MyDD :: Edwards was an opportunistic fair weather 'friend' of Lamont

Edwards was an opportunistic fair weather 'friend' of Lamont

by NuevoLiberal, Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 12:39:19 AM EST

This a response to an Obama hit piece titled "Did Obama Cheer For Lieberman?" by poster "Team Edwards", which paints a one-sided version of the events in the CT-Sen race last year. That diary is presently on the Recommended list.

I brought to the poster's attention Tim Tagaris' account: CT-Sen: So You Wanna Know What Really Happened?, by ttagaris, Tue Nov 14, 2006

Tim was the internet coordinator for the Lamont campaign, and his diary provided an inside look into the campaign.

I asked "Team Edwards" to link to Tim's post in his diary so as to attempt to provide a more balanced and honest reportage to the readers, instead of one-sided reporting, which amounted to an unbalanced hit on Obama. I requested/asked three times: one, two, three.

As I write this diary, the poster has neither responded to my comments, nor has he linked to Tagaris' diary, warranting this post.

In particular, Tim said the following about what Edwards did in CT-Sen:

CT-Sen: So You Wanna Know What Really Happened?, by ttagaris, Tue Nov 14, 2006

Senator Edwards

Basically, John Edwards called us up and said he was coming to Connecticut in the days after the primary. There wasn't really even an invitation (to the best of my knowledge). In his speech, he never mentioned Joe Lieberman. When pressed by bloggers about coming back to Connecticut, he said he would. When we asked him directly, he declined.

Update [2006-11-14 16:16:6 by ttagaris]: There are a few comments about Senator Edwards and his role in the days immediately following the primary. He was in town, he did say Joe shouldn't run, and he did have a $250 a person fundraiser for Ned. All that is terrific, and was much appreciated. But here's the deal from my perspective as the online guy w/ Ned's campaign -- take it for what it's worth: in the days following the primary '08ers (and a few others) couldn't get their press releases/$5,000 checks out the door quick enough. Call me a cynic, but most of it had to do with the amount of online support we had received and their reaching out to you through Ned. It just is what it is.
When the spotlight wore with time and more races claimed a share of the attention, there were a few people who stuck around and actually held Joe's feet to the fire on Iraq and other issues ... Senator Edwards just wasn't one of them. I'm sorry. I wish he was, but he wasn't.

In Tagaris' words, Edwards invited himself to bask in Lamont's victory. And, in my opinion, apparently to curry favor with the netroots, and when Lamont's poll numbers tanked, he refused to return, setting a text book example of opportunistic "fair weather `friendship'"

I am not including the portion that Tagaris wrote about Obama, which is not flattering either, and which the reader may wish to visit the link and read up, because this diary is meant to balance out the bias generated by the hit diary by "Team Edwards."

The type of dishonest behavior displayed by that poster is the hallmark of how some partisan Edwards supporters operate at myDD and other places (nothing against individuals as such; it's the group behavior that I am referring to). That's what is breeding hostile and creepy environment for discussing the 2008 race.

Poll

Votes: 44
Results : Vote Link : Polls

Tags: John Edwards, Barack Obama, Ned Lamont, Joe Lieberman, whining troll diary (all tags)

Permalink :: 103 Comments :: Post a Comment

Recommendations of my diary are (1.00 / 4)

welcome and will be appreciated. Thanks in advance.

by NuevoLiberal on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 12:40:24 AM EST

First of all, (3.00 / 5)

you need to change the diary to point out that Tagaris works for Dodd, another rival candidate who, like Obama, supported Lieberman during the Primary.

Second of all:

...Joe Lieberman's a man with a good heart, with a keen intellect, who cares about the working families of America. I am absolutely certain that Connecticut's going to have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the United States Senate.

That, of course, is Obama endorsing Lieberman for the Senate. And Obama put his money where his heart was: he donated $4200 to Lieberman.

But seriously, New Liberal, please keep writing diaries that remind everyone that Obama and Dodd backed Holy Joe. Write them everyone week, and I'll keeping rec-ing them.

by david mizner on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 08:44:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Tim wasn't working for Dodd when he wrote (3.00 / 1)

his diary. So that point is moot.

Obama supported Lieberman for the primary portion. He technically supported the primary winner Lamont for the general; If I recall correctly, Obama cut a $5000 check for Lamont after the primary (that's maximum allowed for that leg).

Likewise, Dodd supported Lamont in the general and made an Ad for him, after having supported Lieberman in the primary segment of that race.

I am of course disappointed with Obama on this, but Edwards was there to help himself more than to help Lamont.

by NuevoLiberal on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 09:16:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

New Liberal, here's (3.00 / 2)

a simple question:

Who helped Lamont more during the primary, Edwards or Obama?

by david mizner on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 09:21:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Neither did. (1.00 / 1)

by NuevoLiberal on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 09:57:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Neither did. (3.00 / 2)

that is a lie and you know it. During the PRIMARY Obama helped Lieberman, therefore he hurt Lamont.

By contrast, Edwards supported Lamont, and Elizabeth was on record blasting Lieberman for the rumor that he would run as an independent.

Even if you think all of that is zero(which it is NOT), I will take a zero over a negative.

"Keep the Faith"

by blue south on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 10:21:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Neither did. (3.00 / 1)

During the PRIMARY Obama helped Lieberman, therefore he hurt Lamont.

Agree.

By contrast, Edwards supported Lamont

Show us when and how Edwards supported Lamont before the primary election. It's my recollection that Edwards did not endorse Lamont for the primary. Show me otherwise.

and Elizabeth was on record blasting Lieberman for the rumor that he would run as an independent.

She may have been speaking for herself, or perhaps Edwards was using her an tentaive emissary (to make netroots happy) while he was hedging bets himself. Who knows?

Did Edwards oppose Lieberman's independent ("Sore Loser") bid before the primary? I don't recall if he did or not. Please post a link if you can confirm either way.

by NuevoLiberal on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 10:36:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Okay, let me try again (3.00 / 4)

Did Obama campaign with Lamont during the General? I honestly don't know, but I'm assuming he didn't.

Here's video of Edwards campaigning with Lamont:

http://connecticutblog.blogspot.com/2006 /08/edwards-lamont-footage.html

by david mizner on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 11:22:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Tagaris: (3.00 / 1)

When the spotlight wore with time and more races claimed a share of the attention, there were a few people who stuck around and actually held Joe's feet to the fire on Iraq and other issues ... Senator Edwards just wasn't one of them. I'm sorry. I wish he was, but he wasn't.

Let the readers read the whole thing.

by NuevoLiberal on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 11:32:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Liberal, here's (none / 0)

Wes Clark did

most definitely!

by sybil disobedience on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 04:05:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tim wasn't working for Dodd when he wrote (none / 0)

That is how it works. Deniablity.

by Rt hon McAdder esq KBE on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 08:08:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tim wasn't working for Dodd when he wrote (none / 0)

Ttagaris:

Barack Obama
Quite possibly the biggest disappointment ... period.

While on his book tour, he was in NYC one day, had a scheduled day off, and appeared in Massachusetts the following day. Yet he couldn't make time to stop in the state between the two on his day off. We made it explicitly clear he was the single senator we wanted in the state above all others.

He declined.

Eventually, we asked Senator Obama to send out an email for the campaign to his Connecticut list. We created a culture in which emails became news (much like we did with the blogs in the primary). They made it entirely clear that he would basically not even mention Joe Lieberman's name in the email, let alone take him to task for his unfortunate position on the war in Iraq. This was disappointing, but I wasn't going to be spiteful. They sent the email, and as I hoped, the press came calling. Our Press Secretary, Eddie Vale, was asked how many people the email went to. He looked on the back-end of the website and saw the number of click-throughs to the landing page I created. He answered "about 5,000." Within minutes of the Associated Press piece going on the wire, I received several phone calls from Obama staff. They were none to pleased about the 5,000 number. Essentially, Obama could be seen as helping, but not helping THAT much. His staff apparently made it clear that the email only went out to 225 people in Connecticut. That's it. The next day we were subject to a correction in the papers and ridicule from Lieberman's campaign and corners of the right-wing blogosphere.

It's also important to note that Obama's email came only after a tremendous amount of pressure built up from portions of various online communities who "threatened" in behind-the-scenes conversations and open discussions online that support for Lamont would be viewed as a part of a "presidential checklist."

Everyone should also know that Robert Gibbs, part of the group that ran the infamous Dean/Osama ad during Iowa 2004, is now Barack Obama's Communications Director.

The DSCC
After asking no less than 5 times, the DSCC eventually sent out an in-state solicitation to volunteers. Again, after tremendous pressure coming from within online communities and leading bloggers. Mike Liddell at the DSCC told me it wasn't being sent because of that pressure, but because it was "the right thing to do." I know Mike. I like Mike. I respect Mike. I'll take him at his word. However, it was unfortunate that he insisted the email go out from the Executive Director of the DSCC and not Chuck Schumer. This, no doubt in my mind, was because we was quite aware about the culture we had created in which emails generated a lot of earned media in Connecticut.

by Rt hon McAdder esq KBE on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 12:50:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: First of all, (none / 0)

Obama contributed to the Lieberman campaign in February and March 2005, way before Ned Lamont had any inkling of challenging Lieberman, the same dates he also wrote checks to a bunch of other incumbents.

by Adam B on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 07:46:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: First of all, (none / 0)

That's better. Before it was clear Lieberman was an apostate Democrat. Obama hasa leadership PAc that needs to be closely looked at.

by Rt hon McAdder esq KBE on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 08:09:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: First of all, (3.00 / 1)

Go ahead -- he gave $600K to Dems through the PAC in 2005-06; John Edwards' One America Committee gave $0 to other Democrats in 2005-06, raising and spending $2.7M to promote John Edwards.

by Adam B on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 08:14:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: First of all, (none / 0)

so you are saying that although he did all the things htat others here have linked to that doesn't count?

by bruh21 on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 09:08:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: First of all, (none / 0)

I'm saying it's a lot easier to get other people to give their money rather than give your own.

by Adam B on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 09:17:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: First of all, (none / 0)

really? well damn- I wish I had known that. I will go out and start asking tomorrow. I am sure all those canvassers o ut there would love to hear your technique for getting other people to easily give up their hard earned money.

by bruh21 on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 11:04:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: First of all, (none / 0)

Both Edwards and Obama had no problem raising money for themselves via their leadership PACs. Only Obama gave a significant amount away to threatened Dems; Edwards kept it all for himself.

by Adam B on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 11:06:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: First of all, (none / 0)

So you are saying again- to be clear- that you don't think raising money through others for a candidate means very much. That's the most interesting manipulation to justify a bias I've heard all week. They both did their part.

by bruh21 on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 11:41:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: First of all, (none / 0)

Both went out and headlined fundraisers for other candidates. Only Obama also gave from his own funds.

by Adam B on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 11:56:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: First of all, (none / 0)

And my point to you is you are making gradation difference that are kind of well- silly. But if this is the way you want to play it- fine. Go ahead and pretend this is a big deal until your heats content. Pretend as if your guys a saint, and Edwards is a devil. All of which is bs because they are both good in different ways.

by bruh21 on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 12:06:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: First of all, (none / 0)

Dude, I believe the whole point of this diary is that there's no significant difference between what Obama and Edwards did for CT-SEN, that yesterday's "big diary" was all a big nothing.

by Adam B on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 12:08:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: First of all, (none / 0)

Ttagaris

Barack Obama
Quite possibly the biggest disappointment ... period.

He declined.

Everyone should also know that Robert Gibbs, part of the group that ran the infamous Dean/Osama ad during Iowa 2004, is now Barack Obama's Communications Director.

by Rt hon McAdder esq KBE on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 12:51:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Ill let Harpers do it for me... (none / 0)

Harpers Obama Inc. 2006

As of this summer, Obama had raised nearly $16 million for his original Senate run and for his 2010 reelection war chest. He has taken in an additional $3.8 million for the Hopefund, his leadership PAC. Such PACs are subject to fewer restrictions on raising and spending money than general campaign funds. Over a six-year term, a senator can raise a maximum of $4,200 per individual donor; the same donor can give as much as $30,000 to the senator's leadership PAC during that same period. Traditionally, leadership PACs were established by veteran members of Congress, but now they are set up by anyone who hopes to work his or her way up through party ranks. Last year, the Hopefund took in more than any other leadership PAC except for those of Bill Frist, John McCain, and John Kerry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

In several primaries, Obama's PAC has given to candidates that have been carefully culled and selected by the Democratic establishment on the basis of their marketability as palatable "moderates"--even when they are facing more progressive and equally viable challengers. Most conspicuously, Obama backed Joe Lieberman over Ned Lamont, his Democratic primary opponent in Connecticut, endorsing him publicly in March and contributing $4,200 to his campaign. The Hopefund also gave $10,000 to Tammy Duckworth, a helicopter pilot in the National Guard who lost both legs in Iraq and who is running for the seat of retiring G.O.P. Congressman Henry Hyde in Chicago's western suburbs. Despite her support from the party establishment, an enormous fund-raising advantage, and sympathy she had due to her war record, Duckworth won the primary by just 1,100 votes over a vocal war opponent named Christine Cegelis. (When asked about her stand on the Iraq war by a reporter, Duckworth had replied, "There is good and bad in everything.")

I can on from here. It gets more interesting...

by Rt hon McAdder esq KBE on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 09:10:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ill let Harpers do it for me... (none / 0)

I've read the article, and if I wanted to talk to its author, I would. Do you have any thoughts of your own, or do you just cut and paste?

How do you feel about the fact that Edwards raised a large percentage of his 2007-08 money from folks giving $1000+ at a time than Obama did, and a lower percentage from folks giving $200 or less?

Also, here's some more people Obama's leadership PAC gave to:

Altmire, Jason (D-PA)      $2,500
Arcuri, Michael (D-NY)     $5,000
Barrow, John (D-GA)     $2,500
Boswell, Leonard L (D-IA)     $10,000
Boyda, Nancy E (D-KS)     $2,500
Braley, Bruce (D-IA)     $5,000
Burner, Darcy (D-WA)     $2,500
Busby, Francine P (D-CA)     $10,000
Carney, Chris (D-PA)     $5,000
Courtney, Joe (D-CT)     $5,000
Cranley, John (D-OH)     $5,000
Derby, Jill T (D-NV)     $5,000
Ellison, Keith Maurice (D-MN)     $2,500
Farrell, Diane Goss (D-CT)     $6,500
Gillibrand, Kirsten E (D-NY)     $5,000
Goldmark, Peter James (D-WA)     $1,000
Hafen, Tessa (D-NV)     $5,000
Hall, John (D-NY)     $1,000
Hodes, Paul W (D-NH)     $5,000
Jackson, Jesse Jr (D-IL)     $2,100
Jennings, Christine (D-FL)     $2,500
Kagen, Steven Leslie (D-WI)     $2,500
Lampson, Nick (D-TX)     $2,500
Madrid, Patricia A (D-NM)     $10,000
McNerney, Jerry (D-CA)     $5,000
Murphy, Chris (D-CT)     $5,000
Murphy, Lois (D-PA)     $6,500
Murphy, Patrick J (D-PA)     $12,326
Seals, Daniel Joseph (D-IL)     $5,000
Sestak, Joe (D-PA)     $5,000
Shea-Porter, Carol (D-NH)     $2,500
Space, Zachary T (D-OH)     $5,000
Sutton, Betty Sue (D-OH)     $5,000
Welch, Peter (D-VT)     $7,500
Wetterling, Patty (D-MN)     $3,500
Wilson, Charlie (D-OH)     $7,000

Brown, Sherrod (D-OH)     $10,000
Carter, John William (D-NV)     $7,000
Durbin, Dick (D-IL)     $5,000
Harkin, Tom (D-IA)     $5,000
Hynes, Daniel W (D-IL)     $2,000
Jeffords, James M (I-VT)     $4,200
Johnson, Tim (D-SD)     $5,000
Kennedy, Edward M (D-MA)     $4,200
Klobuchar, Amy (D-MN)     $10,000
Lamont, Ned (D-CT)     $5,000
Levin, Carl (D-MI)     $5,000
McCaskill, Claire (D-MO)     $10,000
Pederson, Jim (D-AZ)     $10,000
Reed, Jack (D-RI)     $5,000
Sanders, Bernie (I-VT)     $10,000
Stabenow, Debbie (D-MI)     $10,000
Tester, Jon (D-MT)     $5,000
Webb, James (D-VA)     $5,000
Whitehouse, Sheldon (D-RI)     $10,000

by Adam B on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 09:23:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ill let Harpers do it for me... (none / 0)

funny- long post- and yet no refutation of what the harper article said. i am actually at this point for both either obama or edwards by the way, but both sides of these silly online flame wars make it hard

by bruh21 on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 11:05:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ill let Harpers do it for me... (none / 0)

It's a direct refutation to the notion that Obama only helped "moderates".

by Adam B on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 11:07:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ill let Harpers do it for me... (none / 0)

My point is - who cares. Both guys helped out candidates and people iin the past. This whole diary, and it's premise is stupid. It's like a match between who is the biggest ego in the room. Literally people are arguing gradations with very little difference between them. All its really doing is proving to me that these guys are sometimes better than the people who talk about them on here. Let's be clear. I am an Edwards supporters, but I won't cry a river if Obama's the nominee. I simply think my choice is better. But these silly fights are getting sillier by the day on here.

by bruh21 on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 11:39:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ill let Harpers do it for me... (none / 0)

I agree. But every attack needs to be countered. I can see why Nuevo wants to do it. Most of the controversy is his financial support for Lieberman. Really I don't mind Obama, but the mythmaking is just bugging me now.

everyday that Obama supporters take attacking Edwards is a day less they have to attack Hillary which looks like strategic madness to me, but i'm not of a mind to allow Edwards to get bashed around in the mean time. Eventually the Obama supporters need to go after Hillary. The Edwards camp is not likely to be fertile ground for the kind of marketing offered by New lib

it's getting out of hand.

by Rt hon McAdder esq KBE on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 12:38:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ill let Harpers do it for me... (none / 0)

But it starts from Edwards Purity Trolls going after Obama; remember how this all started. Edwards supporters who believe they can't beat Hillary unless they beat Obama first.

by Adam B on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 12:43:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ill let Harpers do it for me... (none / 0)

well there is a difference between saying yes Edwards did help, and then saying but Obama helped no one but DLC'ers. If he helped others outside of the DLC then that's simply not true. But- the idea that the response to Edwards helping is that he didn't help enough is bogus. both sides if you are ask me are full of shit to some degree on this, but that's just me.

by bruh21 on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 02:00:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Please keep this fight up (none / 0)

there's nothing good on TeeVee right now and I can't log onto World of Warcraft.

by Teaser on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 10:29:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

As opposed to (none / 0)

Obama, who was no friend at all.

What a joke of a diary.

by littafi on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 10:14:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: As opposed to (none / 0)

Obama gave Lamont $5000 from his PAC right after the primary. Edwards gave $0.

by Adam B on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 11:10:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Mr. NuevoLiberal, (none / 0)

According to your diary:

"The type of dishonest behavior displayed by that poster is the hallmark of how some partisan Edwards supporters operate at myDD and other places (nothing against individuals as such; it's the group behavior that I am referring to). That's what is breeding hostile and creepy environment for discussing the 2008 race."

You call people who support another candidate dishonest? Group behavior?

I think your diary breeds a "hostile and creepy environment." You could have posted without attacks on those many people who support a different candidate from yours. Perhaps you should look in a mirror.

by littafi on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 10:40:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Actually, it's the group behavior that (none / 0)

I have a problem with, as for example how everyone gang up dispense down/troll ratings on people with things that are inconvenient for your advocacy of Edwards. I find that at an individual level, Edwards supporters are OK to deal with, but the group behavior is not OK.

Here is an example of such conduct: gang troll rating:
http://www.mydd.com/comments/2007/5/29/1 95036/398/4?mode=alone;showrate=1#4
http://www.mydd.com/comments/2007/5/29/1 95036/398/11?mode=alone;showrate=1#11
http://www.mydd.com/comments/2007/5/29/1 95036/398/16?mode=alone;showrate=1#16
http://www.mydd.com/comments/2007/5/29/2 05122/141/1?mode=alone;showrate=1#1

by NuevoLiberal on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 01:09:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards was an opportunistic (3.00 / 2)

It seems silly that the mud-slinging is based on such trivia. What's worse, I support your having to write this diary when you probably had better things to do.

No Quacks, please.

by noquacks on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 01:10:33 AM EST

Re: Edwards was an opportunistic (3.00 / 1)

There's NOTHING better for NeuvoLiberal than bashing Edwards - the only electable Progressive.
And like Fox News - ignores and spins facts any-whicha-way.

Hillary/Obama08

by annefrank on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 12:21:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

How is Obama not electable? (3.00 / 1)

He polls best among Democrats in some matchups with leading GOP candidates, and he's doing great amongst independents and soft Republican supporters. He's also proving that he's awesome at getting small-donor and internet contributions, and whether you want to call his campaign a movement or not, he undoubtedly has the most volunteers of any candidate. I've yet to hear a reason why he's unelectable other than his race or inexperience. It's mostly older folks concerned about his race, and he still has a long time to demonstrate his capability at attracting independents to dissuade people from believing that being black is an impassable hurdle to the White House. If you're talking inexperience, he has a longer legislative record (and at least as many accomplishments) than any top tier Democratic candidate.

Never separate the life you live from the words you speak. -Sen. Paul Wellstone (Minnesota)

by Max Fletcher on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 02:54:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How is Obama not electable? (3.00 / 1)

Perhaps Obama was a Progressive prior to becoming a senator - but he's a DC Centri$t now - with an advisor writing letter in Libby's defense and another advisor writing op-eds with THE co-founder of PNAC!!
And his coal indu$try bill and voting with Repubs for rightwing nutjob judicial nominees, places him squarely in the DC elite and corporati$ts hands.
Obama is not electable in the south and rural areas.
No one has to become a prez candidate to promote increased voter registrations - but we appreciate all his volunteers are doing to increase Dem voters.
Edwards also has about 500 OneCorps groups - but I don't think they do much pole dancing.

Hillary/Obama08

by annefrank on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 04:46:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How is Obama not electable? (none / 0)

but he's a DC Centri$t now

Might be the best strategy. If he wins the election he is more likely to get alot done his first four years compared to another candidate who is more out-spoken in his/her criticism.

Note: I didn't say that a candidate shouldn't speak up. I did say that the way a candidate speaks up has a great impact on their future effectiveness.

No Quacks, please.

by noquacks on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 05:10:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How is Obama not electable? (3.00 / 1)

From what I can tell, Obama's Senate record has been more liberal than Edwards'.

National Journal ratings:

Edwards (from Media Matters): "Fourth Most Liberal Senator In 2003," misrepresenting Edwards's voting record by ignoring key information from National Journal's vote ratings based on Edwards's five years in the Senate. Edwards's 2003 National Journal vote rating -- which gave him a liberal rating of 94.5 percent -- was based on only 40 votes from one session of Congress (due to his presidential campaign, Edwards missed 22 of the 62 Senate votes National Journal examined) and is not representative of his voting record in the Senate over the past five years...According to National Journal, in 2002, Edwards received a 63 percent rating; in 2001, he received a 68.2 percent rating; in 2000, he received an 80.8 percent rating; and in 1999, he received a 72.2 percent rating.

So, Edwards' scores:

72.2% liberal rating
80.8% liberal rating
68.2% liberal rating
63% liberal rating
94.5% liberal rating
(i don't know--can anyone find the 2004 scores online?)

Overall: 75.74% liberal rating

Obama's scores:
2005: 83% liberal rating (Feingold = 85%)
2006: 86% liberal rating (Feingold = 84.5%)

Overall Average: 84.5% liberal rating

Obama is a more progressive Senator than Edwards was.
This invalidates that part of your argument, but your question of electability is still there, but now its become: "is Obama too liberal to be elected President?" I doubt it--John Kerry was more liberal at 85.7% lifetime, and came close to being elected in the much harsher climate of 2004, despite some huge missteps during the campaign. However, your electability argument seems to be predicated on John Edwards winning southern states that Obama won't win. First of all, we don't need Southern states to win the Presidential election--gains out West and in states like Ohio and Missouri are more likely. And even in the South, Obama could prove even tougher than Edwards by bringing out more black voters, particularly in moderate states with large black populations like Virginia and Florida.

Never separate the life you live from the words you speak. -Sen. Paul Wellstone (Minnesota)

by Max Fletcher on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 05:52:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How is Obama not electable? (none / 0)

See him come in 3rd in Iowa and NH.

That will settle it.

by Rt hon McAdder esq KBE on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 08:11:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

we'll just have to wait and see (none / 0)

Never separate the life you live from the words you speak. -Sen. Paul Wellstone (Minnesota)

by Max Fletcher on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 09:25:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards was an opportunistic fair weather 'fri (2.77 / 9)

There were post on the Lamont website that reminded Tim that Edwards was indeed there and did help and was the first to call Lamont.

Try a different smear Nuevo!

This video link is on Tagaris own YouTube page!:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oU6fRP80V Tc

"Mr. Lamont said that former Senator John Edwards, the Democrats' vice presidential nominee in 2004, was the first Democratic leader to call him last night. Mr. Lamont also gave a prominent spot at a rally last night at his headquarters in Meriden to several African-American supporters, including the Rev. Al Sharpton and the Rev. Jesse Jackson."
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/09/nyregi on/09campaign.html?ex=1312776000&en= 3b11c4235c651c17&ei=5088&partner =rssnyt&emc=rss

http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2006/8 18/11262/2944

http://nedlamont.com/blog/1156/sometimes -events-meet-expectations

http://www.flickr.com/photos/nedlamont/2 18066704/in/photostream

http://www.newhavenindependent.org/archi ves/2006/08/a_heavyweight_s.php

http://www.nedlamont.com/page/event/deta il/rallies/w5x

Here's Spazeboy's account:
"I was super excited to meet John Edwards today in New Haven. He's the first big-name Democrat to come to Connecticut in support of Ned Lamont. I'll have much more on the rally, and much more video as well (keep your eyes open for CTBlogger's pictures...the few I saw were amazing!). I just wanted to post this clip of John Edwards answering two questions-one from me about (post-Katrina-) poverty, and one from a reporter about his 2008 intentions."
http://ctbob.blogspot.com/search?q=edwar ds+lamont

http://nedlamont.com/blog/1158/video

http://connecticutlocalpolitics.blogspot .com/2006/08/lamont-and-edwards-event-ph otos.html

http://connecticutlocalpolitics.blogspot .com/2006/08/lamont-and-edwards-event-vi deo.html

http://connecticutblog.blogspot.com/2006 /08/edwards-backs-lamont-shows-his-suppo rt.html

http://lamontblog.blogspot.com/2006/08/e dwards-calls-on-lieberman-to-drop-out.ht ml

http://www.nhregister.com/site/news.cfm? newsid=17070058&BRD=1281&PAG=461 &dept_id=7576&rfi=6

http://connecticutlocalpolitics.blogspot .com/search?q=edwards+lamont

Check out the New Progressive Blog EENRBLOG

by dk2 on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 01:32:35 AM EST

Edwards probably had Lamont on speed dial, (none / 0)

as someone said in the other diary, ready to go once the primary victory was secure for Lamont.

by NuevoLiberal on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 01:41:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards probably had Lamont on speed dial, (3.00 / 7)

Elizabeth Edwards prominently criticized the idea of a Lieberman independent run before the primary election ... in far stronger terms than any of the inside the beltway types used ... and John Edwards was first to call to congratulate him on his victory and promise his support ... and that is somehow a bad thing?

And it was not just coming up to "share the limelight" ... it included a $250 a plate fundraiser ... among the earliest money in Ned Lamont's General Election Campaign fund. As they say, EMILY: Early Money Is Like Yeast. And Edwards did not charge an appearance fee for his fundraisers in the 2006 season, unlike many fund raising headliners, so all the money raised stayed with the Lamont campaign.

If, according to ttagaris, the Lamont campaign was taking so long getting out of the blocks that Edwards had to "invite himself up" when he had a space in his schedule ... why is that a criticism of John Edwards? Given that Edwards was the first to call to congratulate, if the Lamont campaign had been quicker off the blocks than the Lieberman campaign ... who had to organize to run "Plan B" ... they should have invited him.

That would seem to be more a criticism of the principle failing of the Lamont General Election campaign itself ... being slow out of the blocks and allowing Lieberman to seize the initiative and set the frame for the race.

*John Edwards* ... and the JE08 Supporters Blog

by BruceMcF on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 07:57:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards probably had Lamont on speed dial, (3.00 / 0)

Early Money Is Like Yeast.

Lamont needed friends that stuck around through thick and thin, not money so much.

by NuevoLiberal on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 08:54:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards probably had Lamont on speed dial, (3.00 / 3)

Lamont needed to get his campaign on the road before Lieberman set the agenda. ttagaris surely had an emotional investment in the last ditch fight to try to climb an almost insurmountable lead ... but they should have set the date for Edwards to come back when he came up the first time, and the way that ttagaris recounts it, they were not even the ones that took the initiative to get him up when Lamont desperately needed to get his General Election campaign kick-started.

*John Edwards* ... and the JE08 Supporters Blog

by BruceMcF on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 09:08:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards probably had Lamont on speed dial, (none / 0)

pwned.

by Rt hon McAdder esq KBE on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 08:12:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That pretty much wraps this diary up (none / 0)

next?

by okamichan13 on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 12:24:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards was an opportunistic fair weather 'fri (3.00 / 1)

i'm actually kind of discouraged that that Team Edwards diary warranted any sort of response. It was one of the most ridiculous things I've read on this blog in a long time, and if the Obama-Edwards spat keeps dominating the time here, I think I might just stick to the New York Times and places like Hotline and Political Wire and give up on the liberal blogs.

Seriously, with Markos and Jerome even getting involved now, I can't stand to watch the Edwards and Obama fight play out over the next 7 months. Team Edwards' diary was incredibly stupid, but it was only a tiny step above the 'work' being put out recently by the authors of Crashing the Gate. Both of these candidates are good guys. Let's get real... stupid shit like Markos' "Leadership" post (critiquing the candidates on gay marriage is one thing, and if you want to give Edwards a free pass, fine, but extending it to say that one of our best progressive spokesmen has never "led" on anything... man, I tell ya, I was pretty frustrated), Jerome's "movement" post, the Lieberman-Lamont fight, the Edwards haircut crap, and all the rest is just going to help Hillary Clinton get the nomination. I'm an Obama supporter first, but I think most reasonable people who aren't operating on blind hatred of a rival camp would agree that either Obama or Edwards would be much better for the progressive movement than Clinton (and much more electable, for that matter). Let's not tear down good candidates over stupid stuff like this.

Never separate the life you live from the words you speak. -Sen. Paul Wellstone (Minnesota)

by Max Fletcher on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 03:10:28 AM EST

Re: Edwards was an opportunistic fair weather 'fri (none / 0)

Amen.

by Korha on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 11:54:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards was an opportunistic fair weather 'fri (none / 0)

Thanks for a decent criticism without rankor.

No Quacks, please.

by noquacks on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 04:57:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards was an opportunistic fair weather 'fri (3.00 / 2)

Didn;t something similar happen with Webb, where Edwards invited himself and was the only one to demand that Webb introduce him rather than the other way around. I'll try to find a link.

by parahammer on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 06:35:49 AM EST

Re: Edwards was an opportunistic fair weather 'fri (none / 0)

you do that. It'll take about half an hour to set up a webs site.

by Rt hon McAdder esq KBE on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 08:13:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fairweather Mudsling (3.00 / 5)

You've got to be kidding!!? You are essentially saying that Edwards did a lot for Ned Lamont, but not quite enough to please you?! Come on!

dk2 has posted a very complete accounting of the true facts in this matter earlier in this thread. All I can add to it is this personal comment.... I have always liked Lieberman, but I live in N.C. and completely trust John. I sent a check to Ned Lamont because John asked. Period. John certainly did speak out on Lieberman's position on Iraq. And John's voice moved many moderates (like me) over to Lamont's side. John raised money.

During this time frame, John was all over the map supporting Democrats in a number of states for a number of races, and also stayed on the road supporting his fight to raise the minimum wage in a number of states. He traveled to support union workers in a number of battles. He talked about Lamont wherever he went. (Did you expect him to move to Connecticut?)If you are looking for someone to blame for Lamont's loss, you are going to have to find somebody besides John Edwards.

by bettync on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 08:22:15 AM EST

Re: Fairweather Mudsling (3.00 / 2)

You are essentially saying that Edwards did a lot for Ned Lamont, but not quite enough to please you?! Come on!

I refer you to Tagaris' comment.

During this time frame, John was all over the map supporting Democrats in a number of states for a number of races

Credit here for Edwards to the extent he helped with those races.

Obama did a lot as well. Obama was one of the most sought after people for helping Democrats across the country with fund raisers, rallies etc, and if I recall correctly, he raised the most money for 2006 candidates, than any other Democrat.

and also stayed on the road supporting his fight to raise the minimum wage in a number of states.

Fine. But, support for minimum wage among general voting public was in 70-80% range already, and so this wasn't great shakes. If anything, Edwards gained more out of it, as he mentioned is so many times to take credit, since after the 2006 election. So, he was helping himself because of that.

If you are looking for someone to blame for Lamont's loss, you are going to have to find somebody besides John Edwards.

I blame Connecticut SOS for allowing Lieberman to wage a "Sore Loser" bid more than anyone else. Lieberman escaped because of wrong implementation of election law/rules in by CT SOS: The primary was moved up for 2006, but the deadline for filing petitioning candidacies was not (for some unknown reason), leaving Lieberman exactly one day after the primary to file a sore loser bid. That's the number one reason why Lieberman returned to the US Senate. Number two reason was Lamont taking bad advice (despite my warnings, for what they're worth, at his blog not to). Number three was Democrats soaking him when his polls dipped sharply; Edwards was a no-show there as well, as that point.

The point behind the diary are that:

based on Tagaris' description, Edwards was there to help when it was beneficial to Edwards, but didn't show up when Lamont's prospects turned south, despite having promised to do so:
When pressed by bloggers about coming back to Connecticut, he said he would. When we asked him directly, he declined.
Had "Team Edwards" linked to Tagaris' post as I requested him to, in order to present a balanced perspective, I would not have posted this diary.

by NuevoLiberal on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 08:52:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Simply Mudslinging (3.00 / 2)

Number three was Democrats soaking him when his polls dipped sharply; Edwards was a no-show there as well, as that point.

There is nothing in ttagaris' diary that justifies calling Edwards a no-show, since there is nothing to establish that they got their act together in time to sort out a date for Edwards to come late in the campaign.

And of course, ttagaris is not the only one from the Lamont campaign who has blogged on this subject. What is the opposite of cherry-picking ... sour-grapes picking?

*John Edwards* ... and the JE08 Supporters Blog

by BruceMcF on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 09:13:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

John raised money for Lamont. (3.00 / 4)

This is what I know to be true. Behind closed doors, John Edwards asked for money for Ned Lamont.

This thread is filled with pure speculation about John's motives. I am telling you a fact. John Edwards raised money for Ned Lamont. He spoke for Ned out of sight of the cameras and off the record. He raised money.

John Edwards is a good honest man.

by bettync on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 09:48:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: John raised money for Lamont. (3.00 / 1)

While I don't think Edwards is a good, honest man, I agree that alot of the Lamont criticism is speculation. We don't know why he declined.

No Quacks, please.

by noquacks on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 05:03:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fairweather Mudsling (3.00 / 3)

He didnt just say he supported the minimum wage.

He was in many ways the face of a movement that actually got it raised in 6 different states. It wasnt a press release or a letter or a speech. It was something with very real results.

Above all of that, why is Tagaris' opinion more sound than anyone elses? When you have 5 people saying one thing and one person saying another, you choose to trust the one person, even though there is no reason to trust him or discredit the others. Congrats on that leap of faith.

"Keep the Faith"

by blue south on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 10:26:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Tagaris was inside the Lamont campaign (none / 0)

And, I have seen his work prior to that, to have trust in his word. Given these two factors, IMO, what he said carries the most weight.

by NuevoLiberal on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 10:53:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

asdf (none / 0)

He was in many ways the face of a movement that actually got it raised in 6 different states.

The faces of the movement were those working under minimum wage. As I said, when 70% of the voting population supports the measures, of course they would have passed whether Edwards came or not. I am glad he went to pitch in his voice, but to take or give ridiculous amount of credit to him for passage is an exaggeration.

by NuevoLiberal on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 11:04:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: asdf (3.00 / 2)

the minimum wage has been polling at above 60% for years and years, and yet, nothing.

So no, public opinion does not always move politicians. If it did then minimum wage would have been raised 3 years ago, we would have universal health care, and the war in Iraq would be over.

"Keep the Faith"

by blue south on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 12:12:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: asdf (3.00 / 0)

the minimum wage has been polling at above 60% for years and years, and yet, nothing.

During Edwards' senate term of 6 years, no minimum wase raise was given. Sure, Edwards signed on as a co-sponsor for several minimum wage bills, but so did dozens of other Democrats including Hillary, Obama, and I guessing Dodd etal.

Edwards had a chance to show leadership on the minimum wage issue and to go beyond signing on as co-sponsor (for the bills which every other Democrat supports as well) if he wanted to champion it.

In particular, the Dems held a thread-bare senate majority in 2001.5-2002, during which time, had I been in the senate, I would not have rested until a senate bill was passed to raise minimum wage and sent to the house at the very least, and then worked as an activist to try and get it passed in the house as well, and then on to applying pressure on Bush not to veto it. I would have shamed the Bush and Bush-Republicans relentlessly until they budged.

In fact, had Democrats (including JRE) fought hard for minimum wage during that 1.5 yr period, they may have won back the house and/or kept/increased senate control. They failed. Edwards failed.

Edwards was instead very busy standing firmly and heroically on the wrong side of the war exactly and after this period (until Oct'04). Sad.

by NuevoLiberal on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 12:33:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: asdf (3.00 / 2)

Way to change the subject.

You think that Senate Majority could have gotten it past the house and the president?

Just as importantly, you swoon every time Obama signs on as a cosponsor of something, but when Edwards does it he is being lazy.

You are a hypocrite.

"Keep the Faith"

by blue south on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 02:46:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: asdf (3.00 / 1)

Just as importantly, you swoon every time Obama signs on as a cosponsor of something

no real world basis for that claim. In fact, I disapproved of his co-sponsorship of the C2L bill, ad wrote an open letter addressed to Barack immediately after learning about the bill, requesting him to withdraw his co-sponsorship.

I am glad to report that he is seemingly moving in the right direction, but I will reassess where he stands now along with some solid information research into the whole matter of C2L, when I find time.

You are a hypocrite.

I am a fair-minded political accountability seeker :)

by NuevoLiberal on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 03:11:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: asdf (3.00 / 1)

Compliments on your ability not to fall for the insult. Thick skins are appreciated.

No Quacks, please.

by noquacks on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 05:05:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: asdf (none / 0)

I'm guessing you voted Nader or Bush in 2004. Obviously Kerry and Edwards were unacceptable candidates.

by Rt hon McAdder esq KBE on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 12:43:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: asdf (none / 0)

I'm guessing you voted Nader or Bush in 2004.

No I didn't.

Obviously Kerry and Edwards were unacceptable candidates.

Edwards was a major war hawk from Feb'02 till Oct'04. See here. Kerry only reluctantly voted for the war. Despite that, I supported the guys in 2004 and did everything I could to help them, only to be disappointed in the end.

We don't want the "for the war before against" nonsense again in 2008.

Incidentally, Edwards gave the knuckleheaded advice to Kerry to triagulate around the war:

John Edwards's changing tune on the Iraq vote

By Scot Lehigh, Globe Columnist | April 17, 2007

AS HE runs for president, John Edwards has cast himself as a candidate who puts candor ahead of politics by saying he was wrong to vote for the Iraq war resolution.

But candor wasn't what he counseled as John Kerry's vice-presidential nominee, when he argued strongly against admitting error on Iraq, according to veterans of the 2004 campaign.

...

"I specifically remember Edwards having a very distinct take," says one person in attendance, who paraphrases Edwards's argument this way: "We need to stick to this. We should stand by our votes, say we would vote that way again. If you admit a mistake, it shows weakness in time of war. That's what the Republicans want us to do."

Adds a senior adviser who was there: "There was a discussion about how to answer the question: 'Was your vote on Iraq a mistake?' John Edwards had a very strong opinion that we should not waver, and it would show a sign of weakness if we did." A third source confirms those accounts.

by NuevoLiberal on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 06:23:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: asdf (none / 0)

they can lay it on Obama too. Againstit-forit-againstit.

He will be minced up.

by Rt hon McAdder esq KBE on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 03:07:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

On Election Night (3.00 / 5)

John Edwards was the ONLY Democrat to call Ned. Ned told me this on election night when he came back to thank bloggers.

Obama's support for Joe Lieberman is one reason that I probably couldn't vote for him in the primary. John Edwards showed up and I came away from meeting him feeling like he did have enthusiasm for Ned's primary victory. That being said I didn't work for the campaign and I do respect Tim's view even if I don't share it.

by Melissa Ryan on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 08:56:58 AM EST

Re: On Election Night (none / 0)

Notice the Hatchetliberal won't respond. I mean we could call Lamont and settle it.

by Rt hon McAdder esq KBE on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 08:16:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Election Night (3.00 / 1)

How many votes did the phone call secure Lamont?

The phone call to make was to Lieberman, not Lamont, and to urge him to obey the will of the people and not run in the general. Did he make that call?

by Adam B on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 08:36:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Election Night (none / 0)

You mean like when Elizabeth was quoted tearing Lieberman a new one at the very rumor that he would lose and run as an independent?

After all that Edwards did you really think Lieberman would have even taken a call from him?

"Keep the Faith"

by blue south on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 10:46:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Edwards probably had Lamont on speed dial (none / 0)

by NuevoLiberal on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 06:24:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards probably had Lamont on speed dial (none / 0)

never would I have imagined that being a big enough supporter of Lamont to have him on speed dial would be an insult here.

"Keep the Faith"

by blue south on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 10:43:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards was an opportunistic fair (2.83 / 6)

Edwards could have done more. But it was still hell of a lot more than Obama or Hillary. Obama reluctantly sent out a freaking email and one of his people wasnt happy that it got sent to more people than expected. ANd Elizabeth Edwards condemned Lieberman's run in stronger terms than anyone in Obama's camp. Obama supported Lamont as a fellow DEmocrat nominee after the primary, It wasn't just Obama and Hillary with weakass endorsements. It was most of the party. But most are not running for President.

by Pravin on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 09:11:55 AM EST

Re: Edwards was an opportunistic fair (none / 0)

You're not seeing that Edwards helping himself when he went to CT.

by NuevoLiberal on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 09:56:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're not seeing (3.00 / 2)

John was there because he believed that Ned Lamont should win.

Supporting Lamont helped in some quarters and hurt in some quarters. Do you understand the depth of long time support for Joe Lieberman? Lieberman is a powerful and popular man with a huge base of supporters with lots of money. Do you think these people have forgotten that John stood for Lamont?

Money talks in politics. Some sat quietly on the sidelines because they know this all too well. John Edwards did not.

John hurt himself when he went to CT. But he went. Because he believed it was the right thing to do.

by bettync on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 10:46:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're not seeing (none / 0)

John hurt himself when he went to CT. But he went. Because he believed it was the right thing to do.

If he had that much conviction, then I am sure he would have reached out to help when they asked him down the road as he promised, as Tagaris describes.

by NuevoLiberal on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 10:51:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're not hearing me! (3.00 / 2)

I'm saying he kept on helping because he kept on raising money. I don't think it is fair to pull out this one race and ignore all of the other commitments John Edwards had at the same time. All were important. (I guess we needed to have a lot of John Edwards look-alikes to send around to cover all parts of the country at once.)

What if John Edwards is really a good guy and you are attacking him because some post about Obama made you mad?

I sincerely believe Edwards did a lot to help Lamont. I know I sent money. (Today I am sort of wishing I hadn't!)

by bettync on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 11:37:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're not seeing (none / 0)

So Edwards did lose points with us for not making an extra effort to support Lamont. He did not finish what he started. But he did not try to make things harder for Lamont by grumbling about the reach of an email distribution or endorsing his opponent in the primary or have his or her spouse say Lieberman's beating a Dem nominee would not be bad.

by Pravin on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 03:07:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Edwards, Obama, and.... (3.00 / 5)

Seems to me this is all a lot of fighting around the margins. Nobody, before or after the primary, Democrat or Republican, did more to help Lieberman than Bill Clinton. I don't know east coast geography, but friends tell me its about a half-hour's drive from Chappaqua to Connecticut, but neither of the Clintons could ever find the time to campaign with the party nominee the way they did for Lieberman pre-primary.

by BlueinColorado on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 11:10:08 AM EST

Amen. Bill Clinton resusciated Lieberman (3.00 / 4)

when Lieberman was sinking faster than the Titanic in polls.

Clinton's CT visit stemmed the tide and turned it around for Lieberman, and he went on to lose by only 3-4% in the primary (instead of double digits he was trailing by), and carried that momentum to win his Sore Loser bid in the general.

by NuevoLiberal on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 11:18:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Could someone please explain to me why (3.00 / 3)

ObamaEdwards2008 down rated my post with many links above, but yet as of the time of this post, right now that I am making, has not yet made one comment on this thread?

What is the matter with my post ObamaEdwards2008??????? AND yet you have not commented on this thread one time?

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2007/6/17/0 3920/1798/3?mode=alone;showrate=1#3

Check out the New Progressive Blog EENRBLOG

by dk2 on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 02:28:07 PM EST

Re: Could someone please explain to me why (3.00 / 0)

As the diarist, I will rate you up to compensate. OE08 was wrong to give you a "1".

by NuevoLiberal on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 02:32:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thank you - Neuvo (3.00 / 3)

I appreciate it = but have little respect for those who do the down ratings and don't have the first comment to offer themselves.

Thank you again.

Check out the New Progressive Blog EENRBLOG

by dk2 on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 02:39:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Nuevoliberal (3.00 / 3)

You have no links to support your claim that Edwards was asked and "said he would come back again".

There is no link to that because of conflicting versions - just as many have said Edwards remark was : he would come back if he COULD.

That is not the same as the open Blank CHeck that you imply that was offered.

"IF HE COULD" means just that "IF"

And while your at the record on this. Obama was in TN helping Harold Ford right prior to starting his Book signing tour - Harold Ford the one who was on record for Lieberman right along with IMUS in the Morning.

Check out the New Progressive Blog EENRBLOG

by dk2 on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 02:36:44 PM EST

asdf (3.00 / 1)

You have no links to support your claim that Edwards was asked an