John Edwards is right. Let the voters speak.
Kari Chisholm
In his post earlier today, reflecting on the "earthquake" in New Hampshire, Jeff Alworth is befuddled:
I am somewhat mystified by John Edwards, who before the election argued that his strategy was to make it a two-person race by taking Clinton out. But now he vows to stay in the race because 99% of Americans haven't been heard?
Of course, those two sentences aren't a contradiction. John Edwards was pretty clear, even before NH, that he was going to stay in for the long haul. He hadn't said "through the convention" before, but he'd implied it.
I think one shouldn't underestimate the impact on Edwards of John Kerry's premature concesssion in Ohio in 2004. Edwards has said repeatedly that he felt that the Kerry campaign should have fought harder over the election irregularities in Ohio - that we need to make sure that when people vote, their voices are heard.
Look at it this way: It'll go one of two ways. Either Edwards will pick up steam (or one of the other two will falter), and voters in later states will get an honest choice... or, he'll fade out, and it won't matter that he soldiers on alone.
Either way, I don't think it makes sense to precipitously declare a winner. After all, you need 2209 delegates to win a majority of delegates at the convention, and thus, the nomination. Our frontrunner, whoever he or she may be, should at least get halfway there ("halfway to halfway") before anybody even starts talking about declaring it over. Better yet, we should insist on getting to 50%-plus-one before it's "over".
I remember 2004, when the media anointed John Kerry when he had barely 10% of the delegates. That's stupid. Why should Iowa and New Hampshire decide for the rest of us?
We're barely into the first inning of a nine-inning game. Let the voters speak.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
11:54 a.m.
Jan 9, '08
I agree with Kari. And pushing for one candidate or another to be the winner now just means that Oregon definitely won't have a chance at having a say in who the nominee will be.
I think that a 3 way race for the nominee is a good thing - it means more perspectives and more of a choice.
And I have to admit that if Edwards did drop out, I can't honestly say I would throw my support behind either of the two remaining candidates. I reluctantly did it in '04, even though I knew Kerry didn't have a chance. I said after that race I didn't think I could do that again. And I'm still not convinced I can.
12:02 p.m.
Jan 9, '08
Well said, Kari. With so few people having been heard, why not let people vote and have a say? I for one would be saddened to be unable to vote for Edwards when the primary comes to Oregon. Long road left.
12:02 p.m.
Jan 9, '08
And I have to admit that if Edwards did drop out, I can't honestly say I would throw my support behind either of the two remaining candidates.
Well, I wouldn't go that far. AnnArborBlue is right. They're all solid Democrats.
I'm a strong second-choice Obama supporter - but I could support Hillary in the end. In 2004, I was Dean first, Edwards second, and Kerry third. But by the fall, I was able to work hard for Kerry. (Amazing what a GOP nominee can do to unify the Democrats.)
That said, this isn't over. Not even close.
Jan 9, '08
We're barely into the first inning of a nine-inning game. Let the voters speak.
Agree, except that it is the first half mile of a 26 six mile marathon.
John Edwards represents me and FINALLY, after 30 years of voting I'll get a say.
I love you John Edwards Edwards/Schweitzer '08
12:26 p.m.
Jan 9, '08
Kari:
Oh I'd vote for them in November. But I don't know what I'd do if it comes down to them on the primary ballot. I might actually have to undervote, which would be abnormal for me.
Everyone just seems to take for granted that the supporters of the losing candidates will end up either with Obama or Clinton. But it isn't something that should be taken for granted - the candidates need to give a good reason why those people should now support them.
I'm just glad that we still have plenty of time before we vote. Maybe between now and then, if Edwards is no longer a viable candidate, they can convince me to vote for them in May.
Jan 9, '08
I think Edwards is right in theory, let the voters speak. Obama is such a strong candidate that it shouldn't matter that there is another progressive fighting for the same votes. Obama stands on his own merits.
Some may argue though that Edwards is taking votes away from Obama, who is the one with the real shot at getting the nomination. Could he in a sense be Al Gore's Ralph Nader? Who knows.
I do know that Obama seems to be a much stronger candidate on many levels. Check out the latest report from Barack's campaign manager:
TO: Interested Parties FROM: David Plouffe DATE: January 9, 2008 RE: The Next Four Weeks
Coming off an impressive win in Iowa and taking the once inevitable frontrunner down to the wire in her firewall state, it is clear that Obama is well-positioned to become the next President of the United States. As the people of Iowa and New Hampshire demonstrated, the American people desperately want change they can believe in. Barack Obama is the candidate to deliver that change by bringing people together, standing up to the special interests, and telling people what they need to know.
Our campaign now turns its focus squarely to Nevada and South Carolina, and February 5th. Today, we kick off the next phase of our campaign in New Jersey, an important February 5th state.
Fundraising
In the 4th Quarter of 2007, our campaign raised $23.5 million - over $22.5 million of which is for the primary election. In that quarter, we added 111,000 new donors for a total of 475,000 donors in 2007.
In the first 8 days of 2008, we raised over $8 million and gained 35,000 new donors. Since midnight last night, we have raised another $500,000 online. We continue to build a grassroots movement that makes us best-positioned to compete financially in the primaries and caucuses coming up.
Nevada
We have built the same caucus operation in Nevada as we did in Iowa, with focused and effective precinct captains in over 95 percent of the precincts in the state, and multiple captains in many precincts. We have also been reaching deep into the electorate, securing commitments to caucus from habitual Democratic voters, general election voting Democrats and Independents.
In a significant boost to our efforts, we received the endorsement of the SEIU local in Nevada late last night.
This is the first time Nevada has had a precinct caucus so organization is paramount, both in terms of shaping the overall electorate as well as the added challenge of getting voters to locations that are unfamiliar to them. South Carolina
We have seen dramatic movement in South Carolina since Iowa, resulting in healthy double-digit leads for Senator Obama in recent public polling. We have by far the strongest organization in the state according to neutral observers and believe that, as the gateway to February 5th, South Carolina will provide our campaign enormous momentum heading into those twenty-two states.
Obama also has the support of several key political figures in South Carolina, including former Governor Jim Hodges, Charleston Mayor Joe Riley, and former party chairs Joe Erwin and Dick Harpootlian.
February 5th
We now have staff in nineteen of the twenty-two February 5th states and will be adding to the remaining three - Delaware, Arkansas and Connecticut - by the end of the week.
In the six caucus states - Colorado, Minnesota, Kansas, Idaho, Alaska and North Dakota - we have been engaged in heavy organizing and voter contact. In many of these states, our opponents are not engaged in any organizing. We firmly believe you cannot build a caucus operation in a matter of four weeks, so we are at a decided advantage in these states where we have already identified tens of thousands of Obama supporters and where, in the last five days, the number of new volunteers and supporters has exploded. We are in the process of mailing past caucus-goers and our ID-ed supporters in those states. We are also preparing aggressively for vote-by-mail in states like California and Arizona, where we have mail pieces hitting this week and an exhaustive phone program in place to identify supporters and make sure those ballots are returned.
In all of the February 5th states, we have active chapters at most colleges and universities and are pursuing support from independent voters aggressively where they are permitted to participate, which is in most of the states. California and New Jersey, two states the Clintons have pointed to as firewalls, both will have healthy independent turnout in the
Democratic primary.
We expect to see a great deal of movement to Obama from superdelegates in the coming days, seriously eroding the Clintons’ existing advantage in this universe.
To fully execute a robust February 5th strategy, it will take tens of millions of dollars. Our financial picture is strong and growing stronger by the day, which will allow us to have a significant paid media presence to go alongside our grassroots operations in our target February 5th states.
We expect, as we begin to see significant national poll movement, that there will also be positive poll movement in the February 5th states. Obama saw substantial gains in the individual February 5th state polls in December opening up a lead in Georgia and seeing a seriously tightening race in California.
We will be releasing later today our final fourth quarter 2007 estimates, as well as some numbers for the first eight days of January for both dollars raised, as well as number of total donors and new donors acquired in these periods.
The coming weeks will be challenging and no doubt filled with more haphazard and relentless attacks, but we believe we could not be better positioned for the next twenty four states. Our goal is simple - to win as many states as we can in the next twenty-eight days.
12:38 p.m.
Jan 9, '08
Some may argue though that Edwards is taking votes away from Obama, who is the one with the real shot at getting the nomination. Could he in a sense be Al Gore's Ralph Nader?
Oh please.
Jan 9, '08
Could he in a sense be Al Gore's Ralph Nader? Who knows. Matthew Sutton
No, because Ralph Nader WAS IN A DIFFERENT PARTY RUNNING AGAINST THE DEMOCRAT.
Edwards will use his power to sway the party to the left and this middle-aged woman will finally get to vote for her candidate in the May primary. It's all good. :)
1:25 p.m.
Jan 9, '08
Fair enough, Kari, though I think this highlights the pitfalls of very consciously detailing your strategy ahead of time. It wasn't me who called it a "two-person race" after Iowa. If Edwards wants to argue now that it's a long-haul process, fine, but it makes his earlier comment, about Hillary's irrelevancy after a single caucus, look a little silly.
But I have to live with Obama's "You're likable enough, Hillary" comment. No one gets out of this thing without a few off-notes.
Jan 9, '08
Thanks to Kari for the article and to Jenni for pointing out that some of us might not just fall into line behind Obama or Hillary. I'm an Edwards supporter for a reason and it has nothing to do with charm, good looks, gender or fundraising abilities. I made my decision based on his position on the issues and, frankly, that makes it hard to back any one else.
I don't like that Hillary is taking money from everyone including the Carlyle Group or that Obama took $1.3 mil in lobbyist/PAC money for his senate race. His personal PAC, HopeFund, accepts money from oil and coal companies and health insurance companies. Doesn't exactly make his hands clean. John has never accepted lobbyist/PAC money.
I also chose not to support Clinton or Obama because they support liquification of coal, which would double the rate of global warming, and which Edwards is against. I don't like that Obama voted to allow credit card companies to increase their interest rates above 30%.
If the media actually covered the issues, instead of focusing on the race and who's raised how much money, I doubt Obama and Clinton would be doing as well, or that Edwards would be sitting in third. But as an Obama staffer here in Reno told me last night, "Oh, the candidates don't want to talk about the issues." Huh?! Maybe his doesn't, for good reason.
If John Edwards drops out or fails to get the nomination, I'll find it hard to support Obama or Clinton.
Jan 9, '08
Matthew, your post exemplifies what I'm talking about. Obama's a strong candidate because he's raised and is spending lots of money?
That is not a good reason to support a presidential candidate.
1:54 p.m.
Jan 9, '08
Let's discuss why Republicans do well...
It is because no matter who the nominee ends up being most Rs vote for the party's candidate. I have read several times in this thread that if Edwards drops out people would have a hard time supporting Obama or Clinton. This is the Democrats problem. We sulk and we don't vote. We need to swallow our pride, put our tail between our legs and head to the polls and vote blue if we want to win. I support Edwards, but I say here, that if he drops out I will put my support behind Obama and so forth. We need to fall in. Sounds scary, but it is how we are going to win the Whitehouse in '08.
1:57 p.m.
Jan 9, '08
For the record (directed to the anti-corporate anti-PAC purity posters), Sierra Club and Planned Parenthood have PACs, and almost every person in America draws their paycheck from a corporation (non-profits are corporations as well, even public municipalities and cites are corporate entities), so let's not make hyperbolic broad-brush claims shall we?
Jan 9, '08
"let's not make hyperbolic broad-brush claims shall we?"
Well, there goes the political blogosphere...
2:10 p.m.
Jan 9, '08
I think the point of Jeff Allworth's statement is not that Edwards should drop out but that Edwards applies his logic inconsistently.
He essentially tied Clinton in Iowa after all - only a few hundred votes separated them. His calling for her to depart was thinly disguised as "logic" about her coming in third, but he does not apply that "logic" to himself in New Hampshire, ergo - to clearly state what Allworth didn't - his suggestion that Clinton was no longer in the race was pure competitive spin (aka trash talk), not reason. OK, it's a contest, people trash talk and try to discourage one another's supporters; but when they disguise it as some kind of statistically-based logic and then don't apply that logic to themselves it looks hypocritical.
Some other thoughts looking at the comments; Hillary's been given way too little credit on the left for her progressive credentials and qualifications for the job. Based on actual Senate record (which is how power's manifest after all) she has as good or better progressive ratings on nearly every category as Obama, with the exception of war/peace, but he's voted identically to her on every war funding legislation since he's been in the U.S. Senate (and held the same positions on Iran before he skipped that vote). On environment remember that Edwards supported that nuclear waste dump in Nevada at Yucca mountain while Clinton opposed it all along. On Obama's war votes and his branding of Clinton: what's more important, the names your opposition labels you with, or your actual voting record and whether or not it matches your pose? I'll go with the honest moderate over the hypocrite any day. Also as much as I like some of Edwards' populist rhetoric we should remember that he -wasn't- apologizing for his Iraq war vote in 2004 with Kerry (at which time Obama also carefully refrained from criticizing the war and even took -down- his anti-war speech from his website).
I'm a pacifist but let's keep in mind that whomever we nominate is likely to run against McCain, maybe McCain/Huckabee, and a majority of Republicans in exit polls on Tuesday felt that GW Bush's problem was that he was not conservative enough - this is not a progressive cakewalk year!
Hillary and Wes Clark will end the war properly and - if tested by an escalating event in Iran, Pakistan, or even here - they will be grounded in experience. They not feel the need to overreact to prove they're tough like Obama or Edwards might (c'mon, invading Pakistan? Does resembling JFK really have to mean flexing your muscles with another Bay of Pigs?) Hillary's my first choice, Edwards is my second; as for Obama let him finish a term in the Senate and prove that his words match his work, then I'll consider him.
I'm a man and I fully agree with Gloria Steinem on this: a woman is never a front-runner in our culture. Hillary has been subtly or openly character-assassinated without cause. Women are always the last group to be enfranchised in every culture; in this regard Hillary's candidacy is truly revolutionary and history-making, and progressives should not let negative labels and slogans distract them from that great opportunity.
Jan 9, '08
Edwards Stifiling Change in 08′
2:30 p.m.
Jan 9, '08
Edwards will use his power to sway the party to the left and this middle-aged woman will finally get to vote for her candidate in the May primary. It's all good.
Amen backbeat. Both Clinton and Obama have already filched some of edwards' anti- corporatist rhetoric. Don't know how much they've internalized the message.
<hr/>Some of the commenters above still seem confused as to the difference between attacking candidates who believe that corporations fill a valuable role in a healthy democracy (which I agree with lestat, is broad brush stupid) and;
attacking candidates who believe that entire industries should be able to write laws and self-regulate because there is no difference between their own self-interest, the politician's self-interest and the good of the nation.
The former are capitalists.
The latter are facsists, or corporatist.
<hr/>I heart John too, but absent a miracle, circumstances seem to be conspiring against him.
A guy oughta be able to win his home state, but with the Clinton history there and with Obama in the mix, he'll be hard pressed.
<hr/>Also, maybe it's just me, but doesn't it seem that Edwards gets the blue collar unions and the other two get the gummint unions? That also could be an indicator of who's for the Little Guy.
2:39 p.m.
Jan 9, '08
along the same vain, last night I don't think I had ever seen Tom Brokaw frustrated with the folks in his profession until last night.
He was almost in what seemed like a heated argument with Chris Matthews on MSNBC about the importance of making sure Americans take their time learning about the candidates and where they are on the issues and not being drawn into this talk of who is ahead in the polls and what the polls mean about their particular candidate.
I thought it was delightful change from most of the people they have on the 24 hour news stations.
Jan 9, '08
Kari, you left out my "who knows" and my statement that Edwards was right. If you are going to quote me, please be fair. I was simply posing the question and it is a fair question to ask where Edwards votes would go if he were not in the race.
Sandra, you are distorting things a bit by focusing on one point in David's memo. Did you see the 8 or so other paragraphs talking about organization, caucusing, new VIP supporters, etc.?
And yes, David did address finances, which unfortunately is a big part of it since the candidates will have to compete in 20 states on February 5th. Since they can not thoroughly campaign in all of these states, that means they will have to buy major tv ads which costs $$$. Hillary perhaps doesn't have to spend as much because of her name recognition, etc. But it is an even bigger deal to those candidates whose last name isn't Clinton.
3:11 p.m.
Jan 9, '08
Pat Ryan wrote: Some of the commenters above still seem confused as to the difference between attacking candidates who believe that corporations fill a valuable role in a healthy democracy (which I agree with lestat, is broad brush stupid) and;
attacking candidates who believe that entire industries should be able to write laws and self-regulate because there is no difference between their own self-interest, the politician's self-interest and the good of the nation.
The former are capitalists.
The latter are facsists, or corporatist.
First a minor observation - I'm not sure it's helpful to make "fascists" and "corporatists" interchangeable terms - that's quite a jump. A key element of fascism is absolute rule of government authority by force over all aspects of society, which may apply to the more police-state attributes of Bush/Cheney, and my coincide in some cultures with oligarchy, but really it is orthogonal to ecomonic policy; any totalitarian state is "fascist" in the strict sense whether it is oligarchic or command-economy.
But given your definition: Hillary Clinton is then clearly, from her Senate voting record and her extensive position papers like the American Dream Initiative, a progressive capitalist. (And none of the leading Democrats pretends to be any further left than that; even Edwards when pressed will not go so far as to call for a New Deal or significant socialization of any private industry).
Well before her Presidential campaign Hillary has advocated review of trade agreements and enforcements of labor and environmental provisions, greater tranparency and accountability of the WTO, and strengthening of international labor. Domestically she has called consistently (and with the votes to back it up) for an end to corporate subsidies and Bush tax cuts in favor of middle class tax cuts which she believes is where the engine of economic growth is truly primed.
ProgressivePunch.org shows her with a 100% progressive rating on ending corporate subsidies, 95% on supporting government checks on corporate power, 97% on fair taxation, 98% on health care, 92% on environment; overall the 16th most progressive lifetime Senate record among 100 Senators (Obama ranks 24th).
So by your definition - and this IS cause to celebrate! - Hillary is a progressive capitalist, not a corporatist. But what that -does- call into question for me is both the honesty and the motivations of fellow leading Democrats for applying character-assassinating labels to her on these grounds when surely they know her real record is as progressive as theirs.
Fortunately as we have seen in New Hampshire, the demographic that most needs her help - working-class Americans - is not fooled by the labels or competing rhetoric. They know that she supports expansion of opportunity through private sector growth AND fairness through strong labor and progressive tax laws.
Hillary has my heart... and my vote!
4:01 p.m.
Jan 9, '08
leinad :
Actually, as I pointed out to Kari, we're not talking about the general election. Once the nominee is chosen, I'll vote for them. There's no question there. I did it in the '04 presidential race and I did so in the '06 governors race.
The thing I have a problem with is people who assume that if Edwards dropped out today that we'd all run to Clinton or Obama tomorrow. I wouldn't. If Edwards dropped out today and our primary was tomorrow, I'd honestly be more inclined to undervote, which is not something I take lightly.
Jan 9, '08
Edwards is an important voice to take down the party establishment. He supports Obama in a way while competing with him. He may end up deciding the nominee if he isn't the one himself with his delegates. I don't want Clinton as the voice of the party. I would rather have Edwards and Obama be speaking for Democrats, or at least providing an alternative vision we can choose from.
5:24 p.m.
Jan 9, '08
On a similar topic, sources say Bill Richardson will drop out of the presidential race tomorrow.
5:30 p.m.
Jan 9, '08
But let's also remember the actual context of what/why Obama did in 2004. He was supporting the then 2004 ticket (which we all were doing after Kerry got the nomination), a ticket that by any standards was better than the then (and current) administration even on its approach to Iraq, which we should not have invaded. To read that as somehow Obama was giving blind support is a little disingenuous. Even though he was not going hammer and tong at Kerry/Edwards about an invasion already completed, which he opposed before it was launched, he never changed position in that the invasion was not justified and should not have been launched. To give the impression (intentionally or unintentionally) that he was somehow not against the disastrous policies of invading and occupying Iraq in 2004 is to give short shrift to his position.
Are you suggesting he should have been railing against Kerry/Edwards in the middle of the campaign to beat Bush AFTER Kerry and Edwards were the chosen candidates?
Jan 9, '08
Edwards is fine, but his chances to win are near zero. Obviously, he has a right to continue to run, though, as does Richardson. He simply can't compete with the firepower of the two front runners.
Perhaps Edwards' only chance is in some kind of brokered convention if it were the only way to get Obama's and Clinton's delegates to agree on someone. Edwards might actually be the most electable of the three, due to anxieties in middle America over both Hillary and Barack (for different reasons).
Personally, I'm a HUGE fan of Obama's (he and Novick are my two favorite politicians, even though they're very different). As for Hillary, if she were nominated, I would likely vote for whoever the Green Party nominated ... either that or write in Spinoza or Heschel ... someone worth voting for, dead or alive.
5:37 p.m.
Jan 9, '08
I wonder how much will of his support (what there is/was of it) will move to other candidates and which will get more of his former supporters?
I can't say I am surprised he would, he was going nowhere campaign wise, and aside from a superficially great resume didn't really bring anything great to the table policy or initiative wise other than the empty rhetoric "I'll leave no residual force in Iraq".
5:42 p.m.
Jan 9, '08
Wow, the same circa 2000 thinking that gave us Bush II in the first place.
Jan 9, '08
Jenni,
Richardson's exit may or may not be true, depending on whom reports it.
AP says he's out. NBC says 'not so fast'.
I say 'meh'.
7:41 p.m.
Jan 9, '08
Apparently NBC has also been contacted by the source at the campaign, as they've changed their story and are now saying he will be announcing he is dropping out tomorrow. CNN says two sources at the campaign have confirmed it.
When you're that far down in the percentages and you call a press conference, typically that means you're leaving the race.
I was a supporter of Richardson, but I realized that his chances were slim to none. I wonder if he'd be willing to take a position in the president's cabinet again.
Jan 9, '08
I support Edwards because I'm a progressive and he offers the most (not nearly enough) and H&O are examples of doing business the same old way. Their vote record is there for perusal. OK, I'd vote Democratic which ever one, but I have issues with Hillary that might limit my support to that one vote.
Jan 9, '08
Let's discuss why Republicans do well...
It is because no matter who the nominee ends up being most Rs vote for the party's candidate.
And there is one of the key reasons why this nation is in trouble. Party before the nation.
Jan 9, '08
John Edwards is going to ruin any hopes we have for change in 08' by staying in this race:
Edwards Stifiling Change in 08′
Jan 9, '08
Some experts are saying that surprisingly to me at least, if Edwards were to withdraw, his supporters would split pretty evenly between Obama and Clinton. So isn't it possible that he is staying in the race to get the 15% of the delegats so he can then throw his support to Obama later?
Here's the possible scenarios, assuming Obama and Clinton are a toss-up right now:
Edwards stays in and wins
Edwards stays in and gets maybe 15% of the delegate, or at least enough so that neither Clinton nor Obama wins more than 50%
Edwards withdraws and Obama gets +50%
Edwards withdraws and Clinton gets +50%
If Edwards really wants change, and I think he does, then if he doesn't win the nomination he really wants Obama to win. Heck he may even take VP under Obama. That would be a good ticket.
Staying in gives Edwards or Obama a 75% chance of winning. Withdrawing gives Obama a 50% chance of winning. Edwards is a trial lawyer and knows how to calculate odds and chances of winning and outcomes that he likes. He's in.
Jan 9, '08
I'm an Edwards first and Obama second person, too. I really don't mind Edwards staying in the race as long as he wants, but realistically, if he doesn't win one soon, he isn't going to win any, and a gracefull exit is the best exit, IMO. He also doesn't want to be viewed as a spoiler for change.
I have a real hard time with the idea of having to swallow another establishment Democratic candidate, and an impossible time swallowing the idea of a Hillary Clinton nominee.
Here is why. I am 31, I've never had an opportunity to vote in a General Election that didn't have a Clinton or a Bush on the ticket. For 28 years there has been a Bush or a Clinton on the ticket (I'm counting the Elder Bush VP years here), that has left exactly 3 years of my life without one of these legacy families deeply entrenched in our political process and frankly people they aren't working for us.
I worked hard for the Kerry/Edwards campaign - despite being a Dean supporter. I know I don't have it in me to do the same for Hillary, and frankly I fear another loss for the hope of change is going to do irreperable damage to the spirit of many of our Democrats who are under 35.
I think a long primary is good for our party because the Republicans promise to take a long time to find their candidate - the last thing we need is a few months of all Republican coverage all of the time. But if Hillary continues to piss on the promise of hope and Bill continues to call Obama a fairytale, we are a party in huge trouble!
Jan 9, '08
Sadie, excellent post!
Now imagine being almost 50 and feeling the same way. We don't have TIME to wait two more decades for the deep change that's needed. No more bushes and clintons. Hillary for Supreme Court. Edwards for President (or i'll settle for attorney general)
Jan 9, '08
It is nice to read a robust discussion on here that is not about Novick/Merkley. The US Senate race should be the most interesting race discussed on BlueOregon, but the same group of people engage in predictable yet vitriolic exchanges (such is the epitaph of the once-proud Loaded Orygun).
I fear my comment will precipitate the very thing I deride, but seriously folks, you know it was going to happen anyway. Repetition of the Novick/Merkley fight, no matter how irrelevant to the original post, is inevitable.
I bet we will still read one side or the other complaining after the primary. How long must we beat this dead horse?
11:05 p.m.
Jan 9, '08
I'm pleased that I can still agree with our host Kari about one candidate at least: John Edwards.
And Tiresias, STFU please. And have a nice day. %^>
2:24 a.m.
Jan 10, '08
It isn't surprising that Edwards' votes will split evenly. His populist rhetoric appeals to self-described "conservative" working-class Democrats when they are focused on economics. Look at the poll analyses of Iowa and you'll find a lot of Edwards' support came from people who categorized themselves that way, and he did better among them than either Clinton or Obama -- but Clinton came in second among them.
Pat Ryan, Obama & Clinton also get support from blue-collar service sector unions. SEIU decided to let their locals or state-level organizations decide whom to support. Here in Oregon OPEU joined SEIU but don't forget Local 49 -- in other states SEIU is more like the latter. Obama picked up the Culinary Workers in Nevada today, who are a local of UNITE-HERE (clothing, textile, hotel & restaurant workers plus others union).
Jan 10, '08
I believe as far as the candidate that has a chance now to put the nomination away before the convention?, that would have to be Obama after his Culinary/SEIU endorsement in Nevada. That represents the biggest, best organized, and assertive group in the room. For Clark County Democrats after the '84 Strike, the Culinary Union members are who Democrats caucus with.
I have to say when I heard the Culinary Union went with Obama, and not Edwards, or even Clinton, both with histories of strong union support, and in the union's view represents a restoration of union sway, and their prospects for survival. Trust is something the unions are very leery of with Presidential Candidates of late seeing the numbers diminished.
Obama is an unknown. He has not been pinned in by the struggling forces to prove he will side with the union. He has yet to prove he won't fold for the power corporation's can offer. Temptations of re-election to the White House have its special corrosive ways, and few are suited to resisting their temptations, some never intended to resist to begin with. We need to know where Obama finally falls between those two extremes. Speeches do not substitute for deeds when your job, health insurance, and retirement/pay are concerned.
Nevada may well be the tip of the spear this time, as they are not so many "liberal" Democrats there, or their voice are quieted by the Dino's in the room. This is likely the last stronghold of Labor in America, Las Vegas is more to the point as in the North of the state the union has much less sway.
The “right to work” laws of Nevada are seen as “union is not welcome” in Washoe County. Its funny how both Reno and Las Vegas have state universities in their cities though seem always to slant toward the right in the same neighborhoods as the campuses.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Jan 10, '08
Sorry I didn't see this post earlier. How refreshing to have a conversation about Edwards. I thought he glowed like a dimaond amongst pebbles during the debates. And afterward, suddenly 'change' was in the air....if I had a tenner for every time one of the candidates said the word change I would take an extended vacation and come back when the primaries are all over. Nah...not really, I'd probably give it to Edwards' campaign. For me, never before have I felt so much anxiety over an election, or felt so much was at stake....and that includes my very first chance to vote, which happened to be during the Viet Nam war, after several of my friends had been killed there. After so many elections, I've heard a good deal more political rhetoric than voters younger than I am....I would advise a grain of salt with all the canned feel-good stump-speech fluff. Especially with Obama....what is he really saying will Change? (And how will it be paid for now that we have this massive war debt?)
I am so amazed that no one (especially not MSM) has mentioned the fact that during the closing momments of his NH debate Edwards told us "it's personal" for him. And 2 days later Hillary repeats those exact words with a lump & few mock tears, and she gets a media frenzy! But that's what worries me for Edwards....as soon as he stated he hadn't taken any PAC contributions and vowed to loosen the stranglehold mega-biz lobbies have on our democracy, the corporate owned and supported media just stopped reporting about Edwards.
I don't know how much the youth vote will effect this election, but I'm glad to see them back... or more like newly arrived and engaged. But I will say that I spoke with my 78 yr old mother who lives just north of Chicago, and so has heard more media reporting about Sen. Obama than I have over the years...she says if Edwards doesn't get nominated she will vote conservative (I assume she means Republican, but we're British-born and old habits and idiums die hard)...she will vote conservative before she'd vote for Obama or Clinton. And she's never voted GOP before. She says her "club ladies" feel the same. So if that turns out to be a common sentiment amongst seniors, how might it effect states like FL & AZ?
Jan 10, '08
Edwards should definitely stay in for the long haul; in fact, all the candidates who are financially able should stay in--it's better for the party in the long run. And even if, by the time the Oregon primary rolls around, the SOS decides to only put 1 or 2 names on the ballot, we can always write-in our candidate of choice.
I really liked what Edwards said in the CNN pre-Iowa debate a couple of weeks ago, when he summarized at the end of his response to a question about his criticism of Hillary Clinton: "What we don't need is to trade corporate Republicans for corporate Democrats".
Jan 10, '08
Edwards is the only candidate directly addressing poverty and rich/poor gaps, middle class demise, reality health care reform, power of the media, etc. The powers that be are more interested in keeping power than giving us issues to vote on, while they control the Republican corporate controlled media. Don't let polls tell us how to vote, stay in or drop out. The super-delegates seem to be part of the stay in power group. Hopefully, ours from Oregon, may be different, if it comes down to our delegates making any difference with the lousy front loaded program. What happened to the turtle and the hare?
Jan 10, '08
If Mary Ann is who I think she is, she may recall when Gerry Cogan was on the national Fairness Comm. 1984-88 as one of the ways delegate selection and party rules were being rethought.
Maybe someone knows when superdelegates were created--I don't recall the year. Basically it was to balance the "rabble" with the experienced hands so there was never again anything like the 1972 convention.
Just like there have for many years been male and female delegate slots so that no one can say "Vote for me because I am a woman/man", I suspect superdelegates are a way for major elected officials to be chosen as delegates without having to run against campaign activists.
Wayne Kinney or anyone else on the Rules Comm. in Oregon should be able to identify those Oregon superdelegates; and nothing prevents active Democrats from having a conversation with those folks. If they are elected officials and unresponsive, the choice can be made about whether they deserve support the next time they come up for re-election. All part of old-fashioned democracy!
1:22 a.m.
Jan 11, '08
LT, I'm pretty sure I recall superdelegates being talked about in '84 when Mondale was nominated -- not sure if that was because it was the first time for them. I don't have a clear picture of who was behind Ted Kennedy's challenge to Carter in '80 & thus am not sure if that might have played a role, but they definitely were part of reaction against post-'68 McGovern Commission reforms & I think possibly tied to the formation of the DLC whose name may even reflect the connection (remembering too that Al From was active in Democrats for Nixon in '72).
1:53 a.m.
Jan 11, '08
As always, Google to the rescue. One click to Wikipedia, and one click to the rules and a list of which ones are already pledged.
It seems that the only two already-pledged superdelegates from Oregon are Governor Kulongoski and Congresswoman Hooley - both for Hillary Clinton.
Incidentally, that preamble - unless any such member has publicly expressed support for the election of, or has endorsed, a presidential candidate of another political party; - would seem to indicate that Senator Lieberman has lost his superdelegate slot.
Jan 11, '08
would seem to indicate that Senator Lieberman has lost his superdelegate slot.
:lol:
Kari, thank you so very much for posting this information. I think it is high time for the Democratic Party to re-think this system, as it allows the old guard in The Village to continue to pollute our politics and policies. I say we watch these people and their votes very closely, especially those from Oregon, and consider later action based on that. We, the little people, were successful in ousting Terry Mac and replacing him with Howard Dean.....we should be able to change the party rules on this delegate thing if needed.
12:46 p.m.
Jan 11, '08
We, the little people, were successful in ousting Terry Mac and replacing him with Howard Dean.....we should be able to change the party rules on this delegate thing if needed.
Hey backbeat, let's just say that it's needed.
These rules are designed specifically to ensure that we, The Rabble are protected from our ignorant base impulses by The Adults.
Screw the Adults. My experience has been and is, that the knowledge base of these guys on the actual issues, as opposed to the Inside Baseball crap, is about on a par with that of the Rabble.
I accept the inherent undemocratic nature of the actual Republic, with it's weighting of the Senate, and distribution of power among the branches, but do not see how this is applicable to progressive politics or Dem politics.
1:10 p.m.
Jan 11, '08
I'm not sure I'm too worried about that, Backbeat. There are so few of them in comparison to the number of voter-elected delegates... and the influence of their delegates is exactly zero once the nominee has secured a majority of the voter-elected delegates.
The only time that the superdelegates come into play is if no candidate gets a majority of the voter-elected delegates. The idea is that the supers, who are uncommitted, could swing their votes en masse to pick a nominee.
But that's never happened, and is unlikely. (Frankly, we should be so lucky that the primaries would be competitive through all 50 states!)
Jan 20, '08