Why Is Edwards Defending Obama?

Run time: 05:10 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBXz8nKNS3k   Posted on YouTube: January 07, 2008 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: January 07, 2008 By DU Member: ihavenobias Views on DU: 1100

 
After Clinton attacks Obama, John Edwards steps up and defends Obama. But to what end?

PS--- http://bravenewfilms.org/election (I believe the guest list tomorrow will include Arianna Huffington, reps from Daily Kos and more...I'll provide more details when I know them)

why is that so hard to figure out? why must it be something for personal gain? use some imagination.

He's obviously thinking a two-candidate race will work out better for him. I don't quite get the strategery here, since I would think orphaned Clinton supporters would more naturally gravitate towards Obama.

I think the people in the video clip who break it down have it right, there *is* no downside to this strategy.

If he loses, he loses either way but this gives him a better chance to win at best and become VP at worst.

and I think he was mainly reminding voters that he too is for change, but a more radical change. He was also politically maneuvering by joining with Obama as one of the two change candidates as opposed to Clinton, the more status quo candidate.

Just a cover for Edwards piling on again. And what he had to say about Hillary was all lies.

any specific claims he made regarding Hillary at that debate that could even be considered to be "lies".

If you did I'd be curious to hear the *specifics*. And no, his broad statements about "the status quo" don't count.

Hillary isn't status quo and she wasn't defending the status quo. Please explain to me how Hillary was defending the status quo without making any broad statements.

I don't want to get into a huge, tired debate on why Hillary is (to many, myself included) the most conservative/establishment candidate.

Many, myself included, have written extensively on this.

If you disagree, you disagree. I'm not going to argue if you honestly believe that incredibly broad themes constitute explicit "lies". By that measure, they are ALL liars.

and expect to make real change in Washington?
I found these Campaign Donation figures at http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=H01
$3.9 million from Real Estate interests
$4.7 million from Securities and Investment interests
$1.6 million from Health Professional interests
$935,000 from Commercial Bank interests
(from http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=H01)

Barack Obama is not far behind Hillary in most of the Political Action Committee (PAC) contributions, and in some cases gets more than Hillary.
John Edwards has refused PAC money and only takes individual contributions. If I give him more that $200.00 it will be listed as a
Health Care interest since I work as a nurse. Edwards qualifies for Federal matching funds only because he does not take PAC money.

They aren't all dishonest. If the politician is honest there is no quid pro quo so its not difficult for an honest politician to cast a vote a contributor dislikes.

The figures on opensecrets aren't huge donations from a single interest group. They are categories based on the information donors give about where they work. So if you give money to Edwards, it will be called health care industry.

Are you sure a candidate can't get matching funds if they take PAC money?

Run time: 05:10 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBXz8nKNS3k   Posted on YouTube: January 07, 2008 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: January 08, 2008 By DU Member: ihavenobias Views on DU: 1100

 
I don't like the New England Patriots, and it annoys me that they win each of their 3 super bowls by one measly field goal each.

I think about how *easily* each game could've gone the other way. But you know what? At the end of the day no one cares that they only one by 3 tiny points each team. They just remember who won.

if the answer is yes, then why post this?

Edwards is a great trial lawyer. That means he figures out every argument 10 steps ahead.

He cannot attack Obama right now -- for several reasons.

1) Obama is in the honeymoon phase. Getting no scrutiny.

2) Obama has not laid out any positions for Edwards to dig into. Until the honeymoon ends (and it may be too late by then), there will be no positions to attack.

Edwards has calculated that this election is about change. While he cannot give Obama a go at this moment, he cannot miss this opportunity to position Hillary as representative of the status quo. That's what she is, after all. She is the DLC. She is from the group that believes you beat Republicans by acting like Republicans, only nicer and with less backbone.

Neither Obama nor Edwards can afford to let her slip out of that noose, so they have to team up to knock her off.

Edwards' calculation is that if Hillary can be wounded enough in the first two states -- i.e. Edwards coming in second in NH -- then he will have an opportunity to take a clear run at Obama in time for the Super Tuesday states. You don't have to win the first 3 states. You just have to be looking strong going into Super Tuesday.

It has nothing to do with VP. This is the only strategy he has that can work.

Hillary still leads in national polls. She got more delegates due to super-delegate pre-decision that favored her, and it wasn't even close. Sure, Obama got a bump out of Iowa but it's not like the Kerry thing. The same night he handed Dean's ass back to him, Dean's 'scream' put the nails in the coffin. The dynamics were different. Hillary is still front runner, like it or not. If that's the case, attacking the number two would at best only get him number two status. It's clear bring Hillary down, but doing it better than did Obama, is a big help for him. Hillary's angst aimed at Obama meant Obama had to be cautious, Edwards did not. What's the gist of all of this? Assertiveness. John proved he had it in that debate more than anyone else there.

"Anytime you speak out powerfully for change the forces of status quo attack...every time he (Obama) speaks out for change, every time I fight for change the forces of status quo are going to attack, every single time..."

He went on to say that now that Sen. Clinton is behind she is attacking.

I happen to like Edwards and Obama very much.