Who will (not should) be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

I think he was just noting that R congressional candidates have lost in some areas they probably shouldn't have. Not sure he's saying anything about the Presidential election.

shurg

That's fine, but it's likely the candidate that F'd it up in that case. It has little to do with any national trend.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

WTF are you talking about? I always love it when someone so clearly misreads a post that they look silly. I'm not talking about the presidential race. I thought that was obvious by the absence of any reference to the presidential race.

It's a presidential thread and you mentioned George Bush. What was I thinking?

[JPhillips]

Actually the correct answer was, "I'm sorry I misread your post."

As to it's importance, if it was alone, yes it means nothing, but it's not alone. The Republicans have lost three special elections in reliably red districts, Hastert's old seat, LA-6 and now MS-1. In all three the RCCC spent a lot of money and still couldn't hold onto them. Add to that the polling data that says 80% of Americans think we're on the wrong track, on almost every issue people say they trust Dems more, many by a wide margin, and self-identification showing Dems holding a 20 point lead. There's also the issue of twenty-five retiring Republican reps(26 if Fossella leaves) and a huge funding disparity between the RCCC and the DCCC. Call me crazy, but I don't think all of that means nothing.

[ISiddiqui]

To be fair... this is a Democratic PRESIDENTIAL nominee thread. So I can see the confusion.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Actually the correct answer was, "I'm sorry I misread your post."

As to it's importance, if it was alone, yes it means nothing, but it's not alone. The Republicans have lost three special elections in reliably red districts, Hastert's old seat, LA-6 and now MS-1. In all three the RCCC spent a lot of money and still couldn't hold onto them. Add to that the polling data that says 80% of Americans think we're on the wrong track, on almost every issue people say they trust Dems more, many by a wide margin, and self-identification showing Dems holding a 20 point lead. There's also the issue of twenty-five retiring Republican reps(26 if Fossella leaves) and a huge funding disparity between the RCCC and the DCCC. Call me crazy, but I don't think all of that means nothing.

Translated, my assumption was correct and you were implying a massive voter movement against the republican party, which is being show through results in state elections. I didn't misread your post at all. With that said, I've seen your arguments throughout this thread and your assumptions shouldn't be surprising to those who have read along. Your bias runs very deep and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

[JPhillips]

No, you suggested that I thought MS was now going to vote Dem in the presidential election when I most certainly didn't. I was talking specifically about the U.S. House. You also said:

People vote for a representative based on his merits or party, not who they cast their ballot for in the presidential election.

Which is exactly what I'm saying. And talk about bias is just another way to dismiss an argument without engaging the points. You can argue my conclusion is wrong, but there's no bias in the data. Can you actually provide data that suggests this won't be a bad year for the Republican House candidates?

Siddiqui: We've talked about a lot of things outside the Dem. candidates for President here. I don't think it's too difficult to understand that a post with no reference to a Presidential vote switch in MS, indeed isn't about a Presidential vote switch in MS.

[ISiddiqui]

Also seeing as how a lot of talking heads are trying to link this with the Presidential election, I can't fault Mizzou at all for thinking that was the link.

[JPhillips]

I'll be off banging my head against the wall.

[ISiddiqui]

That's how we feel when we talk to you, so welcome to the club .

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Translated, my assumption was correct and you were implying a massive voter movement against the republican party, which is being show through results in state elections. I didn't misread your post at all.

There is evidence all around you that there is, indeed, a voter movement against the Republican party, of which last night's result is but one piece. Hastert's seat and the Louisiana seat are two more.

You have many other examples out there. Democrats are outraising Republicans by wide margins at every level. Even when the GOP primary was wide open, Democratic turnout was substantially greater.

Given the underlying national and international factors -- a historically unpopular Republican president, a prolonged and unpopular war, and a struggling national economy -- Democrats are positioned to have a very strong electoral outcome. So strong is the position, in fact, that even the Democrat's proven ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory may not come into play here.

You can argue that McCain has some combination of skills, ability and reputation that make him a strong candidate this fall (although I wouldn't). But you have to admit that the playing field is slanted against him.

[JPhillips]

This is the statement from the head of the National Republican Congressional Committee. It's amazingly devoid of any spin.

“We are disappointed in tonight’s election results. Though the NRCC, RNC and Mississippi Republicans made a major effort to retain this seat, we came up short.

“Tonight’s election highlights two significant challenges Republicans must overcome this November. First, Republicans must be prepared to campaign against Democrat challengers who are running as conservatives, even as they try to join a liberal Democrat majority. Though the Democrats’ task will be more difficult in a November election, the fact is they have pulled off two special election victories with this strategy, and it should be a concern to all Republicans.

“Second, the political environment is such that voters remain pessimistic about the direction of the country and the Republican Party in general. Therefore, Republicans must undertake bold efforts to define a forward looking agenda that offers the kind of positive change voters are looking for. This is something we can do in cooperation with our Presidential nominee, but time is short.

“I encourage all Republican candidates, whether incumbents or challengers, to take stock of their campaigns and position themselves for challenging campaigns this fall by building the financial resources and grassroots networks that offer them the opportunity and ability to communicate, energize and turn out voters this election.”

[chesapeake]

Smart. Make it clear to their base that they are in serious trouble. The truth is always an effective weapon.

[Young Drachma]

NARAL endorsed Obama today, despite the scores of women who are pissed that they didn't endorse the SS Hillary.

[Young Drachma]

And this despite this ad in Mississippi, Childers still won:

[Young Drachma]

I fixed it. It was NARAL, too.

[Young Drachma]

NY Times says that Edwards was waiting to figure who was going to be the nominee so he could get a candidate sweet spot. Rumor has it that Elizabeth Edwards isn't a fan of Obama. Edwards wants to be AG. I think he needs to put Hillary on the Supreme Court with the first opening he gets, she probably would take that, provided someone goes away in the next few years.

[st.cronin]

I actually think Clinton would make a fine Supreme Court justice.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I actually think Clinton would make a fine Supreme Court justice.

I can't remember the last time I had to see a Supreme Court justice, so that works for me.

[lungs]

Just pure speculation on my part, but is Hillary perhaps vying for the VP spot? She's not dumb, if people in this thread knew she couldn't win quite a while ago, I'm sure she has too.

To me, her continuing to run is her way of showing Obama that he can't win without her voting bloc. It's been successful, because she keeps getting wins.

I'm not sure that a Supreme Court spot deal would mean much to many voters.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by lungs

Just pure speculation on my part, but is Hillary perhaps vying for the VP spot? She's not dumb, if people in this thread knew she couldn't win quite a while ago, I'm sure she has too.

To me, her continuing to run is her way of showing Obama that he can't win without her voting bloc. It's been successful, because she keeps getting wins.

I'm not sure that a Supreme Court spot deal would mean much to many voters.

Hillary won't be VP. There isn't any incentive for Obama to adopt the Clinton shadow for 4 years or more. He won't pick Edwards either, because no way he wants to be a losing running mate. He'd rather be AG. Her people won't defect to McCain. They won't all coalesce around Obama, no, but...enough of them will, along with the coalition that Obama has built and has energized and haven't seemed to fall off.

He'll have to go with someone who can help him on the board or at least, can give him experience and a 'fresh face'.

CNN is calling it a "surprise endorsement" which is bull, of course. And Clinton is up 28 points in Kentucky.

[wbatl1]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

And this despite this ad in Mississippi, Childers still won:

Third time the GOP (or their surrogates) has used a Wright attacked against a non-Obama Democrat, and it failed for the third time. McCain essentially begged the NC GOP to pull their Wright attack add a few weeks ago, and he can't be happy with this trend.

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

NY Times says that Edwards was waiting to figure who was going to be the nominee so he could get a candidate sweet spot. Rumor has it that Elizabeth Edwards isn't a fan of Obama. Edwards wants to be AG. I think he needs to put Hillary on the Supreme Court with the first opening he gets, she probably would take that, provided someone goes away in the next few years.

I actually spoke with Elizabeth semi-personally about this (8 people or so in the conversation), and she believes strongly in the necessity of universality in health care, and thus, is not a proponent of Obama's healthcare plan. She also feels that Clinton has some better policy proposals, but obviously John endorsed the candidate who will win.

Finally, I see it as highly unlikely that J. Edwards recieves an Attorney General's nod. I think that, given his legal history of "ambulance chasing", he would face a fight in the Senate that neither Obama nor Clinton would want to face.

[ISiddiqui]

Clinton may be angling for something a bit nicer than VP (which really is a crappy job). She may want SecState.

Reid doesn't seem like he'll give up his majority leader seat for a deal.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Clinton may be angling for something a bit nicer than VP (which really is a crappy job). She may want SecState.

Reid doesn't seem like he'll give up his majority leader seat for a deal.

Along the lines of my VP post several days ago, I have to wonder - have more Secretaries of State gone on to be President later, or incumbent Vice Presidents?

Not that too many SecStates have made that jump in the last 50 years or so, but still.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Along the lines of my VP post several days ago, I have to wonder - have more Secretaries of State gone on to be President later, or incumbent Vice Presidents?

Not that too many SecStates have made that jump in the last 50 years or so, but still.

The last Secretary of State to become president was James Buchanan (pre-Civil War).

Believe it or not, only four sitting VPs have ever been elected President and George Bush is the only one to have done so in the last 150+ years. Nixon is the only non-sitting VP to be elected President. Truman, LBJ, Teddy Roosevelt and others have been elected after succeeding a president.

Thank you wikipedia.

[Young Drachma]

I still say Hillary will get her debts paid off, play nice with the Dems and get Obama in office, wait a year or two and she'll be on the Supreme Court. It's the perfect way to solidify her legacy and she'll last way longer than President Obama will in his office.

Edwards will get a cabinet spot and won't be VP. I still say AG and that confirmation won't be hard, given the yahoos who have served in that role and managed to get confirmed in recent year.

Some Clinton surrogate will get first crack at the VP spot, to help them ensure that the Dems capture the White House, because too many people have too much to lose if they don't capture the big prize this year.

Universal health care with mandates won't happen no matter how much the hard left embraces it. Obama's plan probably won't work either, but...it's close as folks are going to get in this generation to some semblance of universal coverage.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

I still say Hillary will get her debts paid off, play nice with the Dems and get Obama in office, wait a year or two and she'll be on the Supreme Court. It's the perfect way to solidify her legacy and she'll last way longer than President Obama will in his office.

Edwards will get a cabinet spot and won't be VP. I still say AG and that confirmation won't be hard, given the yahoos who have served in that role and managed to get confirmed in recent year.

Some Clinton surrogate will get first crack at the VP spot, to help them ensure that the Dems capture the White House, because too many people have too much to lose if they don't capture the big prize this year.

Universal health care with mandates won't happen no matter how much the hard left embraces it. Obama's plan probably won't work either, but...it's close as folks are going to get in this generation to some semblance of universal coverage.

we were discussing this at dinner, and this was the likely scenario we came up with as well.

[ISiddiqui]

There is no way. NO WAY, Hillary gets confirmed for the Supreme Court. All the justices on the courts are highly respected jurists and have been on the bench for a while before going to SCOTUS. Hillary's nomination for the court will be compared to Harriet Myers.

I think Ed Rendell gets tapped for VP... it unites the party, gets Obama PA easily and helps him in neighboring Ohio, and Rendell is popular with white, working class voters. Ted Strickland of Ohio may be a better choice aside from the fact that Strickland has always been an Obama supporter and thus doesn't have the "uniting the party" behind it.

[JPhillips]

Strickland was an early Hillary supporter.

[ISiddiqui]

Ah... well then, he could be on the ticket too... but, googling it a bit, it appears he called Obama a "fluff" and that may hurt his chances.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

There is no way. NO WAY, Hillary gets confirmed for the Supreme Court. All the justices on the courts are highly respected jurists and have been on the bench for a while before going to SCOTUS. Hillary's nomination for the court will be compared to Harriet Myers.

I think Ed Rendell gets tapped for VP... it unites the party, gets Obama PA easily and helps him in neighboring Ohio, and Rendell is popular with white, working class voters. Ted Strickland of Ohio may be a better choice aside from the fact that Strickland has always been an Obama supporter and thus doesn't have the "uniting the party" behind it.

Rendell's popularity is overrated by the MSM. He's not going to be put on the ticket. Strickland is a better choice, but it won't be him either. Giving up his governorship to be VP just isn't in the cards, I don't believe. Especially under Obama.

Clinton is no Harriet Miers. And "highly respected jurists" is a bit of an overstatement, when some of the more recent picks are clearly political hacks in robes.

[ISiddiqui]

Every single justice on the SCOTUS bench has been an appeals court judge. And say whatever you will about Roberts and Alito, but both have been respected lawyers and jurists, known for their legal reasoning and analysis. Roberts, in private practice argued a number of cases before the Supreme Court before being an Appeals Court Justice. Alito had been on the 3rd Circuit for about 16 years before getting the nod for the big chair.

Clinton doesn't even have a state judge on her resume. Edwards has more experience in being a SCOTUS judge and even he'd be laughed at for the job.

Clinton will NOT get the job. Maybe she'll be able to get an Appeals Court judgeship for a few years before being considered (if she deserves it). But not right away.

[Young Drachma]

Bill Clinton lost the white vote to Bob Dole in '96. Obama is winning about consistent in most states the white vote at the same clip that other Democrats have won these votes.

The only reason everyone is making such a big deal about Obama not getting the "working class white vote" is because he's black. The fact that he can't get off message or alter his stump speech to try to create a coalition that's never been created of suburban liberals, black working class people and rural whites is because no one has found a way to do that yet. Too many things are at play to really make that work.

Obama might understand and feel for the plight of poor blacks, but he has but a passing familiarity of what rural whites deal with and so, it's probably not a stretch to say that he's got little to draw on in relation to how to communicate with them.

I take it for granted, but there is a certain art to knowing how to navigate the world of small towns in this country. But if there's a candidacy that should be able to find a way to do it, it should be this one.

I don't see them managing to pull it off, though.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Every single justice on the SCOTUS bench has been an appeals court judge. And say whatever you will about Roberts and Alito, but both have been highly respected jurists, known for their legal reasoning and analysis.

Clinton doesn't even have a state judge on her resume. Edwards has more experience in being a SCOTUS judge and even he'd be laughed at for the job.

Clinton will NOT get the job. Maybe she'll be able to get an Appeals Court judgeship for a few years before being considered (if she deserves it). But not right away.

I'm aware of their backgrounds. It's not rocket science. She's a different case. With the Dems owning Congress, they'll do what they want. It'll be the scenario everyone prefers. She gets to cement her legacy, she gets to 'serve' in a new way, to be the O'Connor of a new generation and she gets out of the hair of the Senate.

She's a wild card case. It'd not normally happen, but...she's not a normal person.

I don't disagree with why it's unlikely, I'm just saying that...HRC is anything but a "likely" figure. But again, we won't know if it's possible for a while, if ever, depending on what happens in November.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

I'm aware of their backgrounds. It's not rocket science. She's a different case. With the Dems owning Congress, they'll do what they want. It'll be the scenario everyone prefers. She gets to cement her legacy, she gets to 'serve' in a new way, to be the O'Connor of a new generation and she gets out of the hair of the Senate.

She's a wild card case. It'd not normally happen, but...she's not a normal person.

I don't disagree with why it's unlikely, I'm just saying that...HRC is anything but a "likely" figure. But again, we won't know if it's possible for a while, if ever, depending on what happens in November.

They won't do "what they want". Remember the Dems had solid majorities when President Clinton submitted his health care plan and that died horribly. The American people will see her name submitted and think of it as over the top political. At least Roberts and Alito had the credentials. This would just be seen as blatent politics.

The Republicans, for one, would have a field day with this and the Obama Presidency would be slammed by the public and the media.

Won't happen.

[JPhillips]

I agree with Siddiqui with the caveat that if there's a second opening on the court it would be possible. Myers would be on the court instead of Alito if it weren't for defections from the Republicans. Personally, I think she would be pretty good on the court. Her knowledge of legislation and the law really impressed me when I saw her last year.

[Swaggs]

I think (and hope) that Obama would think long and hard before agreeing to pay off any of Hillary's debt. Obama has thrived on receiving small donations and a "grass roots" mentality with his supporters. If he agrees to use ~$12M of those supporters' money to pay off the ill-advised (she could have closed shop and been even six weeks ago) debt of someone that reported earning $100M over the past few years AND loaned herself most of that $12M, people are going to think twice about donating to him again and he will continue playing into the elitist charicature that he has been labeled with.

I am a pretty partisian Democractic voter and I just voted for Obama in the NC primary a little more than a week ago, but his glossing over (my home state of) WV during the primary, rather than putting his feet on the ground, shaking some hands, and getting to know some people throughout the week has turned both me and my wife off of him a bit. Paying off Hillary's debt, on top of that, would probably make me reconsider whether I would want to vote for him in the presidential election.

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

The only reason everyone is making such a big deal about Obama not getting the "working class white vote" is because he's black. The fact that he can't get off message or alter his stump speech to try to create a coalition that's never been created of suburban liberals, black working class people and rural whites is because no one has found a way to do that yet. Too many things are at play to really make that work.

Obama might understand and feel for the plight of poor blacks, but he has but a passing familiarity of what rural whites deal with and so, it's probably not a stretch to say that he's got little to draw on in relation to how to communicate with them.

I take it for granted, but there is a certain art to knowing how to navigate the world of small towns in this country. But if there's a candidacy that should be able to find a way to do it, it should be this one.

I don't see them managing to pull it off, though.

There is no appreciable difference between the plight of poor blacks and whites. Its the closest thing to a caste system that exists in America today. If Obama understands and feels for the plight of poor blacks, then he can do the same for rural whites because the differences are imaginary.

However, the underlying problem is that an underachier's mentality will almost always shift the blame for lack of personal success on someone else, i.e.-"the man or those damn black people." Obama will not be able to break this defeatist attitude of poor Americans. Hell, the only reason he got such a large proportion of the black vote against Clinton was Clinton's decision to campaign on the basis of winning the hispanic and women's vote.

I think anything less than a reconcilation between the two candidates and Hillary running as VP will spell doom for Obama.

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

I think (and hope) that Obama would think long and hard before agreeing to pay off any of Hillary's debt. Obama has thrived on receiving small donations and a "grass roots" mentality with his supporters. If he agrees to use ~$12M of those supporters' money to pay off the ill-advised (she could have closed shop and been even six weeks ago) debt of someone that reported earning $100M over the past few years AND loaned herself most of that $12M, people are going to think twice about donating to him again and he will continue playing into the elitist charicature that he has been labeled with.

I am a pretty partisian Democractic voter and I just voted for Obama in the NC primary a little more than a week ago, but his glossing over (my home state of) WV during the primary, rather than putting his feet on the ground, shaking some hands, and getting to know some people throughout the week has turned both me and my wife off of him a bit. Paying off Hillary's debt, on top of that, would probably make me reconsider whether I would want to vote for him in the presidential election.

I agree that it would turn me off a bit. Hell, when I give to my candidate and he/she loses, I don't get my money back.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

I'm not arguing it wouldn't be a tough confirmation (and personally the thought on Hilary as SCJ is... frightening), but how much judicial experience did Warren have? He ended up being perhaps the most influential SCJ of the 20th century.

Warren was a looong time ago, back when you didn't have justice subject to ABA rankings and scrutiny over their legal backgrounds. Things have changed greatly since then.

[JPhillips]

My understanding is that he's forbidden by law to pay off Hillary's debts from his campaign funds. His campaign can only donate the same 2300$ that any individual can donate to a campaign. What he can do is go to his big donors and ask them to donate to Hillary.

I don't know if Hillary can spend her general election funds to pay off her primary election debts. If she can, she has more than enough general elction funds to eventually pay off her debts.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Myers would be on the court instead of Alito if it weren't for defections from the Republicans.

Myers is what I was looking at. Bush thought he could get her on the court, but as soon as she was put forward, the public, the media, and his own party went ballistic. The ABA ranked her poorly and it was dead in the water.

Originally Posted by Swaggs

I think (and hope) that Obama would think long and hard before agreeing to pay off any of Hillary's debt. Obama has thrived on receiving small donations and a "grass roots" mentality with his supporters. If he agrees to use ~$12M of those supporters' money to pay off the ill-advised (she could have closed shop and been even six weeks ago) debt of someone that reported earning $100M over the past few years AND loaned herself most of that $12M, people are going to think twice about donating to him again and he will continue playing into the elitist charicature that he has been labeled with.

I am a pretty partisian Democractic voter and I just voted for Obama in the NC primary a little more than a week ago, but his glossing over (my home state of) WV during the primary, rather than putting his feet on the ground, shaking some hands, and getting to know some people throughout the week has turned both me and my wife off of him a bit. Paying off Hillary's debt, on top of that, would probably make me reconsider whether I would want to vote for him in the presidential election.

I think people aren't aware of what paying off Hillary's debt means. Obama can't give his supporters money to Hillary (under the law). What would happen is that Obama would run joint fundraisers and have a common fund with Hillary (already began, IIRC) to "elect a Democratic President", and part of that would go to Hillary's debt pay off.

[ISiddiqui]

It doesn't matter... its just the way things are now. We demand more credentials to be a SCOTUS judge. The view that the Warren Court legislated from the bench has changed the requirements.

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

My understanding is that he's forbidden by law to pay off Hillary's debts from his campaign funds. His campaign can only donate the same 2300$ that any individual can donate to a campaign. What he can do is go to his big donors and ask them to donate to Hillary.

I don't know if Hillary can spend her general election funds to pay off her primary election debts. If she can, she has more than enough general elction funds to eventually pay off her debts.

I believe that you can transfer unspent funds -- or debts -- forward to the next election, meaning that she will be able to pay off the debt with general election funds after the convention.

You are right about what Obama could and couldn't do. He can't pay off or accept her debts. But he could pass the hat around on her behalf.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Serious question - were requirements changed, or did the "general consensus of what a SCJ should be" change? There's a big difference between the two.

I also have a feeling that, "view that the Warren Court legislated from the bench" or not, most people would be highly supportive of the actions of that court today.

There are no requirements, save getting appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

And while people may be supportive of the actions of the Warren Court (some of them), the idea that it could basically be turned into another legislative branch made people want serious jurists instead of politicians in the role.

[JPhillips]

siddiqui: But the ABA rating had nothing to do with Myers withdrawal. She pulled her name only after enough conservatives flipped out over her qualifications and political stands. If the Republicans had excepted her nomination she'd be on the court. If Dems would stay behind Clinton, she'd make it. I don't think it's likely she'll be nominated, especially as all the talk now will certainly make a nomination look like a payoff, but if she were nominated she'd probably be confirmed. Of course I'd love to see the hypocrisy of a Republican filibuster over a Clinton nomination.

[st.cronin]

I think if nominated, she'd be confirmed. The Republicans would bitch and moan a little bit, but they'd secretly be ok with it, since it would mostly shut her up.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

siddiqui: But the ABA rating had nothing to do with Myers withdrawal. She pulled her name only after enough conservatives flipped out over her qualifications and political stands. If the Republicans had excepted her nomination she'd be on the court. If Dems would stay behind Clinton, she'd make it. I don't think it's likely she'll be nominated, especially as all the talk now will certainly make a nomination look like a payoff, but if she were nominated she'd probably be confirmed. Of course I'd love to see the hypocrisy of a Republican filibuster over a Clinton nomination.

The ABA rating contributed to public opinion being in the toilet about the nomination. If the public was ok with it, the conservatives probably would have gone lock step behind it. But Myers was a disaster from the beginning. When the ABA calls you unqualified, its not easy to convince the American people that this should be a SCOTUS nominee.

Now, Obama could try to force it, but it'd drag his approval ratings into the toilet as the public would really be upset over it. Even before the payoff talk. Just from the qualifications point of view. I don't think Obama risks dragging his approval down for it, and it'd give the Republicans something to hammer Obama on.


On a side, tangential note, what a coward John Edwards is. Obviously he was waiting until the bitter end to see which candidate would get the nomination, so he could then throw his support behind them and possibly fanagle his way into an AG role. He would have backed Hillary if she was the one with no chance to lose now.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

On a side, tangential note, what a coward John Edwards is. Obviously he was waiting until the bitter end to see which candidate would get the nomination, so he could then throw his support behind them and possibly fanagle his way into an AG role. He would have backed Hillary if she was the one with no chance to lose now.

You say coward. I say smart politician. He doesn't owe anybody anything. He shopped for the best deal and will get it if Obama wins.

[ISiddiqui]

Frankly, it smacks of cowardace to me. No principles on who he'd rather support, but wanted to play up a position in the administration.

The joke, of course, is on him. The Edwards support this late in the primary doesn't mean anything really. So Obama doesn't have to be beholden to put him as AG or something else.

[wbatl1]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Frankly, it smacks of cowardace to me. No principles on who he'd rather support, but wanted to play up a position in the administration.

The joke, of course, is on him. The Edwards support this late in the primary doesn't mean anything really. So Obama doesn't have to be beholden to put him as AG or something else.

Well, from the Edwards camp, they said they were trying to convince both candidates to support more poverty-reduction efforts as well as Elizabeth's attempt to convince Obama to adopt universality in health care. They met with both candidates, and I truly believe that they were trying to affect the candidates position. Thus, John couldn't (and didn't want to) endorse one candidate because he believed he could positively affect the platform of whichever candidate was selected.

Perhaps that was high-minded of him, or perhaps he took that approach so he is set up to receive a nice position, but I think it is important to recognize there was a (possibly meaningless) motive behind his wait.