I had to wonder why the hit piece on Obama yesterday. After all, it was written by someone with little credentials. Now this. Now lets look at what each say.

From the Obama web site:
Bringing Our Troops Home
Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

From the Edwards site:
Withdraw Combat Troops within Nine to Ten Months
Edwards believes we should completely withdraw all combat troops from Iraq within nine to ten months and prohibit permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq. After withdrawal, we should retain sufficient forces in Quick Reaction Forces located outside Iraq, in friendly countries like Kuwait, to prevent an Al Qaeda safe haven, a genocide, or regional spillover of a civil war.

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

Didn't Edwards vote for the war in the first place? And the Patriot Act?

These clowns can say anything they want right now, and wiggle out of it later. Or they can wait the ten minutes it takes for the public to forget what they said. Or they can be like GWB and do whatever the hell they want, regardless of what they said five minutes ago.

But if you want to go based on what they say--just for fun--Ron Paul says he's going to bring all the troops home from all our bases around the world--not just Iraq--and stop being the world's policeman altogether. No one in their right mind would believe him, but if we're comparing stories, he tells the best one.

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

Maybe I'm overanalyzing but to note that Obama's "campaign website lists Iraq as the 13th entry on its "issues" page" seems intended to suggest that he isn't prioritizing Iraq highly enough.

Fact is, the Issues list on that site is in alphabetical order. Nothing complicated about that, but perhaps an opening for someone apparently intent on dismissing Obama - who stills seems a good choice to me.

cheers

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

That's a fact.

-Wexler

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

are what this breed of political "top democrats" packaged by a treacherous media establishment deal in. They will literally say and pretend anything to appease a somewhat suspicious but generally gullible public.

Voting records and allegiances off the campaign tinsel trail tell the story. (Edwards for example is a CFR and Bilderberg “globalist” proxy).

What goes unsaid by the Vichy water mainstream press corp is that the system itself is intentionally broken. And so badly corrupted that anyone put up and groomed for “high office” is merely a bad actor staging a seamy part.(For example, in a real democracy BushCo would have been indicted and impeached long ago)

Talk of “redeployment” and “bringing the troops home” in no way passes the smell test. Not in the face of false “war on terror” run by the likes of who and what these players actually represent…

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

http://www.lcv.org/voterguide/

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

I was going to send the campaign a check by post, but decided to use my credit card online for the first time. When I clicked on the campaign site's link a dialog box warned that the website was certified by an "unknown authority".

When I examined the certificate I saw it was issued on 12-27-07 by Akamai Subordinates and googling "Akamai" brought me to the website of Rottweiler breeders. Someone's idea of a joke?

Whatever's going on, I was certainly discouraged from contributing and I doubt that I was the only one. Perhaps some kindly geek will investigate or set me straight.

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

I had watched him as he debated against Cheney before the last presidential election. Edwards was smiling and being way too polite while Cheney was snarling and frothing at the mouth spewing explicitly stupid nonsense during the whole session. Unfortunately, Edwards behaved like a wuss against mangy, pit bull Cheney.

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

The AlterNet has made a fundamental error in conflating the end of the Occupation with the withdrawal of Coalition forces from Iraq.

This is important- the occupation of Germany ended in 1954, but the withdrawal of US forces from that impoverished, war-torn, unstable and threatened country has yet to occur.

It is very important to recognize, that as circumstances change, the mission will change.

When we discovered that there were no WMD in Iraq, the mission changed to establishing democracy.

When it became clear that corruption and sectarian discrimination had emasculated the Iraqi National Government (IMG), the mission changed to preventing a blood-bath.

As it is becoming increasingly clear that the Iraqis are not really interested in auto-genocide, the mission is changing to preventing Iran from establishing influence in Iraq.

It will continue to remain so as long as progressive forces continue the strategy of supporting marginal candidates on the basis of opposition to the War.

Until the peace movement can capture a major candidate and transform that national debate, the institutional inertia will favor continuation of the American troop presence in Iraq.

The best anti-war candidate is the candidate who is most skillful politically.

All of the Democratic candidates have the right political orientation.

The one we need is the one who can go to Washington,and work with all the stake-holders Congress, the media-including the blogosphere- the institutional government, the public and the political types to achieve the desired change.

The idea that political purity and personal likability is going to transform policy is a myth skillfully foisted upon us by the Reaganites.

For far too long we have let them manipulate us with the fears that candidates with strong, sophisticated, progressive ideas will alienate middle America.

We need to weigh carefully the positive aspects of each candidate for the Democratic nomination.

We must decide which one has the needed strengths, unite, organize and win elections all the way down the ballot in 08.

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

Most campaign coverage is superficial crap. Reporter quotes latest statement from candidate, often at some length, then "gets quotes" (that's what it's often called in the news biz) from the Same Old Sources and maybe (if the reporter and his/her editor are exceptionally diligent) supplies some context from the candidate's record. Then the Same Old Pundits rush in to read the entrails and tell us what they mean.

I've been finding the articles on AlterNet useful, but it's worth keeping in mind that the overwhelming majority of them aren't, and don't pretend to be, "reporting." They're much more like editorials and op-ed columns: the writers have sorted through the primary sources (like the candidates' statements and records), filtered it all through their own values and priorities, and come up with what they hope is a coherent and persuasive statement of their views. They're not trying to be impartial. I don't come to the AlterNet board looking for impartiality, or even for "balance": I'm looking for a corrective to the continuous stream of (mostly) gray water discharged by the mainstream press. If the mainstream press is stampeding hard for Obama and Clinton, I expect AlterNet writers to devote more critical attention to Obama and Clinton, and give more coverage to their opponents.

If I vote, I don't expect the candidate of my choice to be perfect. Democratic politics involves continual compromise, and by any standard the U.S. is an almost unimaginably diverse country. I don't expect to get everything I want. I don't expect any candidate to be perfect. If you're looking for perfection, maybe what you want is a savior, not a candidate.

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

Two very recent articles showing support for John Edwards, I guess Alternet has picked its candidate.

One thing everyone needs to keep in mind, the candidate's platform, their speeches, its all just words.

Words don't do anything. Their voting records do something.

Hillary and Obama have continued to fund this war full tilt, those actions speak very loudly to me.

Edwards, while he was still a senator, voted to approve the Iraq war, he voted for the Patriot Act, and now these recent articles would have us believe he is reformed enough that we should vote for him.


No.

I am going to vote for a candidate whose actions have consistently matched his words, Ron Paul, who voted against the Patriot Act, voted against the initial Iraq War authorization, and has continually voted against funding it.

Yes he wants to decimate the federal government and many progressives see that as terrible, the anti-authoritarians among us should also see that while it will hurt social programs it will also hurt the Department of Defense which has grown to mammoth proportions under the guise of killing al Qaeda, a band of criminals and murders (cause F22's and M1A1 tanks are the first thing I think of when I think of fighting a criminal organization).

In the end it will leave a heck of a lot more money in the pockets of each American and at the state level we can decide what social programs we want to fund with much more accountable state representatives.

I honestly think that if the anti-authoritarian left, who is largely unhappy with the chosen 3 who have been selected for us, registered as Republicans and voted for Ron Paul, we could help make him the Republican candidate.

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

watching from europe and asia seeing tv and reading articles I can assure you mrs.hilary acts as a perfect marxist.
Read the book George Orwell:1984
words have the meaning what the upper upper class want and certainly not what the average goodwilling citizen thinks they mean
God bless America.

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

watching from europe and asia seeing tv and reading articles I can assure you mrs.hilary acts as a perfect marxist.
Read the book George Orwell:1984
words have the meaning what the upper upper class want and certainly not what the average goodwilling citizen thinks they mean
God bless America.

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

No way. You think he's telling you the truth? He isn't.

Friends, I hate to be sour grapes, but there is no way I am supporting a phony like Edwards. He is telling you what you want to hear, and he will only let you down. Don't delude yourself with the promises of a politician desperate in his last chance for electoral office. Please, our party could have someone with integrity.

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

I agree with johnclark. Barack was the only one against the Iraq war resolution in the first place, and there are only minor differences in their current Iraq policies. Essentially, from what I can tell, both want to get the hell out, and soon.

Alternet is bashing Obama because it has regretfully chosen Edwards as its favorite Democratic candidate. I have diminished respect Alternet as a result, especially since the article (essentially an Obama attack) is the title of Alternet’s email, not just an opinion about which there may be legitimate debate.

Further, there is certainly no law against Edwards’ living in a 28,000 square foot house, but appearances are important when you are trying to be the “champion of the blue collar working man struggling to make a living, fighting the good fight against corporate greed”. In my opinion, 28,000 feet seems ostentatiously excessive. For contrast, Warren Buffet still resides in the gray stucco home he bought in 1958 for $31,500.

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

And Warren Buffet was also behind the replacement of California Governor Gray Davis by Arnold Schwartenegger, presumably to break a logjam in Sacramento and push through a pro-business agenda. Buffet's a savvy investor, but politics is about more than markets; it's not neutral to human needs and civil rights. Or at least it shouldn't be. It would be a shame if the Edwards house lost him the presidency (I haven't heard that Al Gore is a domestic paragon either) because far more is at stake.No matter who the Dems pick, count on the Republican machine to slime every aspect of their persona. Personally, I'm glad that the top three Dems are lawyers, because when you're in a jam, you need a good lawyer, and we're in a constitutional jam now.

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

Isn't the purpose of Alternet to generate discussion regarding important issues in our lives? Where else do you get the opportunity to read other people's ideas and interpretation of the major issues? We are all editorializing to a degree when we post our comments on this website. You get the opportunity to refute what someone else says if you disagree with them.

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

Why did Kucinich throw his support behind Obama?

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

It took some 40 years for postwar Marshall Plan efforts to bring Europe around to full economic recovery. Surely nobody believes the U.S. does not have a responsibility to provide some kind of economic support to scaffold Iraq’s recovery from Bush administration devastation.

Economic “occupation” proved successful in Europe and the very culturally different postwar Japan, but required thousands of ‘occupation’ troops over some forty years. That combination of spending and policing provided the stability for a peaceful and equitable recovery. It lasted right up until the imposition of Reaganist economic policies.

The difference then was that money was pumped directly into the German and Japanese economies – now, it’s being diverted to Halliburton, Blackwater, etc.; AND Iraq is being sucked dry with a failed, ideological supply-side experiment instead of Marshall’s Keynesian-style spending infusion.

In Iraq’s current state of anarchy, keeping a ‘few hundred troops to guard embassy and humanitarian workers’ will almost certainly fail, and those numbers snowball as violence escalates in the current vacuum. Embassy workers are contained behind blast doors, but widely scattered NGOs are not feasibly ‘protectable’ due to the very nature of their work.

It’s probably a given that foreign troops will be in Iraq for some time to come, if a viable recovery is to happen. The question for incoming leaders is how to share that process with other nations; and how to ensure the recovery percolates down to ordinary Iraqis, rather than inflating already-wealthy bank accounts – foreign and domestic.

It would be nice to see candidates grilled on some of those key process issues nobody seems to be touching -- issues that will ultimately impact U.S. and Iraqi citizens far more than troop level variations:

First and foremost: how will they work with Congress on legislation to correct Executive/party power abuse and strengthen checks and balances?

How will they roll back Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and restore a progressive tax system?

How will they support eventual transition to single-payer healthcare and correct Bush’s Medicare prescription drug corporate welfare project?

How will they work to strengthen Social Security and place its trust fund off-limits?

How will they work to reduce the impact of slave labor camps – overseas and domestically?

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

Benjamin Franklin's son, the Royal governor of New Jersey, tried to prevent war with Great Britain, which he feared would be a bloodbath.

His home was burned by the Sons of Liberty, which could not have hurt as much as his father's distance.

It is interesting to read why people are attracted to scraps of Paul's philosophy. But the whole cloth seems uncaring and dangerous to me.

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

I guess I've been around a few more years than Joshua, and become more cynical. But Joshua should be old enough to ignore the speeches by now. Doesn't he recall W claiming he'd be hands off on foreign affairs? Doesn't he recall W claiming he had full confidence in Rumsfeld, when he had already chosen his successor? Or Johnson's claim that if Vietman fell the neighboring countries would follow like dominoes? Or Nixon's claim of a secret plan to exit Vietnam? The only thing of value is the candidate's actual voting record. And we know how Edwards voted, he voted for war. And we also know how Iowa voted, they voted for war.

And neither Iowa nor Edwards is worth anything to me as a result.

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

We actually call it "family planning".

Your steer to the website told me that he is an OB GYN. He said that he never treated anyone with a medical need for an abortion.

Wanting to feed and educate the children you already have doesn't matter to him.

I worry about illegal immigration's contribution to population growth. The Mexican government broke with the Church way back in the Mexican Revolution, and now supports the availability of family planning. Recent Mexican American immigrant famililes have larger families than their counterparts who stay in Mexico!

But anti- illegal immigrant rhetoric from those who don't get the negatives of unsustainable population, whether from Ron Paul or Mormon- (highest US rates along with Muslims and quiverkeepers or whatever) Mitt Romney appall me.

Romney seems to think that you can have as many as you can afford. NO It is what the earth can afford.

Thanks for the website tip. I've smiled at countless signs and bumper stickers. Ignorance is bliss.

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

Remember that Nixon promised that he would get us out of Vietnam. He kept us in there for 5 more years.

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

MY EXACT SENTIMENTS. WEX IS OVERLY CRITICAL. HE OBVIOUSLY IS NOT A PROGRESSIVE. I LIKE KUCINICH. HE IS FOR THE PEOPLE LIKE NADAR HAS ALWAYS BEEN. JOHN EDWARDS HAS MATURED INTO A VERY PROGRESSIVE POLITICIAN. EDWARDS WILL GET MY VOTE. IF THE PUBLIC IS TOO STUPID TO PICK HIM, THEN I WILL GO GREEN. SO WEXLER UNDERSTAND IT IS NOT ALTERNET THAT HAS INFLUENCED MOST EDWARDS SUPPORTERS. WE ARE JUST SMART ENOUGH TO KNOW WHATS BEST FOR THE COUNTRY. HIS WAR WILL BE AGAINST BIG CORPORATIONS SCREWING WE THE PEOPLE. WE ARE TIRED OF THE FASCIST STATE OUR COUNTRY HAS BECOME. THE DANCER

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

If basis for your 08 choice is Iraq war or some other issue that is dear to you then you can capture the same with your opinion vote here:

http://www.ireachable.com/vote

use story/tag line to capture the basis. Alternatively you can use org/interest affinities to capture issue group or work/professional affinity to help group your vote with others of similiar affinity.

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

Coming from a progressive website, this article is appalling and chilling. You have cut the most important American in history, especially current history, out of the picture—Dennis Kucinich. And by doing this, you have become a neocon darling and a product of your programming. You are doing the corporate CEOs work for them—way to go! They’ve got Americans believing they can’t have what is best for them. And what is best for them has GOT to be Kucinich over Edwards and definitely over Clinton and Obama.
What in the hell does a person have to do to get our support and respect? In this case, evidentally, it is to be good looking and “marketable”. Evidentally, being the only one in Congress with the guts and integrity to actually bring up charges of impeachment against Cheney isn’t getting our attention, much less a show of appreciation or allegiance. Maybe Edwards was truly upset about Kerry’s throwing in the towel but he didn’t stand up at the time when it mattered and make a big stink about it so that Americans could be alerted to the present danger. Kucinich would have. Kucinich has proved time and time again that he won’t cow down in the face of pressure and he won’t compromise his integrity.
Since he has stood up to big banking and big energy, and against war, against NAFTA, for Universal Health Care for All, and so much more but especially since he makes such a strong stand against the continuation of this corrupt administration, the mainstream corporate media has put the word out… “don’t mention Kucinich and frame everything as though he doesn’t exist”—when in fact, he is coming out on top in many important polls. And you can see his approval rating every time he gets a chance to speak in the debates. COME ON PEOPLE! Wake up! It is DENNIS KUCINICH THAT DESERVES OUR GRATITUDE AND SUPPORT…at least through the primaries! Especially over the supposed “top three democrats” (NOT). These “top three” are being manufactured for us by corporate media…OF COURSE. GEEZ. And Edwards is now stealing Kucinich’s message…to edge him out, OF COURSE.

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

Early in the campaign I remember the major media pushing out the ridiculous story about Edwards' expensive hair cut. As if other politicans did not spend a lot on hair cuts, limos, hotels, etc. Plus I remember conservative talking heads like Ann Coulter falsely suggesting that Edwards was gay.

A hit piece was put out against Obama as well, Fox repeated lies about him being Muslim and attending a Muslim school when young. Plus the media continues to use his middle name as a word play to associate Obama with Saddam Hussein.

Clearly the overall conversative media bias is heavily favorable towards Clinton. Look at the polls and you'll see why. Clinton polls poorly against most Republican candidates. This is because Repulicans unite against her and also because many progressive Dems don't trust her.

Are Alternet articles tending to support Edwards more lately? I'd say yes, but based on their platforms.

The bigger question is does this favorable coverage even come close to the amount of favorable coverage provided on Hillary and to a lesser extent on Obama in the news? No way.

If we are going to talk about media bias towards candidates, look at all the media. Many times Alternet seeks to cover stories and provide information on candidates and issues ignored by mass media. So it's really no surprise to me that Alternet recently has been covering Edwards.

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

John Edwards comes nowhere near their (Kucinich's and Richardson's) position. sorry, i know this is an urgent plug-in for your man, but this is unfounded trash. "combat troops" this "brigade" that, what about the 180,000 private contractors? and how can you call their positions similar when edwards can't pledge (you mention that obama and clinton won't pledge but john won't either) to get everyone out by 2013. it's all bullshit and it completely discredits anything that edwards has to say.

i'm supporting kucinich to the end and don't care which of these other posers ends up fighting (or working, or asking politely) to "represent" our rights.

anyway, richardson's plan doesn't call for a concurrent influx of reparations for 18 years of devastation, as kucinich's does. big difference there as well.

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

If John Edwards would be elected President and was sincere about getting us out of Bush's "Hell Hole War" in Iraq and was able to make it a reality, he would go down in history as "The Greatest President" this country ever had. I think he would have to revamp our sordid outlook regarding Foreign Policy also - he is the man for the job - GO JOHN GO!

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

I guarantee no matter what the Dems say in this election, the US will not pull out of Iraq.

The oil fields have been taken over by US contractors and their mercs. Any Iraqi in the oil business has been shut up, shut out, or died mysteriously in a car accident (shot to bits by US mercs, if reports are any indication). If the actual US military leaves Iraq will take back the oil fields and nationalize them. The USA will not allow that to happen, ever.

Face it.

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

The top Dems wont bring home our troops from Iraq fast enough. They won't bring home our troops from all around the world. They won't "take anything off the table" in regards to Iran. In short none of them are the pro-peace candidate that liberals desire. Who is? Ron Paul. IMO he's the only choice for true liberals. Why? Because he's pro peace and he's pro freedom. None of the top Dems are. One must also realize that although he is a libertarian he is pragmatic about social programs. Ending them is not a top priority for him. Ending the war is.

Kucinich/Gravel amount to "protest votes" - Voting for Paul amounts to a revolution. We can change the world. We can have peace & freedom. The time is now.

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

Wow there are only two who say cut and run and leave iraq to sort out iraq. That would probably be because that idea would be disgusting you declared a party in Bhagdad. The UK wrote the invitations but we've had our fil and cos youe forced this madness on the the host you can help them clear up the mess.

Slow withdrawl which maybe be costly is whats called for. Iraq army is blatant turd burger so the tribes need to fill the void where possible, bhagdad is a blatant hole never to be fully healed but the US is responsible for the fag burns there so buy some new carpet and take responsibility

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

We could use a lefty TV station and the weather channel looks to be going on the block. I found this on msnbc's site.

The Weather Channel is up for sale by its privately held parent, which is seeking more than $5 billion for the U.S. cable television channel and its Web site, The New York Times said on Thursday.

Media companies such as NBC, a unit of General Electric Co., News Corp., and Comcast Corp are interested in The Weather Channel and its popular Web site, weather.com, the report said.

The sale is part of a potential break-up of the Weather Channel’s parent, Landmark Communications, a privately held company based in Norfolk, Virginia, that owns community newspapers and other media assets, according to the report.

The Weather Channel — including its popular Web site — would be the most prized asset in a sale. Viewers of its time-sensitive weather coverage are less likely to record the channel's shows and skip commercials when they replay them later, making it popular among advertisers.

The Weather Channel has also drawn viewers with programming about hot-button issues on the environment and climate change.

Think cooling off those 'hot buttons' could be a factor in the sale? Isn't it nice what money can buy?

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

Here's a good blogpost by The Indypendent's John Tarleton.

"Imagine this scenario: It’s your second presidential campaign. You have been running for the job almost non-stop for five years. You’ve reinvented yourself as a left-of-center populist and have staked all your hopes on winning the Iowa caucuses where you have had success in the past. You’ve raised $30 million but that’s only a fraction of what your two leading celebrity opponents have generated. With Judgment Day fast approaching you are running a close third but the momentum seems to be shifting away from you. What do you do?

For John Edwards, the answer is to throw a Hail Mary to the party’s activist base by becoming the first “top-tier” presidential candidate to call for rapid withdrawal of almost all U.S. forces from Iraq. Like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, Edwards has supported keeping tens of thousands of U.S. troops in Iraq at least until 2013. But now, this morning’s New York Times reports Edwards saying that he would remove all but a token force of U.S. troops within the first 10 months of his administration..."

Read the rest of the post below:
http://www.indypendent.org

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

From Reuters, January 3, 2008:

"Mean temperatures were above average across Australia every month last year except June and December. Recognizing the threat from climate change, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd ratified the Kyoto climate pact as his first official act after he was sworn into office early last month."

That means the United States is the last holdout not to ratify Kyoto.

The fact that the national narrative is focused on Iraq instead of the dire situation our country is in, because of policy with regard to transportation and energy production forced upon us by national corporations, is reprehensible. Our dialogue should be about global warming and the need to drastically reverse and regulate industrial practices in order to begin to develop transportation and energy production systems that don’t destroy the life giving composition of the atmosphere. But no, our attention is focused on a war that was thrust upon us by a terrorist attack that was never effectively investigated so that attention could be diverted away from the catastrophe the corporations of this country consigned every American citizen to endure. The national dialogue should be about reigning in the corporations and establishing environmentally sound practices for building infrastructure. The infrastructure we now have in the United States will never endure and may extinguish the lives of all Americans who depend on it. That should be our national dialogue. But that would mean confronting corporations which is as we all know is very dangerous business. Do any of the candidates address this issue? No because to do so would forfeit any and all corporate support and from their point of view doom their candidacy. So the only candidates we have are the ones who play to the tune of the corporate piper. This is a popularity contest and has nothing to do with real issues!

Screw the war in Iraq. It was an illegal war, a war that drove the U.S. into debt, a war that was initiated by a false flag terrorist attack on U.S. interests, a war where service men and women committed atrocities on Iraqi men, women and children while their superiors encouraged them, a war of oil asset acquisition by American corporations, A war where mercenaries sprouted by the thousands, a war that should never have happened.

Now let’s forget about it. The threat to our lives, the lives of our children and the lives of those not yet born is global climate change. We need to hear from one candidate about what he or she is going to do about that. The Iraq war should be abandoned immediately and turned over to the people that live there. If Al Qaeda takes it over, so be it. The United States should make reparations to Iraq for the calamity it caused them and that should be the end of it. We need to deal with global warming because that is what is going to kill us, not Iraqis, not Al Qaeda, not terrorists. What is going to kill us is global warming and we had better put everything else aside and deal with that. Our American corporations have sold us down a tragic river and provide nota single remedy for the cataclysm they have caused us. All public works functions have to be brought under the regulation of the communities they serve or we will not live to see our children born or grow up. Telecommunication needs to be regulated by the federal government so that there can remain the free flow of information. Energy has to be regulated by the States and Federal government so that it serves the interest of the local communities without degrading them. Transportation has to be regulated by the States and federal government in order to ensure that the mobility of the country not only today but well into the future. We need to immediately stop using fossil fuels and transition to non carbon based alternatives, not in a century, not in a decade but right now. These are the issues facing us. Wake up America!

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

First of all, kudos to Joshua Holland for wading into the comments to vigorously defend his position, and to Alternet, which remains a great site. Please show some tolerance, people - that is the very basis of true Democracy!

Secondly, sorry Joshua (love your stuff) but you are wrong. I understand the temptation to only canvas supposedly "electable" candidates, and Edwards may look the best from that perspective, but that's really not good enough right now is it?

You say Edwards only wants a single "brigade of 3,500 to 5,000 troops to protect the embassy and possibly a few hundred troops to guard humanitarian workers." Well, that is still not a complete pullout. You ridicule Obama and Clinton for leaving troops to protect the bases, but then you argue that it's OK for Edwards to leave troops to protect the so-called "Embassy" (actually a monolothic stronghold of power). How's that logic work?

The only "positive" (if you can call it that) in Edwards' plan is that it is totally unworkable: such a small US presence would certainly come under very heavy fire (from the Mehdi Army if nobody else) and the US troops would have to withdraw quickly or be annihilated. The precious multi-million-dollar "Embassy" would either be destroyed or become the stronghold of a new authoritarian government.

I doubt the Joint Chiefs of Staff would even sign off on such a plan. Would YOU want to be one of the grunts left guarding Saddam's former palace in such circumstances?

To me (an Australian observer) this coming 2008 US election is already lost because so-called US "progressives" really haven't done enough in the past 8 years to deliver a viable alternative to the standard two-party military-industrial agenda. Ron Paul is a moonbat who will never become GOP candidate, let alone Prez, and Dennis K. remains unelectable because he has not had enough support (the UFO talk didn't help either, but that's Dennis for you). Of course Nancy Pelosi must bear a lot of the blame for failing to fulfill the hopes and dreams of so many hard-working progressives, the people who delivered both House and Senate.

So the eternal dilemma with US politics remains - do you try to change the Dems from within, or give up on the whole corrupt system? Either way, it's already too late for real change in 2008. A pity.

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

Edwards was an early and eager supporter of the oil piracy in Iraq and Bush's Enabling Act, the Patriot act. He’s still supporting the oil wars and opposes a total US pullout from Europe, Latin America, Africa, Asia, the Mideast and etc. He is not for a total cutoff of aid to the Apartheid zionist regime. Last summer he agreed with HRC and Obama that US forces would have to remian in Iraq until at least 2013. Was he lying then or is he lying now.

Until outed by the NY Times he was a corporate officer and investor in a company foreclosing on Katrina victims. Now he's the 'champion of working people." Was he lying then or is he lying now.

He’s a pigheaded opponent of samesex marriage. He claims to be a champion of GLBT folk. Was he lying then or is he lying now.

Anyone older that eight or nine years old who believes campaign promises is not that much older than eight or nine.

With Democrats like these who needs Republicans.

A Republican candidate is a loud-mouthed baboon in a people suit with a theocratic christian attached at the hip. A Democratic candidate is a Republican candidate in drag.

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

A Vote of Confidence Amendment will enable the American voting public to dismiss any elected official who fails in their obligation to serve the people of the United States.

VOCA, now

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

Remember that scene near the end of "Lawrence of Arabia" where the Arab League is meeting in Damascus? At the crowning moment, when autonomy and destiny were within a hands grasp, the knives came out and the allies dissolved into chaos. Allenby had to "do nothing" to secure the city for the Europeans. All of the Obamites, the Edwardians, and the Clintonistas need to take a deep breath and remember who the real enemy is.

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

Hillary Clinton:

To help our forces recover from Iraq and prepare them to confront the full range of twenty-first-century threats, I will work to expand and modernize the military so that fighting wars no longer comes at the expense of deployments for long-term deterrence, military readiness, or responses to urgent needs at home.

John Edwards:

I will double the budget for recruitment and raise the standards for the recruitment pool so that we can reduce our reliance on felony waivers and other exceptions. In addition, I will increase our investment in the maintenance of our equipment for the safety of our troops.

Barack Obama:

To renew American leadership in the world, we must immediately begin working to revitalize our military. A strong military is, more than anything, necessary to sustain peace. . . .

We must use this moment both to rebuild our military and to prepare it for the missions of the future. . . . We should expand our ground forces by adding 65,000 soldiers to the army and 27,000 marines. . . .

I will not hesitate to use force, unilaterally if necessary, to protect the American people or our vital interests whenever we are attacked or imminently threatened.

We must also consider using military force in circumstances beyond self-defense in order to provide for the common security that underpins global stability -- to support friends, participate in stability and reconstruction operations, or confront mass atrocities.

http://tinyurl.com/2y4zs8

End the madness. Don't vote for these war hawks.

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

Edwards Veers Hard Right

by Michael Carmichael

Global Research, January 24, 2007
Planetary movement and GlobalResearch.ca

In a shocking development, John Edwards cast aside his progressive veneer and veered to the hard right to support the escalation of Bush’s wars in the Middle East to engulf Iran.

During a lamentable speech he made in Tel Aviv, Edwards sanctioned a US war against Iran; denied the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group (ISG) and bashed the Palestinian people.

According to a report on the website, TotallyJewish.com, John Edwards proclaimed his support for the neoconservative agenda of the Israel Lobby, and he even echoed the bellicose rhetoric of George Bush vis a vis Iran - “Hinting to possible military action.”

In his speech before the Herzilya Conference in Tel Aviv, John Edwards echoed the neoconservative ideology of George W. Bush who is threatening to bomb Iran. In Israel, Edwards is now regarded as a strong supporter for American military intervention in Iran and the de facto expansion of the war in Iraq that would then engulf Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan in a flaming arc of war, terrorism and ultra-violence.

Edwards’ position on Iran places him to the right of Bush’s newly installed Secretary of Defense, William Gates, who warned the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that any such expansion of the war into Iran would have, “devastating consequences.”

Additionally, Edwards criticized Syria for not doing enough to prove it was serious about negotiating the return of the Golan Heights in exchange for its help in fostering peace between Israel and the Palestinians and stabilizing the increasingly turbulent situation inside Iraq.



Edwards Veers Hard Right

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

Senator John Edwards:

It’s a great privilege for me to be able to participate in this conference which has played an important role in bringing people together from all walks of life. The Herzliya Conference is a great forum for what is happening in Israel.

I am aware that it was at this conference that PM Ariel Sharon gave his courageous speech outlining his disengagement. He helped Israel face some of its major challenges.

Throughout his career and public service Sharon has shown courage, including his historic decision to evacuate Gaza. More than anyone else, Sharon has, in my judgment, believed that a strong Israel is a safe Israel and that Israel needs to defend itself against security threats.

Entire speech here:
Edwards at Herzliya 2007

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

It's not worth wasting one's time thinking about politicians like Edwards. The fact that he seems "likeable" on a personal level means nothing at all when it comes to evaluating his politics.

His politics should be thought of like this: on some domestic issues, he's better than most Democrats. On foreign policy, he's no better than a Republican. In fact, almost all Democrats are no better than Republicans on foreign policy. That's why it's a waste of time thinking about them.

Edwards failed to confront Cheney about his continued financial stake in Halliburton in the VP debate. That's true, but that's the least of it. He also didn't confront him about:

# Enron
# the 'missing' WMD
# the contents of the secret Energy task force discussions
# Gitmo and torture
# On a historical note, he let Cheney claim that "75000 were killed in El Salvador..." -- This was really rich, because Cheney was implying that the US was somehow opposed to those who did the killing in El Salvador. Actually, the US backed the death squads every step of the way. And Edwards just sat there and said nothing.

In sum, Edwards is a typical worthless Democrat. He is pretty & has a nice manner, and to be sure, there are even worse Democrats (of which Kerry is surely one). But all pro-war Democrats should simply be written off. They are unworthy of support. If Kerry & Edwards had been elected last year, the US would still be squandering billions of dollars & murdering people in Iraq, & still claiming that this was all part of the "war on terror." That's what Kerry & Edwards promised in their campaign.

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

John Edwards, the Smiling Hawk
by Stephen Zunes

---snip---

In September 2002, in the face of growing public skepticism of the Bush administration's calls for an invasion of Iraq, Edwards rushed to their defense in an op-ed article published in the Washington Post. In his commentary, Edwards claimed that Iraq, which had been successfully disarmed several years earlier, was actually "a grave and growing threat," and Congress should therefore "endorse the use of all necessary means to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction." Claiming that U.S. national security "requires" that Congress grant President Bush unprecedented war powers, he further insisted, "We must not tie our own hands by requiring Security Council action ..."

The Bush administration was so impressed with Edwards' arguments that they posted the article on the State Department website.

Two weeks later, Edwards joined Kerry in authorizing Bush to attack Iraq whenever and under whatever circumstances he chose. When the invasion went forward – despite Iraq's belated cooperation with United Nations inspectors and the absence of any signs of recent weapons of mass destruction (WMD) activity – Edwards joined Kerry in supporting a Republican-sponsored resolution that "commends and supports the efforts and leadership of the president ... in the conflict against Iraq." In the same resolution – despite the consensus of the international legal community that such an offensive war is illegal – Edwards joined Kerry in insisting that the war was "lawful." Subsequently, despite growing public disenchantment with the Bush administration's Iraq policy, Edwards has also joined Kerry in supporting the ongoing U.S. occupation.

No WMD, No Problem


When Russert noted the absence of any Iraqi weapons of mass destruction or any ongoing WMD programs, Edwards insisted that Iraq still posed a threat regardless of whether Saddam Hussein actually "had them at the time the war began or not" because "he had been trying to acquire that capability" previously and therefore posed "an obvious and serious threat to the stability of that region of the world." In short, the Democrats are nominating a vice president who believes the United States has the right to invade any country that at some point in the past had tried to develop biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons capability.

Given that that would total more than 50 countries, the prospects of Edwards as commander-in-chief is rather unsettling.

---snip---

Unfortunately, Edwards' militarism is not restricted to the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq.

---snip---

LINK

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

The apology of John Edwards, former Senator and 2004 Democratic vice presidential candidate, for voting for the Iraq war in 2002, has been widely praised. But his apology is based on a lie, one that other Democrats are likely to embrace and one which will serve their ambitions but hide the truth. We should have no illusions about this, for to believe otherwise is to set ourselves up for the continuation of Bush's war by a Democrat.

Edwards declared in an op-ed column in the Washington Post on November 13, 2005: "The argument for going to war with Iraq was based on intelligence that we now know was inaccurate. The information the American people were hearing from the president -- and that I was being given by our intelligence community -- wasn't the whole story. Had I known this at the time, I never would have voted for this war." Sounds simple enough. "Had I known then what I know now, etc." Poor John Edwards was deceived. But was he? How was it that 21 other Democratic Senators and 2 Republicans were not deceived and voted against the war?

Part of the answer arrived in another op-ed the Washington Post one week later, November 20, 2005, by another former Senator, Bob Graham, entitled: "What I knew Before the Invasion." Like Edwards, Graham was a member, in fact the chair, of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee in the period leading up to the war and on October 11, 2002 when the vote on the war on Iraq was taken. In a nutshell, Graham tells us that everyone on that committee knew that Bush was lying about weapons of mass destruction. Graham begins like a good, loyal Democrat, telling us that his colleagues were deceived, at least "most" of them. But he then tells us that the Senate Select Intelligence Committee knew better. Here are some of Graham's words:

---snip---

John Edwards was a member of that Senate Select Intelligence Committee, and he voted for the war. Who were the other Democratic senators? They were Senators Bayh, Edwards, DURBIN, Feinstein, LEVIN, MIKULSKI, Rockefeller and WYDEN as well as Tom Daschle, then majority leader, an ex officio member. I have capitalized those who voted against the war resolution and who should be hailed as senators of integrity. But Bayh, Daschle, Edwards, Feinstein and Rockefeller, all of whom with the exception of Feinstein, have presidential ambitions, voted for the war despite the fact that they had good reason to know the administration was Bushies were lying. (And let's not forget the Republicans on the committee: Dewine, Hatch, Inhoffe, Kyle, Lugar, Roberts, Richard Shelby, Fred Thompson and ex officio, Trent Lott.)

There were 19 members of that committee, all of whom had to know that Bush was lying. Only the four in caps above voted against the war. But if 19, out of what is often called a small and intimate club of 100 Senators, knew that the war was based on a lie, can one believe that the rest did not know? And given the bloodletting that was about to be unleashed, why did none of these 19, including Graham, release the "confidential" NIE report? What sort of men and women are these?

Let us carry this one step further. There were 23 Senate votes against the war, only 4 of whom were on the Senate Select Intelligence Committee. If we add to that 23, the five Democrats (Bayh, Daschle, Edwards, Feinstein and Rockefeller), we have 28. It would have taken only 5 more to sustain a veto against the war. Let's see who was available among the pro-war votes. There were Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Max Cleland (Yes, he voted for the war!), Christopher Dodd, Tom Harkin (Yes, he voted for the war!), Ernst Hollings, Harry Reid (now minority leader) and Charles Schumer. (That's 8, bringing the total to 36.) So those Dems cannot say their votes did not matter.

More here:

LINK

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

Will be guests on Bill Moyers' show tomorrow night. That could be interesting. ANNA

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

I support John Edwards.

As long as he is in the race, I support him.

If Obama takes the nomination, I will support him.

But it ain't over yet.

Huckabee wins the Rethugs.

I would enthusiastically support the worst of the Democrats over that or any Rethug in that field. Anybody who can't say that, ain't a Democrat.

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

Mr Holland does not address the fact that 'the office makes the man' and not visa versa.

We are not leaving Iraq for a long, long time. If we did the power vacuum would ultimately lead to instability and war and dictatorship.

We are fortunate our casualties are relatively low.......... about equal to those murdered in 9/11. In WW I the battle of the Marne left over 80,000 dead in just a week.

Our big strategic error was disbanding the Iraqi Army. They knew how to control their own people....brutally, with an iron fist. We don't have the stomach for that kind of warfare in this day of instant communication.

We've got our hand stuck in the 'Tar Baby' of Iraq.

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

I suspect the reason for the endorsement has to do with how Edwards succinctly states his positions. Liberal intellectuals generally do not like waffling. Obama's voting record is generally pretty good (from a liberal point of view), however, Obama seems still too concerned about "wanting inclusivity" in the political process, and his language reflects it. For example on Iraq, Edwards is much more clear about getting out of the place, period. Most liberals certainly like what Edwards has to say, but, where he is still falling (with liberals) is that some doubt his sincerity (based on his past voting record as a Senator from NC). However, Obama still seems a little too much "tailor made" depending on the audience he is talking too, with all his rhetoric. It's based on this, I believe, that lends so many liberals towards supporting Edwards.

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

If you watch IRAQ FOR SALE: WAR PORFITEERS on COMCAST ON FREE MOVIES ON DEMAND you will see why congress can't do anything to change the situation and why the corporations have such an iron grip on our govt. They will continue to take our tax dollars,by the billions,for their private corporations as far as the eye can see no matter what the cost to anybody or anything because the only thing that matters to these sociopathic capatilists are profits. Obama is beholden to special interests. Just follow the money and you will see how little he will do. I'm for Edwards, the corporate fighter that big money hates.

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

Unfortunately the Neo-cons have done the dirty work for the empire and nobody but nobody will be pulling troops. What this election will be about is the extent of the next conquest or lack thereof. Remember nothings off the table means using Nuclear Weapons. Enough said.

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

I'm in Iowa and caucused for Kucinich because I believe in him 100%. He didn't campaign here because Iowa has truly idiotic caucusing rules and Dennis's campaign is genuinely populist, i.e. financed by nobody but the little people. In addition, the Democratic party machine in Iowa is just shameless. Gakk.

I just thought I'd share what it was like in my caucus, in Iowa City (which folks out in the country call The People's Republic of Iowa City). When I entered the room-- a nearby high school's auditorium-- I had to pass by a large table of lovely catered food paid for by the Hillary-ites. "Eat on Hillary, vote for Hillary," clearly. I'm told that's not legal but it apparently doesn't matter to that crew.

Next I was hit by a wall of Hillary posters and even individual SEAT-COVERS advertising Hillary. It was pretty sickening. But as we moved through the balloting a different picture emerged. Dodd, Richardson, and Kucinich all had groups small enough to be non-viable.

Dennis had asked us to go with Obama on the second ballot, which made no sense to me till, the day before the caucus, I spent hours calling up the chain of command till I got to some people who asked the same kinds of questions.

I was told Dennis had made a quid-pro-quo deal with Barack in regard to the difficult Michigan primary, upcoming in only a matter of days, where Obama does not appear on the ballot but Kucinich does.
Michigan has three times as many delegates as Iowa, I'm told, so it's not a bad deal if Obama follows through. (I don't know how big that IF is.)

In our caucus, the vote ran as follows: Clinton 1 delegate, Edwards 2 delegates, Obama 4 delegates. I was so glad the party machine did not persuade many.

Clinton is more scary/dangerous to me than maybe anybody except Bush and Cheney... and I often have the feeling with her that she's channeling Cheney, that she'll rip off the mask and there will be-- ta-DAH!!!-- DICK.

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

Bill Richardson is the one to end the war and get out of Iraq.

Sadly, it is again the best candidate who gets overlooked because that candidate is not backed by the big money.

Richardson would get out of Iraq within the first year.

But more important is what he would do next: Focus America on solving American problems at home

With Richardson, we would see the initiation of The Solar Age. He has the endorsement of the League of Conservation Voters for good reason: his program and the highest priority of the Richardson administration is to focus our resources on non-carbon based domestic energy production that would preclude the need for foreign oil and wars in order to get it.

It is not just the War that is an issue, but the dependency of this country on resources that come from elsewhere. Only by electing presidential leadership can we ever hope to get out of the mess we are in.

It is Richardson who is right for the job, and not tainted by Corporate money the way the others are.

Thomas A Nagy Global Cooling Initiative

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

And you are dreaming if you think otherwise.

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

Nosense. There are two different opinions in three candidates. One is follow Bush's policy. It shows in Edwards and Hillary's voting for Patriot Act and approving Iraq war authorization Bill.

The other one is Obama's anti Iraq war. This is why he won Iowa Primary.

The economy issue is tring to distract and confuse people. A Feds psychological propaganda for their own candidate.

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