home

Why Edwards Didn't Endorse Obama, Superdelegates and More

Via John Heileman at New York Magazine:

According to a Democratic strategist unaligned with any campaign but with knowledge of the situation gleaned from all three camps, the answer is simple: Obama blew it. Speaking to Edwards on the day he exited the race, Obama came across as glib and aloof. His response to Edwards’s imprecations that he make poverty a central part of his agenda was shallow, perfunctory, pat.

Clinton, by contrast, engaged Edwards in a lengthy policy discussion. Her affect was solicitous and respectful. When Clinton met Edwards face-to-face in North Carolina ten days later, her approach continued to impress; she even made headway with Elizabeth. Whereas in his Edwards sit-down, Obama dug himself in deeper, getting into a fight with Elizabeth about health care, insisting that his plan is universal (a position she considers a crock), high-handedly criticizing Clinton’s plan (and by extension Edwards’s) for its insurance mandate.

The take-away: [more...]

The implications of this story are several and not insignificant. Most obviously, it suggests that the front-runner’s diplomatic skills could use some refinement. It also raises the issue, which has cropped up in a different form after New Hampshire, Super-Duper Tuesday, and the Ohio and Texas primaries, of Obama’s capacity to close the deal.

On the Obama campaign's desertion of the high road:

For all its rhetoric about practicing a new, more virtuous brand of politics, the Obama campaign has been going after Clinton hammer and tongs. Rarely a day passes without his people dubbing her a liar and a fraud....They have accused Bill Clinton of McCarthyism and invoked the infamous blue dress on which he left his, er, DNA—the latter coming on a blog post arguing that he actually makes McCarthy look benign. Indeed, it sometimes seems as if the Obamans are actively trying to cede the moral high ground.

The article is not a Clinton puff-piece. Rather, it's about who, if anyone in the Democratic party, could end the race.

Despite the long history of mutual animus between Al Gore and Hillary, Gore has resisted the temptation to throw his weight behind Obama; and because of that history, even if he did, it would likely have little effect on her determination to carry on, as Gore is well aware. Edwards, who I’m told at one juncture discussed with Gore the possibility of a joint endorsement, now appears to prefer staying mum for the time being, or, if anything, backing Clinton. And Jimmy Carter has stated unequivocally his intention to refrain from choosing sides.

As for why those closest to Hillary aren't calling for her to withdraw from the race:

For the moment, none of these people, as far as I know, is advising Hillary to fold. They are not idiots and they are not blind—they can read the writing on the wall and do the math as well. But they also believe that, though Clinton’s path to the nomination has narrowed to a cliff walk, it hasn’t been barricaded. If she beats Obama in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Indiana, it may widen again, should the superdelegates start questioning his durability and the potency of his electoral coalition. Or Obama’s candidacy could suddenly blow up in a more spectacular fashion—over further revelations about Wright or some other political IED planted on the roadside ahead.

Where the article falls short is in its speculation at the end that Hillary will exit in time for a unity pony because she believes Obama will lose in November and she can then win in 2012.

If HRC believes that Obama will lose in November, there can be no doubt that she’s already calculating, in the back of her head, the best way to position herself for 2012. A scorched-earth campaign against Obama is plainly not the way to do that. A classy exit, a show of unity, an act that apparently places party before self: That’s the ticket.

I don't think Hillary is thinking about 2012. I suspect she finds even the idea of another contested primary campaign exhausting right now. She's in this to win. She's counting on the superdelegates, and a big win in PA. Indiana would be nice, and while I don't think she'll carry North Carolina, she will get West Virginia, and in my view, Puerto Rico.

By the numbers so far (pdf):

...Going into the April 22 Pennsylvania primary, approximately 26.5 million votes have been cast in Democratic Party primaries and caucuses (excluding Florida and Michigan). Obama has received approximately 13.6 million votes, or 51.3%, and Clinton has received approximately 12.9 million votes, or 48.7%. If Florida’s vote is included, then Obama’s popular vote total is just under 14.2 million, or 50.7%, and Clinton’s is just under 13.8 million, or 49.3%. If both Florida’s and Michigan’s votes are included, then Obama’s popular vote total is just under 14.2 million, or 50.2%, and Clinton’s is 14.1 million, or 49.8%, out of the total number of votes cast thus far of 28.9 million.

According to the Associated Press, Clinton currently has the support of 246 superdelegates, or 53.6%, to Obama’s 213, or 46.4%. Obama, however, has 1,406 pledged elected delegates, or 53%, to Clinton’s 1,249, or 47%. Combining the two results in Obama having the support of 1,619 delegates, or 52%, to Clinton’s 1,495, or 48%.

The important part is we're not done voting yet:

An estimated 12 million individuals are eligible to vote in the 10 remaining Democratic primaries or caucuses (Pennsylvania, Guam, Indiana, North Carolina, West Virginia, Kentucky, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Montana, South Dakota.) Together, these states and territories will have 566 elected pledged delegates and 124 superdelegates.

The superdelegates will decide this race. They won't listen to Pelosi or Reid. Here's where they stand so far:

Among subcategories of superdelegates:

  • Obama has the support of 12 Governors to Clinton’s 10, with 9 uncommitted.
  • Obama has the support of 15 Senators to Clinton’s 13, with 20 uncommitted.
  • Clinton has the support of 73 House of Representatives members to Obama’s 71, with 78 uncommitted.
  • Clinton has the support of 140 members of the Democratic National Committee to Obama’s 107, with 151 uncommitted.
  • Clinton has the support of 10 distinguished party leaders to Obama’s 4, with 5 uncommitted.
  • Obama has the support of 2 add‐ons to none for Clinton, with 74 uncommitted.

Update: Comments now closed.

< Bob Casey: Liberal for a Day | Late Night: The Long Run >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Bad move... (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by Teresa on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:42:36 PM EST
    I wouldn't want to be on Elizabeth's bad side. Health care and poverty - I can see why he hasn't endorsed Obama if this is true.

    Thanks for the link and excerpts--- (5.00 / 7) (#3)
    by MarkL on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:44:17 PM EST
    great stuff!!
    I got a laugh out of reading how Obama treated Edwards: no surprise there.
    Neo may have been the One, but at least he had some humility.


    Probably Edwards kicked O's butt... (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:47:42 PM EST
    ...in the pick up basketball game too. LOL.

    Parent
    Jay (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by 1jpb on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:15:41 PM EST
    That's what he told Jey Leno, but he was half joking I think.

    Parent
    You don't believe that Edwards could beat... (none / 0) (#41)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:23:29 PM EST
    ...Obama in a pick up game? Why not?

    Parent
    Don't know (none / 0) (#56)
    by 1jpb on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:42:31 PM EST
    if he can or not.

    But, BO has some kind of contest where the prize is for high school kids to play 3 on 3 with him.  So he better be ok, or it'll look bad to be destroyed by kids on the court.

    Parent

    LOL, my 50 year old husband can beat kids... (none / 0) (#63)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:46:43 PM EST
    ..cause he's 6'4 and all he has to do is stand under the basket. And you better believe he love doing it; just ask the nephews.  But Edwards has a basketball court on his property so I think he's probably pretty good and I don't he would have asked Obama to play if he didn't think he could beat him.

    Parent
    Obama played on a team (none / 0) (#80)
    by MKS on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:14:26 PM EST
    in high school that was very good, and plays regularly, and played regularly in pick-up games in the south side of Chicago to gain street cred....

    Parent
    Obama led his college (none / 0) (#84)
    by MKS on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:17:00 PM EST
    team in scoring in 1979.

    Parent
    Check this out (none / 0) (#96)
    by MKS on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:31:42 PM EST
    Here is a blurb comparing him to George Gervin....Finger rolls anyone?

    Few outside of Los Angeles (and few from Los Angeles) are familiar with tiny Div III Occidental College, though it produced some memorable NFL players and coaches such as retired coach Jim Mora ("Playoffs?!) and qb/ex-Senator Jack Kemp, not to mention succesful Hollywood types. The school also may have produced a future US President: Barack Obama attended the school from 1978-1980 and was the school's leading scorer in basketball in 1979. Now, you did NOT know that. Obama was considered a "George Gervin type" by one ex-coach I spoke to, but I wonder why it gets no mention.

    Further research is needed.  The years may be off.

    How good was Obama at Punahou?

    Parent

    TSN--Gold standard (none / 0) (#105)
    by MKS on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:40:07 PM EST
    Here is what TSN says:

    The eighth or ninth man on Punahou High School's 1979 state championship team in Hawaii, Obama started for Occidental College in the early '80s, played those Harvard pickup games and on the day of his swearing-in as a U.S. Senator said he felt like a first-round NBA draft choice finally getting onto a court to play.


    Parent
    I read a detailed article (none / 0) (#129)
    by Trickster on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:24:51 PM EST
    about his game from a guy who used to play with him regularly in pick-up games I think when they were both in law school, but in any case when BO was a young adult.  He said Obama is tall, long arms, good hops, and plays with a lot of energy and confidence so he was very effective around the basket, but he was short on ball-handling and shooting skills.

    Parent
    Yes, Thank you Jeralyn (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by suisser on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:03:43 PM EST
    for laying it all out there so clearly.


    Parent
    Blah. (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by lansing quaker on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:53:27 PM EST
    Fighting with Elizabeth Edwards after stating Michelle would be "too busy raising the kids" in the White House should he be elected.

    Oh, those silly women!

    But kudos on the diary highlighting the closeness of the race, Jeralyn.

    I'd still love for my MI-Primary to count, but c'est la vie.  It's not in the cards.  But it will matter come November.

    I don't call what (5.00 / 10) (#13)
    by rooge04 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:57:23 PM EST
    Obama lacks diplomatic skills, but rather he has entirely too much arrogance.  And he exudes it to everyone.

    Bingo (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by Lou Grinzo on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:42:39 PM EST
    I know this sounds like I'm much older than Obama, even though I'm really his senior by only a few years, but he has always come across to me like a teenager who never learned any unpleasant lessons from personal failure.  (And yes, that's a totally different category from personal tragedies, in case someone wants to make that particular point.)

    We've seen this pattern over and over in this campaign, which I've commented on here before, of Obama being in a position where he can deliver the "obvious" response in a debate or in private that will help himself and his cause, yet he somehow finds a way to avoid it.  He's fantastic with a canned speech, but get him off script and things get wobbly in a hurry.

    My wife refers to this trait in people as "knowing when to say the right thing", and Obama seems not to have that particular talent.

    If he winds up being the Democratic nominee, I sure as heck hopes he develops that skill in a hurry.  He'll need it.

    Parent

    No we're not. (5.00 / 6) (#14)
    by rooge04 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:58:25 PM EST
    In the name of unity many Obama supporters have told Clinton and her supporters to shut up and lose already.  That is not unity. That is divisiveness.

    I'm an Obama supporter but all I know of the (none / 0) (#167)
    by DemPrezin2008 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:09:20 PM EST
    blog world is what I've seen here and on CNN comments.  And I would say if the people in other blogs are close if not worse then people are for Clinton here then yes.  We are in trouble in November.

    Parent
    be warned (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:18:55 PM EST
    TalkLeft is a VERY TAME blog. It is moderated, censored, comments deleted blog.

    Elsewhere, you takes your chances because a site like DailyKos (washing my mouth out after I click send...and hands too), there is no attempt to moderate and the 'meta' (comments) tends to be extremely coarse and harsh and would make this blog seem like the Librium connection.

    Parent

    Good post Jeralyn (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by Coldblue on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:59:20 PM EST
    and good analysis of the linked article as well.

    Giving up (5.00 / 6) (#17)
    by blogtopus on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:00:37 PM EST
    I don't think I would want a candidate who would give up on a race unless there was no chance. This isn't Bush in Iraq, folks; Hillary still has a plausible chance of winning; even the numbers are fairly close still.

    I also wouldn't want a candidate naive enough to think their opponent would just give up willingly in the face of such odds. That's a recipe for disaster, and is a window into a lazy, entitled mentality*.

    *troll prophylactic: I'm NOT playing into the stupid 'lazy black person' stereotype; Obama is clearly not the fighter that Hillary is, and he seems to expect people to cede their fights in the light of his HOPE Pony. Neither of these qualities has anything to do with his race (or gender, for that matter).

    you are right. (1.00 / 3) (#98)
    by cy street on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:32:04 PM EST
    obama is not fit to be commander in chief.  he is un-american.  he is a diluted senator from a silly state.  he is like jesse jackson with a better stylist.  he gives good speech, but words are...just words.

    obama needs to stop playing the race card.  what does he know about poor people?

    he hates the military, right?

    is it three am?  holy guacamole, we are screwed.

    he cheated in iowa, caucuses are undemocratic in the twenty first century.

    and can you believe he has the nerve to spend so much money?  

    laughable.

    the house of clinton is burning their last bridge to the back door.

    Parent

    I don't know the term "black-bag" (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by MarkL on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:00:43 PM EST
    strategy, but what the article said was that they won't stick around after June, if Clinton is behind. There's no implication that Clinton has any dastardly plans to make Obama unelectable.

    Right. (3.00 / 1) (#28)
    by lilburro on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:08:47 PM EST
    You know, one of the benefits of reading is understanding.

    Stop being a troll.

    Parent

    Here is the relevant paragraph: (5.00 / 8) (#34)
    by MarkL on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:13:58 PM EST

    Some senior members of Clinton's campaign have no intention of sticking around if Obama is substantially ahead come June; as much as they're devoted to their boss, they want nothing to do with a black-bag operation designed to destroy her rival, no matter what the cost. But these same people are also deeply convinced--beyond spin, beyond talking points, to their core--that Obama would be doomed against McCain. And Clinton believes this, too, which is one important reason why she persists despite odds that grow longer each passing day.

    Very thin gruel for a supposition that Clinton will attempt to destroy Obama.
    It would be perfectly natural for campaign members to leave after the primaries, if it appeared Clinton had lost by then.

    Not sure what you're trying to get at, but here is actual text. People can judge for themselves, here, without your tips for reading comprehension.

    Hasta la vista, baby!

    Parent

    Hey MarkL (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by lilburro on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:18:49 PM EST
    I know you're capped...but my comment was directed at 1jane for her unsupported claim against Clinton.  I read the article and came to the same conclusion as you did.

    I guess I will have to be more careful with my snippy comments - I've had problems like this before.  Sorry :(

    Parent

    Actually you get my last one! (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by MarkL on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:20:45 PM EST
    I looked at your comment history, because I didn't think what you said to ME was in character.
    No harm done.
    Have a good night.

    Parent
    Thanks :) (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by lilburro on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:31:23 PM EST
    Have a good night too!

    Parent
    Liburro, don't worry. Your intent was clear ... (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by cymro on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:26:22 PM EST
    ... to me, at least. So I imagine that others reading the thread could see what you were referring to.

    Parent
    Hubris (5.00 / 13) (#19)
    by Prabhata on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:02:11 PM EST
    What Obama appears to have displayed with Edwards is his hubris that I perceived a few times with his comments, such as "I am confident I will get her votes if I'm the nominee. It's not clear she would get the votes I got if she were the nominee."; and "You're likable enough" to HRC in a debate.  There was a time I could have supported Obama, but that time is now long gone.  I've now decided to vote for HRC in November no matter what.  If I have to write her name, so be it.  I know that write-in-candidates votes are not counted, but that will not deter me from voting for the best candidate.

    Hubris means more than arrogance... (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by MarkL on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:06:11 PM EST
    what exactly is Obama's tragic flaw? He's not daring the gods, is he? Nah!!

    Parent
    Si, se puede! (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by lansing quaker on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:09:50 PM EST
    Obama took his name off of my primary ballot!  He was respecting the rules!

    And now he doesn't want a re-vote in my state unless it's a caucus!

    It's a nice 7 months until November, but I won't forget.  He takes his name off my ballot and says it won't count now?

    Then I'll just take his name off my ballot come November.  Michigan swings?

    Parent

    In fairness (4.00 / 1) (#46)
    by 1jpb on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:30:46 PM EST
    he wasn't the only one who said your vote wouldn't count.  

    Parent
    full quote (3.00 / 1) (#44)
    by 1jpb on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:27:34 PM EST
    The full comment is less obnoxious.

    "You're likable enough, no doubt about it."

    Still not a good choice of words.

    We don't really know how they feel about each other.  In public they both make an effort to seem friendly.  But, I can never forget that I read the story of them "talking" to each other on the tarmac near their private planes.  Apparently there was a lot of animated gesturing, and staff reports said there was animosity, although none of the actual conversation ever leaked.

    Who knows what they really think about each other?  Why does the public want them to pretend they're some kind of pals?  I don't like that phony stuff.

    Parent

    I saw him say it in real time (5.00 / 5) (#82)
    by shoephone on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:16:06 PM EST
    during the debate. His delivery was rude. People haven't forgotten it

    Parent
    And after one of the debates, (5.00 / 3) (#114)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:55:08 PM EST
    on the Senate floor, she went to shake his hand and he turned his back on her and ignored her. The senators standing with him looked uncomfortable. I thought that was just about the rudest thing I had ever seen.

    Parent
    Precisely (5.00 / 3) (#148)
    by Lou Grinzo on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:47:45 PM EST
    That's exactly the point: You can't just read a transcript of that exchange from the debate, you have to experience the video.  He did himself no favors with that line and the delivery.

    As I've said before, all he had to do was place one hand over his heart, smile gently and say something like, "You've always had my deepest respect, Hillary."  It would have been a genuinely touching moment and it would have made him look and sound like a billion bucks in a great suit.

    Parent

    Same here. (5.00 / 1) (#211)
    by oldpro on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:26:20 AM EST
    It was grudging and dismissive.

    As revealing as anything he's said in the entire campaign.

    Parent

    please don't make up things. (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by ghost2 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:34:26 PM EST
    I have no recollection of 'no doubt about it'.  All he said was "you are likable enough, Hillary", and I cringed.  

    Unless you can find a youtube of debate to prove your version of events.

    Parent

    Found it (4.00 / 1) (#152)
    by 1jpb on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:51:06 PM EST
    Class and No Class (5.00 / 12) (#20)
    by LCaution on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:02:17 PM EST
    From the start of the campaign, watching Clinton and Obama after Iowa and New Hampshire, it became clear that Clinton was the one with class.

    Anybody not suffering from HDS who has watched the body language and listened to the two would see it. But neither Obama's "she's likable enough" or his snub, or the way he looks down at her (or in a photo I saw, at McCain) will convince an Obama supporter.

    Even an Aussie noticed it.
    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23140008-7583,00.html

    I agree with the Edwardses (5.00 / 10) (#22)
    by zyx on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:04:46 PM EST
    It seems to me that Obama is glib, aloof, and shallow.

    This troubles me.

    And thin skinned (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by nellre on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:38:06 PM EST
    Doesn't look like he ever went to the school of hard knocks.

    Parent
    Where exactly did you get Edwards thoughts (none / 0) (#154)
    by DemPrezin2008 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:53:13 PM EST
    from a Pro-Clinton article does not represent an endorsement by Edwards.  Please show me where Edwards has made any of these assertations.  A pro-clinton article on a pro-clinton blog is not media coverage.

    Parent
    1Jane, one more insult (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:04:48 PM EST
    and you're gone from here.

    Interesting (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by nell on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:10:58 PM EST
    I had mixed feelings about Edwards as a candidate and I sometimes thought he was really unfair to HRC, such as during the NH debate when he called her the status quo, but the South Carolina debate was an eye opener for me. I started to respect Edwards a lot more because he went after BOTH candidates - he called them both out when he thought they needed to be called out.

    And I think that was the debate that I first saw how incredulous he was at some of Obama's positions and claims, about health care, about the credit card interest rates (his excuse on that one to me sounded kind of like when he claimed he pushed the wrong button...on 6 different bills...2 of which were highly controversial), and even about Obama not taking money from lobbyists, which he does. That being said, Edwards has his own issues with Hillary and that's fine...

    I am glad he is staying out of it for now.

    Methinx Edwards (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Rainsong on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:42:42 PM EST
    Edwards is between a rock and a hard place.

    He has personal issues with Hillary, but politically he is much closer to Clinton than Obama. On policy alone - he might find more "job satisfaction" in a Clinton administration than under an Obama one?

    I also don't blame him for staying out of it until the end. Some super-delegates probably prefer a secret ballot anyway, and don't want to make their voting intentions public.


    Parent

    Is not the $64 million question.... (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Oje on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:34:49 PM EST
    Why did Edwards not endorse Clinton. That is not explained, and the whole frame of the article is how "Obama blew" an endorsement. That is certainly one side of the story. But, why did Edwards fall short of a public endorsement of Clinton, who clearly won their private exchanges? When will that story be told, I wonder...

    not really (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:57:42 PM EST
    It doesn't surprise me that edwards wouldn't endorse clinton, even apart from the personal stuff.  Hillary is behind - a politician takes a huge risk in endorsing in that circumstance.  And most politicians are risk adverse.

    More interesting is not endorsing obama.  It's the logical thing for a losing candidate to do - get behind the front runner and hope for spoils later on (see: dodd and richardson and all the gop drop outs).  

    The fact that edwards hasn't taken this step tells me two things - 1) he's interested in positioning himself as a party elder a la gore (and avoid losing stature by becoming another attack dog a la kerry) and 2) something about obama put him off.

    Parent

    I think he is planning on endorsing her soon. (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by ajain on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:01:25 PM EST

    I have read other stories that one of the reasons he hadn't endorsed her yet was because he didnt want the image of Southern White Guy not endorsing a Black candidate. (especially at the height of the race issue)

    Also I've heard that Clinton has been in regular conversations with him. So maybe there is some strategic thing going on.

    Parent

    no we aren't, (5.00 / 5) (#58)
    by cpinva on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:42:42 PM EST
    and yes it is.

    Pretty soon we are all going to have to suck it up and get together to beat John McCain. This is getting really really old.

    the more i see/hear/read about sen. obama, the less i care for him, as either a presidential candidate or human being. his bona fides are paper thin, by comparison to sen. clinton's and his whole campaign seems to be about the wonderfulness of him. while his wife may have been wowed by that, i'm not.

    frankly, i didn't believe edwards had a snowball's chance, his run with kerry made him tainted goods. that said, he also has a much greater integrity level than sen. obama. his policy positions seem to be more closely aligned with sen. clinton than sen. obama. i could easily see him in a cabinet position in a clinton administration.

    true or not, this does seem have just enough factual data in it to have the ring of accuracy about it.

    I feel the same way - (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by Anne on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:53:27 PM EST
    the more i see/hear/read about sen. obama, the less i care for him, as either a presidential candidate or human being.

    I am already at the stage where hearing his voice makes me run for the "mute" button.

    As for Edwards, he was doomed from the start, with the media simply ignoring him; I fully expect that if he does endorse Clinton, the coverage will be along the lines of "some guy - I think his first name is John - endorsed Clinton today."

    I think he would be a top-notch point person on health care as VP - he could do for it what Al Gore has done for climate change, only from within the government.  I truly believe that's the only way to move this issue along - I can't help thinking that Obama's health plan will never get off the paper it's written on.

    I think she wins big in PA, and then gets a pre-NC endorsement from Edwards to move that state into the win column for her, too.

    Parent

    Mute (5.00 / 2) (#165)
    by nell on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:07:39 PM EST
    is right...it is really a strange feeling. I hate listening to George W Bush, but I just make fun of him. With Obama...I change the channel or mute RIGHT AWAY. I cannot stand even looking at his face...it is a very, very strange feeling...

    As for the Edwards endorsement, I know the PPP poll isn't the most reliable, but it seemed to suggest that it would make some 30 percent of people be less likely to support Hillary...honestly, there could be a backlash if people in NC perceive it as being two white people ganging up on Obama. I know that sounds really silly, but the way race and racial guilt have been exploited by his campaign is unreal.

    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#172)
    by 1jpb on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:13:42 PM EST
    that it would be unfair to look at that situation as white people ganging up against BO.  But I don't think that BO would accuse them of that.

    Parent
    I don't think Health Care is particularly (none / 0) (#173)
    by nycstray on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:15:08 PM EST
    high on his agenda. Not sure what is. Methinks it will change if he's elected. And if he does do anything with it, we're talking watering down an already watered down proposal.  {sigh}

    Parent
    You mentioned (none / 0) (#166)
    by 1jpb on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:09:06 PM EST
    HRC's bona fides.  As you see it, what are her most impressive legislative accomplishments?

    Parent
    Great diary Jeralyn. (5.00 / 7) (#62)
    by Gabriele Droz on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:45:03 PM EST
    Thank you.  It's easy to feel down, until someone kicks up some reality up against the overwhelming spin.

    Can't comment on the sourcing of this article. (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by clio on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:16:47 PM EST
    Don't know enough.
    I can, however, comment on the language which,IMO, is imprecise at the the very least:

    [Obama's]response to Edwards's imprecations...

    An imprecation is a curse.

    Somehow I doubt that Edwards used curses or denunciation[s] invoking a wish or threat of evil or injury to try to persuade Obama to "make poverty a central part of his agenda."  If Edwards did indeed use imprecations it is little wonder that Obama was not persuaded.

    Perhaps Mr. Heilemann meant to say implorations:  an earnest or urgent request?

    It would be much more likely, sensible and effective for Edwards to use an "earnest request" rather than an "evil threat" when discussing agendas with any presidential candidate.

    I don't wish to infer more from this [possible] mistake than it warrants, but if the sourcing of this article is as haphazard as the writing and the editing its veracity seems questionable, at least to me.

    Or maybe (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by ruffian on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:32:00 PM EST
    supplications: a humble request, prayer, petition, etc.

    Great catch either way.  The imprecations make for an amusing mental image of the scene though.

    Parent

    I don't like Obama (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by Nadai on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:00:14 PM EST
    but this is both rude and way over the top.

    it wouold be even more over the top (none / 0) (#140)
    by RalphB on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:36:52 PM EST
    if it wasn't probably true.  though it could be said  in a calmer manner.

    Parent
    The dislike of (none / 0) (#183)
    by MKS on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:33:29 PM EST
    Obama apparently extends to even his playing hoops.......

    Parent
    I deleted that comment (none / 0) (#218)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:31:27 AM EST
    and it had profanity which is not allowed here. ACitizen knows better too.

    Parent
    that is what happens (5.00 / 2) (#182)
    by TheRefugee on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:27:18 PM EST
    when you are a "toe my line, kiss my a$%" type, eventually you meet someone who doesn't feel the need to do either.  

    Since I was a big JE supporter I wish if that was the case he would have had stood up and told the rest of the world at the time:  "I endorse Hillary and THIS is why." Not sure why he still hasn't endorsed if that was the case.  

    Because it's always a good time (5.00 / 4) (#193)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:58:39 PM EST
    to celebrate the fact that the loser of a primary can win an election through undemocratic processes after the fact, no?

    Ah yes,"teh roolz" (5.00 / 2) (#196)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:03:44 AM EST
    How do you feel about the 2000 Presidential election?

    Parent
    The result of the 2000 (5.00 / 2) (#202)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:10:57 AM EST
    Presidential election was decided against the clear overall will of the people (in Gore's favor no matter what happened in FL).

    Gore got more votes, but lost the election because of the precious rules, as laid down by the Supreme Court. Even if Bush actually won FL by 500 votes (and I don't believe he did), the result was undemocratic and, to my mind, nothing to cheer about. And yet here you are doing exactly that. It disgusts me, frankly.


    Parent

    Gore lost because (5.00 / 3) (#209)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:23:56 AM EST
    the Supreme Court mandated a certain procedure for counting votes in Florida. He also lost because the angelic rules say that we elect presidents in the electoral college, and not by popular vote.

    The millions of Texans who were able to vote in the primary, but for whatever reason could not participate in the precinct caucus, had their intentions diluted. I consider that reprehensible.  

    Parent

    The Texas state party is responsible (5.00 / 1) (#217)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:29:43 AM EST
    for their travesty of a system, yes. But I am reacting to your ridiculous celebration of the distorted result that system is producing.

    Remember the Brooks Brothers riot in Florida? That's what you're sounding like.

    Parent

    Kentucky (5.00 / 3) (#210)
    by cal1942 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:24:25 AM EST
    Hillary will also win Kentucky, BIG.

    Bob Johnson (5.00 / 5) (#215)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:29:11 AM EST
    Today was your first day here. I asked you to limit yourself to 20 comments. You posted 36. Please take Sunday off, and if you return, limit yourself to 20 comments a day. Thanks much.

    So Obama will lose? (4.66 / 6) (#48)
    by waldenpond on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:33:58 PM EST
    Here is the part of the article you refer to:

    Some senior members of Clinton's campaign have no intention of sticking around if Obama is substantially ahead come June; as much as they're devoted to their boss, they want nothing to do with a black-bag operation designed to destroy her rival, no matter what the cost.

    I agree with you on this.  I don't think they will.

    Here's a part of the article you chose to leave out:

    But these same people are also deeply convinced--beyond spin, beyond talking points, to their core--that Obama would be doomed against McCain. And Clinton believes this, too, which is one important reason why she persists despite odds that grow longer each passing day.

    Agree with that part?

    Edwards, the loser (1.66 / 6) (#65)
    by Seth90212 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:52:39 PM EST
    demands that Obama, the front-runner and likely nominee, prioritize Edwards' policy positions over Obama's. Yeah, who's being arrogant here? Of the three (Obama, Hillary, Edwards) I have always believed that Edwards was the most arrogant, phony and self-absorbed. This article only confirms that. Not to mention a very popular video on youtube where this guy preens himself for a longer period of time than most of you ladies do in a week.

    If Edwards doesn't matter (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by shoephone on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:18:12 PM EST
    then why did Obama want his endorsement so much?

    And um.. Obama's NOT arrogant?

    Parent

    Obama's arrogance.. (5.00 / 4) (#159)
    by lentinel on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:55:38 PM EST
    To me, Obama's arrogance is so apparent I can hardly believe that everyone doesn't recoil from it instantly.

    He affects me in the same way that Bush does.
    When he appears on TV, I can't switch the channel fast enough.

    This is subjective.

    The speech at the convention that has been almost universally hailed as electrifying was something I found to be like the experience of someone letting air out of a balloon.

    His recent speech on race, again hailed as a milestone in modern oratory was to me a transparent attempt to blunt criticism and avoid controversy by wrapping himself in the flag. Changing the subject from "chickens coming home to roost" and American foreign policy to a discussion on race and his grandma reminded me of the Clarence Thomas mode of dealing with the credible accusations of Anita Hill.

    Parent

    Whend did kissing someone's butt unnecessarily... (1.00 / 2) (#36)
    by tbetz on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:16:05 PM EST
    ... first begin to qualify as "diplomacy"?

    Edwards was negotiating for something from Obama, offering Obama something that he didn't need, and demanding from him in exchange something he didn't want to give up -- a significant change in his political platform.

    Hillary kissed Edwards' butt, and still didn't get his endorsement, because, according to Heilemann, "Elizabeth hates her guts."  Obama didn't need Edwards' endorsement -- for example, he's already obtained most of Edwards' pledged Iowa delegates without it -- so he didn't kiss Edwards' butt.  

    Frankly, the whole "a Democratic strategist unaligned with any campaign but with knowledge of the situation gleaned from all three camps" source stinks of sour-grapes hearsay.

    You read (5.00 / 4) (#40)
    by lilburro on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:22:18 PM EST
    "Engaged Edwards in a lengthy policy discussion" as "butt-kissing"?

    Um......Ok.

    Parent

    I stopped feeling charitably toward Edwards... (none / 0) (#53)
    by tbetz on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:38:49 PM EST
    ... when he dropped out of the race the day after sending out a fund-raising appeal containing a promise that he was in the race right up to the convention.  

    As I read this story, Edwards didn't get the cabinet position promise he wanted from Obama, so he's putting out poison now.

    Candidates run on platforms that are a combination of their intentions and what they believe will get them into a position to work toward their intentions.

    Obama has recognized that the word "mandate" is poison at the polls, so he leaves an opt-out opening for adults in his health-care plan.

    What will end up being implemented will bear little resemblance to any Presidential candidate's proposals.

    Did FDR run with Social Security in his platform?  

    No, but that's what he enacted.

    With a big enough and progressive enough Congressional majority, even an Obama can enact a basic single-payer health care plan.  A Clinton never can.

    Parent

    What made you read it (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by lilburro on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:52:01 PM EST
    this way:

    "As I read this story, Edwards didn't get the cabinet position promise he wanted from Obama, so he's putting out poison now."

    I didn't get that at all.  And is "mandate" poison at the polls?  I didn't know.

    Parent

    I'm reading between the lines. (none / 0) (#68)
    by tbetz on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:57:30 PM EST
    My reading is based on my less-than-charitable opinion of Edwards, developed since he dropped out of the race, and on the fact that Heilemann's sole source for information about the interaction between Obama and Edwards -- as Heilemann himself admits -- is anonymous, and is hirself relaying second-hand (at best) information from three other anonymous sources.

    Parent
    You are not reading (5.00 / 5) (#127)
    by hookfan on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:21:01 PM EST
    I think you are blowing smoke.
     Hillary kissing butt-- no proof just poisonous allegation
     Edwards putting out poison-- no proof just poisonous allegation
     Obama will include single payer system if he has enough support-- no proof just positive imagination.

    Parent
    You are ignoring history... (none / 0) (#171)
    by tbetz on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:13:28 PM EST
    ... by pretending that the details of a president's campaign platform have any real relationship to the legislation they sign into law once they are elected.

    It's a common problem.

    Parent

    Fair enough (none / 0) (#72)
    by lilburro on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:02:09 PM EST
    I'm curious about this source as well.  But the "mandates are political poison" aspect I don't agree with - it seems more like the "common knowledge" that enabled so many of the things we currently frown upon from Bill Clinton's administration.

    Parent
    Did FDR run with Social Security in his platform? (5.00 / 4) (#74)
    by LHinSeattle on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:04:29 PM EST
    Did FDR run with Social Security in his platform? No, but that's what he enacted.

    So, does this mean if a candidate does NOT have a program in his platform when running, voters can count on that candidate to enact that program when elected?  

    Hey! McCain doesn't have universal health care in his platform. So, that means.....

    Parent

    No, I'm saying that the most important work... (none / 0) (#169)
    by tbetz on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:10:47 PM EST
    ... of a president is usually not part of his campaign platform. I'm saying that this year, the candidate's campaign platform is far less important than the size of the Democratic Congressional majority he can bring along with him to Washington.


    Parent
    Based on your comment, he's either (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by Joan in VA on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:11:49 PM EST
    not a progressive or he's poor negotiator. If you start out not asking for much, by the time you negotiate, you end up with not much of anything. But I don't think it's important to him anyway.

    And your last comment is just nonsense.

    Parent

    "Single payer"? (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by shoephone on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:36:59 PM EST
    Obama's plan doesn't even provide universal access to care, much less in a single payer system.

    And as far as what Obama did or didn't offer Edwards, do you really think that Richardson endorsed Obama without getting a promise first? Especially since Richardson's endorsement came well after the NM vote, his motivation couldn't have been more transparent.

    Parent

    Maybe (none / 0) (#117)
    by clapclappointpoint on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:58:26 PM EST
    he knew that Obama was going to win because of the math and was worried about the "kitchen sink" Hillary was throwing at him.

    Or, he could have been bribed, like you suggest.

    Parent

    Politics 101 (none / 0) (#126)
    by shoephone on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:19:47 PM EST
    Defeated presidential candidates endorse their opponents all the time -- if they have been promised something in return.

    Duh.

    Richardson's endorsement won't get Obama many votes, even the Latino votes. Did you not notice how poorly Richardson did in comparison to Clinton when it came to Latino voters?


    Parent

    I'm of the opinion (none / 0) (#136)
    by clapclappointpoint on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:35:09 PM EST
    that Richardson was probably the most experienced candidate who was in the race (House of Reps, Diplomat, Secretary, Governor, etc).  His endorsement is valuable whenever it comes.  I really think it's really sad that you think he's just important to Latino voters.

    Parent
    gee and he was appointed (none / 0) (#147)
    by RalphB on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:47:36 PM EST
    a Diplomat and a Secretary by Bill Clinton.  chances are that Governorship came from those appointments.  without them he'd be just another back bench congressman.  huh, i'll bet that's what hacked Carville.


    Parent
    You're right (none / 0) (#174)
    by clapclappointpoint on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:18:12 PM EST
    Richardson wasn't qualified to hold those offices.  He was just given them by Bill C. so that, in exchange, Richardson would help Hillary with the Latino electorate.  

    Why do you have such a hard time imagining that Richardson was qualified for the posts he got, probably did a decent job at them, and picked up tons of experience doing them?  You may not like the fact that he endorsed Obama, but don't try to write him off as some sort of Ferraro-style affirmative action hire.

    Parent

    Carville definitively stated (none / 0) (#178)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:22:07 PM EST
    that the reason for his comments were because Richardson made statements to other Hillary supporters that he would endorse Hillary.

    Why not take Carville at his word since he is known for speaking his mind?

    Parent

    Superdelegates (none / 0) (#184)
    by clapclappointpoint on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:34:24 PM EST
    are free to change their minds.  Maybe something happened in the race to change his mind.

    Hopefully, at the end of this thing, half of the superdelegates will change their mind and they can all unite behind the party nominee.

    Parent

    I gotta say (none / 0) (#221)
    by shoephone on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:38:29 AM EST
    I didn't like Carville's comment one bit. It was deliberately provocative and it didn't help Hillary at all.

    Parent
    So sorry you're sad :-( (none / 0) (#214)
    by shoephone on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:27:44 AM EST
    The reality is that Richardson's experience does not rub off on Obama in the way of new votes. Like it or not, Clinton has been winning Latino votes and Obama can't get that constituency without some serious Latino creds -- hence, the hope that Richardson can help there. Unfortunately, it's not likely to help much.

    Parent
    It seems you may (5.00 / 5) (#43)
    by rooge04 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:25:08 PM EST
    have the same problem of understanding that Obama suffers from.

    Being gracious does not = kissing someone's butt.  And Obama strikes me most of all as having absolutely no grace. He is all arrogance.

    Parent

    I don't take Heilemann's hearsay source... (none / 0) (#54)
    by tbetz on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:40:03 PM EST
    ... at face value.

    See above.

    Parent

    What about a Drudge photo? (none / 0) (#70)
    by waldenpond on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:59:23 PM EST
    Damn, you took my line. ;-) nt (none / 0) (#79)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:12:19 PM EST
    Butt Kissing? (5.00 / 10) (#49)
    by kiosan on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:34:39 PM EST
    Hillary, wonkish as she is, has proved more than able to sustain at-length and in-depth extemporaneous policy discussions.  Perhaps I've been watching the wrong press, but Senator Obama has not, thus far, struck me as having the same aptitude.

    The fact that Senator Clinton, being a well-known (and much vilified for it) wonk is thereby better able to sustain a technical conversation with a proponent deeply invested in the ramifications of a given policy does not strike me as "butt-kissing" so much as "as to be expected given the historical and well-known proclivities of the particular conversants."

    I've always taken my reality with a heavy dose of pragmatism, however, so it's entirely possible I'm completely high on the stuff and thereby unable to discern between that which is true and that which is merely reasonable given the known facts.

    Parent

    Gosh (5.00 / 8) (#57)
    by Steve M on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:42:32 PM EST
    I'm certainly glad Obama wasn't willing to suck up by doing something as untrue to himself as focusing on the poverty issue.  Surely we all can appreciate the character of a man who sticks to his principles, even if those principles include things like not wanting to talk about poverty.

    Parent
    You are taking the Edwards assertions... (none / 0) (#66)
    by tbetz on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:52:48 PM EST
    ... at face value.

    I no longer do.

    Parent

    Yes, but - but - but Bill Clinton (none / 0) (#142)
    by badger on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:40:09 PM EST
    signed welfare reform so that gives Obama a free pass to ignore poverty.

    Sheesh! Haven't you learned the rules by now?

    Parent

    Did you say "butt kissing"? (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by lentinel on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:35:39 PM EST
    Frankly, I don't think we need this level of discourse -

    However - if we are to go there, here is the gold standard for the act you have described:

    Obama speaks:

    "I am absolutely certain Connecticut is going to have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the U.S. Senate so he can continue to serve on our behalf."

    Obama, still in position, also referred to Lieberman's "good heart" and "keen intellect".

    Open the windows!!

    Parent

    Get me some smelling salts! (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by clapclappointpoint on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:10:23 PM EST
    Someone said "b***" on teh interwebs.  I think I'm getting the vapors.

    Obama (and a bunch of other Dems) supported Lieberman as the incumbent in the primary.  As soon as he lost, they dropped him like a hot turd and supported Lamont.  Lamont, in fact, supports Obama today (warning, link to the Great Orange Satan).

    Parent

    Obama is one of the bunch... (5.00 / 2) (#207)
    by lentinel on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:20:34 AM EST
    Obama is indeed one of the bunch.

    But his prose about Lieberman is the most glaringly sycophantic of the lot.

    All you guys have to say when confronted with this example of idiocy from Obama is that so and so did it too. Or Lamont supports Obama.

    The simple fact is that Obama is parading as someone above the bunch. He postures as the one who is against the war and better than the rest. Then he goes to Connecticut to support Lieberman.
    What crap. What hypocrisy.

    The fresh face will do anything to be part of the bunch - even betray the soldiers in the field.

    And about Lamont supporting him? So?

    In 2006 the issue was the war. Lamont had the guts to represent the people. Obama was sucking up to the vested interests in general, the party bigwigs and Lieberman in particular.

    So the best you or anyone can say is that Obama is no worse than the rest. Great. But that's not what we're being sold and asked to buy.

    Parent

    Tough Assessments of Clinton (1.00 / 3) (#76)
    by AdrianLesher on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:09:40 PM EST
    As an Obama supporter, my favorite parts of the article:

    So appalled was Edwards at Clinton's gaudy corporatism--her defense of the role of lobbyists, her suckling at the teats of the pharmaceutical and defense industries--that he'd essentially called her corrupt. And then, not least, there were the sentiments of his wife. "Elizabeth hasn't always been crazy about Mrs. Clinton" is how an Edwards insider puts it; a less delicate member of HRC's circle says, "Elizabeth hates her guts."

    **

    Rarely a day passes without his people dubbing her a liar and a fraud. (Although when it comes to Snipergate, it's hard to blame them.) They have accused Bill Clinton of McCarthyism and invoked the infamous blue dress on which he left his, er, DNA--the latter coming on a blog post arguing that he actually makes McCarthy look benign. Indeed, it sometimes seems as if the Obamans are actively trying to cede the moral high ground.

    The sight and sounds of Clinton's lieutenants scrambling to claim that ground--which, after all, is about as foreign to many of them as the beaches of Bora Bora--has been amusing, as each denunciation of their rival's negativity is juxtaposed immediately with some fresh depredation from their side. James Carville's likening of Bill Richardson to Judas Iscariot. (With the beard, I guess, you can kinda see it, but wasn't Judas a skinny dude?) The clear suggestion by WJC, which provoked the charges of McCarthyism, that Obama is less patriotic than Hillary. Her attempt to reignite the Parson Wright conflagration by asserting that "he would not have been my pastor."



    As a Democrat (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by kredwyn on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:23:39 PM EST
    That you like bits such as this:
    Rarely a day passes without his people dubbing her a liar and a fraud.
    saddens me.

    Parent
    Jeralyn's site (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by waldenpond on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:28:06 PM EST
    Tone down the Hillary-hate.  Try reviewing BTD's items on not alienating Clinton supporters.  You will lose without those votes in Nov.

    Parent
    Funny, I read recently (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by zyx on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:30:19 PM EST
    Obama's donations from pharma are higher than Clinton's.

    I know a woman whose son died from Zyprexa use complications, and she's a big Obama supporter, and she considers Clinton to be a corporate 'ho.  I passed this on to her, but she still thinks Obama is unsullied by any corporate taint.  I suppose he doesn't think they would want anything in return, like Tony Rezko wouldn't.  In Chicago, nobody EVER wants anything in return.  That is why Obama is so innocent!

    Parent

    Obama (none / 0) (#108)
    by clapclappointpoint on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:46:34 PM EST
    doesn't take any money from PACs or lobbyists.  When you fill out the form to give him money, you enter your employer's name.  If, god forbid, you work for an oil company or in pharma or for a school, you're contribution is listed as coming from a particular sector.  Hillary, on the other hand, takes money from both corporate lobbyists and coporate PACs.

    It's sort of like the difference between loving your mother, who works for the GOP as a secretary, and loving the GOP.

    Parent

    Well, coincidentally (5.00 / 5) (#118)
    by zyx on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:58:41 PM EST
    pharmaceutical employees seem to have been overwhelmed with wallet-opening luuuv for Obama.  It is quite a happy circumstance for him.

    Parent
    Maybe (1.00 / 2) (#123)
    by clapclappointpoint on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:17:10 PM EST
    it's because 2 million people contributed to him and he has a lot of support from college graduates and professionals?

    Parent
    Obama and jes plain folks. (5.00 / 3) (#130)
    by lentinel on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:25:35 PM EST
    Yep.
    Ol' Obama gets money from the little people crackin' open their piggy banks.

    Here's a little contribution - jes' a few pennies from farmer Goldman and Missus Sachs.

    Parent

    Again with the idea (5.00 / 5) (#138)
    by kiosan on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:35:59 PM EST
    that those not supporting Obama must be lacking in education and/or culture?  Some of us non-adherents have been perfectly well educated, enjoy John Irving, Kurt Vonnegut, Shakespeare, Albert Brooks and Christopher Guest, and even manage to hold down decently-paying jobs on a regular basis.

    Could you possibly come up with an original hypothesis (maybe one than doesn't insult either the intelligence or the integrity of the very constituents your candidate will need in the general)?

    Parent

    Every Clinton supporter (none / 0) (#163)
    by clapclappointpoint on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:04:51 PM EST
    I've read who tries to tear the electorate into sections has written off Obama's supporters as "latte liberals", kids and blacks.  These same people claim that Clinton supporters are salt-of-the-earth working-class people.  Personally, I'd rather not play demographic games, dividing America into "microtrends", but if my candidate's supporters are dismissed as "liberal elites", why not find some upside to it?

    I'd never call anyone stupid for supporting any candidate.  I'm sure there are tons of brilliant people here and am glad to be able to engage in reasoned discussion with them.

    Parent

    Here's the thing, (5.00 / 4) (#191)
    by kiosan on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:56:06 PM EST
    I don't come here because I want to engage in the same ridiculous talking points - those are available on innumerable other sites which would require much less of an investment of my time and resources.  I come here because, presumably, those Obama supporters who frequent choose not to paint with the brush of "every Hillary supporter."

    I assume most who support the Senator from Illinois believe they have very good reasons for doing so; I'd simply like the same courtesy.

    And much as I understand the tendency to stereotype when one has been stereotyped, I have yet to participate in drawing first blood on this score, so I entirely reserve the right to be miffed at either being told I have, or bearing the brunt of frustrations with the way corporate media chooses to portray demographics.

    We are not the media.  We have independent thought to free us of their preconceptions, and just because they choose to portray any particular set of supporters as entirely homogeneous, does not mean we, as intelligent and independent thinkers, have to buy into it.

    We can actually choose otherwise if it suits us.

    Parent

    You people crack me up, giving yourselves (5.00 / 5) (#181)
    by WillBFair on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:25:51 PM EST
    intellectual airs. You swallowed the media's idiotic smears of the Clintons, haven't noticed that Obama's best policies were adopted from the Clintons, and actually take seriously his bizaar rhetoric posing as policy. It only took a deep voice and sing song rhetoric to put you into a trance, from which you don't have to do the hard work of thinking about issues. You actually believe the republicans will unite with us in the ge, despite what they did to the Clintons and Gore and Kerry and every other democrat in memory.
    Reality check: college taught you rhetoric instead of logic. You're living in a dream world and will swallow ridiculous fanatsies that others see through in half a second. And you've replaced educated discourse in the party with shallow insults and name calling. Right. Your real educated.
    http://a-civilife.blogspot.com  

    Parent
    Must've been (5.00 / 7) (#124)
    by badger on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:18:47 PM EST
    the housekeeping staff buying those $1000 a plate lunches at Credit Suisse last Thursday.

    Parent
    Read this.. (5.00 / 7) (#128)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:23:22 PM EST
    and weep. He is in just as deep to corporations and lobbyists as anyone else. And he got tied in fast, too. Harper's as a good article on it..it says in part,
    Yet it is also startling to see how quickly Obama's senatorship has been woven into the web of institutionalized influence-trading that afflicts official Washington. He quickly established a political machine funded and run by a standard Beltway group of lobbyists, P.R. consultants, and hangers-on. For the staff post of policy director he hired Karen Kornbluh, a senior aide to Robert Rubin when the latter, as head of the Treasury Department under Bill Clinton, was a chief advocate for NAFTA and other free-trade policies that decimated the nation's manufacturing sector (and the organized labor wing of the Democratic Party). Obama's top contributors are corporate law and lobbying firms (Kirkland & Ellis and Skadden, Arps, where four attorneys are fund-raisers for Obama as well as donors), Wall Street financial houses (Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase), and big Chicago interests (Henry Crown and Company, an investment firm that has stakes in industries ranging from telecommunications to defense). Obama immediately established a "leadership PAC," a vehicle through which a member of Congress can contribute to other politicians' campaigns--and one that political reform groups generally view as a slush fund through which congressional leaders can evade campaign-finance rules while raising their own political profiles.

    No corporate donations, no PAC donation?? Nice dream world you live in.

    Parent

    That is not true Clap (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by MichaelGale on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:27:46 PM EST
    Google it and you'll find plenty of money he takes from Exxon, Mobile and all big oil lobbies.  

    And don't forget how he voted in the Senate.  Thank him for being so generous now that we will be paying $4 a gallon.

    Parent

    Yeah, that there Enegry Bill was some (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by nycstray on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:36:36 PM EST
    great 'judgment' now, wasn't it . . .

    Kinda renders his energy talks a bit, um . . .

    Parent

    Find me a link (none / 0) (#146)
    by clapclappointpoint on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:42:44 PM EST
    If you want an accusation, find me a link.

    Every check from a registered lobbyist gets sent right back to the lobbyist.  The same works with PAC money.  If you're like this woman at Exxon-Mobil, who does shift work at Exxon-Mobil, your money is included in any totals "from Exxon-Mobil".  Maybe her CEO demanded that she contribute to him, but it's probably more likely that she did it on her own.  Lots of people work at big bad corporations, but they aren't all part of some conspiracy to buy the election $20 at a time.

    Parent

    Oh good grief (5.00 / 2) (#208)
    by waldenpond on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:21:06 AM EST
    just try opensecrets.org or some other site. They'll give you a quick tick of $4million.  Use Google, it's your friend.

    Parent
    Bamboozled! (5.00 / 4) (#158)
    by jen on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:54:58 PM EST
    About a year ago The Hill revealed the Obama campaign's plan to raise money through lobbyists by having the lobbyists work as bundlers rather than donating money themselves. (link)

    It is clear that what the Obama campaign wanted to do was raise money from lobbyists while maintaining deniability that it was raising money from lobbyists.  This is disingenuous, cynical and extremely deceptive.  Rather than transcending politics as usual this is even worse because it is an effort to give the appearance of transcending politics even while one is playing politics.  It is an effort to pretend to be above it all and working in the interests of the people when one is really doing the "same ol' same ol'" and worse.

    This is bamboozling at its finest.  This is what the okie doke really looks like.  This is "do as I say and not as I do."  This is fooling people into supporting you and attacking your opponent for made-up reasons that don't really exist.

    Now let's talk about what really matters.  By attacking Senator Clinton, who has an excellent voting record where lobbyists are concerned (link), Senator Obama is distracting from who the real enemy is for the working class voters who are affected when lobbyists get special input on behalf of corporate interests.  That real enemy uses Tort Reform as a scam to promote a big business agenda and was using its K Street Project to further that agenda.  

    Instead of inventing his own K Street Project in a cynical effort to deceive voters into thinking his hands are clean of lobbyist monies, rather than playing politics and bringing false charges against a fellow Democrat, Senator Obama needs to join with Senator Clinton and attack the real enemy of working class Americans.

    h/t mike pridmore
     



    Parent
    I'd like to see the DK , TPM, Huffpo (none / 0) (#220)
    by thereyougo on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:34:24 AM EST
    blogs read The Hill story.

    Sounds like he's coming apart there.

    And about the arrogance, Ed Rendel already got the call from the nominee himself, telling him everything will go smooth in Nov.Got it? Arrogant?

    very.

    Parent

    That's skewed (none / 0) (#134)
    by nycstray on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:33:52 PM EST
    Her support is grassroots also. You have to fill out the same info when you donate to her, and I suspect any candidate. BOTH had big $$$$ before they started.

    Parent
    I read the full context of Bill's remarks (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by esmense on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:40:38 PM EST
    There is no way he was questioning Obama's patriotism. In fact, Obama didn't enter into his remarks at all.

    The Obama camp has become so sensitive, and the media so disingenuous, that not mentioning Obama is now not only an attack but a "McCarthyite" attack.

    Supporting a candidate, any candidate, isn't an excuse for excusing this kind of deplorable behavior on the part of the media and the dishonest campaign consultants.

    A pox on them all and the people who fall for their nonsense.

    Parent

    There is plenty of ways you can read into (none / 0) (#160)
    by DemPrezin2008 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:00:47 PM EST
    it that he was questioning his patriotism.  Wouldn't it be great if we had two Americans in the election that loved their country.  hmmmm worst case very poor choice of words worser case direct attack on someones Patriotism although your right he could have been talking about Obama and McCain in the general election and questioning Clinton's patriotism.

    Parent
    Those assessments (none / 0) (#86)
    by LHinSeattle on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:21:52 PM EST
    make me wonder if the rest of the article isn't just as removed from reality. The writer could start with McCarthyism  -- and check some history books first.

    Parent
    I doubt this story is true at all. (none / 0) (#1)
    by maritza on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:42:07 PM EST
    Sounds like it is just made up.  This story is as unlikely as the Time magazine story in which a "source" said that Edwards was going to endorse Hillary because he thinks that Obama is a "wimp".

    Well that story wasn't true either.  

    Sounds like these sources are just not reliable.

    Sounds completely plausible (5.00 / 6) (#5)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:47:43 PM EST
    if you watched the debates, particularly the time Edwards was dumbfounded that Obama did not vote for the interest rate limits cause he thought they were too high so he opted for none.  I think Edwards was also committed to his health plan.  I would be shocked if Edwards, fell for the Obama shtick.  

    Parent
    what's unlikely? (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by Nasarius on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:51:34 PM EST
    As an Edwards supporter, it rings true to me, and gives a bit more detail on why he hasn't endorsed either candidate. Really, it's exactly what we've been saying for months: he disagrees with Obama on health care, and he's wary of Clinton's support of corporate power.

    Elizabeth's personal animosity towards Hillary is news, but the rest is entirely unsurprising.

    Parent

    I'd actually heard before..... (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:52:59 PM EST
    ...that Elizabeth didn't like Hillary, but I've never really heard why.

    Parent
    Probably (1.11 / 9) (#99)
    by clapclappointpoint on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:32:32 PM EST
    because she's a misogynist who's afraid of strong women or naive or black or something.

    Parent
    That's really uncalled for..... (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:39:34 PM EST
    ...Elizabeth Edward has every right to like or dislike whomever she chooses and if you are suggesting that I am dissing her because she doesn't like Hillary then you couldn't be more wrong or more insulting. I adore and respect Elizabeth Edwards.

    Parent
    Lots of other Obama endorsers (1.00 / 2) (#113)
    by clapclappointpoint on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:51:55 PM EST
    have been accused of lots of other ugly things (like being bribed or holding personal grudges) around here.

    If Edwards decided to endorse Obama, I'm sure he'd be public enemy number one around here and would be accused of similar sins

    Parent

    And I watched as people like (5.00 / 4) (#116)
    by kredwyn on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:58:22 PM EST
    Joe Wilson, Wes Clark, and others go from being respected activists fighting the good fight to being regarded tools for the Vast Clinton Conspiracy...only out for a cabinet position.

    Parent
    What the hell does that have to do with.... (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:01:09 PM EST
    ...what you posted? Fine, you won't apologize. I didn't expect it. I know that you are behind a keyboard but do you ever try to think for a moment that you can step outside of your role as "Obama supporter" and act like a human being for a change? Why are you here if you think so little of us?


    Parent
    many of the obama (5.00 / 6) (#141)
    by sancho on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:39:16 PM EST
    supporters seem to follow their candidate's example of grace and consideration. if obama is disinclined to apologize when he offends or oversteps the bounds of civility, why should his ssupporters.

    Parent
    Further down (none / 0) (#133)
    by clapclappointpoint on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:31:09 PM EST
    you imply that Obama's superdelegate support is paid for (bribed).  I was jokingly trying to assign a reason, for her supporting Obama, similar the things that I have heard around here.  If you thought it was directed, in any way, towards you, I assure you it wasn't.

    Parent
    If you hold the Obama superdelegates as.... (none / 0) (#150)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:49:08 PM EST
    ....dear as I hold Elizabeth Edwards, then I apologize.

    Parent
    What a wonderful example of support (none / 0) (#144)
    by hookfan on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:42:36 PM EST
    for a unity campaign. Yep I'm sure this will just have Hillary supporters screaming to support Obama. Or is it he and his followers are so grandiose to presume they won't need us if he indeed becomes the nominee? Keep poisoning the stew, then take a bite. Sure it will be good for your election stew?

    Parent
    I think you are a troll Clap (none / 0) (#132)
    by MichaelGale on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:30:40 PM EST
    (nice name) and you are getting on my nerves

    Parent
    Edwards said Obama is a (5.00 / 6) (#11)
    by waldenpond on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:55:22 PM EST
    Here are the quotes for you....

    BILL GEDDIE: Haven't we heard all along that [John Edwards] doesn't like [Hillary Clinton], haven't we heard this?

    MARK HALPERIN: Yes, that's right. And I can tell you, he's really skeptical of her ability to be the kind of president he wants. But, he kinda thinks Obama is..he thinks Obama is kind of a pussy. He has real questions about Obama's toughness, his readiness for the office.he has real doubts about Obama, not just as a president, but as a general election candidate.

    Here's the non-apology....

    I'm sorry. In a live radio interview this week, I used a word I shouldn't have. The fact that I was conveying other people's words is no excuse for my lapse in judgment. It won't happen again. -- Mark Halperin

    So, yes, you are correct.  Edwards never called Obama a 'wimp.'  Apparently he called him a pussy.

    Parent

    HAHAHAHAHA>. that made my day. (none / 0) (#12)
    by MarkL on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:57:20 PM EST
    Ok, my quota is almost up.
    Ciao.

    Parent
    Given the fact (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by kiosan on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:06:27 PM EST
    that the bad blood between Gore and the Clinton's is well, known, this article certainly makes a plausible rationale for his failure to line up behind Obama given half a chance.

    I had heard that Elizabeth and Hillary were not, ahem, the best of friends.  This is not unusual between two very strong, very powerful women who both firmly and honestly belief in the power of their principles.  

    And yes, I do recognize that Obama supporters routinely deny Senator Clinton has any principles, but that does not obviate the fact the she continues to publicly claim ownership of at least a trio of them.

    As Edwards' positions were more closely aligned with Hillary's, and Hillary is far more of a policy wonk than Obama, any personal animosity between the women could well explain Edwards' reticence to announce.

    For all it doesn't spin well for Senator Obama, I'd say the story is\ at least plausible.  To dismiss it as "made up" at this juncture is, I think, premature.  Were I the one speculating on its veracity, I imagine I would wait until we heard it from the proverbial horse's mouth.

    Parent

    Typos and no edit feature do not (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by kiosan on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:07:39 PM EST
    go well together.  Sorry about that.  I renounce and reject my proofreader forthwith.

    Parent
    You should know enough (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by felizarte on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:13:47 PM EST
    that Jeralyn and BTD do not bring up topics they cannot substantiate, even if sources are not mentioned.

    But I surmised as much since Edwards has stayed this long without endorsing Obama even after that well-publicized landing of Obama's helicopter on the Edwards estate.  In contrast, Hillary's meeting with Edwards was not publicized at all.

    But I always believed that Edwards commitment to the issue of poverty and healthcare is sincere and at the core of his candidacy.  He would make an excellent VP for Hillary (if he is willing to go through that again) and will be more deliberate in his words and actions.  And perhaps to Edwards, it is not apparent that the establishment candidate is really Obama, not Clinton; and Obama is much more tied to his "handlers".

    The next few weeks will be real nail-biters.  It is one time that anybody's prediction is as good as anybody else's.

    Parent

    I do believe that (4.40 / 5) (#39)
    by zyx on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:21:22 PM EST
    John and Elizabeth Edwards are appalled by Obama's health care "plan".

    I certainly am.

    Parent

    I always thought... (1.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Oje on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:59:50 PM EST
    that story (Halperin I think) was a plant. When it became known that Edwards would not endorse Obama, I thought a party operative planted a story about Edwards and a gendered slur that makes Edwards look bad and spiteful toward Obama in the event that he does endorse Clinton. Just a hunch about the origins of that story. If Obama blew the exchange with Edwards, and he knew it, then what better strategy than to cage the value of his endorsement...

    Parent
    You are saying that ... (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Tortmaster on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:10:24 PM EST
    ... Obama's campaign planted a story that a former candidate called him a ***? And, the benefit to Obama would be that he would be able to explain away a possible future Edwards endorsement of Clinton?  

    Parent
    Yep... (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Oje on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:30:44 PM EST
    No substance to my guess, but when I read that story I was struck by how bad it made Edwards look, not the candidates. Would Edwards really use a gender slur to explain his decision not to endorse Obama? Seems out of character for him... But, say it is true. Would one of his ex-operatives who jumped to Obama eagerly tell that story to the press? For a reason, yes.

    Parent
    Weren't those words summing up (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by nycstray on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:32:41 PM EST
    what Halperin thought Edwards thought/said? Not actually what Edwards said?

    Parent
    out of character (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by irene adler on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:50:32 PM EST
    i think it's out of character too. but did Halperin say he was quoting Edwards or was he only characterizing JE's opinion of Obama?

    But, he kinda thinks Obama is..he thinks Obama is kind of a p***y.

    Halperin didn't say 'he said Obama is...' he said 'he thinks Obama is..."

    maybe what John Edwards actually said was that Obama was weak. or caves when pushed. we don't know for certain.  

    Parent

    I think (none / 0) (#115)
    by Nadai on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:56:22 PM EST
    it was more the part that read ...I used a word I shouldn't have. The fact that I was conveying other people's words is no excuse for my lapse in judgment that makes it sound like pussy is Edwards' word.  But who knows, really?

    Parent
    So maybe... (none / 0) (#201)
    by Oje on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:09:43 AM EST
    It is the word of an Edwards-to-Obama surrogate, and not Edwards directly, that Halperin quoted. Still seems strange to me that the word had any currency in a presidential campaign. How long has Halperin been a professional journalist? He did not know there would be a response? Please.

    One thing, for certain, is that when historians write about the historic race between the first African-American or woman to be a Democratic party nominee, they will spend 2-3 chapters discussing the fact that juvenile white boys who thought it would be lots of fun to trivialize racism and sexism for political gain ran their campaigns, and even more juvenile white boys in the media spent the better of 3 months amusing themselves with charges of racism and sexism between the campaigns.

    Parent

    I believe (none / 0) (#6)
    by waldenpond on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:49:52 PM EST
    that it was Mark Halperin who heard that comment?  Anywhooo... I remember the apology posted on his page... it was 'I'm sorry for using that word.'  It was never that the comment wasn't made.

    Parent
    in an article a few weeks after he suspended (none / 0) (#26)
    by Josey on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:07:39 PM EST
    via Edwards' surrogates...he thought Obama was too inexperienced to be president.


    Parent
    That's pretty funny (none / 0) (#102)
    by clapclappointpoint on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:35:00 PM EST
    considering that Obama has more legislative experience than Edwards and doesn't have to apologize for most of his votes.

    Parent
    Ummm... (5.00 / 4) (#109)
    by kredwyn on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:47:37 PM EST
    I don't recall anyone having to apologize for voting "present" or not being at the vote in the first place...

    And Edwards's experience as an advocate for those injured by carelessness and incompetence is well documented.

    FYI--Your comments are a bit nasty tonight.

    Parent

    Obama may have done "something" (5.00 / 5) (#143)
    by MichaelGale on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:41:10 PM EST
    in Chicago other than "present"...ask Emil Jones...just in case Obama can't remember since all he had to do is carry the paperwork.  Heh

    He did little in the Senate.  What was that subcommittee he chaired that never had a meeting?

    The one that has something to do with National Security? :-)

    Parent

    And On That Point (none / 0) (#216)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:29:43 AM EST
    Is where the republican have their opening to make this election about national security.  For those supporting Obama, here's where your man's pastor comes into play.

    Un-patriotic, anti-white, anti-semetic militant black church that the American-hating Dems candidate espouses.

    If people think that the economy and health-care are going to have traction in the general, guess again.  The R's will POUND into the ground Obama's lack of oversight into Afghanistan.  Couple that with the Wright crap, and BOOM!  

    President John McCain.

    Parent

    Legislative experience? (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:52:32 PM EST
    Not if you are talking about his Ill. Senate time. Most of that was just his name on the bills to give him political credit to polish his legislative resume. He didn't do the work on most of those bills, he just took the credit.

    Parent
    No - he doesn't have to apologize (4.40 / 5) (#121)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:03:31 PM EST
    for his votes because when the really tough votes came around, Obama was MIA.

    Censorship for MoveOn.org for their Petreus/Betray Us ad?

    Abstain

    Lieberman/Kyl vote on Iran?

    Absent

    Now we could talk about his 'Present' votes in Illinois on controversial issues, or the recorded vote one way and the 'official record' vote going the other way, both of which occurred with alarming frequency.

    Why on earth would I worry about his leadership skills?

    Why would I think that if the phone rings at 3:00 AM, that he would be too afraid to pick it up?

    Parent

    Because Obama (4.25 / 4) (#122)
    by hookfan on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:05:28 PM EST
    missed most of his votes and had no hearings for oversight of NATO? Or his voting present so often in Chicago?

    Parent
    Halperin didn't say "wimp" (none / 0) (#51)
    by 1jpb on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:37:50 PM EST
    but then he said sorry.

    Parent
    My question is (none / 0) (#32)
    by lilburro on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:11:41 PM EST
    where do these stories come from?  I have never heard this before and now that an Edwards endorsement has lost a lot of its possible charm, this comes out.  Considering that Helieman is clearly not talking about recent events...where is this coming from?

    Also, every story I read about the Edwards makes it sound like they live in some bunker in NC...is it just me??!!

    Jeralyn provided links (none / 0) (#42)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:24:31 PM EST
    to the New Yorker Magazine article...you could actually look for them in the original post and read them.

    Edwards endorsement lost its charm? Ignoring of course, the upcoming NC primary, and the considerable support that Edwards still has around the country, that might be a reasonable statement.

    Richardson's endorsement after all of the southwest has voted and considering that I don't think he ever got more than 3% in any primary clearly was a an endorsement that had lost its charm.

    Parent

    The New York (none / 0) (#61)
    by lilburro on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:44:49 PM EST
    article is to my knowledge the first time an explanation of such depth has come out about Edwards' endorsement or lack thereof.  I'm wondering if people have been sitting on this story, or if the info is new.  Using anonymous Dem Party chatterers in your story suggests there is a lot of chattering to be done...which I'm sure is the case.  But I will be rather ill-pleased when the "tell-all" Democratic primary books come out in... 2 years...oh well.

    Edwards could have capitalized on media attention had he wanted to by endorsing soon after his candidacy ended.  His silence thus far has been very curious.  I don't really expect him to announce anything before the NC primary.  IMO, his appeal had to do with the kind of person he excited in the Dem Party...his endorsement would have had influence in states other than his own at a point where people were still organized around his candidacy.  Where did his infrastructure go?  Where did his people go?  I don't really know.  And while I live in NC, I don't get the impression people are anxiously awaiting his endorsement.
     

    Parent

    The delay implies careful reflection ... (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by cymro on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:51:06 PM EST
    ... both by Edwards, regarding his endorsement, and by the author and editor of the NY article, regarding the details of the story. Taking enough time to consider all the facts before going public is a virtue, not a shortcoming.

    I wish other superdelegates and journalists would show a similar degree of professionalism in exercising their responsibilities. A few ounces of carefully considered opinion outweighs a ton of headline news and cheerleading, in my book.

    Also, Hillary's nomination depends on the majority of presently uncommitted delegates to approach their  vote like Edwards does, and to ignore the Obama cheerleaders in their own party.

    Parent

    process piece (none / 0) (#75)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:07:27 PM EST
    These types of articles - I think they are called "process pieces" - are usually written awhile after events.  They rely heavily on inside sources and take longer to put together.  Especially for a magazine like the New Yorker which does more reflective stuff.  I'm not that surprised it took a few weeks to put together.  It's typical of the genre.  (See also: stories of thw run-up to the iraq war or those after 9/11 that were "behind the scenes").

    Parent
    Just you on the bunker thing. (none / 0) (#55)
    by Joan in VA on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:41:36 PM EST
    They live in a gigantic mansion that they built on beautiful grounds. Some said it wasn't the wisest move for the candidate of the poor. Similar to the $400 haircuts.

    Parent
    Unity (none / 0) (#60)
    by MKS on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:43:59 PM EST
    McCain, according to a front page diary at Big Orange, does not know if condoms prevents AIDS.

     During an interview, he reportedly had difficulty answering questions about contraception, and kept saying he was sure that he would agree with Bush's position.

    You know (5.00 / 7) (#73)
    by Nadai on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:04:14 PM EST
    I understand perfectly well that McCain is an a**hole.  That doesn't actually make Obama a better candidate.  And considering that I'm convinced that Clinton has a much better shot of beating McCain than Obama does, it also doesn't inspire me to join the Unity Parade.

    Parent
    Big Orange (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:47:53 PM EST
    Has discreditted itself.

    Best say "It's been reported by the AP that McCain doesn't know ...."

    Etc Etc .

    Parent

    The NY Mag article (none / 0) (#67)
    by nellre on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:52:51 PM EST
    concludes that she will bow out when she feels it is time. And that it will not be in August. In other words, she's already lost.
    I sure hope not. I fear, McSame will be president if he runs against Obama.
    I genuinely believe HRC has the best chance against the GOP.
    I'm OK with a SD fight in the floor during the convention.
    Most aren't but I don't know why except that delays the real fight... against McCain.
    Why can't Obama and HRC start campaigning against McCain now, and the best of that fight gets the nom?


    "cliffwalk" (5.00 / 5) (#81)
    by LHinSeattle on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:15:49 PM EST
    was what the article said Hillary had to get through. (Tho the writer did end up with the typical MSM prediction.)  I had to laugh, looking at it from a rockclimber's point of view. All you need is good balance to do a cliffwalk!

    Parent
    Good point (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by nycstray on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:18:52 PM EST
    a couple of times I've heard the TeeVee guys say "you can't herd cats" . No clues as to what they were referring to, perhaps surrogates, but it cracked me up. Cats are easy to herd if you have the right reward or a Border Collie ;)

    Hillary seems to have very good balance.

    Parent

    Simple: (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by sas on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:48:30 PM EST
    When she's out, I'm out.

    Cse closed.

    Parent

    I agree I believe even as an Obama supporter (none / 0) (#176)
    by DemPrezin2008 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:20:02 PM EST
    we need to shift focus to McCain.  And I do have questions about Obama's electability, I mean going through the swiftboat campaign where they destroyed a candidate who actually went to the war, fought and received a medal.  Add Rev. Wright to the picture and to say it's an uphill road is an understatement.  That's why for gods sake don't end this campaign, let as much of it go on as possible to one determine if we could overcome it and two put it out there so it's not brought out at the wrong time during the general election.  I just would like to see both candidates reign in personal attacks and focus on policy.  If they could do this by creating a unified front against McCain and unified vision of hey we disagree and this is heated but it's important to you.  So don't get the idea that we should not come together at the end.  Hey let it play all the way out.  I would also like to see a joint ticket regardless of who is on top or bottom.  Together they are the dream team and will guarentee that my values are represented by the Administration.


    Parent
    Completely different (none / 0) (#192)
    by Natal on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:57:24 PM EST
    They're completely different personalities and just wouldn't jell together in a working relationship. I can't recall any instances where they've genuinely said something supportive about the other either before or during this campaign.

    Parent
    Maybe they should announce a Clnton- (none / 0) (#77)
    by kenosharick on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:10:16 PM EST
    Edwards ticket now. Or at the very least he should show some guts and endorse her when it could do some good.

    What better place to endorse Hillary Clinton??? (none / 0) (#90)
    by Mrwirez on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:26:22 PM EST
    And to stick it to Obama??

    NORTH CAROLINA

    Edwards lost a lot of love in NC... (none / 0) (#162)
    by tbetz on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:04:21 PM EST
    ... and had he not run for VP in 2004, would probably have lost an attempt at re-election to his Senate seat.

    It's quite possible that today, his endorsement would have a negative impact on the endorsee in the NC primary.

    Parent

    Looking at the list (none / 0) (#92)
    by clapclappointpoint on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:26:42 PM EST
    of superdelegates, I notice that Clinton's lead in superdelegates is composed almost entirely of unelected members of the DNC (140-107 DNC members and 10-4 DNC leaders).

    She also leads here... (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by kredwyn on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:30:15 PM EST
    "Clinton has the support of 73 House of Representatives members to Obama's 71." I think those folks are elected, no?

    Parent
    And he leads among Senators and Governors (none / 0) (#187)
    by clapclappointpoint on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:38:11 PM EST
    Among elected superdelegates, it's pretty much a wash with him having a miniscule edge amongst elected superdelegates.  Personally, I'm surprised how close it is.

    Parent
    I'm not surprised at all... (none / 0) (#194)
    by kredwyn on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:00:24 AM EST
    See BTD's post on buying an election....... (5.00 / 9) (#101)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:33:16 PM EST
    ...perhaps that might explain why Obama has most of the "elected" superdelegates.

    Parent
    Yeah I was looking at that as well (none / 0) (#179)
    by DemPrezin2008 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:23:36 PM EST
    it's strange that a majority of her super delegate support are not elected officials while a majority of Obama's super delegates are.  I don't know why or what it means but thought it was interesting.

    Parent
    It means he has become (none / 0) (#189)
    by BarnBabe on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:52:25 PM EST
    a lobbyist. He wants a favor, he wants their votes.

    Parent
    Edwards endorsement (none / 0) (#156)
    by womanwarrior on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:54:11 PM EST
    Didn't I read not long ago that an Edwards endorsement would be kiss of death in NC?  

    I so hope that everybody is getting their ya yas out on these lists so that the venting is done when we have to get serious for the general election.  

    Please, people, keep your senses.  McCain for 100 years in Iraq?  McCain choosing Supreme Court justices?  

    Let us not wound each other, but keep our eyes on the ball.  I will vote for the Democratic nominee, whoever it is.  We cannot afford 4 more years of Republican rule, and we all know it.  

    So, let's not let the MSM rile us up against each other.  This is our Country we are talking about.  And we will lose it if we don't take it back.

    Please, Jeralyn, more criminal news. I am let down by you bringing up these speculation pieces, no matter how much I love your hard work on this blog. How about some analysis about the involuntary $.08 an hour labor in the Bureau of Prisons? Unions used to keep BOP from contracting with corporations, but not any more.  Will we be able to end it? Less campaign, more criminal news.

    does anyone knows if these (none / 0) (#157)
    by talkingpoint on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:54:27 PM EST
     delegates at the Texas conventon wll be added to the candidates delegates total?

    My understanding is.. (none / 0) (#164)
    by Rainsong on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:06:00 PM EST
    That the "projected" final delegate counts are adjusted if they have changed since the last caucus, but remain 'projected' (ie not firm) until the State convention is completed.


    Parent
    PS Meant to add... (none / 0) (#170)
    by Rainsong on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:12:23 PM EST

    I personally find the NYT delegate tracker the easiest to understand, as it uses pledged delegate counts, plus a separate column for adding a 'projected' number based on extrapolation from non-binding allocations such as caucuses.

    NYT delegate tracker

    It also includes details of individual states, specifying that delegate numbers are not final until the State Conventions.

    Parent

    Someone seems a little bitter, don't be hurt (none / 0) (#161)
    by DemPrezin2008 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:03:00 PM EST
    this is a Primary remember it's going to get ugly its just in house fighting.  

    Edwards: Champ or Chicken (none / 0) (#177)
    by stevenb on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:21:40 PM EST
    I think Edwards -- at this point in the nomination campaign -- should give his endorsement.  It would effectively give either Clinton or Obama a major boost and probably finish this primary early like everybody wants.  

    I'm all for Clinton keeping in the race until she wins, but it also would be good to end the nomination process early, in order to counter the building McCain campaign.

    Actually, I just want to see Edwards show HIS gravitas.

    Questions Surround Obama's Campaign:
    http://questionbarackobama.blogspot.com

    I agree I don't care who he endorses but the time (none / 0) (#180)
    by DemPrezin2008 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:25:25 PM EST
    for sitting on the sidelines is over.  It's like we have two major fighters in this campaign and one can not beat the other.  If your a leader then weigh in stand up for something.

    Parent
    if i were in the house of clinton, (none / 0) (#197)
    by cy street on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:06:03 AM EST
    i would be more worried about keeping my senate seat than running against obama in twenty twelve.

    it is good that we can finally agree that the supers are going to decide the outcome.

    Wow (none / 0) (#205)
    by Shawn on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:16:28 AM EST
    So you think President Obama will be so unpopular in 2012 that even Hillary's Senate seat won't be safe?

    Parent
    From what I've read here... (none / 0) (#199)
    by kredwyn on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:08:07 AM EST
    I don't see anyone saying that Edwards endorsed Clinton. Do you?

    Yup... (none / 0) (#203)
    by kredwyn on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:11:43 AM EST
    that doesn't mention it either...just that he hasn't endorsed Obama...

    Or simply... (none / 0) (#219)
    by kredwyn on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:33:31 AM EST
    the main crux of the article being discussed, which appears to have been about Edwards not endorsing Obama.

    Give Rex a hug for me.

    Parent

    Comments Now Closed (none / 0) (#222)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:39:02 AM EST
    There's a new open thread up.

    Scary (none / 0) (#223)
    by Blue Jean on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:41:41 AM EST
    LOL! No, Shawn, I think he means is that after McCain beats Obama, McCain will declare martial law and close the Senate to Democrats.  Except for Obama, of course, cuz he's so cool.

    DemPrezin2008 - (none / 0) (#224)
    by esmense on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:20:11 AM EST
    "Read into" Clinton's remarks is the operative concept. You can't say that there was any questioning of Obama's patriotism in Clinton's remarks, because their wasn't, only that YOU choose to "read" such things "into" his remarks.

    I'd suggest that such "reading" is only possible if you either 1) lack reading comprehension, 2) are allowing your partisanship to over-power your basic honesty.

    Well (none / 0) (#225)
    by Randinho on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:11:58 PM EST
    He hasn't endorsed Hillary, either.