The Ostroy Report

The Ostroy Report is a fresh, aggressive voice for Democrats and a watchdog of the GOP/Tea Party. We support President Obama and the Democratic agenda and seek to preserve the Senate majority while taking back the House. But we're also not afraid to criticize the left when necessary.

Thursday, May 15, 2008

What Value Does the Edwards Endorsement Really Provide?


John Edwards, the former Senator from North Carolina, delivered what appeared to be a stinging blow to the campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton Wednesday by finally publicly declaring his support for Sen. Barack Obama in his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination. Ever since he unintentionally tipped his hat last week on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" program and indicated his preference for Illinois' junior Senator, it became clear that an official endorsement was imminent. But what exactly does this mean for Obama? Does having Edwards' support, now, really mean anything?

Over the past few months, the anticipated Edwards endorsement, along with those of other key party leaders such as Al Gore, have become the subject of great mystery among the political punditry. But historically, and especially this year, such endorsements have provided little or no value to the candidates receiving them. While everyone sits on he edge of their seats waiting for Gore's decision, few remember that Howard Dean's 2004 campaign sank nearly the moment Gore gave his thumbs up. And what about Obama's campaign this year? Semi-manic table-pounding by select members of the Kennedy clan--including Caroline and Uncle Teddy--failed to deliver the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Are we also forgetting that, as a vice presidential running mate, Edwards failed to deliver for Sen. John Kerry the state of North Carolina, where he was raised and served as a U.S. Senator from 1998-2004? And before he dropped out of this year's contest in late January, he ran third in his birth state, South Carolina, behind Clinton and Obama...a state he carried in his 2004 bid for the White House. So since 2004, he's become less popular in the all-important South? Is it fairly safe to say that all the hoopla surrounding the Edwards endorsement might be a tad overblown? That in Obama's quest to win over the white working class, the uber-rich trial attorney with the $400 haircuts might not be the answer?

To be sure, Edwards' 18 delegates is indeed a bounty, and Clinton and her supporters would certainly love to have gotten not only Edwards' endorsement, but more so these much-needed delegates as well. But, there's no guarantee these delegates will automatically cast their votes for Obama simply at Edwards' instruction. That decision is theirs, not his. So it remains to be seen just what value, ultimately, this endorsement will truly bring.

Clinton is waging a tough campaign and has vowed to fight till the end, whether that's June 3rd, the day of the last primary, or all the way to the Denver convention in August. But with each passing day, as more and more delegates and super-delegates tip Obama's way, it's going to take a miracle for Clinton to snag this nomination. But again, the jury is still out in terms of how much the simple math will ultimately play in the super D's decision-making. Let's give Hillary some credit, but not just for being a tough, resilient fighter. The truth is, her protracted battle against Obama, contrary to earlier concerns, has been great for the party. The Democratic campaign has dominated the news 24/7. The GOP's presumptive nominee, Sen. John McCain, is nowhere to be found.

43 Comments:

  • At 11:00 AM, Anonymous bkln said…

    I wish I could archive this post and then do a Chris Reeves Superman maneuver and spin the world and time backwards, and then watch you fall all over yourself about how important and crucial Edwards' endorsement of Clinton is - how it only proves what you've been saying - that Clinton is the true hero of the white, working class because Edwards the populist realized (perhaps too late) that Clinton was the one really connecting with those values.

    The value of the Edwards endorsement, and NARAL and the steady stream that has been going his way is just that - the steady undeniable stream that is going his way. It's impossible to not understand the value of that.

    Of course you're going to try to slough off the Edwards endorsement as insignificant, just as you did with Richardson's. It's not like Hillary has had any endorsements to tout, so I suppose you feel the need to comment somehow. It's just so predictable and hypocritical. It could have easily been said that you were being "a tad overblown" about the WV win, with it's meager 5 electoral college votes that Clinton would likely lose to McCain anyways. But that wouldn't have made any sense to do that because it only serves to alienate people. But you're fine with dissing caucus state voters and cutting down Edwards, the guy who took 7% of WV even though he's no longer in the race. Good idea for you to slip in the pre-emptive strike against Gore too.

    Yep - real great job of your unifying mission "to help Democrats regain the White House and Congress" Andy. Solid work so far.

    The one question I wish someone here would answer: with Clinton's campaign being over $20 MILLION in debt, how does her continuing on make any sense? Her campaign is worse than broke.

    What's for certain is that I don't expect to hear a single peep from any of you gung-ho, take it to the convention Clintonites when Obama decides to not offer any help with that debt. I expect you all to accept full responsibility for her campaign, stand firm with her and help her retire her debt without the slightest bad feeling about Obama taking care of his own business instead of bailing her out. She's waging a tough campaign buoyed by tough supporters and as a team they should take full responsibility for it.

     
  • At 11:14 AM, Blogger The Ostroy Report said…

    See, the problem with some of you Obama supporters is that you are so drunk on the kool-aid, and so blindly, unconditionally in love with your candidate, that it renders you incapable of comprehending any objective analysis. My blog today asks questions. It does not draw conclusions. And at the same time, I clearly acknowledge that (a) Clinton and her supporters would of course much rather have gotten Edwards' endorsement than not; and (b) that his potential gift of 18 delegates to Obama is a critical pick up. But none if this realy matters when the only "objectivity" you seek is to have others unequivocally share your Obama euphoria. I know it's killing you that Hillary's still in the race, and I know folks like you are indeed genuinely nervous that she mnight actually snag this thing somehow. And I suppose that can make you a little irrational....
    Andy

     
  • At 11:17 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Great post today, Taylor Marsh...Oops, wrong blog. But Ostroy's blog reads so much like a rabid Clintonite's blog that it's hard to tell the difference. Andy has been dismissive of most of Obama's accomplishments.

    By the way, if you're going to talk about the real math, Andy, you may want to consider how Obama's strength in most of the caucus states is underrepresented in the total popular vote counts.

     
  • At 11:21 AM, Blogger Sidney Condorcet said…

    Andy, you are much smarter than this.

    Do you actually believe that "folks like you are indeed genuinely nervous that she mnight actually snag this thing somehow"?

    That is by far the dumbest thing I've ever read on your blog.
    No one in this entire country honestly believes that Clinton will snag this from Obama. She does not make us nervous, she makes us angry and annoyed, especially when she carries on about how "hard-working, white people" support her. Not even the race-baiting Nixon or Pat Buchanon would have said this aloud, true or not.

     
  • At 11:24 AM, Blogger The Ostroy Report said…

    Ok, ANON, I'll bite for a sec. Yesterday, I clearly outlined both Obama's successes pre-March and Clinton's success post-March. All based on fact. All based on the actual primary results. No opinions. No editorializing. Just plain factual data. I've also written today that she will need a miracle to win the nomination. But, why don't you go ahead and tell me a little about Obama's post-March success...the success I allegedly have been willfully censoring. Other than his pick up of super-delegates, which I have acknowledged here many times, please try to state simple facts and not opinion.

    Ok, folks. That's my last response for the day. Too mcuh work to do...
    Andy

     
  • At 11:41 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I come to this blog for some sane analysis of the daily political landscape only to have to wade through kool aid saturated opinions to arrive at the comment site.

    HRC may not win, the party bosses seem to be throwing out all stops to throw her off the track.

    I think it is significant that she just keeps coming back, a sign of immense strength and that Obama needs to take John Edwards to KY w. him to help him w the "working class". Is he afraid of them?

     
  • At 11:44 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Obama supporters are so naive. They sound just like the W kool aid drinkers.

    It's state by state folks. You are really out of touch with a lot of voters who will never vote for Obama. If he doesn't win states, it doesn't matter how many popular votes he gets. Remember Gore?

    He needs Hillary big time.

     
  • At 11:54 AM, Blogger Sidney Condorcet said…

    This comment has been removed by the author.

     
  • At 11:57 AM, Blogger Sidney Condorcet said…

    I love how Clintonistas keep harping on Obama's "kool-aid" drinking supporters, when it is they who are actually kool-aid drinkers.

    If Obama had no shot at winning the nomination, we would reluctantly accept Hillary's nomination as fait accompli. But even with Hillary's zero likelihood of winning this, her divisive nixonian race-baiting, her $20 million in campaign debt, Hillary's zealous supporters cant accept the fact that the music has ceased, the lights have shut off and the party is over. You people are almost Bush-like in your inability to grasp reality.

    She'll win Kentucky and PR, Obama will win Oregon, Montana, and South Dakota. On June 3rd or 4th, Hillary Clinton will suspend her campaign. There is absolutely no evidence that she'll have a shot at stealing the nomination from the convention floor, which would only have the devastating effect of alienating a generation of young democrats and african americans. Her campaign will be over in roughly three weeks.

    It's time for her legion of crazed supporters to reconcile themselves to the real world.

     
  • At 12:02 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Ostroy continues to be brilliantly logical and fair. I don't know why he attracts the Obama-nuts almost solely. Where are Hillary's supporters. They have to be glad for Ostroy's insights.

    Alll the O-Nuts are forgetting that the super delegates did not take an oath in blood. They can, as they have done before, switch their vote at any time. They're probably at the moment being pressured by Obama's crowd to come over. Maybe even bribed by all the money he has. Already one super delagate offered on TV to sell his super-delagte vote to either Hillary or Obama. They are not all saints. Ostroy makes the obvious point that Obama's lead is pre-Wright. Hillary has caught and surpassed him.

    Edwards will do no good at all. And, on top of everything else, he has now revealed what a characterless man he is. He timed his encorsement to steal Hillary's press coverage of her bashing of OBama in WV; and he disses his wife by not either supporting her plea for Hillary's healhcare plan as superior to Obama's; or, he could have kept his mouth shut. He's joined my "trash heap" which includes Richardson, Ted Kennedy, and Nancy Palosi.

    Hillary said the 'worrking class white voters" were for her. She could not very well include the "working class black voters" since they are voting as a racist block and have abandoned her.

    Obama can't win of course. Even MSNBC on MorningJoe said that he is showing his very unappealing arrogant side when dealing with the locals, who are beginningto resent him. He's a snob who is out of touch.

    THen, another thought: When Soros sees Clinton's huge following, he may dump Obama and give his millions to her, which would take care of her debt.

     
  • At 12:10 PM, Blogger Sidney Condorcet said…

    Oh, 12:02pm, my bete noir. You have to be one of the most foolish people I've ever encountered. What makes you think the super-D's are going to leave Obama in droves and hand Hillary the nomination?

    Has Hillary been picking up more of them than Obama even in the midst of her latest victories? Not at all. There is simply no basis whatsoever to believe that what you say can or will occur. And you actually believe that Soros will give Hillary millions to retire her debt? You really shouldn't smoke weed so early in the day, my friend.

    Again and again, you go on about blacks voting for a black candidate as a "racist block". But of course, you have no problem with women voting for Hillary due to gender bias or white racists (i'm looking at you West Virginia!) voting for Hillary b/c of skin tone. No, you just have a problem with the fact that there is finally a credible black candidate that could lift up the hopes of average black americans that finally it is possible for an African American to reach the pinnacle of success in America despite centuries of slavery and discrimination. Shouldn't they know their place? Shouldn't they keep on voting for white people who bite their lips and "empathize" with the plight of the black community while doing nothing of value for them? You are what's wrong with this country, 12:02pm!!

     
  • At 12:22 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    notice carefully sidney's last post carefully,how sidney use's words to call whites who vote for whites racist and blacks who vote for blacks as hope and uplifting.thats whats wrong with Obama people,their racist's the problem is it's anyone who's not black,except their elite white backers

     
  • At 12:46 PM, Anonymous bkln said…

    Proud of yourself Andy? Calling Obama-supporters "kool-aid" drinkers? I wish I could say I'm amazed and shocked at you for this, but I'm not anymore.

    Your blog today may not "draw conclusions", but it has definitely insulted a huge swath of Democrats - Edwards, Kennedy, Obama, and all their supporters. What positive outcome is that supposed to create? Obviously not your professed mission to help Democrats regain the White House and Congress. That's the objectivity that I seek. Not to be called a "kool-aid drinker" by someone who's supposedly on my side.

    You asked what value Edwards' endorsement might provide. Former Edwards supporters United Steelworkers just unanimously voted to endorse Obama. Can't argue about that being insignificant.

    Dissing caucus states is pretty silly too since caucuses really show how motivated people are to get out into the streets and do the serious footwork needed to win in November.

    And anon12:22pm - if you cannot accept the use of the term "racist" to refer to white people, then you should not use it to refer to black people. Stop being a hypocrite.

     
  • At 1:05 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    the term racist isn't the point,it's the idea that you bKLn and sidney like calling white voters who vote for hillary racist,yet 90 to 95% of blacks vote for Obama and you people call that pride and hope,the rest of the world see's it for what it is

     
  • At 1:37 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Caucus states may show how motivated people are to get out. Caucuses also tend to disenfranchise the elderly (who do not have the stamina to caucus), working people who do not have time b/c of working on the clock, or working two jobs.

    Caucuses are for the politically active young professionals who don't work on a time clock. Caucuses are inherently undemocratic

     
  • At 1:48 PM, Blogger Sidney Condorcet said…

    1:05pm, I didn't call all white voters who vote for Hillary racist...However, exit polls, especially in WV, demonstrated that there a decent amount of voters supporting Hillary because of race...I have issues with the fact that you are willing to (time and time again) (a) call blacks racist without reflecting on this country's history of oppression toward blacks,and (b) not even call out white voters who have time and time again done the same thing with respect to white candidates...(think Bradley in the California gubernatorial race, think Harold Ford in Tennessee, etc...) (think about Nixon's "southern strategy", Jessie Helms "White Hands" ad, the Willie Horton ads, the "Call me, Harold" ad in Tennessee, Bill Clinton's Jessie Jackson reference in SC, Hillary's "white people support me" comments, and on and on...Incidents of white candidates using race for electoral gain...)

     
  • At 2:21 PM, Anonymous Michael said…

    bkln is completely correct in his bizarro-world scenario where reality were replaced with the complete opposite and Senator Clinton won the endorsement of John Edwards. Today's blog entry would be very, very different in its assessment.

    The real value of the Edwards endorsement? It's not likely with many voters in remaining contests. What is did was knock Clinton's huge win out of the network and cable news cycle in less than a day and told any possible waffling SuperD that a white, Southern politician whose base of support is union workers has come out in vigorous support of Obama.

    This kind of move underscores the Obama team's understanding of how politics works and how to use what chips you have to maximum effect. Contrast this with the miserable campaign of the Clintons, at least in the first several months, and I think it fair to state this shows Obama is the better manager and campaigner. There's really no more than a dime's worth of difference in their messages.

    SuperD count for the day: Obama 4, Clinton 0.

     
  • At 2:30 PM, Anonymous Michael said…

    Here's another outcome of the Edwards endorsement:

    The United Steelworkers union, which had stayed out of the race to this point, endorsed Obama today.

     
  • At 2:41 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    sidney most of the people who say they won't vote for Obama isn't because he's(OBAMA) black ,it's because they(50%) believe he has the same value's that rev.WRIGHT has preached to him.You wanted to believe the rev.Wright problem went away.IT DIDN"T.I worked back in the 70"s with some blacks in beckley,west virgina and race didn't seem to bother any of us then,your trying to blame a straw man,because your backing an empty suit and your looking for any scrap-goat you can

     
  • At 2:56 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    After reading Sidney's comments ad naseum, I hate to actually respond to him. However, I've noticed over a time that he has very poor reading skills. He simply cannot read accurately. He therefore responds with a stupid argument not actually refuting what was written.

    However, the idea that blacks are justified in hating white people and hating America is without merit. And, I would point out Obama was well on his way to becoming the first black president until his unseemly connections were revealed. There is no "ceiling" for blacks at this time in our country. Some have the highest positions in our government including the President's cabinet and the Supreme Court. It's not that he's black that people no longer give him a free pass. And I would point out, too, that many whites fought and died for justice for the blacks who had been so wronged during part of our history.

    Black men have some advantages in our society still denied woman; and, you have to admit mysogyny abounds. Obama's coverage by the media compared to Hillary's proves that point.

     
  • At 2:58 PM, Anonymous Michael said…

    2:41,

    Please substantiate your claim with evidence from a source, please. I'd be interested to read such information.

    If it's simply anecdotal and based on your experience from WV in the '70s, well, to be kind, it ain't worth a hill of beans. Exit polling from WV indicated clearly that race played a bigger factor in the vote than anywhere else except Mississippi.

     
  • At 3:07 PM, Blogger Sidney Condorcet said…

    2:56pm, pot calling the kettle black, hmm?

    You castigate my reading skills, yet you point out "However, the idea that blacks are justified in hating white people and hating America is without merit." No one on this blog commented about blacks "hating" white people. We were discussing how african americans were supporting a half-black candidate. Hatred did not even enter the conversation.
    Clearly you have reading comprehension issues yourself. If you truly believe that blacks are voting for Obama because they "hate white people", well you are not even worth the time and effort it would take to enlighten you, a sad mypoic fool.

    You then go on to discuss mysogyny as if it were the fault of Obama or his supporters. If you have a problem with the press, well, that's an entirely different matter. You blame the media's treatment of hillary on mysygony because you have not the neural capacity to understand that there are myriad reasons for the press not to favor Hillary (from Clinton fatigue to the endless Clinton scandals to her shameless pandering to her support for the war to her uninspiring political talents to her sense of entitlement, etc...). But it's really easy to just blame the press and it's inherent "mysogyny" and not Hillary herself for her public image.

    Whatever makes you rest more comfortably...But things in life are never as simple as they seem to a close-eyed supporter of a candidacy that is dead and buried...

     
  • At 3:11 PM, Anonymous Michael said…

    2:56,

    Your argument holds no water.

    Evidence you provide that there's no ceiling for blacks is that they hold high appointed positions in the government and a Supreme Court seat. Women, however, somehow suffer from a comparative lack of advantages. I'm not sure how this is the case since women ALSO hold high appointed positions in the government and a Supreme Court seat.

    Obama is still well on his way to becoming President. I wish you did not feel uncomfortable with this but all available evidence points to his being elected, despite your protestations otherwise.

     
  • At 3:50 PM, Blogger Prius said…

    I was disappointed that Edwards could not wait a few more weeks to endorse someone. Why didn't wait until the last vote was cast, but no he had to jump right in. I think this will hurt the party more than any of the other endorsements to date. I guess, he got a better "deal" from Obama than Hillary.

    I'm sorry, but I happen to mirror Andy's thoughts on this race. When I watch and read the medias, it is all about Obama being the savior and Hillary being the bitch. Even in today's St. Pete Times, on the front page there was a small headline story "CLINTON PASTOR IN THE NEWS" and in the story it's about a pastor in Clinton, NY that caused a stir and on a blog it had Hillary as the subject. One more instance of how the media has been against her form the get go. The cartoons and editorials are constantly digging at her in the magazines and newspapers. The TV "slugs" have all been anti-Hillary from the very beginning. Yet, with all of this she is running neck and neck with Obama.

    What scares me is that there is going to be an October Surprise after Obama is the nominee, a real O-bomb-a. It will make Kerry's swift boating look like a cake walk and something that Barack will not be able to deny. Then what does the party do? Does Obama bow out and his VP pick run? Does the party huddle and pick Hillary at the last moment, or do they run Barack and hope for the best? Sound far fetched, well just think of all that has happened since last Fall. Just think of how Obama has been the darling of the media and it was the media that sold him more than anything else. We all know that the GOP will do ANYTHING to keep the White House, remember 2000 and 2004? We also know that the media is mostly Republican. The GOP know how to play this game, they are experts and they want to get the "Hat Trick" in November. So is Andy correct in using the words kool-aid, yes I think he is. We are seeing a train wreck happen right before our eyes and we all have front row seats.

     
  • At 4:01 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Prius, aka "chicken little", the sky is not falling. This will be a banner year for democrats. Check out recent victories in places that Dems have no business winning (hastert's seat, louisiana, mississippi) and Obama's huge financial advantage over McCain. Poll after poll reveals that Bush hurts McCain far more than Rev. Wright et al hurts Obama. Clinton's continued talk of electability over and over again have caused her partisans to actually believe it. Don't fret...Dems will win another 20 seats in the House, 5-8 seats in the Senate, and will retake the White House...The Republican brand is dead.

    The sky is not falling, Prius. I know that we Dems have experienced heartbreak often in recent years, but barring news that Obama sold Bush coke in the 1980's, we'll be kicking some serious ass this November.

     
  • At 4:19 PM, Anonymous bkln said…

    "90 to 95% of blacks vote for Obama and you people call that pride and hope" ~anon1:05pm

    Firstly, anyone paying attention to this blog for a while knows that I have repeatedly acknowledged that there are quite likely some black people voting for Obama solely because his opponent is white. I've not hesitated to call those votes racist votes.

    However, the reality that you are obviously missing in a big way is that the vast majority of blacks are supporting Obama for the reasons that the majority of Democrats do - reasons that have absolutely NOTHING to do with his opponent's skin color.

    I understand that you are frustrated that your candidate is losing - the one who was supposed to have this thing all wrapped up by Super Tuesday, but reacting by telling lies about Obama and the electorate doesn't do anyone any good.

    And Prius' calling Obama a train wreck today borders on delusional. And to think that Obama supporters are called "desperate".....

    Obama is ahead in every electoral metric and has tons of cash, regional offices, GOTV machinery and volunteers.

    Clinton has a splintered campaign staff, is 20 MILLION DOLLARS IN DEBT, leaving a trail of unpaid bills to mom and pop vendors across America, AND she is losing in every electoral metric.

    McCain has pitiable funds and is still losing 25% in every primary even though he's the only guy on the ticket.

    You're right that we are seeing train wrecks happen right before our eyes and we all have front row seats, but neither of those train wrecks is Obama or his campaign.

    The sky is not falling. The general election will be hard work and we will need everyone's help which is why I sincerely hope that everyone who is supporting a Democrat now will be working to get the Democratic nominee elected in November.

     
  • At 4:43 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Sidney - you racist slug. Don't you know "the pot calling the kettle black." is a racist remark?
    Maybe that's why "the {you} doth protest too much."

     
  • At 4:47 PM, Blogger Sidney Condorcet said…

    Umm, wow...

     
  • At 4:47 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    The Swift Boaters haven't used the accusations about Obama that have appeared in THE ENQUIRER and THE GLOBE by the guy who is suing the DNA and Dean for denying h im the right to speak. Whether it's the truth or not it will have be damaging because they have a name and identify of the accuser and copies of his lawsuit. That could be the Oct surprise.

     
  • At 4:50 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Hey 12:02 - You ask, "Where are Hillary's supporters?" You wanna' know where they are? They're all in WEST FRIGGIN' VIRGINIA!! (And they can't read anyway.)

     
  • At 5:28 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    4:50 I you are one of the black racists who hate Hillary, me, and whites and stereotypically think we can't read, and have other serious flaws, I want to offer my goodwill to you and tell you that I do not return your hatred. I follow the teachings of my church and its pastor and try to reflect the love of our Lord. God Bless.

     
  • At 5:38 PM, Anonymous bkln said…

    Actually, I think 4:50pm is a troll just trying to stir the pot.

     
  • At 6:28 PM, Anonymous Rob said…

    I think I would absolutely keel over if I actually ever came to this blog and could read comments from people who actually have a brain. Instead of being united in support of whoever the candidate or candidates are, all you do is bitch and gripe and moan and carry on like brainless morons. I honestly wish I knew what's happened to the Democrats in this country, but God help me, I honestly don't know. Once upon a time, we lived in a country where a party rallied around its candidate(s) without prejudice, ignorance and name calling. Evidently, common sense has taken a back seat to cynicism and finger pointing. If we end up with an ancient troll (McCain) in the white house come November (intent on continuing the Bush legacy0, the Dems have no one to blame but themselves. Being a Democrat myself, it's hard to even try and make a decision about anything with all of this bureaucratic nonsense from the media and worse, the voting public. If we have any chance at all that Clinton OR Obama either one makes it to the oval office, it will only be because we stop the mindless arguments and unite in support of WHOEVER gets the nomination. On the other hand, if what you want is four to eight more years of an endless war, an endless recession, an endless spike in gas prices, and an endless Bush administration, by all means, keep arguing, backstabbing, name calling, and so on and let's do all we can to get McCain in 2009!

     
  • At 12:13 AM, Anonymous Michael said…

    Rob,

    With all due respect, and I say respect because I agree with your premise about unity, if you want people to cease the name-calling you might not want to lead your comment by calling those who craft responses to Andy's blog brainless.

    Just a thought...

     
  • At 9:44 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Rob, -- you want to hear "bitching " - a sexist slur word, turn on TV and listen to the representatives of the Democratic Party women "bitch" about the sexism in this campaign. We are furious and we're finally speaking up. There is a danger for the Democratic Party that we will all vote for McCain and wait four years for another chance for Hillary. And that isn't sexism in reverse. I and many were actually for Edwards and then Obama until Hillary was assaulted by the press, media, and the men in the Dem. Party. Now we're united for Hillary not only because she is a woman, but, fortunately, she's the only one who can beat McCain.

     
  • At 10:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    9:44 From one "Sweetie" to another. I and all the women in my "abused women" support group are thrilled that the women who are Democrats are showing strength. We do have a spine.

     
  • At 10:17 AM, Blogger Sidney Condorcet said…

    10:00am is clearly a troll...

    What i find sad is that a vocal minority of Hillary's female supporters seem to believe that any criticism of Hillary or the mere fact that she isn't winning this nomination is a sign of anti-female bias.

    This just goes to my larger point of Hillary (and her supporters) sense of entitlement. I'm in complete agreement that America could benefit from more female leaders, particularly in the executvie branch. But that does not mean the electorate and the press has to choose the first credible female nominee despite her failings. Many people preferred Obama, Edwards or other fine candidates because they just were not comfortable with (a) Hillary's sense of entitlement; (b) dynasticism (bush, clinton, bush, clinton); (c) Hillary's massive screw up on Health Care Reform in 1993 when the Dems controlled Congress; (d) her love affair with lobbyists; (e) her vote for the Iraq war and her unwillingness to admit her mistake; (f) the many clinton scandals (both old and new); (e) that Bill oversaw the weakening of the party at both the state and federal level; and on and on and on...

    So many of you make it seem as if our consideration was solely: "Well, I just don't believe a woman could do the job." That's completely erroneous. The great many of us just don't get excited by the prospects of a third clinton term...

     
  • At 10:37 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Andy,

    This is what bothers me MOST about the direction of our party and of your philosophy. An excerpt from Time Magazine's current issue - the lede, as a matter of fact:

    "Someday soon, when Hillary Clinton exits the Democratic presidential race, Barack Obama will walk onstage and praise her and her husband to the heavens. Publicly, Obama can afford to be magnanimous. But it's a good bet the private Obama feels the way a lot of his supporters do: like sending Ken Starr a fan note. For many Obama activists, Clinton's brass-knuckles campaign confirmed everything they had always suspected about Hillary and her husband: that they're cynical and ruthless, the detritus of an era in which Democrats sold out their ideals to get elected. Obama's backers generally feel about the Clintons the way Reaganites felt about Gerald Ford and the way beer aficionados feel about Bud Light: that by compromising core principles, they watered down the brand."

    Democrats selling out their ideals to get elected. Period. Ideology meaning little. Sometimes I think that if a guy like Saddam Hussein ran as a Democrat in this country, you all would vote for him and it is what has made me more and more uncomfortable within the party.

     
  • At 10:49 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Sidney, Sweetie, you have shown that you are not a sexist by using the non-neuter put-down "Troll." What a guy. You are just so smart and kind to point out to us dumb women that Hillary was not subject at all to sexism, mysogyny and bashing by MSNBC, CNN, Matthews, the press, and all those other stand-up guys, like Kennedy and the other Dems, we felt were putting her down and dissing her because she was a woman. You know like criticizing her yellow pants suit that made her look like a school bus, and saying if Bill hadn't been naughty she wouldn't be a candidate, etc. They were just pointing out why Obama would be a better presodent than her. He doesn't wear yellow pantsuits. Please don't think poorly of me if I don't write as well as you do, but I can sure cook up a meal.

     
  • At 11:13 AM, Blogger Sidney Condorcet said…

    10:49am,

    We need to get together. I think your brand of insanity is awfully cute.

     
  • At 1:10 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Sidney, And all the time I thought you were in love with Obama. Nevewr thought little ole dumb me would have a chance. Trouble is I'm one of twelve wives in a polygamist colony and I it really makes me feel like a slave. You know -- slavery. So you'll just have to make do with your own insanity which, I fear, may be too butch to be "cute." Sorry.

     
  • At 1:40 PM, Blogger Sidney Condorcet said…

    Haha...Well-played...PS, we all know you're not a woman...Mr. Troll

     
  • At 2:53 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Sidney you are a sexist fool. You don't think a woman can be as clever as I am which shows your stupidity. In your self-absorption you obviously have not noticed there has been no evidence of any man on this blog supporting or defending women. Your "observation" explains your lonliness, as evidenced by your ubiquity on this blog.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home