News and Politics | January 19, 2008 | 23 comments

Edwards Supporters Bullied In Nevada

Image
JanforGore
I have absolutely no problem believing this. How many Edwards supporters were told he wasn't getting the 15% so they were forced to move on instead of standing their ground? The entire caucus process is a sham and nothing but a bullying session. And while I am disappointed that John Edwards "reportedly" got only 5%, I am more disappointed with the American people on the whole in these states who are once again falling for media hype, soundbites, and corporate butt kissing over substance. I can also honestly believe there was much coniving and behind the scenes intimidation on the part of the big money candidates so as not to be embarrassed by the candidate with the real message of change. I'm hoping John Edwards does well in South Carolina and stays in for Super Tuesday and beyond. No one should drop out of this race just because the corporate media pushes them out. Very disappointing, but we continue on.
  1. groups:
    News and Politics,   Politics,   Election 2008
  2. tags:
    News and Politics Politics Barack Obama Election 2008 7 more
  3.     
    |

23 comments // Edwards Supporters Bullied In Nevada

  • Inofuilwell
    • 0
      Inofuilwell  
    • Go Edwards. He is the ONLY candidate willing to do away with "K Street" and their illegitimate control of the government.

      As for your comments, Rawbird, Edwards is NOT a 'one-horse pony' or whatever you were trying to convey with that non-metaphor.

      I'm for his telling that "Father and Grandmother worked in a mill" story as many times as it takes to make people realize that the Republicans with all the money are the ones who are killing the middle class and destroying the economy.

      And by the way, I SERIOUSLY doubt that either Hillary or Obama are any smarter THAN (not then) Edwards.

      May George Bush bless you and keep you and cause his face to shine upon you and be gracious unto to you. Amen and amen and Shondala Rhondala Fondala Hondala.

    • 4 years ago
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  
    • Point of reference. Mr. Gore didn't lose in 2000. The United States Supreme Court picked the "winner" and should never have gotten away with doing so.

    • 4 years ago
  • anjela3
    • 0
      anjela3  
    • The reason Gore lost in 2000 was because dems were divided. The electorate is increasingly divided and it loks as though all of this BS infighting over made up media BS (so they can sell advertisement btw) will actually probably be cause for Bloomberg to run just as Nader did in 2000. And all those pissed off people that were created over this primary campaign will vote (if they get up off their butts to cast a vote on election day) in the general election for the independant Bloomberg. That leaves the high and mighty conservative voters free to come out in masses, because in the tight races they'll have a marriage amendment or abortion amendment on tha ballot at the same time, and boom...Huckabee is president. And he's too ignorant about foreign policy that he'll probably just keep the Bush guys in, or Mcain, who has promised to pretty much never leave Iraq, or God forbid any of the other republicans. What does that mean? Basically a third term for Bush. It already happened in 2000, it can surely happen again. People need to stop letting the press push the buttons and vote based on issues and not the BS designed to sell ads on TV. If people are actually doing something illegal, thats one thing, but bullying in a caucus, well, I've never caucused before, but its my understanding thats how that process goes.

    • 4 years ago
  • Marilynn_Murray
  • twodee
    • 0
      twodee  
    • wiggle. I am tempted to be with you but I just don't want to give up yet. It may be that we see this whole thing crash in a big way and we get something not too many of us are expecting.

    • 4 years ago
  • Marilynn_Murray
  • wiggleroomlarvae
    • 0
      wiggleroomlarvae  
    • This... election... just... plain... sucks.

      Such a waste of time, money, potential, and ideals. We could've fixed it, but now I'm almost certain that our worst fears are just lurking around the corner: BLOOMBERG. Yikes.

      I cede from the Union. Anyone with me?

    • 4 years ago
  • Marilynn_Murray
  • twodee
    • 0
      twodee  
    • I don't think Rawbird actually has given all that much attention to Edwards and what he is saying. Typical of many who don't bother to do the work and leave it up to the media to design their vision.

    • 4 years ago
  • Marilynn_Murray
  • anjela3
  • Marilynn_Murray
    • 0
      Marilynn_Murray  
    • I find it a little odd that the union wasn't backing the strong pro union candidate John Edwards. Then having the caucus in the work place, where the workers would not feel free to go against their union. Not only smells funny, it stinks.

    • 4 years ago
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  
    • Chique: yes, the Reno Gazette reported a dead heat and their website where the story was printed had many comments in support of Edwards, and then we see this. I find that to be fishy to say the least. I think many union members in Nevada were pressured to vote for the candidate their union endorsed or for the "front runners" even if they wanted someone else. It was also reported that Bill Clinton was in the caucus sites as people were voting causing a stir. I'm sorry, but I don't think spouses of candidates should be allowed in those sites while people are voting unless they are voting, because it gives an advantage to that candidate. Such a dirty business politics is. Al Gore was exactly right, it is toxic.

    • 4 years ago
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  
    • rawbird: the "war on terror" is a damn cliche, not standing up for those mill workers, carpenters, miners, teachers, service workers, and all working Americans who get up every day at the crack of dawn and work to sunset for crap wages and crap healthcare coverage they pay out the ass for or none at all. I don't think standing up for working Americans, Veterans, and the forgotten poor in this country is a cliche at all, and it is about damned time we had a candidate who was willing to POUND THAT MESSAGE into the heads of eltist prigs who think THEY run this show. As he says, we need to be patriotic about something other than war and I personally hope he stays in all the way up to the convention, because when Clinton or Obama either start to stumble or tear each other apart it may just be the tables turning to John Edwards to be the one to either make it or break it. He has nothing else to lose now by staying in and everything to lose by dropping out. And in all honesty I hope he stays on to spite the nasty vindictive attitude of those who base voting in this country on media popularity, electronic voting machine results that can be hacked, soundbites, polls, and corporate ass kissing. Obama constanlty puts up banners with "Yes we can" on it. Yes we can what? Talk about cliches. Poverty and climate change are reality not cliches, and I'm sticking with John Edwards and as reported he already stated he will stay in past South Carolina even if he "loses" there. Perhaps that is because this is that important to him. What is important to Obama and Clinton now really but just trying to be the "historical" winner because of their race and gender? Where are their issues?

    • 4 years ago
  • mrodriguez
    • 0
      mrodriguez  
    • It is not looking good for the democrats in November. Clinton or O'bama are running nasty campaigns. They will not even be able to unite the democrats much less the country. The democratic party is going to implode. Sad to see this happening at such an important moment in our history. I have already heard several people say that if Hillary is the nominee they are either voting republican or not voting at all. Better get used to the sound of President McCain. This is what I see in our future. ugh!

    • 4 years ago
  • VoyagerFilms
    • 0
      VoyagerFilms  
    • I'm seriously considering voting for John Edwards because he is being shortchanged, we are being shortchanged by corporate media and both parties!

      I'm spreading the word.

      Why are they so afraid of him??? That's what I want to know. Not a business as usual guy? Look, that could imply Obama and Hillary are, but that might also just play perfectly into the hands of the Ripusofficans. Beware!

    • 4 years ago
  • rawbird
    • 0
      rawbird  
    • I love Edwards.

      But.

      He is a one-horse pony. If I hear that fucking 'father in a mill' story again i'll be sick. He is a cliche. He needed to deepen and diversify this message. He didn't and he's up against people smarter and more exciting then himself.

      Drop it before the slaughter in SC, Johnny.

    • 4 years ago
  • Marilynn_Murray
  • royalstar23
    • 0
      royalstar23  
    • Oh I absolutely believe that occurred. We as voters must not rely upon what we see on the "BOOB TUBE" as what we see from each and everyone of the news media outlets is NOT reliable, is tainted, and is slanted as is evident by these same media outlets continually changing criteria of participant eligiblity in the debates.
      Its an outrage.

    • 4 years ago
  • Chique
    • 0
      Chique  
    • Supposedly the polls indicated close to a 3 way tie in Nevada. The odds were Edwards would come in third, but this is a total wash out - I was amazed. Very odd to say the least and I'm pretty much over it too. Extremely frustrating.

    • 4 years ago
  • JanforGore
  • Chique
  • jubal
more from News and Politics:

top videos