Screen Shot 2018-12-16 at 12.31.37 PM
PM Carpenter, your host. Email: pmcarp at mchsi dot com.
Screenshot 2024-05-27 at 11.05.06 AM


  • ***


« Anatomy of a "bloodless penis" (an apt term I stole from a devastating Philip Roth review) | Main | Yet more impeachable revelations: We sit on a decisive precipice »

October 03, 2007


old dem

I have long thought that Obama was encouraged to enter the race simply because he was all shiny and new, had good oratorical skills, and the ability to deflect attention from the populist message of Edwards. His voting record, especially on Iraq where he didn't start opposing funding until he had the polls behind him, or on trade, basically mirrored that of Hillary. MSM grabbed onto his candidacy with a relish, immediately establishing the race as consisting of two candidates, between corporatist and shiny new corporatist with a few populist ideas, but who didn't have much of a backbone.

Obama's economic advisors are identical to Hillary's advisors, so the rich can breathe easy and the rhetorical skills of both Bill and Obama will convince those who don't (but should) know better that both are on the side of the working and middle classes. The rich may have to pay a bit more in taxes, but they will still be allowed to send jobs overseas.

J Snow

Again Mr. Carpenter has hit the nail on the head. Barack Obama is a lawyer first, activist second, i.e. he knows which way the wind is blowing and acts accordingly.

Personally, I like John Edwards even though he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell. It really hurts that he didn't get SEIU's endorsement. It seems to me that Edwards should hook up with Kucinich and Gravel to see if they could head off the inevitable Hillary-Obama ticket.

Of course the Democratic ticket that would give the Repukes the most trouble would be a Al Gore/Jim Webb ticket. Al Gore, the rightful winner in 2000 matched with Ronald Reagan's Secretary of Defense would win in a landslide and would have coattails that would sweep the House and Senate, as well. The Repukes would be in the political wilderness for the next 20 years. Too bad Big Money is scared to death of Al Gore and Jim Webb. They love the status quo and that's why they support Hillary/Obama.


Sen. Webb was Sec. of the Navy - minor correction - under Reagan. Anyway, I still have hope that Edwards will get a giant bounce from an Iowa win. People who vote in primaries are more base-like, ie. progressive than general election voters.


Almost everyone I know - of all ages, genders and ethnicities - prefers John Edwards; however, that never shows up in these polls. What's up with that? Of course, I live in Berkeley, so that might have something to do with it, but I'm also hearing this from my friends/relatives in New England, New York and New Jersey (unfortunately, I don' know anyone in the heartland) Did the SEIU give any hint as to why it didn't support Edwards? I agree that a Gore/Webb candidacy would probably blast everyone out of the water.

J. Bush

Gore/Webb or Gore/somebody may be our best and only chance of upsetting the corporate apple cart. I gave my first campaign donation of the election season today--gave it in support of an ad urging Gore to get in this race and claim the office that was stolen from him by the supreme court coup of 2000.
I just can't think of anyone else who has a real chance of putting the brakes on status quo.


The obvious answer is that Hillary and Barack are the barely acceptable corporate candidates. The predator class will fight them like all hell broke loose, but if they somehow get elected things will stay just the same. The fix is in, folks!

Mark Cartwright

"Will you promise the American people our troops will be out of Iraq by 2013?" Hillary, Barack and John(Our leading Democratic candidates)respond, "No". Just maybe we should start asking ourselves whether a vote for one of the two-branches of the American Corporate Party (GOP & Dems) isn't a vote for the "Lesser of two evils", but rather a vote to continue evil. It's your conscience and your vote.

terry moore

yes you are right again. But I am not sure who are funding these polls...Tom Hartman's radio show when he said taking the next 50 callers who are you voting for...85% said Edwards only 6% wanted Hillary. Im from Minnesota I have not met one Dem who wants Hillary..something is not right.


I agree--there is some manipulation going on with these numbers, and however it happens, it smells.
Like maybe they disqualify Democrats and are only polling Republicans, or perhaps the poll and news story are just bought and paid for--could be the Washington Post's way of making money now that print subscriptions are in a freefall, who knows?
Dirty tricks like like these make me suspect all kinds of nefarious things--like maybe Karl Rove is working with Hillary's camp behind the scenes.


clinton is my senator and she is welcome to remain in that office..i want edwards to lead our nation..the repugs want to run against hillary-they have no doubt spent a fortune preparing swiftboat type flaming ads to vilify her..hell, bush&rove have annoited her the dem candidate..all v suspect

The comments to this entry are closed.