NBC: Edwards impressed by Hillary's detailed proposals to deal with poverty

[jackson_dem]

Andrea Mitchell just reported that an Edwards advisor said that John is "torn" and that he was impressed by Hillary's detailed proposals on poverty. If this is true then I would say it is more likely than not that Edwards will endorse Hillary. If Hillary is at least equal to Obama on poverty and superior, in Edwards' view, on health care and trade then it makes sense for him to go with her. The only remaining thing Obama has the advantage on is lobbyists, and even that is more of a campaign issue than a real one and John knows Obama is as awash in corporate money as Hillary. The only real ace Obama may have is if Edwards believes Hillary is unelectable.

[UALRBSofL]

1. I wished he would just go ahead an endorse Hillary tomorrow

It would be fine with me.

[NightWatcher]

2. who's gonna give him more?

I think this is an example of the wheeling and dealing that the superdelegates will do to.

[Adelante]

14. Is he a superdelegate?

I didn't think he was.

[jackson_dem]

21. I doubt it since he is not an elected official

But Donna Brazile is a superdelegate so maybe Edwards is too. This isn't about delegates, though. It is about moving some of Edwards' supporters into the Obama or Hillary column.

[ShortnFiery]

3. But Edwards has not "talked with" Obama NOR has endorsed a Presidential Candidate yet ...

You forgot to add those little tidbits to the title of your thread. :shrug:

[ericgtr]

4. Judging from this

I would say lobbyists are a pretty big issue for him.

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

[ericgtr]

5. Judging from this

I would say lobbyists are a pretty big issue for him.

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

[OzarkDem]

6. Edwards will choose substance over style n/t

[jefferson_dem]

7. True dat. Hell...Edwards totally endorsed Hillary's message and method long ago.

Remember this ---> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kugkNSa9xxo

[jackson_dem]

10. Campaign talk

Obama says the same thing about Hillary. Does anyone really believe he thinks Hillary won't bring change? Does anyone think he will still be calling her the status quo if she is the nominee? Let's get real. This is a guy who supported Kerry, someone guilty of everything he now accuses Hillary of.

If you listened to his argument about Hillary it applies equally to Obama. He would cite the money Hillary has raised from corporate interests who want to prevent real change. Obama is no slouch in corporate money. Logically if he thinks Hillary will not bring much change he would have to think the same about the candidate who, among other things, has received more from the drug industry than anyone in either party, as Edwards noted in the Nevada debate.

[BeyondGeography]

19. Problem is, that was basically his whole campaign

[jackson_dem]

20. St. Obama is the only non-politician in politics!

We have established that St. Obama is the first politician ever to: 1) have no base 2) not use campaign tactics

Obamites are drinking the kool aid if they really think Obama believes Hillary won't bring change (he supported Kerry in 2004 and Kerry 04' was much more to the right than Hillary 08'). It is a campaign tactic. What else did they have on her?

[BeyondGeography]

25. She hasn't done one thing her whole career to reduce the role of money in politics

and Obama is a proven reformer, no matter how hard you try to pretend they are the same on this point.

Edwards RAILED at the role of special interests in this campaign and basically called Hillary a corporate money pig in debate after debate. That doesn't mean he won't endorse her, it does mean he'll set a new standard for hypocrisy if he does.

[jackson_dem]

30. Edwards also poked fun at Obama's ethics "reform"

You can still have lunch paid for by a lobbyist as long as you are standing. Real change there! :rofl:

[BeyondGeography]

34. And, as for the gaping hole that is Edwards' legislative record on reform, what say you?

Here; reading is your friend:

==Indeed, who takes money from lobbyists is the wrong question about an essential subject. Instead, voters who care -- and I think voters should care -- ought to ask: What is the candidate's history on campaign finance reform, lobbying and ethics rules, and open government generally? How transparent is the candidate about campaign and personal finances? What steps will he or she take to limit the influence of money during the current campaign?

On these, there are revealing differences among the Democratic front-runners.

Edwards was part of the legislative team working to pass the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, but lobbying and campaign reform were nowhere near the top of his agenda in the Senate.

During the 2004 campaign, Edwards gave a useful speech outlining his plan to limit lobbyists' influence. But, unlike the other Democratic candidates, he refused requests to reveal the identities of his big fundraisers. This time around, after considerable prodding, Edwards agreed to release the names of fundraisers -- all his fundraisers, with no specifics about how much they had collected. His campaign argues vehemently that it should be praised for this avalanche of information, not faulted. But the candidate knows who has reeled in $1,000 and who raised $100,000. Why shouldn't voters?

Clinton has shown no zeal for or even particular interest in the issue in the Senate; nor did she while in the White House. Indeed, as her handling of the health-care task force and Whitewater documents illustrate, Clinton's instinct is for secrecy, and her default position is to disclose only the minimum legally required. She consented to reveal her major fundraisers only after repeated editorial hammering -- and only after all the other leading Democratic contenders had agreed.

On this issue, Obama leads the pack -- I'd say PAC, but he (and Edwards) don't take their checks, either. He helped pass a far-reaching ethics and campaign finance bill in the Illinois state Senate and made the issue a priority on arriving in Washington. Much to the displeasure of his colleagues, Obama promoted an outside commission to handle Senate ethics complaints. He co-authored the lobbying reform bill awaiting President Bush's signature and pushed -- again to the dismay of some colleagues -- to include a provision requiring lawmakers to report the names of their lobbyist-bundlers.

He has co-sponsored bills to overhaul the presidential public financing system and public financing of Senate campaigns. It's nice to hear Clinton talk about how "we've got to move toward public financing" -- Edwards backs it, too -- but I don't see her name on those measures.

Obama readily agreed to identify his bundlers. Unlike Clinton and Edwards, he has released his income tax returns. Perhaps most important, Obama has pledged to take public financing for the general election if he is the Democratic nominee and his Republican opponent will do the same.==

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/21/AR2007082101420.html

[jackson_dem]

37. We know the msm is on Obama's side

You are citing the citadel of the msm the Washington Post to defend Obama? That's like using Fox to tell us how the Iraq war is going.

Edwards' record on reform is being a floor manager for McCain-Feingold. In the end real change on this issue will not happen for the same reason it hasn't happen over the generations. Congress won't give away its perks or the advantages of incumbency.

[Big Blue Marble]

8. What was not mentioned is apparently Elizabeth is partial to Obama. n/t

[jackson_dem]

12. What is that based on?

I have seen that posted a few times. What is it based on?

[Big Blue Marble]

22. In checking: the Edwards campaign is denying the CNN story that ran yesterday.

CNN was reporting yesterday that two of Elizabeth's friends were saying that she liked Obama.
Now they have revised that story. So:shrug:

"In response to a CNN report that Elizabeth Edwards may favor Obama over Clinton, sources close to the Edwards family flatly deny that she favors one candidate over the other.

"http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/10/edwards-meeting-with-clinton-obama-on-endorsements/

[jackson_dem]

23. She was a DUer

She like most Duers perhaps she does prefer Obama over Hillary. In the end, though, John will make his decision although she undoubtedly will have influence.

[bigdarryl]

27. Who cares who he endorses its not going to change how people vote for there candidate

plus wouldn't it be hypercritical for him to call Clinton in the pockets of corporate interest and than turns around and support her.I don't think his endorsement means as much as the media thinks it is

[jackson_dem]

32. Logic

If he thinks Hillary is in the pocket of corporations then logically he must also think Obama is too.

[Bluerthanblue]

36. doesn't he have pledged delegates? Would they be 'free' to choose?

or would they be inclined towards the person John endorses?

:shrug:

peace~

[AX10]

9. Hillary has concrete plans...

and the guts and balls to fight the Grover Norquist's of the world, unlike Obama who wants to
play nice with him.

[katty]

11. Edwards is a litigator - 'the devil is in the details'

[BeyondGeography]

13. John is "torn"

Translation: He doesn't know which cow to milk.

[katty]

17. right!

[flor de jasmim]

15. Lobbyists are NOT just a campaign issue!

Edwards said that there would be NO lobbyists in his White House--this is a major issue of concern. Lobbyists are SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS exerting incredible pressure in Washington. Why on earth would Edwards refuse to take their money and then support someone who has thrived with it? It's possible that he may endorse her on account of other issues, but this is also a major one.

Remember, all of HC's discussion of "change" has to do with "superficial" things, not structural changes in the system. And why would she change a system which has worked so well for the Clintons?!

I have tremendous respect for her intelligence and attention to detail (generally!), and every candidate (including McCain) would be better than Bush, but she is not the candidate of structural change. Perhaps Obama is not either, but there is a greater chance of it.

[jackson_dem]

18. Because Obama is equally awash in corporate dough and Edwards knows it

Less than 1% of Hillary's funding comes from lobbyists. The larger issue is money from corporate interests in the form of bundlers and $2,300 checks directly from corporate executives. He knows Obama ($160 million strong for "change"!) is knee deep in such money too.

[Indenturedebtor]

16. I swear I just read a thread this morning

Where Andrea Mitchell was being barbequed by HRC peeps for her unbiased reporting...

Let's see which way it goes. HRC's plan for the poor is trickle down lite imo.

[kurth]

24. Poverty and health care are probably more urgent issues for Edwards

[bunnies]

26. Please.

The day Edwards dropped out I checked both websites. Obama had a section on poverty. Clinton had nothing. NOW she has detailed proposals? Please.

[ProSense]

31. A track record on

fighting poverty may not be relevant to this process.

[jackson_dem]

39. Nobody alive today has a better track record on producing results on poverty than Bill Clinton

[bunnies]

44. Too bad Bill Clinton isnt running.

On the other hand.... Bill Clinton is also pro-new world order. Is Bill's record Hillary's now? Because if so... she endorses a one-world government ala Bush 1, 2 and Bill Clinton. Chose your side. Go CFR? Go PNAC? The Clintons have ties to BOTH.

[Yael]

28. So he is going to ignore this?

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?cycle=2008

[jackson_dem]

33. Both are bought and paid for by corporations

So he must decide on other issues. These numbers are before Obama became the front runner and began raising $1 million a day on average. You don't raise $62 million in two months on the backs of working folks...

[Tatiana]

29. She should post these detailed proposals on her website. n/t

[I Vote In Pittsburgh]

35. .

And this means... absolutely nothing. Andrea Mitchell was a white house correspondent during Clinton's presidency by the way.

[jackson_dem]

40. The thread limit is not in place yet

Why are you using another name already? ;)

[I Vote In Pittsburgh]

43. You must be mistaking me for someone else

I don't even have enough posts to start threads of my own :(

Anyway, just so that this post isn't devoid of political thought, I think that Edwards endorsement will make no noticeable difference in the primaries. I also think he will endorse neither candidate until after the primaries, unless one offers him the VP position. Edwards, although ethical, is playing the game of politics right now.

[calteacherguy]

38. Edwards is playing a game. nt

[cbayer]

41. I agree. It's just politics and JE is a politician.

And since when don't hugely powerful groups like the American Trial Lawyers Association count as lobbyists? They donated as individuals. And Goldman Sachs? Citigroup? Deutsche Bank? Oh yeah, and that Fortress Investment Group that he consulted for that had it's hands all over the sub-prime mortgage mess.
If you want Mr. Edwards to take his message forward, just wish for him to make the best deal he can make.

[Political Heretic]

42. He hasn't met with Obama yet. Also, where I can I find these detailed plans?

I'd like to see them for myself.

[mzmolly]

45. I think he should perhaps remain neutral? He doesn't have to endorse.

:shrug: