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 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • 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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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 / 9) (#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 (3.00 / 2) (#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 / 1) (#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
    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 / 0) (#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 / 5) (#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 / 4) (#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 / 0) (#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 / 6) (#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 / 1) (#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 / 1) (#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 / 2) (#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 / 8) (#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 / 0) (#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 / 0) (#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
    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 / 8) (#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 / 3) (#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 / 1) (#91)
    by ruffian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:51:50 PM EST
    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 / 1) (#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 / 5) (#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 / 3) (#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 / 8) (#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 / 5) (#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.

    He'd better have someone like Bill Clinton (5.00 / 3) (#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 / 5) (#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

    Oh, please. (5.00 / 3) (#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
    Funny (5.00 / 4) (#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 / 4) (#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
    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 / 0) (#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
    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 / 4) (#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 / 3) (#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 / 4) (#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 / 3) (#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
    Joe Beese (5.00 / 2) (#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
    This makes me heartsick. (5.00 / 9) (#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
    I doubt it's about merit. (5.00 / 9) (#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 / 9) (#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 / 0) (#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 / 3) (#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 / 4) (#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 / 4) (#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.

    For someone who was running on a populist (5.00 / 4) (#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 / 1) (#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 / 0) (#145)
    by ahazydelirium on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:59:19 PM EST
    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 / 2) (#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 / 5) (#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

    So John Plays Brutus in this scene (none / 0) (#105)
    by hookfan on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:54:04 PM EST
    Et tu, John? (5.00 / 3) (#132)
    by Iris on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:57:37 PM EST
    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
    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 / 0) (#47)
    by kempis on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:46:13 PM EST
    How is no plan for universal health care (5.00 / 0) (#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 / 1) (#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
    Dem Party (5.00 / 0) (#52)
    by PlayInPeoria on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:46:39 PM EST
    delegates will and have decided that Sen Obama will be the nominee.

    I fully expect the Dem Party to follow in messing this one up (ALSO.. like MI & FL) and ticking off the Hilary supporter.

    I wonder if Carville (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Arjun on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:47:13 PM EST
    will call him Judas or go with something new like Benedict Arnold...

    But in all seriousness, I don't understand how Edwards could endorse Obama after repeatedly saying that he has nothing backing up his words... It's really disappointing. I'm sure he just wants to endorse the winner because it will pay off for him.

    Why would you wonder that? (5.00 / 5) (#75)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:49:40 PM EST
    Sometimes I wonder if any of you have a lick of sense.

    Edwards is nothing like Richardson, who, according to Carville, lied to the Clintons about the endorsement issue.

    Parent

    Speaking of Richardson (5.00 / 0) (#170)
    by tree on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:03:15 PM EST
    Do you think he's quaking in his boots, worried that Edwards might get the VP nod that Richardson sold his soul for?

    Parent
    Is it really that hard to realize it was a joke? (5.00 / 2) (#222)
    by Arjun on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:15:29 PM EST
    But if you actually want to take the comment seriously, he is basically abandoning the so-called "fight of his life" to end poverty, by doing the politically advantageous thing in endorsing Obama. As Edwards himself acknowledged, Obama has no substance backing up his rhetoric:

    "I hope you will put a really rigorous test to [the presidential candidates]. I don't know about you, but I'm tired of the rhetoric. It's not enough to talk about 'hope' and 'we're all going to feel good.' We're past that. This is a very serious time in American history. It's time for anybody running for president to treat this seriously. I have talked about hope and inspiration in the past, and they're wonderful things, but you have to translate them into action."

    Edwards acknowledged in the debates that only he and Hillary offered universal coverage. Elizabeth Edwards herself said:

    "You need that universality in order to get the cost savings," Edwards said on ABC's "Good Morning America." "I just have more confidence in Senator Clinton's policy than Senator Obama's on this particular issue."

    But now that doesn't matter? Edwards is endorsing the candidate  who's plan wouldn't get the cost savings? Yep. I'm perfectly fine labeling Edwards as a traitor to his cause. He sold out the little man in favor of a nice job opportunity.

    Parent

    re: Carville only (none / 0) (#202)
    by dem08 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:08:10 PM EST
    I am certain that Carville had his reasons, but I think he often hurts progressives and progressive causes as much as helps and his "Judas" remarks, while justified, were bad for Hillary.

    If only, and that is why I think it is on topic, because Carville set the plate for 'jokes' like this.

    ((And I wish we would give people MORE latitude to say off-hand remarks and backtrack and say strong things that upset people, so what I mean is Carville is a mixed blessing 60 % positive and an active 40% negative.))


    Parent

    Disingenous to imagine no pressure (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by CSTAR on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:47:25 PM EST
    was applied to Edwards by Obama supporters to avoid further embarrassment for Obama.  Does Edwards really want the VP spot again? The VP carrot seems most unlikely; most likely a stick of some sort.

    AG - (none / 0) (#90)
    by EddieInCA on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:51:39 PM EST
    I would LOVE John Edwards as Attorney General.




    Parent

    Oh, come on (none / 0) (#120)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:56:12 PM EST
    What leverage do they have over John Freakin' Edwards? He has leverage over them. He got something good for this, I would bet my eyeteeth on it. I hope it's UHC, but who knows?

    Parent
    I can't see that this is going to change much, IMO (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by The Realist on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:47:39 PM EST
    Everone has already chosen sides. I don't thing the pledged delegates are going to fall quite the way Obama wants either.

    I sincerely (none / 0) (#208)
    by weltec2 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:10:16 PM EST
    hope you're right. I wish I could borrow some of your optimism.

    Parent
    Two questions and an observation (5.00 / 11) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:48:31 PM EST
    First, will Elizabeth Edwards be there? Her absence would be noticeable to me.

    Second, will John Edwards campaign in Kentucky? And if so, how do we judge those results? For example if Obama loses Kentucky by 20 while having Edwards campaign with him what will that say? About Obama AND Edwards.

    The observation - this is good for Obama vis a vis the Democratic race for the nomination. But what it also is is an acknowledgment that there still IS a race.

    As much as anything, what surprises me about this is that rolling out endorsements at this late date means the race is still on.

    From Edwards' perspective, I do not see what is in it for him. Attorney General? That would surprise me. Edwards by reputation was a fine civil trial lawyer. It seems to me the job of attorney general is a different type of job.

    This is certainly a good thing for Obama in his race for the Dem nomination. I am not sure this helps the Party to unify and I am not at all sure it helps Edwards. Unnecessarily he is alienating himself from half of the Party. Obama's half is for Obama. Edwards is just another endorsement.

    I am surprised by it frankly.

    The impact in KY? (5.00 / 4) (#93)
    by andgarden on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:52:03 PM EST
    I expect there will be no impact at all.

    Parent
    Then Edwards gets a dminishment on this (5.00 / 4) (#146)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:59:22 PM EST
    One of the pitfalls of such an endorsement. The expectation is that Edwards will HELP in places like WV and KY.

    If I were the Clinton camp, I would argue that this makes Kentucky a battleground.

    Parent

    Kentucky voters already know (5.00 / 3) (#180)
    by andgarden on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:04:48 PM EST
    the candidates pretty well, I think. SurveyUSA should give us a last look on Monday, but I doubt there will be any movement at all.

    And yes, Hillary would be wise to proclaim KY a "battleground" now.

    Parent

    Elizabeth..... (5.00 / 0) (#220)
    by michitucky on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:14:18 PM EST
    According to Yahoo News, Elizabeth Edwards will not be in Grand Rapids for the endorsement this evening.

    Parent
    Was Edwards Able To Transfer His (5.00 / 2) (#227)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:16:34 PM EST
    blue collar support to Kerry in 04 when he was the VP nominee? I don't think so or Kerry would have been president instead of Bush. While this might make it easier for Obama to secure delegates the nomination, I don't see where this helps Obama in the GE.

    Also, if Obama still gets blown out of the water in KY after this endorsement, it will just make it more obvious how badly Obama will fail in garnering support from this demographic in the GE.

    Parent

    he shouldn't stump (none / 0) (#203)
    by Salo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:09:17 PM EST
    He should simpy keep praising em both and make sure Obama steps up on the healthcare issue.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by Faust on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:01:04 PM EST
    Edwards won 7% in W. Virginia. So if he can't shunt some support to Obama by actively campaigning for him then I think that it does say something. It should have some impact no?

    Parent
    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by ajain on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:53:09 PM EST
    I dont understand why these endorsements are coming out. I mean, it just pisses off Clinton supporters.
    Dont these people realize that the way to end this campaign is not to push her out of the race but to let her go gently.

    But this could help Obama in Kentucky, and if it doesn't then that is truly something. I think Edwards is gunning for VP.

    Parent

    If it helps in KY, that may not be good (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by nycstray on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:57:06 PM EST
    OBAMA needs to learn to relate to the voters.

    Parent
    nystray (5.00 / 3) (#221)
    by Kathy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:14:32 PM EST
    you worked in marketing (I think).  How many meetings have you gone to where the guys in charge thought putting a pink sticker on the product or making the end of the bottle round would instantly mean women would buy it?

    Edwards is the pink sticker.  Women and working class dems are not going to buy it.  You don't suddenly win over the bloc you have been losing because someone goes out on the trail for you.  It's insulting to think otherwise.

    Parent

    Elizabeth will not be there, per Yahoo news story. (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by jawbone on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:54:17 PM EST
    Word on the street (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Steve M on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:55:19 PM EST
    has always been that Edwards is interested in the AG job.  More so than a VP slot, actually.

    An Edwards nomination would be a heck of a fight in the Senate, that's for sure.  Imagine what the Republican interest groups would say about naming the King of the Trial Lawyers as AG.  It would be a red-meat pick for sure - which is to say, it doesn't really sound like something Barack Obama would do.

    I was always an Edwards supporter but it was because of his message more than anything.  I never got into speculating about whether he really believed all these things deep down or whether he was just being a politician, because I felt his message was helpful for Democrats either way.  I think this was a wise choice as it means I don't have to rend my garments in despair at this point like some of the other Clinton supporters.

    Parent

    I know that there are people who would like (5.00 / 3) (#138)
    by lisadawn82 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:58:22 PM EST
    to see Edwards take the AG spot but my dream would be Stephanie Tubb-Jones.  She's a former prosecuter and judge and is basically one tough principled lady.  

    Parent
    I admire her (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by Steve M on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:01:27 PM EST
    I did not know that about her background.  She would have my full support!

    Parent
    I'd like to see him be (none / 0) (#122)
    by Salo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:56:27 PM EST
    the guy that writes the national Healthcare Plan.

    Parent
    I'm surprized too. (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Salo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:55:24 PM EST
    First, will Elizabeth Edwards be there? Her absence would be noticeable to me.
    Second, will John Edwards campaign in Kentucky? And if so, how do we judge those results? For example if Obama loses Kentucky by 20 while having Edwards campaign with him what will that say? About Obama AND Edwards.

    he should not stump for Obama.  he should make a pitch to the Clinton voters that they are the bedrock of the party and we are all in it together.

    The observation - this is good for Obama vis a vis the Democratic race for the nomination. But what it also is is an acknowledgment that there still IS a race.

    Edwards should admit as much. He should avoid Richardsons insulting foolishness.

    As much as anything, what surprises me about this is that rolling out endorsements at this late date means the race is still on.

    Funny that isn't it?  As Clauswitz says --no result is final.

    From Edwards' perspective, I do not see what is in it for him. Attorney General? That would surprise me. Edwards by reputation was a fine civil trial lawyer. It seems to me the job of attorney general is a different type of job.

    he'd be a good corporate buster.

    This is certainly a good thing for Obama in his race for the Dem nomination. I am not sure this helps the Party to unify and I am not at all sure it helps Edwards. Unnecessarily he is alienating himself from half of the Party. Obama's half is for Obama. Edwards is just another endorsement.

    It can be done in a way that Richardson failed at.

    I am surprised by it frankly
    .

    Me too. I'd have waited til the primaries were over.

    Parent

    My first thought also: will Eliz. Edwards (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by oculus on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:57:41 PM EST
    be on stage with Obama and Edwards for this announcement?

    Actually, I'm hoping she will go ahead and outright endorse Hillary Clinton.

    Parent

    BTD, it is not good for unity, of that I am sure. (5.00 / 6) (#139)
    by Teresa on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:58:43 PM EST
    What is wrong with waiting three weeks? I am so angry at my original first choice right now. He is selling out his biggest cause...the poor and health care, in my mind.

    Elizabeth is not with him according to what I read. The Democratic Men's Party may have to win this one without me.

    Parent

    The Elizabeth Question... (5.00 / 4) (#143)
    by p lukasiak on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:59:08 PM EST
    is the only one I want answered...

    If he uses the words "Elizabeth and I", you know there is some kind of major deal made, because there is no way that Elizabeth is supporting Obama on his merits.

    Parent

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:00:59 PM EST
    From Edwards' perspective, I do not see what is in it for him. Attorney General? That would surprise me. Edwards by reputation was a fine civil trial lawyer. It seems to me the job of attorney general is a different type of job

    I've been thinking this too. Rumor has it, Edwards wants this job, but would a civil litigator necessarily be a good choice?  Wouldn't we need someone with more criminal law and executive experience? I know that there are exceptions, but Edwards doesn't strike me as the personality to be AG.

    Doesn't matter, I suppose, as I still don't see Obama actually winning in the fall....

    Parent

    I think the main reason for this (none / 0) (#103)
    by ruffian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:53:51 PM EST
    is to try to avoid another blowout in Kentucky.  Edwards will be parked there for a few days.  Hope Bill is there already.

    Parent
    Thanks for bringing up that point about (none / 0) (#133)
    by Rhouse on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:57:38 PM EST
    Elizabeth Edwards.  And even if she is there, the body language should be telling.  Let's hear what he has to say before jumping all over him, maybe he can give a reason we can believe.  Or then again, maybe we'll all just call him a fool.

    Parent
    Turn out the lights. (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by lyzurgyk on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:49:09 PM EST
    Its over.    

    I'm okay with Obama.  Unfortunate that so many of his supporters are schmucks.

    It may or may not be over... (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by OrangeFur on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:56:27 PM EST
    But it has little to do with John Edwards either way. I liked him as a candidate, though I was always behind Clinton. But he's been gone since January. It won't have any effect on the upcoming votes.

    Parent
    this is just (5.00 / 3) (#162)
    by Iris on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:01:43 PM EST
    more of the haka.

    Parent
    I swear to goodness (5.00 / 5) (#71)
    by magisterludi on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:49:15 PM EST
    nothing is changing in this country until the people break out the pitchforks and torches.

    Wake me up for the revolution.

    let him speak (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Salo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:49:41 PM EST
    and see what he has to say.

    This is truly a disappointment (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by ajain on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:49:48 PM EST
    Lets see how things shift around. If Clinton still wins Kentucky, it will be a huge deal. But I think Oregon is a pretty distant hope.

    NO NO NO NO NO! (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by indymom on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:50:02 PM EST
    Geez...I kinda liked him too.

    There's a disconnect for me here. (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by Shainzona on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:50:52 PM EST
    There is a disconnect here - getting Edwards endorsement will make white working class voters go to Obama?  I don't think so.

    There is so much more going on with the vote from yesterday, this should only matter to the Blogger Boyz.

    And doing it in Michigan is such a stunt - to try and show us that BO really cares.

    Funny that Michigan got hurt because of Obama and Edwards in Iowa and their concerted attempt to make things tough for HRC.  So, I guess this isn't surprising.

    controlling the news cycle (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by aquarian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:51:57 PM EST
    is a potent political tool.  But I am not sure Senator Obama gains any long-term advantage if he continues to ignore the weaknesses in his campaign to win all of the democratic base who will be voting in November.  If this latest move is not accompanied by other strategies to shore up the base, this is little more than trying to change the conversation.

    I don't know what (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by pie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:56:50 PM EST
    he can say or do.  Those who have been turned off by his fluff and his less-than-diplomatic supporters will never come back.

    Parent
    Frankly I don't care (none / 0) (#206)
    by mg7505 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:09:58 PM EST
    about screaming pundits, Congressmen or even former Congressmen as long as voters make the right choice. If anything, I hope they all heighten their support for Obama after he loses primaries. It is a brilliant contradiction that I hope voters finally grasp.

    Parent
    This is a way of shoring up support in the base. (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by tomboy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:59:39 PM EST
    Edwards is popular with many of the demographics where Obama struggles.  Edwards can help win these voters over for the general election.

    Edwards waited to endorse until after 90% of states had voted and more than 90% of democrats.  He could have waited another 2 weeks, but really, he stayed out of it until the contest was basically decided.

    I'm hoping Edwards will receive a position in the Obama administration working on Health Care.  His plan was the earliest and best, and I hope he can convince Obama that he has made a mistake.

    Time to unite the party and discuss strategies for winning the votes of all progressive americans.

    Parent

    Edwards is good to bring in Edwards supporters (5.00 / 0) (#196)
    by aquarian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:06:59 PM EST
    like you.  No quarrel there, and I respect Edwards.  I worry that this does little to bring in Senator Clinton supporters.  Like it or not, the democratic base is split roughly down the middle.  

    Parent
    Hillary gets the votes of working people; (5.00 / 2) (#189)
    by magnetics on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:05:54 PM EST
    Obama gets endorsed by someone who claims to be a friend of the working people.

    This is like a faulty syllogism; it does not in any way prove that Obama is for working people, or they for him.

    Of course, if the superduperD's need some cover, I guess this is as good as any.

    Parent

    They cut a deal (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by Saul on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:52:17 PM EST
    I feel the anger in the Hilary supporters is going to go to a new level.  They will look at him like they did Richardson.  He should have waited until all June the 3 and the fact that he did not wait tells me they cut a deal. Edwards have  should just endorse him from afar, Obama is not campaigning any more especially in MI where he did not want a re vote.  I can see Edwards  going to a primary rally to endorse Obama  but why MI. That's over with.   This is even more suspect on why I believe they cut a deal.

    I am so upset... (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:56:56 PM EST
    but not too surprised.

    More than ever, I'm glad that HRC beat out Edwards. He is nothing but an opportunist.

    How many knives does HRC have in her back at this point? She's looking like a pincushion from where I sit.

    Parent

    he will heap praise on Hillary (none / 0) (#130)
    by Salo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:57:34 PM EST
    and not spare the rod with Obama's failings.

    It'll be confusing.

    Parent

    I don't expect to heard another word (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by oculus on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:59:56 PM EST
    from John Edwards on Obama's weaknesses.

    Parent
    He better no rag on Clinton. (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by Salo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:06:37 PM EST
    If he has anything bad to say about her it's a disaster.

    Parent
    I expect that too. We will see (none / 0) (#173)
    by bjorn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:03:43 PM EST
    Signs boding well for a D-style self-immolation (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by Ellie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:53:34 PM EST
    Well after Edwards dropped out, HRC persuaded me, on merit, that she was the one to back.

    This premature Edwards endorsement is inexplicable (and does nothing to change HRC's plan to keep running IMO).

    This PR stuff doesn't sway me just as polls don't sway me in that they're not votes that are cast and counted.

    This continues to give me concern though:

    While Dukakis says he expects Obama will win the nomination, he does not believe Clinton should withdraw until after the last primary. In fact, the former Massachusetts governor says this long tough battle for the nomination may have made Obama better prepared to face John McCain. Dukakis went from a huge lead to a crushing defeat against George Bush Sr. [...] (Dukakis: Obama more prepared for McCain, NECN TV, May 12, 2008)

    Hard to imagine that the McGovern / Dukakis models of political disaster could be made even worse by also being the most expensive political debacles ever.

    Very suprised by this endorsement. (5.00 / 4) (#110)
    by Faust on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:55:02 PM EST
    Edwards (who was my first pick) made me proud in his neutrality the last several weeks. I though he was almost the surrogate for "the neutral position."

    This is a big change from the positions he outlined just a week ago.

    So what has changed? Is it, as BTD suggest above, that the race is still on? Are there techtonic forces shifting underneath the surface here? Quite plausible.

    Very curious to see this play out.

    Michigan primary.... (5.00 / 0) (#111)
    by p lukasiak on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:55:09 PM EST
    well, now we know what is going to happen on May 31st -- the DNC is going to announce that a new vote will be taken in conjunction with Michigan's primary on August 5.

    I mean, why else would Edwards be doing this in Michigan.  Kentucky would make the most sense... and Oregon would make sense as well.

    This is kinda like when the got Richardson to announce in Oregon -- made no sense at all, with the PA primary coming up he should have done that endorsement in from of Philadelphia's not insubstantial Hispanic community.  But Obama knew he'd lose in PA, and Oregon was his firewall....

    But while I understand why Obama wants it done this way, I'm surprised that Edwards would stab Clinton in the back in this fashion with the timing....

    How do you figure? (none / 0) (#136)
    by andgarden on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:58:15 PM EST
    This just means that all of the uncommitted delegates can be given to Obama.

    Parent
    the only ones that can give (none / 0) (#154)
    by The Realist on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:00:10 PM EST
    those delegates are the delegates themselves.

    Parent
    Uh huh, go with that (none / 0) (#188)
    by andgarden on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:05:43 PM EST
    Wait...don't let a loser take your spirit (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:55:21 PM EST
    Edwards lost as Pres candidate on 04, as VP and now again as Pres.  I was supporting him for his populist position, but next to Hillary he seemed like a newbie, kept repeating the same stories over and over and never really made a case.  

    Good luck John.  Now you are part of the "unity, change train" to nowhere.  

    Bwahaha (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by LoisInCo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:58:16 PM EST
    Tell us about the mills John. Tell us about the mills.


    Parent
    Hope his Dad is up for this. (none / 0) (#160)
    by oculus on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:01:26 PM EST
    mills (none / 0) (#165)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:01:48 PM EST
    two syllables.


    Parent
    Obama is racking (5.00 / 6) (#128)
    by The Realist on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:57:16 PM EST
    up those unelectable ex presidential candidates, isn't he.

    Edwards has lost his bearings (5.00 / 3) (#140)
    by Bob Boardman on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:58:48 PM EST
    One day after working class people reject Obama in West Virginia ... Edwards ventures out from his mansion and endorses Obama.

    Tweety has just put it in context. He says the the Edwards endorsement may be bigger than the vote in West Virginia. Must make West Virginia voters feel like their voices were heard.

    Does anyone care about the issues? I was hoping that Edwards would somehow line up with Clinton and pressure Obama to back universal healthcare. That wold have been a satisfying ending to the primaries.

    With this endorsement, Edwards only confirms that he is the lightweight I've always suspected him to be.

    "Hold on a second, sweetie" will get to the issues in about ten years.

    he did get 7% of the WV vote (none / 0) (#179)
    by Salo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:04:39 PM EST
    without running.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 4) (#141)
    by IzikLA on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:58:49 PM EST
    There goes any respect I had left for him.  Endorsing at this point is just par for the course.  In fact, I've lost respect for so many politicians and for so much of the democratic party it is truly disheartening.

    AP story on AOL says this... (5.00 / 7) (#148)
    by indymom on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:59:35 PM EST
    "Edwards' wife, Elizabeth, who has spoken favorably about Clinton's health care plan, did not travel with him to Michigan and is not part of the endorsement."

    Politically smart for Obama, but (5.00 / 7) (#152)
    by Chimster on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:00:00 PM EST
    a sleazy move from Edwards nonetheless. Just when I thought he was going to be a class act and hold off on endorsing, he goes and steals Hillary WV thunder. I expected this from Obama, but not Edwards.

    He played himself as the great working-class-hero politician above the fray. He was like a less important version of Al Gore. But he just threw away his credibility and just became a washed-up Kerry, Kennedy politician.

    After he just said she could stay if (5.00 / 0) (#229)
    by nycstray on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:19:57 PM EST
    she played nice. And then he pulls this? ok.

    Parent
    effect (5.00 / 2) (#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.

    Agree (5.00 / 1) (#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

    I want my Edwards money back. (5.00 / 3) (#175)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:03:52 PM EST


    What price integrity? (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by weltec2 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:04:53 PM EST
    If Edwards does this and then accepts a Vice Presidency... selling his soul for a vice presidency... I think people should be massively disgusted, especially after all his talk about not wanting to tear the party apart. Honestly, I cannot believe that of Edwards. He's a good man but he's already doing enough damage.

    Obama is sure racking up (5.00 / 2) (#184)
    by The Realist on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:05:05 PM EST
    those unelectable ex-presidential candidates, isn't he.

    Will be good company, i think.

    Good for Edwards (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by mg7505 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:05:38 PM EST
    the Media will finally pay attention to him.

    Just my opinion but (5.00 / 3) (#191)
    by ChuckieTomato on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:06:14 PM EST
    this seems like it's all the guys ganging up on the girl, being directed by the DNC. Why couldn't they wait until the last primary?

    This goes against everything Edwards said he represented, the "working man", the single mother, universal health care, the list goes on.

    losing endorsers (5.00 / 2) (#197)
    by cigan on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:07:02 PM EST
    After looking over it, the number of political names who have endorsed Senator Obama who have lost major elections is becoming lengthy.  John Kerry, John Edwards, Ted Kennedy, Tom Daschle, George McGovern to name a few.  

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#226)
    by Steve M on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:16:27 PM EST
    We're Democrats.  We have an awful lot of people who have lost elections.

    Parent
    So Edwards (5.00 / 3) (#213)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:12:03 PM EST
    Mr. 'Make Poverty History' is advocating the candidate who thinks he can win without the working class vote.

    Makes sense to me!  It's perfectly in line with this "through the looking glass" campaign.  And sniff-sniff, can you smell the unity?

    The hillarious part is that John Edwards is fundraising, coinciding with this announcement.  I just received my email.  After sending a very nice nastygram to the return address from the email, I got myself off his mailing list.

    June is only a few weeks away.  The fact that he endorsed now, shows to me that he's the twit that the media played him to be.  He can 'make poverty history' without me.

    And yep, he was my first choice too.  Now he's joined the ranks of "White Male Loser Presidential and Vice Presidential Candidates for Obama".  They should make themselves tee-shirts.  Is Hillary really that bad or does the white boyz club simply hate uppity women?

    So Edwards (5.00 / 0) (#216)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:13:05 PM EST
    Mr. 'Make Poverty History' is advocating the candidate who thinks he can win without the working class vote.

    Makes sense to me!  It's perfectly in line with this "through the looking glass" campaign.  And sniff-sniff, can you smell the unity?

    The hillarious part is that John Edwards is fundraising, coinciding with this announcement.  I just received my email.  After sending a very nice nastygram to the return address from the email, I got myself off his mailing list.

    June is only a few weeks away.  The fact that he endorsed now, shows to me that he's the twit that the media played him to be.  He can 'make poverty history' without me.

    And yep, he was my first choice too.  Now he's joined the ranks of "White Male Loser Presidential and Vice Presidential Candidates for Obama".  They should make themselves tee-shirts.  Is Hillary really that bad or does the white boyz club simply hate uppity women?

    What do you think of drowned rats? (5.00 / 2) (#232)
    by wurman on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:32:15 PM EST
    It's tough to contemplate a situation where you see a rat climbing aboard a sinking ship.  The "Red States Ship Obamarama" is rudderless, shifting with the wind, taking heavy hits in the primaries & still we see some Democratic poobahs are rushing to get on board.

    Maybe they all intend to stand in the bow, wave their arms & help give the ship some direction--meanwhile it's sinking like a rock.

    It surely seems to defy analysis.  Unless you schlurp up a kettle of stupid soup & decide that Mr. Edwards is in favor of hope & change.

    Yeah, that's it; hope & change & youth & some other really neat stuff.

    Well, gotta' go take out the garbage.

    Email from Edwards (5.00 / 1) (#233)
    by mjames on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:35:28 PM EST
    It's so strange.
    I got an email a short time ago from Edwards (I was originally a strong Edwards supporter) - the email J referenced. And, I thought, let me check what's going on before I give him any more money. Maybe he's trying to get some money out of me before he endorses Obama.
    Well, after I checked in here, he got a reply from me. Just not quite what he was hoping for.
    My guess: the party elders told him what to do and they are foolish enough to think Edwards can get me to change my allegiance from Clinton to Obama.
    Never. I will never vote for Obama. I worked too long and hard for civil rights and women's rights to vote for someone who is destroying it all.

    John Edwards (5.00 / 2) (#234)
    by Mrwirez on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:48:56 PM EST
    as i see it is an opportunist. He waited until Senator Clinton just hammered Obama. If he had any REAL balls he would have endorsed BO before NC and maybe saved Obama somewhat from WV, maybe. John Edwards is another sissy democrat that has been neutered twice. Again, where is he really going to help? I AM the TYPE they want to get to vote for Obama... 42 yr old, white male, IBEW electrician in PA that has voted in EVERY Democratic election since 1984..... Sorry I never liked Edwards, and I REALLY don't like Obama. Us guys are center-left. Not LEFTY left. That is the point Senator Clinton was making before they screamed RACIST again. The Clintons are winners because they run to the center..... You all see were McCain is running? AWAY from conservatives. Center-Right, but center. I like lower taxes and organized labor... ie. "Reagan Democrat"..... although I NEVER voted Republican.... not yet.

    Edwards (5.00 / 1) (#235)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:49:22 PM EST
    endorsing in playing into "Obama is being shoved down our throats" just like Gore endorsing Dean was back in 2003. I don't think it'll make much of a difference other than some major disapointment from his former supporters. After all, if he really cared about those issues he wouldn't be endorsing Obama.

    Why and why now? (4.50 / 8) (#5)
    by jawbone on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:38:20 PM EST
    Has Obama told him he'll go for real universal healthcare? Or is that just Elizabeth's issue?

    Oh my. Disappointing, to this Edwards supporter.

    Per Yahoo, Elizabeth is not traveling with John (4.20 / 5) (#72)
    by jawbone on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:49:17 PM EST
    to make the endorsement.

    May mean nothing -- or may mean dueling endorsements! Can dream, can't I?

    And, yes, this looks like Edwards trying to shore up Obama after the drubbing form WV.

    Parent

    I believe that Edwards (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by lisadawn82 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:52:17 PM EST
    said on TV that he and his wife voted for different candidates.  Interesting.  So unless she voted for her husband in NC I'm guessing that she may have voted for Senator Clinton.  

    Parent
    The report was they voted (none / 0) (#193)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:06:51 PM EST
    for different candidates and he was endorsing the person he voted for.

    Parent
    no doubt in my mind that this was planned (5.00 / 1) (#228)
    by bridget on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:17:04 PM EST
    by Obama/Edwards who knows how long ago ... up to the right day and hour.

    (and I am not talking about the Obama endorsement thing which is a nobrainer IMHO)

    Obama campaign strategists hope to take the media attention and overall momentum away from Hillary and her "impressive" WV victory and the resulting pundit subject/question: how can Obama win the GE without winning over the white working class voters?

    Edwards to the rescue TODAY!

    Parent

    Exactly (3.00 / 2) (#231)
    by djcny on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:21:14 PM EST
    They're killing a few birds with one stone here.  This will surely tamp down the positive fallout from Hillary's enormous win yesterday. It will no longer be the lead story on all the news shows, without a doubt. This is really disappointing. I'm wondering how much of an effect this will have.  He certainly took long enough, but I guess he felt this was a good a time as any.

    Parent
    Dualing Endorsements! (none / 0) (#211)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:11:32 PM EST
    I love that. I also think John would be shocked to find out that Elizabeth's endorsement would carry more clout than his.

    Not saying that's fair, but he's lost two bids for president, and one for vp. This is a maneuver that could look like an effort to get second place on the ticket again, which is self-serving.

    Not sure how his endorsement connects with working class voters. John Edwards, like so many others, has taken the route to endorsement that brings the most attention to himself.


    Parent

    No. Obama's told him he'll get some (none / 0) (#174)
    by derridog on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:03:45 PM EST
    plum job in his admin like attorney general. I was for Edwards, but I'm also from NC and the thing that always bothered me about him was his ill-disguised ambition.  He too started running for President without having put in a full term as Senator. it pissed a lot of people off in our state, which is one reason why he couldn't bring in NC as Kerry's VP nominee.   Of course, the main reason was Kerry.

    Parent
    Sick about this one... (4.42 / 7) (#2)
    by NWHiker on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:38:02 PM EST
    I originally had supported Edwards.

    I guess he wants an other VP shot.

    its disappointing, and surprising.... (4.00 / 4) (#67)
    by p lukasiak on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:48:49 PM EST
    considering Edwards' supposed stauch support for working people, and his concerns about universal health care, this doesn't make a lot of sense.

    Parent
    I hope he wrings a few concessions (none / 0) (#86)
    by Salo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:50:42 PM EST
    on policy.

    Parent
    That would be the only consolation. (none / 0) (#135)
    by ahazydelirium on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:57:44 PM EST
    I think (none / 0) (#183)
    by Claw on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:05:05 PM EST
    You've got two things going on here, and the first is bigger than the second.
    1. He thinks he's endorsing the winner.
    2. He really didn't like the I'm the only one who can win the "hard-working" white vote thing.
    I'm making no judgment on the comments themselves, but I think they may have helped push Edwards to endorse.  
    He's addressed both issues publicly (discussed how difficult the math is, criticized the comments).  

    Parent
    There's your VP, IMO (4.00 / 4) (#3)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:38:03 PM EST
    Unity of a different kind, I guess.

    I don't see how he could pick (none / 0) (#30)
    by bjorn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:44:09 PM EST
    Edwards...he needs someone with more executive or military experience.

    Parent
    Nah, they're going to be the youth ticket (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:50:35 PM EST
    Edwards to appeal to working class men, and Obama to appeal to the young, affluent, and AAs taken with his message.

    Anyone with real experience makes the ticket look upside down, and that hurts Obama.

    Parent

    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.

    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
    How about Elizabeth? (none / 0) (#153)
    by bslev22 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:00:05 PM EST
    Does anyone know if she will be joining her husband in the endorsement. There's precedent for a split.  Congressman Rangel supports Clinton and his wife endorsed Obama.

    oops. sorry this is addressed above (none / 0) (#159)
    by bslev22 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:01:19 PM EST
    Telegraphed it (none / 0) (#158)
    by dmk47 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:01:04 PM EST
    This was pretty clearly coming soon after he did the morning shows the day after Indy & NC saying it was effectively over.

    The political logic is obvious enough, but for those asking how he could betray his principles....

    He didn't. Edwards is closer to Obama on foreign policy and government reform than to Clinton, closer to Clinton than Obama on health care. Depending on what the salience of those issues, and how large a difference he sees between mandated insurance and non-mandated subsidies to buy insurance, it makes fine substantive sense too.

    (I know both sides have tried to make hay of the differences between Obama and Clinton on health care policy --- I didn't care for Obama's Harry & Louise stuff, nor did I care for Clinton saying she's the only one for UHC when both plans were a far cry from UHC as it's understood in any country that has it --- but the functional difference is really pretty minor.)

    Senator Obama does not have (5.00 / 4) (#198)
    by bslev22 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:07:14 PM EST
    a universal proposal.  What is so horrible about saying that?  He could argue in good faith that he has the more feasible plan, I don't fault him for his proposal on its face, but it is not a universal health care plan because there is no mandate that all must be covered.  Moreover, Harry and Louise aside, there is nothing that has been more anti-Democratic Party in this campaign than Senator Obama's charge that Hillary intends to garnish the wages of working Americans as part of her health plan.  I don't mind balance but I don't approve of contorting facts in a futile attempt to be balanced.  On healthcare, there is no basis to see equal merit with respect to the conduct of both sides.  Obama's conduct on health care has been shameful.

    Parent
    Hilarious. (none / 0) (#190)
    by pie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:06:08 PM EST
    Close on the "Two Americas" too.

    Have another swig, buddy.

    Parent

    Senator Obama does not have (none / 0) (#210)
    by bslev22 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:10:37 PM EST
    a universal proposal.  What is so horrible about saying that?  He could argue in good faith that he has the more feasible plan, I don't fault him for his proposal on its face, but it is not a universal health care plan because there is no mandate that all must be covered.  Moreover, Harry and Louise aside, there is nothing that has been more anti-Democratic Party in this campaign than Senator Obama's charge that Hillary intends to garnish the wages of working Americans as part of her health plan.  I don't mind balance but I don't approve of contorting facts in a futile attempt to be balanced.  On healthcare, there is no basis to see equal merit with respect to the conduct of both sides.  Obama's conduct on health care has been shameful.

    Parent
    Hope he just attacks Bush and McCain (none / 0) (#172)
    by Salo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:03:39 PM EST
    heaps praise on Clinton and urges Obama to reform Healthcare in a good way.

    No reason to troll rate this comment (none / 0) (#217)
    by Marvin42 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:13:13 PM EST
    I mean I may not like what it says but is there anything wrong with it?

    comments now closed (none / 0) (#225)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:16:18 PM EST
    new thread on this is here.

    Let's just remember that his two (none / 0) (#236)
    by gabbyone on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:02:42 PM EST
    America's never sold when he ran with Kerry....
    He couldn't make Kerry the winner when he was on
    the ticket.  How will one speech do it for Obama?

    the obama voter database (none / 0) (#237)
    by karen for Clinton on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:23:22 PM EST
    is worth a fortune they say.  He collected all sorts of personal information from his donators according to MSM reports last week.

    Would Edwards and the others be allowed to tap into the OFB?  I'd bet on it.

    Either cash campaign donations as reported by his Hopefund or mailing lists for sale to the elite superdelegates determined to do what is best for them and not for this country.

    The more you know the more you'll suffer.

    Edwards can endorse whomever he wants (none / 0) (#238)
    by mexboy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:45:23 PM EST
    I never supported him so I don't care who he endorses. I still feel Hillary will get the nomination and therefore be the next POTUS.

    Don't ask me for links, I just feel it.