And if he can't BE the next President, then getting to choose that person is the next best thing. Plus he'll probably get a cabinet post out of it.

Ok, I need some clarification on this. It's the second time of read it. how does he get to choose?

Ok, I need some clarification on this. It's the second time of read it. how does he get to choose?

I was under the impression that his delegates would have to go to one of the other candidates. Does he make them to go to his candidate of choice or can he just endorse one of the 2?

I was under the impression that his delegates would have to go to one of the other candidates. Does he make them to go to his candidate of choice or can he just endorse one of the 2?

I was under the impression you are PARTIALLY right. I think there are some that are committed and some that can float. not sure.

And I am not convinced he will have enough to really matter. If he consistently finishes 3rd he wont have much to give. Especially if Hillary wins NV and a close second in SC.. she gains momentum that possibly sinks Obama. At that point it's too late. He needs to bail NO latter than after SC.

Edited January 18, 200818 yr by Athomeboy_2000

I was under the impression that his delegates would have to go to one of the other candidates. Does he make them to go to his candidate of choice or can he just endorse one of the 2?

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.

 

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.

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 fades and Obama looses ground.

Edited January 18, 200818 yr by Athomeboy_2000

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.

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.

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.

I sort of agree. But if Edwards loses ground, I think the majority of his supporters will tend towards Obama anyway.

 

I sort of agree. But if Edwards loses ground, I think the majority of his supporters will tend towards Obama anyway.

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.

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.

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.

I hope that is true. I have always said if Obama sank and Edwards rose, I'd vote for him and some republicans before I voted for hillary.

I'm finally pretty convinced that Edwards is done, but in his last act of desperation he'd hoping to rip apart the media's credibility:

 

http://www.johnedwards.com/

 

http://www.johnedwards.com/whereisjohn/

 

hmm, and there WAS an article about it on CNN.com yesterday that i can no longer find. lol

I had an interesting thought... Hillary has a VERY big advantage over all the other candidates... she can be in two places at once. What i mean is, she has Bill. Hillary can hold 4 events.. Bill can hold 4 events. While in the same time Obama might only hold 4. Yes Barack has Michelle... but she's not Bill. It really give her an unfair advantage.

I had an interesting thought... Hillary has a VERY big advantage over all the other candidates... she can be in two places at once. What i mean is, she has Bill. Hillary can hold 4 events.. Bill can hold 4 events. While in the same time Obama might only hold 4. Yes Barack has Michelle... but she's not Bill. It really give her an unfair advantage.

That is part of the picture of one of the really irritating things about Hillary Clinton - she wants it both ways. She says she has all this experience being in the White House - but she wasn't elected. If she was, she couldn't be running again now, could she? So we're basically getting the Clintons as a couple doing an end-run on the Constitution.

 

Mind you, I thought Bill was a pretty good President - especially on later reflection. So its not some unfounded hatred of the Clintons.

 

People were wondering about the fact that Clinton was leading among black voters for a while. Well, it seems that trend has reversed itself pretty dramatically. Results of a CNN national poll show that Obama now has the support of 59% among registered Dems, with Clinton at 31%, among african americans. Just back in October, Clinton lead by 24 percentage points in that category - Obama now leads by 28.

 

Obama told the Reno Gazette-Journal editorial board Monday that "Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it," Obama said.

 

Holy s***.

 

*click*

 

*click*

 

*click*

 

*click*

 

...

...

...

 

I think I just saw political russian roulette being played before my very eyes.

Holy s***.

 

*click*

 

*click*

 

*click*

 

*click*

 

...

...

...

 

I think I just saw political russian roulette being played before my very eyes.

 

Bill really isn't doing himself any favors during this election cycle. The fact that they are up there talking about how important Hillary's "experiences" are this time, when in 1992 we were supposed to ignore that in Bill, really bothers me.

Bill really isn't doing himself any favors during this election cycle. The fact that they are up there talking about how important Hillary's "experiences" are this time, when in 1992 we were supposed to ignore that in Bill, really bothers me.

My main point was that Obama is giving credit to Ronald Reagan, which is a mortal sin to democrats.

My main point was that Obama is giving credit to Ronald Reagan, which is a mortal sin to democrats.

 

He is smart enough to be trying to play the middle for the general election cycle already. Its no big surprise to me. There are a lot of people in the middle who think both Clinton and Reagan had good Presidencies. Those are the people who determine elections.

And this is one of those things where context is key. Obama didn't praise what Reagan did, more what he could do in terms of reaching out to people.

And this is one of those things where context is key. Obama didn't praise what Reagan did, more what he could do in terms of reaching out to people.

EXACTLY. People seem to think Obama was saying he liked Reagan's policies. Nothing like that came out of his mouth. He praised Reagan's ability to bring people to other and to read the country and know they want to go another rout and TAKE them there.

EXACTLY. People seem to think Obama was saying he liked Reagan's policies. Nothing like that came out of his mouth. He praised Reagan's ability to bring people to other and to read the country and know they want to go another rout and TAKE them there.

I agree with your point. However, you just do not give ANY credit to Ronald Reagan for ANYTHING if you are a Democrat. Reagan's ability to lead, love him or hate him, is what made his presidency stand out. I recognize that is what Obama meant, but that's fodder for the Clinton Machine to spit him up, through, and out the spin machine.

I think Clinton's voter suppression claim in NV is going to hurt Obama more than any gaffe about Ronald Reagan.

I think Clinton's voter suppression claim in NV is going to hurt Obama more than any gaffe about Ronald Reagan.

It's ironic because it was really the Clintons who tried to suppress the vote.

It's ironic because it was really the Clintons who tried to suppress the vote.

 

Especially with the quiet rumors that they pulled some funny stuff to win NH.