Looks like Obama is already cutting deals...

[Whoozyerdaddy]

http://rasmussenreports.com/pu...torney_general_edwards

Friday, January 25, 2008

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Illinois Democrats close to Sen. Barack Obama are quietly passing the word that John Edwards will be named attorney general in an Obama administration.

Installation at the Justice Department of multimillionaire trial lawyer Edwards would please not only the union leaders supporting him for president but organized labor in general. The unions relish the prospect of an unequivocal labor partisan as the nation's top legal officer.

In public debates, Obama and Edwards often seem to bond together in alliance against front-running Sen. Hillary Clinton. While running a poor third, Edwards could collect a substantial bag of delegates under the Democratic Party's proportional representation. Edwards then could try to turn his delegates over to Obama in the still unlikely event of a deadlocked Democratic National Convention.


COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

Interesting if true. Wrap up the irrelevant third candidate's delegates and basically run 2 against 1 for the rest of the primary up to the convention. Too bad he leaked the strategy this early... I wonder if it will hold up now that the cat is out of the bag.

 

[Pabster]

Attorney General Edwards? God help us. :laugh:

 

[bamacre]

Who would be the VP?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Who would be the VP?

Richardson seems a goof choice. Obama may be seen as inexperienced in foreign policy. Richardson has a ton of experience there. He's a latino, Obama hasn't been doing particularly well among that group, and he's from the West.

They might be leaking it this soon because Edwards may be out of the race in all but name after today.

I expect Edwards to hang around until Super Tuesday, but not after that unless he shows better than expected.

Or, maybe he's floating it now before HRC can entice Edwards with a position.

But I figure that we'll see mch more of Edwards if the Dems win the Pres. He'll get a high-profile job somewhere.

Fern

 

[Jhhnn]

Attorney General Edwards? God help us.

Heh. And he'd be worse than Alberto Gonzales in what way? John Ashcroft?

It'd be a refreshing and long overdue change to have an AG who wasn't anti-labor... and who didn't push aside more qualified candidates to hire fundies from third or fourth tier law schools...

 

[xeemzor]

Has anyone every really liked the Attorney General? Though, to be fair, I really don't Edwards doing a terrible job in the same way that Gonzales did. And i think he still has a working memory.

 

[Vic]

Edwards would make a great AG, IMO. I'd be surprised if he'd be willing to settle for it though.

I don't see Richardson as Obama's VP. First, NM doesn't carry the votes needed. Second, he's in the Clinton camp.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: Vic
Edwards would make a great AG, IMO. I'd be surprised if he'd be willing to settle for it though.

I don't see Richardson as Obama's VP. First, NM doesn't carry the votes needed. Second, he's in the Clinton camp.

Richardson isnt in the Clinton camp. If he was he would have come out and endorsed her after dropping out.

Richardson and Obama are just as buddy buddy as Richardson and Clinton.

 

[nageov3t]

I'd be oddly OK with AG Edwards.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Attorney General Edwards? God help us. :laugh:

LMAO! I cant stop laughing at the possibility of this.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Vic
Edwards would make a great AG, IMO. I'd be surprised if he'd be willing to settle for it though.

I don't see Richardson as Obama's VP. First, NM doesn't carry the votes needed. Second, he's in the Clinton camp.

I agree with the first part and hope you are wrong on the second, that he doesn't or wouldn't carry the votes and that he's in the Clinton camp because I think he would be an excellent VP for Obama.

 

[techs]

Apparently no one is acquainted with reality if they believe this.
Cutting a 'deal' where Obama finishes second to Hilary to get Edwards votes is in practice impossible. Delegates must vote for the candidates they are pledged to on the first ballot. After that they are free agents (although it may have changed to the first three ballots).
The delegates chosen by Edwards, Obama and Clinton are all Democratic party muckety mucks. Once they are on their own they will vote for who they want to, not who their candidate says to (although there will be number who do follow their candidates recommendation).
So once the delegates are free to vote for a candidate other then the one they must vote for, they will cast their vote according to conscience and "what's in it for me".
And since Clinton is the strongest candidate to win she is the only one who could give them anything.
So the reality is much ado about nothing.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Attorney General Edwards? God help us. :laugh:

Hey Pabs, I thought this was all about taking PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. Here you tout both a stinking GWB and the GOP who are doing everything to insure a democratic President and a congressional sweep in 08, and now you are already complaining about the kind of cabinet personnel you may see.

In any political convention in an effort to get to 50% of the delegates locked up before the convention, two opposing candidates are company and three are a crowd.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: techs
Apparently no one is acquainted with reality if they believe this.
Cutting a 'deal' where Obama finishes second to Hilary to get Edwards votes is in practice impossible. Delegates must vote for the candidates they are pledged to on the first ballot. After that they are free agents (although it may have changed to the first three ballots).
The delegates chosen by Edwards, Obama and Clinton are all Democratic party muckety mucks. Once they are on their own they will vote for who they want to, not who their candidate says to (although there will be number who do follow their candidates recommendation).
So once the delegates are free to vote for a candidate other then the one they must vote for, they will cast their vote according to conscience and "what's in it for me".
And since Clinton is the strongest candidate to win she is the only one who could give them anything.
So the reality is much ado about nothing.

Umm, no. Unless the rules have changed.

Further complicating the process, candidates may drop out of the race before the convention or even before all of the pledged at-large delegates are chosen. In those cases, the state party and the withdrawn candidate may have some influence on how those delegates vote on the convention ballot.

CNN Link

Notwithstanding the above, your logic seems fataly flawed.

If no Dem candidate has a majority and all delegates in the initial vote must "stick" with their candidate they will need a second a vote as no majority was achieved.

The delegates representing candidates who have dropped out would then be free to vote for another candidate. If Edwards is so inclined and has the influence he could direct his delegates to vote for Obama.

But nevermind about all that. Last night I saw a show on the matter. The fact is the Dems changed their nomination process to include "super delegates" for the sole purpose of having the flexability to nominate a candidate who didn't win the popular vote. This was done after the McGovern debacle.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Richardson? Really? Don't get me wrong, I like the guy... he shares a lot of my values and he seems like a genuinely decent and experienced person. The fact of the matter is that he has zero charisma... none. Since I sincerely doubt that either Hillary or Obama will allow the VP to have a tenth the power that Cheney currently has, they are pretty much looking for a campaign partner. In that respect Richardson would be a terrible choice IMO.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Richardson? Really? Don't get me wrong, I like the guy... he shares a lot of my values and he seems like a genuinely decent and experienced person. The fact of the matter is that he has zero charisma... none. Since I sincerely doubt that either Hillary or Obama will allow the VP to have a tenth the power that Cheney currently has, they are pretty much looking for a campaign partner. In that respect Richardson would be a terrible choice IMO.

Richardson could be all over Spansih speaking TV/radio.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Richardson? Really? Don't get me wrong, I like the guy... he shares a lot of my values and he seems like a genuinely decent and experienced person. The fact of the matter is that he has zero charisma... none. Since I sincerely doubt that either Hillary or Obama will allow the VP to have a tenth the power that Cheney currently has, they are pretty much looking for a campaign partner. In that respect Richardson would be a terrible choice IMO.

Richardson could be all over Spansih speaking TV/radio.

Fern

Ahhh, good point. I don't know if I would consider that worth it, but you're right it does add a good bit.

 

[ProfJohn]

Do we really want an ambulance chaser as AG?

The number one job of the AG is law enforcement so shouldn?t we be looking at someone with type of experience?

There are lots of former DAs running around in politics I think someone like that would make a better choice.


And xeemzor is right on the fact that no one ever likes the AG. Name the last AG that was liked by both sides.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Pabster
Attorney General Edwards? God help us. :laugh:

LMAO! I cant stop laughing at the possibility of this.

How would he be worse than the other asshats we've had as AG recently?

He's be an improvement, if nothing else.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Do we really want an ambulance chaser as AG?

The number one job of the AG is law enforcement so shouldn?t we be looking at someone with type of experience?

There are lots of former DAs running around in politics I think someone like that would make a better choice.


And xeemzor is right on the fact that no one ever likes the AG. Name the last AG that was liked by both sides.

I'd much prefer someone with a strong background in Constitutional law.

I'd prefer the Assist AG's be good at prosecutorial duties.

Edwards has neither. I think he'd just politicize the office and we don't need that.

Fern

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Topic Summary: Atty General John Edwards?

I've been saying this for weeks. Edwards is an experienced litigator, and he's got his ethical head on straight. That's two for two that are diametrically opposed to Gonzo the Clown, who should be one of the first targets for prosecution, along with Bush and Cheney.

:thumbsup: 😎

 

[Fern]

Why does the AG need to be an experienced litigator?

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Fern
I think he'd just politicize the office and we don't need that.

Agreed.

 

[xeemzor]

Originally posted by: Fern
Why does the AG need to be an experienced litigator?

😕 What kind of experience would your ideal AG have? As the head of the Justice Department, I'd imagine that you would need great litigation skills?

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Fern
I think he'd just politicize the office and we don't need that.

Agreed.

more so than its already been politicized?