sozobe wrote:Quote:She also suggested she and her husband may not vote for the same candidate.
Anyone wanna bet who will vote what?
(Elizabeth for Hillary, I'm sure.)
That'd certainly make sense. I can kinda-sorta see it going the other way too, though.
This is the most encouraging article I've seen in a while about the possible effects of the long primary fight -- if Hillary actually stops going after Obama and they BOTH go after McCain, while he has to fend off both of them, that'd be the best possible outcome.
I would love it if Hillary dropped out now but realistically I think it's better if she waits until it's "cleaner" -- until there's not really any room to say that she could still win.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/02/us/politics/02web-seelye.html
Excerpt:
Quote:It may not be apparent to the casual viewer of the news, but Mrs. Clinton is no longer dropping negative bombs on Mr. Obama. She has shifted her attacks, some of them quite trenchant, to President Bush and Senator John McCain, the presumed Republican nominee.
Asked at a news conference to name the most positive change that Mr. Bush had achieved, for example, she paused, then couldn't come up with a thing. "He's leaving a legacy of great damage," she said somberly. She described Mr. McCain as a "friend," but said he offers more of the same.
Mr. Obama has set his sites [sic] on Mr. McCain too. Because Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton have so few policy differences of their own, and some time on their hands, they are both engaging in deep discussions with Pennsylvania voters about the economy and jobs.
sozobe wrote:That'd certainly make sense. I can kinda-sorta see it going the other way too, though.
This is part of what made me think so, I think...
Quote:Why Obama (Might Have) Alienated Elizabeth Edwards
Did Barack Obama fail to close the deal with John Edwards by seeming arrogant and insufficiently committed to his policy agenda? New York magazine's John Heilemann seems to imply as much [etc etc]
<snipped>
Still, the idea that Elizabeth Edwards would get into a heated discussion with Obama over health care policy rings true. She is a well-known health care wonk. Just this weekend, as a matter of fact, she gave the keynote address at this year's annual conference for the Association of Health Care Journalists--in which she offered a blistering, dead-on critique of John McCain's health care plan.
During the campaign, Elizabeth had played a key role in shaping her husband's health care policy. She lobbied hard for a single-payer plan, according to my sources. And when that didn't fly, she pressed for the most comprehensive plan possible. That's one reason the official Edwards plan--like the one Clinton eventually endorsed--included a requirement that everybody obtain insurance.
So it makes sense that Elizabeth would consider Obama's arguments--that mandates for everybody aren't essential right away--a "crock." And given her passion for the subject, it also seems plausible that she'd make a big deal out of it.
nimh wrote:sozobe wrote:That'd certainly make sense. I can kinda-sorta see it going the other way too, though.
This is part of what made me think so, I think...
Ms. Edwards has said this article is not accurate and her meeting with Obama went well, but she's also stated that Obama's healthcare plan is not "universal."
That's perfect, FreeDuck. Hillary as Bill Laimbeer -- exactly.
Re: Elizabeth Edwards, it totally makes sense that she'd vote for Hillary. That's more likely. But if the premise is that they might split, I'd give some chance that it's John for Hillary, Elizabeth for Obama.
I've been concerned for a very long time that John Edwards will endorse Hillary -- lots of little indications that have made me nervous. He seems to value pugnaciousness -- he seems to think Obama is naive. I think he likes Obama well enough on a personal level, but is a bit mystified at Obama's success, and thinks it's vulnerable.
If he's the one who wants to vote Obama, I think he's gotten over that because of Obama's continuing success and ability to get through things like the Wright flap. But if he's still there, I can see that he'd want to vote for Hillary and that Elizabeth a) likes Michelle, b) thinks that Obama has a better chance of beating McCain, c) thinks Obama has a better chance of leaving a better world for her children.
Just speculation.
sozobe wrote:That's perfect, FreeDuck. Hillary as Bill Laimbeer -- exactly.
Re: Elizabeth Edwards, it totally makes sense that she'd vote for Hillary. That's more likely. But if the premise is that they might split, I'd give some chance that it's John for Hillary, Elizabeth for Obama.
I've been concerned for a very long time that John Edwards will endorse Hillary -- lots of little indications that have made me nervous.
I recently was polled and one of the questions was something like "Would John Edwards endorsing Hillary Clinton make you more likely to vote for her?" They did not ask about Edwards and Obama which I thought was a little strange.
What's everyone here speculate as the reason for Edwards' delay endorsing?
My guess, waiting for a moment when it will have the most impact and he is guaranteed to pick the winner. Just a guess, though.
Two different sets of speculations:
1.) If he wants to endorse Obama:
He wasn't really sure enough of Obama's strength/ ability to compete and wanted to see how Obama did down the stretch. Now that some of that has happened, wants to maximize impact (echoing FreeDuck), doesn't just want to do an empty bandwagon thing. I saw speculation somewhere that in that case he's likely to do it after North Carolina, (assuming an Obama win there), as an effort to get Hillary out of the race and wrap things up.
2.) If he wants to endorse Hillary:
In this situation he personally thinks that Hillary would be the best nominee but he doesn't want to become a pariah for endorsing her. He has a lot of good will and influence in general right now, and doesn't want to damage that too much with an endorsement. So in this situation, he'd wait until things are looking up for her... if they look up for her. This might be unlikely then even if he personally likes her, dunno.
Actually one more set:
3.) He just wants to have as significant of a role as possible:
In this situation, he wants to be the one who helps broker an agreement down the line -- needs to stay neutral for that.
Oh hey,
I was just looking up how Obama is doing in NC -- I thought I remembered that a win looks very likely but couldn't remember specifics -- and found this:
Quote:"I really believe May 6 has the potential to be everything," says Joe Trippi, a strategist for the presidential bids of former North Carolina senator John Edwards this year and Howard Dean in 2004. "Every day you see increased pressure on Hillary Clinton about why she's staying in, and if she could win in North Carolina it would shut down that kind of talk and open up the possibility she could get there" to the nomination.
"But if he wins in North Carolina," Trippi says of Obama, "I think you're going to see things close up very quickly. You'll see a lot of superdelegates line up behind him."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-04-02-Endgame_N.htm
Wink wink, nudge nudge?
Yeah, soz, I wondered about that too.
Oiy! Just reading that made my head spin.
This is just a brilliantly funny column...
Quote:White Guys Are Back
By GAIL COLLINS
Published: April 5, 2008
It was probably inevitable. The historic contest between a woman and an African-American for the presidential nomination is now all about white men.
Not that the white male voters asked for this. They've been uncommitted, supporting Hillary in one contest and Barack in the next. But all that hemming and hawing has turned them into the deciding factor in the big upcoming primary in Pennsylvania.
Reporters are spread all over the state, searching for white men to interview. American Legion halls under siege! Both campaigns engage in extensive research, which reveals that white men are very concerned about the economy. Duh.
Courting them is extremely tricky. It's not like you can promise that under your presidency, more white men would be appointed to the Supreme Court...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/05/opinion/05collins.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Not to be insensitive, but an acquaintance of Mr B's passed away unexpectedly this week. He was a Dem superdelegate committed to Hillary. Anyone know the rules on if/how/by whom he gets replaced?
Whoa. My condolences...
What state was he in? (Illinois?) If I've figured out anything about the Democratic nomination process it's that it varies greatly from state to state...
Probably LA. Lived there, worked here (hellofa commute).
Actually that may be moot, as I think superdelegates are different from regular pledged delegates in terms of state-by-state variances. That's been an issue with Spitzer, for example, and with a guy named Wynn who lost some sort of re-election and will step down in June, so before the convention. I think that superdelegates are either there or not -- no alternates.
I'll look into it further...
That's worse even than my L.A. commute!
Just thought of Tom Lantos -- Hillary-supporting superdelegate who died recently. I'll see what I can find out about that.
