Hillary On Edwards: I'm Reaching Out To His Supporters
On a local news station in Birmingham, Alabama, Hillary just commented on John Edwards' departure from the presidential race. She stressed that she's the candidate to carry on Edwards' war on poverty and made it clear that she will be reaching out aggressively to win over his supporters.
Hillary's campaign tipped us off on her appearance...
Here's a transcript, which was sent our way by her campaign:
HRC: Well Senator Edwards is a friend of mine, he was a colleague in the senate and I have the highest regard for him, and I’m really admiring of what he has done to make sure that poverty was on the agenda here in America. He encouraged all of us in his passion and advocacy and I hope he will continue that work because it is really important that we stay focused on what we’re going to do to help people.You know, I’m out here talking about making the economy work for everybody. And it needs to work for the middle class, working people, it needs to give a life line to poor people like we did in the 1990s, so in any way that I can be part of this effort to try to target poverty I am going to be.
ANCHOR: Senator, there is no indication right now that he would endorse a candidate, would you hope and expect that his supporters would back you now and your candidacy?
HRC: Well, I’m certainly going to be reaching out to everyone who did support Senator Edwards. I think that our emphasis on what happens in the real lives of Americans, making this about solving our problems, looking at taking on those interests that stand in the way of universal health care, and a tax system that doesn’t favor the wealthy and well-connected and making sure college is affordable.
You know these are the causes that I’ve worked on for 35 years. Senator Edwards shares a lot of those passions with me and I hope that I’ll be able to persuade his supporters in the week ahead as we move toward super Tuesday to come over and endorse and support me because I want to have a united democratic party with a very strong base going into the November 2008 election.
More in a bit.
Late Update: The Hillary campaign's official Web site already has this on its homepage:
No Edwards pics on Obama's homepage yet.
Late Late Update: The Obama campaign now has a lovely picture of the Edwards' on the campaign homepage.
Comments (61)
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 30, 2008 11:55 AM:A fine statement. Fitting tribute to the service that Sen Edwards has done for all of us in staying in this race for as long as he had.
Thompson Lives! wrote on January 30, 2008 11:57 AM:"Well, I’m certainly going to be reaching out to everyone who did support Senator Edwards."
Sounds to me like she knows she won't be getting his endorsement, so she'll attempt an end-around. Sure, I respect you, but I'm going behind your back to get your supporters.
More of the same dishonesty from the HRC campaign.
Michael A wrote on January 30, 2008 11:59 AM:I agree gregg, but I just have to say it a noun, a verb and 35 years.
wwjb wrote on January 30, 2008 12:00 PM:A lifeline to the poor like the Clintons did in the 90s??????
Welfare reform anyone? Yeah, impoverished people had a lifeline in our social assistance programs, and one of the worst things that came out of the Clinton years was welfare reform, slashing benefits to the poor and kicking tons of people off supplemental support. Give me a break you lying opportunist. Quit trying to take us back to the 90s, we don't want to go backwards, and quit trying to rewrite the 90s, you did NOT help the poor. You and Bill are shameless.
Darrell wrote on January 30, 2008 12:00 PM:Yeap Hillary is going to get his supporters and endorment.... I feel it
Go Hillary!!!
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 30, 2008 12:01 PM:More of the same dishonesty from the HRC campaign.
Man alive, you really set the bar low for "dishonesty." Somehow a politician grubbing for votes just does not strike me as any sort of "dishonesty." It is not even a political misdemenor. Of course she wants the folks who supported him to support her. So does Obama. That is what politicians do. Why are we supposed to despise a candidate for doing something both obvious and ethical in order to win?
Mark F wrote on January 30, 2008 12:03 PM:"You know these are the causes that I’ve worked on for 35 years."
That, and working as a corporate lawyer for Wal-Mart...
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 30, 2008 12:03 PM:Yeap Hillary is going to get his supporters and endorment.... I feel it
Just like you felt sure yesterday that everyone would be talking about nothing else but Clinton's 30 point landslide victory today?
So, how many newspapers lead with an above-the-fold headline about the Clinton victory? How many broadcast outlets ran her "blowout" as their main story? What are folks talking about on this blog today?
Somehow, your predictions hold little water in my estimation.
Anonymous wrote on January 30, 2008 12:05 PM:I think Edwards will surprise a lot of people by endorsing Clinton. Their health care, energy and economic plans for the "real middle" and working class are actually similar. They have split the union endorsements for the most part. Also, having run as Kerry's VP in '04 I believe Edwards sees the rights embrace of Obama for what it is - a ploy to get the weaker candidate in the General Election (like Kerry over Dean). Obama for all his GQ looks and cool IS the furthest right of the 3 candidates. Finally, based on his prior experience as a candidate, it must be obvious to him how the MSM has chosen Obama as their temporary candidate tossing aside all pretense of reporting in favor of campaigning. The MSM and the rich-kid vote are the perfect expression of the entitled interests that Edwards thinks must be fought, not pandered to. Obama's supporters are the ones routinely drinking coffees that take Clinton supporters 2 hours of work to earn enough to pay for.
NCSteve wrote on January 30, 2008 12:05 PM:Actually, its "I" + noun + verb + "35 years."
JimS wrote on January 30, 2008 12:07 PM:I think Edwards will surprise a lot of people by endorsing Clinton. Their health care, energy and economic plans for the real middle and working class are actually similar. Clinton and Edwards have split the union endorsements for the most part. Also, having run as Kerry's VP in '04 I believe he sees the rights embrace of Obama for what it is - a ploy to get the weaker candidate in the General Election (like Kerry over Dean). Obama for all his GQ looks and cool IS the furthest right of the 3 candidates. Finally, based on his prior experience as a candidate, it must be obvious to him how the MSM has chosen Obama as their temporary candidate tossing aside all pretense of reporting in favor of campaigning. The MSM and the rich-kid vote are the perfect expression of the entitled interests that Edwards thinks must be fought, not pandered to. Obama's supporters are the ones routinely drinking coffees that take Clinton supporters 2 hours of work to earn enough to pay for.
Michael A wrote on January 30, 2008 12:07 PM:Darrell, where are you buying that lunch you owe me? Seafood in south florida sounds good.
V Nagarajan wrote on January 30, 2008 12:08 PM:They are natural allies because HRC & Edwards have similar, regressive voting records in the Senate.
Mike wrote on January 30, 2008 12:09 PM:I also suspect he will endorse Hillary. Remember their talk after the last debates? She's probably promised him the VP or AG spot, so why wouldn't he take it?
JimS wrote on January 30, 2008 12:11 PM:Mike, not VP because it would be second time. AG hits the spot.
Anonymous wrote on January 30, 2008 12:11 PM:Mark F...dumbass....when she worked for Wal-mart it was for Sam Walmart not the Wal-mart we know now....she quit the board we know now.....now shut your stupid non-knowing piehole.
here's a site that has the stats on what counties were won and lost in Fla
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/1/29/235219/065
NCSteve wrote on January 30, 2008 12:12 PM:Apparently, he told Obama last night and Clinton today.
Make of it what you will.
Richard L. Adlof wrote on January 30, 2008 12:13 PM:Whore.
JimS wrote on January 30, 2008 12:15 PM:Richard L. Adlof, how would a big pansy like you even know if a woman was a whore?
spencer wrote on January 30, 2008 12:15 PM:More of the same dishonesty from the HRC campaign.
Oh, screw that. How is it dishonest to reach out directly to Edwards' supporters without waiting for an official endorsement?
I voted for Edwards yesterday. If I lived in a Super Tuesday state, I would vote for Obama next week. And I wouldn't even have had to wait for John Edwards to tell me what to do.
We're perfectly capable of making up our own minds without any marching orders, thank you very much.
bonguser2000 wrote on January 30, 2008 12:17 PM:Hillary / Obama ... that's the ticket!
Kefa wrote on January 30, 2008 12:18 PM:A lot of BO nail biting going on in here.
What does it matter....you got the mo. You got the Teddys, theKerrys, The Clairs,TheChangenicks, The Yes We Cans. You all have got to feel ready to win right?
You need the Edwards's too. You folks crack me up. Scared shitless.
Anonymous wrote on January 30, 2008 12:21 PM:Michael A
I have no problem saying i was incorrect about yesterday.... I don't claim to be perfect.
However she did get 50% of the vote well over 800,000 people voted for her....she got more votes then the republicans....
I wonder why edwards did not drop out after south carolina but waited after florida voted..hum? I wonder if the florida vote is going to mean something.
"Change" is in the air:)
Lot of newspapers in New York and New Jersey talk alot about her win in Florida
Go Hillary!!!
Anonymous wrote on January 30, 2008 12:21 PM:Richard L. Adlof ...not nice to drag down ones parents like that.
loki wrote on January 30, 2008 12:24 PM:Richard Adlof epitomizes the unreasonable, unthinking and unhinged aspect of the anti-Hillary/pro Obama folks.
Darrell wrote on January 30, 2008 12:26 PM:
Hillary Clinton won a significant victory in the Florida primary with the biggest turnout in Florida Democratic primary history. She ended up with more votes than John McCain, the winner of the Republican primary. And Floridians cast more votes than were cast in Iowa, Nevada, South Carolina, and New Hampshire combined.
A large, broad, and diverse group of voters came out and voted for Hillary in Florida. She won women, men, and just about every age category. She won 6 in 10 Latinos and nearly 3 in 10 African American voters.
The vote turned out to be far more than symbolic. Well over 1.5 million Democrats cast their ballots, more than twice the number of voters who came out to vote in the 2004 primary.
Most of the voters in Florida fully expect that their votes will not be wasted again -- they expect to have a voice at the convention, and Hillary has asked her delegates to support their being seated.
This result comes after Senator Obama ran TV commercials that reached Florida homes and after the enormous publicity he received for South Carolina and for the Ted Kennedy endorsement. The exit polls show widespread recognition of the endorsement -- but even so among those who decided on Election Day, a plurality of those chose Hillary.
We all applaud Senator Edwards for the hard won fight and certainly admire both the Senator and his wife. We, who support Hillary, hope that the people who have been enthusiastic about John Edwards will realize that for his goals to be reached, a Hillary win would best insure that. I believe Hillary Clinton, who has been working for health care, education, children's issues and matters that effect women and their families, is the best candidate to fulfill the dreams of John and Elizabeth Edwards. Thank you John and Go Hillary.
M Miller wrote on January 30, 2008 12:29 PM:I recall Obama's statement about Edwards leaving the race. To me, the WHOLE thing sounded like something that came from Edwards mouth. I noticed that Clinton didn't mention anything about the two Americas, Edwards lack of news coverage, or specific examples of people.
I do have to give her that she at least mentioned,
frankly0 wrote on January 30, 2008 12:31 PM:
taking on those interests that stand in the way of universal health care, and a tax system that doesn’t favor the wealthy and well-connected and making sure college is affordable.
Just to expand upon a point made above, I think that if John wants to see his own excellent ideas put into place and receive the esteem he justly deserves, it is certainly Hillary who represents that opportunity, NOT Obama.
On one of John's signature issues, and certainly the most important progressive issue facing the nation, universal health care, it is Hillary who wholeheartedly embraced his ideas, and Obama who refused to. Worse, when push came to shove, and both Hillary and John criticized Obama's health care plan for its obvious failure to be universal, it was Obama who took up Republican talking points who attack what was essentially John's original, and correct idea.
Insofar as John is sincere in his interest in promoting his own policies, all the logic indicates that it is Hillary, and not Obama, who understands them, appreciates them, and will be willing to fight for them.
And beyond that, what could be more incompatible with John's fighting spirit than the treacly Kumbayah approach of Obama?
Josh wrote on January 30, 2008 12:33 PM:Here is a link to the actual interview from WBRC-TV in Birmingham.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 30, 2008 12:33 PM:Richard Adlof epitomizes the unreasonable, unthinking and unhinged aspect of the anti-Hillary/pro Obama folks.
Is that supposed to be a joke? I confess that very subtle humor is usually lost on me when it is written instead of spoken, so maybe I am missing something here. Otherwise, I am totally lost as to what you are saying. Mr Adolf is not "anti-Hillary/pro-Obama." He is almost derangedly anti-Clinton & anti-Obama. He has expressed nothing but undisguised contempt for the both of them.
Richard L. Adlof wrote on January 30, 2008 12:33 PM:I would feel guilty about my appraisal if there was not so much green splattered on Clinton's pantsuit, if she did not so readily pander to Floridians but leaking her intention to seat their delagates the night before the rimary and if her speech above did not so directly ask for what she does not deserve.
If Clinton wants my vote, rather than a vote against the registered Republican nominee, let her cease her constant fear-mongering and publicly express her intention to enforce the Sherman Ati-trust Acts. Hell, she also needs to submit a bill to repeal both PATRIOT Acts and the Military Comission Act.
A real Democrat would proclaim "Give me liberty or give me death!" not I wanta break off some of those runaway executive powers for myself.
frankly0 wrote on January 30, 2008 12:33 PM:Additionally, if you look at the demographics of the voters who go for Hillary vs. Obama, who gets the working class voters, and who gets the latte sippers?
Obviously, it's Hillary.
So why would John go with Obama and the snooty elites who love him?
Liam wrote on January 30, 2008 12:36 PM:Stop all the name calling. Hillary and Obama have every right to seek the votes of the Edwards supporters.
I do think that it would be hard for Edwards to endorse Hillary after he has painted her as the candidate of the Washington Lobbyists.
Regardless of if Edwards endorses one or the other candidate, I doubt if it will make a significant difference. You know which one of the two you want to vote for, and you will do that regardless of what John Edwards does, or does not say you should do.
Richard L. Adlof wrote on January 30, 2008 12:38 PM:loki,
Obama is a whore, too. He is only marginally less overt about it.
Spend a couple of minutes reading the Democratic Platforms for the late five decades and match them to both Clinton and Obama's express point of views. Neither Obama nor Clinton measure up very well.
loki wrote on January 30, 2008 12:41 PM:Did not know Adlof was anti-Obama as well. However, his remarkably ignorant comment does jibe with what I often hear from Obama supporters. So as I was saying...Unhinged. Not to be taken seriously.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 30, 2008 12:42 PM:Clinton won a significant victory... after Senator Obama ran TV commercials that reached Florida homes and after the enormous publicity he received for South Carolina and for the Ted Kennedy endorsement.
Hm, yes and no. Her real significant victory came from those who voted before the tv commercials, the SC victory and the Kennedy endorsement. Among those who decided in the last week (in time to see the commercials and the SC victory) and the last three days (in time to see the Kennedy endorsement) Obama actually beat her.
The exit polls show widespread recognition of the endorsement -- but even so among those who decided on Election Day, a plurality of those chose Hillary.
Sure, true as far as it goes, but as I said, that ignores the "last week" and "last three days" data which constitute an important qualification to the point you are trying to make here.
Keith wrote on January 30, 2008 12:43 PM:None of you have any idea of what is going to happen and filling this thread with countless posts trying to "prove" that Edwards is going to endorse Obama or Clinton is just pointless. Can we at least give the man and his supporters their moment to reflect on what his campaign was about and WHY he's decided to pull the plug?
Among other things, Edwards announcement is certainly going to require the media to mention that it was after his third place showing in Florida -- and this will make it impossible to downplay the importance of that vote, or to ignore how well Hillary did.
sally wrote on January 30, 2008 12:50 PM:If Edwards endorses anyone, it will be Obama. I'm a big Edward supporter who now will be voting for Obama. I think Hillary is smart and capable but I have no desire for a Bill/ Hillary redux. I also don't think Hillary can beat McCain. Sure, a lot of the hard righties (Rush, Hannity, etc...) don't like him much, but they'll rally behind him if Hillary is the Dem nominee. Obama on the other hand has been turning out young voters, independents, and crossover Republicans in record numbers.
Really sorry to see John go though.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 30, 2008 12:50 PM:Did not know Adlof was anti-Obama as well.
I hope that this does not come across as mean, dear Loki, because I really do not mean to pick on you, but this touches on one of the most interesting aspect of the race I have seen so far - the Rashomon effect, as it were. Nobody who spends even a day here could possibly miss Mr Adolf's regular diatribes against both Clinton and Obama. They are as regular as the sunrise. I am sure that even you have not missed them. Rather, the perverse effect of this board is to totally scramble the brains of both Clinton and Obama supporters to sort everyone into an "us" or "them" category. Your recent post is hardly the only example I have seen of this. Lombard, Grover-Rover, Michael A, Kefa and many others commit the same error a dozen times a day. It is odd how this campaign has turned our world into a sort of real-live Rashomon, where each of us follows the same news events and commentary and nonetheless perceives the race in manners which are each totally incompatible with the others' views. If I were a psychologist I would think that this sort of forum might be fertile ground for a research program.
john mccutchen wrote on January 30, 2008 12:52 PM:Mudcat Sanders. one of Edwards senior advisers, just told MSNBC "I will be doing everything in my power to make sure John doesn't endorse The Clintons"
Michael A wrote on January 30, 2008 12:53 PM:Are you welching on me darrell? A bet is a bet. And I was looking forward to seafood in southern florida.
Incidentally, there are 10 million registered voters in florida, and the clintons got how many votes in a beauty contest with all the name recognition? Give me a break.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 30, 2008 12:54 PM:Er, I meant Mr Adlof, not Mr Adolf. Sorry about that. :-/
AKA wrote on January 30, 2008 12:58 PM:God bless Mudcat. Clinton does not deserve Edwards endorsement or supporters. And the majority of Americans do not want the unprincipled Clintons back in the White House. Over 70% of Dem primary/caucus voters to date have sent a resounding message to the Clintons, and the majority of Republicans also reject the Clinton twofer.
Go Obama/Edwards!
Gia wrote on January 30, 2008 1:07 PM:I am sincerely hoping that John E. endorses Hillary after a bit of time passes. As a purely strategic matter, I understand why he would not, given his critique of "Washington politicians"; however, if he is true to his policies and politics I believe he will endorse her given the similarity of their substantive platforms and the similarity of their base voters. I do NOT think that 60% of these votes will go to Obama, as CNN is reporting. In fact, I think it is another example of the media creating momentum for Obama -- I just haven't quite figured out why, yet.
cmugirl wrote on January 30, 2008 1:07 PM:Interesting comments - I hope Edwards endorses Clinton. The funny thing is, I don't think Obama wins in a matchup with McCain. John McCain still grabs the independents and some Democrats, and the so-called shenanigans that have supposedly been going on the last few weeks are going to look like child's play come the general. Hillary is the only one who can beat McCain (or Romney for that matter).
It's the Surname, Stupid! wrote on January 30, 2008 1:09 PM:Greg DeLassus:
Thank you for the analysis I was just about to write. It has always been assumed that if you were not for HRC you automatically were for Obama.
Of course, *now* our choices are dwindling by the day.
I appeal to this board to have more content and less filling.
AKA
Don't you understand that the Republicans are rejecting the Clintons because they are TERRIFIED of Hillary Clinton getting the nomination?
This is a classic Republican maneuver, and we continue to fall for their silly games. The Republicans would absolutely adore Obama as the Dem candidate -- his policies are fluff, his foreign policy experience is zilch, he has no national campaigning experience, and they will absolutely trounce him. And are looking forward to it. Let's not help them.
rekab wrote on January 30, 2008 1:13 PM:Thank you Sen Edwards for your commitment to the poor and your service to our country.
Hopefully, Edwards throws his support to Hillary - the only one who can win one for the D's in November. Many of Obama's numbers so far have been in states with open primaries where independents could vote and so could Republicans (who may have their own agenda - they know an Obama nomination makes it easier for their candidate to win). While getting the independent vote is good, right now, it is important to get Democratic voters to support the candidate that can win - Sen Clinton.
And don't think that the Michigan and Florida delgates won't count - those states got screwed, and they are two big states where the Democrats don't want to piss off voters. I can't speak for Florida, but I know people are angry in Michigan. This whole NH/Iowa going first is ridiculous, which is why Michigan senators and other party leaders have been asking the DNC for SEVEN years to change the primary system to not overemphasize the importance of small, homogenous states.
Anon4 wrote on January 30, 2008 1:20 PM:Perhaps it's unfair to compare a prepared statement with remarks made in an interview, but I'll do it anyhow. Obama's words on Edwards' departure take the high road and pay a fitting tribute to the man. He gives no hint of political maneuvering. He does not jockey for votes. In fact, he doesn't inject himself at all--as is so often the case, Obama speaks of "we" as a people, never "I" (as you'll notice Hillary does so often). By contrast, Hillary's remarks seem opportunistic and, if like me you see the 90s in a slightly different light than she, disingenuous.
This doesn't surprise me. As someone involved in the hiring process, Hillary's the applicant who, convinced she's right for the job, spares no effort to secure it, recasting herself into whatever likeness she thinks her employers want. Obama, on the other hand, simply does his best to present himself and carries himself with the confidence that, if we decide he's the best for the job, we'll choose him.
In short, Hillary wants to win, and Obama hopes he's a winner.
As I said, the comments on Edwards from Clinton and Obama do nothing to change this opinion of mine.
Ben wrote on January 30, 2008 1:31 PM:Hillary can beat McCain because she's tough? Good God, the only chance the Repubs have of winning the White House is if Hillary is the Dem nominee. It would be an absolute God send for them in both fundraising and enthusiasm.
But hey, why would we nominate someone who is a great campaigner and inspires young voters, independents and crossover Republicans when we can nominate someone who despised by half of the country?
bbln wrote on January 30, 2008 1:38 PM:Obama is an arrogant p**ck. From The Snub, to his decision to sit with Kennedy when Democratic party leaders wanted he and Clinton to sit together, to the Kennedy endorsement STILL on his website homepage - nothing about Edwards...
to the male commentators on this site who would rather pick someone they'd have a beer with and whom they think is "cool" rather than a candidate who is competent to lead this country, examine your own arrogance, and your own misogyny, it's pathetically abundant.
Anonymous wrote on January 30, 2008 1:38 PM:wwjb wrote on January 30, 2008 12:00 PM:
A lifeline to the poor like the Clintons did in the 90s??????
Welfare reform anyone? Yeah, impoverished people had a lifeline in our social assistance programs, and one of the worst things that came out of the Clinton years was welfare reform, slashing benefits to the poor and kicking tons of people off supplemental support. Give me a break you lying opportunist. Quit trying to take us back to the 90s, we don't want to go backwards, and quit trying to rewrite the 90s, you did NOT help the poor. You and Bill are shameless.
This statement does show the ignorance of people who know nothing about the poor in this country. Being a child of a mother who had to rely on welfare to support us I can tell you that this program was not really a life line to the poor-- It was a doulbe edge sword. We couldn't survive without it but the system was set up to get us barely able to exist and no way to move forward. Any effort mom made to improve our lives resulted in us being worse off. I watched many people milf the system for years. THe system became a hand out. I work now with the people in this group and the system is pushing off people who should be working. I was dirt poor-- It was never an excuse to live off the government which is what the system became and HAD to be reformed. The system still isn't perfiect but it is moving back to FDR's original intention that the government will help you but you have to willing to help yourself. The old system while helping those who did need it also provided a system for those who are just lazy. Yeah people who got push off welfare--one was a girl a gradutated with who had a duaghter in high school. She told me our senior year 18 years ago when I ask her what she was doing after school, She told me she had a daughter she didn't need to work. Three years later she had to get off welfare and get a job. Being a teenage mother in our school was an edpidemic with girls who had no further ambition than to sign up on welfare. Today she is asst manager at a local store not like her mother-- a LIFETIME welfare check. THe system still needs work but when I had my daughter at 19 I was able to use the new system to complete college and provide for my child not sign up for check.
I am reaching out to all Alabama
voters by sending my race baiting
cheating husband down there to stir ya'll up a bit.
"I think Edwards will surprise a lot of people by endorsing Clinton. Their health care, energy and economic plans for the real middle and working class are actually similar. Clinton and Edwards have split the union endorsements for the most part. Also, having run as Kerry's VP in '04 I believe he sees the rights embrace of Obama for what it is - a ploy to get the weaker candidate in the General Election (like Kerry over Dean). Obama for all his GQ looks and cool IS the furthest right of the 3 candidates. Finally, based on his prior experience as a candidate, it must be obvious to him how the MSM has chosen Obama as their temporary candidate tossing aside all pretense of reporting in favor of campaigning. The MSM and the rich-kid vote are the perfect expression of the entitled interests that Edwards thinks must be fought, not pandered to. Obama's supporters are the ones routinely drinking coffees that take Clinton supporters 2 hours of work to earn enough to pay for."
Well said. I'm not sure he'll endorse anyone now, having "suspended" his campaign, which lets him hold on to his delegates and stay on the ballot while wringing more concessions from Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama. But your point about who is behind the Obama phenomena is well taken. Just for the record, hard to imagine Edwards endorsing someone who voted against a 30% cap on credit card interest because he thought it was too high. A high cap is better than no cap? Remember Edwards' face when Obama trotted that explanation out in the last debate?
there is an update on obama's page
Brian J wrote on January 30, 2008 2:58 PM:You guys all keep going back and forth, and what does it gain. Senator Obama is no JFK, and Hillary Clinton is no Mother Teresa. This is doing nothing for the party, but doing the dirty work of the Media. Look as of today when we have just lost John Edwards, Ralph Nader just started a new web site thinking about a run for President. www.naderexplore08.org Do you want the same thing that happened in 2000 to happen again, I know I don't. So lets tell Main Stream Media to make this election about the Economy, Social Security, Jobs, Health Insurance, Iraq War, Value of the Dollar, Clear Air, Global Warming,and not about he said, she said. If they don't, I say turn off our TV sets for a National Media Blackout on Feb. 4th, the day before Super Tuesday. That will hurt them in the pocket book and maybe we can get them to cover the issues, and not act like grade school kids.
blackstar wrote on January 30, 2008 3:30 PM:Richard Adlof isn't an Obama supporter. but i like to think of him as the Id of the anti-Hillary crowd.
loki wrote on January 30, 2008 3:37 PM:For Greg D.
Maybe it really isn't quite as complicated as you wish it to be. Maybe there are some in here who don't read through every single post in a one hundred and fifty post thread. There are many people in here whose names I recognize but do not read. Maybe read them once or twice some time ago and got nothing from them so moved on, never to bother with them again. Then there are those who I engage with fairly often...mostly for kicks.
And not to be rude or anything, but the Rashomon effect has nothing to do with my not having perfect, intimate knowledge of Adlof's views. Your reference to that effect really made no sense.
Yes, people do see politics and the events within our political structure in different ways given our differing cultures and backgrounds. But that isn't the same as 5 people seeing the same crime and literally seeing it differently. Your analogy doesn't really work.
But despite all that...yes indeed these forums will make a great doctoral thesis for someone!
Sadie wrote on January 31, 2008 1:16 AM:There are a lot of thoughtful, committed people, some of whom are just barely making it financially(such as myself and my family) who have done a lot of research and soul-searching and have concluded that Barack Obama is the candidate for them. So please show some respect for your fellow citizens and Democrats. I would never for example characterize "Clinton supporters" in such broad ignorant terms. What is the point? It's false, it's petty, it's divisive, and it gets us nowhere.
Furthermore, I have great respect for John Edwards-- voted for him in the primaries in '04--- and would've been happy to have him on a ticket in '08. I genuinely believe he has our country's best interests at heart, and is committed to changing the lives of the "other" America, the forgotten America. He also oozes integrity. However, he is far from perfect. He's also an incredibly, incredibly wealthy man who also voted for the war and lots of other Bush programs. He has also maintained "the high road" because the Clintons have never been threatened by his position in the race, and have therefore never tried to distort his record.
Based on listening to what he's said over many months, I would think he would endorse Obama, or neither.
