It's official now--http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/14/edwards.obama/index.html.
Not that I am surprised, but Edwards should definitelyy help Obama with the white, working class vote. I think his endorsement simply reflects the fact that the race is over.
NARAL and another OK superdelegate endorsed Obama today as well.
"Edwards' wife, Elizabeth, who has said she thinks Clinton has the superior health care plan, did not travel with him to Michigan and is not part of the endorsement."
I always liked her better anyway.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
I think his endorsement simply reflects the fact that the race is over.
Not just that. I think Edwards has cut his deal. I think Edwards and Obama will be holding hands at the convention. And I don't mean gazing longingly in each other's eyes.
Hmm--interesting. So what do you think, RM, if your #1 and your #3 choice were on the same ticket, would that win out over your #2 choice?
I would still like to see a woman on the ticket, but Edwards would be fine as well.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
I think his endorsement simply reflects the fact that the race is over.
Not just that. I think Edwards has cut his deal. I think Edwards and Obama will be holding hands at the convention. And I don't mean gazing longingly in each other's eyes.
Bingo. If you get a chance to look at the footage of the two onstage in Grand Rapids, it's unmistakable, IMO.
Of course, anything can happen, but man, they sure do look chummy up there.
^^The same thing was said after Richardson's endorsement. He can't make them all vice president.
wow, these two weenies will cook up real good on the McCain straight talk BBQ grill. I have to commend them, I don't think there has ever been a ticket with less military experience.
with these two i guess our new military policy will be bend over and take it in the donkey.
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
wow, these two weenies will cook up real good on the McCain straight talk BBQ grill. I have to commend them, I don't think there has ever been a ticket with less military experience.
with these two i guess our new military policy will be bend over and take it in the donkey.
+2 for the "Straight Talk BBQ grill." I mean, it's moronic but awesome at the same time.
Oh, btw, 2003 called. It wants its outdated Republican rhetoric back.
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
wow, these two weenies will cook up real good on the McCain straight talk BBQ grill. I have to commend them, I don't think there has ever been a ticket with less military experience.
with these two i guess our new military policy will be bend over and take it in the donkey.
+2 for the "Straight Talk BBQ grill." I mean, it's moronic but awesome at the same time.
Oh, btw, 2003 called. It wants its outdated Republican rhetoric back.
someone else called and wants their "called" jokes back.
Attorney General. There's an amazing amount of credibility that needs to be re established to DOJ. Edwards fits. Clean it up. Right it. Then scare the hell outa the trial lawyers ala Bobby Kennedy and the mob.[:o)]
Hillary Vows to Fight on for Edwards' Endorsement
Unfazed By Endorsement of Obama
by Andy Borowitz
Just moments after former presidential candidate John Edwards endorsed Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill) for president, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) vowed to "continue the fight" for Edwards' endorsement.
"My friends, I will fight for the endorsement of John Edwards, even if it takes all summer," she told supporters in Louisville, Kentucky. "I have not begun to fight for this endorsement!"
The New York senator appeared to brush off Mr. Edwards' endorsement of Sen. Obama, saying, "I don't know what that has to do with anything."
While Sen. Clinton acknowledged that Sen. Edwards had made a joint appearance with Sen. Obama in which he endorsed the Illinois senator, she said, "If you think that's going to make me give up trying to get John Edwards' endorsement, you've got another thing coming."
She said that she was also "unconcerned" that Sen. Edwards had recently gotten a new phone number and not shared it with her.
"Anyone who believes that I'm going to be deterred by an obstacle like that doesn't know what I'm made of," she said. "Mark my words, I am going to get that endorsement."
Sen. Clinton's aides refused to comment on her quest for Edwards' endorsement, saying that they were too busy hiding copies of this week's Time magazine from her.
Elsewhere, Andy appears Thursday morning on MSNBC!
Andy reports "Next Week's News" Thursday morning on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" at 8:45 Eastern time. Also, don't miss the first ever Borowitz Report web video. Copy and paste the following URL into your browser:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-borowitz/first-borowitz-report-vid_b_101687.html[:D]
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
^^The same thing was said after Richardson's endorsement. He can't make them all vice president.
No, but I bet Richardson winds up with Secretary of State, or DOE. He's of the same mind as Obama about sitting down and talking to the Holocaust deniers.
Richardson is actually someone I could have considered voting for if he'd been the nominee. If he's got a promised job before the election, Obama gets the young vote, the black vote, the limousine liberal vote, hispanic vote, and Edwards will help pick up some of the white female vote.
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
wow, these two weenies will cook up real good on the McCain straight talk BBQ grill. I have to commend them, I don't think there has ever been a ticket with less military experience.
with these two i guess our new military policy will be bend over and take it in the donkey.
You mean like we took it in the donkey when Roosevelt lead us through WWII?
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
^^The same thing was said after Richardson's endorsement. He can't make them all vice president.
No, but I bet Richardson winds up with Secretary of State, or DOE. He's of the same mind as Obama about sitting down and talking to the Holocaust deniers.
Richardson is actually someone I could have considered voting for if he'd been the nominee. If he's got a promised job before the election, Obama gets the young vote, the black vote, the limousine liberal vote, hispanic vote, and Edwards will help pick up some of the white female vote.
Richardson has no pull with the Latin community. The Latin vote has gone for Clinton. Many Latins are new to the process and have no deep party loyalties, so their support of Clinton will not easily transfer to Obama. According to my Latin friends, they will not vote for Obama. For those that don't know, there isn't a great deal of love between the Black and Latin communities.
I point out that Obama supported drivers licenses for immigrants, but that does not sway them.
So, Obama really has trouble garnering the White working class and the Latin votes. Clinton has also captured something like 75% of the Catholic vote. One in four Americans are Catholics.
HT, you might have a point, though keep in mind Richardson governs a state with a high Hispanic population which borders two other states with high Hispanic populations. Of course the same can be said for McCain being Senator in such a state.
McCain has been a noted friend to the Hispanic community. Maybe Obama is exactly what the GOP needs to gain an advantage with their vote.
Maybe if Richardson's last name were Gomez...
Personally, I don't see near as much voting strategery in Edwards being on an Obama ticket. Hillary would the be wisest choice, but I don't think she's interested a bit. Otherwise she might have dropped out after Super Tuesday. Most wealthy Dems will vote for Obama regardless of the running mate.
As far as FOTD's idea of Edwards as AG and scaring the **** out of the trial lawyers...keep smoking that weed boy. [:o)]
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
^^The same thing was said after Richardson's endorsement. He can't make them all vice president.
No, but I bet Richardson winds up with Secretary of State, or DOE. He's of the same mind as Obama about sitting down and talking to the Holocaust deniers.
Richardson is actually someone I could have considered voting for if he'd been the nominee. If he's got a promised job before the election, Obama gets the young vote, the black vote, the limousine liberal vote, hispanic vote, and Edwards will help pick up some of the white female vote.
Richardson has no pull with the Latin community. The Latin vote has gone for Clinton. Many Latins are new to the process and have no deep party loyalties, so their support of Clinton will not easily transfer to Obama. According to my Latin friends, they will not vote for Obama. For those that don't know, there isn't a great deal of love between the Black and Latin communities.
I point out that Obama supported drivers licenses for immigrants, but that does not sway them.
So, Obama really has trouble garnering the White working class and the Latin votes. Clinton has also captured something like 75% of the Catholic vote. One in four Americans are Catholics.
HT, that is just wrong. She won the biggest percentage of Catholics in Pennsylvannia, and exit polls (to the extent they are reliant) had her capture around 69%. Nationwide, Gallup has her capturing about 56% (//%22http://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2008b/041808/041808h.htm%22). In states that Obama won, like Louisiana and Virginia, he also won the Catholic vote.
Bottom line, as much as pundits & news folks like to slice and dice us, and act as though we all vote in lock step according to our race, religion, education, socio-economic background, the fact is we are all individuals. White, working class in Iowa is not the same as in Pennsylvannia. Catholics in New York are not the same as in Louisiana.
So how do you pigeon hole the Catholic, Hispanic, college educated female who loves in a suburb of Oregon? It really can get quite silly.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
HT, you might have a point, though keep in mind Richardson governs a state with a high Hispanic population which borders two other states with high Hispanic populations. Of course the same can be said for McCain being Senator in such a state.
McCain has been a noted friend to the Hispanic community. Maybe Obama is exactly what the GOP needs to gain an advantage with their vote.
Maybe if Richardson's last name were Gomez...
Personally, I don't see near as much voting strategery in Edwards being on an Obama ticket. Hillary would the be wisest choice, but I don't think she's interested a bit. Otherwise she might have dropped out after Super Tuesday. Most wealthy Dems will vote for Obama regardless of the running mate.
As far as FOTD's idea of Edwards as AG and scaring the **** out of the trial lawyers...keep smoking that weed boy. [:o)]
I thing I would have more fear of "the poodle" becoming AG or VP than Obama becoming president.
Edwards would end all hope for tort reform. He's a lawyers lawyer!
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
^^The same thing was said after Richardson's endorsement. He can't make them all vice president.
No, but I bet Richardson winds up with Secretary of State, or DOE. He's of the same mind as Obama about sitting down and talking to the Holocaust deniers.
Richardson is actually someone I could have considered voting for if he'd been the nominee. If he's got a promised job before the election, Obama gets the young vote, the black vote, the limousine liberal vote, hispanic vote, and Edwards will help pick up some of the white female vote.
Richardson has no pull with the Latin community. The Latin vote has gone for Clinton. Many Latins are new to the process and have no deep party loyalties, so their support of Clinton will not easily transfer to Obama. According to my Latin friends, they will not vote for Obama. For those that don't know, there isn't a great deal of love between the Black and Latin communities.
I point out that Obama supported drivers licenses for immigrants, but that does not sway them.
So, Obama really has trouble garnering the White working class and the Latin votes. Clinton has also captured something like 75% of the Catholic vote. One in four Americans are Catholics.
HT, that is just wrong. She won the biggest percentage of Catholics in Pennsylvannia, and exit polls (to the extent they are reliant) had her capture around 69%. Nationwide, Gallup has her capturing about 56% (//%22http://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2008b/041808/041808h.htm%22). In states that Obama won, like Louisiana and Virginia, he also won the Catholic vote.
Bottom line, as much as pundits & news folks like to slice and dice us, and act as though we all vote in lock step according to our race, religion, education, socio-economic background, the fact is we are all individuals. White, working class in Iowa is not the same as in Pennsylvannia. Catholics in New York are not the same as in Louisiana.
So how do you pigeon hole the Catholic, Hispanic, college educated female who loves in a suburb of Oregon? It really can get quite silly.
Pmcalk I'm sorry but you are way off base.
We all land somewhere in the gamut of demographics. Whole industries are based on it. Tell the insurance industry that demographics and actuarial schedules don't matter. Tell people that market that we are all "individuals." There is no judgment involved. Indeed, "hard determination" proponents argue against the existence of any individuals.
You also need to talk with Talking Head Gloria Borgia about the Catholic vote. She brings it up over and over again. Here's what Conant and Wolffe said in Newsweek:
"Obama beat Hillary Clinton among Catholics in Louisiana and Virginia and tied her in Wisconsin. But in more recent primaries, Catholics have decisively turned away from him. In Ohio, exit polls showed that 65 percent backed Clinton. In Pennsylvania, Clinton won 70 percent of the Catholic vote.
"What's going on here? "The short answer is, I don't know," says [former Rep. Tim] Roemer, who has spent hours quizzing Catholics at rallies and town-hall meetings. One possibility: Obama's ties to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. Roemer says that, like other voters, the Catholics he meets mostly want to talk about what the candidate will do about the economy, gas prices and the mess in Iraq."
Pretending that Obama does not face these obstacles isn't going to help anyone. Especially Mr. Obama.
Let's roll up our sleaves and see if we can help Obama capture these essential votes.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Pmcalk I'm sorry but you are way off base.
We all land somewhere in the gamut of demographics. Whole industries are based on it. Tell the insurance industry that demographics and actuarial schedules don't matter. Tell people that market that we are all "individuals." There is no judgment involved. Indeed, "hard determination" proponents argue against the existence of any individuals.
You also need to talk with Talking Head Gloria Borgia about the Catholic vote. She brings it up over and over again. Here's what Conant and Wolffe said in Newsweek:
"Obama beat Hillary Clinton among Catholics in Louisiana and Virginia and tied her in Wisconsin. But in more recent primaries, Catholics have decisively turned away from him. In Ohio, exit polls showed that 65 percent backed Clinton. In Pennsylvania, Clinton won 70 percent of the Catholic vote.
"What's going on here? "The short answer is, I don't know," says [former Rep. Tim] Roemer, who has spent hours quizzing Catholics at rallies and town-hall meetings. One possibility: Obama's ties to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. Roemer says that, like other voters, the Catholics he meets mostly want to talk about what the candidate will do about the economy, gas prices and the mess in Iraq."
Pretending that Obama does not face these obstacles isn't going to help anyone. Especially Mr. Obama.
Let's roll up our sleaves and see if we can help Obama capture these essential votes.
My point was to correct your assertion that Clinton is getting 75% of the Catholic vote. By your own admission, that is not true.
My other point is simply we cannot pigeon hole people into categories, and expect to win them over. What a Catholic voter in Louisiana will look for in a candidate may not be the same as an Ohio one. And Catholic college students (Obama won South Bend) are another group altogether. And Hispanic Catholics are different than Irish Catholics. By the way, I am Catholic. About the only thing that we mostly agree upon is that it is acceptable to show up late for Mass, as long as you get there before the Eucharist.
Trying to win over demographics leads to pandering to groups, and doen't always make sense. You cannot say that more Catholics are voting for Hillary simply because they are Catholic. It may be simply because they live in Ohio (or another state), just as the Catholics in Louisiana voted for Obama. To really succeed, Democrats need to worry less about winning over this group or that, and focus on winning over America. I really believe Obama when he says that there is more that unites us than divides us.
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
wow, these two weenies will cook up real good on the McCain straight talk BBQ grill. I have to commend them, I don't think there has ever been a ticket with less military experience.
*cough* Bush/Cheney *cough*
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
As far as FOTD's idea of Edwards as AG and scaring the **** out of the trial lawyers...keep smoking that weed boy. [:o)]
I don't know whether FOTD is smoking a weed boy or not. But if he is, that's his business. [:o)]
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Pmcalk I'm sorry but you are way off base.
We all land somewhere in the gamut of demographics. Whole industries are based on it. Tell the insurance industry that demographics and actuarial schedules don't matter. Tell people that market that we are all "individuals." There is no judgment involved. Indeed, "hard determination" proponents argue against the existence of any individuals.
You also need to talk with Talking Head Gloria Borgia about the Catholic vote. She brings it up over and over again. Here's what Conant and Wolffe said in Newsweek:
"Obama beat Hillary Clinton among Catholics in Louisiana and Virginia and tied her in Wisconsin. But in more recent primaries, Catholics have decisively turned away from him. In Ohio, exit polls showed that 65 percent backed Clinton. In Pennsylvania, Clinton won 70 percent of the Catholic vote.
"What's going on here? "The short answer is, I don't know," says [former Rep. Tim] Roemer, who has spent hours quizzing Catholics at rallies and town-hall meetings. One possibility: Obama's ties to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. Roemer says that, like other voters, the Catholics he meets mostly want to talk about what the candidate will do about the economy, gas prices and the mess in Iraq."
Pretending that Obama does not face these obstacles isn't going to help anyone. Especially Mr. Obama.
Let's roll up our sleaves and see if we can help Obama capture these essential votes.
My point was to correct your assertion that Clinton is getting 75% of the Catholic vote. By your own admission, that is not true.
My other point is simply we cannot pigeon hole people into categories, and expect to win them over. What a Catholic voter in Louisiana will look for in a candidate may not be the same as an Ohio one. And Catholic college students (Obama won South Bend) are another group altogether. And Hispanic Catholics are different than Irish Catholics. By the way, I am Catholic. About the only thing that we mostly agree upon is that it is acceptable to show up late for Mass, as long as you get there before the Eucharist.
Trying to win over demographics leads to pandering to groups, and doen't always make sense. You cannot say that more Catholics are voting for Hillary simply because they are Catholic. It may be simply because they live in Ohio (or another state), just as the Catholics in Louisiana voted for Obama. To really succeed, Democrats need to worry less about winning over this group or that, and focus on winning over America. I really believe Obama when he says that there is more that unites us than divides us.
One thing about working in the legal business is that it makes you strive for exact meaning with your word choice. I said, "Clinton has also captured something like 75% of the Catholic vote." "Something like" qualified the statement and left me a lot of wiggle room around that 75 percent.
My response to your, "Trying to win over demographics leads to pandering to groups," is that "serving constituents" is the basis of politics as we know it. It was Tip O'Neil that said "All politics are local." Of course "local" for a president embodies a huge amalgamation of needs and interests, sort of a confluence of localities.
The truth is we don't all have the same needs, or degree of need.
For example the working class has much greater need that the upper class. Wouldn't you agree?
The road to winning the White House begins with acknowledging where you are really at. And since I want our troops to come home, I want Obama to work to capture the votes that Clinton won and he did not.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Pmcalk I'm sorry but you are way off base.
We all land somewhere in the gamut of demographics. Whole industries are based on it. Tell the insurance industry that demographics and actuarial schedules don't matter. Tell people that market that we are all "individuals." There is no judgment involved. Indeed, "hard determination" proponents argue against the existence of any individuals.
You also need to talk with Talking Head Gloria Borgia about the Catholic vote. She brings it up over and over again. Here's what Conant and Wolffe said in Newsweek:
"Obama beat Hillary Clinton among Catholics in Louisiana and Virginia and tied her in Wisconsin. But in more recent primaries, Catholics have decisively turned away from him. In Ohio, exit polls showed that 65 percent backed Clinton. In Pennsylvania, Clinton won 70 percent of the Catholic vote.
"What's going on here? "The short answer is, I don't know," says [former Rep. Tim] Roemer, who has spent hours quizzing Catholics at rallies and town-hall meetings. One possibility: Obama's ties to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. Roemer says that, like other voters, the Catholics he meets mostly want to talk about what the candidate will do about the economy, gas prices and the mess in Iraq."
Pretending that Obama does not face these obstacles isn't going to help anyone. Especially Mr. Obama.
Let's roll up our sleaves and see if we can help Obama capture these essential votes.
My point was to correct your assertion that Clinton is getting 75% of the Catholic vote. By your own admission, that is not true.
My other point is simply we cannot pigeon hole people into categories, and expect to win them over. What a Catholic voter in Louisiana will look for in a candidate may not be the same as an Ohio one. And Catholic college students (Obama won South Bend) are another group altogether. And Hispanic Catholics are different than Irish Catholics. By the way, I am Catholic. About the only thing that we mostly agree upon is that it is acceptable to show up late for Mass, as long as you get there before the Eucharist.
Trying to win over demographics leads to pandering to groups, and doen't always make sense. You cannot say that more Catholics are voting for Hillary simply because they are Catholic. It may be simply because they live in Ohio (or another state), just as the Catholics in Louisiana voted for Obama. To really succeed, Democrats need to worry less about winning over this group or that, and focus on winning over America. I really believe Obama when he says that there is more that unites us than divides us.
One thing about working in the legal business is that it makes you strive for exact meaning with your word choice. I said, "Clinton has also captured something like 75% of the Catholic vote." "Something like" qualified the statement and left me a lot of wiggle room around that 75 percent.
My response to your, "Trying to win over demographics leads to pandering to groups," is that "serving constituents" is the basis of politics as we know it. It was Tip O'Neil that said "All politics are local." Of course "local" for a president embodies a huge amalgamation of needs and interests, sort of a confluence of localities.
The truth is we don't all have the same needs, or degree of need.
For example the working class has much greater need that the upper class. Wouldn't you agree?
The road to winning the White House begins with acknowledging where you are really at. And since I want our troops to come home, I want Obama to work to capture the votes that Clinton won and he did not.
There certainly is a
lot of wiggle room between 56% and 75%, but I'll just put that down to math isn't your thing.[;)]
I agree that the poor--not just the working class, but those who can't even find a job--need a president that will work for them. And I want Obama to work hard not only for those votes, but for improving their lives when he takes office. But I worry that you may only have one type of "working class" in mind. There are so many different types of poor--the African American living in the ghettos of DC who has seen generation after generation of dispair; the rural Ohio man who lost his manufacturing job years ago, and found nothing to replace it; the Hispanic farm worker who has no time to learn English. What has been done in the past is to divide these groups up, cater to specific fears &/or desires without addressing their real problems--i.e., a better chance at the American dream. The thing that unifies these groups (the need for decent, stable jobs)
is greater than what seperates them. I agree that Obama needs to do a better job at convincing certain working class people that he is the man to accomplish that task. But that is different than saying he needs to cater to specific demographics. I am not saying he won't--he's a politician, after all. But I think we just need to keep the focus on what unites us.
PM- Obama won't have to work hard for the entitlement er, um "poor" vote. Historically, about 60% of those who earn under $15K per year support the Dem candidate in the general election.
I can only assume the other 40% earning less than $15k must be the scions of wealthy Repugs who are working a menial job through college.
When will Edwards come out of the closet before or after the election....
Pmcalk I'm going to look for Gloria Borgia on the news shows and take notes. I'm not agreeing with your 56%. It doesn't jive with what I'm hearing.
Yes, all needy people need a president's help. In fact we need to throw the middle class into that pile.
I have to tell you about Clinton's second term and what I saw in the Bay Area as we got as close to full employment as we've ever been. During that time I saw a big change in the composition of people taking public transportation to work. What had been a small number of Blacks grew to a large number of Blacks. The difference was so pronounced that it jumped out at you.
Full employment alone would solve many of our problems.
quote:
Originally posted by bugo
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
wow, these two weenies will cook up real good on the McCain straight talk BBQ grill. I have to commend them, I don't think there has ever been a ticket with less military experience.
*cough* Bush/Cheney *cough*
even though bush is still a moron, he DID serve in a branch...though mainly symbolic....he DID serve. and Al Gore served as a reporter in the military. These two jokes did neither.
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
quote:
Originally posted by bugo
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
wow, these two weenies will cook up real good on the McCain straight talk BBQ grill. I have to commend them, I don't think there has ever been a ticket with less military experience.
*cough* Bush/Cheney *cough*
even though bush is still a moron, he DID serve in a branch...though mainly symbolic....he DID serve. and Al Gore served as a reporter in the military. These two jokes did neither.
You're using the word "serve"
veryloosely. When he was in the National Guard, he rarely even showed up to report for duty. If he served with any kind of honor, then why doesn't he release his military documents?
And despite what the right-wingers think, military service is not a prerequisite for being President.
Geraldine Ferraro refuses to vote for Obama, if he is the nominee, just because he likes to slap butts and call women "Sweetie"!
[:D]