In Speech Endorsing Obama, Edwards Offers Effusive Praise Of Hillary
John Edwards' speech endorsing Obama, underway now in Grand Rapids, starts out on a very interesting note: Very lengthy and effusive praise of Hillary Clinton.
"I want to take a moment to say a word about my friend and your friend, Senator Hillary Clinton," Edwards said, eliciting scattered boos from the audience that Obama, sitting beside Edwards, quickly gestured for a stop to.
Edwards persisted, describing Hillary as a woman "of steel" who has reached her heights "not because of her husband, but because of what she has done," saying that Hillary has been a fighter for everything that everyone in that room believes in.
Tellingly, after pressing the point, Edwards ultimately succeeded in eliciting cheers on Hillary's behalf from the audience.
This suggests that Edwards clearly recognizes that a genuine gesture to Hillary supporters will be necessary to bring them into the fold if the party is going to be united -- and that he wants to be seen as a conciliatory figure, as a key promoter of party unity, even as he's choosing one of the two Dems.
More soon.
He said that when the odds turned against Hillary she showed character, haha, well, I don't think he said "good" character, but she certainly did reveal something about her character.
May 14, 2008 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Word up.
wonder what he's so damn scared of?
May 14, 2008 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, courage has'nt been the former Senator's strong suit this year.
May 14, 2008 9:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Democratic Party to Hillary: IT'S OVER!
May 14, 2008 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
it's over, and VOTERS BE DAMNED !!!
(and f*k the states too!)
May 14, 2008 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Voters be damned? Sorry, but Obama is ahead in the popular vote, even if you count every state. And Obama is ahead in pledged delegates, who are selected by voters.
May 14, 2008 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton, Hillary Rodham 16,727,863 47.63%
Obama, Barack Hussein 16,710,233 47.58%
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/D.phtml
To the popular vote victor SHOULD go the spoils.
I also think it's interesting that if you count Florida and Michigan, Hillary is behind by only 50 delegates. And yet somehow, for some reason, Obama is now being lionized and congratulated for disenfranchising millions of voters and losing the popular vote.
Misogyny? What else would you call it?
May 14, 2008 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Misogyny? What else would you call it?"
Um, the "rules". Although Obama does lead in the popular vote if you include MI/FL and caucus voters, the winner is determined by delegate count, where Obama leads as well. No way around it...Obama has won on every metric.
May 14, 2008 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Total Popular Vote
Clinton, Hillary Rodham 16,727,863 47.63%
Obama, Barack Hussein 16,710,233 47.58%
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/D.phtml
May 14, 2008 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's only true if you leave out all of the "Uncommitted" votes in Michigan. In other words, you're giving Senator Clinton votes when she had no viable opponent on the ballot and ignoring the response of the actual voters, who voted Uncommitted to signify their unhappiness with Clinton as a nominee. Holding Senator Obama's obediance to the directives of the DNC rules committee and Senator Clinton's violations of them against him and in favor of her is absolutely disgusting, not that it's unexpected at this point from Senator Clinton's supporters. Again, even if you include the weak "Uncommitted" voters in Michigan, Senator Obama is ahead in the popular vote. Stop lying, please.
May 14, 2008 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're the one who keeps lying, liar. There was no pledge to take their names off the Michigan ballot. Obama decided to do that on his own. That was his strategy. Then he illegally advertised and instructed his supporters to vote 'uncommitted.' But your misogyny is so huge that you blame Hillary even for the bungled strategy of Obama. Why don't we have do-over in states where Hillary's strategy fell short too? Why does only Obama get to disenfranchise voters? Why?
MISOGYNY - that's why!
But facts are still facts:
Total Popular Vote
Clinton, Hillary Rodham 16,727,863 47.63%
Obama, Barack Hussein 16,710,233 47.58%
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/D.phtml
May 14, 2008 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Love your avatar! Where can I get one?
May 14, 2008 10:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Repeating it multiple times doesn't make it any more true.
May 14, 2008 10:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Citing my source is what makes it true. Citing nothing but your wishful thinking is what makes your opinion meaningless BS.
Total Popular Vote
Clinton, Hillary Rodham 16,727,863 47.63%
Obama, Barack Hussein 16,710,233 47.58%
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/D.phtml
May 14, 2008 11:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
The source uses a flawed methodology. I could cite Olbermann, who is an NBC reporter, to counter you, but I don't think you deserve the effort.
May 14, 2008 11:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Total Popular Vote
Clinton, Hillary Rodham 16,727,863 47.63%
Obama, Barack Hussein 16,710,233 47.58%
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/D.phtml
May 14, 2008 11:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Real Clear Politics:
Popular Vote Obama 49.3 million - Clinton 47.5 million = Obama +1.8
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
May 15, 2008 12:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Total Popular Vote
Clinton, Hillary Rodham 16,727,863 47.63%
Obama, Barack Hussein 16,710,233 47.58%
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/D.phtml
May 15, 2008 2:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think we both know which of these 2 sites the superdelegates will trust more...
May 15, 2008 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Total Popular Vote
Clinton, Hillary Rodham 16,727,863 47.63%
Obama, Barack Hussein 16,710,233 47.58%
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/D.phtml
May 15, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
And the winner is:
Real Clear Politics:
Popular Vote Obama 49.3 million - Clinton 47.5 million = Obama +1.8
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
May 15, 2008 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
TPM Golden Rule number 1
"Do NOT feed the Trolls!
May 15, 2008 8:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
But they're still his supporters, and if you're going to throw the rules adverse to Clinton out, why not any adverse to Obama?
May 14, 2008 11:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Total yards gained: Hillary 168, Obama, 167
Total points: Obama 28, Hillary 17
May 15, 2008 2:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
rabbit,
How did you manage to respond directly to Present?
Some of us can't seem to make his "Reply" button to work. He has hacked the system somehow...
Are you using a Mac or a PC? I wonder how is it that you were able to post a comment attached to his.
Maybe I'll email TPM to make sure they are aware of Present's tricks.
May 14, 2008 9:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why do you hate democracy?
May 14, 2008 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why do you hate enforcement of contracts? Clinton signed a pledge, and then broke it. She was the only candidate to campaign in FL (which she signed not to do) and the only candidate with her name on the ballot in MI, which make the voting in MI no more democratic than Iraq under Saddam.
May 14, 2008 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
#1 Hillary didn't break any pledge - Obama did. Obama cleverly paid for advertising in Northern Florida, claiming that it was directed at neighboring states. Hillary didn't come to Florida until after the polls had closed.
#2 Hillary didn't put her name on the ballot - the state of Michigan did. Obama took his name off the ballot and instructed his supporters to vote 'uncommitted,' which lost.
May 14, 2008 9:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
She held three rallies in Florida and justified her presence on the Michigan ballot by saying it wouldn't count!
And you now admit that all the voters who voted uncommitted were Obama supporters, so why do you use a count excluding voters who voted uncommitted?
May 14, 2008 9:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
#1 Hillary didn't hold any rallies in Florida until after the polls closed, so stop lying about it. Obama is the one who broke his pledge and spent advertising dollars in Florida.
#2 I never said that all the uncommitted were Obama supporters, I said that Obama instructed HIS supporters to vote 'uncommited.' He wanted to break his pledge and do some more illegal advertising and that was the only way he could get away with it. Unfortunately, his little scheme didn't work.
May 14, 2008 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Blah blah blah. Is there a reason we're still talking about this shit like it matters? It's over. Obama's FL ads were part of a national TV buy, from which you cannot just exclude 1 state. Hillary signed a pledge saying she wouldn't "campaign or participate" in the MI primary.
You can parse what "participate" means all you want, but the adults have a general election to get ready for.
May 14, 2008 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're confused - you must looking for Hitler's Fantasyland thread. This is the thread for people who love democracy and know that nobody is going to get the nomination until a candidate is nominated at the convention at Denver in August.
May 14, 2008 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you hate the rule of law, namely contract law. A signature is a signature.
May 14, 2008 11:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure you must know what you're talking about because I don't. But if you're asking whether it's more important to honor a democratic election and count everyone's vote, more than it is to follow some stupid, ill-advised and dictatorial rules handed down from the 'Democratic' Party elites - then yes, it is infinitely more important to do the former.
May 15, 2008 12:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
D'oh! I wish you had told Clinton months ago that they were "stupid, ill-advised and dictatorial rules"! Surely, if she had known that in advance, she wouldn't have consented via her legally-binding signature to follow them. :-(
May 15, 2008 12:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
#1 Hillary didn't break any pledge - Obama did. Obama cleverly paid for advertising in Northern Florida, claiming that it was directed at neighboring states. Hillary didn't come to Florida until after the polls had closed.
#2 Hillary didn't put her name on the Michigan ballot - the state of Michigan did. Obama took his name off the ballot and instructed his supporters to vote 'uncommitted,' which lost.
#3 They only signed a pledge not to "campaign or participate" in the Michigan or Florida Democratic primaries. But they never promised to launch a campaign to disenfranchise the voters of Michigan and Florida. That's the doing of the fascist Team Obama, and it is shameful.
May 15, 2008 12:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
You still haven't directly answered my question: if the rules were bad, why did Clinton agree to them?
And of course the natural follow-up question is, why bother to agree to rules if you have no intention of following them?
The superdelegates are not stupid, they know this is not Soviet Russia. Elections have rules, and you follow them -- or you change the election rules beforehand. You can't have it both ways.
May 15, 2008 12:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're insane. Hillary never agreed to disenfranchise voters. That's Obama's fascist project. I piss on Howard Dean AND your fascist rules.
Long Live Democracy!
May 15, 2008 2:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Long live the rule of law, not the rule of people, of Clinton. We've already explained that Obama could not have stopped those commercials, and having your name on the ballot is participating.
May 15, 2008 7:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
You just keep lying. If having your name on the ballot it participating than why did Obama have his name on the ballot in Florida? And as for your "rule of law" - Howard Dean is not the law and I piss on him and his fascist rules. Howard Dean is breaking the law by disenfranchising legal voters, and he should be prosecuted by the law and thrown into prison.
May 15, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
That remark shows a misunderstanding of the process. Political parties, by law, are free to set their own rules. So if Dean is merely following the DNC rules that both campaigns agreed on in advance, that is not breaking the law.
Oh, and you can't chastice posters like Phoebe yesterday for using "potty" language as you call it, and then use a word like "piss" yourself. No double standards (for bloggers or politicians)!
May 15, 2008 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
May 14, 2008 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Booing bad, Obama supporters. Keep cool. It isn't about Hillary anymore. Think November. Keep the door open for Clinton supporters.
May 14, 2008 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, part of me tingled, but yeah, you are on TV, don't boo. Not classy.
May 14, 2008 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Take your cue from Obama folks.
May 14, 2008 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
That should read "...Obama, folks." - note the comma. Different meaning.
May 14, 2008 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
isn't this the SECOND presidential run Edwards has lost?
PLUS he helped Kerry lose in '04?
My, my, his endorsement sure means a lot!
Let's see, other notables endorsing Barry:
Gary Hart, of the SS "Monkey Business",
Ted Kennedy, who swam away leaving his girlfriend to drown,
John Kerry, who let himself get swiftboated without a peep;
Bil Richardson, who owes his career to the man he stabbed in the back;
and every loser in this primary.
I can see why this upstanding bunch wouldn't want HRC as president.
May 14, 2008 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm still waiting for him to say as many nice things about Obama directly as he said about Hillary.
May 14, 2008 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, it's Hillary that needs the platitudes at this point. She's the one that needs to be talked down from the ledge. Obama is fine.
May 14, 2008 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
67 - 28. that's quite a ledge.
BTW How much do you guys get paid for this?
May 14, 2008 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I just figured out the "working class divide" Obama has. Edwards, a wealthy white son of a mill-worker turned lawyer can say something like "America is a bully" or "Guantanamo is a black mark for this country" or that "America is facing moral shame by failing it's poor" and get a bunch of cheers, while if the black guy with the funny sounding name says it, there's a certain group of people that start to look at him funny and wonder what team he's playing for. After all, that black guy had better be more than grateful for every opportunity that this country has seen fit to give to him, and any complaining just sounds...funny. And just where is his flag pin anyway.
Sometimes, it's not so much in the delivery as the deliverer. Too bad, but you can see that they're working on it as a campaign.
May 14, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe the word you are looking for is "uppity," not "funny."
May 14, 2008 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't want to go there. I wanted to draw a picture of their mindset, but not too graphic a picture.
May 14, 2008 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it would be nice if things were as simple as you seem to believe they are. Unfortuantely they are not. If Obama were talking about the issues you mention in the way you state it, people would respond, but he pretty much doesn't talk about them except in the most vague terms.
Like Dukakis and Kerry before him, Obama doesn't appear to "feel" it when he discusses the difficulties typical people face. Appear is the key word. Personally, I think it is not because he doesn't fully understand and empathize and care and so on. Like the other two, he intellectualizes far more than the average person and so while very concerned, doesn't convey that concern because he's just being too damn cerebral. He needs to change that or he'll have plenty of time to think about what went wrong back in the Senate.
May 14, 2008 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you about Obama being too cerebral and analytical, but that's just the way he is and he can't change even if he wanted to, which he doesn't.
May 14, 2008 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
He doesn't have to change. All he has to do is make it clear what he is feeling about the situation. It is in the inflection of a voice, the body language, etc... If he continues to be a robocandidate/brainiac constantly without letting people see that he feels what they feel he is going to suffer for it. It isn't even difficult to do.
Gore learned that lesson only after getting his ass handed to him after winning a nail biter. We cannot afford for Obama to be so hidebound that he is unable to demonstrate to regular people that he actually cares about them and understands what they are going through and in more than an academic way.
May 14, 2008 9:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess that's why he packs those stadiums full of cheering crowds...all that dry cerebral stuff. The last thing America needs is a president who uses his brains. McCain 08!!!
May 14, 2008 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's able to pack stadiums because he's a much better writer than he is a speaker, making up for his impression.
May 14, 2008 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
He isn't packing stadiums full of people who aren't voting for him in places like West Virginia, etc... the point is you have to be open to legitimate and constructive criticism instead of fostering an atmosphere of groupthink where the leader cannot have any flaws or where he cannot and should not be improved.
Obama has glaring weaknesses in the electorate. Apart from having to overcome race, his weaknesses are quite similar to the weaknesses of other smart, intellectually inclined nominees in recent times---who have lost elections they should have won in part because they could not connect with lots of voters who they should have connected with. It isn't enough to appeal to the smartest people in the school for something like this: it is in large part a popularity contest based upon whether or not the annointed one understands the little people who vote and who decide the elections. People like us on this board are really not in play. Our votes are taken for granted. There isn't really any question about whether or not Obama will receive our votes. Our candidate has to have broader appeal in order to win in any Presidential contest, but especially this year. Not to admit it and work on improving our performance is stupid, arrogant and has been tried repeatedly in the past much to the chagrin of the brainy people who decided to take that path. They lost. I don't wanna see our guy lose this time.
May 15, 2008 12:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
O yeah - you have totally got it.
May 14, 2008 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
THIS...
May 14, 2008 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
IS
May 14, 2008 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
EXCELLENT
May 14, 2008 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
NEWS
May 14, 2008 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
FOR
May 14, 2008 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
HILLARY!!!!
May 14, 2008 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
!!!
May 14, 2008 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
NEWS,
May 14, 2008 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
NEWS
May 14, 2008 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
GREAT
May 14, 2008 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am brain dead today - completely. LOL!
May 14, 2008 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Edwards, you're LATE!
What are you angling for?
A cabinet position?
Interior, justice?
Veep?
Forget it you had your chance and you blew it.
Getting back at your wife?
What a bout those $400 dollar haircuts?
Snicker....
Hillary is toast....
Smear the butter and jam....
May 14, 2008 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tena, we said we missed you on another thread...
Anyhow....as for the topic...yeah, that first five minutes as I posted somewhere else was nausiating.......Pat Buchanon is to on Msnbc.
Hillary showed character....puke!
May 14, 2008 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aw thanks - missed all of you too.
Pat Buchanan said she showed character? Hell, that's like getting an endorsement from Zombie George Wallace.
May 14, 2008 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
coo..
Nah Edwards said that...Buchanon said that if hillary wins kentucky by a large margin this thing isnt over.......and the boys are picking on her.....you know...shit to keep her alive...lol
May 14, 2008 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pat is beside himself defending Hillary. He just doesn't know what to do.
May 14, 2008 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah kate....Im rolling over here......Matthews and Andrea Mitchell just laughed at something he said in such a pathetic way........Now this is news I can watch..fuuuunnnny!
May 14, 2008 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gotalife - are you OK? I'm not seeing any posts.
I'm worried about you - call me.
May 14, 2008 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, you have to wonder who would make a Christmas tree out of shit.
but not too much for too long - I'm not sure I want to know. ;)
May 14, 2008 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gotalife and I spent and entire weekend on this - he's truly a bullshit artist.
May 14, 2008 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tena, I see you still have'nt lost any of that sting..LOL
May 15, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Totally noticeable, wasn't it?
Also, how was this an endorsement? Seemed like all he did was use Obama's microphone to babble on about his own platform and praise Hillary and oh, yeah, said he supports a president obama. Richardson's was a rousing endorsement.
May 14, 2008 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
The more effusive the praise, the more burnt the toast.
May 14, 2008 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's clear that we should not tempt the wrath of Zod.
May 14, 2008 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know nothing about High Lord Zod. Can you enlighten?
Although, I must say, his phrase, while cryptic, has multiple meanings. I will try to decipher.
May 14, 2008 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kneel before Zod!
May 14, 2008 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well done.
May 15, 2008 1:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Way to comport yourselves in here Obama supporters! Nothing like sore winners. Pathetic. Sad. All of you. Barack Obama deserves better...he's a much bigger man...human...than you all. You small, small, small people.
May 14, 2008 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes loki....patronizing, thats the way to go...
May 14, 2008 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
You too.
May 14, 2008 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Im just saying, play the guilt card to corner people into not showing how they feel...
May 14, 2008 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
True colors of the unhinged! heh-heh...like I said, pathetic.
May 14, 2008 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Im trying to say you've been had.
It wont work because some of see past that game, no matter how you frame it. We know Thats a fake worm on that hook....
May 14, 2008 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I'm trying to say...pay close attention...is that you are a pathetic human being. It shows with each and every post.
A couple others have shown grace. You? Not so much. Be a man for chrisakes. An adult. A little less bitter. A lot less pathetic. You might live longer and healthier.
May 14, 2008 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just so you know...words have meaning...name calling you know....Too bad we are on the computer, if we were in person, I would whoop your ass for your name calling....
But so Im clear, I am gratious. Im just not going to let you diagram what gratious is....so for the third time, Im not going to play your game and argue with you about it.
May 14, 2008 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oohh. Tough guy! Oh...and not play the game? You already have/are. Talk about being had! Heh-heh.
And one last thing... G-r-a-c-i-o-u-s.
May 14, 2008 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not tough guy, just a Grown Man.....
Notice who is the only one calling people names here, and crying about civility. Others may let you prey off there trepidations, I however am comfortable enough with my stance on Hillary...and again you speak for your self.
May 14, 2008 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, threatening violence...that's another part of your "character" Obama would be proud of.
Pathetic.
May 14, 2008 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your a Joke Loki...a hypocrite....be gone.
May 14, 2008 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you going to beat me up if I stick around. You know how I love when you talk tough! Mmmmhhmmm! Love it!
May 14, 2008 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
More games.....something all Hillary supporters have in common,errrrr maybe DNA...
You understand our posts are in chronological order right.....nevermind....:)
May 14, 2008 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh and one last thing Sean baby. I didn't call you a name. If I said you were an "ignorant dickhead"...that'd be calling you a name. Pointing out an obvious character trait (pathetic) is not name calling.
May 14, 2008 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
And now, I'm going to make your day...ta-ta!
May 14, 2008 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please...I tire of you.....
Kick Rocks....!
May 14, 2008 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right on Sean....I think Obama supporters have suffered their fare share of patronizing from the annointed one and her supporters. If there is some bitterness in our victory, it's because of the race Clinton has run. Not very stellar. Paybacks are hell.
May 14, 2008 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brilliant.
Again, Obama would be so proud. ;^}
May 14, 2008 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Loki: it is your (presumed) candidate who has sunk to the bottom of the pond with her race baiting, disingenuous, pandering, and lying tactics, not ours. Please go ahead and defend her. I'm all ears.
May 14, 2008 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have more patience for ignorant hypocritical behavior than I do....Thats what he wants....But I hear ya anyhow kateO...:)
May 14, 2008 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really admire Obama and he reminds me of what we can be--so I try to listen, but it's hard. I am so proud of him, and us.
May 14, 2008 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hear yah...and everyone is not going to be the same...we all have different personalities. What I wont do is let people who play the trollish game of putting me on the defensive like they do him and its not fair because he is in a campaign where everyword is picked apart. We are can aim to be like him in so many ways, as long as we try. But if we are pushed, we should be able to express that and not have someone exploit it with intellectual dishonesty...thats just my take...You know you make me proud just as he does though.....:)
May 14, 2008 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know kate...:)
May 14, 2008 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know Sean. He makes me so proud I was dancing around the kitchen tonight, making dinner during the Edwards speech. I think I drank a bottle of wine all on my own! My sons and husband just look at me and laugh. But they know, too. A leader should inspire like that, and he does.
May 14, 2008 9:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I say Amen to that KATEO..Amen....:)
May 14, 2008 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
FOR HILLARY!!!
May 14, 2008 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
With this new Edwards and NARAL support, Hillary's chances are better than ever. The voters will see these endorsements by party bigwigs and special interest groups as an affront to democracy and will angrily come to the polls by the millions to put Hillary over the top.
May 14, 2008 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why cuz she is victim again.....Thats leadership.
May 14, 2008 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think "I endorse Barack Obama" is nice enough. His presence at the rally is ass-kissing enough. It's Hillary that needs to be massaged a bit right now.
A bit disappointed at the boos, actually. We've won. Let's be gracious.
May 14, 2008 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good luck with that!
May 14, 2008 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, you're certainly doing your part to provoke Obama supporters into ungraciousness. What a terrific way to spend your time. Ma must be proud.
May 14, 2008 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wrong...it was well under way. No need for provocation. It's in their DNA, isn't it?
May 14, 2008 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why bother? You've got six months to figure out which side your bread is buttered on. It's a free country, or was.
May 14, 2008 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
About time.
May 14, 2008 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh my god...Racist Buchanon is quoting MLK again........these people have no sense....lol
May 14, 2008 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
They certainly count on the rest of us having no memory, don't they.
~
May 14, 2008 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Totaly, world...they do!
May 14, 2008 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I meant to say Thunder...they do...:)
May 14, 2008 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, Buchanon is on a focused campaign to make race the sole issue defining Barack Obama. He managed to almost singlehandedly divert the discussion from the meaning of Edwards' endorsement to why West Virginians are completely unremarkable for admitting that one in every four of Clinton's votes were based on race.
He's a true bastard, but he's honestly probably going to be one of the less bombastic race-baiters from the right as this general election approaches. I did like how Andrea Mitchell tried to have a reasoned discussion with him, however futile.
May 14, 2008 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you see andrea tell him that they are old and they young people are comming out and voting and he better get used to that........
Talk about a wake up moment for him. Dont worry Im sure Andrea will change once they get ahold of her, but still it was compelling....
May 14, 2008 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes...maybe she can take some character lessons from people like you. This is the kind of character America really needs! Barack Obama would be so proud of every last one of you!
Cheers!
May 14, 2008 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
May 14, 2008 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not bitting Loki, what did I just tell you......lol.....
May 14, 2008 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you're nursing your wounds, perhaps this isn't the best place to hang out.
May 14, 2008 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
May 14, 2008 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ahh...don't go away mad. Just...well you know.
Actually, in all honesty, if you're serious in your support of Hillary Clinton and not just trolling, I'd hope that you join us to defeat McCain and set this country on the right track again. And I mean this.
May 14, 2008 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I swithed my suipport to Obama months ago. Gladly. I love the guy. It's you "true believers" that are difficult to stomach. But no worries. I'll soldier on.
Do me a favor, though. Don't think this was just a game. You really do need to show up at the polls in Nov. Don't forget now. ;^}
May 14, 2008 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
What do you mean November? I voted last month.
May 14, 2008 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
that photo is really funny.
It looks like Edwards is tickling Barry's ass.
May 14, 2008 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wouldnt feed um guys....its their way of greiving...you know, sulking...
May 14, 2008 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is a website and thread where some new posters will feel much more welcome. You'll be embraced and all your opinions will resonate with your fellow posters.
Seriously, it really is best for all of us that you go here to post:
http://www.hillaryis44.org/?p=617#comments
May 14, 2008 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Holy shit.
I've never been there before. That's one disturbing circle jerk.
May 14, 2008 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. I hadn't checked those folks out in months. Wishing i'd devoted my life to New! Clorox for Brains(TM) if only to self-medicate at times like these.
Odd that every real-life Clinton supporter I know, on and offline, moved on last week without the slightest of hiccups - like a lightswitch had been flipped.
May 14, 2008 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
hey "Present" -- it's just like the republican at the table to be the latent homosexual. you know, the one who tells butt jokes, gay jokes, all day long but swears he's so hetero. you've exposed yourself. oops
May 14, 2008 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am afraid that this primary has turned Hillary's supporters into raving lunatics. Y'all need to calm the f**k down. There are plenty of people here who initially supported Edwards, Richardson, Dodd etc, and while there was disappointment when our guy dropped out, we accepted reality. The voters have spoken. Obama has more pledged delegates, leads in the popular vote, and has won more states. Even the mathematicians and scientists that fudged the data for the Tobacco companies cannot come up with a plausible way for Clinton to win.
May 14, 2008 8:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton, Hillary Rodham 16,727,863 47.63%
Obama, Barack Hussein 16,710,233 47.58%
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/D.phtml
To the popular vote victor SHOULD go the spoils.
I also think it's interesting that if you count Florida and Michigan, Hillary is behind by only 50 delegates. And yet somehow, for some reason, Obama is now being lionized and congratulated for disenfranchising millions of voters and losing the popular vote.
Misogyny? What else would you call it?
May 14, 2008 9:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because she signed a pledge not to campaign and then violated that pledge, and now she wants the spoils of her breaking contract.
The only way your math works is if you only count the FL and MI votes that went to Clinton and disenfranchise caucus states.
May 14, 2008 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly right Scalfin-
It would be grossly unfair to all Michigan voters to count they primary after we were all told the primary would not count. It was a total scam primary.
Rstephen-
If you are not from Mich or FL, you need to shut up about it.
May 14, 2008 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly why do you hate democracy so much? Your fascist degradation of a perfectly legal and legitimate election - because it didn't go your way - makes you no better than Hitler. Because he did the same thing.
You aren't disenfranchising states, you are disenfranchising patriotic Democratic voters who did absolutely nothing wrong except to vote for somebody that YOU don't like. And I will certainly continue to speak out about it with all my strength - including after the convention if they aren't seated - and I don't care what fascists like you say about it. You can count on it.
As for the lazy and unpatriotic citizens of Michigan who didn't do their duty and vote - they decided not only not to vote for president, but not to vote on the many other offices and issues that were on the ballot. And your insane rationalization that we must now punish those who did their patriotic duty and take away their votes, for the sake of those who didn't do their duty, only shows the complete moral bankruptcy of your brand of fascism.
May 14, 2008 11:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why do you hate democracy? You refuse to count the voters of Washington, Iowa, Nebraska, and Nevada.
May 15, 2008 7:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
You forgot the asterisks:
*Counting non-credentialed primary in Florida
**Counting non-credentialed primary in Michigan
***Counting no votes for Obama in Michigan
****Counting no votes in Washington
*****Counting no votes in Iowa
******Counting no votes in Nebraska
*******Counting no votes in Nevada
I'm sure it was an oversight.
May 14, 2008 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, southerndemocrat for being a southern gentleman/woman. Very classy and much appreciated.
May 14, 2008 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am just getting the news on the Edwards endorsement. As an Edwards Democrat, I can tell you a lot of his supporters will be unhappy. I can't say if it will a majority of them, but there are several who are highly critical of Obama and they will probably vote for McCain or just lay out of the General---at least that is what they will say for the next week or so.
Edwards himself said Sen. Clinton is closer to the status quo of Washington inner circles than he preferred; and he had said he was philosophically closer to Obama--this was in the televised debates. I find what he is doing entirely consistent with the policies and philosophy he put forward.
I am personally going to have trouble with supporting Obama, but Edwards endorsement will cause me to give it a lot more thought.
May 14, 2008 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks gtash for an honest post. As an Obama supporter I am very interested in why you say you will have so much trouble supporting him. I am genuinely curious.
May 14, 2008 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Was watching Lou Dobbs...and Dobbs goes on this rant about how that this is a back room deal and the democratic party is thwarting the will of the voters by trying to get Barack nominated. And the two analysts with him just looked at him like, "Oops, old man is off his meds again."
They then tried to explain to Lou very carefully that Obama was ahead in delegates and popular vote and states won and superdelegates. But Lou wasn't having it, he started get all blustery and offended at Barack "stopping" the primary. It was truly bizarre.
May 14, 2008 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
just like Buchanan on the TV today, racism rears its ugly head when these old coots are forced to accept the real possibility of a President Obama
they just have "got a funny feeling about him"
May 14, 2008 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I laughed out loud at Buchanan. I hope he has an aneurism on election day live on tv. But then again I have a very dark sense of humor.
May 14, 2008 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
gtash, if you do not mind me asking, why will have trouble supporting Obama?
May 14, 2008 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
"This suggests that Edwards clearly recognizes"
No, Greg, no. This suggests that he is of the opinion. To say that he recognizes something can only be said on something established, which the thing Edwards "recognizes" is to ethereal and subjective to be. You are using editorial wording.
Here's a rundown:
Clinton is at a disadvantage in the numbers: objective
Clinton won WV: objective
A large part of Clinton's WV support was based upon racism: objective (due to exit polls)
Clinton won using racism: subjective (totally based upon interpretation, though it seems probable)
May 14, 2008 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
who listens to Lou Dobbs anymore....no offense if you do...Im just sayin
May 14, 2008 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was watching the edwards speech and it was the cnn prime news and it went over into Dobbs and so he did the analysis. If that can be called analysis.
May 14, 2008 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
ohhh, I see....it was rhetorical though...but Im glad you responded..:)...I almost never have my t.v. on CNN because they go out of there way to prove they are not the most liberal news network....You know..they're like a battered wife of something.....
May 14, 2008 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
presidentraygun, you should have seen Buchanan going berserk while on Hardball. Even Chris Matthews looked shocked and stunned.
May 14, 2008 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
and, when directly asked, Buchanan would not endorse even a hypothetical future racially egalitarian America
while I think Obama's Presidency will force this country to go through some much-delayed self-reflection on race, it won't be an easy road to hoe.
some people are literally going to blow their stacks in the process. and should any minorities start acting too "uppity" in celebration of Obama's presidency, I fear someone is going to get hurt before the dust settles
May 14, 2008 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Scalfin, if you are going to get all technical on us you had better meet your own standard. "A large part of Clinton's WV support was based upon racism".
Large is a subjective term, thus the following statement cannot possibly be an objective statement.
May 14, 2008 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe that 25% admitting to it qualifies as a large part by any standard.
May 14, 2008 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well there's Obama's answer to his problems with white blue collar voters. Photo ops with John Edwards! Pledge to commit to cutting poverty in half in 10 years! Would have been a great message for the second most impoverished state in the nation WV if he really meant it. But it's just a politcally motivated ploy to get edwards endorsement rather than a true committment to people in poverty.
May 14, 2008 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
maybe nothing will come of it, but during the Clinton I administration the only major initiative related to poverty was "ending welfare as we know it"
once O wins in November, only time will tell
May 14, 2008 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. Take a look at the attached. The Clinton administration made significant progress with increasing income across all categories and lifting people out of poverty.
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/1999/cb99-188.html
But I'm sure Barack's sudden change of heart is real whereas poverty was laways an important part of nill clinton's campaign.
May 14, 2008 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
and what part of your original comment about Obama was a fact?
btw, can you name the actual great programs that Clinton initiated that were proven to have reduced poverty? just pointing to a chart does not make causation a fact. and do you give the republican congress of the late 90s credit, too, for being poverty reducers?
back to the ending welfare thing, do you think that that turned out to be a success for poor people? do you think that poverty increasing today has any roots in that compassionate clinton move?
May 14, 2008 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure moving people from welfare to work (where they are capable fo working) allows them to pull themselves out of poverty. He was not in favor of heartless coldblooded stop the checks and beenfits and throw them to the wolves. he focused on investing in job training and education and day care subsidies and holding fathers accountable for their children so single mothers had more mechanisms to get child support. It also lessens the cycle of children being born to mothers on welfare falling in to the same cycle.
When Clinton took office in 1993, the poverty rate was 15.1%. When Bill Clinton left office in 2000, the poverty rate was 11.3% the lowest in 26 yrs. Decline in poverty rate of 25%. Pretty damn admirable for 8 yrs. John Edwards wants to double that which is another laudable goal.
The reason more people are slipping into poverty is a lack of employment driving more people back onto public asisstance programs. How that is Bill Clinton's fault is beyond me, but I'm sure you'll find a way.
May 14, 2008 10:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
that's rich.
"not in favor of heartless coldblooded stop the checks"
what was the 5-year lifetime limit then if not that?
many people now do not have public assistance available, thanks to clinton I.
welfare to work was BS. it was never properly funded. why do you think Gingrich and others went along with it back then? because they knew what it really was, cut-offs for poor folks who need help
you should come to west oakland and see what a raging success clintons big poverty program was.
they are good at pandering, pretending to feel our pain, but in the end they are corporatists all the way.
and where the money comes from for them does matter with hillary still in the race
(lastly, apologies for hitting you below on avoiding my welfare question. I hadn't seen your response here yet)
May 14, 2008 11:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
states are permitted exemptions and general fund allocations to help with those families that are beyond their 5 yr limit. However, there are financial incentives for moving to work. people retain medical and day care benefits during the transition.They don't just get the boot and are left on their own. NYS I know has a safety ney=t program as does CA as does every state. If people are unable to work because of a disability, they are eligible for SSI.
On a separaet note, are you arguing that we should return to unlimited welfare and cycles of unemployment. Welfare reform has not been successful for everyone but it has lifted many people out of poverty. There's no easy answer but his plan struck the right balance.
May 15, 2008 12:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
And let's not forget that eradicating poverty is one of the major focuses of the William J. Clinton Foundation. Damn them do gooder Clintons!
May 14, 2008 9:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Edwards has a poverty foundation too. What of it? It'd be a little more impressive if they'd release the donors names. Why the secrecy if it's such a reputable operation?
don't think I didn't notice your dodge of my direct questions in my last comment to you. and you had the nerve to talk to me about facts. ha
May 14, 2008 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gimme an effin break. For all the good work the foundation does he could take money from the devil himself. If it is going to go towork to end poverty, aids relief, environment, childhood obesity etc etc etc and you want to see who gave money not to clinton but his charities. Good god man get help. You've got the worst case of clinton hatred I've ever seen.
May 14, 2008 10:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
wow, then, you've had your head in the sand. I don't even hate them, but at least 50% of this country dislikes hillary enough to never ever vote for her. were you asleep in the 90s as far as clinton-hate goes?
and I care if the devil is giving the clintons money now. it's not usually a good thing to take money from the devil when you are running for the presidency, personally or as a foundation, especially if you are taking it and then lending it back to yourself to regain power
and again you fail to bust out evidence on how exactly the clintons did such a great service to the poor when they had the presidency before. where are your FACTS?
May 14, 2008 11:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps you missed this part:
When Clinton took office in 1993, the poverty rate was 15.1%. When Bill Clinton left office in 2000, the poverty rate was 11.3% the lowest in 26 yrs. That's 7 million people lifted out of poverty. Decline in poverty rate of 25%. Pretty damn admirable for 8 yrs. John Edwards wants to double that which is another laudable goal.
But since you want MORE facts (not that you will ever pay attention) here you go:
http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/new/html/Tue_Oct_3_114000_2000.html
TODAY, THE CENSUS BUREAU RELEASED ITS REPORT ON INCOME AND POVERTY IN AMERICA FOR 1999. The annual report shows an unprecedented fifth year of significant income growth - with median household income breaking $40,000 for the first time in history - and shows that the poverty rate last year dipped to its lowest level in two decades. Highlights:
Strong Broad-Based Income Gains:
Household Income Breaks $40,000 for First Time in History. Income for median households rose $1,072, or 2.7 percent, from $39,744 in 1998 to $40,816, marking an unprecedented fifth year of significant growth in income. In 1999, the median income of African American households increased from $25,911 in 1998 to $27,910 -- an increase of $1,999, or 7.7 percent, which is the largest one-year increase ever recorded. The income of the median Hispanic household, adjusted for inflation, increased from $28,956 in 1998 to $30,735 in 1999 -- an increase of $1,779, or 6.1 percent, which is the largest one-year increase ever recorded.
Family Income Up Over $6,300 Since 1993. Another measure of income -- family income, which excludes single individuals and counts only related members in any household -- shows similar trends. In 1999, the median family income, adjusted for inflation, increased to $48,950 from $47,769, or 2.5 percent. Since President Clinton and Vice President Gore passed their Economic Plan in 1993, median family income has increased from $42,612 in 1993 to $48,950 in 1999 - an increase of $6,338, or 15 percent. From 1987 to 1992, median family income fell $1,991 after adjusting for inflation. Since 1993, African American family income increased by $6,941, which is a 27.9 percent increase.
All Groups Have Seen Their Incomes Rise – From Richest to Poorest. For the third year in a row, all five quintiles of the income distribution saw their incomes, adjusted for inflation, rise. The average income for the lowest 20 percent increased by 5.4 percent compared to an increase of 3.9 percent for the highest 20 percent. Since 1993, all five quintiles have seen their incomes rise strongly, after 12 years in which there was little if any improvement for the bottom 60 percent of Americans. Since 1993, the lowest income quintile recorded a 16.3 percent income increase, which is the largest increase gain of all the quintiles.
Strong Reduction in Poverty:
Poverty Rate Fell to 11.8 Percent in 1999 -- Its Lowest Level Since 1979. In 1999, the poverty rate dropped from 12.7 percent to 11.8 percent, the lowest rate in two decades. Since President Clinton and Vice President Gore passed their Economic Plan in 1993, the poverty rate has declined from 15.1 percent in 1993 to 11.8 percent last year – the largest six-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years (1964-1970). There are now 7 million fewer people in poverty than in 1993, and over 2.2 million, or over 30 percent, of this decline occurred during the past year. (In 1999, the poverty threshold was $17,029 for a family of four.)
1999 Represents the Largest One-Year Drop in Child Poverty in More than Three Decades. While the child poverty rate remains too high, in 1999, it declined from 18.9 percent to 16.9 percent, which is the lowest since 1979. The full 2 percentage point decline is the largest one-year decline since 1966. Under President Clinton, the child poverty rate has declined from 22.7 percent to 16.9 percent, a reduction of 25.6 percent, which is the biggest six-year drop in nearly 30 years (1964-1970).
Elderly Poverty Rate Fell Below 10 percent for the First Time. In 1999, the elderly poverty rate of 9.7 percent fell below the 10 percent mark for the first time in recorded history. In 1959, the elderly poverty rate was 35.2 percent.
The African American Poverty Rate Down To Its Lowest Level on Record. While the African-American poverty rate is still far above the poverty rate for whites, it declined from 26.1 percent in 1998 to 23.6 percent in 1999, which is the lowest level recorded since data were first collected in 1959. Since 1993, the African-American poverty rate dropped from 33.1 percent to 23.6 percent, a 29 percent decline, which is the largest six-year drop in African American poverty in more than 30 years.
Child Poverty Among African Americans Down To Lowest Level on Record. While the African-American child poverty rate is too high, it fell from 36.7 percent to 33.1 percent in 1998, which is the largest one-year drop in history and its lowest level on record (data collected since 1959). Since 1993, the child poverty rate among African Americans has fallen every single year for six straight years (1993- 99), a historical record. Poverty among African American children has declined 13 percentage points, or 28.2 percent, under President Clinton.
The Hispanic Poverty Rate Dropped to its Lowest Level Since 1979. In 1999, the Hispanic poverty rate dropped from 25.6 percent to 22.8 percent - that’s the lowest level since 1979. Poverty for Hispanics declined by 2.8 percentage points, or 10.9 percent, from 1998, which is the largest one-year percentage point decline ever recorded. While there is still more work to do, since President Clinton took office, Hispanic poverty has declined from 30.6 percent to 22.8 percent, or 25.5 percent, from 1993. The Hispanic child poverty rate fell from 34.4 percent to 30.3 percent, or 12 percent, from 1998. Poverty for Hispanic children has declined 10.6 percentage points, or 26 percent, since 1993.
The Asian and Pacific Islander Americans Poverty Rate As Low As It’s Ever Been. In 1999, the Asian Pacific Islander poverty rate dropped from 12.5 percent to 10.7 percent—as low as it’s ever been. Since 1993, the Asian Pacific Islander Americans poverty rate has dropped from 15.3 to 10.7, or 30.1 percent, which is the largest percentage decline of all groups.
4.1 Million People Lifted Out of Poverty by the EITC. In 1993, President Clinton expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit, providing a tax cut for low-income working families. In 1999, the EITC lifted 4.1 million people out of poverty, which is nearly double the number of people lifted out of poverty by the EITC in 1993. Among children, the EITC reduced poverty by 17 percent in 1999, which represents moving 2.3 million children out of poverty.
Central Cities Show Large Improvement. The poverty rate in central cities fell from 18.5 percent in 1998 to 16.4 percent in 1999, which is the largest percentage point decline ever recorded and the lowest level since 1979. Since 1993, poverty in central cities has fallen by 23.7 percent.
May 14, 2008 11:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
again, you fail to show causation. I didn't see anything in your census excerpts that showed clinton policies directly attributing to any income gains.
now, I'm not saying policy doesn't matter (as we can see Bush's wrecking the economy now), but clinton was no great savior of the poor by any stretch of the imagination. he used "ending welfare" as a means to appease the right on the backs of the poor.
my last point on this is that just as you fail to show evidence of causation in the 90s, in all fairness you can't say that a non-clinton democratic administration wouldn't be just as good for the economy regarding poor folks. this "only hillary can save the planet" is BS.
May 14, 2008 11:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not a grand economist and so I cannot prove causation, but I'd argue there's a strong case for Bill Clinton's economic and social policies translating to economic growth for everyone - particularly those in poverty as indicated by these facts. You doubt that Bill Clinton had an impact based on nothing but skepticism. I'll go with facts and statistics rather than your CLINTONS ARE EVIL AND CAN DO NOTHING GOOD argument.
When have I ever said Hillary is the only candidate that can help poor people? I believe she is the candidate best equipped to do it. I believe her foreclosure plan would do a more effective job of keeping people with subprime loans in their homes rather than just more vacant properties in MD and Detroit and inner city areas which are being hit the worst. Obama's economic plans are far less progressive and detailed than Hillary's.
If Obama wanted to make eradicating poverty a cornerstone of his adminstration there's no better place to make that case than in WV but he spent a few hours in the state and then only to wear a flag pin and talk about the GI Bill. Didn't talk to those folks about their economic concerns. Maybe he came to some grand realization overnight that low income voters matter. Or maybe this is a PR stunt with John Edwards. I'm going with PR stunt. What has Obama done to eradicate poverty and work for the poor?
May 15, 2008 12:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
what has obama done for the poor? yeah, he's just a poverty phony
oh, yeah, and thanks for the personal attacks and straw man arguments
May 15, 2008 1:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
He taught seminars! GREAT! That really put food on the table.
In additon the Obamas have been less than charitable personally while charity has always been a bedrock of the clinton's principles. Barack may be calling to ask you (and me since I'm a former Kerry donor and he sold his list) for $$$, but when the red cross and united way came knocking, his generosity was less than evident- a paltry .5% of the obama income ($1,000) where the typical american family gives 2.2% across income categories. I judge a man by how he lives, not what he says. "Community organizing" was his foray into chicago politics. When he's connected with a slumlord like rezko, I fail to believe his concern for people with asbestos int heir apartments is genuine.
Now I write this post because to say you can keep attacking the clintons (as many of you continue to do) and Clinton supporters will continue to attack Obama. It's a fact. Try to elevate the discussion shall we? The Clintons are not the devils you idiots have portrayed them to be. Obama is not the messiah.
May 15, 2008 7:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
And yeah I have no fear that some donor who is contributing to the clinton foundation to fund fighting AIDS in africa is looking for some kind of payback. when you're making 100 mil, I don't think some donation is going to swing your vote.
But you are right. People want to keeptheir private charitable contributions prvate. what is wrong with that? the clintons are not benefiting from the donations. the organization ranks an A on charity watch. all of clinton's fdn donor's don't give a shit about gobal warming, or economc development or combatting AIDS - they are trying to get in with hillary...for what?!?! You don't make sense!
I repeat - you need help.
May 14, 2008 11:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Straw man.
May 14, 2008 11:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Besides that, how does being married to a guy make you good at his job.
My father's a dentist. Will you let my mother drill your teeth?
May 14, 2008 11:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary is accomplished in her own right and has spent her lifetime working on rural health, children's and women's advocacy law, education reform, healthcare reform, SCHIP, she's a downn in the weeds policy wonk who can expound at length on the details. When he ran for president he argued it was a two for one deal as Hillary was one of his closest advisers. She's a valued and intelligent member of the senate. I don't think Bill's sitting behind her giving all of the answers.
Your insinuation that she's just Bill Clinton's wife and has no experience is insulting, misogynistic and flat out wrong.
May 15, 2008 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
So Hillary gets credit for good things Bill did, but not the other way around?
Doesn't seem consistent.
May 15, 2008 12:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with Chelsea - I think Hillary would be a much better president than bill. she had concerns with NAFTA that she expressed at the time privately and has been documented. seeing as the first lady in not a fourth branch of govt like cheney's VP position, her role is to voice her concerns and back the administration policy. nafta has been excellent for the border states not so much for middle america, so it hasn't been all bad as both hillary and obama acknowledged.
healthcare - if bill had used what remaining political capital he had to fight for hillarycare, the nation would be much better off now. he sed his political capital for deficit reduction and tax increases on the rich, cuts for the middle class. healthcare was not his top priority - it was hillary's and it got sacrificed.
hillary has contributed to the success of clinton I but it was ultimately her husband's administration. that said she did remarkably substantive work as first lady and to dismiss her as just Bills wife is wrong.
May 15, 2008 1:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
FWIW, I don't dismiss her as "just Bill's wife." In fact, last fall my wife and I donated money - twice - to her campaign.
I just looked at Obama's policy positions since then and believe he is the better choice.
In 2000, Nader votes arguably cost Gore the election. 2 years before that, "none of the above" votes led to Jesse Ventura (heaven help us) being elected Governor in my home state. Given the kind of Scalia/Thomas "strict constructionist" judges that a President McCain has pledged to nominate, I hope that over the next few months you will reconsider your plan to write in Clinton in November.
May 15, 2008 1:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm from NY so writing in for Hillary won't make any difference. NY is gong to obama. But I will encourage Hillary supporters in red and swing states and close blue states to bring a post it called not mccain if they must and put it over obama's name before pulling the lever. We can't afford mccain continuing to double down in iraq, further digging the us in deby through unaffroable tax cuts, outting the supreme court at risk of having scalia be the moderate. Obama's going to need all the help he can get.
May 15, 2008 1:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
dijamo,
Thanks for your thoughts. Good to know we can find points of agreement! 8-)
May 15, 2008 1:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps you don't know what a strawman argument is. A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. The original poster stated: "It'd be a little more impressive if they'd release the donors names. Why the secrecy if it's such a reputable operation?" and "I care if the devil is giving the clintons money now. it's not usually a good thing to take money from the devil when you are running for the presidency, personally or as a foundation, especially if you are taking it and then lending it back to yourself to regain power".
First - he is LYING when he implies that foundation contributions were lent to the campaign. Hillary's used her own money. The foundation has a A rating among charities and is transparent in how the money that comes in goes out to help the poor (rather than the clintons).
Second - most charities keep their donors private to protect the privacy of their donors. Again the clintons have earned more that 100 million since leaving the white house. Why would you have reason to suspect they are fleecing the chairty he travels the world for to address large scale problems? Why can't you expect people are are contributing because they want to do some good in the world and the clinton foundation is a powerful mechanism for doing so?
Third - the only candidate in this race who attempted to use their public office to benefit an organization that has direct benfit to himself and his wife is Obama with his attempted 1,000,000 earmark to the University of Chicago Hospitals shortly after his wife was promoted with a 200,000 / 160% increase. When has Hillary ever tried some shit like that in the Senate? never. And 200,000 means more to the Obamas than some donor's contributions to the clinton foundation or library - especially since they cried poverty about their measly $1,500 donations to charity when they were making over $300K as a family.
I say again - you folks can keep attacking the Clintons and more attacks on Obama will continue as well. I don't see how that is in the best interest of your candidate.
May 15, 2008 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Clinton Presidency certainly did a good job of ending their poverty. They sold hundreds of pardons in their final years in office and, to top that, abscounded with valuable White House Property upon vacating the White House. I honestly think it's possibe that Sen. Clinton is fighting for her life to win the nomination simply because she/they have taken advances on future "Presidental Favors." It is possible the Clintons have to win this Presidency or repay the "Donors" to the Clinton Library to the tune of 500 Million Dollars. Bill Clintion has also availed himself to more government services and payments than any two previous presidents' combined expnditures. So, in a sense, I agree that the Clintons are poverty fighters. They have done an excellent job of eradicating their own.
May 15, 2008 6:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's just the type of hyperbolic irrational clinton hatred that will make it harder for the Party to unify. Geez you people are stupid. if getting closer to winning the nomination does not make you return to decency rather than slurs with no proof like the clintons need to pay off the contributors to their library, I don't know what will. You are worse than republicans. Is it any wonder so many Hillary supporters are looking to McCain seeing how unfairly they have been treated by people within the "democratic" party?
I am sure Obama will be so much better and eliminate poverty in his first term... except he has no effing chance of being elected. Even less of a chance when you keep alienating Clinton supporters, IDIOT. Thanks for your valuable contributions.
May 15, 2008 7:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I respect Hillary's supporters; it's her schills I have a problem with. The selling of pardons and property theft are documented facts and will be recorded in the history books. It is also a fact that a person's past behavior is a good indicator of their future behavior; it is my "opinion" that Hillary is not Presidential material. It is also my Opinion that you (dijamo)and rstephen are schills for the Hillary Campaign;
May 15, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I respect Hillary's supporters; it's her schills I have a problem with. The selling of pardons and property theft are documented facts and will be recorded in the history books. It is also a fact that a person's past behavior is a good indicator of their future behavior; it is my "opinion" that Hillary is not Presidential material. It is also my Opinion that you (dijamo)and rstephen are schills for the Hillary Campaign.
May 15, 2008 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I respect Hillary's supporters; it's her schills I have a problem with. The selling of pardons and property theft are documented facts and will be recorded in the history books. It is also a fact that a person's past behavior is a good indicator of their future behavior; it is my "opinion" that Hillary is not Presidential material. It is also my Opinion that you (dijamo)and rstephen are schills for the Hillary Campaign.
May 15, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again, what you "believe" is not objective.
May 14, 2008 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
"This suggests that Edwards clearly recognizes that a genuine gesture to Hillary supporters will be necessary to bring them into the fold if the party is going to be united..".
Sargent, this suggest to me that you endorse that point of view.
So answer me this: What percentage of democratic and Independent voters do you reckon will forsake Obama, should Hillary not be placated with a VP slot (or whatever other "gesture" you deem "necessary" to keep them in the party fold)? 10% 20% Even more? Specifically, which state's hang in the electoral balance, attendant upon a wink-and-nod from Clinton, should her supporters not receive that gesture? Or why, as she herself has pledged to campaign wholeheartedly for the nominee, is any gesture deemed necessary in the first place?
May 14, 2008 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is far too proud and arrogant to make any significant gesture of reconciliation and he will lose the general election, in some measure, because of it. There's a reason all the smug elitists flock to him, because they recognize one of their own. Many Clinton supporters will sit on their hands or vote for McCain hoping that if Obama loses, they will have another chance to vote for her four years from now. Any while many Obama supporters will blame Hillary for his loss, the blame will be Obama's for being so arrogant.
May 14, 2008 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
will you agree, right now, to come back here November 5th after Obama wins to admit your mistake in predicting an Obama loss over and over and over in these threads?
crow if he loses -- you know you'd rather McCain in the white house anyway -- but apologize if/when he wins
fair enough?
May 14, 2008 9:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll certainly be back to rub salt in your wounds when he loses, though I have nothing to apologize for in the unlikely event that he wins. Because I still believe that Hillary would win by an even larger, landslide margin and be a better, more hard-working president, one who is more in touch with working class Americans like me.
May 14, 2008 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
you must be one of those rare working people worth $100,000,000. I wish I could relate to that
the apology would be for making incorrect predictions here over and over and over
but, apparently, you, like Bush, feel no need to ever admit when you are wrong. there's always some excuse, someone else to blame, for your own bad calls
May 14, 2008 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just because I don't conform to your pre-conceived notion about working people being too stupid to work a computer doesn't mean that I'm not what I say I am. It only means that you're not as superior as you think you are.
As for apologizing to you for making bad 'predictions' - I have merely stated the facts, born out in the most recent primary elections, that Obama doesn't have the support among working class Americans, among others, necessary to win the general election. It is you who should be apologizing to me for your refusal to acknowledge the obvious facts. And I have no doubt that when Obama loses, you will be the last person to apologize then too. More likely you will blame me.
May 14, 2008 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
facts?!? about who is going to win in November?
you're detaching from reality. the election hasn't actually happened yet, as eager as you are for mccain to win
May 14, 2008 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, you're the one calling us elitist because we support a candidate who doesn't go around making speeches from the back of a symbol of a bygone era (this is, of course, a reference to Panderer's Box, where Stewart made the best line ever: "Really? Even on economic issues? What's happened to her? One of the most educated people to ever run for President. Wellesley Grad, Yale Law, former first lady, sitting senator, and not from some bull**** state, either. All of a sudden she's rejecting experts, speaking with a folksy accent, threatening to obliterate Iran. It's like uh... [Hillary picture morphs into President Bush] Oh My God! He's never leaving! In one way or another he'll always be our President! Noooooo!")
May 14, 2008 10:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Smug and arrogant? I suppose Hillary considering her nomination inevitable before the primaries even began was pious and humble?
Seriously, there are some major flaws in your worldview that need professional attention.
May 14, 2008 9:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
You keep using this word "arrogant." But somehow, I think the word you'd really like to use is uppity.
May 14, 2008 11:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Building on Edwards' speech, Obama made conciliatory comments to Sen. Clinton last night. And both he and Edwards got the crowd to (eventually) cheer Clinton. Sure, you can chalk it up to trying to unify the party, but you can't argue that his tone was anything but respectful toward her.
May 15, 2008 8:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
All the 'my candidate is better' happy horse hockey aside . . .
Edwards is a class act and truly made a real effort towards unity of the Democratic Party.
Edwards is correct. Hereafter I will stop bashing both candidates for the DEM nomination. It is time to focus on defeating McCain.
May 14, 2008 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
As of 7:19 p.m. Mt,
I will join in that pledge with you.
small print, for as long as HRC conducts herself in a civil way going forward. Im being serious too. I will try.....again!
May 14, 2008 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whenever I feel the need to resond to the crap...I will simply refer to it as the Pledge, .........................For as long as I can.
May 14, 2008 9:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
The real irony here is that the press portrayed Edwards as a rich phony who was only using a populist message for political gain. And Obama picked up and copied Edward's message -sometimes word for word - for his own political gain and ultimately succeeded. So who is the real phony?
May 14, 2008 8:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
The press?
May 14, 2008 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
So who is the real phony?
Too easy.
Toooooo easy.
Which Hillary are you backing, sir/madam, the one who helped push NAFTA through and now lies about it OR the one who employed to the tune of millions as her chief frickin' strategist a corporate lobbyist currently helping push through a similar agreement with labor-murdering Colombia?
You really want to play the authenticity game?
May 14, 2008 9:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yea, let's play.
How about the atheist who joins a popular black church to get in good with the black community and to further his political career. But when he begins to set his sights even higher for president, he realizes that he needs to begin distancing himself from his controversial pastor. This same pastor, feeling hurt and realizing that he's been used by a slick politician, comes out and calls the opportunistic politician the politician that he is. At which point the now-famous politician stabs his own pastor in the back and destroys his hard-earned reputation within the black community.
Do you want to keep playing?
May 15, 2008 1:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
As opposed to Clinton, and her slogan "yes we will," which of course bears no resemblance to Obama's.
May 14, 2008 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
even funnier is that her plagiarized slogan is a lie
no, they won't
and which campaign was it that was talking about the evils of raising false hope? hmmmm
May 14, 2008 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is one loser left who hasn't endorsed him.
Yet.
May 14, 2008 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shh, now. We all know Gore won. But your point stands :)
May 14, 2008 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not Gore, Hillary.
May 14, 2008 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was there tonight.
Yes, there were boos for Hillary. But they weren't very loud boos...no where near as loud as for Bush, McCain, and the war. And after Edwards had given tribute to Hillary and urged for party unity, the cheers for Hillary were far louder than the boos had been.
There was nothing tonight to be ashamed of.
Tonight I was proud of Edwards, and I was proud of Obama for building on what Edwards had said about party unity as well as fighting poverty.
May 14, 2008 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whoa. I guess I can't blame Billary supporters for being bitter. When this campaign started I was neutral between Obama and Billary; but as I have seen Billary mismanage her campaign budget after accepting loads of $$ from hedge fund managers, insurance companies, and pharmas; as I have seen her strategically race-bait at the most opportune times in her campaign; as I have seen her originally endorse McCain over Obama; as I have seen her hang in this race to benefit her own ego rather than the harmony of the party,..
I can honestly say I will never vote for Billary for any office *ever*. If she was the nominee I would write in Al Gore. As a matter of fact Billary's legacy (Bill & Hillary) is pretty much tarnished now beyond all repair. Really ashamed...
I have warmed up quite a bit to Obama; although I still do have some concerns. But I am ecstatic that we aren't putting in a Repug-lite like Hillary (obliterate Iran, 'War on Terror', hard-working white people, etc.) into office for 4-8 years of right-wing hate jocks to scream about why we should have a real Repug in the White House.
May 14, 2008 9:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stephen-
Regarding the Michigan primary:
What about all the Mchigan voters who DID NOT VOTE because they told before hand that the PRIMARY WOULD NOT COUNT?
All of these voters would be disenfranchised if not you suddenly declare now that the primary votes count.
You can't change the rules post election.
Please explain your position.
May 14, 2008 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well that could have been resolved with a revote had the Obama campaign not thrown every wrench they could in the works to prevent the people from MI form having their say.
May 14, 2008 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well we tried to do a caucus, but Clinton refused, and MI won't pay for its own dam re-vote, so how, exactly, is Obama the problem?
May 14, 2008 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dijamo--are you really that happy pretty woman of color shown on your avatar? It's really hard to believe with the comments you make here. You sure you aren't some old bitter white guy gunning for McCain?
May 14, 2008 10:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's me - an african american woman progressive liberal who cares about universal healthcare, foreclosure policy, helping the middle class and I choose Hillary.
McCain's a fraud. I hope Obama will beat him but I honestly beieve he won't
May 14, 2008 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, thanks for the honest reply. I respect your choice.
May 14, 2008 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
A revote would have been closed to anyone who voted in the Republican primary. A lot of people - mostly Obama and Edwards supporters who didn't have an option on the Democratic ticket and who were told their vote WOULDN'T COUNT - opted to vote in the Republican primary. The revote as proposed would have disenfranchised all those people.
A revote would have faced constitutional challenges.
May 15, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Remember, Clinton is like Saddam: only her name can appear on the ballot and those voting "other" don't count.
May 14, 2008 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
What do you mean "the primary won't count"? The primary was a legal election conducted by those two states, and there were far more issues and offices on the ballot than who you wanted for president.
You aren't disenfranchising states, you are disenfranchising patriotic Democratic voters who did absolutely nothing wrong except to vote for somebody that YOU don't like.
As for the lazy and unpatriotic citizens of Michigan and Florida (many of them youthful Obama supporters) who didn't do their duty and vote - they decided not only not to vote for president, but not to vote on the many other offices and issues that were on the ballot those days. And your crazy argument that we must now punish those who did their patriotic duty and voted and take away their votes, for the sake of those who didn't do their duty, only shows the complete moral bankruptcy and elitism of your candidate. That's one of the reason that so many Democrats don't trust him.
Whose vote is Obama going to take away next because it suits his political goals? Mine? Yours?
May 15, 2008 12:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
A single mother who cannot afford child care after work to go vote in a non-binding election is not "lazy and unpatriotic." Your accusation is insulting to such hard-working Americans.
May 15, 2008 12:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
What a lame excuse. Did you ever hear of absentee voting, Einstein? It's all the rage with hard working and patriotic mothers. But most lazy and unpatriotic young people won't bother.
May 15, 2008 1:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
I take it you don't know many single working mothers. It's easy to pontificate from your sunny Los Angeles home about how people in other states should conduct their work, family, and civic lives.
I heartily encourage you to take your sage advice to any single mothers in Florida and Michigan, and see what they think of the feasibility of your plan. Let us all know how that goes.
May 15, 2008 1:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
You must be insane - because nobody in their right mind believes that it's too difficult for people to mail in an absentee ballot. And it has absolutely nothing to do with the subject anyway. Unless you are arguing that nobody's vote should ever be counted because working mothers all over the country don't know how to mail absentee ballots. YOU are the one insulting and denigrating the intelligence of working mothers.
My advice to you is to put down your drink, put away the booze, and go to bed.
May 15, 2008 1:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rant all you want, but it's ridiculous to expect any citizen to exert the effort into casting a vote in an election that both candidates officially agreed would not count.
May 15, 2008 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
You nuts. The election certainly did count. There were scores of candidates for office who were elected or nominated and measures that were passed or failed in both Florida and Michigan. And just because you say that doesn't count doesn't mean anybody has to take you seriously. It's your uninformed opinion that doesn't count.
May 15, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
An election only counts if the rule-setting body decides it does. And the DNC set rules that both campaigns agreed to in advance. If you don't like the outcome, you might want to complain to the Florida and Michigan state party officials.
Here, I'll give you some handy URLs to do so:
http://www.fladems.com/
http://www.michigandems.com/
BTW, thanks for the catechism lesson yesterday. I would never have guessed, after my 12 years of Catholic schooling, that the saints outranked the Pope. Who knew?!
May 15, 2008 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Laura Bush would make a great President too?
May 14, 2008 10:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a LOVELY gesture! Hillary, pressing on to the end against overwhelming odds, gets some praise from Edwards, followed by the political shaft. That man is a class act! He waited so long. I'm so glad he didn't wait a few more weeks until the voting was over. And now, because he stabbed her with such grace, Hillary supporters will flock in droves to Obama's side, noting Obama's gesture to his idealistic young supporters to stop booing at the mention of her name. I just can't wait for the unity to begin! We're all going to get along SO well.
May 14, 2008 10:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, there was some booing, but Edwards turned the boos to cheers.
May 14, 2008 10:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
You and all the other Hillary supporters will have 3 choices in November:
1) Vote for McCain
2) Vote for Obama
3) None of the above
If YOU choose 1 or 3 and McCain wins, congratulations - you just helped him start a war with Iran, pack the SCOTUS with arch-conservatives and send this country to hell in a handbasket.
If you choose 2, you may have to hold your nose and think about what those mean old Obama supporters in the next both said about Hillary five monthe earlier. And you know damn well that if Obama wins, it won't be nearly as bad as having McCain as president.
Hopefully, YOU make the right decision.
May 14, 2008 10:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
WRONG I love in the great state of NY which is going to go Obama regardless. So I will use my vote to write in for Hillary. You need to add an option.
May 14, 2008 10:47 PM | Reply | Permalink