Elizabeth Edwards on Endorsements

Elizabeth Edwards was on Countdown tonight. She said there's no reason for her husband, her or Gore to endorse. It wouldn't stop the "bloodletting" between the candidates and settle anything. In other words, endorsements are of limited value.

She also said while she prefers Hillary's health plan to Obama's, she's glad that both provide for universal coverage.

E.J. Dione wondered whether Edwards might not get back in the race as the only electable candidate. He wasn't serious, but it's an interesting thought.

< Obama and Rev. Wright: Thread 4 | Obama: Can He Move Past Wright and Reclaim the Conversation? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Edwards was the first (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:59:24 PM EST
    And in some ways more vicious in attacking Clinton's character.

    If I'm not going to vote for Obama cause of his attacks on Clinton, then I don't see how I'd vote for Edwards either.

    Obama trots out Lincoln Bedroom and his surrogates call her a liar.

    Edwards trots out "flip flopper" basically calling her a liar too.

    Sure.  I've had more time to get over that, but it's still the same thing.

    I agree with you (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by litigatormom on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:07:49 PM EST
    Plus... if Hillary can't be nominated without winning a majority of pledged delegates, how can Edward be nominated when he won less than a 100?

    At least Gore hasn't been in the race at all, and therefore wasn't forced to drop out.


    Can Edwards Give Clinton His 100? (none / 0) (#19)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:17:43 PM EST
    He could release them (none / 0) (#24)
    by litigatormom on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:29:22 PM EST
    and ask them to vote for Clinton, or Obama for that matter.  They wouldn't be bound to do so, however.

    Edwards could go after Clinton... (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by citizen53 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:10:02 PM EST
    because he was different, while Obama and Clinton are much the same.  It's just that Obama likes to come off as being different.

    Without Edwards to drive the agenda in terms of issues, look where the campaign has descended.


    But we wanted to like people then (none / 0) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:14:10 PM EST
    issues shmissues, it was causing hard feelings and stuff ;(  What a bunch of candypants we are sometimes.  I want my sweets without dinner please.

    Oh, come on (none / 0) (#18)
    by Andy08 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:17:41 PM EST
    do you really believe this?

    Sure do (none / 0) (#33)
    by citizen53 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:58:02 PM EST
    And I am not alone.

    Right (none / 0) (#21)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:22:36 PM EST
    He was different.

    Need I remind you... (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by citizen53 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:57:22 PM EST
    1.  First on UHC
    2.  Public financing
    3.  Rejected GWOT
    4,  Pushed for timeline funding linkage from the start
    5.  Poverty

    There's more.

    Think what you want.

    Edwards was not a celebrity or money candidate that spoke to problems and provided solutions on issues that people care about.

    He was the candidate for transformation in this race.


    Oh (none / 0) (#35)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:06:08 PM EST
    A transformational candidate.

    Absolutely (none / 0) (#43)
    by cal1942 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:11:50 AM EST
    THE transformational candidate.

    It was Edwards' policies that drove Clinton and Obama to formulate policy positions that were either very close and in some cases direct knock-offs of Edwards policies.

    From a policy perspective John Edwards drove the campaign.

    An Edwards Presidency would have been the first real bread and butter Democrat since Lyndon Johnson.  Edwards would have been part of the Roosevelt, Truman, Johnson legacy.

    It should be honestly conceded that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have some built-in baggage that goes beyond policy, public record, "character," etc. In that regard John  Edwards was the generic Democratic candidate as John McCain is the generic Republican candidate.

    I clearly remember the polls through much of 2007 pitting a generic Democrat against a generic Republican.  The generic Democrat consistently won by a 14 plus point margin.

    Whether some Republicans like it or not McCain was the strongest possible candidate in their field of potential nominees.  GOP voters recognized that I believe, in part, because he simply appeared far less Batsh*t crazy that the rest of the field.

    If able to get some portion of his program through Congress, Edwards would have been able to draw a sharp unmistakable contrast between Democrats and Republicans that would end the near 50-50 split of the last few decades.  Breaking that near stalemate would have established a new consensus.  A new vital center around a more activist federal government. The new (or re-established) activist consensus would have moderated the GOP. For the GOP, just as in the 40s, 50s and 60s, there would have been no choice and that's transformational.

    Transformation only occurs after there is a winner in combat.  As Mr. Jefferson wrote to Mr. Smith, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood ...."


    Why is it (none / 0) (#44)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:25:26 AM EST
    that Republicans figure out how to choose the bread and butter candidate when they need him, but the Democrats are incapable of doing so.

    I don't agree (none / 0) (#46)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:00:24 AM EST
    Like Obama, Edwards never articulated how he would implement his more leftist bread and butter set of policies.

    But I'll admit his policies were more to the left of Obama's.

    I just didn't believe him when he said he could just walk into the boardrooms of American big business and start issueing marching orders to CEOs.

    And he never gave me the impression he would know how to incent corporations to behave more progressively.

    My vision of his presidency was him making a few edicts, corporations taking their ball and going home, waiting out the four years until a Republican takes over again.


    It's a (none / 0) (#50)
    by cal1942 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:49:51 PM EST
    little thing called legislation that some in Congress have threatened.

    Edwards (none / 0) (#49)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 05:30:59 AM EST
    didn't attack the entire Clinton legacy as Obama has. Edwards didn't call the Clintons racists.

    Attacks against your opponents are common in primaries and I take them mostly with a grain of salt. Hillary Clinton is one tough lady and I'm sure stuff like that doesn't bother her much.

     It was only when Obama tried to lump the Bill Clinton administration with the Bush administration as both bad did I become outraged. Otherwise its just politics as usual IMO. Attacking the only successful Democratic Administration in the last 40 years was something I could not and will not forget or forgive. And calling someone a racist to win votes? Way over a line I will accept.


    TO TALKLEFT (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by hughman on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:23:56 PM EST
    i must admit, as you are one of the few "left" blogs supporting Clinton, i'm very impressed by your support of Obama's POV when credit is due.

    you've done a great job. thanks from those of us looking for less vitorol in the blogoshere.

    Thanks for the compliment (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 02:05:29 AM EST
    There are a few things I praise him for, and don't hesitate to do it when they come up. Or to point them out to others.

    Ultimately, we all go with our gut, and mine prefers Hillary. But if the choice is McCain or Obama, I'm with Obama. I just hope it doesn't come to that..

    I think Obama should have waited until 2016, he'd be an old hand and a party elder by that time, well past trying to prove his Washington street cred.

    It's going to be tough for him in the general and tough fighting Congress if elected.

    But, I try to both speak my mind and be honest about his assets.


    Standing Behind the Nominee (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by litigatormom on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:34:11 PM EST
    Hillary makes it clear -- again -- that she will endorse Obama if he is the nominee:

    The longer the Democratic presidential contest has progressed, the more committed supporters of Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton appear to be --to the point that a significant number tell pollsters they wouldn't vote for the other candidate if they became the nominee.

    During an appearance before the editorial board of the Indianapolis Star today, Clinton was asked if she was risking a split within the Democratic Party, particularly a disaffected African-American constituency, if she were to win the nomination against Obama. Her answer appeared to more broadly encompass the question of those Democrats who decide not to vote or back presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain of Arizona.

    "I will make the case that we have to stand for our underlying values as Democrats--that no matter what the differences are between Sen. Obama and myself, they pale in comparison in the differences we have with Sen. McCain and the Republicans," Clinton said.

    "Anyone, anyone, who voted for either of us should be absolutely committed to voting for the other because it would be the height of political foolishness to have voted for one of us and what we stand for and then either to stay home or not vote for a Democrat and instead vote for Sen. McCain."

    Clinton said disaffected Democrats sitting out the fall election or backing a Republican "would be absolutely counter to everything that both and Barack and I stand for."

    and that, right there (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by angie on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:43:22 PM EST
    is why she should be the nominee. Because she means what she says.

    This... (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Thanin on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:54:43 AM EST
    "Anyone, anyone, who voted for either of us should be absolutely committed to voting for the other because it would be the height of political foolishness to have voted for one of us and what we stand for and then either to stay home or not vote for a Democrat and instead vote for Sen. McCain."

    This should be forcefully put at the end of everyones comments.


    if edwards is that electable, (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by cpinva on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:37:22 PM EST
    E.J. Dione wondered whether Edwards might not get back in the race as the only electable candidate.

    he'd still be in the race. so much for cutting insight of E.J. Dione.

    cpinva (5.00 / 0) (#45)
    by cal1942 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:29:56 AM EST
    The biggest, cruelist joke of this entire campaign is how the press manipulated allegedly intelligent Democrats into promoting a clash between the historic duo.

    The press gave us our two candidates. It was a storyline they could not resist and they were absolutely determined to make it stick.

    If you remember correctly you'll remember that as soon as Obama declared the press immediately trashed John Edwards.  After trashing him they ignored him.  The story was to be woman against African-American, period.  

    Gullible Democrats took the bait and lined up in identity camps.

    There's also the matter of money.  Clinton and Obama raised huge sums of money from the usual suspects. Edwards had very little big time money available because he, ironically, established the policies that so many of we good Democrats have been calling for. He did not receive the "special interest" money that we're all so upset about.

    No matter, Democrats foolishly followed the lead of the press.

    In the past it was possible for a candidate to triumph at the convention over better known rivals but under the 50 state primary/caucus system that's no longer possible.  And we're the poorer for it.


    limited value yes... (none / 0) (#1)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:31:20 PM EST
    but they could have weighed in on the latest nastiness in this campaign (i.e. nothing about issues) over the past month...

    I think it would have elevated the discussion a little bit.

    Elevated what attribute of the discussion? (none / 0) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:34:24 PM EST
    as opposed to Wright, hunting, Rezko, Snipers, clinging, Pansies, etc. ...

    Elizabeth Edwards has been (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:38:30 PM EST
    elevating the discussion about healthcare and look at the bloodletting at Orange that brought on just by her saying she preferred Hillary's plan.  After that I wouldn't be elevating the discussion much either because nobody is interested in being elevated.  You can't make the horse drink.

    think people would pay more attention (none / 0) (#8)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:41:03 PM EST
    to Gore or Edwards than Elizabeth.  but.  

    I would like to think you are right (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:43:11 PM EST
    but right now I tend to think that if they entered the fray to elevate the discussion their words would be torn apart searching for hidden preference and the whole focus would be on that.  Followed shortly by screaming, hollering, crying, and bloodletting.

    And they could be next to be called (none / 0) (#37)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:10:13 PM EST
    racists for any criticism of a certain candidate.

    Who needs the risk?  I'd stay far, far from it, too.


    She's right about the limited value of (none / 0) (#2)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:33:36 PM EST
    endorsements right now.  Bless her for sharing with everyone a calm wisdom.  I still don't know how Howard Dean is going to force anyone to choose but I guess that wasn't what he was talking about today.  He was talking about candidates dropping out in June today.

    Did she really say... (none / 0) (#4)
    by OrangeFur on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:35:00 PM EST
    ... that Obama's plan provides for universal coverage? I find that surprising.

    is she having a double talk (none / 0) (#6)
    by TalkRight on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:36:44 PM EST
    with that universal thing.. how can Obama's plan be universal?

    Because Obama says it is (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by litigatormom on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:05:38 PM EST
    It covers the universe of people who want to be covered.  Even though its lack of true universality means that premiums are higher.

    That's hilarious (none / 0) (#31)
    by Andy08 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:52:30 PM EST
    litigatormom; and sad to say also true!

    Didn't see her on KO but... (none / 0) (#22)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:23:19 PM EST
    earlier today she said that both plans had as a goal universal coverage. I think if she left out the goal part she probably misspoke because she's been very clear on this.

    I agree, (none / 0) (#30)
    by Andy08 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:50:00 PM EST
    not long ago there was an article in the paper that mentioned Elizabeth Edwards got upset when Obama visited them at their ranch and got into an argument with Obama b/c he kept insisting his plan provided for universal  health care and she said it didn't.
    Why would she say this now?

    Obama's health care (none / 0) (#10)
    by Andy08 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:52:39 PM EST
    plan is universal? How? Did he change it?

    Second Ballot ... (none / 0) (#11)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:56:55 PM EST
    more and more I'm feeling that's where this is going.

    And it would only take a relatively small number of Super Delegates to insure this happens by voting for someone other than Clinton or Obama.

    This actually might be the best solution.  

    A highly-rated, prime time battle for the soul of the Democratic Party.

    15 million votes each for Obama and Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by diplomatic on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:37:05 PM EST
    too many to ignore.

    Edwards - yes (either one) (none / 0) (#12)
    by pluege on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:58:28 PM EST

    I wish John would endorse her (none / 0) (#20)
    by Universal on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:20:06 PM EST
    Oh, well.

    Clinton's new ad for IN and NC:


    It's about the housing crisis and gas prices. It hits Obama on both issues.

    CNN says (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Andy08 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:59:51 PM EST
    of the Ad: Clinton goes negative in a  new Ad
    It is amazing CNN keeps behaving in such a biased manner.
    Can't respect them at all anymore.

    I just watched Hillary (none / 0) (#25)
    by pie on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:33:25 PM EST
    in her meeting with the Indianapolis Star.

    She rocked.

    No, Jeralyn, Edwards is definitely not the go-to guy, much as I supported him early on (to avoid what's happened on the blogs, at least).

    He was the VP candidate in 2004, and he dropped out in 2008. (Circumstances beyond his control?  Partly.)

    Gotta support the one who can go the distance.


    I was an Edwards guy in 2004 (none / 0) (#29)
    by miguelito on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:49:18 PM EST
    but seeing his VP run and this recent run made me notice he just 'lacked' something that makes him electable in a GE.  Hard to put my finger on it though.  

    Authenticity/gravitas. (none / 0) (#36)
    by oldpro on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:08:58 PM EST
    That's it for me, anyhow...somehow, much as I wanted to, I just never bought the package.  It didn't stack up next to that of General Wes Clark in the Draft Clark days...and never got any more compelling after that.

    Like Obama...one term in the US Senate with not much to show for it...previous/other experience OK but not earthshaking...nothing special.

    Both Edwards and Obama are better looking than the average politician male and use personal charm as a sales pitch.  Neither appealed to me...in fact, I find those attributes somewhat off-putting.  Not unlike some females, males getting by on looks and charm doesn't really solve problems...and that is the goal of governing -- not to 'be somebody' but to 'do something.'

    It's the difference between a work horse and a show horse...Hillary, obviously, the work horse.  The guys?  Show horses.


    I liked Edwards a lot (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:27:03 PM EST
    for me it was touch and go between him and Clinton until after Iowa, when I realized that I really wanted Clinton because i was very upset she lost.

    I think his looks hurt him more than they help, in a lot of ways.  He doesn't look as tough and smart as he really is.  I don't think he has gotten by on charm and looks.

    That said, I don't want him in the race now.


    I just don't think he sounds (none / 0) (#42)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:01:49 PM EST
    trustworthy. Sorry, I can't think of another way to put it. When I read about him, I like him; when I see him, I think smarmy and duplicitous.

    I have said (none / 0) (#39)
    by facta non verba on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:55:57 PM EST
    that for months that Edwards may be thinkin well if neither can win the nomination outright and if giving one or the other the nomination splits the party "well here I am." His campaign is suspended not terminated but I doubt that this would happen.

    delusional, if true (none / 0) (#41)
    by diplomatic on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:50:35 PM EST