don't let them get you down! they're not worth it!

Bullshit. If you're so "concerned" then why did you post this on the thread over at the politico on Edwards's appearence in Nashville that had NOTHING to do with his hair?

 by vwcat on 04.21.2007 at 10:39 AM    

Maureen Dowd has a brutal column on Edwards today. He is at a crossroads between his trying to seem like mr populist and the superficial part of him.

So, what you were just being a kind-hearted soul and wanted all the people reading that blog and head over to the NY Times to read Dowd's "brutal" column? Notice you didn't call it "stupid" or "awful" or "disgusting" or "trivial and vacuous" column by Dowd. And you also apparently think Edwards is superficial and tacitly imply that his concern for working people is not genuine by calling him "mr. populist".

Thanks for your "concern" but if you truly don't like what Dowd is doing, then perhaps you shouldn't spread it all across the internetz and promote ad nauseum.

Your cowardice is incredible.

Thanks, I am sure this is the same tone you took with all of the Obambi crap Dowd put out.

Every time I think you can't sink any lower you always prove me wrong.

I feel a whole lotta ramble coming on

Look at Edwards' approval ratings.  They are going up.  He is on his way to becoming, if he's not already, the most popular Democrat with Independents.  

In states like Massachusetts he has passes Obama and is closing in on Clinton.  And that's the northeast, which is his weakest region in the country.  

He became the first Dem to beat every Republican on Rasmussen.

There is already talk of a "unity" labor endorsement, and if he keeps gaining netroots support he just might get a semi - unity netroots endorsement.  

Did I mention that he now leads the entire Midwest, not just Iowa, and that was in a Time poll that didn't even eliminate the non-caucus goers.

The major network polls Do give Clinton an advantage. This was made clear not only by the University of Iowa polls that Chris mentioned but also by the ARG Iowa polls.  The problem is that the national polls do not have tight enough screens.  When the screens on the first two ARG Iowa polls were not tight enough they gave Clinton a 20 POINT BUMP compared to all the non-ARG polls taken around that time.  20 freaking points.

We all know what happens when CNN or whoever calls regular MR. or MRS Respondent.  They ask them if they are a registered voter and the respondent says "yes" because they voted in 2004.  They are asked their political affiliation and the respondent chooses "leans Democrat".  Then they pick Hillary (sometimes Obama) because that is who they think they are supposed to pick.  They think...Me Democrat...Bill Clinton Democrat was President...Hillary is Bill's Wife...Hillary Democrat...Me pick Hillary.

There is a HUGE difference between he "Democratic leaner" answering the polls and the average caucus-goer in Iowa.

If somehow some magical genie appeared and was able to tell us what a poll of those who are actually going to attend a caucus/primary would look like it would probably look something like this (support is soft right now)

Clinton - 27%
Obama - 24%
Edwards - 22%
Richardson - 6%
Biden - 4%
Dodd - 3%
Kucinich - 2%
Gravel - 0%
Unsure

My point is that in the fall most Democrats are going to break towards electability, which means breaking towards Edwards, he'll peak at the right time, win Iowa and then all the dominos fall.

VWcat probably hoped that ridiculous smear jobs like the crap about his house, the blogger incident, and now this hair cut thing would have an effect but it's not. In fact, all of this crap, and how giddy the conservative bloggers get over it is just proof of how scared they are of Edwards.  Karl Rove, Ben Ginsburg (works for Romney),Gov. Matt Blunt - MO (said that Edwards could win Iowa and his state, which would mean that he could lose Ohio and Florida and still win the white house), and others have all said that Edwards is the Democrat that they don't want to face.

Edwards is right where he wants to be.

Chuck Todd said that Edwards' immediate opponent is Obama but his final target is Clinton.

Obama fans don't like the fact that even though their guy gets endless amounts of free media he is still not able to shake Edwards.  Remember when all of the Obama fans took the polls after the Gore Oscar bump that we all knew was coming and used them to try to argue that Edwards was done? Hilarious.

Okay, enough electability arguments, now for the substantive ones.

Not only has Obama's campaign told the world that they are running a "personality driven" campaign (translation - It's all about Barack) while Edwards is running a campaign based on fighting for us, it looks like Obama is breaking his own pledges.

Obama made a big deal about ethics reform. In fact he was the Dems point guy on the issue.  Of course he then promised McCain that he would work with him on a "bipartisan version" (Obama loves to use "consensus" to make himself look "moderate") but when the Dem caucus asked him if he was on crack he ditched McCain.  Of course then McCain called Obama out and Obama showed his ability to...run and hide.  He smoothed things over with McCain.  Compare that to how Edwards handled McCain.  "McCain doctrine" was a direct hit.  The statements Edwards released after McCain's Iraq speech, a direct him.  Obama couldn't fire back without adding 4
"maybe"s 3 "possibly"s and 7"on the other hand"s.

What does this have to do with Obama breaking his pledges?  Nothing.  But it's a fun story to tell.

Back to the pledges.  By the way, Obama losing his "reformer" credibility by becoming Wall street's favorite is a way bigger deal than Edwards' hair cut.

So Obama pledged to not take any PAC or lobbyist money.  So did Edwards.  Edwards lived up to his
pledge. Obama...not really.

Obama allows the spouse of lobbyists to give money.  In fact, his finance team will contact a lobbyist and encourage them to have their spouse give.  This even came across as scandalous to a few lobbyists.  When K street thinks that you are slimy, that's when you know you've hit rock bottom.

You just knew that Tom Daschle was going to have a great effect on Obama's campaign!!!

YAY BARACK AND TOM!!!

When asked about this a spokesperson for Obama said that the pledge was "symbolic".  Awww how cute.  There's an easy way to make it more than symbolic and that is by not allowing the spouses of lobbyists to give.  There, problem fixed.

Let's compare for a second.

Edwards is the major candidate who has NO SUPPORT ON K STREET (lobbyist land) and is not doing anything to change that.

Obama is secretly courting K Street but still trying to act like Mr. "no more small politics".  What a bunch of B.S.

Obama is now being called "Wall Street's favorite".

Edwards is hated by Wall Street for obvious reasons.

Obama paid over $100,000 for polling.  
Clinton paid $277,000 to Mark Penn, the guy who got kicked off the Gore campaign because he rigs polls to back up his centrist views.
Edwards paid...nothing. He doesn't need polling to tell him what to do.

In conclusion, the main reason why Vwcat's diary is so ridiculous (especially the "I just think you should know" Part) is because he makes a big deal out of a non-story while ignoring that larger issues that could very well be used against his candidate.

I could play that game too.

What about the rumors of his wife's shady business dealings?  We all know that in politics perception is reality.  It could be a huge problem for Mr. "New kind of politics" / Mr. Wall Street.  How does a candidate manage to be an empty suit and a walking liability at the same time?  He's so scared to put forward any specifics, but even playing the safe route, at this pace he'll have Hillary's electability deficit in no time.

What about the allegations that characters in his book are composites, not for storytelling reasons but so he can basically make himself out to be something that he's not?

What about his claims that he was "drafted" to run for, well, pretty much everything.  After challenging Bobby Rush, a fairly progressive congressman in the Democratic primary and losing badly, and then turning around and joining a crowded field to run for Senate (he was far from the frontrunner at the time, front runners from both parties had to drop out before he became viable) at what point do we call this what it is...blind ambition.  This is not the audacity of hope...this is the audacity of Barack Obama.

What about the soon to be rampant rumors that Obama once forgot to open the door for an old lady?

What about the rumors that he forgot his directions and indeed, he ate soggy waffles.  If a guy can't remember Never Eat Soggy Waffles then how can we expect him to be president,

How does it feel now Vwcat?

Can't wait for Maureen Dowd's column...

"Obama's pours rhetoric on too thick, speech soggier than his waffles"

Oh, and just to piss off the blind allegiance wing of the Obama supporters (it makes up about 90% of his constituency), I have one question for you.  A question that, despite it's repetition you have not been able to answer.  For the love of Moses...

WHERE IS THE BEEF?

Is it in the freezer until late May?  Why does he have to be ridiculed for months for being substance free before he does anything.  Isn't the whole "I want to hear from the people" thing just a blatant excuse to come up with a poll-driven health care plan?  Is he waiting on Vwcat's genius ideas?

Okay, I know you're going to ask for sources.  I've never posted anything factually incorrect and I think that at some point the non-stop (where is your source for that?) crap from people who disagree with me becomes annoying.  Someone who values the debate is not going to poison it.  That's the difference between Vwcat and most everybody else.

At the same time, progressives live in a reality based community, we must continue to do so, and facts are very important.  In fact, one of the best descriptions of "what a progressive is" that I've ever heard is someone who "with facts and truth in mind, applies their values to policy".  All I'm asking is that if I forget to source something important you remind me instead of insinuating that I'm making things up.

Here's the sources    

Obama Gets Edge on Clinton, Giuliani on Wall Street
http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/200704 17/pl_bloomberg/alez7ht_ltzg

The Fix's Fundraising Bullets
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/20 07/04/even_more_fundraising.html?nav=rss _blog

Obama Makes His Pitch to Wall Street's Money Men
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/0 4/11/obama-makes-his-pitch-to-wall-stree ts-money-men/

Obama wags a finger at fundraising, but his other hand is out
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la- na-obama23feb23,0,5580918.story

Well, Vwcat, in the end I guess you're just like your candidate.  You act like you just want Edwards' supporters to be informed but really you are just making a big deal about non-issues trying to hurt his candidacy.

Obama talks about a "new kind of politics" but in order for politics to really change for the better two things are going to have to happened.

1.  Politicians are going to have to put the people's interest ahead of their personal ambition.  It's a lofty goal but it's a must and we need to force them to do this.  If we threaten to take away their chance to make their ambition a reality then they will do what is right.  If Obama really wanted a "new kind of politics" he would be leading on this front.  But he is not.  He talks a good game but he runs a campaign that is, admittedly, all about himself.  The Edwards campaign is about the future of the country and what we can do to make it better.  Big difference.

2.  Lobbyists and PAC's must lose their control.  If you get as much money from Wall street as Obama did they are going to expect him to govern a certain way.  He will be expected to put their interest ahead of the interest of the American people.  And he's going to want to, because he would need re-election money!  It's a ridiculous cycle and it needs to stop.  That's what people hate about politics.  It's not partisanship so much.  People hate the appearance of political posturing while Rome burns but they are with us on the issues.  There's no reason to hide behind a "consensus" (that is code for hugging the center) when that's not the problem the people want solved.  They want a government that works for them.  Obama is becoming a candidate that works for Wall Street.  He's afraid to look too "liberal".  And like so many times before, the failure to embrace liberal values and the decision to play it safe ruins general election campaigns.  

Dukakis...(Gore really won so he doesn't count)...Kerry...and Obama?

Do we really another candidate with a lot of potential who becomes too poll driven and it his quest for money loses all the good qualities they had in the first place?  

Obama is not ready for prime time.  Compare the campaign he has ran to Edwards.  Who has shown leadership?  Who has shown an ability to hit back (and often first) at Republicans?  Whose progressive populist message worked in 06' and resonates with Independents in 07?

John Edwards.  

I could go on all day about why he is a better candidate than Obama and why Vwcat's repeated attempts to smear him are the sign of a delusional and desperate Kool-Aid guzzler, but I won't.

All I have to say to Vwcat is this...

I'll see you in Iowa.

I might believe your bullshit if you hadn't posted on another site just to get people to read the stupid column. But you did. So I don't.

baaaaah.. don't worry about it.. this comes down to edwards supporters who are feeling like crap because their candidate made a big mistake and they know it..a mistake that feeds into the stereotype of edwards being a pretty boy... so their approach is to kill the messenger.. ANYONE saying anything about edwards' hair is the enemy to them..

You hurt yourself by lying.

Yes indeed, otherwise the diarist wouldn't try and be so "helpful".

Where did she say that?

That is a great response to the issue of being rich and being able to understand the problems of the poor, but it does not alleviate the smear of him being a "Breck Girl".  It is in fact better if the campaign focuses on the angle of the two Americas, because if he starts being ridiculed for being a pretty boy, that's harder to combat.

Oh and since Hillary had to be mentioned in this discussion, if Hillary went and had her hair done for $400, it would be discussed, but it still would not be as bad as Edwards' situation. Why?  She is a woman and women's hair tend to cost more. I'm sure if Hillary goes in for a wash, condition, color, highlights, and a cut, it may very well add up to a couple hundred dollars.  It goes to her vanity, and says she has pride in her appearance.

By the way, this diary is trifling, but the hypocrisy is something else; I'm sure if this were about Hillary, all would be well in MyDD(Edwards and Obama land).

pretty sad, and his aims become clearer since this diary is still up.

As Colbet said "if he wants to help the poor, he should stay poor".  It was not an outrageous fee.  It was standard for highly skilled stylists.  What do you know about costs of hair care in the public eye?  Your lack of knowledge is showing.  Do you decide the rates you would pay for a Mercedes mechanic too?

See the costs for Hillary's hair ($2500)or Obama's wife's hair.  They aren't going to the same salons as your friends because they have more specialized needs.  The campaign did not "fuck up".  I'm sure you have extensive experience in running campaigns.  Misstepped for sure, since jerks like you jump on this stuff without asking questions.  They were honest in their FEC filing and with the many expenses they would have in a busy campaign this escaped notice.  You can argue strategy all you want, however what is clear is you are attacking the campaign using the RW frame.    

There will be more "gaffes" because they are looking for them in the Edwards campaign.  The campaign will try to anticipate them, but our own side should not feed the RW narrative.

I thought Politico was a genuine site but it turns out not to be true.  Pity