 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Edwards for VP after all?
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Edwards for VP after all? From: GUEST,mg Date: 14 May 08 - 07:15 PM They say he is endorsing Obama tonight. There are pictures of them looking very lovey dovey and I think they have good chemistry together. I heard Edwards say on TV no way for VP but perhaps he is being coy. I think he is the best match chemistry-wise..perhaps when other calculations are made not...mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all? From: Little Hawk Date: 14 May 08 - 07:27 PM I would think he would be just about the perfect choice. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all? From: Riginslinger Date: 14 May 08 - 07:31 PM That would leave them without any foreign policy experience. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all? From: Riginslinger Date: 14 May 08 - 07:31 PM On the other hand, I heard Donald Rumsfeld is looking for a job, so maybe... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all? From: Rabbi-Sol Date: 14 May 08 - 07:32 PM Edwards has waited until the last moment to make an endorsement because whoever was the nominee he was going to be the VP on their ticket. SOL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all? From: Mrrzy Date: 14 May 08 - 07:40 PM Ooh, I hope so! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all? From: Little Hawk Date: 14 May 08 - 07:47 PM A government is run by many people, not by one or two. There will be plenty of advisors available regarding foreign policy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all? From: Bobert Date: 14 May 08 - 09:08 PM You can take iot to the bank that John Edwards will not get the VP nod... Attorney General perhaps, but not VP... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all? From: Peace Date: 14 May 08 - 09:21 PM "On the other hand, I heard Donald Rumsfeld is looking for a job, so maybe..." He could be Secretary of Defense . . . . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all? From: Little Hawk Date: 14 May 08 - 09:24 PM You mean Secretary of Attack, don't you? ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all? From: Peace Date: 14 May 08 - 09:27 PM Which one? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all? From: pdq Date: 14 May 08 - 09:39 PM With John Edwards, I think that would be Secretary of a Tax. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all? From: GUEST,Convidado Date: 14 May 08 - 09:41 PM I think he was withholding his endorsement until it would have maximum effect. But this whole endorsement thing is silly. How do they matter, truly? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all? From: Riginslinger Date: 14 May 08 - 09:44 PM No, it has an effect. He's convinced me to vote for McCain. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all? From: Ron Davies Date: 14 May 08 - 09:48 PM Edwards' endorsement matters, far more than most, since it's not just about him. It gives his delegates the go-ahead to also endorse Obama. Also, up to now, it was always theoretically possibly that he would endorse HRC. Some of his delegates have already endorsed Obama, but there are likely to be more now. Let's see what happens, say, by the end of the week. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all? From: Ebbie Date: 14 May 08 - 10:14 PM "No, it has an effect. He's convinced me to vote for McCain." Riginslinger We'll miss you, Rig. :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all? From: Ron Davies Date: 14 May 08 - 10:18 PM But it's not surprising, Rig. After all, Obama is not going to support you in your struggle to keep the terrible brown hordes out of the US. You'll have better luck with McCain. But please don't complain about the Iraq war continuing if you do vote for McCain. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all? From: Jim Lad Date: 14 May 08 - 11:39 PM Wow! These guys fight dirty. This endorsement was planned well in advance to do maximum damage to one of their own. Yup! I'd be for McCain too, I'm afraid. Obama for change? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all? From: Lonesome EJ Date: 15 May 08 - 12:36 AM I like Wes Clarke for VP. It will probably be Hillary though. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all? From: GUEST,Fantasma Date: 15 May 08 - 07:25 AM I don't agree Edwards' timing was intended to do maximum damage to Clinton. But it is intended and desperately needed by Obama for damage control, due to Clinton's landslide victory in West Virginia. It was, no other way of parsing it, a landslide victory of Reagan size proportions. That should scare the shit out of the Democrats. I'm sure Obama hopes to get street cred with the white working class voters with this endorsement, hence the timing. Say what you will about Edwards, he is a very smart guy and knows how to play the game. None of the pundits, of course, want this interpretation to be put on the West Virginia primary. In fact, the media and Obama camp would just as soon ignore that primary all together because it casts a pall of gloom and foreboding over the golden boy. And we can't have that for Mr. Sunshine President, now can we? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 15 May 08 - 08:08 AM This endorsement was planned well in advance to do maximum damage to one of their own. Edwards is pretty enthusiastic in his praise for Clinton in |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all? From: Ron Davies Date: 15 May 08 - 08:17 AM Obama will never pick HRC as VP. She has far too much baggage. And he'll be just fine with any number of other choices. Janet-- You still need to get that stronger sedative. WV proves nothing except that racists still exist and that Obama has to make himself better known to many people--e.g. pointing out ad nauseam that he is in fact a Christian, not a Moslem, and that he and his wife are patriotic Americans. This is eminently doable between now and November. If people vote their pocketbooks--- which they virtually always do unless there's a hot war----McCain has no chance. McCain has 3 problems, any of which can cost him the election. 1) Sour mood of the country--voting pocketbooks means throw Mr. Bush's party out. Democrats are ostensibly in charge in Congress. Yet look at the most recent special elections. They're tossing Republicans out---in Republican districts. 2) He's tied to GWB--instant revulsion. 3) He has to reach beyond his base--but he can't. Every time he does, his base threatens to desert. a) illegal immigration b) climate change c) meaningful health-care reform |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all? From: GUEST,Fantasma Date: 15 May 08 - 08:20 AM What you aren't taking into consideration is the endorsements of Obama this week are to force the Clinton camp supporters into the party fold. You can't ignore the timing, which isn't intended to damage Clinton at all--quite the contrary. It is intended to send a message to her & her supporters that because of her landslide victory in WV, she needs to start mending fences with the Obama camp, even if she stays in it until the convention, which I am beginning to think she might do. She can do that, she just has to start nudging her supporters in a direction that herds them inside the fence of the Obama camp, is all. In other words, Edwards decision to endorse now has two purposes. One is his own future political ambitions. You can bet his endorsement didn't come for nothing. Second, it was done to stem the bleeding after Clinton's landslide victory with the voters Edwards was carrying early in the season--especially the trades unions and all those WV voters who just handed Clinton her biggest victory of the entire primary season. He can't deliver the rank and file trade unionists any more than he can the WV voters at this point. But Clinton can. So Edwards message is, now she needs to start working in that direction. It is the end game, but it is a very delicate--and volatile-- situation. The Democrats know they need the Clinton vote to win in November. They really don't feel that Obama will look out for them, and they are likely right about that. There is nothing in Obama's history or message that shows him to be a champion of the white "little guy" the way Edwards and Clinton are perceived by the party rank and file. They see Obama as someone who will champion poor people of color, very possibly at their expense by driving a wedge--the racism card--between the working class voters of color and white working class voters. And that does look to be the way it is going down. The white working class voters--the unions especially--ARE working to create bridges, partnerships, and openings for working class people of color. But precisely because of the institutional racism in the US, those coalitions are extremely fragile. It is gonna take a boatload of finesse on the Obama camp's part, and frankly, he hasn't been doing it. He hasn't been able to attract those voters AT ALL. And now, it is all about perceptions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all? From: Riginslinger Date: 15 May 08 - 08:31 AM "These guys fight dirty. "This endorsement was planned well in advance to do maximum damage to one of their own." Jim Lad - You are so right, and the way things worked out, I think there was something going on before the North Carolina primary that made Clinton think she would get the Edwards endorsement. That's why Clinton pulled her punches and let Obama back into the race. I wonder if she thought she would get Edwards just before the NC election. Anyway, it didn't happen, and he timed it perfectly to do the most damage immediately after West Virginia. Yeah, it's McCain for me all the way! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all? From: Charley Noble Date: 15 May 08 - 09:10 AM I agree that Edwards is a savvy politician, and winning his endorsement is a major credit to the Obama campaign. Interpretations beyond that are armchair speculations but there certainly should be room in an Obama Administration for a man of his talent. Richardson is still my favorite VP candidate for his international credentials but Edwards could be very helpful in helping to win back some (except for the rabid racists) of the white blue-collar vote. West Virginia is a bump on the campaign rode, but was not enough of a bump to alter the math. Charley Noble |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all? From: irishenglish Date: 15 May 08 - 09:54 AM Fantasma, you seem to be putting too much credence into West Virginia's working class voters. Indiana is a working class state, and Hillary didn't win by that much of a margin there, so I don't think that aspect of your argument is true. Also,while it is true that Obama had poor support from unions, he has been making inroads-Teamsters, Service Employees, United Food. It's not always cut and dry. If it was only based on the unions, then Obama wouldn't be at this point now would he? As to the rest, Edwards could be the VP choice, but he might get something else as well-I would love to see him as Attorney General. I still really think Richardson could be the VP choice. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all? From: Amos Date: 15 May 08 - 10:00 AM Fantz, Your perspective strikes me as delusory. Obama actually did a bit better in WV than I had expected from the talkingheads' prognostications. And I think itmight be a bit silly to zero in on the proportions of one state instead of the national tally to date. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all? From: Ghost of Electricity (inactive) Date: 15 May 08 - 12:53 PM Bobert is right. Edwards may get appointed attorney general in an Obama administartion but he won't be VP. For VP, Obama needs someone who can, at the very least, carry his own state. Edwards couldn't to that as Kerry's VP candidate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all? From: Bobert Date: 15 May 08 - 01:33 PM Well, the Mc/Mc/Mc Attack Machine has been doing it's best to define Obama as this stuck up elistist who is incapable of taking up for the "little guy"... This is an area where Obama should be the strongest seein' as he spent alot of time as a community organizer in South Chicago... What is happening is that his adversaries have taken a page oput of Karl Rove's play book and are attacking Obama's strenght... Once it bcomes Obama v. Mc rather that Obams v. McCain/McClinton/McMedia it will be a fairer fight plus by then Obama will have a lot more folks working for his election... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all? From: Jim Lad Date: 15 May 08 - 01:52 PM Don't know if many of you spend much time on the political blog sites but for the past week or so there have been a substantial number of bloggers suggesting that Hillary run as an independent. The Democratic party has certainly given her enough reason to do so and yesterday's turn of event is probably all the excuse she needs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all? From: irishenglish Date: 15 May 08 - 01:58 PM Interesting suggestion Jim, but highly unlikely. She, more than many other Democrats could not abandon a party that brought her husband to office, as well as her up to this point. Lots and lots of people wanted Kucinich to run as an independent, or for the Green Party, but even he said, I am a Democrat, and I'm not leaving. I think certain others could do it, but not Clinton |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all? From: Little Hawk Date: 15 May 08 - 02:03 PM Fantasma, your analysis of the Democratic Party's overall strategy right now is fascinating! And I think you are probably dead right. They would like, if at all possible, to start mending fences now between Hillary's supporters and Obama's supporters, and they are attempting to orchestrate that fine-tuned strategy you allude to. This has escaped the attention of people here who are caught up in and distracted by the ongoing media drama of "Bad Girl Hillary...Good Guy Obama"...as if the Democratic Party Machine gave a hoot about bad or good anything as long as they get themselves elected in November! (with either Hillary or Obama as the candidate). "It is the end game, but it is a very delicate--and volatile-- situation. The Democrats know they need the Clinton vote to win in November." Exactly. Now the question is, how do they get it? How do they undo the tremendous damage and rancour and bad feelings that have been stirred up throughout the length of this campaign and get Hillary's people to back Obama in November? That's a very tricky prospect, and it will require some very careful maneuvering and full cooperation from the Clintons to pull it off. It's like watching a really bad soap opera approach the conclusion of the final season's finale. ;-) Tacky, tacky, tacky...but, oh! The emotional tension! The viewers just can't tear themselves away. ***** Ron, you said: McCain has 3 problems, any of which can cost him the election. 1) Sour mood of the country--voting pocketbooks means throw Mr. Bush's party out. Democrats are ostensibly in charge in Congress. Yet look at the most recent special elections. They're tossing Republicans out---in Republican districts. 2) He's tied to GWB--instant revulsion. 3) He has to reach beyond his base--but he can't. Every time he does, his base threatens to desert. a) illegal immigration b) climate change c) meaningful health-care reform Yes, Ron...but you forgot the 4rth problem McCain has... The biggest one of all... The one that will most certainly doom him at the polls... The final kiss of death to any slender chance he might EVER have had of being elected president... He does not have the support of Ron Davies! ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all? From: Jim Lad Date: 15 May 08 - 02:06 PM "She, more than many other Democrats could not abandon a party that brought her husband to office," You're joking! Right? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all? From: irishenglish Date: 15 May 08 - 02:24 PM No, dead serious. When I said that I wasn't referencing Lewinsky, or any of that. I honestly and firmly believe she could not ever abandon the Democratic Party. I can't even think of elaborating more, because I just think it is not even remotely plausible. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all? From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 15 May 08 - 02:42 PM I'm with IrishEnglish, for more than one reason. First, as he says, the Democratic Party is her political home, and has been very good to her and Bill. That's where her base is. Further, note that if she couldn't get the best of the naysayers and Hillary-haters with the aid of a good section of the Democratic Party, how could she ever hope to be elected (even if nominated by some fringe party) WITHOUT that base? No way! I think the first of those is the more compelling, but when buttressed by the second it's a no-brainer. Dave Oesterreich |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all? From: Jim Lad Date: 15 May 08 - 03:45 PM One of the most primitive and powerful tools known to man is the wedge. Based on the support that she now has and how she rates in the national polls... she would probably win. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all? From: Amos Date: 15 May 08 - 03:57 PM I think the chance of her choosing to bail on the Democratic party and run as an Indy is about as high as the chance she will be offered the VP slot. Somewhere between zero and none. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all? From: Riginslinger Date: 15 May 08 - 04:12 PM "He does not have the support of Ron Davies! ;-)" Yeah, that'll do it for sure! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all? From: Riginslinger Date: 15 May 08 - 04:15 PM "'She, more than many other Democrats could not abandon a party that brought her husband to office,'" She could always pull a Ronald Raygun, and say, 'I didn't abandon the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party abandoned me." Of course, he was just lying, like he was prone to do, but in her case, she'd be right. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all? From: Bobert Date: 15 May 08 - 07:44 PM Well, ont thing is for sure and that is when Fantz gets off the high horse and just allows herself to be objective, she makes sense... I can't find fault with anything she said... Yes, Obama has his work cut out for him and it is MO it will be alot easier when he's only fighting John McCain and McCain's 527's... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all? From: Riginslinger Date: 15 May 08 - 07:59 PM I think I've finally figured out this Edwards thing. Of course he's had a long time to work on it, so I'm just trying to catch up. But here it is: Edwards really wants to run for president in 2012. Knowing that Obama is unelectable in 2008, and John McCain will probably be a one term president, he had to do whatever he could to know Hillary out of the race. She, of course, is electable in 2008, and would almost certainly run for a second term. So it's just another case of a slick attorney/politician looking out for his own best interests. I really hope it backfires on him. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all? From: Charley Noble Date: 15 May 08 - 08:58 PM Jim Ladd is simply indulging in some fantasizing of what he'd like to see happen. No, Clinton would never abandon the Democratic Party, even if the Democrats reject her as their nominee. But that what BS threads are for, to indulge one's fantasy. Now if he were willing to place a bet on his fantasy, I'd match him two to one! Put up or shut up! Charley Noble |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all? From: Ron Davies Date: 15 May 08 - 10:26 PM I wouldn't be at all surprised if Hillary unknowingly brought the endorsement of Obama by Edwards on herself. Lots of people were pretty repulsed by her remark about hard workers, white workers, not being attracted by Obama. It struck quite a few readers as racist. John Edwards is sure as hell no racist. And he may well have said to himself: "That's it for me". So when Obama called soon afterwards, he was receptive. This theory is at least as plausible as Janet's wonderful conspiracy theory about terrible treachery by a group of women stabbing another woman in the back. Though hers does of course have the advantage of far more drama, always a plus when outrage is your goal. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all? From: Jim Lad Date: 16 May 08 - 03:27 AM According to Edwards, he chose to endorse Obama because of the 41% loss to Hillary. Thought he could use a boost. Now let me see.... 7% + 26% = 33% Hillary had 67%. Bugger! She got more than double their votes. That'll teach her. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all? From: Ron Davies Date: 16 May 08 - 07:20 AM And why do you think Edwards thought Obama could use a boost? That idea does not negate my theory--that Edwards wanted to make as sure as possible that the Democratic party was not identified with what he perceived as a racist appeal. You, Jim, appear to have no problem with such an appeal. Or perhaps you want to enlighten us as to your real reason for opposing Obama from the start--which was long before the "bitter" remark--so don't please bother trying to use that as an excuse. Though you're certainly welcome to claim abysmal ignorance, which is also a plausible reason--actually probably more likely--and certainly well supported by your postings on Obama. And Hillary, of course--anybody who suggests that Hillary even entertained the notion of leaving the Democratic party shows shall we say, a less than total grasp of US politics. Too bad she lost her best chance for setting herself up for 2012 or 2016, which, as I noted, would have been a gallant concession speech throwing her support to Obama--right after her WV win. She can try the same thing after her coming win in KY--but she'll have to share the spotlight with Obama's win in OR. Not the same impact. Awaiting your next fascinating observation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all? From: Bobert Date: 16 May 08 - 07:22 AM As for polls??? Polls this far out from ***this*** election have proven to be meaningless... The have jumped 10 points with just about any "breaking news", which in most cases haven't been "news" at all but "new spin" on old stories... That, my friendsm is not news... Jeremiah Wright was not "news"... It was "olds" yet it was paraded out as news and Obama took the "usual" 10 point drop in the polls and 2 weeks later, inspite of the Obama bashers, Rev. Wright was nothing more than last years birds nest... As for John Edwards looking at 2012??? That ain't gonna happen... He is percieved as a loser... It's sad but it's true 'cause I like the guy... There won't be any more Richard Nixons in American politics because the American people are so "tribalized" into "brands" and once you get a negative "brand" you are stuck with it... That's a sad commentary on our collective ability to get beyond the way we process information... As for Obama being un-electable??? That seems to be the the PR that the McCain/McClinton/McMedia folks have been trying to get to stick to the wall but here's a guy who is about to secure the nomination having beaten "The Clintons"... That, in itself, should let any thinking person see thru the PR... As for John McCain being electable??? Not likely... Iraq, Iraq, Iraq for starters... Then high oil prices, a faltering economy, inflation, deficits, etc... Throw in the *fact* that Chairman Dean has reorganized the local precincts with a "50 state" strategy, the *fact* that Dems have been winning interim elstions for the House and winning local elctions in places where they didn't use to have a chance and the "fact* the Dems are rasing big money, it is hard to see how McCain can win... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all? From: Riginslinger Date: 16 May 08 - 09:56 AM "Too bad she lost her best chance for setting herself up for 2012..." Ron - It looks like you're beginning to realize that Obama is unelectable as well. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all? From: Jim Lad Date: 16 May 08 - 12:40 PM Stop with the insults. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all? From: Amos Date: 16 May 08 - 01:25 PM He has stated publically today that he's not up for it (Veep), but he really thinks Barack should be the next President. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all? From: Riginslinger Date: 16 May 08 - 01:31 PM It looks like my theory is coming to fruition. |
