Another Sign Edwards Will Throw Support to Obama

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 01:25:17 PM EST
Tags: John Edwards (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

South Carolina may be the end for John Edwards if he comes in third. It seems, once again, he's displaying his preference for Obama over Hillary. At a campaign event at a predominantly black Baptist church today Edwards said :

"I must say I was troubled recently to see a suggestion that real change that came not through the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King but through a Washington politician. I fundamentally disagree with that," Edwards told more than 200 people gathered at a predominantly black Baptist church. ...."Those who believe that real change starts with Washington politicians have been in Washington too long and are living a fairy tale," he said.

and,

"As someone who grew up in the segregated South, I feel an enormous amount of pride when I see the success that Senator Barack Obama is having in this campaign," said Edwards. He the added, with a laugh: "Some days I wish he was having a little less success."

< About Napolitano and McCaskill's Endorsement of Obama | Obama Proves He Is A Political Fighter; For Obama >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Another Sign Edwards Will Throw Support to Obama | 29 comments (29 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Hmm, I must not be "serious"... (5.00 / 1) (#50)
by chemoelectric on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 04:47:14 PM EST

Is it remotely possible that John Edwards is saying what he actually believes?

I think so (5.00 / 1) (#53)
by Rojas on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 05:11:55 PM EST

The clinton legacy of neoliberalism is anti-populist. It changed this country structurally in many negative ways.
The hands off approach to antitrust. Onesided free trade agreements. Deregulation in the guise of re-inventing goverment. The encroachemt of the feds into criminal law. And with this encroachment came the multi-juristictional task forces with demise of the DOJ's civil rights division. With the clintons, the sherrif was at the cock fights.


: That's correct (none / 0) (#57)
by Resident M Turdstile on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 05:58:38 PM EST

One progressive from Iowa has this to say about Edwards vis a vis Clinton and Obama.

Bad Politics (2.33 / 3) (#6)
by LadyDiofCT on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 02:10:18 PM EST

This kind of rhetoric is going to split the Democratic party. We are eating our own.

Never mind that Hillary was right (2.00 / 4) (#1)
by andgarden on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 01:29:48 PM EST

I think she might be the only one who has a clue how Washington works.

: You are so right! (none / 0) (#15)
by Angel on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 02:50:49 PM EST

Edwards has proven that his talk about being (none / 0) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 01:34:35 PM EST

for a Fighting Democratic Party was all a put on.

Edwards actually sd. "fairy tale"? (none / 0) (#3)
by oculus on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 01:43:23 PM EST

Is "change" already passe?

i want to believe they misunderstand (none / 0) (#4)
by neilario on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 01:49:24 PM EST

sigh.
Edwards quote/paraphrase is a significant misunderstanding of what HRC said and meant.
And she was correct - MLK's brilliance and passion and hard work and sacrifice helped create an immense movement. But without legislative action there would have been no legislative progress. If there had not been pressure from the Movement to enact laws etc they may not have occured BUT if the prez and others in the congress etc had not listened to the movement there would have been no civil rights laws. Period.

The legislative progress is a critical component and the two are intertwined and both necessary. Why is complexity so impossible for most people to get?

As i have thought since the BO/JE tag team debate attack- he is angling for VP and I would not be surprised if BO hadn't promised something which in fact he would not deliver.

the more and more HRC gets misrepresented- the harder I want to work for her. And I had always really liked and supported JE until he really started to pander to BO.

: Think about the ERA (none / 0) (#7)
by MarkL on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 02:13:32 PM EST

What if Johnson had put his muscle into passing an Equal Rights Act? What a profound impact that would have made. Instead, the effort to pass and amendment languished, and the progress of the women's rights movement was noticeably slowed.
Of course she was right.
Unless MLK was AGAINST the Civil Rights Act, this criticism makes no sense.

Maybe Edwards (none / 0) (#5)
by Jgarza on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 02:07:50 PM EST

was genuinely offended. I know I was. Maybe this actually has to do with people feeling about civil rights. Everything doesn't revolve around Hillary.

For those who think she was right, go read a history book. Civil rights legislation passed, and people had to die. MLK had to get shot, people had to put their kids in front of hoses. You can be the best negotiator on earth, but if you can't get public support behind you, good luck getting anything done.

: Excuse me, but things get done all the time (none / 0) (#18)
by Angel on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 02:55:37 PM EST

without public support. Unfortunately, they are usually bad things. Obama isn't the only one who wants to get things done. What should be considered is WHO knows HOW to get things done. And that means understanding the legislative process and all the ins and outs of that.

Is the next debate Jan. 31 or (none / 0) (#9)
by oculus on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 02:20:49 PM EST

is there a debate before that?

: Debate schedule (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by TheRealFrank on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 02:25:30 PM EST

January 15, 2008: Caucus of African American Nevadans and Impacto host a Democratic on MSNBC in Las Vegas, NV @ 9pm
January 21, 2008: The Congressional Black Caucus Institute Myrtle Beach, SC Democratic Debate
January 31, 2008: CNN and the Los Angeles Times host a debate of the Democratic candidates in California

Certainly he sems not to care about issues (none / 0) (#10)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 02:21:25 PM EST

or fighting for progressive values anymore.

Mandates? Mean nothing to Edwards.

Fighting vs. the unity schtick? Out the window.

John Edwards is proving to be quite the phony to me.

Edwards is just very limited (none / 0) (#11)
by MarkL on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 02:24:42 PM EST

and he really, really, really wants to win.
That's the problem.


Miami Herald today (none / 0) (#36)
by oculus on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 03:27:31 PM EST

says he is done in by his past as a plaintiffs' trial lawyer. (This is what I've been saying too!)


Do you mean politically, or because (none / 0) (#37)
by MarkL on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 03:28:50 PM EST

he is campaigning with the rhetoric of a trial lawyer, and that won't work?


: His words don't match his (none / 0) (#40)
by oculus on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 03:31:34 PM EST

"accoutrements of wealth", per the Herald op ed. Piece points out he did very little pro bono work but did raise funds to study reasons for poverty, etc., and supported an urban assistance group.

The Miami Herald, a propaganda arm of the RIGHT (none / 0) (#60)
by Aaron on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 08:56:24 PM EST

No wonder your comments seemed so out of touch and disdainful of what's happening among genuine progressives in America, if that's where you're getting your information.

If you're one of those Republicans who's counting on a contest between Hillary Clinton and John McCain, then I guess your positions are understandable


: easy there, Aaron, (none / 0) (#61)
by oculus on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 09:40:54 PM EST

I googled "Edward Clinton" and that op ed was one of the hits.

Can you please tell me when the next debate is (none / 0) (#16)
by Angel on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 02:52:30 PM EST

scheduled? Thanks.

: see comment upthread (none / 0) (#19)
by oculus on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 02:57:21 PM EST

Great - Now What Do I Do With My Primary Vote (none / 0) (#27)
by MO Blue on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 03:08:35 PM EST

I don't see a whole lot of difference between Clinton and Obama. I dislike both the DLC and the Bipartisanship for Ever approach to politics. Think either would be harmful to the party and to the Progressive movement. Bottom line, I really don't want to vote for either of them in the primary.

Voter registration in MO is without any party affiliation. If I can't make up my mind, I"m tempted to vote for the Republican who has the best chance of defeating McCain in MO.

: We need a quasi Unity 08 (none / 0) (#38)
by oculus on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 03:29:05 PM EST

to magically appear from the left. Who is out there though?

This is not discourse. (none / 0) (#46)
by scoutfinch on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 04:31:44 PM EST

As someone who until about two weeks ago considered this my favorite blog, and who has neither donated to nor volunteered for any of the candidates, I have been alienated and troubled by the repeated personal attacks on Obama supporters.

BTD, within the last week, you have referred to comments by Obama supporters as stupid and said that you "detest" them.

If we want to advance progressive policies and issues in this country, we're going to have to come together behind whichever Democrat wins the nomination. And this web site has always been an excellent forum to publicize and discuss issues that don't get enough attention in the mainstream media or in most political debate.

Criticizing Obama's campaign tactics or questioning his qualifications is ground for rational debate. Saying that you hate his supporters or calling them stupid is not.

I will remind everyone (none / 0) (#58)
by Jeralyn on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 06:17:57 PM EST

to tone down the attacks. It is not discourse when you snipe at each other and ridicule candidates and each other. I am cleaning this thread.


: Fair enough (none / 0) (#59)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 06:19:50 PM EST

but that does not make that comment any less absurd.

One of the richest men to be elected POTUS, (none / 0) (#52)
by Ginny in CO on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 04:58:52 PM EST

(OOPS) was FDR, 4 times. Edwards has not only fought hard for the poor and middle class, he grew up in the middle class. I'm thinking that by spending his time making money, he had more to give to worthwhile organizations.

The Nation has some good stuff on Edwards, and someone pointed out that Clinton's balancing the budget focus actually started with Paul Tsongas in the '92 primaries.

I want Edwards to stay in as long as possible to keep getting his ideas and positions into the discussion. I am also with him on the 48 other states. If he has delegates but not enough to be nominated, they can negotiate some concessions from the winner.

I prefer Edwards but would be fine with Obama (and a lot of supervision/pressure on which way to go). Just musing: John Edwards as the next Attorney General? Kinda makes me grin.