Stunning article about Edwards leaving the race.

[Ninga]

http://prorev.com/2008/01/john-edwards-hidden-problem.html

-snip-

an excerpt:

One of the delusions of elite liberals is that that they lack prejudice. To be sure, they treat black, women and gays far better than once was the case. But if you are poor, uneducated, own a gun, weigh a lot, come from the South or mainly read the Bible it is another matter. Class and culture have replaced the genetic as acceptable targets.

The 28% of the American adult population with college degrees defines the country's values, its policies, its laws, what is stylish and how you get to the top, including the White House. And what it has defined has exacted no small price from the remaining 72%. For example, just in the past eight years, the following have gotten significantly worse:

Median income
Number of manufacturing jobs
Number of new private jobs
Percent of workers with company based health insurance
Poverty
Consumer credit debt
Number of housing foreclosures
Cost of heating oil & gas
Number without health insurance
Wages in manufacturing
Income gap between rich and poor
Wealth of the bottom 40% of Americans
Number of older families with pensions
Number of workers covered by defined benefit pensions
Hunger
Use of soup kitchens
Personal bankruptcies
Median rent

Yet when John Edwards tried to build a campaign around these issues he was subjected not only to the opposition of the establishment and its media but a notable tone of ridicule whose subtext was: why would anyone want to bother with such things? Especially a guy as rich as Edwards?

And when he pulled out of the race, Edwards was treated to more of the same, especially from such faux hip websites as Gawker, Radar and Fark:

Radar: The pretty-boy presidential candidate scored just 14 percent of the vote in yesterday's Florida primaries. . .

Fark: John Edwards announces he will drop out of race today to spend more time with his hair.

Gawker: John Edwards will end his 49th run for president Wednesday after failing to capitalize on his angry hobo-under-the-bridge message.

These sites, like much of elite America, are led by spoiled offspring of generations who had to struggle with just the sort of issues Edwards was trying to raise, but from which they now consider themselves immune by their education, status and cleverness.

It didn't used to be like this. I have sometimes tried to explain to people, usually unsuccessfully, that we've always had born-again Christians; we just used to call them New Deal Democrats. And those construction workers, easy foil of the New Yorker cartoonists, were once part of a Democratic electorate before they were lured away by the likes of Ronald Reagan.

[Joe the Revelator]

1. Those "news" sites this article try to cite are humor/entertainment sites

not really the best examples.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

8. The Washington Times

ran an editorial last week in which they referred to Edwards as "the Breck girl."

The Breck girl and (tax-funded?) haircuts

The Breck girl and (tax-funded?) haircuts
THE WASHINGTON TIMES EDITORIAL
January 24, 2008

John Edwards has acknowledged that one haircut (and almost certainly at least two others) he received during the 2004 general-election campaign, when he was the Democrats' vice presidential nominee, cost $1,250. His staff insists that Mr. Edwards paid for the haircuts himself, but it has declined to provide the evidence in the form of cancelled checks or credit-card statements. During the first quarter of last year, the Edwards campaign paid for two haircuts costing $400 each before Mr. Edwards reimbursed the campaign after the press revealed the payments. Why does this matter?

It matters because the 2004 Democratic ticket of Kerry-Edwards received $75 million in taxpayer funds to conduct their general-election campaign. And Mr. Edwards has recently taken out a multimillion-dollar bank loan, which he has collateralized by pledging some of the $8.8 million in taxpayer-financed matching funds for which he qualified during 2007. If Mr. Edwards was so cavalier about spending taxpayer money in 2004 that he would shell out $1,250 of the taxpayers' $75 million election subsidy for a single haircut, how could voters seriously consider him for president, one of whose jobs will be to oversee an annual federal budget in excess of $3 trillion? Moreover, what does it say about anybody who would actually pay such a sum for a haircut?

On at least three occasions in 2004, Mr. Edwards had his Beverly Hills hairstylist fly to Atlanta (August), Washington (early October) and Ohio (late October); stay overnight in a hotel; and cut Mr. Edwards' hair. When the editorial page of The Washington Times first questioned the Edwards campaign about the 2004 haircuts, deputy national press secretary Colleen Murray said that staffers from the 2008 campaign combed several boxes of records from 2004. Unable to locate the proverbial "needle in a haystack" that would have revealed that taxpayers had paid for the haircuts, she concluded that Mr. Edwards had paid for them with his own money.

A week ago, after Mr. Edwards took out his bank loan, The Washington Times asked the campaign to forget about looking for "a needle in a haystack" and, instead, search for "the boulder in the bathtub." Surely bank records or credit-card statements from August to November 2004 could be easily accessed with a quick telephone call. The campaign declined to provide any evidence, and taxpayers may draw their own conclusions.

All of this matters.

If that isn't worse than the biggest foreign policy blunder in the history of the United States, I don't know what is.

[GoldieAZ49]

26. He used taxpayers money for this campaign as well

I hope they get a full accounting of the funds spent and all of the money back.

Why would he advocate for the working class while spending our tax dollars to campaign on???? He is a rich man.

Neither Hillary or Obama did.

I think this could in large part be the disconnect between his words and his actions, I know it doesn't work for me. It obviously didn't work for the majority.

[bread_and_roses]

32. Please read about public funding of elections

It's called "clean money" for a reason - it means that the rich/corporations can't "buy" a candidate. Right now, we may as well put out an auction sign - and we ordinary people can't afford to bid.

[Clark2008]

73. That wasn't the issue.

The issue was that he took public funding and then spent it on a $400 haircut.

There's also the issue that he never did a damn thing for the poor until he decided he would be the "populist" candidate.

And, don't give me that hooey about suing corporations on behalf of injured people. He took those cases because he knew he could win a fortune - not because he believed in their cause. He never took a pro-bono case in his life - that would show more concern about poor people with no legal avenues.

[femrap]

90. I think the author of the article was talking

to you.

[rch35]

105. This is extraoridinarily simple

Every case he took was on the condition that he only got paid if he won. If he lost, he didn't get paid anything, which means that some cases he got paid, some he didn't.

[rch35]

197. sorry for terrible spelling nt

[closeupready]

117. His failure to do pro bono was a big concern of mine.

I like Edwards, but it wasn't clear to me that he walked his talk.

[Edith Ann]

138. pro bono

Edwards is a trial lawyer. If he doesn't WIN, he doesn't get paid and is actually out the money spent on preparing the trial. I don't see how you get more pro bono than that. I have read where he has taken less of a % because the client needed the money. In a winning trial he would get expenses and a % of the win. Other lawyers require retainers. Those are the lawyers who actually talk about pro bono. They require payment up front. Example: criminal lawyer who requires you mortgage your home for his $50,000 retainer or corporate lawyers who take retainers to be on call and then they bill you by the hour if you actually have a problem. Trial lawyers are banking on their talent and experience as well as the merits of the case in order to get paid. Explain to me why it is that trial lawyers who work for regular people who are in trouble or have been wronged by drug companies, accidents, and car companies who build the cost of a death into the price of a car, are the bad people and the corporate lawyers who help corporations steal from you and cover up the problems they know will cause you harm are the good ones.

[closeupready]

141. Pro bono is time/money spent with the expectation that you will never be compensated for it.

So even if you take compensation only if you win, or even at a reduced rate, that is not pro bono. You do it totally for free as way of giving back.

I don't hate lawyers as others do, and I don't hate John Edwards. I actually admire him. He would make a far better president than Obama or Hillary. But that was always an issue which was never addressed adequately as far as I'm concerned. Peace.

[Merlot]

154. I think if you look it up you'll find that pro bono cases are

criminal cases, and JE is a trial lawyer.

You don't do pro bono work if you're a trial lawyer. You do pro bono work if you are a criminal defender.

[Edith Ann]

160. pro bono

Isn't that kinda what I said. I think it would be difficult to do pro bono if you don't take money up front. Trial lawyers make and investment of their time and money. It's just a different ball game from criminal lawyers. I may not truly understand it. I sure don't want experience to find out. I could ask my friend the "trial lawyer". If it mattered to me.

[Ken Burch]

132. Did you realize that your entire post was nothing but RW talking points?

Everything you wrote there could have been bellowed by Rush!

Don't carry the other side's water, willya?

The fact is, the haircuts were a trivial issued and it's enough that he reimbursed the taxpayers for them.

And it's disgusting to imply that the haircuts were worse than voting for the IWR.

Think before you post.

[Spiffarino]

162. I'm thinking...mmm...yes.

He realized.

[George II]

167. Did you see the receipt for that "$400 haircut"????

[amborin]

182. exactly...edwards did not walk his talk

the way kucinich did....living in a low SES area of Cleveland in the same broken down house

Edwards was disingenuous

working for a hedge fund, then, when caught, said it was 'to learn about the economy'....meanwhile said hedgefund was foreclosing on new orleans katrina victims

not only was edwards your classic 'ambulance chaser' but more importantly, regardless of his motives, his ability to file lawsuits did not give him one iota of capability to rein in bad corporations' political power

it's a completely different skill set, one which edwards did not possess

[Two Americas]

200. off topic

Your posts are off topic and inflammatory. The discussion here is not pro or con about Edwards' character and personality. There are hundreds of threads where you can post these "ideas" and they have been posted thousands of times already so you are not contributing anything unique or of any value to this thread.

[frylock]

201. what else did fox news tell you..

you seem to have absorbed every ounce of their propaganda.

[foxer]

54. The corporations expect $10 back for every $1 they contribute

[redqueen]

58. Enjoy your stay.

[keith the dem]

61. YOU, my kind sir, are an idiot!!!!

Go find some right wing site to spill your uninformed drivel.

We must move to public funded elections to scratch out the influence of the rich few.

The funding of elections by the wealthy elite is the biggest problem our country faces, ALL other problems are the result of the few with the money controlling the elections and therefor the government by their contributions. We have a self corrupting system. (who does a politician listen to, some nobody from his district, or the guy who gave him big bucks for his campaign).

[DefenseLawyer]

72. There is a distinct possibility

that you don't understand the issue about which you speak.

[femrap]

87. Publically funded elections are the best.

First, normal, everyday people can run for office (not just the wealthy) and second, the candidate doesn't have to be beholden to the corporations/rich folks that give him money.

In fact, if you are from AZ, your state and Maine have publically financed elections.

Just think if all candidates were given the same amount of money to run for Prez.

Please read up on this....this is one of the major problems of our 'democracy.' Along with Media controlled by so few...just like old Soviet Union!

[George II]

166. How did he spend taxpayers' money?

Another drive-by criticism devoid of facts.

[WinkyDink]

37. Moonie-owned paper. Bushes and Moon are thick as thieves.

[Ricki]

53. Whaaaaaat?

Does Hillary or Mitt spend less on their hair? I think not. Additionally, at opensecrets.org,it says that Edward's campaing has no debt. THe Washington Times is a sham.

[flyarm]

96. actually Mitt had makeup classes $300,..if i remember it correctly but ..

where was the washington times on Mitt's finance guy and this??????????

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/lawsuits-hit-a-romn...

Mitt Romney Finance Chairman sued for mass child abuse
Wed Jun-20-07 06:49 PM

Romney finance chairman sued for mass child abuse


Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) has collected hundreds of thousands of dollars through the fundraising efforts of a primary supporter (employee?) targeted by several lawsuits alleging child abuse.

In a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, 133 plaintiffs have alleged that Robert Lichfield, co-chairman of Romney’s Utah finance committee owned or operated residential boarding schools for troubled teenagers where students were “subjected to physical abuse, emotional abuse and sexual abuse.”


The complaint, which plaintiffs amended and resubmitted to the court last week, alleges children attending schools operated by Lichfield suffered abuses such as unsanitary living conditions; denial of adequate food; exposure to extreme temperatures; beatings; confinement in dog cages; and sexual fondling.

A second lawsuit filed by more than 25 plaintiffs in July in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of New York alleges that Lichfield and several partners entered into a scheme to defraud them by operating an unlicensed boarding school in upstate New York. The suit does not allege physical or emotional abuse.

[StClone]

161. $400 Haircut is a Right Wing Fabrication!

It is amazing here that we want Edwards Pro Bono purity and Jesus help us if he isn't Mother Theresa. The so-called 400 dollar haircut was for holding up the stylist from cutting ANYONE else's hair and John compensated not only for his cut BUT for four or more that were lost while waiting for Edwards. No wonder the Dems have no Kucinich or Edwards, the truth is not making it here!

[pauldg0]

112. Legally, someone should bring them to the table on this.........

this is absolutely rotten to the gill. This writer and/or editor is very slanderous. you may see this in the threads, but in a paper such as this? What gives here?? Where is fair and balanced?

This is immature, cowardly journalism. I'm out of work and would like to have his job. I'm a better man for it!!

You know, I would like to see a Keith Oberman, pull up his boot straps and tell Msnbc "I'm out of here". He would be a hero for doing it. This is a man with balls...he could do it.

Like a Oberman, someone similar to him at the Washington Times should speak up also. It would make him/ that editor or journalist a famous man in America.

Enough said.

[Ken Burch]

131. But they reflect the elite zeitgeist(how's them for fifty-cent words?)

They did those jokes because they knew the upscale crowd would laugh at them.
If you're backing Obama, it's in your interest to try to connect with the kind of people Edwards was representing. Make that connection, and you'll have done what Bobby Kennedy died trying to do(and nearly succeeding doing)in 1968.

[George II]

163. The comments by those three are obnoxious and offensive

Edwards "ran" for President less times than Ronald Reagan
Edwards "ran" for President less times than Richard Nixon
Edwards "ran" for President less times than GHW Bush

John Edwards has more principles and ethics than those three combined, and you can throw in Giuliani and Romney too!!

[Fire Walk With Me]

2. It's not that they own guns and read the bible.

It's that they're so very willing to use them on the rest of us.

[Two Americas]

16. so we are told

So we are led to believe, as we are driven by fear and herded in a certain direction that alienates us from most of the people in the country and cripples the Democratic party.

The Dominionists and the NRA sure want us to believe that they control half of the population. But they are lying.

[Fire Walk With Me]

21. I'm not driven by fear. I'm driven by experience, which produces caution.

[Two Americas]

22. explain?

What experience and what are you cautious about? I traveled and worked all over the country in small towns as a an obvious outsider for years. Wondering what you see.

[Fire Walk With Me]

25. Selfishness, ugliness, xenophobia, racism, intolerance, force, self-righteousness...

This is a fear-based society, addicted to anger, even if it's not the dominant characteristic of many of the people of the country.

There is thankfully a rising level of those who are interested in living in peace, and the ones dedicated to trying to control things are becoming all the more visible as the two trends rise toward the inevitable conflict of ideas, and what is right for the most people.

I'm happy to speak on the individual level and the national level, as I learn from attempting to present my concepts and perceptions. Mind you, I'm more sensitive than most, to ugliness and negativity, and what most people would consider "acceptable" levels of it, make me uncomfortable. It also tends to cause me to magnify the issue, and I take that into account.

There are psychology tests on the record regarding the willingness of ordinary people, placed into specific dynamics, to move easily beyond their every day roles and begin to cause harm to others (often they were not actually doing so, but they didn't know that, and continued doing what was requested of them). We can all go there, and if you'll notice, Bush and friends are succeeding in creating a context of such fear and increasing self-concern (which can lead to selfishness and worse). There is an alarming national trend going on, a recontextualization, and I worry about us correcting it before it goes any further. People who act out of fear can be as ugly as you want to imagine. And they're increasing the fear.

We aren't doing the work needed to create a love-based culture, and that worries me as well. Especially that people don't seem to see the need for it. A teacher said that this is the conflict between those who want to run the world, and those who want to live in it. Of course there are far more of the latter, but they're the ones who have to stop the former. At some point.

I have failed to make any specific points but suffice to say, I am a decent judge of character. I have travelled in the US as well, and have associates in many states. People aren't very happy right now, and don't look to themselves as partial causes.

This really doesn't help. I cannot answer your question directly.

[Two Americas]

28. I don't find that to be true

In 40 years of touring through small towns and the poorest rural neighborhoods, north and south, as well as the poorest ethnic and minority neighborhoods in the big cities, being in people's homes and knowing them intimately, I do not find any correlation between "guns and bibles" and the negative stereotype you are expressing.

I do think that the few are driving and tormenting the many, and that there is much fear and anxiety out there. But I find just as much, if not more, prejudice, anger, hostility and fear in the fanciest and most trendy and progressive white neighborhoods - better educated and less likely to have bibles and guns - as I do anywhere.

[Fire Walk With Me]

121. Ugliness is everywhere, indeed, but it's more likely to erupt amongst guns and

in the form of those who want to force everyone else to believe what they believe.

Give it time, things are likely just getting started. The ultraright agenda is now being forceful instead of stealthful (as it was in Reagan's day).

[Lydia Leftcoast]

136. Hmm, perhaps you need to think about how rural and working class people

went from being staunch New Deal Democrats in the 1930s to being Reagan voters in the 1980s.

It wasn't because they all of a sudden turned mean for no reason.

[CTyankee]

143. Sigh. Read "What's the Matter with Kansas?" by Thomas Frank.

It addresses exactly what you are talking about. Just a very sad read...

[Leopolds Ghost]

43. I live in a "hippie radical" town listed as one of the top 10 most liberal towns in America

Where numerous Democratic and lefty union activists are known to have lived.

All I see when I look around my town today is...

Selfishness, ugliness, xenophobia, racism, intolerance, force, self-righteousness.

Not to mention gentrification, classism, anti-religious and
anti-communitarian sentiment, addiction to oil, endorsement
of corporatism, and endorsement of Clintonism and Reaganism.

The traits you mention are universal on the left and right.

To paraphrase Greil Marcus, America was evil before it was
ever inhabited. The land itself contains some deep-seated
spirit of malice and anomie. There is no sense of place or
belonging or community on these shores. We must deal with it.

[paparush]

57. "the land contains some deep-seated spirit of malic and anomie"??

And you believe that to the extent that you are willing to quote it?

That the mountains and the forests and the plains and the lakes, streams, rivers and all the life therein was malicious and thus turned the humans into greedy, lying, cheating, stealing, killing, bastards?

[blindpig]

60. Gotta disagree with that one, LG

The Marcus quote, that is. The land is not evil, if anything, it is holy. Rather, it is a social and economic system imposed upon the land and the people which vexes us so. Gotta change that.....

[Pooka Fey]

108. Huh???? WTF??? The LAND is inherently evil???? RIGHHHHTT n/t

[Fire Walk With Me]

122. I agree that it's across all boundaries but Democrats are less likely to force others

to live as they do, than Republicans.

Edit: At least in theory. My experiences with some Democrats have not necessarily been very positive, either.

[Two Americas]

148. not at all true

I see absolutely no evidence that "Democrats are less likely to force others to live as they do, than Republicans."

Quite to the contrary, I find the opposite to be true.

[Leopolds Ghost]

41. What do you mean "they"? I'm a Christian radical

You would call me a leftist and scorn me for my beliefs because they are probably to the left of yours. And your elite friends (you claim association with the secular urban elites mentioned in the article, not with the working class) would scorn me for wanting to reach out to the working class and rely on them, and not on globalist, statist, pro-corporate, anti-poor, secular urban elites, for support.

[foxer]

56. Nicely said

[AdHocSolver]

209. I would bet that corporate execs in suits kill more people every year than all gun owners combined.

[Ninga]

The article is much much more than the excerpt.

[Ninga]

3. n/t

[NoSheep]

4. That's why we hear terms like "middle class" when it's really the working class

who are being spoken to. The repukes made poor southern white dems afraid that they'd turn black during the civil rights era...now...the pukes make the poor southern whites afraid they'll go to hell if they vote for a democrat. God forbid you'd say ANYTHING to make a poor white southerner realize he's in the same boat as his black neighbor down the street.
I saw it happen to my parents..my brother and sister...the people I work with.

My mother has never made more than $7 an hour. She's been a bookkeeper for over 60 years. She thinks she's middle class. The republicans told her so. :banghead:

Take back America: FIGHT THE MEDIA AND THEIR SPONSORS-EVERY DAY

[ursi]

5. the sad part is that most people who needed Edwards weren't paying attention

some weren't paying attention because they are working 1-2 jobs or more

some weren't paying attention because they have other things to worry about

some weren't paying attention because they don't have computers with internet access to surf Du and other blogs at all hours to learn more

some just have their tv's and the mainstream media ....

they didn't know about Edwards and that he was fighting for them ...

I know because I've talked to alot of people and I was shocked when they didn't know what Edwards stood for, they only knew what the media fed them ...his hairdo ...and bullshit and the rock stars.

[avaistheone1]

9. I know plenty of those people and there is no shortage of them.

[Two Americas]

19. where?

Who? I am very interested in this subject avaistheone1.

Where are the "sheeple," and who are they and what do they say? Anything anyone can tell me would be helpful.

[madmom]

52. I know plenty also, my SO works in a factory, they have a tv in their break room the only

channel allowed on it is fox news. When he tried to talk to them about Edwards they said "who's that?" seriously!! This is a union blue-collar shop and they knew nothing because they are at work 10 hours a day, go home eat, sleep, or go to kids sporting event or watch the play offs( because we all know sports is way more important than the election)This is middle America, that's all they have time for 30 second sound bites.

[redqueen]

59. Exactly...

too many people still depend mainly on the M$M for their 'news'.

[Two Americas]

146. yes

That is right. People are too overworked and stressed out, and they have no access to information and they do not hear the message of a candidate such as Edwards. No doubt about that.

We can look at that and realize that we activists had better snap out of our coma and get to work, or we can sit back and blame the people and their "guns and bibles" for all of the problems.

Funny, "guns and bibles" are just as prevalent in the African American communities as in the poor rural white communities - wealthy people don't need "guns and bibles" - yet liberals don't see them as the enemy.

[RaleighNCDUer]

62. I have a co-worker and supervisor who were talking about the

fallout from SC, and they were amazed that the Democrats could overwhelmingly favor a Muslim.

Seriously.

EDIT: I have two jobs (like most state employees I know), and my first is in a science museum, where the overwhelming favorite was Edwards, then Obama. My 2nd job is at a movie theater, where the favorite was Guiliani/Romney/McCain.

There are days when I feel absolutely schizo.

[trashcanistanista]

237. I can top that. When the news was on on our

breakroom TV announcing that Obama won S Car., I said oh he won, and my coworker said is it over? (meaning the general election). Most people I work with don't even know election day is Tuesday.

[EV_Ares]

12. Yeah, you know I have gotten angry because the people he was trying to help

most just didn't seem to get it and you have given some good reason in your post. Some I know have sort of dropped out of politics and don't have a lot of faith any any candidate. It wasn't about Edwards but a lost hope in anything being able to get done. Also, some are tired as you say working 2 jobs or more and just want to relax and watch a TV show and the local news, go to bed and get up and earn some more money.

I don't know anymore what it is going to take to get the word out to people. The ones who need to know and pay attention the most aren't.

[Two Americas]

114. we could try

You say "I don't know anymore what it is going to take to get the word out to people."

Trying would be a start.

I have spent 40 years speaking and working in poor communities around the country. I never see liberal or Democratic party activists. Never. They are all hanging with "like minded" people.

I have proposed at many Green party meetings that if they want to grow the party they should start canvassing the poor and minority neighborhoods. I get blank stares when I propose that, and then subtly ostracized from then on. I have experienced that many times. I am not imagining it.

So, long as liberalism is only for "our kind" it will fail.

The people cannot be blamed for "not paying attention" to a message that no one makes much of an effort to communicate to them. The people cannot be expected to join us when our thinking is predicated on seeing them as the enemy.

[JDPriestly]

126. I canvassed my lower middle-class to poor neighborhood.

I have spent years of my life working on poverty issues including homelessness. I am an Edwards supporter -- 100%, and I think this article is 100% right on.

[CTyankee]

142. I once heard a Yale political science professor describe it this way:

the political system in this country has ignored the poor and the poor have returned the favor (by not voting).

Yep.

[lumberjack_jeff]

207. I hate to sound like a broken record

But I thank Ninga for bringing up the topic. This is a conversation I've been dying to have with DU'ers ever since I joined.

[Two Americas]

218. ferocious resistance to this

I agree that is the most important discussion we could be having. But there is some ferocious resistance and hostility to consideration of this topic. That of course supports the thesis that there is in fact bullying going on - I love how people try to bully us out of our assertion that there is bullying going on - and that there are those few who feel entitled to control and dominate the discussion, and to make the party the party of the educated aristocracy in opposition to the common people.

No one said that having an education made on a bad person, but that straw man keeps getting set up here. So defensive. That tells us that there are people who do think their education gives them special privilege and power that others should not have. Nothing wrong with having an education but there is something very wrong with using that as an excuse to lord it over others or see oneself as superior to others and to bully other people.

[Gloria]

51. If they couldn't afford cable, they would never see him debate....

the debates where he was shining (and dismissed in the post-debate coverage)....

So right there, they would be denied the chance to even learn about him...

[femrap]

94. Very true...

my neighbor is 78 years old and just has Social Security...so no computer. I told her all about Edwards and she was excited about voting for him in our primary....and this is a woman who has primarily voted repugnant. She came over yesterday and now says she doesn't even want to vote....THEY'RE ALL BAD.

I said, Welcome to my world...it's called holding your nose and voting.

[KoKo]

6. interesting points. I don't read the RW Sites...but this comment has

something we ought to think about...because it has a ring of truth. Although it leaves out those who are truly needy...who don't vote but would believe the Media about Edwards hair cuts.. They tend to think Tom DeLay is more one of them...than an Edwards, though. Those "born again Christians" are people looking for "community" in a world that has forgotten them. A world that didn't recognize what they thought was important.

[alcibiades_mystery]

11. That's not a right wing site

That's traditional left democrat, small d.

We've gone so far to - what? - that we see class critique and mistake it for right wing?

[femrap]

98. I remember a few years back, I

was watching c-span....the House. A Democrat was speaking and I believe he said the phrase, 'class warfare,' and I was shocked when the entire side of Repugnants stood up and started yelling 'boo' and other words I couldn't make out.

I thought to myself...they've all attended the 'Class of Rove 101.' They have been told exactly what words to attack and what words to use in their attack. It truly gave me chills.

[smokey nj]

7. K&R!!!

[EV_Ares]

10. Thanks for that post, a really good read and that is a good website as well, eom.

[xxqqqzme]

13. Am I to believe that there is not one

person in that educated 28% that has not been affected by:

Median income
Consumer credit debt
Number of housing foreclosures
Cost of heating oil & gas
Number without health insurance
Income gap between rich and poor
Wealth of the bottom 40% of Americans
Number of older families with pensions
Number of workers covered by defined benefit pensions
Hunger
Personal bankruptcies
Median rent

?

[Two Americas]

24. of course not

That wasn't suggested, and there is virtually no case where there is not at least one exception to any group of people.

But some, perhaps many, in that group are relatively more immune to those things, better insulated from them, and less sympathetic to those in those situations.

[Leopolds Ghost]

46. Who cares about the most educated 28% when the remainder of the population is being totally ignored?

Politicians fall all over themselves trying to help the top 28%, that's who they mean by the middle class who Obama says is the real backbone of this country, i.e. not the working poor.

[paparush]

14. I visit Fark.com quite often. Some funny shite over there...

While the headlines can be brutal, the threads, particularly the political threads, can be quite serious.

/I are serious cat
//This are serious thread

[YDogg]

178. I read FARK, too, and I'm getting a kick out of these replies.

:shrug:

[Two Americas]

15. the third rail

This is the third rail of liberalism, the subject that causes the most bitterness and anger and underlies so many of the feuds within the party, although it is rarely identified and acknowledged for what it is. This is the trend that has so weakened liberalism and the Democratic party, and the source of so many frustrations and failures over the last 30 years.

Some excerpts that I thought were especially valuable -

"One of the delusions of elite liberals is that that they lack prejudice. To be sure, they treat black, women and gays far better than once was the case. But if you are poor, uneducated, own a gun, weigh a lot, come from the South or mainly read the Bible it is another matter. Class and culture have replaced the genetic as acceptable targets."

"For many years, as the Democratic establishment has become wealthier, the traditional Democratic base has been steadily pushed away as too dumb, too prejudiced, or otherwise too unworthy of the party. It wasn't that abortion, gays and family values were intrinsically so important. But if your campaign contributors won't let you talk or do anything about pensions, healthcare, outsourcing or usurious interest rates, the door opened wide for the rightwing hypocrites."

"Edwards' problem was that he made the smug set of American liberalism extremely uncomfortable. He showed them what they should really be thinking about and what they might do about it. And they didn't like it. Far better to relax in the self-righteousness of choosing between a Harvard Law School black and a Yale Law School woman."

[2rth2pwr]

30. True, but left out were smokers, Nascar fans, and beer drinkers.

Oh, and don't forget a member of the military. See Berkeley and what they are doing to Marines.



Berkeley council tells Marines to leave


By Doug Oakley

STAFF WRITER
Article Launched: 01/30/2008 01:48:16 PM PST


Hey-hey, ho-ho, the Marines in Berkeley have got to go.

That's the message from the Berkeley City Council, which voted 6-3 Tuesday night to tell the U.S. Marines that its Shattuck Avenue recruiting station "is not welcome in the city, and if recruiters choose to stay, they do so as uninvited and unwelcome intruders."...
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_8120433?source=most_emailed

... The Marines have been in Berkeley for a little more than a year, having moved from Alameda in December of 2006. For about the past four months, Code Pink has been protesting in front of the station.

"I believe in the Code Pink cause. The Marines don't belong here, they shouldn't have come here, and they should leave," said Berkeley Mayor Tom Bates after votes were cast.

[SammyWinstonJack]

36. The last paragraph.

:wow: and the last line in it.

Far better to relax in the self-righteousness of choosing between a Harvard Law School black and a Yale Law School woman.

Indeed!

Thanks Hillary and Obama for nothing, really.

This has definitely cemented my decision. I am writing in Edwards.

[JDPriestly]

127. Me too.

Hillary and Obama are irrelevant to most Americans.

[SammyWinstonJack]

195. And they like that way, so does the corprat media.

x(

[SayitAintSo]

17. Great Article - Thanks N/T

[Bonobo]

18. Socialism, Communism cannot even be discussed as IDEAS. Rejected without examination.

Until the 50's, intellectuals discussed the relative fairness of political systems. Communism, socialism, anarchism -these were things people could discuss based upon a shared set of assumptions -that people are created equally, that all have the right to pursue a life of happiness, etc.

Now that once rock-solid foundation of America is LAUGHED AT, SCOFFED AT as being so ludicrous that it is to be rejected out of hand. It is as ridiculous as the idea of giving the vote to a horse to some.

[Leopolds Ghost]

47. It's called postmodernism -- the cultural logic of late capitalism.

Once the modernist consensus was rejected across the board in the mid-1970s,

You lost the overall philosophical framework for common ground that
required proponents of MODERNISM to test their ideas against each other.

Instead the door was open for the most powerful interests to "define reality"
in postmodern terms.

Now you have the media "Manufacturing Consent" and figures like Bill Clinton and Karl Rove asking "but what is real? What is the meaning of is?"

And campaign aides are allowed to go on the air and spout talking points and non-replies to pointed questions, even in debates, without being called on it (or the person calling them on it will be BOO'ed, like in the LA debate, for being "unfair" by expecting the person to actually answer the question and not treat it like a spectacle for a passive audience, a big put-on show where the questions and the meaning of the phrase don't matter, only the emotions and the images.)

This used to be called casuistry or sophistry. In postmodern rhetoric, detached from an
underlying framework of modernism or traditional shared values (such as universal human
equality, philosophical and academic disdain for the hedonism of the upper class, and
relief of suffering) casuistry and sophistry are elevated to virtues.

[tomp]

150. recommendations for readings...

...in modernism vs post-modernism?

thanks

[arendt]

172. Post-modernists are to ideas as Republicans are to bipartisanship: date rapists.

Post-modernism wasn't rejected - it was assassinated.

I have never read a post-modernist who isn't some kind of hit-person. Camille Paglia comes to mind (blech!). They are the kind of advertising-agency dilletante's and snarky pricks that the rich always hire to sneer at and mock everyone else.

I think that most of the PoMos are philosophy majors whose career collapsed in the 70s-80s when Logical Positivism went down the drain - and took the bulk of philosophy with it. (I guess your "modernist consenseus" (not sure exactly what that refers to) was collateral damage from positivism's death.)

Sorry to ramble on. Its just so rare to have a DUer talk about "philosophical framework" that I had to say something. Just to remind myself that I used to have serious discussions about stuff like this.

arendt

[amborin]

185. exactly

po mos are snarky fringies

[arendt]

196. OOPS - I meant to say "modernism wasn't...", not Pomo-ism n/t

[amborin]

184. gobble-de-goop

the idea we're living in so called post modernity is only a fringe idea

and your sentences are very muddled

sorry, but true

have you even read Burawoy? since you're mentioning 'manufacturing consent'?

otherwise, what we have now is not postmodernism, but simply the hegemony of capital, andthe ascendence and domination of neo-liberalism and the radical right

it's that simple

[madmom]

65. I tell people who say socialism is bad that if they aren't bringing home every

penny they earned as in no taxes, they live in a socialist society. Their taxes pay for police& fire protection, and pays for their government employees, that is socialist.

[Beregond2]

20. Class

Excellent article. Read the whole thing. The only thing that makes me a bit uneasy about it is the implication that it is somehow wrong to want the best-educated people running the country.

[Two Americas]

23. I didn't see that there

"...the implication that it is somehow wrong to want the best-educated people running the country."

I didn't see that implied there.

"Best-educated" does not inherently mean "biased to the upper class" and therfore diqulaified in some way. It just happens to be that college educated people are generally more biased to the interests and needs of the upper class, for a variety of reasons, but it wouldn't and doesn't have to be that way.

For one thing, there may well be something seriously wrong with what we now call "best educated," which I don't think should be hyphenated, by the way. Perhaps "best degreed" or "best inculcated with white suburban privilege" or "best prepared for working in a corporate office" or "best at playing the game and cleverly advancing themselves" would be better descriptions of many people coming out of colleges?

[redqueen]

63. IIRC

it should only be hyphenated if it comes before the subject.

[lumberjack_jeff]

71. The problem isn't that the best educated people run the country

The problem is that the best educated people are running it on behalf of and for the sole benefit of the best educated people.

[amborin]

186. best educated?

who's one of these 'best-educated' politicans?

[lumberjack_jeff]

208. The Yale one or the Harvard one. Take your pick.

[amborin]

213. just a gentleman's "C"

that's not my idea of well-educated

he got in through his connections, a total flunkie

that's the problem with our system, it attracts the wrong types as president

we should entirely abolish the presidency in its current form

we need another system entirely, that drags highly intelligent, educated, wise individuals, who accomplished in their respective fields, kicking and screaming to serve on an executive panel

[lumberjack_jeff]

216. Those who are born to rule...

is a myth.

I believe exactly the opposite. We need to take ownership of our responsiblity to govern ourselves. Even those of us whom you might consider poorly educated.

[JDPriestly]

128. People who graduate from state schools

elitist schools are just as qualified as, if not better qualified than people who graduate from ivy league schools. John Edwards is a hero.

[2rth2pwr]

27. Fark: John Edwards announces he will drop out of race today to spend more time with his hair. lol!

"Bang, zoom, straight to the moon!"

[femrap]

99. Go get yourself another

Starbucks latte and biscotti...time is running out.

buh bye

[2rth2pwr]

103. oh, go fark yourself. If you can't have a laugh at your own expense

life ain't worth living.

[femrap]

106. I have a great sense of

humor...however, seeing my fellow citizens become selfish, aloft, and thinking of themselves as ever so much better and more important than anyone else...well, I don't find that funny. Willful Ignorance isn't funny.

And if you are old enough, I bet you voted for Reagan both times.

[2rth2pwr]

111. you're a lost cause.

[AdHocSolver]

223. You weren't funny. It was a stupid, snide remark. It wasn't funny. Nothing to laugh at. Get it?

[2rth2pwr]

244. It was the in the OP! What the hell is the matter with you people?

It is funny, and I'm sure even some of Edwards biggest fans had a tiny chuckle!

[pamela]

29. Excellent article, Ninga.

K&R

[caseycoon]

31. I feel like an idiot!

I've been in denial about what I've seen happen to the democratic party over the years. I've made excuses for why we aren't doing more for our citizens. I couldn't understand it at all. (blame the republicans) But they couldn't have done all they have done without Dem complicity. I realize that now.
In addition it was the Dems who brought us NAFTA et al.

Now I see why the truly liberal Dems got shut out so fast. I also understand more of the vicious fighting here on DU. Many Dems don't know what it is, or was, to be a Dem.

Howard Dean said this in an interview (I'm sorry I don't have a link & have not been able to find one.)

Howard Dean
As a Democrat, I believe that we should welcome the stranger; that no child should go to bed hungry; that housing and a path to home ownership should be accessible to all; that everyone in America deserves universal health care; that the war should be the last resource only after diplomacy has been exhausted; that we should properly equip our troops before we send them to war; that we should take care of our veterans when they come home; that everyone, every single American, deserves equal rights under the law; that we should be good stewards of the Earth; that hardworking people should earn a living wage and be able to take care of their families with what they earn; that we ought not to pass debt along to our children; that faith should not be used to divide people, but rather to bring us together; and that you and I have more in common than we have differences.

His 50 state strategy is what we all should work on if we are to restore our Party to what it once was.

[sybylla]

134. I'd welcome you to reality, but it's no fun being here

Denial is so much easier - doesn't come with that uncomfortable urge to get off the couch and fix what's wrong.

I am, however, glad you see it and just as happy that you recognize his 50 state strategy as part of the antidote. No more top down elitism. We need grassroots populism now.

[OneGrassRoot]

33. There is some truth here, IMHO. K&R n/t

[earth mom]

34. There is a class war in the dem party too. Anyone who can't see that is lying to themselves. nt

[lonestarnot]

40. Class war has been raging since before Patty H was kidnapped.

[earth mom]

44. Yes but they have ALL the ammunition out now & the majority of us are losing. nt

[xchrom]

35. and this is why there has to be a hard effort to legitimize

liberal/left/progressive ideas and ideals up and down through the country.

newt, delay, weyrich, norquist, luntz, etc did an amazing ringing a bell that people responde to even though it didn't benefit them.

now we deal with a left wing politics that pertually seeks to water itself down to make it more sellable to those overweight beer drinkers.

[Leopolds Ghost]

49. You think class critique is "watering down" of what you call liberal (i.e. socially liberal) values?

Social liberalism is meaningless if it is tied to an agenda of meritocracy
(i.e. rule by the rich).

Go start a party for socially liberal, economically conservative rich people.

[xchrom]

55. so do good leftist ideas only have an application for the educated and those

who make a good paycheck?

first of all i reject the idea that those who make a good paycheck aren't some how workers -- the same workers we have always applied our thoughts to as leftists.

liberal/progressive/leftist indeas and ideals are good for everyone up and down the payscale -- but one must find an effective way to communicate those ideas -- getting them to take root.

what i decry is running away from our leftist thinking AT ALL -- what happened to us from reagan on was trying to pretend to be something we weren't -- instead of battling it out -- tooth and nail.

[Two Americas]

113. context

Within a context of a broad New Deal coalition, all of the liberal-progressive causes could be much more easily advanced.

Within the context of a grab bag of liberal-progressive causes - which only resonate with the relatively well-off and educated - everything is stalled and the people continue to suffer and the right wing gains power.

So why do we always work within the second context, when it clearly so weak and prone to failure? I believe that is because there is a hidden agenda that has permeated liberalism and the party and that agenda steers and controls everything on the left. An aristocracy of successful people have a stranglehold on the liberal organizations and the party, and they have contempt and disdain for the everyday people.

[lumberjack_jeff]

125. Very well said. Your post demonstrates that this is a conversation liberals badly need to have. n/t

[xchrom]

211. oh horseshit -- talk about spreading the right wing message.

it has nothing to do with the context you are talking about.

if america has a bias in the realm you're talking about it is disdain for for what are perceived as educated intellectuals.

who carried the new deal coalition to fruition -- the very people you are supposedly holding in contempt -- notably roosevelt.

talk about a blue blood -- and he worked for the people -- like kerry -- like moynihan and others.

america needs to get over that -- other wise we will end up with more guys you wanna have beer with like bush and mccain -- and not enough people who are well rounded, well read and know how to string a coherent sentence together.

:eyes:

[Two Americas]

219. that was rude

No one said that wealthy people or educated people were evil. You are making a straw man argument.

[xchrom]

239. i'm not talking about the wealthy, am i? nt

[xchrom]

217. be specific -- what are you talking about?

what leftist idea/ideal is only supported by the educated elite and not by the working class?

opening opportunities for union expansion?

opening higher education to more if not all people with little or no financial burden?

affirmative action?

equal pay for equal work for women?

reproductive rights for women? {which is a combination of issues rolled into one}.

safe working conditions?

better conditions for migrant farm workers?

i've read this whole thread -- and i haven't read one thing from you that leads me to believe you actually know what you are talking about -- other than some notion that the divide and conquer tactics devised in the 70's by folks like weyrich and william f buckley and used successfully by reagan was really the fault of dems.

you bandy the meme of the dems left us -- by offering no specifics.

only to point at the ''educated classes'' and piss and moan about them.

plenty of educated folks know recognize and fight neo-liberals every bit as much as you do -- and right now i'm guessing even more.

fifty million people can repeat that a wrong thing is true -- but all that repetition doesn't make it so.


and erm -- i voted for edwards absentee -- i believe in his message -- i also note that he has a college education -- is a lawyer -- made a lot of bad votes before his awakening.

and by the way -- some inaccurate history has been bandied about here -- the modern evangelical movemnt today is very different from the one in roosevelts day -- i.e. the modern evangelical movement was based in both racism and a retrograde reaction to removing the ten commandments from schools -- i.e. a reaction to the warren court.

be very very clear what you are defending and who you are accusing -- it's just more evidense that you don't know what you're talking about.

[amborin]

187. meritocracy does not equal rule by the rich

[Two Americas]

234. that is right

"Meritocracy does not equal rule by the rich." I agree. I don't think anyone has claimed that it does.

However, rule by the rich could very well distort and corrupt a meritocracy. I believe that is what is happening.

[amborin]

245. paul krugman

addressed something similar to this some time ago...

i agree, we're moving away from individual achievement-based criteria, to a system where family or personal connection, etc become the criteria

in some sense, we're becoming pre-modern, where tradition and ascribed characteristics, like family ties, determined one's life chances

bottom line: we're morphing into the kind of "crony capitalism" that we've decried for so long, like Suhuarto's indonesia for starters

[Two Americas]

250. yes

We have long since morphed into crony capitalism, and continuing to claim that it is a meritocracy would be a mistake and would disguise the truth. Since many educated people base their own personal achievements on the notion that we live in a meritocracy, they unwittingly place themselves in a position where they start identifying with and defending the interests of the wealthy and powerful rather than the traditional constituency of the Democratic party - the bottom half.

And what are we to do with that education? If we want to eat, that is. We put it into the service of that very crony capitalism that is the root cause of all of our social problems, and reinforce and promote the trend in that direction. We compare ourselves favorably to the "losers" and embrace the right wing idea that those less fortunate have only themselves to blame for their misfortunes.

I am not saying that this is true for all of us who have educations as individuals, nor am I saying that education is a bad thing, nor is the author of the OP saying those things.

[amborin]

252. a meritocracy still in many respects

we have areas of our political-ecomony where crony capitalism prevails, but not all areas, not even most

continuing to believe we have a meritocracy, even where it no longer exists, does not entail upholding or identifying with the interests of the ruling class.....that does not logically or empirically follow

nor is crony capitalism---where it exists----the root cause of all social problems....that thinking is way too mono-causal....reality is much messier than that

if anything, emerging crony capitalism in the us is more the outcome, not the cause, of social problems....the result of an erosion of accountability and abandonment of other tenets of bureaucracy, for starters

it's certainly not the case that the majority of americans believe that those less fortunate should bear the blame for their condition.....

[lumberjack_jeff]

70. It is a two way street.

Like you, us overweight beer drinkers have a right to our place in our party.

No one can legitimize "liberal/left/progressive ideals" unless they're willing to "water it down" with the interests of the working class - more than just a condescending head fake.

Edwards was exactly right, but it's going to take more than one guy. There needs to be a hard effort to legitimize the cause of economic justice and advocacy for the working class ideas and ideals, throughout the class structures in this country.

Given the working-class choices:
a) vote for the elites who might push some of my interests, but only to the degree that charity makes them feel good - and unless it conflicts with the interests of a more pitiable constituency.
b) vote for the elites who use populism as a wedge

It's unsurprising that they too often choose the latter. No one likes to be pitied, particularly when they shouldn't be. It's their country too.

[arendt]

38. Excuse me, this article is a masterpiece of "divide and conquer". Their def of liberal is whacked...

For example:

> Nowhere was it mentioned that Hillary Clinton had had a $1200 makeover during her Senate campaign. But then she wasn't the issue. She belonged.

What kind of person here thinks Hillary is a traditional liberal? That she "belongs" to anyone but the corporations?

I found this article to broadbrush insult anyone with an education. Like we don't care. Well, excuse me, at my UU church, we feed the homeless, etc. We are aware of issues like locating polluting industries in poor neighborhoods. We don't find the superficial characteristics mentioned to be offensive.

This article is trying to drive a wedge between educated Dems and working class Dems. WhoTF are radar, gawker, and fark? These sound like David Brooks, faux liberal sites for BoBo wankers. The people he is whining about are the younger, libertarian-brainwashed, technobrats who are busy clawing their way up the corporate ladder.

I can't believe we are going to use Edwards leaving the race to start a totally destructive "culture war". The people the prorev article is whining about already have a name: DLCers. This kind of misdirected anger is just what the DLC want. Can you say "circular firing squad"?

arendt

[Leopolds Ghost]

50. BoBo wankers, as you accurately describe them, have taken over the party.

I see them all around me in my DC area neighborhood. They are embarrassed to even admit there are people NOT like them in the Democratic party leadership. They, the neocons (and their Republican counterparts, the socially liberal ex-Trotskyite neocons) are the "permanent aristocracy" of capitol hill. Did you know that before Howard Dean came along, half of the state parties of the South had been deliberately put in bankruptcy by racist Dixiecrat elites to PREVENT popular representation by local delegates after the reforms of 1972 -- and Rahm Emanuel and Carville want to fire Dean BECAUSE he reversed this?

[arendt]

64. I had heard about the padlocked southern offices...

great alliance - neocons and Dixiecrats.

America is so screwed.

arendt

[lumberjack_jeff]

88. BoBo?

What is that?

Otherwise, well said.

[redqueen]

93. Short for "Bourgeois Bohemian"

I think Brooks invented the term.

[amborin]

189. nah, that was when he was talking about anthropologie

[Two Americas]

145. divide and smash

There was already a battle going on for the direction of the Democratic party. What we just saw was "divide and smash" and those pointing that out are not the ones causing the divide.

No one is "driving a wedge between between educated Dems and working class Dems," people are pointing out that there already IS a wedge, there already IS a deep and profound gap, there already IS a battle, and it is people from the educated group who are driving that wedge and instigating that battle.

[arendt]

168. Now that I reread it twice, I can see your point. But, just reading it cold, I was insulted...

As I said, the people he is bashing are, to me, the DLC. The snotty corporate apparatchiks.

You, and this thread, seem to be informing me that, in addition to hijacking the Democratic Party, they have also hijacked the term "liberal".

Geez. How do you fight people who can, with a few well-placed propagandists, re-structure the whole social norm that you try to ground a political program in?

Why do I even waste my time writing? I have no impact.

arendt

[Two Americas]

179. that is a relief

I respect you a lot and have always admired your posts. I almost didn't post my response, but thought that you would see what I was saying.

I think the DLC is an effect of a larger trend, arendt, rather than a cause. We mount a huge campaign to fight the DLC, and all they need to do is change the name.

Hijacking and manipulating the terminology is a very effective propaganda technique, and very common I think. What is a "progressive" for example? It is being used to describe all sorts of positions and politicians now.

The solution is to stop playing that game of labels (brand names) and teams (what Vonnegut called "granfalloons") and identification (I AM a such and such) and personal preferences and choices (shopping for a candidate that meets our personal needs) - to break out of the corporate marketing and sales and consumer mentality that is so pervasive and corrupts every aspect of our lives, and that we unwittingly use as a model for political activism and advocacy.

[arendt]

198. Yeah, branding is the barbed wire they use to trap our brains and our initiative...

there is only so much "mental space" or "concept space". By placing these guard towers called "brands", which usually come with "patents" and "trademarks" and "copyrights", they dominate the intellectual landscape and force everyone else to work around them. Then, there are the "too clever by half" folks at Adbusters, who have made a brand of anti-branding. Naomi Klein is the best writer on what is going on; but she doesn't offer solutions, she just reports the situation clearly.

Open source and copyleft are the antidote for branding(assuming we all continue to play this crooked game by these rigged rules).

People have been so dumbed down that they don't even understand how they have been screwed. Richard Nixon is laughing, somewhere.

Sorry that I scared you. But, that I got blindsided by the engineered shift in meaning. The new liberal is not your father's liberal; just like the Democratic Party is not your father's Democratic Party.

arendt

[amborin]

188. david brooks is no faux liberal

he's not trying to be seen as a liberal at all...he's from the weekly standard, he's a neo-con, straussian as you can get

[robbedvoter]

39. It's acceptable to dislike what people do (guns, bibles) - not what people are (gay, black)

Yes, I am "prejudiced" against gun nuts and against bible nuts (the ones that insist of putting their faith in public life that is). These are elected behaviors - and subject to criticism.
It's really violence and hypocrisy that I am biased against.
To make that the reason of rejecting Edwards is amazing chutzpah.
I am myself poor, live in the Northeast, in a city with a church on every corner.
I just happen to believe in separation of church and state - and the second amendment refers to militias - not individuals.
P.S My BS alarm went at the "liberal elites"
No one rejected Edwards for being southern or for advocating for the poor (at least not the voters, not the media liberals own)


So, stop blaming liberals for what corporate media engineered!

[Two Americas]

151. no it isn't

It is not acceptable, and it is prejudiced to imagine that there are millions of "gun nuts" and "bible nuts" out there , and that it is appropriate or progressive to hate them.

Poor people go to church and own guns, and that includes the African American community. But I don't think you mean them when you malign millions of people. The Religious Right and the NRA want us to believe that they represent half the population. There is no excuse for us to by into that lie, and I believe the reason that many upscale liberals do is because of an upper class bias, not because they are "liberal" or "progressive."

The caricature of NASCAR dads, fundies, rednecks, gun nuts and all of the rest is just an acceptable excuse for liberals to justify hating and suppressing people — blue collar people, rural people, poor people, working class people, less fortunate people - and that is being used to get people to support upper class and right wing ideas and programs in the Democratic party.

[amborin]

190. not really

it's republicans who cleverly got the your so called working class individuals to define their class interests in terms of cultural values, like guns, abortion, etc.....and to turn their back on, and vote against, their real (economic) class interests.....as David Franks explained in What's the Matter with Kansas?

otherwise....liberals don't hate working class people all

as for the dem party....chomsky said long ago it's essentially indistinguishable from the republican

there are a few slim differences, dems more likely help protect the environment, otherwise they're essentially the same

[Two Americas]

222. interesting

I agree with what you say here.

So why the antagonism? Where is the disagreement?

[OneGrassRoot]

42. Poverty versus The Struggle of the Working Class

There are always various definitions of "poverty."

I think one potential thorn in the dem party is the use of the word "poverty."

There is tremendous poverty in this country - the type of poverty that comes to mind for most: homelessness, soup kitchens, etc.

And that certainly must be spoken to, as the candidates have been. This poverty is embraced by the Democratic Party in general, as is evidenced by the label we have of being bleeding-heart liberals. We all acknowledge this and are passionate about eliminating it from our world.

But there is another less well-defined poverty. It's the one that probably the vast majority of Americans are experiencing, yet it's having the word POVERTY as a label that so many reject. It's humiliating. "That's not ME." Plus, we DO have it so much better than others, so perhaps it's presumptuous to USE that label when we do have a roof over our heads and food on the table on a daily basis. It's a battle within ourselves trying to figure out WHERE WE ARE.

"Are the candidates talking to me when they talk about poverty?" In a way, many hope they are, as they want help. In another way, perhaps people reject it because they don't want to think of the messages of poverty applying to them. They want to look at those "in poverty" and say, "I'll work to free you!" but they don't want to be considered one who needs freed or saved...it's too embarrassing to admit that you work nonstop, have a good education, are responsible, yet continue to struggle for reasons not of your own doing. But you also want to take responsibility and not BLAME anyone else. Other than this monolithic "them" - who would you blame? The slow, silent degradation of the Middle Class has led to this, and the institution of labels. The right wing has been very, very good at making liberal a bad word, for example. They still think Middle Class means two weeks of vacation, health benefits, a nice nest egg, retirement account.

Not so.

I used to have this inner, silent struggle about the label myself quite often.

It's the struggle of the working class. Where do we fit in? We have jobs and an income, yet we are always on the verge of being homeless. One paycheck away, as they say. It is very true.

Which candidate is speaking to ME? The person for whom government assistance doesn't apply, yet there is fear on a daily basis about the ability to put gas in the car, food on the table, heating the house. The ability is there TODAY, but there is no sense of security that it will be there next week. There is no savings or retirement. Or health benefits. Any benefits.

And I DO feel there is an elitist quality within the Democratic Party. Simply one faction, not the majority. People with multiple academic degrees are often less able to identify with "the working class," even though they may also be one paycheck away from being homeless. When I say working class, I include white-collar jobs.

It's an identity crisis for much of our nation, let alone the Democratic Party.

I think by speaking to the working poor, perhaps labeling it The Struggle of the Working Class, will help candidates gain more traction. Edwards started with a focus on the word "poverty," and as the campaign went on broadened that term to the working class struggle.

Speaking to the Struggle of the Working Class more - and giving specifics as to HOW to correct the disappearance of the middle class for whom there are no safeguards within our present system - would be a huge step.

As always, ACKNOWLEDGEMENT must come first. Then correction of the problem. I hear a lot about poverty in the Democratic Party's platform, but I don't hear nearly enough discussion about the Struggle of the Working Class.

[TexasObserver]

45. Republicans try to get the middle class to despise the poor

They love to say we do the class warfare because we don't want the top 1% getting better treatment than the bottom 80%, but the reality is they constantly use racism and classism to promote hostility by the middle class against the working poor and poverty stricken. It's mean spirited and it's wrong.

John championed against that, and they hate him for it.

[OneGrassRoot]

48. Good point...

and throughout the years have indoctrinated the "average" person into thinking that anyone who needs help in the way of government assistance is a leech, a waste, lazy.

And the dems have embraced poverty as a cause, yet the average person still doesn't want to BE the cause, they want to HELP the cause.

Now, many of those average people now find themselves in need of help, as the income from working two jobs doesn't stretch nearly as far as it did 20 years ago, but they wouldn't dare identify with anyone in "poverty."

[TexasObserver]

67. Case in point: Romney: "we found who didn't have it, could have"

That was his big line a couple nights ago. He was extolling the virtues of HIS plan in Massachusetts. He claimed they found that half of all who didn't have health insurance could have afforded it, but "they figured why pay for it when they can get it for free?!"

That's the kind of LIE Republicans have to tell themselves to sleep at night.

[femrap]

101. and I never want to hear the term,

Welfare Queen again.

Women who are the working poor and single mothers really get the shaft...they are called immoral for having sex. The repugnants tell these women they can't have abortions and when their children are born, they look down on this family and give it absolutely no help.

[redqueen]

68. Well to be fair, it is a tried and true system...

sad to see it still works so well, though.

[lumberjack_jeff]

66. Yes! Fuckin' exactly.

Exactly. Exactly. Exactly. Exactly.

[redqueen]

69. Are the people he's talking about the ones NPR's aiming at with this garbage?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4331841&mesg_id=4331841

I quit listening to the allegedly-liberal NPR *years* ago... too aggravating, hearing crap like that from a so-called liberal outlet.

[lumberjack_jeff]

74. Very much so.

NPR is crap.

[redqueen]

75. I have to wonder how many listeners let them know how displeased they are

with coverage like that.

I also wonder how many are even paying enough attention to be displeased. *sigh*

[lumberjack_jeff]

77. Choosing to complain about it presupposes an assumption that they're doing it on accident.

They know what they are doing. There is no percentage for them to speak for the working class (and those who would advocate for them) in anything other than the most condescending ways.

on edit

This post from ThomWV was an epiphany to me:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2802390
"Nov 9, 1934.

Dear folks.

<. . .> After the D. A. R. the other night one of the ladies asked me why it was that it was so difficult to get maids from Scotts Run. She said that she didn't think all of them should be encouraged to follow higher lives - and that some of them should be encouraged to be good maids.<. . .> My - - - what a gulf between class - what little understanding there is. I had never given that angle any special consideration, but answered her as best I knew how. Of course I'm not out there to train maids! What a narrow view of life she did present.<. . .> The biggest hindrance to our work is the attitude of people who think they are the very helpers!! The final note of my talk the other night was the Friendship we must give to these people if we expect them to be better citizens. If when the young folks thru personal contact with people here in town cant find a spirit of Christian citizenship how can we expect the children themselves to become good citizens. All these incidents are splendid illustrations for talks . . . . and I continue to use them right here in Morgantown.<. . .>"

The working class are held down only slightly more by those who would exploit them as those who consider them little more than objects of condescension and charity.

[redqueen]

78. Not sure what you mean by that...

Who are "they"?

What is it that they're doing by accident or not?

[lumberjack_jeff]

81. "They" is those who run NPR

NPR is run, fundamentally, by the administration. Their interests are strongly aligned with the economic elites.

NPR's old guard is those who find human interest stories at the opera. They pop in to a food bank each Christmas to implore their listeners to drop some coins in the bucket. Their interests are strongly aligned with (I despise the term but I know of no better one) "cultural elites".

The idea that those who withdraw from the bucket deserve not only charity but authority, power and responsibility is immensely threatening to all of NPR's governors.

Edwards gets dismissed and ridiculed on purpose. Complaining to them about pursuing their own interests is quixotic.

[redqueen]

82. No, complaining about them adding to the bullshit is called responsible...

not quixotic.

Jesus.

[lumberjack_jeff]

86. Tilting may be good exercise

But the windmill still looks on, bemused.

[redqueen]

89. Sorry... but I disagree vehemently.

The FCC doesn't listen to us, so why write to them to give your thoughts about their decisions?

Politicians only cater to donors, so why call or write to them about legislation?

NBC was going to disinvite Kucinich anyway, so why complain?

The parties are controlled by the powerful, so who cares about politics?

And the votes aren't counted anyway... so why vote?




How far do you, personally, take that attitude?

[lumberjack_jeff]

91. Admittedly, you're catching me on my worst week.

You have a point.

[redqueen]

92. Sorry to be so zealous about it...

but I just hate the idea that that kind of thinking might spread... heh, I consider it like a virus... the apathy virus.

Hope next week's better. :)

[CTyankee]

149. "human interest stories at the opera" LOL!

As an opera lover, I should "resemble" your remark, but it IS funny! We opera people are a pretty odd bunch, really, I mean those of us with modest means but a love for the over the top drama of, say, "La Boheme"!

Che gelida manina...

[amborin]

191. npr drank the kool aid years ago for heaven't sake

[Seabiscuit]

76. WTF??? NO ONE ever called "born-again Christians" "New Deal Democrats".

This article is full of shit.

[lumberjack_jeff]

79. Physician, heal thyself.

At one time, Christians interests were split between ending oppression for minorities, advocacy for the poor, and promoting (their version) of cultural righteousness.

With the signing of the civil rights act and our having stopped (or at best deemphasized) pushing the interests of the working class, their scales were tipped.

Christians were very much a driving force in the new deal.

Are we really the party of Patty Hearst?

[Seabiscuit]

173. You've got a whole lot of things mixed up.

The signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was done by President Lyndon Johnson in, or all things, 1964.

The New Deal was signed by FDR in 1933.

Neither had anything to do with "born-again Christians".

Patty Hearst? That was 1974. Also irrelevant to the New Deal.

[lumberjack_jeff]

206. I know what I'm talking about.

You misunderstand. Since the late 60's our "loose coalition of interests" has deemphasized support for the working class. Not since FDR's war on poverty have we had a focused, well articulated strategy on the topic. Since that time, the interests of Protestant Christianity have been less strongly aligned with the Democratic party. The mutual disdain between evangelical Christians and liberals is a relatively new phenomenon.

Worse, since no political party was aggressively advocating for the bottom 40% of income earners, protestant churches stopped doing it too. Like the Republican party's "southern strategy" their evangelical strategy killed us - and the country along with it.

The protestant churches in my area take annual trips to Mexico to build houses. Admirable work, but I have to wonder if they'd expend that effort closer to home if there were a social acknowledgment that the problem exists here too.

[Seabiscuit]

227. I understand what you're saying

but it still sheds no light on the wording in that article, which is what I found more than just bizarre.

[Two Americas]

119. easy to dismiss

It is easy to dimiss the connection there, because it seems to contradict what we have been led to think are the "teams" in the cultural war battles that have replaced genuine politics.

There has been a dramatic shift going on over the last couple of years in Evangelical and Catholic Christian communities away from the fire and brimstone Old Testament ideas that the Dominionists and the Religious Right used to build their fortunes and political clout, and toward the New Testament teachings of compassion and charity. This is reflected in the success of the Huckabee campaign.

In the New Deal era, Christianity was even more powerful and pervasive then it is today, so there clearly is no inherent conflict or contradiction between people's religion and very progressive politics. The Religious Right gained power and lucre through using religion as a political tool. That doesn't mean that we need to accept their premises and fight on their battlefield and moronically take up positions that are a mirror image of their propaganda. The opposite of a lie is not automatically the truth. We have been suckered into a fight that is based on lies and that we cannot win. We have allowed the opposition to define us.

When we see the Catholic bishops take positions far to the left of the Democratic party, as they did in their position paper on immigration, we know that something has seriously gone awry with the Democratic party and that our comic book view of what the battle is about and who our enemies are is all an illusion.

[Seabiscuit]

174. I don't know what you're talking about, but it has nothing to do with

falsely calling "born-again Christians" "New Deal Democrats".

[demo dutch]

123. Back in the 30's and 40's

[Seabiscuit]

175. The New Deal was signed by FDR in 1933.

It never had anything whatsoever to do with "born-again Christians".

[Two Americas]

203. it didn't exclude them

You are missing the point. That same demographic that is now attacked and blamed for the problems in the country, once supported the New Deal. They would again, in a heartbeat.

[Seabiscuit]

229. I'm not missing any point.

The author said "born-again Christians" used to be called "New Deal Democrats" as if they were both the same group, merely re-labled.

That's a crock.

There were both Christians and non-Christians of all stripes who were Democrats and who benefitted from the New Deal.

The author is full of shit.

[Two Americas]

233. you are repeating yourself

You have about five posts now that say the same thing.

You misunderstood the author, or at least I didn't get what you got from the article, and reasonable people can disagree without flaming each other, yes?

The author did not say that born-again Christians and New Deal Democrats were "both the same group, merely re-labled." I just can't see how you can read it that way. Had the author said that, I would agree with you about the article.

You say "there were both Christians and non-Christians of all stripes who were Democrats and who benefitted from the New Deal."

Of course. Neither the author nor I claimed otherwise.

You are taking one passage from the article, which I believe you misunderstood, and harping and harping on it.

[Seabiscuit]

235. I'm not flaming you. But I repeated myself because you don't seem to

understand what's wrong with what the author said, and you haven't shed any light on why you think what he said is just fine.

The New Deal had nothing whatsoever to do with any religion or any religious group.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

152. History lesson: From the 1930s through the 1960s, the so-called "redneck"

areas were solidly New Deal Democratic.

They didn't leave the Democrats so much as the Democrats left them, abandoning initiatives like The War on Poverty, which helped people of all races and ethnic groups, to concentrate on racial justice and feminism (good things in themselves, of course) to the exclusion of economic justice. With often retro attitudes on race and gender, working class whites, especially men, were portrayed as villains.

This is in contrast to the messages of Martin Luther King, who was reaching out to poor whites in the last days of his life, and Robert Kennedy, who emphasized economic justice for all.

With those powerful voices silenced (I almost weep to think what the U.S. would be like today if their ideas had prevailed), the Democrats concentrated on trying right wrongs done to women and people of color.

Don't get me wrong. These were GOOD ideas, and I benefited from feminism myself, but the working class and farmers got lost somewhere.

Because of this neglect, the Republicans, who had nothing to say to poor and rural voters otherwise, cleverly appealed to them on the basis of "We share your values, unlike those Volvo-driving, soccer-watching ex-hippies in the 'Democrat' party.'

The Dems missed some huge opportunities. The desegregation of northern urban school districts was carried out in such a clumsy manner, with more emphasis on the color of the students than on the quality of the education provided, that whites of all classes moved out of the inner cities or sent their kids to private schools. (For a time, students in Minneapolis were being reshuffled every year to make sure that the races were represented in exact percentages.) Now most urban school districts are largely resegregated, thanks to "white flight" to the suburbs.

When the farm foreclosure crisis occurred early in the Reagan administration, the Dems controlled both houses of Congress. They could have won the everlasting gratitude of American farmers (who believe in paying their debts) by offering low-interest refinancing. Instead, they allowed the foreclosures to occur, breaking the hearts of thousands of families and destroying thousands of small towns.

When Reagan fired the air traffic controllers, the Dems could have spoken with a united voice and said that they supported the rights of union workers, but most of them said nothing.

Republican voters, by and large, come more from the suburbs than from the working class or rural poor. It's not the snake handlers in Appalachia who are pushing the radical Republican platform so much as it is the sport-coated self-ordained "ministers" in the megachurches preaching to crowds who arrived in SUVs.

For the most part, the really poor don't vote at all, because neither party has anything to say to them, nor is either party really interested in them.

[Two Americas]

158. spectacular

Excellent post.

[Spiffarino]

165. "Redneck" is a pejorative aimed at working people.

The use of the term "redneck" implies that there is a comfortable and educated elite in America - exclusive of party affiliation - who consider working people beneath them. Sadly, even on DU I see the term "redneck" used constantly to belittle not only dopey right wingers but less-educated and working-class people in general. This negative attitude toward the working class should be anathema to progressives and liberals, and yet I see it continually embraced.

Consider the origins of the term "redneck" and how it has come into current usage. Once you understand what it signifies, perhaps it won't be as easy to toss around. At least I hope.

From Wikipedia:

A popular etymology says that the term derives from such individuals having a red neck caused by working outdoors in the sunlight over the course of their lifetime. The effect of decades of direct sunlight on the exposed skin of the back of the neck not only reddens fair skin, but renders it leathery and tough, and typically very wrinkled and spotted by late middle age. Similarly, some historians claim that the term redneck originated in 17th century Virginia, because fair-skinned unfree labourers were sunburnt while tending plantation crops.

It is clear that by the post-Reconstruction era (after the departure of Federal troops from the American South in 1874-1878), the term had worked its way into popular usage. Several blackface minstrel shows used the word in a derogatory manner, comparing slave life over that of the poor rural whites. This may have much to do with the social, political and economic struggle between Populists, the Redeemers and Republican Carpetbaggers of the post-Civil War South and Appalachia, where the new middle class of the South (professionals, bankers, industrialists) displaced the pre-war planter class as the leaders of the Southern states. The Populist movement, with its message of economic equality, represented a threat to the status quo. The use of a derogative term, such as redneck to belittle the working class, would have assisted in the gradual disenfranchisement of most of the Southern lower class, both black and white, which occurred by 1910.

Another popular theory stems from the use of red bandanas tied around the neck to signify union affiliation during the violent clashes between United Mine Workers and coal mine owners between 1910 and 1920...

"Unfree" laborers, poor farmers, union miners...

If I remember correctly, these should be classified as OUR people.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

170. That's why I put it in quotation marks--

but a regrettable number of DUers use it.

It's especially annoying to see people refer to Freepers as if they must live in rusted out trailers with rusted out cars up on blocks in the yard.

It's more likely that Freepers live in cul-de-sacs with a Cherokee and a Suburban in the driveway, a 60" projection TV in the den, and a basketball hoop over the garage door.

If you actually talk to working class people (I was an industrial temp for much of the three years between leaving grad school and getting my first teaching job during the Reagan recession), you'll find that except for the really stupid people, who believe KKK-type nonsense, factory workers have quite a clear-eyed view of how this country really works.

[Spiffarino]

210. I got that you get it.

It wasn't aimed at you but rather at the general DU audience. Your analysis was spot on, especially what you said about the Freeps. That sort of GOPer disdains people who shower after work, yet he probably can't swing a hammer twice without blistering one of his pudgy pink hands.

For sure many working-class people understand how the system is run and who runs it. Unfortunately, many still don't vote for Democrats because they see no appreciable difference. They know that if you live from paycheck to paycheck, you don't count. There are few liberals left who understand working people. Paul Wellstone (bless his soul) and his kind are gone. Without hope, all that's left to vote for is anger.

You mentioned Reagan in passing and it made me remember back to when I cast my first vote for POTUS. When Jimmy Carter told the truth about the sorry state of the nation, it soured working-class Democrats in the factories and warehouses where I worked. As far as they were concerned, Carter was a wimp who made everyone ashamed to be an American. Thus Reagan stepped in with his tough, macho, John Wayne act and the regular guys swallowed the bait. And I was one of the suckers.

Within a few months of his taking office I knew I'd made a mistake. Most of my friends, however, did not. They didn't see how the Republican machine was systematically attacking and dismantling the legal and societal framework that made the U.S. economy work for the majority. What they saw was what they wanted to see: A powerful father figure who told them they were living in a shining paradise. They felt content as he and his team dismantled their dreams bit by bit.

Fewer today believe the Reagan myth, and we have Bush the Lesser to thank for it. As one corruption after another is revealed, the Reagan Revolution's facade cracks open a little wider, revealing more and more of its dark, empty soul. Perhaps this is the year the "Reagan Democrats" will finally come home to become Democrats again. However, this time we must demand that Democrats start acting like democrats and get back to work for the people who work.

[Seabiscuit]

177. I'm not sure what you're trying to say, beyond recounting a bunch of

meandering and disconnected memories, but it 's about as clear as mud if it purports to give some validity to the articles' B.S. claim that "born again Christians" were known as "New Deal Democrats".

[Lydia Leftcoast]

181. In those days, most of them were

The author is NOT saying that the two terms were synonymous. He's saying that most evangelicals in those days were New Deal Democrats, because the New Deal actually improved their lives.

In that sense, it's not B.S. He's using a rhetorical technique.

[Seabiscuit]

228. But that's not what the author said.

He said "born again Christians" used to be called New Deal Democrats. As if they were the same group of people merely relabled.

Sure, there were Christians of all stripes that were Democrats during the New Deal, and who benefitted from it. There were also Christians of all stripes who were not.

And there were a lot of Democrats who benefitted from the New Deal who were not Christians.

The author is just full of shit for the phrase he used.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

241. No, he just used a rhetorical device carelessly, and if you don't get that,

then I'm through arguing.

Nobody is saying that New Deal Democrats and evangelical Christians were a completely overlapping set.

[amborin]

193. a big problem was unions lost the south

they dropped the ball with operation dixie

and it's been downhill ever since

[BlueEyedSon]

80. Yes another despicable media assassination, like Howard Dean

and Gore
and Kerry

[bobbolink]

83. Eye-opening article. Are there many Dems left, however, who have their eyes open?

I"m just too sad about my country...

:cry:

[redqueen]

84. Aw... please don't be sad...

be PISSED!

It's more energizing. :hug:

[bobbolink]

95. YOU! You........ you rabble-rouser, you!

:loveya:

See, I'm trying to be a good girl, and you're egging me on...

:rofl:

:nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

[redqueen]

97. Heheh...

:evilgrin:

:headbang:

[Two Americas]

157. listen up fellow rabble

Don't ever stop rousing.

[femrap]

85. Big K and R..

I still want to know WHY he 'suspended' his campaign.

And to all of those who ridiculed or didn't 'get' Edwards' message, may Peak Oil, The Greater Depression, and your Debt bite your ass so hard you cry. Bunch of Selfish, Greedy, Egotistical, Self-centered, 'I want it NOW,' 'What do you mean, Sacrifice?,' Technology-enslaved, Unimaginative Brats who actually believe that they are somehow important or significant.

Get ready...your little ego trip is about to come to an end.

[Ninga]

102. May I please have permission to quote you???? Love it, just how I feel too!

:yourock:

[femrap]

104. Oh Please...

be my guest!!!

[SammyWinstonJack]

115. Right On!

:yourock: :applause:

[smokey nj]

100. Kick!!!

[geiger]

107. Agreed, and Edwards also asked for a pledge from both candidates to keep the issue of poverty

front and central in the campaigns, and I don't remember hearing any questions or overt references to the topic last night either.

[stimbox]

109. K&R

:bounce:

[opihimoimoi]

110. John got Roved...the GOP axed him for good reason....watch what they try to do with Hillary..they

want Obama so once he is nom;d...they will come out and Swift him no end....google odinga from Kenya...another Idi Amin type

[Critters2]

192. The GOP?!!! It was Dems who did Edwards in!!

As they did Dean four years ago.

[november3rd]

116. I wasn't stunned

We've known it all along. That's why supporting Edwards was such an ardent cause for so many of us.

[geiger]

159. I was stunned,

[TomClash]

118. DUH - IT'S A CLASS WAR nt

[JDPriestly]

120. This article, whatever its provenance, is spot-on.

[McCamy Taylor]

124. The corporate media killed the Edwards campaign and now they say LIBERALS did it? WTF?

It is natural for the different elements of the Democratic base to be drawn to different candidates, same as it is natural for different elements of the Republican base to be drawn to different candidates. Obama is attracting those with college degrees and more money. Hillary is drawing in women and those without degrees and less income. Edwards also drew heavily from those without degrees and with less income and from traditional rank and file Dems.

This does not mean that those with degrees and money killed Edwards campaign. They just liked Obama better.

It was the corporate media that spent time and effort labeling Edwards a "phony" and then denying him press coverage and then declaring his campaign "dead" after his upset second place finish in Iowa when they should have been giving him extra coverage that would have given his campaign a jump start. It was the corporate media that started calling him "red" and "angry" to pigeonhole him as an ultra leftist so that he would lose his broad base appeal in the last weeks of the campaign.

I expected the MSM to come up with some lie to excuse their own reprehensible behavior, but to blame Democrats for the character assassination of John Edwards is beyond the pale. The MSM is indeed a Big Fat Liar .

[lumberjack_jeff]

129. It is more than just the MSM.

It is the party.

Why such vitriolic push-back about Dean's 50 state strategy? Why the contempt for "nascar dads"?

Also, I'm not sure I see your take on the demographics of the candidates. I've seen nothing that leads me to the conclusion that Hillary supporters have (on aggregate) lower levels of education than Obama's.

[Ninga]

133. The "limousine liberals" paved the way for the corporate media by their apathy.

The corporate media is one thing.

Liberal apathy to populist causes is another.

[amborin]

231. only one tiny part of the total picture

capitalists launched a massive and successful offensive against the working class

just look at nissan's union-busting activities, for starters.....used all kinds of horrible and illegal tactics to make sure the union would not succeed in organizing its smyrna, tennessee auto plants.....

many different processes led to the current condition

you can't pin it on any single cause

[Two Americas]

137. yes

A certain faction of liberals did it.

The MSM liars, and the liars within the party - the enemy within the gate - represent the same interests.

The goal of the charade we have just witnessed was not to present a united front against the Republicans, it was to resolve a battle for the heart and soul of the party and to determine the direction of the party by crushing out the growing anti-corporate insurgency within the party.

[AdHocSolver]

220. The MSM did NOT twist any Democratic arms to quash Edwards' campaign. The hit was an inside job.

The irrational and irrelevant attacks on Edwards by other Democrats, including a lot of people here on DU, proves the charge that many liberals are elitest and are "uncomfortable" having anything to do with "poor" people.

The American myth is that "rich" people "deserve" their money because they are "better" educated and "harder" working than others. The collary to the myth is that "poor" people have less money because they are "less" educated (implying less intelligent) and don't work as "hard" (implying that the less well off are lazy).

Subconsciously, the middle class is aware that under the corporate system, people don't "make their own success", but are "selected" by the upper classes for "success" or "failure". Forty or fifty years ago, there was still a possibility to start your own business and make a success of it. Today, with a few giant corporations controlling all the financial capital and trade, the entrepreneurial possibilities are gone.

However, the middle class cannot face up to reality. Their numbers are dwindling and psychologically they cannot face up to the fact that they have to suck up to their bosses or could wind up like the "poor" people. The middle class cannot suffer a John Edwards who points out how many "poor" people are suffering because of the policies championed by their corporate bosses. The myth must be preserved at all costs.

[demo dutch]

130. Reform of the political system is needed and take it out of the hands of the party.In France the law

requires the press to give equal coverage to each candidate. They have national primaries which are not decided by the National parties but by the voter! and they have a multi party system. Reform isn't just campaign finance reform, reform need to happen across the board. Maybe it'll change when a third party really comes into play and maybe Edwards could be the road to a third party. Maybe there should be a 4th party, there are groups of people on the other side, I dare say, that feel unrepresented as well. However it is unlikely to ever happen here because both parties like it this way and they would never vote for any changes.

[DS1]

135. fark is the elite of America?

AHAHA AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

[nonconformist]

139. K & R. Great article. nt

[FATCATs]

140. And I HATE the label, POPULIST !!!

It’s spat out like some kind of evil.

[femrap]

144. I've been working on giving the Republicans

...I should say Repugnants a bad name. If I find myself in a conversation with a W voter, I ask him/her if he is from the Pure Greed, Just Selfish, or Willfully Ignorant part of the Repugnant Party. I love to watch him stammer!!! I actually chased a guy away...do you believe it? A W voter was simply unable to answer and fled in fear! It was a wonderful moment...

[FATCATs]

164. Yea, I do femrap

They are, StoooooPid :D

[femrap]

202. Very...and welcome to DU.

[Spiffarino]

169. I love it. I embrace it.

I look forward to the next Democrat who has the stones to call him- or herself one.

[Critters2]

194. Me too. I'm a proud progressive populist! nt

[tomp]

147. wow, the problems of our country are caused by education!

quite a premise.

[Two Americas]

153. an age old argument

Back in the 30's, people opposed to the unions said "not all business owners are evil, and not all workers are saints. You are trying to tell us that all business owners are evil!"

In the 1850's, apologists for slavery said "not all slave owners are cruel and evil, and not all slaves are saints. You are trying to tell us that all slave owners are evil!"

Today we have "not all corporations and wealthy people are evil, and not all poor people are saints. You are trying to tell us that all wealthy people and all corporations are evil!"

We are talking about a system, not individuals. Shifting the discussion away from the system as you just did, is the main way that the system is apologized for and defended.

No one wanted to come right out and say they were in favor of slavery, for example. That would not sound humane and enlightened. So they used this illogical debate trick you just used.

[kelligesq]

156. COULD OP CHANGE TITLE - JOHN EDWARDS IS BACK IN

:toast:

full article here

http://www.turnto10.com/northeast/jar/ne ws.apx.-content-articles-JAR-2008-02-01- 0015.html

[tomp]

212. i have to admit...

...i don't know what the hell you're talking about.

how did i shift the discussion away from the system? the author comes right out and pretty much says if you're educated you're part of the problem. so, not all educated are part of the problem and neither are all uneducated. you seem to be suggesting that i'm apologizing for that percentage of the educated that actually are responsible for the problem. i said no such thing and meant no such thing. why don't you come down off your pseudo-revolutionary horse and speak and read common sense. no education required.

[Two Americas]

221. that is not what the author said

The author did not “pretty much say” that “if you're educated you're part of the problem.”

What the author suggested is that if you are part of the problem - and you personally may or may not be - you may well be educated.

You are hearing an attack on educated people and arguing against that. How one uses their education, how one sees oneself, and how much attachment one has to the status and privilege affords by their education is the issue. But most importantly, into what or whose service are the educated placing their talents and position?

Twisting that around into an attack on educated people is not intellectually honest.

[Two Americas]

155. let's turn this around, shall we?

Some people are having difficulty getting their heads around the main concept in the article in the OP - or perhaps they are in opposition to the idea, there is no easy way to tell with certainty. “Are modern liberals aristocratic and elitist and out of touch with the people?” is the question being argued back and forth, and people are defending liberals on various grounds. Let’s look at this the other way around.

We all have a pretty good idea as to what makes for a modern liberal or progressive. We know who the ”like minded” people are, what their ideas and lives are like.

Now, while there are some modern liberals who are poor, there are almost no poor people who are liberals. You can talk to tens of thousands of blue collar working people and poor people—and I have—and never find anyone who fits the criteria we have for a modern liberal or progressive.

If that isn't undeniable proof that we have a problem in the Democratic party I don’t know what is.

[Ninga]

171. a well reasoned and thoughtful response. I appreciate your writing, I always learn

:hi:

[Two Americas]

176. thanks Ninga

I gain so much from your posts as well, and very much appreciate all of your wonderful contributions here.

[Eric J in MN]

214. I went to a forum last night in which the three Democratic candidates for Congress in MN-3...

...were asked questions by union representatives.

The second man to ask a question is a janitor at an airport, representing a janitor's union.

Other people who asked questions have jobs involving manual labor.

Maybe if you were there, you wouldn't be saying that "there are almost no poor people who are liberals. You can talk to tens of thousands of blue collar working people and poor people..."

[Two Americas]

225. I have been there

Many times. UAW memmber, since 1968, and many years involved in union activism. I don't see how a congressional candidate fielding questions from blue collar people makes the people asking the questions liberals.

[Eric J in MN]

232. They're liberal enough to want to research which Democrat to vote for.

They're liberal enough to ask questions from the workers' perspective.

[Two Americas]

236. not following

What is the connection between asking questions from one's perspecive and being a liberal?

If we re-define "liberal" to mean "things we like" or "things we approve of" then I suppose there is a connection.

[Eric J in MN]

243. I regard support for workers' rights and for the Democratic Party....

...as liberal positions.

[Two Americas]

247. I see

By that definition then, yes, the roughly 50 million people voting Democratic are liberals.

The purpose of this thread is to look a little deeper at the subject, and foundational to an understanding of what we are talking about is an ability and willingness to see different groups within that 50 million with different motivations and agendas, different degrees of status and power, and the relationships and dynamics between those groups.

[Eric J in MN]

251. I'm not saying that everyone who votes for a Democrat is a liberal.

Asking a question about workers' rights at a forum for Democratic candidates is more involved than just voting.

[geiger]

238. Two Americas, where does your signature quote come from?

[Two Americas]

246. Adams

The quote is from Sam Adams, poli speak.

[geiger]

254. wow, thanks.

[amborin]

180. that's a b.s. article

it's not because someone is "elite" or a "snob" that they didn't like Edwards or that they don't support the issues he stressed

it's because Edwards was a phoney....haircuts, hedgefunds, and houses

clear cut 100 acres outside Chapel Hill, while decrying global climate change

has two more kids when global population growth is strangling the planet

gets 400 haircuts when the working stiffs can barely afford next month's rent or mortgage payment

got big bucks from the hedge fund that was foreclosing on new orleans katrina victims

reversed his position on numerous issues he'd voted on in the senate

the guy was not credible

[Two Americas]

199. could be

How would we ever know? You are saying that it is not Edwards message that was rejected, but rather the various character assassination points you are raising? No way for us to know where you stand, is there? Since it is the talking points you regurgitate as your contribution here my strong suspicion is that it is actually the message of Edwards you are opposed to, and I think that is also true for many if not most of his opponents. But we can't know, can we? That in and of itself is intriguing and very revealing.

Did you imagine that none of us had ever heard these points you posted? Or had forgotten? Did you really? Or are you hopping that by repeating them endlessly - just as commercial advertisers do on TV - that they would grab a hold of people’s imaginations, be inserted into their thinking against their will? Or perhaps you seek to antagonize Edwards supporters for the sake of amusement or to covertly express your hostility?

We have no way of knowing, do we? One thing you can say about Edwards supporters - you may not agree with them, but you never have to guess where they stand or what they are saying.

[amborin]

215. not talking points

how insulting of you to imply that someone's reasoned judgement is nothing more than regurgiated talking points

do you insult everyone you encounter in a similar manner?

impugn and dismiss their judgement and opinions?

Edwards' message directly related to his character flaws, and was undermined by them

it wasn't like the child molester who perfects some esoteric mathematical theorem....where the work is not inherently related to the pathology and isn't undercut by it

in Edwards' case, the flaws directly threatened his credibility

everyone has a right to their opinions, especially since this thread focuses on an article about edwards,

you rudely attack those who rejected Edwards---rejected him for many good reasons----and try to imply they're harboring some other agenda

truth is: many want to implement a progressive agenda, and the remaining two candidates were vastly more qualified and likely to do so

[Two Americas]

224. sorry

What are these?

"...it's because Edwards was a phoney....haircuts, hedgefunds, and houses..."

:shrug:

Those are "many good reasons?"

[AdHocSolver]

230. The hostility you display towards Edwards, based on flimsy reasoning, is curious. n/t

[NoBorders]

183. OK, I finally read this. 'Reagan Dems'

Defected because they didn't like the Dems supporting civil rights (that is, black people), gay issues, etc... I see some good points in the article, but that's not one of them. Sure, these folks may be 'populists', but they shouldn't be romantacized.

[Two Americas]

204. they didn't defect

People didn't leave the party, the party left them. This goes on today right in plain view.

"Romanticizing" is not the only imaginable alternative to complete neglect, by the way.

[Time for change]

205. As an Edwards supporter I appreciate that this article defends him, but

what's with this "elite liberal" crap?

Reading this you would get the impression that liberals are the ones who don't care about the poor :puke:

[AdHocSolver]

226. Liberals do not care enough about the poor to support policies that would help the poor.

What would help the poor the most is revoking NAFTA, the WTO, the IMF, the World Bank, and reversing all trade agreements and tax laws that make it profitable to send jobs offshore.

"Free trade" is a myth used as an excuse to exploit cheap overseas labor at the expense of American jobs. International trade is totally controlled by the multinational corporations. If there were "free" trade, then economic theory says that we would not see such a high trade deficit since such enormous levels of debt are not sustainable. This debt level exists because the corporations have iron clad control of finances and commerce in this country.

John Edwards spoke to that problem and the so-called liberals shut him down. If the liberals really cared, they would have criticized the right wing media for making John invisible. Instead, the Democrats merely piled it on.

[Time for change]

240. Edwards IS a liberal - He and Kucinich were the 2 most liberal of the Democratic candidates

Those who shut him down, and those who promote NAFTA, WTO, IMF, and the World Bank policies are not liberals.

Name one liberal who supports all those things.

"Liberal elite" is an oxymoron coined by conservatives. To the extent that we buy into that we are just helping them play their game.

[lumberjack_jeff]

242. I think many of Hillary's supporters consider themselves liberal.

Or at least, that's what they tell their friends at the art gallery opening party.

We need not look too far to illustrate the point.

1) start a thread about illegal immigration
2) count how many posts it takes before someone says: "I doubt if immigration really suppresses wages, and if they do, it's only among the uneducated."
... it'll be right after someone opines that immigrants do the work (presumably lazy and uneducated) americans won't.

Even on this thread, others have stated that they think the way we select leaders is anachronistic. Paraphrased, leaders in business, in science, in the arts, in education - the elites - should pick someone from their midst to run things.

The OP holds up an unflattering mirror to our attitudes, and I find them absolutely on the money.

[Time for change]

248. I realize that there are plenty of people like that

Some of them probably think of themselves as "liberal".

But that's not what liberal means. When we start talking about "liberal elites", that is a right wing talking point. The point of that phrase is to paint conservatives as the ones who care about people, in contrast with the "liberal elites".

Conservatives rail against the "liberal elites" who support welfare, unemployment insurance, universal health insurance, social security, and all manner of New Deal programs. Their goal is to make all these things sound bad. Their purpose is furthered by the phrase "liberal elite". In fact, it is the conservatives who are the elites.

People who believe that the poor deserve their lot, and therefore government should not attempt to help them are the elites. Or at least, that is elitist thinking. Those people are conservatives, not liberals, even though some of them might think of themselves as liberals.

[Two Americas]

253. yes

You are making a good point I think - "when we start talking about 'liberal elites,' that is a right wing talking point." There is a danger there.

It is true that the point of that right wing propaganda is to make all the New Deal programs sound bad.

Nevertheless, I think it is also undeniably true that the party has fallen under the control of people who are not interested in standing strongly for those New Deal programs at best and undermining them at worst.

Words are for being used to communicate meaning. A label for a thing is not the thing itself, yet the labels we use are now more powerful than the real world things they represent. In this age of complete domination of our lives by sophisticated advertising, the language is getting away from us. "Brand names" are more powerful than reality. We are talking about "liberals" and "elites" without agreeing as to their meaning. The words "populist" and "progressive" are losing any meaning, as well. When I say "liberal" I mean those who aggressively define that term for us, and who call themselves liberals, and who are in positions of power and influence. I don't think their definition of "liberal" has much to do with how it was once defined. That is what I am trying to communicate.

So how can we get around this problem of the language being corrupted?

[Time for change]

256. That's a good question

I think that the way to combat language being corrupted is to clearly define our terms in a straight forward manner and don't run away from them.

This is the way I see it. Over the past few decades, conservates have made "liberal" a bad word, through constant repetition and a consistent message tying it together with words like "elite". Primarily it is the conservatives who are the "elites", but if you repeat something enough times people will eventually come to believe it.

So liberals then began to run away from the "liberal" label, primarily by calling themselves "progressives" instead. I think that was a mistake. They should not have run away from that label. They should have stood up and explained simply that the liberal philosophy is what benefits far more people than the conservative philosophy, and it expresses the ideals in our Constitution and Declaration of Independence far better than does conservatism.

This is what I wrote about it a couple of years ago:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=779649

Click here to go back to the main forums.

[Two Americas]

249. hear! hear!

"The OP holds up an unflattering mirror to our attitudes, and I find them absolutely on the money.'

Well said. I agree completely.

[geiger]

255. OK, anyone, I have been "holding my powder" on b&b issues,

having gotten disturbed over the politics of marginalization, and obsessing on that for a day, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4346427&mesg_id=4346427
but has anyone heard any talk from either Obama or HRC on the poverty issue yet, or expect it to be addressed in the rally tonight or the contrived "town meeting" tomorrow night?

Thanks.