Clinton, Obama and Edwards Need to "Put Up Or Shut Up"

[Orwellian_Ghost]

Clinton, Obama and Edwards Need to "Put Up Or Shut Up"
Posted by Jane Hamsher, Firedoglake at 6:04 AM on January 12, 2008.

If the Democratic frontrunners all want to be considered agents of change, what exactly are they doing to change anything?

eporters should be asking them a simple question: What kind of leadership are you showing right now? Why should we believe you have great leadership ability if you're not showing any on critical issues currently facing Congress and the nation?

By contrast to the Republican presidential candidates who talk as if President Bush doesn't exist (see my recent piece for NiemanWatchdog.org, Rating Bush on a scale of 1 to 10), the Democrats talk about him a lot. But they act as if he wasn't still very much in charge, still ramming legislation through Congress to fund his war in Iraq and generally subvert other key Democratic goals.

It's understandable that the presidential candidates themselves want to focus on what they would do once elected. And sure, being president is awfully different than being just one member of a political party whose majority, at least in the Senate, is tenuous. But to the extent that part of their promise to the American people is that they will be strong leaders, that they will have the courage of their convictions, and that they will reach across party lines and build working political coalitions - why shouldn't journalists ask for evidence in the here and now?

Very good questions, Dan, I'm glad you asked them. If Hillary Clinton does want to stand up to George Bush, why doesn't she go back to Washington DC and do it? The opportunities are multitudinal. And if Barack Obama wants to get Republicans to reach across the aisle and join with Democrats to carve out important legislation, why doesn't he shut down the nay-sayers by doing so now? What's stopping him? John Edwards doesn't hold elected office at the moment so he doesn't have the same number of opportunities, but he could certainly lead an anti-war demonstration. A march on the White House would be nice.

http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/hamsher/73560/#more

[stillcool]

1. I think Kucinich...

proves..and Edwards offers more proof...that if you 'say' anything that ruffles feathers you are marginalized out of the picture. Now let's get back to bombing Iraq.
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL1069138220080110?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews
http://www.dailymail.com/News/200801100677

[zalinda]

2. According to the PBS special on the election

Edwards has people donating time to food banks and such.........it's a start.

zalinda

[OzarkDem]

3. Refusing to take money from lobbyists is very strong action

Edwards is knowingly putting his own campaign at a disadvantage to prove a point - that he won't be influenced by big power-brokers with lots of cash to buy influence in the next administration.

That's a huge commitment.

[avaistheone1]

4. Edwards is the only candidate who openly says he will transition us to "single-payer" universal

health care. No one else either has the courage or the vision to do so.