So Edwards adviser says he isn't going to win a single primary?

[PresidentObama]

Via the New York Times piece.

Ouch.

Seriously, that's absolutely crushed me that even his campaign staff doesn't believe he can win any states now. My support for John has been running on fumes, but I've tried to remain loyal. I really, really have. And I wish him the best, but he's not going to be the nominee.

I'll still probably vote for him in the primary.

But gosh guys, this sucks :(

I believe Hillary is going to be the nominee, but to read this. It makes you think he doesn't even have a fighting chance anymore. 4% in Nevada was definitely a turning point in the wrong direction, and I hate it.

[papau]

1. With proportional allocation of delegates he becomes a "king maker"

[XemaSab]

3. But if the mo' tips heavily toward Hillary

it really won't matter. :shrug:

[Lucinda]

4. Yep. The catbird seat.

[Dems Will Win]

21. Only if he polls above 15% does he get any delegates at all

and only in NC and OK is he even above that in third...

[Freddie Stubbs]

45. The problem is that voters in later states may stop voting for him if they do not believe

that he is a viable candidate. His support has been dropping with each succeeding primary:

Iowa: 30%

NH: 17%

Nevada: 4%

[Sarah Ibarruri]

2. First, where's the link to this? Second, he's talking truth to power and that's all I care about

Nobody else is! :)

[XemaSab]

5. I was literally reading this article a minute ago

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/us/politics/21edwards.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp

[Sarah Ibarruri]

7. Okay, first, NY Times wants Hillary. Second, NY Times is pulling this out of their @$$....

Here's what the NY Times article REALLY says:

..... "But his aides have said privately that they do not expect Mr. Edwards to win a single primary state....."

Which aides? Who talked to them? What are their names? Or is the NY Times, which I no longer respect for having published false information for years to defend and protect Bush, LYING? In fact, I'd say they're pulling this out of their @$$.

[PresidentObama]

12. You think the aides are going to want them to publish their names?

I'm sure Senator Edwards would love that.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

16. I think there are no such "aides." I think the NY Times pulled it out of their @$$.....

... NY Times is notoriously pro-right wing, pro-IRAQ, pro-H. Clinton, and anti-Edwards.

They know no one will ask them for names, so they made this up.

[PresidentObama]

18. Yes, of course. If you don't like what they have to say: they made it up!

Look, I don't like it either.

But that's bullshit.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

20. Actually, they lied for years. Where were you? Did you not keep up with what NY Times did to

promote the IRAQ War?

[redqueen]

22. Not only do major news orgs make stuff up...

they also fail at "fact checking" the lies after they've made them up (the lady who wrote the article we're discussing is mentioned by name here, for her failure to do so just last month):

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh120307.shtml


So yeah... pardon us if the M$M has given us *all* good reason to be unreasonably suspicious of their motives.

[ladjf]

32. Maybe so. But, quotes from unnamed sources are always weak

and subject to questioning. Who knows?

[BigDDem]

34. Im sure right wingers will be shocked to find out that the NYT

is "notoriously pro-right wing" :rofl:

[OzarkDem]

48. No, they're just pro-Clinton

that's not surprising, its what one would expect.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

67. Hah! GOPers think Attila the Hun was a lefty. nt

[surfermaw]

62. You got it out of their $$a

he is going do do well in Ok. and in Ga. and the South Carolina vote isn't in yet.... I think he is going to be Hillary's VP.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

66. He's going to do GREAT!!! nt

[OzarkDem]

44. "Unnamed sources" ?

What else would you expect Hillary's hometown newspaper to run? :eyes:

[PaDUer]

14. MSNBC just had a guy saying

Edwards is the ONLY one who can win since he knows the issues, etc, and for him not to drop out..and that he's the only one who can take down McCain as per how it's lining up in FL...keep going John!

[Sarah Ibarruri]

17. OF COURSE! NY Times is NOTORIOUSLY against Edwards.

Why would they not lie? They lied for YEARS with fake facts to promote the IRAQ War, then apologized about it long after it was all done.

[Divine Discontent]

39. I hope HissySpit can put this in a youtube video

I would like to see that discussion

[OzarkDem]

46. There are a lot of people who want him to stay in

people who know and understand politics and public policy. Maybe they're trying to send us a message.

[ChiciB1]

29. I'm In For The Long Haul... No Matter What... Will Vote For Him No Matter

what... but I did just start a thread that touches on something similar about him winning... this time out!!

It helps me put some perspective on what is actually happening, and it keeps me from being devastated. John Edwards is a MAN BEFORE HIS TIME!! America is still asleep and some only need one whack of a 2x4 to see it, others needs 4 or 5 of them. Pain and suffering has already started in this country, next year it's going to begin to run and then maybe the "full gallup" will follow.

The train we've been riding on is so far down the wrong track now, that it's unable to back-up to right itself. And I don't really think people realize that it CAN get much worse. If you thought the Viet Nam vets got a RAW DEAL... hang on folks, many Viet Nam vets died because of the lack of medical help. Today, technology fixes so much more, but they come with a HUGE price!!! And the Veterans Administration isn't even dealing with what's going on now.

One more thing, to ALL Viet Nam Vets... so many of you got such a raw deal and still are... what I said was NOT directed at you. I lived that Generation, my friends died in that War... many of them, and many came back in horrible shape, and many couldn't live with it after they came back! My cousin was one of them!

Eisenhower said... Beware Of The Military Industrial Complex... The Pentagon has earplugs in their ears!! Along with so many others.

[Kucinich4America]

6. Get out the fucking vote then.

Jesus Christ, people. Isn't 28 years of this bullshit ENOUGH??

I'd like to vote on a ballot WITHOUT a Bush or a Clinton on it for the first time in my life (and never see them on another one)

[Divine Discontent]

49. ask and ye shall receive

http://www.cafepress.com/9iu11iani

[Two Americas]

56. you just unmasked the lie

Good work. With a couple of sentences, you revealed the lie that underlies all of these discussions.

Half of the message people are trying to deliver with these posts is hidden and covert. "Edwards is not going to win...." so therefore give up is the real message.

But there is more deception to it than even that. They say “Edwards (or Kucinich) cannot win so give up.” What they really mean is “give up so that Edwards cannot win.” Clever switch there.

Of course, that was being said long before this latest "revelation" and before the Edwards supporters were the target it was said to Kucinich supporters and to anyone on the left.

The secret message is this: "If we can discourage those on the left from fighting for a voice in the party, they will give up and then the left won't have a voice in the party."

The real question is not whether or not it is realistic for the left to have a voice in the party, the question is do you want the left to have a voice in the party. That is what these discussions are intended to hide from us - the crucial and vital question.

Opponents of Edwards and Kucinich will not come out and say that their true purpose is to promote centrist and right-drifting positions for the party and to cripple and suppress the voices on the left whenever possible. Why is that? Is it because they know that it would backfire, and because they know that only by framing the discussion in a certain way so as to confuse and mislead people can they retain their power over the discussion?

We aren't supporting Edwards because we thought he was the best bet to win. We are supporting him because it is the right thing to do.

We go around in circles here and continue to operate by a set of self-fulfilling prophecies. "Oh those ideas are not popular, so let's abandon them and discredit them and marginalize and ridicule any who speak for them" is presented as "reality." Clearly it is designed to create a reality, not to describe a reality. It is designed to discourage people so that they give up - which then means that the ideas will never become popular.

Now they are saying that it is only the "facts" they are talking about, and that Edwards has no chance. But they have been working tirelessly to make sure that these "facts" become true, and they will not reveal that they want Edwards to fail, and that they want Edwards to fail for the purpose of advancing the right-centrist faction within the party and making sure that the left gets the minimum exposure to the public.

Since big money and the media are supporting the right-centrist faction within the party, those who want to prevent the party from moving to the left do not need to persuade anyone or make any compelling arguments. They merely need to keep such an uproar going that there is continual confusion and division and the people are paralyzed. That prevents any opposition to the insiders and their plans from forming.

[redqueen]

58. I wish I could rec posts... brilliant analysis.

:applause:

[redqueen]

8. Yeah, sure... an unnamed advisor or advisors... riiiiiight.

Don't believe everything you read...

IMO this kind of crap is why his numbers haven't been so good lately. The more they pound that drum, the more they hope his supporters bail for one of the two they'd rather talk about.

[PresidentObama]

10. I doubt the New York Times would make up an adviser.

[redqueen]

11. I don't. (nt)

[PresidentObama]

13. With all due respect, I don't think they would.

[redqueen]

15. Okay...

I'm not sure what you think I missed before... :shrug:

[Sarah Ibarruri]

19. EXACTLY! And the NY Times ofall things - the biggest liars, the folks who singlehandedly....

... promoted the Iraq War by lying to the public, and then gave a measly apology. Pffft! Like I'm going to believe anything NY Times says about a candidate they DO NOT want.

[Zywiec]

9. Yeah, sure. Next they'll be saying Dennis won't win any states. n/t

[saracat]

23. Wow you trust remarks made by a nameless source in a newspaper that has been repeatedly

denigrated for false reporting? The newspaper of Judith Miller and the guy busted for plagerism? And you say your support is running on "fumes'? Why? This makes me support John more than ever. He has been smaked and marginilized and insulted and yet he keeps fighting for us.John Edwards is the man we need to be President.You may "hate" it but this is a long haul, and noone said it was going to be pretty. I have respect for Edwards supporters who can take the bad with the good.They are like their candidate and don't turn tail and run to the other side when things don't go their way.

[redqueen]

24. Same here... it only solidifies my support.

:patriot:

[bdamomma]

28. I won't turn my tail and run away we still have a long way to go.

stupid media does not help either. I still support John also.

[NoPasaran]

25. Let me ask those angry at unnamed staffers and/or the New York Times

What primaries do YOU expect Edwards to win?

Is he going to win South Carolina, his birthplace state?

If he doesn't win there, where can he realistically expect to win?

The lion's share of his eighteen delegates are those he picked up in Iowa, a state where he's campaigned for the last few years. If he didn't win there, how is he going to win anywhere else, where he has neither the resources nor the tims.

As far as playing "kingmaker", remember that if he doesn't break the 15% threshold, he's not going to get any delegates in future primaries. Do you really expect that he's going to pursue a strategy of picking up a handful of delegates here, a few more there, all in the hopes that he will be the one to decide which other candidate is chosen if there should actually be a deadlocked convention.

I respect Senator Edwards, and I respect his supporters, but that's the way I see things at this point.

[Two Americas]

55. no

It is completely unrealistic.

But that isn't really relevant, and that isn't what these discussions are about.

[freesqueeze]

26. He had the best message

but it is a harder sell to the electorate.

[smalll]

40. Close - he has the best message,

but he HIMSELF is a hard sell to the electorate. Unfortunately, this time, the only strong proponents for economic liberalism are a shrimp (Kucinich) and a phony (Edwards.) If we had an honest man of Presidential height (like Feingold) running, the message would be selling a lot better.

[redqueen]

41. A shrimp and a phony... glad not all DUers are as nasty as you.

[MGKrebs]

51. I suppose Jewish is a little easier sell than height or wholesale

policy turnaround.

[Kucinich4America]

61. Well, if it was Feingold and not Edwards, what would the jokes be?

"A Black, a Jew, a Hobbit, and a woman walk into a bar....."?
:sarcasm:

[AdHocSolver]

52. It is people with your snide, and ignorant, attitude that got us seven years of Bush. n/t

[bdamomma]

27. maybe he needs to replace his campaign staffers???

what you work for a campaign and don't think your candidate will win a primary, that is pretty sad, they should be replaced.

[INdemo]

30. Edwards and Kucinich should run together on a third party progressive ticket

Wouldn't that turn things upside down ?........I just cant get enthused about this election because I fear the election will be stolen again .....
(off the subject a little bit but)
We need changes in our election system but obviously Congress wont do it.......But if they did then we could start by doing away with the electoral system and go strictly by popular vote...Then it would make stealing elections much more difficult or even impossible......

[ChiciB1]

31. I Know It Sounds Bad... But I Hardly Find It A Surprise... And If It Was

reported corrected, I do understand where they're coming from. And his staffers probably aren't stabbing him in the back either. They probably know what most of us know... BIG BUSINESS, POWER & LOBBYISTS are spinning their heads to keep him down!

He's standing his ground, but too many people just aren't ready for his kind of CHANGE!!! It just might hurt their pocketbooks!!

[balantz]

33. The media won't stop trying to kill his campaign.

I wouldn't jump the gun on these "facts" until you get more credible proof.

[BigDDem]

35. If this is such BS, please tell us which primaries he WILL win.....

(holding breath)

[AdHocSolver]

36. The race has just begun. Those who want the status quo fear Edwards' message will be heard.

That is why they want to dishearten his supporters. They want to stifle his message.

The American electorate is in a drugged state. Kucinich has been broadcasting the populist message for years. However, most Americans live in a fantasy world, and want desperately to hold onto their delusions. So, the right wing dismisses Dennis as a kook, and marginalizes him.

Then Edwards comes along with a similar message. John is charismatic, good looking, and "mainstream". Elected Senator from a "right-wing" state, Edwards has the broad appeal that Kucinich lacks. People will listen to Edwards and find him credible. Whereas they can easily dismiss Dennis (unfairly) as a left-wing kook, they cannot do the same for Edwards.

So the right wing has to find another approach to stifle the message. Make John seem like a fruit cake for staying in a race "that he can't possibly win". What if all races were run on that premise?

Should all but the first two horses out of the gate at Belmont quit the race before the first lap? Should all but the first two runners in the Boston marathon quit running by the first quarter mile?

This is what the right wing wants. This is what Clinton supporters want. This is what Obama supporters want.

I say support Edwards with time and money all the way to the convention!

Go, John!

[PresidentObama]

37. The race has just begun? Hardly.

[cali]

43. Edwards had years to make his case in Iowa. He didn't do it

sufficiently and it's a retail politics state. His entire plan rested on Iowa. And the race for the nomination cannot be compared to the Kentucky Derby or a marathon. That's a logical fallacy. Good for him if he wants to stay in until the convention, but that doesn't change the basic facts.

[AdHocSolver]

57. I aced two logic courses in college. Don't preach to me about fallacy.

My comparison to a horse race or a marathon is perfectly apt. It took the right wing years to convince the American electorate about the "correctness" of their b*llsh*t, and you expect John Edwards to get a deluded electorate to adjust to reality in a few months? What hubris? What condescension?

Hillary Clinton has any credibility at all only because she is being promoted from the top down by the DLC sending commands down the line to the party grunts to support her. She would lose the general election to practically any of the Republicans. She is poison to the right wing, and her candidacy could lose the Democrats Congress.

Barack Obama is a "fresh face". He is young, smart, and good looking. However, he is naive to think that he can win over the rabid right wing, or get the greedy rich to stop pillaging this country. If he does become the nominee, the right wing will eat him alive. If he should some how win the presidency, he will find that he will get little help from the DLC Democrats who have influence in Congress because they are more about maintaining their own power, however limited, than they are about helping the country.

The attitude displayed by a lot of Clinton and Obama supporters against Edwards is precisely why the Democratic party is seen as the party of the circular firing squad. After Biden, Dodd, and Richardson dropped out (all good candidates), Democrats are starting to take a second look at Edwards and listen to what he is saying. This can only benefit the party.

This has raised the fear level in Clinton's and Obama's campaigns. Those supporters are the ones who display the most vitriol against Edwards. If we wind up with another Republican president, it won't be because they had a good slate. It will be because Democrats side tracked our best candidate to win the general election.

[redqueen]

60. "It took the right wing years to convince the American electorate ..."

Yup... it's not going to be turned around in a matter of a few months, or even a few years... it took the right *decades*.

[union_maid]

38. How about he throws Trippi off the bus?

The reason that Edwards was the VP nominee in 2004 was that people liked him. I mean, as soon as he started to put himself out to the public, which was in advance of that race, he elicited a lot of positive reaction among Democratically inclined people. He's delivering his message differently this time around, and although I'm sure it's at least as sincere, the angry rhetoric doesn't match his natural demeanor very well. So, he's not resonating with the voters as well one might have hoped. I know he hasn't gotten the media coverage the other two have, but I'm not sure which is the cart and which is the horse there. What does seem pretty clear is the hand of Trippi in the personality change Edwards has undergone.

[OzarkDem]

42. Got a link?

Haven't seen that one yet.

[MethuenProgressive]

47. Edwards is running a vanity campaign now.

He'd be a great talking head on the news shows.

[redqueen]

50. If he was, would he have done this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4142040

*sigh*

[MethuenProgressive]

53. I saw that - and wondered why he didn't speak.

I bet he would've said the right thing.

[redqueen]

54. It says right there why he didn't. (nt)

[Musty]

59. Guess this shows that Joe Trippi is...

...the kiss of death. I should have known he was doomed when he hired Joe Trippi, but still, I've been sending him money and hoping against hope that he could pull it off. I was for Dean 4 years ago--I guess I really know how to pick 'em.

[Two Americas]

63. the latest talking point

Joe Trippi is the enemy.

Why was Clinton's campaign not doomed when she hired Mark Penn? Or did Penn in essence hire her?

Or is it win at all costs and that is all that matters? Penn is a winner - by virtue of his lifetime of dedication to the interests of the most powerful - and most odious and repressive and reactionary organizations and causes imaginable - and with his connections the candidate who works for him has some distinct advantages, no doubt about that. Kinda like having our own "Rove," as people were saying when the story about Penn emerged. But at what point do we become "Rove?" I guess "Rove" with a "D" after his name means we "win."

Better a Rove than a Trippi - Rove is a winner and Trippi is a loser, and hey! this is America and nothing matters except winning at all costs and no matter what it takes and no matter how much damage that does to the country. Never mind what we are winning, just so long as we are winning.

If all we care about is being with the winner, and if we are going to completely roll over and surrender and passively accept that the wealthy and powerful few own our democracy and make our decisions for us and that is the way it is so we may as well give up, why bother doing anything? Why bother discussing politics or even thinking about them?

Welcome to DU.

[union_maid]

64. Trippi isn't the enemy, but he might not be right, either

Trippi's candidates seem to have to have one particular personality. Never mind that it might not be the right fit for said candidate. It might be that the words are right, but he insists that they submerge their own personalities for the sake of the delivery style he thinks will work. I think that Edwards as "angry young man" just fits poorly with his natural demeanor, no matter how honestly angry he might be, and that makes the public at large skeptical. And that seems to be all Trippi.

[Two Americas]

65. highly speculative

I highly doubt that Edwards or Dean are mere actors in Trippi's drama and would "submerge their own personalities for the sake of the delivery style he thinks will work." They would both need to be better actors and even more insincere that Reagan for your unsubstantiated and speculative smear to have any validity. Is that what you are tring to persuade us about here?

Of course, that is such a vague insinuation and it cannot be proved one way or the other, which makes it ideal for smearing a candidate.

I saw many speeches by Edwards in both 2004 and 2008. I don't detect any change, and I don't detect any anger. Perhaps these smears rest on the hope that most readers have not heard very many Edwards speeches? I bet most people have not. Even the Clinton and Obama supporters complain that most people here - let alone in the general public - have not actually heard many speeches from their candidates and instead are going on second hand hearsay about their candidates. I think they are right, and Edwards has gotten even less substantive coverage.