Can someone give Cokie Roberts a call on the Clue-Phone

[Armstead]

Cokie Roberts (on ABC This Week) proved yet again how arrogent and out-of-touch she is. She epitomizes the cluelessness of the beltway Pundit class.

She was being very dismissive of the characterization of Obama and Edwards as the "change" candidates.

"The word change is ridiculous," she said (paraphrased. "Any Democrat who might win the White House would be a change from the Republicans, whether it's Hillary or Obama or Edwards."

She doesn't get it. She totally ignores (doesn't realize?) that a major part of the nomination process is to determine what direction the Democratic Party will go.

There are at least two levels to this contest. One is obviously to change the White House and Congress from GOP to Democratic. That's a no-brainer.

But there is also the level of change from the existing mold that the Democratic Party has been dominated by under the Clinton/Centrists since the early 90's.

Edwards and Obama are both -- in different ways -- trying to chart a different direction from the Democratic Party that Hillary Clinton represents.

Earth to Cokie....Earth to Cokie...Come in please. What is your present location?

[Colobo]

1. She's bitter because Hillary is about to get steamrolled.

[goldcanyonaz]

16. Nice try, but she hates the Clintons.

[Carrieyazel]

28. Cokehead Roberts has always hated Hillary, and hated Bill Clinton

She was awful during the whole impeachment mess; and the White House despised her with every fibre of their being throughout the Clinton years.

[wtmusic]

2. Can't get through...fax coming in from WH. nt

[elizm]

3. Also repeated the meme of the 'notorious unreliable young voter'...

Duh...I think the Iowa caucuses put that to rest...but she apparently doesn't get that either. How ridiculous it made her sound.

[Evergreen Emerald]

4. Actually, that is what Gibson was trying to say.

Change is the old cliques that has been used every election season. I read yesterday where the real reason obama is doing so well is that we want change from Bush and the lack of Congressional ACTION. And that is what Clinton has been saying too.

I agree with her.

[Armstead]

14. The problems didn't start in Jan 2001.

Bush could not have decimated America so rapidly, if he hadn't inherited a situation that had already paved the way.

Corporations were already far too powerful. Deregulation and privatization had already gone way too far. The economic trends were already pushing into wider gaps between rich and poor, and the middle class was already under seige by outsourcing, weakening of labor, etc. Wall St. asnd Big Capital were already calling the shots.

Change from the mentality and policies that created that situation is what many of us want to see. It will not be changed simply by replacing the R's with D's, if the D party doesn't make fundamental changes within.

[pnwmom]

20. This is the discredited Nader argument, the Tweedledee vs. Tweedledum

theory.

Time has proven it wrong.

[Armstead]

23. You have to take the longer view

I don't want to defend Nader's spoilerism. But events of the last seven years have proven that his basic thesis is correct.

Bush and his GOP cronies would not have gotten away with what they did if the Democrats had been a more clear oppositional force in the 90's, and since his election.

Why are not the Democrats, for example, more forcefully challenging the huge mergers that have taken place in recent years. They have been dangerous and are undermining the economy -- and yet the Democrats are silent (with some worthy exceptions).

[papau]

5. Edwards is a different direction - Obama not so much -indeed less than Hillary IMO

[Cameron27]

6. We have two candidates

running on a campaign slogan. It is a cliche, it's a well-worn term used by each side to suit their own purpose. Any Democratic president will be a change from the status quo, and a woman president would be a huge difference in the status quo.

[Armstead]

15. Please see my post 14

[ozone_man]

7. Cokie to Pepsi is not real change.

How about some nice camellia sinensis?

[suston96]

8. Cokie is right...what does "change" mean?

I have been asking that here the last week or so. And the fact that people are upset because a noted journalist has asked the same question pleases me and pisses off those who are afraid of the answer - and they should be.

What "change" are Obama and Edwards talking about? Change from the "status quo"? Isn't that redundant?

What status quo? Bush and the Republicans are indeed, as Cokie Roberts aptly put, the "status quo".

A woman President IS a change. An African-American as President IS a change. Oh, Hillary, a woman, said that about herself. Why doesn't Obama, an African-American, proudly trumpet that?

Those aren't the changes they are talking about. OK. I'll buy that. Then what? Tell me, what changes?

I have been a political junkie for longer than most of you have been alive. I have heard the "change" bullshit for many, many political campaigns, so believe this: It is a bullshit platitude that means only one thing: the candidate has very little or no experience to offer the voters.

Believe it!

[Cameron27]

9. Exactly,

Richard Nixon was a candidate for change, he even had a plan to get us out of Vietnam.:eyes:

I don't recall a campaign that hasn't used that tag.

[Armstead]

17. I hate to be redundent but please see my post 14

[Justitia]

10. Cokie Roberts is ridiculous. She needs to go back to her love fest covering the Pope. -eom

[pnwmom]

11. Cokie's right. ANY Democratic President will represent a major change

from the current regime, just as Al Gore would have had a hugely different Presidency than George Bush.

[Armstead]

18. Half of the change equation is changing parties

The other half is to change the party. (Please see post 14)

[anamandujano]

12. Details please

"Edwards and Obama are both -- in different ways -- trying to chart a different direction from the Democratic Party that Hillary Clinton represents."

They will all have the same huge problems that Bush has created, in addition to the ongoing problems, like health care, ss, etc.

They will all have the same House and Senate and the same sort of attacks from the entrenched kings of the world. Remember what Hillary went through in her efforts to tackle health care.

What can any of them do beyond what is already on the plate?

Please give us some examples of change that one would pursue that the others would not pursue. Is there something that Obama or Edwards would attempt that Hillary would not?

[Armstead]

22. Edwards has identified a core problem

Many of have been fruistrated for years that the Democrats have refused to acknowledge a core problem in this country, which is the total distortion of our economy and society that has resulted by the trend towards monopolization, the total domonance of Corporate Power, the growing gap between rich and poor, the erosion of the middle class...and the enabling of the "accountant's mentality" over fundamental social values and economic justice.

I could get wayyyy more specific on many fronts. But the bottom line is that for too many years (decades) the Democratic Party has refused to challenge the Corporate Elite and to offer a clearly liberal alternative to the conservatism of the GOP.

Edwards has brought this out into the open. And I believe that if elected, he would continue to fight, even if he will have to engage in the inevitable need to compromise in his governing. he would start from a very different baseline -- in favor of the majority over the elite -- than Hillary would.

I can't speak for Obama, but I believe that in a less direct sense he represents the same instinct that Edwards has articulated.

[anamandujano]

24. While it's true

that one can't help but love the Edwards message, it's also true that compromise will be the operative word in his effort. How much compromise? I'm putting my money on somewhere between "a lot" and "comprehensive."

Perhaps by not putting the debate front and center but by attacking regiment by regiment, for example Hillary's health care effort, one might make a little headway. Where did she get? She obviously got no points for effort and the hell storm she endured. One thing perhaps is that we can compare the repuke attacks and their misrepresentations to scare the public with what we now have.

Is there anything that they will attempt to change that can really be changed?

Obama is getting credit for trying to be more centrist to attract the independents and whatever sane repukes might exist, but Hillary gets knocked down because Bill had to go centrist to get anything accomplished at all. Don't get me wrong, I have plenty of complaints against Bill but let's just stay on topic.

What can the "change" people change in reality, that is, beyond talk?

[Armstead]

25. Fatalism helps to perpetuate entrenched power

Over the last 35 years, I have observed endlessly how fatalism and defeatism has helped the Entrenched Corporate Powers to both magnify their power and perpetuate it.

The message from Corporate America and the Elite has long been "This is reality. It cant be changed. Live with it."

They have used variations of that to justify poilicies that have allowed them to merge into monopolistic monsters, and to skew the system to screw workers and consumers, take over the economy and remove the seperation of government and business.

The majority has always had the power to change that. But they have been so browbeaten by endless variations of that basic message that we have forgotten the power we do have to improve the situation.

Regardless of the degree of success Edwards may or may not have in taming that beast as President, the mere fact that he has focused on it, is getting the public to shake off their defeatism and will start from a different point than an enabler like Hillary would is a giant step forward, IMO.

[anamandujano]

27. I think you're wrong on this one

Whenever there is a giant merger or simply a commercial on TV, the message is always benevolence, what we are doing for you and the world, how wonderful we are.

While none of us believe that hokum, that is their message.

Edwards has a great message but he probably won't get anywhere bringing it to reality. Don't get me wrong; I've been warming up to Edwards. I honestly didn't care for him in the debate last night though. He seemed to be choking on his words, just an impression.

What about the other "change" candidate? Will he take on these bandits?

[Skidmore]

13. Cokie doesn't have a clue line. She needs to get one installed first.

[spooky3]

19. love your opening line

[BeyondGeography]

21. These people have been around so long they don't think meaningful change is possible

it's like Charlie Gibson's attitude during the debate last night. It's the embodiement of the Beltway ghetto and why the entire political establishment is so widely despised. Hopefully, the anti-Clinton momentum that has been established will endure and they will get their long-delayed comeuppance.

[Armstead]

26. There should be Term Limits on pundits

[K Gardner]

29. AMEN !!

[ihavenobias]

30. The whole 4 guest pundit-panel was bad!

As soon as they were introduced I thought "no way in hell a single one of them says something good about Edwards" and I was 100% right.

Nice things were said (overall) about Hillary and great things were said about Obama. Edwards? He was dismissed as angry (3 out of 4 of them said America doesn't want a "fighter" or someone who's angry, they want someone who can "bring them together").

One of them also said (paraphrase) that Edwards can't keep coming in second and expect to win the nomination. While that might well be true, it's interesting how no one made the same argument against Hillary. I swear, Edwards could finish in second for the next 5 states (I'm not saying he will) and the media would STILL be talking about how it comes down to Obama and Hillary.

It's just obnoxious.