Reddy

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Jan 18, 2008 -> 10:25 AM) You forget that people tend to favor momentum. The "well, my candidate lost. might as well support the leader" theory. I hope it isnt true, but it can happen. If I were an Edwards supported, i would switch to Obama. I also believe that it's "if you dont vote for Hillary, you are voting against her". That favors Obama, and I think he knows it. most Edwards supporters WOULD go to Obama. I'm an exception. we're a relatively stubborn lot so i don't think most of us would just go to the "leader". If we were going to do that we already would have.

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Jan 18, 2008 -> 10:21 AM) I just worry that Hillary's momentum will overshadow anything Edwards can contribute. I think if Hillary wins NV and second or better in SC... Edwards faids and Obama looses ground. it doesn't matter wins/losses it's ALL about delegates.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 18, 2008 -> 10:15 AM) He/they could do whatever they want. But if you are John Edwards, and you have a chance to use that huge number of delegates to achieve something... you do it. And his followers will undoubtedly go along with it, at least mostly. I really doubt he goes to Denver, if no one has 50%, and just tells his delegates "do what you want". Just seems really unlikely to me. no he'd definitely tell them to do something - you're right.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 18, 2008 -> 08:26 AM) You do realize that your man Edwards has even less experience in elected office that Obama, right? Obama: 7 years State Senate, 3 years US Senate Edwards: 6 years US Senate Clinton: 7 years US Senate Now, clearly, the US Senate work is more valuable that state level. But I find it amusing you'd rather have Edwards, or Clinton for that matter, because "you know what you are getting". Neither of them have significantly more experience in elected office than Obama does. Ultimately though, I am thinking more and more that the Dems are going to Denver without a nominee. No one will get 50%. So Former Senator Edwards, ultimately, will decide the nominee, by deciding where to put his chips. Sort of funny, isn't it? The one person of the three left who is almost sure not to win, will end up with the ultimate say. I never said i 'know what i'm getting' with edwards. I mentioned Clinton and McCain. If we DONT get the change that Edwards would bring, I'd rather not have change for the worse - and thats what i think would happen with Obama.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 18, 2008 -> 09:49 AM) She's not nearly the lock you keep saying she is. If Obama wins SC (which it appears he will), and at least stays very close in NV (which is very possible), with the look of things in national polls, I think we'll see Obama and Clinton in a near dead-heat after Super Tuesday. That means likely an Edwards crowns nominee event in Denver. And I really do think that Edwards is more likely to endorse Obama than Clinton. unfortunately i think so too. but as far as Obama and Clinton being in a dead heat after super tuesday... i'm not sure. I think she'll take a majority of them - certainly California and New York - the two w/ the most delegates. In the others, I think since they haven't gotten to see Obama speak and get brainwashed, they're not going to be as likely to vote for him. Like i said, people know what they're getting with Clinton and that helps her. On top of that you have to think about how the south is going to vote once in the privacy of a voting booth. We'll see, but i think Clinton - if she wins NV - has this thing in the bag.

nah i'm actually pretty certain Hillary's gonna win this thing too, which, if it can't be Edwards, I'd rather have. i know... scary right? but honestly, i think she's less likely to screw things up than he is. kind of a risk/reward ratio thing. in the same vein, if Obama wins the nom, and McCain's the GOP pick - I think I'd vote McCain. At least then you'd know what you're getting. I just don't want any reactionary "uh... let's bomb pakistan" coming from the next President and I worry about something like that with Obama.

i think Clinton asking Obama to co-sponser her bill was a BRILLIANT move. And Obama was put in an odd situation. He didn't say yes or no... we'll see how it gets spun.

busy semester... Social & Political Philosophy Religion & Society Logic Evolution of Western Thought Guitar (hell yeah) Acting II i've been only a theatre major up till now but i'm THINKING of maybe adding a poly sci minor cuz after being so involved in the campaign this year i'm mulling the law school thing around... hmm. we'll see.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 03:06 PM) Well, for me personally... some guy that claims to only be out to help people but in the past took massive legal fees from people he was "just trying to help", demanded large sums of money to speak about "people he wanted to help", gets $400 dollar haircut and complains about 2 Americas, wants to go after corporations but is a hedge fund investor (he was actually invested in predatory lending) seems to be a fraud when he claims to be only in things to help. I'm sure there's more, but the guy obviously isn't going to win so everyone is kind of ignoring him now. - the fees were a portion of the winnings. and john edwards was good at winning. man, he really shouldn't have done that. - now that he is no longer in the senate or a practicing lawyer, he's supposed to just speak for free? i know he's already rich but i imagine the idea of no income isn't too appealing. - how much do you think Clinton spends on haircuts? - he is no longer involved with fortress

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 03:00 PM) Are you telling me he wasn't sincere because something bad had not happened to his family yet??? What about all of those millrat stories from his family history? Or the stuff about fighting lobbyists and the like? None of that changed since his wife's illness. Sorry, I know you like the guy and all, but I don't respect politicians who undergo convient changes as their needs change. I don't care what side of the aisle they are on. Its the same reason I don't like Mitt Romney either. first off: His son, Wade, died at age 16. he's had to face and overcome enormous personal tragedy. And yes, his son's death DID set him on this path to run for the senate and really MAKE A DIFFERENCE in the world. Then with his wife's situation, it puts it in even more perspective. John Edwards has NEVER undergone a "convenient change". He's undergone the same changes that affect every American in this country. The loss of loved ones changes people. The prospect of death changes people. Can you deny this? Both of these events in his life have led him to make the decision to take his fight for people who have no voice from NC to the national scale. If he were just saying what it took to win he'd be saying the things that Obama is about hope and optimism and bringing people together. That sells well. Unfortunately none of that is actually practical in a real world situation. Edwards knows this - knows it'll take a fight - and unfortunately he banked on the American people being intelligent enough to realize it too. Unfortunately, they just fell for the good speech.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 01:08 PM) Only he knows the real reasons why. I have a low opinion of the guy, so I think it's just an ego thing. He wants attention, puts on a big production of going to New Orleans to "help the cleanup", but his main interests are gaining more power and wealth for himself. But I could be wrong, he might be a great guy. I am just weary of a guy like him who is the self appointed voice of the poor, while many of his previous actions have shown him to be less than genuine. aside from the haircut and the house what are these actions? why does a man who fights for the poor have to live as if he is? why is that a prerequisite?

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 01:09 PM) You just lost all credibility. lol so you guys are allowed to question Edwards' motives but as soon as i question Obama's i lose all credibility. yeah ok.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 12:53 PM) Seeing how successful he was as a trial lawyer, I am sure he can convince certain people of just about anything. so tell me then, why did he start a poverty center in NC? why did he go down to New Orleans to help clean up?

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 12:51 PM) I don't see how your wife getting breast cancer would change your views on domestic economic policy, foreign policy, etc. Health care maybe, but I doubt Mrs. Edwards was chosing between medical treatment and eating that night. right. that's his point. Elizabeth has the best coverage available. but he also realizes that this is not always the case. dude. when you're faced with the knowledge that the woman you love and have devoted your life to will DIE within a few years, i think it can have a profound effect on you. He realized that we only have a short time to truly make a difference in this world and that's why he's fighting for the people who weren't as fortunate as he was. He has now devoted his LIFE to fighting poverty. But man, he's done this his whole life. It's not like it STARTED w/ Elizabeth's diagnosis - that just brought everything into clearer focus.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 12:49 PM) So...he wasn't genuine or sincere before his wife had breat cancer? i meant that something like that can change your views on the world.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 11:34 AM) Oh now come on, you're seriously buying into this whole "Obama is an evil Muslim who switched religions to run for office back in Kindergarten!" crap? My word. by his own admission he was an atheist growing up and in college. he became a christian much later than kindergarten. look, i don't give a s*** what religion he is. muslim or hindu or christian i dont care. my problem with it is when it's used for political gain.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 12:36 PM) So was he not sincere four years ago when pretty much all of his views and opinions were hidden from the public? four years ago his wife wasn't diagnosed with breast cancer. that changes things my friend.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 09:28 AM) Your media blackout argument would be a lot more convincing without the Newsweek cover picture next to it. lol so one article enough fair coverage makes? please. the stats don't lie. as for his character, obviously y'all will take everything i say with a grain of salt and rightly so, but i can tell you that john edwards is THE most genuine person in this campaign. Obama and Hillary keep stealing HIS platforms and calling them his own. They use lines from HIS speaches. Clinton cried to get votes. Obama became a Christian because he wanted to be a senator/president. And i know there's no way i can prove this one, but Edwards does legitimately CARE and feel PASSIONATELY about this fight and helping those who have no voice. If you ever met him you'd be able to tell. i know that's not a convincing argument. lol

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 09:34 PM) I agree on #1, but disagree on #2. All the candidates on the Dem side, or most anyway, have made similar arguments - particularly Obama. Instead, I think a second factor is the whole soundbyte culture thing (blame for which falls to both the media and the people who take it in). Its just easier to focus on one or two people than the whole field, when all you care to deliver are high impact 10-second clips. Edwards message hinges on corporate greed. Obama used to take lobbyist money and he says that they'll have a seat at his table... so this is similar to Edwards how?

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 09:01 PM) Why, though? What's your theory? two reasons: 1) the prospect of the first woman or first black man to be president is the more exciting story in terms of news. it's different, so initially, that's what got the play. 2) Edwards is very vocal in being against the types of corporations that RUN the media. Why do you think Murdoch is with Clinton? Edwards is a threat to the mass media so they have NO interest in him getting elected.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/31/141617/72 http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/5/12286/27650 it's inarguable.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 08:33 PM) Edwards (or any other candidate) doesn't deserve anything. If he can't raise enough support on his own, without needing others to be excluded, than that's just too bad. lol don't get me started. Media blackout + being outspent 6 to 1 is why he hasn't raised support. And that's what's wrong with the system.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 08:27 PM) Pardon my ignorance but how does this hurt Edwards? because he needs all the media he can get. he's been blacked out and so he would've had 1/3 of the attention now it's 1/4. plus he would've been the most progressive candidate in the debates, now the elf takes that spot. Plus Kucinich doesn't like Edwards so he'll probably try to knock him down a bit. We'll see on that one though, that's just speculation.

now this is absurd. a Nevada judge said that Kucinich could participate in the debate. that's effing ridiculous. he's only going to screw over edwards and to be annoying. i've lost all respect for this guy. so instead of a good debate between the top three we'll have another moron wasting time. f*** it. after the poll in NV i was actually getting hopeful but this hurts Edwards. damn him.

QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Jan 12, 2008 -> 10:28 AM) looks like he got equally shallacked in both leagues to me. exactly - those were my thoughts. the guy is just plain terrible. we're much better risking it on Colon than Lohse...