[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Debra, you surely know much more than I about Sen. Edwards. At this > point, though, it feels like the fact that he's a new face and > "little-news-is-good-news" is driving what popularity he has. Once he > starts trying to raise money and to sort out the advice he'll get > about which demographics to court, he will unfreshen pretty > fast. Unlike Gore, he will not have the benefit of other Democrats > stepping aside.
A big part of Edwards's appeal for me is his "newness". I'm not willing to put my trust again in the former, let's-get-along (and lose the election) Democratic leadership, and am very glad Gore's pulled out of the race. I only hope the old-timers like Gephardt, Daschle, and Lieberman stay in the campaign long enough for Edwards to have people to be favorably compared to. It's early yet, so of course Edwards may turn out to be disappointing, but so far, I like what he's saying and the way he's saying it. > The key to the next election, IMO: how much worth fighting for is the > Democratic nomination? At this moment, it seems Bush (our wartime > Commander-in-Chief ) is largely untainted by the sick economy, his > pandering to the far right and his own largely empty head. This > perception will not change of its own accord. Bush's opponents will > have to get themselves (a little? considerably?) mud-encrusted for it > to happen. Yes, the Democrats will have to be fierce in order to get through Bush's bullshit that so many people believe. I hope they're willing to do that. And that they remember, and speak to, the more than half of the voters who DID NOT vote for Bush! It's strange how so many politicians have forgotten them. It took about half a day for Bush, the "I want to work with everyone" guy, to forget about all those voters. No surprise, since Bush's actions usually don't match his words, and there's no one, press included, pointing that out. The latest is Bush saying he's so concerned about people without jobs, which is a lot of people these days. He sounds like such a caring guy. And yet the economic stimulus package he wants includes decreasing tax on stock dividends and speeding up the tax rebates, which benefits the wealthiest people, not the workers. With most workers' 401-K savings plans in the dumper, WHAT stock dividends do they have these days? So who's going to make up for this lessened tax revenue? And not extending the unemployment benefits that ran out at Christmastime for the first 800,000 unemployed workers riles me, especially since that's a tax fund every worker pays into for their entire working life, and then those benefits are taxed heavily in the following year, penalties for not paying enough tax included, so unemployment benefits are NOT a free handout. The Democrats tried to get benefits extended and supposedly Bush was in favor of that, but the Republicans in Congress were not. (Strange how Bush can manage to get his way in everything else.) And people don't think there's any difference between the parties? Anyone surprised that Bush is now wondering who to put on the Supreme Court? Anyone surprised that there are anti-abortion laws being considered now? Uh, oh, I'm about to start screeching! So, yes, the Democrats will need to be very noisy. Debra Shea
