Edwards and His Advisors Admit They Are Now Trying To Create A Brokered Convention

[Dems Will Win]

NOTE: YOU MUST PLAY THE VIDEO AT THE LINK BELOW TO HEAR EDWARDS HIMSELF TALK ABOUT THE 3 CANDIDATES AND THE RACE BEING DECIDED AT THE CONVENTION.

This is just ducky. Edwards is fine with continuing to finish third and his main strategy is now to create a brokered convention, which would be terrible for the Democratic Party, preventing unity for several extra months.

People who vote for Edwards should know this strategy shift, that your vote for JRE is almost certainly going to be handed to one of the other candidates in the end, but you won't get to pick which candidate that is! Plus we get a brokered convention, although that is pretty unlikely IMHO.

Edwards' advisers have been saying that although his nomination is a long shot, he could play a "kingmaker" role at the Democratic convention if one of the other candidates fails to get a majority of the delegates needed to secure the nomination.

In the overall race for the nomination, Clinton has 249 delegates, followed by Obama with 167 delegates and Edwards with 58. A total of 2,025 delegates are needed to secure the Democratic nomination.

Edwards insisted that he's in it to be the president, but said it's becoming more likely the nomination could be decided in a convention fight. "Given the way the vote is being distributed, and it will vary from state to state, I think that's a real possibility," Edwards said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22857689/

Please recommend if this bothers you like it does me

[Fed_Up_Grammy]

1. Good for him. eom

[neutron]

83. It is not fair to the Candidates we Elected

to have him siphon off votes.
You LOST, Edwards.
Now BUG OFF, and let the election proceed.

[foxer]

107. I didn't realize anyones been elected, musta missed that

[krabigirl]

112. Someone has been elected?

[KnaveRupe]

135. Huh. Since I live in PA, I haven't had a chance to vote AT ALL yet.

So whining that it is "unfair" that Edwards is staying in the race kind of makes me want to tell you to go to hell.

But I won't, since that would be rude.

[Yael]

193. He has my vote on April 22

[Garbo 2004]

136. Delegates, not candidates. You might want to read up on the actual process. n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

141. Delegates are awarded roughly proportional to votes.

So far only Obama in South Carolina has managed to get more than 50% of the vote total. So what the heck are you going on about?

[HCE SuiGeneris]

149. More Idiotic Blather -- Please Explain Yourself

[Kucinich4America]

182. Didn't you say you were an Edwards supporter yesterday, troll?

You guys need to keep your scripts straight.

[jasmine621]

184. So, one mght say that it's Edwards who is now destroying the Dem party

and their chances of winning in November. The longer this shit is carried out, the longer the circular firing squad gets to shoot.

[DaLittle Kitty]

199. John Edwards Is "PLAYING TO WIN" In What Is A CORRUPT PRIMARY System re: Super DELEGATES

He IS Playing in the Primary like John Kerry SHOULD Have in the 2004 General Election... as ADVISED BY JOHN EDWARDS....... Nothing is lost yet by anyone.. unless you give up... AND JOHN EDWARDS IS NOT... A QUITTER!

Keep on FIGHTING JOHNNY! :patriot: :kick:

[roguevalley]

217. hey, sweetie. No one has been elected. Brokered conventions are

a plus. You actually get something more from them than having the nominee selected in November the year before. John Edwards has lost nothing. You are just seeing a return to real politics from the decades of homogenized bullshit that we have had for years. Remember, you can actually have a better candidate from this than not. I would rather have a candidate nominated on the tenth ballot than one chosen in September, 2007 in some state that can fit in the back end of my home borough here in Alaska. There are actually lots of us who want a say. GO, JOHN! Brokered conventions are historical, not farcical, not undemocratic.

[leftynyc]

222. As nobody has gotten the majority

of delegates, we haven't elected/nominated anyone yet. Edwards is entitled to stay in as long as he pleases.

[mtnester]

226. Ahem...YOUR state does not the candidate make

we all get a turn.

[ms liberty]

242. I haven't voted in my primary yet...and WE haven't ELECTED anyone yet...n/t

[Viva_La_Revolution]

2. I like it.

It will insure that more voices are heard, even if in the end one of the Corpos gets the Nom. anyway. For the first time, I feel like a politician is really fighting for me.

[AmBlue]

93. I like it too, Viva.

John Edwards is already delivering on his campaign promise to make sure that the voices of the voiceless are heard throughout this long season of meaningless mudslinging. He's the only one speaking specifically to matters vital to our survival and to our children's futures.

JOHN EDWARDS SPEAKS FOR ME. And I'm glad he's staying in to the Convention. GO, JOHN, GO!!!
:patriot:

[iris5426]

103. hell yeah! :-) nt

[Reader Rabbit]

133. Rock on, sistah friend!

Representative democracy. Edwards speaks for us!

[Viva_La_Revolution]

201. ...

:hug: Morning, Teach! :hi:

[fenriswolf]

3. or we could wait till after tuesday to see how people actually vote.

[Dems Will Win]

15. Edwards is saying here he will continue, even after Super Tuesday third place everywhere

Just to see if he can get some influence at a brokered convention.

Not very smart, really, to talk about it in public.

[IsItJustMe]

74. He didn't say that at all. It say's in article that his advisers said that. I want facts man. Who

said it? When did they say it?

This article is very vague.

[Dems Will Win]

95. Play the video on the link. Edwards himself says that with 3 candidates in the race

it can go all the way to the convention.

[Bluebear]

4. Excellent, I applaud Edwards for this.

[Seen the light]

5. If true, that's sad and pathetic

*sigh*

[loveangelc]

11. its a good thing.

[Kittycat]

23. I agree.

Especially if HRC keeps up with the Robo calls.

[Seen the light]

37. How is hoping for a brokered convention a "good thing"?

Talk about taking the voice away from the people...

[Cassandra]

75. Why are you so eager to take away my voice?

[Seen the light]

79. Me?

Huh? Why do you say that?

[Warren Stupidity]

142. It does not take anyone's voice away.

It means the Edwards can and will make demands to move the party's platform to the left as the price for his support. He could also take the VP slot, but I doubt he wants that. Good for us progressive leftists, not so good for those who want our party to be just a little less Republican than the Republicans.

[mzmolly]

203. .. which is why I plan to support him this weekend.

:hi:

[Milo_Bloom]

This race is about Edwards' ego and little more.

[saracat]

19. Again I ask, do you have a life? or do you exist to bash Edwards?You are very sad.

[saracat]

25. Edwards rocks whatever the result. This proves it is not about "him" but the "people"

[AmBlue]

94. Amen, Sistah Sara!! n/t

[Milo_Bloom]

35. Edwards deserved to be bashed for his record, his plans

and his use of other people to satisfy his own ego.

[melody]

110. All hyperbole, no facts, all the time, Milo. As I said, welcome to my ignore list. n/t

[Milo_Bloom]

127. If you can't handle the facts... please use the ignore button.

[gmudem]

158. What facts?

All I see is Limbaugh patented talking points.

[Kittycat]

26. I disagree.

[creeksneakers2]

56. He isn't going to swap his delegates for some populist goal

He's running for vice president again. That's what he'll want to swap for his delegates. Edwards has a real problem with his desire for the White House. He's been consumed by it for years now. Its like he can't quit.

I'm fine with Edwards staying in as long as he doesn't make negative attacks. But this is an unethical way to get the vice presidency...telling people they are voting for one thing when they are really voting for another.

[never_get_over_it]

70. For the love of Christ

he is NOT running for VP again - nobody is going to ask him - he ran just 4 years ago and either Clinton or Obama asking him to be their running mate is POLITICALLY STUPID - it will remind EVERYBODY of the losing Kerry/Edwards election....

now he may be looking for some other position in the administration and you know what - that's politics....

[creeksneakers2]

89. Unless Edwards has the keys. n/t

[foxer]

125. Why would he want to be VP when no change has occurred?

[Leopolds Ghost]

210. Um... How the hell do you think the VP slot is NORMALLY chosen?

Unless you want continual upward SELECTION of Presidential candidates of boring, centrist Technocrats and "ticket-splitters" to become their running mate and eventual HEIR, the Convention process is ALL about minority candidateschoosing who gets to be vice president by witholding their delegates. This is what the Convention is ABOUT, what it was created to DO. It is a forum for delegates to meet and horse-trade votes awarded to the minority casndidates. It seems a lot of you guys who are "partisan candidate Democrats" don't believe minority candidates should have ANY VOICE in the Democratic Party or control over who goes down-ticket. That is the Banana Republic method (a sweatshop company I'm sure Hillary and possibly Obama supports for their "innovative" outsourcing and retraining of textile workers to work in retail.) Real parliamentary democratic regimes like England, France, Israel, for all their faults, give minority candidates a say in selection of everything downticket in return for delegates.

[creeksneakers2]

235. In those parliamentary systems

The candidates are up front about what they intend to do with the votes. If Edwards wants to cut a deal for VP, he should say so up front.

[IsItJustMe]

77. Edward's speak for me and millions of other Americans, get over yourself.

[Milo_Bloom]

82. Too bad you can't speak for yourself.

And cast your own vote. YOu have to hire a surrogate, who doesn't actually have any interest in his own rhetoric, do it for you.

[AmBlue]

98. Lots of people can't speak for themselves in this election.

If you'd been listening at all you'd know that that's the point.

[liberalla]

187. Yes, that's the point exactly!

I want my chance to vote!

After that, I trust John Edwards to do the right thing at the right time.

Onwards, Upwards, Edwards. 2008

[Yael]

194. That will fall on a lot of deaf ears

Not all, but a lot...

[foxer]

120. We are casting our own votes,for JRE

[Milo_Bloom]

126. And he will do with them, whatever personally benefits him most.

As he has done most of his career.

Co-Sponsoring the Iraq war.
Voting for the patriot act
Voting for the bankrupcy bil
Voting to limit liability for nuclear power plants
Voting for China free trade.
Working for a hedge fund up to its eye balls in predatory lending.
Putting together a health care plan that is a gift to insurance companies.
Lying about not taking money from lobbyists.
Distorting the truth about not taking money from corporations.

[JDPriestly]

172. Most of these votes were supported by numerous other

Democrats. The China free trade bill was a Clinton bill. PLEASE get over this. Edwards has been working on stopping predatory lending for a long time. The health care plan pits insurance companies against the beginning of a single payer plan. Sounds fair to me. You don't know your facts. Anyone can make a mistake, especially on a board like this. Please apologize. That's what I do when I make a mistake here.

[Leopolds Ghost]

214. I totally oppose Edwards health care plan, but that is another story.

Mandated commoditized private health insurance (with a few beefed up public programs that are restricted to eligible citizens thrown in for measure) is the OPPOSITE of single payer,

and Clinton / Obama's plans are no better.

[Leopolds Ghost]

211. I do not dispute that Edwards may be a hypocrite

That's why I don't really have a dog in this fight.

I definitely don't trust Hillary and adamantly oppose
her policies of Clintonism (reversing the New Deal) and
open support for free trade (declaring US manufacturing
jobs a dead end, like McCain also did.) Her idea of a
national industrial polcy is to use diplomacy (gunboat
or otherwise) to force other countries to open new factories
for former US jobs so we can sell more Chinese shit in
Wal-Mart, thus "indirectly benefiting the consumer" by
making US jobs reliant on low-paid service and retail
funded by overseas investors paid for by credit card
purchases at interest that ranges from 0% to 35% and
are consolidated in 10 global mega-companies thanks
to Bill Clinton's banking deregulation (which the banks
broke the old law in anticipation of its signing.)

[madmunchie]

139. I agree totally, JE couldn't even come within double digits to HRC or Obama in SC!!!!!!!

HE can carry the South??????? He couldn't even carry his home state. He just about lived in Iowa and couldn't bring a win in there either....

Of course the JE supporters will say..."poor Johnny boy didn't get enough msm coverage in SC, so thats why he lost..." (even though he was born there and THEY know him more closely than most of us) It boggles the mind how absolutely superficial they all are and how they seem to like living in la la land. I guess they think if they yell loud enough and stick their fingers in their ears and close their eyes - their candidate just might have a chance ....

I have no respect for JE supporters anymore - not only does their candidate have a terrible record in Senate showing TERRIBLE JUDGMENT making ability, but he is losing every primary including his home state (in downright embarrassingly huge numbers) and yet they think something is great about this guy......

[Yael]

195. Heres an idea

Start a "what do you like about JRE" thread and then you can collect us all in one spot for the old iggy list.

:hi:

[madmunchie]

215. Why bother, it is obvious that each Party has their flakes and who cares

about something as trivial as a "voting record"???????

[Leopolds Ghost]

213. DEMOCRACY is NOT all about winning. It is about minority constituencies having a voice

Whether you like it or not. Winner take all implies no more than two
choices, 4 candidates total with 2 or one being the "anointed favorite".
It is a far more corrupt system that relies on voter manipulation and
convincing peoplre that they don't need a say in the process, and you
are used to it.

[hisownpetard]

144. You couldn't be less on target. If it were about ego, he'd have quit when he got 4%,

He's in it for the long run, and he's in it because he truly believes he can best serve his country
in this capacity.

Someone who has lost a son and is dealing with cancer in the person he adores does not make a decision like this
lightly (as if that even needs saying). Ego has nothing to do with it. As an attorney, he's not accustomed to coming in third,
or being ignored on a daily basis. Even when he came in second - the MSM discussed the candidates who came in 1st and 3rd.

Do you think that strokes his ego?

[Milo_Bloom]

151. You're all over the place here...

"As an attorney, he's not accustomed to coming in third,
or being ignored on a daily basis. Even when he came in second - the MSM discussed the candidates who came in 1st and 3rd."


That suggests it is all about ego, because he is desperately trying to be relevant, instead of accepting what is obviously a defeat and a rejection by the democratic voters.

In a day his strongest supporters pledged to raise 7 million, they raised 300,000. The support isn't there and it isn't "the media". Ron Paul raised 7 million in a day without the media. Howard Dean raised millions in a day without the media. (Remember the bat?)

I am not going to comment on his personal family situation, because it is a personal family situation and none of my business and I do not wish to it used to twist into motives for or against my position.

I am just going to stick with the obvious. He's not going to win. His only roll left is "kingmaker", which means he wants the power to make the choice, instead of leaving it to the voters. THAT is ego.

[JDPriestly]

173. I'm an Edwards voter, and posts like yours tell a lot about

your candidate. I do not plan to vote for either Hillary or Obama. Edwards speaks for me. He is the only candidate who speaks for me.

I don't get donations from corporations. I don't have Oprah on my side. I only have Edwards on my side.

[Milo_Bloom]

244. What "candidate" do you think I have?

And what candidate do you think doesn't get donations from Corporations?

If you are going to say Edwards, you are in for a little surprise.

Let's take a look at Edwards top contributors...


http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00002283&cycle=2008


Goldman Sachs
Citigroup Inc
Deutsche Bank AG

Golly Gee Willikers, those look like corporations to me.


Guess he hoodwinked you real good.

[stimbox]

185. Dooga, dooga, dooga? n/t

[mzmolly]

204. I think he'd drop out if it were about his ego? He's really interested in giving average Americans

a say in the direction of the country. I don't think he feels he has to do that as President, however.

[joshcryer]

6. Clinton/Edwards

Looks like Edwards knows what he wants.

[Vincardog]

12. Edwards/Obama more likely

[joshcryer]

42. Edwards and Clinton are buddies.

[2hip]

128. That would make a lot of sense

That would resolve the "experience" issue some have with Obama and position him perfectly for later on down the road.




          Edwards '08 tees!

[Lucinda]

134. I could vote for that ticket.

:)

[Vincardog]

7. The longer Edwards stays in, the longer they have to talk about the real issues.

He can fight them until hell freezes over and then fight them on the ice.
IMO

[Milo_Bloom]

What "real issue" does Edwards cause them to talk about...

... that they aren't already?

[Critters2]

18. Corporatism. nt

[Milo_Bloom]

29. But he is the only one talking about it and messing it up.

He's turned the "issue" into a joke by simplifying it to the point of absurdity.

[peacetalksforall]

57. No, he is speaking directly to the core of the problem in this country

from the killing in Iraq to votes to privatization to war mongering invasion pillage plunder torture torment missing money stolen pensions hunger unaffordable insurance . I will not vote for Clinton or Obama until they ACKNOWLEDGE the problem and then start talking about what they would do about it. Edwards is needed and I hope he wins in the end and delivers.

Republicans want Clinton or Obama.
Republicans don't want Edwards.
Good enough for me when combined with what I haven't heard from Clinton and Obama.

[Milo_Bloom]

78. No he's not.

He voted for the war... the patriot act... the bankruptcy bill and his health care plan is a gift to insurance companies, just as his tax plan is a formula for keeping the impoverished impoverished.


What is this "core issue" you think he has targeted? "Corporations are bad"? "Lobbyists are evil"? "People are poor"?

Those are cheap words and he doesn't have real plans to actually solve the problems. Oh, that's right... he's going to "fight them", whatever the hell that means. His tax plan doesn't. His health care plan doesn't.


Got other news for you. The GOP would LOVE to run against Edwards. THat would be a cake walk. Every ad would be "edwards vs edwards" and they would show the duplicity of his career. They would take these simplistic catch phrases and turn them upside down.


You really want to solve some problems, you have to find the balance. If you just take money away from coporations, they are just going to institute cost savings and people will lose their jobs.

HOWEVER, if you really work to rebalance and every dollar you take from a corporation winds up in the pockets of the people, the people will buy products from the corporations, which will increase their bottom line and wind up with a wash...

Whatever, Edwards isn't looking for real solutions. He is looking for a way to sound progressive and get people to support him.

Luckily, it failed.

[peacetalksforall]

130. 1. I hold his vote for war and the Patriot Act against him and was forced

into my choice because Gore and Feingold did not run and Kucinich was trampled on.

2. I'm talking about these corporate problems -

Their privileges of breaking laws, avoiding laws, creating legal entities outside the U.S. to avoid accountability. For stealing our jobs and sending them to India, Philippines. For moving money outside the U.S. For moving their factories outside the U.S. and other things to break our unions. For paying taxes that are a gift to them. Most of all for paying for the White House and Congress to get their laws in place. Not all do it. Most of all I despinse the war weapons and pollution corporations. I despise their participation in secret maneuvering the services them in participation of politicians and the media. I despise our loss of privacy. I espise privateiztion and corporations are entirely behind it. I despise their theft of our vote. It never ends for me.

This is the most important issue (for me) and no one in Congress has the guts to say it. Neither Clinton or Obama for sure.

I have my own credibility meter that I have to trust and this is what it tells me for now.

If Gore enters, I'll follow him.

[Milo_Bloom]

140. What about the bankrupcy bill? And Free trade with China?

Edwards has ever address HOW he is going to solve this problem.. he hasn't even attempted to.

Corporate power and influence in this country is a HUGE problem, but the issue isn't the corporation.

The issue rests in the tax code AND the campaign finance laws and Edwards' plans in these areas (the tax plan he released) does absolutely NOTHING to solve the problem. ZERO. Obama has actually said more on this front and offer more specifics.

LOOK at the "plans"

http://www.johnedwards.com/issues/poverty/

Nothing there is going to solve the PROBLEM. It is a bunch of cheap band-aid fixes. Raising the minimum wage to 9.50 isn't going to eliminate poverty, unless you think $19,760 is enough to live on. Then he has a bunch of tax credits that match savings. Is he kidding? The desperately poor don't have SAVINGS. Someone making 19,760 per year doesn't have SAVINGS. They are likely living on credit, behind a wave of debt made worse by the freakin bankrupcy bill.

His "form 1" plan is freakin laughable. For most people tax preparation is actually quite simple. They have their W2's, they interest deductions and some interest income. Then there is this little gem, "The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) lifts more than 4 million people in working families out of poverty every year." The EITC doesn't lift anyone out of POVERTY. Let's say you make 19,760 with 2 kids. You get a whopping 3,790. Its nice, but it ain't lifting you out of poverty. It may help you pay the interest on those credit cards you are using to get by, though.

[peacetalksforall]

153. The bankruptcy bill was signed in March of 2005? He was not a Senator then.

His resignation was effective in Jan 05. Not sure about the date for the China Trade.

[Milo_Bloom]

208. He voted for the first incarnation of the bill that, luckily, failed.

[JDPriestly]

177. The China Trade bill was Clinton's recommendation.

Its passage was considered to be a crowning achievement of the Clinton administration -- by that administration.

[JDPriestly]

176. What jobs are left to lose?

There are virtually no manufacturing jobs left. We are essentially just passing burgers to each other in this country. That's all that is left of the American economy. Edwards is the only candidate talking about that fact. He has my vote and my loyalty. He is the only honest candidate running.

[Beaverhausen]

34. poverty, healthcare, lobbyist money and influence, college for all, homelessness

global warming, helping katrina victims, fully funding care for veterans with health issues...

[Milo_Bloom]

40. Issues already being discussed with or without him.

[Beaverhausen]

45. bullshit

Edwards was the first to talk about these things and have concrete plans to fix them. Especially poverty, which the other two really have yet to address.

[Milo_Bloom]

50. Only because he has been campaigning for 6 years now.

These are the standard issues of every campaign... except for poverty, which, as you pointed out, isn't being discussed even though he tried to make it a central issue.

The reason it failed is because his tax plan favored the same slanted tax structure in favor of the wealthy, which undercut his rhetoric to the point of making it nonsensical.

[JDPriestly]

178. Hillary is refusing to talk about the corporate issue,

and is reluctant to say just what she will do about trade. Obama has voted for a "free" trade agreement with Peru. Whoosh!! More jobs out the door, more sleazy third world products in the window. Who cares. Obama gets along with everybody. sarcasm.

[Vincardog]

52. The way the moneyed class has hijacked our government to enrich itself and hurt us.

Haven't you noticed how corporations have reneged on their end of the social contract?
Have you noticed that the multi-million dollar CEOs are given hundreds of million in severance packages for loosing billions of dollars?

[Milo_Bloom]

65. But it isn't being discussed.

Because he has tried to turn a complex issue into a one liner and, as a result, made it so nonsensical.

Corporations are evil. No, they aren't. They are what they are.

The problem is a slanted tax structure that allows money making money (capital gains) to be taxed a lower rate than money earned from work (income tax).

Lobbyists are bad. No they aren't. They are what they ware.

The problem is that lobbyists are able to attach themselves to large amount of campaign contributions and thus use that to gain greater influence.

Lobbyists are actually a good thing, as it allows people with a common cause to have an expert present their concerns to a political official and thus, get them heard in a more efficient way.

Want to fix the lobbyist problem, fix the contribution problem.


Edwards has done more harm to the progressive movement by trying to steal its agenda to satisfy his own desire to become president.

[cascadiance]

164. Lobbyists are institutionalized bribery, PURE and SIMPLE!

You don't need to make it more simple than that! You make the issue complex, and you lose people, and THAT's the way the corporatists want it, so they can continue to screw our economy and purge us of the middle class!

In a better world, lobbyists might still be there, but substantially less of them, and only to ADVISE politicians on how legislation would affect those interests they represent, which in turn MUST show how it affects large segments of PEOPLE, not listen to them for paying to help themselves get elected and other private favors which DO NOT help the rest of us!

We need things like public campaign financing in a serious way, and also to get rid of the judicial/court clerk activist notion of "corporate personhood" which continues to give corporations the "rights" to engage in this bribery at our expense. Edwards now is the only speaking against this substantively The rest will not change this status quo, and we will continue to have this economy destroyed until we get the Republican Depression Part 2 soon!

[JDPriestly]

180. You can say that about Hillary and Obama and it would

fit better.

Hillary "has done more harm to the progressive movement by trying to steal its agenda to satisfy his own desire to become president." Who has tried harder to become president than Hillary?

Obama "has done more harm to the progressive movement by trying to steal its agenda to satisfy his own desire to become president." Obama has tried just as hard.

Your argument is without substance.

[melody]

71. the poor, the environment, substantive single-payer health care ...

Hillary and Obama have been much less forthcoming about those things.

[Milo_Bloom]

80. Again...

No one is talking about "the poor" (including Edwards at this point when he realized his simplistic approach failed). The environment has been on everyone's issue list since the beginning and his health care plan is no more single-payer than anyone elses... they are ALL gifts to insurance companies.

[melody]

88. Clearly you haven't read anything from John

To try to counter your snipe snippets is for those with more patience than I have.

If you GENUINELY want to know the truth, then go to johnedwards.com

None of these people are anything close to perfect ... but when you find a perfect, viable
candidate, call the rest of us, or just stew in the comforting inertia of your cynicism.

[Milo_Bloom]

105. YEs, I read his horrible health care plan and his tax plan

And I know he TALKED about the poor, until it didn't work for him.

Now he doesn't. Now it is all about how corporations are evil.

Well, after that didn't stick, it is now all about how the media is evil.

I wonder what his message will be after this doesn't stick either?

[melody]

108. Putting a word in bold doesn't make up for inability to substantiate your bias

What is it? The fact he's nice-looking? Is it his hair? What? lol

As I said, enjoy stewing in the comforting inertia of your cynicism. And welcome to my ignore list ... you've become a stuck record.

[Milo_Bloom]

118. It's the lack of sincerity and rank dishonesty of his campaign.

And the fact that he is using the progressive movement for his own personal agenda.

[cascadiance]

165. IF he's dishonestly "using" the progressive movement, then WHY aren't any honest folk USING them?

HUH? IF, IFFF!! there are other honest progressives, then they are missing out on a huge opportunity to engage us! Why aren't they taking advantage of it?

Maybe, just maybe, he has some sincerity in supporting us. And if he doesn't then WHO DOES!? I'd rather take someone than NOTHING!

[Andy823]

90. The only issues Clinton and Obama are

Talking about is their bitter fighing, trying to make the other one look bad. If it wasn't for Edwards a lot of the things that have been adopted by both of them would never have come to the front.

You want to trash him that's your choice, but he has done more in this race to keep the real issue front and center than the other two combined. If it was up to them they would just keep up the fighting instead of talking about the real issues.

[Milo_Bloom]

122. Like what?

"If it wasn't for Edwards a lot of the things that have been adopted by both of them would never have come to the front. "

What part of their platform is from Edwards?

What issue are they discussing because of Edwards?

They have always been discussing health care, the environment, the war. The issue Edwards tried to glom onto (Poverty) has been abandonded by Edwards as it never caught on, since his own tax plan was stacked against the poor.

Now he is trying to float corporatism, but that is being ignored.


They are discussing exactly the same issues they have always been discussing.

[foxer]

121. Every issue in the campaign so far

[Milo_Bloom]

131. Actually, the other campaigns have been fairly consistent.

Edwards is the one who started with Poverty (dropped it)
Moved onto corporatism and is now shifting to media bashing.

Basically, his issues have been ignored by both the candidates AND the population at large (at least 85% of them), which is why he has had to change focus.

[foxer]

205. You are so full of it, you really need a bowel movement

He's been consistent his whole life

[peacetalksforall]

33. Or it can be phrased that the longer he stays in, the less they will fight each other PLUS

talk about the real issues.

[Maddy McCall]

8. Saying "it could happen" isn't the same as trying to make it happen.

Reading comprehension problems?

[mac56]

31. I noticed that too.

More like, "selective comprehension".

[Skip Intro]

9. Doesn't bother me at all.

[Critters2]

10. Good for him. Progressives need a voice in this party!!

Go, John, Go!!

[deacon]

154. Ditto. No bush lites. n/t

[KamaAina]

13. At this point John is almost certain to be the VP nominee

regardless of which of the other two candidates takes the nomination.

It's pretty clear at this point that an Obama/Clinton ticket, or vice versa, will only happen when the passes leading to Hell snow over as those in L.A. just did, so that leaves John as the logical choice for either.

_______/Edwards '08!

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

14. I'm just glad that a few small states are not deciding the whole thing

The primary system is such a sham. Maybe everyone will have some input for once.

[THUNDER HANDS]

16. and they call Obama the dreamer

Edwards couldn't get 20% in his home state. I'm sorry to sound mean, but he'll be lucky if he breaks 15% in any state from here on in.

[Dems Will Win]

28. Actually except for a couple of states, the polls are showing him around 10%

or lower. And that was before SC.

[frogcycle]

53. your opinion is not meaningful

[LibraLiz1973]

17. Sweet!!! eom

[Kittycat]

20. I have no problems with Edwards staying in.

If nothing else, he's sticking it to the MSM for trying to black him out. Maybe next time around, the MSM will be more considerate to all the candidates.

[H2O Man]

21. I am confident

that this potential problem will be resolved. Possibly quite soon.

[Tatiana]

61. Do you really think they're ready to make a deal?

I think Edwards might hold out for a while longer.

[H2O Man]

69. I am very confident

that both the Edwards and Obama forces are going to do whatever they can for the party. I think there is more going on than is being reported. They will come to an understanding before any deal could be made. You are right, of course: both candidates will continue to be in the running. But I do not think there is any problem in that.

[Tatiana]

84. Well, it appears that they have at least opened up a dialogue.

I hope for the party (and country's) sake that you are correct. And there's no problem with both of them continuing to run. The nomination is like a degree; sure it can be bestowed, but it's better if you earn it.

[PresidentObama]

22. Get over it. John Edwards is making the right decision.

[thunder rising]

24. John Edwards taking democracy away from the people. So he can deal like he did in '04

[SeattleGirl]

44. Ahem. It was Kerry who didn't want to do anything in '04.

Edwards wanted to fight, but as the VP nominee, that wasn't up to him. It was up to Kerry.

[Maddy McCall]

62. Most idiotic thing I've read today.

Yeah, by giving voters another option to vote for, he's taking democracy away from them.

Absolutely idiotic.

[Nutmegger]

85. ROFL!

:rofl::crazy::rofl:

He's taking teh democracy!!1111!!!!1!

:rofl:

[judaspriestess]

102. thank you for stating the obvious

I to agree its idiotic and talk about tunnel vision.

When did dissent turn into such a bad thing?

[Garbo 2004]

152. Nonsense. Besides, didn't you previously post that you'd actually vote for McCain

to "save the party" if Hillary got the nom? That's got to be one of the more bizarre statements I've seen here.

[jackson_dem]

27. What is misleading OP. The article's title is: Edwards: ‘Dynamic could shift anytime’

What a great job of distortion. :eyes:

[thunder rising]

36. of couse, even a snowball in hell has a chance

[jackson_dem]

54. There is only one way to find out...

[lame54]

30. Not bothered here

[Mythsaje]

32. I want him influencing the other candidates

and hammering the populist economic themes the whole way through.

I'm not stressing THIS at all.

[femmocrat]

38. Doesn't bother me in the least.

In fact, I think it would be damned exciting! I don't really think it will happen though. I believe the DNC wants a coronation to send everyone off on a high note, instead of a bitter, divided party.

[sjdnb]

39. Both other major candidates are centrists ... Edwards is a populist

It may be the only way to get 'normal folk' any sort of REAL representation vs rhetoric.

O&C may be left of Bush & Co, but that ain't saying much.

[onehandle]

41. Nice lie. A brokered convention is not the focus of that article. nt

[Barack_America]

43. I doubt that he actually wants it to come to that.

He's just trying to secure himself a desired position within an administration and influence on key policy decisions. He'll eventually go with one or the other before the convention.

Although, with Hillary's stance on corporatism, Edward's pet issue, I would be highly disappointed in him if he chose her. He and Obama share common ground on that issue.

[frogcycle]

46. being decided in a convention fight

would be GOOD for the party. Because it would not have to take either one of the candidates the MSM has brainwashed the masses into voting for. Oh, it COULD, and that would be fine, but at least the delegates would caucus and decide something, instead of just being sent there ae so many automatons. There is a reason the founding fathers made this a representative democracy. They didn't want the President chosen on American Idol.

Oh, and the delegates might just draft someone who is qualified but opted out of this obscene bloodbath. Or maybe Edwards. Whatever - it would be a better scenario than this domino charade wherein the process of elimination is modeled after freaking "Survivor".

[Tatiana]

47. Bring it on.

Edwards will move the nominee away from the center spectrum and that is fine with me.

The Democratic nomination is not a gift either candidate is entitled to. They need to work for and EARN it. We are not talking about a spoiler for a national election. We are talking about a candidate who has the best platform and plan for this country. If neither of the Big Two can come away with a clean victory, it is their own fault for not persuading enough voters their way.

[October]

48. Well, I don't know where you live, but...

a lot of people in certain states don't get to really participate in the nomination process anyway.

Living in PA, with a May Primary -- I'm frankly tired of not being part of the process. I'm thinking maybe Edwards feels the same way.

[Barack_America]

49. April primary. April 22, to be exact. n/t

[NastyRiffraff]

51. And this is wrong, how?

Obama and Clinton, as well as Edwards will fight for votes throughout the primary. That's what primaries are FOR. If they don't get the votes, translating into delegates, it goes to a brokered convention. That option was built in precisely for the possibility that one candidate doesn't get a clear majority of delegates.

Edwards said that's a "real possibility" and it is. I know some people shudder at the thought that their candidate won't get the required number of delegates, but hey, that's what caucuses and elections are for. Another possibility is that one of the three candidates left running will get the necessary delegates. Yet another is that there'll be an Edwards surge and either Obama or Clinton get to play kingmaker. Yes, I know people think the last is unlikely, but we're talking purely hypothetical at this point.

The coronations that are national conventions are relatively new, after all. I know everyone wants their candidate to sew it up after Tsusumi Tuesday, but that's unlikely to happen. (The media wanted it sewn up after Iowa and New Hampshire!)

[tishaLA]

55. I just hope he stays in

I think he's good for the race and I am about he furthest thing from a supporter of Edwards you could find.

[HooptieWagon]

58. I hope he succeeds.

Playing kingmaker at the convention is just about the only shot left at getting some democratic issues on the platform.

[paulk]

59. his 3rd place finish in SC should be the end of his campaign

he has no realistic chance of being the nominee. And that is what the primary process is for - to choose a nominee for the party. It's not to provide a voice for his supporters, to paraphrase what he said yesterday. This process shouldn't be about John Edward's ego.

[TwilightGardener]

96. Well said. I agree.

[Madam Mossfern]

115. Well then hells bells

Let's just cancel all the other primaries and convention.
Why bother?
Count up the delegates now and let's get the show on the road!


:sarcasm:

[MagickMuffin]

119. This is about American Voters, NOT John's ego...... anymore than Barack's or Hillary's

Sheesh, I guess you need to take a break from wearing those Rose Colored Glasses.

[paulk]

146. and you should take a break from making foolish posts

It's not about American voters, it's about Democratic Party voters, who are in the process of choosing a Presidential nominee.

John Edward's claim to this nomination was that he could win in the south. South Carolina, his home state, just proved him wrong, and did it with no possibility of misinterpretation.

John Edwards has no chance of winning this. If anyone is wearing "rose colored glasses", it is he.

[MagickMuffin]

181. Excuuussssseeeee Meeeeeee, but I AM AN AMERICAN VOTER

Your theory doesn't ring true. Not everyone who is voting in the primaries ARE democrats. There are Independents, Repthuglicons, Democrats and who knows who else might be voting in our primaries.

And to fault John for not being able to win his state when he had Barack and Hillary, for obvious reasons.

[debbierlus]

60. Clintor or Obama could fall. If that happens, it will become a two person race

Between the one left standing & Edwards.....

We should be so lucky.

[peacetalksforall]

63. From the link about Edwards going to St. Paul -

"While Edwards has yet to win a primary or caucus, his campaign, in a news release, cited a recent CNN poll showing him as the only Democrat who could beat all four leading Republicans in a national election."

http://www.startribune.com/local/stpaul/14462042.html

[OzarkDem]

64. Got proof to back that up? Nothing at your link

There's nothing about it in your link.

This is why I stick with Edwards, because the other candidates' supporters use dirty tricks.

[Dems Will Win]

101. Edwards himself talks about it in the video at the link

Click on the link above.

[OzarkDem]

104. I did click on the link; you're distorting his comments

crap like this makes me more committed than ever to support Edwards. I'm sick and tired of the Obama supporters - their dishonesty, lies and dirty tricks.

[fadedrose]

66. Stay with it JOHN ! ! ! !

[Yuugal]

67. Good for him

It would be nice if Obama and Clinton learned what poor people are.

[Malikshah]

68. Good-- we're a democracy not a monarchy.

I'd rather have the voters be the kingmakers in their continued support (even if not enough) than the Main Stream Media.

Corporate media has been drunk with power for too long.

[davidwparker]

72. Good. I want him to crreate a brokered convention. I want some excitement

there.

:popcorn:

[frogmarch]

73. "Trying to Create a Brokered Convention" - YOUR words

not Edwards's nor any of his advisors'. Edwards is in the race to WIN, and he's going all the way with it. As he said, dynamics could shift anytime.

[vanboggie]

76. Snarky kids or what?

I totally support JRE, and a brokered convention is *not* a bad thing.

Bashing has to be coming from kids. Grownups wouldn't act like this on DU I hope.

Go Johnny Go! We're proud of you!

[OzarkDem]

81. Edwards is the only one who can win in the GE

I plan to see a Dem win this time around.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

86. Here's what I think.... there are still some states left to vote....

... the media has censored Edwards as much as it conceivably could without creating riots out on the street. In fact, every F time I look at the paper, from the beginning of this primary to the present, there are only 2 photographs: Obama and Clinton. Edwards is nowhere to be seen. Add to that the fact that Edwards has very little money to buy air time with, and you've got a situation whereby Edwards is getting votes for two reasons: hearing him speak everywhere, and word of mouth information about him. I believe that people are getting to know about him and what he stands for in this manner. There are still many states to go. He has a great chance of winning the nomination.

I understand the other two candidates see themselves as "IT." They don't even count Edwards. However, both of them would like him to step out because they feel he's taking votes away from them. This is what I think: Edwards is taking votes from no one. IF Edwards stepped out, the people who would've voted for Edwards would be FORCED to choose. Not that they would WANT to choose someone else, but they would be FORCED, UNHAPPILY, to choose someone else. So he's taking votes from no one. His followers (include me in that) are dedicated and devoted. As the days pass, we become even more dedicated because we hear what he says, and it's so true, it opens our eyes, it informs us, and he's saying things the other two are not saying.

I hope that explains it a bit. Let me summarize:
1) He's taking votes from no one. His followers are HIS followers. They're not someone else's followers accidentally voting for him.
2) He's saying what no one else DARES to say about corporations and the two Americas, messages that need desperately to be heard by everyone, particularly the middle class and below.
3) The media is Edwards' #1 enemy. If they could, they'd censor him permanently.

And here's an awesome pic of John with his wife:
http://www.nowpublic.com/john_and_elizabeth_edwards_on_the_campaign_trail

[ecstatic]

87. I wouldn't really have a problem if he were funding his own campaign

But once he knows he doesn't have a chance, I think he should leave. The money people donate to him could be used to help our other candidates in the GE.

[iris5426]

117. I have to disagree

I've donated to his campaign, and I have never donated to any campaign before, nor do I really have the money to be doing it. And though I will vote for whoever the eventual nominee is, I don't believe enough in either of the other two to give them any of my hard earned money.

[MagickMuffin]

124. Sorry the other two candidates WILL still rake in their CORPORATE CASH

No need for us to fund them. That's who they will be protecting once they are in the Oval Office.

[Blue_In_AK]

132. Maybe we don't want to donate to someone else.

Have you thought of that?

[Maddy McCall]

147. Second most idiotic thing I've read today.

[mtnester]

231. I think you will see a dozen more before the day is over

here and elsewhere

I for one am SICK and tired of people trying to take my right to vote for the candidate I want to vote for away from me based on complete and utter BULLSHIT that someone claims to be fact.

Women got the right to vote in this country in 1920...LESS than 100 years ago (88 to be exact) ...no way am I ceding that to fanatics...no way.

A woman I had the amazing privilege to meet and know was a real live suffragette, told me to never, ever, ever allow anyone to suggest that I cede this right (and she told me the excuse used would be "for the betterment of the party/country/ideal"...She was so right (she passed away several years ago aged 90-something).

[Radical Activist]

162. Yes. Every dollar spent fighting Edwards is a dollar that could be spent against the Republican.

It diverts valuable time and money away from the eventual nominee. If he stays in it will only hurt the party.

[bvar22]

216. For someone with a screen name "Radical Activist",

a Che avatar and quote in your sig line, you are remarkably conservative, and a supporter of the status quo.

Is that like calling the fat guy "Slim"?

[Radical Activist]

227. heh

Being radical doesn't require me to be disconnected from political realities. The reality is that Edwards isn't going to win the nomination and wishing the system was different isn't going to change that, at least not in this election cycle.

[Leopolds Ghost]

219. "That money could have been spent to feed the poor!"

Lenin made the same mistake when he criticized how anyone could
attend concerts when they should be out fighting for socialism.

If the world were a zero sum game where only one thing at a time
mattered and was worth supporting, it would be a hellish place.

As it is, feeding and housing the poor ranks higher in my priorities
than giving money to a well-funded candidate who rejects CFR federal
spending restrictions in the GE. And that's despite the fact
that "the poor will be with you always".

[Radical Activist]

225. Those are not similar comparisons.

There really is a finite amount of money to be raised, time for coverage in the media, and attention span of the public in an election.

Do you really want the presumptive nominee to be getting attacked from both sides all the way into August by the Republicans AND Edwards at the same time? What a strategic disaster.

[Control-Z]

186. YOU wouldn't have a problem?

My donations don't belong to YOU or your candidate. I'm not donating to John INSTEAD of your candidate! I'm not donating to John INSTEAD of whatever donations I'll make in the GE. Wow! You really don't get it, do you?

[IsItJustMe]

91. Give em hell John.

[AmBlue]

99. Yep. He's just tellin' the truth and it FEELS like hell. n/t

[earth mom]

92. Too damn bad if you don't like it. DINOs Hillary & Obama have already split the party & sold it

for millions to the corporate bastards who want to own this country lock, stock and barrel.

Well FUCK THEM.

Go Edwards! :woohoo:

[Major Hogwash]

97. He's toast.

No more wanting to be everyone's friend anymore, huh?

Well, it was nice knowing ya Johnny.

[rwheeler31]

100. Brilliant , less time for gop to beat on us in general.

Go John

[Tatiana]

145. GREAT POINT. n/t

[TwilightGardener]

106. "I'll let you have my delegates if you make me VP"--yikes. Hope that's not what he's doing.

[Leopolds Ghost]

221. Um, that's how the process has always worked.

Enjoy your sausage pizza, some advice: don't visit a sausage factory or the back room of a pizza parlor.

[krabigirl]

109. I think it's great!!

[pauldg0]

111. I love you John.....

....Your doing it for good cause. The crooks in Washington must be dealt with. They are all worried about their own ass's.

[More Than A Feeling]

113. Great!

For one thing, if Edwards says he's in until the convention, wouldn't he look silly reversing himself on that so quickly? For another, his style is unique. Neither Obama nor Clinton can replicate the "I'm going to give them hell because you deserve it" attitude of Edwards, and so he brings something irreplaceable to the process. If you value that as I do, you want him to stay in. Finally, John Edwards has been influencing this race right from the start. By choosing to be the most progressive and the most populist in the race, he has continually threatened to out-flank candidates whose instincts might have otherwise been to use their platforms to run for the center as fast as possible. John Edwards reminds us all of what it means to be a Democrat, and that's a lesson that the other candidates could stand to absorb in between their petty mudflinging.

The bottom line is that we'd all be poorer for it if John Edwards did not back up his words to take it all the way to the convention.

[Carrieyazel]

138. I'd love it if Edwards could throw a wrench in the works for Clinton and Obama

Both campaigns are irritating the hell out of a lot of people; and I'd love to see them sweat.
Edwards is the better national candidate.

[begin_within]

114. So all along it was his plan to get 20% in each primary?

I thought he entered the race to win.

[travelingtypist]

116. Stay in, John. Keep getting that 15%.

I'm afraid for Obama's safety if he's the candidate and
having to vote for Hillary as the nominee would make me
physically ill -- I'm sick to death of Billary. I'll do
it, but I won't like it.

I'm just glad JE has money and he has a plan. And he's
keeping that voice that the media want to silence alive
for us, the one not obsessed with is Obama black enough
or will Hillary will be president or will Bill be running
the show.

I hate politics.

[Blue_In_AK]

123. This pleases me.

I hope it means that whoever the ultimate nominee is will have to address some of the concerns of the more progressive wing of the Democratic party.

[Carrieyazel]

129. Go for it, John. I wouldn't have a problem with that at all.

Clinton or Obama are both a one-way ticket to oblivion.

[Madam Mossfern]

137. This is what he's saying to his supporters

Obviously my name has been changed.

Dear "Madam Mossfern",

From the very beginning, our campaign has been about one central thing: giving voice to millions of Americans who have absolutely no voice in our democracy.

If you are worried about your health care or, like 47 million other Americans you have no health care, your voice will be heard in this campaign.

If you're one of 37 million Americans who wake up every single day, worried about how to feed and clothe your children and living in poverty, your voice will be heard in America -- and it will be heard in this campaign and we will speak and fight for you.

If you're worried about being able to pay for your child to be able to go to college and being able to pay for tuition and books, your voice will be heard in this campaign -- and it will be heard in America.

If you're one of the forgotten middle class, working and struggling just to pay your bills, worrying every single day about what may be around the corner, we will give you a voice in this campaign.

And if you're one of the extraordinary men and women who have worn the uniform of the United States with pride and honor and served this country patriotically, and you're not getting the health care you need or deserve, your voice will be heard in this campaign. If you're one of the 200,000 veterans living in America who every night go to sleep under bridges, in shelters or on heating grates, your voice will be heard in America.

That's why this campaign moves on to February 5 and "Super Tuesday" when millions of Americans will cast their vote and help shape the future of the Democratic Party and, most importantly, help shape the future of America.

Thank you for standing with me as, together, we take this campaign to the Democratic Convention, to the nomination -- and then to the White House.

Your support as we move forward means that the voices of millions of voiceless Americans will be heard.

Sincerely,

John Edwards
January 27, 2008

[Helga Scow Stern]

143. Go John! n/t

[OzarkDem]

148. Edwards is the only one who can win in the GE

that is why he is running.

[Kucinich4America]

150. Go Johnny Go!!

All the way to Denver!

[Triana]

155. Doesn't bother me...I'll continue supporting him. (n/t)

[Hippo_Tron]

156. He won't actually do it, he'll drop out as soon as he brokers a deal with Clinton or Obama

[cascadiance]

167. or GORE perhaps, if they won't answer our needs!

[Political Heretic]

157. He has the ability to influence the party platform. That alone is reason to press on.

[cascadiance]

159. GOOD!!! This lame Democratic Party doesn't DESERVE a FORCED unity from us!

And as long as the corporatists are continued to allow to run the show, I say more power to him getting a brokered convention! That's what happens when the party no longer listens to the base of its support. Deal with it! The DLC is discovering that it can't BUY our party any more as long as people like Edwards and the rest of us still fight for what is OUR message, not theirs as what needs to be done!

[Lugnut]

160. Go Johnny, go! n/t

[Radical Activist]

161. His name will be mud for the rest of his life.

There are a lot of things I like about Edwards but I will never forgive him if he screws over the party nominee by prolonging the primary. Neither will a lot of other people.

He still has a good reputation. He should get out before he becomes a joke, and that's happening quickly.

[cascadiance]

166. Corporatists being FORCED upon us do NOT deserve unity!

Until they support the core base of the party, there won't be unity. The party simply must deal with it. They can't FORCE centrism (aka corporatism) on us!

And many of us will revere him later, for speaking up for us when noone else would!

[Radical Activist]

168. Obama's platform is no more centrist than Edwards'

and Obama's voting record is much more progressive. I don't think you're getting Obama's point about unity.

[cascadiance]

169. So how is he taking down the corporatist oligarchy when he's the second biggest recipient of cash...

from them?

[Radical Activist]

170. Obama is a better fundraiser than Edwards.

That doesn't make Obama a sell out. It just makes Edwards a losing candidate.
You know who has raised the most in small donations from individuals? Obama.

[cascadiance]

175. So, is he going to "compromise" a solution with the corporations?

We know how that has "worked" for the last 30 years!

Just because you "fundraise" doesn't necessarily mean that you are campaigning on issues, and on those issues that really matter to the American people now!

[Radical Activist]

230. So you don't like Obama's theme of unity.

I still think you misinterpret it if you think it means giving in to corporations and conservatives.

But I also notice that you haven't told me which specific policies are so corporate and offensive to you. Look beyond the stump speeches. I did, and I picked the candidate who has the stronger record of fighting corporate power in government: Obama.

[cascadiance]

233. How about for starters he says today that he was WRONG to accept money from the coal lobby!

... and WRONG about promoting liquified coal as a solution that still undermines our needs to get off of fossil fuels and moving more towards renewable and less centralized distributed power (aka incentivizing more ways of individuals to put and be compensated for solar or wind energy back onto the power grid).

Doing that might not be something that gets him a lot of corporate contributions to keep him on top of the media ladder of exposure in this race, but it would speak to many of us that he wouldn't be compromised by the sizable amount of corporate dollars that are going his way. Right now, many of us question whether he's truly about trying to stop the corporate money gravy train that is used to get back favors. Institutionalized corporate bribery (what they try to term as "lobbying") is a fundamental problem that is at the root of almost every other issue (aka global warming, the Iraq war, outsourcing, immigration, tax policy, subprime mortgage crisis, health care, etc.). If you don't solve that problem, a lot of what will be done will be just "window dressing" and won't really solve these other problems. If Obama is really serious about these problems, he'd elevate talking about this issue to the top of the list.

It's all great talking about "working together", having "unity", and having "hope", but those are tactics, not what your ultimate solution is. Obama is a great tactician in this sense, and if he'd have a good underlying substantive message, I'd be lining up behind him. But that is why I continue to support Edwards. Until Obama "gets it" that these substantive issues need as much visibility as "hope" and "unity" in his campaign, I will continue to support Edwards, and if necessary a brokered convention to get the party back to its progressive roots. There's a challenge for Obama (or whoever else is our nominee) to help make corporate government influence an issue for all Americans, especially when the MSM is aligned against candidates that try to make this issue visible. But it is a challenge that must be met for the next leader of our country in my book!

[Radical Activist]

238. You picked the wrong issue.

Edwards is the one who is proposing $1 Billion in yearly subsidies to the coal industry for "clean" coal research. That's what diverts money and investment in truly clean renewable energy sources like wind and solar. That's how he got the mine workers endorsement. Its far more money than Obama proposed for coal to liquid fuel research, which he did say he won't support until it can be shown to have lower emissions than gasoline. Edwards is the one proposing bigger giveaways to corporate polluters on this issue.

Obama has an excellent record as an environmental champion. Contrast that with Edwards 59% career rating with the League of Conservation voters.

I think you need to look beyond the fiery lines in Edwards stump speech and examine the positions and records of the candidates a little more. As I said before, Obama is the one with a longer record fighting corporate special interests.

[cascadiance]

239. Why should we invest money on "clean" coal research any more than "no child left behind"...

... or the "clear skies initiative", etc.?

Investing anything in fossil fuel coal technology is a waste of time and money, and is what the coal industry is lobbying to get this for their survival. But that is not where America's priorities should be. It should be about investing in alternative RENEWABLE energy research. The nuclear industry will also ask for money for "safe" nuclear energy research too. I think more than just labels are needed.

I want someone that's committed to taking money altogether out of the election process, so that the Obama has no ability to take money from the coal industry, and the coal industry has no means of using money as a way of talking Obama into supporting their view of things. I want our politicians to look at these issues completely uncompromised by lobbyist money, so that we can tell that their judgement is being rendered without potentially bribe money affecting it. Labels can always be used to hide the details.

So tell me where Edwards is proposing "bigger giveaways to corporate polluters"?

[Radical Activist]

245. It looks like you agree more with Obama on this issue

since Edwards is the one giving away $1 Billion every year to the coal industry for clean coal research. Its on his website, buried deep in his energy plan. I'm surprised Edwards supporters don't know about this when I bring it up since I keep hearing that they are the ones who value substance and deep policy proposals.

Obama also refuses to take money from corporate lobbyists. As an Illinois state senator he sponsored the most significant improvements in campaign finance reform and limitations on lobbyists Illinois has seen in many years. Once again, Edwards says nice things but Obama is the one with a record of doing it. Past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior.

[Leopolds Ghost]

224. Do you believe he is a "joke" because...?

Oh, you believe it laughable that a system would exist whereby 15% gets you a say in the political process and 20% is potentially sufficient for a nomination, as in every other industrial democracy that has multi-party, multi-candidate elections. You don't just believe in winner-take-all, you believe that "losing" candidates are INJURIOUS to the winner. How "radical" :eyes:

[Radical Activist]

228. Another system would be nice

but until we get a new system there's no sense in operating as if another were already here. Are you saying Edwards should run as though we have a parliamentary system even though we don't? How does that make sense?

[and-justice-for-all]

163. Um, Ok...carry on John!!! nt

[publicatlarge]

179. John Edwards losing the SC Primary...

...happened under very unusual conditions. Extreme media hype of the two divisive candidates for months going in, and especially just prior to the primary. Media blackout so Edwards did not get the reasonable media coverage he counted on in accepting public funding. The fact he gained so much ground in SC during that week following the debate is a testament to his ability to turn things around. Based on his performance in SC, I expect his numbers to rise in the remaining primaries.

[and-justice-for-all]

183. "I expect his numbers to rise in the remaining primaries."

I do hope so.

[JDPriestly]

171. I support Edwards in this.

The only way to really unify the party is to have a brokered convention. We are a severely divided party. I am an Edwards supporter. I object to the fact that the media has nealry ignored my candidate (as well as some other well qualified candidates). I will not vote for Obama or Hillary for a number of reasons, not least of which is the press favoritism toward them. If the convention is not brokered, I may well stay home in November.

I believe that the elections in 2000 and 2004 were stolen. This primary is being stolen once again -- by the media. If Edwards does not give me a voice at our convention, the only means of protest against the theft of this election will be to stay away from the polls. It isn't very effective, but my nominee is silenced by the press, why should I support their game and vote?

And don't tell me it isn't the media's fault. I'm out there talking to voters. They don't know Edwards is a candidate. Oprah and the pharmaceuticals have made sure of that.

[Two Americas]

174. misleading and inflammatory post

You misrepresented what was actually said.

What is "unity" anyway, and what is so valuable about that?

[Inspired]

188. No recommend from me. I agree with John.

[DrFunkenstein]

189. Makes Me Want to Vote For Him

I want to know that my vote counts by whomever curries his favor more successfully!

[Mother Of Four]

190. It's about darn time someone decided to fight and speak for ME

All the naysayers out there can kiss my lily white fanny, the whole reason we have a convention is to prevent a "Coronation"

Maybe this time whoever the nominee is will actually learn to not take our votes for GRANTED.

I'm so sick and tired of the self absorbed "I deserve it so it's going to be ME" bullcrap.

Our president is supposed to be for the people, and theres not a better one out there than John, I look at this like I look at when he would go into court out gunned-outmanned and come out a winner.

I'm not even close to ready to write him off yet.

Go Johnny GO!

[cgrindley]

191. He should drop out (nt)

[Time for change]

192. He says he's in it to win

We all know that his nomination is a long shot. But I think that it's a long shot worth taking. The other 2 candidates make me very nervous with their right wing talk (Obama) and money (Clinton). I'd rather see a brokered convention than see one of them win (though I will certainly vote for them in the GE). A brokered convention could go to someone else in the end too -- like Gore.

[LWolf]

196. I support this strategy.

I'd support most strategies that kept HRC and Obama off my ballot in November. At the rate we're going, a brokered convention may be the only way to do that.

[Yael]

197. With Edwards out, the dialogue will move so far to the right that we won't

recognize our own party any more.

He speaks for me and I will be volunteering for him through our April primary, so get over it.

[K8-EEE]

206. He's affecting the race in positive ways-- he's my voice!

Go Johnny....

[LizW]

198. The OP is a lie

But congrats on attracting almost all the reliable Edwards bashers to your misleading pile of dung.

[Allyoop]

200. My right to vote

Sorry! Let's see now, voters in 4 states have had a chance to vote for their candidates and I don't get my turn until May (North Carolina). By then in 2004 our candidate had been selected, but I wrote in my candidate's name even through I knew it was futile.

This year I want to at least add delegates and influence to my candidate's campaign.

[redqueen]

202. Doesn't bother me at all... I love it!

:)

[mirrera]

207. Good, I am with him on this! n/t

[Leopolds Ghost]

209. This is GOOD. You don't understand how democracy works. Winner-take-all means don't bother voting

Except for the top 2 candidates because votes for anyone else will have
NO VOICE at selection time.

This is un-democratic and REAL LIBERALS have been fighting for years to change it.

In everywhere but the United States they have something called PROPORTIONAL VOTING or PARLIAMENTARY STYLE representation, where the votes that go to the other candidates are NOT wasted and pointless,

As they are here in what used to be called the "tyrrany of the (well-funded and focus-group marketed) majority".

Because the delegates for the people who voted for the losing candidates HAVE A SAY in the outcome.

(and here, too, until they dumbed down the primary process to
winner-take-all as part of a "reform" to "eliminate smoky rooms"
but only eliminated the power of the left -- except in -- IOWA!!!)

[Truth2Tell]

212. I think this is great!

And I love hearing the ObamaBillerybots whine and cry about it!

It entertains me. :rofl:

[FlyingSquirrel]

218. WAHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!

:cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:

John Edwards won't let me WIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

'Scuse me, but I didn't donate to his campaign because I wanted him to drop out. Neither did the rest of us who are donating in greater and greater numbers.

[Meshuga]

220. It doesn't bother me...

It would be an interesting scenario that could bring another figure into the picture...let's say...Al Gore? :-)

[citizen snips]

223. Deal with it

Edwards has a right to take his delegates to the convention.

[ozone_man]

229. All the way to the convention John.

And at the convention, if you haven't won, then at least you will have helped shape the party platform.

This is what democracy looks like, where all the states get a chance to make their vote count. And mine's not until March 4th.

[lildreamer316]

232. Fine! Gore/Edwards 08! n/t

[StatGirl]

234. Fine with me. Maybe he can teach the others what it means to be a Democrat. (NT)

[zulchzulu]

236. Will he apologize later?

The race will be over by February 19th and Edwards will have a fraction of the delegates. Whatever, John...

[cascadiance]

241. He will have a SIZABLE "fraction" who DESERVE to have their views represented!

Sorry that you don't like democracy working that way! Sometimes its tough, but it has to be done!

[rosesaylavee]

237. Awesome.

Wonder who the Unity Candidate would be. Hmmmm.

[eridani]

240. Bothers me? I think it's fucking WONDERFUL!!

Imagine! National delegates with real power instead of bit players in a pre-scripted Kabuki theater pageant. I LOVE it!!!

[Gloria]

243. I should hope so!!!!! GO JOHN! Let's open this pinata!!