« Gallup: Hillary's National Lead Over Obama Down To Six Points | Home | Video Retrospective: Edwards Campaign Aggressively Targeted Wingnut Media Stars »

Edwards Speaks: Hillary And Obama Promised Me That Poverty Will Remain Central To Campaign

John Edwards just gave his dropout speech in New Orleans, which is where it all began, and he told his audience that he'd spoken to both Hillary and Obama and squeezed a promise from them.

"They have both pledged to me, and more importantly, through me to the American people, that they will make ending poverty central to their campaigns for the presidency," Edwards said, adding that they'd vowed to make poverty central to their presidencies, too.

"Today I am suspending my campaign for the Democratic nomination of the presidency," Edwards also said. "This son of a millworker is going to be just fine. Our job right now is to make sure that everyone in America is fine."

Edwards also pleaded with his listeners to not forget about his issues: "Do not give up on the causes we have fought for," he said. "It's time for all of us together to make the two Americas one."

As is well documented by now, the Edwards campaign had a salutary effect on the presidential campaign's ongoing conversation in multiple ways. The question now is whether Edwards, as a former candidate, will still be able to exert the same pull on the debate and keep his issues alive in the public consciousness.

It's a question that, judging by Edwards' exhortations, remains an open one, though he did secure a pledge from the two leading Dems that they would help him do just that.

And as expected, no mention of any endorsement.

Video soon.

Late Update: As promised, here's the video:


59 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

"Today I am suspending my campaign for the Democratic nomination of the presidency,"---

So, keeping his delegates, eh? Hmm...

user-pic

If it's genuinely policies Edwards is interested in, how could he possibly go for Obama over Hillary, when Hillary was far closer to his own in the most important areas?

And, could someone please locate John's fighting spirit in the saccharine Kumbayahs of Obama?

user-pic

". . .and he told his audience that he'd spoken to both Hillary and Edwards. . ."

I think you meant "Hillary and Obama," right?

user-pic

Gs5yeyte4dS cool site!!! [url=http://mardanows1.com]cool site!!![/url] http://mardanows2.com hj56e45e

user-pic

But John...Which one do you think will say anything you want to hear?

user-pic

I just posted this over at TPM cafe, but I think it's a different audience here, and I figured people would find it interesting.

Who does Edwards favor? From early Dec up to the NV primary, Edwards has aggressively criticized Clinton while treating Obama mildly and sometimes defending him against Clinton. I've compiled a list of examples of Edwards jumping into Obama-Clinton battles on Obama's side. The only exceptions I know of include the Reagan comment, for which Edwards criticized Obama, and the last debate, during which he joined Clinton a bit more than usual.

Has this alliance been strategic or personal? Who knows? But I do note that Edwards has been remarkably consistent. The Obama-supporting examples stretch from December, when Clinton was the frontrunner, to Clinton's dramatic post-Iowa fall, to her resurrection after NH. If it were purely strategic, you'd think that he'd have changed sides as the frontrunners changed. But decide for yourself. Here are the examples in chronological order:

On Clinton's "joke" about Obama wanting to be President since kindergarten
desmoinesregister.com 12/04/07
Edwards: "I want to confess to all of you right now," he told his audience, "in third grade, I wanted to be two things: I wanted to be a cowboy, and I wanted to be Superman."

On Clinton's criticism of Obama's experience in international relations
johnedwards.com 12/20/07
Chris Kofinis, John Edwards for President communications director:
"mudslinging |mŭd'slĭng'ing| (also mud-slinging)noun informal
the use of insults and accusations, esp. unjust ones, with the aim of damaging the reputation of an opponent. As in: Hillary Clinton said about Barack Obama, 'Now voters will judge whether living in a foreign country at the age of 10 prepares one to face the big, complex international challenges the next president will face.'
"Now we know what Senator Clinton meant when she talked about 'throwing mud' in the last debate. Like so many other things, when it comes to mud, Hillary Clinton says one thing and throws another."

On the Clinton flier attacking Obama's health plan
washingtonpost.com 12/20/07
Edwards campaign statement: "Iowa caucus goers have been sent a direct mail advertisement that appears to be an attack on Senator Obama by John Edwards, but is actually produced and funded by an organization supporting Senator Clinton," read a statement from the former North Carolina senator's campaign.
Jennifer O'Malley Dillon, Iowa State Director for the Edwards Campaign: "There have been a lot of misleading tactics and tricks in the last few weeks, but we've just never seen anything like this before...It's fine to have an honest debate about policy, but Iowans deserve better than planted questions and campaign fliers designed to fool them."

After Obama's defeat of Clinton in Iowa
nytimes.com 01/03/08
Edwards: "The one thing that’s clear from the results in Iowa tonight is the status quo lost and change won."

Ganging up on Clinton at the NH debate
nytimes.com 01/06/08
As Mrs. Clinton attacked Mr. Obama as waffling on the Patriot Act and Iraq war funding, she sought to make an ally out of Mr. Edwards. She suggested that Mr. Obama had hypocritically tried to paint Mr. Edwards as inconsistent on the issues. All eyes turned to Mr. Edwards, and he delivered a coup de grace — siding dramatically with Mr. Obama instead of Mrs. Clinton.
“Any time you speak out powerfully for change, the forces of status quo attack,” Mr. Edwards said, looking and gesturing toward Mrs. Clinton. Referring to himself and Mr. Obama, he added: “He believes deeply in change, and I believe deeply in change. And any time you’re fighting for that, I mean, I didn’t hear these kinds of attacks from Senator Clinton when she was ahead.”

On the dispute about Hillary's MLK comment and Bill’s fairytale comment:
abcnews.com 01/13/08
Edwards: "As someone who grew up in the segregated South, I feel an enormous amount of pride when I see the success that Sen. Barack Obama having in this campaign...I must say I was troubled recently to see a suggestion that real change that came not through the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, but through a Washington politician...I fundamentally disagree with that. Those who believe that real change starts with Washington politicians have been in Washington too long and are living a fairytale...We’ve come a long way in the 54 years that I’ve been on this earth. But not far enough. We still have work to do. And the hopes that both Sen. Obama and I have for this nation and this country that we love so much these are not false hopes, they’re real hopes."

And finally, the exceptions in which Edwards sides with Clinton against Obama:

On Obama's Reagan comment
abcnews.com 01/17/08
Edwards: "Senator Obama was speaking...used Ronald Reagan – President Ronald Reagan – as an example of change. My view is I would never use Ronald Reagan as an example of change..."

On Obama's "present" votes in the IL legislature
SC debate 01/21/08
Edwards: "What I didn't hear was an explanation for why over 100 times you voted present instead of yes or no when you had a choice to vote up or down."

user-pic
"Today I am suspending my campaign for the Democratic nomination of the presidency,"---
So, keeping his delegates, eh? Hmm...

MSNBC's site says:
"An immediate impact of Edwards’ withdrawal will be six additional delegates for Obama, giving him a total of 187, and four more for Clinton, giving her 253.

Edwards won 26 delegates in the Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina contests. Under party rules, 10 of those delegates will be automatically dispersed among Obama and Clinton, based on their vote totals in those respective contests. The remaining 16 remain pledged to Edwards, meaning his campaign will have a say in naming them."

user-pic

Ponder this matrix of endorsements and their impact if made before Feb 5.

Columns: Billary, BO
Rows: Edwards, Richardson Gore

What would you all say is a winning combination for either candidate assuming that endoresments mean squat?

user-pic

twWfafa2 cool site!!! [url=http://farush1.com]cool site!!![/url] http://farush2.com faferh61

user-pic

quote - MSNBC's site says:
"An immediate impact of Edwards’ withdrawal will be six additional delegates for Obama, giving him a total of 187, and four more for Clinton, giving her 253. - /quote

Yeah, but doesn't that only work if he withdraws rather than merely suspends?

user-pic

Im surprised at how sad I am to see Edwards go. I mean...I knew I would be sad, but not this sad. I genuinely liked the way he ran his campaign and the ideals and policies he was putting forward. I sincerely hope he has some position in the coming administration, whether it be Obama or Clinton, although I'm sure that if he endorses Obama, he'll get nothing from Hilary.

user-pic

Obama P
Richardson VP
Edwards AG

user-pic

Maybe I am hearing what I want to hear, but I think Edwards sounded a lot of Obama's main themes in his speech. I think we'll see an endorsement tomorrow or Friday.

user-pic

Studly Pantload:

I'm very sure he'll withdraw. Another thing from MSNBC:
"As expected, Edwards said he was suspending his campaign rather than ending it, but aides said that was simply legal terminology so that he can continue to receive federal matching funds for his campaign donations."

I think it has something to do with paying back his staffers

user-pic

I will write-in John Edwards in the GE if he would simply pledge to never mention the fact that he's the son of a mill worker again.

Hear me Mr. Edwards!!!

We GET IT John.

user-pic
user-pic

Edwards is a fine candidate. Passionate, articulate and forthright. I wish the best for him and Elizabeth and their children.

To forward his mission to help reduce and eliminate poverty in America, I hope he vocally will give his support to Barack Obama--a genuine up-from-the-bootstraps progressive who can extend equality and prosperity to more Americans, and speaks to the best in our values.

user-pic

Anonymous wrote on January 30, 2008 2:37 PM:
Something to consider:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/01/the-national-pr.html

Notice how Obama's support rises--as Edwards' fades away.

user-pic

This thought is just too delicious to not share. WHAT IF HILLARY CLINTON ACTUALLY WINS IN IOWA???? It could happen - if the delegates now pledged to John Edwards choose Clinton over Obama down the road.

From politico:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/

He's got 62 of them, according to CNN, and the Democratic Convention Watch blog has this explanation on where they'll go:

[Edwards'] delegates from Iowa don't exist anymore, but will be replaced with Clinton or Obama delegates. That's because delegates to the national convention haven't actually been picked yet in these two states. There are Congressional District and state conventions still to come, and all his delegates to the Congressional District conventions will have to vote for one of the remaining candidates to the state level convention.

user-pic

I tend to think that the only reason to drop out this close to super Tuesday is so that his presence doesn't dilute the anti-Hillary vote. I think his departure is great news for Obama and I ultimately expect Edwards to endorse Obama. As one of the "change" candidates it would make no sense for him to endorse the status quo, aka Clinton.

user-pic

As the battle for Edwards supporters begins in earnest, a simple statement:

Hillary Clinton--perhaps not the person herself, but certainly the political force and establishment figure married to Bill and familiar with the corridors of the White House--represents entrenched power and business as usual.

She is simply not in position to truly govern and act in ways that will bring about the kinds of things John Edwards wants... and which I want, as a longtime soup kitchen worker and nonprofit volunteer who is always concerned about the least among us.

Hillary, as should be painfully obvious by now, is great at saying what her given audience (in the present moment, in a given location) wants to hear. On paper, her health care policy is more progressive and enlightened than Obama's. On paper, she can appear attractive to a liberal viewpoint.

The key, though, to voting for anyone in a presidential election these days is to look at the dynamics of power. Is a candidate likely to cozy up to power, or govern outside the box and not be as co-opted as someone else (all are/will be co-opted and compromised to certain extents, so it's a matter of comparing levels of integrity and intellectual freedom)?

By this standard, there is zero question that Obama--a man hardly as pure as the driven snow, mind you--is nevertheless far more likely to be able to resist entrenched power and its many corrupting influences, pulls and pressures.

Edwards's various remarks against Clinton in the New Hampshire debates and other forums were made for a number of reasons, but one can confidently say that the above reason--a sober analysis of the dynamics of power--was a core factor.

Edwards supporters need to look beyond the surface policy positions and realize that Hillary's attachment to entrenched power makes her very unlikely to deliver the new, united America Edwards has so nobly and constantly fought to bring about.

We can't have more business as usual. Obama might disappoint us in that regard--that's a definite possibility, I'll grant--but Hillary is SURE to do so.

If given a choice between the definite possibility of disappointment and the definite CERTAINTY of disappointment, I'll vote for the possibility over the certainty. I think anyone else would do the same if able to see the Clinton-Obama race in the same light.

user-pic

M Miller - thanx!

user-pic

Very well said, Matt Z. I wait with anxious anticipation to find out what effect (hopefully positive) the departure of Edwards will have on Obama.

And to willyjsimmons - I echo your sentiment and add an amen! I liked Edwards, but at this point there can't be anyone in the free world who DOESN'T know that his daddy worked at the "meeeel."

user-pic

Maybe I am hearing what I want to hear, but I think Edwards sounded a lot of Obama's main themes in his speech.

uh, what you heard was Edwards reiterating his own themes, all of which Obama pretty much stole.

user-pic

Genghis,

Hate to tell you, but virtually all of your examples are cases in which Edwards is simply playing pretty standard politics, and attacking the opponent who might give him the most votes.

If Edwards is sincere in his interest in seeing the policies he fought for being implemented, he has to choose the candidate who's most like to do that, prior political attacks aside. He should look to the essence of their candidacies and of his own.

Who's a fighter? Hillary or Obama?

Who's adopted the positions most like his own? Hillary or Obama?

That, I'd think would be his basic consideration, if he wants a lasting legacy.

user-pic

@ Anonymous:

Why should I consider anything that Andrew Sullivan says?

user-pic

Just got off the phone with my mother--a lifelong Democrat, daughter of a socialist mayor of a small town in Montana--she's switched from Hillary to Obama. If Obama had another month, Hillary wouldn't have a chance.

user-pic
user-pic

Now the pundits will busy themselves trying to guess where Edwards supporters will land. I think he was wise to 'suspend' his candidacy and hold on to the few delegates he has.

As an Edwards supporter who was prepared to vote for him next Tuesday..I surely won't pick Hillary and Obama doesn't do much for me either, although Obama is the lesser of two evils.

Looks like my cat possibly gets another vote for President again.

user-pic

Matt Z..well said sir.

user-pic

frankly0 writes

all of your examples are cases in which Edwards is simply playing pretty standard politics, and attacking the opponent who might give him the most votes.

Perhaps, but it's not clear to me why attacking Clinton would give him the most votes. It was one thing when she was the frontrunner, but he maintained the attacks through various ups and downs.

In addition, I thought that conventional political strategy in a three person race dictates that you let the other two beat each other up and stay above the fray. Yet Edwards deliberately stuck his nose into Clinton-Obama rifts to attack Clinton and sometimes even defend Obama, fueling speculation that the two even had a deal.

There's much dispute about who better represents Edwards' policy positions, and I'm sure that everyone's viewpoint on that question pretty much corresponds to which the candidate that they support. But in the record, which is the only evidence we have about what Edwards himself thinks, he's consistently more critical of Clinton than Obama.

user-pic

Angry vet hit on this earlier, so I don't want to take credit for the thought, but this was a brilliant, brilliant move by obama and edwards. Florida is totally off the media radar screen and edwards dropping out is drowning out anything associated with florida. All the media tonight will be talking about edwards and who he helps by dropping out. Brilliant media move.

user-pic

Florida is totally off the media radar screen and edwards dropping out is drowning out anything associated with florida.

Except for the little problem of explaining why Edwards chose the very day after his poor showing in Florida -- as compared to, say, the excellent showing by Hillary -- as the day to drop out.

Any voter with a brain will be asking, why now? What was it that just went on?

user-pic

Michael A (and Angry vet), I was thinking the same thing, though I'm not sure that they're really working together. If so, it's also smart for Edwards to hold off for a few days before announcing his endorsement. Let it simmer in the media for a little bit (and let Clinton talk about how much she loves Edwards for a few days), and then spring it before Tuesday.

If they're working together, that's what I see happening. But if Edwards doesn't make an endorsement before Tues, then I will assume that he's on his own.

user-pic

John Edwards: In His Own Words

Last year ago, around the sixth anniversary of 9/11, a leading presidential candidate held a fundraiser that was billed as a Homeland Security themed event in Washington, D.C. targeted to homeland security lobbyists and contractors for $1000 a plate. These lobbyists, for the price of a ticket, would get a special “treat”—the opportunity to participate in small, hour long breakout sessions with key Democratic lawmakers, many of whom chair important sub committees of homeland security committee. That candidate was Senator Clinton.

Today, Hillary Clinton has taken more money from Washington lobbyists than any candidate from either party – Democratic or Republican.

She has taken more money from the defense industry, more money from Wall Street than any other candidate from either party as well.

We have a duty-- a duty to end this.

I believe you cannot be for change and take money from the lobbyists who prevent change. You cannot take on the entrenched interests in Washington if you choose to defend the broken system. It will not work.

I have learned there are much more important things in life than winning elections at the cost of selling your soul.

It's time to tell the truth. And the truth is the system in Washington is corrupt. It is rigged by the powerful special interests to benefit they very few at the expense of the many.

And as a result, the American people have lost faith in our broken system in Washington, and believe it no longer works for ordinary Americans. They're right.

If protecting the current established structure in Washington is in your interest, then I am not your candidate.

This corruption did not begin yesterday-- and it did not even begin with George Bush-- it has been building for decades-- until it now threatens literally the life of our democracy.

Down one path, we trade corporate Democrats for corporate Republicans; our cronies for their cronies; one political dynasty for another dynasty; and all we are left with is a Democratic version of the Republican corruption machine.

And Americans are kept in the dark because the corporate lobbyists have pushed back country of origin labeling laws again and again.

Senator Clinton's road to the middle class takes a major detour right through the deep canyon of corporate lobbyists and the hidden bidding of K Street in Washington-- and history tells us that when that bus stops there it is the middle class that loses.

We can liberate our government from the shackles of corporate money that bind it to corporate will, and restore the voices of our people to its halls.

It is incredible what America has accomplished. Because no matter what extraordinary challenges we have been faced with, we did exactly what America has always done in our history-- we rose to the challenge.

user-pic

Ghengis, I bet he will endorse before Tuesday and probably friday morning, before the weekend. I think this was planned. I bet after sc he was going to get out and wanted to time his departure with obama to help obama as much as possible. If it was right after sc, he would have sucked the air out of obama's win. Also, I bet edwards was pissed about the clintons game playing with florida as well. So, what better way to stick it to them but to steal their attempt at manufacturing a victory out of thin air. Brilliant move.

user-pic

Michael, good point on the timing. From a solo point of view, you'd think that he would pull out after SC, which matters, rather than after FL, which doesn't. Certainly the timing is very convenient for Obama. On the other hand, he did a lot better in SC than he did in FL.

user-pic

As an Edwards supporter -- who intends to vote for him next Tuesday in the Illinois primary no matter who he eventually endorses -- I have literally no idea who I would vote for if his name weren't on the ballot.

He's clearly the most liberal person on the left. He's also the clearest and most direct and forceful in articulating the liberal vision. Obama and Clinton are simply too invested in triangulating for my taste. Clinton's too war-mongery, and Obama's "inspiriation-thing" is scary to me -- he has turned some of my best friends, ordinarily reasonable, rational, analytical people into automatons who can't do anything other than spout his talking points.

So it's liberating, really. I literally don't care who wins the Democratic nomination. Though I may vote for Dusty's cat.

user-pic

RJ,

That's just generic "outside the beltway" rhetoric against a frontrunner.

Look, if John Edwards wants a true legacy, one for which he is going to be known, he has to attach the policies he's been advocating for to potential legislation of broad and historic importance. The issue that absolutely best fits that description is universal health care.

And whose proposal, Hillary's or Obama's matches his own the best? Answer: Hillary's by far. If her plan makes it into law, he can rightly claim that he was for all practical purposes its architect. That change in direction in our society will be recognized for centuries to come. He will be part of that history.

But how would this be true if Obama's compromised, defective alternative gets put into law? Where is Edwards' bold contribution reflected in that pale imitation? What will happen to that plan as it is implemented, and fails to cover millions upon millions of more people than Edwards' own? How much will Edwards' vision be adulterated and forgotten in the process?

If I were Edwards, and was interested in a concrete legacy I would be able to point to, it would be hard to choose anyone other than Hillary.

user-pic

Let's soberly ask and then think about this question to (hopefully) focus the debate between Hillary and Obama, in relationship to Edwards supporters who want Edwards's dreams to become reality:

In contemporary Beltway politics, is coziness with power more of a positive attribute (experience with lever-pulling and systemic maneuvering) or a thoroughly corrupting influence?

This is THE question Edwards people have to ask and answer for themselves, as they ponder their choice for Democratic Party nominee.

If Edwards supporters need any help in making up their minds, I have six words:

Bill... and... the... two... George... Bushes (41,43).

user-pic

>>>Clinton's too war-mongery, and Obama's "inspiriation-thing" is scary to me -- he has turned some of my best friends, ordinarily reasonable, rational, analytical people into automatons who can't do anything other than spout his talking points.>>>

Er, in other words, Clinton rode shotgun with Bush Cheney on the deaths of hundreds of thousands, helped trash our international standing by repeating Bush lies without even reading the intelligence, went enabler again on the Iran thing, won't admit the authorization was a mistake...

....and Obama is too inspirational?

user-pic

Bupalos,

Yeah, and Obama was supposedly an "unwavering opponent" of the war in his Senate campaign and wheedled $50 out of me to boot. And then his first week in Washington, he voted for Condoleeza Rice for Secretary of State -- Condoleeza Rice who didn't just ride shotgun with Bush-Cheney -- she was an architect.

So spare me with Obama and his unwavering opposition BS. You can buy it -- I'm not.

user-pic

My guess is that John Edwards will land in the white house as an attorney general for either Hillary or Barack. Of course he would always do what Al Gore does, except instead of ruin the environment by jetting all over the world, he could bild large homes in poor neighborhoods.

user-pic

And one more thing, Bupalos,

I would love to hear a coherent defense of Obama's vote for Rice that doesn't involve HRC.

user-pic

I'm an Edwards supporter who in terms of the "cozying up to power" question doesn't see any Obama advantage. Obama is well supported by big money interests, and he's favored over Clinton by Wall Street because his chief economic advisor is from the conservative Chicago School of Economics.

I might find all the arguments routinely made against Hillary more convincing if Obama was a candidate who presented a real contrast in terms of policy, commitment to issues I care about, and character. But, he doesn't. By now I'm use to settling for nominees who are more centrist or conservative than I would like them to be. But I find Obama's use of extremely personal character attacks and divisive, Chicago-style hardball tactics on the one hand, coupled with high flown rhetoric about a ending "divisiveness" and a "new" kind of politics on the other, to be very offensive. It's cynical and dishonest.

user-pic

"Obama's use of extremely personal character attacks"

Such as...

user-pic

Just in from Progressive Dems of America

Edwards, the Obama Movement & the Fight for a Progressive Congress

Dear John,

John Edwards just announced that he is suspending his populist presidential campaign that had put corporate greed and economic injustice under the spotlight. We wish him and Elizabeth well. And we thank all of you who've worked so hard for John Edwards or for progressive stalwart Dennis Kucinich (now focusing on reelection to Congress.)

No matter who we've supported so far for president, many PDAers have seen firsthand the enthusiastic, youthful, multiracial movement that has embraced Barack Obama . The Senator hasn't been totally progressive on the issues, but our engagement with the inspiring Obama movement--which includes tens of thousands of open-minded newcomers to activism--leaves us hopeful. If the Obama movement succeeds, it could play an important role in the remaking of the Democratic Party that PDA is helping to bring about. (See PDA Advisory Board member Tom Hayden's recent endorsement of the Obama movement.)

As important as the presidential race is the fight for a progressive Congress. PDA chapters have been endorsing solid progressives for U.S. House seats. Eight have received national endorsements already.

Two of our endorsed candidates are battling for seats in Maryland and Illinois. Their campaigns are the most pressing--and need our help now to put them over the top.

* Donna Edwards in Maryland's fourth Congressional district. (Contact diane@pdamerica.org to volunteer to phone bank for Donna Edwards.)

* John Laesch in Illinois' fourteenth congressional district.

PDA's other endorsed candidates are: Clint Curtis, Corbett Kroehler and Samm Simpson (FL); Randi Scheuer (IL); Dr. Bill Durston (CA); and Mahdi Ibn-Ziyad (NJ).

Let's work to put more progressives in Congress.

And wherever activists gather, especially in the Obama movement--and wherever Congressional or presidential candidates gather--let's continue to promote and distribute the full progressive agenda.

In solidarity,

Tim Carpenter
National Director

user-pic

mary writes

Obama's use of extremely personal character attacks and divisive, Chicago-style hardball tactics

Excuse me? Are we watching the same primary? Obama is not always Mr. Nice Guy, but compared to Clinton? You can defend her policies all you want, but comparing her favorably relative to Obama when it comes to hardball is a first, even in this comment group full of nutballs.

user-pic

Quote: I will write-in John Edwards in the GE if he would simply pledge to never mention the fact that he's the son of a mill worker again.

Hear me Mr. Edwards!!!

We GET IT John.

---------------------------------------

For those of us who grew up poor, that means a lot to us. Skull and Bones elites like Kerry rub some folks as bad as repugs. Maybe you should not be so wuick to rush to judgement, you shallow son of a bitch.

user-pic

Anna wrote: "I would love to hear a coherent defense of Obama's vote for Rice that doesn't involve HRC."

As I recall, Obama said he thought that a President is entitled to have his choice as Secretary of State. Do you think if Rice was defeated Bush would have nominated a peacenik in her place?

user-pic

Dancing Bear,

Okay, first of all, if you're an anti-war candidate who has argued that the President made the wrong decision to take us into war, how could you possibly defer to his choice for Secretary of State, particularly when that choice was someone who was an architect of the war?

Second, no, Bush might not have nominated a peacenik, but he didn't have to nominate someone WHO WAS AN ARCHITECT OF THE WAR?

Third, there were others -- like Dick Durbin -- who voted against Rice? If Obama were as anti-war as he says, why didn't he vote no?

So it sounds like he was playing politics as usual . . . and not really giving us unwavering opposition to the war.

user-pic

Interesting that Edwards quits after losing Florida. Also found curious that today is first time in over a month that his was traveled with him. Isn't that about when the National Inquirer article about his mistress and unborn child came out? She's due to deliver in next couple of months.

user-pic

Typos...

Interesting that Edwards quits after losing Florida. (for a primary that didn't count) Also found curious that today is first time in over a month that his wife traveled with him. Isn't that about when the National Inquirer article about his mistress and unborn child came out? She's due to deliver in next couple of months.

user-pic

So sad to see John go. I attended his very last campaign stump speech in St. Paul last night, then woke up this morning to this news. Truly, he was the only one giving voice to the views that I care about...poverty, global warming, and the like.

But, this is one former Edwards supporter who's moving to Obama. (And that's in spite of the opinions that I read on this board, not because of them. Obama's supporters should really take a page from his book and at least pretend to listen to different political views.)

user-pic

I can't believe what i read from Obama supporters, " John Edwards must endorse Obama before feb 5th and campaign for him"This is no sense ,I'm a huge Edwards supporter and his crowd always follow him for one reason, he's a fighter, he's been talking about corporate greed like nobody else, about poverty, unequal outcomes, many issues than the other candidates would not have even mention without him in the race , what i always liked about him was the real approach to the problems, we gotta tackle down whats hurting us, beat it, defeat it and we all gotta sacrifice. All i hear from Obama is that he would be the messiah that would bring "change" to this mess, the mediator between "us" the real workers and the Exxon board of directors, that he's gonna have a party where my sick brothers and William Maguire would be invited, give me a break!!! This guy is gutless man that cant even confront Hillary Clinton without pissing on his pants and having all of his friends coming in his defense because he cant even defend himself!I will support HRC over Obama only cause i see in her more balls and backbone than what i see on Obama i dont even wanna go to the issues cause i don't even know the substance of his policies maybe he can erase the word change form his mouth a little and actually talk about substance in the incoming debate.

user-pic

Mr. Edwards will be the next vice president of the U.S.

Bobby Jr. will be the next Attorney General of the U.S.

Hillary MIGHT be the next U.S. Secretary of State.

A year from now, Ted should move to become Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate. Henry Waxman should be elected by his colleagues as Speaker of the House of Representatives following the defeat of Nancy Pelosi by Ms. Sheehan.

user-pic

I will miss John & Elizabeth Edwards. If I were not voting for Barack, I'd be voting for Edwards. What a class act. Let us make sure that his voice for the poor will continue to be heard.

Leave a comment

Recommended Reader Posts

  • Unwritten...
    by stillidealistic
  • Two Dreamers, by Dorothea Lange
    by Rutabaga Ridgepole
  • Tsunami Wave: Will Wipe Out Republican Party
    by coonsey
  • OBVIOUSLY, YOU AREN'T A HUNTER.....
    by wvbiker
  • The Stupack Amendment played politics with women's lives and won.
    by J. Clarence
  • holly colorado
    by blumun
  • figures geometry
    by muberul
  • short stories
    by lumacer
  • elemtary school
    by luborum



  • Resources

    The Palin Effect

    GOP Map Of Sleaze

    Tire Swinging

    The Final Debate

    World of Sleaze

    All About Sarah

    The Presidential Debates: Round 2

    The Vice-Presidential Debates: Biden v. Palin

    Critic or Cheerleader The Definitive McCain Iraq Timeline

    The John McCain John Hagee Timeline

    Masthead

    Editor-in-Chief
    Josh Marshall

    Reporter-Bloggers
    Elana Schor
    Eric Kleefeld



    Subscribe to this blog's feed.

    Advertise Liberally
    Share
    Close Social Web Email

    "To" Email Address

    Your Name

    Your Email Address