Hillary and Obama Ask Edwards for Support

ABC News reports Hillary Clinton went to John Edwards' home in North Carolina on Thursday to ask for his support. Barack Obama is scheduled to meet with him tomorrow.

Who will Edwards endorse if anyone? He seemed more aligned with Obama when he was in the campaign, but that was mostly on lobbyists. On poverty and health care, which were his main issues, I think Hillary is closer to him.

What could each offer John Edwards if elected to sweeten the pot? I doubt he wants to be Attorney General -- maybe Hillary can offer to let him be in charge of tweaking and getting universal health care through Congress. A health care czar?

< Hillary's Campaign Manager Steps Down, Maggie Williams Takes Over | Obama Wins Maine Caucus >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Poverty (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by BDB on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 04:29:01 PM EST
    The other option is to offer to create a cabinet-level advisor on poverty issues for him.  I think Clinton might be more likely to do this, not because Obama would object, but because she's more likely to think of it given her understanding about how the executive works.

    I wish he'd give a speech and just endorse (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Teresa on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 04:48:04 PM EST
    universal healthcare. Tell the voters that's the biggest difference between them and let the voters decide.

    I like this approach, but I'd add (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by hellskitchen on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:43:03 PM EST
    Fair Trade and poverty issues.

    As an Edwards Democrat, I don't want to see him endorse either Obama or Clinton.



    I Agree (none / 0) (#44)
    by kenoshaMarge on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:06:55 AM EST
    I thought John Edwards would make a better President than either Obama or Clinton. When he dropped out I began to support Hillary Clinton because I thought she was the better of the two remaining.

    But I hope Edwards doesn't endorse either. I will be so disappointed in him if he does. And unlike some, who can't seem to make up their mind without an endorsement from someone even if he does endorse Obama I will still support Hillary Clinton. No one's endorsement would make me vote for any candidate.


    I am going to get slammed for this (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Kathy on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:05:55 PM EST
    because I know they are all politicians, but I don't see Edwards making a political decision.  Let's be honest: both Clinton and Obama can offer him the same thing.  Clinton may be more creative about it, but she spoke with Edwards first, and Obama can always be prompted to offer the same when the two talk tomorrow.  He would be foolish to say no, and he is not a foolish man.

    I think as far as taking Edwards' mandate and running with it, Clinton has done this more than Obama.  She hasn't made an overt attack against Obama in any speech. She's carefully laid out differences.  She's been very savvy about putting the focus back on defeating Bush and she and Bill have both been on point every single day lately.

    Now, let me be up front here and admit that I don't listen to Obama's speeches much because it makes my ears hurt, so he could be eventually getting to poverty, healthcare and the such after the soaring rhetoric.  Clinton is brief and gets to the point immediately, and seems to have adpoted Edwards' "two Americas" theme.

    All of this to say: how the heck do I know?  I hope he backs Clinton.  Before I read some of these comments, I figured it wouldn't matter who he backed, but I guess for some it means an awful lot.

    I Think It Has Definite PR Effect (none / 0) (#22)
    by MO Blue on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:25:13 PM EST
    Also, who ever wins his endorsement would probably have access to his donor list. No small thing.

    Some people like me, don't really take endorsements too seriously. IMO pols are normally going to endorse whoever benefits them the most. I'm more interested in who might benefit me and the country the most. Other Edwards supporters might view this differently.


    Edwards donor list is online (none / 0) (#30)
    by oldpro on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:06:57 PM EST
    last election cycle and this one.  Either Clinton or Obama could just get out the trial lawyers' list too, assuming they're both on the right (I mean left) side of tort 'reform.'

    Thought I was the only one... (none / 0) (#45)
    by kenoshaMarge on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:08:21 AM EST
    Yaaaay, thank you for saying that about his speeches. I thought I was the only one. I turn the channel as fast as I can because the very sound of his voice grates on me like nails on a chalkboard.

    Edwards endorsement (none / 0) (#50)
    by auntmo on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:13:41 AM EST
    It  matters   because  he  still  carries  a  number  of  delegates in  several  states.  

    Endorsement  of  Clinton means   she  gets  those  delegates.


    For sure? He can release (none / 0) (#57)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:47:51 AM EST
    his delegates, but I'm not sure he can direct them -- just hand them over.  I think it may free them.

    Cream (none / 0) (#59)
    by auntmo on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:09:04 AM EST
    Sorry...shoulda  included  another  sentence.  

    If  Edwards  endorses  Hillary  and  emphasizes  her   healthcare  plan  is  closest  to his, I think  most of  his  delegates  will move her  way.  


    Austan Goolsbee and David Cutler (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by magisterludi on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:47:11 PM EST
    are the perfect reason for Edwards to endorse HRC.

    Goolsbee and Cutler are BHO's economic "brain". These guys are your very familiar market-oriented economists that make the likes of George Will, Davids Brooks and Broder, Greg Mankiw, and many more Reagan worshippers quite comfortable with the prospect of A BHO presidency.

    Do some research. BHO certainly didn't do much to change the dynamic of  the infamous (to me and many libs.) University of Chicago style marriage of law and economics, tailor-made for the already rich and powerful. It seems to me he sold out to bigger interests long ago.

    Goolsbee/Cutler (none / 0) (#51)
    by auntmo on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:17:34 AM EST
    Obama's   economic  advisors  are  very much  cut  from  the   supply-side, Milton Friedman   Chicago   group.  They're  FOR  partial privatization of   Social  Security  (a  large  reason  many  seniors  don't  support  him)  and  VERY MUCH   for   free  trade  deals.  

    After  his  vote  against  a  cap on credit  card interest  rates,  the  financial  industry  ---of  subprime   fame---said of  Barak Obama:  "This  is  a  man we  can work with."


    And Cutler (none / 0) (#60)
    by magisterludi on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:32:54 AM EST
    thinks the high cost of healthcare isn't necessarily a BAD thing.

    Other than foreign policy is BHO actually more progressive (if he is at all) than HRC?


    Should have previewed... (none / 0) (#61)
    by magisterludi on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:45:04 AM EST
    this post.
    I meant to say that I don't see where BHO is very progressive at all when it comes to serious domestic issues. He has played a very calculated game of pandering to the right, taking for granted the actual base of the party. Some may think is is just an example of his "unity" theme, but it smacks of GWB in 2000 (how many BHO supporters even remember 2000?).

    Unless he starts talking about the major domestic issues in a clear and forthright way, i have to seriously wonder how "authentic" he really is.


    Obama "progressive"? (none / 0) (#64)
    by auntmo on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 12:33:32 PM EST
    Paul  Krugman---a   progressive  leader for  many  years,   especially  on healthcare---has  done  a  series  of  articles  comparing  all candidates.    

    He  finds  Obama  the  LEAST  progressive  in his  healthcare  plans,    and the most  likely  to ---like you said---PANDER  for  the  sake of  Lieberman-like "bipartisanship."  

    The  Obama  campaign  and  supporters, of  course,   attacked   Krugman  viciously.  

    But  you  can't  get  more   progressive  than  Paul   Krugman.   He's  right.


    Not AG? How about (4.75 / 4) (#7)
    by Maggie Mae on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 04:10:12 PM EST
    Secretary of Labor?  He'd be ideal.

    From Wikipedia

    In the words of the original act, the Department's purpose is "to foster, promote and develop the welfare of working people, to improve their working conditions, and to enhance their opportunities for profitable employment."

    That would be nice (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 04:41:03 PM EST
    The Department of Labor has been terrible for workers for so long.

    His couple of dozen delegates (none / 0) (#1)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 03:42:19 PM EST
    are looking even more significant lately.  It is the time for Edwards to bargain -- for his issues, for a cabinet post, whatever -- while the delegate count is close.  So an endorsement could come soon, if it is to make a difference.  

    On the other hand, it is too late for a lot of the states -- and in my state with a primary in less than 10 days, the Edwards voters have made their choice.  And it was hard for them.  To ask them to possibly switch again, too much cognitive dissonance asked of the Edwards voters I know (quite a few).

    As someone commented on another blog (none / 0) (#26)
    by hellskitchen on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:50:48 PM EST
    the endorsement isn't for the Edwards Democrats.  It's to affect the policy outcomes.

    As An Edwards Supporter... (none / 0) (#47)
    by kenoshaMarge on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:11:06 AM EST
    I switched to a Clinton supporter after he dropped out. Much as I respect him, I don't care who he endorses. I make up my own mind and endorsements don't mean squat to me.

    Re: (none / 0) (#2)
    by Steve M on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 03:52:58 PM EST
    I felt that Edwards' choice to emphasize certain disagreements during the campaign (lobbyists, health care mandates) was more strategic than anything.  He went after Hillary because she was the frontrunner, later he went after Obama because he was gaining momentum.  Everyone likes to think that Edwards likes their candidate and hates the other candidate, but you can't really judge that by any of the evidence that's on the table.

    Edwards as Attorney General would be, wow, one of the most hot-button nominations in a long time.  I mean, in the public consciousness he's basically King of the Tort Lawyers.

    hrm (none / 0) (#8)
    by Nasarius on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 04:20:27 PM EST
    As an Edwards supporter 'til the end, I don't think either candidate has earned his endorsement. Obama is terrible on health care, Clinton is iffy on lobbyists and corporate power. What I'd *like* to see is an Obama endorsement in exchange for some compromise on health care and other issues. But he's been digging that hole deeper and deeper, so I don't know.

    I definitely see Edwards as a Spitzer-esque AG. Despite the GOP spin, fighting the bad guys plays incredibly well, at least here in New York.

    Obama is all for universal health care (none / 0) (#10)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 04:28:28 PM EST
    and his plan is just like Clinton's.  I know this because I just heard him say so in a speech on CNN.

    And I bet that a lot of voters believe it.


    Unless he has committed to mandates, (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by hellskitchen on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:01:09 PM EST
    his healthcare plan is not like Clinton's.  There's an excellent diary on dKos that explains why Obama's health care program is insufficient:

    Universal Health Care: Why Obama is Wrong


    On kos? (none / 0) (#48)
    by kenoshaMarge on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:12:56 AM EST
    There was a diary on kos that was even a teensy bit negative about Obama? Well, my, my, I guess wonders will never cease.

    I know. I didn't think I needed (none / 0) (#58)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:51:20 AM EST
    to say it, but okay, I will: <snark>

    And I wanted to be sure that others here knew that he is getting major coverage for . . . well, a lie about his health care proposal.  And he's not getting called on it by major media.  No surprise.


    Obama's for universal health care? (none / 0) (#18)
    by zyx on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 04:49:35 PM EST
    And his plan is "yes we can", right?

    not quite (none / 0) (#34)
    by jeniferea on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:01:34 PM EST
    BO's plan is more like Universal minus 15 million

    If you insist on universal (none / 0) (#39)
    by Tano on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 08:45:26 PM EST
    then the ONLY real option is single-payer.

    The alternative - what used to be called "universal access" is like the Obama plan - guarantee affordable health insurance to everyone who wants it.

    Mandated plans are a halfway measure. They will almost certainly not achieve 100% universality and to the extent that they get closer than Obama's plan it is only through coercion - fines and penalties for noncompliance. And that is quite a burden to carry when trying to sell the policy to a skeptical public.


    Single payer (none / 0) (#49)
    by auntmo on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:10:41 AM EST
    Obama  was  FOR  single payer  when  he  was  campaigning  for  Senate.  

    As  soon as  he  was  elected,  he   changed his  mind.    

    He's  not  even  FOR   universal  healthcare  with mandates   now.  

    Edwards   will  endorse  Clinton  because  he  WAS  for mandates,  enthusiastically.  

    Edwards  was  also  disgusted  by  Obama's  vote  against  predatory  lending  interest  caps  on  credit  cards.  (Goldman  Sachs is  Obama's  largest  contributor).   We  all  saw  that in  their  last  debate:  Edwards  was  APPALLED  that   Obama's  vote  allowed   banks  to  charge   whatever interest  rate  they  wanted.  


    From your mouth... (none / 0) (#56)
    by kenoshaMarge on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:12:52 AM EST
    to Edwards' ear. I hope you are right. Because even though I don't care about endorsements I know that there are many people that do.

    Apologies for misposting elsewhere.... (none / 0) (#3)
    by Hypatias Father on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 04:01:38 PM EST
    Edwards was my original candidate, and if he or someone who I respect equally as much (e.g. Gore) were to unequivocally endorse Clinton, then I have to admit it would make a huge difference.  I have a lukewarm preference for Obama currently, but my support would probably swing back to more firmly reside in Clinton's camp.  

    To me change in one context does not mean support for any and every aspect of change.  Edwards was never about change just for change's sake, and IMHO that is a theme more aligned to Obama--which even now leaves me unmoved.

    Of course, one of the reasons I currently do feel more attracted to Obama has to do with my prediction that Edwards' themes are in fact more closely aligned to his than to Clinton's.  Nevertheless, if she begins to get big endorsements like Edwards', I will shrug and assume that he knows something that I simply do not.

    I see Edwards ideals more aligned with Clinton (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by nycvoter on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:01:55 PM EST
    I could be wrong but Edwards wants to get things done and I think the policy wonk aspect of Clinton's personality would be what Edwards is looking for real results.  In terms of him being a fighter, I also think Clinton is more like Edwards and Edwards having served during a Republican lead Senate really understands what it will take to turn the tide in DC and make change.  I also believe that the people Edwards has been fighting for are more closely aligned with Clinton, maybe not his activits and his contributors, but the people he cares about.  You know, the non-college educated people making less than $50,000 that the media seems to disparage.  

    Not sure how Edwards would decide this (none / 0) (#4)
    by MO Blue on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 04:06:30 PM EST
    I'm sure they will both ask him what he wants for his endorsement. I can't picture either of them saying no to any doable request. So what factors would he then consider to make the final choice? Does Obama have a slight advantage by seeing Edwards last? Don't know.

    Interesting side note, the Page indicates their sources say that Edwards might have asked for the meetings and ABC indicates that the candidates did.


    More palatable (none / 0) (#14)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 04:39:50 PM EST
    I supported Edwards, so his endorsement would make either candidate more palatable.

    Curiously, does anyone really believe that Attorney General Edwards in either a Clinton or Obama Administration would move to prosecute the torturers and the people who lied us into war?

    I don't. I think that things are so bad that the real criminals are so above the law that they will never be punished.


    I've never read anywhere that Edwards (none / 0) (#36)
    by oculus on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:39:51 PM EST
    has any experience in criminal prosecution and don't remember him speaking out strongly against torture, for investigation/prosecution/enforcing subpoenas against Meirs and others, etc.  So I don't have confidence he would be an effective AG.

    Agree (none / 0) (#53)
    by auntmo on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:23:04 AM EST
    I  can't  see  Edwards  as  AG,  but   I  could  definitely  see him  running  Dept.  of  Labor.  



    What Will Determine It (none / 0) (#5)
    by BDB on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 04:06:46 PM EST
    I wonder if Edwards is more interested in what he can get from them and that would decide it?  I would guess he could get more from Clinton since I think his endorsement would help her a bit more than it would Obama since Edwards would be expected t endorse Obama under the CW.  But I'd think he'd probably get any reasonable request granted by either candidate.

    So I think it probably comes down to how important healthcare policy and populist rhetoric is to him.  I agree his main themes align a lot better with Obama, but I think Obama has given Clinton an opening because of his rightward turn on healthcare and because she's using more populist economic messaging.  

    Either that or he just personally likes one of them better than the other.  

    People are complicated.  

    Edwards was my candidate... (none / 0) (#12)
    by magisterludi on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 04:29:37 PM EST
    I switched to HRC when he dropped out. My issue is the economy. We have seen the fruits of Reaganomics- free unregulated trade designed to empower the American plutocracy beyond their wildest expectations and guaranteeing solid political capital for the Bad Samaritans (thank you,  author Ha-Joon Chang) that are our corporate "leaders". Wallstreet does not have a conscience and would sell their souls down the river (and our social well-being in the process) for the chance to gain a few more pieces of eight.

    Edwards challenged that mindset. It's no wonder the media muffled, no , STRANGLED his message. It had to much potency to foment a groundswell of true change that would have lifted everyone, regardless of background. Karl Rove feared the Edwards message more than any other.

    All that said, and i apologize for rambling, but I think HRC has evolved closer to this position than BHO.

    Yes, the media treatment of Edwards (none / 0) (#13)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 04:37:17 PM EST
    confirmed for me the problem of media ownership by megacorporates -- GE, Microsoft, etc.

    Hillary is not an anti-poverty candidate. (none / 0) (#19)
    by lilybart on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 04:51:22 PM EST
    Only affordable healthcare and education will bring people out of poverty successfully, so all three are fine on this issue.

    Hillary is NOT going to solve poverty, and no one can.

    Edwards should back Obama.

    no, there is a big difference their healthcare (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Teresa on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 04:54:31 PM EST
    plan. Obama is already taking  moderate compromise position on it and it will get worse once the negotiations start.

    Agree (none / 0) (#55)
    by auntmo on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:31:38 AM EST
    Edwards'   healthcare  plan   was   much  closer  to   Clinton's  than  to  Obama's.    He  was  for  mandates and  univeral  coverage.   Obama  was  not.

    there is no reason to back obama. (none / 0) (#40)
    by hellothere on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 08:46:14 PM EST
    If I were Edward (none / 0) (#24)
    by sef on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:45:04 PM EST
    I'd ask for a cabinet post for Dept of Labor for Elizabeth and a SCOTUS seat or DNC chair for me (or vice versa).

    SCOTUS is too passive for Edwards at (none / 0) (#29)
    by hellskitchen on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:04:58 PM EST
    this time.  I'd rather see Attorney General, then SC

    Atty Gen is a huge mgmt (none / 0) (#31)
    by oldpro on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:09:07 PM EST
    position...does he have administrative skills?

    HHS could make sense (none / 0) (#32)
    by oldpro on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:10:38 PM EST
    if he's as good an administrator as Donna Shalala.

    "mandates" (none / 0) (#33)
    by diogenes on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:36:36 PM EST
    A plan with mandates does no one any good if it doesn't get through Congress.  Pass the plan without mandates and make the incremental change to mandates later.  Obama has the sense to see this, which is why he is the better politician.  Edwards can see this too; he'll endorse based on personality, and he seems based on the debates to have a visceral dislike of Hillary.

    I disagree (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by eric on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:35:04 PM EST
    If there is one thing that Edwards knows for sure, it is that a healthcare program must be universal and include everyone from the start.  I saw Edwards speak on the evening before he dropped out, and he emphasized the point.  He really emphasized it as if he was sending a message.

    Similarly, Edwards has compared a healthcare program to Social Security.  Allowing people to opt out would destroy SS, just as it would with a health care program.  All in, all benefit, just like SS.

    On your final point:  Having watched the debates, I don't think that Edwards ever expressed anything close to a "visceral dislike of Hillary".  Quite the opposite, really, as I would like to think that Edwards knows that politics shouldn't be personal and good faith differences of opinion don't allow for such a base emotional response.  Keep it about the points and issues, not about the person.  That works in court too.


    that's funny! i think edwards doesn't much (none / 0) (#41)
    by hellothere on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 08:47:13 PM EST
    care for obama.

    YEP (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by auntmo on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:26:36 AM EST
    Edwards  had  a  "visceral  dislike" for  Obama  during  the  debates  when  it  was  revealed  Obama  voted  AGAINST  a  cap in  predatory credit  card  interest  rates.      

    Edwards  was    absolutely  DISGUSTED  by that,  in  terms  of  the   poor  people  he  cares  about.    


    "visceral" (none / 0) (#67)
    by diogenes on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:45:12 PM EST
    So why exactly did Edwards act as attack dog to sink Clinton in the early debates if he preferred her to Obama?

    Does Edwards have a reputation for (none / 0) (#37)
    by oculus on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:43:07 PM EST
    successful arm twisting?  IF so, he should be VP.  

    Ahem. Having worked in Public Health for about (none / 0) (#38)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 08:02:33 PM EST
    40 years I can tell you that neither plan is perfect.  In my opinion any plan that depends on Insurance Companies is bound to fail those in the middle.  They are in the business for profit and anything that will affect the bottom line will be fought tooth and nail by their surrogates in Congress in both parties.  Look at the Medicare drug plan.  Again that is my opinion.

    Labor Sec. (none / 0) (#42)
    by Tano on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 08:48:47 PM EST
    would seem a good fit.

    Although I have often thought that the AFL-CIO should draft him to be their president. Imagine if the labor movement itself were to have a dymnamic leader like John Edwards.

    I dont think he would be effective at all as the point man on health care. I dont sense that he is all that respected on the Hill, and his strong points are in talking to the public, not arm-twisting behind the scenes.

    If I Was Edwards (and I'm not) (none / 0) (#43)
    by scribe on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 09:27:13 PM EST
    here's what I would want from either candidate:
    1.  The AG job.  
    Look at everything that's gone on in the current administration.  It all goes through the AG.  Defending/litigating on behalf of the Repugs wacko policies in any other department- has to be done through the lawyers provided by the AG.  No AG support, no torture, no rape-as-environmental-policy, no covering-up graft and so on.  And, to unscrew what the Bushies have done - it has to be done through the AG office.  
    The AG traditionally goes to someone quite close to the president and usually intimately involved in the campaign - they both need Edwards, so they are going to have to pay for his support.

    2.  The promise of a S.Ct. seat when one opens up.
    He might not be temperamentally suited for that job - I dunno - but he might well be the first lawyer who actually knows what it means to try a lot of cases to juries appointed since, um, maybe Thurgood Marshall.

    3.  The opportunity to go on the attack against the Republicans during the campaign.
    One of the key things Edwards did was to push the campaigns to crystallize themselves around ideas.  That is where the Dems can win - by stressing not just "Change" but ideas and principles around which the change will be built.

    4.  If either one offers anything for Elizabeth in the way of a cabinet seat - that candidate gets my lean.  I am being deliberately conservative in asking for anything for Elizabeth for two reasons.  First, none of us really know the status of her health, and it might be so bad that she would not be physically capable of the job anymore.  FWIW, she wasn't very visible the last month of the campaign.  Second, and this especially obtains if it's HRC who wins, the whole hereditary dynasty thing is getting just a little too prevalent for my taste, and I'd like to see people who are not related to one or more of the ruling families get high positions in government.

    Edwards shouldn't toss his cookies to either (none / 0) (#62)
    by BreakingAwake on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 12:04:51 PM EST
    Why should John Edwards bend over to either Obama or Clinton now?

    1. Edwards has several dozen delegates under his belt, and he got over 380,000 votes on SuperTuesday alone ... AFTER suspending his campaign.

    2. Edwards never entered this contest to be anybody's 2nd (Been There; Done That) or to be anybody's Boy Friday in the Justice Dept.

    3. If Edwards' run was all about what Edwards could "get" from it, then running against Corporate-owned America and refusing any lobbyist, corporatist campaign funding was a real dumb strategy, huh?

    John Edwards will, alas, not be president. But he owes Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama NADA, ZIP, BUPKISS at this stage of the primary gladiator games. What both our media and corporate-selected superstar candidates are owed is a good head-thumping at a brokered Democratic Convention.

    I'm selling popcorn for that one. Don't bendover, John!

    Obama-Edwards Meeting Cancelled (none / 0) (#63)
    by BDB on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 12:24:15 PM EST
    Via First Read - the Edwards/Obama meeting has been cancelled.
    Which could mean something significant or it could be a scheduling conflict.   Who knows?  I mean besides John Edwards and Barack Obama.

    Yes (none / 0) (#65)
    by auntmo on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 12:45:30 PM EST
    But  keep in mind,  Edwards  has  already  MET  with  the  Clinton   campaign.

    Yes, Edwards has met with Clinton (none / 0) (#66)
    by BDB on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 12:50:58 PM EST
    And now the Page is saying the meeting will be rescheduled.

    VP (none / 0) (#68)
    by diogenes on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:49:24 PM EST
    My bet is that Edwards will ask for VP as his bargaining chip.  He'll be young enough to run for president in 2016.  If he is Obama's VP then he'll be the frontrunner in 2012 if Obama loses.  They can always fire him from a cabinet post or simply not appoint him if that's all he asks for.
    When, if at all, is Al Gore going to say something.  He can always support the nominee, but he really ought to express a preference if he has one just as people think that Edwards should express a preference if he has one.