onegoodmove

Hi Norm,

I've been coming to your site pretty much everyday for the last 3 years since I first discovered it. This is the first time I've posted, but I just want to thank you first for all the hard work you've put into it over this time.

I was keen to see John Edwards become the nominee because I believe he set the tone of the democratic race by talking about real issues such as poverty and health care. In SUBSTANCE - that was the really refreshing thing.

Having watched this video and another of John and Elizabeth talking about who they liked, I think its pretty clear that John voted for Obama and Elizabeth for Clinton.

I hope John comes out with an endorsement soon. Despite his claims otherwise, I think his endorsement would be significant for the remaining super delegates and primary voters.

Just one thing further, and I hope I say this with respect because I see you've had some bad emails.

For the democratic party, I think the race needs to end. Its a shame that Hillary appears to have turned from a viable, interesting and exciting candidate to one who would stoop to talking about white voters and how Obama can't get them.

What happened to the Hillary that focused on the issues and showed wonderful mastery of the details of her plans? I fear that her polsters have got to her and she has lost sight the higher purpose of the nomination.

By contrast, the more I see of Obama, the more I like his maturity and his committment to debate the issues, rather than engage in petty politics. The contrast is quite striking. I think voters see that.

Thanks again for the site.

Jack

For the democratic party, I think the race needs to end.

I think some reasonable arguments for why it shouldn't end until the primaries are over can be made. For example if Hillary withdrew before Kentucky and West Virginia it seems likely that Barack would lose both against an inactive candidate. It would not help his candidacy if that were to happen. Further I think Barack and his supporters have a lot of fence mending to do. Whether reasonable or not there are many Hillary supporters who will view an early end as being wrong and may not support the Democratic candidate in the same way they might if they perceive she gave it the full effort and lost.

I was keen to see John Edwards become the nominee because I believe he set the tone of the democratic race by talking about real issues such as poverty and health care.

Although I didn't go with Edwards this go round, mostly because I found the good message of today contradicted by what he had done 4 years earlier.

That said, after seeing him talk now, I think of how great it would have been if he had stayed in.

I can't imagine having the vacuous substance less debates we have had if Edwards had continued a campaign of issues.

it seems likely that Barack would lose both against an inactive candidate

You make a good point, If she went positive and talked about issues and healing the MI FL situation she could do allot of good.

Sad that she has been talking about race and making MI and FL worse.

related:‘im or ‘em? Are Obama supporters hearing what they want to hear?

Norm, didn't you hear it too?

It's not clear what that one word was, but in context it seems to make sense. He basically says that Obama will be the Nominee and he will endorse the Nominee and he will endorse the same person that he voted for.

The ideal would be that Hillary/Obama should stay in but be less divisive in her/his and her/his staffs arguments, stop talking about race (it really does not help us), stop attacking Barrack(or Hillary), she and Barrack should just start acting as if they were the choosen candidate and show us how they would deal with a general election strategy. (ie develop the democratic platform, figure out how they can potentially beat an ex war hero, who the presss really likes, who is funny, and personable and will appeal to independents. ) Both should complement the other candidate ( as John Edwards just did beautifully) in their speeches and start acting like they really really like each other.

I also think they should resolve the Florida/Michigan thing somehow.

John Edwards was amazing in this interview, why was he not like this in the last election?

Obama supporters always hear what they want. It's all part of Obama's magic.

It wouldn't surprise me if Edwards voted for Obama and that he eventually endorse him. I just think at this point he's right it's pretty much a non story. A story would be if he endorsed Clinton. I think he probably slightly prefers Barack and that Elizabeth like me slightly prefers Hillary. A more important question is electability The huge difference between the Hillary voters that say they'll not vote for Barack as opposed to those Barack supporters who say they'll not vote for Hillary is a concern. I think in West Virginia it is something like 45 -14. If I was choosing a candidate on principle it wouldn't be either Clinton or Obama. My only concern is who is most likely to beat McCain. The speculation based only on Democratic voters is however not that useful. I want to know what the numbers are on a state by state basis with all voters included.

My only concern is who is most likely to beat McCain.

Well, the truth is that they are both electorally flawed candidates. He will struggle with rust belt white voters, and she will have trouble with independent men and her high negatives will meant that she turns out republicans against herself.

In my mind the tie breaker is that he can draw a higher contrast on the war, and he can really argue change. He will also raise more money then god and have more better organized volunteers then any candidate in history.

IF he gets a ROn Paul endorsement and gets to start messaging to the center a little he will pull it off.

John Edwards was amazing in this interview, why was he not like this in the last election?

He worked behind the scenes during the last election...well, behind what Kerry was doing. Edwards went out to economically rough areas of the country and talked to people about jobs and health care. He was definitely doing VP work.

i was an edwards fan who is happy to "settle" for obama. but i heard "'em" not "him".

that said, i think he did probably support barack, just given how much of corporate shill hillary is (i know this, in part, because edwards himself pointed it out so well in the debates).

also, despite reading this blog multiple times a day for years and years and having taken to reading the long, thoughtful posts in the comments over the last few months by the likes of redseven, joann, tim, and many others, i have not posted in the comments much in the past, and never on the subject i am about to, but i'm inclined to do so now:

norm, your staunch opinion that hillary is "better on the issues" boggles my mind. there. i said it. i agree health care is better with edwards' (aka hillary's) plan, but how you can essentially be a single issue voter on this one (albeit important) issue, i cannot understand. particularly when, as has been pointed out by many commenters over the last few months in these threads, neither clinton's nor obama's plan will make it into law as they have written it, and mandates wouldn't even make it past a first draft.

your assertion that she is the REAL progressive on most issues i also find nearly incomprehensible, and i have continually waited for you to present evidence to back up this claim. if you have, i've missed it, which surprises me because like i said, i check this blog multiple times daily.

granted, she can SAY whatever she wants during this campaign, but we have history as our guide with regard to the clinton's ideas about policy. the clinton white house was, if you recall, FAR from progressive on pretty much anything. as michael moore used to say "bill clinton was the best republican president we've ever had". what were the big accomplishments? certainly nothing liberal from the founder of the DLC. it was free trade, welfare "reform", increased military spending, etc.

on the other hand, obama's historical credentials (not contradicted by his limited voting record) would at least appear to give him the edge here. he opted out of corporate law to work on the streets organizing the disenfranchised for civil rights for decades. to me, this seems much more like someone you can trust to actually BE progressive once elected. anyone can say shit during a campaign (for example, think of how both W and bill clinton campaigned before their first terms and contrast that against their records of leadership). it's another thing altogether to actually believe in something deep down. (note: frankly, i don't think obama is going to be all that liberal once elected either, but compared to hillary i think he will be more so.)

so as best i can tell obama hasn't waffled much. if anything he has gotten MORE conservative on the campaign trail on issues such as health care. i agree with krugman that he doesn't help the cause when he shits on mandates, but neither one of them could win over independents or even many democrats if they took a kucinich/nader position on the issue, and even if they somehow did, neither of them could get it passed. so that issue is a crapshoot as your single-issue. meanwhile, the war that costs $5000 a second is raging, and hillary is worse on all things military it seems to me. much worse sometimes, only slightly worse others. global warming is a huge issue too, and i look to the clinton white house's previous record more than i do hillary's stump speech (which does manage to talk up the eco-UNfriendly "gas tax holiday"), and again, even with al gore trying to coax action, not a damn thing was accomplished under clinton.

so why is obama leaning center more than hillary is? my theory is he's already a black dude who's middle name is hussein, he can't be those things and ALSO campaign like a hardcore liberal without totally scaring people off.

we can all agree his health care plan sucks more than hers (tho the relevance of this in light of the fact that neither would ever pass in their current states is questionable), but he seems to me to be either the same or much better on damn near every other issue. so all we can do is look at their actual historical records and when we do, we see that CLEARLY his is much more progressive than hillary "young republican" clinton's, regardless of what they say on the stump.

oh, and you can also look at their friends, advisors, and associates (as others have posted in the comments before) and on this front, again, obama looks to be much more progressive than hillary.

There are no "perfect" candidates.

Perhaps Democrats struggle too much with this truth.

Republicans can get behind a man who supports immigration reform and climate change initiatives.

It's time for everyone in the party to stop talking about what could have been. Stop focusing on MI and FL.

Sure, Edwards would have been a great candidate - I preferred him in 2004 - but still a flawed candidate. At one point Hillary would have been a dynamic, exciting candidate.

Well, she isn't anymore. She's a political animal fighting for survival and she might tear apart the Democratic Party if she is allowed to continue.

Hillary Clinton still has the chance to help unite the Democratic party. There are some interesting parallels between her and Senator Ted Kennedy. Both are intelligent politicians with established brand names. Both ran for and lost the party's nomination.

Maybe Senator Clinton should realize that she can bow out gracefully and reestablish her credibility with the citizens of this country by elevating her position in the Senate. The Democrats need real leadership in the Congress - Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are not effective leaders.

And she needs to settle the MI and FL issue by admitting that she WENT AGAINST HER PLEDGE to stay off the ballot in Michigan. And she needs to admit that Florida was not a fair election.

And then she needs to thank all her supporters in each state, then tell them to get behind Barack Obama.

Because Howard Dean is no leader. That man has proven to be a terrible executive and I'm scared to think he was ever close to becoming President.

Unite the party, Senator Clinton and cement your legacy.

norm, your staunch opinion that hillary is "better on the issues" boggles my mind. there. i said it. i agree health care is better with edwards' (aka hillary's) plan, but how you can essentially be a single issue voter on this one (albeit important) issue, i cannot understand. particularly when, as has been pointed out by many commenters over the last few months in these threads, neither clinton's nor obama's plan will make it into law as they have written it, and mandates wouldn't even make it past a first draft.

A couple of points my argument is not that Hillary is "a progressive" but rather more progressive than Barack on social and economic issues. It's interesting the partisan spin that we all use. Here's a little of yours. You excuse Barack's rhetoric as "being necessary" an argument that can make his view whatever you want it to be. You talk of history of Hillary Clinton as if it is identical to Bill's. I don't recall her getting a veto, I don't recall her having a vote. If you want to make the argument use her record as a voting Senator not the wife of a president. The Edwards apparently voted differently on the Barack, Hillary race would you argue that Elizabeth thinks Barack would make a better president because her husband may. You further make arguments that you don't think such and such can pass as a way of discounting differences. But you're simply expressing an opinion. It's hard to judge now how the healthcare debate will play out. One thing is for sure, you never get more than you ask for going in. Barack asks for less and he will get less. Yes I consider healthcare to be my most important issue. You remember Barack voting for Cheney's energy bill while Hillary voted against it. I don't really want to take the time and go point by point why I think Hillary is more progressive, but I suspect you haven't looked too closely at their positions on a wide range of issues. Of course you've already demonstrated how you would meet those arguments. You don't believe her words and you're willing to conflate Bill's record with what she might do in the future. That's not a discussion that's partisan talking points.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/12/151422/903

Hillary an A-, Barack a B

The analysis contains both current positions and past positions.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/2/21/133518/373

Both of these sites are pro Hillary, but follow the links to the data they present and make up your own mind on whether you think they are correct.

I'm assuming that Barack will be the candidate and I'm hoping he is smart enough to surround himself with top people - including Hillary. I am also hoping that, without Hillary coming in, right wing noise radio will not get the bump they are looking for - where they would've gone wild with Hillary coming in - I'm hoping their power will continue to be dismantled (nothing would do that more than McBush getting in, of course, but I'm hoping we don't have to go through that disaster.)

You talk of history of Hillary Clinton as if it is identical to Bill's. I don't recall her getting a veto, I don't recall her having a vote. If you want to make the argument use her record as a voting Senator not the wife of a president.

Remind me: What 'experience' does Senator Clinton claim to have above Obama? One more term in the Senate? Is that what she really meant this whole time when she said she was the "experience" candid who's ready to pick up the phone at 3 am? Or did I just get confused, because all along she was talking about Bill, not herself? It's the same argument we're always having: if she wants to claim that experience without having much on her first lady calendar but designing the White House Christmas card and a failed health care agenda that ended up alienating some of her democratic colleagues in the congress with slightly different proposals, fine, but then she can then be criticized for it.

One thing is for sure, you never get more than you ask for going in.

Let me repeat: Hillary does not have a 'universal' health care plan. What she's done is attached that label to the magical word "mandates" without specify how those will be enforced or exactly what they'll consist in. There are 47 million people without health care; of those, 70% have family incomes--not individual--below 50K. And:

A survey last year by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that the average annual premium was $4,479 for an individual and $12,106 for a family.

So if she didn't explain how she was going to make those people pay going in, she won't get it, either. I have yet to hear either her or any of her supporters explain exactly how those mandates are going to work, or how their going to deal with sky-rocketing health-care costs--you mandate after you've brought down costs, not before, and found a way to actually enforce them. But screw it, we can go with the George Bush strategy, I guess, and just have some faith when the math, the facts, the details (oh those pesky details) don't add up. Math is for eggheads who belong to the 'reality-based' community. Let's talk about other stuff, Senator Clinton, like nuking Iran.

Finally, Norm. You make an excellent argument above for Clinton staying in the race--it would be embarassing for Obama to lose states like West Virginia if Clinton had already dropped out. But, frankly, I find that argument convincing only on the assumption that she will not continue to run another smear campaign on him, given that she has, in fact, already lost. Based on her recent race remarks, and her indirect suggestion that we don't need the black community to have a democratic coalition, it strikes me she's not planning on being gracious or tactful.

Of course Edwards is endorsing Obama. He's not going to endorse anyone but he probably will. Not now because it wouldn't be good for the cause. Obama is almost definitely going to be the nominee.

So in a little while he'll endorse....Hillary? That's totally inconsistent with what he just said.

As for 'im or 'em, he probably said 'em as in "them". I doubt he would successfully dodge the issue for a whole interview and then just blow it at the end. But the dots are there to connect.

Edwards is right, the interviewer is wrong. The superdelegates could very easily make a choice about who they like the best. But that's not what they're trying to do. They know that even Hillary's supporters (even though they explicitly argued that the superdelegates should take it away from the guy who has more popular votes and more pledged delegates, because he's not electable) would be really mad that someone like Gore or Carter or Edwards said "game over", appearing to pull the rug out from under Hillary while she is still fighting and still claims she has a chance. The best way to bring the party together is to have Hillary withdraw, without pressure from party elites, but by her own choice after losing elections.

Hillary likely knows what people like Gore and Carter and Edwards want. They've probably had conversations about how long they want this to last. She has always refused to cut off any options, but I highly doubt she'll use them all. The campaign is numbered in weeks. Obama people should be playing really nice, not getting more exasperated.

The "hardworking" whites comment is pretty insulting. The AP has some way of polling just the whites that are hard-working? As opposed to those hippies, pinhead academics, and lazy blacks supporting Obama.

I think Barack and his supporters have a lot of fence mending to do.

To all the Hillary peeps: I'm really sorry that Obama supporters were accused of being cult-like and that Hillary supporters spent too much time time trying to tear down Obama rather than talking up their candidate and encouraging her to compete with honour and integrity. Oh, and sorry, too, for all of our excitement and mania about supporting a really great, inspirational candidate. You made it abundantly clear that that was a really bad thing to do - and we didn't listen. Sorry. Hope we can still be friends.

Obama supporters always hear what they want. It's all part of Obama's magic.

Umm, actually all I needed to hear was that Edwards and Elizabeth voted for different people to know who voted for whom.

Elizabeth has already spoken out in support of Hillary's heath care plan over Obama's.

Regardless, the fact that Edwards said "him" and the sentence that followed made it pretty clear who his choice was. It was also pretty clear that he didn't care that he'd just said who he voted for. The overwhelming message of support for both of them and for the cause in general was so overwhelming that the horserace endorsement obsession over one vs. the other kinda misses the point.

It's been a few hours, but I remember hearing "I just voted for (him or 'em) Tuesday" and "Obama's doing just fine without my endorsement". He voted for Obama.

That is sure one handsome man! I just hope whoever wins puts him to work doing something that matters.

In this video I noticed a crawl on the bottom of the screen that said, “A monster sinkhole continues to grow in a small town.” Here´s a news flash for you: You´re fucking watching that sinkhole, it´s called MSNBC, where what passes for news is a group of haircuts, teeth, and dye-jobs who think that getting John Edwards to admit who he voted for in the primary would be the biggest journalistic coup of our era—and the sad part is that it probably would be in this environment. Seriously, is there any news on TV news or is it just opinions? Get off your asses, get out of the studio, and go do some real reporting!

"“A monster sinkhole continues to grow in a small town.” Here´s a news flash for you: You´re fucking watching that sinkhole..."

LOL!

I think Barack and his supporters have a lot of fence mending to do.

Not being an Obama supporter, I stand on the sideline here, just boggling my mind at what goes on... This is like watching someone stab a person in the back, and then start bitching about how that person needs to mend fences, because the blade in their dagger got soiled by the victim's blood.

Gimme a fucking break already. If Hillary had won, Obama supporters would have gone along with it. And you know this.

watch tikki's response to the very last question about the conspiracy...regretfully, that is what black america now thinks of the clintons. hillary clinton now or 4 or 8 years from now would/will have to compete against a black independent and loose. she is finished as a presidential candidate...she can't get hard working voters, black voters.

I wanted very much to vote for John Edwards in November. When he dropped out of the race, I switched to Obama. Were Hillary to win the Democratic nomination, I will certainly vote for her but not very enthusiastically.