Adviser: Edwards Not Endorsing "For The Moment"
An Edwards adviser confirms to me that John Edwards won't be making any endorsement "for the moment."
However, this source refused to rule out the possibility of an endorsement before Feb. 5th, which is six days away. If Edwards were to throw his support to either Hillary or Obama before that date, the impact could obviously be huge.
Comments (111)
ChrisNBama wrote on January 30, 2008 9:43 AM:This is all very unsettling:
1. Edwards is quiting before Super Tuesday.
2. Edwards is not immediately endorsing a candidate.
This is only theory, but it seems to me that Edwards and Clinton have reached some kind of deal. Edwards leaving the race at this time and remaining mute only benefits Hillary.
So much for the "Status Quo" argument.
Coonsey wrote on January 30, 2008 9:47 AM:This news should help to take the sting out of the Florida primary results, in the sense of McCain winning, Rudy endorsing McCain and Hillary's winning by 17 pts (but getting no delegates).
If Obama is smart, and I think he is, he will do as I recommended back in Nov. He will offer the position of either Sec of Health and Human Services (so Edwards can finally GET Univ Health Care for Americans) OR as Attorney General (so Edwards can enforse the LAW and perhaps go after those that committed crimes in the Bush Admin).
Hopefully John Edwards will wait till Sunday morning to announce an endorsement - giving Obama ALL the FREE Sunday News media.
Coonsey's View
www.freewebs.com/coonsey/
This news should help to take the sting out of the Florida primary results, in the sense of McCain winning, Rudy endorsing McCain and Hillary's winning by 17 pts (but getting no delegates).
If Obama is smart, and I think he is, he will do as I recommended back in Nov. He will offer the position of either Sec of Health and Human Services (so Edwards can finally GET Univ Health Care for Americans) OR as Attorney General (so Edwards can enforse the LAW and perhaps go after those that committed crimes in the Bush Admin).
Hopefully John Edwards will wait till Sunday morning to announce an endorsement - giving Obama ALL the FREE Sunday News media.
Coonsey's View
www.freewebs.com/coonsey/
I can only hope you're wrong, Chris, I can only hope you're wrong. If he endorses her...well, lets just say I'll be thoroughly disappointed in him and the whole Democratic party.
c wrote on January 30, 2008 9:49 AM:I really don't want to over-analyze. Can I just say that from the viewpoint of this Obama supporter, Edwards ran an honorable race speaking up for important principles, and his supporters conducted themselves well.
Hatch wrote on January 30, 2008 9:49 AM:Maybe it's best if he doesn't endorse right away. We don't want to see another "piling on" narrative, and Obama probably doesn't want to look like he can't win without endorsements. But man, I hope it comes sometime before Tuesday. Another though... does this make a Gore endorsement before Tuesday even more likely?
Matthew wrote on January 30, 2008 9:49 AM:Edwards out. Now just Clinton and Obama. Obama is outclassed at every turn. I think Edwards is shopping for which candidate will give him the most. I serious doubt Clinton would offer him the VP, maybe a Cabinet position. Obama on the other hand, may offer him the VP slot. Anyway, I bet there is a rigorous bidding war underway.
Edwards endorsement is his only commodity at the moment. I suspect his voters will go 2/3 to Clinton, remainder to Obama. Not enough to change things.
marcus wrote on January 30, 2008 9:49 AM:I agree with Chris, if Edwards either endorses Hillary, or stays on the sidelines before Feb 5th, it is going to show that that whole "change" vs "status quo" thing was nothing more than campaign bullshit. I like Edwards, he was always my second choice, but I've always had a concern that this fiery populist rhetoric was somewhat manufactured for this campaign (as evidenced by his record and his 2004 campaign), but I've been willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Now is his time to show us he isn't just a pandering politician who will say whatever helps him at the time. If she endorses Hillary he is dead to me, and if he doesn't endorse Obama before it is too late, he loses any support from me for anything.
bob wrote on January 30, 2008 9:54 AM:Obama's camp already floated Attorney General for Edwards.
Lisa wrote on January 30, 2008 9:57 AM:Though I didn't plan on voting for Edwards next Tues. (I voted for him in the 04 primary, but I've decided on Obama this time around), I think he has run a campaign to be proud of. He stayed focus on the mission he chose--making the case for the weakest in our system--and he did not respond to his losses in the early states with mudslinging and angry, dirty tactics.
Two things hurt his campaign: his very populist message (populism is a hard sell in the U.S.) and the taint of his loss with Kerry last time round. Democrats don't want to lose, and I think they weren't going to go back to '04, no matter what Edwards did or said.
I hope he gets a cabinet post. AG, Labor, Health and Human Services ... there's a lot of good he could do in the next administration!
coonsey wrote on January 30, 2008 9:57 AM:If Edwards MEANT what he's said over the past year about people OWING lobbyists and big donors something - he'd best not support Hillary whom he's attacked since day one about doing that.
And if he truly wants CHANGE - he's said Hillary wasn't that.
I double Hillary will offer anything - Edwards has been pretty nasty toward her.
Bill R. wrote on January 30, 2008 9:58 AM:Reports are the Obama campaign is upbeat about this, suggesting any "deal" may be between the two of them.
Angry Vet wrote on January 30, 2008 9:58 AM:Tick....
Tock....
Tick...
Tock...
Florida victory for HRC (which was under-covered by the MSM) combined with Edwards bowing out means that the news cycle has been wrested back out of Barack's hands.
Something stinks here. I predict no JRE endorsement prior to 2/5.
I hope I am wrong.
John wrote on January 30, 2008 9:59 AM:Coonsey - it's a felony for a candidate to offer any type of position or favor in exchange for political support. At least as far as I know.
But yeah - Edwards, do what you know is right and support Obama!
NCSteve wrote on January 30, 2008 9:59 AM:Before everyone on both sides gets all calculating and begins the ritual counting of unhatched chickens, everyone needs to consider the fact that Elizabeth hasn't been out on the trail in weeks.
I hope he's not withdrawing because she's taken a turn for the worse, but everyone might want to consider that possibility before saying something now that will make them feel bad later.
Dan wrote on January 30, 2008 10:00 AM:marcus nailed it. What's it gonna be, John? You want real progress or was this whole thing just a sham to put yourself in position for a position of power (and perhaps a springboard to another presidential run in 4-8 years)?
Unfortunately, something tells me this is not unrelated to that little chat Clinton and Edwards had after the debate recently.
Anonymous wrote on January 30, 2008 10:01 AM:Coonsey, it's a felony to offer someone a job in return for their vote. I hope Mr. Obama has many advisers like you.
Coonsey wrote on January 30, 2008 10:01 AM:If Edwards allows Feb 5th to pass by before making his decision on any endorsment - then he might as well have selected Hillary.
And if that happens - he's been lying since day one of his campaign about American's needing someone that is not tied to special interests.
Coonsey's View
www.freewebs.com/coonsey/
NCS-
Good point, maybe. I remember seeing her at the lat debate, though. I still think this is a political thing.
Jeremy wrote on January 30, 2008 10:03 AM:I think that Edwards will endorse Obama.
Angry Vet wrote on January 30, 2008 10:04 AM:And of course Obama's campaign is upbeat about this! Would you expect the "candidate of hope" to be pessimistic?
Like me?
I just hope the media keeps an eye on JRE over the next few days. Tomorrow night is a real showdown between the two, since that's all that is left. No more "adults on the stage."
grover_rover wrote on January 30, 2008 10:04 AM:Matthew, Obama is in no way "outclassed" by Hillary and Bill, they are slime and they don't have an ounce of the integrity or presence that he has. All they have is dirty tactics and lies, he has the ability to inspire people, rally supporters, to give people hope, he can bring tears to people's eyes. Neither Bill or Hillary can do those things, they are thoroughly uninspiring. Obama is in an entirely different league than the Clintons, a league above.
The Cali debate will be interesting, needless to say.
Billy Glad wrote on January 30, 2008 10:04 AM:Maybe he really doesn't think that much of either one of them. He's always said he'd be fine after the campaign. He doesn't need a job, and he doesn't need to saddle himself with an endorsement. Jimmy Carter is not going to endorse.
ChrisNBama wrote on January 30, 2008 10:05 AM:To all who disdain endorsements:
Endorsements are crucial to insurgent candidates who don't have the name recognition and institutional support of the Establishment Candidate.
The primary reason Hillary has lead national polls since she entered the race is because she's the wife of a popular two-term democratic President who has been in the limelight for 16 years. People don't know Obama, and endorsements from established people help to ease fears and concerns people may have with those they don't know well.
What we do know, and this is beyond question, is that Obama, when able to engage in retail politics, either bridges or overcomes the gap with Hillary. This becomes difficult to do now that 22 states are preparing for one big vote-fest. In these instances, endorsements play an important role.
How the Edwards departure effects the campaign remains unknown, but it certainly bodes well for the Establishment Candidate in this case. Which is unfortunate. A Hillary/McCain race will mean another four years of republican rule. Sigh.
TheFountainHead wrote on January 30, 2008 10:10 AM:After giving it more thought, I've decided to have faith in Edwards. He's always been a smart guy and never seemed as twisted as Hillary. I just can't see him endorsing her, then again, if he opts out of endorsing altogether, well, that's tantamount to holding the door open for her.
Dawn wrote on January 30, 2008 10:10 AM:I believe it is against the law to outright offer a cabinet post for political favors.
Coonsey wrote on January 30, 2008 10:11 AM:If anyone thinks that DEALS are not made or promised - they are dreaming.
As for Mrs Edwards -- even tho she found more cancer, she continued to push John to GO FOR IT. I'm betting that even if she were in Bed sick, she'd be pushing him to do what HE needs to do. She wants him to BE the BEST he can BE. It's always been about John....in her eyes - as well as HIS.
But this time...I'm betting he's thinking about HIS future right now. Wouldn't he have a better chance to Be President someday (his dream and career) if he has spent some time in the White House - even if it's as a cabinet member?
Coonsey's View
www.freewebs.com/coonsey/
Uh, everyone remember the meeting between h.clinton and edwards after the last debate? I wonder what they were talking about. Also, the clintons' minions have been attacking edwards for weeks, which tells me that the pollster king penn thinks that edwards was pulling support from the clintons as opposed to from obama.
ChrisNBama wrote on January 30, 2008 10:13 AM:Grover Rover,
I agree. The California debate will be very, very important.
Obama must remain above the fray. He can't be dragged into the "tit for tat" that marred the SC. The polls suggest that that performance cost both him and Hillary votes.
I think the way he deflects Hillary is when she attacks, calmly facing the moderator and saying: "Folks, you are witnessing the 'Old Politics' at work here. I'm hoping to change all that." Done is a sort of Gipperish "there he goes again" kind of way. He needs to be Presidential. We'll see.
nisleib wrote on January 30, 2008 10:14 AM:Maybe we are all missing what is happening.
What if, and this is a big if, Edwards and Obama discussed this and decided Edwards would drop out the day after the Florida Primary to shift the news cycle away from Hillary and focus it on who Edwards will endorse. Then, tomorrow, he endorses Obama and the entire weekends political coverage is on the Obama/Edwards dynamic...
I'm stretching, aren't I?
td wrote on January 30, 2008 10:14 AM:My 11 year old will be heartbroken. She really liked Edwards and was waiting for him to open his offices in Ohio to go work for him.
I hope he endorses Obama, but that's just because I respect both of them.
tym wrote on January 30, 2008 10:14 AM:Care less about this. It is either Obama for me or I will become an Independent and vote for McCain. I will never vote for the Arkansas trailer trash, Billary
lampwick wrote on January 30, 2008 10:16 AM:I like that he's ending where he began, in New Orleans. It's a city where rebuilding has a long, long way to go. In the fantasy football game of politics, I would made Edwards the New Orleans rebuilding czar.
It seems like every one of Bush's many disasters is going to need its own 'czar'.
ChrisNBama wrote on January 30, 2008 10:17 AM:Nisleib,
You are stretching just a bit ;-) Hillary isn't currently getting any real press play on the FL "victory". It's relegated to third tier status in news cycles, and is always provided with the proviso that no delegates were in play.
anonymous wrote on January 30, 2008 10:17 AM:My hope is this:
Edwards endorses Obama the day after the debate. This would be optimal for Obama for two reasons.
1. It prevents Hillary from making her bogus "pile on" argument.
2. It gives Obama good news the day after the debate regardless of how the debate actually goes.
Coonsey wrote on January 30, 2008 10:17 AM:Getting the SUNDAY NEW CYCLE would get a lot of FREE PRESS for OBama and Edwards.
However...that meeting with Hillary does concern me. Is Edwards so shallow that he'd kneel to her to get a position in the White House? Surely not.
J.A. wrote on January 30, 2008 10:20 AM:IF he truly were against politics as usual, he would have to support Obama against the formidable Clinton political machine.
This is Bush/Rove 2000 all over again. Anyone standing in the way is like a McCain.
The Clintons truly are the Evil Empire. Hailing from the Empire state, no less. And hilariously enough (Hillariously?) they tried to steal a Florida election too.
dr. duh wrote on January 30, 2008 10:20 AM:@ Matthew, on high
In what way exactly, sir, is Obama "outclassed at every turn" by Hillary? Certainly not in his presentation, character, bearing, ethics or ideals.
nisleib wrote on January 30, 2008 10:21 AM:ChrisNBama - No doubt you are correct, but I just love me some conspiracy!
Is there anything we can read into the timing? Why now? He could have hung in there until Feb 5, why do it now?
Coonseyq wrote on January 30, 2008 10:21 AM:For those that think Hillary wasn't getting PRESS coverage for Florida - you didn't watch HOURS of it last night on CNN, FOX, MSNBC, etc..
And you can bet your sweep bippy - if not for Rudy and Edwards news - she would have gotten it all weekend....because she's threatened to take the Florida delegate issue to COURT.
Hey...perhaps this is WHY she's threatening that now? Maybe she know last night Edwards was quitting.
Coonsey's View
www.freewebs.com/coonsey/
I don't believe HRC would offer V.P to Edwards, probably something else.
If Edwards has any decency, he would endorse Hillary, his supporters are low-income union workers, the same thing Hillary stands for.
Obama is only for the social elite.
virginia cynic wrote on January 30, 2008 10:22 AM:Edwards donor but will now become Obama donor and voter. all 5 voters in family will do likewise.
the HRC people seem out in force trying to spin this one, but she seems desperate to me what with trying to go with 'Obama snubbed me' and 'I won Fla even though earlier I agreed not to make it a competition'. those are the actions of a candidate who is far from invincible.
After all, if one is the inevitable nominee does one need to trumpet a mere beauty contest and a perceived snub?
as they say in the south, "not hardly"
Chris,
I actually like nisleb's analysis on this. Yes, the Florida victory is third tier, but it's still news. Plus, no one could've predicted how the media would handle the story. Considering the Clinton history, is it that much of a leap to consider that perhaps a lack of Florida coverage was not assumable?
At least, it gives me hope. Again, though, and Edwards non-endorsement is a tantamount endorsement of Clinton. Perhaps now we understand the logic that turned Ted Kennedy.
barfly wrote on January 30, 2008 10:23 AM:Edwards' brand is clearly established: he's for the little man, the helpless, the poor, the losing half of America. Some of us have been arguing this is a phony posture designed to win bleeding hearts. If Edwards endorses Hillary, we will have been proven right.
ChrisNBama wrote on January 30, 2008 10:23 AM:Dr. Duh,
I think Matthew was attempting to make the point that Obama is being out-played versus out-classed.
You are correct. When it comes to class, no one tops Obama on the democratic ticket.
TheraP wrote on January 30, 2008 10:24 AM:Honestly I'm wondering about the medical condition of Edwards' wife, Elizabeth. Perhaps this couple has more important, life and death, decisions to make right now that take precedence over any endorsement.
I say, let's be patient here. Let's see how this plays out.
Jaz wrote on January 30, 2008 10:24 AM:Coonseyq - Stop lying.
I watched the CNN interview with Hillary, she said she wasn't even thinking about taking anything to court over delegates.
Obama spin bot.
Coonsey wrote on January 30, 2008 10:25 AM:JAZ - BULLWICKY
Obama is for ALL Americans including the poor, union members, rich, middle income, etc....
That was a flat out lie you just said.
He GETS the votes from the social elite because he's willing to WORK with the other side to ACCOMPLISH something rather than bicker and never get anything FIXED.
Coonsey's View
www.freewebs.com/coonsey/
Wow, I am heartbroken. John was the first candidate in my 16 years of voting who I felt spoke for me. I have never been this excited and thus, this sad about a candidte before.
Kefa wrote on January 30, 2008 10:25 AM:So now all of you BOer's are now praying to be saved by JE's giving blessing to BO. Well, HRC does not need it. You need it. You need the calvary. Like I've been telling you, You are Custer, We are the Indians. The Calvary are not coming to save you.
For week you talked smack
Disrespectful
Rudeness
I will be glad when you BO's leave my DEM
Party.
Feb5
Mar5
Can't come soon enough.
I didn't know until this morning that HRC was trumpeting the "snubbing" BS. May not have been a manufactured story on her part, but the campaign is definitely trying to take advantage of it.
This is also Clintonian strategy- taking meaningless bullshit and blowing it out of proportion.
Your next democratic nominee, people, unless we can get to JRE to stem the tide. He could still be kingmaker.
Coonsey wrote on January 30, 2008 10:26 AM:Jaz - I'm repeating what I HEARD on FOX and MSNBC and read online.
Sorry if I'm wrong....but at this point I think I'm right.
ChrisNBama wrote on January 30, 2008 10:27 AM:Angry Vet,
I was just saying that I don't think she got any of the play she had been counting on.
Yesterday I made the point, when people were hand-wringing about Hillary "changing the rules" and all that that this was smart politics on part of Hillary. The truth is, though, that whereas she is getting press, she didn't get nearly the play she'd been hoping for with this stunt. For that, I'm thankful.
Now, where's Gore's Obama endorsement??
barfly wrote on January 30, 2008 10:28 AM:I'm sure this has been mentioned a thousand times elsewhere, but if this race becomes McCain v. Hillary, both parties will have nominated people that the base of the party hates.
Jaz wrote on January 30, 2008 10:30 AM:Coonsey, you're living in dream land.
He doesn't even bother talking about the middle-class or middle class problems. He's clueless about economics and poverty.
Why is that so few trade unions support him? Why is that he loses almost all low-income demographics?
He is a social-elitist, with the likes of Ted Kennedy and Kerry by his side. Making smart speeches, but then without his teleprompter he has no hope on REAL issues in debates.
ChrisNBama wrote on January 30, 2008 10:30 AM:Nisleib wrote:
"Is there anything we can read into the timing? Why now? He could have hung in there until Feb 5, why do it now?"
That is the open question. Is it his wife's health? Is it some nefarious deal with the devil, ahem, I mean Hillary. We simply don't know. Hopefully the 1PM press conference will shed some light.
Matthew wrote on January 30, 2008 10:32 AM:Interesting observations about Edwards decision the morning after Florida, which Obama lost and claims doesn't matter. Florida knocked Edwards out.
Even reading everyone's comments, I still think it is a toss-up whether Edwards supports Clinton or Obama. Populist edge or not, all three candidates have remarkably similar positions. I really think it will simply come down to who will offer him the most. If he doesn't endorse before Super Tuesday, it won't matter. Though, I guess after Obama loses most of the Super Tuesday states, he might opt for a sweetheart deal with Edwards to help try and save his sinking campaign.
Coonsey wrote on January 30, 2008 10:33 AM:I am the first to admit that Obama needs every vote he can get. He, unlike Hillary who's name and body has been in the media (as she points out everyday) for over 35 years is VERY WELL KNOWN.
Not every voter sits online and debates the political issues as you or I, nor do they watch CNN, MSNBC, FOX every night as a lot of us do. They get their news from their local stations -- which in case you hadn't noticed - fail to provide REAL news about the Political side of our world.
So - yes, Obama needs the maximum PRESS coverage, the maximum media coverage and the most VOTES he can get and if getting Edwards to endorse him -- helps him -- SO BE IT. No shame in that.
Hillary would NOT be where she is currently in this race if she wasn't married to Bill Clinton. Bet on it. She NEEDED HIM to get there...as well as everybody else.
P.S.
Richardson is also suppose to ENDORSE this weekend. Perhaps Edwards will wait for HIS endorsement?
While I would love to see Edwards endorse Obama, I wonder how Edwards would jibe his more confrontational approach towards with Obama's theme of coming together. Not impossible, but not sure how it would be done.
On another note, while it may be illegal to trade an endorsement for a cabinet position, why couldn't Obama offer him the VP slot now? That doesn't mean he's trading anything.
ChrisNBama wrote on January 30, 2008 10:34 AM:barfly wrote on January 30, 2008 10:28 AM:
"I'm sure this has been mentioned a thousand times elsewhere, but if this race becomes McCain v. Hillary, both parties will have nominated people that the base of the party hates."
The problem is that the republican base hates Hillary more than McCain. So they will hold their nose and vote for him.
Additionally, McCain will attract the independent vote that Hillary is unable to capture.
So, in sum, McCain will get full republican support AND will get the lion's share of the independent vote.
Can you say, "President McCain"? We all will come January of next year if Hillary gets the nomination.
Gregor wrote on January 30, 2008 10:35 AM:Edwards can help Hillary either by endorsing her outright, or staying silent. Given the message that Edwards has hammered about lobbyists, Washington insiders, and the status quo, if he does either of the above, I just don't see how he runs again, or has any credibility.
I believe the Encirclement Phenomenon still holds until proven otherwise. i.e. myriad small players are forming an alliance to stop the Clinton Machine.
JimS wrote on January 30, 2008 10:37 AM:I think Edwards will surprise a lot of people by endorsing Clinton. Their health care, energy and economic plans for the real middle and working class are actually similar. Also, having run as Kerry's VP in '04 I believe he sees the rights embrace of Obama for what it is - a ploy to get the weaker candidate in the General Election (like Kerry over Dean). Obama for all his GQ looks and cool IS the furthest right of the 3 candidates. Finally, based on his prior experience as a candidate, it must be obvious to him how the MSM has chosen Obama as their temporary candidate tossing aside all pretense of reporting in favor of campaigning. The MSM and the rich-kid vote are the perfect expression of the entitled interests that Edwards thinks must be fought, not pandered to. Obama's supporters are the ones routinely drinking coffees that take Clinton supporters 2 hours of work to earn enough to pay for.
barfly wrote on January 30, 2008 10:38 AM:Great points Chris. One begins to realize how high the stakes are for Hillary. If she can cobble together a 50.01% Rove style victory, good for her. But without the independents--the swing voters--Hillary could go down in history as the candidate who lost a sure thing.
coonsey wrote on January 30, 2008 10:42 AM:What about Richardson's Endorsement due by the 5th? How with this effect the issue?
Guess it depends on which candidate endorses when.
If Richardson goes first and he most likely will support Hillary - then Edwards goes and endorses Obama afterwards - then Obama gets the news. The reverse happens if Edwards endorses first....or does it? Richardson didn't get the votes that Edwards did.
Dan wrote on January 30, 2008 10:43 AM:The more I consider this, it does seem reasonable that once Edwards realized he had no chance to win, he decided that his causes would be better served by Obama than Clinton and decided to get out now and throw his weight behind Obama early enough to impact Super Tuesday.
I'm sure any endorsement would be made with the assumption that he would play a role in that administration. I would, however, question the wisdom of Clinton or Obama taking on Edwards on as VP. He is a relative lightweight as we saw in 2004. If Obama is the Democratic nominee, he needs a Joe Biden or Bill Richardson. If Clinton is the nominee, she needs Obama.
Coonsey wrote on January 30, 2008 10:45 AM:I agree with Barfly and Chris --- Hillary cannot get Independents, McCain can. Conservatives hate the Clintons - they will vote McCain over her.
Hillary will lose BIG TIME if we allow her to win the nomination (unless she were to pick Obama as her VP -- which will never happen).
barfly wrote on January 30, 2008 10:47 AM:I'd guess Edwards has not endorsed because he's shopping his influence. I'm sure his phone is ringing non stop. He's in a nice position.
JimS wrote on January 30, 2008 10:49 AM:The one thing I truly believe Edwards will NOT do is shop his endorsement to the highest bidder (appointment). Edwards, for any other faults he has, is a man of real principle.
TheCount wrote on January 30, 2008 10:50 AM:One major positive to getting an Senator Obama nomination as opposed to Senator Clinton, is the boost in the south. If Obama is the nominee, the Dems will win some "unwinnable" seats in the south in Congressional races. With Obama I dare say we could elect a Democrat Senator for my home state of Mississippi.
Michael A wrote on January 30, 2008 10:52 AM:You are on target coonsey except for one point, but even if obama is the clintons vp, which as you said would never happen, she would still lose big time to mccain and then it would taint obama. Obama would not be able to overcome the clintons at the top of the ticket with his political skills and abilities. He would get drowned out by the whirlwind of garbage that would surround the clintons relection.
Yo yo wrote on January 30, 2008 10:52 AM:I don't know Edwards well enough to say what his intentions are.
But perhaps he has some numbers and insight into where his supporters will go.
If he thought that it will help bring about change, maybe he was dropping out a week prior to Super Tuesday to help that cause.
But if that were the case, why not endorse? Would he expect favors from the Clintons and not want to burn bridges? The Clintons will hold grudges for his speaking out at the debates against her.
Maybe he doesn't like either candidate and felt he was the best.
Or maybe he is shopping for influence. But he better hurry up. If anyone takes a lead after Super Tuesday, they won't have the time of day for John Edwards. Thus he has a couple days -- the end of the week at most -- to endorse. Now or never.
JimS, I was just getting ready to write that I agreed with your comments (circa 10:37), then you go and say Edwards would not shop his endorsement. Come on! However it might occur, Edwards will negotiate an endorsement. Shop it? Sure, just define how you mean? Heck, Edwards is a lawyer.
barfly wrote on January 30, 2008 10:54 AM:JimS-I hope you're right, but I fear tort lawyers tend not to have principles.
BluePuppy wrote on January 30, 2008 10:57 AM:Edwards ran a classey campaign and he put poverty and universal health care central to the debate, which we can all thank him for.
Gregor wrote on January 30, 2008 11:04 AM:It's a shame so many Clinton supporters are still drinking the cool-aid on her electability in the general election, when the data so far shows in particular how vulnerable she is to McCain. McCain is no political genius, and he looks ALOT older now than he did 8 years ago. But the data is the data. HRC cannot convert voters on the ground, she does horribly with the young, and most importantly she is a wipeout with moderates and independents. It's ironic because Hillary is loaded down with a certain demographic--Older Women--but many glide past this fact.
Result in November?
The youth stay home, the independents go to McCain, the African-American vote is moderate, and Hillary loses almost EXACTLY the way Kerry lost--by failing to win Ohio.
If you are someone who STILL intends to support Hillary in this Primary, I suggest you ask yourself one big question: who wins Ohio? Hillary or McCain.
Now Obama vs McCain: who wins Ohio?
I rest my case.
JimS wrote on January 30, 2008 11:05 AM:To clarify, I think Edwards will negotiate the best deal possible with whomever he endorses, but that's very different than offering his endorsement to the best deal.
phil james wrote on January 30, 2008 11:07 AM:Jaz wrote on January 30, 2008 10:21 AM:
"I don't believe HRC would offer V.P to Edwards, probably something else.
If Edwards has any decency, he would endorse Hillary, his supporters are low-income union workers, the same thing Hillary stands for. Obama is only for the social elite."
First of all, let me say this: What a crock! Hillary stands for the power-hungry, scheming, ruthless dark side of the force as shown by the Florida-farce. Second, to be consistent with every theme of his campaign...change from status quo and anti-corporate ownership of politicians among the most important...I see no way that Edwards suddenly switches to the dark side to support Billary. I trust him to do the right thing.
Michael A: You may be right about Obama running as Hillary's VP. It could hurt him in the long run -- but if he felt that he would eventually be the encumbant to run as our Dem nominee for pres in just 8 years -- he might consider giving it a try. He would definitely help Hillary with Independents.
Hillary on the other hand - would not help Obama as his VP. She would be a Bill Clinton and get the MEDIA's attention instead of Obama - basically back to where she is now - a polarizing figure.
As for Edwards running as VP for anybody - won't happen. He didn't help Kerry, couldn't win his own home state twice now and lost two presidential runs. Although he's well known now, he would be considered questionable (sort of like Rudy being McCain's VP - he failed miserably running his (Rudy) campaign...how would he run the nation?)
Coonsey's View
www.freewebs.com/coonsey/
I would have voted for JRE had he been a real contender - I gave him $$$ many months ago and am thankful that he got the others to address his important issues. I'd have voted for Elizabeth even more enthusiastically. But I switched to Obama in Dec. and am enormously excited by that possibility.
If Edwards doesn't endorse before Feb 5th, his endorsement any later won't matter. He'll have given Hillary the nomination. I can't believe that he'd simply sit on the sidelines now, at the moment that his voice would really count. It isn't like him to give up like that. His supporters - all voters - deserve to have him stand up at this moment and speak his heart honestly.
I have to believe that his dropping out now is strategic, since it puts Feb 5th into play. But I could be wrong. The pundits have already called it all for HRC, with voting on the 5th merely a formality.
What's the old Harry Trumanism, "If you want to live like a Republican, vote for a Democrat." These are the ideals Edwards brought to the race for me, but for some reason I just couldn't bring myself to get behind him. I agree with the comments above that if he wants to save face as "an agent for change," he will support Obama and not stay silent or actually go with Hillary. I feel horrible as a Democrat to see the Clinton supporter's comments comparing Clinton supporters as native Americans ready to murder Obama supporters. Clearly Clinton and camp feel they have an entitlement to the office, which is part of the reason that Obama's campaign is coming off to many as much classier. I have a hard time supporting either Clinton or Obama, but the Clinton campaign has turned me into an Obama supporter. It's really disappointing as a Democrat to see this low-brow brand of politics, the kind the Clintons used to complain were always used against them. Unfortunately, unless Obama can secure the nomination, I believe President McCain is in our future, because Clinton not only rallies Republican voters, but is alienating Democrats.
ChrisNBama wrote on January 30, 2008 11:14 AM:Gregor, you voice many of the observations I've made.
I've never understood, with democrats poised to regain the White House, why they would snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and nominate the most polarizing figure in the democratic party.
Hillary is very simply unelectable in the general election. I don't understand how people cannot look at the anecdotal evidence and arrive at this fundamental conclusion. Is Obama perfect? No, but he has run a better organized and cleaner campaign than Hillary, and is a much more attractive candidate than Hillary.
Democrats really, really need to think hard on this because we are going down a bad path if we nominate Hillary to lead our party.
mb wrote on January 30, 2008 11:16 AM:I’ll play devil’s advocate to the first post.
My guess is that Edwards has already committed to supporting Obama. I’m also guessing withdrawal announcement was deliberately timed to pull media focus off of Billary’s Florida “win.” I’m looking for Edwards to officially endorse Obama by Saturday, maybe as soon as tomorrow. No point in announcing/anointing today since he’s already eating Billary’s press this news cycle.
ChrisNBama wrote on January 30, 2008 11:18 AM:MB,
God, I hope you are right.
Pearl White wrote on January 30, 2008 11:18 AM:I have always supported the Clintons, but this win at any cost mentality has turned me off. I find her pledging not to campaign in Florida, then flying in a few times for quasi-campaign events then treating the "victory" as the same as all the others quite sleazy. What does "campaign" mean, right?
Sort of reminiscent of some of Bill's old parsing of verbiage. Recall: What is the true meaning of "sexual relations"? Fellatio doesn't count, right. How about "is"? ("Is" she giving me fellatio now?). Or, when you say "never breaking the drug laws of my country" ... if you smoke weed in England -- and don't inhale -- that shouldn't count, right?
Some things never change....
Actually -- ChrisNBama
It amazes me how the voters that are polled about the path America has taken or is taking, are very dissatisfied with the Bush admin (this includes Repubs) -- yet polls showing Hillary or Obama up against McCain or even Romney or Huckabee - have them all running neck and neck.
How can this be? All the republicans, especially McCain support the Bush admin's actions with the war and government -- why then -- would they dare vote for one of them -- how is that CHANGE of any kind?
nisleib wrote on January 30, 2008 11:22 AM:mb - That was my thought too, but it seems far fetched...
If he is going to endorse he needs to do it today or tomorrow, not on Friday. Big news disappears on Fridays, that is why the Bush Admin dumps its bad news on Friday.
evan500 wrote on January 30, 2008 11:23 AM:While I am a big Obama supporter, and I do find Hillary very annoying lately, I don't completely buy the doom and gloom about Hillary vs. McCain. I think she is a very smart, skilled candidate, and McCain for all the talk about him being a "straight-shooter" has frequently said dumb things and contradicted himself. And then there is the matter of his big pro-war stance in a country very tired of the war. Does the country really want to elect some one who wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years, and is offering "more wars"? Hillary has showed herself to be a fairly ruthless campaigner, and I think her operation should be able to take McCain apart.
RS wrote on January 30, 2008 11:24 AM:Obama for all his GQ looks and cool IS the furthest right of the 3 candidates.
Well John Edwards himself disagrees with you:
I think most journalists would agree that I'm the most progressive, Senator Obama next, and Senator Clinton closest to the center.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1657800-3,00.html
Edwards' schtick is being a strong progressive and fixing the broken system in Washington. Given his own views on the political leanings of his opponents, I have a hard time imagining a principled reason that he would endorse Clintong. Of course, that doesn't mean he won't actually endorse her.
ChrisNBama--Exactly. She can't win the general election. In addition to suppresing Dem turnout, she'll be the GOP's GOTV operatives dream come true. Especially if St. McCain become the nominee.
Coonsey wrote on January 30, 2008 11:26 AM:I've got it. Edwards and Richardson will wait till AFTER the Thurs debate to see how Obama and Hillary come out of that going up against one another.
Then they will endorse. Making this Sunday's talk shows very busy.
Question- what States would Edwards help Obama in?
mb wrote on January 30, 2008 11:27 AM:nisleib -- I agree with you about the Friday news cycle invisibility, which is why I'm guessing -- repeat, guessing -- Edwards may endorse Obama tomorrow.
Gregor wrote on January 30, 2008 11:27 AM:That's right Chris. As abominable as the Bush Presidency has been, in a way, it died several years ago. In this sense, McCain enters the 2008 race with a fair amount of length between him and the Bush Team. After all, the conservatves still hate him.
So I still think we are working with the 2004 and 200 electoral maps. i.e. It's all about the DEM candidate trying to win either Florida, or Ohio. I was surprised when Kerry did not win Ohio. He got close. I spent the final 3 months of 2004 pouring over Ohio economic, demographic, and polling data. I'm a professional investor so I have to know how elections turn both here and abroad, as getting ahead of policy changes affects my decisions.
McCain has hurt himself for November however with his 100% embrace of the Iraq War's history, and current status. I would not say that Hillary's chances against him in the Fall are hopeless. However, I think rather than trying for both Florida and Ohio against McCain, HRC would be limited to trying to beat him in Florida. She could do it. However, the fact that I am certain she cannot win Ohio is very, very, very bad for us when picking a nominee. As for Obama, I would lay a stack of cash on the table, betting he can win Ohio. Obama would crush McCain in Ohio.
Send me the candidate who promises to beat John McCain in BOTH Ohio and Florida!
Obama is that candidate.
Coonsey wrote on January 30, 2008 11:29 AM:BUT.....if he Endorses Obama tomorrow or even Friday and then Richardson comes out on Sat night or early Sunday to endorse Hillary - it will be HER they are talking about when the VOTERS are sitting watching their sunday talk shows....not Obama.
Coonsey wrote on January 30, 2008 11:33 AM:"the conservatves still hate him (McCain)"
I think THIS is a ploy by the Right Wingers to make voters THINK that McCain can't win. So if Hillary wins the nomination - they will back McCain 100% to KNOCK HER OFF THAT PEDESTAL.
They are scared to death that Obama will win. They have nothing ON him. Just like Hillary, they will have trouble attacking him -- so they go after the race/gender cards.
mb wrote on January 30, 2008 11:35 AM:Coonsey -- Your timing point is well taken, but the other variable obviously is gravitational pull. With respect to both media and voter attention, I think Edward's endorsement exerts far more pull than Richardson's, IMHO.
Barolina Clue wrote on January 30, 2008 11:35 AM:Long time reader, first time poster here.
As an Edwards supporter from way back, first in his race for Senate here in NC, I can tell you where I'm going, nowhere.
I plan to vote Edwards when we hold our primary here in NC, and would recommend that other supporters do the same.
Providing the Edwards campaign with additional delegates will force Clinton and Obama to focus on progressive issues.
And by the way, I don't see Edwards accepting AG in an Obama administration as President Obama will not allow the AG to prosecute members of the current administration for their crimes.
JimS wrote on January 30, 2008 11:36 AM:Well John Edwards himself disagrees with you:
I think most journalists would agree that I'm the most progressive, Senator Obama next, and Senator Clinton closest to the center.
Or at least John Edwards felt that way in August 2007. His opionion of Barrack has changed since then as you can see in the debates.
Gregor...The last poll was done on 1/7/08 by WCMH-TV and WCPO-TV and MCCain lead BO 50-43-7 and lead HRC 48-46-6 so where do you get your polling from and where can I place my bet on BO having a better shot.
evan500 wrote on January 30, 2008 11:54 AM:re: my previous comment about Hillary vs. McCain, and McCain's liabilities, watch this video clip of Scarborough and Buchanan quickly dismantling McCain — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bndmOt1cm34
bonguser2000 wrote on January 30, 2008 11:57 AM:Edwards will remain "neutral" until after "Super Tuesday" - then he will endorse Hillary.
Isn't that obvious?
It is to me, as she will be the "winner" on Tuesday - he needs a job.
Gregor wrote on January 30, 2008 12:00 PM:Thanks Kefa. Kefa, I would consider those polls a lifetime ago, as they were only 48 hours after the Iowa result. The data on women, independents, the educated, white, black, and moderates, can be gleaned from IA, NH, NV, and SC. That's the data I am referring to, in addition to national polling on match-ups. Assuming Obama is still in the race on March 4, and that McCain is the clear nominee by then, I think we will get the data I anticipate from Ohio.
Elizabeth wrote on January 30, 2008 12:05 PM: I pray that the reason for this decision is NOT further problems with Elizabeth's health (And he would, at this point, leave for that reason, I think. Staying in on the chance that he could become president is different than staying in only to have tactical advantage at the convention.). -- But I suspect/hope that he is making this move and will do it in a way that furthers Obama's chances of nomination, because he and others in the party (Kennedy, et al.) must realize by now that Hillary's nomination would be an utter and total disaster, especially if McCain is the Republican nominee. (In fact, I wonder if the result of that primary might not a factor in the timing of Edwards' announcement.)
Whatever his reasoning, I'm selfishly relieved, because it was going to hurt to vote against him on Super Tuesday. I would have voted for Obama in any event but now can do so without feeling torn. He has done so very much good for the country simply by running, and I trust he will have some role in the next administration - not because of any deal but because he is a good and strong person who cares about the important things.
We all know who John Edwards will endorse. He'll wait until there's a clear front-runner--someone who can help him to advance his own career--and then he'll throw his support behind that person. What Edwards WON'T do is take a chance and stand up for the candidate he truly believes would make the best leader for this country.
Jay wrote on January 30, 2008 12:10 PM:Obama for all his GQ looks...
Hey, we took those photos...heh I thought they turned out rather nice...
MrJJ wrote on January 30, 2008 12:34 PM:Silence is golden for the Clinton Camp.... Oh well... just keep fighting for every vote. The Billary all about me machine is a formidable advesary but the little guys in this country still a chance.
rg wrote on January 30, 2008 12:37 PM:The first thought I had as well was to worry about Elizabeth. I have so much respect for her - for calling out Ann Coulter and so many things. I really hope she is OK and well for a very long time!
RS wrote on January 30, 2008 1:04 PM:JimS wrote on January 30, 2008 11:36 AM: Well John Edwards himself disagrees with you:I think most journalists would agree that I'm the most progressive, Senator Obama next, and Senator Clinton closest to the center.
Or at least John Edwards felt that way in August 2007. His opionion of Barrack has changed since then as you can see in the debates.
Pray tell how his opinion has changed.
I'm hearing a lot of people who don't sound like they EVER preferred Edwards to Clinton (or Obama) saying how disappointed in him they'll be if he endorses Obama (or Clinton).
Okay, yikes, I get it--there's a real fight for the nomination this year. Jeez, this is why I was hoping Edwards would stay in for longer--the longer he was in, the longer I could avoid identifying with one of the wolf packs above. Hillary, Barack, please, one of you save me from your supporters.
anne wrote on January 30, 2008 2:55 PM:can anyone tell me exactly why Hillary would be a disaster? i think she has the experience and know how that we will need after the current admin. leaves a terrible mess. i like obama but 8 years away.
Badger wrote on January 30, 2008 4:14 PM:I believe Edwards will endorse Obama some time before Super Tuesday. I really don't see him endorsing Hillary at all.
Node of Evil wrote on January 30, 2008 4:36 PM:Ah, nuts. I was hoping Edwards would hang on until Feb. 5 so I could vote for him. Alas, that is not the case. My vote will now go to Obama. I'm still basically happy with either Clinton or Obama as both are bright yellow rays of sunshine compared to McCain, Romney, or anything else the Republicans have to offer. While Obama's relative inexperience is an issue, I think Hillary will be more inclined to find the "middle road" without fighting hard for progressive ideals. Obama has demonstrated something of a gift for using conservative frames to sell liberal policies. Someone like that, if they put their gift to use, could spin the lapdog press until all the blood drained to their feet. Considering the environment we're going to endure no matter who wins the White House, we'll need someone who can run a sophisticated and modern media campaign. I think Obama is that person. Whether or not I'm right remains to be seen.
