Edwards vows to stay in race to convention

Source: CNN

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Democrat John Edwards said Sunday he will stay in the presidential race through the party's convention in late August, even if he fails to win any of the early presidential primary states. "This is the call of my life, and I have no intention of stopping," Edwards said on ABC's This Week. "I'm in this through the convention and to the White House."

Asked specifically if he'd remain a candidate even if he failed to garner a win over the next month, Edwards said, "Absolutely."

The former North Carolina senator and 2000 vice presidential candidate edged out rival Hillary Clinton for second place in the Iowa caucuses Thursday, and a new CNN/WMUR poll taken entirely after Iowa voters weighed in shows a slight bump for Edwards in the Granite State, though he remains in a distant third at 20 percent among like Democratic voters there. Barack Obama, the winner of the Iowa caucuses, and Clinton are tied at 33 percent.

Also Sunday, Edwards denied a formal alliance between himself and Obama against Clinton, but he continued to paint the New York Democrat as symbolic of the status-quo in Washington and called for a two-person debate between himself and Obama. "Voters here in New Hampshire and in all the future states need an unfiltered debate between the two of us about who can best bring about change," he said.

Read more: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/01/06/edwards-vows-to-stay-in-race-to-convention/

She can stay in this race forever too, and so can Obama. I think the longer this race goes on without a clear frontrunner, the better it is for Hillary. The later states tend to favor the name recognition candidates like Hillary and 9iu11iani.

many more vote just on name recognition, the worst way to pick the next president.

I put alot of weight behind my gut feelings, it's hard to feel that through the tv. :(

In New Jersey, we only see the candidates when they drop by to ask for money.

I'd love to see this get to the convention without a candidate having sewn up the nomination. That's not likely, but if all 3 can stay in it, we might just get a convention floor fight for the first time in decades. It would liven things up and keep national attention on the event and the party. The press wouldn't be able to ignore it, and the networks wouldn't be able to stiff us on coverage. And we'd show that the Democrats live up to their name.

contests and backs Obama. Nice going, Johnny.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

And that's what Obama is - a candidate with nothing to say. But he says it so well.

and turned out to vote in record numbers, including Indies and Repubs. That's some "nothing". I'll bet Edwards wishes his 5 years of living in Iowa could have lent him that "nothing".

Fuck them and fuck him.

Now I remember why.

WOW!!

Guess what it's time for?

No one says nothing more crudely than you. I'm not sure you can even type more than 2 sentences at a time.

Chickenshit bullshit post, in Saglese.

....Edwards could catch him....John Edwards has substance and his message will get through...that's what he's hoping.

Please tell us why it would be better for the Democratic party and the country for John Edwards to drop out now or if he hasn't won an early state.

Since you made the statement first, I feel it is upon you to provide your hypothesis.

That being said, I don't agree with the name calling or bitterness.

But, present a "cogent argument"

until the convention, except to pull some delegates away from either Obama or Hillary? That's an "in it for yourself" mentality--would he be hoping for a plane crash or scandal or something at that point? I didn't say he should drop out tomorrow, but if he loses the early states, he's not going to win Super Tuesday, realistically--and after that, he should seriously consider giving his support to another candidate. Richardson should do the same, by Feb. 6th. On edit--remember too, that he is a poorly-funded candidate, and that would kill us in a general election scenario.

As for being poorly funded, that wouldn't be the case in a general election because the party will support the nominee. Edwards has not yet decided whether or not he will take public financing in the general.

As for pulling away delegates - well, who knows. Lets say Edwards stays in and never wins a single state but continues to do well and earn delegaes. Lets also say that somehow the nominee isn't decided by the convention - the Edwards campaign has some power when it counts. If he really would prefer Obama over Hillary, and he drops out early there is no telling what potential Edwards voters would do. At a brokered convention he can personally ask them to go for Obama - it's a lot easier to persuade several hundred delegates than several million potential voters.

As for "in it for yourself" - we hear the term "vanity candidate" thrown around. I don't think these candidates have any bigger of an ego than anyone else running for President. I think some candidates stay in the race even when their winning is a statistical impossiblity because they have ideas and this is the best way to get those ideas before the public.

OK, let's say you're right and there is no point in Edwards staying in the race - what's the harm? Why would it be better for the country for him to drop out?

I surely hope that all 3 candidates will endorse Gore (and he accepts!), and that's the biggest media blowout ever! Pundits will spin like crazy until they die of heart attacks. Conservative weenies will explode!

That's certainly my hope and dream. The tighter this is at convention time, the better, as far as I'm concerned.

Would be a dream come true! :toast:

Julie

I don't want to leave myself open to more disappointment when it comes to Gore.

:hi:

And it would not surprise me in the least. Al Gore has said he will not endorse anyone in the primary.

I go to sleep at night whispering... brokered convention, brokered convention, brokered convention...

he's pushing the other candidates further toward the populist-progressive end of the spectrum, and that's VERY important.

And they don't need a rush to judgment.
Let's savor the airing of democratic differences and a range of non-Bush opinion.

.

she should drop out to. I'm sure she would the moment the race changed to one where she was accomplishing nothing but hurting the nominee.

That'd a given! YOU presume he's not viable because you DON'T LIKE HIM! I'm not crazy about the overwhelming coverage that Clinton & Obama get each and every time there's a debate! Debates where Edwards ALWAYS shines and many here can clearly see. Glitz and glamor are do not a president make, yet far too many Americans constantly "buy" the goods.

I've mentioned a phrase from a song that Jackson Browne wrote in the 80's that ring true today... which is this! They sell us our Presidents the same way they sell us our clothes and our cars. It's as true today as it was then, and this truth prevails even now!

Because Clinton and Obama aren't the normal choices from the past, because the status of being articulate enough to catch the eye of Americans, they have been given a certain special treatment that generally other candidates may have gotten. And I can see and understand this attention.

However, that does NOT mean they are the BEST choices, it only means they are the recipients of the Powers that be. Every single day we hear their names mentioned first and foremost, even when a significant portion of others think Edwards actually has a message that resonates. I realize Internet polls don't necessarily carry the meaning of the larger more evident and established polls, but take a look who it is that generally comes out on top here. It's Edwards!

I myself do think his message is closer to what America needs, but he is ignored many times because Clinton and Obama have benefited from what MSM has decided is unique and I truly believe they give Edwards the short end of the stick. That's what I feel, that's what I see. If Edwards got the attention they do, I think most people would be able to see this reality.

going to get enough delegates to get the nom, but you force the other candidates to keep spending their money fighting you until August, you are not acting for the good of the party. Hell, he might turn it all around and win NH, SC, get some delegates, make it a three-way race, and then I wouldn't say anything. But to vow to continue, no matter what, all the way to August is self-serving. Most candidates will say "If I don't do well by such-and-such a time, I'll give up"--many have dropped out already. That's being realistic about what you can achieve. If Edwards wins on Super Tuesday, or wins enough delegates to have a shot at winning the nom, that's fine. If he doesn't, he (or whoever comes in third) should drop out and leave the battle to the more viable candidates. I would want Obama to do the same thing--to give up if Edwards and Hillary had the most delegates sewn up and he couldn't win unless something awful happened. I don't want our eventual nominee to have 5 more months of having to fight and spend money if it's not going to do any good.

That is more important than acting for the good of the party. Go, John, Go.

John Edwards speaks for me.

It signals to your supporters that your heart isn't in it.

this one from the 70s:

Don't think it won't happen,
Just because it hasn't happened yet

In other words, let's look at the trends - Edwards is on the way up.

That's a given! YOU presume he's not viable because you DON'T LIKE HIM! I'm not crazy about the overwhelming coverage that Clinton & Obama get each and every time there's a debate! Debates where Edwards ALWAYS shines and many here can clearly see. Glitz and glamor are do not a president make, yet far too many Americans constantly "buy" the goods.

I've mentioned a phrase from a song that Jackson Browne wrote in the 80's that ring true today... which is this! They sell us our Presidents the same way they sell us our clothes and our cars. It's as true today as it was then, and this truth prevails even now!

Because Clinton and Obama aren't the normal choices from the past, because the status of being articulate enough to catch the eye of Americans, they have been given a certain special treatment that generally other candidates may have gotten. And I can see and understand this attention.

However, that does NOT mean they are the BEST choices, it only means they are the recipients of the Powers that be. Every single day we hear their names mentioned first and foremost, even when a significant portion of others think Edwards actually has a message that resonates. I realize Internet polls don't necessarily carry the meaning of the larger more evident and established polls, but take a look who it is that generally comes out on top here. It's Edwards!

I myself do think his message is closer to what America needs, but he is ignored many times because Clinton and Obama have benefited from what MSM has decided is unique and I truly believe they give Edwards the short end of the stick. That's what I feel, that's what I see. If Edwards got the attention they do, I think most people would be able to see this reality.

John Edwards says over and over that he will be all right, Obama will be all right and Hillary and all the candidates will be all right regardless of who wins this contest. What he tells us again and again is that what is important is whether the American people are all right, not whether one or the other or all of or none of the candidates are all right.

Obviously, Edwards would like to win. But, win or lose, he will keep fighting for the American people. No candidate has fought harder or more effectively taken the side of the middle class and the dispossessed. Edwards is on a mission, and is fulfilling it. Just the fact that Obama and Hillary are now competing to profile themselves as the candidates of change is a huge victory for Edwards.

Here is my prediction: Even if Edwards loses the nomination, he will fight on -- not against the Democratic candidate -- but for the people. Nothing will stop Edwards' campaign. We might as well elect him president, because he will be setting the agenda no matter who is in the White House just like he has and is throughout this primary campaign.

this is not thanks to obama, but to edwards.

change is firmly the frame upon which the nominee will be elected, and by staying in this will remain the frame.

this election is about the FUTURE, not the past, and I am tired of Clinton and Obama's lack of specificity about that future.

so JRE has repeatedly spoken about whom he would FIGHT FOR AND AGAINST when elected.

just tell me - what/who will Obama be fighting AGAINST if elected ? and who FOR ?

and Clinton - ditto ?

JRE has made his definitions crystal clear. He speaks for me with his choices. And this is an era when a recession may be looming (according to Clinton), the ice caps are melting, and world war III is on the table because of the Bushmafia. I DEMAND CLARITY OF INTENT AND OBAMA SHOULD START LAYING IT OUT IF HE WANTS MY RESPECT. Thanks.

This is quite the opposite of "in it for yourself" if anything ever was. Giving voters in later primaries more choice, giving those voters a place at the table come convention time, keeping the cause of the have-nots in front of the public, delaying the inevitable shift to the right. There are many, many advantages for us in Edwards decision, and very few for him.

"Poorly funded candidate" - pffffft! That excuse could be used for all of the candidates in every election and for the entire party. The well-funded party is the Republican party. That is the problem, not the solution. We must be the well-motivated, the deeply principled, the harder working and the more courageous party.

If anyone thinks that big money does control everything - as your remarks suggest - than that is all the more reason to get behind and support the Edwards campaign.

"Oh, those people without a lot of money! They are hurting 'our' cause. Get out of the way and leave it to the rich people, so 'we' can 'win.'"

"Poorly funded." Harumph.

This camapign isn't poorly funded, it is powered by the poor, and look out all you fancy folks.

Sometimes it's important to stay in the race to force the others to address issues that are important

...by staying in until the convention. Especially if the numbers he's pulling are causing HRC to drop. One thing I've learned about politics in the tiny amount of time I've dealt with it in my life is that most things go 3 and 4 levels deep.

the GOP candidate. He'd also keep mudslinging and lying and dirtying up our nominee. He'd drain cash from from the Democrat in the race.

Most other candidates have thought of the greater good and dropped out when they saw all they were doing was hurting the party. Edwards only cares about himself though. He's a phony and a mudslinger and can't win even now. He should quit. Endorse Obama if he wants to be on Obama's side so much.

And Edwards has a ton of nerve to suggest that he and Obama should have a debate without Hillary. Edwards has no chance of winning. If anything, it should be a debate between Obama and Hillary.

He will focus the arguments on the American people's interests and not on the candidate's or the party's interests.

He comes from "out of nowhere" like a Karl Rove plant. He is manifestly unelectable and can't debate worth a damn - he would have gone down in FLAMES if JRE hadn't had the decency to step up to protect who he may be considering for his own VP.

Obama's experience in Chicago is the experience of a poseur liberal trust fund kid. Which is why when I see liberal college kids backing him, I'm unimpressed. The mud EDWARDS slings winds up all over Halliburton and insurance companies; the mud Obama whips up simply slimes other Dem candidates, just like the mud slung by his fans like in this post.

Obama's out to SPEND more cash than anyone. Oooh I'm so impressed. That is so very Democratic - as in DLC. I'm disgusted as many others with the "money" argument. What the fuck ever happened to PUNK ROCK ?!?!?

I'm so devastated by the critique of "hurting the Party". Back to Moscow 1946 with you, go ahead and send me to the GULAG, because I will hurt the Party too - the hypocritical, money-drenched wing of the Democratic Party.

Obama is going to NEED Edwards a LOT more than vice versa. This is why he would perhaps make an adequate VP selection - Obama may have POTENTIAL and I would be happy to see experience come to him as Edwards' VP over the next eight years. The second Obama and Edwards are directly able to debate will be the second that Edwards leaps out ahead of him for the nomination. It is Clinton that should drop out if she continues to perform poorly, but she also has a very deep strategy that gives her some slack to lose at first (so much for "aura of invincibility"). She is a given to march to the convention, and I am fine with that.

But YOU mister crapsneakers, you want CENSORSHIP. You call for Edwards to drop out? Well how about YOU drop-out, yuck-o. Nobody on the Edwards side would make such snorts of total derision about Obama - if anything we want him to actually SAY something for once, because we can't even judge a person who is so VAGUE. But we're not telling him to "drop out" - we believe in dialogue.

Drop out my ass, crapsneakers.

Edwards is all talk. And this is just more of it. Red meat for his fervent followers. If he gets third in NH, his goose is not just cooked, it's crispy. Follow that with a smashing loss in NV and a bigger one in SC, and he'll just look pitiful hanging in there.

as for the money - if there is clearly no chance Edwards will win, the money will not go his way, it will go to the presumed nominee.

as for the mudslinging - I don't think he'd be doing it late in the game. If he realized there was no chance of winning, I think he may challenge our candidate on holding fast to Democratic ideals and helping the average person. I don't see him really launching a major negative initiative.

And, who is to say he couldn't attack the Republican nominee or candidates (kind of a tag team thing)? If our presumed nominee wants to go along, they could play "good cop, bad cop." Edwards could say something outrageous about the Republican and our guy or gal could distance his/her self from the statement.

Candidates do sometimes stay in after it is apparent they won't win the nomination. I think of Sharpton and Kucinich in 2004. Should they have dropped out for the good of Kerry? Would it have made a difference. People call guys like that "vanity candidates." At least in the case of Kucinich I prefer "idea candidate" because the race is the best way to have his ideas heard.

Besides, a lot of candidates shift to center for the general election. Would it be a bad thing to have a dogged challenger keeping the nominee honest?

Edwards is pretty bold suggesting a debate without Hillary Clinton. But really, what does he have to lose?

This is not a personal attack, but merely a point of order that wishing ill on someone that you don't support/back is simply an assholish/Freeperish behavior.

Suppose Obama has a very big scandal so close to the convention, and feels that he has to drop out, and endorses Edwards instead of Hillary. How would you feel about Edwards dropping out early if Obama or Hillary are caught in a motel room having intimiate relations or something?

(Just making a point mind you - as far as I know, neither has *HAPPENED*)

Additional disclaimer: Any flames can be PM'ed, please, this is entirely of my opinion, noone else's.

Hawkeye-X

I think Edwards should do. That wasn't really an occasion for anyone to call me an asshole, even if they disagreed with my viewpoint. I didn't alert this comment, although I could have--I hate being a tattletale. I simply believe that John was trying to assure his supporters and keep the money rolling in by vowing to stay until the convention, but let's be realistic--if he didn't win a state that was favorably disposed to him, a state he essentially LIVED in for years, he's pretty much not going to win anywhere else. That's a pretty solid prediction. Biden and Dodd saw the light pretty quickly, and even they might have done better in NH than in Iowa (both being New Englanders), but they are realistic. If John doesn't rack up the wins and a viable amount of delegates after Super Tuesday, then his motives for staying in are suspect--waiting for a tragedy or scandal is a bit silly. I know Edwards supporters are all secretly hoping that Hillary unleashes a personal-dirt nuclear bomb on Obama, and then John can sneak in through the melee, but after Super Tuesday, that's unlikely.

That's the second time in blogs this week I've seen Delaware be moved to New England (in explaining Biden's loss). Think you meant Northeastern, though I'd call Delaware Mid-Atlantic.

from Wall St than any other candidate, including Republican...and has a pharmaceutical lobbyist in a key campaingn posistion? And the realize that an awful lot of room at that nice little table for chatting is already taken by...the same bunch that are already there???

These two facts alone are enough to really make someone wonder about Obama...who put him where he is and how will he operate? I'm thinking about our Congress and how crummy they are....Happy with it? Then you may get a whole lot more of the same with Obama. Edwards won't be able to accomplish everything we want, but he knows how to use the BULLY pulpit and won't shy away from picking a lot fights that are necessary!

With John Edwards filming?

I mean, if we're going on hypotheticals, mine is that the scandal brings down all 3 and I become the person chosen.

The chance of that is remote though.

being obviously smarmy and sarcastic, so that's why they jumped on you. I think you said "semi-retarded" in another post. It was funny, but saying "Johnny" here in the manner you did it was an attack on John for feeling he has a shot to win this (a hell of a lot better than all but 2 candidates in the US!) and he shouldn't be faulted for this. Also, and it's not lost on me, John has been playing bad cop to Hillary's deflation in the polls, so irregardless (lol) what anyone would say differently, Barack surely thanks John for hitting Hillary hard.

Best wishes to all our remaining candidates, after watching the repugs, I'm so thankful I AM A DEMOCRAT!

He'd do better for the party and for the country if he beat Obama and Hillary.

One never knows what will happen. I say Edwards will be our next president. Of course, the media is getting a bout of diarrhea thinking about that, as are the rich and corporations. :-)

They want to smother Edwards before he gets the nomination.

It's far easier to back someone who WALKS the walk. We need a president who doesn't act like he's on American Idol. :eyes:

:rofl:

You can't even get in the Senate with that little. And he earned every penny, by helping poor people get justice in court, so don't go shooting off your prejudice like that.

It's good of Edwards to stay. He has something this country needs desperately.

he went into a different area of law. And yet, he's in the Senate and ahead of Edwards. Edwards is a phony. He made his big bucks, and condemns others for making big bucks. That's fucking laughable.

There's a big difference between means and ends to consider.

oh yeah, fightin' for the LITTLE GUY for $200 an hour out of the little guy's pocket--I should know, I had to pay one once. That's no better or worse to me than someone like Bloomberg who invents a widget.

I chose not to settle (a decision based on principle), and in the end, I lost my case--financially, I ended up probably worse off than not settling right away (but kept my pride), and better off than if I had kept fighting while paying a lawyer for two years. Even if I had flat-out won with a lawyer, the legal fees would have consumed my income and gone over the value of what I was fighting for.

Don't hold Edwards' occupation against him.

Obviously not, or you would know that Edwards took cases on a percentage basis. In other words, when he took a case, he did NOT take money from the client he was representing until he WON their case. HE and his firm bore ALL costs associated with the case until a decision was reached. Those costs would include fees for filing the suit, paying his paralegals, or secretaries, or assistants who did anything on the case, paying the costs of copies, the mailing or delivery of documents, investigators or experts who might need to be hired...in other words ANYTHING, no matter how inexpensive or expensive that would be needed to litigate the case. He and his firm would have received NOTHING - no money at all - if the case had been decided against his client. When the case was decided FOR his client, he earned a percentage of the damages awarded to his client as payment. Yea, it made him a millionare - and he earned every penny by winning those cases, and receiving substantial awards for his clients. That would be clients who were regular people like you or me, that had terrible things happen to them because the person or corporation they sued did not exercise the duty of care they were required to under the law.


Just because you had a lawyer that you think screwed you doesn't mean every lawyer is out to screw everyone. Thomas Jefferson was a lawyer. John Adams was a lawyer. And so is Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama.

Sorry, I don't much care for lawyers in general. I don't think they're heroes, or noble, unless maybe they're public defenders. They're in business to make money, same as anyone else, and they are often blatantly dishonest--I saw that up close. Edwards is just another businessman--his business is manipulating the law and juries and judges to maximize the payout to his client--and thus, himself. Whoop-de-doo. Again, I don't buy into the "corporations are eeeevil" mindset here, I see corporations as simply entities out to make money, same as trial lawyers, so saying "But...but.. he won big damages for little girls from pool-drain device companies" isn't meaningful to me, it's just a service he performs for money. It all ends up feeding the insurance industry, anyway.

I suggest that anyone who thinks trial lawyers are overpaid read the book The Buffalo Creek Disaster and also read about the many, many, many years of litigation against the tobacco companies. Lawyers sacrificed a lot to bring cases against the tobacco companies. Could there be a defendant more liable than the tobacco companies, yet lawyers spent millions to earn nothing in case after case as the tobacco companies actually bought and paid for legislation to grant them immunity from lawsuits. Trial lawyers are heroes in many cases. I'm sure the tobacco companies will tell you that the litigation against them was frivolous.

about how hard most attorneys work at their profession. Most of them are honorable people, but just like the population in general there are bad apples. Lawyers are a key element in keeping our Constitution and Bill of Rights, and our democracy.

Something else the poster (and perhaps other DU'ers) doesn't realize is that North Carolina law is very corporate-friendly. For an individual to win a suit against a corporation means that individual had an amazing and gifted attorney.

John Edwards isn't my first choice in this race...Al Gore is and will be until I walk into the voting booth, when I'll (probably) vote a straight Democratic ticket. Nor was he my second choice...until Biden and Dodd dropped out. He and Obama are now at the top of my list, but I'll vote Dem no matter who the nominee is.

And most of them are wealthy, or at least well off.

heroic qualities. That's where I take issue--when I point out that Edwards is filthy rich, people want to jump in and say "but his way of making money is more noble than making money any other way". No, it's not. Edwards is a smart guy, he knew how to make a killing in various areas, same as Hillary, and Obama is not poor. Nothing wrong with being successful, unless you try too hard to sell yourself as OUTSIDE of that world, cursing it from the sidelines. That's where my BS-o-meter goes off.

of being a US Senator? I certainly don't think Obama is ready to govern the entire United States. He still has plenty of time, so why did he jump in so early? He could have made good in 2016, when he has a lot of experience and time in.

As far as I see in Obama, he's just a fad. Edwards, however, is the real thing. He has the experience, both public and private, and has worked for the POOR/MC (Maybe you should read his law background and you'd be stunned - he went AFTER corporations), and has already tasted and understood the people all over the country, and knows what platform that the PEOPLE of the US will support.

Hawkeye-X

more policy-making experience, than Edwards overall. He was a communtiy activist and served many years in elected Illinois government. He has more foreign policy credentials than Edwards. He's spent years serving the people, and lecturing the next generation of law students on the Constitution, while Edwards made the big bucks--and no, I don't give a rat's ass if he took on corporations in court. I am not of the mindset that business and corporations are evil entities out to get me. They are in business to make money, no more, no less. I am unusual on DU for that viewpoint, perhaps, but there it is. Edwards got rich, and now he's whining about rich people. That's why Edwards is not my candidate, and I also think he's a lightweight and a bit of a hypocrite. He's changed his tune from war-hawk DINO in the Senate to uber-populist lefty now, and that screams a lack of genuineness to me.

But pugnacious is too gracious a word to describe your persona.

That's funny, because Edwards has expressed the same sentiments. He's not anti-business or anti-corporation, either. If anything, Edwards is the most PRO-business candidate we've had in years, because he wants to eliminate the lobbying practices in D.C. that have marginalized the vast majority of American business owners for over 30 years.

Unfortunately, you don't seem equipped to understand the easily understandable difference between being anti-corporate lobbying and being anti-corporation, as well as the easily understandable difference between being anti-corporate lobbying and being anti-business.

against doctors who had to make judgement calls between caesarian or natural births. If the doc guessed wrong he got sued. Sure, the cases went to big rich insurance companies, but its not like Edwards was suing a big greedy corporation for some evil practice.

"He (Edwards) made his big bucks, and condemns others for making big bucks."

He has never "condemned" anyone for being rich. It's a simplistic smear spread by people such as yourself. It's a red-herring talking point designed to divert attention from Edwards' primary platform: ridding the White House of corporate lobbying influence.

You should look into getting a job as Neil Cavuto's (Fox News) substitute host. You certainly have his talking points down flat - a special skill only a few people are able to master.

signing up for his book deal even before he was sworn in... He's an opportunist and operator who is all for Obama....

That's your opinion and your opinion is without merit. You are behaving like a teenager with a crush. I like both of them, and am only upset with Obama about the McClurkin issue. But Obama is the one accepting all the money from the people WE Democrats don't trust. If there's anyone you would call a phony for their of-late populist rhetoric it's someone other than Edwards.

AFTER his supposed 'evolution".

And yet, all that money and he takes public funding rather than staking any of his own dollars.

AND that's after using money from his charity to fund his last several years spent campaigning in Iowa.

Heck, I'm in the S & P and don't know off hand everything I"m invested in.

Investing is not a crime. Is it as unsavory as putting a big pharma lobbyist in a top position in your campaingn (Obama) and taking more money from Wall St. than any other candidate (Obama)?????

unless they had some money and Edwards was hoping to get some of it.

So many of the good things you take for granted in life are there because some trial lawyer fought the good fight so that you could enjoy them.

But so what, right? Ignorance is bliss.

then they are the first to go running to one of those trial lawyers..

most..who have opinions like this person are just hypocrites!!

fly

my State Farm agent as my hero, even if she cuts me a check for my wrecked car--she'd fucking better, because I FUCKING PAID my premiums--it's a BUSINESS. Not good, not bad, just business.

my ex roommate/best friend who died a few years ago was JUST like you described. He was so repugnant when it came to politics and his view on the greedy corporations who ignore law, or rather, manipulate it.

or more likely, you're an idiot.

that he's just unprincipled about his compulsion to flame John Edwards, and it doesn't matter to him if he doesn't make much sense.

this critter is a shining example of "disrupted poorly".

The guy who owned Malden Mills- and there are many others, including some of my family members.

:eyes:

Lobbyist in his campaign? http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/02/544600.aspx ...


Though Obama has also said that he won't take federal PAC and lobbyist money on his campaign, he does take money from state based lobbyists as previously reported by First Read.

Obama's co-chair in New Hampshire, Jim Demers, is a state based lobbyist for the pharmaceutical and financial services industries amongst others. Michael Bauer, a member of Obama's LGBT steering committee, is a state based lobbyist in Chicago. And in Nevada, Obama's campaign also has three state based lobbyists who play senior advising roles in August last year.

Let's contrast and compare....what, there is no comparison. Obama is bought as much as Clinton is.

the rest of DU is in a tizzy about this stuff, but no one on the Repub side is castigating their candidates for taking money from various groups. I couldn't care less if Obama has a lobbyist on his staff. Or Edwards. Hell, Hillary has Mark Penn, nothing compares to that. What I don't like is someone who bashes CEO pay and Wall Street while also playing the game and making money. I don't mind a rich guy, just don't pretend you're "one of us" and that you don't enrich yourself in the same system that you rail against.

Then why don't I run for President? Then why don't I get myself on a national stage and rail against poverty and the injustice that is happening due to corporations and their lobbyists....wait, I don't make enough money to do that. DO YOU? That's a bullshit argument and you know it. He's made money - and lots of it, by being one of the best in his field. Jealous?

You made an Edwards thread be all about your candidate. That just won't work. What if all of us did the same thing to any and every Obama thread?

YOU are "not all that upset about lobbyists. Or corporations. Or Wall Street..."

Good for you. We are "all that upset." May we, without you ridiculing and dismissing us? That is the real difference - it has nothing to do with Edwards, he is just a convenient target for you to kick. If you want to ridicule the pro-labor and traditional Democratic party stances of many of us, and apologize for Wall Street and free market libertarian concepts, do that and stop smearing Edwards.

You then say "what I don't like is someone who bashes CEO pay and Wall Street while also playing the game and making money."

Every single one of us has to do that if we want to eat. That is the problem in this country. Comply with the corporate system or starve.

Poor people have no voice or you would hear them "bashing CEO pay and Wall Street."

As it turns out Obama has more than tripled contributions received from this group. (found this from another poster here on DU)



Rp

And it must come out sometime or we're headed for a huge mess when the GOP uses it!!

What does this mean? People who work in the following industries have given X dollars to Candidate Y? I might as well fess up - Barack Obama got another seven bucks from the Military/Industrial Complex (booga-booga) when I ordered two bumperstickers from his website. Last I heard, you were only allowed to pony up something like $2300 per candidate.

While this graph has some instructional value, I wouldn't use it to disqualify a candidate. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will float to the top of all of these list simply by being front-runners. It has nothing at all to do with either candidate being in anyone's pocket. So stop this, people.

or do you just shoot off your mouth with no facts?


this from another thread found here at du..by Viva_La_Revolution..( thank you dear!!)

..http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3971506#3971541

It shows that he has taken a fraction compared to almost everyone else. Shows to me that all the slurs against him for working for one for a few months, and investing a few thousand dollars is mute when the people bringing it up are accepting money from the same people they are railing against.

Hedge Funds
Rudolph W. Giuliani (R)
$1,157,900

Hillary Clinton (D)
$980,700

Barack Obama (D)
$976,574

Mitt Romney (R)
$947,500

Christopher J. Dodd (D)
$915,950

John McCain (R)
$331,850

John Edwards (D)
$252,550

Bill Richardson (D)
$129,400

Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D)
$61,200

Fred Thompson (R)
$34,200

Sam Brownback (R)
$20,150

Ron Paul (R)
$6,300

Tom Tancredo (R)
$1,500

Duncan Hunter (R)
$1,000




I am so sorry you have that foot in mouth disease..perhaps reading facts will help you out!!
...if not you may need Edwards health care plan!! Obama's won't help you!!

fly

But John Edwards is the one who rails on the most about corporate greed. Don't pretend that you're above the same game you made your money in, is all I'm saying. He may be sincere, and I think he's a decent enough guy, but I have never heard such an obscenely rich person pretend to be such a populist. Something smells inauthentic about that to me. And with all the whining about how Edwards doesn't get enough media time, and how he's overspent, why not just pull out a couple million from his fortune and drop it on ads?

Obama has no problem plagerizing what Edwards says!!..even though Obama has a hired Lobbyist working for him..in fact the media all knew this fact in Iowa but stayed silent about it..and it only was reported last night when Hillary had to do the job the media should have done by exposing Obama as a liar!

I was in Iowa..and i know damn well all the media knew about it ..it was all the conversation by the media types at the bar in my hotel..but did they report it..hell no!!

so save your pitiful slams of Edwards..your boy is hiring Lobbyists and lying about it..and your boy has made a ton of $$ from hedge funds..


save it for the truely ignorant..as you seem to be of facts!! and truths!

fly

po' boy from the wrong side of the tracks. He doesn't pretend to be an enemy of Wall Street. He just wants to make government more ethical, and sponsored legislation to do so, both in the Illinois Senate and the U.S. Senate.

Political ideals are not a "theme" and Edwards is not merely a "populist." He is a traditional pro-labor Democrat. Was Bobby Kennedy a "populist" trying out a "theme?"

What does "pretend to be an enemy of Wall Street" even mean? Can not a person advocate that the 90% of the less-well-off people be protected from the predations of the upper 10%? What does that make a person "an enemy" of, exactly? And so what if he were an "enemy of Wall Street?" We have decades of leadership who were great friends to Wall Street and enemies of the people. Let's change that, shall we?

Even if Edwards were everything you said he was, still your posts show a distinct bias - in favor of total freedom for big finance and for unregulated corporatism, contempt toward the "po" from the "wrong side of the tracks" as you mockingly call millions of people, and disrespect for the hundreds of brilliant and compassionate people here who support the Edwards campaign.

For the well-off few from the upper 10% who happen to have a liberalish bent, or imagine that they do, having a leader who "just" wants to clean up the ethics is Washington - tidy up the mess left by the Bush administration and restore proper decorum and get back to business as usual - may be adequate and desirable.

But for millions of suffering people top call for - "just making government more ethical" - is so pathetically inadequate, and reflects such a complete lack of understanding of the crisis we are in, that even offering it up as "change" is rubbing salt in the wounds.

The reason that government is not ethical to begin with is because it is awash in corporate money, and that corporate money controls our government and our elected officials. It is a Republican idea that the problem is with the government itself. Yes, government is a BIG problem - when Republicans and corporations are controlling it, and when we have no Democrats fighting against that. We at least now have a politician who is speaking against that, and that is an immense improvement and a powerful and noteworthy thing no matter what Edwards is or becomes.

Hell, making government more ethical is the Huckabee program. We are Democrats. We have a larger vision. It has to do with championing human life over property, people over profits, and labor over capital. Look up and read the speeches from all of the party's greatest leaders, at the times of the party's greatest success, if that is not clear to you. You may not share that vision, but that is no justification for the continual stream of ridicule and invective directed toward Edwards and his supporters.

This is a post for the ages. I just openly wept reading this. I am on your side and I feel every ounce of this post. So many lies taking hold, so many people left behind, so much suffering in America it is UNCONSCIONABLE. The poster you are debating with lost me months ago; actually when she first joined DU, the smell test was just not right, these last few days have proved that my olfactory senses are sharp as ever. The love of the corporation has a very distinct stench to it, and if it isn't love but sheer ignorance all the worse. Welcome to DU friend. I am shaking your hand across the keyboard.

Thanks so much, Binka.

"The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on."

As John Edwards said, "We are better than this".

And BTW-Welcome to DU! :hi:

hypocracy!!

or are you showing off your ignorance to facts and truth..or do you care about truth?

fly

I feel sorry for you in a way. You really think your candidate is about change.

I'd say, you're not doing your own candidate any good by displaying your ignorance as proudly as you do.

I seem to recall a certain President who did great things for the poorest of Americans....what was his name again...? Oh yes, FDR. He was one wealthy dude.

Julie

old money. I don't have a problem with people having money and helping the less-fortunate, I have a problem with the endless "son of a mill worker" stuff. Once you've made your first million (or fifty), you're no longer "the little guy". That's fine. But don't try to sell yourself as somehow superior or more in touch with the masses because you're from NEW money, not old money.

I see nothing wrong with Edwards doing so as it is the truth. He's self-made, what's wrong with that? Isn't that suppose to be the American dream?

Julie

His father worked in a mill but after the first couple of years he had some good jobs there. Edwards might have been poor for a short time but not for most of the time when he grew up.

You claim to be making a rational criticism of Edwards. But your posts reveal something else entirely.

What does this statement tell us? - "he had some good jobs there." You begrudge a person that? Dismiss that? Mock that? Do you claim that if a person climbs out of poverty, that they no longer have the right to speak against poverty? Do you claim that the fact that some climb out of poverty makes poverty not a worry?

What sort of sense does it make for you to suggest that because a person was not in poverty their entire life, they can then not speak about it authentically?

Yes, Edwards father late in life achieved a supervisory position. And your point about that would be...? Edwards himself worked summers in the mills to be able to afford college, completed school and became a successful attorney. Your point about that would be...?

You are making the age old and time-honored argument of the wealthy and powerful to dismiss concerns about poverty.

Your posts drip with thinly veiled contempt for the poor and for those who advocate against poverty. If you are opposed to the message of Edwards, why not be honest and state that forthrightly?

Every right wing pundit in the country is mocking Edwards message and talking about his sincerity using precisely the same points you are using. And your point in using these right wing talking points to savage a Democratic party candidate would be…?

Wow. I don't see it. Its just that Edwards tells it like he was poor the whole time and he wasn't. He's misleading. What does that have to do with contempt for the poor?

That is what I said. I didn't expect you to "see it" unless your remarks were inadvertent. Apparently, you meant what you said.

Your most recent post is also a misleading distortion. Edwards does not "tell it like he was poor the whole time." There is no way to twist anything he has said to mean that. Did you mean to say “po boy” from “the wrong side of the tracks” as you did before?

Your misreading - or intentional distortion - of what he has said has everything in the world to do with contempt for the poor - not understanding poverty and being contemptuous toward one who talks about it which can only come from a person who feels that way toward the subject of poverty in general.

Get it? No one who understands and is concerned with poverty could make the remarks you made.

I don't care if poverty doesn't matters to you, that's your business and your conscience, but it certainly makes you a poor and unreliable source to be telling the rest of us who is and who is not sincere when they talk about poverty.

Just watch Edwards campaign event from today. The Sarkisyan family came to support him. The Lakey family came to support him. James Lowe came to support him. Edwards has actual people who he has helped and who believe he will do the right thing for this country. Edwards doesn't "whine about rich people" he makes true statements about the corrupt influence lobbyists and corporations have on our democracy.

Not only does Edwards come from a humble upbringing, he had made it his life's mission to help those weren't as fortunate as he was. I urge you to watch today's speech where real people came out to support him.

They believe in Edwards, but what has he actually done for them?

I don't need to tell you if you just watch the video. It's pretty clear what he has done for the Lakeys and many other families who were victims of corporate malfeasance.

yes that is walking that walk. He walked in Nader's shoes. He walks in Michael Moore's shoes. That's why Nader and Moore like him so much. Nader and Moore walked the walk and recognize one who, like them, is walking the walk.

No, I did not vote for Nader in 2000 and no, I have not forgiven him for taking votes and attention from Gore. But yes, Nader did a service to the country fighting for consumers.

I for one plan to become a very rich person who is fiercely radical. The fiercely radical part is already in there, the rich stuff hopefully after I launch a web 2.0 app or ten.

The only candidate you can endorse with your attitude is Kucinich, who genuinely spent time living in his CAR in cleveland before becoming cleveland's mayor. So take that Obama badge off your profile, hypocrite - he's got plenty of moneybags to build the stage for his vague blur of positions and exhortations ("FIRED UP!")

And when I get rich like that, tax the hell out of me, please.

Bill Gates say they are NOT taxed enough and more money should go to running the country!

:spray:

has he ever walked the walk? You do realize just talking does not equal walking, don't you?

:wtf:

The Audacity of Hype.

It's still a long road.

on Feb. 5th. And I will advocate for Obama to my heart's content.

Sorry but last time I checked Iowa alone a nomination does not make. If this is a brokered convention then excellent, that should make some interesting results.

A brokered convention would not be good for the party. It means our top candidates would blow that much more money and effort fighting each other than turning it onto the Republicans. The GOPers don't want a brokered convention, and neither do we.

yeah..you have no agenda!!

:eyes: :eyes: :puke: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

fly

and back Edwards.

:thumbsup: But that would mean he's have to check his self inflated ego and I don't see that happening any time soon.

That was the main difference between him and Kerry. Kerry was a wuss. Edwards wasn't.

present this post as Exhibit A.

I like Obama quite a lot, actually, but I sure don't like his cult at DU.

who'd rather vote for Edwards than Obama, that would be such a great move. :eyes:

About putting power back in the hands of the people. If that man is acting, man I would give him many awards. I think his sincerity definitely comes across in person. On the telly, it get played down a lot (underlined).

glad he is staying in until the convention. :bounce: I hope he makes it all the way to the WH!

:toast:

Why do the DEMS always play follow the leader after Iowa and NH?

Rasmussen shows today's national numbers at 23% Edwards, 25% Obama, 36% Clinton. Yesterday Edwards was at 20%, and for at least a few months he was floating in the teens.

:kick:

ESPECIALLY through Super Tuesday.

I don't think it is a coincidence that these trans national corporate media conglomerates are pretending that Mr. Edwards is not there considering his anti corporate (corruption) history.

I don't know if he is taking money from people such as the defense industry etc. I have heard that that industry had shifted the bulk of their financial weight to Hillary a while back but have no link to verify this at the moment and no time to search.

That's very good frankly for his pounding on corporate lobbyists and corruption needs to be heard loudly. I hope ya all realize Obama is just as beholden to them as Clinton is, especially on insourcing (H-1B, guest worker Visas). Edwards started out badly but seems to be getting it.

Last night he mentioned a very important study by Blinder that says 40M jobs are at risk of being offshore outsourced. These are jobs that require at least a Bachelors degree and often higher education, highly skilled jobs.

People just do not realize the coming tsunami if corporate lobbyists get their agenda on global labor arbitrage.

Edwards is now the only one closest to really saying no to these people, Kucinich has alienated himself with his open border positions on immigration, which will hurt working America and the fact he just does not communicate well why he has the positions he does.

You know it's bad when a Republican (Hucklebee) sounds more Populist than a Democrat and that's the situation currently.

It makes no sense to denigrate the US education system, all the while that system is importing students on visas also since the Univs make $ off that system, and then say US students can't handle the load, then import jobs the DoL has tailored for those students from overseas (now here permanently).

The visa system has been gamed. If you read closely, those H1b visas aren't supposed to displace US workers...but they do. Congress knows this but keeps silent. And those visa holders, the globalizationists abuse them too by paying them less than the remaining US workers. It also keeps Wall St's shareholders and investment bankers happy. The system is rigged soooo much against the middle class it is laughable.

and he will win!

I'd love to vote for him in the Primary. :-)

Jesus.... people bad-mouth Kucinich for saying he won't drop out and back a more "viable" candidate. People call his supporters stupid for baking their candidate until the end. It cuts both ways, folks. There are different degrees of "viability". I think it's good that Edwards is staying in. Anyone who's serious about this ought to stay in. Now, please, don't have a double standard.

There is only one candidate driving the narrative for change.....EDWARDS.

Obama has merely given lip service to the notions his handlers recognized resonated with the people of Iowa. Edwards properly sees that this race is about the economic deconstruction of our Country's middle class and industry by rampant CORPORATISM, the legacy of Bill Clinton, perfected by BUSHCO.

Edwards knows you can't win an epic battle , without a battle. There can be no reconciliation or Obama "hands across the aisle" with ROBBER BARONS.

I still believe, that Obama is form and style over substance. No less than Katrina Van Deheuvel of The Nation and Michael Moore, recognize that.

Pathetically, those with "stars in their eyes" from mere glossy speechifying, didn't learn the lesson of George W. Bushco. He was able to fool enough people to vote against their financial interests ( see Ohio 2004 ). OBAMA TAKES LOBBYIST MONEY AND THEN TELLS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IN THE SPEECH THAT HAS THEM AGOG, THAT HE WOULD TAKE LOBBYISTS OUT OF WASHINGTON!

He is a step up from Hillary, which is Rethuglican-lite. But he is no Edwards.

I hope the rest of the Nation keeps their eyes open now. We can't afford to get it wrong this time.

P.S. This quip from Edwards shows the $$$$ from people who see things as I do, is flowing in to his coffers (as he doesn't take money from lobbyists). Obama may have the people for now, but long-time Progressives know that Edwards is the real thing.

one edwards' supporter's opinion. even calling out edwards on fortress was a good thing, and he consistently promotes the progressive dialogue. stay in by all means DK if you have more to contribute !!! plus DK takes his excess campaign financing and helps cool organizations pay the rent. i have an old punk rock 'zine where the lead singer of Pere Ubu is laughing joyously at Mayor Kucinich, the enfant terrible of Cleveland ! DK rules !!!! NO STRINGS !!!!! !!!!

No problem. I would love to see the convention packed with Kucinich and Edwards delegates.

This dropping out business - which is always about an inability to raise money - just reinforces the same rotten personality contest corporate controlled system.

I was a strong supporter of Kucinich last time around. The chaos and disorganization in his campaign drove me away this time. It is not enough to be right on the issues. You must also find a way to get your message to the public. Sadly, Kucinich has failed at that task.

Here is what I want to see "viable" - the voice of the common people. I want to see the least among us win, not argue over which of the most privileged among us "deserves" to win, or has been deemed "viable" by the big money players.

Edwards staying in the race all the way makes Kucinich votes more important now, not less.

The viability thing - recommending throwing support to Obama - was specific to the rules of the Iowa caucuses, by the way.

NT.

Yeah, the announcement can be taken as an acknowledgment that he's behind now and will likely be behind tomorrow but it nips in the bud a lot of any potential media tendency to focus what time they do allocate to him to sniffing around for hints of "will he withdraw?".

And this gives heart to his supporters.

And lets not forget, having a goodly number of delegates at the convention (not to mention die hard supporters) gets you a place at the table.

he gets beat handily and remains until the convention anyway. That would destroy our chances of winning the general election. John, don't do that.

Not being snarky, I honestly don't understand your train of thought.

convention and election day. If the Republican nominee is set, let's say, by March, and our nominee isn't settled until the convention, they'll be able to run a much longer campaign than we will. This would put us at a severe disadvantage. I don't mean that we would be able to win, but it would certainly be more difficult.

candidates on message. He is actually setting the agenda. That is good because he is setting the agenda that is best for the American people. I want Edwards to win. Take this one day at a time. You never know what can happen. He could win big on Super Tuesday. You don't know.

I don't think he has a chance for the nomination (the polls suggest he'll come in no better than third in almost all the primary states.)

But it's good for Clinton (my favorite, although Obama and Edwards are fine with me) that he'll stay in the race until Feb 5 at least, since it is widely believed more of his supporters would go to Obama than to Clinton if he dropped out earlier.

That's what he's all about. He's going to have to fight the entrenched corporate power of the media to talk directly to the people. If you don't take their money, the corporatists prefer to think you don't exist. I believe John Edwards will demonstrate what this fight for the people is all about every single day until the the nomination is determined. I want him to use his voice all the way to Washington.

He is in the epic battle he speaks of NOW. The corps. won't give him a single inch, in fact they swipe an inch from him every chance they can. If he were to say out loud that he is battling these entrenched powers by voicing through their media blackout of him they would certainly try and skewer him. They don't want him to tell the people what is becoming increasing obvious, that they are trying to make him fade away. But he will not fade away, he is our fighter! He has to do this with a smile knowing full well they are not going to put down their weapons. This fight HAS to happen if we are to get back our country.

He's positively radical -- and that's why I LOVE HIM!

Edwards claims to have worked to help fight corporations and further the interests of the working class....

part of the evidence he cites is his work as a trial lawyer

but this was his choice of livelihood, and helping his clients was purely incidental

he *may* have truly wanted to help them, but we'll never know

has he donated huge sums of money to working class causes?

or acted philanthropically like Warren Buffet?

Edwards strikes me as a lightweight

Personally, I don't trust lawyers until they prove to be good at heart. I know that our present demise has occured as a country because too many lawyers have crossed over the edge and allowed businessmen to use government to get away with too much. Many people are hurting because of these intrusions, me included. But because I understand too well what went wrong, I know the ugly truth is, that it's going to take a lawyer with a pure heart to undue the mess that bad lawyers have helped create.

welcome to DU btw.

aA

I'll give you two examples:

1. Edwards donated 100% of the advance funds for his book to charities like Habitat for Humanity, and to a charity that pays college tuition for underprivileged kids.

2. He also set up a fund to help New Orleans residents who lost their homes in Katrina.

for the welcome

i'd been lurking here on and off through the 2004 election and the subsequent diebold controversy in ohio

my friends and I worked hard for kerry, went door to door in las vegas, for example....but the outcome was so discouraging i decided to disengage

edwards was such a disappointment then, also, he remained seemingly mute when kerry was under fierce attack

bottom line is, except for attitudes toward the environment, there's little real difference between the two parties

in any case, with the electorate we've got now, i'm not getting my hopes up again

Please don't blame the people. That is contradictory to everything it means to be a Democrat.

The Edwards campaign shows us that when you tell the people the truth, they will do the right thing. The people cannot very well be blamed for not supporting traditional Democratic party principles when there has been no one delivering that message to them.

If you don't like Edwards, that is fine. But don't dismiss the message, nor the people. The people are suffering. We need to stand with them, not blame them. For whatever Edwards may or may not be, his message is true and the people are hearing it.

A vice presidential candidate by the way, is under severe restraints as to what he or she can say or do, as everything must be subordinated to the decisions by the handlers of the presidential candidate.

Welcome aboard amborin. Hope you are here for a while and I am looking forward to more posts from you. Thanks for your hard work in the last cycle. Yes, it was terribly disappointing.

I really like his courage and conviction. We need this man!

God, I hope he gets broader coverage and support!

Did they ask the same thing of the others, or they just asked him?

just donated. I hope he means it.

:thumbsup:

If he left, most Edwards supporters would go to Obama, IMO. She needs Edwards to stay in at least until Feb 5.

This nonsense, some would call it 'fun', of attacking our three candidates. Does it help any of our people? NO!

How about watching the primaries and discuss what actually happened and try figuring out what each candidates strategy is on each move.

In the old days, primaries were nothing like these instant gratification parties. One state at a time, slowly across the country. People had time to think, to consider, to discuss and debate. Not now.

Stop attacking our own people. You wanna attack? Attack Bush and the new bunch of clowns who consider which of themselves man the shoeshine stand in the Congressional building. The Keystone Kops are standing there open to attack...and we attack our own.

Disgraceful! Thats what it is.

I have read several articles claiming the best hope for Clinton is that Edwards stays in the race: Edwards doesn't have much chance of winning, but he'll keep Edwards supporters away from Obama, this increasing Clinton's chances.

Here's one of the articles, from Slate Magazine...

"Was Hillary lucky she finished third, by .28%, instead of second? Had she finished second, Edwards might have fallen out of the race, leaving her to face Obama one-on-one, a confrontation she'd almost certainly lose right now. If she could subsidize Edwards' campaign at this point, she probably would...."
http://www.slate.com/id/2181118/

I would like to think that if either Obama or Edwards falters that they step out of the race and sign on to the other's campaign. It is clear the Clintons intend to do whatever it takes to win and, if push comes to shove, I hope that Obama and Edwards can team up to push them back.

I hope he damn well means it. Enough surrendering and "healing". I think it would be an Obama/Edwards race all the way if it wasn't for the baggage of 2004,and most of that I lay in Kerry's lap for letting the voters down. We will never know if Edwards would have fought for our votes,(and for preventing every shitty horrible thing that happened since 11/2/04) but we know Kerry didn't.

from time to time? I hope he sees the kind of support he has, not only here, which is a strong majority, but across this country. I don't have much money, but I gave two donations within 48 hours because of the last day for the Iowa push, and his doing so well in Iowa, the next day.

I am SO glad he's sticking around through the convention. I can see great benefits in him doing so... I hope he keeps his word.

Great to see ya, give my best to your brother :hug:

:hug:

and give to the Edwards campaign, because Clinton and Obama each have a Matterhorn of cash at their disposal. <http://opensecrets.org/pres08/>

He's going to need bucks, campaign help, and our incessant positive buzz. (dare a newbie state the obvious?:scared:)

I'll support the eventual Dem nominee, to be sure, but the other candidates aren't getting a thin dime from me--the big donors seem to be trucking them palettes of cash.

That why just sent another $250 to the EDWARDS campaign. I was going to send $200 but $50 bucks more won't break me :).

BTW my retired mom send another $100 today!

:toast:

A toast to ye, red2blue. I'm a penurious (penniless?) student, but am selling the occasional book online to raise cash for John. If Ron Paul can scrape up some Internet brass from the Libertarian muck, we Dems can do it too.

:bounce:

They'd be lost. Edwards has the ideas and the answers.

Maybe you didn't follow events. Kucinich delegates failed, but made a valiant effort at having our voices considered and recognized in what was otherwise a completely controlled and anti-democratic primary season and convention. Big success and we all owe Dennis for that.

If we all just keep rolling over, there will soon be no democracy. There are different ways to measure success, and we must always ask ourselves "success for just whom, exactly?"

and I gave John Edwards half of this month's grocery money after the Iowa primary. Fuck me and fuck my hunger. If anybody wants to talk about hope - they should look at John Edwards. He too has lived the American dream. I've met him, and I work for a powerful man in government just like him. He's a fighter. He's passionate. And yes, he's real.

have you met him to share how much you believe in him, to fight for us? I saw him for about a minute. I told him we held much hope for him b/c of medical probs in our family and the outrageous costs we could never afford. I didn't tell him I was gay and how upset it made me to see my sexuality to get used as a way to get votes by campaigns throughout history, and how I was happy he was on the good side of the issue, but there were so many that wanted to say something, and the health care issue was the most important.

I hope you aren't going hungry. I'm sure people at the office have leftovers and such. I pray you will get by, and I gave a few donations myself to John in the past 4 days. It felt right b/c I believe in his message, and that's never a bad thing.

we have 4 great candidates at the last debate... similar messages in some areas,
different in others....

LET'S TRY NOT TO GET SOOOOOOO HOT ON ONE CANDIDATE THAT YOU DON'T SUPPORT WHOEVER WINS...

WE NEED THE WIN IN 2008

we have 4 great candidates at the last debate... similar messages in some areas,
different in others....

LET'S TRY NOT TO GET SOOOOOOO HOT ON ONE CANDIDATE THAT YOU DON'T SUPPORT WHOEVER WINS...

WE NEED THE WIN IN 2008


REMIND YOUR FRIENDS THAT DUE TO THE EXPECTED LARGE TURNOUT,
DEMOCRATS WILL BE VOTING ON NOVEMBER 4
REPUBLICANS ON NOVEMBER 5

John also will be able to influence party platform if he stays in the race and picks up delegates. We need to change healthcare in this country and John's plan is the best of the 3. Whoever the eventual nominee will be (if it isn't John) I hope they pick up John's healthcare plan.