I find it interesting that they chose Michigan as the venue for the big endorsement rally. Obama may realize that he could be in some trouble in Michigan, since he didn’t campaign there before the January primary and didn’t get behind any re-vote plan for the state.
The timing of the endorsement stepped on Hillary Clinton’s big victory in West Virginia yesterday. Still, I am glad that Edwards paid tribute to Hillary today as well:
It is very very hard to get up every day and do what she’s done. It is hard to get out there and fight and speak up when the odds turn against you. What she has shown is strength and character and what drives her is something that each and every one of us should appreciate. She cares about working people…men and women in Iraq…she is a woman made of steel and she is a leader in this country not because of her husband but because of what she has done…When this nomination battle is over, brothers and sisters, we must come together as Democrats and in the fall stand up for the future of America to make America better. We are a stronger party because Hillary Clinton is a Democrat…and we will have a stronger presidential nominee in the fall because of her work.
I don’t think Edwards is a good match for Obama as a VP candidate, but I would like to see him out there campaigning for Obama in the coming months. I believe that he could help Obama in states such as Michigan and Ohio.
According to the electoral vote counter on the upper left side of the front page at MyDD, John McCain is currently projected to defeat Obama 290-248. Obama would win the Kerry states minus Wisconsin, Michigan and New Hampshire, plus Iowa and Colorado–not nearly enough.
Ironically, Hillary is currently in a much stronger position against McCain, even though she has in essence no chance of winning the Democratic nomination anymore. The electoral vote counter for her, on the upper right side of the front page at MyDD, has her beating McCain 291-247. Hillary would be projected to win the Kerry states minus Wisconsin and Michigan, plus Ohio, Florida and Iowa.
UPDATE: At MyDD, Josh Orton notes that Elizabeth Edwards was not up on the stage with her husband tonight. One might interpret this to mean that she disagrees with the endorsement (she has already said she prefers Hillary’s health care reform plan). However, my hunch is that she is limiting her overnight travel away from their two school-age children. There was no compelling need for her to be there. After such a long campaign, during which the kids traveled with Elizabeth much of the time, she may just prefer to be at home.
John Edwards, populist hero with a proven record of connecting with white working class voters has vouched for Barack Obama. Does Kentucky buy it?
The Kentucky contest, previously a foregone conclusion for the Media, now becomes a test. For Barack Obama. He needs to go in to Kentucky, WITH John Edwards, and fight for their votes. He needs to show he cares about the voters of Kentucky. Particularly white working class voters. An interesting development indeed.
My money is still on a Clinton blowout in Kentucky next Tuesday.
Trippi regrets that when Edwards asked him if he should drop out of the presidential race, he
didn’t go with my gut.
I didn’t tell him what I should have told him: That I had this feeling that if he stayed in the race he would win 300 or so delegates by Super Tuesday and have maybe a one-in-five chance of forcing a brokered convention. That there was a path ahead that would be extremely painful, but could very well put him and his causes at the top of the Democratic agenda. And that in politics anything can happen-even the possibility that in an open convention with multiple ballots an embattled and exhausted party would turn to him as their nominee. I should have closed my eyes to the pain I saw around me on the campaign bus, including my own. I should have told him emphatically that he should stay in. My regret that I did not do so-that I let John Edwards down-grows with every day that the fight between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama continues.
[…]
It was a longshot, to be sure, but there remained the chance of a three-way battle going all the way to the convention. I thought we could make a big dent in Ohio by appealing to middle-class working people. The same in places like Kansas, Colorado and the Dakotas. It was possible to make those a dead-heat for all three candidates in terms of delegate wins. And today, as I write this, I realize we might have had as many as 500 delegates heading into Pennsylvania and North Carolina, two states that would probably be strong for Edwards.
That would mean Edwards, Obama and Clinton would go into the convention without any of them close to sealing the nomination. You would have had months of Obama and Clinton banging away at each other, with Edwards able to come across to weary Democrats as a welcome, fresh face. You’d have the electability argument begin to play to Edwards’ advantage, since he always did well against McCain in polling. These possibilities and more played through my mind.
Let me make clear that in January, I was 100 percent behind Edwards staying in the race until the convention, even though it was obvious after the New Hampshire primary that his chance of becoming the nominee was virtually zero.
The bottom line for me is that Edwards is talking about the issues in a way that Clinton and Obama never have and never will. In the debates, his campaign rallies, and his television advertisements, he is calling attention to problems that the corporate media filter out all too often.
Many Obama supporters are frustrated that Edwards has not dropped out of the race and endorsed their candidate. They think he is only splitting the anti-Hillary vote.
I think everyone should be happy that Edwards will hang in there, even though others are currently favored to win the nomination. I believe that the Republican hate machine will not unload on Clinton or Obama until they are certain that Edwards is out of the race. Since Obama has not yet faced tough scrutiny from the media, it is all the more important for Edwards to stay in the mix.
Since January the Democratic primary race has degenerated into identity politics and personal attacks, with little focus on issues Edwards brought to the table, like the excesses of corporate power.
Nor has his departure brought the Democratic contest to a rapid conclusion. When Edwards was on one of the talk shows in late March (I think it was Leno), he said that when he dropped out, he expected that the Democratic nominee would have been decided by mid-March. So quitting the race didn’t achieve the goal he had in mind.
In my heart, like Trippi, I feel disappointed that Edwards did not stay in for the duration. If he had been there for the debates, the moderators might have asked a few more substantive questions, or the Clinton and Obama campaigns might have altered their own strategies.
On the other hand, I doubt very much that given the media environment of late January, Edwards could have won 300 delegates on Super Tuesday, as Trippi suggests. If he had won fewer than 100 delegates, the pressure on him to drop out would have been so overwhelming (with major donors and superdelegates jumping ship) that I doubt he would have had a very good showing in Ohio on March 4.
My head tells me that one way or another, the media and the Democratic power-brokers would have been able to force Edwards out long before the primaries in Pennsylvania, Indiana and North Carolina.
What do you think? Leaving aside whether you think Edwards had any chance of winning the nomination at a brokered convention, do you think the Democratic Party and our eventual nominee would have been better served by having him stay in the race longer?
This morning I saw a friend who is an Edwards delegate to the third district convention coming up this Saturday. He was complaining that he’d received no direction from the Edwards campaign, or from prominent Iowans for Edwards, about what he should do.
Before the county conventions in March, the Edwards campaign did almost nothing to shore up support from delegates elected on January 3 at the precinct caucuses (besides an e-mail from Roxanne Conlin and Rob Tully that went out two days before the county conventions, urging delegates to stick with Edwards).
Yesterday, Iowa delegates that are pledged to Clinton and those who remain pledged to the suspended presidential run of former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards received a full-page, full-color reminder of the upcoming Democratic district conventions.
Click the link to see the visual of the mailer, but here is a key excerpt aimed at the Edwards delegates:
“John Edwards ran his campaign with compassion and conviction and lifted this campaign with his deep concerns for the daily lives of the American people. He and I both put forth universal health care plans, not because it was easy, but because health care for every man, woman and child is vital to giving every American family the opportunity for the American dream.
Together, let’s make universal health care a reality. I would be honored to have your support at your Congressional District Convention.”
It will be interesting to see if this works. At the county conventions, most of the Edwards delegates who switched moved toward Obama. I know of some like my friend who favor Clinton, though, partly because the Clinton health care plan is closer to what Edwards proposed.
Every once in a while on one of the national political blogs, a supporter of Hillary Clinton or John Edwards will assert that Barack Obama won the Iowa caucuses by busing in thousands of ineligible voters from out of state.
But I have yet to encounter any serious observer of Iowa politics who believes Obama won Iowa by cheating. I have been talking to many volunteers for the Clinton and Edwards campaigns in Iowa, and a few staffers, while researching a future diary on how those candidates might have beaten Obama here. Literally no one I’ve talked with has claimed that Obama did not legitimately win the caucuses.
No doubt there were some people from out of state who fraudulently registered to vote here on caucus night. I’ve heard that may have been a particular problem in some areas of Scott County. But I haven’t seen any evidence that the Obama campaign orchestrated any fraud, and there’s no way the cheaters were numerous enough to account for Obama’s margin of victory here.
The Register review of voter registration data from all 99 counties reveals a low rate of new voter applications filled out on caucus night by people whose addresses later could not be verified.
Only 1.5 percent of the new voter identification cards mailed to voters who registered on caucus night were returned to county auditors as undeliverable. That’s an indication that the vast majority of new caucus-night voters had a bona fide address in Iowa.
State officials say the low error rate is impressive, especially since caucus-night turnout vastly exceeded expectations and overwhelmed local party officials around the state.
The other argument I hear from the occasional conspiracy theorist on a different blog is that Obama’s campaign bused in large numbers of students from out of state. First, that would have affected turnout in a relatively small number of Iowa’s 1,800 precincts.
Second, as long as those students attend Iowa colleges and live in state most of the year, I have no problem with a campaign helping them get back to their campuses in early January. What’s the qualitative difference between that and my giving someone in my neighborhood a ride to the caucus if he or she can’t drive?
The caucuses never should have been scheduled during the winter vacation of most colleges anyway.
Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards were all on the Colbert Report on Thursday.
The whole show was hilarious, so catch the rerun on Friday if you’ve got cable. But I just had to post this You Tube of Edwards doing “The Word” segment (thanks, NCDem!):
Too funny.
On the Daily Show, Jon Stewart absolutely skewered the moderators of that ABC Clinton-Obama debate. Also well worth watching the rerun. I couldn’t find that video on the Comedy Central site yet, though.
Mizner was an active supporter of John Edwards for president, as his diary history shows. Like me, he wrote regular front-page posts advocating for Edwards at MyDD. But after Edwards dropped out, Mizner voted for Obama in the New York primary on February 5.
On its surface, Mizner’s latest piece is an inside-baseball critique of editorial bias at the Daily Kos. He demonstrates how Markos Moulitsas has in recent months become an uncritical cheerleader for Obama, after being skeptical toward all the Democratic candidates in 2007.
But I recommend this diary not because you should care about what some blogger thinks of Markos. Rather, I think Mizner has touched on the alienation many Democrats feel when they encounter the overheated Hillary-hating and Obama-loving rhetoric from Obama fans:
It’s no coincidence that in the last two months the site has devolved into a propaganda organ for the Obama campaign. Although it’s aggravating to come across Drudgery at the top of the rec list and casual claims that Hillary is a sociopath, it’s not the nastiness that’s worrisome (freedom is untidy); it’s the laziness, the unquestioning partisanship, the lack of brainwork. These days at Daily Kos there’s no exchange of ideas, no debate. Obama is good, Hillary is bad, case closed.
It’s probably not wise to go looking to Daily Kos or any other political blog for Truth, but the progressive blogosphere fancies itself the reality-based community, and that commodity is in short supply at the mothership. If you’re a progressive untouched by enthusiasm for Obama or hatred for Hillary, you must be wondering what race Kossacks are watching. In the race I’ve watched, Obama has not campaigned as a transformative progressive. In the race I’ve watched, he has failed to offer a single bold policy initiative, coddled a virulent homophobe for political purposes, voted to fund the war in Iraq and justified doing so by parroting a disgusting rightwing talking point, echoed the GOP claim that the Social Security system is in crisis, refused to join Edwards in opposing the Global War on Terror framework, joined George Bush in seeking to expand the size of the military by 92,000 troops, said he would increase the military budget, supported corporate free trade, enlisted Tom Daschle to assemble a base of support on K-Street, raised buckets of cash fromlobbyist-law firms, and bashed unions for helping Edwards until he himself was the beneficiary of labor’s largesse. Et Cetera.
A dozen links in that passage didn’t come through when I copied and pasted, but click to the original diary and you’ll see that Mizner has the links to back up what he is saying.
This passage also made a crucial point that Obama supporters rarely acknowledge:
I’m not going to defend the Clinton campaign’s race-baiting or its praising of McCain at Obama’s expense. Nor, though, will I defend the Obama’s campaign sexism, or its willingness to claim race-baiting where there is none. I believe history will show both that the Clnton campaign wanted to turn Barack into the “black candidate” and that the Obama campaign wanted to turn Hillary into the racist candidate. They both exploited racial resentment.
Several links in that paragraph didn’t come through. The most important one is to the memo that the Obama campaign distributed in South Carolina, which sought to portray the Clintons as using racially divisive rhetoric. That memo was designed to give Obama an edge among blacks and white liberals, and it worked, but it also distorted Hillary’s comments about Lyndon Johnson and Bill’s comments about the “fairy tale.”
My impression is that intense Obama supporters can’t understand why everyone isn’t as outraged as they are over the latest stupid comment by some Clinton supporter. First, the Obama campaign has crossed lines too, as Mizner points out. Second, many progressives have, according to Mizner,
abdicated the job of trying to hold Obama accountable. Both Move On and Blue Majority gave him endorsements without offering so much as constructive criticism. Kos himself hasn’t written one word critical of Obama in several weeks, during which time Obama has sent nothing but alarming signals on the sphere’s signature issue: Iraq. Unlike Hillary, he wouldn’t ban corporate mercenaries and his advisors are describing his modest withdrawal plan as a “best case scenario” and calling for a large residual force. Also unmentioned by Kos and the other Daily Kos front page bloggers is Obama’s attempt to denythat he once held certain liberal positions.
Again, the links did not come through, but you can find many in the diary.
When Obama puts up red flags, and onetime reasonable progressives have nothing but praise for him and condemnation for Hillary, it turns off a lot of Democrats.
Speaking of the devolution of political discourse lately, I can’t resist linking to a diary Mizner wrote last month: “Do You Miss Edwards Yet?” The opening paragraph was a classic:
Ah, 2007. How I long for those halcyon, pre-Ferraro days when a major issue in the primary was the dangerous influence of corporate power. Thanks to Edwards, the Big Three battled over who would be more willing and able to take on corporations. There was reason to doubt that the policies proposed by Obama and Clinton–and even by Edwards, perhaps–would deliver the bold change they promised, but at least the issue of corporate power was front and center. Now, though, with Edwards gone, the issue is barely an issue, and somewhere CEOs and Wall Street execs are laughing.
A lot has changed since I offered my last predictions on who the next vice president. For starters, both parties are fairly certain of who their nominees will be. Alliances have shifted; political fortunes have risen and fallen. We've seen some early signs of what the general election will bring. Therefore, there's no reason not to start talking vice-presidents. In Part I I'll take a look at possible Obama vice-presidental picks, and in the interest of fairness, I'll look at some McCain picks in Part II. The links are to some YouTube videos that illustrate the person's personality and style.
Heavyweight contenders:
VA Sen Jim Webb: There's a lot of buzz surrounding Sen. Webb right now, and for good reason. He brings a lot to the table, first and foremost of which is deep military and government experience as a Vietnam vet and fmr Sec. of the Navy. He's a fresh face, from a swing state, and a macho Democrat who personifies change. Plus, what better for a candidate who looks to heal the racial divide than a Vietnam veteran who is happily married to a Vietnamese-American?
BUT, Webb does have a few black eyes. He is often gruff, and could have the possibility of making gaffes on the trail. He also has been married three times and may have skeletons in his closet. Plus, considering a sitting senator hasn't won the presidency since Kennedy–should we run a Senator/Senator ticket?
VA Gov. Tim Kaine: Gov. Kaine was one of the first public officials to jump on the Obama bandwagon…before there was a bandwagon. He's a popular and successful governor of a southern swing state to boot. On top of that, he has a sterling record: missionary in Honduras, graduate of Harvard Law, lawyer specializing in cases of people denied housing based on race or disability and crime-busting mayor and governor who got the state through the Virginia Tech tragedy. On paper, he's perfect.
BUT, he's only been governor for two years, bringing up the experience question. Also, he carries little name recognition outside of Virginia. Further, he's only passable on the stump–not a great orator.
NM Gov. Bill Richardson:Recent convert to the Obama camp, Gov. Richardson has long been touted as vice-president to whoever the nominee would turn out to be. To make a long story short, he's got experience out the wazoo. He's also Latino, offering the potential to make a historic candidacy even more historic. He's also well-known around the country, can be firebreather on the stump and a generally good-humored person with a very fashionable beard.
BUT, a lot of the country has an opinion of him as a political sycophant (as seen best on a pre-Iowa SNL skit). He's also known to make gaffes and is often hit-or-miss when he speaks. Also, it remains to be seen if a Richardson veep run would alienate the Clinton camp, still sore over his defection.
I missed the Leno show last night, but NCDemAmy came through with the YouTube, as usual. Here it is, for those who are curious to hear what John Edwards has been up to:
No big news in the interview–he wisely is not endorsing either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama and says both would be excellent candidates, far better than the alternative.
Parents may appreciate his story about his son Jack!
Bleeding Heartland readers, I would be interested in your views on how the Iowa caucuses might have turned out differently.
Let’s assume that Barack Obama runs the exact campaign he ran last year in terms of strategy and execution, and has the same monetary resources he had available.
What, if anything, could other candidates have done to beat Obama in Iowa? Keep in mind that both Clinton and Edwards executed their strategies pretty well in Iowa (in my opinion), with
both of them getting more than 70,000 people to stand in their corners on January 3. That “should” have been enough to win, even if turnout had been “only” 50 percent greater than the previous record for Iowa Democrats.
Given the Obama campaign’s excellent strategy and execution, as well as their virtually unlimited monetary resources in Iowa, what could other candidates have done to win the Iowa caucuses?
These are examples of the kinds of questions I’m interested in:
Should Hillary have used Bill more, or used him less?
Would it have helped Clinton or Edwards to go negative on Obama?
Were there better methods Clinton could have used to identify and turn out supporters?
Was there anything Richardson could have done in the summer to build on the bump he got from his television commercials in May?
Would Edwards have done better if his stump speech and advertising had focused on different issues?
Should Edwards have spent some money on advertising in the summer, when he slipped behind Clinton in the Iowa polls, rather than keeping his powder dry?
Feel free to post your insights about these and similar questions on this thread.
Alternatively, if you have thoughts you’d rather keep off the record, please e-mail them to me at desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com, or e-mail me your phone number and I will call you to chat. I will keep your views confidential.
I just got this e-mail from the co-chairs of John Edwards’ campaign in Iowa and wanted to post it for the benefit of you Edwards delegates who read Bleeding Heartland:
Dear Friend,
Many of you have called and written seeking guidance about what those of us who were elected as Edwards’ delegates in the precinct caucuses should do in the county conventions this weekend. We are writing to you today to ask you to stand up for John this weekend.
Senator Edwards has been talking with both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama on a regular basis. But he has not endorsed anyone and will not endorse anyone before this weekend.
John is spending most of his time working on the issues that were at the center of his campaign. In fact, on Wednesday, John had an extended meeting with a group people from across the country about a national effort to keep the poverty issue in the public dialogue and to find real solutions to deal with this fundamentally moral issue. On Thursday, he participated in a MOVE ON conference call to keep the political pressure on candidates on the need to end the war.
We all know that John was the leader on every issue during the campaign, from health care to climate change to poverty to economic inequality to the need to reduce the influence of money and lobbyists to reducing college costs to restoring America’s moral authority in the world and on and on.
In that spirit, this weekend we will be standing up for John Edwards, and we hope you will, too.
With the economy slipping more and more every day, the need to build One America is more important than ever. We think it is vital that those of us who were elected as delegates for John Edwards support his candidacy and the issues he raised. He was fearless in speaking about the underlying truth of where we are as a nation and we think it is incumbent on us to keep that spirit alive at this next stage of the process in Iowa.
Thank you,
Roxanne Conlin & Rob Tully
I am not a delegate, but if I were, I would also be sticking with Edwards this weekend.
After supporting John Edwards in 2004, my mother decided to get really involved this cycle. Of course, being in a small town, they threw her in the deep end right from the start. She worked hard all summer and fall for Edwards and co-captained her small town precinct for him on caucus night. It was a very successful night for her, and Edwards carried the precinct and the county. Some of the precinct old-pros asked her to be an alternate delegate to the county convention and she accepted, not thinking she'd end up having to go.
Well, now she has to go.
Since John Edwards is out of the running and every delegate on every level counts more than ever now, she doesn't know what to do. She knows that she technically doesn't have any obligation to a specific candidate, but she feels a moral obligation to represent the wishes of the people who caucused in her precinct.
She feels, on a policy level, that Obama best matches the interests and concerns that brought her personally to Edwards in the first place. Obama as well came in a close second in her precinct. She's also been trying to ask some of the people she coaxed into caucusing who they'd like best, and the majority of them so far are leaning Obama (although several suggest Clinton, and still more suggest an Edwards vote regardless). She's been reading a mailing from Obama this week, and expects one from Hillary as well. As you know, there's no word from Edwards. I should add that both the Obama and Hillary captains have been quite friendly to her since she was told to report to the convention.
She really wants to do right by the people she worked so hard to bring to caucus and those she's representing and she genuinely is unsure what to do. Should she vote for Edwards, even though he's out of the race? Should she vote for Obama, who seems to be most of the caucus-goers second choice? Should she vote for Hillary?
I look forward to any advice or suggestions anyone has that I might pass along to her. Also, I'll be down there for spring break, so I'll see if I can't report on it in some fashion.
If you supported John Edwards, you probably are familiar with the Edwards Evening News Roundup at Daily Kos. The team who brought you those updates have created a new EENR Progressive blog, a forum for activists to talk about various issues and strategies for building the progressive movement.
EENR is a community blog, and we hope you will be part of that community. We’ve tried to set standards for discussion that reflect our desire for open communication, the search for truth, and that wonderful lesson we all learned in kindergarten, “Play Nice and Share Your Toys.” There are lots of toys, too. There’s a wonderful video wall, lots of diaries already there waiting for your comments, links to a mirror of the JRE campaign website, and much more. We’ll have Open Threads, and special guest bloggers. And we’re always open to suggestions!
EENR has a really unique feature. We have 12 subject sections located on the left hand side. This gives us twelve front pages and if you write a diary with one of the sections in your tags or use the drop down menu in creating it you can be a front pager in any section except the Home Page. 😉 Please join in creating the community discussions in all progressive areas. It also means that candidate diaries do NOT dominate the discussion. Progressive issues do. We hope that more contribute to that point of view.
There are diaries on a wide variety of topics at the EENR blog. I encourage progressives to join the conversation–even if you didn’t support Edwards for president.
Iowa is expected to have 12 superdelegates to the Democratic National Convention in Denver in August. They include all four Democratic members of Congress, Iowa’s governor and its six members of the Democratic National Committee. The 12th superdelegate will be chosen at the Iowa Democratic Party’s state convention in June.
Below are the names of those superdelegates, their titles and whom they have endorsed for the 2008 presidential nomination.
SUPPORTING HILLARY CLINTON
LEONARD BOSWELL, U.S. House member from Des Moines.
MIKE GRONSTAL, Iowa Senate majority leader from Council Bluffs and member of the DNC as chairman of Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee.
SANDY OPSTVEDT, Iowa labor union leader and at-large DNC member from Story City.
SARAH SWISHER, Iowa City nurse, labor union leader and member of the DNC as state Democratic Party vice chairwoman. Endorsed Edwards, but has backed Clinton since Edwards left the race.
SUPPORTING BARACK OBAMA
CHET CULVER, Iowa governor, endorsed Obama on Thursday.
MIKE FITZGERALD, Iowa treasurer and member of the DNC as member of National Association of State Democratic Treasurers’ executive committee.
DAVID LOEBSACK, U.S. House member from Mount Vernon.
UNCOMMITTED
SCOTT BRENNAN, Des Moines lawyer and member of the DNC as Iowa Democratic Party chairman.
BRUCE BRALEY, U.S. House member from Waterloo. Endorsed John Edwards in December, but is uncommitted since Edwards’ departure from the race.
TOM HARKIN, U.S. senator
RICHARD MACHACEK, Winthrop farmer and at-large DNC member. Was a longtime Edwards supporter, but now is uncommitted.
It was news to me that Swisher had committed to Clinton, although I’m not surprised, since Clinton has a better health care plan than Obama. I wonder if the other former Edwards supporters will be influenced by a possible Edwards endorsement, or if they will wait and see.
If you want to know what other states’ superdelegates are doing, keep an eye on the “Superdelegate transparency project”, which Chris Bowers announced yesterday at OpenLeft:
We are compiling the district-by-district results of the popular vote and pledged delegates, and then tracking these results against how superdelegates are currently pledged (or have publicly endorsed a candidate), and how they eventually vote. The aim of this project is to open up the Democratic nomination process, and to gauge what effect the superdelegates have on the nomination.
Bowers has a secondary goal, which is to persuade superdelegates to back the candidate who wins the pledged delegates and the overall popular vote:
Until a single leader in the popular vote and pledged delegate count emerges at the end of the primary and caucus season, superdelegates should not make a firm commitment to vote for any candidate at the convention other than the popular choice of their constituents. Endorsements can be made, but in order to uphold the principles of democracy within the Democratic Party, there should be no firm commitments from any given superdelegate to vote for anyone at the convention other than the candidate chosen by the constituents of that superdelegate.
[…]my democratic standard for super delegates is that if one candidate wins pledged delegates and popular votes according to all counts, then all super delegates should vote for that candidate. However, since we won’t know if a candidate achieves that standard until the end of the primary / caucus season, and since it is possible no candidate will ever achieve that standard, then in the interim all super delegates should pledge to vote their districts.
Will Iowa’s superdelegates go with the winner of all pledged delegates and the overall popular vote, even if that candidate is not their first choice? The Des Moines Register article includes the following quotes:
“If it’s as close as it stands today, I would still be casting my vote for Hillary,” said Sandy Opstvedt, a labor union leader and superdelegate from Story City.
Sounds like Opstvedt is leaving the door open to switching to Obama, if he becomes the clear leader in pledged delegates.
Governor Chet Culver, who endorsed Obama last week, cited Obama’s victory in the Iowa caucuses as a factor in his decision:
“I do think it matters too that Iowans have spoken loudly and clearly,” Culver said in a Des Moines Register interview Friday. “And because of that, in part, I felt compelled to also stand with him.”
“I’d love it if every superdelegate supported Barack Obama,” Culver also said, adding that he had begun making calls to the others.
Does that mean that Culver would not switch, even if Clinton finished the primaries with more popular votes and more pledged delegates than Obama?
Meanwhile, Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal
declined to comment on whether he would consider changing his support if Obama gathered more delegates than Clinton as the result of the upcoming nominating contests.
Gronstal said he can justify supporting Clinton in part because she got the most support, 43 percent, in Pottawattamie County on caucus night.
“Representing my constituents, I can make the case that’s exactly what I’m doing,” Gronstal said.
Representative Leonard Boswell (IA-03) seems more committed to sticking with Clinton unless she gives her superdelegate supporters the green light to switch to Obama. Speaking to the Register, Boswell
said the superdelegate system was not intended to reflect voter sentiment.
“It’s always important to respond to the voters, but I don’t think it was designed that way,” Boswell said.
He said he planned to support Clinton at the national convention, and would only consider a change after consulting her.
Expect Boswell to take a lot of heat for this position if Obama racks up a big lead in the pledged delegates later this spring. The Des Moines Register published this letter to the editor on Wednesday, written by a constituent in Des Moines:
Leonard Boswell’s pledge to cast his superdelegate vote for Sen. Hillary Clinton at the National Democratic Convention troubles me. Barack Obama won Boswell’s 3rd District by a large enough margin to win one more delegate than Clinton, who came in third in that district.
Yet Boswell’s vote, which he has only because he is our representative, will negate that margin of victory, rendering the votes of tens of thousands of us meaningless. That’s just not right. Maybe all of us whose votes Boswell will negate should return the favor by supporting his opponent, Ed Fallon, in the upcoming Democratic primary.
For the record, I agree with Bowers. Superdelegates should not be willing to hand the nomination to one candidate if the other candidate leads both the pledged delegate count and the overall popular vote. That would be disastrous for our party.
Just last week I wrote a front-page post for MyDD called Ten arguments for sticking with John Edwards. I was getting ready to post the revised version on Daily Kos today or tomorrow, when I saw the news this morning that Edwards had decided to leave the race.
I was hoping Edwards would stay in to keep his message out there. I hope that he decided to quit for political reasons, or because he ran out of money, rather than because of a change in Elizabeth’s condition.
I feel lucky to have caucused for Edwards already. I have no idea how I would vote now. For most of the past year I strongly preferred Obama to Clinton, but in the past few months I’ve grown disenchanted with Obama’s campaign and skeptical about his ability to win. Maybe I would write in Edwards or Al Gore rather than vote for either of the candidates left in the race–I don’t know.
As for how this affects the race, I also have no idea. In some states, Clinton clearly benefits, while in others, Obama may benefit. My own siblings who supported Edwards are split, with my brothers breaking for Obama and my sister strongly leaning to Clinton.
There has been a flurry of blog posts and news stories talking about the entrance polling and the results of the caucuses. The basics we know include things like record turnout and a surge in the number of youth showing up to the Democratic caucuses, as well as ‘no party’ folks changing their registration to Democrat.
I don’t have the capacity nor the will power to significantly examine all of the results county by county, candidate by candidate. But I can direct you towards some very interesting information.
First of all, if you’d like some detailed results and would like to see some maps, feel free to check out CaucusResults.com which has the detailed information about the results courtesy of the Iowa Democratic Party. If you provided some information to the party prior to caucus night by visiting IowaCaucusResults.com then you should’ve received an email notification with a password so you could log in. If you didn’t and would like to be able to see the information, feel free to email me and I can get you logged in.
Secondly, one of the big things that we’ve seen talked about is the amount of youth turnout for the caucuses. Whether you call youth 17-24 year olds or 17-29 year olds it seems pretty clear that folks my age showed up and participated. Iowa Student Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) put out a release talking about the numbers (which can be found here) and it clearly shows how the youth support was another cushion of support for Barack Obama. The Register examined the same thing here, while also noting the evangelical Christian support that helped Huckabee. The Register also provides a county map that shows which candidate won which county, including counties that are “ties” (at least according to percentage totals). The breakdown follows like this:
Barack Obama: 41 counties
John Edwards: 29 counties
Hillary Clinton: 25 counties
Ties: 4 counties
Looking specifically at the four counties where there were ties, they were ties because the number of delegates for first place were evenly divided. Three were tied for Clinton and Edwards; one was split for Clinton and Obama.
Finally, and I think this is one of most fascinating posts and discussion about the caucus results, go over to the Daily Yonder and read their post about how Democratic and Republican candidates did in rural Iowa. Edwards’ strategy focused heavily on rural Iowa, and while it paid off for him a bit, it wasn’t the deciding fact simply because of the turnout Barack Obama was able to bring about in both urban and rural Iowa. Fascinating piece of information alert:
“Both Edwards and Clinton won more votes in rural Iowa than in urban Iowa.”
I’ll leave that little bit of information to you guys to figure out what it means in the grand scheme of things in this presidential race. Any other interesting demographics or information you think we should talk about?
UPDATE (3:40 PM): I just got a fundraising email from Joe Trippi on behalf of the Edwards campaign. Seems like they’re going to keep piling on the money today. -Chris
I’m not one big on making releases front-page material here on BH, but I’ll try to condense this release from the Edwards Campaign to something we can talk about, with the full release available here:
“We have been absolutely overwhelmed by the response to Sen. Edwards’ strong finish in Iowa,” said Edwards’ senior strategist Joe Trippi. “We’re on track for our best online fundraising day ever, since www.JohnEdwards.com went up a year ago – and half of the contributions we’re seeing are from new donors to the campaign. That speaks volumes to the strength of John Edwards’ message of standing up and fighting for the middle class.”
The campaign first saw an uptick in online fundraising late last night, as the results from Iowa’s first-in-the-nation contest began rolling in. The surge continued overnight, and by 8:45am ET this morning the campaign’s online contributions had already topped the previous day’s day-long total. Between the hours of 10:00am and 11:00am ET today, the campaign experienced its best online fundraising hour ever.”
I’m not sure what this means in the grand scheme of online fundraising for the top-tier Democrats, or even the Edwards campaign itself since there aren’t really specific numbers and totals. However, I think it will be really interesting to see what Obama and Clinton are seeing in terms of their own online fundraising and I hope they put out some information about those numbers soon.
A couple other quick facts from the Edwards campaign:
Half of those who have contributed are first-time donors to the campaign
More than ninety percent (92.6%) of today’s online contributions are for amounts less than $100
Those are some pretty impressive figures. Let me know if you hear of any more numbers or interesting stories.
Various media and blogs are reporting that Richardson's campaign is instructing precinct captains to advise supporters to go to Obama if Richardson is not viable.
So far no official confirmation from the Richardson campaign.
I find it hard to belive that most Richardson supporters will go to Obama, but who knows? I'll ask the captain in my precinct later today.
As an Edwards fan of sorts (he's my second choice), I wouldn't be crushed if he won the caucus. I'm not trolling here by any means, or looking for a fight, but I pose this as a serious question in search of an answer to our party's potential nominee.
I'm sure this question has been answered before, but maybe some Edwards supporters can clarify this for me here.
How will it possible for him to: 1) Beat Hillary (or Obama) in other states with only $17 mil to spend until the convention, and 2) defend himself with negligable funds after the primary season is over from attacks?
I only ask this, because I really wish that Edwards had foregone federal matching funds and just opened up his deep wallet, sold his house, etc., for this campaign. Perhaps with his recent fundraising prowess, he could have remained competetive with Obama or Hillary through fundraising rather than relying on public funds.
The sprint to the end had begun! We all know that Edwards is workaholic. He’s worked very hard for this nomination. He came prepared with plans, ideas, goals and ATTITUDE. This dude knows how to fight. He has been outspent by millions and millions of dollars by two celebrity candidates and he’s STILL in the race. That goes to a testament of how strong his message is and how much people are to take their country back. AGGRESSIVELY. He didn’t come to the table as entrenched insider and he brought a lot more than something and flighty and wishy-washy than hope. He came prepped with the plans and the fight to actually give REAL hope to millions of Americans.
In December 2003, as John Edwards yard signs were sprouting like weeds around Des Moines, I knew Edwards was coming on strong when I spoke to a friend who had described himself and his wife as firm Howard Dean supporters in the spring. Not only were he and his wife now backing Edwards, he had signed up to be a precinct captain.
I was surprised, because he had indicated that the war was his number one issue, and I wanted to know why he was willing to overlook Edwards’ vote on the AUMF.
I can’t remember his exact words, but they went something like this: I want Edwards to make the case against George Bush with the American people as the jury.
Today I want to focus on Edwards’ skills as an advocate. I think he’s the best in our field to make the case for Democrats and for the progressive change we need.
Greetings and Salutations, to Edwards supporters far and wide.
This Edition is dedicated to that exciting phenomenon called Momentum! The Big Mo.
All Candidates want it. Lately though it seems the fight and the message of John Edwards has captured it. So take a quick tour of all the hopeful signs that since the People are finally tuning in, that more and more People are connecting to what John Edwards is saying …
I've noticed a lot of grumblings around “the Internets” lately, about all these “partisan” Candidate Diaries — hogging the limited real estate of the Recommended List.
Out of respect to that Audience, those who have had their fill of Candidate News,
Here's the Executive Summary:
“Stuff happened in the Edwards Campaign.”
And for the Edwards supporters, out there in audience, those who may be expecting a “little more detail” about your Candidate, continue reading please … well because “Something IS happening in the Edwards Campaign …”
As Bill Nye the Science Guy used to say, consider the following:
How would it affect the national race for the nomination were we to have three different winners in the big three early contests?
Consider the following scenario. In the Iowa caucus, John Edwards wins a squeaker of a contest, coming in first over Clinton and Obama–who pull down second and third respectively. The win is a major boost to the Edwards campaign, which gets a boon of positive press coverage and a donor rush. While seen as somewhat of a loss for the Clinton campaign, the press deems Obama the biggest loser of the night for his lackluster third place finish.
Iowa: Edwards
Going into New Hampshire, Edwards sees a small bump of supporters, a large amount of who are Obama defectors and fence sitters. It's not enough to put Edwards up over Obama, but it's enough to give the lead solidly to Clinton. On primary night, it's Clinton who wins a close contest, with Obama second and Edwards a very close third.
New Hampshire: Clinton
Post New Hampshire, Clinton wins contests in Nevada and Michigan–but neither is the convincing victory the campaign needs and both are largely ignored by the media.
The media and the campaigns place a huge emphasis on South Carolina, looking to crown a winner before Super Tuesday. Obama has spent most of his time post-New Hampshire campaigning in South Carolina, including a few high profile events with Oprah. Edwards has also drawn on resources in his home state of North Carolina and spent a lot of time in the state, while Hillary has been in Nevada. When all is said and done, Obama wins a decisive victory, with Edwards coming in second and Clinton a close third.
South Carolina: Obama
Thus going into Florida and Super Tuesday it's a three way race. Clinton may have the lead on delegates, but that could all change. Not only have the big three early contests all gone to different candidates…but each has come in first once, second once, and last once.
Nomination: ???
Do you think such a scenario is possible? How would it affect the national race to have the big three early contests (Iowa, NH and SC) go to three different candidates? By having three viable, energized candidates going into Super Tuesday could the stage be set for a convention fight the likes of which we haven't seen for decades? What do you think?
Please bear in mind that this is just a imaginary scenario, not a prediction.
Jerome Armstrong put up this post at MyDD with graphs comparing the Clinton, Edwards and Obama campaigns with the Kerry 2004 campaign in terms of paid staff in Iowa, field offices in Iowa, days spent campaigning in Iowa, and money spent on tv in Iowa:
Since the days of Reagan, America has been chasing a Theory.
Since the Clinton era, and the rise of NAFTA and Global Free Trade, our “Corporate Leaders” have been conducting an unprecedented Social Experiment.
The Experiment: Economic Darwinism
The Test Subjects in this Experiment: none other than American Workers and our “more competitive” counterparts, overseas.
Supply-siders have argued that Economic Growth comes from empowering Corporate Interests to become “More Productive”, by whatever means necessary. Be it “Tax-Give-aways to the Wealthy”, or “Job-Give-aways to Poor Foreigners”, well that's just fine with them, long is it results in Corporate Growth.
Supply-siders are happy to trade away American Dignity for the sake of short-term Profits: “American Workers just need some retraining. They just need to apply themselves.”
“We just need to learn to Adapt” … (to Global Markets?)
That's the Theory, that's the Spin. What are the Results of this on-going plan to outsource the American Dream?
My purpose was to document the information so that after January 3, we can see whether campaigns with the most field offices did better in the counties where rivals had field organizers and volunteers working without the visibility of an office.
I am publishing a new version of this diary because several campaigns have added more field offices this month. Also, someone at the Iowa Democratic Party informed me of slight adjustments to the number of state delegates awarded by a handful of counties.
More information than you probably wanted to know is after the jump.
Earlier today someone called asking for my husband (mispronouncing his name). I offered to take a message, and she said she'd call back later.
She called back during dinner. We took the call, and once he realized what kind of poll it was, my husband put it on speakerphone so that I could listen.
After the jump I've put the questions as closely as we can remember them.
Why are mandates for health insurance coverage such a big issue at this point in the campaign? It's the biggest difference in health policy between the top 3 candidates.
Yet despite these differences, most experts agree that the plans are similar in their most striking elements. Both Clinton and Obama advocate creating a new federal group insurance program. Anyone happy with their current health insurance could keep it. Otherwise, they could join the national insurance pool, which, the candidates like to point out, offers the same benefits that members of Congress enjoy. Edwards has a similar national public insurance plan, but would also create regional pools of private insurance companies, increasing the number of choices available.
Seddon Savage, president of the New Hampshire Medical Society, noted that all three plans believe health care should be part of the “social contract of society.” All three emphasize cost controls and cost savings, and focus on disease prevention.
“The details of the programs have some minor and some significant differences, but what all the plans are trying to do is set a direction, set basic principles,” she said. “I suspect if any one of these candidates is elected, we'll have a commitment to addressing these issues. We'll have a national dialogue, and details may change.”
John Thyng, campaign director for the advocacy group New Hampshire for Health Care, said with the exception of the mandate, the three plans are virtually the same.
Robert Reich and others state that mandates will not ensure universal coverage, that at least 15% will still be uninsured becasue they cannot afford it.
in my view Obama’s would insure more people, not fewer, than HRC’s. That’s because Obama’s puts more money up front and contains sufficient subsidies to insure everyone who’s likely to need help – including all children and young adults up to 25 years old. Hers requires that everyone insure themselves.
Yet we know from experience with mandated auto insurance – and we’re learning from what’s happening in Massachusetts where health insurance is now being mandated – that mandates still leave out a lot of people at the lower end who can’t afford to insure themselves even when they’re required to do so.
HRC doesn’t indicate how she’d enforce her mandate, and I can’t find enough money in HRC’s plan to help all those who won’t be able to afford to buy it.
I’m also impressed by the up-front investments in information technology in O’s plan, and the reinsurance mechanism for coping with the costs of catastrophic illness. HRC is far less specific on both counts. In short: They’re both advances, but O’s is the better of the two. HRC has no grounds for alleging that O’s would leave out 15 million people.”
So all three will leave millions uninsured.
The big difference is mandates and polls are showing Clinton's and Edwards' mandates to be political suicide. The Republicans will use mandates like a club and could even defeat the Democrat with that as one of their top issues. Why give them that club?
One aspect of the healthcare debate that has divided Democratic candidates is whether individuals should be required to purchase coverage – Clinton and Edwards favor a mandate, while Obama does not. A slight majority of Democratic voters who were polled – including pluralities of Clinton and Edwards supporters – opposed such a requirement.
Opposition to the notion of an individual health insurance mandate — “should individuals be required to buy health insurance” — is greatest among the less well-educated and downscale voters that are the core of Clinton's base in New Hampshire and elsewhere.
Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays! There I covered all grounds. LOL. It’s Christmas night and there is hardly an Edwards story to be found. But I did the best I could. Join us….
(1) Here is an interesting Edwards Headline, from the Wall Street Journal:
WSJ
Iowa Farmers Union Embraces Edwards
Dec 21, 2007
John Edwards will get a welcome endorsement this evening from the Iowa Farmers Union, the state’s biggest advocacy group for family farmers and rural communities. …
[Note: other Sources have Reported that it's only the President of this Farmers Union, and NOT the Union itself that is Endorsing Edwards — WSJ needs to hire back its Fact-Checkers, it seems.]
“All the Democrats have good things about them,” Peterson said in an interview, but “Edwards cleaned house in rural areas in 2003” because “he’s against corporate farms and for localized economies.”
Here's a few more reasons from this “influential Iowa agriculture leader”, Chris Petersen:
Chris Petersen, who is currently the president of the Iowa Farmers Union, endorsed the former North Carolina senator at a Friday rally in Nevada. … Petersen said he picked Edwards because of his strong views on the enforcement of anti-trust laws and competition in the livestock industry.
A vocal critic of the agribusiness conglomerates that have rapidly changed the face of agriculture in the Midwest, Petersen said “it’s time we got some political courage and leadership” to solve those problems. …
(2) Here is an interesting Edwards Headline:
Edwards Unveils Stimulus Plan To Strengthen Economy And Create New Jobs
Dec 22, 2007
On final day of the “Fighting for America's Voice” tour, Edwards urges Congress to pass $25 billion job creation plan
Lisbon, Iowa – On the final day of his “Fighting for America's Voice” tour, Senator John Edwards proposed an economic stimulus package to strengthen our economy and create new jobs. Edwards urged Congress to act immediately to pass at least a $25 billion jobs plan in early 2008 and be ready to pass $75 billion more if there is more evidence that we are entering a recession. Edwards believes that every American should have access to a good job and the chance to build a better life. …
Yet again John Edwards is Leading with very specific comprehensive plans, to deal with REAL Problems faced by REAL Americans! One of those REAL Americans was there to speak up for Edwards' Plan today:
About Doug Bishop:
Today, Edwards will be joined on the tour by Doug Bishop who, in September 2004, was among the first wave of employees to be laid off at the Maytag plant in Newton, Iowa. … Edwards is running for president to make sure the voices of hard-working Americans like Doug get heard in Washington.
John Edwards – Introduction by Doug Bishop – Newton, Iowa
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stncVK7ANew —-
Doug Bishop:
“The American Dream is being taken away slowly, and surely, by some powerful people, who have No Respect for the American Workers in this country. … People like my grandfather, and hundreds before him, and hundreds after him, they didn't strive to be rich. They didn't strive to work their way through the Company and become the CEO … at Maytag he was chasing the American Dream, and he was allowed to finish that out. … As of yesterday, I had several relatives and neighbors who had that Dream taken away from them. … It's happening all across this Country. We have tried, and tried, tried to get these unabated Trade Agreements — which are robbing Americans of their Livelihoods — stopped! … and most importantly, and this is something I'll never forget, he grabbed my 7 year old son by the hand, he dropped to one knee, and he looked him straight in the eye, and he said: 'I'm gonna keep fighting for your Daddy's Job, I promise you that.'
Two years later, a man of his word — you know that stuff sticks with you — … with no media, no press, no big event, it was just one man being a good person. Two years later he sets up a meeting at the Maytag Plant after they announced the closing. … He wanted to sit down with the People who were effected, in that Plant, that day. 'What are you going to do with your lives? What can I do to help? Where do we go from here?'
That's the kind of things we need in a Leader in this Country!
… I want a guy who's gonna sit down, and look a 7 year old kid in the eye, and tell him, 'I'm gonna fight for your Dad's Job'. That's what I want!”
{applause} …
You know, fighting for the dignity of the American Worker, and their families, is at the very core of what it means to be an American. Or at least it used to be …
Franklin D. Roosevelt called for Four Freedoms …
They were the basis of FDR's vision of Economic Fairness. Unfortunately, not all of these Freedom were fully incorporated in the New Deal legislation, that pulled the Country out of the Great Depression in the 1930's
Here are those 4 Principles:
FDR's Four Freedoms:
1. Freedom of speech and expression 2. Freedom of every person to worship in his own way 3. Freedom from want 4. Freedom from fear
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Freedoms —-
A network of bloggers are carrying on with FDR's Vision today. And guess who they just Endorsed for their Candidate for President?
(3) Here is an interesting Edwards Headline:
Four Freedoms Announces Endorsement of John Edwards
WALTHAM, MA – December 20, 2007 – The influential non-partisan discussion board and blog ‘Four Freedoms’ (http://www.fourfreedomsblog.com/) announces its endorsement of John Edwards in the Democratic Primary.
Senator Edwards has been a longtime supporter of the downtrodden, from his early days as a litigator to his Senate track record. John Edwards dwells not on the past, but on the hope for the future, and is the only candidate that truly understands what is important to average Americans. … The founders of Four Freedoms urge all true Americans and Patriots to vote for Senator Edwards, and calls upon citizens to cross party lines if necessary in order to advance Senator Edward’s campaign and restore hope, decency, and civility to the American Political Process, something that has been lacking for quite some time. Senator Edwards may not have all the answers, but he is our best hope for true change and progress towards what all Americas believe in…that is, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Now that's truly a New Deal Endorsement! That is quite the statement about exactly WHO is ready to Fight for US.
(4) Here is an interesting Edwards Headline:
Des Moines Register
Surgery gives man a chance to speak his mind
Dec 22, 2007
If you've been to a recent Edwards event in Iowa or watched television, odds are good you already know Lowe's story. He was born dirt-poor in Kentucky with a cleft palate. He moved to a mill town in the Appalachian Mountains and worked in coal mines for decades before an injury broke his back and put him on disability.
Lowe never had surgery to fix that cleft palate because he could not afford health insurance.
And for the first 50 years of his life, Lowe could hardly speak. He was an incomprehensible mumbleruntil about a year ago when a doctor donated cleft-palate surgery and, literally, gave Lowe a voice. …
Now, Lowe has become a metaphor for the stated goal of Edwards' campaign:to give a voice to the voiceless.
“I had an emotional reaction listening to his story,” Edwards said Friday in an interview. “I had a sense of outrage that somebody had lived for 50 years in America not able to speak because they had no health care. How could my country let people like James down like that?”
Edwards invited Lowe to the microphone, hugged him, and then Lowe spoke for about 45 seconds.
“He cares about people like me and you all,” Lowe said in his Southern accent that's tinged with a speech impediment.
Then he pointed at Edwards and said, “This man is number one man for president.” … Best of all, Lowe said, he has the guts to stand up in front of hundreds of people – and he's got the voice so he can say something.
That is how the flame of Outrage is lit:
[John Edwards meets James Lowe]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7rcRA1YQZ0 —-
And well, for some people, that flame never does go out, until Justice has been done … and until, what was wrong, is set right again.
(5) Here is a heart-wrenching Edwards Headline:
TPM
Edwards Mailer In Iowa Touts His Trial Lawyer Representation Of Injured Girl
By Greg Sargent – Dec 21, 2007
“John Edwards gave our Family hope … And then he walked into that courtroom and gave that irresponsible company hell.”
Sandy Lakey Introduces John Edwards, West Des Moines, Iowa
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyrWX9g9-VQ —-
Sandy Lakey:
“I know John because, he saved our daughters life …
[the unthinkable happens to their family]
… so we began talking to attorneys, which was a new experience for us. I was in such a haze of grief, shock, and exhaustion, that little of what anyone said penetrated my fog. The only words I wanted to hear were: 'I can help Valerie'.
And then we met John Edwards. When he held my hands and looked in my eyes, I saw the compassion, honesty, and integrity that is John Edwards. When he said the magic words I wanted to hear, I knew in my heart, that THIS Man would Fight as hard for Valerie, as if she were his OWN Daughter.
Because of John, I began to feel Hope.
We quickly realized John Edwards wasn't just Valerie's attorney — He was her Champion.
John Edwards took on the irresponsible manufacturer of the defective product that had caused Valerie's injury. And we learned she wasn't the FIRST Child to be maimed, or even killed by this Companies absolute indifference!
Even worse the company knew their product was defective, but hid the truth. John exposed their negligence, and Won Justice for Valerie.
John Edwards gave us hope in our darkest hours. He ensured that Valerie's Medical Expenses would be taken care of for the rest of her life. And he helped change the ways companies do business, to make swimming pools safer for children. …
Recently she told me, that she occasionally feels happy. That's not something I thought I'd ever hear her say because her life hasn't been easy. She's suffered through horrors, that NO ONE should have to deal with, especially a child. She lives with pain everyday, and probably will for the rest of her life. But she's strong, and with the help of people like John Edwards, she HAS survived.
She is here with me today to show her support, and love, for John Edwards. We believe that John has the intelligence, the determination, will power, integrity, and above all, the heart, to be a great leader to all of us in the United States.
We are honored to know him, and feel privileged to be here today. He talks about the heroes that he has met in his life, and during his campaign travels. But to us, He is the Hero! Thank you John.”
{applause}
WOW! That's what it means, to fight for the “little guy”. That's the same way John Edwards will fight for US, if we have the “same determination”, to help send him to the White House. If we do, Edwards will give Voice again, to us — the forgotten American People!
PORTSMOUTH — Wooing 700 voters at the Frank Jones Center on Wednesday, presidential candidate John Edwards pitched his plans for health care, warfare and education with a live rock 'n' roll sound track, a whiff of Hollywood and an endorsement from a local nuclear submarine welder.
Wrapping their endorsements for Edwards around a four-song set, Grammy-winning musicians Bonnie Raitt and Jackson Browne were introduced by actor Peter Coyote.
And the WHY's behind the new ground swell of New Hampshire Excitement?
I Am A Patriotwith backing by Bonnie Raitt and Jackson Browne
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQCiTIevzdU —-
Here is what a few of those New Hampshire citizens have to say about WHY they are NOW supporting John Edwards:
Citizen one:
“Seeing John Edwards speak tonite, and you know just listening to him answer the questions — and feeling the Energy in the Audience, in the crowd, he definitely has my Vote”
Citizen two:
“I love how straightforward he is, but I think also, how brave he is.”
Citizen three:
“He's talking, he's talking … fighting … the big corporations — Nobody else is saying that.”
Citizen four:
“I do feel like there is a lot of momentum going on, and I think that, John is going to take it over the top. And I think that he's gonna win this Election.”
Hey, for you other New Hampshire citizens who have finally found your Candidate in Edwards, you too, can get involved to “help win this thing.” Here's how:
http://johnedwards.com/nh/volunteer/signup —-
For more voices from New Hampshire, their stories start here:
http://johnedwards.com/nh/ —-
(7) Here is a different Edwards Headline (with the Media Reporting on the Blogs — now that's a switch):
startribune.com
Minneapolis, MN
Blog House: Edwards remains a wild card as caucuses near
… The most surprising development is that Edwards, who's been consistently third in most Iowa polls, seems to have a little heat behind him. …
And the WHY behind those blogs which are buzzing about Edwards?
Marc Ambinder:
“On Monday, the Edwards campaign recorded more e-mail sign-ups than almost any day in its history,” Marc Ambinder (1) reported. “Over the weekend, the campaign was forced to add four new servers to handle all the Web traffic. Contributions are up online: Thursday and Friday, the two days after the debate, made for one of the highest 2-day totals they've seen in months.”
David Mizner:
In this race, Edwards could prove to be the tortoise and Clinton and Obama a pair of hares, according to David Mizner at MyDD (2). “It wasn't supposed to be this way, with Edwards still in the thick of the race. Clinton and Obama had planned to out-spend and out-celebrity him into oblivion. The best-laid plans.”
So that's it for tonite's Roundup. Thanks for taking a few moments to reflect on the type of Leader, you would like to see running this country. I hope these “behind the news” snapshots, help give you some insight into the character, passion, and determination, that an Edwards Presidency would bring to Washington DC.
Most of these people Speaking out above, have given you a window into some of their reasons to “Why I'm with Edwards?”
SO, “WHY am I, with Edwards?”
Simply stated, out of all the Candidates running, John Edwards speaks out the most passionately, and clearly, and bravely, on nearly all of the Issues, that matter to me and my family!
And on top of that, in nearly every case, Edwards was the first one to take a bold stand, with thoughtful and detailed plans to the many problems this Country faces. “Fixing America” and “Restoring the American Dream”, for ordinary hard-working Americans, is more than just talk with John Edwards — it's the cause of his life!
Such a Fighter, for real Progressive Democratic Values, will get MY Vote, every time!
Please, Edwards supporters, take a few moments, to add a comment or two about, if you can, about“WHY you're with Edwards, too?”
(I'm sure there are still some undecideds out there, lurking, who would probably like to know. Thanks.)
I’m a bit unhappy with John Edwards. I’ve been covering his campaign for 10 days and he hasn’t made a lot of news. Let’s face it – a lot of what political reporters report on is mistakes. The campaign trail is one long minefield, covered with Iowa cow pies, and when they step in one – we leap.
I’ve done very little leaping – and I blame Edwards. While other candidates misspeak, over-speak, and double-speak, Edwards (at least in these 10 days) has made so few mistakes that I end up being transported — newsless — from town to town like a sack of Iowa corn .
He has a remarkable ability to stay on message. Not just in “the speech,” but even in Q and A. Nothing throws him off. He turns nearly every question into another opportunity to repeat his central theme. Global warming? We need to fight big oil. Health care? Fight the big drug and insurance companies. Iowa farmers’ problems? Blame those monster farm conglomerates. And the Iowa populists eat it up. We’ll see how well it works in other states.
He’s even disciplined in his daily routine. While most reporters use the campaign trail as an excuse to over-eat and abandon their exercise routines, Edwards squeezes in a run EVERY DAY, rain, sleet, or shine.
Come on John – relax. Step in an Iowa cow pie and let me do my job.
Like my grandmother used to say, many a truth is told in a joke. Reid is half-joking, but the truth is that journalists would much prefer to cover a gaffe than report on a non-eventful day on the stump.
Here’s an idea: how about coming up with story ideas on your own, rather than waiting for the candidates to slip up?
Reid could tell us what the crowds are like at the Edwards events he covers. How many people are showing up? What’s the average age? More women or men? Are the people at these rallies mostly committed Edwards supporters, or are there significant numbers of undecided voters?
Alternatively, he could spend some time analyzing an issue Edwards brings up in his stump speech. How does that issue relate to the lives of Iowans in town X where Edwards is speaking? How does Edwards’ approach to that issue compare to what other candidates propose?
On any given day, Daily Kos users post numerous substantive diaries about the various presidential candidates. Some are about candidates’ stand on important issues, and some are about campaign strategy.
While Reid complains that Edwards isn’t giving him anything to write about, the Edwards Evening News Roundups are packed with information every day.
If these citizen journalists can come up with something interesting to write about, why is a CBS reporter sitting around waiting for a candidate to make a mistake?
“Gotcha” journalism does not serve voters well. Reporters following the campaigns need to figure out a better way to do their jobs.
With less than two weeks before the voting begins in Iowa and New Hampshire, John Edwards is delivering his closing argument to voters, something Edwards is well known for. As one of the top trial attorneys in the nation, Edwards is no stranger to taking on a fight and then driving it home, with a powerful closing argument.
We elected a Democratic Congress to stop the war, and it's not happening. I regret very much that those senators running for president weren't even there to cast their vote, they were out campaigning. We gave the president $70 billion more to continue this war without any restraint or timetable to reduce the troops – it's basically a blank check.
Will Clinton, Edwards or Obama promptly bring the U.S. occupation of Iraq to end? None of them have made an iron clad promise to bring our troops home. Instead, all want to keep their options open and refuse to pledge to bring home all U.S. troops from Iraq by 2013.
The Edwards campaign is picking up steam, and a lot of people are noticing, even some of the Media. That Poll yesterday showing Edwards in the Lead in Iowa at 30%, certainly helped to get people talking. The Chris Matthews Interview with Edwards in New Hampshire was certainly a breath of fresh air too.
I can’t even keep up with all of the diaries about John Edwards at Daily Kos. Many days I rely on the “Edwards Evening News” crew, who summarize the stories of the day and link to many of the good diaries. (Here is a link to all the back issues of the Edwards Evening News Roundup.)
While it’s impossible for me to cite every diary worth reading, I want to call your attention to two from the past week that I found particularly moving. The year we stole a Christmas tree by “chuckles1” was the fourth most-recommended diary out of the 1,876 posted. It inspired “karateexplosions” to write The Timeline of My Decision, which became the highest-impact diary of the week, recommended by more than 750 Kossacks.
I encourage you to click the links and read those diaries. They are compelling first-person accounts of how quickly middle-class Americans can find themselves living in poverty.
Many of our presidential candidates talk about this fine line between a middle-class lifestyle and life below the poverty line. For instance, Hillary Clinton’s “trap door” ad deals with that kind of economic insecurity, and she used the trap door metaphor in the Des Moines Register-sponsored debate last week.
I’ve heard John Edwards talk about this before, that look on your fathers face when he realizes there isn’t enough money. The guilt, the pain.
AND, not having done anything wrong, having worked hard, tried to get ahead, just to be left behind.
I don’t mean to suggest that other candidates in our field feel less compassion for struggling families. But I think Edwards would invest more of the president’s political capital into dealing with poverty. Karateexplosions likes all of our candidates,
But my primary vote goes to Edwards and his message of hope. I never wanted my children to have to see That Look. But now that they have, I want to work for an American future that means my children’s children will never have to see That Look.
