Obama Attacks Edwards — Cites Ex-Aide Behind 527 Ads
Barack Obama is now going after John Edwards on campaign finance, specifically regarding the involvement of a former Edwards aide, 2004 campaign manager Nick Baldick, in the independent 527 ads on the candidate's behalf in Iowa.
Edwards has publicly distanced himself from the third-party ads but says that he cannot directly order them to stop because it would be illegal for him to coordinate directly. An example is this New Hampshire appearance from Wednesday:
More after the jump.
Obama's not buying the explanation, though. "The individual who is running the group used to be John Edwards campaign manager," he told an Iowa crowd. "So you can't say yesterday you don't believe in them and today you have three-quarters of a millions dollars being spent for you. You can't just talk the talk. The easiest thing in the world is to talk about change during election time."
Edwards responded in a statement to Ben Smith:
Sen. Obama's attacks seem to increase as momentum for our campaign grows. The truth is I am the only candidate in this race who has never taken a dime of PAC or Washington lobbyist money — ever. And, it's why I support public financing of federal elections.As for outside groups, unfortunately, you can't control them, but let me make it clear: I think money has corrupted our politics and these groups should not be a part of the political process.
Of course, if Sen. Obama is serious about real change, I hope he and Sen. Clinton will finally end their silence and join with me in calling on the Democratic Party to end the influence of Washington lobbyists by once and for all rejecting their money.
Comments (65)
AJ wrote on December 22, 2007 4:18 PM:Definite validation that the internals don't looks so good in Chicago. Obama seems to be unilaterally disarming for the general election, disavowing any labor help or that of environmental groups. That's bad move for Democrats.
It also undercuts all of the Edwards can't compete talking points they spent the last week schilling.
John wrote on December 22, 2007 4:29 PM:Obama is probably somewhat nervous about Edwards, that's probably true.
Also in fairness, Edwards in the Senate wasn't anything like the populist firebrand you see today. That's a fair "talk the talk" charge to make. And the 527 issue is a good bridging example to emphasize that argument that they want to hit.
Bill R. wrote on December 22, 2007 4:37 PM:Good for Edwards! I'm glad there is some 527 action out there on his behalf. That's what will save him in the General. If he's a convert to being a true progressive populist, then good for him! Better late than never. He must be doing well in polling in Iowa or Obama wouldn't be after him.
john mccutchen wrote on December 22, 2007 4:39 PM:Powerful evidence that No 3 in Iowa belongs to Mrs. Bill
john mccutchen wrote on December 22, 2007 4:40 PM:Edwards's response didn't dispute the substance of Obama's charge did it?
john mccutchen wrote on December 22, 2007 4:42 PM:John Edwards has been running for president since 2003 (Hillary since 2000 or perhaps 1998 when she found out about Monica)
Perhaps he is a threat to win Iowa..good for him..Anybody But Clinton
The question remains though, having run since 2003 why does he only manage 13% support in South Carolina, the state of his birth?
What I want to know is, are the 527 ads simply supporting Edwards as the best candidate for change (or some message like that) or are they attacks against Obama and Hillary?
If it is the former, I don't get why Obama's team would even make an issue of it.
TomJ wrote on December 22, 2007 5:04 PM:I think I know the answer to the question, "Why does [Edwards] only manage 13% support in South Carolina, the state of his birth?" I was born in SC and still have relatives there. It is one of the most conservatives states in the deep South; having a progressive thought is anathema to them. It's one of the main reasons I only go back there under duress.
taraka das wrote on December 22, 2007 5:10 PM:The best thing that could happen:
John Edwards rejects corporate money, he gets the nomination, and all the corporate money goes to the Republicans.
Then, Republicans spend all that money, AND LOSE.
Don't think it could happen?
Similar things HAVE happened. Possession of money doesn't alter reality, contrary to what the neocons believe.
Rooktoven wrote on December 22, 2007 5:16 PM:Obama sees third place staring him in the face. How much has he spent in Iowa, anyway? I'd like to know how much third place costs.
Anonymous wrote on December 22, 2007 5:27 PM:Eric Kleefeld and TPM/EC should be cautious. Their effots to promote Hillary by unfair reporting on the other Democratic candidates is quickly becoming biased propoganda.
The NYT report begins: "Senator Barack Obama called on his rival, John Edwards, to distance himself from outside groups that are gearing up to run television ads to promote his candidacy, saying here today: 'You can’t just talk the talk.'
Eric, of course, spins that into the headline "Obama Attacks Edwards", a major distortion. Candidates challenge each other all day every day. An "attack" is unfounded, highly aggressive, intent on doing damage. A request to a rival to distance themselves from questionable circumvention of campaign finance regultions is not an "attack."
Change your name to Hillary Talking Points Memo or try to be fair.
Concerned in Iowa wrote on December 22, 2007 5:32 PM:All the buzz I hear is Edwards, Obama and then Hillary a weak third. She is sinking fast, and Bill is hurting not helping (which may be some Freudian ego thing).
James Wilton wrote on December 22, 2007 5:40 PM:I need it was only a matter of time before Obama went negative, too. His pretending to be above the negative belies a certain arrogance and disengenuousness I've noticed in his character which makes me really not like him.
shoephone wrote on December 22, 2007 5:46 PM:"What I want to know is, are the 527 ads simply supporting Edwards as the best candidate for change (or some message like that) or are they attacks against Obama and Hillary?
If it is the former, I don't get why Obama's team would even make an issue of it."
I would like to know the same thing, but we're not getting the whole story from TPM. Sad. This place used to be my first stop on the web.
If the 527 ads aren't negatively going after Obama, then "there is no there there" to Obama's argument.
So, what's the deal TPM? Will you give the rest of the story?
freerider wrote on December 22, 2007 5:59 PM:Obama never said you shouldn't use 527's. He called Edwards out because Edwards said that he didn't think 527's should be advertising then has his former campaign adviser start a 527 to advertise on his behalf. That's being hypocritical.
Obama says he loves labor, wants to use labor, etc. and doesn't object to 527's. He's pointing out how Edwards is saying one thing and doing another.
someone wrote on December 22, 2007 6:03 PM:This place used to be my first stop on the web.
Me too.
When they changed the comment system, it all went downhill.
I still come here because it fun to see all the spin, and Clinton camp at work.
There are some folks here that have good comments also.
Radha wrote on December 22, 2007 7:02 PM:Me three. I used to love this site too, until they became a campaign extension (and by extension, they are cheer-lead for Edwards when Hillary is not involved)...
This place used to be my first stop on the web.Joe wrote on December 22, 2007 7:06 PM:
As to the comment from the person from SC, by chance, I know someone from the state. She has been a long time Edwards supporter and isn't merely a voice crying out in the wilderness. A minority voice, perhaps, but the there is some hope all the same.
code_404 wrote on December 22, 2007 7:32 PM:I've really been disappointed in TPM lately. It's not even just the general bias to any one candidate but all stories seem to be spun for maximum scandal and drama rather than accuracy.
Mild criticism becomes X ATTACKS, Minor changes in a campaign and we'd get IS Z ON THE ROPES? or something equally over the top. A single poll is Y HAS JUMPED AHEAD, only for another single poll (a mere hour or two later) to say Z AND Y ARE TIED! Each treated as some major note worthy event rather than any sort of accurate assessment of the value of the story and reasonable presentation.
We used to get reasonable headlines an insightful INFORMED commentary even if only a few lines.
Muckrakers isn't supposed to be literal is it? Is TPM just a tabloid for political junkies or an actual source of quality journalism. I know which of the two it's been lately and I'm not alone in that.
Greg DeLassus wrote on December 22, 2007 7:49 PM:I agree with Anonymous at 5:27 that "Obama attacks Edwards" would not be the headline that I would employ to summarize the linked story. That said, I think that Sen Obama was ill advised to take this tact. It would be bad if Obama and Edwards were to break into a fight that leaves things open for Clinton.
Billy wrote on December 22, 2007 7:59 PM:Obama's just hating because Edwards got labor nods and he didn't. Now Obama is trying to push back against the mobilization of labor dollars. Pretty weak sauce.
Allan wrote on December 22, 2007 8:24 PM:This from an ABC story tonight:
And a mailing from the giant union AFSCME, which supports Clinton, assails Obama's health care plan — but makes it look like the flier is from Edwards, a crafty way to attack Obama and have Edwards take the heat for it.
Is Karl Rove working for Clinton?
Alan Snipes wrote on December 22, 2007 8:34 PM:I'm shocked ! Saint Obama attacking someone! I thought only the evil Hillary attacked opponents!
Ruth wrote on December 22, 2007 8:47 PM:The headline is truly odd.
Obama is raising issue with the 527s now (and not before) because the 527s weren't attacking him before, but they are now. The timing here seems pretty simple, despite the fact that the Edwards campaign wants to spin it into their "momentum" theme.
kozmik wrote on December 22, 2007 9:15 PM:What a bummer to see Edwards doing this. He doesn't even condemn it or demand the ads be taken off the air. He just says he can't do anything about it, which is silly considering he's not even trying. A rather situationally convenient time to go soft on the issue.
...
It's not an "attack" to point out someone is being a hypocrite and trying to have it both pays. That's called standing up for the truth, and not being a pushover.
People can decide for them self if Edwards is suddenly going weak on 527's when it suits him, and contradicting one of his major campaign planks.
It's pretty obvious if you ask me. How long is he going to let them play before calling for them to be pulled?
kozmik wrote on December 22, 2007 9:29 PM:On Edward's chances:
Some people in this thread, no doubt Hillary or Edwards supporters, are saying "Obama must be worried about Edwards" and such.
Look at the polls. Edwards is in a fairly distant 3rd place in upcoming primaries, and has been for along time. His positive vector has never exceeded Obama, so it's unlikely he'll catch up. Meaning, his chance to win is pretty slim. That also means, there is a good chance he drops out very soon if he's can't win a primary. Also, keep in mind that while Edwards is great in many ways, he still lost the Dem Primary to Kerry in 2004.
From Obama's perspective, he's very likely going to get more Edwards voters than Clinton, now or later.
So, considering Edwards is being a hypocrite on this, why not call him on it? I think it's fair and reasonable. He's not getting personal or making character assassination. But if someone suddenly forgets a major campaign plank when it suits them, come on, you have to call them on it.
kozmik wrote on December 22, 2007 9:32 PM:"Obama is raising issue with the 527s now (and not before) because the 527s weren't attacking him before, but they are now. "
Nonsense. Hillary has been using 527 for her campaign strategy all along. But Obama never complained about her 527 on principle becasue she never pledged not to.
Edwards has been talking all along how against that stuff he is, and how he's never taken a dime, but now he'd got his old campaign manager raking in the bucks and spendign them on ads, like a proxy, and Edwards just says he can't do anything, or even condemn them and call fr them to be pulled?
Come on. That's phony.
Anonymous wrote on December 22, 2007 9:36 PM:To the Obama supporters:
Quit being so cynical!
If Edwards wins Iowa Obama is finished and Hillary will win the nomination.
Anonymous wrote on December 22, 2007 9:42 PM:Hopefully Edwards wakes up and realize what a fraud Obama is and also fires that idiot Joe Trippi who is in bed with Axelrod.
kozmik wrote on December 22, 2007 9:47 PM:"Quit being so cynical!"
Cynical? It's called realistic and factual.
It's Edward's old campaign manager. He's spending a ton of money for Edwards. Edwards didn't even condemn them or called for the ads to be pulled. Those are the facts.
It takes blinders to miss the hypocrisy there.
shoephone wrote on December 22, 2007 9:47 PM:"Obama never said you shouldn't use 527's. He called Edwards out because Edwards said that he didn't think 527's should be advertising then has his former campaign adviser start a 527 to advertise on his behalf. That's being hypocritical."
You make it sound as though Edwards instructed his former advisor to do the 527, like it was planned all along. I don't get the idea that's what's happened at all.
But as an Edwards supporter, I'll concede it may win him some votes if he's more critical of the 527.
Edwards still has more union support than Edwards, for obvious reasons.
Edwards isn't going to win Iowa or NH. He's several points behind, and just betrayed his principals. The diehard fans may ignore then hypocrisy, but he's not going to pick up new votes that way.
Anonymous wrote on December 22, 2007 9:55 PM:Why is Obama being so cynical? We are all Democrats.
kozmik wrote on December 22, 2007 9:55 PM:Come on, it's his old campaign manager running a 527 and raising big bucks for him and has been for months. You think he didn't hear about it?
Even if it wasn't planned, it's certainly being tolerated awfully well by him. I don't see any of the Edwards outrage that his old campaign manager is betraying the principles he's been campaigning on.
Come on, you can take the money and the ads and still be for reform and explain how crooked the system is, or you can not take it and run on the moral high ground. But don't be a hypocrite about it.
At the least Edwards should have demanded the ads be pulled, and been outraged. If one of his opponents did this after claiming to be a saint, you know he'd be all over it.
Anonymous wrote on December 22, 2007 9:59 PM:This cynicism has to stop. Hillary is a good person, John is a good person, and Barack is a good person. May the best candidate win. We need to give the people hope- not more cynicism.
Jane wrote on December 22, 2007 10:08 PM:Edwards is acknowledging the obvious: he cannot control a 527 which has its own interests whether or not it is run by a former staffer. What would be cynical is to offer objections -- whether phony or heartfelt -- which have absolutely no chance of being effective.
Obama is despearately trying to pick up some Edwards voters on the first round but probably losing them on the second.
shoephone wrote on December 22, 2007 10:20 PM:Kozmik -
What Jane said.
One thing I've noticed on a lot of sites is that both the HRC and the Obama supporters come off as so vitriolic and they state unequivocally that they will not vote for ANYONE but their candidate.
As much as I prefer Edwards over either of the other two, I will support whoever (whomever?) the nominee is.
Weird, huh?
Jackie Mac wrote on December 22, 2007 10:55 PM:"One thing I've noticed on a lot of sites is that both the HRC and the Obama supporters come off as so vitriolic..." --shoephone
I've noticed that, too. What's the deal? It is especially striking that the Obama supporters are for a guy who is advocating for a new kind of politics, yet often their comments seem the angriest. What's that about? The man has raised more money than Hillary and gets as much or more press than does she, and about three times the press in mainstream outlets such as the NY Times as does John Edwards. Yet there is this sense that their candidate is being dissed the whole time. I think he is being handled with kid gloves, if anything.
Look at the polls. Edwards is in a fairly distant 3rd place in upcoming primaries, and has been for along time.
Huh? What polls are you looking at? When I look at the polls over on Real Clear Politics I see several of them where Edwards is ahead of Obama, some where Obama is ahead of Clinton and most of these in both categories are really statistical ties. I am an Obama supporter, so I am hoping the polls with Obama ahead are right, but I think it is mere presumption to pretend that Edwards is out of it.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_democratic_caucus-208.html
Greg DeLassus wrote on December 22, 2007 11:05 PM:One thing I've noticed on a lot of sites is that both the HRC and the Obama supporters come off as so vitriolic and they state unequivocally that they will not vote for ANYONE but their candidate.
Hm, I guess that your experience is different than my own, then. I have noticed some Obama and Edwards supporters who have made plain that they will not vote for Clinton even if she takes the nod, and I have seen a few Clinton supporters who claim that they will not vote for Obama in any circumstance, but I have not seen anyone say that they would not vote for Edwards if he got the nod.
Greg DeLassus wrote on December 22, 2007 11:07 PM:If Edwards wins Iowa Obama is finished and Hillary will win the nomination.
Gosh, this seems a bit much. After all, Kerry won the nomination without winning IA. If Obama comes in second in Iowa but then wins NH and SC outright, I dare say that he is still in it. He certainly has enough money to stay in through Feb 5.
shoephone wrote on December 22, 2007 11:22 PM:"If Edwards wins Iowa Obama is finished and Hillary will win the nomination."
I also disagree with this statement. I fully expect either Obama or Edwards to win Iowa (and, for the moment anyway, it's looking like Edwards has the tailwind behind him) and that Clinton will still win NH, due to her machine having been so strong on the ground there. I also expect Obama to come in second there, although who knows what momentum Edwards could capiatalize on if Iowa goes his way?
I really think this race is much closer than the pundits are saying.
More info on Michigan would be of interest to me. It's a very diverse state, both in terms of race and religion, and is heavily unionized...
I also expect Obama to come in second there, although who knows what momentum Edwards could capitalize on if Iowa goes his way?
Well, I do not know that he could not pick up much momentum, but I think that your question gets at the reason that I am not more entheused about Edwards. I like a lot of things about him, but he has shifted so many of his (already limited) campaign resources to Iowa that even if he does well there, I do not know how he can move and grow from there. Having stripped down his campaigns in NH, SC and NV in order to focus on IA, how does he hope to translate a win in IA into momentum; I just do not see it. I would be delighted to be proven wrong, but at the moment I have a hard time seeing any future for Edwards beyond IA, even if he wins there outright.
More info on Michigan would be of interest to me. It's a very diverse state, both in terms of race and religion, and is heavily unionized...
So do you think that MI is going to get its delegates back? I guess that I think that the DNC is really serious about stripping MI and FL of their delegates, so I have not been paying either of them much attention.
Incidentally, I notice that the Des Moines Register is carrying a story trumpetting Biden's bid for 3rd in IA. Imagine if Clinton were to come in 4th! Such a thing might well turn the earlier statement which we both criticized on its head; could Sen Clinton's campaign survive if she lost as badly as all that in the first contest of the season?
stlounick wrote on December 22, 2007 11:46 PM:I'm an Obama supporter who will not vote for Hillary in a general election. I simply will not cast a vote in that section of the ballot.
I'm simply tired of temporarily setting aside my values to support my party's candidate. I'm in my sixth decade and that particular strategy is not working out.
If that statement upsets my fellow primary voters, it is supposed to do exactly that. I'm tired of giving my money, my vote and my volunteerism to the worst possible candidate. And when you folks blather on about "electability" you need to include folks like me in your calculations. And we didn't vote for Nader, we have been right there as activists in the Democratic Party--some of us for decades.
I want the direction of my party corrected and going back to the Clintons simply won't accomplish that. I'm sick of my fellow boomers and they need to get out of sight and go to the retirement home. I consider them intelligent and arrogant and pretty worthless in fixing the problems we face. They do seem able to continue the divisiveness that keeps us from solving problems. The boomers need to be kicked to the curb and now is the time to do it.
acf wrote on December 23, 2007 12:24 AM:So, you won't vote for Hillary Clinton if she happens to become the nominee. Do you want to risk another Republican presidency? Are you willing to risk another 4 or 8 years of another Bush style presidency, because that's what we're staring at? Whoever is the Democratic nominee has to get our support even if we have to swallow hard and make the choice. The idealists voted for Nader in 2000. Look where that got us. Eight years of Bush 43. In the meantime, fight hard for the candidate of your choice for the nomination.
kohoutek wrote on December 23, 2007 12:48 AM:Oy. I'm leaning toward Edwards. I've been singularly unimpressed by Obama. If he wasn't black, he wouldn't be anywhere in this race. I, like most everyone else, had high hopes after hearing this guy in 2004. But nothing he's done since is in any way compelling. This reeks of discomfiture on Obama's part.
So...527. Yes, I'm sure we can counsel Edwards on how to spin this. But to make any real accusation of hypocrisy that sticks, it has to be proven that this 527 money comes from corporate and lobbyist interests. And if it does, it seems odd, since Edwards is staking his campaign on freezing out these groups.
Edwards is as smart as any of us...If there's money behind that stuff that really undercuts his whole deal, you can be sure he'll (eventually, if not sooner) disavow himself.
But 527 activity does not, in and of itself, automatically equal hypocrisy. A person can be opposed to all sorts of things. But, if I were running in his shoes and someone was coordinating an effort on my behalf that was legal, and not funded from sources I was trying to disavow myself from, it would be hypocritical to pretend I didn't like the assist when every other candidate is going to benefit in the same way.
I could benefit from 527 efforts, and then still work to eliminate them. And 527 efforts do not imply the same compromises and conflicts of interest that ostensibly characterize direct support by lobbyists, etc.
savvy wrote on December 23, 2007 2:14 AM:kohoutek wrote on December 23, 2007 12:48 AM:
Oy. I'm leaning toward Edwards. I've been singularly unimpressed by Obama. If he wasn't black, he wouldn't be anywhere in this race. I, like most everyone else, had high hopes after hearing this guy in 2004. But nothing he's done since is in any way compelling. This reeks of discomfiture on Obama's
Oy. I'm leaning towards Obama. I've been singularly unimpressed by Edwards. If he wasn't white, he wouldn't be anywhere in this race. I, Like most everyone else, had high hopes after hearing his two Americas talk. But nothing he's done since is in any way compelling. I looked at his voting record while he was in the Senate and he is basically our very own Mitt, having switched positions on virtually everything. He voted for the war, now he is against it. He opposed universal health care, now he is for it. He voted against the unions, now he is for them and he voted for the bankruptcy bill.
Edwards today is nothing like he was in 2004, the man is a complete chameleon. He makes good arguments for positions he takes in the moment and makes those arguments convincingly. The problem is he does not have any convictions and can argue anything well. Which is why he made so much money as an attorney.
shoephone wrote on December 23, 2007 2:53 AM:"So do you think that MI is going to get its delegates back? I guess that I think that the DNC is really serious about stripping MI and FL of their delegates, so I have not been paying either of them much attention."
Greg - I can't understand the wisdom of the DNC's position on this one. Strategically, stripping the delegates is a counterintuitive - and maybe even dangerous - move. A smarter move would have been to levy a fine against both state parties. Those states are crucial for the Dems.
Interesting scenario you paint for Biden in Iowa. I can't even begin to imagine the fallout for HRC if she comes in 4th there! My concern for Edwards is that, while momentum after an Iowa win could very well help him in later primaries, the decision to lock in on public financing could hurt him down the road. For me that's the unknown factor. And in that case, ironically, it would likely be 527's that could benefit him.
Anonymous wrote on December 23, 2007 3:01 AM:Anonymous wrote on December 22, 2007 9:59 PM:
"This cynicism has to stop. Hillary is a good person, John is a good person, and Barack is a good person. May the best candidate win. We need to give the people hope- not more cynicism."
I absolutely agree with you. Unfortunately Obama and Edwards supporters seem to need to hate Clinton to justify their blind, almost cultish obsession with their candidate. It's a little scary here in the comments.
MonaL wrote on December 23, 2007 3:12 AM:Just went back and re-read the comments, what a bunch of Obama - Edwards apologists you are.
"OMG! My candidate isn't being true to his principles! There must be a good reason, why, I think it's Hillary's fault! She's just awful, so divisive, I would NEVER vote for her. **whine**"
I almost forgot:
"It's TPM's fault for being such Hillary supporters, they should rename the site Hillaryland."
Jackson Bravo wrote on December 23, 2007 3:36 AM:Why is Obama even making this an issue? Let's keep our eye on the prize, people, don't let the TPM (Read: DLC) people distort your vision... Hillary Clinton is the corporate schill who stands for one thing, and one thing alone, herself. If Hillary gets 3rd in Iowa... its over for her and America is a better place (and more likely to beat the rep. in the general) because of it.
Edwards/Obama '08!
Wow! The comments in this thread are all over the place. Here is my take:
1) Edwards is being hypocritical to say he opposes 527s and then his former campaign manager is running a 527 with three quarters of a million. Obama is right to point out the inconsistency.
2) I agree that the headline on this post greatly overstates Obama's comment. I also agree this is part of the pattern of HRC bias that has infected what was my favorite site. Why did they change the comments? Why won't Josh or anybody else address the concerns about bias that have been raised by so many?
3) I would urge Edwards supporters to think strategically. Edwards is a twenty to one longshot on Intrade to win the nomination. Obama has a six times greater chance of stopping HRC. Even if JE wins Iowa, it is unlikely that he has the resources or the base of support to go all the way. The most likely outcome of a JE win in Iowa is that it will give HRC a chance to bounce back. If you see the problems with HRC think seriously about climbing on the Obama train. He has a much better chance of winning.
Duckman GR wrote on December 23, 2007 12:45 PM:upper left:
But that presupposes that Sen. Edwards is telling him what to do. As a former campaign manager, you can make that assumption, but given that all of these people are pretty smart, leaves you wide open to the old assume bromide, don't you think?
Strategy based on Intrade? Please, if that's going into your thinking, you need to think aain. Who controls Intrade? How many people use it? How easy would it be to manipulate it, if needed?
What Jane said about Edwards and 527's is pretty much correct. He can't control it, one way or another, like it or not. And 527's are not, per se, evil. It depends on how honestly they are operated. Swift boats was operated as a front for all sorts of gop hatchet men. You can't assime that they all are operated that way.
Greg DeLassus wrote on December 23, 2007 2:06 PM:I absolutely agree with you. Unfortunately Obama and Edwards supporters seem to need to hate Clinton to justify their blind, almost cultish obsession with their candidate. It's a little scary here in the comments.
Well, please be fair. I am an Obama supporter and I have made quite clear that I will vote for Sen Clinton in the GE if she gets the nod. So have more than a few of my fellow Obama supporters. Meanwhile, there are more than a few Clinton supporters here who have claimed that they will not vote for Sen Obama in the GE if he gets the nod, so it is hardly just the Edwards and Obama folks who merit your criticism.
That said, I agree that we will do ourselves no great favors if we become too wedded to our 1st choice candidates. This country needs a democratic administration by this point. I am not sure if we can survive another 4 years of Republican incompetence.
Liberal Larry wrote on December 23, 2007 2:33 PM:The let's make a deal wing of the Democratic Party wants to get rid of MoveOn.org.
Chris wrote on December 23, 2007 3:17 PM:"If he wasn't black, he wouldn't be anywhere in this race"
The issue about Obama is not being black--how quick we forget that many african americans have run for presidency, so I will totally disagree with the above comment. Let's just forget race and vote for someone who represents your views. I think Barack has that ability--to tap into both red and blue state--he's not politics as usual..c'mon guys we are smart..right..Barack/Edwards or Biden or the way--Clinton just needs to retire
MonaL wrote on December 23, 2007 3:58 PM:Greg De Lassus wrote: "Meanwhile, there are more than a few Clinton supporters here who have claimed that they will not vote for Sen Obama in the GE if he gets the nod, so it is hardly just the Edwards and Obama folks who merit your criticism."
Greg, are you being honest? I've spent way too much time reading the comments here on TPM, and have not run into ANY HRC supporters who refuse to support either Obama or Edwards in the GE if nominated. NOT ONE! Although I do appreciate your choice to support HRC if she is the nominee. You are wiser than some others.
testing wrote on December 23, 2007 5:04 PM:testing
Richard L. Adlof wrote on December 23, 2007 5:39 PM:Kozmik,
No one here thinks that Obama is worried about Edwards . . . We think that now that he is number one he can afford to be mean-spirited and spiteful towards number three . . .Such is the effect of the heady estrogen surge from Oprah.
Richard L. Adlof wrote on December 23, 2007 6:44 PM:Shoephone & Jackie Mac:
With respect to the Obamanians and Clintonistas . . . I can understand their polarized emotional states. As an Edwards running back from the LAST go around . . . I acknowledge I too can be given to fits of hyperbole. I just can't figure out as a Democrat why folk have such a hard-on for two candidates running right of center . . . Sooth be told Edwards is a bit more centtist DEM than I personally favor BUT so was FDR. Neither the Goldwater Girl gone corporate conspiritor nor Mr. chiming in five days later and to the right will be getting my Primary vote.
Of course, come the resolution of the primaries . . . I will support the DEM nominee. It may be solely becuase I am voting against the continued malfeasence that is the Republican Party . . . But the DEM nominee will be my candidate.
Richard L. Adlof wrote on December 23, 2007 7:08 PM:The early early Primaries will decide nothing. Someone will shake out on top on Super Tuesday. I arguing with my fellow Californians that we need to move our primary to the week before the conventions. Imagine if one fifth of the nation actually mattered . . .
End the A.B.C.'s of politics! "Anywhere but California" needs to be memory dust.
Greg DeLassus wrote on December 24, 2007 1:05 AM:Greg, are you being honest? I've spent way too much time reading the comments here on TPM, and have not run into ANY HRC supporters who refuse to support either Obama or Edwards in the GE if nominated. NOT ONE!
Dear Mona,
My good lady, I am always honest. Scout's honor.
Seriously though, I assure you that I have seen such opinions voiced by Clinton supporter (or at least people claiming to be Clinton supporters; it is hard to know anything for sure about someone who posts fifteen words anonymously at 2:30 in the morning). I do not have the time to dig through all the threads on this blog looking for such posts, but if you doubt that there are Clinton supporters taking that line, you need merely click the link below. Take a look at the number of self-professed Clinton supporters who claim that they will not vote for Obama if he takes the nomination.
In any case, I am glad that we both agree that there is nothing to be gained by that approach. I do not like Sen Clinton as much as I like Sen Obama, but I like her a darn site more than I like Mr Giuliani or Gov Romney. Anyone seriously attempting to say that there is no difference between Clinton and the Republican candidates needs to take a cold shower and a deep breath and try to come back to the issue with a more sober frame of mind.
Don wrote on December 24, 2007 6:29 AM:Nothing will rally the republican base like an HRC nomination.
Also, if she wins the nomination I will probably, very unenthusiastically, drag myself out to once more vote for the lesser of two evils, maybe.
She might even win. Then we can enjoy 4 more years of Clinton Derangement Syndrome.
