home

Edwards Ups the Ante In Kentucky: Thread Four

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:48:36 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

John Edwards gave a great rousing speech (see here)for Democratic values. He spoke very gracious and respectful words of Hillary Clinton. And he endorsed Barack Obama. It was a very impressive performance by John Edwards.

There were some effects though. Some intentional - to step on Hillary's huge win in West Virginia and to vouch for Obama among white working class voters. One was not - upping the ante in Kentucky. John Edwards, populist hero with a proven record of connecting with white working class voters has vouched for Barack Obama. Does Kentucky buy it?

The Kentucky contest, previously a foregone conclusion for the Media, now becomes a test. For Barack Obama. He needs to go in to Kentucky, WITH John Edwards, and fight for their votes. He needs to show he cares about the voters of Kentucky. Particularly white working class voters. An interesting development indeed.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

Comments closed

< John Edwards Endorsement: Thread Three | Edwards Endorsement Should Lead To Full Seating Of FL/MI >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Edwards Ups the Ante In Kentucky: Thread Four | 239 comments (239 topical)
    A Bit Of A Joke I'd Say. Edwards' Numbers (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:51:30 PM EST
    weren't that big anywhere....and him vouching for obama...laughable.  Anyone paying attention knows exactly what obama is about...thought he didn't need those votes?

    What is embarrasing for Edwards (5.00 / 6) (#17)
    by talex on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:00:08 PM EST
    is that he campaigned in Iowa for 4 years and ends up endorsing the newbie he lost too. That is quite a blow.

    [ Parent ]
    Personally. (5.00 / 1) (#226)
    by lansing quaker on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:57:16 PM EST
    I'd rather not mock John Edwards.  He and Elizabeth are great Americans and sent a positive and important message on the stump.

    As an advocate for Hillary am I disappointed?  Yes.

    Am I angry or "bitter"?  Nah.

    It reeks of political calculation, and I doubt that his endorsement will do much in the upcoming Primaries and mean much less come the General Election.  Lots of other high profile, popular elected officials have already endorsed Obama.  And?

    It will change the media narrative in the short term, but Hillary has never been one to win on media narratives.  And in the GE, the endorsement will mean jack all because it's an endorsement from a Democrat to a Democrat.

    Again: I'm disappointed with Edwards.  But I will not insult him or Elizabeth for this.  If anything, it's party machinations behind this.

    And this is why I re-registered as a big ol' (I) instead of a D.

    Because "I" will vote in November, and "I" will not vote for Obama.

    But I still think John and Elizabeth Edwards are great Americans.


    [ Parent ]

    Hey... (5.00 / 4) (#88)
    by p lukasiak on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:19:36 PM EST
    after losing to Clinton by 41 points yesterday, the 7% that edwards got in West Virginia lookes pretty good....It would have gotten Obama to just a 2-1 loss!

    [ Parent ]
    As a former Edwards supporter, (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by The Realist on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:20:51 PM EST
    judging from the timing, it just really seems like a vindictive slap in the face to Hillary.  Edwards believes in fighting and his policies were so much closer to her policies that i can't see any other reason for him to endorse Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    Edwards couldn't (5.00 / 0) (#190)
    by Saxon on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:45:27 PM EST
    carry his home state (or deliver it) in 2004 GE. So, i don't see what his endorsement adds.

    he decided to go with the guy and giving a speech about how obama is the only guy who can make change! didn't he and Kerry say they will bring change in 2004?  Isn't Hillary campaigning on her experience in making a difference (not just words)

    [ Parent ]

    As John Edwards himself (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by Iphie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:53:08 PM EST
    has said, endorsements don't matter all that much. I don't think this will help turn around Obama's numbers in KY, I just don't buy it.

    I think John gains more than he gives (none / 0) (#132)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:30:03 PM EST
    with this one. He is aware of how the endorsement game works, and thanks to this primary season, a bigger share of America does, too.

    John panders to Obama knowing the short-term, minimal impact it has, and Obama provides national exposure for John's college for everyone issue...and probably some nice donations.

     

    [ Parent ]

    Ugh. (none / 0) (#145)
    by pie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:34:10 PM EST
    and probably some nice donations.  

    So the less qualified person wins the nomination.

    Disgusting.

    [ Parent ]

    I dont think (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:47:52 PM EST
    the endorsement is going to help Obama. I don't  think Edwards thought his endorsement would help Obama.

    I'm still counting on Hillary to be in top spot.

    [ Parent ]

    and the Attorny General (none / 0) (#172)
    by Saxon on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:41:30 PM EST
    position in a future Obama administration

    [ Parent ]
    Obama cries uncle (5.00 / 11) (#3)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:53:09 PM EST
    So, if Edwards does it for him, how does it prove Obama has the goods?  He always has to get his big uncles to beat up on Hillary.  First it was Ted, then Kerry etc.  I think it sounds like political pandering.  

    all the boys together can't beat the gurrl (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by moll on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:56:20 PM EST
    So, if Edwards does it for him, how does it prove Obama has the goods?  He always has to get his big uncles to beat up on Hillary.  First it was Ted, then Kerry etc.  I think it sounds like political pandering.  

    but Edwards has a great haircut.

    [ Parent ]

    It Sounds Like Political Pandering, BECAUSE (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:07:13 PM EST
    IT IS Blanche, It is!

    [ Parent ]
    LOL (5.00 / 0) (#159)
    by ruffian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:37:42 PM EST
    Someone else watched Baby Jane recently.

    Yes, most of the endorsements Obama has gotten so far have helped the endorser a lot more than the endorsee. This one would help more if the timing weren't so freakin' obvious.

    [ Parent ]

    Red Rover, Red Rover (5.00 / 0) (#117)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:26:09 PM EST
    So, one more of the "good ol' boys" joins the chain...

    Send Hillary right over!

    [ Parent ]

    MLK... (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by mike in dc on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:55:42 PM EST
    ...could come back from the dead, with endorsements from Jesus and Daniel Boone, and I think it'd still be iffy whether he could win a Kentucky primary.

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:57:56 PM EST
    Look, a single digit loss would be very impressive from Obama.

    What we can not see is a 20 point blow out.

    [ Parent ]

    Or what? (5.00 / 8) (#16)
    by andgarden on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:59:16 PM EST
    We'll have further proof that he's unelectable? I think it's unavoidable at this point.

    [ Parent ]
    I think Bill Clinton is going to enjoy (5.00 / 7) (#26)
    by oculus on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:02:15 PM EST
    the contest in Kentucky a lot

    [ Parent ]
    Or Edwards won't get the VP spot? (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Boston Boomer on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:11:51 PM EST
    This just makes me more angry and more determined never to vote for Obama or anyone who has endorsed him.  I'll bet there are a lot of angry women in KY.  If Obama goes there, let's hope he doesn't call any of them "sweetie."

    [ Parent ]
    Further proof and concern (none / 0) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:05:01 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    So would Edwards's failure here (none / 0) (#50)
    by andgarden on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:08:07 PM EST
    strengthen or weaken the Unity Ticket argument? Or would there be no impact?

    [ Parent ]
    strengthens it (none / 0) (#54)
    by bjorn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:09:30 PM EST
    Edwards is good, but he is not Clinton

    [ Parent ]
    No. Edwards (none / 0) (#66)
    by oldpro on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:13:37 PM EST
    isn't 'good.'

    If Edwareds were any good he would have done much better...both the first time and this time.

    No.  He didn't wear well at all.

    [ Parent ]

    That's right! (none / 0) (#89)
    by Leisa on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:19:41 PM EST
    This endorsement is so predictable to me... debate performances, removing names form MI ballot, Sunday's cat and mouse game...  

    Why do these guys resent Hillary playing their game?

    [ Parent ]

    I think there has been a lot of (none / 0) (#97)
    by bjorn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:22:18 PM EST
    sexism, but if Clinton were a man don't you think Obama still would have had Edwards endorse him.  It was a political move, one Clinton herself would have made had Edwards endorsed her. I don't think it is about the guys ganging up on her, it is about Obama trying to win.

    [ Parent ]
    If Hillary were a man (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by ahazydelirium on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:25:29 PM EST
    I don't think we'd be having this conversation at all.

    [ Parent ]
    very fair point, she (none / 0) (#136)
    by bjorn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:32:18 PM EST
    probably would have won months ago!!!!

    [ Parent ]
    BTD, are you becoming a concern troll ... (none / 0) (#59)
    by cymro on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:10:48 PM EST
    ... in your own blog?

    [ Parent ]
    Apparently (none / 0) (#74)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:16:04 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    after this stunt.... (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by p lukasiak on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:23:20 PM EST
    do you still think Clinton will want/accept a VP nod?

    If I'm Hillary, my attitude will be "Barack, I'd like to help you, but if you're going to be president you're going to have to step up at some point, and get the job done yourself.  So no thanks... I'll go back to the senate and be bitter and clinging...."

    [ Parent ]

    I think this was Obama's way of (none / 0) (#169)
    by ruffian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:40:24 PM EST
    saying 'I got your unity ticket right here, sweetie'.

    I don't see it happening.

    [ Parent ]

    Too meta! (none / 0) (#82)
    by lambertstrether on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:18:21 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I think... (5.00 / 10) (#35)
    by NWHiker on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:03:24 PM EST
    I think we'll see the 20 pt blowout, but it won't matter. Because he's already The One and who cares about Kentucky anyhow? Aren't they all uneducated racists anyhow?

    I don't think JE makes one whit of diff in the KY primary, any more than Kerry and Kennedy did in MA. What it does do is, as you've all said, remove Clinton's monumental win out of the news cycle, and it makes it easier for the SDs and Dem party to say finish it up next week.

    Yeah, I'm pretty bitter, at this point.

    [ Parent ]

    People don't see the endorser (none / 0) (#139)
    by Iris on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:32:56 PM EST
    They see the candidate.  We're not as stupid in Kentucky as some people think.

    [ Parent ]
    I hope... (none / 0) (#152)
    by NWHiker on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:36:37 PM EST
    OMG. I hope you knew I was being sarcastic in my question about KY voters being uneducated and racist. (Ugh. I'm feeling panic...).

    [ Parent ]
    Why? (5.00 / 7) (#47)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:07:15 PM EST
    It's already obvious Obama has serious problems. Edwards WILL NOT be able to correct these problems. It is the fatal flaw of the Obama campaign. You can't have someone try to solve the problems of deeply flawed candidate.

    Obama's attitude will be enough for KY voters not to pull the lever for him whether or not Edwards vouches for him. Obama has to solve this problem himself but perhaps it is unsolvable as I have said before. Obama should go there himself if he's so worried about these voters and not hide behind Edwards.

    [ Parent ]

    This is also (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by Iris on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:36:52 PM EST
    my assessment of Obama's candidacy.  If the netroots was still in the 'reality-based community' we would see that he is a deeply flawed candidate, but so much effort has been put into spinning it away (in true academic form) that it is hidden.  Of course I'm biased because I support Hillary, but that's part of the reason I support Hillary!  "A lot of work to do" is an understatement.

    [ Parent ]
    How do you figure? (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by sweetthings on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:16:27 PM EST
    I'm pretty sure Obama can afford another 20 point blowout.

    At this point, it's all about the Supers. And since his blowout last night, he's picked up what...3? 3.5? (plus Edwards) Hillary picked up 1, as far as I know.

    Ohio didn't shake them. PA didn't phase them. WV seems to have had minimal impact. But Kentucky is going to turn them around?

    Maybe. Seems like a stretch, though.

    [ Parent ]

    I think the supers are either (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by andgarden on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:20:35 PM EST
    stupid or are more interested in things other than winning the White House in November.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh c'mon (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by ruffian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:42:57 PM EST
    Who says it has to be one or the other?

    [ Parent ]
    November will shake them (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Davidson on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:24:21 PM EST
    But then it'll be too late.

    [ Parent ]
    Exactly. (5.00 / 3) (#206)
    by Iris on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:49:28 PM EST
    Obama has been defined already.  Back in January I was already hearing about how Obama would not 'salute our flag' from people at work.  A dirty smear, but it works, and people believe it.  Don't dismiss this, because I can personally testify to having heard them repeated by socially conservative Democrats.  It's not all about race, and it would be a massive failure of liberalism to reduce it to that.  We could not pick a more perfect candidate to define our party in a way that will hurt us in years to come.

    I invite everyone to visit Snopes and browse through the list of rumors and smears that have been pouring into people's inboxes for the last six months.  It isn't pretty, but like it or not these are part of the assumptions many will bring into the voting booth when choosing between McCain and Obama.  

    All of that, of course, is separate from the liberal/Democratic critique of Obama that has been fleshed out here on Talkleft.  I don't know how to make this more clear: if I am of the opinion that Obama might actually do more damage than McCain, and that he is not ready to be President--and I am a core, partisan Democrat--what chance does he have?  

    [ Parent ]

    Pretty telling (none / 0) (#116)
    by Leisa on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:26:05 PM EST
    is it not???  What about our party?  Maybe it is true, they do not want us to a part of the new brand of Democrat...

    [ Parent ]
    opps (none / 0) (#121)
    by Leisa on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:27:02 PM EST
    be a part of

    [ Parent ]
    Obama will be the nominee if loses 100-0 (none / 0) (#151)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:35:37 PM EST
    That's not my point. I want to see him do better with white working class voters. Don't you?

    [ Parent ]
    Of course you want to see him do better. (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by sweetthings on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:45:40 PM EST
    You're an Obama supporter. (snark)

    Sure, I guess if he is going to be the nominee, I'd like to see him do better too. But when I read this:

    What we can not see is a 20 point blow out.

    I read it as implying that there would be consequences if we did see a 20 point blowout. And I'm no longer certain there would be. (or at least, not until November)

    Of course, judging from your last response, you don't either, so maybe I just misinterpreted.

    [ Parent ]

    A loss is now very impressive? (5.00 / 4) (#100)
    by Davidson on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:22:30 PM EST
    We're talking about the presumptive nominee who has every advantage humanly possible and somehow him losing to the Eeeeevil, cash-strapped Clinton by single-digits is impressive?

    The man should be clobbering her in every state.  We're lowering the standards to absolutely absurd levels (He only has to win OR!  He only has to avoid a landslide in KY!).  How will Obama possibly deal with a GE matchup against McCain when he's so desperately dependent on a fawning media (which will lionize McCain and throttle Obama) and a group  of men crying, "Please, don't hurt him!  Unity!  Unity!"

    This is insane!  How can they be so completely blind to reality?  What do voters have to do to have the Party hear us loud and clear that we won't vote for Obama?  

    [ Parent ]

    Edwards' Task (none / 0) (#160)
    by Athena on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:38:00 PM EST
    This is what Pat Buchanan said tonight and I posted that earlier.  I think it's a test for Edwards - and not an attractive one - but I think he made a deal and now needs to deliver.  He's got 6 days.

    [ Parent ]
    Did he? I missed it. but I thought (none / 0) (#189)
    by ruffian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:45:14 PM EST
    something similar.  To me it seems like Obama has been auditioning VPs for a while now.  Richardson failed miserably. This is Edwards' trial run.

    [ Parent ]
    Right (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Steve M on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:09:40 PM EST
    Are you suggesting something here other than that a black man can't win a primary in Kentucky?

    [ Parent ]
    Repeat after me... (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by dianem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:44:05 PM EST
    "I will not use the fact that Obama is black as an excuse for his failures". Edwards gets it. Clinton is a very well qualified candidate, and her husband was a favorite in the South. Meanwhile, Obama is an urban liberal who has expressed some dubious sentiments about people in rural areas. It's not always about race any more than Clinton antipathy is always about gender.

    [ Parent ]
    Has one ever won a statewide primary in KY? (none / 0) (#84)
    by mike in dc on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:18:29 PM EST
    Just wondering.

    [ Parent ]
    I see (none / 0) (#98)
    by Steve M on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:22:23 PM EST
    you want to be cute and imply it without saying it, huh?  Go away with your pathetic insults.

    [ Parent ]
    believe what you want... (none / 0) (#144)
    by mike in dc on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:34:08 PM EST
    ...I'll still be here waiting for an answer to that question.

    [ Parent ]
    God (none / 0) (#174)
    by Steve M on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:42:11 PM EST
    At least have the balls to say what you mean.  How gutless.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, women often win KY primaries (none / 0) (#194)
    by lilburro on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:46:01 PM EST
    I hear...

    [ Parent ]
    Your argument, taken to its conclusion (none / 0) (#207)
    by andgarden on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:49:39 PM EST
    hold that no black man can be elected President of the United States.

    [ Parent ]
    ya think? (5.00 / 7) (#6)
    by cpinva on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:56:14 PM EST
    John Edwards, populist hero with a proven record of connecting with white working class voters has vouched for Barack Obama.

    if he's such a populist hero, how come he's not the one still campaigning? having lost two presidential elections in a row, i think edwards has proven, very effectively, just how little support he has, with any class, working or otherwise.

    having endorsed sen. obama, he now displays a complete detachment from reality. wonder what the wife, who publicly supports sen. clinton's proposed healthcare plan, had to say to him about that?

    love to have been a fly on that wall this morning!

    ha (5.00 / 8) (#20)
    by moll on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:01:22 PM EST
       John Edwards, populist hero with a proven record of connecting with white working class voters has vouched for Barack Obama.

    if he's such a populist hero, how come he's not the one still campaigning?

    I was for Edwards originally but I tell you what, I feel nothing. Absolutely nothing for him.

    Hillary turned out to make her campaign all about what I wanted his to be: focused on the economic issues & continuing to hang in there somehow & fight despite all the pressure from the big boys status quo.

    Right now, Edwards looks more like an ambulance chaser than a populist to me.

    [ Parent ]

    because (none / 0) (#13)
    by iago on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:58:28 PM EST
    "if he's such a populist hero, how come he's not the one still campaigning?"

    Because he gets out of a race when it's clear he can't win.... That is all :)

    [ Parent ]

    If he had HRC's numbers... (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:08:05 PM EST
    he wouldn't have suspended his campaign.

    [ Parent ]
    by now... (none / 0) (#73)
    by iago on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:15:17 PM EST
    by now I think he would have.

    Elected Delegates remaining: 235
    Clinton elected delegate tally: 1445 (1718 w/ supers)
    Obama elected delegate tally: 1600 (1884 w/ supers)
    Delta: Obama +155(166 if you could supers)

    Clinton would need to earn 195 of the remaining 235 elected delegates to TIE Obama's elected total and 201 to TIE his entire total.

    If this was a ball game people would be heading for the parking lot.


    [ Parent ]

    I sincerely doubt it... (none / 0) (#83)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:18:23 PM EST
    He withdrew/suspended because he didn't have the numbers back then and his polling wasn't looking that great...

    [ Parent ]
    agree to disagree? (none / 0) (#101)
    by iago on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:22:36 PM EST
    I think not seeing a path to the nomination he suspended his campaign. I think Clinton is in the same situation now.

    But I will respectfully agree to disagree with you.


    [ Parent ]

    Popular (none / 0) (#130)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:29:43 PM EST
    vote is what she has going for her. It's the "will of the people" argument and Obama has lost the whole pledged delegate argument anyway.

    Can you tell me why you want to put up a candidate that is sure to lose the general election?

    [ Parent ]

    answers (none / 0) (#175)
    by iago on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:42:32 PM EST
    "Can you tell me why you want to put up a candidate that is sure to lose the general election? "

    I don't. If you can break out the electoral math I'd be happy to look at it but at this point no candidate, as far as I can calculate, is "sure" to lose the general.

    As for popular vote under all but one calculation (add in the uncontested primaries and don't count IA, NV, ME, WA estimates) Obama is winning the popular vote. Seemingly the will of the people is not for Clinton.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html


    [ Parent ]

    Why'd you choose... (none / 0) (#143)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:33:57 PM EST
    the name of a character who sets aside his own morality to steal, deceive, kill, and stab his best friend on the back?

    He may not have seen it...I don't know. I certainly didn't see him going a whole lot further than he did...not with coming in such a distant third in Fla. Remember...he didn't suspend til the day after Fla.

    On the other hand, I think that Clinton sees a path.  It may not be a clear one...it may not be the easiest path. But I think she sees one...

    I think that Obama sees an easy path. But it requires that his main obstacle get out of the way...

    [ Parent ]

    show me (none / 0) (#193)
    by iago on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:45:56 PM EST
    "On the other hand, I think that Clinton sees a path.  It may not be a clear one...it may not be the easiest path. But I think she sees one..."

    Show me the path then. I've posted the math show me the numbers she needs and can win. Here they are again.
    ----------
    Elected Delegates remaining: 235
    Clinton elected delegate tally: 1445 (1718 w/ supers)
    Obama elected delegate tally: 1600 (1884 w/ supers)
    Delta: Obama +155(166 if you count supers)

    Clinton would need to earn 195 of the remaining 235 elected delegates to TIE Obama's elected total and 201 to TIE his entire total.

    Show me the math of the path


    [ Parent ]

    Real supporters don't quit early (none / 0) (#212)
    by cymro on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:51:29 PM EST
    If this was a ball game people would be heading for the parking lot.

    Right, but that does not mean that the game is actually OVER. I was at an A's game vs. the Yankees in Oakland in about 25 years ago. The A's were down 5-2 in the bottom of the ninth. Rickey Henderson was batting with 2 outs, and an 0-2 count. People were heading for the parking lot in droves.

    But, Henderson kept fouling off pitches and taking balls until he finally drew a walk. The next 5 batters also got hits or drew walks, and the A's won the game 6-5.

    So, even though the Yankees may often be the overwhelming favorite, they can't actually declare victory until the game is over. Sometimes the underdog comes back to win.

    [ Parent ]

    Isn't it ironic ... (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:13:39 PM EST
    ... that last January 5, just prior to the New Hampshire primary, John Edwards was the primary Democratic candidate calling upon Hillary Clinton to retire from the campaign, saying quite bluntly that the race was now between him and Sen. Obama.

    Four months later, look who's still in the race, while Edwards stands on the sidelines, his campaign having gone nowhere. Did Obama offer to raise money to retire his campaign debts, too?

    At this particular point in time, Mrs. Clinton's voters -- their dander now up for the duration -- probably aren't inclined to be stampeded into Obama's Unity Pony Corral by the immaculately coiffed Mr. Edwards, who is clearly currying favor with Obama-leaning party leaders and elders inside the D.C. Beltway.  As such, this endorsement is nothing more than a hollow effort to salvage for them some shred of dignity following yesterday's debacle in West Virginia.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm with you! (none / 0) (#125)
    by Leisa on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:28:26 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Tweety said they looked like a ticket. (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:56:51 PM EST
    Yet another contender for Obama's VP? Well unless Obama adds him to the ticket before Tuesday I don't think the people of Kentucky will care very much. Edwards isn't running. The media is very foolish to raise the stakes for Obama, but they have been mostly foolish throughout this whole campaign.

    Edwards has said categorically no (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:58:41 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Richardson is breathing a sigh of relief.... (5.00 / 5) (#18)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:00:46 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    heh (none / 0) (#29)
    by bjorn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:02:45 PM EST
    I think he has no chance

    [ Parent ]
    Edwards also told Kerry that he wouldn't run (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by tigercourse on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:01:38 PM EST
    in 2008. He changed his mind.

    [ Parent ]
    Perhaps he's positioning himself for (none / 0) (#90)
    by Rhouse on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:19:50 PM EST
    2012?  But for President or VP, who can tell

    [ Parent ]
    He just blew that! (none / 0) (#128)
    by Leisa on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:29:29 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    He also said (none / 0) (#171)
    by americanincanada on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:40:47 PM EST
    he wasn't going to endorse.

    [ Parent ]
    Why would Edwards want to be VP (none / 0) (#180)
    by stefystef on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:43:05 PM EST
    to the man who basically used the race card to push him out of the election before Super Tuesday?

    Obama is using Edwards to try to get white working voters.  Here's the problem.  Those voters are NOT STUPID!

    This will play right into McCain and the Republicans' hands.  Rove is almost orgasmic with joy... ~wringing his hands~  Just as I planned.

    [ Parent ]

    Rove is not (none / 0) (#236)
    by Saxon on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:10:38 PM EST
    running any campaign anymore ...

    you can relax:)

    [ Parent ]

    I agree BTD, I really thought (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by bjorn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:57:29 PM EST
    John Edwards did give a rousing speech.  And Pat Buchanan and Joan Walsh agree that it upped the ante on KY.  It must be true if Pat and Joan are in agreement!
    Hillary needs to throw down in KY!
    Upping (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:11:38 PM EST
    the ante in KY is great news for Hillary.

    [ Parent ]
    John Edwards couldn't even deliver (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by stillife on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:58:23 PM EST
    his own state in 2004.  I'm not expecting this transparent endorsement to have any effect except with the bloviating idiots of the MSM.

    I still think I'm right (5.00 / 7) (#12)
    by andgarden on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:58:25 PM EST
    This isn't going to win KY for him. It won't even be close.

    I don't think Obama will go into Kentucky (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by talex on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:58:32 PM EST
    First of all he has shifted into General Election mode which is a somewhat smart on his part I hate to say.

    Secondly it would be to risky for him, for should he go to Kentucky and still get his butt handed to him it would really end up hurting him.

    He may send Edwards, if Edwards is going to go beyond the endorsement, but if Edwards does he will have to praise Clinton the same as he did today and he would come close to canceling himself out of helping at all.

    If I was Obama I would continue to campaign for the General with the inherent risks of appearing, uh, confirming his arrogance and losing most of the remaining Supers and a whole bunch of Clinton supporters.

    No. He can't send Edwards in by himself. (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by chancellor on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:23:58 PM EST
    Hillary can send Bill Clinton anywhere for her campaign, but if Edwards went into any state without Obama firmly in tow, it would be seen as the ultimate insult to the voters of that state.

    [ Parent ]
    Another ultimate insult to voters - why (5.00 / 5) (#202)
    by Boo Radly on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:49:16 PM EST
    not. Insults are what this candidates campaign is about. I have been catching up on my reading of these four threads - from the top of this one it seemed to me that, once again, the Democratic party is asking every one to help prop this candidate up......

    I am tired of it. I was an Edwards supporter early. Then I selected Hillary because she is just so darn succintly matched to my "democratic" needs, issues. In my naievety I saw/see a great difference between Hillary and BO - namely experience and a record and she can tell me what she has in mind. Edwards endorsement means nothing to me. I never could see how an Edwards supporter could turn into a fan of BO. That is based on the wisps of his acheivements - it was just not enough to vote for him as president.

    I stay a Democrat up to when the nom is selected with seating and counting FL/MI. If Hillary is the nom - great. If she is not, then I am "I" from now on. D stands for confusion, disloyality, ugliness on a level I never would have imagined. I care not what another person thinks of my party change - not a bit. 7.5 years of pols as pols and nothing being done to correct it even after 2006. It, the D, is unsupportable for me - just like trying to carry BO.

    What on earth are they thinking! It's Hill or the highway. She is so impressive.

    [ Parent ]

    Well exploring the "ante" metaphor (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by Faust on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:00:46 PM EST
    lets say this "bet" fails. What are the consequences?

    For Edwards I suppose it could be a lowering a stature, i.e. proof he's not influential.

    For Obama? That even with help his problem with certain demographics is solid as ever.

    So what kind of movement would we need to say that this endorsement has made an impact? How much movement would be needed in the polls to avoid a loss of this bet?

    Does Obama need to win now? If Edwards helps Obama close to within 10 is he vindicated?

    Good questions (none / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:02:12 PM EST
    What answers do you have?

    [ Parent ]
    Obama simply HAS to do better ... (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:19:32 PM EST
    ... than 40%. If our party's presumptive and presumptuous nominee polls under 35% in Kentucky, some very loud alarm bells are going to go off at DNC HQ, as well they should have after Ohio and Texas.

    [ Parent ]
    The alarm bells are broken. [nt] (5.00 / 5) (#131)
    by ahazydelirium on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:29:45 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    These are questions the MSM would ask (none / 0) (#106)
    by Mark Woods on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:23:38 PM EST
    if they had a hair of un-Obama-biased credibility left, but they don't.  What they do have is vulnerability, as they floated stories yesterday accusing Hillary in advance of fomenting a 'media backlash' for crowning Barack 'The Inevitable One'.

    I sense a tiny bit of fear in the media of being found out after-the-fact by journalism historians, and of trying to create a fake paper trail to simulate 'objective coverage'.

    Take Nedra Pickler's 3-months of bitter anti-Hillarisms and near worshipful description of Obama, followed by yesterday's headline 'Should Obama be afraid?' (of the results in West Virginia).

    Just MHO, but I perceive an MSM blink behind the stoic, unified drumbeat of last week's collective Clinton post-mortems.

    [ Parent ]

    Its a win for Edwards (none / 0) (#64)
    by ding7777 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:12:54 PM EST
    he believes in the "netroots" and is pandering to them for his next run

    [ Parent ]
    Almost all endorsements are overrated... (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by OrangeFur on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:01:26 PM EST
    And I don't think Edwards' is any different. I mean, Gore won the presidency in 2000 and couldn't help Dean a bit in 2004.

    Though if this now makes Kentucky a test, so be it. I'm sure Hillary would love nothing better.

    I do wonder if Edwards will campaign for Obama, or if it's just one photo op.

    You kidder. (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by pie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:01:41 PM EST
    Particularly white working class voters. An interesting development indeed.

    In 2004, Bush/Cheney beat Kerry/Edwards 59.55% to 39.69%.

    Since them Edwards has all but faded from the picture (for reasons that should be discussed).

    Don't see how Edwards' endorsement will help Obama in KY.

    That's on Kerry (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:03:10 PM EST
    Edwards would have done better.

    [ Parent ]
    If Edwards 2003/4 had sounded (none / 0) (#39)
    by andgarden on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:05:12 PM EST
    like Edwards 2007/8, Bush would have been swept out of office like Jimmy Carter, I think.

    [ Parent ]
    Isn't this what (none / 0) (#48)
    by pie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:07:17 PM EST
    people said about Gore?

    The thing is, Hillary sounds good right now.  She keeps going and winning over voters.

    [ Parent ]

    Indeed, (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by andgarden on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:09:25 PM EST
    But. . .the math.

    [ Parent ]
    I want this country (none / 0) (#61)
    by pie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:11:30 PM EST
    to come out of the Bush/Cheney years. She can help do it.

    I couln't care less about the math.

    [ Parent ]

    Would have done better (none / 0) (#41)
    by pie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:05:13 PM EST
    if he were the nominee?  He was out from the get-go.  He wasn't the favored "son."

    [ Parent ]
    Transfusion for BO: gets oxygen up, blood pumping (5.00 / 6) (#24)
    by Ellie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:02:04 PM EST
    The WV drubbing was huge and no matter how strenuously the bobbleheads tried to dismiss it, it came through the back door to bite BO or the DNC in some form. Even "positive" stuff about BO looked bad on him.

    TeamO needed some feelgood moments and can't afford another debacle.

    I hope they (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Mrwirez on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:02:35 PM EST
    rock and roll All through the state, and Hillary Clinton Kicks their arse's.

    Picture of Edwards at Obama Rally.          http://tinyurl.com/2n2snw

    If the idiot pundit reaction (5.00 / 6) (#30)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:02:51 PM EST
    I've heard so far holds, this may turn out to be a mistake because it raises absurd media expectations for Obama's results in Kentucky, and Edwards simply isn't going to make any difference. (Pundits oughta know that, but they're too intent on playing the game to think.)

    c'mon... (none / 0) (#142)
    by p lukasiak on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:33:43 PM EST
    you don't think they like "Is Obama Electable?" narrative?

    Its made to order for them.  They're gonna have a whole lot of time to kill between now and the convention, and speculating whether Obama can win in November without the support of "average Americans" (and that WILL be how it gets phrased..no more "white working class") is a great topic for bloviators...

    [ Parent ]

    I seriously doubt this is going to help very much (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by ajain on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:03:15 PM EST
    I think this is exactly what Hillary supporters hate. Taking credit away from her when she deserves it. Lets see what happens.

    Also, I doubt its going help Obama in Kentucky and we will see how things shape up. I doubt most people in Kentucky were watching the Michigan event take place, but if he does campaign there then I think we will find out if Obama really has any appeal to these voters even after this.

    That's exactly the rub. (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by NYCDem11 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:34:53 PM EST
    Rather than helping Obama in a substantive way, this really just angers Clinton supporters because it's yet another effort to dismiss Clinton when she's experiencing a well-earned moment of glory. (Keep that woman down, which reminds me of Maya Angelou's recent tribute: Rise, Hillary, Rise.) The ante has been upped in Kentucky and I hope the voters there agree with the nearly 17 million voters before them that Senator Clinton is the more qualified candidate and the one with the heart and the broad base to best beat McCain in November.

    [ Parent ]
    It won't matter. (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by owenaprhys on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:03:16 PM EST
    Edwards lost KY in '04, and he will not help Obama in '08. BO will wion Louisville, and maybe Lexington, but he ends there. Bowling Green, Richmond, Paducah and the "rural Bitter folks" will not vote for him in any great numbers.

    I say she will get at least 55%, probably closer to 65% of the whole state.

    it's so calculated (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by isaac on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:03:22 PM EST
    it will almost surely backfire (with everyone but the media of course)

    Pat Buchanan (5.00 / 5) (#38)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:05:05 PM EST
    is a smart political guy.  Even though many of his personal views are pretty odious, when he's got no dog in the fight, like now, I find he often thinks a heck of a lot more clearly than most of the punditry. (Of course, I say that because he's agreeing with me mostly right now, but still...)  I always find him interesting in these discussions.  He seems to be immune to everybody's talking points and preferred media narratives and the rest.

    Indeed, he's very smart (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by andgarden on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:06:46 PM EST
    Odious, though.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree... (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Tess on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:10:29 PM EST
    I have always liked Pat Buchanan....even though I rarely agree with his deep political beliefs. He has sided with Clinton more than anyone at MSNBC...

    He stands up for what he believes in and is very smart...plus, he's got a great laugh!

    [ Parent ]

    He's also another one (none / 0) (#56)
    by pie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:09:51 PM EST
    who couldn't get his message out there when he was running for prez.

    But he understands more than most of the pundits.  He is sympatico with her, I'll bet.

    [ Parent ]

    This (5.00 / 6) (#40)
    by sas on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:05:12 PM EST
    Edwards endorsement proves the BO campaign is scared and in trouble.

    So after she wins KY by 20+ something, will they bring out Gore?

    Bring out Gore before Puerto Rico?

    They can gring out all these Dems  - but the one thing they cannot do is fool the voters.

    They can have their little wankfests and hakas'til the cows come home.....this just strengthens the resolve of the Clinton voters and pushes them away.

    Also, how about the BOOS when Edwards said nice things about Hillary?  Really makes you want to vote for them doesn't it ?  I spit on them all.

    Or the endorsement (3.25 / 4) (#123)
    by 1jane on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:27:19 PM EST
    looks strong and well planned. Edwards has been softning up the media by appearing on morning talk shows and Larry King Live as a run up to this endorsement. Clinton is going to lose big in Oregon, delegates are daily lining up to support Obama, Hillary's in Washington holding fundraisers at her house looking for money, and the timing is tough on her because she's got 3 interviews on the majors in the can conducted before Edwards endorsement. Clinton supporters are deeply disappointed by this stategic endorsement. The highlights in Edward's endorsement speech were the toughness he showed on the last 8 years of Bush and his call for cutting poverty in America in half... with Obama by his side. Imagine Edwards in the Cabinet or VP advising on domestic affairs while Obama repairs the gutting of foreign policy by Bush.

    We need every Democrat on board to defeat McCain and bring the walls down around Washington.

    [ Parent ]

    nope (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by miguelito on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:32:57 PM EST
    I'm voting McCain if Obama is the nom.. we'll see.  Edwards is and has always been a fame whore, and his record of accomplishments is as sparse as Obama's.  It makes perfect sense for him to endorse.  What is disgusting is that this "new politics" is the same as the old politics of stealing the news cycle- Rove style baby!    

    [ Parent ]
    So what did you make (none / 0) (#238)
    by Manuel on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:20:40 PM EST
    of booing Edward's kind comments about Clinton?  Don't you need those Democrats?

    [ Parent ]