Why answer stupid questions designed to hurt you. Smart.

This opitomizes what is becoming more and more evident within Democratic food-fights - all guns are pointed at Hillary.  Seems a bit unfair, when you consider it is a large field of players and where the positions of most candidates are now clouded by rambling and monotonous attempts to de-rail her candidacy.

This is the BIG DEBATE !!
This debate will determine who gets the Democratic nomination.
If Edwards and Obama take it to Clinton, she's toast !
If they don't take her on, she's the nominee

Clinton's people don't trust her to answer unfiltered, unexpected questions.
I don't think she can.
If Edwards and Obama challenge her 'non-answers', they'll expose her.
The problem for Edwards is not lloking too 'mean' to Hillary (those big boys are picking on me)
Obama seems content to let Edwards take the lead.
Working together, they can finish Hillary.

Will they do it ?

From First Read:

'...NBC’s Andrea Mitchell on Nightly News last night: “The test for Clinton now is how she deals with being on the defensive, while Obama has to prove he can keep delivering on the promise of a strong showing in Iowa.”

The Politico's Roger Simon writes on the question-planting story, and he notes that the real distrust this raises is that of the campaign staff for the candidate. "Because when staffers plant questions, it means they don't trust the candidate to handle herself in public. They don't think she can answer real questions from real people...'

Wait for it
The Democratic nomination hangs in the balance....

You can't blame him for not wanting to support Clinton.  Anyone that runs with her or works with her quickly learns to HATE AND DESPIRE her because of all the dirty tricks and deception she's known for.  She and Bill are notorious for doing whatever it takes to WIN, and not much else.  There's a reason she has the highest negatives of any candidate, and it's not just because of some mythical "Republican smear campaign"... she really is evil.  Mark Penn is the Karl Rove of the Democratic Party.

JOHN JOHN JOHN, you made your bed, it is so messy, clean it up. The media has you by the nose, break the hold or lose.

Edwards know better than to go after Obama for two reasons. Obama give a really good punch when attacked and Ewdards don't want to go there. Second, why pit the two against each other.  That's what the Hil camp wants is for Edwards and Obama to go after each other, then she can stay above the fray and take the nomination. I would think that Edwards and obama knows this and strategically decided to keep the focus on Clinton, right where it belongs.

Ron,TX - seems like you must have worked with her since you possess a lot of insider information? Or are you just churning back the ramblings of media and opponents?

Edwards and Obama make a strong ticket or vice versa. Anything but Hillary, please! I do not want the repussicans to be in change as it will set back progess 25 years (eg. stem cell). Hillary does not have the mojo to lure independants or Republicans.

This is the BIG DEBATE !!
GO GET`EM BOYS............


Obama/Ewdards `08........YEAH BABY!!!!

Anyone who thinks that a debate held before Thanksgiving is going to be the event that decides the Iowa caucus, probably believed in that old poll and was poll-dancing all day. Maybe they hit their (apparently soft) skull ON the poll(sic)and are having hallucinations...
On the other hand, maybe it was the exploding victory cigar...


Van

John Edwards is starting to sound like a broken record.  It's on the brink of pathetic.

Chris Dodd is a grumpy old man whose place is nowhere else but in the Senate. He's the one who is angry and pissed off because Hillary Clinton has claimed the experience candidate, which should've been him.

The only thing John Edwards is angry about is the messed up politics in Washington, which Hillary Clinton and Chris Dodd are a part of.

Obama and Edwards are the best hope for America and the future of the Democratic Party. Richardson is lazy, Kucinich, Biden and Dood are uninspiring and have already offered all they could offer the Party.

In November, Democrats are going to need a candidate who can inspire people to get out and vote. Only Obama and Edwards can do that, and I will sleep better at night if either one of them is the nominee. Although I'll be voting for Barack Obama, I will fiercely defend John Edwards against old suits like Dodd and Clinton.

".....Obama seems content to let Edwards take the lead.
Working together, they can finish Hillary.
Sierra, SF (Sent Tuesday, November 13, 2007 4:51 PM)....."

...and THAT's what it's really all about for the people who pretend to be Liberals and Democrats, isn't it sierra?
"Finishing off Hillary" so our party won't have a chance in hell of beating the republiCANT's...yet again.
I have no doubt that Obama will chortle and cackle with the same Neo-Con spin that he did in the last debate, and I have no doubt that Edwards will complain about who Hillary takes money from, while he cashes his $50K check for making a speech about poverty, and gets his haircut for $400.00.
Hillary is definetly the underdog in this debate because they are going to attack her.
All because they are desperate and can't convince the American people of their qualifications for Presdient.
I'll tell you what this debate is REALLY going to do....it's going to expose what DESPEREATE men will do when they're behind in the polls, and can't get off 18%.
Like I said, Hillary's the underdog this time around, let's see what happens.....

jlf-
Don't worry, Hillary has Craig Crawford shilling for her at every opportunity.  Last night on Olbermann, Crawford had to really stretch to make this point,"Hillary Clinton benefits even when she goes down in some polls." (!)  Someone needs to take the nitrous off the respirator he's using.

edwards , have you become obama's waterboy?

i agree with the comments citing the fact that Edwards and Obama cant start bickering with each other when they have a greater, more terrifying enemy.  if hillary isnt taken out, the country will turn into a glorified monarchial system based upon two families of poor leadership and blatant lies and corruption.

It's clear that Edwards is setting himself up to endorse Obama and even possibly get a Veep slot. He has toned down his attacks on Barack while playing up some of his arguments while trashing Hillary.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Please, if you all think that Hillary truly represents an new direction for the country, go talk to her campaign to have some questions fed to you. Progressives need a new voice. This isn't about being aligned with the Democratic party, its about being aligned with a new direction for the country. Everyone should turn the heat up on Hillary, who represents the Democratic party that bases itself as a light alternative of the Republicans - completely afraid to find their own voice. I am glad that Edwards and Obama so strongly distinguish themselves from her, because they embody a new voice for progressives in this country.

With regards to the Dodd comment you gotta check this out in USA today. Evidently Dodd sent an email knocking Hilliary on Monday and then sent another email on Tuesday knocking Edwards for not saying he would endorse Hilliary who Dodd had just knocked. LOL

Only in politics: Slam Clinton; then slam Edwards for not saying he would support her

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/11/only-in-politic.html

John is smart to be taking on Clinton. Of course he has differences with Obama. Edwards is a fighter and will take special interests on. Obama will triangulate and compromise with special interests, as he shows with all his talk about unity and bringing people together.

But Obama isn't really the person that Edwards needs to beat. Clinton is the one that Edwards needs to beat to put himself in the position of frontrunner. Smart not to pick two fights at the same time.

Yesterday this blog provided a link to a hit piece about Edwards that appeared in Newsweek. Tonight I was reading another website and on that website they posted a letter from the Obama campaign. As I read the letter I noticed that parts of the Obama letter and the Richard Wolffe piece were strikingly similiar. I posted this...See what you think.

When I read the letter from the Obama campaign parts of it sounded real familiar to me. I then remembered where I'd read them before -- Newsweek.

My question is who stole whose words? Did Richard Wolffe take the Obama campaigns information and write a hit piece on Edwards or did the Obama campaign lift Richard Wolffe's words? Take a look at the snippets below from the Obama letter and then take a look at the snippets from the Newsweek piece. Very interesting.

TO: Interested Parties
FROM: David Plouffe
RE: Obama Gains Strength at Critical Time
DATE: November 13, 2007
I. Iowa
Iowa right now is an extremely competitive three way contest. Our first Iowa poll showed Obama trailing Edwards by 20 and Clinton by 14 so we have made great progress. Two recent public polls show Clinton and Obama within the margin of error, with Edwards down a few points. Edwards led for much of the year in public polling, but no public poll in the last three months has shown him leading. In fact, a leading Edwards strategist said this weekend that Edwards is now in third place in Iowa

Edwards has clearly lost support over the course of the year. While he retains a solid base of the vote and a strong organization, gaining back what you lost is always more difficult in politics than adding to what you have. Edwards received 32% in 2004 and is polling consistently about 10 points below that now. So even in the unlikely event he could get back to his 32% base of 2004 attendees, turnout is almost unquestionably going to be higher this time, meaning Edwards has to not just get back what he has lost but grow appreciably on top of that. We see no signs of Edwards growing outside of his core base from 2004.
Here's a snippet from Wolffe's piece in Newsweek.
Polling in Iowa is imprecise, but most show Edwards losing ground of late. No poll has put him in front since August. In the last month he's been either tied with Obama for second place, or several points behind him in third. Campaigns can always replace individual supporters—but reversing a trend is much harder.

© Newsweek, Inc.
Lost in the Cornfields
By Richard Wolffe | NEWSWEEK
Nov 19, 2007 Issue
http://www.newsweek.com/id/69573


Anyone want to take bets on who stole from whom?

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester: '......and THAT's what it's really all about for the people who pretend to be Liberals and Democrats, isn't it sierra?
"Finishing off Hillary" so our party won't have a chance in hell of beating the republiCANT's...yet again...'

Merle, I'm a Leftie
(In case you haven't noticed)
I don't like the DLC
They're PARASITES who have infected the Democratic party with opportunhism and corporate lackies

Hillary is NOT ENTITLED to the nomination
She has to work for it like anyone else.

Hillary CAN'T WIN the GENERAL ELECTION !John Edwards is our best bet
Obama is the second best bet
A ticket with two reformers would be EXCELLENT !
I suspect that Biden will be Edwards' or Obama's VP

Let's WIN WITH EDWARDS or OBAMA !!
Hillary is too corrupt and dishonest to win
People can see through that phony liar

Edwards/Obama '08
Real people, Real answers, Real change

1) Edwards can't attack Obama because Edwards voted Republican for 6 years and passed no single law as a senator. While Clinton is brushing off Edwards's criticism Obama will strike back using his record

2) Obama's and Edwards's positions aren't very different

3) Obama is likable and mudslinging him in Iowa is unlikely to work.

OTOH Edwards's people are defecting to Obama in Iowa, so I wonder when and if he'll try to stop the slide

anyone except hillary,(flip flap politic is over)...and if she one, mean the next president will be again republican, because she will not get my vote even i.m democrat....of course obama+edward it will be bright idea, but someone has to give up ,

I read how Hillary has supported the Democratic nominee.If tha is true why in 2000 did she come to Massachusetts and fundraise knowing she was taking Al Gores money for President so she could continue carpetbagging by going to New York.I think it Hillary that's the angry one for mocking Tammy Wynette and then having it bite her on the ass.

Well, let's see, yesterday and today MSNBC and Newsweek were basically trying to tell all of us that Edwards was down and out in Iowa. Guess what I just read on the CBS website? You guessed it...new poll came out for NYT/CBS and Edwards is up. I guess that explains why we've seen all the negative stories for the past two days.

In Iowa, the Democratic contest is knotted up. Among likely caucus-goers, Clinton came out on top with 25 percent support, but she was trailed closely by Edwards at 23 percent, and Obama at 22 percent. With a margin of error of 4 percentage points, there is no clear leader. Trailing behind was Bill Richardson, at 12 percent, with all other candidates in single digits.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/13/opinion/polls/main3497993.shtml

'While Clinton is brushing off Edwards's criticism Obama will strike back using his record '

lmao, his record of saying one thing, but doing another.

say , money from lobby's .. which he takes but condemns in others.

or against the war, but voting for it repeatedly

or condemning the iranian rev. guard, but then condemneing those that condemn the iranian rev.guard

obama.. empty suit and liar.

you obama supporters are simply bush-brain democrats

Yiannis,
        WOW! The people here are not as stupid as you presume. John Edwards is the one clear choice to heal our ailing nation.  

Clinton Thugs threaten Wolf Blitzer on up coming debate, Tells him not to pull a "RUSSERT"  Be safe everyone, the Clinton machine means business...

Dodd is angling for Hillary's VP- BAWAAAAA!

I really like how Edwards and Obama are basically teaming up to beat Hillary.  They realize that she is part of the bigger problem in Washington and focusing their attention on her.  The most recent polls show how close the  race is, while the older polls went solely on name recognition.  I'm voting for Obama, but would definitely vote for Edwards if he gets the nomination.  NO WAY IN HELL I VOTE FOR HILLARY.  I would rather vote for Ron Paul  

It seems to me that the difference between Obama & Edwards is that Obama is looking for triangulation and compromise to fortify himself as a worthy candidate (in a "fresher" package than Hillary) and Edwards has abandoned those hypocritical paths to fortify himself as a worthy candidate.  There are worlds of differences between those two approaches.  The country cannot take another corporation owned President and John Edwards knows it.

John Edwards is a desparate snake oil salesman.  Nothing more than a hypocritical fraud.

Barack Obama seems like a good guy, but his hypocrisy and political inexperience is breathtaking.  Even though he didn't actually have the responsibility of casing a vote on Iraq, Obama claims he wouldn't have voted for the war.  Fine, I gave him the benefit of the doubt.  However, he then admits on Meet the Press that he probably would have voted for the war in 2004, all because it would have been politically beneficial for him to do so!! Is this not what he accuses Hillary of, being too much of a politician??  With respect to Iran, he actually was a senator this time, yet he dodged the vote on sanctions!!  How can you be taken seriously in your attacks on Hillary, who actually showed up and took a stand on the issue(whether you like her stance or not), when you dodged the vote to protect your political hide?  It seems like Obama is "double talking" or "triangulating" on this issue:  He's all for sanctions against Iran, unless he has to actually vote on it, then he's MIA, because he's afraid that the looney left will hold it against him in the primaries.  No credibility in my mind on this issue.  I'm surprised Hillary (or Tim Russert) didn't hit him harder on this very powerful point.  

Lastly, Obama's best line in the last debate had to do with Hillary basing her experience on her White House years, yet papers from those years have yet to be released to the public.  Again, Obama blew his credibility on this point when he admitted on Meet the Press that he has no idea where any of HIS papers are from his Illinois Senate years.  Isn't that the experience that he's basing HIS campaign on??  Since he's got no records of his time in the Illinois Senate AND seems to have missed approximately 80% of the votes during his short tenure as a US senator, what experience is he bringing to the table?  He doesn't seem to have much more experience than George W. when he entered office, and looked what's happened!!  Why isn't Hillary (or Tim Russert) hitting him harder on this point??

Everyone can bad mouth Hillary all they want (I've done my share), but remember, in 1992, her and Bill were preaching a similar "politics of hope" line.  They were going to go in and shake up Washington, but they got knocked on their tail for it and it cost the Democrats the Congress.  Do you really think Obama or Edwards can do any better?  Washington is the field where the game is played, like it or not.  Hillary went into Washington in 1993 as an idealist, like Obama and Edwards today, but she came out a realist, which is exactly the type of individual that can implement change within the establishment.  It won't be as fast and dramatic as Obama and Edwards will foolishly promise, but it's more than either of them will be able to actually accomplish if they are elected.  Think carefully people!

Yiannis, I would not be touting Obamas voting record.
He has virtually voted identical to Hillary WHEN he decides to show up to vote. His pass on the Kyle-Lieberman bill was not leadership, it was wimping out.
If you check your facts, most recently Obama has been talking smack about Edwards not the other way around. @There have been reports that 2 people in Iowa have joined the Obama campaign, however you neglect to mention that 2 of Obamas endorments have jumped the Obama ship and joined Edwards. If you look at the latest polls published today Edwards has pulled ahead of Obama in Iowa.

FYI Edwards is extremely likable, have you ever met him? he is very approachable. Sorry but with Obama I get the distinct impression he is just way to much into his new found celebrity. Comes off very arogant it's all about obama. Sorry I want a populist in the WH someone I know is fighting for me and my family best interests. Not someone riding out an ego trip.

Edwards 2008 "The Peoples President"
A champion for "We the People"

Iowans value nice, so mudslinging will never work.  That'll have to wait until after Jan. 3 to do more thant turn people off.  Also because Iowans are nice, don't believe the polls are predicting the outcome of the caucuses.  Most of us are darn tired of getting (recorded) calls from the candidates if we even answer the phone, so we will smile and say anything to get rid of anyone polling.  As for Hilary having it in the bag, don't bet on it.  Edwards talks about health care coverage and the middle class are hitting home even more.  And one more thing - caucuses involve lots of horsetrading to get to delegates to the state convention, which is their true purpose; it is not a simple vote.  Anything can happen and probably will.

fired up Ready to Go?

Might Trippi have Edwards positioned as Obama's VP and chief attack dog?

I continue to be a proud supporter of the Democratic front-runner, Senator Hillary Clinton.
Senator Barack Obama was quite engaging at the JJ Dinner, I'll agree, but I don't think he's quite prepared for the Rightwing Slime Machine.
John Edwards was a loser in 2004, and he's looking more and more like a loser in 2008, as far as I can tell.

You can't blame him for not wanting to support Clinton.  Anyone that runs with her or works with her quickly learns to HATE AND DESPIRE her because of all the dirty tricks and deception she's known for.  She and Bill are notorious for doing whatever it takes to WIN, and not much else.  There's a reason she has the highest negatives of any candidate, and it's not just because of some mythical "Republican smear campaign"... she really is evil.  Mark Penn is the Karl Rove of the Democratic Party.

First off, your being from Texas nullifies any opinion possible in regards to any democrat. Have fun being the only state next year to vote for whichever idiot the Republicans pick. Hillary is hated, because she's going to take what it needs to win? Then anyone alive with a strong competitive streak is evil too? Oh well, I'll have an amazing 8 years to rub her presidency into every idiot anti-Hillary pro-morons like Bush faces.

Edwards has to lay off of Obama so that they can work a deal for a ticket to win a brokered covention this summer. Looking at his previous statements Edwards clearly wants to keep Obama as a possible if not likely running mate. I think its the only way Obama gets on the ticket and is also the best shot for democrats across the country. Edwards/Obama 08, unstoppable.

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY / "...and THAT's what it's really all about for the people who pretend to be Liberals and Democrats, isn't it sierra?
"Finishing off Hillary" so our party won't have a chance in hell of beating the republiCANT's...yet again.
I have no doubt that Obama will chortle and cackle with the same Neo-Con spin that he did in the last debate, and I have no doubt that Edwards will complain about who Hillary takes money from, while he cashes his $50K check for making a speech about poverty, and gets his haircut for $400.00.
Hillary is definetly the underdog in this debate because they are going to attack her.
All because they are desperate and can't convince the American people of their qualifications for Presdient.
I'll tell you what this debate is REALLY going to do....it's going to expose what DESPEREATE men will do when they're behind in the polls, and can't get off 18%.
Like I said, Hillary's the underdog this time around, let's see what happens....."


j, that is the most pathetic attack on edwards and obama I have to this point seen.
 hillary is the most corrupt, mis-leading and divisive candidate running, people are beginning to see that, all she has ever really had was the sexist female vote and that ain't going to get the job done, which it shouldn't. we need a president interested in changing the course of this country, hillary does not offer that, john edwards does, and by the way hillary pays $1200 for her do making the $200 edwards pays look quite minuscule in comparison ,wouldn’t you say?, get past hillary she's done.

J. Merle - please, are we still on the $400 haircut?  I'd like to know how much Senator Clinton spends on her hair, or her suits, or her makeup.  I am just a regular gal making 30K and when I get my hair cut and colored, it runs me over $100, so I'll bet she's spending more than that unless that pretty highlight job is natural at 60.  I'm no Edwards supporter, but I can't stand this talking point any longer.  If you want to defend Clinton's candidacy, do it on policy, not haircuts.  

Yeah, none of them want to take on obama and they should be challenging him at every turn, he's the surprise candidate with the adoring media coverage...john john seems to be positioning himself for the Gene Wilder role in Blazing Saddles...lmao

For the sake of this country, one of these candidates needs to quit the race. If they both stay in, they will end up splitting votes between them and giving Hilary the nomination on a silver plater. Edwards and Obama are the only candidates on either side that have any chance at bringing about real change in Washington but one of them has to bow out, otherwise it will be Hilary vs. Rudy in '08 and regardless of who wins (or steals the election), Washington's aristocratic policies will continue for another 4 - 8 years. While I personally like Edwards slightly better then Obama and I think he has a much better chance in the general election, I think logistically Obama has a stronger campaign and a better chance to defeat Hillary IF Edwards were to drop out.

Edwards is keeping his "eye on the prize" and knows that Hillary is, at present, his primary obstacle to the Democratic nomination. His strategy initially was focused almost exclusively on Iowa. He now seems to want to leave an opening should Obama win Iowa or the contest result in a nearly three-way tie. An unexpected result in Iowa or New Hampshire can still lead to "buyers remorse" before the nomination is settled.

Clinton is at her weakest moment in the campaign, at least based on media hype, so both Obama and Edwards are trying to make most of the opportunity. Neither  has any reason to beat up on the other presently.

Edwards, however, should never suggest of imply he might not support the Democratic nominee. That kind of comment is very close to a "drivers license for illegals" moment that Edwards has no time!

I'd like to know where Hillary Cinton stands, or waffles, on this issue between Obama and Edwards.

"It's clear that Edwards is setting himself up to endorse Obama and even possibly get a Veep slot. He has toned down his attacks on Barack while playing up some of his arguments while trashing Hillary.
matt"


Matt- Could it be that there is not as much to criticize concerning Obama. Obama has taken questions at every town hall meeting, house party, or large gathering, other than rallies I've seen him at. And the rallies were the type of events that weren't Q & A conducive. For example the Sunday before the 06 election at the rally for now Governor Culver in Iowa City. Clinton on the other hand rarely takes questions, and when she does she has either attacked the questioner for being a plant (a false accusation that didn't go over well in North East Iowa), or she has had "plants" in the audience. Two "plants" not employed by her campaign have been revealed, but more of her "plants" were actually her own staff members who drove over from other parts of the state. Apparently Hillary doesn't realize that many Iowans watch C-span, and just because the local crowd at the event has no clue the person being called on is actually a staffer from one of Hillary's offices 100+ miles away, doesn't mean those of us who live in the area of your "planted staffer" don't spot her. Or how Hillary has clips of people on youtube providing glowing testimonials about how Hillary's great speech at the Hall of Fame dinner (in Cedar Rapids on June 2nd), or other event, inspired her to support Hillary. Those of us who were at the Hall of Fame dinner know that this inspired young women is actually a paid staffer at Hillary's Cedar Rapids office. Or how a large number of the women in her commercials looking so very impressed and in total awe of Hillary are paid staffers. Given the number of paid staffers from the Cedar Rapids- Iowa City area I can spot in her ads I wonder how many of the other women in the ads are paid staff from other areas of the state?

Another reason Edwards probably doesn't criticize Obama to the extent he does Clinton relates to the tactics of Clinton's campaign. Clinton's campaign has been engaging in push pulling and other sleazy tactics. When they call a 2004 caucus goer if that person indicates they are "leaning" towards a candidate other than Clinton (as opposed to fully committed to another Democrat) her campaign attempts to dissuade them. There is nothing wrong with that, if the campaign sticks to facts, and either attempts to build up Clinton, or point to actual facts why they would be wise to not support the other Democrat. If Clinton's campaign said Obama is too young, or lacks experience, that would be fine, but they tell those leaning towards him that America is not ready for a black President, and he'll lose the general election. That may be true, I hope it isn't, but it is not the type of conduct that they should be engaging in. If the person is leaning towards Edwards they claim he has no legislative accomplishments. It's true that Edwards legislative record is weak, and the last two years of his one term he rarely was in DC voting, still he passed more legislation with his name as the sponsor than Clinton has in her 6 & 3/4 years in the Senate (that is damning Edwards with faint praise, only because Clinton's legislative record is so weak)In addition to criticizing Edwards legislative record, Clinton's staff questions the wisdom of supporting Edwards because of the possibility that Elizabeth Edward's might start losing her battle with cancer during the general election, and he would either have to suspend his campaign to be with her, and even if her tries to keep up the campaign this will back fire against him. While this may be a legitimate concern I understand Edwards resenting this tactic. Would Hillary approve if Edwards campaign was warning Iowans that they shouldn't vote for Hillary because Bill might get caught in an affair during the general election and sink the campaign? If the person is leaning towards Biden, Hillary's campaign lies about Biden's age. Biden is less than 5 years older than Hillary. Biden is 64 and will celebrate his 65th birthday later this month. Hillary is 60, but her staff tells callers leaning towards Biden that he's too old to be elected President, that polls show that voters won't elect a President whose already in his 70's. They may have a poll to back that claim up, but Gravel is the only Democratic candidate in his 70's. People leaning towards Biden have reported being told by Clinton's staff that Biden is as "young" as 72 and as old as 77. If the person is leaning towards Richardson Hillary's staff tells them they should reconsider because of Richardson's "women problem", when asked what "women problem", they are told that he's a skirt chaser, that he's had affairs with all sorts of women, and that this will all come out during the general, and it will cost him the election.

In any event given what Hillary's Iowa campaign is doing under the radar, it's not surprising Edwards doesn't have a lot of warm fuzzy feelings for Hillary. Actually several media outlets are aware of the Clinton campaigns conduct, but they've indicated they can't run the story until they get a copy of the written script Hillary's staff is suppose to use against the other Democrats. Unless a disgruntled staffer comes forward with the script, or agrees to an interview, the campaigns tactics won't become widely known until long after the primary, and probably long after the general election.

"I continue to be a proud supporter of the Democratic front-runner, Senator Hillary Clinton.
Senator Barack Obama was quite engaging at the JJ Dinner, I'll agree, but I don't think he's quite prepared for the Rightwing Slime Machine.
John Edwards was a loser in 2004, and he's looking more and more like a loser in 2008, as far as I can tell.

Jan, Nashua, NH "

What makes you think Hillary will be ready for the smear team she'll face if she's the nominee? Anyone who thinks that a candidate who 55% of married men say they would never support, who has the highest pre-general election negatives of any candidate to ever run for President, and who has the ability to motivate the GOP base, like no other person, can win the general election is completely blind to reality.

Most of the hatred for Hillary is baseless, but it's there. If Hillary is the nominee, by Nov 08 more than 50% of he voting public will believe the GOP lies about Bill's pre-9/11 failures. Think about it, ABC ran a 9/11 movie last fall full of lies, and scholastic was actually going to have work sheets for school kids repeating lies. If Clinton is the nominee by Nov 08 most independents (the one's who actually decide the election)will believe that Bill passed up an offer to have Osama Bin Laden, I believe Bill's denial's but the GOP attack machine will make this false claim stick, and if you don't believe it you just haven't been paying attention.

To: mary Davenport Iowa

Who asked:

"What makes you think Hillary will be ready for the smear team she'll face if she's the nominee?"

Response:

She is ready now. I'm beginning to think this is all part of a grand lowering of expectations game Bill devised so voters become re-impressed with Hillary during the general election.

You overrate the GOP attack machine. If the nation elects a Republican in 2008, the deficits will be with us as far as the eye can see. Attacks on personal liberty will continue under the guise of national security. Men say a lot of things "they would never do", but in the end, like most voters, act on personal self-interest. That may require for some swallowing hard and voting for Hillary, but enough men will do so when faced with no adequate alternative.

I just want a competitive primary on the Democratic side. Not some coronation that makes the candidate soft and unable to handle the Republican heat, which is guaranteed. JMHO. Peace. Kristian O

This is just another distraction in the Edwards campaign.   He is pointing his criticisms where they should go and that is to the front runner.    I don't think he is giving cover to anyone.  Just more news fodder.  

All of this talk also about who he would endorse is rubbish.  Why should he act like his campaign is over before even the first vote is cast.   I think those journalist pushing for such ridiculous questions need to go back to journalism school and learn how to ask intelligent and thought provoking questions.  This what the public would like to hear.

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