Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

Posted: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 11:02 AM by Mark Murray

From NBC's Mark Murray
Earlier today, we cited a New York Times piece noting that Edwards is refusing to say that he would endorse Clinton if she becomes the Democratic nominee. Well, in response, Dodd has released this statement obtained by First Read: “I am surprised at just how angry John has become. This is not the same John Edwards I once knew. Of course, we should all come together to support the nominee. I wonder which of the Republicans John prefers to Hillary?”

EMAIL THIS

Comments

By the way jerry.....stick to the "Gigolo Rudy 'G'," "Mitt The Squirrel Hunter," or "Whiskey Fred" blogs.....you're outclassed in this one.

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY (Sent Tuesday, November 13, 2007 1:21 PM)

Why ask her to withdraw, Carrie when she has the best chance when polled against the likely Republican nominees. Its fine to disagree on policy, but Democrats need to come together in '08, or we will end up with 4 more years of what we've got now. None of the top nominees in the GOP have significantly broken with Bush on major issues. As a Democrat, I'm tired of party infighting or incompetent campaigns by our candidates.

kim, crofton, md (Sent Tuesday, November 13, 2007 1:23 PM)

When i see evidence that Hillary is more interested in this country's future than she is in just being president, i might consider her. For now i'm undecided between Obama & Edwards. And BTW, msnbc, i resent being categorized simply as a female voter.

joann gershman, stratford, nj (Sent Tuesday, November 13, 2007 1:23 PM)

Well looks like you guys took the bait. Now you will convice the corporate media that BS stories like this generate comments and interest. With all of you guys yelling at each other and dissing each others candiates you gave the corp. media exactly what it wanted. What a shame because now they will write more such stories and the next one will be about another candidate and then another candidate until all the candidates have been trashed. Don't you see what they are doing? Hold them to a higher standard instead of this trash. Fighting with each other does you no good and hurts the candidate you support.

pmorlan, Louisville, KY (Sent Tuesday, November 13, 2007 1:29 PM)

What a bunch of wussies. I don't care if Donald Duck get the Dem nomination, I'll vote for him over another Republican. I don't want to go to Iran, I don't want $10 a gallon gas, I don't want to die because I can't afford to see a doctor. Get a grip people!!!! And don't tell me this crap about Hillary being the same as a republican, that has gotten way too far out of hand thanks to people like Edwards. In 2000 Ralph Nader went around telling paople that there was no difference between Bush and Gore, guess what, enough people bought and now we have close to 4000 dead in Iraq!!! Make the same mistake this time and we deserve Guilliani sending us into Iran! GROW UP!!!

mike oh (Sent Tuesday, November 13, 2007 1:29 PM)

mike oh---- What a bunch of wussies. I don't care if Donald Duck get the Dem nomination,

Don would be a big step up from the current Dem candidates. DD and Bill C. have something in common though. They both don't wear pants.

Leo Sayers (Sent Tuesday, November 13, 2007 1:42 PM)

Mike from OH,
I agree totally, sit this one out and more americans die!!! In the end it is party against party, do you think the repubs can walk away from Bush that easily?

John S. Alexander, Edinboro, PA (Sent Tuesday, November 13, 2007 1:42 PM)

The real question is how many bloggers does the Clinton campaign employ to counter ANY criticism of Her Majesty? If they regulary sprinkle "town hall" style functions with shills, at least some of the anti-Edwards responses here and elsewhere are paid for by the truth and ethically averse dynamic duo.

L. R. Laoman (Sent Tuesday, November 13, 2007 1:44 PM)

Well looks like you guys took the bait. Now you will convince the corporate media that BS stories like this generate comments and interest. With all of you guys yelling at each other and dissing each others candidates you gave the corp. media exactly what it wanted. What a shame because now they will write more such stories and the next one will be about another candidate and then another candidate until all the candidates have been trashed. Don't you see what they are doing? Hold them to a higher standard instead of this trash. Fighting with each other does you no good and hurts the candidate you support.
pmorlan, Louisville, KY (Sent Tuesday, November 13, 2007 1:29 PM)

What a bunch of wussies. I don't care if Donald Duck get the Dem nomination, I'll vote for him over another Republican. I don't want to go to Iran, I don't want $10 a gallon gas, I don't want to die because I can't afford to see a doctor. Get a grip people!!!! And don't tell me this crap about Hillary being the same as a republican, that has gotten way too far out of hand thanks to people like Edwards. In 2000 Ralph Nader went around telling people that there was no difference between Bush and Gore, guess what, enough people bought and now we have close to 4000 dead in Iraq!!! Make the same mistake this time and we deserve Guilliani sending us into Iran! GROW UP!!!
mike oh (Sent Tuesday, November 13, 2007 1:29 PM)

I love sane people (Sent Tuesday, November 13, 2007 1:44 PM)

This is just further poof that the Democratic Party has become just like the Republican Party. Choosing one is choosing the lesser of two evils. Ron Paul is a TRUE republican, not the perverted type in office today.

The Ron Paul Revolution
http://www.prezronpaul.com

Ernie (Sent Tuesday, November 13, 2007 1:45 PM)

Right on Yolanda! Even though a) I'm a Republican, and b) I'm decidedly over 35, I have a Facebook account (I keep up with my teenagers, my tweens, my nephews, my friends and their kids, etc. all in one spot) and I will vote for Obama in a heartbeat if the GOP nominates somebody I don't like (for example Mike Hucksterbee). Oh, yeah, and I joined One Million Strong Against Hillary back in AUGUST!!!! Go ahead HillBilly, ignore the younger generation...

Derek Fort Smith, AR (Sent Tuesday, November 13, 2007 1:45 PM)

Wake up, people. Have you listened to the Republicans? They are all fired up to run against Hillary. They WANT her to be the nominee because it will get their base fired up and to the polls. I honestly don't want her as the nominee because she will just perpetuate the failed status quo of this administration as would Giuliani, Romney, or Thompson or whoever. I am ANGRy as well and I would have a hard time voting for Hillary if she is the nominee. I am still deciding between Obama and Edwards but I know that I don't want to see Hillary in the general election.

KC, Oklahoma City, OK (Sent Tuesday, November 13, 2007 1:49 PM)

KC, Oklahoma City, OK (Sent Tuesday, November 13, 2007 1:50 PM)

seems the corrupt clinton political machine has gotten to dodd and richardson, I wonder what clinton promised them for their favors, edwards has not attacked anyone, and I would imagine he won't, pointing out why hillary should not be the nominee is not an attack it's what the american people deserve and expect, no foul has been committed on edwards part, the real hillary clinton is just something mark pen and crew would rather have keep hidden, if anyone cares to look at the facts which are relevant to the country as a whole, edwards is the best candidate by far, and the only dem that can win the general election, it's time to get past the media backed novelty candidates and concentrate on the candidate with the best plans, and the best chance. edwards 08

MK,MO (Sent Tuesday, November 13, 2007 1:57 PM)

Leo,

If the biggest problem America had right now was GWB getting a little on the side, I would be one happy American, and so would the friends and families of 4000 dead soldiers and thousands more who watch their fathers and sons and mothers and daughters learn to live now with dibilitating wounds and amputations and mental disorders.

mike oh (Sent Tuesday, November 13, 2007 1:58 PM)

The news coverage of the entire presidential race has been about the horse race. In the democratic field, we have been programmed that the race is between Hillary and Obama. They are actually given more debate time, with questions about which one of those two would be more experienced or a better leader. There has been so much coverage about how much money they have raised, with emphasis on the fact that more money is always good (with little emphasis on the issue of who is paying for,i.e. buying, the campaigns). Edwards has actually been somewhat reticent about an anointing process which is very, very unhealthy. And he would be a fool to play into it by saying he's fine with Hillary. Twenty-eight years of control of this country by two political families is a problem - a very big problem. Moreover, the Clintons are all about themselves and will play whatever game needs to be played to obtain or retain power. The Clintons are the Democrats' Nixon(s). I remember Bobby Kennedy and George McGovern. Their likes are gone, baby gone!

Robert Conley, Los Angeles, CA (Sent Tuesday, November 13, 2007 2:01 PM)

John in Edinboro:

Just in case you haven't heard lately......

Hoyer Credits Surge for 'Decrease in Violence' in Iraq
By Fred Lucas and Kevin Mooney
CNSNews.com Staff Writers
November 07, 2007

On the Spot (CNSNews.com) - House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said on Tuesday that the troop surge, which began in June, has had a significant impact on the situation in Iraq and noted that he had always been critical of the Bush administration for deploying an insufficient number of troops in previous years.

"Stability and a decrease in violence, they've done that - God bless them. I'm not surprised that they did," Hoyer told Cybercast News Service in response to a question about steadily declining U.S. casualty rates in Iraq.

Things are looking up in Iraq.......
I know it drives you libs nuts.......

jerry/corpus christi texas (Sent Tuesday, November 13, 2007 2:02 PM)

I know that my comments are way at the bottom. Hopefully it will be read and not just phased by like I did with those posted. 2 comments: This country is divided...BIG TIME (duh). #2 It appears now that we are dividing the Democratic Party. With that done, we have total Republicanism. I hope you ALL ARE HAPPY!!

Andrew H. Houston, TX (Sent Tuesday, November 13, 2007 2:10 PM)

Merle:

Thanks for the advice......

But I'll stick with Hillary "the plant" Clinton.....

jerry/corpus christi texas (Sent Tuesday, November 13, 2007 2:17 PM)

. Merle Stanley: '...Ideologic unity seems to be last on their list, as does party unity and beating the republiCANTs. You can bet they won't act this way on the other side of the political aisle.....they want to win the election, not give it away with petty bickering...'

Oh ! Merle !!
Didn't YOU say that if Clinton didn't win the nomination that you would VOTE REPUBLICAN ?

I think it was some kind of 'noble protest' of the wimpiness of the Democratic party.....

So, either way, you win
If Hillary doesn't get the nomination, you vote Republican
If Clinton gets the nomination you're voting 'Republican-lite'

Ain't life grand, Merle ?

Sierra, SF (Sent Tuesday, November 13, 2007 2:20 PM)

look people you can spout all this partisan rhetoric on and on about how you should vote for who ever the dem candidate is just to be a good dem, but the fact is if hillary is nominated why would you want to vote for her when she represents the buisness as usual, lobbyist ran, military machine that the republicans are, she sold out along time ago and is as big a part of the problem in washington as any republican, don’t throw this all to important election away on bush-lite

MK,MO (Sent Tuesday, November 13, 2007 2:23 PM)

obama what a name sounds like a terriost name . i think he is a terriost. he came from a terrisot family . his wife is a terriost they all know .

greg opelika alabama (Sent Tuesday, November 13, 2007 12:22 PM)

Get over it already- u post this same BS on the message boards each day. Anyone with any sense is past this
We all know that although you may dislike a person- continuously making yourself look like an idiot will not affect the candidate or sway the opinions of any posters- or any rational person.
Again, I say get over it. U only prove yourself to be ignorant and exactly what this country and the democratic candidates are railing against

kmnecole, st louis, mo (Sent Tuesday, November 13, 2007 2:26 PM)

The strategy is to link edwards and Obama? That will fail. Obama is toning to the high road of criticizing. He often uses questions to frame the negativity allowing each of us to provide our own beliefs rather than his.

Edwards is in melt-down mode. His Iowa strategy is falling apart. His fund raising went so flat he had to go to public financing and he'll be lucky to finish 4th come Iowa. Edwards looks shrill and desperate and weak.

Personally I support Richardson but I'll give Obama credit his speech saturday was masterful. It went to the heart of legitimate concerns we have as voters over hillary's devisive nature and over her willingness to run a general election strategy that prevents nailing her down rather than telling us where she stands. It also showed he could be strong, passionate and have the presence to command a room. In short it scores high on leadership qualities while other candidates seemed swallowed by the room.

If she is so ashamed of the parties ideals she won't openly stand for them, then how hard will she really work for them. What choice is she really giving independents. More taxes and more war vs less taxes and more war. That's not a winner and it doesn't show leadership or strength of conviction. Independents in the end elect those who they believe will do what they say. To this point many are unsure what Hillary is saying and how strongly she means it.

Adam, CA (Sent Tuesday, November 13, 2007 2:31 PM)

Maybe if Edwards is the nominee, Clinton will give him the kind of enthusiastic and whole-hearted support she gave to the Democratic nominee for Senate in Connecticut, Ned Lamont.

Dodd, to his credit, did support Lamont. His track record backs up what he said. Clinton, not so much.

Susan, Floyd County, Iowa (Sent Tuesday, November 13, 2007 2:32 PM)

Josie in SC is right -- as soon as the media starts calling you "angry", you've become a legitimate threat.

However, don't get all excited...if by some miracle Edwards manages to pull off a win in Iowa, the media will harp on something -- "angry", a single haircut, his house, Elizabeth's outspokenness, anything to damage his candidacy. The corporations that own the media (and that means YOU too, MSNBC) want Hillary to be the nominee, and they will have their way. This way they either get a corporatist Republican or a corporatist Democrat. They win, Americans lose.

JJ in NJ (Sent Tuesday, November 13, 2007 2:40 PM)

!!!!Newsflash!!!! Tukcer is not a Hillary supporter at all. Just thought I would share.

Patrick Peavy, Plano TX (Sent Tuesday, November 13, 2007 2:55 PM)

Edwards and Obama have been attacking Hillary for the last days and thats all they can do because they know Hillary can defeat them very easily to become the democratic nominee, and VOTE FOR HILLARY CLINTON TO MAKE THIS COUNTRY A BETTER COUNTRY!!!!!

Allen Rivers, Bridgeport, Connecticut (Sent Tuesday, November 13, 2007 3:01 PM)

I understand everyone supports and has a passionate desire to see their candidate get the nod. But don'tlose sight of the big picture. You don't like Hillary? You don't have to, but do you like Guilliani or Roney better? At least you Edwards supporters don't have to listen to HER going on t.v. everyday and calling HIM a liar and a republican. And Obama supporters, you're not doing your candidate any favors either. So far I like that he's kept some dignity in the way he's campaigning, but I'm not sure his supporters are doing the same. I've been to the Obama blog and it looks more like an anti-Hillary site than a pro Obama site, I see her name posted in the blogs more than his. In 2004 I supported Wesley Clark and was very active on his blog, we all got along fine with the other candidates supporters. Except the Deaniacs, they were some of the most rude people I ever saw, going around and trashing every one else. I know I wasn't the only one who did some high fives when he lost Iowa, looking back on it, he was a pretty good candidate that I would've supported in the general, but his 'fans' just soured me on him. But the big picture is that after the primaries I will support whatever candidate gets the nomination, even if he got it by throwing the rest of his party under the bus. America can't make it through another GOP 4 years.

mike oh (Sent Tuesday, November 13, 2007 3:05 PM)

Ugh! Those who continue to say they are life long dem votes but will not vote for Clinton if she's the nominee are one of the two: either a republican plant [i.e. Jerry], or an idiot...rather a clinton than another republican!

pat huntington ny (Sent Tuesday, November 13, 2007 3:06 PM)

Hey Dodd - you won't be Hillary's VP - so stop pandering - and give your hedge fund donors a hug.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=F27

Go Edwards!

Lisa, Tifton, GA (Sent Tuesday, November 13, 2007 3:07 PM)

For those who support Hillary, look, it is the office of the President of the United States. We are not going to just wrap it up in a pretty little package stick a bow on it and shove it under the Christmas Tree for her. She has to earn it. AND SHE HAS NOT!

I am disgusted with the press as well, especially since things are going rather well in Iraq right now they have stopped covering the war. Choosing instead to focus on Musharraf facing an insurgency of his own that is trying to mascarade as democracy. Coincidentally, blame Bush for this.

GEORGE BUSH IS NOT RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT. HIS NAME IS NOT ON THE BALLOT, NOR WILL IT BE AGAIN. If the Democratic candidates are trying to defeat George Bush someone please tell them they are about 8 years too late!

Edwards at least has a plan. A plan is worth more than a sound bite to me, any day of the week.

Growing up I was told that there were things called oxy-moronic phrases. Phrases like, jumbo-shrimp, military-inteligence, and now, sadly it seems we can add another to the list, journalistic-integrity.

I am glad to see that we actually have a primary election this year. Instead of resorting back to the days were Linden B. Larouche was our only other choice besides Clinton.

I am ashamed to say it, but if John F. Kennedy were alive today, I don't think he would be a democrat.

As for Hillary, plant your own questions, Clinton. The only way you would ever carry the White-House in my state would be if a tornado picked it up and dropped it on top of you.

John Omaha-NE (Sent Tuesday, November 13, 2007 3:16 PM)

John Omaha-NE (Sent Tuesday, November 13, 2007 3:18 PM)

*jerry.....HOW many people associated with Giuliani are under federal indictment?
J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY (Sent Tuesday, November 13, 2007 12:33 PM)

".....Merle:

Two that I know of......

How many are under Hillary?........
One in custody (Hsu)
Her own campaign staff is in a lawsuit.....
One Bundler On her team (Celis)
She has a convicted felon on her staff (Berger)
and one impeached husband (even though he won that)
jerry/corpus christi texas (Sent Tuesday, November 13, 2007 12:43 PM)....."

*Noooo sorry jerry, as Alex Trebeck would say. NOBODY associated with Hillary is currently under Federal Indictment, and law suits aren't the same as being charged with a Federal crime. Anybody in this country can sue any-body for any-thing. (If what you say is even true, I doubt it is.)
The rest of what you posted about is pure HORSE-HOCKEY.
.....and the correct answer is THREE (3), jerry!
THREE (3) seperate individuals associated with "Gigolo Rudy 'G'" are under FEDERAL indictment. It all started when his South Carolina Campaign Chairman *Thomas Ravenal* was indicted on Federal Charges of COCAINE TRAFFICING back in June, then former Giuliani cash contributor and "bundler" *Alan Fabian* was indicted on 23 counts including MONEY LAUNDERING, BANKRUPTCY FRAUD, MAIL FRAUD, PERJURY & OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, and of course there's *Bernard Kerrick* who was INDICTED BY THE FED'S LAST WEEK.
That makes THREE (3) PEOPLE ASSOCIATED W/"GIGOLO RUDY 'G'" WHO ARE UNDER CURRENTLY FEDERAL INDICTMENT, jerry.
hee hee
Rudy 3....Hillary - ZERO
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
Sorry jerry, you lose again.

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY (Sent Tuesday, November 13, 2007 3:19 PM)

yes, the fearmongers against hillary are no different than the fear mongers of the bush presidency. you'll sit this one out or vote for donald duck rather than vote for hillary??? no wonder the dems can't find traction and no wonder the repubs beat us at our game each time! I prefer hillary but Im not so full of hate or illogical emotion towards her that I would not vote for the chosen dem candidate and thus give the repubs more time to bring our country down even further. if it isnt hillary then I pray it is edwards or obama (and hope they have it in them to lead so that we can keep the WH for 8 years and beyond)

ogdeeds (Sent Tuesday, November 13, 2007 3:23 PM)

Dodd and Richardson are playing the Smart Play. It's the be the number 2 pick strategy of enough during the caucus while you hope the three above you fail to develop any overwhelming lead.

In a caucus state it is a decent strategy that may work if one of the top three doesn't melt down giving away their committeds to another of the top 3.

Adam, Sacramento CA (Sent Tuesday, November 13, 2007 3:23 PM)

Yes sierra, I did say that I will vote for the Republican candidate if Obama, or Kucinich gets the nomination, and yes I will do it out of protest because BOTH are weak candidates who will LOSE, anyway. (My one vote won't mean that much.)
However, YOU'RE saying that you'd rather see Democrats fight and bicker amongst each other, and you'll vote for a so-called Democrat like Obama, who recites the G.O.P. mantra about the Clintons on national TV.
At least I'm not a hypocrite, sierra. If Obama gets the nomination I'll vote for the people who ORIGINATED the rhetoric he's using.
And why not, why vote for a cheap imitation (like Obama) of what the republicans started in the late 90's, why not vote for the real thing?

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY (Sent Tuesday, November 13, 2007 3:40 PM)

".....Things are looking up in Iraq.......
I know it drives you libs nuts.......
jerry/corpus christi texas (Sent Tuesday, November 13, 2007 2:02 PM)....."

Not at all jerry.....we're happy things have gotten a little better in and around the green zones, if only for a short time.
Now, if you'll just tell us where the WMD and the yellowcake is, we'll stop criticizing the war.
Hmmmm, what's that you say jerry? You can't tell us where the WMD are.....
Ah, isnt THAT the reason Bush sent us there?
Like I said, jerry....stick to the Giuliani blogs. You haven't got the "savvy" to play on the BIG stage.

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY (Sent Tuesday, November 13, 2007 3:54 PM)

"Its fine to disagree on policy, but Democrats need to come together in '08, or we will end up with 4 more years of what we've got now."

Hillary is four more years of what we've got now. She's not going to repeal or revoke the broad powers Bush has usurped with his rubber-stamp Congress. She's not going to make any effort at real diplomacy beyond the sabre-rattling, Bush-Cheney diplomacy she already has voted to support, repeatedly. She's not going to make any real effort at enacting a real, left-of-center agenda.

The absolute best we can hope for from Hillary are: a couple of Supreme Court Justices that aren't bat!@#$ crazy religious conservative nutters, and a huge blunder at enacting her health-care give-aways to the same corrupt, private system we already have under the guise of enacting national or single-payer healthcare.

Hillary is an old-guard Republican running in Democratic party clothing.

Justin, Gainesville, FL (Sent Tuesday, November 13, 2007 3:56 PM)

".....Merle:
Thanks for the advice......
But I'll stick with Hillary "the plant" Clinton.....
jerry/corpus christi texas (Sent Tuesday, November 13, 2007 2:17 PM)....."

I have no idea what "Hillary the plant Clinton" is supposed to mean. I don't think anyone else does either.
I'm just trying to help you jerry.
I'm trying to keep you from embarrassing yourself anymore than you already have.

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY (Sent Tuesday, November 13, 2007 3:58 PM)

Yes sierra, I DID say that I will vote REPUBLICAN if either Obama or Kucinich were to get the nomination. AND, I WILL.
Both would lose the general election, so my one vote wouldn't matter anyway.
I would rather vote for the people who ORIGINATED the "we-hate-the-Clinton's" rhetoric of the 1990's, than someone like Obama who imitates, and "parrots" it on national TV for the entertainment of republiCANTs everywhere.
You on the other hand, have said you will vote for Obama, who is using 1990's Neo-Con tactics to try and win the Democratic nomination.
Yep, life SURE IS grand, sierra......aint it!

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY (Sent Tuesday, November 13, 2007 4:09 PM)

What we really need is an upheaval of our political system. We need multiple parties(like 10) so that people have to work together based on the issue at hand. We need somewhat radical people to shake things up (Edwards and Paul). Calling Hillary out for being a crappy senator isn't attacking for the sake of being negative -- it is so people don't get brainwashed into thinking that she is a good choice. Our political landscape is screwed up and should be treated with passion and anger not calculated, issue-skirting statements. Go Edwards!!

What's the opposite of progress -- CONGRESS!!

Jason, Morristown, NJ (Sent Tuesday, November 13, 2007 4:11 PM)

The idea that we should support Hillary because she isn't George Bush, is the DUMBEST argument I've ever heard when considering that the presidency is at stake. I repeat, the DUMBEST argument I have EVER heard. Gimme a break people. Try substance and kick the style out the door. You sound bad. You really do.

Kristian O (Sent Tuesday, November 13, 2007 4:11 PM)

I live in Iowa and caucused for Edwards in 2004. I planned to do so again in 2008, but Dodd is right. All I hear lately from John Edwards is negativity. I don't like one Democrat to tear down another Democrat. I'm looking at Hillary now.

Judy Grissom, Waterloo Iowa (Sent Tuesday, November 13, 2007 4:18 PM)

God I love this! The dumb Democrats beating the hell out each other. Fruity Rudy looks like a winner to me! Keep it up you dumb Demos. Rudy's three wives will be fighting to be first lady.

A.Brocco, Albq. NM (Sent Tuesday, November 13, 2007 4:18 PM)

It is John Edwards' anger that is turning me off too.
I echo Chris Dodd's sentiment on which Republican would the Dems rather see in office. The Republicans WIN because they know how to keep a united front. Just look at Congress and the voting on the Iraq and Iran issues.

Barbara C., Pompano Beach, FL (Sent Tuesday, November 13, 2007 4:25 PM)

O.G. Deeds, John Edwards has offered up more detailed policy statements, and far earlier, than either Clinton (in fact, she borrows heavily from his papers on healthcare and energy/environment) or Obama. He's been very specific in stating his policies, and he is clear on how he differs from them. The problem is, people like you aren't listening, and other people are not hearing it because the media is hyping the Clinton vs. Obama match and ignoring John Edwards.

And if Edwards answers the "Would you support Clinton?" question, he's damned if he says yes, and damned if he says no. Saying yes gives the media the excuse they need to declare his candidacy dead, and saying no gives Clinton supporters an excuse to diss him all the more.

And, like many others here, I will NOT support Clinton if she is the nominee. In fact, I believe so strongly that John Edwards is the candidate who best represents the ideals of the Democratic Party that I will change my registration from Democrat to Independent if the Democrats nominate anyone else but Edwards. But, I will vote for any other Democratic nominee in teh General Election---EXCEPT HILLARY.

Anne, York PA (Sent Tuesday, November 13, 2007 4:45 PM)

United States the shame. I became an American citizen because this was supposed to be a free-thinking republic. Now the U.S. has become a Bush-Clinton Frankeinstein monarchy. Voters should get rid of Hillary Clinton. Elect Barrack Obama (Dem) or Mike Huckabee (Rep).

Paul Oniwata (Sent Tuesday, November 13, 2007 4:49 PM)

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY / hillary is much a much better example of rovian tactics on the dem side, besides that she has taken money from the same pacs, lobbyists, and war machine that back the republicans, and seems to think iran should be next on the hit list since she is supporting bushs position by making that stupid vote, she really is bush-lite, unfortunately for you and her the real hillary is being exposed to the public, and the public is repulsed.

MK,MO (Sent Tuesday, November 13, 2007 4:57 PM)

<< Previous

Next >>

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=464300