Bittersweet

My initial reaction, Ahh crap. (0.00 / 0)

Check out my 3 paragraph primer on Polywell Fusion.

---

by: FogerRox @ Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 21:30:30 PM UTC

the man who should be president (4.00 / 1)

This post about sums up my feelings exactly on Edwards' withdrawal yesterday. My heart is incredibly heavy.

Edwards reminded Democrats that they need a backbone and a clear vision to win. He's done so much good in bringing working-class issues to the forefront, and his policies are being echoed in Clinton and Obama's platform.

If this is the last we hear of Edwards on the national stage, I hope history remembers him well. I'm very proud of him and proud to have supported him.

---

by: Martin @ Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 13:10:56 PM UTC

He's still on the ballot (0.00 / 0)

I too am saddened by his "suspension" (his word) of his presidential campaign.  He brought the important issues into the debate and I hope they will stay there.

Edwards has not released his delegates, and if those around the country who supported him vote for him on Tuesday--as I will--he will get more.  That will help to keep the focus on the issues that are so critical to the future.

If the Republican candidate is McCain--as it appears it may be--it will be a very difficult campaign.  He will be hard to beat--and in many ways he is the most dangerous of the Republicans in the race.  Ultimately I will work hard to elect whoever wins the Democratic nomination. and I hope all of us will do that--the 2008 election is too important for anyone to sit out.

I'm voting for Edwards on Tuesday.  Join me!

"Do what you can, with what you have, where you are."  (Teddy Roosevelt)

---

by: DottieG @ Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 14:46:44 PM UTC

15% (4.00 / 1)

No delegate is won until Edwards reaches 15% in your delegate district.  Polling at 10% state-wide before he pulled out, what are the odds of that?

Much as I hate to say it -- after all, my name is on the ballot as an Edwards delegate -- the practical impact of a vote for him at this point is essentially the same as abstaining.

So if you are inclined to support either Clinton or Obama, cast your vote for one of them.  If you really don't care which of those two candidates ends up our nominee, then by all means vote Edwards.

---

by: John Bartlett @ Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 21:02:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Actually, (4.00 / 1)

the true threshold is probably higher than that.  The 70 delegates who are up for grabs on Tuesday are divided into 20 "delegate districts" (paired legislative districts).  Ten of those districts are electing three delegates and the other ten are electing four.  So, a presidential candidate may need to hit 20% or even 33% to actually get a district delegate.  To get the at-large delegates, a candidate needs 15% of the STATEWIDE vote.

So, like John says, if you truly have no preference between Hillary and Obama and are a diehard Edwards supporter, then go ahead.  

But, if you were for Edwards because you wanted:

a candidate who isn't a "go along, get along" person or

a candidate who will actually bring most of the troops home or

a candidate for whom poverty is more than an academic question,

then you should vote for OBAMA.

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 21:49:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Threshold is 15% (0.00 / 0)

even within a single delegate district. 15% in a district, whether it's 3 or 4, gives a candidate 1 district-level delegate.

DON'T BUY THE HYPE, VOTE HILLARY

---

by: ridethedonkey @ Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 05:17:44 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I am still voting for Edwards (4.00 / 1)

My position is that I want his issues to be carried all the way to the convention.  Which is why he only "suspended" his campaign.  He did not release his delegates for a very good reason.  They still matter.  He just did not want to be a spoiler or kingmaker on Super Tuesday.  And so, I will refrain also from supporting one or the other candidate just yet.  

I am voting for Edwards to send a message that the issues he cares about are the most important ones to me.  

You can all do what you like, but it may not be a bad thing to have Edwards delegates still go to Denver.

One Vote.  Yours.  It really does matter.

---

by: carolh @ Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 03:01:30 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

unlikely (0.00 / 0)

I respect your decision to use your vote to send a message, but just be aware that that message will only register in the form of individual votes, not delegates. At this point, it's very unlikely that Edwards will get enough votes to be viable in any district to win any delegates in New Jersey.

---

by: Juan Melli @ Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 03:18:49 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not Achieving Your Goals (0.00 / 0)

If you simply said that you were voting for Edwards because you were on the ballot as a delegate candidate and would be the first to go if Edwards got a third of the vote, I could see that.  It would be quixotic, but I could understand it.

But, in truth, you know that there is NO WAY that Edwards is going to get a third of the vote in your delegate district.

I don't know if anyone knows, including John Edwards himself, that he absolutely will not make an endorsement before Tuesday.  After all, until two days ago all of the "signals" from his campaign was that he planned to stay in after Tuesday no matter what.  Many of us thought that was unrealistic, but it is his campaign so he had the right to do that.  The one certain thing in this campaign is that virtually nothing is certain.  But, once people withdraw or "suspend", that is it.

If you don't want to vote for someone else, that is fine but while your vote will be counted it will have almost no meaning.  

Do you truly see both Hillary and Obama as equal on your scale???  Voting for one of them (obviously, I would prefer you voted for Obama) would allow your preference to make a choice for the party of which you are a member.

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 04:31:49 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I want whoever wins the Primary (0.00 / 0)

 to actually take Edwards ideas to heart.

It is really hard to switch just like that.  Most of us are still just reeling from the loss of an amazing candidate.  Give us a little time....

One Vote.  Yours.  It really does matter.

---

by: carolh @ Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 06:43:42 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

As a fervent Deaniac, I feel you (4.00 / 1)

and if we still voted in June, I'd be right there with you, voting for my first choice for sentimental reasons. But Carol, try really hard to see what the result of a sentimental vote tomorrow would be. We will all be living with the outcome. For me, it's (1) a candidate I feel inspired by -- enough to hope my country is actually better than I think it is -- and can see ringing doorbells for, or (2) another candidate I support in order to "help defeat the Republicans" but feel no warmth for, whose candidacy I am afraid is loaded with flaws, beginning with the fact that she deeply and intrinsically motivates the Republicans to come out in droves for "ABC -- Anyone But Clinton." Smart lady, great senator, deeply divisive candidate.

---

by: LLiibbyy @ Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 17:18:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Something else to think about (0.00 / 0)

Voting for Obama does give Senator Weinberg a better chance to win in the delegate district rather than the Ferriero candidates.  :-)

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 20:10:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I noticed that (0.00 / 0)

See my change of heart and new diary - Something funny happened etc....  

I want Loretta and Gordon to go to Denver.  

One Vote.  Yours.  It really does matter.

---

by: carolh @ Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 23:06:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I See Carol's Name on My Ballot..... (4.00 / 1)

....and it's a bit tempting to vote for Edwards just on the sheer momentum of loyalty and affection for his progressive positions and to see Carol have a shot at going to Denver.  

On this occasion (at least ;-) temptation will be denied!

John and Creed are right on this....there truly is virtually no way a vote for Edwards in NJ, at this point, will have any practical result in terms of advancing a progressive agenda.

We need to vote for Obama if we prefer a fairly progressive shot at the presidency.......he just may surprise us and actually kick ass.

No doubt the unreconstructed DCCC "Blue Dog Democrat" types will vote for Clinton....and that's fine for them.  

There are also many good people who genuinely believe that Clinton will do a better job; and that's ok too!    

My own "bittersweet" choice will be to do my bit for Obama.

---

by: Nick Lento @ Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 22:38:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Since I'm "Unaffiliated" (0.00 / 0)

there is a temptation to  remain so.  

---

by: Wesleylake @ Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 02:18:38 AM UTC

Exactly what... (0.00 / 0)

... more important future primary election do you think you're saving yourself for?

Anyway, you can "unaffiliate" again after the primary.  And even if you don't, voting in our primary (or theirs) doesn't obligate you to vote D (or R) in November.

---

by: John Bartlett @ Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 02:53:48 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Why? (0.00 / 0)

Do you really think that there is no difference between whether John McCain or Mitt Romney are in the White House versus Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama???

I am a strong Obama supporter, but if Hillary is the nominee I would vote for her without a single qualm over ANY Republican candidate.

Are you saying that you could see yourself voting for McCain or Romney?????

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 04:23:17 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

More Sweet Than Bitter! "The Edwards Effect" (4.00 / 1)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02...

Paul Krugman (as he often does) has captured the essence of the matter...

So John Edwards has dropped out of the race for the presidency. By normal political standards, his campaign fell short.

But Mr. Edwards, far more than is usual in modern politics, ran a campaign based on ideas. And even as his personal quest for the White House faltered, his ideas triumphed: both candidates left standing are, to a large extent, running on the platform Mr. Edwards built.

To understand the extent of the Edwards effect, you have to think about what might have been.

At the beginning of 2007, it seemed likely that the Democratic nominee would run a cautious campaign, without strong, distinctive policy ideas. That, after all, is what John Kerry did in 2004.

If 2008 is different, it will be largely thanks to Mr. Edwards. He made a habit of introducing bold policy proposals - and they were met with such enthusiasm among Democrats that his rivals were more or less forced to follow suit.

It's hard, in particular, to overstate the importance of the Edwards health care plan, introduced in February.

Before the Edwards plan was unveiled, advocates of universal health care had difficulty getting traction, in part because they were divided over how to get there. Some advocated a single-payer system - a k a Medicare for all - but this was dismissed as politically infeasible. Some advocated reform based on private insurers, but single-payer advocates, aware of the vast inefficiency of the private insurance system, recoiled at the prospect.

With no consensus about how to pursue health reform, and vivid memories of the failure of 1993-1994, Democratic politicians avoided the subject, treating universal care as a vague dream for the distant future.

But the Edwards plan squared the circle, giving people the choice of staying with private insurers, while also giving everyone the option of buying into government-offered, Medicare-type plans - a form of public-private competition that Mr. Edwards made clear might lead to a single-payer system over time. And he also broke the taboo against calling for tax increases to pay for reform.

Suddenly, universal health care became a possible dream for the next administration. In the months that followed, the rival campaigns moved to assure the party's base that it was a dream they shared, by emulating the Edwards plan. And there's little question that if the next president really does achieve major health reform, it will transform the political landscape.

---

by: Nick Lento @ Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 06:11:58 AM UTC