Sen. John Edwards set to quit Presidential Run (Breaking News)

That flyer mentions an issue. Clinton was a strong supporter of NAFTA, so much so that Mudcat Saunders is urging Edwards not to endorse her because of that.

Kerry endorsed Obama, and I think he knows a little more about what Bush and the Clintons have done than you do.

 

Actually that is different than divisive politics. It is issues based, whereas Obama could be and should be fairly criticized for bringing up the Wal-Mart stuff in the debate.

That was divisive politics. A sign like that shows how Hillary has changed her opinion and may do so again is a valid issue. Also when he is running on changing the style, showing evidence that his opponent won't change the style is quite relevant.

I think there are examples when Obama can be fairly accused of being hypocritical regarding his message, but I don't think this is one of them. It seems painfully obvious that some people are magnifying each and every thing that Obama does in an effort to bring him down.

That is not uncommon in political campaigns, but the more nitpicky and insignificant the issues people bring up, the less effective it is. I think it would be better to find one or two real examples and hammer those.

 

So it's fine to drop your duties as long as you are pursuing something else? If I work for you, will you be fine that I go on for interviews all the time during working hours, still getting paychecks from you? Clinton missed 16 of 99, does that make her less responsible for the voters for campaigning less? Or more responsible for the voters who actually voted her to be a Senate to represent them?

BTW, it seems to be a great strategy. Voting present or no-show, later on you can criticize whatever side depending on the situation. What a great change!

 

I didn't say it was fine, but Edwards had the same problem when he ran, as did Kerry. I haven't seen McCain's voting record, but I believe it's gone down as well. It may not be more responsible but it isn't uncommon, and so making an issue over one candidate over it, isn't really alarming.

As for Clinton her votes make her more irresponsible, especially the fact that her votes show she hasn't learned from past mistakes.

 

Interviews? No. But if you were running for office... if you truly had a commitment to serve and had the guts to put yourself out there, I'd be supportive in every way. Unless you were a know-nothing Republican shill who was looking to hoodwink the voters and increase your personal wealth... then I'd fire your sorry ass in a heartbeat.

 

Get off your high horse. All of the sudden, republicans become know-nothings? You can read people's true mind now? What's this? A broken play of elitism? Open your history books, find me one single example in any country any group has ever succeeded playing elitism.

Like I said, anything can be spun different ways. To me, all politicians are the same. Therefore, there is a system to keep them in check. Those pseudo-saints are worse than devil itself.

 

Here's what I wrote:

That's a small, small subset of Republicans... just an inordinately common type among the current party leadership.

 

I think alot of Texans re-elected their Governor in '98 knowing full well he would probably be gone in two years' time. Maybe Democratic New Yorkers similarly thought having one of their own in the White House for 4-8 years was worth one year of disengaged governance.

Also, I'd be curious about the respective tallies on the 16 missed votes. If they were overly lopsided one way or another, and Clinton knew that upfront via her staffers or the Party Whip, it might not be such a big deal; particularly to her colleagues or constituents.

 

Is Obama against free trade then?