Strong union support in Nevada? - The Culinary union went to Obama. Tim Hogan is the only person in Missouri that supports Edwards the phony baloney, hypocrite lying Edwards

John Edwards’ idea of Two America’s”

One you marry, the other you knock up.

typical centwisted and sick and vicious comments, all attack and no substance.

John Edwards has a real vision for the future of America, centered on community, fulfilled with compassion and committed to peace.

In his life, Sen. Edwards has endured poverty and loss and worked hard to be successful and have the American dream.

John Edwards’ successes have been for working people and against those which would rob, oppress and demean their worth.

John Edwards didn’t take federal matching funds as a “lifeline” but, to keep from having to compromise with those PAC moneyed interests which lavish hundreds of millions of dollars in campaigns expecting a return on their money. If you want insurance companies, oil companies, chemical companies, manufacturers which knowingly sell unsafe products and drugs, and the utilites and nuclear power industies to call the shots of the government, don’t vote for John Edwards.

http://www.johnedwards.com

John Edwards for President in ‘08!

The Culinary union is not the only union doing work on the ground in Nevada. Edwards has strong union support and a new Nevada poll came out today that shows Nevada is a three way tie. Voters need to stop believing everything the media is trying to stuff down your throat!

Monday, January 14, 2008
New Poll: Democratic race in Nevada a dead heat

A new poll by the Reno Gazette-Journal shows a neck-and-neck three-way race among Democrats for Saturday’s caucus. On the Republican side, U.S. Sen. John McCain has taken his first lead in Nevada of the election season, and Mitt Romney, who has been working Nevada harder than any other Republican, is trailing in fourth place.

A look at the top line results (more will be posted later this morning):

Barack Obama: 32 percent
Hillary Clinton: 30 percent
John Edwards: 27 percent

http://www.rgj.com/blogs/inside-nevada-politics/2008/01/new-poll-democratic-race-in-nevada-dead.html

John Edwards is a truly viable candidate. Given the media-blackout of Edwards, it’s remarkable that his numbers are as high as they are, which suggests his message is truly resonating with voters. Edwards is also the only one who can beat any Republican come November. I believe Edwards is exactly what this country needs now — not a hand-picked celebrity candidate chosen by the corporate establishment and pushed on us by the media.

[…] out DCDownload for more on Edwards’ approach to Feb. 5, and Missouri’s possible place in […]

It seems like an appropriate time for America to decide that perhaps the two bickering children in the sandbox need to relinquish their shovels and pails, as they are demonstrating an inability to conduct themselves with any maturity, dignity, class, or integrity. If we turn our heads and pretend not to pay attention, we’ll find ourselves with a super-vulnerable Democratic presidential candidate who is primed to lose to his or her Republican counterpart. We then will find ourselves shaking our heads yet again when we have a continuation of what we have in office at the present time.

We have options, despite the fact that the media quite overtly attempts to displace, minimize, or downright remove them from our awareness. It’s time for Democrats to consider supporting someone who will unite, rather than divide, the party-and someone who can handle and conduct himself presidentially.

John Edwards is extending this effort. It’s the least we can do to pay attention and consider it. Taking it a step further and supporting him as a candidate may be the most productive, assisting, and healing step for America’s future, reputation, and accountability on many levels.

It is time to stop voting for who we are told by the media are the forgone conclusions or “winners.” This is a marathon, not a sprint-and John Edwards is the candidate who is in place to represent us well and go “the distance!”

First, there is no Saturday January 14 in 2008 - so what the heck are you talking about. I forgot that compassionate John Edwards did buy out his Republican neighbors who lived across the street in trailers because they couldn’t stand him and Elizabeth coundn’t bear living across the street from them in her 15,000 square foot mansion. What compassion! Is that John’s employer Fortress Investments that threw the New Orleans Katrina victims out of their homes - such compassion again from Johnnie.

Bill, this is what you should be reporting letting Matt F. at Presidential Buzz do the election news:

Buying Forgiveness
By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, January 14, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Environment: The Federal Trade Commission is taking a close look at the carbon offset industry with a series of hearings, but it shouldn’t take much scrutiny to find out that it’s a scam.

The carbon-offset business is not actually about mitigating the effects of greenhouse gas emissions and the global warming they allegedly cause. It’s about psychological massages. It allows willing dupes and those who’ve been driven to guilt by the environmental lobby a chance to redeem themselves.

Then there are the trendy Americans. For them, the offsets provide a reason to celebrate their moral superiority because they can think that they’re canceling the carbon footprint they’ve left by driving SUVs and large luxury cars, living in energy-swilling homes and jetting around the world.

For business, its about acquiring an “environmental halo,” if we may borrow a fitting phrase from a New York Times story covering the FTC’s examination of the carbon-offset trade.

In the carbon-offset scheme — cleverly called the “21st century’s answer to the 16th-century practice of selling indulgences for sins” by California state Assemblyman Chuck DeVore — an individual, group or company can purchase an offset for their CO2 emissions. Utilities, multinational corporations and firms set up to do nothing but market offsets sell them for between $5 and $50 per ton of CO2 emitted. The World Bank reckoned last year that this relatively new business has turned into a $100 million global industry.

Often the buyers pay for the planting of trees, which breathe in CO2 and thus neutralize the carbon emissions that buyers pump into the atmosphere. But increasingly, their dollars are — supposedly — used to invest in renewable energy development such as wind, solar and hydroelectric power or in energy-conserving technology.

Their dollars are also used for political influence. Or maybe just to line the pockets of those who have taken advantage of a crisis created by a green lobby that was forced to switch to global warming as an issue because environmental improvements over the last 35 years were making it irrelevant.

The point, though, is that it’s hard to verify that the money being spent on offsets is actually mitigating the amount of CO2.

However, at least a buyer has an idea of where his money is going. To atone for the CO2 spit out by his energy-draining manor in Tennessee and his frequent junkets on private jets, which are among the worst carbon emitters, Al Gore buys his offsets through Generation Investment Management. It’s a corporation of which he just happens to be chairman and co-founder.

A Generation Investment Management spokesman said Gore does not profit from others buying offsets, yet his situation reminds us of an old and successful business model: work people into a lather over a speculative fear and then start a company from which the frightened and the image-conscious will buy what they believe to be solutions that will fix the problem.

Yes, environmentalism is green, like the color of U.S. currency.

While the FTC is holding hearings on carbon offsets, maybe someone with governmental authority will probe into cap-and-trade systems. In these arrangements, companies are able to increase their emissions beyond their government-mandated cap by buying emission permits from other businesses.

Trouble is, it can be a wealth redistribution mechanism that does little or nothing to cut emissions. Thriving — and politically unfavorable — companies that can’t do business within their caps will buy permits from sclerotic — and politically connected — companies whose emissions would never reach the cap. Where’s the net decrease?

But then, for eco-activists it’s all about perceptions. Their real goal is to shackle capitalism. Any real benefits to the environment are both unlikely and incidental.

Do not allow the corporate media to determine our candidate through their blackout, biased reporting, and attempted marginalization of the Edwards campaign and message. It is very encouraging for me to see that so many Americans realize what is going on. Let’s stick together and keep making noise about it!!!