Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Bank Slate
Betsy Devine
birch, finch, beech
Democracy for NH
Live Free or Die
Mike Caulfield
Miscellany Blue
Granite State Progress
Seacoast for Change
Still No Going Back
Susan the Bruce
Tomorrow's Progressives
Politicos & Punditry
The Burt Cohen Show
John Gregg
Krauss
Landrigan
Lawson
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Primary Wire
Scala
Schoenberg
Spiliotes
Welch
Campaigns, Et Alia.
Paul Hodes
Carol Shea-Porter
Ann McLane Kuster
John Lynch
Jennifer Daler
ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC
National
Balloon Juice
billmon
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Hold Fast
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
The Next Hurrah
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo
50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
I almost hate to write anything on this, since there really are no words adequate to describe my anger, chagrin, and disappointment with John Edwards. No need to mention any details here, we already have far more information than we need.
I now question my ability to recognize personal integrity or the lack thereof, and the effort and enthusiasm I expended on behalf on this person in 2008 feels wasted, cheapened, and soiled.
The only thing that disgusts me more than the apparent facts in this case is that someone should delight in using these tawdry circumstances as a means of establishing a long term income stream.
Edwards is most certainly a bounder and a cad, but Young is an even lower life form.
"What happens now? If you were to ask people during the campaign who's talking most about [poverty], it was me," he said in an interview a few days ago. "There's a desperate need in the world for a voice of leadership on this issue. . . . The president's got a lot to do, he's got a lot of people to be responsible for, so I'm not critical of him, but there does need to be an aggressive voice beside the president."
Guess what, Johnny? There could well have been an aggressive voice beside the president, thanks to your shenanigans.
John McCain and New Hampshire aren't having a love affair. Maybe John McCain loves New Hampshire, and that's nice -- after all, he did receive enough Republican votes here in 2000 and 2008 to keep his campaigns going in those years. But it's simply not true that New Hampshire loves this guy, although I think most of us respect and appreciate his long service to America.
One of the more exasperating comments I hear news media personalities who should know better, or should be doing more accurate reporting, is that "New Hampshire is John McCain country." Baloney. New Hampshire has never been "his state.'
In 2000 he faced a stumbling George W. Bush in the New Hampshire First-In-The-Nation Presidential Primary. In the NH Primary on February 1st, 2000, some 239,523 Republicans sloshed to the polls on a cold winter day. John McCain received 115,606 of those votes -- about 48%. George W. Bush got 72,330 votes -- even then the voters were smartening up about him. The rest of the wealth of Republican votes was spread around to names like Forbes, Keyes, Bauer, and a splattering of others. Umm, spreading the wealth around probably got its start in John McCain's mindset that year.
That wasn't too bad for McCain in 2000. Of course, shortly after leaving New Hampshire he walked into walls or off a cliff depending on your description down South, and ended up spending the past eight years not doing much in the United States Senate.
By the way, in that primary of February 1, 2000, there were 156,862 Democrats voting -- not exactly an excited electorate. I remember it well. Most of us voted for Al Gore, but Bill Bradley wasn't far behind. We know what happened after that, and if, if, if -- if Florida, if the US Supreme Court, if New Hampshire, if he didn't roll his eyes, if -- he would be winding up two terms as President.
Update to 2008. Least we forget, John McCain was able to slip in between a pile of conservative Republicans. He was able to appear like the alternative to the far right, and he received 88,713 votes from Republicans in the NH Primary on January 8, 2008. Not bad, except there were some 241,039 Republicans voting -- so McCain this time around got only about 36% of those voting.
It was enough, however, for John McCain to top the New Hampshire Republican ballot because the rest of the candidates spread the balance of the votes -- Mitt Romney coming in second with 75,675, and names like Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Fred Thompson, and Duncan Hunter getting the rest. Ohhhhh -- Barack Obama got the write-ins of 1,996 Republicans and Hillary Clinton got 1,828 write-ins, not too bad for Republicans who like Democrats, and who can vote for Democrats again in less than two weeks.
That same election, January 8th of this year, 288,672 Democrats voted. Compare that with the 156,862 Democrats who voted in the 2000 Primary. More than 130,000 additional Democrats turned out this year in our Primary. Some excitement there, huh? Among the Republicans, compared with 239,523 voting in the 2000 Primary there were only about 1,500 more Republicans voting this year. Many stayed home.
At the January 8th Democratic Presidential Primary, Barack Obama got 104,815 votes -- some 16,000 votes more than John McCain received on January 8th. Hillary Clinton placed first with 112,404, and you can bet almost all will be voting for Barack Obama on November 4th. So will those who voted for the other Democratic Presidential candidates, who included Bill Richardson, Dennis Kucinich, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, and Mike Gravel.
Bottom line, for those who are bottom line types, is this: As of September 9th, there were 868,668 registered voters in New Hampshire. By now in late October there are quite a few more, and many others are expected to sign up as new voters on November 4th.
So, take a look at it: On January 8th of this year John McCain received 88,713 votes -- certainly enough to win a Republican Primary where he staked out the "moderate" ground and there were half a dozen other candidates splitting the more conservative elements of the party.
But of ALL New Hampshire registered voters, John McCain received only about 10.2% this year. This isn't "John McCain Country" by a long shot. And considering the way the Democrats are united this year, and with the motivating issues to encourage people to vote being Iraq, health care, Global Warming and Climate Change, education, tax reform and fairness, and our current economic dilemma -- Barack Obama will do very well.
Those of us who support him have to keep at it right through to Tuesday, November 4th at 8:00 PM, but he'll beat John McCain in New Hampshire. New Hampshire has never been John McCain Country. But after November 4th, we'll be able to call it a proud place for President Barack Obama to come back to whenever he wants.
I was really hoping the "Democrats have affairs and lie about them" meme would go away, but it looks like this news will keep that alive for another fifty years.
John Edwards repeatedly lied during his Presidential campaign about an extramarital affair with a novice filmmaker, the former Senator admitted to ABC News today.
Poor Elizabeth. She's pretty much the reason I voted for John in the first place.
Adding: I don't give a rat's behind what John Edwards does in John Edwards' private life. I don't need to like or even admire a candidate to support their platform, even enthusiastically.
But what it shows is that he thought he could get away with it and run for president in a 2008 media culture hoping for the best. That either demands profound stupidity - and John Edwards is not stupid - or a serious lack of self-discipline. That we could have had a nominee - or even a recently announced vice-presidential nominee - with this blowing up in his face a few months before the election - it's almost too horrible to imagine.
It's bad enough that we may have lost Elizabeth Edwards as an Obama surrogate for health care, given how she will have to fight past the scandal questions to get her voice heard, or some swing voters in swing states who fall prey to party stereotypes, or dampened what was one of the most enthusiastic candidate supporter groups in the race, or given the RNC oppo guys lots of fodder to go through looking for words of praise from Obama to Edwards. All those things are bad enough, and real.
What could have happened was another four years of Bush's America.
It was great to see John Edwards last night around 6:15 on CNN calmly taking on the bullsh*t rhetoric of Bushey McSame...he has assumed a role commensurate with his status since endorsing Barack Obama and is a forthright forceful advocate for the chamge Barack will bring. click this linky for full version
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
Then in the afternoon Senator Clinton made something unequivocally clear on a major news network:
"Anybody who has ever voted for me or voted for Barack has much more in common in terms of what we want to see happen in our country and in the world with the other than they do with John McCain," Clinton said on CNN's "The Situation Room."
"I'm going to work my heart out for whoever our nominee is. Obviously, I'm still hoping to be that nominee, but I'm going to do everything I can to make sure that anyone who supported me ... understands what a grave error it would be not to vote for Sen. Obama."
In the evening came a surprise endorsement of John Edwards for our increasingly presumptive nominee.
And here in New Hampshire, we are apparently on track to break attendance records for the state Democratic party convention - on the year after the presidential candidates came.
Bush sacrificed more than golf (and lives and treasure and national reputation) when he invaded Iraq. He sacrificed his party.
It gets hot down North Carolina way, right about now. You can almost here the bees a-buzzin...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04...
"He doesn't want to pick the loser," the aide said.
John C. Moylan, a longtime friend and adviser who directed Mr. Edwards's South Carolina campaign, was more diplomatic.
"He thinks very highly of both Senators Clinton and Obama, and I do not think he is inclined to spend the next three months engaged in the small politics of who's the better bowler or beer drinker," Mr. Moylan said.
Many of Mr. Edwards's North Carolina supporters have been quietly pressing him to endorse Mr. Obama, and a large group of them, led by Ed Turlington, his former national general campaign chairman, came forward publicly last week to support Mr. Obama.
On the other hand, Mrs. Edwards, her husband's closest and most trusted adviser, has made it clear that she favors Mrs. Clinton; aides said she has recently tried to persuade Mr. Edwards to do the same.
Even if he remains neutral, her endorsement would carry weight, some voters suggested.
"I read in the Raleigh paper that Elizabeth likes Hillary's health care plan, so we know who she's for," said Judy Campbell, of Wilmington.
shooee I never though it would end this way...not wanting to pick a loser...well VP is not the place to be in a Clinton Administartion, right Al ?
The Dem delegate discussion in Granite Status brings up an interesting point. This was one of the states where Edwards was a factor - he has earned a not insignificant five delegates. Whither the Edwardians?
Merrimack County Democratic Chairman Rob Werner, for instance, is officially a candidate for an Edwards delegate slot on Saturday, but he said he would be, in effect, an Obama delegate.
He said he has been up front for many weeks about that because, he said, Edwards and Obama "match up on issues" and Obama "is the superior messenger for the Edwards call for political reform." Werner is just back from a quick vacation in Pennsylvania, where he campaigned for Obama.
Werner is national field director of the John Rauh-founded Americans for Campaign Reform, which promotes publicly funded federal campaigns. He said the Illinois senator supports the concept.
Another of the five Edwards delegate candidates, Sen. Peter Burling, said he is "not pledging to anybody else, and I've not contemplated which way I'm going to go. I'm running as an Edwards delegate because the values he spoke about need to be reflected in the final phase of the election process."
Edwards backers Reps. Sharon Nordgren and Gary Richardson and Effingham activist Michael Cauble are also running.
On Blue Hampshire, Edwards had a strong show of support. So I'm curious. Tell us in the comments if you are an Edwardian, and if you:
* have decided to support Hillary Clinton.
* have decided to support Barack Obama.
* are waiting for Edwards to endorse.
* are undecided.
Here is a tidbit from CNN:
Edwards
met with Hillary and will meet with Obama tomorrow.
This is the most interesting to me:
Two friends close to Elizabeth Edwards say she has been in support of Barack Obama, whose campaign has been touting a list of endorsements from former Edwards backers.
So the big talk of the pre-Super Tuesday coverage is whether Edwards supporters will split, go for Obama, or go for The Clintons. I know a number of our fellow Hamsters, unlike me, have chosen to remain neutral after their respective candidates dropped out, but Edwards supporters, please take a moment to consider, if you were a Super Tuesday voter, who would you choose?
Obviously, this is on the honor system, but if John Edwards was not your #1 choice a week ago, PLEASE DO NOT VOTE!. I'm not voting, because I wasn't an Edwards supporter. Please don't screw this up, I know the rest of us have our favorites, but we all want a sense of where the Edwards crowd will go. If you were a supporter of a different candidate and started supporting Edwards when your candidate dropped out, please DO vote.
By the way, I have omitted "neither" on purpose. I seriously doubt any of you would refrain from voting, so let us know who you would vote for.
If you want to see the results, click on the link that says "results." VOTING IS ONLY FOR EDWARDS PEOPLE!
Although it's been widely reported that a comment by Francine Torge in introducing Senator Clinton at an event in Dover, N.H. on January 7, 2008 is the origin of a significant amount of controversy, and ultimately led to the endorsement of Senator Obama by Senator Kennedy and other members of the Kennedy clan, it struck me as a bit peculiar that this person kept being identified as a former John Edwards supporter.
With 59% of Precincts reporting CNN is projecting Hillary Clinton to be the winner of the NV Caucuses.
-- Clinton 50%
-- Obama 45%
-- Edwards 5%
Results are inline with polling averages that had a 5-6% advantage for Clinton. No word on the split of the 25 delegates up for grabs.
Edwards @ 5% is a bit of a surprise to me. Will he get delegates for that? I wonder if it will impact his thinking going in to SC? He is polling at 15% there.
SC is next Saturday for the Dems. It is the first state where Barack Obama has had a sustained polling advantage going into the voting booth.
7:15 pm Update: With 97.44% Reporting
-- Clinton 50.75%
-- Obama 45.15%
-- Edwards 3.75%
-- Kucinich .05%
And... Kos is reporting that somehow Obama will end up with 13 Delegates vs. Hillary's 12. Need to read up on that one.
In case you had not heard, the net roots organizers for Edwards have declared Friday Jan 18, 2008 the Edwards 'moneybomb' day.
https://www.johnedwards.com/ac...
Why? Well for one, Ron Paul's supporters are showing the establishment that the net roots can generate publicity in ways that can not be ignored - money.
Okay, let's be down to earth for a bit; what's our best bet to win in November (POTUS and VPOTUS), ensuring the next few SCOTUS Justices don't believe the separation of church and state is an abomination (as a few of the ones already there seem to think) to God, among other things.
By the way, my theory for the most electable top ticket still available: Obama-Richardson. There's more too it than that, though. What have we learned from the past two elections? How can we win, and win big, this fall? Thoughts?
The floating world of DC elite pundits has egg all over their face today because they and the polls (and me too) got it so wrong. In blogworld, I quickly and publicly noted my error and moved on to voting data to figure things out.
But in Tweety-land, apparently the only way to save face on this is to call us racists. The charge is so absurd I'm not even going to dignify it with a response other than to say that the monstrosity of the slur is equaled only by the illogic of it, if one actually cared to counter-punch.
I actually started preparing a long, drawn out survey of what went on, but it looks like DHinMI has already done so, and better than I could have. Please read it. But to sum up a little of what he said and add a few crude additions of my own:
* Connecticut Valley Dems are in the main for Obama, while Boston-area southern NH Dems are in the main for Clinton. We saw the same breakdown in 2004 as well between Dean and Kerry. But guess what? There's a whole lot more votes in Manchester and Nashua than in Hanover and Keene, and in small towns, college or not, all over the state that went Obama. And in a year where indies broke for Obama, and registered Dems for Clinton, advantage Clinton.
* Edwards' message of economic populism did not resonate with lower-income/working class town towns, and those voters broke for Clinton. I find this kind of troubling for Team Edwards, actually. But in a way it makes sense, given that people who are working more have to rely on tradmed more for candidate info, and Edwards did not get nearly as much oxygen as the other two.
* Here's a wild thought: maybe Clinton won because she had a fantastic set of qualified people running her show with tremendous experience in state politics, an unbelievable field operation, and worked her tail off in the final weeks here. And then there's that business of her being a very credible, experienced, qualified candidate for POTUS. Maybe she won, because, um, she won.
* Women held strongly for Clinton. A very interesting fact moving forward.
* A rising tide lifts all boats: massive voter turnout helped all candidates, not just ones who capture the youth vote, and the pre-Iowa neck and neck status of Obama and Clinton held tight. In the end, this was Clinton's firewall, and a firewall doesn't need to look pretty, it just needs to stop the spread of the flames. And with months and months beforehand of large margin frontrunner status here, she held on. While the number of delegates is the same, and the margin of victory is small enough to call it a tie, the psychological, media, and momentum victory is huge. Well done, Senator.
But none of this matters, because the bobbleheads are talking about tears and how we're a bunch of not only racists but liars, publicly supporting Obama but in the privacy of our viting booth showing our Yankee bigotry.
Update: The one big mystery for me still, though, is why all the post-Iowa polls were so wrong, even the reputable ones. For more on that, check our Pollster's analysis.
There's something about the process of walking up to the table and announcing your name, collecting your ballot then stepping into the little "booth" that feels empowering to me. Here I am, taking the time to be counted. Someone, somewhere is taking note of what I think. I am contributing to the continuation of a process that has made America great. I love my country!
After seven years of Bush incompetence and malfeasance, with 70 percent of the country believing we are on the wrong track, every politician says they're for 'change.' But, of course, 'change' doesn't mean the same thing for every candidate. Nowadays even Mitt Romney, the plutocrat's plutocrat, is unironically trying to sell himself as the 'change' candidate. (Self awareness is not a Romney strong suit).
When a word like 'change' becomes a political mantra like this, the word can be used as much to hide intent as to reveal. And that is problem for all of us who really want to bring the kind of 'change' that revalues work and makes the system in Washington work for the middle class.
The bus was late, but the show was sweet - bittersweet. John Edwards closed out his NH campaign in Dover last night to a rapt audience.
Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon and James Denton were there. The whole Edwards family was there. The entire campaign family was there. The family of labor showed up in full solidarity for John Edwards. The enthusiastic family of environmental activists represented by Friends of the Earth was there.
But another family came to the Elk's Lodge in Dover tonight to support John Edwards at his final campaign event in NH.
The family of Nataline Sarkysian, a beloved daughter and sister, a friend and a young teenager so full of hope and potential, an American no longer on this earth for the sake of a few dollars more on the bottom line, that family was there tonight in Dover. The Sarkysian Family was there to raise their voices in protest during their time of intense grief to remind us that pernicious influence of corporations is not just the ultimate boogeyman out there in the political landscape today. No, the story of Nataline is a story about the human costs of the system we live under today in this country.
