Why is John Edwards running interference for Barack Obama?

[Direckshun]

Obama embarked on a fairly improbable journey when he began campaigning for President. His campaign was decidedly positive with almost no allusions to any of his adversaries in the Democratic primaries, and what anybody would agree would be a near-absense of any overt negative attacks.

Such a positive strategy is admirable, perhaps, but when you're going up against the Clinton Machine, it was questionable whether he could register a blip when he foregoes the effective tactic of negative campaigning, while the Clinton Machine so frequently embraces it.

Well he's had a godsend in John Edwards, who has been the attack dog on Hillary and has done nearly all of Obama's work for him. The half-dozen criticisms he's been chirping for 12 months are now common conversation starters at your kitchen table: Hillary's unelectable, she changes positions, she's the status quo, etc.

This is expected; Edwards is a brilliant and seasoned campaigner who understands the power of mudslinging, and for nearly two years Hillary has been the frontrunner. But all this changed after Iowa -- Obama's the frontrunner now, but Edwards continues to deliberately shoot at Clinton without hardly raising his gloves to Obama.

Why? Is he campaigning for running mate status? Does he believe he can overtake Obama with the strategy of playing Cal to his Ricky Bobby?

Thoughts.

[Ultra Peanut]

In the beginning, it was his only shot at beating Hillary.

Now that he's lost in the state that he absolutely had to win to have any hope, it's a little bit of that and a little bit of a suicide run to at least prevent her from winning.

Regardless of his reasons, all I can say is keep up the good work, you scrappy little bastard.

[Dr.Fine]

Why? Is he campaigning for running mate status? Does he believe he can overtake Obama with the strategy of playing Cal to his Ricky Bobby?

Thoughts.

if he's campaigning for RMS, he had a hard time changing gears. It was halfway through last nights debate until he dropped the "when I am President of the United States" mantra. How many times did he trot that out-like 50? He sees his best chance at finishing off Hillary first-plain & simple imo.

[Infidel Goat]

Edwards wants a two person race, and I don't think he cares if he faces Clinton or Obama. Had Clinton and Edwards finished 1-2, then he'd probably try to put him away first.

Clinton is weak right now, though, so he's trying to finish her off.

If Clinton falters even more and the media begin to cover this as an Obama vs. Edwards race--then I think it's safe to say that he'll draw greater contrasts between himself and Obama.

[banyon]

Maybe he's just saying Hillary sucks because it's true?

['Hamas' Jenkins]

B/c he ran for VP last time as soon as Kerry built a sizeable lead.

[jAZ]

Edwards is going after Hillary for at least four reasons:

1) Because Edwards is #3 and Hillary is #2 and the next one up on the totem pole

2) He needs someone to drop out or it's him

3) His views contrast best with her's... both from a personal view and from a politically impactful view

4) Obama's softer tone more aligned philosphy makes it hard to effectively contrast himself with Obama.

It's a losing strategy for Edwards, IMO. But it's the better political choice because going after Obama is even less effective. That's a round about way of saying that Edwards lost when he didn't win Iowa.

[chiefforlife]

Isnt it possible that Edwards likes Obama and that there isnt any mud to sling against him.

It is refreshing to have a politician that has no skeletons in his closet and actually believes what he says and stands for.

Dont fight it...join it!

[mlyonsd]

Edwards is going after Hillary for at least four reasons:

1) Because Edwards is #3 and Hillary is #2 and the next one up on the totem pole

2) He needs someone to drop out or it's him

3) His views contrast best with her's... both from a personal view and from a politically impactful view

4) Obama's softer tone more aligned philosphy makes it hard to effectively contrast himself with Obama.

It's a losing strategy for Edwards, IMO. But it's the better political choice because going after Obama is even less effective. That's a round about way of saying that Edwards lost when he didn't win Iowa.

Excellent analysis.

[Cochise]

I mentioned this in the "Clinton Machine shaken..." thread, I think Edwards is basically done because he still can't win any states, so he's just trying to board the winning ship. You won't hear him say anything bad about Obama the rest of the way, since he'll be trying to position himself as VP candidate IMO

I think the guy just desperately wants to get back to Washington somehow.

He's not a serious candidate having not won Iowa because he can't win any more, he doesn't even have a campaign structure in NH or SC, and he's broke.

[patteeu]

Isnt it possible that Edwards likes Obama and that there isnt any mud to sling against him.

It is refreshing to have a politician that has no skeletons in his closet and actually believes what he says and stands for.

Dont fight it...join it!

You forgot to mention that you're a long time Republican.

[mlyonsd]

I mentioned this in the "Clinton Machine shaken..." thread, I think Edwards is basically done because he still can't win any states, so he's just trying to board the winning ship. You won't hear him say anything bad about Obama the rest of the way, since he'll be trying to position himself as VP candidate IMO

I think the guy just desperately wants to get back to Washington somehow.

He's not a serious candidate having not won Iowa because he can't win any more, he doesn't even have a campaign structure in NH or SC, and he's broke.

I think this is a possibility as well. By making it look like he's more parallel with Obama then Hillary he is in affect trying to take her out of a possible VP spot.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Hillary would never be anyone's VP.

[Dr.Fine]

she certainly didn't take a back-seat to Bill

[mlyonsd]

Hillary would never be anyone's VP.

I don't know. She's a very tenacious and calculating person. I can easily see her take the VP job knowing it might be the only way it eventually gets her the top spot.

[chiefforlife]

You forgot to mention that you're a long time Republican.


You are correct sir, I am a lifelong Republican. Beaten down by the likes of George W. Bush and his partners in crime. Complete fiscal irresponsibility, lying to the country to achieve his own agenda. I could go on but we have had some of these conversations.

I am for change, I am for Obama.

[noa]

I think Hillary should be the Senate Majority Leader for the Dems.

[Cochise]

I think this is a possibility as well. By making it look like he's more parallel with Obama then Hillary he is in affect trying to take her out of a possible VP spot.

No, I mean, Edwards is sucking up to Obama because he wants to be the running mate.

[Hydrae]

I don't know. She's a very tenacious and calculating person. I can easily see her take the VP job knowing it might be the only way it eventually gets her the top spot.


I wouldn't want her for my VP. I would be afraid of waking up dead some morning. :)

[dirk digler]

No, I mean, Edwards is sucking up to Obama because he wants to be the running mate.

Yep and Jaz's analysis is spot on as well.

If Obama gets the nomination he will need to pick someone with strong foreign policy experience and experience in Washington as his VP like Bush did with Cheney.

Biden would be a perfect fit for Obama.

[chiefforlife]

Biden would be a perfect fit for Obama.


I like that idea also.

[StcChief]

I wouldn't want her for my VP. I would be afraid of waking up dead some morning. :)
ask Vince Foster

[patteeu]

You are correct sir, I am a lifelong Republican. Beaten down by the likes of George W. Bush and his partners in crime. Complete fiscal irresponsibility, lying to the country to achieve his own agenda. I could go on but we have had some of these conversations.

I am for change, I am for Obama.

Of course, because from a lifelong Republican's point of view, Obama is so much more likely to pursue fiscally responsible policies than any of the seven Republican candidates. :rolleyes:

Biden would be a perfect fit for Obama.

I like that idea also.

Now there's a dream ticket for a lifelong Republican, that's for sure. How could I have ever doubted you?

[chiefforlife]

Of course, because from a lifelong Republican's point of view, Obama is so much more likely to pursue fiscally responsible policies than any of the seven Republican candidates. :rolleyes:



Now there's a dream ticket for a lifelong Republican, that's for sure. How could I have ever doubted you?


I am clearly and openly voting for a democrat this time around. I realize that is something you can not wrap your mind around and I would never hold that against you. It wasnt long ago that I would have shared that stance.

I see no Republican candidate that is willing to change or reform the status quo that now resides in Washington. I dont want a promise here and a handshake there. I would like to see a complete change in the way things are done, I believe Obama has the best chance of achieving that.

I will not vote Republican just to vote Republican.

[Laz]

because Edwards can't really win ...... so he's taking out somebody so he can be #2. Then he has to hope that some of the money makes it's way to him after only being split 2-ways instead of 3.

it opens a possible shot for VP

it opens a possible future shot at running for president.

Hillary sucks so it's easy







.

[Laz]

Here's to a Obama vs McCain presidential race :toast:










and many right wing coronaries :)

[alnorth]

I am clearly and openly voting for a democrat this time around. I realize that is something you can not wrap your mind around and I would never hold that against you. It wasnt long ago that I would have shared that stance.

I see no Republican candidate that is willing to change or reform the status quo that now resides in Washington. I dont want a promise here and a handshake there. I would like to see a complete change in the way things are done, I believe Obama has the best chance of achieving that.

I will not vote Republican just to vote Republican.

You should not vote Republican just to vote Republican, but if you are truely angry with fiscal irresponsibility, then what makes you believe Obama's long wish-list of new government spending will bring us out of the red? If you really are concerned with fiscal responsibility and not just voting for the popular guy because its the cool thing to do, then what makes you believe Obama, one of the most liberal candidates in the field, will be the most fiscally responsible?

Assuming your stated motivation is true, it strikes me as silly optimism or willful ignorance of the policies that the liberal wing of the Democratic party has wanted to implement for years.

[patteeu]

I am clearly and openly voting for a democrat this time around. I realize that is something you can not wrap your mind around and I would never hold that against you. It wasnt long ago that I would have shared that stance.

I see no Republican candidate that is willing to change or reform the status quo that now resides in Washington. I dont want a promise here and a handshake there. I would like to see a complete change in the way things are done, I believe Obama has the best chance of achieving that.

I will not vote Republican just to vote Republican.

Hey, vote for whoever you want to vote for. My problem with you isn't that you're going to vote Obama. It's that you've said in the past that you're a "lifelong Republican" as if that make's your current attitude more meaningful. Lincoln Chafee is a lifelong Republican too. Maybe he'll join you in the Obama camp before it's all said and done.

[chiefforlife]

You should not vote Republican just to vote Republican, but if you are truely angry with fiscal irresponsibility, then what makes you believe Obama's long wish-list of new government spending will bring us out of the red? If you really are concerned with fiscal responsibility and not just voting for the popular guy because its the cool thing to do, then what makes you believe Obama, one of the most liberal candidates in the field, will be the most fiscally responsible?

Assuming your stated motivation is true, it strikes me as silly optimism or willful ignorance of the policies that the liberal wing of the Democratic party has wanted to implement for years.


I consider the trillion dollar war to be the most fiscally irresponsible issue ever. I would side with Ron Paul on the fact that we can not fix our healthcare or go farther and fix social security but we have unlimited funds for Iraq.
Obamas stance on the war is a giant improvement and even if he was to spend some of that money in America, that is where it should be spent.
I wont pretend to know every candidates stance on every issue but I am trying to learn more about each one as we get closer.
I dont see any Republican candidate that excites me and I believe that GW has ruined the parties credibility.
Voting for a candidate because he is cool as you put it is an insult to anyone who votes.

[dirk digler]

Lincoln Chafee is a lifelong Republican too. Maybe he'll join you in the Obama camp before it's all said and done.

No is he is not he switched to an Independent early in 07.

[patteeu]

You should not vote Republican just to vote Republican, but if you are truely angry with fiscal irresponsibility, then what makes you believe Obama's long wish-list of new government spending will bring us out of the red? If you really are concerned with fiscal responsibility and not just voting for the popular guy because its the cool thing to do, then what makes you believe Obama, one of the most liberal candidates in the field, will be the most fiscally responsible?

Assuming your stated motivation is true, it strikes me as silly optimism or willful ignorance of the policies that the liberal wing of the Democratic party has wanted to implement for years.

Exactly. I could see a Republican who has strong opposition to our post-9/11 foreign policy might want to vote for a democrat (although Ron Paul would be an available alternative), but I don't understand why anyone would see Obama as more likely to be fiscally responsible than one of the Republican candidates like John McCain who is well known as an anti-pork zealot or Fred Thompson who has been campaigning on entitlement reform, or again, Ron Paul who is the ultimate in fiscal responsibility.

[patteeu]

No is he is not he switched to an Independent early in 07.

Oops, that one slipped under my radar. Amend that to "*was* a lifelong Republican". Hey, maybe cfl *is* Lincoln Chafee.

[dirk digler]

Oops, that one slipped under my radar. Amend that to "*was* a lifelong Republican". Hey, maybe cfl *is* Lincoln Chafee.

No problem I knew what you meant.

I actually can't believe that Chaffe was a republican he was more liberal on most issues than liberals themselves except when it came to spending.

[chiefforlife]

Hey, vote for whoever you want to vote for. My problem with you isn't that you're going to vote Obama. It's that you've said in the past that you're a "lifelong Republican" as if that make's your current attitude more meaningful. Lincoln Chafee is a lifelong Republican too. Maybe he'll join you in the Obama camp before it's all said and done.


I do feel that needs to be stated in certain discussions. It gives a better perspective of where Im coming from. I have always voted Republican, the Democrats finally have a candidate that I would like to see become president.

You give the impression that even if you really like Obama, you would not vote for him just because of his affiliation with the democratic party.

[stevieray]

and many right wing coronaries :)

exactly why we don't move forward as a nation..

I still say a Barry/Hillary ticket is on the horizen...I think they will use each other as insurance.

[patteeu]

No problem I knew what you meant.

I actually can't believe that Chaffe was a republican he was more liberal on most issues than liberals themselves except when it came to spending.

Actually, I was completely unaware of the fact that he left the Republican party until you mentioned it, so thanks for correcting me.

I agree with your second statement.

[patteeu]

I do feel that needs to be stated in certain discussions. It gives a better perspective of where Im coming from. I have always voted Republican, the Democrats finally have a candidate that I would like to see become president.

You give the impression that even if you really like Obama, you would not vote for him just because of his affiliation with the democratic party.

The impression I'm trying to give is that regardless of whether I like his demeanor or his non-threatening, non-specific rhetoric, there's no way I could vote for Obama because of his liberal philosophy.

[chiefforlife]

Exactly. I could see a Republican who has strong opposition to our post-9/11 foreign policy might want to vote for a democrat (although Ron Paul would be an available alternative), but I don't understand why anyone would see Obama as more likely to be fiscally responsible than one of the Republican candidates like John McCain who is well known as an anti-pork zealot or Fred Thompson who has been campaigning on entitlement reform, or again, Ron Paul who is the ultimate in fiscal responsibility.


Please see the new thread about the false perception of Obama and "how he will spend all your money"

We wont have any left after GW.

[Laz]

exactly why we don't move forward as a nation..
says the tolerant and compromising religious rightie. :p


i'll tell you want ... as soon a 1/3 of the GOP drops the "we are better than everyone else, you are all going to hell" attitude, THEN and only then will they get a cooperative attitude from me.

[banyon]

Please see the new thread about the false perception of Obama and "how he will spend all your money"

We wont have any left after GW.

LOL, I made that thread just for you and patteeu. ;)

[Laz]

if hillary doesnt score a major victory in NH or south carolina, she's toast come super tuesday.

[chiefforlife]

LOL, I made that thread just for you and patteeu. ;)


Thank you, your timing is impeccable. lol.

[Dr.Fine]

We wont have any left after GW.[/QUOTE]

guess that voodoo shiat (starve the beast) worked better than expected!

[stevieray]

says the tolerant and compromising religious rightie. :p


i'll tell you want ... as soon a 1/3 of the GOP drops the "we are better than every else, you are all going to hell" attitude, THEN and only then will they get a cooperative from me.

rightie? i don't play that game...those labels are pimped adnauseum to compensate for an absentee fathered nation.

I'll tell you what, I hope that you aren't teaching that beautiful daughter of yours that it's up to others to change to her standards and do the right thing first.

[HolmeZz]

exactly why we don't move forward as a nation...

Because if there's anything the Republican party stands for, it's moving our country forward. The party with no desire to move towards a political solution in Iraq; the party that acts as an obstacle in the advancement of stem cell research; the suppressors of the rights of homosexuals. Conservatives, essentially by definition, are about maintaining the status quo. They're now trying to pass themselves off as 'agents of change' because they've seen the positive response it's gotten when it comes to attracting people who don't normally care enough to vote.

[Laz]

rightie? i don't play that game...those labels are pimped adnauseum to compensate for an absentee fathered nation.

I'll tell you what, I hope that you aren't teaching that beautiful daughter of yours that it's up to others to change to her standards and do the right thing first.
i don't teach political or religious leanings ...

imo that is up for each individual person to decide as they live and grow.


teach them to think and learn and then they can decide for themselves

[stevieray]

Because if there's anything the Republican party stands for, it's moving our country forward. The party with no desire to move towards a political solution in Iraq; the party that acts as an obstacle in the advancement of stem cell research; the suppressors of the rights of homosexuals. Conservatives, essentially by definition, are about maintaining the status quo. They're now trying to pass themselves off as 'agents of change' because they've seen the positive response it's gotten when it comes to attracting people who don't normally care enough to vote.

thanks for proving my point. I'm sorry your identity and the identity of others is so defined by a political party. Politics have infested almost every facet of our lives, because we are so self-absorbed and can't figure out for ourselves..hell, we can't even get close to being unified about anything other than throwing out labels and stereotypes in efforts to castigate, categorize and justify our actions and predjudices.

spare me with the only one side does it...we all do it...and until we all stop trying to play the blame game....divided we stand, united we fall..

[stevieray]

i don't teach political or religious leanings ...

imo that is up for each individual person to decide as they live and grow.


teach them to think and learn and then they can decide for themselves

I never implied you did. I'm talking about doing the right thing because it's the right thing to do, not because a condition was met.

[stevieray]

They're now trying to pass themselves off as 'agents of change' because they've seen the positive response it's gotten when it comes to attracting people who don't normally care enough to vote.

Reagen and Bush 41 and 43 appointed more people of color to their cabinets than any other. I think it's been clear for over forty years who has been trying to pass themselves off as "agents of change"

[dirk digler]

Politics have infested almost every facet of our lives, because we are so self-absorbed and can't figure out for ourselves..hell, we can't even get close to being unified about anything other than throwing out labels and stereotypes in efforts to castigate, categorize and justify our actions and predjudices.

spare me with the only one side does it...we all do it...and until we all stop trying to play the blame game....divided we stand, united we fall..

Brillant post stevie. It sounds like you are now an Obama supporter. ;)

:p

[stevieray]

Brillant post stevie. It sounds like you are now an Obama supporter. ;)

:p

I support the fact that he has the abilty to run for President.

Do I think he and we are at a time and place for him to run the country?

Not really. If he was VP for eight years..? Definitely. Would I vote for him then ? possibly, but that is too far in advance to decide.

[|Zach|]

How is it we are not at a time or place for him to run this country. What do you factor into that?

[chiefforlife]

How is it we are not at a time or place for him to run this country. What do you factor into that?


I was wondering the same thing? How big of a mess do you want to hand him? I think its big enough now.

[|Zach|]

I was wondering the same thing? How big of a mess do you want to hand him? I think its big enough now.
I didn't really think of it that way. I am just curious as to the reasoning behind the comment.

[HolmeZz]

How is it we are not at a time or place for him to run this country. What do you factor into that?

Stevie doesn't seem to understand that part of Barack's appeal is that he isn't tied down to Washington.

[banyon]

Stevie doesn't seem to understand that part of Barack's appeal is that he isn't tied down to Washington.

It was also supposedly a part of the Republican nominee's appeal in 2000, but you know that didn't stop Stevie from pulling the lever from you-know-who.

[stevieray]

Stevie doesn't seem to understand that part of Barack's appeal is that he isn't tied down to Washington.

shocking that this is what you're reduced to.

[HolmeZz]

shocking that this is what you're reduced to.

Pointing out that you don't understand Obama's appeal?

[stevieray]

It was also supposedly a part of the Republican nominee's appeal in 2000, but you know that didn't stop Stevie from pulling the lever from you-know-who.



I don't presume why you vote the way you do, and I'd appreciate it if you'd give me the same benefit of the doubt.

Otherwise, STFU

[dirk digler]

I support the fact that he has the abilty to run for President.

Do I think he and we are at a time and place for him to run the country?

Not really. If he was VP for eight years..? Definitely. Would I vote for him then ? possibly, but that is too far in advance to decide.

I honestly believe he picked the perfect time to run. The country wants real change not an extension of Bush.

[|Zach|]

How is it we are not at a time or place for him to run this country. What do you factor into that?
:hmmm:

[dirk digler]

shocking that this is what you're reduced to.

Are you serious? No one that I know of wants the next POTUS to be a Washington insider who are always completely out of touch with the majority of the American people.

[Hydrae]

shocking that this is what you're reduced to.


Rather than poking someone else's response, how about addressing the question:


How is it we are not at a time or place for him to run this country. What do you factor into that?

[|Zach|]

Classic SR.

When you try and cut through the generalities, cryptic open ended language, filler, pretentious armchair psychology, non sequiturs and try to get him to actually back up or simply explain something he says in detail he can't\won't.

[dirk digler]

Classic SR.

When you try and cut through the generalities, cryptic open ended language, filler, pretentious armchair psychology, non sequiturs and try to get him to actually back up or simply explain something he says in detail he can't\won't.

I like stevie alot but sometimes when he posts I feel like I should have to work for the CIA to decipher his code

[stevieray]

:hmmm:

Hold on Zach..

[HolmeZz]

Hold on Zach..

Having trouble getting the BS machine started?

[Ultra Peanut]

Classic SR.

When you try and cut through the generalities, cryptic open ended language, filler, pretentious armchair psychology, non sequiturs and try to get him to actually back up or simply explain something he says in detail he can't\won't.THAT'S EXACTLY THE RESPONSE I EXPECTED FROM SOMEONE LIKE YOU

We went over this with stevie/BD/others a year ago. They don't think a black person can win the presidency; but it's no because they or anyone they know is racist, no. It's because there's apparently a mystical cabal that will swoop in and prevent it from happening.

Why said cabal decided to ignore the caucuses in a state that's 97% white is beyond me, but hey...

[banyon]

I don't presume why you vote the way you do, and I'd appreciate it if you'd give me the same benefit of the doubt.
Otherwise, STFU


Sure you do. You do it every day (presume why people vote/favor policies the way they do). It's kind of the only thing you ever do around here. Don't know why you of all people would've earned a benefit of the doubt on that. I don't think there's anyone who posts on this board who is less interested in policy or politics than they are in "presuming why [people] vote the way they do".

[stevieray]

How is it we are not at a time or place for him to run this country. What do you factor into that?

I think we are at too volatile a time with GWOT to hand the reins to someone inexperienced as Obama.

[stevieray]

Sure you do. You do it every day (presume why people vote/favor policies the way they do). It's kind of the only thing you ever do around here. Don't know why you of all people would've earned a benefit of the doubt on that. I don't think there's anyone who posts on this board who is less interested in policy or politics than they are in "presuming why [people] vote the way they do".

ROFL ..prove it...

I've watched all the pavlov puppies forget about the war once the candidates started their campaigns six months early....it's been interesting watching the same people who spent time bashing Bush now bashing anyone who doesn't support their candidate...

[dirk digler]

I think we are at too volatile a time with GWOT to hand the reins to someone inexperienced as Obama.

According to the polls in Iowa and now NH terrorism is usually the 3rd or 4th priority on voters list. This includes both Dem and Republican

It has been ranking as this:

1. Economy
2. Health care or Immigration
3. Iraq
4. WOT

[stevieray]

According to the polls in Iowa and now NH terrorism is usually the 3rd or 4th priority on voters list. This includes both Dem and Republican

It has been ranking as this:

1. Economy
2. Health care or Immigration
3. Iraq
4. WOT

doesn't surprise me..our apathy is what made us vunerable to begin with..

[dirk digler]

doesn't surprise me..our apathy is what made us vunerable to begin with..

I don't think it is apathy I think that there are other issues that hit more closely to home right now especially on the issue of health care.

Of course all of that could change if we get hit by another terrorist attack.

[HolmeZz]

I think we are at too volatile a time with GWOT to hand the reins to someone inexperienced as Obama.

Yeah, we need the kind of experience Cheney and Rumsfeld bring to the table.