The presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee: now that it’s all but official, Senator Barack Obama is getting down to the business of selecting a running mate. Today he announced that Caroline Kennedy will be part of a three-member team who will help him choose a VP.

OBAMA TAPS CAROLINE KENNEDY TO LEAD VEEP SEARCH

WASHINGTON (AP) - Barack Obama turned in earnest to the general election and the hunt for a running mate Wednesday, embraced by Democratic leaders who signaled forcefully and sometimes impatiently to Hillary Rodham Clinton that her marathon duel with Obama was over. Clinton kept her silence in public, while supporters made a case for her as Obama’s No. 2.

Obama himself moved to link himself more closely with a young Democratic hero of a half-century ago, picking President Kennedy’s daughter Caroline to help him choose a vice president.

While Clinton still wasn’t conceding, even after Tuesday’s primaries and a flood of “superdelegate” endorsements of Obama sealed the nomination, there were signs aplenty that she was closing shop. She began bidding campaign staff members farewell, and a number were told not to come to work after Friday. Last paychecks were expected to go out June 15.

The primary rivals ran into each other backstage at a hall where both spoke to Jewish leaders, but Obama said there was no mention of how or when she would formally end her long campaign to become the nation’s first female president.

Obama showed no impatience, merely smiling and accepting congratulations from colleagues in both parties as he returned to the Capitol for a Senate vote. But other Democrats urged her to get out of the way.

“I don’t see why we don’t get on with it and endorse” Obama, said Rep. Charles Rangel, a congressman from Clinton’s home state of New York. He said it was only a matter of time before he and other Clinton supporters formally back Obama.

Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, an Obama supporter, said Clinton’s non-concession “creates a pretty delicate situation here, an awkward situation.”

“I don’t want to push her. Nobody is going to push her,” Durbin said on MSNBC. “But the sooner she does, I think the more likely we’re going to be organized and ready to win in November.”

Obama began focusing on who will join his ticket in the fall. His campaign said the vetting of potential running mates was to be managed by a three-person team of Caroline Kennedy, former Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder and longtime Washington insider Jim Johnson.

Clinton has told lawmakers privately that she would be interested in the vice presidential nomination. Obama was noncommittal after his chat with her behind the scenes at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

“We’re going to be having a conversation in coming weeks, and I’m very confident how unified the Democratic Party’s going to be to win in November,” he told reporters after a vote in the Senate where he received congratulations from all sides.

RFK Jr. on the campaign trail for Hillary Clinton earlier this year in NJ.

(Well, if an Obama/Clinton ticket ain’t gonna happen: Pssst…Caroline! if it wouldn’t be too classic a case of Kennedy nepotism, we’d like to nominate your cousin Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for the VP selection committee’s consideration.)

CLINTON CAMPAIGN IS OVER

Update: As of late this afternoon, CNN is reporting that Senator Hillary Clinton will officially end her campaign Friday.

Meanwhile, the dam holding back endorsements broke from coast to coast on the day after the primary elections concluded.

Seven senators who had stayed out of the matter said they were giving Obama their commitment and would work toward uniting Democrats for the election, now exactly five months away.

In Nashville, Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen was joined by two other superdelegates to say they hoped to bring the party behind Obama even though Clinton won their state. Former Vice President Walter Mondale, who had been a Clinton supporter, announced he was backing Obama.

It hardly mattered in terms of delegate math - after months of struggle, Obama had more than enough to prevail at the party convention in Denver in August. But Obama’s new backers were also sending a message to Clinton that her race was over.

Bob Johnson, the founder of Black Entertainment Television, was lobbying members of the Congressional Black Caucus to urge Obama to place Clinton on the ticket. He said he was doing so with her blessing.

Rangel, a founding member of the caucus, expressed doubts that Johnson’s approach would work. “I don’t really think that the way to get Obama to (choose) Clinton would be to put pressure on him. I think it would have the opposite effect,” Rangel said.

The Obama camp’s disclosure about the three-person veep vetting team was an effort to change the subject from the long, divisive primary campaign toward the general election.

Kennedy’s name came as a surprise, although she endorsed Obama at a critical time last winter, saying he could be an inspirational leader like her father. She also campaigned for Obama.

Holder is a former federal prosecutor and District of Columbia Superior Court judge who held the No. 2 job at the Justice Department under President Clinton.

Johnson is widely known among Democrats for having helped previous candidates, including John Kerry four years ago, sift through vice presidential possibilities. He is a former chief executive officer for the mortgage lender Fannie Mae.

Clinton visited her campaign headquarters in suburban Arlington, Va., where she thanked staff members for their work. Aides said she was also phoning superdelegates and supporters, and planned to host an 89th birthday celebration at her Washington home for her mother, Dorothy Rodham.

Several high-dollar fundraisers who had spoken to the former first lady described her as upbeat and realistic about what she faced.

“She’s very resolved, but open minded about whatever’s coming. She’s going forward with an optimistic eye,” said Susie Tompkins Buell, a San Francisco-based fundraiser who flew from New York to Washington early Wednesday morning.

Some lawmakers showed deference to Clinton, an indication of the political and fundraising power that she and her husband still wield.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland, an uncommitted superdelegate, said he will be supporting Obama but declined to make a formal endorsement. “I expect Mrs. Clinton to say some things over the next couple of days and I think that’s appropriate for her to do. And I expect her to say that, at which time I may make a more formal” announcement, Hoyer said.

Associated Press writers Devlin Barrett, Laurie Kellman, Beth Fouhy and Jesse Holland contributed to this report.
06/04/08 18:05 © Copyright The Associated Press.

This cartoon is dedicated to “Flo” on Mother’s Day, 2008. Anyone seeking to understand where I get my tenacity and drive need look no further than my mother Flo (AKA Flora Ann Huelster), who grew up with her German-American siblings in a tiny west Texas town during the depression and WW2 era. And you thought being a tech entrepreneur, investor, or exec was challenging?

Mom stays young today by working in the local nursing home taking care of patients who are increasingly younger than she, and in tending the garden with her husband Warner. If we had large numbers of people like my mother and my wife, the U.S. would be debt free and the world would be a far better place. Happy Mother‘s Day to all. - M.A.M. (Article below) 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

The Road to the White House

While I do try my best to limit political involvement to specific issues, when the mass of economic issues appear likely to surpass the critical stage whereby the U.S. economy retains the capacity to overcome, then it seems we no longer have the luxury not to weigh in. Looking forward to the probability of an eight year presidency, we are now effectively at that stage, making this U.S. presidential election the most important in my lifetime.

To begin the conversation, let’s consider that from my analytical perch, it is apparent that the current two-party system format in the U.S. no longer serves the interests of the country and therefore the world. Rather than an environment competing for improvement, the primary role of the parties and indeed the collective culture appears designed to steer the process in one’s own individual favor - whether it be a political party, occupation, industry, union, charity, religion, passion, and so on infinitas. In my experience, the only model that has proven more resistant to continual improvement than a functioning duopoly is a monopoly.

Then let’s finally assume that the Democratic party has a nominee in Barak Obama, and that John McCain will remain healthy, neither of which is certain, and we can move forward. When my stepfather asked me by phone several months ago which proposed candidates would best serve the country, these were the two at the top on my list. Both lack deep economic knowledge and operational experience, which is cause for concern, but they also appear to have an element that is essential to overcoming all issues confronting the U.S. today - integrity. Every major issue facing the U.S., even if one party holds the White House and a super majority in Congress, will require broad support by the American people in order to succeed.

I had some direct and indirect contact with McCain during my 16 years in Arizona. His mini ranch is much nicer than ours, but is not far away in miles or size, and my father was a fighter pilot just a few years older than he, so we have a few things in common. More importantly, he earned my respect by the way he handled my own attempts at government reform via our Kyield system. He responded personally and opened doors, although true to his words he did not lobby or use undue influence to help this constituent secure government contracts. Unfortunately for our ventures and Arizona, the vast majority of his peers don‘t suffer equal integrity. I have often said that McCain is better for the U.S. than Arizona. He is by my estimation better suited to fill the office than many who have - probably more than most.

McCain’s strengths include proven integrity, proven ability to work with rivals, proven ability to stand up to extreme pressure, and a progressive posture on energy and U.S. self reliance, while still embracing trade. He could also maximize a single term to the lasting benefit of the country, if his ego would allow it. John is well tested, well known, and his support would be deeper and broader domestically and internationally than most would assume.

His negatives include temperament, age, and a view on projection of U.S. military and economic power that is in my view a bit overreaching given the recent changes of the worldscape - including internal U.S. economics, the latter of which represents a weakness shared by both candidates. Finally, as I witnessed closely in my father, the military is not the best classroom for sustainable economics, although the same is true of community activism.

As for Obama, he is obviously highly intelligent, which will be much needed if he is to have any luck in separating the wheat from the chaff in complex reform efforts, which should also be an asset in attracting top talent - essential. It occurs to me that his close ideology with many in government may be a better platform from which to reform, but in campaigns we see primarily the buying of votes, not the balancing of budgets, so it isn‘t clear that he would be willing to downsize some areas to achieve his priorities. His potential for substantial improvement of the type the U.S. generally needs is impressive, but could be catastrophic unless conducted with extreme fiscal discipline.

In the negative column, Obama has a background that would challenge his intellectually driven idealism to its core if and when he discovers that institutional excellence and largess are less of a friend than foe. His platform is weighted down by the knowledge that any attempt at change contains a significant chance to make things much worse, which is not only why so many resist change, but also the chief excuse to prevent same, as essential for continued life that it is. To successfully navigate barriers to reform, leaders need to be sufficiently versed in the subject matter to be able to demonstrate a high likelihood of preventing error. Obama’s detail to date is lacking so only time will tell. He is also lacking in operational experience, although it is a truism that everyone lacks experience until it is gained. Obama is however undeniably untested - the risk on the upside and down are therefore high in his candidacy.

In summary, while neither candidate is perfect, together they will appeal to the vast majority of U.S. citizens at a critical time in the history of the Republic, and either could likely do well. The good news is that the economic correction taking place now within the U.S. borders should set the stage for success in achieving essential fiscal reforms in the near term, as well as economic expansion in years 2-8, both of which are absolutely critical in dealing with global competition and the enormous impending bill for baby boom geriatrics.

To borrow a term from quantum physics, it’s time for the U.S. to renormalize its theory of economics, as the path she has been on for my adult life is simply not sustainable according to the laws of mathematics in my field of view. That is, the culture must quickly relearn that the near term interests of the individual groups are dependent not upon further gaming of the system, but rather what contributions each must make for the system to first survive, and second to flourish, if for no other reason than of mutual self-interest. - M.A.M.

©2008 Mark A. Montgomery All rights reserved.  

Art of Deception by Charlie Gibson & George Stephanopoulos

-Jack O’Spades

Hello dear readers, there is something I feel that I need to discuss with you. Many people hold misconceptions about Senator McCain. He is widely seen as being more of a maverick and more progressive than he actually is. These distortions are not held by one segment of society, but are nearly universal, affecting everyone from the lunatic right to even moderately progressive individuals. Most recently we have seen this erupt from the right wing luna-pundits, who seemed to believe that McCain was horribly progressive because he appeared on The Daily Show to often, and *gasp*, actually questioned the Republican line. He also did the unthinkable for a conservative politician by calling the amazingly dickish pastor Jerry Falwell one of the political “agents of intolerance”.

Granted for a progressive these things are amazingly refreshing to see in conservative leaders, but it certainly isn’t enough. Going on the Daily Show isn’t going to make you more progressive, just as appearing on Fox News doesn’t turn you into a complete duchebag, and everyone knows Jerry Falwell was a jackass. However, for all his maverick posturing it simply hasn’t been enough to win him the White House for the last two times he has ran. So in short order our friend McCain has completely ditched whatever claim he had to being a maverick to become what he is now, a neocon boot licker. Going so far as to prostrating himself before religious conservatives by giving the commencement address at Falwell’s Liberty University back in 2006.

McCain’s voting record eliminates any doubt as to his conservative credentials. He has consistently low ratings from unions and womens’ groups (rough average of about 20%), often low rankings from environmental groups, dismal ratings from peace minded organizations, and nearly consistent 0% ratings from the ACLU, NARAL Pro-Choice America, and Planned Parenthood. While he supports the neo-liberal (as in “Free Trade”, not to be interpreted as, in any way, liberal) CATO-Institute about 80% of the time, is fast friends with tax cut groups and big business lobbies (although he has made enemies among government contractors), and has a life time rating with the American Conservative Union at 83.2%. All of this information was obtained from Project Vote Smart (www.votesmart.org), an organization that is ironically supported by John Sidney McCain III himself.

Although this refreshingly available voting record has already hit the blogosphere, many on the right hemisphere of it are still choking on the “maverick” image of John McCain. Their claim, in a nutshell, is that 82.3% isn’t really that much, and that he is one of the most progressive republicans. First off, I’d challenge anyone to argue that being 82.3% dead, or 82.3% paralyzed, is not really that bad. For those of you who really don’t think that’s too bad, you may want to talk to some of our Iraq war wounded, although they’re probably still over there. If you can’t get a hold of them, you could always try it yourself, although from a moral standpoint I should probably tell you not to.

As for being one of the most progressive Republicans in the Senate today, thats not exactly a big deal. We are perhaps the most conservative nation of the advanced industrial democracies, and being the most progressive of the most conservative party in our country, in one of the (or just the) most conservative eras in our history, is that really saying anything? Uh, probably not.

McCain has accepted virtually all of Bush’s policies verbatim. If anything he is even more dangerous than Bush, who’s own effectiveness has been limited by his obvious cronyism and incompetence. McCain is replaying the same Republican political maneuvers of 2000 and 2004, which seem to be still effective. Employing his “outsider” status, the oldest, perhaps most effective American political tactic, of which issues such as being a longtime Senator never seem to offer much of a damper to. In addition, he holds the Republican ideological trump card, “stability” which is achieved both through martial action abroad and prisons at home.

It is perhaps the former where McCain is the most dangerous. He has accepted the ideological framework of “Islamo-facisim” to a tee, the basic concept of which is that Islamic militants are going to take over the world unless we bomb all Islamic countries into a fine slurry of rock an bone. The ones that we don’t bomb must have a pro-western government, regardless of how undemocratic it will be.

McCain has a multitude of ideas which will help to further strain our military and diplomatic capacity to the breaking point. In addition to wanting to bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran (to which he has been quoted singing to the Beach Boys’ “Barbara Ann”) he also seems bent on re-starting the Cold War, because James Bond movies are so much better when you have those rascally Russians with their funny accents and furry hats. He has openly advocated expanding NATO to the Ukraine and Georgia, and placing missile defenses there. Such a move would infuriate Russia, and place it on the defensive, not a move that you want to make with a nuclear superpower.

In addition, McCain has also called for Russia to be removed from the Group of Eight, a relatively informal meeting of some of the world’s leading industrial and military powers. Although this is mostly a petty gesture, it is the diplomatic equivalent of the bitch slap. Considering his already threatening stance towards Russia, this will only exacerbate diplomatic problems of his own making. Granted, Russia has problems with democracy and civil liberties, but confronting them in a martial fashion will only give Russia more of an excuse to continue such practices. Furthermore, it should be remembered that Russia’s potent nuclear arsenal puts it in a powerful position, and it will not be frightened into negotiations from a military standpoint, particularly when it knows that we are already overstretched in our military capacity. We’re not even in a position to start a good ol’ fashioned proxy war.

Further “brilliant” foreign policy ideas by Mr. McCain include developing a “League of Democracies” and reviving the Office of Special Services. The first of which sounds like a brilliant plan, reminiscent of President Wilson’s League of Nations or perhaps the UN. The big difference is that the League of Democracies is not an inclusive body, it is essentially to be a forum for nations that the US believes to be democracies. Considering our track record of what we will be willing to accept as a “democracy”, such as nations ruled by one time American allies Mobutu Sese Soku and Saddam Hussein, I’m not terribly enthusiastic. It will essentially be a UN in the model of the “Coalition of the Willing”, ie. anyone willing to get on board with American hegemony. More than likely it will be used to provide the fig leaf of international support that the UN was unwilling to grant the Bush administration back in 2003, when Saddam had his magical, vanishing, anthrax warheads.

The idea of reviving the OSS, is yet another foreign policy idea from hell. The Office of Special Services was the precursor to the modern CIA. It has been considered, if it can be at all possible, even more reckless than the CIA has been. This comment has been made due to the more lax regulation that was afforded to the OSS and also to the early CIA. McCain believes that the CIA is over regulated, and that we need a “can do” intelligence organization. While I certainly do not dismiss off hand the necessity of an intelligence organization, I would argue that having yet another one would simply add to the alleged problem McCain is trying to solve. We already have the FBI, the Homeland Security Administration (AKA FBI II), the National Security Administration, and Dick Cheney, adding yet another voice to the cacophony doesn’t seem prudent. If anything it will only provide a greater ability to tailor military intelligence to fit whatever mold you want it to. CIA not being agreeable enough about telling us what we want to heat? Set up a new intelligence agency!

To conclude, McCain is NOT a maverick, he is for all intensive purposes Reagan III or W II. Although he has made some appreciated headway in issues of campaign finance reform and has taken military contractors to task, these achievements do not make up for his nonexistent social policy and militant foreign policy. He will only stay the course into America’s economic, military, and cultural ruin.

Delegate 1066

Confession of a Black Man

by Jack O’Spades

As I write this, I’m sitting looking over the results of Democratic conventions at: http://demconwatch.blogspot.com. I’m doing this because; A: I have no social life, B: I seem sustain myself off of the anger and cynicism inherit in politics, and C: I have no social life. The latest results are somewhat worrying to me.

Long time readers are possibly aware of my distrust of Hillary Clinton, and my strong belief that she would be slaughtered in a race against McCain. Nothing will bring out Republicans to the polls, like flies to a corpse, than the prospect of another Clinton presidency, not too mention their fear of the HRC from the early years of the Clinton administration. Although I no longer see her as she was back then, the Republicans sure do, and the left isn’t exactly thrilled about her either. Her stance on foreign policy pisses off anti-war, populists and socialists are distrustful of the possible return of Rubinomic style neoliberalism, and some in labor are fearful of more NAFTA like polices.

Although the race is still neck and neck, two things may conspire to favor the Clinton campaign: Superdelegates and the return of Michigan and Florida delegates to the nomination process. Although Hillary’s lead in superdelegates has dropped sharply in the last few weeks, she still leads Obama in their support. If this were the end of the story Obama has a good chance of besting her for the nomination, that is if he continues his winning streak through the Ohio and Texas primaries. However, there is a possibility arising that could give the Clinton campaign a crucial edge, us.

As you may recall, the national Democratic National Convention stripped Michigan and Florida of our delegates because they’re quite possibly nut cases. I don’t know how they expected us to magically force our Republican state legislature (who for some strange reason controls the primaries of both parties) into not moving our state primaries forward. Particularly, when they tacked this primary switch up to a bill that would force a paper trail into Floridian voting. What Floridian Democrat could oppose such legislation, particularly if their district has many minority supporters? It would be a major middle finger to voters who are too often the target of voter suppression.

Anyway, to get back on track, apparently the Clinton campaign is trying to find a way to get our delegates back. She won big in both states, and now apparently we are important to her. I’m sorry Mrs. Clinton, you can’t have it both ways. You choose to snub us along with every other Democrat (well except for Gravel, he counts right?), you can’t change the rules because you’re loosing. Not to mention the fact that Obama wasn’t even on the ballot in Michigan! Not exactly a fair fight, huh?

Look, I don’t hate Hillary, I just don’t like her. Not to say I’m a big fan of Obama either, they’re both pretty bland politicians who speak of change with hollow words. The only major difference is that Obama at least has a chance against McCain. I’d rather have the worst excesses of the Clinton administration, which both candidates seem to represent, rather than someone who seems all too willing to continue the present course.

So with all that rage vented I can properly welcome you to the March issue of the Populist Press. This month we have some interesting articles from near and far. We also welcome Mr. Scott Tess, organizer for the Fair Trade for a Greater Orlando Coalition, as a regular contributor to the Press, with an excellent editorial on contrasting the virtues of fair trade with problems inherit to so-called “free trade”. As always we have an article by our favorite investigative journalist, Mr. Greg Palast, on McCain’s transformation into a Republican hardliner.

******************

The new issue of The Populist Press can be found at http://www.populistpress.com.

Through These Brown Eyes- I Saw Obama

by Jack O’Spades

The cable and print news outlets tell me this is an exciting time for politics. While I can’t disagree with that generalization, I certainly don’t buy the implicit message of hope. Yeah, yeah, curious George and Dick “the Dick” Cheney® are about to get the boot, but I’m not spellbound by Obama-mania or Clinton fever. I want someone who will take on the madness of the last four administrations, (not just the last one!) and not someone who will, at best, ‘hold the line’.

Unlike the famous “Colbert Bump”, it seems that an endorsement from this paper may be a political death sentence, sorry Mr. Edwards! We’ll be voting for Obama (note - NOT AN ENDORSEMENT), since he’s still much better than ANY Republican president. That’s right preachers of the Ron Paul, we don’t like your candidate. No amount of angry letters will change the fact that he is xenophobic, libertarian nut job, who probably hates both brown AND black people.

So we’re certainly more cynical and stimulated than normal, hopefully that means that the parts I wrote will be at least interesting drivel. In addition, we have an editorial from one Mr. E. Smith-Jones. A quality piece on president Bush’s grand scheme to save the economy by giving us each about $600. As you can see Mr. Bush’s plan is incredibly complicated, so make sure you’re awake when reading it. If you can’t detect the sarcasm please put down the paper, it’s not for you. Also, consider making toast while you take a bath. Remember, electricity and water are nature’s best friends.

For those of you I haven’t offended away, or who are not taking a bath with a toaster, you may notice a theme in this volume of the press. As the election gets closer, the incidents of voting related shenanigans are on the rise, so we feel compelled to inform you on possible mischief at the polls. This observer would point out that more worrisome than the Clint Curtis style claims of tampered voting machines, is the legal attempt to stamp out votes and potential voters. Not to say that the illegal attempts are negligible, or that Mr. Curtis is insane (I haven’t any input on that allegation, seriously), but the legal attempts are more likely to sway the vote, and to fall under the radar. For more on the subject of legal, vote theft, refer to the book “The Best Democracy Money Can Buy”, by Mr. Greg Palast.

So stay wary, and know your rights! Particularly if you’re black, brown, and/or poor. If you’ve been convicted of a felony, see the local chapter of ACORN, they have plenty of information on your rights. Their contact information is in the ad section, on the last page.

Everyone should be sure to get in contact with the American Civil Liberties Union (http://www.aclu.org/), they are a wealth of information on all of your rights. Enjoy this edition press, folks (www.populsitpress.com)!

It’s the third year or so of the endless campaign for the white house. Finally we’re getting close to the end, of both the eternal campaign and the nightmare of Bush II reign. Soon we’ll cast our vote for the 11 or so Democrats, and maybe our votes will be counted. So in case the national Democratic party decides not to give in to such “important” states like Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina; you may get to be counted. Yay, Democracy!

To those of you who read this regularly, you’re probably as pissed off as I am with the Democrats already. The fact that they can be scared by the political equivalent of house cats, and be bought off almost half as easily as the Republicans (a major feat in and of itself). Thank you national Democratic party fucks for kneecapping those of us here in Florida that still vote for your party.

So, if we get to vote in the primaries who should you vote for? Please allow us at the Press to tell you how to live your collective lives. It’s a lot less work for you, and hell, we’re going to voice our opinion regardless of whether anyone actually cares! So you may as well tag along for the ride.

We here at the Press are officially supporting John Edwards, for the presidency of the United States of America. Mr. Edwards is the only candidate who has constantly voiced a populist message, and has made fighting poverty and economic bondage the focus of his campaign. While many of the Democratic candidates this year would make at least a decent president, Mr. Edwards is the best of those who actually have a chance of winning.

Granted we love Kucinich, and he would probably be just as committed to fighting poverty while providing many other things the front runners are unwilling to do. However, even Kucinich knows that Kucinich isn’t going to win. His recent endorsement of Obama has been a strong indication of that. Not too mention that he lost in Iowa, which is, oddly enough, one of the most anti-war states in the country. If Kucinich can’t come close to winning there, he certainly cannot win at all.

Look, we don’t enjoy poking at Kucinich’s ardent followers, and his chances of winning. However, he won’t win if we just believe in him enough. I’d also strongly urge his other supporters against a symbolic vote. I don’t think any of us want someone as pro-war, and with as many corporate links as Clinton. Reality is a bitch, I know.

Mr. Edwards is a good candidate, who has strongly allied himself with unions and alternative economic theorists. He is far from perfect, but so is virtually everyone, with the possible exception of Jesus (especially since he can turn water into wine).

Mr. Edwards is in many ways like FDR, and we desperately need that sort of politician again. Just like FDR we cannot expect him to end all the follies of capitalism, but who else among the front runners (or any candidate!) is willing to fight so hard to do so? From listening to them, watching their votes, and seeing who they surround themselves with, only Edwards has made the push.

Much has been made about Mr. Edward’s wealth, and how it somehow revokes the legitimacy of his message. This sort of argument is patently ridiculous. Mr. Edwards has allied himself with a movement that would help to transfer political power from people of his wealth and status, to the population at large. If anything, his willingness to speak for reform that would go against his material gain only adds to his legitimacy.

In the end, Mr. Edwards can only be judged by his actions. However, among all the candidates, he is the best chance for brining the economic and social change that our country desperately needs after the wake of Regan and the Bush dynasty. It is for this reason that the Press has chosen to back Mr. Edwards in ‘08.