"Edwards was our pick for the 2004 nomination," the editors wrote. "But this is a different race, with different candidates. We too seldom saw the positive, optimistic campaign we found appealing in 2004. His harsh anti-corporate rhetoric would make it difficult to work with the business community to forge change."Harsh anti-corporate rhetoric? Spoken like a true corporate-owned (Gannett) newspaper.
Edwards is finally starting to draw larger crowds as the primary nears because he's talking about the concerns of working people. That rattles corporate America because, as Jonathan Tasini puts it, these folks don't understand what many Americans understand:
We don't need a candidate--or, for that matter, a president--who believes that their job is to get along with business, or that the way to turn things around in America is to have a pleasant conversation with business. This has been the chain around our collective necks for lo these many decades. We need a president who, first and foremost, understands the interests of working people and, then, asks the question: how can business serve those interests?Whatever the outcome in Iowa, as long as working people feel like they're under siege, the anti-corporate rhetoric won't be going away anytime soon.
We need a president who understands what it means to have trade that benefits people, not corporations.
We need a president who understands that the greed of the health care industry is literally killing people.
We need a president who understands what it means to support unions.
7 comments:
I like what Edwards has to say about class, corporatism, etc. It's hard to tell how sincere he is, or whether he would truly be a champion of working class/middle class Americans if he did become president, but still, he talks a better game than the other frontrunners.
I just wish he had a plan for health care that didn't preserve the for-profit system. To me, that undermines everything else he has to say.
- abi
Abi, my woman's intuition tells me Edwards is more sincere than most politicians. That's not very scientific, but my instincts have served me pretty well so far. I looked in Bush's eyes and knew he was a phony the first time I saw him, and that turned out to be a pretty accurate description. ;-)
I have the same reservations about Edward's health care plan too, but I don't see Kucinich winning the nomination so that leaves Edwards, and I think his plan is second best.
It would be nice if we could have one President in our lifetime that actually cared about the working and the poor.
I thinl Edwaeds is that person.
anti-corporate rhetoric...?
Let's not step on the almighty corporation's toes.
Was it not the Bush admin that declared corporations are people?
Larry, at least Edwards talks about the poor without being prompted. That's more than the rest of the candidates do.
Fran, are you telling me corporations aren't people? (snark)
Fran, it was the Supreme Court that gave corporations many of the same rights as living, breathing citizens, back in 1886. This was a disastrous decision that effectively destroyed the notion of government of, by, and for the people.
http://www.ratical.org/corporations/SCvSPR1886.html
Kathy, Kucinich is my man in the primaries. But out of respect for your opinions (and your woman's intuition), I'll give Edwards serious consideration if he's the nominiee.
Abi, thanks for the link you left for Fran. I knew corporations' rights were similar to citizens for a long time, but I had no idea it was that long! More than 100 years later, and in spite of equal voting rights and a better educated population, we still don't really have a voice in this country. It's sad, but we haven't really progressed as far as we'd like to think we have.
In regards to the primary, I'm still undecided on whether I'll vote for Kucinich or Edwards. I might end up flipping a quarter at the last moment!
Post a Comment