The Nation on John Edwards' fierce populism

John Edwards is the right candidate at the right time. He is the real progressive and populist in this race, along with Kucinich.

And I hope that he is a small militia watching his back. :(

Go, Johnny, GO!!!

"The crowd at the Edwards event numbered more than 3,000, roughly twice that assembled at Des Moines-area rallies Wednesday night for Illinois Senator Barack Obama and New York Senator Hillary Clinton."

All Msnbc has been reporting is about the *crowds* at Obama's rallies. No actual numbers, of course.

But then again, Edwards is a threat to the MSM, so we shouldn't expect them to show any REAL stories tonight.

Thanks for sharing.

all want to throw support to Obama, wonder why? Maybe they like the status Quo. Edwards is the only one who will fight for us. I am sick of compromise with corporations. Go Johnny Go!!!

:dem:

rally?

that's not terribly honest of them.

Comparing a rock concert to a meeting in an armory or gymnasium isn't exactly comparing oranges to oranges.

Good grief! :eyes:

I don't know anything about it first hand.

that I read. :)

I'm a supporter of the truth, first and foremost.

Me, too. :)

The first campaign contribution I've made for the 2008 race.

I'm a longtime Kucinich supporter, but it's begun to feel like being a Nader supporter in 2000. It's far more important to me to block HRC and Obama from getting the nomination than it is to "make a statement".

I'm under no illusion that an Edwards presidency will magically cure all that's wrong in our country. I'm not looking for a hero or a white knight. I'm supporting him for the simple reason that he is bringing something into the national conversation that needs to be said.

I am fully aware of the fact that Kucincich does the same, and goes much further. But the reality is that DK is easily dismissed as an unserious contender -- and no amount of passionate idealism and wishful thinking will change that.

As a lefty progressive who knows full well how people like me are taken for granted by the Democratic Party and dismissed as dirty hippies by the Beltway crowd, I'll settle for someone who at least TALKS about poverty and corporatism, and is in a position to be heard on the national stage.

I want to see Edwards remain a strong contender.

Rec'd
sw

Thanks for sharing this.

:applause:

This nation needs you.

:puke:

And I'll bet a whole lot of Iowans are scratching their heads too.

Onward, Edwards!

edited to add: K&R

in the general election.

college student from across the border.

I don't want to take away from Obama's charm, and perhaps he will move toward fighting for the people, but I think Edward's strong pro-populist movement is just what the country needs:

Rich Getting Richer Faster, Much Faster

The increase in incomes of the top 1 percent of Americans from 2003 to 2005 exceeded the total income of the poorest 20 percent of Americans, data in a new report by the Congressional Budget Office shows.

The poorest fifth of households had total income of $383.4 billion in 2005, while just the increase in income for the top 1 percent came to $524.8 billion, a figure 37 percent higher.

The total income of the top 1.1 million households was $1.8 trillion, or 18.1 percent of the total income of all Americans, up from 14.3 percent of all income in 2003. The total 2005 income of the three million individual Americans at the top was roughly equal to that of the bottom 166 million Americans, analysis of the report showed.

The report is the latest to document the growing concentration of income at the top, a trend that President Bush said last January had been under way for more than 25 years.

Earlier reports, based on tax returns, showed that in 2005 the top 10 percent, top 1 percent and fractions of the top 1 percent enjoyed their greatest share of income since 1928 and 1929.

-snip
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/15/business/15rich.html?ref=business

In Skinner's thread, he observes that although Iowa went for Bush in '04, more than twice as many voters participated in the Iowa democratic caucus than the republican.

Either:
a) Democrats have made inroads among the politically active to a degree that is underappreciated.
b) People who intend to vote for the Republican nominee in the general election voted in the Democratic caucus hoping to influence our selection to their advantage.
c) Republicans who are disenchanted by the current crop of Republicans find Obama more palatable than their own candidates. They may or may not find the other Democrats adequate.

Given Obama's positioning of himself as the guy to bring us all together in a big 'ol bear hug of bipartisanship, and the widely-held belief that an african-american will find himself (or herself) at a disadvantage in the midwest, I think that there's a very strong likelihood that b) and c) both had a major influence.

I suspect that Edwards will do better and Obama worse in primary states in which Republicans are required to vote in their own primary.