Well, in fairness to Kucinich, if you see Wall Street as promoting or abetting a lot of corporate shenanigans: Enron, union-busting, predatory lending, etc., then it's just a question of taking money from an interest group that already has too much power.

Obama's comments on lobbyist in response to Ms. Clinton confirms why I will always support him and the "CLINTON" Machine. The Clinton Machine is not good for the Democratic party and never will.

I sure hope some decent (non UStream) video of the candidates statements is being recorded for use later if the progressive views they expressed today are not observed in practice.

Which is another way of saying that the hopes and dreams of progressives are well supported by our Dem. candidates (most of the key ones, anyway) but we must hold their feet to the fire.

Which in turn is another way of saying that the positions on issues that the sizeable majority of US voters express in polls are essentially the same as the netroots progressive activists. It should be apparent to all (but it won't be, of course) that the Dem. party is moving more than glacially back towards its basic long-term governing philosophy. That feels good to me.

Nice- I like many of the answers by both Obama and Edwards.

by the way- to those who don't think Hillary has shifted her position on the war to triangulate on the issue- here's a NY Times article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/04/us/politics/04clinton.html?ex=1343880000&en=0e1828321cc835b2&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Akaison

Your funny. All the article proves is that her position has changed.

I love the fact that people critisize republicans for staying loyal to the war but then critisize democrats who have grown distastful of the war. This is a transparent argument from the left because if she still supported the war then you'd be critisizing her too.

the article proves that it changes with the wind rather than according to her convictions. if thats okay with you- then i guess there is not much that you aren't willing to say she can do wrong for you.

Who's the largest recipient of insurance/pharma money? George W. Bush?

Not sure- probably can find out on open secrets or whatever that political contribution site is called. Fact is- no Democrat claiming they are going to change healthcare has any credibility who is taking the industry money. It's just not believable.

I thought the forum was a lot better than the average debate -- both sprightly and substantive. Bai did a great job at moderating.

I'm not sure why Hillary goes out of her way to brag about how Americans are now safer because we take off our shoes before we can climb on an airplane. Obama was all about specifics, but his take on how we should deal with the rest of the world is nuanced and compelling. Edwards had a lot of good lines, but it was a little annoying how little effort he made to answer the actual questions. Richardson plumping for a balanced-budget amendment was surreal.

Still, I'd be thrilled to have any of them as a nominee.

And it was good to bump into you in person, Ezra, even if it was for a fraction of a second.

The insurance industry has more than enough money to spend on both sides of the isle, which is why it is not shocking that they have given to Clinton heavily. There plan is no action on healthcare reform and by spending on both democrats and republicans they ensure that, and I would bet dollars to donuts that they succeed. They have way to much money not to. If they United healthcare would give their CEO a 100 million dollar bonus what would the entire industry spend to keep their livelyhood? A Billion perhaps?

It's the crazy the money that people make. Not in the sense of class warfare, but then to have the same forces throw the idea of say making healthcare affordable into communism land.

the article proves that it changes with the wind rather than according to her convictions. if thats okay with you- then i guess there is not much that you aren't willing to say she can do wrong for you.

Maybe her position has changed as the war has gotten worse like several politicians. Are you saying she should be required to ignore compelling evidence to the contrary of her original stance. Ariana Huffington should've stayed a Republican too?

her position has changed as the public's position has changed. she stuck her finger in the wind and decided accordingly. i don't have a problem with her pandering. i have a problema bout what this means for her leadership in the white house. leadership isn't whatever way the wind blows. feel free to continue to spin it, even vote for her on your spin, but i am not buying what you are selling.

The insurance industry has more than enough money to spend on both sides of the isle, which is why it is not shocking that they have given to Clinton heavily. There plan is no action on healthcare reform and by spending on both democrats and republicans they ensure that, and I would bet dollars to donuts that they succeed

Considering that even health insurance companies are releasing plans for universal coverage I doubt they're goal is no health reform. Business are pragmatic. They know its coming no matter how hard they fight. When the battle is over and they lose,hopefully, they'd still like to have a seat at the table. Obama actually put it best when he said "They can have a seat at the table but they can't buy every chair."

Also Businesses like to hedge their bets.By the time the republican nominee comes out they'll be recieving a lot of money too.

just because they create some marketing tool designed to increase their profits, and slap the name universal on it, doesn't make it so universal healthcare.

Ezra, after Edwards' comment, why didn't you mention that Kucinich challenged him to stop taking hedge fund money? It's kind of hard to be a populist when your hand is out to the most manipulative of financial manipulators, isn't it?

Thanks to all of you at EzraKlein.com for your excellent coverage of YK 2007. Also, thanks to all the kind folks attending and commenting on this site. Keep up the good work and enjoy yourselves!

I did mention it: "Kucinich asks Edwards if he'll stop taking money from hedge fund managers. That seems weird -- there's nothing special about hedge funds that make their employees more malign than most other professions."

Obama Took 1.4 Million From Lobbyists' Firms

The LA Times reports today that even after presidential hopeful Barack Obama made a show of standing up to Washington insiders by returning donations from lobbyists, he received help raising campaign money from at least two of them.

Even as he shuns donations from lobbyists, Obama has taken more than $1.4 million this year from law and consultancy firms that have partners who are registered to lobby, a Times analysis of Obama's fundraising shows. He has received hundreds of thousands more from corporate executives while turning down money from their lobbyists.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-obama4aug04,1,4742821.story?coll=la-politics-campaign&ctrack=2&cset=t rue

Further, the Des Moines Register reports that Obama's fundraising team has used state lobbyists, former lobbyists, spouses of lobbyists and partners in lobbying firms who are not registered for specific clients to reach the rich, the Washington Post reported in April.

As a U.S. Senate candidate, Obama was no stranger to PAC donations. From 2001 to 2006, he received $1.8 million, or about 8 percent, of what he raised from PACs, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan watchdog group.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070803/NEWS09/708030378/1001/NEWS

it's only weird if people play on ignorance- which is the whole point of disucssing hedge funds. how many people really know what they are?

no Democrat claiming they are going to change healthcare has any credibility who is taking the industry money. It's just not believable.

Because?

i don't have a problem with her pandering. i have a problema bout what this means for her leadership in the white house.

Yet you admit that Edwards made the same shift on the war, and you think it was for the same reason.

Joe, are you under the impression that Edwards doesn't take money from lawyers who have lobbyist partners? That would surprise me, as many major forms include some lobbyists, and lawyers are a big support for Edwards.

I think the hedge fund question makes sense--the funds are a tax shelter for the ultra-rich, and Edwards has ties to them. Not taking money from lobbyists is based on a fine principle, but that principle has far broader implications than just not taking money from lobbyists.

sanpete i am not going to argue with you. good luck.

You also aren't going to establish your claims or resolve the contradiction, which is more to the point. But thanks for yet another post explaining that you aren't going to give a rational argument.

Sanpete,

There is no contradiction. If this orange is rotten, it doesn't matter that that apple is rotten, too. The rottenness of the apple is entirely irrelevant to the rottenness of the orange. The question is whether Hillary's rottenness means she would make a bad leader and answering that question "Yes" is neither illogical nor justified. Indeed, it's common sense.

nor unjustified

While 35 years in politics probably should have taught her not to joke with the clever liberal punditry about the effect of money on her positions, my sensitive little heart is reassured that Hillary has more then 90 seconds of introspection on her healthcare screwups. You're full of the good questions, Ezra. Rock on.

Also, you're in Chicago! Hi!

Typo, it's not common sense nor any sense at all if you won't accept its logical consequences, which you don't address. Akaison supports Edwards, who has the same problem on this as Clinton. Does this problem with shifting with the polls entail Edwards will also be a bad leader or not?

In complete seriousness, I would LOVE to have a president who changed their position based on the polls. This "leadership means sticking to your positions" is complete bull**** that was sold by the Reaganites to get the votes of the social conservatives ("The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it."). It's very sad to me that progressives have fallen for that kind of absolutist rhetoric.

If the majority of the people support something, there's probably a damn good reason for it. Why should one person's opinion count for more than the opinion of millions?

The president will always have the bully pulpit, and can sell their views to the American public. But if the people don't buy it, I think the president SHOULD listen to them.

Yes, there are situations where this doesn't work well, with civil rights being the classic example. But I don't think the big issues of this campaign (getting out of Iraq, healthcare reform, etc.) fall into that category.

"If circumstances change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

Typo, it's not common sense nor any sense at all if you won't accept its logical consequences, which you don't address. Akaison supports Edwards, who has the same problem on this as Clinton. Does this problem with shifting with the polls entail Edwards will also be a bad leader or not?

Except, of course, Edwards admits that he made an error in judgement while Clinton refuses to. This distinction is a completely reasonable basis for forming an opinion their respective styles of leadership. Even moreso, if Clinton is sincerely convinced that she made no error.

WB hits the nail on the head. I am not looking for a perfect leader. I am looking for one who gets that they make mistakes, and adjust accordingly for it. The candidate closest to Bush in the primary in terms of how they speak of leadership right now is Clinton. She is playing for whatever reason the whole "leader can do no wrong" bs on her decisions on more than a few issues. It bodes badly for how she will govern.

If she would admit to her mistakes, I would actually feel a hell of a lot better about her if she should become President. It's simple- we live in a complicated world- and the one line that Kerry got right in 2004 was this You can be certain. But you can be wrong and certain. For her to claim she has never been wrong should worry everyone because it indicates a certain dangerousness of world view that will always try to cover her ass. I didn't just go through 7 years of this only to replace it with the Democratic version of "leader is always right."

Edwards hasn't admitted to anything that Clinton hasn't. He's apologized for it and called it a mistake, but for the very same things she acknowledges: deceived by bad intelligence, trusted Bush, etc. There's no substantial difference, only a different political choice in how to present it. She's implied a dozen ways it was a mistake, but she won't say so on this issue (as she has in relation to her 1993 health care failure) because she thinks it's politically bad to do so. It doesn't imply at all that she doesn't learn from mistakes. She has adjusted her views on Iraq just as Edwards has.

Sounds like a lot of rationalization.

It works this way: Ideas and words have distinct meanings, ...except when they don't.

A lot of rationalization from both of them. If you can show the substantial differences in how they explain their 2002 votes, go ahead.

A lot of rationalization from both of them. If you can show the substantial differences in how they explain their 2002 votes, go ahead.

The obvious question being whether Clinton and Edwards would agree with Sanpete that there is no distinction between their positions.

Edwards rationalize his decision- he doesn't need to rationalize his apology for making the WRONG decision. Clinton rationalizes her WRONG decision as something she doesn't need to apologize for making. No one expects her to be perfect, but I damn sure expect her to admit I fucked up and move on from t here. Nothing about her campaign on any issue suggests she ever thinks anything she ever did from Iraq, to healthcare to gays in the military was wrong. And thats too much of the emperor has no clothes on approach to politics for anyone who has bothered to live through the last 7 years under Bush.

In other words, you can't point out any difference in the reasons for their votes or what they've learned from it.

In other words, you can't point out any difference in the reasons for their votes or what they've learned from it.

For someone so prone to invoking logic as a slogan you seem to discard it with ease. You are the only one arguing that there is no distinction between their positions. The onus is on you.

hillary's answer to the question about the telecom act was breath-taking in its arrogance and nonsense.

"ask al gore" is not an answer to a major policy question -- especially a policy that has led to the FOX domionated corporatist media rule we're under.

instead of engaging, she flippantly obfuscates and glides on. just like her bullshit "i'm agnostic" answer on nuclear energy.

she wants to be president but has no answers.

the democrats are in big trouble, but so are we all.

WBR, I've explained my reasons already. You have none. I think that sums it up.

WBR, I've explained my reasons already. You have none. I think that sums it up.

Whatever Sanpete dreams up trumps everyone else because Sanpete dreamed it up. That sums it up alright.

And he really doesn't answer the style of leadership question I raised. All you point out is that they made a mistake Sanpete. Pardon my french- but thanks for the fucking obvious. Next you will tell us the sky is blue. The real question isn't whether they fucked up. The real question is how did they respond to it after it became clear to them that they fucked up. The real question is how do they respond now - can they admit a mistake, did they learn something from it, if so what? Those are questions you ask of a leader. Yours are question you ask if you think people are perfect. My questions are the best you can expect of any leader. Not that they won't mistakes, but what judgement do they show with regard to the mistakes they made. Clinton is consistently showing a flawed judgement on many issues. If not for her frontrunner status,a nd quite frankly the taming of the blogs people would be yelling to the top of their lungs about her leadership and what it has wrought and will wrought if what we see of it now is any indicator.

WBR, again, you've given no reasons; you've just been yipping again. Not hard to trump that. Akaison, I've already responded to your argument, after you gave it the last time. As I said, Clinton and Edwards have learned the same things, and explained the substantive aspects of them in the same ways. Adding that it was a mistake after you've already clearly implied it was doesn't change the substance. It might make people feel better, but that's not a matter of policy or learning from mistakes.

No you avoided it with a smartass comment- something you accuse others of doing whenever they disagree with your tactics here. And CLinton has not indicated she learned a thing. The question isn't whether one can recount the facts- the question is can she provide the thesis of what that means. And yes- it matters that she say it. Hence why you are avoiding the point I am making.

Sanpete, I've no interest whatever in debating what's real and what's not with you. If you want claim that there is no distinction between how Edwards has dealt with his earlier vote and how Clinton has dealt with her's be my guest. However, no one is obliged to enable you in this strained equivilancy.

If you think there is no difference between saying "I was wrong" and not saying "I was wrong", by all means, announce it to the world.

Sanpete, I've no interest whatever in debating what's real and what's not with you. If you want claim that there is no distinction between how Edwards has dealt with his earlier vote and how Clinton has dealt with her's be my guest. However, no one is obliged to enable you in this strained equivilancy.

If you think there is no difference between saying "I was wrong" and not saying "I was wrong", by all means, announce it to the world.

Again, akaison, Clinton and Edwards have both explained that Bush didn't live up to the trust they placed in him, that the intelligence was untrustworthy, etc. These are things they've said they didn't know at the time, and which they now clearly say were wrong, which implies they were mistaken about them and have learned better since, whether they call them mistakes or not. What other thesis are you looking for?

What I think they both ought to see but haven't acknowledged either one is that even had the intelligence been correct, the invasion would have been wrong. But there's no substantive difference between their positions on that either. Obama gets the credit for that one.

If you want claim that there is no distinction between how Edwards has dealt with his earlier vote and how Clinton has dealt with her's be my guest.

Haven't said that and don't believe it, as you would know if you were paying attention. There's no substantive difference in the mistakes made and lessons learned. If there were you might just point one out instead of explaining why it isn't worth your time.

Haven't said that and don't believe it, as you would know if you were paying attention. There's no substantive difference in the mistakes made and lessons learned. If there were you might just point one out instead of explaining why it isn't worth your time.

Sanpete, is there a "substantive" difference between saying "I made a mistake" and not saying so? Yes or No please.

If you want to talk about a different subject, say, what consititues an apology, then yes, there is a substantive difference between saying "I made a mistake" and not saying so. But that's irrelevant to what mistakes were made and what lessons were learned, which is what I'm addressing (as you can see from what you quoted). "I made a mistake" implies a mistake and a lesson learned, but it's obviously not the ony way to imply that. Both candidates have explained the same mistakes and lessons.

Couldn't manage a yes or no answer I see.

and like I said- a lot of rationalization of what is a pretty obvious leadership style point that I am making that goes like this "the buck stops here" by her doing it the way she's doing it. The problem is that she's not taking responsibility for her own mistakes. That's the part that's missing from Bush. That's the part that's missing from her. That's why I have no faith she will be a good President.

Do I have to explain to you that context matters, WBR? Or were you hoping you could slide by with a logical fallacy based on ignoring context? If you see a problem with my answer besides that it was more than the one word you seem to have felt entitled to, this would be the time to explain it.

Akaison, I don't object to the idea that this is a difference in style. I think your anxiousness to assimilate Clinton to Bush in this regard is a vast overreach, but that's another topic.

Do I have to explain to you that context matters, WBR? Or were you hoping you could slide by with a logical fallacy based on ignoring context?

You mean a fallacy such as pretending that there is no "substantive" difference between action and non-action?

You mean a fallacy such as pretending that there is no "substantive" difference between action and non-action?

I see I overestimated you. I mean exactly the fallacy that would lead you to pretend that context isn't relevant to deciding that issue. Which apparently you can't see, even though my original response illustrated the need for context.

its her behavior that makes me nervous. Since you claim its an overreach prove your point? I suppose it will be on policy, but thats kind of irrelevant to my point. Bush's chief fault isn't just his policies- its his style of leadership which is emperor is always right. thats dangerous- we saw that in some of JFK thinking on the left. Hillary replicating that in her campaign style doesnt instill confidence about her WH

for example of danger- and how groupthink factors into that as leadership - one can look up the cuban missle crisis and bay of pigs

Akaison, her refusal to apologize is reason to worry some, I agree, but on the whole I'm not worried about this, not yet. She's been very open about her mistakes in 1993, and has admitted that she's made many mistakes in her life. I think she's been trying to avoid saying she made a mistake in regard to Iraq in particular because she sees that, as a woman, she is more vulnerable to doubts about being Commander in Chief than men are, sad as it is to have to say it. Admitting she was mistaken about such a major military matter is something that might be interpreted differently for her than for the other candidates, or at least many analysts believe that to be true. Her stubborness seems to working well enough so far, as she's viewed as a strong leader. I'm watching to see how she deals with mistakes. It seems to me that she's been plenty savvy enough to adjust her campaign as she goes, so that's a good sign.

if this were sole refusal to admit mistaken action in the past- that would be one thing. it's not her only occasion for having a thin skin for admitting mistakes.

and you confuse voters lack of understanding of these issues with whether they get her style of leadership and what it is. by your argument- that would mean bushs leadership was okay because people supported it too.

my point is out side of support or not. its about what it means in terms of outcomes with regard to policies and decisions. peop trust incorrectly i would add that leaders will correctively change course where needed. as bush has shown- thats a false assumption and frankly as a democracy requires we should read as much of what they have done as possible to know whether our leaders are actually capable of it. nothing suggest that people are making that kind of thought out analysis of her candidacy. all to often i hear simplistic- well she's a realistic, or she's tough etc without context or any factual explaination behind it

托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
钢托盘
木托盘
钢制托盘
托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
南京托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
南京托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
杭州托盘
成都托盘
武汉托盘
长沙托盘
合肥托盘
苏州托盘
无锡托盘
昆山托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
南京托盘
南京钢制托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘

托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
塑料托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
木托盘
塑料托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
托盘
塑料托盘

Hi,

Nice blog. I like to know more about it.

Jimmy
Cash Surveys

Hi,

Nice blog. Thanks for the information. I like to know more about it.

Jimmy
Cash Surveys