He used that to distinguish himself from others (like the Clintons) but his heart and soul is with healthcare and poverty. I think that's why he can't decide. Also, there are many Edwards' supporters who chose Clinton as their second choice. He got my first donation.
I just disagree. I think what you're describing may touch on why Edwards hasn't endorsed Obama, but I don't think it means he'll never endorse Hillary. In fact, as an Obama supporter I'd put my odds on Edwards eventually getting behind Clinton.
One of my politically active 20-something friends, an Edwards supporter, came out for Hillary after Edwards dropped. This did surprise me, but only until I actually thought about it. My friend has been involved in politics for a long time, in Georgia, which means he's been burnt often. My friend was a fighter, and he was all about the fight. There's really truly nothing inherently wrong with that, the party needs fighters, and America needs fighters on both sides - it's Edwards' style, it's Clinton's style, it is not my style and it is not Obama's style. If Edwards supports Hillary, his supporters will know that the importance for him of getting a fighter whose views aligned very closely with his views overpowered the importance of someone whose views perhaps aligned slightly more closely with his views.
(My head remains unexploded.)
I think you're right about people who are all 'about the fight'. I suspect most of them support Hillary.
I believe there are times where you have to fight for what you believe in, and times where you should compromise or end up with nothing.
Hillary is a fighter. My issue of course is her type of fighting is splitting the Democratic Party apart.
I agree with this. I think this is a prime opportunity for American liberalism to take the steps necessary to move left of center. I think HRC will fight for it, but I think she also knows when to make a deal, as change doesn't happen overnight.
Why do we think Hillary is such an ardent liberal again? I mean, I love the Clintons as much as anyone (still do) but there is no way his presidency was liberal. And we can blame the GOP congress for a lot of it, but there were still 2 years of total Democratic rule during which the economy was saved (yay!) and lots of progressive causes were dashed upon the rocks. (wah.)
Anyway, her Senate work has not been the stuff of New Liberal World Order or even Old Liberal World Order or rarely even Liberal...
Good analysis.
I remember right before he dropped out how all the Obama supporters were taking it for granted that Edwards followed had to naturally join Obama because you know...they're both anti-Clinton!
But that's a simplistic and childish way to look at things. Many, if not most of Edwards supporters got behind him based on his fighting spirit and on the incredibly detailed way he talked about issues. Obama's message of unity and transcendence at the expense of issues is not a recipe for attracting a group of voters who were hungry for a message of taking the fight to the GOP and in truly changing America not on a message of abstract national unity, but changing American policies in a progressive direction.
Out of the two standing, I can see why many of them went with the candidate promising to fight and offering the more progressive agenda, despite her many faults, which are many.
