Rather than pre-qualify why I am posting this, I will just post these excerpts from a recent speech by Edwards and ask for reactions. I am posting it is the "discussion" forum because what public figures say becomes part of the national political discussion and that has an impact.

Excerpts from a recent Edwards speech:

It’s time to tell the truth. And the truth is the system in Washington is corrupt. It is rigged by the powerful special interests to benefit they very few at the expense of the many. And as a result, the American people have lost faith in our broken system in Washington, and believe it no longer works for ordinary Americans. They’re right.

As I look across the political landscape of both parties today – what I see are politicians too afraid to tell the truth – good people caught in a bad system that overwhelms their good intentions and requires them to chase millions of dollars in campaign contributions in order to perpetuate their careers and continue their climb to higher office.

...

When Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, the American people were at their best. They donated their time and their money in record numbers. There was an outpouring of support. I took 700 college kids down to help – young people who gave up their spring break. But what about our government? Three years after hurricane Katrina thousands of our fellow Americans, our brothers and sisters, are still housed in trailers waiting to go home.

...

It is not an accident that the government of the United States cannot function on behalf of its people, because it is no longer our people’s government – and we the people know it.

This corruption did not begin yesterday – and it did not even begin with George Bush – it has been building for decades – until it now threatens literally the life of our democracy.

While the American people personally rose to the occasion with an enormous outpouring of support and donations to both the victims of Katrina and 9/11– we all saw our government’s neglect. And we saw greed and incompetence at work. Out of more than 700 contracts valued at $500,000 or greater, at least half were given without full competition or, according to news sources, with vague or open ended terms, and many of these contracts went to companies with deep political connections such as a subsidiary of Haliburton, Bechtel Corp., and AshBritt Inc.

And in Iraq – while our nation’s brave sons and daughters put their lives on the line for our country – we now have mercenaries under their own law while their bosses sit at home raking in millions.

We have squandered millions on building Olympic size swimming pools and buildings that have never been used. We have weapons and ammunition unaccounted for that may now be being used against our own soldiers. We literally have billions wasted or misspent – while our troops and their families continue to sacrifice. And the politically connected lobby for more. What’s their great sacrifice – higher profits.

It goes on every minute of every day.

Corporate executives at United Airlines and US Airways receive millions in compensation for taking their companies into bankruptcy, while their employees are forced to take cuts in pay.

Companies like Wal-Mart lobby against inspecting containers entering our nation’s ports, even though expert after expert agrees that the likeliest way for a dirty bomb to enter the United States is through a container, because they believe their profits are more important than our safety. What has become of America when America’s largest company lobbies against protecting America?

Trade deals cost of millions of jobs. What do we get in return? Millions of dangerous Chinese toys in our children’s cribs laden with lead. This is the price we are made to pay when trade agreements are decided based on how much they pad the profits for multinational corporations instead of what is best for America’s workers or the safety of America’s consumers.

We have even gotten to the point where our children’s safety is potentially at risk because nearly half of the apple juice consumed by our children comes from apples grown in China. And Americans are kept in the dark because the corporate lobbyists have pushed back country of origin labeling laws again and again.

...

The hubris of greed knows no bounds. Days after the homeland security bill passed, staffers from the homeland security department resigned and became homeland security consultants trying to cash in. And, where was the outrage? There was none, because that’s how it works in Washington now. It is not a Republican revolving door or a Democratic revolving door – it is just the way it’s done.

Someone called it a government reconnaissance mission to figure out how to get rich when you leave the government.

Recently, I was dismayed to see headlines in the Wall Street Journal stating that Senate Democrats were backing down to lobbyists for hedge funds who have opposed efforts to make millionaire and billionaire hedge fund managers pay the same tax rate as every hard-working American. Now, tax loopholes the wealthy hedge fund managers do not need or deserve are not going to be closed, all because Democrats – our party – wanted their campaign money.

And a few weeks ago, around the sixth anniversary of 9/11, a leading presidential candidate held a fundraiser that was billed as a Homeland Security themed event in Washington, D.C. targeted to homeland security lobbyists and contractors for $1,000 a plate. These lobbyists, for the price of a ticket, would get a special "treat" – the opportunity to participate in small, hour long breakout sessions with key Democratic lawmakers, many of whom chair important sub committees of the homeland security committee. That presidential candidate was Senator Clinton.

...

The long slow slide of our democracy into the corporate abyss continues unabated regardless of party, regardless of the best interests of America.

We have a duty – a duty to end this.

...

Down one path, we trade corporate Democrats for corporate Republicans; our cronies for their cronies; one political dynasty for another dynasty; and all we are left with is a Democratic version of the Republican corruption machine.

It is the easier path. It is the path of the status quo. But, it is a path that perpetuates a corrupt system that has not only failed to deliver the change the American people demand, but has divided America into two – one America for the very greedy, and one America for everybody else.

And it is that divided America – the direct result of this corrupt system – which may very well lead to the suicide Lincoln warned us of – the poison that continues to seep into our system while none notice.

Or we can choose a different path. The path that generations of Americans command us to take. And be the guardians that kept the faith.

I run for president for my father who worked in a mill his entire life and never got to go to college the way I did.

I run for president for all those who worked in that mill with my father.

I run for president for all those who lost their jobs when that mil was shut down.

I run for president for all the women who have come up to Elizabeth and me and told us the like Elizabeth they had breast cancer – but unlike Elizabeth they did not have health care.

I run for president for twenty generations of Americans who made sure that their children had a better life than they did.

Whoa, that's something different.

He's right about Katrina by the way, so many people went down there to help out.

First reaction is wow - can't believe a mainstream politician is saying these truths so clearly. There is undeniably a lot of truth in that excerpt. And it is spoken in a way that anyone can understand it. And it is challenging the narrow range of economic perspective in our current political conversation. And it names the Democrats as complicit and corporate.

It's a great speech.

But second reaction - Edwards is an insider playing the role of an outsider. He isn't currently a member of the Senate or House, he is one step removed, and that's why he can pull it off. If Edwards were truly planning on steering the country in the direction he implies he would never be allowed to win. Is he simply window dressing for the populists the way Kucinich is window dressing for the anti-war people? Quite possibly. But knowing his history I don't believe him. I believe he is either an opportunist or a sucker, and either way he is playing a role. This is rhetoric. That's how politicians do. But what they do is a whole nother story.

Is he denouncing the duopoply? It sounds like it, but then again he is running as a Democrat in their primary. As with Kucinich, he would have much more credibility imo if he ran as independent, or even some random third party. Because by participating in the '2 party' charade that we call democracy, Edwards is not going far enough. He is implying that despite all this corporate whore-ness, there is still recourse within the electoral and legislative system as it is. And that's just not the case. For the reasons he himself mentions in the speech, the will of the people cannot compete with the checkbook of the corporations.

It is still striking to me that this is being said out loud - and I think that is the most important thing here.

First reaction is wow - can't believe a mainstream politician is saying these truths so clearly. There is undeniably a lot of truth in that excerpt. And it is spoken in a way that anyone can understand it. And it is challenging the narrow range of economic perspective in our current political conversation. And it names the Democrats as complicit and corporate.

It's a great speech.

But second reaction - Edwards is an insider playing the role of an outsider. He isn't currently a member of the Senate or House, he is one step removed, and that's why he can pull it off. If Edwards were truly planning on steering the country in the direction he implies he would never be allowed to win. Is he simply window dressing for the populists the way Kucinich is window dressing for the anti-war people? Quite possibly. But knowing his history I don't believe him. I believe he is either an opportunist or a sucker, and either way he is playing a role. This is rhetoric. That's how politicians do. But what they do is a whole nother story.

Is he denouncing the duopoply? It sounds like it, but then again he is running as a Democrat in their primary. As with Kucinich, he would have much more credibility imo if he ran as independent, or even some random third party. Because by participating in the '2 party' charade that we call democracy, Edwards is not going far enough. He is implying that despite all this corporate whore-ness, there is still recourse within the electoral and legislative system as it is. And that's just not the case. For the reasons he himself mentions in the speech, the will of the people cannot compete with the checkbook of the corporations.

It is still striking to me that this is being said out loud - and I think that is the most important thing here.

I would encourage people to see options other than a choice between "supporting" him or "not supporting" him as a candidate.

The question I ask is this, when I hear leftist-sounding rhetoric - is this l more likely to co-opt and channel left wing people, or to start something that will get a life of its own? This speech by Edwards is getting close to the latter, I think. That is to say, never mind about Edwards the Democratic party candidate- is what he is saying likely to start brush fires that will grow and that we can build on? The ideas he is expressing, and the possible grass roots discussion anf activism that could ignite - may begin controlling him rather than the other way around.

Regardless of what we think of Edwards, the right wing and conservative Dems do not want people hearing what he is saying right now.

Don't watch Edwards so much as watch the effect around him. At some point will come the test, and things will go one of two ways - "OK you got your left wing candidate, what do you want noooooow? So STFU." Or.... things get out of hand.

I would say toss all of that "do the candidate's positions on the issues that matter most to me match up with my own personal values?" He is moving in a radical direction - we can use that, leverage that. If all he does is promise, and then sell-out, that in and of itself could be useful because at least the promise was out there, and the disappointment can be harnessed.

I say take him at his word and run ahead of him and don't look back. Echo and reinforce his most radical statements. Use his candidacy and enfold it into something greater. That would then be the exact opposite of the Gene McCarthy phenomenon - the left co-opted and pulled into a safe channel. He will either keep moving the direction he is heading, or he will sell out. Meanwhile, we can take advantage, like a space craft kicking around Jupiter and gaining momentum from that near encounter.

Did FDR’s election thwart what would have otherwise been a more radical revolution? We may find ourselves in the same situation that socialists found themselves in 1932. That will be a new challenge. We might want to stat thinking about that. Does the possibility of the election of an FDR lead us to sigh, relax, and coast? Or is it—was it in 1932—an opportunity to press forward with new determination and resolve? Anax, chlamor, Wolf—what think you?

What I am seeing right now is lots of new opportunities for effective rabble rousing, lots of confusion among the opposition, lots of re-thinking among Democrats, lots of new traction that we didn’t have a few months ago.

By the way, I think he is a "sucker," not an opportunist. That is not all bad.

Pretty strong stuff.

As you say, it doesn't matter if he believes what he's saying or not but rather that he's saying it. Are people listening, is it getting air play, has he used it more than once? Just wondering. Best of all, would he use it or something like it at the Convention? That would be the stuff, but I doubt it would be allowed.

I don't think people are being allowed to hear this stuff, buried and down the memory hole. How might that be altered?

First reaction is wow - can't believe a mainstream politician is saying these truths so clearly. There is undeniably a lot of truth in that excerpt. And it is spoken in a way that anyone can understand it. And it is challenging the narrow range of economic perspective in our current political conversation. And it names the Democrats as complicit and corporate.

It's a great speech.

But second reaction - Edwards is an insider playing the role of an outsider. He isn't currently a member of the Senate or House, he is one step removed, and that's why he can pull it off. If Edwards were truly planning on steering the country in the direction he implies he would never be allowed to win. Is he simply window dressing for the populists the way Kucinich is window dressing for the anti-war people? Quite possibly. But knowing his history I don't believe him. I believe he is either an opportunist or a sucker, and either way he is playing a role. This is rhetoric. That's how politicians do. But what they do is a whole nother story.

Is he denouncing the duopoply? It sounds like it, but then again he is running as a Democrat in their primary. As with Kucinich, he would have much more credibility imo if he ran as independent, or even some random third party. Because by participating in the '2 party' charade that we call democracy, Edwards is not going far enough. He is implying that despite all this corporate whore-ness, there is still recourse within the electoral and legislative system as it is. And that's just not the case. For the reasons he himself mentions in the speech, the will of the people cannot compete with the checkbook of the corporations.

It is still striking to me that this is being said out loud - and I think that is the most important thing here.

I would encourage people to see options other than a choice between "supporting" him or "not supporting" him as a candidate.

The question I ask is this, when I hear leftist-sounding rhetoric - is this l more likely to co-opt and channel left wing people, or to start something that will get a life of its own? This speech by Edwards is getting close to the latter, I think. That is to say, never mind about Edwards the Democratic party candidate- is what he is saying likely to start brush fires that will grow and that we can build on? The ideas he is expressing, and the possible grass roots discussion anf activism that could ignite - may begin controlling him rather than the other way around.

Regardless of what we think of Edwards, the right wing and conservative Dems do not want people hearing what he is saying right now.

Don't watch Edwards so much as watch the effect around him. At some point will come the test, and things will go one of two ways - "OK you got your left wing candidate, what do you want noooooow? So STFU." Or.... things get out of hand.

I would say toss all of that "do the candidate's positions on the issues that matter most to me match up with my own personal values?" He is moving in a radical direction - we can use that, leverage that. If all he does is promise, and then sell-out, that in and of itself could be useful because at least the promise was out there, and the disappointment can be harnessed.


I say take him at his word and run ahead of him and don't look back. Echo and reinforce his most radical statements. Use his candidacy and enfold it into something greater. That would then be the exact opposite of the Gene McCarthy phenomenon - the left co-opted and pulled into a safe channel. He will either keep moving the direction he is heading, or he will sell out. Meanwhile, we can take advantage, like a space craft kicking around Jupiter and gaining momentum from that near encounter.

Did FDR’s election thwart what would have otherwise been a more radical revolution? We may find ourselves in the same situation that socialists found themselves in 1932. That will be a new challenge. We might want to stat thinking about that. Does the possibility of the election of an FDR lead us to sigh, relax, and coast? Or is it—was it in 1932—an opportunity to press forward with new determination and resolve? Anax, chlamor, Wolf—what think you?

What I am seeing right now is lots of new opportunities for effective rabble rousing, lots of confusion among the opposition, lots of re-thinking among Democrats, lots of new traction that we didn’t have a few months ago.

By the way, I think he is a "sucker," not an opportunist. That is not all bad.

My comments weren't meant to be of the candidate-as-personal-choice variety, but more a matter of looking at the context of this excellent speech and wondering if, given the role he has chosen for himself (Democratic pres candidate) he can be taken seriously by anyone. By whatever audience you/we are hoping to reach.

Perhaps I am overestimating the extent to which candidates have no credibility among the American people. But outside of the internets, I don't hear anyone talking about the primaries. I know one Kucinich-lover (a Vietnam Vet who likes the Dept of Peace thing) but even he isn't nearly as enthusiastic as 2004. I know a couple of my anti-war activist pals who have gotten sucked into the Ron Paul nightmare, god forbid. Other than that, nothing from the normal people I see everyday. Nada.

I can't see any 'grassroots' kind of movement being inspired by mainstream politicians this time. A lot of people got sucked into Dean and Kucinich last time around. Those people are done with it (aside from the online obsessed folks). One candidate was thwarted by a 'scream' taken out of context. The other one was completely marginalized by a variety of factors, not the least of which was his own supporters.

So my concern re Edwards isn't about whether or not I think he is a worthy candidate. It's about whether or not anyone can/will hear this above the din of the primary circus. Similar to what blindpig expressed above - can anyone hear this? Will they? Can he get away with saying it loud and proud and over and over again? I share those questions.

I would also love to see anax, wolf, chlamor, etc weigh in with their thoughts about the FDR comparison...Is this comparable? I can see a very interesting and educational discussion coming out of that - both as it applies to Edwards in particular and our current situation in general.

I'll repeat this - Perhaps I am overestimating the extent to which candidates have no credibility among the American people. I hope so, because it would be good for people to listen to this.

If there is a way to use Edwards' words of to benefit a populist/socialist movement then I am all for it. I just can't see it happening given the context.

If you are right, and he is a sucker rather than an opportunist, then maybe there's a chance. Cuz add us all up and we're pretty smart so we can take advantage of a sucker, lol.

Ross C. “Rocky” Anderson

October 27, 2007
Speech at the City & County Building
Salt Lake City, Utah

Today, as we come together once again in this great city, we raise our voices in unison to say to President Bush, to Vice President Cheney, to other members of the Bush Administration (past and present), to a majority of Congress, including Utah’s entire congressional delegation, and to much of the mainstream media: “You have failed us miserably and we won’t take it any more.”

“While we had every reason to expect far more of you, you have been pompous, greedy, cruel, and incompetent as you have led this great nation to a moral, military, and national security abyss.”

“You have breached trust with the American people in the most egregious ways. You have utterly failed in the performance of your jobs. You have undermined our Constitution, permitted the violation of the most fundamental treaty obligations, and betrayed the rule of law.”

“You have engaged in, or permitted, heinous human rights abuses of the sort never before countenanced in our nation’s history as a matter of official policy. You have sent American men and women to kill and be killed on the basis of lies, on the basis of shifting justifications, without competent leadership, and without even a coherent plan for this monumental blunder.”

“We are here to tell you: We won’t take it any more!”

“You have acted in direct contravention of values that we, as Americans who love our country, hold dear. You have deceived us in the most cynical, outrageous ways. You have undermined, or allowed the undermining of, our constitutional system of checks and balances among the three presumed co-equal branches of government. You have helped lead our nation to the brink of fascism, of a dictatorship contemptuous of our nation’s treaty obligations, federal statutory law, our Constitution, and the rule of law.”

“Because of you, and because of your jingoistic false ‘patriotism,’ our world is far more dangerous, our nation is far more despised, and the threat of terrorism is far greater than ever before.

It has been absolutely astounding how you have committed the most horrendous acts, causing such needless tragedy in the lives of millions of people, yet you wear your so-called religion on your sleeves, asserting your God-is-on-my-side nonsense – when what you have done flies in the face of any religious or humanitarian tradition. Your hypocrisy is mind-boggling – and disgraceful. What part of “Thou shalt not kill” do you not understand? What part of the “Golden rule” do you not understand? What part of “be honest,” “be responsible,” and “be accountable” don’t you understand? What part of “Blessed are the peacekeepers” do you not understand?

Because of you, hundreds of thousands of people have been killed, many thousands of people have suffered horrendous lifetime injuries, and millions have been run off from their homes. For the sake of our nation, for the sake of our children, and for the sake of our brothers and sisters around the world, we are morally compelled to say, as loudly as we can, ‘We won’t take it any more!’ ”

“As United States agents kidnap, disappear, and torture human beings around the world, you justify, you deceive, and you cover up. We find what you have done to men, women and children, and to the good name and reputation of the United States, so appalling, so unconscionable, and so outrageous as to compel us to call upon you to step aside and allow other men and women who are competent, true to our nation’s values, and with high moral principles to stand in your places – for the good of our nation, for the good of our children, and for the good of our world.”

In the case of the President and Vice President, this means impeachment and removal from office, without any further delay from a complacent, complicit Congress, the Democratic majority of which cares more about political gain in 2008 than it does about the vindication of our Constitution, the rule of law, and democratic accountability.

It means the election of people as President and Vice President who, unlike most of the presidential candidates from both major parties, have not aided and abetted in the perpetration of the illegal, tragic, devastating invasion and occupation of Iraq. And it means the election of people as President and Vice President who will commit to return our nation to the moral and strategic imperative of refraining from torturing human beings.

In the case of the majority of Congress, it means electing people who are diligent enough to learn the facts, including reading available National Intelligence Estimates, before voting to go to war. It means electing to Congress men and women who will jealously guard Congress’s sole prerogative to declare war. It means electing to Congress men and women who will not submit like vapid lap dogs to presidential requests for blank checks to engage in so-called preemptive wars, for legislation permitting warrantless wiretapping of communications involving US citizens, and for dangerous, irresponsible, saber-rattling legislation like the recent Kyl-Lieberman amendment.

We must avoid the trap of focusing the blame solely upon President Bush and Vice-President Cheney. This is not just about a few people who have wronged our country – and the world. They were enabled by members of both parties in Congress, they were enabled by the pathetic mainstream news media, and, ultimately, they have been enabled by the American people – 40% of whom are so ill-informed they still think Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks – a people who know and care more about baseball statistics and which drunken starlets are wearing underwear than they know and care about the atrocities being committed every single day in our name by a government for which we need to take responsibility.

As loyal Americans, without regard to political partisanship -- as veterans, as teachers, as religious leaders, as working men and women, as students, as professionals, as businesspeople, as public servants, as retirees, as people of all ages, races, ethnic origins, sexual orientations, and faiths -- we are here to say to the Bush administration, to the majority of Congress, and to the mainstream media: “You have violated your solemn responsibilities. You have undermined our democracy, spat upon our Constitution, and engaged in outrageous, despicable acts. You have brought our nation to a point of immorality, inhumanity, and illegality of immense, tragic, unprecedented proportions.”

“But we will live up to our responsibilities as citizens, as brothers and sisters of those who have suffered as a result of the imperial bullying of the United States government, and as moral actors who must take a stand: And we will, and must, mean it when we say ‘We won’t take it any more.’”

If we want principled, courageous elected officials, we need to be principled, courageous, and tenacious ourselves. History has demonstrated that our elected officials are not the leaders – the leadership has to come from us. If we don’t insist, if we don’t persist, then we are not living up to our responsibilities as citizens in a democracy – and our responsibilities as moral human beings. If we remain silent, we signal to Congress and the Bush administration – and to candidates running for office – and to the world – that we support the status quo.

Silence is complicity. Only by standing up for what’s right and never letting down can we say we are doing our part.

Our government, on the basis of a campaign we now know was entirely fraudulent, attacked and militarily occupied a nation that posed no danger to the United States. Our government, acting in our name, has caused immense, unjustified death and destruction.

It all started five years ago, yet where have we, the American people, been? At this point, we are responsible. We get together once in a while at demonstrations and complain about Bush and Cheney, about Congress, and about the pathetic news media. We point fingers and yell a lot. Then most people politely go away until another demonstration a few months later.

How many people can honestly say they have spent as much time learning about and opposing the outrages of the Bush administration as they have spent watching sports or mindless television programs during the past five years? Escapist, time-sapping sports and insipid entertainment have indeed become the opiate of the masses.

Why is this country so sound asleep? Why do we abide what is happening to our nation, to our Constitution, to the cause of peace and international law and order? Why are we not doing all in our power to put an end to this madness?

We should be in the streets regularly and students should be raising hell on our campuses. We should be making it clear in every way possible that apologies or convoluted, disingenuous explanations just don’t cut it when presidential candidates and so many others voted to authorize George Bush and his neo-con buddies to send American men and women to attack and occupy Iraq.

Let’s awaken, and wake up the country by committing here and now to do all each of us can to take our nation back. Let them hear us across the country, as we ask others to join us: “We won’t take it any more!” I implore you: Draw a line. Figure out exactly where your own moral breaking point is. How much will you put up with before you say “No more” and mean it?

I have drawn my line as a matter of simple personal morality: I cannot, and will not, support any candidate who has voted to fund the atrocities in Iraq. I cannot, and will not, support any candidate who will not commit to remove all US troops, as soon as possible, from Iraq. I cannot, and will not, support any candidate who has supported legislation that takes us one step closer to attacking Iran. I cannot, and will not, support any candidate who has not fought to stop the kidnapping, disappearances, and torture being carried on in our name.

If we expect our nation’s elected officials to take us seriously, let us send a powerful message they cannot misunderstand. Let them know we really do have our moral breaking point. Let them know we have drawn a bright line. Let them know they cannot take our support for granted – that, regardless of their party and regardless of other political considerations, they will not have our support if they cannot provide, and have not provided, principled leadership.

The people of this nation may have been far too quiet for five years, but let us pledge that we won’t let it go on one more day – that we will do all we can to put an end to the illegalities, the moral degradation, and the disintegration of our nation’s reputation in the world.

Let us be unified in drawing the line – in declaring that we do have a moral breaking point. Let us insist, together, in supporting our troops and in gratitude for the freedoms for which our veterans gave so much, that we bring our troops home from Iraq, that we return our government to a constitutional democracy, and that we commit to honoring the fundamental principles of human rights.

In defense of our country, in defense of our Constitution, in defense of our shared values as Americans – and as moral human beings – we declare today that we will fight in every way possible to stop the insanity, stop the continued military occupation of Iraq, and stop the moral depravity reflected by the kidnapping, disappearing, and torture of people around the world.