Wow, she is playing this very smart!
What she has said is far more effective than an endorsement of Hillary would have been.
Lmao, how can anyone argue that the right wing media would HATE to have a brokered convention and still maintain a straight face?
you know she'd lose a battle like that anyway, so you're really just arguing that the DLC should bomb our nominee and prevent their faction from losing control.
Posted by soullite at April 10, 2008 07:00 AMGood for Elizabeth. I was so angry when Nancy Pelosi weighed in with her dismissive waving off an Obama/Clinton/Clinton/Obama ticket. You know what it reminded me of? Her "impeachment is off the table" proclamation. How well did that serve us?
Pelosi has no credibility with me right now. Apparently she doesn't have much with the rest of the country either, given the approval ratings for Congress in the past year.
As for Dean, I'm not sure what's going on with him, but I find for the first time that I'm really disappointed with him and my trust in him is wavering after having strongly supported him and admired him for the last four years.
Posted by joanne leon at April 10, 2008 07:38 AMI still don't understand why people who don't like Obama think he'd make a great vice president? Certainly the intimation of this eriposte article is that MsEd likes Clinton better, so I'm assuming she figures Clinton as pres and Obama as vp. But why? Why aren't the Obama haters screaming bloody murder each and every time the "dream ticket" is mentioned? The dream ticket for Clintonites is Hill as pres, Bill as vp, isn't it?
Posted by T2 at April 10, 2008 07:45 AMT2, I agree. The idea of placing the loser of THIS race on the bottom as a way forward is a bunch of nonsense. What does it say that the 'dream' ticket might be neccessary to best old man McCain?
Posted by peter at April 10, 2008 07:55 AMI agree, Obama will not be a good VP; he'll be an even worse president. An open convention is not a caucus, Obama's people don't have an automatic win.
An open convention might address the most difficult problem facing the Democrats. Now, no matter how ridiculous McCain looks, he is going to win. The reason is simple. Whoever is the Democratic nominee, at least 10% of the supporters of the other candidate will not vote Democratic. An open convention can help heal the wounds.
Posted by Koshembos at April 10, 2008 08:01 AMOnce again, intelligent Elizabeth hits a home run. Sure wish she was going to be our First Lady. I have always respected her and if she is disappointed with Obama's health care plan, then I trust her enough to know his plan is not as encompassing as Hillary's, no matter what anyone claims.
"Glib and aloof" bothers me. Glib, showing little forethought or preparation, lacking depth and substance coming across as superficial,
marked by ease and fluency in speaking or writing often to the point of being insincere or deceitful. Don't we already have a glib politician in the WH?
eriposte does it again.
Any criticism of Ms. Edwards' kinda/sorta/maybe suggestion of perhaps a joint Clinton-Obama ticket must be a cruel attack on a woman with cancer.
Clinton already said that Obama is not competent to be a VP. There is no political reason for Obama to carry Clinton on his ticket.
Pelosi was right. Clinton herself eliminated the possibility of a joint ticket. Since she is not going to win the nomination that means she won't be running this fall.
Hey, eri, how about a nice long post on how Hillary didn't know that Mark Penn was a union-buster and didn't know his side jobs? I want to know how you're spinning that in your head.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at April 10, 2008 08:06 AMWhy aren't the Obama haters screaming bloody murder each and every time the "dream ticket" is mentioned?
Maybe because you have a fundimental misundestanding of those who think Clinton would be a better president than Obama so your perception that such people would be "screaming bloody murder" at the thought of an Obama vice presidency is a bit off the mark?
Posted by snark at April 10, 2008 08:22 AM"glib and aloof"...so was this Heileman guy in the meeting between Obama and Edwards? Isn't this "glib and aloof" simply someone's opinion or guess or second/third hand thought? Maybe Obama doesn't like Edwards, so what. Maybe Edwards doesn't like Obama, so what. I think eriposte needs to look at his first impression...unsubstantiated recycled gossip. Typical politics.
Posted by T2 at April 10, 2008 08:25 AMLeave it to Boob in Pacifica to try to change the subject when his candidate is criticized even slightly. You give Obama supporters a bad name, Boob.
Posted by hal b. at April 10, 2008 08:34 AMhey boob in pacifica...little nervous are we?
Posted by dennis at April 10, 2008 09:02 AMOr, you could take Elizabeth Edwards at her word that she was not endorsing either candidate, but instead endorsing the policy.
She said that not endorsing a candidate left her the freedom to focus on their particular policies. She said that she cared less about who the person was and more about the policies that the person put forward.
She said that she cared most about pointing out the differences between the Dems and McCain's "health care" plan.
It is my view that if Obama is our next president that the plan that comes forth will depend on the Congress and that we the People will be able to push the Congress towards what we want; and if we want mandates, then we can push that.
I think that the policies that each candidate is pushing is less important than the downticket Dems that they will bring with them to make certain that they are able to get their agendas through.
As for going all the way to the convention to settle this, that is just nuts.
Can you name a brokered convention where the candidate then went on to win in November?
If we give McCain all of these many months to define himself and continue to increase his popularity we are sure to lose come November. Especially if we look like a broken Party.
I have yet to hear or read any argument that convinces me that a brokered convention would be a good thing.
Posted by Anjha at April 10, 2008 09:03 AMA joint ticket:
The good: Some of BO's staunchest supporters AA who vote in the 80 to 90 percent would support the ticket in equal numbers.
The bad: The ticket is weak in that it would have two candidates with two very difficult handicaps, the gender and the race. It's a fact, some people will not vote for a woman or a black outright. In addition, there is regional-political desire to bring a state into the fold, like choosing the governor from OH, a state that went to Bush to change solidly for the Dems.
I think the bad outweighs the good. I would prefer that HRC or BO get a VP that makes sense.
Posted by Prabhata at April 10, 2008 09:04 AMHey, eri, how about a nice long post on how Hillary didn't know that Mark Penn was a union-buster and didn't know his side jobs...
Don't hold your breath. I'm waiting on the "Penn still being an adviser on her campaign and his firm still being her corporation of choice for her campaign" piece.
Leave it to Boob...
Damn the Clintonistas with all their sexism and misogyny during this campaign! What have they got against boobs? Of course, I can see why they are fearful. Boobs, like some gang members, tend to travel in pairs.
Will the usual suspects go after her now?
"That thar missus Ed-urds got herself one o them va-heenas! She cain't be trusted."
Is that what you're after? You don't want comments about the Clinton plan and her bold statements that corporate healthcare MUST make money from it? No tracking the donations to Clinton from major corporate healthcare providers? No? K.
Posted by phidipides at April 10, 2008 09:08 AMDid anyone see the latest Marist Poll of New York voters?
To say the least, and these are New York voters! Now having Rice on the ticket is not my idea of a "dream ticket".
Posted by peter at April 10, 2008 09:12 AMI don't see any fundamental misunderstanding snark. Why would strong Clinton supporters think Obama would be a good vp for her. I'd expect that is NOT what they'd see as a good idea. But yet it keeps popping up.
Posted by T2 at April 10, 2008 09:41 AMOne characteristic that I've never heard associated with Obama, but have heard attributed to Clinton is being a good listener. People who talk to Clinton in person are usually very favorably impressed with her passion, compassion, humor and her genuine interest in what they have to say. I haven't heard the same said about Obama, and it seems Edwards had the same reaction, though he already knew both of them personally.
Posted by CG at April 10, 2008 09:55 AMSpeaking as an administrator in a rural health clinic, I am voting for Hillary on the basis of her health care plan. I would have voted for Edwards on the same basis - Obama doesn't even come close. So when the pundits parse the lack of difference in their plans, they couldn't be further from the truth & the eventual impact on health care in our country.
Glad Elizabeth is promoting Hillary's plan over Obama's - as close to an endorsement as we will probably see from the Edwards' - though I believe an endorsement before the primary in NC
would be a huge benefit for Hillary.
So I guess it's too bad that John Edwards dropped out. He should be in there too, giving voters a choice right up until the convention.
Posted by kaleidescope at April 10, 2008 10:44 AMLove this line: "...she is also not yet convinced that The Chosen OneTM is really the best of the two Democratic candidates for President despite The MathTM. Good for her." Goptta love the Hillary-ites anti-democratic arguments. Yeah, our candidate lost in the process that they all agreed to in advance and so now the process must be bogus. Screw the will of the people. We know what is best for you. Talk about an elitist argument. Obama won fair and square and will be the nominee. Deal with it and get on board. Derisively calling him The Chosen One does nothing to help the collective cause in the Fall... but it does reveal much about the poster.
Posted by Patrick at April 10, 2008 10:57 AMPatrick: Kindly remember the voting hasn't ended yet. If after all the primaries Obama has indeed won, then fine. Until then, kindly refrain from spreading falsehoods. It reveals much about the poster, you know.
Posted by DoubtingThomas at April 10, 2008 11:03 AMpatrick..sounds like you're running scared..
Posted by dennis at April 10, 2008 11:21 AMElizabeth Edwards is a courageous, intelligent woman and I highly respect her opinion. I do, however, take issue with the following:
"I don't actually think it's a bad idea to have an open convention, where we actually got to hash out what the differences [between the candidates] were and how important they are," she said.
Perhaps Elizabeth hasn't been paying attention, but we've been holding a Democratic primary struggle for months now, and millions of voters have already "hashed out" the differences between the candidates, decided how important they are, and voted accordingly.
Isn't it kinda, uh, Un-Democratic to suggest that all that effort (and all those votes) by all those voters should now be discounted?
Posted by balthus at April 10, 2008 11:40 AMwhy don't we try counting all the votes..that would be democratic..
Posted by dennis at April 10, 2008 11:56 AMwhy don't we try counting all the votes..that would be democratic..
How about remembering the rules set forth by the Democratic Party in choosing a candidate!
It's the Delegates that decide the outcome!
and the super delegates just might do that..the rules say they can..she wins pa..and finishes stonger teh barack..won all the big states..they just might come to the conclusion..she is the better candidate..and vetted..rules say they can do it...those are some smart rules they put in there
Posted by dennis at April 10, 2008 12:04 PMBalthus,
Edwards wants a convention where the ISSUES are hashed out, and the party takes a strong stand on health care. Obama's vapor candidacy has robbed Democrats of the chance to hear a real debate on issues.
Yes, dennis they might... or as soon as Obama reaches 1675 in delegates, the 'supers' could all jump to his side and put this away once and for all.
come on..lotta hope and change coming our way..not sure what that means..but its coming
Posted by dennis at April 10, 2008 12:17 PMI would imagine the "Supers" being free of the Clinton's and their brand of k-street politics would be refreshing.
But this is just rehashing old shit, and I won't waste anymore time on it.
I'm ready to fight McCentury with whoever the Dem nominee is.
Posted by Seven of Six at April 10, 2008 12:42 PMAnd then the Obama wipeout starts. Did you read that Marist poll...that's New York! Without Clinton's name on the ballots other 'blue' states become tossups. States like New Jersey and Mass., Washington, Michigan, and Wisconcin. With Senator Obama leading the ticket, this race will rapidly put Republicans over 300 Electoral College votes, even approaching the Carter loss of 1980! Clinton name on top narrows the gap to something that could be as close as the 2000 contest.
Posted by peter at April 10, 2008 12:43 PMAnother reason Edwards should've stayed in: The rules allow automatic delegates (and even non-automatic, so-called "pledged" delegates) to vote for whoever they want when they get to the convention floor.
It's quite possible that between now and the convention, both Clinton and Obama could be caught in bed together along with a couple of live boys and dead girls. In which case, it's still possible that Edwards could be the nominee.
Edwards has almost as much a chance to win (and perhaps more, since as a white male is is more "electable" than either a woman or a black man) as Hillary does.
Edwards should get back into the race.
Posted by kaleidescope at April 10, 2008 12:44 PMI really think this is Edwards way of nudging Obama towards universal care.
We know John can't stand Hillary's stance on lobbying and kowtowing to big corp.
Posted by Seven of Six at April 10, 2008 12:59 PMi for one don't have a clue on how edwards feels about hillary or obama..what i do know is elizabeth gave hillary a very big hug..maybe john did too...barry's health care plan is not universal..he just says it is..
Posted by dennis at April 10, 2008 01:17 PMDennis, you're right, "those are some smart rules they put in there," so smart that I'd describe them as too smart.
The delegates don't go the way the majority went during the contests and Clinton gets the nod that way, I will not vote Democratic in the general election. And yes, this Michigan vote -- a swing state -- counts mightily, as much as any other registered voter. I'm sure a lot of other Democratic supporters of Obama feel the exact same way, too. McCain doesn't scare me after 8 years of Bush. If the Clintons want to wreck the Democratic party through her arrogance, then so be it.
But I'm not writing to make empty threats. This race is practically over now, and Clinton has lost. The super delegates aren't going to break toward Clinton. We're seeing more and more stories confirming that every day. They never were, either. She just had some high-profile endorsements early on. PA doesn't matter so much, it's not going to decide the whole race. Clinton will eek out a close win in PA, but she won't get much more delegates than a dozen or so more than Obama gets. The only thing PA will demonstrate is that Obama can compete anywhere just fine, while Clinton, who needed to demonstrate she could blow Obama out of the water, will be seen as struggling mightily to maintain once seemingly insurmountable leads. This is the same as every big race so far -- Super Tuesday, mini-Super Tuesday with Ohio and Texas, etc. Going from a 28-point lead to a 5-point lead in a matter of weeks doesn't demonstrate strength, Hillary supporters. That's what really bugs you, isn't it, Dennis?
Anyway, I'm not really here to "talk" about that, either.
I'm here to comment on Eriposte's article. Very interesting stuff, and funny stuff, too, particularly the update on why Edwards has not endorsed Obama.
If this update from Eriposte and NY Magazine is true, it's hilarious stuff. At this point, Obama doesn't need anyone's endorsement anymore but the voters. I'm not sure what Edwards' endorsement would mean to Hillary either at this point. Probably not a whole lot, and in all honesty as she was the clear leader for such a long time, I don't know that Edwards' endorsement ever would have made a difference for her. Think about it. The race is nearly over. And Edwards is still sitting on the fence vacillating. The longer Edwards has waited to endorse, the less his endorsement is worth, a lot less. At one time an endorsement from Edwards might have been worth an AG spot. Today? Maybe an ambassadorship to a stable and quiet, non-glamorous country or an assistant to a cabinet secretary spot. Edwards' endorsement probably reached its maximum value right after Super Tuesday and it would have been worth the most to Obama. Edwards could have gotten AG or maybe even a Supreme Court seat with that endorsement then. Instead, because Obama apparently didn't kiss Edwards' ass hard enough, according to Eriposte and NY Mag, Edwards has chosen to piss away his endorsement and will get effectively nothing for it if and when he chooses to endorse. LMAO!
Edwards' wife leaning toward Hillary on health care isn't a plus for Hillary, which is why, I'm sure, Hillary's campaign isn't out there trumpeting this as some small victory. No, Edwards' wife leaning toward Hillary on health care says a lot more about how badly Edwards plays politics and why he lost the race than it says anything about Hillary or Obama. It's a shame, too, because I probably would have voted for Edwards way back when if I had the opportunity to do so. I guess it worked out that I didn't have that opportunity, because honestly, a guy who plays it this badly isn't necessarily who you would want as president, and I say that with respect for Edwards. I liked Edwards a lot, but he apparently just doesn't understand how a lot of things work or doesn't care to know. Which is fine. But it does indicate a real lack of presidential material there. C'est la vie.
Posted by Brian Bell at April 10, 2008 01:30 PMI just don't get it. Since when Elizabeth has become such an authority that you all are falling head over heals on every word she has spoken. An open convention is asking for a disastor. Haven't Democrats learned from 1968?
Hillary supporters get it over. She cannot be the nominee. It is mathematically impossible. If she manages to do that thru Super delegates or open convention, we are looking at a landslide defeat in November.
Posted by suresh at April 10, 2008 01:34 PMdennis,
Being disabled, Baracks plan is much more in depth and inclusive.
Hillary's plan is based upon her effort for Universal Healthcare to be successful. And doesn't go near as far for the Veteran and jobs.
Posted by Seven of Six at April 10, 2008 01:38 PMAccording to a Democratic strategist unaligned with any campaign but with knowledge of the situation gleaned from all three camps....
In other words, the usual reliable, verifiable sources :-)
Brian Bell:
All I need to do is change four words in your post and then we agree completely:
The delegates don't go the way the voters went during the contests and Obama gets the nod that way, I will not vote Democratic in the general election. And yes, this Michigan vote -- a swing state -- counts mightily, as much as any other registered voter. I'm sure a lot of other Democratic supporters of Clinton feel the exact same way, too. McCain doesn't scare me after 8 years of Bush. If the Obamas want to wreck the Democratic party through their arrogance, then so be it.
Posted by at April 10, 2008 01:46 PMWhy would strong Clinton supporters think Obama would be a good vp for her. I'd expect that is NOT what they'd see as a good idea. But yet it keeps popping up.
Why would they not? You have affered no reason why a strong Clinton supporter would not want to see a Clinton/Obama ticket.
Posted by snark at April 10, 2008 02:14 PMAnonymous, whoever you are, here's the problem with what you are saying to me.
Obama leads in the popular vote in the Democratic contests held thus far.
Obama leads in total number of contests won in the Democratic contests held thus far.
Obama leads in the pledged delegates won in the Democratic contests held thus far.
If the delegates go the way the voters went during the contests, Obama wins.
If the delegates go the way the voters went during the contests, Hillary loses.
If the pledged delegates go the way they were won during democratic contests, Obama wins.
If the pledged delegates go the way they were won during democratic contests, Hillary loses.
The only way Hillary can win the nomination is if the super delegates ignore the results of all the democratic contests in this primary season thus far and if they ignore the popular vote, which has been for Obama, not Hillary.
So, anonymous, what you are saying is pretty much nonsense. If you want to stay home because Hillary doesn't get the nomination, feel free. But it won't be because she won the popular vote, which she has lost.
Posted by Brian Bell at April 10, 2008 02:20 PMBummer, thought we got rid of the racist/misogynist Bell. I guess there are people here you haven't offended yet, eh? Maybe you should go after gays next.
Posted by iamcoyote at April 10, 2008 02:24 PMAnd here I was hoping we got rid of you, Coyote. Way to slander me, too, you big liar.
Posted by Brian Bell at April 10, 2008 02:35 PMTo all you Hillary supporters like Anonymous;
In Democracy you deserve the government you vote in. If you guys decide to vote for McCain or not vote at all because Obama is the nominee, then do not complain about Iraq war going on and on and on. Do not complain about escalating cost of healtcare and more and more people not able to afford medical care, do not complain about environmental crisis in US and all over the world, do not complain that you kids cannot afford to go to colleges, do not complain that we have very large deficits and our economy is in trouble. I can go on and on but I am sure you get the point.
When you guys are going to understand that the situation we are in is due to last 7 yaers of the Republican administration? Do you want it to continue? If so then go ahead but don't complain about it for next 8 years.
By the way I do not understand about blaming Obama for breaking Democratic party. What he has done is run a campaign and won more votes than Hillary. Is'nt that the democratic way?
Posted by suresh at April 10, 2008 02:38 PMSo I guess it's too bad that John Edwards dropped out. He should be in there too, giving voters a choice right up until the convention.
kaleidescope, I agree and he was the only candidate I would have voted for and not held my nose.
brian bell..if only john edwards had your understanding of the world ..poor him..sounds like you're a little afraid of pennsylvania..as you should be..it will be the beginning of the end..for that great uniter with the silver tongue....lets chat after pa..when hillary "eeks out a win"..you lose a contest like pennsylvania..which is a microcosm of america..you lose that by 10 points..at this stage of the game..you got a problem..and you know what..you got a problem...she'll win by more than that
Posted by dennis at April 10, 2008 04:17 PMto the obama camp..you shall reap what you have sown..and it will be clearer then ever in pennsylvania
Posted by dennis at April 10, 2008 04:32 PMDennis, Hillary can win by 10 points, and it still won't matter. This contest is up. She lost it on Super Tuesday, and she's never regained it. I'm not afraid of PA. And tell me, Dennis, what specifically is wrong with my analysis of Edwards holding out his endorsement? Are you saying I'm wrong, that his endorsement is worth now what it was two months ago? That's silly. It's not.
Posted by Brian Bell at April 10, 2008 06:05 PMI find Hillary folks bizarre. To suggest there is anything greater than a 10% chance for Hillary to win the nomination is ludicrous and simply denies reality. You all cry and cry and cry, but the fact is that Obama has beaten Hillary fair and square in the system - however flawed - that was agreed to by all before they got going. Yes, there are ten or so contests left, but the math speaks for itself. You might not like that, but it is true.
As for whoever wrote that I am running scared, that is silly. I am just chillin' and waiting for the inevitable victory of Obama in the primary before we roll into the general, where I will reengage more vigorously. We are all just passing time right now... So, argue yourself to you are blue in the face Hillary-ites. Have at it. Enjoy! Perhaps you will even continue to convince yourself she has a shot. Whatever. The end is near... and nearer every day.
Then, hopefully, we can all join hands and turn our attention to defeating not only John McCain, but also as many other Republicans in Congress as possible so that President Obama has a strong majority in Congress to enable him to actually move forward a number of his proposals and begin to undo some of the very real damage of the Bush regime...
Posted by Patrick at April 10, 2008 07:03 PMWhereas in his Edwards sit-down, Obama dug himself in deeper, getting into a fight with Elizabeth about health care, insisting that his plan is universal (a position she considers a crock), high-handedly criticizing Clinton’s plan (and by extension Edwards’s) for its insurance mandate
If this is how he'd handle China and Russia, heaven help us. They will just laugh.However the DNC doesn't believe Obama will win the general election. It's enough for them that he keeps a Clinton from the White House. If the Dem elite keep thier Big, DC jobs, they would much rather a MaCain presidency,over a Clinton presidency.
I understand Kerry wants to run in 2012
This is really masterful work by Elizabeth Edwards. Without endorsing either Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama, she makes it clear that not only doesn't she buy the trite and wrong conventional wisdom of the corporate media and their appendages in the Obama campaign and blogosphere, she is also not yet convinced that The Chosen OneTM is really the best of the two Democratic candidates for President despite The MathTM. Good for her.
Is it possible to merely have an opinion and not dwell in either the Obama is God or Clinton is God camps? I have an increasing dislike of both groups.
Funny thing is that I don't remember any hooting and hollering about the "corporate media" or their "appendages in...the blogosphere" when that very same "corporate media" were busy twittering about her inevitability last Fall.
I will vote for either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama in November because either is light years better than Senator McCain. That vote will be cast with another ho-hum shrug though, just like my vote for John Kerry in 2004.
Posted by Patrick at April 11, 2008 01:10 PM