Politics – Democrat John Edwards is exiting the presidential race Wednesday, ending a scrappy underdog bid in which he steered his rivals toward progressive ideals while grappling with family hardship that roused voter's sympathies but never diverted his campaign, The Associated Press has learned.
If he was only a conservative Republican. He would be outstanding.
CODI:
"If he was only a conservative Republican. He would be outstanding."
Why is that? Do labels really matter that much to you?
What he believes and what I believe are two different ideals. If he had a more conservative belief, he would be great. When he is pinned he don't waiver. He sticks to his belief. I will give him that much credit. But he is too liberal. And that is the turn-off. How as can you say it??
He's not too liberal. Not at all. You are too far to the extreme right.
Not hardly. I am pro-abortion (with limits) and pro pro second amendement.(yes pro x2 it is not a typo)
Taxes are too high, for everybody. If you can't take care of yourself,(health care, retirement, kids collge etc...) the govt. should not have too. We should take care of the planet but not at the expense of our economy. And we need to win this war. That is not too exteme.
With the exception of abortion, I disagree with your positions. Taxes are too low for the super rich. Since unregulated capitalism has destroyed company health care and retirement plans the government must step in with a safety net. You extreme right wingnuts have been doing an outstanding job of destroying our economy for the last 7 years. Don't try to blame the environmentalists for your mistakes. Maybe you need to win in Iraq, but the rest of us need to get outta there yesterday. We should never have gone in there in the first place.
No you missed my point. TAXES ARE TOO HIGH FOR EVERYBODY!! I don't know the number(it was 12,000 a year) if you don't make x amount you don't have to file income taxes. If you do you get it all back. So don't give me this "Taxes are too low for the super rich." Unions can take some of the blame for companies not providing health and/or retirement. IT COST TOO MUCH! Listen to Colin Powell and 60 minutes interview with Saddam's FBI interrogator, the war was justifed. The economy is fine, lowest unemployment in years,even during Clinton's high times. I understand if you do need help, yes the govt. can lend a hand. But if you need govt for your existence, then you have bigger problems then I.
"Unions can take some of the blame for companies not providing health and/or retirement. IT COST TOO MUCH!"
It costs too much because insurance companies want to keep making bigger and bigger profits. Same with doctors, hospitals, and everyone else in the field.
The easiest way to make bigger profits is to charge higher premiums/bills and give less benefits.
This is a shame. As a presidential candidate, he had the nicest hair.
Issues seem pretty much off-limits for the candidates still in the mix, so thank goodness for open primaries. I'll switch to the GOP primary and give Romney's nice hair my vote.
I would have to agree with you on this. Romney has the best hair of the GOP candidates. Bill Clinton had much better hair than Dole or GHBush. Hillary has good hair days and bad hair days. For her sake, I hope that she hires Edwards as her personal stylist. McCain doesn't have a chance. His hair is really weak. Obama's hair isn't bad but I wouldn't mind it if he showed up with dreadlocks. Or better yet, McCain should show up in dreadlocks. He has nothing to lose with the hair that he has.
Ahhh yes the hair jokes! Hoooeeee, now THATS funny.
The REAL joke is that the Republicans may just be stuck with the candidate that they LEAST wanted to be on the ticket, McCain!
Its been widely broadcast here that he "is just a RINO" a "liberal masquerading as a Republican" and so on....
Looks like the far right is too weak to support the likes of Rudy or Freddy.....so whats a Neo to do?
-"Hillary's chest hair?"- More absence of substance and an escalation of personal ideological attacks. BRILLIANT!
Them republicans is real smart like when they're running scared.
Not a member? Sign-up today!
daviannewton651975
adamhowe1980
darwinm701977
harleyb761960
rontravel
popperous
onlinevideorental
BuckNutty
cliffordsrun
lordponsomby
postaphis
HarryWatson00
Monte G
Ashmanit
christopher1
boatmich
careabouttheearth
natalie055
Hullios
anavrin
torhadnites
blinkers
MidnightPrism
lbakerrabe
Matt McGee
Alexia
Uzeri34789
AlvinT
Radiofreeeuropa
igivebadadvice
supertikitikiman
mozzer
nicholas
perez084
DJK2k
aylamayumi
bruhaha
saltyveruca
emberjohn
Ratskii
clickfire
filipesette
schristoforides
bcoynejr
Itachirumon
bugluver
lektoriranje
kctrixter
digitalfever
matters5
237)
somewhat of a surprise. I thought he would hang in there until after Super Tuesday. I wonder if he endorses Obama today.
more from CNN;
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/30/edwards/...
Yahoo has some more. Apparently he won't endorse anyone in the near-term:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/edwards;_ylt=AkNo2ZK...
If he makes an endorsement it only makes sense that it would take place sometime this week prior to Super Tuesday. If he does not make one this week...in my opinion only shows that he is not really committed to either one.
Just like Ted Kennedy, Edwards will endorse anyone he thinks can win.
So I take it you think McCain will win because Rudy supports him?
DANM:
"Just like Ted Kennedy, Edwards will endorse anyone he thinks can win."
And how is that different from the Cheneys?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,326374,00.html
"Liz Cheney, the vice president's daughter [and former co-chair of Fred Thompson's campaign], is signing on to Romney's campaign. So Liz, you were a Thompson supporter. Obviously, he's out of the race. Why did you pick Romney?"
At least Ted Kennedy isn't a flipflopper like Cheney who initially supported the Fred Thompson bandwagon and has now hopped ship to the Romney bandwagon.
Just like Ted Kennedy, Edwards will endorse anyone he thinks can win."
And how is that different from the Cheneys?
Your kidding right? First, the article YOU posted stated Liz Cheney, the vice president's daughter"
How is "Liz Cheney" Different (politically) from Ted Kennedy?
Ted Kennedy is a pol, he Has ran for and won a political office. Liz Cheney the VP's AUDULT daughter has never been elected to a political office.
There are 535 ELECTED MEMBERS of CONGRESS that represent 300 million Americans. Does this really need to be explained?
And why do you morph Liz Cheney into the entire Cheney family, that's just bizarre.
That would be like claiming all the Gore's are drunk drivers, abusing prescription drugs like Xanax, Valium and Vicodin and smoke dope all at the same time while being clocked going 94 mph.
All that's true for Al Gore 111 but not for the entire family.
INJEST:
"Ted Kennedy is a pol, he Has ran for and won a political office. Liz Cheney the VP's AUDULT daughter has never been elected to a political office."
That is IRRELEVANT with regards to DANM's charge that Kennedy is a fairweather bandwagon follower. ANYONE can be a bandwagon follower, both politicians and nonpoliticans alike. It's laughable you would accuse Kennedy of jumping on the Obama bandwagon and supporting "anyone he thinks can win" when Liz Cheney is the one who first jumped on the Fred Thompson bandwagon, then jumped on to the Mitt Romney bandwagon after Thompson was eliminated. At least Ted Kennedy was consistent in his choice. He supported Obama all the way. Liz Cheney seems to be the one who is guilty of the charge of supporting "anyone she thinks can win."
The fact you fail to see this blatant inconsistency shows just how severely you have been blinded by your excessive partisanship.
Pathetic.
"It's laughable you would accuse Kennedy of jumping on the Obama bandwagon and supporting "anyone he thinks can win""
Sorry Buckie I made no such claim.
Now would you please explain why you took one person Liz Cheney, and morphed her into the entire Cheney family?
Your statement "how is that different from the Cheneys?"
"the Cheneys" would be the whole family explain please.
INJEST:
"Sorry Buckie I made no such claim."
No, you just tried to defend that untenable claim and are now cowardly trying to back away from your support of it. Sorry, but that's not going to work. By defending this ridiculous claim, you've effectively made it your own as well.
INJEST:
"Now would you please explain why you took one person Liz Cheney, and morphed her into the entire Cheney family?"
The Cheneys--plural--means "more than one Cheney." It doesn't necessarily mean "the entire Cheney family" as you so oversimplistically put it. To this point, Liz Cheney has joined Romney's campaign. Lynne Cheney has publicly defended Mitt Romney against anti-Mormon attacks. More than one Cheney has expressed support for Romney--therefore CheneyS.
Or hedging his bets in hopes of the VP nod
I agree, if he stays neutral he may get the VP nomination. I a, sad to see this happen to him because he is the best of the three.
I agree. I would have voted for him in 04 but I absolutely
couldn't stand Kerry
I don't know what anyone saw in him. He didn't show me anything in either election cycle.
A country whose citizens have been 'molested' financially, socially, and in the case of the survivors, individually by the blatant neoconservative zeal of a dummy like Dubya, a man who has been very successful taking on corporate interests in the courtroom on behalf of ordinary Americans is just THE man to occupy the White House and try to, legally, undo all the damage that Georgie-boy has wrought, even though that may take generations!
Well he did nothing to help the campaign in 2004. Dick Chaney ate him alive in the debates. It may not have been his fault, I have felt from the start that the Democratic party didn't want to win that year. They were just waiting to run Hillery.
dont think he'll get it from hillary. he pretty much allied himself with obama in most of the debates in going after her and calling her part of the problem in washngton.
hed make a good Atty Gen
Exactly where will Edwards votes go? I visted the DailyKos website(liberal website)today and noticed two straw polls. One was taken a week or so ago. It pretty much had Obama and Edwards splitting most of the votes at 40% each. The newest poll taken today after the Edwards announcement shows Obama at 76% and Hillary at 11%. Looks like at the dailykos community anyway all of Edwards votes went to Obama.
on philosophical lines, id think obama would benefit more from edwards pulling out. however, i was listening to NPR today, and a man called in who identified himself as a southern democrat and said he simply would not vote for a black candidate, no matter what party. he said he would stay home if romney vs obama, and vote mccain in a mccain vs obama contest.
i think itll shake out on regional lines. in the south, i think hillary will benefit. elsewhere, obama stands to gain more.
I tend to agree. This probably helps Clinton in the southern states but Edwards withdrawl may help obama elsewhere.
Jan. 27 I wrote
"Someone needs to explain to him,
"Look Buckie,
You ran for Pres in 04 and lost.
You ran as a VP in 04 and lost.
After 1 term as Senator your state, NC, fired you,
and tonight the state you were born in said thanks but no thanks.
In politics, this might just be what they call "A CLUE"
It took another humiliating defeat for him to finally get it.
BTW considering his election track record what exactly would the value of his endorsement be?
Same for any pol of any party with a similar track record?
I think he is doing the right thing...he doesn't have that thing that is needed to win. What ever that is...i just didn't see him as the guy to fix what ails this nation.