Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiAs media commentators proclaim Hillary Clinton's rebirth from the ashes of defeat, they miss a critical story--Obama and Edwards won the New Hampshire primary. Add together Obama's 36 percent and Edwards's 17, and they beat Clinton's 39 percent by 14 points. And because the Democratic primaries have proportionate representation, they'll in fact come out with more combined delegates-13 to Clinton's 9. I've talked or corresponded with hundreds of supporters of both of them, pored through hundreds of blog responses, and from everything I can tell, those backing Obama or Edwards solidly pick the other as their second choice. So if only one were running, they'd be opening up an unambiguous lead. But because Clinton's two main opponents have effectively split the vote, her three-point victory over Obama has revived a campaign that seemed on the verge of meltdown just a few days ago, and left her again the media favorite.
So what are Obama and Edwards or their supporters to do about this? First, remind those covering the race that although Clinton got a split-vote plurality, most Democrats still don't prefer her as their nominee. Some serious polling could help to verify the convergences between the Obama and Edwards supporters and their shared discontents, and maybe we could encourage that.
Real political differences separate Clinton from both Edwards and Obama, and we need to at least try and get the media to talk about them. All of these candidates have their flaws and strengths-on global warming, for instance, they all have excellent plans. But John Edwards wasn't just being rhetorical when he said that both he and Obama represent voices for change, versus Clinton's embodiment of a Washington status quo joining money and power-albeit a far saner status quo than the crazed Bush version. Clinton recently held a massive fundraising dinner with homeland security lobbyists. Her chief campaign strategist, Mark Penn, is CEO of a PR firm that prepped the Blackwater CEO for his recent congressional testimony, is aggressively involved in anti-union efforts, and has represented everyone from the Argentine military junta and Philip Morris to Union Carbide after the 1984 Bhopal disaster. Clinton supported an Iran vote so reckless that Jim Webb called it "Dick Cheney's fondest Pipe Dream," and did so, according to her campaign insiders, because she was covering herself for the general election. She's still not apologized for her Iraq vote, and her hoarding of scarce 2006 campaign dollars may well have cost the Democrats an even larger Congressional victory.
Those who make up the Obedwards constituencies recognize the problems with so many of Clinton's approaches and stands. That's part of what's driving them, along with a genuine passion for Obama and Edwards, and a sense, confirmed by the polls, that either of the two has a better shot at beating the leading Republicans than does Clinton. If we look just at delegates, both Iowa and New Hampshire advanced the Obedwards combined cause. But because the coverage has focused so exclusively on the Obama/Clinton match-up, they've missed that a solid majority of Democrats in both New Hampshire and Iowa rejected a candidate who a short while back was proclaiming her nomination as nearly inevitable.
If all those wary of Clinton coalesced around Obama, he'd become the odds-on favorite to become the Democratic standard-bearer. But at least for now, Edwards is staying in. I think he genuinely wants to keep raising fundamental issues about how divisions of wealth and power have damaged our democracy--and the people left behind without health care, jobs, or hope. He's also hanging in there in case his message belatedly catches fire, or both Clinton and Obama unexpectedly melt down. So at least for the moment, the Obedwards constituency may keep amassing a majority of elected delegates, while making it more difficult for Obama (or a far longer-shot Edwards) to become the clear front-runner and clinch the nomination.
There are some partial solutions, though, even with both in the race. Beyond reminding the media of their convergences, Obama and Edwards could also keep using their speeches, debates, and ads to highlight the real differences they have with Clinton and her approach, while minimizing their attacks on each other. Of course their main message needs to focus on their own strengths and visions, and the issues about which they feel passionately, but hey also need to draw some clear political lines.
Edwards has begun doing this. Obama needs to do it more, and respond more forcefully to the Clinton campaign's attacks and distortions, like their misstatements of his record on Iraq and abortion choice. I think he can do this while continuing to flesh out a more specific vision of what he stands for, in stories that people can understand.
It's a tricky dance, since Hillary, Bill, and their surrogates will continue to attempt to dismiss any criticisms as "the boys" ganging up on the woman. This narrative indeed seemed to work when Clinton's tears set off a wave of sympathy and female solidarity that most likely swung New Hampshire. But so long as Obama and Edwards keep talking about real issues, and do so in a civil way, I think Hillary's complaints about being picked on will yield a diminishing return, especially if they challenge the Clinton campaign's history of highly questionable distortions.
But the fundamental fault lines in this campaign are about whose interests the candidates are likely to heed, and they need to be articulated. Think back to Clinton's six years on the Wal-Mart board, during which she said nothing to protest the company's relentless union-busting and destruction of small-town businesses. Obama, meanwhile, was working as a community organizer, and then at a law firm that represented local organizers. Edwards pursued and won lawsuits on corporate malfeasance. The two of them need to highlight the links between their past history and their joint refusal to take donations from lobbyists, and their strong and early stands for fundamental campaign finance reform: Obama pushed a major bill while still in the Illinois legislature-Clinton signed on only after Common Cause ran a full-page Iowa ad. They should also challenge Clinton's argument that the way to make change is to reduce our expectations and hopes
Obama and Edwards could also make an even more explicit alliance. Each could pledge, for instance, to nominate the other for Vice President, or publicly state that if no candidate got an absolute majority going into the Democratic convention, whichever of the two trailed would throw their support to the other. Given the rules on proportionate representation, this would allow both to keep campaigning as passionately as possible without falling into the trap of political spoiler.
This last might be particularly attractive to Edwards, since otherwise, those who feel he'd still be the best candidate really do face the choice between risking helping Clinton defeat Obama, or eroding their support for Edwards so much he'd have little choice but to leave the race. Edwards might not even have to make a formal pledge, but just to keep reminding voters--and the media--that if no candidate gets an absolute majority before the convention, he'd encourage his delegates and those of Obama to join together at that point. The approach is probably less likely for Obama, because he still has a major shot without it, but he might consider it if the votes continue to divide and we end up with gridlock.
Most likely, all three candidates are going to stay in the race, at least for a while. Even if Obama does not prevail outright, if he and Edwards keep gaining delegates at their current rate and can convince the uncommitted Super-Delegates to respect the will of the voters, they should go into the convention with enough combined votes for one or the other to win. The more they can keep reminding us all how much their supporters want a politics no longer ruled by money and fear, the more they'll increase their odds.
Paul Rogat Loeb is the author of The Impossible Will Take a Little While: A Citizen's Guide to Hope in a Time of Fear, named the #3 political book of 2004 by the History Channel and the American Book Association. His previous books include Soul of a Citizen: Living With Conviction in a Cynical Time. See www.paulloeb.org. To receive his articles directly email sympa@lists.onenw.org with the subject line: subscribe paulloeb-articles
54 Comments so far
Show AllBetty Boop be Bang
Kem - "The repugs would bring blow up dolls MIKE.
Uhhhhhh, so would the Democrats come to think of it.
Now, that was funny!
I've got a visual on that and I can't get it out of my head!
PAPER AND PENCIL. Screw the news media, count every vote!!
The repugs would bring blow up dolls MIKE.
Uhhhhhh, so would the Democrats come to think of it.
cecilbothwell, I wish something could be turned up quickly in NH, but if history is any indicator, the conviction of two election workers involved in the recount in Ohio for fraud in the 2004 elections, is fairly recent news. The system moves too slowly, when it moves at all, to make much difference in elections. That's why we need to get rid of all the electronic voting machines in favor of paper ballots. Or maybe we could do it like the Democratic caucus in Iowa - No problem counting people standing on opposite sides of a gym!
I note that Karl Rove immediately wrote an op-ed pointing out that, once again, the exit polls were wrong. (He also took some swipes at Obama.)
The Republicans clearly want to run against Hillary. I wonder how long the recount will take in New Hampshire.
Kucinich's call for (and payment for) a recount there may emerge as the most important story in this campaign season.
Well, Kem, you may be right.
Certainly Kucinich's chances of getting elected are very, very small, for two reasons: because corporate America, the military/industrial complex and the mainstream media very much don't want him to become President, and because most American voters have exactly the same attitude as you do, even the ones who admit that Kucinich's ideas are the best out there (like the man whose article started this discussion).
However, he should be supported (and allowed to participate in debates), because what he is saying is something that we all need to hear: the truth.
All of the above aside, though, the point of my post had nothing to do with Kucinich's chances of getting elected. Instead, it was about the simple fact that we really have no idea whether ANY of the the top three candidates, including Edwards, have any intention of doing what they say they're going to do, so it's all guesswork.
Detriment of Iowa & New Hamshire Carnivals
Again, the over hyped carnivals in Iowa and NH have eliminated our most valuable candidates, even with less than 2 % of the national population. This underscores the vital needs for reforms in our presidential selection processes, which are now more evident than ever.
Campaigning should be limited to two months, with no such Iowa & NH events. This would allow candidates ample time to present their positions, with less opportunities for deceptive slander. Contributions should be limited to ~ $100. Television and newspaper coverage should be publically financed to allow viable candidates equal public access. Popular voting should replace the electoral college system, which was enacted because of the difficulties of counting all votes at that time. Paper ballots should be mandatory.
Presidents should be limited one six year term. This would eliminate their need to appease special interests for re-election, which was why this stipulation was included in the 1861 Confederate Constitution. A confidence vote after 22 months would provide voters the needed opportunity to amend their vote in special cases.
Seek the truth and follow the money and you will have a good idea TICONDEROGA. Kucinich has no chance to be the president. __ NONE.
We may as well write in JFK a vote for Dennis. They both have the same chance and any "reasonable" person knows that is so.
The only candidate we can trust to try to do what he says he wants to do is Kucinich, whose entire life has been a fight for the little guy, which is exactly why the MSM is working so hard to keep him off the debating platform.
All the rest are just guesswork. Edwards could be a true progressive, but he tried to conspire with Hillary the war goddess to keep Kucinich off the platform, so his intentions are problematical, as are Hillary's. Obama seems to be a genuinely nice guy, and is a great orater, but it's really hard to tell what he's going to do if he gets elected. He could, as someone else already mentioned, pull an FDR, but there's no way to know for sure.
One thing we do know, though, is that if a candidate's platform is genuinely not in the best interests of the Big Corporations he or she has very little chance of winning. So, if you were a politician who wanted to both get elected President and to do some good once elected, you'd have to try to trick the Big Corporations, including the MSM, into thinking you were on their side, and then surprise 'em after you got elected.
So, are Kucinich and Obama pulling a "bait and switch?"
Again, there's no way to know for sure. So it all boils down to we're going to have to get lucky. We just don't have enough information to know.
The other thing that we need to remember, is that corporate lobbyists are not even lobbying on behalf of their employees or for the interests of people who live in the area, they are lobbying solely on behalf of corporate profits and business owners.
EDWARDS '08
I tend to agree with that assesment Rickster, but can't the Conress people read letters and phamplets and make fair and common sense decisions, without the possibility of being corrupted?
KEM lobbyists are one of the ways our congressmen can get information. If I'm going to pass regulations on some segment of society wither it be an industry or a group the congressmen should talk to them. It should be mandated that all communication between them be in the public eye. Congressmen shouldn't be out playing golf with the lobbyist or taking any gifts. I think they could easily lobby in the halls of congress in front of the entire house or senate. Lobbying should be so heavily regulated that congressmen can get the information they need without any monetary value being involved.
I don't think lobbying should be or needs to be eliminated but it does need to be highly restricted.
Hi RICKSTER. The problem with having paid lobbyists is, there is real monetary value promised, implied and exchanged. The money powers prolong wars until all of the wealth is controlled by a very few. A nation cannot survive when that is allowed to continue. Mega corporations have been elevated to such a high level of control, through their lobbying, that corruption in our congress is assured. They also hire sitters who are paid to sit in the halls, waiting for the confrence rooms to open and then fill the seats with paid supporters. It's all a joke, but it is not funny.
John Edwards is the only candidate, who has vowed to put an end to the madness. It is our biggest problem in our government.
.
"Edwards is the only candidate who has said he will stop the lobbying in Washington. "
In a sense I don't have any problems with a group or organization lobbying congress as long as they do it in the public arena and nothing of real monetary value is promised, implied or exchanged. No one or any group should be denied the right to meet with any public servant. Kucinich understands this and has a very strong campaign finance reform position.
Kucinich Campaign Finance
http://www.kucinichonline.com/pdfs/Kucinich_Campaign_Finance.pdf
The largest roadblock toward the American Restoration is a corrupt campaign finance system that promotes plutocracy allowing laws and regulations to be stealthily auctioned to the highest bidder. Less than 1% of the U.S. population contributes 80% of the money in federal elections. The top 1% in income also received more than half the Bush tax cuts.
.
.
.
Banning soft money is a positive step, which has oddly overshadowed in the media the bigger negative step of doubling hard money. What we need, other than media reform, is true campaign finance reform, complete public financing and the criminalization of bribery.
I ran my presidential campaign in line with these reform principles. I don't take corporate PAC money. My campaign was financed largely through small donations, mostly through the Internet -- and propelled by thousands of volunteers -- a true grassroots campaign.
Well I question wither he ran a true grassroots campaign. To me a true grassroots campaign would have tens of thousands of volunteers out walking the Wal-Mart parking lots spreading fact sheets about his positions on the issues. The MSM isn't going to do it and people don't pay any attention to political rallies anymore. If the media would cover political rallies they might make some difference but we know that not going to happen.
I think it is entirely disingenuous for Loeb to try and smuch Obama and Edwards together. Edwards is talking abt coporate control of media and politics, Obama is talking abt "change" (I hate that word already).
The significant policy similarities are among Clinton and Obama. Other than the original votes regarding the invasion of Iraq. And as fast as Obama is spinning to the Right, he'll be further right than Clinton.
There's a chance Obama will turn out to be another FDR, but I think it's more likely he will be another Clinton.
I guess I really don't see why you Democrats get so excited abt this stuff? Clinton will get the nomination, and worse yet, you will vote for her.
Did anyone see the Bill Moyers interview with Shelby Steele? I mean the guy is a died-in-the-wool conservative, a black conservative, a member of the Hoover Institution. One reviewer describes him as a "passionate Republican." Who wants to pay any mind to what they say? And yet Steele analyzed the Barack Obama phenomenon so astutely it was astonishing. He has written a book demonstrating why Obama cannot win. If the book reads the way the man sounds it will really be remarkable.
Ron Paul, Republican candidate for president, has an outstanding record as an ultra-conservative. For example, taken from his congressional website, he opposes federal funding for stem cell research; he is anti-UN taxation; he favors tax cuts, nearly all of which go to the rich; he is against corporate accountability; he glorifies Ronald Reagan; he attacks gun control in DC; and he is anti-union. He is the perfect candidate--for the 19th century.
Ron Paul is the favorite Internet candidate for president. Obviously, there is a great deal that the Internet bloggers don't know about him. They don't know that he is adamantly against Roe vs. Wade; he introduced a bill to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court on issues of religion, privacy, and gay marriage; he is anti choice; he voted to allow the bigoted Alabama judge to post "Ten Commandments" on the courthouse lawn; he opposes hate crimes laws; and he voted for an amendment that attempted to block the DC Government from allowing same-sex partners to adopt. Ron Paul--the epitome of a right-wing conservative and a worthy successor to George Bush II.
"Bloomberg looks to be jumping in as an indie candidate. He might just siphon off enough Lieberman Dems and moderate repugs to do some real damage. Or ??? Get himself elected.
A call to arms for progressives/liberals."
If Bloomberg jumps in, it might break the two-party stranglehold on our political system. There could be an opening for other third parties as well.
Stop children...
Whats that sound...
Everybody look whats going down .....
The final result in NH "defies easy explanation". The secure chain of custody issue raises a lot of questions for DK's recount.
A plurality split does not guarantee that released delegates are bound beyond the first vote. Imagine what the DLC, CFR, Bilderbergs and HRC will promise to get released delegates to switch after the first vote. Personally I don't see Diebold letting it get that far. The corp's. have annointed her.
Bloomberg looks to be jumping in as an indie candidate. He might just siphon off enough Lieberman Dems and moderate repugs to do some real damage. Or ??? Get himself elected.
A call to arms for progressives/liberals.
This is NOT the story. The story is that the mainstream media long ago decided that only two candidates would be allowed into the narrative. Edwards is too liberal to be allowed the fair and professionally required amount of coverage, even the media is covered by the first amendment and their broadcast licenses require them to serve the public interest.
The side story is that Obama is being given a free ride; Bill Clinton is right (for once). This man is not a change agent, instead representing the status quo (nuclear power, free trade, lack of full health insurance for all, merit pay for teachers, etc., etc....). One site is chronicaling the fraud that is Obama on a daily basis: blackagendareport.com
US Corporate Elite Fear Candidate Edwards
By Kevin Drawbaugh
Reuters
Check out the article over at TruthOut -
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011108T.shtml
"Bought'n'paid for" and "Barack Obama" - Kinda rhymes doesn't it?
It should, tis true!
And Hillary Too!
VOTE EDWARDS '08 for a WORLD OF CHANGE!
I, too, saw Obama's speech yesterday when John Kerry endorsed him and it was truly a "homerun" political speech. He and the crowd literally danced and cheered together. However ,I remember the sixties, and I have seen others ala MLK, JFK, RFK that ranked higher touting issues of importance and substance. The difference was that Obama did not say ANYTHING of substance.
I ask myself the question, "If one day a lover tells his/her partner 'I love you', does that mean anything tomorrow?"
Obama essentially told the crowd in South Carolina, 'I love you' and they responded. He said nothing to indicate that he had anything but the potential to hold a good pep rally. I seem to remember that dub-ya had that talent also.
As the electorate we should be clear regarding our criteria to cast a vote for a candidate. Is the election a job interview? Do we get references? Do we look for strengths and weaknesses? or Is it a popularity contest---who does the best cheer? What is the job description? What are our needs? or Who symbolizes our hopes/fears? Perhaps we need to address these questions absent any personalities before we make many more decisions. Then we need to assess whether the individual candidates possess the skills and attributes necessary to lead us though the rough waters ahead.
HAWKNH, perhaps you have a reading comprehension problem.
I never mentioned ANY of the points you brought up to argue what I had posted. And your assertion that Kucinich has spoken out against the lobbying and has promised to end that practice if elected is just not so, unless he has just started to mimic Edwards words. Edwards is the only candidate who has said he will stop the lobbying in Washington. You also should check more thoroughly, and see where Dennis K is getting a god deal of his funding. ___ You're wrong.
Please pressure Hillary Clinton to relinquish the delegates Diebold feloniously tagged her with. This move would be quite gracious and would put the crosshairs dead on Diebold, and any Republicans standing behind Diebold. Most all of them, for example.
The action might in the end get her some votes too. Hillary does not need to slink around in some Republican gutter not of her own making. C'mon Hill, it's your big decision. Play the ball well, or endure a ton of Republican-generated tar for a couple of delegates?
I'm convinced that any Democrat is better than any Republican, which isn't saying too much.
hawknh
The problem with Kucinich isn't his integrity or his positions. They are by far the best of the bunch, no doubt.
The problem is with his campaign. It seems as if they spend more time commenting on commondreams articles than getting the actual support it takes (state by state, house by house) to win a race.
I have dealt with the campaign in a couple of states. I'm from New Mexico and am living in the Bay Area. They do not reach out to people who can actually deliver votes, instead the kucinich camp does weak events and then just expects people to vote for Kucinich because of his positions.
How can we actually have a candidate that represents not only the movement but the majority of people in the country that has a chance to win?
An early allianace would be lovely....and I doubt that either man would accept second seat right now. The logical way to go, if ego's were put aside (always a challenge) would be Edwards/Obama and then Obama for the first seat the next 8 years. I am old enough that would pretty much do it for me
Veteran, 66-68
I don't think I'll ever understand why people who call themselves "progressives" can support Ron Paul. JUST BECAUSE SOMEBODY IS AGAINST AMERICAN IMPERIALISM AND THE WAR IN IRAQ DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE A GOOD CHOICE.
Ron Paul is fervently against abortion, and will make sure to rid the USA of it. He wants to build a fence along the Mexican-American border. He wants to immediately deport all illegal immigrants without giving them a chance to become legal US citizens. Unions? Not in a Ron Paul America. Sure, you can use that AK-47 to go hunting. . .or to kill black people. Because Ron Paul's not only pro-guns, he's racist! He's a hardcore evangelical Christian who will run this country like a backwoods church. Say goodbye to any type of Social Security or government healthcare, because libertarians like Ron Paul don't give a shit about anybody but themselves. Libertarians have absolutely zero sense of community. Do you really want some laissez-faire capitalist running a country that's already being destroyed by "government-regulated" capitalism?
Why do people even pay attention to the two big parties? I'm hoping Cynthia McKinney will win the Green Party nomination so I don't have to feel guilty about who I vote for.
It is not about Democrats or Republicans rigging elections, it is about big corporations rigging elections. The class struggle is not Dems, vs. Repugs, it is rich corporate intrests maintaining cheap and subserveant labor. To some, politics is like a religion… To Marx, religion was the opiate of the disenfranchised… or have we all become just too "comfortably numb" to notice… Something's happening here… what it is aint exactly clear… there's a man with a gun over there, tellin' me I got to beware…..
KCT
Unfortunately, super-delegates are easy to bribe and coerce.
I just love reading Kem Patrick's misrepresentations. Pardon me for correcting the record for you. Dennis Kucinich, not John Edwards, is the ONLY candidate running in EITHER party who voted against the war from the beginning. That's because he actually took the time to read the NIE on which the vote was based, and came to the conclusion that it wasn't even close as a case for war. Neither Edwards nor Clinton did that. He is also the ONLY one who has never voted for a dime to fund the war. All the others have, Clinton, Edwards, Obama and of course all the Republicans. Not a dime of lobbyist money to Kucinich, either. He has been every bit as outspoken against the influence of lobbyists and special interests as Edwards. His universal health care plan is far superior to Edwards or Obama, because it ACTUALLY COVERS EVERYONE. He calls for withdrawal from Iraq within the first 6 months in office, withdrawal of ALL forces within the first year. So, in every respect his positions are clearer and more intellectually superior to Edwards, Obama or Clinton. But, people being sheeple, fear takes over and they vote their fears, and not their legitimate hopes and aspirations. Edwards had the chance to show himself a real populist while in office. He failed miserably. Why should people now believe he has so changed his stripes?
To Rebelnow: Yes, Diebold was the machine used in NM. Here's a link to add this story:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_bruce_o__080110_obama_clinton_3a...
I think the author would strengthen his piece if he removed the title and the first sentence and replaced both with a single
by line, like, "Political strategies to offset the Clinton campaign; how to combine percentages
to make a front."
It is not just the exit polls CICERO, compare the final NH results, with the precints where paper ballots were used, to those where the computers COUNTED the votes. The difference is mind boggling, 10 plus 10 didn't add up to 20. It stinks, __ bad. I believe you may be aware of that? __ No?
I saw the speech Obama gave in Detroit yesterday, with John Kerry standing nearby. It was a magnificnet POLITICAL speech. He actually didn't say anything of substance, but it was truly awsome, fantastic, the best political speech I have ever in my life seen or heard.
If he'd asked the huge audience to flap their arms and fly, they would have attempted to do that for him. He didn't say anything, but was it ever good. He never misssed a beat, never glanced at a note, and gave a magnificent message of hope for the future. His message was, "In spite of all obsticles __ we can do it." Yeah, he would be a great VP choice for John Edwards, but a poor choice as our next president, as are all of the rest,__ except John Edwards. The KEY is the lobbying in DC. __ Lobbying is our downfall.
To the people speculating on the possibility of election fraud in the NH primary, didn't the exit polls (as opposed to the pre-election polls) agree fairly closely with the election results? If that's the case, it seems to me no energy should be spent on such speculations ("there is no there there"). Am I missing something?
Oscar, you're right that the ideal ticket would be Edwards/Obama. There's a HUGE difference between that and an Obama/Edwards ticket: When and how we end the occupation of Iraq (Edwards has the far better plan); medical insurance (Edwards, better again -- sneaking up on single payer by allowing people to join Medicare if they want to); no new nuclear power plants! and on and on...
And as you say, Obama needs seasoning. He's a great talent but I think somewhat naive in terms of how to fight the corporate/banking/insurance/Wall St. interests. Edwards/Obama!
New Hampshire uses paper ballots but a majority of them (80%) are counted using Diebold tabulators. Hopefully this story gets wings. It's tough to bring up the issue after the general elections because you are called a sore loser, but if we can show now that the vote was hacked in favor of Hillary, maybe just maybe we can get the rabid right wing to join in finding the truth. Don't let this story die! If you do there is reason to believe that the November election will be Hillary vs Rudy. This is the clearest opportunity that opponents of electronic voting have had because it doesn't involve any Republicans. Also, from what is available on the internet it appears that the most likely scenario is that Edwards votes were flipped for Clinton. Obama's exit poll numbers are very close to his reported numbers. Don't let this die and email CD and ask why they aren't placing any of these stories on their site today!
The ideal ticket would be Edwards/Obama. This would give Obama a chance to season, and all the promise of his campaign could be kept.
I totally agree with KEM. John Edwards is the only one of the three that offers us any hope of releasing Congress from the lobbyists' lockhold. I can't understand why people aren't getting this message. From what I can see, it's the only message that makes any sense at all.
I think that an Obama-Edwards ticket for the Democrats could be a real powerhouse that could ignite real excitement for the Dems and could once and for all sink a Clinton candidacy. Even before all of this mess got started, there were whispers of an Edwards-Obama "dream ticket", and with Obama leading all of the polls and Edwards continuing his populist campaign message, an Obama-Edwards ticket could still well become a reality.
Frankly, if Obama really wants to nominate a good candidate to be on the ticket with him, he could do well to add Edwards and create the "dream ticket" that so many people have whispered about since about the time of the mid-term elections. I know that the "Clintonistas" are still out there with their powerful connections and ability to raise massive amounts of money, but I think that an Obama-Edwards ticket could well go all the way and give us candidates we could be proud of nominating.
I'm still going to cast my vote for Kucinich in March when the Ohio primaries take place, but he's already begun the process of running to keep his Congressional seat against some stiff challenges from other Dems and some Republicans who think that he's been spending far too much time campaigning for President and ignoring Ohio's 10th Congressional district as a result. He could do well to concentrate on that race to keep his seat there if he fails to gain any significant delegates in the primary races. He can still be a powerful voice for change in the halls of Congress, but if he loses that race as well, we'll be without a progressive voice in Washington that could still hold Dems feet to the fire.
We need Dennis Kucinich's voice in Washington, either as President or Congressman. We can't afford for him to be out of a job where he's so desperately needed.
"Obama and Edwards could also make an even more explicit alliance. Each could pledge, for instance, to nominate the other for Vice President, or publicly state that if no candidate got an absolute majority going into the Democratic convention, whichever of the two trailed would throw their support to the other. Given the rules on proportionate representation, this would allow both to keep campaigning as passionately as possible without falling into the trap of political spoiler."
This idea of triage politics is practical but also difficult to forge. Edwards and Obama are very different in their views on the Iraq War. Edwards wants to pull out and Obama may bomb Pakistan. The author spoke to this idea being premature and the race can change very quickly.
Kem Patrick:
Edwards it is rumored has attended Bilderberg meetings as has Hillary....there's nothing good in that; not if you're a commoner that is. Edwards sings a good story but no one has the sterling record that Paul does. And just watch how he never gets flustered under heat and he doesn't thump his chest either like the others. Integrity. Now that's a refreshing CHANGE we can all use more of.
John Edwards is in a better position than MSM wish the public to realise.
Democratic Delegates (2,026 needed to win nomination)
Candidate Delegates
Hillary Clinton 24
John Edwards 18
Mike Gravel 0
Dennis Kucinich 0
Barack Obama 25
Bill Richardson 0
Total 67
Source: The Associated Press
http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/09/national-delegate-count-tally/
It occurs to me that, in light of the recently reported surprise victories in New Hampshire, where the Democratic polls which were conducted appeared to be so far off of the actual election results,we may have an example of the new generation of rigged elections. The strategy is two fold, 1.) to divert a win to Hillary in order to have a lesser popular candidate appear to be the front runner; thus once the general election is held she will lose of her own accord, based on false primary results. and 2.) to discredit or cast doubt on polling in general so that when exit polls predict a winner/loser they can be more easily discredited as being unreliable, or out of touch with the general populus.
New Hampshire did use electronic, paperless voting machines, did they not.... ???
There may be no way to prove the rigging of elections in the future, other than to provide a verifiable paper trail which can be compared to actual votes cast, and which scientific polls can be compared to and determine the cause of such wide and otherwise unexplained variations between poll results and actual election results.
Polls when conducted carefully are very good predictors of human behavior. That is why we buy cornflakes. Electronic voting machines which offer no verifiable evidence of actual data input have been shown to be suseptible to a variety of incursions which can alter the results of an election without leaving an obvious forensic trail.
KCT
Could Diebold be behind the Hillary win? Maybe the polls were accurate. www.counterpunch.com/lindorff01112008.html
Could Diebold be behind the Hillary win? Maybe the polls were accurate. www.counterpunch.com/lindorff011108.html
I like this idea. I'd like to see both candidates stay in the race. Is there precedence for this? Has such an alliance ever been made this early in the election cycle?
Also, what are the risks? Could this actually end up helping HRC? Would she be able to spin this as the boys ganging up on her?
Ron Paul is the only other candidate who is for we the people.
I understand that both Clinton and Obama recieved five electorial votes in NH. Is that correct?
Indeed, we should hear from our 'FREE" press and media, where ALL of the candidates actually stand on specific issues and stop pickng favorites, and give all of the candidates equal time.
John Edwards is the only candidate running in either the Democrat or Republican parties, who has promised to withdraw the troops from Iraq durng his first year in office. Edwards is the only candidate who will oppose funding nuclear power. Most importantly, John Edwards is the ONLY candidate who will stop lobbying in Wshington DC. That is the most important issue, because the lobbyists actually control Congress, in other words __ our Congress representatives are almost all bought and sold by mega corporations and big business.
Big business rules and as Franklin D. Roosevelt for one warned us, when that is allowed, we lose our Democracy and have Fascism. Indeed we do have that and the result is a disaster, we are rapidly losing our freedoms. That is what Fascism does, insures a very few control the wealth and also insure that 'we the people' have no say.
Big business has assured we have these continual unjust wars, which they profit from. Big business has assured the nuclear power has recieved over 150 billion dollars from us over the years and totally clean alternative energy has recieved only 5 billion. Big business has assured we do not have affordable health care and assured our prescriotion drugs are unfairly priced.
Big business has assured our infacstructures are neglected, while they also insure our jobs are outsourced to China and our country now faces a recession at best and and a depression more likely. There are other things that big business has assured, few if any are good. Lobbying has created the mess and John Edwards has promised it will be his first priorty to end it.
Because of that, no one in Washington, including Kucinich and John Edwards fomer running mate, John Kerry, will suport him. Congress for one does not wish to lose their precious, golden egg laying lobbyists. The Neo-cons do not want to lose their Fascism form of government and they fear a John Edwards and rightfully so. 'WE the people' should not fear Edwards, or knit-pick his record, that he is a trial lawyer, or his boyish looks and hair style. John Edwards is a fighter and has proven to be a damn good one.
Let us allow Edwards to fight for us, if we don't elect him, NOTHING will change. We all want change, not just candidates mouthing that word. None have stated they will do the things necessary to bring about change, except John Edwards. __ Check it out.
Clinton-Obama....like that's all there is! What rubbish! Ron Paul has the strongest message and has more honesty and clarity than any candidate before or now. No wonder everyone's so afraid of him and the people who like him, want change. Heaven forbid we get a candidate to vote consistently for the Constitution and the people. And we're not even allowed to say we like the approach; we get called names and threatened. Well call me names but you won't be able to call me a liar - Ron Paul is the most honest candidate anywhere but it's quite clear, honesty isn't something people out here are really comfortable with. So relax everyone, you'll get another lying president to help soothe you back to sleep and the next time you wake up will likely be in the grocery store when there's no more food on the shelves. I don't know if eating 'crow' will fill your tummy or that of your children but you'll be getting exactly as you deserve.
Great scenario. Hope this comes true.
It is a fact that our elected Congress people will listen to lobbyists, but usually refuse to listen to those who put them in office and they also don't listen to their own campaign promises after the lobbyists shake their hands.
I wouldn't need a lobbyist to tell me what THEY want me to hear, I can read, I would have my staff to help and to offer advice, and then judge what is best for my country. When these 'lobby-ers' give their well versed speeches, who's there to offer the flip side of the coin? The lobbyists are HIGHLY paid by the corporations and big business to take the necessary time to lobby.
'We The People' on the other hand, don't have the money, time, or the means to fight that type of system. We also don't have the private jets, fancy free dinners and resort areas, etc, to offer free vacation trips and sexy call girls for OUR elected elite. John Edwards is the only viable candidate, who will attempt to fight that unfair and corrupt system, which is truly ruining this nation.