Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Thomas Veil, May 14, 2008.
Breaking news, per CNN.
One more nail in Hillary's coffin.
yep, i think the flood gates have certainly opened, seems more and more coming out to endorse Obama. at least this some some party unification.
I just heard this on the radio. I wonder if Edwards' delegates, 18 of them, automatically go to Obama or are they free to choose Clinton.
This is bad news for the Clinton campaign.
I'm pretty sure that they're free to choose Clinton.
No! Don't you know? She's leading in the popular vote! She's coming from behind! Obama can't possibly win!
I'm really looking forward to Clinton's response to this news.
The only endorsement that could hurt her more would be Gore's endorsement of Obama.
this is what i'm unsure of as well. if he goes on obama's side, then you'd think his delegates would then go to obama as well, if anywhere at all.
Yep- this one's gotta sting. We'll see what happens. At least we know what the front page headline will be in tomorrow's papers.
I had come to believe in recent weeks that Edwards' reticence to discuss an endorsement meant that he was waiting for a pivotal moment when that endorsement could make a difference. I really had no hard evidence of that, yet I now believe I was absolutely right.
As PlaceofDis alluded to, the flood gates are open now. Or if you prefer another water-based analogy, the Clinton ship has been bailing for a while now, but it's now breaking apart and everyone is abandoning ship.
We might see an endorsement from Gore soon. Or maybe even Chelsea.
Somebody wants to be vice president.
actually, i'm pretty sure he doesn't want that at all. he's said numerous times that he's not interested in it, and i actually believe him.
it'd be good for him to be in the cabinet though or AG perhaps
Is he to lawyerish to be AG. I mean hears a siren and starts drooling.
I guess this is bad news for Hillary. But why didn't Edwards do this months ago? It's just strange, like waiting to see who is going to win before endorsing. Lame behavior, IMO. Proof that he's a merry andrew.
They can choose who they want.
Edwards, Edwards, Edwards. Well, finally he's made his choice, when Barack needed to change the current news cycle of stories.
Clinton: It'd be 'terrible mistake' to pick McCain over Obama
The BIGGEST endorsement Barack Obama has yet to receive, will NOT be from a former 2008 candidate with a Y chromosome. That has yet to happen. Until it does, Obama will have a questionmark over his head concerning the efficacy of his general election campaign. I hope someone puts this entire campaign season into a large photo book with stories and details. This road to Election 2008 has been one for the history books.
The main question left unanswered is if we get our storybook ending, or if most of America will stay in bed the day after election night.
I saw this, and it's leading me to believe that she's already conceded, is lightening up on the attacks and is starting to repair bridges. She agreed to stay in to avoid any negative spin on losing WV and KY to a non-running candidate.
I've heard AG rumored for Edwards before...
I think it's going to be an Obama/Edwards ticket in the election. And no. Edward's' delegates don't have to vote for Obama. They are now free to go with whoever they choose but I'm guessing a vast majority will go with Obama and Gore will endorse Obama as soon as he is positively sure Clinton doesn't win ( Florida and Michigan delegates ) the primary race.
that's just what i was going to say, and the same applies to richardson who acted like obama's yes-man during his endorsement and following interviews.
IMO, Edwards oughta debate the Rev. Dr. Manning of Harlem, about the "Barack Hussein Obama" candidacy.
The definition of an ambulance chaser, but he had some good ideas, and hey, he couldn't be worse than Alberto.
Why did you have to go there?
Why'd I go there? Because I always have thought and still do think that Obama has nothing to offer that makes any sense in solving our various national problems. He's a Beltway Bandit twit. If he's not "plumb iggerant" about economics and money, he's then even more cynical than I ever thought of being. (Although I prefer to believe that I'm less cynical than I am observant and aware of causal relationships.) His notions of "change" are trivial insofar as meaningful actions. So I find it amusing when, amidst all this racial BS, that one of "his own" shows there is a lack of unanimity.
I don't have a lot of use for Edwards, for that matter...
I have to admit I'm a supporter of Obama but I don't think that's the reason why I disagree with you particularly because I don't feel the way you do about Obama about McCain. Can you point to an example of his ignorance about economics and his cynicism? For example, McCain and Clinton both supported suspending gas taxes for the summer while Obama opposed it. The proposal ignores the real issue of oil dependancy and, in a way, exacerbates the problem. Painkillers are fine, but they're no substitute for real medicine. Clinton coupled this proposal with the addition of "forcing the oil companies to pay the taxes." I believe this is naive because it will just be another cost that will be absorbed into the price of oil. The consumer would just end up paying the taxes indirectly.
I don't know if this would be good or not. Too early to tell.
Edwards endorsing Obama --> Good
Edwards as VP --> ???
I absolutely hate lawyers. I was about 13 credits away from becoming one myself a few weeks ago until I decided to quit. That being said, I do have great respect for many aspects of the field apart from the practitioners. One example is the duty of zealous advocacy. As a trial lawyer, Edwards's sole job was to advance the claims of his clients. This is the one thing that most people don't seem to have a clear picture of. A lawyer might even completely disagree with his client but if he or she was a good lawyer, you would never be able to guess. This may sound like a bad thing at first, but imagine a world where you could only hire a lawyer that agrees with you. Where does that leave the defendant who everyone believes is guilty? The way our legal system works, an innocent man without a lawyer has a very good chance of losing. There are a lot of despicable lawyers but being a trial lawyer does not automatically make you one. (I know I switched from trial lawyer to defense attorney but it didn't make a difference in the points I was trying to make.)
Now, the office of Attorney General's responsibilities in the law are very different from that of a trial lawyer. I think Edwards's political views are a better indicator of his direction in an Attorney General capacity.
And don't get me started on Gonzales. He has no constitution.