Why I'm for Edwards

Anyone reading the blogs on the liberal/Democratic side of things is awash in posts and "diaries" about why their candidate is the only one to save us and about why everyone else's candidate is a total loser who will destroy the country if s/he wins the primaries. (To be more accurate, they usually portray the voters as total losers or fools; the nominee gets the blame for ruining our future lives.) I'd like to avoid that hyperventilated rhetoric, for one simple reason: every single one of the Democratic Party candidates--even (or especially, in some cases) the ones who've dropped out--would make a saner, safer, and more palatable President than any of the Republicans who are running. That hasn't been the case for a long time, if ever, imho. So let's not tear each other apart over who gets the chance to keep our country from destroying itself.
That being said, I do have a strong affinity for John Edwards, and since Al Gore stubbornly refused to answer my pleas, I'm going to vote for him in our primary. I think Edwards is the only liberal left in the field, and he's the only one with concrete plans in place that speak to the issues I care about most--the role of government, tax policy, national trade and our growing division of wealth, and the costs of health care. He's definitely the only one interested in fighting the corporate powers that have taken over the nation (and its politicians, which makes this a vital stance to take), he's the only candidate talking specifically about the tanking economy, and he's the only one that seems to care about the base of the Democratic Party. He has apologized--I think quite sincerely--for his foolish and highly misguided vote to authorize Smirky's wars, he has experience in speaking truth to power based on his legal background suing corporations on behalf of injured customers or citizens, and he has demonstrated the most consistently positive national appeal in head-head polling against the Republican candidates. (In fact, he's the only one of the top 3 Dems that can be shown to potentially defeat all of the Repubs in any state you might choose to pick--even those in which he polls behind the Repub he still outdistances the other Dems.)
He's got two major problems, though, which will most likely cost him the nomination. 1) Because he is the scariest (from a Republican point of view) Democrat running, the right-wing media has chosen the most effective method of killing his chances--they are completely ignoring him. How many stories did you see that omitted any mention of the fact that Edwards came in second in Iowa? How many stories in the traditional media have you seen detailing his campaign or his appeal? I bet nowhere near as many as you saw telling us about Clinton's tears, or Obama's roller coaster ride from Iowa to New Hampshire, or even Richardson's "will he/won't he" retirement from the race.
2) He's a white man. Not to put too fine a point on it, but I imagine a lot of Democrats/liberals are genuinely excited (and for good reason) to vote for a credible African-American or woman in a Presidential race. The problem with that is that these are not the most liberal of A-As or women. Obama is actually boasting that he will work with Republicans--completely ignoring the demonstrably vituperative and caustic policies of that entire Party that have wrenched our country so far off the rails of democracy. Clinton's "centrism" is well-known; she is following in her husband's footsteps of trying to position herself squarely in the middle of the political spectrum--without realizing that by doing so, she allows the nutjobs on the right to continually shift without resistance even further rightward on most issues. She still proudly refers to herself as a "Goldwater Girl", after all; it's an extremely sad commentary on what has happened to our political landscape that a Goldwaterite can now be appropriately considered a Democrat!
To repeat: I will fairly happily vote for any of these three in November, because all of them recognize that we have taken almost too many steps down a perilous path and we are in danger of permanently "breaking" our country--at least in comparison to what any of the Republicans are saying. I just happen to think that of these three, only John Edwards "gets" the severity of our crisis and is angered by it. Just like me.

What's up with that?

Every now and then I turn to Google News to get a glimpse of what's going on in the world. I will probably have to change that habit, though, because for some reason, they seem to present a fairly slanted picture. This morning, one of their top headlines ("above the fold") reads "Democrats must figure next step on Iraq", as if it has been the Democratic Party that has been controlling the occupation and its consequences. The subheading makes me really question Google's algorithm, though, because it truly betrays the writer's bias: The debate is likely to expose fissures among Democrats, who remain divided on whether to cut off money for the unpopular war and risk leaving troops in the lurch.
2 things about that lede are wrong. 1) The Democrats are "divided" only by comparison to the monolithic, unthinking Republicans; remember, their bills have been passed by a Congress in which their majorities are not overwhelming. The only division, really, is between Democrats who want us out of Iraq immediately and those who want us out of Iraq later. 2) No plans put forward by any Democrat to date "risk leaving troops in the lurch". That Republican talking point is simply absurd and highly ironic, given that it has been the Republican Administration and its Halliburton cronies that have consistently provided the troops with little to no training, rest, safe equipment, or even a plan. The troops aren't going to be left in any "lurch" because they will be coming home, unless President Smirky ignores the wishes of a growing majority of the country and diverts other funds in order to keep them in harm's way.
Clicking through to the article itself is illuminating as well. How exactly, did anything from the "Meadow Free Press" find its way to the top of the pile of Google News articles? Is this rag from eastern Idaho really a representative newspaper of world opinion? The number of glaring technical errors in the article (I hope they are simply electronic glitches rather than typos!) were striking; it was virtually incomprehensible in spots.
I suppose, if Google is randomly selecting the papers they highlight, having the Meadow Free Press pop up might be kind of nice (aside from its obviously damaged perspective), in a folksy kind of way, and if Google is using some sort of proprietary statistical algorithm to divine what articles are the most popular in the country to show on their "front pages", they can be excused from charges of internal right wing bias. If that is the case, however, we are in bigger trouble than I even thought, because I notice this kind of slanting often in Google News. If these are indeed the articles most people are getting from their newspapers, it's no wonder at all that it has taken soooo long to persuade our citizens that the Republicans are destroying this country. It is clearly past the time for progressives, liberals, Democrats, and other sensible people to begin creating their own media outlets, at all levels; objective journalism is dead.

Proud to be from Glendale

What really got me to write again was a simple (and truly simple-minded) letter to the LA Times dated April 10. Ken Artingstall from Glendale writes, and I quote the letter almost wholly here:

The United Nations now reports that global warming is "irreversible but could be moderated by large-scale societal changes." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), in a position to effect such changes, says "it is not too late to slow it down. We must base our actions on moral imperatives free of political interference." This is the same speaker who triumphantly passed a budget that eliminates all the Bush tax cuts after 2010, setting the stage for a huge tax increase. What will "large-scale societal changes" to attack global warming entail? Command-and-control government regulation of the economy and even more taxes, among other things. To all the fanatical global warming disciples and pro-big government Democrats, be careful what you wish for: A collapsing economy will surely be one of them.

Let's break this letter down, shall we?
1) Mr. Artingstall's comment about the new House budget is comprised of 4 clauses (if my decades-old memory of what constitutes a clause is correct), 2 of which are false. A) The Bush tax cuts were created to end after 2010, in a cynical ploy to both explode in a future Administration's face and grab ignorant Democratic votes in Congress; Pelosi had nothing to do with "eliminating" them; and B) This "sunset clause" was widely publicized at the time of passage, so only ignoramuses or ideologues like Mr. Artingstall could claim that the return to the previous tax levels represents a tax increase perpetrated by Democrats. Given inflation, the amount paid in taxes by those lucky few who have benefited from these lower taxes for 10 years will no doubt be less in real dollars after 201o than they were in 2000 anyway . . .
2) Mr. Artingstall's wholesale and reprehensible denial of global warming notwithstanding, his conclusion about what the UN means by "large-scale societal changes" is wholly unfounded by anything other than his own ridiculous biases against responsible governance. Did Mr. Artingstall quote anyone other than the voices in his head when he decided that the societal changes might entail "more taxes" or "command-and-control" government regulation (whatever that means)? Of course not; people like him are ideologically opposed to using facts, logic, or even simple human kindness when determining what to say or do. It is entirely likely that our government will decide to spur investment in alternative fuels by encouraging businesses through tax breaks or even direct subsidies, but we already do that for the oil companies! It would be a simple matter to redirect those breaks and subsidies elsewhere or for other purposes, with no (gasp!) tax increases.
3) Mr. Artingstall is so out-of-touch with reality that he concludes his letter with one of the oldest canards in politics, in combination with one of the newest. Where in politics, exactly, are these "pro-big government Democrats", Ken? You clearly haven't noticed that it is the Republicans who have grown government since Reagan took office 26 years ago, with the largest growth occurring under Smirky and the rest of the felons currently in power. (See here also.) And how exactly can you define "fanatical global warming disciples" so that it includes the majority of citizens, not just globally, but even in the woefully misinformed US? Wake up, Ken--it is you that is the fanatic. Get a grip.
This is hardly unusual thinking for Glendalians, I'm sorry to report. This city is home to some of the most conservative thinking in all of LA County, it seems, judging by letters to the editor of the local rag. I just thought it was time for someone to point that out, and as someone who lives there, I apologize to the rest of you for it.