Well, we screwed this election up royally, didn't we?

[Rex_Goodheart]

We had a potential candidate who would have easily beaten any of the Republicans. His name is John Edwards.

Instead, somehow, someway, we're apparently going to have to settle for a candidate who keeps piling up what many see as anti-American calling cards. Can't get rid of him, either, because doing so will alienate a lot of our base.

Watch the polls. This Wright revelation was a blody blow.

Sorry, but I've believed for a long time that Republicans play the game better. Way better. When the dust cleared they had chosen for themselves the lesser of all their evils.

As for us... well, I've gone to bed the past two nights sick to my stomach that I won't be able to get the insurance I need for my heart. For that I say, thank you, my short-sighted fellow Democrats.

[FreakinDJ]

1. Agreed - but it was not by design

I think it was more of the media hype over a female and Black candidate that actually stood a chance to take the office.

How could anyone foresee a mud-slinging fest that would lead to the demise of both candidates? But yes I’ll agree with you and go on record with the Dems will not take the White House with either of these candidates while John Edwards would have easily walked into office

[zonmoy]

14. assuming the media hype itself wasn't by design.

could the media be manipulating events to put in democrats that have achilles heels.

[FreakinDJ]

20. I heard alot of that but respectfully don't agree

Geraldine Ferraro was selected. Jesse Jackson was never a viable candidate (not enough funding or political position)

So in my humble opinion these are the first viable female and black candidates and yes the media fell all over their selves over them.

[BlackVelvet04]

69. it really wasn't hard to see this coming....

"How could anyone foresee a mud-slinging fest that would lead to the demise of both candidates?"

The two most loyal groups of Dem voters pitted against each other....what else could have happened?

[Nedsdag]

79. Well, it wouldn't have been this way if your candidate saw the handwriting on the wall

and decided to leave the race.

This is someone who lost 11 primaries and caucuses in a row yet any other candidate would've folded their tent. Not Queen Hillary! "How dare this black boy take me on! This was my nomination!"

[susankh4]

100. Wow.

Then we'd really be screwed. Cuz we'd have Barack as a nominee BEFORE the media found out about his pastor, and his increasingly deep Rezko dealings.

[FreakinDJ]

103. That is what I'm seeing as well

Guranteed to turn off an entire generation of voters to the Democratic party

[BlackVelvet04]

121. You have no right to demand anyone leave the race......

Maybe your candidate should take a hike.

[FreakinDJ]

123. Hilary will only DAMAGE the Dem party chances of success

She has NO MEANs to win the nomination other then dirty underhanded political tricks

So why not DEMAND she step down?

The Clintons have done serious damage to this country (NAFTA) and the Democratic party (re-elections 1996) and their personal EGO POWER grab will certainly lose the election for ANY Democratic candidate.

Just ask Rush Limbaugh - He is the one that won Texas for Hilary

[FreakinDJ]

110. Worse then that even and Hilary fired the first shot BTW

First off the Take no prisoners – Women first - attitude of the NOW candidate Hilary will probably ensure there will NOT be another woman candidate for another 20 or so years – remember Geraldine Ferraro. She is still a blithe upon the party.

Second – Hilary and her campaign is doing more to take down the Democratic party then Rush Limbaugh.

Seriously

KKKarl Rove could not have found a better surrogate in the Political Media Spot light if he had cloned himself and pasted a “NEW and IMPROVED” sticker on his ass.

The only good that will come of this race will be perhaps the Democratic party will wake up a see once and for all that NOW plays both sides of the fence and only cares about NOW. The sooner we dump them the better

Flame away I don't care

[BlackVelvet04]

120. No, the MSM fired the first shot.....

not Hillary. Educate yourself.

[GarbagemanLB]

2. I think you need a reality check. We are still better off with Obama than we are with Hillary.

[durrrty libby]

6. lol

......... .......

[Texas Hill Country]

7. how do you figure, there are no polls with Obama properly vetted. Period.

And dont go quoting me numbers cause they are all BS at this point. Give it a week.

[GarbagemanLB]

16. Yeah, and there isn't a gigantic issue looming with Hillary's tax returns. There are countless thing

s the Republicans can bring up against her, INCLUDING land deal scandals (before you mention Rezko).

[Rex_Goodheart]

27. Hillary's tax returns is a non-issue

"God damn America" and "US of KKKA" church attendance is a big issue.

[GarbagemanLB]

29. Wow...talk about wishful thinking.

[mattclearing]

38. If her tax returns were such a non-issue, she'd have released them by now.

And Obama didn't say any of those things. This guilt by association thing is getting out of control. People can't even go to a fucking church anymore without being smeared.

[madmom]

114. This guilt by association thing is getting old too, Ferraro said something

Obama people didn't like, Clinton had to make amends , guilt by association? or does that only work for Obama supporters?

[NDambi]

47. Ha Ha..yeah that's why she hasn't released them...they're no big deal

[mattclearing]

34. When exactly will Obama be vetted enough?

Hillary hasn't revealed anything yet. Obama is facing recycled questions at this point because people are just starting to tune in to things that he has answered for in the past. You'd think that would mean that people have run out of shit to throw at him.

[Inspired]

28. Both are showing themselves to be seriously flawed candidates.

Edwards supporters have known this all along. It's very frustrating to see how it is playing out.

[Bake]

53. Hammer ... nail ... BINGO!

Bake

[Nay]

62. Very true, Inspired. I was a Kucinich, then an Edwards, supporter, and

I could see that Clinton had serious flaws, and that Obama was so unknown that HE prob had some diggable problems, too. I voted for Edwards in the VA primary even though he had pulled out a week before.

What astounds and frustrates me is that the 2 candidates left are not acting as if this is the most important election for a Dem -- any Dem -- to win in 100 years. We are looking into the abyss, folks, and these two are doing a better job of smearing each other than the Pubs are. It's like watching two divorcing parents go at it hammer and tong, while the schoolage kids stand by helplessly. All we want is a chance, slim as it may be, to correct the course the country is on, and the Dems we are to choose from are knifing each other every chance they get.

In my mind, ALL the Dem candidates should have gotten together at the beginning of this contest and laid out some ground rules for this shit. Normally, as an old fart, I understand and am used to some mudslinging between candidates of the same party, but in this case, they need to tone it down and save their vitriol for McCain. The Dem candidates should long ago have realized that this is not a normal, ho-hum election year where it didn't really matter who wins -- this is a fight for a free, normal civilization. It angers, disgusts, and dismays me that they don't see this.

[usrbs]

122. It's not the most important election. 2004 was.

This election is just to see who will steer us through the inevitable decline as the chickens come back to roost, chickens being Iraq, Afghanistan, our international standing, Global Warming, Peak Oil, the dollar, the deficit, the economy, the collapse of the middle class, etc.

Whenever I get too upset about this election I remind myself of that.

[Nay]

124. Upon reflection, I have to agree with you. 2004 was the most important,

and we lost it. I have said many times on this board and in public that I almost wish the Pubs would win this one, because the fallout from their economic scorched-earth policies needs to fall on Pub heads. I guess I just wish the 2 dem front runners would act like this was the SECOND most important election, the election where we will choose the person to guide us through the decline, as you say. They aren't acting that way, and I personally don't care which one wins, and I am unconvinced that having a Dem in will do anything but encourage the Pubs to blame him or her retroactively for this depression. SCOTUS? All the Pubs have to do is refuse any decent nominee, and blackmail/bluster/threaten Dems to give a pass to one more of their zombies.

As far as I can see, it's a no-win for the country as a whole. The US is a dry husk, sucked dry of all the easily-vacuumed wealth, and it will now be left to flounder and starve as the ultra-wealthy swan off to their enclaves. I sweat for my children and grandchildren.

[usrbs]

125. So depressing but I agree with every word

Except it really is preferable to have a Dem. in there to at least stop digging. I have this fear that if a real crisis came with the GOP in charge we'd morph very quickly into a police state. Look at how far we've gone just from 9/11 and Katrina.

I think the only solution for the SCOTUS and other policies is a strong Left pushing and agitating from the outside. At this stage, I think only fear of the great unwashed would force our spineless electees to stand firm on anything.

And although I'm a Hillary supporter, I don't have any illusions about her positions. I was hoping for Gore / Clark, but that didn't happen.

[Texas Hill Country]

80. Personally, I like Richardson, but hey, I didnt get my wish either.

[Inspired]

113. Could you ever imagine Richardson having such bizarre baggage?

Every candidate has some but what we are seeing will never win over the support from non-Dems that we are going to need. We'll probably lose thousands of Dem votes at the rate this is going.

[madmom]

115. SO TRUE... can we draft Edwards?

[Inspired]

117. In my sweetest dreams! n/t

[zanne]

3. The infighting is what is screwing up this election.

It gives the Republicans all the talking points they need. I'm guilty of posting on GDP myself, but this kind of thing is what is going to defeat us. It's going to be US, not THEM.

[Texas Hill Country]

4. they chose the one candidate that could win... we are gonna choose the one that couldnt.

[Dawgs]

5. Do you really think things would be different if Edwards took Obama's place?

You haven't been around politics very long if do.

[Rex_Goodheart]

12. Yes, I most emphatically do

Edwards didn't regularly attend a "God damn America" church.

[Dawgs]

26. Then you really are naive.

Edwards is not as perfect as you think.

Every candidate has something in their past that can be exploited.

[Inspired]

32. No, I think you might be naive to how much this nonsense is going to matter.

This has nothing to do with John Edwards being perfect. He never was perfect. No one is. He was the best candidate we had to beat McCain in the GE.

[NDambi]

48. Yep. Hey, isn't Edwards a member of the DLC? Thought I saw that somewhere

[Rex_Goodheart]

63. No, it's you who's naive

to think that anything in Edwards's past (who, by the way, was scrutinized four years ago) can approach the damaging sound-byte qualities of "God damn America" and "I was never proud of my country."

[loudsue]

104. For a politician, Edwards is about as clean as anyone has EVER been.

Republican media has pimped this election from the day it started. There are MANY long-time DUers who saw this coming well over a year ago.

Who owns the press? Who pimps what is news & what isn't? Who owns the voting machines? That's all anyone really needs to know.

It was going to be an ugliest of the ugly "affirmative action" election for the Dems, as far as the corporate powers that be are concerned, from the get-go. There was going to be NO voice for the population at large (a populist message).

That was the ONLY way that they were going to be able to get the popularity of any one dem big enough to "appear" to get 50% of the (supposedly legitimately counted) votes. The votes ARE NOT LEGITIMATELY COUNTED. It's just the primary season, and we've already had two RECOUNTS because of the voting machines. Duh!????

If we had a free press in this country, the populist message that MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of Americans are hungry for would have been #1 on the news. The candidate that MOST supported that populist message would have gotten AT LEAST as much time as the war-mongering candidates. But we don't have a free press. Not one channel, not one message, has been even marginally liberal. Even Keith Olbermann froze out John Edwards & Dennis Kucinich, except on a couple of well-placed evenings. After that, NADA. He was pissing me off so bad I wrote e-mail after e-mail.

ANYBODY....

ANY FUCKING BODY

WHO THINKS THAT ELECTIONS IN THIS COUNTRY ARE FAIR, OR THAT THE MEDIA HAS FAIRLY PRESENTED ANY DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE THIS ELECTION SEASON, IS SO FULL OF KOOL-AID THAT THEY ARE BEYOND REDEMPTION.

The whole primary has been a well orchestrated system of corporate smoke & mirrors.

[chimpymustgo]

119. Loudsue, you nailed it. For those who refuse to drink the Koolaid, this has been painful to watch.

[LisaL]

8. Who are "we?"

By the time primary got to my state, Edwards wasn't running anymore.
I also don't buy you premise that Edwards could have easily won the GE-he had his own problems. Maybe you are looking at him through rose colored glasses.

[Little Star]

9. The only reason there will be no President Edwards is because of

Obama. That is what I believe to be true.

[From The Left]

10. The Clintons May Win the Battle but, They Will Lose the War

If Lady Clinton is the nominee, get used to saying President McCain. I wonder if the Hillbots will be satisfied then?

[LisaL]

13. If Obama gets the nomination, president McCain is very likely.

What Obamites are gonna say to that?

[From The Left]

17. Not According to the Polls. Nice Try Though

[LisaL]

21. Polls?

LOL.

[Rex_Goodheart]

22. Keep watching those polls

I'll be crying and you'll still be denying as Obama sinks.

[FreakinDJ]

15. Hilbots won't stop until McCain is elected

Watch her run as an independant

[From The Left]

19. Maybe Hillary Can Run as McCain's Veep? They Are BFFs

[FreakinDJ]

23. A little too much Honesty there

[NYCGirl]

11. Tonto: "What you mean 'we', paleface?" to quote an old joke. NT

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

18. Edwards Lost. Get Over It.

[Stuckinthebush]

30. Oh that is funny as hell!

Boom! You got that poster!

Wooohooo!



You must have gotten up on the asshole side of the bed this morning.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

41. Well, That IS The Side Of My Bed Without The Wall, So It Happens Often.

[Stuckinthebush]

50. Well, that was actually funny

Good comeback.

[JVS]

33. Amen! I have never seen a bunch of bigger cry-babies than some of the Edwards supporters

I liked him and was pleased with his renunciation of the Iraq war, but his huge transformation from moderate southern democrat to supposed reincarnation of William Jennings Bryant was not credible, and I have a feeling that many other voters saw through it.

[dansolo]

49. Edwards seems to have gained a following of previously Kucinich supporters

I'd rather have a progressive moderate who has been consistent throughout his entire career, than a candidate whose beliefs take a complete 180 once they decide to run for president. I liked that Edwards was bringing up the issues he was, but I couldn't reconcile his dramatic departure from his previous positions as a senator. So either he was a populist all along, but voted the way he did for pragmatic reasons, or he is a moderate, who is now trying to appeal to the disaffected left.

[JoFerret]

118. On examination - he passes the smell test

.

[zalinda]

66. Then you didn't read enough about him

He had been a populist all his short political career. It is just it got buried in all the stuff that the MSM was throwing around. And as far as his Senate career goes, he was elected in a red state and was bound to them to be as conservative as his conscience would let him. He quickly saw that his hands were tied in the Senate, so I don't think he will ever run for that office again.

He was the ONLY candidate that was talking policy. As soon as he suspended his campaign the primary went to mudslinging. There is a reason for that, he was the grown-up. He looked at the Presidency not as his right, but his duty. He had been lucky in his life (even though it was hard work that brought him that luck) and he wanted to even the playing field for the rest of Americans, so they could have some of his luck. This is what Edwards supporters knew, and that the other two fell short, way short.

He thought about being President, he thought about the changes that needed to be done. And, contrary to popular "belief", he did not spend 4 years in Iowa campaigning, he spend just about 2 weeks more there than the other 2 candidates. In those 4 years, he was visiting other countries, looking at problems over there, and then spending time in this country, looking at problems over here. He spent time working on solving some of those problems with small experiments to see if those ideas would work for the rest of the country, like "College for everyone".

Yes, we KNOW that Edwards was not perfect, and he would be the first to say that he isn't. But, what we saw in him, and still see in him, is not a politician, but a guy who wants the best for EVERYONE and would work harder than anyone to see that that would happen. The Presidency was NOT a stepping stone for him, but a means to an end to getting things set right in this country. I cannot say the same for the two or three remaining candidates. All three ARE politicians, and everyone of them think that the Presidency is their RIGHT.

zalinda

[JVS]

72. I see you've been typing but all I hear is Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhh!

[zalinda]

87. Which is typical of an Obama supporter

They only seem to hear what Obama tells them, no matter what it is. You may want to read this, to see what the rest of see in Obama supporters. http://www.vaniercollege.qc.ca/Auxiliary/Psychology/Fra...

zalinda

[musicblind]

89. Well I think that reflects more on YOU than anyone else.

[Benhurst]

56. And according to the agreed upon rules, so have Clinton and Obama.

Neither will reach the 2025 goal, and both have had more Democrats vote against them than for them. They are both losers.

Under the rules, no prizes are given out for pluralities.

Get over it.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

58. Sorry, I Like The REAL Rules, Not The Personally Made Up Ones You're Throwing Out.

As far as more democrats voting against them, I think you're, well, a bit off your rocker.

[Benhurst]

59. What is it about "marority" and "plurality" don't you understand?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

61. What Is It About Real Rules, VS Delusional Made Up Ones You Present, That YOU Don't Understand?

Are you ok?

[Rex_Goodheart]

65. He isn't making up any rules

You have a reading comprehension problem.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

70. Sure He Is. Clear As Day.

He says neither of them can win. He uses the rules to say such.

Yet by this point, even 3rd graders must know that pledged delegates alone do not decide the nomination, and that inside the rules there's a thing called superdelegates, of which can easily push one of the two over the 2025 threshould. So since that's all inside the rules, saying under the rules neither nominee can win is just mind numbingly dumb.

[JVS]

74. And it is a disingenuous attempt to put them in the same category of Edwards.

Even if Edwards got the vote of every Super Delegate, he'd fall well short of even being half way to 2025

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

77. It Is Really Silly.

I've never heard anyone say that within the rules, a candidate has to win 2025 with pledges alone. I mean, who at this point is so uneducated to the process to believe such a thing?

[Benhurst]

76. Neither Clinton nor Obama can win with elected delegates alone; because the race is too close

and neither has closed the deal or will be able to do so.

Under the rules, it is quite possible for a candidate to win with elected delegates alone.

But neither of these two losers will be able to do so because they have both failed to close the deal with the Democratic voters.

Obama's plurality under the rules means squat.

No matter who our nominee is, he or she will have to be pushed over the line by unelected super delegates.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

83. Let Me Spoon Feed You One Last Time Before I Deem You As Hopeless:

You: "And according to the agreed upon rules... Neither will reach the 2025 goal"

Fact: According to the agreed upon rules, BOTH can easily reach the 2025 goal, once the remaining superdelegates choose a side.

You seem to want to imply that there's some sub rule that deems a true victor reaches 2025 by pledges alone, yet that rule doesn't exist. You're making it up. According to the agreed upon rules, each of them can reach 2025, so implying otherwise is just plain dumb. If you want to continue to make these absurd and deluded claims, you can feel free to. But I'm not going to waste any more time replying to them, since you've been spoonfed enough already.

[Benhurst]

90. The Obama talking point has been that his pluralities give him

moral authority. They don't. A loss is a loss. There is a long history of leading candidates being passed over at Democratic conventions. Pluralities are worth squat. The only way a victory could have been assured was reaching the majority with elected delegates, difficult when there is strong competition, but far from impossible.

The super delegates now hold the key to the nomination. They can support whomever they chose, and it doesn't have to be either of our two biggest losers.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

91. Look. Edwards Lost. Get Over It.

[Benhurst]

94. And it's looking more and more likely that Obama will as well.

And it is better for us all that he do so sooner than later. We don't need four more years of Republican rule just to satisfy the egos of a flawed candidate and his fanatical followers.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

95. By The Way, You Know I'm Overall A Hillary Supporter, Right?

You keep seeming to imply through your rhetoric that I'm in the Obama camp here, which to me just shows how silly you are and how little you stop to think. How embarrassing for you.

[Benhurst]

112. I'm soooooooooo embarrassed. Responding to the wrong biggest looser's

backer.

Most Hillary supporters don't push the "moral high ground" of the popular vote or elected delegate tallies since they realize Hillary has the short end of the stick there.

Obama's people have been pushing hard that his pluralities in elected delegates and the popular vote give him the moral right to claim the nomination, and, unless sufficient super delegates climb on board, there is the implied threat they will bolt the party.

Nonsense. He and Clinton have both failed to reach the prize with elected delegates and automatically receive the nomination. One has as much or little a moral claim as the other when it comes to reflecting the vaunted "will of the people."

If I misread you post, then we are not in disagreement. Once super delegates are required to reach the goal, the prize is up for grabs. Neither of the two leading candidates has the higher ground. And after the first ballot is cast, Katie, bar the door. If enough super delegates buy Obama's specious plurality arguments, however, he has the nomination

A brokered convention is the best chance the party has of reuniting. If either Clinton or Obama pulls off a win on the first ballot with super delegates, the other side is going to call "foul!" and claim it was cheated. Only a knock-down-drag-out fight at the convention has the potential of forcing compromises which might make a united party possible.

If not, hello, President McCain.

[Benhurst]

78. Are you speaking for your third grade class?

Perhaps they should consider getting another spokesman.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

85. That Wouldn't Reflect Too Well On You,

if someone from a third grade class just decimated you with logic and has totally bested you. So you might want to put a bit more thought into the put downs you use. In fact, you may want to start putting more thought into everything you post, so that you aren't so easily embarrassed. Just a tip.

[Benhurst]

86. In your dreams.

[musicblind]

97. No, I hate to jump in here... but you obviously are not reading the points ben here is saying or

if you are reading those points, you are reading them with rose colored glasses and are not processing them. Ben agrees that superdelegates will have to decide this. That is fact. He also points out, in his opinion, that plurality means nothing. Both will have lost without superdelegates. Now it is up to the superdelegates to decide.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

102. Wrong. And You Should've Hated Jumping In, Since Taking The Losing Side Of An Argument Is Dumb.

The poster claimed that the rules dictate neither can win. The rules dictate no such thing. He was wrong. By defending him, you are wrong.

If the point was that each will need the SD's to push them over the top, fine. But if that was the point, rules wouldn't have been brought up since all of that is inside the rules. Instead, the poster tried to imply that in order for them to win, they'd have to work outside of the rules and bring the SD's into play, but that's false on its face.

The poster's claim was:

"And according to the agreed upon rules, so have Clinton and Obama. Neither will reach the 2025 goal"

False.

According to the rules, neither of them have lost. According to the rules, BOTH have the chance to reach the 2025 goal. Conclusion? That statement is 100% false and misguided, and carries with it non legitimacy. It was spoken out of childish bitterness due to their own personal candidate failing yet again. But there's no fact found in that quote above whatsoever. Argument rejected. They were wrong. By defending them, you too are now wrong. See ya!

[musicblind]

105. ur just...

diggin' it deeper, diggin' it deeper.


Tried to help here. I like to see everyone get along.

Neither Clinton nor Obama have won or will win without the help of superdelegates. That is clearly this person's point.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

108. You Don't Get It.

You don't get to reiterate what the poster actually fucking SAID.

They said: "And according to the agreed upon rules, so have Clinton and Obama. Neither will reach the 2025 goal"

That statement is wrong. Period. I responded to that statement as having been wrong. There's nothing wrong with my having done so. If the poster simply wanted to say what you said, then they SHOULD'VE FUCKING DONE SO. They didn't. They pushed it farther and tried to claim that the rules dictate that they both lost. Well BZZZZZZTTTTTTT. Wrong. Not the case. The post was severely flawed and done with childish bitterness at their candidate having lost quite readily. So spare me this get along crap please. The fact is the poster said something that was patently false. I called it out. End of story.

[Benhurst]

68. To win, under the rules, one must get 2025 delegates. Neither Clinton nor

Obama can reach that number without being pushed over the line with the support of unelected super delegates. Like it or not, those are the rules.

Obama will have a plurality, but cannot reach a majority. Both Obama and Clinton under the rules will have failed to make the mark. Claiming otherwise is as crazy as pretending a lottery should win because its numbers, while not the right ones, are closest to those drawn.

You can be as insulting as you like. Such behavior behavior has become routine for many Obama supporters on this board, while they mouth the "New Politcs" and "Hope" bullshit campaign rhetoric. Yeah. Sure. Chicago Politics as usual, and not necessarily at its best.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

71. Again, I Like The REAL Rules, Not Your Warped Made Up Ones.

And in the REAL rules, and in the REAL world, superdelegates exist. In the REAL rules and the REAL world, such superdelegates are a legitimate part of the process. In the REAL rules and in the REAL world, there are enough of them to easily push one of the candidates over the 2025 threshold. So therefore, in the REAL rules and in the REAL world, saying that under the rules neither candidate can win, is just plain delusional.

[Benhurst]

84. Yes, and we can hope they will do their duty and reject flawed

candidates who have failed to reach the 2025 elected delegates necessary to automatically be given the nomination.

[Swamp Rat]

24. I hear ya.

I haven't been do a doctor for nearly ten years, but have needed to for just as long.

[JoFerret]

25. I've gone to bed the past two nights sick to my stomach ...

"I've gone to bed the past two nights sick to my stomach that I won't be able to get the insurance I need for my heart."

It's THAT that is at stake.
Real lives.
That's why we MUST win in November.

I miss Edwards too.

[Sadie5]

46. My opinion is

that O has played the race card one too many times. His handlers ATTACKED Ferraro and BIll Clinton for honest remarks, and the Ferraro deal was the last straw. Clinton supporters felt sympathy for Clinton especially after KOs attack via TV. They fought back. If O wanted to play dirty then he needs to know that there will be a price to pay.

[JoFerret]

54. Well....it's a theory

and as good as any other.
I certainly don't buy the Obama purism fantasy.

[mattclearing]

31. Edwards couldn't even beat Hillary or Obama.

And he struggled in a debate against Cheney four years ago. What makes you think he'd have been any better this time?

[LisaL]

35. Yes, I still remember this debate. It was awful.

Like a deer caught in the headlights.
Edwards against McCain?
Please.
I only wish Gore run.

[Rex_Goodheart]

43. Edwards was new

and got better as the debate went on.

At any rate, the whole body of American voters didn't seem to mind because he was the only of our 3 major contestants who out-polled all the Republicans head to head.

[Smarmie Doofus]

67. Revisionist nonsense. Are you that easy to spin?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/05/debate.main/i...

[JVS]

37. Well he did beat Hillary in Iowa, but her campaign was very good at claiming a tie

[mattclearing]

40. Come to think of it, she's still doing pretty well at it. n/t

[Rex_Goodheart]

39. Good lord

Winning the nomination is not the ultimate prize. The presidency is. If the body of voters in this country only consisted of Democrats you might make some sense.

[mattclearing]

45. Edwards ran to the left of Hillary and Obama.

Do you think he was going to demonize corporations for six months and then run his campaign right up the middle to the White House?

[DemVet]

36. I don't what's wrong with your heart as you say, but....

...I hope and pray all will be well with you. Take care.

[Rex_Goodheart]

64. Thank you

Coronary heart disease with stints. COBRA set to run out. Have been denied coverage now by 4 major health insurance providers.

[Steely_Dan]

42. Completely Agree With You...

I just had a different candidate.

-P

[NDambi]

44. News Flash, you probably weren't going to get your insurance for your heart anyway..not unless the

Dems have a run on everything. Don't be naive, no universal or any other health care plan passes overnight, if at all. It's political rhetoric--its one of those things they put 10 point plans out there for, but it ain't eva gonna happen in this country unless the Dems hold the majority everywhere..and even then it depends on how hard the lobbyist, lobby.

So, if you were banking on that..I'm sad for you.

[Unsane]

51. I don't buy that John Edwards is somehow supremely electable.

He has the same inexperience susceptibility that Obama has.

[Rex_Goodheart]

57. John Edwards didn't attend a "God damn America" church

[pretzel4gore]

52. why get physically attached to it? the dupes are getting what they need...

much like nazi germany needed to get down, way down, in order to at least shut up the righteous half wits who thought bush was second coming, so must our self justifying ciulture. The mass media reflect something deeeply flawed in our collective spirit. We murder like punks. and punks belong in jail, getting the broom handle. Like alot of those on the sidelines, it's hard not to feel anxious knowing the agonizing pain will be felt by the least deserving of it, but.....it's mind boggling to care anymore, so don't

[Birthmark]

55. Cheer up.

It's not too late. Neither Clinton nor Obama can win the nomination without superdelegates at this point. There's still a tiny window of opportunity.

[Rex_Goodheart]

60. Well, if Hillary creams Obama in PA and NJ

we'll know for sure about the Wright revelations. At that point, the superdelegates will have party causes to consider.

[Smarmie Doofus]

73. K and R. Identity politics is a seductive phenomenon.

Realism is a better place to start, however.

[VeraAgnes]

75. This Primary season

has the flair for the dramatic..
dysfunctional for the Democratic Party.

[barack the house]

81. Barack will do fine he half white so sane people will see the smear.

[gaspee]

92. WTF?

Are you trying to say. IS there a message inside that gibberish?

[barack the house]

82. Barack will do fine he half white so sane people will see the smear.

[gordianot]

88. Most probably correct, it is screwed up FUBAR.

[LaurenG]

93. Edwards was out before Ohio ever had a chance

So a small portion of the country chose for us.

We have to work with the cards that we're dealt. Thankfully this isn't over yet though I admit I am very worried about the division in the democratic party.

[Jamastiene]

96. WE ARE SCREWN!111!!!

Uh, I mean that in the most sincerest way possible. We really are so fucking screwed now. The Democratic Party does NOT want to win this year's presidential election, obviously. Think about it people, for 2.2 seconds. When was the last time we had either a black or a woman president? It ain't happening this year either. This country is sooo not ready. Say hello to President McCain. Edwards would have had the intestinal fortitude and the policies to fucking stomp Bomb Bomb Iran's ass, yet nada.

We TRULY ARE screwn!11!!1!

And the worst part of it is...
WE DID IT TO OURSELVES! We have NO ONE to BLAME but OURSELVES for this shit.

[LaurenG]

99. J I have been feeling the same

Plus, even we can't get our act together on this tiny piece of the Universe.

I will cry my eyes out if McCain wins because it means the majority of the nation are still selfish a**holes. It means that no matter what we think we deserve the majority of the country thinks 100 more years of war and bush economics/tax cuts/ health care, corporate welfare/ Nafta etc. are good for us!

I don't think it's quite over yet and I still feel that a democratic win is possible, I just think we're running out of time very quickly. We are going to have to row this boat together and start now.

[susankh4]

98. John only suspended his campaign....

Let's call him back!

[KoKo]

126. Gore & Edwards! WINNERS!!!!!

[gulliver]

101. It's better than the last one.

This election, the super delegates get a say. That is a cause for great optimism. They are much more reliable than voters in this unfortunate contraption we call a primary process.

[ScreamingMeemie]

106. Yes. Yes we did. We lost a lot of good democratic voters this cycle.

In 2006 I didn't vote for a senator who voted for war... In 2008 I will be keeping my contributions and my campaigning local, and avoiding the polls. It is a joke for me to hold my nose anymore. It is time to speak out for real representation and neither one of these yahoos is real. I won't vote for that which I don't believe in anymore.

[Beregond2]

107. Screwed?

You think they wouldn't be throwing mud at Edwards now? There has never been, and will never be, a candidate with no baggage. McCain has mountains of it, and is loathed by most of his own party. Stop being so melodramatic. Obama is going to be just fine.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

109. The Hairshirt wing of the party and posters here rejected him for house size and haircut

Nothing is too small for the sanctimonious to scream "Unworthy!"

Maybe late events have given a little perspective.

Edwards was the Populist, Edwards was the fighter, Edwards was the guy standing against the corporate takeover of the country. I too really mourn that he was ignored by the media and dissed by the uninformed. I'll bet a million bucks that if this thread goes on, someone will make a comment about his (gasp) BIG HOUSE!

[ShadowLiberal]

111. The long & negative primary is what's murdering us this election

What's murdering our chances at the White house is having Obama and Hillary staying in it and throwing a bunch of negative attacks at each other.

Despite how some would like to pretend that such attacks make a candidate stronger, the fact is when someone from your own party throws an attack at you it's much harder for you to shake off then when someone of a different political party attacks you.

I've been convinced for over a year when Hillary had a huge lead that we were going to screw this up because of so many democrats arrogance and overconfidence that this election was in the bag already, by nominating Hillary with her 50% unfavorable rating, but now it's looking like if we pick either candidate left we're screwed unless one of them drops out ASAP and these attacks from within the party stop. That's why I was REALLY pissed off at the results of Texas, it tells the candidates "negative attacks work, so destroy your fellow democrats with negative attacks, forget about the fact that it'll benefit McCain in the long run".

[JoFerret]

116. The (tragic) audacity of (false) hope

.

[Tennessee Gal]

127. We had a broad field of experienced candidates.

We are left with the two most controversial.

We really know how to shoot ourselves in the foot.

I miss John Edwards.