View Story | 1033 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
That Edwards supporters are anti-Hillary. They are not.
Give us something to vote for instead of platitudes and fancy words.
Obama doesn't know whats coming with the rethugs. He is naive if he thinks nice talk is going to bring Rethugs to our side.
They killed a little girl.
Obama is out of touch.
by GunLovinDem on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 08:53:48 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
if he dropped out, most of his supporters would go to Obama.
by fatcatnichols on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 08:57:44 PM PDT
I haven't made up my mind either, and I never thought I'd say that.
I don't trust either of them, so my dilema is which is the most trustworthy of the two.
I don't have that problem with Edwards.
A ship adrift in a sea of rhetoric & recycled clichés.
by Terre on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 09:01:30 PM PDT
I still have time to consider, and see how events unfold. CA is still a few weeks off.
The fundamental problem I have with the two media favorites is simple: I do not believe you can argue for the things this country needs by standing in the "middle", especially since it has been shifted so far to the right.
How did/do the 'Publicans go about getting the opportunity to fuck everything up? They say it, over and over... "You are wrong, I am right, and not only are you wrong, but you are un-American, and Gawd hates you." And not only do they work their asses off to make themselves look right, even if it means making shit up, but they will spend their last ounce of energy to make us look wrong.
So, I want someone who, like myself, is willing to tell the wingers that they are WRONG, they are completely wrong, and they are bad for America.
This country deserves no less than to fight back against these assholes.
The pendulum needs to swing back, and it needs to swing back a long, long way. I am sick of the Republicuns having more than their fair share of power, simply because they were willing to take it, and the "loyal opposition" was willing to let them.
-- malkin (mal·kin) -noun British Dialect. 1. an untidy woman; slattern. 2. a scarecrow, ragged puppet, or grotesque effigy.
by Fast Bike on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 09:41:56 PM PDT
Join us and vote for Edwards!!
Support Ryan for Kentucky!! http://www.actblue.com/page/americansforryan
by RDemocrat on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:21:41 PM PDT
and I am giving him more money, also. Something pretty drastic would have to happen to change my mind, I'm sure.
I was just kind of thinking out loud... who else would I vote for? I really don't think there is anyone else.
by Fast Bike on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:34:24 PM PDT
Vote for the candidate you like.
"We were using techniques the Koreans had specifically developed in order to prepare prisoners for show trials." -- p. 278, Spook Country, William Gibson
by agoldnyc on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:13:42 PM PDT
are very much lower after tonight. We're still a longshot, but I think at least we're impacting the debate. It's fun watching Obama and Hillary squirm to get our support.
The Jed Report | Barack Obama for President
by JedReport on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:15:17 PM PDT
Didn't know if you supported JRE or not. Glad we are on the same team!!
by RDemocrat on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:36:12 PM PDT
Maybe the first thing he was wrong about, or maybe he was playing politics?
Who knows, but Hillary is no slouch. There is a reason its called "The Clinton Machine".
Obama is untested, I think the GOP will crush him and I am not willing to roll the dice.
Edwards is the most electable in the General, and he has the best positions. Ill stick with him till he drops out.
by GunLovinDem on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 09:03:54 PM PDT
If the GOP could crush him, they would have in 2004. They best they could come up with is his name rhymes with Osama, he did drugs in high school, and he was seen without a flag lapel pin. Obama will win a landslide in November.
"I'm going to be on you like a numerator on a denominator." -Principal Skinner
by dufffbeer on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 09:36:30 PM PDT
Out of curiosity, why would they have crushed Obama in 2004 when he had zero political capital and zero relevance to the presidential race? Attacks only come to big fish and Obama will certainly face his fair share of attacks if he does win the nomination.
This is my blog. It's ok.
by losingcalifornia on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 09:44:13 PM PDT
After his original GOP opponent dropped out late over a sex scandal.
So, untested.
by GunLovinDem on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 09:59:59 PM PDT
And Hillary's the safe choice?
by bflaff on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:29:12 PM PDT
Hillary can fight. Obama's only about "can't we all just get along".
Nope, as an Edwards supporter, my second choice is Hillary.
by grapeshot on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:42:00 PM PDT
by GunLovinDem on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:55:23 PM PDT
by Hounds on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 05:21:19 AM PDT
If I abandon Edwards, there's a very strong chance it will be in order to vote for Clinton, not for Obama.
I imagine I'm far from alone in that sentiment.
Obama has not impressed me in recent weeks.
"I do not equate my oppression with the oppression of blacks and Latinos. You can't. It is not the same struggle, but it is one struggle." Bob Kohler
by dedmonds on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 09:26:32 PM PDT
We are both progressives and Democrats, John and I, and we will vote Democratic in the general election.
I'm the plowman in the valley - with my face full of mud
by labradog on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 09:54:15 PM PDT
of casting my primary vote for anyone but Edwards; I was more taking issue with the assumption of the diary that if I were to, it would be for Obama.
by dedmonds on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:31:58 PM PDT
...he's in it all the way to the convention. So I am, too. I have no concern that JRE may drop out, necessitating my making another choice.
I've had enough info to make my choice for many months, now.
And, did I mention that I'll be voting Democratic in November?
So, Edwards in the primary, Democrat in November!
by labradog on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:42:14 PM PDT
Honestly, as an Edwards fan myself, I know that Edwards has no chance of winning this thing.
None. Zip. Not. Gonna. Happen.
That out of the way, I'll be voting Democratic in November, for sure. For Hillary or Obama. On Super Tuesday, I'll be voting for Obama, because Edwards has no chance and I'd rather have Obama than Clinton. I'm effectively treating this like participating in the Iowa caucus, and throwing the vote to my favorite among the ones with a shot. This is a decision I reached a few weeks ago.
Now the diarist predicts that if Edwards were to drop out, it would help Obama. On balance, I agree. That's my reading, and I'm entitled to it, as the diarist is to theirs. But the only reading that matters here is John Edwards'. If he doesn't have a preference between Obama and Clinton, then he should stay in the race and emphasize his message for the duration. If he does have a preference, and he thinks it matters to the future of the country, then he should make whatever decision he thinks will benefit the country most. And that includes dropping out if he thinks that will help the candidate he thinks would be best for the country.
Edwards knows it's not about any individual, or any three. It's about the future, and if there's one thing I trust about Edwards, it's that he'll make his decisions for the greater good.
how can i turn italics off in my signature?
by fightcentristbias on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:51:10 PM PDT
Hillary Clinton is the Corporatist and K Street-appeaser in this race. She is willing to favor multinational corporations rather than American consumers, American working families, and American taxpayers. She voted for Kyl-Lieberman and the thought of a U.S. invasion of Iran does not seem to bother her enough.
I prefer Obama's emphasis on diplomacy and direct negotiation with other nations to Clinton's wanting to appear slightly hawkish to those pundits in the United States who are constantly beating the drums of war.
I would love to see a woman President but Hillary is not the one for me. Rather, Hillary is Rupert Murdock's choice for the one he would like for Republicans to run against. The Republican propagandists and Fox News believe they can bring more Republicans to the polls if they are running against Hillary.
-4.75, -5.33 Cheney 10/05/04: "I have not suggested there is a connection between Iraq and 9/11."
by sunbro on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 07:03:29 AM PDT
Cause he used the phrase "trial lawyer" in a sentence?
Those absurd criticisms of Obama came to this and other blogs via the Hillary campaign's netroots outreach department (I think, I'm more than willing to stand corrected if wrong).
I'm not crazy about his postpartisan rhetoric and his frustrating (but apparently politically useful) vagueness. But he's been doing that for months.
If it's the hits on him that were delivered in the last few weeks that are bugging you, well, Hillary's campaign sent those out to keep the netroots from swinging behind Obama right now. And it worked as of a week ago. We'll see going forward.
by texas dem on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 09:57:44 PM PDT
it's that the more I listen to him, the less I like him. He's vague. I don't like his take on how to deal with healthcare. I don't like that he wants to include the insurance industry on discussions of healthcare, or how he handled the Donnie McClurkin incident.
I often just feel like he's an empty suit, that he's not appreciably more progressive than Clinton, and that he'll be a less able fighter than she will be.
I strongly prefer Edwards to both of them, but the decision between the two of them is far from an automatic "I'll vote Obama" for me. Very far.
So for the time being, I'll stick with the one candidate I'm passionate about, thank you very much. If I decide to leave him, it may well be to add another vote for Clinton, not for Obama.
by dedmonds on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:06:41 PM PDT
make up my own mind who to support. And if Edwards doesn't get the nod, then I am going for Hillary. Been around the track too long to send a first-time starter to the Derby. Doesn't work with people either. Experience counts. It counts a lot. And Obama just doesn't have it. Neither does Edwards, actually, but he at least has served one entire term in the Senate, which Obama hasn't done yet. And I like the way Edwards approaches problems and the solutions he has brought forth for our consideration. I hope that Hillary will adopt some of them when she gets into office.
What happens when Bush takes Viagra? he gets taller. Robin Williams
by Demfem on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 09:37:02 PM PDT
edwards (and clinton) certainly must have learned a ton in those extra, uh, 2 years in the senate.
if only the election was in 2010, then BHO would be awesome.
experience!
John McCain Defends Bush's Iraq Strategy.
by jethropalerobber on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:01:21 PM PDT
Good thought, Jethro. Badger us, stalk us, hound us, I'll bet you even know where our kids go to school, don't you?
We're just a bunch of ninnies, but some fool gave us the vote so I guess you have to lower yourself to seek to turn those votes to Obama, eh?
[Hint: Try bribery. I, for one, could sure use an extra $1000 this week.]
You kids behave or I'm turning this universe around RIGHT NOW! - god
by Clem Yeobright on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:10:04 PM PDT
...i haven't been trying to convert anyone.
i was just responding to one poster who said something really stupid.
by jethropalerobber on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:36:58 PM PDT
and read the title of this diary ....
Better?
by Clem Yeobright on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:38:16 PM PDT
by jethropalerobber on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 08:41:07 AM PDT
an alias for him has occurred to me too ....
by Clem Yeobright on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 09:11:30 AM PDT
but it doesn't matter. Edwards is not dropping out. And neither are we.
"The Power to change this party, and the power to change this country is in your hands, not mine." - Gov. Howard Dean, MD
by deaniac83 on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 09:59:25 PM PDT
Don't like XOM and OPEC? What have YOU done to reduce your oil consumption? Hot air does NOT constitute a renewable resource!
by Asak on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:02:47 PM PDT
Not necessarily.
See this from the Iowa entrance poll:
E16 O40 C24 Very Liberal E25 O36 C25 Somewhat Liberal E22 033 C31 Moderate E42 O21 C22 Conservative
In other words, and I can't say why, but a whole lot of voters are gravitating to Edwards for reasons other that his progressive positions. If he drops out, his supporters WILL NOT migrate to Obama en masse. If he truly believes Obama is a better alternative than Clinton and wants to help him out, he stays in through to the Convention, and directs his delegates to vote for Obama.
"'Politics' is made up of two words. 'Poli,' which is Greek for 'many,' and 'tics,' which are bloodsucking insects." --Gore Vidal
by Illissius on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:07:14 PM PDT
I posted this on another thread. They tried to get a urban/rural split, but didn't take into consideration geography (counties nearer to Illinois, precincts with large college towns, rural areas that only get satellite (no political ads) TV), etc., etc., etc. Previous polling shows Edwards fairly consistantly pulling 7-8 % conservative and much stronger liberal and moderate. And how do you poll a caucus...upon entering...you have no way of knowing HOW those people actually ended up voting.
Edwards' policies will lift a LOT of folks...not just liberal Dems, out of misery...so he appeals to folks across the political spectrum...when they get to hear his message. And lets face it, a LOT of people are just plain angry about the direction this country is going...they support the candidate they think identifies with them. Finally, Edwards' rural revitalization plan resonated with a LOT of farmers and rural business folks, who generally self-identify as 'conservative' mostly because the Dem Party writes off the rural areas.
by DemSandy on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:08:03 PM PDT
...big MoE for some of those subgroups. Very big.
by JedReport on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:16:54 PM PDT
All the specifics are laid out right there. Renewable energy, better and cheaper health care, getting us out of Iraq. The guy is a hard core liberal progressive. Just cause he doesn't try to rile up the base with red meat doesn't mean he's not gonna be a fighter for us in the White House.
Obama is the real deal, and Republicans are afraid of running against him. They'd love to go up against Hillary, but know they would be pummeled by Obama.
Edwards really needed to win Iowa, especially after campaigning there since 2003. I think he's done, and his supporters need to decide if they want change with Obama or more triangulation and compromise with Hillary.
Old Man McCain.com - the best anti-McCain blog on the web!
by existenz on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 09:02:04 PM PDT
He post them on his website then talks about Hope and no red states and no blue states.
PUSH OUR AGENDA
Or get the hell out of the way.
Americans are not going to check websites, we need an advocate, a fighter. We need someone to move the football, not run the Booster Club.
by GunLovinDem on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 09:06:39 PM PDT
GunLovinDem. I see Edwards as the only agent of change. Hillary at least brings a lot of competent people who have run the Executive Branch before with her.
I am with Edwards all the way though!! These colors don't run, and they don't change!!
by RDemocrat on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 09:09:40 PM PDT
cannot make change unless he wins. which looks extremely unlikely. wouldn't you rather throw your support to the only other candidate that edwards himself has identified as an agent of change?
by emilymv on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 09:18:36 PM PDT
Make my own choices. I don't care what Edwards said I only see one change candidate, him. I trust people like Wes Clark and Madeline Albright that Clinton would bring with her. Not all of us hate the Clintons. He was the best President in my lifetime.
by RDemocrat on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 09:30:46 PM PDT
Obama has already blown the biggest dose of momentum I've ever seen, quitting now and going over to Obama makes no sense unless you like what he has to offer. I don't, and don't intend to stop trying to get Edwards elected until he quits. The reason has little to do with him, I support him because he says things that are true and no one else is saying. Can't quit on that and run to Obama, there is a reason he's gotten so much big money.
"I said, 'Wait a minute, Chester, you know I'm a peaceful man.'" Robbie Robertson
by NearlyNormal on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 09:45:15 PM PDT
has taken up a union slogan We can do it. Si se puede.
Do you really think he would have chosen a union slogan if he wasn't trying to lure Edwards supporters to his side? Edwards should stay in and at the very least we'll see his talk about corporations and unions get wider audiences just because Clinton and Obama want to get Edwards supporters to his side.
Another reason for Edwards to stay in is that the media may very well accomplish what they attempted in New Hampshire and take down either Clinton or Obama. If the Obama supporters here who are so devoutedly trying to cut short the process actually get their wish they may end up with Clinton being the only candidate because there is no one but her left in the race.
One other point is that the earlier this primary on our side ends the earlier we lose coverage of our nominee. If we have an early coronation of Obama while the Republicans are still fussing over their primary the press will give us crumbs of coverage while hovering over every word the Repub candidates spew. Just think of it. Months of Repub candidates selling their lies and savaging our nominee while our side is virtually blacked out. Think of the treatment Edwards has gotten from the press. Want that to be the coverage for months? Well that's what you're asking for with this strategy. You may get Obama as the nominee only to have him completely destroyed by the right wing attack machine before he even gets a chance to get to the GE.
Wishes are sometimes dangerous.
...that cannot be a wise contrivance which in its operation may commit the government of a nation to the wisdom of an idiot. Thomas Paine Rights of Man
by Rebecca on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:04:55 PM PDT
is that the longer time we take to select our eventual candidate, the less time the Republicans have to prepare their attacks, and the less chance there is for our candidate to get lazy.
To use a sports analogy, you can either play hard all the way up to the end of the season, or you can dial back, rest your regulars, then have a tough time gearing up for the playoffs. (You can ask the Tampa Bay Buccaneers fans about that.) And remember how many of us questioned Ned Lamont's decision to take a vacation after winning the primary, instead of jumping directly into the general election campaign.
A long primary fight in the long run toughens up the eventual candidate and forces them to solidify their positions, which is only to the good in the general election. It's been so long since we've actually had a competitive primary on either side that we've forgotten how the system is supposed to work -- this is the first year since I'm not sure when (1968?) that you don't have either an incumbent President or a sitting Vice President in the primaries on either side. Plus, a long primary campaign allows for a thorough vetting of the candidates, to make sure there are no skeletons in their closets that the Republicans can later use to their advantage.
I don't want anyone to get the nomination on a silver platter -- I want the best possible candidate regardless of race or gender, and I want one who's been tried by fire through the primary process.
"Old soldiers never die -- they get young soldiers killed." -- Bill Maher
by Cali Scribe on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 05:40:14 AM PDT
by Rebecca on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:18:39 AM PDT
He definitely can influence issues and our platform.
Democrats give you the Bill of Rights; Republicans sell you a bill of goods!
by barbwires on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 02:51:23 AM PDT
by NearlyNormal on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 09:42:43 PM PDT
That's one of the reasons I like him.
I don't know about Obama. Hillary sure as heck loves gun control.
I'm sticking with Edwards until he either wins, drops out or forces a brokered convention. I'm going to give up on him.
by Rex Manning on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:15:24 PM PDT
Damn.
by Rex Manning on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:16:26 PM PDT
Yeah, I've heard it from some folks too in the purple state that I live in.
Life goes on, and we both continue to support the candidate that we believe in.
by NotGeorgeWill on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:16:40 PM PDT
We lived through the Hilllary-Is-Inevitable" happy horseshit and *"Obama-Is-Inevitable"* happy horseshit so now we stay strong for Edwards.
Because, as I type this, the economy is going into the crapper due to the VICIOUS economic policies of the Repiglicans. Everybody got that? We're ALL gonna get hurt.
And, who do the Repig moneythugs and Wall Street sharks like Alan Greenspan hate and fear most?
Edwards.
That tells me everything I need to know about whom we ALL should be supporting. The entire country is waking up to him. And we should all be falling in behind him as a candidate.
So just stay strong and sooner rather than later we will prevail because:
Edwards is the fighter we need. "Don't judge a man by his friends - judge him by his enemies."
My wise old Greek father taught me this. I have never had reason to doubt this. Ever.
So please stop trying to shove other candidates down our throats.
Efharisto para poli.
You can't always tell the truth because you don't always know the truth - but you can ALWAYS be honest.
by mattman on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:29:00 PM PDT
by inclusiveheart on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 06:23:24 AM PDT
It's in line with FDR's "They hate me, and I welcome their hatred."
Please support .Beyond the Storm: Shadows of the Big Easy
by Magenta on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 06:39:25 AM PDT
...listen to many of those on the right scratch their heads while saying, "I don't agree with him or what he's doing, but I can't bring myself to hate him, either."
by Foodle on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 06:58:10 AM PDT
Why would I go to a candidates website in order to find out that their positions might be? I might actually agree with them! Screw that! I want somebody who sounds pissed off and is going to take it all out on Republicans! Instead of actually getting the change we want accomplished, let's get vengeance!
[/snark]
OBAMA '08 -5.00, -7.18
by doschi on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 12:34:39 AM PDT
You understand don't you that there are specific policies and ideas being put forth by Edwards while Obama's speil seems to be that he is the best person to convince people that his policies are good, but he doesn't focus on the policies themselves when he is talking to audiences - he focuses on the style. It is form leading function - style over substance. I think the difference between the three candidates is the following:
Obama represents inspiration. Clinton represents pragmatism. Edwards brings a hybrid of both inspiration and pragmatism.
It is NOT a logical leap that all Edwards supporters will jump to Obama if the current dynamic remains the same. Meaning that if Obama doesn't tap into Edwards supporters' pragmatic side, Clinton may well capitalize on that void - add in touch of inspiration and get a lot more of that group than you'd think she could. Clinton is really strong on talking about specifics and she has surprisingly IMO taken several concrete positions in this race. Obama has been extremely high-level in his rhetoric. Directing people to his website will not appeal to those of us who know from experience that candidates who don't say what they think on TV - on tape - in front of an audience - are not necessarily trustworthy and certainly aren't advancing the public debate on the issues. When every single household in America has a computer and the usage is such that a website declaration is as accessible as televisions are today, maybe this "go to the website" thing will fly, but not now.
by inclusiveheart on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 06:34:52 AM PDT
I havent heard coming from Obama's mouth what I've seen on his website. Except for the second paragraph on his "Issues" page which is another lets all work together happy thoughts meme which makes me want to barf. I've also looked at specifics of his healthcare plan, and its a lot less universal and pro insurance industry than either Hillary's or Edwards'.
by barbwires on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 02:50:49 AM PDT
are unsure of obama's committment to real change. hell, even his national health care plan is very questionable and would allow health insurers to much power. paul krugman and michael moore have both commented on this plan shortcomings.
hey, the man will promise you the moon ... but he hasnt shown be diddly squat ... plus i dont trust the man. so this edwards supporter would consider hillary long before obama.
How dreadful knowledge of the truth can be when there's no help in the truth. Sophocles, Dedipus Rex
by bamabarrron on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 09:10:35 PM PDT
the block a few times with people who appear to be liberal and have not turned out to be so. Call us "The Show Me State" of the political realm.
by inclusiveheart on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 06:36:52 AM PDT
and I say this as someone who has contributed $750.00 to his campaign. All he will do is split the anti-Hillary vote in SC and NV and on Super Tuesday.He has no chance to win the nomination so why waste time and money.
by Litvak36 on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 09:12:30 PM PDT
Edwards should stay in this race as long as possible as should the other two. It is good for Democracy. All of his supporters WON'T go to Obama because a sizable number of us have Hillary as our second choice now. If you are gonna give up after two states, then your support isn't that great anyway.
by RDemocrat on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 09:20:32 PM PDT
I voted for him then in California not because he was a great progressive (he certainly wasn't back then), but becaause he was the only chance of stopping Kerry who I knew would be a disaster.
And then he dropped out that night and frankly wasn't a very good V-P candidate (though even if he had been it might not of saved Kerry, but it wouldn't have hurt to have crushed Cheney in the debates).
He is more progressive now, and he is a better candidate, but that isn't enough this year. I wish he had stayed in the Senate (the same with Clinton for that matter).
He's on Larry King right now saying the race is wide open, but it isn't. Yes, some of his supporters would vote for Clinton, but most will support Obama.
And I do think that Clinton would be just as much of a disaster as I thought Kerry would be.
She may still win because the Democrats should win this year. But they should have won in 2000 (by a wider margin) and 2004.
But Obama doesn't have her negatives, and he is more progressive.
Tigerbeat | photos
by ari on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 09:45:45 PM PDT
People are going to think more, now. There is just as much of a chance that Edwards will win as anyone else right now. Two states have spoken. I don't get why other states' voters shouldn't be allowed to voice their opinion.
Obama has unknowns. He is untested. He has not been vetted. Edwards national numbers are rising. Edwards is a candidate...not a pawn to fulfill somebody's idea of how the nomination should turn out. He has good ideas. He won a hotly contested red state election. He brings other states into play.
No one is inevitable. People will vote according to their own criteria.
by DemSandy on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 09:54:33 PM PDT
Hasn't been tested or vetted? He's been scrutinized plenty, for months. When Charlie Gibson challenged Hillary at the debate: "OK, so what have we missed on Obama?" she hemmed and hawed and then finally offered up, at the end of a rambling answer, a handful of weak distortions that were easily debunked. There's nothing substantive to hit him with except some vague notion that his words won't translate into results, which is simply another way of saying 'stop offering false hope'. Nuts to that.
TPM has mentioned already that the Clinton oppo on Obama is "embarrassingly" thin, and the Clintons are obviously the ones with the incentive, will, and resources to find anything that's out there. All the Republicans have is loony stuff that any Democrat would be hit with. So what have we missed in the vetting process?
If you're for Edwards, I wouldn't try to talk you out of it. Stay with him. But don't write off Obama because you're worried about making a bold, potentially risky choice. Isn't that what makes Edwards attractive?
by bflaff on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:54:02 PM PDT
Obama wants to be Monty Hall "Lets Make A Deal"
by GunLovinDem on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:59:34 PM PDT
"It's the democracy, stupid".
Edwards is in this until the convention and so am I.
They're all three brilliant and great presidential material. Obama didn't want my vote, and I'm leaning Edwards. But any one of them would be great.
Let the democracy begin!
"Troll-be-gone...apply directly to the asshole. Troll-be-gone...apply directly to the asshole."
by homogenius on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 09:46:17 PM PDT
Edwards is my man, and I'm with him until the end. AND I've put my money where my mouth is, too.
But if he were to quit, then I'd support Hillary before I'd support Obama. She at least has proven experience and knows what it takes to get something done. And she'd bring in a great team.
Obama is far less proven as a fighter, and I don't like how he keeps trying to placate the right.
by grapeshot on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:49:16 PM PDT
Edwards hasn't been in Iowa since 2003. He WAS here in 2003...and off and on in 2004. But he hasn't been living in the state since his first run. He did some fundraising for Braley (a good Dem in Iowa's 1st CD) in 2006. He was in Iowa for a Dem Party fundraiser. But, he's been much too busy to spend all his time in Iowa.
He was in New Orleans working alongside college students to clean out and rebuild homes.
He wasS working with the Poverty Center in NC.
He was campaigning in red states for Dem candidates.
He was helping UNITE HERE get organized and grow.
He was campaigning in OTHER states to raise the minimum wage.
He was in Russia.
He started a pilot of his College for Everyone program in rural NC.
In other words, he's been working his butt off to put as much of his progressive ideas in place as is humanly possible.
by DemSandy on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:19:55 PM PDT
To abandon the "compromise" language, or at least tone it down. Regardless of what motivating factors inspired the voters to choose Hillary in NH, Obama can't continue to try to claim all three mantles of "change", "unity" and "compromise," because the simple fact is that's what he's trying to do. He should dump the "three wishes," and start addressing the problems we face directly in his rhetoric.
Slap happy is a platform.
by averageyoungman on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 06:09:03 AM PDT
I'm an Edwards supporter and I consider Hillary a Liebercrat
by nemoplanetia on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 09:04:53 PM PDT
What you think is fine, but in fact Obama is under LIEbermans wing.
by GunLovinDem on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 09:07:35 PM PDT
Ya, Obama really is a "centrist".
by demer on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 09:13:35 PM PDT
Not even the Senator who co-sponsored his Iraq War Resolution doesn't deserves to be associated with Joe.
by Partially Impartial on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 09:18:09 PM PDT
as a "mentor" to teach him the rules and procedures of the Senate. That's all the mentorship is. Nothing to do with ideology.
Latte-sipping, Prius-driving, arugula-eating elitists for Obama.
by democrattotheend on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 09:22:34 PM PDT
Who campaigned for Lieberman against Lamont?
by DemSandy on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 09:56:59 PM PDT
by texas dem on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:00:44 PM PDT
by GunLovinDem on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:16:43 PM PDT
election
by cheforacle on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:46:22 PM PDT
he made no appearance in Connecticut and gave nothing but lukewarm lip service to the campaign.
I don't dislike Obama, but his MIA in that very important Senate race made me wonder then and now what this guy really believes in and what he's willing to fight for.
Yes. There ARE progressive Democrats in Alabama. Visit with us at Left in Alabama
by countrycat on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 04:55:31 AM PDT
Hilary's chief campaign strategist ran the Lieberman campaign. But she's OK apparently.
Actually Richard Lugar was one of Obama's mentors, but I know "they all look the same".
by NotGeorgeWill on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:18:16 PM PDT
Obama is his own man. Period.
Ignorance:A willful neglect or refusal to acuire knowledge;the state of being uneducated or uninformed.
by charm city on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 07:09:10 AM PDT
even JRE supporters are not monolithic.
by hedgey on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 09:57:28 PM PDT
Most Edwards supporters I know are not HRC supporters. Most will probably vote for her in the general, but they will not support her until they are basically threatened with McCain or one of those other Bozo's as the other choice. Of course I can not speak for
