Skip to main content

dKos Reader Poll. 12/12 -- 8:44 a.m. to 3:05 p.m. PT. 14,804 respondents.

            2007
            Dec12 Nov Oct Sept Aug Jul Jun May Apr Mar Feb Jan

Edwards      39    33  31  39  34  36  40  39  42  38  26  35
Obama        30    27  16  21  29  27  22  24  25  26  25  28
Kucinich      8     9   5   6   4   3   2   2   2   4
H. Clinton    8     9   9  11   8   9   6   6   3   3   4   4
Dodd          2     7  21   7   0   1   0   0   0   0   0   0
No F'ing Clue 4     4   5   5   5   7   7   5   8   6   *   *
Biden         2     2   1   1   1   0   0   0   0   1   0   1
Richardson    1     1   2   1   6   5   8  13   8   6   5   4
Other         1     3   6   5   7   9   6   5   9   8   *   *
Gravel        0     0   0   0   0   1   1   3   0   0   0   0

"Other" has collapsed as people realize that Gore isn't running, while the support of just about everyone else is fleeing to one of the two potential "anti-Hillary" candidates.

I voted "Obama" this time, not necessarily because I support him, but because the alternatives are no good. Hillary? Yeah right. Edwards? If he hadn't taken public financing, I'd probably go for him (and who doesn't have a crush on Elizabeth?). But I refuse to vote for a guy who will be broke for about seven months in 2008 while the other side beats the crap out of him. I know his partisans have convinced themselves that this doesn't just not matter, but that it's a good thing! Good for them, I guess.

That doesn't mean I think Obama walks on water. Far from it. The guy is going around idiotically attacking Paul Krugman, dancing with homophobic preachers, and while his rhetoric is beautiful upon first listening, an hour later you're left wondering if he said anything of substance at all (and the answer is usually "no").

But this became "process of elimination" for me. I don't "support" Obama, I just plan on voting for him.

And at the end, I'll just be excited to bid adieu to the primary wars and get enthusiastically behind whoever wins, wether it's Obama, Edwards, or Clinton.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 03:33 PM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  I appreciate your ability to tell the world (15+ / 0-)

      that the silly "will not have $$" for months due to public financing is holding any water whatsoever.

      Thank you Tom.

      Thanks to you Kos.  I love hanging out at your place.

      Another day, another devalued Dollar. -6.00, -6.21

      by funluvn1 on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 03:37:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, we disagree on that one, (24+ / 0-)

        but that's okay.  People disagree on things sometimes.  The key thing is Markos said what he thought honestly and let others speak here.  Opposing views have been heard.  You really can't ask for more.  Just fairness.

        "The truth is the system in Washington is corrupt." John Edwards

        by TomP on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 03:39:52 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I Don't Know About Fair or Not... (27+ / 0-)

          But the spike gets driven through Edwards' campaign rather quickly, I think.

          If Edwards gets the nomination, he will win the general election. It won't take a huge warchest for him to defeat Republican candidate whomever.

          This is CLASS WAR, and the other side is winning.

          by Mr X on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 03:42:54 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Thats what I don't get from Kos, (24+ / 0-)

            he keeps saying, rightly  that any of the Dems top three will win,  then that he wont get behind Edwards 'cuz he took public financing.

            If any of them will win, get behind the one  who's policies and positions mean the most to you. Who will bring more real change, get more of the right things done re: Iraq, climate, economy, all things.

            For me that is clearly 1. Edwards,  2. Obama

            If any one of the three can win, get behind the best one....  loudly.

            •  Can Edwards change his mind and opt out of (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Ellinorianne

              matching funds?

            •  When Is Markos Going To Figure It Out? (22+ / 0-)
              But I refuse to vote for a guy who will be broke for about seven months in 2008 while the other side beats the crap out of him. I know his partisans have convinced themselves that this doesn't just not matter, but that it's a good thing! Good for them, I guess.

              What Markos' readership understands that he doesn't is that unions, the DNC, and 527 groups will be spending like crazy.

              Once Edwards wins the nomination, forces allied with the Edwards campaign will outspend the Republicans.

              Everyone except Markos already understands this.  When is Markos going to figure it out?

              •  But there will be an opposing army (8+ / 0-)

                of organizations spending on behalf of the Republicans.  It'll be dicey for a while, I think.  On the other hand, the Republicans are in fundraising trouble... and the Democrats have a bunch of down-ticket races and GOTV efforts to help out.

                I'm an Edwards supporter, and I think he'd win the general regardless of this disadvantage.  But I have to admit, it's still a disadvantage.  Just not one that affects my support.

                With Blue skies ahead, yes I'm on my way... And there's nowhere else I'd rather be

                by DarthParadox on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 04:19:14 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  That's the same army they had before ... and ... (8+ / 0-)

                  ... unlike ours, their army is losing recruits and losing enthusiasm.

                  But there is no spending implication on the general election. That is an entirely separate decision, and both Edwards and Obama have said they will not accept public financing in the general election if the Republicans do not.

                  SupportTheTroopsEndTheWar.com and Energize America

                  by BruceMcF on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 04:46:44 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  But the problem is the gap (2+ / 0-)

                    between the end of the primary race and the general.  If Edwards wins enough delegates to take the election early on - as usually happens; we tend to have an unofficial nominee long before the convention - then he'll still be restricted by the primary spending limits until the general election.

                    I don't think it'll be a huge problem, myself - but it'll take work to make up for it, all the same.

                    With Blue skies ahead, yes I'm on my way... And there's nowhere else I'd rather be

                    by DarthParadox on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 05:00:26 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Indeed (4+ / 0-)
                      I don't think it'll be a huge problem, myself - but it'll take work to make up for it, all the same.

                      Exactly.  We'll need groups like unions, 527's, and the DNC to step in, as they obviously will.

                      It's not a particularly significant problem in the least.  Outside spending is well understood, and ways for the outside groups to do what the official campaign wants without breaking the law are also well understood.  

                      This is all just a way for folks who don't support Edwards for other reasons to slam him.  Markos' notion that Democrats won't be able to respond in that time period if Edwards is the nominee is simply ignorant.

                    •  Yes, it will require different behavior ... (5+ / 0-)

                      ... to the behavior of the nominee ... however, standing outside the "politics as a sporting contest" mentality, and looking at it in terms of getting the things accomplished that I want to see accomplished, those changes in behavior are net positives.

                      Raising profile by fund raising for House and Senate candidates, where in the conventional wisdom that Kos is following the candidate should continue to be spending more hours a day fund raising for his or her own campaign than he or she spends asleep ... I think that is a positive difference for getting progressive policies enacted.

                      Substantial, repeated, fund raising for the DNC in wide range of areas ... in the period between winning the nomination and the Democratic National Convention ... I believe that could reverse the typical position of the RNC having more money than the DNC, and that would be a good thing for building the party infrastructure, and especially towards party building in areas long neglected.

                      Substantial attention to building up grass roots / netroots organization, leading and spotlighting national days of action ... I believe that can have a strong positive role in building progressive infrastructure for not only winning elections in the future, but also for winning political fights after people are elected.

                      SupportTheTroopsEndTheWar.com and Energize America

                      by BruceMcF on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 05:36:43 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  But the primary doesn't have to end (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Miss Blue, DemocracyLover in NYC

                      Clinton is so far ahead she will be in until the end.    A vote for Edwards, extends the primary season.  If it extends until close to the convention the funding gap won't matter.

                    •  Too bad they (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      sgary, Predictor, priceman

                      just can't move up the convention!

                      I have learned there are much more important things in life than winning elections at the cost of selling your soul. John Edwards

                      by Ellinorianne on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 09:31:08 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                •  they won't have a nominee til wel linto summer (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Predictor, MikePhoenix

                  can YOU figure out who is going to win their race?

                  Huckabee?  He has less money than Edwards, FAR less, and less of a network to get it from.

                  JRE 2008
                  The Presidency is NOT a family heirloom!

                  by DrFrankLives on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 06:54:43 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  The problem is (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Lois

                that the "forces allied with the Edwards campaign" will be prohibited by law from coordinating with the Edwards campaign.

              •  So silly (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Lois, chicago minx, Ydef

                you think the Republicans don't have their own RNC, 527s and PACs? And theirs will likely end up with more money than ours. Our biggest asset right now is that our candidates are outraising the GOP by a factor of 2-1, and it's because PEOPLE are more inspired to give to our guys than theirs.

                Now Edwards comes along and cuts off that spigot. Insane.

                If it's a battle of million-dollar donations to 527s, forget it. We're not going to win that one. All the while, Edwards would be unable to respond directly, nor coordinate with those who could.

                •  If he wins against Obama and Clinton... (5+ / 0-)

                  who have outspent him by far, how will you explain that?

                  •  Big if (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    extradish

                    Overall, I think Edwards has the best campaign as far as issues go. However, the sad truth is he is running 3rd in every state or national poll that I have seen recently, a distant third in most cases, and has not gained much ground in the last year. I think it will take a miracle for him to win the nomination. I do hope I'm wrong.

                •  Our 527's Have Outspent Their 527's in Recent Past (10+ / 0-)
                  And theirs will likely end up with more money than ours.

                  We outspent the GOP in 2004.

                  We outspent the GOP in 2006.

                  And we're going to outspend the GOP in 2008.

                  Money is fungible.  If folks can't give to "Edwards for President" in April, they'll give to "Democrats Take Back the White House" or whatever the 527 is that is the generally acknowledged fundraising destination.

                  The correct fundraising vehicle will be well understood by all Democrats this spring after Edwards seals up the nomination.  Folks will know exactly where their $50 donation should go, and that destination will be headed by folks who spend that money exactly where the Edwards campaign wants it spent, all the while staying perfectly within our campaign finance laws.

                  This ain't rocket science.

                •  This matters only (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Geotpf, cwaltz, pioneer111

                  if Edwards were to arise as the clear favorite.  Can any candidate not named Clinton simply win before most of the primaries are complete?

                  Obama may very well be unelectable because he is young and black.  Clinton may well be unelectable because she is female and named Clinton.

                  Any of these three will sweep the Democratic and Democratic-leaning vote during the general.  How well they do in the primary is a very poor indicator of how well they will do in the general.

                  For me the proof came in 1988.  In January 1988 while discussing the election already figured it wold be Dukakis and by simply looking in a poly sci textbook could figure Dukakis would get maybe 100-150 electoral votes. In other words Bush would destroy him.  This was obvious.

                  Yet Mike won early, even though it was obvious he would be crushed.

                  Doing really well in the primary means nothing.  I believe what Dems want more than anything else is to end the Republican nightmare.  Clinton has been assumed to be the most formidable political strategist because of her husband.  But her star may be fading.

                  What Dems might wish to do is keep their choices open.  Keep all three front runners viable and see how it shakes out on the other side.  As long as the horserace continues the Rethugs won't know who to target and Edward's money issues won't be a problem.

                •  Parallel to Kerry and Public Funding? (0+ / 0-)

                  Kerry's problem was that he opted, with Bush, for public funding in the general, but since the Democratic Convention was seven weeks before the Republican Convention, he had to stretch that money out over a much longer period.

                  I have a strong memory, though, of reading that one explanation for Kerry's delayed response to the Swift Boat attacks was that he didn't have any money. Does anyone out there have more on this? Google hasn't been helping.

                  Of course if I were Bush/Rove (perish the thought) and feeling particularly malevolent (wait, that was redundant) I'd launch Swift Boat-type ads when a candidate had as little money as possible . . .

                  A Republican running for office in '08? Like a rat getting on a sinking ship.

                  by Natural Anthem on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 06:07:06 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  he made a tactical choice (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    pioneer111

                    not to respond to the slime.

                    I will make them have it. I will stuff their mouths with Gold!--Aneurin Bevan (on the NHS)

                    by Salo on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 06:33:00 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  But was the choice (0+ / 0-)

                      . . . conditioned by the fact that he had a finite, unreplenishable pot of money?

                      That seems plausible to me, but to really say I'd need more info that I have been able to find.

                      A Republican running for office in '08? Like a rat getting on a sinking ship.

                      by Natural Anthem on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 06:34:29 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  No, it was a decision to stay above the fray, (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Geotpf, Predictor

                        for quite a while they just couldn't believe that anyone would believe attacks on his hero's status.  It was a tactical error.

                        It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change. Charles Darwin

                        by pioneer111 on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 06:38:22 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  correct. (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          pioneer111, ROADRUNNER DEM

                          Idealy he'll be talking about being positive and nice while Moveon rpeatedly stab McHuckimittiani in the heart as he looks the other way.

                          The attacks shouldn't be traceable to our candidate anyway.

                          I will make them have it. I will stuff their mouths with Gold!--Aneurin Bevan (on the NHS)

                          by Salo on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 06:42:25 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                      •  It's quite a serious point (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Geotpf

                        Kerry was too high  minded.  He let it slide as a matter of decision. You also had the TANG story about Bush getting derailed and Dan Rather getting fired.

                        I'm not exactly certain what Kerry was supposed to have done to defend against the swifties.  He said it was BS...The media still talked about it all the time. It was an editorial decision to keep hammering at Kerry's heroism. An ad cannot counter that.  Only a counter attack like the TANG files would have worked.

                        I will make them have it. I will stuff their mouths with Gold!--Aneurin Bevan (on the NHS)

                        by Salo on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 06:46:24 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I believe it's AANG, not TANG n/t (0+ / 0-)
                        •  Swifties (0+ / 0-)

                          Well he did mount a defense of himself and did what needed to be done (getting in touch with old comrades that would vouch for him to the media and in counter-attack ads, gathering intel and info against the swift boaters to discredit them, etc.) then exposing the whole farce to the American public.  Problem was, his defense came only AFTER about two weeks of taking a huge beating in opinion polls because of his strange silence on the issue.  Mary-Jo whatever her name was campaign manager was strongly against going negative and favored the high handed approach.  Kerry lacked the political acumen to overrule her immediately and instead waffled until he was facing his own annihilation via taciturnity, and ended up costing him the war.

                •  moveon.org! (0+ / 0-)

                  dont forget...moveon.org is an 'issues' group.  and they're motivated in all 50 states.  We're not out-numbered anymore.  We have them on the run this time & they know it.  ...something about the 'truth will set you free'!
                  I'm still supporting Joe Biden to the end!  I believe in voting the way I believe and polls wont sway me....GO JOE!

                  Where people fear the government there is tyrany: "Where the government fears the people, you have liberty." Thomas Jefferson

                  by ROADRUNNER DEM on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 07:57:24 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  You're lying or ignorant, Kos. (0+ / 1-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Hidden by:
                  Joe Buck

                  Ask the Edwards campaign about their getting public financing, and you wouldn't sound like such an idiot.

                  •  that is unacceptably rude (0+ / 0-)

                    There's plenty of room for disagreement with Kos's claim that accepting public financing is going to be a problem.  The Edwards campaign disagrees, and Kos knows that.

                    It might turn out that Edwards wins the nomination and everything else, and then Kos will be wrong.  But accusations that our host is lying, without any evidence, is unacceptably rude.  Claims that Kos is ignorant, or that he sounds like an idiot, are equally crap.  He is neither ignorant nor an idiot.

                    And I say this even though Edwards is my favorite.  But I haven't thrown my brain away, and don't think that everyone who disagrees with Edwards on anything is an evil enemy.

              •  Markos already understands it (4+ / 0-)

                It isn't like we haven't seen that ads like the ones Votevets has put out aren't by far very influential. For some reason though Markos puts alot of store in the money game. Me? I just as soon focus on policy positions then who is best at raising dollar bills from people those who can afford it.

                •  I'm with you. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  mightymouse, output

                  Let's look at the people this site raised money for in 06.  How many of them are now voting against our core policy positions?  OK, they won.  So now what?  If we/they/it funded them to vote against us, who the hell wants them or their money in the picture.  That is not my idea of Crashing the Gate.  It is more like Buying the Gate.

              •  Also, if Edwards picks Obama for VP (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Geotpf, ankylosaurus

                Wouldn't Obama's war chest be available for the campaign?

              •  Once wishes are horses, (0+ / 0-)

                beggars will ride.

                Hillary Clinton: America's First Woman President!

                by DCDemocrat on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 07:26:44 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  On the public financing thing, if the 1185 (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Miss Blue, pioneer111

              On the public financing thing, if the 1185 truly progressive respondents will either organize (hand out leaflets) or blog about the December 15th campaign (in observance of the Bill of Rights), and/or make their own $100 contribution, the progressive favorite has a real chance to make a newsworthy target and spend smart money in NH and the Feb 5th states.

            •  Especially since (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Predictor

              Republicans are raising much less money than the Democratic candidates.  I would also bet that if Edwards did win the nomination, he would have no issue getting more money in donations.  I do realize it's the spending limits that are at issue, but with such poor fundraising by Republicans, who knows?

              I have learned there are much more important things in life than winning elections at the cost of selling your soul. John Edwards

              by Ellinorianne on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 09:29:27 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  No, its not the General Election that Kos is ... (9+ / 0-)

            ... fretting about, but the period between winning the nomination and being nominated, when a candidate that has run up against his campaign budget, barring flying around money, would be building his grass roots organization, raising money for the Democratic National Committee instead of monopolizing fund raising for him or herself, with his supporters organizing themselves into advocacy groups to push his platform and attack his opponents ...

            ... that is, doing all that "kicking down the gates" kind of stuff.

            After all, the inside baseball that Kos is worried about the candidate being unable to play has worked so well for building up the Democratic party and winning the Democratic Presidential Elections that I've been voting in since 1980. Why change course when something works so well?

            SupportTheTroopsEndTheWar.com and Energize America

            by BruceMcF on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 04:43:14 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Exactly (0+ / 0-)

              see my post above

            •  SEN BIDEN'S COMMITTEES WILL KEEP HIM ON CAMERA (0+ / 0-)

              There will be so many hearings between now & when Bush/Cheney pack up & go back under their rocks, that Sen Biden will get plenty of air time.  He's the Chairman of the Caucus on International Narcotics Control, Chairman of both the Foreign Relations Committee and the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs.
              You cant help but trip over these domestic & international issues in all the dealings of this admin. from the Poppy fields of Afghan. to the halls of the White House.  
              Hell, between Hayden & Mukasey, even Tweety is forced to interview him.  Maybe even Hannnnnnity.  

              Where people fear the government there is tyrany: "Where the government fears the people, you have liberty." Thomas Jefferson

              by ROADRUNNER DEM on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 08:09:20 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  yeah I just don't believe Edwards will be tied up (13+ / 0-)

          There's lots of ways around it. There's PACs. There's the ability to move the nomination up. He'll have lots of money anyway -- maybe not as much as we'd like, but enough. Then there's the power of the internet.

          The truth is people will get excited about any of our nominees, and getting Bush out. They're not going to let a little thing like a funding cap prevent them from investing their time and money into getting a dem in the white house.

          Hillary is running against Bush. Compared to Bush, we all look like Gandhi. We should expect more than just "not Bush".

          by danthrax on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 03:43:25 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  There's always a way. (5+ / 0-)

            Real change begins in Iowa.

            "Well, you can’t count Edwards out."  True for the primaries and true for afterward.  

            John Edwards on CBS News: Iowa Main St. Bus Tour

            Well, you can’t count Edwards out," said Ann Selzer, who directs the Des Moines Register poll.

            She points to former vice presidential nominee John Edwards’ strong second place showing four years ago.

            "He's been through this before and he knows what it is to surge at the end," she said.

            So what is John Edwards doing? As he did for years ago, he's crisscrossing the state of Iowa arguing that he is the most electable Democrat based on who he is, where he's from, and what he's for.

            Part of the argument is geographic.

            "I'm the one candidate on our side who's actually won in a red state and grew up in small town rural American," Edwards said in Iowa. "And I might add, you know, as a practical matter, the last two Democrats who were elected president of the United States, they talked like this."

            But he also links that working-class background to his core political argument: a frankly populist attack on corporate wealth and power.

            "The power in government, in our country, has become concentrated in the few, affects every single thing that's happening," he said.

            It's the theme of a new ad linking his campaign to his wife's life-threatening illness:

            "And Elizabeth and I decided we're not going to quietly go away," he says in an ad. "Instead we're going to go out and fight for what it is we believe in."

            Edwards end game is simple: find the Iowa Democrats who want change, convince them that change requires a fighter and not Obama's intention to be a healer.

            And hope for a win here that turns a two way fight into a three-way fight everywhere.

            "The truth is the system in Washington is corrupt." John Edwards

            by TomP on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 03:46:53 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  The only impediemt is a fine. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            klarfax

            woopteefuckingdoo!

            I will make them have it. I will stuff their mouths with Gold!--Aneurin Bevan (on the NHS)

            by Salo on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 03:50:58 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  The difference is for a candidate ... (5+ / 0-)

            ... who wants to run a tightly controlled, nuanced campaign.

            For a candidate who is willing to raise headline fund raisers for House and Senate candidates across the country, and for the Democratic national committee, and who will encourage the grassroots and netroots to organize our own issues advocacy groups ... that is, for a candidate willing to play along with "kicking down the gates" ... there are not serious limits.

            For a candidate who wants to funnel all money through their campaign, starve the DNC of funds (yet again), ignore the House and Senate races, looks on the grassroots and netroots as little but an auxilliary source of funds, the public finance limits between winning the nomination and gaining the formal nomination would be a serious impediment.

            But a candidate like that would not take public financing!

            SupportTheTroopsEndTheWar.com and Energize America

            by BruceMcF on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 04:51:11 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  dantrax mused: (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Geotpf

            There's lots of ways around it. There's PACs. There's the ability to move the nomination up. He'll have lots of money anyway -- maybe not as much as we'd like, but enough. Then there's the power of the internet.

            But the problem with this thinking and crux of the issue is this; mounting an immediate and thorough defense of a candidate to 527 attack ads, which was one of the major lessons to be learned from '04.  When the swiftboaters started their campaign based on bullshit, it's not like moveon.org and other friendly 527's to Kerry didn't exist to respond to such ads.  It's that the best person to mount a response and coordinate an accurate rebuttal to the challenge on his war record was Kerry himself.  He knew who his allies and fellow soldiers were at the time that would vouch for him and act as counter attack dogs.  The problem was his failure to act immediately on the issue.  The media did its part by eventually uncovering the funding for the 527's and 200 alleged signatures of soldiers claiming he 'lied' to get his medals finally admitted that they weren't even present during the acts Kerry won his medals over.

            Without that sort of coordination with the candidate itself, it makes it that much more difficult  for moveon.org and other well funded 527's to have any chance to respond to scandalous allegations, whether accurate or not.  As a result, the story took on a life of it's own, and the swift boater's account is STILL accepted as fact by many in the right wing nutosphere.

            Had Kerry had the political acumen to recognize the gravity of this charge on his credibility, he could have been totally on top of squashing them immediately from the lexical narrative, ending the speculation and putting the GOP 527 on the defense, and when the story broke that the people claiming he lied to get the medals WEREN'T EVEN THERE, he could have used that to further capitalize on the dishonesty of the GOP attack machine and made the media focus of the whole issue the bogus 527 rather than his credibility.

            Does Edwards have enough coordination with the DNC, well funded liberal 527's, and labor unions to lead a successful defense of his record without direct communication with him during the 7-8 months until the generals?  With his nomination hardly a certainty, the answer is NO.

            Maybe in future elections, planning and strategy going with the public funding route can be anticipated successfully, but the organization is just not there this time around.

        •  Tell my why it matters (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          dkmich, creeper, mommyof3, Predictor

          The public financing thing.  I don't "get" it.  By taking public funding, Edwards precluded himself for what?  Why will he be broke for seven months?  I am exposing my ignorance here, so please be kind.

          Things are going to get a lot worse before they get worse. ~ Lily Tomlin

          by vigilant meerkat on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 03:44:06 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  he won't have money again until the convention (5+ / 0-)

            Meanwhile, he'll basically go broke during the primaries.  So no money to campaign or advertise... he'd go dark, while the GOP has plenty to throw at him.  I dont' think 527s and the DNC can close the gap.

            That's the Democrats for you, always wanting something for free!
            -Grandpa Simpson

            by Leggy Starlitz on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 03:50:41 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Why won't he have money? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              funluvn1

              Can he no longer receive contributions?

              Things are going to get a lot worse before they get worse. ~ Lily Tomlin

              by vigilant meerkat on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 03:53:24 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Your are wrong. They CAN close the gap. (10+ / 0-)

              I think his campaign and the unions know better than a few bloggers.

              It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change. Charles Darwin

              by pioneer111 on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 03:54:01 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  God, I despise that argument. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                brittain33

                Can I recommend you actually try to make an argument from facts, instead of just saying that bloggers' opinions aren't worthwhile and should be ignored?

                With Blue skies ahead, yes I'm on my way... And there's nowhere else I'd rather be

                by DarthParadox on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 04:21:54 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  His campaign (4+ / 0-)

                is spinning. As for unions, show me one that claims they can match the RNC, the conservative 527s, their PACs, and their candidate.

                Dude, you think I'm sitting in my mom's basement wearing pajamas? You think I don't talk to the political directors of most of the top unions?

                Don't believe every stereotype about bloggers.

                •  Sometimes I think you are profitting... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  ROADRUNNER DEM

                  from your recs.  Why else would you not vote your conscious and  explain why you would pick from only "top tier" candidates.  This post exemplifies the problem with American voters, the whole "vote for the lesser of two evils" thing.

                •  If you don't (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Predictor

                  believe his campaign, fine.  However, why is the benefits of building a party centric campaign a negative to you?

                  Or is that not the problem.  Is it that you don't think he can get the DNC to effectively help?

                  Do you think it isn't ok for him to ask for people to contribute to the DNC or for the DNC to spend money on the party as well as the presidential candidate?

                  Do just not think this method is plausible?

                  The JSamuel Irregular
                  This is going to be an election, Tim, it's not going to be an auction. - JRE

                  by jsamuel on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 06:00:20 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Point made (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  MikePhoenix, ROADRUNNER DEM

                  But why does a winner have to emerge early?

                  Look at the GOP.  Usually they have coronated their guy by now.  Care to predict who is going to win?

                  Early victory in the primary is bad for Dems.  It is better that the race continue so that our candidates stay in the news until the convention.

                  The reason for this is Democratic unity (finally).  I think Democrats have finally realized that the GOP is really different from us.  Our candidates are on the Democratic 15-25 yard line while their candidates are the Republican 15-25 yard line.

                  The difference between our candidates is 10 yards at most, while the difference between us and them is 50 yards at least.  

                  Elected the worst dem is like five times better than the best Rethug.  Policy wise, it doesn't matter a damn which Democrat wins

                  What matters is whether a Dem will win and how big.

                  Nobody knows which Dem will be most potent against the GOP.  Why not delay the decision until more info is available?

                •  I respect and admire your work, kos (4+ / 0-)

                  and did not really mean to be so flippant.  I don't believe stereotypes.  I just disagree on this point with you.  I think we have to go for what we believe is the best.  However I realize that the money issue is an important factor in your decision.  I think there are creative and possibly even good strategies for the party that can emerge.  But first IA and NH or it is all moot.

                  It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change. Charles Darwin

                  by pioneer111 on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 06:34:59 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  But why a half-a$$ endorsement? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  poblano

                  Pardon my language, but...

                  Personally, I give Obama much more credit than you do and think even if he promises less than Edwards, he would deliver more. More importantly, I don't think Edwards has a realistic chance of winning the nomination. He's campainged for 4 years in Iowa and South Carolina and look at the results. He's a different candidate from 2004, but I don't think people are in the mood of giving anyone second chances.

                  I know you're not in your mom's basement... if you are, then I know Bill Maher and others have been there too!

                  So you are letting everyone know that you're supporting Obama, albeit for pragmatic reasons. You know full well what you're doing, so getting back to my point, why express it in the way that you did? The average reader would probably lose some of his/her energy in support of Edwards, but would not be convinced to support Obama either. Who wants to hear "this guy sucks, but hey, he sucks way less than others"? So if you're voting for Obama out of pragmatism, what was the pragmatic point of your post?

                  •  Maybe because Obama is a half-assed candidate. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    mightymouse

                    Kos is right that he never says anything.  All he does is preach and bamboozle. Oprah joining his campaign is further evidence of "glitz" or "bling" over substance.   If Obama didn't have the kids, he wouldn't have anything.  Dean had the kids and the kahones.

                    Kos is also right that Obama sucks less than Hillary.  If nothing else happens in 08 except Hillary and the DLC get their asses handed to them, it will at least be another step towards the gate.  Electing Edwards or Kucinich would actually be crashing the gate.  

                    I trusted Kos' strategy in 04 and funded others besides Dean because Kos was supporting them here.  It was about winning and putting Ds into office.  We were taking our party and our country back. In 06, I said, OK Kos, any D is fine; but I'm not funding them.  In 08, any D is not fine; and I'm not funding them or voting for them. From now on, they are "real" grass roots in their poltiics and principles; or they can KMA.  This includes everyone in the current group of candidates except Edwards and Kucinich.  I still respect Kos' opinions, I just don't agree with his strategy on how to fix things.  

                  •  What results? Obama doesn't have (0+ / 0-)

                    a ground operation like Edwards has in Iowa, and should Edwards win Iowa, he will win SC.

                    A lot of people have fallen for the media bullshit on Obama and Clinton, neither of whom can win in the GE.

                •  Tell the truth, Kos, the WHOLE truth. (0+ / 0-)

                  You aren't.  You sound like an idiot about public financing, and you don't even bother to find out the fact the Edwards campaign, which runs a campaign like a tight ship financially, is taking public financing only for the primaries.  And it will take it for the GE only if the GOP candidate does.

            •  LMAO! (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              nasarius, pioneer111

              No money?

              Please come back and explain how NO MONEY will happen between the primaries and the general.

              You certainly read something somewhere that made you think this is so, but I would love to read your detailed reasoning.  

              I know what the real reasoning is.  Tell me your part of that, and I'll let you know what the reality is.

              Remember, in detail.

              Another day, another devalued Dollar. -6.00, -6.21

              by funluvn1 on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 03:56:03 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  Other resources for Edwards (7+ / 0-)

            Right now some people are donating to Iowans For Sensible Priorities who are campaigning and advertising for Edwards.  

            His union support also gives him a lot of resources.  This is a lot of money.

            It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change. Charles Darwin

            by pioneer111 on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 03:52:58 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  here's the argument, which is flimsy (14+ / 0-)

            The primaries aren't officially over until August. Until then, Edwards is only allowed to raise a certain amount. About half of which he has already raised, with some cash still on hand. That's about $30-40 million he'd be able to use until august.

            The argument is that he'll run out of money sometime in the spring, and the GOP will just keep pounding on him, while he's unable to do anything. Because the general election officially starts in August.

            It assumes that we can't move up the official nomination date, so he can start taking general election money.

            It assumes that people will see Edwards taking a pounding, WANT to donate because he's the Dem candidate to push Bush out, but they'll just say "oh, I guess my money is no good" and surrender. It assumes that excited people on the left won't find PACs, or use the DNC to fund senate races, or so on.

            It also assumes that Edwards has bad strategy. Which, if he can come behind in Iowa and pull this off in a hostile media climate, would be obviously refuted. If he can beat Obama and Clinton, he can beat the Republicans.

            He's my first choice if he wins. And he's my second choice if he loses. Why not give him a chance to prove himself?

            Hillary is running against Bush. Compared to Bush, we all look like Gandhi. We should expect more than just "not Bush".

            by danthrax on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 03:53:18 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Oh, I want to give him a chance. (4+ / 0-)

              I just sent him a contribution last night.  I didn't understand what Kos has been talking about or the significance of choosing to accept public funding.  Thanks for your explanation Danthrax.  I now understand the argument.  Do you know why Edwards made the decision to accept public funding?

              Things are going to get a lot worse before they get worse. ~ Lily Tomlin

              by vigilant meerkat on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 03:58:44 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  he'll have plenty of money over the GOP (6+ / 0-)

                It doubles his money in the short term though.

                He was getting money. He just wasn't getting that OBAMA money, let alone that Clinton / lobbyist money.

                He's still outraising the Republican field. Save maybe Romney. But Edwards would mop the floor with Romney. There's no way he wouldn't.

                Hillary is running against Bush. Compared to Bush, we all look like Gandhi. We should expect more than just "not Bush".

                by danthrax on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 04:06:14 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  The only way Romney could beat Edwards (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Geotpf, Crisitunity

                  would be if he had six straight months to slam him repeatedly with attack ads while Edwards had no money to fight back.

                  Oh, wait.

                  •  That is just in the imagination of (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    danthrax, mang glider, Predictor

                    Obama supporters that want to distract from the better candidate.  LOL.

                    It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change. Charles Darwin

                    by pioneer111 on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 04:40:23 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  the mormon? pssh (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Predictor

                    You underestimate Edwards's evangelical support. Unfortunate reality of our electoral politics, but one that works in JRE's favor.

                    Hillary is running against Bush. Compared to Bush, we all look like Gandhi. We should expect more than just "not Bush".

                    by danthrax on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 04:46:15 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Yeah cuz (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Miss Blue

                    all the 527s and the Democrats are gonna sit with their thumbs up their butt and aren't going to say anything while Romney smears Edwards.

                    •  The problem is... (0+ / 0-)

                      ...527 ads can not be coordinated with the campaign, and may even be counterproductive.  Remember the "General Betray Us" ad?  That was counterproductive to our cause.  Expect lots of that quality of ads-with nothing from the campaign itself.

                      •  Since when do you need (0+ / 0-)

                        complete coordination to be effective. The swiftboat vets didn't "coordinate" with the Bush campaign and they managed to pull off exactly what they intended. I reject the premise that our 527s could not be equally effective if required. Groups like Vote Vets have had tremendous success without having to "coordinate" with the campaign.

                  •  notice Romney's money helping him against Huck? (0+ / 0-)

                    Nov 30...$327,000, approximately, according to his campaign for Huck.

                    How much has Mitt Romney spent?  $7 million.

                    IOWA--Dec 1--Huck  =27%      (USA election polls)
                                       Romney=28%  

                    Where people fear the government there is tyrany: "Where the government fears the people, you have liberty." Thomas Jefferson

                    by ROADRUNNER DEM on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 08:33:40 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Yeah, but it helped him against Rudy (0+ / 0-)

                      Thing is, Romney's Mormonism is a significant liability in the Republican primary (Rudy's perceived moderate stances on some issues, and his troubled personal life, are similiar).  His wild spending has been able to make this balance tip in his favor-until Huckabee came to prominence.  Huckabee has few liabilities (in the Republican primary, at least), so his lack of money is less of a problem.

        •  Another reason why Edwards just has to win... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mightymouse, Predictor, Jake Williams

          Maybe then Kos will throw his race winner crystal ball away and go with his heart. If you note, he doesn't support Obama, he just predicts he'll win because of money.  This theory supports what Edwards supporters have been saying all along.  Obama and Hillary are the status quo candidates and about as progressive as nylon.

      •  Oh, Kos. (Sigh). You don't have any clue (18+ / 0-)

        how the Edwards campaign spends their money.  This is an unfortunate moment.  You choose a theoretical over principal.

        You are unfortunately so deeply locked into your anti-public funding stance, you can't see the forest from the trees.

        The Edwards campaign has explained in great detail how confident they feel about their resources.  Again.  I repeat, you don't know how they're choosing to spend their money.  No one does.

        They've run a lean, mean campaign.  That Edwards defeats all Republicans by the largest margins in head to head polls, with little publicity should tell you much.

        You've become a victim of your own thinking.

      •  An Auction? (12+ / 0-)

        But I refuse to vote for a guy who will be broke for about seven months in 2008 while the other side beats the crap out of him. I know his partisans have convinced themselves that this doesn't just not matter, but that it's a good thing! Good for them, I guess.

        You could be right here KOS but in a recent CNN report Romney has spent multiple millions to Huckabees a few hundred thousands and Huckabee is pounding him.

        It probably isn't very realistic of me or practical, but I would like to think that our political system isn't an auction and that the candidate stuffing the most special interest dollars in their coffers will always win.

        •  Free market (0+ / 0-)

          "Using church pews as precincts, Rove turned religion into a weapon of political combat" --- Bill Moyers

          by Spoonfulofsugar on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 06:02:45 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not trying to bash Kos, but... (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            philgoblue, Spoonfulofsugar, priceman

            The amount of cash being thrown at Hillary and Obama by PACs and Lobbyist does make me nervous about them.

            Health Services/HMOs: Money to Congress in Election Cycle 2008

            #1. Clinton, Hillary (D) $246,480
            #2. Obama, Barack (D) $175,093
            http://www.opensecrets.org/...

            Pharmaceuticals/Health Products: Money to Congress in Election Cycle 2008

            #1. Clinton, Hillary (D) $274,436
            #2. Obama, Barack (D) $266,384

            Oil & Gas: Money to Congress in Election Cycle 2008
            #2. Clinton, Hillary (D) $220,550
            #6. Obama, Barack (D) $106,112
            http://www.opensecrets.org/...

            Now Obama did take the pledge not take any more money from PACs and Lobbyist at the D-Kos convention and that is too his credit, but as you can see he already has piled up a considerable amount of it.

            One Obama fanatic claimed that he hasn't taken any, but if you go to those links you'll see that they are what has been reported to the FEC, so it is a matter of public record... too bad!

            Health care is a real important issue to me because I just finished doing four years of hospice care for my dad at home and had to give up my career to do it because the costs would have bankrupted my parents.

            Now Hillary argued at that convention that just because you take the money from them that there is no guarantee that any "quid pro quo" is going to take place and in fairness to both Hillary and Obama that may well be true.

            The lobbyist have indeed been busy spreading lots of cash to lots of our representatives in both parties. I posted the Oil Lobby money figures just to point out that it isn't just on health care, but oil and energy, defense contractors... you can sit on that site and pull up every sector of the US economy and see how vast the money in the background is.

            Also it has to be noted that almost everyone in congress has gotten their share of the stack of cash , so few if any have lilly white hands. Edwards did get a small amount of cash from those lobbyist when he was in congress in 2000 and 2004, but he hasn't taken any in the 2008 election cycle as far as the FEC reporting is concerned.

            But it is a matter of record that the lobbyist did buy off a Democratically controlled House, Senate, and White House to kill Universal Health Care in 1993.

            And it is not a secret that our Congress and the President in this administration and the others preceeding it for the last couple of decades have been acting on an agenda that doesn't quite mesh with the interest of the American people as much as it should have.

            I would suspect that not everyone who stuffs that much lobbyist money in their pockets has been voting their conscience!

      •  BTW (0+ / 0-)

        Kos, you really do love you some meta, don't you?

        ;-)

        Me too.  In doses.

        Another day, another devalued Dollar. -6.00, -6.21

        by funluvn1 on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 04:02:25 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Go Edwards - Let us forget Obama quickly (0+ / 0-)

        Edwards is a serious intellect.
        Obama is a mirage.
        ===========================
        Edwards has seen the real life.
        Obama is walking in the clouds.
        ===========================
        I am truly believing in Edwards.
        He makes me forgetting the bad dream called Bill Clinton.
        ===========================

    •  you've got to be kidding (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lobsters, Ydef

      this would be a perfectly reasonable sentiment from just about anyone else here.

      when folks talk about wanting the primary wars to be over, and i am certainly one of them, many of them are speaking about you.

      "after the Rapture, we get all their shit"

      It's time: the albany project low UID's going fast!

      by lipris on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 03:40:23 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  69% (8+ / 0-)

      against Hillary is amazing. I wish the real world followed our call.

      Obama '08.

    •  OBAMA\EDWARDS OR EDWARDS\OBAMA (0+ / 0-)

      Then they'd have plenty of money!!!

  •  a votes a vote (11+ / 0-)

    welcome aboard and stay away from Jerome, he might make a front page post about you!

    Obama/Webb the ticket to greatness!

    by nevadadem on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 03:36:07 PM PST

  •  strangely Kos. (14+ / 0-)

    I actually totally agree with you, no caveats. Just agreement.

  •  What was that sound in your throat (5+ / 0-)

    before the last word of the post? ;)

    We are on the same page here.  Obama is the best viable candidate we've got.  Here's hoping he can pull it off.

    Mission Accomplished: The ultimate in premature ejaculations.

    by stillnotking on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 03:36:46 PM PST

  •  Tend to agree... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annetteboardman, Texdude50, Lobsters

    though I still have my reservations, because of the homophobic preacher. My state's primary (KY) will only mean something for US Senate though. If, Obama is the candidate I will vote for him, 'tho that is also true of all of these candidates.

  •  No time for polls (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lobsters

    I need to write a candidate diary.  snark

    "Sometimes I wish I could change my nickname" Me

    by givemhellHarryR on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 03:37:00 PM PST

  •  If you only fear Kucinich can not hit back... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lobsters

    because of the long, lean period by which he will be bound by FEC restrictions because of public financing, you are discounting the power of both the lefty netroots and clasical face-to-face organizing in "meatspace".

    527s and individuals making in-kind contributions of self-published lit supporting Kucinich and his agenda will also be effective.

  •  Arrogant (10+ / 0-)

    How do you know it won't be Kucinich?

    The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

    by Dana Houle on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 03:38:12 PM PST

  •  I think a lot of would be Edwards supporters... (12+ / 0-)

    ... are voting for Obama simply because they believe he has a much better chance of winning. Personally, my dream ticket would be Edwards/Obama.

  •  I'd rather have the strongest candidate (20+ / 0-)

    on my issues, and the candidate who has been through a tough, yearlong campaign.

    The DNC and outside groups can spend money and run ads to help Edwards.

    But who is going to save us if Obama, rolling in dough, turns out not to be up to winning this campaign?

    It takes more than money to win an election.

    Find out what firefighters really think of Rudy Giuliani

    by desmoinesdem on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 03:38:28 PM PST

  •  I hope when the primary wars are over... (10+ / 0-)

    most diarists will share your mature and practical reasoning to get behind the g.e. candidate.

    We do seem to love our fights, especially lately.

  •  Obama did not (12+ / 0-)

    attack Paul Krugman.  Paul Krugman attacked Obama, Obama responded - rather tepidly.

    Mother Earth is pregnant for the third time - for y'all have knocked her up. ~ maggot brain

    by itsbenj on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 03:38:50 PM PST

  •  "Wondering if he said anything..." (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    campskunk, Lobsters, mickeynATL

    That was my impression when I saw him in SF in September. He didn't outline any specific policy implementations he'd make. I was rather disappointed.

  •  Glad to have you on board, however tepidly (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    snout, Lobsters
  •  kos supports Edwards! (5+ / 0-)

    See?  This PROVES it!  Because, uh, he's TRICKING us!  That tricky, tricky trickster.

    That's the Democrats for you, always wanting something for free!
    -Grandpa Simpson

    by Leggy Starlitz on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 03:39:36 PM PST

  •  The Bloomberg whispers continue (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lobsters

    according to Tucker Twerp. Said he has a billion bucks burning a hole in his pocket, and that he's talking to Gore, to whom he'd offer the top spot.

    Sounds nutty to me.

    And, I tend to agree with your assessment, though I still can't hang my hat.

    Let the great world spin for ever down the ringing grooves of change. - Tennyson

    by bumblebums on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 03:39:39 PM PST

  •  70 percent (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lying eyes, Lobsters

    say they wont vote for a canidate that has tried cocaine is this relevant towards electasbility not to me but there is alot of rednecks in this country

  •  Another tepid endorsement (5+ / 0-)

    First it was BTD and now kos. Looking forward to when we all join hands -- hopefully before Denver.

    "The struggle of humanity against power, is the struggle of memory against forgetting." -- Milan Kundera

    by LV Pol Girl on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 03:39:58 PM PST

    •  The tepid netroots (5+ / 0-)

      crashing the gate indeed.

      Lets keep Virginia Blue in 2008 - www.VirginiaForEdwards.org - get involved!

      by okamichan13 on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 03:56:37 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  LOL - that is good - the TEPID Netroots. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Salo, Predictor, okamichan13

        It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change. Charles Darwin

        by pioneer111 on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 04:05:47 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Um (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ydef

        "Crashing the Gate" means getting irrationally crazy about Edwards?

        Funny definition, yours.

        You know, there isn't a single gate-crashing candidate in this presidential field. There's no Dean or Clark. That's why most bloggers have sat it out.

        •  Is that your definition? (7+ / 0-)

          Its not mine.

          irrationally crazy? Is that how you define actually believing that someone will bring change? That's not my definition, but thanks for the strawman.

          Just because there's no Dean or Clark doesnt mean there is no one challenging the system. You even seem to recognize that, but too bad the money isn't there right?

          How about some courage and yes a little backbone?

          The funny thing is if Hillary gets the nomination and runs as a centrist DLC type democrat, the kind you always criticize here, you will be one of her biggest criticizers. But then its too late.

          And when you had the chance to help fight the status quo the most, in the most important race, with the most progressive candidate of the top 3 - as you admit - you didn't. Because of money?

          That's just not courage and its not crashing the gates at all. Its helping to keep them closed.

          Lets keep Virginia Blue in 2008 - www.VirginiaForEdwards.org - get involved!

          by okamichan13 on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 05:58:52 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yeah yeah (22+ / 0-)

            only St. Edwards can rescue the world from the evil clutches of Hillary.

            Yet somehow, Obama is raising more money, drawing more people to his crowds, and leading in many polls. And he's doing it with regular schmoes, not with the typical DLC types.

            So how come Edwards is the savior of the people when the people seem to be more drawn to Obama?

            Politics runs on money. It's not the money that's wrong, it's the sources. And with Obama, it's pretty much people-powered. So to claim Edwards is the one pure candidate in the race is not just obnoxious, it's wrong.

            •  come on (4+ / 0-)

              we all know that all the candidates get most of their money from those who max out.

              We can say that Edwards has never taken money from PACs or Lobbyists, and we can't say that about anyone else.

            •  Why do you have to be so disrespectful? (7+ / 0-)

              "St Edwards"?

              Look, a lot of us believe in a candidate and his ability to change things.  Why does that meet so much scorn?

              The JSamuel Irregular
              This is going to be an election, Tim, it's not going to be an auction. - JRE

              by jsamuel on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 08:39:15 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Unfortunately (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              edgery, Predictor, okamichan13, priceman

              we live in a celebrity society and Obama has become more celebrity than politician.  Politicians are boring and that is why Edwards gets less coverage.  I believe that the amount of coverage that Obama and Clinton had gotten early on has set this race up as a twofer.

              Edwards is not pure and he's said that out right.  I don't think there are any pure candidates, but I do believe he is the best candidate.  I think his biggest strength could be his vote for the war.  He said he was wrong, just as 70% of the country was and he wants out, just as a huge majority of the country does.  But not only that, he recognizes the disparity between the poor and the wealthy and that this gap is getting larger and that there are fewer and fewer people that fit in the middle, you know, "the middle class".

              I think you oversimplify the issue with the money argument and it's unfortunate that you have to paint Edwards as a "saint", he is no such thing.  He's just a politician.

              I have learned there are much more important things in life than winning elections at the cost of selling your soul. John Edwards

              by Ellinorianne on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 09:44:34 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Edwards was part of the chorus that misled (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                DemDog, Geekesque

                the country into war with a whole of host of things he did and said. This just for starters:

                SENATOR EDWARDS CALLS FOR OVERTHROW OF IRAQI DICTATOR

                September 12, 2002

                   WASHINGTON–Senator John Edwards on Thursday called for the ouster of Saddam Hussein. A member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Senator Edwards said Iraq has defied the United Nations and represents a grave threat to the United States and its allies.

                   "The time has come for decisive action. With our allies, we must do whatever is necessary to guard against the threat posed by an Iraq armed with weapons of mass destruction and under the thumb of Saddam Hussein," Senator Edwards said.

                Hence this is just hocus pocus phooey: "I think his biggest strength could be his vote for the war." || "just as 70% of the country"

                Global Warming and Climate Science: Self-learning tools.

                by NeuvoLiberal on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 02:57:48 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  It's a matter of opinion (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  edgery, okrahoma

                  and I sincerely believe he was mislead just as we were.  

                  I have learned there are much more important things in life than winning elections at the cost of selling your soul. John Edwards

                  by Ellinorianne on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 06:51:10 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Well, he did have access to the NIE (0+ / 0-)

                    Barack Obama wasn't fooled.

                    •  I've heard that too (0+ / 0-)

                      a lot of people still voted for it.  Obama is the one, I know.

                      I have learned there are much more important things in life than winning elections at the cost of selling your soul. John Edwards

                      by Ellinorianne on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 01:21:16 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Your Signature says it all (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      clarkent, edgery

                      Edwards is about "America Rising", Obama is about "Obama Rising".  

                      I have learned there are much more important things in life than winning elections at the cost of selling your soul. John Edwards

                      by Ellinorianne on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 01:22:07 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  back when Edwards was in the senate (5+ / 0-)

                        his foreign policy was about Cheney and neocons rising, and trade policy was about China rising. That's the problem with Edwards rising, unfortunately. His rhetoric is perpendicular to his record.

                        Global Warming and Climate Science: Self-learning tools.

                        by NeuvoLiberal on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 01:49:31 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  It's really easy (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          clarkent

                          to oversimplify things.  You are brilliant at it.

                          I have learned there are much more important things in life than winning elections at the cost of selling your soul. John Edwards

                          by Ellinorianne on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 01:55:25 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  facts mean more to me than narratives do. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            terrapin station84

                            Global Warming and Climate Science: Self-learning tools.

                            by NeuvoLiberal on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 02:12:54 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Facts (0+ / 0-)

                            Okay.  See, these are votes that many other Democrats voted for as well, so I think you oversimplify by painting Edwards as the evil democrat.  That's my point.

                            I have learned there are much more important things in life than winning elections at the cost of selling your soul. John Edwards

                            by Ellinorianne on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 02:51:20 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  well, (2+ / 0-)

                            I never said that Edwards is or was an "evil Democrat."

                            I in fact have no doubt that in his personal life, he's a great father and a good husband.

                            However, based on his political record, I have reached the following views:

                            1. with his war vote, he has not shown that he can be trusted.
                            1. he should be held accountable for that vote

                            and this assessment: his net record in highly negative (given he has little positive accomplishments in the senate, and two huge negative ones, the war and China MFN) in progressive terms.

                            If Edwards were to run and become governor of NC and produce strong results along the lines he's running for President on, he will earn the credibility he now completely lacks and in fact, even I may strongly support him for President in a future cycle if he does that.

                            "See, these are votes that many other Democrats voted for as well"

                            Same accountability scales should be applied to them as well. I don't support HRC, two of the main reasons being her IWR/K-L votes, and I recommend that we not nominate any of the 4 candidates that voted for the war in 2008 if we want to distinguish ourselves from the Republicans and don't want to face horrible flip-flopper charges/attacks as we saw in 2004 (Edwards is the most vulnerable to this because he was the most aggressive supporter of the war on the Democratic side other than Joe Lieberman).

                            Global Warming and Climate Science: Self-learning tools.

                            by NeuvoLiberal on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 03:45:54 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I just disagree (0+ / 0-)

                            and I will not change my mind.  I was not for this war and I've listened to him and I believe his apology and I believe him when he came out against the war after the 2004 election.

                            I have learned there are much more important things in life than winning elections at the cost of selling your soul. John Edwards

                            by Ellinorianne on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 04:54:38 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  simple minds oversimplify (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            clarkent, Ellinorianne

                            NL is a broken record.

                            JRE 2008
                            The Presidency is NOT a family heirloom!

                            by DrFrankLives on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 04:09:10 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yikes (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            clarkent

                            So glad I'm not alone in this one.

                            I have learned there are much more important things in life than winning elections at the cost of selling your soul. John Edwards

                            by Ellinorianne on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 05:05:01 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yes, a broken record (0+ / 0-)

                            NL and I have burned through many, many, many turntables discussing the IWR. The record has no grooves left. Broken, indeed. We've covered the topic so throroughly that there's nothing left to say but that we agree to disagree, but I've come to the educated and experienced conclusion that it's the quickest way he knows how to try to slap down a candidate he personally can't stomach.

                          •  ...that said... (0+ / 0-)

                            ..he did give me a wheat beer yesterday so it's all good. We won't revisit the IWR because, with NL, it doesn't matter what the f**k you say. His ears and mind are closed on the matter. Heck, if Obama had even BEEN a new kid in the Senate in 2002, judging from Kyl-Lieberman and other key controversial votes, he likely would've stayed away on voting day or would've laid back to see how others would vote first.

                          •  I have (0+ / 0-)

                            actually been very disappointed (on this aspect) in you that, being a progressive, you'd excuse away this horrible part of his record, knowing how many lives were prematurely brought to an end and how many more was affected.

                            Global Warming and Climate Science: Self-learning tools.

                            by NeuvoLiberal on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 11:22:58 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  over a millions were what were broken (0+ / 0-)

                            and extinguished.

                            "simple minds oversimplify"

                            Global Warming and Climate Science: Self-learning tools.

                            by NeuvoLiberal on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 11:17:24 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  Parallel, because, (0+ / 0-)

                          the twain (his Senate record and his '08 campaign rhetoric) shall never meet...

                          Obama stood up in 2002 and called the Iraq war idea "stupid, dumb and unnecessary". Clinton and Edwards stood with the war-monger-in-chief.

                          by DraftChickenHawks on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 08:02:41 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                  •  No one misled Edwards. He made a choice (4+ / 0-)

                    to play a hawk. There is mounds of evidence to show that, as you're probably seen before.

                    In short, he was in a place where he was supposed to demand and question the administration and do his due diligence as a member of opposition party and the senate intelligence committee to get at the facts. He did not do that, and instead, he co-sponsored the IWR without even reading the NIE, was bragging about his co-sponsorship, voted for the war, and kept hawking it until it began (despite the UN inspectors nearly completely debunking the bogus case for war), and then continued being a hawk through 2004. That's his record and he owns it.

                    Took a year off to make his transition seem real, then sprang his "my bad" political script to reposition himself for 2008.

                    Global Warming and Climate Science: Self-learning tools.

                    by NeuvoLiberal on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 02:26:03 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

              •  Ellinorianne (0+ / 0-)

                and it's unfortunate that you have to paint Edwards as a "saint", he is no such thing.  He's just a politician.

                I think you miss the very obvious sarcasm being invoked by Kos in that message.

            •  St. Edwards? (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              citizen53, clarkent, Predictor, priceman

              savior? pure? who is saying that? Besides you? I would expect this kind of stuff from someone that just signed up to your own site from an Obama facebook group.

              I think he's the best candidate, you said so too in this very diary, except for the money issue.

              This hpperbolic straw man stuff really doesn't suit you.

              Lets keep Virginia Blue in 2008 - www.VirginiaForEdwards.org - get involved!

              by okamichan13 on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 10:14:01 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Thank You. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              DemDog, Geekesque, DraftChickenHawks

              Yes, many Edwards supporters believe money is evil, but if the shoe was on the other foot and HE was running the type of campaign as Obama, it would be a different violin tune.  Money is important.  Do many KNOW that Obama has built infrastructure in virtually every district in California?  That was built by groundroot support, not machine driven politics.  Politics is run on money.  You can have the best message, but if you can not raise money for people to hear that message, you get drowned by the other noise.  That is what happened to Edwards.

            •  asdf (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              clarkent, okamichan13

              you ask "how come Edwards is the savior of the people when the people seem to be more drawn to Obama?"

              dear dear dear, what a completely bogus question.

              First, I don't believe any Edwards' supporters have claimed he will be the "savior of the people" so right there you set up an invalid question.  you must love the "when you stopped kicking the dog" questions too.  Because such a large group of the denizens of your blog like Edwards and because we tend to focus on the issues rather than play around in the dirt, you have mistakenly decided that we worship John Edwards.  No, Saint Markos, we haven't annointed him and we don't think he can save anyone.  As Edwards himself has said, this isn't about him, it's about us.  WE have to make the changes happen, WE have to be the "saviors" if you will.

              Second, you are making an assumption that people seem to be more drawn to Obama. I will grant that he tends to get very large crowds, but I posit that is because of a cult of personality that has been built up around him.  He has been lauded as a new kind of politicians by his campaign, his supporters and the media.  People want to see what this new "bright and shiny" phenomenum is.

              But does curiousity equal support? Does a t-shirt purchase or attendance at an event really equal a campaign donation? The Obama campaign would have you believe it does because of how they decided to take it all sales in-house.  They also charge for events to which previous campaigns and many current candidates would never dream of charge admission.

              Because they've changed the ground rules, however, the comparisons are more like oranges to tangerines than oranges to oranges.  Yes, they're both round, similar in color and citrus; but they are not the same.

              I realize you earn your cred with comments like these, but that "cred" means little to some of us when you pose false questions and belittle people who frankly provide you with a source of support.

              "an election, not an auction." John Edwards
              VirginiaforEdwards.org

              by edgery on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 06:09:28 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Man.... (0+ / 0-)

              you've sure been pissed ever since Edwards got asked about his comments at a "Conference in Chicago" and he didn't immediately think of Yearly Kos.  Just keep hammerin' the guy if it make you feel better.  My advice is to let it go.  He's not perfect, but neither is your newly annointed one.

          •  Yes, we're "irrational" (4+ / 0-)

            because we like the regular guy, with the best GE electability based on history, with the best healthcare plan, who pushed hard on defunding the war, who has the best environmental and climate change plan, who has the guts and values to discuss poverty, who hasn't ever taken lobbyist money, who is the only one building a mandate with plans and a booklet, who has the most union support (and will get a ton more after an Iowa win), etc.

        •  That is a total stretch... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Predictor, okamichan13, priceman

          and you know it.

          •  Explain it to me (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            SanDiegoDem

            since clearly I don't know a damn thing about what I'm talking about.

            •  You do what many others do here... (5+ / 0-)

              when you characterized what someone else said with hyperbole as follows:

              "Crashing the Gate" means getting irrationally crazy about Edwards?

              That was what I responded to.

              Why don't you explain that to all of us?

              I expect such nonsense from others, but better from you.

              I believe that Edwards would beat any Republican, just as the head to heads have shown.

              I believe that Edwards would do what he told the California SEIU:

              "So yeah, anybody can say change – but the real question is what are you going to do about it? Are you going to pay lip service to our problems and just offer poll-tested solutions that don't rock the Washington boat? Or are you going to tell the truth about the real challenges we face, be honest about what it's going to take to meet them, and have the courage to put it all on the line and fight with everything you've got to take on the special interests and make it happen? That's what I've been doing my entire life, and that's what I'm going to do as the Democratic nominee. That's what I'm going to do as president.

              "If our nominee is just a little better than the Republicans, who knows what will happen? If the people want change and both parties offer slightly different versions of the status quo – a status quo that protects corporate profits and the wealthiest at the expense of everyone else – then all bets are off.

              "But if our nominee offers a clear choice between a Republican party committed to corporate power and a Democratic party committed to reclaiming democracy for our people, then we're going to win this election going away.

              "And if we have a nominee offering a bold vision of real change who can make the case for that vision in every corner of America, we will Congressional races across America, in red states and blue states, on the coasts, in the South, the Southwest, the Northwest and the Midwest.

              "And then imagine what we can do in the first 100 days – end the war, begin the hard work to restore America's moral leadership around the world, launch an all out-effort to enact true universal health care before the summer's over, put America on the road to energy independence ... and we'd just be getting started.

              http://johnedwards.com/...

              I like that contest, kos, though you label it irrational.

              If Edwards beats Obama and Clinton with all their celebrity and money, he will win and have a mandate to effectuate his policies in a flurry.

              How much change do you really believe that Obama and/or Clinton will bring in comparison?

              I find your view that Clark would crash the gates utter nonsense.  Edwards is seeking greater change than Dean did, insofar as taking on the corrupted system.

              I have explained it.  Your turn.

  •  I mostly agree with you, Kos (7+ / 0-)

    but I think that Obama will be more effective than Hillary, because I don't think the deep south repub Senators are going to know what to do with him, or how to oppose him without seeming racist.

    Obama speaks well, and rallies the crowd, and I don't think he will fluster the opposition.

  •  I didn't get a chance to vote this morning (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    campskunk, masslib, Lobsters

    if I did, and I went through the same calculus you did, I'd probably have had to vote for Clinton--and it's not out of any great love for her.

  •  Message to HRC supporters. (3+ / 0-)

    Here's the thing - this is a progressive/populist Internets site.  We tend to be adamantly opposed to this debacle-of-a-war and vigorously oppose caving or compromising with Bush's and the Wacko Right's most mendacious and anti-American policies (which, these days, means about 99.99% of them).

    So, please don't be astounded that most of us support Hillary or Obama.

    I'm sure that there are other, less progressive, more-willing-to-give-in-to-Bush/GOP sites where we would be in the minority.  I would never say anything like, "So why don't you just go there!"  I'm just saying don't be too shocked that your pick is not all major domo here at Daily Kos.  That should not be shocking.

    One further point:  I think I speak for the consensus here that our passions and convictions line-up with about 65-75+% of all other Americans' (from health care, to this godawful war, to disdain for Bush, to environmental issues, etc -- we are the main stream).

    BenGoshi

    The distinction that goes with mere office runs far ahead of the distinction that goes with actual achievement. H.L. Mencken

    by BenGoshi on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 03:41:16 PM PST

    •  I think you meant "Edwards or Obama" (6+ / 0-)

      Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

      by FischFry on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 03:54:42 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I might add (0+ / 0-)

      Obviously, we are not the mainstream, since Kucinich outpolls Clinton here.

      Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

      by FischFry on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 03:55:34 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Called an "outlier", I think. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mjd in florida

        Right now Hillary's taking some major heat on this site for what's (allegedly) going on with her campaign and Obama, so it's not overly surprising that, at least for today, she's very much "on the outs" with most folks around here.

        Besides, when you go issue by issue, I think we (60-80% of us, I will guess) plunk down quite in the center of what most Americans want.  

        BenGoshi
        __________________________________________________

        The distinction that goes with mere office runs far ahead of the distinction that goes with actual achievement. H.L. Mencken

        by BenGoshi on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 04:00:40 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I disagree (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mightymouse, Ydef

          Hillary's numbers are the same as always here. Besides, most votes were before the anti-Hillary diaries hit. What's funny about those diaries -- especially the one about Oprah Winfrey -- is that they seem like there's this huge whispering campaign, yet it would have gone completely unnoticed if attention wasn't called to it here and, I guess, other websites. This is a weird crowd in that the most vocal do check out these various sites, while the rest of the world is busy living their lives. Other than an unfortunate comment in an interview by Billy Shaheen, and a few unrelated blog posts by folks outside of the campaignn, there is no evidence of a dirty tricks campaign by the campaign. You're right to throw in the word "allegedly".

          Hillary-bashing is endemic here -- today isn't all that different, except the bashers are feeling righteous indignation -- whether or not its warranted. The numbers remain consistent -- the increasese for Obama and Edwards in today's Kos poll comes at the expense of minor candidates and "other", not Hillary.

          Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

          by FischFry on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 04:15:02 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Hillary "bashing" (0+ / 0-)

            Can't stand the term "bashing".  It's just the term for criticism used
            by supporters of candidate A or B to invoke victimhood.

            Hillary's earned everything she's got here:  this is a progressive site.
            She plays "footsie" with GOP Values (such as they are).  Thus she's not
            the favorite of people here.  That's not "rocket science".

            BG

            The distinction that goes with mere office runs far ahead of the distinction that goes with actual achievement. H.L. Mencken

            by BenGoshi on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 06:27:51 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Weird typo: uh, that's "Edwards" and Obama... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mjd in florida, TrueBlueCT, echatwa

      Weird Freudian thing?  Do I unconsciously support Hillary?  

      Naaawww . . . just typing too fast.

      BenGoshi
      __________________________________________________

      The distinction that goes with mere office runs far ahead of the distinction that goes with actual achievement. H.L. Mencken

      by BenGoshi on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 03:56:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  did obama really "attack" krugman (11+ / 0-)

    or did he just point out in one column Krugman was like "Obama is ok!", followed up by another that says "Obam is teh SUCK!".

    I don't see how pointing out this is an attack.  

    Don't start a blog, build a community with SoapBlox - the NEW blog framework.

    by pacified on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 03:41:45 PM PST

    •  He took things out of context (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mang glider

      He tried to make it appear that Krugman was "flip-flopping" on Obama (which, even if he did, would probably just mean he had changed his mind), by taking just a part of a paragraph in one column that was actually saying the opposite.

      That gives me pause ... it is NOT the kind of honesty, integrity, and clear thinking that I am looking for in a candidate.

      •  Meh (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Mother of Zeus

        Big deal.  You're really including this in your decision making?  Taking things out of context is a political necessity these days.  This time it was poorly targeted, but I don't think it's worth impacting your view of a candidate.  

        •  "A political necessity"? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mang glider

          Sorry, I'm not quite that cynical yet!

          It was a dishonest way of responding. It showed that when he's crossed, he responds by attacking the messenger rather than attempting to defend his position.

          Although perhaps it's the only thing he could have done, since his position is probably indefensible. I think  what really bothers me is that Obama didn't really think things through when he came up with his health care plan.  As Krugman states, he doesn't seem to have a passion for reforming health care; he just came up with something because everybody else had and he was supposed to.

          You don't think that's important?  I'm sorry, but I think those are possibly the most important things we have to discover -- how the candidate will respond to adversity, and how carefully and passionately they approach the task of laying out their positions.

          •  I think Obama is thinking of the general (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Kitty

            when he put together his health care plan, the general and the eventual negotiations with Congress and the health care industry.

            No one, not one single candidate, is ever going to see the health care plans that they have outlined passed into law in the form in which they have proposed them.  That I can assure you.

            Obama has taken a chance on positioning his plan for the general and not so clearly for the primary.  Time will tell if it was smart. But he has acknowledged that mandates may well be appropriate at some future point.

    •  no, Obama did (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mother of Zeus, cybrestrike

      not attack Krugman, he highlighted differences in Krugman's prior and later tone, that's it.  really, that's all he did.  Krugman however, said some unnecessary, insulting things about Obama.  not way over the top stuff, but kinda nasty, and very selectively.  as in, the things he was criticizing Obama for (using "right wing talking points") it can be easily argued that Hillary does far more often.

      Mother Earth is pregnant for the third time - for y'all have knocked her up. ~ maggot brain

      by itsbenj on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 04:25:27 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh please! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Pescadero Bill

        Obama selectively quoted Krugman to make it seem as if he were contradicting himself. In fact, Krugman wasn't, as reading the material from which the quotes were taken demonstrates. And where did Krugman 'insult' Obama?

        Your point about Hillary is just a diversion, nothing more.

        Was Obama using right-wing talking points? Yes, and Krugman called him on it.

        This exchange between Krugman and Obama has been blown out of proportion, no doubt. But your version of it is disingenuous to say the least.

  •  I still don't get Edward's support on Dkos (14+ / 0-)

    Nice rhetoric. But what a total Johnny-come-lately to progressive values, with long record of questionable votes in the Senate -- starting with Iraq. I believe a legislator's votes are so much more significant that his or her words.

    I hope his supporters come around to Obama sooner rather than later, so that we can stop Hillaryism.

    [RED/GLARE]

    For business reasons, I must preserve the outward sign of sanity.

    --Mark Twain

    by redglare on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 03:41:57 PM PST

  •  for the mathematicographically inclined, those (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lobsters, ryangoesboom

    Richardson and Dodd spikes are pretty cool. I just wish Smilin' Joe could have finished as a binary string.

    I came in peace, seeking only gold and slaves

    by revenant on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 03:42:54 PM PST

  •  i vote no frickin' clue as a substitute for (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lobsters

    "whoever wins the nomination"  since that's not an option.

    I got nuthin (-6.88, -6.15)

    by guyermo on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 03:43:01 PM PST

  •  Clinton + Edwards= War (5+ / 0-)

    This was the most important vote in the 21st century, the only outcome ever was a pro Iranian
    Government...it's the vote... stupid.

    I will support any of the 3 when the beauty contest is over.

    Go Obama!

  •  I will vote for Edwards (7+ / 0-)

    ... unless he's out of it by the time of the California primary, and then I will vote for Obama, just because I don't want Hillary to win.  I think she will could be a disaster for the Dems, getting the righties all fired up about voting her down.

    Otherwise, I feel exactly as you do Kos. You said it all.  With Obama, there's no "there there" yet ... not quite yet.  In years to come, he may hone his eloquence and his intellect may mature to match his rhetoric ... we shall see.

  •  Out of money my arse (8+ / 0-)

    Granted, Edwards could be out of cash... but there are also numerous situations where that might not be the case.

    1.  Steamroller.  After the first couple of primaries, things steam roll and money is saved.
    1.  Democrats don't have an obvious nominee until late spring  (unlikely, but possible if Edwards and Obama split the early primaries).
    1.  Republicans don't have a nominee until Summer.  I think this is a real possibility.  I could see Huckabee, Rudy, McCain, and possibly Romney fighting it out until the end.

    Also, I have convinced myself that not having oodles of cash doesn't matter.

    -Zen Blade   (Edwards Supporter)

    •  He's not out of cash. Hardly. (8+ / 0-)

      He's raised more money than other candidates in prior campaigns.  While, if he wins, things will be tight for a bit, he'll be fine.

      Kos has an agenda here.  He doesn't want public financing of campaigns.  He believes the net/grassroots can compete with large donors, and one day he'll be right.

      But that hardly disqualifies John Edwards as a viable candidate.  He wins the primaries, well I hardly believe that the General election matchup polls against Republicans are going to suffer and hence Edwards' chances in a race.  

      Edwards time and again, in poll after poll betters Obama and Clinton in head-to head races with all of the Republicans.  He'll only get stronger.

      •  funny thing right? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ellinorianne

        We keep looking at long term strategy in terms of finance, but NOT in terms of the potential to best opposition. I won't put too much stock in a single poll, yet Edwards seems to be emerging as an extremely viable candidate looked at from that angle. And I agree with previous poster who made the point that if that poll is valid, it must be independents and crossover repubs making the numbers. That's brilliant news.

        I am not yet convinced the money argument holds water for various reasons mentioned above. And I have to figure Edwards and his campaign folks did some calculations before they chose their strategy.

        If not, (and only then), kos would be right and Edwards shouldn't be president After all, anyone who can't anticipate their campaign budget shouldn't be trusted to run the country's budget, right?

        But I seriously, seriously have a hard time imagining the Edwards campaign failed to game out the possibility of winning (early and big). In order to think that I'd have to assume he's a dummy, or a time waster unworthy to run my nephew's allowance let alone the country. And Edwards is NO DUMMY.

        "Get informed, and let it change you."--wonderingmind42's chemistry professor

        by DemocracyLover in NYC on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 07:04:22 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Huzzah! (4+ / 0-)

    Kos, you've just completely explained my Obama vote word-for-effing-word.

    sigh cue sigline....

    It was all so easy in 2004 when I was for Howard Dean.

    by el ganador on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 03:43:51 PM PST

  •  The collapse of Dodd is pretty ... (16+ / 0-)

    ...amazing. His performance in the last two debates pretty much finished him off. He was my first choice then, primarily for his (belated) stance on Iraq and his fight for constitutional rights.

    But now I'm casting my "wish" vote with Kucinich. Not because I think he has a ghost of a chance of winning or even coming in 4th place. Not because I think he would be a particularly able President were he to achieve the impossible and win. Not because I am impressed with his organizational skills or his ability to corral others to follow his lead. But because the views he expresses on a broad range of issues ought to be on the lips of all the presidential candidates, ought to be heard by more voters than have so far heard them, ought to be part of the Democratic Party's platform. Whatever Kucinich's flaws, he deserves praise for continuing to express those views.

    Come November 2008, I'll get my chance to vote for whoever the Democrats have put up against whoever the Republicans have put up. I know that won't be Kucinich, but I hope it's somebody who has adopted some of his positions.

    "Sooner or later everyone sits down to a banquet of consequences." - Robert Louis Stevenson

    by Meteor Blades on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 03:44:02 PM PST

    •  He angered me after he engaged in (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      itsbenj, ChiGirl88

      voter suppression, disenfranchisement, and intimidation.  I think he angered a lot of people with that.

      But I still like his position on decrim of mj.

      •  yeah, he seemed (0+ / 0-)

        super-solid on the Constitution, and then totally undermined that position.  very rapid rise & fall...

        Mother Earth is pregnant for the third time - for y'all have knocked her up. ~ maggot brain

        by itsbenj on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 04:27:11 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I'm still with Dodd (0+ / 0-)

      He's still by far the best candidate.  His handling of the Iowa student issue was not exemplary but chalk that up to major frustration with the whole process.  And I agree Kucinich should be out, same with Gravel.

    •  Yep (0+ / 0-)

      he's likely so far to get my primary vote as well, to register my agreement with his positions. I'll contentedly vote for whichever of our frontrunners becomes the nominee, but primaries get to include a broader consideration of what I want from my party.

      Will it work? Eh, probably not. But I'm neither pro nor anti any of the frontrunners enough to particularly care which of them I vote for in November, so there you go.

  •  Can we get the CIA to rendition Gore into Other? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dgone36, Lobsters
  •  i sense coalescing around obama (8+ / 0-)

    as our best shot for the future.  we are like migratory fish coming upstream at that special time of year, swirling around in thick pools, finding our direction.

    in spite of the many disappointments i have with obama, there is an upside.  and if the next president gives us a little breathing space, then citizen activism will get some things done.

    franklin roosevelt was not a dream candidate for liberals.  but the times made him great.  i think he is supposed to have said, 'ok, you've convinced me, now make me do it.'  if we have somebody who is not 24/7 robbing us blind and terrorizing us, maybe we can do that.

    may the times make obama great - great enough to win, and great enough to help save this great country teetering on the brink of ruin.

    Politics is not arithmetic. It's chemistry.

    by tamandua on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 03:44:36 PM PST

  •  Well said (4+ / 0-)

    but, momentum for Edwards in the primary season can still equate to a victory in the national election.  Money will not help the GOP.  The debate last night was horrible.  Bob Dole's '96 run is beginning to look like a comibnation of Obama and Dean compared to this sordid affair for the republicans

    I take political action every day. I teach.

    by jbfunk on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 03:44:43 PM PST

  •  Edwards. (17+ / 0-)

    He can take 'em all down. He's got the right set of proposals and he's ready for a fight.

    I will make them have it. I will stuff their mouths with Gold!--Aneurin Bevan (on the NHS)

    by Salo on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 03:44:53 PM PST

  •  More or less (0+ / 0-)

    yep. I can't wait to pull all the thrown food off my clothing, take a shower, and start throwing stuff at the other side for a change.

    I'm not particularly thrilled with ours, but I'll take any of the three with a shot.

  •  So, Markos... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pkbarbiedoll, pioneer111, emmabrody

    does it all come down to money for you, too?

    Right the Wrongs...Gore in 08!

    by creeper on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 03:46:49 PM PST

  •   why? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gloryous1

    If you dont agree with Obama, why are you voting for him?

    If you really agree more on Hillary esp with SS and HealthCare,  why not vote for her?

    Why are netroots really so resistant to Hillary?

    Fully fund an 18 month withdrawal to be crafted by committee of military, foreign diplomacy experts and Sunni-Shiite reconciliation leaders, etc

    by timber on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 03:47:03 PM PST

    •  Because to many people the war vote (0+ / 0-)

      Is the ONLY thing that matters.  Not sure why, but it is gospel.

      Dogs have so many friends because they wag their tails instead of their tongues. -Anonymous

      by gloryous1 on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 03:50:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Not because she's a woman, or a Clinton (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BWasikIUgrad, joanneleon

      or her pantsuits...

      but because I strongly disagree with her on policy:  her Iraq vote, her Iran vote (proving she really meant her Iraq vote); her culture war bullshit with Holy Joe...

      especially when the things I do agree with her on, I think the others would do equally as well.  So iI get no benefit from HC over the others, but lots of things that really really bother me...  

      Why is it so hard to believe that there are people with actual substantive disagreements with her?   Isn't that what a primary is all about?

      Disclosure: Proud to be the Volunteer coordinator for Indiana for WesPAC

      by ElaineinIN on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 04:00:55 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Iran, Iraq (0+ / 0-)

        What is the difference now between Edwards, Hillary and Obama--they will still leave some troops behind.

        So no difference there.

        The difference I see is in Health Care, SS, Experience.  And here Hillary wins.

        Fully fund an 18 month withdrawal to be crafted by committee of military, foreign diplomacy experts and Sunni-Shiite reconciliation leaders, etc

        by timber on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 04:08:29 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I disagree (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mightymouse, Mother of Zeus

          The Iran vote cemented it for me... I was willing to let the Iraq vote go as a mistake (a la Edwards) and Obama didn't vote.. but the Iran vote was unforgivable.  It shows her attitude toward the region and I can't stand behind it.

          Her culture wars, nanny state stuff kills me.  Again, it goes to an attitude toward governing that troubles me greatly.

          I don't think she wins on experience either.  She's a short term senator, like Obama, like Edwards.  I'm a lawyer too, doesn't make me experienced to be President (or Edwards for that matter).  And being first lady, while being unique, doesn't mean you can be president, and in my mind, isn't worth more than Obama's legislative experience.

          My point is only that there are legitamate policy disagreements and other people may have different priorities, so assuming the net roots hates hillary because its some great conspiracy is insulting to those of us who simply have substantive issues.

          That being said, she's better by a long shot than any Repub and I'll vote for her if she gets the nod

          Disclosure: Proud to be the Volunteer coordinator for Indiana for WesPAC

          by ElaineinIN on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 04:20:16 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Obama did not vote (0+ / 0-)

            Edwards could not vote. Obama did not vote--Why?  afraid that his vote will cause him problems either way?

            So how is that a point for Obama and Edwards.

            Fully fund an 18 month withdrawal to be crafted by committee of military, foreign diplomacy experts and Sunni-Shiite reconciliation leaders, etc

            by timber on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 04:43:22 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Obama did not vote because the vote (0+ / 0-)

              was rescheduled by Reid at the eleventh hour, after Reid had announced just the day before that the vote would not be held for weeks.  Obama released a statement that same night that he had intended to vote against K-L.  Obama did not rush back to cast that vote after it was announced at the 11th hour because he knew his vote would not change the outcome.

          •  Do you think if Hillary is president (0+ / 0-)

            --she would have invaded Iraq or that she would bomb Iran?

            I dont think she would.

            I dont think any Democrats would.

            Fully fund an 18 month withdrawal to be crafted by committee of military, foreign diplomacy experts and Sunni-Shiite reconciliation leaders, etc

            by timber on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 04:46:34 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Possibly. And that is the main reason (0+ / 0-)

              I will never vote for her in the primary.  That, and because while she would be a competent technocrat, she will do nothing to bring the nation together.  She stands for no particular vision.  She appears to have no reason for being president except that it is her and Bill's turn again.

              •  She brings NY together (0+ / 0-)

                Red and Blue counties vote for her in NY.

                She has a vision--Health Care and fiscal responsibility.  SCHIP was her baby.

                Even her GOP Senators admire her for her hardwork.

                And she will be the first woman president.

                What will Obama bring--he is still young and inexperience.

                And I really think America is not ready for black president--unless you have a General in your name.

                Fully fund an 18 month withdrawal to be crafted by committee of military, foreign diplomacy experts and Sunni-Shiite reconciliation leaders, etc

                by timber on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 06:46:56 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  going to war (0+ / 0-)

              LBJ went to war because basically he was afraid the GOP would pillory him if he "lost" Viet Nam. He desire not to appear "weak" (for domestic political reasons) outweighed whatever judgment he had.

              HRC has the same flaw (along with a lot of other Dems).

              this makes me want to tear my hair out.

    •  The establishment. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Kitty, mightymouse

      HRC pretty much represents everything that's wrong with the current system of federal politics.  Or at least that's most of the netroots' view of her.  She's seen as beholden to corporate interests over those of the populace, as more interested in continuing the War on Terror (as evidenced by her Kyl-Lieberman vote), and in general in the sort of political system that all but shuts out the average person from the process (unless she needs money or votes from them).

      With Blue skies ahead, yes I'm on my way... And there's nowhere else I'd rather be

      by DarthParadox on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 04:39:05 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Before Obama even entered the race (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mjd in florida, Mother of Zeus

    Kos said, 'if he enters, it's his to lose.'

    That was very prescient, and I'm glad you still lean that way after all this time.

    There ain't no good guys, there ain't no bad guys, there's only you and me and we just disagree - Dave Mason

    by steelman on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 03:47:56 PM PST

    •  I never "leaned" that way (0+ / 0-)

      It was an objective observation, which I'm much more able to do this cycle since I don't have a dog in the hunt.

      Nothing prescient yet. Obama hasn't won squat, and at this point, any of the top three have a path to victory. I'm not going to claim to understand Iowa caucusers.

  •  On another political note (5+ / 0-)

    I had a very pleasant conversation with a guy who called to fundraise for the DCCC.  I told him they were not getting my money until they got off their duffs and stood up to Bush.  He said he was getting that a lot and tried other ways to get me to donate.  Isaid I gave last time directly to the local campaign (and will) and to Howard Dean's committee, and to the presidential campaign I liked.  He said he had gotten involved for the first time this year, that he was a grandfather who was retired, but went to work for the DCCC.  We had a pleasant conversation, I did not give, and said goodbye,quite sure that we both want the same for our country.

  •  Waterboard GLore till he says, I'll run. (0+ / 0-)
  •  Obama does not walk on water for me either (8+ / 0-)

    But he surely isn't the consolation prize you make him out to be here.

    I certainly don't think the blogsphere owed the guy a free ride, but it still astounds me how overwhelmingly negatively he's been regarded by the well known bloggers.

    Surely a good portion of the critique has been deserved, but an awful lot of it hasn't.  Obviously I'm glad you are willing to vote for, if not actively support Obama - and I don't want to alienate you by suggesting you ought to be mor enthusiastic about him to make me happy.  

    But the primary wars have been bad, and they could have been a whole lot less so if some of the negativity coming from the leaders of the blogsphere had been curbed.

    When I look at Barack Obama, I think about John F. Kennedy, who leaped over Hubert Humphrey's generation to bring in fresh voices and fresh ideas.-Bill Moyers

    by snout on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 03:48:42 PM PST

  •  Question about Edwards if he gets the nomination (5+ / 0-)

    He is prohibited from receiving donations for public financing right?

    But what about his VP nominee?  Could Obama if he was Edwards VP choice or Napolitano, solicit funding and use it in their campaign?

    Republicans are not a national party anymore.

    by jalapeno on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 03:48:48 PM PST

  •  My momma supports Obama. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Elise, mjd in florida, Mother of Zeus

    Yes, my mother actually does. This is the same lady who said she, a lifelong Democrat, would vote for Brownback over Hillary, as I wrote in this late-night therapy session/diary.

    This is a post-Oprah conversion for her. I'm completely surprised because my mom used to be a pretty fair racist in her day. But, I guess like the old haters in Chicago in that "This American Life" story on Harold Washington, she has mellowed.

  •  Money Money Money (0+ / 0-)

    Too bad-guess having the most money will always stick in my craw. Just doesn't seem right. It is what it is though.

    Your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore

    by Horsehead on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 03:49:32 PM PST

  •  Ha (11+ / 0-)

    another "Edwards is great but" win post for Edwards. A win's a win :).

    Personally how much money a candidate has isn't the first and foremost thing in my mind when choosing a candidate.

    and looks like it isn't for a lot of people. Glad to see this is still a progressive site.

    Lets keep Virginia Blue in 2008 - www.VirginiaForEdwards.org - get involved!

    by okamichan13 on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 03:50:03 PM PST

  •  Obama for 2 more reasons (6+ / 0-)
    1. Symbolically, he's the best, for the country and to the rest of the world.  Both because he's a person of color (extremely exciting!), and because he was on the record as being opposed to the war.  These two things are meaningful.
    1. I think he's the smartest of the candidates.  Intellectually, I'm not sure Clinton or Edwards are quite at his level.  

    Don't get me wrong, I think he'd be an extremely frustrating president (much the way Bill was).  He's truly a compromiser, and doesn't seem to have an idealogical drive toward any significant action (on the issues, I don't really see a clear distinction from Hillary).  But I think he has the discipline to accomplish a lot (whereas Edwards, with probably a more ambitious agenda, I fear would accomplish less).  

  •  Substance (5+ / 0-)

    That's been my problem with Obama all along. He might identify problems, but he doesn't really say much of substance. He certainly doesn't talk of plans for solutions. I watch Romney, of course, and think the same thing. Wouldn't it be great, though, if we could have a real contrast -- a candidate who is all about substance? I realize that Obama is following a strategy similar to Hillary's. If you can't be pinned down to an answer, then you haven't alienated anyone. Still, for someone whose schtick isinspiring voters, I find it disappointing. There's nothing inspiring, when there's nothing to be inspired by. Maybe that will change after he gets the nomination. I can only hope.

    Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

    by FischFry on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 03:53:29 PM PST

    •  Dean tended to be like that for me. (0+ / 0-)

      He wasn't actually saying much when you boiled it down.  Something about "special interests"  which coulda meant unions for all I cared.

      I will make them have it. I will stuff their mouths with Gold!--Aneurin Bevan (on the NHS)

      by Salo on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 03:55:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  If it's Clinton I'm not voting for Pres. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TrueBlueCT

    •  I'd vote for a monkey, bigjon... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      badlands, Mother of Zeus

      ... to get these Republican assholes out of power and we have six qualified Dems running for president.  I'm with you on Hillary; I most sincerely hope she is not our nominee.  If she is, I will not donate, nor will I volunteer, put her name on my bumper, her sign in my yard, or talk her up at work.  I will, however, vote for her.  

  •  The way I see it.. (6+ / 0-)

    ...if Edwards could pull off a win in Iowa with the limited resources he now has and after coming up against the mega-star-power and big bucks behind both Hillary and Barack, it tells me he could cream the ugly GOP opposition with the force of his message, his personality, his character, and his ideas (and Elizabeth's enduring charms, of course). I'm sticking with him all the way because of his stand on the issues and how they complement my own stand. No amount of money will lure me away from what my intuition, my experience (50 years' worth), and clear mind tell me. In the end, that's how we should decide, although I can understand, naturally, why Kos is concerned about money-in-politics. Yet, that kind of decision seems to be a counterintuitive outcome. If, in the future, I see complaint from those who are abandoning Edwards in the primaries (due to his accepting public financing) about the corrupting power of money-in-politics, I will sniff the scent of a paradox...if not hypocrisy. With the greatest respect for Obama, I don't think he'd do well in the General election because he hasn't been tested on the global stage, nor is his experience in national politics enough to convince me that Americans will be convinced he's ready. I believe that if Edwards, who has had more national government experience, doesn't get the nomination, that it had best be Hillary Clinton if we want to win. I'm not saying this with any mean spirit or any ulterior motive. I simply believe it to be true.

  •  Obama (4+ / 0-)

    not the most enthusiastic endorsement but thanks all the same. Great decision! Go Obama.

  •  Thanks Kos (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Predictor

    Appreciate the honest candidate assessment.

    I disagree w/you on public financing, but generally agree on your assessment of the candidates (especially that JRE has been best on the issues); I just come out differently.

    Also, I know we all get pissy sometimes because we support our favorite candidates, but we're still glad you created the place where we can all get pissy.

    Excuse me, my nose is brown and I gotta clean it.

  •  something that bothers me... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Kitty, mjd in florida, Mother of Zeus

    there's something that has always bothered me about presidential politics.  who says that candidates have to draw up elaborate 10-point plans for any issue under the sun?  

    i realize that legislation is heavily influenced (often proposed) by the executive branch... but even in that case it's usually its sliced and diced through congress by the time it gets back there.

    i'd rather have someone who displays good judgment who can also be a good advocate for progressive legislation.  this is why, unlike kos, i'm passionately voting for him, despite (a perceived) lack of substance.

    •  it allows the candidate to be (0+ / 0-)

      too mercurial. Also it means you are supporting an unknown quantity. He'd be entitled to ditch a plan if it didn't fly, but he ought to flesh it all out.

      I will make them have it. I will stuff their mouths with Gold!--Aneurin Bevan (on the NHS)

      by Salo on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 04:05:47 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Obama (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mightymouse

    while his rhetoric is beautiful upon first listening, an hour later you're left wondering if he said anything of substance at all (and the answer is usually "no").

    Yeah.  That's why I somtimes say that Obama is the Chineese food of Democratic politics: He's satisfying at first, but, a half an hour later, you're hungry for something with a little more substance.

    That said, it seems, at least to me, that Obama has not been quite as bad in that respect as he used to be.  Still not perfect... But not as bad.

  •  Still unimpressed with this field of candidates (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    drew8970, mightymouse

    All I can say is that they're better than the Bad News Bears on the Republican side. Can't a country with 300 million people come up with better presidential material than this?

    That issue, however, is moot because I live in Michigan. State lawmakers and party officials bungled things so badly that we're stuck with a January 15 primary with no Edwards or Obama on the ballot and a threat by the DNC not to seat our state's delegates.

    Assuming that I choose to participate in this farce of a primary, I'll vote "uncommitted." And I'll be hoping for a massive ice storm to hold turnout to a minimum.

    "I'll rant as well as thou."--Hamlet, Act V, Scene 1.

    by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 04:13:40 PM PST

    •  Thank You. This is a pathetic field... (2+ / 0-)

      I think this is possibly the worst group of candidates that could possibly have been put together.

      While I would support any one of them for president, I don't have much faith or hope behind any of them. I think that this just proves that politics has turned into a popularity contest, where that popularity is bought off of money. While this has always been somewhat the case, it has gotten out of hand.

      I don't think any of them would make that great of a president, and I'll support them only because they're the "lesser evil".

      I mean, look at these candidates.

      John Edwards. I mediocre senator at best, that did nothing worth noting during his short 6 years in the presidency. He co-drafted the war bill (yay) and didn't even make a name for himself while he was there. He couldn't even carry his own state, or precinct, as vice president in 2004. In my view, he is only popular because he has name recognition, says what the people want to hear, and has money because of it. Yes, he does have some good stances on issues - probably my favorite out of the candidates. However, he has no record to be backed by. How do we know that he will truly work for these? He has little to no experience, and how do I know that these are realistic plans. I want a president who says what he can do, not one that makes false promises because that's what will get him money and votes, only to be too ignorant to know that it can't be done. Sometimes I wonder if this is what John Edwards is.

      Hillary Clinton. Possibly one of the most polarizing figures in the last few decades. Republicans would rather leave the country than vote for her, and will go at all costs to defeat her - they've been preparing to since before 2000. While her issues don't bother me, I typically support her, I don't jump for joy at them either. Personally, I even find her personality a little boring, shrewed, and fake. If she wasn't the former First Lady, or a woman, I wonder if she'd even have half of this support.

      Barack Obama. My favorite out of the 3 candidates, but some things about him turn me off. He's spent THREE years in Senate. Jesus Christ, that's pathetic. I don't buy into the whole "well he has good judgment!" argument. I can't fully trust voting someone into the most powerful position in the world just because he has "good judgment". Hell, I have good judgment...and I'm not even running for mayor. He has a very small record to prove this. He has no foreign policy experience, just like the above two. And, no, growing up for a couple years in other countries does not qualify you to deal with foreign leaders and give you the ability to negotiate with Iran over not developing a nuclear weapon.

      This is the most pathetic field of candidates that I could possibly come up with and not be laughed at. It's about name recognition and minority status. I'm sorry, but I'm sick of so many people backing Obama or Hillary because they're a minority. Say it's not true, but I can't be convinced that if either were a white male that they'd be just as popular.

      All have these "great visions" for the country - but really, are they realistic? None of them have experience (except Hillary) to prove that they can get it done and make me feel comfortable about it. To me, they're singing to the choir - they're saying what we want to hear. Obama? Edwards? Both have absolutely no record to stand on to prove that they can and will do what they promise. Somehow I don't buy that either candidate is very realistic.

      Also, they seem too opportunistic. Yes, every person who runs for president has to be power hungry...but this has just gotten a little out of hand. Obama is running for president 3 years after being elected to the Senate. If that's not power hungry, I don't know what is. Edwards ran for president after his first term in the Senate, and now is running against after being the V.P. nominee. Again, power hungry.

      I just hope that 2012, or 2016 is a lot better than this. Mark Warner gives me hope for the future of this country, so I'll be holding out for his candidacy to actually have a president that I not only trust, but believe can make change.

    •  Well, you should've drafted someone (0+ / 0-)

      Personally, I think it's a very good field (on our side, that is).

      But if you disagree... you should've drafted someone else.

  •  I think you took the cowardly way out Kos. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    philgoblue, Nihilvor, joanneleon

    A braver man would vote for his top choice and use his rather large soapbox to help promote and defend that candidate throughout the 7 month stretch.

    Respectfully.

  •  Confirmation why Clinton hate diaries are recc'd. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SottoVoce
  •  I'm with Hillary all the way. n/t (0+ / 0-)
  •  If Dodd can't light a fire at dKos he's done. (0+ / 0-)

    Nice guy.  Good policies.  But, you need to be able to rally your base to establish your ability to go beyond it.

    "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities" -- Voltaire

    by ohwilleke on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 04:30:35 PM PST

  •  Obama has won me over too (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Better Days, Mas Gaviota, CPDem81

    primarily because his health care plan is not nearly as scary as Hillary's or Edwards. I also think he did pretty well in the CNN YouTube debate (the only one I saw).

    I was a big fan of Edwards at one point, and was contentedly expecting to vote for Hillary in the general election, until both of them proposed forcing me to buy health insurance, whether or not I want it, need it, or can afford it. Edwards further turned me off when he openly mocked the idea of decriminalizing marijuana. Now, if either of them are the nominee, and Ron Paul is nominated either as a Republican or a Libertarian, I may be voting for Paul.

  •  My prayer is for Edwards to fall on his (2+ / 0-)

    sword so that Obama will be a lock and the country will be spared the Clintons.

    Edwards would make a great Attorney General and could make a historical contribution to the restoration of the republic.

  •  What if Kos voted his conscious? N/T (0+ / 0-)
    •  Thats what doesn't add up. (0+ / 0-)

      You could just say "I like what he's selling damn the consequences, i'm voting for him, but it isn't an endorsement."

      I will make them have it. I will stuff their mouths with Gold!--Aneurin Bevan (on the NHS)

      by Salo on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 06:14:30 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  My conscience says (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Hlinko

      we have to win the White House, so there's no reason to risk it on those who can't compete financially.

      And Edwards took public financing because he couldn't compete financially.

  •  Thanks (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pioneer111, Predictor

    for allowing disagreement on your site.

    We disagree. Still think Edwards is the right choice.

    However, as you say, no matter who wins the primary, that is my candidate.

    Common Sense is not Common

    by RustyBrown on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 05:02:58 PM PST

  •  With the same reasoning... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    joanneleon

    ...I guess Dodd is out, too.  If Edwards is good on the issues, then one should vote for him.

  •  You voted for Obama, Markos? (0+ / 0-)

    How cool for Obama.

    Hillary Clinton: America's First Woman President!

    by DCDemocrat on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 05:15:15 PM PST

  •  Who is out there always voting for Edwards? (0+ / 0-)

          I don't get it. Here in Florida where I'm working for Obama and we have plenty of Hillary fans, I have yet to come across a single sticker, placard, sign, button or anything for Edwards.  I lifted him up into the crowd in Daytona in 2004 with the help of a few of my Secret Service buddies. He has no support down here.  How does he always do so well on the daily kos?  I wonder, I wonder, I wonder.

  •  I too arrived at Obama through (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mother of Zeus

    the process of elimination, though a while back. And the longer he has been my choice, the more comfortable, even enthusiastic, I have become with his candidacy.

  •  What a disappointment (3+ / 0-)

    If there was ever a year when money might not be able to buy an election for Republicans, this is it.

    To throw Edwards over, even though you think he's best on the issues, is a real disappointment from Kos.  Here's the one guy who won't be beholden to the global corporate America, the one viable candidate who the media ignores as they try to choose the candidates for us, the one candidate who bucks the party machine and its overpaid, crusty consultants... yet Kos tosses him aside.  Wow.  I have to say that this one really surprised me.  Crashing the gate, indeed.

    "If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace" --Thomas Paine

    by joanneleon on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 05:22:10 PM PST

    •  your living a dream world (0+ / 0-)

      Edwards was a weak member of senate.  Voted for China trade....  Voted for the war.

      Come on, please.  you have two second memory.  You probably also think Edwards is running a positive campaign.

      ugh. i giveup

      •  Why not address the issues I brought up (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Predictor

        instead of attacking and putting words in my mouth?  This is so typical of some Obama supporters who are overly defensive and aggressive.  I have strong, sound reasons for supporting Edwards and most of them involve issues and solutions, and a strong, tough, detailed approach from day one in January, 2009.  We've got big, big problems and we need to get working on them quickly.  I believe Edwards is the best fit for for the job that needs to be done now.  I would love to have had a woman and/or minority as president this time around, but unfortunately the ones who fit that description aren't the right ones for the job right now, IMHO.  I would have preferred Gore, and Obama would now be my second choice.  In fact, I think Obama could be a great president in a different situation than the one we've got now.  

        In addition, most of my reasons for supporting Edwards involve reasoning that comes from decades of experience, not a two second memory.  

        ugh. i giveup

        "If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace" --Thomas Paine

        by joanneleon on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 05:56:55 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Doesn't it make sense to you (0+ / 0-)

        that Edwards might govern differently as a legislator representing North Carolina than he would run as a presidential candidate representing the entire nation?

        "The great lie of democracy, its essential paradox, is that democracy is first to be sacrificed when its security is at risk." --Ian McDonald

        by Geenius at Wrok on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 06:50:36 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Edwards voted against "free" trade (0+ / 0-)

        with Vietnam and Chile.

        The China vote was one where the Clinton Administration put a full court press on all Senators.

        You really should know more than a few facts before getting snarky.

  •  edwards supported the war (0+ / 0-)

    obama didn't

    obama is the guy.

    •  The war was squeezing iraq (0+ / 0-)

      The invasion was the only likely end game resulting from  a low down dishonest 90s decade that Edwards had little or nothing to do with until 9/11 the 00s.

      I will make them have it. I will stuff their mouths with Gold!--Aneurin Bevan (on the NHS)

      by Salo on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 06:12:20 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  And the award for dumbest reason not to support.. (5+ / 0-)

    ...a candidate goes to kos. There's plenty of legitimate reasons not to support Edwards, from his flip-flops from 2004 to 2008, his slick style, or heck, even his slick hair. But to claim it's about public finance strains credibility. If you don't like the guy,  just admit it. Don't give us these twisted half-gainer with a pike reasons that are so devoid of emotion or reason that only a fool will take them seriously.

    Honestly, on January 3, will there be five Iowans who don't vote for Edwards because he's taking public funding? Will there be one?

    I'd have more respect for an anti-Edwards stance if it was based on his lack of support for funding a mission to Mars or his refusal to subsidize Robot Insurance.

  •  Visit the John Edwards Blog (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Spoonfulofsugar

    Terrific people, good posts.

    www.johnedwards.com

    You are welcome there for an honest exchange of ideas and feelings.

    Integrity above all!

  •  Lame, Kos... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Geenius at Wrok, Spoonfulofsugar

    I really wish I knew how to quote from your diary, but am I to understand that you're discounting Edwards as a candidate not because of his views on important issues, but because he doesn't have enough money to make you comfortable? I expected more from you.

    My relationship with God is defined not by religion and ritual, but by attitude and action.

    by World Citizen on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 06:00:05 PM PST

    •  Kos=KOD (0+ / 0-)

      hehe. I'm just glad it's open now.

      I will make them have it. I will stuff their mouths with Gold!--Aneurin Bevan (on the NHS)

      by Salo on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 06:07:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Discounting? (0+ / 0-)

      He clearly isn't discounting Edwards as a candidate.  He's just saying that his chances to succeed in a general are hamstrung by his decision on public financing and that worries him enough to put him a notch below Obama.  Why is this so hard for everyone to understand?  

    •  We've gone over this many times (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Predictor

      and there has been no good answer to why a 527, the DNC, a 527 created by "those close to the Edwards campaign," and even an early nomination can't overcome any so-called problems.

      Remember, Kerry skipped public financing and got hammered by a 527.

      But, Kos has stated that he only gets his campaign finance information from a very biased pro-Obama source -- AdamB.  And Kos has been insistent that he only wants one source of information.

      Alas, almost nobody talks about the "problem" of public financing outside DailyKos.

      •  And I've answered before -- (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Velda Morgan

        because the GOP will have the RNC, the 527s and so on AS WELL. It's not our 527s and DNC against their nominee. It's our 527s and DNC against their 527, their RNC, AND their nominee. That'll be worth a $200 million advantage for them over the summer.

        We lose our highest fundraising draw, and he can't coordinate with the rest of the organizations spending money. And they'll have more of it.

        And keep looking for secret biases and the like. Classy as always.

        •  Classy (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Chaoslillith, edgery, mickeynATL

          Kos,  you wrote that you would only take advise from AdamB.  Is that now not true?  Should I go look it up?  Do you not find AdamB an Obama partisan?

          Swiftboats didn't coordinate with Bush and somehow that worked out.  There isn't much of a need for coordination anyway, any good political operative can tell what the message of a campaign is.

          Plenty of free media as well, and finally, no body pays much attention until August anyway.

          So, does not being able to directly fundraise (unless the DNC moves to have a nominating convention and a main convention) outway the other factors that support the idea that Edwards is the most electable?  He's Southern, has a nice family, charismatic, good on the stump, an economic populist (when concerns about the economy are overtaking concerns about Iraq), someone people feel comfortable around, and has read the November 2006 elections correctly?  The answer is still no.

    •  The views on the issues (0+ / 0-)

      mean zero if you're not allowed to raise the money to wage a serious campaign and end up losing, costing Democrats the White House and a couple more Supreme Court seats.

  •  Edwards may not need a huge war chest (4+ / 0-)

    Seems that the only thing the Republicans can come up with is a stupid haircut.

    Don't think he'll need to spend millions in order to fend off a swiftboating here.

    Edwards is the guy who scares the shit out of the Republicans.

    <div style="color: navy">"There is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come."</div>

    by vanguardia on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 06:00:48 PM PST

    •  The war is (0+ / 0-)

      still the number one issue according to polls this week. The democratic nominee has got to hammer the GOP on the Iraq war. They have to render the entire complicit bunch toxic with war stink. In the debate,he has to be able to go after mitt or huck or rudy for their marriage to bush's war. It is the single best arguement for throwing all the bums out.

      But John Edwards will not be able to hammer a rudy or mitt ect.-- they will turn to John and say..'' you co-sponsored this resolution; right? so you are going to stand their and blame me who never even voted for the war?''

      And thusly the worst foreign policy decision in 40 years will be spun away as a loss for the dems.
      I wish John Edwards had voted no that day.
      But hey, I would support him if he is nominated of course.  HRC - not near as much.

      •  It's the economy, stupid (0+ / 0-)

        I'm not calling you stupid, but CNN's reporting this:

        From Bill Schneider
        CNN senior political analyst
           
        DES MOINES, Iowa (CNN) -- The 2004 election was about terrorism. The 2006 election was about Iraq.

        As the stock market continues to suffer losses, the economy is now the top issue in the presidential race. ...

        Now, for the first time in more than four years, a majority of Americans, 57 percent, believe the nation is in a recession, according to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released Tuesday.

        The poll's margin of error on that question was plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.

        The economy is now the biggest issue in the presidential campaign. Twenty-nine percent of poll respondents said the economy was their top issue, compared with 23 percent who listed the Iraq war -- a reversal from October's results, when 28 percent listed the war and 22 percent pointed to the economy.

        "Power concedes nothing without a demand." -- Frederick Douglass, 1857

        by mickeynATL on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 06:53:11 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Please tell the truth, people. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      catchawave, Chaoslillith

      Edwards isn't taking public financing for the GE unless the GOP opponent does.  He is taking it for the primaries ONLY.

      I know this for a FACT.  Elizabeth Edwards HERSELF said that, in person, when she was here in Reno back in October.

      Why do people continue to peddle lies about John Edwards?

      And Obama is a 50-state loser.  I can't believe any sane person would vote for him.

  •  Kos, you see this in a vacuum... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    philgoblue, Ellinorianne

    with money as the only criterion.

    After these years with Bush, Americans are ready for fundamental change.

    Issues, positive vs. negative, matter more than money.

    Republicans will be playing defense this time.

    •  No, they won't. :-) (0+ / 0-)

      The Republicans don't know how to play defense. They will attack, and they will overplay their hand. As long as we nominate a Democrat who knows how to play offense, and who can exploit the Republicans' overplays, we've got it made.

      "The great lie of democracy, its essential paradox, is that democracy is first to be sacrificed when its security is at risk." --Ian McDonald

      by Geenius at Wrok on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 06:52:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Kos, as a voter... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Predictor, Ellinorianne

    What if you are wrong about Edwards and the general?

    The JSamuel Irregular
    This is going to be an election, Tim, it's not going to be an auction. - JRE

    by jsamuel on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 06:50:45 PM PST

  •  COMPLETE BULLSHIT (5+ / 0-)

    "But I refuse to vote for a guy who will be broke for about seven months in 2008 while the other side beats the crap out of him."

    Who is going to beat the crap out of him, kos?  Which broke, ridiculous joke of a candidate?

    Huh?

    Huckabee?  NO MONEY

    Giuliani?  NO CREDIBILITY

    THEY WILL NOT HAVE A NOMINEE UNTIL JUNE OR JULY.

    I am telling you, the Republicans are going to split their vote all the way to the convention.  

    And John Edwards has plenty of money.

    YOU, evidently do also, because it seems like you sold out to me.  It's all about the money.  What happened to the reformer who used to run this site?

    JRE 2008
    The Presidency is NOT a family heirloom!

    by DrFrankLives on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 06:51:14 PM PST

    •  The RNC, their 527s (like Freedoms Watch) (0+ / 0-)

      They're doing poorly with small dollar donors. But they'll have plenty of the big unregulated (energy, pharma, tobacco, wall street) dollars floating in the system.

      John Edwards wouldn't have taken public financing if he had "plenty of money", and once he runs out, he won't have any and won't be able to raise any more.

      BUt yeah, not supporting your guy is "selling out", even though the guy I've decided to vote for is kicking your candidate's ass in small dollar donations. You people are tiresome.

      •  Kos, what if you are wrong? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        edgery, Predictor, Ellinorianne

        What if Edwards is fine with the party centric strategy?  Do you not think that is even plausible?

        The JSamuel Irregular
        This is going to be an election, Tim, it's not going to be an auction. - JRE

        by jsamuel on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 09:03:45 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  We're not nearly as tiresome (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        edgery, Predictor

        as the screed that dollars trump principle, kos.

      •  "You people are tiresome"? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        edgery

        Damn, Kos, talk about contempt for your supporters.  I haven't been called "you people" since Ross Perot.  I didn't like it then, and I certainly don't like it now.  Please resist the urge to call us "tiresome."  Thanks.

        "Power concedes nothing without a demand." -- Frederick Douglass, 1857

        by mickeynATL on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 06:15:05 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  now now, sometimes we think you're tiresome too (5+ / 0-)

        Not sure where you get the idea that all Edwards supporters think you're "selling out" -- I think you've made your choice based on your own value system and that's fine.  That many of the denizens of your blog have made a different decision doesn't make us less than you, and certainly doesn't make us deserving of your endless denigration.

        Perhaps if you just took that chip of defensiveness over your choice off your shoulder, you'd be able to see that some of us might even be willing to engage in a decent and informed conversation.

        As for the "small dollar donations," come on. You know that the Obama campaign changed the definition of that category when they decided to pull all paraphanelia (sp?) in-house, as well as to charge for many campaign events for which no campaign or other candidates had charged before.

        I said it in a different comment but I'll repeat it here: Obama's "small dollar donations" category cf'd. to any other campaign's "small dollar donations" category is like comparing oranges and tangerines.  Similar colors, citrus, similar shape -- different fruits.

        As to the public financing decision, none of us know if you are right or if what Edwards has said is his reason is right.  We do know that he budgeted a certain amount of money to get through Iowa and New Hampshire, and we know that the campaign has said they are still on track for that budget.  We also know that the millions of dollars that Obama and Clinton have spent in Iowa have not produced the clear lead one would assume if money was the largest determinant.

        But I get that you like the idea that Dems overall are out-raising the Reps, and that you fear returning to a lower level.  That's a big factor for you.  That's bigger than the policies or the politics.  What I don't get is why you keep insisting that those of us who don't agree with you are "tiresome" or out of touch or whatever the latest version of "stop it" is.  But oh well, it's your toy, we'll play by your rules.  Just don't expect us to be quiet about it. ;-D

        "an election, not an auction." John Edwards
        VirginiaforEdwards.org

        by edgery on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 08:03:36 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Biden, Richardson (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dan667

    and then Dodd, Kucinich, and Gravel, in that order.

    I think that there will be more anti-Hillary voters than there will be voters for any one candidate.  And I think most Democrats see Obama and Edwards as essentially interchangeable (mostly in a good way).  So when they go to the polls, many voters will vote for either Obama or Edwards, selecting the one they think has the better chance to beat Hillary.  That's what I plan to do.  Right now, that candidate seems to be Obama.  Edwards's support will erode dramatically, but he'll still be third, well ahead of the also-rans.

    Biden will make a surprisingly strong showing, pushing Richardson to a distant fifth.  

  •  I went with "electability" last time. (4+ / 0-)

    This time I'm going with the best candidate, a man who can fight, who has the good sense to pick the right fights, a realistic intelligent man with a big heart-- John Edwards.

    Obama is a good guy but he can't win in the South. I'm pretty sure he can't win in the mountain states. He'll run away with the coasts but that's not enough.

    I was raised in the Rocky mountain West and live in North Carolina so I have a feel for these areas. It hasn't been long since we ran an intelligent, charming, moderate black man for Senate in North Carolina. We lost. The South is changing but unfortunately it hasn't changed enough.

    Kos, you're going with the money. That's practical. That's how it's always done in politics in this country.

    This time I'm going with my heart and I'm not going to compromise.

  •  Impressive Rationale to vote BHO (6+ / 0-)

    Let me get this straight, lifting a direct quote:

    That doesn't mean I think Obama walks on water. Far from it. The guy is going around idiotically attacking Paul Krugman, dancing with homophobic preachers, and while his rhetoric is beautiful upon first listening, an hour later you're left wondering if he said anything of substance at all (and the answer is usually "no").

    But because he has a fat wallet, that counts more than who really is the most electable.

    Hmmm...let's see about those other groups...

    Friends of the Earth, which is running radio ads in NH
    Caucus4Priorities, which is running ads in Iowa
    Carpenters Union.., which is also running ads in Iowa

    And SEIU locals who still may break for Edwards, or some powerful group like Change to Win.

    And none of those can help produce ads for an electable candidate like John Edwards during the time between May and August.

    You just closed your mind, Kos.  

  •  At least you are brutally honest that it's about (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cwaltz, Predictor

    money for you, not ideas or substance. Whoever has the biggest bankroll gets your vote. That's pretty sad, but there it is.

    Oh, yeah, Edwards is surging, BTW. Forgot to mention that. Up 6 points, close to previous highs. This thing will break Edwards' way in Iowa too.

  •  I don't understand the logic (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Chaoslillith, Predictor

    I can not vote for someone who is taking public financing but I can vote for someone who doesn't have any substance in what he says.

    And that is what I have against Obama, Well, 2 things. I admire him but do not like the compromising before we even get to the playing field and also, as Markos said, I find myself saying, "What did he just say?" He has this velvet voice that you tune into but I can not really tell you what he is about.

    When Jimmy Carter was President, you felt you had a new out of DC person who was honest and compassionate and would be a great leader. Instead, he was made to look weak. I worry the same for Obama. You have to be tough.  

    As for Edwards, if he gets the nomination, don't worry, we will all be behind him. After all, I gave to Dean before I gave to Kerry.

    "No, we're not questioning the Generals. Mr. President, we are questioning you."

    by BarnBabe on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 09:35:13 PM PST

  •  Biden is stronger than people think (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matisyahu

    The guy is a great campaigner and will surprise folks in Iowa.  A lot of folks will move to Biden when it actually comes time to caucus because he is the most serious candidate, the most detailed on the issues, and the most prepared to lead.

  •  Hill-Dog (0+ / 0-)

    I will NEVER get behind Hill-Dog if she gets the nomination.  It's (1) Edwards or (2) Obama for me.  

  •  Kucinich was 3rd in this straw poll, (0+ / 0-)

    and he's being excluded from the Iowa debate.

    The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

    by lysias on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 04:50:08 AM PST

  •  I voted Obama for the first time too (0+ / 0-)

    He's the strongest non-Hillary at this point in time, end of story. I'd be perfectly happy with Edwards (or Dodd or Biden for that matter).

    Elect Hillary and WE'LL be the 25 percenters.

    by admill on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 05:39:38 AM PST

  •  Kos, a major flaw in your argument (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cosbo, musicsleuth, Chaoslillith

    You, of all people, should understand the power of the Internets.  I haven't seen anyone on this post, including Markos, mention the technological tsunami that is the 'net.  Even if Edwards can't raise more money, it doesn't matter.  There's the viral video thing, YouTube, e-mail, globs (I mean blogs), etc etc etc...

    "Power concedes nothing without a demand." -- Frederick Douglass, 1857

    by mickeynATL on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 06:06:35 AM PST

    •  what about the other candidates' money? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mickeynATL

      Will they take all their marbles and go home, or will they actually pay more than lip service to the nominee? If Dems want to win, we need to counter the inevitable pro-republican media spin. We are living in an age where our national media is arguing, arguing whether or not waterboarding is torture. No nominee should expect a fair hearing in this environment. Ever.

      Portez ce vieux whisky au juge blond qui fume.

      by musicsleuth on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 07:11:23 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Biden/Obama in '08 (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    admill

    I know about 98% of you would like to strangle me for such a comment, but I really think a "Biden/Obama" ticket would give the Democrats a Reagan-style landslide next year AND put Karl Rove's dreams of a long-term Republican majority to sleep for a very long time.

    Biden is an elder-statesman, he tells it like it is, he's the uber-everyman.

    I would call him our "Reagan" to the Republicans' "Carter"!

    Does anyone see where I'm coming from here?

    •  I could not possibly agree more about Biden/Obama (0+ / 0-)

      I love the Kos community, I really do, but I think there is a little too much idealism in its intense general hatred of Biden. Sure, there may be a couple of his votes that we disagree with, but (sorry for the cliche) the old "Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing" really applies here.

      A Biden/Obama ticket would be a landslide victory and easily buy us 16 straight years of a Democratic majority.

      Both candidates seem to have huge crossover appeal. I think one of the most important things we can do in 2008 is not just get a Democrat in the White House, but get a Democrat in the White House who will bring more Americans over to our side and remind them what is so great about Democrats. Hillary is just too hated and Edwards just comes across as too weak to appeal to Red State moderate Republicans the way Biden and Obama could.

  •  Dumbest post ever. (3+ / 0-)

    First of all, Kos, Edwards will NOT be broke in seven months.  Man, are you a Republican or what?

    Public financing is a hallmark of the Democratic Party.  If you don't support it, you are NOT, repeat NOT, a Democrat.

    Edwards has chosen to take public financing FOR THE PRIMARIES ONLY.  Why do people like you peddle lies that he's taking it for the GE?

    By the way, I heard this from his WIFE in person that he was taking it for the primaries only.  Why don't you get your facts straight for once?

  •  Money trumps Vision and Principle? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Iddybud, cosbo

    Harry Taylor, the first man to tell Dubya that he should be ashamed of himself, and much more, had high hopes of making 100k yesterday on Act Blue during a special fundraising event. Well, he didn't even make 6k. I better pack up my support and head to where the money is. After all, it is Money, not Vision and Principle that counts. At least if you are a conservative or a Republican. Some habits are hard to shake, I suspect. And I know that you are relatively new to liberality.

    Here is your mistake: You are getting bogged down in Process. A visionary knows that processes have a way of reorganizing themselves to create the conditions for the Vision to become Reality. The important thing is to a) have a clear vision (along with the possible consequences of that vision. Some buffoon envisioned attacking Iraq, but obviously forgot to consider the consequences)...and b) have a firm grasp of current reality. Vision and Reality. The process will find the path of least resistance which will, most quickly, transform the vision into reality. Heard it a million times, I know.

    I am surprised that of all the wondrous ideas and visions of America's future that could have tipped you one way or the other...you did the conservative thing, and performed a semi-fetal cradle around the bag of gold.

    You've had better days.

    http://anonymoses.blogspot.com

    by anonyMoses on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 06:11:51 AM PST

  •  the money thing (0+ / 0-)

    The money would be less of an issue if I knew the eventual nominee would have the full backing and support of his/her peers -- and not leave him/her twisting in the wind while the right-wing parrots use their bully pulpits tearing the nominee to shreds.

    There is a lot of personal investment in this primary -- money AND time -- to waste it on taking your marbles and going home. If Dems are truly interested in winning, candidates would put their individual fiefdoms aside for a few months and rally behind the nominee -- not just pay lip service to it. Any takers?

    If the conduct of our slim majority is any indication of how our 'leadership' operates -- I'm voting with my heart in the primaries. Shame on anyone for not being 'enthused' by the nominee and withholding support. This is why we lose and why we are ineffective when we win.

    Portez ce vieux whisky au juge blond qui fume.

    by musicsleuth on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 07:07:23 AM PST

  •  sorry I'm late but can't help but point (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Inky

    out that by the time you have a chance to vote for Obama (or anyone else should you change your mind), the early states will be over, it will be Feb 5th, and hopefully you'll have better information regarding the strength of the Edwards campaign in terms of finances.

    It amazes me that you and others continue to decry his "lack of money" when he remains on track with the budget developed early on. He's confident he has the money to run his campaign his way, and has shown already that sticking to his plan works.  For example, he never planned to go on the air until December and while others were spending millions on Iowa air time, he patiently waited them out.  When he did put up the ad, it was a very good one, was well received and did what he wanted.

    But like many others, I believe you're seeing the dollars stacked in the other corners as somehow evidence that having more and spending it like drunken sailors is what it takes.

    "an election, not an auction." John Edwards
    VirginiaforEdwards.org

    by edgery on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 08:03:38 AM PST

  •  Where is the huge Clinton/Obama lead? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Inky

    Most political analysts have put I everyone's mind (except those minds of Kos nationals) that Sen. Clinton and Sen Obama have this huge lead over the rest of the pack. Yet every poll I've seen at the Kos shows Edwards leading? 14,804 votes (including mine for Edwards) is not a number to sneeze at and he seems to hold it consistently. So what's the deal? When Edwards gets the nod at the convention will any traditional media pundits and commentators be forced out to close up shop? Or am I missing something here?

    •  Unscientific, self-selected, internet polls... (0+ / 0-)

      ...are completely meaningless.

      If they weren't, Ron Paul would win the Republican nomination, instead of getting the two to five percent, for fourth to sixth place, which is what scientific poll show him at.

      That is, your average Daily Kos reader is different from your average Democratic primary voter.

  •  HR 676? (0+ / 0-)

    Hey Kos,
    Considering what you're going through with you health, how could you support a candidate that's pushing for more private health insurance instead of universal single payer which HR 676 would provide (and only Kucinich supports)?

  •  I have to admit that I really like (0+ / 0-)

    Obama and even sent him a small contribution.  I am however, torn between Obama and Edwards.  Obama is charismatic and I do believe that his life experience has given him the advantage of understanding how people in other nations think.  I also really like John Edwards and  admire his ability to admit his mistakes and learn from them.  What worries me about Obama is what Krugman describes as naivete. Maybe Obama needs to understand that corporate America is not like his Republican friends in college or in the Illinois state legislature.  Big business has no interest in compromising on their profits.

  •  Edwards will be just fine (0+ / 0-)

    Everything the campaign has done has been well thought out.  The money will not be an issue.  Republicans will only be able to attack him on superficial issues and the public will have little patience for that this time around.

    Edwards has had, has now and will have the best numbers against any of the sorry Republicans running.  He is clearly the most electible Democrat.

    Democracy is not a spectator sport.

    Don Wheeler
    South Bend, IN

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site