The Tag Team Attack On Hillary

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 01:05:50 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

That's the NYTimes spin on the debate:

Senator Barack Obama and John Edwards went after Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as never before in a televised debate here on Saturday night. . . . When it became clear that Mr. Obama and Mr. Edwards, sitting side by side across from her, were teaming up, Mrs. Clinton sat up and pulled her coat tight as if preparing for battle. A few minutes later, though, she softened when one of the debate’s moderators took note of the fact that Mrs. Clinton was getting double-barreled criticism from her rivals. “You noticed?” she said with a smile.

Now for the life of me, I do not understand John Edwards' thinking here. In what scenario does he win the nomination by pumping up Barack Obama? Harold Meyerson said Edwards helped Obama and himself. How is that possible? There can be only one nominee! Obama is the frontrunner and will be a bigger one if he wins New Hampshire. And then Edwards runs as a change candidate against Obama? Okaaay.

I can reach only one conclusion - John Edwards is no longer running for President. He is merely a stalking horse for Barack Obama. Indeed, Ezra Klein wrote:

In the debate over health care mandates, rather than argue for his plan, or against Obama's, Edwards went after Hillary as a force "of the status quo" fighting those trying to bring about change. It backfired. Clinton had looked a little tired accusing Obama of flip-flopping, but Edwards riled her up enough to elicit a furious recitation of the change Hillary had actually fought for: S-CHIP and National Guard benefits and on and on. It was quite impressive, and impassioned in a way Hillary rarely is.

The answer Ezra is Edwards is merely running now to stop Hillary, not to win for himself or for his positions. Tonight was a nadir for Edwards imo.

< What Did New Hampshire Think? | Zogby Tracker: Tie In NH >

The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

Menu

Home | About | RSS
E-Mail | Comment Policy |
Search
Login

Make a new account

Existing Users

Username:
Password:
Creator and Principal Author
- Jeralyn E. Merritt
TL Alumni

Contribute To TalkLeft

Sections
Site Credits
- TalkLeft Graphics by C.L., Our Man in Hollywood (2006 - 2008)
- TalkLeft Header Graphic by Monk
- Powered by Scoop
Legal
- All Content Copyright ©2002-2024. Reprints only by permission from TalkLeft.com
- Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.
- TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.
"The pump don't work 'cause the vandals took the handles"
© 1965 Bob Dylan

The Tag Team Attack On Hillary | 133 comments (133 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

MarkL (5.00 / 2) (#55)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 02:14:43 AM EST

Damn is the only four letter word allowed.

BTD (none / 0) (#84)
by taylormattd on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 05:10:31 AM EST

You use the phrase "I can reach only one conclusion" too frequently.

Perhaps it isn't the best strategy, but it seems fairly obvious to me Edwards believes he has no chance of catching Obama, but believes he can parlay his second place finish in Iowa into a second place finish (instead of a third place finish) in New Hampshire.

He has three options: (1) attack Hillary; (2) attack Obama; (3) attack both. If he believes he is closer in poll numbers to Hillary, it makes sense he would focus attacks on her, no?

Parent

That's stupid if it is his strategy (none / 0) (#89)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 08:17:17 AM EST

If Obama has a big win in NH, it is over.

He has to bring Obama down.

I really thimk you folks do not want to think this through clearly.

But have it your way if you like.

Parent

I don't (none / 0) (#104)
by taylormattd on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 12:13:36 PM EST

really see how smearing me with "you folks" helps your point.

What I said has nothing to do with Obama. It had to do with what I saw to be an alternative as to why Edwards chose his course of action in the debate last night.

You may very well be right - how the heck would I know? I'm just guessing, and don't know anything about polls or strategy.

One thing I read was Bowers' prior description of bounces. Both the first place and second place finishers received bounces, whereas the third place finisher dropped in the polls.

It seems to me Edwards is choosing between poor options, and has decided that his attacks on Hillary while the media is droning on and on about her "third" place finish are more likely to get him into second place.

Parent

take a look (none / 0) (#107)
by Judith on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 12:43:37 PM EST

at some of the threads from last night wherein there was an abundance of ridiculous and repetitive timewasting comments from supposed Obama supporters and you can see why someone would have a knee jerk reaction today.

Parent

BTD (5.00 / 1) (#108)
by taylormattd on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 12:52:03 PM EST

knows I'm not that JGarza character

Parent

: not what I said. (none / 0) (#109)
by Judith on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 12:53:26 PM EST

re read what I wrote and think about it.

Parent

Obama didn't look really (none / 0) (#1)
by oculus on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 01:15:58 AM EST

trilled when Edwards mentioned his name.

he wants to be (none / 0) (#4)
by Judith on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 01:19:57 AM EST

beyond that kind of thing and Edwards dragged him into the dirt. You might actually say he did Clinton a favor..unless you like dockside bullies.

Parent

: Perhaps Edwards was demonstrating (none / 0) (#7)
by oculus on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 01:21:32 AM EST

his street cred, up from poverty, not really a highly compensated trial lawyer, etc.

Parent

Obama generally looked pissed (none / 0) (#6)
by MarkL on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 01:21:29 AM EST

tonight whenever anyone else was talking.
Big head, anyone?

Parent

"You are likeable enough." (none / 0) (#8)
by oculus on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 01:22:06 AM EST

Parent

yeah (none / 0) (#13)
by Judith on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 01:25:05 AM EST

I thought that was mean. it would have worked when she was on top - but not when he was.

Parent

He's not! I understand his appeal (none / 0) (#15)
by MarkL on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 01:27:00 AM EST

even less after today.
He is a hard-nosed, unpleasant person, but very intelligent.

Parent

nah (none / 0) (#16)
by Judith on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 01:27:52 AM EST

you're overdoing it.

Parent

His facial expressions were (none / 0) (#32)
by MarkL on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 01:50:47 AM EST

pretty darn unpleasant---they were a lot like Bush during the 2004 debates, actually.
Obama cannot stop himself from looking pissed.

Parent

i think he looks (none / 0) (#33)
by Judith on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 01:52:45 AM EST

intense. While it is true that the squinted look can look like a scowl of displeasure..I dont think he meant that.

Parent

Um, no. It's exactly the same (none / 0) (#38)
by MarkL on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 01:57:15 AM EST

expression he had when Wolf Blitzer was grilling him about Axelrod's indirect murder accusation against Hillary.. Obama was REALLY pissed then--same expression.

Parent

a person can seem to have (none / 0) (#41)
by Judith on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 01:59:42 AM EST

the same facial expression for different feelings. Ever see a frozen grin? Or see someone laugh hysterically at a funeral?
Again, he didnt seem p.o.'d to me. I answered you - you disagree - fine.

Parent

We are engaging in Fristian (none / 0) (#44)
by oculus on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 02:04:33 AM EST

analysis via TV. Not all that reliable.

Parent

: that kitten killer? (none / 0) (#47)
by Judith on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 02:06:27 AM EST

why did you have to bring up Mr "I can see her eyes moving from the next state" Frist?
Funny reference - you win.

Parent

I agree. He concentrated more on (none / 0) (#35)
by oculus on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 01:55:11 AM EST

maintaining a neutral look during the earlier debates, while HIllary then let her distate show.

Parent

: when I am tired (none / 0) (#40)
by Judith on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 01:58:04 AM EST

and trying to concentrate I get that heavy brow look - I catch myself and laugh. It does look angry. It can also cause a crease!

Parent

Don't (none / 0) (#36)
by Jgarza on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 01:56:06 AM EST

Hillies freak out and get defensive and start declaring people sexist when they make these same observations about Hillary?

Parent

: where's the sexism? (none / 0) (#43)
by MarkL on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 02:04:31 AM EST

Parent

I think likable enough (none / 0) (#46)
by Jgarza on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 02:06:05 AM EST

is pretty generous seeing as how she accused John Edwards of killing Natalie.

Can we just have a sort of a reality break for a minute? Because I think that it is important to make some kind of an assessment of these statements.
You know, Senator Edwards did work and get the patient bill of rights through the Senate -- it never got through the House. One of the reasons that Natalie may well have died is because there isn't a patient's bill of rights. We don't have a patient's bill of rights.

I personally think that, and Obama's comment on Hillary being likable enough, were due to both of them being tired, but if Hillies want to make them symbols of their character, i guess we can play that game.

Parent

well, since Edwards was in the Senate (none / 0) (#49)
by oculus on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 02:09:19 AM EST

and had no control over the House, I certainly don't read her statement as you do.

Parent

: by that analysis (none / 0) (#57)
by Jgarza on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 02:15:33 AM EST

there was no reason to even bring up that it failed because he was in the senate, so he did all that could be expected.

Parent

JFC! (none / 0) (#51)
by andgarden on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 02:09:37 AM EST

The "reality check" was that, contrary to John Edward's assertion, the PBoR was not really an accomplishment of his--it was never passed.

Parent

right (none / 0) (#60)
by Jgarza on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 02:18:40 AM EST

and the point of saying if you had succeeded Natalie might be alive today?
was she just bringing it up because republicans might int he future? you know make sure he is vetted?

Parent

she said (none / 0) (#63)
by Jgarza on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 02:21:03 AM EST

Natalie may well have died because you didn't PBoR passed

Parent

: So you repeat the BS again? (none / 0) (#66)
by andgarden on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 02:22:45 AM EST

Parent

She didn't blame him (none / 0) (#64)
by andgarden on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 02:22:02 AM EST

for not getting it passed. If you know anything about history, you know that Bill Clinton championed that very bill.

You are being entirely disingenuous.

Parent

Me and Ezra huh? (none / 0) (#71)
by Jgarza on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 02:28:36 AM EST

Hi take:

Worst Moment: Hillary Clinton saying, well, here's the transcript:
Can we just have a sort of a reality break for a minute? Because I think that it is important to make some kind of an assessment of these statements.
You know, Senator Edwards did work and get the patient bill of rights through the Senate -- it never got through the House. One of the reasons that Natalie may well have died is because there isn't a patient's bill of rights. We don't have a patient's bill of rights.
Natalie's parents, in a pre-planned event, are doing a rally with John Edwards tomorrow. I assume Clinton didn't mean to suggest that Edwards' lack of legislative acumen resulted in the girl's death -- Clinton didn't pass her health care plan, either, and that would've been far more effective than a set of privacy guarantees in guaranteeing a girl a liver transplant -- but it's hard for me to figure out exactly what she did mean to say. And with Natalie's parents on the campaign trail tomorrow, it's going to come up.

Parent

: Can you read? (none / 0) (#91)
by andgarden on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 09:04:17 AM EST

He clearly says that she didn't mean to imply what you're suggesting, but doesn't know what her intention was.
I've already said what I think the intention was, and it has nothing to do with blaming Edwards for the girls death.

Parent

In a general (none / 0) (#74)
by Jgarza on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 02:33:44 AM EST

even appearing to suggest that your opponent killed someone could end your candidacy.
This is a huge gaffe, she isn't ready for prime time.
Clearly voting for here would be a gamble, a roll of the dice.

Parent

Plus she killed Bhutto. Yes, you are right. (none / 0) (#75)
by oculus on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 02:36:03 AM EST

Way too risky.

Parent

: her vote (none / 0) (#77)
by Jgarza on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 02:39:28 AM EST

for Iraq has strengthened Al Queda you can disagree, but that seems accurate to me.

Parent

I dunno (none / 0) (#11)
by Judith on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 01:24:27 AM EST

I thought he was snot nosed a few times. His wife said they both have a sarcastic, put down sense of humor. When he showed that to Hillary it was when she was on top so he looked brave. Doing it when he is on top rings mean.
But I wouldnt over play it.

Parent

personal attack anyone? (none / 0) (#14)
by Jgarza on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 01:26:00 AM EST

Big head, anyone?

Parent

: Hey, i'm not a candidate. I can do it. (none / 0) (#24)
by MarkL on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 01:36:38 AM EST

Parent

Thank you for saying this (none / 0) (#2)
by MarkL on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 01:18:07 AM EST

You already read my comment in the other thread about the Edwards comment that really bothered me.
I have an additional take on tonight's debate: did Obama show weakness by delegating the fight?
I think he has realized he cannot beat Hillary in a debate, but Edwards might (only in some peoples' minds, obviously).
By the way, I made another comment for you earlier today, about Obama:
http://www.talkleft.com/comments/2008/1/5/163414/4566/3#3

Maybe it's not much, but I had a slight revelation about Obama's plan and his appeal.

wow (none / 0) (#9)
by Jgarza on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 01:23:25 AM EST

that is some crazy spin, you think was on the grassy knoll too?

Parent

: It's not spin. It's a natural (none / 0) (#18)
by MarkL on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 01:28:10 AM EST

observation. Obama has never bested Hillary in a debate. He didnt' do it tonight, either.

Parent

Interesting View - I've heard that (none / 0) (#3)
by seabos84 on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 01:19:32 AM EST

eye witnesses testimony isn't in fact that reliable, given people's memories and predujices and baggage and whatnot ...

So, back to Edwards - I've seen other comments tonight on orange where people are saying Edwards did well

So which of you are factually telling THE TRUTH, or

is it possible that people can see the same event and draw different conclusions?

Hillary is supposedly the front runner in N.H. by some polls,

(o.k. which poll at which moment with which crappy methodology ??)

and even if she isn't the front runner, knocking her out turns the race into a 2 person race.

the 20 odd mins. I saw looked like the same ol same ...

whatever trivial horses##t the press decides matters will be repeated until people won't listen OR till it matters --

like looking for the sweat on the upper lip so they can all sit around for the next 5 years pontificating how that sweat made nixon look weak and then jfk looked strong and then jfk squeaked by and then ... ooops! gotta run! gotta meet Walter at Vineyard Haven and go yachting!

rmm.

She leads in zero polls now (none / 0) (#10)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 01:23:37 AM EST

Parent

They like that he attacked Hillary (none / 0) (#12)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 01:24:55 AM EST

Obama supporters are smart to like Edwards' performance tonight.

Edwards supporters are dreaming.

Parent

Edwards supporters? (none / 0) (#19)
by Jgarza on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 01:28:35 AM EST

Edwards supporters are dreaming.

jeez they need to wake up.
2008 is all about hope not dreams!

Parent

HAHAH.. hope is so 1992. (5.00 / 2) (#21)
by MarkL on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 01:33:38 AM EST

Speaking of which, I am surprised that Obama's "hope" campaign is not ridiculed more, as a rip-off of the man from Hope.

Parent

I thought maybe Hillary Clinton (none / 0) (#22)
by oculus on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 01:34:57 AM EST

would slip that in somewhere.

Parent

I should email her campaign! (none / 0) (#23)
by MarkL on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 01:35:43 AM EST

maybe dig up some old bill clinton speeches.

Parent

they won't go there (none / 0) (#26)
by Jgarza on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 01:38:21 AM EST

his old speaches make Obama's case for him. remember he used a quote from Bill Clinton after roll of the dice snipe.

Parent

: by speaches (none / 0) (#27)
by Jgarza on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 01:38:57 AM EST

of course I mean speeches.

Parent

they know it (none / 0) (#29)
by Judith on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 01:41:22 AM EST

I heard a top reporter for the Des Moines Register praise him for lifting it - they thought it showed wit to use Bill's defense of inexperience against her.

I thought that was odd.

Parent

Obama's (none / 0) (#25)
by Jgarza on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 01:36:51 AM EST

Campaign is almost straight from Clintons 1992 play book, not the specifics but the gist of it.

Parent

coverage of Edwartds (5.00 / 1) (#86)
by Norma Hart on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 08:09:38 AM EST

The day after the Iowa debate, the editorials, Op.Eds, and letters never indicated that John Edwards was UN the debate, although he came out at least a little ahead of Clinton! The news coverage of Edwards has seemed to reflect the hope that he would just disappear and the effort to make that happen!

Edwards is the only candidate who focuses on the ills that really need to be addressed. It is not just change that we need, but change in the heavy[ influence of Big Money on our government and the growing gap between the Haves and the Have Nots. Both Cllinton and Obama have taken contributions from the lobbyists and Big Money people whose influence we need to decrease. Only Edwards has not. Obama is not specific enough for me about the KINDS of change he supports. Clinton's 35 years do not reflect much serious effort to challenge those influences.

Parent

My guess (none / 0) (#5)
by Jgarza on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 01:21:16 AM EST

is that Edwards thought he had to attack someone to make himself relevant. Since Obama is really tough to go after, he called Hillary agent of status quo? I dunno what he is doing? no plausible explanation. Maybe he is trying to make a story line that he helped Obama defeat Hillary?

Obama seems to be creating the narrative for everyone even the repubs so maybe Edwards is trying to associate himself with it?

Please (none / 0) (#82)
by DA in LA on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 04:23:05 AM EST

She attempted to triangulate and use Edwards against Obama. She began the attack, brought Edwards name into it and lost the gamble. He slapped her down. That's politics.

Parent

Edwards lost the gamble (none / 0) (#90)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 08:18:39 AM EST

Or can you explain to me how he wins the nomination if Obama wins NH big?

Parent

Can you explain to me why you (none / 0) (#102)
by DA in LA on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 11:43:24 AM EST

are so focused on one moment? Hillary blew it. The minute she brought up flip-flop accusations against Obama. THAT IS OLD SCHOOL. That is Washington. Who didn't see that as old and embarrassing the moment it came out of her mouth?

Hillary brought Edwards into the conversation first. I don't know why there is no focus on that, because she does need to beat him, right? I mean, finishing third would be a disaster, so why is she doing the same thing Edwards is doing?

Really, step back and take a look at what you are talking about. It makes little sense.

If you really want an answer to you false question, I'll give you a scenario. Obama takes Iowa. Obama takes NH. Edwards takes SC. Hillary is in bad shape.

Parent

I love that (none / 0) (#105)
by Judith on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 12:35:09 PM EST

facts are sooo old school, dude. Gotta run, surfs up!

Come on, already.

Parent

It's not the facts, it's the tactics (none / 0) (#110)
by burnedoutdem on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 12:59:47 PM EST

People are sick of the mudslinging and fear mongering that Clinton and then Bush perfected. I think that's why H. Clinton is now having such problems - she helped to perfect a campaign playbook that is becoming obsolete.

We can argue whether that's good or bad, but the sad truth is, how a message is packaged and perceived is every bit as important as what the message is.

Parent

oh please (none / 0) (#112)
by Judith on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 01:06:31 PM EST

you are trying to lump her in withh Bush and it doesn't work

Try to stick to some form of reality and maybe I'll take you seriously.

Parent

but it's okay for C to lump O in with Bush? (none / 0) (#114)
by burnedoutdem on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 01:16:05 PM EST

Rovian politics were birthed from the Clinton defeat of Bush I and the subsequent Republican witch hunt. The Clintons became very good at playing hardball, and Bush punished the rest of the country for it in two elections.

I think much of it was not the Clintons' fault - they were attacked so hard and so often that they learned to draw first blood. The fact that Bill left office with a high approval rating only fueled the verbal fire in the 2000 and 2004 elections.

The result is that we've had a government that is so focused on pointing fingers and calling names that they have stopped governing properly.

Worse, we now have a culture of Americans that cannot listen to, or perpetuate, a rational, substantive debate. Look at your own knee-jerk answer: you don't like my way of thinking, so you're not going to listen. Well, NOT listening is a big part of the problem. How can you learn and TRULY participate beyond ad hominem attacks if you don't listen? How can our elected officials govern the people who elected them if they don't listen to us and each other?

Parent

be responsible (none / 0) (#116)
by Judith on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 01:28:23 PM EST

for what YOU say.

Parent

What does that even mean? (none / 0) (#119)
by burnedoutdem on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 01:30:58 PM EST

Parent

as I guessed (none / 0) (#126)
by Judith on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 01:46:35 PM EST

we have a communication problem here. You make a statrment. I call you on it. Instead of backing up you statemetn you say - but so and so over there said something else. I am pointing out what YOU say and you wont focus on my comment. I find that kind of dialogue all over the place and not interesting.

So let's agree we dont serve each other well here and be done with it.

Enjoy - and best to you.

bye

Parent

: Maybe you're thinking of a different thread (none / 0) (#127)
by burnedoutdem on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 01:53:52 PM EST

What did you call me on? I called you on ad hominem attacks, and last I checked, you haven't denied it. I called you on not listening, and you cut off the conversation. Yeah, you sure showed me.

Parent

According to this morning's polls (none / 0) (#115)
by burnedoutdem on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 01:19:27 PM EST

I'm very well grounded in reality. Iowa, New Hampshire (and much of the rest of the country) are just tired of the pointless arguing and name-calling, and they're punishing the people who continue to do it.

Parent

nope (none / 0) (#118)
by Judith on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 01:29:50 PM EST

misread of what is happening.

Parent

Like the Des Moines Reg. poll was a misread? (none / 0) (#121)
by burnedoutdem on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 01:31:45 PM EST

Parent

ahhhh (none / 0) (#123)
by Judith on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 01:37:36 PM EST

well if you copied your ideas from somewhere else I must needs give them more credence.

Not.

Bye

Parent

How is quoting the same as copying? (none / 0) (#128)
by burnedoutdem on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 01:55:46 PM EST

It looks like you were up all night posting, so maybe you're just tired and not aware that you don't make sense?

Parent

I am waving (none / 0) (#131)
by Judith on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 02:01:42 PM EST

to you from my rear view window.

You need to find somebody else to chat with.

Bye.....

Parent

: Yeah, it can be tough (none / 0) (#133)
by burnedoutdem on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 02:08:31 PM EST

..to chat with someone who calls you on your attacks, ambiguous claims and red herring tactics.
Go ahead and drive away. Find someone else to try and bully.

Parent

You are becoming cartoonish (none / 0) (#137)
by DA in LA on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 03:14:58 PM EST

in your bizarre attacks on these threads. Amazingly hypocritical as well.

Absolutely bizarre.

Should we just post "Yes" so you can post "No" and make this whole thing easier? Because you have taken ALL these threads since last night and given them the feel of a teenage boy having a rebellious conversation with his father.

Parent

Or Edwards is lining up his next job (none / 0) (#103)
by burnedoutdem on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 12:01:15 PM EST

...in and Obama White House. I don't think Obama would ask him to be VP (too many bad Kerry flashbacks), but Edwards and his fightin' spirit would make a good Attorney General.

Parent

aint gonna happen (none / 0) (#113)
by Judith on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 01:07:02 PM EST

Parent

Not saying it is what will happen... (none / 0) (#117)
by burnedoutdem on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 01:28:55 PM EST

...just guessing that's what Edwards was thinking when he chose to side with Obama.

How are you so definitive in your reply? Do you work in the Obama campaign, or do you just like being contrary to anyone who might be disagreeing with you? I notice you've been targeting my posts an awful lot. I came into this blog considering Hillary, but your posts make me wonder if Obama hasn't been right all along...

Parent

because (none / 0) (#120)
by Judith on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 01:31:09 PM EST

you have no basis for such a statement.

Parent

I was basing it (none / 0) (#122)
by burnedoutdem on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 01:34:18 PM EST

partially on how Edwards' demeanor shifted in 2004 when it looked like Kerry was locked, and partially on how he really sounded last night. If you disagree, that's fine, but I'm not the only one on these threads who's saying this. What does it matter, anyway? It's all speculation and instinct. Why does it make you so mad to see people guessing at Edwards' motives?

Parent

ahhhh (none / 0) (#125)
by Judith on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 01:40:06 PM EST

the ole if she doesnt agree with me and writes with force so she must be mad nonsense.

You made a statement. I said it wouldnt happen.
I am done.

Bye

Parent

It would be easier (none / 0) (#129)
by burnedoutdem on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 01:58:47 PM EST

if you would support your claim. Why don't you think that's what he was doing? I'd be interested in your point of view if you'd just expand a little bit.

And I'm sorry if I'm not being clear - short answers make you sound angry, and I'm sure that's not what you intended.

Parent

actually (none / 0) (#130)
by Judith on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 02:00:48 PM EST

I just reread my post and I can see where you thought I was mad.

I am not.

But I will be more careful - passionate writing can be seen that way on the "Internets" and as you are a smart person with a worthy right to have your opinion respected (at least until proven otherwise) I do not think I was fair in my response.

I appologize.

Parent

Thanks (none / 0) (#135)
by burnedoutdem on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 02:16:56 PM EST

And I'm still genuinely interested - why don't you think that Edwards is siding with Obama to secure his own future? I was being a little glib about AG, but it does seem like he's stopped trying to win, and has opted to back Obama. Obvious reason is it's to try and get a job in the new administration, but if you don't see it that way, I'd be curious to know why.

Parent

: no (none / 0) (#136)
by Judith on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 02:27:21 PM EST

You have called me a bully so I am not interested in further attempts with you.
I politely said goodbye and politely expressed regret for any of your perceived hostility on my part but that is as much from me as you are going to get.
Now leave me alone, please.

Parent

I don't see a VP spot either (none / 0) (#124)
by Jeralyn on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 01:37:37 PM EST

Nor, I do see him for Attorney General. I don't think that's where his interests lie. He's much more interested in economic and social justice.

But I sense some kind of coalition in the making.

Parent

Based solely on watching the (none / 0) (#132)
by oculus on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 02:05:01 PM EST

Dem. debate last night, IMO Obama is not fond of Edwards. So, I doubt that, if Obama wins the Presidency, he will be offering a cabinet position to Edwards.

Parent

: Totally agree (none / 0) (#134)
by burnedoutdem on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 02:13:07 PM EST

I don't think Obama will give him anything, either. I'm just saying that Edwards' quick change smells of maneuvering for something post-election.
I wonder what sort of "coalition" he's considering? Interesting...

Parent

I'm interested in this too (none / 0) (#17)
by andgarden on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 01:27:55 AM EST

and my feeble attempt to broach the topic at daily kos did not bring about good discussion.

Adam B suggested the following:

He needs this to be a two-person race, and Clinton is the easier person to derail right now.

I guess that might be, but I think it's predicated on the assumption that John Edwards still believes he can win this, or that even if he takes out Clinton, he can then go on to beat Obama.

A complete mystery to me too.

Adam's smart (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 01:40:56 AM EST

He loves this - for Obama.

Parent

Edwards is self-destructing what's left (none / 0) (#31)
by andgarden on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 01:47:07 AM EST

of his campaign. And the Obama crowd hopes he'll take down Hillary in the process.

Edwards supporters are happy to go along, because they hate Hillary anyway.

Parent

was it the (none / 0) (#34)
by Jgarza on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 01:53:24 AM EST

Eddies or the Hillies that tried to float the Obama is conservative line or was that just a general bl(og)oviaters thing?

Parent

: Matt Stoller wrote such an article. (none / 0) (#92)
by illissius on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 09:08:30 AM EST

I don't know who he supports.

Parent

So, it's only a matter of time before Obama wins? (none / 0) (#83)
by DA in LA on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 04:39:44 AM EST

Because if the Edwards supporters hate Hillary, then this race was over before it began.

Parent

cuz of 200k Iowans, it is OVER. (none / 0) (#93)
by seabos84 on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 09:25:12 AM EST

c'mon - you're sounding like the t.v. know it alls.

There are infinite opportunities for snowflakes melting on faces to be called tears,

or tears to be called snowflakes melting on faces.

If I remember '80 a bit, carter and kennedy duking it out lasted a while, which is what 'the party' has tried to aviod ever since.

I really think that JRE is alive until super tuesday - unless this tuesday is dismal.

by the way ----

JRE's senate voting record SUCKS, so it has taken me a long time to come to his side, and the clincher was when he was talking about the stupidity of sitting at the table with the powerful.

Hillary and Barack like sitting at hte table and coming back everyday to a smaller loaf and smaller % to 'negotiate' for. to hell with both of them.

rmm.

Parent

: Obama (5.00 / 1) (#94)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 09:35:20 AM EST

is EdwardS' candidate now.

Parent

lol (none / 0) (#111)
by taylormattd on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 01:00:23 PM EST

I just read that whole thread at DKos. Good times.

Parent

The Tag Team Attack On Hillary (none / 0) (#30)
by Jgarza on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 01:41:40 AM EST

does it say something bad about me that when i read this i thought "usually i think of getting tag teamed as a much more pleasurable experience"

and yes i know i'm showing my 25 year oldness(ok it could be mistaken for 15 after this)

Ezra was way off in his analysis (none / 0) (#37)
by tommyg on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 01:57:05 AM EST

Hillary was flustered and came across as angry. Sure, the moderators did their best to help her recover later, but this was her worst moment by far. She went on the attack and both Edwards and Richardson repudiated her.

The focus group tracking by both WUMR and Luntz showed voters (especially Independents) being turned off by Hillary's negative attacks.

As far as Edwards, I don't see the strategy in this either, but as an Obama supporter, I'm glad he's doing it.

Do not know about Luntz (none / 0) (#39)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 01:57:59 AM EST

But in the WMUR Dems liked Hillary's moment.

Parent

IF Hillary Clinton is supposed to just sit (none / 0) (#42)
by oculus on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 02:02:27 AM EST

back, be passive, and not forcefully challenge attackers, its over for her either way. Pretty sad.

Parent

and women (none / 0) (#45)
by Judith on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 02:04:46 AM EST

are often the ones saying it. Pathetic.

Parent

Obama attacked her? (none / 0) (#48)
by Jgarza on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 02:08:47 AM EST

hum i didn't hear that?

Parent

Pay attention, please. Edwards (none / 0) (#53)
by oculus on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 02:12:17 AM EST

attacked her (verbally, not literally) on behalf of himself and Obama. She responded with fire and conviction.

Parent

You think jgarza (none / 0) (#54)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 02:13:24 AM EST

does not know that?

Parent

Hard to tell, but I'm being gradually (none / 0) (#56)
by oculus on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 02:15:22 AM EST

pulled into the abyss. Tell me, is there a comment filter here?

Parent

you two (none / 0) (#58)
by Judith on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 02:16:43 AM EST

crack me up.

and he aint 25.

Parent

No? I thought we had a real live (none / 0) (#61)
by oculus on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 02:18:58 AM EST

youthful supporter of Obama here.

Parent

I withdraw the comment (none / 0) (#67)
by Judith on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 02:25:43 AM EST

I have no reason to claim he is not 25.

Parent

Actually, you do. (none / 0) (#68)
by oculus on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 02:26:32 AM EST

Parent

really? (none / 0) (#70)
by Judith on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 02:28:27 AM EST

you mean anoymous people can pretend to be people they're not?

say it aint so, Joe!

Parent

I was going to say something about (none / 0) (#73)
by oculus on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 02:30:55 AM EST

writing and reasoning skills but you are way beyond that.

Parent

: why thank you. (none / 0) (#76)
by Judith on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 02:38:47 AM EST

Parent

please (none / 0) (#52)
by Judith on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 02:11:46 AM EST

could you refrain from the cussing - its it kind of jarring. Pretty please?

This is a cuss-free zone. You are safe. (none / 0) (#59)
by oculus on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 02:17:56 AM EST

Parent

I dont feel endangered (none / 0) (#69)
by Judith on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 02:27:32 AM EST

just gets on my nerves to think this could turn into one of the rank other boards - I cant read some of them becuase they start mildly cursing and then the filthy stuff starts...etc.

Maybe I am just too nervous.

never mind.

Parent

: Jeralyn keeps a pretty close watch (none / 0) (#72)
by oculus on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 02:29:02 AM EST

here.

Parent

"There can be only one nominee!" (none / 0) (#62)
by chemoelectric on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 02:19:30 AM EST

There can be only one nominee!

Oh, nonsense, there will be exactly two nominees, not from the same state. What do you think this is, the Super Bowl, with a winner and a loser? I guess so, since you talk about "debate" tactics as if they were football formations rather than serious business, and actually claim to enjoy doing this. Let's not have any complaints about Tweety, or about Russert with his little blackboard and electoral 'pincer' formations.

Somebody wake me up when it is my turn to caucus.

I am anxiously awaiting the date (none / 0) (#65)
by oculus on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 02:22:14 AM EST

pitchers and catchers report for spring training.

Meanwhile, does anyone have the secret to Diane Sawyer's successful fight against aging? She looks terrific.

Parent

: surgery (5.00 / 1) (#79)
by Judith on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 03:06:52 AM EST

and good genes

Parent

Edwards stank in 2004 (none / 0) (#80)
by Judith on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 03:10:55 AM EST

he was a lousy choice.

Not one chance in hell (none / 0) (#81)
by MarkL on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 03:19:36 AM EST

Edwards believes everything he says.

: That's impossible to say (none / 0) (#98)
by Rojas on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 11:14:59 AM EST

But his message was right on the mark. Hill and Bill shifted the staus quo way to the right. They essentially ran the country as moderate republicans while throwing their base just enough red meat to keep them following the train. I'd argue it's not Edwards who's delusional but the hill and bill supporters who profess an affinity for economic justice but really just have fond memories of the rise of their stock portfolios.

Parent

Your link to the NYTimes doesn't work (none / 0) (#85)
by Maryb2004 on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 08:01:18 AM EST

But I found it anyway.

You skipped the paragraph everyone will read first:

With the New Hampshire primary two days away, Mrs. Clinton found her courage, likability and judgment questioned. But she fought back as she did when she was first lady of Arkansas and of the United States -- with defiance and flashes of anger, pursing her lips, stiffening her back and staring intently at her rivals.

Let's see - defiance. flashes of anger. pursing her lips. stiffening her back. staring intently at her rivals.

None of that is a good characterization for Hillary.

Adam Nagourney - a night "marked by bouts of shouting and finger-pointing -- Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York went after Senator Barack Obama of Illinois aggressively, contending that he had switched his positions on crucial issues, including health care and financing the Iraq war."

shouting and finger pointing. not good for hillary.

All of this reminds people of the unikeable Hillary that constantly got bad press as first lady. Was the bad press fair? Of course not. Does it mean that Democratic partisans actually agree with the MSM in interpreting her? No. Not necessarily.

She "fought back as she did when she was first lady of Arkansas and of the United States". Everyone, even Democratic partisans, are reminded of life spent constantly defending the Clintons against the irrational Clinton haters and the MSM. That was my point last night. Democratic partisans may not actually have had a problem with Hillary. But after they sit back and watch the reaction of all the people who don't like Hillary it may cause them to question whether her negatives are worth it when there is a another viable candidate.

We're into the instinct phase right before people go into the voting booth. I don't think it's good for her.

Whatever Mary (none / 0) (#87)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 08:14:56 AM EST

Now you are just being stubborn.

Parent

: depends - (none / 0) (#106)
by Judith on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 12:41:05 PM EST

It depends on where your head is. Not your body casue I know awesome women in the supposed conservative states that would blow Ms Mary right out of her chair for that nonsense.
There are self defeating women everywhere who let men decide what is right and proper - and these woman do the work for men in keeping other women down. It is pathetic and I have nothing but contempt for it. And I have a quite healthy bank account becuase of the contempt I hold for self-defeating attitudes that say "you cant".
Hey, you can support or not support whoever you want - just have a reason that isnt embarrassing.

Parent

Bwahahahahahahaha! (none / 0) (#88)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 08:15:55 AM EST

Edwards for AG (none / 0) (#95)
by Kate Stone on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 10:22:04 AM EST

Edwards would make a fine attorney general in a Democratic administration.

Use Your Imagination (none / 0) (#97)
by Randinho on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 11:02:21 AM EST

I can reach only one conclusion - John Edwards is no longer running for President. He is merely a stalking horse for Barack Obama.

I can see a couple of different things:

1.) Edwards is trying to push Obama further to the left by showing that Hillary is too far to the right.

2.) He's trying to weaken Hillary further by siding with Obama to make it a 2 candidate race between him and Obama with an eye towards South Carolina.

Your zeal to write Edwards political obituary shouldn't limit your imagination.

Part 1 has nothing to do with winning (none / 0) (#99)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 11:19:44 AM EST

Part 2 makes no sense. By not WEAKENING Obama he gets buried in NH and has no chance whatsoever.

He is working to effectively end the race in NH.

You seem to like accusing me of lacking imagination when you seem to not understand the basics of the race.

Parent

: Well, That's One Opinion (none / 0) (#100)
by Randinho on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 11:26:37 AM EST

On the other hand, if he finishes ahead of Hillary in NH, he would be in good position to win SC. Sometimes you have to pass others first to get to the top.
As there are 2,025 delegates needed for the nomination, the race is far from over. Super Tuesday will, IMHO be a lot more important than NH.

Parent
: As For part 1 (none / 0) (#101)
by Randinho on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 11:28:08 AM EST

It has everything to do with getting your ideas across. You shouldn't give such short shrift to ideas.

Parent

The Tag Team Attack On Hillary | 133 comments (133 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment