Edwards On Kerry's Obama Endorsement: "I Respect His Decision"

Comments (60)

MarkM wrote on January 10, 2008 11:53 AM:

Still, sounds like Edwards is going to endorse Obama whenever he gets out...which I assume will be after another 3rd place finish in SC.

nogo war wrote on January 10, 2008 11:55 AM:

"Oh the more it changes,
the more, it stays the same.
The hand just rearranges,
the players in the game."

colonpowwow wrote on January 10, 2008 12:01 PM:

Once again, the CheneySlayer and the most electable Democrat who hasn't won an election since 1998 effortlessly finds a way to say one thing while doing another (he was punching his inflatable John Kerry doll as he called in his statement).

Evan wrote on January 10, 2008 12:07 PM:

MARKM

Seriously. I have great respect for Edwards, but his presence only helps Clinton's showings. Let's hope Edwards bows out before Super Tuesday and throws his support behind Obama - his numbers would skyrocket.

I think Obama/Richardson would be an incredible ticket.

Goldspinner wrote on January 10, 2008 12:09 PM:

Edwards is still in the race. As I recall, Edwards gave Kerry a heck of a scare during the 2004 primaries. Don't count your chickens just yet...the "Bradley effect" is real.

Steve in SC wrote on January 10, 2008 12:09 PM:

"I think Obama/Richardson would be an incredible ticket."

The first all non-white ticket in American history is how many voters might perceive it. I'm no racist, but that's the facts.

In other news, Roll Call is reporting that scandal-plagued GOP Congressman John Doolittle is retiring, strongly boosting the GOP's chances of retaining his seat.

zmulls wrote on January 10, 2008 12:09 PM:

If the races keep splitting between Clinton and Obama, and Edwards keeps getting a minimum of 20% of the vote (and usually more), there's no reason for him to get out. There's no rule that says we have to have a nominee by Valentine's Day -- that's just how the system has worked out the last few times around.

Edwards isn't throwing the race to the Republicans by staying in. He's keeping the process fluid and open, and he's forcing the dialogue to a progressive agenda, which is what I want.

Frankly, I'm not happy that the media decided a year ago that this was a Celebrity Smackdown between Obama and Clinton -- they got pretty much all the coverage, and the narrative was dedicated to them ("the heavyweight inevitable" vs. "the dream kid"). If there's an open convention, almost anything can happen (gosh, even a "draft Gore" movement, we can dream, can't we?)

Also, anyone who's watched politics over the last twenty years knows that Anything Can Happen. A week ago Barack Obama was going to walk to the nomination. Now Clinton has her "machine" back in place. Dimes will drop all the way from here to the summer. Edwards is absolutely right to ride it and see if he can catch any breaks.

I'd be able to support any of the three nominees currently running -- and whenever it's a done deal (when one of them gets the magic number of delegates, or after a tumultuous convention when the decision is made) I'll support the nominee. But this is a process and I want it to work itself out in all its messy glory.

Edwards still has viability, though he just took a hit in NH. He shouldn't throw in the towel just to make everyone happy. He'd be a great President.

Keith L wrote on January 10, 2008 12:10 PM:

MARKM and Evan,

Why on Earth should the next President of the United States drop from the race before he wins?

Bob wrote on January 10, 2008 12:13 PM:

No, no, Edwards is staying in for Michigan! And South Carolina! And Florida! And then he's going to Washington DC to take back the White House! Yeeeeeeearrrrrgggg!!!

Seriously, he's going to stick around for a while. And as an Obama fan, I'm not sure this is such a bad thing. A lot of his fans are blue-collar and might break more for Clinton (especially if he drops out at a moment when Clinton has the momentum). I think the optimal situation is that Edwards sticks around for a while, allowing Obama a little more time to figure out how to connect with the beer-track voter.

Evan wrote on January 10, 2008 12:15 PM:

How is Edwards going to be the next President without winning the Democratic nomination? 2nd in Iowa, 3rd in NH and polling distant 3rds in Nevada and SC. You have to win some primaries to win the nomination, right?

I like Edwards a lot and would happily cast a vote for him in the general but he's simply not getting any traction.

RE: Obama/Richardson.

Yes, an all "non-white" ticket. If we're smashing paradigms, might as well get as many out of the way as possible.

But seriously, aside from being hispanic, Richardson is a wildly popular SW Governor, so he'd balance the ticket geographically, and he has a ton of foriegn policy experience, so it'd quell some fears of Obama's experience.

pkoso wrote on January 10, 2008 12:17 PM:

zmulls...good comment.

unrelated:

but please let us have a substantive dialogue between the three. no more of this bill finger wagging, silly emotion (and its parsing), etc. etc. etc.

Anonymous wrote on January 10, 2008 12:21 PM:

The biggest positive about this endorsement is that Obama will almost certainly get access to Kerry's HUGE fundraising database from 2004.

I think Kerry had something like 14 million donors. It's the biggest fundraising database in the Democratic party, if I'm not mistaken, and a virtual goldmine for Obama.

Come to think about it, Obama has been reporting some massive fundraising numbers since Jan. 1, so maybe he's already gotten access to it and started mailing/calling/emailing former Kerry donors.

grover_rover wrote on January 10, 2008 12:24 PM:

Edwards has no chance, that is obvious to everyone. All he is doing it trying to get political leverage, but he is splitting the progressive vote at the same time, giving Hillary a dangerous chance to prevail. He needs to quit playing games, this is serious. If he can't do better than 3rd in the first Southern primary he just needs to stop before he turns into Nader.

If he doesn't know what is at stake and when to quit, maybe his supporters will.

Anonymous wrote on January 10, 2008 12:27 PM:

Andrew Cuomo just said that Hillary won NH because you can't "shuck and jive" there. You can't "Do your moves" with the press. Seriously. He said that.

I think maybe the Clintons' are deciding that race is what won them NH, or more accurately, what lost it for Obama. Throw in the drug dealer thing, the "MLK was a do-nothing talker," and I think we are starting to see Clintons lining up on a certain side of a certain issue.

We'll see how this plays.

Bupalos wrote on January 10, 2008 12:33 PM:

Hillary is going to concede SC and Georgia because she has decided that long term, they have to play race. When Edwards drops, they need to pull in whatever racist component exists on his side of the ledger.

People should ask themselves how they think Hillary is pulling in the "beer-drinkers." Hillary. Beer-drinkers. Discuss.

Credance wrote on January 10, 2008 12:37 PM:

I can't remember the last time I heard the term "shuck and jive." I'd go with the inadvertant word choice explanation, but I don't think I've heard that term in ten years. It's so specifically racial. That's a weird one.

DakotaDemocrat wrote on January 10, 2008 12:37 PM:

So which one is it Obama?

Running on change or using the endorsements from entrenched Senators?

Can he have both?

I'm fine with any of the top 3 candidates, but which end wins when he becomes president? Change or status quo?

grover_rover wrote on January 10, 2008 12:38 PM:

Woah, excuse me, why did TPM just pull that shuck and jivin' Hillary supporter story? Surely after starting a TPM Obama hatefest over JJJr's comments yesterday you aren't going to give the Clinton campaign a free pass on this?

Here is a link for people who actually wanted to hear about this:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/Dept_of_word_choice.html

I was in the middle of a post on this when it was taken down, which follows:

Ouch. Now I expect to hear a similar frenzy of disdain for Hillary's racism and vows of her losing your vote forever and ever, fair is fair :P

And last time I checked, Obama's grassroots support isn't coming from the media, it is coming directly from him. Obama's speeches lift people up, bring them to tears, that isn't the media doing it, it is him and his message and the real hope for change. Hillary is just pissed that she can't move people like Obama can, and she has that right I suppose, I'd be jealous too if I were her. But quit blaming it on the media. People don't dislike you because of the media, and they don't love him because of the media, start taking responsibility for your own fate. I'm tired of this coming from the campaign that had EVERY leg up in this campaign from the very beginning, especially from the media pushing her "inevitability". Quit whining. Quit being negative.

Bob wrote on January 10, 2008 12:39 PM:

Bupalos,

If I get your drift, I think you're implying that beer-drinkers = latent racists. And I think that's unfair. Again, I'm an Obama man, but I think he's thus far failing to motivate the working class behind him because he's not feeling their pain or expressing their anger as well as Edwards is (in a populist way) and Clinton is (in a wonkey/I'm-married-to-Bill-Clinton kind of way).

It's also all about women, which is where HRC really pulled ahead in NH.

Evan wrote on January 10, 2008 12:41 PM:

DakotaDemocrat

Of course he can have both. You can be the voice of change and still have the support of established politicians. It makes his change message more viable.

Louis wrote on January 10, 2008 12:41 PM:

John Edward's reaction to Kerry's endorsement of Obama is a remarkable contrast to Lieberman's graceless tantrum a few years back when Gore endorsed Dean. Joe really revealed himself to be a putz. Edwards is pure class.

optimusprime wrote on January 10, 2008 12:44 PM:

is there any better sign that edwards is _the_ choice for progressive/change than john kerry supporting someone else?

NCSteve wrote on January 10, 2008 12:46 PM:

Hillary's "beer drinker" vote among the union guys is pretty easy to understand. They're guys whose life experience teaches them to believe the system is stacked, the fix is in and its all a zero sum game. They think this whole "leadership" and "inspiration" thing is a crock and what you really need savvy operative who knows how to pull the levers and push the buttons and generally work the system to squeeze a few bennies for them out of a crooked system that cannot be fixed and is the only game in town. Of course they go for Clinton.

Or, at least, that's probably pretty close to what Mark Penn says about them, anyway.

And, actually, what is up with this "beer drinker" category as a way of making class or social distinctions? I mean, what does class have to do with whether you like a good brewski or four from time to time?

journalschism wrote on January 10, 2008 12:47 PM:

Kerry endorses Obama. Hah! That should play well in the South, where Kerry lost every state.

KOD, baby, KOD.

Edwards should be elated he didn't get that endorsement. I only voted for Kerry because of Edwards.

ac-n-nc wrote on January 10, 2008 12:49 PM:

I like all of the three and will gladly vote for one of them. The Obama supporters seem to be somewhat vicious of the other candidates and that troubles me a little. I lean toward Edwards because I live in NC but like them all. I could be wrong but it sounds like the Obama posters will openly tear the other two to pieces using wing-nut talking points. That's not healthy for anyone. Just my 2 cents.

DRH wrote on January 10, 2008 12:53 PM:

Edwards should stay in the race. He's got grit. He's got class. He has a message that resonates with working class people. Let's not let the press force too early of a decision toward Obama or Hillary. Let's see the process through.

Obama is my first choice and I really hope he wins. I actually think Edwards staying in the race helps Barak win the nomination because Edwards can point out Hillary issues more freely than can Barak.

zmulls wrote on January 10, 2008 12:59 PM:

grover_rover: As an Edwards supporter (and one that didn't expect to be when this process started -- he earned my support), I certainly see the good qualities in Obama, and even in Hillary Clinton. I think we have three good nominees, any one of which is worth supporting, and I hope you can see the race that way as well.

I certainly understand that Obama has an uncanny, a remarkable ability to move people through his speeches. I got goosebumps listening to his Iowa speech. It's a great skill, an important one, but it's not the only one. I give him his props for an optimistic message, basic Democratic values, and for being the most inspirational speaker in the race. I *will* support him if he wins.

But I think he's depending too much on Washington Republicans being as open to persuasion as those in the Illinois State Senate. And I am not convinced he will go for the jugular when he needs to. And I think he will give too much leeway to the "centrists" who will be too eager to nod 'yes' to a few too many unreasonable right-wing demands, just for the sake of comity. I hope I'm wrong, but that's where my hesitancy comes in.

Edwards is the one who will fight first and negotiate when he has someone on the ropes. I think that's what is needed.

And I certainly don't want someone as President who would give up when things looked bleak but not impossible. I want someone who will keep fighting the good fight when there's still a chance.

I don't think he's throwing it to Clinton. I think he's keeping the race open, and keeping his options open, including -- if he doesn't come from behind -- the ability to shape the choice of nominee and the agenda....which he has every right to do. He's earned that.

I hope you'll understand why some of us are still supportive of him and of his staying in the race; and I hope you'll be able to give him the respect that we're able to give both Obama and Clinton.

pjsauter wrote on January 10, 2008 1:09 PM:

You have to win some primaries to win the nomination, right?

I think what you need is 2,025 delegates. As far as I know, there are no "winner take all" primaries (unlike the general election).

Not counting the "super" delegates, I believe the tally at the moment is Obama: 25, Clinton: 24, Edwards: 18.

The traditional media would have had us believe it was all over after Iowa. Now they'd have us believe it's just Obama v. Clinton. Fact is, there's a long way (and a big Super Tuesday) to go to get to 2,025.

Edwards isn't going to quit. Why would (or should) he?

Chesire111 wrote on January 10, 2008 1:12 PM:

"The biggest positive about this endorsement is that Obama will almost certainly get access to Kerry's HUGE fundraising database from 2004."

I've already received Kerry's endorsement e-mail soliciting contributions for Obama. No doubt about it, they're not wasting time and this will mean a substantial infusion of cash into the Obama campaign.

storm wrote on January 10, 2008 1:20 PM:

why all this negative talk about us latent beer drinkers?

Wowsas wrote on January 10, 2008 1:20 PM:

grover, I assume you are another merlot sipping, Starbucks drinking elite, who reads the Economist and thinks that makes you "more informed" than those dirty populists. You're shocked that anyone educated might think NAFTA and GATT have not been net positive for America, and you think progressive economists like Stiglitz, Krugman and Sachs are idiots.

Either that, or you're insane.

Obama is not a progressive candidate. He does not have progressive support. He is not reaching out to progressives. His GOTV and messaging are all targeted at Indies and Republicans, which is why he feels so comfortable attacking Hillary and Edwards using Republican talking points.

So shut up already about Edwards splitting the progressive vote. The progressive vote sure ain't going to Obama. The more that us progressives hear from Obama, the less we like him.

Or to put it another way, in the absence of any evidence that Obama intends to adopt a progressive platform when elected, why would you believe that to be the case?

Oh yes, the Obamamania is trying to outdo the Cult of Bush in cultivating a faith-based campaign. And you can count me out of that. If Edwards drops out, I'm supporting Hillary, warts and all. Maybe I'll cancel out one of his Republican votes in the primary.

Wowsas wrote on January 10, 2008 1:25 PM:

Not to rain on the "John Kerry's endorsement means VICTORY" parade, but Kerry's endorsement is probably more of a negative than a positive.

And his huge campaign database? That's what comes out of running for President against the worst President in history.

And you know why that campaign database is worthless? Because Kerry ran a terrible campaign and lost to the worst President in history.

Evan wrote on January 10, 2008 1:28 PM:

Wowsas - Yes, he lost to Bush. But he also got more votes than any other candidate ever (next to Bush, obviously).

Wowsas wrote on January 10, 2008 1:29 PM:

Evan,

let me introduce you to my good friend "Population Increase". Population Increase, Evan.

spencer wrote on January 10, 2008 1:38 PM:

How is Edwards going to be the next President without winning the Democratic nomination? 2nd in Iowa, 3rd in NH and polling distant 3rds in Nevada and SC. You have to win some primaries to win the nomination, right?

There are more than four primaries, right?

Richard L. Adlof wrote on January 10, 2008 1:38 PM:

Edwards' response was respectful and concise . . .

DRH wrote on January 10, 2008 1:39 PM:

Wowsas,

"progressive" and "moderate" are just labels. labels are nice for us humans because they allow us to easily categorize things in our brains and to simplify complexities. Well, we've lived through the past 7 years of complexities being oversimplified by a president and administration filled with human beings who didn't have the mental capacity to deal with complexity. It's been a disaster.

The problems confronting our nation and world are indeed complex and if we're all honest, it's difficult to boil things down to fit into the various labels that everyone wants to use.

Obama, Hillary and Edwards are all good candidates. They're all a HUGE step forward in comparison to our sad reality of the past 7 years. I hope that we, the people, don't get too hung up on being progressive or moderate or whatever and allow the right wing religious conservatives (LOL there I go using a label) to elect another president. Now that would be a disaster.

Evan wrote on January 10, 2008 1:42 PM:

Spencer - Yes, obviously there are more than 4 primaries, but it'd be nice if Edwards was at least competitive in any of the early ones. Constantly coming in 3rd is not a way to gain support.

Anonymous wrote on January 10, 2008 1:43 PM:

Wowsas let me introduce you to my good friend "Population Increase". Population Increase, Evan.

What's your point?

Wowsas wrote on January 10, 2008 1:47 PM:

DRH,

That's a very fair post. But I think you're directing it at the wrong person. If Obama wins, I will be strongly in his camp, for the reasons you articulate. In fact, every Edwards supporter I know has the same view.

That being said, I'm getting a little tired of whiny ass Obama bitches complaining about Edwards "stealing" Obama's "progressive" votes. This may just be a label to you, but I view progressives as being in the tradition of earlier in the 20th century. People who want real and meaningful change in the social and economic structure of America.

And I'm pointing out to you that people who fit that description, both in my experience, and according to the polls, are not Obama supporters, and in my opinion are not likely to become Obama supporters, because Obama is not trying to appeal to us with his calls for unenunciated "change" (always in the same sentence or paragraph as "bipartisan").

So when lil dirtbags like Grover Norquist complain about Edwards, I have 2 responses: 1) it's a primary, so suck it; and 2) we're not voting for your man, anyways, which means you're an idiot and can kiss my ass.

my2cents wrote on January 10, 2008 1:49 PM:

Why I've lost some interest in Obama is exactly what someone above mentioned: his reliance on pulling Republicans. You know what, the Repubs really messed up, why should we involve them? At this point, we should be like, "step aside, we need to fix your crap," and start tackling the appalling social mess they've made. That's what our next leader needs to do--not compromise, not throw bones, but lead and do what's right.

Wowsas wrote on January 10, 2008 1:50 PM:

Anonymous,

I think the point would be that Kerry being the 2nd largest vote recipient in history isn't actually all that impressive.

Which would follow on the point that Kerry's endorsement or fundraising list aren't actually that impressive.

Good thing the Dems are all proposing education infrastructure investment. Reading comprehension skills appear to be down.

Evan wrote on January 10, 2008 2:04 PM:

Wowsas - I understand that you're saying his 2004 showing isn't impressive, but what does this "population increase" have to do with anything?

You're saying that in the past 4 years the electorate has increased drastically? I would be very suspicious of that. I'm not a population expert, but I would think that the number of minors turning 18 would be more or less balanced out by those who died.

Obviously the US population has a positive growth rate, I'm just not sure it's drastic enough to have that much of an impact on the electorate in 4 years.

If you have some numbers of this population increase of the last 4 years, I'd be very interested in them.

henk wrote on January 10, 2008 2:28 PM:

John Who?

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 10, 2008 2:32 PM:

That being said, I'm getting a little tired of whiny... Obama [supporters] complaining about Edwards "stealing" Obama's "progressive" votes.

For whatever little it is worth, I (an Obama supporter) agree with you on that much. Why should Obama people like me expect Edwards supporters to vote for our guy instead of their own in the primary? Each democrat should vote for the candidate of his or her choice and may the best one win.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 10, 2008 2:43 PM:

Meanwhile, I see in other Edwards related news that the NC primary-race is a three-way tie at the moment.

Clinton leads with 31%, followed by Obama at 29 and Edwards at 27 (+/- 3.1%).

Wowsas wrote on January 10, 2008 2:44 PM:

Greg,

Sorry for painting with a broad brush. I tend to find your comments quite thoughtful and intelligent.

Also, I fully intend to vote for your guy if he wins the primary. And I suspect my guy will help your guy do it.

I just wish he'd blow on the darn dog whistle once or twice. My ears are perked up and I'm waiting...

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 10, 2008 2:53 PM:

Greg,

Sorry for painting with a broad brush.

Not at all. I did not take you to be referring to all of us Obama folks; just to the whiny ones (and I have not failed to notice their existence). Your point was entirely fair (although I blush at profanity, so I hope you did not mind that I edited your remark prior to responding to it).

kathy wrote on January 10, 2008 2:58 PM:

Talking about Edwards dropping out is just buying into the mainstream media's spin that this is a 2 person race. Obama has lined up 25 delegates, Clinton 24 and Edwards has 18. That seems competitve to me. The problem for Edwards is the media is not giving him equal air time and he is up against two enormous money machines. Edwards needs grassroots volunteers.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 10, 2008 3:10 PM:

Obama has lined up 25 delegates, Clinton 24 and Edwards has 18.

Er, actually, Clinton has lined up 159, Obama 77 and Edwards 44 (and Kucinich 2). Aside from that brief note of fact-checking, however, I agree with the substance of your post. There is no reason why Edwards ought to get out of the race yet. Calls for him to do so are both specious and premature.

squenz wrote on January 10, 2008 3:24 PM:

Greg: You are correct. You should, however, point out for the sake of clarity that all those extra delegates are superdelegates, i.e. the personal choices of the Democratic élite.

The most important point here is that there are no winner-take-all Democratic primaries. If Edwards stays in and picks up a good number of delegates, he can still hope for a shift in the race, e.g. an Obama and/or Clinton meltdown, and be poised to get back in the race. There's still plenty of room for a third candidate. (Not to forget Kucinich!)

c wrote on January 10, 2008 3:52 PM:

my2, if you want a big enough win in November to govern, you need to get independents and decent, moderate Republican voters. Those folks exist, have been shaken by how bad the current administration is, and some of them can be detached. I'm not saying pander to them, but speak to them. (Remember that Bill Clinton won in 92 with only a plurality of the pop vote and then *lost* Congress two years later. This is one of the reasons a Clinton Restoration makes some of us nervous.)

I'm happy as an Obama backer to have Edwards stay in! He's got a clear message and a constituency he speaks for very directly, and if we've learned one thing from the past few days it's that the race is up for grabs.

crys wrote on January 10, 2008 4:30 PM:

www.hillarythemovie.com

it's definitely worth a look. dick morris may hate hillary clinton, but he sure does not lie.

Anonymous wrote on January 10, 2008 4:33 PM:

if you want a big enough win in November to govern, you need to get independents and decent, moderate Republican voters.

you have the general confused with the primary.

the issue is obama's pandering to independents and republicans during the DEMOCRATIC primary.

Edwards for president wrote on January 10, 2008 4:47 PM:

Only 99% of the voters to go. I can understand the people who like the 2 candidates that talk and say nothing suggesting Edwards quit, but it is better for democracy to have more candidates. Not less. Even a horse race gets boring with just 2 horses.

TheCount wrote on January 10, 2008 4:53 PM:

I have serious doubts about the authenticity of Obama. I am not sure he is for real, much less able to handle the mess in DC. But he can give a hell of a speech, so let's vote for him.

Blue wrote on January 10, 2008 6:48 PM:

May Kerry's endorsement of Obama do for him what Gore's endorsement did for Dean.

framecop wrote on January 10, 2008 7:01 PM:

Barack "HUSSEIN" Obama is a loss waiting to happen, as there are many who will not vote for him because he is 1) black, 2) black and young, 3), black and young and thus perceived as inexperienced, and 4) perceived as being muslim because his middle name is Hussein.

Hillary "DYNASTY" Clinton is a loss waiting to happen in a year when voters will want something different.

Democrats who try to rush Edwards out, are clueless.

Shuck and Jive wrote on January 10, 2008 10:40 PM:

H didn't cry when bill was getting a professional; but she cried right before the NH primaries. You've got to be kidding me! Now she's playing the race card with that shuck and jive. H is not the woman I thought she was. She's shaddy. I'm going with Edwards or Obama.

Nick wrote on January 11, 2008 1:20 AM:

Obama/Kerry anyone?

Post a comment

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