My sense is that Edwards is going to go hard at Hillary tomorrow

[Renew Deal]

Have you seen the KO interview from tonight? If not, it's here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x80969

Last night there was a Newsweek article stating that Edwards was likely to drop out soon and endorse Obama. Today, Edwards has been very, very, nice to Obama. He was practically campaigning for Obama in the KO interview. I think Edwards is up to something. I think he might go hard at Hillary at tomorrows debate. I think he wants to bury her in NH. Then he might have a chance down the road. If not, no biggie because he likes Obama anyway.

[goldcanyonaz]

So it's okay to be negative as long as it's to hurt Clinton?

[Renew Deal]

3. Did I say that?

I'm saying that he might do it at tomorrows debate. I could be completely wrong. I'm not justifying it.

[aquart]

5. Of course. But it's wrong for Clinton to go negative.

I'm pretty sure it's wrong for Clinton to breathe.

[gmudem]

10. Good job of putting words in the poster's mouth

All the poster is saying is that that scenario might happen. The OP isn't saying whether it's ok or not, but that's just the feeling the poster is getting.

Way to jump the gun and ignore the substance of the post though.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

1. :-) Good!!!

The more the candidates turn one another LEFT, the happier I get.

[annie1]

2. the way he acted the other day, it wouldn't surprise me, but it would sadden me.

[Colobo]

8. We need Obama in the White House, Annie.

We need him for real.

[annie1]

12. we who and what does that have to do with me?

[juajen]

34. Him and what army? This is BS

This man has no idea what he is up against. Naive and totally unseasoned are words that come to mind. He really seems like a nice man. Too bad. Didn't we all give up on "When you wish upon a star, your dreams come true." when we passed puberty?

[aquart]

4. That's a scummy thing to say about Edwards.

I would hope he's hard on both of them. But if he drops out, he can try throwing his votes to Obama, but mine will go straight to Hillary. And I will think much less of him.

[Divine Discontent]

27. hey it's your right, and I'm not telling you that you can't choose her over Obama...

but you are the rare person who I've heard who said they were voting for Edwards, who turned around and said they'd rather vote for Clinton instead of someone else (Obama) if John dropped out.

How anyone could back what Edwards has been loudly saying and then turn around and say they will back Clinton makes me think that this kind of person makes their choices on who they 'like' in face and how they talk, and not policies, because Hillary is a corporation's best friend and is the war companies and wall street's too, for that matter, and will continue the war for years and years, and is at odds with John Edwards protectionism of the American worker - HRC is all for NAFTA, CAFTA, etc... What is your reason for not wanting Obama over Clinton, if I may ask?

take care




on edit - I'm glad you agree with me and many others on Edwards however.

[TwilightGardener]

6. I feel for Edwards--Obama was just the worst thing that could have happened to him.

He was all set to be the anti-Hillary, and then the young whippersnapper came along.

[Cameron27]

16. That's exactly what happened,

but I don't feel sorry for him. I don't like the whole concept of the anti-Hillary thing anyway, Obama's ok just running on his own platform. Edwards banked on being the anti-Hillary, anti-establishment, anti-anti. I think it's a Joe Trippi MO.

[TwilightGardener]

18. I think you're right--Edwards must have known that Clinton would

be the "machine", the Establishment choice, and he shaped himself to be the improved Dean this time around, the anti-establishment guy who was also very electable. Obama just ran on his own thing, not positioning himself against his opponents and trying to fill a specific niche, and he's reaping the benefits. Hillary has been trying to change HERSELF to adapt to Obama, and that's a bad sign for her--she is letting him shape her message and positions.

[Cameron27]

23. I agree, if Clinton tries to morph herself

into being more Obama-like, she's going to lose. She needs to dump Penn IMO.

[JI7]

7. to me it seems like he is hoping Hillary comes in 3rd in NH and drops out

and so it will be a two way race between Obama and himself with his hopes that he wins.

or maybe he is hoping to be vp.

[balantz]

9. He knows he can hit some valid points with Hillary and get her in dangerous

attack mode. He also is keen on the fact that if he leaves Obama to his own devices that Obama will handily bury himself, all by himself in the debate (well, with a little help from Hillary).

[DaveinMD]

11. his plan

is to hope that Hillary loses the next few contests and then drops out and he is the only alternative to Obama. Far fetched, but its the only hope.

[annie1]

14. he should go after Obama now then, b/c he'll have to get there anyway...

and it's better that he come closer to the first person. she's easy to take out later. i get the feeling he's thinking obama's the next best thing to him, so he'd rather see obama in the WH to deconstruct the establishment.

[Colobo]

13. I hope Edwards goes after her.

[annie1]

15. All that Obama politics of hope i see

[goldcanyonaz]

17. And Change!

[Colobo]

21. Obama will keep inspiring people. The others will rumble while he does.

[annie1]

24. scary

[juajen]

35. Yep, really scary.

NT

[JDPriestly]

19. Obama and Edwards agree on a lot of things.

They disagree on nuclear energy. Obama wants it; Edwards doesn't. Edwards wants to make sure every American is insured. Obama doesn't. Edwards does not take corporate money; Obama does. There are some other things. Edwards has said he thinks most of his supporters' second choice is Obama.

I don't think Obama is enough of a fighter, and I think he is naive and not as good a speaker as Edwards, but Obama, until recently was always my second choice. I was really disgusted that Obama made a fuss about the fact that unions and poverty activists formed 527s that supported Edwards. That was a cheap shot. No Democrat should equate union and poverty activist support with corporate lobbyist support. That difference is the whole difference between Republicans and Democrats as far as I am concerned.

[cali]

39. I'm so sick of this bull from Edwards supporters.

Edwards is hardly some sainted progressive. He's a politician with a lousy history. Obama is striving to make all Americans insured. Edwards sure as shit does take corporate money and special interest money. And Edwards does NOT inspire people in the numbers that Obama does. And you know what? In the end, that's what you need to do to lead.

[OHdem10]

20. It would be better for Edwards not to try to bury her. If anyone

with common sense follows the news on Tv and reads between lines

HRC will probably be our nominee.


Reporters are saying as an aside Obama has not had the scrutiny\
Some Serious Pundits wonder if he has Commander In Chief Credentials.

Edwards will be wise to work to get his people out

It is significant when you hear more than one serious commentator
say Obama is making a mistake acting and saying if he wins NH, they
are on the way to the WH.

Right now the Media is letting him bask in the glow of Iowa win.

President of the US is a serious job and the scrutiny has to take
place.

The Campaigns had better concentrate on getting their vote out.
HRC it has been stated over and over can take 3 losses.

[annie1]

25. i wish you were right. but really, bush didn't have credentials either and...

obama is way better than that, b/c he has brains, even though there is no way in hell he could know policy as well as hillary.

[juajen]

36. Big difference. The pugs have the corporations, you know,

the msm and all those other corps, like Diebold, ES&S, etc. Need I go on? The rules are different for dems. Gotta cross all our t's and dot all our i's. Carry on.

[Cha]

26. I'm not

buyin'.

[David Dunham]

22. If Edwards goes hard at Hillary, she should tell him he's a total jerk.

[Divine Discontent]

28. please stop 'storytelling' that Edwards has done this already

and done it in some manner which is so hateful, that you imagine HRC telling him he's a jerk... goodness!

If John attacks Hillary for what many of us don't like about her policies - so be it!

And Barack better be wise to the fact that John's big attacks on her mistakes in December benefited him & John both. If John, essentially, helps take out HRC from the campaign, Barack won't forget. Of course, there's a chance that if they both go at her, John more than Barack, that it will leave John against Barack, and I think John wins that nationally. Hillary has too many negatives, Barack does not. John has few either, so I think it'd be a great battle for the nomination between those two. Whichever of the 3 wins, I still believe will be the president, some just by bigger margins...


on edit - I still think Hillary Clinton is the odds on favorite to win it all from here

[annie1]

30. well he certainly was the nast yesterday when he said it was great she "lost."..

in the start of his consession speech in which he failed to congratulate barack. his tough smack-em-around streak was a bit of alright in the beginning but he's gone from being mr. too-nice guy in 04,to mr populist, to fight the man, straight to ungraceful chip-on-his shoulder. personally, i love the guy, but i'm really turned off by it. that comment in his speech about it's 'great that change won and that status quo lost!' was gross.

[Divine Discontent]

31. true

my Mom noticed he didn't congratulate Barack, but he did say the status quo did not win (as evident by he & Barack getting 68% together as agents of change according to most of us), and I can understand how that comment would not impress some, but it is what it is. I'm glad you like him too, I just think he's in whirlwind mode and is a little aggressive right now because of his stronger finish this time than in 04 even, if my memory serves me right.

take care!

[annie1]

32. no, he said LOST. it was ugly.

jmo. oh AND put the quote on his website i just saw. i woulda have voted for him on super tuesday over her b/c she'll get more of the vote anyway, but no way would i now. not that he'll last til then, but maybe he should go after the "winner" then instead of the "loser". you don't gloat and call someone a loser, it's ugly. jmo. :)

[Divine Discontent]

33. everyone's entitled to one

I'm hopeful she leaves the race soon. It's nothing personal, she just has made so many gaffes and is the corporate candidate (donations through the roof from the people I don't like), is not against this war like most of the Dems are, and so, it'd be great for her to leave soon. Nothing, as I said, against her as a person.

[Jim Sagle]

38. THAT'll show him. So there!

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[2hip]

29. Listen to how he's framing the players

Clinton is the "Status Quo" or, in other words, old news.

Obama is the only other "Change" candidate but his approach is "intellectual" and "philosophical"...somebody who"just talks about it, for whom it's more of a political issue...the politicians are going to do the political thing." Translation: more of the same old-same old.

I expect him to marginalize them both... and I wouldn't be surprised if one or the other doesn't get visibly pissy to their own detriment. As a trial lawyer, he knows exactly how to pressure those in the hot seat so they incriminate themselves in the eyes of public opinion.



  Edwards '08 tees!

[frogmarch]

37. I like your possible sceario best,, 2hip.

It would be a mistake, in my opinion, for Edwards to attack either Clinton or Obama. He can marginalize them without harming his image, but if he attacks, he won't look good. I think he should stick with his message. If they come after him then, so be it. He can debate them.

[Renew Deal]

40. I was RIGHT!!!!!! Edwards is after Hillary