Edwards Dropping Out Discussion
John Edwards will be dropping out today at 1 PM.
What'd you think of his race? What will he do next? And, most importantly in the short run, where do his votes go?
Share your wisdom.
Advertisement
John Edwards will be dropping out today at 1 PM.
What'd you think of his race? What will he do next? And, most importantly in the short run, where do his votes go?
Share your wisdom.
The public doesn't have the Netroots narrow prism. As a result, the following comments may not necessary mean anything. Personally, I will move from Edwards to Clinton because Obama/Reagan scares me. I also think that Obama is to the right of Clinton.
The dynamics of the next week will be more important than anything we perceive of Edwards' people now.
January 30, 2008 6:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
You think Obama is to the right of Clinton? Man, has she got you snowed...
January 30, 2008 6:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
At least on energy/environment issues, the difference between Clinton and Obama are barely visible - with Obama leaning slightly more to the right of Clinton on nuclear energy.
January 30, 2008 7:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hope you're joking. On issues like global warming Clinton has said openly that she'll accept "incremental change." And she'll have to because she won't be able to win a strong majority. Obama will. If you are concerned about energy/environment issues, the clear choice is Obama.
January 30, 2008 7:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
While both Obama and Clinton are miles ahead of any Republican, they are both kinda weak on emissions and fuel economy standards. So, we can look forward to "incremental change" as our best case scenario. Regarding your certainty in Obama's superior ability to win a strong legislative majority after only a fraction of a term in the Senate, you probably have to work a little harder to convince me.
January 30, 2008 7:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you look at his 8 years in the Illinois Senate, he really has proved his ability. While standing firm on his liberal platform. He was able to convince many repubulicans to move to our side. He has the unique ability not to cave or be wimpy and compromise away core principals. He is very talented in convincing people that his take on an issue is the right one. Kirk Dillard, the republican IL senator, has endorsed him saying while he initially disagreed with many "liberal" issues, he was amazed at Obama's powers of persuasion. That was how he was able to pass sweeping ethics reform here in IL. Many, many Repubs didnt like it, but could not stand against the common sense of Obama. He is doing the same now in the Senate. He is one smart, cookie. He really understands Washington psychology and how to make it work best, to the advantage of progressive issues. He is not a great debater, because he knows our tremendous problems cannot be solved in 30 second sound bytes. Complicated problems need intricate solutions. I love the fact that he appreciates the voters intellect. His stance that all government processes will be open to the public via internet, that any bill coming to his desk he will not sign for 5 days, allowing the public to read and comment on it is a wonderful stance that I dont think any candidate can match. Most candidates keep telling us what they are going to "do" for us. Obama keeps reminding us what we can to "together".
January 30, 2008 8:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton is modestly to the left of Obama. There are two approaches to assessing this: voting record and public statements. Below is an analysis that measures and weights both:
Obama
http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm
Clinton
http://www.ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm
The differences are too slight to form an argument that one posses more progressive bona fides than the other. I think this is why personality issues weigh heavily on this election and why the online discussions are pitched and heated.
Just listen to the campaign pitches. Clearly neither campaign sees much merit in the taking the progressive mantle from the other.
As for the original post, I think Edwards brought some very important issues to the campaign and I hope both remaining candidates will continue to elaborate on them. I am also hoping that he stays neutral as I think he'd be an asset to the new administration and I wouldn't want him to back a losing horse and sideline his future role.
/c
In the blogosphere every one is an expert, so no one is an expert.
January 30, 2008 7:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's another good voting record comparison, which basically concludes that if you go by voting record alone, they are nearly twins, as close as two Senators can possibly be:
I know that Clinton's initial vote on the Iraq War and her more recent one on Kyl-Lieberman bother many people but the article makes the case that Obama has some votes that many liberals might find quite bothersome too, and overall, their voting records are remarkably similar in intent.
Edit to add: On Obama and Kyl-Lieberman, I think this Talk Left blog post gets across a realist view of Obama's machinations.
January 30, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Edit to add: On Obama and Kyl-Lieberman, I think this Talk Left blog post gets across a realist view of Obama's machinations."
Your so-called "realist view" was penned by a Pro-Clinton moderator who was ripped apart by the utter illogic of his positions by commenters who had facts and logic on their side. The author of the "realist view", AKA "Big Tent Democrat", spent most of time in responding to their points by whining pathetically.
Thanks for the link, tho. I always enjoy the kind of takedowns of nonsensical anti-Obama crap that doesn't even approach the level of straining for credibility.
January 30, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. And like I always said, Artappraiser is a stealth conservative and always posts that sort of BS. There's a claque of them here who rate each other up.
January 30, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are the most divisive person on this website. How could you even pretend to be an Obama supporter? Indeed, you are probably Hillary Clinton's best friend on here.
Kozmik, the difference between you and me is that artappraiser and lally can be and in fact are two of my favorite people on here. You see I actually feel what Obama is supposed to be all about. You are a fraud and the antithesis of what Obama is supposed to be all about. With you it can only be us versus them. You label people, mock them, typecast them, and then you divide. Just look, for example, at what you say about artappraiser. How could anyone who cares about the integrity of this site condone what you have written about her?
One of these days, someone who may agree with you on the merits but who sees how your style just spoils things, spoils discourse, will say what I am saying. And then maybe you will grow up and become more tolerable.
Right now kozmik, you have a fancy pen, but you're a shit-stirrer and nothing more.
January 30, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
To see the real differences in their record one has to look back further. Obama passed healthcare reform, campaign finance and ethics reform, and other progressive issues in the Illinois state legislature, and did community work for the poor before that. Hillary always rode Bill's coat tails into high paying corporate jobs such as sitting on WalMart's board and becoming a partner at Rose corporate law firm in Arkansas after Bill was AG. Rose is the epitome of corporate establishment law firms and represents WalMart.
The Clintons also bungled healthcare reform in 1992 by mandating a lousy plan which was DOA, which killed reform for over 16 years.
There are many of those differences between them. It shows why the Clintons were economically Reaganites and fully on board for supply side and deregulation, NAFTA, etc. Another important example is bankruptcy legislation, the bills of 2001 and 2005. Both were essentially written by the financial industry and especially credit card and mortgage interests. It's a poster child for the extent to which congress no longer represents working people but instead the corporate interest.
Hillary voted for the 2001 bankruptcy bill and was "no vote" on the 2005 bill.
Obama was publicly against both and as one of his first major votes in Washington DC, he voted in the minority against the 2005 bill.
January 30, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Old 33 said:
You think Obama is to the right of Clinton? Man, has she got you snowed..."
Old33 you're the one buried in snow.
Interesting that Obama supporters tend to fix their own policy views onto their candidate. Policy views that their candidate adopts, if at all, with reluctance.
It would be instructive simply to review how each candidate answered the question about counter recession measures.
Edwards, of course, came out with a comprehensive set of proposals well ahead of the question. Clinton followed with a sound set of comprehensive proposals.
Obama's response was that his 'tax cuts' would suffice. Later his staff came up with a more comprehensive set of proposals.
The point here is that time and again Obama has failed to deliver in the all important policy area and seems to have great difficulty discussing policy. His lack of passion for solutions is telling.
The final irony is that Obama's supporters, without realizing it, aren't supporting 'change,' they're supporting the status quo.
January 30, 2008 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
FYI: Koshembos is a winger and compulsive liar, or merely an ignorant fool. (Not mutually exclusive of course.)
Just look through his posting history. The other day he claimed Brzezinski is a "clown" and that "speaking with an accent" doesn't elevate him to Kissinger's level. Who but a complete idiot or winger would say such a thing?
:rolleyes:
January 30, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
whatever
January 30, 2008 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
i guess you're not iraqi
January 30, 2008 7:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I personally hope he doesn't endorse. In response to the above post though, Obama is riding a wave of anti Hillary press coverage and is neither as innocent in the muck nor is Hillary as devious as she is made out to be. I personally believe that Obama could very well be to the right of Hillary, and to discount that as being snowed by Hillary may speak to your (incorrect) perceptions rather that what's real. Obama's no saint, and for as good a speaker as he is, and he is, he can't seem to articulate details, and that's disconcerting to me. I'll strongly support either candidate, I hope you will too.
January 30, 2008 7:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Obama's no saint, and for as good a speaker as he is, and he is, he can't seem to articulate details, and that's disconcerting to me."
Why does he need to articulate details in speeches? He does an exhaustive job of it in policy positions, but honestly, no one details these points in speeches. Hillary doesn't. She makes it sound like she does by throwing out this and that wonky half-tidbit. But that itself is a rhetorical device, as it should be, in a rhetorical venue.
A speech or debate is simply not a good forum for policy detail...if it's good, it's too complex, and people can't process it. Only if it's moronically simple and immature can it be detailed in a speech (eg. Huckabee's fair tax). A lot of people seem to be holding Obama's ability to inspire against him, as if being inspirational and being right on the wonk are exclusive. But I guess people need a narrative to process their candidate. If Obama's likeable, he must be stupid. If Hillary's smart, she must be cranky and devious.
This isn't JFK v Nixon, and thank god for that.
January 30, 2008 8:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
To a great degree I agree with most of what you said. I feel though, that Obama's seeming lack of ability to rough out some details is more real with every day that passes. He has said things like Social Security is in trouble along the lines of Republican talking points, his voluntary healthcare plan is just plain sketchy, I can go on. Paul Krugman, in the Times, has had some articles that draw attention to these things, I'm sorry I can't link to them, but Obama's lack of clarity and possible naiveté aren't lost on everyone. Again, I would support him whole heartedly if he's the nominee.
January 30, 2008 8:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
My hope is that he'll wait until the convention, then stand in support of whoever doesn't lose it. Until then, he should stay out of the muck. Don't get involved with either Clintonista Savagery or Obamamaniacal Faux Bipartisanship (i.e. Give In To Republicanism). Let whichever centrist claws his or her way out of the slime be formally picked, then stand with the party.
January 30, 2008 6:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
What scares me is a politician that always takes the hawkish turn for political reasons. It really bothered me last night when Hillary "accidentally" said in her speech last night that she would convene a committee to make plans to get us out of Iraq in 60 days. And now this morning Edwards is out, so the war vote just happens to be confronted with this "accident" at just the right time.
Of course, her policy is that the drawdown will begin within 60 days, not that we will be out. And of course, Bush's drawdown in this sense begins in like 30 days. She's just disingenuous IMO. With Clintonian parsing, she has effectively promised NOTHING in terms of Iraq withdrawal, but she leaves the impression she is promising the moon. It's an "is is" thing.
I much prefer Obama's similar policy and more honest statement. His phrase is "we need to be as carefull getting out as we were careless getting in." Compare that to "begin removing troops in 60 days" that accidentally morphs into "we will withdraw within 60 days" for campaign speeches, and you get a portrait of the character we are talking about here.
Of course, I much prefered Edwards stance. Amazing that we may see a general election with a war authorizer and general supporter against a total war booster. I couldn't have predicted that, and I feel screwed.
January 30, 2008 6:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
The way I understand Clinton's Iraq policy is its emphasis on redeployment, by which troops may be removed from Iraq without being withdrawn from the region. There will always be a gap between campaign rhetoric and policy specifics, but I am afraid that Obama's rhetoric allows him to be more vague than I would like regarding Iraq.
January 30, 2008 7:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Both statements and policies are so vague as to be almost meaningless. Both leave plenty of room to do whatever "generals" tell them to, just like Bush.
The question is who do you trust. When one candidate represents that vague position as some kind of concrete promise, clearly trying to hoodwink anti-war folk like myself, I get suspicious. When she keeps "accidentally" saying we will "withdraw from Iraq in 60 days" when I know the policy, red lights go off. Before the primary, Hillary was talking up what the surge was accomplishing...not as bad as McCain, but nonetheless she was. In the war runup, she was probably the lead democrat in not just accepting but repeating the Bush lies. She actively participated in that. Without reading the intelligence. I can't let that go.
January 30, 2008 7:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
The way I understand Clinton's Iraq policy is that she supported the illegal, immoral invasion until her candidacy took off. I shan't forget her vote on Kyl-Lieberman either. Whatever she mealy-mouths around now, the evidence is clear.
January 30, 2008 7:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
but you'll give obama a pass for not even showing up for kyl-lieberman??
mealy-mouthing indeed.
January 30, 2008 8:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's see:
Hillary
Voted for war in Iraq without reading the NIE; never acknowledged that she might have been mistaken and in fact claims that she never knew Bush would actually attack.
Now claims that it was just the occupation that was mishandled
Gives out conflicting statements about "ending" the occupation
Voted in favor of Kyle-Lieberman, which gives Bush the same authority to attack Iran
Obama
Was not in Senate at the time, but spoke eloquently against invasion (notwithstanding Bill's "fairytale"
Did not show up for Kyle-Lieberman vote
Hmmmmm... Hillary--> same mistake twice, thousands dead
Obama --> Right on Iraq, cowardly on Kyle-Lieberman, but at least he didn't vote for it.
Yeah, given my choices, I'll give him a pass. Nobody's perfect, but since I don't agree with Hillary on much of anything, and she is not someone who will attract Independents and moderate Republicans, why should I vote for her?
Jan
January 30, 2008 8:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
jan,
i certainly wasn't suggesting that you should vote for clinton. i just don't think anyone should be hanging their hat on voting for obama on kyl-lieberman.
and i certainly don't think that obama supporters should use 'mealy-mouth' and 'kyl-lieberman' in the same breath - it doesn't really help their case.
January 30, 2008 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
zkosmo, FYI, I wasn't the poster who used the term "mealy-mouthed. That was cotterperson.
Jan
January 30, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
oh i'm well aware of that. i was merely explaining my post that you responded to.
January 30, 2008 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
The language that would have given the president "authority" to invade Iran was stricken from the final version of Kyle-Lieberman. This is a webosphere myth that does not bear fruit when you actually read the resolution that passed--i.e. the one Senator Clinton voted in favor of. The net result of the resolution was to allow federal agencies to freeze the US assets of any member of the Iranian Republican Guard, which is an extra-government military organization in Iran. It was in reaction to attacks on troops in Iraq which were sponsored or supported by the Iranian Republican Guard. As this organization is extra-governmental it would be unseemly to punish the sovereign state for actions outside of their control.
No excuses for the authorization to go to war, but let's drop the Kyle-Leiberman schtick; it's just ill-informed.
BTW: It was significant that Obama did not show for that vote if only because his surrogates used it as amunition against Clinton by misrepresenting the resolution. Also, Biden returned to Washington for this vote because, as chairman of Foreign Relations, he thought it was significant. He voted against it, but at least he voted. Not so much as a "present" from Senator Obama. The other candidate who did not vote was Dodd, but he never used the vote as a political weapon, and was clear about the final version as it relates to what it authorizes.
/c
In the blogosphere every one is an expert, so no one is an expert.
January 30, 2008 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
On Middle East policy, as in so many other things, Clinton's positions have been simply calculating - a combination of poll-driven tacking with the political breezes, along with the cultivation of support from hawkish backers and defense contractors.
When the country was in the midst of Iraq war fever, she was pro-invasion. Now that a majority think the war was a big mistake, she claims that she was really just pro-inspectors and pro-leverage, a claim that is hard to square with the general tone of her string of public statements before and after the invasion. She now says she was duped by bad intelligence like the rest of us, even though she admits not actually reading that intelligence. When Bush was successful in whipping up Iran nuke frenzy, she was aggressively anti-Iran and even castigated Bush for not doing more to take a harder line. She voted for Lieberman-Kyl to press that confrontational line, and perhaps in response to Aipac pressure. Then some Democratic challenges and the NIE came along, and she softened that position. During the Israel-Lebanon war in 2006, she participated in a fanatical anti-UN rally right across the street from the UN, while UN diplomats were working on ending the conflict. Now I guess we're to believe she is a committed internationalist.
Now that she is in the middle of a Democratic primary fight, she has moved to the left, as centrists tend to do in primaries. If she gains the nomination, she will drift right back to the center. Indeed, she makes a virtue out of the fact that her hawkish record means she she is best "positioned" to run against McCain. Clinton's anti-progressive foreign and military policy record was ably exposed by Stephen Zunes back in December.
By the way, these latest Iraq musings are just one of several areas where Clinton has boldly promised to pass the buck to a "committee" which she will assign the task of telling her what to do. Social security is another of these areas.
I know lots of Clinton supporters think these long-established criticisms of Clinton - that she is an unprincipled political calculator, with a preference for sucking up to hawks - seem unfairly negative. But I really think that's what the record bears out. There is nothing in there other than the desire for personal political advancement, and a taste for trying to impress militarists.
January 30, 2008 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
DanK, I agree with your analysis of her record.
Pushing back a little, do you think it is possible--not necessarily probable or likely--but possible that, as the first woman candidate with a real chance for the presidency, she is at special pains to try to demonstrate that she is "tough enough" to clear the CIC bar in a general election? But that, privately, she isn't nearly as hawkish as her record might suggest, and that in fact she might end up being a pleasant surprise if elected?
At this point I am also having to rely far more on faith-based, concocted scenarios when I contemplate voting for Obama than I'd like to. Even with Edwards there was a major question in the minds of some as to who is the real John Edwards, the aggressive progressive of the campaign, or the person who was on the wrong side of too many votes when he was a senator.
I don't know how any of us is supposed to read these candidates' minds or true intentions. This campaign season I am finding it more difficult than usual to come away with anything like a solid feeling about where these candidates "really" "are" on the issues. Which I find disconcerting as I work through my own process of deciding for whom to vote, although I understand that from their perspective the candidates are dealing with political reality as they see it.
January 30, 2008 9:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pushing back a little, do you think it is possible--not necessarily probable or likely--but possible that, as the first woman candidate with a real chance for the presidency, she is at special pains to try to demonstrate that she is "tough enough" to clear the CIC bar in a general election? But that, privately, she isn't nearly as hawkish as her record might suggest, and that in fact she might end up being a pleasant surprise if elected?
Yes, I think that is possible. But if she feels that her ability to get elected depends on making these demonstrations of her martial toughness, then it is reasonable to suspect that she will also feel that her ability to govern and direct the nation's national security apparatus depends on making similar displays of martial toughness in office. Insecurity is insecurity. If insecurity about the image she projects led Clinton to overcompensate on the side of hawkishness, and to make bad judgments in her role as a Senator, then that same insecurity is likely to lead her to similar bad judgments as a President.
January 30, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
American Dreamer: I think if you read the Zunes' article, you'll come away agreeing wholeheartedly with DanK. While it is indeed very difficult to sort out the candidate's actual positions on the issues in many cases, as opposed to politically-motivated statements in a primary season, Zunes analyzes Clinton's foreign policy actions in quite some detail, and it's not a pretty picture. I try to keep in mind that Clinton, as a NY Senator, is representing a constituency that may expect her to take the hawkish positions that she has, but that only goes so far...
The problem, of course, is knowing exactly where her competitor stands in comparison. Right now, the foreign policy course that Obama plans to chart is just not entirely clear, leaving me, an Edwards supporter (or, I guess I now have to say a former Edwards supporter) in a quandary.
"Fear not the path of truth for the lack of people walking on it." --Robert F. Kennedy
January 30, 2008 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think this makes it very difficult for Mr. Obama. After Super Tuesday, Texas will loom large, and it would have helped Mr. Obama to have Mr. Edwards in the race there.
Personally, I think he will follow Jimmy Carter's lead and not endorse. I don't think he likes either Mr. Obama or Mrs. Clinton that much. Why saddle himself with an endorsement?
January 30, 2008 6:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
TheraP expressed my sentiments for wishing the Edwards all the best.
I suspect its a net gain for Obama, since he and Edwards were splitting the anti-Clinton vote. Not all Edwards support was necessarily anti-Clinton so the remainder of his support will likely be evenly divided.
January 30, 2008 6:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
"The Grand Panjandrum said: ...
I suspect its a net gain for Obama, since he and Edwards were splitting the anti-Clinton vote."
I guess I don't get where you come off saying that ANY Edwards' support was 'anti-Clinton.'
My support for John Edwards was not an 'anti' vote of any kind but rather support for the candidate that best represented what the nation needs to, at least, slow its decline. I'd wager that the overwhelming majority of Edwards' supporters would agree.
In fact where do you get that the Obama vote was necessarily anti-Clinton?
January 30, 2008 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have been truly disgusted by the news coverage of the Edwards decision. At least 8 "analysts" I saw this morning were asking the question, "will the Edwards supporters be willing to vote for a black man"? As if his supporters were all huge bigots. The media will do anything to make race the issue in this campaign and it's not pretty. I only saw one reporter actually break down from the exit interviews his supporters as "working class" as opposed to younger or the more affluent. He said his message among rank and file democrats might have his supporters go more to Clinton.
January 30, 2008 6:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, so bizarre to watch media pundits take their cues from one another as if their is only one or two ways to look at things. (Not at all like people who think for themselves)
If the media keeps up with this, I'll have to assume they find Obama to be the biggest threat to the status quo. Perhaps they think if they keep race front and center, all that uniting Obama has managed will get harder to maintain when it really counts.
This is just the special-interest-media "experts'" way of working to nominate the most status quo candidate, Hillary? Perhaps also because they feel Hillary is most likely to lose to the Republican nominee?
Whatever the heart-sickening case may be, I hope any more duplicitous media moves backfire; it's bound to happen one day.
And I think the most brilliant thing Hillary, Edwards and Obama could do is to unite somehow. I'd like to see them work together and then use their collective popularity and strength to form a larger coalition for the kind of change they can all really believe in.
January 30, 2008 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
This Edwards supporter is probably not in the right frame of mind to pick a 2nd choice candidate right now. The debate on Thursday is going to very, very big in that respect.
January 30, 2008 7:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Running a woman or an African-American for President in the USA is as radical an idea we have. I'm concerned that those that profess no bias against either will not change their minds. Especially if android, white bread Romney is the Republican nominee. Or even Methuselah McCain. Our Country has gone to hell in a handbag with the cretins who have been running the country the last 7 years and the prospect of them running it for another term has me ready to crap my pants. I expected Edwards, with his war and poverty message, to run the table in the primarys. I guess following this process from Truman/Dewey to now doesn't mean anything. I just hope I'm wrong and Clinton/Obama can win the general election and carry a super majority into the House and Senate. If your hoping, you might as well hope for the moon!
January 30, 2008 7:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's one of my primary reasons for going Obama on this one. Note the endorsements from the contestable house and senate states. They overwhelmingly want to run with Obama. Clinton is potentially the 50+1 presidential win and 50-7 congressional loss.
I think it really is going to be McCain, which is going to be a problem for us either way. But I just can't see the campaign Clinton runs against McCain. Experience argument is out the window, the R base is motivated, and probably most importantly, McCain is almost definitely going to be perceived as more honest. That last one to me is almost insurmountable. This sets up very badly. I don't think I've seen a poll that has Hillary taking him out in a long time, and this was when he was a longshot.
A change v. status quo, youth v. age, honesty v. honesty is a much better matchup for us.
January 30, 2008 7:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
At this point I'm inclined to agree (and I'm not sure what would change). Frank Rich in Sunday's NYT made this argument as well--maybe you saw that. I believe Hillary could beat McCain and would exert to help her do that, if it comes to that.
January 30, 2008 8:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I look forward to John Edwards' return to the national arena as Labor Secretary or Attorney General.
January 30, 2008 7:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Edwards and his wife have given a great deal to this country. Their service is appreciated by many, including myself. I wish them well in their future endeavors. May they have time together to relax and savor their relationship and children. For Elizabeth, I wish good health for long as possible.
I hope Edwards can contribute somehow to the fight for good, universal health care for all of us. This is a good fight for him to engage in, particularly given his wife's breast cancer and her shortened life expectancy.
January 30, 2008 7:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
It doesn't matter where his supporters go, it still hurts Obama.
By withdrawing from the race, Edwards changes the dynamic in Congressional Districts with odd numbers of delegates. It used to be that just about wherever he cracked 15%, Hillary and Obama would split the same number of delegates (1-1, 2-2, etc.) and Edwards would walk away with a single delegate. Now, in an odd numbered district, the winner will always take more delegates.
So do the math. Edwards is most likely to crack 15% in heavily-white, largely poor areas. Who gains a delegate there? He was least likely to draw threshold support in heavily-black areas. So who does his withdrawal fail to benefit?
I wish it were otherwise. But the bottom line is that 15% of the vote for Edwards almost always helped Obama more than adding that same 15% of the vote to his own tally.
January 30, 2008 7:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is to her right on healthcare, and to her left on just about everything else - most notably Edwards' focal points regarding poverty. That said, they are admittedly quite close.
My hope is that the pundits are right and Edwards supporters have already chosen not to support Hillary or have been turned off by her negative and divisive campaign. That said, we know how often the pundits are right, so you'll forgive me if I'm less than entirely optimistic.
As Edwards himself has said repeatedly, there are two candidates of change, and one of status quo...
January 30, 2008 7:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
national journal vote ratings put obama to the right of clinton on social issues in general.
January 30, 2008 8:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Prove your assertion. The National Journal had this to say: "Obama: During his two years in the Senate, Obama has been among its more liberal members. In the 152 Senate votes that were used in NJ's ratings in 2005 and 2006, he voted against the liberal position only 12 times. Many of those votes dealt with national security issues or presidential nominations."
"Clinton: A review of Clinton's vote-ratings scores shows a clear-cut shift. In the first three years after her election in 2000, when she focused her attention chiefly on her home state, she was twice among the most liberal senators...Since then, with the prospect of a presidential bid looming, Clinton has moved notably toward the right among Senate Democrats. Only 12 Democrats had a more conservative score in 2004, and 12 were to her right again last year; most of them were from the South or West. In those two recent cases, her ratings were close to those of Sen. Joe Lieberman, I/D-Conn., whose growing independence has riled many of the party faithful."
January 30, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
prove my assertion???
the national journal vote ratings are broken down into three categories: economic policy, foreign policy, and social policy. in 2005 and 2006 (the only two years that obama and clinton can be compared to one another since NJ's 2007 vote ratings are not out yet) obama was more conservative than clinton in the social policy category.
January 30, 2008 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
There was some recent polling on this question.
40% of Edwards supporters would support Clinton, 25% would support Obama.
The remainder were undecided.
Far too many people fall for the media's interpretation and framing of the campaign.
Haven't we learned by now to make our own considerations and ignore the media.
This campaign has been another example. Once again we've been played by the press.
January 30, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I actually hope Edwards endorses either Clinton or Obama prior to Super Tuesday. It would be nice to have the Democratic nominee settled no later than the Republican nominee is settled, as opposed to Clinton and Obama continuing to beat each other up while McCain sits and watches and gathers ammunition.
January 30, 2008 7:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
McCain will have his hands full; Mittney's fortune will make sure of that. Whether our interepid journalists and teevee bobbleheads will direct any of our attention away from the psycho-sexual-racial circus of the Obama-Clinton contest is something else entirely.
January 30, 2008 7:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
It will take me a couple of days to think clearly about what comes next. I'm really bummed about this.
Neither of the other candidates has my full interest, though I would definitely support either in the general. But I'm not sure I'll bother attending the Colorado caucuses next week, since I don't like one over the other enough to bother.
January 30, 2008 7:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Edwards is truly for change in the manner in which he is speaking, and if he believes the rhetoric he spouted during the NH debate, then he MUST endorse Obama - and do so before February 5 - so to make a real difference. Otherwise, one would have to believe that his talk of change is just that - talk.
January 30, 2008 7:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Or, he MUSTN'T endorse Obama, because Obama's talk is all re-coded High Broderism, which isn't really anything new at all. It's old, stale bipartisanship (i.e. capitulation to Republicans) wrapped in the word "hope" repeated ad nauseum.
Edwards should stay out of this mess until we find out who we're stuck with.
January 30, 2008 7:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have done a ton of volunteer work for John Edwards over the past year. I am quite concerned about the tone of campaign without him to bring it back to issues when Hillary and Barack seem to want to talk about anything but those things that most immediately impact people's lives.
I look forward to hearing what John has to say at 1 PM today. Then I will make my decision because I have to vote on Feb 5th. I would lean to Obama because I have the hope (maybe thin) that an Obama campaign and Presidency would be a little more progressive than a Clinton.
But Thursday night can be huge in that regard.
Ben
January 30, 2008 7:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for your work Ben. I think Edwards did at least get a serious anti-war message into the mix. Not that either of the other two ran too far with it. But he'll probably keep the pressure on by not endorsing. I wanted him to be kingmaker, and I don't know why he's giving that up. But I think that not endorsing, as long as it stays close, is smart, and while I'm an Obama supporter for mostly pragmatic reasons, I want Edwards to move him as far as he can. Clinton totally lost me when she implied that she would be better running against McCain essentially because she voted for the war and is a hawk.
You might consider that Obama is going to be in jeapordy on the 5th. I think keeping it close extends Edwards influence.
January 30, 2008 8:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
If memory serves, Edwards spent a good chunk of time before the primaries started attacking Hillary Clinton. To the best of my knowledge, he has not attacked Obama at all.
My bet is that he ends up backing Obama, although I'm sure both campaigns are now promising him the moon.
January 30, 2008 7:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll probably switch to Nader or stay home. I'll never vote for another centrist.
January 30, 2008 7:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I sympathize with you, and I understand why you say that, but I have two words for you:
SUPREME COURT
Jan
January 30, 2008 7:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm already familiar with all the centrist arguments. After the last year I don't see any difference between the Pukes and the weaklings in the Demo party. If they really wanted to stop any of the supreme court nominations Bush made they could have, but didn't.
January 30, 2008 8:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right, but since we are likely to have 3 relatively liberal jusdges retiring, how do you feel about McCain or Romney choosing their replacements?
I am no fan of Hillary, but I would feel better about her Supreme Court choices than any from the republican side.
Jan
January 30, 2008 8:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
January 30, 2008 8:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Uhhgghghggg....I just threw up.
Guys, on one hand you've got a guaranteed 100% proven centrist hawk lobby-trougher that somehow still motivates the R base like no one else. On the other hand, you've got a newcomer with a liberal voting record, a liberal background, a message of change and realignment, and a rock star following....backed by Ted Kennedy and practically every vulnerable democrat. I think it's fair to say we can at least plausibly hope will be liberal, and are alowed to dream he'll be a game-changer. And you're just reconciling yourself to McCain or another term of Clintons?
WTF? Get off the mat and go for a win.
January 30, 2008 8:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
"sphealey said:
... While I don't disagree, that is a very very low bar. I can easily see Pres. H. Clinton appointing what are essentially traditional conservative, anti-consumer (= anti-citizen), pro-unitary-executive Supreme Court justices."
Bill Clinton appointed Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer to the court. They hardly fit sphealey's description. Here's a little bit from the Breyer nomination:
"The nine dissenting senators (all Republicans) included: Burns (R-Montana), Coates (R-Indiana), Coverdell (R-Georgia), Helms (R-NC), Lott (R-Mississippi), Murkowski (R-Alaska), Nickles (R-Oklahoma), and Smith (R-NH). They indicated they were primarily concerned with Breyer's ethics, but also objected to his support of federal funding for abortion counseling, his lack of commitment to private property rights, and his opposition to prayer in public schools and at public schools' graduation ceremonies."
In other words sphealey you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
January 30, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
So Hillary Clinton is really just a sock puppet for William Jefferson Clinton? Thanks for clearing that up for us.
Even granted your premise, which is either absurd or subversive of everything Senator Clinton has campaigned on, you will forgive me if I don't find Stephen Breyer to be the highpoint of progressive jurisprudence. Nor do I find the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the DMCA, or the DoMA - all Clinton legacies - to be be very progressive. The opposite in fact.
sPh
January 30, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
As I said above I don't see a difference between the Pukes and the Dems. There is even less of a difference if the war monger and DLC member Clinton is the candidate.
January 30, 2008 8:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
don't vote FOR the centrist liberal democrat, vote AGAINST the right-wing conservative republican.
i can assure you that in the general election i will not be voting FOR obama or hillary.
January 30, 2008 8:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's what I will be doing if Nader runs.
January 30, 2008 8:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did you ever read, Winnie the Pooh? No offense, but your posts remind me of Eeyore, the depressed donkey.
Or Saturday Night Live's Debbie Downer.
Someone is going to be elected. Don't you want to have a slight chance of influencing that? Are Hillary, Barack, John, and Mitt REALLY equal to you? How about if John's running mate is the eely Rudy?
Jan
January 30, 2008 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Some liberals actually have principles they believe in. I imagine that concept is foreign to you.
January 30, 2008 9:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
You mean like the principles of your hero, Ralph Nader?
He said there was no difference between Bush and Gore. Well, if Gore had taken office instead of just winning the election, how many of these things would have happened:
1. Thousands dead or maimed in Iraq
2. New Orleans ignored and mishandled
3. Our Constitution in shreds
4. Our allies betrayed and pissed off at us
5. Our list of enemies growing by the day
6. Our good name and reputation sullied in the world due to our policies and torture, etc
I could go on. You claim to have principles and that I don't. What is the point of insulting me? What do you base that on? Ralph Nader? Have you ever wondered why he will only run for President? Why doesn't he run for another office that he might win, and actually do some good?
You need to do a little critical thinking. Oh, and I take back what I said about sympathizing with you. You feel sorry enough for yourself, and I don't want to feed that kitty.
Jan
January 30, 2008 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Look it I've listened to drivel like yours before.
Save your tired arguments for someone who cares.
January 30, 2008 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
yeah jan. save your valid arguments for someone who actually cares about who wins the election. there's no point in arguing with people who only pretend to.
January 30, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
OK, Eeyore! BTW, I described him as a donkey, but he really is an ass!
PS. I guess only someone with TRUE Principles like yours would consider thousands of dead people "drivel."
Jan
January 30, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
You attacked me first dingbat.
I voted Democrat last time because they said they were going to do something about all those dead people. They did nothing. But they still have your vote so who can blame them for doing nothing.
January 30, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please cut & paste anything I said that could be considered an attack.
Dingbat? Well, that's mature!
Jan
January 30, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
You attacked me first dingbat.
Aw geez, Edith, willya stifle it???
January 30, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Derek,
you have raised the level of discourse to new heights, I salute you.
January 30, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary voted for the war with Iraq and won't even admit it was a mistake.
January 30, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, and some liberals have death wishes.
January 30, 2008 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
As far as I'm concerned, voting for a candidate who STILL won't apologize for her vote for the Iraq war and who voted for Kyl-Lieberan would be affirming that what I believe in has already died.
January 30, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Could be.
This liberal will vote to the death against Republicans Lite or Heavy.
What's the point in voting for a Democrat and getting a Republican?
- "The Supreme Court," says one of my favorite posters.
But the most liberal justice was appointed by a Republican after the defeat of Bork. A senate controlled by Democrats approved two of the worst appointed by Bush. Not terribly likely a DLC'er careless about civil liberties, favoring executive power, upper class entitlements and empowering the poor and disabled by dumping them off welfare would appoint a single liberal justice.
Be interesting to see how often Hillary finds it possible to talk about those living on the fringes rather than her peculiar middle class. Her face would break apart if she had to drop the middle class dodge of the DLC.
Best, Terry
January 31, 2008 12:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
no, you won't. voting for a candidate who stands no chance of winning is not a vote against a candidate who does. it's basic math really.
pretending duverger's law doesn't exist, doesn't make it so.
January 30, 2008 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I vote for the people who put forth the ideas I agree with. I supported Edwards because there were at least a few things he said I agreed with.
The thread title asked what we planned to do and I gave an honest assessment. If you intend to vote for Clinton or Obama be my guest. I'm happy for you. All I ask is that you grant me the right to vote for who I want to as well.
Is that too much to ask?
January 30, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
It depends on whether you live in a blue state or a swing state. I live in a blue state, so I will probably vote for Nader or the socialist workers party candidate, or maybe I'll write in my spouseboy. If I lived in a swing state, i'd vote for the nominee. Yes, it would be settling, however, 4 more years of reactionary Supreme Court nominees and impotent federal regulating agencies is far worse than electing corporate Democrats. So, vote the way you want, but if you live in a swing state, give it a second thought.
January 30, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lee not living with neanderthals is one choice I do have some control over.
Once again I reject your assumption that the Democrats are any different than the Pukes. Do you see any difference? There are more soldiers in Iraq since they took over, not less. They cave to every demand that idiot Bush makes of them.
I reject your fundamental assumptions and will find someone to vote for who hasn't lied to me yet.
January 30, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I supported Edwards too, and believe he was the far superior candidate in the race. But are you really saying you don't think there's any difference in the sort of Supreme Court nominees we'd get with a Democratic vs a Republican in the White House? I'm very uncomfortable with Clinton for a variety of reasons, and just not clear on where Obama stands on several issues, but without a doubt, the specter of more RW conservatives on the court is enough to make me vow to vote for either one of them over any of the Republicans.
"Fear not the path of truth for the lack of people walking on it." --Robert F. Kennedy
January 30, 2008 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
"But are you really saying you don't think there's any difference in the sort of Supreme Court nominees we'd get with a Democratic vs a Republican in the White House? "
Yes that is what I am saying and as evidence I offer you Roberts and Alito, both of whom were allowed to join the court thanks to Democrats. The Pukes have no problem blocking things they do not want. I assume the Democrats could do the same thing but they did not. They also could have stopped the war in Iraq but they did not. They could have impeached the war criminal Bush but they did not. I don't know about you but I see a pattern here and I am no longer willing to be a patsy to people who keep lying to me?
January 31, 2008 1:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
no one is trying to take away your right to vote however you choose.
i'm just pointing out where your claims about that vote are demonstrably false.
January 30, 2008 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I must have missed the part where you did that.
January 31, 2008 1:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Edwards went after Obama a number of times before Iowa, most notably for Obama's naive bipartisanship. Edwards pointed out that big pharma and big insurance aren't going to give their power away in the spirit of compromise. Obama's reply was glib but not reassuring, a reference to the Harry and Louise characters used to bludgeon Hillary back in the 90s.
My only hope is that Obama's feel-good politics-of-change approach is a campaign ploy akin to compassionate conservatism. He's been in the streets. He knows what recent "compromises" with the GOP have wrought. He has to know that it's all or nothing.
January 30, 2008 7:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was at a John Edwards event yesterday in Jefferson City and he gave no indication he was not in this until the convention. He spoke of how he would fight for the farmers who were there and the union members and all the working people. Dropping out the day after three events and after announcing a big TV ad buy makes me question what's happening here.
I don't know who I will support now. If only Feingold were running...
January 30, 2008 7:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wish Obama would offer him VP and that they ran as a ticket right up to the convention and, assuming they win, after.
January 30, 2008 7:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
While Edwards is going to be courted more than the head cheerleader before Prom, and would be an asset to either Hillary or Obama as VP, personally, I think his most effective position in the new Dem WH would be as Attorney General.
Imagine the reform within the Justice Dept, and how real oversight and prosecution could clean up the criminal excesses of the Bush administration, and return some integrity and teeth to Justice!
January 30, 2008 8:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm cool with that. I'd like to see Edwards as AG, too.
January 30, 2008 8:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Put him in AG and sick him on the lobbyists and their pals in congress. That would be a great role for him. I don't think Hillary would do it, unless she thought she was strong enough to keep him in check or had some trump cards. She has a bunker mentality from the first and second Clinton admins.
January 30, 2008 8:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. AG is the perfect role for him.
January 30, 2008 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
What's the veep equivalent of a bridesmaid's dress?
Idea for a romantic comedy: An attractive young man who never seems to win his party's nomination but is always chosen as a running mate...
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
January 30, 2008 8:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
as an edwards supporter i do NOT want him to take a VP slot to either clinton or obama.
seeing as how you're an obama supporter i can understand why you would want him on your ticket.
but since i actually believe in edwards' message i'd prefer he hold out for a position that could actually mean something rather than whore himself and his message out to either of these second rate candidates.
January 30, 2008 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
A friend of mine had a rather good suggestion for Edwards - the Dept. of Labor. I like what he'd be capable of accomplishing there and it is an area that is often overlooked and always getting worse.
January 30, 2008 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Edwards would never accept the VP nomination again. He was bound and gagged in the Kerry campaign and I can't see him, after all that's happened, accept such a role.
January 30, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry to see Edwards go, he was the only one forcefully addressing issues that negatively affect 85/90% of the public.
January 30, 2008 7:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Those who fear the unknown will gravitate toward Hillary and risk-takers will go for Obama. If the reality that many are resistant to change applies even when there is little to lose on many fronts, I think Hillary will take most of the Edwards votes.
I hope Edwards leads his campaign network to find another way to make the changes he's been talking about. And this would be good preparation for Edwards if people want him to run again in the future.
If we are disappointed by the next president, maybe we should listen to Obama's advice about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Because any future disappointment will be our own fault for not having demanded publicly-funded, fair elections. Our collective failure on this means we agree to let the media and status quo powers continue to have an absurd amount of influence over which candidates succeed and fail.
I hope for an above average leader who is strong enough to lead us successfully into the future with the values we hold dear fully intact; I fear a wimp follower who will dutifully trail behind special interests, even if they are headed off a cliff fully intent to bring the country along for the ride.
Seems to me that Edwards's willingness to make the truth about what's gone so wrong with our government central to his campaign puts him in the (nearly empty) modern hero category. Surely he braved a grueling campaign knowing that the media and special interests would undermine his every move and hoping that the voters would step up and get it.
January 30, 2008 7:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know, I was just thinking how hard it is for us to see the humanity in our candidates. It must have been horrible for Mr. Edwards to be cast in the role of the default white male candidate by the media, including the progressive blogosphere. The snub from Kerry must have been painful. Edwards's roots and his support is working class. Can you imagine what a man like Edwards thinks of men like Kerry and Kennedy? If I thought people wouldn't vote for Mr. Obama because of his race, I would support him in his bid to lead the Democratic party. I don't think Mr. Obama's problem is his race.
I support Mrs. Clinton because she is the last Nationalist standing, and it is going to take a Nationalist to stand against McCain. She has never apologized for the invasion, while she has been extremely critical of the occupation. And she has maintained that position at enormous expense to herself with the progressive side of the party. But she has maintained it, and she is positioned to take on McCain on the failed occupation without being smeared for opposing the invasion. I don't think America is ready for a post-9/11 return to internationalism yet. It's too soon to run another internationalist like Mr. Obama.
January 30, 2008 8:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think he felt snubbed by Kerry. Remember, Edwards kind of snubbed Kerry first. As Kerry's running mate, Edwards feels he was forced to run a campaign that didn't emphasize his essential character. We can debate whether or not that's true but the firebrand Edwards that ran this time basically said "Kerry held me back." The two are not pals.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
January 30, 2008 8:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, its always been my impression that when Kerry picked Edwards, the handlers put the "pretty Southern boy" in a transparent box so he could be seen but not heard. I'm still pissed about the Kerry campaign.
January 30, 2008 7:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was being polite. You're right. Edwards doesn't like him. My point about the class basis for that dislike may still be valid.
January 30, 2008 8:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's very likely. I know it'd have driven me nuts.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
January 30, 2008 8:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
So you think that it was right to invade Iraq for the purpose of deposing someone Bush had a grudge against, and was no threat to us; just the occupation is a mess?
Going on 4,000 dead soldiers, untold numbers of Iraqis, and untold numbers of injured -- both ours and theirs -- yeah -- go ahead a vote for Hillary. You two see things the same way alright.
What do you mean by "Nationalist?"
Jan
January 30, 2008 8:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
In the most horrible sense, to strip away all the BS, it's someone who thinks American lives are more importnat than Iraqi lives. But I didn't make a moral judgment about the invasion. What I said was that she is in a position to separate the invasion from the occupation, something neither Mr. Obama or you, apparently, is able to do. Like it or not, that's what it is going to take to run against McCain.
January 30, 2008 8:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Separating the invasion from the occupation is like evaluationg a car crash and saying, "Yes, he was drunk when he got into the car, but then he was speeding, and then there was that big old tree..." in order to excuse being drunk in the first place.
Everything about this war was wrong-- the lies that got us into it, the people who voted for it because they didn't want to be "soft on terror," those who decided we needed too few soldiers on the ground, those who dismissed the Iraqi army, and the list goes on.
Why is separating the first cluster-fu*k from the second cluster-fu*k going to help Hillary run against Mr. War-Without-End McCain?
Anyone who can think should be able to see that if you believe war is the answer, you'll like McCain, & you'll vote for McCain, and if you don't like war as the answer, you have absolutely no reason to vote for Hillary.
Jan
January 30, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry to disappoint you, Jan, because I know you live for it, but I'm not going to get into one of your anyone should be able to see arguments. I'm not talking about me. I'm talking about the electorate. McCain will whip him like he's his daddy.
January 30, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, please. The only way to stand up to McCain is to be vehemently opposed to staying in Iraq for the next 100 years. Furthermore, the next candidate should support immediate withdrawal.
I find it appalling that she never apologized for her vote to authorize the war. I find it appalling that she jumped to her feet and applauded the lame duck's assertion that the surge was working.
I'm telling you, she keeps giving me plenty of reasons not to vote for her.
P.S. I don't like Obama either.
January 30, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
She is opposed to staying in Iraq. She's said the first thing she'll do when she takes office is get a plan to get out in 60 days. The occupation and the invasion are two different things. America hates the occupation. She'll kill McCain on the occupation, but voters will know she wouldn't hesitate one moment to defend America. Americans don't want a CIC who has to think about that. As far as the invasion goes, remember you're dealing with a human being. What was her frame of reference when she authorized force? Kosovo. Zero American lives lost and genocide ended. Limited bombing of Iraq by Bill Clinton.
I know we, with the infinite wisdom of the not responsible blogosphere, can clearly see what a mistake the invasion turned out to be. But my guess is that most Americans think the invasion wasn't worth the candle because the occupation failed. If we had pulled out of Iraq right after we caught Saddam, we would be looking at 8 more years of "Rublican" rule. As it is, we can take them down on the occupation. McCain is saddled with it. America hates it. He's a mark, but not for someone like Obama who called the invasion a "stupid" war. They are going to crucify him with that comment. Then we get the most conservative Supreme Court in the history of the country, Barbara Ann at the inaugural, real bombs on Iran maybe, and more Reaganomics -- have you listened to McCain rhapsodize on the Reagan theme?
Finally, everyone applauded that line. The applause was for the troops. This is still post-9/11 America. McCain is an authentic war hero to many Americans. We need to be very careful about who we put up against him, if we want to win the Presidency.
Want one more reason to skip Obama this time? He doesn't care if he wins the Presidency or not this time. Seizing control of the party will do.
January 30, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you’re wrong about the electorate on this one, wglad. Greenwald periodically posts the polls on Iraq and it has held steady (even through this spectacular surge) at about 70% opposed to the war and in favor of a relatively quick, complete withdrawal. Those numbers include that core 20-30% of hardcore Bush supporters. The number is probably 85- 90% among Dems and Independents.
Several times, HRC has alluded to how tough she’d be against that omnipresent terrist threat hanging over us. It’s the same fear-mongering that Bush has perfected. But I don’t think McCain’s bomb-bomb-Iran tune is going to shoot up the charts with a bullet. I think people are very ready for an internationalist who believes in soft power and diplomacy.
OTOH, I don't think Obama is necessarily as soft on security issues as is made out to be, though it is harder to tell with him. If you read his statements to AIPAC (I know) or his repetition that everything will be on the table with Iran, he is keeping militaristic options open. Personally, I can’t warm to Obama because he has a history of reaching across the table to lobbyists and special interests, at times, and he avoids specific positions. I understand it is an effort to appeal to all and to solicit support, but what we need in these dark times is a scrappy, principled, partisan fighter.
January 30, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
A reasoned response. I think, however, that the electorate does make a distinction between the occupation and the invasion, although we don't poll in a way that reveals it. The tipoff is the Democrats inability to end the occupation and the lack of any real action in the streets. HRC and BO both propose an immediate end to the occupation. The question that remains is whom do you trust on the invasion? We are not likely to see a poll that asks people how they would feel about the invasion had we withdrawn as soon as we determined there were no wmds and Saddam was captured.
January 30, 2008 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
True. I take your point about anti-war on Iraq not being equivalent to wanting a dove as CIC. And it may be that, with a recession looming, the war will fade in importance to voters (the Republicans can only hope). Both Dem candidates try to play both sides in different ways and I guess they have to if they want to win in the general election. Obama talks of conciliation and a vague hope to court the independents while Hillary talks tough on security. I don’t have any idea how it will break because he’s got the movement momentum and she’s got the political organization and history. It will be interesting.
January 30, 2008 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Edwards will still be on the ballot in my state, so I might still vote for him.
He shouldn't endorse until after Feb 5, at the earliest. He'd hopefully be considered for a position in either a Clinton or Obama administration. There's no reason for him to ruffle any feathers and ruin that.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
January 30, 2008 8:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Edwards does seem to be getting some decent news coverage now. Interesting that this aspect of the Edwards campaign is the only one that is news worthy to our great corporate media.
January 30, 2008 8:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's the only story about him they ever wanted to tell.
January 30, 2008 8:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a Canadian so, sadly, am unable to cast any vote in the Dem primaries.
However, I've been an Edwards supporter. His message resonated and directly addressed so many of the egregious and despicable wrongs that the Republican AND Democratic members of Congress contributed to making worse or ignored during the past 7 years.
I'm grateful because I believe Edwards' message aided as a fire to the feet of both Hillary AND Obama's campaigns.
I Hope Edwards throws his support and delegates to Obama BEFORE Super Tuesday.
Obama's not perfect, and I don't prefer his healthcare plan -- however:
if McCain is the Republican presidential nominee -- Hillary is automatic red meat to the GOP.
No matter how much the GOP pundit class and evangelicals thinks McCain stinks -- they will -- as McCain's own mother said: "hold their noses and vote for McCain" because in a 2 way race with Hillary Clinton, they've had their gamebook totally ready to throw at an old and supremely familiar and well-hated enemy.
With OBAMA as the Dem presidential nominee, the GOP have a far harder hurdle to clear in figuring out how to fight and beat Obama. Hell, even that nutbar fundie Jonah Goldberg said as much this morning on MSNBC's Morning Joe.
So BIG PICTURE #1: BEATING JOHN MCCAIN: Why should former Edwards' supporters give the GOP what they're chomping at the bit for?
BIG PICTURE #2: THE SUPREME COURT. If, in the end, if it's Hillary who becomes the Democratic nominee, I implore my fellow Progressives to look at the BIG PICTURE: The Next Supreme Court Judge is in your hands. If it is Hillary, then those Dems who don't like her, need to do just like the Repugs will do with McCain: hold your nose and vote for her damn it! :-)
January 30, 2008 8:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Candidate Judgement involving life and death issues:
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.”
“So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President..”
- Hillary Clinton 2002, floor speech right before the war authorization.
"I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
"I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.”
– Obama 2002
Judgement for the supreme court? You decide.
January 30, 2008 9:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
And don't forget Kyl-Lieberman!
January 30, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm disappointed. I at least wanted the opportunity to vote for the guy. Now I'll have to hold my nose and vote for Hillary, I suppose.
January 30, 2008 8:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
You wanted to vote for the guy that said Hillary was the status quo trying to smack down his kind of change, and now you want to switch to Hillary? Iraq, lobbyists, and trade protections.... the major elements of Edwards campaign are to my mind fully manifest in Hillary's, but in negative.
Good god, Hillary stood up there time and again and practically said that lobbyists are god's gift to the political system.
I just don't get it.
January 30, 2008 8:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, you must not have been listening to Edwards at all regarding the two candidates that represent change and the one candidate that represents the status quo.
January 30, 2008 8:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
you might have noticed that edwards mostly used that tack when his (overly ambitious) strategy was to knock clinton out and make it a two way race between him and obama. he eased up on that after NH and started going harder after obama to play catch-up.
the worst part of that whole two candidates for change strategy was that it emboldened obama supporters (suckers for flattery that they are) and made it harder for edwards to push his way back into a three way race.
if edwards had knocked clinton out (not that he actually could have) you would have seen him change the 'two candidates for change' strategy into 'ONE candidate for change'.
let's not confuse strategic positioning for virtual endorsement.
January 30, 2008 9:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder...
if edwards had knocked clinton out (not that he actually could have) you would have seen him change the 'two candidates for change' strategy into 'ONE candidate for change'.
And you know this because...
let's not confuse strategic positioning for virtual endorsement.
Let's not confuse our own ideas for other peoples' either.
Jan
January 30, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
i suppose it's possible edward's could have just said, now there are still two candidates for change but... uh... i'm better looking. except i don't think that strategy would have really worked for him.
when i say his strategy would have been 'one candidate for change' i think it doesn't take much effort to understand that my point is edwards would have sought to distinguish himself as the 'real' candidate for change.
but you're right i could be completely wrong and misunderstood his strategy. maybe edwards really was endorsing obama during the NH debates. that would explain why so many obama supporters couldn't understand why he was still in the race after his second place finish in iowa. it's all becoming so much clearer....
January 30, 2008 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
all churlish snark aside though, point taken.
it does sound stupidly presumptuous to say 'you would have seen him change' instead of 'you can bet he would have changed'.
January 30, 2008 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why can't you still vote for him? If Obama and Clinton as presented to you so far are the same thing for you, and you have no preference between them, it's not a wasted vote. It's a primary, not the general election. Voting like that sends a message to the remaining candidates what you want in the platform.
Don't you think, for example, that on the GOP side, the other candidates are not paying attention to how many votes Ron Paul gets?
January 30, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, since Hillary Clinton was third on my short list of three, I guess I'm voting for Obama now.
My inclination is that Edwards voters move to Obama, like me. But several people here have already said just the opposite. Goes to show, what the hell do I know...
1.20.2009
January 30, 2008 8:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Give him a break, we're all still struggling around here this morning. I still plan to vote for Edwards in the primary, neither HRC or Obama has done anything to win my vote, they haven't talked about my issues, so screw them.
When they start talking qbout alleviating poverty and changing the economic structure of America, I'll listen. I'm not holding my breath.
January 30, 2008 8:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Edwards was the only hope for regenerating the Democratic Party. Those of us who supported him did so because of the issues and his position on them. We are now left with two centrists, both of whom the right wing is salivating to run against and for good reason: they are both incredibly vulnerable.
Neither Obama nor Clinton will get anything done on health care, they will be unable to extract us from the oil war in Iraq, and generally speaking they will be highly ineffective on all the issues of importance to Democrats because, if they are able to win (and I have serious doubts that either can win in November),the victory will be so narrow that the balance of power in the Congress will not change significantly so the stalemate there will continue and prevent any serious progress on the most important issues we face.
I will listen to what Edwards has to say in his speech today, but if I choose not to vote for him on Feb. 5, my vote will go to Obama despite my serious reservations regarding his lack of understanding about what it will take to achieve anything important for regular Americans.
January 30, 2008 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink