Obama On Edwards' Dropout: His Cause "Endures For All Of Us"
Obama is first out of the box with a statement on Edwards' departure from the race:
“John Edwards has spent a lifetime fighting to give voice to the voiceless and hope to the struggling, even when it wasn’t popular to do or covered in the news. At a time when our politics is too focused on who’s up and who’s down, he made a nation focus again on who matters – the New Orleans child without a home, the West Virginia miner without a job, the families who live in that other America that is not seen or heard or talked about by our leaders in Washington."John and Elizabeth Edwards have always believed deeply that we can change this – that two Americans can become one, and that our country can rally around this common purpose. So while his campaign may end today, the cause of their lives endures for all of us who still believe that we can achieve that dream of one America.
Regular readers will know that I for one will appreciate Obama's declaration that Edwards' cause "wasn't covered in the news." More on that here.
Separately, it's noteworthy that Obama is signaling that he is the one who would carry on the quest for a "one America," as Edwards' slogan had it. As noted below, an Edwards adviser says an endorsement isn't forthcoming "for the moment," though this adviser didn't rule out an endorsement before Super Tuesday.
Comments (31)
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 30, 2008 11:21 AM:Well said. Like Mr Sargent, I wish that the news people has been a little less given to the Clinton-v-Obama storyline and would have paid more attention to all of the candidates (not just Edwards, but also Richardson and Kucinich). I am sorry to see Sen Edwards drop out at this point.
barfly wrote on January 30, 2008 11:23 AM:With each passing second, Edwards' influence dims.
Greg wrote on January 30, 2008 11:24 AM:especially when you consider how dramatic his impact on the debate has been. sobering to imagine what the campaign would have been like had he not run.
Don wrote on January 30, 2008 11:26 AM:Cut a deal with Hillary? Is this what the mysterious meeting wiht Hillary after the last debate was all about?
Slick Johnson wrote on January 30, 2008 11:28 AM:I've notice the tone of TPM coverage on Obama has changed since Obama purchased that premium in-column ad on the front page.
RS wrote on January 30, 2008 11:29 AM:I see that along with Ted Kennedy's endorsement, Obama has received the keys to his 1980 DNC Convention concession speech.
For me, a few hours ago, this campaign came to an end.
For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die.
Michael A wrote on January 30, 2008 11:29 AM:This release sounds choreographed with edwards exit. I am approaching betting a lunch on edwards endorsing obama. By the way, darrell and cynthia owe me a lunch on the florida results. Time to pay up.
Bill R. wrote on January 30, 2008 11:29 AM:Obama was notably praising Edwards on Nightline last night. Does that suggest an endorsement by Tues.?
The Oct. debate and Edwards confronting Hillary on her influence peddling and the speaking with "forked tongue" on the issues is seen as a turning point in the march for Clinton coronation. He had an important voice in this campaign. And he was shut out of media attention.
barfly wrote on January 30, 2008 11:33 AM:What about Elizabeth Edwards? I sense that she is the conscience of the Edwards campaign. I also sense that she doesn't care much for Hillary. Would she really allow John Boy to fraternize with the dark side?
GMFORD wrote on January 30, 2008 11:36 AM:Obama stated what we are all thinking. Sad to see Edwards go.
CT Voter wrote on January 30, 2008 11:37 AM:I don't have any comment on Obama's words, but I am deeply grateful that Edwards ran. He had a significant impact on this race, even if he didn't win a single caucus or primary. Imagine what the discussion would have been without him?
We owe the Edwards' campaign a huge vote of thanks.
And a pox on all those reporters and columnists who couldn't get their miniscule little minds around the idea that a rich person might be (gasp!) interested in advancing the cause of the poor. Assholes.
Excuse my language, but the media is really a joke.
Angry Vet wrote on January 30, 2008 11:41 AM:Michael-
Yep, this proves it (to me). I didn't add it to my media post before, but a clear signal of coordination between the two would be a quick media release preceding JRE's withdrawal. Whoever got it out first would've shown to us observers which way the wind was blowing.
Of course, you don't want to release the statement immediately.
I think HRC and her campaign had no clue this was happening, "secret meeting behind the stage" or not. JRE is going to endorse Obama in the next couple of days, mark my words. Probably on Friday (after the debate), or on Sunday morning. It's worth checking to see what the Sunday shows have, right now, for a lineup.
Personally, I think the sooner the endorsement, the better. A 2-for-1 in the speech this afternoon? The surprise aspect of it would completely throw the media into a frenzy, with the loser being HRC. Joe Trippi still has tricks up his sleeve, I am sure.
I would also expect an HRC-like media blast on Sunday, only this time conducted by BHO.
Michael A wrote on January 30, 2008 11:44 AM:Agreed Angry Vet, I'm on board for betting a lunch that edwards endorses obama. Any takers? I'm ahead by 2 right now.
barfly wrote on January 30, 2008 11:45 AM:Obama.
Who will get John Edwards' vote? ..... wrote on January 30, 2008 11:47 AM:The exit polls give a split verdict. Those in Iowa and South Carolina show a slight tilt to Hillary Clinton. If you look at those voters among whom Edwards enjoyed disproportionate strength, it was among voters less likely to switch to Obama. In Iowa, it was among older (60-64 years old) and conservative voters. In South Carolina, it was among older (60 years and up), white male, moderate or somewhat conservative voters who wanted to keep troops in Iraq "as long as needed."
In these states, Edwards appears to have picked up white voters who wouldn't vote for Obama. In South Carolina, 35 percent of Edwards' voters said the country is "definitely not ready" for a black president. Only 22 percent of these voters said the country was "definitely not ready" for a woman president. Edwards' voters in South Carolina were also more dissatisfied with the prospect of an Obama nomination than a Clinton one. Fifty percent of Edwards' voters in South Carolina said they would be "somewhat dissatisfied" and 44 percent "very dissatisfied" with Obama's nomination. With Edwards out of the field, some of these voters may not vote at all; but if they do, they seem more likely to back Hillary Clinton than Barack Obama.
In New Hampshire, however, the story is a little different. Edwards ran strongest in New Hampshire among white, male, unionized, religiously observant Catholic voters who saw themselves as "moderates." Twenty-nine percent of Edwards' supporters had a "strongly unfavorable" view of Hillary Clinton; only 10 percent had a "strongly unfavorable" view of Obama. The exit polls didn't ask about social issues, but my guess is that these Edwards voters were more socially conservative on issues like abortion than the Clinton or Obama voters. These kind of Democratic primary voters will be common in states like Ohio, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Some of them might switch to Obama.
So who comes out ahead? I think it's very inconclusive. Clinton will pick up votes from Obama in some Southern states like Georgia that Obama should win anyway--and Obama will pick up a few votes in middle Atlantic or Midwestern states that Clinton will probably win anyway.
Obama.
Here's some food for thought:
"But if Edwards does endorse, he’s likely to go with Obama. The two have remained close during an exceedingly bitter race and have sometimes joined in a loose confederacy to attack Clinton, the front-runner, for her continuing refusal to reject lobbyist contributions and her deep Washington connections. Indeed, in an interview with ABC’s Terry Moran broadcast Tuesday, Obama said he had recently asked Edwards to endorse him, in a private conversation. “There is no doubt that I would love John’s support, but I also respect the fact that he is in this contest,” Obama said. The interview aired before Edwards’s intentions became public. Obama called Edwards a “formidable candidate.”"
Angry Vet wrote on January 30, 2008 11:50 AM:Even more so, the more I think about it, the more obvious the strategy seems to be. By JRE dropping out today, he is totally catching HRC with her pants down, which is a gamble Axelrod and Trippi were willing to take.
HRC is on the campaign trail, and everyone else was probably thinking it'd be a pretty easy day. I mean, why not? The press would be focused on the Rep. debate tonight, may mention the Florida Dem Primary, and, well, campaign stops continue going.
Now, instead of already prepared talking points concerning what the Florida primary meant, and the snub, and blah-blah-blah, these guys all have to turn on a dime and react to JRE leaving the campaign.
Why was it unexpected? Because it doesn't make any sense, on its face, to continue campaigning for three whole days after the last primary and quit, abruptly. Plus, he'd already stated on a number of occasions that he'd continue "through to the convention" or on to 2/5.
Edwards and Obama (their campaigns at least) are working the media over, and, in so doing, working over HRC. We'll see if it sticks and if the impact is truly significant later today.
However, BHo was ready for it. because,
John G wrote on January 30, 2008 11:52 AM:As a liberal middle-aged North Carolinian who inherited a populist outlook, as Edwards did, from growing up in the last century's southern "mill culture," I hate to see Edwards' campaign come to an end. He did more than anyone to drive the Democratic debate toward important issues that Democrats, once upon a time, were supposed to be all about: social justice and reining in the fat cats. I admire Edwards for his passion and tenacity, and hope like hell that he'll have a position of influence in the Dem administration next year. Sargent is right, of course, about the press' miserable job of giving Edwards' ideas equal time, but in retrospect, what did we really expect from those clueless lemmings?
barfly wrote on January 30, 2008 11:54 AM:Sorry to change the subject, but no one should cast a vote without reading this book:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreams_from_My_Father
Totally off-topic, but I was over at the Obama website looking for the actual text of Obama's statement, and I saw a link for "new products" in the Obama store. I really had to share this one because it is just too over the top (even for this kool-aid-drinking Obama supporter). "St Barack of Obama" indeed...
;-)
Keith wrote on January 30, 2008 11:59 AM:I have to say, while I expected Edwards to bow out, I certainly don't like to see him go. At the end of the day, he, more than any other candidate, moved core issues to the forefront of the debate. And for that, we all owe him a debt of gratitude.
I hope that whoever the Democratic nominee is, will seriously consider making him a part of their cabinet (should they take the prize). I think his energy and voice are needed in the American political dialogue. He'd get my strong support as Attorney General or SEC commissioner (that would be flat out hilarious).
And thank you, for unintentionally I presume, moving us off of the "snub-troversy" and "spin-tacular". I was going to pull out what little hair I had if the media spent another second on that bs.
NCSteve wrote on January 30, 2008 12:00 PM:Obama didn't buy an ad on their site, Slick.
Assuming their ads work the way all other website advertising works, Obama placed the ad with an ad placing service and the ad service pays the site for the privilege of rotating ads through the space they rent. Most ad services use software that tries to match up the website's content with keywords associated with each ad.
This is why ads for Ann Coulter's screed before last kept showing up here. It didn't mean Josh was on the take from her.
Mark F wrote on January 30, 2008 12:05 PM:Contrast Obama's statement with Hillary's. Obama praises Edwards and talks about what Edwards has done for this country. Hillary uses her statement, which is only vaguely about Edwards, as an opportunity to talk about herself.
TheraP wrote on January 30, 2008 12:07 PM:Beautiful comments from Senator Obama. I echo his words re Edwards. May he continue to serve the country. May he and Elizabeth have time together to savor their relationship, given her shortened life expectancy. I always feared that her health might interfere somehow... though the two of them gave so much to this country, even when her health declined.
SecularAnimist wrote on January 30, 2008 12:07 PM:John G wrote: "Sargent is right, of course, about the press' miserable job of giving Edwards' ideas equal time, but in retrospect, what did we really expect from those clueless lemmings?"
The "press" is not "clueless lemmings." They are bought-and-paid-for shills for their owners, namely America's Ultra-Rich Ruling Class, Inc. They don't marginalize, ridicule, exclude and ignore Democrats like Edwards and Kucinich because they are "clueless". They do so because they don't want Americans to hear the things that Edwards and Kucinich have to say, or to take them seriously if they do hear them.
Talk about "Medicare For All" -- universal single-payer nonprofit health insurance under open, transparent, accountable and efficient public administration -- and like Kucinich you'll be asked questions about UFOs in the corporate media's phony "debates".
Talk about poverty, and the evils of entrenched corporate power over government, and like Edwards you'll be treated to "news reports" about the cost of your haircuts, and your second place finish in Iowa over the presumptive "front runner" will be treated by the corporate media as the end of your campaign and you'll be excluded from serious media coverage until you drop out.
Yes Obama, Edwards words and presence has had an enduring impact on this race but the question is "Have you heard those words?"
YOU HAVE A LONG ROAD BEFORE YOU WIN MY VOTE. Right now all you got is my vote against folk actually registered Republican.
Richard L. Adlof wrote on January 30, 2008 12:21 PM:SecularAnimist,
Dead on and accurate beyond belief.
RLA
randron wrote on January 30, 2008 12:26 PM:Those of us who supported John Edwards, monetarily and morally, believed that he was sincere in his desire to help the poor, underpivileged and middle-class. I pray that his cause will be taken up by at least one of the remaining candidates. It always surprised me how quick some were to denounce him as a hypocrite because he had money and was a successful lawyer. Regardless of his reasons, he spoke eloquently about those who truly had become forgotten by Washington and, it would seem, the rest of America. I was willing to risk supporting him in the hope that, if elected, he would follow through on his stated priorities. If he didn't, then the label hypocrite would be deserved but now, we'll never know. I am heartsick at his withdrawl. Godspeed John! Thanks to the MSM, we hardly knew ye!
schwza wrote on January 30, 2008 12:44 PM:from obama's statement as quoted above: "John and Elizabeth Edwards have always believed deeply that we can change this – that two Americans can become one"
i assume this is a typo and that it's supposed to be "two Americas can become one." otherwise it reads like wedding vows. does anyone know where the mistake was made?
Billy Glad wrote on January 30, 2008 1:25 PM:I don't know who he'll endorse or why, but if he wanted to help Obama, he should have stayed in until Texas where, without Edwards running, she will bury Obama and roll into the convention with a majority of delegates. That's my fantasy football analysis. What's one more or less?
Billy Glad wrote on January 30, 2008 1:51 PM:SecularAnimist has a point. I think Edwards may follow Carter's lead and not endorse anyone. Hard to imagine him endorsing someone who thinks people should be left our of universal insurance because "they might not be able to afford it" and is either too dumb to realize those people's insurance would be subsidized under Edward's plan, or is just lying. Hard to imagine him endorsing someone who votes "present." I'll let the Obama supporters fill in the other side of the argument.
