The John Edwards Thread

[Matt]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

Hehe reminds me a bit of Gore giving Liberman the finger in 2004.

[Excel]

Heh, ouch...

[The Senator]

Apparently, John Kerry and John Edwards never got along at all during the campaign, so Kerry's decision to back someone else doesn't surprise me in the least bit.

[Mr Sparkle]

I never understand how people during the primaries say **** about each other and then go like " wanna be my VP?" ahahahahaha! politics is bull****.

[Matt]

Heh, that it is. :up:

[Malice]

I never understand how people during the primaries say **** about each other and then go like " wanna be my VP?" ahahahahaha! politics is bull****.

It simply comes down to...you will give me votes I wont get otherwise...get the on the train man!

[rdh007]

Yeah, but Lieberman had earned that finger, Edwards' positions make the most sense of the three left.

[Matt]

Yeah, but Lieberman had earned that finger, Edwards' positions make the most sense of the three left.

Kerry just wants to stay relevant.

[rdh007]

Kerry just wants to stay relevant.

He'll always be relevant to me. :heart:

[Matt]

He'll always be relevant to me. :heart:

He'll always be our party's sad answer to Bob Dole to me. :csad:

[rdh007]

Fair enough. Though I think he would have made a great President, he was a bad candidate.

[Mr Sparkle]

Fair enough. Though I think he would have made a great President, he was a bad candidate.

He would've tooo, I remember watching the debates 4 years ago and saying
"wow, that sounds pretty sensible" too bad not many people licked up on it.

[SuBe]

Yeah, but Lieberman had earned that finger, Edwards' positions make the most sense of the three left.
Lieberman, next to Zell Miller is the best Democrat Alive.

[Matt]

Fair enough. Though I think he would have made a great President, he was a bad candidate.

I tend to agree with that. Y'know, in many ways...he resembles Richard Nixon. He is a smart, older, experienced statesman who ran against a more likable, handsome, and electable albeit it less experienced and competant candidate (much like Nixon was against Kennedy). Nixon was a fairly good president (aside from the whole watergate scandal) but a really bad candidate who only won because of Democratic turmoil in 1968 (first Johnson decides not to run for re-election, then Bobby Kennedy is assassinated, and the Democrats get stuck with Humphrey).

[Matt]

He would've tooo, I remember watching the debates 4 years ago and saying
"wow, that sounds pretty sensible" too bad not many people licked up on it.

What can you say? Bush and Rove ran a brilliant campaign. They actually used Kerry's intelligence and articulate debating skills against him by turning intelligence into a BAD thing in the eyes of middle America.

[SuBe]

What can you say? Bush and Rove ran a brilliant campaign. They actually used Kerry's intelligence and articulate debating skills against him by turning intelligence into a BAD thing in the eyes of middle America.
Matt, Matt, Matt, George Bush had a higher GPA at Yale than Kerry. :yay:

[The Senator]

Lieberman, next to Zell Miller is the best Democrat Alive.

:lmao:

[Raiden]

He'll always be our party's sad answer to Bob Dole to me. :csad:

I agree. If Kerry had more charisma and likability, he might've won the presidency. But like Dole, people just don't feel like voting for someone who is devoid of personality.

[Matt]

Matt, Matt, Matt, George Bush had a higher GPA at Yale than Kerry. :yay:

Thats great. Last I checked we were discussing their political campaigns, 30 years later. A time in which Kerry, no doubt came off as much more intelligent then Bush. And just for the record, Kerry's GPA at Yale was held down by 4 Ds in his freshman year. So his CUMULATIVE GPA would be around the same as Bush, however, after his freshman year he really straightened up and his GPA was much higher. Bush on the other hand held a consistent 2.75 throughout his entire education.

[Malice]

Who gives a freaking flip of college grades.

If I went to college now, they would rock.
They sucked when I was there 10 years ago.

I will NEVER hold any sort of college "experience" against someone.

[Matt]

Who gives a freaking flip of college grades.

If I went to college now, they would rock.
They sucked when I was there 10 years ago.

I will NEVER hold any sort of college "experience" against someone.

Agreed. I really don't think there is any denying that in the 2004 presidential election which is the only time that matters...Kerry came off as smarter than Bush, and Bush in turn pulled a cou'p and used Kerry's educated nature against him.

[CorpusBlack]

Who gives a freaking flip of college grades.

If I went to college now, they would rock.
They sucked when I was there 10 years ago.

I will NEVER hold any sort of college "experience" against someone.

Agree.

[Kel]

He'll always be relevant to me. :heart:

He'll always be an ignorant politician to me....

[Mr Sparkle]

Matt, Matt, Matt, George Bush had a higher GPA at Yale than Kerry. :yay:

regardless, the Rove propaganda machine did paint being an " intellectual " as something worthy of derision remember?

[bell110]

I tend to agree with that. Y'know, in many ways...he resembles Richard Nixon. He is a smart, older, experienced statesman who ran against a more likable, handsome, and electable albeit it less experienced and competant candidate (much like Nixon was against Kennedy). Nixon was a fairly good president (aside from the whole watergate scandal) but a really bad candidate who only won because of Democratic turmoil in 1968 (first Johnson decides not to run for re-election, then Bobby Kennedy is assassinated, and the Democrats get stuck with Humphrey).

You're saying Bush is more handsome? No way, he's ugly as ****.

What can you say? Bush and Rove ran a brilliant campaign. They actually used Kerry's intelligence and articulate debating skills against him by turning intelligence into a BAD thing in the eyes of middle America.

HAHA :csad: I hate Bush so much :cmad:

[Mr Sparkle]

Agreed. I really don't think there is any denying that in the 2004 presidential election which is the only time that matters...Kerry came off as smarter than Bush, and Bush in turn pulled a cou'p and used Kerry's educated nature against him.
exactly. the infamous " who would you rather have a beer with? " thing comes to mind.

[Matt]

You're saying Bush is more handsome? No way, he's ugly as ****.


Lets compare...Bush looks distinguished, Kerry looks like skeletor. Observe:

Bush:

http://www.aramnaharaim.org/Photo/George-W-Bush.jpg

Kerry:

http://nicedeb.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/john_kerry.jpg

Even in their younger years....

Bush:

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r62/stref2001/1118128954_0524.jpg

Kerry:

Its so hideous I have to put it in spoilers...

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r62/stref2001/untitled.jpg

[Matt]

exactly. the infamous " who would you rather have a beer with? " thing comes to mind.

Its a sad state of affairs.

[CorpusBlack]

Kerry:

Its so hideous I have to put it in spoilers...

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r62/stref2001/untitled.jpg

Is that Jaws from Roger Moore's Bond films?

[Matt]

Is that Jaws from Roger Moore's Bond films?

They really could be twins :o

[CorpusBlack]

They really could be twins :o

Except Jaws got all the good genes and Kerry got all the left over crap.

http://www.sueddeutsche.de/jobkarriere/erfolggeld/artikel/649/30619/image_fmabspic_0_0.jpg

[Matt]

I am fairly certain John Kerry's college photo has turned me impotent. :csad:

[Raiden]

I am fairly certain John Kerry's college photo has turned me impotent. :csad:

I like the Dems but they sure pick some of the ugliest people as their nominees, like Kerry and Dukakis. It'd be great if they can get Clooney to run.

[Matt]

I like the Dems but they sure pick some of the ugliest people as their nominees, like Kerry and Dukakis. It'd be great if they can get Clooney to run.

I personally am wondering if Clooney will jump into politics sooner or later. I could see him running for Senate or Governor in California. Of course, middle America would never buy him running for President. Afterall, if a Republican actor enters politics, they are a devoted patriot trying to fix the system, but if a Democrat does it, they are a liberal, Hollywood nut job who is trying to force their values on America.

[hippie_hunter]

Lieberman, next to Zell Miller is the best Democrat Alive.

Zell Miller is a crazy old man. There are plenty of great Democrats out there like Wesley Clark, Mark Warner, Robert Byrd, Ben Nelson, Eliot Spitzer, and others.

[CorpusBlack]

I personally am wondering if Clooney will jump into politics sooner or later. I could see him running for Senate or Governor in California. Of course, middle America would never buy him running for President. Afterall, if a Republican actor enters politics, they are a devoted patriot trying to fix the system, but if a Democrat does it, they are a liberal, Hollywood nut job who is trying to force their values on America.

He's got the charisma that might give him the edge. Hopefully they don't start pulling skeletons out of his closet. (*cough cough 'Batman & Robin') :cwink:

[Raiden]

I personally am wondering if Clooney will jump into politics sooner or later. I could see him running for Senate or Governor in California. Of course, middle America would never buy him running for President. Afterall, if a Republican actor enters politics, they are a devoted patriot trying to fix the system, but if a Democrat does it, they are a liberal, Hollywood nut job who is trying to force their values on America.

It'd be awesome if Clooney runs for California governor after Schwarznegger's term ends, or US Senate. He is quite intelligent, well-spoken, and the only weakness being that he is still bachelor (but hey, so is Bloomberg).

And I'm sure Clooney would do better job than 90% of the politicians out there anyway.

[hippie_hunter]

Is that Jaws from Roger Moore's Bond films?

I was thinking Herman Munster.

[CorpusBlack]

I was thinking Herman Munster.

That works too.

[Raiden]

He's got the charisma that might give him the edge. Hopefully they don't start pulling skeletons out of his closet. (*cough cough 'Batman & Robin') :cwink:

Well, starring in bad movies never hurt Ronald Reagan. :oldrazz:

[CorpusBlack]

And I'm sure Clooney would do better job than 90% of the politicians out there anyway.

I think it's because Clooney actually gives a sh-t and he can get things done if needed. I'm not saying I would support him blindly, but I do think he would be much more proactive than what we've got now.

[Matt]

Zell Miller is a crazy old man. There are plenty of great Democrats out there like Wesley Clark, Mark Warner, Robert Byrd, Ben Nelson, Eliot Spitzer, and others.

*cough cough Sherrod Brown cough cough*

[CorpusBlack]

Well, starring in bad movies never hurt Ronald Reagan. :oldrazz:

True true. :up:

But I can see it now. Clooney's opponents saying, "Who do you want leading your country? (insert name here) or the guy who sported bat nipples?"

[Matt]

It'd be awesome if Clooney runs for California governor after Schwarznegger's term ends, or US Senate. He is quite intelligent, well-spoken, and the only weakness being that he is still bachelor (but hey, so is Bloomberg).

And I'm sure Clooney would do better job than 90% of the politicians out there anyway.

You know what I find amazing? That I have never heard Rush, or Gallagher, or Savage, or Coultier...or basically even an average Republican voter call Reagan, Schwarzenegger, Heston or any active, Republican, celebrity anything bad...but if a Democrat does it, why are they a Hollywood elitist who is trying to force their views on people? Apparently only Republicans are allowed to put their message out there. And they say Democrats hate freedom :csad:

[Raiden]

True true. :up:

But I can see it now. Clooney's opponents saying, "Who do you want leading your country? (insert name here) or the guy who sported bat nipples?"

It helps that Clooney is very self-depreciating (like him bringing up Batman in his Oscar acceptance speech).

[CorpusBlack]

It helps that Clooney is very self-depreciating (like him bringing up Batman in his Oscar acceptance speech).

That was awesome. :grin:

[cookiva]

I personally am wondering if Clooney will jump into politics sooner or later. I could see him running for Senate or Governor in California. Of course, middle America would never buy him running for President. Afterall, if a Republican actor enters politics, they are a devoted patriot trying to fix the system, but if a Democrat does it, they are a liberal, Hollywood nut job who is trying to force their values on America.

I see Affleck running eventually for office of some sort. He is a great speaker, and knows what he is talking about.

[cookiva]

You know what I find amazing? That I have never heard Rush, or Gallagher, or Savage, or Coultier...or basically even an average Republican voter call Reagan, Schwarzenegger, Heston or any active, Republican, celebrity anything bad...but if a Democrat does it, why are they a Hollywood elitist who is trying to force their views on people? Apparently only Republicans are allowed to put their message out there. And they say Democrats hate freedom :csad:

Dont forget Chuck Norris.....

[CorpusBlack]

I see Affleck running eventually for office of some sort. He is a great speaker, and knows what he is talking about.

It'd be interesting to see, but I don't know about Affleck man. Either Damon, Jason Lee or Kevin Smith could be his VP though.

[CorpusBlack]

Dont forget Chuck Norris.....

He'd get my vote.

[cookiva]

It'd be interesting to see, but I don't know about Affleck man. Either Damon, Jason Lee or Kevin Smith could be his VP though.


I know its a joke, but if you listen to him, hes pretty damn smart. If he were to realize that he needs to get his head on straight and focus his attention on that, he would be able to maybe make a run for Congress.

[CorpusBlack]

I know its a joke, but if you listen to him, hes pretty damn smart. If he were to realize that he needs to get his head on straight and focus his attention on that, he would be able to maybe make a run for Congress.

I don't doubt it at all, but it's just a funny thought. Although not my favorite Jack Ryan, the character did become president. :up:

[Movies205]

You know what I find amazing? That I have never heard Rush, or Gallagher, or Savage, or Coultier...or basically even an average Republican voter call Reagan, Schwarzenegger, Heston or any active, Republican, celebrity anything bad...but if a Democrat does it, why are they a Hollywood elitist who is trying to force their views on people? Apparently only Republicans are allowed to put their message out there. And they say Democrats hate freedom :csad:

Personally I find actors/actresses supporting any canidate with public appearances appalling. Acting is an art and the whole point of art, at least in my opinion, is to stimulate and inspire thought not to dictate it, when an artist endorsing a single canidate, he's betraying everything he/she been trying to do since day 1.

[Matt]

Personally I find actors/actresses supporting any canidate with public appearances appalling. Acting is an art and the whole point of art, at least in my opinion, is to stimulate and inspire thought not to dictate it, when an artist endorsing a single canidate, he's betraying everything he/she been trying to do since day 1.

But they are also humans and Americans. They are as entitled to their opinion as anyone...and since they have the public eye, why not share that opinion? Isn't that the principal on which America was founded?

[Raiden]

But they are also humans and Americans. They are as entitled to their opinion as anyone...and since they have the public eye, why not share that opinion? Isn't that the principal on which America was founded?

I agree, actors have as much right to run for political office as anyone. And GOP really doesn't have the right to criticize liberal Hollywood actors for entering politics, since they have many actors who joined their party as well (Sonny Bono, Arnold Schwarznegger, Fred Thompson, etc).

[Kel]

But they are also humans and Americans. They are as entitled to their opinion as anyone...and since they have the public eye, why not share that opinion? Isn't that the principal on which America was founded?


I'm all for this.....BUT.......if I payed to see a performance, that is what I want, I don't want to hear their political views from a performance stage. Other than that? more power to them.

[Memphis Slim]

Never liked either of them. However, this says more about what little cred John Kerry has, than it does about Edwards.

This is the same Edwards that "Kerry" picked to be his VP just 4 short years ago. :whatever: This is the same guy that Kerry told us was "ready" to be President, in the event he was killed in office! Edwards is the same guy from 4 years ago! He has not changed his position on anything. I don't like his policies. But I give him credit for sticking to his script......the same script he and Kerry ran with!

And now he's dissin' Edwards??? So what kind of game was Kerry playing with the American people 4years ago? He ran with a cat he didn't believe in?? Kerry is a dope. :whatever:

http://re3.mm-a4.yimg.com/image/2984650132 (http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fs earch%2Fimages%3Fei%3DUTF-8%26p%3Djohn%2520kerry%2520as%2520frankenstein%26f r2%3Dtab-web%26fr%3Dyfp-t-501&w=400&h=450&imgurl=media.ansme.com%2Ffunny%2Fpolitics%2Fkerry_ faces%2FKerry_frankenstein.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.freerepublic.com%2Ffocus%2Ff-news%2F1229748%2Fposts&size=23.4kB&name=Kerry_frankenstein.jpg&p=john+kerry+as+frankenstein&type=jpeg&no=3&tt=17&oid=80e9ca2afd6422f2&ei=UTF-8)http://re3.mm-a5.yimg.com/image/3323107228 (http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fs earch%2Fimages%3Fei%3DUTF-8%26p%3Djohn%2520kerry%2520as%2520frankenstein%26f r2%3Dtab-web%26fr%3Dyfp-t-501&w=283&h=450&imgurl=www.moonbattery.com%2Farchives%2FKerry-Frankenstein.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvnboards.ign.com%2Foutpost%2Fb22 180%2F100210831%2Fp1%3F7&size=35.7kB&name=Kerry-Frankenstein.jpg&p=john+kerry+as+frankenstein&type=jpeg&no=4&tt=17&oid=daf7d9db0da46360&ei=UTF-8)http://re3.mm-a7.yimg.com/image/3729887050 (http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fs earch%2Fimages%3Fei%3DUTF-8%26p%3Djohn%2520kerry%2520as%2520frankenstein%26f r2%3Dtab-web%26fr%3Dyfp-t-501&w=198&h=145&imgurl=www.usofa.homestead.com%2Ffiles%2FJohnKerry Frankenstein.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usofa.homestead.com%2FAmeric anPride13.html&size=12kB&name=JohnKerryFrankenstein.jpg&p=john+kerry+as+frankenstein&type=jpeg&no=6&tt=17&oid=d72fef0450ff5fc0&ei=UTF-8)

[The Senator]

http://re3.mm-a4.yimg.com/image/2984650132 (http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fs earch%2Fimages%3Fei%3DUTF-8%26p%3Djohn%2520kerry%2520as%2520frankenstein%26f r2%3Dtab-web%26fr%3Dyfp-t-501&w=400&h=450&imgurl=media.ansme.com%2Ffunny%2Fpolitics%2Fkerry_ faces%2FKerry_frankenstein.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.freerepublic.com%2Ffocus%2Ff-news%2F1229748%2Fposts&size=23.4kB&name=Kerry_frankenstein.jpg&p=john+kerry+as+frankenstein&type=jpeg&no=3&tt=17&oid=80e9ca2afd6422f2&ei=UTF-8)http://re3.mm-a5.yimg.com/image/3323107228 (http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fs earch%2Fimages%3Fei%3DUTF-8%26p%3Djohn%2520kerry%2520as%2520frankenstein%26f r2%3Dtab-web%26fr%3Dyfp-t-501&w=283&h=450&imgurl=www.moonbattery.com%2Farchives%2FKerry-Frankenstein.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvnboards.ign.com%2Foutpost%2Fb22 180%2F100210831%2Fp1%3F7&size=35.7kB&name=Kerry-Frankenstein.jpg&p=john+kerry+as+frankenstein&type=jpeg&no=4&tt=17&oid=daf7d9db0da46360&ei=UTF-8)http://re3.mm-a7.yimg.com/image/3729887050 (http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fs earch%2Fimages%3Fei%3DUTF-8%26p%3Djohn%2520kerry%2520as%2520frankenstein%26f r2%3Dtab-web%26fr%3Dyfp-t-501&w=198&h=145&imgurl=www.usofa.homestead.com%2Ffiles%2FJohnKerry Frankenstein.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usofa.homestead.com%2FAmeric anPride13.html&size=12kB&name=JohnKerryFrankenstein.jpg&p=john+kerry+as+frankenstein&type=jpeg&no=6&tt=17&oid=d72fef0450ff5fc0&ei=UTF-8)

lol;ololz, John Kerry be teh frankenstein!!1!!!1!11!

:whatever:

[souvlaki]

Never liked either of them. However, this says more about what little cred John Kerry has, than it does about Edwards.

This is the same Edwards that "Kerry" picked to be his VP just 4 short years ago. :whatever: This is the same guy that Kerry told us was "ready" to be President, in the event he was killed in office! Edwards is the same guy from 4 years ago! He has not changed his position on anything. I don't like his policies. But I give him credit for sticking to his script......the same script he and Kerry ran with!

And now he's dissin' Edwards??? So what kind of game was Kerry playing with the American people 4years ago? He ran with a cat he didn't believe in?? Kerry is a dope. :whatever:

http://re3.mm-a4.yimg.com/image/2984650132 (http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fs earch%2Fimages%3Fei%3DUTF-8%26p%3Djohn%2520kerry%2520as%2520frankenstein%26f r2%3Dtab-web%26fr%3Dyfp-t-501&w=400&h=450&imgurl=media.ansme.com%2Ffunny%2Fpolitics%2Fkerry_ faces%2FKerry_frankenstein.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.freerepublic.com%2Ffocus%2Ff-news%2F1229748%2Fposts&size=23.4kB&name=Kerry_frankenstein.jpg&p=john+kerry+as+frankenstein&type=jpeg&no=3&tt=17&oid=80e9ca2afd6422f2&ei=UTF-8)http://re3.mm-a5.yimg.com/image/3323107228 (http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fs earch%2Fimages%3Fei%3DUTF-8%26p%3Djohn%2520kerry%2520as%2520frankenstein%26f r2%3Dtab-web%26fr%3Dyfp-t-501&w=283&h=450&imgurl=www.moonbattery.com%2Farchives%2FKerry-Frankenstein.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvnboards.ign.com%2Foutpost%2Fb22 180%2F100210831%2Fp1%3F7&size=35.7kB&name=Kerry-Frankenstein.jpg&p=john+kerry+as+frankenstein&type=jpeg&no=4&tt=17&oid=daf7d9db0da46360&ei=UTF-8)http://re3.mm-a7.yimg.com/image/3729887050 (http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fs earch%2Fimages%3Fei%3DUTF-8%26p%3Djohn%2520kerry%2520as%2520frankenstein%26f r2%3Dtab-web%26fr%3Dyfp-t-501&w=198&h=145&imgurl=www.usofa.homestead.com%2Ffiles%2FJohnKerry Frankenstein.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usofa.homestead.com%2FAmeric anPride13.html&size=12kB&name=JohnKerryFrankenstein.jpg&p=john+kerry+as+frankenstein&type=jpeg&no=6&tt=17&oid=d72fef0450ff5fc0&ei=UTF-8)

Two different elections, two different set of candidates. Just because he thought Edwards was the most capable candidate in the race in 2004 doesn't mean he thinks the same thing in 2008 with other candidates like Obama and Clinton in the race. It really isn't much of a surprise. Kerry and Obama have become pretty close since Obama became a Senator (I believe Kerry asked Obama to make the keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004). It's no secret Edwards and Kerry disagreed on a lot of key issues during the 2004 race. Infact, Edwards has spoken out against the way Kerry ran his campaign. I don't really see this as a blow against Edwards' campaign. If Obama was a viable candidate in 2004, maybe he would have been chosen as VP then as well. Personally, I'm more interested to see who Al Gore chooses to endorse. I get the impression that if forced to he would probably endorse someone other than Hillary which would probably be a far larger blow to Hillary's campaign then this is to Edwards.

[Tomwelling4sups]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

Hehe reminds me a bit of Gore giving Liberman the finger in 2004.

lol

[Memphis Slim]

Two different elections, two different set of candidates. Just because he thought Edwards was the most capable candidate in the race in 2004 doesn't mean he thinks the same thing in 2008 with other candidates like Obama and Clinton in the race. It really isn't much of a surprise. Kerry and Obama have become pretty close since Obama became a Senator (I believe Kerry asked Obama to make the keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004). It's no secret Edwards and Kerry disagreed on a lot of key issues during the 2004 race.

Then why pick him as a running mate?? Right there, is a lack of good judgement!

Infact, Edwards has spoken out against the way Kerry ran his campaign. I don't really see this as a blow against Edwards' campaign. If Obama was a viable candidate in 2004, maybe he would have been chosen as VP then as well. Personally, I'm more interested to see who Al Gore chooses to endorse. I get the impression that if forced to he would probably endorse someone other than Hillary which would probably be a far larger blow to Hillary's campaign then this is to Edwards.


Gore ain't gonna endorse Clinton. Believe that!!

[Lobo]

I looked and did not see a thread for him, so I figured I'd make one. As I was curious as to the Hype's populace view of John Edwards. Like him? Hate him? Would he be a good President IYO? Better as a VP for Hil or Obama? Discuss here :)

[hippie_hunter]

I don't like Edwards. He's far, far, far too pro-labor to be President. He has no concept of the need for balance between business and labor.

[StorminNorman]

He would be a good VP fit for Obama.

I don't like him, though I do respect him.

[The Senator]

Not a fan of him myself. If he became the nominee, I could live with it-- but I wouldn't the happiest of campers.

[cookiva]

Best candidate, as he actually wants to HELP the lower and middle classes. Im sorry that he wants to help the majority of americans.....

[Chris B]

He's my favorite Democrat running and has been for awhile. I think he is the one who would most likely break away from the status quo and put the country on the right track again. Obama simply lacks the gravitas to do that and I think Hillary is too beholden to corporate interests to really change anything, IMO.

[rdh007]

I don't like Edwards. He's far, far, far too pro-labor to be President. He has no concept of the need for balance between business and labor.
I could not disagree with you more. Though I'm certain you own a multi-national corporation, so I understand your stance.

[The Senator]

If people call Hillary a communist, they'd better look at a lot of what Edwards stands for. Guaranteed college for students, expanding welfare programs which are thoroughly abused as they currently stand, essentially taking money from the rich and putting it in the pockets of the poor... that's more of what he stands for, and more in line with the Marxist-Leninist ideology.

It isn't necessarily a bad thing. However, some of his views are so far left, that I do question how feasible they would be for him-- not only in his presidency, but when put up against a pro-business candidate like Mitt Romney in the general election.

[hippie_hunter]

I could not disagree with you more. Though I'm certain you own a multi-national corporation, so I understand your stance.
No, I just beleive that there has to be a perfect equal balance between labor and business. You can't have one side screwing the other one over. There's a difference between being simply pro-labor, and being like Edwards who represents ruining that balance.

If you have business over labor, you end up with results which we are seeing outsourcing, workers being expolited, etc.

If you have labor over business you end up with results which we are seeing in the American auto industry.

[rdh007]

The auto industry is also suffering from outsourcing, correct?

The auto industry's problem has little to do with paying workers too much, and more to do with less money in the average American's pocket. (Though I'll agree that they should've stopped paying broom pushers as much as they paid skilled laborers long ago) I believe they're also suffering from the fact that investors/owners have more money in their pocket, whilst workers make what they made years ago.

Wanna talk health care costs? Let's equal the playing field with other countries and socialize it so noone has to worry about it. Cool?

[\S/JcDc\S/]

YUCK... Sums it up :)

[hippie_hunter]

The auto industry is also suffering from outsourcing, correct?
No, the American auto industry is suffering from competition from Japanese auto makers. Japanese auto makers which make more quality cars and doesn't suffer from labor problems.

The auto industry's problem has little to do with paying workers too much, and more to do with less money in the average American's pocket. (Though I'll agree that they should've stopped paying broom pushers as much as they paid skilled laborers long ago) I believe they're also suffering from the fact that investors/owners have more money in their pocket, whilst workers make what they made years ago.
Paying the workers wasn't the problem. The problem was that the union got too damn stubborn in the negotiation stages even when the executives were cutting their pay and benefits. I knew someone who worked in auto industry and he constantly told me how the unions were being pains in the ass.

Like I said, there's absolutely nothing wrong with being pro-union and pro-labor and pro-business. The problem is being so pro-labor or pro-business that you represent ruining a balance. There needs to be a perfect equal balance between labor and business. You can't have one screwing the other over.

Wanna talk health care costs? Let's equal the playing field with other countries and socialize it so noone has to worry about it. Cool?
I feel that the health care industry needs to remain privatized. I get government health care due to being part of a military family and it blows.

However, the health care industry needs heavy government intervention. Our current situation is B.S. because of high costs. We need to make it cheaper and more accessable. That is the solution.

[The Senator]

^^ I agree with Hippie Hunter. I worked for a union company, and while I don't know of the effects they have on companies directly, I do believe that forcing members into a union can be disastrous-- especially if those involved are part-time employees. I personally didn't enjoy losing $35 in taxes and union dues, when I was only making $150-200 a week, when the union didn't really represent me (I had a few complaints, such as employee harassment, which went unanswered; which is why I quit).

I do think major corporations should allow employees the option to unionize. Wal-Mart is an excellent example of this, where the employees are essentially abused. They are forced to work long days, inconvenient hours, and get very little benefits from what can be and is a very stressful job. I believe unionizing should be an option for major corporations; but I don't believe employees should be forced to unionize, and I don't think small businesses should have unions, because the costs would exceed the benefits.

Health care should not be universal. The government should intervene, by expanding Medicaid and offering it to those who make below a certain income (obviously, that income level has to be raised in order to do this). Furthermore, the government should set up regional health care markets which help citizens decide which insurance to buy (that's an aspect of Edwards's platform which I truly support). But forcing citizens to have health care, or fining them for not getting it, is ludicrous.

[rdh007]

No, the American auto industry is suffering from competition from Japanese auto makers. Japanese auto makers which make more quality cars and doesn't suffer from labor problems.


Paying the workers wasn't the problem. The problem was that the union got too damn stubborn in the negotiation stages even when the executives were cutting their pay and benefits. I knew someone who worked in auto industry and he constantly told me how the unions were being pains in the ass.

Like I said, there's absolutely nothing wrong with being pro-union and pro-labor and pro-business. The problem is being so pro-labor or pro-business that you represent ruining a balance. There needs to be a perfect equal balance between labor and business. You can't have one screwing the other over.


I feel that the health care industry needs to remain privatized. I get government health care due to being part of a military family and it blows.

However, the health care industry needs heavy government intervention. Our current situation is B.S. because of high costs. We need to make it cheaper and more accessable. That is the solution.

Didn't we lose to the Japanese in the Eighties? I thought that discussion was done. These latest problems stem from outsourcing, and our trade policies.

Edwards doesn't ruin the balance, the balance has shifted wholly since the best Republican ever, Bill Clinton, signed NAFTA. The American worker has had the screws put to him/her.

I'm okay with leaving the health care industry private, but it's going to cost us.

[hippie_hunter]

Didn't we lose to the Japanese in the Eighties? I thought that discussion was done.
No we won, GM and Ford outsold the Japanese up until pretty much now where they are facing really serious competition.

These latest problems stem from outsourcing, and our trade policies.
My point of bringing up the auto industry was an example of labor screwing over business. What you bring up is the perfect example of business screwing over labor. Both are not the way to go, there needs to be balance where business and labor are equals.

Edwards doesn't ruin the balance, the balance has shifted wholly since the best Republican ever, Bill Clinton, signed NAFTA. The American worker has had the screws put to him/her.
Edwards is far too pro-labor. He represents ruining balance just like how Bush did with his far too pro-business practices.

[rdh007]

I'm going to agree to disagree. Edward's positions were he President would impact the industry so little, I'm not worried about it. The advantage is to business over labor anyway. They're the ones in charge in the end.

"Outsold"? Perhaps. Made more money per car? I doubt it.

[cookiva]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/01/22/clinton-edwards-hold-private-post-debate-meeting/

Hmmm.....wonder what they talked about...

[rdh007]

Always a bridesmaid...

[cookiva]

I used to think that he would never go to Clinton. He is losing respect by the minute with me....

[imdaly]

It just finally hit me who John Edwards has always reminded me of: Tom Cruise.

:down

[Mr. Thing]

From what I've seen from the outside, he seems more of a socialist than anything.

[Venom'sDad]

From what I've seen from the outside, he seems more of a socialist than anything.

... and he looks like Jack from "3's Company" or that guy fron those awning commercials.

Romney looks like "Bulworth" staring Warren Beatty and Hallie Berry.

[Kel]

His hair is too perfect.....him and Romney scare me........just too perfect.

[Lobo]

^Did you see Letterman mess up his hair :funny:

[Handsome Rob]

Edwards gives off this creepy vibe--too much pseudo-smiling . . .

He's like a political version of Joel Osteen. Even if Edwards was a strong conservative, I could never vote for the guy, because something about him just gives me the wiggins'.

Joel Osteen (for those who've never seen him):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VR7tCUK4mL0&feature=related

[Venom'sDad]

^ Because he's a phony... simple as that. Transparent and Americans know it.

[imdaly]

Edwards gives off this creepy vibe--too much pseudo-smiling . . .

Agreed.

He reminds me of that one guy in the group that doesn't really fit in, nobody really ever pays attention to but he's just...there...and he smiles like he's getting attention and he thinks he's loved, when really people just wonder to each other "when's he gonna leave us alone? He's not our friend".

[hippie_hunter]

His hair is too perfect.....him and Romney scare me........just too perfect.

Considering that Edwards spends a couple hundred dollars for haircuts, I would expect it to be no less than f**king perfection. :o

[Lobo]

Agreed.

He reminds me of that one guy in the group that doesn't really fit in, nobody really ever pays attention to but he's just...there...and he smiles like he's getting attention and he thinks he's loved, when really people just wonder to each other "when's he gonna leave us alone? He's not our friend".

So true :lmao:

[Venom'sDad]

:lmao: What ****ing voice is he talking. The Voice in his head? He obviously not hearing the Thousands of Voices saying get this 8% idiot out of the race.

[The Senator]

I personally think Edwards and Hillary have struck some sort of deal. In exchange for a position in her cabinet-- whether its Vice President, Attorney General, etc.-- he'll stay in the race until the very end, splitting the "change" supporters' votes between the two candidates.

I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but if this is true... :woot:

[Kel]

I personally think Edwards and Hillary have struck some sort of deal. In exchange for a position in her cabinet-- whether its Vice President, Attorney General, etc.-- he'll stay in the race until the very end, splitting the "change" supporters' votes between the two candidates.

I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but if this is true... :woot:


Well she better do something, because as long as he's in the race, he's hurting her....

[Venom'sDad]

Well she better do something, because as long as he's in the race, he's hurting her....

He is hurting Obama. Edwards supporters are mainly Anti-hillary voters who prefer Edwards over Obama. If he get out, in we know he wont, the majority of his voters would go to Obama or not vote. Understand, we are only talking about the primaries.

[rdh007]

I agree with VD.

[hippie_hunter]

Edwards only hurt Clinton in South Carolina, everywhere else, he's hurting Obama.

[Venom'sDad]

Edwards only hurt Clinton in South Carolina, everywhere else, he's hurting Obama.


Seriously, how? Obama got 56% of the vote. He beat both Edwards and hillary combine. He loss only three counties and barely lost one of those.

I don't understand your rational. :confused:

[hippie_hunter]

Edwards took people who were really put off by Clinton's campaign in South Carolina. It seems that people really weren't put off by Obama's in South Carolina.

Clinton would have still lost and Obama would have still handed her, her ass in that state, but I think the margin would have been closer in South Carolina if Edwards was out.

[Venom'sDad]

Edwards took people who were really put off by Clinton's campaign in South Carolina. It seems that people really weren't put off by Obama's in South Carolina.

Clinton would have still lost and Obama would have still handed her, her ass in that state, but I think the margin would have been closer in South Carolina if Edwards was out.

OK, let me try again. Edwards supporters mainly consist of ANTI-hILLARY VOTERS. If Edwards was not running in SC, his supporters would simply vote for Obama or not vote at all. She wouldn't have gotten anymore votes than what she got.

Frankly, had Edwards got out of the race before today, Obama would have won by an even larger margin. So again, I don't understand your rationale. :confused:

[The Professor]

I respect Edwards and acknowledge his experience. I read an essay he wrote a while back during his time as a lawyer, he has brilliant emotional appeal to his audience. I hope he gets some sort of surge during all the Hilary/Obama bickering, during the SC debate he remained composed and definitely managed to stand out. More or less, I think the Obama/Edwards ticket would be unstoppable.

[The Professor]

Frankly, had Edwards got out of the race before today, Obama would have won by an even larger margin. So again, I don't understand your rationale. :confused:

Agreed. I think most Dems really like and respect Edwards, yet they simply see Obama as having greater odds at this point. Most Obama supporters would probably accept Edwards over Hilary any day.

[Lobo]

I respect Edwards and acknowledge his experience. I read an essay he wrote a while back during his time as a lawyer, he has brilliant emotional appeal to his audience. I hope he gets some sort of surge during all the Hilary/Obama bickering, during the SC debate he remained composed and definitely managed to stand out. More or less, I think the Obama/Edwards ticket would be unstoppable.

I just googled John Edwards essays and this came up http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070901faessay86502-p0/john-edwards/reengaging-with-the-world.html

Is that it? I've not read it yet

edit n/m you said during his time as a lawyer the above is from Sept 07

[Matt]

Strangely enough...Edwards may still have a chance, albeit a small one. If he can capture a few southern states during Super Tuesday...and Hillary dominates New Jersey, New York, Massachusettes, and Cali (and she will) Obama will be forced to drop out. Assuming Edwards takes most of his supporters...he could win some late, delegate heavy states and maybe make a run. Liek I said, its unlikely...but its a chance.

[Damiean Dark]

He has absolutly no chance.

[The Professor]

I just googled John Edwards essays and this came up http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070901faessay86502-p0/john-edwards/reengaging-with-the-world.html

Is that it? I've not read it yet

edit n/m you said during his time as a lawyer the above is from Sept 07

It was in one of my English Comp books talking about emotional appeal. It was basically his account of representing this guy who got his life ruined by some medicine due to negligence. He could have settled for a small amount or attempt to take the company for millions. Edwards asked him what the guy wanted him to do, and all he said was "I trust you." The guy was really disabled and if I'm not mistaken and was very limited as far as communication goes. Edwards explains how he had to help the guy and couldn't afford to lose and was putting to much on the line. He pretty much makes it sound like he has no chance and pulls through, scoring some ridiculous amount of money for the guy. He pulls it all together talking about how America can trust him.

I'm more of a moderate myself, but I'd have no problem with John Edwards as President despite him probably being the most liberal candidate. He has the experience and personality, and he's also very well spoken.

[hippie_hunter]

OK, let me try again. Edwards supporters mainly consist of ANTI-hILLARY VOTERS. If Edwards was not running in SC, his supporters would simply vote for Obama or not vote at all. She wouldn't have gotten anymore votes than what she got.

Frankly, had Edwards got out of the race before today, Obama would have won by an even larger margin. So again, I don't understand your rationale. :confused:

People who vote for Edwards vote for him because they beleive in what he stands for. In South Carolina he took a lot of the white vote and people who were put off by Hillary's campaign. That's why he hurt her in that particular state. Everywhere else he's helping her.

[The Senator]

OK, let me try again. Edwards supporters mainly consist of ANTI-hILLARY VOTERS. If Edwards was not running in SC, his supporters would simply vote for Obama or not vote at all. She wouldn't have gotten anymore votes than what she got.

Frankly, had Edwards got out of the race before today, Obama would have won by an even larger margin. So again, I don't understand your rationale. :confused:

Actually, that's not necessarily true. Just because someone supports a candidate, doesn't mean they're completely against another. And just because someone's candidate of choice isn't Hillary Clinton, that doesn't mean they are Anti-Clinton voters, either.

I have friends who are Edwards supporters who would vote for Clinton over Obama in a heartbeat. They feel Edwards has the best shot of winning, but that Clinton has the experience. They see Obama's campaign as premature. So I don't see how you can categorize all of Edwards's supporters as Obama supporters.

I believe Edwards should stay in the race. Why should he be bullied out of the contest by two bigger, superstar candidates? It only makes sense that he stays in. After all, he's fighting for the little guys. Aren't the little guys the 10-15% of voters who still support his candidacy?

[\S/JcDc\S/]

Strangely enough...Edwards may still have a chance, albeit a small one. If he can capture a few southern states during Super Tuesday...and Hillary dominates New Jersey, New York, Massachusettes, and Cali (and she will) Obama will be forced to drop out. Assuming Edwards takes most of his supporters...he could win some late, delegate heavy states and maybe make a run. Liek I said, its unlikely...but its a chance.

Ok so you give Edwards a chance who isn't winning sh** but when it comes to Obama you agree with the media that Hillary has already won her nomination and there is no chance left for him :confused:

[cookiva]

Ok so you give Edwards a chance who isn't winning sh** but when it comes to Obama you agree with the media that Hillary has already won her nomination and there is no chance left for him :confused:

Yes. The states left on Super Tuesday are states, outside of Illinois and Georgia, that will most likely go to Clinton or Edwards. Those are the biggest states, as far as delegates go.

[Matt]

Ok so you give Edwards a chance who isn't winning sh** but when it comes to Obama you agree with the media that Hillary has already won her nomination and there is no chance left for him :confused:

Yes, because Clinton is pretty much a lock to win Cali, New Jersey, New York, and Massachusettes on Super Tuesday and Obama would need at least two of those for his campaign to continue. Edwards, on the other hand...could win a couple low key southern states. If he does that and stays in the election, then when Obama drops out after Super Tuesday, who do you think is liable to absorb most of his anti-Hillary supporters? John Edwards. Combine that with what he has and he could do some damage to Hillary in the later, delegate heavy states like PA. Don't get me wrong, its unlikely and the stars would have to allign perfectly for it to happen...but there is a chance. On the otherhand, Obama has no chance so long as Edwards is in the election and taking potential votes from Obama. And being as Edwards likely cut a deal with Clinton, I doubt he will go anywhere until Obama drops out.

[Kel]

There is no way Obama is going to drop out of this race......winning the state (depending on the state) does not automatically mean you have those delegates......and in many the delegates are split......Obama is in the race to the end.......Edwards will be out after Super Tuesday.

[Matt]

There is no way Obama is going to drop out of this race......winning the state (depending on the state) does not automatically mean you have those delegates......and in many the delegates are split......Obama is in the race to the end.......Edwards will be out after Super Tuesday.

I think if Hillary wins big on Super Tuesday, the media will essentially write him off as the loser. This will in turn discourage the independent and youth votes he relies on into apathy. I doubt Edwards will leave the race until Hillary tells him to.

[Zen]

Do you guys think this helps Clinton or Obama...?

personally its hard for me to decide, i think there are many Edwards voters who are more aligned to Obama then Clinton, but thats just my opinion...

and anyone think there were any Edwards voters who just didn't want to vote black or female?

what do you guys think?

If most of Edwards supporters go to Obama, that extra 10-15% could be a massive boon at the booths.

[Zen]

Many of my friends think that alot of the southern voters for edwards would rather vote Clinton than Obama...

but when i look at the issues they covered and how Edwards postered against Hillary and Obama... based on where the candidates stood i felt Edwards positioned himself as an outsider... and Obama has some of that Outsider feel compared to hillary who Both were expounding was a Washington insider from day 1

[Matt]

Wait? Has he dropped out? :huh: It will undoubtedly help Obama, for the most part.

[Matt]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/30/edwards/index.html

So it would seem. I guess Obama finally outbid Clinton :wow: I wonder how this will effect Super Tuesday? Could it give Obama the win?

[Zen]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/30/edwards/index.html

So it would seem. I guess Obama finally outbid Clinton :wow: I wonder how this will effect Super Tuesday? Could it give Obama the win?

it would be huge if he endorses anyone wouldn't it? i think it would tighten the gap immeasurably in alot of races,


Do you think Edwards has to come out and endorse Obama, or will Obama get the voters regardless?

[Matt]

He claims he is not endorsing anyone. Edwards is going to remain on most Super Tuesday ballots, so I'm guessing his voters will just continue to vote for him. Some may be swayed. I guess it all comes down to, does Edwards have a real base or are they just an anti-Hillary base? If the latter, it is good news for Obama.

[rdh007]

I think this helps Obama more, but it certainly doesn't put him in the driver's seat. I don't think he particularly agrees with Obama or Hillary, so my guess is that he really won't endorse either. Leaving his name on the ST ballots, though it's probably too late to take them off, seems a bit Nader-ish. He doesn't have to endorse anyone, he can tell people just not to vote for him, or can't these guys handle saying that?

[Apollo]

he is dropping out today?...i thought he was going to stay in for a while longer.

[Malice]

The comments I have heard, granted this is unsubstantiated is that Obama would give Edwards the Attorney General position

[Apollo]

Giuliani is dropping out too today.

http://www6.comcast.net/news/articles/general/2007/12/20/Giuliani/

[Ultimate_Superman]

As I said before time and time again Edwards should be Obama's running mate.

[Malice]

Most President candidates will NEVER accept a "lower" position as a VP....

[Ultimate_Superman]

Most President candidates will NEVER accept a "lower" position as a VP....If he looks at the bigger picture it may help him later on. I mean it will show the public he has what it takes to run this nation. Plus those two working together will do a lot of good for this country. It will be better then have Co-Presidents (Bill and Hillary).

[BlackLantern]

Im just waiting for Ron Paul to drop out, but that probably wont happen untill spring or summer

[Superhero Hype!]

It's weird that it's already down to just Clinton, Obama, Romney and McCain.

[Malice]

If he looks at the bigger picture it may help him later on. I mean it will show the public he has what it takes to run this nation. Plus those two working together will do a lot of good for this country. It will be better then have Co-Presidents (Bill and Hillary).

It might help him...
But remember, the VP is nothing but a President gopher in 95% of the instances.
I think Cheney has been one of the LARGE exceptions, where he really does have alot of influence on the Pres.

[Matt]

Obama and Edwards would have combined experience of 9 years in the senate. Neither have experience in the executive branch. That would get torn apart by McCain's team or even Romney's. Obama would need a running mate with some sort of executive experience.

That being said...I don't think Edwards dropping out will have that big of an influence. No endorsment, plus he will still be on all of the super tuesday ballots. I think his supporters will most likely just vote for him. Maybe a few can be swayed, but I doubt many will.

[Gamma Ray]

Giuliani is dropping out too today.

http://www6.comcast.net/news/articles/general/2007/12/20/Giuliani/


His run was pretty pathetic.

[Matt]

His run was pretty pathetic.

Meh, it is really one of those monday morning QB scenarios to try and judge him now. If Giuliani won Florida, he'd be seen as brilliant, as suddenly he would be going into Super Tuesday with an undeniable momentum and the lead in delegate votes.

[Arkady Rossovich]

With Edwards out..it will be a very hard choice for those who want to vote for the Democrats.

[Mr Sparkle]

I think this helps Obama more

all polls I have heard of point to Edwards supporters going to Obama if he dropped out.

[Steve Rogers]

I guess I am not partaking in this election. The only two candidates I supported were Richardson and Edwards. See? This is where I get confused. Is it my "right" and "duty" to vote even if I'm voting for people I don't support? Or should I vote for someone--anyone--just because it's an American thing to do or whatever?

[kronos251]

I guess I am not partaking in this election. The only two candidates I supported were Richardson and Edwards. See? This is where I get confused. Is it my "right" and "duty" to vote even if I'm voting for people I don't support? Or should I vote for someone--anyone--just because it's an American thing to do or whatever?
I agree with you on Richardson... and Vote only for people who you think is right, and not because you are compelled to.

[Steve Rogers]

I agree with you on Richardson... and Vote only for people who you think is right, and not because you are compelled to.So, I should not vote at all then? How is this democracy? I don't get it.

*shrugs*
Maybe I'll just write in Bill Richardson.

[Steve Rogers]

and anyone think there were any Edwards voters who just didn't want to vote black or female?

I don't support Hillary because of her tearjerking performance on television after Iowa. Whether it was real or staged is not the issue, because both possibilities send messages to me that make me not want to vote for her. It has nothing to do with her being a woman.

I don't support Obama because he gets up on his soap box and says things like, "We need hope because hope brings about change and change is what this country needs!" But he seems to have no plans on how to bring about this change. He thinks "hope" is some magical wand that he can waive and change the world. Doesn't work that way. This is the real world, not a fairy tale. It has nothing to do with him being black.

[kronos251]

So, I should not vote at all then? How is this democracy? I don't get it.


*shrugs*

That's the problem when there are no longer competent candidates running on a certain party you support. It's really up to you whether you'll vote for the same party or a different one. If you feel like you're betraying your own, then I guess you don't have to vote at all.

Oh and Don't vote for the party, Vote for the Candidate.

But frankly it's really your decision. *shrugs too*


Maybe I'll just write in Bill Richardson.
Haha, that would be a superb idea, but it wouldn't be counted. :csad: You might as well write in Mickey Mouse. :csad:

[bell110]

So, I should not vote at all then? How is this democracy? I don't get it.

*shrugs*
Maybe I'll just write in Bill Richardson.

This is why all state primaries should be held on the same day. Everybody who voted for Edwards, they're vote is now null.

If you really find the remaining candidates that repulsive, don't vote for anybody. Edwards name should still be on the ticket, so you could vote for him out of symbolism. I'd rather vote for somebody not running than vote for somebody I don't like.

I just hope Paul doesn't puss out and drop from the race.

[Mr Sparkle]

I guess I am not partaking in this election. The only two candidates I supported were Richardson and Edwards. See? This is where I get confused. Is it my "right" and "duty" to vote even if I'm voting for people I don't support? Or should I vote for someone--anyone--just because it's an American thing to do or whatever?

lesser of 2 evils?

[Matt]

I guess I am not partaking in this election. The only two candidates I supported were Richardson and Edwards. See? This is where I get confused. Is it my "right" and "duty" to vote even if I'm voting for people I don't support? Or should I vote for someone--anyone--just because it's an American thing to do or whatever?

Write in. Therefore you fulfill your right and duty and also show dissent. Provided Bloomberg does not run, its most likely what I'll do.

[Venom'sDad]

Glad to see he's out. :p & RudyG too.

[Matt]

Glad to see he's out. :p & RudyG too.

He may be out, but he is still on all of the Super Tuesday ballots...sooooo....it shouldn't make that much of a difference.

[Venom'sDad]

He may be out, but he is still on all of the Super Tuesday ballots...sooooo....it shouldn't make that much of a difference.

It's so widely publicize that he's out and reports all week as to, will he endorse anyone.... it will make a difference in Obama's vote totals. People are not going to make a protest vote against Obama; they will against hillary(hints Obama's totals) and, what votes Edwards gets will most likely be "Early-Votes". Edwards totals will be similar to what Ron Paul is getting now... approx 3 or 4 percent.

[Matt]

It's so widely publicize that he's out and reports all week as to, will he endorse anyone.... it will make a difference in Obama's vote totals. People are not going to make a protest vote against Obama; they will against hillary(hints Obama's totals) and, what votes Edwards gets will most likely be "Early-Votes". Edwards totals will be similar to what Ron Paul is getting now... approx 3 or 4 percent.

I don't know about that. In 2004, even after Edwards conceded, he still continued to bring in decent numbers (15-20 %). I think you sell his supporters short in assuming they are strictly an anti-Hillary crowd. I am sure some are...but not all or even a majority.

[Lightning Strykez!]

Interesting development.

He has no love for Billary though, that much is for sure.

[cookiva]

It's so widely publicize that he's out and reports all week as to, will he endorse anyone.... it will make a difference in Obama's vote totals. People are not going to make a protest vote against Obama; they will against hillary(hints Obama's totals) and, what votes Edwards gets will most likely be "Early-Votes". Edwards totals will be similar to what Ron Paul is getting now... approx 3 or 4 percent.

I'm still voting for him. Even in the national election, if there is no one I like, Im writing in Edwards. He WILL get more than 5% in these primaries.

[The Senator]

I guess 30% of his supporters will go to Clinton, 40% will go to Obama, and the rest are up in the air (this was based on 'second-choice' polling which came out of South Carolina).

It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

[BlackLantern]

Guliani can probably get a cabinet post or even AG if McCain wins.....

[Malice]

Guliani can probably get a cabinet post or even AG if McCain wins.....

I would imagine, since they were so chummy about G giving him the endorcement...
McCain will give G some cabinet level position...

[rdh007]

I don't know about that. In 2004, even after Edwards conceded, he still continued to bring in decent numbers (15-20 %). I think you sell his supporters short in assuming they are strictly an anti-Hillary crowd. I am sure some are...but not all or even a majority.
But there was a pretty clear cut frontrunner at that time, so people could make "issues" type votes.

[jaguarr]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/30/edwards/index.html

So it would seem. I guess Obama finally outbid Clinton :wow: I wonder how this will effect Super Tuesday? Could it give Obama the win?

I think it very well could give Obama the boost he needs on Super Tuesday and it could be a big part of why Edwards dropped out now.

jag

[jaguarr]

Guliani can probably get a cabinet post or even AG if McCain wins.....

Good Christ, I hope not. You just gave me yet another reason to vote against McCain if he's in the election.

jag

[hippie_hunter]

Good Christ, I hope not. You just gave me yet another reason to vote against McCain if he's in the election.

jag

Come on now. McCain giving Giuliani a spot in his cabinet, most likely Attorney General (the Vice-President spot isn't going to happen), is pretty much a given and should pretty much be expected. There really should be no surprise there at all.

[jaguarr]

Come on now. McCain giving Giuliani a spot in his cabinet, most likely Attorney General (the Vice-President spot isn't going to happen), is pretty much a given and should pretty much be expected. There really should be no surprise there at all.

I just hate the idea. A lot. :huh:

jag

[Chris B]

John Edwards was really the only Democrat that I liked that ran this year. Definately disappointing to see him gone.

That said, I think a lot of his support is going to go to Hillary on the basis that a lot of it was working-class white people. The ones who supported him on the basis of wanting change will go to Obama.

[BlackLantern]

Good Christ, I hope not. You just gave me yet another reason to vote against McCain if he's in the election.

jag

welll Rudy seems to be the type that would be fine being the power behind the throne.....he withdraws from the race and endorses McCain in the same breath.....he wouldnt be doing that if something wasnt coming his way if mccain wins

[jaguarr]

welll Rudy seems to be the type that would be fine being the power behind the throne.....he withdraws from the race and endorses McCain in the same breath.....he wouldnt be doing that if something wasnt coming his way if mccain wins

Rudy is dirty, dirty, dirty. I don't want that guy in our government. Ever.

jag

[BlackLantern]

Rudy is dirty, dirty, dirty. I don't want that guy in our government. Ever.

jag

I presented the idea to a couple guys at work and they all had a similar reaction to yours...i dont want him in there either but I think its going to happen

[The Senator]

Rudy is dirty, dirty, dirty. I don't want that guy in our government. Ever.

jag

I have a very awful feeling that McCain would offer Giuliani the position of Attorney General... but thankfully, the Judiciary Committee has learned with the whole Mukasey fiasco, so the chances that he'd be confirmed by the Senate could be pretty slim.

[jaguarr]

I have a very awful feeling that McCain would offer Giuliani the position of Attorney General... but thankfully, the Judiciary Committee has learned with the whole Mukasey fiasco, so the chances that he'd be confirmed by the Senate could be pretty slim.

I pray you're right should we ever be faced with this situation. I'm not certain McCain will even actually get elected, to be honest.

jag

[cookiva]

I actually think McCain nearly has it in the bag. If Clinton wins the nomination, she HAS to have Obama as her VP (idea stolen from Jman). If Obama wins, hes gotta run a perfect campaign.

[bell110]

Attorney General Giuliani :down

[jaguarr]

Attorney General Giuliani :down

Anyone from New York City knows what a fascist that guy is. Rudy as AG would be an absolute travesty. You think our Constitution has been trampled and abused these past eight years? Wait until he gets into a position where he can have at it. :down


And, yeah, still not convinced McCain can win the whole shebang. The guy is really old and has that going against him, as does his record of kowtowing to his Republican masters.

jag

[CorpusBlack]

Anyone from New York City knows what a fascist that guy is. Rudy as AG would be an absolute travesty. You think our Constitution has been trampled and abused these past eight years? Wait until he gets into a position where he can have at it. :down


And, yeah, still not convinced McCain can win the whole shebang. The guy is really old and has that going against him, as does his record of kowtowing to his Republican masters.

jag

Yeah, Rudy would be disastrous being put anywhere IMO, especially at AG.

McCain is a puppet but I'll pick him over Romney any day.

[CrypticOne]

Do you guys think this helps Clinton or Obama...?

personally its hard for me to decide, i think there are many Edwards voters who are more aligned to Obama then Clinton, but thats just my opinion...

and anyone think there were any Edwards voters who just didn't want to vote black or female?

what do you guys think?

If most of Edwards supporters go to Obama, that extra 10-15% could be a massive boon at the booths.

I was going to vote for Edwards, now I'm turning to Obama. Hope he wins.

[Zen]

is the general consensus here that Hillary can't beat McCain?

I've thought about it, and i agree it won't be a walk in the park... but CAN"T beat McCain? is she really that weak by now?

and what are you guys(or gals) take on Obama vs. McCain? think Obama stands a decent chance? better then Hillary?

I tend to think Obama can electrify people to get up and vote who were not voting before, i think Hillary has this ability but only in a minor degree when compared to Obama...

with democratic turn out lately its hard to Believe McCain can lock this down...

i think as long as Hillary doesn't pi$$ off anymore democrats she should stand a fighting chance...

as for Obama im beginning to wonder if im just getting swept up in his charisma or not, i feel like the guy could beat any of the republicans... what do you think?

[Zen]

I was going to vote for Edwards, now I'm turning to Obama. Hope he wins.

do you think others who support Edwards are more apt to vote Obama instead of Hillary? jus trying to pick your brain a lil

:cwink:

[jaguarr]

I think this will be a close race, in the end. I do think that Obama can unite and motivate more Dem's and independents to vote for him in the long run than Hillary could when it comes down to it. And anyone saying McCain has it in the bag is an idiot. This race is going to be close when all is said and done.

jag

[hippie_hunter]

I think this will be a close race, in the end. I do think that Obama can unite and motivate more Dem's and independents to vote for him in the long run than Hillary could when it comes down to it. And anyone saying McCain has it in the bag is an idiot. This race is going to be close when all is said and done.

jag

It really all depends on who is nominated.

If Obama gets nominated, it's definetely going to be a tough and very close race because he also appeals to independents and some Republicans for some reason. I think that if anyone says "So-and-So will win" is rather foolish in an Obama/McCain match-up.

If Hillary gets nominiated, McCain has it in the bag. He'll tear her campaign to shreds by forcing her to drop her experience platform. McCain has far more experience than Hillary. Iraq will blow up in her face because of her vote for the war, defending her vote, yet saying we should pull out. McCain will point her out as a flip-flopper on the Iraq War and he'll point out the successes in Iraq. All McCain really has to do is hope that Iraq doesn't get worse and hope that things remain on the same path or get better. The media will pounce on Clinton for all the scandals she and her husband have been in. McCain just has Keating Five and his divorce, both of which can be brushed off with ease. And frankly, McCain is just better at capturing the independent and moderate vote than Clinton.

We'd also have to take a look at if Bloomberg and Nader enter the race.

Nader will most definetely enter. He's going to hurt the Democratic vote. Personally I think Obama can brush off the Nader race because of his appeal to indpendents, moderates, and ability to really jazz up the Democratic Party. For Hillary, it will certainly hurt her. A decent chunk of the leftist vote will vote for Nader and because McCain will take the majority of the independent and moderate vote, it's going to hurt her a lot.

As for Bloomberg, I don't think he'll enter if John McCain ends up being the nominee for the Republicans. He'd likely enter if Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney got the nomination which is very likely not going to happen. But if he did enter, Bloomberg would hurt McCain and Obama more than Clinton due to Bloomberg's appeal to his appeal to independents and moderates.

I said this before and I'll say it again. The independent and moderate vote is the most powerful voting bloc in the United States. They're the reason why McCain will get the Republican nomination and they're the reason why Obama's gotten rather good momentum. Whoever appeals to them the best (McCain, Obama, or Clinton) will win the election.

[jaguarr]

It really all depends on who is nominated.

If Obama gets nominated, it's definetely going to be a tough and very close race because he also appeals to independents and some Republicans for some reason. I think that if anyone says "So-and-So will win" is rather foolish in an Obama/McCain match-up.

If Hillary gets nominiated, McCain has it in the bag. He'll tear her campaign to shreds by forcing her to drop her experience platform. McCain has far more experience than Hillary. Iraq will blow up in her face because of her vote for the war, defending her vote, yet saying we should pull out. McCain will point her out as a flip-flopper on the Iraq War and he'll point out the successes in Iraq. All McCain really has to do is hope that Iraq doesn't get worse and hope that things remain on the same path or get better. The media will pounce on Clinton for all the scandals she and her husband have been in. McCain just has Keating Five and his divorce, both of which can be brushed off with ease. And frankly, McCain is just better at capturing the independent and moderate vote than Clinton.

McCain's platform isn't flawless, either, to be honest. I think he's just as attackable as Hillary, really. But, yes, he does lure more independents and moderates than Hillary does. I don't think it is a sure call and it would be a close race if it came down to those two, IMHO. Not a blowout.

jag

[hippie_hunter]

McCain's platform isn't flawless, either, to be honest. I think he's just as attackable as Hillary, really. But, yes, he does lure more independents and moderates than Hillary does. I don't think it is a sure call and it would be a close race if it came down to those two, IMHO. Not a blowout.

jag

To be fair, no candidate's platform is flawless.

And this election will be decided by the independents and moderates. They're by far the most powerful voting bloc in the United States. Frankly, Obama is really the only one who can take that bloc.

[jaguarr]

To be fair, no candidate's platform is flawless.

And this election will be decided by the independents and moderates. They're by far the most powerful voting bloc in the United States. Frankly, Obama is really the only one who can take that bloc.

I agree with you for the most part on that last point. Hillary is a very polarizing presence, IMHO. So is McCain, but not to the degree she is.

jag

[The Senator]

Also, you have to wonder if that conservative bloc will align with McCain or stay at home. Rush Limbaugh, who has considerable clout, has been tearing McCain's campaign apart. Also, illegal immigration has become the number one issue among the working class, Southern white male voter... and McCain's immigration record has repeatedly come under fire. If Jim Gilchrest runs as the Constitution Party's nominee, McCain could lose a significant chunk of a particular demographic which has become so powerful in deciding these elections. McCain's people would then stay at home, and Hillary could benefit from his abandoned votes mathematically.

A McCain-Clinton contest is going to be close, and I'm not just saying that because I support her candidacy. Her campaign is apparently undergoing a massive overhaul. If she does win the nomination, she'll be retooling her message and platform to focus on the economy. McCain has said that he doesn't know much about the economy; he even did so during last night's debate. McCain will focus squarely on defense and security, and won't be able to communicate with the American people about the pending recession.

And despite everything McCain has said about staying in Iraq, 61% of the American people still support a withdrawal. 53% of Americans support an immigration policy which differs from McCain's, and two thirds of Americans oppose any military engagement with Iran. If McCain exploits those issues on the brink of overkill, that could severely harm his campaign.

The issue of polarization keeps coming up, but I should also point out that Hillary Clinton's unfavorable rating has been decreasing (slowly) since she first announced that she was considering a run for the White House. She still has the highest negatives of all the candidates, but they hover around the 34% range. McCain, by contrast, was at 30% in November. Both of them will have to fight to win the election, so saying that McCain's win is set in stone is premature.

[Golgo-13]

Wait? Has he dropped out? :huh: It will undoubtedly help Obama, for the most part.

I actually predicted this a month ago, and you called my idea ridiculous.

Now who's laughing?:cwink:

[Arkady Rossovich]

I think Edwards could have won Clinton or Obama..if he just stayed in longer.

[hippie_hunter]

Edwards had no chance. The media gave Clinton and Obama all the attention and pretty much all of the Democratic establishment went to them.

[Venom'sDad]

I wish hillary would just drop out, she is doing nothing more right now, but rambling on and on, and saying nothing. Jesus!

[Mr Sparkle]

I think Edwards could have won Clinton or Obama..if he just stayed in longer.

what do you think he would've done with them after winning them?

[hippie_hunter]

I wish hillary would just drop out, she is doing nothing more right now, but rambling on and on, and saying nothing. Jesus!

I agree. But logically does she have any reason to drop out? Unfortunately she has enough support within the Democratic establishment.

[Venom'sDad]

I agree. But logically does she have any reason to drop out? Unfortunately she has enough support within the Democratic establishment.

Well, of course she has no reason to fulfill my wish.

[jaguarr]

what do you think he would've done with them after winning them?

Traded them in for a sweet Fender Stratocaster and some extra picks? :huh:

jag

[The Senator]

I wish hillary would just drop out, she is doing nothing more right now, but rambling on and on, and saying nothing. Jesus!

Yeah, because frontrunners drop out when they have a good chance of winning :whatever:

[Excel]

Yeah, because frontrunners drop out when they have a good chance of winning :whatever:

She has 0% chance at winning the general election. The Democratic party is making the same mistake it made in 2004 and picking an unnelectable candidate in an election that shoulda been in the bag.

McCain is stronger on ethics, louder against torture, longer on honesty (yes, even in light of his Romney attacks), and best of all, runs on a post-partisan platform. Some of McCain's most passionate positions are on issues such as climate change. That, compared to someone that flamed an opponent for suggesting the opposing party's luminary had ideas. I agree, Clintonistas have no idea what they're getting themselves into. Democrats inclined toward victory should jump ship before it's too late.

[The Senator]

She has 0% chance at winning the general election. The Democratic party is making the same mistake it made in 2004 and picking an unnelectable candidate in an election that shoulda been in the bag.

Since when is 0% a substitute for 47% Hillary, 45% McCain?

Oh, that's right... I keep forgetting Obama has an 11,294% chance of winning :whatever:

[The Senator]

But seriously... you don't know what the national attitude will be between now and November. For all we know, we could be on the brink of an economic depression, a nuclear weapon could detonate in a major city, Walnuts McCain could have a heart attack on the campaign trail, the Republican Party could fracture, Ron Paul could run as a viable third party candidate and siphon votes from McCain, Barack Obama may be Clinton's running mate, a major hurricane could drown the Gulf Coast again, the so-called independent voters may vote for Hillary instead if her platform aligns with their ideological preferences, Bush could withdraw troops from Iraq, Iran could engage Israel militarily... there are hundred thousand things which could happen between now and November which could toss the election to either candidate. Nothing is set in stone yet, and if anyone thinks it is, they are acting incredibly prematurely. But most importantly, they are acting out of bias, and to say that there's no chance in hell is really a credibility risk considering the two of them are statistically tied at this point in the game.

In September, when this election is under full swing, and if McCain is ten points ahead of Hillary in the major swing states, and if she's run her campaign into the ground... then you can say she has a low chance of winning.

(And if you so reply by saying 'I know she'll run her campaign into the ground! I hate Hillary! GRRRR!,' then you obviously don't know the vastness of the Clintons' organizational framework)

[Excel]

i say again:

McCain is stronger on ethics, louder against torture, longer on honesty (yes, even in light of his Romney attacks), and best of all, runs on a post-partisan platform. Some of McCain's most passionate positions are on issues such as climate change. That, compared to someone that flamed an opponent for suggesting the opposing party's luminary had ideas. I agree, Clintonistas have no idea what they're getting themselves into. Democrats inclined toward victory should jump ship before it's too late.

Everyboy seems to see except Hillary supporters: she wont win the election. Her popoularity has little to no more room to grow.

[The Senator]

i say again:

McCain is stronger on ethics, louder against torture, longer on honesty (yes, even in light of his Romney attacks), and best of all, runs on a post-partisan platform. Some of McCain's most passionate positions are on issues such as climate change. That, compared to someone that flamed an opponent for suggesting the opposing party's luminary had ideas. I agree, Clintonistas have no idea what they're getting themselves into. Democrats inclined toward victory should jump ship before it's too late.

Everyboy seems to see except Hillary supporters: she wont win the election. Her popoularity has little to no more room to grow.

Um, actually, people who AREN'T Hillary supporters also agree with me. You know, people who analyze these things on a daily basis-- pollsters, statisticians, pundits, political consultants, and political scientists. People who have to KNOW the demography of this country and its voting habits, as well as their perceptions of the current candidates who are seeking the Presidency.

And, you seem to dodge the actual POINT of my post: The political landscape between now and November can change dramatically. At this time two years ago, it was assumed by virtually EVERY political expert that the Republicans would continue to control the House and the Senate by a respectable margin. Then sexual and corruption scandals erupted, opposition to the war in Iraq skyrocketed, resignations came in on a daily basis... and we won both chambers in what was nothing short of a miracle. And all of this happened within a two and a half month period. In August, we were going to lose; In October, our prospects were bright.

And now, our prospects are still bright, considering we have two candidates who could run a strong opposition campaign against McCain and win against him. If you stop as short as looking at the polling data, you'll see evidence which suggests neither candidate can be called a winner. The statistics are tied, they are in a dead heat, and if you're declaring a winner ten months before the election , then you might as well drape a "Mission Accomplished" banner over the hood of your car.

The fact of the matter is, you can't say something is an absolute until the election is right around the corner. I would be saying this if I supported someone else at this juncture, too, or even if I wasn't rooting for a Democrat. John McCain seems like the most "likable" Republican there is. But will that get him elected? Will that translate into a Republican victory in October? Will he continue to develop his platform to knock Hillary off her pedestal? Will the American people think he's unrealistic? These questions cannot be answered, because it is too soon to tell. As someone who analyzes policy and voting behavior on almost a daily basis, I can safely say that the window is wide open, and it will remain open until the season changes.

[hippie_hunter]

I kinda have to agree with Excel. Nominating Clinton is like the Democrats asking the Republicans "Please Sir, can I have some more?"

[The Senator]

I kinda have to agree with Excel. Nominating Clinton is like the Democrats asking the Republicans "Please Sir, can I have some more?"

And if she wins, what will your response be?

[hippie_hunter]

Since when is 0% a substitute for 47% Hillary, 45% McCain?

Oh, that's right... I keep forgetting Obama has an 11,294% chance of winning :whatever:

Actually the most recent poll in a hypothetical match-up between McCain and Clinton has McCain beating Hillary by 8 percentage points. He's also beating Obama by 6.

[hippie_hunter]

And if she wins, what will your response be?

I'm movin' to Canada!

[LuiECuomo]

Right on. :(

[EdRyder]

I'm movin' to Canada!

You need about 10 grand in savings,3 grand for each child,and either a job waiting for you or meet their 'needed skill' criteria for a job.

I done my research

[hippie_hunter]

You need about 10 grand in savings,3 grand for each child,and either a job waiting for you or meet their 'needed skill' criteria for a job.

I done my research

I got the money and no children. I just need to find a yob.

[jaguarr]

Get a job you damn hippie! :cmad:

jag

[hippie_hunter]

Get a job you damn hippie! :cmad:

jag

I have a job, just not a Canadian job you bastard :cmad:

[jaguarr]

So, you're not a Canadian hippie....yet. Whattya want from me? Some spare change? :cmad:

jag

[hippie_hunter]

So, you're not a Canadian hippie....yet. Whattya want from me? Some spare change? :cmad:

jag

I don't need spare change! I got the money needed to move to Canada when President Billary comes to power :cmad:

[Lightning Strykez!]

Edwards had no chance. The media gave Clinton and Obama all the attention and pretty much all of the Democratic establishment went to them.

I agree with you wholeheartedly.

And you know what I think was the straw that broke the camel's proverbial back? The fact that Kennedy endorsed Obama. Say what you want, but that was a HUGE blow to Edwards, because it seems he kinda touted himself as the heir to the Kennedy throne, with his anti-poverty approach and all.

When Caroline and Teddy got behind Barry it kinda sucked the wind out of John's sails.

[rdh007]

I said I was moving there if Bush won in 2004, but I'm still here. I stayed for the awesome continental breakfast! :up:

[Matt]

Well, according to the video Kmack posted in the other thread, recent polls indicate that 4 of every 10 Edwards supporters go to Hillary where only 2 of every 10 go to Obama. Hmm...

[Matt]

I agree with you wholeheartedly.

And you know what I think was the straw that broke the camel's proverbial back? The fact that Kennedy endorsed Obama. Say what you want, but that was a HUGE blow to Edwards, because it seems he kinda touted himself as the heir to the Kennedy throne, with his anti-poverty approach and all.

When Caroline and Teddy got behind Barry it kinda sucked the wind out of John's sails.

In all fairness though, Edwards' campaign was over well before any of the Kennedys got involved. This campaign really does make me sick, the way the media essentially decided it. More so than any campaign before.

[Lightning Strykez!]

In all fairness though, Edwards' campaign was over well before any of the Kennedys got involved. This campaign really does make me sick, the way the media essentially decided it. More so than any campaign before.

Nah. We are nowhere near the idiocy of the Florida vote of 2000. That's campaign sickness incarnate and this one has yet to reach that bar of hypocrisy.

[Zen]

In all fairness though, Edwards' campaign was over well before any of the Kennedys got involved. This campaign really does make me sick, the way the media essentially decided it. More so than any campaign before.

if what your saying is true, and its hard to disagree...

then im more disgusted at the american populus than the media.

[Lightning Strykez!]

Edwards meeting with Clinton, Obama on endorsement


Sens. Clinton and Obama, and former Sen. Edwards before the CNN Democratic debate in Myrtle Beach, S.C.
(CNN) — CNN has learned that former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards met with Hillary Clinton Thursday, and is meeting with Barack Obama Monday, to discuss a possible primary endorsement.

The Thursday meeting, which took place at Edwards’ home in Chapel Hill, was followed by a Saturday night session during which the former North Carolina senator and several longtime advisers discussed many issues, including which candidate he should endorse.

At a Chapel Hill party yesterday for Edwards supporters, he gave no indication who he might endorse, or whether that endorsement is imminent. Some advisers are encouraging him not to endorse.

The former candidate is weighing a number of considerations before making his choice - including electability, and who will best promote his ideas.

There are policy considerations at play: there is a sense within the Edwards camp that Clinton's policies could be better for working class Americans. But Obama's anti-lobbyist proposals are more aligned with Edwards’ politics.

Two friends close to Elizabeth Edwards say she has been in support of Barack Obama, whose campaign has been touting a list of endorsements from former Edwards backers.

UPDATE: In response to such reports, Elizabeth Edwards flatly denies she favors Obama, saying she has "not even come close" to suggesting anything like that to any friend. Edwards adds that she has "no idea" why friends of hers would say that because it simply isn't so.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

************************************************** ******

So uh...what's your wager guys?

[The Senator]

I'm guessing he'll go for Obama. The polls show he'll win against McCain, and Obama's platform coincides the most with Edwards'. Plus, Obama needs the boost at this stage in the game. It really wouldn't make sense to me if he endorses Hillary.

[Matt]

Edwards will give his endorsement to whoever promises him the higher position, though I doubt it will matter that much. I'm not sure I buy into the effectiveness of endorsements.

[Venom'sDad]

So uh...what's your wager guys?

That's a tough one to call. Edwards platform is close to Obama's; however, billary said publically at one of her gathering, that Edwards will have a place in her cabinet... she's sending out signals.

[Excel]

The only one with any signifigance is Gores.

[The Senator]

The only one with any signifigance is Gores.

I don't think he's getting into it. After all, he endorsed Dean in 2004, and that pretty much slapped him in the face.

[R0rschach]

I'm guessing he'll go for Obama. The polls show he'll win against McCain, and Obama's platform coincides the most with Edwards'. Plus, Obama needs the boost at this stage in the game. It really wouldn't make sense to me if he endorses Hillary.

I concur.

[hippie_hunter]

The only way I see Edwards endorsing Hillary is if she offers him the Attorney General spot.

[StorminNorman]

His Endorsement will have the sound of one hand clapping.

But you know - its cute.

[bunk]

If he was going to endorse someone, it should have been before Super Tuesday when he still had an influence on voters formerly in his camp. Most of them have probably chosen someone new by this point.

[rdh007]

His Endorsement will have the sound of one hand clapping.

But you know - its cute.

The only one that was worse was the president's. I agree.

[Malice]

Obama will give him the Attorney General position

[jaguarr]

His Endorsement will have the sound of one hand clapping.

But you know - its cute.

The only one that was worse was the president's. I agree.

:up:

jag

[Matt]

The only way I see Edwards endorsing Hillary is if she offers him the Attorney General spot.

I offered Hippie_hunter the attorney general position but he still didn't endorse me for Hype It Boy :cmad:

[Darthphere]

Because you suck.

[souvlaki]

I would be stunned if he endorsed Clinton. He flat out said in a debate on live television that he was more aligned politically with Obama. How can you make a statement like that, and then endorse the other candidate? The only way I see him endorsing Clinton is if she offered him a better position in her cabinet. And if that is what he is basing his endorsement on, then his endorsement is worthless.

[The Incredible Hulk]

what does Edwards endorsement really matter? it's not like he's the outgoing President or something.

[jaguarr]

what does Edwards endorsement really matter? it's not like he's the outgoing President or something.

He still had a base of support and some of those people may be unsure of who to back now that their favorite is no longer in the race. An endorsement from him might sway some of his former supporters and as close as this race has become, every little bit will count in the end.

jag

[rdh007]

what does Edwards endorsement really matter? it's not like he's the outgoing President or something.
More than 12% of Americans believe he can read?

[Zen]

Edwards endorsement could prove critical in courting voters to gain more delegates, also superdelegates commited to edwards... and momentum.

it may not seem big, but in such a close race, everything has an impact

[hippie_hunter]

I offered Hippie_hunter the attorney general position but he still didn't endorse me for Hype It Boy :cmad:

There was a Hype It Boy contest :huh:

Anyways, any Matt related endorsements is an automatic torture sentence crucifixion at Gamer Rejects :o :csad:

[CrypticOne]

Edwards meeting with Clinton, Obama on endorsement


Sens. Clinton and Obama, and former Sen. Edwards before the CNN Democratic debate in Myrtle Beach, S.C.
(CNN) — CNN has learned that former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards met with Hillary Clinton Thursday, and is meeting with Barack Obama Monday, to discuss a possible primary endorsement.

The Thursday meeting, which took place at Edwards’ home in Chapel Hill, was followed by a Saturday night session during which the former North Carolina senator and several longtime advisers discussed many issues, including which candidate he should endorse.

At a Chapel Hill party yesterday for Edwards supporters, he gave no indication who he might endorse, or whether that endorsement is imminent. Some advisers are encouraging him not to endorse.

The former candidate is weighing a number of considerations before making his choice - including electability, and who will best promote his ideas.

There are policy considerations at play: there is a sense within the Edwards camp that Clinton's policies could be better for working class Americans. But Obama's anti-lobbyist proposals are more aligned with Edwards’ politics.

Two friends close to Elizabeth Edwards say she has been in support of Barack Obama, whose campaign has been touting a list of endorsements from former Edwards backers.

UPDATE: In response to such reports, Elizabeth Edwards flatly denies she favors Obama, saying she has "not even come close" to suggesting anything like that to any friend. Edwards adds that she has "no idea" why friends of hers would say that because it simply isn't so.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

************************************************** ******

So uh...what's your wager guys?

I hoping that Edwards backs Obama.

[Arkady Rossovich]

I don't think an endorsement from Edwards will do much of anything for either Clinton or Obama. Edwards had poor poll turn outs..so i don't think people favour him.

[The Senator]

I don't think an endorsement from Edwards will do much of anything for either Clinton or Obama. Edwards had poor poll turn outs..so i don't think people favour him.

An Edwards endorsement would be pretty big. Edwards was running as the 'third candidate' so-to-speak, and his voters accounted for about 10% of the overall votes cast before he dropped out of the race. While his supporters won't flock to either candidate per se, there's a good chance this will get decent media coverage and could convert some of his supporters to support the candidate he endorses.

Of course, there's no indication that people will storm out of their houses to vote for Clinton or Obama based on an Edwards endorsement (we certainly saw that in MA and CA with the Kennedys), so it may not actually have much clout in the end. But it will be covered extensively, and it could very well play some role in this nominating contest.

(also, if Edwards endorses someone, you can almost guarantee he has either the AG or VP spot in an Obama or Clinton administration)

[souvlaki]

So I'm not sure this means anything, as I've noticed a bit of a Clinton preference on the part of CNN lately, but they mentioned earlier that Obama postponed his meeting with Edwards, and implied that the meeting may be put off indefinitely. I guess that doesn't bode well for an Obama endorsement.

[The Senator]

So I'm not sure this means anything, as I've noticed a bit of a Clinton preference on the part of CNN lately, but they mentioned earlier that Obama postponed his meeting with Edwards, and implied that the meeting may be put off indefinitely. I guess that doesn't bode well for an Obama endorsement.

The meeting was called off because of the absurd amount of press which basically invaded Edwards' property. They're rescheduling the meeting, and probably won't announce when it is to the media until it's already happened.

[CrypticOne]

The meeting was called off because of the absurd amount of press which basically invaded Edwards' property. They're rescheduling the meeting, and probably won't announce when it is to the media until it's already happened.

That's a good idea. I hope everything works out between Obama and Edwards. It'd be a great team, in my eyes.

[souvlaki]

The meeting was called off because of the absurd amount of press which basically invaded Edwards' property. They're rescheduling the meeting, and probably won't announce when it is to the media until it's already happened.

That makes sense. I was shocked that it was announced that he was meeting with Obama today as it was. As low profile as his meeting was with Clinton, I get the impression that Edwards didn't want the news to get out that he was considering an endorsement. I wonder if all the publicity surrounding this may make him consider putting off doing so in the near future. Really though, if he makes an endorsement he needs to do so in the next week, because his endorsement is getting to the point of being past the point of having any relevance. As it is, I would say it's a safe bet a good majority of Edwards supporters have already decide who they will support.

[Venom'sDad]

Bob Beckel of FoxNews said that John Edwards will endorse Barack Obama.

[The Senator]

Bob Beckel of FoxNews said that John Edwards will endorse Barack Obama.

Okay, except Bob Beckel is a political pundit, and he wasn't reporting factual information. All he said was pure speculation. Edwards' endorsement is still up in the air.

[souvlaki]

Bob Beckel of FoxNews said that John Edwards will endorse Barack Obama.

Did he have any proof to back that up? That would be great news if true, but ABC News is claiming Edwards is planning on backing Clinton.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=4281404&page=1

[Han-Solo]

Wow :shock

[souvlaki]

In an interview for broadcast tonight on Nightline, Edwards told ABC News correspondent Bob Woodruff he did have an affair with 44-year old Rielle Hunter, but said that he did not love her.

Edwards also denied he was the father of Hunter's baby girl, Frances Quinn, although the one-time Democratic Presidential candidate said he has not taken a paternity test.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5441195&page=1



Damn... so I guess that last thread was closed a little prematurely. I'm assuming now that he's admitted to it it wouldn't be a bad idea to start another thread?

[Marx]

I just posted this in the political lounge... http://forums.superherohype.com/images/icons/icon11.gif

[lazur]

Well, I posted it first before he admitted anything, but right after he was caught red-handed.

Still, it appears you started this thread when I started mine, so perhaps they should be merged...

[lazur]

Hmm mods, why close mine and not merge?? I was the one who raised this topic originally...

[souvlaki]

Well, I posted it first before he admitted anything, but right after he was caught red-handed.

Still, it appears you started this thread when I started mine, so perhaps they should be merged...

Yeah, but your thread was locked... hence me starting a new thread.

At any rate... normally I'm of the opinion that affairs are private matters, etc. etc. But this is a pretty unique situation. I admire the guy as a politician, but cheating on your dying wife is a pretty crappy move.

[StorminNorman]

The guy spends hundreds of dollars for hair cuts - if he wanted to get his dick wet, why didn't he go the Spitzer route?

I am perhaps more disappointed in that than anything, Mr. Edwards. :(

[Tron5000]

Damn you Souv! You beat me to it by 5 minutes.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5441195&page=1




Edwards Admits Sexual Affair; Lied as Presidential Candidate
In ABC News Interview, Edwards Says He Cheated, but Did Not Father Child
By RHONDA SCHWARTZ and BRIAN ROSS
August 8, 2008


John Edwards repeatedly lied during his Presidential campaign about an extramarital affair with a novice filmmaker, the former Senator admitted to ABC News today.

In an interview for broadcast tonight on Nightline, Edwards told ABC News correspondent Bob Woodruff he did have an affair with 44-year old Rielle Hunter, but said that he did not love her.

Edwards also denied he was the father of Hunter's baby girl, Frances Quinn, although the one-time Democratic Presidential candidate said he has not taken a paternity test.

Edwards said he knew he was not the father based on timing of the baby's birth on February 27, 2008. He said his affair ended too soon for him to have been the father.

A former campaign aide, Andrew Young, has said he was the father of the child.

According to friends of Hunter, Edwards met her at a New York city bar in 2006. His political action committee later paid her $114,000 to produce campaign website documentaries despite her lack of experience.

Edwards said the affair began during the campaign after she was hired. Hunter traveled with Edwards around the country and to Africa.

Edwards said his wife, Elizabeth, and others in his family became aware of the affair in 2006.

Edwards made a point of telling Woodruff that his wife's cancer was in remission when he began the affair with Hunter. Elizabeth Edwards has since been diagnosed with an incurable form of the disease.

When the National Enquirer first reported the alleged Edwards-Hunter affair last October 11, Edwards, his campaign staff and Hunter vociferously denounced the report.

"The story is false, it's completely untrue, it's ridiculous," Edwards told reporters then.

He repeated his denials just two weeks ago.

Edwards today admitted the National Enquirer was correct when it reported he had visited Hunter at the Beverly Hills Hilton last month.

The former Senator said his wife had not known about the meeting.

Since becoming pregnant, Hunter has lived under assumed names in a series of expensive homes in North Carolina and, more recently, in Santa Barbara, California.

Edwards denied paying any money to Hunter to keep her from going public but said it was possible some of his friends or supporters may have made payments without telling him.

He said he would ask questions about any possible arrangement.

Watch the full interview tonight on "Nightline" at 11:35 p.m. ET

[Marx]

Hmm mods, why close mine and not merge?? I was the one who raised this topic originally...

Yeah, but your thread was locked... hence me starting a new thread.

At any rate... normally I'm of the opinion that affairs are private matters, etc. etc. But this is a pretty unique situation. I admire the guy as a politician, but cheating on your dying wife is a pretty crappy move.

Why not discuss it in the lounge (where I posted it 25 minutes ago) and stop posting 5,000 threads on the subject? :cwink:

[adhokk7]

National Enquirer FTW :up: :hehe:

[souvlaki]

Why not discuss it in the lounge (where I posted it 25 minutes ago) and stop posting 5,000 threads on the subject? :cwink:

Well, to be fair, John Edwards is a pretty big name in politics. I'd say this justifies it's own thread. Spitzer got his own thread, after all. Probably not three or four threads. But one thread, definitely.

[lazur]

Yeah, but your thread was locked... hence me starting a new thread.

At any rate... normally I'm of the opinion that affairs are private matters, etc. etc. But this is a pretty unique situation. I admire the guy as a politician, but cheating on your dying wife is a pretty crappy move.

Yes, my original thread last week was locked by a mod who believed Fox News wasn't a good enough source for the story. Had CNN or ABC reported the story, however, I guess that would have been different. (No offense, Matt, but it's true.)

I'm not sure how you can admire anyone as a politician when they lie to the American people DURING A CAMPAIGN for the office of the President, not to mention that the man cheated on his cancer-stricken wife WHILE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.

[Tron5000]

I read an article earlier today (can't find it now, dammit) where Edwards was discussing whether an extramarital affair would speak to the lack of character and integrity of a politician. He said that it absolutely would.

Whoops.

[Excel]

Thank god we didnt make him our nominee :o