Edwards flashback: Only those who believe in Santa Claus would see Hillary as the change candidate

[BeyondGeography]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kugkNSa9xxo

Accompanying transcript from the 10/30 Philadelphia debate:

==I mean, another perspective on why the Republicans keep talking about Senator Clinton is, Senator, she -- they may actually want to run against you, and that's the reason they keep bringing you up.

What I would say is Senator Clinton just said that she believes we desperately need change in this country, and I -- I agree with that. I actually think we have a system that's broken. It's rigged, it's corrupt, and it does not work for the American people, and it's time we start telling the truth about that. Too much influence from entrenched interests -- insurance companies, drug companies, oil companies. Too much influence from Washington lobbyists.

And so the question I think that voters have to ask themselves is, do you believe that the candidate who's raised the most money from Washington lobbyists, Democrat or Republican; the candidate who's raised the most money from the health industry -- drug companies, health insurance companies; the candidate who's raised the most money from the defense industry, Republican or Democrat; who -- and the answer to all those questions is that's Senator Clinton -- will she be the person who brings about the change in this country? You know, I -- I believe in Santa Claus, I believe in the Tooth Fairy, but I don't think that's going to happen. I really don't.

And I -- I think that if people want the status quo, Senator Clinton's your candidate. That's what I believe. If they want real change, then they need somebody who tells the truth about a system that doesn't work, who believes that this may actually be the first generation -- we're all worried about this being the first generation that doesn't leave the world and America better for our children, unlike 20 generations that came before us.

This is not an abstract thing. This is not about lobbyists. Matter of fact, it's not about any of us. The truth is, when this election is over, I'm going to be fine. Senator Clinton's going to be fine. Senator Obama's going to be fine. The question is, will America be fine? And will we ensure -- and I think this is the great moral test of our generation -- will we ensure that our children have a better life than we've had? That's the responsibility we have.==

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/30/us/politics/30debate-transcript.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

[geek tragedy]

1. But now he's horse-trading with Clinton.

Clinton will likely outbid Obama.

[Demeter]

5. A Smart Trader Would Have an Offer From BOTH Camps

or an iron-clad guarantee that he was talking to the future President of the US.

I'd prefer the former---and I fear the latter.

[Blue_In_AK]

6. Maybe I'm being overly pragmatic

but if it takes horse trading to get John Edwards on the ticket or on somebody's cabinet in an influential position, I'll take it.

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

7. I refuse to believe Edwards is going to sell out like you're suggesting

He is one of the most principled politicians I have seen.

[jackson_dem]

2. Campaign tactics

Obama will also change his tune on Hillary being an agent of change if she is the nominee. :boring: Remember his shift on Lieberman?

[MadBadger]

3. My thoughts exactly. This is why I cant believe hed endorse Hillary.

[MadBadger]

4. My thoughts exactly. This is why I cant believe hed endorse Hillary.

[DJ13]

8. That makes me wonder

If he had such a harsh opinion of Hillary's policies before .....but he has already talked with Hillary about endorsing her, did he really believe in his campaign platform, or was it just his spin to try and win the WH?

No one with any ethics could backtrack on that harsh assesment of Hillary and support her now.

Hopefully Edwards doesnt betray his supporters by selling out for a position in a Hillary Presidency.

[raincity_calling]

9. If he can broker a deal that puts

him in an influential position or he can get guarantees, then I think it would be acceptable for him to endorse which ever candidate that will provide the path to healthcare for all, strenthen the middle class, reduce poverty, etc. - we have to keep our eye on the long-term goals. IF Hillary moves to the left in order to win, then so be it. Isn't that the whole point -- to get a candidate to move to the left?