Clearly Obama needs to develop his groveling skills.
Imagine, Obama, the guy who battled poverty on the streets of Chicago, getting lectured about poverty from the wealthiest candidate in the race. In the guy's $20 million house. A little disorienting, no?
Also, Lalo35adm, a single link to another article or YouTube isn't exactly, you know, a post. You might want to add some context or something to it.
Oh, and posting two posts in the span of about an hour is poor form, too.
Obama worked in Chicago because he wanted to earn the right to be part of the black community -- not because he wanted to help people-- black or otherwise. He went to Chicago in particular apparently because that was the only offer he received as far as I can tell from his Dreams book. And also as far as I can tell he did absolutely nothing in the way of researching what it might take to be effective and indeed was not at all effective his whole first year.
Edwards has used his wealth to do far more against poverty than Obama has done with his false pretense of matyrdom -- from his elite prep school Punahoe he could have gone any where he wanted to.
And? Obama did not pander and supported his own positions rather than adopt Edwards? He wasn't earthy enough for Edwards?
Okay, you convinced me - I am voting for Hillary.
Thanks Lalo35adm, its been pretty hairy in here for the past few days. Glad that you are still around.
I'm going to need a little more...whatcha call 'em...facts before I start worrying about this report.
Why am I not surprised that this headline is all you seem to have gotten out of reading this article?
Ouch
Was that really all that scathing? I think it was pretty damned fair, especially given what I put up with on my last post from this fine Cafe contributor.
Scathing? yes Fair? yes
I'll accept it, although is it really even scathing upon consideration of a full reading of the article?
I would say the article headline and picture covers it, but if you insist to base it on the entire article.
Look, I'm at least trying to be fair here. :)
DF, I was gonna say it myself, but then I remembered that Lalo already stated he won't read my posts anymore... ;-)
How do you get on that list?
Why Edwards didn't endorse Obama? Um...because Edwards is still holding the keys to a shiny, late-model Cadillac and hasn't received his best offer yet? That's my answer, but the author's own final statement gives his answer:
"The last best hope is that Hillary will eventually come to see yielding as not merely the path to self-preservation, but also as her only route to long-range self-aggrandizement."
Some Dems (Richardson) are trying to nudge Hillary in this direction. Other Dems (Edwards) are hoping to see Hillary retain some dignity and figure it out for herself.
Well that caddy is rotting in the garage.
An amazing argument to be having. Why hasn't Edwards endorsed? Maybe because he has other priorities. Simple as that. Why should he endorse. He's at a major crossroads in his own life. His wife's health is his first concern and what he's going to do now is his second. Edwards might have a lot more on his mind than Hillary and Obama. I know I would.
What an amazingly salient observation. Not that I expect any less from you. No pressure. :)
Destor23,
Thanks for the injection of sanity (and humanity) into this conversation.
One thing we are missing with John and Elizabeth Edwards out of the public eye is this sort of perspective; the reminder that there are things more important than the psychodrama of a campaign horse-race...
(Oh, and I don't think I ever acknowledged that you totally nailed me on that weak Bill-Clinton-and-the-African-American-vote comment I made some weeks back. Credit where credit's due.)
Exactly. Someone else had a post up saying they wrote to Edwards asking him to endorse.
I said I thought he had his hands full, too. I'm not altogether certain if Elizabeth's health wasn't a reason he dropped out. He'd never say so, because she doesn't want to be the cause of that. She'd be mortified.
One thing that was pretty clear about those two was their bond. A nice thing to see whenever you run into it.
It seems to me that cancer is kind of a difficult thing to understand for those that haven't gone through it. I know that, in hindsight, I didn't really understand it. It is so difficult, in so many ways and there are a wide variety of unknowns at play. I was very impressed with Elizabeth Edwards on the campaign trail, but not just because of her perseverance. She's a bona fide ass-kicker. Also, despite the fact that I think she gave her a more credit than is deserved in doing so, I loved listening to her lay into Ann Coulter on Hardball.
Yes. That was something.
:)
Just to share a personal experience: When my mother had a recurrence of breast cancer and was forced to stay in the hospital, my father would race to her side immediately after work and stay there until around midnight every day. Especially towards the end as her condition worsened, he would take entire days off work. He said that he would spend all the money we had to make her better -- if thats what it took.
Thats why, despite being a John Edward supporter, in the back of my mind I realized that Edward would face a tough choice. Being a President is a tough 24/7 job, and caring for a loved one with cancer is also a tough 24/7 commitment. No matter what Elizabeth might say about wanting her husband to do, in the end, I never really believed he could do both effectively at the same time.
I'm really sorry about your Mom. That must have been tough.
:(
Yeah, I wondered about that, too. I was hoping that her prognosis was good for remission. Like I said, I think it may have had something to do with his sudden departure. I mean, he was campaigning the night before he announced that he was leaving. That suggests that something changed. Abruptly.
Obama did not get on his knees and Lewinsky Mr. Edwards . . . and that US Senator deigned to disagree with Mrs. Edwards, too? How arrogant!
Add on top of that that just because he has more votes, more delegates, more states and more money, he refuses to acknowledge that Hillary is the shiznit . . . do you SEE a pattern here?
That Obama . . . just uppity! Doesn't know how to handle himself among his betters!
I guess we could always just ask Edwards:
Edwards Praises Both Clinton, Obama
By MIKE BAKER – 7 hours ago
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, N.C. (AP) — Former Sen. John Edwards, in his first public speech since dropping his White House bid two months ago, praised Democratic rivals Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama on Saturday, but declined to endorse either candidate.
"I have a very high opinion of both of them," Edwards said at the Young Democrats of North Carolina convention. "We would be blessed as a nation to have either one of them as president."
Both Obama and Clinton have repeatedly lobbied Edwards for his endorsement, flying into Chapel Hill to meet with him privately and touting his accomplishments on the campaign trail. Before leaving the race, Edwards won a promise from both Clinton and Obama to make ending poverty central to their ongoing presidential campaigns.
On Saturday, Edwards pointed out the historical nature of both of their campaigns and said both were better suited in carrying forward his campaign platform than Republican nominee-in-waiting John McCain.
"We are blessed, first, to have an extraordinarily talented African American who could be the next president of the United States," Edwards said. "There's no way to contest the fact that he's inspired this country."
"And Senator Clinton, who has served America for so long and so well, and has shown so much strength and leadership, has really forged an extraordinarily historic campaign as a woman for the nomination and for the presidency."
Pressed by reporters to detail any endorsement plans, Edwards declined to even say if he would endorse a candidate before North Carolina's May 6 primary.
"When I have something to say, I'll let you know," he said.
Though the Young Democrats convention focused primarily on state races, both Obama and Clinton sent surrogates to represent them. Newark, N.J., Mayor Cory Booker gave a speech on behalf of the Illinois senator while Clinton's daughter, Chelsea, was scheduled to make an appearance later Saturday.
Hmm... John Edwards, anonymous source.. John Edwards, anonymous source.. who to believe...
What I'd more interested to learn is, in spite of all the lobbying, why HRC has not earned Edwards' endorsement. Doesn't say much about Obama that he hasn't received the endorsement (yet). Neither has Clinton. Now, Richardson, on the other hand. Quite the cautionary tale for the HRC camp in that one, no?
Well, I think the simplest answer is that North Carolina hasn't held it's primary yet, and Edwards wants to represent the will of the NC voters. Along with that, what reason would Edwards have to choose sides at this point?
Why does Edwards matter again?
Well, not only does he still have party mojo, but he's also, in a sense, the most super of superdelegates in that he still has some delegates pledged to him. Personally, I think we may see an endorsement from him after the NC primary.
But his impact on those delegates is somewhat softened by time, plus as the case of Iowa, some have already gone to Obama, if I'm not mistaken?
I don't believe that's how it works. I think they are pledged to him until the convention. I'm not sure whether this means that they're still obligated to vote for him in the first round even though he's dropped out, but after that they would most certainly be free. You can bet that if he were to endorse that this would have an impact on perceptions as people would start counting his delegates in the column of one candidate or the other.
The Iowa ones he lost, because of the nature of a caucus. They were caucus delegates who then convened to elect convention delegates -- but the Edwards folks chose Obama convention delegates.
Ahh.. that would be why his number is now smaller than the original 26 or whatever it was when he dropped out.
I think he got all of the Edwards delegates in Iowa, or damn near.
Here is a possible reason-
There is a far-reaching scandal brewing for presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama, thanks to a radio talk show host based in Oregon. Syndicated talk host Laurie Roth's revelations make the news story about Obama's relationship with a racist, anti-American pastor look like child's play.
A top official at the Pentagon during former-President George H. W. Bush's Administration and a former CIA intelligence officer maintain that Barack Obama and former Weather Underground honcho William Ayers funneled money to Professor Rashid Khalidi, a known terrorist sympathizer.
Khalidi serves on the faculty of Columbia University in New York and is best known as the professor who invited Iranian President Ahmedinejad to visit Columbia University after he finished his speech at the United Nations. According to confidential sources, Khalidi has direct ties to the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), a group on the US State Department's list of known terrorist groups.
Oh, imbecilic, you scamp!
That Laurie Roth is a regular Edward R. Murrow!
That would be something, would make me even more confident in my vote for Obama.
Oh and please don't libel a respected acedemic, just because the Moonie rag libeled doesn't make it ok.
Is that the same Laurie Roth Show that claimed that the Las Vegas ricin incident was the work of Islamic terrorists?
Good source, dembillc.
Wow! That's a possible reason of why Edwards hasn't endorsed yet? Well that is just amazing because we all know just how much deference Edwards gives to radio talk show conspiracy theories.
Duh...why didn't I make that connection?
Y'all are missing the fun of following this story through (rightwing newspapers started discussing this in Feb...so much for the "breaking news" part of it).
Here's a snippet from the Washington Post, the FactChecker, February 2008:
The only hard facts that have come out so far are the $200 contribution by Ayers to the Obama re-election fund, and their joint membership of the eight-person Woods Fund Board. Ayers did not respond to e-mails and telephone calls requesting clarification of the relationship. Obama spokesman Bill Burton noted in a statement that Ayers was a professor of education at the University of Illinois and a former aide to Mayor Richard M. Daley, and continued:
Senator Obama strongly condemns the violent actions of the Weathermen group, as he does all acts of violence. But he was an eight-year-old child when Ayers and the Weathermen were active, and any attempt to connect Obama with events of almost forty years ago is ridiculous.
In the short term, the person who has most to gain by speculation about Obama's acquaintance with a former terrorist is Hillary Clinton. The former First Lady likes to present herself as "tested and vetted" after years of exposure to Republican attacks, in contrast to Obama, a relative newcomer to hardscrabble presidential politics. Such arguments resonate with Johnson, the counterterrorism expert, who told me that he is a Clinton supporter, although not involved with the campaign.
But the Obama-Ayers link is a tenuous one. As Newsday pointed out, Clinton has her own, also tenuous, Weatherman connection. Her husband commuted the sentences of a couple of convicted Weather Underground members, Susan Rosenberg and Linda Sue Evans, shortly before leaving office in January 2001. Which is worse: pardoning a convicted terrorist or accepting a campaign contribution from a former Weatherman who was never convicted?
Ayers is referred to by rightwing nutjobs (hello, laurie??) as a "Major fundraiser for Obama". $200? "Major"? Hilarious.
But in any event, go read through it yourself, dembilic, and perhaps you ought to quiet down about this, since it was, you know, Bill Clinton who pardoned actual convicts...
Too funny for words. dembilic, you're losing some cred by trying to push this angle.
Lalo - my daily reminder why I support Obama.
Thanks Lalo!
John who???
If John Edwards is smart, he'll wait for Tyler Hansbrough's endorsement.
Tyler who???
Obama/Curry '08
Thanks for the laugh, PercyDovetonsils!
Oh, no! Some of the poor immigrants in the district in Chicago that Obama worked to help happened to be arab-americans! Why, he must be some kind of terrorist! Honey, hide the children!
OOPS! I clicked on this before I saw the author. May as well be Ann Coulter. Bye!
Good article, more balanced than I've read in a while. Still I think Edwards endorsement has more to do with what he can get out of it then who he thinks is the better candidate. Right now he gains nothing by an endorsement, if he waits, who knows, maybe he can leverage something.
Rachid Khalidi is a terrorist sympathizer?
Goodness, he was just here at the Fletcher School giving the closing remarks at the Fares Center conference, which also had speakers such as Lee Hamilton, Anthony Cordesman, Shai Feldman, Vali Nasr, Ronald Neumann, Shibley Telhami, General Anthony Zinni, Richard Shultz, John Esposito, and many others.
I'm sure all those leading scholars, thinkers, and military men would be shocked to know that they had supported terrorism by participating in the conference with the terrorist Rachid Khalidi, who holds the Edward Said chair at Columbia University. I'll be sure to let them know.
Interesting... I think Lalo gets a prize for the shortest blog with the most response. Still, I have a couple of thoughts on the *full* article:
a) It is a NY Magazine piece. Expect it to be weighted to the hometown girl in general.
b) John Edwards at this point has made himself truly irrelevant in this campaign. His supporters have gone in the direction they have chosen on their own, his supporters were not of a single demographic (think Richardson bringing Latinos along to Obama), and Edwards has little in the way of a campaign machine.
I can believe that Obama may not have been a smooth 6 weeks ago as he is today. Nevertheless, Obama got lucky: he didn't need to promise anything to Edwards and now he may not need Edwards at all. Indeed, it's still possible he could offer HRC a cabinet position (but not VEEP), but Edwards is toast politically.
For what it's worth, HRC should take a cabinet position if offered, it's the closest she will be to the White House ever again. But that's for another blog.
That HRC won't listen to anyone is obvious. She literally feels that she worked all her life for this position (perhaps even internalizing marrying Bill -- and staying with him -- for this reason). In her mind, to conceded (or quit) now will invalidate much of her own life.
People are funny that way.
Therefore she is very dangerous: so the party elders, short of scolding her in public and risk a nasty Dem party implosion, will have to let things play out on her schedule.
As another great man from Illinois (specifically Galena) did, Obama will grind his enemy down in a war of attrition: he simply has better resources (money) and an army (ground campaign).
"I will fight it out on this line if it takes all summer..."
So US Grant said to Lincoln. And so Obama is telling us.
Lee was as proud a man as they come. And he was cleverer than Hillary. And even Lee knew when to surrender.
Hillary will do the same.
Meanwhile, Edwards is close to becoming a Trivial Pursuit question: Who was John Kerry's running mate in 2004?
Fini.
Ignoring what Lalo took from the article, I thought that it was a fascinating analysis, and I read it hungrily. Unfortunately, it presented grand, confident conclusions with almost zero evidence to support them, so I'm not sure whether it's an insightful assessment or a cow pile.
Example 1: "According to a Democratic strategist unaligned with any campaign but with knowledge of the situation gleaned from all three camps, the answer is simple: Obama blew it." So who is this "Democratic strategist" with such omniscience?
Example 2: "For the moment, none of these people, as far as I know, is advising Hillary to fold. They are not idiots and they are not blind—they can read the writing on the wall and do the math as well. But they also believe that, though Clinton’s path to the nomination has narrowed to a cliff walk, it hasn’t been barricaded." Who are these people? Has the Heilemann spoken to them? How would he know what they're advising Hillary? Why does he assume that none of them are advising her to fold?
I agree with your comment about the broadest of strokes used. It's NY Magazine, however, not the NYT.
In case you missed the Matt Bai piece from Oct 2005 that airwon brought up on DF's thread, I suggest you go back and take a look at it. Though over 2 years old, the internals of Camp Hillary seem pretty solid still.
You won't find much on Edwards in that NYT article, but a discussion of him is really for parlor games these days...
Who are these people?
And Genghis: In your best Jerry Seinfeld style, write a blog discussing Hillary's advisors using this sentence as a title.
In your best Jerry Seinfeld style, write a blog discussing Hillary's advisors using this sentence as a title.
Second!
Although, if Genghis can truly write comedy as well as Seinfeld he should get busy and make half a billion. If his snark can be translated to other subjects, I'd say he might have a shot.
Yes, Hillary Clinton is altogether evil
Cue Sauron
Whoa, I think it's quite a leap to go from Seinfeldian musings over some of the more ridiculous things that we've heard out of the mouths of people like Ickes, Penn and Wolfson to the dark army of Mordor. But: If you insist!
Yeah, the article was a bit gaseous. I started to get suspicious in the second par., when the author used "imprecations" where he seemed to mean "pleas."
Someone spends too much time with his thesaurus.
Clearthinker, great comment on Hillary's motivation. I agree. I also think that it could be she's finally at a point in her marriage where Bill's not pursuing his own desires - political or otherwise - but standing behind hers. Sad that it should come so late and that she should have had to pay such a heavy price, but better late than never. Let her have her day in the sun, it will all come out OK in the end.
However, I truly wonder if the snipey nature of the alleged Obama-Edwards static has more to do with Edwards' hurt ego than with any real issues between them. Obama was "pat"...come on! Is the man going to accomplish goals that you support? Then don't make a hash out of it just coz his style gets on your nerves. Sometimes superficial criticisms are more about unspeakable jealousies than anything else.
Anyone think Obama wouldn’t give Edwards what he wanted...(help with campaign debts and cabinet post)...!?!?
Both Edwards and Clinton need to get a clue!! Since when does the looser(s) get to dictate to the winner(s)...?
What's looser?
Their pants? Their tinfoil hats?!!
(sorry, couldn't resist.)
:P
I know you meant "loser."
...yes indeed and...Thanx!
The lovely thing about a tinfoil hat, aside from the fact that it prevents the greys from finding you again, is that it can't be made to fit quite nicely without too much difficulty.
Oops. I meant that it can be made to fit quite nicely.
I look at the information in this article as yet another confirmation of Obama's honesty and refusal to be extorted by anyone regarding the issues.
Fat-cat Edwards demanded from Obama that putting poverty up at the top as the major issue to be campaigned upon as the price for his endorsement In other words, Edwards had the audacity to try to distort Obama's well-thought-out collection of many other very important issues in favor of his own.
And the fact that Elizabeth could not understand the universality of affordability of health care under Obama's plan - in view of the well-documented disaster of the mandated health care plan now in action in Massachusetts - was also appalling. The people had already voted for Obama's agenda, and rejected that of Edwards.
Obama does not need - nor want - endorsements from those egotistical enough to try to extort unreasonable favors from him for giving them. Good for Obama - he sticks to his principles and priorities.
So let me get this straight: Obama didn't properly grovel to Edwards, promise him the moon, the minutiae of the healthcare plans are still an issue. Have the Edwards stopped watching the news? Been maybe on vacation while Hillary and Bill have been praising McCain, meeting with Richard Mellon Scaife?
I've read other articles that say Elizabeth was pissed that Obama took John's "turn". If that's true, there's principle for ya. I had also read that Obama made it clear that he wanted John in his administration. So I guess he saw John's worth, and John apparently is too blind to see Barack's.
If Edwards aligns himself with Hillary, then I've lost all the respect for him I've ever had. HIllary can cravenly post a child poverty plan the Saturday before March 4 -- that's just not a political ploy?
I expected better of the Edwards'.
Of course, every one of these speculative articles never name a source. Never.
I expected better of the Edwards'.
They're all still politicians. Politicians run on ego; the politicians we like use their egos in the service of positions and characteristics we approve of.
I think Obama's policies and leadership style are fantastic. But anyone who thinks he's a great leader and but isn't a consummate politician is, in truth, deluded. Yet as a fairly cynical consumer of politics, I'm perfectly happy that they'll vote for my guy in the GE.
"the answer is simple: Obama blew it. Speaking to Edwards on the day he exited the race, Obama came across as glib and aloof. His response to Edwards’s imprecations that he make poverty a central part of his agenda was shallow, perfunctory, pat. Clinton, by contrast, engaged Edwards in a lengthy policy discussion. Her affect was solicitous and respectful. When Clinton met Edwards face-to-face in North Carolina ten days later, her approach continued to impress; she even made headway with Elizabeth. Whereas in his Edwards sit-down, Obama dug himself in deeper, getting into a fight with Elizabeth about health care, insisting that his plan is universal (a position she considers a crock), high-handedly criticizing Clinton’s plan (and by extension Edwards’s) for its insurance mandate."
this is another example of how Clinton wins over her enemies, (this is you brain on Hillary) she did the same thing to Moynahan when she was working on her senate bid. he started out hating her (like so many of you) but she sat down with him repeatedly and discussed actual policy and he reversed his position and gave her the support she needed to win.
Obama, not so much. he's arrogant and aloof and not so good at policy.
Just curious. If HIllary has won over her enemies, John Edwards being one of them, then why, when she desperately needs a big-name endorsement has Edwards refused to give her his?
If that's how you "win over your enemies", she's not doing such a great job.
Zero sum gamers think the only way they can support their candidate is to tear down everybody who does not concur. It's a mental disorder.
I accept both candidates flaws and all. I will support the Democratic ticket and I hope it contains both these candidates names.
I support HRC and point out OHB's flaws as a candidate on this site to help people realize HRC is a strong candidate and BHO has his flaws which is not commonly understood here.
It's usually: trash talk HRC, and Hussein is my middle name too because he is perfect in every possible way.
Correction: Hillary *used* to be a strong candidate. That has all changed since Iowa. I know many people who are saddened that they voted for her in the primary given the type of campaign she continues to run.
In Hollywood, she would be deemed box office poison. Her tactics are divisive. She polarizes people that start off having little opinion on her to begin with.
This is an excellent quality if you are a shock jock or political talk radio host. It's awful if you are a politician.
Despite all the wailing of the party’s Henny Pennys, my own view is that, in the long run, Clinton’s scuffing up of Obama has so far done him more good than harm; it has toughened him, steeled him, and given him a taste, if only a taste, of what he can expect this fall.
Perhaps this is exactly why Obama is now saying that Clinton should stay in the race as long as she wants. She's known as a fighter, so if Obama can come out on top despite her attacks, he'll have beaten one of the supposedly toughest and most tenacious members of the Democratic Party. Not just survived, not just withstood--beaten.
I've come to understand that the long primary season hasn't just toughened Obama's image. It's allowed him to mature as a national candidate, to learn to go beyond charisma and articulate why reasonable people should vote for him. And the public has noticed the difference between the two campaigns; Obama's looks not only more unified but has a strategy that caught everyone unawares.
So let it go on. Frankly, I think McCain might lose even if half of Democrats vote for him. He's not only disrespected by the conservative wing of his party, but is astonishingly ignorant of the most obvious and highest-profile domestic issues (see http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03/16/mccain-stumbles-on-hiv-prevention/)
"the answer is simple: Obama blew it. Speaking to Edwards on the day he exited the race, Obama came across as glib and aloof. His response to Edwards’s imprecations that he make poverty a central part of his agenda was shallow, perfunctory, pat. Clinton, by contrast, engaged Edwards in a lengthy policy discussion. Her affect was solicitous and respectful. When Clinton met Edwards face-to-face in North Carolina ten days later, her approach continued to impress; she even made headway with Elizabeth. Whereas in his Edwards sit-down, Obama dug himself in deeper, getting into a fight with Elizabeth about health care, insisting that his plan is universal (a position she considers a crock), high-handedly criticizing Clinton’s plan (and by extension Edwards’s) for its insurance mandate."
Who describes their encounters in this manner? Why is criticizing someone else's plan considered high-handed, especially when the criticism is about a serious issue such as inclusion of a mandate? Isn't Elizabeth Edwards supposedly declaring Obama's stance that his health care plan is universal as a crock also high-handed?
It seems to me that if doing everything that John Edwards wants and conceding to policy positions from his wife are what it takes to get his endorsement, then perhaps it's not worth it.
Looks like style was chosen over substance for this one. Putting in a lot of malapropisms and French and Greek terms do not make your arguments valid. Nor does using anonymous, omnipotent sources. Very Serious™!
I think Obama has benefited from the 'beating" he is getting from the Clintons. I'm an HRC supporter but have never liked Obama more than when I read the race speech. he is running a great campaign (except painting Clinton remarks as racist but I'm for tough campaigns so i forgive that too) and earning my increasing respect.
I'm especially grateful that Patrick Fitzgerald is the REZKO prosecutor. he is squeeky clean. if that trial ends with Obama's name untarnished I think he will be immune on Rezko for the General.
McCain is dumb and corrupt and out of touch. It would take a major scandal to loose to him. I don't see it from either dem.
the dream ticket (either way) would lead to massive support if the final numbers are close.
Point of clarification: Fitzgerald is not prosecuting the Rezko matter personally; his office, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Illinois, is. That said, Sen. Obama will indeed come out of this untarnished, for this case is not about him, but our esteemed Gov. Blagoevich....
Thanks for that Lalo. The sheer amount of vitriol coming your way must resonate that is true with the Obamaistas.
If John "Son of a Millworker" Edwards endorses someone who used to sit on the Board of Directors at Wal-Mart, then he is a complete fraud, and his populist message is a total sham.
Assuming any of the article's speculation is true, which I doubt, it would be pretty pathetic if Edwards were looking to give his endorsement to whichever candidate is a better ass-kisser. (Not to mention that it would take some big cojones for an accomplished litigator like Edwards to pronounce someone "glib.") If true, that whole scenario would certainly make me feel more confident about my decision not to support him this go-round.
As we all know, it doesn't matter how true something is. If it takes hold in the voters' imaginations it's as good as gospel. This recent smear is something to worry about, imo.
Did anyone hear the NPR program featuring an interview with Farhad Manjoo - Talk of the Town I believe it was. Manjoo has written a book due out tomorrow titled _True enough: learning to live in a post-fact society_.
He has researched rumors and he said that once they take hold there's not much you can do because the more you deny them, the more people believe they are true. Hence the Muslim problem for Barack. It could happen for anything else that The Clintons throw at BO from now on.
bunch of silly clinton camp spin.
if you believe this then you will believe hillary will win the nomination.
just keep pushing the hillary lies about bosnia.
she has lost the respect of any decent non racist person.
poor thing will never understand that, and will die believing she was a victim.
hillary,bush and mccain whats the difference?
The difference is that Hillary is in this one to win! Everybody Who Thinks Hillary Can't Win This: you may not think so right now, but just wait a week or two, and her inevitability will make sense to you. You'll get used to it!
GOUlet!
None other.
Manjoo has written a book due out tomorrow titled _True enough: learning to live in a post-fact society_.
Sadly, I suspect that the thesis of the book is correct. It's probably related to the fact that in the US today, the big jobs are entertainment and service oriented.
If you had a manufacture or grow something on "perceived" rather than actual facts, you'd fail miserably.
The left side of the country is just as responsible as the right side in this issue. Politically correct thinking pushes the notion that you can regulate thought and, through thought, reality.
Meanwhile we are running out of water and energy.
When the public finally recognizes this, it will be shock and awe indeed.
As Richard Feynman once wrote:
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."
The same will be true for the technology that drives our society.
Clearthinker,
Just an aside. I took you as an Obama Supporter..are you? Could you tell me why? Just quizzing because of a couple of your answers today.
I started off ABC, for a number of historical reasons. 8 years in the White House is enough for anyone. The only way to fight deeply ingrained corruption is to prevent it from growing to begin with. Not allowing too much access to the concentration of power that is the POTUS is really the practical answer.
This is America where we do not want ruling families. That includes the Bushes, that includes the Clintons.
Already you can see how correct this notion of blocking dynasty-rule is. The Clintons have tried to bully, at an unprecedented level, the DNC. That's a serious sense of entitlement. And you can see the influence peddling of Bill Clinton growing the corruption in another Clinton administration in an exponential manner. (Much as GWB was able to work the contacts GHWB made.)
This is why many of the personal characteristics of Hillary are the same as GWB.
That said, I am very impressed with Obama. He has the ability to lead via his ability to inspire. This, first and foremost, is the key to the executive office. We have some very difficult times ahead -- Hillary is simply not the answer with her lack of ability to consult and listen to a myriad of opinions.
Obama may well be the Democrats version of Ronald Reagan. He could go directly to the people to pitch his case (making him far more effective), he can redraw the political map for the Democrats for a generation (much as Reagan did for the GOP).
In addition, Hillary represents the old way, business as usual. This is not the right time for that. We live in a fast, changing world where old ways do not necessarily apply. Obama has shown himself to be on record when it is uncomfortable. Hillary is about triangulation. That is not how to solve difficult issues. It's about convincing the other side, not giving up your point of view. (Yes, this must be balanced with compromise, of course, but as DF says, compromise is a tool, not a way of life.)
Additionally, Obama did more in his first 3 years in the Senate than Hillary. And, I believe (note word) that Obama would have read
Comments (95)
Clearly Obama needs to develop his groveling skills.
Imagine, Obama, the guy who battled poverty on the streets of Chicago, getting lectured about poverty from the wealthiest candidate in the race. In the guy's $20 million house. A little disorienting, no?
Also, Lalo35adm, a single link to another article or YouTube isn't exactly, you know, a post. You might want to add some context or something to it.
Oh, and posting two posts in the span of about an hour is poor form, too.
March 29, 2008 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama worked in Chicago because he wanted to earn the right to be part of the black community -- not because he wanted to help people-- black or otherwise. He went to Chicago in particular apparently because that was the only offer he received as far as I can tell from his Dreams book. And also as far as I can tell he did absolutely nothing in the way of researching what it might take to be effective and indeed was not at all effective his whole first year.
Edwards has used his wealth to do far more against poverty than Obama has done with his false pretense of matyrdom -- from his elite prep school Punahoe he could have gone any where he wanted to.
March 30, 2008 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
And? Obama did not pander and supported his own positions rather than adopt Edwards? He wasn't earthy enough for Edwards?
Okay, you convinced me - I am voting for Hillary.
March 29, 2008 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Lalo35adm, its been pretty hairy in here for the past few days. Glad that you are still around.
March 29, 2008 9:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting thoughts about that Edwards' endorsement ...
March 29, 2008 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Insiders"? "Unnamed sources"? Anonymice?
I'm going to need a little more...whatcha call 'em...facts before I start worrying about this report.
March 29, 2008 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why am I not surprised that this headline is all you seem to have gotten out of reading this article?
March 29, 2008 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ouch
March 29, 2008 10:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Was that really all that scathing? I think it was pretty damned fair, especially given what I put up with on my last post from this fine Cafe contributor.
March 29, 2008 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Scathing? yes Fair? yes
March 29, 2008 11:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll accept it, although is it really even scathing upon consideration of a full reading of the article?
March 29, 2008 11:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would say the article headline and picture covers it, but if you insist to base it on the entire article.
March 30, 2008 12:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Look, I'm at least trying to be fair here. :)
March 30, 2008 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
DF, I was gonna say it myself, but then I remembered that Lalo already stated he won't read my posts anymore... ;-)
March 29, 2008 11:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
How do you get on that list?
March 30, 2008 12:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why Edwards didn't endorse Obama? Um...because Edwards is still holding the keys to a shiny, late-model Cadillac and hasn't received his best offer yet? That's my answer, but the author's own final statement gives his answer:
"The last best hope is that Hillary will eventually come to see yielding as not merely the path to self-preservation, but also as her only route to long-range self-aggrandizement."
Some Dems (Richardson) are trying to nudge Hillary in this direction. Other Dems (Edwards) are hoping to see Hillary retain some dignity and figure it out for herself.
March 29, 2008 10:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well that caddy is rotting in the garage.
March 30, 2008 2:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
An amazing argument to be having. Why hasn't Edwards endorsed? Maybe because he has other priorities. Simple as that. Why should he endorse. He's at a major crossroads in his own life. His wife's health is his first concern and what he's going to do now is his second. Edwards might have a lot more on his mind than Hillary and Obama. I know I would.
March 29, 2008 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
What an amazingly salient observation. Not that I expect any less from you. No pressure. :)
March 29, 2008 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Destor23,
Thanks for the injection of sanity (and humanity) into this conversation.
One thing we are missing with John and Elizabeth Edwards out of the public eye is this sort of perspective; the reminder that there are things more important than the psychodrama of a campaign horse-race...
(Oh, and I don't think I ever acknowledged that you totally nailed me on that weak Bill-Clinton-and-the-African-American-vote comment I made some weeks back. Credit where credit's due.)
March 29, 2008 11:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. Someone else had a post up saying they wrote to Edwards asking him to endorse.
I said I thought he had his hands full, too. I'm not altogether certain if Elizabeth's health wasn't a reason he dropped out. He'd never say so, because she doesn't want to be the cause of that. She'd be mortified.
One thing that was pretty clear about those two was their bond. A nice thing to see whenever you run into it.
March 30, 2008 12:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
It seems to me that cancer is kind of a difficult thing to understand for those that haven't gone through it. I know that, in hindsight, I didn't really understand it. It is so difficult, in so many ways and there are a wide variety of unknowns at play. I was very impressed with Elizabeth Edwards on the campaign trail, but not just because of her perseverance. She's a bona fide ass-kicker. Also, despite the fact that I think she gave her a more credit than is deserved in doing so, I loved listening to her lay into Ann Coulter on Hardball.
March 30, 2008 12:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. That was something.
:)
March 30, 2008 1:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just to share a personal experience: When my mother had a recurrence of breast cancer and was forced to stay in the hospital, my father would race to her side immediately after work and stay there until around midnight every day. Especially towards the end as her condition worsened, he would take entire days off work. He said that he would spend all the money we had to make her better -- if thats what it took.
Thats why, despite being a John Edward supporter, in the back of my mind I realized that Edward would face a tough choice. Being a President is a tough 24/7 job, and caring for a loved one with cancer is also a tough 24/7 commitment. No matter what Elizabeth might say about wanting her husband to do, in the end, I never really believed he could do both effectively at the same time.
March 30, 2008 8:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm really sorry about your Mom. That must have been tough.
:(
Yeah, I wondered about that, too. I was hoping that her prognosis was good for remission. Like I said, I think it may have had something to do with his sudden departure. I mean, he was campaigning the night before he announced that he was leaving. That suggests that something changed. Abruptly.
March 30, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
And why didn't he endorse Hillary?
March 29, 2008 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Irrelevant!
March 29, 2008 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
This might give an insight - from John Edwards Campaign page on youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qggO5yY7RAo
March 30, 2008 1:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
So let me get this straight:
Obama did not get on his knees and Lewinsky Mr. Edwards . . . and that US Senator deigned to disagree with Mrs. Edwards, too? How arrogant!
Add on top of that that just because he has more votes, more delegates, more states and more money, he refuses to acknowledge that Hillary is the shiznit . . . do you SEE a pattern here?
That Obama . . . just uppity! Doesn't know how to handle himself among his betters!
March 29, 2008 11:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess we could always just ask Edwards:
Edwards Praises Both Clinton, Obama
By MIKE BAKER – 7 hours ago
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, N.C. (AP) — Former Sen. John Edwards, in his first public speech since dropping his White House bid two months ago, praised Democratic rivals Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama on Saturday, but declined to endorse either candidate.
"I have a very high opinion of both of them," Edwards said at the Young Democrats of North Carolina convention. "We would be blessed as a nation to have either one of them as president."
Both Obama and Clinton have repeatedly lobbied Edwards for his endorsement, flying into Chapel Hill to meet with him privately and touting his accomplishments on the campaign trail. Before leaving the race, Edwards won a promise from both Clinton and Obama to make ending poverty central to their ongoing presidential campaigns.
On Saturday, Edwards pointed out the historical nature of both of their campaigns and said both were better suited in carrying forward his campaign platform than Republican nominee-in-waiting John McCain.
"We are blessed, first, to have an extraordinarily talented African American who could be the next president of the United States," Edwards said. "There's no way to contest the fact that he's inspired this country."
"And Senator Clinton, who has served America for so long and so well, and has shown so much strength and leadership, has really forged an extraordinarily historic campaign as a woman for the nomination and for the presidency."
Pressed by reporters to detail any endorsement plans, Edwards declined to even say if he would endorse a candidate before North Carolina's May 6 primary.
"When I have something to say, I'll let you know," he said.
Though the Young Democrats convention focused primarily on state races, both Obama and Clinton sent surrogates to represent them. Newark, N.J., Mayor Cory Booker gave a speech on behalf of the Illinois senator while Clinton's daughter, Chelsea, was scheduled to make an appearance later Saturday.
March 29, 2008 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmm... John Edwards, anonymous source.. John Edwards, anonymous source.. who to believe...
March 29, 2008 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
oops...link:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hoAvkYTooNMqpzn8fF_3B76ko8eAD8VN9I280
March 29, 2008 11:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I'd more interested to learn is, in spite of all the lobbying, why HRC has not earned Edwards' endorsement. Doesn't say much about Obama that he hasn't received the endorsement (yet). Neither has Clinton. Now, Richardson, on the other hand. Quite the cautionary tale for the HRC camp in that one, no?
March 29, 2008 11:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I think the simplest answer is that North Carolina hasn't held it's primary yet, and Edwards wants to represent the will of the NC voters. Along with that, what reason would Edwards have to choose sides at this point?
March 30, 2008 12:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why does Edwards matter again?
March 30, 2008 12:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, not only does he still have party mojo, but he's also, in a sense, the most super of superdelegates in that he still has some delegates pledged to him. Personally, I think we may see an endorsement from him after the NC primary.
March 30, 2008 12:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
But his impact on those delegates is somewhat softened by time, plus as the case of Iowa, some have already gone to Obama, if I'm not mistaken?
March 30, 2008 1:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't believe that's how it works. I think they are pledged to him until the convention. I'm not sure whether this means that they're still obligated to vote for him in the first round even though he's dropped out, but after that they would most certainly be free. You can bet that if he were to endorse that this would have an impact on perceptions as people would start counting his delegates in the column of one candidate or the other.
March 30, 2008 2:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Iowa ones he lost, because of the nature of a caucus. They were caucus delegates who then convened to elect convention delegates -- but the Edwards folks chose Obama convention delegates.
March 30, 2008 9:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ahh.. that would be why his number is now smaller than the original 26 or whatever it was when he dropped out.
March 30, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think he got all of the Edwards delegates in Iowa, or damn near.
March 30, 2008 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here is a possible reason-
There is a far-reaching scandal brewing for presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama, thanks to a radio talk show host based in Oregon. Syndicated talk host Laurie Roth's revelations make the news story about Obama's relationship with a racist, anti-American pastor look like child's play.
A top official at the Pentagon during former-President George H. W. Bush's Administration and a former CIA intelligence officer maintain that Barack Obama and former Weather Underground honcho William Ayers funneled money to Professor Rashid Khalidi, a known terrorist sympathizer.
Khalidi serves on the faculty of Columbia University in New York and is best known as the professor who invited Iranian President Ahmedinejad to visit Columbia University after he finished his speech at the United Nations. According to confidential sources, Khalidi has direct ties to the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), a group on the US State Department's list of known terrorist groups.
March 30, 2008 12:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, imbecilic, you scamp!
That Laurie Roth is a regular Edward R. Murrow!
March 30, 2008 12:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
That would be something, would make me even more confident in my vote for Obama.
Oh and please don't libel a respected acedemic, just because the Moonie rag libeled doesn't make it ok.
March 30, 2008 12:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is that the same Laurie Roth Show that claimed that the Las Vegas ricin incident was the work of Islamic terrorists?
Good source, dembillc.
March 30, 2008 12:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow! That's a possible reason of why Edwards hasn't endorsed yet? Well that is just amazing because we all know just how much deference Edwards gives to radio talk show conspiracy theories.
Duh...why didn't I make that connection?
March 30, 2008 1:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Y'all are missing the fun of following this story through (rightwing newspapers started discussing this in Feb...so much for the "breaking news" part of it).
Here's a snippet from the Washington Post, the FactChecker, February 2008:
Ayers is referred to by rightwing nutjobs (hello, laurie??) as a "Major fundraiser for Obama". $200? "Major"? Hilarious.
But in any event, go read through it yourself, dembilic, and perhaps you ought to quiet down about this, since it was, you know, Bill Clinton who pardoned actual convicts...
Washington Post FactChecker on the Ayer connection
Too funny for words. dembilic, you're losing some cred by trying to push this angle.
March 30, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lalo - my daily reminder why I support Obama.
Thanks Lalo!
March 30, 2008 12:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
John who???
March 30, 2008 12:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
If John Edwards is smart, he'll wait for Tyler Hansbrough's endorsement.
March 30, 2008 1:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tyler who???
Obama/Curry '08
March 30, 2008 5:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the laugh, PercyDovetonsils!
March 30, 2008 2:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, no! Some of the poor immigrants in the district in Chicago that Obama worked to help happened to be arab-americans! Why, he must be some kind of terrorist! Honey, hide the children!
March 30, 2008 1:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
OOPS! I clicked on this before I saw the author. May as well be Ann Coulter. Bye!
March 30, 2008 1:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good article, more balanced than I've read in a while. Still I think Edwards endorsement has more to do with what he can get out of it then who he thinks is the better candidate. Right now he gains nothing by an endorsement, if he waits, who knows, maybe he can leverage something.
March 30, 2008 1:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rachid Khalidi is a terrorist sympathizer?
Goodness, he was just here at the Fletcher School giving the closing remarks at the Fares Center conference, which also had speakers such as Lee Hamilton, Anthony Cordesman, Shai Feldman, Vali Nasr, Ronald Neumann, Shibley Telhami, General Anthony Zinni, Richard Shultz, John Esposito, and many others.
I'm sure all those leading scholars, thinkers, and military men would be shocked to know that they had supported terrorism by participating in the conference with the terrorist Rachid Khalidi, who holds the Edward Said chair at Columbia University. I'll be sure to let them know.
March 30, 2008 1:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting... I think Lalo gets a prize for the shortest blog with the most response. Still, I have a couple of thoughts on the *full* article:
a) It is a NY Magazine piece. Expect it to be weighted to the hometown girl in general.
b) John Edwards at this point has made himself truly irrelevant in this campaign. His supporters have gone in the direction they have chosen on their own, his supporters were not of a single demographic (think Richardson bringing Latinos along to Obama), and Edwards has little in the way of a campaign machine.
I can believe that Obama may not have been a smooth 6 weeks ago as he is today. Nevertheless, Obama got lucky: he didn't need to promise anything to Edwards and now he may not need Edwards at all. Indeed, it's still possible he could offer HRC a cabinet position (but not VEEP), but Edwards is toast politically.
For what it's worth, HRC should take a cabinet position if offered, it's the closest she will be to the White House ever again. But that's for another blog.
That HRC won't listen to anyone is obvious. She literally feels that she worked all her life for this position (perhaps even internalizing marrying Bill -- and staying with him -- for this reason). In her mind, to conceded (or quit) now will invalidate much of her own life.
People are funny that way.
Therefore she is very dangerous: so the party elders, short of scolding her in public and risk a nasty Dem party implosion, will have to let things play out on her schedule.
As another great man from Illinois (specifically Galena) did, Obama will grind his enemy down in a war of attrition: he simply has better resources (money) and an army (ground campaign).
"I will fight it out on this line if it takes all summer..."
So US Grant said to Lincoln. And so Obama is telling us.
Lee was as proud a man as they come. And he was cleverer than Hillary. And even Lee knew when to surrender.
Hillary will do the same.
Meanwhile, Edwards is close to becoming a Trivial Pursuit question: Who was John Kerry's running mate in 2004?
Fini.
March 30, 2008 2:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ignoring what Lalo took from the article, I thought that it was a fascinating analysis, and I read it hungrily. Unfortunately, it presented grand, confident conclusions with almost zero evidence to support them, so I'm not sure whether it's an insightful assessment or a cow pile.
Example 1: "According to a Democratic strategist unaligned with any campaign but with knowledge of the situation gleaned from all three camps, the answer is simple: Obama blew it." So who is this "Democratic strategist" with such omniscience?
Example 2: "For the moment, none of these people, as far as I know, is advising Hillary to fold. They are not idiots and they are not blind—they can read the writing on the wall and do the math as well. But they also believe that, though Clinton’s path to the nomination has narrowed to a cliff walk, it hasn’t been barricaded." Who are these people? Has the Heilemann spoken to them? How would he know what they're advising Hillary? Why does he assume that none of them are advising her to fold?
March 30, 2008 2:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with your comment about the broadest of strokes used. It's NY Magazine, however, not the NYT.
In case you missed the Matt Bai piece from Oct 2005 that airwon brought up on DF's thread, I suggest you go back and take a look at it. Though over 2 years old, the internals of Camp Hillary seem pretty solid still.
You won't find much on Edwards in that NYT article, but a discussion of him is really for parlor games these days...
And Genghis: In your best Jerry Seinfeld style, write a blog discussing Hillary's advisors using this sentence as a title.
March 30, 2008 3:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Second!
Although, if Genghis can truly write comedy as well as Seinfeld he should get busy and make half a billion. If his snark can be translated to other subjects, I'd say he might have a shot.
March 30, 2008 5:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Hillary Clinton is altogether evil
Cue Sauron
March 30, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whoa, I think it's quite a leap to go from Seinfeldian musings over some of the more ridiculous things that we've heard out of the mouths of people like Ickes, Penn and Wolfson to the dark army of Mordor. But: If you insist!
March 30, 2008 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, the article was a bit gaseous. I started to get suspicious in the second par., when the author used "imprecations" where he seemed to mean "pleas."
Someone spends too much time with his thesaurus.
March 30, 2008 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clearthinker, great comment on Hillary's motivation. I agree. I also think that it could be she's finally at a point in her marriage where Bill's not pursuing his own desires - political or otherwise - but standing behind hers. Sad that it should come so late and that she should have had to pay such a heavy price, but better late than never. Let her have her day in the sun, it will all come out OK in the end.
However, I truly wonder if the snipey nature of the alleged Obama-Edwards static has more to do with Edwards' hurt ego than with any real issues between them. Obama was "pat"...come on! Is the man going to accomplish goals that you support? Then don't make a hash out of it just coz his style gets on your nerves. Sometimes superficial criticisms are more about unspeakable jealousies than anything else.
March 30, 2008 6:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone think Obama wouldn’t give Edwards what he wanted...(help with campaign debts and cabinet post)...!?!?
Both Edwards and Clinton need to get a clue!! Since when does the looser(s) get to dictate to the winner(s)...?
March 30, 2008 7:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
What's looser?
Their pants? Their tinfoil hats?!!
(sorry, couldn't resist.)
:P
I know you meant "loser."
March 30, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
...yes indeed and...Thanx!
March 30, 2008 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
The lovely thing about a tinfoil hat, aside from the fact that it prevents the greys from finding you again, is that it can't be made to fit quite nicely without too much difficulty.
March 30, 2008 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops. I meant that it can be made to fit quite nicely.
March 30, 2008 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I look at the information in this article as yet another confirmation of Obama's honesty and refusal to be extorted by anyone regarding the issues.
Fat-cat Edwards demanded from Obama that putting poverty up at the top as the major issue to be campaigned upon as the price for his endorsement In other words, Edwards had the audacity to try to distort Obama's well-thought-out collection of many other very important issues in favor of his own.
And the fact that Elizabeth could not understand the universality of affordability of health care under Obama's plan - in view of the well-documented disaster of the mandated health care plan now in action in Massachusetts - was also appalling. The people had already voted for Obama's agenda, and rejected that of Edwards.
Obama does not need - nor want - endorsements from those egotistical enough to try to extort unreasonable favors from him for giving them. Good for Obama - he sticks to his principles and priorities.
March 30, 2008 7:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
So let me get this straight: Obama didn't properly grovel to Edwards, promise him the moon, the minutiae of the healthcare plans are still an issue. Have the Edwards stopped watching the news? Been maybe on vacation while Hillary and Bill have been praising McCain, meeting with Richard Mellon Scaife?
I've read other articles that say Elizabeth was pissed that Obama took John's "turn". If that's true, there's principle for ya. I had also read that Obama made it clear that he wanted John in his administration. So I guess he saw John's worth, and John apparently is too blind to see Barack's.
If Edwards aligns himself with Hillary, then I've lost all the respect for him I've ever had. HIllary can cravenly post a child poverty plan the Saturday before March 4 -- that's just not a political ploy?
I expected better of the Edwards'.
Of course, every one of these speculative articles never name a source. Never.
March 30, 2008 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
They're all still politicians. Politicians run on ego; the politicians we like use their egos in the service of positions and characteristics we approve of.
I think Obama's policies and leadership style are fantastic. But anyone who thinks he's a great leader and but isn't a consummate politician is, in truth, deluded. Yet as a fairly cynical consumer of politics, I'm perfectly happy that they'll vote for my guy in the GE.
March 30, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
"the answer is simple: Obama blew it. Speaking to Edwards on the day he exited the race, Obama came across as glib and aloof. His response to Edwards’s imprecations that he make poverty a central part of his agenda was shallow, perfunctory, pat. Clinton, by contrast, engaged Edwards in a lengthy policy discussion. Her affect was solicitous and respectful. When Clinton met Edwards face-to-face in North Carolina ten days later, her approach continued to impress; she even made headway with Elizabeth. Whereas in his Edwards sit-down, Obama dug himself in deeper, getting into a fight with Elizabeth about health care, insisting that his plan is universal (a position she considers a crock), high-handedly criticizing Clinton’s plan (and by extension Edwards’s) for its insurance mandate."
this is another example of how Clinton wins over her enemies, (this is you brain on Hillary) she did the same thing to Moynahan when she was working on her senate bid. he started out hating her (like so many of you) but she sat down with him repeatedly and discussed actual policy and he reversed his position and gave her the support she needed to win.
Obama, not so much. he's arrogant and aloof and not so good at policy.
March 30, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just curious. If HIllary has won over her enemies, John Edwards being one of them, then why, when she desperately needs a big-name endorsement has Edwards refused to give her his?
If that's how you "win over your enemies", she's not doing such a great job.
March 30, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Zero sum gamers think the only way they can support their candidate is to tear down everybody who does not concur. It's a mental disorder.
March 30, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I accept both candidates flaws and all. I will support the Democratic ticket and I hope it contains both these candidates names.
I support HRC and point out OHB's flaws as a candidate on this site to help people realize HRC is a strong candidate and BHO has his flaws which is not commonly understood here.
It's usually: trash talk HRC, and Hussein is my middle name too because he is perfect in every possible way.
March 30, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Correction: Hillary *used* to be a strong candidate. That has all changed since Iowa. I know many people who are saddened that they voted for her in the primary given the type of campaign she continues to run.
In Hollywood, she would be deemed box office poison. Her tactics are divisive. She polarizes people that start off having little opinion on her to begin with.
This is an excellent quality if you are a shock jock or political talk radio host. It's awful if you are a politician.
March 30, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps this is exactly why Obama is now saying that Clinton should stay in the race as long as she wants. She's known as a fighter, so if Obama can come out on top despite her attacks, he'll have beaten one of the supposedly toughest and most tenacious members of the Democratic Party. Not just survived, not just withstood--beaten.
I've come to understand that the long primary season hasn't just toughened Obama's image. It's allowed him to mature as a national candidate, to learn to go beyond charisma and articulate why reasonable people should vote for him. And the public has noticed the difference between the two campaigns; Obama's looks not only more unified but has a strategy that caught everyone unawares.
So let it go on. Frankly, I think McCain might lose even if half of Democrats vote for him. He's not only disrespected by the conservative wing of his party, but is astonishingly ignorant of the most obvious and highest-profile domestic issues (see http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03/16/mccain-stumbles-on-hiv-prevention/)
March 30, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
sorry, the correct link is:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03/16/mccain-stumbles-on-hiv-prevention/
March 30, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
"the answer is simple: Obama blew it. Speaking to Edwards on the day he exited the race, Obama came across as glib and aloof. His response to Edwards’s imprecations that he make poverty a central part of his agenda was shallow, perfunctory, pat. Clinton, by contrast, engaged Edwards in a lengthy policy discussion. Her affect was solicitous and respectful. When Clinton met Edwards face-to-face in North Carolina ten days later, her approach continued to impress; she even made headway with Elizabeth. Whereas in his Edwards sit-down, Obama dug himself in deeper, getting into a fight with Elizabeth about health care, insisting that his plan is universal (a position she considers a crock), high-handedly criticizing Clinton’s plan (and by extension Edwards’s) for its insurance mandate."
Who describes their encounters in this manner? Why is criticizing someone else's plan considered high-handed, especially when the criticism is about a serious issue such as inclusion of a mandate? Isn't Elizabeth Edwards supposedly declaring Obama's stance that his health care plan is universal as a crock also high-handed?
It seems to me that if doing everything that John Edwards wants and conceding to policy positions from his wife are what it takes to get his endorsement, then perhaps it's not worth it.
Looks like style was chosen over substance for this one. Putting in a lot of malapropisms and French and Greek terms do not make your arguments valid. Nor does using anonymous, omnipotent sources. Very Serious™!
March 30, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Obama has benefited from the 'beating" he is getting from the Clintons. I'm an HRC supporter but have never liked Obama more than when I read the race speech. he is running a great campaign (except painting Clinton remarks as racist but I'm for tough campaigns so i forgive that too) and earning my increasing respect.
I'm especially grateful that Patrick Fitzgerald is the REZKO prosecutor. he is squeeky clean. if that trial ends with Obama's name untarnished I think he will be immune on Rezko for the General.
McCain is dumb and corrupt and out of touch. It would take a major scandal to loose to him. I don't see it from either dem.
the dream ticket (either way) would lead to massive support if the final numbers are close.
March 30, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Point of clarification: Fitzgerald is not prosecuting the Rezko matter personally; his office, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Illinois, is. That said, Sen. Obama will indeed come out of this untarnished, for this case is not about him, but our esteemed Gov. Blagoevich....
March 30, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for that Lalo. The sheer amount of vitriol coming your way must resonate that is true with the Obamaistas.
March 30, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
If John "Son of a Millworker" Edwards endorses someone who used to sit on the Board of Directors at Wal-Mart, then he is a complete fraud, and his populist message is a total sham.
Assuming any of the article's speculation is true, which I doubt, it would be pretty pathetic if Edwards were looking to give his endorsement to whichever candidate is a better ass-kisser. (Not to mention that it would take some big cojones for an accomplished litigator like Edwards to pronounce someone "glib.") If true, that whole scenario would certainly make me feel more confident about my decision not to support him this go-round.
March 30, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
As we all know, it doesn't matter how true something is. If it takes hold in the voters' imaginations it's as good as gospel. This recent smear is something to worry about, imo.
Did anyone hear the NPR program featuring an interview with Farhad Manjoo - Talk of the Town I believe it was. Manjoo has written a book due out tomorrow titled _True enough: learning to live in a post-fact society_.
He has researched rumors and he said that once they take hold there's not much you can do because the more you deny them, the more people believe they are true. Hence the Muslim problem for Barack. It could happen for anything else that The Clintons throw at BO from now on.
March 30, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
bunch of silly clinton camp spin.
if you believe this then you will believe hillary will win the nomination.
just keep pushing the hillary lies about bosnia.
she has lost the respect of any decent non racist person.
poor thing will never understand that, and will die believing she was a victim.
hillary,bush and mccain whats the difference?
March 30, 2008 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
The difference is that Hillary is in this one to win! Everybody Who Thinks Hillary Can't Win This: you may not think so right now, but just wait a week or two, and her inevitability will make sense to you. You'll get used to it!
March 30, 2008 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
GOUlet!
March 30, 2008 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
None other.
March 30, 2008 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sadly, I suspect that the thesis of the book is correct. It's probably related to the fact that in the US today, the big jobs are entertainment and service oriented.
If you had a manufacture or grow something on "perceived" rather than actual facts, you'd fail miserably.
The left side of the country is just as responsible as the right side in this issue. Politically correct thinking pushes the notion that you can regulate thought and, through thought, reality.
Meanwhile we are running out of water and energy.
When the public finally recognizes this, it will be shock and awe indeed.
As Richard Feynman once wrote:
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."
The same will be true for the technology that drives our society.
March 30, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clearthinker,
Just an aside. I took you as an Obama Supporter..are you? Could you tell me why? Just quizzing because of a couple of your answers today.
March 30, 2008 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I started off ABC, for a number of historical reasons. 8 years in the White House is enough for anyone. The only way to fight deeply ingrained corruption is to prevent it from growing to begin with. Not allowing too much access to the concentration of power that is the POTUS is really the practical answer.
This is America where we do not want ruling families. That includes the Bushes, that includes the Clintons.
Already you can see how correct this notion of blocking dynasty-rule is. The Clintons have tried to bully, at an unprecedented level, the DNC. That's a serious sense of entitlement. And you can see the influence peddling of Bill Clinton growing the corruption in another Clinton administration in an exponential manner. (Much as GWB was able to work the contacts GHWB made.)
This is why many of the personal characteristics of Hillary are the same as GWB.
That said, I am very impressed with Obama. He has the ability to lead via his ability to inspire. This, first and foremost, is the key to the executive office. We have some very difficult times ahead -- Hillary is simply not the answer with her lack of ability to consult and listen to a myriad of opinions.
Obama may well be the Democrats version of Ronald Reagan. He could go directly to the people to pitch his case (making him far more effective), he can redraw the political map for the Democrats for a generation (much as Reagan did for the GOP).
In addition, Hillary represents the old way, business as usual. This is not the right time for that. We live in a fast, changing world where old ways do not necessarily apply. Obama has shown himself to be on record when it is uncomfortable. Hillary is about triangulation. That is not how to solve difficult issues. It's about convincing the other side, not giving up your point of view. (Yes, this must be balanced with compromise, of course, but as DF says, compromise is a tool, not a way of life.)
Additionally, Obama did more in his first 3 years in the Senate than Hillary. And, I believe (note word) that Obama would have read