Colbert talks to Hillary & Barack, plus John Edwards names the price of his endorsement.
On last night's show, Stephen Colbert managed to snag Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards as guests.
First, Hillary:
Second, Barack:
And last but not least, John Edwards make it very, very clear how Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton could win his endorsement - which definitely still matters, now that the North Carolina primary is in play:
Discuss.
|
April 18, 2008
Posted in in the news. |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Apr 18, '08
Colbert, a hero with balls of steel (corresondents dinner), would make a better candidate than any of the three corporatists.
1:23 p.m.
Apr 18, '08
I thought Edwards did a great job of mixing together the humor with important things like universal health care, ending poverty, etc.
I loved the little text messages on the side, such as when Edwards said we could end poverty in 30 years (Bush ended the Middle Class in 8).
I thought the Senator Clinton piece was flat. I didn't get a single laugh out of it. Not only that, she didn't get to get in a single piece of her platform except things like you can count on her, she's always there to help, etc.
Obama was funnier than the Clinton piece, but nothing like Edwards. I got a few good laughs, such as the grizzly bear thing. Not only that, but Colbert's responses were exactly what many are thinking right now - that the media is using these manufactured questions because it means they don't have to work hard to find the real questions.
But by and far, the Edwards piece was the best. I had tears rolling down my cheeks.
Apr 18, '08
Who is that John Edwards. And why didn't he run for president?
1:56 p.m.
Apr 18, '08
The Edwards bit was pretty damn funny.
I dunno what it is about Hillary, but I just don't find her at all funny. I suspect she can be funny in real life, but all of her funny performances come off as stilted and lame (SNL, this, that awful ad with Bill where they were in the diner). Her comic timing is terrible and she always sounds like she's not entirely sure she gets her own jokes, or if they're really funny.
Apr 18, '08
But by and far, the Edwards piece was the best. I had tears rolling down my cheeks.
Me too, though they were mostly sadness that he dropped out.
2:21 p.m.
Apr 18, '08
Yep, what backbeat said.
2:36 p.m.
Apr 18, '08
I miss JRE so much.
Apr 18, '08
yeah, once again i'm reminded that of the three i like edwards the best.
now i'm waiting for the big media poopstorm about environmentalists being all upset & insulted &c over obama's clam that grizzlies are the #1 threat to america...
Apr 18, '08
Edwards gets as much airtime as Clinton and Obama combined. The times, they are a changin'...
Edwards is sharp, funny, and connects with that elusive white male vote Some things never change
Apr 18, '08
Like many progressives Edwards was number one choice for me. I am hopeful he will have a role in an Obama administration. And like me most Edwards people went to Obama.
Obama is going to be on the Daily Show on Monday- FYI
Latest Newsweek poll has Obama pulling away now, ahead by 19 pts. nationally among Dem. voters:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/132721
Apr 18, '08
Candidates are marginalized by the news media according to how much resistance they show to the corporate agenda. First Gravel and Kucinich were laughed off the stage, then Edwards. Am I noting a bit of antipathy toward Obama emerging?
Apr 18, '08
Hillary is really burning her bridges. Now she is attacking Moveon.org and "Democratic Activists." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/celeste-fremon/clinton-slams-democratic_b_97484.html
Is she getting read to pull a Lieberman? She's sounding more and more like a Republican and uses their attack talking points.
The irony here is that Moveon.org began as an organized movement to defend her husband Bill from impeachment in the late 90s.
7:38 p.m.
Apr 18, '08
Bill R:
Yes, I read that earlier today and was disgusted. From her speech:
Of course, Move On did support the war in Afghanistan - and it has been Karl Rove pushing that falsehood.
Senator Clinton's people then tried to explain her comments as being that there was intimidation from Move On folks in Nevada and Texas - Nevada's caucuses happened before the endorsement of Obama by Move On and Texas' "two step" happened after Clinton's comments.
I've had some points where I've been disappointed with Move On, but they took on this endorsement only after an overwhelming vote by its members.
Blaming Democratic activists for your loss is not the way to win, that's for sure.
9:55 p.m.
Apr 18, '08
I'm active with the MoveOn PDX Council, the oldest of what are now several MoveOn councils in the metro Portland area (there are also a few at least nascent ones down the Willamette Valley), councils being the name they give to local organizations in their/our still-developing efforts to develop an on-the-ground presence.
My take on the MoveOn.org endorsement is somewhat different from Bill R.'s. Their basic endorsement rule is good -- it requires a supermajority (I think 2/3). However, the poll they used did not offer an option of no endorsement, which disfranchised me and at least a couple others of my acquaintance. Obama got about 70% of the votes cast for either him or Clinton -- but I am not sure if he would have reached the necessary threshold if the option of not endorsing or not endorsing yet had been available on the poll.
One reason I opposed an endorsement at the time the poll was taken was that I believe MoveOn.org squandered and opportunity to challenge both candidates for firmer commitments about ending the Iraq occupation immediately and unconditionally (probably would not get exactly that from either, but might have been able to push in that direction), and on addressing the constitutional crisis created by the Bush/Cheney attacks on the Bill of Rights and assertions of literally emperor-like (based on false "commander-in-chief" claims -- emperor from imperator = commander) presidential power that fly in the face of the constitution.
At virtually the same time MoveOn.org took its poll, Tom Hayden published an article (in The Nation I think?) specifically citing pressure from MoveOn.org as an example of ways the anti-war movement could engage usefully with the electoral process. Unfortunately we passed up that chance. Of course there is another view -- I spoke to national organizer who came through town a bit later who in effect subscribed to a "get insider credit / influence later" theory about the endorsement. But I'm skeptical.
Despite my critique of the method of the endorsement, Clinton's statement is just ridiculous. Apart from the big lie on Afghanistan already mentioned, the idea that the MoveOn grass-roots function as some sort of ideological goon squad is just tripe.
Actually the preferred mode of action of most MoveOn.org people has been donating money or signing petitions over the internet. The people I know through MoveOn locally, if they are pro-Obama, are that way mainly because of what they see in his success in engaging people in the political process, rather than anti-Clinton.
Of course, if Clinton chooses to lie about us and smear us and use lies about us to smear others, she might turn more people against her. I am not that enthused about Obama myself. But this dishonest attack on me by Hillary Clinton might just get me to change my intention to abstain in the primary.
But really the passions of the MoveOn-ers I know are driven by things like vote fraud and voter suppression, and universal healthcare -- Iraq certainly, but in a way that if it implies criticism of Clinton's position, would apply almost equally to Obama, since there is so little light between the two on the occupation war. And the people involved are older by quite a bit on average than Obama support on the whole, determinedly civil and anti-violence, and internally tolerant of differences of opinion, especially on candidates. And they are strongly anti-Republican & anti-McCain. Up to now this has meant a commitment to support whomever is the DP nominee -- because of the degree of partisanship, relative to the whole range of Obama backers, up to now I would have said Obama-supporting MoveOn members would be disproportionately likely to be strongly active in support of Clinton if she were the nominee.
In addition to its dishonesty, this attack is just stupid politics on Hillary Clinton's part, undercutting her own capacity to unite the party behind her if she should gain the nomination.
Apr 18, '08
ARGH! What are the chances that John Edwards can swoop into the convention and save the day by becoming the nominee?
Apr 19, '08
I am a white lower middle class voter in PA, I am disabled and I have to live off of Social Security, something so in dire need of reform. Senator Edwards is a definite Champion for people like myself, but I also believe in my Heart of hearts,so does Senator Clinton. I truly believe she will carry on the values that John Edwards holds so dear to him and those alike that are so close to me personally. John Edwards, do the only right thing, Please vote and endorse Senator Clinton, the one candidate that is a Champion for Me, Joey Lee - Scranton PA.
Apr 19, '08
"I am a white lower middle class voter in PA, I am disabled and I have to live off of Social Security, something so in dire need of reform. Senator Edwards is a definite Champion for people like myself, but I also believe in my Heart of hearts,so does Senator Clinton. I truly believe she will carry on the values that John Edwards holds so dear to him and those alike that are so close to me personally. John Edwards, do the only right thing, Please vote and endorse Senator Clinton, the one candidate that is a Champion for Me,"Joey Lee-Scranton PA.
Clinton is also the candidate who's a champion for John McCain, claiming that the same guy who seems to want a perpetual war in Iraq has "passed the Commander and Chief Test." Barack, by contrast, is the one candidate who opposed this madness in Iraq from the start, including Mr.Edwards. As long as we stay in Iraq, you can kiss this economy goodbye.
Give Barack a chance. He's young, but he will be one of our greatest Presidents when all is said and done.
Apr 19, '08
Daniel Spiro wrote: "Give Barack a chance. He's young, but he will be one of our greatest Presidents when all is said and done."
This seems to be the pitch I hear most often regarding this young promising candidate.
Personally, I'm uncomfortable putting this inexperienced young man in office during one of the more difficult times our country has faced in many years. I won't go through the depressing list of issues we are up against; we all know them.
Can we please hold off on experimenting with an unproven candidate until the country is running a little more smoothly? The only thing we know about Senator Obama is that he is a great campaigner. Other than that, I cannot find anything in his record to suggest he knows how to get things done.
I am very comfortable with Senator Clinton; she was in the White house for 8 years looking over President Clinton's shoulder who left office with a record 65% approval rating and a large and growing budget surplus. I actually believe Hillary is smarter, tougher and more committed than her husband. Even their daughter has shared with us her opinion that she will be a better President than Bill was.
Senator Obama needs a few more years to mature. The Senate is a great place for him to establish a record of success. I really want to see our first African American President succeed; I'm very concerned that Obama just isn't ready to take on this country's difficult problems.
To me, this is a job interview. I will vote for the candidate who I know is ready to do the job. This is no time to give a young, inexperienced candidate "a chance".
Apr 19, '08
For all the talk praising Edwards, he was not able to mobilize the support he needed. The message didn't attract the support, and the messenger wasn't able to deliver the votes. Iowa should have been a springboard and it wasn't.
And the campaign has revealed Hillary to be a Republican neocon at heart, anxious and willing to start a new war with Iran. She continues to support the same foreign policy premise that led her to get us into the Iraq invasion. Her campaign is broke, and she has the highest negative ratings of any national politician (with the exception of GWB of course).
Obama is the right choice as our candidate. He can bring together the disparate elements of the coalition. Yesterday the old guard conservatives, Sam Nunn, and David Boren endorsed him, former Southern senators and members of the Unity'08 movement. He has a campaign moving towards 1.5 million contributors, that can beat the Republicans in campaign funding. And he has the charisma to attract motivate huge numbers of people. Yesterday in Philly he had a crowd of 35,000 plus in downtown Philly. He will be the nominee, and that will be clear in the next few weeks.
Right now the audience is the remaining Super-Ds. AP reported yesterday that when the primaries are done in six weeks, if it goes that far, he will need less than 100 of the remaining uncommitted Super-Ds to put him over the top. Clinton has to get a double digit victory in Pa. just to keep her campaign going to the next primaries where she is running behind in IN and NC. And in a growing consensus, even among her own Super-Ds, like Barney Frank, or Maria Cantwell, the remaining Supers are going to ratify the candidate with the most pledged delegates. So the end game is about how divisive and messy Clinton wants to make or not. Right now she is running Republican style attack Ads, and trashing the activist core of the party, so I guess she's made her legacy in the party. I think she's headed for a Lieberman style Republican solution for herself.
Apr 19, '08
Bill R said: "Is she getting read to pull a Lieberman? She's sounding more and more like a Republican and uses their attack talking points. The irony here is that Moveon.org began as an organized movement to defend her husband Bill from impeachment in the late 90s."
There is no irony here. Moveon is and always was a right-of-center Clintonesque organization that failed to support real progressives and pulled all sorts of anti-progressive shenanigans in aiding Hillary's and Lieberman's reelections. That they now support a different corporatist/hegemonist means little, especially considering the way they manipulated the process, as Chris Lowe explained. Chris's analysis deserves another look:
"One reason I opposed an endorsement at the time the poll was taken was that I believe MoveOn.org squandered and opportunity to challenge both candidates for firmer commitments about ending the Iraq occupation immediately and unconditionally (probably would not get exactly that from either, but might have been able to push in that direction), and on addressing the constitutional crisis created by the Bush/Cheney attacks on the Bill of Rights and assertions of literally emperor-like (based on false "commander-in-chief" claims -- emperor from imperator = commander) presidential power that fly in the face of the constitution."
Marcus Brody speaks for progressives when he says regarding Obamary, "ARGH!"
Apr 19, '08
Harry,
I would not characterize MoveOn as right of center. They have leaned toward the progressive side, although they have done so with timidity and inconsistency. They yielded to pressure [from Pelosi and Reid?] on funding the Iraq occupation, to be sure.
I do not know what they did in NY or CT, but their communications with me generally have made them look progressive; weeny progressive, to be sure.
Apr 19, '08
Actually, I liked Clinton's cameo the best--self-deprecating humor is alwaysa real selling point for me. Obama turned his cameo into a stump speech, and Edwards was acting like kid, flashing his smile and imploring people see just see how cute he was.
Apr 19, '08
Half of the country believe that Hillary rides a bloom.
I'll say hell Yeah!.
Hillary is like Hermione Granger. She is super smart, knows all the answers and always has the right magic to pull everybody's rump out of the fire. She is also witty, loving, and caring.
"The greatest wizard of her time." My kind of president.
Apr 19, '08
I wonder why John Edwards backed out so soon in the campaign, because I think with the issues since regarding Clinton and also Obama (some)that Edwards would've very possibly won afterall. He definitely was my number one choice. Sad he backed out! :(
Apr 20, '08
That's great. JE put universal health care front and center, just like Hillary.
<hr/>Three points of difference between BO and HRC on Health: 1. BO believes there are people who don't want health care and should not be forced to buy it 2. BO, therefore, by not declaring it universal, leave the door open for Big Insurance and Big Pharm to set prices. 3. BO puts the major burden on women with children - he will insist that they buy insurance for their kids. Go John Edwards! Go Hillary Clinton. Good for all and good for women.