Edwards vs. Clinton vs. Obama: Ending the War

-
-

Tags: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, WAR IN IRAQ (all tags)

Comments

57 Comments

Electability

I knew that somebody would challenge me on the point that Edwards is the most electable Democrat so I decided to answer them in advance.

Rasmussen - July 20th Update

Clinton leads her opponents by an average of 3.5%
Obama leads his opponents by an average of 4.25%
Edwards leads his opponents by an average of 8%

Clinton- 47%
McCain - 38%

Obama- 47%
McCain - 38%

Edwards- 52%
McCain - 36%

Clinton - 44%
Giuliani - 43%

Obama - 41%
Giuliani - 44%

Edwards - 45%
Giuliani - 45%

Note: It is worth noting that Edwards' number against Giuliani has not been updated yet and Clinton's has. Because Giuliani has slipped against Clinton it's not unreasonable to think that he will also slip against the Democrat who has been beating him by the most for months upon months upon months.

Clinton - 46%
Romney - 42%

Obama - 47%
Romney - 38%

Edwards - 45%
Romney - 38%

Clinton - 45%
Thompson - 45%

Obama- 43%
Thompson - 41%

Edwards- 50%
Thompson - 41%

Rasmussen - July 13, 2007 Update

Favorable / Unfavorable

Hillary Clinton - 52% / 46%
Barack Obama - 53% / 37%
John Edwards - 52% / 43%

Clinton - 47%
McCain - 38%

Obama - 47%
McCain - 38%

Edwards - 49%
McCain - 36%

Clinton - 44%
Giuliani - 43%

Obama - 41%
Giuliani - 44%

Edwards - 45%
Giuliani - 45%

Clinton - 46%
Romney - 42%

Obama - 47%
Romney - 38%

Edwards - 51%
Romney - 33%

Clinton - 45%
Thompson - 45%

Obama - 47%
Thompson - 44%

Edwards - 50%
Thompson - 41%

Rasmussen - June 22, 2007

Candidate        Def. FOR |Def. AGAINST| Net

John Edwards       28%        32%       -  4
Fred Thompson      23%        31%       -  8
Rudy Giuliani      26%        37%       - 11
Barack Obama       28%        40%       - 12
Hillary Clinton    29%        46%       - 17
Bill Richardson    12%        35%       - 23
John McCain        16%        42%       - 26
Mitt Romney        13%        42%       - 29

Public Policy Polling - June 21, 2007
Likely North Carolina Voters

North Carolina

Giuliani - 47%
Clinton - 43%

Giuliani - 46%
Obama - 42%

Giuliani - 45%
Edwards - 46%

McCain - 44%
Clinton - 45%

McCain - 45%
Obama - 44%

McCain - 40%
Edwards - 48%

Romney - 41%
Clinton - 47%

Romney - 43%
Obama - 47%

Romney - 37%
Edwards - 51%

Thompson - 46%
Clinton - 43%

Thompson - 45%
Obama - 44%

Thompson - 43%
Edwards - 47%

Rasmussen - June 21, 2007 Update

Favorable / Unfavorable

Hillary Clinton - 49% / 49%
Barack Obama - 50% / 44%
John Edwards - 54% / 38%

Clinton - 42%
McCain - 48%

Obama - 46%
McCain - 38%

Edwards - 49%
McCain - 36%

Clinton - 44%
Giuliani - 47%

Obama - 39%
Giuliani - 51%

Edwards - 47%
Giuliani - 43%

Clinton - 50%
Romney - 41%

Obama - 49%
Romney - 37%

Edwards - 51%
Romney - 33%

Clinton - 48%
Thompson - 43%

Obama - 47%
Thompson - 44%

Edwards - 51%
Thompson - 38%

Gallup Poll - June 20th, 2007

Clinton - 50%
Giuliani - 46%

Obama - 50%
Giuliani - 45%

Edwards -50%
Giuliani - 45%

Clinton - 49%
McCain - 46%

Obama - 48%
McCain - 46%

Edwards - 50%
McCain - 44%

Clinton - 53%
Romney - 40%

Obama - 57%
Romney - 36%

Edwards - 61%
Romney - 32%

Rasmussen - June 15Th Update

Favorable Unfavorable

Hillary Clinton - 47% / 51%
Barack Obama - 50% / 44%
John Edwards - 52% / 38%

Clinton - 44%
Giuliani - 47%

Obama - 39%
Giuliani - 51%

Edwards - 47%
Giuliani - 43%

Clinton - 42%
McCain - 48%

Obama - 46%
McCain - 42%

Edwards - 48%
McCain - 41%

Clinton - 47%
Romney - 44%

Obama - 49%
Romney - 37%

Edwards - 55%
Romney - 29%

Clinton - 47%
Thompson - 44%

Obama - 47%
Thompson - 44%

Edwards - 51%
Thompson - 38%

Rasmussen - June 10th Update

Obama - 39%
Giuliani - 51%

Clinton - 44%
Giuliani - 47%

Edwards -47%
Giuliani - 45%

Obama - 46%
McCain - 42%

Clinton - 42%
McCain - 48%

Edwards - 48%
McCain - 41%

Clinton - 47%
Romney - 44%

Obama - 49%
Romney - 37%

Edwards - 55%
Romney - 29%

Clinton - 47%
Thompson - 44%

Obama - 47%
Thompson - 44%

Edwards - 50%
Thompson - 36%

Rasmussen - June 1st, 2007

Favorable/Unfavorable

Hillary Clinton: 47% - 51%
Barack Obama: 58% - 36%
John Edwards: 55% - 33%

McCain - 44%
Clinton - 48%

McCain - 43%
Obama - 46%

McCain - 41%
Edwards - 48%

Giuliani - 45%
Clinton - 45%

Giuliani - 45%
Obama - 44%

Giuliani - 45%
Edwards - 47%

Romney - 44%
Clinton - 47%

Romney - 37%
Obama - 49%

Romney - 29%
Edwards - 55%

Thompson - 44%
Clinton - 47%

Thompson - 42%
Obama - 49%

Thompson - 32%
Edwards - 53%

Diego - Hotline - May 20th, 2007

McCain - 43%
Clinton - 45%
Unsure - 12%

McCain - 39%
Obama - 42%
Unsure - 19%

McCain - 39%
Edwards - 44%
Unsure - 16%

Newsweek - May 3rd, 2007

McCain - 44%
Clinton - 50%

McCain - 39%
Obama - 52%

McCain - 42%
Edwards - 52%

Giuliani - 46%
Clinton - 49%

Giuliani - 43%
Obama - 50%

Giuliani - 44%
Edwards - 50%

Romney - 35%
Clinton - 57%

Romney - 29%
Obama - 58%

Romney - 27%
Edwards - 64%

Survey USA - May 2nd, 2007

Massachusetts

Thompson - 37%
Obama - 48%

Thompson - 31%
Clinton - 60%

Thompson - 25%
Edwards - 61%

New York

Thompson - 38%
Obama - 50%

Thompson - 30%
Clinton - 64%

Thompson - 29%
Edwards - 59%

California

Thompson - 36%
Obama - 53%

Thompson - 36%
Clinton - 57%

Thompson - 31%
Edwards - 54%

Washington

Thompson - 37%
Obama - 53%

Thompson - 37%
Clinton - 54%

Thompson - 32%
Edwards - 57%

Oregon

Thompson - 36%
Obama - 50%

Thompson - 41%
Clinton - 48%

Thompson - 34%
Edwards - 49%

Wisconsin

Thompson - 42%
Obama - 45%

Thompson - 43%
Clinton - 46%

Thompson - 37%
Edwards - 50%

Minnesota

Thompson - 40%
Obama - 48%

Thompson -37%
Clinton - 53%

Thompson - 32%
Edwards - 56%

New Mexico

Thompson - 40%
Obama - 47%

Thompson - 41%
Clinton - 51%

Thompson - 34%
Edwards - 52%

Iowa

Thompson - 41%
Obama - 51%

Thompson - 44%
Clinton - 46%

Thompson - 35%
Edwards - 58%

Missouri

Thompson - 41%
Obama - 47%

Thompson - 41%
Clinton - 49%

Thompson - 32%
Edwards - 53%

Ohio

Thompson - 43%
Obama - 43%

Thompson - 38%
Clinton - 53 %

Thompson - 33%
Edwards - 57%

Virginia

Thompson - 46%
Obama - 40%

Thompson - 47%
Clinton - 43%

Thompson - 38%
Edwards - 48%

Kentucky

Thompson - 48%
Obama - 42%

Thompson - 40%
Clinton - 53%

Thompson - 34%
Edwards - 56%

Texas

Thompson - 46%
Obama - 42%

Thompson - 43%
Clinton - 49%

Thompson - 38%
Edwards - 49%

Kansas

Thompson - 42%
Obama - 46%

Thompson - 49%
Clinton - 42%

Thompson - 37%
Edwards - 50%

Alabama

Thompson - 53%
Obama - 37%

Thompson - 49%
Clinton - 44%

Thompson - 44%
Edwards - 42%

Survey USA - May 2nd. 2007

Ohio

Giuliani - 45%
Clinton - 48%

Giuliani - 51%
Obama - 40%

Giuliani - 42%
Edwards - 50%

Iowa

Giuliani - 48%
Clinton - 45%

Giuliani - 44%
Obama - 49%

Giuliani - 40%
Edwards - 54%

Missouri

Giuliani - 48%
Clinton - 45%

Giuliani - 50%
Obama - 42%

Giuliani - 43%
Edwards - 48%

Wisconsin

Giuliani - 45%
Clinton - 44%

Giuliani - 45%
Obama - 43%

Giuliani - 39%
Edwards - 49%

Minnesota

Giuliani - 45
Clinton - 48%

Giuliani - 49%
Obama - 43%

Giuliani - 41%
Edwards - 49%

Virginia

Giuliani - 49%
Clinton - 44%

Giuliani - 53%
Obama - 38%

Giuliani - 45%
Edwards - 45%

Kentucky

Giuliani - 48%
Clinton - 46%

Giuliani - 54%
Obama - 38%

Giuliani - 44%
Edwards - 47%

WNBC/Marist - May 1st, 2007

McCain - 42%
Clinton - 47%
Unsure - 11%

McCain - 46%
Obama - 39%
Unsure - 15%

McCain - 39%
Edwards - 49%
Unsure - 12%

Giuliani - 43%
Clinton - 48%
Unsure - 9%

Giuliani - 43%
Obama - 41%
Unsure - 16%

Giuliani - 43%
Edwards - 49%
Unsure - 8%

Diego - Hotline - April 30th, 2007

McCain - 45%
Clinton - 45%
Unsure - 11%

McCain - 37%
Obama - 48%
Unsure - 15%

McCain - 37%
Edwards - 48%
Unsure - 14%

Rasmussen - April 9th, 2007

Note: This is the poll that made Edwards the first Democrat to beat every Republican in Rasmussen polling

Favorable/Unfavorable

Hillary Clinton - 48% / 50%
Barack Obama - 59% /34%
John Edwards - 57% / 35%

McCain - 46%
Clinton - 47%

McCain - 42%
Obama - 48

McCain - 38%
Edwards - 47%

Giuliani - 48%
Clinton - 47%

Giuliani - 44%
Obama - 43%

Giuliani - 43%
Edwards - 49%

Romney - 41%
Clinton - 50%

Romney - 37%
Obama - 52%

Romney - 29%
Edwards - 55%

Thompson - 44%
Clinton - 43%

Thompson - 37%
Obama - 49%

Thompson - 36%
Edwards - 50%

Newsweek - March 1st, 2007

McCain - 46%
Clinton - 47%
Unsure - 7%

McCain - 43%
Obama - 45%
Unsure - 12%

McCain - 43%
Edwards - 48%
Unsure - 9%

Giuliani - 47%
Clinton - 46%
Unsure - 7%

Giuliani - 48%
Obama - 43%
Unsure - 9%

Giuliani - 47%
Edwards - 45%
Unsure - 8%

Romney - 38%
Clinton - 53%
Unsure - 9%

Romney - 34%
Obama - 54%
Unsure - 12%

Romney - 30%
Edwards - 58%
Unsure - 12%

Newsweek - January 18th, 2007

McCain - 47%
Clinton - 48%
Unsure - 5%

McCain - 44%
Obama - 46%
Unsure - 10%

McCain - 43%
Edwards - 48%
Unsure - 9%

Giuliani - 48%
Clinton - 47%
Unsure - 5%

Giuliani - 45%
Obama - 47%
Unsure - 8%

Giuliani - 45%
Edwards - 48%
Unsure - 7%

Investor's Business Daily - January 4th, 2007

McCain - 48%
Clinton - 41%
Undecided - 12%

McCain - 48%
Obama - 36%
Undecided -16%

McCain - 44%
Edwards - 43%
Undecided - 12%

Giuliani - 48%
Clinton - 43%
Undecided - 9%

Giuliani - 49%
Obama - 36%
Undecided - 15%

Giuliani - 47%
Edwards - 42%
Undecided - 11%

Romney - 35%
Clinton - 48%
Undecided - 17%

Romney - 31%
Obama - 43%
Undecided - 26%

Romney - 29%
Edwards - 53%
Undecided - 18%

by Michael 4 Edwards 2007-07-21 01:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards vs. Clinton vs. Obama: Ending the War

Aargh! Can you please format better? If someone has to hit "page down" to get past a comment, it's probably too long. And if you have to hit "page down" 16(!) times, it's beyond obnoxious. You can make your point about electability without doing this.

by clarkent 2007-07-21 01:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards vs. Clinton vs. Obama: Ending the War

I understand where you're coming from but the point is to show just how much evidence there is.  I've tried other ways of organizing the polling but it comes across as impossible to read.  This is A LOT to read but that's the point.  Most Hope, Inc.ers cherry pick a few polls and list them in the exact way that I just did.  Sometimes you need to show that you have them outgunned.  Sure, you had to press page down 16 times but are you ever going to forget how much evidence there is that John Edwards is the most electable Democrat?  No.  Your're not.  Frankly, passing your formatting test is pretty low on the list of priorities.  And whining about it kind of shows that you missed the point.

Obama worshipers are not going to cede an inch of the argument unless an overwhelming case is made.
I already took out many of the Rasmussen updates.  There is no other way to do it that doesn't make it come out like a blob of numbers or doesn't change from the preview to after it is submitted.  This is the only way to allow it to be readable, at least if it's posted on here.

I'm tired of people claiming that Obama is Mr. Electable.  Better the point get across and you have to hit page down 16 times than for it the point to not get out at all.

Some times people need to be shocked out of a myth.  This was the shock.

by Michael 4 Edwards 2007-07-21 02:20PM | 0 recs
Who did you shock?

by chicago jeff 2007-07-21 03:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Who did you shock?

I was using the term "shock" to make a point. For instance, one of my friends in WI kept hearing people make the false claim that Obama is the most electable Democrat.  So he showed them some of the polling information I had sent him.

They were shocked at how much evidence there was and partially because of the sheer amount they changed their mind.  

That is what I was attempting to do here.  

But it seems that the Kool-Aid that Hope,Inc. passes out makes the drinker (and most Obama worshipers guzzle the stuff) immune to any anti-Hope,Inc. thinking.

I was simply making the point to clark kent (who I am a fan of by the way) that I felt it was important to post the information in whichever form it was easiest to read.  I'm sorry that it was tideous to read but it wasn't an attempt to preach to the choir.

There is still a part of me that hopes that Obama fans might be able to look past Hope,Inc. and think about the future of the progressive movement, the Democratic Party, and by extension the American people.

by Michael 4 Edwards 2007-07-22 12:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards vs. Clinton vs. Obama: Ending the War

I hate to be snide, but with your definitive statement proclaiming that "Edwards is the Progressive" I had to chime in.

I respect Edwards a great deal, but I don't respect the notion that he is the lone progressive. Obama's body of work is far superior and muh longer than Edwards. Obama chose a progressive career choice, not a second career. I'm not going to go.  any further because I do respect him.

The only thing Edwards has going for him is his skin color. HOWEVER, if he keeps highlighting "empirical evidence" to point his electibility, he will cause many Afro Amer (myself included) and women to look in a different direction. Using the argument "I'm white, vote for me because I'm electable. Look at the previous 43 presidents." smacks of racism that I would expect from Romney (see Obama/Osama sign) or any Republican fraud.

VEEEEEEEEEEERRRRYYYY Progressive.

by chicagogene 2007-07-21 03:11PM | 0 recs
What Is This Argument???

The only thing Edwards has going for him is his skin color.

That is a ridiculous notion. How about if he was of Chinese ancestry? Is this the 'Year of No White Guys'?

Here is a very big something to set Edwards apart from the Big Three:

Unlike the other two, he didn't eat lunch half the time with the creeps in the HAMILTON PROJECT.

by blues 2007-07-21 05:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards vs. Clinton vs. Obama: Ending the War

The only thing Edwards has going for him is his skin color.

That is a Blatantly Racist statement. How dare you. That you are supporting Obama is frightening. If anything it is very good reason not to vote for Obama.

by DoIT 2007-07-21 05:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards vs. Clinton vs. Obama: Ending the War

Did you not read the rest of the post...I think you are taking it WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY out of context.

I'm black. So don't cry racism to me.

Point being he had the nerve to say the following:

"Well, this is not even close--who's the strongest general election candidate. Every piece of empirical evidence shows you exactly the same thing that your gut will tell you anyway." JE

THAT IS RACIST my friend.

Glad to clarify...

by chicagogene 2007-07-21 05:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards vs. Clinton vs. Obama: Ending the War

So what you are saying is that BECAUSE you are Black there is no possible way YOU could be a RACIST, or act like one. Sounds frickin racist to me.

by DoIT 2007-07-21 06:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards vs. Clinton vs. Obama: Ending the War

Well, I don't think you know what racism is? However, lets continue on the line of reasoning...

What I said was racist, according to you? So you must feel that what JE said was racist, as I was referencing and restating what he said...IN CHICAGO no less.

Am I correct?

by chicagogene 2007-07-21 06:48PM | 0 recs
race baiter

He is a typical race baiter for Obama.  I can count at least three blatant race baiters who claim to be African Americans and support Obama.

The more I read those folks' comments, the more i feel the entire Obama candidacy is a fraud. Nobody is sure about what kind of hidden agenda he has surrounded by these race baiters.

by areyouready 2007-07-21 07:10PM | 0 recs
Re: race baiter

Can you argue on the merits or is that not on your list of talking points?

How 'bout it?

by chicagogene 2007-07-21 07:16PM | 0 recs
Re: race baiter

I am black, and let me say you don't have any merits. The minute you claim a candidate should be considered out of bounds because they are white is the minute you start sounding like the opressor. Period. Spin it in you mind as much as you like. It's still the same thing. All I care about  is who is going to pass the best agenda that is going to help my community out. Right now I think that's Edwards based on what he has said. If Obama comes up with policies that are stronger, and shows the willingness to go to the mat for htem, I will support him. Same with HRC to a degree. But what i won't be allowing folks such as yourself to do- is to turn this into a Sharp James situation where you use race as a excuse to avoid debate. Come into this without bullshit or expect to be called on it. It's up to you.

by bruh21 2007-07-21 08:48PM | 0 recs
Re: race baiter

Did you read my post? Did I say don't vote for JE because he is white? I know you can type, but can you read?

Let's go over this AGAIN...

"Well, this is not even close--who's the strongest general election candidate. Every piece of empirical evidence shows you exactly the same thing that your gut will tell you anyway." JE 7/17/07

As a "Black" man as you claim...you should be offended that JE, YOUR BOY, would make an argument against BO and HRC because of the "empirical evidence that your gut will tell you."

Put down the Edwards kool-aid and get a grip.

If you can answer that statement with a LOGICAL, not hysterical response...let's continue the debate...

by chicagogene 2007-07-21 08:55PM | 0 recs
Re: race baiter

Here's where you fucked up "As a "Black" man as you claim.." With that we are done. The things I do for my community, my family and the things I have done to pull myself with others help out of poverty- no one here on some blog gets to cross the line you crossed. I don't ask people to like everything I say, but you crossed the line of calling me a house n by another name. Go fuck yourself.

by bruh21 2007-07-22 07:37AM | 0 recs
Re: race baiter

Thus is the level of discourse on this board.  

Only 6 more months of that stuff and this site will become Hillary-Central anyway.   :-)

by georgep 2007-07-22 08:11AM | 0 recs
Re: race baiter

I hope the level of discourse on this site is not where people can race bait or gender bait and then question the race of anyone who disagrees with them as the above poster did. I am not sure where you are coming from on your posting here. Are you in favor of someone question my ethnicity just because I disagreed with him>?

by bruh21 2007-07-22 08:14AM | 0 recs
Re: race baiter

I find race-baiting disgusting.  I find the back and forth here "too much," don't want you to confuse my comment aimed at just yourself, it was just an assessment of the entire exchange.  I find chicago's comments disturbing and wrong.  If you see something you don't like or feel offended by, tell the party how wrong they are and mock the hell out of it.  I usually call it "poverty of argument."   I am not sure if telling someone to have intercourse with themselves is a good resolve to the argument.  Just saying.  :-)

BTW, is it me or does this chicagodude seem like a re-incarnation of another Obama poster who seems to get banned constantly, just to return under different names?  

by georgep 2007-07-22 09:57AM | 0 recs
Re: race baiter

by the way - you are fond of talking about things that people want to ban on this site- one of the big ones that jerome himself has said has to go are posters such as the one above who race or gender bait. They did it in one of his diaries, and he made it explicitly clear that this sort "well you must not really be black because you disagree with me" or "edwards is liked because he is a white male" argument to respond to any discussion is out of bounds. Not the least of which because it's factually false. THe break down of actual in state numbers in terms of race and gender shows this.

by bruh21 2007-07-22 08:17AM | 0 recs
Re: race baiter

House N???...I did not, nor would ever call you that. I save that for Larry Elder, Clarence Thomas and the like. I have been called that and I wouldn't return the favor.

I am going to offer the same question I have been posting for the better part of 24 hours.

Why would JE point to "empirical data" to argue his merits for electability? Why argue that when you look at data, there has never been a black or women elected, so are you sure that you want to take that risk? I would appreciat his candor if he did so honestly.

I'm not going to get into a race debate. The line by Edwards was offensive, especially to Afr. Americans.

by chicagogene 2007-07-22 08:30AM | 0 recs
Re: race baiter

I am going to give you enough respect to tell you to stop wasting time trying to post with me. I am not really interested anymore in what you have to say.

by bruh21 2007-07-22 08:36AM | 0 recs
Re: race baiter

I totally agree with you. I don't support censorship but I do think there should be some clearly defined rules of engagement. Some things are off limits in my opinion.

by DoIT 2007-07-22 08:41AM | 0 recs
Ah George, I hope

you are not defending chicagogene.  He insinuated bruh21 was lying about his race.  I think we can all agree that should not be tolerated.

by bookgrl 2007-07-22 09:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards vs. Clinton vs. Obama: Ending the War

All this nonsense about Hillary voting for the war is ridiculous. Have you even read the Authorization bill? Have you read her speech before voting for the authorization? The Bill allowed the President to threaten the use of force if Hussein did not comply with U.N. Resolutions, most especially concerning allowing inspections to find weapons of mass destruction. The inspectors went in, found no weapons and reported this to the United Nations. Bush ignored this and started a war.

At least get you facts straight.

by DoIT 2007-07-21 05:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards vs. Clinton vs. Obama: Ending the War

Then why didn't she speak out at the time. Everybody knew that when they voted for the AUF they were giving Bush the authority to go to war. He already had massed 100,000 troops in Kuwait prior to the AUF VOTE. dO YOU THINK HE WAS GOING TO JUST LET THEM SIT THEIR TWITTLING THEIR THUMBS.

I knew when he went before the UN for a resolution to enforce the UN sanctions against Sadam that he was going to invade. I told my wife, why is he asking for their approval, for he is going in no matter what they are going to do.

by BDM 2007-07-21 07:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards vs. Clinton vs. Obama: Ending the War

"Have you even read the Authorization bill? Have you read her speech before voting for the authorization?"

Yes I have and in her speech Hillary says:

"My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world."

Of course she said that because she realized the bill was basically a blank check which Bush might well use exactly for pre-emptive, unilateral, arrogant and potentially illegal war, but she voted for it anyway, probably out of political expediency.

But have you heard her speech to code pink a few weeks before the invasion? Take a look: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_KEWUU33 Lg

In that meeting she basically acknowledges that the invasion is about to happen and that she's on-board with it. If she had truly meant what she said in her floor speech before voting for the war authorization, then she should have opposed it 2 weeks before the invasion, but of course she didn't because her words were just meant for political ass cover if things went south. And of course she continued to support the invasion and occupation until fairly recently so trying to place all the blame on Bush now is moot.

Still, I give her points for her foresight of what could go wrong, of how the authorization could be abused, which is at least better than what Edwards managed in his floor speech for the bill.

by End game 2007-07-22 12:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards vs. Clinton vs. Obama: Ending the War

THAT is your retort? If that isn't most ridiculous cover for his blatent appeal to people's prejudices. Chinese Ancestry???? Come on. That is enough to disqualify him right there. I mean....reallly

"Well, this is not even close--who's the strongest general election candidate. Every piece of empirical evidence shows you exactly the same thing that your gut will tell you anyway."

JE

Again I like JE...If Obama wasn't in the race, I would probably support him.

I see your Hamilton Project and raise you a Hedge Fund....

by chicagogene 2007-07-21 05:35PM | 0 recs
Annotated:

Edwards: voted for the war.

Hillary: voted for the war.

Obama: not able to vote at the time, but vocally opposed the war while campaigning for Senate, at the same time that Edwards was still defending his war vote as the right choice.

by jforshaw 2007-07-21 06:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Annotated:

And just what did Obama do once he became a US Senator? Did he vote to prolong the war? What was that? Do I hear a reluctant yes? Hmmmm.... what the hell is that all about?

by DoIT 2007-07-21 06:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards vs. Clinton vs. Obama: Ending the War

Obama might have been right in the beginning, but when he got the Senate, he voted exactly the same as Hillary on Iraq- their voting records are IDENTICAL.

As for Edwards, his "I was wrong" was the height of pandering.  And considering he is far behind Hillary in the polls nationally, it doesn't seem like it did him any good.

by reasonwarrior 2007-07-21 06:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards vs. Clinton vs. Obama: Ending the War

I wasn't calling anyone racist...I was pointing out the racist context of JE speech in Chicago.

"Well, this is not even close--who's the strongest general election candidate. Every piece of empirical evidence shows you exactly the same thing that your gut will tell you anyway."

Would you disagree?

by chicagogene 2007-07-21 07:04PM | 0 recs
Perhaps you should checke the definition of

Empirical evidence:evidence relating to or based on experience or observation

The evidence is in the polls of him vs. the Reps. We may want a black President or a female President but in the head to heads Edwards has consistently done the best.

So yes, evidence wise he is the best choice, that simple.

He also seems to win most of the likely caucus goers straw polls as well. NOWHERE does Edwards even hint that because he is white he is more electable. When he stated that he can campaign where others do not it is simply because he is not afraid to campaign in the states that have always been flyovers or ignored. He wants to be President of the whole damn country, black, white, male, female, poor, middle class, Southern, NE, Western or Eastern. His policies and life's work shows that.

Obama and Clinton are consultant controlled, Edwards is not. He will take the big leaps because he knows they are the right thing to do.

by Chaoslillith 2007-07-21 07:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Perhaps you should checke the definition of

Your kidding me...right?

He stated that is can campaign in states where others CAN'T...because he is FEARLESS? That is a stretch....even for you.

Empirical evidence: evidence relating to or based on experience or observation...you tell me which makes more sense?

A. The polls that you reference (citations needed for YOUR polls) showing that he polls best vs. Reps?

B. 43 presidents who look like him?

Here is a snapshot of the RCP polling averages.

             Guiliani       McCain         Romney
HRC     +2.6%           +4.2%         +10.8%
BO       +1.5%           +7.2%         +14.6%
JE        +1.0%           +6.2%         +19.2%

Those are the MOST Recent averages for Edwards.

Here are some more details:

Zogby 07/12 - 07/14

JE v Guiliani = Guiliani +3
JE v McCain   = Tie
JE v Romney   = Edwards +9

Chaos....you were saying?

by chicagogene 2007-07-21 08:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Perhaps you should checke the definition of

Real Clear Politics avergages are flawed, both thier statewide and general election averages.

And by the way it wasn't long ago that Edwards led in their averges as well.

The difference is that Obama and Clinton are included in far more general election match ups than Edwards is.  So when Quinipiac (who always low-balls Edwards on everything) gives Edwards bad numbers it affects his average far more than it would Obama or Clinton.

To say that you are putting too much faith in RCP's averages in an understatement.

It's also worth pointing out that RCP does not include the state wide GE Polls in their averages because, well, that's impossible.  But it's the statewide polls, such as the ones from Survey USA that show why Edwards is the most electable.

Obama has little to no chance of turning states like MO, AR, KY, WV, and VA blue.  Edwards has a very good chance.

One again, pointing to RCP avergaes shows how little you know.

Their Iowa averages leave out both the PPP and Fairbanks polls and leaves in the universally discresited ARG polls.

It's not surprising to see an Obama supporter whose argument onlys scratches the surface.  You guys are good at that.  You lack substance. Just like your candidate.

by Michael 4 Edwards 2007-07-22 12:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Perhaps you should checke the definition of

Here we go again...blame the polls...that argument is so lame...however, I shouldn't be surprised. "They didn't count this poll, that poll...blah blah blah." Just focus on staying ahead of Bill Richardson.

What exactly does John "King of Torts" Edwards stand for? Oh, wait, I got it. I'm going to make a ton of money, run for office, AND THEN turn to the ills of society.

"Obama has little to no chance of turning states like MO, AR, KY, WV, and VA blue.  Edwards has a very good chance."
Why is that, Michael? Because of his "Strong Vision"? Or maybe you are using the "empirical data" that John Edwards was pointing to? At least he said it?

"You lack substance. Just like your candidate."
Here we go again? I don't even have to argue this point because it is a stretch for you.

by chicagogene 2007-07-22 06:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Perhaps you should checke the definition of

You're kidding right- "Edwards is not consultant driven"  You must be new to politics and very, very naive.  They all have consultants- they listen as they choose- Having Elizabeth take over for awhile was carefully planned and carefully executed.

by Menemshasunset 2007-07-22 12:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards vs. Clinton vs. Obama: Ending the War

I agree that there is too much RACISM yelling going on here, but when has anybody ever called those not pro-Hillary SEXIST?   I try to read all diaries here, but I have not seen that.  

by georgep 2007-07-22 08:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards vs. Clinton vs. Obama: Ending the War

it has happened in other diaries. It was in one of Jerome diaries. Specifically peop came in making claims that Edwards was anti woman and anti black for pointing out at the time that he was ahead in the head to head against the GOP candidates.

The argument went- well that's because he's a white male, and as a white male for him to bring it up meant he knew he was using race and gender because those polls are about people wanting to vote for the white male in the race. Nevermind it's lack of logic or offensiveness- it was also factually incorrect as someone posted a couple of polls to show the racial and gender breakdowns and it wasn't as simply a matter of race or gender. But that didn't stop the argument from being made, or as Chicago above does- turn into claims that I must not be a black guy, and have drank kool aid for disagreeing with his own prejudcices.

by bruh21 2007-07-22 08:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards vs. Clinton vs. Obama: Ending the War

And some used the phrase "white privilege" to belittle Hillary's AIDS comments at the Howard University forum.

I don't know about the rest of you but I belong to the Democratic party. We fought for Civil Rights so that everyone in this country has equal freedoms and opportunities. This race baiting is something one might expect from the GOP but not from us, and certainly not here. It's not progressive and it's not democratic.

Can we please make an agreement that we won't use these hateful distinctions of separation amongst our discussions? Racism and Sexism have NO place in our party or our country.

by DoIT 2007-07-22 08:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards vs. Clinton vs. Obama: Ending the War

what was her comment?

by bruh21 2007-07-22 08:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards vs. Clinton vs. Obama: Ending the War

"If HIV-AIDS were the leading cause of death of white women between the ages of 25 and 34 there would be an outraged outcry in this country,"

by DoIT 2007-07-22 09:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards vs. Clinton vs. Obama: Ending the War

how is that baiting?

by bruh21 2007-07-22 09:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards vs. Clinton vs. Obama: Ending the War

she is reflecting an honest view about the history of the disease. in the early days in the 80s when it was considered the 'gay' disease people weren't as concerend about it. it was only when kids like i believe his name ryan white and also when someone famous like rock hudson died of that dynamic changed.

by bruh21 2007-07-22 09:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards vs. Clinton vs. Obama: Ending the War

DoIt meant to state that the reaction on this site to Clinton's statement as race-pandering was the bait here.  

by georgep 2007-07-22 10:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards vs. Clinton vs. Obama: Ending the War

I understood. I just don't see that a race baiting. You know I have problems with clinton but I don't see that statement as baiting

by bruh21 2007-07-22 10:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards vs. Clinton vs. Obama: Ending the War

The comment she made was not race baiting. The words used by her detractors claiming Hillary had a "white privilege" to get away with saying those words was where the race baiting came in.

And thanks George.

by DoIT 2007-07-22 11:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards vs. Clinton vs. Obama: Ending the War

i think you are both misundedrstanding me. i don't think its race baiting either so i am not sure why you continue to seem to think thats what i am saying.

by bruh21 2007-07-22 12:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards vs. Clinton vs. Obama: Ending the War

its not race baiting to point out the realities of race in this country. it's race baiting above with the otehr poster to claim that canddiates are trading on it for no other reason that they are of a particular race.

by bruh21 2007-07-22 12:12PM | 0 recs
BS

First, who gives a damn WHY Obama gave the speech.  He wouldn't have given it if he weren't against the war, why would he stake his political future to curry the favor of some woman in Chicago that nobody's heard of, unless he was against the war and figured, "what the hell, might as well make a speech about it, if it'll get me support from somebody I can USE support from.  It's not like he was for the war and decided to bet everything on saying he wasn't just for a political favor.  I find it hilarious that all you Edwards people kiss his ass and always seem to leave out the fact that not only did Edwards vote for this, he went on TV and sold it like he was a member of the administration.

by dlh77489 2007-07-22 04:04AM | 0 recs
Re: BS

I don't think you read my entire diary.

I made it clear that no matter what their reasons where Clinton and Edwards were wrong and Obama was right. I believe that a statement to that effect is in the diary...you know, the one you didn't read.

My point is that since 2005 Obama has become ultra cautious on ending the war and Hillary has been, well, Hillary.

Obama had the moral authority to lead on the war but he blew it.

His campaign won't even deny that he was the Democrat that led the very odd and unusual standing ovation for Lieberman when he returned to the Senate.  Why would they not deny that?

It shows political deafness either way.  If he did lead the ovation then he has no business being our nominee. Why would someone who wanted to end the war cheer for the win of a sure thing "No" vote on ending the war over a sure thing "Yes" vote on ending the war?

And if he is afraid to deny it then what is up with that?

And these are just the surface issues.  They hardly register on the scale.

Why are Obama worshipers going so easy on the guy?

He turns every vote on Iraq into the Barack Obama show.

He fails to show leadership.

His "Universal Health Care" plan is not Universal.

And his environmental plans are heavy on the coal.

So what is the reason to vote for him?

"Hope"?

"A new kind of politics?

They basically translate to "vote for Barack Obama".

Do you really think that if he is elected the GOP and Harry Reid are going to start singing Kumbaya together?

Wake up.

Hope, Inc. is an illusion and you are buying into it.

by Michael 4 Edwards 2007-07-22 05:54AM | 0 recs
Re: BS

If he did lead the ovation then he has no business being our nominee.

Is there any actual evidence that Obama led this ovation? Rumors are just that. I prefer facts.

by DoIT 2007-07-22 06:15AM | 0 recs
Re: BS

Firstly, you dont know jack about Obama, and that's obvious because you haven't done any research into his programs and positions.  I will vote for him because he has shown steadfast JUDGEMENT, and he is a progressive, and I have actually researched his positions, so I know.  I will support him because yes, he's also inspiring.  I will vote for him because I know he will stand up for that which he believes even if there's going to be political fallout because of it.  You write him off because he speaks in terms that try to reach beyond party to country.  Only someone who had no real argument would write off someone who has shown that his entire life has been about service.  I will vote for him because he has lived a life that was more about "what can I do to help?" than what can I do to get over on someone.

by dlh77489 2007-07-23 07:27AM | 0 recs
2-faced senators
Michael - you omitted that Obama, like Hillary, did send Lamont $5K.
However, unlike John Edwards, Obama and Hillary refused to stand PUBLICLY with Lamont - which would have meant more to the millionaire candidate than their $5K donations.
IOW - Obama and Hillary supported both anti-war Lamont and warmonger LIEberman.
by annefrank 2007-07-22 05:44AM | 0 recs
Re: 2-faced senators

Sorry about that. My bad.

by Michael 4 Edwards 2007-07-22 05:45AM | 0 recs
Lamont seems to like idea of an Obama presidency
h/t Ben Smith.
In a recent article published June 29th, 2007, the newspaper "Greenwich Citizen" quoted Lamont at a YMCA's Leadership Club event as saying he predicted the winning Democratic ticket would be Obama/Dodd.
Occasional DTC attendee Ned Lamont was not present when Liebman made his pitch for Dodd's quest for the Presidency. Lamont is the Democrat who gave Connecticut's other U.S. senator - Independent Joe Lieberman - a rough ride in the last national election.

It so happens that several weeks ago Lamont had occasion to mention Dodd within the framework of the 2008 presidential competition.

Speaking to teenagers in the Greenwich YMCA's Leadership Club, Lamont said: "Barack Obama and Sen. Dodd are going to lead the Democratic Party to victory in November 2008."

Lamont 's crystal ball shows Obama as president and Dodd as vice president.

You can find the quote on Ben Smith's blog at the Politico. The article from the Greenwich citizen has been removed from their website, it is however still available through the Google cache (this link might work). Search on Google for "Greenwich Citizen" Ned Lamont Obama, and click on the cache for the second link listed. Here's the google results page.
by psericks 2007-07-22 09:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards vs. Clinton vs. Obama: Ending the War
Edwards was unemployed basically for the last few years-His full time occupation has been running for President- It's so easy to be oppositional when you have nothing to lose and it doesn't count. Obama as well had virtually no opposition in his Senate race and he had no intel on the subject- Like many of us- we all felt we KNEW that Bush couldn't be trusted.  The fact was that most people who have knowledge of the office of President (including John Kerry) have repeatedly said that the vote was setting an important precedent for future Presidents- This whole article is biased.  I worked on Ned Lamont's campaign- sure I was disappointed in the lack of support-but John Kerry was the only working Senator who showed- John Edwards had nothing else to do and it was part of his game plan- As far as the John Edward's vote on the war- He not only voted for the authorization but he was a strong advocate unlike Hillary Clinton who "cautioned the President to use the vote wisely" "not to rush to war" and do not take this as permission to "change our policy on pre-emption"  That's why she didn't have to apologize-she made a clear and reasoned decision based on the facts as best she could determine-including talking to principals -including Colin Powell-one of the only trusted (by all -even progressives at that time) Bush administration officials- She was on the Armed Services Committee, she was a Senator from the state most devastated by 9/11 and she had the most detailed information available to any of the Senators-  Was it true as Bob Shrum stated in his book about John Kerry "Veteran Democratic consultant Bob Shrum, who advised both John Edwards and John Kerry during the 2004 Presidential cycle, says Edwards was disinclined to vote to authorize the Iraq war, but was talked into doing so for political reasons."  Also an editorial in the Boston Globe 4/17-Scott Lehigh "Yet as John Kerry's 2004 ticketmate, the former North Carolina senator was anything but eager to acknowledge error on Iraq. Instead, according to several Kerry-Edwards campaign aides, Edwards argued repeatedly that the two should stand by their votes, even after it had become apparent that Iraq had neither weapons of mass destruction nor collaborative ties with Al Qaeda.. ."I specifically remember Edwards having a very distinct take," says one person in attendance, who paraphrases Edwards's argument this way: "We need to stick to this. We should stand by our votes, say we would vote that way again. If you admit a mistake, it shows weakness in time of war. That's what the Republicans want us to do."  This is a trial lawyer- he can change his verbage to fit whatever the occasion merits-
He will be an easy target for the Republicans-
by Menemshasunset 2007-07-22 12:42PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads