Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditDUBUQUE, Iowa -- The final Des Moines Register poll before Iowa's first-in-the-nation Democratic presidential caucuses has Barack Obama maintaining the lead the Illinois senator has enjoyed since early December.
But New York Senator Hillary Clinton, still the leader in national surveys, and former North Carolina Senator John Edwards, who has muscled his way back into competition with a determined populist appeal, are both within striking distance of Obama as Thursday's caucuses approach. And Clinton and Edwards retain what could yet be decisive strengths among the most likely caucus goers.
That makes Obama's lead significant if somewhat uncertain, as the complex caucus process -- in which votes shift at the last minute as supporters of candidates realign on caucus night -- is virtually impossible to poll with the accuracy Americans have come to expect of surveys released shortly before actual elections.
For instance, the final Des Moines Register survey before the 2004 Democratic caucuses had just eight points separating front-runner John Kerry, at 26 percent, from former House Speaker Dick Gephardt, at 18 percent. When the caucuses came, Kerry got 37.6 percent of the votes while Gephardt had just 10.6 -- a 27 point difference. (Edwards and Howard Dean were in between them in the Register poll and the final results.)
Gephardt, who supporters claimed on the eve of the caucuses had organization strength that would translate into a strong showing, quit the race after the results were tallied.
With that essential proviso, here are the just-released numbers from the Register's pollster:
Obama: 32%
Clinton: 25%
Edwards: 24%
Bill Richardson: 6%
Joe Biden: 4%
Chris Dodd: 2%
Dennis Kucinich: 1%
Uncommitted: 6%
That's just the poll's top-line. What may be more intriguing are the survey's demographic details.
For instance, most of Obama's lead comes from young voters who are considered less likely to show up for the caucuses. Among voters aged 18-to-34, Obama's got 56 percent to 18 percent for Edwards and 11 percent for Clinton.
Among voters over 55, who historically turn out in the heaviest numbers on caucus night, Edwards rises to 30 percent, as does Clinton, while Obama drops to just 22 percent.
Among self-identified independents, who can caucus but are less likely to do so than committed partisans, Obama is way ahead: with 39 percent to 24 percent for Edwards and just 15 percent for Clinton.
But among self-identified Democrats, the steadiest caucus-goers, Clinton's out front with 33 percent to 27 percent for Obama and 25 percent for Edwards.
Add it all up and then throw in the weather factor -- snow on Monday night forced Clinton to cancel her big "New Year, New Beginnings" rally in Waterloo; but caucus night should be clear and not too cold -- and you get what we have had for weeks: a close, uncertain race that will be decided by who turns out.
If Obama gets his young and independent supporters to the caucuses, if they master the arcane rules and if they stick out what can be a two-hour long process, the Illinois senator will win.
If more traditional caucus-goers dominate, the night could yet belong to Clinton or Edwards.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
BARAK OPRAHMA...
Da Man!
Posted by w_m_bear at 01/01/2008 @ 01:47am
Jeez, can you hear the desperation of Mr. Nichols? He is hoping against hope that the status quo is maintained, and that Hillary pulls out the victory. Now is the time of a great many former Clinton wannabees and hasbeens discontent. They want the good slop jobs so much that they have moved toward making sure that any good news for a candidate not named Hillary is roundly castigated.
Posted by kgrant at 01/01/2008 @ 02:12am
Best wishes to all in a new --and exceptionally profound-- year:
"Did they get you to trade
Your heroes for ghosts,
Hot ashes for trees,
Hot air for a cool breeze?
Cold comfort for change?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage?"
Pink Floyd
P.S. Save the planet, be progressive as hell.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/01/2008 @ 02:19am
Obama will win because he is the best progressive presidential candidate the Democratic party has had since Bobby Kennedy.
Posted by Metteyya at 01/01/2008 @ 02:30am
LURA SAYS EDWARDS WINS! [tarotpalmreading.com]
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/01/2008 @ 04:13am
Jeez, can you hear the desperation of Mr. Nichols? He is hoping against hope that the status quo is maintained...---Posted by KGRANT 01/01/2008 @ 02:12am
Uh...no.
Who are you and what John Nichols have YOU been reading the last several months? You could probably make a case that he's an Edwards's supporter...a few articles might make him a "Hagel/Bloomberg Unity Ticket" supporter...possibly favorable to Obama...
but a Hillary supporter?!?!?!?
Posted by Mask at 01/01/2008 @ 08:54am
Thank you kgrant and mask for pointing out how anti-Obama Mr. Nichols is. I haven't read a reporter this cycle more apt to be among the naysayers. One thing about Obama, though, after every doubting article I read by Mr. Nichols, I see Barack or Michelle in an interview or hear them speak and I'm reminded why there should be no doubt whatsoever that if anybody has a bit of sense, he'll be the next president. My mom watched Michelle Obama on C=span last night (this is a woman who normally watches Nancy Grace and Bill O'Reilly) and decided after watching the entire address for about 30 minutes that she had been inspired to vote for Obama. If they can convince my mom to vote for them this election is going to be a watershed. I'm praying it will be.
Posted by martincaver at 01/01/2008 @ 09:37am
Thank you kgrant and mask for pointing out how anti-Obama Mr. Nichols is.----Posted by MARTINCAVER 01/01/2008 @ 09:37am
Again, bit of reading comprehension problem. I wasn't pointing out that Mr Nichols is "anti-Obama". He's likely pro-Edwards, but hasn't attacked Obama anymore than KGRANT thinks he's "pro-Hillary".
I think "The Nation" writers would be relatively pleased with Edwards (at first), relieved with Obama (again, at first), and choking down their vurps (vomit burps...really hate those, don't you?) if it's Her Majesty.
Posted by Mask at 01/01/2008 @ 10:13am
Note to the Barack "Oprahma" (thanks mr. bear ;-) supporters and other assorted fantasy-landers:
Paul Krugman @ NY Times
excerpt:
Yesterday The Times published a highly informative chart laying out the positions of the presidential candidates on major issues. It was, I'd argue, a useful reality check for those who believe that the next president can somehow usher in a new era of bipartisan cooperation.
For what the chart made clear was the extent to which Democrats and Republicans live in separate moral and intellectual universes.......
To see the extent to which Republican politicians still cower before the power of movement conservatism, consider the sad case of John McCain.
Mr. McCain's lingering reputation as a maverick straight talker comes largely from his opposition to the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, which he said at the time were too big and too skewed to the rich. Those objections would seem to have even more force now, with America facing the costs of an expensive war -- which Mr. McCain fervently supports -- and with income inequality reaching new heights.
But Mr. McCain now says that he supports making the Bush tax cuts permanent. Not only that: he's become a convert to crude supply-side economics, claiming that cutting taxes actually increases revenues. That's an assertion even Bush administration officials concede is false.............
So what does the conversion of Mr. McCain into an avowed believer in voodoo economics -- and the comparable conversions of Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani -- tell us? That bitter partisanship and political polarization aren't going away anytime soon.
There's a fantasy, widely held inside the Beltway, that men and women of good will from both parties can be brought together to hammer out bipartisan solutions to the nation's problems.
If such a thing were possible, Mr. McCain, Mr. Romney and Mr. Giuliani -- a self-proclaimed maverick, the former governor of a liberal state and the former mayor of an equally liberal city -- would seem like the kind of men Democrats could deal with. (O.K., maybe not Mr. Giuliani.) In fact, however, it's not possible, not given the nature of today's Republican Party, which has turned men like Mr. McCain and Mr. Romney into hard-line ideologues. On economics, and on much else, there is no common ground between the parties.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/01/2008 @ 11:06am
Thank you kgrant and mask for pointing out how anti-Obama Mr. Nichols is. I haven't read a reporter this cycle more apt to be among the naysayers. One thing about Obama, though, after every doubting article I read by Mr. Nichols, I see Barack or Michelle in an interview or hear them speak and I'm reminded why there should be no doubt whatsoever that if anybody has a bit of sense, he'll be the next president.
~Martin Caver
There you have it.
The Caver endorsement.
Does anyone need another reason to NOT vote for Obama?
--For more insights from "the Caver", see his frothing mouthed anti-John Edwards rants.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/01/2008 @ 11:35am
Posted by B_KOOL_66 01/01/2008 @ 11:06am
BKool,
You are obviously having a hard time understanding the difference between [trans]-partisanship and [bi]-partisanship.
Trans-partisanship is when you keep your progressive ideals and core values, like Obama, but recast these ideals in terms that are appealing to the opposition.
Bi-partisanship is when you sacrifice progressive ideals for personal ambition or expediency, like Edwards and Clinton, and vote with the DLC-Republican alliance.
I know you don't like me repeating this, MASK, but BKool's post makes it clear that some progressives are having a hard time with this "transpartisan/bipartisan thing", so here is Obama again in his own words "prior to" the election:
I do think a broader question remains on the table. What is the best strategy for building majority support for a progressive agenda, and for reversing the rightward drift of this country?
One important part of that strategy - and on this I think we agree - is for progressives within the Democratic Party to describe our core values (e.g. racial justice, civil liberties, opportunity for the many, and not just the few) in clear, unambiguous terms.
A second part of that strategy - and again, I think we agree here - is to stake out clear positions on issues that put those values into action (e.g. the need for universal health care), and to stand up for those values when they are under assault (e.g. opposition to the Patriot Act).
But the third part of this part of the equation – and on this we may disagree – must be to gain converts to our positions. My job, as a candidate for the U.S. Senate, isn't to scold people for their lack of ideological purity. It's to persuade as many people as I can, across the ideological spectrum, that my vision of the future is compatible with their values, and can make their lives a little bit better. Thus, while I may favor common-sense gun control laws, that doesn't keep me from reaching out to NRA members who are worried about their lack of health insurance. I favor affirmative action, but I'm still going after the votes of white union members who oppose affirmative action, because I think I can convince them that it's Bush's economic agenda, and not affirmative action, that is eroding their job security and stagnating their wages. And while I may object to the misogyny and materialism of much of rap culture, I'm still going to spend the time reaching out to a hip-hop generation in search of a future.
In other words, I believe that politics in any democracy is a game of addition, not subtraction. And I believe deeply enough in the decency of the American people to think that progressives can build a winning majority in this country, so long as we're not afraid to speak the truth, and so long as we don't write off big chunks of the electorate just because they don't agree with us on every issue.
All of which explains why I'm not likely to launch blanket denunciations of the DLC or any other faction within the Democratic Party. I intend to engage DLC members, just like I intend to engage everybody else that I can during the next year of campaigning, in a conversation about the direction our country needs to take to give ordinary working families a fair shake. In some instances, I may even agree with DLC positions: their insistence on the value of national service, or the need to harden domestic targets like chemical plants from potential terrorist attack, to cite a few examples I just pulled from the DLC web-site, make sense to me. Where I disagree with them – and, as we have already discussed, I disagree with them strongly on a lot of major issues - I intend to let them know, firmly and without equivocation, just why I think they are wrong.
To some, this approach may appear naïve; to others, it may appear that I'm headed down a path of dangerous compromise. All I can tell you is that in my twenty years as an organizer, civil rights lawyer, and state senator, I've always trusted my moral compass, and have thus far avoided compromising my core values for the sake of ambition or expedience.
http://www.blackcommentator.com/48/48_cover.html
Posted by Metteyya at 01/01/2008 @ 12:06pm
I'm sure most here are familiar with "Mama Warbucks" ( http://tinyurl.com/23emhw
So the choice is between two DLC-Republican candidates, one running as a DLC centrist (Clinton) and one pretending to be a progressive (Edwards), and Obama, who has been a progressive his whole life and who has the unique ability to communicate the progressive agenda so that it appeals to even the opposition.
Posted by Metteyya at 01/01/2008 @ 12:17pm
There's a fantasy, widely held inside the Beltway, that men and women of good will from both parties can be brought together to hammer out bipartisan solutions to the nation's problems.---Posted by B_KOOL_66 01/01/2008 @ 11:06am
So, Edwards is going to go in there from January 20, 2009 on...guns a'blazing, and TELL the Congress what they WILL do..."my way or the highway" Swayze in "Road House" style, huh?
Posted by Mask at 01/01/2008 @ 12:18pm
1. Trade with China (Bill Number: HR 4444)
Edwards: Yes Feingold: No
2. Travel Ban to Cuba (Bill Number: S 1234)
Edwards: Yes Feingold: No
3. Religious Symbols in Public Schools (Bill Number: S 254)
Edwards: Yes Feingold: No
4. Strengthen Penalties Against Juveniles (Bill Number: S 254)
Edwards: Yes Feingold: No
5. Closure of Unnecessary Military Bases (Bill Number: S 1059)
Edwards: No Feingold: Yes
6. Bush's No Child Left Behind (Bill Number: HR 1)
Edwards: Yes Feingold: No
7. Prescription Drug Benefit for Medicare (Bill Number: S 1)
Edwards: No Feingold: Yes
8. Military Force in Iraq (Bill Number: H J Res 114)
Edwards: Yes Feingold: No
9. Patriot Act (USA Patriot Act of 2001)
Edwards: Yes Feingold: No
See this also--> http://tinyurl.com/23emhw
Posted by Metteyya at 01/01/2008 @ 12:19pm
Posted by METTEYYA 01/01/2008 @ 12:06pm
It's not that I "don't like it", METT. It's that you're apparently MUCH more limited in your scope of Cut & Pastes than even RESE....but just as predictable. (See: "Edwards Adviser Says Obama's Iowa Program in 'Deep Shit'")
Posted by Mask at 01/01/2008 @ 12:19pm
BTW, METTE....
if Obama loses Iowa, will you blame it on the "Jews who run the Media" for going after him???
heheh
Posted by Mask at 01/01/2008 @ 12:20pm
Posted by MASK 01/01/2008 @ 12:20pm
I think a lot of Jews like Obama. They recognize that he is a true progressive but is not dumb to the dangers of terrorism. They know he is committed to protecting Israel against a military attack, and has the political skill and broad appeal to finally bring about Middle East peace, which would help reduce anti-Jew sentiment around the world.
Like I have said before, I wish Obama were more anti-AIPAC, but I understand that this is an election year and AIPAC still drives the bus with their individual donor campaign contributions to the Democratic party.
Posted by Metteyya at 01/01/2008 @ 12:33pm
Haha, thanks for reading, B_Kool. You're awesome!
Posted by martincaver at 01/01/2008 @ 12:43pm
Posted by METTEYYA 01/01/2008 @ 12:33pm
Yep, I heard that Barack can...bend steel in his bare hands, change the course of mighty rivers, is more powerful than a locomotive, can leap tall buildings in a single bound...and fights a never-ending battle for truth, justice, and the American way!
I know cuz he told me in a speech two years ago....LOL!
Posted by Mask at 01/01/2008 @ 12:56pm
So, Edwards is going to go in there from January 20, 2009 on...guns a'blazing, and TELL the Congress what they WILL do..."my way or the highway" Swayze in "Road House" style, huh?
~Maskot @ 12:18pm
Hardly, Maskot. But he has the rare ability --that of a very successful trial lawyer-- to speak directly to the American people and persuade them of the necessary course for a nation that is, in some important respects, at war with itself.
If he is successful in his efforts, the congress is placed in the position of feeling pinched by public opinion to actually pass critical legislation. Combine this with the reports relayed by Paul Krugman and others that a progressive candidacy will likely have a coattails effect of sweeping into office a more progressive congress, and I like Edwards' odds even better.
But I don't expect you to agree with me, Maskot. After all, you are a sort of prototypical "anti-American" in your unabashed devotion to the "can't do" spirit.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/01/2008 @ 1:15pm
Haha, thanks for reading, B_Kool. You're awesome!
~The Caver @ 12:43pm
A round of drinks is on me. You rock, dude ;-)
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/01/2008 @ 1:18pm
But he has the rare ability --that of a very successful trial lawyer-- to speak directly to the American people and persuade them of the necessary course for a nation that is, in some important respects, at war with itself.
You forgot the part about slick successful lawyers speaking out of both sides of their mouth and their unique ability to say ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING if they think it will help them win!
Edwards SAYS he is anti-corporate, but then VOTES for trade with China. Edwards says he is against the oil companies and defense companies and for protecting those in poverty, but then INVESTS IN oil stocks, defense stocks, and subprime lenders that prey on the poor.
Who was it that said, "It is not what a man says that defines him, it is what he does that tells you where he really stands."
Posted by Metteyya at 01/01/2008 @ 1:28pm
Metteyya, here's a pertinent response from another thread:
b kool, if Edwards gets the nomination, you better practice a phrase for the General Election next fall....
"Well, he HAS to say that, but watch he'll govern as a progressive once he's elected..."
~Maskot @ 12:22pm
That's a chance I'll gladly take, Maskot. In a heartbeat in fact. Only a fool runs on a vigorous platform of progressive principles, and then backs down at the critical moment.
I don't see John Edwards as a fool, whatever one may think of him.
~b_kool @ 1:33pm
So Metteyya, I repeat what I've said to you before: That junk you call a lay-up just got slapped unceremoniously back in your face, punk.
Or should I call you "cyberpunk" in honor of your programmer?
You failed the Turing test a long time ago, looping wonder.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/01/2008 @ 1:41pm
If he is successful in his efforts, the congress is placed in the position of feeling pinched by public opinion to actually pass critical legislation. -----Posted by B_KOOL_66 01/01/2008 @ 1:15pm
Can he see through walls and fly faster than a speeding bullet?
If so, we may have a contest here between super-heroes!
Seriously, B_KOOL, who was the LAST guy who pulled that off? Roosevelt (with 20% unemployment)? Johnson (with a martyred JFK to give him the moral and POLITICAL capital)?
And that's of course suggesting that "Primary" John Edwards the "Fighting Progressive"...is going to be "General Election" John Edwards.
So, betting man time, which is more likely? That John Edwards runs and is elected and mandated on the "progressive" agenda that he's espousing in Iowa, New Hampshire (to "run Left" on Hillary and Obama...the ONLY place he CAN run)...and he strong-arms the Congress with the "bully pulpit" into passing it, no "watering-down"...no compromises...no "hold off on THAT part until after the 2010 Mid-terms"...
or that Edwards if he gets the nomination, "pulls back a bit" from his present stances and....gasp!..."moves to the Center" to run in the General Election AND (as I said) that his die-hards (like yourself) start saying "Oh, he just SOUNDS more moderate to win in places like Florida and Pennsylvania...you just wait, once he wins in November...he'll be the same 'Fighter for the Little Guy' John we saw back in Iowa and New Hampshire!"?
Posted by Mask at 01/01/2008 @ 1:47pm
Only a fool runs on a vigorous platform of progressive principles, and then backs down at the critical moment.
I don't see John Edwards as a fool, whatever one may think of him.----Posted by B_KOOL_66 01/01/2008 @ 1:41pm
You, uh, don't mind if I save that for September-October 2008, do you?
heheh
Posted by Mask at 01/01/2008 @ 1:49pm
Just wait and see, Mr. Can't Do.
I'll gladly eat my words if he "goes all centrist and shit".
I think the mood of the country as whole has changed --and economics are likely to play an increasingly important role as the subprime crisis hits full stride.
I agree with many prognosticators that '08 is likely to be a very rocky year economically.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/01/2008 @ 1:53pm
I don't see John Edwards as a fool, whatever one may think of him.
I think POLITICAL FRAUD is the best description, and the only fool is the one who falls for Edward's phony "just-in-time-for-the-election" progressiveness!
Posted by Metteyya at 01/01/2008 @ 1:54pm
You, uh, don't mind if I save that for September-October 2008, do you?
heheh
~Maskot @ 1:49pm
Save away, Mr. Can't Do ;-)
Save away.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/01/2008 @ 1:55pm
I think POLITICAL FRAUD is the best description, and the only fool is the one who falls for Edward's phony "just-in-time-for-the-election" progressiveness!
~Meta-man @ 1:54pm
I think INTELLECTUAL FRAUD is the best description, and the only fool is the one who listens to an internet meme created by a pimply faced "cyberpunk" programmer.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/01/2008 @ 2:00pm
Posted by METTEYYA 01/01/2008 @ 1:54pm Posted by B_KOOL_66 01/01/2008 @ 2:00pm
Okay, boys...moment of peace, huh?
I ASSUME that both of you are going to support the Democratic nominee no matter WHO they are....uh, right? METTE?...if it's Edwards? B_KOOL?...if it's Obama?
Both?...if it's Her Nibs?
Posted by Mask at 01/01/2008 @ 2:08pm
Posted by B_KOOL_66 01/01/2008 @ 2:00pm
Every time you get cornered BKool, you try to go "personal" with your attacks.
The reason why Edwards is now fading in the polls is because progressive Democrats are finally waking up to the fact that Edwards is "all talk" and is simply using the progressive voter in his personal ambition to be president.
When Edwards thought being a DLC centrist was the ticket to the White House when he was in the senate, he voted with the centrist DLC.
You have to admit BKool, that this pattern of Edwards jumping on to whatever part of the political spectrum that he thinks will help him advance is deeply troubling.
If Edwards really likes being a Republican and Republican behavior like voting with the centrist DLC in the senate, super-sized mansions, $400 haircuts, and investments in offshore hedge funds, oil stocks, defense stocks, and subprime lenders, why doesn't he just say "I am a Republican-lite candidate" like Hillary and let the chips fall where they fall?
I agree with MASK, that Edwards "calculated" three years ago that Obama would NOT be running so his only chance of getting the nomination was to "appear to be left of Hillary". This is dishonest, BKool, and you should be ashamed of supporting this fraud on the progressive voter.
Posted by Metteyya at 01/01/2008 @ 2:16pm
Posted by MASK 01/01/2008 @ 2:08pm
I don't know, MASK.
I certainly would be tempted to go with Cynthia McKinney of the Green Party, but a lot of that would depend on who the Republicans nominate and what sort of independent options emerge.
I do know we have to break this DLC-Republican conservative alliance, and neither Hillary or Edwards are capable of doing this.
Posted by Metteyya at 01/01/2008 @ 2:20pm
Every time you get cornered BKool, you try to go "personal" with your attacks.
~Meta-man
Uh, let me get this straight. You have consistently attacked, and attacked, and attacked, and attacked ad nauseum, the character of John Edwards on the thinnest of grounds while defending the supposed nice guy, Obama, who astute progressive voters are keenly aware is not what he is cracked up to be --in article after article on progressive muckraker sites like CounterPunch and Znet.
Can the tripe, boy wonder, smart shoppers don't buy garbage.
Or just keep prattling on with your void of any real content vapidity --suit yourself, human spam generator.
Just don't expect me to roll over and sit for your vacuous performance.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/01/2008 @ 2:29pm
I certainly would be tempted to go with Cynthia McKinney of the Green Party......
~Metteyya
You go, buddy. It's the first truly principled thing you've said in a long, long time.
A glitch in your program perhaps?
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/01/2008 @ 2:34pm
I assume that both of you are going to support the Democratic nominee no matter who they are....uh, right? Mette?...if it's Edwards? b_kool?...if it's Obama?
Both?...if it's Her Nibs?
~Maskot @ 2:08pm
Or how about Joe Pastrami, my local pizza delivery boy?
Way too early to speculate, Maskot.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/01/2008 @ 2:39pm
Posted by B_KOOL_66 01/01/2008 @ 2:29pm
Edwards' character should be attacked if his BEHAVIOR is inconsistent with his WORDS.
When he rants and raves about how he is going to fight the corporations and then we find out that he has been profiting from these very corporations that he rails against (http://tinyurl.com/23emhw), how could "anyone" believe him?
Instead of personal attacks on me, you should be trying to explain this rather odd and hypocritical behavior. For instance, answer the simple question: "What sort of progressive, who claims he is an anti-corporate hero and for protecting the poor, invests in and profits from oil stocks, defense stocks, and subprime lenders that prey on the poor?"
Answer this question, Bkool!
If you can't answer, and simply come back with "I'm going to stick by my man no matter what", I think the astute observer here knows that Edwards is really a phony and is simply trying to use us to climb the political ladder to satisfy his personal political ambitions.
Posted by Metteyya at 01/01/2008 @ 2:42pm
First....interesting.
Both of you guys SO enamored of your guy and disparaging of the other, that you won't agree to "come together after the in-family fight and do what it takes to beat the Republicans!".
So with the Religious Righties like LVLIB refusing to vote if it's that "Temple Mormon" Mitt....
So if we get Romney as the GOP nom...and EITHER Barack or John as the Dem nominee (of course, Hillary too)....
we might have a battle of whose turn-out is the LEAST bad deciding the next President of the United States!
heheh
Posted by Mask at 01/01/2008 @ 2:48pm
I agree with MASK, that Edwards "calculated" three years ago that Obama would NOT be running so his only chance of getting the nomination was to "appear to be left of Hillary". This is dishonest, BKool, and you should be ashamed of supporting this fraud on the progressive voter.----Posted by METTEYYA 01/01/2008 @ 2:16pm
Wait before you agree with me, METTE.....I didn't say exactly that.
Edwards had to "run Left" or "progressive" because he faced TWO "centrist" candidates. Sorry, but don't buy your "Obama is a 'secret' progressive, but you can tell if you use your secret decoder ring to translate his speeches" stuff.
If Obama were the "true progressive" candidate...Edwards would be dead and buried already...and Hillary would likely be up by 30%...but he's not. He's the "cute black guy centrist" fighting the "battleaxe b***h centrist"...and Edwards as the "cute white guy" had no place else to go but to the Left.
But Obama or Edwards...come Convention time next summer...BOTH will be sounding like Hillary does now...and if they win....BOTH will govern like she would (with some "tweaks").
Posted by Mask at 01/01/2008 @ 2:52pm
"What sort of progressive, who claims he is an anti-corporate hero and for protecting the poor, invests in and profits from oil stocks, defense stocks, and subprime lenders that prey on the poor?"
Answer this question, Bkool!
~Metteyya
No, you answer me weasel.
I want a precisely detailed --down to the penny-- documentation of all investments by both Obama and Edwards. This is a bullshit game, douchebag.
Anyone can selectively scrutinize the minutiae of a given person's investments and they will likely find plenty that could potentially be suspect.
Again, take your self-righteous snake oil stuffed suitcases, pack up your wobbly wagon and head for more gullible pastures.
The Nation mag readership is not a good market for worthless baubles.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/01/2008 @ 2:53pm
Both of you guys SO enamored of your guy
~Maskot
Wrong.
But that's your forte isn't it Maskot?
Mischaracterize someone's point of view and then "knock the stuffing out of their straw man".
I've said consistently, loudly and clearly that I support Edwards as the best choice among the realistic options we're now presented with. Period.
Stick to the facts, Jack.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/01/2008 @ 2:59pm
Posted by MASK 01/01/2008 @ 2:48pm
I guess if Giuliani got the nod, I would be forced to support whatever Democrat that was nominated.
I'm not sure I would do that if Romney was the Republican nominee, since I think he is doing the opposite of Edwards, in that he is more of a progressive Republican running as a conservative to get the nomination. He was very similar to Weld as governor of Massachusetts, and being governor of a liberal state requires even Republicans to be somewhat reasonable to get elected.
This does NOT mean I would vote for Romney (I can't trust flip-floppers), but I would be more inclined to throw the dice on the Greens or an independent if the Republican alternative was not that bad.
Posted by Metteyya at 01/01/2008 @ 3:03pm
Posted by B_KOOL_66 01/01/2008 @ 2:53pm
Both candidates have "public" disclosure of their investments.
You can find links to them both here:
http://tinyurl.com/23emhw
Obama appears to have "very conservative" investments, whereas Edwards is going "balls to the wall" with his investments, focusing on maximizing profit rather than socially responsible investing.
Posted by Metteyya at 01/01/2008 @ 3:07pm
Obama appears to have "very conservative" investments, whereas Edwards is going "balls to the wall" with his investments, focusing on maximizing profit rather than socially responsible investing.
~Metteyya @ 3:07pm
If your case is such a slam-dunk, give your bud, Obama, a buzz and tell him to publicize his stellar record versus Edwards' slimey one. It'd dovetail nicely with his disingenuous wolf-cries on the "unfair advantages" that Edwards and Clinton get from the 527's.
I'm sure your bud would love to hear from you.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/01/2008 @ 3:13pm
we might have a battle of whose turn-out is the LEAST bad deciding the next President of the United States!
heheh
Posted by MASK 01/01/2008 @ 2:48pm
same as it ever was....................
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/01/2008 @ 3:14pm
Posted by B_KOOL_66 01/01/2008 @ 2:59pm
B_, seems a lot of Obama attacks and "Way to early to speculate" on whether you'll support BO if he gets the nom....for simple "Edwards is the best of a realistic option"?!??!!?
And your little tiff with METTEYYA? More than just defending the "realistic option best".
Could it be you're to Edwards...as HE is to Obama...but you're smart enough to know how embarassing that sounds????
Posted by Mask at 01/01/2008 @ 3:26pm
Posted by METTEYYA 01/01/2008 @ 3:03pm
So if it's Romney for the Repubs, and Her Nibs or John-Boy for the Dems...you throw your vote away to the Greens, calmly assured that "Romney can't be THAT bad" and assured that HRC or Edwards are so bad they don't deserve your vote?!?!!??
Posted by Mask at 01/01/2008 @ 3:28pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/01/2008 @ 3:14pm
Well, what's fascinating about that is METTE and BKOOL's responses to the "Will you support the Other Guy if he gets the nom?" question.
Here are the Republicans (less Ron Paul) saying that they will essentially give us "more of the same"...and two "progressives" are so caught up in their own RIGID cult of personality, that they can't even say they will support their vile, evil opponent's guy...even if it means the Repub winning.
That's not even a "Hillary vs. Whoever" argument...but OBAMA and EDWARDS, neither a "open" DLC'er, but certainly better than "I'll DOUBLE what George Bush did" Republicans.
And yet, both think that "their guy" is going to not only unite DEMOCRATS (like they and their opponent), but unite the COUNTRY behind them on some wide-sweeping "bold, new agenda".
Is that logical?
Posted by Mask at 01/01/2008 @ 3:32pm
Posted by MASK 01/01/2008 @ 2:52pm
If you look at Obama's BEHAVIOR, he has done what progressives do his entire life. He didn't go the white-shoe corporate law route after Harvard Law School, and certainly could have; he went to the "rough" side of Chicago to become a community organizer, instead of working downtown at Sidley and Austin; he worked as a civil rights lawyer that did not make him the breadwinner in his family; he gets elected as a "progressive" state senator in Illinois and voted that way in the Illinois legislature; runs as a "progressive" US Senator and votes that way in the US Senate; he then runs for president as a "progressive".
When you contrast this with Edwards, I think it is clear who the progressive is: Edwards doesn't get any offers from white-shoe corporate law firms as a graduate of UNC, so decides to chase ambulances rather than doing public interest law; he clearly is the breadwinner in his family and his wife plays the traditional female role in the family; he becomes wealthy primarily by suing obstetricians by deceiving juries that cesarean births prevent birth defects and thereby driving up the cost of medical care for women; gets elected to the US Senate as a "centrist" and joins the DLC; he votes in the US Senate as a DLC centrist, and then runs for president and vice president as the "centrist Southerner" who is going to help the ticket with those blue-dog conservatives in the South; he then flip-flops and decides to run for president as a "progressive" after polls show voters turning against the war and a probable contest between him and centrist Hillary Clinton meant that he needed to run to the left of her.
Remember: "It is not what a man says that defines him, it is what he does that tells you where he really stands"
Posted by Metteyya at 01/01/2008 @ 3:33pm
Could it be you're to Edwards...as HE is to Obama...but you're smart enough to know how embarassing that sounds????
~Maskot @ 3:26pm
Suit yourself, Maskot. I'll let my arguments carry their own water. And John Edwards is pretty articulate in expounding his message.
He's spoken so much more candidly and honestly than his supposed rivals it's almost absurd to have to say anything in his defense. I do it only because the mainstream media and even The Nation have given him short shrift --bigtime.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/01/2008 @ 3:34pm
Okay, guys....here's where the magician reveals how the trick works....
1. METTEYYA....Can we assume that if Edwards is ELECTED, you'll support his agenda whole-heartedly, man phone banks, write your Congressperson/Senator, etc. to help President Edwards get his agenda passed?
and of course 2. B_KOOL...Can we assume that if Obama is ELECTED, you'll support his agenda whole-heartedly, man phone banks, write your Congressperson/Senator, etc. to help President Obama get his agenda passed?
Now, after answering those...explain AGAIN how "your guy" will "unite not only Democrats, but the Country" in a "powerful and wide-sweepoing unity" that will pass their "bold, new agenda"?
Posted by Mask at 01/01/2008 @ 3:43pm
and two "progressives" are so caught up in their own RIGID cult of personality, that they can't even say they will support their vile, evil opponent's guy...even if it means the Repub winning.
~Maskot @ 3:32pm
As if it needs repeating, you continuously misrepresent opinions here. Which is a significant reason for the periodic carpet bombings of your often mindless drivel by the inimitable Chimichenga.
I am not being snarky towards Obama per se, but I am pretty fiercely opposed to the supercilious garbage wrapped in a generous bun of self-righteousness that Metteyya serves up in continuous rotation on these threads.
He wraps himself in his cloak of Buddhist "kindness" all the while spewing vitriolic bile on the basically decent John Edwards. Notice that I do not attack Obama with anything close to the disingenuousness that Metteyya employs with metronome-like frequency against John Edwards.
My vote, in the end, is for human dignity and sanity. But you've got to elect a fighter if you truly value your freedom. You dig?
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/01/2008 @ 3:45pm
Posted by MASK 01/01/2008 @ 3:32pm
Like most Democratic voters, MASK, if the choice is basically a non-choice - more of the same DLC-Republican alliance with Hillary or Edwards - then one is not highly motivated to vote.
I certainly do not want to drift even more to the right, and I think Giuliani is a very dangerous character, much more so than even George Bush. So I would vote Democratic to stop Giuliani, Thompson or even Huckabee; but as I said, I think "any" Republican governor of Massachusetts would be more reasonable than George Bush and probably more reasonable than DLC Hillary or DLC Edwards, so I would be inclined to vote my conscious in that case by voting for the Greens.
And what I would do if there was no real progressive in the race IS logical, and Hillary and Edwards are going to have a problem with progressive voters like me if they get the nomination.
Posted by Metteyya at 01/01/2008 @ 3:56pm
Posted by MASK 01/01/2008 @ 3:43pm
No, I will not lift one finger for a phony like Edwards or a sell-out like Hillary and will only vote for them if I thought it was necessary to prevent the country from drifting even further to the right.
Posted by Metteyya at 01/01/2008 @ 4:04pm
And what I would do if there was no real progressive in the race IS logical, and Hillary and Edwards are going to have a problem with progressive voters like me if they get the nomination.
~Metteyya @ 3:56pm
I can do you one better. I would whole-heartedly support Obama as the Democratic nominee even though I believe there is a very good chance he will be an unsatisfactory, if not disastrous, president.
I will be much more circumspect if Hillary is the nominee. I can't say I would support her by any stretch at this point. Frankly, she scares me. I don't trust her any farther than I could throw her.
And then we might wonder if she floats?
Metteyya's grouping of Edwards with Hillary is so far removed from reality we should ask him if he's feeling comfortably numb.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/01/2008 @ 4:05pm
Posted by B_KOOL_66 01/01/2008 @ 4:05pm
If recognizing Edwards is a phony progressive is so far removed from reality, then why didn't you answer the question in my above post?
Here it is again:
"What sort of progressive, who claims he is an anti-corporate hero and for protecting the poor, invests in and profits from oil stocks, defense stocks, and subprime lenders that prey on the poor?"
Posted by Metteyya at 01/01/2008 @ 4:18pm
No, I will not lift one finger for a phony like Edwards....Posted by METTEYYA 01/01/2008 @ 4:04pm
Okay, B_KOOL, tell me again how Edwards "has the rare ability --that of a very successful trial lawyer-- to speak directly to the American people and persuade them of the necessary course for a nation that is, in some important respects, at war with itself."-----Posted by B_KOOL_66 01/01/2008 @ 1:15pm
Posted by Mask at 01/01/2008 @ 4:20pm
"What sort of progressive, who claims he is an anti-corporate hero and for protecting the poor, invests in and profits from oil stocks, defense stocks, and subprime lenders that prey on the poor?"
~Metteyya @ 4:18pm
Dealing with you is like dealing with the next door neighbor kid when I was about 12 years old. He kept challenging me to a game of one on one football 'cuz he thought he was tough --he was pretty big for his age of 12.
So I finally gave in --after his insistent importuninities-- and promptly smeared his ass up and down the field eight ways until Sunday. He was a smoking ruin when it was over.
That's you Metteyya. You just don't give up.
Well, I'm bored today, finally, with your meaningless mumblings. If you've got such a great case, tell it to Reader's Digest, dickweed. I highly doubt anyone is buying your garbage here at The Nation.
Rule number one of expository writing: know your audience. Perhaps the Star or National Enquirer would be a more appropriate venue for your shoddy goods?
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/01/2008 @ 4:32pm
Posted by B_KOOL_66 01/01/2008 @ 4:32pm
Another non-answer (admission) that basically concedes that Edwards is a phony progressive. Case closed.
Posted by Metteyya at 01/01/2008 @ 4:37pm
tell me again how Edwards "has the rare ability --that of a very successful trial lawyer-- to speak directly to the American people and persuade them of the necessary course for a nation that is, in some important respects, at war with itself."-----Posted by b_kool_66 01/01/2008 @ 1:15pm
~Maskot @ 4:20pm
Uh, just listen to Edwards' own stump speeches. He is very clear that he "will use the bully pulpit of the presidency to enact changes" that are resisted by the DC powerbrokers.
And like I said earlier today, the economic outlook after the subprime crisis continues to rear its ugly head will likely make for a receptive environment for an FDR type of presidency, which is the presidency that Elizabeth and John Edwards most often refer to as a template.
Which also explains why the powerbrokers are so venomously hateful of John Edwards --just as FDR was reviled as a traitor to his class by many people in his day.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/01/2008 @ 4:40pm
Another non-answer (admission) that basically concedes that Edwards is a phony progressive. Case closed.
~Metteyya @ 4:37pm
As a would be swift boater, Metteyya, you are a rank amateur.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/01/2008 @ 4:42pm
Posted by B_KOOL_66 01/01/2008 @ 4:40pm
B_KOOL...missed my point. How does "President Edwards" rally the nation, when you've got guys like METTEYYA who wouldn't support him no matter what?
Possible that METTE is a minority (percentage-wise), but seems the vehement venom that guys like he, die-hard Obamites, are throwing out at JE, would indicate that LIKE CLINTON, there may be a percent of the Left that Edwards wouldn't get "rallying to his side to take on the power elites in Washington"?
(Of course, neither will Obama)
Posted by Mask at 01/01/2008 @ 5:03pm
B_KOOL...missed my point. How does "President Edwards" rally the nation, when you've got guys like METTEYYA who wouldn't support him no matter what?
~Maskot
I didn't "miss your point", Maskot. As I explained, I believe it's virtually inevitable that the economy takes a giant hit this year as the subprime crisis continues to explode on the national and global economies. When housing goes in the tank much more goes in the tank with it.
So the time will be ripe for an FDR-template presidency. And that's who John and Elizabeth Edwards are talking about these days on the campaign trail as a guidepost. The people are likely to be angry enough --finally-- for the gears of change to break free from their rusted seizure.
Free at last.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/01/2008 @ 5:25pm
Posted by B_KOOL_66 01/01/2008 @ 4:40pm
Edwards ain't no FDR - he is a phony progressive that is trying to use progressive voters in his personal ambition to be president.
If the voters hadn't soured on the war, he would be talking about how tough he is on defense and how smart he is for authorizing war with Iraq.
The guy shifts with the wind - a genuine phony!
Posted by Metteyya at 01/01/2008 @ 6:50pm
Wow. You've Mett your (masked?) BKool-ed interlocutor, Water-lew-ians.
Seriously, with such debate about integrity/legitimacy, I'm pleased that the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary fall on the same 1/3/08, n'est-ce pas, so that Kucinich's influence is perceived to be expansive by the MSM, the interpreters for Ma and Pa Sixpack and ya'll and us.
Posted by lewwelge at 01/01/2008 @ 6:53pm