OK, after John Edwards's surprisingly blunt admission that he was not interested in another run as VP, now that Edwards is apparently being vetted by the Obama campaign, he's reverting to the more standard "if asked I'll serve" response.

"My answer to that is, I've run for vice president, I've run for president twice. I would do anything that I felt I could do to serve this country but I think it's a huge presumption for me or anybody else to suggest what Senator Obama may decide," he said.

"To answer your question directly: I don't expect to be asked, have no expectation about it at all, I will - anything that Senator Obama asks me to do, including this, including campaigning for him, I intend to do, because what I'm going to do, I intend to take seriously," he added. "What I intend to do is everything in my power, use everything in my power to make sure that he's the next president."

Pressed on whether that meant he might join the ticket if asked, Edwards would not rule it out. "I am prepared to seriously consider anything, anything he asks me to do for our country," he told NPR.

Considering his apparent recent commitment to debate Karl Rove several times this fall, I sort of actually believe him that he truly doesn't expect to be chosen, and I don't really see what benefit he brings to an Obama ticket, except that the hypothetical bounce his addition to the ticket gives Obama is fairly dramatic. Paul Rosenberg detailed the impressive polling advantage Edwards brings to Obama in charts and maps over at Open Left. We're talking landslide territory. Now, I know these are hypothetical match-ups months in advance of an election, so they're fairly meaningless...or are they? Is it really merely a function of name recognition? I still favor Edwards for Attorney General but those numbers have to make you think, especially if Obama intends to run a "making red America comfortable with me" presidential campaign as he appears to be, Edwards could add some much needed progressive fight to the ticket. Hmmm.

[cross-posted to Blue Mass Group]

My Unitarian Univeralist congregation, the Unitarian Society of Northampton and Florence, has lay-led services over the summer since we largely give the minister the summer off.  I've been leading one service each summer for several years, and last Sunday I decided to talk about my experience in politics and what the community organizing model in politics might mean for the mission of our congregation.

I thought BMG and/or MyDD readers might find my readings and sermon interesting.  Religious organizations have to walk a fine legal line between political advocacy and tax-exempt free speech -- I hope I managed to do that here while making no particular secret of my own preferences.

Here are the text of the sermons and readings.  Comments are welcome!  Anybody else involved in organized religion in this way?

What I wouldn't give to be in the audience for this.

GOP strategist Karl Rove and former Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards will debate the issues of the presidential campaign Sept. 26 as part of the university's Distinguished Speakers Series, The Buffalo News has learned.

As surrogates for the parties' standard bearers, the two also could square off more than once at other locations around the nation.

"We're working on something like that for our Distinguished Speakers Series," said Bill Regan, UB's director of special events. "We're not really sure of the format yet. But we do think they are scheduled to do it at least once together before they come to UB."

One piece of advice for Edwards: watch your debates with Cheney from 2004...and do the opposite. I hope we see fierce trial lawyer guy come out against Rove rather than tactful polite but tough guy from the presidential debates last year. This is not the time to be respectful, this is the time to take Rove out.

No pressure though.

I agree with Nate at FiveThirtyEight that the fact that Edwards would agree to what looks to be a series of appearances at all that close to the election is pretty much a sign that we're not going to be seeing an Edwards as Veep redux.

Committing to a series of high-profile and sure to be much-discussed debates with Karl Rove is a great way to stay important in the Democratic Party; it's also a telegraphed sign that Edwards knows the answer to whether he'll be the pick.

The Politico is reporting that Elizabeth Edwards is leading a $40M campaign called Healthcare for America Now on July 8th at the National Press Club.  

Healthcare for America Now will unveil a $40 million effort, with the first ad buy being a $1.5 million in national print, online and broadcast advertising.

The group's goal is to provide "quality, affordable health care for every American," and it obviously dovetails with the Obama campaign's promise of providing universal health care. The group will spend $25 million in paid media, while also funding 100 organizers involved in events around the country.

More after the jump...

The single most significant example of sexism in the primary campaign was the John Edwards haircut story.

I say it was sexist because a woman getting a $400 haircut wouldn't even have been a blip on the radar--it was only because he was a man that it was such a big story. He was called things like "prettyboy" because of that story.

I say it was the most significant example of sexism because I guarantee you that story got more minutes of media play than all the examples in the NOW list combined. And I guarantee you it had a more negative impact on Edwards campaign than all the examples on the NOW list combined had on Clinton's campaign.

So where's the outrage? Why did NOW fail to even mention THAT story?

One thing Progressives have constantly been up in arms about since we helped the Democrats win back Congress in 2006 is the FISA fight. Many of us think that this bill was completely unneccesary, and that it was a bad idea. It wasn't that we needed new, broad ranging powers for the Federal Government to keep us safe, we just needed a competent administration in place to use laws already in place to protect us. That is what failed us on that terrible day of 9-11-01.

John Edwards has been pretty clear about not wanting to be considered for Obama's VP, stating earlier this month:

Former U.S. Senator John Edwards has ruled out being Barack Obama's running mate on the Democratic presidential ticket, according to interviews carried by two leading Spanish newspapers...

"I already had the privilege of running for vice president in 2004, and I won't do it again," Edwards was quoted by El Mundo as saying. El Pais, the country's other leading daily, carried similar comments.

Well, turns out that strong statement actually required some clarification. From today's This Week with George Stephanopoulos:

Edwards, a candidate for president in this year's primaries, stepped back a bit on Sunday.

"I intended it to say that this is not a thing that I'm seeking. I think Senator Obama, first of all, has earned the right to make this decision for himself. I think he has enormous choices available to him, really great choices available to him," Edwards said on "This Week" on ABC. "And I think he'll go through this process in a thoughtful, orderly way, and he'll decide who he wants to be his running mate. And that's exactly how it should be done."

Asked whether he'd rule out the possibility, Edwards said: "Well, I'd take anything he asked me to think about seriously, but obviously this is something I've done and it's not a job that I'm seeking."

Personally, I take Edwards's original statement as his real feelings on the matter. At least I hope they are. Edwards was fairly useless as the VP candidate in 2004 and while he was a much more aggressive and progressive presidential candidate this time around, it seems to me picking John Edwards, or John Kerry for that matter, both of whom were recently revealed to be on Obamas shortlist, would go against the very rationale for Obama's candidacy, wouldn't it? (Edwards less so than Kerry, obviously, but picking Edwards would be a step backward to the past, Obama claims to be about the future.)

It's amazing to me, so many people get up in arms about the possibility of Hillary Clinton as VP because she "represents the past," represents "business as usual in Washington" and voted for the war, etc., yet there isn't the same outrage when it comes to John Edwards, John Kerry, Chris Dodd, or Joe Biden's being on Obama's shortlist. If Obama actually picks one of these guys for VP, 3 out of 4 of whom have been sitting senators since the 70s or 80s and all of whom voted for the war, I suspect for many he's going to have some explaining to do as to why this guy and why not Clinton.

Because I do not have the time to do this justice on my own, I am going to be "stealing" some stuff directly from OneCarolinaGirl at EENR Blog.
http://www.eenrblog.com/showDiary.do?dia ryId=1682

There is some great Happy Birthday stuff for John Edwards in her diary. Many of the comments include personal pictures comments and experiences.

So join me, join OneCarolinaGirl and all of the other John Edwards supporters at the EENR Blog in wishing John Edwards a Very Happy 55th Birthday!

more below...