Still hope for JE! He's on the roll!

Edwards rocked. He understands the need to end this second gilded age

Before anyone start going around "analyzing" what all this stuff means. Read this article...it might put some things in perspective.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/30/AR200712...

If the Democrats voting in these early primaries do not vote for John Edwards, then its your own fricking fault that you all get pro-corporate, pro-war, brought/bought to you by big lobbyist Democratic candidates like Barack "Fraud" Obama and/or Hillary "Sellout" Clinton.

The Democrats and their minion voters have been bitching about the pro-corporate and pro-war policies of the Bush-Cheney administration for the last 7-plus years yet vote for the same type of candidate that Bush-Cheney are in Barack Obama. Obama is backed by big business and big corporate lobbyists, yet people of the Democratic party stripe and other gullible types, think he is some kind of "change candidate."

Barack Obama is not Antiwar and would bomb Iran without much problem. Obama is also a corporate candidate as well.

At this point, John Edwards is the ONLY CHOICE for the antiwar, anti-corporate, liberal/progressive base of the Democratic party.

Go Edwards!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you look at the delegates each candidate got, the top three was a hell of a lot closer of a race than pretty much everyone is talking about.

Am I wrong in this?

1. Obama - 16 delegates
2. Clinton - 15 delegates
3. Edwards - 14 delegates

As I've already explained, we don't do things that directly here. We elected precinct delegates last night. They will elect county delegates in about two months. Then those people will elect the state's delegates.

But, if everyone does as they originally intended, your breakdown could well be right.

If the Democratic Party does not pick John Edwards but, instead, chooses Barack “Fraud” Obama or Hillary “Sellout” Clinton, then I will be sitting this election out. Oh, I will vote for other races, etc., but will not cast any vote for pro-corporate, pro-war candidates.

Edwards has put forth a solid platform. Barack “Fraud” Obama has not. At least in comparison to Barack “Fraud” Obama, Hillary “Sellout” Clinton, has a much better healthcare plan for Americans.

I cannot believe the stupidity of the Democratic Party voters who after 7-plus years of Bush and Cheney thinks Obama and Clinton are much different.

Stop your phony outrage at Bush and Cheney, if you continue to support Barack “Fraud” Obama and/or Hillary “Sellout” Clinton, rather than John Edwards.

Edwards ran a good campaign also and should be congratulated. However it is a bit misleading for him to claim that he was outspent, when outside groups ran 527 advertisments that attacked Obama. They were everywhere here. We do not know exactly how much was spent, but it was in the millions. (I'm not just saying this, I'm in Iowa right now and those 527 ads were everywhere. You couldn't tell that they were not Edwards ads unless you looked very closely at the text at the end.)

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080104/NEWS03...

I respect Edwards' shunning of big business, but I think a small purchase from ChapStick would be beneficial.

Edwards is a joke, Mr Hedge Fund! He's not going to win and he's not going to be the VP because he sucked at that job in 2004.
Edwards is saying whatever he has to to get into office, blaming big business! who do you think employee's people in the country or pays most of the taxes. PRIVATIZE PRIVATIZE PRIVATIZE!!!!

Ron Paul 4 Life @ 21:

Edwards is a joke, Mr Hedge Fund! He's not going to win and he's not going to be the VP because he sucked at that job in 2004.
Edwards is saying whatever he has to to get into office, blaming big business! who do you think employee's people in the country or pays most of the taxes. PRIVATIZE PRIVATIZE PRIVATIZE!!!!

Ron Paul did well.......hahahaha

Why hasn't anyone mentioned that Edwards never congratulated Obama for his win? His speech sounded like he (Edwards) was the winner. He was not.

I like John Edwards just fine, but his "concession" speech, while I understand the need to seem/stay confident, was rude and off-putting.

I'm sorry,

My one, and only, problem with Edwards is that i also feel like he's trying to pull emotions from me by coming up with Hallmark moment after Hallmark moment. I like what he stands for, don't get me wrong, but I don't trust him. I couldn't swallow when he offered to give me the recipe of his mom's pecan pie if I donated to his campaign.....it was simply to hokie, and made me feel like a child being enticed with a piece of candy to follow the strange man.

The story of poor Mr. X and widow Y, is definitely a tragedy for our country and does highlight a system which needs to be changed...but after so many stories they again make me feel like he's trying to pull some kind of heart strings and gie the warm and fuzzies if I vote for him.......but it just doesn't seem sincere.

John "breck girl" edwards is not the man for the top job.

Edwards has indeed put forth a solid platform. But its not the best among the candidates.

I am surprised that after 8 years of bush cheney, so many edward supporters think the answer is another rich white guy who promises to break the system by which he enriched himself.

Stop your phony outrage at Bush and Cheney, if you continue to support John "breck girl" edwards. He's a washington insider.

The Democratic Party is in just as much in disarray and identity crisis as the Republican Party is.

The Democratic Party can hardly be considered to be "liberal" or "progressive" at this time. The Democratic Party is much closer and defined as a pro-corporate, neoliberal economic policy party as anything else. I hope that nobody thinks the Democratic Party is actually "liberal or progressive." The election last night should have told you this little factoid.

Liberal and progressive activists who are antiwar and skeptical of big media should not be too happy about last night whatsoever. If you are, then you are a corporatist Democrat, who cannot be serious about ending America's expansionist wars abroad.

Again, John Edwards may not be perfect, but he is much, much, better than Barack “Fraud” Obama or Hillary “Sellout” Clinton.

If you are antiwar, anti-corporation, and out for the real welfare of people here in America and in the world, then vote as if your life depends on it, or, else face the unhappy consequences!!!

Oh you Paulites are so weird. Saying whatever it takes to get elected in American politics mostly consists of giving a reach around to big business, not slamming them in every speech. Corporate taxes have declined substantially from the 1950s (27.5%) to around 10% of total federal tax receipts. Give it a rest skippy.

Ron Paul 4 Life @ 21:

Edwards is a joke, Mr Hedge Fund! He's not going to win and he's not going to be the VP because he sucked at that job in 2004.
Edwards is saying whatever he has to to get into office, blaming big business! who do you think employee's people in the country or pays most of the taxes. PRIVATIZE PRIVATIZE PRIVATIZE!!!!

The day Ron Paul gets elected president will be the same day yodelling monkeys will fly out of your asshole.
Go privatize that you putz !

WhyNoConcessionSpeach @ 25:

Why hasn't anyone mentioned that Edwards never congratulated Obama for his win? His speech sounded like he (Edwards) was the winner. He was not.

I like John Edwards just fine, but his "concession" speech, while I understand the need to seem/stay confident, was rude and off-putting.

Why should he congratulate his opponent? If he believes that he's the best candidate (meaning Edwards believes that of himself) then some sort of fake congratulations would be dishonest.

lopaloo102 @ 29:

John "breck girl" edwards is not the man for the top job.

Edwards has indeed put forth a solid platform. But its not the best among the candidates.

I am surprised that after 8 years of bush cheney, so many edward supporters think the answer is another rich white guy who promises to break the system by which he enriched himself.

Stop your phony outrage at Bush and Cheney, if you continue to support John "breck girl" edwards. He's a washington insider.

Obama or Hillary would get their butts kicked in, by the Republicans in a general election, lest your thinking is that gullible.

The name "John “Breck Girl” Edwards" is a Rush Limbaugh/right-wing talking point as well. I reject such a Limbaugh-talking point and frame. Its such a pity that you have stolen a right-wing talking point on Edwards.

Edwards may well be an insider, but, be so that as it may, he is the only one talking to regular folks and not in the least, taking the bulk of his money from big corporations and big lobbyists.

Edwards has a better chance of beating the GOP in a general election than either Barack “Fraud” Obama or Hillary “Sellout” Clinton.

Again, stop your phony outrage at Bush and Cheney, if you continue to support either Barack “Fraud” Obama or Hillary “Sellout” Clinton.

Barack had to out-spend him considering John Edwards has been in Iowa since 2004 and had a far greater ground operation and presence than Obama before Obama announced his intention to run. I love how people bring up the money, but don't recognize how far out in front Edwards was as far as his presence in the state since late 2004, early 2005.

The message from Iowa is a total rejection of villagers. The exit polls showed it to be the runaway issue: a politician that can most effect change.
The good news/bad news is: the goopers are doomed/ anybody perceived as part of the establishment is hurting.
I've been a Edwards guy forever, but watching things unfurl last night, and seeing the energy of the Obama group it is clear that it is a matter of time before I'll be supporting him. HRC is going to feel like a sinner in a "Left Behind" novel.

Anti-Baby Boomer @ 40:

Preacher BooB and Mr XXX sound like Republican lamers...

So, all of a sudden the citizenry of Iowa are too stupid to know what's good for them?

Sure Obama got the kids out to vote but he also got the indies, WOMEN, and Repubs to side with him but strangely, somehow, you too geniuses fail to mention that.. I wonder why?

Could it be sour grapes? I bethcha it is.. Too bad for the old fogies.. The past is the past OBAMA is the future and the future looks bright.

Yes, I hear a new Kool-Aid sale is on in New Hampshire this weekend.

The economic forecast for 2008 does not look too bright and Barack "Fraud" Obama will not make the sub-prime loan crisis any better, lest you are that gullible to think that the pro-corporate Obama is the answer to that problem. Obama conveniently skipped the vote on Kyl-Lieberman even though he is on record of supporting an attack on Iran.

What is favorite Kool-Aid flavor? I am sure it will be on tap this weekend in New Hampshire in the same manner it was handed out in Iowa on Thursday.

Keep drinking that Kool-Aid as you watch your cable TV and believe all that fluffy-fluff stuff you are fed every day. Take care.

Hello Former Senator Edwards is the only candidate not taking Pac Money?
Edwards has learned valuable lessons from his vote for the 2002 war resolution. He has taken a solid stance against the neo-cons who sold the American public an unnecessary war based on a "pack of lies." He is focused on poverty (these folks do not vote) and on busting up corporate greed...HE IS NOT TAKING PAC MONEY (send him money) while Hillary Clinton is Pac Woman and OBama is Pac Man.

How in the hell has OBama been able to spin his fence sitting into being "an agent of change" and the man from "hope". This is the guy who played it so safe that he happened to be out of town during the Kyl Lieberman amendment. Really "bold" (cough cough)

FORMER SENATOR EDWARDS IS NOT TAKING PAC MONEY! Hello New Hampshire do you recognize someone walking their talk?

This is the best clip on Hillary, OBama, Edwards demonstrating who they are
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npzN3dZR6JM

charlie @ 42:

wow there's so much hate for edwards out there that he has to be the man for the job.

Corporate America (including Chris Matthews and the rest of the MSMers) are terrified.

Edwards is not taking Pac Money...Hello New Hampshire he is walking his talk...not taking Pac monies. Hillary is Pac Woman and OBama is Pac Man

lopaloo102 @ 36:

john "iraq war" edwards is the corporatists candidate. He's a dc insider who was there once and did nothing. He'll get back there and do nothing again.

obama, though the most authentic candidate, certainly is not perfect, and neither is clinton. But john "love child" edwards is the least likely to affect change in DC, given his record the first time around.

If you are anti-war, anti corporation and out for the welfare of people here and around the world, then vote democrat, whichever one of the imperfect candidate wins the nom....even if its john "iraq war co-sponsor" edwards

the one mainstream candidate (and i hate using that term) that openly challenges the corporatocracy is the corporatist? huh? that makes no sense to me.

ralph nader, an anti-corporate crusader, supports edwards.

michael moore (love him or hate him, he is steadfast in his opposition to the corporatocracy) supports edwards.

edwards:
"I want to make an announcement today. No corporate lobbyists or anyone who has lobbied for a foreign government will work in my White House. We will not replace corporate Republicans with corporate Democrats. I hear people argue that the way that you can get things done is to sit at a table with drug companies, insurance companies, oil companies, and negotiate with them and somehow they will voluntarily give away their power. I think this is a complete fantasy.

"I am proud of the fact that I have never taken money from a Washington lobbyist or a special interest PAC my whole time in public life. I don't think you can bring about change by taking their money or sitting down at a table and trying to make a deal with them. I think if that worked, we would have universal health care, we would be attacking global warming, we'd have a trade policy that makes sense, and we'd have a tax policy that makes sense. I don't think these people will give up anything without a fight – they've been there too long and they have billions of dollars at stake."

http://www.alternet.org/election08/72079/

your parroting and repetition of rightwing talking points is not exactly convincing.

I don't think readers of Crooks and Liars generally believe the punditocracy. The "Edwards angry" meme is there strictly because extended dealings with poverty or corporate greed doesn't appeal to mainstream media in context of political campaign coverage. We've been there before with Dean '04 and we know that angry plays a part but the real excitement is about, "We want our country back."
If you were to look deeply at Edwards I think his problem may lie in his mixed voting performance.

I say destroy the system by pledging, in the next general election, to enter the voting booth and not leave until you are handed a verifiable ballot on which to vote. Hand counted paper ballots are the least corruptible voting systems available today. No black box machines involved in any of the process. There is no time limit to cast your vote so it can take up to 13 hours to make up my mind on whom to vote for once I enter the electronic voting booth. I'll bet Edwards wouldn't accept another election stolen from him without one hell of a constitutional show down where everyone would see the total corruption of our voting process. If we all make it clear this will come to pass, maybe there will be changes before the general election.

I'm still waiting for the front runners to speak, and speak decisively, on behalf of the Constitution. Instead, deafening silence and a famine of ideas.

dcdissident @ 48:

After campaigning in Iowa for 4 years, I think Edwards can only be seen as having lost. If he was such a populist surely he could have raised more money from small donors in all that time. He should stop complaining about being outspent. He didn't have the support or organization to raise his own money, has decided to opt for federal funding, and relied on union money to do the work for him.

For a guy who was so wrong on the war and trade while he was in office, he has been too transparent in trying to make himself the perfect progressive. His political career is over. One can be a populist without being so redundantly harsh. Nobody likes a complainer. The average voter prefers a more positive view of the world and just not some pissed off rich guy.

Yeah like the spin that Oprah and Obama participate in. Where is Obama's "bold" action, where is the "hope"? I need to hear and see change. Edwards has learned from his 2002 war resolution vote Hillary did not (she voted for the Kyl Lieberman amendment). Edwards brought up the people who lied our nation into this unnecessary and immoral war during the debates...Hillary did not...Obama did not.

Obama is a fence sitter with his finger in the wind. He sat on the fence ever since he became Senator and started running for President. NO "Agent of change" Obama is a fence sitter.

Edwards is not taking Pac Money....many folks get this. Some do not.

As far as who is loathed by the republicans more?

All 3 have (D)s by their name. And as far as who is different? Obama, Hillary, and Edwards policies are very very similar! People looking for huge differences are looking at a mirage.

And Mr. XXXX - and the #2 man usually gets the nomination as vice president so you shoudn't give up just yet.

charlie @ 42:

wow there's so much hate for edwards out there that he has to be the man for the job.

Go look at the comments below Obama's speech.....if hate is your measure of the ideal candidate look no further.

bandit @ 27:

I'm sorry,

My one, and only, problem with Edwards is that i also feel like he's trying to pull emotions from me by coming up with Hallmark moment after Hallmark moment. I like what he stands for, don't get me wrong, but I don't trust him. I couldn't swallow when he offered to give me the recipe of his mom's pecan pie if I donated to his campaign.....it was simply to hokie, and made me feel like a child being enticed with a piece of candy to follow the strange man.

The story of poor Mr. X and widow Y, is definitely a tragedy for our country and does highlight a system which needs to be changed...but after so many stories they again make me feel like he's trying to pull some kind of heart strings and gie the warm and fuzzies if I vote for him.......but it just doesn't seem sincere.

I agree with Bandit here -- Edwards didn't make a concession speech, he made a closing argument. If he wants to be president he needs to communicate like a leader and not a lawyer.

Ron Paul 4 Life @ 21:

Edwards is a joke, Mr Hedge Fund! He's not going to win and he's not going to be the VP because he sucked at that job in 2004.
Edwards is saying whatever he has to to get into office, blaming big business! who do you think employee's people in the country or pays most of the taxes. PRIVATIZE PRIVATIZE PRIVATIZE!!!!

Good one. Very funny.

lopaloo102 @ 50:

last i checked, edwards efforts in regard to the subprime home crisis amounted to foreclosing on a few unfortunate souls in LA, whose mortgages happened to be owned by the hedge fund he lobbied for until he got caught...

are you suggesting that the feds should bail out the bankers who botched all that up?...

"Last I checked..." Oh yeah. You checked.

More crapola from Lopalo.

"Breck Girl." Hahahahaha. You guys slay me. You really do. If you needed open heart surgery, and you found the most highly skilled, most experienced surgeon with the highest patient survival rate, would you say "Naaaah. The guys spends $400 on his haircuts"? I doubt it.

Hillary is bought and sold. Obama will owe quite a few corporate favors if he makes the white house. I'll stick with the guy who accepts my money and owes me, a citizen.

Anti-Baby Boomer @ 58:

Preacher Boob @ 46:

Anti-Baby Boomer @ 40:

Preacher BooB and Mr XXX sound like Republican lamers...

So, all of a sudden the citizenry of Iowa are too stupid to know what's good for them?

Sure Obama got the kids out to vote but he also got the indies, WOMEN, and Repubs to side with him but strangely, somehow, you too geniuses fail to mention that.. I wonder why?

Could it be sour grapes? I bethcha it is.. Too bad for the old fogies.. The past is the past OBAMA is the future and the future looks bright.

If Obama is the 'future' from now to November, he will become the dismal past as of November 5th, and the even more dismal future from November 5th on, will be commanded by a republican. The citizenry of Iowa may think they now what's good for them, but they sure as hell don't know what this country needs, which is a non-republican administration.

Its only people who aren't supporting Obama who think he is unelectable. I guess you want the rest of us to surmise that Edwards is a better candidate and/or more electable and that is based on what? His views? They are pretty similar to Obama's. His party affiliation? they are both Dems. His skin color? Well I think the lily white state of Iowa proves that not every white voter is a moth breathing bigot, and most of them are altruistic people sick of watching the rich white male get elected over and over again.

But convince me Preacher Boob. Why is my support of Obama wrong and your support of Edwards(or whomever) right?

What crystal ball did you borrow to let you know what will happen in November, because as I see it we are in uncharted territory and the past cannot be used to predict the future here.. But hey, explain away.. I'm all ears.

I am definitely not saying that your support of Obama is 'wrong', or even that my support of Edwards is 'right'. I have no claim to prescience, all opinions expressed are simply that, opinions, and they're all mine, based on my experience. I've been wrong before, and I expect to be wrong again. In my experience, the only way to avoid mistakes, or being 'wrong', is to do nothing. I prefer to avoid that, and let the chips, and mistakes, fall where they may.
Now, with respect to Obama. I cheerfully admit I have not studied him in detail, when I have heard his views, they seem to iterate and reiterate that he is for 'change'. Well, hell, George Bush could honestly run on that platform, and if he won, 'change' things by making them even more abominable than they are.
Re: Edwards, I agree that an essential change needed in the US is to reduce the absurd effect corporate fascism and unbridled wealth (and the resulting power) has on our political structure: legislation, executive power, and the courts. Were he to win, his challenge to effect his goals would reduce Sissyphus' effort to pushing grains of sand in a sandbox, by comparison. But we must start someplace, change to direction. And I say this from the experience of having spent some time in upper-middle management of major corporations, and owned a couple businesses of my own. US business is as corrupt as US politics, and should be reformed.
And the Iraq war, and our foreign policies, must be changed. Edwards did initially support the war, but has profusely apologized for that. I bought the lies, too, and initially fell for the bullshit. And I, too, profusely chastise myself for that.
Things must change. Healthwise, Edwards has a comprehensive plan. He is smart. He has a great wife. I believe he is sincere, dedicated, and the best current choice. Time will tell. Or NOT.

Anti-Baby Boomer @ 64:

Kathleen @ 59:

dcdissident @ 48:

After campaigning in Iowa for 4 years, I think Edwards can only be seen as having lost. If he was such a populist surely he could have raised more money from small donors in all that time. He should stop complaining about being outspent. He didn't have the support or organization to raise his own money, has decided to opt for federal funding, and relied on union money to do the work for him.

For a guy who was so wrong on the war and trade while he was in office, he has been too transparent in trying to make himself the perfect progressive. His political career is over. One can be a populist without being so redundantly harsh. Nobody likes a complainer. The average voter prefers a more positive view of the world and just not some pissed off rich guy.

Yeah like the spin that Oprah and Obama participate in. Where is Obama's "bold" action, where is the "hope"? I need to hear and see change. Edwards has learned from his 2002 war resolution vote Hillary did not (she voted for the Kyl Lieberman amendment). Edwards brought up the people who lied our nation into this unnecessary and immoral war during the debates...Hillary did not...Obama did not.

Obama is a fence sitter with his finger in the wind. He sat on the fence ever since he became Senator and started running for President. NO "Agent of change" Obama is a fence sitter.

Edwards is not taking Pac Money....many folks get this. Some do not.

so.. Coming out against the war is sitting on the fence about the war?

He has stated his positions on many subjects and has offered his solution to problems.

$1,000 tax cut to off-set the payroll tax is fence sitting?

Deploy Next-Generation Broadband is fence sitting?

Protect the Openness of the Internet is fence sitting?

Raise the Minimum Wage and index it to inflation is sitting on the fence?

Establishing a Credit Card Bill of Rights to Protect Consumers is fence sitting?

reforming bankruptcy laws is fence sitting?

Sure no candidate is perfect but some of the reasons people are coming up with to bash Obama are inherent in their candidates also.. IOW's me thinks you protest too much.

Hey. He's right Kathleen.

Ducking Kyl-Lieberman wasn't "fence sitting."

It was cowardice.

Anti-Baby Boomer @ 58:

Preacher Boob @ 46:

Anti-Baby Boomer @ 40:

Preacher BooB and Mr XXX sound like Republican lamers...

So, all of a sudden the citizenry of Iowa are too stupid to know what's good for them?

Sure Obama got the kids out to vote but he also got the indies, WOMEN, and Repubs to side with him but strangely, somehow, you too geniuses fail to mention that.. I wonder why?

Could it be sour grapes? I bethcha it is.. Too bad for the old fogies.. The past is the past OBAMA is the future and the future looks bright.

If Obama is the 'future' from now to November, he will become the dismal past as of November 5th, and the even more dismal future from November 5th on, will be commanded by a republican. The citizenry of Iowa may think they now what's good for them, but they sure as hell don't know what this country needs, which is a non-republican administration.

Its only people who aren't supporting Obama who think he is unelectable. I guess you want the rest of us to surmise that Edwards is a better candidate and/or more electable and that is based on what? His views? They are pretty similar to Obama's. His party affiliation? they are both Dems. His skin color? Well I think the lily white state of Iowa proves that not every white voter is a moth breathing bigot, and most of them are altruistic people sick of watching the rich white male get elected over and over again.

But convince me Preacher Boob. Why is my support of Obama wrong and your support of Edwards(or whomever) right?

What crystal ball did you borrow to let you know what will happen in November, because as I see it we are in uncharted territory and the past cannot be used to predict the future here.. But hey, explain away.. I'm all ears.

So does that means you can be accused of being an anti-white bigot because you support Obama over Edwards? Especially if, as you say, their positions on the major issues are basically the same?

Edwards is tried and true having been trough a presidential campaign before and he wasn't the top of the ticket of that campaign so I hardly think he can be blamed for loosing a narrow election with Kerry at the top of the ticket. Plus Edwards has sacrificed big in his life having lost a son in an auto accident, having a wife with terminal cancer and working his way up from being a poor kid so he can empathize with those who have struggled. What has Obama sacrificed other than perhaps passing up a bong hit in college?

Many of these Obama supporters want to accuse others of being bigoted just because they don't think he can pull off the election in the generals for whatever reason. Yet many of these same Obama supporters don't like Hillary, some even calling her a "bitch", does that make them misogynist? Sorry, you can't get by with playing both sides of the field like that.

One can also make the case with two white candidates in the Iowa caucus Obama effectively divided the white vote. He will not have that luxury in the generals. I am not saying that's why he won in a conservative white state but it is a distinct possibility and this was a Democratic caucus where mostly only Democrats participated, that won't be the case in the generals. I for one want all the advantages in our court going into this next very crucial election especailly if as you say, their positions are basically the same, why would you not support the candidate that all polling data suggest would beat every Republican in the field? And that would be John Edwards.

Someone needs to tell Obama that the time for rhetoric like "hope" and "unity" is over. I do not trust people who speak in that language anymore.

I watched the speeches of both Senator Obama and John Edwards last night. I was inspired by the achievements and hopes Obama attributed to the "coalition of change".

But John Edwards' speech not only inspired me, it gave me hope. Hope that we could have a leader who is fearless in the face of rising corporate greed within the government which should be protecting us from that greed. And fearless enough to just say it!

http://www.johnedwards.com/media/video/iowa-caucuses/

I couldn't help but feel that that fearlessness was missing from Obama's speech. So I read the transcripts and compared. Obama did mention bitterness and pettiness. Both mentioned change. But there were important things missing from Obama's speech. Things which John Edwards spoke of in a clear, strong voice. Words I want to hear from my president's mouth, with clear intent to do something about them. Words Obama did not use.

Corporate
Insurance
C.E.O.
ExxonMobil
Greed
Profits
Record profits
Hunger
Homeless
Beg
Enough

Ruthless People @ 77:

Anti-Baby Boomer @ 58:

Preacher Boob @ 46:

Anti-Baby Boomer @ 40:

If Obama is the 'future' from now to November, he will become the dismal past as of November 5th, and the even more dismal future from November 5th on, will be commanded by a republican. The citizenry of Iowa may think they now what's good for them, but they sure as hell don't know what this country needs, which is a non-republican administration.

Its only people who aren't supporting Obama who think he is unelectable. I guess you want the rest of us to surmise that Edwards is a better candidate and/or more electable and that is based on what? His views? They are pretty similar to Obama's. His party affiliation? they are both Dems. His skin color? Well I think the lily white state of Iowa proves that not every white voter is a moth breathing bigot, and most of them are altruistic people sick of watching the rich white male get elected over and over again.

But convince me Preacher Boob. Why is my support of Obama wrong and your support of Edwards(or whomever) right?

What crystal ball did you borrow to let you know what will happen in November, because as I see it we are in uncharted territory and the past cannot be used to predict the future here.. But hey, explain away.. I'm all ears.

So does that means you can be accused of being an anti-white bigot because you support Obama over Edwards? Especially if, as you say, their positions on the major issues are basically the same?

Edwards is tried and true having been trough a presidential campaign before and he wasn't the top of the ticket of that campaign so I hardly think he can be blamed for loosing a narrow election with Kerry at the top of the ticket. Plus Edwards has sacrificed big in his life having lost a son in an auto accident, having a wife with terminal cancer and working his way up from being a poor kid so he can empathize with those who have struggled. What has Obama sacrificed other than perhaps passing up a bong hit in college?

Many of these Obama supporters want to accuse others of being bigoted just because they don't think he can pull off the election in the generals for whatever reason. Yet many of these same Obama supporters don't like Hillary, some even calling her a "bitch", does that make them misogynist? Sorry, you can't get by with playing both sides of the field like that.

One can also make the case with two white candidates in the Iowa caucus Obama effectively divided the white vote. He will not have that luxury in the generals. I am not saying that's why he won in a conservative white state but it is a distinct possibility and this was a Democratic caucus where mostly only Democrats participated, that won't be the case in the generals. I for one want all the advantages in our court going into this next very crucial election especailly if as you say, their positions are basically the same, why would you not support the candidate that all polling data suggest would beat every Republican in the field? And that would be John Edwards.

very well said

Ron Paul 4 Life @ 21:

Edwards is a joke, Mr Hedge Fund! He's not going to win and he's not going to be the VP because he sucked at that job in 2004.
Edwards is saying whatever he has to to get into office, blaming big business! who do you think employee's people in the country or pays most of the taxes. PRIVATIZE PRIVATIZE PRIVATIZE!!!!

it sure as fuck aint big buisness!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mr. XXXX @ 15:

If the Democratic Party does not pick John Edwards but, instead, chooses Barack “Fraud” Obama or Hillary “Sellout” Clinton, then I will be sitting this election out. Oh, I will vote for other races, etc., but will not cast any vote for pro-corporate, pro-war candidates.

Edwards has put forth a solid platform. Barack “Fraud” Obama has not. At least in comparison to Barack “Fraud” Obama, Hillary “Sellout” Clinton, has a much better healthcare plan for Americans.

I cannot believe the stupidity of the Democratic Party voters who after 7-plus years of Bush and Cheney thinks Obama and Clinton are much different.

Stop your phony outrage at Bush and Cheney, if you continue to support Barack “Fraud” Obama and/or Hillary “Sellout” Clinton, rather than John Edwards.

I consider myself a social democrat. I really like Edwards stance in this cycle. Ideologically his beliefs match up with mine on most of the issues though I would take some of them a little further and opt for the nationalisation of core areas like energy, health and education.

Having said that, anyone who believes that the whole of America is ready at this moment in time for an ideological shift of the magnitude that Edwards is proposing might be being a little optimistic. I think that the residue of the politics of fear is still heavy on the ground in the collective psyche of the American public and if the republicans were to be facing Edwards in a national election that is exactly what they would tap in to.

Edwards is doing a great job of raising awareness of the issues that concern a lot of people and is managing to pull his fellow Democratic nominees from the safety of the centre.

If Edwards does fall from the race, which unfortunately I think he eventually will, then his supporters will be deciding which of the other two candidates to support. This will force both of them to adopt at least some of Edward's populist positions in order to bring in this significant cache of votes.

Barack Obama is a little to the right for my taste but he is perfectly positioned to facilitate the shift toward the left that America is leaning toward at the moment. Clinton is way too far to the right for my liking and her hawkish foreign policy stance scares the sh*t out of me.

I most definitely don't see her as an agent of change in the way that I see Obama whose very election would change the world's perception of America overnight and represent a shift in the consciousness of America that has long been brewing.

To get to the point, Edwards is a great candidate and from what I've seen of him a man I greatly admire but I think he may be one cycle early. Obama is more likely to be accepted by America as a whole and his tenure as POTUS could pave the way for a populist like Edwards to sweep the boards in the next election. If he can tempt some of those on the right of the aisle to vote for him this time then they could be more amenable to voting blue the next time around.

Patience is a virtue and in politics it is part of the recipe for real change so when you lambast Obama and even Clinton like that and say that you won't support them then you are not doing the cause you believe in much real good.

I believe the change you desire is coming, just not at the pace you want it at. Opting out of voting would really be a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater and serve no purpose other than to bring the repugs one vote closer to getting back in.

And I have to say that Obama may not stand for the ideals that you espouse but he is most definitely not of the ilk of Bush/Cheney. As for Clinton her tactical switch to the politics of fear over the last week was quite a disturbing turn and but still far removed from the tactics of Darth and the Chimp.

Johnny2Bad @ 76:

JTM @ 72:

lopaloo102 @ 50:

last i checked....

You know, you'd be a lot more difficult to ignore if, when you did check things, you made a little note of the source and included it in your next post. Until then....

Don't hold yer breath.

don't let this burst your bubble guys.....though i'm sure you don't see this as inconsistent with the idea that edwards is the anti-corporatist hero...

links below

"As a presidential candidate, Democrat John Edwards has regularly attacked subprime lenders, particularly those that have filed foreclosure suits against victims of Hurricane Katrina. But as an investor, Mr. Edwards has ties to lenders foreclosing on Katrina victims.

The Wall Street Journal has identified 34 New Orleans homes whose owners have faced foreclosure suits from subprime-lending units of Fortress Investment Group LLC. Mr. Edwards has about $16 million invested in Fortress funds, according to a campaign aide who confirmed a more general Federal Election Commission report. Mr. Edwards worked for Fortress, a publicly held private-equity fund, "

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118728685546999884.html?mod=hpp_us_whats...
http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/09/bad_news_for_edwards_hedge_fund_fo...

Help Edwards Help yourself
http://www.johnedwards.com/

I've been speaking to friends today and the number one question was:

Can a black Democrat be elected POTUS?

The answers from this progressive circle of friends ranged from ..."Maybe" to "I don't know" to "If its Huckabee" to "No f*cking way".

All said they would vote for him but not one said "Yes".

Thoughts?

(I've always thought that the first black president would be a Republican. But hey, I've been wrong before...I know, hard to believe.)

DAVE @ 66:

I HAVE NOT SEEN POSTED YET,BUT DO YOU THINK THERE WILL BE A BLACK MAN THAT IS MUSLIM FOR PRESIDENT? I DONT THINK SO. WHAT DO YOU THINK?

If a Muslim was president, which Obama is not (Muslim or president), would it be any worse than a rapture nutjob with his hand on the button? Now take your broken sift key and go back to Little Green Footballs. They will love you there.

The key difference between the top three candidates as far as I can see is that Hillary and Obama got rich bending over for big corporations to get money. Edwards got rich by bending over big corporations to take their money.

Who do you want on your side?

WhyNoConcessionSpeach @ 25:

Why hasn't anyone mentioned that Edwards never congratulated Obama for his win? His speech sounded like he (Edwards) was the winner. He was not.

I like John Edwards just fine, but his "concession" speech, while I understand the need to seem/stay confident, was rude and off-putting.

it aint like the elections over!

lumberjack

what big corporations does obama bend over for? i hear a lot of people throwing that accusation around, but i haven't seen one link, fact to back it up....

obama doesn't accept money from lobbyists either....

so to make some distinction between the two, based on donations, is unfounded. word games

Hel-Lo! We actually have a candidate who is not taking PAC money and he managed to land second place in Iowa, and we are debating whom to support? If not taking cash from big business for your campaign isn't "putting your money where your mouth is," then what the hell is? And if scoring second place in Iowa despite not having corporate money isn't proof that he could win the general election, what would be? This is about as good an opportunity as us progressive populist types are going to get to get someone in there who might actually start breaking big business' hold over our government. And if the problems of the last twenty years or so can be boiled down to one thing, that's it.

As for voting records, none of these front runners' records are the least bit remarkable, but at least one of them is not kissing corporations' asses to get elected. He has openly named them the enemy, which is what we've been screaming about on these blogs for years, instead of just using the word "change" over and over again, interspersed with Republican talking points. Go Edwards!!

Anti-Baby Boomer @ 40:

Preacher BooB and Mr XXX sound like Republican lamers...

So, all of a sudden the citizenry of Iowa are too stupid to know what's good for them?

Sure Obama got the kids out to vote but he also got the indies, WOMEN, and Repubs to side with him but strangely, somehow, you too geniuses fail to mention that.. I wonder why?

Could it be sour grapes? I bethcha it is.. Too bad for the old fogies.. The past is the past OBAMA is the future and the future looks bright.

yeah for haliburton

I liken Obama on some level to Ralph Nader. Sure, it felt good to support Nader because he was an underdog who best expressed my values. But supporting Nader lost Gore the election and the loss of that election to a Republican (a religious one, all the worse) got us into two intractable wars, a widening gap between the rich and the poor, no progress made on climate change or healthcare, not to mention total and complete alienation from the rest of the free and developing worlds on a variety of other issues.

I believe Barack Obama is a good person. But he is more than hawkish and he is still of the mind that you have to work with your enemies (which is what the Republican party is) to get what you want done. Newsflash: George Bush got essentially everything he wanted without working with the Democrats.

And most importantly, Barack Obama is a black man in a rabidly racist country (can you hear the banjoes playing???). Remember the saga of the CHADS that lost Gore the election? I don't support people just because they're the underdogs anymore or because they have or do not have extra melanin in their skin or because they've waited long enough. Think Clarence Thomas, Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell. All three, perfect FAILURES. Being black or white or Christian or Muslim or Old or Young doesn't make you a good anything. Having good ideas and working to see them realized does.

So I am supporting John Edwards.

Ron Paul 4 Life @ 21:

Edwards is a joke, Mr Hedge Fund! He's not going to win and he's not going to be the VP because he sucked at that job in 2004.
Edwards is saying whatever he has to to get into office, blaming big business! who do you think employee's people in the country or pays most of the taxes. PRIVATIZE PRIVATIZE PRIVATIZE!!!!

You are so stupid, I'm surprised you can type.

In the last 35 years, big business has gotten tax break after tax break, while constantly shipping their jobs overseas. Corporate taxes have been cut 67% since 1973! Furthermore, you colossus of stupidity, most of the tax revenue comes from payroll taxes, not corporations. Middle class workers, you stupid SOB!

And privatization is nothing more than corporate welfare, upper-class socialism. Lay-off middle class workers, pay more for shitty privatized services, (where the workers make $7.00 an hour), and a couple of republican CEO cronies steal the rest. Then, after all those middle class jobs are wiped-out, and your house loses $75,000 in value, moron fucks like you will blame the democrats for the shitty state of the economy.

Honest to god, what planet do brain-dead, sociopathic, clueless f'ing imbeciles like you live on!
If you would bother to turn around, you would notice that pole being shoved up your arse, is being held by Bush/Cheney, and the re-puke privatizer's. And they are laughing at the fact that you are so fucking stupid, you haven't figured it out yet. MORON!

lopaloo102 @ 89:

Johnny2Bad @ 76:

JTM @ 72:

lopaloo102 @ 50:
You know, you'd be a lot more difficult to ignore if, when you did check things, you made a little note of the source and included it in your next post. Until then....

Don't hold yer breath.

don't let this burst your bubble guys.....though i'm sure you don't see this as inconsistent with the idea that edwards is the anti-corporatist hero...

links below

"As a presidential candidate, Democrat John Edwards has regularly attacked subprime lenders, particularly those that have filed foreclosure suits against victims of Hurricane Katrina. But as an investor, Mr. Edwards has ties to lenders foreclosing on Katrina victims.

The Wall Street Journal has identified 34 New Orleans homes whose owners have faced foreclosure suits from subprime-lending units of Fortress Investment Group LLC. Mr. Edwards has about $16 million invested in Fortress funds, according to a campaign aide who confirmed a more general Federal Election Commission report. Mr. Edwards worked for Fortress, a publicly held private-equity fund, "

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118728685546999884.html?mod=hpp_us_whats...
http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/09/bad_news_for_edwards_hedge_fund_foreclosed_on_iowa_mortgages.php

Another fine cut and paste Googling from you. From the WSJ no less...Bravo.

So Edwards worked for a giant hedge fund that had a "stake" in a sub-prime lender that then did what? Foreclosed on...Wow, 34 NOLA loans. Think of it...Thirty-four. Where's the independent Federal investigation on this? This proves exactly...nothing. Any "predatory lending" involved in these cases? (Sub-prime doesn't mean "predatory".) You don't know if there was. Your "proof" doesn't show that because not only is your "research" lazy...its thin and specious.

BTW, looks like your hero isn't exactly Mr. Clean?:
Obama "personally bought stock in a drug company that makes avian flu vaccine and two weeks later took the lead in a legislative push for more federal spending to battle the disease" or that "he bought more than $50,000 in stock in a satellite communications business whose principal backers include four friends and donors who had raised more than $150,000 for his political committees."

So, Paleeze. Try again. Its embarrassing.

Anti-Baby Boomer @ 58:

Preacher Boob @ 46:

Anti-Baby Boomer @ 40:

Preacher BooB and Mr XXX sound like Republican lamers...

So, all of a sudden the citizenry of Iowa are too stupid to know what's good for them?

Sure Obama got the kids out to vote but he also got the indies, WOMEN, and Repubs to side with him but strangely, somehow, you too geniuses fail to mention that.. I wonder why?

Could it be sour grapes? I bethcha it is.. Too bad for the old fogies.. The past is the past OBAMA is the future and the future looks bright.

If Obama is the 'future' from now to November, he will become the dismal past as of November 5th, and the even more dismal future from November 5th on, will be commanded by a republican. The citizenry of Iowa may think they now what's good for them, but they sure as hell don't know what this country needs, which is a non-republican administration.

Its only people who aren't supporting Obama who think he is unelectable. I guess you want the rest of us to surmise that Edwards is a better candidate and/or more electable and that is based on what? His views? They are pretty similar to Obama's. His party affiliation? they are both Dems. His skin color? Well I think the lily white state of Iowa proves that not every white voter is a moth breathing bigot, and most of them are altruistic people sick of watching the rich white male get elected over and over again.

But convince me Preacher Boob. Why is my support of Obama wrong and your support of Edwards(or whomever) right?

What crystal ball did you borrow to let you know what will happen in November, because as I see it we are in uncharted territory and the past cannot be used to predict the future here.. But hey, explain away.. I'm all ears.

you left out antisimetic!!!!!oh wait

Lopaloo - you just don't know what you are talking about. Obama is second only to Hillary for big pharma money. Obama is as corporate as Hillary or at least aspires to be. And, he still thinks he can dance with the devil and make deals with Repukes - ain't gonna happen. lopaloo102 @ 101:

lumberjack

what big corporations does obama bend over for? i hear a lot of people throwing that accusation around, but i haven't seen one link, fact to back it up....

obama doesn't accept money from lobbyists either....

so to make some distinction between the two, based on donations, is unfounded. word games

if you’re willing… you’re willing to stand up to corporate greed, that message and the American people are unstoppable.

Too bad he didn't stop that same corporate greed the first time around...

I just watched a few minutes of Chrissy Matthews interviewing Elizabeth Edwards and this man is a freaking idiot. He's rude and obnoxious and incoherent. How the hell did out media get to this state? No wonder the American people are confused and ignorant of facts when it comes to voting. The media has absolutely no substance.

Bluesage @ 119:

I just watched a few minutes of Chrissy Matthews interviewing Elizabeth Edwards and this man is a freaking idiot. He's rude and obnoxious and incoherent. How the hell did out media get to this state? No wonder the American people are confused and ignorant of facts when it comes to voting. The media has absolutely no substance.

Tweety is a desperate man who's lost his mind. I assume Elizabeth Edwards was her usual intelligent, gracious self in spite of him.

I for one thought this speech entirely inappropriate for the occasion. It was a great speech - for another time. It rang a very 'sore-loser' note last night, and was ungracious on the whole. Sad that so many are so ignorant about Obama, but if people don't want to know something they'll make sure not to know it, I guess.

If Obama or Hillary are the candidates for the Democratic side, I will be sitting out the election. I am no longer going to vote for someone just because they have a D after their name. It probably doesn't matter anyway. This country is far too gone. I'm going to sit by and watch this place go up in smoke. It's definitely going to happen. It just depends on how fast. By electing Edwards, things could possibly change a bit. Putting Hillary or Obama in there is either ensuring a Republican win, or putting Obama or Hillary in who are right of center.

Joe rogo @ 81:

I watched the speeches of both Senator Obama and John Edwards last night. I was inspired by the achievements and hopes Obama attributed to the "coalition of change".

But John Edwards' speech not only inspired me, it gave me hope. Hope that we could have a leader who is fearless in the face of rising corporate greed within the government which should be protecting us from that greed. And fearless enough to just say it!

http://www.johnedwards.com/media/video/iowa-caucuses/

I couldn't help but feel that that fearlessness was missing from Obama's speech. So I read the transcripts and compared. Obama did mention bitterness and pettiness. Both mentioned change. But there were important things missing from Obama's speech. Things which John Edwards spoke of in a clear, strong voice. Words I want to hear from my president's mouth, with clear intent to do something about them. Words Obama did not use.

Corporate
Insurance
C.E.O.
ExxonMobil
Greed
Profits
Record profits
Hunger
Homeless
Beg
Enough

Here is the closest Obama came to those kind of words in his "victory" speech:

Hope
Hope
Hope
Hope
Hope
Hope
Hope
Bring together Democrats and Republicans to get the job done.
Hope

onceler @ 123:

I for one thought this speech entirely inappropriate for the occasion. It was a great speech - for another time. It rang a very 'sore-loser' note last night, and was ungracious on the whole. Sad that so many are so ignorant about Obama, but if people don't want to know something they'll make sure not to know it, I guess.

Ok. Educate us.

Make the case.

Hail to the Chimp @ 128:

Andrew @ 41:

Barack had to out-spend him considering John Edwards has been in Iowa since 2004 and had a far greater ground operation and presence than Obama before Obama announced his intention to run. I love how people bring up the money, but don't recognize how far out in front Edwards was as far as his presence in the state since late 2004, early 2005.

EXACTLY.

Well if we're going to be adding up advantages here, don't forget the MSM did a nearly total blackout of Edward's campaign. I've seen comments from people who had no idea is was running until recently. The media made it all about Clinton vs. Obama.

Johnny2Bad @ 132:

Hail to the Chimp @ 128:

Andrew @ 41:

Barack had to out-spend him considering John Edwards has been in Iowa since 2004 and had a far greater ground operation and presence than Obama before Obama announced his intention to run. I love how people bring up the money, but don't recognize how far out in front Edwards was as far as his presence in the state since late 2004, early 2005.

EXACTLY.

Uh, no. Not really.

It doesn't look like he was all that "far out in front" to me. Within 2% or so the entire time Obama was in the race. (Trend since '04: JE,25.5% to BO,27.7%)

So what's was your point, again?

Am I missing something?

Yes you are missing something. The comment was that Edwards has spent a lot more time in Iowa than Obama. Barack was not campaigning in Iowa in 2004, 2005, 2006 - Edwards was.

DAVE @ 66:

I HAVE NOT SEEN POSTED YET,BUT DO YOU THINK THERE WILL BE A BLACK MAN THAT IS MUSLIM FOR PRESIDENT? I DONT THINK SO. WHAT DO YOU THINK?

ALERT: FOX NEWS VIEWER IN THE HOUSE

Chris from Ohio @ 30:

Knowing what you know about the 2000 & 2004 presidential elections plus the "didn't change a thing" 2006 election fraud, why do you guys still believe that the election process is real? I mean, how many f'n years of the great pumpkin not showing up does it take before you stop believing in it?

No one has an answer to this. How suprising.

WhyNoConcessionSpeach @ 25:

Why hasn't anyone mentioned that Edwards never congratulated Obama for his win? His speech sounded like he (Edwards) was the winner. He was not.

I like John Edwards just fine, but his "concession" speech, while I understand the need to seem/stay confident, was rude and off-putting.

No concession speech mainly because it's just Iowa, that white-bread hay seed state caucus. There's no need for "concession" speeches because he finished second. The race has just started. No one conceeds because they finished second in Iowa.

some dude named steevo @ 136:

John Edwards is attempting to be Bill Clinton - but he is only Clinton-lite. I want to like him, but every time he speaks he sounds insincere.

I bet C&L had an orgasm when he mentioned the liver transplant poster child... And that is when I stopped listening to his speech last night.

Jeez, we have a name for just about every social pathology I have ever heard about, but I'm not sure what to call yours.

Hear Hear !

Tho my hope of Edwards winning didn't manifest , , ,

my second wish DID come tru ,

Hillary LOST !

Um, Kathleen -- Edwards is taking PAC money. Obama is not. The PACs spent a hell of a lot of money for ads here that explicitly endorsed Edwards and a few that attacked Obama by name. Even one of our more savvy organizers thought that they were from the Edwards campaign. Edwards denies knowledge of them, but one of the PACs is run by a former campaign manager.

I generally like Edwards, but his dishonest spin of the thumping that he got in Iowa is pretty distasteful. Obama thumped him by more than Kerry did in 04.

Yeah a lot of labor was duped into voting for Obama -- AGAINST their own interests. Someone needs to get the word out to them.

Maybe I'm coming at this from the outside (I'm from Canada, the land where Democrats would be right-leaning wingbats), but I found Edwards speech somewhat devoid of content. It came across as "things are bad in America, other things are bad in America, yet more things are bad in America, and we will fix them".

HOW?!? I didn't get a sense of a single thing the man would do if he was elected to office, unlike Obama, or perhaps even Hillary.

I'm sure he's made other speeches outlining his views, but this Iowa caucus speech was the first time many of us were watching and listening to what he had to say. What I heard didn't impress me.

Everyone was parroting a need for "change". Change *WHAT*? *HOW*? *WHEN*? I guess "Things will be better, after I'm elected" aren't enough for me.

Trust me, I wouldn't cry if he were elected. I would like to see a bit more content along with the character.