What happens to Edwards' "rejection of the status quo" argument if he loses to Hillary tonight?

[jenmito]

Will he lose his claim that it should be a debate between him and Obama? Will he stay in the race or will he drop out and endorse his buddy Obama?

[TwilightGardener]

1. He can still argue it, but it would be tough for him to try to make himself a part of that

if Hillary beats him.

[jenmito]

5. That's what I think, too. n/t

[midlife_mo_Jo]

44. His votes combined with Obama

is what he considers a rejection of the status quo. That's certainly the strong impression I got listening to him talk the last few days.

[Larkspur]

2. Edwards has said he would be in the race until the end.

[jenmito]

10. I know, but WHY? What will his reason be if it won't be a battle of the "agents of change" and

"rejection of the status quo"? And how will he have the money?

[davidwparker]

3. how many more states are left? He's staying in the race.

[begin_within]

4. If Edwards loses, we all lose.

[jenmito]

12. I don't think so. n/t

[AndyA]

13. Sadly, that is likely the most accurate statement written today.

We all lose.

And in a time when most of the world says Russia is more of a peace maker than the United States, we need strong leadership without ties to the status quo like never before.

[jenmito]

17. We need Obama-someone who has the judgement and consistency we need.

The worle would be happiest with an Obama win.

[Critters2]

26. Consistency?

Is that the catchphrase today?

[jenmito]

38. It's the truth.

[AndyA]

36. Wrong. Obama is not the answer.

Edwards is the answer.

Did Obama exhibit good judgement when he endorsed Joe Lieberman for Senate in the primary? No.

Has Obama been consistent in his message for change, all the while taking money from the big corporations that are largely responsible for the mess America is in today? No.

Obama is not the answer.

[jenmito]

39. You must be joking...

Edwards was a CO-SPONSOR of the IWR. He took money from lobbyists and returned it when caught. He had millions of dollars invested in a fund that has foreclosed on Katrina victims. He chose to forego matching funds. (He was involved with a hedge fund.) And on and on it goes...

[AndyA]

40. Lies.

Edwards returned the lobbyist money as soon as its source was discovered. He's returned lobbyist money several times. Knowing how he feels about them, do you suppose their donations might have been intentional?

Edwards started a fund with his own personal finances to help the Hurricane Katrina victims.

Edwards success was made on his own, the American dream. Yet people fault him for that. Jealous? Perhaps. But at least Edwards is one candidate who wants to see others succeed just like he did. He wants everyone to have a fair chance.

Barack is a bigot and a hypocrite. He says he has no problem with gays, and then promotes someone who "prayed to God to be cured from homosexuality."

Yeah, we need "leadership" like that in America. Kinda like the leadership we've had the last 7 years... :eyes:

[jenmito]

41. It's all true.

I SAID he returned the money.

He claimed he was part of the hedge fund to learn about it.

I said nothing about how much money he has now. Where'd you get that?

You didn't comment on the matching funds at all. Interesting.

[AndyA]

42. Put the Kool-Aid down.

You said he returned the money when caught. Big difference.

And do you have proof that Edwards became part of the hedge fund for other reasons?

It takes a person with integrity and guts to use matching funds to fund a campaign in today's MONEY MONEY MONEY climate. It's time we stopped electing people based on how much money they can raise, and who the M$M tells us to vote for.

My point about his success is he wants others to be able to have the same success. And to do that, the big corporations are going to have to change the way they do business, because it's not to the benefit of the American people they are prospering from.

[jenmito]

48. Please...

You believe him??? It's clear YOU'RE the one who drank the kool-aid thinking he took matching funds as a matter of integrity. Don't you know he announced last Feb. he was NOT going to take matching funds? He only changed his mind once he didn't raise as much as he thought he would. Duh.

[AndyA]

49. Edwards raised what he said he wanted to raise.

I got the E-mails, I saw the amount that was set, and he exceeded it.

Get your facts straight. :eyes:

[jenmito]

50. Um, you got the SPIN. Otherwise, he would've chosen matching funds from the start.

Explain why he didn't.

[AndyA]

51. Here's the press release.

EDWARDS TAKES NEXT STEP IN REJECTING MONEY FROM SPECIAL INTERESTS BY SEEKING PUBLIC FINANCING

Challenges Clinton, who said on Sunday she supports public financing, to join him now in ending the money game in Washington

Chapel Hill, North Carolina – Today, Senator John Edwards announced he will be seeking public financing for the 2008 presidential primary campaign. Just as he challenged the Democratic Party to stop accepting contributions from lobbyists, today Edwards is again taking the lead in ending the money game in Washington.

“You can't buy your way to the Democratic nomination – you should have to earn the votes of the American people with bold vision and ideas,” said Edwards’ campaign manager Congressman David Bonior. “This is the most expensive presidential campaign in history, by far. And the simple fact is that the influence of money in politics – and the focus on raising money in this election – has gotten out of control. It’s time to get back to focusing on the issues that matter to the American people. That’s why John Edwards has decided to play by the rules that were designed to ensure fairness in the election process by capping his campaign spending and seeking public financing.”

Since the campaign began, Edwards has focused on issues that matter to the American people – universal health care, the war in Iraq, education, global warming and helping American workers. He’s promised to end the game in Washington and has challenged the Democratic Party to send a powerful signal to the American people about whose support really matters by refusing to accept donations from federal lobbyists. Senator Clinton has refused to stop taking contributions from federal lobbyists, saying that public financing is the solution to ending the influence of lobbyists.

“Senator Clinton said she believes public financing is the answer to ending the influence of lobbyists and special interests in Washington,” said Congressman Bonior. “If she really believes that, she should join Senator Edwards and seek public financing, or she should explain to the American people why she does not mean what she says.”

Under the public financing system for the presidential primaries, the government will match up to $250 of an individual’s contributions to an eligible candidate. To establish credibility, a candidate must show broad-based public support by proving to the FEC that he or she has raised in excess of $5,000 of matchable contributions in each of at least 20 states. This is done through a threshold submission to the FEC. In addition a candidate must also agree to: limit campaign spending for all primary elections; limit campaign spending in each state; and limit spending from personal funds to $50,000.

Currently the campaign is working on the first step in this process - to make its threshold submission to the FEC in order to establish Senator Edwards’ eligibility to receive matching funds.

“Edwards has raised more than any Democratic candidate in history before this race. We have more than enough money to compete,” said Congressman Bonior. “The truth is, this election is about ideas – not how much money you’ve raised. And no one has better ideas for how to bring real change to America than John Edwards. That’s why we’re confident he can not only compete in this election – but he will win.”

And you're just reinforcing the point: MONEY is electing our representatives in this country, not the qualifications of the candidate, or where they stand on important issues. Because if someone can't raise the most money, they aren't worth serving, right? That's a great example of EVERYTHING THAT'S WRONG WITH AMERICA TODAY. Congratulations! :eyes:

[jenmito]

54. And here's his ORIGINAL decision:

"Obama's decision means that none of the three top-tier Democrats will accept public financing if they become their party's nominee -- a first in presidential politics. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) have previously said they will bypass public financing and the spending limits that go with it. (Background here on Clinton and Edwards.)

All three candidates are now free to accept $4,600 from individual contributors -- $2,300 for the primary and an additional $2,300 for the general election. These higher limits are sure to produce both eye-popping fundraising totals in the first fundraising quarter of the year ... and confusion, as reporters and other observers work to sort out how much of the cash collected is for use in the primary and how much can be spent exclusively in the general."

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/02/obama_to_forego_public_financi.html

Of COURSE he spun it that it was his choice to reach such a low number. But his ORIGINAL choice was to forego matching funds in order to remain competitive! Put down the kool-aid!

[AndyA]

56. Edwards EXCEEDED the amount he originally stated he wanted to raise during that time period.

Say what you want, his change was not due to a lack of donations. His campaign was where they said they wanted to be going into it, so the "low number" as you put it was determined IN ADVANCE, not after the fact.

You really seem to be stuck on the "politicians have to have oodles of money to be any good" bandwagon. That's what the media wants you to think, but it's not true. This type of thinking actually prevents the very best people from ever running. Amazing, huh?

Why are you so afraid of change? Do you like things the way they are? Edwards is not the typical politician, and some people are frightened by that. It's OK, change in this instance is good. We need it to survive as a country. Embrace it. ;)

[jenmito]

57. No he didn't!!! He chose to FOREGO matching funds to remain competitive with

Obama and Hillary!!! He didn't "originally" state he wanted to raise that amount. He originally stated that he was not going to take matching funds TO BE COMPETITIVE WITH THE OTHER TWO! What don't you understand about that? He only "chose" to take matching funds when he saw he was going to raise much less than the others did! He's an opportunist dressed as a populist.

[AndyA]

58. You are wrong, and you are so typical of the problem in America today.

It's all about the money. A person isn't worth anything if they aren't wealthy. The amount Edwards wanted to reach was set going into the deal, and was communicated to donors up front as the goal they wanted to reach. I have the messages, and you are wrong. Period.

Believe what you want, this is becoming tiresome, and you are just proving my point that MONEY is what elects Presidents in this country today, not qualifications, their stance on issues, or anything else. It's all about the money, money, money. A person's worth is judged solely by the size of their bank account.

You can believe what you want, but it's apparent that you are part of the problem in America today. You believe that the amount of donations a candidate garners is directly related to their ability to serve.

That's wrong, and it's pathetic.

[jenmito]

59. Show me where he said what amount of money he wanted to raise when he decided to forego matching

funds. I showed you where he decided to forego matching funds in order to remain competitive. Now show ME where he said what amount he wanted to raise WHEN HE DECIDED TO FOREGO MATCHING FUNDS LAST FEBRUARY.

[AndyA]

60. Let me repeat this one more time.

I received messages via E-mail from the campaign. That is where the total amount was stated as a goal. Since I don't know who you are, I don't feel comfortable sharing them with you since they do have personal information on them. If you'll search online, you'll also see where the campaign stated the change wasn't due to a lack of donations, it was based on principle.

This afternoon, Edwards' campaign said the decision to take matching funds came from principle, not financial weakness, and that he is on track to raise $40 million this year. Edwards is taking public funds "to help do his part to curb the influence of money in politics" and "to make a statement that the influence of money is rampant in politics and has gotten to the point where it dominates the race," said Kate Bedingfield, an Edwards spokeswoman.

And once again, you prove my point: It's not the candidate or their stance on the issues that matters, it's the amount of money that candidate raises, and apparently it doesn't matter how they raise it, where it comes from, or who they owe to get it. And that is absolutely the WORST reason for electing someone.

Pull your head out of the sand or wherever you have it, and follow the money. The best candidate for the job isn't necessarily the one with the most money. Stop letting the big corporate interests and the media elect Presidents. You should be able to see at this point that we are on the losing side of that proposition.

It's apparent to me that you've bought into this whole MONEY = BEST CANDIDATE sales job that the media has forced upon America. Hopefully, you'll open your eyes and realize the media isn't necessarily telling you the truth. They're reporting "news" to further their own best interests. And that isn't good for the American people. When you have corporations that own television stations, newspapers, and also profit from war, there's a big conflict of interest because the profits they make from war far exceeds what they make reporting the news.

I hope you can get past this money thing, because it really, truly, isn't what's important in this race. Good luck.

[jenmito]

61. You're repeating the same spin you said before. His spin on not raising as much as he originally

hoped and planned on raising does NOT MAKE IT TRUE. As I showed you, back in Feb. he decided NOT to take matching funds in order to try to raise as much as his competitors would raise. He chose to "remain competitive" by FOREGOING matching funds. It wasn't until he was unable to raise nearly as much as Hillary (and Obama) that he lowered the bar for himself and CLAIMED he met what he wanted to raise. Unless you can show me a letter from Feb. '07 or before (or even after he chose NOT to accept matching funds 'til right before the cut-off date when he realized how little he raised compared to Hillary and Obama), you can't be naive enough to believe he took matching funds out of principle and not out of necessity. :eyes:

[GreenArrow]

27. no, John Edwards loses.

.

[ellisonz]

31. Admittedly, you've got much more at stake than John Edwards...

[SoFlaJet]

6. Edwards is in it

to win it-all the way to the convention. The REAL question is what will Clinton do? SHE was SUPPOSED to be the inevitable democratic nominee-how's THAT one going?

[jenmito]

15. He beat her by one half of one percent in a state he's been in for years...

if Hillary beats him, there goes his whole argument about rejection of the status quo. He wanted to make it a two man race. It won't be if she beats him. It's going badly for Hillary and I couldn't be happier.

[SoFlaJet]

19. hey jen

TBH-I'm sick and tired of all the shit being said back and forth between the supporters of the top 3-any one of them would be alright with me over any of the republicans. All the animosity has made this place worse than I ever remember it being since early 2002 when I signed up...

[jenmito]

21. I understand, but

I feel this is democracy in action and I like it.

[SoFlaJet]

24. yea

but I am so over saying bad stuff about my party's excellent candidates-and I've done my share of bashing here the past month

[jenmito]

25. I guess we have different

levels of tolerance for this then. :)

[ellisonz]

28. I hereby sentence you to two months in the Lounge...

:o

[goldcanyonaz]

7. Why are so many so hot to get others out of the race?

We as American's are fighters, and we should fight until the end, regardless of who you support.

[jenmito]

18. He takes away from Obama's support, but not enough to ever beat him.

Just enough to help Hillary.

[sunonmars]

8. The Smart thing

Would be to let rip at Obama, Edwards needs to go after him or else he's a dead man walking. Mind you if he's a distant 3rd tonight, he is a dead man walking and it would be good because then we have a battle royal. However I want him to stay in. Its his last chance and the 3 of them need to duke this out.

[saracat]

9. NOTHING.We continue. Edwards speaks for the people.

[Crunchy Frog]

11. He'll claim it as a win, no matter what happens.

That's my prediction anyway.

[jenmito]

20. I agree. Somehow, he will. I just wonder if he'll publicly congratulate anyone who beats him this

time.

[zalinda]

32. Why would he, he's not in it for himself

that's why he mentioned the people in need when he made his speech to his supporters.

zalinda

[jenmito]

37. Are you serious? Then why did he call him and congratulate him?

Common courtesy would call for a public congratulations.

[zalinda]

43. Does Obama need his ego stroked in public

just to feel good? I mean, come on he got a call what more does he want. Edwards talked about what he feels is important, not Obama's ego.

zalinda

[jenmito]

47. It's common courtesy. Obama didn't complain. I and other supporters did.

Edwards should've congratulated the person who beat him. Not to do so is very ungracious.

[chimpymustgo]

14. What happens if Obama supporters stop posting stupid hypothetical threads?

Maybe we can have some intelligent conversation.

[jenmito]

22. I don't know. I'll let you know if I see one.

[SaveElmer]

16. It was unconvincing to begin with...

But if he comes in third it would be completely blown out of the water

[jenmito]

23. True, but he'll spin it as "better than expected." n/t

[frazzled]

29. Bingo ... a reporter yesterday said that Joe Trippi told him

that Obama was a "speeding bullet"--and that John Edwards was just trying to stay out of its path and keep from going down the drain.

So he sucks up to Obama in the debate because he is .... a wimp?

[SaveElmer]

30. Edwards is making the absurd case that a vote for Obama was also a vote for him...

Trying to ride Obama's coattails...

[midlife_mo_Jo]

45. No a vote for Obama is a vote for change

He's been pretty clear that the voters are voting for change, and he strongly implies that the combination of Obama votes and his votes are votes for change compared to the votes for Clinton.

[martymar64]

55. Either way, its not a vote for Hillary!

If Obama wins, Edwards would make a dynamite Atty General!

[Beacool]

33. Regardless of the NH results, everyone should stick it out

until at least Feb. 5th. I'm not an Edwards supporter, but he and his supporters deserve to see how this plays out in other states. Since when do IA & NH decide who becomes president??????

Why should Hillary or Edwards roll over and pave the way for an Obama nomination? It's undemocratic, people in every state should have the right to vote for their candidate until the last primary is over.

[Stop Cornyn]

34. On to Nevada!

[Cha]

35. I like Edwards a lot..I

want him to stay in for the duration just like Obama.

[Anouka]

46. I'd rather Edwards in the race than Hillary.

I don't really trust Edwards, but I trust Hillary and Bill substantially less.

Substantially less.

Edwards hasn't pulled any plant games on the public. Edwards hasn't stolen from his co-candidates then dissed his co-candidates as opportunists using death to get ahead.

Edwards wife tried to take on Michelle Obama over bullsh*t; but Edwards wife hasn't then gone on to diss the Obamas over selling a fairy tale, or dissing MLK and JFK. Or talked about herself more than she's talked up her husband. Or b*tched about how unfair it is that no one is taking the corruption bait she's laid out against her opponents, but people are implying that she herself has engaged in corruption.

Elizabeth hasn't abandoned her husband at the podium, leaving a daughter to do 'support' duties with the other spouses.

[jackson_dem]

52. Why lash out at Edwards for Obama blowing a double digit lead overnight?

[fightindonkey]

53. Edwards Who?