Cut the crap Edwards / Obama... don't be stupid!

Diaries titled:  Obama goes Negative on Edwards in Iowa  DOES NOT HELP JOHN EDWARDS.  Opinions like this will get Hillary the nomination.

Edwards and Obama should stay away from attacking each other and I know the Obama people understand this, which is why they have stayed away from this.  I do not believe these negative attacks came from Obama.  THINK ABOUT IT... wouldn't it be in Hillary's best interest to stir this pot?  Hillary's people are as cut throat as Rove and have already applied some of their new rove-sque style 'politics of personal destruction' on OBAMA.  Every time I hear the Clinton Campaign has let another volunteer go because they send emails accusing Obama of some awful plan to blow up America...and check out how the good Clinton Campaign states with detailed descriptions, every word of this possibly damaging information.  I wish they would give the names of the fired workers... because my bet, there are no workers doing something so stupid.  I believe  this is a brilliant way for the Clinton people to get this bigoted story in the news once a week.

 

THE BEST WAY TO RUIN JOHN EDWARDS CHANCES TO WIN IOWA, IS TO PISS OFF OBAMA SUPPORTERS.  Not everyone knows what happend in Iowa in 2000 but the BIG surprise there, was the nomination of John Kerry.  How did 4th place Kerry win?  Dennis Kucinich.  because the caucus process is very, very different from primary voting the 4th place Kerry won on the second vote.  How?  Dennis Kucinich asked his people to vote for KERRY rather than the other anti Iraq war candidate DEAN.  IN IOWA YOUR SECOND CHOICE IS AS IMPORTANT AS YOUR FIRST CHOICE... so, when Kucinich didn't win on the first vote, his people went to Kerry which won Kerry the nomination.

In my opinion this was sour grapes when Kucinich gave his support to Kerry rather than to the comitted peace candidate Dean, we ended up with 4 more catastrophic years of George W. Bush.  Peace should come before ego.. I would like to see both Obama and Edwards people make an agreement that if neither man wins on the first vote that they go to their second choice which is Edwards or Obama  (ie:  If Obama doesn't win on the first vote, all his supporters would move to Edwards rather than to a democrat who cannot win or to Hillary Clinton, the queen of the status quo, the queen of the DLC and a person who has voted WITH BUSH-CHENEY and the NEOCONS ON EVERY FOREIGN POLICY VOTE INCLUDING her vote YES for the WAR, YES for the PATRIOT ACT and most recently YES to support BUSH\CHENEY Iran policy which was like a carbon copy of their Iraq war plan.  NO MORE.  WE NEED TO CHANGE THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY FROM THE TOP DOWN and that CANNOT happen if the two candidates committed to getting us out of Iraq and making stupid decisions in the primary that makes it impossible for Obama supporters to vote Edwards on their second vote... or vise versa.  After months of research and keeping up with all the latest on both campaigns, I believe the best hope for a rapid end to the war in Iraq and the quick move to use diplomacy with Iran, etc.  Senator Obama has not voted the way I wanted every time he votes... and yes, John Edwards did vote for the war... but he has redeemed himself... we need to let this shit go and make sure the candidate is either Edwards or Obama... cut the crap about who's doing personal attacks, the Obama people are too smart for that.... let's look at who would benefit most from these two camps clawing at each other... that would be Hillary Clinton.  We need to be smart and work together on this.

OBAMA/EDWARDS/2008

•  Space for Recipes here, I think. (nt)

  by prodigal on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 03:34:30 AM PDT

  •  troll burgers?

    BTW, I didn't recognize your Buffy quote, which is unusual. And it took some Google-fu to turn up the proper source. I guess I haven't watched my Season 1 DVDs in a while.

    by nasarius on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 04:06:50 AM PDT

•  divide & conquer JRE/BHO = Hillary wins

  Barack vs John = Divide & Conquer the progressive wing.  Couldn't be a worse idea.

  We must unite to stop Hillary.

  by judasdisney on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 03:47:53 AM PDT

  •  well, when the obama campaign quits printing

    smear fliers...

    by clarkent on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 05:36:21 AM PDT

•  Yeah, I still dislike Kucinich for selling out

  For all of his 'principled' stands he was really quick to sell out and screw us in 04.  I haven't forgotten that and it's why I didn't even give Kucinich a first look this time around.  He's just another self serving douchebag.

  by zoopnfunk on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 03:54:50 AM PDT

•  That's right

  They should get back on the same page and trash Clinton instead, just like Jeebus wants them to.

  Isn't that more like what you are trying to say?

  The one who really wins if Edwards doesn't attack Obama is Obama.

  Obama as frontrunner, with the others taking shots at him instead of Hillary, last about 2 minutes.

  If you can't stand the heat...
  Are you listening, Sen. Obama?

  If you can't handle a small-time mob like the Edwards campaign, the Rethugs will cut you to ribbons.
  Bring it on, Edwards Folks, let's see if Sen. Obama can survive "in the kitchen".

  by Niniane on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 04:23:52 AM PDT

  •  Bring it on??????? Please - is this the level

    of Obama's supporters?

    How about the looking at the best candidate for the Presidency?

    John Edwards has been leading on the issues, amd many many of them before Obama or Clinton ever announced a run.

    by America08 on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 06:06:10 AM PDT

    •  Nope.

      I'm a supporter of Sen. Clinton.

      "Bring it on" has been the conventional wisdom on the merits of the Obama and Edwards attacks on Hillary... Something to the effect of "If she can't handle the attacks from them, she can't stand up to the Republicans, either."

      Now Sen. Obama has his chance to show what he is made of...

      I for one would prefer a much more civil discourse among our Democratic candidates... but since that's not going to happen...
      I say "what's good for the Goose is good for the gander", but without any sexist punish overtones intended.

      by Niniane on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 06:23:17 AM PDT

      •  Hillary - did some pretty good slinging of her

        own.

        Edwards has taken from both Clinton and Obama and has been stepped on repeatedly by the MSM with coverage going to the other two for issues he talked about first, and even though the other 2 have taken most of the issues that he lead on and used them as a spring board for there own campaigns.

        by America08 on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:03:04 AM PDT

        •  Yeppers.

          It is happening to all of them, and they are all guilty of the same behaviors.

          So lets stop pointing fingers at the others, when we are just as guilty.

          Because they're all doing that too.

          Anyone who thinks the other candidates are all muddy, while their candidate is unsoiled and above the fray, is seriously full of shit.

          by Niniane on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:07:52 AM PDT

      •  ARE YOU SERIOUS???? the only thing John Edwards

        has brought up is her record.  Talking about her record is exactly what elections are for.... now Hillary, she's gone all personal.  Obama doesn't have the experience .... don't make me laugh, like sitting in the white house gave her any experience more than public humiliation.  I completely supported the Clintons but I was not at all crazy about his running around, his cutting poor women off of welfare when getting a job didn't get them enough money to pay for child care.  That and NAFTA, and then Hillary the Senator... lost me is on the War, she is now acting like Bush-Cheney pulling that irrational stance that if you want someone who can protect you, vote for someone who voted for this war, the greatest foreign policy disaster in our nations history.  Barely a month ago, Hillary again voted again with the neocons on IRAN.  We don't need 4 more years of this tradegy.

        by bluecayuga on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 08:16:17 AM PDT

    •  AND,Obama was against the war LONG BEFORE EDWARDS

      That is not a good point to continue pushing.

      by bluecayuga on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 08:06:49 AM PDT

  •  Obama didnºt write this post, I did

    and I give money to Edwards AND Obama every month.. because the enemy for me is HILLARY CLINTON.  Nobody is asking you to give up your candidate, HE HAS A GREAT CHANCE OF WINNING ON THE SECOND GO ROUND.... but burned earth politics will not win him those Obamas voting block.  I would say right now, Edwards is in the best position because lots of people from both camps like him.  That could change.

    by bluecayuga on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 08:05:04 AM PDT

•  this is wierd, but

  I think the attention helps Edwards. Edwards will respond, and maybe get as much press as Obama.
  Edwards needs to be flashed out and held in the collective consciousness.

  Like some accused guy said, "just spell my name right."

  by bob zimway on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 04:40:17 AM PDT

•  I do not believe ....

  Why? The press reports I read were pretty clear these were from the Obama campaign. I tend to agree this is not a brilliant move and may well be out of character (although there have been a few Obama shots at Hill that were on the belt line to maybe a little low). True character test in my opinion comes when/if Obama repudiates the comments that are indeed a stretch ..... my money is that he walks away of somehow votes "Present".

  by Savid on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 05:18:07 AM PDT

•  Obama already admited smearing Edwards

  See here:

  The Obama campaign says this document came because a local union requested information on the differences between him and his opponents.

  Don't be a sucker.

  by souvarine on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 05:23:33 AM PDT

•  Uncomfortable truth - - HRC is the second choice

  of both JE and BO (not necessarily of their supporters, certainly not of their supporters on kos, but of the candidates themselves).

  by Barry in MIA on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 05:45:16 AM PDT

  •  which means absolutely nothing----

    I keep asking my Ia. caucus friend to explain and re-explain that nonsensical caucus system there----and yesterday she patiently retold that caucus participants pay no attention to the directions of a candidate who doesn't meet the 15% threshold on 2nd choice----they wander to a 2nd choice of their own choosing----or wander out the door.
     And what some people don't realize----she's in a college town----and it makes no difference if there's 100 college kids for Obama at her caucus---or just 10 unanimous votes---he still would only get the 10 delegates allowed her precinct.(predetermined by voter registration)
     It's the goofiest system in the world---a stupid convoluted rigamarole----just a mind-boggler.

    by dotster on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 06:19:52 AM PDT

    •  But it explains alot - I'm waiting for the heads

      to explode on kos if HRC wins IA, and either JE and / or BO endorse her !!!

      by Barry in MIA on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:53:15 AM PDT

    •  well they paid attention Kuicinich and that's

      exactly what I DON'T want to happen to Edwards.  

      by bluecayuga on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 08:20:33 AM PDT

•  The Dems choice of Hilliary does not matter

  Neither Obama or Edwards can deliver all of their supporters to Hilliary because there are some who simply will not vote for her period, end of story. And the problem with polling only Dems is thatDems alone cannot win a general election - neither major party can win without carrying independents. I know Hilliary does poorly outside Democratic ranks. I have not seen much regarding Obama.

  Where I think Obama fails strategically is that his advocating consensus building with R's implies that his less than strong positions on health care and SS for example will be watered down further by compromising with those who want zero of either. To me the times a country is ready for large scale change is uncommon. We are at such a point in time and the two leading candidate and the two best funded candidates want to stay the course or offer up tepid at best changes. Begs the question, "why change at all?".

  by Savid on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 06:13:07 AM PDT

  •  Obama is way ahead with indipendents in NH

    I don't think there is any clear data for the general election, like the state wide elections, the national polls still reflect name recognition which is a disadvantage for Obama.  Between the two, I think I lean towards Obama in the change department.  I was very active in bombarding senators with all sorts of emails, snail mail, marching in Washington, really begging the Democrats to vote NO on the war.  I know for a fact that every democrat in Washington knew the intel was soft, they knew there probably were no WMD's and knew it made NO sense to go after sadaam, just no sense at all.  It was at that time that the elected officials decided to do what was best for their careers rather than what was best for the country and gave that mad man the power to do whatever the hell he wants to do.  Obamas very public disagreement with the policy was one of the few hopeful news we had at that time.  For that reason I trust Obama would make lots of changes in Washington.

    But, I don't live in Iowa and I don't live in New Hampshire so I give them both equal amounts of money because I could easily support either man.  There would be no good reason for me to trash Edwards now, or if I were Edwards, no 'personal' slurs... anything on anyones record is fair game.  

    I just hate the thought of all this support of CHANGE and having so many in that field gives Hillary the advantage.

    by bluecayuga on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 08:38:58 AM PDT