And remember that Edwards ended up firing a media consultant who came from a progressive blog simply because she had made some pretty snarky statements …

This is the kind of spinning of something that I am more and more relating to the Obama campaign. Are you an Obama supporter?

Edwards had to let the girls go because they were receiving death threats and it wasn’t safe to keep them on. See, it isn’t quite what you said, now was it?

And trust me, Rove is doing his math. An event like this may have him doing a Snoopy Dance.

Lord have mercy! Did you have to create that image?

Thank goodness his math isn’t very good.

If you want to have a Hillary hate fest on firedoglake then you can definitely do it without this reader.

I know this blog is largely populated by Progressives and some Liberals and a lot of DFHs, but I know of nobody here who hates Hillary.

We just don’t care all that much for DLC Dems.

However, I do like her better than Obama. And, I hope she knocks him out of the race. It’s hard for Edwards to do it with limited funds and even more limited media attention.

The Clinton camp is baiting Obama – trying to get him to look like an Angry Black, and evoke the Jesse Jackson reaction in white America. It’s vile.

I think they’re just pissed because of all the nasty jabs Obama’s camp has taken since Iowa. Of course, having the candidate embroiled in public fighting isn’t useful. Neither looks good.

How about deliberately misinterpreting a comment and then using the deliberate half quote to attack a candidate? Ask Obama about what Pres. Clinton really meant when talking about the ” Obama fantasy”. Obama turned a perfectly cogent argument against Obama’s war record meme into a racially charged attack against Clinton. Rove would be proud.

Precisely! Obama spins/misinterprets intentionally. He’s done it repeatedly in this campaign.

If “truth to power,” as you see it, were his issue, he would already be leading in all the poles.

The polls just before the Iowa caucuses showed Edwards right in the thick of it with a great deal of momentum. If he’d won that don’t you think he’d have gotten a good bump going into NH and could be in the top spot now?

What if Iowa was rigged? What if there was cheating in Iowa and NH? Well, whoever is perceived (!) to have won received a big bump up and it wasn’t Edwards. So, who’s to say which candidate is truly America’s favorite?

I say Edwards should stay in there and fight and regain the lead, if he can, in honest ways. If his message is superior (and we know it is), then he might well retake the lead and win — if only he can re-establish parity before Super Tuesday.

Don’t count out anybody just because the media says something. They have a vested interest in determining the victor — and it doesn’t jibe with the interests of most Americans.

Now, we have Hillary win an election and many dems including lots of you on this site, accuse Hillary of cheating.

Cite an instance. I think you’re confusing our suggestion that Diebold voting machines may have been rigged with the idea that Clintons did it.

Obama’s campaign helped that one along and none of you took offense to that!!

Do you mean Obama helped along the suggestion that the Clintons had something to do with election fraud in NH or that he helped along the ‘race’ issue discussion?

I believe someone, probably Obama people, introduced race into this after Iowa. There were Obama supporters (or someone pretending to be) who called me and others racist if we opposed Obama. That started it on the Net. Then Obama said somebody was saying the dream was not alive and hope was false hopes. He didn’t point a finger at Hillary, but it’s clear he was trying to tell black voters that the Clintons believed the hope of a race-neutral society was dead. Obama was just flat out lying to people. Of course, when Bill Clinton said Obama was selling a fantasy, then it went back and forth.

…
I hate this, I don’t like Hillary, I want Edwards to win but I am amazed at how blindly folks follow Obama.

You and me. He’s lying to people by spinning things to suit himself. He’s been doing it for months as a way of deflecting issues which haven’t gone his way. He’s smooth, so I suppose his supporters haven’t caught on. I hope they do soon.

It truly does remind me of the way people followed Bush.

I agree completely. I even analyzed Obama some time ago and came to the conclusion he is very much like Bush. I think even Hillary made some mention of that.

There’s the absent father, the drug use, the moving around early in his youth, the (to me) surprising chance at a high-class university (Columbia and Harvard) and the passive-aggressive style. He’s very Bush-like.

Folks who follow Clinton seem to do it warts and all, but people act as if Obama were the Messiah or something.

Well, they do sell that idea, don’t they. It’s a cult-like thing. They don’t seem to care what his ideas are (or that they largely come from John Edwards) and they overlook his lying and his mistakes. They’re True Believers!

This low blow stuff is going on in both camps. Obama has been sexist and condesending in his approach to Hillary, as well. When he made his little “we like you Hillary” during the last debate, it was very patriarchal and sexist. He smirked when he said it. I am tired of both sides pointing at the other and acting innocent themselves.”

Obama is clearly a passive-aggressive who loves getting in the little jabs without appearing to do it himself. That jab in the debate is possibly the clearest example of what he’s really all about.

The Obama camp has and will play dirty, they do it indirectly. Clinton is playing dirty as well. Edwards pretty directly went on the attack, but folks didn’t like his directness.

People don’t like conflict. It’s hard to debate and compete in a campaign without doing it, so what we have is surrogates for each camp who do that and the candidate tries to stay above the fray. Hillary isn’t doing that as well as she should. But, the aggressiveness of Obama’s campaign to make his attacks through surrogates isn’t nice and the kinds of things he’s doing isn’t about issues or what’s relevant. It’s just Chicago politics, rough & tumble as he called it.

…
I am interested in seeing how each candidate handles the attack machine, because I know the republicans will fight dirtier than anything we have seen up to now. I think it’s interesting that we are all blaming each other and not focusing on facts. Don’t let emotions decide this race.

John Edwards is just cruising along talking about people’s lives and what government need to do for them. Seems to me he’s the one who is most presidential and leading the way. Too bad the press doesn’t let people hear about him.

BTW, Edwards is still doing alright in the polls, so maybe people do have better sense than the media.

The Clintons are working hard to make sure that the next President is again from the Republic Party.

Hasn’t it always been about them? Isn’t this exactly what Bill did too? Just how well did the Party do when Bill was getting his second term?

If Hillary doesn’t win Nevada and the NH recount shows she lost there, then does she have any chance to recover?

A statute is a law a violation of a law is a crime. Semantics!

Not all violations of law are crimes. By a long shot. Some are not even violations. Some are merely civil not in any way tied to the criminal code. Thnk about regulatory violations.

Crime is a VERY specific word to a lawyer.