Thru Digby, rumors of vote trading between Edwards and Clinton

to damage Obama.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/01/horse-race-trading-by-digby-jane.html

This may explain the strange collusion between some Clinton and Edwards people these last few days.

Edit: corrected for the to some. The generalization is definitively not warranted on either side. Sorry.

week or so.

A Clinton win seals his fate more than an Obama one.

If this scenario went through, she would be "satisfied" with a third place finish. :rofl:

an Edwards win means she gets to live another day. If Obama wins, she's in deep kimchee.

Apparently, she thinks Edwards is less dangerous than Obama for her, but I am not sure what he has to gain.

which obviously makes sense.

It doesn't say anything about Edwards agreeing to it. As you point out, it wouldn't make sense for him to pull a deal like this.

Sounds good, don't it?

Or, if you want to flip things around, how 'bout Vice President Hillary Clinton?

*collusion*? Is this the *message* being pushed today? I've seen at least 3 of these sorts of posts.

And here I was thinking that the Clintonistas were the only ones capable of such sleaze. :puke:

few days. You're right. I thought only the Clintonstas were capable of such sleaze :puke:, but, apparently, it is not that limited.

She's offering a third-place finish in Iowa order to try to prevent Obama from winning. What a bozo.

triangulating surrogates on this thread.

LOL!

I STILL loathe Clinton as a candidate.

has practically "willed" Obama onto the country. After the way the
Media has treated Clinton and Edwards--It is recorded Media gave HRC
Negative Coverage and have pretended Edwards is not in the race--
I would not blame for doing anything.

There are Edwards people on this board who have decided that if
HRC fall, they go with HRC. Rather disillusioned with Obama.
These people have no contact with the Campaigns.

that is some manipulative shit.

The caucuses are set up so that nonviable candidates (defined as those getting fewer than 15% in a given precinct) release their supporters. They either suggest second choices or they don't. All the 1st-tier candidates try to work deals with these 2nd-tier candidates. Obama, Clinton, and Edwards have all done it. The very structure of the caucus system demands it.

But for two 1st-tier candidates to collude to push down a third 1st-tier candidate: that is called dirty politicking. It seems Clinton is resigned to a third-place finish. Of course she would want Edwards to win over Obama: he is little threat to her for whether he comes in first in Iowa or second. An Obama win would mean this is really a two-person race.

It will be interesting to see if this transpires. I was willing to accept whatever results come out of tonight, whatever they might be. But now, if this happens, I will throw up my hands completely. That isn't democracy: it's insider trading.

Hate the Democratic party for attaching so much importance to a caucus in a small , homogeneous state that is so easy to game...

First, this would be difficult to do. Kucinich made a suggestion to his supporters. He did not "trade votes."


Why would Clinton want to help Edwards? Hillary has enough problems with the fact that she planted questions. She can't afford to plant votes too. There is absolutely no reason for her to make a deal with Edwards. And her "helping" Edwards in Iowa would not prevent Obama from winning. As for Edwards, he made a deal with Kucinich in 2004 and has said he didn't get anything out of it.

I have no doubt that Edwards would welcome voters who have previously supported Hillary. I have no doubt that if Hillary called Edwards and said she was going to advise her voters to vote for him, he would be delighted. That's the small element of truth in this. But Edwards is not in a position to make a "deal" or offer quid pro quo. It's not going to happen.

So what is behind this rumor? Edwards is full of energy. Hillary is extremely tired. Edwards is gaining momentum. Hillary is losing it.

If Hillary does not do well, her supporters will be able to delude themselves into thinking that maybe she didn't do well on purpose. Maybe she "traded" some of her support to Edwards for some unknown reward. So spreading this rmor it is just part of a strategy on the part of Hillary voters to cope with what they now anticipate may be a big disappointment.

This is not believable.

It makes sense to me from her viewpoint. I differ with you that Edwards wouldn't take a deal that benefited him. He most certainly would. They all would.

at these debates. I guess their best of buds

It would make Clinton look less credible, and in a panic. It would also make clear that she is worried about Obama.

And I don't buy that many Edwards supporters would somehow detract and vote for Hillary.
Most of my friends that are Edwards supporters, I think Clinton is the last place most of them would turn.

I'm for it. Makes Obama look like a big favorite, and it could help Edwards, while making Clinton seem much less viable. I'm all for it. Win-win.

Don't you just love them?

Sometimes I think these are started to get people to think what a jerk one candidate is for doing this, in hopes people will change their minds about the one shifting support to stop another candidate.

Oh well, I expect to see a lot more of this! :shrug:

If Edwards slows Obama's momentum in Iowa, Hillary has a good chance of winning in NH.
Hillary can argue that Bill came back for an Iowa loss. She can too.

If this rumor is true, Edwards wins by beating Obama, Hillary is the ultimate winner in this game