Ouch

[NashVegas]

et tu, John?

I'm not sure what the point was, at this place in the game.

[Maribelle]

1. I'm not a bit surprised. Once Obama and Edwards double teamed Hillary during the debates ...

I've lost a lot of respect for Edwards. I was an Edwards supporter then and switched to Hillary at that very point in time. Hillary had been totally positive up to that point - - and the bashing of her became so bad that even Richardson spoke up during one of the debates.

With each day that passes, I gain more respect for Hillary.

[theHandpuppet]

2. The timing was especially hurtful

And to the voters of West Virginia, a real slap in the face as well.

[Two Americas]

3. wow

They don't want us, do they? The point was, I think, to crush any remaining dissent, as represented by the voters of West Virginia.

So have the blue collar people, the rural people, the poor people just been played for fools all along? Was it all bullshit?

The party keeps hanging out a sign - "we stand with the poor and downtrodden and forgotten" and then complain when we show up that we are tracking mud on their lovely carpet. I say get rid of the carpet or take down that sign.

[saracat]

4. I think this makes the point they don't want us. Even "our candidate" Edwards doesn't want us.

Really too bad he dissed WV that way. It is really sad.

[theHandpuppet]

6. As a West Virginian for Hillary...

I feel as if john Edwards has just called me an ignorant fool.

Thanks, John.

[CarolNYC]

9. Oh, Handpuppet....

You're nowhere near an ignorant fool....and Hillary, at least, knows that.

((((((((Handpuppet)))))))

[rodeodance]

17. hey

sorry this happened. i am down about it also.

[theHandpuppet]

5. To answer your question...

"So have the blue collar people, the rural people, the poor people just been played for fools all along? Was it all bullshit?"

The answer is yes.

[shimmergal]

7. Hey, don't believe

the pundits who classify all Hillary's supporters that way. I saw how much they got wrong when reporting the caucuses in Nevada. Not to dis blue collar, or rural, people, but there are LOTS of is with advanced degrees and professional backgrounds who see thru Obama.

As for poor--yes, I think there's a difference. Insofar as most Obama supporters (with the possible exception of his Black base) are people who've never had to face the dilemma of no money to see them thru the rest of the week or month or year. They've always had a backup--a well-off family member, or savings, or an open home equity line, or something to save them from panic. No wonder Obama never comes up with any practical legislation for "the other America". Having a good education or even a pink ghetto professional job doesn't insulate you from this--but obviously his Harvard education means he never has to think about it.

[NashVegas]

8. The College Degree Thing Is Bullshit

I intend no disrespect for those who have one, but we must admit: due to their specialized and super-specialized natures, most of today's degree programs aren't what they used to be.

If they're all so well-educated, how else to explain why it is that so many of a particular crowd can't spell all that well, has shitty grammar and is so intellectually lazy? My guess is if they're degreed, they're from highly narrow programs that don't require many of the credits that were must-haves before the computer age.

[Two Americas]

10. agreed

A college degree is as much about status today as it is about education.

[NashVegas]

11. It Is an Unfortunate Necessity

People of Hillary's generation were able to get well-paying jobs, often on a high school education, as long as they had the individual smarts and the social skills.

You can't do that anymore. At my place of business, our GM (a slow learner with a Vanderbilt degree) won't interview anyone without a BA - not even for the receptionist's job.

[Horse with no Name]

16. I am a VERY educated middle aged white woman

With an advanced degree and more initials behind my name than I care to write out.
I work in a professional environment with other highly educated people.
They are all for Hillary.
So how do they rationalize those types of statistics?
I know we aren't in a vacuum. :shrug:

[Maribelle]

12. I think the significance of Edwards endorsement today is the stunning loss Obama was dealt in WV.

Edwards must have viewed Obama's loss as colossal and could only have thought, especially with the demographics of Kentucky looming on the near horizon, Obama was in deep trouble and had made a huge mistake not campaigning in West Virginia. Edwards has stepped in to help Obama with Kentucky, where Obama cannot afford yet another stunning loss.

[Wash. state Desk Jet]

13. They are worried

And in somewhat of a panic state. Division of the democratic party where choosing a candidate remains on the table creates fear of losing the general election. The pressure and the heat is more than they can bear. The media rail road ed Hillary and the party wasn't at all supportive.

Now when Kennedy went all the way to the convention when he ran against Carter for the nomination,Carter was already in office. There was nothing to lose ,except the eventual loss of the white house, but the party did not fear a devastating divide. (2) Some fear that if the party isn't pulled together in unity now ,republican swing votes may not happen. That means the party will have to rely on the 18 to twenty five years olds to win.Essentially those that do not vote and those that have not before voted. There is no grantee they will show up at the polls in November.No past examples to compare,exception the 1972 elections. But there is where the first mail in votes were tested. If you were serving in the military ,you got to vote for the president ,rather or not you ever voted before. But, there isn't much data there to use in a form of a reasonable guesstimate toward probable turn out at the polls in that age bracket.

Apparently party leaders find healthy competition a hazard to the survival of the party.
What Edwards did was nothing more than a conventional thinking fear based thing. On one hand Edwards speaks about change,but in truth stands up for conventional methods that are obsolete. Those are the two faces of his own words,if he himself wrote those words.And I don't think he did.
Has anybody met the two faces of John Edwards lately?

You got to remember that the republicans cannot believe their good fortune. And winning the white house is no given.But the republican party has been given a almost unbelievable real chance for a total upset win,because of the wide spread fear which has resonated threw-out the democratic party.

But hay, nobody believed Truman could win either,not on his own. But he did,and he did.

It ain't over.

And when the race is over ,if it's Obama ,lets just say if for ifs sake, the courtship of the media stops completely and the tide reverses against him.

Obama supporters may be riding high right now,but believe this, it is a temporary thing.And things do indeed change and sometimes momentum reverses for no seemingly apparent reason. Hillary knows that, but Obama doesn't know a thing about that yet.Not a thing.

[Two Americas]

14. great analysis

Thanks.

"What Edwards did was nothing more than a conventional thinking fear based thing. On one hand Edwards speaks about change,but in truth stands up for conventional methods that are obsolete. Those are the two faces of his own words,if he himself wrote those words.And I don't think he did."

As an Edwards supporter, I have to say that I agree with you.

[susankh4]

15. This is the point of the endorsement at this time...

Obama took a whooping in West Va. And the DNC paraded out a white soutern boy to try and mend the widening rift:

http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=27683

[TK421]

18. I think he was just waiting for what he felt was the right moment..I've always liked Edwards

I'm disappointed by his endorsement, but I really did expect him to swing this way

[BigBearJohn]

19. I think they've had this planned all along and have been waiting for the right moment.

[Wash. state Desk Jet]

20. sure,leaves the impression that

there is something going on inside what is going on ,and you are somehow suppose to catch on to what ever it is.Almost like a conspiracy of some type or other.Rather reminds me of a church congregation splitting. You know half the congregation just ups and goes off in a different direction ,even buy or build their own church. Sometimes they even take the preacher with them. That 's usually when the other half wants the preacher impeached.

That's right and if you happen to be the occasional church goer ,you just might walk right in to the great divide. So you say to yourself, what the hell is going on here. Yet somehow you know.What makes you mad is that both sides want your attendance ,your occasional to begin with because too much is just that.Half of the same would be insane.

Just because we own the government doesn't mean they have to inform us about what changes they intend to make or by what means.Unless of course a popular demand order is placed into effect.

If it was part of a plan,how dare they.
What I do know is, this summer I will be studying parades and county fairs.
What I also remember is that the little flags waving is just what J.F.K. enjoyed so very much when he rode with the top down like he loved to do.
But hay, it don't mean nothen right? Funny as it may seem to some,it really still means something. Little flags waving.Little people waving little flags because ,or just because.And in some cases,for the very first time in their lives. And without guilt.

I really don't think thats the kind of ball Obama should be out there stumbling and fumbling around with ,making mistakes that he may have.
But isn't that part of their round up plan? Is it all about the people that don't really feel a part of it? Just why is that?

[Two Americas]

21. this is hearsay

I know a couple of staffers with the Obama campaign, whom I trust. They said that the Edwards endorsement was coordinated and carefully timed to do the most damage to Clinton - bragged about it as evidence of what a smart and successful campaign they are running. They had been holding it for just the right moment.

[susankh4]

22. "Almost like a conspiracy of some type or other"

Yeah... except....

No "almost."

No "like."

[theHandpuppet]

23. Totally agree

And frankly, it smacks of dishonesty.

[Two Americas]

24. I was surprised

It is so manipulative to coordinate and time an endorsement like that - so cynical. But the staffers were gloating and proud at how clever they all were on the Obama campaign, what "winners" they were, how much smarter than the rest of us they are, and completely callous about what Edwards and Clinton supporters might feel about this. "Tough - you lose" was the attitude.

There is a hypocrisy in the Obama campaign that goes beyond what I have seen in past years in other campaigns. After weeks of lambasting Clinton for supposedly playing cynical politics and manipulating voters, they brag about doing the same thing. The difference? They think they are better - and that it the source of them being seen as "elitist" and arrogant - and they are winning so screw you all you losers. So when it comes to attacking Clinton, Clinton supporters, any and all critics of anything about the Obama candidacy, the people of West Virginia and anyone else who fails to join the almighty unity, they try to claim the high moral ground, accusing people of being racists or Republicans. But when it comes to promoting Obama, they brag about their cynical manipulation of people and moral expediency.

I now think that the frantic and relentless calls for Clinton to drop out are for one reason - the longer Clinton stays in the race, the more chance people have to examine the Obama phenomenon, and the more likely it is that the house of cards will collapse. Once Clinton drops out, Obama supporters can clamp down on and silence all critics. They say that they want Clinton to drop out so we can "focus on McCain." What they mean by that is they want to get the focus off of Obama. Once it is only Republicans criticizing Obama, those criticisms can be dismissed - by Democrats, all of whom will be forced to get in line. Of course the problem with that is that the general public will not dismiss criticism merely because it comes from Republicans, and enforcing party loyalty will not work on them. All of the things that the Obama campaign and his supporters are doing to successfully hijack the Democratic party are exactly the things that will be least effective on the general.

[Mudoria]

25. To my mind it reflects poorly on Edwards. It's almost as if

he wanted to make sure he picked the winning side before he gave an endorsement. Guess he's looking for a job in the administration should the Chosen One actually win in November.

[susankh4]

26. He has proven to be no more than a puppet.

If he runs with Obama I will not vote for them.

Edwards should have known better than this.