We are the 99%

May 14, 2008

Edwards to Endorse Obama

From Talkingpointsmemo:

Obama spokesperson Tommy Vietor confirms that Edwards will indeed endorse Obama today.

Edwards couldn't have picked a safer time to endorse -- he did it after it became obvious that the nomination was largely a foregone conclusion. And he did it after Obama lost big in West Virginia, among just the sort of voters Edwards is supposed to have sway among.

While it's true that his endorsement could make a difference in Kentucky, the fact that he waited this long -- and did it after dropping repeated public hints that he would stay neutral -- suggests that this was less than a profile in courage on Edwards' part.

Late Update: On the other hand, if the Obama campaign held this to roll out after the West Virginia loss, which seems probable, the timing in some ways was shrewd.

Posted without comment.

26 comments:

Sherry said...

this endorsement means a lot to me.even if it came a little later than i'd hoped.

Joshua said...

As Mike Lange would say, "Ladies and gentlemen, Elvis has just...left...the building!"

Sherry said...

NARAL endorsed him too!

Aharon Omri said...

...and so did Hamas! Yes!!

jaywillie said...

Fuck of, Aharon...you want to try and hunt that dog, be my guest.

But first you might want to check up on how well Republican smears against Obama are working.

In MS-01, Republicans lost a House seat in a district that they won w/ 66% in 2006. They tried to tie Childers to Obama and Pelosi.

And not that long ago, the same thing happened in Lousiana, though I can't recall the district or Dem who won.

So, by all means, show the American people that all conservatives have to offer this year are straw men and baseless, slanderous attacks.

I'm afraid that Americans just aren't buying into the "liberal bogeyman" argument these days. The fearmongering of the Bush era seems to have run its course and Americans suddenly prefer genuine solutions to our problems over the scare tactics and failed leadership of Republicans.

Yes, yes...I know what Hamas said. Fuck them too!

But your attack is a fraud and completely insane.

Prepare yourself for a Democratic tsunami this Fall. As Tom Cole(head of the NRCC) said today, there isn't a safe Republican seat in the country. The GOP is going to get wiped out this year and Edwards' endorsement is just one more step toward a united Democratic party.

Welcome to permanent minority status, my Republican friends. And don't expect to get back in the majority any time soon - an era of Democratic dominance not seen since FDR is just over the horizon.

Enjoy!

Anonymous said...

Does this mean Edward's is the Veep?

Piltdown Man

Anonymous said...

Retired Millhunk-
I would say he purposely announced it after the W. Va.primary. Obama would have lost just as bad if Edwards would have endorsed him a year ago. In the exit polls 10% of the people actually admitted their vote was for Clinton because Obama was black. And if 10% admitted it 30% were too embarassed to admit it.That's the way it is in Pa. also just not quite as severe.Sad to say racism has no particular political party.

jaywillie said...

Piltdown Man,

Politicalwire.com posted that Edwards told aides he would consider VP but was really interested in Attorney General.

That would give us 24 prospective VP candidates:

1. Sen. Brown (OH)
2. Gov. Strickland (OH)
3. Sen. Casey (PA)
4. Sen. Cardin (MD)
5. Sen. Landrieu (LA)
6. Sen. McCaskill (MO)
7. Sen. Webb (VA)
8. Gov. Kaine (VA)
9. Gov. Richardson (NM)
10. Gov. Napolitano (AZ)
11. Gov. Sebelius (KS)
12. Sen. Hagel (NE) - it think this is unlikely, but his name's been mentioned
13. ret. Gen. Wes Clark
14. Sen. Biden (DE)
15. Sen. Clinton (NY)
16. Gov. Rendell (PA) - also a token mention as I believe he's on record saying he wouldn't want VP
17. Gov. Schweitzer (MT)
18. Sen. Feingold (WI)
19. former Sen. Daschle (SD)
20. former Sen. Sam Nunn (GA?)
21. ret. Gen. Anthony Zinni
22. Sen. Nelson (FL)
23. Sen. Reed (RI)
24. former Sen. John Edwards (NC)

A lot of names. Some more likely than others. Some w/ not much of a thought.

A lot of good names too. It's going to be a tough choice.

BTW the Clinton camp is now touting that they have/will have the popular vote lead. Only there's one small caveat - they're excluding about 800,000 votes from their count: approx. 550,000 caucusgoers from various states(Chris Bowers listed ME, WA, IA & NV) and the some 250,000 Democratic MI voters who voted uncommitted (more here)

Anonymous said...

Misogyny I Won't Miss
By Marie Cocco
Thursday, May 15, 2008; Page A15

As the Democratic nomination contest slouches toward a close, it's time to take stock of what I will not miss.

I will not miss seeing advertisements for T-shirts that bear the slogan "Bros before Hos." The shirts depict Barack Obama (the Bro) and Hillary Clinton (the Ho) and are widely sold on the Internet.

This article should be read by all .Thanks boys!

Anonymous said...

John K. says; Woo really irritated you left wingers that Hamas did in fact endorse Hussein Obama. Been telling you along, Al Queda and Hamas are on the side of the Democrats. Jimmy Carter goes to the Mideast and comes back with an endorsement for Obama from Hamas.

Anonymous said...

John K. also says: This Edwards endorsement is funny. In Feb the DNC knew clearly that KY and WV were going big for Clinton. So Obama planned a strategy to blunt the victory. I have known for a month Edwards was going to endorse Obama. He has been tipping his hand in interviews. Interviews he did not give after he dropped out of the race. In short, Edwards endorses Obama, big deal. This was planned to take the edge of KY and WV for Clinton. And the left, ala Olbermouth, thinks they scored a coup. LOL LOL LOL LMAO.

The Wizened Sage said...

Back by popular demand: THE JOHN K. IDIOTIC COMMENT OF THE DAY™!

The staff had to stay up all night sifting through John's unusually prolific and inane offerings over the past 24 hours. Some thought we should feature his delusions about Obama and Carter being Hamas supporters. Others wanted us to concentrate on the fact that he sometimes forgets to identify himself. There was even a group that wanted to point out that he sometimes posts under the name "C.H." Another segment of the staff thought that we should forget about John for a day and discuss the fact that Heir To The Throne has finally brought his extremist racism into the open.

But in the end, the editorial board here at The Wizened Sage® decided to focus on John's latest Major Andre moment, wherein he denies the reality of the Republicans following the same policy as the Dems.

So here it is, the moment you've been waiting for and clamoring for! THE JOHN K. IDIOTIC COMMENT OF THE DAY>™:

So the Republican punished MI and FL? LMAO oh man that is funny.

Anonymous said...

John K. says: I only post under one name. And yes, remember Bin Laden endorsed Sen. Kerry in 2004 Hamas endorsed Obama just last week. Try as you might the facts speak for themselves and we know, as well as you do, you can't hide it. LMAO

Anonymous said...

John K. also says: So Carter did not just return from the Mid east, after he had conferences with Hamas, and then defend their position on the talk shows? Man are you liberals delusional. I mean totally delusional to the point where you have no idea of the truth and lying. Talk about me speaking truth to power. LOL LMAO I own you.

"Fair and Balanced" Dave said...

jaywillie:

And not that long ago, the same thing happened in Lousiana, though I can't recall the district or Dem who won.

It was the 6th Congressional District in Louisiana--a seat held by a Republican for 33 years. Democrat Donald J. Cazayoux Jr beat Republican Woody Jenkins.

In addition, in March Democrat Bill Foster won a special election in Illinois' 14th District--Dennis Hastert's old seat.

Maria said...

Misogyny I Won't Miss By Marie Cocco

Maria said...

NARAL endorsed Joe "Short Ride" Lieberman too.

Anonymous said...

Hey! I thought we were ignoring John K. You just filled his head with more yellow snot.

Fillippelli the Cook said...

I hadn't heard Sherrod Brown mentioned. He doesn't have the name recognition, but really like him. Of the few legislators I have met, he was by far the most down-to-earth, and he seems to be a real progressive on most issues.

Richardson also seems like a logical choice.

Yes, Maria, misogyny runs rampant. Nobody is denying that. As does racism (seen the Obama '08 shirts with Curious George in place of Obama?). But it is NOT the reason HRC has lost this primary.

And you'd think that maybe, just maybe, particularly after you have repeatedly tried to dredge up the alleged Rezko "controversy," that you might be WAY disgusted with the fact that your chosen candidate has accepted $10,000 from the Tan family in the Marianas - you know, the family that runs the businesses where they force their female Chinese slave laborers into prostitution and forced abortions. There's a candidate of whom women can really be proud!!

Anonymous said...

John K. says: Yep that is Tony Rezko and his conenction to Obama. Try your best to ignore it lefties. You can't. Edwards is a loser. He is gasping, pitiful that anyone would even want his endorsement.

Maria said...

'And you'd think that maybe, just maybe, particularly after you have repeatedly tried to dredge up the alleged Rezko "controversy,"'

You want to source that?

Fillippelli the Cook said...

I can recall at least two occasions on which you brought up Rezko. If it's only those two, then I'll retract "repeatedly." I don't see a search engine and I'm sure as hell not going to comb through the archives looking for them, but I would suspect other regulars could confirm posts or comments in which you bring up Rezko as a way of suggesting Obama is crooked or has skeletons that the GOP can go after. Are you saying you have not brought up Rezko?

Anonymous said...

Bush continued: "Some seem to believe we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

I know we all heard this, but there is some truth in it. Obama is dreaming and maybe we are too.

Anonymous said...

This is something I find amazing. When a Democrat denounces something (say, Guantanamo Bay) comparing it to something the Nazis did, all hell breaks loose on the right.

But when George Bush compares a standing US Senator to Nazi appeasers, it's ok with the wing-nuts.

Amazing.

Maria said...

Fillippelli,

You made the statement that I "have repeatedly tried to dredge up the alleged Rezko "controversy."'

Now, you've modified that to where you can "recall at least two occasions on which you brought up Rezko."

In the 80 or so posts that are done on this blog by David and myself typically each month, I certainly do not recall repeatedly mentioning Rezko in either posts or comments.

I'm guessing that I mentioned Rezko 1 - 3 times TOPS. Here's one that I do recall: "He can keep revising upward how much money his campaign accepted from Tony Rezko.". (It's in the comments.)

*You* made the charge -- you back it up.

Another commenter here charged in the comments at this post that "In contrast, your own contributions have been all Obama-bashing, all the time."

So I went through every friggin' post for April and came up with the following and emailed back to them:

"For the record, for the month of April:

POSTS BY ME: (40)
Pro Hillary: 13
Anti Barack: 9
Anti McCain/Bush: 5
Other: 13


POSTS BY DAVID: (39)
Pro Barack: 10
Anti Hillary: 5
Anti McCain/Bush: 12
Other: 12

Your mileage may differ."

I'm not going through another search like that again.

You made a statement, you back it up.

Fillippelli the Cook said...

I officially retract "repeatedly" - and the entire Rezko portion for that matter - and submit a revised comment for the record:

"And you'd think that maybe, just maybe, particularly after you have WHINED AND COMPLAINED ABOUT THE MISOGYNISTIC COVERAGE OF HILLARY CLINTON (I ASSUME AS A WAY OF CLAIMING THAT IT'S BECAUSE OF THAT MISOGYNY THAT SHE IS LOSING TO OBAMA) THAT you might be WAY disgusted with the fact that your chosen candidate has accepted $10,000 from the Tan family in the Marianas - you know, the family that runs the businesses where they force their female Chinese slave laborers into prostitution and forced abortions. There's a candidate of whom women can really be proud!!"

My apologies for mischaracterizing your previous comments. Now care to explain how a feminist can support a candidate who takes money from corrupt business families that force women to be prostitutes and have abortions?