Video: Edwards Stops Short Of Unequivocal Committment To Backing Dem Nominee

Comments (24)

Jake D wrote on November 13, 2007 5:31 PM:

Fine, now we have video proof of the tempest in a teapot TPM created out of all this.

Anonymous wrote on November 13, 2007 5:37 PM:

Seriously, is this horse dead enough yet?

Daniel wrote on November 13, 2007 5:41 PM:

New speculation that Mike Begish might be getting in the Alaska Senate race.

LJ wrote on November 13, 2007 5:42 PM:

I don't think it's at all difficult to understand why Edwards doesn't care to endorse Hillary Clinton at this point in the campaign. To answer the question is to buy into Hillary's inevitability.

Brian wrote on November 13, 2007 5:44 PM:

I think Edwards might run as Independent, and that is the other reason he will not commit on this question.

Johnny2Bad wrote on November 13, 2007 5:51 PM:

ENUFF Already. WTF??????

framecop wrote on November 13, 2007 5:53 PM:

Why didn't you post the ORIGINAL QUESTION, where he was asked whether he would "ENDORSE" the Democratic nominee, because the media has switched it from "ENDORSE" to "SUPPORT."

And apparently TPM is a part of the problem, here.

He was ORIGINALLY ASKED if he would ENDORSE the nominee.

There is a difference between "ENDORSE" and "SUPPORT."

There is no reason whatsoever for a Democrat to ENDORSE a nominee.

Shii wrote on November 13, 2007 5:53 PM:

Greeeeeat reporting, guys! Keep it up and Matt Taibbi might include TPM-EC in the next Wimblehack!

Jake D wrote on November 13, 2007 6:00 PM:

Brian:

I wish Edwards would run as an Independent, but I doubt that will happen -- I think Edwards's real reason for not answering was this: he's all but declared the Washington establishment broken and corrupt -- he has also equated that establishment with the Clintons. So how does he, at this time, say he'll support her as the nominee without fatally undercutting his own strongest line of attack?

NO MORE BUSH-CLINTON!!!

poetry wrote on November 13, 2007 6:12 PM:

At the CNN presidential debate (July 24, 2007), here is what Hillary Clinton said:

"CLINTON: You know what is great about this is look at this stage and look at the diversity you have here in the Democratic Party. Any one of us would be a better president than our current president or the future Republican nominee."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/23/debate.transcript.part2/index.html

So, I say, SHAME on John Edwards for equivocating about whether or not he would support the Democratic nominee

Does Edwards really think any Republican would be good for this country?

poetry wrote on November 13, 2007 6:20 PM:

Edwards is whistling past the graveyard when he claims he would have a better chance than Hillary Clinton of beating, for instance, Rudy Giuliani (the current Republican front-runner)

In an average of many polls (not just one carefully selected poll), Edwards loses to Giuliani.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_giuliani_vs_edwards-229.html

In an average of many polls (not just one carefully selected poll), Hillary beats Giuliani.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_giuliani_vs_clinton-227.html

No wonder Edwards is getting so snarly.

Jake D wrote on November 13, 2007 6:23 PM:

Hillary's Spokeshole Weighs In:

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/11/hillary_spokesperson_she_will_of_course_support_dem_nominee.php

BJ wrote on November 13, 2007 6:37 PM:

Didn't John Edwards say questions needed to be answered with "yes or no"?

Anonymous wrote on November 13, 2007 6:42 PM:

"I fully expect to support the Democratic nominee"

Fish Bone wrote on November 13, 2007 6:49 PM:

BJ, that precisely what I thought when I heard his comments. Regardless of how you feel about Hillary I don't think the new found snarkiness of Edwards befits him.

I went into this tentatively supporting him but I don't think trying to take down Hillary is particularly endearing. He's much better when he sticks to policy.

Of course I live in Michigan so my primary vote probably won't matter anyways...

Anonymous wrote on November 13, 2007 8:17 PM:

I believe that many Democrats will stay at home in 2008 if Hillary is nominated and there is not third party backlash. Her nomination would be an insult to people who want CHANGE and a leader for more than half of the nation. We don't need the Clintons back. PERIOD. The Bush-Clinton coporate serving status quo has got to end.

Somebody Please Fire Greg and Eric wrote on November 13, 2007 8:37 PM:

And return TPM to its former glory. Good lord you guys are terrible reporters. Or you are on Hillary's payroll. Or maybe both. Doesn't matter which, just please stop posting this schlock.

Really, I forsee a mass exodus from TPM over this Hillary-shilling, which has reached an intolerable level at this point. The one upside is that it reinforces the notion that Hillary and her camp (Greg and Eric included) really are just about "politics as usual," not the sort of sea change we so desperately need at 1600 Pennsylvania.

Anonymous wrote on November 13, 2007 9:37 PM:

I'm not sure what these accusations of shilling for Hillary are all about, but that's a different question from mediocre reporting. I think the claim of spin-driven reporting, or superficial reporting of pseudo-events might stick, regardless of whether these guys are taking Hillary's side or not.

tarheel74 wrote on November 13, 2007 9:42 PM:

smarmy little slimebag....now I have to suffer from indigestion after seeing his lying face.

Bigsky in Iowa wrote on November 13, 2007 10:36 PM:

TPM is losing it... Clinton flat out equivocates on EVERY substantive question and gets a pass but you guys cover this as real news? As several posters already asked "Why don't you ask HRC the same thing and see what she says?"

I've seen Clinton 2X here in Iowa and both times she did not take questions from the audience. Dodd, Biden, Edwards, Richardson and Obama did and, in fact, spent the majority of their visits fielding audience Q's on everything from the weird and irrelevant to the major policy issues of the campaign.

Clinton has been at least third in line after some of the other candidates to 'unveil' her major policy initiatives and even then all she does is bracket someone else's good ideas, put a bow on 'em and call them new.

How about turning the talent at TPM loose on those points?

audit the polls wrote on November 14, 2007 3:06 AM:

Clinton IS corrupt. She's taken money from Murdoch.

I wish Election Central would stop running Imaginary match ups with 'frontrunners' as if that were the election. The election requires voters, not 1000 Rasmussen-selected land line phones belonging to 'likely voters' Apparently, then they use these numbers to chose who to cover. It is corrupt. Please stop.

Fel wrote on November 14, 2007 6:47 AM:

Wait. I started reading down from the top in TPM, saw the post with this link, clicked and saw this video of Edwards, and read all these posts about TPM making a big deal out of Edwards statement. So I guess now I'll go back to TPM proper and see what you are all talking about. But, seriously, you can't all be saying that Josh or whomever on TPM is suggesting what Edwards said is anything other than mundane, are you? Nah, TPM would not stoop to this kind of silly analysis in a serious presidential campaign, would they?

Strykur wrote on November 14, 2007 10:17 AM:

Will you all please start focusing on issues? I started reading TPM to get away from the ping pong politics of the Beltway. Now we appear to have replaced that with comments on "snarkiness."

Iraq, health care and global warming are huge issues with long term structural consequences for all Americans. Are we done talking about them? What's next? Haircuts again? What's so much better about Sargent's lines of inquiry than say, Tim Russert's?

Edwards is not going to run as an indy, he is just still trying to campaign for the nomination. Since the convention has not actually occurred yet, is it so wrong of anyone to continue to campaign? No! His supporters and those of the other candidates deserve to have their voices heard as well.

John Edwards has attacked Bush's policies early and often. John Edwards committed to reversing course on Iraq, climate change and heath care. Republicans can't win on the issues, unless its created issues like haircuts and "snarkiness."

As to Sargent's agenda, if any, words do matter. The headline uses the words "stops short" and "unequivocal commitment." You be the judge of whether the headline is the story.

How newsworthy is this? Not so much. Only 71 members of the House and Senate have endorsed Hillary at this point and very few of them are currently running against her. Where is the crush of journalistic inquisitiveness over why less than half of the Democrats in Congress have endorsed anyone at all? It would appear to me that over half of the Democratic federal delegation have stopped short of unequivocal commitment. I would note that all her support on that front comes from Democratic strongholds on the coasts and her other home state of Arkansas. Does that mean that the Virginia and Ohio delegations are disloyal? Of course not.

Concession speeches will come soon enough. Stop demanding them upfront!

zk0sm0 wrote on November 14, 2007 11:34 AM:

as always the comments accusing bias reveal more the bias of the accuser than the bias of tpm.

and i say that as an edwards-leaning voter.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)