Does the recent piling on of John Edwards appear "orchestrated" to anyone?

[saracat]

How weird is it that the same day Kerry flies to SC to endorse another candidate at Johns birthplace Ned Lamont, who John was the only major Dem to stand with ,disses him in favor of Obama, who "refused" to physically campaign for Lamont as it might offend his mentor Lieberman? (Hillary did do a fundraiser for Lamont but on the same day Bill stumped on Larry King for Lieberman and torpedoed Lamont.)Lamont also asked Obama to stand with Dodd on the FISA vote and he wouldn't do that either.No quid pro quo.

It seems that every day leading up to the SC primary more very odd advocates come out. Gov.Napolitano, who has many reasons to be in the Clinton Camp ,is declaring for Obama tomorrow. And the following day two more Senators are expected to endorse.It has now become daily.Why?

and all of this happens as the media, when it mentions Edwrds at all, has a steady drumbeat of "withdraw'" Could this have anything to do with Edwards threatening to double the Justice Deot and investigate war profiteers? Is it about his tackling corporate corruptiom while the others avoid it? is it about opposing media consolidation?


This is theater folks and I want to know why? And please do not insult me with the premise that all these people suddenly just feel Obama is the right guy.

[Bicoastal]

1. This isn't "piling on," silly...

...they're boosting Obama, not slinging mud at your guy.

[saracat]

13. You combine this with the media and something is going on.They aren't slinging mud but the

"endorsements" are "odd'.Almost like they are afraid. Lamonr knifing the only one who campigned with him for the avowed advocate of Lieberman? And Janet? She NEVER endorses, and it is very odd that she isn't endorsing Hillary who is a friend.And Kerry going to SC, today, to dis his former VP? In his home state.Kerry may have some bad blood but he isn't that kind of guy.

[cali]

80. knifing?

god, do you have a bad case of partisan fever. Your language is sooo telling- and you misrepresent like nobody's business. Ugh. Obama is NOT an avowed advocate of Lieberman- and never was- unlike Edwards who worked with him on big legislation in the Senate and shared his hawkish viewpoint at a critical time in our history. Obama was assigned Lieberman as his mentor in the Senate. Like every other dem Senator he supported Lieberman in the primary and went on to support Ned in the general. As for Napolitano, perhaps she simply thinks that Obama is the best candidate. And Kerry's decision to endorse Obama is completely understandable. They're close. He and Edwards never were. You see it as dissing Edwards. I see it as largely about Obama.

[saracat]

101. Cali , you are so disingenuous it is unbelievable. Your partisan attacks and defenses of you candida

are always supposed to be acceptable and no one else is allowed to say anything.You used to effect a semblence of civility and appear to be "above the fray" but no longer.This thread is NOT about your candidate and some of your conclusions are easily dismissed as I know you do mine.You are incorrect beyone words about Janet, but never mind .You know all I am sure, and certainly , as you takes pains to inform everyone, you know more than anyone else.

[karynnj]

93. Did you comment that the Edwards were wrong to make all those snaky comments about the Kerrys.

Obama was not a Leiberman advocate, he endorsed Lamont in the general election. He sent out an email in support of him. What I see is that with the Clinton forces lining up behind her, many supporting Obama are making their coordinated endorsements. (From the stories, Kerry has been officially behind Obama since December and had had a good relationship with him since March. There were stories on their very public LONG dinner discussing things in DC - this was not secret. Kerry has a house in Georgetown - they could have gone there if they were hiding.)

[saracat]

102. An email ? oooh! He "refused to campaign in person and he did refuse to support Dodd

on FISA though Lamont request it.Whatever.I am done.

[saracat]

103. And there have been some snarky comments made by Kery as well but I don't stress those. Campaigns

ending poorly make emnity sometimes. Neither JK or Kerry are saints and Edwards has just as much right to his opinion as JK does.I admire JK for his past and future service but I disagree with him here.Unlike some, I have never thought he was "above reproach" and still admired him.

[Wisconsin for Hill]

2. Edwards 2008 = Nader 2000

It's really that simple.

[PresidentObama]

5. Hillary 2008=Lieberman 2004

[Anywho6]

19. Exactly!!!! Thank you! n/t

[Krashkopf]

90. Ouch!! That was a good one!!!!

[terisan]

24. Edwards is bucking the establishment, Nader was a spoiler, part funded by Republicans

[Dulcinea]

64. Follow the money.

Although I like him, Edwards will never get the nomination because he's not pro-business or pro-establishment enough. He's not pandering to Corporate America, just like Huckabee, who will never get the nomination either for the same reason.

[terisan]

68. Longer his plan is out there more likely other candidates will have to address it

[last_texas_dem]

69. Doesn't seem "simple" to me

How does that sort of "logic" even work?

[redqueen]

72. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[NoPasaran]

84. This is idiotic

Edwards is a Democrat, running in the Democratic Primary. And frankly, I hope he stays in, because I think he's spliting the anti-Clinton vote.

[dflprincess]

96. Edwards = Nader makes no sense

and would only make sense if Edwards said he would run as a 3rd party candidate.

Contrary to what Clinton supporters think, she is not entitled to the nomination and other candidates do have a right to challenge her.

[PresidentObama]

3. Kerry, Lamont. They're more than welcome to endorse who ever.

I'll proudly vote for John Edwards no matter if Jesus Christ himself decides to endorse Hillary or Obama.

Stop looking at this endorsements, and getting pissed off.

Calm down, go watch an Edwards speech. His voice will do the trick :)

[saracat]

18. I am no longer pissed off about the endorsements. I am seeing something not right.

[stickernation]

26. fishy

i know 9-11 was an inside job, and i know politics is fishy all the time.

john edwards is so very brave to go up against these mobsters.

it's like finding out that all the sushi in the USA makes profits for Sun Myung Moon, who controls the dominant sushi-fish distributor.

i love sushi.

i love being a democrat.

and yet, JOHN KERRY and SKULL AND BONES, BILL CLINTON and NAFTA...

fishy fishy fishy endorsements, from Democrats I don't really like, for Obama.

i really hope that if Obama wins the nomination that he is able to make me feel better about his candidacy by then.

[karynnj]

94. "sushi fish distributor"???

Bill Clinton?? he endorsed Obama - now that is fishy!

[Andy823]

77. What?

Do you mean "JESUS" hasn't endorsed him yet, what's wrong with JESUS, is he a "racist"?

[Kucinich4America]

91. Jesus is voting for Kucinich.

So you don't have to worry about that. O8)

[robbedvoter]

4. As fortunes changes so do endorsements. The way of the campaigns...

[IndianaJones]

6. the Kerry endorsement is a negative anyway. nt.

[jonnyblitz]

66. Kerry is considered an elitist buffoon by non DEM party loyalists.

the endorsement will NOT help Obama with the independents and republicans who he is aggressively courting.

[karynnj]

95. Is this the same Kerry that beat edwards soundly in all but 3 primaries

in 2004. Senator Kerry is neither a buffoon or elitist. Kerry incidentally won many "Rockefeller Republicans" in my area - some just on the basis of being married to Teresa. Kerry was endorsed by several old time Republicans, including Eisenhower's son, a general himself.

[melody]

7. It seems to me like an attempt to knock out Edwards early

I agree with your perspective.

[PresidentObama]

9. John Kerry and Ned Lamont endorse Obama, and that means they're knocking Edwards out?

Whoa, look. I'm support John.

And always have. But I respect and admire Obama, and he's my second choice if Edwards drops out.

Saying because someone endorses him means they're trying to knock John Edwards out, how does that make sense? Explain the logic when endorsements mean SO little.

[saracat]

17. It isn't "just" the endorsement. It is the "weird" endorsements combined with the media blackout.

[PresidentObama]

20. How are the endorsements weird?

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are in a tight race, one to one with both of them gaining a win. And Edwards is not far behind with 18 delegates to their respective 25 and 24. It's normal for candidates to get a series of endorsements when the race is tightening, now down to three, and things are close. Get over it.

Honestly. Kerry. Lamont. Let them endorse who ever.

I bet if Edwards was getting the endorsements, you wouldn't say a DAMN thing.

I support John Edwards, but I'm not a hypocrite and I'm not sucking on any sour grapes.

[saracat]

30. Ohn please.This isn't sour grapes. I have explained several times "why'

it is weird. They have the perfect right to endorse who they please. But Lamont "owes" John, and for Lamont to endorse the guy that refused to campign for him so as not to antagonize his mentor, Lieberman, over the one guy who did help him is odd.Especially as Obam recently refused Lamont's request that he help Dodd and join him in blocking FISA. And then he endorses him? As for Kerry, I don't think he is a mean minded as it was to do the endorsement the way he did where he did.That isn't the Kerry I know. And as for Janet, she makes a rule of NEVER endorsing and There was NO evidence she was thrilled with Obama.If anything she has a bit of a reason to support the Clinton machine and ther can be some state repercussions from this for her.These are weird endorsements.

But maybe these aren't weird.It just defies logic to me.

[PresidentObama]

36. Lamont, like John Kerry, doesn't owe Edwards shit.

Ned Lamonts stances and views match up with Senator Obama, same with John Kerry. It's pretty simple to see why they endorsed him.

Just support John Edwards, and stop posting BS threads like this one that'll turn into flamebait.

We should be spreading John's message, now posting conspiracy theories.

[Bongo Prophet]

47. You are doing your candidate and cause (and DU) proud, Kerry2008

High road award goes to you.


:thumbsup:

[saracat]

49. What conspiracy theory? I am just asking questions and if you think politics

is that simple , you are really naive. First of all , loyalty is important. It is the glue that keeps the party together and damn straight Lamont and others "owe" Edwards and Edwards "owed"' a lot of other people. Everyone "owes" everyone else. I "owe" people that have campaigned for for me. One returns the favor. You don't accept and not give back. It isn't the way it works.You don't believe they campaign for one another for nothing do you? There is a reason politicians politic for officials in other states. You don't think Barbara Boxer campaigned for Lieberman because his "stances and views matched up with hers" , do you? Politics is a series of favors and rarely is that code relaxed. But hey, you probably think politics is a conspiracy theory.

[PresidentObama]

86. No, Lamont didn't owe Edwards anything.

John Edwards did Ned a favor, he was not obligated to return the favor. You're right that many times politicians will exchange favors, but that's not always the case. Again, this is for President. People like Kerry and Lamont want to pick a candidate to endorse that best matches their vision for our country and which best matches up with their personal views, and that's Barack Obama.

You don't have to explain politics to me. Endorsements of Barack Obama doesn't mean there is this big conspiracy against John Edwards to knock him out of the debate. Seems to me Obama would be more concerned with Hillary Clinton, being as she's the bigger threat.

[2rth2pwr]

35. They are all scared of the power of John Edwards.

His honesty and decision to go after corporate America has caused this mad scramble.

Like you said K.O. has been silenced, who's next?

[AshevilleGuy]

40. KO was so on board tonight!!

He was finally worshipping at the O-Altar.

Ad in the end it was done: he loved Big Brother.

[karynnj]

97. Kerry, who went after the mob and BCCI - not to mention Nixon and Reagan

is terrified of John edwards going after corporate America? First off, I doubt Kerry things of CORPORATE AMERICA as an enemy - though he is clearly for regulations.

[saracat]

107. Well, the Chamber of Commerce sure thinks of us as the enemy as evidenced by their recent

communication.And "Corrupt" corporate America is the enemy.The insurance companies and Big Pharma is particular , are the enimies and the big media consolidations ARE the enemy.Sorry but they are.And those people are NOT open to negotiation.

[melody]

51. Obama is my second choice as well, but there is a method to media madness

This is politics. It's not a game for opera gloves at high tea. It gets messy. Beyond that point, I think if you re-read the OP you'll see the point she was making and with which I was agreeing.

[DaLittle Kitty]

67. "Early" IS The Most Cost Effective Way For "The Corporation!"

I don't Believe That John and Elizabeth Will Bite on This and Will Force the Insiders to places they do not want to go. This IS FASCISM Folks pure and simple, and the question is are we going to fight or bend over? Stand W/ John DONATE!!! I have! Then DO IT Again!

Edwards WILL IN THE END PREVAIL If he stays w/ it because the stuff from under the rug is beginning to leak out... WE Will NOT Win w/ either HillBill or Barack... Who Talks a good game but that's it!

[lvx35]

8. You're right, something is going on.

I can smell it, and I don't know what it is. There's some kind of inside information moving around to which we are not privy.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

11. Edwards is bucking the establishment Dems

and they don't like it.

[AshevilleGuy]

10. This whole nomination process seems orchestrated!

The media are stopping at nothing to get their baby nominated, we know why, of course. KO is on board now, Cafferty as well. They were so excited by Kerry endorsement today they were like little schoolgirls. I didn't look at Tweety, it must have been disgusting though.

But who should even care what Kerry does?? He managed to lose in 2004 to an idiot, that is enough. I understand that Obama already has Dukakis, maybe Mondale and McGovern will endorse him as well, then he would have a complete set.

[PresidentObama]

16. Insulting John Kerry is uncalled for.

And in case you fail to remember, John Edwards was on the team that "lost" in 2004.

I support John Edwards, but as an Edwards supporter...I beg you to face reality.

John Kerry didn't lose. And he's still one of the most respected and accomplished men in the entire Congress. He's a real American hero, and doesn't deserve that kind of bullshit from people like you. This isn't Republican Underground, it's Democratic Underground.

Senator Kerry can endorse who ever the fuck he wants. Get over it. End of story.

Endorsements don't mean shit, ask Howard Dean.

[AshevilleGuy]

22. He did not lose to an idiot?

GWB is not an idiot?? If he did not lose then why did he concede the NEXT day? Gore held out for more than a month.

People like me?? What the fuck does that mean? We needed desperately to win in 2004 - had Kerry immediately fought back the swiftboaters we might have.

Seven times in my lifetime the Dems have nominated someone who couldn't win (and I am certainly not counting Gore in that - he did win), and I do not want us to do it again this year. It's as simple as that. Kerry endorsed someone today who might become number eight.

[PresidentObama]

23. The overwhelming evidence suggested he didn't lose.

Unfortunately, he didn't have much of that evidence at the time.

And again, it was Kerry-Edwards.

Stop blaming John Kerry for a loss he didn't have, and not say anything about the other half of the ticket. The man we both seem to support.

Kerry-Edwards didn't lose. They, like Gore, were cheated.

Sour grapes taste good? Well...Hypocrisy, now it tastes bad...huh?

[AshevilleGuy]

28. The smear machine never touched Edwards

It was all about Kerry. The swiftboaters caused him to lose enough in OH, and everywhere else, so that the repukes could rig the election. I agree that he probably won OH, and he should not have conceded so soon - there was no great urgency to do so.

Edwards, as VP did what he could but elections are always about number one. If he made any signifiant mistakes I am not aware of them.

I do support Edwards and have since he was elected my Senator in 1998, BUT he is not going to be nominated, so I am hoping for Hillary now. We have GOT to nominate someone this time who can win outright!!

[vanbean]

31. We all lost when he chose not to fight, but to concede.

The support of all democrats should have been enough to have him fight, like Gore did. Yes Edwards was the VP nominee but it was Kerry's game and he called it quits so he deserves criticism in that respect.
He should have taken a page out of Governor Richardson's book and not endorsed any candidate at this time. Our party needs to remain untied because the big fight hasn't even begun.
What is in it for him to endorse Obama?

[AshevilleGuy]

33. Could be bad blood with the Clintons

As to why, that makes the most sense to me. There is no telling how these super-pols treat each other behind the scenes. We can't even imagine!!

[ProSense]

37. Check

your facts here.

[saracat]

34. I agree with you Kerry didn't lose but that is another debate!

[JDPriestly]

61. I don't think they lost either. But I don't think Kerry had the

courage to challenge the vote-count. That was his fear of confrontation at work.

[robbedvoter]

100. Gore won. Kerry won. (ask your candidate about that - but in private)

Last time GOP won a national election: 1988

[ChiciB1]

105. Orchestrated Is The CORRECT Word... And If So Many Democrats

keep this up, I don't see how ANYONE could find it hasn't been manufactured! I myself thought I had seen enough to make me cynical... but for DEMOCRATS to be this vile is almost more than I can stand.

I'm sticking with Edwards because he says he's sticking it out himself... but it sure tells me a LOT of what I DON'T think I ever thought I would see!

I'm glad I made the decision some time back to make this my last election! Democrats seem to be JUST as REPUGNATE and the Repukes! And I really felt Lamont was one of the good ones! The pit in my stomach grows daily at what this country has turned into!

In several years... we shall see how well what is going on will produce. I think I'll just keep this little post for a later time! I have known for some time that Edwards was being "panned" by the MEDIA, now I'm beginning to see something even WORSE!!

So, who's next? Bernie Sanders & Russ Feingold?? Most people know that there is corruption in D.C., but I don't think I've EVER seen ANYTHING like this! What a shame and I wish I knew what I could do about it.... but you know, we let ourselves get here by APATHY and many of us will have to live by what others have done!!

[seriousstan]

12. No, it appears to be political.

[Barack_America]

14. Isn't everything in politics orchestrated?

Why would the announcements of endorsements be any different?

Obama needs to win SC. He needs to draw away votes from Clinton, but maybe more so from Edwards. This is the strategy his campaign came up with to ensure victory. It's not an attack against Edwards the man. It's a political strategy.

Many of the established Dems in Washington are starting to realize that Obama is a viable candidate and that they will get more accomplished (and, hence, stand a better chance of being reelected) if Obama is President. They're aligning to strengthen Obama and weaken Clinton, who they see as the other viable candidate.

That's it. No conspiracy theory here.

[Double T]

15. Many are the lemming minions of the corporations.

Edwards will appeal mostly to overt and silent revolutionaries.

[karynnj]

99. That may be a real problem if true

the US does not have a sufficient number of revolutionaries to make this a win.

[ProSense]

21. In a competition there is alway an order 1, 2, 3, etc.

Not everyone will come in first! In politics, people flock to those who demonstrate clear leadership.


Edwards: here and here.

Kerry: here and here.

Kerry is the real deal!

[Seabiscuit]

25. It seems like the Political American Idol show ...

I don't get how endorsements really change anyone's mind (except for union endorsements I get that), but I think making a big spectacle of endorsements everyday is a way for the campaigns to keep their name in the news by keeping the pundits and us interested in talking about them. Edwards has some great endorsements but he isn't flaunting it around (and of course the media doesn't even want to show them or mention them). Sometimes, it seems like the Political American Idol show to see who gets the most votes. I wonder who Simon, Paula and Randy are?

[Moloch]

27. Kerry and Lamont..

did not endorse John Edwards because his time is up. He has no better chance of being elected president than Mike Gravel or Duncan Hunter, or Daffy Duck for that matter. I know you like Edwards, but it serves no purpose to continue to promote his candidacy when it is clear he is just standing in the way and cluttering up the debate. He has legitimate things to say but he has just become a parody of himself. Perhaps if he drops out now, Obama will ask him to be VP.

[saracat]

32. That is not the point of my question and I take great offense at

your determining for me that my promotion of my chosen candidate has no purpose.I don't tell anyone when they can promote their candidates and frankly have no interest in your opinion as to when I promote mine.

[Moloch]

39. Yes.. Its always a conspiracy..

when Edwards loses.

[saracat]

50. I have not indicated a "conspiracy".I have said something looks "orchestrated'

and that happens in politics.

[JDPriestly]

62. I support Edwards because he is right on the issues.

Winning is not all there is in life. Sometimes you say what needs to be said and do what needs to be done and let the chips fall where they may. I am very happy with Edwards and his campaign. I want a candidate who is authentic and who is not corrupt. That is Edwards.

[Jim Sagle]

29. Ain't none of these endorsements worth a goddamn.

[AshevilleGuy]

38. The media uses them as vehicles

to lavish their favorites with hours of airtime. Today the MSM pundits were able to worship once again, all day, at Obama's altar. One only hopes this backfires with the public.

[PresidentObama]

41. The media obsessing with the frontrunners?

NOOOO!!!

Really?

[AshevilleGuy]

42. Just ONE frontrunner.

They have been at this the past YEAR...

The only parallel even close that I recall was for Gene McCarthy in 1968. But once Bobby was murdered that fell apart quickly for reasons I still do not understand.

[PresidentObama]

43. Obviously you haven't watched the media, have you?

They've obsessed over the Hillary/Obama slugfest ALL year.

Not that I want them too. Edwards needs airtime too :)

[AshevilleGuy]

45. Hours every day

Their take: Obama - GOOD, Hillary - BAD, Edwards - poor guy.

But I can no longer take Wolf, Tweety amd now KO, who is on board the Obamawagon too. Really, I think Tweety might shoot himself if Obama is not our nominee. Or, if Obama won the WH... Gee, isn't that odd??

[PresidentObama]

87. The media thinks Hillary is bad?

Damn, you really haven't watched the media.

For nine months, I watched Hillary get nothing but positive press most of the time.

[redqueen]

74. Hahahahahahahah

Thanks for the laugh... and the perspective. :hi:

[question everything]

44. How else would they get their names in the news?

Remember before the Iowa primary of 2004, how many of them, including Gore, were falling over one each other to endorse Dean?

So now they decided to wait for two states. It is not about the endorsee, it is about themselves, to remind the "media" that they exist.

I doubt that single voter is going to be persuaded by any of these endorsements.

And I even doubt that the union members of Nevada would be persuaded.

[madrchsod]

46. i don`t think it`s piling on- i think it`s seeing the handwriting on the wall

--->"we" the msm <---- ,can`t have john in the race..."we" have to have black vs white and man vs woman. the real race should be between john and barrack because by the time the primary over it would be clear how far the party is willing to go to move this country forward. but "we" can`t have that can they.

i`m not anymore happy about this crap than you guys and gals who support john. jesus christ look what happened to dennis and his supporters today when he brought up maybe we should check the machines. i think i`ve never been so pissed off in my years here at du i guess i should`t take it personally...

[Konza]

53. I think it shows Obama

knows how to run a campaign. He's staggered out events after caucus/primaries. This gets him good media coverage leading up to NV/SC and increases credibility.

But I know, i know, the last thing we want is a guy who knows how to win. ;)

[Blaze Diem]

56. What has he won? so far..

long way to go & for right now, George Bush is still calling the shots as to the direction of our Nation.

[Little Star]

106. I completely agree and I also think...

Obama may have caged in Edwards with Edwards own words. Edwards said, Me & Obama = same. Now the backstabbing begins and Edwards has to give any delegates he accumulates to his good buddy. I agree Obama knows how to win. This whole show looks like a mob hit!

[balantz]

48. K&R

I agree, it's fishy. I've been watching it unfold too. Everyone is ignoring him, or dissing him. Ever since his national numbers started to rise, and then he came in ahead of Clinton in Iowa, it has gotten worse. He is the single most frightening threat to the established order of corporate monopolies, who stands a chance vote-wise to actually win the nomination if the media actually lets the people see him. What has amazed me further is Bill Moyers and Charlie Rose suddenly got quiet too. They barely mentioned him after he placed ahead of Clinton in Iowa. All the naysayers from the other camps can call us crazy all they want, but we know something stinks. Only two primaries down with a second placing in Iowa and still decent numbers in N.H., and with what is it, 18% of the delegates? And he is being written off from coast to coast. Pretty telling if you ask this simple citizen.

[Blaze Diem]

54. I see it as you do. k&r

More reason to stand with John Edwards.
Maybe the Obama/Hillary show is a good MSM orchestrated smokescreen for something Bush is sneaking past this country's nose.
Not like we haven't seen Bush's method of 'government by distraction' used on us before.
More of a Rovian technique, actually.
That alone should be a red flag.

[Konza]

58. Edwards is a good man

But he's being treated as an afterthought by to going 0 for 2 and lacking money and troops.
He admittedly banked a lot on winning Iowa, and his third place really hurt him. (Although really I see him as tied for 2nd, but that is too complicated for a reporter to report.)
While I'm an Obama guy, I can see where Edwards supporters are getting frustrated.
The media wants a Hillary vs ______ story, and Obama, if you love him or hate him, has seized the stage.
Also, the media aren't terribly bright and they bore easily. They know Edwards from 2004, so in their minds, he's yesterdays news.
Finally when it comes to the nuts and bolts of politics Edwards lacks money and staff to compete with the big 2.
Had he won in Iowa or NH I'm sure the media narrative would be Hillary vs Edwards.

If I were an Edwards guy I'd make my stand in SC. If I can't win there, or come in a damn close second, its over.
The rough part is imagine if you are Edwards and you come in a real close second or a damn near tie for second but still technically 3rd place in SC.
That's a soul searcher moment. A lot of voters haven't been heard from, and they deserve a choice.
But money and organization will then come into play, and the reality of the situation would loom.
If it were me as Edwards at that point I might walk or stay and make my final stand in 3 or 4 of my best looking super tuesday states just to see if there is any hope left.

Now, as I'm an Obama guy, I have to be fair and say the same with my candidate. He's got more money and organization than Edwards, but super tuesday will define the remaining campaign for Obama as well. If Obama is swept or at least soundly defeated in the majority of states by Clinton on Feb 5, then it might be time to make a serious decision.

I really don't want to see a long drag out fight until the convention. I don't want to see Democrats stabbing each other in the street for 6 months prior to the election.
As much as I dislike and disagree with Hillary, I know she would be at least marginally better than anything the republicans have to offer.

[Yuugal]

52. K&R nt

[Beam Me Up]

55. Like "duh" n/t

[weeve]

57. Great post.

I fully agree. And it's a crying shame that we Democrats finally get a candidate with a progressive platform, and the fire to get it passed, also the most electable, most feared by Republicans ... and we piss it all away. The Big Media puppetmasters ensure that his message will not get out. When it does, he picks up votes. They know this, and the big corporations fear him the most. This is very upsetting to me, but I haven't given up hope - not in the least. Strange things happen in campaigns ... it's early ( sure, not looking so good right NOW ) but still early.

Go John ... keep fighting the good fight !

[silverojo]

59. They might be coming to the realization...

...that Edwards might not have a chance. Obama's my second choice, as well, if Edwards doesn't win it. ANYBODY but Hillary!

[JDPriestly]

60. I was tabling this afternoon and working this morning.

I only knew about the Kerry endorsement. I attributed that to the fact that Kerry is a rather repressed, passive-aggressive person. He likes Obama because Obama is the same type -- passive-aggressive. Neither of them can handle or enjoy honest confrontation. They both take the expression of differences of opinion as a threat, as a personal insult.

Kerry is not a guy who takes responsibility well. If he thought the Vietnam War was wrong, why did he sign up for a second tour in the Navy during that war? His whole life has been one of nad choices and regrets about those choices. There is a certain dishonesty in the guy. Why did he avoid confronting the Swiftboaters until it was way too late? Why did he avoid confronting the vote rigging and other vote irregularities in 2004? Because he is passive-aggressive. How frustrating it is for him to have to watch Edwards successfully confronting difficulty and calling out the issues honestly. He must be very jealous of Edwards' ability to be authentic, to connect with people, to speak with almost no reserve.

Many people owe Kerry political debts. Kerry can call those debts when he wants. Kerry has passed the height of his career. His bid to run for president again in 2008 failed. It would not surprise me if he is rather bitter. Knowing his character -- that he does not take responsibility for what he does combined with his tendency to be passive-aggressive, it would not surprise me one bit if he orchestrated this whole thing.

It is understandable that the Clinton campaign would sit by and watch silently. Clinton's biggest problem is not Obama. It is Edwards. Edwards repeatedly brings the focus of the campaign back to progressive issues, back to the quagmire of Iraq, back to the swamp of D.C. politics, back to Hillary's problem with taking lobbyist's money, back to the central theme, the one subject that you tactfully refer to as investigating war profiteers, i.e., corruption.

Edwards, not Obama, is the biggest threat to the coronation of Hillary Clinton. Edwards' criticisms of NAFTA and the other trade agreements hit a very sore spot with Hillary. In addition, Edwards' emphasis on New Orleans and Katrina and generally on the poor reminds everyone that Clinton was the first Democrat to abandon the poor. It was Clinton who proudly signed the very "welfare reform" that has resulted in so much homelessness and misery among single moms. Edwards' campaign shines a spotlight on Clinton's betrayals of Democratic values. So, Clinton would like to see Edwards exit the primary campaign as soon as possible.

Clinton's acquiescence to the little dance around Obama may have another ground. This is sheer speculation on my part, but I think the Clinton campaign knows something embarrassing about Obama and is waiting to out its information to the last minute. If Edwards leaves the campaign, Clinton can then proceed to get rid of Obama. If Clinton gets rid of Obama before Edwards leaves, the Obama supporters will join the Edwards camp. It's like a game of chess. Actually, it is simpler, more like a game of checkers.

So, yes, there probably is some invisible hand behind some of these events. But, remember, most voters are not that interested in the endorsements. That is kind of a game that the politicians play among themselves. I tabled two hours this afternoon. Here om California, Obama is attracting a lot of volunteers. But Edwards is attracting the most knowledgeable volunteers. I have been volunteering for months. I've met lots of people, especially women, who like Hillary. But I haven't met any volunteers in the NE LA/South Pasadena area.

We Edwards' supporters know why we support Edwards. We don't have the expensive handouts that Obama's supporters have. But we know what we are talking about. I started working on political campaigns during the McGovern campaign. I was absent from this country for some years. But, I have followed and often been active in politics most of the time that I have lived in the U.S.

I suppose I should not be so conceited as to give advice to John Edwards, but I will anyway. My father was a minister and a social worker. He once had a church in a depressed part of a large midwestern city. The church building was just huge, and the congregation was small. Sometimes not very many people showed up, and the size of the sanctuary made the small size of the congregation almost humiliating, but my dad would always say, "The people who needed to come were there." He was right.

In his campaign, Edwards reminds us that this is not about Hillary or Obama or Edwards but about the American people. That is so true. And that is why these political games do not matter. Edwards needs to keep focusing on what is important -- not the games that Hillary and Kerry and Obama are playing -- but on the real victims of the shocking corruption in our government -- the American people, the soldiers dying for a phony war in Iraq, the children who will sleep in cars in the middle of winter tonight, the millions of Americans who worked hard today for pay that is losing its value as we write our posts.

Edwards should make a statement in response to Bernanke's decision to lower interest rates and about the state of the economy, about the fact that Bush is just putting off the misery until a Democrat takes over. He should ask himself whether the powers that bee are planning to miraculously lower oil prices in order to ease the economic situation before the election. In other words, Edwards should keep talking about the economic issues and all his other issues.

I will be walking my precinct tomorrow afternoon, secure in the knowledge that the people who are supposed to be home, the people I am supposed to talk to, will be there and will hear what I have to say. Whether Edwards wins or loses, he will be OK and Elizabeth will be OK and we will all keep fighting against corruption and poverty. Edwards is uniting some very wonderful people behind his campaign. Many of us are not in it just to win this one. We are in for the long haul. We are in to save our country. We will keep calling out the abuses.

Kucinich announced today that he intends to call for the impeachment of the president. That is a matter for the House of Representatives and not for the candidates. It is, however, a core issue. Edwards will have to pray about his response. It needs to come from a still, quiet place within him. This is the biggest issue confronting the nation.

So, we are all with Edwards. Only the politicians care about these endorsements. Kerry's endorsement turned me off. It turned a lot of people off. I don't dislike Obama, but he has not been vetted. Nobody really knows who he is, and he sure is not telling us much about himself really, except that he somehow acquired a very southern accent for someone born in Hawaii, educated in ivy league colleges and until recently domiciled in the northern mid-west. He is not a very transparent guy, that Obama. Very charismatic, but not very transparent. Edwards needs to trust, maintain his authenticity and integrity and stay in the race. For all the hype, this race is still very open in my opinion.

[Helga Scow Stern]

63. Thanks....

I agree that Edwards is in it for the long haul, beyond this race, and that he is not playing the same game as the others. I think that more and more people will see that and get behind it, although it may take a while.

[Laelth]

110. Excellent post, JDPriestly. Thanks.

Your analysis makes sense to me, on several levels.

:toast:

-Laelth

[MethuenProgressive]

65. No, but the whining appears to be mere jealousy.

Edwards has called everyone in DC corrupt crooks. You expect them to run and hug him after months of that?

[sojourner]

73. please please please could you stop calling our attempts to understand

what's happening "whining"!! Jesus! asking questions a normal part of our process and calling it whining is as bad as the "don't question the president" bullshit that went around in 2001/2002.

[MethuenProgressive]

89. Want some cheese?

:eyes:

[Armstead]

70. I think it's just opportunism

MY guess is that a low of people were waiting until Iowa and NH voting was done, so they could see which way the wind was blowing.

Had Edwards made a stronger showing, some of them might have been endorsing Edwards instead. But since Edwards did not do all that well (even though he did beat Hillary in Iowa) those who are in the unHillary camp see Obama as the alternative to hitch on to.

[sojourner]

71. what a silly question...

-the us media is just playing its "game" - choosing to give positive/negative or even no coverage to people based on who they "like"

-us politicians just give their endorsements based on who they "like" (based on who is going to help them acheive their goals - keep their "supporters" happy and get them re-elected)

*and somebody liked Obama enough to give him the stage at the Democratic Convention last election...so it's not really "all of a sudden"

I too am wondering what it's all about because for all the good I see in the man, I have lots of questions about why he's being so supported. Is it so we'll lose again (when the Republicans play the race card) and that will give a good explanation for Democrats' powerlessness, allowing the gov't to continue pillaging our country and to increase the power of the gov't? Or is it because if elected Obama will feel sufficiently beholden to these folks and thus he'll be more amenable to their input?

personally I believe that it is important right now for our leaders to give "the people" a narrative that says, "WE TRIED!!" but that also assures that the status quo is not disturbed.

-its just such a pity that JRE is against the folks who line the pockets of all the media and the politicians -- without a groundswell of grassroots support JE won't stand a chance. damn shame. (I wish folks would realize that he's for real!!!)

[calico1]

75. I don't know about the personal relationship

between Kerry and Edwards or Lamont and Edwards but I do know that often who a person endorses or picks as a running mate is more like a business deal than a pact between friends. Fact is, some running mates (i.e., JFK & LBJ) could hardly stand each other but ran together as a strategic move so that the party could win. Now Lamont and Kerry are endorsing the person they feel has the best chance to win or that they agree with most. Politics is a funny game. Anyone who plays the game has to have really thick skin so I think Edwards can handle it.

[Little Star]

76. I have joined the silent majority. No comment. n/t

[SaveElmer]

78. Typical "progressive" response...

The reason for their anointed ones not winning can never just be that people legitimately disagree with them...always some ulterior motive, some conspiracy...and short of that aspersions on the intelligence of those not supporting them...

It's that type of arrogance which keeps "progressives" from actually gaining and holding a working majority...

Kerry, Napolitano, and Lamont support Obama...it really is that simple...

Perhaps a look at Edwards himself will reveal why his campaign is not catching fire...

[Bonobo]

81. Typical obnoxious "Elmer" response.

[Andy823]

79. It's pretty simple

Corporate america doesn't want Edwards to win, so the powers that be in the dem party have to "suck up" to those powers, since they want the "gravy train" that has been only for republicans for so long. Do you realize how much money will be dumped into the dem party if a dem is president, and the have the majority in congress?

In another post someone said that we can't have "change" till we get now faces in congress, and they were right. The leadership of "both" parties are corrupt as hell, and we have to get them out before any kind of a change will come about.

[Little Star]

82. Duh!!!!!!

His message is loud and clear. Shut up and sing.

[Freddie Stubbs]

83. This all a part of the establishment's plot to coronate Clinton

They are getting the other two candidates to fight it out! ;)

[onehandle]

85. kick. nt

[Kucinich4America]

88. Totally orchestrated. I'm having Dean flashbacks from 2004.

It's obvious that Hillary and the DLC want him gone, because they think Hillary will be able to take on Obama if it's perceived as a two-person race (they'll ignore Dennis regardless, because they can't debate him on the issues)

I've also noticed a lot of "new" Hillbots who act like they have been here before. Draw your own conclusions on that one.

[karynnj]

92. They are not piling on Edwards, they are endorsing Obama

Why are they doing this? To give Obama momendum. The interesting thing is that the HRC Senators etc endorsed a while ago - so this gives Obama a cool event nearly every day.

As to the slams,
Every single candidate said that they would vote against the FISA bill from the Intelligence committee. When you filibuster against the bill the onlt thing that counts is the cloture vote - where a no or not voting are for all purposes identical. The cloture vote here passed - but they pulled the bill to work on in January. His being there would have changed nothing. (Note that all Kerry could do was enter his comments into the record and vote "no" and he was there.)

Kerry has a track record on corruption, where Edwards really doesn't. Kerry and Obama have some legislation on media consultation and they wrote a joint op-ed. Again Edwards did nothing on this while in the Senate. (Kerry was involved with others in stopping more consolidation in 2003.)

i do assume the announcements are coordinated - they usually are. Timing is important. I seriously doubt Edwards will drop out before NV or SC - why would he? He will be there through superTuesday. I think SC will be sad for him as the last I saw he was running third. this will be the first time he did far worse than 2004.

[Radical Activist]

98. Not nearly as orchestrated as the online campaign to paint Obama as a conservative.

Its an incredibly dishonest campaign disconnected from the reality of who Obama is that Edwards supporters have been waging for the past year. Its time to cut the crap and accept Obama as a progressive candidate with the record to prove it.

[liberalla]

104. Saracat and all Edwards supporters! Turn on Randi rhodes right now!

She's got Brent Budowsky discussing Edwards, and what he needs to do RIGHT NOW.

The Last Stand of John Edwards (Brent Budowsky)

http://pundits.thehill.com/2008/01/11/the-last-stand-of-john-edwards/

Onwards, Upwards, Edwards. 2008

[Yael]

108. Saracat,

Color me nuts here, but I have a theory. Lately, Obama and Edwards have been blending their messages, their catch phrases and their themes. Hillary is copying Edwards, but that is to be expected as she continues to stump on the focus group opinions of which Hillary needs to come out each day.

What if this is deliberate -- and the endorsements are designed to siphon off the Hillary political machine because there is already a crosssupport deal out there?

I know it may seem like I am selling Senator Edwards short -- but I can see where this could be politically advantageous to both of them.

JMO.

[Laelth]

109. It's fishy. I agree. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[Triana]

111. Of course...

...and it is because they are threatened by him. He's got their number and they know it. He'll bust their chops and they know it.


And THAT is what needs to happen. That's why I'm supporting him as long as he's in.

[Gloria]

112. Nah, they just want to OBLITERATE him...the f*ckers!

Tonight's media contributions: Eleanor Clift on McLaughlin refers to JE as a SIDESHOW (direct quote).

[kelligesq]

113. We need to send a few bucks so he keeps going thru March

and through his own website so that it gets matched by the fed...

I have a feeling he's saving money to come out with ads toward the end.

Also write letters to the editor of all the newspapers.

We need to help him in every way we can

bug the news channels, for not giving full coverage TO ALL 3 candidates