Great article! Thanks!
They are each in their own part of the Two Americas.
Politicians love to hear themselves talk and they do most of it when there is a crisis.
Kerry! Edwards! What a class act of the back end of a horse. Everywhere they go the pile fall on the ground.
Edwards may have his statistics right, I don't know. The REASON for this disparity, I suspect, has to do with whether or not the family is intact, that is, is there a father AND a mother in the home. Just this one fact makes the biggest difference in the economic health of a family. Democrats always ignore this fact, and narrow the difference down to race.
The Kerry part of the piece is OK and describes the man well. But I fail to see anything new or interesting in what Edwards is saying. It's just another version of Edward's failed "two Americas" stump speech that failed to impress even the folks in his home state of SC. Both are losers--then and now. And I doubt Edward's statistics are reflective of the real story about black vs. white. Nor does it put the blame for the divide where it belongs--on the backs of the poverty-pimps and race hustlers like Jackson, Sharpton and countless other supposed "black leaders." They, along with the DUmmycrat plantation owners, are to blame, and that includes pretty boy, ambulance-chaser, Edwards. Let Johnny boy address that issue first.
Communists for Kerry...
http://www.communistsforkerry.com/
I am suspect of stats spouted without sources.
I have discussions with my Democratic friends over whether the party will snap back to Clintonite centrism after the polarizing Bush leaves town. Some think yes. I suspect no. As Kerry's speech shows, the emotional tenor of the party has changed. The donors are aroused. Bush may end up changing the Democratic Party more than his own.
In the Kennedy/Johnson era the two parties were bigger tents. The Democrats then had the conservative southern wing, and the Republicans were much stronger in what are now called the "blue states." The post-Vietnam era has seen a divorce between the South and the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party is now the media party and the city party; the Republican Party is now the party of the middle class and the suburbs/exurbs.The money in the Democratic Party is now "celebrity" money interested only in radical media perspective. This country isn't big enough for two John F. Kennedy parties and that - with allowances for the fact that Bush is a more competent manager, on the one hand, and far less attractive to journalism, on the other - is what the Bush presidency is. The Bush presidency is "polarizing" because it a splitting mall blow to the fault line in the Democratic Party. It threatens to split off a crucial fraction of the Black Democratic base - just enough of it to throw the Democrats into secular political decline.
I think the Edwards "less polarized" position is doomed. A "center" which cannot hold.
Prediction: when the history of the 2004 campaign is written, the "shocking" revelation will be that John Kerry and John Edwards despised each other.
Second prediction: Edwards will be the Democratic nominee in 2008. I'm no fan of his, but he is going to beat Hilary in the heartland. The moonbats don't really trust Hilary anyway, so he may cut into her base with his "two America's" stuff. And among the more moderate Democrats, all he has to do is convince them he's more electable than Hilary.
With a few appearances on "Oprah", he should be able to pull it off.
Neither man made a lick of sense in their tirade.
I don't remember Bob Dole constantly harping on Clinton after he was defeated in the '96 election. Isn't there some unwritten political code that if you are the loser in a presidential race, its poor taste to bash the man who beat you post-election?
I only WISH they lived in two diferent worlds!!