WWTBAM Bored

According to news sources, John Edwards has seen the light and is following Rudy's lead.

Interesting. Would have thought he'd stick around long enough to see if there was no clear convention winner and then offer himself as a compromise candidate. Could be a money thing.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080130/ap_ ... /edwards_8

Did I call it, or did I call it?

A shame. It probably is a money thing. Maybe he should have taken the PAC and lobbyist money as Obama and Hillary have.

It was so nice having a candidate who was talking about the issues. And put the platform out there early.

The thing I find fascinating is the obsession with Edwards' house and his haircut, etc.

I thought the whole idea of the American dream WAS to be a millworkers' son who becomes a millionaire. If the guy were a Republican, people would be coming all over themselves in "self-made man" praise.

I was raised to believe that not forgetting where you came from and championing working people even if you had become a millionaire was not a bad thing.

AND, if he became a millionaire representing people with asbestos poisoning who got it because their companies had neither the balls or common decency to enforce OSHA, well, I'm sorry.

But if I have malignant mesothelioma, I sure as hell want a sharp lawyer running my end of the class action suit.

Being healthy enough to earn a living wage, no matter what you do for a living, is a family value.

And, as I mentioned, the haircut cost as much as it did because he paid the guy for lost income when he had to shut his shop down for the day when Edwards was running late. Compensation for lost wages.

I don't think, when Bill Clinton got his $200 haircut from Christophe on the tarmac at LAX, it was compensation for lost wages.

As an observer only, I totally agree with you Melly. He was the best candidate running for either party but unfortunately in 2008, he had the disadvantage of being a white man.

Ellen --

I do really like Obama.

He was my friend's state senator in Illinois and I've followed his career because she was very high on him from the beginning.

I just want to hear more ideas to go with the soaring speeches.

What I don't want is another 50 years in Iraq so, McCain -- who admits he is weak on my number one concern, the economy -- won't be getting my vote any election soon.

I feel badly - his wife - his son - I know that has nothing to do with anything - and... I still feel badly for him.

Not badly, like I would have supported him in the primary, just plain badly.

Pea --

Since the timing of the announcement seems a little peculiar, I was wondering if Elizabeth Edwards took a sudden turn for the worse.

I know it sounds ghoulish and it's certainly not meant to be.

Her cancer is stage IV; it can be treated but not cured. Could it have gotten to the point where the treatment had done all it can?

On the other hand, I read that they will be working with Habitat for Humanity after the announcement, so maybe it was a money thing.

Just talking out loud here.

mellytu74 wrote:Pea --

Since the timing of the announcement seems a little peculiar, I was wondering if Elizabeth Edwards took a sudden turn for the worse.

I know it sounds ghoulish and it's certainly not meant to be.

Her cancer is stage IV; it can be treated but not cured. Could it have gotten to the point where the treatment had done all it can?

On the other hand, I read that they will be working with Habitat for Humanity after the announcement, so maybe it was a money thing.

Just talking out loud here.

I just love her spunk. I have seen her talk about the death of her oldest son. I have listen to her talk about how she and John let each other deal in the way they each had to deal. I fell in love with their relationship then and have loved it ever sense.

Too bad that is not what I vote for in a President.

Money can't buy health. Money can't buy love either. She has the latter.

I'm with you.

I think she's terrific and really love the way they talk about what they've had to deal with.

Edwards is my candidate, all the way. Except I guess it won't be all the way, now. I was hoping he'd still be in there on Super Tuesday so I wouldn't have to choose between 2 who in my view are both the lesser choices when compared with Edwards.

ghostjmf wrote:Edwards is my candidate, all the way. Except I guess it won't be all the way, now. I was hoping he'd still be in there on Super Tuesday so I wouldn't have to choose between 2 who in my view are both the lesser choices when compared with Edwards.

He'll still be on the ballot in MA. Politicians do look at the votes for non-candidates, which they interpret as the equivalent of a vote of no confidence. You can express your dismay/disgust with the top two by voting for Edwards anyway.

I still don't know which PARTY I'm voting for next week. Where's my NOTA check box?

Oh, I don't have dismay/disgust with the top 2. Just like Edwards better, all around. Since he will still be on the ballot, I may just cast that "sympathy" vote for him & "let other the people decide".

Just for the record, my politics are probably more in line with Edwards than with the other 2; he was the "most liberal", a word I'm proud of, of the 3. Obama is, from his platform & other statements, the least liberal.

I have friends who say "Kucinich is their man" politically. Yeah, right, but he never had a snowball's chance, & Edwards certainly did before the star power of the other 2 took the race over. Joe Biden was probably "my man", even ahead of Edwards, but after he made that (typical of him) foot-in-mouth comment about Obama being "clean, smart, etc", eliciting far & wide comments from other African-American candidates for anything about how they bathe daily too, I figured it was curtains-time for Biden. I think a "make up" ticket, by the way, of Obama/Biden would pair some very necessary experience, decades of it, as well as leftier politics, with Obama if he gets the nomination. I don't think Edwards wants to run for VP again.

So if Hillary Clinton is more in line with my positions than Obama (except for that vote on Iraq, of course) why not just go for her? I might. What I resent about Hillary is the fact that she is Hillary, not, say, Nancy Pelosi, or the rep from my home-state who gets press periodically, Marcy Kaptur. That is to say, not someone who ran on their own & got elected for years, instead of being "power behind the throne" for Bill.

I like some off-the-cuff interviews I've heard with Obama very much; I just don't get rallied to stand up & cheer at the more-formal speeches the way some people apparently do. He does have a quick, easy wit about him, which explains a lot of the too-hyped comparisons with JFK, but if you all remember, JFK boo-booed big time on both the Cuba invasion &, ahem, Vietnam; a lot of historians chalk that up to, ahem "lack of experience". Obama's experience is largely local-Illinois, not national & international. If he's the nominee, I guess "we'll see".

I will still vote for Edwards. No one else has won my vote yet. If he's not on the ballot and I can't write him in, I won't vote. Now I begin to pay attention to the others to see if anyone has my best interests at heart. Can't imagine they do....including Obama. I always have the feeling he's got a tad too much ego and not enough substance.

I've heard conflicting reports that Edwards plans to endorse both Hillary and Obama. It was pretty clear he'd made this decision when he set up his schedule to be in the non-Super Tuesday state of Louisiana today helping to rebuild a home, not something a candidate with little time to campaign in 22 other states would do.

My gut feel is that he just looked at what would be required to play out the string and decided that trying to pick up a handful of delegates here and there in order to play kingmaker at a convention just wasn't worth it. There's no way that scenario if played out would help either Hillary or Obama.

By dropping out now, he lets voters make a choice on Super Tuesday without his presence as a possible distraction. He also lets the debate Thursday be limited to the two candidates who actually have a chance of being the nominee, again without any possible distraction.

I think Edwards has doubts about both remaining candidates and wants to see more of how the campaign plays out before he makes a decision if or who to endorse. I will say that unlike Obama, who I consider a huckster and a phony, I have genuine respect and admiration for John Edwards. He would have been a good president; the electoral landscape just wasn't in his favor.

silverscreenselect wrote:I think Edwards has doubts about both remaining candidates and wants to see more of how the campaign plays out before he makes a decision if or who to endorse. I will say that unlike Obama, who I consider a huckster and a phony, I have genuine respect and admiration for John Edwards. He would have been a good president; the electoral landscape just wasn't in his favor.

Olivia is napping so I have time for crap like this. I don't understand how you can consider Obama a huckster and a phony. Can you explain this for me please?

Tocqueville3 wrote: I don't understand how you can consider Obama a huckster and a phony. Can you explain this for me please?

Because he is. Of course, he's far from the only politician who's a phony; take a look at Mitt Romney for example. However, beyond the talk and the hype (and he is a very skilled orator), you find a guy who rarely wants to get specific on the issues, wants to blur distinctions, shifts positions and looks for ways to appear on both sides of an issue.

The present votes are just one example of this. Making a speech about Iraq, then removing it from his website and making comments about how he isn't sure how he'd have voted in Congress, then recreating his antiwar credentials for this race is another. His conflicting statements on healthcare are another. His pandering to a rightwing newspaper using deliberately vague statements about Reagan and ideas are another.

Add to that a typical old-style Chicago ruthless politics, such as how he has bulldozed opposition to his previous election campaigns (information about his opponents' spouse abuse in the Senate elections mysteiously surfaced at just the right times). And that's not even beginning to talk about his relation with Rezko and other unsavory types in Chicago. He has calculatingly played the race card in this campaign and used the media's love for him to great effect to try to deflect any criticism of him.

You can see it occasionally, when his guard is down, such as the "you're likable enough" comment, or other times when his real self shines through.

When Obama got started in politics, his image was of an upperclass elitist, a Bill Bradley type of liberal. That got him elected in a somewhat upperclass Senate district. When he ran for Congress in 2000 against a former Black Panther, he got his clock cleaned as black voters overwhelmingly rejected him as being a phony. The current Obama, the man of "hope and change" emerged a few months later as he figured out what image he needed to project to win.

He's an actor pitching a spiel. He's very good at what he does, which is why people come away so impressed with him at campaign rallies. But that doesn't make him the slightest bit sincere.

I appreciate that you did not stop with this statement:

Because he is.

Thank you.

silverscreenselect wrote:

Tocqueville3 wrote: I don't understand how you can consider Obama a huckster and a phony. Can you explain this for me please?

Because he is. Of course, he's far from the only politician who's a phony; take a look at Mitt Romney for example. However, beyond the talk and the hype (and he is a very skilled orator), you find a guy who rarely wants to get specific on the issues, wants to blur distinctions, shifts positions and looks for ways to appear on both sides of an issue.

The present votes are just one example of this. Making a speech about Iraq, then removing it from his website and making comments about how he isn't sure how he'd have voted in Congress, then recreating his antiwar credentials for this race is another. His conflicting statements on healthcare are another. His pandering to a rightwing newspaper using deliberately vague statements about Reagan and ideas are another.

Add to that a typical old-style Chicago ruthless politics, such as how he has bulldozed opposition to his previous election campaigns (information about his opponents' spouse abuse in the Senate elections mysteiously surfaced at just the right times). And that's not even beginning to talk about his relation with Rezko and other unsavory types in Chicago. He has calculatingly played the race card in this campaign and used the media's love for him to great effect to try to deflect any criticism of him.

You can see it occasionally, when his guard is down, such as the "you're likable enough" comment, or other times when his real self shines through.

When Obama got started in politics, his image was of an upperclass elitist, a Bill Bradley type of liberal. That got him elected in a somewhat upperclass Senate district. When he ran for Congress in 2000 against a former Black Panther, he got his clock cleaned as black voters overwhelmingly rejected him as being a phony. The current Obama, the man of "hope and change" emerged a few months later as he figured out what image he needed to project to win.

He's an actor pitching a spiel. He's very good at what he does, which is why people come away so impressed with him at campaign rallies. But that doesn't make him the slightest bit sincere.

In ways tailored specifically to Obama, you just made the case to never vote for any politician.

Tocqueville3 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

Tocqueville3 wrote: I don't understand how you can consider Obama a huckster and a phony. Can you explain this for me please?

Because he is. Of course, he's far from the only politician who's a phony; take a look at Mitt Romney for example. However, beyond the talk and the hype (and he is a very skilled orator), you find a guy who rarely wants to get specific on the issues, wants to blur distinctions, shifts positions and looks for ways to appear on both sides of an issue.

The present votes are just one example of this. Making a speech about Iraq, then removing it from his website and making comments about how he isn't sure how he'd have voted in Congress, then recreating his antiwar credentials for this race is another. His conflicting statements on healthcare are another. His pandering to a rightwing newspaper using deliberately vague statements about Reagan and ideas are another.

Add to that a typical old-style Chicago ruthless politics, such as how he has bulldozed opposition to his previous election campaigns (information about his opponents' spouse abuse in the Senate elections mysteiously surfaced at just the right times). And that's not even beginning to talk about his relation with Rezko and other unsavory types in Chicago. He has calculatingly played the race card in this campaign and used the media's love for him to great effect to try to deflect any criticism of him.

You can see it occasionally, when his guard is down, such as the "you're likable enough" comment, or other times when his real self shines through.

When Obama got started in politics, his image was of an upperclass elitist, a Bill Bradley type of liberal. That got him elected in a somewhat upperclass Senate district. When he ran for Congress in 2000 against a former Black Panther, he got his clock cleaned as black voters overwhelmingly rejected him as being a phony. The current Obama, the man of "hope and change" emerged a few months later as he figured out what image he needed to project to win.

He's an actor pitching a spiel. He's very good at what he does, which is why people come away so impressed with him at campaign rallies. But that doesn't make him the slightest bit sincere.

In ways tailored specifically to Obama, you just made the case to never vote for any politician.

You don't understand.

Hillary has all these shortcomings too, but those shortcomings have already been discussed ad naseum.

That makes them old news, and therefore Hillary is a better candidate.

See how that works?

SteelersFan was gonna vote for Edwards in Tuesday's caucus. Now he's not going at all.

Jeemie wrote:You don't understand.

Hillary has all these shortcomings too, but those shortcomings have already been discussed ad naseum.

That makes them old news, and therefore Hillary is a better candidate.

See how that works?

You are mixing apples and oranges here.

I believe Obama is a phony. I do not believe the same thing about Hillary. This is the reason I'm supporting her. I've had to do a good bit of digging into Obama's record to find out a lot of what I learned about him, which helped me make my decision. Many people haven't looked at him that closely because little of the controversy surrounding him appears on the nightly news or has been brought up by Hillary or his Democratic rivals to date. That's why many people have a much higher opinion of him.

During the general election, the Republicans will dig up all the dirt on Obama and Fox News will gleefully report it. They will probably try to slime him on things he hasn't done wrong either (this being the Repubs) as well. When they do that, a lot of other people will turn against him and his popularity will go down like a rock.

People who think badly of Hillary don't plan to vote for her already. I doubt there's anything new about her out there that would cause other people to say "I believed in Hillary until now but I just can't support her knowing she did X."

Those are two separate points entirely.

Oh good. For a moment I thought you were talking about my Las Vegas host, Rudy. I'm glad he is still working.

silverscreenselect wrote:

Jeemie wrote:You don't understand.

Hillary has all these shortcomings too, but those shortcomings have already been discussed ad naseum.

That makes them old news, and therefore Hillary is a better candidate.

See how that works?

You are mixing apples and oranges here.

I believe Obama is a phony. I do not believe the same thing about Hillary.

Hillary Clinton, during last night's debate:

"And representing New York, the homeland with the Statue of Liberty, bringing all of our immigrants to our shores, has been not only an extraordinary privilege, but given me the opportunity to speak out on these issues.

When the House of Representatives passed the most mean-spirited provision that said, if you were to give any help whatsoever to someone here illegally, you would commit a crime, I stood up and said that would have criminalized the Good Samaritan and Jesus Christ himself."

Nope, she is not a huge phony.