I'm going To Switch My Support To John Edwards

He did come off looking pretty good last night, didn't he?

I didn't get to see it... I was too zonked from the weekend and was asleep by 8:00... but I've been reading about it.

While Hill and Obama mud wrestled, Edwards looked shiny and clean. It won't be enough to win, but I think he'll go up in the polls a tad because of it.

yes neither of these children are looking too attractive... they're just writing attack ads for the republicans for the general as I've said repeatedly.

Re: I'm going To Switch My Support To John Edwards


I was thinking the same thing, Bear. I've always liked Edwards more than any of the other candidates and I adore Elizabeth. I'm thinking about it.

BBB

I really wish that America would pull it's head out of the sand and see why we need a candidate who can take on corporations, take on lobbyists, and bring about an end to poverty. Maybe the real question about this election shouldn't have been if this country was ready to elect a woman or a black man, but if they were ready to elect a candidate who could bring change against the forces of status quo. Apparently the answer is that we are not.
As a high school student getting ready for the first election I will be able to vote in, I'm beginning to lose faith in the political mind of this nation.
Posted by THEPEDRO 01/20/2008 @ 4:37pm |
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?pid=273095

In the last four years, I have noticed that Edwards is always worth listening to. He is extremely well-informed and has good ideas.

I like Edwards, too.

I have to put in a word about Hillary and Obama being equally assholish, though. Hillary's been on the offensive, and Obama finally stood up and defended himself. I don't think those are equivalent. Once the onslaught from Hillary (and Bill) started, Obama's options were a) try to keep to the high road and ignore her, or b) fight back. A) was simply too dangerous. B) is dangerous too, as this thread shows. But he was put in that position by Hillary, and I think that should count for something.

oh for God's sake soz....

What I find interesting is when Bill Clinton ran for president he was able to avoid a lot of the bickering. Now, he's a crank-pot as he campaigns for his wife.

I was disappointed in Obama last night. He sunk to her level and Edwards, just because, came out looking above it all.

I'm sure it won't happen again.

and herein lies the problem.... they're on the same level... better recognize...

Edwards Excels in Ferocious Democratic Debate
by Ari Melber
Posted January 21, 2008

Maybe Nevada was a turning point in the Democratic presidential race, because Monday's CNN debate started tough and got unusually ugly in a hurry.

Barack Obama continued to challenge both Clintons for pushing a series of assertions that were "not factually accurate," teeing off controversial comments that the former President made about the Nevada Caucus. Accused of inaccuracy, Sen. Clinton hit back with inaccuracy, claiming that Obama said he "really liked" President Reagan's ideas. In fact, Obama actually said Reagan helped establish the GOP as "the party of ideas," which Obama was quick to stress in a rebuttal. Then he applied the Stoller Maxim -- use your rivals' lies to reveal their character -- to argue that Clinton's conduct raises questions about whether she can earn the public trust and be an effective advocate for change. "Truthfulness during campaigns matters," he thundered for emphasis.

Clinton was more Rovian in her attacks, as she tried to pin Obama with her own foibles. Assailing his "present" votes in the Illinois Senate, Clinton chided Obama: "It is very difficult having a straight up debate with you because you never take responsibility!" The accusation drew boos from the crowd. (The Times reported that Clinton's line caused "huge boos from the audience for the first time.")

Yet while Clinton and Obama exchanged their personal barbs, John Edwards broke through with the best arguments of the night.

Edwards tweaked both his opponents for making the debate about political squabbling instead of public policy. Returning to his populist economic platform -- especially salient as Americans ponder a recession -- he reminded voters that he was the only candidate to outline a comprehensive plan to end poverty, and the first to introduce a national economic stimulus proposal. His plan came out weeks before Clinton and Obama. The program drove the "party's policy agenda," as Paul Krugman explained, by advocating "aid to unemployed workers, aid to cash-strapped state and local governments," and alternative energy, (most of which Clinton later adopted in her plan). And while the debate moderators kept pushing trite racial questions, even asking Obama if Bill Clinton was the "first black president," Edwards outlined a vision of racial and economic equality, where "every American is of equal value."

I know what you are saying, but I find their sparring to be oddly invigorating. It shows just how human and flawed they truly are. They whack each other around, then one of them gets nominated and then they resolve their differences.

Thier going at one another seems liberating, perhaps because it's so up front, honest. Refreshing because this current administration has given us nothing but scripted subterfuge for the past 2 terms.

Edwards Claims Media Overlooking His Campaign
Edwards Claims Media Overlooking His Campaign
By Daniel Nasaw
The Guardian UK
Friday 18 January 2008

Las Vegas - In his final appearance in the state before Nevada Democrats choose a presidential nominee tomorrow, John Edwards accused the media of ignoring his candidacy.

Addressing about 200 campaign volunteers outside his headquarters, the former North Carolina senator ramped up his criticism of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

While Edwards has long used an aggressive tone on the campaign trail, he hasn't typically gone after his rivals by name. The change in tone suggests Edwards' campaign knows the stakes are high in this contest, as he seeks momentum that will carry him into the Democratic primary in South Carolina next week.

Under a bright blue sky, Edwards attacked Clinton for taking large contributions from the oil and gas industries, and Obama for saying in a recent interview that the late Ronald Reagan "changed the trajectory of America".

Clinton has taken more than $220,000 from the oil and gas industries as of the third quarter of 2007, according to an analysis of campaign contribution reports by the Centre for Responsive Politics. Obama has taken just under half that, and Edwards has accepted about $28,000 from the industry.

Describing himself as an "underdog," Edwards pleaded with the volunteers assembled in the strip-mall car park to continue their efforts in the last 24 hours before the caucuses.

"I am not the $100 million campaign, that's the other two guys," he said. "We are the grassroots movement to change this country and we depend on you. We depend on you reaching out to your friends and neighbours so they can hear this message of change."

After calling out his rivals in a speech, Edwards met briefly with reporters and chastised the "mainstream media" for what he said was its portrayal of the Democratic race as a two-way contest between Clinton and Obama.

He said voters respond to his message when they hear it, and seemed to suggest his odds of winning the nomination depend on more favourable coverage.

"If you cover me and I'm heard, we'll be successful, it's just that simple," he said. "They just have to hear me, that's literally all it takes. That depends on you being fair and balanced in your coverage."

Edwards portrays himself as the candidate who most strongly backs organised labour. Trade unions are a powerful political force in Nevada, and the candidates have vied for their endorsements.

In Nevada, Obama has won the support of the Culinary Workers Union, which represents casino workers, and the Service Employees International Union. But Edwards said he, not Obama, is the closest to labour.

"I want to say to every union member, including the union members who worked in the casinos and the hotels and the restaurants, that I am the candidate who's been in the back of these hotels and restaurants all over this country helping organise workers," he said.

He called on workers to disregard their unions' endorsements and asked them to caucus for him tomorrow. "Whatever political leadership is trying to tell you to do, I ask every one of those union members to see who is the person who's going to stand up for them," he said.

After coming in second in Iowa and then third in New Hampshire, Edwards finds himself in a tight spot, struggling to prevent the Democratic race becoming a two-way contest between Obama and Clinton.

Only a fraction of the total convention delegates have been awarded thus far, so mathematically the race still is up in the air. But without a victory under his belt, Edwards is at risk of ceding precious momentum and media attention to his better-funded rivals.

The volunteers appeared to respond favourably to Edwards' tough talk on his rivals.

"It's about time he stood up for himself," said William Harpster, a retired operating engineer. "All's you hear about is a black guy is running and a woman is running. You don't hear about him. It's about time he came out fighting."

I suppose you have a point there... but THE important thing is a democrat in the White House with a significant majority in both houses of Congess.

YOU'D better recognize.

How much will Edwards benefit from the bi-polar bump?

I do... only too well.