Edwards on KO repeating that Obama is a candidate for change

[ProSense]

by any measure.

[ChiciB1]

1. That's ALL They Are Reporting EVEN When Edwards Has Been The One

talking over and over and over about corporations and lobbyists for such a long time.

Obama has stolen Edwards' message and MSM is letting them get away with it! This is something that REALLY has me extremely pissed off! It's so UNFAIR, and SO WRONG! I have lost so much respect for Obama now. I had thought Edwards would finally get some well earned credit, but it's NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!

I'm outta here!

[K Gardner]

2. Hold on ChiciB.. its all good.. Edwards himself is framing the debate

that he and Obama are BOTH candidates of "change".. which they are.. but that it's simply a difference in style and substance. He was very, very gracious and complimentary towards Obama. Keith did a great job giving JE really good face time and agreed the MSM has been essentially shutting him out. It'll be ok.. we, the people, are still voting :-)

[ChiciB1]

8. Okay... I've Been Especially "Touchy" About This Today... I'm Trying

so hard not to get bitter... but I do feel Obama is not being up front about a lot of this. He wasn't talking this way before. It was how he wanted to reach across the aisle and unite the Dems & Repukes. And various other subjects.

Do you know how to find a thread that has been posted before. I have an ID#3842491, from 12/16/2007 but don't know how to find it. It's the one about which candidate has taken money from various organizations. I printed it out, but couldn't get all of it to print. Tried a couple of times back then, but I don't know who started the thread. That part is missing.

Thanks... I think I'm a bit on the defensive today! Need to take some down time I guess! But if anyone knows how to pick up a thread please let me know. I just have never done this stuff. I just sit and write and scream and holler and cry and go on and on and on!

[ProSense]

3. That was Edwards talking, not a report. n/t

[Evergreen Emerald]

22. I kinda had to laugh as he brags about beating Clinton

What was the difference in percentage points? .4%

[mother earth]

4. No, Obama hasn't stolen Edwards' message, nothing

resonates like Edwards--he's on target about all the issues. Obama is a great speaker & I applaud his victory in Iowa, but when it comes down to it, Edwards is the right man. As Rachael Maddow said yesterday, that's the country I want to live in, where it is possible for a black man to be president. Iowa sent a message, but in the long run it will be Edwards.

He's the underdog only because he didn't unload the millions that Obama & Hillary did for his second place, which can only be viewed as a definite victory. How sweet is it that? It is inspiring.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

15. Edwards is the man this country needs. I think Obama is a nice man....

.... but I don't think he would implement as many changes as this country needs.

[jenmito]

16. Edwards has been campaigning in Iowa for YEARS already and he STILL didn't win.

He had people who already caucused for him in '04. He didn't NEED to spend as much money (even though he TRIED to raise as much money as the others and only opted for matching funds when he failed to raise nearly as much as he had hoped. If he couldn't win Iowa, he can't win anywhere.

[Renew Deal]

5. What is Edwards up to?

I saw that. It looks like he's trying to help Obama.

[Cameron27]

6. Edwards is trying to narrow this race

down to himself and Obama.

[K Gardner]

7. Its smart strategy. Just don't acknowledge that the other candidate exists..

and make the choice for change between himself and Obama. The MSM does it to us all the time :-)

[Renew Deal]

10. Yes, but there's two ways to execute it.

I think he's choosing to bury Hillary in NH. That's why he's boosting Obama.

[K Gardner]

29. Doesn't that kind of backfire tho, if he comes in behind Hillary in NH?

What's the other way to do it..you said there were two ways? I think it's good straTEgery, whatever he's up to ! :-)

[Renew Deal]

35. The other way is to go negative on Obama

Try to draw his support while ignoring Hillary.

[Milo_Bloom]

21. Its the same thing he did in 2004 and it is playing for a VP slot.

[K Gardner]

30. 2004, maybe. But now, he's in it all or nothing. Too many other ways he could serve than

being VP.

[Milo_Bloom]

44. For someone in it all or nothing, he is playing a second place game.

[Adelante]

24. He's trying to distance himself from that teeny difference in votes from Hillary

He wants to make her out to be more of a loser than she was and himself more of a winner than he was.

[Milo_Bloom]

9. Looks like Edwards is playing for VP slot now.

Hopefully Obama doesn't bother with him.

[Lex]

11. Bwahahaha. Hardly.

nt

[Renew Deal]

13. Did you see the KO interview?

It looks that way.

[Cameron27]

14. Do you think he'd go for the VP spot again?

I don't think so. I think he's trying to draft off of Obama's win, and at the same time trying to knock Clinton out of the race. (at least in the minds of the voters)

[Milo_Bloom]

18. But that is not even remotely realistic.

He doesn't have and WON'T have the money to compete. Clinton, as of this moment, is still the national leader and Edwards is a distant third in every upcomming state, including South Carolina, where he SHOULD be doing well as a regional candidate.


His only chance was to get a SOLID WIN in Iowa, which is why he has practically lived there for the past 6 years.

At this point he appears to be reverting to his 2004 strategy, which is to praise the front runner, claim he isn't interested in the VP slot, while cozying up to him at the same time.

[Lex]

25. Realistic is that all of Clinton's money couldn't get her even 2nd place.

nt

[Adelante]

28. Well, it was a virtual tie for second place - not even half a point

But she sure should have done better than she did out there.

[Cameron27]

27. Maybe you're right,

maybe he'll settle for second. I don't know what he's up to, no money, no Iowa win, and with a frontrunner who's marketing himself as the agent of change.

[Milo_Bloom]

42. Its the EXACT same thing he did in 2004.

[Renew Deal]

31. Would he go? Probably

But I don't think any Democrat would pick him. Not for any other reason except I don't think he's a good match for any of the current candidates.

[Lex]

17. He's trying to elbow Clinton out of the way & make it a 2 way challenge

against Obama.

[Milo_Bloom]

19. Yeah, and Clinton's national lead and 50 million in the bank will just vanish.

[Lex]

23. LOL. She spent HOW much and couldn't beat Edwards?

That's just embarrassing.

And after the loss in Iowa, the money stops coming in.

[Milo_Bloom]

43. Its embarassing for BOTH of them.

Edwards SHOULD have won Iowa.

He finished second there last time, has spent almost all of this campaign cycle there and was the national candidate last time around.

[mother earth]

12. LOL, change is good...I only wish that Obama was spot on with

all the issues like Edwards is. They are both good men, but campaign reform and economic issues need to be front in center. Corporate greed got us into this mess thanks to BushCo.

Edwards is the people's candidate, but I do respect Obama, I can only applaud how well he did in Iowa.

[Sparkly]

20. Yes, he insisted he and Obama are the "change candidates," Clinton the "status quo."

But his positions and proposals are pretty much just like hers. :shrug:

[annie1]

26. yeah, he's trying to ^%$@ her up, i'ma getting MAD!@!!!!! lol.

[K Gardner]

32. She kinda ^%$@'d herself up, and is continuing to. She could have walked away with it, but

she's just been Sybil. No one has done this to Hillary but Hillary and Mark Penn and a vicious campaign staff/surrogates.

[Cameron27]

33. They're no different,

and having the first woman president in American history is as significant a change as electing Obama, and more change than electing Edwards.

[maximusveritas]

34. His concession speech was very similar

I almost thought he was going to drop out and endorse Obama.
I think he and his advisors sense that there's something special building around Obama and that it would be futile to go after him, so they're just focusing on taking out Hillary for now.

[jenmito]

36. He didn't make a concession speech. He gave his stump speech. Didn't even congratulate

Obama. He acted like he won-that America rejected Hillary and chose HIM over Obama. And now he's acting as if it's now a 2-person race between him and Obama, just a matter of which kind of change America wants. It's clear America wants OBAMA'S kind of change, but Edwards is keeping up his "I'll fight for you" mantra. Hillary will beat him in NH (and Obama will beat Hillary) and Edwards will be a non-issue, and his support will go more to Obama than to Hillary.

[Cameron27]

37. Exactly, it wasn't a concession speech.

[jenmito]

38. Thanks, seasonedblue!

:hi:

[Cameron27]

39. My pleasure,

it should have been a concession speech, at least part of it, but it wasn't.

[jenmito]

40. I agree...

and thanks for meaning what you said earlier. (You're not all bad). :)

[Cameron27]

41. lol

[Munch]

45. Ditto that...

And I wonder... whether it was ever conceivable, to John Edwards, that he might in fact lose Iowa.

My hunch is this: Edwards did not think, literally COULD NOT think that he might lose.

The prospect of losing must have been unthinkable... in the exact literal sense of that word.

Speaking of losers...

Hillary Clinton went up 20 points in my book for her unaffected concession speech and the gracious manner in which she acknowledged the defeat. That's huge because so much of politics (and life) lies in knowing how to lose. Clinton remained calm, collected, unrattled... her best personal qualities shone through. She seems well-grounded in the real world.

This disillusioned Edwards supporter (yes, my heart remains with the man and his message) may yet vote for Hillary Clinton (Feb 5th). For real. Not least because of Tom Rinaldo's well-reasoned endorsement of the lady -- also because I like substance over style. A personal preference.

[Munch]

46. One more word about Clinton...

(two actually)

low key

After all that shouting by Edwards and Obama, I find this appealing.

[laureloak]

47. But Obama wants to negotiate change with Big Pharma (for one)

How is he gonna "negotiate" when he's the second largest recipient of Big Pharma campaign contributions. Obama is receiving more Big Pharma money than any Republican candidate.

That's what we're going through now with the Bush administration. Where is the CHANGE? Just because he's black doesn't mean he'll do anything any differently than Bush.

The cards are on the table. Time for Obama to show his hand.