View Story | 892 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
I personally try to not use anything like "Billary" or "Clintonista" or anything like that.
Although I do make an exception for "paultard". Speaking of which, where have all the paultards gone?
"They're trying to fool you. They're trying to scare you. And they're not telling you the truth." Obama '08
by bawbie on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 06:44:01 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
I'm a proud John Edwards Democrat Contribute to Jim Neal for Senate, NC
by nannyboz on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 06:48:08 AM PDT
Wasn't it sung by Peter Paul and Mary? ;-)
by Flint on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 06:50:33 PM PDT
"I wouldn't trade one stupid decision / for another five years of life." -- LCD Soundsystem
by tomjones on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 06:48:30 AM PDT
Let me first apologize on behalf of my fellow Obamiacs. There should be no belittling of somebody else's voting preference, or strong-armed attempts to make them switch their votes.
Honestly, it is probably just a result of the excitement we feel about Obama, and our strong desire to see him as our presidential candidate. We view Edwards supporters as sharing our desire for progressive change, and we'd love to have you on board if your candidate doesn't become viable enough. But if you want to stand by Edwards, I completely admire and support that as well.
I think if the shoe were on the other foot, and Edwards was in a neck-and-neck with HRC while Obama was trailing, I'm sure all of you Edwards supporters would be imploring Obama supporters to join you. Some might do so with more vigor than others, and might rub some people the wrong way, but it would all be out of passion for the candidate. It's just human nature.
This presidential race is an incredibly important one. None of us want 4 years of McCain, which I fear could be the case if Hillary is our nominee. I'd love for Edwards supporters to consider joining us down the home stretch, but that's a decision for y'all to make in your own time.
Old Man McCain.com - the best anti-McCain blog on the web!
by existenz on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 06:55:52 AM PDT
..big difference. I live in Connecticut, voting on Super-Duper Tuesday. But Connecticut truly is not on anybody's radar in terms of important primaries. So my plan is to vote Edwards, because it's not going to make a difference in favor of Obama or Hillary anyone. Then I support the winner who he or she is. If Edwards drops out in the next week, I will then vote Obama.
by gladkov on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 07:13:22 AM PDT
in MA too. I voted for him in 2004 after Kerry was the presumptive nominee, and I'll do it next week. Hillary is likely to win here no matter what I do. I'm not one to jump on a bandwagon. I'll get on Obama's team if he wins the nomination.
There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious...that you've got to put your bodies on the gears...and make it stop. -- Mario Savio
by Boston Boomer on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:42:40 AM PDT
I'd have to disagree and say MA is definitely in play. It says something that Patrick, Kerry and Kennedy have all signed up and mean to take it to the mat. Sure, endorsements are what they are, but that's a whole lot of network and a whole lot of star power, and the fact they all felt safe to do it says something as well.
Support who you want, and more power to you, but don't count us out.
-Obama '08!
by dadafountain on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 11:22:57 AM PDT
I'm not sure how much the Kennedy endorsements will help here. Ted Kennedy is not universally loved. Making up 30 points is a lot to do. You never can tell, but I think it's unlikely.
by Boston Boomer on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 11:28:10 AM PDT
It's the congressional districts that divvy up the delegates. So, she can win one of the smaller districts 80-20 and he could win a larger one 55-45 (yeah, I know John Edwards is in there - I'm just making the math easier), and he picks up more delegates as a result.
If John Edwards wins some delegates, that only muddles things further.
The point being, in Democratic primaries, "statewide" polls are banta fodder.
Crucial Taunt - we really wail!
by markhaverty on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 03:54:12 PM PDT
That means John's voice, which is much more progressive than Barack's, will be heard at the convention.
"In the end we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends." MLK, changed to this during the 2008 FISA fight
by bewert on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 06:14:34 PM PDT
early voting, so I wanted to beat the super tuesday rush. I feel really good about voting for my candidate.
All I can do now is let the chips fall.
"United we stand, divided we fall"
by Cassandra77 on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 04:32:27 PM PDT
...in the polls above Obama in East TN. Obama is ahead in Middle TN. Don't know about West TN. Of course, both Obama and Edwards are behind Hillary. :/
"Never, never, NEVER give up!" --Winston Churchill
by rioduran on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 07:10:58 PM PDT
I'm in NY and will be surprised if Hillary doesn't sweep. I thought about voting for Obama here to help him, but then I just couldn't quite make that decision, because (even though he isn't going to win) Edwards speaks best about what matters to me, and how many times in my lifetime am I going to have a chance to vote for someone because they best represent me and speak to me. I almost envy those of you who do feel that is true for you of Obama, because you might even get a chance to vote for him twice.
by Ramelle on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 04:53:07 PM PDT
Hillary is first, Edwards second, Obama a weak third.
Support Andrew Rice for US Senate: link vs. Jim "global warming is a hoax" Inhofe
by tsunami on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 08:23:35 PM PDT
It does make a difference gladkov. The delegates don't just elect the candidate that runs for president, they also decide on the platform. Edwards delegates will probable be closer to my views on the platform than delegates for either of the other candidates, so I will be voting for Edwards even though he probably doesn't have a great chance of winning.
by Calidrissp on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 06:25:20 PM PDT
I appreciate that comment. It's people like you that help Obama. The others harm Barack Obama to paly out their own sick ego games.
"The answer is to end our reliance on carbon-based fuels." Al Gore, 7/17/08
by TomP on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 07:19:15 AM PDT
We all feel very zealously about our candidates. I was a Wes Clark supporter in '04, and I remember when the Kerry people started saying "time to switch! Wes's goose is cooked!"
I finally came around on my own, but gloating and taunting from the Kerry supporters had nothing to do with it. In fact, it probably delayed it.
When your candidate isn't doing well, especially a candidate that many people feel so passionately about as they do about John Edwards (because Edwards, himself, is a passionate candidate, and he's passionate about all the right things, IMO), it takes awhile for a supporter to come to terms with it. It's a very personal sense of loss, especially for political junkies like all of us here.
So, Edwards fans, the Obama campaign would, of course, love to have your support. But, Obama fans, we're not going to hasten the process by taunting JRE's supporters, and we may give people a bad taste in their mouths that would make Edwards's supporters less enthusiastic about Barack if/when they do switch (and I'm not suggesting that the Edwards-Obama switch is the only possible one -- Hillary is the second choice of some Edwards folks).
Edwards could also decide to stay in until the convention, and if he does so, it's his choice and his choice alone. If he decides to do this, some supporters will switch, and some will stick with Edwards. Don't discount or marginalize these people, because they are some of the most committed folks in the race. And I think that when push comes to shove, if we have a brokered convention, an Obama-Edwards deal is more likely than a Hillary-Edwards deal.
So, fellow Obama supporters, lay off the Edwards folks.
"There is nothing false about hope." -- Barack Obama
by DC Pol Sci on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 07:42:19 AM PDT
You are helping Obama with that. In the end, if he prevails, you want our support. While we are democrats, the persoanl insults we received for a year from people like Adam B and Geekesque ("Edwards supporters are cockroaches") and a few others push most of us away from Obama that it would be hard to even vote for him in November, althoug we probably would.
Those people may have done irrevocable harm to Barack Obama. Time will tell.
by TomP on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 07:50:06 AM PDT
Nuevoliberal.
One of the worst of the worst.
The truth is an offense but it isn't a sin.
by FormerRep on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 08:02:29 AM PDT
about Obama. He is just anti-Edwards.
by TomP on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 08:04:50 AM PDT
very annoying anti-Edwards BS. Definitely NOT reformed.
Bill had Bimbo eruptions ... Crazy John has Rambo eruptions
by kbman on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:01:57 AM PDT
let me say that your sometimes overzelous support of Edwards has rubbed this Obama supporter the wrong way on many occasions.
But enough of that.
With the race so close it is now important to keep our eyes on the prize and get the most progressive person, be it Obama or be it Edwards, in the Oval Office next January.
It's time for both Obama and Edwards supporters to call a truce. This means no more gloating and no more sour grapes. Concndtrate on what it takes to beat HRC on teh convention floor if necessary and then unite the entire party to smash GOP in Novmeber as we will never have a better chance in our lifetime to do so.
In John McCain we have the opportunity to experience Bush's Third Term.
by Sam I Am on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 08:27:33 AM PDT
I have been tempted a few times to list all the reasons that I was dissatisfied with Edwards as a candidate, but I have tempered that because I HAVE NO BEEF with Edwards, and I have no beef with Edwards supporters, except when they get on this, "my candidate is the only one, ever" thing.
I was for Edwards! I switched to Obama mid-December. I had Edwards people accuse me of lying when I said I switched, and I then went back and reposted links to posts going back to 1986 saying I was for Edwards, the most recent post being one praising him as the winner of the Vegas debate and how me and my family were headed to ActBlue to give more money. So I WAS for Edwards.
I just was never religious about it. That's something foreign to me. I have seen that kind of allegiance to candidates many times over the years, and always been somewhat baffled by it, and disdainful, I suppose, because it rubbed the cynical rationalist part of me the wrong way to identify too much with a candidate, especially based on his rhetoric. And sometimes Obama makes me sick with his rhetoric. I just understand, though, that this is something that other people do, even though I don't respond to it.
Edwards people -- Obama could use your support. But you already know that. I figure the ones that can be poached have already long been poached, and the remaining ones are open to a Hillary presidency and, thus, are better off left to Edwards at this point.
by Dumbo on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 08:50:57 AM PDT
I don't think so.
Dean DNC ka-ching! button
by x on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:02:31 AM PDT
I'm getting old. SOOOOooo OOoooold...
by Dumbo on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:21:20 AM PDT
Just razzin' ya. ;-)
by x on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:46:46 AM PDT
However, I am not thrilled with either Obama nor Clinton and therefore will not be 'poached' now or later. I support John Edwards totally at this point. IF he does NOT become the Dem nominee, THEN I will support who ever IS the Dem nominee, Obama, Clinton or Pogo.
Until then I remain in support of John Edwards for President.
God is in your spare change, your job is giving it to strangers. - Billy Jonas
by Audri on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:08:29 AM PDT
were running!
We had a possum running this cycle, but he was a Republican from Tennessee.
A Republican is a person who says we need to rebuild Iraq but not New Orleans. - Temple Stark
by Christopher Walker on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 10:11:37 AM PDT
DE.
IGTNT
by blue jersey mom on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 11:01:00 AM PDT
..a popcorn popper?
Yikes.
I'm still an Edwards supporter, and a Patriots fan. Not having the best year here...
by Stymnus on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 02:02:30 PM PDT
the remaining ones are open to a Hillary presidency
Not necessarily, Dumbo. I, for instance, am opposed to a Hillary nomination, though I would hold my nose and vote for her (as I would for any Democrat) if it came to it. Obama is my second choice, and Edwards remains my first choice. I cannot be "poached". I cannot be insulted away from my candidate, either, as too many supporters of both the other candidates seem willing to do.
We'll see what happens on Super Tuesday. If Edwards drops out afterward, I will switch my allegiance to Obama and caucus for him on February 9. Otherwise, I'm committed to my candidate, and he has earned my loyalty.
Want to be a living kidney donor? I need one from someone with a bloodtype of B or O. Drop a note at riverheart.livejournal.com.
by Kitsap River on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 11:49:12 AM PDT
There is so much nastiness and hatred in some of those diaries that it makes me step back and ask "Why would my second choice be for that candidate?" So maybe there is no second choice for me right now. I will still vote for Edwards and let everyone fight it out.
Kerry was not my first choice either but I gave to his campaign and put signs in my yard. I do not see that happening this time around. And apparently no one needs my vote or support. For every nice diary asking for me to change candidates, there are 5 that turn me off. I am not happy with the top two candidates that I use to like. There are things about each that make me stop and say, will this work? I don't think so. In fact, I liked Chris Dodd and even Biden better.
I'm voting for the Democrat! End of story!
by BarnBabe on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:09:09 AM PDT
by Boorad on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:29:07 AM PDT
in my case,
there is still no clear second choice for me right now
(emphasis mine)
well, I've already voted for Edwards in the (maybe/maybe not counted) Florida primary.
But even for the general, I have no clear 2nd choice. I may hold my nose, or I may hold my head up high, but I am a devoted Democrat all the way.
This was a much needed diary, nannyboz, and I confess to have even jumped in the fray these last few days. Sometimes I watched (lurked), shaking my head, and sometimes I felt I had to say something. Sometimes I was just as mean and nasty, and I regret that now. At some point in the not so distant future, we will have to come together and forgive and forget what was said in the heat of primary season.
In the meantime, GO JOHN!
Republicans: Your history has earned you a new mantra: "War and waste." ~~ Marta Jorgensen (CA-24 in '08)
I am an Edwards Democrat!
by Scubaval on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:46:24 PM PDT
I remember your posts on the Clark blog. It appears that we are in different camps this time around. The taunting from the Obama folks has me to the point where last night I told my wife that if Obama gets the nomination, I will not cast a vote for president in the next election. If the primary race reaches my state, I may just vote for HRC, even though I don't much like her. It is the taunting from Obama supporters that has me feeling this way, not Obama himself.
As noted in the diary, when you marginalize Edwards, you marginalize us... Obama supporters, continue at your own risk.
Liberals and conservatives are two gangs who have intimidated rational, normal thinking beings into not having a voice on television or in the culture.
by Dave B on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 07:53:11 AM PDT
...that you will sit out the General because of a few incidents of name-calling.
I am an Edwards supporter, and will vote for him in the Primary. However, I will shift my loyalties to the Democratic nominee when that nominee is decided.
Do you REALLY want to see President McCain? Or President Romney? Or President (shudder) Huckabee? Then sit out the damn General Election. I don't care if the Obama fans said that my mama sells potato chips...she stands on the corner and shouts "Lays, 99 Cents"...my mama is dead, and you know what they say about sticks and stones.
Again: I support Edwards for now. I support the Democratic nominee in the General Election. End of story.
McCain = Death. "I'm tired of being afraid." -- Michelle Obama
by Pris from LA on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 08:05:12 AM PDT
stomach. Hillary would beat McCain and there is evidence that any one of the candidates could beat McCain. This black and white stuff has to stop.
If Hillary got the nomination it would not be the end of the world. Nor would it be the end of the world if Obama won. Bottom line is that all three candidates are a far cry better than Bushco...and that statement is supported by FACTS. Not hyperbole or Clinton is really a republican, or Obama is really a republican or Edwards is a Spoiler, crap. Those kinds of arguments are crap, not based on truth. Not based on voting records, not based on reality.
Obama fans on this site are hurting Obama in my humble opinion.
The greatest gift you can contribute to the goal of world peace is to heal.
by wavpeac on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 08:36:59 AM PDT
because of her hawkishness, ties to business and history with right wing animosity. Of course, it won't be "the end of the world" if she wins. I will still vote for her in the general, but I won't be happy about it. I don't think there's anything wrong with expressing those concerns.
Sí Se Puede Cambiar
by pontechango on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 08:59:43 AM PDT
I have no problem with people expressing reservations, or giving their reasons for not choosing a particular candidate. I am talking about the vicious and emotion laden hatred. That is wrong against any candidate. And I have seen more hatred leveled at Clinton on this site than any other candidate.
The Clintons may have done some things that hurt america. But they absolutely did many things that helped america. To deny the truth about this is emotion mind and a cognitive distortion. I have had one reply after another from Obama people who cannot admit that the Clinton years were good for America, that the Clintons helped the poor and middle class, that the welfare to work programs with long term counseling and child care credits were helpful not harmful, that balancing the budget was a good thing that had at least some impact on the economy and creating a perfect storm for a good economy. These Obama fans have not expressed "reservations" but had expressed black and white cognitive distortions about what the Clintons did and didn't do.
I have no problem with people having differing opinions, but when you can't give the Clintons any credit whatso ever for good things they have done, when all you can do is call them "evil" then there is something besides rational thought going on.
These are the posts that offend me, and there have been too many to count.
I am for Edwards but time and time again, I felt the need to set the record straight because of the lies, and distortions that some of these Obama fans have needed to spew.
by wavpeac on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:28:51 AM PDT
In my opinion, Clinton was a huge disappointment that really failed the progressive community on NAFTA and welfare. I don't think think the tech boom and economy had much to do with the Clinton administration, but I do agree with you on the debt. Regardless, the Clintons were far better than any Republican candidate. Absolutely.
But I totally agree with you on the name calling. I can't stand the "Billary" nonsense. It reminds me much of the psychotic Republican hatred in the 90s.
by pontechango on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:41:13 AM PDT
And as to welfare, I was working with the poor and minorities. Do you remember how gang violence decreased to almost nothing? We went from 20 murders a year to 0, in 1999. That was good for minorities. The welfare to work programs and domestic violence programs were a HUGE benefit to the poor and working poor.
All I said was that they were a mix of good and bad, and they sure weren't republican.
I guess it really bothers me because it invalidates how bad it has gotten under Bush. I work with the poor and working poor and I can't tell you how my heart aches daily for clients where we have no programs to help them, I have no answers. When Clinton was in office we had programs, referrals for them, light at the end of the tunnel. During bush that light has gone dark. So it really bothers me when the Clintons are so maligned.
It's like I have real peoples tears on my shoulders and real nightmares over what Bush has done and I cannot compare on any level the "bad" policies of the Clintons with what Bush has done. THere is no comparison. All I know is that during the 90's I could help people, today, there are too many times when the only solution is to watch them go without their meds, or food.
by wavpeac on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:51:31 AM PDT
with poor families. He was very unhappy with Clinton's program. I can't tell you specifics but he thought it was a disaster in Massachusetts.
by pontechango on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:54:23 AM PDT
was not bad and remember that psychiatrists are doctors. Doctors hated the clinton plan to change the health care systerm. At that time they feared making less money and that the insurance companies would be making the decisions...which they were. The actual programs compared to any republican regime (and that's all we had to compare to unless you wanted to go all the way back to 4 years with Carter-but I wasn't working in my field then)were substantially better than Bush.
That's all we can compare to. We have Clinton...8 years. Then all republicans. The republican regimes were HORRIBLE for the poor. Maybe Clinton could have been better, but my god!! it was hardly bad.
by wavpeac on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 10:18:03 AM PDT
His dislike for Clinton's plan had nothing to do with his income. He's one of the least materialistic people you could ever meet. If you knew him, you wouldn't say that. I wish I could give you his exact criticisms, but it was definitely about the impact on his patients. It's not my field so I can't say much more than that.
by pontechango on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 10:44:46 AM PDT
we had the biggest amount of money ever from a president for people in domestic violence situations and sexual assault. This was the only president in 30 years that funded a program like this. If you know mental health then you know that a big chunk of mental illness stems from domestic violence and sexual abuse and assault. We added several therapists and probably 3 new programs because of the VAWA funding that bushco has defunded.
I can't think of any reason a psychiatrist would have a problem with the Clintons other than the very real fight between the insurance lobby and the medical lobby. Psychiatrists were being told by insurance companies who could be hospitalized and for how long.
In my state the Psychiatrists meet with the patient for 15 minutes and are not on the front lines. I work in a agency making 35k a year. I cannot compare the devastating effects of Bush to the Clintons. The Clinton years were much better than ANY republican regime. And we have no other dem to compare.
Some docs didn't like welfare to work, but the dems attached all kinds of good programs on to the welfare to work. We counseled people for as long as a year and taught emotional intelligence skills along with your traditional dress for success. These people got real counseling and ended up with "careers" not just jobs. But without the counseling and behavioral skills that these programs provided most would have been doomed to fail. It's sad that people don't know the specifics of those years.
Today, in the last year, we are 80k under budget, we have cut 3 counselors and we provide no counseling in the welfare to work program. The only folks who get in now have to be emotionally ready to roll. It makes me very sad.
by wavpeac on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 11:01:56 AM PDT
unskilled and disabled patients who had real problems with joining the workforce. I emailed him asking for more details and will post them for you. I hear what you're saying and he's no fan of Bush, believe me. He's to the left of 95% of Dkos readers.
by pontechango on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 11:21:28 AM PDT
Which is different than welfare. Those people once on disability do not have to work. Unfortunately, those people especially the ones who need meds are being forced to pay out of pocket for pay downs. And now are paying huge chunks of their disability incomes for medicine.
I am not saying the Clintons were great, but by comparison to the years of republican rule, criticism seems out of line considering how bad it has gotten both before and after Clinton. Reagan sent all those folks who needed mental health care out into the streets. Bush one did nothing to remedy it.
The biggest problem I saw were the HMO's who were making the psych decisions about when someone would be released or treated. This caused some actual deaths as far as I am concerned. I saw people released because they could not pay, and then kill themselves.
That was bad, but no worse really, then under Reagan or Bush 1.
by wavpeac on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:29:25 PM PDT
Bill's plan was a problem in that he didn't put in enough family protections as he eliminated Aid to Dependent Children. Traditionally, Democrats wanted to include in such a bill, significant job retraining (several years including college so that mothers coming off welfare won't just get low level jobs), supportive welfare during transition to a job, with financial help if the jobs were low wages, family health benefits (which at least in MA, I think are provided but this is a state by state proposition not federally guaranteed), and federally subsidized child care which would be either at the job or convenient to the working moms. Basically, Bill Clinton caved to allowing states to make their own rules and did not provide either federal mandates or enough dollars. The absence of child care is the biggest problem in MA. Often the mother's wages don't leave much after she has to pay for childcare and children are mostly in unregulated childcare, in relative's or neighbor's homes. Liberals had a vision of good childcare modeled after programs like Headstart but for many different ages that would provide both early childhood education and skill building (sports, academics, crafts, music, etc) for older kids.
by pontechango on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 07:20:23 PM PDT
child care credits are examples. We did get federal money for child care. That continues today though it has been defunded by Bush. It's much harder to get the money and to qualify for it. But we got it. Also the Clintons started VAWA the Violence Against Women Act. This was the first time that the feds put money into programs designed to help families of domestic violence. What we found was that many families in poverty were also dealing with domestic violence. Not just a few the stats on DV are huge. It affects a womans ability to work because she is often stalked or up fighting all night. Absenteeis, os a big problem. We also got federal money for Welfare to Work programs that funded up to a year in counseling. So if there were underlying personality disorders or substance abuse, we actually were able to provide intensive counseling.
We never saw anybody fall off the rolls into the abyss. What happened was that we were able to assess people for the first time. Those who could not make the 18 month mark, went on disability usually because they just were too impaired to work. This worked well.
I live in Nebraska a very republican state. Our state does not fund social service programs. We fund zoos.
Honestly, compare to the 20 years of republican reign, 8 years of Clinton was actually wonderful for the poor. At least from my vantage point. The Vawa money (bill clinton grew up in domestic violence) was pretty much defunded by Bush as well.The conservatives tried to argue it was destroying families. Yah, he beats her face in so badly she needs dental work but if she gets a divorce THAT'S what is destroying families.
Anyway, this is what I mean. I think a lot of people argue the republican talking points, or remember the fears but don't realize because they weren't there, that Clinton and the dems attached a lot of good funding to those bills. It really was not a bad thing. And if you compare it to now?? Any dem would be better than no dem if you think the Clintons were bottom of the barrell. Truth is they were the ONLY dems to get in there and get a chance to fight the neo cons. And they took an awful lot of heat and continue to do so. It's not pretty.
I do worry for Obama and his fans who seem a tad unaware of the big huge wall in front of them when it comes to the neo con lobby.
by wavpeac on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 05:05:35 AM PDT
by pontechango on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 10:45:16 AM PDT
have made Hillary into some sort of demon. It's bad enough that the GOP does it. You can disagree with her and her positions without being nasty.
by cwaltz on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 01:05:47 PM PDT
through their own grieving process over their chosen candidate. Politics gets very emotional when you are really involved. I'm sure most Kossacks will end up voting for the Democratic nominee. I really don't think lectures about it at this point are that helpful.
by Boston Boomer on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:47:22 AM PDT
...people with this mentality will have to make up their mind. On one hand, how many times have I seen the call of "Primary them to extinction" when a Democrat voted too many times against your wishes? How many times have I read that things will never change because they don't feel the fear to be left behind on re-election because of their actions?
Supporting any Democratic nominee, even if in your core, you can't abide what they stand for gives exactly the same results: No consequence to ones action, hence no change in the long run.
I want my epitaph to read: He did whatever the fuck he wanted.
by Deltones on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 01:27:06 PM PDT
...the behavior of some Obama followers has put you off of Obama himself. I know that Obama would not approve of the behavior of his followers here. This is naturally a passionate place, though, and a lot of folks here say things that the candidate they support wouldn't approve of.
If you're an Edwards supporter at the present, follow your heart. If, at some point, you decide Edwards is no longer a viable candidate and that you need to switch to HRC or Obama, I urge you not to let what you read from supporters of any candidate on dKos sway your choice. The Hillary people can be pretty vituperative, too (but there are fewer of them in these parts). And, sad to say, even some Edwards supporters can (though I'll say what I often say -- the Edwards supporters tend to be the most civil of the lot).
by DC Pol Sci on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 08:11:19 AM PDT
it is personal. That's why I can't switch to any other candidate. I live below the poverty line and need a freaking surgery that I can't afford. I care about people living in poverty deeply, so it's obvious to me why I can't support another candidate. Edwards has fought the special interests, and is not heavily funded by the health care industries and big pharma like the others. I trust that Edwards would work hard for UHC and I believe he'd work hard to implement much of his poverty platform. I am not convinced that either Obama or Hillary would do the same. I'm not trying to be combative, I just hope that some of you will realize why people like me fight for Edwards.
Netroots Director for Oregon Senate Candidate Jeff Merkley
by sarahlane on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:21:00 AM PDT
I'm not below the poverty line, but I know that poverty for a lot of people is one personal disaster away. And with the irresponsible and treasonous behavior of the current administration, the likelihood of personal disaster is just around the corner.
I also carry with me my family history of struggles from the nineteenth century on, through the depression, wars, recessions and more.
I also carry with me the knowledge that, through the policies of FDR and the New Deal, this perilous situation does not have to exist. I don't have a sense that Clinton or Obama have this perspective. John Edwards clearly does.
Edwards Democrat My moniker is in honor of three generations of women whose soul's were seared in the cauldron of Hell's Kitchen, NYC
by hells kitchen on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 01:12:41 PM PDT
If I should jump ship because this candidate is no longer viable, then I am letting other people who voted before me making my decision. This is a problem we don't like about in regards to the primary process where some people get to choose first and that our choice has been tainted by their choices.
I refused to join the bandwagon, and I felt unfortunate that others jumped ship citing that so and so candidate is no longer viable. I've seen too many in recent days.
by acnetj on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:53:52 AM PDT
If I should jump ship because this candidate is no longer viable, then I am letting other people who voted before me making my decision
the one who's Not Viable (tm) in the primary and studiously ignored by the press, polled better than the frontrunners when going head to head against the Republicans. Now I've come to wonder if it's ironic or intentional. I'm not saying that they're rigging the election, but if Big Media were trying to pick the primary winner to set us up for a loss, I can't imagine what they'd do differently.
Republicans play only rigged games.
by output on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 11:03:15 AM PDT
There are right-leaning journalists who would love to saddle the Dems with an unelectable candidate, but they are a far smaller factor than the whole Village's anti-Edwards bias.
You just have to look at the pronouncements from people like the head of the chamber of commerce - US corporations and some of the super-wealthy are deeply threatened by Edwards, and will do whatever they can to downplay his message and keep him out of the race. In these enlightened times, that includes many within and at the top of the media. They have done a good job of keeping Edwards out of the limelight and offering the Democratic voters a simple Coke/Pepsi choice.
"Problems can't be solved by the same level of thinking that created them" Einstein
by Brecht on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 11:50:45 AM PDT
happening at FCC meetings. People are so outraged that they're attending, in hoardes, public meetings nationwide. These are Americans I'm talking about. From my perspective, it's a beautiful thing. From the Big Media perspective, it's got to be scary. After almost thirty years, the jig might finally be up; the peasants are storming the castle and all that. Remember what Sumner Redstone famously said? He's not generally considered a right-wing knuckle-dragger, but he votes like one. And reporters and commentators who work for him and his ilk generally act accordingly. Regardless of their personal politics.
by output on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:01:35 PM PDT
and commentators do and say. The problem is at the top. Anyone else is following orders. My dream is that reporters and actors and their unions would pool their rescources and start up independant real-news networks where sponsors have an understanding that "advertise on our network if you want, but you cannot have any affect whatsoever on the news and/or investigative reporting.
by swtexas on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:38:38 PM PDT
just spend a little time at MyDD and the feeling will pass.
by Sam I Am on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 08:16:23 AM PDT
Are they supporting her or bashing her?
Things are going to get a lot worse before they get worse. ~ Lily Tomlin
by vigilant meerkat on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 08:43:08 AM PDT
and it's not too pretty...the thought of Hillary actually pulling this thing out.
by existenz on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:26:32 AM PDT
She is my likely second choice, but I'll be voting for Edwards, who I think will still be in the race on Feb 5 (and Feb 6, for that matter).
by vigilant meerkat on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:55:30 AM PDT
are NOT Obama. I am also a committed Edwards voter. But, I will NOT let any commenter or diarist presume to speak for the candidate himself. That does him a disservice. Same with Hillary supporters. Obama is going to be in Boise on Saturday. Old timer and I will probably go see him, as it is a public event. Our attendance will not change our minds about who we are going to vote for on Super Tuesday, tho. It is a sign of respect that we will attend. After all, he is an African-American with a good chance of being our first Black President. That is a history-making change, and we need to be a part of it. Also, if Hillary came to Boise, we would probably see her as well. We would be thrilled if Edwards came to Boise, but haven't heard if he will. Finally, I must say that I haven't see such a well-organized campaign for President as the Obama team has shown since Carter, who had an effective election team, as well.
"This is not our America and we need to take it back." John Edwards.
by mcmom on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 08:25:09 AM PDT
at Yearly Kos in Chicago. I saw him up close and personal and was underwhelmed. Mr. Meerkat went to the Edwards break out (he signed up for Hillary, but there was a misunderstanding and he switched). He came out impressed and commited. I was impressed with Edwards as well.
I plan to vote for Edwards in the primary, even though his chances are not looking that great. I also plan to vote for the Dem nominee in the general. But I won't do so happily if the nominee is Obama. It isn't the conduct of his supporters here on dKos, which I've not seen a lot of because I generally only go into the Edwards candidate diaries; it is more my deep discomfort with many aspects of Obama's performance as a Senator and the way in which he has run his campaign. Nonetheless, the Obama supporters seem unable to accept that others may not like what they see, and appear to take it personally. They need to step back and accept that not everyone views Obama as the answer to all our problems.
by vigilant meerkat on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 08:52:12 AM PDT
I met a young teacher at an Obama rally in New Hampshire. She used to be an Edwards supporter but switched to Obama after Edwards spoke at a very small event in a New Hampshire town. She characterized him as obviously disappointed by the turn out and a bit phony in the situation. It really turned her off.
So, there you have contrasting up-close-and-personal story. Personally, I prefer voting records and policy platforms as the basis for choosing my candidate. And Obama's are just as good as Edwards, IMHO.
by pontechango on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:04:41 AM PDT
regarding voting records and policy platforms, which are the primary reasons I support Edwards, and why I don't support Obama. In my original comment, I somewhat inartfully referenced Obama's "performance as a Senator" (i.e., voting record), and "the way in which he has run his campaign" (i.e., his policy and platform). Thanks for affording me the opportunity to clarify that.
by vigilant meerkat on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:12:06 AM PDT
Obama has a stellar record on the environment and some visionary information technology proposals. These things matter a great deal to me and are why I'm a big fan of Al Gore.
But I understand your concerns and I think Edwards is excellent on trade and health care.
I've said this many times over: between the two, I am ambivalent about who is a better candidate. I just think that they're both heads above Clinton. She made her authorization for the Iraq war an ultimatum on her candidacy and I'm holding her to it.
by pontechango on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:19:17 AM PDT
After reading every proposal that Obama, Hillary and Edwards have put forth. I think Edwards is the strongest, Hillary second and Obama last. Edwards is the only candidate proposing a massive WPA style jobs program. Hillary has great education proposals and policy ideas for vets. Both Edwards and Hillary have bolder proposals on energy as well. It's normal for people like you to disagree with me on this....that's what we do here. My big issues are poverty, health care and creating a new energy economy...and that's why I think both Edwards and Hillary stack up above Obama when it comes to the depth of what they're proposing.
by sarahlane on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:28:01 AM PDT
Obama is not my second choice. I've done my homework as well, and at the end of the day, Edwards is my first choice, Hillary is second, and Obama is third. I realize that mine is not the prevailing view, but I'm comfortable with it.
by vigilant meerkat on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:38:23 AM PDT
virtually "hear" at any rate! I have come to the conclusion that HRC is my second choice as well, and it is nice to hear that others whom I respect think that way too.
by annetteboardman on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 02:38:40 PM PDT
information technology plans, corruption and I think you're mistaken about whose energy p
