Brilliant Idea! (4.00 / 2)

Insanely brilliant.

Which is why Clinton would never do it.

(Go ahead.  Prove me wrong.  I can take it.)

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 19:57:15 PM CST

Thank the gods Hillary is so unimaginative (0.00 / 0)

and so risk averse.  And so establishment.  It is a good idea.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

---

by: Mimikatz @ Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 19:58:52 PM CST

Why Be Thankful??? (4.00 / 3)

Just imagine if Hillary and Obama got into a contest to see who could be the best Democratic leader in the Senate!  Wouldn't that be something!

We might actually make some things happen.  Get folks all discombobulated.  Raise expectations that government can actually work, for a change.

It's happened before, you know.  Back in 1960, all the Democrats (except for Stevenson, already a two-time loser) were almost all from the Senate, and were largely running on their records (Kennedy more on his image, but he actually made speeches in the Senate as a significant part of building that image): Kennedy, Humphrey, Johnson, Symington, even Wayne Morse, who got in too late to really make a decent run.  There hasn't been anything like it since.  Why not now?

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 20:08:52 PM CST

[ Parent ]

As the timestamps indicate (4.00 / 1)

I wrote and posted my comment below, which is essentially what you said, before I read yours. Yes, this would be great indeed. Something quite good appears to be happening at last that I think could only be stopped by, well, the unthinkable.

The liberal soul shall be made fat. He who waters shall be watered also himself. (Proverbs 11:25)

---

by: kovie @ Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 20:23:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Hillary Clinton (0.00 / 0)

Clinton is done.  People are tired of Bush and Clinton for the last 20 years.  She does not have the personality that Bill Clinton has.  When she tries the common touch it comes across as forced. She makes Martha Stewart look warm. She voted for the war in Iraq.  I want the Democrats to win big so that they control the Presidency and Congress.  Obama makes that a real possibility.  He is drawing in young voters.

---

by: jhiestand @ Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 20:09:41 PM CST

A Curious Paradox (4.00 / 2)

All those fresh, new ideas, and yet this comment reads like spam.

[Homer voice:] Mmmmm! Spaaaam!

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 20:29:00 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Sounds more like a true believer (0.00 / 0)

No lack of them for any candidate in every blog. I view this as more of a combination of well-meaning political newbies getting sucked into one campaign's rhetoric or another, and long-suffering Dems who's longed for someone to believe in doing much the same.

Talking points don't win elections, candidates win them.

I think I read that on a campaign web site so who am I to doubt it? ;-)

The liberal soul shall be made fat. He who waters shall be watered also himself. (Proverbs 11:25)

---

by: kovie @ Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 20:39:32 PM CST

[ Parent ]

That's Talking Point #1, In'nit? (4.00 / 1)

(1) Talking points don't win elections, candidates win them.
(2) Candidates don't win elections. You (supporters, volunteers, voters, donors, whoever) win them.
(3) No one wins elections.  The other guy loses them.
(4) Nobody knows anything. (h/t William Goldman).
(5) This isn't a talking point.  It's an argument!

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 21:09:28 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Elections don't win elections, the NRA does... (4.00 / 1)

And who among us has not put food on our childrens who learns...

The liberal soul shall be made fat. He who waters shall be watered also himself. (Proverbs 11:25)

---

by: kovie @ Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 21:49:34 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Not to sound mean or anything (0.00 / 0)

but I hear that the Hillary campaign is thinking of changing its theme song to "I Never Promised You a Rose Garden". (I beg your pardon...)

Sorry, I couldn't resist. ;-)

The liberal soul shall be made fat. He who waters shall be watered also himself. (Proverbs 11:25)

---

by: kovie @ Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 20:30:38 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Mostly true in the US senate (4.00 / 1)

Not so true in his previous jobs:

Obama's (and Edwards's) weakness, heretofore unexploited, is that, though he's running on a message of change, he's never actually led on any substantive change.  So Obama is something of a cipher.

And I'd argue that as senators, they are all ciphers. And since she's running behind now and Edwards is no longer a senator, she's got nothing to lose, and everything to gain, by taking the lead in the senate. It would force Obama to join her. And that would be nothing but good for the country. Just imagine, presidential canditates trying to outdo each other on actual progressive leadership--as opposed to the other side, which has been trying to outdo each other on nastiness and pandering. Color me happy.

The liberal soul shall be made fat. He who waters shall be watered also himself. (Proverbs 11:25)

---

by: kovie @ Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 20:16:37 PM CST

Then Edwards Could Go Out And Get Himself Arrested (4.00 / 2)

There are plenty of opportunities out there to do a Thoreau/Ghandi/MLK thing.  So if Clinton and Obama actually tried to outwork each other, Edwards just might be forced to go to jail

This could get really interesting.

Okay, now I know I've really gotten carried away.  I'd blame it on drugs, but I haven't had even a morsel of chocolate since mid-morning.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 20:33:48 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Heh, now wouldn't that be interesting (0.00 / 0)

And, of course, quite stupid at this particular juncture, not only in terms of his prospects, but for the party as a whole. Much of Obama's calculation is based, I believe, on his assumption that there's a huge segment of the electorate that's his for the taking so long as he doesn't come across as TOO progressive, which he will need to capture if he's to not only win, but win with a mandate and govern effectively.

If Edwards or someone of similar stature did something this dumb (however virtuous on its own terms), it would do damage to Obama (or whoever is the nominee). And Edwards is anything but dumb (I just love giving praise where it's due).

And yes, I know that you're snarking (I hope!), but in case anyone didn't get this...

And seriously, I agree, he could and should do something of both substantive and symbolic importance. The problem is that it's a lot harder to do this when out of office and not come across as phony, than it is to do so when in office, where ready-made opportunities to shine abound. Any ideas? Help lead the effort to rally the public behind the effort to prevent telcom amnesty, end the war, or some such noble and important thing--by leading rallies, making major speeches, writing articles and op-eds, etc., instead of doing the usual campaign shtick?

Ok, maybe he should get arrested. ;-)

The liberal soul shall be made fat. He who waters shall be watered also himself. (Proverbs 11:25)

---

by: kovie @ Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 20:49:25 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I Was Only Semi-Snarking (0.00 / 0)

As in, "he can't get arrested" the way the Versailles media treats him.

But, seriously, there are all manner of outrages against justice taking place every day.  And if Clinton and Obama went back to the Senate to fight major battles, and the GOP race continued spinning out of the conservative elites' control, then a very opportune situation might well emerge in which getting arrested struck just the right note--not for 100% of the people, of course.  That could never happen.  But it only needs to be right for about 60% of them, and the madder it makes Versailles, the better it is for Edwards.

Say, for example, it's about getting emergency life-saving health care--for the daughter of an Iraq War vet, so it's BushCo government neglect and betrayal of trust as well as corporate greed.  See where I'm going with this?  The stars align kind of thing.  That's when the witching hour is upon us, and what started off as snark turns into magic.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 21:02:45 PM CST

[ Parent ]

As noble as it might be (0.00 / 0)

it would come across as opportunistic within the context of an electoral campaign in today's political climate, which is not yet receptive to open progressivism, I believe. At least Dodd is still a senator, so his filibuster was within the scope of his job. And most voters probably never even paid attention to him when he did this.

If Edwards did something this spectacular, his supporters would obviously be thrilled, some others might come around to him, but I suspect that just as many if not more would view it as insincere and desperate--and some of them might presently be among his softer supporters. If he decides to do something like this purely for its own merits, then more power to him. But it's not likely to help his campaign, and it might well hurt it.

Of course, if he really believes that this is the right thing to do, he'll do it regardless of its possible electoral effects. But I tend to doubt that he will.

The liberal soul shall be made fat. He who waters shall be watered also himself. (Proverbs 11:25)

---

by: kovie @ Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 21:55:20 PM CST

[ Parent ]

That's How Things Sit Now (0.00 / 0)

But my point here hinges on the notion that things may be changing in unpredictable ways.  Sliding sideways, as it were.

It's like an incredible number of contradictions have been pumped into the system and effectively contained by an extreme degree of authoritarian control. And now the controls are wearing off.  There are only limited mechanisms for Bush/Cheney to keep things in place.  They have no obvious successors, and anyway, they've lost so much support that their party itself is showing signs of potential fragmentation.  This is potentially uncharted territory, and in the digital age, things could potentially change very rapidly.

All that said, I, too, doubt that he'll do it.  Heck, I doubt he'll even consider it.

But I think it's useful to contemplate.  It's useful to reflect on the fact that things are really on the verge of being very deeply in flux in our country.  I think it's at least 10% conceivable that the GOP could suffer a major meltdown between now and November, and the Dems could walk away with more than 60 seats in the Senate.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 04:51:25 AM CST

[ Parent ]

This is where I'm a small-c "conservative" (0.00 / 0)

wrt to tactics and strategy, not ideology and goals. We are where we are now, polticially (i.e. the GOP in free fall and Dems on the rise) arguably as much if not more because the right has self-destructed, as because our side has performed so wonderfully (which with certain notable exceptions it has not) over the course of the conservative era. Which is why I believe that, right now at least, until we've firmly won much of the public over to our way of thinking or at least doing things (via policy successes that actively win them over, as opposed to via the other side's having actively lost them), we should not overestimate our current political capital and assume that just because the public despises the other side, that they love us (yet).

Which is why I tend to favor Obama's approach over Edwards. I certainly agree with and like much of what Edwards is saying (e.g. the evils of corporate greed, corrupt politics, cowardice, capitulation, the Two Americas, etc). I'm just not sure that the country is quite yet ready for his more combative approach to dealing with this right now, and see Obama's (deceptively as I see it) sunny brand of politics as being a smarter way to win the public over for now (in a superficial and provisional manner, obviously, since words can only win people over so much), which will (temporarily) give him the political room to do what I hope he intends to do, which I believe is not that unlike what Edwards says that he wants to do. Which, if it succeeds (and there are of course lots of question marks around that), will almost certainly win the public over in a much deeper and more lasting way than the "hope" campaign ever could.

Weird--and often quite bad--things tend to happen when a long-lasting power structure collapses, and people try to take them too far in the opposite direction and/or fail to respond to it smartly. Done properly, you get the New Deal. Done rashly, you get that other political movement that came to power at that time, in Europe, which was due in many ways to the inability and unwillingness of the Nazi's political opponents to come together and seriously oppose them. And if you think that I'm going all Godwin here, just look at the rising stars on the other side, just dying to step in and take over if our side fails to exploit this historical opportunity smartly. E.g. Paul, Huckabee, Giuliani, etc., and all the lesser but just as if not more extreme stars on the far right, e.g. Tancredo, Keyes, Hunter, etc. And then there are the corporatists like Romney, Bloomberg, even McCain, who would just love to swoop in and take over again after each side dukes it out and fails to capture the electorate.

No, I am NOT claiming that if Edwards wins, this will happen. Quite the opposite. He's not my top choice, but I'd be quite happy with him as our nominee and president. What I am claiming is that if our side continues to engage in this crazy circular firing squad nonsense beyond the primary, it COULD set things up for the other side--and its most extreme and/or corrupt elements--to be able to swoop in and take over. Clearly, you are NOT doing this, nor are many other Obama critics. But I'm coming across a really weird, vicious and to me quite dangerous-seeming anti-Obama "movement" on the left that worries me. Perhaps 1933 Germany is too far-fetched. In fact, right now, it is, I believe. But 1968 USA is not beyond the realm of possibility. And we all know how that worked out for our side, and the country.

Personally, I don't think that any of this will happen, but I also think that it's useful to be on the watch for it, just in case.

The liberal soul shall be made fat. He who waters shall be watered also himself. (Proverbs 11:25)

---

by: kovie @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 18:43:17 PM CST

[ Parent ]

He's a Lawyer (0.00 / 0)

Edwards is a trial lawyer, so it probably makes more sense for him to sue somebody -- to use his skill, experience, and authority to do what he says he wants to do. Let's say he drops out of the presidential race, then sues Cheney for war crimes or sues the Justice Department for subversion of justice (firing federal prosecutors). Either move would certainly be a sensation. Probably it would not go over well, but if it did, he might be drafted back into the presidential race.

---

by: RandomNonviolence @ Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 22:37:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I wonder (4.00 / 1)

if this would really help her campaign. It would help her popularity with the left blogosphere, but I'm not sure there is any evidence this would help in any particular primary.

---

by: taylormattd @ Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 20:52:07 PM CST

I'd go old-school. (4.00 / 2)

60 Minutes.  This week.  With Bill.  Whoever they wanted to interview them, no holds barred.  Drop something new about the pain of his infidelities and the strength of her marriage to humanize her, take the narrative back.

---

by: Adam B. @ Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 23:21:35 PM CST