Chicagoist: Walking the Talk

guest

Tue, 17 Jul 2007 15:42:09 -0600

Global warming is a bunch of liberal whooey crap, just like devil-ution.

pantagrapher

Tue, 17 Jul 2007 14:41:50 -0600

Making money representing individuals in civil cases against insurance companies is "making his fortune exploiting the misery of others"? I wonder if his clients see it that way.

Spav1

Tue, 17 Jul 2007 14:26:17 -0600

While I think that you have fairly labeled Obama style over substance, you are being WILDLY unfair to Hillary. Hillary was on Universal Healthcare back in 1992, in a time when people were talking about the War on Drugs, Welfare Reform and "No New Taxes" she threw her whole self into fighting for an unpopular, off-the-agenda cause. It ruined her image for a long time. She has always held women and children's issues close to her heart. This being said, I think she is a Machiavellian nightmare. Edwards is a bottom-feeder, who made his fortune by exploiting the misery of others. Ever read "Four Trials"? Kevin, you aren't talking about the issues!! You are simply sputtering forth unsubstantiated opinion on the Dems without explaining anything. Why does Hillary stand for nothing? What issues has she NOT put forth? Why are Edwards positions better than his competitors? You are worse than The Today Show.

fishunderice

Tue, 17 Jul 2007 13:47:29 -0600

For fear of turning this into craigslist, I'll let you two whither on your plank. For spook; It's not even election year yet!! Why do I have to have a candidate NOW? There's no point in campaigns if everyone knows who they are going to vote for already. I prefer to watch the candidates through all their goofs and follys and then see who has the ability to continue to stand strong and present a solid message and plan.

guest

Tue, 17 Jul 2007 13:19:28 -0600

Kevin: You ask a great question about Edwards, but you might want to learn to ask better, open-ended questions to get more honest answers. You ask: "I'm curious as to why people think John Edwards lack credibility on class issues. Because he grew up working-class, went to college, and made it? I can understand why Hillary lacks credibility: she stands for nothing. Obama is losing credibility everyday that he doesn't take a stand on anything that won't advance his quest for the White House. But Edwards? He's been the most up front of all the Democratic challengers thus far." OK, so in asking, you've already stated why you think Edwards is the best; you've put down two of the other leading candidates; and then, at the end, you offer a summary of why Edwards is the best. At best, you are trying to guide readers to an answer instead of having them answer for themselves; at worst, you really are not interested in their answers, but are trying to make a solid point in the form of a question. Either way, it sucks. That is hardly the way to get true honest answers, or any type of real debate going. You are preaching to the converted once again. Do you even know you are doing this? Next time, just freaking ask, "Why do you think Edwards lacks credibility of class issues?" {Of course, that assumes he does lack credibility, but that's a relatively minor problem.] See, it's not so difficult. As for me, I don't think he lacks credibility on class issues. I think he worked hard and won his just rewards from a capitalist society, and did what most lower class people dream about doing--moved up. I would hope he really remembers some of the lessons of life from the classes lower than his current one.

pantagrapher

Tue, 17 Jul 2007 12:51:00 -0600

Now you're conflating "personal interest" with "beliefs and feelings." They're not the same thing. Think about it this way (and this is as simple as I can make it for you): Edwards' "belief and feeling" is that given the power, he would act against his self-interest in service of the environment and the poor. And again, I brought up the carbon offsets Gore and Edwards purchase to address all of your SUV/massive home flummery, but you ignored that too. You're getting angry at people who want to help the poor and fix the environment because you're subjecting them to an impassable purity test. So as Spook asked earlier: who are you going with?

guest

Tue, 17 Jul 2007 12:36:27 -0600

So, fish, one must live in a cave and swear off air travel before one can speak out on global warming? From what I understand--and perhaps I am not as bright you obviously are--the main thrust for global warming is industrial-sized pollution and fossil fuel energy extraction and processing and use. No, I am not a big fan of hypocrites, and I do not share the enthusiasm others seems to have for Edwards or Gore (or St. Obama for that matter). That said, the fact they may or may not be hypocrites--and, believe it or not, I tilt* toward your view on this--does not undermine the general argument about global warming, does it? Just because they live in big homes does not negate the issue of global warming. *I can't say I agree with you 100% because, despite your grand intentions, I can't shake off the feeling that you are reading off some Fox News talking point, or that you don't have the balls to criticize other, obvious hypocrites in the political sphere. In short, I suspect you are a mere parrot, not the bold contrarian you are prentending oh so hard to be. Yes, this post was about Edwards, but still, I suspect you are not being as even handed as you claim.

Kevin Robinson

Tue, 17 Jul 2007 12:33:17 -0600

fishunderice: You are correct that it is pretty bogus for anyone to call for people to change their lifestyles while not doing the same. Regardless, things like global warming won't change at the retail level; there must be wholesale change if anything is to be done about it. Now that we've gotten away from the substance of my post, and are now debating the personal choices of Democrats (a favorite right wing tactic), I'd like to take this back a bit to what I originally wrote about. I'm curious as to why people think John Edwards lack credibility on class issues. Because he grew up working-class, went to college, and made it? I can understand why Hillary lacks credibility: she stands for nothing. Obama is losing credibility everyday that he doesn't take a stand on anything that won't advance his quest for the White House. But Edwards? He's been the most up front of all the Democratic challengers thus far.

fishunderice

Tue, 17 Jul 2007 12:19:43 -0600

Pantagrapher I hope your kidding! Did you not read the definition I got for you "2: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings" Yet you say "Again, advocating a policy position that is contrary to your personal interest is hardly hypocritical." These two run around the country giving speeches on how Global warming is going to kill everybody and why everyone needs to be green and use renewable energy and buy eco friendly everything. Their personal life echo's zero of those things. They drive around in big SUV's which use a ton of gas, live in massive homes and estates which use more power in a day than your or I could use in a year, fly around in jets, and the list goes on. How is that not hypocritical. I will spell it out for you, They say to do one thing and they themselves do another. So, according to you, nobody should worry about living green until legislation on it is passed, since it relies on legislation? Yeah, I'm sure that's what Al Gore would say too 'I can't live that way until legislation is passed'.

pantagrapher

Tue, 17 Jul 2007 12:05:00 -0600

Both Edwards and Gore purchase carbon offsets. But that's not really the point. The Energy policies both support rely on legislation, not individual volition. Again, advocating a policy position that is contrary to your personal interest is hardly hypocritical. If Edwards were telling people not to live in big houses, that would be hypocritical.

fishunderice

Tue, 17 Jul 2007 11:41:43 -0600

Pantagrapher; Main Entry: hyp·o·crite Pronunciation: 'hi-p&-"krit Function: noun Etymology: Middle English ypocrite, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin hypocrita, from Greek hypokritEs actor, hypocrite, from hypokrinesthai 1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion 2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings - hypocrite adjective Espousing how great renewable energy is and living in a mansion that contributes to global warming many times more than the average house would fall under the above definition. As would Al Gore's little estate. Again, I commented on why Edwards is not the best candidate as of right now; an issue of the post if you did not notice. Now, can we get back to the issue at hand, the PITCHFORK wrapup should get posted today!!!

guest

Tue, 17 Jul 2007 11:36:58 -0600

Edwards isn't exactly the only person spending obscene amounts of cash on "beauty," he's just the only one that the right wing noise machine has gone after. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0707/4982.html

Spook

Tue, 17 Jul 2007 11:08:51 -0600

fishunderice, who are you going with?

Spav1

Tue, 17 Jul 2007 10:55:04 -0600

This post is no more substantial regarding the issues than the media you mock. Duh. And who says you have to be rich to run for President? See: Clinton, Nixon, Truman.

pantagrapher

Tue, 17 Jul 2007 10:34:22 -0600

Fish, if you're going to be condescending, at least be coherent. You called Edwards a hypocrite, but you don't seem to know what the word even means. You don't get a free pass just because you throw in the fashionably cynical "all politicians are."

guest

Tue, 17 Jul 2007 10:31:42 -0600

Why do they spend so much time ripping Bush? He will be a private citizen at the time one of them takes office, and will not be a relevant factor in their presidency. Talk about what you are going to do aspiring presdients, don't waste time ripping an administration your audience already doesn't like just to get some cheers.

guest

Tue, 17 Jul 2007 10:29:18 -0600

God bless George Bush, Dick Cheney, Halliburton, the Defense Department,and the heroes of 9/11. Anyone who questions them hates freedom and America.

fishunderice

Tue, 17 Jul 2007 10:23:51 -0600

Uh, Guests and Pantagrapher- What part of "Yes, all politicians are..." don't you understand? Very simple, the post mentioned why Edwards might be a better candidate, and I simply replied to the ISSUE. I had a strange feeling some people would imply too many things from my response, or hear what they wanted to hear.

jm

Tue, 17 Jul 2007 10:12:02 -0600

In order to run for President you need to be wealthy. But apparently you cannot talk about reducing poverty unless you are poor. Thus, no presidential candidate can ever work towards reducing poverty. Funny how that works out. As for me, I'm fine with either Obama or Edwards. They'd both be an enormous improvement.

pantagrapher

Tue, 17 Jul 2007 09:52:32 -0600

Wealthy politicians who support policies that are not in their personal self-interest are hypocrites? What does that say about the conservative politicians who support policies that line their own pockets? Ugh. Get your head out of the sand.

guest

Tue, 17 Jul 2007 09:52:30 -0600

I'm willing to bet fishunderice was part of the same group insisting Bush was great because he's the kind of guy you could have a beer with. Ya know, the kind of jovial everyman who develops a Texas accent despite being from Connecticut, and has a home worth 8 figures.

guest

Tue, 17 Jul 2007 09:51:35 -0600

Uh, fish, I doubt Edwards (and Blago) are the only pols who spend this kind of money for beauty. Please, please tell me what current prez candidate has a strong connection with the creature known as the average joe. Is it Thompson the actor and lobbyist? Guiliani who earns millions from speaking? Obama the Ivy League law grad and messiah senator?

fishunderice

Tue, 17 Jul 2007 09:41:50 -0600

yeah, nice plan from Edwards- Renewable energy should be used by everybody, except rich trial lawyers with massive estates. The regular joe should get be able to afford a nice life, including $600.00 hair cuts, twice. Politicians should also go on poverty tours to see how the culmination of their life's work has panned out. Edwards is a hypocritical sleeze. Yes, all politicians are, but Edwards flaunts it in everyone's face. He actually seems like he has no clue how real life people live, and he proves it time and time again. He has no connection with the average joe, and when he tries to formulate one, he further proves his disconnect and hypocrisy.

guest

Tue, 17 Jul 2007 09:23:00 -0600

Kevin, you write, "If you listened to the mainstream media, you would think that it was because they hadn't raised enough money." Uh, OK. Actually, from my reading of the mainstream media--the two Chicago dailies, the NYT, the WSJ, the WashPo nearly every day--I would the poor ratings for Congress and the President have far more to do with the lack of progress on the war; failed immigration reform; the lackluster fed response to Katrina; and a host of other factors that have nothing to with cash. Do you actaully talk to real people about politics and government--not professors, not grad students, not union organizers, but ordinary citizens? Sometimes it is hard to tell when you are being serious, and when you are just making up stuff for kicks. Listen, I'm with you: The media spends far too much time on horserace journalism when it comes to politics (how much money was raised? who has the best TV spot?). But you are way off base on that statement. This was a joke, right? Now, back to our regulary scheduled union programming ...

pantagrapher

Tue, 17 Jul 2007 09:15:33 -0600

"...we're feeling more and more that John Edwards may be the only candidate that has an actual plan for the future of the country." Now you're talkin', Kevin!