"READY FOR CHANGE" signs were everywhere at the Clinton rally in New Hampshire Tuesday night-- if nothing else, the Clinton machine is adept at reading the polls and staying on message. It looks like Hillary will win New Hampshire by a significant margin, though several college towns are not yet in and we know from Iowa that younger voters are going for Obama by a large margin. Iowa also showed us that while women favor Hillary, her margin among female voters was only about 10%-- certainly not enough to offset Obama's appeal to the young.
I maintain the position that Hillary Clinton is no progressive-- not even really a liberal --and that she represents not only a return to the failed policies of the 1990s but a major threat to the hope of a Democratic victory due to her astoundingly high negatives. McCain would trounce her among independents.
The real disappointment of New Hampshire has to be for Edwards, who was looking to move up closer to #2 but ended a distant third. He'll have to rally by Super Tuesday or he'll be done. Hopefully his progressive message will take hold and the eventual nominee will be pulled at least a bit to the left.
Why does the left like John Edwards so much? What policies does he stand for that are so attractive? Also, how does his personal life figure into it? - It seems like he lives a very elitist lifestyle. Finally, what do you think about Obama?
ReplyDeleteDo you favor a carbon tax or a cap and trade system?
ReplyDeleteI'm not personally a huge fan of Edwards, but generally will support the most progressive candidate I view as viable. Obviously my political values are more in line with Kucinich's, but he stands no chance of election.
ReplyDeleteRe Edwards' lifestyle, it's not "elitist" but is perhaps "elite." There is a difference of course, and I don't believe personal wealth is a reason to discount progressive rhetoric. Edwards earned his own fortune and did not benefit from family ties (unlike Bush et al.) so while I disagree with some of his priorities personally, I'm still happy to support his policy choices.
I'd prefer an outright carbon tax, but as that appears to be a non-starter politically a federal cap-and-trade system would be the next best thing. It's a proven strategy and has the advantage of relying on market mechanisms that economic conservatives claim to like, so it should be politically more viable than a straight tax.
ReplyDeleteIsn't it better to push for the better solution than simply what is more viable? A carbon tax would go much farther towards adressing the problem b/c cap and trade has two major problems: (1) it pretends we can account for all carbon and determine a responsible limit, and (2) it cannot address all products - and some might not be regulated at all. As far as market mechanisms - there is no better way than to adjust to the market then building the price of pollution directly into a product - via a tax. Why not keep pushing this, and wait around until the superior plan prevails?
ReplyDelete