Edwards On Nevada Loss: I'm In This Until The End, For The Sake Of Middle Class
As others have noted, one of the big stories of the night is the disappointing finish of John Edwards, who came in with less than 5%. Here's the statement just out from the Edwards campaign, in full:
“Congratulations to Senator Clinton for her win in Nevada. Our campaign is very grateful to all those who demonstrated the loyalty and dedication to stand up for John Edwards in the face of very difficult circumstances and long odds, including our brothers and sisters in Nevada from the Carpenters, Steelworkers, Transport Workers, and Communications Workers of America.“John Edwards is the underdog in this campaign, facing two $100 million candidates. But that is nothing compared to the real underdogs in our country – working men and women, middle class families, and all those who have no voice in Washington.
“John Edwards is in this race to fight for the real underdogs and to make sure the voices of the American people are heard in Washington, not the special interests. That’s why he’s the only candidate in this race who has never taken a dime from PACs or Washington lobbyists; the only candidate who will ban corporate lobbyists from his White House; and the only candidate who is honest enough to say we are in a fight for our country and we need to take on the special interests if we are going to have a country that works for hard-working families and the middle class.
“The race to the nomination is a marathon and not a sprint, and we’re committed to making sure the voices of all the voters in the remaining 47 states are heard. The nomination won’t be decided by win-loss records, but by delegates, and we’re ready to fight for every delegate. Saving the middle class is going to be an epic battle, and that’s a fight John Edwards is ready for.”
Comments (89)
Seth H. wrote on January 19, 2008 6:28 PM:So I would really appreciate it if he realized he can't win this. Excuse me, rather I'd appreciate it if he made it clear that he realizes that by dropping out of the race because there's no way he's stupid enough to think he someone can pull this off. He's a third wheel, as it were. I like the guy, I tend to like his supporters, but enough already.
Seth H. wrote on January 19, 2008 6:30 PM:I don't know how a stray 'someone' got into that last comment... Don't let it throw you off.
xargaw wrote on January 19, 2008 6:31 PM:I like John Edwards, but he is rapidly becoming the Ralph Nadar of 2000. It is sad to see because his selfish ego is draining votes from Obama, a candidate that truly is the movement Edwards wanted to be.
Tom wrote on January 19, 2008 6:34 PM:It looks like there was a late break away from him in Nevada. Polls last week had him at 25-27% and he steadily lost support before coming in around 8% today.
It's getting harder to defend him staying in the race. South Carolina might be his last stand.
unclemike wrote on January 19, 2008 6:36 PM:Selfish ego? Give me a break. John Edwards has every right to vie to the nomination.
Dan wrote on January 19, 2008 6:36 PM:His argument is that he is driving the issues and keeping the working class in the headlines. The problem is, soon people will stop paying attention to you.
But hey, if he can throw his delegates to Obama (is it really just up to him?) then maybe he should stick around.
phil james wrote on January 19, 2008 6:37 PM:Who exactly is being hurt if Edwards stays in the race?
Tom wrote on January 19, 2008 6:41 PM:Edwards is being hurt by it. When he loses like this, it damages his political reputation. He's still young enough to continue on in politics if he loses, so he has to think about that.
amberglow wrote on January 19, 2008 6:41 PM:this rush to narrow the field is disgusting--let us Super Tues millions vote at the very least.
It's bad enough that the media ignores everyone except Hillary and Obama.
Jim wrote on January 19, 2008 6:42 PM:
I like John Edwards, but he is rapidly becoming the Ralph Nadar of 2000. It is sad to see because his selfish ego is draining votes from Obama, a candidate that truly is the movement Edwards wanted to be.
Don't bet on it, Larry O'Donnell. I'm an Edwards supporter, Obama second. But the demographics and the polls and whatnot suggest that most Edwards supporters would break for Clinton.
adding.... "Ralph Nader"? How does Edwards staying in the primary case throw the general to the Republicans?
sebs wrote on January 19, 2008 6:43 PM:I can't agree with the comparison of Edwards to Nader. Nader was throwing the race when the race was between one guy who clearly would go on to be a good or great president and one guy who would clearly go on to be a disastrous catastrophe. Edwards knows this race is going to end up brokered in the convention. He can always throw his support to Obama then. But even if he really was throwing the race to Hillary, who cares? Policy wise, Edwards is closer to Clinton than Obama. Both Obama or Clinton will be pretty good presidents. Both Obama and Clinton raise the same concerns of being "too cozy with the dark side of the force". So I think Edwards should keep on. At least he is helping keep the other two honest. And maybe he can extort some progressive compromises from one of them at the convention.
mrsubjunctive wrote on January 19, 2008 6:45 PM:What exactly is it that makes anybody think Obama would be Edwards' supporters second choice? I caucused in Iowa for Edwards, and if he's not it, I like Hillary better. Really not impressed with Obama, and I'm unclear what exactly it is that everybody else finds so awesome.
franklyn wrote on January 19, 2008 6:45 PM:I just watch MSNBC's interview with all 3 Dem campaign managers and it was revealed that yes, Hillary won NV but Obama won the majority delegates? how come Hillary didint win the majority delegates?
Steve wrote on January 19, 2008 6:46 PM:Sadly, John Edwards is foolish and his results are backing up that notion. He's starting to get Bill Richardson numbers and he still won't give up. Man, when some people don't get it, they really don't get it!
Tom wrote on January 19, 2008 6:54 PM:Yes, it looks like Obama actually won the most delegates in Nevada.
I think this is because of the way they are assigned based on where you win.
As the Hillary people were saying before New Hampshire, in the end this is a delegate fight.
Lisa wrote on January 19, 2008 6:55 PM:I am an Obama supporter and not opposed to Edwards staying in the race for now. If Edwards does not win the nomination and subsequently chooses to support Obama, then 100% of his delegates would go to Obama, if Edwards endorsed him. If Edwards were to exit the race now, then any delegates that he is currently accumulating will be split among Obama and Clinton. In states with primaries, rather than caucuses, this is particularly important, since the delegates are allocated based upon vote totals rather than the number of precincts won (you can lose 100% of them by a whisker and walk away with nothing). The key issue here is timing - if Edwards stays in too long and allows Hillary to gain too much momentum, then the aforementioned strategy will not work and he'll miss his shot at another run for the VP spot.
hadenough wrote on January 19, 2008 6:58 PM:I guess edwards sticking is more good news for obama. You know how edwards takes voters from Hillry. Just think how much worse the obama loses would have been.
And greg you should check out cnn. They are way ahead of you. They already have the 'This win is bad news for Hillary' story. You're slipping.
jim wrote on January 19, 2008 6:59 PM:John would make a fantastic president, but he continues running, he's guaranteeing Hillary the Democratic presidential slot (and likely guaranteeing Romney the presidency). Is this a good move for the middle class?
Or would it best serve the working class with Edwards as an Obama VP or AG?
Ideals are great, but if real life gets in the way, recognize it and make the best.
Its about the future stupid wrote on January 19, 2008 7:01 PM:So many think he drains votes from obama, which i believe is not the case at all. A large percentage of his votes are middle class white males, which hillary scores higher on than obama. This whole B.S. that comes from obama supporters that anyone who votes against hillary, somehow, would never vote for her, thats wrong and rather stupid.
phil james wrote on January 19, 2008 6:37 PM:
Who exactly is being hurt if Edwards stays in the race?
Nobody that i can see is being hurt, on super tuesday i look for edwards to be in play in many states that obama will not have any chance at being competitive in. So whose votes would he be taking there, most of the obama supporters on this thread have no clue on most anything they talk about and rely on stupid trash talking on the other canidates, i hate to say it but its true.
Monty wrote on January 19, 2008 7:03 PM:I like John Edwards, but he is rapidly becoming the Ralph Nadar of 2000. It is sad to see because his selfish ego is draining votes from Obama, a candidate that truly is the movement Edwards wanted to be.
Obama is a freak; he's running as a black Ronald Reagan.
Edwards is done. A shame, because he's far and away my favorite. Inasmuch I disagree with Clinton on most her policy points, Obama is far worse; his beautific rhetoric is gold-plated crap. I find him truly disturbing.
But in the end, whoever wins the Dem nomination is far, far better than the jokers proffered from the other side.
Lisa wrote on January 19, 2008 7:05 PM:Jim - I think that Edwards would make a terrific VP. He is an excellent speaker/debater and shares with Obama the same type of commitment to the middle-class and a lack of "sleaziness" for lack of a better word. Billary on the other hand....
Lisa wrote on January 19, 2008 7:10 PM:To "it's about the future..."
In defense of Obama supporters, they happen to be the ones with the highest education level of all 3 Democratic candidates' supporters.
Oh, and Monty, you sound like one of those racist types that not only deny to others that they are racist, but can't even admit it to themselves because they typically find some sort of rationalization. Pity.
Jenny wrote on January 19, 2008 7:12 PM:The reason Obama got more delegates is because the 9 extra precincts on the Las Vegas strip (culinary worker land) were weighted more heavily. Even though Obama did not win in all of these extra caucas sites the ones that he did win in gave him extra delegates.
ikl wrote on January 19, 2008 7:24 PM:Obama supporters, wake up. Edwards supporters on liberal blogs are not representative of Edwards supporters in the general public.
Look at the polls for SC. Edwards will take white votes which would otherwise probably go for Clinton since she leads among whites. Edwards staying in could allow Obama to win if he gets a big majority among blacks and stays at least somewhat competitive among whites. I suspect that the same would go for at least Georgia, Alabama. Edwards could also take away votes from Clinton in Oklahoma. So it is almost certainly to Obama's advantage for Edwards to say in it for the short term. After Super Tuesday, things may change - it is too early to say what the race will look like if there still is a race. But for now, Edwards should be helpful to Obama.
Also, if nobody gets the magic number of delegates, I doubt that Edwards will try to steer his delegates to Clinton. I don't get the sense that he likes the Clintons too much. This is something to keep in mind.
So please don't bash Edwards and don't complain that he's harming Obama's chances. It's not fair and it's probably not true. And its not what the Obama campaign stands for. Be nice to his supporters, even if you don't feel like it. We might need their votes.
Its about the future stupid wrote on January 19, 2008 7:27 PM:Lisa wrote on January 19, 2008 7:10 PM:
To "it's about the future..."
In defense of Obama supporters, they happen to be the ones with the highest education level of all 3 Democratic candidates' supporters.
I agree lisa, but on this tread there seems to be a viscous attitude among a large group of obama supporters here, by no means am i talking about ALL of his supporters, there are many i enjoy reading, Greg Delarerus (sorry about the spelling of your last name greg) is one i respect alot. Its just my opinion. Don't wanna bash sen. obama or many of the good people that follow him. Just seems to me some of the trash talking doesn't jive with sen. obamas message.
Monty wrote on January 19, 2008 7:28 PM:Oh, and Monty, you sound like one of those racist types that not only deny to others that they are racist, but can't even admit it to themselves because they typically find some sort of rationalization. Pity.
Clearly, I'm a racist because I don't support the black candidate.
More fuel for you: Condi Rice & Colin Powell suck. Louis Farrakhan and Robert Mugabe suck even worse. If Idi Amin were alive, he'd suck.
I'd write more, but am busy burning all my Bob Marley/George Clinton/Taj Mahal cds.
figgypuddin wrote on January 19, 2008 7:28 PM:OH BOY get ready for a week of name calling Edwards as a spoiler. God forbid we actually have a race not demolished by the media for a few months. Fast Food Nation with ADD can't stand to learn and get through a political season without it being reduced to simplest terms ASAP--god forbid we give ourselves time to think about message and the best outcome for the long-term.
LP wrote on January 19, 2008 7:28 PM:Yes, Edwards will stay in for the long haul... just like Bill Richardson stayed in the race until Super Tuesday.
framecop wrote on January 19, 2008 7:35 PM:First of all, Edwards getting out of the race would help Clinton more than Obama.
Most of Edwards' lost support in New Hampshire went to Clinton.
Most of Edwards' lost support in Nevada went to Clinton, not Obama.
In one recent national poll, they included Edwards, and then took him out, and most of his support went to Clinton, who increased her lead to around 54% to 45% over Obama.
OBAMA CANNOT DEFEAT CLINTON ONE ON ONE. The only thing he did by even running, like I said from the beginning, was prevent Edwards from stopping Clinton.
If you want to thank anyone for Clinton getting nominated, thank Barack Obama, because he should have waited until 2016, and not run this time like he said he wasn't going to.
Edwards would have destroyed Clinton, because he would have gotten Obama's money and Obama's buzz. The media wasn't going to pay attention to Edwards with Obama and Clinton both in the race, and that sucked the resources out of the Edwards campaign.
Now, Clinton will be the nominee, because Obama can't defeat her head to head, and the more Edwards looks unable to win the nomination, the more his support will peal off and go to Clinton, ANYWAY.
Thanks for blowing it, Barack.
framecop wrote on January 19, 2008 7:45 PM:ikl said:
Obama supporters, wake up. Edwards supporters on liberal blogs are not representative of Edwards supporters in the general public.
On the Democratic Underground and MyDD (don't know about kos), when they poll Edwards supporters and ask who they would support if Edwards drops out, most always say, "CLINTON", so I'd say at least on those sites, they are like the General Public.
Look at the polls for SC. Edwards will take white votes which would otherwise probably go for Clinton since she leads among whites. Edwards staying in could allow Obama to win if he gets a big majority among blacks and stays at least somewhat competitive among whites. I suspect that the same would go for at least Georgia, Alabama. Edwards could also take away votes from Clinton in Oklahoma. So it is almost certainly to Obama's advantage for Edwards to say in it for the short term. After Super Tuesday, things may change - it is too early to say what the race will look like if there still is a race. But for now, Edwards should be helpful to Obama.
Clearly you have a functioning BRAIN, while some of the other kneejerkers out there, clearly do not. Obama cannot defeat Clinton one on one. Edwards could have, but Democrats decided that they wanted Clinton by going the OBAMA NOVELTY instead of the oft victorious southern Democratic populist.
Also, if nobody gets the magic number of delegates, I doubt that Edwards will try to steer his delegates to Clinton. I don't get the sense that he likes the Clintons too much. This is something to keep in mind.
Exactly. Edwards would send his delegates to Obama. Even if he endorses Obama, most of his supporters will still go to Clinton, or there will be a split, which is still to Clinton's favor, because Obama's never going to get the majority of the LATINO VOTE against Clinton. Latinos and Blacks don't seem to vote that much for each other.
So please don't bash Edwards and don't complain that he's harming Obama's chances. It's not fair and it's probably not true. And its not what the Obama campaign stands for. Be nice to his supporters, even if you don't feel like it. We might need their votes.
It's definitely not true, but most Obama supporters don't know squat, so why would you expect differently from novices?
Edwardsis4realnclean! wrote on January 19, 2008 7:48 PM:Obama can't be the candidate--he's too dirtied up with the money he took from big coal, nuclear, etc.. If he gets Michelle back to working for Walmart, then maybe he'll have money to stay in senate. Or he could rely upon the ignoramuses who believe anybody who doesn't support Obama is racist, etc... They'll follow him off the cliff.
But we can't risk letting a republican get elected.
Edwards is electable.
And he's not got any lobbyist ties, unlike any other viable candidate. If Obama's folks don't stop being silly--he won't even make it to veep--so stop saying all the crap about edwards already!
Take it easy, framecop. I would certainly have supported Edwards against Clinton, but the truth is that Edwards did not raise the money or create the campaign infrastructure for a national fight with Clinton. That isn't Obama's fault.
Certainly Edwards would have gotten more money if he had won Iowa, but it is hard to build a national campaign to compete with the Clinton machine in one month. Also, note that African-American voters would probably tend to stick more with Clinton without Obama in the race. That would make it a lot harder for Edwards in the contest from here forward.
Also, it is way to early to call this for Clinton.
Genghis wrote on January 19, 2008 7:49 PM:People seem extraordinarily confident that they know which way Edwards' supporters will go if he drops. Anyone have any poll evidence, are you all just talking out of your asses?
Edwards supporters will split both ways, of course. The question is how many will go which way. I suggest that Edwards increases his negotiating power the longer he stays in the race b/c he most likely has more control over his delegates than the people who voted for his delegates.
If the race is close enough that Edwards' delegates can decide the race, then he can get possibly himself a spot on the ticket. However either candidate feels about Edwards as VP, they seem to be hungry enough to do whatever it takes to secure the nomination.
Personally, I can't see Edwards going with Clinton if he has an option to go with Obama b/c he just doesn't seem to like her. He's been attacking her much harder than Obama for months.
roo_P wrote on January 19, 2008 7:50 PM:Looking tight for Edwards. I could almost say at this point that he has absolutely no chance of winning* but we are not quuuite there yet. If he does not make it to second in South Carolina, though, I will say it with conviction.
That still leaves some options open. Does someone have a link to explanation of all the possible events at the Convention? Obviously Edwards can release and direct his delegates to someone else (gaining maybe platform additions if not outright VP/cabinet position in the process in addition to being able to just inject his issues into the conversation over the primary season) but my understanding is that an unresolved first ballot would basically release all pledges except in some circumstances, making it a free-for-all again?
* (Standard caveats apply. Martians, terrorists and other natural disasters may change prediction. Void where prohibited.)
Oh, and IatFS, shockingly not all white middle-class men are racists. Not necessarily disputing the actual break -- although I think Edwards supporters are largely in the outsider/change mindset which would favour Obama -- but it probably is not based on the whiteness of the particular elector.
Genghis wrote on January 19, 2008 7:52 PM:On the Democratic Underground and MyDD (don't know about kos), when they poll Edwards supporters and ask who they would support if Edwards drops out, most always say, "CLINTON", so I'd say at least on those sites, they are like the General Public.Edwardsis4realnclean! wrote on January 19, 2008 7:52 PM:Hey framecop, can you give us a link? I hope that these aren't worthless web polls.
Obama has clinton style dirt to clean up in chicago--you think the Rez crap is going to just go away? He 's probably going to be indicted right before the november election--knowing the repubs. Edwards and clinton were vetted--but I'd put money on Edwards Kucinich before Edwards Obama at this point.
Genghis wrote on January 19, 2008 7:57 PM:There are some poll numbers here, people. Google is your friend:
http://www.startribune.com/nation/13710361.html?pt=y
From the article:
Edwards voters in Iowa favored Obama over Clinton as their second choice by a nearly two-to-one margin in caucus-night surveys. And Edwards supporters in New Hampshire reported they had a far more favorable impression of Obama than of Clinton, according election-night surveys there
On the other hand:
A mid-December survey of voters nationally conducted for the AP and Yahoo News found that Edwards supporters split about evenly between Clinton and Obama when asked which candidate would be their second choice. Clinton and Obama each were the second choices of about 27 percent of Edwards supporters. Another 28 percent were unsure who would be their second choice, and the rest were thinly scattered among other candidates.edwardsis4realnclean! wrote on January 19, 2008 7:58 PM:
Anyone asking edwards to drop now is either for obama or the republicans or both. Super Tuesday ring a bell? And I could see Edwards chasingn all the corporate political hacks to the convention to keep getting them to reverse themselves, change policies.
Note how he got the big 2 media darling candidates to drop the phrase 'access to health care' and use universal health care instead. Note also how his economic plan--discussed before new hampshire is now spouted by hilobama. And the war! He's the only one to get us out within a year! That's the real economic albatross. Also--he's the only one talking about criminalizing currency manipulation. You think bushco lost all those shrinkwrapped bundles of currency in irack for nothing? wake up!
Of course Edwards supporting MyDD readers tend toward Clinton. I would say that Kos is probably more representative (it is bigger anyway) and my sense is that they tend toward Obama as a second choice.
There is a lot of foolish stuff from supporters of all the candidates out there. Obama supporters hardly have the market cornered . . .
I do hope that Edwards chooses a southern strategy now. I suspect that his support in other parts of the country will tend to dry up now anyway (barring a surprisingly strong showing in SC). But we'll see. From a strategic point of view it makes sense to vote for Edwards if he is going to make 15% in your CD and to vote you second choice otherwise.
Yellow Dawg wrote on January 19, 2008 8:01 PM:Obama is the Ralph Nader of 2008. He will be taking the votes from the two substantive candidates.
Dana99 wrote on January 19, 2008 8:01 PM:It is definitely way too early to call for Clinton. In any case, Edwards should bow out, even if his supporters roll to her. Imagine Edwards trying to appear relevant on the debate stages now...it hurts. He's right up there (down there?) with Mr. Paul and, oy, Mayor Guiliani! With all due respect to his noble supporters, Edwards has no future in this race. Personally, I think the future is Obama.
Genghis wrote on January 19, 2008 8:05 PM:Dick Morris weighs in at http://www.nypost.com/seven/01152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/time_for_edwards_exit_254293.htm
Edwards divides the anti-Clinton vote - and so undermines the prospects for the changes that he so passionately demands in our government. By staying in, he's helping deliver the nomination to the person whom he has described as the defender of the status quo.
And this...
Polling shows that the second choice of Edwards' followers is overwhelmingly Obama.
But the Democratic primaries aren't winner take all systems, so I don't see how Edwards pulling in votes will hurt Obama if he ultimately endorses him.
I suppose that if some states do it by district, rather than by vote percentages, Edwards could cause Obama to lose districts.
Here's the way it works at convention:
Remember, when delegates are selected through the primary process, they are only committed to vote for their candidate on the first ballot. Certainly, someone who goes to the convention for, say, Romney will likely keep voting for Romney…unless and until it becomes clear that their guy won’t make it…then it becomes time to say, “ok, I’ll back your guy, instead, provided that…”; he gets to be VP, or SecState, or what have you. A lot of political dealmaking will go on behind closed doors if no candidate gets a first ballot majority. This sort of thing hasn’t happened at all for more than 50 years - and we have to go back nearly a century to find genuinely contested major party conventions.
From http://blogsforvictory.com/2007/11/26/a-brokered-convention-in-2008/
Genghis,
Edwards being in the race could hurt Obama in that if indeed most Edwards voters would otherwise break for Obama, them being tied will lead to Clinton positioning better in the earlier races. This, in turn, can lead to turnout problems for both Obama and Edwards and the end result would be Clinton gaining more than Edwards can bring back.
This would be the theory. There is really no way to assess whether this actually plays out until after the primaries are over.
As I mentioned above, Edwards definitely has things to gain by staying in even if he cannot ultimately win. So his decision should hinge on whether his issues gain more by staying (playing kingmaker buys a lot) or dropping (cannot be a kingmaker if the race is already decided.)
Genghis wrote on January 19, 2008 8:22 PM:OK, so it seems that Democratic primaries are completely proportional, as explained by http://www.thegreenpapers.com/Definitions.html
Seeing the WINNER-TAKE-ALL primary as unfairly reducing the input of significant minority factions within the party in the presidential nominating process, the McGovern-Fraser reforms of the early-to-mid 1970's successfully promoted the so-called "PROPORTIONAL" type of primary as an alternative to be used in the Democratic Party's nomination process. In the PROPORTIONAL type of presidential preference primary, the district delegates are apportioned among the top vote-getters in each (usually congressional, but occasionally state legislative) district while the at-large delegates are apportioned among the top vote-getters statewide by the percentage of the vote received above a certain threshold (most often 15 percent: a figure actually mandated by the rules of the Democratic Party since 1992). This is the system used by the vast majority of the states holding presidential primaries in the Democratic Party; the Republican party (where WINNER-TAKE-ALL primaries are still permitted) uses it in far fewer states than the Democrats...
So, I don't see what Dick Morris and everyone else is going on about how Edwards is hurting Obama's chances. If Edwards' supporters tend to prefer Obama as a second choice (about which the poll data is mixed), and Edwards ultimately endorses Obama, those votes will ultimately go to Obama anyway, via the delegates. Indeed, as I suggested earlier, Edwards may be able to throw a lot more support to Obama through his delegates later than through his supporters earlier. If the supporters split close to 50-50 (or even 75-25) for Obama, that's not as much of a gain as if the delates go 100-0 for Obama.
You make a good point roo_P, but at this point, it seems pretty neck-and-neck, so unless either Obama or Clinton pulls dramatically ahead (and I can't image that Edwards dropping out would make that big a difference either way), the front-runner status wouldn't seem to have the power that it might have had a few months ago. (Or not, it didn't seem to help Clinton that much).
In any case, there's no way that Edwards is dropping out before SC, so then we're into super tuesday, and well past any "earlier races", so the main question is how his dropping out would affect super tuedsay.
I'm an Edwards supporter and I hope he stays in. He's having a profound impact on the discussion, regardless of whether he can eventually pull-off the nomination. Frankly, if he drops-out, I'll be sitting out the rest of the race until the general election because I can see no difference between Clinton and Obama - they're both a disappointment. I've been a consistent financial supporter of Edwards and, if he drops-out, I'll be turning my money focus to the Senate and House.
rnblack wrote on January 19, 2008 8:30 PM:I got an Obama mailer today, up here in rural northern California,in which Obama steals eheme of the Edwards campaign. John's had a great effect on the clinton and Obama campaigns, making them a lot more hard core. I've been an Edwards supporter for some time, an it hurts me to think he'll be sidelined. I'm of the view that the way to elevate the political dialogue in this country is not to drink the bipartisanship koolaid, but to break the back of the "Republican revolution" and make sure it never walks again. That said, John's got to play it smart from here. If he doesn't do well in SC, I'm hoping he joins the Obama campaign.
roo_P wrote on January 19, 2008 8:33 PM:Genghis,
Any comment on mine above? You seem to be making two assumptions that I disagree with:
1. Edwards can command all his delegates to someone else; this is false. He can guide but he cannot order.
2. Each candidate gains N delegates over the campaign regardless of any previous results; not necessarily false but I disagree. Continued "bad" showings due to the split will decrease turnout for Obama and Edwards because the electors see Clinton as ultimately winning anyway.
roo_P wrote on January 19, 2008 8:34 PM:Genghis,
Whops, I did not see your reply. That covers 2., but do you have anything on 1.? Am I misunderstanding you there?
Obamawillmeanrepubs4next2cycles wrote on January 19, 2008 8:35 PM:He can't win. I used to be a vol. The campaign is a MESS! Edwards has a great message. He's steering the corporate candidates (HilObama) to more middle class ideas. He needs to stay in til the convention and he will. Obama's looking down the barrel of an indictment. Do Obama Kids READ?
Genghis wrote on January 19, 2008 8:46 PM:Hi roo_P. You understand me correctly. As to 1, yes, he can't command his delegates and my 100-0 assumption is unrealistic, but I do expect that he has a lot more control of his delegates than of his supporters. (That's speculation, I can't back it up.)
Another factor could be the timing. I can't see Obama choosing a running mate right now, but I could imagine him doing it close to the convention. If Edwards is on Obama's ticket, it would seem much more likely that his delegates would jump on board.
one wrote on January 19, 2008 8:49 PM:On Edwards?
1.And just what will he do after 02/05/08?
2.What will he do at the convention?
3.Talk to your detached relatives, on the
whole their are clueless to much of this.
4. Ask them to tell you what bugs them the
most.! KOS is not on their radar
5. Wait for the spin during and after S.C.!
Genghis wrote on January 19, 2008 8:53 PM:Let's take a look at the delegate count for sh-ts and giggles:
From ABC
Clinton: 203
Obama: 148
Edwards: 43
But most of those are super delegates. Without those, it's:
Clinton: 39
Obama: 43
Edwards: 20
So as of right now, Edwards is well-positioned to play kingmaker if he can continue to get votes and control his delegates. Of course, his support will likely fade as he falls further behind, but it's a really close race, so I would not discount the impact of his delegates at the convention.
Genghis wrote on January 19, 2008 9:00 PM:I might add, given the delegate count and the possibility of being able to broker the nomination, I sure wouldn't drop out if I was Edwards.
facta non verba wrote on January 19, 2008 9:04 PM:As an Edwards supporter, I am so relieved that the Party is averting an Obama candidacy. To many on the progressive left, Mr. Obama has become the devil incarnate.
His comments that the GOP was the "party of ideas" were deeply offensive, no matter his intentions. I have been a party member since 1984 and over that time we on the progressive left have been engaged in the fight of our lives to stem the tide of Friedmanism unadorned. That Obama is challenging Milton Freidman sends chills up and down my spine. He may find currency with independents but among party loyalists he is bankrupt. On FISA he is eerily quiet, on alternative energy there was nothing in his proposals but plenty for coal and nuclear, on health care his proposals do not differ much from Mitt Romney but substantially from Clinton and Edwards and on foreign policy he is nothing short of moronic.
Obama's popularity is built on platitudes that play well with independents and he does well with those who are virulently anti-Clinton but among the left, there is little enthusiasm. Mr. Obama has done something that I did not think possible, he's made me to consider Clinton. That's quite a feat since I don't care for them but the alternative is far worse.
For much of the past year, Obama flew under the radar. He was pleasant enough and who doesn't want "change." But is not change that progressive left can believe in. It is a sell out. His energy proposals were just that. But don't take my word for it, look at Paul Krugman wrote about it.
Today's lesson is that the party matters to party members. Independents may have a different take but they don't seem to paying attention to the substance of the ideas being proposed. They are taken in with his charm and charisma but I am not looking for someone with whom to share a beer. I am looking for a fighter who shares our ideals and our vision. For me that is John Edwards but failing that, I'll take someone who at least share our ideals. Mr. Obama neither shares our ideals nor our vision and that is his problem.
Genghis wrote on January 19, 2008 9:12 PM:facta non verba, I hate to break it to you, but your man doesn't seem share your sentiments. He's consistently soft on Obama and hard on Clinton, so much so that one gets the impression that he loathes her. Maybe it's all just campaign posturing, but then that wouldn't speak too well of him.
You should talk to the Obama kids. He's really got them snowed. It's sad. I'd vote Hilary over him if I must--only because Hilary's dirt's been vetted. I wish Edwards could catch a little media spin--but he'll regulate the b's and they don't want that. Heaven help us.
moondancer wrote on January 19, 2008 9:32 PM:I hope Edwards stays in through the Pa primary. That way I won't have to carry a puke bag into the polling booth.
roo_P wrote on January 19, 2008 9:40 PM:facta non verba (apropos),
If you are interested in an alternative view, let me ask you to consider Obama's statement as an acknowledgement of the failings of not progressive ideas or thought but of the Democratic establishment and the Democratic party representing its constituents.
I will always admit I can certainly be wrong. In this case, I approach the issue in terms of examining whether the Republicans were in fact more successful than the Democrats in getting their ideas and message out there and implemented, and if so, why.
Can you think of any examples of solid progressive ideas the Democrats were able to get passed accepted into the mainstream thought or passed into law between 1980 and 2005? I really cannot find much and on the GOP side, you can take your pick from anything: abortion, gays, taxes, military, spending etc. Undeniably, to me, that period of time was dominated by a very effective propaganda organization that wrenched control of the country with the support of millions who should have known better.
To me, the argument plays out such that the Republicans indeed were the "party of ideas" in the sense that they got their ideas out there and they got them into law. Ideas that people could not conceive would ever make it because they were so outrageously right-wing. In particular Reagan seemed to get some Democratic voters to vote -- with enthusiasm! -- which of their arms they would hack off to be fed to the rich.
Democrats simply did not do the same. True progressive ideas never made it, not even the moderate-left ones from earlier. Whether this is due to poor marketing, a demographic shift etc. is the second component and one that can be affected starting right now.
We can get the progressive ideas and ideals out there, have them become the mainstream and wrench the center back where it belongs--and maybe a bit more! It just requires a new generation to take over, it requires forgiving--but not forgetting--the offenses against the left that have been committed and allowing those in the middle and the right who were bamboozled and who are ashamed of what they were helping to cause to return to the table with dignity while holding the right-wing establishment to account for its decades-long manipulation of this nation. Together we will be able to pull the discussion to where it should be in a civilized society, to compassion, mutual responsibility and the improvement of mankind. With open dialogue and with gradual but clear steps, the nation can be transformed for a long time, perhaps for good. That is what this is about. That is what, to me, Obama is about.
facta non verba wrote on January 19, 2008 9:57 PM:Genghis wrote on January 19, 2008 9:12 PM:
facta non verba, I hate to break it to you, but your man doesn't seem share your sentiments. He's consistently soft on Obama and hard on Clinton, so much so that one gets the impression that he loathes her. Maybe it's all just campaign posturing, but then that wouldn't speak too well of him.
To be fair, Edwards has taken both to task. But over the past two weeks, Obama has taken the brunt. "The Party of Ideas" comment brought a harsh rebuke and when a 527 group supporting Obama in Nevada cut a radio ad calling Mrs. Clinton a "sinverguenza" a word loaded with overt sexual overtones, Edwards demanded that it be pulled and that Obama apologize. To my knowledge, he didn't.
But look at the policy offerings of three candidates, on these the proximity between Edwards and Clinton is closer.
I went to Nevada last weekend where for the first time I met other Edwards supporters from other parts of the country. The disdain for Mr. Obama was pretty evident. On Mrs. Clinton, the jury was more mixed.
hells kitchen wrote on January 19, 2008 10:20 PM:dKos Edwards supporter here. Second choice is Clinton. I don't think you can assume that dKos Edwards supporters are heavily swayed in one direction or the other. In fact, the vast majority are in it with Edwards to the end.
Brandon Hungate wrote on January 19, 2008 10:31 PM:Edwards 2016....The man is the most compassionate poltician in the world. He is just cursed to be the white man against hilabama.
Henk wrote on January 19, 2008 10:40 PM:I like Edwards because he is NOT Hillary or Obama. He actually cares about the middle class and knows what folly it is to try and "work" with Multi-Billion dollar insurance companies. How nicely will Obama have to ask them for them to agree to give up power and profits? Hillary is corporate to her very core, its who she is, how can we count on her to represent us and not her corporate brethren? Both of them offer more of the same. Its got to end. Honestly I am not convinced that either of them could win the general election. I hope to God this is not another Presidential election where I have to hold my nose and vote for a Dem chosen by the media. Its getting really old.
framecop wrote on January 19, 2008 10:46 PM:Anyone who believes Dick Morris might as well be listening to Bill O'Reilly.
I support John Edwards. I will never vote for Obama.
He has "borrowed" from Edwards not only ideas but also words, sentences, jokes. (See article on Washington Post on this)
His speeches are full of platitudes.
I don't believe he is electable.
framecop wrote on January 19, 2008 11:06 PM:Anyone who believes Dick Morris, might as well be listening to Bill O'Reilly.
Edwards' lost support in New Hampshire and Nevada went to HILLARY CLINTON, NOT BARACK OBAMA.
Someone actually compiled some information about this, that I read earlier in the week while I was at work, and therefore couldn't "bookmark," now I don't have a clue which site it was from (since I found the story on Google News).
While his support almost split evenly among Clinton and Obama, Clinton got most of it, like 3 to 2 (which then becomes 6 to 4; 9 to 6; 12 to 8; 15 to 10, and so on), so you can see that it would add up to a lot in Clinton's favor in some of these states.
facta non verba wrote on January 19, 2008 11:12 PM:roo_P wrote on January 19, 2008 9:40 PM:
facta non verba (apropos),
If you are interested in an alternative view, let me ask you to consider Obama's statement as an acknowledgement of the failings of not progressive ideas or thought but of the Democratic establishment and the Democratic party representing its constituents.
I will always admit I can certainly be wrong. In this case, I approach the issue in terms of examining whether the Republicans were in fact more successful than the Democrats in getting their ideas and message out there and implemented, and if so, why.
Can you think of any examples of solid progressive ideas the Democrats were able to get passed accepted into the mainstream thought or passed into law between 1980 and 2005? I really cannot find much and on the GOP side, you can take your pick from anything: abortion, gays, taxes, military, spending etc. Undeniably, to me, that period of time was dominated by a very effective propaganda organization that wrenched control of the country with the support of millions who should have known better.
To me, the argument plays out such that the Republicans indeed were the "party of ideas" in the sense that they got their ideas out there and they got them into law. Ideas that people could not conceive would ever make it because they were so outrageously right-wing. In particular Reagan seemed to get some Democratic voters to vote -- with enthusiasm! -- which of their arms they would hack off to be fed to the rich.
Democrats simply did not do the same. True progressive ideas never made it, not even the moderate-left ones from earlier. Whether this is due to poor marketing, a demographic shift etc. is the second component and one that can be affected starting right now.
We can get the progressive ideas and ideals out there, have them become the mainstream and wrench the center back where it belongs--and maybe a bit more! It just requires a new generation to take over, it requires forgiving--but not forgetting--the offenses against the left that have been committed and allowing those in the middle and the right who were bamboozled and who are ashamed of what they were helping to cause to return to the table with dignity while holding the right-wing establishment to account for its decades-long manipulation of this nation. Together we will be able to pull the discussion to where it should be in a civilized society, to compassion, mutual responsibility and the improvement of mankind. With open dialogue and with gradual but clear steps, the nation can be transformed for a long time, perhaps for good. That is what this is about. That is what, to me, Obama is about.
You're taking Mr. Obama at his word and that is your prerogative. I am sorry but I don't. His politics of compromise is the politics of surrender. My experience has shown me that compromise does not work very well for the Democratic Party. It led to debacles like NAFTA.
While I don't discount that there are Republicans with whom one can reason (Hagel, Lugar, Snowe come to mind), there are many with whom we can't. Talk to Ted Stevens or Mitch McConnell lately? Or read John Bolton's book? The title is "Surrender is Not An Option." Clearly someone who is ready for dialogue. Or take Jonah Goldberg who not only equates liberalism with fascism but he is so upset that Nancy Pelosi changed the menu in the House lunch room that Mr. Goldberg noted on the Daily Show that organics is fascism. Now that's someone we can seat at the table and break bread with as long as it is Wonder Loaf. The past year is indicative of reaching out to the Republicans in the Congress and to the President. We took impeachment off the table and in return we got a surge, a veto on a children's healthcare bill. Yet on the rare occasion, when we stood steadfast we managed to abate their agenda. That was largely the FISA bill and thanks to Dodd's threat of a filibuster. But I will leave this argument by pointing to FDR. FDR didn't get his vision enacting by working with the Republicans. He did it by fighting for it and going over their heads. Partisanship works. The Republicans are proof of that.
If you are a progressive, I urge to examine Obama's stance on the FISA bill, on energy, and on healthcare.
On FISA, he is AWOL. At least Clinton noted that she would support Dodd's filibuster.
On energy, as Paul Krugman noted Mr. Obama's proposals were little different than the Bush's. Subsidies for coal and nuclear, two of Obama's biggest donors, by the boatload. None for alternative energy development. That's a marked contrast from both Clinton and Edwards.
On healthcare, Obama's proposal is not universally mandated. The others are.
It's funny but when you simply mention the word "universal" health coverage, the response from the right is something like we are trying to Sovietize the country. Every other modern Western polity and even some not so modern polities have universal health care. According to the OECD and the WHO, the US ranks 38th in terms of health care and general health, right behind Costa Rica and just ahead of Slovenia. When Brazil has a better healthcare system with universal prescription coverage and the US doesn't that is quite a statement. Or take a simple bill like the recently vetoed SCHIP bill. Mitch McConnell and Trent Lott called it the first step towards "socialized" medicine.
On foreign policy and other international issues, the divide is even more utterly ridiculous. Take climatic change which is what I have to call it because if I call it global warming, it sets off rabid dogs on the Republican side, Senator Inhofe comes to mind. No where on the planet is gulf wider on climate change than in the US Senate. Boxer and Inhofe can't even speak with each other. Bring up the United Nations, and you'd think that we were talking about the anti-Christ. Indeed some of the right use that term. Phyllis Schafly, Ann Coulter, Pat Buchanan, Pat Robertson, George Bush and the entire neo-conservative wing becomes unhinged.
And then there is Grover Norquist and his "Club for Growth." They want to drown the government in a bathtub. For them, Katrina was a godsend. Both literally and figuratively. This is of course the group that proves the most difficult group to enter into any conversation. To them, any government program no matter its intention is by nature evil. It's hard to say how large this segment is but it is large. Ron Paul's domestic agenda is the clearest example of this but neither Romney nor Thompson are far behind. As long as the core of the Republican Party believes that unfettered unregulated markets work and that the government is a hindrance not a useful agent of protection, regulation and assistance, then there is little use even discussing
the merits of any economic policy. They simply dig in their heels.
Abortion is at a thirty year low right now. Mrs. Clinton's approach to keep abortion safe and legal yet make it irrelevant is working. That is the Democratic approach. Huckabee's response, one abortion is one too many. So much that he and others want a Constitutional amendment. As per Obama, his PRESENT votes on the subject are as such disturbing. They demonstrate a cold political calculation to avoid taking a stand.
I appreciate the fact that you are a civil and compassionate individual but those qualities are not found so much on the other side of the aisle. When I was growing there was a group of Republicans like Gerald Ford, Edward Brooke, Jacob Javits, Warren Rudham, Charles Mathias, Bob Packwood, and Mark Hatfield. These men are dead. That part of the GOP is now a few where once they were many. Nor I do believe Mr. Obama uncivil or as lacking compassion, I simply think him naive in his political style. And on the merits, I find him lacking.
we're in trouble if it's the two sellout multi hundred million dollar candidates at the end. below is part of why obama's hilary lite:
Obama ducks the questions
Suddenly, our open senator is acting like a dissembling pol
April 25, 2007
BY CAROL MARIN cmarin@suntimes.com
Barack Obama tells us he is the messenger of a new kind of politics.
Open. Transparent. Different.
But put the pedal to the metal and ask Illinois' junior senator new and serious questions about his radioactive, federally indicted, former friend Antoin "Tony" Rezko, and suddenly this gleaming presidential hopeful and paragon of new politics behaves just like any other dissembling, dismissive Chicago pol, ducking the discussion while pretending not to.
The story behind the story of this week's Sun-Times' reports on Rezko, the power broker slumlord, and Obama, voice for the voiceless, is revealing.
For five long weeks, Sun-Times' investigative reporter Tim Novak called, e-mailed, requested, practically pleaded with Obama's press people to provide information about the senator's relationship to Rezko when it came to the development of low-income housing in Chicago. In an abundance of fairness and an excess of solicitousness, Novak sent a list of questions.
For five weeks, no answer.
Jointly, on behalf of both the Sun-Times and NBC5 News, Novak and I sent Obama's campaign requests to interview the senator for both print and television.
Again, no answer.
Until Novak began his digging, the most we knew about the Obama/Rezko nexus was the revelation that Rezko, a major Obama donor and fund-raiser, had helped Obama enlarge the property surrounding his South Side mansion by having Mrs. Rezko simultaneously purchase an adjacent lot and then sell off a strip of that property to Obama. At the time, unless Obama never read a paper or watched the news, he couldn't help but know that Rezko was already under federal investigation. Rezko was ultimately indicted.
"It was boneheaded," the senator confessed when questions were raised. And that was that.
But Novak's reports this week raise new questions about just how much attention Obama, a self-described activist, was paying to the critical issue of affordable housing in the district he used to represent as a state senator. It again involved Rezko, his longtime patron, who had 11 failed or failing buildings in Obama's district.
Though Obama says he, himself, did a mere five hours of work, the 12-person law firm where Obama was a junior partner did significant legal work for Rezko's company which, by 2002, was being sued by the city, state and a bunch of banks for defaulting on loans and doing a downright awful job of providing decent housing. Taxpayers and lenders have lost up to $100 million while Rezko's firm made about $7 million.
There is no suggestion that Obama or his firm did anything illegal. But here's a guy who, according to a recent Tribune profile of his wife, Michelle, was so scrupulous about the details of life that he actually went with her on a job interview just to make sure her potential employer was up to snuff. Too bad he didn't give Rezko the same treatment.
Instead, Obama and his minions this week gave us the treatment for having the audacity to inquire.
More than five weeks after receiving Novak's questions, the Obama people at last sent a partial written response. It arrived exactly five hours before the Sun-Times went to press.
That's OK -- any answer is better than none. But what about that interview?
Here's a candidate who these days is on camera more than many TV anchors, whose staff is putting out press releases faster than IHOP cranks out pancakes, and yet, the senator just didn't have time, his staffers claimed, to stop and talk on Monday even though he was in Chicago giving a speech at which, conservatively, there were 30 reporters and 15 cameras.
We didn't know it then, but while Novak and I were staking out the senator's big, black SUV parked outside, he was giving a quiet private interview to the Tribune about the wrongheadedness of the Sun-Times' story.
Meanwhile, an Obama staffer, sent to watch us, nimbly Blackberried our movements to someone inside.
Suddenly, bodyguards pulled the SUV down into a parking garage, grabbed Obama, and with wheels squealing, sped out and away.
Maybe it was the image of that getaway, played on the 5 o'clock news, that finally persuaded Obama to hastily call a news conference to which Novak was not invited but managed to find out about anyway.
Obama said while the new allegations about Rezko were "deeply troubling," none of it had ever been "brought to his attention."
So why all the gymnastics to avoid the conversation?
Especially for a candidate who is "open" and "transparent" and "different"?
Being boneheaded is not a crime.
But if it was, charge Obama with a second count.
Edwards drops out in the Primaries . . . And MY vote goes to Kucinich then Gravel.
I despise Republicans that are not smart enough to for their own party's Primaries . . . That includes both Clinton and Obama.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 20, 2008 1:12 AM:how come Hillary didn't win the majority delegates?
In order to incentivize candidates to campaign in rural NV, the NV state democratic committee distributed convention delegates in a rather lopsided fashion, giving a disproportionate share to rural NV precincts. Sen Clinton cleaned up in Las Vegas, but did not do as well in outstate NV, so Obama was actually able to claim more of the rural precincts and thus more of the (likely) delegates.
Meanwhile, I cannot for the life of me understand the rush some folks on this thread feel to remove Edwards from the race. As others have observed, who does it hurt if he stays in? Besides, why in heaven's sweet name would the only southern candidate drop out before the first southern primary? Of course the man should stay in. A healthy contest is good for everyone because it ensures that our party selects the best possible candidate with the best possible platform. Sen Edwards is doing us all a favor by staying in and we (including my fellow Obama supporters) should be grateful to him, not scornful of him, for doing us this service.
Kansas-City-Dem wrote on January 20, 2008 1:23 AM:It ain't like Edwards has anything else to do. Heck, I'd stay in and fight too. Once he's done, he's gotta scoot on back to the big house in NC with the old lady.
His big problem is that he's an awful VP pick for either Hillary or Obama. But if he hangs in there long enough and one of them are desperate, perhaps they give him a VP offer for his votes? A Hillary-Edwards ticket is almost a guaranteed loos, so I don't see that happening. An Obama-Edwards ticket makes a certain degree of sense, but it's not ideal for Obama.
Wow. What a year.
roo_P wrote on January 20, 2008 1:53 AM:facta non verba,
My experience has shown me that compromise does not work very well for the Democratic Party. It led to debacles like NAFTA.
Wait, I thought you were arguing against Obama and me? :)
NAFTA was Republican idea that the Democrats could not counter and that the leadership caved in on. The best they could do was water it down a bit.
While I don't discount that there are Republicans with whom one can reason (Hagel, Lugar, Snowe come to mind), there are many with whom we can't.
I agree. Obama agrees. His talk of conciliation and working together has nothing to do with the Republican Party. We are talking about the regular people who voted Republican, not the thugs sitting in Congress.
We took impeachment off the table and in return we got a surge, a veto on a children's healthcare bill.
Yeah, the Democratic leadership are a bunch of spineless fools.
On FISA, he is AWOL. At least Clinton noted that she would support Dodd's filibuster.
He unequivocally supported the filibuster. Statement originally on 10/18, reaffirmed on 10/23 and 10/24 as well as 12/17. TPME has articles on this, too.
On healthcare, Obama's proposal is not universally mandated. The others are.
This is correct. Obama is also on record saying he ultimately favours single-payer. However, right now around 55% of Democratic voters are opposed to a mandate. Therefore, logically, it will be much easier to pass a plan without the mandate (otherwise the plans are pretty much the same.) Gradual but clear steps. First a good, solid system in place without the mandate. Then, gradually moving towards single-payer. Having to live with a non-mandatory for a few years is much better than having lost the fight completely yet again.
It's funny but when you simply mention the word "universal" health coverage, the response from the right is something like we are trying to Sovietize the country. Every other modern Western polity and even some not so modern polities have universal health care. ...
So you in fact DO agree with Obama that the Republicans have been able to completely hijack the national discourse in the last decades? I mean, it really seems that way.
On energy, as Paul Krugman noted Mr. Obama's proposals were little different than the Bush's. Subsidies for coal and nuclear, two of Obama's biggest donors, by the boatload. None for alternative energy development. That's a marked contrast from both Clinton and Edwards.
Actually, it is not (Clinton, in particular.) But more importantly, it is not even close to correct.
League of Conservation Voters ranks Obama as #1 of the candidates.
I am also beginning to think that Mr. Krugman may have at some point lost the ability to read. Fairly straightforward standard English sentences such as "Invest $150 Billion over 10 Years in Clean Energy," "Double Energy Research and Development Funding" and "Require 25 Percent of Renewable Electricity by 2025" among others can be found in a fairly logical place: his campaign website, under issues/energy. His proposals are at least as progressive as any of the other candidates'.
And then there is Grover Norquist and his "Club for Growth." ...
There you go agreeing with Obama again :)
TheCount wrote on January 20, 2008 4:12 AM:Bad election to be the southern white guy, who ironically is the most progessive of the three.
colonpowwow wrote on January 20, 2008 10:10 AM:“John Edwards is the underdog in this campaign, facing two $100 million candidates. But that is nothing compared to the real underdogs in our country – working men and women, middle class families, and all those who have no voice in Washington."
Gee, then I wonder why, when he was a Senator and his vote made a difference, that he voted for the 1999 version of the Bankruptcy Act (along with all Senate Republicans), that President Clinton vetoed as "imposing too much a burden on poor and working class Americans."
Lot's of big business financial interests based in Charlotte, I understand. Sure that had nothing to do with his vote though, since he gets all his campaign contributions from dewey-eyed children who break open their piggybanks in hope that John Edwards will at last give them a shot at the American Dream.
Gee, I wonder why his campaign never really caught on.
timbnyc wrote on January 20, 2008 10:12 AM:why do candidates only refer to the middle class? What happened to helping the poor?
cal1942 wrote on January 20, 2008 10:40 AM:The people calling for Edwards to withdraw are way off base.
Keeping Edwards in until the end is a plus not a minus.
That may send consultants up the wall, but Democratic party consultants have succeeded in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in two straight winnable elections.
Those "genuises" haven't stopped to think what a brokered convention could mean. The entire nation would be riveted to their TV sets for that one. It would give the party a priceless opportunity to showcase an aggressive policy agenda for the nation.
Edwards has driven the policy agenda in this contest and in a brokered convention may be able to exert influence on the direction of the party. That influence could be a big plus for the future of the party and for the nation.
For the naive who complain about ego, I should point out that anyone running for office posesses a huge ego. Every last one are driven determined, ambitious people.
So far as Obama people are concerned, what in hell makes you think that Edwards' supporters would want his delegates thrown to Obama. You've really drunk the kool-aid. You don't get that you've bought into a personality cult. Do you really think that the most progressive of the candidates will automatically throw his support to the LEAST progressive candidate? That's right, least progressive. You people have bought into what we used to call vaporware.
If John Edwards bargains his delegates away; this Edwards supporter wants them in the Clinton camp, period. I don't want my contributions to ultimately buy vaporware.
I'm going to keep saying it.
Obama was never going to be able to defeat Clinton head to head. With equal resources, Edwards could have.
So, naturally, Democrats who don't want Clinton would make it a Clinton versus Obama affair.
Democrats don't know how to do anything but lose. They can't even beat the establishment in the primaries, they are so pathetic.
framecop wrote on January 20, 2008 12:39 PM:I'm going to keep saying it.
Obama was never going to be able to defeat Clinton head to head. With equal resources, Edwards could have.
So, naturally, Democrats who don't want Clinton would make it a Clinton versus Obama affair.
Democrats don't know how to do anything but lose. They can't even beat the establishment in the primaries, they are so pathetic.
Cranky Observer wrote on January 20, 2008 12:54 PM:> His big problem is that he's an awful VP
> pick for either Hillary or Obama. But if
> he hangs in there long enough and one of
> them are desperate, perhaps they give him
> a VP offer for his votes?
If Edwards wants to stay in national politics other than as President (and he may not), then he has to be thinking Attorney General at this point. The question is how does he stay tough enough to make that look like a good choice without totally p**sing off whoever he thinks will be the final winner. Oh yeah, and figuring out who will be the final winner ;-)
Cranky
colonpowwow wrote on January 20, 2008 1:35 PM:So, framecop:
You're taking the pipe already in January 2008 (only 10 more months until the election!)?
Gee, it must be depressing for you. Can I suggest counting how many times Edwards's position now is diametrically opposed to the message (votes) he sent to Washington when he lived there as a Senator?
It never fails to make me laugh.
I see Russ Feingold got a good laugh out of it in an interview in this week's Appleton (WI) newspaper (Post-Crescent, I believe).
Of course, Feingold's just another lying, apologist for corporate America.
Haha. I'm killing myself here!
Jeremy K wrote on January 20, 2008 2:15 PM:John Edwards has led on every single issue with the most comprehensive, detailed and progressive agendas while the rest have followed. This election is about choosing who would be the best in both a general election and to take our country, as well as Democratic Party, in a new direction.
The choice is clear to me. I'm voting John Edwards and ready to fight for it to the end. Obama VP.
An Edwards/Obama ticket in 2008 is simply unstoppable.
Love,
Florida
A place where we know what it takes to stand up to entrenched interests and one of the only states where who has more money could matter less.
Jake wrote on January 20, 2008 2:32 PM:Senator Feingold was right about John Edwards. Saw his quote at the Acropolis Review.
grace wrote on January 20, 2008 5:03 PM:Wow - we are such a self-destructive party. I don't think Edwards needs to drop out. I think he advocates for many wonderful things and I want to hear Elizabeth as often as possible. I am voting for Obama however and it seems from these comments that Edwards supporters don't like Obama. That really surprises me. I think McCain's win yesterday means he's got the best shot to win it all. He'll have the independents. We'll put up Clinton. That will rally republicans to vote against her - in what would have been a bad year otherwise for republican turn out. And independents like him not her. Our best shot at the White House is Obama - but I think we are too self-destructive to nominate him. I'm bummed already about November. I wish Edwards supporters would help - or Edwards himself - but I don't think it will happen.
Txindy wrote on January 20, 2008 5:04 PM:roo_P -7:50 pm comment - Regarding all of the Obama supporters at Kos, Crooks&Liars and here that tend to take over many of the blogs about John Edwards to state that he should step out of the race, I have a suggestion. Why don't you do one Topic on each of these blogs and state all of the reasons you feel Edwards should "take a dive" so that perhaps your guy, Obama, might have a chance to win. In fact you could name it "Please take a Dive, John"; then all of you could (gather, jump on, and share until you have it all out of your systems, because, if anything, you are producing the opposite effect I believe you want to achieve for your candidate. Also, on your 9:40pm comment, I believe paragraphs 4 and 5 show a naivete on your part. Do you not believe that the Dems did try to 'reach across the aisle' to get something passed, as you phrased it "not even the moderate left" ones. So much for reaching across the aisle If you had watched C-Span the last couple of years,( Even when it was for the veterans), Nussel, the R committee chair, just laughed in a sleezy way that reminded you of a mob-boss, while they (R's) refused to do what they should for them. All of what I watched just made me want someone who cared enough to fight about it. I do not want John Edwards to take a dive and I would seriously think about writing his name in on a ballot. I don't know if I can stand to watch any more of the wishy-washy, no backbone Democrats try to persuade Republicans what needs to, must be, done to save our nation!
framecop wrote on January 20, 2008 6:10 PM:How many times does Hillary Clinton bring up her votes from the Senate that are pretty much identical to John Edwards?
How many times does Obama talk about his vote for Condi Rice, against Kerry-Feingold's attempt to end the war in Iraq, against capping credit card interest rates, for Dick Cheney's energy bill, for funding Bush's policy in Iraq over and over again, and against Feingold's censure of Bush?
That's right, Clinton and Obama never talk about their bad votes, because no one continuously throws them in their faces like they do John Edwards'.
How does Obama think Condi Rice has performed?
How does he like those gas prices and record profits for the oil industry in the face of his billion dollar giveaways to the oil industry?
Does he think Bush has done such a great job that he shouldn't be censured?
How can he claim to be against Iraq when he kept voting to CONTINUE IT?
All of these guys have bad votes. Edwards isn't running against squat, any more than FDR governed AGAINST HIS BANKING INTERESTS, since he was a banker. Any more than LBJ pushed Civil Rights against his white interests and the loss of the "SOUTH" for the Democrats that he knew would occur.
Edwards should be congratulated for taking the stands that he is taking, because they are unpopular with the media and with other people in his class. Edwards was consulted to death in 1998 when he ran for the Senate, and advised by DLCers and Clinton folks when he was in the Senate. He has shed all of those connections, and is speaking from within himself now, that's why his many of his positions are different than they were. The problems are greater than they were in 2004, and he's a free man.
Apparently many of Obama's RETARDED supporters have drunk the media's kool-aid.
Wordie wrote on January 20, 2008 6:21 PM:I'm sticking with Edwards because he has the best substantive solutions to the issues I care about. For instance, just this morning on Meet the Press, Russert noted that JRE had the foresight to propose an economic stimulus package way back in December, long before the other candidates followed him with their own proposals. And whatever his chances may or may not be, with 47 races to go, we need him in the race to keep driving progressive issues into the debate.
But even beyond that, Clinton and Obama ought to be down on their knees thanking John Edwards for staying in.
Here's why: Let's imagine for a moment what would happen if Edwards dropped out and one of the other two was able to lock up the nomination today. We all know the media takes a "horserace" approach to coverage. But there would be no Democratic horserace to cover if Edwards dropped out now.
So it's obvious what would happen to media attention if one of the Dem candidates wraps it up now and there was no Democratic horserace for the media to cover: coverage of Dem issues would drop precipitously, in favor of the Republican horserace!
Do we really want to spend the several months before the convention with all the media focus only on the Republicans? You don't have to support Edwards, although I personally think he's the best candidate, but you need to be thinking strategically for the good of the Democrats overall, C & O supporters!
Anonymous wrote on January 20, 2008 7:10 PM:framecop - I have a retarded brother that I take care of - you are so completely offensive and hateful you should be a republican! It's not likely that somone who hates disabled people is the kind of supporter John Edwards would be proud of. You are disgusting! With supporters like you no wonder he is losing despite his compassion for the poor.
grace wrote on January 20, 2008 7:25 PM:I guess I never read the comments from Edwards supporters before - pretty ugly stuff! I respect retarded people - I don't have any respect for people who think calling Obama supporters retarded makes Obama supporters look bad.
