Reddy

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 30, 2008 -> 08:11 AM) The plot thickens. Well, actually, I guess the plot thins. So, do we think he'll endorse someone? Or just drop out? wow - called that one. i'd say he'll endorse someone. in my book, he wouldn't have dropped out unless a deal had been made with another candidate.

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Jan 29, 2008 -> 09:30 PM) YOu beat me to it. I am going to assume Edwards will endorse Obama for the sake of this argument... Edwards drops out and Endorses Obama. Not only does he endorse him, he campaigns on his behalf with Obama's money. This does two things. It draws Edwards supporters to Obama, and it keeps Edwards in the spotlight. So, if people vote for him even after he drops out, they can be "moved" to Obama at the convention. what's crazy is that Edwards may get MORE coverage as an Obama surrogate than he did as a candidate... lol

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 29, 2008 -> 09:26 PM) Is there anyone here who is either actually: excited about voting for Hillary or even just planning to vote for Hillary at all in November? um. if she gets the nom... yeah... i'd vote for her

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Jan 29, 2008 -> 09:20 PM) ahhh good call. yea, he's done.. and so is Obama. Obama needed edwards to draw votes from hillary. yeah - this is the death knell for obama... all hail pres. clinton...

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 29, 2008 -> 09:13 PM) Also odd since Louisiana isn't a Super Tuesday state. Why not make that speech on the Alabama Gulf Coast, which was also hit by Katrina and is still recovering? my gut is that it's a drop out speech. he started his campaign in New Orleans, only fitting to end it there as well.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 29, 2008 -> 07:44 AM) So how much of a Presidency would JE waste "going along to get along" and "learning the ins and outs" of the Oval Office? That is exactly that kind of stuff that boils my blood about John Edwards. Supposedly he was perfectly content pretending to be someone he wasn't, so that he could gain everyone's trust, well until something bad happened? In plain terms he lied to everyone who voted for the guy they thought he was. Yeah, that really clears things up for me. He is exactly who I thought he was. Another lying politician. did you even read what i wrote? he's a completely different person now than he was then. and it wasn't pretending to gain trust man. if you're gonna just spin and manipulate words to make them say what you want to nothing anyone ever says will make an effect on you so i guess there's no point in having the discussion.

heres mine - all decked out in theatery/john edwards goodness. my FB

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 28, 2008 -> 09:03 PM) This is what I have been trying to say for months about Edwards http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ope...723635.story *sigh* i've already dealt with this article to a poly sci professor at my school, but i'll see if i can summarize... (ie: copy paste) -- Edwards was a freshman senator who really had no prior legislative experience. He was essentially just going along to get along - learning the ins and outs of the senate. He may not have voted his conscience but then again, how many democrats DID back at that point? It really wouldn't have benefited him to make waves and try and be a "revolutionary" by voting against all those bills, in fact, it probably would've solidified his defeat in re-election. Now we all know that he already faced an uncertain re-election bid and that may have contributed to his resignation from the senate, but speaking out against all these bills wouldn't have helped his case. Hillary voted for every one of the bills that Edwards did as well. Obama, lucky for him, wasn't in the senate to MAKE those calls, yet he constantly touts how he was "against the war from the beginning". Well, if you ask me, it's easy to be against something when you don't have to vote on it. Bottom line: At the time, he was trying to show that he was centrist. In reality - this wasn't the REAL John Edwards. THAT was the Edwards just trying to win votes and stay in office. But I truly believe that he has shed that way of thinking and now is fighting for the things he truly believes in. And that's not something I can prove, but it's the sense I get from having followed his campaign so closely and listening to him and the way he connects with people. The other thing is that 1998-2002 was a WHOLE different world than we're in right now. Things were nowhere near as desperate both economically at home or internationally. It would be foolish for a politician to be so concerned with having the "same positions" for the sake of political gain when the world has shifted so dramatically in the 10 years since Edwards was first elected. LASTLY, when John says this is the cause of my life, this is what i've been fighting for my whole life, etc - he's not talking about those issues. He's talking about fighting for the middle class - for those who don't have a voice. THAT'S what he's been doing his whole life. And that's TRUE. Look, he decided to get into politics after his son's death in '96 because he realized that we don't have a lot of time in this world and if you're capable of making a difference you'd better do it. He felt he had a responsibility to this country and to his son. Then in his travels across the country in '03 and '04 became horrifically aware of how bad the poverty problem in this country has become and he realized how hurt the middle class is. He and Elizabeth decided that this would be the new cause of their lives. He started a poverty center, he led efforts to rebuild in New Orleans - but i'm sure you know that. Point is, the man is genuine. He realizes that his approach in the senate was a mistake and at least has the stones to admit it - unlike Clinton. He knows he made mistakes and he knows he made some bad decisions, but you know what? After 8 years of a president who refuses to admit mistakes and refuses to back down even when all evidence of a terrible decision is staring him in the face, I think someone who takes some responsibility and vows to make things right again is exactly what we need.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 28, 2008 -> 08:33 PM) I think the interesting part of that is not that you'd follow an Edwards endorsement, but that you are a case study in the type of person who is an Edwards supporter but if he dropped out you'd go to Clinton...which suggests, along with the polling data that is out there, that having Edwards in the race actually is helping Obama more than Clinton. oh i believe that whole-heartedly. If Edwards dropped out Obama would be done. edit: except in the case of an endorsement/cabinet postion situation

eff. just saw this in TW. sorry fellaz

i know it's MLBTR but... gross.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Jan 28, 2008 -> 08:02 PM) You said you'd vote Hillary unless Edwards endorsed Obama. ok you're right my wording was off - sorry. but it's my belief that Edwards wont endorse someone UNLESS he's getting something out of it so to me it's the same thing.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Jan 28, 2008 -> 07:33 PM) I've never understood why endorsements hold so much sway. If your man dropped out, why wouldn't you look into the candidates and make up your own mind (if he wasn't given a position in the administration)? you answered your own question. yes, i would do that if he weren't offered a position. but note the stipulation of AG/VP etc

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 28, 2008 -> 07:20 PM) Yeah, but, I find it reeeeeeeeeeeally unlikely he drops out and doesn't endorse someone. well, right, the polling data shows that they don't have a firm second choice as a group - you can't easily said "edwards supporters will do this or that" but my theory is it's because they so strongly support Edwards that they dont have as strong of a second choice. They'll say "oh... probably Obama. oh... probably Hillary". I know that I don't know half as much about Clinton and Obama's stances and plans as well as I know Edwards - and most people who support Edwards are issues people, thus, if Edwards supports a certain candidate we're going to be much more likely to vote for that candidate. For instance, if Edwards dropped out and didn't endorse, I think I'd go Clinton. BUT if he drops out and DOES endorse or is touted as the AG or VP or whatever for Obama I'd instantly support Obama. I think the people who like Edwards REALLY like Edwards and want to see him in a position of power in this government. If that means going with Obama, I think they will.

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Jan 28, 2008 -> 06:32 PM) I dont doubt that at all. At first I wanted Edwards to get out because I thought he was running a pointless campaign because he stood no chance against th ebig two. However, he really should push on. As an Obama supporter, it helps him for Edwards to stay in as you said. Edwards knows EXACTLY what he is doing. you're right about that. and honestly, an Edwards AG would switch me over to supporting Obama, end of story. I think that'd be a fantastic move and it'd be a situation in which Edwards still could have a huge effect on this country and he and Obama working together may be able to get a lot of good s*** done. I think he'd be much more valuable as an AG than VP. but in regards to something NorthsideSox said, I think if Edwards endorsed Obama, his followers would follow suit - i doubt many would go to Clinton. Edwards supporters are typically die hard since they KNOW their candidate isn't going to win but are supporting him anyway. Most would respect his choice and go with it if you ask me.

this is good news for Obama: Refko Arrested

people with different abilities? is that what we're calling it now? lol

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 25, 2008 -> 11:35 AM) Russ Feingold (a big name amongst a lot of activists in this party) rips Edwards. this is the second article of the day ripping Edwards for his changing of positions. but here's what i think: as a first term senator he wasn't trying to make waves, he wasn't trying to be revolutionary, he was trying to figure out this senate thing and he went along to get along. so yes, maybe that was a mistake in retrospect now that he's running for president - but i dont think he was initially intending on only having one term in the senate. also, the guy has stated that he regrets all that stuff - and i believe him because i think at the time he wasn't voting his conscience just like EVERY OTHER DEMOCRAT in the senate. I mean, for the love of god, at least he regrets it and has verbally stated this. Clinton STILL hasn't said she regrets voting for the war etc etc. I respect someone a whole lot more who takes responsibility for their mistakes and wants to make amends than someone who claims not to have made them in the first place.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 25, 2008 -> 10:56 AM) It might be. Edwards is trending up, Clinton trending down, and remember too - Clinton left SC for most of the week, and it ws all over the press. No, John Edwards made that certain. are we really going to make this argument again? EVERYBODY agrees that the media hasn't covered him fairly - end of story. dude i mean in reality Richardson, Biden and Dodd were all better candidates than the big 3, but the media didn't give a s*** about them so no one knew who they were. thats the way this american politics thing works.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 25, 2008 -> 10:40 AM) And this is in his "home country" (not state, but close enough) and he's fighting for votes? Shouldn't be that way, if he were a true frontrunner/leader. he's not a true frontrunner anymore - the media made that certain.

as usual, Edwards making a late surge (up to 19.2% RCP Average) but it's not gonna be enough to grab 2nd. why do people wait so god damned long to realize their best option? lol

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 23, 2008 -> 08:21 AM) Sounds to me like KW is shopping MacD - which I think is a good idea. hmm possibly, but i'm also hoping by saying our rotation is set that it means he's looking for another arm. he just pretty much needs to if we're gonna compete... i seem to recall a certain 5th starter problem this club used to have... hmm...

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Jan 22, 2008 -> 07:52 PM) Winning SC is a "publicity momentum" boost for Obama. THat paired with a good debate COULD give Obama a slight boost to at least keep it real close. i do agree that clinton had it much more in the bag until last night - with record ratings (5 million viewers) she may have hurt herself a lot. BUT she wasn't trying to win SC last night - She was trying to win nationally - she was trying to get a boost in the Feb. 5 states. She's essentially conceded SC but knows she could kick some ass on Super Tuesday so THATS what she's going for. Why else would she be in NJ today?

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Jan 22, 2008 -> 11:21 AM) Agreed. He adds nothing to the campaign for the general election. Couldn't win his home state in 2004. people don't vote for VP candidates, it's been well documented. plus, even if they did, Kerry didn't LET John speak his mind, he didn't want to lose the limelight to the more dynamic personality that was John Edwards

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Jan 22, 2008 -> 07:32 AM) It's easy to stay above the fray when you are becoming as relevant as Kucinich. but he didn't after the first chunk - he got down and called out both clinton AND obama and neither had good answers to his criticisms. he was hot all night - end of story. ps. i wish the news media cared, but MLK III sent John a letter telling him to keep fighting because he is carrying on MLK's dream and etc etc - hot s***.