To Edwards Supporters From an Obama Supporter

This is my first diary. So please bear with me because I'm not a writer.

I’m an Obama supporter and will be to the end. But I’m extending an olive branch to the Edward’s supporters here because things are getting a little too mean spirited, and exaggerated, and I don’t want there to be fractions in our support for the candidate, whoever it may be, when the nominations are over and the dust settles. I, by no means, am clean from bias or past exaggerations. But I’m writing this hoping to take a deep breath and see the forest through the trees before I go down the road of despising a candidate because of some of his supporters.

I’m also writing in response to the Kos post earlier today about Obama taking a dig at trial lawyers. The comments blew up afterwards with people either piling on calling Barack a Lieberdem or a Republican or some variation thereof. Or people trying to rationalize his remark in defense of him.  And it’s just ridiculous to watch and get angry at people I would mostly agree with.

There are good and bad trial lawyers. John, from what I know, was the good kind. End of story. Barack knows that and so do his supporters. He’s not campaigning against lawyers. He added it to a speech, from what I know, and I would prefer he take out.

Obama is not a perfect candidate just like the rest. I believe in him for the myriad reasons that have been stated by his supporters here and other places. I want to see some hard ingrained barriers broken down and I believe he can do that. I also cannot support (in the primaries) someone who voted for the war if I have a choice. He has made some mistakes in my opinion (namely McKlurkin and Coal To Oil – which he has since recanted) but so have the others (namely Iraq).

It seems that Edwards has become the blogosphere’s candidate of choice. And even though I wish I could, I know you probably won’t be changing your mind now that Edwards’ new rhetoric sounds tough. I’ll admit the thought of walking into Washington and "kicking some ass" does sound good. I just don’t think it will happen, but that’s my opinion. If he is the nominee I’ll be getting my steel toes ready.

One last thing I would like to point out that, yes, Barack’s rhetoric is definitely not to the extreme left, but if you look at his record he is a true progressive and has fought for the under privileged his whole life.  You can see his record here: http://www.ontheissues.org/... There also seems to be a meme that he is not the best candidate on the environment. He is rated a 96 by the League of Conservation Voters which is the highest rating of any of the candidates. Source

So his rhetoric is middle of the road, but his policy making is solidly progressive. He will bring the middle roaders with him on the path to prosperity and to the left before they even know what happened to them. The right has shown that they cannot govern. But the country doesn’t trust the left either. If the next president succeeds in bringing them to the left and they find out they like it that will only bring a new sustainable era of progressivism.

•  Tip Jar

  I'll be around for quite a while because I'm not going out because I'm sick.

  Happy New Year to all!

  by recusancy on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 06:31:47 PM PDT

  •  he hates lawyers

    and you know it.

    {snark}

    I cant wait for this to be over.

    by ratador on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 06:34:15 PM PDT

    •  great tagline

      Completely off topic I know but your tagline reminds me Churchill's wonderful comeback to Lady Astor:

      "Winston, if I were your wife, I'd put poison in your coffee."

      "Nancy, if you were my wife, I'd drink it."

      :o)

      Happy New Year everyone!

      by Beowulf on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 07:28:07 PM PDT

      •  that is a great Winnie line.

        n/t.

        by ratador on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 07:31:07 PM PDT

  •  Happy New Year

    and feel better soon.

    I wish all the hostility would calm down, too. I guess it will soon enough....

    by casperr on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 06:37:01 PM PDT

    •  Hostility

      I like to watch a good brawl as much as the next person, but the catfighting on the candidate diaries is really getting to me. Most of the threads start off civilly enough, then the claws come up and it's downhill from there.

      by leckavrea on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 09:19:52 PM PDT

      •  Ya. I gotta admit it would be a lot more

        interesting to watch if I didn't strongly lean towards one candidate over the others.

        by recusancy on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 09:21:30 PM PDT

        •  Well, you have my thanks for a very

          sweet-spirited diary--of a type we could certainly use more of here, even though I'm an Edwardian and a tad pissed at Obama right now, mostly for not living up to the potential I'd seen in him, but I also know that could change.  A very happy New Year to you, Recusancy.

          by planetclaire4 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 09:45:19 PM PDT

          •  Thanks

            I have some frustration as well. My my belief in him does not waiver, though, because he has come through his entire life. The problem is he set the bar so damn high with that speech at the convention in '04. If you look back at it, though, he is saying the same things now as then. Uniting the country and crossing barriers.

            If Edwards becomes the front runner he will have ups and downs too.

            by recusancy on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 09:52:28 PM PDT

            •  I do fear for any dem who wins only

              to find Bush's mess on his hands--much can be fixed, but the economy is going to be tough.

              by planetclaire4 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 10:05:13 PM PDT

            •  Convention speech in '04

              He got my vote that day, even though I'd never heard of him before and had no idea that he would run for Pres.

              by leckavrea on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 08:50:34 AM PDT

  •  Get well soon. (nt)

    by prodigal on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 06:38:38 PM PDT

  •  Thanks for the rational argument...

    I appreciate that. But still, I just don't like what Obama said. When he used "trial lawyer" as a derogatory term, he was using a frame that the right constantly uses to bash us, which is that we're beholden to "ambulance chasers" who are "sue happy". I'm sorry, but I don't appreciate that. I myself have had to sue for my Worker's Comp, and I don't like it when my lawyer is called an "ambulance chaser" and when I'm called "sue happy".

    by Loyal Democrat on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 06:44:07 PM PDT

    •  Well... Edwards blankets all

      corporations as greedy and harming America.  That doesn't make it right.  Just saying.

      by recusancy on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 07:22:04 PM PDT

      •  No, he does not.

        But anti-corporate rhetoric is liberal, so your deflection would've failed miserably anyway.

        by Junior Bug on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 08:14:35 PM PDT

      •  It's part of the definition of a corporation.

        It is an entity whose primary purpose is to make money for its stockholders.

        It may have other, more palatable, more humanitarian goals, but any of those are just means to an end: profit.  Good PR, what have you.

        It's just the fact of life.  Sharks are an eating machine.  Corporations are an earning machine.  Each will do whatever it must to get what it needs.

        As far as corporations harming America, well, in my opinion, most are, if there's profit in it.  And the US is becoming more and more irrelevant to any big corporation's bottom line.

        There's a place for corporations, but at the point when they were given the rights of a person, without most of the obligations a person has, things went a little...screwy, to put it mildly.

        by Stymnus on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 09:37:44 PM PDT

        •  Edwards worked for corporations

          so they must not all be bad.  That's just my point.  Not all trial lawyers are good or bad and not all corporations are good or bad.

          If Edwards gets this nomination I will be intent on watching what unfolds. How he will regulate and put caps on companies power without driving them away will be a great achievement if he can do it.

          If Obama is nominated and he can bring the country together to unite under a progressive outlook that will also be a big achievement.

          I think they both have about the same chance of happening.

          by recusancy on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 09:47:53 PM PDT

          •  *I* work for a corporation.

            One of the world's largest.

            My point is that corporations are not evil, they exist to make money.  If they can do it by benign means, they will.  If they can do it by aggressive, vicious means, they will.

            A lot of it depends upon the people making the decisions, and how much control they have.  If the people making the decisions are not also in firm control, if they start making choices that are morally proper but lose money, they often end out on their ear, putting someone with less morals into place.

            If the mission statement of the corporation places high value in morals, it is better tolerated.  But in the end, such high value in morals is to have the company seen in a good light -- and thus earn more money, in the end.

            Expecting corporations to self-regulate, as many who have gone along so far have tried, is naive at best, and duplicitous at worst.  It's not usually in a corporation's best interests to do so, except to be seen in a better light.  If they don't care how they are viewed, or can blind people to the truth cheaper, instead, then they will do as they please.

            by Stymnus on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 09:59:11 PM PDT

            •  Excellent point...

              Capitalism is fine, as long as it is will regulated.

              Currently it is not, and the power brokers on K-street are working hard to make sure that it won't be in the future.

              It's why I support Edwards, but have been warming to Obama.

              by DrWolfy on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 07:11:30 AM PDT

  •  I appreciate the spirit of your post.

    And I agree with it.  We just disagree on how best to achieve the goals we both so badly want to reach.

    For me, as I look at an opposition that has vetoed children's health insurance, military pay increases, stem cell research, etc., has adapted torture as an American value, is proud of their record number of filibusters, and has no sense of shame whatsoever about leaving our troops in harm's way for no particular reason, I just don't see how reaching across the aisle and rising above politics to reach consensus is possible right now.

    These are people (and I use that term loosely) who view compromise as a weakness to be exploited, not a virtue to be admired.  I truly believe we need to engage in the battle for our country now, and let the healing begin with an Obama administration afterwards.  I wish I didn't think that, but the past two years of a Democratic Congress actually trying to reach consensus (and don't forget Obama was part of that Congress) has convinced me there's just no other choice right now.

    by SuperMom on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 06:59:49 PM PDT

    •  Yeah. It is a difference in opinion on how to

      achieve the same goals. I think Obama is a lot more aggressive then people think.  He's just not overt about it.  That's why I made the point in the diary about how he talks nice and somewhat moderate but when he has you he'll take you to the left before you know it.

      by recusancy on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 07:11:41 PM PDT

      •  And until I started noticing

        the missed votes and the "present" votes on controversial issues, I wanted to believe he was as aggressive as you say and could accomplish what we're all hoping for.  But now, I have my doubts about that.  I hope he proves my suspicions incorrect.  But I worry that they might not be.

        by SuperMom on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 07:54:58 PM PDT

        •  His present votes were because

          the GOP was trying to create a wedge issue before a campaign. It's the normal trap that kills dems all the time.  But he wouldn't take the bait.

          He has missed votes in the senate because he's running for POTUS. It's unfortunate that the campaigns have to be so taxing but that's the way it is right now.

          The present votes bother you but voting for the Iraq invasion doesn't?

          by recusancy on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 07:58:08 PM PDT

          •  I'm sorry, but his present votes were a copout

            Yes, they're always going to try to create a wedge issue about something.  But a candidate without enough courage of his own convictions to bother to vote is no good to anybody.  And one who doesn't vote on an issue then criticizes an opponent who did (once he figures out which way the wind is blowing) is even less useful.

            The thing that kills Dems all the time is failing to stand up for what they believe in, not falling into a wedge issue trap.  

            Voting for Iraq has always bothered me.  But voting for years for funding Iraq after saying it was a mistake to be there in the first place has bothered me even more.

            by SuperMom on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 08:23:21 PM PDT

            •  See my comment below

              in reply to BadgerBlue.  I'm not sure what he could have done to stop the war if Bush is intent on keeping it going with such a small majority in the congress.

              by recusancy on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 09:00:22 PM PDT

  •  Nice thoughts

    I'm an Edwards supporter who adores Obama.  I have no intention of being against him, just for Edwards.

    Feel better. :-)

    by ayawisgi on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 07:07:44 PM PDT

    •  Haha... I do. Thanks n/t

      by recusancy on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 07:08:53 PM PDT

  •  Thanks for the diary...

    Naturally, and unfortunately, much of the dialog here as descended into pissing contests between the rabid JRE supporters and yourself.

    It makes them look quite silly.

    by DrWolfy on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 07:08:31 AM PDT

•  I'm disappointed

  in some of the things that Obama has said about Edwards, I'm sorry.  But I most certainly have not been writing hit diaries or comments.  I think most of those are coming from Clinton supporters.  And sadly, many of the Edwards hit diaries are claiming to be Obama supporters.

  I have nothing against any of the other candidates supporters, I've just not agreed with Obama's tactics or criticisms lately.

  by Ellinorianne on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 06:37:21 PM PDT

•  Good diary

  things are a bit heated now, 3 days to Iowa, and to some extent Obama and Edwards are competing over the progressive vote. So there is bound to be some conflict here.

  In all honesty though the rhetoric out of the Obama campaign just really is not helping him here or (imo) in Iowa. Its encouraging conflict, and not encouraging people to seriously consider some of the poitns you raise.

  If you want to extend an olive branch, I would suggest you focus on your candidate, and encourage other Obama supporters to do the same.

  by okamichan13 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 06:39:25 PM PDT

•  Fear not

  On February 6th, we'll be united against Romney, McCain, or Huckabee.

  by david mizner on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 06:39:42 PM PDT

  •  Well... If its Huckabee

    That'll be a cake walk.  Haha..  I really hope they nominate him.

    by recusancy on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 06:41:02 PM PDT

  •  I hope so!

    I'm pretty new here, but I've been astonished by some of the crazy accusations being thrown here against Hillary Clinton, and to a lesser extent Edwards and Obama. I hope that we can all agree to support the nominee, no matter who that might be. We just can't afford another dumbf**k Republican who will screw up our country even more.

    by Loyal Democrat on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 06:48:15 PM PDT

•  Likewise, if Obama wins

  this Edwards voter will sulk privately for a minute, then jump right over with my vote, time and money to get Obama elected.

  It's too bad Primary season brings out the moloko with knives, setting good Kosling versus good Kosling, but it was like this last time too, and we were fine afterwards.  Some people just don't know quite when to stop, on the internets, and the rest of us just have to look on with varying degrees of interest and revulsion, and wait for it to stop.  

  Which it will, as soon as we know which Republican upon whom to unite our opposition.

  by Loquatrix on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 06:42:06 PM PDT

  •  The one good thing about it that I can see is

    that at least the candidates are being vetted well. So we won't end up with a weak one like Kerry.

    by recusancy on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 06:43:49 PM PDT

•  I'm little concerned that Obama and

  Edwards are about to devour each other, leaving the field to you know who. I understand Obama's tactics in going after Edwards but it is HRC whom he has to beat. And we all know what hppened to Dean and Gephardt when they went after each other in Iowa in 2004. . .

  by alba on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 06:42:49 PM PDT

  •  Ya... But that's the way it is.

    Concern or not. I don't believe in that crap anyways. Vote for who you think is best regardless of who else is in the race. That's democracy.

    by recusancy on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 06:45:14 PM PDT

    •  But unfortunately a lot of people

      don't vote that way, especially in Iowa ..

      by alba on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 06:47:34 PM PDT

•  Elizabeth Edwards hates Michelle Obama. She said

  essentially that stunning the audience. "Recus" your effort though noble will fail because their hatred comes from the top, their candidate.

  An audience member asked Mr. Edwards a question that wasn’t audible to the rest of the room, so Mr. Edwards repeated it.

  "What he’s saying, is he’s hearing directly from the other campaigns, including Senator Obama’s wife, that well, Edwards, he may be a great candidate, but is he going to have enough money to go on and be able to win," Mr. Edwards said.

  Elizabeth Edwards jumps in:

  Then Elizabeth Edwards, who was also on stage, jumped in. "I just want to say, cause I’ll say it later and I don’t want to forget," she said. "You may not be surprised. But I am surprised, and disappointed, in Michelle."
  
  The audience was shocked into silence for a full four seconds, until Mr. Edwards moved things along by asking, "Who’s next?"

  That is what you are up against. Good Luck

  by ameri on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 06:46:40 PM PDT

  •  There are only like 4 or 5

    regular ridiculous posters at DKos, and you're one of them.

    by david mizner on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 06:48:46 PM PDT

    •  Why are you stalking me.

      by ameri on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 06:51:49 PM PDT

      •  How can we stalk you

        when you're everywhere already!

        by Terre on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 07:00:22 PM PDT

      •  Because everyone in the entire blogesphere

        is stalking you, aren't they?

        by planetclaire4 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 09:35:24 PM PDT

    •  Why not disclose that you are a JRE paid staff?

      I guess you are following your leader.

      by ameri on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 06:52:57 PM PDT

    •  A stupendous triumph ...

      Of overstretch.

      These people are competitive. When Elizabeth heard of a shot from Michelle she threw a quick brushback pitch. Hatred? Jeez.

      by al Fubar on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 06:54:36 PM PDT

    •  What I find funny

      it still has abilities.

      by LaEscapee on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 08:16:59 PM PDT

  •  If you think that's hatred then I don't think

    I can help you. Minor sniping will go on like that.  It is a campaign and therefore a competition.

    by recusancy on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 06:52:55 PM PDT

  •  hate??? how ridiculous

    Nothing Elizabeth said in your comment above indicates that she "hates" Michelle Obama.  In fact, I think you've insulted Elizabeth Edwards by stating that she would "hate" another candidate's wife; Elizabeth is much too gracious and classy for that.

    by davidkc on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 07:21:55 PM PDT

  •  You're either a liar

    or a hopeless idiot if you think that the being "disappointed" in someone means that you "hate" them.

    That said, i'm very disappointed in you.

    by chumley on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 08:23:51 PM PDT

    •  ameri comments about JRE are hateful.

      he/she needs to stop it, or you won't be welcome here after the primaries.

      by santamonicadem on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 08:32:48 PM PDT

•  I'm with you on that

  You know its kinda funny. I was listening to c-span and they brought up the Hillary papers. Then it dawned on me. The warmongers want Hillary to win the nomination so they can drag the Clintons through the mud and motivate their demoralized base. What hot blooded white angry bitter white man wouldn't want to be ruled by Hillary.
  Normally I would have a good laugh but our forgeign policy is beyond retartded. The warmongers are using bombs and guns and things to force Democracy on Muslims. Unfortunatly 85% of Muslims don't like us very much so we have to fix the elections. Or else they elect radicals who openly threaten Americans. HaHaHa
  I figured last election the Dems couldn't possibly blow it. I was wrong. For the love of God do not give the warmongers a nice present wrapped in a bow and nominate Hillary. Edwards or Obama I don't care.  I know its not fair but then again this isn't softball. Leave the warmomgers on the bench.

  by ghett on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 06:51:41 PM PDT

  •  Their base ...

    Already expects Hillary to be our nominee, and their fundraising and morale are in the toilet anyway.

    In the dark despair of their souls they fear that God is sending Hillary to chastise them for their sins.

    by al Fubar on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 06:58:01 PM PDT

    •  Ya.. It's pretty crazy the way they hate her

      I have my problems with her but I will support her if she's the nom. After a while the hate can get so bad that you finally come to your senses and ask yourself "why do I feel this way again?".  It's kinda like the phenomenon of drinking yourself sober.  Somebody's got to know what I'm talking about on that.

      by recusancy on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 07:00:44 PM PDT

      •   They wouldn't do it if it

        didn't resonate with their base. Not only might we lose the WH but they will also vote for congressman and govenors. This would be a huge strategic mistake. Huge. We need to rebuild our unions, Get these people out of the Republican party once and for all.
         Fortunatly we have the separartion of church and state. As soon as we leave they'll go back to killing one another for religios difference and forget about us. But we gotta get out.

        by ghett on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 07:50:36 PM PDT

        •  By no means do I support Hill during the

          primaries.  But if she's the nom I'll get behind her.  I won't have a choice.  I'd rather be for something, though, then against something.

          by recusancy on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 07:52:53 PM PDT

    •  Ha!

      In the dark despair of their souls they fear that God is sending Hillary to chastise them for their sins.

      There's a lot of dark despair in those fundie souls.  Really, it's all they have.

      by chumley on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 08:25:29 PM PDT

•  I agree

  I hope we all calm down after the Iowa vote (the N.H. vote? S.C.? Feb 5? Texas in March?). It seems as if Obama and Edwards supporters should have so much in common, I hate seeing us fight each other.

  I'm impressed with your first diary. Please keep writing!

  by royce on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 06:52:20 PM PDT

  •  Thanks. That's why I wrote it.

    Because I was starting to really dislike and resent Edwards.  But I sat back and asked myself why.  And it was because of me being bombarded by his supporters on the blogs. (Not just this one).

    Their common purpose is the same.  And sometimes we forget that.

    by recusancy on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 06:55:32 PM PDT

•  We're pretty deep into stupid time now

  It's like late night at the bar and all the drunks are arguing with each other, making sure they shout loud enough (repeating the same things over and over) so they don't accidentally hear what anybody else says.  

  Good diary, thanks.  It's nice to know everyone isn't over the edge.

  by Urizen on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 06:55:28 PM PDT

•  There's nothing for it but taking a little ...

  ... perspective pill and trying to shake it off.

  There are over 100,000 dKos users. There's no way that all of them are extremely active, but say that 0.1% are both active and obnoxious twits. That is in excess of 100 active obnoxious twits. If they are distributed along the lines of dKos straw polls, about 40 are Edwards supporters, about 30 are Obama supporters, and the other 30 are spread across the other candidates.

  Add in thousands of newbies who (by definition) are very inexperienced in the blogosphere or other text based forums, and will include a healthy sprinkling of people who have a bias toward flying off the handle, over-reacting or mis-reading comments, and focusing on the negative instead of the positive.

  Its a recipe for pie fights. The worst, least well-considered comments get massive attention when they ought to be ignored, the most reasonable comments get lost in the melee.

  And knowing that, people who might step in to make a call for calm during a temporary bout of net-insanity, knowing that this particular insanity will be chronic until the nominee is decided, will probably be tired by this point, and are mostly waiting until the insanity subsides.

  Actually, I am kind of happy that my Paul Krugman / Grover Cleveland diary did not make the reclist here at the Big Orange, because it would certainly have erupted into a pie fight if it had.

  by BruceMcF on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 06:59:22 PM PDT

•  Great First Diary

  I hope we can all keep in mind that the current battle is an intramural one and that the real fight needs us to be united.  

  by hilltopper on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 07:13:31 PM PDT

•  Obama

  is an egomaniacal fraud.

  No thanks.

  by jre2k8 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 07:23:37 PM PDT

  •  Care to elaborate? n/t

    by recusancy on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 07:25:39 PM PDT

    •  Bashing trial lawyers, for one.

      Plouffe, Axelrod.

      Exelon.

      Keep going?

      by jre2k8 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 07:36:06 PM PDT

      •  Ummm...

        Axelrod was your candidate's manager last time. And he's not exactly "bashing" lawyers. He's just making the case that he chose a different path.

        How does that make him an ego maniacal fraud?

        by recusancy on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 07:40:32 PM PDT

  •  watch it; you're venturing into troll territory

    and you're giving Edwards supporters a bad name.

    by davidkc on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 07:28:31 PM PDT

    •  I speak for only myself.

      I was stoked when Obama was elected to the Senate.  I enjoyed his 2004 convention speech.

      I have been sorely disappointed by his Senate tenure.  He has led on nothing of importance.  He skips hard votes.  He shivs the Dems on Alito.

      He buddies up with Lieberman.  !

      He consistently uses right-wing talking points to attack his critics.  He bashes trial lawyers, the last best defenders of the Democratic Party.

      Fuck, I've seen enough.  He gives a nice speech, yeah, but none of it means jack shit.  He's a corporate Dem through and through.  He'll never get anything of consequence done as POTUS.

      by jre2k8 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 07:40:01 PM PDT

      •  Nobody's speeches means jack

        Not until they're in office.  

        Obama campaigned for Lamont - not Lieberman.

        He doesn't use right wing talking points. You need to quit getting your opinion from Atrios and MyDD and Kos.

        by recusancy on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 07:49:35 PM PDT

        •  I'd do a little more research

          on who Obama supported in the Lamont-Lieberman race if I were you.  Just sayin'...

          by SuperMom on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 08:36:46 PM PDT

          •  Link

            Link

            by recusancy on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 08:38:45 PM PDT

            •  No fair, I'm not sure how to do a link

              But I'll give this a shot:
              http://www.nysun.com/...

              He did support Lamont in the general, but he supported Lieberman in the primary despite Lieberman being the most pro-war Dem in the Senate.

              I'm glad he got it right eventually and bowed to the will of Dem primary voters, but to imply he didn't support Lieberman initially is incorrect.

              by SuperMom on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 08:46:22 PM PDT

              •  I think it was because of the union support

                that Joe got. Barack went with them. And then supported the Dem nominee. Are you going to say that the unions are bad because they were with Joe?

                I think a lot of people were tricked by Joe who weren't in the blogosphere. And now they see the traitor that he is. Being the fox news democrat.

                by recusancy on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 08:54:49 PM PDT

                •  I suppose we could ask Obama if unions are bad

                  He seems to be having issues with them lately.

                  Claiming he was "tricked by Joe" though, sounds like a judgement issue.  Connecticut primary voters sure weren't, why was he?

                  by SuperMom on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 08:59:31 PM PDT

                  •  By the way

                    Why are we still arguing about this?  If he wins the nomination, I'll vote for him.  I just don't happen to share your belief that there isn't a better option.  I'm allowed to have that opinion, as you are allowed to have yours.

                    by SuperMom on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 09:01:42 PM PDT

                    •  We're not arguing.

                      We're debating... discussing...  

                      Ok...  I guess we'll just leave it at that then.

                      Good luck to your guy.

                      by recusancy on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 09:11:11 PM PDT

                      •  You have a point

                        Discussion and debate are good things.

                        Sorry, I've seen way to many flamewars while surfing today and they're pretty tiresome.  Colored my vision a bit for a minute.

                        Good luck to your guy as well.

                        by SuperMom on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 09:27:43 PM PDT

                  •  He doesn't have issues with unions.

                    He has issues with 527's.  And whether you like it or not a union is a "special interest".

                    I don't see any need for liberal pundits to get in the business of denying that labor unions are, in fact, "special interests." Indeed, it's impossible to understand the dynamics of American politics without acknowledging them to be special interests. They're special interests who sometimes take the "wrong" side of policy debates when what's "right" for the country is "wrong" for the sector in which they work. The CWA often takes bad positions on telecommunications issues because it wants to advance the interests of unionized telecom firm vis-a-vis the interests of non-union firms. Similarly, various unions have in the past clashed with environmental groups and will certainly do so again in the context of a serious push to curb carbon emissions. There's nothing wrong with that, and liberals should strongly resist the line of inference from "unions are sometimes wrong on public policy questions, therefore we should embrace policies designed to hasten the decline of union membership." But still, unions are groups that seek to advance the interests of their members. As such, they're a vital check on what would otherwise be corporate influence run amok. But sometimes the interests of a given union's members run against the general interests of the country and there's no sense in denying this.

                    by recusancy on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 09:09:49 PM PDT

                    •  Forgot to source the above quote

                      Link

                      by recusancy on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 09:17:57 PM PDT

                      •  Ah, OK.

                        The link helps.  The quote above wasn't from Obama, it just wasn't in the original post.

                        by SuperMom on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 10:06:14 PM PDT

                    •  You lost me on that one.

                      Your post says he doesn't have issues with unions, he has issues with 527's.  But your clip clearly takes issue with unions and doesn't even mention 527's.  I would agree that not every union is right on every issue.  But I would disagree that advocacy for a union's chosen candidate is necessarily a bad thing in every case either.

                      By the way, I know this article
                      http://mediamatters.org/...
                      says Obama has said he doesn't like 527's.  But I was wondering if they actually stopped when he said that, or if they're still going.  

                      by SuperMom on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 10:02:52 PM PDT

                      •  I'm sure they'll keep going.

                        Edwards and Obama said they don't like them but they can't and probably won't do anything about. When Obama was talking about 527's and Unions he was just making the point that JRE said he doesn't want any special interest or 527 help and that Unions are, in fact, special interests.

                        It's another one of those quibbles that got blown out of proportion.

                        by recusancy on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 10:12:11 PM PDT

              •  And Edwards isn't?

                ...despite Lieberman being the most pro-war Dem in the Senate

                How is (actually, was, in the Senate; because he is our own Romney, you know) Edwards different from Lieberman on the war, that thing that is literally about life and death?

                by DraftChickenHawks on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 06:45:02 AM PDT

  •  You are not making Edwards

    supporters look very good.

    Nor are the newbies uprating your trash talk.

    by DrWolfy on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 07:06:18 AM PDT

•  Edwards supporter here.

  Recommended for the olive branch.

  I'll be happy to support Obama if Edwards doesn't make it.  This has been a nasty few days, though... and I haven't even been on the site as much as I have been at times.

  Everyone will need a little oxygen after the primary.  Then -- on to kick some Repub ass.

  by chumley on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 08:27:23 PM PDT

  •  And I'm with you if it's Edwards

    And even if it's Hillary because God help me if I'm going to let McCain have a heart attack in office and we get president Lieberman.

    by recusancy on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 08:30:16 PM PDT

•  Recusancy, as a firm Edwards supporter...

  ...I will acknowledge that your candidate has many strengths and I probably would vote for him if he eventually secures the nomination.  Years ago, I had once dreamed of a day when my Senator would run for President and one of the big reasons was that he was the only Senator that held out on "the vote for war".  While I certainly respect Obama for taking the stance that he did back then while that vote was taken, I haven't seen the bold conviction from him that I expected in the form of action towards ending our involvement in Iraq and he's had nearly three years to set himself apart from most of the other Senators or Presidential candidates.

   What turned me towards Edwards was a moment in one of the early debates when the subject turned to the latest war bill that had just been voted on days before.  Edwards stated that Obama and Clinton waiting until almost every other Senator had already voted before going down on the Senate floor and casting thiers showed a lack of or an unwillingness to show the type of leadership it will take to end this war.  Obama's response was to remind everybody that he opposed the original Iraq resolution that Edwards had indeed voted for.  Edwards responded by commending him for opposing the war from the beginning saying to the crowd..."Because he was right, and I was wrong."

  To me, Obama doesn't get a free pass simply because he made a speech against the original Iraq resolution 4 to 5 years ago.  He's had plenty of time and plenty of Senate votes to back up his rhetoric of ushering in "a new kind of politics" by actively taking the lead in standing up to the current President who's around a 24% approval rating.  He was elected Senator by an even wider margin than mine was, and with that kind of mandate from the people he should have been blazing a trail of opposition to the further funding of this war.  But he hasn't.  

  Had his positions on other issues equally important reflected more in line with where Edwards is currently, I might feel differently.  But when Obama starts lumping labor sponsored groups that point out that his health care plan leaves 15 million people still without any coverage as "special interest groups in collusion with John Edwards", it's hard for me to believe that he's all that sincere about offering hope for "a new or different kind of politics".  If anything, that's nothing but the same kind of politics I've seen from every other well financed corporate enriched campaign.  I expected better from him at this point.

  by BadgerBlue on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 08:38:16 PM PDT

  •  Aside from not funding the war

    Which, you have to admit, the democrats would be killed on if they did it, what can he do with Bush as the pres?

    by recusancy on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 08:46:41 PM PDT

    •  Recusancy, I doubt Dems would "be killed"

      If anything, one of the main reasons we see a Congress with even worse approval ratings than a President as awful as Bush is in fact the lack of Congressional Democrats taking serious steps to STAND UP to Bush by taking the action to end the Iraq War, which was such a centerpiece of thier campaign pledge leading up to the November '06 elections that swung the majority away from Republicans.  They are getting "killed" now because they haven't come anywhere near close to following through on one of the main pledges that got them to the '06 victory.  Even the tiny "achievements" they claim to have made such as additional funding for Katrina rebuilding were completely overshadowed when attached to a bill in which they capitulated to an already unpopular White House to continue the war completely on Bush's terms.

      That vote blew what little if any trust a skeptical electorate had of Democrats and thier leaders in Congress and they deserved it.  It was stupid of them to keep repeating to the voting public that they completely disagreed with The White House's conduct in it's execution of the war strategy and then turn around and rubber-stamp the very same policy when they had every chance to demonstrate to voters that they were capable of derailing it when given the opportunity to do so.  The result is they now appear as phony as Republicans and worse they have re-affirmed the long held notion that they lack the backbone to stand for what they claim to believe.  Had Obama stood up then and there and stated that,  he wouldn't be in a neck and neck dead heat with Edwards in the last hours before the Iowa Caucus.

      Voters heard enough speeches about changing things in Washington leading up to the '06 election, only to be let down by Democrats once again.  Perhaps one of Obama's greatest traits is his ability to give moving speeches at large gatherings.  That's a great talent to have, being how it can't really be taught or learned.  But that trait by itself doesn't translate into demonstrating leadership.  As lite as Edwards's government service resume that many of his critics point to may be, he does have the cred when it comes to taking on special interests and beating them a fair share of the time.  That's why Iowa is still up for grabs.  Enough voters are desperate for someone who has demonstrated in the past that they have stood up to powerful interests no matter how steep the odds.  

      Had Obama been as pro-active as Jim Webb in taking action in the Senate to put pressure on The White House and produce a real exit strategy from Iraq, Edwards run for President would have been over sometime last summer and Obama might well be 15 points ahead of Clinton in all states polled so far and without having to spend even a fraction of the money he has raised.  Now even if he wins the nomination, he'll have the tag of "When did he ever take a meaningful stand on anything in his brief Senate career?"  By no means is he the damaged goods that Clinton is, but great speeches won't sway everybody into his corner.

      by BadgerBlue on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 05:58:58 PM PDT

•  Thanks for posting this. This primary is nerve

  wracking! I'm still pessimistic about Obama, and not happy with his rhetoric of the last few days, and I just don't like the "centrist" talk.  Straight forward speaking is honest, truthful, and what the American people deserve.  Why can't he just do it.

  But, again, thanks for extending the olive branch.  I appreciate it.

  Happy New Year!

  by santamonicadem on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 08:38:35 PM PDT

  •  He does speak the truth

    That may be why so many people say "I like him but..." he doesn't pander (maybe he does and I'm just blind from my bias). He's said the same things for as long as I can remember. He doesn't change his message to get applause lines. His message already got them.

    If Edwards wins Iowa and he gets the front runner scrutiny I can guarantee you he will say and do some things that will bother you.

    by recusancy on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 08:45:10 PM PDT

•  Obama-Edwards or Edwards-Obama

  Any combination of the two. They should get together and decide who will be top banana now. They as a combined force will go much farther than as a force divided against itself. We need you two working together. So one of you pick up the phone and get this thing done already. Bye bye Hillary.

  by barbybuddy on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 08:52:20 PM PDT

•  Good diary and excellent sentiment

  One of these two men needs to be the nominee.  And right now, both sides need to become OK with the other one getting it.

  I am a die-hard Edwards supporter because he is a fighter, and we need a fighter more than a negotiator right now.

  Having said that, I would be fine with an Obama nomination.

  by DrWolfy on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 07:03:26 AM PDT