Former Senator John Edwards has come out swinging in his bid to cement his place as the agent of change among a group of Washington insiders. In particular Edwards took shots at Hillary Clinton's position as the darling of insider Washington. “The American people deserve to know that their presidency is not for sale, the Lincoln Bedroom is not for rent, and lobbyist money can no longer influence policy in the House or the Senate,” During President Clinton’s term in the White House, he invited top donors to spend a night in the esteemed president's bedroom. Edwards who is stuck in third place behind Clinton and Obama has been striving to cast himself as the true progressive and the true agent of change in the presidential race and has had some success with this tactic. Edwards has continued to be openly critical regarding the current efforts by the Congress to end the war and their inability to provide the other programs promised during the 2006 campaign when the Democrats retook control of Congress. He has continuously tied his Democratic opponents to Congress's failures. The Edwards campaign has made headway in some important states including Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. Edwards often polls better than Clinton and Obama against their Republican opponents and has been using these polls to show his ability to win nationally. If Edwards continues to pick up steam with a solid progressive agenda carrying less of the baggage of some of his competitors, he could slide into the Democratic nomination. To more and more of the Democratic base Edwards is looking like the candidate that can beat Republicans and create real change in the country.

Political motivation requires an enemy. Republicans are the enemy to Democrats. Democrats are the enemy to Republicans - unless it's the far left or far right, of course. The fringes are more concerned with the "heretics" in their party, those they believe are not pure enough to be called "Republican" or "Democrat." No organization or "wing" of the Democratic party is as detested by the "progressive" purists as the Democratic Leadership Council, the organization that recruited Bill Clinton and propelled him to the presidency - making him the only twice elected Democrat since Franklin Roosevelt. The "enlightened" ones in the party (the bunch that have never won a national election) often ask the rhetorical question, "what is the difference between the DLC and Republicans?" This question is a silly one. They surely know the answer to it. But the attacks on the organization have reached a fever pitch as Hillary Clinton, a DLC member, pulls further away from the pack in national and state polls. The question, though, deserves exploring. If so many people in the "netroots" are convinced the DLC is "Republican-lite," they're either seriously misinformed or are using the label to further their ideology among the rank and file of the party. So, the question was taken up yet one more time this week on Democratic Underground by "dmallind", and it was perhaps the best answer I've seen in a while. 1) Anti-science agendas. When did the DLC ever nominate a virulent anti-contraception wacko as head of the FDA, or prevent the Surgeon General from supporting a sensible health initiative because it offended the fundies? Let alone censor websites that talk about earth sciences? 2) Fiscal restraint. What DLCer supports budget deficits of 300B+, not including an off-budget war - to finance tax cuts for millionaires. Last DLC prez we had raised top bracket income taxes and got us a surplus. Bad DLC! Bad! 3) Politicization of DoJ. Only two USAG's of that same DLC prez's choice were removed for reasons other than promotion or term completion - both committed acts of moral turpitude. 4) Unemployment reduction. DLC prez - went from 7.1% to 3.6%. GOP prez? Back up to 4.6%. Bill Richardson has created tens of thousands of new jobs in a high-poverty state however, against the national trend. Bad DLC again! No! 5) Pro-choice. Name the DLCer who wants to overturn Roe or nominate "strict constructionist" judges at all levels. Now name the GOPer who hasn't used at least one of those code words. 6) Starting wars of choice. Combat deaths of troops sent into harm's way by DLC prez = 0 (accidental deaths in Bosnia and Somalia was Bush's baby before you try either). GOP prez? Gosh who knows but 4000 or so at least. Hillary (and Bill Richardson - who is DLC too right) says she'll bring the troops back in a sensible manner. DUers say she won't (will he?). Forgive me if I go with the one who will actually get to make that call. 7) DLC prez - plummetting violent crime. GOP prez - back up again! No difference there (OK OK that's probably a corollary of decent economic stewardship, but it's also got to be affected by hopelessness and lack of optimism in society too) 8) Health care - DLC candidates at least want to get it for more people. Sorry if they don't want to do it your way, but GOPers don't give a damn and 46 million is fine by them. You asked for differences I believe. Not perfection right? Ask someone whose sick kid gets covered - even via a for-profit HMO if need be - if they like the difference or not. 9) Cronyism and corruption. No a DLC prez won't pick people they don't know and trust for key cabinet or senior positions (would Kucinich? Would anyone?) but they are generally not too keen on unqualified buddies, no bid contracts (one of Hillary's key issues I believe) and the rest. In fact Hillary actually has the best plan in this area I've seen so far - even better than my choice Bill Richardson. Here it is: Banning Cabinet officials from lobbying a Hillary Clinton administration. Strengthening whistleblower protections. Creating a public service academy. Ending abuse of no-bid government contracts and posting all contracts online. Cutting 500,000 government contractors. Restoring the Office of Technology Assessment. Publishing budgets for every government agency. Implementing Results America Initiative to track government effectiveness. Tracking and eliminating corporate welfare. Expanding voting access and safeguarding voting machines. Now does that sound like GOP to you? Why? 10) Oil industry ties vs. Energy reform. Which GOP candidate wants to put billions into alternative energy research? Bill Richardson and Hillary Clinton both do. For centrist political thought and opinion, visit DonkeyDigest

 BartCop.com Volume 2027 - Hellenbach. In Today's Tequila Treehouse...

	Saudi Moderation?
	Twisted Legacy of Rove
	Diebold's New Name
	Thompson's Hot Water
	Worst congress ever
	Are Democrats dumb?
	Why I Hate Hillary (2)
	AT&T loves Bush
	Kristen Bell on Heroe

I had occasion to go to San Francisco yesterday. While there had the chance to go see the Fairy Building. I’d never seen it up close before, and boy was I surprised. Even though it is reported that there is a large homosexual population in “The City” I saw none. None! Where are they? It may be time to rename this historic landmark, as there wasn’t one limp-wristed, swishy, pretend-girl to be found. Only business people and tourists. ‘Fairy Building’ my foot. Seriously though, you liberals have a problem I’d like you to think about. Some of you support homosexuality as a legitimate alternate lifestyle, and at the same time are silent as a tomb about Islam. You can’t rationally have it both ways. Either you must decry homosexuality or Mohammad. Why? Because Koran-thumpers will instantly outlaw homosexuality if they ever get the upper hand. Oh, I know you think that it is likely that the Moslems aren’t all that bad and the government, with the cooperation of the Main Scream Media, is blowing the issue all out of proportion to justify Iraq, steal oil, make Halliburton rich, and help the “Nazi” Republicans; but the fact is if the Muslims ever come to power, they will outlaw homosexuality immediately and harshly. You must decide: do you support homosexuals (your most faithful voting block) and properly rail against Mohammed’s followers (as you do the born-again Christians) or will you quietly allow more foot baths in airline terminals, more public schools run by Moslem clerics, and more of GW’s crazy open border policies? Are you going to speak up against these Muslems that want to run the United States by the Koran or not? Choose.

"Hillary Says Surge Working"    Link UPDATE: I may have been a little harsh on Hillary. Misled by the AP, imagine that.

Jon Ponder, Pensito Review, Aug. 22, 2007 When you hear the sound bites from George W. Bush's speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars today in which he compares his botched war in Iraq to the Vietnam war, think about what he was doing while thousands of U.S. soldiers were wounded and killed in the jungles of Southeast Asia. As is well known, Bush's elite status entitled him to a cushy berth in a "champagne unit" of the Texas Air National Guard. Associates from that era remember young Bush as being preoccupied with doing drugs, driving drunk and chasing women. There are rumors he seriously damaged a fighter jet while taxiing it on a runway while hungover. And there is strong circumstantial evidence he was discharged less than honorably after failing to show up for a series of Pentagon-mandated drug tests. With that in mind, here is how Bush today, rewriting and politicizing the war he sat out: The tragedy of Vietnam is too large to be contained in one speech. So I'm going to limit myself to one argument that has particular significance today. Then as now, people argued the real problem was America's presence and that if we would just withdraw, the killing would end& In 1972, one antiwar senator put it this way: "What earthly difference does it make to nomadic tribes or uneducated subsistence farmers in Vietnam or Cambodia or Laos, whether they have a military dictator, a royal prince or a socialist commissar in some distant capital that they've never seen and may never heard of?" A columnist for The New York Times wrote in a similar vein in 1975, just as Cambodia and Vietnam were falling to the communists: "It's difficult to imagine," he said, "how their lives could be anything but better with the Americans gone." A headline on that story, date Phnom Penh, summed up the argument: "Indochina without Americans: For Most a Better Life." The world would learn just how costly these misimpressions would be. In Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge began a murderous rule in which hundreds of thousands of Cambodians died by starvation and torture and execution. In Vietnam, former allies of the United States and government workers and intellectuals and businessmen were sent off to prison camps, where tens of thousands perished. Hundreds of thousands more fled the country on rickety boats, many of them going to their graves in the South China Sea. Read More Here