Edwards: "We have a battle in front of us. We do."

from last night's debate: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/us/politics/05text-ddebate.html?pagewanted=print


I want to say just -- I want to say a quick word about this. You know, it is true that these entrenched interests -- whether you're talking about oil companies, drug companies, gas companies, whoever -- these entrenched interests are literally stealing our children's future. They have a stranglehold on this democracy and they are having an incredibly destructive force on the middle class, on families being able to do what my family has done and so many who are sitting here have been able to do.

And the problem is you can't be with those people, take their money and then challenge them. It doesn't work. You have to be willing to actually stand up and say no -- no to lobbyist money, no to PAC money, no corporate lobbyists working for me in the White House. If you intend to take them on, and if it is personal for you -- and this is extraordinarily personal for me -- if it's personal for you, then you can be successful bringing about the change.

Teddy Roosevelt -- just one quick example -- Teddy Roosevelt -- Teddy Roosevelt, a great American president -- he didn't make deals with the monopolies and the trusts. Teddy Roosevelt took them on, busted the monopolies, busted the trusts. That's what it's going to take.

We have a battle in front of us. We do. I don't think we have a problem with politicians in Washington spending enough time with lobbyists and going to cocktail parties. They do it all the time. They do it every single day, and I'll tell you who's paying the price for those cocktail parties: Natalie Sarkisian, every single American who doesn't have health care coverage, everybody who's going to the gas pump and paying so much money for their gas. When are we going to have a president who actually takes these people on? That's what I'm going to do.

I actually completely agree that it's the responsibility of the president to unite and galvanize the American people. It is also the responsibility of the president -- and I will do it -- to work with members of Congress to get things done. But these entrenched, moneyed interests that have a stranglehold on the middle class, that are doing -- incredibly destructive to American jobs and health care system, energy, all taxes, trade, they're in everything. Absolutely everything. You cannot nice these people to death. It doesn't work. I have been in the trenches fighting them for my whole adult life.

And it takes strength, backbone, fight, and you have to take them on.



Transcript: Democratic Debate in New Hampshire, January 5, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/us/politics/05text-ddebate.html?pagewanted=print

Edwards clearly understands.

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

:hi:

Does Obama NOT get who's running this country ~ or does he get it and has decided to use a friendly stealth approach to getting into office, after which he'll deal with the powers that be as surely as Edwards would??

So, yes. Obama has a different approach than John.

John uses the advertising theme "life sucks/buy me to feel better".

Obama uses the advertising theme "life rocks/buy me".

Obama's chosen ad strategy and persona is more direct, avoids creating agita in prospective buyers and will appeal to many more independants in the GE (and I believe Dems in the primaries).

Again, the claim Obama has no substance is a stupid, untrue attack by many Edwards' supporters. Obama has well fleshed out policy proposals.

He just knows how to inspire people in a way that is less divisive and filled with angst.

As a woman, I dislike advertising that makes me feel bad about myself in an attempt to buy some product that supposedly will make my 'flaws' disappear.

of course he understands who's running this country. He's mistaken in thinking he can negotiate with them. Therein lies his biggest flaw.

but ultimately would lose him the election.

And he has his Senate record/previous POTUS run throwing that advertising campaign into question.

Is he sincere?

Well, why did he need to amass MORE money in a hedge fund?
Use the money from his charity to pay for his last several years in Iowa/NH?

So it's certainly reasonable to question his sincerity. And that leads to the pettier stuff like McMansions and SUV's.

I will do to make things better if you elect me" approach.

and he can only offer to help on his own initiative. I don't find him any less sincere than the others.

I'm pissed too, but the hate and bitterness of the past 7 years has worn me down. Obama's message is more inspiring to me.

Obama is great but so is Edwards.

The whole 'angry' characterization is applied by those who seek to undermind his rational and thoughtful presentation of exactly what has happened and who is responsible.

Edwards is telling the truth, and they call it 'angry'

And don't call me "they" because I'm on your side.

Anger is no fun, but I'm not going to get on board the sunshine train just because it feels nicer. Edwards is telling us the truth about what needs to be done, and if we refuse to hear it, the results will be nobody's fault but our own.

but I believe that you can accomplish more and be successful with a more positive approach.

But other times, you need to fight. After the past 7 years, I think it's time to fight. As Edwards himself puts it, "you can't nice these people to death." A positive approach is great when you're dealing with reasonable people. But are we really dealing with reasonable people here?

The corporations didn't achieve their success by using "a more positive approach". They're way too powerful and "successful". As a result, the people and the planet have been poisoned. We've suffered great injury and the future is at risk, all for them to achieve their record-breaking profits.

I'm mad as hell (to steal a line from 'Network') and finally a candidate is speaking openly about our plight, and reflecting my anger. The situation we find ourselves in calls for honesty, strength and action.

After the 7 years we've just endured, I'm not into 'polite' and 'positive'. I'll take civil, thorough and tough. We need someone willing to talk about the situation and confront the problem. A fighter.

I find his conviction and direct approach honest. I welcome the anger.*


* I'm not even sure that anger is an accurate description of Edwards' message. However, 'anger' would be completely appropriate under the circumstances. He's just not painting pretty pictures and blowing sunshine up your a$$.

and look where it got us.
If I wanted someone to shoot sunshine and rainbows up my ass, I would hire someone to do it.
However, the patient is dying and I don't need the Doctor to tell me "everything is going to be okay"...I just need him to tell me the truth. No matter how hard or how ugly it is.

...I'm looking for someone who will take on the monied interests and create a better society for us all.

Which would be Kucinich, but that of course is highly unlikely / well nigh impossible. So, realistically, I'll take Edwards, who at least has demonstrated that he knows who the enemy is.

Obama thinks he can "reach across the aisle" and make everything better.

If only.

...since my main point is that Obama's "reach across the aisle" tactics will simply allow the Republics to run roughshod over him, which they will do at every opportunity. Even though they are weakened, they are down but not out. And they do play for keeps. If we have learned anything, that should be it.

We on the other hand have this tendency to buy into the "oh we're all tired of fighting, can't we all just get along?" meme, that is dragged out every time it looks like there may be a more progressive power base. Then all of a sudden the media et al are encouraging us all to make nice.

Where were they when Bush and minions were waging war in all the wrong places? Where were they when DeLay ruled the roost in the House, and Democratic representatives' rights and privileged were trampled?

Nowhere, that's where. Because to them, the iron fist is the right thing to do when Pugs are in power. But when Democrats are in power, then they are expected to wield only a velvet glove.

I'm fine with the velvet glove. I just want the iron fist inside of it. And I do not think Obama has an iron fist. And that is what worries me.

"And it takes strength, backbone, fight, and you have to take them on."

That word alone made my ears perk up during that debate. We are lacking Dems that have a backbone. An Edwards/Obama ticket would be a dream!

And then when one of them finally does, some people apparently want nothing to do with it. Puzzling, but oh well.

They say Blah Blah Blah - democrats are weak - then John Stands up too them and they? pic Obama Nice Guy, wants to Get along has Some Natural Cris ma, and/or Clinton - WOW the name alone

But John is the Best out there / Now ...that will stand and offer backbone we have been waiting for, for along time - oh well guess we might have to wait again (Maybe?) I will offer my luck and help to whoever wins the Democratic Primary

But will fight for Edwards 2008

Excellent observation.

:patriot: