DEM Primaries/Candidates thread

[NorthSideSox72]

OK, I just saw this on the Trib site. Edwards' camp is spouting the same stuff I've been saying in here about 51%, getting delegates, etc. Just more proof, that is what he is going for - leverage to get a good position in the new White House, and crowning the nominee.

 

Read the memo in there.

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

Its possible of course. But here is the thing. I'd contend that it is better for Obama to have Edwards stay in the race through Super Tuesday - he is taking away some of Clinton's votes I think. Then after SDOGPEIT, when Clinton will probably have a narrow lead, Edwards can take all those delegates and support and throw them to Obama (we can only hope). That could be the difference maker. If Edwards were to drop out and endorse Obama right now, some of those Edwardians would go to Clinton, and Obama wouldn't have the benefits of those delegates at convention.

I dont doubt that at all. At first I wanted Edwards to get out because I thought he was running a pointless campaign because he stood no chance against th ebig two. However, he really should push on. As an Obama supporter, it helps him for Edwards to stay in as you said.

Edwards knows EXACTLY what he is doing.

[Reddy]

I dont doubt that at all. At first I wanted Edwards to get out because I thought he was running a pointless campaign because he stood no chance against th ebig two. However, he really should push on. As an Obama supporter, it helps him for Edwards to stay in as you said.

Edwards knows EXACTLY what he is doing.

 

you're right about that. and honestly, an Edwards AG would switch me over to supporting Obama, end of story. I think that'd be a fantastic move and it'd be a situation in which Edwards still could have a huge effect on this country and he and Obama working together may be able to get a lot of good s*** done. I think he'd be much more valuable as an AG than VP.

 

but in regards to something NorthsideSox said, I think if Edwards endorsed Obama, his followers would follow suit - i doubt many would go to Clinton. Edwards supporters are typically die hard since they KNOW their candidate isn't going to win but are supporting him anyway. Most would respect his choice and go with it if you ask me.

[NorthSideSox72]

but in regards to something NorthsideSox said, I think if Edwards endorsed Obama, his followers would follow suit - i doubt many would go to Clinton. Edwards supporters are typically die hard since they KNOW their candidate isn't going to win but are supporting him anyway. Most would respect his choice and go with it if you ask me.

Really? I mean, I'd of course hope that was the case, but I am not sure. Though it probably depends a lot on location. I think the South, more of the Edwards voters might go to Clinton. Just my take, based on some of the polls, and the results of SC.

 

[Balta1701]

Really? I mean, I'd of course hope that was the case, but I am not sure. Though it probably depends a lot on location. I think the South, more of the Edwards voters might go to Clinton. Just my take, based on some of the polls, and the results of SC.

Right now, what little polling data is out there suggests that the people who are Edwards supporters would, on balance, wind up slightly favoring Clinton if he dropped out without endorsing. Kinda makes sense demographically, since a lot of them are white.

[NorthSideSox72]

Right now, what little polling data is out there suggests that the people who are Edwards supporters would, on balance, wind up slightly favoring Clinton if he dropped out without endorsing. Kinda makes sense demographically, since a lot of them are white.

Yeah, but, I find it reeeeeeeeeeeally unlikely he drops out and doesn't endorse someone.

 

[Reddy]

Yeah, but, I find it reeeeeeeeeeeally unlikely he drops out and doesn't endorse someone.

 

well, right, the polling data shows that they don't have a firm second choice as a group - you can't easily said "edwards supporters will do this or that" but my theory is it's because they so strongly support Edwards that they dont have as strong of a second choice. They'll say "oh... probably Obama. oh... probably Hillary". I know that I don't know half as much about Clinton and Obama's stances and plans as well as I know Edwards - and most people who support Edwards are issues people, thus, if Edwards supports a certain candidate we're going to be much more likely to vote for that candidate. For instance, if Edwards dropped out and didn't endorse, I think I'd go Clinton. BUT if he drops out and DOES endorse or is touted as the AG or VP or whatever for Obama I'd instantly support Obama. I think the people who like Edwards REALLY like Edwards and want to see him in a position of power in this government. If that means going with Obama, I think they will.

[StrangeSox]

well, right, the polling data shows that they don't have a firm second choice as a group - you can't easily said "edwards supporters will do this or that" but my theory is it's because they so strongly support Edwards that they dont have as strong of a second choice. They'll say "oh... probably Obama. oh... probably Hillary". I know that I don't know half as much about Clinton and Obama's stances and plans as well as I know Edwards - and most people who support Edwards are issues people, thus, if Edwards supports a certain candidate we're going to be much more likely to vote for that candidate. For instance, if Edwards dropped out and didn't endorse, I think I'd go Clinton. BUT if he drops out and DOES endorse or is touted as the AG or VP or whatever for Obama I'd instantly support Obama. I think the people who like Edwards REALLY like Edwards and want to see him in a position of power in this government. If that means going with Obama, I think they will.

 

I've never understood why endorsements hold so much sway.

 

If your man dropped out, why wouldn't you look into the candidates and make up your own mind (if he wasn't given a position in the administration)?

[Reddy]

I've never understood why endorsements hold so much sway.

 

If your man dropped out, why wouldn't you look into the candidates and make up your own mind (if he wasn't given a position in the administration)?

 

you answered your own question. yes, i would do that if he weren't offered a position. but note the stipulation of AG/VP etc

[StrangeSox]

well, right, the polling data shows that they don't have a firm second choice as a group - you can't easily said "edwards supporters will do this or that" but my theory is it's because they so strongly support Edwards that they dont have as strong of a second choice. They'll say "oh... probably Obama. oh... probably Hillary". I know that I don't know half as much about Clinton and Obama's stances and plans as well as I know Edwards - and most people who support Edwards are issues people, thus, if Edwards supports a certain candidate we're going to be much more likely to vote for that candidate. For instance, if Edwards dropped out and didn't endorse, I think I'd go Clinton. BUT if he drops out and DOES endorse or is touted as the AG or VP or whatever for Obama I'd instantly support Obama. I think the people who like Edwards REALLY like Edwards and want to see him in a position of power in this government. If that means going with Obama, I think they will.

 

You said you'd vote Hillary unless Edwards endorsed Obama.

Edited January 29, 2008 by StrangeSox

[Reddy]

You said you'd vote Hillary unless Edwards endorsed Obama.

 

ok you're right my wording was off - sorry. but it's my belief that Edwards wont endorse someone UNLESS he's getting something out of it so to me it's the same thing.

[Balta1701]

ok you're right my wording was off - sorry. but it's my belief that Edwards wont endorse someone UNLESS he's getting something out of it so to me it's the same thing.

I think the interesting part of that is not that you'd follow an Edwards endorsement, but that you are a case study in the type of person who is an Edwards supporter but if he dropped out you'd go to Clinton...which suggests, along with the polling data that is out there, that having Edwards in the race actually is helping Obama more than Clinton.

[Reddy]

I think the interesting part of that is not that you'd follow an Edwards endorsement, but that you are a case study in the type of person who is an Edwards supporter but if he dropped out you'd go to Clinton...which suggests, along with the polling data that is out there, that having Edwards in the race actually is helping Obama more than Clinton.

 

oh i believe that whole-heartedly. If Edwards dropped out Obama would be done.

 

edit: except in the case of an endorsement/cabinet postion situation

Edited January 29, 2008 by Reddy

[southsider2k5]

This is what I have been trying to say for months about Edwards

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ope...723635.story

 

Let us count the problems with Edwards

 

Renouncing his votes on policies from China trade to the Iraq war, the one-term senator shows the farcical nature of his populism

 

By Charles Krauthammer, a syndicated columnist based in Washington: Washington Post Writers Group

January 28, 2008

 

WASHINGTON - There's losing. There's losing honorably. And then there's John Edwards.

 

Mike Huckabee is not going to be president. The loss in South Carolina, one of the most highly evangelical states in the union, made that plain. With a ceiling of 14 percent among non-evangelical Republicans, Huckabee's base is simply too narrow. But his was not a rise and then a fall. He came from nowhere to establish himself as the voice of an important national constituency. Huckabee will continue to matter, and might even carry enough remaining Southern states to wield considerable influence at a fractured Republican convention.

 

Fred Thompson also will not be president. His campaign failed, but quite honorably. He never tacked. He never dissimulated. He refused to reinvent himself. He presented himself plainly and honestly. Too plainly. What he lacked was the ferocious near-deranged ambition (a.k.a., fire in the belly) required to navigate the bizarre ordeal that is today's nominating process. Political decency is not a common commodity. Thompson had it. He'd make a fine attorney general, and not just on TV.

 

Then there is John Edwards. He's not going to be president either. He stays in the race because, with the Democrats' proportional representation system, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton might end up in a very close delegate race -- perhaps allowing an also-ran with, say, 10 percent of the delegates to act as kingmaker at the convention.

 

It's a prize of sorts, it might even be tradable for a Cabinet position. But at considerable cost. His campaign has been a spectacle.

 

Edwards has made much of his renunciation of his Iraq war vote. But he has not stopped there. His entire campaign has been an orgy of regret and renunciation.

 

*As senator, he voted in 2001 for a bankruptcy bill that he now denounces.

 

*As senator, he voted for storing nuclear waste in Nevada's Yucca Mountain. Twice. He is now fiercely opposed.

 

*As senator, he voted for the Bush-Kennedy No Child Left Behind education reform. He now campaigns against it, promising to have it "radically overhauled."

 

*As senator, he voted for the USA Patriot Act, calling it "a good bill ... and I am pleased to support it." He now attacks it.

 

* As senator, he voted to give China normalized trade relations. Need I say? He now campaigns against liberalized trade with China as a sellout of the middle class to the great multinational agents of greed, etc.

 

Breathtaking. People can change their minds about something. But everything? The man served one term in the Senate. He left not a single substantial piece of legislation to his name, only an astonishing string of votes on trade, education, civil liberties, energy and, of course, war that now he not only renounces but inveighs against.

 

Today he plays the avenging angel, engaged in an "epic struggle" against the great economic malefactors that "have literally," he assures us, "taken over the government." He is angry, embodying the familiar zeal of the convert, ready to immolate anyone who benightedly holds to any revelation other than the zealot's very latest.

 

Nothing new about a convert. Nothing new about a zealous convert. What is different about Edwards is his endlessly repeated claim that the raging populist of today is what he has always been. That this has been the "cause of my life," the very core of his being, ingrained in him on his father's knee or at the mill or wherever, depending on the anecdote he's telling. You must understand: This is not politics for him. "This fight is deeply personal to me. I've been engaged in it my whole life."

 

Except for his years as senator, the only public office he's ever held. The audacity of the all-my-life trope is staggering. By his own self-confessed record, his current pose is a coat of paint newly acquired. His claim that it is an expression of his inner soul is a farce.

 

A cynical farce that is particularly galling to left-liberals of real authenticity.

 

"The one [presidential candidate] that is the most problematic is Edwards," Sen. Russ Feingold told The Post-Crescent in Appleton, Wis., "who voted for the Patriot Act, campaigns against it. Voted for No Child Left Behind, campaigns against it. Voted for the China trade deal, campaigns against it. Voted for the Iraq war. ... He uses my voting record exactly as his platform, even though he had the opposite voting record."

 

It profits a man nothing to sell his soul for the whole world. But for 4 percent of the Nevada caucuses?

 

----------

 

Charles Krauthammer is a syndicated columnist based in Washington. E-mail: [email protected]

 

More articles

 

Get chicagotribune.com news by e-mail. Sign up for Daywatch.

 

 

[Reddy]

This is what I have been trying to say for months about Edwards

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ope...723635.story

 

*sigh*

 

i've already dealt with this article to a poly sci professor at my school, but i'll see if i can summarize... (ie: copy paste)

 

 

-- Edwards was a freshman senator who really had no prior legislative experience. He was essentially just going along to get along - learning the ins and outs of the senate. He may not have voted his conscience but then again, how many democrats DID back at that point? It really wouldn't have benefited him to make waves and try and be a "revolutionary" by voting against all those bills, in fact, it probably would've solidified his defeat in re-election. Now we all know that he already faced an uncertain re-election bid and that may have contributed to his resignation from the senate, but speaking out against all these bills wouldn't have helped his case.

 

Hillary voted for every one of the bills that Edwards did as well. Obama, lucky for him, wasn't in the senate to MAKE those calls, yet he constantly touts how he was "against the war from the beginning". Well, if you ask me, it's easy to be against something when you don't have to vote on it.

 

Bottom line: At the time, he was trying to show that he was centrist. In reality - this wasn't the REAL John Edwards. THAT was the Edwards just trying to win votes and stay in office. But I truly believe that he has shed that way of thinking and now is fighting for the things he truly believes in. And that's not something I can prove, but it's the sense I get from having followed his campaign so closely and listening to him and the way he connects with people.

 

The other thing is that 1998-2002 was a WHOLE different world than we're in right now. Things were nowhere near as desperate both economically at home or internationally. It would be foolish for a politician to be so concerned with having the "same positions" for the sake of political gain when the world has shifted so dramatically in the 10 years since Edwards was first elected.

 

LASTLY, when John says this is the cause of my life, this is what i've been fighting for my whole life, etc - he's not talking about those issues. He's talking about fighting for the middle class - for those who don't have a voice. THAT'S what he's been doing his whole life. And that's TRUE. Look, he decided to get into politics after his son's death in '96 because he realized that we don't have a lot of time in this world and if you're capable of making a difference you'd better do it. He felt he had a responsibility to this country and to his son. Then in his travels across the country in '03 and '04 became horrifically aware of how bad the poverty problem in this country has become and he realized how hurt the middle class is. He and Elizabeth decided that this would be the new cause of their lives. He started a poverty center, he led efforts to rebuild in New Orleans - but i'm sure you know that. Point is, the man is genuine. He realizes that his approach in the senate was a mistake and at least has the stones to admit it - unlike Clinton. He knows he made mistakes and he knows he made some bad decisions, but you know what? After 8 years of a president who refuses to admit mistakes and refuses to back down even when all evidence of a terrible decision is staring him in the face, I think someone who takes some responsibility and vows to make things right again is exactly what we need.

 

 

[Balta1701]

CNN has Hillary's gigantic California lead holding at 17 points, poll taken Thurs-Sun.

Edited January 29, 2008 by Balta1701

[NorthSideSox72]

CNN has Hillary's gigantic California lead holding at 17 points, poll taken Thurs-Sun.

Wait until about Friday, or Saturday, when the new week's polls (post-SC, and post-SDOGPEIT campaigning) come out. That will tell a more accurate story.

 

[southsider2k5]

*sigh*

 

i've already dealt with this article to a poly sci professor at my school, but i'll see if i can summarize... (ie: copy paste)

-- Edwards was a freshman senator who really had no prior legislative experience. He was essentially just going along to get along - learning the ins and outs of the senate. He may not have voted his conscience but then again, how many democrats DID back at that point? It really wouldn't have benefited him to make waves and try and be a "revolutionary" by voting against all those bills, in fact, it probably would've solidified his defeat in re-election. Now we all know that he already faced an uncertain re-election bid and that may have contributed to his resignation from the senate, but speaking out against all these bills wouldn't have helped his case.

 

Hillary voted for every one of the bills that Edwards did as well. Obama, lucky for him, wasn't in the senate to MAKE those calls, yet he constantly touts how he was "against the war from the beginning". Well, if you ask me, it's easy to be against something when you don't have to vote on it.

 

Bottom line: At the time, he was trying to show that he was centrist. In reality - this wasn't the REAL John Edwards. THAT was the Edwards just trying to win votes and stay in office. But I truly believe that he has shed that way of thinking and now is fighting for the things he truly believes in. And that's not something I can prove, but it's the sense I get from having followed his campaign so closely and listening to him and the way he connects with people.

 

The other thing is that 1998-2002 was a WHOLE different world than we're in right now. Things were nowhere near as desperate both economically at home or internationally. It would be foolish for a politician to be so concerned with having the "same positions" for the sake of political gain when the world has shifted so dramatically in the 10 years since Edwards was first elected.

 

LASTLY, when John says this is the cause of my life, this is what i've been fighting for my whole life, etc - he's not talking about those issues. He's talking about fighting for the middle class - for those who don't have a voice. THAT'S what he's been doing his whole life. And that's TRUE. Look, he decided to get into politics after his son's death in '96 because he realized that we don't have a lot of time in this world and if you're capable of making a difference you'd better do it. He felt he had a responsibility to this country and to his son. Then in his travels across the country in '03 and '04 became horrifically aware of how bad the poverty problem in this country has become and he realized how hurt the middle class is. He and Elizabeth decided that this would be the new cause of their lives. He started a poverty center, he led efforts to rebuild in New Orleans - but i'm sure you know that. Point is, the man is genuine. He realizes that his approach in the senate was a mistake and at least has the stones to admit it - unlike Clinton. He knows he made mistakes and he knows he made some bad decisions, but you know what? After 8 years of a president who refuses to admit mistakes and refuses to back down even when all evidence of a terrible decision is staring him in the face, I think someone who takes some responsibility and vows to make things right again is exactly what we need.

 

So how much of a Presidency would JE waste "going along to get along" and "learning the ins and outs" of the Oval Office?

 

That is exactly that kind of stuff that boils my blood about John Edwards. Supposedly he was perfectly content pretending to be someone he wasn't, so that he could gain everyone's trust, well until something bad happened? In plain terms he lied to everyone who voted for the guy they thought he was. Yeah, that really clears things up for me. He is exactly who I thought he was. Another lying politician.

[BigSqwert]

Let the defections begin.

[Reddy]

So how much of a Presidency would JE waste "going along to get along" and "learning the ins and outs" of the Oval Office?

 

That is exactly that kind of stuff that boils my blood about John Edwards. Supposedly he was perfectly content pretending to be someone he wasn't, so that he could gain everyone's trust, well until something bad happened? In plain terms he lied to everyone who voted for the guy they thought he was. Yeah, that really clears things up for me. He is exactly who I thought he was. Another lying politician.

 

did you even read what i wrote? he's a completely different person now than he was then. and it wasn't pretending to gain trust man. if you're gonna just spin and manipulate words to make them say what you want to nothing anyone ever says will make an effect on you so i guess there's no point in having the discussion.

 

[BigSqwert]

Rumor has it Richardson may endorse someone by the end of the week.

[NorthSideSox72]

Rumor has it Richardson may endorse someone by the end of the week.

As I said in the SDOGPEIT thread, he could be a difference maker come Super Tuesday. But he'll need to endorse someone soon, and get out on the trail quick.

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

http://dailywebb.com/wp-content/uploads/20...1/chose_one.jpg

[southsider2k5]

did you even read what i wrote? he's a completely different person now than he was then. and it wasn't pretending to gain trust man. if you're gonna just spin and manipulate words to make them say what you want to nothing anyone ever says will make an effect on you so i guess there's no point in having the discussion.

 

I actually read it a few times, because it sounded worse to me than anything I had said up to this point. I don't get how that was supposed to convince me that this is the REAL John Edwards. If he was more concerned about getting votes and staying in office, to the point where he couldn't be his real "self", that doesn't say much for his character. What kind of person is content like that? He sound just like Mitt Romney to me. He'll say whatever it takes to get votes at the time. I have said it before, and I will say it again, people just don't up and change so many of their core beliefs in such a short period of time.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Here's a little prediction. If Obama wins this thing, and if Edwards isn't his AG (maybe he's HHS or something)... I'd bet that Lisa Madigan becomes the US AG under Obama.