WE Blog

He would not be a good choice for VP IMO. Two senators is not good. I think Obama will be better served with a Governor. (Not a slam at Edwards by the way)

Looks like BOTH races are now at two.

Edwards as AG - I like it!

Senate Repubes will never allow Edwards through as AG; they know he’ll investigate their sorry, corrupt, complicit assess and send ‘em all to jail.

Still, if the new Democratic Senate majority is large enough, and if they can beat back the corporate ‘Democrat Party’ wing (i.e. Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Dianna Feinstein) and get Dodd as Majority Leader, Democrats might have a shot at some Executive Branch appointments that could go a long way toward repairing the Repubicans’ damage to the Constitution.

CF2K - I’m not sure the Republicans can filibuster an AG nomination. If they do it would definitely be fun to watch.

I think an Edwards endorsement could be valuable - especially to Obama. He has that ‘edge’ that Obama lacks.

Jarak Obedwards :)

Yup AmWay, thanks for reposting.

Endorsements only matter when the Mass Media says that they matter.

Edwards a King Maker? (As in MLK II ?)

Maybe Edwards will be a Queen Maker.

Yes, by LOSING BIG, Edwards may be a BIG WINNER!

(The Eagle has landed in a pile of s-having cream!)

Max,

Yeah–and every time Rudy Giuliani lost a primary, it was GREAT NEWS for his candidacy. Just like every time Democrats win a victory, it’s GREAT NEWS for Repubicans.

Edwards as AG:

He could ‘channel’ previous AG’s perhaps . . . .

once and ambulance chaser, always an ambulance chaser.

The IRS takes checks AND money orders. You social liberal ready to fund your social entitlements? I mean YOU individually. Why don’t Y’ALL shell out the bucks?

Needless to say, this has been a morning with mixed feelings. I think we all knew this was coming (especially with the comment Obama made on Nightline last night).
I am getting ready to write my last e-mail to our loyal troops in Sedgwick County… that’s going to be hard.
I want to support Obama, but I need to get in touch with some policy people to know for sure where he is on my industry’s issues. All I keep getting are a bunch of kids who try to act like they’re big shots and don’t know their ass from a hole in the ground. That kind of crap won’t get you any PAC money.
With McCain the likely Republican nominee, this is more important than ever… if you believe in the First Amendment.

Well, this is odd.

Republic Party advocates are attacking John Edwards on the day he resigns from active campaigning? What’s that about?

So Edwards worked the American Dream into personal prosperity but doesn’t give away all his money to the homeless and choose to live under a bridge (like so many of George WMD Bush’s Iraq War casualties)?

What a strange attack against the American Dream. And it comes from the Republic Party?

Say hello to Bizzaro Lois, guys, once you get back to your home planet.

I hate to admit it, but after learning that “Nathan” would shoot anyone he thought might kill one of his dogs, I’ve gotta say it.

When I was in El Dorado yesterday at the Obama thing, I had time to scan the audience with the mindset of a Secret Service agent and wondered which loner, which disaffected audience-member might… just might… turn 2008 into 1968.

I wondered if someone such as “Nathan” were there, just after someone told him “Obama’s bus ran over your dog!”

I’m old enough to remember RFK’s run in 1968. And I’ve matured enough over the years to think that maybe, just perhaps, fewer American troops would have died if Hubert Humphrey might have edged out Dick Nixon, rather than the other way around.

But all of the will and passion and optimism and hope for America that was focused on Bobby Kennedy in 1968 was murdered. And the will and the passion and optimism and hope for America that seems to support Barrack Obama’s candidacy seems, potentially, just as vulnerable.

Hillary Clinton’s candidacy seems to me not all that unlike Hubert Humphrey’s late surge; even Nixon said if the 1968 election had been held a week later he would have lost it. And Republic Party advocates are so frenzied against (beyond any logic) anything Clintonian, even the asssured Democratic victory in November isn’t quite worth preferring Senator Clinton’s victory.

I hate that I observe among a subset of my fellow Americans that Barrack Obama might be a target of some rightwing nut’s assassination attempt. But I am part of the Reality-Based Community.

Journalists have wet dreams these days about a “brokered convention,” and this thread about John Edwards being the “kingmaker” is part of the problem.

If it’s Hillary vs. Barrack, I choose Obama. If it’s Obama vs. Edwards, I’d pick John. If it’s Clinton vs. John, I’ll go with Edwards.

It’s encouraging that the Romney/McCain/Huckabee people have much more difficult political algebra to solve.

“I hope Obama picks him for VP, and he agrees to it.”

Me too, capn, me too.

The IRS takes checks AND money orders. You WAR-HAWKS ready to fund your silly Iraq war? I mean YOU individually. Why don’t Y’ALL shell out the bucks?

My candidate wants our troops out as soon as transpo shows up. Y’all’s candidate? Thought I heard Hillary supporting the war. Thought I heard her say we need to stay.

Next?

MrC, I understand your frustration with the Obama folks. Young, idealists with no center of gravity in the “real” political world, not yet understanding (if they ever do) that regardless of anything else, when the money runs out or isn’t offered, it’s all over. While I have a great antipathy towards PACs and any other potential contributor to a campaign that cannot vote, I recognize that as the world is currently structured, one must deal with them. If Obama has any experienced folks on his team, they’ve got to step forward and take some control for him to go forward. I suspect that at this point, there’s a lot of OJT happening, OJT that better happens at the local then state level before leaping onto a national stage.

“ksfarmgrrl” offers –

“And you think his pandering to the wingnuts via Donnie McClurkin and Kirbyjon Cauldwell are just no problem?”

Nah. It’s a problem. But in the grand scheme of things it’s not a big problem.

It’s the old “politics makes for strange bedfellows” problem. For me, at least. I’m here to tell ya that gay rights is merely a philosphical issue for me; just like abortion rights. I’m not gay, I’ll never get pregnant, I’ll never fully appreciate the implications of either issue.

Yeah, I was put off by the Obama campaign’s embrace of McClurkin. And I’m not up to speed on Cauldwell. But in the grand scheme of things those alliances are about on the level of me being expected to reject JFK simply beacuse I think “Camelot” was a schmaltzy Broadway musical… that *promoted* Robert Goulet’s career!!!

As I approach my dotage, I seem to have devloped a sense of perspective. Yes, I think America would work better with John Edwards in the Oval Office. But I’ll accept how politics works — even its irrationalities — and look for someone who comes closest to my vision for America.

(If I had any political courage at all, I’d run for President myself. And so would you, “ksfarmgrrl,” and we could end up debating the issues on national TV and one of us would begin working on our inaugrual adress!)

Alas, most Americans are looking for a surrogate; someone who will spend a year in Iowa (horrors!) and trapse through New Hampshire and pander to the gawd-awful stuff that passes as Carolina barbeque…

No, we’re always gonna find someone who comes closest to what we want for America… or grumble that we’re left with “the lesser of two evils.”

Look, I don’t think life with John McCain as President would automatically be a disaster. I just don’t want to live in that country. I more or less think life in the United States with Mittens in the Oval Office would be an economic disaster. If Senator Clinton became President, I suspect political problems; probably not disaster, but a stalemate of progress given the Republic Party’s insane frenzy against anything Clintonian (and *that,* I’ve never quite figured out).

So here’s where I’m at: John Edwards is my Right-Brain Me; he sees injustice and he fights against it, he says stuff people don’t want to hear and he stands behind it, he fights the big battles against seemingly invincible foes and he tends to win them.

Barrack Obama is my Left-Brain Me: He’s on the right (correct, I mean) side of what America claims it is. We’re a nation of immigrants who’ve come together and fought any threat, faced any challenge, met every crisis, and ultimately achieved the possible (even when it seemed impossible).

We’re a pretty damned good accumulation of people, even when we disagree. We’ve got a damned good system of dealing with the problems our freedom presents us with.

Government isn’t our favorite thing, but most of us recognize it’s an important thing. For most of us religion is an important thing, but for more of us it’s not the only thing. Skin color is a thing — like, I’d crawl over a dozen Rosie O’Donnels just to get next to one Halle Berry — but it’s not the *only* thing.

So it gets down to what exactly are we gonna vote for in November.

For the past couple of decades, the Republic Party has thrived in leveraging all those things we *don’t* have in common.

Part of Barrack Obama’s appearance in El Dorado Tuesday drove home the fact that we *don’t* have all that much that’s *not* in common.

For example, I think the poster presently known as “Regular” is probably certifiably insane. But perhaps he and I could get into an interesting conversation about something non-political such as, say, the Infield Fly Rule.

Perhaps “Nathan” isn’t PTSD-victim I suspect him to be and we could sit down and discuss, in a civil manner, the plusses and the minuses of having a cat or a dog as a pet.

There’s a chance — not that I’m betting on it, mind you — that “econ101″ and I might like the same barbeque sauce.

I think McDonald’s “McRib” sandwich is a sin against barbeque and, thereby, a mortal sin against humanity.

But I can live with it. I don’t have to eat it and I can restrain my distain for those who buy it.

That’s kind of the way I approach most politics.

If the McRib sandwich cooks for you, solid. But don’t deny me my choice of a Big Mac. (Which, for the sake of explaining my analogy, I haven’t ordered for more than 20 years. It’s just a theoretical issue, mind you.)

It’s not always the “lesser of two evils.” Sometimes it’s the options at hand.

I’ll go to Wendy’s if there’s a Mickey Dee’s across the street. That’s just me.

But if all ya got it McDonald’s and Natasha’s House of Mad-Cow Brains, I might opt for the clown.

So now that we’ve winnowed the candidates down, “ksfarmgrrl,” just who are you advocating for President of the United States?

Listen to the reactions:

Clinton’s was the plastic, thanks-for-dropping-and-don’t-let-the-door-hit-you-int-the-ass speech.

Obama actually used the phrase “two Americas,”

Edwards had plenty of money in the bank, but the delegate count was in doubt. I think we know what’s really going on here.

Get it in writing, John.

And JR–if you think John Edwards will be singing “kumbaya” to the Republicans, I just have to laugh! The AG position is non-partisan. It won’t even come into play.

So: the former activist/current tool of Wall Street, or the dealmaker.

Think about it.

Correction: The AG position is supposed to be non-partisan.

Good point. But I still don’t think Obama could muzzle Edwards. Notice no endorsement has been made.

I see JR is complaining about Republicans again.

Not getting enough government money to pay for himself or his son’s healthcare.

And no time to look for work cause he has to blog all day.

Pardon the typos in the above post, but I’m tellin’ ya, if moneybutt had been in front of me, Ida punched his god damn patronizing lights out.

And btw? If Hillary were not in the race, I’d have voted for Edwards.

But it will be a DAMN cold day in hell before I EVER support obama for bigot in chief. Nice of him to parse his words so carefully AFTER he gave McClurkin the stage.

Dr. King must be rolling in his grave to see obama pit one group against another like this. I know his wife is. She supported us.

“ksfarmgrrl” –

I’ve gotta admit I guess I just don’t get it.

If gender politics were the only issue, I certainly could attack John Edwards’ honest ambivolence toward same-gender marriage. I’d appreciate Elizabeth Edwards’ more receptive opinion and maybe give the Edwards candidacy the benefit of the doubt… *IF* that were the only issue at hand.

Perhaps I haven’t kept up, “ksfarmgrrl,” but I’ve not tracked any other objection you have — other than gender rights — to Barrack Obama’s candidacy.

Just to help me catch up, as a personal favor, let me know what the deal is.

And I have to admit that prejudice against gender preference is purely an philisophical issue for me. I know plenty of people who are gay and it doesn’t make any difference to me than if they happen to be left-handed. When I hear about sexual-orientation discrimination, I’m usually surprised the issue even comes up. So I’m ignorant or unaware.

It’s so hard for me to even understand the bigotry involved — which, obviously is so personal for you, “ksfarmgrrl” — I may be the worst kind of ignorant.

I so strongly support same-gender marriage rights, or getting any religious trappings out of whatever civil law declares as “marriage”… I frankly don’t know what I can do more for the cause.

Tell me.

Better yet, tell me on what basis all the presidential candidates’ positions make you support whomever you’re supporting.

This is not confrontational. I really want to know your point-of-view. ‘Cause so far, it’s not clear to me.

Granted that of all three I would have rather seen Edwards get the nod, he is a Centrist and seems to have his head on straight. My mother was the most disappointed that Edwards has called it quits, she planned on voting for him. She just can not see a Republican worth voting for… BUT then I am educating her on Ron Paul.

John Edwards is just Bradley Pistotnick with a 400.00$ haircut. Good riddance

“J R” –

“You’re either with us or you’re against us” is George WMD Bush’s philosophy.

If you’d rather be ideologically pure than actually address the issues America faces, fine. Live on the fringes and feel morally superior to the rest of us.

But the rest of us — more importantly, the majority of the rest of us — are going to change things in America… even if some people come on board who’ve been badly mistaken about public policy due to the conservative-dominated mainstream media.

If they see the light and want to be involved with the now-obvious Reality-Based Community, fine.

As I said — and you have ignored — this new direction for America is based on attraction rather that attacks.

I’m a fighter by nature. I suspect anyone who’s read many or any posts on this forum realizes that. But there doesn’t seem to be any logic in continuing to fight after the battle has been won.

And it has, you know.

Don’t put my nic in quotes Monkeyhawk. I’m a known quantity here.

Or are you trying to marginalize me now too?

I don’t know about your Monkeyhawk, but I don’t bail on my friends to work with my enemies.

My FRIEND kfg is right to take you to task. Obama has said we should reach out to the religious right.

Why should we? Many on the religious right are abandoning the old hatreds and prejudices. They want to be stewards of the Earth and help us see that the least of us is best treated. Let’s let them reach out to us.

You owe kfg an apology is my take.

Just a brief note: I’ve been reading up, and will have a great deal to say about all this later.

I would note that a Clinton signed into the vile “Defense of Marriage” act, but Hillary did oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment. However, “she has only promised to scrap part 3 of DOMA – whereas Obama would repeal it entirely.”

http://www.beyondchron.org/articles/Why_Do_Gays_and_Latinos_Support_Hillary_Clinton__5295.html

That’s not to say I’m supporting Obama. But does anyone really believe Hillary will somehow be a great friend of the gay community?

Phantom–Polticians typically “suspend” their campaigns for unusual circumstances–such the opponent dying (e.g. John Ashcroft in Mo., or Norm Coleman in Minn.).

Or, perhaps, negotiations in a power-sharing agreement.

A “suspended” campaign can be re-activated. A novel thought perhaps. Didn’t do shit for Gary Hart, but that was wayyy different! :)

I have heard obama’s words regarding gays.

And I have seen his actions regarding gays in giving mcclurkin a bully pulpit to preach his crap.

So what am I do believe? What obama says? Or what he does?