John Edwards.
I fully admit that my reason for doing so is probably stupid, but it’s mine and I’ll stick to it. The reason I’m pulling for Edwards is because when the WGA had a rally in Washington Square Park a few weeks ago, Edwards was the only presidential candidate who actually showed up to address us (as he had in a similar gathering on the West Coast.)
By contrast, Hillary and Obama merely sent letters of support…letters that, as it happened, had grammatical errors. Never a good idea, sending letters with grammatical errors to a gathering of cranky writers.
And by the way, considering how much of a hullabaloo the media made over his $400 haircuts, I have to say…dámņ, the man has good hair.
In any event, my simplistic view is that if he took the time to support us, then it’s the least I can do in return.
So John Edwards gets my vote come the Democratic primary.
PAD
• 
Thanks for giving me a good chuckle this morning. I can’t believe they’d send letters with grammatical errors to striking writers. The gall!
The hair thing was funny, too.
At this point, I’m just trying to stay out of political discussions about who’s the best candidates for this election until after the primaries.
Being a registered independent, it’s not like a get a vote until after that anyways.
But it was interesting reading about the Iowa Caucuses last night, since my only chance to participate in them was in 2000 (I moved from Iowa in 2001), and I didn’t involve myself in politics that year. On one of the boards I read that’s for discussion of Iowa sports, there was a lot of talk about the process and results. It was really good reading and the turnout was amazing.
Good choice. Honestly, I could rest easy with any of the three Dem front-runners in power, but Edwards has been more bold in his truth-speaking than anyone but Kucinich.
And, tired as the idea may be, I can only support someone who has a shot at winning.
Love to see Dennis in a cabinet position, though. “Secretary of Peace?”
Edward’s loss in Iowa has seriously damaged his chances of winning the nomination, though one can certainly imagine a scenario where Hillary and crew engage in a campaign against Obama so destructive that Edwards is the only one left standing when the smoke clears. I have to say though, I’m a lot less confident that such a campaign will work than I was a few months ago–the Clinton machine has amazed me in it’s clumsy ineffectiveness against Obama thus far and he, in contrast, has handled the attacks with a deftness I had not expected.
She still has many advantages in terms of money and backers but if Obama wins NH he becomes the front runner. Hillary has already lost the aura of inevitability that could have swept her into office–now it’s time for solid issue oriented campaigning. If they go in that direction, she will probably win. If they just go on the attack they won’t (unless they have material more potent than Obama’s kindergarten essays and middle name). People LIKE Obama and it will be hard to make them not like him. Frankly, she should not even try.
But Edwards I don’t see as all that much more a factor than Joe Biden at this point.
I’d prefer to vote for a candidate whom I think would be good for the whole country – but I’m not sure of which that would be. I’m leaning toward Edwards, but don’t think he can get the nomination. As far as the grammatical errors, it was foolish of Clinton and Obama to let them go out, but also interesting that they were detected. screenwriting and grammatical excellence are not quite interchangeable, if movie and television dialogue and awards acceptance speeches are any measure. I can’t say for sure, but I suspect PAD’s grasp of grammar and spelling is above the median for his profession.
I don’t want to suggest that screenwriters in particular are grammar-deficient: The problem is much broader than that. In graduate school I had a professor (teaching a course in GRAMMAR) who placed her own political convictions above grammatical accuracy. She told us she would permit the construction “Everyone should pick up their pencils” and fail for the entire course anyone who dared to use “Everyone should pick up his pencil.” The implied masculine singular upset her so much that she preferred case disagreement. If a PhD who purports to have specialized in grammar is so cavalier, the standards of writers providing popular culture cannot be any better.
In graduate school I had a professor (teaching a course in GRAMMAR) who placed her own political convictions above grammatical accuracy. She told us she would permit the construction “Everyone should pick up their pencils” and fail for the entire course anyone who dared to use “Everyone should pick up his pencil.”
Putting aside that the woman apparently had serious emotional issues, the proper construct would be “Everyone should pick up his or her pencil.” It’s clunky but it’s accurate. As for me, I would say, “Everyone, pick up your pencils” just to avoid the issue.
PAD
I tend to lean a little bit right of the crowd that typically visits your site. My support is for anyone that runs opposite Hillary and anyone that runs opposite of Huckabee. So if it turns out to be a Huckabee vs. Hillary race, I’m screwed.
PAD – You are correct that the best thing is to come up with another construction. I am quite sympathetic to the political goals of feminism, but completely unsympathetic to any variety of demand for restructuring the language for political goals. Changes must come gradually through changing usage, rather than edict.
All studuents should pick up their pencils! I have spoken. Do it.
Politically, I have been drifting leftward since some time in the Clinton Administration, starting off as a very loyal Republican. It’s unclear whether that’s a real change in political philosophy or merely a revulsion at President Bush’s activities. I suspect that it’s much less a matter of Left/Right or Democratic/Republican than one of competent/incompetent or free/authoritarian.
It’s good to hear someone actually endorse Edwards over something he did, other than promises he’s made. And I say this as a non-supporter of Edwards (having lived in NC when he was the Senator from Iowa the first time).
PAD: “I fully admit that my reason for doing so is probably stupid,”
I don’t understand why you would say this, PAD. He put more effort into an issue you care about than the other candidates. Why is voting on issues, morality, and conviction something to be embarrassed about?
The delegates of Iowa were split up three ways between Obama, Clinton and Edwards. I think Obama got about 16, Edwards and Clinton about 12. Considering Edwards, with his low amount of money, held his own against Clinton and Obama, actually getting more votes than Clinton, I don’t consider that a ‘loss’. Clinton’s poor showing in Iowa could turn the race between Obama and Edwards depending upon how the upcoming states turn in the next few weeks.
Bill M. wrote: “Edward’s loss in Iowa has seriously damaged his chances of winning the nomination, though one can certainly imagine a scenario where Hillary and crew engage in a campaign against Obama so destructive that Edwards is the only one left standing when the smoke clears.”
Oh, I don’t know. Bill Clinton came in a distant third in the Iowa primary in 1992, and we all know how that turned out. As I recall, he had less than five percent of the vote.
As I said before, while I voted for Obama in his senatorial race, I am very leery of supporting him for a presidential bid. He is a huge unknown, and to my knowledge, he has never run any large organization in his life. I’m also miffed that during his rookie term in the U.S. Senate, he has done almost nothing but groom himself for, and then campaign for, president.
I’ve heard all the arguments about him, like, “Oh, he can’t do any worse than Bush,” etc., but the fact is, there has been no president in recent memory who has had the on-the-job training learning curve that Obama will face.
NH will say a lot the Democrat race and about the only thing it will do the Republicans is either keep Romny alive or leave him dead on the table.
If Obama can take NH he more or less have the nomination raped up. Unless Clinton can pull Votes in on Super Tuesday. What really funny is it not unforeseeable that Both parties might have to wait until there convention to decided there candidates. And as a person that loves to see the system work I think that would be great.
I voted for McCain last night I Still think he’s the best option for the country
“I think Obama got about 16, Edwards and Clinton about 12.”
Actually, the delegate count is Obama with 16, Edwards with 14 and Clinton with 15. That’s a little messed up since Edwards got more of the vote then Clinton, but whatja gonna do?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21229206
I’ve been a fan of Edwards for a long time… he fulfills my three main criteria (as did Clinton in ’92) for who I want to be President.
1) He’s smart… not just “not a dummy” smart, but REALLY smart.
2) He works REALLY hard.
3) He comes across as someone who’s given serious thought to the issues and has a passionate response, not just one he’s been told to say.
I think his life story is very inspirational and resonates nicely with me… I liked him in 2004, and I like him now. I don’t think he’ll get the nomination, but I’d love it if he did…
Oh, I don’t know. Bill Clinton came in a distant third in the Iowa primary in 1992, and we all know how that turned out. As I recall, he had less than five percent of the vote.
True, but Clinton largely sat out Iowa, realizing that it would easily go to Iowa Senator Tom Harkin. Edwards, in contrast, fought hard to win and came up short. No comparison.
Posted by R. Maheras at January 4, 2008 11:07 AM
Oh, I don’t know. Bill Clinton came in a distant third in the Iowa primary in 1992, and we all know how that turned out. As I recall, he had less than five percent of the vote.
>>>>>
R. stole my thunder. I’ve been under the impression for years that Iowa is not a big deal and has no impact even in terms of identifying trends. Kind of like a pre-season exhibition game. Although I thought the increased turnout was a good sign.
Peter,
It’s good that you’ve decided to vote for a candidate because of something they did instead of voting against someone because of an irrational dislike of a candidate. However, you were dead on in your assessment that your rationale would be considered to be stupid. Edwards’ appearance on the writers’ picket line was nothing more than a photo opportunity, no different than had he stayed in Iowa and milked a cow to show support for dairy farmers. Yes, the letters from Clinton and Obama were lame, but the nature of campaigning is that the candidates are peppered constantly for opinions on every single event of the day, from trivial to catastrophic, and some errors will get through. I’d prefer some typos and misspellings in a letter of support than have to listen to any candidate with the verbal skills of the current occupant of the Oval Office.
I’m glad you mentioned Edwards’ infamous $400 haircut though. The biggest problem gonig on is that the races have become far less a race defined by issues but simply a contest hardly different from differentiable from the Miss America Pageant, thankfully sans the bathing suit competition. Why did Edwards pay $400 for a haircut? Because with the busy schedule of someone running for national office, he did not have time to go to a salon, so he hired someone to come to him and paid not only for the haircut but for the travel expenses and waiting time. Yet, all people remember is Edwards paying $400 for a haircut. Clinton gets the same rap, having been characterized as a cold, manipulative bìŧçh, and why? Because every day for a decade and a half Rush Limbaugh and his clones have played up that image of her and as a result, many voters who would consider voting for a Democrat will do so for any Democrat except Hillary.
So Peter, I know it’s early in the season, but please try to do a little research on your own (preferably without interference from the posters here) to determine which candidate you think would do the best job leading the country in the direction you feel it needs to go. If it’s still Edwards, that’s great, I can’t say I’d necessarily disagree with you since I haven’t finalized my support for a candidate yet myself. If you think that Edwards, Obama and Clinton would all do equal jobs as president, then using Edwards’ support for the WGA strikers is a fair tipping point.
But when I hear you say you’re supporting someone because of his presence at a photo opportunity, it troubles me. It sounds like the flipside of those who supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 claiming he was a “great American because he prays and has Jesus in his heart” while failing to notice that practically every act he’s taken as governor or president had the side benefit of lining the pockets of his friends and supporters. Those people are voting with their hearts, not their brains. I know you’re not seriously implying that this event is the be-all and end-all of your decision making process, but far too many voters do make similar decisions based on insignificant factors. You’re one of the funniest people on the planet in my estimation, but I find it hard to laugh about the kind of problems the nation and the world have had to endure because of people who choose their candidates without rational thought.
So, you’re supporting a candidate simply because he made an empty gesture of support to a cause that personally benefits you, and because he has good hair?
I assume that there is a fair amount of hyperbole/satire in this blog entry of yours. 🙂
Bill Clinton came in a distant third in the Iowa primary in 1992
Depending on how you want to view it, Clinton technically came in 4th in the Iowa CAUCUS. 😉
February 10, 1992 – Tom Harkin (76%), “Uncommitted” (12%), Paul Tsongas (4%), Bill Clinton (3%), Bob Kerrey (2%), and Jerry Brown (2%)
But then, as Bill pointed out, Harkin was the local product (he’s now in his 4th term in the Senate), so it doesn’t surprise me that that caucus told us jack and squat. 🙂
Looking back, the Iowa caucus has been a fairly decent indicator: Kerry, Gore, Mondale, Carter (1976, 1980) all ‘won’ the Democratic caucus in Iowa. And then GWB (2000), Dole, and Reagan very close behind GHWB in 1980. Clinton in 1992 is really the only major aberration on the list.
I don’t want to suggest that screenwriters in particular are grammar-deficient: The problem is much broader than that.
*coughs politely* That should have been a semi-colon.
😉
As I said before, while I voted for Obama in his senatorial race, I am very leery of supporting him for a presidential bid. He is a huge unknown, and to my knowledge, he has never run any large organization in his life. I’m also miffed that during his rookie term in the U.S. Senate, he has done almost nothing but groom himself for, and then campaign for, president.
He’s actually done a fair amount of substantive work in the Senate, it’s just most of it is the unsexy stuff that doesn’t draw big headlines. I’ll try and find a list.
“Never a good idea, sending letters with grammatical errors to a gathering of cranky writers.”
Joe Biden was doomed when he ended his letter of support to the WGA with “k thx bye”
Laura – I’m sure I have made several grammatical mistakes just in this string, but
“You can also use a colon to introduce an explanation or a definition of something.” (English Language Centre Study Zone, University of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada)
My usage may or may not amount to the introduction of an explanation – so I am more than likely wrong, but not absolutely so! If I am right, perhaps I am only right in British Columbia (where I most definitely am not).
In any case, I think my point is correct; The problem is much broader than (the disabilities of some in the WGA)! Even I (sputter, sputter…) may be grammatically impure. Oh, I am so ashamed!!
In any case thanks for your civil tone (and be glad your entry was grammatically blameless, or you might have faced some disproportionate mockery).
I will be stuck voting for Edwards.
My two first choices dropped out yesterday
(Biden and Dodd)
I am color blind, so I will not want to vote for Obama. If a white freshman Senator from Illinois ran for President, he would have as much political clout and electability as Alan Keyes
I am not Bill blinded, so I don’t want to vote for Hillary just because we get Bill as First Lord.
I can’t vote for Richardson because he gave up becoming President and decided he wanted to be Hillary’s VP a couple of months ago.
So that leaves Edwards for me.
If he has the nomination locked up when it gets to California, I will vote for Biden. If not Edwards.
Until later
John
Edwards was outspent in Iowa 5 or 6 to 1, and shoved a $100 million candidate out of the race.
Independents influence the NH primaries substantially (they gave McCain NH in the 2000 primary), and I don’t imagine Obama’s Iowa win hurting his strong standing in SC, so Hillary’s only hope is that if (when) she comes in second in NH and SC, she can convince Edwards to join her instead of Obama. And if he decides to join her, it’ll have to be for reasons more important than his own presidential aspirations, because he ain’t gonna be able to campaign as the anti-establishment candidate if he signs-on as her vp against Obama.
Try http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2006/10/barack_obama.html
Nuclear nonproliferation strikes me as a substantive issue.
Edwards’ appearance on the writers’ picket line was nothing more than a photo opportunity, no different than had he stayed in Iowa and milked a cow to show support for dairy farmers.
I have to say, I think that statement is ridiculous. All of a candidate’s stops are covered by the press, so any public appearance is a “photo opportunity.” And what would the photo have been? Edwards standing on a podium talking to a bunch of writers? Wow, that sounds sexy. Furthermore, my understanding is that Edwards has a track record of being a strong union supporter. So a Presidential candidate takes the time to back up his reputation as being a big supporter of unions by taking the time to show up and address striking workers in the first really big strike of the 21st century, and you liken it to milking cows?
So, you’re supporting a candidate simply because he made an empty gesture of support to a cause that personally benefits you, and because he has good hair?
How is a union-supporting candidate coming out to support a union an empty gesture? The “good hair” observation was just that: An observation. I gave the reason, namely that he cared enough about an issue that is central to my livelihood to show up in person and speak words of support with a great deal of passion. Sending a couple of letters filled with rote, bloodless and not-especially-well-written turns of phrase, THAT was empty.
You know what, though? Starting to feel a lot less stupid about my choice.
PAD
Actually an old friend of mine works on the Edwards campaign. Before I knew that, though, I was in Edwards’ camp.
Though I do like Obama quite a bit, Edwards is one of the few candidates who has a stated position on Education, which is the most important issue to me this election. He’s truly showing himself to be a champion of the middle class – his support of the Writer’s Strike is evidence of that. Right now, Edwards is where I’m leaning.
Though I do like Obama’s stated vision. People can do well to buy into that vision.
Why on Earth are we presuming that the candidates have the time to personally copy-edit check each and every declaration that their campaign makes? Of course they are accountable for the content of such statements, but do we really suppose that the likes of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have the luxury of personally making sure that (say) contractions are all present and correct?
To say this is a black mark on their personal records or character is just silly. Give me a break.
Wesley
Degrees of difference here, folks.
While I might prefer Obama, I’d be quite happy with Edwards as president. Hillary is far down the list for various reasons, but she rates FAR above any of the panderers that call themselves Republicans.
Posted by Hank Driskill at January 4, 2008 11:38 AM
>I’ve been a fan of Edwards for a long time… he fulfills my three main criteria (as did Clinton in ’92) for who I want to be President.
>1) He’s smart… not just “not a dummy” smart, but REALLY smart.
>2) He works REALLY hard.
>3) He comes across as someone who’s given serious thought to the issues and has a passionate response, not just one he’s been told to say.
>I think his life story is very inspirational and resonates nicely with me… I liked him in 2004, and I like him now. I don’t think he’ll get the nomination, but I’d love it if he did…
***
I agree with all the points you make — I think Edwards is the best candidate still in the race. He’s got several problems — not nearly as much money as the other top candidates, and as odd as this sounds, I think a lot of people don’t take him seriously because of his looks. If you listen to him talk about issues, he really seems to know what he’s talking about, and just seems genuine in his answers.
I think Chris Dodd would have made a great candidate, but coming from my little state of CT, did not have the clout to become a REAL candidate. He has tons of experience, is very intelligent and well spoken, and knows his stuff. He’s also not annoying, a big plus to me, LOL!
I’m an independent, so party makes no difference to me when I vote — I vote for the person I think would do the best job.
I take great solace in the fact that IMHO, it looks like anyone who really has a shot at the nomination in either party will be a HUGE improvement over the moron currently running the country.
I wish we had a primary first instead of a caucus, so marginal candidates like Kucinich could get a more honest shot on day one, instead of immediately winnowing it down to the Popular Kids. :/ Sadly, Dennis didn’t have a 15% level of support in one of his pockets….
Edwards was outspent in Iowa 5 or 6 to 1, and shoved a $100 million candidate out of the race.
As far as I know only Biden and Dodd have been shoved out of the race and I’d be horrified if either of them wasted 100 million dollars in the effort.
Since Hillary has the resources to stay in to the very end and Obama seems to be the candidate that people like better and better the more they see of him, it’s hard to see Edwards being able to stay relevant. If he loses South Carolina it’s pretty much over.
Why on Earth are we presuming that the candidates have the time to personally copy-edit check each and every declaration that their campaign makes?
Kind of the point actually. Edwards cared enough about the cause to come out and talk to us. Obama and Hillary, going by your own logic, didn’t care enough about the cause to proofread letters sent in their names.
PAD
I was referring to Hillary. Hillary cannot win against Obama without teaming up with Edwards, and Edwards has a better chance of becoming president teaming up with Obama than with Hillary.
Iowa has demonstrated Obama is the candidate who benefits from a higher voter turn-out, and more voters are only going turn-out in the coming primaries, not less. Fence-sitting-voters vote for change, which means fence-sitting-voters going to the polls won’t benefit Hillary. There is no fix Hillary can implement to recover from third in Iowa.
… Obama and Hillary, going by your own logic, didn’t care enough about the cause to proofread letters sent in their names…
I think my point was that I cannot fathom any circumstance where any national candidate would, so it’s not a fault that they didn’t. For that matter, I doubt Edwards copy-edits his own material either.
Fair enough that Edwards showed up and was supportive. He should get points for that, absolutely. If Obama and Hillary didn’t show up, they should perhaps get penalized, absolutely. Quibbling about typos that were almost undoubtedly produced by a campaign staffer, however, just seems rather petty.
Wesley
Dark Wesley is free to believe personal support for the WGA is beneath any candidate, but when John Edwards demonstrates a personal interest (whatever his true motive may be) PAD is also free to take that interest seriously.
Iowa has demonstrated Obama is the candidate who benefits from a higher voter turn-out, and more voters are only going turn-out in the coming primaries, not less. Fence-sitting-voters vote for change, which means fence-sitting-voters going to the polls won’t benefit Hillary. There is no fix Hillary can implement to recover from third in Iowa.
Nonsense. She can either go on the attack against Obama or try to genuinely engage him on experience. Either may resonate, though much depends on how badly Obama responds to the new attention a frontrunner gets. So far he has run a great campaign so Hillary may be in the unenviable position of having to hope for a stumble on his part.
Plus you yourself suggested a fix–put Edwards on the ticket. I don’t know if that’s a great idea but it’s better than no fix at all.
I’ve thought that Hillary had it all but sewn up but Obama has been one hëll of a fresh surprise. Unlike the poster above who suggested that his race was the greatest factor that has gotten him this far, I think he has that certain something that inspires people. It could take him all the way.
But, if you’re correct and Hillary can’t possibly recover…and Edwards doesn’t seem to be in much position to win any of the upcoming primaries…it’s a done deal anyway. Game over man, game over.
Sasha wrote (and Roger provided a supporting link): “He’s actually done a fair amount of substantive work in the Senate, it’s just most of it is the unsexy stuff that doesn’t draw big headlines. I’ll try and find a list.”
The info on that site doesn’t reflect well on Obama’s public affairs staff. I read both the Chicago Sun-Times and Chicago Tribune most weekdays (and the Trib every Sunday), and since Obama has been a senator, I don’t recall reading much of anything about his senatorial efforts.
The problem could be that Obama’s work to date has had little noteworthy, immediate impact on the people of Illinois — particularly Chicago. That is, without the “local tie,” neither paper gives such news much of a priority.
As a matter of fact, most of the news I recall seeing in Chicago papers about Obama has been the embarrassing kind — revolving around some of the allegedly unsavory people he had business dealings with in the past. In that regards, barring actual proof, I’m willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt because I know rising political stars tend to attract all sorts of power-hungry/money-hungry opportunists. No politician can screen all of his/her friends and acquaintances all of the time, particularly as he/she rises to the state and federal level.
Still, regardless of his U.S. Senate record to date, Obama can’t escape the fact that he is a rookie senator, and has never run any large, complex organization.
Good choice PAD. Cause as everyone knows, the writer’s strike IS THE most pressing thing the next President is gonna have to deal with. I guess the best thing we can hope for is A President with good hair who backs you writers.
I hope (well, truthfully, no, I don’t really care) that this doesn’t offend anyone too much, but my vote goes for—
ABAMFR.
Anybody But A Republican.
At this point, I’d vote for Elvis, and I HATE Elvis.
Peter David: So a Presidential candidate takes the time to back up his reputation as being a big supporter of unions by taking the time to show up and address striking workers in the first really big strike of the 21st century, and you liken it to milking cows?
Luigi Novi: First of all, candidates make lots of assertions and promises when campaigning. Far more impressive to me than his merely showing at a WGA strike (which would allow him to network with and court lots of celebrities), is his record on unions, which I was previously unaware of—THAT is a far better indicator of his position on the matter. I acknowledge my prior ignorance on the matter of his position on unions, as I have researched that topic and corroborated what you said.
Second, I’m not going to support any candidate solely on the basis of his position on one issue, just like I’m not going to be dissuaded from supporting him on that basis of a position or record of his that I do not like, say, his record with regard to class action malpractice lawsuits. When I do make a decision on who I’m voting for, I’m going to do so based on how I feel about his stance and record with regard to as many issues as possible, and not just those central to my livelihood. To each his own.
She can either go on the attack against Obama or try to genuinely engage him on experience.
Well, today, Clinton decided to attack against Obama with the experience card. No surprise there.
But, I’m just not impressed with HRC these days. And at this point, when we’ve had 19 years of Bush & Clinton, Obama truly may be the breath of fresh air we need, regardless of his lack of experience.
As the 2004 general election demonstrated, nothing trumps superior leadership. Attacks without leadership do not trump leadership. And she has been promoting her experience. It got her third in Iowa, probably because regardless of her edge in experience, she ain’t got all the much.
Until Hillary can take and lock-in as second 1) that fix is not an option, and 2) in such an outcome, the vp offer to Edwards will still be Obama’s to make or withhold. And if Obama passes on Edwards, it will be because his lead will allow him to pick the vp who will best leverage him in the general election. All Hillary can do is wait and hope for something like a dui arrest report on Obama to surface. She’s toast. She’s the $100 million candidate who got shoved out of the race her first day in Iowa. Jesus, Edwards is a bad-ášš.
Yeah, that’s why my observation you dismissed as nonsense — that Iowa demonstrated Hillary has been cast as a status quo candidate, which means a high voter turn-out will lock her out of a pary win — ain’t nonsense.
Then it’s a wonder why you felt a need to refer to anything I said as nonsense.
There’s absolutely no question that Hillary just got kicked in the gut and knocked down in the dirt in Iowa. There’s a good portion of Hillary supporters out there who saw her as the nominee because of the air of inevitability that surrounded her and almost seemed to base their support on that alone. That illusion just got soundly trashed. But only an absolute fool would write Hillary completely off at this point.
Obama could still stumble and lose his lead just as Hillary did a few months ago. Edwards beat Hillary in Iowa, but it was only by a handful of votes and I don’t think that Edwards will play as well in NH as Hillary. And even if he does, there’s no guarantee that Edwards will, if still trailing Obama, link up with Obama. The saying “politics makes strange bedfellows” has been around a long time for a reason. You could lay out on paper a 100% conclusive reason why Politician A should join up with Politician B and it still wouldn’t make a lick of difference when it came time for Candidate B to throw in with Candidate Z.
Beyond that, it’s just plum foolish to make the call based on one battle. The war is still going on and there’s more then enough time for nasty surprises to spring up. I’m still not that fond of Hillary, but Obama, Edwards and anybody else who is foolish enough to write off Hillary at this stage deserves to get their political ášš handed to them and likely doesn’t deserve to win. God knows we don’t need someone that foolishly naive in the Oval Office.
Jesus, Edwards is a bad-ášš.
Um…ok. Wow, imagine if he actually WINS one!
I’ve thought that Hillary had it all but sewn up but Obama has been one hëll of a fresh surprise.
Yeah, that’s why my observation you dismissed as nonsense — that Iowa demonstrated Hillary has been cast as a status quo candidate, which means a high voter turn-out will lock her out of a pary win — ain’t nonsense.
No, what I dismissed as nonsense was your statement There is no fix Hillary can implement to recover from third in Iowa. The fact that Obama has turned into a pleasant surprise and a much better fighter than expected does not in any way mitigate the foolishness of writing off Hillary at this point.
But, if you’re correct and Hillary can’t possibly recover…and Edwards doesn’t seem to be in much position to win any of the upcoming primaries…it’s a done deal anyway. Game over man, game over.
Then it’s a wonder why you felt a need to refer to anything I said as nonsense.
Look up the word “if”. IF Hillary is toast and assuming Bad-ášš Edwards continues to do as the polls say (lose) THEN Obama is a lock. They might as well cancel the rest of the primaries and save money for the general election.
You seem to be saying that Obama is going to be the nominee, no if ands or buts…assuming you take There is no fix Hillary can implement to recover from third in Iowa. at face value…which is probably a mistake since you have now mentioned two possibilities where Hillary makes a miraculous comeback (gets The Bad-Úš on board and/or reveals Obama’s DUI record)
(Actually, the last time Team Hillary tried to play the druggie card it kind of blew up in their face so they might want to tread gently there before they run out of mid level minions willing to take the fall).
Jerry,
One factor that almost never gets mentioned–the super-delegates. Hillary already has more than twice as many as Obama locked up and about 5 times as many as The Bad-Úš. Even if all of the others pool their super-delegates she has more. Of course, that was before Iowa and I expect many of the uncommitted ones are giving Obama a fresh look.
I don’t see Edwards becoming the VP on either ticket, for a number of reasons. Both Obama and Hillary will probably pick someone who better complements their perceived weaknesses in foreign policy and other experience issues–Biden, perhaps. Wesley Clark would be a good fit for Hillary. Hard to see how Edwards will attract anyone to the ticket who wasn’t going to vote Democratic anyway and his single term as senator does not exactly fill any gravitas voids.
It’s an interesting, if premature question–who would be a good fit for Obama? Who would be a good Lloyd Bentson type who can give off an image of experience and wisdom without overshadowing the head candidate?
(Crazy idea–offer Al Gore the job, with the promise that he would be used as much more than the usual “Wait for me to die” role. An elder statesman, official voice of the new and improved executive branch, globe trotting, action VP!)
I have been referring to him shoving a $100 million candidate out of the race on day 1 of the primary season. He is a bad-ášš.
Yeah, like those are different. Like the former simply does not provide the why of the latter.
And it’s no longer a wonder you feel the need to challenge what I say… why?
I’m just saying $100 million could not buy Hillary the presidency. Edwards’s bad-assery shoved her out, but not Obama. I am not a bad-ášš, so I can’t imagine how Edwards can accomplish the same with Obama. Fortunately for Edwards, such an outcome would not depend on me knowing the inner-workings of that which is bad-ášš.
Yeah, I don’t really see Edwards wanting to sign on with Hillary or Obama either. But the thing that makes political predicting so much fun is that you never really have any clue what will happen or for what reasons it will happen. There’s lots of outcomes that make sense, but politics love to play the wild card on you.
Hey, case in point would be Obama. Six months ago, most people wouldn’t have given Obama a chance in hëll of winning Iowa or they would have called it a close (one to two percent difference) race at best. We’re now coming off of a caucus where Obama was the winner by 8% over Edwards and Edwards was himself 1% up over Hillary “The Sure Thing” Clinton.
As for the super-delegates, I’m sure they’ll play a role down the line. They’re just not yet a lock enough to discuss for the very reasons that you brought up.
As to a VP for Obama… I really don’t know. It would likely have to be an unknown or lesser known figure. An Al Gore type would overshadow Obama from day one and any of the other obvious choices would undermine his whole “candidate of change” sloganeering. It’s hard to be a ticket of change when one half of the ticket is a firmly established member of the old establishment.
Jim Webb? Mark Warner?
I think Edwards is the only hope America has of taking back our country and making me proud to be an American again.
I like Barack but (and maybe this is because I’m a child of the 50s and 60s) I do not think he’s electable yet. Hopefully in my lifetime, but it takes a long time for paradigms to shift in this country and while they are moving, it’s at a glacier-like pace. I don’t trust Hilary. I think the guy with the best ideas is Kucinich but we know he’s not electable and I really like Richardson but nobody except us New Mexicans know who he is.
John Edwards is THE GUY because he is everything that made this country great in the first place: poor hometown boy made good and I think you made a good choice, Pete (can I call you Pete?).
Of course, unless he (or she) can get support in Congress, nobody is gonna do any good anyway…
Thanks fer listening,
Chuck