The New York Times writes;

But it would surprise very few people if Mr. Edwards eventually endorsed Barack Obama, considering they both ran on messages of change, and Mr. Edwards has long been critical of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s practice of accepting money from Washington lobbyists.

He spoke highly of both candidates in the interview, but said Mr. Obama has the better chance of beating Senator John McCain in the general election “because it looks like he’s going to be the nominee.”

How much do endorsements matter with so few states left to vote? At this point, the superdelegates are going to be looking at what happened in their districts, states and nationally with respect to vote and pledged delegate totals and their personal views of electability. Many will take the safe route to avoid controversy.

The time when John Edwards could have made a difference has passed. I'm really sorry he didn't stay in the race longer. I was always torn between him and Hillary, and he well could have ended up my first choice. On crime issues, I always thought he was the least progressive of the three, but it also seemed to me he hadn't really given them much thought due to his emphasis on poverty and lobbyists, and that he could be persuaded. For example, at his Yearly Kos breakout session last year:

Spinning off the atheism/morals question, a commenter brilliantly asked how he could square this moralism with his support for the death penalty, especially given how it impacts minorities disproportionately and has led to the almost-certain murder of innocents. Edwards appreciated the question. And he took the opportunity to decry the current death penalty system while affirming his belief that some acts are so unspeakable that the death penalty is warranted. But this surprised me. He said that "we shouldn't execute anyone until we fix all the flaws in the system. Did he just come out for a George Ryan-style moratorium? That would be major news. There were several other bloggers in the room, and I know at least a couple looked to the campaign to clarify the comment. But I haven't seen anything yet. So I'll put it out there. It was an unequivocal call to end the practice of state-sanctioned execution until the many flaws in administering justice are fixed, including DNA TESTING FOR EVERYONE ON DEATH ROW.

So, whether he said "him" or "'em" doesn't matter much to me. Even if it was "him," it sounds like that's his personal choice which is fine.