John Edwards- "the cabinet list "I've already made" includes members of the other party."

[FrenchieCat]

Edwards told a crowd of about 100 in front of the Rochester Common bandstand that he'll work with Republicans "in a principled way," acknowledging he ran the risk of alienating voters by saying the cabinet list "I've already made" includes members of the other party.

In a one-on-one interview with Foster's aboard his campaign bus, Edwards would not say who's on the list, and that he doubts he'd share the list in the future.

"I don't want people who are not chosen ... I don't think it's fair to them," he said.

Edwards' position was in contrast somewhat with rival Sen. Barack Obama, who over the weekend was reported as naming Republicans he would work with, but not necessarily appoint to Cabinet positions.

http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070827/FOSTERS08/708270073

[Adelante]

1. Work with Republicans, bad

Republicans in cabinet positions, good

Thanks, Frenchie, I got it now :hi:

[Bluebear]

44. Anti-gay, anti-woman psychopaths being "my good friends" are bad.

[FrenchieCat]

53. Well at least we know who the "friends" are.... now, wish I could know

who these cabinet members will be.

Friends come a dime a dozen; cabinet members on the other hand are kinda of important.

[Bluebear]

54. I said downstream I am extremely interested who these cabinet members would be

I think we deserve to know who we are getting in the bargain.

[FrenchieCat]

56. That's my peeve........here.

I'm sure he'll "clean" this up soon.

[calimary]

110. Correct. Besides, a judiciously selected republi-CON peeled away

from, say, the Senate, would be strategically shrewd, especially since it would extract yet another "R" from the partisan totals in that particular body. Nothing EVER went wrong (at least in Congress) with one less republi-CON in the picture. It is also beneficial in terms of confusing the enemy and knocking him off his stride by co-opting one of his own and putting that person to work for a good cause for a change. You just might make a new friend and ally in the process - thus saving yet another soul. The rehabilitated republi-CON of today might be tomorrow's newly redeemed Democrat. If nothing else, it pulls someone from THEIR side out of the game for awhile.

William Cohen worked out okay as Bill Clinton's second Secretary of Defense, as I recall. Nobody complained too much and it prevented him from being an adversary. He couldn't. He'd been recruited for the opposing team.

[Adelante]

131. I'm am opposed to some Repug appointments by a Dem pres, though not all

I wouldn't use Clinton's appointments as a good example of it working out very well. You had DoD Cohen sneaking around with the Joint Chiefs undermining Clinton's Balkans policies serving the Repukes in Congress. You had Louis Freeh who once Clinton appointed him did nothing but drag Clinton through the mud in service to the Repukes in Congress. Worse, far worse, appointments such as these served to underscore and validate the false perception that Democrats couldn't secure the nation, or why else would they need Republicans in those sensitive positions, and might have helped Bush hold on to the WH in 2004.

I think Clinton's intentions were good, and I truly love the Big Dog, but I don't think the appointments were wise. However, as I said, I don't object to less critical appointments of Republicans to a Democratic administration when it serves a unifying purpose or such as you describe, strategic rehabilitation.

Your first point - you could be right, but I don't see so much reason to think taking one Repuke out of Congress wouldn't mean another won't take his or her place. So I dunno on that one.

[calimary]

160. All true, certainly. And it's a roll of the dice about their replacements.

Like, for example, if lieberman is picked to replace gonzo. There's unfortunately a republi-CON governor in Connecticut who'd presumably pick another full-on republi-CON to replace him. It would depend on the situation, and the state. Where it'd pay off is when there's an "R" in there, who leaves, and it happens to be a blue state or a "D" governor. I heard on Thom Hartmann today that even if larry craig has to step down, Idaho's quite the red state and it's a safe bet he'd be replaced by another "R".

Still, the math is there and should be considered in the overall strategizing, I think.

BTW - you brought up that louse louis freeh. What a turncoat. Ingrate. ASSHOLE. A lot of appreciation he showed to Clinton for having elevated him to such a big job. It's one thing to be professional and impartial, and let investigations go forward without stonewalling, and it's quite another to wage an aggressive, carnivorous, vindictive, over-the-top, non-stop witch hunt and go around in public loudly and relentlessly badmouthing your boss. Kinda made you wonder whose side he was really on. He went WAY beyond reason, and it wasn't at all serving "the people." He was just a little too anxious to serve the enemy. If he'd found it that distasteful, louis freeh should have resigned. SCHMUCK.

[Adelante]

163. Oh my God, wasn't he the WORST?

I still can never recover from hating him, even after all this time, and I tell you, I find hatred an extremely difficult thing to hang on to. I don't have it in me. But I do hate that man.

[Clark2008]

182. Some of us, ahem, don't think Cohen was "OK."

Some of us, ahem, don't even think he was decent.

[Totally Committed]

2. Well, Frenchie, so much for "If you give 'em a seat at the table, they'll eat all the food", or

whatever he said.

So much for "Edwards the Populist". If this is true, he's pulling our legs, but good.

TC

[FrenchieCat]

7. Maybe Edwards is about to head south........

and therefore needs to make a U-turn?

[Adelante]

14. I've been meaning to mention

That's a fabulous picture of RFK Jr :D

[alteredstate]

37. Yep

Love that photo!

[Totally Committed]

127. Some of the members of the Kennedy family are blessed with an incandescence of spirit

that just shines out from the inside. Bobby is one of them. That pic is one of my favorites. Thanks for noticing! :)

But, the best thing about him, to me anyway, is that what's on the inside is better than what's on the outside. We need us some Bobby now. Bigtime.

TC

[jsamuel]

15. um, guys? Is this the best you can do?

"If you give 'em a seat at the table, they'll eat all the food"

He isn't talking about republicans (let alone ALL republicans) in that quote, but nice try....

[FrenchieCat]

18. Riiiight! Members of the other party (singular) means.....?????

Please let us know, when you know. K? :eyes:

[Sparkly]

19. "members of the other party..."

What am I missing? :shrug:

[jsamuel]

25. the quote about the table and food is the one I am talking about

He has never argued against taking donations from all republicans. He has never advocated for not working with or talking to republicans.

He HAS done that for Washington lobbyists however, such as insurance companies, etc...

[Catchawave]

72. Frenchie Meow hates Edwards.....

...consider the source TC :hi:

[FrenchieCat]

81. Plueaze..........

Just cause he's not my pick for President, please don't assign that emotion to me. I don't need to hate John Edwards, and you certainly don't need to making that pronouncement for me.

[Catchawave]

96. Love ya too FC, and your little friends too ....

so sad....:cry:

[FrenchieCat]

106. What is sad is when John Edwards words and the reactions to them make you cry....now,

that's sad. :(

there might be some bullshit that is hard to swallow sometimes.....otherwise, I try not got become to emotional. It ain't worth it.

As far as my little friends, I'm not quite sure who those are...but it sounds more than a little condescending.

[Amerigo Vespucci]

3. As someone who is NOT a "Hillary Basher" or "Obama Basher", I can safely say...

...I would RATHER see President Edwards in 2008 than President Clinton or President Obama.

It's not all about "being right" or mud-slinging.

After eight years of George W. Bush, I would simply rather see president John Edwards in 2008 than president Hillary Clinton or President Barack Obama.

No personal attacks, no flaming, no troll behavior...just one American selecting the leader he would most prefer. I'll get what I want, or I won't.

And so will anyone reading this.

:toast:

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ruggerson]

10. Can only speak for myself

but since you're referencing other folk's posts from my OP, I'll take a stab at it anyway.

My objections with Obama have been specific:

1)Don't run a campaign which has "unity" with Republicans as a core theme

and

2)Don't give public plaudits to bigots.

Edwards, it seems, has done neither of those things.

Hope that's helpful to you.

[FrenchieCat]

17. Oh....UNITY not OK.........but GOP members in the administration; KEWL!

Yes, this helps! :sarcasm:

[ruggerson]

20. Did Edwards say he was going to work with David Duke and "has become friends" with him?

Hmm?

If so, then I would get after him, too.

If not, then you really don't have much of a case.

[FrenchieCat]

23. Even I have Republican Friends........whom I have worked with,

However, Edwards can't even let us know who these folks are that he holds in such high esteem, he'd nominate them as cabinet members......the list that he's already made but is gonna be kept "secret". :hide:

So much for the straight talk, hey?

[ruggerson]

26. Of course, you didn't answer me

Did Edwards say he had "become friends" with David Duke and termed him the kind of Republican he can work with?

[FrenchieCat]

27. Who knows.........

It might be David Duke.........since Edwards won't say who it/they is/are.

[ruggerson]

30. Now you see why there is not equivalency

One candidate has a basic core theme of "unity" with Republicans as his campaign mantra(and God knows if he understands what they'll do to him post-nom) and to compound matters, very publicly lauded a vicious bigot as the kind of Republican he can work with and declared "he has become a friend."

The other candidate has told us he has drawn up a list of possible Cabinet appointees and there are Republicans on there.

If you can't see the difference between these two candidates in their relation to this issue, I can't be of much more help.

[FrenchieCat]

31. What I see is someone telling me that he has plans already drawn up

that includes those that I have been working to get out of office for the last 6 1/2 years but that I don't need to know about.

Any other secrets that I don't need to know about.......but that will be discussed publicly? :shrug:

[ruggerson]

35. You could play

"move the goalposts" all night. But neither of us would change our minds, would we?

B-)

[FrenchieCat]

40. You should E-mail Edwards about folks "playing".......

Like this announcement helps Democrats! Don't think so. This statement is to help himself with the New Hampshire Electorates...cause someone must be reading DU: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3479846&mesg_id=3479846

Must be his response! U-turn and pander! He's good! :thumbsup:

[Laurab]

119. I know what the problem is - Obama being honest

BEFORE an election - we can't have that. Better to be surprised AFTER an election, I guess - kind of like with the guy we have now - Mr. "compassionate conservative" and all that.

I notice quite a few people missing from this thread who surely should have an opinion, as they were bashing Obama into the ground for naming some republicans he'd work with. DU is an interesting place.

[CarolNYC]

126. Ain't that the truth...

The last thing a whole lot of people want, including way too many here, is honesty from their politicians. Give them a panderer over a truth teller any day. Sad....

[BeyondGeography]

128. That's exactly the thread that came to mind when I read your OP

Not sure that this half-a-loaf "GOP will be part of my team, but I won't say who" approach will be much of a sell though.

Guess independents will just have to trust John on that.

[returnable]

89. Who moved the goalposts?

Edwards said if you invited your opponents to the table, they'd eat all the food.

And now he's saying, well, after they eat all the food, they can have a cabinet position, too :hi:

[AtomicKitten]

112. Holy sh*t, they'll probably eat all the food at the cabinet meetings.

:scared:

[FrenchieCat]

115. Well, looks like we can prepare more food............

Hell, we'll just invite them to cook with us in the kitchen "cabinet"!

[madmom]

187. if you listen to the whole statement he was talking about lobbyist and corporations.

[electricray]

113. I would say there is a massive difference...

President Edwards would have the ability to fire any bad actors within his admin, whereas working with Republicans in both congressional houses (which seems to be what Unity implies) could easily mean horse trading. It seems that well meaning (D)s that horse trade with congressional (R)s always end up with a crappy horse or no horse at all while the (R)s they traded with gallop off on their stallions.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

133. Apparently some are not aware of what cabinet officials do

You are right. They do what the prez says and can be removed at any time. Clinton had a Republican SoD and FBI director (I believe he was a Republican), Bush had a Democrat in his cabinet. Every prez in modern times is going to have a token or tokens from the other party. The problem would be if he appoints a war criminal or a known bigot. If he appoints someone like Cohen that is fine.

P.S. Isn't it ironic to see those who support a candidate who does not state how many troops he will keep in Iraq and for how long demanding to see Edwards' list? Which is more important? A candidate's plan to continue the Iraq war indefinitely or whether the guy carrying out Edwards' policies for the Agriculture Department has a "R" or "D" next to his or her name?

[AtomicKitten]

162. Hypocrisy.

You can't climb up Obama's arse one day because of his predilection toward bipartisanship and then sell that your candidate proposing putting GOP in his cabinet is okeedokee without people asking WTF?

[Clark2008]

185. President Edwards makes me shudder almost as bad as President Bush.

:scared:

I'm sorry - I don't go for panderers - on either side of the aisle.

I will say that Edwards is smarter than Bush, however, but that's sort of a back-handed compliment. My dogs are smarter than Bush - and more trustworthy than Edwards or the Shrubster.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

207. Did Edwards speak at a Republican fund-raiser and then reincarnate as a progressive all in 2 years?

Yeah, you really demand consistency. ;)

[Clark2008]

220. Is Clark running?

Hell, no.

Yeah - you really demand knowledge of the current candidacy. :eyes:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

222. Your name is "Clark2008"? So you won't shudder at a President Clark, right?

[Clark2008]

225. Nope.

And if he runs, I'll defend against your claim, which is rife with inconsistencies.

Until then, let's talk about Edwards. He's running.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

226. Clark supporters are very quick to call Edwards a phony opportunist...

...we are supposed to unilaterally disarm because Clark has not decided to run?

[David Zephyr]

22. Welcome to the DU.

I agree with your sentiments.

I'm out of the bashing business now as it relates to any Democratic candidate. I'm glad that many have their candidates and are supporting them here, but I've decided that I like them all.

My bashing is now for the Republicans. They deserve it.

[Clark2008]

189. I've decided I don't like much of anyone running.

Ain't that a hoot?

And sad as hell for me, my family and the country that none of them are worth a damn to the poor and middle class.

[tammywammy]

4. So....

Cabinet = Good
Table = Bad

:crazy:

[FrenchieCat]

6. As long as Edwards decides, and doesn't tell anyone ahead of time

who it is, it is A-OK! :thumbsup:

[tammywammy]

8. I've read the other thread

(I didn't feel the need to post on it)

But seriously, isn't having republicans in your cabinet, I dunno, UNITY? Isn't that what all the anti-Obama people are against? And I've noticed quite a few of Edwards supporters cheering the "not at the table" crap Edwards spewed the other day. Where are they now? Hey, Obama was just talking about working together and getting past differences to bring the country together, not freaking putting republicans in the cabinet.

[FrenchieCat]

13. Probably put them in Defense....and therefore make the myth that Republicans are better at this,

viable.

And I guess we are going to be allowed to speculate where these GOP cabinet members might be placed...since we don't need to know till after the fact, according to John Edwards! Feh. :(

[Cameron27]

9. Oh brother,

does he ever say anything that doesn't come back to bite him in the ass?

[Totally Committed]

12. They are ALL (except for Kucinich) doing that this year!

They never say the same thing two days in a row about anything. It's maddening!

TC

[Cameron27]

16. Ain't that the truth. I'm either going to need more aspirin,

or commence to drinking heavily before this is over ROFL.

[AtomicKitten]

114. this is going to be one long-ass primary --

[Cameron27]

116. Yeppers, let's drink our way to the general,

it's easier on the nerves and then everybody will sound terrific :P

[AtomicKitten]

117. I just hope somebody wakes us when it's over.

[Clark2008]

193. Can I have the appletini?

[AtomicKitten]

233. service

[GreenArrow]

24. Part of the problem with being two-faced

is that it's hard for one face to keep track of what the other face is doing.

[jsamuel]

11. 1, It is a list of POSSIBLE candidates for those positions

2, who the heck cares?

[earthlover]

43. So Obama can work with some Reps and Edwards would put them on the cabinet and Hillary IS a Republic

I get it now....

[AtomicKitten]

21. Thanks for clearing that up.

Work with Republicans .......... bad.
Appoint Republicans to cabinet positions .......... good.

Got it! :hi:

[Adelante]

28. Let's drink to that!

:beer:

[AtomicKitten]

29. yee-haw

[FrenchieCat]

32. But where have all of the Edwards supporters gone?

Their guy is in the news! :wtf:

[AtomicKitten]

33. Don't know -- but I'll kick this so they won't miss it.

[Bluebear]

47. Here

I changed my avatar yesterday after being told what an idiot I was for daring to criticize Obama.

[More Than A Feeling]

52. You rang?

Edwards supporter here.

[FrenchieCat]

34. Hey.....no kicking this thread........

which accounts for the lack of Edwards supporters making comments, I guess.

[TSIAS]

38. I'm waiting for a certain one

AFAIK, Obama never suggested that Tom Coburn be selected to his cabinet.

Why can't Edwards be honest with us? Tell us which GOP'rs you want. Will you re-hire Alberto Gonzales as AG?

I hate to bash Edwards, because I like him. But I can take things out of context as good as you know who.

[alteredstate]

102. I like Edwards, too n/t

[Capn Sunshine]

39. what else do you expect

?
Now, if Hillary had dared to suggest this....

it would suddenly be really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really double plus good!

and kicked by posters who finish each other's sentences.

[Bluebear]

45. Anti-gay, anti-woman psychopaths being "my good friends" are bad.

[AtomicKitten]

57. I hope Edwards doesn't appoint any to his cabinet.

:scared:

[Laurab]

147. nice little spin, adding the "good" to friends.

but I believe he said friend. Not "good friends". Someone he can work with. He doesn't have to agree with him to work with him.

[returnable]

64. But... But.. I thought if you give them a seat at the table, they eat all the food?

Apparently a cabinet position is just a notch or two below a seat at the table

[AtomicKitten]

66. now you've gone and done it

[returnable]

68. Someone had to

:hi:

[AtomicKitten]

71. *

[polichick]

36. Hells bells...

...if I wanted Reps in the cabinet, I'd vote for a Rep prez. When will Dems ever learn??

[jgraz]

41. I could see it

Patrick Fitzgerald as AG
Richard Clarke as National Security Advisor

Not much else, but I'd take those two.

[jsamuel]

42. good points

[jgraz]

55. I mean, who else would you pick as NSA besides Clarke?

The guy has serious cred. Repug or not, it's hard to think of a better choice.

[FrenchieCat]

58. Well, I'm glad that you are optimistic about it all.....

me? I just don't know who or where. All I know is that a repug or more will be offered positions, and that I'm supposed to wait to find out. I also know that the motive for saying this wasn't to help Democrats during the Democratic primaries. I think it was said to counter the fact that rumor is going round that Edwards can't win NH with his current positions. Too many moderate and independents a big factor in the New Hampshire primaries. And if the moderate Republicans don't feel like they have anyone that they want to vote for in the Republican primaries, they'll seek out the most moderate of the Dems. Guess this bit of info has caught Edwards' ear.

[FrenchieCat]

50. Well keep guessing till January 2009.....

cause that's when Edwards will let you know what's up with that.....

Ain't it fun? To have to wait to be surprised.

Secrets can be really priceless!

[returnable]

67. Fitzgerald is not GOP; Clarke is not GOP

Fitzgerald is a registered Independent who happened to be appointed by a Republican; Clarke's political affiliation is unknown, as far as I know, but he's served in both Republican and Democratic administrations.

[jgraz]

74. Clarke's been listed as a Republican on many news sites

Here's just one example:

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0323-06.htm

Do you have some information that I haven't seen in this area?

[returnable]

76. Him being described as a "Republican" and actually being a Republican are different things...

...like I said, I don't know his political affiliation - I just know he's been a career civil servant who has worked in both Republican and Democratic administrations. Back when "Against All Enemies" came out, a lot of press identified him as Republican simply because he worked in the Bush administration without any sort of verification. If you have a quote of Clarke himself identifying himself as a Republican, I'd love to see it. I'm pretty sure there was an article floating around about how he voted for Gore, but I'm too lazy to see if it's still out there. And if you've read the book, he actually expresses some dismay of Cheney's conservative politics.

But the point being, even if he was a Republican in the past (and unless we see a voter registration card or a quote from Clarke himself, we'll never know) he's made no secret of his disdain for the current GOP.

[jgraz]

79. Given the existential uncertainties you seem to be pondering

it's surprising that you would state categorically that Clarke is not GOP. And given that uncertainty, could it be these non-GOP Republicans (whuh?) that Edwards may be considering? I mean, I doubt Tom DeLay's up for Secretary of Labor.

[returnable]

84. Perhaps, but I think it'd be a stretch...

...to say that Clarke is the "Republican" Edwards is considering, especially cuz there is no real evidence that Clarke is actually a Republican. And as I stated earlier, Fitzgerald is a registered Independent. Guess we'll just have to wait until Edwards decides to tell us who his cabinet will be.

In any case, I believe Richards has said he would announce a cabinet. It would be great if all the candidates would do the same.

[dpbrown]

46. This is why Eddie Haskel always wins

Fucking Republicans couldn't wait to shaft all the Democrats - the Democrats reach out to them.

Fuck the Republicans.

[polichick]

59. Dems are like an abused spouse...

...who keeps thinking things are gonna change. Instead of kickin' ass, they're singin' kumbaya.

[dpbrown]

97. And then it's "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss" when we finally give them Congress

No spine.

[polichick]

125. Yeah, no spine, no guts, no vision...

...no conscience. It's heartbreaking to watch this Congress ~ the people should toss out all incumbents next time 'round. I also think the country's ripe for a new party with a revolutionary platform.

[More Than A Feeling]

48. Tell us!

I want to know who I'm potentially getting alongside John Edwards.

[Bluebear]

51. That is more than fair.

I, too, would like to know pronto.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jenmito]

60. Kick for the #1 Edwards supporter

n/t

[cobalt1999]

61. So what? Either Edwards, Obama, or Clinton will have to work with the republicans.

In fact, the more they want to accomplish the more they'll have to work with them. That's the reality of Washington DC.

You can run an incompetent government by ignoring the other side, but it's not the smart thing to do.

[jenmito]

62. A certain poster starts a thread any time Obama even SAYS something positive

about any Repub., yet he's MIA when it comes to this topic.

[alteredstate]

63. You're right.

But a lot of folks around here don't feel that way.

[AtomicKitten]

69. agreed --

which is precisely the point --
that sentiment has been sliced and diced here at DU by some

[Name removed]

65. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Catchawave]

70. Good for him ! n/t

[saltpoint]

73. Yes. Plus, he's in the race.

John and Elizabeth might have to get a restraining order on some folks. The scorched-earth element, ya know.

Hiya, Catchawave. Happy Gonzales-is-out-the-door Day!

[alteredstate]

75. We were thinking about getting a restraining order

but he hasn't shown up here tonight! :silly:

[Catchawave]

77. Hi OC...spent 12 hours at Busch Gardens today

with my 4 year old twin grand-girlies :) Missed the Gonzo news! Darn.

I bet Jack and Emma Claire would have loved The Griffon !

Oh, and I bet the OP hasn't read Team of Rivals either..snork.

[saltpoint]

78. I think that's a durn safe bet. Likely hasn't read up on Lincoln's

cabinet either.

There's some folks who won't plug in the ice box and then yelp when the milk ain't cold.

____

Take some time off after that trip to the park. You must be totalled.

The Gonzales headline should have happened this time lst year, at the latest.

[Catchawave]

90. Seems my 4 year olds are more inspiring than the OPer....

Darn shame that happens all too often on the DU...haters and the people who love them.

LOL....do you ever notice how the RFK legacy escapes most here? "fer the war, before he was against it" ... that RFK? Rich guy too :hi:

[saltpoint]

100. I hear you on the Kennedys generally and RFK especially. Wealthy family

and by wealthy I mean the classical education, the health of the tanned limbs, the girls climbing trees and rocks as well as the boys, the swimming and sailing on Sunday afternoons as a family together.

Hell, Ethel and Bobby had 11 kids. If they weren't in love, I'm Warren Harding.

People evolve. RFK did -- and further than most in less time, too. Edwards clearly is using that model, clearly is inspired by it.

The Kennedys leave us a working model of a healthy democracy and a gleaming model of pubic service and citizenship to go with it.

That model rightly attracts John Edwards, even as it appears to have entirely eluded some posters on DU.

[Colobo]

95. You are from Tampa? USF here!!!

[Catchawave]

98. Williamsburg !

:hi:

[Colobo]

103. You have a Busch Gardens too?

I thought we had the only one! :(

[Colobo]

80. So Obama was right in the first place... where's draft_mario_cuomo?

[jenmito]

82. That's what we'd all like to know!

Where is he???

[Colobo]

83. I hope he's not dizzy after all the spinning he must be planning to do...

[jenmito]

85. Maybe he's in mourning?

Just sayin'...

[Colobo]

86. Zoloft. That's probably the only way he can endure this.

[jenmito]

87. I can't wait to see how long he stays away...

let's keep this thread alive! :D

[Colobo]

91. This is staying up until he makes a statement!

:)

[jenmito]

93. I know!

:D

[wndycty]

104. I'm gonna have to take him off of ignore to see this. . .LOL

:kick:

[Colobo]

105. Me too!!! LOL!

[alteredstate]

92. he's plumbing the stygian depths......

:evilgrin:

[wndycty]

88. How dare you Frenchie! How dare you Frenchie!

You pointed out a contradiction. How dare you! Dammit!

;)

[Colobo]

94. I can't believe how many people can hold such double standards with a straight face

Obama talks about talking to Republicans, that's wrong. Edwards wants them in their cabinet, and that's fine.

[returnable]

99. No kidding. Now it's really starting to feel like 2003 all over again!

Good to see you :kick:

[wndycty]

101. To you as well. . .

. . .its funny but you know that Frankie Z's is a major local Dem hangout. We can take credit for that.

[returnable]

107. That's what I heard...

...I met up with Anna and some of the old gang at YearlyKos and got the scoop. Good to know. I really need to swing by some night.

[wndycty]

108. Let me know when

:kick:

[Colobo]

109. Draft? Draft? Bueller...? Bueller...?

[TeamJordan23]

111. I'm waiting for him too. I wonder what he thinks of this new "unity"

[Name removed]

118. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[calteacherguy]

120. Recommended not because I disagree, but because it demonstrates his shallow hypocrisy. nt

What Edwards is a voter to believe? What a loser.

[Colobo]

121. Exactly.

[TeamJordan23]

123. Funny to see what his response (if any) will be.

[Colobo]

122. Drafty?

[AtomicKitten]

124. LOL!!

[NYCGirl]

129. No sign of him yet. Should we send out the St. Bernards with casks around

their necks?

[Freddie Stubbs]

130. Sounds like a 'seat at the table' to me

It's good to see that Edwards isn't letting his current positons to be limited by the positions he has taken a few days ago.

[NYCGirl]

132. LOL! NT

[draft_mario_cuomo]

134. What do cabinet officials do?

:)

[Freddie Stubbs]

135. Set policy, hire and fire staff, pick contractors

[draft_mario_cuomo]

138. Cabinet officials set policy?

So Condi Rice can decide she wants to visit Castro for tea and do so tomorrow morning?

[Freddie Stubbs]

149. Perhaps Bush wants dialog with Cuba for trade purposes but Rice

and other administration officials have convinced him otherwise.

Sort of like how Edwards supported the war in Iraq because his advisors told him to.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

154. Can Rice set policy? nt

[Sparkly]

143. What do YOU think they do? nt

[Clark2008]

217. SNORT!!!

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

That's the funniest post I've seen in days. :7

[rinsd]

136. Why would he have already made his cabinet list?

[ieoeja]

137. William S. Cohen, Secretary of Defense, 1997-2001

As a Republican member of the House he was among the first GOP members to favor impeachment of Nixon. In 1986 as a member of the committee investigating Iran-Contra, he voted in favor of the conclusion that Reagan was responsible.

In 1997 President Clinton appointed him as Secretary of Defense where he did his job.

[ieoeja]

139. Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, 2001-2006

There are Republicans. And then there are other Republicans....

[draft_mario_cuomo]

140. And Democrat Norm Mineta served in the * administration from 2001-2006

Mineta, who was interned in concentration camps for Japanese-Americans during WW2, was a former Democratic congressman and mayor of San Jose.

[Broke Dad]

141. What if the most qualified person for the job is a Repub?

I thought most DUers believed in merit selection. You know, pick the most qualified.

The alternative is to appoint political hacks like Brownie, who did a heckova job at FEMA . . .

How about if we win the White House and then pick the most qualified people to help change the country for the better regardless of their political affiliation? (With a ban for life of anybody who slept with Tom Delay or W.)

[FrenchieCat]

144. So in other words, for cabinet selections, there may be one where

a Democrat simply couldn't do the job well?

I believe that there are many qualified Democrats out there; qualified for each and every single cabinet position there is (it's not like there are that many).

Just like Clinton signaled to the country that Republicans were better at defense by selecting a Republican as his secretary of Defense, if such a selection was made, it wouldn't because there weren't any qualified Democrats to be found; it would simply be a political decision to provide a certain perception of the selectee. In other words; pure politics.

[TwilightGardener]

145. Maybe choosing a few token cabinet members from the opposite

party is just a nice gesture of goodwill when starting up a new administration? I think it's classy--I would expect Obama and Hillary to do it as well. The only concern is: WHICH token GOPers would they pick? Hopefully none that are morally repugnant.

[ieoeja]

148. Though I gave a decent example, I actually oppose this.

Holdovers from one administration to the next, for example, have often proven to be disruptive at non-cabinet levels. All one has to do is imagine Dick Morris continuing running Clinton's '96 campaign through the general election then being rewarded with the Chief of Staff position. Every tiny compromise that Clinton was willing to make, but did not have to, would have been lost as his Chief of Staff would have been telling all to the GOP in secret.

[FrenchieCat]

142. Yep....did his job as a Republican, and made sure that

Clinton's Balkan policy was criticized as much as possible.......and the fact that it ended up successful had little to do with Cohen. The Republican congress did not approve of Kosovo, as it was a humanitarian intervention. They also didn't want much to do with Rhwanda, and this was accomplished. Ditto Bosnia, which is why 200,000 had to die prior to the Dayton Peace Accords, which was pulled together by Holbrook and Clark; not Cohen.

http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/2006/10/the_early_departure.html

[ieoeja]

146. Dayton Peace Accords, 1995 n/t

[Adelante]

151. What are you saying?

William Perry was SoD in 1995 during the Dayton Peace Accords. He is a Democrat.

[ieoeja]

155. Can't blame Cohen for delaying it then.

Given: Dayton Peace Accords were signed in 1995.
Given: Cohen became Secretary of Defense in 1997.

Then: Cohen as Secretary of Defense did not delay the Dayton Peace Accords as asserted.

[Adelante]

156. Frenchie refers to the Republican Congress and its

blocking of Clinton's foreign policies, which did delay much of it and which Cohen assisted in once he was appointed. I don't see where she is saying Cohen delayed the Dayton Peace Accords itself or that Cohen had anything to do with the conduct of the Dayton Peace Accords in 1995 when it was established.

[Clark2008]

224. And where he effectively went behind Clinton's back to "fire"

(there's a reason for the quotes) his best general after he won a war in 72 days with no loss of American life so he could replace him with a crony known for covering up sexual harassment in the Navy.

Yeah - stellar performance that. :sarcasm:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

231. Maybe there was a reason that general got fired?

Usually, when someone is fired it is not random...Maybe Hugh Shelton is not the spawn of satan?

[maximusveritas]

150. It's hillarious watching the Edwards devotees spin

If Obama or Hillary had said this, they'd be crucifying them.
I'm ok with people supporting their favorite candidates, but some people here take it way too far and end up looking foolish.

[laureloak]

152. (Hands maximusveritas a mirror) n/t

[maximusveritas]

153. Instead of a "mirror", how about an actual example

of where I said anything contradictory or ridiculous as some of the things in this thread and the thread about Edwards saying he wouldn't have his opponents at his table?

[laureloak]

157. Running off lobbyists is not the same as sharing leadership

with a talented opponent.

I notice you stalk Edwards threads and post negative comments about him on them. Why don't you rechannel your energy to fight republicans instead of democrats? Is it because you really ARE a republican?

[maximusveritas]

158. You just broke the rules

Accusing other DUers of being Republicans is against the rules. I'd advise you to self-delete.
I don't hide the fact that I think Edwards is our weakest candidate. If we nominate him, we will lose. You probably disagree, but that's my opinion and I'm free to have it and it would be irresponsible of me to hide it just because it might offend his supporters.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

159. Does Edwards lose FL, PA, OH and flip zero red states like your candidate? nt

[AtomicKitten]

161. Is your Magic 8 ball in the shop?

[TeamJordan23]

165. Yep, based on ONE poll that is nearly a month old. Good one. nm

[draft_mario_cuomo]

166. Good point. Obama is probably further behind now since his poll numbers have declined since then

Numerous polls have shown this. Those were just the latest. Electability is discussed here often. Surely you have seen the other numbers...

[AtomicKitten]

167. keep dreaming DMC ....

your spin is strong but my kung fu is stronger

:rofl:

[TeamJordan23]

169. Where are these numerous other polls? Come on, back up your statements.

Or is your only basis the Rasmussen poll that shows Obama within 11 point of Hillary on Friday and now 'tied' with Edwards today.

Maybe people are buying into Edwards 'unity' message?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

171. Do a search, you are a donor

Anyone who is interested in electability should do their own research.

As to Obama's decline, he was once in 1st with 32% in Rass and he is now at 18%. That speaks for itself...

Yes, you are right. For the first time the "Obama juggernaut" has been caught by Edwards in a national poll. The audacity of hoping Edwards was dead. :)

[jenmito]

172. I'm just glad you're now ok with Dem. candidates liking, respecting, admiring,

and now CHOOSING Repubs. to work with! That means fewer threads from you about how Obama smiles at Repubs. and how unacceptable you find that! :hi:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

173. Where did I ever say otherwise?

A key distinction needs to be made. Cabinet officials do whatever the president tells them to do. Their party ID means little. That said, I hope--and expect--Edwards to work with Republicans to pass legislation whenever possible. If we can only get 51 votes, though, he will stand his ground and not sacrifice progressive parts of a bill on the altar of consensus ("unity").

[jenmito]

174. Just on every thread you started up 'til last night!

How can you deny it?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

175. What exactly did I say in those threads?

:)

[jenmito]

176. You said Obama complimented Huckabee, you said Obama said a few

of the Repub. candidates were "decent," and many, many more threads about how Obama DARED get along with Repubs.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

177. Exactly. And where did I say he should not have said those things?

Did I say Obama should go around pulling a Cheney to every Republican? The "closest" I came was pointing out that he said "some", which means multiple and was curious who he thought were "decent" among that group. Even that was hardly a criticism.

I post political news. Those things were news. Some people think I am a Hillary supporter because I post polls in which she leads. That isn't why I post them. I post them because they are political news and this is a political discussion forum.

[jenmito]

179. Everyone knows why you started those threads...

You implied it was s BAD thing for him to be even friendly towards Repubs. If HIS name had been substituted for Edwards' in this thread title: John Edwards- "the cabinet list "I've already made" includes members of the other party." you would've been all OVER it, if not the starter of the thread, ridiculing Obama for doing such a thing.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

181. Who are you to tell me why I post threads?

The audacity of arrogance...

[TeamJordan23]

203. DMC, did u forget your post on GOP youtube videos. Was that political news?? nm

[draft_mario_cuomo]

216. Not every post is news but that was relevant to what was a big topic at DU at the time nt

[TeamJordan23]

232. So why dont u post another one reflected on Edwards' comments. nm

[Colobo]

184. Don't waste your time with that fool.

[jenmito]

188. You're right. I can't believe he's trying to deny it!

:hi:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

191. How can I deny something I never said?

Making up lies about DUers is against the rules...back it up...

[Colobo]

192. What else can he do? Spin, spin, spin...

:hi:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

197. What exactly is the spin? Is it spinning to say you were hallucinating things that were not posted/

[jenmito]

I see thst. And now...

He says, "Making up lies about DUers is against the rules...back it up..." as if everyone here doesn't know what I said is true.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

204. How is what you said true? You continue to promote the lie but fail to show the relevant quotes? nt

[draft_mario_cuomo]

215. If you ever find evidence to back up your slur get one of your buddies to pm me

Off to ignore you go.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

198. It is ironic to see Mr. "one sentence drive bys" call someone else a fool nt

[FrenchieCat]

211. There is a lot of Irony going on DU these days........

You're just not pointing out the most obvious. Oh well!

[draft_mario_cuomo]

212. Such as? nt

[jenmito]

223. Can you believe HE put ME on ignore?

Does he really believe he hasn't started threads as I've described?

[Clark2008]

228. Yep.

He'd lose all those.

Trust me - he is NOT all that popular - not beyond a certain groupie syndrome between men and women of a certain age. Geesch, even my MIL who used to like him can't stand him now because of all his faux pas - and she's of that certain age (a good age, mind you, but not my age).

Oh - and I'm in a neighboring state to his "home." I should know. Hell, he wouldn't have even won re-election in NC. So much for that "red state" popularity, eh?

And, again, I don't have a candidate in this race. In fact, I think the vast majority of the candidates on both sides SUCK. Kucinich is good, but I know he won't win. I think it's sad that there's not a one, Kucinich aside, that actually stands up for - and has a record of it, whether that be a voting record or a working record - the middle class for altruistic reasons who can win this thing.

The sad thing is that I'm not sure if I'm pessimistic or realistic.

[last_texas_dem]

238. How are Edwards supporters

any more "groupies" than supporters of any other candidates? And can you offer any proof that they are mostly of a "certain age"? If so, what age?

Also, how can you assert he wouldn't have won re-election in NC? He didn't run for re-election. Even if there is some legendary poll showing Edwards in a weak position if he had run for re-election to his Senate seat, that hardly proves he wouldn't have won re-election; he had not even started a campaign for a second Senate term.

I'd appreciate seeing some actual factual evidence to back up the claims you make.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

239. Edwards had a positive approval rating in NC in July of 2004

I think the figure was 56%. I am not sure. I do recall that it was in the mid 50's. There is an Edwards fan or two here who has the link saved. It is simply a myth that Edwards would have lost the senate seat he earned as an underdog against a Republican incumbent in a southern red state.

The age thing is amusing. Edwards finished 2nd in the 2004 primaries. If Edwards' support is so limited what does "Clark2008" think about the bases of those who finished behind Edwards in 2004? :rofl:

[Milo_Bloom]

164. Edwards strikes again.

He plans on being all things to all people... just don't ask him to prove it, becuase that is a secret.

[illinoisprogressive]

168. someone said Frenchie hates Edwards. I don't think frenchie hates anyone.

[AtomicKitten]

170. someone

could use some manners around here. FrenchieCat has been under assault for having the audacity to lend her opinion to the conversation, and that is nothing short of bullying.

We are all separate entities entitled to not endorse "your candidate."

Just because we choose different candidates in the primary does not mean we are at war with each other. Let's try to keep the ugly on the down low.

[Cameron27]

178. Now you've done it AK

pretty soon you'll be called one of her "little friends." Come to a meeting, it's a scream. We take blood oaths and encourage random acts of gratuitous Edwards hate wherever we go.:eyes:

[AtomicKitten]

186. this is what that reminded me of ::

"I'll get you my pretty... and your little dog too!"

[Cameron27]

194. Well I'm the cute one with the dog if anyone asks.

:rofl:

[FrenchieCat]

229. Naw ha........

........that's me with the pigtails.......looking for that Republican in the cabinet!


Y'all the other ones.......See!

[alteredstate]

195. Gee, I leave for a few hours to co-host an Obama House party and come home to this?

:wow:

[Clark2008]

180. Well, that's lovely.

:sarcasm:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

183. It is ironic to see supporters of a guy who keynoted a GOP fund-raiser have faux outrage over this

[Cameron27]

190. Oh BS. We went through this before.

Clark gave one non-partisan foreign policy speech to a gop crowd, and a week later gave one for the Democrats. He WAS a 4 star General for godssake, and he's got more experience to talk about foreign policy than most.

Give up Clark, and try to make the case for Edwards.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

196. How do you give a non-partisan speech at a partisan event?

Many of the people fueling this thread are Clarkies, the OP is a Clarkie, and it is highly amusing that the same people who presumably were apologizing for Clark bringing money to the Republican Party's coffers are now having faux outrage over Edwards saying what any of the 18 candidates for president will do. Clark could probably appoint some of his buddies who invited him to that fund-raiser...

Edwards supporters are not required to unilaterally disarmed regarding a fleet of Clarkies who, in most cases, are de facto Obama supporters but are hiding behind Clark.

[Cameron27]

202. Clark gave one speech at one republican event.

Spin it any which way you can DMC, but if you have to resort to bashing Clark, go right ahead. Clark will survive with his integrity intact, while you'll just come across as someone who's candidate can't be defended on his own merits.

Disarming a fleet of Clarkies? Have you looked in the mirror dmc. Have you counted the number of anti-Obama screeds you put out on this board. You're the last person who should make comments on anyone else having a negative opinion about a candidate.

This Clark thing is getting pretty damned old. Wes Clark isn't running, and my feelings for Edwards have nothing to do with Clark no matter how you want to spin this.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

205. Exactly. Which is worse? Raising money for the GOP or having William Cohen as SoD?

As I have always said, there is nothing wrong with criticizing candidates. It is healthy. If we did more of it in 2004 perhaps we would not have blindly followed Iowa's desires and eventually lost. However, Edwards supporters should not be expected to unilaterally disarm in such battles.

Yes, Clark has nothing to do with 90% of Clarkies here hating Edwards. That surely is a fluke, right?

Clark is relevant given the faux outrage of Clarkies regarding this. One Clarkie even said she fears Edwards as much as Bush. Why? She calls the longtime Democrat a "panderer"? That basically begs for the obvious...

[Cameron27]

208. Fight then. I don't care what the hell you do.

Keep posting your made up stats, keep spinning your spin and continue to bash Clark and Clarkies and see what happens to your credibility.

edited to add: I hope that everyone notices how you've tried to spin this debate away from Edwards' cabinet statement. Way to go dmc.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

213. What state have I made up?

The 90% figure was not meant to be literal. I did not sit here and do a tally of Clarkies. What else have I posted that is false? Posting lies is against DU rules so that is quite a charge...

Edwards supporters should not uniquely be forced to unilaterally disarmed. When you have a Clarkie declaring Edwards as bad as Bush because the lifelong Democrat is a "panderer" because he changed a few positions, like every politician, that begs for the obvious to be stated about Gen. Clark.

==edited to add: I hope that everyone notices how you've tried to spin this debate away from Edwards' cabinet statement==

The thread had about 200 replies before I even mentioned Clark. The debate was long over. No one cares about this anyway except for Clarkies and Obama fans.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

218. No answer? No surprise but I am dissapointed in you

I didn't expect you to make something up to attack a DUer. As far as I know, only one DUer has been caught lying to make a candidate look bad. The funny thing is she included the link to the speech and expected no one to click on the link and see the actual speech, and thereby see her splicing of two unrelated quotes in order to make it appear as something it was not.

[Cameron27]

219. I'm done with this conversation dmc,

I won't play your games and I won't debate you when you refuse to see me as anything but a Clarkie. Do yourself a favor though. Find any Clark thread in the archives, and notice how Clarkies fight hard for their guy on his own merits.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

221. Fine

:hi:

I've seen plenty of how most Clarkies operate. I've watched and learned from them. ;) The difference between me and at least one of the big Clarkies (who is in this thread) is I have never spliced together two unrelated statements and then passed them off as the evil Edwards saying he would keep troops in Iraq. I think if you are going to jump on your high horse you should criticize that...

[CarolNYC]

227. Hey sea....

I'm not sure there's much credibility to be lost at this point....Sadly, I think that horse left the barn a while ago.

[Cameron27]

230. You're right, he's a lost cause.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

235. Thanks, your majesty. Now care to present evidence to support your smears?

1) What stat have I made up?
2) What lies have I posted? When you say someone is not credible you are calling that person a liar. What evidence do you have to support your smear? When I called someone a liar I have evidence of it. In fact the thread in which the lie occurred the second time is on the front-page. Not surprisingly, the two self-appointed evaluators of credibility in this thread are silent on that.

Many things will happen to me but one thing is for sure: I will never be fired for character and integrity issues.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

234. It is ironic to see someone who "disagreed" with Mario Cuomo on what HE said to make JE look bad...

...talk about credibility...You continued to do it even after Cuomo's own words, own article about the event in question he organized and a link were presented to you. :rofl:

[FrenchieCat]

199. Why? Wes Clark has always had a bipartisan bend to him.......

he ain't the one goin' round screaming on the one hand...."don't let them sit at the table cause they'll eat up all of the food"......yet one day later talk about the fact that he's already picked his cabinet and there are republicans on it, we just don't get to find out who they are cause it will hurt other's poor feelings!

Plus, Wes Clark ain't even running!

Finally, I simply posted Edwards' words and nothing but as my OP and so, the outrage you see may be your own, i.e., your over-reaction to Obama's words that you made the big deal about.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

201. Raising money for the Republicans by headling a fund-raiser is "bipartisan"

Well, actually it is in the most literal sense (in 2001 both Arkansas Democrats and Republicans were courting Clark to run so Clark--the staunch progressive Democrat--decided to speak at fund-raisers for both sides. Smart move at the time...). Maybe Edwards, like Dean and others, considers Clark a Republican and is thinking of appointing him? ;)

==."don't let them sit at the table cause they'll eat up all of the food"..==

What table? What is to be done at the table?

What do you think cabinet officials do?

==we just don't get to find out who they are cause it will hurt other's poor feelings! ==

This is ironic. Someone who supports a candidate who does not say how many troops he will keep in Iraq and for how long demands specifics on cabinet appointments. Which is more important? The party ID of the Secretary of Agriculture or whether we keep 75,000 troops in Iraq for 8 years? Hmmm...

Clark may run now that it is clear Gore won't run.

I can see why you are wary of Republican appointees, after what William Cohen did...

[Name removed]

209. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

214. If you insist so. Great retort btw

;)

[returnable]

240. Oh, please. Not this again.

Edwards can't even remember when he actually joined the Democratic party. He "thinks" it might've been sometime in the 90s. Hell, he couldn't even remember if he opposed NAFTA when it was first enacted.

Do you really want to refight the 2004 primary?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

241. He did not even vote half the time until he entered politics

It is hard for us political junkies to understand but most people do not follow politics closely, if at all. The key thing is once he entered politics he remained a Democrat. Clark, who has a master's in political science, was playing both sides in his first forays into politics in 2001. This date is generous and holds if you dismiss the minor fact that the Rhodes Scholar has a master's on the subject (surely Clark had some general views as to basic things that separate the parties, such as the role of government)! He went from a "nonpartisan" to progressive Democrat in just 2 years and just in time to run for president in the Democratic primary. Edwards did not go speak to a Republican fund-raiser to test the waters or anything. He became a Democrat and stayed one.

The 2004 primaries never ended for some. Take a look at this thread. Notice something about who populates this thread and most threads about Edwards that turn into Edwards bashfests? Look at who is criticizing Edwards. There were some Obama fans in this thread who said nothing of substance. Look at those who made real comments on the thread. Edwards supporters should not unilaterally disarm in this battle.

[madmom]

200. curiosity is making me ask, did he say they are repugs that are already

in office or place of prominence, or maybe a person who is a registered repug but not so much in the public eye?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

206. Probably someone along the lines of William Cohen or Norm Mineta

It isn't as if he is going to appoint Trent Lott, Orrin Hatch, Tom Coburn, or George Allen. Maybe he can find someone who claims to be "nonpartisan" for a key post?

[FrenchieCat]

210. Here's the article from which the quote and the title of the OP came from directly......

http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070827/FOSTERS08/708270073

[last_texas_dem]

236. And...?

Don't Presidents generally include members of the opposing party in their cabinets? And people are giving Edwards shit about this? How is this even controversial?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

237. Clinton had a Republican SoD and even * had a Democrat in his cabinet

This is faux outrage from Obama fans and de facto Obama fans because stating what any of the 18 candidates for president would if elected somehow equates with making concessions to the right-wing because of an obsession with consensus. Cabinet officials follow the president's orders and can be removed at anytime. That is hardly the same as caving in on health care because you are obsessed with getting 65 votes because that will foster "unity."

A sideshow to all this is that any reminder of Mr. Cohen's (successful) tenure as SoD revives bitter memories for some in this thread.

[plusfiftyfive]

242. When a candidate says things like this.....

He's getting desperate!

Last gasp for more voters from the independents, but without naming a single name.....pretty cowardly, if you ask me!!!