home

Edwards Ups the Ante In Kentucky: Thread Four

John Edwards gave a great rousing speech (see here)for Democratic values. He spoke very gracious and respectful words of Hillary Clinton. And he endorsed Barack Obama. It was a very impressive performance by John Edwards.

There were some effects though. Some intentional - to step on Hillary's huge win in West Virginia and to vouch for Obama among white working class voters. One was not - upping the ante in Kentucky. John Edwards, populist hero with a proven record of connecting with white working class voters has vouched for Barack Obama. Does Kentucky buy it?

The Kentucky contest, previously a foregone conclusion for the Media, now becomes a test. For Barack Obama. He needs to go in to Kentucky, WITH John Edwards, and fight for their votes. He needs to show he cares about the voters of Kentucky. Particularly white working class voters. An interesting development indeed.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

Comments closed

< John Edwards Endorsement: Thread Three | Edwards Endorsement Should Lead To Full Seating Of FL/MI >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • A Bit Of A Joke I'd Say. Edwards' Numbers (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:51:30 PM EST
    weren't that big anywhere....and him vouching for obama...laughable.  Anyone paying attention knows exactly what obama is about...thought he didn't need those votes?

    What is embarrasing for Edwards (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by talex on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:00:08 PM EST
    is that he campaigned in Iowa for 4 years and ends up endorsing the newbie he lost too. That is quite a blow.

    Parent
    Personally. (5.00 / 1) (#226)
    by lansing quaker on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:57:16 PM EST
    I'd rather not mock John Edwards.  He and Elizabeth are great Americans and sent a positive and important message on the stump.

    As an advocate for Hillary am I disappointed?  Yes.

    Am I angry or "bitter"?  Nah.

    It reeks of political calculation, and I doubt that his endorsement will do much in the upcoming Primaries and mean much less come the General Election.  Lots of other high profile, popular elected officials have already endorsed Obama.  And?

    It will change the media narrative in the short term, but Hillary has never been one to win on media narratives.  And in the GE, the endorsement will mean jack all because it's an endorsement from a Democrat to a Democrat.

    Again: I'm disappointed with Edwards.  But I will not insult him or Elizabeth for this.  If anything, it's party machinations behind this.

    And this is why I re-registered as a big ol' (I) instead of a D.

    Because "I" will vote in November, and "I" will not vote for Obama.

    But I still think John and Elizabeth Edwards are great Americans.


    Parent

    Hey... (5.00 / 4) (#88)
    by p lukasiak on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:19:36 PM EST
    after losing to Clinton by 41 points yesterday, the 7% that edwards got in West Virginia lookes pretty good....It would have gotten Obama to just a 2-1 loss!

    Parent
    As a former Edwards supporter, (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by The Realist on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:20:51 PM EST
    judging from the timing, it just really seems like a vindictive slap in the face to Hillary.  Edwards believes in fighting and his policies were so much closer to her policies that i can't see any other reason for him to endorse Obama.

    Parent
    Edwards couldn't (5.00 / 0) (#190)
    by Saxon on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:45:27 PM EST
    carry his home state (or deliver it) in 2004 GE. So, i don't see what his endorsement adds.

    he decided to go with the guy and giving a speech about how obama is the only guy who can make change! didn't he and Kerry say they will bring change in 2004?  Isn't Hillary campaigning on her experience in making a difference (not just words)

    Parent

    As John Edwards himself (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Iphie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:53:08 PM EST
    has said, endorsements don't matter all that much. I don't think this will help turn around Obama's numbers in KY, I just don't buy it.

    I think John gains more than he gives (none / 0) (#132)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:30:03 PM EST
    with this one. He is aware of how the endorsement game works, and thanks to this primary season, a bigger share of America does, too.

    John panders to Obama knowing the short-term, minimal impact it has, and Obama provides national exposure for John's college for everyone issue...and probably some nice donations.

     

    Parent

    Ugh. (none / 0) (#145)
    by pie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:34:10 PM EST
    and probably some nice donations.  

    So the less qualified person wins the nomination.

    Disgusting.

    Parent

    I dont think (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:47:52 PM EST
    the endorsement is going to help Obama. I don't  think Edwards thought his endorsement would help Obama.

    I'm still counting on Hillary to be in top spot.

    Parent

    and the Attorny General (none / 0) (#172)
    by Saxon on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:41:30 PM EST
    position in a future Obama administration

    Parent
    Obama cries uncle (5.00 / 10) (#3)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:53:09 PM EST
    So, if Edwards does it for him, how does it prove Obama has the goods?  He always has to get his big uncles to beat up on Hillary.  First it was Ted, then Kerry etc.  I think it sounds like political pandering.  

    all the boys together can't beat the gurrl (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by moll on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:56:20 PM EST
    So, if Edwards does it for him, how does it prove Obama has the goods?  He always has to get his big uncles to beat up on Hillary.  First it was Ted, then Kerry etc.  I think it sounds like political pandering.  

    but Edwards has a great haircut.

    Parent

    It Sounds Like Political Pandering, BECAUSE (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:07:13 PM EST
    IT IS Blanche, It is!

    Parent
    LOL (5.00 / 0) (#159)
    by ruffian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:37:42 PM EST
    Someone else watched Baby Jane recently.

    Yes, most of the endorsements Obama has gotten so far have helped the endorser a lot more than the endorsee. This one would help more if the timing weren't so freakin' obvious.

    Parent

    Red Rover, Red Rover (5.00 / 0) (#117)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:26:09 PM EST
    So, one more of the "good ol' boys" joins the chain...

    Send Hillary right over!

    Parent

    Why does he need Edwards to speak for him? (5.00 / 6) (#4)
    by Teresa on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:54:41 PM EST
    Can't he fight for voters on his own? If I was a voter in Kentucky, I'd grab every registered voter I could find and drag them to the polls.

    No nice words from Edwards can cover up the boos I heard when he said he wanted first to talk about Hillary. His supporters speak loud and clear to me.

    Would have been a classy gesture... (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by lambertstrether on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:22:27 PM EST
    ... for Obama to stop the crowd from boo-ing Hillary.

    Parent
    MLK... (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by mike in dc on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:55:42 PM EST
    ...could come back from the dead, with endorsements from Jesus and Daniel Boone, and I think it'd still be iffy whether he could win a Kentucky primary.

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:57:56 PM EST
    Look, a single digit loss would be very impressive from Obama.

    What we can not see is a 20 point blow out.

    Parent

    Or what? (5.00 / 6) (#16)
    by andgarden on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:59:16 PM EST
    We'll have further proof that he's unelectable? I think it's unavoidable at this point.

    Parent
    I think Bill Clinton is going to enjoy (5.00 / 5) (#26)
    by oculus on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:02:15 PM EST
    the contest in Kentucky a lot

    Parent
    Or Edwards won't get the VP spot? (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Boston Boomer on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:11:51 PM EST
    This just makes me more angry and more determined never to vote for Obama or anyone who has endorsed him.  I'll bet there are a lot of angry women in KY.  If Obama goes there, let's hope he doesn't call any of them "sweetie."

    Parent
    Further proof and concern (none / 0) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:05:01 PM EST
    So would Edwards's failure here (none / 0) (#50)
    by andgarden on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:08:07 PM EST
    strengthen or weaken the Unity Ticket argument? Or would there be no impact?

    Parent
    strengthens it (none / 0) (#54)
    by bjorn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:09:30 PM EST
    Edwards is good, but he is not Clinton

    Parent
    No. Edwards (none / 0) (#66)
    by oldpro on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:13:37 PM EST
    isn't 'good.'

    If Edwareds were any good he would have done much better...both the first time and this time.

    No.  He didn't wear well at all.

    Parent

    That's right! (none / 0) (#89)
    by Leisa on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:19:41 PM EST
    This endorsement is so predictable to me... debate performances, removing names form MI ballot, Sunday's cat and mouse game...  

    Why do these guys resent Hillary playing their game?

    Parent

    I think there has been a lot of (none / 0) (#97)
    by bjorn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:22:18 PM EST
    sexism, but if Clinton were a man don't you think Obama still would have had Edwards endorse him.  It was a political move, one Clinton herself would have made had Edwards endorsed her. I don't think it is about the guys ganging up on her, it is about Obama trying to win.

    Parent
    If Hillary were a man (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by ahazydelirium on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:25:29 PM EST
    I don't think we'd be having this conversation at all.

    Parent
    very fair point, she (none / 0) (#136)
    by bjorn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:32:18 PM EST
    probably would have won months ago!!!!

    Parent
    BTD, are you becoming a concern troll ... (none / 0) (#59)
    by cymro on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:10:48 PM EST
    ... in your own blog?

    Parent
    Apparently (none / 0) (#74)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:16:04 PM EST
    after this stunt.... (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by p lukasiak on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:23:20 PM EST
    do you still think Clinton will want/accept a VP nod?

    If I'm Hillary, my attitude will be "Barack, I'd like to help you, but if you're going to be president you're going to have to step up at some point, and get the job done yourself.  So no thanks... I'll go back to the senate and be bitter and clinging...."

    Parent

    I think this was Obama's way of (none / 0) (#169)
    by ruffian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:40:24 PM EST
    saying 'I got your unity ticket right here, sweetie'.

    I don't see it happening.

    Parent

    Too meta! (none / 0) (#82)
    by lambertstrether on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:18:21 PM EST
    I think... (5.00 / 9) (#35)
    by NWHiker on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:03:24 PM EST
    I think we'll see the 20 pt blowout, but it won't matter. Because he's already The One and who cares about Kentucky anyhow? Aren't they all uneducated racists anyhow?

    I don't think JE makes one whit of diff in the KY primary, any more than Kerry and Kennedy did in MA. What it does do is, as you've all said, remove Clinton's monumental win out of the news cycle, and it makes it easier for the SDs and Dem party to say finish it up next week.

    Yeah, I'm pretty bitter, at this point.

    Parent

    People don't see the endorser (none / 0) (#139)
    by Iris on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:32:56 PM EST
    They see the candidate.  We're not as stupid in Kentucky as some people think.

    Parent
    I hope... (none / 0) (#152)
    by NWHiker on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:36:37 PM EST
    OMG. I hope you knew I was being sarcastic in my question about KY voters being uneducated and racist. (Ugh. I'm feeling panic...).

    Parent
    Why? (5.00 / 7) (#47)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:07:15 PM EST
    It's already obvious Obama has serious problems. Edwards WILL NOT be able to correct these problems. It is the fatal flaw of the Obama campaign. You can't have someone try to solve the problems of deeply flawed candidate.

    Obama's attitude will be enough for KY voters not to pull the lever for him whether or not Edwards vouches for him. Obama has to solve this problem himself but perhaps it is unsolvable as I have said before. Obama should go there himself if he's so worried about these voters and not hide behind Edwards.

    Parent

    This is also (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by Iris on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:36:52 PM EST
    my assessment of Obama's candidacy.  If the netroots was still in the 'reality-based community' we would see that he is a deeply flawed candidate, but so much effort has been put into spinning it away (in true academic form) that it is hidden.  Of course I'm biased because I support Hillary, but that's part of the reason I support Hillary!  "A lot of work to do" is an understatement.

    Parent
    How do you figure? (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by sweetthings on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:16:27 PM EST
    I'm pretty sure Obama can afford another 20 point blowout.

    At this point, it's all about the Supers. And since his blowout last night, he's picked up what...3? 3.5? (plus Edwards) Hillary picked up 1, as far as I know.

    Ohio didn't shake them. PA didn't phase them. WV seems to have had minimal impact. But Kentucky is going to turn them around?

    Maybe. Seems like a stretch, though.

    Parent

    I think the supers are either (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by andgarden on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:20:35 PM EST
    stupid or are more interested in things other than winning the White House in November.

    Parent
    Oh c'mon (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by ruffian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:42:57 PM EST
    Who says it has to be one or the other?

    Parent
    November will shake them (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Davidson on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:24:21 PM EST
    But then it'll be too late.

    Parent
    Exactly. (5.00 / 3) (#206)
    by Iris on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:49:28 PM EST
    Obama has been defined already.  Back in January I was already hearing about how Obama would not 'salute our flag' from people at work.  A dirty smear, but it works, and people believe it.  Don't dismiss this, because I can personally testify to having heard them repeated by socially conservative Democrats.  It's not all about race, and it would be a massive failure of liberalism to reduce it to that.  We could not pick a more perfect candidate to define our party in a way that will hurt us in years to come.

    I invite everyone to visit Snopes and browse through the list of rumors and smears that have been pouring into people's inboxes for the last six months.  It isn't pretty, but like it or not these are part of the assumptions many will bring into the voting booth when choosing between McCain and Obama.  

    All of that, of course, is separate from the liberal/Democratic critique of Obama that has been fleshed out here on Talkleft.  I don't know how to make this more clear: if I am of the opinion that Obama might actually do more damage than McCain, and that he is not ready to be President--and I am a core, partisan Democrat--what chance does he have?  

    Parent

    Pretty telling (none / 0) (#116)
    by Leisa on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:26:05 PM EST
    is it not???  What about our party?  Maybe it is true, they do not want us to a part of the new brand of Democrat...

    Parent
    opps (none / 0) (#121)
    by Leisa on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:27:02 PM EST
    be a part of

    Parent
    Obama will be the nominee if loses 100-0 (none / 0) (#151)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:35:37 PM EST
    That's not my point. I want to see him do better with white working class voters. Don't you?

    Parent
    Of course you want to see him do better. (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by sweetthings on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:45:40 PM EST
    You're an Obama supporter. (snark)

    Sure, I guess if he is going to be the nominee, I'd like to see him do better too. But when I read this:

    What we can not see is a 20 point blow out.

    I read it as implying that there would be consequences if we did see a 20 point blowout. And I'm no longer certain there would be. (or at least, not until November)

    Of course, judging from your last response, you don't either, so maybe I just misinterpreted.

    Parent

    A loss is now very impressive? (5.00 / 4) (#100)
    by Davidson on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:22:30 PM EST
    We're talking about the presumptive nominee who has every advantage humanly possible and somehow him losing to the Eeeeevil, cash-strapped Clinton by single-digits is impressive?

    The man should be clobbering her in every state.  We're lowering the standards to absolutely absurd levels (He only has to win OR!  He only has to avoid a landslide in KY!).  How will Obama possibly deal with a GE matchup against McCain when he's so desperately dependent on a fawning media (which will lionize McCain and throttle Obama) and a group  of men crying, "Please, don't hurt him!  Unity!  Unity!"

    This is insane!  How can they be so completely blind to reality?  What do voters have to do to have the Party hear us loud and clear that we won't vote for Obama?  

    Parent

    Edwards' Task (none / 0) (#160)
    by Athena on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:38:00 PM EST
    This is what Pat Buchanan said tonight and I posted that earlier.  I think it's a test for Edwards - and not an attractive one - but I think he made a deal and now needs to deliver.  He's got 6 days.

    Parent
    Did he? I missed it. but I thought (none / 0) (#189)
    by ruffian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:45:14 PM EST
    something similar.  To me it seems like Obama has been auditioning VPs for a while now.  Richardson failed miserably. This is Edwards' trial run.

    Parent
    Right (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Steve M on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:09:40 PM EST
    Are you suggesting something here other than that a black man can't win a primary in Kentucky?

    Parent
    Repeat after me... (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by dianem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:44:05 PM EST
    "I will not use the fact that Obama is black as an excuse for his failures". Edwards gets it. Clinton is a very well qualified candidate, and her husband was a favorite in the South. Meanwhile, Obama is an urban liberal who has expressed some dubious sentiments about people in rural areas. It's not always about race any more than Clinton antipathy is always about gender.

    Parent
    Has one ever won a statewide primary in KY? (none / 0) (#84)
    by mike in dc on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:18:29 PM EST
    Just wondering.

    Parent
    I see (none / 0) (#98)
    by Steve M on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:22:23 PM EST
    you want to be cute and imply it without saying it, huh?  Go away with your pathetic insults.

    Parent
    believe what you want... (none / 0) (#144)
    by mike in dc on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:34:08 PM EST
    ...I'll still be here waiting for an answer to that question.

    Parent
    God (none / 0) (#174)
    by Steve M on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:42:11 PM EST
    At least have the balls to say what you mean.  How gutless.

    Parent
    Well, women often win KY primaries (none / 0) (#194)
    by lilburro on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:46:01 PM EST
    I hear...

    Parent
    Your argument, taken to its conclusion (none / 0) (#207)
    by andgarden on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:49:39 PM EST
    hold that no black man can be elected President of the United States.

    Parent
    ya think? (5.00 / 6) (#6)
    by cpinva on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:56:14 PM EST
    John Edwards, populist hero with a proven record of connecting with white working class voters has vouched for Barack Obama.

    if he's such a populist hero, how come he's not the one still campaigning? having lost two presidential elections in a row, i think edwards has proven, very effectively, just how little support he has, with any class, working or otherwise.

    having endorsed sen. obama, he now displays a complete detachment from reality. wonder what the wife, who publicly supports sen. clinton's proposed healthcare plan, had to say to him about that?

    love to have been a fly on that wall this morning!

    ha (5.00 / 6) (#20)
    by moll on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:01:22 PM EST
       John Edwards, populist hero with a proven record of connecting with white working class voters has vouched for Barack Obama.

    if he's such a populist hero, how come he's not the one still campaigning?

    I was for Edwards originally but I tell you what, I feel nothing. Absolutely nothing for him.

    Hillary turned out to make her campaign all about what I wanted his to be: focused on the economic issues & continuing to hang in there somehow & fight despite all the pressure from the big boys status quo.

    Right now, Edwards looks more like an ambulance chaser than a populist to me.

    Parent

    because (none / 0) (#13)
    by iago on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:58:28 PM EST
    "if he's such a populist hero, how come he's not the one still campaigning?"

    Because he gets out of a race when it's clear he can't win.... That is all :)

    Parent

    If he had HRC's numbers... (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:08:05 PM EST
    he wouldn't have suspended his campaign.

    Parent
    by now... (none / 0) (#73)
    by iago on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:15:17 PM EST
    by now I think he would have.

    Elected Delegates remaining: 235
    Clinton elected delegate tally: 1445 (1718 w/ supers)
    Obama elected delegate tally: 1600 (1884 w/ supers)
    Delta: Obama +155(166 if you could supers)

    Clinton would need to earn 195 of the remaining 235 elected delegates to TIE Obama's elected total and 201 to TIE his entire total.

    If this was a ball game people would be heading for the parking lot.


    Parent

    I sincerely doubt it... (none / 0) (#83)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:18:23 PM EST
    He withdrew/suspended because he didn't have the numbers back then and his polling wasn't looking that great...

    Parent
    agree to disagree? (none / 0) (#101)
    by iago on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:22:36 PM EST
    I think not seeing a path to the nomination he suspended his campaign. I think Clinton is in the same situation now.

    But I will respectfully agree to disagree with you.


    Parent

    Popular (none / 0) (#130)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:29:43 PM EST
    vote is what she has going for her. It's the "will of the people" argument and Obama has lost the whole pledged delegate argument anyway.

    Can you tell me why you want to put up a candidate that is sure to lose the general election?

    Parent

    answers (none / 0) (#175)
    by iago on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:42:32 PM EST
    "Can you tell me why you want to put up a candidate that is sure to lose the general election? "

    I don't. If you can break out the electoral math I'd be happy to look at it but at this point no candidate, as far as I can calculate, is "sure" to lose the general.

    As for popular vote under all but one calculation (add in the uncontested primaries and don't count IA, NV, ME, WA estimates) Obama is winning the popular vote. Seemingly the will of the people is not for Clinton.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html


    Parent

    Why'd you choose... (none / 0) (#143)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:33:57 PM EST
    the name of a character who sets aside his own morality to steal, deceive, kill, and stab his best friend on the back?

    He may not have seen it...I don't know. I certainly didn't see him going a whole lot further than he did...not with coming in such a distant third in Fla. Remember...he didn't suspend til the day after Fla.

    On the other hand, I think that Clinton sees a path.  It may not be a clear one...it may not be the easiest path. But I think she sees one...

    I think that Obama sees an easy path. But it requires that his main obstacle get out of the way...

    Parent

    show me (none / 0) (#193)
    by iago on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:45:56 PM EST
    "On the other hand, I think that Clinton sees a path.  It may not be a clear one...it may not be the easiest path. But I think she sees one..."

    Show me the path then. I've posted the math show me the numbers she needs and can win. Here they are again.
    ----------
    Elected Delegates remaining: 235
    Clinton elected delegate tally: 1445 (1718 w/ supers)
    Obama elected delegate tally: 1600 (1884 w/ supers)
    Delta: Obama +155(166 if you count supers)

    Clinton would need to earn 195 of the remaining 235 elected delegates to TIE Obama's elected total and 201 to TIE his entire total.

    Show me the math of the path


    Parent

    Real supporters don't quit early (none / 0) (#212)
    by cymro on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:51:29 PM EST
    If this was a ball game people would be heading for the parking lot.

    Right, but that does not mean that the game is actually OVER. I was at an A's game vs. the Yankees in Oakland in about 25 years ago. The A's were down 5-2 in the bottom of the ninth. Rickey Henderson was batting with 2 outs, and an 0-2 count. People were heading for the parking lot in droves.

    But, Henderson kept fouling off pitches and taking balls until he finally drew a walk. The next 5 batters also got hits or drew walks, and the A's won the game 6-5.

    So, even though the Yankees may often be the overwhelming favorite, they can't actually declare victory until the game is over. Sometimes the underdog comes back to win.

    Parent

    I'm with you! (none / 0) (#125)
    by Leisa on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:28:26 PM EST
    Tweety said they looked like a ticket. (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:56:51 PM EST
    Yet another contender for Obama's VP? Well unless Obama adds him to the ticket before Tuesday I don't think the people of Kentucky will care very much. Edwards isn't running. The media is very foolish to raise the stakes for Obama, but they have been mostly foolish throughout this whole campaign.

    Edwards has said categorically no (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:58:41 PM EST
    Richardson is breathing a sigh of relief.... (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:00:46 PM EST
    heh (none / 0) (#29)
    by bjorn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:02:45 PM EST
    I think he has no chance

    Parent
    Edwards also told Kerry that he wouldn't run (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by tigercourse on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:01:38 PM EST
    in 2008. He changed his mind.

    Parent
    Perhaps he's positioning himself for (none / 0) (#90)
    by Rhouse on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:19:50 PM EST
    2012?  But for President or VP, who can tell

    Parent
    He just blew that! (none / 0) (#128)
    by Leisa on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:29:29 PM EST
    He also said (none / 0) (#171)
    by americanincanada on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:40:47 PM EST
    he wasn't going to endorse.

    Parent
    Why would Edwards want to be VP (none / 0) (#180)
    by stefystef on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:43:05 PM EST
    to the man who basically used the race card to push him out of the election before Super Tuesday?

    Obama is using Edwards to try to get white working voters.  Here's the problem.  Those voters are NOT STUPID!

    This will play right into McCain and the Republicans' hands.  Rove is almost orgasmic with joy... ~wringing his hands~  Just as I planned.

    Parent

    Rove is not (none / 0) (#236)
    by Saxon on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:10:38 PM EST
    running any campaign anymore ...

    you can relax:)

    Parent

    I agree BTD, I really thought (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by bjorn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:57:29 PM EST
    John Edwards did give a rousing speech.  And Pat Buchanan and Joan Walsh agree that it upped the ante on KY.  It must be true if Pat and Joan are in agreement!
    Hillary needs to throw down in KY!


    Upping (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:11:38 PM EST
    the ante in KY is great news for Hillary.

    Parent
    John Edwards couldn't even deliver (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by stillife on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:58:23 PM EST
    his own state in 2004.  I'm not expecting this transparent endorsement to have any effect except with the bloviating idiots of the MSM.

    I still think I'm right (5.00 / 6) (#12)
    by andgarden on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:58:25 PM EST
    This isn't going to win KY for him. It won't even be close.

    I don't think Obama will go into Kentucky (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by talex on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:58:32 PM EST
    First of all he has shifted into General Election mode which is a somewhat smart on his part I hate to say.

    Secondly it would be to risky for him, for should he go to Kentucky and still get his butt handed to him it would really end up hurting him.

    He may send Edwards, if Edwards is going to go beyond the endorsement, but if Edwards does he will have to praise Clinton the same as he did today and he would come close to canceling himself out of helping at all.

    If I was Obama I would continue to campaign for the General with the inherent risks of appearing, uh, confirming his arrogance and losing most of the remaining Supers and a whole bunch of Clinton supporters.

    No. He can't send Edwards in by himself. (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by chancellor on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:23:58 PM EST
    Hillary can send Bill Clinton anywhere for her campaign, but if Edwards went into any state without Obama firmly in tow, it would be seen as the ultimate insult to the voters of that state.

    Parent
    Another ultimate insult to voters - why (5.00 / 5) (#202)
    by Boo Radly on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:49:16 PM EST
    not. Insults are what this candidates campaign is about. I have been catching up on my reading of these four threads - from the top of this one it seemed to me that, once again, the Democratic party is asking every one to help prop this candidate up......

    I am tired of it. I was an Edwards supporter early. Then I selected Hillary because she is just so darn succintly matched to my "democratic" needs, issues. In my naievety I saw/see a great difference between Hillary and BO - namely experience and a record and she can tell me what she has in mind. Edwards endorsement means nothing to me. I never could see how an Edwards supporter could turn into a fan of BO. That is based on the wisps of his acheivements - it was just not enough to vote for him as president.

    I stay a Democrat up to when the nom is selected with seating and counting FL/MI. If Hillary is the nom - great. If she is not, then I am "I" from now on. D stands for confusion, disloyality, ugliness on a level I never would have imagined. I care not what another person thinks of my party change - not a bit. 7.5 years of pols as pols and nothing being done to correct it even after 2006. It, the D, is unsupportable for me - just like trying to carry BO.

    What on earth are they thinking! It's Hill or the highway. She is so impressive.

    Parent

    Well exploring the "ante" metaphor (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by Faust on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:00:46 PM EST
    lets say this "bet" fails. What are the consequences?

    For Edwards I suppose it could be a lowering a stature, i.e. proof he's not influential.

    For Obama? That even with help his problem with certain demographics is solid as ever.

    So what kind of movement would we need to say that this endorsement has made an impact? How much movement would be needed in the polls to avoid a loss of this bet?

    Does Obama need to win now? If Edwards helps Obama close to within 10 is he vindicated?

    Good questions (none / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:02:12 PM EST
    What answers do you have?

    Parent
    The alarm bells are broken. [nt] (5.00 / 4) (#131)
    by ahazydelirium on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:29:45 PM EST
    These are questions the MSM would ask (none / 0) (#106)
    by Mark Woods on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:23:38 PM EST
    if they had a hair of un-Obama-biased credibility left, but they don't.  What they do have is vulnerability, as they floated stories yesterday accusing Hillary in advance of fomenting a 'media backlash' for crowning Barack 'The Inevitable One'.

    I sense a tiny bit of fear in the media of being found out after-the-fact by journalism historians, and of trying to create a fake paper trail to simulate 'objective coverage'.

    Take Nedra Pickler's 3-months of bitter anti-Hillarisms and near worshipful description of Obama, followed by yesterday's headline 'Should Obama be afraid?' (of the results in West Virginia).

    Just MHO, but I perceive an MSM blink behind the stoic, unified drumbeat of last week's collective Clinton post-mortems.

    Parent

    Its a win for Edwards (none / 0) (#64)
    by ding7777 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:12:54 PM EST
    he believes in the "netroots" and is pandering to them for his next run

    Parent
    Almost all endorsements are overrated... (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by OrangeFur on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:01:26 PM EST
    And I don't think Edwards' is any different. I mean, Gore won the presidency in 2000 and couldn't help Dean a bit in 2004.

    Though if this now makes Kentucky a test, so be it. I'm sure Hillary would love nothing better.

    I do wonder if Edwards will campaign for Obama, or if it's just one photo op.

    You kidder. (5.00 / 0) (#23)
    by pie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:01:41 PM EST
    Particularly white working class voters. An interesting development indeed.

    In 2004, Bush/Cheney beat Kerry/Edwards 59.55% to 39.69%.

    Since them Edwards has all but faded from the picture (for reasons that should be discussed).

    Don't see how Edwards' endorsement will help Obama in KY.

    That's on Kerry (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:03:10 PM EST
    Edwards would have done better.

    Parent
    If Edwards 2003/4 had sounded (none / 0) (#39)
    by andgarden on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:05:12 PM EST
    like Edwards 2007/8, Bush would have been swept out of office like Jimmy Carter, I think.

    Parent
    Isn't this what (none / 0) (#48)
    by pie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:07:17 PM EST
    people said about Gore?

    The thing is, Hillary sounds good right now.  She keeps going and winning over voters.

    Parent

    Indeed, (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by andgarden on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:09:25 PM EST
    But. . .the math.

    Parent
    I want this country (none / 0) (#61)
    by pie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:11:30 PM EST
    to come out of the Bush/Cheney years. She can help do it.

    I couln't care less about the math.

    Parent

    Would have done better (none / 0) (#41)
    by pie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:05:13 PM EST
    if he were the nominee?  He was out from the get-go.  He wasn't the favored "son."

    Parent
    Transfusion for BO: gets oxygen up, blood pumping (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by Ellie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:02:04 PM EST
    The WV drubbing was huge and no matter how strenuously the bobbleheads tried to dismiss it, it came through the back door to bite BO or the DNC in some form. Even "positive" stuff about BO looked bad on him.

    TeamO needed some feelgood moments and can't afford another debacle.

    I hope they (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Mrwirez on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:02:35 PM EST
    rock and roll All through the state, and Hillary Clinton Kicks their arse's.

    Picture of Edwards at Obama Rally.          http://tinyurl.com/2n2snw

    If the idiot pundit reaction (5.00 / 5) (#30)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:02:51 PM EST
    I've heard so far holds, this may turn out to be a mistake because it raises absurd media expectations for Obama's results in Kentucky, and Edwards simply isn't going to make any difference. (Pundits oughta know that, but they're too intent on playing the game to think.)

    c'mon... (none / 0) (#142)
    by p lukasiak on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:33:43 PM EST
    you don't think they like "Is Obama Electable?" narrative?

    Its made to order for them.  They're gonna have a whole lot of time to kill between now and the convention, and speculating whether Obama can win in November without the support of "average Americans" (and that WILL be how it gets phrased..no more "white working class") is a great topic for bloviators...

    Parent

    I seriously doubt this is going to help very much (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by ajain on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:03:15 PM EST
    I think this is exactly what Hillary supporters hate. Taking credit away from her when she deserves it. Lets see what happens.

    Also, I doubt its going help Obama in Kentucky and we will see how things shape up. I doubt most people in Kentucky were watching the Michigan event take place, but if he does campaign there then I think we will find out if Obama really has any appeal to these voters even after this.

    That's exactly the rub. (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by NYCDem11 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:34:53 PM EST
    Rather than helping Obama in a substantive way, this really just angers Clinton supporters because it's yet another effort to dismiss Clinton when she's experiencing a well-earned moment of glory. (Keep that woman down, which reminds me of Maya Angelou's recent tribute: Rise, Hillary, Rise.) The ante has been upped in Kentucky and I hope the voters there agree with the nearly 17 million voters before them that Senator Clinton is the more qualified candidate and the one with the heart and the broad base to best beat McCain in November.

    Parent
    it's so calculated (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by isaac on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:03:22 PM EST
    it will almost surely backfire (with everyone but the media of course)

    Pat Buchanan (5.00 / 5) (#38)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:05:05 PM EST
    is a smart political guy.  Even though many of his personal views are pretty odious, when he's got no dog in the fight, like now, I find he often thinks a heck of a lot more clearly than most of the punditry. (Of course, I say that because he's agreeing with me mostly right now, but still...)  I always find him interesting in these discussions.  He seems to be immune to everybody's talking points and preferred media narratives and the rest.

    Indeed, he's very smart (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by andgarden on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:06:46 PM EST
    Odious, though.

    Parent
    I agree... (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Tess on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:10:29 PM EST
    I have always liked Pat Buchanan....even though I rarely agree with his deep political beliefs. He has sided with Clinton more than anyone at MSNBC...

    He stands up for what he believes in and is very smart...plus, he's got a great laugh!

    Parent

    He's also another one (none / 0) (#56)
    by pie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:09:51 PM EST
    who couldn't get his message out there when he was running for prez.

    But he understands more than most of the pundits.  He is sympatico with her, I'll bet.

    Parent

    This (5.00 / 5) (#40)
    by sas on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:05:12 PM EST
    Edwards endorsement proves the BO campaign is scared and in trouble.

    So after she wins KY by 20+ something, will they bring out Gore?

    Bring out Gore before Puerto Rico?

    They can gring out all these Dems  - but the one thing they cannot do is fool the voters.

    They can have their little wankfests and hakas'til the cows come home.....this just strengthens the resolve of the Clinton voters and pushes them away.

    Also, how about the BOOS when Edwards said nice things about Hillary?  Really makes you want to vote for them doesn't it ?  I spit on them all.

    Or the endorsement (3.25 / 4) (#123)
    by 1jane on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:27:19 PM EST
    looks strong and well planned. Edwards has been softning up the media by appearing on morning talk shows and Larry King Live as a run up to this endorsement. Clinton is going to lose big in Oregon, delegates are daily lining up to support Obama, Hillary's in Washington holding fundraisers at her house looking for money, and the timing is tough on her because she's got 3 interviews on the majors in the can conducted before Edwards endorsement. Clinton supporters are deeply disappointed by this stategic endorsement. The highlights in Edward's endorsement speech were the toughness he showed on the last 8 years of Bush and his call for cutting poverty in America in half... with Obama by his side. Imagine Edwards in the Cabinet or VP advising on domestic affairs while Obama repairs the gutting of foreign policy by Bush.

    We need every Democrat on board to defeat McCain and bring the walls down around Washington.

    Parent

    nope (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by miguelito on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:32:57 PM EST
    I'm voting McCain if Obama is the nom.. we'll see.  Edwards is and has always been a fame whore, and his record of accomplishments is as sparse as Obama's.  It makes perfect sense for him to endorse.  What is disgusting is that this "new politics" is the same as the old politics of stealing the news cycle- Rove style baby!    

    Parent
    So what did you make (none / 0) (#238)
    by Manuel on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:20:40 PM EST
    of booing Edward's kind comments about Clinton?  Don't you need those Democrats?

    Parent
    agreed (none / 0) (#77)
    by miguelito on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:16:39 PM EST
    I am done with these clowns, mailing out my registration change tomorrow.  I cannot be affiliated with this group any longer.

    Parent
    Edwards couldn't get reelected (5.00 / 0) (#43)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:06:07 PM EST
    in his own state and that was with the "Two Americas" speech. How exactly is this supposed to help?

    How Does Edwards Help? (none / 0) (#94)
    by CoralGables on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:20:50 PM EST
    It helps with people like me that supported Edwards, then leaned towards Hillary.

    With Edwards suppport...If Obama wins the nomination he has a leg up on winning over this very skeptical (still ignored) Florida voter. Adding Clinton to the ticket would be the icing on the cake to bring me into the fold.

    Parent

    I was thinking more (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:26:36 PM EST
    in relation to the Kentucky race.

    The candidate remains the same...in spite of this "power move" by way of an endorsement.

    He hasn't become more one thing or another from this associational act.

    He hasn't changed.

    Parent

    really? (5.00 / 5) (#165)
    by p lukasiak on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:39:28 PM EST
    I mean, you don't see this as a betrayal of everything that Edwards said he stood for?

    A fighter -- that's not Obama.
    Universal health care -- THAT's not Obama.
    standing up for the little guy? -- unless by 'little', you mean some 19 year old college sophomore, or his upper-middle "creative class" parents...THATS NOT OBAMA.

    To me, the cognitive dissonance of this endorsement at THIS point in the campaign -- when Obama has been ducking debates for months, and dissing the "little guy" for weeks, nullifies any positive impact an edwards endorsement might have.

    Parent

    It (5.00 / 1) (#227)
    by sas on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:58:04 PM EST
    shows me how desperate the Dems are to prop up this empty suit called Obama.

    They really, really do not want this to go to the convention.  I hope Hillary takes it all the way there.

    In any case, the voters see what a sham this is, after BO's humuliating loss in W Va.

    Parent

    I don't see this doing much in KY (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by lilburro on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:09:56 PM EST
    and it now seems to make KY more dramatic than Oregon.

    Bottom line, we'll have to see how Obama campaigns.  Edwards' endorsement won't make a difference if Obama just carries on as though it never happened.  If he doesn't act like a torch was passed, then the torch won't have been passed.  

    Torch? (none / 0) (#166)
    by oldpro on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:39:33 PM EST
    What torch?

    To pass a torch you have to HAVE a torch.

    Losers don't have torches to pass.  Not Edwards.  Not Kerry.  Not Kennedy.  Not Daschle.

    Strikes me Obama is hanging out with a lot of losers...more every day.

    BTW...where's Elizabeth in all this hoorah?

    Parent

    No... (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:14:21 PM EST
    He got an endorsement from a former presidential/vice presidential hopeful who is respected.

    He is not the most respected Dem.

    There are quite a few others I respect a good deal more than Edwards. Some of them are even alive.

    Edwards is not Wellstone.

    If Kerry and Kennedy couldn't deliver (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by sonya on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:14:25 PM EST
    Massachusetts, why would Edwards make a difference in Kentucky?  This is a desperation move.

    Where has any endorsement helped? (5.00 / 1) (#215)
    by caseyOR on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:54:05 PM EST
    Seriously, in what states has any "Democratic Leader" for Obama delivered the goods? I'm really asking this. Kennedy/Kerry couldn't deliver MA. Yet another Kennedy failed to bring in Rhode Island. Yet another Kennedy and a Shriver tried in CA. Jay Rockefeller was just simply ignored by WV voters.

    So how is Edwards supposed to help Obama now? I just do not see it happening. Voters are simply not as stupid and unthinking as the pundits and many "leaders" want them to be.

    Parent

    I think it's insulting to assume... (5.00 / 4) (#71)
    by Shainzona on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:14:33 PM EST
    that hard workers in Kentucky will be swayed by a clearly obvious political ploy and change their vote to Obama.

    It's like Obama supporters telling women...we'll get over it and vote for him in November.

    No we won't...get over it OR vote for him.

    You know, people who live in WV and Indiana and Kentucky and Tennessee are not stupid.

    no reasons to support Obama? (5.00 / 4) (#75)
    by pluege on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:16:14 PM EST
    I listen very little to the candidates because they only tell me what they want me to think. I listen to people talking about the candidates to hear all the ways the candidate's words and deeds are being interpreted.

    I can think of very, very few things I've heard from Obama, his supporters, or his detractors that make me think he would make a good POTUS. I find him and the talk about him to be mostly hot air.

    I listen to all of HRC's critics and they make me think she would make a good POTUS. The more shrill  and irrational they get, the more I suspect there is nothing to what they say.

    I'm reminded of Ohio (5.00 / 4) (#80)
    by weltec2 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:17:31 PM EST
    when Obama was attacking Clinton on her NAFTA position and he said that "the US needs to move away from blue collar to a white collar economy" thus throwing the working man into Milton Friedman's "disposable poor" junk-heap. If Obama tries to go to Kentucky on Edwards' coat tails and posture any other position... I just pray that the people of Kentucky will see it for what it is. Actually, I don't see how he could do it without just lying in their faces. It would probably be wiser for Obama not to go to Kentucky at all. Let John do it. But then... what is John going to say to the people of Kentucky. All he could do is hang his head and say, "Obama promised me some money, so... I've brought you this bandaid."  

    My gut reaction, (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by OldCoastie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:17:45 PM EST
    which is worth almost zero - Edwards, despite his protests, is angling for the VP slot - making the whole endorsement a pander...

    Also, it feels like a betrayal - I supported Edwards before he dropped out... after he did, Hillary came closest to his positions on the things that matter to me (health care, economy). It feels like he betrayed Elizabeth in her passion for universal health care...

    And it feels like he betrayed Hillary... all to jump on the Obama bandwagon...

    It'll be interesting to see if this all signifies absolutely nothing.

    it feels so out of line (5.00 / 4) (#96)
    by miguelito on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:22:18 PM EST
    these guys that have claimed to "represent the working class" that come out and endorse Obama when it is obvious their audience is voting for Hillary (regardless of their endorsements) are puzzling.  Are they telling their audience they are stupid? And the timing I have to say is despicable

    Parent
    I Don't Think It Is About The VP Spot At All (5.00 / 3) (#154)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:36:51 PM EST
    Obama is attempting to consolidate all Dem funding under his umbrella and has told his donors not to contribute to outside groups. If he is successful, only Obama loyalists will get a piece of the pie. IMO Edwards traded his endorsement for current and future support of his funding initiatives.

     

    Parent

    From an Obama volunteer/supporter... (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by The Troubadour on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:20:16 PM EST
    I have been an invisible and regular reader for some time of TalkLeft, and have admittedly been both impressed by the commitment to Clinton and troubled at times by the vehement disdain for Obama.

    After viewing tonight's endorsement by Edwards, and then reading through the comments thread (#3) below, I feel compelled to offer a few words and ask a simple question. And I ask you to hear me out, and thank you for doing so given I'm currently in "hostile" territory and doing it in the comment thread (which I realize may not be appropriate, but unfortunately in the heat of this moment while watching the kids, I wasn't able to figure out how to post a "diary.")

    I have often been puzzled by the deep anger felt by Clinton supporters for Obama, a tremendous candidate, in my opinion, who comes not without his warts. And this coming from a 33-year-old husband with two young girls who talks with his white, middle-class mother on a daily basis about the race (who is as strong a Hillary supporter as there is, and a regular reader of this site.)

    We have discussed at length the flaws of both, the impressive positives that each bring, and always butt heads over who is more "electable." And yet, she is always angry by the time we finish talking. And I did not fully understand this anger, particularly given my own disappointments with the Clinton campaign and some of its let's-play-into-the-fear-of-voters tactics cooked up by Penn (who we all, I think, can agree to dislike). And to be honest, I'm not sure I fully do understand the hostility. However, reading through the comments, I recognized the anger expressed well, not because I agreed with the sentiments, but because I have, over the course of this campaign, directed equally passionate rage against Clinton. Look, do I like her lobbyist stance? No. Do I like her hawkish foreign policy stance on Iran? No. But I won't go on, particularly because I realized, listening tonight to Edwards, that for all the reasons I wouldn't vote for Clinton in this primary, the reasons I WOULD vote for her were she in the general election outweigh any misgivings I have about her when compared to McCain. Because on the issues, they are very, very similar.

    And so I ask: when Obama officially wins the nomination (if indeed he does), will you sit out perhaps the most important election of my generation? If Obama wins, will you stand on the sidelines and watch a McCain campaign run on a platform of continued war in Iraq and continued corporate tax-breaks?

    And if so, how? If the tables were turned (and there were many moments I saw them turning), I would never have said, "I'll sit it out if Clinton wins."

    Thanks for listening...back to your regularly scheduled comments.


    Heh...is this what people call (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:22:43 PM EST
     a concern troll?  

    Parent
    I'm not a concern troll.... (none / 0) (#114)
    by The Troubadour on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:25:48 PM EST
    ...that would be someone needlessly wringing his hands about Clinton's prospects.

    I'm simply trying to understand better, and do so honestly.

    Parent

    A Couple of questions (5.00 / 1) (#237)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:16:22 PM EST
    First off, if you've been lurking for a while you already know the answers to your questions.  I think the important thing is you not sit out what you view as the most important election of your generation.  Some of us have been around a while, and it gets to be the same old frustrating political BS with (really) no change.  Obama isn't going to change a thing.

    My questions to you.... Christopher Hitchens loves the language Obama uses to discuss Iraq and he is very pro-war.  Hitchens doesn't believe Obama has any intention of leaving Iraq.  On what date do you believe Obama will have all troops out of Iraq?  

    Second question... given that Obama has voted for tort reform and against a cap on credit card rates and that he takes corporate money, he and his wife's income is corporate, what makes you believe he is going after any corporate welfare?  Exactly what is it that he has ever said or done to prove he would take any action whatsoever?

    Parent

    Troubador (none / 0) (#164)
    by Burned on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:39:02 PM EST
    If your own mom can't get you to understand, I don't think you're going to get much from an entire blog of strangers who are Clinton supporters.

    The people that have said they won't vote for Obama have been thoroughly talked to already by people that shared a candidate with them. So I doubt very much that you will be able to sway them as a supporter of Obama.

    Parent

    hmmm my twin.... (none / 0) (#185)
    by The Troubadour on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:44:33 PM EST
    ...sometimes I wonder if the emotional undercurrents that dominate the discussions I have with Mom undermine my ability to actually listen to her.

    And so I asked. Though your cynicism is duly noted.

    And I have no intention of swaying votes here, I'm simply "stepping across the aisle."

    Parent

    Hilarious. (none / 0) (#210)
    by pie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:50:46 PM EST
    And I have no intention of swaying votes here, I'm simply "stepping across the aisle."

    You've stepped in something on the way across.

    You're not helping.  

    Parent

    Hmm (5.00 / 6) (#115)
    by Steve M on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:26:03 PM EST
    A lot of us were very angry about the way the Clintons were falsely portrayed as race-baiters in this campaign.  That's a big part of it, at least for me.

    Basically, there's a sentiment that Hillary has done too much good and been on the right side of too many fights in her career to be treated with so much disrespect and disdain.

    Parent

    Thanks for this... (none / 0) (#150)
    by The Troubadour on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:35:12 PM EST
    ...you must understand that from the other side, it has felt as though there has indeed been race baiting going on, particularly from Bill Clinton. He   is (I think) a very sharp man, and understood exactly what he was saying in his attempt to minimize the South Carolina vote.

    Given this, do I think Hillary is racist? Only an idiot would think this given her incredible resume in the area of working for minority rights and education. And I think this is why Obama supporters, and particularly black supporters, have been so enraged by the Clinton campaign (not with Clinton).

    Parent

    Yep (5.00 / 2) (#198)
    by Steve M on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:47:48 PM EST
    I understand completely that there are people who wholeheartedly believe the outrageous and false race-baiting narrative.  That's the source of the anger.

    Frankly, your comment comes very close to the line.

    Parent

    It's not about the narrative... (5.00 / 4) (#217)
    by lambertstrether on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:54:21 PM EST
    ... constructed by the Obama campaign, which of course many believed. It's about what happened.

    In any case, I've been called a racist countless times on Kos because I didn't support Obama.

    So you believe that I personally am a racist, and that my candidate is as well. That's what I know, because many Obama supporters told me exactly that. If they believed it, it's bad. If it was "just politics," that's even worse.

    That toothpaste is not going to go back in the tube.

    Parent

    When I looked at the comments... (5.00 / 1) (#222)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:56:01 PM EST
    from a memo that the Obama campaign put out, I couldn't actually figure out what had been said because of all the ellipses (not sure if this was for SC).

    I literally had to go back and look at the full quotes and watch them on YouTube.

    And the contextualized comments didn't seem to match  what the ellipsized quotes in the memo said.

    I'm not in either camp. But as someone who teaches research and proper citations, that looked really wonky to me.

    Parent

    I unhderstand from this side (none / 0) (#181)
    by pie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:43:09 PM EST
    that there has been race-baiting going on.

    Hooked some suckers over there, it did.

    Parent

    deep resentments (5.00 / 5) (#133)
    by nellre on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:30:50 PM EST
    Blame Huffpo, Kos, Brazile, and other Clinton haters. Blame the MSM for their endless and unapologetic misogyny.

    Obama comes off as arrogant, but I could forgive that. I'm not convinced he's got more than pretty speeches and over the top promises to offer though.

    But I can't forgive the Democratic party for dissing HRC supporters and blowing of MI and FL. That's what's got me angry.


    Parent

    On the MSM... (none / 0) (#173)
    by The Troubadour on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:41:32 PM EST
    ...I will agree with you.

    However, when you say you "can't forgive the Democratic party for dissing HRC supporters and blowing off MI and FL," I have difficulty understanding this. Why? Because the Clinton campaign was the first to sign off early in the game on both Florida and Michigan NOT being counted.

    Do I think the DNC's rule on this is effective? No, it's punitive, and archaic. However, just as we must deal with the ridiculousness of delegates instead of popular vote, we also must deal with such rules created before the game was played. IMO.

    Parent

    There is no we here (5.00 / 2) (#182)
    by nellre on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:43:43 PM EST
    I'd never blow off 2.5 million voters because of some technicality.


    Parent
    Yes yes (none / 0) (#192)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:45:51 PM EST
    And the rah rah rah, the Patriot fan says "Sure the tuck rule sucks, we'll get around to changing it after our victory speeches."

    Parent
    Why (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Nadai on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:32:39 PM EST
    don't you search the archives for the 526 other times this has been asked?

    Parent
    I won't sit out. I'll actively help beat Obama. (5.00 / 3) (#148)
    by RonK Seattle on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:34:39 PM EST
    But others will have to make their own decisions.

    Parent
    This is easy (5.00 / 2) (#176)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:42:35 PM EST
    The Obama campaign forced me to choose between the Clinton legacy and the Democratic Party.

    So I made my decision.

    You're on your own.

    I don't know about anyone else, but I'll assume you'd get better traction here if you'd leave the lame talking points about Iran, Lobbyist, and Penn out of any appeals to Party unity going forward.

    Parent

    c'mon... (5.00 / 1) (#216)
    by p lukasiak on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:54:17 PM EST
    this wasn't a 'troll' post --- at the very least, its someone trying to engage Clinton supporters on their own turf.  Even most of us thought that Penn was a jerk, and was glad to see him go, and aren't thrilled with Clinton's position on lobbyists.

    so before we jedge this commenter too harshly, lets give him a chance....after all, even if he is an Obot, he seems to be one of the more intelligent ones! ;)

    Parent

    not looking at unity... (none / 0) (#208)
    by The Troubadour on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:49:50 PM EST
    ...as I'm still actively campaigning against Clinton. Simply seeking opinions.

    As for the lame talking-points, you'll excuse me if, as a personal victim of terrorism and war (yes, personal),I am put off by hawkish posturing on war with Iran. So if a concern about the potential use of nukes in a hypothetical conflict is lame, then yes, I am very, very lame.

    Parent

    Sorry (none / 0) (#214)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:53:33 PM EST
    But it is lame because you don't understand deterrence.

    Everyone has a personal story to tell.  You are no more important than anyone else.  And I'll defer to the folks who have advised Clinton, people like Wes Clark and Joe Wilson on these matters.

    They are right and you are wrong.


    Parent

    I'm sitting it out... (5.00 / 2) (#201)
    by p lukasiak on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:49:15 PM EST
    because

    1) I found Obama's "race-boating" completely contrary to everything I stand for as a Democrat

     and

    2) Because I don't think that Obama is ready to be president -- and if we're gonna wind up in a ditch in the next four years, it doesn't matter to me if its the left or right side of the road we land in --- it matters more to me that the person who tows the car out of the ditch is a Democrat.

    And its the latter part that I don't think Obama people understand --- VERY few of us were supporting Clinton when this campaign began...I personally was supporting Edwards.  Clinton to us was the lesser of two evils; the country is broke, Clinton wants to (and can) fix it first, and Obama is concerned with interior redesign (and seems like he doesn't even know design at this point, given his promise of Unity and the divisiveness that we've managed to achieve.)

    But I'm not voting for McCain -- so take comfort in that.

    Parent

    Well, I'll address your concerns (5.00 / 5) (#205)
    by lambertstrether on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:49:26 PM EST
    but very briefly, since I have other things to do. In no particular order:

    1. Smearing the Clintons as racists

    2. Vile misogyny from supporters; leveraging the Clinton and especially Hillary hatred engineered by Republicans from the impeachment, as seen on the comment threads of most A list blogs and most media outlets

    3. Selling out all the struggles of the 80s and 90s by equating the Bushes and the Clintons

    4. Press coverage incredibly biased against Hillary [I view the press and the Obama campaign as essentially one system]

    5. Boring bullet points about policy from Hillary are preferable to empty calories rhetoric from Obama

    6. Prating about the rules when in fact the only REAL rule is that the SDs will decide this one (according to the rules)

    7. Preventing revotes in FL and MI

    8. New: Suppressing 527s

    9. The whole notion of Unity, which is either a scam, an insult to intelligence and morals, or both.

    10. Cultish behavior of many Obama supporters (of course not all) especially online.

    And that's before we even get to policy, where Obama could, for example, have improved his health care mandates approach, instead of choosing to run demogogic Harry & Louise ads.

    And in my own little world:

    1. Destruction of networks as major A list blogs come out for Obama and reinforced points 1 through 9 above.

    2. All that cr*p about the "creative class" from key Obama supporters online

    3. Caucus where someone I thought of as a friend unleashed an astonishing blast of contempt and anger when I said I wasn't voting for Obama; I imagine others have similar stories; it was like a Kos thread, except in the real world.

    I'm sure I could make a more thorough and analytical response, given time, but that will do to go on with.

    Bottom line for me is that I support your principled views on racism 100%, and feel you deserve to work with people you would be comfortable with; obviously not me, since I'm a racist [irony]. Good luck! I'd only get in your way....

    Parent

    Just listen. (5.00 / 2) (#233)
    by NYCDem11 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:03:38 PM EST
    Your question seems very sincere. On the flip side, I'm really puzzled how you can search for answers to this inquiry and not immediately find any. I suspect if you really listened to your mother explain her feelings you'd hear a deep rage and dismay over the misogynist hostility displayed by the media, politicians, and even many within the cultural elite. Let's not forget: The personal IS the political. For many of us, Senator Clinton is one of the most qualified and impressive candidates we've ever had the privilege to watch campaign. She's also the first woman to have done so in a real way. When the person we believe is far more experienced and deserving -- and who represents our hopes and dreams for this country and our children -- is batted aside, maligned, and ganged up on, then WE feel batted aside, maligned, and ganged up on. Senator Clinton is a lightening rod for how people feel about women and women's roles -- and the hatred displayed for her from day one gave way for the lesser experienced nominee to waltz right past her. I concede that Senator Obama is a talented and intelligent politician, and that he ran a smart and effective grassroots campaign. But I do not believe that he would have made it this far without the help of the bullies in the media, on many progressive blogs, and on Capital Hill. That Senator Obama has leveraged this behavior to his advantage is just salt on the wounds. (And no, the patronizing "hush, hush" to booing supporters at the mention of Clinton's name is not sufficiently unifying.) Senator Clinton would have made such an incredible president and it is such a colossal waste that we've passed up this opportunity for her to lead.

    Parent
    Important for me too (5.00 / 2) (#234)
    by honora on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:06:12 PM EST
    I am a life-long Democrat, who feels like her whole life has been a lie.  I live and breathe politics, my car has Democratic political stickers on the front and back, my friends ask me for advice on which candidate to vote for (at least the ones that are Democrats), I HOLD political fundraisers in my house. Now I learn that the DNC does not value me.  McCain may win, Obama may win, but I do nothing, including voting for any Democrat, to help the Democratic Party.  You imply that I owe you something because this is such an important election.  I disagree, I owe you nothing and this election is no more or less important that the ones in the past.  The boys will hold power and the women will foolishly allow it to happen.  "No self respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her self." Susan B. Anthony and me.

    Parent
    my support for McCain... (5.00 / 1) (#239)
    by diplomatic on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:25:06 PM EST
    Let's put it this way:  Today my support for McCain has become a lot less tepid.

    How can anyone remain associated with this backbiting, disloyal, disfunctional Democratic party?

    Obama supporters can have it all to themselves.

    Parent

    Do you realize (none / 0) (#124)
    by kmblue on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:28:18 PM EST
    how many times we have been asked this?
    It's an individual decision.
    IMHO you have no right to ask.
    Search this blog if you like.

    Parent
    I disagree... (none / 0) (#135)
    by The Troubadour on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:31:42 PM EST
    ...but you certainly don't have to offer any opinion on the matter. Though I will say it does little for anyone to sit on your hands and refuse to help an Obama supporter understand your position.

    Parent
    Well Troubadour (5.00 / 2) (#231)
    by kmblue on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:01:41 PM EST
    We've had lots of Obama supporters visit us, some civil, some not.  You are very civil.
    Speaking for myself only, I grow weary of being asked to justify my positions.  And still speaking for myself only, when I used to try, no explanation was good enough.

    Parent
    You are directing this at commenters? (none / 0) (#134)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:31:33 PM EST
    Because it is not directed at the FP posts.

    Parent
    I am...n/t (none / 0) (#161)
    by The Troubadour on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:38:13 PM EST
    I never sit out an election (none / 0) (#225)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:56:40 PM EST
    Any Dem in the WH is better than McCain, for many many reasons. If my vote is needed in MD I will hold my nose and vote for Obama. As to my anger - I used to kinda like Obama - thought he had potential. But that was it - he had little experience, had never been in a tough race (Keyes?). And the more I tried to learn about his policies the less I found. The more I expected him to make a splash in the Senate the less I found.
    The anger came when his fundraisers called aggressively and made like I wasn't worth spit when I questioned his non-partisan model. Andf was compounded when his supporters called me a racist because I didn't think he was best for the country. And then every subtle and not-so-subtle sexist comment about Hillary and her supporters struck home.
    While Hillary was not my first choice, and Obama not my last, their campaigns forced me to take a stand.
    Just a minute, sweetie? I have to throw up now.

    Parent
    Obama and the kitchen policy sink (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:20:41 PM EST
    It sure appears to me that is, that some uneducated, low income voters are finally getting the presumptive nominee to earn his keep and come up with some policies and ideas.  All those educated, high information voters, truly did not demand anything of him.  

    Watching Obama now throw out policy after policy in a rag tag approach seems truly pathetic and rather desperate.  

    So, why did all the education, creativity and income not demand anything of this man?  Why did it take the "alleged racist" low income uneducated voters to do that?  

    Guess who turns out to be more demanding.  

    Edwards' timing is very courageous, (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by MarkL on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:23:45 PM EST
    don't you think?

    yes, (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by miguelito on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:25:11 PM EST
    it says a lot about him

    Parent
    courageous ahh NO (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by Mrwirez on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:29:38 PM EST
    Courage would have been to endorse before WV, not after. He is a wuss. Thats a big NO Vote. It looks like Obama needs a white guy to stick up for him, when in fact the white guy never won squat in the first place. In a strange way this may have a reverse effect.

    Parent
    Obama needs a DEMOCRAT to stand (none / 0) (#138)
    by MarkL on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:32:39 PM EST
    up for him.. that's the point.

    Parent
    I want Mr Obama to sit down (5.00 / 2) (#187)
    by Mrwirez on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:44:41 PM EST
    And HRC to rise, I will NO vote for O

    Parent
    IMHO this endorsement makes no sense. (5.00 / 3) (#110)
    by nellre on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:24:30 PM EST
    IMHO this endorsement makes no sense.
    All politics no government.

    If Obama wins in November, and he may not, I'm betting he will be a failure... like Jimmy Carter was.

    The dems have, backhandedly, shat upon one of the most successful presidents of our time.

    So (5.00 / 3) (#118)
    by sas on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:26:09 PM EST
    who will they bring out after she clobbers him in KY...Gore?

    Then who can they bring out after PR?

    Carter?

    What they don't get is that this just strengthens the resolve of the Clinton supporters.

    Oh and how about the BOOS when Edwards said nice things about Hillary?

    Really makes you want to vote for good ol Barry O doesn't it?

    Sent Edwards... (5.00 / 3) (#119)
    by smott on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:26:31 PM EST
    ...a long letter expressing my extreme disappointment. Mentioned his wife Elizabeth musthave impressed upon him the superioritty of CLinton's health plan.

    I'm just dumbfounded.

    Fired up my Monster again and looking for jobs in Canada. Really just fed up now.

    It's hard when you get reminded so often how much of this country hates women.


    His one excuse for picking Obama over Clinton (5.00 / 4) (#126)
    by RonK Seattle on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:29:05 PM EST
    ... was that Obama knows how to create lasting change.

    That's funny.

    Edwards knew the results he wanted to create, but he never connected because he never hatched a feasible "Theory of Change" explaining how to get us there. He just rattled on about lobbyists and such.

    Now he's endorsed Obama, who spouts the very same Theory of Change - prattling about lobbyists - which is to say, no Theory at all.

    Carry on.

    where is the evidence? (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by miguelito on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:37:22 PM EST
    I never know what the eff they are talking about when they say "he can create change".  When has this happened?  Where is the evidence?    He hasn't done squat, so why do they keep repeating this nonsense?

    Parent
    I wonder if it's the salt air (none / 0) (#232)
    by oldpro on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:01:59 PM EST
    here on Puget Sound that keeps us in synch, Ron...even when we're not in touch!

    What a joke this endorsement is.  Two guys with almost no governmental experience to speak of, patting each other on the back and promising to change Washington!

    Gawd...I love a good joke.

    But I do not like making a joke of the politics of the working people of this country.  If that carries the day, I'm done with the Democratic Party.  Getting closer to Independence every day.

    Parent

    As I see it (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by delacarpa on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:33:18 PM EST
    It is a slap in the face for Hillary. CNN broke away after the event to Lou Dobbs who talking to his panel saying it was a classless act of Obama doing this on the day after he lost so badly. Edwards absent of his spouse is telling.

    Emotional... (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Tess on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:34:31 PM EST
    Hillary was just on CNN in an interview with Wolf Blitzer.  She got teary speaking about Chelsea....even made me cry.

    I can't imagine how tired she must be and to know your lovely daughter is in the trenches with you....

    A special moment...

    As a previous Edwards supporter I will dismiss (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by Prabhata on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:37:27 PM EST
    this endorsement.  I would have liked him to endorse Hillary when it was timely.  Now it makes no difference to Hillary or Obama.  My distaste for BO can never be washed away with an endorsement.  I really liked Edwards, but evidently he could not win more votes in SC than Hillary.  His appeal was narrow.  Now Edwards joins the other losers, i.e. Kerry, Richardson, Kennedy, etc. who back BO.

    Here's McAuliffe: (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by oculus on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:39:49 PM EST
    Terry McAuliffe, the Clinton campaign chairman, responded to the endorsement: "We respect John Edwards," he said in a statement, "but as the voters of West Virginia showed last night, this thing is far from over."



    I wonder if there is any polling which (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by MarkL on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:42:43 PM EST
    indicates Obama would do WORSE in KY if he campaigned, now.
    Maybe he's staying away for a reason.

    Can (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:48:24 PM EST
    someone tell me why we should nominate a candidate that has such serious electoral deficiencies? Is because the party is afraid of offending AA's? Or that they'll leave. Well, they are going to leave anyway because when Obama loses and tons of Dems abandon him in the general election due to his problems (none of which happen to be his race) AA's are going to believe that Dems are racist right? Obviously, the party doesn't think that John McCain is such a threat to democracy or that a Bush third term is such a bad thing. Obama does nothing more than reassert the old losing dukakis coaition.

    I think this proves (5.00 / 1) (#219)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:54:33 PM EST
    that these folks are asking each other what to do -- they are asking the experts on failure about how to succeed.  Wouldn't want to go outside the bubble and ask outsiders, in case they hear something they don't want to hear...

    But I do wonder slightly if Obama is getting pressure to perform in Kentucky.  There might at least be two influential voices in the DNC who realize what's happening, who know this guy isn't going to win, who think he has to PROVE he can win, who are actually listening to core Democrats.  And they're saying, "do something Obama, or else".  And what does he do? He asks Uncle Johnny Edwards to save him. ;-)

    I have every confidence that this endorsement will be as good as the Kennedy clan endorsement.  (as in, it will mean nada.)  Obama isn't fooling real voters.  His strengths are far behind what is necessary to win the presidency, or if he gets a win, to govern.  People know that their lives aren't a game -- even if the DNC only knows that it would be cool to have the MLK incarnate give the nomination speech on "MLK I have a dream" day.  Now they'll get that, but I don't think many people will be impressed.

    But I need to get my bumper sticker out again:  "I used to be disgusted.  Now I'm just amused".  Because this is just plain getting funny!

    BHO's to push his fathiness in KY (5.00 / 1) (#221)
    by datadriven on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:55:11 PM EST
    Borger, et al were just on CNN discussing Obama's faith-based approach in KY. It looks like he'll be trolling for Huckabee voters. Borger contends that depicting BHO with a gigantic cross, much larger than the Huckabee cross, is entirely "authentic" as he's always been faithy and uneducated folks still think he's a Muslim. Begala concurs. I guess these two went to the same briefing on the need for a faith-centric approach to the working class, i.e. non-pocketbook-based pandering.

    My guess is that this will go over as well as the bowling-based Obama or the waffles-centric Obama.  

    I know this is OT (5.00 / 3) (#223)
    by rnibs on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:56:11 PM EST
    but I just got one of those smacks that really wakes you up.  

    Just talked to an old, retired neighbor who was in state politics years ago, and lives, breathes and eats politics.  (Some neighbors avoid him because you can't get him to stop talking politics.)  Anyway, a lifelong Dem, he just said he didn't think he could vote for Obama in the GE.  If someone who has been voting Dem since Adlai Stevenson can't find it in himself to 'get over it', 'man up', 'suck it up' or whatever else some Obama supporters tell us we have to do in Nov., Obama's chances are grimmer than I thought.  

    I know this is OT (5.00 / 1) (#224)
    by rnibs on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:56:28 PM EST
    but I just got one of those smacks that really wakes you up.  

    Just talked to an old, retired neighbor who was in state politics years ago, and lives, breathes and eats politics.  (Some neighbors avoid him because you can't get him to stop talking politics.)  Anyway, a lifelong Dem, he just said he didn't think he could vote for Obama in the GE.  If someone who has been voting Dem since Adlai Stevenson can't find it in himself to 'get over it', 'man up', 'suck it up' or whatever else some Obama supporters tell us we have to do in Nov., Obama's chances are grimmer than I thought.  

    Another purpose to the endorsement (5.00 / 1) (#229)
    by ruffian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:58:53 PM EST
    and probably the main purpose, since I agree Edwards isn't going to help that much in the remaining primaries, is to remind the SDs that Obama won't be out there alone campaigning in the fall.  

    They think there are more ways to get working class white folks to vote Dem than by getting them to love Obama.  They have to think so - it's all they've got.

    To me (5.00 / 2) (#235)
    by sas on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:06:23 PM EST
    this shows the panic that must have set in after the supposed nominee endures a humiliating 41 point loss in W Va.

    The voters had been told that was over - and they showed up anyway - and kicked his arse up one side of the stree and down the other - didn't even win one county-and no dempographic except maybe the small AA vote.

    Who thinks John Edwards will make one bit of difference in KY - show of hands please.  Are they trying to suppress the vote again, like they tried to do in W Va?

    The party wants to prop up this empty suit to avoid all hell breaking loose at the convention - c'mon Hillary go get 'em baby!


    Isn't It Just Possible (4.50 / 2) (#146)
    by KnightErrant on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:34:16 PM EST
    I am surprised by the vitriol being aimed at John Edwards in this and past threads. Some blame misogyny, others charge Edwards sold his endorsement. Isn't it possible that Edwards believes it is time for the Democratic Party leaders to unite around the party's eventual nominee?

    Regardless of who gained the nomination there are some people who would have refused to vote for the winner in the GE. Gender, race, and age differences trump politics for some. There are always some people determined to punish the nation for failing to nominate their candidate. I am seeing a lot of that here just now.

    I also understand that after 8 years of the Bush Presidency there are some people who believe what this country needs most is another Republican in the White House. I suspect most of those are Republicans.

    But, isn't it just possible that John Edwards wants the Democratic nominee to win the Presidential election and his endorsement has no ulterior motive beyond that?

    Why now? Why not in two weeks after the (none / 0) (#163)
    by Teresa on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:38:45 PM EST
    voters are through voting. There is plenty of time to heal afterwards. They are ruining any chance for this by ignoring the voters.

    I think Edwards got a big fat donor list and lots of money for his college fund. The part where he was speaking from his heart? That was to Clinton supporters, not Obama's. Obama just cannot connect to them.

    Parent

    Sounded a lot (none / 0) (#27)
    by Lahdee on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:02:16 PM EST
    like a unity pitch to me. "I'll take Obama, but you better be nice to Hillary."
    He did tie Two Americas to Obama. I hope you're right and they do at least one joint appearance in KY.

    I agree (none / 0) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:03:58 PM EST
    He taught Richardson a lesson in how to do it.

    Parent
    If Obama is going to wipe out poverty, (none / 0) (#44)
    by oculus on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:06:13 PM EST
    best to have Edwards by his side.  But I don't see how that gets it wiped out either.  

    Parent
    Obama sounded quite a bit like Romney (none / 0) (#52)
    by oculus on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:09:13 PM EST
    with his promise to restore autoworker jobs to MI.  

    He'd do a lot better to promise to (5.00 / 5) (#72)
    by Anne on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:14:54 PM EST
    restore their votes, don't you think?

    I find it incredibly, um, audacious, of Obama to go to Michigan, of all places, to drag out John Edwards.  Was this supposed to be  special treat for the people of Michigan?  It was just too in-your-face.

    I hope Clinton goes into Kentucky and kicks a$$ from one end of the state to the other.

    Parent

    Frankly..... (none / 0) (#170)
    by Laureola on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:40:31 PM EST
    The Democrats in Michigan think much less of this than the Democrats on TalkLeft.

    Parent
    OMG. (none / 0) (#87)
    by pie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:19:33 PM EST
    He didn't.

    Tell me he didn't promise that.  You think autoworkers are going to believe that after what they've been through?

    That's a promise he will not be able to keep, so I really hope he didn't say that.

    Parent

    He did say it, and they did vote for (none / 0) (#122)
    by oculus on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:27:14 PM EST
    Romney in MI.  

    Parent
    Republicans voted for Romney. (none / 0) (#197)
    by pie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:47:16 PM EST
    He's promising the same thing that Romney did?

    He's floundering.  He can not deliver.

    Parent

    Why (none / 0) (#68)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:14:13 PM EST
    does he need to roll out this endorsement today if he's not in trouble? Seems to me it would have helped him more, if it's going to help him any, closer to the KY primary.

    Does Edwards conotes the looser image? (none / 0) (#78)
    by Saul on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:17:13 PM EST
    Does Obama want Edwards as VP since could not win in the past races?  

    Well the comment is gone, (none / 0) (#79)
    by pie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:17:17 PM EST
    but John Edwards certainly wasn't respected enough by the voters when he was running for president.  So this "one of the most respected democrats" nonsense is just that.

    Elizabeth has a ton of respect, btw.

    I have no evidence (none / 0) (#85)
    by Makarov on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:18:55 PM EST
    to back it up, but I think Edwards was promised the VP slot.  I also think he's been in the bank for a while, since before NC.  He was trotted out today to end discussion about how the presumptive nominee of the party lost a swing state by over 40%.

    Think about it - everyone knew Obama was going to win NC, but after PA it started to get closer.  The Obama campaign was confident they'd still win NC (as BTD says, the demographics were there), so they kept Edwards in pocket for a rainy day.

    If Hillary had won Pennsylvania by 20%, instead of 10%, you would've seen Edwards endorse on April 23rd.

    CNN/MSNBC Coverage (none / 0) (#103)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:23:09 PM EST
    OK, OK and Chuck Todd are discussing this.  KO brushed off WV as showing weaknesses with demographics of voters that republicans who are Dem in name only.  Chuck Todd points out that this is now a test in KY.  Can he move the pts.  People should now rally around him as the leader.

    CNN: this makes John Edwards relevant (hubris).  PN could not deliver the Cath vote.  Begala: One man, one nam, the man on the panel questions that this sounds like sexism.  Woman: must have been tough for Edwards listening to crowd for Obama. Q? except for Booing Clinton, has healing begun? No.  People are emotional want it to play out.

    Fox: other political coverage (a professor pushing a 'racism against Obama' meme?)  Fox is going to go after Obama and is not going to tolerate being called racist for it. duh.

    For the most part, this has knocked Clinton out of the news, but no party unity and Kentucky is now a contest.  (Let's be real, he could lose by 20 pts and the media will spin it for him as something he needs to work on for the GE)

    For those of you who will vote for Obama, Fox had Obama up 20 pts over McCain with the under 40s.

    LOL - in a word, Nnnnnnoooooooooooo (5.00 / 2) (#195)
    by Ellie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:46:19 PM EST
    Q? except for Booing Clinton, has healing begun? No.

    Aw, heck, we don't mind the booing so long as it's not too loud while we're also being burned at the stake.

    Baby steps, Slow advances, progress tip toes forward.

    Parent

    I think (none / 0) (#168)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:40:16 PM EST
    the media is doing Hillary a huge favor here with them playing up KY. If KY is now going to decide something then that works in her favor. It sounds like OR is going to be ignored. Perhaps Obama made a huge mistake rolling out Edwards.

    Parent
    Is Edwards on the ballot in KY? (none / 0) (#105)
    by Teresa on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:23:33 PM EST


    Screw the Two (none / 0) (#113)
    by Mrwirez on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:25:41 PM EST


    Well (none / 0) (#127)
    by Nadai on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:29:06 PM EST
    whatever Edwards was promised for this endorsement, I hope for his sake that he got it in writing.

    Frankly..... (none / 0) (#153)
    by Laureola on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:36:50 PM EST
    Edwards will not significantly affect Kentucky, and I don't believe Obama intends for it to.  This was all about closing the deal with uncommitted delegates in order to unify the party.

    Kentucky is irrelevant at this point.  

    please (none / 0) (#162)
    by miguelito on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:38:36 PM EST
    it was about stealing the news cycle obviously

    Parent
    That too..... (none / 0) (#188)
    by Laureola on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:45:08 PM EST
    .......and they did so masterfully.  Obama has proven to be the much better strategist.

    Tweety reported that Hillary had a bunch of big donors at her home to bask in the WV victory and watch the interviews she taped for all the network news programs.  Instead, she was preempted by the Edwards announcement.  I would have hated to be among those gust.  How embarrassing it must have been for everybody.  

    Parent

    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#211)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:50:57 PM EST
    that's worked real well for him hasn't it? After he declared himself the nominee and the press went along he lost by 41 points.

    Parent
    People In KY Might Not Think They Are (none / 0) (#230)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:00:36 PM EST
    irrelevant and this type of talk does not help Obama garner the support he needs to win the WH.

    Obama will be the nominee but will he be able to win over the demographics he needs to win the GE? So far, he has not proven he can do so and a large loss in KY will just increase doubts that he ever will.

    There is such a thing as winning the battle and losing the war.

    Parent

    What about Oregon? (none / 0) (#156)
    by TedL on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:37:18 PM EST
    There are plenty of white working class voters in Oregon.  They don't count?

    No (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:42:47 PM EST
    they don't. Obama has made it about KY by rolling out Edwards.

    Parent
    is KY (none / 0) (#183)
    by miguelito on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:43:58 PM EST
    the new tie-breaker?  

    Parent
    I guess (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:49:18 PM EST
    so it seems if you listen to the idiot pundits.

    Parent
    Yup. (none / 0) (#218)
    by NWHiker on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:54:29 PM EST
    And he'll lose it, but it still won't matter.

    Parent
    Nope. (none / 0) (#209)
    by mrjerbub on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:49:56 PM EST
    They don't count because most of the white-working-class-voters in Ore. aren't your typical democrats. These people are hardcore repubs. The thing about Ore. is it's many college towns. Obama's kinda place.

    Parent
    A lot have already voted (none / 0) (#220)
    by ruffian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:54:59 PM EST
    by mail.  I think going after them now may be a bit too late.

    Parent
    I wish his wife woulld.. (none / 0) (#186)
    by mrjerbub on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:44:38 PM EST
    ..nullify this with an endorsement for Hillary.

    I think the two did vote (none / 0) (#204)
    by Mrwirez on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:49:18 PM EST
    differently. Unless he is an egomaniac and voted for himself anyway, knowing it would not matter. My only question is why? Why roll out a 3 time loser?

    Parent
    You are absolutely right BTD. (none / 0) (#213)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:53:24 PM EST
    It will be a test.

    The question for many people not in the tank for Obama will be whether or not Edwards can help stop the blood letting in these states.

    The fact that they chose Michigan rather than Kentucky for this announcement suggests to me that they are not expecting Edwards to deliver any sort of significant shift in favor of Obama - but then again I could be wrong.

    Slapping (none / 0) (#228)
    by yuutamichael on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:58:17 PM EST
    I've been slapped in the face by John Edwards. Slap slap slapped in the face!

    Sorry, lost perspective there for a moment.

    well (none / 0) (#240)
    by sas on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:41:00 PM EST
    Edwards will get a slap in the face from Ky.

    These Dem weasels keep trying to stifle the voters.

    If there is one thing that Obama's humiliating loss in W Va showed, it was that the voters want to have a voice.

    And they will have a voice.

    They were told all week it was over - and when they got their chance to vote they delivered a message.  Methinks Ky will do the same.  Thought now it will be a two-for-one blow.  A slap on Edwards and a slap for Obama.

    Maybe even a three for one blow - a slap for the Dem establishment.

    It will be delicious!

    Words Cannot Express (none / 0) (#242)
    by CDN Ctzn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:08:09 PM EST
    Words cannot fully express how disappointed I am with Edward's decision to back Obama. Apparently he didn't notice that his (Edward's) base was the lower and middle income working class; precisely the same base that is now supporting Hillary and has seen that Obama doesn't seem to care much about their interests.

    Then again, what does that say about the mentality of the average voter that they can be so easily swayed to vote against their own interests merely because someone else endorses another candidate. Only in America!

    So SCI-FI-ish... (none / 0) (#243)
    by fctchekr on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:09:58 PM EST
    ...very disengenuous of Edwards. And obvious attempt to return the MO to him. But, really so SCI-FI-ish, right out of a Hollywood script and central casting. Pillar of community defends invasion of alien mission to take over the country...

    I feel really betrayed by Edwards (none / 0) (#244)
    by alright on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:01:10 AM EST
    I think that his decision shows it is really about him, and his ego. It's about what he thinks , not about the people he seeks to represent.

    Comments closed (none / 0) (#245)
    by Jeralyn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:05:57 AM EST