And, although it's not an endorsement, Paul Krugman's Op-Ed in today's New York Times is about a close to an endorsement of Edwards as you can get without just coming out and saying it.
Of Obama, Krugman notes that "in an important sense, he has in effect become the anti-change candidate."
Krugman's piece, of course, comes in the wake of a number of articles on the shortcomings of Obama's healthcare plan, as well as his use of republican frames like "The Social Security Crisis." But this column seems to me to also be a response to yesterday's column by Frank Rich, who seesm enamored of Obama's Hope Campaign.
For the record, I do like a lot about Obama, but I prefer Edwards's plan for change to Obama's hope for change.
So, throughout the day today I have been checking in on version 2.0 of the Ron Paul "Money Bomb". It was set for today, December 16th, in remembrance of the Boston Tea Party. As of last night, Paul's Q4 total was at about 11.5 million. When I checked it this morning at around 9:30am CST, the number was already up to 13 million. Mind you, the campaign's stated goal was to raise 12 million by December 31. As of right now, 9:30 pm, its 16.95 million. This is nothing short of astounding, Congressman Paul will have broken his record of 4.3 million back on November 5th by, at the very least, a million dollars. Its already amazing to have one successful fund-raising day, but to have two of these is well...something to really pay attention to. I'm guessing the mainstream media is wringing their hands right now knowing that they cannot deny the "emerging contender" status that they will have to adorn him with. I bet they are regretting pushing the "Mike Huckabee is a real dark horse" project. Here's Paul's website donation counter, its pretty fascinating.
You know, back in the 90s when Bill was pulling his "I didn't inhale" bullshit (and c'mon...we all know it's bullshit), I was pissed he didn't just own up to smoking pot. I said at the time and I say it now: If someone who came of age in the 1960s didn't smoke pot, they're probably a republican and I don't trust them.
But what of Hillary's drug use? Has anyone asked her? It seems a legitimate question now that her campaign has opend up the issue. Has she ever tried cocaine? Has she ever smoked pot? I mean, she was hanging out with Bill, so maybe she just "didn't inhale" all that second hand pot smoke?
But seriously, people, Justice Stevens (who is 87) wrote this in one of his recent Supreme Court opinions:
“. . . The current dominant opinion supporting the war on drugs in general, and our anti-marijuana laws in particular, is reminiscent of the opinion that supported the nationwide ban on alcohol consumption when I was a student. While alcoholic beverages are now regarded as ordinary articles of commerce, their use was then condemned with the same moral fervor that now supports the war on drugs. The ensuing change in public opinion occurred much more slowly than the relatively rapid shift in Americans’ views on the Vietnam War, and progressed on a state-by-state basis over a period of many years. But just as prohibition in the 1920’s and early 1930’s was secretly questioned by thousands of otherwise law-abiding patrons of bootleggers and speakeasies, today the actions of literally millions of otherwise law-abiding users of marijuana, and of the majority of voters in each of the several States that tolerate medicinal uses of the product, lead me to wonder whether the fear of disapproval by those in the majority is silencing opponents of the war on drugs. Surely our national experience with alcohol should make us wary of dampening speech suggesting however inarticulately that it would be better to tax and regulate marijuana than to persevere in a futile effort to ban its use entirely."
And what of Cocaine? Well, there was time in Regan's 80s (back when a tipsy Nancy Regan would speak passionately about the war on drugs, with martini in hand) when cocaine was the drug of choice for those same 60s pot smokers (Bill? Hillary? George W?). It. Was. Everywhere.
If you had the money and were young enough in the 80s, you probably did a little blow. Cocaine was EVERYwhere. I'm glad Obama was honest about his drug use, and I hope honesty on the issue is what wins the day, not below-the-belt holier-than-thou attacks from hypocritical candidates, and not the moralizing judgment of Washington pundits.
And for the record, I don't want to hear a peep of judgment or high-minded fretting from "Cokie" Roberts.
Finally, Watch how Clinton's Rove, sleazebag schlub Mark Penn, ever-so-offhandedly introduces 'cocaine' into a discussion about generic 'drug' use, and watch how Joe Trippi calls him on it. Penn acts surprised (and he's a bad actor), but c'mon people. These are political advisors who scrutinize everything and are aware to a sickening degree of the impact of every word they speak. Penn knew exactly what he was doing, and Trippi called bullshit. Good for Trippi.
UPDATE: Todd Beeton now has a post up on MyDD about this. Check it out. The money quote:
Lenny "Nails" Dykstra was fingered as part of the former Senator George Mitchell's report on steroid use in major league baseball. The report, which has been in progress for 21 months, called out 70 players for drug use and will serve as evidence for Commish Bud Selig that random drug testing is needed in the MLB. Detractors in the sports press and the Player's Association assert that Selig knew of the rampant drug use all along, but was pleased with the home runs, pitching duals, and all-around increased popularity of the game after the devastating player's strike of 1995. They claim Selig turned a blind eye to the problem and is as culpable as the players themselves.
NOW talks to Congressman Ron Paul and his supporters across the country about Paul's extraordinary presidential campaign and the political waves it's causing.
CHEERS to John Edwards. A striking new CNN/Opinion Research poll shows that the populist candidate would pummel the Republicans hardest in 2008. Hey, I've got an idea for the traditional media. I know it's a little crazy, but hear me out. I think you guys should start covering his campaign again! Give it a whirl---it might lead to, like, journalism or something.
[To the tune of Jingle Bells] Tap tap tap Tap tap tap Tap tap tap tap tap Tap tap tap Ta-tap tap tap Ta-ta-tap tap tap tap tap. TAP! Tap tap tap Tap tap tap Tap tap tap tap tap Tap tap tap Ta-tap tap tap Ta-ta-tap tap tap tap tap.
Now, call me crazy, but don't you think it would have been smarter to tell these kids to collect quarters? or even dimes? I'm just saying... the strategy was pretty dumb.
David Mizner (an Edwards booster) has an excellent post on MyDD this morning that eloquently articulates many of my reservations about Obama, as well as many reasons why I find Edwards to be the most credible candidate for change, despite the ironic fact that he's a white male.
In particular, Obama's insistence on compromise and unity has led him to some pretty terrible anti-progressive positions. Let me put it crassly and wildy overstate things for the sake of argument: if Jamie Leigh Jones was being raped 4 times a day, and some folks wanted it to stop, while others didn't have a problem with it, then Obama's compromise position would be to ratchet down the rapes to just 2 times a day. Compromise. Unity. Everybody's happy.
Whatever.
If you compromise with a corrupt and morally bankrupt system, you're not compromising, you're capitulating and abetting. End of story.
Or, to put it more tactfully, as Mizner does:
[Obama's] selling unity and hope, yet what he's proposing to do wouldn't create much of either. It's progressive policies, not good intentions or expressed desires, that create unity and hope. Obama wouldn't even roll back Bush's tax cuts for the rich; he'd keep them in place until they expire in 2011. Very unifying. The unacceptable status quo--in which the powerful are way too powerful--will only be strengthened if it is ratified by a black "liberal" president. That's my fear.
I was prepared to leave it at that — Obama’s plan was weaker than his rivals’ because it wasn’t universal, but I hoped that he would fix that in practice.
But then Obama started attacking his rivals from the right, denouncing their proposals using exactly the same false claims that conservatives will use to try to derail reform in the future.
And now, having been caught out on the facts, the Obama people respond with a personal attack, lifting quotes out of context to pretend that I never had problems with the plan. Something is very wrong here.
