Dude, do you get it? I don’t. May 14, 2008, one day after Clinton smashed Obama in the West Virginia primary by 41 percent, in preamble to his endorsement of Barack Obama, John Edwards gives the best Democratic Nominating Speech I’ve ever heard — for Hillary Clinton! Made me cry. Then in the like fourth best nominating speech, he endorsed Barack Obama — for the exact same policies.
Do you get it? I don’t get it. I wonder, instead of being promised a jet ski, as Edwards keeps joking about, if it isn’t the VEEP position he’s been offered? Did Edwards say getting rid of “papal politics” as he’s endorsing a man, or did I mis-hear it? Powerful speaking from Edwards, for sure. He has less to prove than when running. Not as much pressure. He’s jazzed, I guess. He’s bringing up all of Hillary’s lead issues: poverty, children, healthcare, and endorsing Obama for being able to handle them. Like Hillary hasn’t taken the lead in all this. It’s admirable, but sad. Deep divisions in our country, he says, that Obama will heal. Unfortunately, for us on the other side, he’s given the speech of his life.
Now in discussion, Pat Buchanan is talking sympathetically of Hillary, about how it appeared that all the boys were getting together and ganging up on her, which made her seem sympathetic, like the underdog. Of course, all this on a day when Hillary moved ahead in the popular vote (with Michigan and Florida.) Oh, and this is all happening in Dearborn, MI, the state where Obama took his name off the ballot, refused a re-vote, or to seat delegates according to the current vote. Kind of unbelievable that a huge auditorium is cheering Obama on. A moment they’ll remember forever. Hard ball, for sure.
This just in: every blue collar redneck, biker, trucker, farmer, and college dropout alive joins with their wife and mother, hangs a u-ey and votes for “the women.” For the first time I’ve ever heard, Lou Dobbs is bitching about how We The Media have caused all this “Hillary ending the race talk.” He goes on . . . instead of raising a stink about how the nominee will not be chosen by popular vote, but rather big wigs at a brokered convention. [Hel-lo-o] He’s getting all outrageous about it like he does. And Wolf was very respectful today. On a day where Hillary had picked up tremendous steam, when her teammates all ganged up on her, The MSM stood up and noticed, and were even deferential for umm, twelve hours? Deep breath. Sigh.
Like I said last time, it’s an bizarro world, right?
Lady Boomer NYC 
Nice post, LadyBoomer & I like your blog too!
Michigan, the state where BOTH Obama and Edwards removed their names from the ballot and started this whole stinking mess. (shaking my head) It would be hilarious if it wasn’t so tragic.
Thanks, katiebird, I’m honored! The Confluence, you, riverdaughter, et al are quite a lifeline!
Now, that’s really short term memory to be suffering from, when MI isn’t even resolved yet, for them to be hailing his candidacy. I guess Obama recently figured he couldn’t actually write them off and win the GE, so Now he’s givin’ ’em all he’s got with that sweet humble smile. I didn’t realize that Edwards had removed his name too! Yah, this country is quite the Shakespearean or Greek tragedy these days. Oy vey!
Yeh, there were 3 of them, I think who did. It seemed like a hopelessly amateur trick at the time. But, now it’s obvious that it’s a typical Obama move.
It’s been pretty baffling that Obama wouldn’t fight for the two ‘renegade’ states on principle of being for the people, which makes me feel like his blocking it may have been in complicit agreement with the DNC.
In general, I try to keep on the sunny side rather than being a conspiracy theorist, however in the case of this election the clouds are coming out.
But this is a conspiracy, the Great Left Wing conspiracy as opposed to the Great Right Wing conspiracy.
In the end it is the same corporate money monster behind each door, the same wealthy sons of privilege who are their politicians and the same tactics used to divide and conquer the great unwashed masses, GUWM (their term). BO calls the same, the small town Bitter (STB).
That is why we cannot follow leaders but must maintain our own mass organizations to lobby for our interests which WE must clearly define. To do this we must learn to stand with one another around common issues despite our differences otherwise. The aim of the corporate elite is to make sure that does not happen – hence the cultural divides.
They now OWN the media – GE the builder of nuclear power plants owns MSNBC and NBC. Excelon, the IL Nuclear industry owns Obama.
Foreign interests including Saudi Arabia own FOX.
The GLW conspiracy has members on boards of so called Progressive non profits who organize to legitimize illegal immigrant slave labor to bust unions and lower wages.
The wealthy are funding the staff of non profit Left Wing think tanks. The GLW conspiracy calls women racist for opposing the Muslim religion/culture which enslaves women. It is not the religion they say in horror – they call us Islamaphopes, they call us racist.
The GLW conspiracy may well be on the Board of NARAL at this very moment.
Every year they come up with a new tactic to split the Dem’s and elect their own kind. This time, regardless of whether BO or McCain gets elected, they will have a president who they can control.
It was critical to eliminate Hillary Clinton who could not be controlled and who was capable of implementing the policy which BO copies but cannot accomplish. Yes BO will build nuclear and call it green and he will privatize social security and call it helping the young.
When will we wake up? I don’t know. What will happen then? I am hoping for a third party, the Center Democrats, formed by the Clintons to accomplish working class goals as she articulated in her campaign. If I am wrong and BO really does what Edwards preaches, then we will not need such a party. But I am not hopeful.
Greenconsciousness: This is just so depressing, but I may have to concur. I noted that Henry Waxman and the Steel Workers Union endorsed Obama. More than that, and John Edwards, it’s the super progressives that I don’t understand. They all feel the same about us: that Hillary has the corporate corner pocket and Obama is JC. I wonder why they don’t question him. I think people are hungry for charisma, it’s all around us; performance, plastic surgery, youth, what things look like from the outside. They bought GB twice and think they’re doing just the opposite with Obama; like you said it’s the same thing in a different package. I don’t want to seem bitter or cynical in light of things, but the fourth estate isn’t doing its job (again), and lots of people aren’t examining the issues too deeply.
Lady Boomer and green conciousness your commentry and views are refreshing. I am overwhelmingly joyed to find like minded persons that can intelligently express their point. In this case their correct points. I am 24f and share your eyes.
Alice: Thank you and it’s good to hear your comments. I hope you mobilize your 24 yo energy and put it to work for Hillary. You’ll find lots of like-mindeds, both in the blogosphere and in her campaign. If you check out the links here, and see where they take you, there’s an all-night buffet! People are really connected in what they’re seeing out there, and “share your eyes.” (nice phrase) (not everybody drank the kool-aid.)
Lady Boomer, I concur about corporate interests, and as an anti-imperialist I don’t have much faith in Obama.
However, because of Hillary’s complicity with US imperialism, I just have to gravitate toward Obama.
Hillary is cynical–she is no feminist. She did not define herself as a progressive, either as first lady or as senator.
Sorry, I know you support her, but I simply think that she is playing feminists as chumps.
Welfare reform and the Iraq sanctions (killing tens of thousands of kids) were early indicators of the degree to which she will promulgate the same masculinist war mongering memes.
And what about talking about ‘obliterating’ 70 million Iranians? WTF?!
I won’t even mention the fascism that allows for the theft of Palestinian lands and the horrid occuption.
Obama is the wildcard becasue he just might be significantly different. Hillary did not forcefully oppose the Iraq occupation/war until she needed to for this presidental contest.
Slave Revolt: Speaking of cynicism, I think you suffer from it and should get it checked out as soon as possible. It’s irresponsible to throw around unfounded, inflammatory statements without any backup or logic. Sadly the only thing new about Obama is that he’s a black man running for president; his politics are business as usual cloaked in a high tech, branded package.
LB –
I’m a little confused, you don’t actually stand by the asinine assertion that HRC is winning the popular vote do you. You realize the math (including ABC’s “math” which they back down from when confronted with anything reasonable) is absurd. Not only does it count Florida but it counts Michigan such that Obama doesn’t actually recieve ANY of the votes for “undecided” (which Clinton herself claimed were his “informal campaign”). These numbers also completely ignore ALL of the results from states with a caucus. Please, please tell me you don’t buy into this baseless (il)logic.
Nathan:
Cite your sources that these numbers from CNN.com don’t include caucus states.
Clinton 1710 16,691,639 (w/ FL, MI) 15,492,344 (w/out FL, MI)
Obama 1914 16,648,060 16,071,846
Needed to win: 2,025 (Actually, it’s 2209 w/ MI & FL)
L’il ole me, buying that argument? Just me and 16.69 million people.
You Obambots have been crying get out, and that Hillary doesn’t have the numbers for months now. How could you know that so soon? This arm-twisting, personality-driven campaign is acting like a bully. If you, and the MSM drills it into us, like brain-washing, that we’re just going to roll over. Obama made his choice to remove his name from the ballot in MI, and neither candidate campaigned in FL — Oh yeah, Obama ran some ads against the rules. Oh yeah, and he blocked re-votes, counting the votes in FL & MI, or trying to figure it out in any way to give voters their ONE primary vote–not to mention the DNC, Dean & Brazile obviously holding things up w/ seating them, which skewed all from the beginning. I guess you’d rather see your candidate push his way in that way, than actually honor people who came out and voted. Don’t come here and do same bully act
Obama will never win the red states against McCain, which is what he’s won so far. 4 more years of Bush here we come.
LBNYC-
I appreciate that you’ve taken the time to respond to my admittedly less than rational rant. Before the substantive component of my reply begins please understand that I’m not trying to bully you or any Clinton supporter out of this election or discussion of the primaries. Also, it seems unnecessary to resort to childish name calling “Obamabot” if you review my post, I didn’t make any claims as to the kind of supporter you were, just mocked the rationale substantiating your claims (which I still consider dubious but more on that later). Furthermore, the recourse to this language of “bully” is rather perplexing as it’s a discursive strategy which your candidate at times distances herself from and at times trumps up to generate and mobilize support (who doesn’t remember the “piled on” discussion or “the old boys club” reference?). Lest we degenerate into the full-blown identify politics game (you’ll continue to insinuate I’m being a misogynist and I’ll slowly become convinced that you’re insisting my candidate, and by extension me, continue to sit on the back of the bus like a good house negro) how about we do away with the name calling.
That being said, I think we should avoid terms like Obamabots etc. because well, quite frankly it’s absurd and really makes the Clinton camp look like sore losers. Unless of course you actually believe all of Obama’s 17m supporters are blind followers of a cult of personality.
At this point, you’re probably wondering where i derived the 17 million number. Here’s the numbers game from Real Clear Politics (arguably less a part of the MSM than, I don’t know, CNN). Very clear tables are provided here:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html
MI and FL
Let’s not make this a question of democracy at work (or anything lofty for that matter). Do HRC’s supporters really not remember her comments on New Hampshire Public Radio that the vote “won’t count for anything” (10/11/07)? Let’s face reality, Clinton went on an 11 state losing streak and realized she was going to need the Florida and Michigan results in order to have even a shot at winning the primary. Perhaps a lesson from Clinton backer former U.S. Senator Bob Kerrey could be learned “You don’t change the rules in the middle of the game. Period” (The Villager, February 2008). This is also the same reason I don’t think the superdelegates have any obligation to follow the pledged delegate majority (a silly political game forwarded by the Obama camp), because those aren’t the rules. There is a very democratic reason why these states were punished, I live in California, if MI and FL are allowed to usurp the DNC rules without punishment why shouldn’t my (more important and valuable) state or New York not also follow suit. Thankfully, neither Obama nor Clinton thought this was a good Idea. Here’s a section of the pledge which Hillary and Obama signed:
WHEREAS, the DNC also honored the traditional role of retail politics early in the nominating process, to ensure that money alone will not determine our presidential nominee;
WHEREAS, it is the desire of Presidential campaigns, the DNC, the states and the American people to bring finality, predictability and common sense to the nominating calendar.
THEREFORE, I _______________, Democratic Candidate for President, pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as “campaigning” is defined by the rules and regulations of the DNC. It does not include activities specifically related to raising campaign resources such as fundraising events or the hiring of fundraising staff.
Let’s not make this ethical, its pragmatic, plain and simple.
Lastly, your assertion that Obama won’t win the red states is insignificant, neither will Hillary. And it turns out, Obama will win the same blue states Hillary has. The only difference is that the states Obama puts into play, Virginia, Missouri, etc. are states Clinton would get blown out of. I’d provide more substantive research on this point, but it looks like its ok just to assert these claims about the electoral map.
Quick addendum – CNN just stated that HRC’s popular vote count “contradicted” CNN’s own count. I don’t think your use of their counts is particularly prudent. I know this plays into your criticism of “the MSM” but that puts you in quite a pickle vis-a-vis arguments regarding the metrics and math of success.
fyi – I’ll confirm my claims about cnn when a transcript is available online.
Nathan, I’m not interested in having this discussion. I’m not going to convince you and vice versa. This is a Hillary friendly site, in addition to other things I care about and want to give voice to. Arguing with you is not one of them.
Thanks for the candor. I appreciate your writing and look forward to reading more of your analysis.
You’re welcome, Nathan. Thank you for the compliment, although I’ll claim to write opinion more than analysis. I appreciate your stance to not fight with me.