Re: John Edwards to endorse Barack Obama...

"Lamont Cranston" <Lamont.Cranston@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:g0kit7$eem$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Bob wrote:
>> "Lamont Cranston" <Lamont.Cranston@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:g0ka7k$413$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> BibsBro wrote:
>>
>>>> The fact that Obama is not sup****ted by working people does not go
>>>> away by a wave of Prettyboy Edward's magic fairy wand.
>>>
>>> You are confused.  Many, many working people sup****t Obama.  His
>>> sup****t among white, blue-collar types is weak.  Since Edwards grew
>>> up in a white, blue-collar environment, he has strong sup****t from
>>> the same white, blue-collar types and it is quite likely that he
>>> will have a very significant effect on how they vote.
>>
>> Edwards couldn't even deliver his own state as a
>
> Irrelevant and possibly untrue, given the level of vote manipulation in 
> the 2004 election.
>
>> candidate for VP in the last election. His is popular
>> among the same groups that sup****t Obama.
>
> Wrong.
>
> His base is white, blue-collar, working-class voters, a group with which

> Obama receives little sup****t.  That is why Edward's endorsement of
Obama 
> is so significant.


I can only cautiously agree with Obama about trade.

FREE trade sucks for the blue-collar, working-class. But FAIR trade is OK.

But the Democrats who claim to protect the Ameican worker screwed us along

with the Republicans on that.





> www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/05/14/edwards/index.html
>
> "...Edwards' sup****t might at least tone down the level of speculation 
> about Obama's strength or weakness with the white working-class voters
who 
> were Edwards' base in this race."