home

John Edwards Dropping Out

This is surprising to me. MSNBC , CNN and AP is reporting that John Edwards is dropping out of the Presidential race.

I think the big question is will he endorse Barack Obama. I do not imagine he would endorse Clinton. He is definitely NOT endorsing today news reports say.

The announcement is to take place in New Orleans at 1. Chuck Todd says Edwards would not do this if it helps Clinton. Honestly, I assume Edwards MAY think that, but my first impression is this helps Clinton, not Obama. And a January LATimes poll supports this view:

A Jan. 24 Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg News poll found that nationally, Edwards voters prefer Clinton to Obama by a slight margin.

More as information develops.

Update [2008-1-30 9:23:41 by Big Tent Democrat]:

The first big effect is that Thurday night's debate will be one on one. Does this help Obama? My impression is it does not. I think Hillary has been superior to Obama in the debate format. With more time, I think this advantage gets magnified.

This is a CNN debate, not an NBC special, so it is likely to be much more substantive than an NBC debate. Less Russert and Williams nonsense. TO me, if Edwards wanted to help Obama, he could have stayed in the race and in the debate and hammered Clinton. Hard to say imo that Edwards is thinking of Obama's fortunes here.

Update [2008-1-30 9:52:9 by Big Tent Democrat]:

One other important effect imo is turning the page on what has happened before in this campaign. It is like a fresh start.

The campaign begins anew tomorrow night at the debate.

< Why Hillary's Florida Gambit Worked | Wednesday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    They will split (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 08:10:36 AM EST
    60% for Obama 40% for Hillary.  Maybe a little more for Obama.  Most people who aren't already behind Hillary don't like her.  

    I do not think the polling supports that (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 08:13:21 AM EST
    but who knows?

    Parent
    Does not help Obama (none / 0) (#65)
    by magster on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:28:05 AM EST
    unless Edwards endorses Obama before 2/5.

    Parent
    Edwards won't endorse either one, i think. (none / 0) (#123)
    by derridog on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 06:59:07 PM EST
    That's because he probably still harbors hopes that one of them will ask him to be VP. I think he'd stick in there if he had the money to try to be a broker and to have that happen.

    if he endorses the one who loses, this would not happen for him. Not that I think it will happen for him anyway, but I"m trying to put myself in his brain.  We'll see anyway.

    Parent

    we'll see (none / 0) (#74)
    by Nasarius on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:43:25 AM EST
    Looks like I'll be voting for Clinton, Honestly, I don't like her, but I like Obama even less

    Parent
    Untrue. I'm for Edwards (none / 0) (#122)
    by derridog on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 06:56:55 PM EST
    and I don't like Obama. Since I am faced with the choice, I'll go with Hillary.

    Parent
    Didn't BTD post some statistics (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Kathy on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 08:13:40 AM EST
    the proved folks will split for Hillary?

    Any idea when this announcement will come?

    Poor John.  He fought the good fight.  I hope he keeps pushing his message.  He's be a great lobbyist for the poor and uninsured.

    Yes (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 08:15:39 AM EST
    The polling has shown indications of that. Moreover, the Edwards demographic has favored Hillary over Obama.

    Parent
    Can you post a link (none / 0) (#13)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 08:31:11 AM EST
    to those polls? thanks

    Parent
    Will dig them up (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 08:32:47 AM EST
    Here is a data point against me from Nevada (none / 0) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 08:42:59 AM EST
    Edwards found no particularly strong support among any voter group as he ran a distant third. Asked their second choice in the entrance poll, four in 10 of Edwards' supporters chose Obama while one-third chose Clinton.

    Narrowly to Obama in that poll.

    Parent

    This data is a wash (none / 0) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 08:44:30 AM EST
    So how exactly did those much-coveted second-choice votes in the Iowa Caucus work out -- did they deliver a victory for Obama through all these mysterious deals? The answer is actually pretty surprising. According to the entrance poll, which only measured first preferences of the participants going in, the numbers were: Obama 35%, Hillary 27%, Edwards 23%.

    If we assume that the final state delegate numbers actually approximated the votes of the caucus participants, this means John Edwards was the big second-choice winner, as he boosted his final score by seven points, compared to only three points for Obama and two for Hillary. It was enough to just overtake Hillary for second place, but not enough for first -- because it turned out that Obama entered as the clear winner from first choices alone




    Parent
    I think NH is relevant (none / 0) (#26)
    by andgarden on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 08:46:35 AM EST
    because that's where a new phase of the campaign really started. I think Edwards and Clinton competed for the Beer drinker set there.

    Parent
    Still looking (none / 0) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 08:49:18 AM EST
    More interested in national polling numbers.

    Especially in the South. At this point, I am not at all sure that Obama has not already peeled the Edwards supporters that would give him an advantage.

    Parent

    NV polls (none / 0) (#59)
    by tek on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:23:39 AM EST
    Calculate that. If Obama doesn't pull in ALL of Edwards' voters, he's still way behind and even with all of them he's behind in most states.

    Parent
    i had lunch today with a friend (none / 0) (#111)
    by hellothere on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 01:26:28 PM EST
    from another country. he is essentially a right wing type person but not in the wingnut or neocon mold. his favorite among the dems is edwards. go figure!

    Parent
    i got an email from the edwards campaign (none / 0) (#109)
    by hellothere on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 01:22:45 PM EST
    this morning. they said that raising funds was good. so this surprises me. i remember his conversation with hillary!

    Parent
    John was my first Choice (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by georgeg1011 on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 08:29:13 AM EST
    He ran a really progressive campaign with the most resounding populist message that we have seen in some time.  I think that the Edwards people mostly go to Obama.  The Lobbying money that Clinton takes is a sore spot for a lot of regular people.  I wouldn't be surprised if he endorses Obama today. I think that more than half of the support he has been getting (10-15%) goes to Obama.  

    George

    The polling does not support (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 08:32:15 AM EST
    your supposition nor the demographics.

    But we'll see.

    Parent

    If he endorses Obama today.... (none / 0) (#18)
    by georgeg1011 on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 08:37:14 AM EST
    then what.  I think that if he does endorse, and right now, they are not indicating that he will, that obviously would give Obama more of a bump. Momentum will swing his way.  It will be interesting to watch that is for sure.

    Parent
    I suppose it would have an effect (none / 0) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 08:50:17 AM EST
    Hard to say.

    At this point, I think the debate is more important than anything else.

    Parent

    Obama's weak point is his debating skills. (none / 0) (#36)
    by byteb on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 08:53:10 AM EST
    I agree (none / 0) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:26:44 AM EST
    and why I wonder if Edwards was thinking of Obama, why he would not have gone forward to 2/5.

    Parent
    exactly (none / 0) (#69)
    by byteb on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:34:26 AM EST
    It worries me.

    Parent
    debate i is key...again (none / 0) (#40)
    by georgeg1011 on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 08:54:30 AM EST
    Yes, I think that both Obama and Cliton have to come out and have great debates.  It will be interesting only having both them.  Hopefully Blitzer shuts the hell up and lets them have a good conversation.  But that is unlikely

    Parent
    he won't be endorsing obama. (none / 0) (#110)
    by hellothere on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 01:23:48 PM EST
    count on that. john can understand the difference between what a speech says and then was the candidate doesn't propose.

    Parent
    on a side note... (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by mike in dc on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 08:43:25 AM EST
    "this just in....it has been confirmed that for the first time in the history of the United States, the presidential nominee of a major political party will not be a white male...more on this shocking development as we get more information..."

    but what will we tell the children? (none / 0) (#34)
    by byteb on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 08:51:28 AM EST
    news update... (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by mike in dc on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 08:47:37 AM EST
    "it looks like, in response to the news that a white male will not be the nominee of the other party, the opposition party has decided to nominate the oldest, whitest male they could find..."

    you left (none / 0) (#90)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:21:51 AM EST
    out wisest and most qualified to be Pres......

    Parent
    The cocoon (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by koshembos on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 08:50:15 AM EST
    The Netroots cocoon makes most members believe that Obama is the best thing since sliced bread and therefore, he must be to the left of Hillary. The general Democratic public may see things differently.

    With Obama, the Netroots show that Clintons' hate is a universal conspiracy; the public may differ.

    I saw Edwards last night (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by eric on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:17:34 AM EST
    in St. Paul, MN.  He sounded great and didn't hint about anything like this.  He specifically addressed how everyone needed to get out and go to the caucuses next week.  If he were about to drop out, I would have expected more of a general speech.

    Who knows.  He did concentrate on the poverty, lack of health care, and income inequality issues.  He did mention his wife's cancer.  He specifically talked about how the poor can't get cancer treatment because you can't get chemo in the emergancy room, which is the only health care option that the poor have.

    Overall, he sounded more liberal than I have ever heard him.  I figured that it was just because he was speaking at a union hall in Minnesota, where there really isn't such thing as too liberal...

    Maybe he just wanted to leave an impression.

    thank you for sharing that (none / 0) (#91)
    by Judith on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:31:07 AM EST
    maybe that is the real Edwards.

    Parent
    I have to think this helps Clinton. (none / 0) (#2)
    by andgarden on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 08:13:18 AM EST
    And in think the chances that this gets mostly settled on 2/5 just jumped considerably.

    We'll see (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 08:13:46 AM EST
    help clinton (none / 0) (#63)
    by tek on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:27:33 AM EST
    Well, it certainly would have helped her in SC, because she and Edwards split the white Democratic vote. It will probably help her in GA; in IL she probably can't catch Obama, even though she grew up in Chicago. IL is a little bit interesting, though, because Chicago has the second largest Hispanic population in the country. So far, Hispanics have not voted for Obama, but maybe there's some kind of different dynamic there since it's Obama's home territory.

    Parent
    Who gets the votes (none / 0) (#7)
    by TheRealFrank on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 08:23:21 AM EST
    History shows that, between mainstream candidates, the voters are simply divided proportionally over the other candidates, with proportionally meaning "according to the percentage that they were getting of the rest of the vote".

    I suspect that this will happen in this case. Which would be a slight win for Clinton. But then again, it'll be different per state, so it's hard to predict.

    One thing is certain: the chances of a brokered convention just went from very high to very low.

    I wonder how Elizabeth is doing? I hope it doesn't have to do with her health getting worse.


    Not clear (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 08:24:57 AM EST
    The demographic issue in this race is much more pronounced.

    Not sure that is true here.

    Parent

    A 2 person Debate tomorrow? (none / 0) (#8)
    by ding7777 on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 08:23:46 AM EST


    Yes (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 08:24:21 AM EST
    Where will his supporters go? (none / 0) (#11)
    by Grey on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 08:26:37 AM EST
    I wish I knew.  This far into the race, it would be naive to suggest this is still an entirely anti-Hillary vote; at this point, the same could be said for Obama.  

    My sense is that it'll go to both; how it will break, percentage-wise, will be very interesting to see.


    They aren't all (none / 0) (#16)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 08:35:44 AM EST
    anti-Hillary.  I think the will break close to even.  Not overwhelming either way.  Apparently BTD has some polling info.

    Parent
    I agree. (none / 0) (#20)
    by Grey on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 08:39:12 AM EST
    It might break more for one than the other, but whether it'll be enough to actually make a difference is what'll be interesting to watch.


    Parent
    Still looking (none / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 08:45:09 AM EST
    A December poll had it a wash (none / 0) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 08:48:03 AM EST
    A mid-December survey of voters nationally conducted for the AP and Yahoo News found that Edwards supporters split about evenly between Clinton and Obama when asked which candidate would be their second choice. Clinton and Obama each were the second choices of about 27 percent of Edwards supporters. Another 28 percent were unsure who would be their second choice, and the rest were thinly scattered among other candidates.


    Parent
    Last minute deciders (3.50 / 2) (#46)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:00:28 AM EST
    in Florida broke for Obama. Worst case for Hillary looks to be 7 out 10 ging to Obama.  Considering Edwards on had about 15%, it still doesn't put Obama over the top.

    Parent
    That is incorrect (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:27:33 AM EST
    Hillary won last minute deciders.

    Parent
    well, kinda sorta (none / 0) (#73)
    by mike in dc on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:36:52 AM EST
    ...the people deciding on the day of the primary broke for Hillary, but it looks like the people deciding in the last 3 days, last week and last month all went for Obama.  She won the people who made up their minds early and those who voted absentee by a healthy margin.

    It may be a very small silver lining for Obama, but it does suggest that, overall, January has been a very good month for him in terms of voter persuasion and momentum.
    His biggest problem is that he faces double digit polling deficits in a lot of states and doesn't have a lot of time to make that up.  

    Parent

    Last minute deciders (none / 0) (#75)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:53:58 AM EST
    certainly can not mean those who decided in the last week.

    If you want to make a different point, then make it. But do not say last minute deciders broke for Obama. Because that is false.

    Parent

    I'm providing a broader context... (none / 0) (#80)
    by mike in dc on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:03:46 AM EST
    ...because without looking at how things shook out by who decided when, just saying "well, last minute deciders broke for Clinton"(and from what I've seen, they did so just barely) is a little misleading.  She had a huge lead among those who voted absentee and those who made their minds up before this month, narrowly won those who made their minds up the day of, and lost among all those who made up their minds after december but before the day of the primary.  Conclusion:  she lost ground in the state during the month of January, while Obama gained ground.  
    If you're an Obama supporter, looking at a lot of outdated state-by-state polls heading into next week, that fact is encouraging.

    Parent
    That is a different point (none / 0) (#84)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:14:54 AM EST
    not a broader context.

    Parent
    no, they're clearly related... (none / 0) (#94)
    by mike in dc on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:38:57 AM EST
    ...to each other.  She did well with last minute deciders, but overall she lost ground in the state in the last month, reflecting an increase in support for Obama.  
    It also suggests that she may have narrowly won the last minute deciders through her blatant play for the state the past couple days.  

    I think Edwards' dropping out probably makes all this moot though.  It's kind of a clean slate again.

    Parent

    Funny (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Lena on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:34:31 AM EST
    I don't see it that way.

    Before the vote, the only thing I saw about either campaigning in Florida was an admiring piece about Obama supporters who were inspired and busy getting out the vote, in comparison with a snarky comment on Clinton's tepid union activity.

    I see that as a point against each.

    Then, there's the ad, the only thing that got wide play in Florida. HRC managed to NOT air any ads in Fla. Why did Obama have so much trouble doing the same? (CNN does show local ads by the way, so I find Obama's explanation quite difficult to believe).

    So, if you want to be fair, Obama cheated twice (well, once in September 2007 too when he talked to reporters in Tampa - but perhaps this is too petty); and HRC cheated once.

    Parent

    I have to question (none / 0) (#98)
    by Lena on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:49:35 AM EST
    this comment of yours:

    It also suggests that she may have narrowly won the last minute deciders through her blatant play for the state the past couple days.

    What was the blatant play for the state she made over the last couple of days? Saying that our votes in Florida mattered?

    Obama was the only Democratic ad I saw in our state, so he's the only one I saw making a blatant play for the state the last couple of days.

    Parent

    He ran a national ad on CNN, and asked (none / 0) (#101)
    by mike in dc on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:15:18 AM EST
    ...if they could not air it in Florida, they said "no".

    Otherwise, in the days before Florida, Clinton released a statement requesting that the delegates be seated; had a union working there for her with flyers; mentioned Florida at every opportunity; and appeared in the state for a fund-raiser.  The only thing Obama did besides the one (national cable) ad, was that one group supporting him put out flyers.

    so, comparatively speaking, she made a blatant play for last-minute support, yes.  I don't see how you can read her actions in any other way.

    Parent

    Well since it's a week to Super Tuesday (none / 0) (#117)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 04:02:43 PM EST
    it is what I meant, but it is not what I said.

    Parent
    Exit polls don't support your view (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by ding7777 on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:36:50 AM EST
    Those deciding "Just today" (which would include "last minute deciders")

    Clinton (34%)
    Edwards (29%)
    Kucinich(1%)
    Obama   (30%)

    Parent

    Actually... (none / 0) (#93)
    by mindfulmission on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:38:38 AM EST
    ... the exit polls show no significant difference between last minute deciders in Florida.  

    The 5% gap between Clinton, Obama, and Edwards would be insignificant and within in the margin of error.

    Parent

    edwards (none / 0) (#66)
    by tek on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:29:05 AM EST
    Exactly.

    Parent
    Obama just has to step it up... (none / 0) (#17)
    by mike in dc on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 08:37:06 AM EST
    ...and win one debate against her tomorrow night.

    He wins the debate, or is perceived as her equal, and most likely he wins the nomination.  If he wins, all the momentum will be going his way.

    If I were him, I'd cancel all my campaign events tonight and tomorrow and just focus on being prepped and ready.

    It seems to be a pivotal event now (none / 0) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 08:53:20 AM EST
    one delegate (none / 0) (#67)
    by tek on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:29:50 AM EST
    Dude, look at the charts. Obama's way behind Clinton in delegates, for all his big talk.

    Parent
    No he isnt (none / 0) (#77)
    by Jgarza on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:56:54 AM EST
    get your facts straight.  Obama leads in pledged delegates.

    Parent
    I'm surprised. I thought (none / 0) (#19)
    by byteb on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 08:38:03 AM EST
    he'd stay in until at least 'til Super Tuesday. I really thought he'd hang in until the convention and be a King or Queen maker.

    Maybe he's doing what he thinks (none / 0) (#21)
    by andgarden on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 08:39:56 AM EST
    is best for the party. Or for his family. Or because he thinks he can't win. I suspect his money mostly dried up.  

    Parent
    I immediately thought of Elizabeth (none / 0) (#33)
    by byteb on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 08:50:52 AM EST
    I wonder whether (none / 0) (#38)
    by Lena on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 08:53:56 AM EST
    he was pressured by the DNC to drop out. First the confusion over Michigan and Florida, what with their delegates being in limbo, and then the possibility that Edwards could get enough delegates to be the deciding factor in who wins.... That was probably driving the DNC crazy.

    Parent
    Maybe now's the time to play kingmaker? (none / 0) (#76)
    by magster on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:55:34 AM EST
    Seems That Edwards Will NOT Endorse (none / 0) (#29)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 08:48:47 AM EST
    From the CNN article in BTD,s post:

    An Edwards aide said that he does not plan to endorse either Clinton or Obama, at this time, but he may do so in the future.


    endorsement (none / 0) (#68)
    by tek on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:31:40 AM EST
    He's be crazy to endorse now. He'll wait to see which way the wind is blowing and endorse whoever might give him a position in the cabinet. Yesterday, there were headlines that Obama offered Edwards AG. That's probably what his decision to drop out is all about.

    Parent
    I think Obama will benefit here. (none / 0) (#35)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 08:52:51 AM EST
    Firstly, I think it will be a small benefit at best, but I've gotta disagree with BTD about the polling numbers. While it's true that Edwards' demographic is the one that Obama is struggling the most in, most of Edwards' supporters are pretty progressive, and pretty diehard about their party. For them to have stuck with a guy who couldn't carry his home state while he was VP on a ticket--that's gotta take a little guts.

    I think that's important because they're a lot of the "ABH" vote. It's also important because there are a lot of people who view Obama and Edwards as representing the same ideology. The "progressive choice" thus far, at least according to supporters, is "Edwards/Obama or Obama/Edwards." I think, geographically, this is especially true in the South, the Midwest, and the portions of the Northeast that Hillary has either put off, or doesn't firmly have in her grasp (New Jersey.)

    We'll see how it all shakes out. An endorsement by Edwards for Obama could really shake things up, as again, his supporters are very committed to him, and could very well trust him and follow what he says. This could also help him in the "no college degree"/poorer economic demographic. It'll also help him among white voters in general, I think.

    We shall see.
    I think we have a great field this year, and I'm not gonna be upset over either one of them getting elected. I just hope it ends on 2/5 so we can sit back and watch the 'Pubs dismantle themselves.

    On the demos (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 08:54:24 AM EST
    this is simply not supported by the data.

    I KNOW Edwards ran best with CONSERVATIVES, not progressives.

    You confuse the nets with the real world.

    Parent

    BTD Did You See My Comment On (none / 0) (#45)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 08:59:48 AM EST
    no endorsement? You might want to update your post.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:02:39 AM EST
    I am not sure what that means frankly.

    Not making an endorsement today I know.

    Parent

    Also on the demos (none / 0) (#97)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:49:19 AM EST
    While Edwards runs best with conservatives, yes, I think the image of Edwards is the fellow progressive "insurgent" (neither are really that progressive, but that's the perception) to Obama. This might lead some of the less "establishment" voters to go to Obama. Let's also not forget that Clinton and Edwards have gotten into a few spats, and in the debates, Edwards has always seemed like Obama's friend on the stage. Perhaps his supporters will see this?

    Parent
    What you "know" doesn't fit me (none / 0) (#124)
    by Lora on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 08:37:44 PM EST
    I'm not conservative.  I supported Edwards.  I doubt I am an anomaly, although I haven't the data to "prove" it.

    Parent
    i was an edwards supporter (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by athyrio on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:59:03 AM EST
    and while I am saddened by his decision as I liked his message keeping the issues of poverty at the forefront, my second choice is hands down Hillary and I have been shocked in recent weeks at the pettiness of Obama's campaign...I have sent a message to him to ask him to NOT endorse Obama...not that my message will have an effect...just wanted to throw my two cents into the mix.....

    Parent
    Why? (none / 0) (#41)
    by Lora on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 08:54:40 AM EST
    This is surprising to me.

    After being treated as a nobody by the media for a while now, as have you, why on earth would you be surprised?

    repost more clearly (none / 0) (#43)
    by Lora on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 08:57:03 AM EST
    [sorry - feel free to delete the original post.  Not enough coffee yet.]

    This is surprising to me.

    After Edwards' being treated as a nobody by the media for a while now, and being treated as a nobody by you too, why on earth would you be surprised?

    Parent

    Because (none / 0) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:01:57 AM EST
    he said he would continue even though he accepted he would not win.

    Nothing changed in the last few days to change that.

    Parent

    It's too hard when you're invisible. (none / 0) (#116)
    by Lora on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 02:52:23 PM EST
    It just took a couple days for reality to set in.  I don't think he had a chance once the MEDIA wrote him off.  I think they killed his chances, not the voters.  

    Parent
    Because Edwards possibly could get enough (none / 0) (#44)
    by ding7777 on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 08:58:28 AM EST
    delegates to be a kingmaker at the National Convention

    Parent
    The most immediate result (none / 0) (#42)
    by ding7777 on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 08:56:26 AM EST
    is that Hillary's Florida win loses (the mostly negative) media coverage she was getting.

    which is good for Clinton (none / 0) (#120)
    by diplomatic on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 04:59:17 PM EST
    People watching the cable news on Tuesday night saw her name with a checkmark next to it and 800,000+ votes in her column.  She looked like a winner to me.  It was there all night long for everyone to see and the vote % totals looked realistic also.  50%, 33%, 15% so it didn't immediately scream that it was not a regular contest.

    The negative coverage came after the night wound down with the pundits trying to sully her victory.

    Now with the Edwards announcement they never got the chance to do that.  People remember Hillary winning on Tuesday, but don't get to be told how meaningless it was ad nauseum.  That's the bottom line.

    Parent

    More on Edwards (none / 0) (#48)
    by ctrenta on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:02:08 AM EST

    TPM says that Edwards won't have an endorsement "today." I was listening to Ellen Ratner of Talk Radio News Service, who's pretty astute when it comes to analyzing U.S. politics and she said if Edwards endorses Obama, then the nomination will go to HRC for sure. If that were to occur, Obama would get on average an extra 9% in upcoming primaries. She didn't get into the details but he observation wouldn't surprise me if that were true.

    What do others think?

    Clarification (none / 0) (#51)
    by ctrenta on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:04:01 AM EST

    Re: Ratner's 9% comment, even though Obama would likely gain an extra 9%, it still may not be enough to beat Hillary. That's what I think she was alluding to.

    Thoughts?

    Parent

    The same (none / 0) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:25:11 AM EST
    If she is saying Obama gains 9% advantage, then that is simply delusional.

    Parent
    Edwards supporters (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:15:11 AM EST
    I don't think they buy the unity shtick. Speaking as a strong Edwards supporter I moved to Hillary cause I don't think it will work and I don't think he has the experience to make it work. And lots of Edwards supporters think that Obama sabotaged Edwards campaign by mimicking the a faux progressive/populist agenda.

    Parent
    Obama... (none / 0) (#95)
    by mindfulmission on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:43:21 AM EST
    ... was progressive long before Edwards was.  

    Parent
    But he is no more (none / 0) (#100)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:01:42 AM EST
    I rather having a rising populist to a faux populist.

    Parent
    Clinton? (none / 0) (#102)
    by mindfulmission on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:28:02 AM EST
    Aren't you a Clinton supporter?

    If you don't like Obama's progressive credentials, I am not sure how you like Clinton's.  

    Parent

    Ah, (none / 0) (#106)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:38:08 AM EST
    good point. I believe that when Obama got elected, he mirrored Hillary's position. He already negotiated away a bit part of the Health Plan by shutting out the universal portion. I am also a pragmatist. I want someone who knows how the White House and how the Senate work. Obama, if he was a governor, I would consider. But he only was a legislator. Hillary, granted through Bill, knows the executive role. Years as governor then president. She learned some lessons. Now she knows the Senate and how it works. She has learned how to get legislation passed. I don't think the Obama style will work unless he gets some enormous mandate and wins both houses. Their job will be to make him fail not succeed. Whereas with Hillary, she can play hard ball.

    Parent
    get legislation passed? (none / 0) (#107)
    by mindfulmission on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:40:18 AM EST
    What legislation has Hillary gotten passed?

    Parent
    fair question (none / 0) (#108)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:52:01 PM EST
    Unfortunately, I think she's learned the wrong (none / 0) (#118)
    by byteb on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 04:47:29 PM EST
    lessons..not forgetting reestablishing the DLC, Mark Penn, Terry McAuliffe, Wolfson and the Old Gang back in power.

    Parent
    remember john's private meeting (none / 0) (#112)
    by hellothere on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 01:28:57 PM EST
    with hillary after one of the debates? i think about that today.

    Parent
    An extra 9%? (none / 0) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:13:30 AM EST
    So Hillary gets an extra 6%.

    Sounds like dart throwing to me.

    Parent

    Delegate Race (none / 0) (#50)
    by RalphB on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:03:32 AM EST
    In lots of congressional districts where Edwards would have hit 15% viability, chances are the delegate split now goes from 2-2-1 Obama-Clinton-Edwards to 3-2 Clinton-Obama. Even assuming most of his votes go to Obama, it's still not helpful in the "all-important" delegate count.

    Wonder if the vote totals will now start to matter more to Big Media?


    Yeah, it does basically kill.. (none / 0) (#52)
    by mike in dc on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:05:59 AM EST
    ...the "Hillary wins Florida" news cycle.  Now it's about "who will Edwards' voters go to?" and "Can Obama stand toe to toe with Clinton at the debate?"

    The best case scenario for Clinton is an Obama gaffe at the debate, followed by a Richardson endorsement on Friday--that might push her to get a clear majority of the Super Tuesday delegates and a big enough margin to basically put it out of reach for Obama.  A few weeks later, Obama concedes, and at the convention she puts him on the ticket.  The Obama era in presidential politics is delayed at least 4 years.

    The best case scenario for Obama is a strong performance at the debate(ranging from "he held his own" to "I think he actually won that one") or possibly a win by default through an unforced error on Clinton's part, followed by endorsements by Edwards/Richardson/Gore before 2/5--that might push him to win California and do well enough in her stronghold states and elsewhere to get a clear majority of delegates.  In his case, he doesn't need a big delegate lead over her--any lead at all on 2/6 will likely lead to his winning the nomination, long term.  Clinton hangs in there longer, maybe until March or April, then drops out and endorses.  She doesn't go on the ticket, primarily because she doesn't want it.  The Clinton era in presidential politics is effectively over.

    At any rate, the next week should be extremely exciting times for political junkies.

    I missed that Hillary wins news cycle (none / 0) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:12:09 AM EST
    I wrote below what I think the effect of Florida was.

    I do think we have a clean slate now.

    Thurdays night the campaign begins anew, and for keeps.

    February 5 will decide this thing imo.

    Parent

    I hope the debate (none / 0) (#96)
    by Lena on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:45:56 AM EST
    doesn't decide it....

    Most people don't watch them....the media simply tells them what to think. Seeing as the media can't even decently cover the fact that she got almost a million votes in Florida, it's hard to believe they'd report it if she wins the debate.

    On the other hand, I tend to think at least half of Edward's supporters will break for her regardless of the media's reporting.

    Parent

    I will not be surprised if he endorses (none / 0) (#55)
    by felizarte on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:16:41 AM EST
    Clinton.  I read that after the So. Carolina debate, Clinton and Edwards had a private 20-minute meeting.  Edwards has been passionately against the "establishment," and now that Obama is clearly the democratic establishment candidate, he might just endorse Hillary.

    No way. (none / 0) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:17:17 AM EST
    yeah way! smile (none / 0) (#113)
    by hellothere on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 01:29:49 PM EST
    Why not? (none / 0) (#64)
    by felizarte on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:28:02 AM EST
    Would he endorse the candidate that Kerry used so publicly to humiliate him?  At the very least, he will not endorse Obama.  On the other hand, all we have to do is wait a few hours or a few days,  There was a statement made by Edwards a few weeks ago that he is the only one that's keeping Hillary from getting to 50% or more.

    Parent
    Kerry (none / 0) (#70)
    by tek on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:34:34 AM EST
    That is a good point about Kerry. I'd forgotten about his Obama endorsement (that's how much those endorsements mean).

    Parent
    I just heard on MSNBC (none / 0) (#78)
    by felizarte on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:57:34 AM EST
    that Edwards personally called Hillary to tell her that she is dropping out.  They did not mention that he did the same thing to Obama.  

    Just consider this:  What is best for John Edwards?  Can he really compete with all the establishment "rockstars" already in Obama's corner? Oprah, Kennedy, Kerry,

    Clinton at this time will much more "appreciative." And seeing that Hillary is really the underdog being attacked by mainstream media and the Washington elite, as a defense lawyer, it might just evoke something in him.

    As for issues, Edwards stand on issues is more similar to Clinton's especially in his signature issue of health care,  I think that Edwards has shown more goodwill towards Obama which Obama did not publicly acknowledge.

    As for money, he did not have to spend more money for super Tuesday,  All he had to do was stay in the race and say anything.  

    All thngs considered, even if Edwards does not endorse Clinton, it still helps her. As long as Edwards does not endorse, he is still in the news.  Perhaps he'll do it after super tuesday.

    Parent

    hmm, he just might endorse her. (none / 0) (#114)
    by hellothere on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 01:35:04 PM EST
    edwards can read the polls and he is looking for something in return. the promise of a cabinet position and or legislation that is positive for john's goals. the man is sincere!

    Parent
    What does Edwards do? (none / 0) (#57)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:19:12 AM EST
    There is speculation on the Republican side that Giuliani will be McCain's Attorney General. Will Giuliani investigate all of the crimes of the Bush Administration? The obvious answer is of course not. Bush No. 1 and his ilk were up to their necks in BCCI, arms deals, and a half-step away from all sorts of drug deals. Giuliani made sure as a federal prosecutor not to look too closely for the quid pro quos that accompany these national scandals. So Giuliani would be the perfect choice for the next AG for a Rethug administration.

    I also saw one mention that Edwards might be the AG for an Obama Administration. It's already pretty clear that the first thing we get with a Clinton victory is the promise of a Bill-Bush No. 1 world tour. That doesn't bode well for any real prosecutions against the current administration. I am not sure that we'd get that with Edwards as AG either, but it would be a lot more likely. And think of all the kinds of pro-working class rulings and prosecutions that someone like an Edwards could bring to that office.

    Does anyone know who Clinton would make Attorney General?

    Obama's Corporate ties (none / 0) (#82)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:10:57 AM EST
    will not let him put Edwards anywhere near government.

    Parent
    can you imagine (none / 0) (#86)
    by athyrio on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:15:08 AM EST
    what a wonderful supreme court justice edwards would make....WOW

    Parent
    edwards (none / 0) (#58)
    by tek on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:21:20 AM EST
    The good thing about this is that Edwards will not be able to play Kingmaker at the convention. I suspect there's a deal between Edwards and Obama. The Obama people have been after Edwards to drop out because they think Obama will get his votes, I tabulated the difference if that happens, Hillary would still win in most Feb. 5 states. We'll see.

    but if there was a deal, why not (none / 0) (#71)
    by byteb on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:36:00 AM EST
    endorse before Tuesday?

    Parent
    I don't get a feeling (none / 0) (#81)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:10:06 AM EST
    that there is a great love. I think Edwards picked it up that the Obama as populist was not genuine.

    Parent
    It seems that.. (none / 0) (#85)
    by TheRealFrank on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:15:00 AM EST
    Edwards' tone towards Clinton has softened since NH. In NH, he was basically tag-teaming with Obama at the debate, but that changed.

    He was also asked a few times what he thought of Bill Clinton's superevilmean statements, and he just said "I think president Clinton has the right to campaign and speak up for his wife".

    So.. who knows.


    Parent

    Where will the Major Contributors go? (none / 0) (#83)
    by ding7777 on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:12:33 AM EST
    For days, the question of whether he would stay in the race was an off-limits topic of conversation among those in his inner circle, but several major contributors began growing antsy, with some eager to begin lining up with either Barack Obama or Hillary Rodham Clinton.



    oxymoron watch (none / 0) (#92)
    by commissar on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:34:25 AM EST
    "major Edwards contributor"

    Parent
    Haha, so he doesn't take lobbyist money.. (none / 0) (#99)
    by eric on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:59:15 AM EST
    This would be the time for Obama supporters to reach out to Edwards supporters.  However, doen't look like that is going to happen.  Seriously, don't you think that maybe cracking some kind of joke about Edwards isn't going to reflect on your candidate of choice?

    Parent
    Obama's Edwards dissing (none / 0) (#89)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:20:07 AM EST
    I don't know if people saw hoe Obama kept diminishing Edwards in the debates etc. I don't think Edwards takes kindly to that. The white guy quips were totally disgusting.

    most reporters .. (none / 0) (#103)
    by wasabi on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:31:20 AM EST
    Most reporters or analysts this morning brought up the question of race today.  Will the Edwards supporters be able to vote for a black man, as if all his supporters were bigots.  It took one brave reporter to actually break down the accumulative exit poll data from all the states to show that Edwards supporters were primarily "working class" (the base of the party) and not the "youth" or "better educated" or "higher income" demographic.  My guess is a greater portion of his followers will go with Clinton's message of "providing solutions" rather than Obama's message of "hope".

    HRC's website (none / 0) (#105)
    by eric on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:36:21 AM EST
    I just looked at the Hillary Clinton website.  They have a big picture of John and Elizabeth with a tag line, "We Salute John and Elizabeth Edwards".

    Score one for HRC for class.

    that says a lot to me. (none / 0) (#115)
    by hellothere on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 01:38:39 PM EST
    So does Obama's (none / 0) (#119)
    by byteb on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 04:48:09 PM EST
    just spoke to my sister (none / 0) (#121)
    by athyrio on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 05:33:47 PM EST
    in Florida, and many of her democratic friends are furious with media and with Obama, but ignoring their votes....She says that they would never support his nomination .....We cannot afford to lose Florida in the General Election