I have frequently wished we could schmush all the candidates together this year - like a doctored Photoshop collage, but for real - picking the best stuff from each and discarding the crap and baggage.
I agree about Edwards's teaching Obama and Clinton, but I wish Kucinich (for all his flaws) had been able to teach all three of the "front-runners" something about the issues.
Posted by Meteor Blades at January 9, 2008 01:58 PMThe subtext of this post: and, of course, Edwards will divide the anti-Hillary vote, ensuring victory for my prefered candidate, Hillary Clinton.
I think Edwards should take hike.
Posted by green heron at January 9, 2008 02:09 PMI don't like Edwards and his message. Everyone has some special interests. Some lobbyists lobby for causes I agree with. They're not inherently evil like he'd like you to believe. Same with corporations and corporate interests. It's not all bad. I prefer Obama's words--they get a place at the table, but they don't get to buy the table. Or something to that effect. Edwards just oozes vitriol toward corporations, lobbyist, Hillary Clinton, etc and it doesn't do anything for me.
Posted by CG at January 9, 2008 02:10 PM"The country needs Senator Edwards..." (to dilute the anti-Hillary vote).
This post is the drippiest bunch of treacle I've read today. HRC is a corporate, hawkish, right wing Democrat. She's as bland as stale flour. She'd step on your granny's neck to get a single vote. And John Edwards is helping her win. Edwards should take his ambulance chaser act back to his 25,000 square foot castle and rot.
Posted by green heron at January 9, 2008 02:15 PM...the anti-Hillary vote
Is that part of the "hopeful" Obama crowd?
Posted by snark at January 9, 2008 02:15 PMI dunno, but Geekesqe just did this same post on dKos, but his reasoning was that Edwards' support would move to Hillary, so keep him in as long as possible for Obama.
I believe Turkana's motives are a little less cynical and a lot more realistic.
For myself, I hope he stays in because it makes This picture endlessly funny...
Ah, snark, you just don't really know what "hope" means. Plus, you have no sense of humor...
Posted by iamcoyote at January 9, 2008 02:25 PMseems to me Edwards never had a chance, at least in the opinion of the Media. He was downgraded from the get-go and we all know who controls the Media at the Corporate level. It's easy to understand why they might have been anxious to get rid of him. For one thing, he already participated in a Presidential run on the Dem ticket - he knows the territory. Secondly, without him, the Dems are forced to run either a minority or a female candidate...the likes of which have never won the presidency before. Thirdly, maybe he actually means what he says regarding the cleanup of the filthy mess that passes for government these days (K street, Iraq war,etc). Fourthly, he gives a pretty damned good stump speech, speaking in complete, intelligent sentences unlike our current joke president. If I was the GOP hierarchy, I'd be happy to have him marginalized asap...which is just what happened. Now the GOP doesn't have to worry about running against another White Southern Man like the last Dem that beat them. I'd love Edwards to have a super strong showing in the southern primary coming up.
Posted by T2 at January 9, 2008 02:26 PMI agree. I have heard some of his populism seeping into the campaigns of both Clinton and Obama. That is a good thing. I don't think he'd be the most effective choice of presidents, but PUSH THAT WINDOW John!
BTW, I disagree with the assumption that Edwards is part of the anti-Hillary vote, and his support would all go to Obama.
People on the ground in NH are telling me that Hillary was the favorite of most of the Edwards people as a second choice. And her big lead in blue-collar votes would bear that out.
Posted by WMCB at January 9, 2008 02:44 PMmb- couldn't agree more. i'd particularly like if the candidates followed kucinich's lead on restoring the constitution, and exacting justice for constitutional crimes.
gh- you see what you want to see. i'd actually take edwards over hillary or obama.
Posted by Turkana at January 9, 2008 02:59 PMEdwards needs to be the next US Attorney General in Hillary's Administration.....
He needs to mend fences and work towards that goal.....
Posted by PaulB at January 9, 2008 03:15 PMEdwards needs to be the next US Attorney General in Hillary's Administration.....
That would be great. But my gawd, didn't you know... he's "a sexist prick".
Posted by Seven of Six at January 9, 2008 03:19 PMWell, whoever the candidate ends up being, they will have a huge GOoP vote suppression effort to deal with after the RATS (plus Kennedy) approve state photo ID requirements for voting this summer. This case was argued today and will have a massive effect on the election. I'd say there's no doubt that these Dem vote suppression laws will be upheld by the "Court".
It's sort of cute watching the various amicus curia present briefs demonstrating that Indiana had no evidence of vote fraud whatever when passing its ID law---as though such a thing would matter to the "conservative" activists masquerading as "judges" on the Supreme Court!
Every state with a Repub legislature will then pass one, probably a month before the election just to make sure the suppression is especially potent.
All the Repubs need to do is grind out one of their patented 50.5%ers (or less), and that's all they will shoot for. The 2008 election will turn (again) on things like minority voter suppression, and fraudulent absentee ballots, especially with Hillary as the nominee.
They're 5 moves ahead of us as usual. You've got to hand it to the GOoP--cheatin' pays!
Posted by at January 9, 2008 03:19 PMOops, that's me.
Posted by euzoius at January 9, 2008 03:22 PMI don't want to be grumpy, but I just spent part of my commute home listening to Fox News/NPR, Mara Lyison(sp?) and her snarky sidekick spewing the worst kind of conventional treacle and now I log in to find Edwards is toast as a main thread topic.
For the record, less than 750,000 Democrats and "independents" have voted, so far, for the Dem lineup. The results: Obama - 25 delegates, Clinton - 44 delegates and Edwards - 18 delegates. Neither Iowa or New Hampshire could ever be described as a broad cross-section of America.
Regarding both Democrats and Republican races, Mara's major comment tended to be, "I just don't see how Candidate X can survive if S/he doesn't win in State Y next week." If They don't win soon, (unsourced) PRESSURE will brought to bear for them to drop out"
Now I can see that monetary pressure can be powerful. How her unnamed pressurers, the traditional Republican Some people saying I suppose, are going to put pressure seems a bit vague. WHO will be pressuring them to retire? Their paid advisors? Their supporters? Or is it perhaps, the yammering class of the corporate media?
Given that just 6 weeks ago, McCain was being fitted for a coffin and Huck was good for a chuckle and 1% Fred was a dangerous presence looming for the unquestioned front runners, The Mittster and the Man Who Would be Don, I simply will not accept and didactic statements about whose supporters will go to whom and who's finished and who's not!
As for King/Queen makers, if Richardson, against all expectation stayed in and came to the convention with 5 or 6% of the delegates, perhaps that would be enough.
It's just too early for certainty, folks. Besides, for those who calculate that Edwards may continue through all the races so he can bargain with "the winner" is assuming a lot. John already had the pleasure of campaigning under the domination of a rival he'd hoped to beat. He had to take orders from that man's campaign staffers, many of whom I imagine, he rightly despised. And most importantly, he had to swallow his bile, when that man pulled the rug out from all of us in an instant capitulation, without consulting his No. 2, partner. I don't see him EVER wanting to go through that again. If you want to be President of the United States, what do you bargain for to give that up?
Frankly, the blogosphere does not have a much better record of predicting events this election cycle than the media whores. I'm just getting tired of all the toast being served before the toaster is even plugged in. After hearing it from all the corporate stooges, I just get a little testy. In less than a month, it WILL be finished, or still too close to call. Not YET!
Posted by DeminNewJ at January 9, 2008 03:32 PMWhoops! Clinton - 24 delegates. Curse those flying fickle fingers of haste.
Posted by DeminNewJ at January 9, 2008 03:35 PMDeminNJ, Edwards?..who's he? Oh you mean the guy with the 400 dollar haircut?...(me channeling the msm/pundit world).
Media Coverage of Edwards, or I should say lack thereof, is another reason for why we need a new process and media.
Posted by emal at January 9, 2008 04:33 PMYou're preaching to the choir on the and ESPECIALLY the media, emal.
Another whoops. Forget about my comment on Richardson. It seems he just withdrew. Sigh!
Posted by DeminNewJ at January 9, 2008 04:44 PMYou're preaching to the choir on the process and ESPECIALLY the media, emal.
Another whoops. Forget about my comment on Richardson. It seems he just withdrew. Sigh!
Posted by DeminNewJ at January 9, 2008 04:44 PMdammit, dammit, dammit!
Edwards should stay in because he would be a great president. I am not being facetious.
First of all the media has been making this a two person race for months and months. Obama vs Clinton, Clinton vs Obama - blech.
Edwards beats all wingnuts when placed head to head against the GOP hacks. (As does Obama.)
The MSM does not want Edwards because he really will work to break up corporate monopolies - including MSM.
I believe that if Edwards were to be given any media coverage polls would be split between the three of them.
Second of all, I have watched them all endlessly - as many stumps as possible and Q&As and reading, etc. I feel that Edwards and Obama can reach more of the people than call Hillary. I also feel that either of them has a much greater chance of winning the general than Hillary at a larger margin.
As for NH - why is everyone asking "why were the polls wrong?" instead of "why were the votes wrong?"
This is slipping right by the MSM - I thought that we had all planned to make certain that we won the general by such a huge margin that it would be impossible for them to steal it."
I am deeply concerned that we are being set up either for a must run Hillary or to become numb to polls being off, or both.
I am not comfortable with any of this.
Brad Blog has more, including an excellent link to a site tallying the vote percentages when hand count compares to machine count.
One thing is for damn sure. If Edwards is the nominee and there is a question of election fraud - he will fight it to the bitter end. At this point that might be his greatest asset.
Posted by Anjha at January 9, 2008 05:15 PMPS - disclaimer, I am an Edwards and Obama supporter.
Posted by Anjha at January 9, 2008 05:21 PMAnjha, Nice of you to stop by. As always, clear, concise, and correct.
Posted by Seven of Six at January 9, 2008 05:26 PMThe NH polls being so far "wrong" (apparently....) will be another benefit to the GOoP in their (certain) voting scams for 2008. Very unfortunate, that the NHites were so volatile, if that is indeed the explanation. (That's now the current story.)
We'll conveniently have nothing to rely on anymore as a nation when the stench of 100 electoral rats is detected in future.....it will just become the ordinary and routime "smell" of elections in BushAmerica.
Posted by euzoius at January 9, 2008 05:27 PMAs for NH - why is everyone asking "why were the polls wrong?" instead of "why were the votes wrong?"
Anjha, welcome back. Miss seeing your posts.
Great question. The poles were wrong, according to NBC because people lie in exit poles. Of course, no one ever explains why people would lie. What's the payoff for lying?
"I am deeply concerned that we are being set up either for a must run Hillary or to become numb to polls being off, or both."
Bingo.
"No, I will not run for president, but I will speak out to try to get people to really focus on the issues and to get rid of partisanship and special interests."
Translation: Bloomberg will hire a PR and advertising firm to interview his five friends who will demand that Mike allow himslef to be drafted for the good of the nation. He will then test the waters with about $150 million of his own money to see if he can get access to the ballot in enough states to matter.
Why? Because Mike is opposed to partisanship and special interests. Also, he has money to burn. You gotta love someone who has that much public spirit and who is that unselfish. Mike will run, he will get about six percent of the popular vote mostly at the expense of Democrats, and he will not carry a single state. But, like Ralph Nader, he will help Republicans keep Florida and Ohio.
Sorry, I meant to comment on Bloomberg running. I keep seeing articles that he will announce a change of heart in February. Does anyone else consider this a valid assessment about Bloomberg?
Posted by Judith at January 9, 2008 06:33 PMJudith:
"I am deeply concerned that we are being set up either for a must run Hillary or to become numb to polls being off, or both."
Bingo.
Judith, I like you a lot, but I must respectfully disagree on this one. I've seen very little real evidence of vote fraud - and I know it's only been 24 hours since the polls closed in NH. But simply pointing at the exit polls as the single piece of evidence just doesn't wash. I'm prepared to believe vote fraud in 2004 in Ohio because of several factors - the exit poll information is just piece.
Hell, even New Hampshire's Secretary of State is a Democrat, and has been in his job since 1976!
On the flip side, I can believe what's being passed around as the Anti-Muskie effect - even my hardened wife who has despised Hillary admitted last night that she would have voted for Sen. Clinton that night because of the cruel treatment she's gotten in the press over that film clip.
Posted by idiosynchronic at January 9, 2008 06:44 PMYay Anjha! Glad to see you jump in - nice post! I'm not as concerned about Hillary as you are, but I agree also that it would be a 3 way dead heat if Edwards hadn't been deliberately ignored by the media - and a lot of the blogs, frankly, which is odd, because I see a lot of support for him everywhere. Is it he has a lack of organization on the intertoobz? Maybe the Amanda Marcotte incident turned people off, which is mentioned a lot? Like a lot of bloggers, I was pretty disappointed in him when he joined Obama in bringing up Social Security in "crisis" bs a while back. I don't watch the news channels much, does he run fewer ads?
In any case, Edwards announced he wasn't dropping out, so it's moot. Good. All this talk of anyone dropping out is way too premature; they're all determined to go all the way to Denver, so let 'em. For once, maybe everyone will get a chance to have their vote count in the primary instead of having the early states do the choosing for us.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 9, 2008 06:44 PMJudith:
"I am deeply concerned that we are being set up either for a must run Hillary or to become numb to polls being off, or both."
"I must respectfully disagree on this one. I've seen very little real evidence of vote fraud."
Idio, I'm wasn't talking about voter fraud and I didn't take Anjhi's remark as such either, but I could be wrong. From the beginning the MSM has done everything within their power to give Hillary and Obama continual exposure in the media, exclusively. I wish Edwards would have had the same exposure, other than articles about his $400 haircut. In other words, I sometimes get a chill down my back that I am being
manipulated.
Oh, and you can always disagree with me Idio. It's just how some people choose to disagree that irritates me. You have always shown me respect and I appreciate that, even when we disagree.
I apologise Judith.
Sincerely.
Posted by snark at January 9, 2008 08:00 PMOh, and I'd lie to an exit poller in a second just because of them being 'all up in my grill' trying to figure out who won before the damn polls are even closed.
Posted by snark at January 9, 2008 08:03 PMAccepted Snark. I guess you are right come to think of it. Perhaps people don't think it is anyone's business who they voted for. I remember a time when you would not have thought to ask someone that question because it was considered too personal.
Posted by Judith at January 9, 2008 08:16 PMObama fans complaining about Edwards? Buncha whiners. If your guy can't take on the competition, you could blame Nader, global warming, or venereal warts for all I care. Barack would be so proud of your unity theme.
On a dollar-per vote basis, Edwards and McCain are clearly the most cost effective. People said he couldn't afford to stay competitive but it's Barack and Hillary running out of dough, already blowing through 80 freaking million apiece on just two states!
They spend like Republicans.
Don't like Edwards' anti-corporate message? Of course he's not talking about all biz! He's talking about the ones who own the federal govt.... defense contractors, oil, pharmas, insurance, finance .... the ones that control and cost us all with their deadly greed.
I have no huge quarrel with Obama but some of his supporters lately act like adolescents.
Posted by Kevin Hayden at January 10, 2008 01:52 AMEdwards IS Nader--a guy who can't win, running for the sake of his ego, damaging another candidate's chances. Hit the road Johnny!
Posted by green heron at January 10, 2008 10:30 AMguess green shit heron is the new concern troll
The smart thing for Obama to do is say that he would have Edwards as his VP (with some REAL power, but not like Darth Cheney)
Posted by Gay Veteran at January 10, 2008 12:07 PMDon't like Edwards' anti-corporate message? Of course he's not talking about all biz! He's talking about the ones who own the federal govt.... defense contractors, oil, pharmas, insurance, finance .... the ones that control and cost us all with their deadly greed.
He hasn't done a good job of making that clear.
Posted by eRobin at January 10, 2008 09:08 PM