Edwards’ departure: What happens now?

This morning I’d made a bunch of notes for a post about whether the delegate-free Democratic primary in Florida was of any real consequence. The Clinton campaign, not surprisingly, was aggressively making its case that it did, the Obama campaign argued the opposite.

My conclusion was going to be that it mattered if the media said it mattered — what Clinton hoped to gain was a boost in momentum, driven by a perception of success. If Americans saw a lot of footage today of Clinton surrounded by cheering Floridians, with reports about her “big victory,” then the results from Florida would matter, possibly quite a bit. If not, it was largely inconsequential.

In this sense, John Edwards’ announced departure — initial media reports started around 9 a.m. — was awful news for the Clinton communications team. All of a sudden, the results from Florida, and the discussion of their significance, vanished. The withdrawal of a top-tier candidate vs. a primary with no delegates? It was no contest.

(I’m not suggesting the Edwards campaign intentionally sought to step on Clinton’s win in Florida, just that the timing didn’t help the Clinton campaign’s case.)

We talked earlier about some of the big-picture significance of Edwards’ announcement, but let’s go a little further with some of the details. The Democratic Convention Watch Blog, for example, tackles what happens to the delegates Edwards already won.

First, all of his superdelegates go back into the no endorsement pool. (Give us some time to get the posts updated). Second, his 4 delegates from New Hampshire and his 8 delegates from South Carolina will go to the convention as Uncommitted. And finally, his delegates from Iowa don’t exist anymore, but will be replaced with Clinton or Obama delegates. That’s because delegates to the national convention haven’t actually been picked yet in these two states. There are Congressional District and state conventions still to come, and all his delegates to the Congressional District conventions will have to vote for one of the remaining candidates to the state level convention.

And what about Edwards voters?

That’s considerably more complicated. Just yesterday in Florida, for example, 47% of Edwards backers said they would be “satisfied” with Clinton as the nominee, and 13% said they would be “very satisfied.” Similarly, 47% said they would be “satisfied” with Obama as the nominee, and 19% said they would be “very satisfied.”

Looking outside Florida, John Judis finds other states’ exit polls offer a mixed message — Dems who backed Edwards in Iowa and South Carolina show a “slight tilt” towards Clinton, but that wasn’t the case in New Hampshire.

Either way, both Obama and Clinton wasted no time this morning praising Edwards and reaching out to his supporters. Edwards apparently called his rivals last night, telling them that he was considering dropping out, and asking if they would be willing to pledge to make poverty a top issue of their campaigns and presidencies. Both Clinton and Obama, not surprisingly, agreed.

Moreover, Obama was first out of the gate with an effusive statement, noting that Edwards “has spent a lifetime fighting to give voice to the voiceless and hope to the struggling, even when it wasn’t popular to do or covered in the news.” Given Edwards’ frustration with his lack of media coverage, the statement showed that the Obama campaign was sensitive to the former senator’s concerns. Clinton quickly followed suit with praise of her own — and one-upped Obama by saluting Edwards on her campaign’s homepage.

As for endorsement talk, it’s the one question everyone’s curious about, but which we won’t be able to answer right away. An Edwards campaign aide said the former senator won’t make any endorsement “for the moment,” but wouldn’t rule out the possibility of an endorsement before Feb. 5.

Plenty more to come, I’m sure.

“If Americans saw a lot of footage today of Clinton surrounded by cheering Floridians, with reports about her “big victory,” then the results from Florida would matter, possibly quite a bit.”

It would impress idiots in an approving way, and it would further alienate those who are becoming increasingly angry at her campaigning. I am beginning to feel (not just see) how polarizing she is. Once she loses you, you are not apathetic. You despise her

  • “I’m not suggesting the Edwards campaign intentionally sought to step on Clinton’s win in Florida, just that the timing didn’t help the Clinton campaign’s case.”

    Why wouldn’t it be intentional? I’m not suggesting that Edwards is running his campaign to secretly aid Obama. But it was very clear what the Hillary camp was angling for with all of their recent Florida hyping. And for better or worse, that kind of campaign strategy seems to represent a big part of the dislike between Edwards and Clinton (I’m remember the horribly awkward post-debate Hardball interview where Mark Penn had to stand next to an angry Joe Trippi). Moreover, the withdrawal doesn’t seemed marked by any particular change that would seal the deal; South Carolina was a bigger blow than Florida.

    I don’t know what John will do in the future. But I have to imagine that his colleagues take a little joy in stepping all over the recent, and particularly slimy, “Florida counts” meme.

  • Our lovely corporate media can add another notch on its gun, with the elimination of the last progressive voice remaining on the Democratic side. Since the summer of 2000, our lovely corporate media has been belittling, smearing, attacking and/or ignoring the more progressive candidates: Al Gore, Dr. Howard Dean and most recently Rep. Dennis Kucinich and John Edwards. If all this corporate manipulation of our Presidential choices fails, the corporations can always fall back on “counting the votes” as they did so slickly and so well in 2004. Most Americans refused to believe that some million Kerry votes were flipped to Bush on election night in November, 2004. Of course, with electronic voting and electronic vote counting, there is no way to really know… No one can prove that the 2004 Presidential Election was not stolen electronically That is precisely why this system is so destructive of democracy and honest elections.

    In the future, let’s have our political debates run by the League of Women Voters, not private corporate media. Let’s have our votes recorded with hand-counted paper ballots. Otherwise, it will be more Corporatocracy in the 21st century.

  • http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/01/29/politics/fromtheroad/entry3767920.shtml

    Re: Florida Delegates:

    “In talking with [House] Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi and then confirmed by [DNC Chairman Howard] Dean, they both said that they believe that it would happen,” Thurman said.

    Given her active courting of Florida and Michigan delegates, I’m a little glad that Edwards selected today for his announcement and undercut her ‘victory.’

    Unfortunately, it looks like Pelosi, who I have no respect for to begin with, and Dean are considering reversing course on the revoked delegates.

    As Danp suggested, her actions here only reinforce what it is about her that many of us don’t like; on the flip side of that coin, I’m sure this is more of the ‘toe-to-toe’ fighting that many of her supporters think will help her in November.

  • If Edwards supporters really are evenly split among Clinton and Obama, then Clinton would win. I thought though that the second choice of most Edwards supporters is Obama (and vice-versa), in which case Obama could come out the winner here. Those Florida numbers suggest that both are acceptable nominees to the democratic base.

  • Couldn’t agree more with your premise. Clinton was counting on her “win” to be a media story that would keep her in the limelight as we steadily grow closer to Super Tuesday. In politics, any ounce of positive media coverage only serves to help your campaign. Edwards, in effect, stole that limelight from her, and will hold that, at least until tomorrow’s debate.

    http://criticaljunkie.blogspot.com

  • I’m not sure the percentages CB cites of Edwards supporters who would be “satisfied” with the other two candidates says much. Registered Dems have long indicated they’d be satisfied with any of the top three, but our vote represents our preference.

  • I listened to Edwards’ speech and it was a very good one. Poverty will be part of the Obama and Clinton campaign. He’s put both of them on the spot, that it will be part of their presidency.

    An indirect dig at O’Reilly by mentioning he visited 200 homeless people under a bridge there in New Orleans. He commended a lady who help feeds them with her own money.

    It is great to hear him say that America NEEDS every single one of his supporters. At no time did he disparage Obama or Clinton. He feels that we are ALL in it together and need to make a Democratic Presidency a reality.

    HINT to all the ones who rather throw their vote away. Listen to Edwards. Vote for a democratic candidate and make America better.

  • Well, it’s now clearly Hillary vs. not-Hillary. In spite of the exit polls, my hunch is this helps Obama. He’ll need it – Hillary’s the favorite, in spite of the big Obama wins in Iowa and SC, and all the recent endorsements he’s picked up. At least with Edwards officially out this leaves my Super Tuesday Obama vote unclouded by any guilt over not voting Edwards.

  • Bruno,

    Edwards’ speech got more press coverage than just about anything else he’s said. That is truly sad.

  • “Unfortunately, it looks like Pelosi, who I have no respect for to begin with, and Dean are considering reversing course on the revoked delegates.”

    doubtful, Agree with you re Pelosi, but not as to Dean or the premise of ‘reversing course.’ Going back to when this punishment was doled out, the ‘conventional wisdom’ at that time was that the eventual nominee would seat the delegates, and that the DNC really had no power to stop the eventual nominee from doing so.

  • The withdrawal of a top-tier candidate vs. a primary with no delegates? It was no contest.

    If anything, Edwards’ withdrawal reinforces the idea that Florida wasn’t meaningless. There was an election Tuesday; Edwards didn’t win it; now he’s dropping out. Ergo, Tuesday’s election must have been meaningful.

    Even if it wasn’t.

  • Re #13, The ‘conventional wisdom’ at that time was that the eventual nominee wouldn’t need the FL or MI delegates to secure the nomination. Obama and Edwards stuck to their pledges and to their promises to the voters in the early primary states. They even removed their names from the Michigan ballots.

    If Hillary Clinton gets the nomination because of Florida and Michigan, she’ll have demonstrated that crime does pay.

  • It’s a damn shame that the one candidate who truly ran against the monied corporate interests was relegated to the peanut gallery by the MSM.

    This proves it folks, our government is a plutocracy, of which Hillary is a part, and Obama is just now penetrating.

    RIP USA.

  • I think Edward’;s supporters are presently ‘uncommitted’ and will begin to look at which candidate is the most progressive. This should help in getting the issues back on the table and debated I hope so the voting public can see which parts they agree or disagree with. Are these candidates willing to change their stands if we show reason for them to do so. It’s a two-way street..we listen to them but will they listen to us? Is Obama willing to change his economic plan? Is Clinton willing to modify her health care plan?

    Edwards supporters will have to familiarize themselves with the other 2 campaigns and not just assume Clinton is more progressive than Obama and vice versa. I was an Edwards supporter and I am not an anti Hillary or an anti Obama vote but I will ignore the Hillary haters or the Saint Obamas as their insights are biased and clouded. I do think it easier for a black man to be accepted as president than for a woman. Are women seen as second class citizens more so than blacks?…I don’t know. I do know they are both excellent candidates but I haven’t made up my mind which I will support.

  • bjobotts, why would Hillary modify her health care plan to appeal to Edward supporters? Her plan is more similar to Edwards (both have mandates) than Obama’s (which doesn’t and he has campaigned on that difference).

  • This Edwards supporter is still voting for Edwards, damnit!

    If the reanimated corpse of Fred Thompson can still get votes after he quit the race, then so can John Edwards. I’ll be damned if I’m going to let Edwards’ withdrawal force my vote to someone who isn’t my first choice. I’ll have to settle in the general election; I don’t have to settle now.

    If Edwards can still garner delegates from states where he’s still on the ballot then he can still influence the direction of the party and the platform of the Democratic candidate. Reason enough for me to vote for him even if he’s officially withdrawn.

  • citizen_pain…

    This proves it folks, our government is a plutocracy, of which Hillary is a part, and Obama is just now penetrating.

    I agree with you about Hillary. Even a casual scan of her dossier on the wiki shows the truth there.

    But I think you need to educate yourself on Barack right quick.
    Because you are blathering vapidity.

    The kid had a comfy corporate financial job in NYC. His own office. His own secretary.
    He quit it to become an organizer in the projects of Chicago.
    If you want to say he quit that job because someday he could claim, in a run for the presidency, that he helped poor people organize in Chicago…
    Fair enough.
    You are free to make up reality to fit your inner bias.

    But nevertheless: he had cracked into the corporate world at an extraordinary young age.
    Few, in their 20s have the introspective strength to walk away from that sort of thing.
    People almost always follow the path of least resistance.
    It is a natural law.

    Lastly, one of the most provocative things I find about his biography was this revelation.
    It is such a tiny little thing. But it struck me as an extraordinary insight into his character:

    I spent a year walking from one end of Manhattan to the other. LIke a tourist, I watched the range of human possibility on display, trying to trace out my future in the lives of people I saw, looking for some opening through which I could reenter.

    Having taken similar long walking journeys…
    I understand something about how it changes you forever.
    And gives you something that no one can ever touch, or ever buy.

  • Feingold, Warner, Kucinich, Edwards now Obama. Will note vote for someone who was stupid enough to vote for Kyl/Lieberman.

  • What would be great would be to have the Democratic president nominage John Edwards to the Supreme Court at the first opportunity. He’s young – can outlast even Roberts – and has the kind of committment to become the next William O. Douglas or Oliver Wendell Holmes.

  • Out here in CA, I am disapointed that I won’t be able to endorse Edwards’ message on Feb 5. While I truly believe that all three candidates would be fine presidents, my personal endorsement (as if anyone cares) now goes to Obama for the following personally selfish reasons: Hillary Clinton, through very little fault of her own, IS a polarizing figure; she’s been type cast, like an actor who only gets gangster roles. AND she comes with a lot of baggage I find particularly distastefull: the Hillary haters. I don’t think I can stand four years of listening to all that putrid bile driven hate.With Obama on the other hand, we get someone who can really speak. My god, he is a joy to listen to. After Bush, Bush Sr., and Reagan I am desperate for a well spoken president.

  • From Talking Points Memo:

    The new Gallup poll shows the national Democratic race might be really tightening — Hillary’s lead is down to the single digits. Here are the numbers, compared to their last poll from two days ago:

    Clinton 42% (-2)
    Obama 36% (+3)
    Edwards 12% (-2)
    Only a week ago, Hillary was up by 16 points.

    We’ll find out soon enough what the impact of Edwards’ withdrawal will be, and also where the remaining undecideds will end up.

    If only half the Edwards supporters don’t support Hillary (which is what other polls have shown, as well as comments here), and half do, then this race is much tighter than seen.

  • In a way I wish it were the corporatocracy, as james k. sayre described it above (#3). At least then it would be clear what the rules are, beginning with the demise of the United States of America and its replacement by the multinational corporations. The Bush Crime Family has already abrogated treaties, ripped the old Constitution to shreds, destroyed any notion of an independent Department of Justice, kicked over the antique concept of checks and balances, and a host of other quaint ideas which used to guide that once-great nation.

    I’m not sure I know much about corporate rules since I’m repelled so much by the very idea. There is a pretense of democracy in the form of shareholders’ meetings, but we all know they don’t amount to much. What is clear, and more fundamental, is the overall criterion against which everything else is judged: return on investment. In contrast the multi-valued goals of the old-fashioned nation-state — health, education, welfare, defense, conservation, the “pursuit of happiness” — the corporate structure measures everything on the single dimension of monetary value. What increases that value defines the good, the true and beautiful; what diminishes monetary “worth” is bad, false and ugly.

    Unfortunately, I think such a corporatocracy is as science-fictional as the old democracy is, post-Bush. When we still produced things here, the corporate powers might have been expected to value such things as technological skill, hard work, meritocracy. But there’s no place for such virtues in whatever it is we have. All that matters anymore is what can be momentarily glimpsed on TeeVee. What gets a minute of TeeVee time — the gender or race of candidates at the moment — is good, true and beautiful. What doesn’t get TeeVee time … doesn’t exist.

    Thanks for trying, John and Elizabeth Edwards. R.I.P., U.S.A.

  • This truly sucks. I was so excited to vote for him, we’ve donated to his campaign (never before have we financially supported a candidate this early or this much!) and now that he is out, I am so sad and cynical – again.
    Hillary is out- she is way too centrist and just does not appeal to my progressive heart. Her idea of change sounds like same ol’ same ol’ to me. –
    By elimination, that leaves Obama. I fear he is all charm and no substance, and will pray he proves me wrong. Hopefully he is smart enough to appeal to John Edwards to join him and help guide policy for us. We are so far down shit creek we need someone to bail us out. Like Ed, I thank John for trying from the bottom of my heart. I pray that his torch will be picked up and carried forward.

  • It is vile to listen to you supposedly progressive voters bashing Hillary Clinton like you do. What did this woman ever do to you? She is by far and wide the most qualified individual running for the presidency of the USA. Many consider Obama almost saintly – brainwashed by the media-biased headlines, looking purely for their next headline to sell more of their papers, to make their journalist even more famosu or notorious ( however you want to look at it ) – “a black man winning office.” Many black people are supporting Obama just because he is Black. This is racist. This is a step further backwards like the one USA took when they voted Bush in the prayer-minded president who set out his prayers each time he sent troops to get killed in Iraq. Hopefully, senses will prevail and the people will vote for the one person capable of office especially amid the recession biting in – Hillary Clinton.

  • My wife and I were very disappointed that Edwards bowed out before Super Tuesday. Edwards capitulated before the votes of most voters (including my wife and I) had a chance to be counted. It feels like another example of Democratic capitulation. Edwards should have stayed in and fought. Perhaps he would not win, but he could have extracted political concessions for himself and his supporters. Rather than do this, he wimps out. The Republicans fight tooth and nail for the interests of the rich and the corporations. The Democrats fold when the going gets hard. I’m sick of being represented by a political party without a spine.

  • Somewhat tangential, but I disagree with CB’s premise that Edwards stepped on HRC’s plan to get positive press on her victory in Florida. I think Clinton’s Florida strategy was much less ambitious than that, and was already accomplished. It was simply to change the story from South Carolina so that the Big Obama Win wasn’t the story unbroken until Feb 5th. If she could make Florida a “victory,” great; if she could trigger a discussion in all the media about the value of Florida, that works, too, and ultimately Edwards dropping out would have served the exact same purpose.

    Not every strategic move has to be a big, ostentatious move to matter.

  • I agree bop.

    I don’t get it. Like I said somewhere else on this space … look at her career and tell me where the evil lies.

    Hatred for her espoused by the Obama fans is a reitteration of the likes of Newt Gingrich, Ken Starr and Karl Rove. You heard it so much in the media that you are now repeating the same baseless statments.

    And the media is unbelievable. If the people of Florida had voted in favor of Obama, it would have been flashed all over the world, all over the TV screens and he would have held a press-conference and said “it is not right — to disenfranchise a quarter of a million people — who were only trying to exercise their God given right to vote in a free society” and all would have bowed down in worship.

    The primary system is flawed because I don’t think Iowa should get to decide who my candidate is going to be. Florida, Michigan and others made a statement this year. Someon needs to listen.

  • Had Obama won Fl, the wailing and hand wringing from his worshippers would have been deafening, as they clamored to have the primary here count. As it stands, because the uppity bitch not only won, but had the audacity to actually show up here to thank the 1.5 million plus Democrats who showed up in droves to vote, not alot has been said in the media, including this site, which has become a circle jerk for Saint Obama.

    We as a party, have sadly, not learned the one lesson from the Rethugs that will make this truly a progressive, effective entity. And that’s party unity. Instead, we have tacitly agreed that being a misongynist is a-ok, but not a racist. The undertones are crystal clear, not that anyone from the “progressive” side of things is going to admit that.

    Instead, we all nod our heads, and blindly follow the petulant actions of a national commitee, headed by a man, whose meds inconveniently wore off right before he grabbed the Golden Ring in his own bid to become President. Or we swoon in a fervorous rapture, when the drunken shitbag, who should have done 10-20 years in a state prison for manslaughter, annoints the Saint as the heir apparent to his much brighter, more accomplished older brothers. Please.

    I am much concerned for my party and my country. The same bright light that blinded the neocons, could be blinding us. Pretty words, not much visible substance. Great orator, but a good leader? Time will only tell.
    True progressives would be demanding all votes and all delegates should count.
    The future of our country and our party depend on it. Otherwise we deserve the ass kicking we’ll probably get come November

  • Couldn’t have said it better Marian.

    Now that Edwards is out, my full support goes to Clinton.

  • In-Fl said:
    True progressives would be demanding all votes and all delegates should count.

    I usually disagree with just about anything the Democratic party leaders do. But in this case, if they hadn’t done something the first primary for the 2012 presidential campaign would have ended up scheduled on Jan. 27, 2009.

  • Hillary Clinton:

    Failed in healthcare
    Agreed with NAFTA, DOMA, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell
    Endorsed the war in Iraq
    Failed to read the intelligence before voting for that war
    Voted for the flag-burning law because she was afraid the Republicans might amend the Constitution – and so gave them everything they wanted
    Voted for the credit-card bill -BUT was glad it didn’t pass
    Applauded Bush and his lies on Iraq in the last SOTU

    Do you need more reasons not to vote for a person without political backbone? Someone who throws Democratic principles and voters under the bus? Get real, people – her years of experience are years of selling out, betraying her party and pandering to any Republican who talks tough. Even McCain has more integrity and honesty.

  • Marian said:
    I don’t get it. Like I said somewhere else on this space … look at her career and tell me where the evil lies.

    I want the priorites of my elected representatives to be:
    1) What’s good for the country
    2) What’s good for their constituents
    3) What’s good for their party
    4) What’s good for their career
    5) What’s good for their campaign contributers

    I have a lot of doubts about Obama. Sadly, I have no doubts about Clinton.

    Clinton’s career has shown that her priorities are:
    1) What’s good for her career
    2) What’s good for her campaign contributers
    3) What’s good for the country, her constituents and her party — provided those don’t conflict with #1 or #2.

  • Edwards should have stayed in and fought. Perhaps he would not win, but he could have extracted political concessions for himself and his supporters. Rather than do this, he wimps out.

    Perhaps he is planning to endorse Obama before Super Tuesday. For all we know they could be negotiating right now, for a VP slot, AG, SCOTUS, or whatever. If that’s Edwards plan, it would make sense to resign today to steal any thunder Hillary might get from Florida, then after things start to quiet down a bit after a few days come out with his endorsement, which would then be the big story leading right into Super Duper Tuesday. Edwards would get a week’s worth of mileage out of it and suck the media spotlight away from Hillary. Is that his plan? Don’t know. But that’s what I’d be thinking if I were trying to help Obama, and from many telling indicators throughout the recent campaign Edwards certainly looks like he’s leaning Obama’s way.

    As to Hillary hate here, aside from precious few stupid comments I really don’t see it so much. There are plenty of people (myself included) who prefer Obama but who oppose Hillary on completely legitimate grounds: electability (of course that’s arguable), voting record (not so much), campaign tactics, etc. Most of the anti-Hillary people here, though, certainly don’t come off as hateful. Methinks thou dost protest too much, Hillary backers. There’s been as much vitriol directed at Obama, and especially at Obama supporters, here as there has at Hillary. I’ve taken Obama to task myself for some of his lousy advisors, even though I prefer him to Clinton. There are, of course, plenty of places you can go to see Hillary hate in all its ugly potency, but CB’s blog isn’t one of them. My 2¢.

  • SteveT said:I usually disagree with just about anything the Democratic party leaders do. But in this case, if they hadn’t done something the first primary for the 2012 presidential campaign would have ended up scheduled on Jan. 27, 2009.

    So, the answer for that would be to deny the votes, delegates and money from 1 of the 4 most important swing states in the country?

    What great logic.

    It’s no wonder we’ve had a moron and his minnions do whatever the fuck they’ve wanted for the last 7 years.

  • For some inexplicable reason, In-Fl, the Republican-dominated Florida legislature got to throw a monkeywrench into the Dem works by setting this primary date. If the parties are indeed private entities, how could that have happened? So it looks like it was a case of the Dem National committee fighting it out with the Rep-dominated Florida statehouse. Rather than take the step they did to the detriment of the Florida Dem voters, wouldn’t it have made more sense to declare their independence from the legislature in no uncertain terms by setting the primary date themselves, where the DNC wanted it, and tell the Florida Reps to piss off? Wouldn’t that have been within their rights? It looks to me (unless this take on it is erroneous) that the DNC got played like a bad fiddle by the Reps in Florida, in which case there’s plenty of blame to go around. When are we going to see some sort of consistency in our electoral process? This thing stinks, from one state to the next to the next, whether in the primary/caucus system or in the actual elections. I am fed up with this lunacy.

  • Now that Edwards is out, I don’t care who the nominee is. Clinton and Obama are equally attractive, if for different reasons. I’ll support whoever gets the nomination. I’m not giving anybody any money until the nominee is selected, though. From here on out, I want my money spent fighting Republicans, not Democrats.

  • President Lindsey,
    I did protest too much for this site, you are correct. I’ll admit, I’m allowing my total frustration with what appears to be a really biased media cloud my judgement at times. I came to this site because it seemed like a number of intelligent people posted meaningful information. I didn’t write but then, I just saw another series of “I won’t vote if Hillary is the nominee”. The rhetoric just sounds so much like what I heard all through the Clinton presidency and from Bush’s idiots all over again. I just couldn’t take it anymore! Sorry to all involved. It’s a good site.

    Steve T:
    So, when Hillary
    Did leagal service for the Children’s Defense Fund … it was so she could someday be president?
    Ran a legal aid clinic for the poor … it was so she coule become president.
    Worked to reform the educational system in ARK … it was so she could be president?
    Served on the Hospital Board in Little Rock and got them a tertiary level nursery … it was so she could be president?
    Helped legislation happen so that women health care was more accessible, served on the board of Children’s Defense Fund, Child Care Action Campaign, … it was all so she could be president some day.
    When she worked on expanding early childhood education, getting Gulf War veterans medical assistance, helped create the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, instigated the CHIP program, it was all so she could become president some day?

    If that is your argument, then you must have the same argument for Obama’s social based work. And, I believe you will not find another president of the USA with any such resume.

    What does the resume of your consumate presidential candidate look like … what kind of job experiences should they have?

  • to bop:

    Here are some of the reasons I don’t want Hillary Clinton to be president:

    1) her vote on the war authorization doesn’t show good leadership judgment. She could have been publicly speaking about maintaining the search for Bin Laden and the mixed intelligence that the RovChenians weren’t considering.

    2) her vote on the measure to declare an arm of the military in Iran as “terrorist”. What actions have that army committed that we haven’t done worse? She’s trying to hard to be hawkish for me.

    3) Her last attempt at health care reform failed miserable because she’s a top-down manager who thought she could gather a few of her favorite people and force-feed their policy decisions to Congress. I haven’t seen anything in her experience that demonstrates that she’s a coalition builder who can lead through conciliation and not with a scorched earth policy. Her “vast right-wing conspiracy” comments weren’t just because the Republicans were hungry for power. She has the same “you’re with me or you’re my enemy” mindset as Bush.

    4) Her campaign tactics have displayed a willingness to willfully distort. I’m a bit tired of that.

    5) I can’t see her as a feminist when she as stood by a man who has treated so many women so terribly. And she embodies the kind of feminism that things you have to become like a man to achieve equality. I’d rather continue the work to have feminine qualities equally valued. I have a young daughter. I don’t want her to see Hillary version of feminism as a role model.

    Are these concrete enough for you? I don’t hate Hillary. I don’t see her as the right person for the job.

  • John Edwards is a champion for our tired, our poor, our un-insured huddled masses yearning to breathe free, everything Bush is not, everything we as a country should strive to be.

    Here is too you John, and candidate or not, you still have my primary vote.

  • Another Hillary point:

    She has visited something in the neighborhood of 80 countries during her time as First Lady and Sanator. In many of the places she has gone, she has made it a point to meet with the Women Leadership group of the country. She has also made it a point to visit the poor and under-represented of many countries. This is probably a rather natural course for a first lady but I think you’d be hard pressed to find any that were this extensive in their travels or desire to connect with these groups and discuss their problems.

    I believe, that as president, she would use those connections to bring the voice of women all over the world onto the global stage. I also believe that the world needs this and until we put a woman in our White House, that will not happen.

    Now, I’ll assume that some of you are sitting out there thinking … Oh great … this is an (expletive) feminist out there going to make it all about that. It’s not all about that but I have to ask you … would the world be a different place if women had more say in large-scale global policies? I think it would and I think it would be a better place. The days of men roaming the world slaughtering each other should be over … it is time to look at our planet as a finite space, populated by a very consumptive organism that is fouling its own environment. This can’t go on. We need all of the great minds of this world brought together to solve these problems.

    We need a bigger dialogue, a more-inclusive dialogue and I think Hillary Clinton will get us there sooner than Mr. Obama.

  • allison said:

    Here are some of the reasons I don’t want Hillary Clinton to be president:

    1) her vote on the war authorization doesn’t show good leadership judgment. She could have been publicly speaking about maintaining the search for Bin Laden and the mixed intelligence that the RovChenians weren’t considering.

    Actually, I don’t have much problem with her vote on the Iraq war authorization. Her Senate floor speech defending her vote was more than a little over the top, but as a former first lady, giving a sitting president broad negotiating power was not unreasonable.

    However, once the president had shown he could not be trusted with broad powers and that he would twist the Constitution to get whatever he wanted, to vote ‘yes’ on Kyle-Lieberman and hand Bush a potential excuse to attack Iran … that showed poor judgement.

    Also, Clinton staying silent as Bush’s Iraq war campaign degenerated into a ‘perfect storm’ of arrogance, ignorance, incompetence and corruption, until public disapproval of Bush’s handling of Iraq rose to 65 percent… that showed cold calculation and a willingness to let things go to Hell in order to maintain her image of ‘strong on defence’.

  • Allison:
    Thank you for making clear statments for why you won’t vote for Hillary. I agree with some of them. When Bush was making his war plans, I could not believe what was happening. I, like I’m sure you were, never once thought we should go to war with Iraq and I have no ability to understand why anyone in their right mind would authorize Bush to do what he did.

    However, if you read Clinton’s speech and you read the UN Security Council reports at the time, I can see a tiny thread of logic … he’s bound and determined to go to war, everyone knows it. He’s demanding the UN do something and asks Congress to authorize him to demand a resolution from the UN to demand disarmament Iraq or we will use force to disarm them. She decides to make the request bi-partisan as does John Edwards, John Kerry and others. I wish she hadn’t done that but … would it have made a bit of differnce? No, he was hell-bent on invading Iraq. I’m a sure this was a political move on her part and that sucks. I agree it sucks that anyone in Congress has to temper their decisions with political motives.

    Let’s say she had a very nice record of standing against all uses of force and hawkish rhetoric (I should appologize for my spelling problems – sorry) … like you would if you were her.

    Where would that put her now? IN a better place to win the democratic nomination? Perhaps. In a better place to win in Novemeber? I have to wonder.

    What was her motivation for doing these hawkish things? Does she believe the US should bully people all over the world with our military might? Was she thinking about the presidency and wondering whether, as a woman she would lose because all the men in this country would find her whimpy? I don’t know the answers to these questions. Do you?

  • allison – you said:

    1) her vote on the war authorization doesn’t show good leadership judgment. She could have been publicly speaking about maintaining the search for Bin Laden and the mixed intelligence that the RovChenians weren’t considering.

    Then I guess all of these Dems showed the same poor judgement: Baucus (D-MT), Bayh (D-IN), Biden (D-DE), Breaux (D-LA), Cantwell (D-WA), Carnahan (D-MO), Carper (D-DE), Cleland (D-GA), Clinton (D-NY), Daschle (D-SD), Dodd (D-CT), Dorgan (D-ND), Edwards (D-NC), Feinstein (D-CA), Harkin (D-IA), Hollings (D-SC), Johnson (D-SD), Kerry (D-MA), Kohl (D-WI), Landrieu (D-LA), Lieberman (D-CT), Lincoln (D-AR), Miller (D-GA), Nelson (D-FL), Nelson (D-NE), Reid (D-NV), Rockefeller (D-WV), Schumer (D-NY), Torricelli (D-NJ)

    3) Her last attempt at health care reform failed miserable because she’s a top-down manager who thought she could gather a few of her favorite people and force-feed their policy decisions to Congress. I haven’t seen anything in her experience that demonstrates that she’s a coalition builder who can lead through conciliation and not with a scorched earth policy. Her “vast right-wing conspiracy” comments weren’t just because the Republicans were hungry for power. She has the same “you’re with me or you’re my enemy” mindset as Bush.

    These are standard right-wing talking points, allison, and show that you know very little about Hillary Clinton. Let’s start with her “last attempt at health care reform.” That was 15 years ago. Are you seriously suggesting she hasn’t learned anything from that experience?

    What does this list tell you?

    Organized a student strike at Wellesley, working with black students for changes at the school

    Elected president of the Wellesley College Government Association

    Interned in the House Republican Conference

    Worked for Rockefeller, who was seeking the GOP nomination – left the GOP for good over the racist messages of the 1968 GOP convention

    Worked her way across Alaska, including a stint in a fish processing cannery.

    Editor of the Yale Law Review.

    Worked at the Yale Child Study Center and worked as a research assistant on a major book about early childhood development.

    Worked on child abuse cases reported by Yale-New Haven Hospital

    Worked in a legal clinic that provided pro bono services to the poor.

    Received a grant to work at the Washington Research Project run by Marion Wright Edelman

    Was assigned to subcommittee chaired by Walter Mondale on migratory labor
    Interned on child custody cases in California in a firm well-known for supporting constitutional rights and civil liberties

    Campaigned for George McGovern

    Did a year of post-graduate study on children and medicine at Yale, and wrote an article on children and the law.

    Was a staff attorney at the Children’s Defense Fund

    Member of the impeachment inquiry staff during Watergate

    Was one of only two female faculty members at the University of Arkansas

    Published a number of articles for professional journals on the subject of neglected, abused and abandoned children

    Co-founded the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families

    Was appointed by Carter to the board of the Legal Services Corporation, and during her 3-year tenure there advocated for increased funding despite Reagan’s attempts to cut it.expanded funding by over 300%

    Was chair of the Rural Health Advisory Committee, and obtained federal funds to expand medical facilities in the poorest areas of Arkansas

    Chaired the Arkansas Educational Standards Committee from 1982 to 1992, where she sought to reform in the state’s court-sanctioned public education system.

    Successfully fought the Arkansas Education Association which opposed mandatory teacher testing as well as state standards for curriculum and classroom size

    Introduced Arkansas’ Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youth in 1985, a program that helps parents work with their children in preschool preparedness and literacy.

    Chaired the American Bar Association’s Commission on Women in the Profession,

    With Ted Kennedy, was a major force in creating the S-CHIP program

    Successfully advocated for increases in research funding for prostate cancer and childhood asthma.

    With Janet Reno, created the Office on Violence Against Women

    Initiated the Adoption and Safe Families Act

    And that’s a partial list.

    4) Her campaign tactics have displayed a willingness to willfully distort. I’m a bit tired of that.

    News flash – there is plenty of distortion going around – that doesn’t excuse it, but she is not the only one,and to single her out is more in line with the talking points referenced in your #3.

    5) I can’t see her as a feminist when she as stood by a man who has treated so many women so terribly. And she embodies the kind of feminism that things you have to become like a man to achieve equality. I’d rather continue the work to have feminine qualities equally valued. I have a young daughter. I don’t want her to see Hillary version of feminism as a role model.

    I think you need some education on what feminism is. This is a woman who has largely made her way in a man’s world; it is men who have equated “feminine” qualities with weakness, not women. As for her personal choices, you have no idea what goes on behind anyone’s closed doors, and it is not up to you to judge whether someone’s decisions are in keeping with being a feminist – especially since I don’t think you really understand what that means. If your daughter has a professional life that is 1/10th the life Hillary has lived, she will be making valuable contributions to the world.

  • Very well said, Anne.

    The only thing I would add is to point out the hypocrisy of accusing Hillary of being calculatedly ambitious about being POTUS. What exactly is wrong with being ambitious? She is certainly no less ambitious than any of her rivals, but no one sees anything wrong with MALE candidates’ ambitions, or their maneuvering and posturing to that end.

    Hillary is something we rarely see in public; a powerful woman. She’s got drive, ambition, the smarts to learn from her past mistakes, and the ability to Get Things Done. But oh my, everyone’s having a fit of the vapours over how *unseemly* all this is.

    But you know what? You don’t Get Things Done by being Mr. Nice Guy. Standing around and saying “can’t we all just get along?” isn’t going to be enough to put this country on the right track. Hoping that the congressional Rethuglicans will eventually see the light and begin to cooperate and work towards genuine improvement for all Americans is pathetically useless.

    As for her vote on the War, well, all I can say is that this president fooled me, too. On the eve of the Senate’s vote, I remember thinking that perhaps our president really did know something that the rest of us didn’t about the true situation in Iraq. Surely he wouldn’t be so venal as to play around with the lives of American soldiers based on some lies. Nobody could be that evil, could they? Ooooh boy, was I wrong. It didn’t take me long to realize it, either. But I certainly wouldn’t hold a Democrat’s vote AT THAT TIME against them.

  • I’m glad that there are several posters who have made an effort on explaining a little more about what Hillary Clinton is all about, instead of just blindly accepting the talking points. The talking points who incidentally are the narrative of the vapid Republican Establishment.

    If the Republican administration and the House / Senate Ethics committee were to put the exact same amount of scrutiny and spend the same amount of tax dollars investigating the so called ‘wrong doings’ and ‘corruption’ that have been spent on investigating the Clintons (Bill & Hillary), and do the same towards ALL congressmen and Senators; how many of them do you think will come out at the end untarnished?

    It would not surprise me that when all is said and done, that Bill and Hillary would probably come out pretty close to the top of list. The top being the least corrupt and the least amount of wrong doing. Do you venture to guess where most of the Republicans would be on that list?

    Since they couldn’t find any ‘real’ wrong doing, they decided to fabricate their own reality in regards to the Clinton family.

    I’m not defending Hillary here because I think she’s an angel; I’m saying this because it is about time that some of you realize that Hillary would be far superior as President when the other choice is any of the Republican candidates.

    It is very childish / immature if you feel that you can’t vote for Hillary IF she’s the nominee, or feel you should stay home. I say: Shame on you. If that is your feeling, then you are playing exactly into what the Republican Establishment has known for 30+ years: Progressives and Democrats are too selfish to unite behind one agenda. They rather form circular firing squads than to agree to compromise on something for the better good.

    Now, as it has been mentioned before… You don’t like Clinton, or you don’t like Obama, and because of that, you won’t vote for either one of them, and you decide to stay home, or worse yet, vote for Nader, or Bloomberg, or any other spoiler planning to run an idiotic presidential bid.

    Are you also willing to take responsibility for another Republican President having the ability to nominate the next Supreme Court Justices? That is exactly what would happen when you do the typical liberal habit of throwing your childish tantrum by withholding your vote for a Democratic candidate. The Republicans know it, and they’ve been counting on it the last 35+ years.

    Here’s your chance to prove them wrong: Swallow your pride and do the RIGHT thing. Vote a Democratic ticket. And after the Democratic President is inaugurated, you are free to go back to your habit of throwing legitimate tantrums, and organize to get the Blue dogs out of the party and kick anybody who doesn’t belong in the party out of it, with your local voting efforts.

  • I’m an Edwards supporter, and I offer my heartfelt thanks to all the serious posters in this thread. I’m trying to figure out who gets my vote, and this has been most helpful. Since Steve was wondering above where the Edwards vote will go now, perhaps my thoughts will be of interest.

    I particularly appreciate Anne’s detailed argument for Sen. Clinton as the stronger candidate. If one earned the Presidency by piling up qualifications and experience, by deserving it, then Sen. Clinton would certainly have the better claim. And this is a note I keep hearing from the more passionate Clinton supporters, that she _deserves_ the Presidency, has earned it.

    But the White House is not a reward. Getting elected to the Presidency is not an end, it’s the beginning. What I want, what I think much of the country desperately wants, is for the next President to be an effective agent of change, and both Democratic candidates promise as much, albeit vaguely.

    As I see it, there are two fundamental problems in changing this nation’s course.

    One problem is to work the levers of power, to know the players and how the game is played, and understand the stakes that keep the other players in the game — the LBJ approach. By all accounts, Sen. Clinton has in her Senate career become very skilled at this aspect of working for change, and has earned the respect of many of her colleagues, including some who were not initially inclined to think much of her as a Senator. But the other face of this same strength is the “pragmatism” and “centrism” that so alienates the progressive wing of the Democratic party. The DLC faction that has dominated the party since 1992, had an historic, generational opportunity in the popular Presidency of Bill Clinton, and they used it to advance an agenda that you may think of as centrist, but which I see as moderate Republican. NAFTA. Don’t-ask-don’t-tell. The end of welfare as we know it. These are policies that an Edwards voter is not likely to regard as change for the better. And in the years since the Unpleasantness of 2000, the DLC-dominated party has been singularly ineffective at opposing a Republican government that is leadings into outright fascism. Rahm Emmanuel and his ilk apparently can not or will not attempt to lead the nation. (I am keenly aware that Sen. Clinton is not Bill Clinton, but her campaign staff is dominated by her old DLC connections.)

    So: Sen Clinton — deserving, tough, capable, tested. A survivor.
    Sen Obama — promising but far less experienced.

    But the other fundamental problem of the Presidency is to use the bully pulpit change people’s minds, to lead, to inspire the populace of America to become better than they are — the JFK approach. And here I think that Sen. Obama has a clear advantage, holds out the possibility of igniting a fire that Sen. Clinton can not. The outpouring of new voters, young voters, crossover voters, from an electorate that had grown apathetic, had ceased to believe that politics could change their lives, or that they had a stake in American politics, has been the brightest feature of this election. We, as a nation, desperately need that optimism, that engagement, that hope, that sense that we can create a new future. The voter turnout numbers in the primaries have been astonishing. It is possible that Sen. Obama can harness that energy to take us somewhere new. To me, and I’m sure to many other Democrats, Sen. Clinton represents a continuation of the triangulating Democratic politics of the 90s, in which we were disappointed.

    So : Sen. Obama : inspiring speaker in the mold of JFK.
    A long shot, maybe, but possibly a transformational leader.

    Sen Clinton : a managerial approach to leadership.

    I truly don’t know for whom I will vote on Tuesday.

    Both are wonderful candidates, but they have in my mind completely different strengths and weaknesses, and I think that the choice will lead the country in very different directions, (although their stated policy differences are not large, particularly when contrasted with the policies of their Republican opponents.)

  • Too bad this thread is old. It’s been one of the sanest and most substantive I’ve seen about why people favor a particular candidate (or no particular candidate). I guess we CAN all just get along!

  • Comments are closed.