective candidates have ever used their position in the Congress to vote for the Blitzkrieg against Iraq, for funding it, for funding the occupation thereafter, or for passing fascist legislation at home to suppress opposition to it? Which ones have called on Americans to support the occupying troops?

The world doesn't have capacity for war criminals, no matter for what party. Who should give a damn about criminals' gender or DNA or electioneering style? And what candidates say they would do as President is not even worth considering if they are already unrepentant war criminals. Supporting them is a deadly slap in the face for their victims and will be rightly remembered.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How the Media Could Help
Posted by: AlexLawyer on Jan 12, 2008 10:38 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The media would do a great service by placing boxes on the TV screen or adjacent to the article listing the candidates' past and current legislative records on the issue(s) under consideration. If we have a right to see the ingredients of the foods we buy and health warnings on cigarettes, isn't our choice of leaders important enough to merit concise, factual information?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The only frontrunner i like is Edwards
Posted by: masterjc on Jan 13, 2008 11:43 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But i would still take Kucnich, Dodd, or Gravel over him

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Clinton, Obama, Edwards; The Three Are One
Posted by: Betsy L. Angert on Jan 13, 2008 12:12 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dear Jane Hamsher . . .

I appreciate this discussion. I do not believe any of the front three "hopefuls" offer change. Nor do I feel "hopeful" as I listen to their rhetoric. An assessment of their records does not inspire me. True transformation is not forthcoming if we elect the top tier.

Edwards has only recently evolved and certainly not fully. Please consider John Edwards on Health Care alone. He admits, in print, on his website, he does not offer a plan for Universal Health Care. He says . . ."Over time, the system may evolve toward a single-payer approach if individuals and businesses prefer the public plan.

Health Care in America; Uninsured, Underinsured, Universal Woes

I offer a treatise that encapsulates my thoughts.
Clinton, Obama, Edwards; The Three Are One

Betsy L. Angert
BeThink.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You could not be more wrong Posted by: JohnMucci
Not paying attention
Posted by: JohnMucci on Jan 14, 2008 5:59 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Jane,

When I think of the hours and hours and hours and hours of accumulated "blogging" concerning the current presidential campaign and the impact it has had on the realities of the campaign, it is all too clear that the investment in time and talk is losing big time. And you’re talking about “action?”

All the blogging in the world won't make a bit of difference in this campaign. Money is the bellwether.

Those with the most money have the power to maintain this status quo and it suits them just fine.

A candidate is an investment and a perceived sure bet is always a winner.

For all of us who actually think that leadership, ideas, character, and vision are important in our top public servant, prepare to be disappointed again.

For all of us who understand that leadership and action are the real agents of change, it's clear why candidates that offer these are missing from front pages across the country.

See Hillary run. Run, Obama, run.

See the black man beat the woman. See the woman beat the black man. See the woman. See the black man. See the colorblind and the gender-blind battered by the media with color and gender hooks. What a story!

See the public cast their vote for the candidate that millions and millions and millions and millions and millions of dollars coerced them to vote for.

Thanks for your contributions John, Dennis, Joe, Chris, Bill, and Mike. You had your shot. You tried to make some difference. Unfortunately, you couldn't raise enough money to win the "race." Inability to raise hundreds of millions of dollars is a flaw that won't be forgiven by voters.

There are major differences in our major candidates: differences in rhetoric, in approach, and in action. If you cannot see these differences, you're simply not paying attention.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]