Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

Gary, Des Moines, IA — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:12:41 GMT

dodd is a weasal who went from loving lieberman to hating him for political purposes

edwards simply represents the progressive view-- i'd have a very hard time supporting hillary too

dodd is a phony

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

Margaret, NYC — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:15:24 GMT

In 2003, did the media ask candidates if they'd support Howard Dean if he were the nominee?
NO!
This is just more Queen Hillary inevitability promoted by the media.
I don't blame Edwards for not answering!

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

Tofun,Disney — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:17:03 GMT

edwards is making a mistake.... guess like obama he's showing he's not ready for prime time

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

Josie, SC — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:20:54 GMT

John Edwards has been moving up in polls, and the media is terrified and calling him "angry".
At the Iowa caucus dinner of 9,000 Democrats, Edwards received the greatest and loudest applause of the evening per his position on universal health care. Tucker Carlson aired his comments - but omitted the HUGE applause from the audience - then went on to bash Edwards. This is typical of pro-Hillary MSNBC.

Just sit back folks - the media is choosing the nominees. No need to vote in the primaries. ;>

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

bob abbott — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:21:06 GMT

Please ask the candidates how they feel about the windfall provision of social security that was passed by the democratic in 1986 congress during Tip O'niel speakership.

a lot of federal , state and municipal employees ad paid into the system for a great number of years ending up 45 % lose of their benefits.

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

csh, IL — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:21:31 GMT

Agree completely with Dodd. Edwards is an increasingly desperate and bitter figure. So, to a lesser degree, is Obama. These self-righteous attacks on Hillary by fellow democrats are appalling and will not serve us well in our efforts to win back the White House.

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

David, Chattanooga, Tn — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:21:37 GMT

SORRY MR. Dodd but a lot of us Dems will not support Hillary.

EDWARDS 08!

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

David, Chattanooga, Tn — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:22:47 GMT

I guess Mr. Dodd wants to keep his health insurance!

EDWARDS 08!

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

Leslie, Lawrenceburg, Indiana — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:24:01 GMT

Edwards is angry because he knows that Hillary Clinton represents the same kind of Washington that this country has dealt with for the last 7 years. He knows that she is not the right candidate to bring about positive change to this country. John Edwards is what this country needs. We should all be angry. This country needs to be strengthened from the inside before we worry about changing/molding the rest of the world. John Edward's ideas/plans for education would put us on the right track and I can't type fast enough nor do I have the time (I'm at work) to go into the rest of his plans. Just please listen to what each candidate has to say, do your research, and make informed decisions.

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

Margaret, NYC — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:25:47 GMT

More plants by Hillary --
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/11/13/94817/086

How long has this been going on for Her Majesty?

Oh- and btw - plants grow into bushes.

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

Justin, Gainesville FL — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:27:37 GMT

"I wonder which of the Republicans John prefers to Hillary?”

This is the same kind of tired, fallacious logic that perpetuates the status-quo that John and Barack are both working so hard to overturn. Blind loyalty to a party's nominee isn't the same as supporting what's good for America.

Perhaps instead of the question he asked, he might consider this, "Why should John support a candidate who seems more interested in perpetuating the status quo and supporting a dangerous, destabilizing, hawkish, Bush-Cheney foreign policy than in doing what's good for America?"

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

Fed up with politics as usual — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:27:39 GMT

I am a long-time Democrat who has always worked for and financially supported the eventual Democratic nominee even if they were not my personal choice. If Mrs. Clinton is the Democratic nominee in this election, I will not do so. I will not vote for a Republican for President, but I will not support or vote for Clinton. Sometimes one just has to take a stand on matters of principle, and not support more corrupt politics regardless of the party. L know others here in Iowa who feel the same way that I do.

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

Dickie Flatts, Charlotte, NC — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:29:56 GMT

Good for Chris Dodd.

It is time for Democrats to start acting like Democrats and talk about the issues. Edwards is spewing am radio hate talk and recycling BS lines of attacks from 1992 in his desperate bid to avoid becoming a political has been. Dodd called him on it.

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

Crystal (Time for change) — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:32:30 GMT

Yeah, i think that is crazy as well. They should ask her if she would support him or better yet, who do she think is a candidate deserving of the nomination? But they won't. I really do agree, this is the media trying to make headlines saying "Edwards will support her so she must be good!" Pure foolishness!!!

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

John doe — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:33:01 GMT

Margaret,
I bet if it was Hillary who gave the same answer, you will be over the roof talking about her diviseness. No bad will intended.

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

JF — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:36:06 GMT

Edwards on the left - Paul on the right - seems like we have a lot of people running this time who are in it for themselves and their own egos and not for their party's principles.

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

Sierra, SF — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:36:08 GMT

Has ANYONE ASKED HILLARY ?
Will she endorse Edwards, if HE'S the nominee ?
Will she endorse Obama, if HE'S the nominee ?

This is just the MSM trying to promote Hillary.
Edwards is right not saying if he'll endorse !

It's a hypothetical
It's a WORST CASE scenario !
It's a sign of the apocolyspe !

Chris Dodd, meet Mr. Richardson

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

Lewis, Cincinnati, Ohio — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:40:54 GMT

What's wrong with Edwards not answering the question?? Shouldn't he still be thinking (since one vote has NOT been cast) that he's going to be the nominee??? Let's be honest----Do you any of you really think the Clintons are going to actively campaign for Edwards or Obama if the get the nomination???

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:42:56 GMT

Actually Margaret, YES the "will you support Dean if he's the nominee" question WAS asked at the Democratic debates in 2003.
Even Dean himself was asked if he would support the eventual nominee. He said "yes" he would, as I recall.
I'm very disappointed with John Edwards these days, I once supoported him, and I thought I knew him better.
In fact I'm very disappointed with a few of the Democratic candidates to include Kucinich, and Obama who've been behaving like little children these last couple of weeks.
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.

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

JF — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:45:31 GMT

I hope that democrats who are bailing out this early in the process because they don't/won't get their pet candidate understand that the margin needed for a victory over a Guiliani-type will likely be compromised due to their lack participation in the process irrespective of the nominee. Republicans usaully line up behind the eventual nominee - Democrats like to have memorial services and woe-is-me parties for the has-beens.

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

Jane Urbandale IA — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:45:42 GMT

Of course Edwards will support who ever is the nominee, but does he like or respect Hillary? I doubt it? Does he think Hillary can win as the nominee? I doubt it. Does he (or anyone else) care about what Dodd has to say? I doubt it.

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

Sierra, SF — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:45:49 GMT

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

Bee — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:52:51 GMT

Edward is not alone. I am definitely not voting for Hillary if he becomes the nominee. I am tired and angry at democrats acting like George Bush republican.

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

RM Frisco, Tx — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:53:07 GMT

I actually think the Dems have gone to a free for all mentality. Answer is to sit there and look like an idiot and not open your mouth and prove it. Sounds like alot of these nominees need to learn this lesson I.E. John Edwards. Wheres Alfred E. Newman when we need him???????

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

Lane , Ann Arbor — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:55:12 GMT

Gary and Jane,

So glad to see Iowa support for Edwards. It isn't well-covered in the media, although there were reports that his rallies were well attended last week. I see
Edwards as the progressive candidate with the most substantive and complete statements on issues. Is this the way he is seen in Iowa?

Any way we can help support efforts for Edwards?

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

Steve — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:01:37 GMT

Edwards anger has turned me off. I think he can be an effective leader, but his CLINTON IS THE EVIL ONE mantra has become annoying and one note.

I support Hillary.

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

Leslie, Lawrenceburg, Indiana — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:03:19 GMT

Lane in Ann Arbor go to JohnEdwards.com

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

pmorlan — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:06:07 GMT

This is such spin. The media is so lazy that they won't cover policy issues they would rather manufacture BS charges. Edwards NEVER said he wouldn't endorse Clinton (so all you Clinton supporters don't need to get your panties in a wad). He merely declined to answer the question. He is running for president why would he answer a smart alec question like are you going to endorse your competitor before the 1st vote has even taken place?

If everyone will recall the media has been trying since yesterday to portray Edwards campaign as down and out (it isn't) and now they need for him to say he would support Clinton so they can then write that Edwards seeing the end of his campaign promises to support Clinton. Yada, yada, yada. It is such BS I can't beleive so many people believe this crap. Wake up people and stop believing all the BS that the media generates. I know the campaign has heated up but please have some sense before you go running off half cocked. Are you that easily manipulated?

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

Yolanda, Largo, Maryland — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:09:00 GMT

Ouch!! I guess Clinton really wants to alienate young voters!!

The Anti-Hillary Facebook Group
November 13, 2007 9:31 AM

Senior Clinton campaign advisers Mandy Grunwald and Mark Penn were not impressed with the young Iowans who turned out for Barack Obama at Saturday night's Jefferson-Jackson Dinner.

"Our people look like caucus-goers," Grunwald told Roger Simon of the Politico, "and his people look like they are 18. Penn said they look like Facebook."

Added Penn: "Only a few of their people look like they could vote in any state."

Kind of weird to dis 18-year-olds. But hey, certainly the Clinton campaign and its all-knowing ways must have a reason to insult young Democrats trying to engage in the political process.

Either way, umbrage has been taken. And now on Facebook -- the Official Petition Against Hillary Clinton "They Look Like Facebook" Insult.

"That's it: Hillary's entire strategy for winning the White House is to make sure young people on Facebook don't vote," the group's manifesto states. "Facebook voters aren't 18 year old slackers. We are engaged. And we vote. Let's get as many Democrats, Republicans, and Independents to join this group to send a message that stereotypes like this about the youth vote are unacceptable. Invite 200 friends to be listed as a co-founder on the officer list."

As of Tuesday morning, the group had a paltry 159 members -- nothing like the 563,319 members of Stop Hillary Clinton: (One Million Strong AGAINST Hillary).

Lost in this madness is the fact that Penn -- normally so adept at understanding the culture -- clearly has missed the boat on Facebook, 41% of whose visitors are 35 and older. (Mr. Penn -- check out this story in Business Week, "Fogeys Flock to Facebook." )

Matthew Rose at the Wall Street Journal has an amusing column about his Mid-Life Facebook Crisis experience HERE.

So write off Facebook, Clintonistas! Mock Facebook! At your peril.

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

nuanced — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:12:16 GMT

I am waiting for the inevitable update with the corrected information.

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

Rob, Granville, OH — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:12:32 GMT

David, from Chattanooga, is right -- a LOT of us Dems are not going to support Hillary. I will write in Edwards or Obama but never pull the lever for another Clinton. We do NOT need "those people" in the White House again

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

CJ — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:15:04 GMT

Justin, Gainesville...correct. I'm starting to think I'd rather risk another republican POTUS (McCain..Romney couldn't do too much harm) than have the Democratic brand tarnished by Clinton's political methods and prolonged partisanship.

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

JF — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:18:14 GMT

Maybe the bi-line given by CNN for the upcoming Democratic debate: "taking the gloves off" - is indicative of the state-of-mind of Democrats today - why do Democrats let the media bait their anger so much - not helpful!

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

jerry/corpus christi texas — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:19:20 GMT

Merle would be disappointed with Hillary too.....
If he knew which side of the fences she was standing on.

John should just put his money in a bank account.....
let it grow some interest.......
And then play the game in 2012...........
Hillary will be gone............
he just might have it in him to win next time.......

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

Ryan — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:22:41 GMT

Just because Dodd was doomed to defeat since day one of his campaign, it doesn't mean John Edwards has to buy into the media conclusion that Hillary is the nominee since Spring of 2007. Dodd should focus more on breaking that 3% mark and less on kissing up to his fellow insider hack, Hillary Clinton.

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

greg opelika alabama — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:22:57 GMT

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 .

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

Class Warrior, D.C. — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:31:54 GMT

Edwards SHOULD be angry, and so should the rest of us. Many of us are at least as angry as Edwards. Besides the mess Bush has made, both at home adn abroad, we're now getting ready to coronate a Republican-Lite, sure-fire loser as our party's nominee. I'm mad as hell about it, and I'm glad to see someone else is, too. Our country is broken, and no one seems very serious about fixing it.

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:33:09 GMT

jerry.....HOW many people associated with Giuliani are under federal indictment?

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

MK,MO — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:33:15 GMT

“I am surprised at just how angry John has become.'

I don't believe edwards is angry, compassionate would be a more accurate description, which is why the media keeps saying he is desperate or angry, he represents everything the corporate owned media despises, how dare him not sell out to the political machine that writes their checks, he represents positive change for the american people, not just the corporate and military machine who have purchased hillary to represent their interests, edwards thinks that it is time to rein in the lobbyists, give him that chance, vote for edwards.

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

Jeanne S — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:37:12 GMT

Hey Dickie Flatts
Maybe Edwards could support Clinton IF she represented Democratic ideals. She doesn't!
She IS Bush lite. Once a Goldwater girl, always a....
Edwards is the only true "populist" running with the best chance of winning in the General, and they know it. Edwards is a clear threat to these "powers that be" DC creatures. This week is a perfect example, Edwards had an outstanding speech and crowd reaction at the dinner, not only is that not mentioned on any of the MSNBC pundit shows, but the talk is how he is noe desperate, angry, flagging campaign yet when I look at the polls they all love to tout he has gone up
It is very clear what the corporate owned media is doing. And the sad thing is the American people still seem to buy into it at their own peril. The best government money can buy... Hell no not in my America

Edwards 2008 The Peoples President the one the corporations fear the most, that very fact should tell you volumes....

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

Michael Durst - New York — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:39:16 GMT

John Edwards is an embarrassment to the Democratic Party.

I agree with Senator Dodd. It's time for John Edwards to talk about himself and stop harping about Hillary. He looks more pathetic with each passing day.

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

Aidyn, NY — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:40:14 GMT

Edward is making a mistake for the party. He is hurting himself and he is hurting the party.

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

jerry/corpus christi texas — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:43:46 GMT

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)

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

lou — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:46:08 GMT

as a former resident of Conn., i would not support the democratic nominee or Hillary Clinton , as for Dodd .just drop out of the presidental bid .............................!!!

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

john snow — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:48:31 GMT

who ever get the nominee clinton, obama , edwards & biden or who ever. you people said I will not vote because I am taking stand. I am sorry if you are true dem you won't let republican take the white house again. WHOEVER GET THE NOMINEE!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

lou — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:50:51 GMT

as a former resident of Conn., i would not support the democratic nominee or Hillary Clinton , as for Dodd .just drop out of the presidental bid .............................!!!

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:51:49 GMT

Margaret - Candidates are often asked if they would support the eventual nominee. Sometimes names are tossed out and sometimes they are not. I think, in this case, it has less to do with so-called inevitibility and more to do with how vocally anti-Hillary Edwards has been the past few weeks. As in - you have stated your disagreement with just about everything Hillary says and does, so could you support her as the Democratic nominee? That's a fair question.

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:56:03 GMT

Why not ask Hillary if she would withdraw from the race, for the good of the Democratic Party ?

Will she withdraw if she CAN'T WIN THE GENERAL ELECTION ?

Then, ask her when she'll withdraw ?

NO ENTITLEMENTS TO THE NOMINATION !!
Sierra, SF (Sent Tuesday, November 13, 2007 11:45 AM)

Um in case it escaped you, Sierra, the point of having a general election is to select a president. It's far, far too early to say that anyone "can't" win the general election. We have zero clue what is going to happen in the next year. For all we know, Obama or Edwards could be the nominee and totally screw up the general election campaign the way that Kerry did and, to some extent, that Al Gore did. Nothing is certain a year removed from the actual election.

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

MR, Seattle — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 18:08:23 GMT

Go John Go and endorse Obama before or right after the Iowa Caucuses. The future of this country depends on the kind of leadership Obama can offer.

By the way, Edwards speech at the JJ was second only to Obama's outstanding, history making performance.

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

O. G. Deeds — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 18:17:36 GMT

personally, if all edwards and obama have to offer is criticism of hillary and not of how they would govern different, then they may as well not bother (with some voters). if that is all theyve got, then no wonder they are lagging....

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 18:21:17 GMT

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

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

kim, crofton, md — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 18:23:17 GMT

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.

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

joann gershman, stratford, nj — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 18:23:32 GMT

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.

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

pmorlan, Louisville, KY — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 18:29:13 GMT

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.

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

mike oh — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 18:29:58 GMT

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!!!

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

Leo Sayers — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 18:42:25 GMT

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.

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

John S. Alexander, Edinboro, PA — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 18:42:52 GMT

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?

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

L. R. Laoman — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 18:44:17 GMT

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.

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

I love sane people — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 18:44:33 GMT

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)

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

Ernie — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 18:45:07 GMT

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

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

Derek Fort Smith, AR — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 18:45:57 GMT

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...

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

KC, Oklahoma City, OK — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 18:49:33 GMT

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.

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

KC, Oklahoma City, OK — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 18:50:34 GMT

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

MK,MO — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 18:57:28 GMT

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

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

mike oh — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 18:58:39 GMT

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.

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

Robert Conley, Los Angeles, CA — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 19:01:11 GMT

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!

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

jerry/corpus christi texas — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 19:02:52 GMT

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.......

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

Andrew H. Houston, TX — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 19:10:00 GMT

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!!

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

jerry/corpus christi texas — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 19:17:42 GMT

Merle:

Thanks for the advice......

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

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

Sierra, SF — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 19:20:13 GMT

. 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 ?

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

MK,MO — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 19:23:44 GMT

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

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

kmnecole, st louis, mo — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 19:26:32 GMT

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

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

Adam, CA — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 19:31:32 GMT

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.

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

Susan, Floyd County, Iowa — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 19:32:37 GMT

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.

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

JJ in NJ — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 19:40:10 GMT

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.

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

Patrick Peavy, Plano TX — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 19:55:36 GMT

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

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

Allen Rivers, Bridgeport, Connecticut — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 20:01:17 GMT

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!!!!!

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

mike oh — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 20:05:59 GMT

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.

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

pat huntington ny — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 20:06:35 GMT

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!

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

Lisa, Tifton, GA — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 20:07:04 GMT

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!

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

John Omaha-NE — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 20:16:44 GMT

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.

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

John Omaha-NE — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 20:18:03 GMT

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 20:19:02 GMT

*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.

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

ogdeeds — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 20:23:17 GMT

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)

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

Adam, Sacramento CA — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 20:23:54 GMT

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.

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 20:40:34 GMT

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?

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 20:40:35 GMT

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 20:54:34 GMT

".....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.

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

Justin, Gainesville, FL — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 20:56:33 GMT

"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.

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 20:58:22 GMT

".....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.

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 21:09:48 GMT

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!

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 21:09:49 GMT

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

Jason, Morristown, NJ — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 21:11:07 GMT

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!!

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

Kristian O — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 21:11:55 GMT

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.

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

Judy Grissom, Waterloo Iowa — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 21:18:34 GMT

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.

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

A.Brocco, Albq. NM — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 21:18:47 GMT

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.

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

Barbara C., Pompano Beach, FL — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 21:25:33 GMT

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.

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

Anne, York PA — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 21:45:33 GMT

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.

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

Paul Oniwata — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 21:49:03 GMT

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).

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

MK,MO — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 21:57:20 GMT

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.

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

yeah.right, chicago, il — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 22:08:05 GMT

If you all think the media is helping Hillary, you're nuts. Edwards is already bitter 'cause it's over for him. He's got no substance - like Obama. Rhetoric, yes - substance, none.

As for the the plant. THIS IS POLITICS. They ship their folk in from all over. They are coached to ask questions for Christ sake. If this gal had a problem with it, she should of addressed it immediately. She didn't. Now she says she disenchanted with politics. Come on! I'm disenchanted with stupid youth.

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

Mitchell Feldman, Vestal, NY — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 22:14:29 GMT

This election is more than just about changing the party in the White House. That concept of changing the party has no meaning if the way politics is handled, the way that we are governed, remains unchanged.

I cannot in good conscience support Hillary for president under any circumstances. I will, like others here, write in another candidate or support a third party, if Hillary is coronated.

One cannot be against this war and support the candidacy of HRC. THAT DOG WON'T HUNT. It's not her gender, it's her candidacy!
Obama '08

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

Mitchell Feldman, Vestal, NY — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 22:26:42 GMT

J Merle Stanley: You are as unprincipled as the candidate you support (Hillary).
Obama '08

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

Orville Banks, Hartland Mi. — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 22:28:34 GMT

Hilliary is just another Lieberman, so much like Bushand almost in lock step with him thats it's scary. No more dynasties, lets take our party back, we have much better canditates than her. like Bush she likes cloosed door hearings(health care) and her husband signed N.A.F.T.A into law. Thats enough for me, even if she didn't apologize for supporting the war. Edwards/Obama!

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

Sam, St Louis, MO — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 22:31:15 GMT

I want a Democratic president who is intelligent, strong, level headed, experienced, and who is ready to lead from day one. Until recently I thought John Edwards might be that man. Thank goodness he has shown his true side...mean spirited, whiny, wimpy before I voted for him. Edwards helped me make up my mind...I'll be voting for Hillary Clinton. Thanks, John. I obviously was on the road to making a big mistake with my vote for you.

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 22:34:04 GMT

".....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)....."

Check the polling data again MK.
If the election were held today, she would be your new President.
Hillary isn't reciting the 1990's Neo-Con mantra, like Obama is. Oh, and by the way, the level of Obama's financial disclosure is rated as "incomplete" by www.opensecrets.org
Nobody, including yourself whoever you are, complained during the 80's, 90's, and early 2000's when republiCANTs were hording campaign funds from PAC's and Corporations, and beating the pants off of Democrats in general and off-year elections. When they did it, it was called "free speech."
But, Democrats come to power in the congress, and a female Democrat becomes the front runner for President, and all of a sudden it's BAD to accumulate a campaign war chest that could tip the election scales in HER favor.
I rather suspect that all the catawalling about Hillary's fundraising stems from the fact that Labor and Big Business donated to HER campaign and not to Obama's and Edwards.
Sorry, I'm not buying what your'e selling.
Furthermore, you didn't address the issue of Obama using 1990's republiCANT rhetoric in the last debate. Why should I vote for someone who IMITATES what CANTservatives said in the 1990's, and still say today? Why shouldn't I just give my vote directly to the people who made it up to begin with?
Well, that's what I'll do if Obama is the Democratic nominee.
Last but not least, Dennis Kucinich says that OBAMA is the one who has a secret plan to bomb Iraq, not Hillary.

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

Jeanne S — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 22:46:32 GMT

Anne,York PA,
You are sooo spot on. Thank you for telling it like it is. I am coming to the conclusion that most of these poster are very low information voters, who rely mainly on the spin places like MSNBC and other corporate owned media outlets which are most of them instead of looking up information on their own and truly vetting a candidiate. The weak arguments being made are pure media generated spin, and wow what a surprise, they are swallowing it hook line and sinker.
Yep, we will get to continue with the best Corporatocracy money ans spin can buy. Tragic actually

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

Joe Doe , Atlanta Ga. — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 22:58:54 GMT

greg: what's a "terriost"?

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

Sam, Missouri — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 23:24:11 GMT

I am new to reading blog & emails. After reading all the hate spewing, vicious attacks on Democratic candidates BY DEMOCRATS, I'm no longer surprised Democrats can't win. Because of Edwards childish mean attacks and Obama's inexperienced "pie in the sky" rhetoric, I will not vote for them and think they are not right for our country, but this is not a student body election. For my future & this country, I will vote for either of them if they are the Democratic candidate...although I think they can't win in the General election. It's hard to believe that any Democrat is so hate filled and immature that they would not vote for the Dem. against a Rep. in Nov. 2008. Sorry...but you sound like a bunch of immature "mean girls".

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

mike oh — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 00:53:32 GMT

Mitchell - I cannot in good conscience support Hillary for president under any circumstances. I will, like others here, write in another candidate or support a third party, if Hillary is coronated.

So you will in good conscience help elect people who will kill more of our youth in Iraq and Iran?? You'll just take your ball and go home if you don't get your own way?

This isn't a perfect world and there are no perfect choices, have your dreams, work for your dreams, try to get your candidate elected, but don't run away pouting and let the country suffer 'cause you didn't get your way.

Bunch of spoiled brats in this party anymore.

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

Mitchell Feldman, Vestal, NY — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 01:04:09 GMT

If a candidate doesn't represent the principles of the Democratic Party (no matter what they call themselves) they will lose support of a lot of people who really do believe in the principles of the Democratic Party.

This has nothing to do with hating Hillary (don't be so childish as to think that this would be the case). This has to do with considering your vote carefully and remaining true to yourself in terms of using that vote as an expression of what you think is important.

Now hear this. There are many things that Senator Clinton has said or done that go against my belief system but most importantly, she has cast votes on Iraq and Iran that support the policy of
George W. Bush. For me and for some others here, the war is an issue of greatest importance. Hillary's votes on this issue belie any conviction that this war was an act of crass imperialism and that it was and continues to be sold to the American people with misinformation and lies. Hillary was and continues to be part of this Bush 'theatre of the bizarre' and I simply would not be true to myself if I were to vote for her and thereby condone her continued participation in this charade.
Obama '08

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

skvira — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 01:17:39 GMT

Not surprising,just another person with limited memory.Hillary's support of Al Gore consisted of going around New England and diverting contributor to her Senate campaign rather than helping elect a Democrat to the White House.Al's Hymers for those desperate enough to elect the wrong women.There are more qualified but they don't have the Tammy Wynette mentality to prostitute themselves to win.

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

S. Wade — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 01:23:00 GMT

Again, the hype against Edwards shows that MSNBC is pro-Hillary. It makes me laugh because it's so obvious.

Is it fair that the MSM has not asked Hillary if she'll endorse Edwards, or Obama, or Biden, or anyone else? If it's a fair and legitimate question to ask Edwards, then it's a fair and legitimate question to ask Clinton. She'll probably duck that one like she ducked some of the questions during the Philadelphia debate

So, how 'bout it, MSM? Will someone in media-land ask her who she'd endorse?

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

Rufus Gibbons, DC — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 03:19:45 GMT

Lou which of the republican Bush clones WILL you support any democrat who doesn't vote for the nominee is supporting the republican nominee.

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

Scott, MN — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 15:58:30 GMT

VOTE FOR HILLARY CLINTON TO MAKE THIS COUNTRY A BETTER COUNTRY!!!!!

Allen Rivers, Bridgeport, Connecticut

If by making the country better you mean having a Republican in the White House, you are right a vote to select Hillary as our nominee will do just that. I for one think that will ruin our country. Wake up people Hillary can not win the general, why else would the GOP want her so bad? If they really feared her, as opposed to wanting her so badly to be the nominee (to crush her worse than Bush's 1988 victory) they would not be holding their fire. They would be attacking her now.

Hillary supporters will get what they deserve, President Rudy, unfortunately the rest of us reality based Democrats will have to suffer. Just don't put a "Don't blame me I voted Hillary" sticker on your car. I'll vote for her if she's the nominee, but I hope people in Iowa and New Hampshire wake up before they vote.

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 16:24:06 GMT

".....J Merle Stanley: You are as unprincipled as the candidate you support (Hillary).
Obama '08
Mitchell Feldman, Vestal, NY (Sent Tuesday, November 13, 2007 5:26 PM)....."

Obama is the unprincipled one because he's parroting Neo-Con rhetoric from the 1990's about The Clinton's, and you are unprincipled because you support that kind of "slash and attack" politics.
I will stand on principle and vote AGAINST Obama if he gets the nomination, because of his tactics amd because he isn't qualified to be President.
I'm sorry but two years in the U.S. Senate and a few more in a state legislature do not a President make.

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 17:13:05 GMT

To Mitchell Feldman, Vestal, NY;
296 Republicans in BOTH the "House" and the "Senate" voted to authorize Bush to use force in Iraq back in October of 2002. Hillary's one vote wouldn't have stopped it,
You must also remember that vote was taken in the hysterical aftermath of 911, and just about two weeks before the mid-term election of 2002.
The American people not only gave the Republicans a majority in the Senate, they also gave them an increased majority in The House AFTER that vote was taken, and put Bush back in office for a 2nd term two years later!
So, the war in Iraq is NOT all about Hillary. The majority of The American People were in favor of it, and expressed their satisfaction with it in two seperate election cycles, 2002 and 2004.
Granted, that has changed in the last year to 18 months or so. But the beginnings of The Iraq War shouldn't be laid at the feet of one single politician.
Furthermore, she comes from the state where 911 happened and had/has a responsibility to the constituency that she serves. If you remember the late summer and early fall of 2002, Bush was going around the country saying things like... "we cannot wait for the smoking gun that would come in the form of a mushroom cloud." Why shouldn't we be able to believe what a President says, regardless of what party they belong to?
I can't fault Hillary for believing that she was acting in the best interests of the people of The State of NY when she voted to give Bush his authorization.
There isn't anything that says he had to excersize that authority. He chose to do that on his own.
As far as Iran is concerned, I DO think that allowing them to develope nuclear weapons is a bad idea. Ahmadinejad is a full blown whacko who needs to be watched very carefully. The vote she participated in recognizes the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization. (Which they ARE) Nothing more and nothing less.
It doesn't authorize another invasion, and it doesn't mean we're going to war in Iran.
Furthermore, I don't like the idea that Obama said he would sit down and negotiate with Ahmedinejad without any pre-conditions. A promise to keep their hands off Israel, a promise not invade Iraq and not to aid any insurgency, and a promise not to pursue the development of nuclear weapons are a MUST in my book before any talks could be started.
I seriously think that Obama's position on this issue is irresponsible, and potentially dangerous.
That is why I cannot and will not vote for him.

To Scott in Mn;.....I hate to break it to you, but Hillary will win the election if she is the nominee. She leads in EVERY national poll over EVERY candidate, including Giuliani.
This non-sense that Hillary would cause the Republicans to win the White House in '08' is pure rhetorical horse-hockey, and it's a scare tactic the Obama and Edwards camps are trying to use on Democratic voters.
Obama will LOSE the general election, and he will LOSE IT BIG. Social conservatives in the south and mid west will not vote for him. If he were to run against Giuliani, NY would end up in the red column, same with Edwards.
I really hope that people see through all the "He-Man Hillary Haters" rhetoric and complete non-sense that gets spread around on this board, and I hope the voters in Iowa and New Hampshire understand that we need a qualified candidate with star power who can win in 2008. Not a another extremist who's going to give it all away to the GOP, like Obama and Edwards.

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

mary Davenport Iowa — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 19:00:32 GMT

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY -
It kills me to side with Jerry on anything- I'll need a shower after hitting send. But if you really don't know the reference to your Jr. Senator and "plant" Here are some details. I have no idea how this goes over on either coast, or even other Midwest states, but among Iowa Democratic caucus goers, it is not a wise move!

"The college student who was told what question to ask at one of New York Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign events said "voters have the right to know what happened" and she wasn't the only one who was planted.

Student Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff said a staffer told her what to ask at a campaign event for Sen. Hillary Clinton.

In an exclusive on-camera interview with CNN, Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff, a 19-year-old sophomore at Grinnell College in Grinnell, Iowa, said giving anyone specific questions to ask is "dishonest," and the whole incident has given her a negative outlook on politics.
Gallo-Chasanoff, whose story was first reported in the campus newspaper, said what happened was simple: She said a senior Clinton staffer asked if she'd like to ask the senator a question after an energy speech the Democratic presidential hopeful gave in Newton, Iowa, on November 6.
"I sort of thought about it, and I said 'Yeah, can I ask how her energy plan compares to the other candidates' energy plans?'" Gallo-Chasanoff said Monday night.
According to Gallo-Chasanoff, the staffer said, " 'I don't think that's a good idea, because I don't know how familiar she is with their plans.' " Watch the student speak out about question »
He then opened a binder to a page that, according to Gallo-Chasanoff, had about eight questions on it.
"The top one was planned specifically for a college student," she added. "It said 'college student' in brackets and then the question."
Topping that sheet of paper was the following: "As a young person, I'm worried about the long-term effects of global warming. How does your plan combat climate change?" Watch the student ask the planted question »
And while she said she would have rather used her own question, Gallo-Chasanoff said she didn't have a problem asking the campaign's because she "likes to be agreeable," adding that since she told the staffer she'd ask their pre-typed question she "didn't want to go back on my word."
Clinton campaign spokesman Mo Elleithee said, "This is not acceptable campaign process moving forward. We've taken steps to ensure that it never happens again." Elleithee said Clinton had "no idea who she was calling on."
Gallo-Chasanoff wasn't so sure.
"I don't know whether Hillary knew what my question was going to be, but it seemed like she knew to call on me because there were so many people, and ... I was the only college student in that area," she said.
In a separate statement in response to the campus article, the campaign said, "On this occasion a member of our staff did discuss a possible question about Sen. Clinton's energy plan at a forum. ... This is not standard policy and will not be repeated again."
Gallo-Chasanoff said she wasn't the only person given a question.
"After the event," she said, "I heard another man ... talking about the question he asked, and he said that the campaign had asked him to ask that question."
The man she referenced prefaced his question by saying that it probably didn't have anything to do with energy, and then posed the following: "I wonder what you propose to do to create jobs for the middle-class person, such as here in Newton where we lost Maytag."
A Maytag factory in Newton recently closed, forcing hundreds of people out of their jobs.
During the course of the late-night interview on Grinnell's campus, Gallo-Chasanoff also said that the day before the school's newspaper, Scarlet and Black, printed the story, she wanted the reporter to inform the campaign out of courtesy to let them know it would be published.
She said the "head of publicity for the campaign," a man whose name she could not recall, had no factual disputes with the story. But, she added, a Clinton intern spoke to her to say the campaign requested she not talk about the story to any more media outlets and that if she did she should inform a staffer.
"I'm not under any real obligation to do that, and I haven't talked to [the campaign] anymore," Gallo-Chasanoff said, adding that she doesn't plan to.
"If what I do is come and just be totally truthful, then that's all anyone can ask of me, and that's all I can ask of myself. So I'll feel good with what I've done. I'll feel like I've done the right thing."
The Clinton campaign's acknowledgment that it planted a question reinforces a widely held criticism of the senator -- that she is not entirely honest, said Bill Schneider, CNN's senior political analyst.
"It's the same criticism often made of her husband," Schneider said. "Most Americans never felt Bill Clinton was honest and trustworthy, even when he got elected in 1992 -- with only 43 percent of the vote. His critics called him 'Slick Willy.' ... Will her critics start referring to the New York senator as 'Slick Hillary?' "
Asked if this experience makes her less likely to support Clinton's presidential bid, Gallo-Chasanoff, an undecided voter, said, "I think she has a lot to offer, but I -- this experience makes me look at her campaign a little bit differently."
"The question and answer sessions -- especially in Iowa -- are really important. That's where the voters get to ... have like a real genuine conversation with this politician who could be representing them."
While she acknowledged "it's possible that all campaigns do these kind of tactics," she said that doesn't make it right.
"Personally I want to know that I have someone who's honest representing me."
A second person has a story similar to Gallo-Chasanoff's. Geoffrey Mitchell of Hamilton, Illinois, on the Iowa border, said the Clinton campaign wanted him to ask a certain question at an Iowa event in April.
"He asked me if I would ask Sen. Clinton about ways she was going to confront the president on the war in Iraq, specifically war funding," said Geoffrey Mitchell, a supporter of Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois. "I told him it was not a question I felt comfortable with."
No questions were taken at the event. Elleithee said this incident was different from what happened with Gallo-Chasanoff in Newton. Elleithee said the staffer "bumped into someone he marginally knew" and during a conversation with Mitchell, "Iraq came up." Elleithee denied the campaign tried to plant him as a friendly questioner in the audience.
Mitchell said he had never met the staffer before the event.

Former presidential adviser David Gergen said the front-runner's campaign could take a hit from the incident.
"When a campaign plants a question, it's a pretty minor infraction of the rules -- like a parking ticket," Gergen said. "The problem here is it feeds a damaging perception of Hillary Clinton that she can't quite be trusted."

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

Scott, MN — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 19:32:02 GMT

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY

I wish you were right, but sadly you haven't a clue. Of course Hillary will win NY, what Democrat wouldn't. Do you work with or live by many independents, you know the voters that actually decide the election? Do you go to Church (or other house of worship) with any independents? Do you have any clue how many independents aren't found of Hillary?

There is not one state that Hillary would win, except Ark that Gore didn't win, however, she'd lose Iowa. Even her Iowa supporters admit in a general election a women won't win a federal office. There are many other states that she'd lose to Rudy in.

Look Merle, I think it sucks, and I think it would be horrible to have Rudy President, but how often have you been disappointed in who the country elected as President? Did you think W would beat (or come close enough for the Supreme Court to give him the election) Gore? Did you predict the 88 race.

Think about this, if Gore had been in the WH on 9/11 and Osama bin Laden was still on the lame every day you would know how many dies it's been since 9/11 and where is OBL? This would be Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and those other idiots mantra. Most of the country doesn't blame Bush for ignoring his August presidential daily briefing, while taking a month vacation. And few people criticize him for failing to get OBL. But if the tables were turned the unethical soul-less GOP Rove type operatives would shamelessly exploit 9/11 (worse than they do already) and use it against the Democrats.

You don't believe that the American public would blame Bill Clinton (and if Bill is at fault it will only hurt Hillary) for 9/11 by November 08 you just aren't living in reality. You are thinking like an intelligent Democrat, and assume the rest of the country thinks like you and those you interact with, unfortunately they don't.

Think about it why do you think that until very recently the majority of Americans believed the GOP would keep us safe from an attack. Based upon what? It is crazy, you know it's crazy, but it's what every poll showed the majority of American's thought. The GOP was in the WH on 9/11, they have done nothing to protect the RR, the only thing they do with airline security is act after the fact (Shoe bomber, x-ray shoes, liquid plot discovered by UK limit liquids).

The reality is that since 1964 only 2 Democrats have been elected to the WH, and both were a result of outside forces. Carter the one term President benefited from public backlash from Ford's pardon of Nixon, and if Perot hadn't run in 1992 Bill Clinton wouldn't have been elected. The GOP has won 7 of the last 10 Presidential elections. If you don't understand why the GOP wants Hillary to win the nomination, and if you don't understand that Hillary has an almost impossible chance at winning a general election then you simply are too far removed from politics on the ground. You are confusing what should happen with what will happen!

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

Mark, Des Moines — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 19:43:35 GMT

"I hate to break it to you, but Hillary will win the election if she is the nominee. She leads in EVERY national poll over EVERY candidate, including Giuliani."

National polls 6 months let alone a year prior to a Presidential mean nothing. And if you are relying on polls (friend of Vans?) then you've seen that support for Hillary in a Hillary Rudy match up has narrowed, she now is ahead of him by less than the margin of error, in other words she isn't even ahead of Rudy.

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

Lee in CA — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 22:24:02 GMT

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

You spread hate better than Osama bin Laden. Whose GD side are you on?

Dodd 'surprised' at Edwards' anger

Lee in CA — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 22:26:19 GMT

Sam, Missouri - the lockstep, we-support-any-lie party is to your right. Enjoy.