And hten there's things like this, which just, meh, why is he supporting the coming war on Iran again? Why infact is he supporting the America-Israel Axis again? Is this that whole seeming like a "Tough War Dem", like wot Kerry was supposed to be, thing, again? Thank you but no thanks, we don't need another gungho militaristic nutjob in the white house, the last one has given us truly monsterous gas.
But if I had to pick a dem to support during the primaries, he'd be the man anyway.
Why? because he's not Obama, and he's not Hillary, and does, as sad as this is, constitute the "lesser" of all possible evils wiht regard to the primaries, and "lesser of all recognised evils" is the best the dems ever manage on the best of days anyway.
To be brutally honest none of them are qualified to be president, they are however far more qualified to be president than any republican, but only in that whole morally relative way.
So that in the same way an object that is standing still will seem to be moving away at quite a fast pace compared to something moving backwards away from it, so do the dems represent a viable political party in relation to the ever in reverse republican party.
This is not a good thing.
But the arguements for Edwards are of course not really arguements for him, anyone who does try to argue for the man on the basis of his personal merits is gonna have to lie heavily, the man is a tool, and so arguements for him are at best gonna consist of arguements against Obama and Hillary, which I shall lay out, and follow up with why those bad points pretty much ensure that one of those two douchebags will actually get the pick, and the results of either of them getting the pick, which are not gonna be pretty folks.
The thing ot remember with Hillary, who is the weaker of the two, being neither male nor a big enough "minority" token in many ways, often being called "a man" even by liberals, is that she is a mercenary of immense proportions. Not a whore of course, because that would be a major insult to all prostitutes, who I'm sure have not only got a better fashion sense than her, but also command slightly more faithfulness from their sexual partners.
they also don't sell themselves quite so cheaply, and generally haven't been partly responsible for the mass slaughter of iraqis. the trick as far as I can make out for hiring Clinton to support your particular dumbass cause is to A) make sure it is a really really stupid cause, it must be ineffectual, pointless and doomed from conception and B) it must be one of those stirringly symbolic causes, like the whole video game censorship thing, it basically must have no practical value is point A does not stop it from actually getting through the legislature and courts. all of which is why the DLC lurves her little rubber panties, because she's sooo DLC, a useless tool? Perfect DLC material, Kos is not even as toolie as she.
but LOLMGWTFBBQ!!! She's like totally a chick, and it'd be like totally rad to have a chick president for once!!!!11!!!
Come on people, if we must have a democratic president, could we not have a democratic president who will put off all future little women from ever even aspiring to the presidentcy because she's such an immense douchebag?
Can we, in fact, not have a Women President of Quality? Or can she at least spread that tokenism across multiple oppressed groups so as to minimise the damage done to any one particular group? Maybe a black disabled left handed lesbian transwoman president, for maximum tokenistic value? Why pick on the wimenz huh?
And then we've got Obama, Obama Obama Obama...
What are we going to do with you Obama?
You're just as toolie as Hillary basically, oh sure you're not a unerringly useless as she is, but you make for your general competency by your brown nosing to the far right democrats.
I speak of course of the wonderful obstructionist streak he took in defense of the far right anti-choice dems after the first of the two great anti-choice SCOTUS victories.
The infamous DKos Letter, in which he all but handed the Kossack stalinists knouts for their downpressing amusement as he defended the "openness" of the democratic party and whipped out gems like;
A pro-choice Democrat doesn't become anti-choice because he or she isn't absolutely convinced that a twelve-year-old girl should be able to get an operation without a parent being notified.
So obami-wan, let me, as your father, brutally rape and impregate you. Okay, now ask me for permission to get an abortion, go on, I dares ya.
Yes it does mean they're anti-choice you fuck wit, they're anti-choice, their position are anti-choice, anti-woman and pro-incestuous-rapist. We're not holding our positions for shits and giggles buddy, we hold them because they are righteous and true you idiot.
His whole thing is just a twisting line of doublethink bullshit after doublethink bullshti, all in defense of the far right members of his own party.
And think about this now: If he won't even stand up to the far righters in his own party, nor seem to even grasp the most basic concept of what it means to even BE a progressive politician and all that entails and obligates him to, how can he be expected to stand up to the far righters in the republican party should he become president?
But I find it hard to blame him all too much, familiarity breeds comtempt and it's all too obvious by the way dems and Kossacks all treat him as a huge token black guy that he's got as high up as he has by pandering to the great white fathers in the DLC, fellating and minstrelling as needs be to get ahead, probably playing up the incredibly pale pallor of his skin when in those back room gentlemen club sessions while his PR people dehumanise and tokenise him into the inhuman "eloquent ethnic politician" creature he is in public.
And like with Clinton, is this the best we can hope for as the first (or second if you count the first clinton's ability to play a saxamaphone) President of Color? A hapless, house slave who minstrels as the DLC tells him to?
To summarise: Fuck that!
But of course both Clinton and Obama's downsides are of course the reason why you cannot really expect Edwards to win, The Vice Loser just hasn't had the suck up skills, nor can he play the token card, and as such the DLC just won't support him and give him the job as readily as they would Obama or Clinton.
It also probably doesn't help that he does look like both the terrorist/freedom fighter poltician guy from Battle Star Galactica, and like an older version of the Evil Senator/president guy from The Dead Zone. Okay, he doesn't look like Baltar, but he does look like a generic Charismatic And Slightly Cultish Self Centered Politician.
But hte DLC's opinion is hte final one, because, alas, any part of the duopoly that calls itself "democratic" is of course, doing sick and disturbing things to Irony's poor abused body (and then arresting it and denying it EC just for good measure) and who the DLC really backs will win it, because htat's how this game works.
My bet would be on Obama.
Now the nature of the primaries also means that outside of the unholy triumvirate of Edwards, Obama and Clinton, none of the other schmucks are gonna get a look, they don't have the brand name recognition that the repugs have built up for those three, though The Vice Loser is still running on fumes from '04 to some extent in that regard. As such, the appearance of being "popular with voters" or "triangulating to important demographics" or whatever manner of Kosian managment-nuspeek is used to justify those three toolbag's pick from the DLC, is gonna be all important with regard to the DLC's final decision.
It is gonna be a propaganda war between three DLC figureheads, a battle of wits between unarmed opponents in other words.
And as sad as I am to say it, Edwards, fucking Vice Loser, IDF enabling, "I speak to the working class behind my havana smoke hyuck hyuck" Upperclass Edwards, is the best of the three, not htat he has a chance in hell of beating the Tokenism Twins, but he's the most likely third placer.
Personally I'll be voting for Cthulhu if I have to vote for someone, he's got the only honest platform out there that doesn't seem to consit of dissembling and doublethink. After all, the dems have consistently made it damn clear htey don't want progressive in their party, nor do they want us dragging them down with our icky Truth and Justic cooties, so why are we going where we're not invited again?
Haven't heard a better reason than "desperation" yet, and by george I think I will need something better this time round, they did after all win one election on their own (allegedly, those potentially dem voting invisible "naderite" goblins apparently didn't win the elections for the dems quite like they lost the election for Gore and Kerry, so they obviously can't be quite as important as they've been made out to be) so logcially they should be able to do it again.
Can't be too hard after all, the repugs can manage it and they're made up of people with ingrowing chins ffs.
Of course so are the DLC and all their little figureheads...
(no this isn't me just being anti-edwards because he hired amanda, he's an objectionable little stain, policywise, retoric-wise and chance-in-hell-of-being-president-wise)