Looks like Obama is already cutting deals...

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Fern

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

Like Gonzo The Clown, who wrote that torture was Constitutional and that the Geneva Conventions were "quaint?" :roll:

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

Which is why I noted that he's an experienced litigator. That's what a prosecutor does.

Edwards has neither.

What you smokin', Rufus? :roll:

I think he'd just politicize the office and we don't need that.

We've already had that with Gonzo and a crew of halfwit jackasses with questionable law degrees and an agenda from Pat Robertson's version of a law school. :thumbsdown:

 

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Fern
I think the people that are prone to dislike him will just politicize him and the office and we don't need that.

Agreed.

:thumbsup:

 

[Lemon law]

Regardless what anyone think about the next AG, only the POTHUS decides who to appoint for AG. Only in rare cases does the congress say no, and chances don't look all that bright for the GOP to have 40+ Senators left when the gavel bangs convening the next congress.

Besides, the next AG will likely be investigating tons of GOP fraud during the GWB administration. The same skill sets Edwards used to sue corporation could well make
Edwards a formidable AG.

Posters like Pabster and Fern may assert a right to vote for their choice of AG, but there are quite a few more involved republirats who are positively peeing their pants right now. Knowing they are safe for now, but their safety expires in only one year.

 

[reeserock]

I think it would be great to actually have a real attorney be the AG.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: 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?

Lawyers generally break into categories:

1. The academic type researching cases and understanding the law etc.

2. Litigators. They are good at speaking in public (i.e., litigating in front of the court), possibly also good at negotiating since many cases end up being settled.Edited to add that they also need to be good with procedural rules of the court they are litigating in.

I believe the AG does no litigating him/herself. The do manage all the Assist AG's around the country who do the actual litigation out of their offices.

I also expect the AG to provide an awful lot of legal advice to the Pres. Thus a top Constitutional lawyer is my choice, and one with decent managerial skills as well.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Fern

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

Like Gonzo The Clown, who wrote that torture was Constitutional and that the Geneva Conventions were "quaint?" :roll:

Stop being an ass. I've never heard anybody say he was a top Constitutional lawyer. And you've never seen me say anything nice about him

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

Which is why I noted that he's an experienced litigator. That's what a prosecutor does.

Litigator =! Prosecutor. Edwards has exactly zip experience in criminal law, which is what prosecutors do. Edwards just sues in civil court (product liability), the AG's office has nothing to do with that. Those are lawsuits between two (or more) non-governmental parties

Edwards has neither.

What you smokin', Rufus? :roll:

Apparently nothing as strong as you

I think he'd just politicize the office and we don't need that.

We've already had that with Gonzo and a crew of halfwit jackasses with questionable law degrees and an agenda from Pat Robertson's version of a law shcool. :thumbsdown:

Precisely. You've been complianing about Gonzo and that he was chosen for (GWB's) political ideology instead of competence.

And yet you now advocate the exact same thing: You like Edawards politics. How hypocritical and stupid.

Fern

See bold/underlined comments

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Pabster

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

Agreed.

Exactly. The last thing this country needs is an AG using his position to fein outrage over "2 americas"

 

[Lemon law]

As Corbett says---Exactly. The last thing this country needs is an AG using his position to fein outrage over "2 americas"

Maybe that other America that has been under represented for decades might just find a champion in Edwards. If Edwards does more than just fein outrage and does something real.

I might point out that Elliot Spitzer who was a very good New York AG is now Governor of New York. And Spitzer earned the promotion as he did more than fein outrage.

 

[Red Dawn]

He'd be better than any of the assholes who were AG under Bush.

 

[smashp]

Anything is better than Fredo-"I'm smart! Not like everybody says... like dumb... I'm smart and I want respect!"

 

[Moonbeam]

"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."

Not a chance now that you've spilled the beans on that evil leaky cunning Obama. I now suspect he's nice to his wife because he wants sex. Thanks for the tour of your mental gutter and how to think like a dick.

Really really interesting if true, but then who really cares whether its true. It will be even more fascinating if it turns out you're a pedophile. Not saying you are, of course, just certain commonalities.

 

[imported_Lothar]

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 isn't in the Clinton camp AFAIK. More than likely he's in the Obama camp considering what he and Kucinich staffers did in Iowa to rally behind Obama.

However I'm sure he might decide to remain neutral in order to be on the "short list" of VP nominees for either the Clinton or Obama camp.

 

[Wreckem]

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.

In a brokered convention, the person who has the delegates gets a lot of say in where they vote and usually thats who they vote for. Thats why it's a brokered convention. If John Edwards continues to hover at 15% through March 5th he will get to play kingmaker at the convention if Obama stays close to Hillary.

Likewise, Huckabee is extremely likely to play kingmaker for the Republicans. The last brokered convention was in '76 where Ronald Reagan, lost to Ford. Worked out well for Reagan.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
"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."

Not a chance now that you've spilled the beans on that evil leaky cunning Obama. I now suspect he's nice to his wife because he wants sex. Thanks for the tour of your mental gutter and how to think like a dick.

Really really interesting if true, but then who really cares whether its true. It will be even more fascinating if it turns out you're a pedophile. Not saying you are, of course, just certain commonalities.

Have you been drinking again?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
"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."

Not a chance now that you've spilled the beans on that evil leaky cunning Obama. I now suspect he's nice to his wife because he wants sex. Thanks for the tour of your mental gutter and how to think like a dick.

Really really interesting if true, but then who really cares whether its true. It will be even more fascinating if it turns out you're a pedophile. Not saying you are, of course, just certain commonalities.

Have you been drinking again?

Not from your poison well.

 

[Lemon law]

I think Wreckem basically has it nailed with---In a brokered convention, the person who has the delegates gets a lot of say in where they vote and usually thats who they vote for. Thats why it's a brokered convention. If John Edwards continues to hover at 15% through March 5th he will get to play kingmaker at the convention if Obama stays close to Hillary.

Likewise, Huckabee is extremely likely to play kingmaker for the Republicans. The last brokered convention was in '76 where Ronald Reagan, lost to Ford. Worked out well for Reagan.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The only thing I would add is that all start out trying to win with a whole big bunch of if then scenario calculus. As their campaign progresses and the actual votes comes in, certain of the initial strategies become untenable and they then concentrate on other strategies.

And its just not the candidates who play the games in a brokered convention, various State
leaders can often take their ballots elsewhere in State sized blocks. In the case of JFK, it was Mayor Daily who moved Illinois support away from Adli Stevenson and to Kennedy that put JFK over the top and secured the democratic nomination. And once Mayor Daily made up his mind, woe onto any Illinois delegate who did not follow his lead.

And if Hillary or Obama threaten to get over 50% of all democratic delegates, look for all kinds of Dems maneuvering semi independently trying to put together stop the front runner
scenarios. And some may be viable on the same if this works then go with it basis. But if this
poo bah says no its not viable.

 

[nageov3t]

I think the republicans are a lot less likely to have a brokered convention, mostly thanks to Rudy, whose strategy of getting super tuesday states turned into winner-take-all stakes, is about to backfire on him if the NE swings for McCain.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: loki8481
I think the republicans are a lot less likely to have a brokered convention, mostly thanks to Rudy, whose strategy of getting super tuesday states turned into winner-take-all stakes, is about to backfire on him if the NE swings for McCain.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think the republicans are more likely to have a brokered convention. But I agree that Giuliani
may be forced out if he fails to score big in Florida. But its still a four man race even then. And with Ron Paul likely in until the end with the money to do it, Paul's 10% could make him part kingmaker also. The religious right wants Huckabee, but problem is, no one else does. And the GOP still has not climbed that fence to run away from GWB. But running with GWB looks like a
loser.

Things will become clearer after Super Tuesday. And as of yet unknown future events can make or break various candidates especially on the Republican side.

 

[wwswimming]

Originally posted by: WhoozyerdaddyWhile 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 dreadlocked Democratic National Convention.

now that would be something to see.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: loki8481
I think the republicans are a lot less likely to have a brokered convention, mostly thanks to Rudy, whose strategy of getting super tuesday states turned into winner-take-all stakes, is about to backfire on him if the NE swings for McCain.

I think the republicans are more likely to have a brokered convention. But I agree that Giuliani
may be forced out if he fails to score big in Florida. But its still a four man race even then. And with Ron Paul likely in until the end with the money to do it, Paul's 10% could make him part kingmaker also. The religious right wants Huckabee, but problem is, no one else does. And the GOP still has not climbed that fence to run away from GWB. But running with GWB looks like a
loser.

Things will become clearer after Super Tuesday. And as of yet unknown future events can make or break various candidates especially on the Republican side.

this is venturing hella off-topic, but my official prediction:

McCain wins Florida, no candidates drop out. he take home the lion's share of the delegates on Super Tuesday. after the humiliating defeat in losing NY and NJ, Rudy will drop out, followed by the Huckster, who will endorse McCain. Romney may continue to draw on his personal funds to battle McCain, but he'll be investing in failure; Ron Paul will continue to remain irrelevant.

on the D side, I have no flipping idea :laugh: but the differences between Obama and Hillary are mostly superficial, so it's not all that interesting from my perspective. the only thing I'd put sure money on is that Edwards is neither going to win a single state nor be offered a VP slot.

 

[dennilfloss]

Originally posted by: 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:

Reminds me of when Robert Kennedy was AG. Edwards even looks like him.

 

[Genx87]

Good god, a man who built a fortune on the backs of smokers will be at the helm of the ATTY general? Business cant move fast enough out of this country if he is given that kind of power.