What’s really important in this discussion, as Thibaud pointed out not once but twice, is that John Kerry and his wife are extremely rich trust-funders

Actually, I said it once, and also noted that Kerry’s core support was from fellow trust funders—not the working families that once upon a time, back when I was a passionate instead of a reluctant Democrat, formed the core of the Party. That party, which was run by people who knew what the working class actually cared about (instead of sneering at them a la Tom Franks)—people like Tip O’Neill and Harry Truman, or Humphrey, Mondale, Clinton—has somehow morphed into a party of bond traders (Corzine), rich socialites (Pelosi), and moronic stockbrokers (Boxer). Even the working class heroes like Edwards are little more than lightweight F Lee Barnum & Bailey ambulance chasers.

Check out this map http://www.patrickruffini.com/research/swing2004big.jpg

Note that the darkest red counties, ie, those in which Kerry’s % of the vote increased by 18+ percentage points over Gore’s total, on this map are in the following counties, going from east to west:—southern Vermont—various counties in South Dakota—Boulder, Gunnison (Aspen), Telluride in Colorado—Jackson Hole, WY—Sun Valley, ID—Napa and Humboldt, CA

With the exception of So Dakota, which apparently is perhaps explained by the intense and bitter Senate race in ‘04 in which Daschle was defeated, all of these are second-home, gazillionaire enclaves that attract plenty of left-leaning hippies, snow bunnies, mushroom-growers et al. In other words, not just trustfunders but the same types of folks who make up, OTOH, the Soros/Ben&Jerry/Tereza left-billionaire crowd and, OTO, the Kos crowd, ie what has since Nov 2000 become the de facto core of the Democratic Party. This is where the money comes from; these are the hardcore activists. It’s ludicrous to think that these folks are credible standard-bearers for a platform emphasizing poverty reduction.

To me this suggests that the party’s leadership today is less than serious in its commitment to helping working families. ThomasFranks it all you like, but the fact remains that the Democratic Party is deeply out of touch with ordinary Americans who do not live in either ski bunny gazillionaire heaven or absurdly overpriced yuppie enclaves like Manhattan and SF whose working and middle classes long ago decamped for normal, affordable suburban locales.

The claim in the blog post you advertise – that suitable qualifications for “political executives” are an MBA or military service – is the funniest thing I’ve read all day.

Incidentally, Edwards appears to have spent much of his time in the Senate speculating in the stock market—and fairly successfully. So, we can say that he has a fine plan to reduce poverty—for John Edwards.

(Here’s a summary of Edwards’s accomplishments for those who are unfamiliar with his record.)

Yes, just one of the manifestations, but OUR manifestation. Oops, I forgot, responsibility is no longer in vogue. But, hypothetically, we could teach responsibility to our children, likewise to our youth, and maybe even venture into that taboo arena of accountability, and so too apply these standards to every city councilperson, mayor, police officer, priest, senator, teacher, professor … well, why don’t I just say it? Everyone!

Yes, refusing to accept such claims is pretty close to holocaust denial, and quibbling about the exact numbers (as with the holocaust) is not the issue. It is a fact that these appalling things are taking place and trying to call into question, for political reasons, UNICEF’s authority on this matter is really very shameful.

jet –

Which helps more, $200 to an African aid agency or a $100 cut in Western farm subsidies?

Why do you think you have to choose between these things? Cutting American or European farm subsidies will make us richer, leaving us with more money for aid. A complete red herring.

Corporate capitalism is just one of the manifestations.

Every year, nearly 11 million children die before reaching their fifth birthday, most from preventable causes. That is approximately, 30,000 children per day.

(For the record, I tried the following Google searches based on pablo’s links and came up empty:

35,000 preventable children deaths U.S. site:unicef.org

35,000 preventable children deaths U.S. site:unmillenniumproject.org

I also tried removing the periods from U.S.).

With all due respect, the fact that you actually need such a link is itself a testimony of your complete lack of moral awareness. Imagine someone demanding a link “backing up” a “claim” about the Holocaust. But since you asked for it, here’s a suggestion: try checking UNICEF (http://www.unicef.org) or the UN Millennium Project (http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/).

And it would appear the angle of argument you are taking is that a politician can’t be a good leftist if he doens’t believe in throwing more money at a problem instead of finding out why the current amount of money isn’t solving the problem.

Please. When David Horowitz campaigns for “academic freedom”, one doesn’t need to disagree with the letter of the bill to oppose it: it is the actual consequences of its adoption what gives people reason for concern. Same with Obama. Irrespective of their content, we all know what the effect of statements like the one I quoted are. They reinforce the misconception (which you seem to share) that, generally speaking, foreign aid doesn’t work, and that the problem is not that the US is giving less than one tenth of one percent of its GDP, but rather that, since those funds are not doing any work, we’d better reduce or altogether eliminate our spending in the area. The truth of the matter is that, according to the most conservative estimates, US$200 will literally save the life of one kid in Africa. Shouldn’t a genuine egalitarian be emphasizing this brutal reality and doing everything in his power to increase foreign aid? How come someone who does the opposite is said to link inequality to “moral values”?

You might not be, Slocum, but I have to presume that the Cato Institute—an unmistakeably libertarian outfit, the last time I checked—is. And if their understanding of the OS is anything like yours, I fail to see how it could possibly fit the libertarian label. But then I gave up trying to find any shred of coherence in all but a tiny handful of self-proclaimed “libertarians” a long time ago.

All of which flies smack into the brick wall of the “libertarian” creed that I can decide what kinds of thoughts and behaviors are right for me better than the government can.

That’s kind of a demented argument—libertarians believe government should be structured to allow people to make their own decisions freely? Aha! But who made THAT decision? Isn’t it anti-libertarian to force freedom on the unwilling?

But anyway, I’m not claiming that the ‘ownership society’ idea is fundamentally libertarian or even desirable (certainly I don’t think it’s desirable in all domains and for all citizens). What I am claiming is:

1. It’s not the equivalent of social darwinism, and

2. It’s not politically astute to make the claim in #1.