Comeback Kids

Why won't Al Gore endorse John Edwards?!?

John Edwards is the only real progressive candidate in the race and he is not beholden to special interests. He also is the only candidate against the expansion of nuclear power. We desparitely need Al Gore's voice right now. John Edwards gets shunned by the media because they are afraid of what might happen to their interests if he is president. I am so tired of the media and big $$ controlling our demecracy. John Edwards is the real deal and has the potential to be the next FDR. Why won't Gore come out and endorse him. His endorsement would change the future of the country. People will listen to Al Gore. If he won't run, John Edwards is the next best thing.

I agree with mrodriguez on Edwards's stand on big $$, but let's see what he and Obama could do -together- on fixing the big problems. Flip a coin, one gets to be president, one gets to be vice president (Prime Minister?).

One thing's for sure, both of them aren't in it for the fame. I can't say the same for Hillary!

What I don't see is that. People are liking Hillary EVEN though she voted for the war, do people even know this?

How about this for a total blindside on the nation. Clinton/McCain or McCain/Clinton? ha ha ha ha ha

i'd have to say she is putting up a good fight, and it makes this campaign all the more interesting.

I'd also have to say that her victory speech was one of the best I've heard her give. It was also the most genuine. She's throwing away the old robot, cold exterior and going for something warmer. I like it. I think others are liking it too.

I'm still for Obama, but I would really like to see Clinton follow through for her "this is not a game" stance. For me to ever be persuaded she has to show me that what she said in that speech is true. That she is for the people not the special interests she represents, that she's Hillary not her husband, that she is bringing something new to the table, and that she will not be divisive. She needs to prove that she can bring this country together, she hasnt proven it yet.

I like that nothing has been decided yet and I want it to stay that way going into Super Duper Tuesday (when I get to vote). However, looking at the pictures of Clinton and McCain posted everywhere in tonight's New Hampshire coverage.....blah. Could those two be any more establishment if they tried?

I mean, I'm not looking for a Kucinich-Ron Paul match-up or anything, but if Clinton and McCain end up being their party's nominees I'm going to be sorely disappointed.

Now, the whole 'change' slogan/theme is so overused I want to puke every time I hear it ('change agent'? *retch*), but I am looking for the next generation of political leadership in this election.

I hate, hate, hate the slavish devotion to the status quo in Washington and I'm drawn to the (viable) candidates whose instinct is to fight it. I just don't see that in Clinton or McCain.

Fucking awesome! I say this as an Edwards supporter. I don't want anyone to be the nominee just yet.

The election needs to focus on *substance.* We need to make sure we have the best possible candidate. Both Obama and Clinton need to strengthen their candidacies. I still consider Obama to be the favorite, though, unless Clinton can loosen up and put herself out there. If you meet her you'll see that caricature is just that, but she rarely shows that person on the campaign trail. She needs to if she wants any chance at beating Obama. The man is a movement.

ashaiba,

Listen, even the so-called anti-war candidate, Obama, has consistently voted to give blank checks to fund an unending occupation. With the sole exception of the Mukasey nomination, whom Clinton opposed, their voting record on Iraq/foreign policy is the SAME.* I don't much care for either of them on this issue, but they're who we have to decide between.

*Everyone should check out their voting records. Obama is no better than Clinton on foreign policy. On Iran: while he avoided not only voting on the resolution but also speaking out against it before the vote, he *co-sponsored* an even WORSE bill (S. 970) that included the same inflammatory rhetoric (Revolutionary Guard = terrorists).

Yippee! It's 1998 all over again!

This tells us that we should never underestimate Clinton. I say this as an Edwards supporter. I think showing her human side helped her. I'm not crazy about either Clinton or Obama, but I'm voting for whoever is the Democratic nominee in the general election. Simply because we can't have another 4 years of Bush policies - which all of the Republican candidates are offering, in whole or in part. I think the primary turnouts show, if anything, that the country is soooooo ready to get rid of anything that reminds them of Bush.

Ollin says of Hillary Clinton: "She's throwing away the old robot, cold exterior and going for something warmer. I like it. I think others are liking it too."

With all due respect, I think this is the biggest problem with the way our country picks its president. Hillary Clinton did not win tonight because the voters agree with her stance on the issues, but because they all saw her "warm, caring" exterior on that relentlessly played clip and their hearts went out to the poor woman. "She just wants to change this country for the better, but the evil male-dominated political machine keeps going after her just because she takes money from lobbyists and special interest groups."

Don't get me wrong. I would LOVE for this country to have a woman president. When this election began (twenty years ago) I really WANTED to believe that Hillary was the real deal, the agent of change that we all so desperately need...but I was born with this accursed thing called "common sense" and it's just so blatantly obvious that there's not a genuine bone in her body.

Clinton was told by her advisers that people see her as too much of a robot and she needs to seem more human. She's been trying to dispel that image since the campaign began, from developing that ridiculous over-the-top laugh several months ago to the fake tears she almost cried the other night--apparently the most brilliant political move she's ever made.

It's obvious what will happen if she wins: she'll find some excuse to keep the troops in Iraq, her health-care plan won't pass in congress, big corporations will keep getting richer and middle-class families will keep getting poorer, the planet will keep getting hotter, and all those republicans who were forced to swallow their words after voting for Bush in 2004 will turn to those who voted for Hillary in this election and with a wide grin on their faces say, "I told you so!"

So Ron Paul got about 8%. This is deeply disappointing to me.

Are only 8% of NH residents interested in actually ending the war? Are only 8% of them interested in restoring habeas corpus, or getting rid of secret prisons, eliminating illegal government, or effectively fighting terrorism?

70% of Americans want out of Iraq, and there's no compelling reason to stay (unless you dogmatically believe that terrorists are criminals who act without motives). If so many Americans want peace, why are they voting for the pro-war Democrats?

Maybe America *is* as stupid as the MSM believes.

Edwards is the spoiler! This is Nader all over again. Look at the numbers: 39 Clinton, 37 Obama and 17 Edwards. NONE of the Edwards supporters would have ever voted for Clinton. Ever. As a hard and fast rule if you love Edwards you really dislike corporate-friendly Bush-lite Hillary. So that means that if Edwards were not in this race (and I am an Edwards supporter!) those votes would have gone to Obama and he would have won. Without Edwards the vote would have been Obama 54, Clinton 39. A blow out. What is really disturbing is the fact that Hillary could easily win the nomination despite the fact that over HALF are usually voting against her. A vote for Obama or Edwards is a vote against Hillary. And yet she gives speeches proclaiming that this is a major victory and she is now the "voice of the people." What? Uh, Hillary, babe, did you notice how many people voted against you instead of for you? If Edwards doesn't drop out before Super Tuesday we may have a spoiler. Hillary could be the nominee with only 39 percent of the vote across the country if Edwards stays in all the way through. (biting nails in fear)

Edwards is the candidate of the people -- but I wouldn't go so far as to say that Obama and Hillary are the same. Hillary (I think) is much, much worse than Obama. If I had to choose between Obama and Hillary, I'd pick Obama. If that means that maybe/possibly Edwards would need to drop out in order to prevent Hillary from sneaking into victory I'd support that. Since the numbers aren't looking so great for Edwards, wouldn't it be a better move strategically to drop out, ensure an Obama victory, and then run with him as vice president? Nobody really wins if Hillary manages to pull off a "victory" with only 39 percent of the vote and the help of her super delegates.

Cosmo, dude, I think Edwards is the best candidate. I want him to win. But he keeps coming in 3rd. Okay, no big deal right? Except for the fact that he is peeling off votes that would otherwise go to Obama. Again, no big deal if it were a race between Obama and Edwards. But we can't ignore the facts. Hillary won yesterday because people had three candidates to vote for. Over half of them voted for Obama and Edwards and yet Hillary came out the victor. I love Edwards. He is the best Progressive candidate out there, but he keeps coming in 3rd and the 2nd most Progressive candidate (at least in comparison to Hillary) gets denied the victory and -- lo and behold -- Hillary wins. Is this a fluke? A one time anomoly? Or is this a vision of victories to come as the Progressives split their votes between Obama and Edwards while the independent Conservatives and pro-Hillary Dems keep sqeaking out victories with only 39 percent? Are the odds really going to get better for Edwards down the road? Can we really say with any kind of certainty that he'll be winning a lot of states in the future? And if the answer is no, who benefits the most from a split Progressive vote? Hillary who just happens to be the LEAST Progressive candidate running on the Dem ticket.

What is with all the Hilary and McCain bashing? For an issue of great importance, there is an exceeding amount of hyperbole and bitterness going on here.

Those of you who think that Obama is *the* voice of America and American Youth today and that Hilary is a simple pawn of the corporate elite should take the time to compare their voting records. Line 'em up side-by-side: they're almost exactly the same, except Hilary's list goes on longer for each category ('cos she's been there longer) and has much less "NVs" (as in, "No vote", or "Was not present to vote").

Hilary:
http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=55...

Barack:
http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=94...

I see no major differences in what they have done in their political careers so far: both voted for the Patriot Act and for Defense Funding bills that included monies for Iraq, among about a hundred others where they cast the same vote.

If you don't like the way Hilary comes off in a personal manner, ie "cold", "robotic" or "histrionic", and believe this will affect her ability to serve as President, perhaps you were also one of the folks who thought it would be great to have a beer with W.

Least we forget Hillary is not a neutral candidate among the Republican voters. The ultimate goal is a Democrat in the White House. A lot of Republican/Conservatives fed up with the Republican party will either stay home election night or possible vote for a Dem candidate ---- so long as it isn't Hillary! The polls have borne this out many times. How the Dems feel about Hillary is one thing, but there is still a hardcore group of anti-Clinton voters out there who might be motivated to come out on election day just to keep her out. Then we'll be stuck with McCain who has vowed to keep us in Iraq for the next 100 years.

Zink, you make a strong point. Clinton and McCain have an air of "good ol boys/girls" Washington establishment. Where is Obama represents youthful hopefulness. I wish that more people under 30 were involved in government. We need more radical fresh new ideas.

I'm glad people (or at least people in New Hampshire) are content with the same DC players year in year out. McCain and Clinton...really?

There are other options people. Investigate.

DC could use some fresh blood. Stat.

For those of you who think Edwards is a spoiler, consider this: Here is what our "democracy" looks like today- the special interests control which candidates will have wide access to the commons through controlling the money in their campaigns and the media access the candidates will have. The choice of candidates that will be left in the end will be ones that any the special interests can live with becuase they have all been bought and paid for by big $$ and the media has made a ton of $$ in the process from the same interests. The person that sells out the most wins- yippee! So where does that leave the citizenry? With candidates that are chosen for you by big $$. Hillary and O'bama are no different in that regard. They are both already bought and paid for. O'bama thinks he can go in and negotiate with those interests which just shows how naive and inexperienced he is. You will just get watered down policy that still favors big $$. Do you want a president who on day one has a clean slate and will go to bat for the american people, or someone who has a laundry list of big $$ interests that they owe favors to? Who do you really think they will be working for? Wake up people! Hillary is getting more $$ from the defense industry than any democrat OR republican candidate in this race. Do you really believe she is going to get us out of Iraq anytime soon? Give me a break. Follow the $$ it will lead you to the truth. Edwards is the only candidate that can transform America and restore the middle class. He needs someone who the American people will listen to, to stand up and endorse him so that he can break through the media that is trying to lop him off at the knees. I believe that person is Al Gore. He needs to lend his voice to this mess of an election and shed some light on what is happening to our dissolving democracy.

Before you go jumping in support of one candidate or another, you should take a serious look at this:

http://current.com/items/88809259_finally_a_serious_loo...

and then decide who should be President. McCain? He likes war. Hillary? Can't say for sure.

I love that we're having the dialogue now that we were supposed to be having six months ago. If only we could've seen what Iowa was gonna look like, I'd say the funding and support for Obama would've been three to one.

He should've edged for more exposure over the weekend, but as always "short term acts have long term consequences," and his inability to grab the cameras on Sunday allowed Hillary to move ahead again.

How about this, the woman who got Hil-dawg to cry voted my main man: http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=390686...

Now's the time we gotta get canny and realize that our e-voting system is severely limited and unreliable.

I wouldn't take the exit polls necessarily seriously until states return to the paper ballot again.

I heard on the radio (NPR, of course. Thom Hartman) that the Edwards camp is in it for the long haul. He is not dropping out no matter what.

I think this was an interesting e-mail that Kucinich sent me. I respect Kucinich, he's my first choice, but I think Edwards is a strong #2, followed by Obama and lastly Clinton. Why anyone is taking McCain seriously, I don't know, but if he wins the nomination, wouldn't that be good for the Democratic ticket? I can't imagine many voting for McCain, but then again I was shocked when we voted Bush in the second time. With an American population that thinks Ronald Reagan was a good president, anything is possible.

New Hampshire, Iowa and Edwards

Dear Supporter,
For the record:

1) New Hampshire is the first state where we are aggressively campaigning. Due to the Party lockout in Iowa, we chose to focus on New Hampshire.

2) I am the only person running for President who voted against the war, against funding the war 100% of the time, against the Patriot Act, and who stands for a universal single-payer not-for-profit healthcare system. Nevertheless I was excluded from Saturday night's ABC Presidential debate, or four tone monologue as it was.

3) In answer to your questions about why I didn't support former Senator John Edwards on the second ballot in Iowa: I have serious concerns about his connections to a Wall Street hedge fund, Fortress Investment Group. While attacking others for accepting campaign money from Washington lobbyists, he is up to his ears in money from Wall Street special interests.

He made half a million dollars in a single year for attending a few meetings for Fortress and has invested a substantial part of his own personal wealth in the hedge fund whose portfolios are responsible for sub-prime predatory lending practices, Medicare privatization, and an entire range of corporate sharp dealings that are driving the middle class into poverty.
While I indicated Senator Obama as a preferred second choice in Iowa, Progressives have fundamental disagreements with him and all of the other Presidential candidates on most of their major positions on the issues.
We must have the courage of our convictions to fully support and vote for what it is we really want. For once, we must realize our power, stop playing tactical games, and vote as a bloc - which, as you know, is what the religious right does and why they often win.
We Progressives are in the majority in this election. We will win only when we refuse to compromise and vote with integrity.
Dennis Kucinich

The status quo won. Some "change."

Sorry Crob, but if I lived in NH and Edwards had dropped out before the primary my vote would not have gone to Obama. I probably would have sat it out because I'm sick of voting for media creations, and Obama is just as much a part of that as Hillary Clinton is. It is such a shame that every so often someone comes along who truly represents the interests of Americans and all they get is crapped (hope I can type that here) on. The media and the pundits take a message that goes to the core of what we should be discussing as Americans and label it "populism" as if that is a dirty word and dismiss it. Amazing how people seem to forget that that "populism" is what saved us from the Great Depression. People in this country cry about Democracy but then try to push people out just because they don't make it convenient for them. As John Edwards stated last night, this is not about him. The problem isn' t him.The problem is the multitude of Americans who are once again falling for the media hype and sound bites. If people really voted their conscience instead of just voting for the one Oprah endorsed, or voting for the one who cried because she was told at a debate that people didn't "like her" John Edwards would be in first place right now. Why people continually choose to do otherwise even in the face of what we now face boggles my mind.

Sorry to hear that Jan. Personally I'd rather vote for Obama (my 2nd choice) than sit it out and make Hillary the nominee. But I agree with you 100 percent about Populism. John Edwards has been repeatedly described (and dismissed) as a "populist" by the media. Well, just to make sure I understood the word correctly (I was confused by the look of disgust on Chris Mathews face when he used it to descfibe Edwards) I looked it up. Here's what the definition was. Populism (1) politics unfavorable to the elite: politics or political ideology based on the perceived interests of ordinary people, as opposed to those of a privileged elite. (2) focus on ordinary people: focus or emphasis on the lives of ordinary people. Yup. That does sum up the Edwards campaign in a nutshell. He is for the people and not the CEO's. So how come the talking heads on TV always use this word with the same look of disgust as if they were saying "commie" or "terrorist"? It is a disturbing look at just how much the media has been controlled by ruthless billionaires like Rupbert Murdoch. One can easily imagine old Rupert (or any CEO from Enron to Haliburton to Blackwater) sneering at the word "populist."

I agree witih Jan that NH just voted in the status quo. There would be no perceivable change in this country with either of last night's winners. Well, except for the fact that McCain will keep us in Iraq longer in the foreseeable future. I'm still holding out that Edwards will pull ahead once the scrutiny really begins. You say Al Gore or John Edwards and I'm a believer. An Al Gore endorsement just might be exactly what's needed.

Young people, do what you can. It's 1968, and we're steeped into another reengagement with Iraq qua Vietnam.

Despite Oprah, I don't think Obama's a media creation, per se. The media picks up and influences what's already there, but they've made no serious attempt to groom him for presidency. That's all been wasted airtime for the last six months on Hil-Dawg.

Right on about status quo. Old people (McCain, Thompson, Romney, etc.) are going to drive us into the ground, so the senior vote has to be guilted into realizing what they've done letting in old ideas and politicians selling their votes to retirees.

Now let's not get discouraged and -use- our voices to get awareness on the right guys: Kucinich, Obama, Edwards and Paul (or all of them).