The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

Stanbar1 you would not vote for Edwards because he brought up the truth about the Lincoln Bedroom ? really???? lets just admit it you were never going to vote for him and are most likely a Hillary supporter and just act indignant when someone casts light into the multitude of dark corners within the Clinton administration. All candidates should be judged on their past NOT just John Edwards. For some strange reason you people treat Clinton as someone who cannot be criticized. She should be held to the same standards as everyone else, this reverance stuff is getting really pathetic. Edwards speech yesterday is spot on! he is pulling the curtain back to expose the Clinton underbelly, an action others have been to intimidated to do.
Why is that? what do other's fear from the Clinton machine? maybe because their tactics are well known to the Washington insiders, in addition to outsiders that really pay attention. Follow the money? Who is Hillary beholden to? Why is she so tight with the uber right wing media mogul Murdoch? where is her UHC plan?t we know, we know, she has the scars to show for her first attempt and subsequent failure.Here's a question for you... Why are the drug & insurance companies some of her biggest donors??? Hello...Wake up!
Do your own independent homework. If the American public doesn't wake up soon and get real... we will deserve the 4-8 years of more of the same, we will have voted in.

Bsimon writes:

"The war economy was the result of huge government outlays - not private enterprise. The gov't paid private enterprise to build all that stuff for the war effort; in other words it was gov't dollars - future taxpayers' dollars - that funded the war.

In the post war period, we had zero competition - the entire rest of the world's industrial capacity was essentially nil, while the US had built an immense industrial capacity that was begging for private-sector uses."

Thank you, a refreshing post. Yes, the federal government during WW II was the chief investor of capital into private enterprise. That in itself is a point; investment in the private sector funded the machinery of the war economy. Shops opened, workers were hired, contracts, CONTRACTS, were bid for and awarded. On the strength of investments in private enterprise, American Industry spooled up, tooled up, and went to work. Workers were paid, private income was accrued, groceries were purchased, clothing bought, tuitions were paid, etc.

It can be and will be said that government bailed out the private sector. That too would be an oversimplification. However, instead of government being the employer, the paymaster for public works, funded by taxes that fewer and fewer could afford to pay from a dwindling pool, government became an investor, awarded contracts, and let the private sector grow the economy out of it's hole. Instead of competing with private enterprise, FDR's war effort turned from socialism to capitalism almost overnight.

After the war, the United States set out, not for purely altruistic reasons, granted, to rebuild the western economies as fast and as thoroughly as possible. Throughout history, with the shameful and noteworthy exception of the Civil War Reconstruction, if you have to lose a war, the United States is the victor of choice the world over.

The post WW II industrial complex may well have been looking for private sector uses, but instead of spreading dependency and indebtedness, we used our might to re-build vanquished foes, and, imperfectly though it may have been, to help provide security and freedom to those who'd been lately crushed beneath the boots of fascism and socialist tyranny. Indeed, The Greatest Generation.

One thing to be said in fairness for FDR, he more than any other American leader, ( military or civilian ), had the vision to realize the worth of air supremacy. During the early days of WW II, FDR had the clarity, the foresight, to realize that he who controlled the skies would win the war. The single most expensive program or product of the entire war effort was the B-29, an aircraft that single handedly went on to save the lives of an estimated 300,000 plus service men and women.

Keep Faith with America, the last best defense of Freedom in the world. Don't give up! Don't give in! Stand fast and stand true! Socialism is not healthy for children and other living thngs.

If I were ever inclined to vote for John Edwards, his descent into slime ball politics with the comment about the Lincoln Bedroom has convinced me that he is not the man for me, and he doesn't deserve to be President. I didn't realize his opponent was Bill clinton.

I think Edwards should just go back to practicing law - and do only pro bono work for the next five years. That may be the best campaign tactic he can deploy. As someone noted, his poll numbers haven't moved much outside of Iowa despite months of campaigning. Even in Iowa, where he has practically lived, a new poll now shows him trailing Clinton.

But if he focused on pro bono work, imagine his prospects in 2012 or 2016! A true man of the people!

pck_iv writes
"It was our American enterprise engine, driven by the freedom to produce, that built the machinery of freedom for not only this country built for the free world.

That economy carried over into the post WW II years"

Pck- that's a pretty selective view of history.

The war economy was the result of huge government outlays - not private enterprise. The gov't paid private enterprise to build all that stuff for the war effort; in other words it was gov't dollars - future taxpayers' dollars - that funded the war.

In the post war period, we had zero competition - the entire rest of the world's industrial capacity was essentially nil, while the US had built an immense industrial capacity that was begging for private-sector uses.

That's not to argue that socialism is the answer, but merely to point out that the system is a wee bit more complex than your post implied.

Ciao!

If one looks dispassionately at FDR's economic record and the bully boy tactics he employed - literally threatening the Supreme Court with blackmail if they didn't toady to his socialist whims - it's pretty clear that FDR's socialist programs failed, and failed quite miserably, ( no less than Nixonian price controls now in vogue are failing in Venezuela ). FDR's administration was literally hanging by a thread in 1940.

FDR was literally saved by WW II and the war economy. BTW, once the war time industrial engine got revved up, FDR had no problem at all quashing union strikes and or demands for wage increases. FDR stomped and stomped hard on anyone who got in his way, like most socialist despots do.

It was our American enterprise engine, driven by the freedom to produce, that built the machinery of freedom for not only this country built for the free world.

That economy carried over into the post WW II years to spoon feed to most bilious narcissistic over-fed long hair leaping weenies in the history of the human race: Baby Boomers.

Keep faith with the American Dream. Don't Give up. Don't Give in. Socialism is not healthy for children and other living things.

Looks like Edwards has realized he has to start making some moves if he wants to win the nomination.

If I were a Dem primary voter, the question Edwards would have to answer before earning my vote is: What states can he win in 2008 that the Kerry-Edwards ticket did not win in 2004?

Lets be blunt for a second. It sure looks like he didn't bring a whole lot to the ticket when he ran as second-banana. What has changed in the last 4 years that justifies moving him to the top of the ticket? If the answer is: people have woken up to the incompetence of the GOP, that doesn't boost Edwards any more than any other Democrat. So, why Edwards? Can he win - and more importantly, can he win more states than his competitors in the primary?

Suffice it to say, I'm not convinced.

The ones who sound desperate are the Clinton supporters who know Edwards is the best candidate. They are trying to count Edwards out before the campaign even really begins. Edwards is right. No more renting out the Lincoln bedroom for campaign cash. THAT IS SHAMEFUL! Obama is a nice guy, but he has less experience than Edwards and would easily be torpedoed by the Republicans. And this crud from pck_iv about the "Socialists" versus the "Private Sector Producers" is laughable. I would like to see you write that in the Roosevelt years following the great depression. You and your private sector producers were out on the street selling apples and you still would be if it weren't for some sensible government intervention.

It so far seems that everyone commenting here has their eye firmly fixed on The State and some politician or another as the guiding force to save them and their own particular micro-world from imaginary monsters of utter disaster and not one, not so much as a Poll Of One standing up for individual liberty, accountability, responsibility, or for anything that might mark them as a stride against this mewling tide of whiny surrender clones.

What do Hilly, 'Bama, and The Breck Girl all have in common? They all see themselves leading class wars against others they've characterized as the Evil Ones: Producers. People with jobs, people who manufacture things, people who have a gumption and the girt to get the job done.

Ages ago, people who called themselves Lords, Earls, Kings, told the people: Give up some of your freedoms, give up some of your choices, give up some of your freedom to speak and assemble, because if you do this - you're helping us to help you - and you can't really take care of your selves without our help. We know better. What was produced? A very small number of people called the Aristocracy who controlled the lives of nearly everyone. Everyone was miserable, everyone was poor, no freedom.

Less than a hundred year ago, some cranks, intellectual misfits, and sociopaths told the people of Russia: Give up some of your freedoms, give up some of your choices, give up some of your freedom to speak and assemble, because if you do this - you're helping us to help you - and you can't really take care of your selves without our help. We know better. What was produced? A very small number of people called the Apparatchiks who controlled the lives of nearly everyone. Everyone was miserable, everyone was poor, no freedom.

Today, Hillary, Obama, and Edwards are telling the people of America: Give up some of your freedoms, give up some of your choices, give up some of your freedom to speak and assemble, because if you do this - you're helping us to help you - and you can't really take care of your selves without our help. We know better. We'll get those Evil Americans. We'll kill the Rich, ( who, by the way - pay over %75 of all taxes in the U.S. ). We've seen this crud before. We know what is produced: A very small number of people called the Political Elites who control the lives of nearly everyone.

And each time we're told, don't mind that we're stinking rich ourselves, don't bother about the zillions we have stocked away. Because, unlike you poor dimwitted prols, this wealth, this Good Wealth LIBERATES us to do Good Works FOR you because, without us, dear prols, you're lost.

Socialism ALWAYS fail and ALWAYS produces miserable poverty as it's soul benefit. It's been tried by people with the most noble and pious of intentions and lead to nearly instant ruin. The Jamestown and Mayflower Quaker settlements both adopted collective economies and both nearly starved themselves to death as a result. The ONLY thing that saved them was freedom and free market capitalism, such as it was.

If Hillary, Obama, Edwards, or such another Democrat EVER wants my vote, they will run on the following policy: Elect us and we will end all taxes on your health care benefits - taxing you for health care is insanity and pernicious. Elect and we will NEVER set up a government agency to appoint your doctors for you. Elect us, and we will in fact CUT taxes on any employer with more than 10 full time employees who provides medical benefits. Elect us, and we will permit adult children to cover their aged parents on their plans like they cover their own children. We will also provide a tax credit for those who do. Elect us and we will add apprenticeship trades training options for all military service personnel for whom college may not be the best choice. We're also going to stop preaching class hate and that people who don't go to college are stupid and worthless. They're not. This country was built and our society more vibrant with a skilled and valued working private sector trades class. Elect us and will we redefine what it means to be an immigrant. This country really was built by immigrants, immigrants who risked literally everything to get here for nothing more than the chance to become Americans, to join up, to become a part of, not merely for a job and a coupon transfer, ( Americans don't hate immigrants, but breaking into the country, refusing to learn our language and our laws, demanding benefits and insulting us at the same time is not immigration: it's socialist blackmail. And please stop the coward's game of hiding behind your children or worse: using them and shields in your class warfare terrorism ).

There's a lot more, but that'd be a good start. Don't give up. Don't give in. Socialism in not healthy for children and other living things.

As a supporter of Obama, I'd like to see John Edwards as his Veep. Like krusequirk, I'll add an additional poll of one for Edwards. Edwards has the power to get the south, he and Obama can be a strong message, they both have the same ideas, much more than Hillary and Obama, or Hillary and Edwards.

Krusequirk, I wish many others would look at the record of Hillary and see the clouds through the trees; exactly what you, I and many, many others see. The polls cannot be correct about Hillary, if they are, people need to educate themselves much more than the sound bites, or the underlying endorsement by Karl Rove. READ!!! READ!!! READ!!!

She is polarizing, untrustworthy, and although her husband was called "Slick Willie," I feel she should be called "Slimy Hillary."

I like the "Lincoln Bedroom" is not for rent comment! As far as his hedge fund relationship goes, there are probably many pols involved in the hedge funds taking down the middle class to poor taxpayers trying to own a home!!

You go Kruisequirk, poll for him in New Hampshire, blog for him, and hopefully he'll have enough delegates to make it count.

I feel he and Obama are our only choice, if you have young children or maybe thinking about starting a family.

Edwards is the only one I am supporting as I am tired of the same old same old from Clinton and Obama just does not seem ready. Maybe Obama would be a good veep candidate.

I hate to say this, but one blog hit the nail on the head when suggesting how Edwards can secure the nomination: stand up and say "I am a white male". A black or female candidate would be a boon to the hard right neocons and if you think the Kerry election got dirty, just wait until you see what the neocons will throw at Hillary.

This from the person who was just revealed to have $16 million invested in a mortgage bank that is foreclosing right and left on the "poor" that he is trying to be Saint of? And from the person who claims not to know where half of his money -- this $16 million -- is even invested? If this guy wants to know why no one trusts him, he need only look in the mirror and see the hypocrite leering back. PATHETIC.

John Edwards is STUCK. His polling numbers haven't moved since he started campaigning. He has a very hard time gaining people's trust. Gee, I wonder why.

amended - ONE poll shows him in front of Hil in Iowa (see what happens when one gets passionate?)

Let's get it on. First off...there's another ONE poll that shows Edwards in front of Hil. Tit for tat - let's just push the polls to the side for a sec (no pun intended).

Now, let's deal with the Clinton years...ah, yes, the decade that rooted the now-almost-cliched-doublespeak of "welfare reform" (i.e., kicking folks off of the welfare rolls); "don't ask don't tell" (i.e., if you listen to show tunes at work and you're a member of the military, you're outta here!), "triangulation" (i.e., sell out)..and so many other great, great hits.

Wanna know where Rove came up with the "blue skies initiative", "no child left behind", the "war on terror" and all of his other bumpersticker phrases? Look no further than the Clinton years.

Gosh, do I look forward to going there again.

Am I angry? Well, let's see...thousands of American soldiers have been killed in a needless war, tens - or even hundreds - of thousands of Iraqi civilians have also died in the cause of...the Maliki government. I have to spend half a day each week going thru my kids' toys because - thanks to the free trade wackos out there - I don't want them to ingest lead paint.

Oh, and God forbid my husband loses his job and our healthcare before the current front-runner in the Democratic Party gets to have her "conversation" with all of us poor slobs.

Please. I'm done. So are a lot of other folks.

I've seen the pundits poo-poo Edwards' anger. "Oh, can anger really take him all the way to the nomination?"

Well, I'm angry. I'm voting for Edwards. I'm blogging for Edwards. I'm gonna friggin ring every single door bell in New Hampshire for Edwards in the middle of January if that's what it takes.

So dismiss him all you want. Feel free. Let's see what actually happens when folks get in the voting booths.

This is a strong attack by Edwards, but I think it shows that his campaign is in serious trouble. He does speak to some of the doubts people have about Clinton's candidacy, but I don't think he's the best candidate to deliver this message. Political observers know that he and his wife have been lobbing all sorts of attacks at the other candidates in the hope that something would stick and give him traction. People will remember his Lincoln Bedroom line, but it won't necessarily draw people to his campaign. I actually think this benefits Obama because he is seen as the "change" candidate. Edwards is coming across like he's desperately trying to remain relevant. Do the voters smell a loser?

Looks like it's Iowa or bust for Edwards. Dick Gephardt pursued a similar strategy in 2004 and it didn't work. I think John Edwards is in a world of trouble and needs the other candidates to stumble. Read more of my analysis of Edwards here: http://theseventen.blogspot.com/2007/08/will-john-edwards-make-it-to-iowa.html

Edwards is on his last legs as far as the 08 campaign is concerned, and these type remarks surely will not help him if and when he tries to re-enter politics. This may be due to the recent Zogby poll in Iowa that show Hillary taking a pretty good lead over him, when he has been leading there since the start and as some friends clued me in a fews weeks ago, about to not be suprised if Hillary did indeed win in Iowa.