home

John Edwards to Endorse Obama in One Hour

Via ABC News:

ABC News' Kate Snow, Raelyn Johnson and Rick Klein Report: Former Sen. John Edwards is endorsing Sen. Barack Obama's presidential candidate Wednesday evening, in a dramatic attempt by the Obama campaign to answer concerns regarding Obama's appeal to working-class voters, several senior Democratic several senior Democratic sources tell ABC News.

The Obama campaign confirms Edwards will endorse Obama at a campaign rally in Grand Rapids, Michigan Wednesday. The event was originally scheduled to start at 7pm ET, but was moved up to 6:20pm ET, presumably to have the announcement make the evening news.

Coincidentally, John Edwards sent out a request for money today for one of his causes, College for Everyone. The e-mail, which went to everyone who got e-mails from his presidential campaign, is below. Will the media ask if there's a connection between the two?

I want to begin by thanking each of you for all of your support and commitment over the last year. It has meant so much to Elizabeth and me. We have been very busy since January working on the causes that got us into the campaign in the first place -- helping to build the One America we all believe in.

You may have heard me talk about one of those programs called College for Everyone -- a scholarship pilot project that Elizabeth and I started a few years ago in Greene County, North Carolina.

[Goes into description of the program]

That's why I need your help today -- with a tax-deductible donation of $10, $25, $50 or $75, whatever you can afford -- to bring us one step closer to our goal of College for Everyone. By contributing now, you will help fulfill the college dreams of deserving students in Greene County and show the world that if we work together on big and important issues, change is possible.

How much more money do you think he'll raise with his endorsement of Obama today?

Update: Comments filled, thread closing, a new one is here.

< Another Electability Argument Regarding Caucuses | John Edwards and Obama Endorsement: Thread Two >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    All aboard! All aboard this sinking ship! (5.00 / 14) (#1)
    by tigercourse on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:37:31 PM EST


    I think that Edwards... (1.00 / 1) (#223)
    by p lukasiak on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:15:46 PM EST
    knows that the Obama ship is going down... and his endorsement is in exchange for Obama's support for the nomination when SDs start deserting Obama, and rather than face ignomineous defeat, bows out "for the good of the party" and endorses edwards.

    [ Parent ]
    No choice really (none / 0) (#44)
    by Salo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:45:38 PM EST
    The Dems are a waxwork party.

    [ Parent ]
    His right, of course (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by andgarden on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:38:09 PM EST
    I think this endorsement brings with it a fair number of delegates, too. (30?)

    Can his delegates do whatever they want? (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by bjorn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:42:01 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    according to the new rules... (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:49:45 PM EST
    yes.

    [ Parent ]
    Perhaps more importantly... (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by sweetthings on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:44:20 PM EST
    It allows the question of MI to be settled more easily.

    [ Parent ]
    Also true (none / 0) (#41)
    by andgarden on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:45:09 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    How so? Because Obama will have (none / 0) (#62)
    by oculus on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:48:18 PM EST
    enough delegates w/o FL or MI to have won?

    [ Parent ]
    Not really (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by andgarden on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:49:42 PM EST
    What's the big problem with Michigan? How to assign the uncommitteds. Now we know.

    [ Parent ]
    Heh (1.00 / 1) (#186)
    by Steve M on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:05:23 PM EST
    According to exit polls, at least some of the "uncommitted" voters were Clinton supporters.

    Not to mention, there were other candidates than Obama and Edwards in the race back then too.

    [ Parent ]

    You think the rules committee (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by andgarden on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:06:53 PM EST
    is going to be interested in that kind of complexity?

    All of the undecideds are going to Obama, and Clinton will get her delegates. Count on it.

    [ Parent ]

    Does it work that way? (none / 0) (#166)
    by dianem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:02:01 PM EST
    We don't know if Edwards voter's would have supported Clinton or Obama. I still think that they only way to handle this is some kind of re-election, even if it's only a mail in vote. Surely the party is organized enough to mail each Democrat a postcard and read the results.

    [ Parent ]
    Good point (none / 0) (#69)
    by Faust on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:48:50 PM EST
    and probably no coincidence that he is making this announcment in MI.

    [ Parent ]
    No. They can vote anyway they want. (none / 0) (#16)
    by masslib on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:41:31 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I've not seen one person post that (3.00 / 2) (#176)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:04:02 PM EST
    Edwards was their first choice, Obama was their second.

    The only ones I've seen are Edwards first, Clinton second.

    Doesn't mean they don't exist, but I doubt the were waiting on Edwards to tell them how to vote. Americans are funny about wanting to make their own choices, even if their reasoning isn't always easy to understand.

    [ Parent ]

    Why? (none / 0) (#18)
    by pie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:41:35 PM EST
    Don't they get to commit to whomever they want?

    [ Parent ]
    If they are Edwards loyalists, (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by andgarden on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:43:53 PM EST
    and I assume that they are, then it is probably also true that they will follow his wishes.

    Of course, it's also true that any delegate can vote for whomever they like, but that puts us on the road to arguing that there is no delegate count at all. I'm not sure that's really so useful.

    [ Parent ]

    18, 19, 26 or 29 delegates. n/t (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:51:16 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    got it (none / 0) (#40)
    by bjorn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:45:03 PM EST
    So that brings him close to a 200 overall delegate lead

    [ Parent ]
    Don't think so; several had left Edwards (1.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Cream City on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:50:14 PM EST
    already -- probably for Obama -- from a report I saw.  More evidence that "pledged" doesn't really mean, y'know, "pledged."

    [ Parent ]
    Loyalists? (none / 0) (#94)
    by pie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:52:09 PM EST
    You're kidding, right?

    There are no loyalists in politics.

    [ Parent ]

    So there are no pledged delegates? (none / 0) (#102)
    by andgarden on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:53:39 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    7% of the West Virginia voters (none / 0) (#104)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:53:52 PM EST
    yesterday undermine your statement imo.

    [ Parent ]
    Or maybe they were just the (none / 0) (#118)
    by andgarden on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:56:02 PM EST
    "not Clinton and not Obama" vote. We'll never know.

    [ Parent ]
    We will never know although (none / 0) (#215)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:12:10 PM EST
    generally Edwards supporters were motivated by issues more than the candidate himself - I think more were probably affirming their desire to see policy changes than protesting.  It is a small minority, but they did out Edwards back on the radar screen.

    What will be interesting is to see if Edwards was smart enough to get a policy deal out of the Obama camp.  Given the fact that Obama is the likely nominee, I really hope he did make a deal.

    [ Parent ]

    Boy... (5.00 / 10) (#6)
    by NYCDem11 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:38:52 PM EST
    Just last week Senator Edwards was smartly commenting that primary season endorsements were tearing party apart, not unifying it. But I guess Hillary's crushing win yesterday has everyone running scared. I mean, we just can't let this supremely qualified -- and popular-vote leading -- candidate compete. That is just too scary!

    Yeah (5.00 / 10) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:42:43 PM EST
    that's the message I'm getting: Obama is scared. If WV didn't bother him he wouldn't be doing this. Edwards is not going to be able to solve Obama's problems with working class whites. He couldn't solve Kerry's and Obama has even more problems.

    [ Parent ]
    They were waiting to (3.00 / 2) (#98)
    by Iris on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:52:33 PM EST
    roll this out after Hillary's speech weren't they?

    [ Parent ]
    I Guess That Makes obama and edwards birds (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:44:15 PM EST
    of a feather...talking out both sides of their mouths.  Maybe this is why edwards has done so poorly in his bids for the WH.

    [ Parent ]
    Knock Clinton out of media tonight (3.66 / 3) (#214)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:12:10 PM EST
    too.  Can't have what happened in WV discussed.  Scared.. yep.

    [ Parent ]
    Question is (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by ruffian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:39:31 PM EST
    how much Kool-aid will he drink?  Hope he has a good head for the stuff and can get through his speech without gratuitous insults at Hillary. That would be a first for newly-minted endorsers.

    I would be surprised if he insulted Clinton (5.00 / 2) (#182)
    by dianem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:05:04 PM EST
    Very surprised. I think that this endorsment, coming when it is, is pandering for future votes, but I expected that. Edwards is a politician, and pandering is part of the job description. I think his timing could have been better. He should have either endorsed when it mattered or stayed out until the convention.  I would be very disappointed, however, and would not support him again, if he used this as an opportunity to insult Clinton.

    [ Parent ]
    I have great respect for Edwards (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:39:33 PM EST
    But I sorta wish he woulda kept his mouth shut. Whether he really believes Obama is the better GE candidate, I don't know, but this makes him look like he's only doing it for political expediency, and I think that's sad. John Edwards has done a lot for poor people in this country, and I think he has a very genuine heart. I continue to believe he is one of the best people in the Democratic Party.

    We'll know by the tone of his speech (none / 0) (#23)
    by ahazydelirium on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:42:23 PM EST
    whether he is one of the best people in the Party.

    [ Parent ]
    No. (none / 0) (#68)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:48:49 PM EST
    He is, regardless of his speech. Sorry, but one endorsement doth not erase all the good things he has done for people in his political tenure. I don't care what he says--he is still one of the shining beacons for the Dem Party.

    [ Parent ]
    Regardless of his good works, (none / 0) (#107)
    by ahazydelirium on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:54:33 PM EST
    the tone of his speech can still be awful.

    [ Parent ]
    What can he possibly say (5.00 / 10) (#11)
    by Foxx on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:39:54 PM EST
    Obama is indefensible. I am sick.

    Why, why? Clinton is the one who would get done the things Edwards supposedly believes in.

    Is this really all about woman hating? I do not understand it. Have they all been bought? It looks like it.

    I feel better now about picking HRC (5.00 / 6) (#99)
    by Cream City on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:52:42 PM EST
    over Edwards, as I think he is trading away chances for universal health care.  I don't see Obama really fighting for it.  I'm disappointed in Edwards.

    I think this must be about getting Kentucky votes?

    [ Parent ]

    Maybe is has gotten a deal on healthcare. (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:57:26 PM EST
    Or maybe he has gotten the Obama camp to committ to his rural plan.  I am going to watch this closely.  I hope Edwards has been smart enough to get something important out of this deal.

    [ Parent ]
    boys against the girls (5.00 / 6) (#163)
    by Kathy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:01:46 PM EST
    don't you think this will backfire?  I mean, "boys against the girls" backfire?  It didn't work when they ganged up on her during the debate, and it won't work now.

    And anyone who thinks this'll make a lick of difference in KY is just looking at a map and making some really stupid assumptions.  "The South" isn't just a block of states that move en masse.  KY has a whole different culture and style and is hardly ever considered part of the south.

    Clinton's core voters are not going to be swayed by Edwards, and they migh even be offended by him--or, if they listen to him speak, wonder why he is stealing all of Clinton's material...(haha!  The irony!)

    [ Parent ]

    Well, I don't think he's been "bought" (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by chancellor on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:59:00 PM EST
    per se, but having recently announced that he is joining Half in Ten--a group that plans to be a quasi-lobby in DC for pushing legislation to eliminate poverty--I imagine that he's thinking quid pro quo. I also think someone high up in the party convinced him that his endorsement might bring an end to the primary process. He was very careful in his tv appearances to laud Hillary and her run while also saying that she had to consider whether staying in was damaging the party. I'm now beginning to think that those tv appearances were very carefully orchestrated well in advance, and that we now know why Obama didn't feel he needed to campaign in WV.

    [ Parent ]
    Edwards (none / 0) (#43)
    by joharmon86 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:45:25 PM EST
    Obviously Edwards doesn't think Hillary would get things done that he believes in. He and Obama chose not to take money from PAC or federally registered lobbyists. Hillary ignored their position on that. Edwards believes Obama would be the best president. But, then again, that makes him sexist LOL.

    [ Parent ]
    Heh (5.00 / 5) (#57)
    by Steve M on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:47:20 PM EST
    I assure you that John Edwards is not stupid enough to believe that the pledge not to take money from federal lobbyists was anything more than symbolic.

    I guess on your planet, Edwards woke up this morning and said, "Hey, I just realized that Hillary accepted donations from federal lobbyists!  Off I fly to Michigan to endorse Obama!"

    [ Parent ]

    wrong (5.00 / 4) (#60)
    by bjorn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:47:58 PM EST
    I think all it means is that he thinks Obama will win, that is not the same as saying he is the better candidate, otherwise he would have endorsed him long ago

    [ Parent ]
    Yes. I agree. If he thought Hillary was (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by derridog on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:06:54 PM EST
    going to win, he'd endorse her instead. I have been afraid and hoping I was wrong that he was sitting out the endorsement until he saw which way the wind was blowing.  He didn't want to be on the wrong side or his political life would be over for sure.

    [ Parent ]
    Washington lobbyists (5.00 / 8) (#80)
    by Josey on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:49:50 PM EST
    funded Obama's political career -until he became a presidential candidate!

    Last night must have rattled the Washington establishment that supports Obama. And no doubt - Edwards got the memo - the working class has to be STOPPED from voting for Hillary.


    [ Parent ]

    No, that isn't sexist. (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by ahazydelirium on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:04:18 PM EST
    Lambasting her for choking up in New Hampshire was sexist, though.

    [ Parent ]
    He doesn't want the label (none / 0) (#81)
    by pie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:50:00 PM EST
    no doubt.

    [ Parent ]
    His right, absolutely. (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by liminal on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:40:28 PM EST
    And deeply disappointing to me, particularly as regards to the future of my state.  

    Edwards Buys His Way Into The VP Slot? (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:40:47 PM EST
    This sickens me to no end.  I shouldn't expect better after the way he piled on Hillary when he was still in the race.  Edwards on the obama ticket will not help, but if they feel better thinking it will, then they should go for it.  Together they don't have much experience, so this should be interesting, if, in fact, Edwards is the VP nominee.

    I doubt this is about becoming VP. (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:00:38 PM EST
    I could be wrong, but I really don't see that being the plan.

    [ Parent ]
    Jeralyn pointed out the email (5.00 / 3) (#200)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:07:20 PM EST
    about his college program.

    I think it was an effort to jumpstart the program and get some money from supporters.

    If he hadn't endorsed, would Edwards's program be considered just one more of the indie groups Obama's campaign wants donors to steer clear of?

    Is this a way of strong arming the indie groups into "supporting or else"?

    [ Parent ]

    Experience (1.00 / 9) (#54)
    by joharmon86 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:46:49 PM EST
    What exactly is Hillary's experience again?

    [ Parent ]
    Well...for one... (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:59:28 PM EST
    a second term in the Senate.

    [ Parent ]
    How about 8 years (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by Iris on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:08:06 PM EST
    helping run the Clinton administration in a policy role, plus 8 years as a Senator and serving on the Foreign Relations committee?  Compare that to Obama's padded resume.

    [ Parent ]
    You tell me yours (5.00 / 2) (#205)
    by owenaprhys on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:09:39 PM EST
    What is BO's experience? I Lawyer who never tried a case? A State Senator who never voted? A State Senator whos only bills were actaully written by someone else? A US Senator who has NO meetings with the SubCommitte he chairs? A US Senator who begins his run for President after only A YEAR into his FIRST term?

    (sarcasm )Yeah, question Hillary's experience, that will work for you. (/sarcasm)

    [ Parent ]

    Not a chance he's on the ticket. (none / 0) (#207)
    by lyzurgyk on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:10:10 PM EST

    With a very sick wife I doubt he would be after it - particularly for a candidate she may not believe in.  

    Plus you don't put the losing veep from the last cycle on the ticket.  

    AG is a possibility.

    [ Parent ]

    Tough one. (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by OrangeFur on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:40:54 PM EST
    I'd like to hear his reasons.

    It's good for the news cycle, but I don't think it'll affect too many votes. He dropped out of the race nearly four months ago now, and is pretty much an afterthought.

    Why did he wait until his endorsement had so little impact, but not wait a few more weeks?

    Edwards certainly wasn't backed (5.00 / 9) (#37)
    by pie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:44:42 PM EST
    by the Party, so he's been promised something, I'm sure.

    He was my first choice before he dropped out, but this certainly does not make me want to vote for Obama.

    Just the opposite, actually.

    [ Parent ]

    Reasons? (5.00 / 5) (#45)
    by nycstray on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:45:44 PM EST
    They darn well better be more substantial than Richardsons . . .

    [ Parent ]
    or Kerry's (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by ruffian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:51:50 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    how effective? (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by christinep on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:46:20 PM EST
    Given the timing, I doubt that it will have much effect. Perhaps, earlier...in February. Now, it seems too contrived and callous. A Richardson-like situation where you ask what does the guy want and what does he think he'll get?

    [ Parent ]
    He got something he wanted (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:46:28 PM EST
    from Sen. Obama -- not that there's anything wrong with that. Pure speculation, but at least VP and maybe some shift in a policy Edwards cares about. At least I hope so. I hope he got something for the people, and not just for himself.

    Because otherwise, you're right, the timing doesn't make sense.

    [ Parent ]

    Low (5.00 / 7) (#15)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:41:14 PM EST
    Nice that he is making the announcement in Michigan - a state disenfranchised and helped in that disenfranchisement by Obama - a state that is in a one state recession and where there are lots of poor people. This pokes a huge gap in what he supposedly stood for.  Guess Edwards is like the rest of them  - don't really have any principles.

    And I was so proud to shake his hand at my law school graduation when he was the keynote speaker...

    Maybe to get all of those (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by ruffian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:43:14 PM EST
    "uncommitted" votes from MI?  That's the only thing I can think of regarding the location.

    [ Parent ]
    Heh (5.00 / 10) (#17)
    by Steve M on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:41:31 PM EST
    ...in a dramatic attempt by the Obama campaign to answer concerns regarding Obama's appeal to working-class voters, several senior Democratic several senior Democratic sources tell ABC News.

    You know, we could hardly be more incompetent as a party in handling the media.  Gee, do you think it helps Obama to have this sort of spin atop the article?

    Like I said (5.00 / 6) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:45:02 PM EST
    it's transparent what Obama is trying to do here. It really doesn't help him and makes him look desperate.

    [ Parent ]
    That's funny (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by ruffian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:46:10 PM EST
    I didn't read it until after I had agreed he was playing the media well with the timing of the endorsement.  I guess if the framing of it is like that, the timing won't help as much.

    [ Parent ]
    Well Getting Edwards Endorsement Is (5.00 / 4) (#167)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:02:08 PM EST
    easier than Obama actually trying to appeal to working-class voters in his own right.

    I said over a month ago, the Dem leadership is going with Obama no matter what. Edwards is just trying to save the nomination for Obama. Edwards couldn't transfer his blue collar appeal to Kerry in 04 even as VP so don't see him accomplishing this task for Obama in the GE now.

    [ Parent ]

    Brilliant Move... (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by EddieInCA on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:41:37 PM EST
    ...by the Obama campaign.


    It takes the Clinton West Virginia victory off the news. Doesn't even allow it to stay on top of the news cycle for 24 hours.


    Many of you will hate it, but I love it. Not because of how it affects Clinton, but, rather, because of what it says about Obama's political skills (or those of his organization.)


    As a pure politcal play, it's great. It takes the attention off of Clinton's win without attacking her, and it allows a Democrat of some standing (the party's former VP candidate) to make the case for Obama without Obama having to do much.


    Well played, Senator Obama.

    Good point. (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:44:07 PM EST
    And I'm sad to hear that some people disparage Edwards simply because he picked a different candidate. He's still done a ton for this party in terms of image, and real, substantative efforts to help poor people. I think he should be commended as a great person, regardless of his endorsement.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh, please. (5.00 / 4) (#61)
    by pie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:48:17 PM EST
    Edwards couldn't convince the voters of that and neither Obama nor his supporters certainly aren't going to.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree with you on this (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by A little night musing on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:55:13 PM EST
    I've been open here about how very upset I am at the Obama campaign's evident attitude toward me and people like me, and I've soured on him a great deal as the primary season goes on.

    But Edwards was my first choice, also, and he's earned at least enough respect for me to want to hear his reasons before I would change my opinion of him.

    If he did manage to get some more progressive policy  in the works (healthcare would be a good one just for starters) - that might go some way to making the thought of voting for Obama less painful to contemplate than it's been in the past few weeks.

    [ Parent ]

    Depending on his reasons (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by Iris on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:04:34 PM EST
    it could be a smart deal that he's made, or more bandwagon unity WWTSBQ.

    [ Parent ]
    He'd better have someone like Bill Clinton (5.00 / 5) (#34)
    by ahazydelirium on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:44:19 PM EST
    endorsing him after KY if he wants to negate a second crushing defeat.

    [ Parent ]
    As usual. (5.00 / 6) (#51)
    by pie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:46:30 PM EST
    without Obama having to do much.

    The story of his campaign.

    Ugh.


    [ Parent ]

    Funny (5.00 / 6) (#66)
    by standingup on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:48:46 PM EST
    I think it could have the opposite effect and the timing could not be worse in terms of further alienating Clinton's supporters.  Why not at least let the rest of the primaries/caucuses vote when we are so close to having all the voters weigh in on the nomination?  

    It reeks of desperation and fear on the part of the Obama campaign, in my opinion.  

    [ Parent ]

    Excuse me (5.00 / 5) (#84)
    by BellinKY on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:50:16 PM EST
    but I thought he was different, above all this old time political crap????? And yet he surround himself with some really hardline political movers and shakers paid for by corporation (and no, Edwards is not different from them) Shows you how these political whores just twist and turn however the wind blows

    [ Parent ]
    Yup, they do know how to play (none / 0) (#32)
    by ruffian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:44:13 PM EST
    the media game.  That has been clear for a long time.  Hope he does as well in the GE.

    [ Parent ]
    Heh, it could backfire (5.00 / 6) (#65)
    by nycstray on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:48:41 PM EST
    If it starts looking like they are pushing her out . . .  Wasn't it just the other day Edwards said she could stay in the race if she played nice?

    [ Parent ]
    He looked very petty and p!ssy doing it too (5.00 / 4) (#144)
    by Ellie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:59:14 PM EST
    It played very patronizing and, as with all the WWTBQ admonishments, had that lovely Don't You Be Getting Uppity Now! feel that's so widely appreciated among ladies of my gender.

    I had to check to see what time it was (on the millenial calendar, not stopwwatch).

    [ Parent ]

    Obviously it's good politics... (none / 0) (#74)
    by OrangeFur on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:49:29 PM EST
    It's possible they planned it for today in advance, anticipating a crushing defeat in West Virginia.

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah, but in WV - (5.00 / 5) (#218)
    by liminal on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:13:45 PM EST
    - it's bad politics.  Does that make sense?  I'm a bit tired so it's difficult for me to put together my thoughts on this right now, but I think that by winning this news cycle Senator Obama (and even Senator Edwards) might help to solidify entrenched opposition to him in the state.  Clearly they've written us off - I mean, duh - but that really disappoints me because Democrats should not write West Virginia off.  

    Heck, even Obama shouldn't have written us off, if he cares about the message and promise of his campaign.  A two-day spin through the state, some Kennedy in tow, from Charleston to Logan to Princeton to Morgantown to Wheeling, or alternative, smaller towns in the general vinicity, a well-pitched and neatly tailored speech about WV history and JFK and America's promise and perserverence, an acknowledgment of the deep loyalty the the state has for those it knows well (like Hillary), a humble request for a second look.  

    At the very least, that would've showed some (gulp) political gumption, which I think the Democratic party needs to show people like the people of West Virginia.  

    As committed as I am to a Democratic president in 2008, my reservations about Obama (as a West Virginian) are growing.  

    My state needs to be relevant; it's a matter of economic survival.  If the Democratic party writes us off, the party has no incentive to provide the kind of economic support WV will need in a transition from a coal economy.  We're already 50th in median income, and that's with a bunch of high-income coal-oriented jobs.   Senator Byrd is not immortal, and the rest of our delegation are never going to be voted out can never come close to filling Byrd's shoes.

    And now this Dear West Virginia letter from the Democratic party.  Sigh.

    It's depressing.  

    [ Parent ]

    Totally Agree (none / 0) (#97)
    by HsLdyAngl on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:52:21 PM EST
    with your assessment of the political skills of the Obama campaign team.  I am certain that the Obama team was made aware of this endorsement well prior to the impending announcement today, but they held off with the announcement until it would have the greatest impact.  This shows the stunning political savvy of Obama's campaign and of Obama himself.  This only reinforces my position that Obama will run a skillful campaign in the fall as the Democratic nominee and will win the GE easily.

    Thank you, Senator Edwards, for your endorsement of Barack Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    Thanks for continuing (5.00 / 4) (#171)
    by pie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:03:21 PM EST
    to alienate millions of voters.

    Smart move.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm working from home today, and... (none / 0) (#169)
    by EddieInCA on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:02:12 PM EST
    ...one television has on CNN, the other has Fox News, and I'm following MSNBC on Streaming Web on my Mac.

    The Edwards announcment instantly changed the entire narrative on all three networks.

     Immediately.

    Brilliant.

    I am troubled, however, that Edwards didn't warn the Clinton camp.

    I'm speculating that they probably didn't for fear of it being leaked early.

    [ Parent ]

    Why is this news? (none / 0) (#131)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:57:36 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Joe Beese (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:41:42 PM EST
    you were suspended yesterday and told not to comment again until Thursday. Due to your disregard of you suspension, I am extending your suspension to Friday.

    Your comment will be deleted momentarily.

    thank you n/t (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by DJ on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:43:24 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    This makes me heartsick. (5.00 / 11) (#21)
    by Esme on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:41:44 PM EST
    How can he support Obama when Hillary's platform was more like his own? On what merits is he endorsing Obama?

    me too. (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by proudliberaldem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:43:34 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I doubt it's about merit. (5.00 / 10) (#114)
    by NYCDem11 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:55:20 PM EST
    My sense is that party insiders are truly panicking because Obama will always hold the small pledged delegate lead, but has been unable to pull away from Hillary in any other convincing way. Now they're ramming this nomination down the party's throat in an effort to have immediate closure and to try to silence Senator Clinton. Again, I say this is further wedging the party apart and is cementing ill will. With even NARAL stepping into the primary season, I'm feeling like one thrown-under-the-bus Democrat. It's a travesty that we've reduced a truly historic race to a virtual gang rape.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh, I just feel sick about this. (5.00 / 10) (#31)
    by Anne on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:44:12 PM EST
    I was an Edwards supporter until he dropped out, and I had so hoped that he would throw his support to the only other populist candidate - Clinton.

    It so pains me to write this, but I have to think he's been promised something - VP, Cabinet post, something; it just defies all logic for him to be doing this otherwise.

    And, sadder still, this may be the death blow to Clinton's chances of wooing the remaining superdelegates.

    Guess I won't be watching any news - I just don't think I can take one more minute of the gloating and the smugness.  All of which will pale in comparison to watching the Democratic Party just throw away the election, and millions of voters - and for what?

    Really, just sick.

    I won't be watching any news today either. (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Esme on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:47:13 PM EST
    I'm sure CNN and MSNBC will be intolerable today. The WWTSBQ meme will be back in full force.

    Why is he endorsing Obama? It's really just awful to see every single party leader or important Dem just stomp all over her.

    [ Parent ]

    me too (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by eric on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:48:38 PM EST
    She almost sounded like Edwards last night in parts of her speech.  Oh well.  John can make up his mind like the rest of us.  This is one thing that I don't agree with him on.

    [ Parent ]
    Why doesn't Edwards listen to his wife ... (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by Inky on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:07:19 PM EST
    more often? By all accounts, Elizabeth has come around to supporting Hillary based on her health-care plan. The one other time we know about that Edwards overrode his wife's counsel is when he cosponsored the Iraq AUMF.

    He he only followed his wife's advice more often, rather than the political winds, he might be president now.

    I'm sick at heart as well.

    [ Parent ]

    Typical of Edwards (5.00 / 5) (#36)
    by cdalygo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:44:29 PM EST
    He's a great trial lawyer but a lousy politician. Let's also remember that he abandoned his senate seat in North Carolina to run for president after promising he wouldn't. That's why he's not very popular in his home state or (let's face it) many others. Nor should we forget how he didn't take on Cheney.

    Ultimately it's a punk endorsement. If he cared for Obama he should have done this before North Carolina. Now he gets a probable vice-presidential slot by giving Obama some cosmetic cover. However, Obama didn't expand his Universal Health Care Plan or make major statement on poverty in return for this endorsement.  

    So yes, the punditry will go orgasmic tonight. Edwards will barnstorm Kentucky, which might help Obama or make Edwards look like an idiot for having dropped out in the first place. I still remember my older relatives' anger over why Bentsen wasn't on top of the ticket.

    I guess he never cared... (5.00 / 5) (#73)
    by trillian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:49:24 PM EST
    ...about universal health care after all

    [ Parent ]
    Well John Edwards (5.00 / 6) (#38)
    by Iris on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:44:53 PM EST
    just lost a LOT of my respect.  His obsession with the "new politics" (which, I might say, is worse than the old politics) is a joke on all of us.  Where's the beef, John?  I feel like this is a betrayal of all the working people Edwards championed.  I hope this endorsement has as much effect as Al Gore's endorsement of Howard Dean did.

    Wow. (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:46:47 PM EST
    Why does this one endorsement seem to completely change everything that Edwards has done for people? So he picked a different candidate--does that mean that he's beyond any sort of trust or worth now?

    [ Parent ]
    For someone who was running on a populist (5.00 / 5) (#89)
    by ahazydelirium on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:51:31 PM EST
    agenda, touting the concerns of the poor and advocating for universal health care, the endorsement does seem rather odd. Particularly with Elizabeth Edwards's involvement in the health care issue. You can't expect everyone to suddenly accept it as perfectly normal. I can understand how this development would cause people to step back and wonder about Edwards and his motivations.

    Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if Elizabeth endorses Hillary after this (thus negating the effect of John's endorsement). I also wouldn't be surprised if Edwards voted for Hillary in the NC primary.

    [ Parent ]

    He's probably been (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by Iris on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:56:44 PM EST
    reading TPM and concludes that she's just too 'divisive' and that Obama will 'unite' us.  Yeah, we're really united, aren't we?

    "I didn't leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me." - sounding more accurate every day, I'm sad to say.

    [ Parent ]

    Sadly (very sadly), I agree. (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by ahazydelirium on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:59:19 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    John Aravosis gets an email (5.00 / 2) (#224)
    by Iris on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:15:50 PM EST
    today....
    "The nutjobs might have been kind of right about the Clintons this whole time."  
    And they think we've gone off the reservation?  I am ashamed of the left blogs.  They've fallen into the orbit of the noise machine.

    [ Parent ]
    He said in an earlier interview (none / 0) (#209)
    by CST on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:10:24 PM EST
    That he would eventually endorse the person he voted for in NC.

    [ Parent ]
    No, of course not. (5.00 / 3) (#108)
    by OrangeFur on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:54:42 PM EST
    I wasn't an Edwards supporter earlier, so I can't quite say. But I imagine Edwards folks had different reasons for liking him--economic populism, universal health care, not taking money from lobbyists, etc. In some ways he was more similar to Clinton; in other ways he was more like Obama.

    Those who liked his similarities with Clinton (poverty, health care, etc.) are naturally disappointed that those issues weren't strong enough to prevent him from endorsing Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    Dalton (5.00 / 6) (#117)
    by Kathy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:55:35 PM EST
    I understand what you are saying--speaking for myself, I gave up on him after he blasted Clinton for "crying," then went on to make that statement the other day that implied the boys were "allowing" her to stay in the campaign so long as she behaved herself.

    I was always for Clinton, but I respected Edwards up until the crying comment (though the ankles comment was a bit annoying).  He also stated that he was against gay marriage, which I had a problem with.  Even Obama has managed to nuance his standing on the issue.

    As for this endorsement, I think it would have mattered coming into NC.  His delegates can do what they like and he can't make them go to Obama.  As I recall, when he suspended, they became orphaned.  I can't imagine anyone close to the dem echelon at this point not having a side already chosen, so it probably won't mean much.

    In closing, having gone absolutely apesh*t at NARAL this morning and felt amazingly betrayed, I can understand why folks are upset with him.  He said he would not endorse, and here he is endorsing.  He broke a promise.  That is a betrayal.

    [ Parent ]

    Please specify what John Edwards (none / 0) (#109)
    by oculus on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:54:46 PM EST
    has done for people.  

    [ Parent ]
    Offhand (5.00 / 2) (#204)
    by Steve M on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:09:33 PM EST
    I cannot think of a single politician who has done more to keep Katrina and its victims in the limelight more than Edwards.

    [ Parent ]
    So John Plays Brutus in this scene (none / 0) (#105)
    by hookfan on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:54:04 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Et tu, John? (5.00 / 3) (#132)
    by Iris on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:57:37 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I don't think there's any need to get upset (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by kempis on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:45:15 PM EST
    Honestly, Hillary doesn't have much of a chance to win, and Edwards and others are jockeying for positions close to the new Big Guy.

    We'd like them to be principled, but they're really all just politicians. Yeah, Hillary's health care plan and other policies for the working class are superior to Obama's, and she has the savvy to implement them, but if she doesn't have the DNC's support (and she doesn't), she isn't going to win.

    This is a totally practical move on Edwards' part. If Obama should win in November (which I'm still not so sure about), then Edwards will need to have curried some favor. And this is BIG favor currying because it may help Obama a little with blue-collar voters.

    So Edwards should get something nice in return for this.

    PS: OK I take it back;; I AM disappointed....n/t (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by kempis on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:46:13 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    How is no plan for universal health care (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by ChuckieTomato on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:59:49 PM EST
    bettering America?

    McCain has a health care plan

    [ Parent ]

    I can say without qualification (5.00 / 2) (#164)
    by miriam on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:01:48 PM EST
    that I have never been in the Edwards camp.  And this move is so typical of him.  Clearly Obama is worried and JE has waited for just such a moment so he could leverage a deal.  Hillary must have turned him down.  Possibly the huge multi-million dollar house and $400 haircuts were just too much hypocrisy for her to stomach.  And I will never forget the nasty piece of back-stabbing Edwards indulged himself with when Wes Clark was running.  However, Edwards was a leading promoter and co-sponsor of the Iraq War Resolution, so this should take some of the bite out of Obama's "SHE authorized the war" propaganda.    

    [ Parent ]
    Ugh. Just ugh. (5.00 / 5) (#48)
    by Palomino on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:46:16 PM EST
    I initially supported Edwards, so I'm not going to criticize him here. But I am deeply disappointed. As far as endorsements go--which may not really be very far, as Edwards himself has said--this is a significant one, as I must admit because I would have been so pleased to see it go to Senator Clinton.

    effect (5.00 / 3) (#168)
    by christinep on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:02:08 PM EST
    Don't get too depressed. The effect would have been much bigger earlier. When I mentioned it to my husband, he just shrugged.  But then, he doesn't read the blogs. My point: This may have more effect among the blog contingent than in the day-to-day world. Edwards made a practical decision, but so what? He is an unsuccessful VP candidate from four years ago. Nice guy, but unsuccessful.

    [ Parent ]
    Agree (5.00 / 2) (#219)
    by cdalygo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:14:08 PM EST
    My girlfriend falls in your husband's category. Her response was "so"

    Maybe that his how the HRC supporters need to characterize it.

    [ Parent ]