by ModernDay Publius
Member since:
July 28, 2007

On John Edwards's endorsment and "anger"

November 13, 2007 11:39 AM EST
views: 54 | rating: 10/10 (6 votes) | comments: 18

According to the New York Times,

"So how is John Edwards feeling about Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York these days? So bad, apparently, that in an interview last week he twice refused to say whether he would endorse her should she win the Democratic presidential nomination."

In the same Article the New York Times mentions that Barack Obama gave a more predictable answer, "“I am a Democrat, and I would support the Democratic nominee,” he said. With a smile, he added, “I intend it to be me.”

While John Edwards is acting in a rather strange way to the idea that he might not be the nominee.  Sen. Chris Dodd did not miss the chance to come out and hammer John Edwards. According to MSNBC'S First Read Sen. Chris Dodd had this to say, “I am surprised at just how angry John has become. This is not the same John Edwards I once knew. Of course, we should all come together to support the nominee. I wonder which of the Republicans John prefers to Hillary?”

 It appears that the Democrats have really started to turn on each other now and it should be an intresting free for all.

 

 

link to this page
Bookmark this post:
Facebook
Twitter
Delicious
Buzz
More

Comments: 18

Dan R. Nov 13, 2007, 11:43am EST
Does this suprise you any? They are always attacking everything, including themselves, just like the Republicans do.
Marilyn M. Nov 13, 2007, 11:49am EST
Interesting, indeed. I guess we can secretly hope that the nomination is Hillary, since some of the political columnists I've read (conservatives) think that people will SAY they'll vote for her, but once they're hidden at the voting booth, it might be another story. :)
Sue B.© The Sting IS Worse Than the Buzz Nov 13, 2007, 11:49am EST
I often think to myself that if all the conservatives suddenly disappeared from this site and they were left amongst themselves, the liberals would start feeding upon one another like carcasses in a famine.
Sue B.© The Sting IS Worse Than the Buzz Nov 13, 2007, 11:54am EST
I also find it interesting on how vocal Chris Dodd is getting all of a sudden, taking full advantage of the dissension within. That's so Dodderish!
ModernDay Publius Nov 13, 2007, 11:59am EST
Sue I think you coined a new term that I might borrow, "Dodderish"
Sue B.© The Sting IS Worse Than the Buzz Nov 13, 2007, 12:01pm EST
I already coined "Dodderism" and left it on one of his articles, dying to see it in print somewhere so I can sue him.
ModernDay Publius Nov 13, 2007, 12:08pm EST
that is great Sue, you made me laugh for the first time today, Thanks
Col. George W. Nov 13, 2007, 12:16pm EST
Dodd is wrong. It is the real John Edwards showing through.
Sue B.© The Sting IS Worse Than the Buzz Nov 13, 2007, 12:27pm EST
I'm glad I could be of assistance, MDP. Now that's for sure, Colonel!
C A. Nov 13, 2007, 12:28pm EST
Heh..heh...heh...
Kay M. Nov 13, 2007, 12:49pm EST
It has been obvious for quite some time that Edwards is the one that conservatives are most afraid of.
Sue B.© The Sting IS Worse Than the Buzz Nov 13, 2007, 12:59pm EST
Well that's a very interesting observation. Perhaps you might expound a bit as a I sit here shuddering?
Christopher B. Nov 13, 2007, 1:51pm EST
Well of course, in a strange and perverse way, conservatives love Hillary. No, seriously, she makes more money for conservatives than any other democratic potential candidate. Consider how much money they raised several years ago in what was in effect a laughable campaign to stop Hillary from the U.S. Senate. Everyone can easily argue, "We must stop Hillary – give me money." They can't really make the same argument with Edwards. "Oh my God, Edwards might become president, I must give you money" just doesn't have that sense of urgency as fear of Hillary has among the conservative faithful. She's a real money maker for them and they know it.
Funny take!
Ron (in complete sheeple overload) W. Nov 13, 2007, 4:14pm EST
Hillary stands for everything Edwards is against. She is Bush lite, and has sold her soul to lobbyists and corporate interests, not the least of which is the contributions of blocks of people from the military industrial complex. I know there's no one that gives a damn here, but he is justified to be angry seeing the Democrats go for that politics as usual political hack. Still, if she gets the nod, I will have to vote for her, or start a new party, as she is still better for our country than any candidate the republicans have put up to date.
Ron, have you ever thought of verbalizing your writing, tape recording it, and playing it back to yourself? You should try it.
Carol LeHane Nov 13, 2007, 6:27pm EST
Could Edwards be taking this position to cater to the far left who for the most part dislike Hillary almost as much as the far-right does.

Ron,

Consider this following: If Hillary is our candidate and you do not vote for her, you will be doing what the Republican party wants you to do.

I suspect that even more than energizing the far-right vote, the Republican are hoping that Democrats who are farther to the left of center will stay home on election day or reduce the votes for Hillary by voting for a candidate who doesn't have a chance of winning. It was just such a abandoning of the Democratic candidate that helped elect Nixon in 1968, and probably helped elect Bush by voting for Nader in 2000 instead of Gore.
Phileas Fogg Nov 14, 2007, 2:11pm EST
Hillary will definitely split the Lib vote. There are arguably 2 Lib parties already. The far left, which wants to abolish the market system, and replace our Government with a "Hugo Chavez like"socialist state, and the "Moderate" Libs who want government control of markets so that they will feed a Giant Government Bureaucracy.

Hillary is the Socialist model, but will use any means necessary, even using the lobbyists and corporate interests to capture power. If she gets in, look for her to try to change the constitution, just as Chavez is doing in Venezuela.

Edwards is the Giant Government Bureaucracy model, he would use the courts and activist judges to reinterpret the Constitution to say "Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness" actually means "Government Welfare" for all.

These two Democrats represent the two Liberal parties perfectly, they are as different as Dems and Reps.

Join the Conversation
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Already a member? Sign in
top
 
Gather | Friends | Groups | Share
About Gather | Engagement Marketing | Make New Friends | Gather Points | Advertise on Gather | Gather Press | Privacy | Terms of Service | Community Guidelines
Books | Celebs | Entertainment | Family | Food | Health | Moms | Money | News | Politics | Spirituality | Sports | Travel | Writing
Version 16836, "Oz"; Copyright © 2009 Gather Inc. All rights reserved.