Editorial: And then there were three

Following last week's New Hampshire Democratic presidential primary, Bill Richardson dropped out of the race joining Chris Dodd and Joe Biden who dropped out following the Iowa caucus. There are now three front runners and Mike Gravel in the race. (We only note real candidates and real candidates never make deals -- even 'one state only!' deals -- to trade away their supporters.)

Speaking to Paul Jay (Information Clearing House) last week, Gravel declared:

You recall that Hillary, Edwards, and Obama all said, when asked by Tim Russert, would you have the troops out of Iraq by the end of 2013? And all three of them equivocated, weren't sure that they could do it. And then you heard just last night, oh, yeah; I'm going to start withdrawing them immediately. What are they talking about? Say one thing; say another thing. You know, withdrawing immediately, what does that mean? We'll withdraw ten this month, and then I'm going to change my mind next month? It's gross hypocrisy - is really what it is. It's politics as usual, and that's sad, because we're at a turning point in '08. If we continue with American imperialism, we're done as a nation.

And that is the three front runners: John Edwards, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have no differences on the Iraq War. "But, Edwards," you insist, "Edwards gave an interview awhile back . . ." Yeah, and did nothing since.

Last week, on the day that news of the deaths of 9 US service members made many papers and morning programs, Edwards' campaign sent out an e-mail to its supporters:

On Tuesday night, speaking in New Hampshire, John said, "We know exactly what we aspire to: universal health care, attacking global warming, protecting the environment, ending poverty, and standing up for American jobs and for the creation of American jobs."
If, like me, you believe these are the issues that we need to be fighting for, then it's time for you to join John and hundreds of thousands of other supporters in this fight. You are not alone and together we are a powerful wave of change sweeping across this country.

Now you can't defend the remarks quoted or not based on the narrative of the mainstream media. This was a communication the Edwards sent out to supporters via e-mail and the only ones controlling what they emphasized was the Edwards campaign.

You can view the speech or read the transcript at The Washington Post. In full. Some may point out that 9 US service members had not been announced dead on Tuesday and they would be correct but as the 4,000 mark approaches, Edwards doesn't really need a reminder that the illegal war drags on to include it in his lengthy speech.

And that's John Edwards' biggest problem with the Iraq War. He makes a few comments, jazzes people up and then . . . he drops it. Or stays silent. It's a half-assed sort of call to end the war. But it's been a half-assed sort of campaign.

In the first debate where he was called out, where a candidate bragged that he was against the illegal war in 2002 (and left out his 2004 comments to The New York Times and his 2006 comments to The New Yorker that he wasn't sure how he would have voted had he been in the Senate), there was Edwards onstage . . . looking goofy. Looking dazed. Where's the ball, John, where's the ball?

The candidate, of course, was Barack Obama. We expected Edwards would recover from his very-public punking. Never happened. Not only has he not challenged Edwards, he has (as during the New Hampshire debate) used his debate time to sing the praises of Barack Obama. It's not that he's been unable to call out any candidate. He's tag-teamed Hillary Clinton with Bambi's help.

He just can't and won't stand up to Barack Obama. And he whimpers at the feet of Bambi, exposing his belly, like a scared little puppy. It's disgusting and brings to mind the sure-thing win that was supposed to happen in 2004, when he went head-to-head with Dick Cheney, one of the least liked politicians in the world.

We all heard the lead-up hype, Edwards is a lawyer! Edwards is going to tear Cheney apart!

And Edwards . . . whimpered. Mike Papantonio rightly called Edwards' performance disappointing (very disappointing) on Air America Radio the morning after until Lizz Winstead and Rachel Maddow repeatedly badgered him to change his call. Papantonio made the right call initially.

What saved Edwards from being called out was the work done by bloggers during the debate and in the immediate hours post-debate. They demonstrated that Cheney had lied. They called Cheney out.

Thing is, bloggers weren't Cheney's debate partner. (We wish they had been.) Edwards? He was pathetic.

And, as we see him repeatedly grovel at the feet of Bambi, a man who is supposed to be his rival, we have to wonder if Edwards has a problem standing up to men? He's got no problem tearing into Hillary Clinton. But Dick Cheney, Barack Obama, he makes like a weak-ass child. It's as though, in both campaigns, his real purpose is to demonstrate that George H.W. Bush wasn't the only one needing to worry about "the wimp factor."

Who do we address next? It's hard to address Barack or Hillary seperately because they are (as Glen Ford and Bruce Dixon have noted) siamese twins and their campaigns are so entwined.

Let's go to Barack Love because it is sickening, juevenile and the only adult relationship we would be opposed to granting legal recognition of.

Long before 2008 began, Barack Love was displayed all over alleged 'independent' media. It started with a really bad speech at the DNC convention. Demonstrating that Barack Love is a virus that anyone can catch without strong public education of the disease, Matthew Rothschild caught it. That would be the same I-am-not-a-Democrat Rothschild who stood alone in calling out the nonsense Bambi offered at the DNC convention in 2004 but the Love Bug done bitten Matty.

Apparently the bug induces a high fever which is also why Rothschild could rack up an impressive last few days: showing up to praise Barack's New Hampshire debate performance only to -- after the New Hampshire primaries -- call it "lackluster." Well which was it Rothschild? Worse, he demonstrated how uninformed 'independent' media can be. He accused Bill Clinton of "distorting" Bambi's war record. In one of his most embarrassing moments of Barack Love, Rothschild elected to 'address' the impact of The New York Times on the New Hampshire primary -- despite the fact that New Hampshire has their own media including newspapers -- and, to stack the deck in Bambi's favor, elected to go with just the paper that ran the morning of the primary. 'Unfair!' cried Rothschild, 'Hillary got the front page!' If that passes for media criticism, that is truly frightening.

Rothschild wanted to argue that not only was Bambi relegated inside the paper but that the photo they ran showed a small crowd turning out for Bambi. As Jess notes in the roundtable, over 210 people are pictured in that photo which clearly indicates that the crowds continue beyond the photo's frame on both sides. As C.I. pointed out, the population of Lebanon, New Hampshire is approximately 12,000. If Rothschild's going to pick one day, doesn't everyone know that the Sunday edition of the paper outsells every other weekday? Who made the front page? A group shot of all the candidates, Republican and Democratic, invited to the Manchester debate. Barack Obama's head is clearly visible as he speaks to Bill Richardson (whose back is to the camera). Hillary is at an angle so her face is less clear! OMG! (And on Saturday, before that the front page was Barack Obama only -- he was next to a flag and shaking hands for a photo that took up approximately half of the top half of the paper.) But Bambi love is so intense that Rothschild can see problems where there were none. (Again, Jim and Dona spent the fall semester monitoring the photos run of all the candidates by The New York Times. On the Democratic side, Bambi had the advantadge.)

On Hillary, we'll note that sexism was no longer veiled last week and came out in the open. This included in media. Two voices who spoke up in independent media were Katha Pollitt and Ruth Conniff and, note, Conniff doesn't like Clinton. (Her post the day after New Hampshire included the judgement call of "Yuck!") But the men? Rothschild, Robert Parry and Robert Scheer all appeared to be in competition with one another to be declared this century's Bobby Riggs. It was digusting.

For the record, here's Bill Clinton's alleged distortion of Bambi's record (Clinton was correct, it was Rothschild who distorted):

"But since you raised the judgment issue, let's go over this again. That is the central argument for his campaign. 'It doesn't matter that I started running for president less a year after I got to the Senate from the Illinois State Senate. I am a great speaker and a charismatic figure and I'm the only one who had the judgment to oppose this war from the beginning. Always, always, always.' ""First it is factually not true that everybody that supported that resolution supported Bush attacking Iraq before the UN inspectors were through. Chuck Hagel was one of the co-authors of that resolution. The only Republican Senator that always opposed the war. Every day from the get-go. He authored the resolution to say that Bush could go to war only if they didn't co-operate with the inspectors and he was assured personally by Condi Rice as many of the other Senators were. So, first the case is wrong that way."
"Second, it is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year, numerating the years, and never got asked one time, not once, 'Well, how could you say, that when you said in 2004 you didn't know how you would have voted on the resolution? You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war and you took that speech you're now running on off your website in 2004* and there's no difference in your voting record and Hillary's ever since?' Give me a break."This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen...So you can talk about Mark Penn all you want. What did you think about the Obama thing calling Hillary the Senator from Punjab? Did you like that?"
"Or what about the Obama hand out that was covered up, the press never reported on, implying that I was a crook? Scouring me, scathing criticism, over my financial reports. Ken Starr spent $70 million and indicted innocent people to find out that I wouldn't take a nickel to see the cow jump over the moon."So, you can take a shot at Mark Penn if you want. It wasn't his best day. He was hurt, he felt badly that we didn't do better in Iowa. But you know, the idea that one of these campaigns is positive and the other is negative when I know the reverse is true and I have seen it and I have been blistered by it for months, is a little tough to take. Just because of the sanitizing coverage that's in the media, doesn't mean the facts aren't out there. "

"*" It was 2003 when it was first disappeared as Glen Ford pointed out yesterday. Equally true is that Bambi made the same statements about not knowing how he would have voted if he had been in the Senate in 2002 were made to The New Yorker -- in 2006.

A curious thing happened while working on this edition. We'd noticed that Rothschild didn't bother to include Clinton's remarks when accusing him of distorting. Someone who had been with The Progressive phoned C.I. to suggest that maybe Rothschild didn't even know them? That is a possibility.

But where is the distortion?

The link regarding the UN resolution will take you to comments by Elizabeth Edwards. Here are Elizabeth Edwards remarks on what John Edwards, Hillary Clinton and others in the Senate voted on in 2002:

And the resolution, if you remember, was forcing Bush to go to the U.N. first. Of course, we expected him to actually listen to the U.N., which didn't happen. The resolution was actually a slowing technique, so he [John Edwards] felt like maybe it wasn't ideal but I think he made a very difficult and good faith decision.

Is Bill Clinton wrong? Is Elizabeth Edwards? Matthew Rothschild says Bill Clinton is distorting. The statments of Elizabeth Edwards run on page 34 of August 2007 issue of The Progressive. If Elizabeth Edwards is distorting, those comments shouldn't have been printed without a note attached. If something's untrue, it shouldn't be printed. (And Ruth Conniff, who was interviewing Edwards, should have challenged her on them in the interview. The article is a Q&A transcript.)

But such is Barack Love that common sense goes out the window.

We have watched in shock as the Koo Koo Krowd from The Nation have led non-stop attacks on Hillary Clinton's record (note that we said on her record) while ignoring Bambi's public record. We've watched in shock as Katrina vanden Heuvel and Patti Williams have passed heavy panting off as reasoned debate and discussion. We were stunned to see the Roberts not only attempt to take out Hillary last week but Gloria Steinem as well (Steinem of course, wrote the week's most popular column online and the boys are probably hurting over that -- even when they go after her, they're still relegated to the second-string!). But it was Matthew Rothschild that really destroyed our hopes in domestic 'independent' media because he had always seemed the last to join any bandwagon, one of the most skeptical voices in 'independent' media. Someone who saw the Chicken Sop for the Soul Bambi first served up nationally at the DNC convention as mush.

We might have given up on independent media completely. Then came a voice who balances the demands of both independent and mainstream media, truth-telling the way independent media is supposed to. From Juan Gonzalez' "I smell Barack Obama baloney" (New York Daily News):

Maybe I'm getting old, or have watched too many silver-tongued politicians promise heaven on Earth only to shatter our hopes, but count me a doubter of the Obama revolution.
Anyone who delves past his soaring speeches and mesmerizing gaze and follows the money trail will find plenty to question.

Gonzalez, you're not getting old. You've just managed to hold onto your common sense at a time when it is in such short supply.