MyDD :: Edwards to Endorse Obama

No politician ever lost an election because he underestimated the intelligence of the American public. - PT Barnum, paraphrased...

Well that's that. Congratulations, Sen. Obama. Hopefully Edwards got Obama to adopt Hillary's healthcare plan as part of the deal.

by jarhead5536 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:22:38 PM EST

by luckymortal on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:24:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Er, how about Edwards' health care plan, her plan was the primary reason I was against her....

No politician ever lost an election because he underestimated the intelligence of the American public. - PT Barnum, paraphrased...

Then why did Elizabeth prefer Hillary's plan? John/Hillary was about the same, Hillary's just has a couple of additional steps on the path.

by jarhead5536 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:26:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards to Endorse Obama (2.00 / 1)

We talk universal health care in the liberal blogosphere as it is a done deal come 2009. In fact - none of their plans will pass filibuster-muster with 'MANDATES' as part of the equation. Though I am in the minority, the non-mandated portion of Obama's plan is attractive to moderate REPUBS, and will help a Susan Collins or Arlen Specter with cover in their districts.
Her plan is the most liberal, but the least malleable to Congressional politics.

'The only people for me are the mad ones, desirous of everything at the same time, the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing ...'

by stryan on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:32:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No politician ever lost an election because he underestimated the intelligence of the American public. - PT Barnum, paraphrased...

Hence Hillary's more circuitous path. She wants to take the time to build a political coalition, and wean the healthcare industry off all the money its choking on. The political will to eliminate the insurance industry with the stroke of a pen does not yet exist, nor will it anytime soon.

by jarhead5536 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:40:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

'The only people for me are the mad ones, desirous of everything at the same time, the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing ...'

... nor will it ever ...

by stryan on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:56:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

When did Elizabeth say she preferred HRC's plan?

I hope you're not refering to the debunked article from New York Magazine.

by astoria gooner on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:34:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by Reaper0Bot0 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:26:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I saw her say that live, on TV. She does prefer Senator Clinton's health care plan. I don't, personally, but I don't mind disagreeing with her.

Not a big deal.

by searchforsolidarity on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:35:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I want to rec that comment ONE HUNDRED TIMES!!!! Edwards would NOT endorse Obama without it. I'll be praying over here...

by alex100 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:23:01 PM EST

that's the final nails in her coffin. Most to all of his pledged delegates will transfer to her.

call her well done at this juncture. thank-goodness.

err (none / 0)

haha. transfer to HIM. not her.

by alex100 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:26:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: err (2.00 / 2)

No, you were right the first time.

Dr. Freud, help him.

by Zeitgeist9000 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:27:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: err (2.00 / 2)

could be a prophetic slip-up

by moevaughn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:28:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by Caldonia on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:29:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

lol We've heard this tired refrain since Iowa.

So, I take it 2210 (2.00 / 1)

is when you expect her to become president.

by bookish on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:08:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So, I take it 2210 (none / 0)

I am sorry . . . but I had to say that I really did LOL when I read your comment.

NO 100 year WAR, NO McConnell run Senate, & NO GOP-led Supreme Court!!!

by Veteran75 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:34:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So, I take it 2210 (none / 0)

hahaha

by politicalfan on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:58:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

what does happen to Edwards' delegates (none / 0)

now?

Are they released to support any candidate?

Can he deliver his pledged delegates this way?

Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.

by Carl Nyberg on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:03:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: what does happen to Edwards' delegates (none / 0)

I think he can "direct" them, but as Hillary has tirelessly reminded us, delegates technically can do whatever they want.

On MSNBC right now, they're discussing exactly that, specifically the 18 from (lol) Florida. It would be funny if they sat all the FL and MI delegates and that actually put Obama over the top!

by torrentprime on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:22:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

OK, I'm totally wrong (none / 0)

According to politico:

Pledged delegates aren't bound to their vote, so they can now switch to Obama -- as they will likely do, at Edwards' urging. But there's also nothing keeping them from choosing Clinton. As of now, their situation is analogous to that of superdelegates.

by torrentprime on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:49:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Many of Edwards' delegates... (none / 0)

... have already committed, most of them (iirc) to Obama.

by Hudson on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:05:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Dream for tomorrow but fight for it today.

eh, maybe if Edwards endorsed sooner, but now its just looks like he is going with the winner.

but I mean I guess everyone eventually needs to jump on the bandwagon, and Edwards himself doesn't think his endorsement isn't important.

by TruthMatters on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:23:02 PM EST

Re: Edwards to Endorse Obama (2.00 / 3)

he does have 18 pledged delegates. this isn't just kind words that mean little.

Edwards has political might.

by alex100 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:24:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by Zeitgeist9000 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:25:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Edwards won one election with a bare plurality of the vote.

Mighty?

No.

by haystax calhoun on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:38:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What's mightier, The 18 delegates Edwards brings with him, or the handful that Clinton has won in the past month?

"You might well think that. I couldn't possibly comment"

But he has 18 delegates that he can release to vote for Obama. 6 more than the net gain for HRC yesterday.

Master Stroke, with one endorsement the news cycle is changed and we are within 121 of the nomination.

Edwards for AG-Kick ass and take names

by xenontab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:38:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards to Endorse Obama (none / 0)

I do think the timing was good because it changes the narrative but the endorsement itself isn't that big of a deal.
Sec of Labor with an enhanced portfolio (say enforcement of new pension regulations?) sounds better to me but thats just me. On the other hand I can't think of an equal candidate right now (Fitzgerald?)

McCain = Iraq. John McCain = overturn Roe.

by PantsB on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:33:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by Darknesse on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:27:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's still over, Jack. Just more over

Hell yeah we did.

by comingawakening on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:43:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

18 dels equal to almost 4 WV!

Obama 08!

by Skaje on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:54:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Plus his Florida delegates should they be seated. Combined they almost negate Clinton's net gain in Florida. It's over, even seating them according to the January results won't change the outcome.

"This was never part of our arrangement, Specter" "I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!" "This deal keeps getting worse all the time!"

I think Edwards was genuinely dismayed at Hillary's comments about "hard working white voters". I think that's when he turned.

He will definitely help in Kentucky.

by LordMike on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:29:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by Jordache on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:03:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I was thinking the same thing. The first thing you've got to wonder is "okay, when did Edwards make the decision?" Because any fool who sees how Obama operates knows that the campaign would tell him to hold off on his endorsement until the morning after West Virginia.

by howardpark on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:23:57 PM EST

Come together, right now. It's going to be a summer of love as we unite to beat McSame!

Re: Edwards to Endorse Obama (1.66 / 3)

Obviously, as a former Edwards supporter and currently an HRC supporter, I'm a little disappointed, but I'm not surprised.

Edwards is an opportunist. Now is the opportune time to endorse Obama. I'm over it.

No candidacy is more important than the right to vote.

by hornplayer on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:23:59 PM EST

Re: Edwards to Endorse Obama (1.33 / 3)

Sour grapes.

by spacemanspiff on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:25:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No candidacy is more important than the right to vote.

Honest assessment. If you think I don't like John Edwards, or that there's a reason he didn't endorse until this last minute, you'd be wrong.

And I don't understand why Obama supporters get such gratification from this BS sniping at fellow Democrats. It's sickening.

by hornplayer on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:27:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards to Endorse Obama (2.00 / 4)

BS sniping? I'm not the one calling Edwards an opportunist.

by spacemanspiff on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:29:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No candidacy is more important than the right to vote.

It's not a flaw. I knew John Edwards was an opportunist when I supported him in the '04 primary. I knew he was an opportunist when he took the VP for John Kerry, whom he didn't get along with well. It's the nature of any politician, and not a slur.

by hornplayer on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:34:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

an opportunist definitely has a negative connotation thereby categorizing it as a "snipe at a fellow dem".

Otherwise, why did you say it?

by astoria gooner on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:37:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No candidacy is more important than the right to vote.

I'm not going to argue with someone who is putting words in my mouth to directly contradict what I just said, thanks.

by hornplayer on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:40:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Did you call him an opportunist or not?

by astoria gooner on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:45:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

btw I wasn't quoting you, I was putting a phrase in quotes.

If i quote you I will out it in blockquotes.

by astoria gooner on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:47:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by Reaper0Bot0 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:31:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Look, I believe you that you didn't mean it as a negative, but that word absolutely is a negative in common parlance.

You can't get mad at him for taking what you said that way, given the context and the verbage.

No big deal, but he wasn't out of line. Neither are your views - they were just inartfully expresses is all.

"Opportunist" is most certainly (none / 0)

a pejorative.

by bookish on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:12:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by searchforsolidarity on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:37:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

why do dems have to put each other down all the time?

Edwards had his heart and soul working for us. He lost. He was/is a great candidate and a wonderful man. He and his wife are tops.

by luckymortal on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:26:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ouch. That's a little unfair to Edwards and Obama.... But I totally get it. I would have been just as upset if HRC was the nominee.

No candidacy is more important than the right to vote.

I'm not trying to put anyone down here. The clock's run out, and although Hillary has done pretty much as well as could have possibly been expected these last few months, it's not enough to overcome the swoon-effect this nation had for Barack Obama in February/March (barring unforeseen occurrences). Things have changed since then, but the Democratic Party apparently lacks the mechanisms to correct this error, and has effectively tossed the candidate with the better chance to win in November to the side.

Edwards' endorsement at this point is meaningful far more as a way for him to help bring this process to a close and get on the Obama bandwagon at the last minute than it is any kind of statement about how John Edwards feels about the candidate. I don't think that's sour grapes, I think it's looking at the situation, but I guess I'm incapable of having a legitimate perspective since I'm an HRC supporter...oh well.

by hornplayer on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:32:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by Reaper0Bot0 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:32:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"apparently lacks the mechanisms to correct this error"

All due respect, but having voters prefer his message and his candidacy isn't an error on his part or their part. It only becomes an error if we make two, as of yet, untestable assumptions:

1. He will lose.
2. She would win.

Neither is knowable or known at this point.

by JustJennifer on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:26:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yeah, this is me too. I like Edwards but I think his endorsement is pretty late in the game, and frankly now it looks like they are all working to shove her out before it is over. If he is Obama's running mate it would really change my opinion of him in general.

Re: Edwards to Endorse Obama (none / 0)

You can(t have it both ways! If he endorsed Obama
earlier you would be saying what's the hurry?

by Politicalslave on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:00:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Perhaps the message is (2.00 / 1)

the party needs to begin uniting behind a nominee, and Obama is likely going to be that nominee, so let's start prepping to do that in June.

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:37:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by Jordache on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:20:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If Edwards was such an opportunist, he would have endorsed Obama long ago. It's not like we're only figuring out today who the nominee is going to be. We've known for over a long time.

by rf7777 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:34:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So full of crap!

If Edwards would have endorsed Obama earlier, you would have bitched about how he should have stayed out of it and should not have reduced Clinton's chances in the primaries.

He stayed out of until Clinton had ZERO chance of winning, and now you call him an opportunist!

John McCain on social security.

If you thought Edwards would endorse Clinton you didn't understand Edwards.

by heresjohnny on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:47:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Nice. I wonder if the "great" Edwards will now be seen as a Judas by the Hillary supporters on this blog.

Jim Webb V.P.!!!

by spacemanspiff on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:24:12 PM EST

No politician ever lost an election because he underestimated the intelligence of the American public. - PT Barnum, paraphrased...

No. I have always and will always be a John Edwards fan, I just didn't see how he could win so I went with Hillary. Obama is going to be the nominee, and Edwards' signature issue, healthcare, needs to have the nominee's undivided attention. If he was really trying to help Obama, he would have done this in March.

by jarhead5536 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:32:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by haystax calhoun on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:36:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I disagree. Edwards did not endorse until unity was required. This goes for all the supers that you have seen unifying behind our nominee.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:34:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

He did it the day after West Virginia, as one HELL of a way to break the narrative, such as it was, about Obama's loss.

He did him a favor by waiting for the precisely correct moment.

by killjoy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:10:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why? He's a moderate-conservative, part of the Southern/Midwestern Democratic establishment, and Left (rather than liberal). He's in the half of the Party that is politically further to the Right.

That's the epitome of Obama support blocs, backroom helpers, and establishments.

I wonder what the 7% in WV think (none / 0)

by Zeitgeist9000 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:24:38 PM EST

What will you think... (none / 0)

...when Hillary endorses Obama in June?

by JoeCoaster on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:29:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What will you think... (2.00 / 1)

I will think, "By Jove, he does make an excellent VP nominee, my dear Hillary!"

by Zeitgeist9000 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:31:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What will you think... (2.00 / 1)

He can't be making an excellent VP if he's not making an excellent president. You can't have it both ways.

by Aris Katsaris on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:47:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Dislike the attitude, but mojoed... (2.00 / 1)

b/c it's just too funny.

John McCain wants you to be poor!

by nklein on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:49:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What will you think... (2.00 / 1)

And then the nice man in white will bring you your meds.

by Capt America on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:51:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by Reeves on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:25:22 PM EST

Great news along with Hillary's comments. With this party unified behind Obama, McCain is toast in November. He's hit his support ceiling already with no one campaigning against him. The Republican brand is toxic even in the deep South.

Good times are ahead!

DREAM TEAM (2.00 / 18)

"McSame: He's Constipated and Ready to GO!

by Al Rodgers on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:26:29 PM EST

Re: DREAM TEAM (2.00 / 5)

WOW, those pics make me think of John and Bobby Kennedy for some reason....NICE!

by kbuggy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:29:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DREAM TEAM (2.00 / 4)

It would be the best looking ticket in American history, no doubt...

by Mandoliniment on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:33:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DREAM TEAM (1.00 / 2)

because that will make them such better leaders

"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States

by DiamondJay on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:46:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Don't be bitter! (2.00 / 3)

Today is a good day for Democrats interested in unifying the party.

should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?

by Firewall on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:48:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DREAM TEAM (2.00 / 3)

Wow. Just wow.
You're being wwaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyy tooo sensitive.

by astoria gooner on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:48:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DREAM TEAM (2.00 / 2)

Here, have a kitten:

Everybody loves kittens.

by Mandoliniment on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:01:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are right, (none / 0)

usually leaders that are confident in themselves inspire a confidence in others. Now being good looking and really intelligent would likely make a leader confident, I know from personal experience ("slap" - self high five).

by KLRinLA on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:46:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Line of the Day LMAO (none / 0)

"usually leaders that are confident in themselves inspire a confidence in others. Now being good looking and really intelligent would likely make a leader confident, I know from personal experience ("slap" - self high five)."

LMAO I would mojo you if I could

President Barack Obama "get used to it"

by wellinformed on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:33:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

They're tooo cute. (2.00 / 2)

This hetero male is kind of swooning over them. Luckily they've got brains too.

by McNasty on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:49:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DREAM TEAM (2.00 / 2)

Did you see Dodd trying to hang in that one picture. Obviously he was not a part of the conversation. Poor Dodd.

John McCain isn't evil. He's just wrong about a lot of things. Vote Obama!

by proseandpromise on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:03:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"This was never part of our arrangement, Specter" "I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!" "This deal keeps getting worse all the time!"

I'm interested to hear Jerome's take on this. Didn't he say he was originally an Edwards supporter?

by LordMike on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:27:13 PM EST

Re: Edwards to Endorse Obama (2.00 / 9)

I suspect it will take Jerome a few minutes to process his rage and discuss, and another few minutes figuring out how to word his response so that it argues that this endorsement helps Clinton.

by wasder on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:29:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Spot on. n/t (none / 0)

by McNasty on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:50:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by jadegirl on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:55:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You've got that spot on. You need to leave him time to cry after he processes it too.

by wasder on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:19:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I meant rage and disgust...

Re: Edwards to Endorse Obama (2.00 / 5)

I'm sure he will find a way to make this sound like a terrible development for Obama. Haven't you heard? We are all DOOMED if Obama wins the nomination. :)

Also, I'm pretty sure the only candidate Jerome actually liked was Warner, who he worked for. Edwards was just his first alternative.

by HSTruman on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:31:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by wasder on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:27:58 PM EST

This is very good news and very well timed for Obama. I also wonder about the potential VP angle. I wonder if his presence on the losing ticket last time is giving anyone pause in the Obama camp?

Awww, what grand theater (2.00 / 2)

Well, I'm glad that Obama offered Edwards a deal that he could finally accept for his endorsement. Still don't think Edwards can plug Obama's hole that is now gaping after his thumpin' in West Virginia yesterday.

by grlpatriot on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:29:30 PM EST

Re: Awww, what grand theater (2.00 / 2)

lol!

More sour grapes!

by spacemanspiff on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:31:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Awww, what grand theater (2.00 / 1)

no such hole. The WV race was below the fold. See how the superdelegates continue to align behind Obama?

by haystax calhoun on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:31:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by nwodtuhs on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:29:31 PM EST

Almost landed!

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N55AR

forgot the link:

by nwodtuhs on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:29:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Noooo. (1.42 / 7)

No flight information. TexasDarlin or alegre might have a SAM.

Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win. ~ Sun Tzu

by Tumult on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:41:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Noooo. (none / 0)

OMFG. Hilarious image.

I'm as strong as a bull moose, and you can use me to the limit. - Teddy Roosevelt

by fogiv on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:17:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by OrangeFur on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:31:58 PM EST

How odd to wait this long, with only a few primaries left.

Re: Edwards to Endorse Obama (2.00 / 3)

It's called alignment and unity for the sake of the party.

by haystax calhoun on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:34:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by DeskHack on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:32:00 PM EST

All aboard!

Re: Edwards to Endorse Obama (1.00 / 1)

With this news I retire. Goodbye Mydd

by Hillarywillwin on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:33:44 PM EST

So long and thanks for all the snark...

by Mandoliniment on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:35:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by Skaje on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:57:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It was fun while it lasted, eh? I was getting ready to leave this site until silly season was over, but it appears to have ended today. People don't seem to realize that Edwards won a bunch of delegates in Florida too, if he directs them to vote for Obama even seating that state in full won't save Clinton. Obama already won most of the uncommitted slate in Michigan. Clinton has no trumps left.

by NewOaklandDem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:34:54 PM EST

Fantastic News. It's more over than ever before.

You're all missing the point here. (2.00 / 14)

This is smart, smart, politics by Obama. You've got to assume he had the Edwards endorsement in his pocket before N. Carolina, but he held onto it, not needing it in NC, but knowing he was going to lose big in WV. So he parcels out the Edwards endorsement the day after WV, utterly eating up the news cycle the day after Hillary's victory. Great patience. Smart tactics. So smart.

Your old role is rapidly aging. Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand, for the times they are a changing.

by Travis Stark on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:35:01 PM EST

Re: You're all missing the point here. (none / 0)

I don't understand how you could be so joyful over the manipulation implied in your statement. I can't understand how someone like John Edwards, who allegedly detests those types of games, would play along with something like this.

by JustJennifer on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:38:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're all missing the point here. (none / 0)

How is this manipulation? What FACTS are being manipulated?

eh?

by astoria gooner on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:43:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're all missing the point here. (none / 0)

Implying that Obama had the endorsement but saved it to trump Hillary's good press over her win in WVA is definitely an act of manipuation.

by JustJennifer on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:03:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

and Clinton (none / 0)

never did a damn thing like this before?

Please

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:07:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: and Clinton (none / 0)

Never said she didn't... but Obama is supposed to be for a new style of politics, right?

by JustJennifer on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:14:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"new politics" (none / 0)

is still politics and this is the type of thing you do to win.

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:18:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "new politics" (none / 0)

So are you saying Obama will do or say anything to win? LOL

by JustJennifer on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:42:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "new politics" (none / 0)

So timing announcements is 'manipulation'? That's funny, when I look up 'manipulation' in your dictionary, I see: "Anything that doesn't help Hillary." Oh, wait, I guess a Democrat endorsing another Democrat *is* manipulation. (eyeroll) I suppose the superdelegate that endorsed Hillary today was also "manipulating" events?

by torrentprime on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:00:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "new politics" (none / 0)

No, but if Edwards was endorsing Hillary right now instead of Obama what do you think his supporters would be saying about all of this right now?

by JustJennifer on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:07:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

IF IF IF (none / 0)

Nothing.

We're winning. The less said about her endorsements the better.

by astoria gooner on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:38:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're all missing the point here. (none / 0)

Umm. These are all politicians you know.

by spacemanspiff on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:44:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Are you kidding? (2.00 / 2)

With all the crap going on in this campaign you think the scheduling of endorsement announcements is bad somehow? Don't you think Obama's been scheduling the 5 or 6 a day that's been dribbling out? This is how it works. The endorser contacts the campaign and says I'm ready to endorse. How can I be the most help? And then the candidate and the endorser figure out how to make the most impact. Obama was always going to lose WV big, and so this was a brilliant time to schedule this announcement. Absolute political genius.

Your old role is rapidly aging. Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand, for the times they are a changing.

by Travis Stark on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:45:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Are you kidding? (none / 0)

In general what you say makes sense, but I don't think it makes sense in this particular instance -- I believe if Obama had Edwards support before e.g. Indiana, he'd have used it then, to tilt an extra few points to his favor.

by Aris Katsaris on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:51:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Are you kidding? (none / 0)

2 or 3 net delegates in Indiana is nothing compared to winning the news cycle the day after Clinton sweeps (it's only one primary, but she didn't lose any to offset the spin).

Now the narrative shifts from "Clinton wins; could she stay in?" to "Obama/Edwards; West Virginia where?"

by Capt America on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:00:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Are you kidding? (none / 0)

That sounds right. He would have loved to have Edwards campaign for him back then.

This matters because it draws media coverage away from Clinton's WV win and because it's a clear signal that the tribe has spoken. Edwards, for whatever reason, decided he wasn't going to take a side while the outcome was in doubt. This is his signal that in his mind it's over.

by TL on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:01:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're all missing the point here. (none / 0)

Yes I agree Senator Obama has run an effective campaign against the Clintons

by Politicalslave on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:25:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win. ~ Sun Tzu

Will be some nice speech making, wonder if we will get any policy shifts.

by Tumult on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:35:49 PM EST

VP might well put NC in play...

by Mandoliniment on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:37:30 PM EST

"This was never part of our arrangement, Specter" "I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!" "This deal keeps getting worse all the time!"

It didn't last time...

by LordMike on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:06:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama starts off considerably stronger in NC than Kerry was.

by Mandoliniment on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:25:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by MissVA on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:38:14 PM EST

Great news. Edwards always liked Obama. You could always tell.
They have good chemistry together.

Well after months and months of speculation and many posts.
Here it is. The endorsement.

Obama/Warner 2008

What is The October Protocol?

I hope Edwards and Clinton both push Obama on health care. If he goes into the fall with a real, universal health care plan, then this primary season will have served its purpose: arming the Dem nominee with the most progressive arguments and policy proposals to take on the GOP in November.

By the way, I don't see Edwards as VP or (even worse) as SC justice. I see him as attorney general.

by Koan on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:40:50 PM EST

Your old role is rapidly aging. Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand, for the times they are a changing.

Maybe Sec'y of Labor. I think there are many places he could do a lot of good. I don't think VP either though.

by Travis Stark on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:46:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm as strong as a bull moose, and you can use me to the limit. - Teddy Roosevelt

Agreed. I seriously doubt JRE would even want to be Veep. His talents are better utilized elsewhere: AG, Labor Sec., SCOTUS, hell just about anywhere else. Poverty Czar or whatever...

by fogiv on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:27:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

blah (2.00 / 1)

oh well. it was a great run, even after a little fatigue back in march, it's been great.

VP picks -

Since Obama is going to win the nomination, Charlie Crist is fucked out of a VP slot for McCain as FL is mightily pissed.

I dont think Edwards will be VP, but probably AG and that would warm me up quicker to Obama/?

Who is gonna be the VP on the ticket????????????

by sepulvedaj3 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:41:13 PM EST

by haystax calhoun on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:44:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Webb is my guess.

Re: blah (2.00 / 1)

Webb or Strickland have to be considered the front-runners.

by PantherDem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:51:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm as strong as a bull moose, and you can use me to the limit. - Teddy Roosevelt

maybe Rendell, that pugnacious little turd. ;)

by fogiv on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:28:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: blah (2.00 / 1)

As a Pennsylvanian who has voted for Rendell - God, I hope not.

by PantherDem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:31:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm as strong as a bull moose, and you can use me to the limit. - Teddy Roosevelt

I've heard there are many like you. Honestly, I knew very little about the guy before this cycle (and still don't know much).

He certainly wouldn't be my first choice. :)

by fogiv on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:35:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: blah (2.00 / 1)

I'm another Pennsylvania who each time I have voted it has been for a Democrat.

Ed Rendell is the only Democrat I almost didn't vote for. The only reason I didn't was because Lynn Swann was a joke of a candidate.

Rendell is mega popular in SE PA, not so much anywhere else.

by PSUdan on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:57:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Welcome aboard!

Let's beat up on McCain now please!

by spacemanspiff on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:45:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

as soon as she drops out i will sign up on Obama's website. but not before

by sepulvedaj3 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:57:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by MissVA on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:51:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama/Hagel.

That is the ticket.

Obama/Warner 2008

agreed

by astoria gooner on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:57:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by Twin Planets on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:31:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yuck. A Repug wouldn't help this year (see MS-01), even a RINO like Hagel.

Webb, Sebelius, and Richardson seem to be the "Tier 1" possiblities, although each has pluses & minuses. I haven't found a good reason to eliminate Feingold from consideration either. Mark Warner would have been a great fit, although I guess he's more valuable in the Senate.

Not Richardson (none / 0)

He might help in the mountain west, but he'd hurt like hell in the rust belt. NM and Co are not a good trade for PA and OH.

Senator Al Franken. Have I died and gone to heaven? Not yet. We're still in Purgatory.

by NM Ward Chair on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:06:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

if he picks Hagel, i would be very disappointed.

by sepulvedaj3 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:58:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by erzeszut on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:54:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The gay rumors surrounding Crist will keep him off the Republican ticket, permanently. He'll never go further than his current office.

Join the Matthew 25 Network and help Democrats win the next generation of evangelicals.

Wasn't going to be Crist anyway; there are persistent rumors that he's gay. In a normal Republican year that would kill the ticket, but especially in 2008 when McCain is going to have to fight like hell to hang onto his base, having a VP nom with gay rumors would gut his Christian Right support.

I think it's Pawlenty.

by mistersite on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:54:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Pawlenty? (none / 0)

He's about as popular as a toothache in Minnesota.

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:39:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by politicalfan on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:30:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Jim Webb for sure, would be the smart choice.

by Piuma on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:41:19 PM EST

Very interesting to have both of them address the Michigan voters.

by JoeCoaster on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:51:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Making up for lost time. I'm guessing the Florida will get the Gore endorsement rally.

Obama...very smart.

I'm as strong as a bull moose, and you can use me to the limit. - Teddy Roosevelt

I think you're dead right on that one. Gore in FL.

by fogiv on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:29:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by rossinatl on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:42:00 PM EST

Elizabeth said they might endorse different people. It will be telling if she is NOT there. The smarter Edwards is backing Hillary

Keep those fingers crossed!

/snark

by astoria gooner on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:44:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by erzeszut on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:55:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Also, the less relevant Edwards is endorsing Hillary. The one that doesn't have any delegates, nor ever held an elective office.

But hey. Grasp those straws!!

Less relevant, perhaps (none / 0)

but Elizabeth is the true darling of Blogistan; we just tolerate John because he was smart enough to marry such a great woman.

by McNasty on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:15:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

argh (none / 0)

I am going to miss it on TV.

by sepulvedaj3 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:42:03 PM EST

Great timing. (2.00 / 2)

Endorse after getting crushed in WV.

by gotalife on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:43:50 PM EST

Endorsing when "we will not endorse" (2.00 / 1)

Let's forget this will have zero impact in KY and then rest of the contests -- Edwards ended up being a non-player, out-of-the-game a while ago.

And now, well, he's doing something he said he wouldn't do.

Telling of Edwards, desperate of Obama (he needs a southern to shore up the white vote) and irrelevant in the results.

by dcrolg on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:47:47 PM EST

Re: Endorsing when "we will not endorse" (2.00 / 1)

Except that his delegates will wipe out Clinton's margins in WV, and probably KY as well.

by PantherDem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:49:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Endorsing when "we will not endorse" (none / 0)

I'd call it shrewd rather than desperate.

by quixote27 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:51:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Endorsing when "we will not endorse" (2.00 / 1)

Edwards irrelevant? 26,000 west virginians who couldn't bring themselves to vote for a black man or a woman disagree with you.

Not sure if racism/misogyny are the reasons, but the exit polls are troubling in WV.

by Bargeron on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:51:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Endorsing when "we will not endorse" (2.00 / 1)

Was there a primary yesterday?

by haystax calhoun on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:52:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Endorsing when "we will not endorse" (none / 0)

made me giggle

by astoria gooner on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:58:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Endorsing when "we will not endorse" (none / 0)

Was there? I can't recall.

I'm as strong as a bull moose, and you can use me to the limit. - Teddy Roosevelt

by fogiv on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:30:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Endorsing when "we will not endorse" (none / 0)

Except that this makes the next news cycle about Edwards endorsing Obama rather than about Clinton winning WV. This story sucks all the oxygen out of the WV story, including the "OMG white voters don't like Obama!!!11!!111one!" bloviation binge the press has been on recently. It also increases the power of the "it's over" meme by a power of 10.

Join the Matthew 25 Network and help Democrats win the next generation of evangelicals.

by mistersite on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:56:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Welcome to Judasville! (none / 0)

The die-hards on this site have given Edwards the kind of welcome they'd give to Mother Teresa herself if she rose from the grave to endorse Obama.

Oh well. The progressive blogosphere is happy with tonight's endorsement. MyDD will continue to fester in company with H44, TM, etc.

should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?

by Firewall on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:49:55 PM EST

by comingawakening on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:49:58 PM EST

rumor is that Edwards was on obama's jet today. Along with them was a fat opera singer rehearsing for tonight's event. I think she is going to sing.

PerezPolitics.com

Obama 08!

by pholkhero on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:50:02 PM EST

Hey, wait ~

What's that writing say?

There, on the wall ~ can you read it?

should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?

This is excellent news! For Hillary!!!11!

by Firewall on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:51:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by Pat Flatley on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:53:20 PM EST

Now let's pound the hell out of McCain. It's time to just destroy this clown together.

This administration is not sinking. This administration is soaring! If anything, they are rearranging the deck chairs on the Hindenburg!

I said it before when I heard rumors that he may endorse Clinton. His endorsement isn't really that important. The only reason it's significant now, isn't b/c of who he is, but what it represents....the party moving behind the nominee.

by venavena on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:58:33 PM EST

Keeping on course & in control (none / 0)

Edward's never could deliver any states to Obama but, as you say, right now it has a much bigger effect. It makes the story 'the party leaders are lining up behind the nominee'. Obama doesn't want to many endorsements to early, not until the last primary vote is cast. So no one can say Hillary was denied her chance. He just needs enough coming out daily to keep the narrative on track. After WV he needed a little extra boost in that department which Edwards provided.

by hankg on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:25:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Keeping on course & in control (none / 0)

McCain's rusty old campaign team ai't got nothin on these guys. Obama campaign '08: future stars of the party in the making!

by haystax calhoun on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:35:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius

I wonder if Clinton knew beforehand.

Any ideas on this?

by Blue Neponset on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:08:55 PM EST

by Josh Orton on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:12:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Word is Edwards didn't give her advance warning.

"We live entangled in webs of endless deceit, often self-deceit, but with a little honest effort, it is possible to extricate ourselves from them". -- NC

MSNBC reported that Edwards contacted Sen. Clinton prior to the announcment and the Clinton campaign compared this decision favorably the the "Judas" Richardson.

Edwards was my guy in 2004 and in 2008. Poverty is my top domestic issue, healthcare right there as well. I prefer Clinton.

I strongly doubt the VP angle, though I suppose it is possible. AG would be fantastic, as I have said since he dropped out of the nomination race. A fearless, effective attorney with a proven track record of taking on corporations could help do great work overturning the Bush DOJ record across the board. I have no doubt the GOPers would blow up the Senate to prevent his elevation to the USSC, though it would make me even happier than AG.

by Trond Jacobsen on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:23:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No. (none / 0)

The ABC news article corrects that later, saying they did indeed contact the Clinton campaign before planning the announcement. It would have been rude not to.

by McNasty on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:26:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No. (none / 0)

I've no doubt he let the Clintons know beforehand.

I'm as strong as a bull moose, and you can use me to the limit. - Teddy Roosevelt

by fogiv on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:33:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Edwards notified Clinton Campaign in advance(LINK) (none / 0)

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/ 2008/05/edwards-to-endo.html

by optimusprime on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:21:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards notified Clinton Campaign in advance(L (none / 0)

Thank you.

Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius

by Blue Neponset on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:15:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Click 'Live Video' to get Broadcast (none / 0)

by optimusprime on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:18:44 PM EST

Well (none / 0)

I am glad he is choosing to do as he wishes.

I do wonder where Elizabeth is on this? I think they were partially split, at one time, in who to endorse and that is why he held off endorsing. Health care is A-NUMBER 1 to Elizabeth.

I actually wish Edwards would have not endorsed at all. I have always felt this. I wanted him to stay out of the fight so that he could speak his mind as needed.

Washington Woman

Progressive Blue

by kevin22262 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:22:18 PM EST

Just an FYI to Obama supporters (none / 0)

NARAL is getting some nasty responses from dead-enders to their endorsement of Obama earlier today. Take some time to head over there and give 'em some love (and/or money).

http://www.naral.org/

by bookish on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:22:37 PM EST

Ironic (none / 0)

I consider myself pro-life yet NARAL endorsed my candidate and I'm suddenly finding myself defending them.

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:32:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ironic (none / 0)

Just because someone or some group endorses your candidate or the other, you are not obligated to love or hate them because of it.

Unless some scumbag misogynist doesn't support Hill, which is unforgivable as we have all learned.

by xdem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:28:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't love NARAL (none / 0)

but I don't like the comments some Hillary supporters are saying about them.

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:38:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by gcensr on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:25:41 PM EST

Can we transfer Edwards's popular vote to Obama as well?

That would certainly make more sense than counting votes from Michigan.

Sad to say (none / 0)

2 things-
#1 Edwards couldn't help Kerry.
#2 Who will Obama roll out after his 30+ loss in Kentucky.

Sinking ship yall, i'm feeling it more everyday. I'm terrified.

by easyE on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:35:47 PM EST

Who will Clinton roll out (none / 0)

after her double digit losses in Oregon, Montana and South Dakota?

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:37:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by liberalj on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:48:06 PM EST

This is the best, most dignified endorsement i've heard. John Edwards must be in the next cabinet.

Congratulations to Obama for this important endorsement, and congratulations to John Edwards for being so nice about Hillary.

Well Done Party Establishment (none / 0)

Very nicely choreographed coronation since TX and OH.

Leave the fact that the candidate who may yet win the popular vote could be kicked to the curb without so much as having her case heard. This is very nice stagecraft indeed.

In the end, I guess this is right. Niether Clinton nor Obama had the votes to get to the nomination on their own, so it was up to the Superdelegates. Clearly, they are speaking, albeit in drips and drabs and with some discretion, that they prefer Senator Obama to be the nominee.

The coronation process that our party employs is working just as it was intended to do.

by activatedbybush on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:51:45 PM EST

Re: Well Done Party Establishment (2.00 / 1)

Sigh...there is no popular vote. Nice myth, but that's all it is. Caucus results do not represent the popular vote of an entire state. How can you equate closed and open primary states? It's pure BS. Hilary had every chance since TX and OH to win it. All she had to do was win every remaining contest by 60 percent or so. Tough break, but she put it in on herself by having NO post Super Tuesday strategy.

Or did the party make that happen too?

Obama won it fair and square. Now can we PLEASE unite and take out McCain?

by Reeves on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:56:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by Skaje on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:55:58 PM EST

Edwards for Attorney General.

and/or (none / 0)

Associate justice of the Supreme Court. Eat that, John Roberts!

Senator Al Franken. Have I died and gone to heaven? Not yet. We're still in Purgatory.

by NM Ward Chair on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:00:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]