MyDD :: Edwards Not Expected To Endorse

Edwards Not Expected To Endorse

by Todd Beeton, Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 07:05:41 PM EST

The closer we get to North Carolina's primary, the more anticipation there is likely to be that John Edwards would break his silence and come out with an endorsement of either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. As if to quash any growing speculation about that prospect, sources close to Edwards are expressing their doubts about a forthcoming endorsement.

From The Politico:

John Edwards is unlikely to endorse either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton before the nomination is decided, according to interviews with several members of the former candidate's inner circle.

At least three individuals who have recently spoken to Edwards expect that he will choose to stay out of the fight, though they warn that no one other than his wife, Elizabeth, can be certain of his thinking.

"My gut instinct, at this point: He's probably going to remain neutral and sort of try to play on that Al Gore status as party elder," said a former Edwards operative who is in regular contact with the former North Carolina senator and who asked that his name be withheld.

At the heart of this is the fact, as has been reported many times before, that Edwards is truly torn, something that no doubt makes many Obama supporters' heads explode.

"He is genuinely torn between the two," the adviser added. "On the big change, money and politics, he obviously agrees more with Barack. I think on the toughness and experience in life, making difficult decisions, I think he believes Hillary is more ready for the job. I also think that he thinks the way she has pursued his support has a level of seriousness he has not seen from the other guy." [...]

Edwards' former advisers say he has spoken frankly to both candidates, telling Obama "some of his concerns about his strength and experience and readiness for the fight," according to the account of one adviser.

Are those Clinton talking points I hear?

Contrary to the inevitability campaign Obama supporters are currently waging (what else is left after failing to win it outright on votes or to change the superdelegate rules in the middle of the game...) high level Democrats still have reservations about Barack Obama as the nominee and Obama supporters would be well-advised to accept and respect this fact. Where are all those superdelegates who were waiting in the wings to come out for Obama after March 4? If it's so impossible for Hillary Clinton to win, why aren't they ending this thing right now? John Edwards's refusal to lend his weight to Obama's candidacy at this point speaks volumes for both the real doubts some have about Obama as well as the continued viability of Hillary Clinton's candidacy.

Now, as The Politico article makes clear, anything can still happen as far as Edwards is concerned. Is it realistic for him to be completely absent from the North Carolina primary process? Might he appear at events of both candidates? Might he use the focus on his home state to raise awareness of an issue, such as poverty, that he'd like the candidates to focus more on? I'm personally not counting out John Edwards as a factor entirely, although it does appear as of now that we should not expect an endorsement any time soon.

Tags: 2008 presidential election, democratic nomination, john edwards, barack obama, hillary clinton (all tags)

Permalink :: 90 Comments :: Post a Comment

putting their issues first (2.00 / 2)

Edwards wants to work with the next prez on ending poverty, just as Gore wants to work with the next prez on climate change. i do not blame them in any way for their lack of endorsements. they are putting the causes they work for above of all else. good for them. because both know that if they endorse Obama, and Clinton wins, she will not work with them.

the time to rise has been engaged.

by catchaz on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 07:13:55 PM EST

Re: putting their issues first (2.00 / 7)

I agreed with you until this part:

because both know that if they endorse Obama, and Clinton wins, she will not work with them.

with its implication that they secretly want to endorse Obama, but that the evil witch Clinton could harm their agenda if she's crossed. I honestly think that both Edwards and Gore realize that both candidates have strengths and flaws and that for the good of party unity, it's best that they stay out of the endorsement business.

by Inky on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 07:34:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: putting their issues first (2.00 / 6)

Good point, Inky.

I feel like Edwards. Both of them have strengths and weaknesses. Edwards' endorsement would influence me, but without one, I have no favorite between the two.

by TomP on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 07:42:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

partial agreement better than none (2.00 / 1)

i do think they would endorse Obama (Edwards all but did that during the campaign & Gore didn't even want Bill to campaign with him as sitting president). but i do think Clinton would hold it against them, and that's why i think they are smart not to endorse.

and i don't think witches are evil. some of my best friends are witches.

the time to rise has been engaged.

by catchaz on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 07:59:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: partial agreement better than none (2.00 / 2)

Dodd endorsed Obama and Hillary worked to cosponsor a bill with him immediately afterward
There is no room for petty behavior when Sen Clinton is trying to get work done, as she has shown time and time again

ginaswo

by ginaswo on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:18:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: putting their issues first (2.00 / 1)

Why in the world would President Hillary not work with Gore or Edwards on issues she agrees with? She's worked with real enemies in the past, Republicans who helped impeach Bill. Her idea of green collar jobs and energy self-sufficiency is right along with Gore's.

by 1950democrat on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:20:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: putting their issues first (2.00 / 1)

And her health care plan is closer to Edwards, as Edwards himself has stated.

I was an Edwards supporter in part because I felt that he had spent real time thinking about the issues. When he was still in the race, a common criticism of him was that so many of his current positions seemed to be at odds with his voting record in the senate. And that's true. But what he also talked about was the evolution in his thinking that caused him to come around to a different perspective. It is not hard to understand how he came to view his vote on the bankruptcy bill as a mistake, because it is necessary to be consistent with his understanding of the problems in this country. (And it's certainly not hard to understand how someone could come to believe that the interests of big business have come to be much more important to policy makers than the American people, especially with this administration.)

But the thing about all of it was that he really, really thought about it. And it is that careful consideration and his very real desire to change the circumstances of those who have the least in our society that is making his decision difficult. It really surprises me that so many Obama supporters thought that there was no question about whom Edwards supporters would eventually support. Health care is a huge issue for me and was a very important aspect in my decision to support Clinton. I can completely understand how that could be an issue that is weighing on his choice as well.

I respect both Edwards and Gore a great deal. And if either of them do decide to endorse (and I can't imagine that Gore will), you can bet that when they do so, it will be based on their own thoughts and in their own words, and they won't need any stage directions to tell them what to do.

Bitch is the New Black

by Iphie on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:17:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

From the interview on Leno... (2.00 / 2)

it sounded like he leaned more Clinton. But who knows?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8UMhAsCm 5U&eurl=http://www.eenrblog.com/fron tPage.do?nextId=1

It's an election, not an auction.

by cosbo on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 07:15:08 PM EST

Re: From the interview on Leno... (2.00 / 1)

I think he would have been a better President than either Barack or Hillary (though I don't think someone like him would ever win)

Voices in the Wilderness

by Wiseprince on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 07:44:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: From the interview on Leno... (2.00 / 3)

I think he could have won against a traditional field. His timing did him in. Obama, the star and first AA with a real chance to win and Hillary, former First Lady and first woman with a real chance to win. He couldn't get any attention.

by tabbycat in tenn on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 07:47:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: From the interview on Leno... (none / 0)

Without a doubt he would be.

We would have real change.

Instead, HillObama is hell bent on bringing us President McCain.

by TomP on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 07:48:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: From the interview on Leno... (2.00 / 3)

Personally I thought Edwards was a better choice in 2004 than Kerry.

AnnMarie

by wiscogirl101 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 07:53:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: From the interview on Leno... (none / 0)

agreed, i thought Edwards was a better option. The timing just hasn't been right for him. In that cycle, the mantle of the passionate newcomer fell to Dean, and once Dean fell, the CW sort of became to go safe with Kerry. In this cycle, the deck was stacked. I think he'd make an excellent President if ever given the opportunity, although I worry that his time has passed for that, unless he gets the VP nod. Knock on wood, but if we lose, I just think that in 2012, we may be speaking about someone else, say, a Mark Warner.

by toonsterwu on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:01:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: From the interview on Leno... (none / 0)

I thought so too. Kerry was a disaster (still is, as you can tell, I clearly don't like him). But I have to say that I was very disappointed with Edwards for his debate with Cheney. I love Elizabeth Edwards and thought she could have done a much better job facing Cheney than her husband.

by observer11 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:15:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: From the interview on Leno... (none / 0)

I meant for 2004. For 2008, I think Hillary is the best candidate, even in comparison to Edwards.

by observer11 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:16:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Not Expected To Endorse (2.00 / 1)

"Where are all those superdelegates who were waiting in the wings to come out for Obama after March 4? If it's so impossible for Hillary Clinton to win, why aren't they ending this thing right now?"

Answer: Harold Ickes has been blackmailing the superdelegates, threatening them with all sorts of crap if they go to Obama. You think the superdelegates aren't being threatened by Ickes and co.? The bigger question is: why is that since Super Tuesday Hillary Clinton has pick up about 3 superdelegates and lost 6, while Obama has picked up about 50. That seems to be the real question. Bill Richardson jumping to Obama was, possibly, the beginning of the end for Clinton. It signaled that the big-time superdelegates now see the coast clear. They don't think Obama will have no problems in the fall, but they see a continuation of this race as dividing the party unnecessarily. And that's why Carville called Richardson Judas. Hillary is Jesus, after all.

by elrod on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 07:15:11 PM EST

Re: Edwards Not Expected To Endorse (2.00 / 1)

"Where are all those superdelegates who were waiting in the wings to come out for Obama after March 4? If it's so impossible for Hillary Clinton to win, why aren't they ending this thing right now?" A better question is, "why are we still even voting if HRC said she'd have this all wrapped up a month earlier, on February 5th.?" HRC says "It'll be over by February 5th": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WsPmZ1zD eA

*VOTE DEMOCRAT! - HRC or BHO* Obama '08 - Full of reason / Hillary '08 - Full of treason (Gallup Poll, March 26 2008) / McCain '08 - Diaper's full of Bushit.

by VT COnQuest on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 07:22:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Not Expected To Endorse (2.00 / 1)

That's just laughable.

Threatening the supers? With what?

Prostitutes in their closets? Give me a break.

If all these supers really wanted Obama, and could endorse him en masse the campaign would be OVER. Obama would clinch it over night. Hillary would be done. So what can the Clinton camp threaten the supers with if she won't be the nominee?

You are only in a position to threaten them if you are going to win it and can deny possible positions of power in a new administration, or fundraising help. This is just nonsense. If they wanted Obama they could endorse now, end it and be on the good graces of the chosen nominee.

by need some wood on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:02:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Not Expected To Endorse (none / 0)

And somehow Harold Ickes has all this blackmail power huh? He must have been like Hoover, storing up data on everyone.

C'mon, conspiracy theories are ridiculous. Sometimes the simplest explanation is the easiest one, and that is that the party leaders are torn on this as well. I don't think any Democratic leader wants to anger one block or another. I mean, there's a good risk that blue collar/rural votes, votes that should be with us, might be more in play than one would think with Obama than HRC. Similarly, if it's HRC vs. Obama, there's the argued risk that the youth and African American vote will leave.

As for Richardson, I think it was an intriguing choice, although relative to making the decision come any quicker, I doubt it. Are superdelegates going to come out en masse before Pennsylvania, and risk making themselves look foolish if HRC wins big? Doubtful.

If superdelegates come out, I expect it to be post-Pennsylvania, although personally, at this point, I think the best bet is that everyone is going to wait for post-Puerto Rico.

by toonsterwu on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:05:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Not Expected To Endorse (none / 0)

the people being threatened are the Congressional Black Caucus leaders who support HRC
They are running independents against anyone who wont come to Team Obama
John Lewis was harassed mercilessly and he was beaten marching with Dr King
Rep E Miller of OH made it thru his challenge and now another BO supporter is preparing to run against him
Sheila Jackson Lee is being threatened and a challenger pout up against her as well

it is basically join us or get out of the way youre history, the hexl with the lifetime of work for the AA community you arent good enough if you wont go Obama
THAT is threatening

ginaswo

by ginaswo on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:22:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Not Expected To Endorse (none / 0)

Wow! What a shockingly unattributably series of accusations!

P.S. Let's play a logic game!

IF: Superdelegates can support whomever they want.
AND IF: Democratic members of congress are superdelegates.
THEN: Members of congress can support whomever they want.

BUT ALSO

IF: Congressmembers are elected by their constituants;
AND IF: Congressmembers like being in office;
THEN: Congressmembers try to please their constituants.

BUT YET:

IF: Members of congress (black caucus as well) can support whomever they want.
AND IF: Congressmembers try to please their constituants
THEN: Congressmembers can still support whomever they want. Listening to their constituents is always a choice with frequent elections to be evaluated.

Fun!

Someone tell the Strom Thurmondgeist to stop haunting the Clintons: upending chairs, opening creaky doors, possessing during USA Today interviews.

by Lettuce on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:41:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Not Expected To Endorse (none / 0)

I've talked personally with a superdelegate who endorsed Obama who cited Ickes "strongarm" tactics as a reason for "shutting him up" and endorsing before he might have done so otherwise.

by howardpark on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:08:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

He will never endorse HRC, period. (1.25 / 4)

One of this biggest issues was corporate lobbyist money. Hillary bathes in it. She has taken in more money from them than McCain. Her husband had a love affair with them. Does not matter what JE's reservations are - he would never ever ever support her. He may not support BO either - but Hillary? He knows his former supporters would know that everything he said he believed in and stood for was hogwash if he went with her. Not that it really matters I think who he supports. His own supporters have moved on and made their decisions already.
John Edwards is keepin' it real, that's for sure.

by TheFullBerry on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 07:22:05 PM EST

Re: He will never endorse HRC, period. (none / 0)

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.

by tabbycat in tenn on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 07:44:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He will never endorse HRC, period. (2.00 / 1)

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.)

by Exhausted Pennsylvanian on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:00:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He will never endorse HRC, period. (2.00 / 1)

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.

AnnMarie

by wiscogirl101 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:04:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He will never endorse HRC, period. (none / 0)

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.

by toonsterwu on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:09:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He will never endorse HRC, period. (2.00 / 1)

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...

Someone tell the Strom Thurmondgeist to stop haunting the Clintons: upending chairs, opening creaky doors, possessing during USA Today interviews.

by Lettuce on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:45:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He will never endorse HRC, period. (2.00 / 1)

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.

by need some wood on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:08:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I respect John Edwards (2.00 / 1)

but his endorsement would have little impact on the horse race if he were to opine right now.

He will be much more effective at the brokered convention...as will Al Gore.

by Coldblue on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 07:25:18 PM EST

You should get a warning for this. (1.00 / 1)

Attacking others and all. I get warned all the time, why don't you?
Why is it okay for you to insult democratic supporters of Obama?
I told someone who said Richardson slept with Alpaca's that they were disgusting, and I had to sign one of those scary official warnings before I could post again. I was terrified and made the mess in my pants when I got that warning. I was scared for me and everything I care for. I was tinking life might as well be over is I have to sign this. But I signed it and I think it's mean that I get in trouble and you don't.

This is what you said:
At the heart of this is the fact, as has been reported many times before, that Edwards is truly torn, something that no doubt makes many Obama supporters' heads explode.

Much worse than me saying the person who said Richardson sleeps with Alpaca's is wrong and disgusting. But I'm the one who got in big trouble with the police on this site and you are the police so I guess it's fine for you. I am sitting here crying in shame and it hurts and my family is upset.

by TheFullBerry on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 07:26:15 PM EST

Re: You should get a warning for this. (none / 0)

I think my head is going to explode.

by Kysen on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:15:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You need to calm down. (2.00 / 4)

II'm for Obama but I like Edwards. Stop with the haircut crap. Obama lives in a 2 million dollar house and cares about the poor. You don't have to go to Lemon Tree and pay four bucks to get your head whacked to care about the poor.
John Edwards is keeping it real with Obama so calm down before you make the mess in your pants.
I just heard that Hillary got one of those do it yourself Toni Perms. Can't wait to see pictures of it. She should not have given her self a perm at home. that never works.

by TheFullBerry on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 07:30:09 PM EST

Re: Edwards Not Expected To Endorse (2.00 / 2)

What is wrong with you? JRE is going to come thru for Obama. They both love to play basketball. Did you see the hug?

by Spanky on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 07:36:13 PM EST

Re: Edwards Not Expected To Endorse (none / 0)

I was speculating about this earlier today. Edwards' strongest suit has always been economic populism, and I'm wondering if he sees his only future in poltiics (and he is doing good work out of politics right now) as "coming to the rescue" if the Democrats lose this cycle, and if things get as bad economically as they seem to be getting.

This is by no means meant to be disparaging of him. I like Edwards and early on supported him in this election, but I think he must understand that the issues that call upon his greatest appeal are not at the forefront of this particular campaign (though God knows why they are not) and is both awaiting a time where his strengths are more called for, and at the same time doing the work he wants to out of politics.

Whether he endorses or not is almost irrelevant. He has an odd lawyer's reticence and self protectiveness so may not.

by mady on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 07:39:48 PM EST

the 50 delegates were a rumor (none / 0)

Obama spokesperson Bill Burton emails us:

This is just a rumor. There is no secret stash of superdelegates that we are sitting on waiting to roll out.

by Bee on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 07:40:41 PM EST

Proper link (none / 0)

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsm emo.com/2008/03/obama_spokesman_we_dont_ have_a.php

by Bee on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 07:42:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Not Expected To Endorse (2.00 / 2)

I respect his decision. It's easy to jump on someone's bandwagon for the attention but he isn't (so far). Good for you John.

by tabbycat in tenn on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 07:41:30 PM EST

Edwards' nonendorsement is a boon to Hillary, (2.00 / 2)

a huge antidote to the media pressure fest of "when will Obama be anointed' by a string of white men, Kennedy, Kerry, Dodd, and now a Latino, Richardson,
who never had the Latino vote to give away in the first place

http://www.artsystems.com/products/studi o.htm

The only one who really matters is Edwards. Obama's candidacy is totally in question or Edwards would jump on the hoopla wagon. Edwards is acting wise and measured - he wants to see Democrats win.

It would be great if Edwards would come out in favor of revotes in FL and MI - purely on the basis the the party needs to know who can really carry those states. Isn't that pretty damn important to know?

by Molee on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 07:43:31 PM EST

Re: Edwards' nonendorsement is a boon to Hillary, (2.00 / 1)

Why is Obamas candidacy in question? Curious..since there are alot of people supporting him.

AnnMarie

by wiscogirl101 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 07:49:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards' nonendorsement is a boon to Hillary, (none / 0)

And this is why I am happy that Edwards is not endorsing... If he endorses Clinton, the Obama folks will not be happy and will voice their disapproval... if he endorses Obama, the Clinton folks will give him the same treatment they gave Kennedy and now Richardson... terrible.

It's a no win situation and I don't blame him for not weighing in.

Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...

by JenKinFLA on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:21:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards' nonendorsement is a boon to Hillary, (none / 0)

Huh?

If Edwards was to endorse Hillary....of course Obamas campaign wouldn't be happy, but they wouldn't publicly disapprove of it either.

Certainly they wouldn't come out with a "His relevance to the campaign ended weeks ago" in a Mark Penn fashion. Obamas campaign would likely just say "we respect Edwards decision".

Really..the way Hillarys campaign handles losses and Obamas campaign handles them are miles apart.

AnnMarie

by wiscogirl101 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:27:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards' nonendorsement is a boon to Hillary, (2.00 / 1)

Oh I actually agree with you... I meant the treatment of the endorsers in the blogosphere...

The less I hear Mark Penn weigh in on anything the better, so the less news the better for me... :)

Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...

by JenKinFLA on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:47:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Not Expected To Endorse (2.00 / 2)

It's better for Edwards (and Gore for that matter) not to endorse anyone. They'll have to be the ones to step in as unbiased party leaders in case the primary gets way out of hand.

AnnMarie

by wiscogirl101 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 07:46:15 PM EST

Way to make sure Barack Obama loses (1.25 / 4)

support Blue Noise. You are a childish cult member.

by TomP on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 07:46:23 PM EST

To Endorse (1.00 / 5)

Barack Obama:

"Our nation should not be afraid to have a frank and serious conversation about racial issues. And, we must confront the Bush administration and challenge its destructive foreign policy. And we must insure that the lobbyists in Washington are not allowed to define our future."

Hillary Clinton:

"Pastor Wright, Pastor Wright, Pastor Wright..."

by global yokel on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 07:47:37 PM EST

And what relevance (2.00 / 1)

was that childish comment to this post?

by TomP on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 07:49:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: To Endorse (2.00 / 1)

Do you always make stuff up? When did she say that? I think she complimented his speech and hasn't said a word about Rev. Wright.

by tabbycat in tenn on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 07:50:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

false (2.00 / 1)

False. Hillary has not mentioned Wright at all. When your enemy is shooting himself in his own feet, don't get in front of the cameras....

by 1950democrat on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:24:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: false (2.00 / 1)

Not 100% true...

Hillary's campaign has been pushing Wright to the Super Delegates as an "electability" argument. So while her campaign hasn't specifically criticized Obama for associating with Wright, it is most certainly NOT off the table entirely for them. I don't really think this is as big an issue as others have made out, since I don't think it will work anyway, as Obama seems to be recovering from it just fine.

by leshrac55 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 04:45:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Not Expected To Endorse (none / 0)

Edwards will come forward on the occasion of Obama reaching 1627 pledged delegates (May 20 I suppose).

Not exactly a BOLD move for him to make at that point, but obvious and unavoidable.

Combined with his 18 pledged delegates, Edwards effort will lead the superdelegate move to bigfoot Clinton out of the race in advance of the convention.

why is everyone pretending this isn't bound to happen happen?

by cargocult on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 07:51:07 PM EST

Re: Edwards Not Expected To Endorse (none / 0)

What is so special about the number 1627?

AnnMarie

by wiscogirl101 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 07:54:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Not Expected To Endorse (none / 0)

Isn't 1627 the magic number for 50%+1 of Pledged delegates. Once Obama (or hillary in theory) crosses that threshold...at that point the only way the super delegates can alter the final result is by negating the expressed will of the Democratic Party voters. And I haven't checked the calendar, but if it turns out to be North Carolina voters who actually put Obama across the 1627 line (i recall one tally that saw that as a possibility)..i simply can't imagine Edwards throwing his superdelegate vote and whatever influence he has over his 18 pledged delegates to Hillary. I can't imagine it because IT. CAN'T. HAPPEN. :)

by cargocult on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:07:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Not Expected To Endorse (none / 0)

I understand pledged vs superdelegates, but it seems everyone has a different number.

If 1627 is the halfway mark of pledged (does that even include MI and FL?) then it makes sense from that standpoint for the primary to come to a close.

Personally I have no objection to seating a partial FL delegation (half) but there is no way one can seriously say MI should be seated as is.

AnnMarie

by wiscogirl101 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:12:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Not Expected To Endorse (none / 0)

"everyone has a different number"

yes, the media (who have alot of airtime to fill) like to make it more of a horserace than it is.

by cargocult on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:31:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Not Expected To Endorse (none / 0)

Is Edwards a superdelegate? He's not a member of congress any more. Also, do the presidential candidates get to be Super Delegates?

by leshrac55 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 04:47:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Not Expected To Endorse (none / 0)

I don't think Edwards is a superdelegate, his participation would be based on his influence over his former pledged delegates.

by cargocult on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:04:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Not Expected To Endorse (none / 0)

I don't particularly think Edwards' endorsement would do that much for Obama. Hillary actually needs it more than Obama does. Should he endorse Hillary though, wouldn't it go against his entire campaign rhetoric?

To be honest I would still prefer it if he endorses Hillary nonetheless, at least that way the "old boy's club" narrative bandied by Hillary supporters ought to die an ugly death (emphasis here on ought to - but I don't have high expectations).

Remind me again, did Edwards help Kerry carry NC - I'm a little hazy on that?

What's wrong with mydd?

by pitaholereturns on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 07:53:08 PM EST

Re: Edwards Not Expected To Endorse (none / 0)

OK, that was a little mean. Sorry. Just so tired of some of the posts on this site. Anyone would think we were trying to elect McPain.

What's wrong with mydd?

by pitaholereturns on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 07:56:03 PM EST

Re: Edwards Not Expected To Endorse (2.00 / 1)

I never understood why people who supposedly call themselves Democrats would threaten to vote for McCain if their candidate doesn't win the primary.

Actually, I can see it more with Obamas supporters since they tend to be younger and haven't years of investment with the Democratic Party...basically most of them are independents excited about Obama.

But I'm thinking more of the older established Democrats who would sit out this election if Hillary doesn't win (or Obama doesn't).

I don't see how they're any different from Nader voters in 2000.

AnnMarie

by wiscogirl101 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:00:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Not Expected To Endorse (none / 0)

My concern with Obama, and I like him enough, just like HRC more, is that I worry whether or not he can carry the necessary amount of blue collar/rural votes that HRC has shown a propensity for not only winning, but maintaining.

by toonsterwu on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:11:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Not Expected To Endorse (2.00 / 1)

Well, this is where Obama will have to unify the Democratic Party if he gets the nomination..and Hillary could help with that by campaigning for him.

I admit Obama has alot of work in front of him if he wins. But if Hillary chooses to sit it out and not help him....then I'd wonder if she's more interested in the DNC winning in 2008, or her running in 2012.

AnnMarie

by wiscogirl101 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:14:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Not Expected To Endorse (2.00 / 1)

People are passionate, campaigns are intense, it's really not terribly surprising - and your comment about young voters is, I think, accurate. And I say this with personal experience - I had my "I won't vote for Hillary" moment after Bill's Jesse Jackson comment in South Carolina, but you know? After a week or two I got over myself. More is at stake than a comment or a slight, which is, of course, why a lot of people are passionate in the first place!

If HRC gets the nomination, I may not be on the street-corners for her, but she'll sure have my vote and I'll look forward to trying to be the voice of reason against any young Democrat who would vote for McCain or (sigh) Nader.

by Exhausted Pennsylvanian on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:15:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Not Expected To Endorse (none / 0)

I actually see it more with Clinton supporters...

I think it is counter-productive personally... how anyone could vote for McCain and still call themselves a Democrat is beyond me... The next President will likely fill three Supreme Court seats.

Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...

by JenKinFLA on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:27:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Not Expected To Endorse (none / 0)

It's like hes basically saying that HRC will not ultimately win, so instead of endorsing her I rather just sit back and watch as the chips fall where they may...

by nzubechukwu on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 07:57:50 PM EST

Re: Edwards Not Expected To Endorse (none / 0)

I'm sure all of us have made some odd decisions before. I don't condone a 400 dollar haircut, as that's just ridiculous, consideirng, well, he doesn't have THAT much hair (me, I cut my hair about 3 times a year, at best, probably need to do it a bit more). But that said, that should not, in any way, be a judgment on his validity to support an issue.

by toonsterwu on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:07:12 PM EST

Catch 22 for Obama (2.00 / 1)

Good post, Todd. it is amazing how Obama supporters keep insisting it's over and demand that the media and superdelegates announce it's over. If Hillary really can't win, why are they so unwilling to just let the campaign play out?

And it's not about weakening Obama for the general election. If he wins primaries down the stretch it strengthens him. It's only a problem for him if Hillary keeps beating him down the stretch. That WOULD weaken him for the general, but.......then maybe he shouldn't (and wouldn't) be nominated. It's a Catch-22.

by Thaddeus on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:11:17 PM EST

Re: Catch 22 for Obama (2.00 / 1)

Umm...turning this around and hoping for an honest answer...doesn't this apply to Hillary too?

The fact that she's behind and likely to lose primaries in the future (probably NC , OR, MT..) certainly you would have to admit she would be weakened in the primary too, right? No? Why not?

AnnMarie

by wiscogirl101 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:16:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

An honest answer (none / 0)

Obviously if Clinton loses ground in the upcoming primaries then it's all over. She certainly doesn't have the catch-22 problem of Obama (or his supporters) who demand that the media call it over becasue they don't want the upcoming primaries to be taken seriously. Hillary says, hell yeah, let's keep going all the way and see where we end up. She needs to reduce the gap in pledged delegates. Losing in NC would hurt as that is a major state with a lot of delegates. But big wins in Pennsylvania and wins in other primary states (vs. caucuses) could reduce the delegate gap and possibly give her the lead in overall votes (counting Florida and/or Michigan.

This would legitimate superdelegates to vote for her, and many may want to if Obama is sinking and trailing in the polls.

I now think this is what will happen

by Thaddeus on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:47:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Catch 22 for Obama (2.00 / 1)

No one would mind if Hillary keeps campaigning if she'd stop dragging the party down with her.

Hillary Who?

by Kobi on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:53:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Catch 22 for Obama (2.00 / 1)

Yes, yes, yes. I'm perfectly happy to see this decided on the merits of both candidates, but Hillary's "kitchen sink" strategy could better be labeled "slash and burn."

by Petey on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:19:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Catch 22 for Obama (none / 0)

Scorched earth; The Clintons leave nothing but a desert behind.

Hillary Who?

by Kobi on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:10:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Dem Party not equivalent to Obama (none / 0)

It just isn't.

by Thaddeus on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:40:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dem Party not equivalent to Obama (2.00 / 1)

But The Clintons still assume it is equivalent to them. And if they can't keep it under their thumb, they'll destroy it.

Hillary Who?

by Kobi on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:48:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Not Expected To Endorse (2.00 / 3)

"Contrary to the inevitability campaign Obama supporters are currently waging (what else is left after failing to win it outright on votes or to change the superdelegate rules in the middle of the game...)"

What else is left? Well, I suppose the Obama supporters could wait until he inevitably wins it outright on votes, without changing the superdelegate rules at all. It looks like that's what inevitably will be required, since Hillary can't admit she's going to lose. Let's hope that (inevitably) she can admit it when she has actually lost.

by Boshwok840 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:14:59 PM EST

Re: Edwards Not Expected To Endorse (none / 0)

there are, as I see it at least, two schools of thought on who Edwards would endorse. the person who is most like him on certain issues (i.e., the fighter) and the candidate who can give him the most for the endorsement.

in terms of similarities, i would say he's most similar to Hillary, at least in terms of the fighter aspect. they differ big on the lobbyist money, but then again it's easy for him to say that when he's only run three campaigns in his life. as for poverty, sadly no one has taken the issue on, at least not to the level edwards did. so in this respect, I'd say lean Clinton, but there's a problem with that, which I'll describe next paragraph.

Edwards has said he'd take a position in a dem administration, and might even be angling for veep, but i don't think he'd get much from hillary. not because of a vendetta, or anything like that, but rather because he has little to offer their campaign at this point. edwards strength came from three constituencies. southern whites, progressives, and the working class. progs have pretty much made up their minds, and it's unlikely edwards nod will send them one way or another. the only southern states left are North Carolina (where he would definitely help) Kentucky and west Virginia (if they count as the south). Hillary's doing well in two, and north Carolina will most likely be Obama, with or without his help. (I've seen the PPP poll, but I'd like to see something from SUSA or Rasmussen before i call it a tossup). then there's the working class vote. she doesn't exactly need his help there now does she? so really, he wouldn't turn that many people towards her.

seeing as Obama needs help in getting support from both southern whites and the working class, edwards would be more help to obama than Clinton. then there's the fact that whatever post he would want in a clinton administration, veep, AG, S-court justice (man that feels good to type) etc etc, there are a lot more people ahead of him in line. Evan Bayh, Ed Rendell, Ted Strickland, Murtha, gov o'malley, and on and on. it's unlikely he would go to the head of the line, come appointment making time. obama conversely, has fewer people asking for appointments. if edwards really wants a position in the next admin, he's likely to go to obama, if he's truly closer to clinton on the issues (and seeing as we can't go into his head, we don't know either way) he's likely to go to clinton.

just callin' em' as i sees em. I'm a whale biologist.

by Doug Tuttle on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:15:23 PM EST

Foolish and irresponsible (none / 0)

It seems foolish and irresponsible to me that front threaders Beaton and Armstrong regularly attack Obama's supporters, as well as Obama himself.

Isn't this site supposed to be about promoting Democrats?

Leave divisiveness for the side bar diarists.

Hillary Who?

by Kobi on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:47:55 PM EST

Re: Edwards Not Expected To Endorse (2.00 / 2)

I take issue with the notion that the Obama camp is trying to change the rules in the middle of the game. For starters, it takes some chutzpah to say this after what Clinton's been trying to pull off with Michigan and Florida.

More importantly, it's inaccurate. As Hillary well said a few weeks back, the superdelegates can make their decision based on any criteria whatsoever. That's it. That's the extent of the rules. As a result, both campaigns are free to lobby and argue and persuade using whatever logic they choose. And that's what they're doing. To say that the supers ought to care about what the voters are saying is simply an argument (and a rational one at that).

As for the slow movement of supers to make their commitments, there can be many many reasons for this. But I suspect we'll be witnessing a lot more movement pretty soon -- especially since we've seen that Barack does not choke under pressure. On the contrary, he shines brilliantly, like a true leader.

by Petey on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:16:27 PM EST

Re: Edwards Not Expected To Endorse (2.00 / 2)

Edwards sees the same poll numbers we do, and at this point, he's probably figuring that a '12 run against McCain might be his best option, rather than lay all his chips on either Obama or Clinton.

by Jerome Armstrong on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:21:56 PM EST

yup. lol. (none / 0)

It's an election, not an auction.

by cosbo on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:59:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Not Expected To Endorse (none / 0)

Is this the same Politico that said HRC has no chance of winning the nomination?

Thought so!

by mchughusa on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:23:36 PM EST

Re: Edwards Not Expected To Endorse (2.00 / 2)

Re: 'Obama inevitability campaign": It's never been inevitable. If HRC can convince two-thirds of the remaining superdelegates to go against the pledged/won delegate count after a six month cross-country primary election period, then she'll indeed be the nominee.
Inevitable - no. Just very, very, very unlikely - shocking even.

Popular vote as Clinton supporters tally it will be rather meaningless since we haven't yet heard a valid discussion of a weighting factor to assign to caucus votes.

So - if two-thirds of the undecided supers are willing to say that they know better than the electorate then I guess she'll get the nomination. But - I wouldn't count on that being accomplished without ripping the party apart.

by Shiloh on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:02:58 PM EST

Re: Edwards Not Expected To Endorse (2.00 / 1)

Edwards is probably in a quandry. Like most of us, he feels an uneasiness about Obama - never won a big state; won mainly by the help of independents and republicans; has sceletons in his closet like Rev. Wright; won mainly caucuses which are maginally democratic; avoids tough issues like the plague. Now Obama opposes voting of any kind in MI and FL - a sure recipe for a loss in GE. Somehow he has managed to edge ahead with his borrowed ideas and teleprompter speeches. Hillary on the other hand is lagging behind. Whom should he support?

by Monster Man on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:31:19 PM EST

Re: Edwards Not Expected To Endorse (2.00 / 3)

These passive-aggressive front page attacks against Obama supporters are getting really stale. I would love for somebody to credibly explain to me how anyone has advocated "changing the rules" on superdelegates. I'm aware that Obama supporters advocate that the superdelegates make their vote in a principled manner (I still haven't heard the Clinton supporters do so, I suppose because there aren't a lot of metrics by which one could claim that she is either the more popular or stronger candidate), but I'm aware of no proposed rule changes. I have no idea what the "fail to win it outright on votes" attack is all about, either, since it's quite likely he'll win that, too. Finally, it's hilarious that Politico is apparently now a credible news source for Clinton supporters, when yesterday it stated that she had less then a 10% chance of winning the nomination.

Anyway, the diary is sound on the merits (since it was mostly copied from the Politico). The petty cracks toward the end really come across as amateur, though, especially when they're so lacking in factual support.

by rfahey22 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:46:40 AM EST

Re: Edwards Not Expected To Endorse (none / 0)

"John Edwards's refusal to lend his weight to Obama's candidacy at this point speaks volumes for both the real doubts some have about Obama..."

It MAY speak volumes about Edwards' doubts (arguable point), but just because HE hasn't endorsed explain away anyone or any thing else. I think it's far more likely that Edwards is playing it safe. What does he have to lose by NOT endorsing at this point?

by Bob Fenster on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:02:50 PM EST

Re: Edwards Not Expected To Endorse (none / 0)

Another terrible post by Beeton. Sure, not every high level Dem has endorsed Obama.

But Kennedy, Kerry, Dodd, Richardson, etc have and Clinton has lacked the same sort of high level endorsements recently. Obama has never sought to change the superdelegate rules, but has only argued that they should vote with the pledged delegate leader (whereas Clinton has said they should look at key battleground states). Also, there was no way Obama was going to get to 2025 as long as Clinton stayed in the race and it didn't look like she'd ever drop out.

Edwards has nothing to gain by endorsing either candidate, so stay out and angle for the next AG spot.

by tom32182 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:29:14 PM EST

Re: Edwards Not Expected To Endorse (none / 0)

"Edwards has nothing to gain by endorsing either candidate, so stay out and angle for the next AG spot."

Name the last AG who did anything truly meaningful (and positive) and what it was?

AG is a waste of Edwards talents.

Supreme Court Justice Edwards is a far better goal.

by TheWinch on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 04:26:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Not Expected To Endorse (none / 0)

"something that no doubt makes many Obama supporters' heads explode." Really? I voted for Edwards and support Obama now. If he decided to endorse Hillary, my head would not only not explode, I would respect his decision to support her while disagreeing with him.

c'mon now. are we supposed to dumb down the debate Jerome, by making blanket accusations? I think you've attacked the media enough to know better.

by alex100 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:29:45 PM EST

Re: Edwards Not Expected To Endorse (none / 0)

I am an Edwards supporter, an avid follower of this Democratic primary, and I have yet to make a decision between Hillary and Obama. I'm voting in the PA primary, so I still have time. But if Edwards is anything like me, which, if his campaign represented anything close to reality, he is very much like me, then I'm not surprised at all that he would be torn between the two. I'm torn. I empathize with the situation.

But I do wish he would endorse someone, if only to help me stop agonizing between the two remaining citizens.

by The Best Blogger on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 05:44:39 PM EST

Re: Edwards Not Expected To Endorse (2.00 / 1)

The inevitability argument is so silly and desperate, especially when you consider how Obama refuses to allow revotes in Michigan and Florida because he knows he would lose very badly and POOF! there goes the inevitability argument right down the crapper.

But the thing I don't understand is how Obama's supporters remain so enamored of him when he is willing to disenfranchise 2 million of their fellow Democratic voters in two major states in order to win the nomination.

What about all railing against disenfranchisement by the Republicans in 2000? How is it okay for Obama's supporters--who are supposed to be these hopeful idealists that are all into UNITY--to win by blocking so many Democrats from having a voice?

I thought The Will of the People was lesson number one for Democrats. Kind of sad to see the hypocrisy. Plus, what's the point in "winning" the nomination when you've alienated so many voters that you can't possibly win in November? The whole thing makes no sense.

by cc on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 08:48:33 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.