The way the question is asked leaves wiggle room for an "I fully expect to support the Democratic nominee, and I fully expect to be the Democratic nominee" answer. A better, albeit compound question would be "Given the current field of Democratic candidates, do you foresee circumstances where you would not support the Democratic nominee, and if so, what are those circumstances?"

I'll be blunt:

I'll never vote for the pathalogical Hillary for any office.

Like that answer better?

Well, here's the thing, e. That is what Hillary is, a lobbyist funded, corporate loving, DLC apparatchik.

That was the only way to play the game in 2000. Things are not the same in 2008.

As many people pointed out on your refrenced thread, the main thing that Edwards is trying to break through is the media frame that it's Hillary Clinton, and everybody else. Without, of course, presenting an examination of her record or stances on the issues with any depth.

If I were Edwards I would have asked the reporter why they were asking that question in the first place. Has there been any examples of actions or behaviors on the campaign trail that would suggest that John Edwards would not support the Democratic nominee, regardless of who that is?

I don't think so, and challenging her in debates certainly is not an example of such.

It is a standard political question, which often comes with a standard answer.

So why even ask it, it adds nothing to the campaigns, it's just meant to frame something or try to getcha a candidate.

The other difference between Bradley/Gore and Edwards/Clinton/Biden/Obama/Dodd/Kucinich/Richardson/Gravel is, umm, well, er, Kucinich/Obama/Dodd//Richardson/Biden/Gravel.

And Bush and Gore were indeed the political machine candidates, but if the media had bothered to do journalism instead of sporting events, that comment about not bringing anything new and different to the table would have been exposed as absurd. Like I said, that was how you financed a political campaing in 2000.

And I have to ask, where does this bit about Bradley supporters hating Gore match up with Edwards supporters hating Hillary? Is that what you talked about in the earlier post? Because a DKos diarist challenged her? Because Edwards suggested that maybe Hillary shouldn't be going down the planted question road, because it's reall easy to go from there to hand picked audiences and so on?

Sorry e, I don't buy your comparisons at all, mainly your attempts to disparage John Edwards. Bill Bradley did not do shit for Al Gore during the campaign. I don't see that of John Edwards because I don't see that assholishness that Bradley demonstrated throughout that campaign. A couple of comments, perfectly valid to me, does not a mountain make.

Duckman,

You said:

Without, of course, presenting an examination of her record or stances on the issues with any depth.

You know, we share this complaint. I actually want to see Hillary's record, Edwards' record, Obama's record, and so on, discussed freely and publicized freely. The problem so far is few people are actually talking about the actual records - especially voting records and positions. Most of what I see discussed is what the candidates are saying *today* in their attempt to win votes. And even there, there is not a whole lot about whether their claims (on their policies, positions, attacks against others) are true or not. It's mostly about whether the claims are effective or not in the political campaign. That's what Krugman has been observing as well.

As an example, I would love a substantive debate on Iran and Iraq and I would love for debate moderators to ask Obama and Edwards why they are different given they voted just like Hillary in Congress and have said virtually the exact same things on Iraq and Iran (outside of slight nuances). I would love someone to challenge those calling Hillary a "corporate Democrat" to show the difference between her votes on corporate issues and Obama's and Edwards' votes on the same issues. I'd love to see their votes on judicial nominations compared. And so on. Hardly any of this is happening in the media. Which is why I've spent the time I don't have to do that kind of analysis and publish it here.

What is disappointing is that when a Democrat is attacked and a progressive such as myself does some analysis to show why the attack is misleading or wrong, I'm painted as "disparaging" the person doing the attacking. The only people "disparaging" the candidates are the candidates themselves, through their own behaviors. They are responsible for their words and actions and just because I'm highlighting what they said, it doesn't mean I'm the one doing the "disparaging". Their words and actions speak for themselves.

BTW, Duckman, what concerns me most about Edwards is not his attacks on Hillary (at the end of the day this is part of politics). I will of course wholeheartedly support him if he is the Democratic nominee. What concerns me about Edwards is his rhetoric - which seems to suggest that the President of the United States can get whatever he wants if he just insists on it and crams it down the throat of those who disagree. This is not the way to bring about change in the country. The President doesn't make laws - he executes on them and enforces them. Congress makes laws. Edwards can't be successful if he is not able to convince Congress to go along with his ideas. Believe me, Congress is not a bunch of doormats who will do what Edwards demands, when the music they have to face is 24-hr Faux News, Rush Limbaugh, CNN and every other media outlet denouncing them for their "liberal" agenda.

I'm very much an idealist and I like idealists like Edwards, but we're supposed to elect someone who demonstrates the ability to not just *say* nice things but also demonstrates that he or she can actually *deliver* on those things once in office in the midst of a hostile media environment and a Congress that is perpetually afraid of that environment. It is easy for Republicans to say what they want and deliver because they have created the right-wing infrastructure and media landscape that makes it easy for them to deliver. The situation is quite the opposite for Democrats, as Eliot Spitzer - another one of my favorites (who I hope will run for President some day) - is discovering in NY state.

I think we should have a good debate -- but not on who has the best rhetoric. Spitzer had the best rhetoric and his approval rating is now in the tank and he's struggling. I think he's smart and he'll figure out that you can't will your way to good governance and you can't force your way to good policy.

E, I don't think I'm attacking you, just disagreeing. I just don't see what you're claiming from Edwards.

As for the first part, clearly, our news media lacks, in general, any journalistic integrity or ability in their reporting on the campaigns. I just wish the candidates themselves would show some leadership and not meekly accede to the demands of the media during the debates and so on. They should have ganged up on Blitzer and Malveaux, and Russert and Mathews before that, and just had their debate and given Wolfie the big middle finger, what would CNN have done, gone off to commercial? Had Blitzer shouting down the candidates for 2 hours?

The candidates need to start asserting themselves with the media, and remind everybody that the ratings for Fat Timmeh or Leslie Blitzer are of no import or relevence whatsoever.

Ah, well, a guy can dream anyway.