Thursday, December 20, 2007
Fox Attacks: Edwards and Obama
Thanks to Bluegrass Roots for this video. I like both Obama and Edwards far more than I do anyone at Fox News (or "Fixed Noise" as Keith Olbermann likes to call them). I wonder if veteran journalist Mike Wallace of the venerable 60 Minutes at CBS is embarrassed by his son Chris Wallace's absolute prostitution of his journalistic integrity at Fox. I would be.
Maybe we'll see an Obama/Edwards or Edwards/Obama winning ticket. Would Bill O'Reilly have an apopleptic fit on the air? Wow--a wonderful new direction for the nation and the sheer entertainment of watching rightwing blowhards meltdown! Now, THAT would be a dream come true. And it could happen. Iowa is a 3 way tie right now and I think either Obama or Edwards will win it. I can't see Edwards winning New Hampshire unless a large number of independents vote for him, but Obama could easily springboard from Iowa through New Hampshire and into South Carolina. Edwards looks pretty far back in SC and I don't know if he has enough time for an Iowa win (and maybe a NH close second?) to turn that around. Edwards HAS to win Iowa, it seems to me and Obama needs to either win or come in a very close second and then MUST win New Hampshire.
Neither will think about being the other's running mate until after it's clear which one has a real chance of becoming president. But I think the 2 together would make an unbeatable combination. As a child of the civil rights revolution, I'd be overjoyed at seeing Obama in the Oval Office, but the progressive in me likes Edwards' policies better.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
![[PDA - Pledge For Peace - Sign the Petition.]](http://pdamerica.org/images/ads/P4P_button.jpg)
3 comments:
Conventional wisdom, I believe, is that the early frontrunners don't typically make it through the primaries. That was true for Howard Dean in '04, is turning out to be the case for Guiliani in '08 and, hopefully, will be Hillary's destiny as well.
Obama and Edwards certainly aren't the best choices for progressive candidates on the table right now but both are MUCH better than Hillary, so I'm glad to see they're both picking up momentum as the January primaries/caucuses approach.
Perhaps your proposed ticket (I like the sound of it) is why the Foxies are so bent on making these guys look bad - the thought of not having Hillary on the general election ticket is quite scary for conservatives, I would think.
I still remember a big Fox News graphic (I think it was on Gibson's program) that said, "WOULD YOU VOTE FOR A PRESIDENT WHO SMOKES?!?!?!" in relation to Obama. The negative campaigning began long ago - from a "news" network.
As if most of our presidents in history haven't been smokers.
Daniel, it's true that neither Obama nor Edwards is as progressive as, say, Dennis Kucinich. But neither was Bobby Kennedy as progressive as Eugene McCarthy. Politics is the art of the possible--and of working to make more possible tomorrow than was possible yesterday.
The fact remains that Edwards is the first candidate with a chance at winning the White House since 1968 who has made the eradication of poverty his central issue. That's something.
Post a Comment