A different progressivism: Obama vs. Clinton and Edwards

This is a duplicate from a post I made in yesterday's open thread. I was replying to this comment from Blue South, and it got long. The short version: I'm starting to think the divide between Obama's supporters and Edwards's supporters is actually an indicator of a much deeper divide in how we see the future of progressivism.

Posting it here because I thought it was important enough to pull out separately.

While I appreciate the benefit of the doubt, the "I'm sure you're a nice enough guy, but..." can be pretty frustrating.

I'm starting to think that the fundamental difference, at least on this site, and possibly more widely, between Edwards and Obama supporters is not superficial preferences of which guy sounds the best, but a true, very deep divide in philosophy for the direction of progressive politics. Regardless of what happens, I have a fair amount of faith we'll all be able to pull together when the general rolls around, but I think the divide is worth plumbing further.

I realize that you're intending to agree with me in the following:

But that is a long winded way for me to say that I agree, community organizations could be an essential part to a new wave of progressivism (as you put it), and I can see that as a great reason to support Obama.

But my first response to that is, no, community organizing is not an essential part of a new wave of progressivism, it should be the essential organizing factor. Herein lies all the difference, I think. Perhaps this is the best way to say it: Obama is a leftist and a progressive, very profoundly, but he's not a liberal, in the late 20th century sense of the word.

I've gotten into this before, but this goes back to Saul Alinsky, the great community organizer from Chicago, founder of the Industrial Areas Foundation, and some also call him the founder of modern community organizing. The IAF's central principle in all of its organizing is something I was just introduced to in the past couple of weeks, when it appeared at the bottom of the Durham CAN! newsletter (the local IAF affiliate), and truly shocked me at a core philosophical level. They call it the Iron Rule, and it goes like this:

Never do for others what they can do for themselves. Never.

To be utterly clear here, this isn't saying that the government has no role, or that we shouldn't help each other, or anything else like that. But there are things that we as citizens CAN do for ourselves (different for every person), and things that we can't. Alinksyite organizing focuses on finding ways to allow people to work together to do great things, rather than getting the government, or the wealthy, or whomever to do them instead. The goals are ultimately the same as liberalism -- in shorthand, progressive change -- but the methods are completely different.

The difference here is most dramatic between Obama and Clinton, at a very observable level. Clinton wrote her masters thesis on Saul Alinksy, ultimately concluding that he was a fascinating case, but deciding that community organizing simply wasn't a viable model for progressive change. Obama, on the other hand, cut his teeth in the IAF's work right there in Chicago. If there's a more profound statement of difference between the two candidates, I don't know what it is.

To bring Edwards into it, this perhaps illustrates my differences with him best. I keep going back to that "man in the arena" diary. Edwards has sold himself as a true champion of the working poor, the man to stand up and be the hero for the less fortunate. And, perhaps this is why some of you don't like him as much, but Obama offers no such promise. His focus, rather, is on organizing the working poor into a force that can advocate together for their own interests, rather than relying on someone else to do it. Those interests may very well include protecting Social Security, providing unemployment insurance, and so on, but you let the people, in their own capacities as organized bodies, as you work with them as equals, not deciding for them.

I confess, a lot of this still makes me uncomfortable, and I'm very open to hearing criticism and counterpoints to it. And yes, it is not terribly liberal in the traditional sense. It his, however, quite leftist, quite radical, and quite progressive, at a very fundamental level.


Good diary.

I think you make a very good argument for community organizing. It's probably one of the reasons that forms of community organizing have been so successful for organizations as diverse as the teamsters, casa nostra, evangelicals and Tammany Hall.

I will even give you that Obama might be more focused on community organizing than Edwards (even though he started One Corps well before he began running for President), although I would argue with you about any difference in the Iron Rule philosophy. One of John Edwards best and strongest arguments continues to be the idea of a hand-up, not a hand-out. Also, his college for everyone program revolves around student being willing to work 10 hours a week - doing for themselves - in order to get government aid.

No, I actually hope whomever gets elected actually focuses on community organizing in America, of someone other than religious groups. I have no difference of opinion with you here. My difference in opinion is based on a much more central problem. Obama is not a dedicated progressive, he's a dedicated deal-maker. Regardless of how childish they looked at the debate I think there is something to the idea that Obama voted present a 100+ times, to the idea that he was silent about Iraq for over 11 months after being elected to the Senate, to the fact that he abandoned single-payer, etc. I don't mind people changing their views, but during the Bush era, shouldn't those changes be AWAY from centrism to MORE progressives ideas - not the opposite.

One of the pitfalls of childhood is that one doesn't have to understand something to feel it. - Carlos Ruiz Zafon

Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.

Thanks for the response...

I think I'd go with "pragmatist" over "deal-maker," but I don't think I can deny it.

And unless you wanna go with a dictatorship....

...or one party nation you'll always have to make "deals". That's after all what politics is all about, I thought.
The issue is of course what kind of "deals" you want to make.

Left on 49

thanks for the post

this really articulated what i have been saying to people about obama. he inspires people to make changes on their own -- he has really been able to wake people up and make them pay attention unlike any other candidate.

You never commented directly on my "Man in the Arena" post

but I've read several comments elsewhere where you disagree...or find something about Edwards that doesn't float your boat...at least as compared to Obama. That's fine...we aren't all going to feel the same about many things.

I'll give you my thoughts on your post above...

Community organizing sounds good...people getting together and doing things for themselves to help themselves and to create a group that can perhaps influence those who have sway over the things a "community" can't do for itself.

I'm sure there are some success stories out there, but I'm not awash in them...nor, I suspect, are many others. Why? The answer is apathy, laziness, and a reluctance by many to actually do or invest money in something larger than themselves. (There aren't any people HERE like that...as far as I know)

Perhaps not an example you'd choose...but if a "community" was actually motivated to do something in it's own best interests we wouldn't need laws against talking on a cell phone while driving...or tailgating. It's commonly understood those things are extremely unsafe and people die because of other's indifference to common sense. So, how would Obama handle this...just as an example?

I could go on and on...from lack of parental involvement in PTA or people even giving a damn about their children's activities...to my own neighborhood where the most slovenly and laziest among us are allowed to break our covenants because the HOA board is collectively a bunch of %$#@ing wimps.

So...I'm not so keen on Obama's idea that we can all come together and sing Kumbaya and things will get better...particularly when it comes to the notion that he expects Republicans to join in the Congressional Community sing-along on such matters as taxes, trade, the deficit, healthcare, restoring our Constitution and so on. And, just for added measure, if he's so hot on all this where has he been since he's been a senator...on a lot of issues...in the committees he sits in? Same for Hillary!

My take...after making HUNDREDS of phone calls to "voters"... The average Sally and Joe haven't got the faintest idea of what this election is about. Hell, many of them don't even know when their primary will be held or who is running or why.

And Obama is going to organize these flakes into a motivated community? A community of what? Morons?
He's gonna get people like Vitter and Craig and McConnell and others to join him in doing something good for us? When pigs fly!

So...I'll go with the guy who promises to beat the hell out of Congress and to use his bully pulpit to rally the people behind him to get their pitchforks and torches and do some bidness with these jerks....and the corporations that are buying legislation.

Stan Bozarth

Just catching up

I quit watching this thread for a while, and didn't see that it had picked up some replies.

Why I didn't comment on the "Man in the Arena" post -- it came across like a pep rally, and I don't underestimate the importance of those. I think it happened right after Edwards' Nevada drubbing, and I frankly didn't feel like pissing in the punch bowl at a pro-Edwards party.

And as for singing "Kumbaya," I'd just say if you read a bit about Alinsky or the IAF, you'll know that the tactics get very confrontational at times, and the focus is radical change. The thing is, you do it together. (And no, Congress isn't the community you organize. Political change under this model happens when coalitions of organizations agree to put massive collective pressure on politicians to uphold very specific promises. So Vitter and Craig and McConnell are largely irrelevant here.)

How would Obama handle driving while talking on cell phones? Um, if that's the most pressing issue you can come up with, I think I'm stumped. I think I could talk about it more thoroughly if you used urban poverty or environmental degradation, I think I could elaborate a bit more. For now, I can't do much more than this: driving while dialing is an issue best handled at the state level.

As for whether or not there are any success stories for community organizing, well, I can't think of too many off the top of my head. Just the United Farm Workers, the civil rights movement, the Back of the Yards in Chicago, the living wage campaign in Durham, and a few others. Not much.

Our disagreement may be

that I'm pessimistic about communities of people acting in their own best interests in a timely manner...and perhaps you're not.

I mentioned the cell phone/tailgating not as something I want Obama to fix, but as an example of people not working in their own best interests even when they know what they ought to do.

I mentioned Vitter, Craig and McConnell because they exemplify the hypocrisy, corruption, and pure bull-headedness that typifies the type of people Obama will have to bring to the table in his bi-partisan and co-operative approach. I don't think these kind of folks understand reasonable thinking. I think you have to break their legs first.

We don't have 20 years to fix our problems...and while I'm not familiar with the details of all the "movements" you mentioned above, those I know about took a very long time to come to some fruition...

Lets just say you and I ought to agree to disagree about what we think is the best approach to problems we both want solved. If Obama is elected, and the healthcare situation isn't fixed in 6 months or less and Congress is still letting us pay for their cadillac plan, Obama will be in deep yogurt with the folks who sought change through confrontation rather than compromise.

Stan Bozarth

No more 1994

Dammit, I just fat-fingered away a long (and most soul-stirring!) post about my personal experience with the hope of 1992 and the gut-punch of 1994. I can never get stuff like that back once I wrote it once, so I'll try to skip to the summary here.

Clinton "broke their legs" in 1993 several times, pushing through policies that made Republicans blow steam out their ears. With a Democratic Congress at his back, he managed to "fix" a lot of things. But a lot of the people he helped didn't feel like part of the movement, and so went along with Newt's Contract With America. That destroyed the long-sought Democratic White House and Congress, handcuffed Clinton for the next six years, and set the stage for You-Know-Who's election on a restored Republican foundation.

I'm sure Edwards would have the best intentions when he charged into Washington, but his campaign has been about him as an agent for change, not people collectively working for change. I worry that under his model of change, we'd face another 1994 in two years. I don't think Obama would be radically different in what he would do in the Oval Office, but I do think he could change quite a bit as head of the Democratic Party. I'd rather have a Party which emphasized the grass roots, focused on people in their communities working together to improve their lives, and making them feel like they had a measure of influence on what happened in Washington.

I don't want the change to take 20 years either, but I also want whatever we get started this year to last for 20 years.

Disagree completely

In every speech Edwards has given it has been about a collective effort. If you dont believe me, look at his poverty proposal. The best case scenario involves us spending 22 years that he isnt president fighting to eliminate poverty. That is not something that will occur wih a single person being President.

Every campaign event involved him talking about the need for involvement from everyone who was there. He was talking about the civil rights movement and the "from the streets" aspect of that months before Obama mixed metaphors on the subject.

"Keep the Faith"

"Keep the Faith"

His rhetoric there is good

While I think Obama's got a better feel for grass roots organizing than Edwards, I won't deny that Edwards has acknowledged it.

However, in this particular sub-thread I was responding to Stan essentially saying, "community organizing won't work." I don't care if you're supporting Thomas Jefferson himself, I'm going to take issue with that.

I have very little problem with Edwards supporters who embrace grass roots organizing and politics based in community power. Robert P. has said Obama drives him nuts, but that he'd pull the lever for him in the end and focus his energy on organizing for local and state races, and that I completely respect.

It's people going for Edwards as some kind of Hail Mary pass that's going to fix everything that drive me nuts. (And while you may not be one of them, I assure you there are plenty out there running around the blogosphere.)

on both sides

The tendency towards assuming that this guy or that guy is the messiah is incredibly annoying.

Obama will solve all of our problems
Only Edwards can change America
If you arent for Hillary you arent a good Democrat

All of it is incredibly silly.

"Keep the Faith"

"Keep the Faith"

I didn't say community organizing doesn't work.

I believe Obama's approach is one of trying to get people to cooperate (republicans and Dems alike) on issues of importance. I think it's nice, but unrealistic. Unrealistic because there are forces alligned against what he thinks is important, what most democrats think is important, and they have a lot of money and will use every dirty trick in the book to defeat him. Even if it ultimately works, it will take more time than most are willing to take..or that we have.

I also think the vast majority of Americans are too busy living their lives to pay attention or to do things that help themselves and their neighbors(my mention of cell phones and tailgating) or voluntarily sacrifice. I can give you so many factual real time examples your head would swim.

As to the Hail Mary...that's simply another exaggeration. Edwards has proposed solutions, and how he plans to get there, on many issues. If this election was about the issues and if the media had been and was giving folks equitable coverage, this would be a different race. That's not sour grapes..it's a fact.

Stan Bozarth

At the core

The question of whether people will sacrifice for others and for the greater good, or whether they even should, has been a central question in politics for a long time.

It seems like both Obama and Edwards believe that people should and will. The line "Be Patriotic about something other than war" isnt exactly a call for selfishness.

The difference that I see then is Obama saying that people must band together, seperate from government if need be, to achieve what they can. Edwards says that we should take the government, and force it to do what it was created to do, which is to serve its people. An oversimplification would be that Obama's supporters seem to be saying that we need an organization that would help people when they are down and give them a collective voice to get negotiate on an equal footing. Edwards says we already have the organization in the government, so long as we are willing to throw out those who have corrupted it.

"Keep the Faith"

"Keep the Faith"

We're on the same page.

Proper honest government can and should do for the populace what the populace cannot do for itself. It's why we have a government.

Stan Bozarth

Nicely put

I think I can fully agree with this.

In the US, government doesn't exist separate from the people -- it comes from the people (or at least it should). That's what representative governance is all about. If you get a majority of people who decide that government shouldn't take care of the less fortunate, as happened in the 1980s, the government, by the fundamental rules of the Constitution, has to stop. That's not corruption -- that's democracy.

So yes, we need, not just an organization, but lots of organizations working together, to make sure that the politics of the country support the progressive actions of the government. Otherwise, we'll just go through another round of the Great Society and the environmental laws of the 1970s, only to have it taken apart again by another Ronald Reagan.

Why does organization make a difference? This is something I've come to believe very deeply: When people think about only themselves, they act and vote in ways that result in modern conservative politics. When people join churches, synagogues, reading groups, neighborhood associations, or even just bowling leagues, they come to understand just a little better what their fellows are going through, and begin to act and vote in ways that result in progressive policies. The way we go from having only moderately progressive politics to truly transformative politics is by making sure that people interact with those from other places, races, classes, and all walks of life. Left progressivism comes ultimately from the fundamental concern for our fellow humans, and social connections are what breed that.

Just a thought to add...

While we wonder about where the differeces are, yesterday(24th)the senate voted to table the FISA version that would have removed the TELCO IMMUNITY, which was 'enabled' by some of our progressive senators. No report was made by our manipulated media, Obama and Clinton decided to not show up, but Edwards did make an official statement early yesterday that he was against any Telco immunity. Does this indicate any difference?


Edwards has indeed taken a number of admirable positions. Conveniently, all that has come since he left the Senate.


So....he was supposed to stop thinking, growing, learning, leading and having opinions after he left the Senate?

By your way of thinking then......Obama took a number of admirable positions, but he conveniently failed to stand strong and vote his conscience. Instead he voted present or failed to show up to vote. I guess Obama just talks the talk then...or I guess in Obama's case we're supposed to say - orating the oration.

Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.


These things can never end well, can they?

The blog post was about the larger issue of the roots of progressivism and the political philosophy underneath them. The biggest contrast is between what I would call classic northeast liberalism, that dates back over 150 years, and can be very paternalistic, and the Alinksyite model underscored in the Iron Rule. I think the biggest contrast here is between Clinton and Obama, in that they've both very directly commented on Alinsky and his methods. Edwards is more of a mixed bag in that regard, and doesn't break down either line cleanly.

The comment you're replying to was a snarky retort to what I felt was denno ignoring all that and making an issue-related attack on Obama. It's hard for me to write about this race without my dislike for Edwards coming out, so in this case, I kicked back. None of the three candidates are progressive saints, free from sin. We've gone over extensively in other topics how Edwards' personal story and rhetoric inspires plenty of people, myself not included.

So in the interest of not getting into another spitting match, I'm going to leave it, except for this: Obama spent much of his young adulthood as a community organizer on Chicago's south side, in some of the worst urban poverty in the nation, during a time when Republican poverties were destroying the social fabric of our cities. I'm not going to try to convince you to switch your support, but saying that Obama "just talks the talk" is infuriating and insulting.

That's all very nice

....but that doesn't mean we give him a pass for failing to stand up and represent the people he was elected to represent. That has to count too.

Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.

Legislative records

I find Obama's record good, not great. I find more flaws with Edwards's record, and I don't think his supporters gain much for their guy by attacking Obama's record.

I don't think Obama's supporters do much for their guy

by pointing a finger at Edwards and claiming he's somehow worse than Obama. My favorite reason given for this so far is the argument Edwards cut short his commitment to NC. Somehow, it's OK for Obama - a freshman Senator to run for President, but when Edward's did it he let NC down and didn't finish the job. IOKIODI (It's OK if Obama did it.)

Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.

It's interesting how being in the Senate effects people.

Like Barack Obama giving no speeches or offering any bills, resolutions, or amendments about Iraq for 11 months after entering the Senate. Shortly after opening his Presidential Exploratory Committee.

When he was planning on being a centrist Senator trying to get along, not a bad word about the war and he voted against the Kerry Amendment for getting out of Iraq. When he started thinking about running for the Democratic Nomination, whoa, I better stop being such a centrist.

Yes, Senate records are interesting things.

One of the pitfalls of childhood is that one doesn't have to understand something to feel it. - Carlos Ruiz Zafon

Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.

Are you trying to pick a fight with me?

Look, I'm trying to stay out of this back and forth.

Being in the Senate for two years apparently was enough to get the idea of being President into Edwards' fool head. After that it was nothing but tripping through the daisies! I'm gonna be PRESIDENT some day!

Guilty Conscience?

I didn't say anything about experience or his only being in the Senate for two years, for obvious reasons :)

You insinuated above that Edwards was right on more issues, but that it only started AFTER he was out of the Senate. I wanted to point out how Obama became more conservative on the war in Iraq once he reached the Senate, until he began running for Pres. In other words, maybe there is something to the pressure and lobbying that comes from being in the Senate, since both seemed to have succumbed to it to some degree.

One of the pitfalls of childhood is that one doesn't have to understand something to feel it. - Carlos Ruiz Zafon

Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.

Sorry to jump down your throat

Betsy's post set me on edge, I think.

I honestly didn't want any Senators for this year's election -- my hope was Mark Warner. But as we're down to three Senators, we're going to be dealing with this mess the rest of the way.

"great" minds

I was between Warner and Edwards, and then Warner dropped out.

One of my coworkers in NH was going to work for Warner, until he decided not to do it.

And Betsy still had her Warner for President bumper sticker the last time I saw her.

"Keep the Faith"

"Keep the Faith"

Bumper sticker and button


Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.


to see Edwards supporters claim that Obama's stance on the war was somehow dubious when their own guy actually VOTED FOR the war in Iraq. Senate records indeed...

If I were a supporter of Edwards the Iraq war would be the last thing I'd bring up.

Let the flaming start....

Left on 49


You keep saying this:

Like Barack Obama giving no speeches or offering any bills, resolutions, or amendments about Iraq for 11 months after entering the Senate. Shortly after opening his Presidential Exploratory Committee.

But it's not true.
Obama gave a statement on the Iraq war on the floor of the Senate on June 21, 2006. This was a full half year before forming his presidential exploratory committee in January 2007.
Even if you were right, not giving a statement on the war in Iraq is still a hell of a lot better than voting for that war.

Left on 49

I dont want this to devolve

But between that single speech and running for President, Obama said that he didnt know how he would have voted if he had been in Kerry or Edwards' or Hillary's shoes, because he didnt have access to the same information. He voted for many funding bills, and he argued forcefully (using the right's language) against a timeline multiple times.

But wasnt this supposed to be about philosophy and seperate from the primary wars (not that you started it, not by a long shot)?

"Keep the Faith"

"Keep the Faith"


First the emotional answer:
It's unbelievable to me, how some Edwards supporters can spin Obama into the pro war candidate now.
I can understand you need to vent your frustration because your guy is losing, but come on...
Next thing you'll say Obama is a muslim.

Then the factual answer:
I was told Obama never said anything about the war after being elected to the US Senate until he started running for president. I already showed that's not true.
The truth is that Obama consistently and over the years expressed his opposition to the war over and over.
From the time he was an Illinois senator to the time he was running for US Senate to the time he was actually in the US senate.

Obama has been a consistent, principled and vocal opponent of the war in Iraq:
* In 2003 and 2004, he spoke out against the war on the campaign trail;
* In 2005, he called for a phased withdrawal of our troops;
* In 2006, he called for a timetable to remove our troops, a political solution within Iraq, and aggressive diplomacy with all of Iraq’s neighbors;
* In January 2007, he introduced legislation in the Senate to remove all of our combat troops from Iraq by March 2008.
* In September 2007, he laid out a detailed plan for how he will end the war as president.

So can we agree that it doesn't make any sense for Edwards supporters to somehow suggest that Obama Has been waffling over the war in Iraq when your own candidate actually voted for the war?

F that

In 2005 he voted against Kerry-Feingold, calling it irresponsible and saying it would endager our troops. If it had passed our troops would be home by now, saving literally thousands of lives.

Time after time after time he voted to fund the war.

Please, please please tell me how someone can be against the war and for funding? My candidate voted against the 87 million. Yours voted for multiple funding bills. The simple truth is that when he had to put his money where his mouth was he voted wrong.

Please tell me how you can excuse Obama's vote to CONTINUE the war, after we had already defeated Sadaam and found zero weapons. The mistake Edwards made was trusting Bush with the authority given to him by the first resolution.

After we knew he had betrayed our trust Obama voted to give him money with zero restrictions. And Im supposed to trust him because he gave a speech?

"Keep the Faith"

"Keep the Faith"

nice manners

Instead of reverting to a bunch of nasty language let me just answer with the easiest comeback you yourself gave me.

If it had passed our troops would be home by now, saving literally thousands of lives.

If your guy wouldn't have voted for the war in the first place there wouldn't be a single life lost.

If I could figure out in 2002 that a war in Iraq would be a cluster fuck based on total lies then why couldn't Edwards? I would hope that the next President is at least as smart as I am and hopefully a lot smarter.

To both LiberalNC and BlueSouth

I love you guys. Seriously.

Playing the "if your guy had done x, y wouldn't have happened", or "if your guy had done a, then be would already be done", is pointless, and will go round and round until someone loses an eye. Or something.

Meanwhile Clinton will do her damndest to get FL and MI seated at the convention. And then it won't matter at all what your guys would have done in the future. Because we'll be stuck in the same old song and dance.

You'd think Edwards and Obama supporters can find common ground.

Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi


You'd think Edwards and Obama supporters can find common ground.

That's my point exactly (see comment below), but it's a little hard to find common ground when a few Edwards supporters attack Obama on the one point where they themselves also know he's better than their candidate and when I get the distinct impression that they're saying "it's my candidate or nothing".
While I'm only saying it's Obama (preferably) or Edwards or nothing :-)

Why this pisses me off to no extent.

The only problem I have with Edwards (besides the fact that I believe he can't win the general election, especially when McCain is the republican candidate) is his vote for the war in Iraq. That was such a humongous mistake with the deaths of thousands and thousands of people as a result and all it took was a little common sense to see that the so called "intelligence" was anything but intelligent and all of this could have been prevented.

Then to hear you and some others rip into Obama on this, while he was the only one out of the top candidates that was right on this from the start almost makes me want to put my fist through the computer screen. And I'm a conscientious objector and pacifist!

If Edwards would have been the candidate i would have worked hard for him, while I probably will concentrate my efforts elsewhere if Hillary is the candidate. Unfortunately I get the feeling that you and some other Edwards supporters on here would rather be caught dead than to move one finger for an Obama candidacy.
I find that especially sad because I'm convinced that Edwards supporters have much more in common with Obama supporters than with Hillary fans.

Maybe you'll understand where I'm coming from.
My point is, there are many points where Edwards is as good as Obama and I'm sure there are a few where he might be better, but the war in Iraq is definitely not one of them.

Don't forget

Not for one minute that all of us, including those in the Senate at the time were given false information that led to Bush's war. Don't forget, not for one minute, that John Edwards didn't lead us there, and Barack Obama didn't keep us there.

This is George Bush's war.

Never forget it.

Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi


including those in the Senate at the time were given false information

My point is that it was pretty easy for me and millions of other people around the world to figure out that the information was false.
I would hope that the next president was also able to figure that out.


Just don't forget it's Bush's war. Not Edwards', not Clinton's, and not Obama's. In the General Election, it will be McCain's war (or whoever). It would be good if everyone remembered that.

And no matter how much people talk about the economy, it's still the war that's bleeding us. (Thanks, Marshall.)

Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi

Millions of people supported the Kerry amendment....

Millions of people knew it was wrong to give George Bush a blank check.

And, millions of people were not being convinced to support the war based on their positions as former Clinton-era national security advisors. People who had been in charge of our country mere months before were telling Edwards there WERE WMDs in Iraq.

You're guy is unwilling to stand up for what he believes in, to me that is a greater sin than standing up for what you are convinced is right by people you trust, then admitting you are wrong.

One of the pitfalls of childhood is that one doesn't have to understand something to feel it. - Carlos Ruiz Zafon

Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.

Me too

I posted my experiences in South Carolina on primary day on here.