Edwards gets booed at National Urban League (they like Clinton and Obama better)

http://www.suntimes.com/news/mitchell/487943,CST-NWS-mitch29.article



Good luck breaking into double-digits amongst any demo besides white males, John!

Second, he is catching Obama in the national polls, despite the hubris of Obama supporters like you. ;)

From Rass' daily tracking poll:

7/19/07

Clinton 35%
Obama 28%
Edwards 13%
Obama +15 over Edwards
Obama -7 of HRC

7/26/07

Clinton 41%
Obama 23%
Edwards 15%
Obama +8 over Edwards
Obama -18 of Clinton

in South Carolina.

He presumably performs similarly among Asians and Native Americans. He does have a problem with African-American voters right now, but that is because of the unique combination of a Clinton running and a popular black candidate. The meme promoted by Team Obama that his support is limited to whites is false, though. As I showed, he is doing about as well with other minority groups as he is with whites.

Edwards 27% (+1)
Clinton 22% (-6)
Obama 16% (-11)
Richardson 11% (+4)

candidates speak their peace, and perish the notion of listening respectfully to those who respond to the invitation.

Sounds like bad form on the part of the hosts to me.

for Edwards's hypocritical attempt to criticize people for criticizing each other over a substantive issue.

Then they booed when Edwards, responding to their invitation, addressed the delegates.

Bad form.

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

I'm OK with this. Let Clinton and Obama pummel each other. Edwards will keep on RRRRRRAWWWWWWWWKIN'.

But what I think, and what I THINK Edwards is saying (could be wrong, so i'll only speak for myself) is that a debate over an actual issue turned in to a name calling match "You're naive!" "you're bush-cheney lite!".

Calling each other "naive and irresponsible" and comparing a Democrat to Bush-Cheney is hardly substantive criticism. Moreover, he is saying what Obama used to say:

==“Our leaders in Washington seem incapable of working together in a practical, common-sense way,” Obama said in a video posted on his Web site. “Politics has become so bitter and partisan, so gummed up by money and influence, that we can't tackle the big problems that demand solutions. And that's what we have to change first.”== Barack Obama, Jan. 17, 2007


Obama and Clinton now have the same position. They also had the same position last Sunday before the debate and on Tuesday. The substantive disagreements were short-lived, based on the Obama camp changing its position. Well, they now have switched back to the Clinton position. The whole flap is about trying to gain advantage over the other, not any real difference.

The people were there to listen to what his agenda is going to be if he is elected.

It's not at all clear the Urban League booed. And frankly, Democrats should take his message to heart, no matter who they support in the primaries. The 2008 election is not a guaranteed slam-dunk, and it would be better not to expend our energies attacking ourselves.



We've had two good people, Democratic candidates for president, who've spent their time attacking each other, instead of attacking the problems that this country faces

If a candidate can't handle booing, he/she shouldn't be in politics.

think. He's the thin-skinned aspirant in the 2008 race.

Did I say what about whom regarding TBA? I'm sorry, I don't even know what TBA is.

And I don't believe I'm obligated in any way to post on every subject that pops up.

If I do, you can read it. If I don't, maybe I can read you.

As for our Democrats' toughness, I think we do just fine, especially with this crop, and especially also with any of the more prominent unannounced possible candidates -- Hart, Clark, Gore, and so on.

Edwards, for being perceived as attacking two other dems, or the fight itself.

But gee, what a great opportunity to attack the candidate with a real anti-poverty program, and the only front-runner to have a viable universal health care program.

efforts.

members' presidential preferences? Do we even know they're all Democrats? How many who applauded for Dennis Kucinich believe he is likely to be the nominee in Denver? How many believe he will even be on the ticket in Denver? How many believe -- especially how many of the NE Ohio delegation there gathered -- believe Kucinich could win a state-wide race in his home state?

How many who are Democrats will bolt from the party and vote for Mitt Romney if their favorite is not nominated in Denver? How many will stay home and pout and not vote at all?

I wish my candidate had not been booed but I wish the same for Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich, who are intelligent men with little chance of becoming the nominee.

Beyond the bad form of those who booed, I'd ask a question of political expediency: Do you boo your head off at one of the 6 or 7 people who may become the next president and whose stewardship of that office will directly impact the people your organization wishes to represent and elevate?

Bad form and stupid politics.

He was received very warmly.

And I'm sure no poll has been done to guage Urban League members' political leanings. The National Urban League is a non-profit, non-partisan organization devoted to economic empowerment and civil rights for African-Americans. The political alignments of its members are irrelevant to that mission.

I was at the event. Edwards was a big hit. So were Kucinich and Clinton and Obama. The audience was very receptive and, in fact, excited to have them there. They gave them standing ovations.

This is a bogus claim. Don't fall for it.

Clarkent at MyDD was there and said this was bogus.

I've since discovered that Edwards was not booed.

That makes me growl and snarl at the OP.

And it reinforces many of the ponits others have made here.

Hi, Effie. Welcome to DU.

It's good to have a first-hand report.

Welcome to DU. :hi:

N79880...Flying for Obama

sorry, wrong spot ... but what's harm

applause, it would suggest at least the possibility, perhaps a good one, that members who generated that applause are apt to be disappointed once nomination time comes round in Denver.

I like Kucinich a lot. But I do not believe he will be our nominee.

are the runaway favorites of that group.

Sounds like someone's confused somewhere.

They liked what Kucinich had to say, but probably don't see him as electable. That doesn't mean they're disappointed in Obama or Hillary. From the sound of it, they like them quite a bit. I feel much the same.

a group of half a dozen or so people in the race with any realistic, white-knuckled, well-funded, poll-supported demographically-persuasive chance to be our next president.

Check my posts on DU in the archives. I'm supporting our candidate and our ticket, no matter what.

in public appearances. But that doesn't translate into voting support, for some reason. Everybody loves him, but...

U.S. citizens had greater critical thinking skills. Sadly we don't, and it impacts on a principled man like Kucinich.

I know lots of folks who are spread out in their loyalties to various individual 08 candidates who if you pressed them would prefer Dennis Kucinich. They're the kind of people who don't care how physically tall he is because to their credit they're measuring his very considerable height on principle and public service.

He's a good man.

Hillary or Obama would struggle to overcome even a weak puke candidate in November, with any stumble being a campaign killer. Demographics/negatives will be against them.

issues--besides the color of his skin?

I think he's better than Hillary, and he is very good at projecting his image and speaking passionately, but his voting record is very similar to hers and I think the GOP is well prepared to take on any DLC candidate - it's what they are expecting, which is why the media is pushing this as a Hillary/Obama race.

Just my theory.

And Edwards was actually in the DLC, as opposed to Obama who never was. So your "theory" is completely wrong.

Senators ever.

John Edwards saved a LOT of people from another term of Lauch Faircloth!

We all know how dumb red-staters can be. Can you imagine what the republicans would "unofficially" do to someone who's middle name is hussein?

I like Obama a lot, he's my second choice. But I think nominating him at the top of the ticket could be a disaster, only rivaled by nominating Hillary at the top. He'd be a great VP, and after 8 years under a Dem president, he would have enough substance and experience that the name calling and stereotyping won't be an issue. Right now, I just think there's problems, as ridiculous as they may be.

Not good enough to tell the black candidate to sit in the back of the bus.

I think Hillary knows how to handle hostile repukes at this point.


A Clinton/Edwards ticket might be the ticket.

about just about all of them.

I'm picking one for the stack here: Biden-Richardson -- and holding it out as an electoral college landslide for the blue team.

And there are several others.

Why won't she go ahead and announce? I'm curious about her strategy of holding onto the Exploratory phase instead of finalizing her announcement.

Edwards is generating the largest negatives in this forum IMO.

For some reason, I really can't stand him, but I could live with the rest of the candidates. I would have little enthusiasm for anyone but Kucinich though.

Also, Edwards made millions as a trial lawyer. This will be a big time negative in the GE.

Read the comments on the youtube "I feel pretty" video. Edward's generates huge negatives. He is the weakest candidate.

I won't be too surprised and I wouldn't blame her, either.

The polls don't support your claims and your bias is flooding your judgment.

Edwards runs consistently strong in many demographic categories against the whole field of RePukes.

Check those polls out and then get back to us.

And you might want to get an ice pack ready. Mrs. Edwards just pulled out of the driveway.

...that's your evidence that people have a negative opinion of him?

Give me a break. :eyes:

Those comments will be there in the GE and then some ten times.

That video has close to a million hits, and 2,000 comments.

...get a grip.

Even on this forum, where everyone is healthily democratic, I see Hillary getting trashed almost as bad as some repukes sometimes. Say what you will about JE's positions, but I think Hillary takes the cake in hatred. And that's just among democrats. Imagine the rapid republicans and how much THEY hate her. Look around before you say things from now on.

maybe the very worst reference to support an argument I've ever heard.

you might, instead, look at actual polls done by professionals, and find that the exact opposite of what you say is true.

<snip>

The four Democratic candidates were warmly received (none of the Republican primary candidates appeared), and the audience rose to its feet at the end of each presentation.

and <snip>

Similar to past debates, Rep. Dennis Kucinich -- who trails badly in the polls -- scored the most applause for his remarks, while former Sen. John Edwards stumbled into a round of audible "boos" when he criticized Obama and Clinton for their ongoing war of words over foreign policy.

"feud" is just plain silly. Edwards is right, go after the GOP, not each other.

That some people haven't drank the Edwards Kool-Aid just yet.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

the rest of the pack.

Polls are snapshots, and the season is still fairly new, but Edwards' support in Iowa has been steady and impressive.

From the past couple days' Taegan Goddard Political Wire (www.politicalwire.com):

_ _ _ _

A new Research 2000 poll in Iowa shows John Edwards still leading the Democratic presidential race with 27% support, followed by Sen. Hillary Clinton at 22%, Sen. Barack Obama at 16% and Gov. Bill Richardson at 11%.

On the GOP side, Mitt Romney leads with 25%, followed by Fred Thompson at 14%, Rudy Giuliani at 13% and Sen. John McCain at 10%.

_ _ _ _

Edwards has spent hundreds of hours there and millions of dollars

He should be much higher for all he has invested.

have placed his campaign apparatus and donor lists at the disposal of the candidate he was endorsing.

So far it hasn't.

Edwards' support in Iowa has been impressively steady and identifiably warm since his first appearances there in 2004. If you follow the op-ed pages of the Des Moines REGISTER you will be able to gauge the width and depth of his support.

Clinton outfunds the entire field. At this moment anyway, she's the one not getting much return on her investment in Iowa.

out ads, but turn on the nightly news and they still see Hillary/Obama, just like everyone else in the country.

How much does the MSM drill Hillary in to the brains of the electorate? I think that's as much or more than the time John has spent in Iowa

Which is worse? Losing national support or being booed by a few people in a crowd for calling for a different kind of politics?

From Rassmussen's tracking poll:

July 19

Clinton 35%
Obama 28%
Edwards 13%

July 26

Clinton 41%
Obama 23%
Edwards 15%

In one week Clinton gained 11 points on Obama and Edwards gained 7.

NH and SC? Just pack it in or what? It looks bad for him and Fl

is not polling well for him either

overwhelmingly on his strengths and not what they don't care for in other candidates. The media loves the HRC-BO spat. If it even IS a spat.

They're Senate colleagues, they're Democrats, they're surrounded by smart people, and they both know the Democratic nomination in Denver is very probably tantamount to a doorway into history, because the ReThugs are sending up a pack of ultra-right, incompetent dunderheads.

So there'll be some elbowing under the table. But once the IA - NH - SC caucus/primaries are decided, the pull will be Democrats versus Republicans. We'll have time to forge a ticket between late February or so and the Denver convention. The Republicans will still be stuck with their distinctly untalented field.

I'd say Edwards will concede after NH or SC, Obama after Super-Tuesday.

While JE has a slim lead in IA, He's got less than 15% of the vote in NV, FL, and NH. And he barely has a foothold in SC. JE has got to improve his standing there if he wants a real shot at the nom.

Try some new lies...

But most of the article was about Clinton and Obama. Not one word about what Kucinich said regarding any substantive issues.

using race as a political hammer

you seem to miss the part in the article (the next sentence) that states they gave all standing ovations after they spoke:

"The four Democratic candidates were warmly received (none of the Republican primary candidates appeared), and the audience rose to its feet at the end of each presentation."

You did that better than he ever did with your post there.

Bravo.

And welcome to DU.

Edwards has taken a strong stand against the neglect of poverty and the huge income disparities in modern America. That's an issue for any group that has suffered discrimination and poverty.

Their cat calls mean nothing at this point and the statement

"Good luck breaking into double-digits amongst any demo besides white males, John!"

does not reflect Edwards campaign, which began with the very unpopular theme of fighting poverty.

up one more time -- this paragraph from the original piece --


_ _ _ _

"The four Democratic candidates were warmly received (none of the Republican primary candidates appeared), and the audience rose to its feet at the end of each presentation."
_ _ _ _

Applause. Loud and long and standing. For our Democrats.

Go, team.

Honestly, why hasn't this thread been locked and how is it possible there are 6 people dumb enough to recommend it?

we may be the only thing standing between HRC and a failed GE?

I know many have their favorite (I don't -- I'm a Clarkie watching and listening and waiting), but if Corporate Press succeeds in handing us Clinton as the nominee, we're f'd. She will motivate the diminishing radical regressive vote like having a gay marriage ban on the ticket.

Make no mistake, HRC in the GE is their wildest dream -- not because they think she will be most like them, as some think -- but because she is a sure-fired guarantee they'll win not only the WH, but pick up Congressional seats as well.

I'm no JE fan, but this is very discouraging news.

Edwards said that Clinton and Obama should quit their bickering and the crowd booed Clinton and Obama for bickering (while some cheered Edwards for saying it).

Edwards said what he did or, as I noted earlier, "Oh, no you di-ent!" It was very good-natured.

Clinton and Obama followed and received loud applause and cheers, as well. No one was booed.