home

John Edwards and Obama Endorsement: Thread Two

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:08:56 PM EST
Tags: John Edwards, Barack Obama, 2008 (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Our first thread on John Edwards endorsement of Barack Obama is already full. Here's another one.

Lots of readers are now getting the John Edwards email seeking donations I mentioned in the last thread.
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?
[More...]

The email states:
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: This thread is closing a new one is here.

< John Edwards to Endorse Obama in One Hour | Pro-Choice Women's Group Says NARAL is Wrong >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    John Edwards and Obama Endorsement: Thread Two | 212 comments (212 topical)
    Here's one observation (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by andgarden on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:15:10 PM EST
    I think we're much closer to the 2209 criterion today: Obama will get all uncommitted delegates from Michigan, and Hillary will get all of her. Florida will be seated as is.

    Where are you getting this? (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by pie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:18:24 PM EST
    All that tells me is that they were in cahoots way back then.

    [ Parent ]
    You didn't guess they (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:20:02 PM EST
    were cahooting back then?

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, it's been obvious. (5.00 / 0) (#60)
    by pie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:26:04 PM EST
    They took away what would have been her momentum.

    But, in doing so, they got people to go to the polls to vote for her.

    It's not over.  She deserves to win on the merits.

    [ Parent ]

    Count on it (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by andgarden on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:20:18 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    if that happens, I can live (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by bjorn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:20:16 PM EST
    with whatever the outcome is because it will be fair and square, imo.

    [ Parent ]
    Overall I'd say that's a decent outcome (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by andgarden on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:21:38 PM EST
    for Hillary, because 2209 has to be her goal for a criterion now.

    Of course, this endorsement gets Obama closer to that, not Hillary.

    [ Parent ]

    2210 (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by BDB on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:25:53 PM EST
    Travis Childers ups the total number of delegates by one. So make that 2209.5.

    [ Parent ]
    Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by andgarden on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:28:13 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I agree. (none / 0) (#27)
    by sweetthings on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:21:46 PM EST
    But I haven't sat down and crunched the numbers yet. I assume this helps Hillary, but how much?

    [ Parent ]
    Nah. (5.00 / 6) (#4)
    by pie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:15:53 PM EST
    This isn't about knocking Hillary out before June 3. This is about a preview of what will happen on June 4.

    A bunch of male democrats who have lost the nomination have endorsed Obama.

    I'm so impressed.

    It's all been very Grotesque. (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by Salo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:19:17 PM EST
    yes.  Instead of begging for Bill endorsment, they've been kicking him.

    I Hope Edwards is very careful in his statement today.

    [ Parent ]

    To borrow (and alter) a phrase: (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by ahazydelirium on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:20:05 PM EST
    Failed male candidates: "You'll have to pry the White House from our cold dead hands."

    [ Parent ]
    Can we stop with the male bashing (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by independent thinker on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:41:29 PM EST
    please. I fully admit that there has been sexist comments during this campaign, but there have also been racist comments.

    The time is coming for us the rally around the nominee. True we don't know who that will be yet, but we will soon and all this trash talk is only hurting our ability to unify and beat McCain.

    I have made similar requests on Obama friendly blogs too. Some people over there can't seem to lay off the hillbilly and harpy references.

    I don't care which candidate you support, but this kind of dialogue needs to stop so the healing can begin.

    [ Parent ]

    OK, sure - (none / 0) (#210)
    by Anne on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:58:45 PM EST
    Obama can go first, how's that?

    It isn't the "trash-talk" that is hurting our chances of beating McCain - it's the freakin' Democratic Party "elders" and "leaders," who won't listen to the voters, have no earthly clue how to conduct a free and fair primary, would just as soon consign the voters of Michigan and Florida to the trash heap, have looked down their wrinkled-in-disgust noses at hard-working people who just want some freakin' representation, who are drunk on Obama money to the point where they make no sense, make me mad as hell and have me thoroughly disgusted with a party that I used to believe in.

    Go peddle your Kumbayah garbage to them, will ya?  Better have your checkbook handy, though.

    [ Parent ]

    Sexism (4.00 / 7) (#77)
    by joharmon86 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:29:43 PM EST
    This comment is highly offensive and sexist even though I'm a female. To assume that every male politician that supports Obama is doing so because they hate women is frankly irrational and myopic. There is nothing in Edward's record that suggests that he is sexist at all, but it's easy to use the gender card when Hillary is unable to get the supporters to crown her victorious.

    [ Parent ]
    I think you need to re-read pie's comment, (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Anne on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:36:57 PM EST
    because nothing in it said anything about hating women.

    If you can point to a failed female candidate who is endorsing Clinton, that would be helpful.

    OK - didn't think so.

    And I don't think you're female, either.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes, it was yet another (none / 0) (#129)
    by pie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:39:46 PM EST
    wtf moment in blog history.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh, darn. (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by pie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:43:35 PM EST
    Dalton gave me a low rating.  Just when I was starting to consider him a thinking person.

    [ Parent ]
    Actually Edwards was pretty sexist (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by Exeter on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:41:24 PM EST
    to Hillary when he was in the race. His little stunt of having Elizabeth attack Hillary... you know to try and create a: CAT FIGHT! ... was pretty low-class.

    And Edwards timing IS sexist -- he's said for months that he has no plans to endorse, then when their is heat for Hillary to drop out, he endorses. His enorsement = time for Hillary to drop out... even though no candidate in Hillary's position or better has ever been pressured in this way to drop out. It's a double standard and sexist.

    [ Parent ]

    timing can't be sexist. (none / 0) (#149)
    by Salo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:43:07 PM EST
    Chronist

    [ Parent ]
    Hm (none / 0) (#171)
    by Steve M on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:46:41 PM EST
    I think Elizabeth is her own woman with her own opinions.  I never got the impression that she was some attack dog to be deployed at her husband's beck and call.

    [ Parent ]
    she always seemed (none / 0) (#202)
    by Salo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:54:30 PM EST
    like she was voicing her own opinion to me.

    [ Parent ]
    Reading comprehension 101. (none / 0) (#123)
    by pie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:38:48 PM EST
    You failed it, sweetie.

    :-)

    [ Parent ]

    including all the males... (none / 0) (#12)
    by jor on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:19:41 PM EST
    ... running NARAL.

    [ Parent ]
    NARAL would endorse a potato... (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by dianem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:21:01 PM EST
    ...if it either had a "D" after it's name or claimed that it was pro-choice. If Clinton were ahead in the primary, you can bet that they would be endorsing her.

    [ Parent ]
    Brian Williams on NBC Evening News asked (none / 0) (#144)
    by jawbone on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:42:30 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton if she was hurt that NARAL endorsed Obama since she had practically been present at its inception.

    That had to hurt.

    Oh, and NARAL? You that loyalty stuff? Want to count on Mr. I Wanted to Vote for Roberts Until My Chief of Staff Told Me It Was Politically Unwise for My Presidential Run????

    Sheesh.


    [ Parent ]

    She may get (none / 0) (#195)
    by PlayInPeoria on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:52:49 PM EST
    knocked out Jun 4th... but Obama may get knocked out on Nov 4th..

    The Dem Party cannot afford to get the Hilarry supporter mad.

    Remember... the Repub Pary just nominated the closet person to being a Dem as they could find. That is how much the Repub want the WH..

    John Mac will be courting those irate Hilary voters.

    Mr Unity better start Unifying.

    [ Parent ]

    Just another opportunity for Hillary (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by felizarte on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:18:09 PM EST
    to demonstrate her toughness and resiliency.  Imagine this many male leaders of the party ganging up on her and they still can't sink her.  She is one SUPER MOM!

    On to Kentucky!

    AP NEWS (5.00 / 7) (#10)
    by bjorn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:19:11 PM EST
    Elizabeth Edwards said she is not part of this endorsement and did not travel with John.

    thank you Elizabeth (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by Iris on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:21:19 PM EST
    I hope she makes a separate endorsement.

    [ Parent ]
    They'd get more mileage (5.00 / 0) (#155)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:44:10 PM EST
    with Elizabeth endorsing Hillary for the Health Care benefits, and John supporting Obama for the contributions and endorsement for the college fund.

    [ Parent ]
    She's A Smart Gal...Could Teach John A Thing (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:22:26 PM EST
    or three...

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080514/ap_on_el_pr/obama_edwards

    [ Parent ]

    She probably would not embarrass (5.00 / 0) (#193)
    by BarnBabe on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:51:59 PM EST
    John. I would love it if she came out for Hillary. But, I suspect, she will not over ride his endorsement. I said for years that she would be a great candidate and President. I am sorry she is sick because there would be a ticket. Hillary/Elizabeth.

    [ Parent ]
    Now we know (5.00 / 6) (#32)
    by felizarte on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:22:32 PM EST
    that the wrong Edwards was running all along.

    [ Parent ]
    I've always liked Elizabeth. (5.00 / 5) (#39)
    by ahazydelirium on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:23:27 PM EST
    But I'm terribly puzzled by her husband. Hillary is running on a platform more in sync with his own political ideology. Why this endorsement? It is disappointing, and I am disappointed in him--even if he was a strong and wonderful populist advocate.

    [ Parent ]
    I absolutely agree. (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by weltec2 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:40:51 PM EST
    I feel as though he has compromised his integrity and that hurts.

    [ Parent ]
    obama signed on to edwards new program to (none / 0) (#71)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:29:00 PM EST
    help reduce poverty....gives it some money and a jump start.

    [ Parent ]
    Is this good enough? (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by weltec2 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:45:41 PM EST
    What about a real universal health care program? And as for money for ending poverty. I'm just afraid this is going to be swallowed up in the usual Obama vagueness and empty words like "change".

    [ Parent ]
    Sort of . . . (none / 0) (#209)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:56:41 PM EST
    His ideaology os more in sync with her on traditional issues like SS and health care but, as he repeatedly said on the campaign trial, much closer to Obama with respect to political reforms.

    [ Parent ]
    It makes me wonder (none / 0) (#214)
    by blogtopus on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:34:25 PM EST
    if we won't see a slew of cancer patients deep in debt who would otherwise be covered by Hillary's plan but NOT Obama's, writing to Edwards asking if he agrees with Obama's health care plan.

    [ Parent ]
    Elizabeth is a smart lady (5.00 / 4) (#51)
    by Steve M on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:24:47 PM EST
    Take it from me, if someone invites you on a trip to Grand Rapids, you shouldn't go either.

    [ Parent ]
    There is a part of me that is tempted to (none / 0) (#35)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:22:52 PM EST
    believe the intrigue that the media is inserting on this item and then there is a part of me that thinks she is just not going because she has other things to do at the moment.  She has kids, she is still dealing with cancer and he was the nominee.

    Just sayin' that it could easily mean nothing that she didn't go with him today.

    [ Parent ]

    no, (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by bjorn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:24:32 PM EST
    the AP newsline was specific, she is not part of this endorsement.

    [ Parent ]
    bjorn...I posted the link for that a few comments (none / 0) (#67)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:28:05 PM EST
    back...

    [ Parent ]
    oops, thanks (none / 0) (#79)
    by bjorn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:30:26 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Glad to help... (none / 0) (#99)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:34:30 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Yes!!! (none / 0) (#75)
    by pie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:29:29 PM EST
    She's incredible.

    OTOH, people do what they do for reasons.  I'm not sure I respect his reason, because he knows how weak Obama is, but he did it, so I'll move on.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes and she has been misrepresented (none / 0) (#90)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:33:04 PM EST
    in the media - even by AP - before.

    She is a complex and interesting person.  Completely incomprehensible to most of the media.

    [ Parent ]

    Uh, yes, if he had done the opposite (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Iris on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:20:15 PM EST
    of what he did, I would have the opposite reaction.  No surprise there.

    Some sanity. nt (none / 0) (#46)
    by ahazydelirium on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:24:01 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Considering how much closer Clinton's (5.00 / 8) (#20)
    by lorelynn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:20:52 PM EST
    platform is to Edwards and considering how little Obama has accomplished that is progressive in nature, it's pretty creepy. He can endorse whomever he wants, but he was part of the boys club gang up on Clinton and it does reek of misogyny.

    Clinton had met his son a few weeeks before his death, when he won an essay competition and was invited to the White House. Clinton attended his funeral and was very gracious to the Edwards in the days that followed. When I put that in the mix with Clinton's universal health care plan, Clinton's thorough understanding of and lifetime of work on poverty issues that are of concern to Senator Edwards, I am baffled as to how he can reasonably land in the camp he is in.

    Strange days, indeed.

    Well, Kerry and Kennedy couldn't help him in Massachusetts. I doubt Edwards can help him much either.

    I'm guessing this is an attempt to stave off another 40 point loss in Kentucky. If he can just get Edwards' supporters, it may make a difference.

    Not sure if it will work (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Iris on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:22:50 PM EST
    because a lot of the Edwards votes in WV were probably protest votes.

    [ Parent ]
    This Is Only A Deal (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by Athena on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:23:37 PM EST
    But if Edwards was really into Obama - why not endorse before NC and WV?  This is a backroom deal to get WX out of the news.

    What did Obama promise Edwards?  Let's get real.

    [ Parent ]

    obama gave him money and a promise to (none / 0) (#109)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:36:44 PM EST
    help out his end poverty program.  I am sure it was with the stipulation that Edwards had to do it today or forget it.

    [ Parent ]
    How about the VP slot? Not that far fetched. (none / 0) (#169)
    by elixir on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:46:33 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Not that different at all (none / 0) (#94)
    by v2r1 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:34:06 PM EST
    The platform differences between Clinton/Edwards and  Obama/Edwards was not that different at all.  

    Saying misogyny is stretching this a bit too far.  Its almost like the few rabid Obama camp supporters calling all those who didn't vote for them racists.

    As for meeting his son ... wow do you really have to pull that in ?

    [ Parent ]

    Universal health care was just part of Edwards' (none / 0) (#213)
    by bridget on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:17:16 PM EST
    repackaging for this primary IMO. In 2004 universal health care was a nonissue for him.

    2008 candidate Edwards needed a strong liberal policy issue to run with alongside the "two Americas" which just wasn't enough anymore this time around.

    But in the end Edwards' campaign was mainly all about the apology and nonstop Clinton bashing. The talking points taken straight from dkos.

    Edwards never bothered to run against Obama. His last debate performance made that very clear: e.g. What??? Over 100 "present" votes? Edwards obviously felt politically safe enough to sit up straight in his seat. After all he  knows something about getting bashed for a wrong vote and Obama would forgive him.  

    re Univeral Health Care
    Had John Edwards been serious about turning Universal Health Care for all into a reality he would have endorsed Hillary Clinton right away. He didn't. Fwiw I never believed he cared enough to give it a second thought - except by running as the champion of the poor he enjoyed getting the attention in the manner of Gore.

    Too bad Hillary felt it nec. to give him that satisfaction - by taking him serious enough to ask for his endorsement esp. when one considers his political career so far.

    [ Parent ]

    As a former Edwards supporter (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by cloudy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:21:25 PM EST
    All in all, this tells me more about Edwards than it does about Obama.  It doesn't make me respect Edwards any less.  I'm of the mind that he's doing what he has to do to move his issues forward.  He's pol, I expect that.  However, it also doesn't make me respect Obama any more.  

    *reposted from last thread since the thread closed before I commented.

    Nor me. (5.00 / 4) (#40)
    by Salo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:23:30 PM EST
    Obama still blows.

    [ Parent ]
    Short and sweet. (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by cloudy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:30:59 PM EST
    I like it!

    [ Parent ]
    Less than an hour after hearing about this . . . (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by Palomino on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:22:15 PM EST
    I feel better about it. Why? Because I was so high on the WVA blowout that almost nothing could have harshed my mood. What could have? The Edwards endorsement of Obama--just as it was intended to do. So this tells me that the Obama camp is using Edwards as a fig leaf over their faux emperor. What Edwards gets out of it? Time will tell.

    Heh (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by Steve M on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:23:23 PM EST
    Hooray for another thread where we can say all the same things all over again!  I will just offer a couple predictions:

    1.  Elizabeth will not be making a dueling endorsement of Hillary.  Come on.

    2.  I very much doubt that Edwards will be stumping for Obama and against Hillary in KY or any of the other remaining primaries.

    3.  This endorsement will be treated as yet another rendition of the Greatest Endorsement Ever by the media, and will be roundly ignored by the voters.

    4.  Edwards is still the same sweet guy you couldn't get enough of.  Is he a politician?  Folks, we should have all understood that going in.


    pretty much agree. (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Salo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:25:35 PM EST
    He should npt stump for Obama against Clinton.

    MAke a speech saying he wishes Obama all the best, compliment Clinton and attack Bush and McCain.

    [ Parent ]

    Jinx! (none / 0) (#64)
    by andgarden on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:27:31 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I think (none / 0) (#85)
    by Steve M on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:32:15 PM EST
    that this is more of a general election endorsement than a primary endorsement.

    Obviously, from the timing, it's an attempt to bring the primary to a conclusion.  No one can dispute that he could have waited a few weeks if he wanted to.

    But from the fact that he didn't endorse before the NC primary, when it would have mattered most, it's clear that the main purpose is not to help Obama defeat Hillary.

    [ Parent ]

    And (5.00 / 3) (#92)
    by Steve M on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:33:22 PM EST
    5.  Edwards will not be the VP nominee.

    [ Parent ]
    I pretty much agree (none / 0) (#59)
    by andgarden on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:25:59 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Agree and Disagree (none / 0) (#100)
    by EddieInCA on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:34:34 PM EST
      2.  I don't think Edwards will be stumping against HIllary in other remaining primaries, but I think he WILL be stumping in upcoming primaries stumping FOR Obama.

     3. Ed Schultz just made the point that the United Steelworkers have not endorsed either Hillary or Obama. Edwards was their guy.  He (Schultz) says the Union will come out for Obama soon, which will make PA, and OH much more interesting, and may not be ignored by the voters.



    [ Parent ]

    I wouldnt put to much into (none / 0) (#114)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:37:27 PM EST
    what Ed Schultz says.

    [ Parent ]
    Schultz should be knackered (none / 0) (#157)
    by Salo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:44:40 PM EST
    and melted down for glue.

    [ Parent ]
    everything you say is true (none / 0) (#107)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:36:12 PM EST
    but it still irks me because it gives Maddow and her ilk a reason to tap dance.
    this will be THE story until next tuesday.

    [ Parent ]
    didn't Edwards say that he'd endorse if his (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by kimsaw on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:23:55 PM EST
    choice needed help on Larry King's program. I guess his choice needs help with the working class voters. Smooth move by Obama after his huge loss and it may help him in Kentucky, but it will be Edwards doing the talking not Obama.  Nice to know that Edwards is willing to support the guy who doesn't really support universal health care and voted present on important issues like abortion.  Maybe tonight Obama will offer a new UHC plan.    

    This must be why Obama is so confidently (none / 0) (#148)
    by felizarte on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:43:05 PM EST
    announcing his victory on May 20.  I hope he does and lives to regret it must like George W. did with his Mission Accomplished.

    [ Parent ]
    Edit: much like George W. Bush regretted (none / 0) (#154)
    by felizarte on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:44:06 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Words Cannot Express (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by creeper on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:24:50 PM EST
    my disappointment in the man I once supported.

    There seems to be no end to the surprises.

    I'd bet Edwards is angling for the VP slot.

    If he is the VP candidate (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by felizarte on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:45:37 PM EST
    We'll never hear the end of the $400 haircut from the GOP.

    [ Parent ]
    better that (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by Salo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:52:24 PM EST
    than the Wright story which will sink Obama anyway.

    Edwards is not gunning for VP.

    [ Parent ]

    But at least it frees Hillary (none / 0) (#177)
    by felizarte on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:47:36 PM EST
    from the pressure of running on Obama's ticket as VP if she does not become the nominee. And it also makes me feel better about voting for McCain.

    [ Parent ]
    Sometimes an endorsement (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:25:39 PM EST
    is a cry for attention. I 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.

    It's a good thing he has stepped out of politics. Obama has used funds and promises for many of his SD's, so maybe he promised a big contribution to his college fund for Edwards to stand on stage with him.

    Elizabeth would endorse because who becomes our next president is a serious decision.

    List of supporters (none / 0) (#201)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:54:22 PM EST
    If Edwards could access that list just once, NOW, Obama's supporters would give a little just as a thank you.  If he waits till Obama gets beat up and this is in to the GE, Obama's donors will be  focused on the GE and Obama needing their money and they won't donate to Edwards.  It's got to be now at the peak of their enthusiasm for the endorsement if he wants their money.

    [ Parent ]
    I expected this of Gore... (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by semidi on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:27:42 PM EST
    ...but I'm really disappointed in Edwards. Not exactly surprised; he was much more conservative and pro-corporate in Congress than his newfound Populist religion (which he discovered a year or so before his presidential bid)indicated.

    I think this is a sad case of Edwards thinking he knows which way the wind is blowing. Like NARAL, he's wrong.

    Let's send some more Green Love to Hillary! (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by nycstray on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:28:26 PM EST
    Who's in?!

    My husband not maxed yet...! (none / 0) (#76)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:29:37 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    already been there today (none / 0) (#95)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:34:10 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I Am (none / 0) (#98)
    by creeper on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:34:23 PM EST
    Was just getting ready to contribute online when I got a call from the campaign.  They seem to be on it.

    Wish I could've contributed more.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm In Too.... (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:39:38 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    My grandfather used to say (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:29:02 PM EST
    Take a burlaps sack.  Put all politicians in it.  Get a club.  Start hitting.  Whoever you hit, you hit the right one.  Amen, god rest your soul grandpa.  

    Disappointing (5.00 / 8) (#80)
    by IzikLA on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:30:50 PM EST
    This is not the unity we need.  This is ganging up to push Clinton out of the race.  Her supporters will not be happy.  The Obama campaign is great with the media, but they just don't get it.  Edwards couldn't get those voters, Clinton could.  This doesn't change that for all the talking in the world that will be done about how he will help bring in the white working class.  Just won't change a thing.

    Rachel Maddow is tapdancing on Hillary's grave (5.00 / 4) (#83)
    by kempis on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:31:36 PM EST
    Her breathlessness is making me breathless.

    Anyway, MSNBC (Obama News Channel) is going to bring us "The Endorsement" live. There's a constant split-screen with a crowd, a podium, a big ol' CHANGE sign.

    Ed Schultz says that there's a natural affinity between Obama and Edwards because Edwards is for CHANGE, too.

    Isn't it scary that a nation will uncritically nod and say "yes, change is good," and never ask for particulars? What change? Change what? How? When? Who? Where? Why?

    sigh

    Does anyone know what Obama is going to change?

    Ed Schultz (none / 0) (#93)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:33:23 PM EST
    pffft


    [ Parent ]
    Ed Schultz (none / 0) (#124)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:38:52 PM EST
    a cheap imitation of Rush.  He is not a very smart guy.  I have heard him say some racist stuff and my mouth fell that he was still on the air.  He is the lowest.  

    [ Parent ]
    he competes with (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by Salo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:46:36 PM EST
    Doug Feith as the stupidest man on the planet.

    [ Parent ]
    Ed Schultz (none / 0) (#145)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:42:40 PM EST
    is from the Tweety wing of the "democratic" party.
    he is the democratic Dick Morris.

    [ Parent ]
    Hillary supporters might want to show (none / 0) (#112)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:36:56 PM EST
    their irritation by changing the channel to something that never broadcasts current events.

    Keeping our tv's tuned into those cable entertainment news channels just feeds the beasts.


    [ Parent ]

    His Underwear....maybe (none / 0) (#151)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:43:15 PM EST
    Ed Schultz is a big old blowhard and continually shows how ill-informed he is buying into the "change" b.s..  Where is the information on this change, other than I won't do business like they have done in Washington.  No, obama won't...he is much worse with his Chicago style politics...the only change of interest to him would be trading up from his 1.6 million dollar home to a 5 million dollar home where he and michelle can fret over how they will pay for the ballet lessons, the summer camp....etc.

    [ Parent ]
    I really hate Shultz (none / 0) (#165)
    by Salo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:45:46 PM EST
    Hope Edwards attacks Bush and mccain.

    [ Parent ]
    change (none / 0) (#212)
    by weltec2 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:05:41 PM EST
    I don't know. I've been asking Obamaniacs this from the beginning and all I've ever received is ba.a.a.a.a. They're like the mindless unquestioning sheep of Fox noise. Very depressing.

    [ Parent ]
    Irony (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by cloudy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:32:41 PM EST
    Am I the only one who finds it a bit ironic that in pushing his College for Everyone platform forward, Edwards has thrown his Heathcare for everyone platform under the bus?

    That bus (none / 0) (#101)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:34:34 PM EST
    just got a lot bigger.

    [ Parent ]
    The voters in Iowa (none / 0) (#138)
    by Salo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:41:00 PM EST
    did that.

    Once iowa voted Edwards was out.

    Clinton didn't complain of it.

    [ Parent ]

    Maybe....just maybe (5.00 / 4) (#102)
    by kindness on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:35:09 PM EST
    Edwards prefers Obama.

    I'm somewhat unimpressed with all the attitudes on display.  Men aren't your enemies.  Women aren't your only friends.  To suggest that everything revolves around gender isn't much different than the hard core religious folk.

    You are all better than that.

    How many (5.00 / 4) (#120)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:38:31 PM EST
    men in your professional life call you sweetie?

    [ Parent ]
    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#183)
    by Steve M on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:49:37 PM EST
    I once had a male boss who called me honey.

    Apparently he was so used to having female secretaries that it had become a really, really ingrained habit.  Try to picture me in my deep voice saying, "I'm not your honey!"  He'd apologize but he'd always end up doing it again.

    [ Parent ]

    Hey I call all my male employees sweetie! (none / 0) (#156)
    by Marvin42 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:44:33 PM EST
    But then again I get sued a lot! ;)

    The women on the other hand: if I did it once I would be dead or worse, so never!

    [ Parent ]

    ohfergodssake (3.00 / 2) (#121)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:38:33 PM EST
    we've suggested many reasons for this switch.

    Money. Power. VP. AG.

    Ridiculous comment.

    [ Parent ]

    Who cares (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by sonya on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:35:47 PM EST
    This won't get Obama any more votes.  It only strengthens Hillary's underdog narrative.

    If there was one thing that could help me (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:36:06 PM EST
    get over supporting Obama for president it is having Edwards as Attorney General after the past eight years of illegal unconstitutional bullchit.  Nice touch John, there's more than one way to skin the heart of a Clinton supporter.

    On CBS they were stressing (5.00 / 4) (#110)
    by Rhouse on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:36:45 PM EST
    that Elizabeth is NOT happy and is NOT her endorsement of Obama.  This should be fun if she feels she has to come out for Hillary.  Also it appears that Elizabeth didn't even fly out with John.

    i'd enjoy that. (none / 0) (#126)
    by Salo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:39:31 PM EST
    Maybe she and he could have a debate about it.

    [ Parent ]
    Is this Superdelegate math true? (5.00 / 3) (#135)
    by Chimster on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:40:40 PM EST
    According to Obama, Hillary is Winning

    According to this number-crunching from No Quarter, Obama says that Super Delegates ought to vote in accordance with the "will" of the people. NQ claims if Super Delegates are counted according to Barack Obama's formula, Hillary wins the nomination. Period.

    Is this true? It sounds impressive.

    Oh Man! What a Commedia Tragica (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by feet on earth on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:55:35 PM EST
    is this spectacle of an endorsement!

    Watching it and thinking
    We Have Been Had
    The Coup is On
    Women are been sold everyday noe by the party and its leadership

    COMMEDIA TRAGICA

    My Opinion of John Edwards....WIMP (5.00 / 1) (#211)
    by Mrwirez on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:01:02 PM EST
    As I see it he is also 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 just another sissy democrat that has been neutered THREE times. 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 he does have the "wimp effect", and I REALLY don't like Obama.

    This whole endorsement REEKS of set-up... Us "working class" (I am now a demographic) guys are center-left. Not LEFTY left. That is the point Senator Clinton was making about working class men, 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 and guns... ie. "Reagan Democrat"..... although I NEVER voted Republican.... not yet.

    Post Comment

    I think that most of this... (4.40 / 5) (#9)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:19:06 PM EST
    is high comedy.

    You've got callers on the radio bemoaning the fact that they think McCain is too liberal.

    You've got perfectly sane liberals going so far into fandom for their candidate that I'm worried they'll be able to find their way back to reality.

    And you've got a whole slew of "also rans" who think they know what they're doing so far as political calculations.

    The Divine Comedy? (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Salo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:20:24 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Matthew Pearl's (none / 0) (#41)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:23:31 PM EST
    book was better...or perhaps just more graphic when it came to the decaying part. :-)


    [ Parent ]
    Doomed (4.00 / 4) (#2)
    by Athena on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:14:22 PM EST
    On a day when:

    1. The issue of Wright's magazine appears that includes both Obama and Farrakhan on the same cover.

    2. Obama dismisses a local female reporter asking him a question "Just a moment, sweetie."

    How soon can I write Hillary in?

    No. (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by pie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:22:31 PM EST
    The issue of Wright's magazine appears that includes both Obama and Farrakhan on the same cover.

    Yikes!  He's toast.  The republicans will play this up.  The dems have pissed off half the voters.

    Rome continues to burn.

    [ Parent ]

    This is a joke, right? (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by dianem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:26:55 PM EST
    He didn't do this. Please tell me that this is a joke. He did not refer to a professional woman as "Sweetie"?

    [ Parent ]
    He did (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by americanincanada on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:29:18 PM EST
    and there's video of the whole thing.

    VIDEO

    [ Parent ]

    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:30:23 PM EST
    and he's the woman's rights guy NARAL just supported.

    Just FEEEEL the unity.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't know what to say (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by dianem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:38:27 PM EST
    He was so dismissive.  "Hold on a second, Sweetie". The most sexist men I know stopped referring to women that way in the 80's. Have we been moving backwards?

    [ Parent ]
    the video is devastating... (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by p lukasiak on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:46:59 PM EST
    the woman's voiceover said it all.... not only did she nail Obama on the "sweetie" comment, her remarks before that [paraphrase "but he never did explain how he's going to help these workers"] is gonna hurt Obama a lot more than just a "sweetie" comment ever could.

    [ Parent ]
    In looking up information on this... (none / 0) (#191)
    by dianem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:51:13 PM EST
    ...I found the following comment on a thread in Free Republic, regarding circulating this as widely as possible:

    "Wait till we know Obama's the candidate.

    Then...unleash hell."

    By November, we'll be lucky to win Hawaii and Illinois.

    [ Parent ]

    3 times that I know of. (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by nycstray on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:31:23 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    You're surprised? (5.00 / 3) (#142)
    by Cal on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:41:57 PM EST
    I'm not.  He's "periodically" revealed his true nature throughout this campaign.

    [ Parent ]
    yes (none / 0) (#5)
    by Salo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:16:48 PM EST
    The systemic failures of the party have put us in a spot where we are like the Titanic.

    I really don't see that Edwards enabled this mess. he