Edwards: Democrats need to speak clearly (Public wants to see plan...)

[sabra]

<<SNIP>>
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050731/REPOSITORY/507310374/1031

Edwards: Democrats need to speak clearly
Public wants to see plan of action, he says

BOW - John Edwards, last year's Democratic vice-presidential nominee, urged members of his party to show more passion in reaching out to voters. He dismissed suggestions that Democrats needed to re-evaluate their agenda in order to reverse recent defeats in Congress and the White House, but he said the party should focus on how it communicated with voters.

"Democrats need to stand strong for our core beliefs and commitments, and express them from the heart," Edwards said in an interview with the Monitor. "It shows strength, and most people are looking for strength from their leaders. And strength comes from conviction."

"I don't think we ought to change who we are," Edwards added, "but we ought to make it clear to the country who we are. . . . What the country wants from us is not just a description of problems; they want to know what are we going to do about them."

<</SNIP>>

[ray of light]

1. I agree with Edwards!

And I'm happy to say I've seen a lot more passion from most Dems.

Kerry has been great! Look at how he sceward Condiliar and Bolton!

Boxer has been amazingly tough!

Waters could not be anymore passionate!

BUT sorry, some dems still can't speak out! I wish they would.

[dArKeR]

2. The CITIZENS only want the American Media behind bars through RICO

then our country will be fine. Moral Democrats, Independents, and clueless Republican moderates can work out the rest!


Five dead and aWol smiles today!
http://news.yahoo.com/photo/050731/480/dcpm10307311318;_ylt=At9CBam6jHA1EqvfeOg_hSMHcggF;_ylu=X3oDMTA3bGk2OHYzBHNlYwN0bXA-

[journalist3072]

3. Thank you John Edwards!

He has totally identified the main problem with the Democratic Party right now: message.

I've said it before & I'll say it again. The Democrats never learned a lesson that Republicans learned well: how to get your message out at a time when you don't have the WH as your backdrop.

[oscar111]

5. FREE total healthcare for ALL:JOBS for all:Paper ballots hand counted

:Guaranteed house value {to end southerner bluecollar dem fear of integration and blockbusting destroying his house's value}.

:Ban runaway factories

:Ban outsourcing jobs

:Nationalize again, all government jobs that have been "contracted" to privatizer greedheads.

:Rollback all bush taxcuts

:End all homelessness and poverty via WPA and grants.

:Restore bankruptcy option

:Repeal the foul Energy Bill

There is a plan to put out to all.

-------------
Put it out via AAR. Union LOCALS can buy a station and put AAR on, as anchorage IBEW just did.
KUDO is the statiion.
===================
Union set to purchase Anchorage radio station
Reclaim the Media

www.reclaimthemedia.org

[senaca]

31. to be able to keep to bread and butter issues would be nice.

The last two elections the repubs. have framed issues in a divisive way. Prayer in school, patriotism, flag burning etc. I would like to hear someone say that it's time to stop playing politics with people and get back to what people are dealing with on a day to day basis. Their jobs are being outsourced. Their health care and gas are skyrocketing. There is concern that people's basic needs like: clean air, clean water and properly inspected food are not being met. Peoples pensions are no longer guaranteed. etc.

Every time the repubs. try to use smoke and mirror issues, the wagons need to be circled back to core bread and butter issues, with solutions. A final refusal to play to the issues they use to divide people by countering with a hard hitting message that deals with the issues people are struggling with on a day to day basis would be a step in the right direction.

[goforit]

4. Dems?....What dems??......

Dems have no voice and no power.

Thanks for nothing!

[TwentyFive]

6. Edwards is right! For example, the AWFUL Bankruptcy Bill pushed thru

The Democrats should have sounded the alarm bills on the Bankruptcy Bill pushed thru by the republicans.

NOBODY WANTED THIS EXCEPT WALL STREET BANKERS!!!! IT BENEFITTED NOBODY...EVEN BUSH VOTERS GOT SCREWED!!!!!

But we sat back, and let it happen. No wonder we are losing....

[tjdee]

7. I just love him so much.....

I hope 2004 hasn't screwed him forever. He would make a fine, fine President someday.

[mhr]

8. The Problem Is That The Party Cannot Speak With One Voice

Because there are too many special interests at stake.

Unlike the republicans that are essentially the party of big business and have co-opted the fundamentalist Christians as a voting block, the Democrats are comprised of a plethora of special interests that are unwilling to subjugate their little agendas for a broad set of goals and objectives.

Until the Democrats can coral their lesser parts, Edwards thoughts are like so much dust in the wind and the democratic message will sound like a stack of promises to those in the middle.

[JDPriestly]

9. I disagree.

I think there are certain fundamental values -- truthful leadership in the government, respect for human rights including the right to privacy, recognition that each person has certain basic economic rights, such as the right to a good, public education, the opportunity to work and earn a decent wage and under decent working conditions, the right to live in dignity regardless of disability or age, religious freedom including separation of church and state, the right to live in a peaceful community and a peaceful world. The list goes on and on. I think we all believe in the same things. I don't think Edwards is talking about programs. I don't think he means specific things like free healthcare for all or free transportation to school or free lunches or homeless shelters, although those programs are important. We don't have to get bogged down in the minutiae of programs. The details have to be agreed upon in the Senate and House after study and negotiation. I think Edwards wants us to talk to our friends and neighbors about our fundamental values. Our believe that we have an obligation to take care of the veterans who return from Iraq is a value. Funding the VA is a program. People want to know our values, not what programs we would like to see put in place. For some reason we Democrats have difficulty talking about values. We focus too much on programs. That bores people.

[mhr]

10. Agreed, There Are Fundamental Values

But we will never articulate them because to the outside world our message is always diluted by the special interests.

- environmentalists upset because no environment plank
- feminists upset because no abortion plank
- labor upset because no labor blank
- minorities upset because no minority plank

And on it goes ad nauseaum.

[oneold1-4u]

14. Discerning values

The veteran program is going to be one huge factor in O6 and 08.
This bunch has created disabled veterans by the hundreds and then do such foolish things as charging them for lunch when they are required to be in out patient care for re-hab for 6-8 hours a day. Now they remove military bases where many could go for medical a lot closer to home. They have also cut Vet Hospital funding to the "bone"!
It should be a big rally to give all who come home all that we can give. Creating jobs for all, who can, and wish to be back in the workforce for this country is going to really take some creative thinking and planing. So that is where we really are: PLANNING! and that means all together. If we remain so separate in plans for every faction, then we don't have a "party", only factions and that means little toward gaining any ground for anyone.

[AlGore-08.com]

11. Nothing against Edwards, but "Dems need to stand for core beliefs" etc

And "we need to make it clear to the country who we are" is the same talking point that the Dems have been flogging for five years. Vilsack parroted it during the last DLC get together in Ohio (last week? the week before?).

I've never liked "we need to stand for core beliefs" as a talking point - - it just reenforces the GOP smear that we're a party of flipflopping pander bears...

I'm just saying...

[1932]

13. The democratic talking point for the last three decades has been

a laundry list of policies with the Democrats hoping they've checked the right box so that enough single-interest liberal groups vote Democratic.

The Democrats have NOT spent any time trying to draw a big picture about what it means to be a progressive.

Edwards is actually saying something here that Lakoff spends hundreds of pages arguing in Moral Politics and Lakoff's argument is that the Democrats have not been doing this and he says that they definitely didn't do it in 2004.

[AlGore-08.com]

15. "We have to explain what we stand for" is not the same as saying

"We stand for equal rights for all Americans"

or

"We stand against corporate corruption"

or even

"We stand for God, motherhood and fluffy kittens with big sad eyes".

Lakoff's book has it's points but it's not the bible. The problem with Lakoff's book is that way too many people walk away from it thinking we can solve all our problems with better (or more broadly drawn) talking points. IMNSHO, it's more than a little naive. Better talking points would not have stopped the far right from smearing Max Cleland, Bob Kerrey and Tom Daschle as traitors, or from ridiculing John Kerry as "too French". Better talking points would not have gotten the MSM to cover the campaign in a responsible, objective manner.

No matter what media strategy our side comes up with, the GOP will ignore reality and smear us as whatever polls the worst in swing states. And the MSM will not bother to find out the facts - - the best that they will report is "the GOP candidate said X, the Dem candidate said Y. Film at eleven". The worst that they will report is "The Dem candidate said Y. How much will that hurt him/her? How big of a flip flop is that? How can anybody vote for that clown?"

In 2004, Kerry tried to avoid the hot button issues that the CW said cost Gore in the swing states - - gun control, gay rights and abortion - - and although it was not discussed openly, the smear that Gore was not "a real Christan". Kerry especially tried to play up his credentials as a religious person. The GOP did not concede any of those issues - - they continued to hammer away that Kerry was pro-gun control, pro-gay rights, pro-choice and anti-Christian. At the same time, they hammered away that Kerry was a flip flopper. This meta-narrative that all Dems are flip flopping panderers is so ingrained that the results were predictable. Kerry's careful positioning "came across" to many voters as insincere flip flops. The result was that Kerry lost ground in the swing states, and got fewer moderate votes than Gore did in 2000.

Among beltway types, the CW is that the string of victories by Bush and the GOP prove that image is the most important thing in a campaign. It doesn't matter what your actual history is, or whether your proposals are 100% fact free - - all you need is a "likable" candidate and a slick ad campaign. What nobody talks about or even thinks about is that Bush performed his worst against Al Gore, who ran a very fact driven, policy driven campaign. Gore started out 20 points behind "any Republican", and was still 10 points behind Bush in August right before the convention. Gore went on to get a half million more votes than Bush - - something that he should not have been able to do if your premise is correct. If your premise is correct, Gore's fact heavy, policy heavy campaign should have kept him 20 points behind Bush - - or made him loose even more ground against Bush - - and Gore should have lost both the popular vote and the electoral vote in a landslide.

IMSNHO what Gore proved in 2000 is that substance can win over image - - and if your candidate has enough of a history with the voters, he/she can survive the worst of the GOP attack machine. Nobody in the beltway wants to admit this, because so many people make so much money convincing politicians that they too could be the next President of the United States, if they only hired their services to find those big picture issues, to write those big picture speeches, and to create those big picture campaign commercials. (Another major reason that they don't want to think about 2000 is Gore accepted campaign spending limits, rejected PAC money and was outspent by Bush by almost 2 to 1 - - so he proved that substance can beat money as well.)

That's one of the main reasons we're seriously considering candidates who have little to no experience in office - - because we let the debate be about image and talking points, rather than good government.

[1932]

17. Gore was behind Bush in 2000 until he embraced Clinton's record.

In the last two weeks of Gore's campaign he FINALLY said, "if you liked the last eight years, I'm going to give you more of that" and FINALLY he edged ahead of Bush.

Eight years later I don't think that argument is going to have the power it had in 2000.

However, he's certainly entitled to run.

I just wouldn't get my hopes up.

[AlGore-08.com]

19. Gore was talking about the admin's economic record all through 2000

Which I will discuss again at the end of this, but...

When I was talking about the 2000 campaign, it was to offer proof to my contention that fact based campaigns can be winning campaigns. If fact based, policy heavy campaigns always loose then Gore would have lost in a landslide. And even if you were right - - that Gore had not embraced the Clinton administration economic record until the last two weeks of the campaign - - it still wouldn't have helped him, because he didn't change his fact heavy, policy heavy campaigning style in the last two weeks.

Part of the problem we have now is that we, like the GOP, have decided that facts are messy things, and it's easier and more satisfying to live in a world where everything is black and white and difficult questions have easy solutions. "If Gore had used Clinton more, he would have won". "If we have better messaging, we'll win 2008 in a landslide". "Nobody will vote for the Republicans in 2006 or 2008 because everybody hates Bush."

Clinton, in 2000 (and still to this day) was only popular with a small part of the electorate. The flip side is that he was (and still is) extremely unpopular with a larger part of the electorate. Here are the actual 2000 exit polls from CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/index.epolls.html

Clinton job rating:
Approve: 57%
Disapprove: 41%

Opinion of Clinton as a person:
Favorable: 36%
Unfavorable: 60%

Opinion of Clinton:
Approve/Like: 35%
Approve/Dislike: 20%
Disapprove/Like: 1%
Disapprove/Dislike: 39%

Clinton in history books for:
Leadership: 29%
Scandals: 68%

Clinton scandals were:
Very important: 24%
Somewhat important: 20%
Not too important: 17%
Not important at all: 37%

Reason for your vote:
To support Clinton: 10%
To oppose Clinton: 18%
Clinton not a factor: 70%

What this data does not do, unfortunately, is show that the people who had positive views of Clinton were in heavily blue areas - - and the people who had negative views of Clinton were in the swing states. They were the "values voters" that get discussed so much.

Gore did use Clinton in the 2000 campaign, sending him to very blue areas to campaign, and sending him to Arkansas. Would using Clinton "more" have put Gore over the top in another state, making the Florida results moot? I doubt it, both because I've never seen any polling from 2000 that showed "more Clinton" could have improved Gore's standing in New Hampshire, Nevada, West Virginia or Ohio. This is backed up by the fact that every time Clinton spoke about the Gore campaign to the press, Gore's poll numbers went down. And that even during the 2004 campaign, the Kerry team speculated to the media that Clinton might "still" be more of a vote loser than a vote winner. And after that speculation, they used him exactly the same way that Gore did in 2000 - - with the possible exception of the rally in Philadelphia, although you could argue that this was no different than the "torch passing" ceremony that Gore used early in his campaign.

Anyway, here's Gore talking about the Clinton/Gore economic record in a few speeches before the last two weeks of the campaign - - if I had all day, I could find a hundred examples for you.

http://www.algore-08.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=91&Itemid=123

Speech Transcript: Announcement of 2000 Presidential Candidacy
Wednesday, 16 June 1999
by Al Gore
Carthage, TN

(snip)

Under the policies President Clinton and I have proposed, instead of the biggest deficits in history, we now have the biggest surplus in history. Instead of quadrupling our national debt, we've seen the creation of almost 19 million new jobs. Instead of a deep recession and high unemployment, America now has our strongest economy in the history of the United States.

We remember what it was like seven years ago. And I never, ever want to go back. America always looks forward, to the next horizon.

I want to keep our prosperity going - and I know how to do it. I want to do it the right way - not by letting people fend for themselves, or hoping for crumbs of compassion, but by giving people the skills and knowledge to succeed in their own right in the next century.

***

http://www.algore-08.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=85&Itemid=123

Speech Transcript: Remarks to the NAACP 91st Annual Convention
Wednesday, 12 July 2000

(snip)

I know very well that you gave Bill Clinton and me a chance to bring change to this country. So thank you, once again, for 1992 and for 1996.

And after the election, together we set our hands to a time of recession and doubt. We assembled a diverse team that did indeed look like America and reflected the excellence as well as diversity of America. And with that team, we began making changes and crafted a new plan to lift up those who needed help and to strengthen our country by getting the hope and opportunity to those who missed it the most.

What we did was to challenge the old ways. And I don't want you to forget either that it didn't come without a struggle. It didn't come without a fight. It didn't come without a cliff-hanging vote in the House of Representatives that we barely won by one vote. It didn't come without a tie vote in the Senate which I had the honor and privilege of breaking as vice president, making possible a one-vote margin in both houses of Congress.

The other side predicted that our new way would fail, would cause a disaster for the country. Their predictions make for humorous reading now, when you set them beside the outstanding record that Bill Lucy reminded you of, because they were--the other side was headed in the wrong direction. And they still are.

They need to turn around and get with the program, because we now have evidence of exactly why the approach that President Clinton and I have recommended and fought for is good for our country and good for all of our people.

Instead of a triple-dip recession, and the deepest recession since the 1930s, we've seen a tripling of the stock market.

Instead of the biggest deficits in history, we've got the biggest surpluses in history.

Instead of high unemployment, we've got the lowest African-American unemployment in the history of the statistics and the strongest economy in the history of the United States of America. We're making progress. We're headed in the right direction.

We need to keep going in the right direction, and I am here to say: You ain't seen nothing yet. We're going to keep going. We're going to keep building. We're going to keep growing. We're going to keep working together and climb to a higher place, a better place, with even more jobs, where nobody's left behind.

(more...)

http://www.algore-08.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=84&Itemid=123

Speech Transcript: Acceptance speech at the 2000 Democratic National Convention
Thursday, 17 August 2000

(snip)

For almost eight years now, I've been the partner of a leader who moved us out of the valley of recession and into the longest period of prosperity in American history. I say to you tonight, millions of Americans will live better lives for a long time to come because of the job that's been done by President Bill Clinton.

(APPLAUSE)

Instead of the biggest deficits in history, we now have the biggest surpluses, the highest home ownership ever, the lowest inflation in a generation, and instead of losing jobs, we now have 22 million good new jobs, higher family incomes.

(APPLAUSE)

Above all, our success comes from you the people who have worked hard for your families. But let's not forget that a few years ago you were also working hard. But your hard work then, was undone by a government that didn't work, didn't put people first, and wasn't on your side. Together, we changed things to help unleash your potential, and unleash innovation and investment in the private sector, the engine that drives our economic growth. And our progress on the economy is a good chapter in our history.

(APPLAUSE)

But now we turn the page and write a new chapter. And that's what I want to speak about tonight. This election is not an award for past performance. I'm not asking you to vote for me on the basis of the economy we have. Tonight I ask for your support on the basis of the better, fairer, more prosperous America we can build together.

(more... )

[1932]

22. I have read books by Arthur Levitt, Jeffrey Toobin, Joseph Stiglitz and

others, none of whom have anything to say about Al Gore either explicitly or implicitly that suggests he was a good candidate or cared very much for interests other than Wall Street's.

The opinions of those authors are in line with my own perceptions of Gore.

But if you have a book that you can suggest, I'll take a look at it.

[AlGore-08.com]

23. So it's not possible those authors are wrong or biased?

The problem with using qualitative terms like "good" or "bad" to describe any candidate is you can't prove or disprove them. And it's very easy to use actual facts to show that Gore was a "good" candidate. Gore went from a 20 point deficit to win the popular vote (and the electoral vote). That's pretty "good". It's certainly "better" than Bush did, since he lost the twenty point lead he had initially. Gore got more votes than Bill Clinton ever did. So does that mean Gore was a "better" candidate than Clinton? Gore got more votes than Bush, and Kerry got less. Does that make Gore a "better" candidate than Kerry? Gore won the popular vote by a larger margin than JFK did in 1960. Does that make Gore a "better" candidate than Kennedy? Even if those facts makes Gore a "better" candidate than Clinton, Kerry and Kennedy, Gore could have always been "better". Everybody and everything could always be "better". That's why "better" is one of the favorite comparative words of the advertising industry.

IMNSHO, for anybody to state that Gore (or any candidate) "only cared about Wall Street" is intellectually insulting. As I said in a previous post, when we abandon facts and logic in favor of a simplistic "Saint/Sinner" worldview, we end up shooting ourselves in the foot time and time again. We leave ourselves vulnerable to the liberal versions of Faux News, Karl Rove and Bill Frist.

Looking at his record, and knowing people who have been helped by him, and former students of his, and former staff, I can think of a huge number of things that Gore has done that he would have done differently if he "only cared about Wall Street". I will only name one, in the interest of making this more readable.

In 1999, my friend Dylan Malone had a son who was born with severe brain damage, due to a medical error during Ian's birth. Ian needed 24 hour nursing care to survive. The Malone's HMO would not pay for Ian's treatment and told the Malones to put Ian up for adoption so that the state would pay for his care. Dylan contacted everyone in politics he could think of about his son's situation. Gore - - who had never met the Malones or heard of Ian's case before - - was the only one who contacted him back. After meeting with the Malones for about 20 minutes, Gore called a press conference and kept talking about Ian's situation to the media and at campaign rallies. In a very short period of time, Gore embarrassed the HMO into honoring their contract and paying for Ian's coverage. Gore incorporated Ian's story into his campaign, using him as an example of why we need health care reform. After leaving office, Gore continued to be part of Ian's life until he passed away last spring. Gore is still friends with Dylan and his wife, Christine.

If Gore "only cared about Wall Street" he would have shrugged off Dylan's call for help. Or after his staff explained the situation, he would have moved on until he found a better, more videogenic example to exploit (a child who was capable of speech would have been much more heart rending than Ian, who was incapable of communicating even nonverbally). He certainly would have dropped the Malone family like a hot brick after the 2000 election - - instead moving on to do Wall Street's evil bidding.

As a person, Gore has a huge sense of duty. He is also genuinely interested in helping people. I heard him speak very eloquently in Nashville two weeks ago, talking about the major issues of the day as he sees them. They were, in order, global warming (our generation has a moral duty to end it), the economy (Dems should fight for the poor, working class and middle class rather than the rich) and Iraq (the phony "evidence" used to get us into the war). One of his most passionate passages was about how the Democratic party is at its best when we speak for those who do not otherwise have a voice and how we must all stand up for the civil rights of all Americans.

These are not new topics for him. He has been speaking about these things, in one form or another, his entire career. Specifically, these three issues are the ones he's been talking about the most since the end of the 2000 election. He spoke against the invasion of Iraq before Congress voted for the invasion - - and in doing so, he lost his support inside the DNC and had to drop out of the 2004 primary.

Al Gore is not a one dimensional monster.

Bush has done much, much more to advance the agenda of the "economic royalists" than Gore has ever done. The Republican party has done much, much more to advance the agenda of Wall Street than Gore has ever done.

That said, even Bush is not a one dimensional monster.

[1932]

24. Is it possible that you're biased?

Like you, they write long arguments. They suppor their arguments with facts. And their conclusions are very compelling. The confirmed things I've concluded based on my own observations.

Just read Stiglitz's chapter about the Telecommunications Bill.

[AlGore-08.com]

27. Of course I'm biased. My screen name proves that.

However, I'm not so biased that I claim Al Gore or any Democrat is a perfect human being. I'm also not so biased that I believe something I read just because it agrees with my preconceptions.

But even if I was that biased, and even if every word in Stiglitz's chapter is true, one chapter by Stiglitz cannot prove that Gore "only cared about Wall Street". In order to prove that Gore "only" cared about Wall Street, you would have to prove that every single decision Gore has ever made in his life was made to advance Wall Street's agenda.

You can't do that because it's not possible to do that. People aren't that one dimensional. Just how did marrying Tipper advance the agenda of Wall Street - - why didn't he marry a rich, politically connected heiress like Teresa Heinz instead of a lower middle class nobody like Tipper Aitcheson?

But you don't have to focus on personal things to debunk the idea that Gore "only cared about Wall Street". In Gore's case, how did Gore backing gun control advance Wall Street's agenda? Wall Street would rather have more people buying guns more rapidly than having the government keep some of them from owning guns and the rest of them waiting. But the biggest one: how does opposing the war in Iraq advance Wall Street's agenda? And why didn't Gore keep his opinions about Iraq to himself from September 2002 onward, why didn't he jump on the "Nuke Iraq" bandwagon as his master Wall Street would have preferred?

My main point in this thread has been about much more than Gore. We as Dems/Liberals/Progressives, how every you want to define us, are doing ourselves a huge disservice by buying into the idea that people can be neatly labeled as "Saint" or "Sinner" - - by refusing to see shades of gray. There is no way that any human being can be perfect 100% of the time - - and there's certainly no way any Dem candidate can fit into the "Saint" category for everybody at DU.

This cartoonization of public discourse is the worst development in modern politics, it's landed the GOP with Rush Limbaugh, Faux News and George W. Bush - - and we're on the verge of rushing over the cliff after them.

[1932]

30. With the Telecom bill, Gore cared more about Wall St than about Main St.

Funny that you mention marriage as influencing a person's attitudes. Gore's daughter is married to a Citigroup heir. Some I'm with you on that issue.

[VPStoltz]

12. And since it's worked so well for the Chimp

Every Democrat should say something like, "And you all know what Bush and Cheney think of your representatives in government and the First Amendment..." Then hold up that infamous middle finger and say "GO FUCK YOURSELF." I dare just one to do it.

[Robert Oak]

16. how about voting in congress for core values

Cases in point:

CAFTA
IRAQ
Bankruptcy bill
tax cuts
mega tax cuts for big business
no health care
no child health care.

Christ who cares what their words are they aren't voting for us!

(many, many corpocrats).

[anotherdrew]

18. Edwards! DO - don't TELL

so say something, got a plan? Gonna run for office?

[Zorra]

20. Stop representing corporate interests and start representing people.

Democrats are supposed to be democrats. The DLC has given the Democratic Party multiple personality syndrome.

We need to go way back to our roots. Like all the way back to Thomas Jefferson, and pick up where FDR left off.

Given how many Democrats today are voting with republicans to pass corporate sponsored legislation such as the bankruptcy bill, how can we as Democrats be sure these same Democrats will not defect again again, and even at some point vote with republicans to terminate Social Security or raise the retirement age to 70 yrs. old?

How many of y'all are reasonably confident that SS will still be in existence in 2017?

"The DLC embraces CAFTA and sells admission to its conference to corporate lobbyists," Jesse L. Jackson

[progressivebydesign]

21. Howard Dean spoke very clearly.. but was slapped down.

I guess only presidential contenders like Edwards, Biden, Clinton, et al, are allowed to speak publicly for the Democrats now.

[Tinksrival]

25. I agree!

Dems can speak out till their blue in the face and it won't matter if the MSM won't let them get out that message!

Wes Clark just recently took the WSJ to task on this and personally wrote his own LTE:
~~~~~~~~~~~
'Resolve' on Iraq Is Fine, but We Also Need a Plan

Letter to the Editor
Wall Street Journal

In your June 30 editorial "Wanted: A Constructive Opposition," following
the president's speech on Iraq, you chided me and a number of other Democrats for simply critiquing the president's plan rather than offering our own. Your criticisms are both incorrect and misplaced.

I and others have offered our plans again and again. We called for a diplomatic strategy in the region -- rather than relying wholly on threats and warning -- more and better equipped U.S. forces focused on training the Iraqis, and a more intensive effort to promote political and economic development in Iraq. I first articulated my plans in my 2003 book, "Winning Modern Wars," and continued to propose a better approach throughout the presidential campaign.

But no matter: It is the duty of the president to propose a plan that works, and to explain it and win the support of the people. Instead, as casualties mount and Americans begin to doubt, all the president does is call for "resolve."

I'm all for resolve -- I lived it during my tour in Vietnam. But Americans are beginning to understand that success in Iraq requires more than just resolve: It requires an effective plan, sufficient resources and effective execution of political, economic and diplomatic efforts, not just great "soldiering."

We in the loyal opposition are doing our duty by pointing out shortfalls
in the president's approach.

Ret. Gen. Wesley Clark
Washington

[cubschicago]

26. Wait wait

The guy who lost the Democratic primary and didn't help John Kerry win a single Southern state (his only potential redeemable quality in '04) wants to give other Democrats advice?!

:rofl:

[anotherdrew]

29. Asked what he thought Democrats short-term goals should be, Edwards said:

he was too busy focusing on his work at the poverty center to dissect broader political debates.

[anotherdrew]

28. only way for edwards to get a sound bite is to say "dems message is bad" ?

I'd swear this is the third time he's gotten this same message out. Hello John, say something else...