"Three words... Vice President Oprah Edwards"

My hope is that when the gender/race freakshow is over, John will be the consensus, non-media-orgy pick of the grownups in Denver. He certainly is not the pick of the GOP.

Edwards needs to be the new attorney general. He's been running on going to war with corrupt big biz. Give him a job where he can do it!

If Edwards gives his votes to Hillary instead of Barack, I'll have nothing to say, except "Told you so!"

I do NOT want Hillary to win. I have lost all respect and have no use for either of them at this point. The way that they have behaved so far turns my stomach. Our primary is the Super Tuesday and I intend to vote for John Edwards.

After the CNN debate I made my decision. Obama and the Clinton's are acting like 2 year olds.

Today, Saturday, January 26, is primary day in South Carolina. With just few hours left (the polls close in SC at 7 pm EST), we need to make the final outreach push happen.

John is well positioned for a SECOND spot in SC (Rasputin's post #119) - HELP it happen !

The latest Zogby poll in South Carolina shows Edwards surging, Obama slipping, and Hillary treading water.

It IS a horse race ! THEY’RE OFF!!!

The Edwards campaign issued a call for phonebanking help TODAY !!

If you can make phone calls into South Carolina, urging folks to get out and vote on Saturday/today for John, please make those calls NOW. This is the time when a call urging someone to vote for John Edwards can have a powerful and positive impact.

The online phonebanking tool allows you to work at your own pace, once you are verified/ cleared by the campaign (within an hour). You can register here to do the phonebanking from YOUR HOME.

http://www.johnedwardsphonebank.com/

The calls are made only between 10 am - 9 pm EST (7 pm EST today into SC). The system provides you with a simple script, and ONE phone number at a time - you fill in simple info after completing the call.

For those of you who live within driving distance of South Carolina, Edwards campaign can use your help on primary day -- Saturday, January 26.To find one of Edwards' South Carolina offices close to your home where your assistance can be used, please click here:

http://www.johnedwards.com/sc/offices

Every little bit of effort helps over the next FEW hours. We need to get voters to the polls to vote for John on Saturday/TODAY. Your help can make the difference in bringing about a strong finish for him in this key state.

With outstanding results of January 18 netroots fundraising, if we can raise $360,000 online by January 31 -- 5 days from now -- we will have raised more money for this campaign in one month than in any previous three month period.

We're that close to setting this fundraising record for the campaign. Will you help us get there?

Click here to help us raise $360,000 for JRE

Within this SECURE LINK there is a sublink for AMERICANS living ABROAD. If you wish to have ANY country to come back to/visit, support John Edwards, the only candidate that LEADS.

Edwards is NOT a corpowhore as other candidates. All through January, you and thousands of others have made contributions to Edwards campaign -- more than half of you for the first time. Your support has allowed to put resources into South Carolina where John Edwards is going to win delegates. And your contributions have helped us get John's message out in key states that will go to the polls on February 5.

Raising $360,000 by January 31 is not only about setting a new campaign record. Most importantly, it will give us the opportunity to get into the next round of key states and buy time to broadcast spots, purchase newspaper advertisements, expand our door-to-door canvassing efforts and get phone banks up-and-running.

Please take upon the challenge to help bring in $360,000 online for John Edwards over the next 5 days !! It is your generosity that has sustained John and his campaign.

John Edwards is counting on US.
Thanks for your support!

.
Then, on Monday get on the phone, and - as John's been urging-call your (mostly wilted) Senators re:FISA. Tell them what the ELECTORATE expects of them !
See C&L recent postings just few slots down the line to refresh your memory.
You can use the TOLL-FREE numbers below.

KongreSS toll FREE numbers:
from justabill 1-800-Capitol-Switchboard
1-800-965-4701

Toll-free numbers for Congress

1 (800) 828 - 0498
1 (800) 459 - 1887
1 (800) 614 - 2803
1 (866) 340 - 9281
1 (866) 338 - 1015
1 (877) 851 - 6437

In any other competition, wouldn't a third place contender be chucking a Hail Mary about now? Is this being quashed by Big Money?

I am voting for Edwards in the Mass Democratic primary no matter what. He is the only candidate who understands that the paramount thing wrong with America is the big corporations screwing the little man for profit. And he is best positioned to do something about it. Certainly not Hillary, and maybe not Obama.

This election cycle is going to suck so bad.

I hope he is her AG to bring justice to the corrupt gop and our country.

We will need more fed prisons.

Basically, what's going on is that as Obama moved into the front position, the Clintons pulled out all the stops to smear the guy. Obama can either ignore the smears or fight back. If he ignores them (i.e., "pulls a Kerry"), he may keep the high road, but just like Kerry will lose in the end because of all the unanswered smears against him.

If he fights back, Obama ends up getting mud all over him. The Clintons are pleased because it drags him down into the muck with them. Edwards then gets to pretend he's above it all, the grownup chastizing the children, completely ignoring the fact that for the past several months, Edwards has been the one acting in the very same way, slinging mud at Hillary.

What's truly disappointing about all of this is how so many people, including many on this web site, fall right into these tropes the campaigns set up, without much critical analysis. For thousands of years, people have been willingly wrapping themselves around the little fingers of their charismatic favorite pols. The Presidential campaign of 2008 is no different.

We get the government we deserve. From the vast majority of voters' attitudes and behaviors, it's clear that, despite our lofty pronouncements of America's greatness, we don't actually "deserve" much better than what we get, time after time after time.

i will not vote for clinton or obama in any election, if the american voter wants to loose and make sure mccain wins then they will vote for these two loosers , enjoy the next eight yrs of bushes henchmen stealing from you!!!!!!!!!!!

Whoever is the candidate, everyone has to line up behind them and support them. I don't care how much you don't like the candidate, President McCain would be worse. Remember his little ditty, "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran"?

Have we learned nothing from 2000 and 2004?

UNITY, PEOPLE!

Turner @ 5:

Edwards needs to be the new attorney general. He's been running on going to war with corrupt big biz. Give him a job where he can do it!

The perfect job for Edwards! (If he can't make El Presidente) What a difference this nation could make if the DOJ was interested in Justice!

Albatross @ 25:

Whoever is the candidate, everyone has to line up behind them and support them. I don't care how much you don't like the candidate, President McCain would be worse. Remember his little ditty, "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran"?

Have we learned nothing from 2000 and 2004?

UNITY, PEOPLE!

I agree and think Clinton/Obama ticket will stop McInsane.

Geo @21
I was thinking the same thing. The Clintons put Obama in the position of having to defend himself. Then Edwards jumps in and says they are 'squabbling'. I guess he would have preferred the alternative to a 'squabble' which would be an undefended attack.

Politicking is all about rhetoric, voting is all about who's rhetoric appeals to the voters. It's all about style.

rduke @ 17:

This election cycle is going to suck so bad.

It would behoove us to restrain from discussing sucking in relation to the Clintons.

Turner @ 5:

Edwards needs to be the new attorney general. He's been running on going to war with corrupt big biz. Give him a job where he can do it!

ooo yeah. I like that A LOT!

Unfortunatley I don't think Hillary or Obama will win against a McCain/Huckabee ticket

EDWARDS!

WinSmith @ 24:

Some of these posts reek of republican concern trolling.

Buy a clue: both parties are not the same. Anyone claiming they are is a republican trying to coverup the past seven years of republican failure.

No one in the thread had made any such claim. Please pay attention if you're going to participate in the conversation, thanks.

21 Geo

I plan on votinig for Edwards in the primary, and whoever the Democratic candidate is in the national election. One important reason is two vacancies (and maybe one additional) will be coming up in the Supreme Court, and I want a Democrat filling the vacancy. Maybe we can retake the Supremes from the conservative wings (don't tampons and angels also have wings?)

But I smell turdblossom behind this mud war between the Clintons and Obama. Here we have two real new choices that are not middle-aged white men, like the republican country club, where women serve drinks, and blacks park the cars. If you can smear one and blame the other, one or the other and maybe both will be affected. And then when they defend themselves against each other they just perpetuate the cycle.

Obama lost a lot of my support by calling Bubba Clinton an old man in reference to a dance lesson story whose point was his ability to learn fast, and still having a lot of energy. In my mind, a better response would be, "Maybe I'll have more time to dance after I retire from eight years of the presidency."

Is it true what they say about eating the worm in a bottle of tequilla?

Kay @ 34:

tyree @ 23:

i will not vote for clinton or obama in any election, if the american voter wants to loose and make sure mccain wins then they will vote for these two loosers , enjoy the next eight yrs of bushes henchmen stealing from you!!!!!!!!!!!

The only way to ensure McCain wins is to say you will not vote for 2 of the 3 Democratic candidates. Even if Clinton or Obama is not your choice, I think either of them would be better than McCain. Vote for your choice now, but if another person is the nominee in the general election, supporting your party is better than giving up, and conceding to Bush v2.0 McCain.

YOUR party ? Are you aware what DEMOCRATIC party is supposed to (and used to..) be ?

repigs = AIPAC/corpowhores in red
dems = AIPAC/corpowhores in blue

let's NOT go into colors yet!

VOTE EDWARDS !!

At this point, ANY Democrat will do...but...Edwards is my choise,or,VP,or, AG would make me soooooo happy. Nancy and Reid can go home now and sit on a table.

God I hate this country.

I have said this before, and here goes again ...

This country is BROKEN. The major problem isnt that the democrats arent in power. Its that political parties are in power. I am certain that people dont understand that at all. The democrats are just as bad as the republicans - and Ron Paul.

We are meant to be represented regionally. Two from the state and one from just down the street - the congressional district.

National parties are in fact the means used to subvert our form of government. Dean has made the point that politics is local - maybe he gets it. If so, then he is the only one.

Today, we live in a country ruled by a politburo - party based government - and that is not what was supposed to happen ...

... but you didnt know that, or you knew that and care as little as the guys on the other 'side'. You are just trying to 'win' and are coming up losers.

My representatives are meant to have our local interests at heart - but because of the control of the national 'parties' my representatives - that bears repeating - MY representatives ... have more interest in their party and interests outside our area.

Even if you think its not, this system is broken. I honestly dont think it will ever be fixed. As long as parties rule, you can expect even more and worse Rovians to slake their thirsts for dominance at your expence.

Enjoy it ... you really dont have any other choice.

getalife @ 29:

Albatross @ 25:

Whoever is the candidate, everyone has to line up behind them and support them. I don't care how much you don't like the candidate, President McCain would be worse. Remember his little ditty, "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran"?

Have we learned nothing from 2000 and 2004?

UNITY, PEOPLE!

I agree and think Clinton/Obama ticket will stop McInsane.

I've read that Obama would not take a VP position should he lose the candidacy, but whatever. He always goes back on his word (remember when he told Tim Russert he will not run in 2008?) and Obama doe what is best for him and not what's best for the Democratic Party and the nation.

OBAMA = 2008's NADER.

Geo @ 14:

Liberal AND Proud @ 4:

If the Democrats run Hillary or Obama for President...as far as the national election...to quote Ivan Drago..

"You will lose."

Of course, you realize that, despite his pronouncement, Drago was the one who actually lost...

You do realize that they fought in Russia.

ysbaddaden @ 43:

Is it true what they say about eating the worm in a bottle of tequilla?

Yes it is true!! Man what a night!!

chris @ 52:

This goes to show you what an egomaniac Edwards is, he is willing to keep in the race even though he knows he can't win just to control the out come and get a better position for himself. This means, to me, he is lying to you on the campaign trail. It also means he's a full blown capitals (which I like), only worried about himself !!He's so desperate to get in power he is willing to screw with the election and people are dumb enough to by it. If the GOP messes with machines you people get mad, if its Edwards is okay?? John Edwards is a phony, for the war, for energy bill now he's all about bringing down those big bad corporations, wake up!

Who is really the phony here?

Pharmaceuticals/Health Products: Money to Congress in 2008 Election Cycle

#1. Clinton, Hillary (D) $274,436
#2. Obama, Barack (D) $266,384
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.asp?Ind=H04&cycle=2008&rec...

Health Services/HMOs: Money to Congress in 2008 Election Cycle

#1. Clinton, Hillary (D) $246,480
#2. Obama, Barack (D) $175,093
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.asp?Ind=H03&recipdetail=M&...

Electric Utilities: Money to Congress in 2008 Election Cycle

1. Obama, Barack (D) $239,960
2. Clinton, Hillary (D) $185,100
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.asp?Ind=E08&cycle=2008&rec...

Oil & Gas: Money to Congress in 2008 Election Cycle

1. Cornyn, John (R-TX) $244,280
2. Clinton, Hillary (D) $220,550
3. McCain, John (R) $189,935
4. Domenici, Pete V (R-NM) $129,450
5. Inhofe, James M (R-OK) $118,000
6. Obama, Barack (D) $106,112
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.asp?Ind=E01&recipdetail=S&...

Energy/Natural Resources: Money to Congress in 2008 Election Cycle

1. Clinton, Hillary (D) $574,658
2. Obama, Barack (D) $489,909
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.asp?Ind=E&cycle=2008&recip...

As Stalin said, It's not the votes that are counted, it's who counts the votes. We have more to worry about than who is the nominee.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKQEQ7qHvgM

Rasputin @ 57:

chris @ 52:

Rasputin- Don't feed 'em. chris isn't pro-HRC or pro-Obama.

chris is a Paulist.

Edwards is as phony as they come. I agree with Senator Feingold, a real progressive. Please show me the abundance of progressive legislation Edwards sponsored, or even voted for. Bankruptcy bill? For it. Yucca Mtn? For it. League of Conservation Voters score: 63. Iraq war? Voted for it. For all of this supposed lifelong concern for the poor, what did he accomplish in the senate? Anything? Obama was against this war from the beginning. He has dedicated real time to the disadvantaged from the beginning of his career. The more you dig into Obama's record, the more you see a person working toward effective progressive solutions (all the while trying to bring more people into the fold). The more you look into Edwards record, the more you see he's full of crap.

Feingold:
"You have to consider what the audience is, and obviously these are very popular positions to take when you are in a primary where you are trying to get the progressive vote. But wait a minute -- there were opportunities to vote against the bankruptcy bill, there was an opportunity to vote against the China [trade] deal. Those are the moments where you sort of find out where somebody is. So I think, people are being taken in a little bit that now he is taking these positions."

Capuccetto: He won't buckle, except for when he did. And his vote for the war allowed those same lobbyists to destroy New Orleans, crash a bridge, and kill a bunch of domesticated animals.

anon @ 60:

Expect Rove-like shenanigans from the left online. Just like this anti-Edwards thread by Steve Benen (or whoever he reports to).

Funny, that even though nothing has happened - literally nothing - it becomes a topic.

Benen is just involved in a smear - the politburo at its worse.

I do not agree with you that Steve Benen is out to "smear" John Edwards.

Mr. Benen is just pointing to the obvious facts and travails of the Edwards campaign to date. Joe Trippi has said as much not only in the WSJ, but, also reiterated those sentiments on CNN, FOX "News," and MSNBC. I think its unfair to attack Mr. Benen without attacking Joe Trippi--who works for John Edwards. If you want to blame someone for being a sellout, attack Joe Trippi or ask why John Edwards has not since corrected what Trippi said in the WSJ.

chris @ 62:

Albatross @ 54:

chris @ 52:

This goes to show you what an egomaniac Edwards is, he is willing to keep in the race even though he knows he can't win just to control the out come and get a better position for himself.

I think that's something called, oh what is the term now... oh yeah, POLITICS!

Sheesh.

Then stop acting like Edwards is your savior or cares about the "working poor" Edwards is a joke, period.

Oh yea, ofcourse I'm a Paulist, he makes sense and believes what he says, you should check him out sometime..

[Emphasis added]

Yeah, and that was some race in Nevada last week, too. Very libertarian state there (gambling, prostitution, what have you). Your guy came in second, 37% behind Romney! About 50,000 voters in that primary, and Paul spent as much if not more than any candidate on the GOP side, and got how many votes, chris? Sorry, given the choice between Edwards bloated ego and Paul's gold standard and States' Rights, it's an easy choice for progressives.

And so what if Edwards leverages his loss into a position of power inside the party? Your guy will never have that kind of power inside of the GOP because most of his support comes from outside of any party. chris, you exist in the political margins of the 21st century! No matter how much faith you have in Paul, his positions are so unsound that no one will make any compromises with him. And that is what you and your pals cannot see, because you cannot allow yourself to see anything but what Paul wants you to see.

[Andy K and chris: Do not attempt to turn this into a Ron Paul chatroom. Ron Paul is not the topic. Understood? Site Monitor]

Mr. XXXX @ 67:

anon @ 60:

Expect Rove-like shenanigans from the left online. Just like this anti-Edwards thread by Steve Benen (or whoever he reports to).

Funny, that even though nothing has happened - literally nothing - it becomes a topic.

Benen is just involved in a smear - the politburo at its worse.

I do not agree with you that Steve Benen is out to "smear" John Edwards.

Mr. Benen is just pointing to the obvious facts and travails of the Edwards campaign to date. Joe Trippi has said as much not only in the WSJ, but, also reiterated those sentiments on CNN, FOX "News," and MSNBC. I think its unfair to attack Mr. Benen without attacking Joe Trippi--who works for John Edwards. If you want to blame someone for being a sellout, attack Joe Trippi or ask why John Edwards has not since corrected what Trippi said in the WSJ.

Pardon me - bullshit.

Benen is using material from Kevin Drum here -

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_01/012971.php

- in which you can read, at the end ...

UPDATE: For the record, I don't think we'll have a brokered convention. This is more water cooler conversation than anything else.

... in otherwords - never mind.

Benen is blowing smoke. Its a smear.

anon @ 64:

Ron @ 59:

As Stalin said, It's not the votes that are counted, it's who counts the votes. We have more to worry about than who is the nominee.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKQEQ7qHvgM

Democracy is dead in the US. Even Olberman thinks Harris is a crank - and the government is the group that is destroying democracy.

Just because K.O. doesn't report on election fraud doesn't mean it's not happening. Remember, K.O. works for MSNBC. MSNBC is still main stream media and we all know that they don' report all of the news they should.

Even though he might be in that position, It's not been his style to work things like that, he has pretty much been a by-the-book party player, and has already stated his support for the winner, so I suspect that he will pledge to the majority winner.

But it may force the others to be nice to him and his platform at the convention.

Tequila @ 42:

Cappucetto: Edwards won't win, because he doesn't have the balls to stand up for himself. Just look at his record on knuckling under Bush policies. The only reason he sued a couple corporations as a lawyer was that was his job, not something he believed in, or he would've shown the same dedication as a Senator.

rduke: While all three of them claim to be about "change", Edwards is the only one who is arguing for it, because it's convenient. He's a populist fraud.

Oh you are so smart. You know everything don't you? Kind of like Billy Kristol.

Oh yeah, we'll all listen to your words of wisdom.

Go Edwards!

CappuccettoRosso @ 58:

Tequila - being an ubama-bot doesn't help, but, it would help if you could read (we know on C&L you excell in BULLSHIT and you get an F in comprehension 101).

How could Edwards 'buckle' - this bullshit is even worse than your usual BULLSHIT.

This seems a little harsh. Especially after all the great information Tequila has given us over the years in the open threads on C&L. Let's keep the attacks to things that matter and not each other eh? And spell Obama right.

We'll see what happens in SC this evening. I still think Edwards helps Obama by staying in the race. If, for example, Clinton, Edwards and Obama split the white vote there, I think Obama can claim that he can get the white vote as much as Clinton (as he did indeed in Iowa, NH, and NV) in the South as well. I despise The Clintons so much at this point that I'm hoping Edwards edges her out for second place in SC.

scojo at 63, someone on the HuffPo thread yesterday concerning Feingold's comments on Edwards brought up an interesting question. Feingold criticized Edwards for voting for the following while a senator and now being against them: the Patriot Act, the bankruptcy bill, No Child Left Behind, the war resolution and another which I have forgotten. The person wanted to know what Clinton's and Obama's voting records were on these bills. I am not sure if Obama was in the Senate for all of these votes. As we know, he was famously not there for the authorization to go to war with Iraq, but as I recall, Clinton was also for all of these things before she was against them. Feingold is criticizing Edwards and is for either Clinton or Obama. It appears that he is giving Clinton a pass on what he is chiding Edwards for and maybe giving Obama a partial pass.

Andy K @ 78:

anon @ 66:

Andy K @ 61:

Rasputin @ 57:

Rasputin- Don't feed 'em. chris isn't pro-HRC or pro-Obama.

chris is a Paulist.

Sig Heil - so you are the gatekeeper here? Its either HRC or O'Bama or what ... your not welcome?

Simply pointing out someone's motivations. Ever read the commenting policy? Pay attention to the part that says:

"C&Lis a personal site. It is not the Government. It is not public institution or a media organization. It is not a neutral site. It is intended to express and disseminate the authors’ point of view."

And working under the assumption that you're the same "anon" who posted this(it's the repeated use of the word "politburo" that tipped me off):

"Today, we live in a country ruled by a politburo - party based government - and that is not what was supposed to happen …"

Yeah, because the politburo would allow the diversity of views from Heath Shuler or Dorothy Boyda and a Dennis Kucinich or Bob Wexler.

It's a big tent, pal. We've got a lot of folks who differ on many issues inside that tent, but who do favor equal rights, fair wages and a comfortable life for ALL Americans.

... which means nothing in that your response was off point. You were implying that Paul supporters werent welcome. That from ...

asputin- Don't feed 'em. chris isn't pro-HRC or pro-Obama.

chris is a Paulist

... not from your off point response.

I dont think you have a clue what a politburo means. Sorry.

Orangutan. @ 74:

Edwards would make a great Attorney General. I wasn't that impressed with his Vice Presidential run in 2004. Hopefully he would support Obama over Clinton for the 2008 Democratic Nominee. WE NEED Drastic Change after these last 8 years of Bush. Obama would represent that type of drastic change for me and millions abroad. Clinton is the same old thing in my opinion.

Who cares what were you impressed with and when ??!

Obama is Shillary-in-making, with different PMS.

These are the FACTS -who are the TOP CORPOWHORES

Who Owns Your Candidate? Clinton, Obama & Edwards

Excellent graphs are self explanatory. If you think all this money is contributed by the corpos just because, w/out anything expected back, have your brain MRI done right away.. You might be in for a surprise !

If Obama is a change, must be in astrodiapers, or underwear. NOT documented.

Contibutions from Selected Industries

1.Commercial Banks
Clinton $ 935,658
Obama $ 865,856
Edwards $ 153,650

the top R:
Mittens $ 600,091

2.Oil & Gas
Clinton $ 220,550
Obama $ 106,112
Edwards $ 27,850

the top R:
Giuliani $ 545,058

3. Pharmaceuticals/Health Products
Clinton $ 269,436
Obama $ 261,784
Edwards $ 15,000

the top R:
Mittens $ 260,535

4. Insurance
Clinton $ 535,938
Obama $ 390,513
Edwards $ 129,600

the top R:
Dodd $ 713,012
Mittens $ 629,16
Giuliani $ 530,615

5. Hedge Funds
Clinton $ 980,700
Obama $ 976,574
Edwards $ 252,550

the top R:
Giuliani $ 1,157,900

and, so onnnn..

and, keep checking the RollCall

White House Endorsement Watch
K Street Endorsements - lobbyists
Clinton 63 lobbyists, incl Carlyle Group of Booosh crime family
Obama 18
Edwards 0 ==> ZERO !!

Top Reps of the Funerary Association
Mittens 25
McInsane 20
Captain 911 17
Frauderick of Hillywood 12 has been removed, after his speech to nowhere

Orangutan - back to the cage, enough of your bullshit and monkeying around.

naschkatze @ 83:

scojo at 63, someone on the HuffPo thread yesterday concerning Feingold's comments on Edwards brought up an interesting question. Feingold criticized Edwards for voting for the following while a senator and now being against them: the Patriot Act, the bankruptcy bill, No Child Left Behind, the war resolution and another which I have forgotten. The person wanted to know what Clinton's and Obama's voting records were on these bills. I am not sure if Obama was in the Senate for all of these votes. As we know, he was famously not there for the authorization to go to war with Iraq, but as I recall, Clinton was also for all of these things before she was against them. Feingold is criticizing Edwards and is for either Clinton or Obama. It appears that he is giving Clinton a pass on what he is chiding Edwards for and maybe giving Obama a partial pass.

You have to adjust your qualificationn criteria, then all = equal:

Feingold = AIPAC
Feinstein = AIPAC
LIEberman = AIPAC
Clinton = AIPAC

there is much abt Feingold's treachery in other C&L threads within last few days.

Geo @ 84:

An honest appraisal of the three Dem candidates?

Hillary Clinton: Used her husband's popularity to springboard herself into a carpetbagged Senate race in New York, which was clearly, to anyone paying attention, only a cynical stepping stone to the Presidential race. Has spent her time in the Senate "triangulating" to try to take modestly inoffensive positions, showing zero real leadership, something she desperately hopes no one will remember now. Is so polarizing that Republicans will turn out in droves to vote against her, mobilizing right-wingers that none of the GOP candidates could possibly manage to get to the polls, otherwise. Is a key part of one of the most effective and institutionalized campaign machines, including all of the positive and negative implication. Will blatantly play the gender card in the same breath as saying the race is not about gender, showing she's both a hypocrite and knows how to campaign for the best advantage among folks who will not hold her to a higher level of integrity.

Barack Obama: A generally inexperienced candidate, both in governance and in campaigning at this level. Realizes that if he is labeled the "African American candidate", he may gain African American votes, but tons of white voters will find subtle reasons not to support him, so he's desperate to "elevate" the discourse above race. So he focuses on "transformative" nature of his candidacy, which is 50% euphemism for "electing an African American", with a wink and a nod to his supporters who know exactly what he's doing, but thankful for the plausible deniability. Is learning that his opponents also want to win, so badly that they will not permit him to play this semantic subtlety unchallenged. The one benefit that will come out of this for him is that if he can survive the Clinton campaign machine, and it does not kill his candidacy, then it will probably make him stronger.

John Edwards: For ten years now, a professional presidential candidate, he's had a long time to perfect his message. Unfortunately, he's on record as being on the wrong side of several key votes that he now condemns, which means he either has changed his mind for political expediency sake OR has had the most demonstrably bad judgment when he's in office. Prior to his campaigning career, showed no profound progressive instinct at all, but since he's been on the stump, has done his best to march, speechify and play the populist as much as folks' short memories will permit. Early in this campaign cycle, tried to play above the fray. Then when Clinton was the front-runner he became strident and sniping against Clinton. Now that Clinton and Obama are tooth-and-nail and Edwards realizes his 5% Nevada slice of the pie isn't going to get him anywhere fast, has retooled himself as the "grownup" eschewing the stridency he, himself, was engaging in only a few weeks previously. Probably knows he's lost, but is playing the delegates count game, in hopes he can secure either a VP or Cabinet post in the winner's administration.

All three are playing the political game. All three have significant flaws. And the worst of them is STILL a thousand times better than any of the Republican candidates.

Yours is a long comment but you misstate the level of support that John Edwards received in Nevada. Polls indicated that he was polling in the high teens and low twentys percentile. How then can you account for the 4% delegate showing? The answer is simple by looking at the rules of the caucuses.

Iowa and Nevada are both caucuses but they have slightly different rules. A brief example and I will show you why John Edwards got over 30% of the precinct delegates in Iowa and only 4% in Nevada. Both states have threshold/viability rules, so a second choice matters. In Iowa, candidates that fail to meet the 15% threshold can try to persuade others to join their camp or groups with more than 15% can send over voters to another group at their chosing. One key difference is that in Nevada, only supporters of non-viable candidates are able to switch to a different corner during the realignment period. That cuts down on the gamesmanship whereby precinct captains of viable candidates direct a small number of people to a rival corner in order to change the delegate count but it also means that if you don't meet the viability test then you're are effectively at zero for that precinct. So Edwards supporters in Nevada where they failed to meet the viability test could not bring others in only go out and join either Clinton or Obama. In Iowa, the rules of the caucus increased Edwards tallies, in Nevada the rules of the caucus obliterated Edwards. The rules make all the difference.

john in california @ 88:

This is the scenario that I and many others have predicted for a long time, a brokered convention w/ C-O or O-C the most likely outcome but where the ‘lesser’ candidates could exert real influence on the platform. This is why a strategic vote for Kucinich was the smart move for progressives regardless of which of the top two was preferred. But we see that self-styled progressives got caught up in the personality driven meme that has been the msm fodder for years (ask yourself how many times you have read a post on this and other popular lefty blogs that actually compared the candidates positions on health insurance, Iraq, the economy, etc rather than who is up or down in the polls) so at best weak-tea Edwards will be able to make a speech and the right wing of the dem party will make the policy. I am over 60 and have seen this over and over and wish I could muster the energy to be either sad or surprised or cynical but I can’t. You people who expect Edwards to be some kind of here just make me weary. There was only one person in this race who has spent his life fighting for the little guy, one person that stood up for all the things you who call yourselves progressives say you want but most of you found some excuse to call him a loser as you jumped on one of the more ‘attractive’ bandwagons. Now that chickens are coming home to roost for and economy so loaded with bad debt, bad trade, bad tax policy, bad militarism, and bad faith that only an unswerving fight for a radically egalitarian vision will save us from a depression (yes, the real thing, over 15% unemployment, credit collapse, hyperinflation, cuts in all government services, local, state and federal - the four horsemen of the modern economic apocalypse ) and we have dems running on policies that will do zilch to avert disaster. But we will have a woman or a black guy heading the ticket unencumbered by any progressive policy from the ‘base’. Whichever it is will run a personality, ‘leadership’ style campaign that has come to be everything wrong with our politics. How many times did we hear both Bill Clinton and G. Bush tell us what great ‘leaders’ they were when, in truth, neither of them could be trusted to take a pack of cub scouts out for ice cream. And now a few ‘progressives’ are putting their hope in a guy who only started talking center-left when he found their was no more room on the right. Pa-f’in-thetic!

And so Kucinich's deal with Obama in Iowa was standing up for progressive values? Striking a deal with the Republican-lite candidate who argues for appeasing the Republicans is standing up for progressive values?

Dennis lost a lot of progressives over that move. At point I came to regard him as sycophantic narcissist. It's a pity because the work he has been espousing in Congress is the work that needs to get done but as a person Kucinich is pretty much a joke. The whole UFO thing. He undid a lifetime's worth of work with that silly comment. He should know better than that. It's one thing for Shirley McLaine to utter such, quite another for a Presidential candidate. He could have been a contender but he was sadly a pretender.

hope @ 94:

I truly don't understand a lot of these arguments against Edwards.

"Professional candidate" - you can say the same thing about Lincoln who had many losses in different political races.

"Wrong votes which he now disavows" - I would much rather have a candidate who admits to casting an ill-informed or incorrect vote on an issue than one who will never admit making the wrong decision.

"Taking the easy way out by embracing a populist position" - I fail to see how this is the easy way out. Seems to me Edwards has had a long, hard slog trying to get heard with his populist postition on issues yet he's never backed down or changed the message he embraces.

"Feingold spoke out against Edwards" - big WHOOP. Feingold thinks Hillary or Obama would make great presidents yet Edwards wouldn't!? Hillary's votes have been just as, if not more, misguided, yet she refuses to admit she was wrong. Obama doesn't show up for votes. Tell me exactly how it follows that they would make great presidents yet Edwards would not.

"Edwards cannot win, therefore we should not cast a primary vote for him" - yeah, with that crap attitude he cannot win. Thought primaries were the events where we get to make our voices heard by voting for the candidate who best fit what we'd like to see in a president. It's not betting season. Cast your vote for whom you actually would like to see as the leader of this country. This caucus/primary fiasco needs to be changed. Each state should vote by private ballot with all voting on the same day.

I'm not backing down from supporting Edwards in the primaries.

Sometimes, if I wait long enough, I will see a comment that is more intelligent than anything I've seen all day.

Thank you.

Ron @ 95:

Sometimes, if I wait long enough, I will see a comment that is more intelligent than anything I've seen all day.

Thank you.

Thanks!

Edwards is the only real hope that the Dems have to win and here is why.

Clinton came into this race as the ONLY person in America that could turn out the Republican base in the numbers necessary to beat the Dems. By the time the MSM and Bill Clinton get done attacking Obama and his base, Hillary will have negatives nobody could win with and they will effectively elected whom ever the Republican candidate might be. In my opinion, Bill and Hillary are now doing to the Democratic party what Bush and Cheney have done to the Republicans.

Obama's short falls are now being employed by the Clintons to erode and divide his support in the primaries. If the Clintons are successful using these tactics in these later primaries, it call in to question if Obama could he now win in Iowa????

The idea being floated about a Clinton/ Obama ticket sounds nice but can't work. Two NEGATIVES only equal a positive in math --- not politics. Their negatives would over lap (in my opinion) thereby creating greater number of people who would not vote for either under any circumstance.

Edwards has always out polled Clinton and Obama in who could beat the Republicans. Edwards is not the corporate choice and the MSM have froze him out of their coverage of this race. He represents the middle class not Wall street or the DLC and that has made him an unacceptable candidate for either party. Remember in America the Voters choose the President but the Candidates are chosen in MSM board room.

Edwards represents the only chance the Democratic party now has like it or not. He will be the only one that can repair the damage that is currently being done to relationships within the Democratic party concerning race and gender. So, if we don't want another 100 years of war, it time to be realistic about who can win and support that candidate.

facta:

The Alice Palmer incident from 1996 leaves a sour taste in my mouth

It's no worse than Hillary's anti-union disenfranchisement in Nevada.

That’s why he goes to Reno and starts to channel Ronald Reagan to a conservative newspaper in order to get their endorsement.

Most Americans, even Republicrats, still like Reagan. Deal with it.

Clinton’s meeting with Edwards after the last debate in South Carolina was on that subject. Obama’s response was to release a picture of Rezko with the Clintons from 1994 from an event for Carol Mosley Braun. The picture clearly came from the Obama camp. So Mr. Clean one could gleam isn’t so clean.

At least he's not stained with blood like Edwards and Clinton...

The matter of his Minister’s religious beliefs at the Trinity Church will be damaging fodder for Freedom Watch and the GOP to ply with ease.

It's no worse than Bush pimping Bob Jones U.

Why campaign with someone that you then have to repudiate?

I could argue the same thing about Edwards supporters.

All of this even before I turn to policy. There Mr. Obama falls far short from the progressive agenda.

Except for saying we should talk to Iran instead of bombing them, which even Edwards was unable to support.

On health care, his proposals are not universal while both Edwards’ and Clinton’s are. His rationale for such was rather convoluted arguing that he did not want to disrupt the relationship that many Americans had with their insurance companies.

I thought his argument was that he didn't want to force Americans to have health care they couldn't afford, which is likely what Hillary would do, seeing as she is the most lobbied politician from that industry and all...

The bankruptcy bill portion of the debate was also telling so much so that John Edwards had to ask if he had heard him correctly. Yes, he had; we all did. He voted for the bill because he thought that was the best offer he was going to get from the credit card companies.

Perhaps, but Edwards helped endorse a President who's actually made people bankrupt.

On energy, as Paul Krugman has noted, he falls far to the right of both Clinton and Edwards. Could be because two of his biggest campaign contributors have been the Coal Industry and the Nuclear Power Industry.

Yes, well Clinton's husband didn't enforce the Kyoto Protocol, while Edwards apparently doesn't mind dumping nuclear waste in a mountain, so...

His support for alternative energy would be an affront to Gore.

You mean the same Gore who didn't speak out on global warming until after he "lost" the 2000 race?

Striking a deal with the Republican-lite candidate who argues for appeasing the Republicans is standing up for progressive values? Dennis lost a lot of progressives over that move.

Dennis lost a lot of progressives, because they continue to support long-shot candidates for the sake of flipping off Republicrats, when they'll just shoot themselves in the feet.

chicano:

Oh you are so smart. You know everything don’t you? Kind of like Billy Kristol.

I know a loser when I see one.

If we don’t support Edwards there will be another Republican in the white house.

Edwards has been the other Republican.

Cappucetto:

Feingold = AIPAC
Feinstein = AIPAC
LIEberman = AIPAC
Clinton = AIPAC

Feingold is still more progressive than Edwards.

hope:

“Wrong votes which he now disavows” - I would much rather have a candidate who admits to casting an ill-informed or incorrect vote on an issue than one who will never admit making the wrong decision.

I'd rather have a candidate I believe would make the right decision.

“Taking the easy way out by embracing a populist position” - I fail to see how this is the easy way out. Seems to me Edwards has had a long, hard slog trying to get heard with his populist postition on issues yet he’s never backed down or changed the message he embraces.

If it was a long, hard slog, he would've done it four years ago.

“Edwards cannot win, therefore we should not cast a primary vote for him” - yeah, with that crap attitude he cannot win. Thought primaries were the events where we get to make our voices heard by voting for the candidate who best fit what we’d like to see in a president. It’s not betting season.

You're betting the next four years of our country-which we may not even have, if Bush invades Iran-on some guy who's light-years ahead of getting elected.

Lt:

Edwards represents the only chance the Democratic party now has like it or not.

If you mean a chance of him fudging on his bold promises like Billy Boy, then I agree.

There has been a lot of talk about Edwards and his votes while in the Senate. I don't understand why no one has talked about Edwards' responsibility to his constituents in N. Carolina. I know that if you are representing a red state and you don't speak for the people you are representing, chances are you will be out of a job.

Personally, I could live with an Obama/Edwards ticket.

So the Professional loser wants to be a kingmaker
Wny would anyone want to vote for someone when they don't know who he will back?
If you dislike Queen hillary and he throws his delegates to her wouldn't you feel like a dam fool?
edwards may become the new Nader

Have you told your daughter today that she too can become president if she will just marry the right cheating man.

This is my view on the 3 candidates. Just so you all understand my position. I'm a centrist democrat living in the bay area and therefore have a bias against progressive democrats as they value racial representation over individual capability.

John Edwards = Did nothing beneficial during his entire 4 year senate term. Ended up apologizing for all his votes. His only commitment and experience other than a successful trial lawyer against big corporations and improving poverty in the south and nothing more. Those in the coastal states do not even know him or what he does. Too little name recognition and too little accomplishments. Though he was my favourite candidate in the 2004 election because of his youthful centrist position trying to imitate what Bill Clinton did in the 90s. However, some of his populist agendas has been recently copied by both Clinton and Obama.

Barack Obama = I don't see what is so hype up about him. He is indeed very charasmatic. Teaching constitutional law....!!! you better have charisma ^^! Inexperience in the white house way of solving things and so trying to bring 'change' and yet trying to be bipartisan@@!??? Has very little record to show as he is missing in at least the important but controversial issues. So far he has demonstrated zero knowledge on economics of this nation (shown in the debate). His energy policies..... taken the most money from coal and nuclear energy, that is bringing our country away from oil but towards more destructive local environment policies. His healthcare policies doesn't provide universal healthcare but tried to twist Clinton's and Edward's healthcare policies to sound like a 'communist' system with baseless facts. To conclude, the more we know about him the more dirty he is. Don't argue with me that Clinton/Edward are the same as at least for them we already knew. But if Obama wants to be equal to them, he need not run as though he's as pure as Gatorade. His civil rights record is very offensive towards homosexuals.

Clinton = We already knew all her baggage so no point on me elaborating on those. However she's realistic enough to know how to solve problems. I'm not going to talk about her personnal issues as that is subjective to the individual due to 16 years of Republican attacks against her. Her policies.. energy... on the right path to clean, alternative energies which Al Gore will agree to. Healthcare... universal enough... wanting to bring to us the healthcare that Congress possess. Those who cannot afford will be payed for by the Government (same as Edwards). In other words.. her healthcare is equal to what Edwards offered. Economics... she clearly understand the issues and her stimulus that she prepared has been approved and supported by many left economist as being the right thing to do. She's no different that having Bill back in the office as they are running the same campaign ===> Buy 1 get 1 free. She won her senate reelection in NY by more than a 60% majority earning the trust of the conservatives in her state. She brought so much goodies to NY that i think those Yankees who doesn't vote for her in the primaries must have been personally bribed. So if you are worried about her not getting conservatives votes, think again!

And finally my only concern with Obama being the nominee for the Democratic Party is the lost of the Bay Area and so California.

Ted @ 98:

We can hope that Obama makes a big mis-step and that the Anti-Hillary camp moves to Edwards and he would get nominated.

I think Obama peaked too early and with him not giving specifics on what his "plans for change" really are, it could hurt him.

www.pafundi.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Number of Operations Iraq Freedom and Enduring Freedom casualties
as confirmed by U.S. Central Command: 4392

I couldn't agree with you more. Well said!

Clinton: all options on the table vs. Iran
Obama: all options on the table vs. Iran
Edwards: all options on the table vs. Iran

They all have made the obligatory obeiances to AIPAC, but Obama is the hardest done by because of all those smear emails and a much more strident oath of loyalty is demanded of him.

Clinton is generally hostile to the Latin American Left, and Bill is a shill for the most right wing government in South America, Colombia.

And ironically, Edwards might be the most progressive candidate domestically, he is a hawk on foreign policy. Obama is the only one who deviates even a little here, opting for diplomacy and soft power vs. Clinton's militarism and Edwards' muscular interventionism.

L.P. Smith in Atlanta @ 110:

CappuccettoRosso @ 22:

JohnBoston @ 15:

I am voting for Edwards in the Mass Democratic primary no matter what. He is the only candidate who understands that the paramount thing wrong with America is the big corporations screwing the little man for profit. And he is best positioned to do something about it. Certainly not Hillary, and maybe not Obama.

YES, YES, YES! I could not agree more! **Corporate America is the source of the U.S.'s problems.** ==> and, AIPAC..

On Feb 5th---John Edwards gets my vote!

I hope we'll get the totals broken by the state: how many of us had the courage not to sell to propaganda of shillary (they've rubbed quite a few pple off as well in their quest from the white-trash-trailer to the White House 1&2), fake preaching of Obama, and general free-for-all in truthiness dept. Unlike Brits we cannot sing "Rule Britannia", and uplifting French Marseillaise wouldn't get enough pple knowing the words either.. Oh, well, at least the bots left (???!!) for a moment .. Sheeple rule for now, but, we shall overcome - 46 more to go !

Sany @ 10:

I guess the Dems will lose in November. Edwards is our only hope of winning this election! Hello President McCain!

This is likely true--Billary haters will be motivated to vote against her, and Blacks will stay home if she's the nominee, while racists will deny Obama the general election if he's the pick, thus ensuring McCain & a conservative to be named later as veep the White House...

Cappucetto: You want change, but you don't want to support a viable candidate for change, because you want someone who claims he will shake up the system. It doesn't matter that he's done nothing in his entire senatorial career which demonstrates his potential for change, because he apologized for giving in to the same forces he criticizes. You just claim he'll buy us all ponies, without actually demonstrating what kind of influence he has over a Republican minority. Sure, he took on a few faceless corporations during his legal days, but he got paid to do that. He got voted to take on corruption in government, and he ended up being culpable to it. Which time do you think matters more to the electorate?

Tequila @ 119:

Cappucetto:

You are so f**d UP about all, it's incredible.

Obama cannot make it/get to VOTE !! Time after time.

Which matters more to the electorate?

I am DONE w/you. Get LOST. Get a LIFE - not a BOTrecycle you are on.

L.P. Smith in Atlanta @ 112:

hope @ 106:

Your arguments are bogus, Tequila. And I am not " betting the next four years of our country...on some guy who is light years ahead of getting elected."

First of all Edwards is pulling in some impressive numbers. He has a lot better numbers than most of the Republicans candidates.

Second, it's the primaries; one of the first steps in electing a president. One of the reasons for holding primaries is to give people the opportunity to state their preference in their party's candidates. Believe me, I have just as much stake as you do in this country turning itself around and have done a lot of research on the candidates.

Third, just how many of the 50 states have cast primary ballots? Not that many people have had their say yet so why are you so absolutely sure he's light years ahead of getting elected. Unless some rules have been changed that I don't know about, nothing has been decided and Edwards is still a viable candidate especially because I and many others are not backing down from supporting Edwards in the primaries.

Yes! Total agreement here! Edwards is totally viable!

Nor will I back down. Tequila argues for the sake of argument and nothing more. Viability against the moneyed class that is making sure they win, no matter which of their financed candidates becomes the only choices voters have to make in the election in the general election is the real issue here. You just cannot rationally argue that Clinton and Obama are not among their lot. Edwards is the only one, I repeat, only one not taking their dirty money and the obligations the comes with it. Mammon?

Come February 5th he will get my vote, and most of those who will rely on my opinion will do the same.

Sure I can argue that he's corrupt, because Edwards has done nothing which shows he isn't tied to special interests during his entire term.

There are some very ugly and angry personal attacks in this thread.

Disagreeing democrats often hate each other as much as they hate republicans. It's a shame, but understandable. Republicans unite through fear and a common 'enemy'; democrats over a vision of a better life. Hence, republicans can unite around a few basic talking points (however silly), while democrats tie themselves in knots arguing over the best way to get to a better place.

It's important not to eviscerate each other. Let's not forget that dems all generally want a better life for all of us. If there's disagreement how to get there, don't insult. Listen, advocate, or stay silent.

Spreading LIES, the same old lies, over and over, abt dem camdidates, should be added to your list of NOT.

Unfortunately bots/trolls love it here, and might be the reason servers are going down.

Avenger @ 127:

There are some very ugly and angry personal attacks in this thread.

Disagreeing democrats often hate each other as much as they hate republicans. It's a shame, but understandable. Republicans unite through fear and a common 'enemy'; democrats over a vision of a better life. Hence, republicans can unite around a few basic talking points (however silly), while democrats tie themselves in knots arguing over the best way to get to a better place.

It's important not to eviscerate each other. Let's not forget that dems all generally want a better life for all of us. If there's disagreement how to get there, don't insult. Listen, advocate, or stay silent.

Here are my delegates Barack, can I be VP now?