View Story | 311 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
Visit Sinister, the home of a left-handed left-wing Okie Jew.
by ethanthej on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:05:14 PM PDT
I heart both Edwards and Kucinich. Could vote for either with a smile. But I know Edwards could carry Oklahoma no matter who wins the Repiglican nom.
You can't always tell the truth because you don't always know the truth - but you can ALWAYS be honest.
by mattman on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:25:19 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
by ethanthej on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:34:58 PM PDT
According to Rasumussen poll, if Hillary is nominated, the North Carolina is competitive and winnable and that too hasnt gone Democrat in decades.
If you want to celebrate Edwards, feel free, but such polls dont mean squat.
The last time John Edwards won something was in 1998 when he won his Senate seat. Since then, he has not won a single primary or general election. NOT ONE.
That is ZERO electoral victories in last 9 years.
This site has become insanely obsessed with Edwards who has no plan after Iowa. Believe it or not, Edwards will retire from politics on February 6th.
Till then, rejoice.
by Down but not out on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:51:47 PM PDT
And, if I remember right, he won North Carolina, as well (it happened after he withdrew, but I think it was too late to remove his name).
Sandra Day O'Connor: "...A state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens."
by radical centrist on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 03:27:29 PM PDT
See the Edwards campaign's PR today taking the media to task for implying (and/or outright saying) that he doesn't have a 50 state strategy.
It's foolish and insulting to say Edwards doesn't have a plan for after Iowa.
Always be sincere, even if you don't mean it.
by justinb on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 03:34:23 PM PDT
What the MSM means to say is he doesnt have the money after Iowa. He doesnt have the organization either, but that can come if the money comes.
30 million aint going to cut it.
I know the MSM is evil, greedy and corporate drone driven but the fact that he doesnt have money to compete everywhere Obama and Clinton would compete is still, a fact.
Even if he wins Iowa, it wont translate into a bump in NH, SC etc, because this time around, everyone already knows John Edwards. Its not like an unknown quantity that no one paid attention to, but now, after winning Iowa, people realize that have one more good choice. People already know John Edwards in NH and SC and everywhere on Feb 5th states. Win in Iowa for Edwards means BUPKISS in other states. What new are people going to learn about him from his Iowa victory? That he can win in primary if he campaigns for 5 years? Is there anything that Iowa victory will bring to light that people already dont know about him and that will make him more likable than Obama or Clinton?
527s will help him, but still, Edwards has no chance to get nominated.
NO. CHANCE. PERIOD.
Atleast after Feb 6th, those who arent crazy about Edwards wont have to see 8 out of 10 rec'd diaries about Edwards' daily schedule.
by Down but not out on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 03:57:46 PM PDT
motherfucker, aren't you.
And totally full of shit.
Edwards polls best against the GOP, and has throughout this primary season.
So apparently to know him is to support him.
NO CLUE PERIOD.
Piss off, and take your inferior candidate with you.
This message has not been approved by the corporate media.
by jre2k8 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 05:32:22 PM PDT
nice meanness... i'm guessing that whatever candidate you support is not doing too well...
--poligirl
"Hope has two beautiful daughters. Their names are anger and courage; anger at the way things are, and courage to see that they do not remain the way they are."
by poligirl on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 06:30:43 PM PDT
When power leads man toward arrogance, poetry reminds him of his limitations. JFK
by yowsta on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 06:31:05 PM PDT
You are in for a big surprise. I mean big. Huge. Gigantic. Surprise. Edwards has ground organizations in place everywhere. You are talking to some of us right here. We don't just sit around and blog all day you know. We talk to our friends, our co-workers, our families. We put up lawn signs. We write to the Editor. We - ahem - donate $25 a piece and then get a friend to do the same. We are leaders in our communities. We are precinct captains and canvassers. We are phone bankers. And we're getting more and more people every day.
"The Power to change this party, and the power to change this country is in your hands, not mine." - Gov. Howard Dean, MD
by deaniac83 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 07:37:24 PM PDT
You've just been made out to be a liar, haven't ya.
by jre2k8 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 05:30:07 PM PDT
Why don't people bother to read?
Obama wouldn't have this Reverend Wright problem if Americans didn't have the idea that their president has to be a man of faith. --Jane Smiley
by journalschism on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 05:52:13 PM PDT
reading that stuff means letting facts interfere with this nice narrative they've got going on Edwards. Granted, that narrative is almost as insane as certain other candidate's "let's ask the power elite nicely to give up their power" mantra, but hey, back off! You are disturbing the Kum Bai Ya narrative!
by deaniac83 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 07:40:40 PM PDT
makes me feel pretty confident that you're opinion of what's happening in the election is just as inaccurate...
by poligirl on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 06:22:23 PM PDT
more attention next time...
by poligirl on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 06:59:42 PM PDT
by yowsta on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 06:28:50 PM PDT
Who can bring it? And more importantly, what will it bring America?
Universal health care. Lobbyist reform. College for everyone. Slow down, even stop global warming. Give people a path out of poverty.
They all become that much more feasible. All by running the right candidate.
It's not a campaign. It's a movement. Will you stand up?
by danthrax on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:55:19 PM PDT
pro-John Edwards television ad funded by 527 group 'Alliance for New America.' The group is backed by a number of state and local branches of the Service Employees International Union
Neither Clinton nor Obama can buy this election.
"There is one man who knows in his heart that we have to build one America - not two - and that man is Barack Obama." John Edwards 5/14/08
by TomP on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 06:37:48 PM PDT
. . . because his positive, populist message will resonate at least with some of them. Those candidates who are not prepared to take a populist tone have nowhere to go in trying to woo evangelicals except to adopt right-wing positions on "social issues." Edwards doesn't have to do that.
I like Kucinich, too, but I repeat that any Democratic candidate who takes a genuine populist stand--and means what he (or she) says--is in position to win this coming election. Anyone else--not so much.
"Do not forget that every people deserves the regime it is willing to endure." -- White Rose letter no. 1
by keikekaze on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:03:47 PM PDT
Populist = Evangelical Support Not Populist = No Evangelicals
Explain, please.
What makes Edwards so much more of a populist than any other Democratic candidate (except Kucinich who is actually a populist)? It can't be actual policies because they're not appreciably different from Clinton's. Is it rhetoric then?
Obama/Gore '08
by crazymoloch on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:42:01 PM PDT
...which isn't based on anything I said. I never speak in such absolute terms. By "populist" I mean, taking a stand against the corporate power structure that promises to achieve real results in terms of a more equitable distribution of wealth, power, and opportunity in this country. Such a stand, if offered, is likely to resonate with many evangelicals, those who are not members of the power elite and who know it. There is nothing magical that restricts--in theory--such a message to any one candidate. This winning strategy for the primary and general elections is--theoretically--available to anyone.
by keikekaze on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:56:51 PM PDT
most important part about this.
The supermajority. We aren't just electing a president in 2008. We have an opportunity to flood the senate. We need to help our candidates in the red states, not hurt them.
by danthrax on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:17:13 PM PDT
by ethanthej on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:21:30 PM PDT
Mix in three out of any of the five shots below....
p.s: Does anyone seriously think Edwards maintains those numbers in OK if he were a minority or a woman?
by crazymoloch on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 02:49:17 PM PDT
Pardon me, but I don't really understand your question. Edwards isn't a woman or a minority, so he has a chance of taking conservative rural votes, and therefore we shouldn't vote for him?
Huh?
by justinb on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 03:36:45 PM PDT
.... like race and gender should be factored out. Just because JRE can appeal to closet bigots, doesn't make him the better choice.
by crazymoloch on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 05:35:59 PM PDT
and whether race or gender have anything to do with it is moot in the argument for who is the best choice to most thinking people.
by poligirl on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 06:47:41 PM PDT
asshole
"There are many truths of which the full meaning cannot be realized until personal experience has brought it home." John Stuart Mill
by kuvasz on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 07:34:26 PM PDT
With me? Ok.
Let's re-read my comment in the context in which it was offered.
justinnb said...
Edwards isn't a woman or a minority, so he has a chance of taking conservative rural votes, and therefore we shouldn't vote for him?
If you were to find any comment heinous, it would have to be this one. Through his sarcastic comment, justinb is suggesting that Edwards CAN appeal to rural conservatives who wouldn't vote for a woman or a black. How are such (hypothetical) people not closet bigots? this was the comment I was responding to.
You Edwards folk need to get a grip. No one here would call anyone else a bigot. Calm the fuck down, will ya?
by crazymoloch on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 08:40:04 PM PDT
the only "context" are the actual words of yours i responded to. They were:
Just because JRE can appeal to closet bigots, doesn't make him the better choice.
its not okay to try to obfusticate and misdirect by inserting other passages, because i did not post about them.
in you adolesecent attempt to appear erudite you smeared about 1/3 of the democrats polled who support edwards.
the worst part is that your ego is so fragile that instead of recognizing what a complete little shit you are you and apologizing for your actions as any adult would you attempt to defend yourself by insisting that your words meant something else.
unlike your 11th grade geography class teacher the real adult world out here doesn't allow for "do-overs."
and you remain an asshole, albeit, a royal flaming one.
by kuvasz on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 11:19:09 AM PDT
anyone who thinks a Dem is going to win Oklahoma for president is nutso.
by qazplm on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 04:17:42 PM PDT
Tell that to their Democratic governor.
He'd probably request that we don't send him another Eastern blueblood or approximation of such.
Wake the fuck up. Time is short.
by jre2k8 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 05:34:58 PM PDT
I said president, not governor.
Dems win all of the time at other levels but they dont win for president and the most liberal of our candidates is not going to win Oklahoma.
Heck the most conservative of our candidates is not going to win Oklahoma.
But you keep suffering from delusionary thinking.
by qazplm on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 05:40:50 PM PDT
I suffer only from realistic thinking. Unlike a lot of you geniuses, I'm trying to nominate somebody who really has a shot at kicking the GOP's ass.
I'm not a "hope" kind of guy. I'm used to winning. I don't hope for it. I do it. And I wouldn't be promoting Edwards if I didn't know he could win.
Winning matters. Period. Win, win, win.
by jre2k8 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 05:56:52 PM PDT
... you troll rated me for a comment up thread? So I poked fun at the way you guys get diaries rec'd in a matter of seconds. Sheesh!
Not sure I understand why JE has a better shot than anyone else at, as you put it, "kicking the GOP's ass". You're argument can't be based on polls like this one. They're about as reliable as the national polls that had Clinton leading by 40 points a few months ago. When people tune in, votes move. So right now some people in Oklahoma who would never vote for a woman or a black guy are saying they'd vote for Edwards. Do we really think that stays the same once the general rolls around. If you buy that, then you have to buy the idea that JE will cost us formerly blue states like NH, PA, ME and NJ where southerners don't play too well (assuming he's pitted against a non-hick).
by crazymoloch on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 06:18:12 PM PDT
makes them feel smart.
"Time to focus on McCain and kicking his McAss." Angry Mouse
by NearlyNormal on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 07:30:43 PM PDT
Was there a meeting I missed?
Please let me know.
I always thought these thoughts came out of my own head.
Tell ya what, if a Edwards is nominated and wins Oklahoma, I'll quit my job and go volunteer for him.
Since the winning Oklahoma will never happen, I won't worry about saving up any money.
ANY Democrats that win in Oklahoma have had to at WORST be a very centrist Democrat, but somehow Edwards is going to win?
Sure, ok.
by qazplm on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:54:25 PM PDT
wow, ok.
No, it's not realistic to think he will win Oklahoma.
If you want to argue he can win the general election, sure, nothing crazy about that for any of the Dem candidates, well, almost any.
But NONE of the Dems would win Oklahoma, none, zero, nada, and any "realistic" thought-process would recognize that.
by qazplm on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:55:56 PM PDT
... statewide races and candidates federal races.
by crazymoloch on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 05:51:18 PM PDT
but his most "liberal" platforms are those of the economic sense, and yes, red state voters will vote for that.
by jre2k8 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 05:57:55 PM PDT
If this were true it wouldn't only be states like Massachusetts and California leading the way on universal coverage and the enforcement of labor laws.
He's virtually indistinguishable from other candidates on the social front. So he's liberal there. Or am i missing something?
by crazymoloch on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 06:07:50 PM PDT
and Oklahomans will NOT vote for a pro-choice, mandated UHC, pro-immigration reform candidate (GE translation=amnesty). It's laughable to suggest that it could happen.
John McCain votes against Children's Healthcare
by Hope08 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 07:00:30 PM PDT
50 state landslide victory for Democratic candidates at all levels on the ticket.
Polls are consistently showing Edwards beating the Republican contenders by healthy margins. We need to think about nominating a candidate who will do the most damage to the Republicans in November. I believe John Edwards is that candidate.
I am an Okie and I will be voting for Edwards in the primary.
Visit my blog Satellite Sky.
by OkieLawyer on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 05:43:56 PM PDT
You deserve it.
by journalschism on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 05:47:03 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 311 comments