Why ONE caucus win for Barack Obama did NOT alter my support for John Edwards.

[LibraLiz1973]

In fact, it made my resolve to fight for Edwards stronger.

It took me months to decide who I was going to support for President in this election.
I did a lot of research and paid careful attention to what the candidates were saying.
About 8 weeks ago, I finally saw that my choice was clear. The ONLY viable choice for true change is John Edwards. He is the ONLY candidate willing to take on Corporate America, willing to REALLY do something about Poverty, the ONLY candidate with a TRUE care for the environment & a plan to do something about it, and the ONLY candidate with a REAL plan for health care. The ONLY candidate to admit his vote for Iraq was WRONG. The ONLY candidate to say that he would order the troops home NOW. Not six months from now, but NOW. No more bases.

It is an uphill battle. The Republicans and the Mainstream Media have decided that the candidate this year needs to be either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. That was one of the first things that made me take a step back and really consider John Edwards. What could the Republicans & the Mainstream Media have in common when it comes to a Democratic candidate? The answer is simple: continuing the status quo.
Most of the mainstream media is owned by corporate America. Most Republicans are owned by Corporate America. John is anti corporate America because it is DESTROYING our country. Barack & Hillary have no such problem. The Republicans and the MSM know that the easiest way to continue the status quo is to support the two candidates who will be the easiest to pick off once the field is narrowed down to one.

I believe that many people believe that change requires the nomination of either a woman or a man of color. While I FULLY agree that our country needs to step out of the stone age & begin electing a much more diverse group of leaders, BARACK & HILLARY ARE NOT THE DIVERSE LEADERS WE NEED. We aren’t moving forward if we elect closet bigots or Bush Lite.

I find it hard to understand why a group of DEMOCRATS would be willing to support a man who had
OPENLY ANTI-GAY people campaigning for him. These appearances were billed as “Embrace the Change”. How laughable. The gay community has suffered immensely under GWB and his cronies. Clinton’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy was ridiculous and insulting. And here’s Barack, telling people to “Embrace the Change”. Embrace WHAT change? Oh, I get it. The change within our own party, which would mean vilifying homosexuals… Just like the Republicans before us. The change would be that we were no longer the party of higher ideals, higher standards, and higher hopes. Instead, we would be the party of Republican Lite. Moving that much closer each year to the Republican way of life. I for one REFUSE to vote for that bullshit.

Supporting Hillary is a joke. I can’t believe any true Democrats actually consider it. Just for ONE second imagine… Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton. The LAST thing we need is more of that dynasty bullshit in our country. We need CHANGE – not more of the same. Hillary is all over the place with her views. She talks out of both sides of her mouth. She isn’t Presidential material. She isn’t running to improve our country- she’s running for EGO reasons.

To all of you willing to turn your support toward Barack because he took ONE caucus, I ask you this:
Are you really that ready to abandon the ideal for a stronger America? Because if you are, you might want to reconsider the party you belong to.

In the coming weeks I am going to be busting my ass for John Edwards and his vision. I’ll be donating, volunteering & doing anything and everything I can to get him on that ballot. He is the ONLY answer for this election. I hope a lot more Democrats man the hell up and realize what’s going on. John CAN and WILL win if we fight for him. Fight for him now and he will fight for ALL of us, regardless of race, gender, sexual preference or economic prospects. John will get us OUT of Iraq. John will take action on the environment. John will STOP the corporate crony bullshit that is going on in D.C.

In closing, if you would like to support John, please do so by donating to his campaign.



http://www.johnedwards.com/

John says it best:
“I never accept any money from lobbyists or PACs, so our victory depends on people like you pitching in. And that's the way it should be.”



You SAY you want a revolution... do you?

JOHN EDWARDS 2008

[helderheid]

1. K&R! I love the Foo Fighters. :)

:hi:

[LibraLiz1973]

2. Me too!!!!

Thanks for the K&R

We NEED Edwards to win!!!

[AzDar]

3. K & R...

:kick:

[LibraLiz1973]

10. Thank You!

[stray cat]

4. Just donated - thanks!

[LibraLiz1973]

5. Sweet!

[pauldg0]

40. Have you noticed the surge of money being donated to Edwards now...

..and more than ever? Note the following that is happening concerning money coming in for Edwards.

Strong finish in Iowa attracts thousands of first-time donors, putting campaign on track for best online fundraising day to date

Chapel Hill, North Carolina – Following a strong second-place finish in the Iowa Caucuses last night, the John Edwards for President campaign announced record-breaking online fundraising totals, putting the campaign on track for its best online fundraising day to date.

"We have been absolutely overwhelmed by the response to Sen. Edwards' strong finish in Iowa," said Edwards' senior strategist Joe Trippi. "We're on track for our best online fundraising day ever, since www.JohnEdwards.com went up a year ago – and half of the contributions we're seeing are from new donors to the campaign. That speaks volumes to the strength of John Edwards' message of standing up and fighting for the middle class."

The campaign first saw an uptick in online fundraising late last night, as the results from Iowa's first-in-the-nation contest began rolling in. The surge continued overnight, and by 8:45am ET this morning the campaign's online contributions had already topped the previous day's day-long total. Between the hours of 10:00am and 11:00am ET today, the campaign experienced its best online fundraising hour ever.

Also noteworthy about Edwards' online fundraising totals today:

Half of those who have contributed are first-time donors to the campaign
More than ninety percent (92.6%) of today's online contributions are for amounts less than $100
John Edwards is the only Democratic candidate in the race who has never accepted a dime from PACs or Washington lobbyists. The campaign also noted that the impact of many of today's online contributions will be doubled by federal matching funds.

[peacock]

58. Thank you!

[judaspriestess]

6. just gave another $20.08

Rock On !!!!

DAMN What an inspiring post!!

[LibraLiz1973]

7. YES!! We MUST make sure that HE is the candidate on Election Day

any other alternative makes me sick to even think about

[peacock]

59. Yeah!

[Clinton Crusader]

8. K&R!!!!!!!!!!!!

[LibraLiz1973]

9. Thanks!

[kimmerspixelated]

11. Fan friggin tabulous post!

My thought exactly!!!!

[LibraLiz1973]

12. Thanks Fitz!!!

[earth mom]

13. I'm finding this whole brouhaha about Obama ridiculous.

Obama is ONLY leading by 8 points-big f-ckin whoop.

PLUS, the whole thing is suspicious because from what I've been reading Obamas campaign bused some college kids in. Which is dirty politics IMO.

Meanwhile, the corporate media bastards are ignoring Edwards. What a HUGE STINKING PILE. :puke:

But as the saying goes, it's not over till it's over.

[helderheid]

14. What you said!

:hi:

[earth mom]

17. Back atcha!

:hi:

[NYCGirl]

15. It's dirty politics to make sure that people who are legally entitled to vote are

able to? You have a strange idea of what's dirty. DISENFRANCHISING VOTERS is dirty.

[earth mom]

16. You and I both know those kids wouldn't have been there if they weren't bused in.

C'mon now.

What's strange is to act like it's no big deal.

[NYCGirl]

19. Bullshit. Those are students who live in Iowa over 9 months out of the year.

And they are absolutely LEGALLY allowed (and encouraged) to vote in Iowa.

[earth mom]

41. Take your outrage elsewhere.

Those college kids would NOT have bothered to attend the event if they hadn't been bused there.

To pretend otherwise is total bullshit.

[IowaGuy]

54. didn't happen..take you're outrage elsewhere

check out reply #28

[Bishop Rook]

62. I can just imagine that conversation...

"Hey kid--do you want to go stand in a room for the next two to four hours, packed in like a sardine can with dozens of total strangers, and try to convince your fellow citizens to support Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination?"
"Nah... too much trouble."
"We'll bus you in..."
"Wait, I get to ride on a BUS?! I'm in!!"

These kids obviously wanted to attend the caucus, they wouldn't have gone if they didn't want to attend. Just busing them in isn't going to convince them to put in that much effort. It IS, however, going to help them get to their precinct if they don't have transportation.

It's about enfranchisement of a disadvantaged group. We do it for poor, minority, and elderly voters every election cycle. Why not college kids? Because they happen to be more likely to support the other guy?

[LibraLiz1973]

20. A-fucking-Men!!

[IowaGuy]

28. got links or any proof of that.???

I live here and I'm calling that nothin' but dumb-ass internet bullshit rumors until somebody can prove that to me....it sure didn't happen in my precinct, and if you understood how the caucuses worked you would understand that just overwhelming a few precincts around universities would not help you to win the state. You have to be able to win all over the state.

[LiberalFighter]

42. And why bother with the other primaries and caucuses if Iowa is the decider?

Iowa is NOT the decider!!

The decider is when someone receives 2051 delegates.

[Catchawave]

18. Excellent post !

:kick:

[SammyWinstonJack]

21. K&R!

I'll back him all the way! Go John! :bounce:

[scarletwoman]

22. k&r -- feel the same way.

[waiting for hope]

23. K&R!

I want a Democrat in Office - I want that person to be John Edwards and I want my party back!

John Edwards Wants Change - SO DO I!

[onehandle]

24. Kick! nt

[IowaGuy]

25. I appreciate your sentiments, however....

could you or some other Edwards supporter please tell me how he gets elected if he is limited on the amount of money he spends. He opted in to take Federal matching funds, which means between now and August 28th he is limited to spending less than 50 million dollars. I know that sounds like a lot, but it's nothing compared to his competitors; either Dem or Republican. Best case scenario....he spends his whole war chest knocking off his DEM competitors and then he's a sitting duck for the Republicans....he won't have the money to set up and maintain a national organization, won't be able to fund media buys...he'll be constantly being framed in the media according to Repug standards and he'll be unable to respond or combat their efforts. This will cause a drag on the down ticket DEMS.

As much as I like John, I think it's looking pretty dim for him. After February, he'll be lucky to cover Joe Trippi's bar tab. It was bad advice from his advisor's to get him to jump on the Federal matching funds...he didn't need it to compete in Iowa...that's relatively cheap media, travel, etc. compared to the rest of the country. If he did as good as he did in Iowa, he could have gotten real healthy with money real fast. As it is now, his hands are tied.

I'll quit being such a cynic about his chances if somebody can come up with a cogent, legal strategy of how he can keep running w/ the big boys money-wise through the finish line. He doesn't have to get more than thim with his message, ability to articulate it, and his political skills - however he at least has to be able to have enough to fund a defense of himself from the attacks that are sure to come. He has to be able to spend in the neighborhood of his competitors...

[SammyWinstonJack]

27. We fund him. Pretty simple isn't it?

[IowaGuy]

29. It doesn't matter how much money we give him...he can't spend it

It would violate Federal election laws. He backed himself into a corner by opting into Federal Matching funds and now has to play by different rules than anybody else.

[corkhead]

43. My understanding is that he is borrowing against them but he hasn't actually

accepted any of the funds yet, so as I understood it, he could back out of that arrangement if he wanted to. I heard this on Rachel Maddow's show a few days ago but I don't remember who it was she was interviewing that said it.

[IowaGuy]

56. For his sake, and the DEM party's sake, I hope this is so....

I would like to actually see the documentation on this, it doesn't match my understanding of what he did. It also doesn't make sense. This 50 million he can access between Jan 1st and Aug 28th is now in his pocket to spend. How dou you borrow against it then, you already got it. It seems more plausible to me he was borrowing against it prior to Jan 1st for Iowa, meaning he has even less funding available to him now.

[IowaGuy]

30. It doesn't matter how much money we give him...he can't spend it

It would violate Federal election laws. He backed himself into a corner by opting into Federal Matching funds and now has to play by different rules than anybody else.

[IowaGuy]

31. It doesn't matter how much money we give him...he can't spend it

It would violate Federal election laws. He backed himself into a corner by opting into Federal Matching funds and now has to play by different rules than anybody else.

[IowaGuy]

33. sorry about the mutiple replies...wasn't tryin' to be rude.

Don't know what happened there....

[Seabiscuit]

50. Yup. Very simple. We funded Dean in 2003-2004. Now we're funding Edwards.

He'll have more than enough $$$ to go all the way.

The Obama supporters and Clinton supporters have candidates whose hands are dirty with PAC and special interest $$$ from the insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, etc., etc., etc. So they're the ones who like to pretend Edwards isn't viable because he's not taking their filthy lucre. As if no one can ever be elected in this country without first selling out to the corporate enemies. I call: bull.shit.

I'll donate to Mr. Clean every time.

[IowaGuy]

53. You're not getting it.....

It isn't how much money we give him, it's how much he is allowed to spend. We could give hime him 500 trillion dollars and he is still only limited to being able to spend 50 million between now and August 28th. It doesn't matter how much money he has in the bank....he won't have any he'll be legally able to spend after February....
BTW...Obama doesn't fund his campaign with PAC money either....You are just flat out wrong on that....

[Seabiscuit]

67. Oh, I get it.

$50 million is more than enough to get Edwards to August. From there through the election the sky's the limit.

You don't have to be a sell-out to get elected. That's what *you* don't get. Once a candidate like Obama or Hillary reach deep into say, a pharmaceutical or health insurance company's pocket for donations, that company has the politician in their pocket in the event they're elected. If you don't get that, then you're part of the problem, and not part of the solution.

[CatWoman]

26. LibraLiz

YOU GO, GIRL!!!!!!! :applause:

[Maven]

32. Unfortunately it seems that Edwards has been co-opted by Obama

:(

[IowaGuy]

34. I'm not sure what that means....

could you please explain?
John is an honorable man and it almost sounds like you think Obama has bought him off.
A. I don't believe Obama would do that, and
B. John would not do that

If that is what you are trying to say, it sure doesn't fit into any kind of understanding I've developed for either of these guys. It just doesn't fit.

[Maven]

35. They're very blatantly collaborating with each other in the debate

Seems like they have some sort of understanding or arrangement.

Also see here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2605060&mesg_id=2605060

[IowaGuy]

36. Because 2 candidates have similar needs and goals

and they act on them does not mean one has been co-opted by the other; or that one tryed to co-opt the other. It only means that they both acted in their own self interests. Can you point to a candidate anywhwhere else in any party that does not do the same thing? This is really weak.

[Maven]

37. Maybe.

But look at the pattern of behavior. They're sort of echoing each other while attacking Hillary/Richardson and almost entirely laying off of each other. I'm not the only person to notice, hence the link.

[IowaGuy]

38. No surprise....They both have similar messages and goals

The big difference between them is John wants to be combative and Barack has a more conciliatory attitude of negotiation to try and achieve his goals. Both of their messages have been very similar for months and months now in terms of their goals, the difference is more stylistic in how they wish to achieve them. This is nothing new with this debate. This is why Obama was most Edwards supporters #2 pick, and Edwards was most Obama supporters #2 pick in the Iowa caucuses/polls. Both candidates come from very similar spaces, it's no conspiracy.

[disndat]

49. It looks to me like

the Edwards and Obama are going to team up, no matter which on becomes the top of the ticket. I am thrilled that Edwards' fund raising hit a new high, after the Iowa Caucus. Campaign reform is in the air. Edwards made the right move with this breakaway. Both Obama and Edwards' campaigns spell CHANGE in more ways than one.

[Bishop Rook]

63. I noticed that too

Seems like they're angling for an alliance here. Gang together to take down Hillary, and whichever of them ends up taking second in the primaries gets the second spot on the ticket.

Who cares? I could imagine many tickets a whole lot worse than Obama/Edwards or Edwards/Obama.

[Not Sure]

39. K R D

(kicked, recommended, donated)

I totally agree with this post - spot on.

[balantz]

44. K & R

[WA98296]

45. Edwards all the way!

[Bitwit1234]

46. I get so sick of the rhetoric of bush/clinton/bush/clinton

So should we not have let Adams run because his father did. And all the other relatives of previous presidents. That's bullshit...Now the Edwards supporters, who I thought had character way way about the bottom of the barrel Obama's. When all they did and do is flame and bash Hillary. Maybe because they are afraid of put any of Obama's so called accomplishments out there. Just for the record...what are they.

Are Edwards supporters starting to see where bashing Hillary was they thing to do and they are now doing it also. And by the way Edwards himself is a nice guy...but what are his accomplishments. He didn't do anything spectacular so far either. He seems to support a lot of things, but he hasn't done any. You people bit*h and moan about Hillary I would like to see someone just put down what she has done that is so damn bad.

She AND Edwards voted for the Iraq resolution. They have both said they believed bush and they have both said they wouldn't have voted, if they had known bush was lying. But Edwards gets a pass and Hillary is still being socked for it. While Obama the jumping king says he wants to bomb Iran. No where, no where at all except in the original interview has this been given press. Well I guess I am different from a lot of people. Signing a resolution to search for WMD, which is what congress gave bush permission to do, then the S.O.B. invaded and bombed a country. Not one of the democrats who signed the resolution said they wanted to bomb Iraq, and they have all stated they don't want to bomb Iran. BUT OBAMA HAS GONE ON RECORD. ALSO SAYING HE WILL SEND IN MISSILES.

So shut the hell up about bashing Hillary and try to stay supporters with character and don't sink to the bottom of the rotten apple barrel where Obama supporters gather.

[Bishop Rook]

64. Interesting

While Obama the jumping king says he wants to bomb Iran. No where, no where at all except in the original interview has this been given press.

"Wants" to bomb Iran, eh? Let's examine what he actually said.

Us launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in. On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran. ... And I hope it doesn’t get to that point.

This was from 2004. He was advocating surgical missile strikes on Iranian nuclear sites only as a last resort if diplomacy and economic sanctions have failed and it becomes clear that the Iranian theocracy is about to take possession of nuclear weapons. Which is a moot point, now, since the latest NIE report reveals they no longer have an active nuclear weapons program.

Seems like a pretty nuanced, and restrained, foreign policy compared to the Bush/McCain/Lieberman bunch--who advocate not surgical missile strikes but full-out invasion, and not as a last resort but as a first. But you're refusing to make the distinction.

And hell, let's not forget the one frontrunner who voted for Lieberman/Kyl. If that's not proof positive that Senator Clinton cannot learn from her past mistakes, nothing is. (Let's not get into the whole 'Obama missed the Lieberman/Kyl vote' thing. You know and I know that was an intentional betrayal by Senator Reid, who told Obama the vote wouldn't be held for a week then held it the same day Obama left for the campaign trail.)

[mother earth]

47. I agree, LibraLiz!!!! All anyone has to do is listen to know that

Edwards is the right choice for all we value. K & R!

[RestoreGore]

48. Right On Target

The corporate controlled sound bite loving media in this country only covers those who want to continue the status quo to benefit THEM. There is something about Obama that I cannot place my finger on, but I do not think he is all peopel think he is. Edwards is real, so I am sticking with him. Good post.

[Raven]

51. Just contributed...thanks for the reminder. n/t

[liberalhistorian]

52. It should NOT alter your vote if you are truly

committed to a candidate, and you shouldn't think otherwise. There are already too many "fingers to the wind" people.

[debbierlus]

55. I am with you & I am going to donate to Edwards campaign

[peacock]

57. Right on!

[October]

60. Kicked and Recommended!

I have the same reservations as you regarding Hillary and Obama.

Edwards is the only one speaking out against corporatism -- which IS ruining our country. Of course he's being blacked out by the mainstream media because they're one of the corrupt institutions he's fighting against.

Here's what Elizabeth Edwards is saying:


Elizabeth Edwards To Chris Matthews And Rest Of Media: Ahem -- John And I Are Still Here
January 5, 2008 -- 2:45 PM EST

One of the things I'd been wondering was whether John Edwards' slim victory over Hillary for second-place in Iowa would shift the media dynamic of the race and get people to cover it as more of a three-way contest. In general terms, it's already obvious that the answer is No.

On this score, I'd really be remiss if I didn't share with you these wonderful quotes from Elizabeth Edwards on Hardball, where she chastised Chris Matthews and the rest of the political media for slighting her man.


First, Elizabeth was asked whether John would be able to survive if Barack Obama won both Iowa and New Hampshire. She observed that John had come in second in Iowa in 2004, that he had gotten short-shrifted in coverage then, and that this was happening again:

ELIZABETH EDWARDS: ...we had the "Dean scream" in `04, which sort of made second place, which John had -- not mean as much because you all covered that, as opposed to the second-place finish.

Now, of course, you`re covering Hillary`s third-place finish instead of John`s second-place finish. So we`re still fighting against you guys.

At another point, Matthews and Elizabeth had this exchange:
CHRIS MATTHEWS: I don`t know how John Edwards wins this thing as long as those two are fighting for the nomination. They seem to get in the way. Doesn`t one of them have to get knocked out?

ELIZABETH EDWARDS: If knocking -- if John`s finishing second isn`t enough to get him in the conversation with you guys, yes, we have to knock one of those two off in order to get him into the conversation.

Great, great stuff. Elizabeth's short-lived career as a media nudge has been one of the more entertaining -- and salutary -- sideshows of Campaign 2008.

Now, I recognize that news orgs have a dilemma on their hands in deciding whom to cover and how to apportion resources. And I also realize that the candidacies of Hillary and Obama are both historic in ways that Edwards' effort isn't. But in a general sense there's no question that the media's treatment of the Edwards campaign has really been an ugly failure on many levels.

More at link:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/

[JohnLocke]

61. K&R!

[bazoona]

65. Objects in your mirror may be closer than they appear.

I had forgotten about that quote. I loved it.

[nankerphelge]

66. I will vote for the Democratic nominee...

regardless of whether it's Edwards, Clinton, Obama, etc. Please stop trashing the other candidates Edwards supporters. It's not helping make your point or making me want to support your candidate.

[Duncan]

68. YES YES. GOOD ON YOU!

GO EDWARDS!