Political commentators seem unsure about whether John Edwards’ departure benefits Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama more.
Charlie Cook of the Cook Political Report argues that it could go either way: “While one can plausibly argue that Edwards’ withdrawal may unite the anti-Clinton vote, one can also argue that Edwards’ overwhelmingly white bloc of supporters . . . might behave much as other white Democrats have done in the contests after Iowa, not vote for Obama. I don’t know which of those arguments will prevail.â€
58 Comments
They go to Ron Paul.
This Edwards voter goes for Senator Clinton.
Obama wants to work with Republicans. This suggests that, at heart, Obama IS a Republican.
Probably a 50/50 split unless of course Edwards issues an endorsement which could tilt them one way or another.
Depends if they are older white women or not.
Should it matter? Not “does” it matter, but “should.” If we were running our elections the way the Constitution tells us, the only thing that would matter would be what the Electors decided on Dec 15th.
I don’t look for Edwards to make an endorsement, hmmm- maybe he’ll be vp yet.
“overwhelmingly white bloc of supporters . . . might behave much as other white Democrats have done in the contests after Iowa, not vote for Obama.”
Gosh – they must all be racists.
—–
Yes, I know that’s an unfair assumption. No less unfair than the charge routinely bandied about that those who will not vote for Hillary oppose her because of her gender and “fear a strong woman,” or some other equally noxious and stupid assumption. Both, of course, are pure BS.
Can the left please get past gender and race?
Two camps – and not decided by race or gender:
Those who are pissed off enough to want a fight – to Clinton.
Those who are tied to wanting something new – to Obama.
Neither.
Edwards voters will go for McCain.
McCain, the designated liberal for the Republican side. :D
Well Regular,
Giuliani is out now, so that only leaves McCain to represent the Liberal Republicans.
Well Ben, I’d say it a little differently.
“Those who are pissed off enough to want a fight – to Clinton.” Yep.
Those who believe the republicans really will cooperate this time – to Obama.
Now who’s in the reality based community?
Oh yeah, one more.
Those who believe Lucy really WILL let them kick the football? to obama
I’d think about Ron Paul myself, pleefer, but I don’t vote. I don’t use a turn signal in turning lanes, either.
Pleefer – are you serious? Hahahaha!!!
Supporters of the most compassionate populist candidate are going to switch to the most ruthlessly fiscal conservative candidate we’ve seen in years?
Wow…I knew Ron Paul supporters were delusional, but jeez man.
Pleefer – are you serious?
I don’t think he was. Sardonism doesn’t translate well in text.
This Edwards organizer is deciding between McCain and Obama.
ghotiphaze – Thanks, you’re probably right.
Brent – I can see your dillemma. I think McCain is an okay guy in general, but as a fellow Edwards organizer, I think McCain is too hawkish and too conservative for my vote. Not that Obama is a pillar of progressive ideas either. Because of people like my friends and family back in Kansas, I think Hillary and Obama are both unelectable, so I think I am going to have to vote my conscience and write-in someone that I know will lose. If only we all did that, we wouldn’t have to settle for the lesser of two evils every 4 years.
“ksfarmgrrl” offers –
“…I’d say it a little differently.
“Those who are pissed off enough to want a fight – to Clinton.” Yep.
“Those who believe the republicans really will cooperate this time – to Obama.
“Now who’s in the reality based community?”
You want to fight the last war. You’re like those I call Maginot Line Democrats.
After that horrific trench war that ended on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month in 1918, the French set out to build themselves one damned impressive trench: the Maginot Line.
Problem is, they were prepared for the last war and a “Blitzkrieg” made the world’s greatest trench meaningless.
With a Democrat in the White House, all of Shrub’s veto politics is moot. Down the ticket, fillibuster politics can become moot if Democrats elect enough Senators.
As a matter of practical politics, the only candidate who might rally the Republic Party to yet another whisper-thin presidential election is Senator Clinton.
Even McCain’e *mother* says Republic Party voters should “hold their nose and vote” for her son! That’s not a candidacy that bodes well for coat tails.
Especially if Barrack Obama’s message that it’s not about blue states or red states but *United* States that matters.
“I think I am going to have to vote my conscience and write-in someone that I know will lose. If only we all did that, we wouldn’t have to settle for the lesser of two evils every 4 years.” Joey
————————————————–
You got that right.
Too many sheeple vote the way the Polls, the Media, and their Party tell them to vote.
How do we KNOW which candidate is most electable until The People vote? Do we always have to believe the Polls?
If you don’t have the courage of your convictions to vote your conscience in the Primary elections, then WHEN will you get the chance to vote for the candidate that best represents your views?
Edwards supporters turning to Paul might not be such a bad thing. Yes he is extremely fiscally conservative, but he is also a huge States’ Rights advocate. California wants to toughen its environmental standards? Bush said no. Paul says yes.
Follow that through. Instead of some low performance monolithic federally regulated health scam, let the States provide for their own. I’m sure that the States know what they need far better than the fed. Take for example this; a person living in Florida and earning $25,000 per year has a far different standard of living than a person with the same income in California. How is the Fed going to handle that? Let the states decide. The same goes for the rest of the social programs.
ghotiphaze –
“I’d think about Ron Paul myself, pleefer, but I don’t vote.”
Wow. The why are you writing at all? With all due respect: until you can at least show up on election day, you’ve sacrificed your bitching rights. Your comments on political/gov’t issues (in this society, that’s nearly everything, unfortunately) are hereby invalid (at least in my opinion). You’re irrelevent.
“Liberal Republicans.” haha. Yeah, right. There’s no such thing as even moderate Republicans anymore. Our whole political spectrum has taken an enormise step to the right. Hillary and Obama would have been considered moderate conservatives 25 years ago (which is what they really are).
And gee, what a coincidence, as conservative values have taken hold, our economy, national security, borders, jobs, morality, health, and international standing have all taken a nose dive.
Especially if Barrack Obama’s message that it’s not about blue states or red states but *United* States that matters.
———————————————-
Typcial Obama-like statement that sounds nice.
But what does it mean?
Obama is the perfect candidate for today. He’s a master of the eloquent sound bites that sound nice, but mean nothing.
Since the attention span of a dumbed-down voting populace is 60 seconds or less, Obama has the best chance.
Unless you pay attention to what he has DONE vs what he SAYS he will do.
http://votesmart.org/bio.php?can_id=9490
Obama on supporting the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Barack_Obama.htm#Gun_Control
Click here for 4 full quotes on Gun Control OR background on Gun Control.
Stop unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in cities. (Jul 2007)
Keep guns out of inner cities–but also problem of morality. (Oct 2006)
Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions. (Jul 1998)
Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)
Max-
As someone who lives in an inner city, I’d certainly like to see guns kept out of inner cities. My brother and a lot of my friends in KS are hunters and concealed weapons holders, but where I live (spent the past 5 years between Denver and Los Angeles), there aren’t many pheasants.
Yes Monkey Hawk, I’ve seen you use that ” Maginot Line Democrats” before. I get that it is your new favorite term.
So exactly how is obama going to stop the republicans? With a larger majority in both houses? That might be hard to do given how ineffective the democrats have been. Democrats should not take their majorities for granted. And if the current batch of democrats were not prepared to face down the shrubster, why did they run on that wonderful “change” platform in 2006?
They promised, and they didnt deliver. Hell, they didnt even KNOW they were going to be the majority in the senate until the election was over. But they still made some bold promises.
And failed to deliver.
No wonder I think the same will happen with obama. He’s big on promises, but little or no plans for delivering on such big words. Other than being “inspirational”. Heheheh. Being inspirational AND a quarter will get you coffee at Clelands.
No one has yet answered my question about HOW obama will keep the republicans in check. All I get are rants about Hillary. So if he isnt using the “Maginot Line” (big eye roll) what will he use? And please dont refer me to his website. I’ve been there. It tells what he is promising, not how he plans to achieve it.
And you still havent answered my question about his bigotry and willingness to throw one group of democrats under the bus to pander to another.
Would you still vote for him if he invited the nazi skinheads to Skokie, even though he doesnt agree with them, because “all points of view need to be heard”?
Cause make no mistake. Donnie mccloset is as noxious to the gay community as skinheads are to the Jewish community in Skokie.
Do you think he’d be the Illinois Senator if he’d been so willing to hear all points of view with them?
If it’s all about the numbers, then god help YOU monkey hawk if you are ever not a straight white christian male majority member.
Joey,
The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting.
I knew a couple who lived in LA during the Rodney King riots a few years back.
They sat inside their own home for several days, listening to the gunshots and riots outside.
They at least had a chance to defend themselves, as each had a handgun loaded and ready.
Yeah, not many pheasants in LA though.
joey –
1) I’m trying to find the “inner city exception” to the 2nd amendment – and damned if I can’t find it anywhere!!
2) even if desireable, just how do you propose doing same? Seaching everyone as they drive toward the “inner city?” Passing a law will be about as effective as those “no guns” signs in keeping the bad guys out – ask the folks in the last mall shooting how that worked.
3) Say this with me: the 2nd amendment is NOT about hunting!!
The Amazing Rhthym Aces had a song called “Pretty Words”. You should listen to it sometime. It’s how I feel about obama. I’ve heard his pretty words to my community. And then I’ve seen what he’s done.
Wonder which constituency of the democratic party will be the next victim of his “Pretty Words”?
CLINTON CULTURE OF CORRUPTION CAMPAIGN CONTINUES
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Just months after the Kazakh pact was finalized, Mr. Clinton’s charitable foundation received its own windfall: a $31.3 million donation from Mr. Giustra that had remained a secret until he acknowledged it last month.
The gift, combined with Mr. Giustra’s more recent and public pledge to give the William J. Clinton Foundation an additional $100 million, secured Mr. Giustra a place in Mr. Clinton’s inner circle, an exclusive club of wealthy entrepreneurs in which friendship with the former president has its privileges.
Max-
I understand where you’re coming from, and I respect your commitment to the Constitution.
I just can’t help imagining what it would be like if there hadn’t been any gunshots for your friends to hear…
Joey,
How do you propose to eliminate the sound of gun shots?
Funny how max is so obviously silent when the words “Jack Abramhof” are mentioned…
#
Max
Posted January 31, 2008 at 11:49 am | Permalink
Joey,
How do you propose to eliminate the sound of gun shots?
——————
Laser cannons are where it’s at dude.
“Joey,
How do you propose to eliminate the sound of gun shots?”
Well, call me crazy, but I think if no one is discharging firearms, you probably aren’t going to hear any gun shots.
Joey,
How about we enforce the laws we have first? The bulk of gun crimes are committed by those with illegal guns. Get those guns cleaned up and your worries are (almost) solved.
Joey –
” but I think if no one is discharging firearms, you probably aren’t going to hear any gun shots.”
How do you propose doing, and enforcing, that? It’s a nice ideal, I suppose, but join us in the real world. Where bad people do bad things. And ignore the law.
Well Max, I appreciate that we can have an intelligent chat without resorting to name-calling or anything like that. My parents always told me that mutual respect is the best basis for a conversation. Anyway, my point is that I don’t believe in 2nd Amendment rights for drug dealers and murderers, and those folks have the majority of the firearms where I live. And personally, I’d rather make some attempt to disarm the criminals before I resort to arming myself. Having lived in rural Kansas, I can see your point of view. Maybe you could try to see mine, even if you disagree with it. I think keeping guns away from criminals should be important to responsible gun owners.
$131.3 MILLION to the Clinton’s from Mr. Giustra, the Rich, Corporate, Uranium Mine Owner!
(Big eeeeeevil corporate GIANT)
And many Libs here will want to ignore this article, or to attempt to deflect others away from this report.
Defend Clinton by attacking Republicans.
Great plan.
How many more times do you expect that plan to work?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
GMC70-
As I said, I live in L.A. You live in Kansas. Are you sure you want to start a discussion about the real world? Are you sure you want to start a discussion about the world where bad people do bad things? I think I know a little bit about the real world, that’s what scares me.
“I don’t believe in 2nd Amendment rights for drug dealers and murderers, and those folks have the majority of the firearms where I live. And personally, I’d rather make some attempt to disarm the criminals before I resort to arming myself.” Joey
I mostly agree with you Joey.
I believe in enforcing existing laws like the 20,000 laws on the books already.
Note, these laws ALREADY make it illegal for criminals (ie. drug dealers, murderers) to have guns.
So let’s DO take the guns away from the criminals.
Now here is where I disagree with you:
At the same time criminals are disarmed, continue to allow law-abiding citizens to keep their guns.
Why?
LA Riots for example.
You will NEVER take the guns away from 100% of the criminals out there.
Did you know that nationwide, only 50% of murder cases are solved?
That’s roughly 10,000 new murderers that stay on the loose every year!
To say I should not be allowed to defend myself with a gun, is to:
1)Deny me the natural right of self-defense.
2)Deny me the 2nd Amendment Constitutional right which Protects mankind’s ever-existing right to self-defense.
Note that the 2nd Amendment does not Grant the right to bear arms.
The 2nd Amendment says that the Existing “right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
And Max doesnt defend republicans by attacking the clintons? heh. Heheheh. HEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEH!
It’s Obama all the way baby!
Dike, Obama should be right up your alley.
“Now here is where I disagree with you:
At the same time criminals are disarmed, continue to allow law-abiding citizens to keep their guns.”
Well Max, I’ve never said anything like that we should not allow law-abiding citizens to keep their guns. I know some people have, but you shouldn’t assume that all big city liberals who favor gun control like myself want to take away guns from responsible owners like yourself. I don’t want big brother or big mother any more than anyone. Where we probably actually DO disagree is that, in general, I’d like to see less guns in the world. And that is ONLY because of GUN CRIMES AND ACCIDENTS (of which there are a lot in this country). For me, and a lot of other liberals, the real issue isn’t banning guns or some nonsense like that. What I’d like to see is:
1. Some sort of system that makes it so that violent criminals can’t buy guns or ammo. Period. The more convenient this system is for responsible owners the better.
2. A sane, sensible system for making it as difficult as possible to steal guns. Almost all school shootings happen when kids steal guns from their grandparents. I think it would help if there were rewards for people who use gun-lockers and trigger locks, etc. And if you leave your guns laying around and someone steals them and goes on a rampage, you should be expected to take some sort of responsiblity for that.
joey –
“I live in L.A. You live in Kansas. Are you sure you want to start a discussion about the real world?”
That’s the kind of smug BS which makes me glad I live here and not there. P-lease. Don’t pretend that you “know” about the real world, and all those “ol’ hicks in the sticks” couldn’t possibly understand a thing. The only thing you’ve displayed with that statement, with all due respect, is your short-sighted arrogance and naivete. People are people, they never change.
We all understand the real world just fine, thanks.
Now – I suspect we’re not too far apart. But let’s talk about it from where you live.
The criminals and drug dealers shouldn’t have guns. True enough. But the law bars them from having guns NOW; and remember, they’re criminals. The don’t obey laws. The gun laws in LA are far more draconian than in most parts of the country – how’s that working out? Do the bad guys have guns? Yes, you’ve just admitted same.
DC has a complete ban – and one of the highest gun crime rates in the country. How’s that working out?
Passing laws banning guns, then, disarms just who? The law-abiding citizen, who is not a threat. That puts the criminal, who IS a threat and doesn’t obey the law anyway, in a better position. He’s now armed, against a populace which is not. Lambs for the slaughter.
All of us are for keeping the guns out of the hands of criminals. And the laws, if obeyed, do that. The problem, of course, is criminals don’t obey laws. Thus, you can no more make those guns go away, unfortunately, than you can make the sun rise in the west.
Additional laws banning guns, then, only disarm the citizen who is not a threat, and serves only the interest of the criminal and the gov’t (and that may be redundant) who seeks to make, or keep, its citizens powerless and dependant, thus enhancing it’s own power.
Plus – would you point out that “inner city exception” to the 2nd amendment? I can’t find it anywhere . . .
The law abiding gun owner is not your enemy. The criminal is. And in the long run, the State is a greater threat to liberty than the criminal. Beware those who want to take things away from you “for your own good.”
Remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Who, in those seconds, is responsible for your safety?
“ksfarmgrrl” offers –
“Would you still vote for him if he invited the nazi skinheads to Skokie, even though he doesnt agree with them, because “all points of view need to be heard”?
And, golly. Where did that come from?!
Do you really equate Shrub’s veto politics with the dynamics of legislation that are likely to occur with any Democrat in the Oval Office?!
And, golly. Where did that come from?!
She’s talking about the McClurkin stunt. Basically, the equivalent giving a platform to a Nazi, then reaffirming your longstanding commitment to the Jewish community.
Ya know, kinda like Kerry voting against the “Defense of Marriage” act (one of 12 senators), then breaking with the entire Massachusetts delegating in 2004 to oppose gay marrriage.
1964, folks, 1964. :(
. . . without the Civil Rights Act!
GMC70-
Sorry if my comment came off as smug. I understand why you would take it that way, I didn’t mean to be rude and I know that it doesn’t help advance the topic anyway. I apologize. My point is that there is a reason that a lot of people in big cities have different attitudes about guns than people in rural areas and not so big cities. I grew up in Kansas, went to school in Denver and now live in L.A., so I can easily have sympathy for many of those attitudes. I never said there is an “inner city exception” to the Second Amendment, nor should there be. Cities with populations the size of L.A. or New York didn’t exist in America at the time of the writing of the Constitution, and they carry their own unique challenges to issues like gun control. You could say the same thing about machine guns!
“The law abiding gun owner is not your enemy. The criminal is.” GMC70
And I would add to that:
The “gun” is not your enemy either.
From the US Marines:
This is my rifle. There are many like it, but this one is mine. My rifle is my best friend. It is my life. 1 must master it as I master my life. I will learn it as a brother. I will ever guard it against the ravages of weather and damage. I will keep my rifle clean and ready, even as lam clean and ready My rifle and myself are the defenders of my country … So be it, until victory is America’s and there is no enemy but peace.
BTW, regarding the discussion of “fight” vs. “change”. . .uhm, right. Give me a break. Simple-minded bullshit.
Maybe Hillary’s really different from “Billary,” but her record suggests otherwise. The politics are quite different from 1992, which might free her up a bit . .. but will the DLC care?
And I’m not really sure what I’m going to do. Sorry, Sol, but 10% Ron ’s not an option on Feb. 5.
And quite frankly, any Edwards supporter who would go to McCain wasn’t really paying attention in the first place.
joey –
Apology accepted – forget it. We probably have our own type of “smug” here.
That NYC didn’t exist, or LA, in the 1790s is irrelevent; cities certainly did exist. And I’m certain they faced exactly the kinds of issues that cities today face – people crammed into small places, crime, poverty, addiction. And anytime there is reached a certain population density, there seems to be more violence; it appears to be the way we are as a species. People haven’t changed since the beginning of time, and they never will, this side of heaven.
Neither have the purposes of the 2nd amendment changed – to protect life, an inalienable right, and to hold, ultimately, the State in check and accountable. We very much hope we never have to actually use a firearm for either purpose, but the “keep and bear” of the 2nd amendment reduces the likelihood of having to do so. Those who would threaten me or my family, or a state which would abuse its powers, must know in the back of the mind that those they prey may be armed and may resist. That is a valuable deterrent, in both cases. It’s not a perfect deterrent, of course, no deterrent is. But we’ve seen the results without that deterrent. Britian’s banning of firearms has resulted in a rise in gun crimes and “hot” burglaries. And without doubt, the greatest mass killers of our fellow man are governments, invariably their own subjects who have been disarmed. Arms are in part the difference between being a citizen and a subject.
No, I’m not preaching revolution; far from it. We’re not anywhere that point, the silliness of the cries of of “fascism” & “BusHitler” from the nutroots of the left notwithstanding. But I have no illusions that same cannot happen here; it can.
I’ve never taken a life and I pray I never have to. But to protect that which is dear to me, I must be prepared to do so, should it be necessary.
And I’ll leave it at that. Have a good evening, sir.
BTW – I note that Kansas got a “7″ out of a possible “100″ on the Brady Campaign’s state by state scorecard, placing I think 37th or so among the states. And joey, California came in 1st, with a “79,” I think (I’m operating from memory here).
Feel safer there on the left coast yet?
That’s not good enough, Kansas – let’s ’shoot’ for a big old ZERO next time!!!
Thanks Rage. Monkey, as I have noted before, prefers to be deliberately obtuse on this issue.
And he refuses to answer the questions. I’ve posed.
Feigning ignorance does not become you monkey.
Unless, maybe you are not feigning?
I’ve also noted before that I dont think Hillary is perfect. DLC and all.
But.. She STILL hasnt thrown one part of democratic party under the bus for another.
Obama? Not so much. He counted the numbers and decided one of the Democrats’ longtime constituencies was not as important as another.
And they think HILLARY is calculating?
hehehehehehehheheehheehehehehehehhe….
I understand your frustration too Rage. Dennis was my man. But he makes way too much sense to ever be annointed by the DLC.
And another thing in Hillary’s favor?
She’s not playing coy about having governor leadership on the ticket. To quote a pundit, HA!
“And quite frankly, any Edwards supporter who would go to McCain wasn’t really paying attention in the first place.”
RAMEN!
Brent:
As one of the Edwards coordinators in Kansas, I would consider ANYONE who supported my guy, then deserted to McCain to be a traitor of the worst kind.
The man is two-faced and conservative and Repugnican as the rest.
John Edwards fought for my industry. John McCain fights for those who want to destroy it.
Think again, sir. Think again.
One Trackback
Eric…
Cool post. 100% great content everytime. Thanks for sharing….