|
Author
|
Topic: John Edwards is quitting...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indiana Jones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14792
|
posted 30 January 2008 10:17 AM
Edwards getting out probably helps Clinton more. I saw a poll showing that among his supporters, twice as many have Clinton as tehir second choice as have Obama. He tends to appeal to the same demographic of working class and lower middle class voters. It sort of surprises me actually. Both he and Obama seem more like the "change" candidates whereas Clinton is the "experience" candidate. i figured more of his support would go to Obama, but I guess we'll see how it plays out. With so many southern states voting on Super Tuesday, it could make things interesting.Overall, while his campaign never really got off the ground, he deserves credit for raising important issues and forcing the two main candidates to address them. I also became a big fan of his wife, Elizabeth, and certainly hope that she'll pull through this very tough time. On the GOP side, what I've heard is that Rudy will stay in the race jsut so he can be in the debate tonight on CNN and agree with mcCain and attack Romney, then drop out tomorrow and endorse mcCain.
From: Toronto / Brooklyn / Jerusalem | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mary123
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6125
|
posted 30 January 2008 07:41 PM
Good article on the loss of Edwards in this campaign. quote:
America just lost its best and brightest hope for real change when John Edwards gave up the presidential ghost. Edwards did something that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and certainly none of the Republicans would dream of doing. He made poverty no longer a dirty word in the mouths of many, and that included Clinton and Obama, for a minute anyway. But Edwards didn't stop there. He relentlessly pushed the envelope on America's next greatest crime and sin, the absolute refusal of the nation to provide decent health care for more than fifty million persons no matter whether poor, working class, middle class and even some with a few bucks to spare. He didn't stop even there. He hammered corporate and special interests for their shameless and unabashed pillage, loot, and rape of American consumers.
Edwards
From: ~~Canada - still God's greatest creation on the face of the earth~~ | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Malcolm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5168
|
posted 30 January 2008 07:57 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:
neither McCain nor Romney can stand the other, so it's unlikely either will take a VP slot if they lose the nomination. Giuliani is supposed to endorse McCain today, but that doesn't mean he'll be McCain's VP, does it?
As I've said elsewhere regarding the Democrats, personal animosity has pretty much nothing to do with the choice of running mates. Kennedy and Johnson loathed each other. Reagan never thought much of Bush 41.
Again, the issue is balanced. And the counterweight that either McCain or Romney would need is not to be gotten from the other - nor from Giuliani. The last five candidates in the Republican race (McCain, Romney, Huckabee, Paul and the now departed Giuliani) all have the same problem. Every one of them, on one point or another, departs or has previously departed from the received Republican orthodoxy. McCain on immigration, campaign finance and aspects of tax cuts; Romney, historically, on social issues; Huckabee on immigration and on social spending; Paul on foreign policy and the Iraq war; Giuliani on immigration and social issues. Plus, apart from Huckabee, they are all suspicious to the religious Republican base of socially conservative evangelicals. The balance they need is a running mate who reassures the red meat Republican base that the ticket is sound. To some degree, Huckabee balances a lot of the specific weaknesses of either of the front runners. But a better choice might be someone like Fred Thompson - though perhaps not Fred Thompson himself.
From: Regina, SK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Email this thread to someone!
