Edwards: I Just Voted For...

John Edwards on MSNBC's Morning Joe said he's made up his mind and the person he voted for in the N.C. primary is the one he will ultimately endorse.

You have to listen for yourself to see if he said "him" or "em".

Then David Schuster, another MSNBC host, interrupted: “So it was a him or a her that you voted for?” Mr. Edwards backpedaled a bit, saying, “No, no,” and laughing.

Of course, it is possible that he meant “them,” which he shortened to “’em,” or simply misspoke. (Or he could blame his Southern accent.)


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.

< Is It Bad To Compare Obama To Kerry? | Clinton May Have Lost, But Sexism Remains Rampant >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Just another superdelegate (5.00 / 0) (#9)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:04:26 AM EST
    John Edwards is a decent man and I absolutely have nothing but the deepest admiration and respect for him & Mrs. Edwards.

    John Edwards is the reason why I stopped being pro-capital punishment and changed my POV.

    But I agree that the time has passed where he could have made a nominal difference to either campaign. I would have liked it if he had come out for HRC, but I feel that there is so much animus towards the Clintons within DC.  The Clintons were the ultimate outsiders who went all the way.

    Obama is the ultimate insider:  Kennedy/Daschle/Kerry/Pelosi as backers.

    I doubt he could have made (none / 0) (#13)
    by Salo on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:07:22 AM EST
    any difference in the outcome once he dropped out and went silent.

    When he dropped out it boosted obama's numbers. That was his impact. De-facto that act helped Obama. Ironically Clinton's pressure on Edwards to drop out helped boost Obama's performance.


    But I think now (none / 0) (#105)
    by Benjamin3 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:44:09 PM EST
    Rev. Wright and other issues have pushed Edwards' voters into Hillary's column.  She is now consistently winning white men now (although I guess she isn't supposed to say so), and they were a big part of the old Edwards base.

    the numbers (none / 0) (#107)
    by VicAjax on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:02:16 PM EST
    don't really bear your statement out.

    the general trend from primary to primary is that Obama is either holding steady or making small gains among white men and other sub-demos in the "white" category.  i predict it will improve more for Obama as the GE swings into full gear.


    Errr not correct (none / 0) (#123)
    by Marvin42 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:19:43 PM EST
    Look at BTD entry comparing VA to NC. This is absolutely incorrect. He has lost large portions of white men and women.

    charts (none / 0) (#127)
    by VicAjax on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:44:24 PM EST
    comparing only North Carolina to Virginia is an incomplete and misleading analysis.  for a more reasoned, objective breakdown that happens to vary from the pro-Clinton narrative...

    try this article, complete with charts:

    Honestly even looking at this (none / 0) (#129)
    by Marvin42 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:03:38 PM EST
    Some move around, a couple he did better, a couple worse. I don't believe there is any clear trend here.

    But in all of these combined the results are much poorer than what he was doing at his peak. That is probably much more critical in Nov.


    yes (none / 0) (#132)
    by VicAjax on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:20:46 PM EST

    with White Men, it's definitely a mish-mosh... but generally holding steady, state to state.  

    white men in Virginia really don't match up with white men in North Carolina, as the latter tends to have more who are rural, non-college educated... the working class demo that has favored Clinton throughout.

    one interesting trend is that Obama really seems to be making headway with the Catholic vote.

    anyway, my prediction is that, with the exception of some of HRC's most ardent supporters (e.g. the denizens of TalkLeft, taylormarsh and the like), the voters will get behind Obama in November... especially once they start paying attention to McCain's terrible platform.


    What's With Pelosi...Now SheThinks Hillary (none / 0) (#45)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:24:08 AM EST
    should continue on?  Why the change of heart?

    The realized every time they call (5.00 / 0) (#54)
    by rooge04 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:30:47 AM EST
    for her ouster she beats their pants off.

    Pelosi (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by Kathy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:33:49 AM EST
    got a heated call from a huge dem money-man telling her to shut up.  Today, a handful of congressional dems also wrote a letter in support of Clinton, and explained why:

    Pennsylvania was not just a victory for Hillary Clinton. It was also a wake- up call for superdelegates, forcing us to ask ourselves two essential questions: 1) Which candidate can carry the magic 270 electoral votes to win in the fall? 2) Which candidate is most likely to help our fellow Democrats in down-ballot races? We believe the answer to both of these questions is Hillary Clinton.

    And, if Edwards voted Obama, that means Elizabeth voted Clinton.  I think Elizabeth coming out for Clinton would have far more impact than Edwards coming out for Obama.

    It would also show to millions of women who the true uniter is.  Elizabeth was no fan of Clinton going into this thing.  If she's changed her mind, it's for a good reason.


    Kathy (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by DJ on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:05:09 PM EST
    Thank you for the link to that letter.  It cheered me up considerably.  

    Thanks Kathy....Clears That Up For Me... (none / 0) (#83)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:56:46 AM EST
    I do think it is time for Pelosi to look for another job.  Maybe people have seen how she took the most powerful job a woman has had, so far, and squandered it.  She has not been an effective leader.  Maybe that is what is causing some people not to vote for Hillary...just a theory.

    Kathy, (none / 0) (#102)
    by Iphie on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:42:07 PM EST
    is Harvey Weinstein the Clinton money-man to whom you are referring, or was there another one? CNN reported that he and Pelosi had a conversation (she hasn't denied the phone call took place) and that he knows how to get her attention in a way that the millions of Clinton voters don't seem to.
    But the three officials briefed on the call insisted Weinstein went further by suggesting that if Pelosi did not consider his proposal on the revote, he would help slow the flow of donations to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which works to elect House Democrats.

    Harvey Hasn't Called Me To Say Don't Send (none / 0) (#108)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:03:58 PM EST
    money.  I am not sending money to them strictly on principle.  They are undermining the democratic process and the democratic party.

    Send a thank you (none / 0) (#104)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:43:34 PM EST
    letter to EACH of these supporters.  It is SOOO important for them to know they are NOT alone in their thinking.

    Besides, it would speak volumes if one of these reps go to another super D and say, "LOOK AT ALL these letters of support!"

    If anyone is interested, I have made up a form letter that I send to all super D's who come out for Clinton.


    Tx....Can you put up a link to that letter? (none / 0) (#110)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:04:55 PM EST
    I would (none / 0) (#114)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:13:35 PM EST
    have to email it to you.  I have it on my pc @ home.  (@ work right now.)  I felt really good about it when I got a letter back from Sheila Jackson Lee thanking me for my support of her decision to back Hillary.

    Fairly new here...is it okay to post emails? (none / 0) (#125)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:33:59 PM EST
    Not sure (none / 0) (#126)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:40:56 PM EST
    kinda new here too.

    Perhaps she (4.00 / 0) (#63)
    by cawaltz on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:38:56 AM EST
    is smart enough to realize that folks like Brazile haven't thought things through and she isn't as anxious to write off the white working class. She needs Hillary's coalition, and I'm betting she is hoping that by allowing the process to work its way through she'll earn some good will come GE time.

    Obama will lose badly (none / 0) (#82)
    by waldenpond on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:55:52 AM EST
    in some of the upcoming states.  He would look even worse if Clinton were no longer in the race.  Many Obama supporters wanted her to stay in for this reason.  He's going to be pushed over the finish line and the focus is to make him look as good as possible.  

    absurd (1.00 / 0) (#112)
    by VicAjax on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:10:05 PM EST
    that's a baseless claim.  but i can see how a diehard HRC supporter might enjoy watching that happen.

    I, for one, (1.00 / 1) (#124)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:21:14 PM EST
    would LOVE it. Watching Huffpost, Dkos and Americablog imploding would be ALL worth it.

    Then see the AA's sink into MORE victimhood because one of their own lost.  Not because he's an inexperienced empty suit and has no true policy to get the USA out of this morass, but because he's BLACK.

    Sorry, that's why you VOTED for him.  But that won't be the reason he will lose if he gets the nom.


    please don't... (none / 0) (#128)
    by VicAjax on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:54:02 PM EST

    ascribe motives to my vote.

    of course you would love to see all those influential sites crash and burn, because they endorsed a candidate other than your own and because there were some nasty, unnecessary things said about her.

    i've seen plenty of blood and bile spewed by both sides, and try to write it off to overheated passions.  you may think HRC has taken the brunt, but i'd beg to differ, obviously.

    it's your choice in the GE if you go vote for a pandering, disingenuous, irresponsible Republican shill.  but it won't be out of a clearsighted weighing of the real policies and positions of the Democratic candidate.  it will be out of short-sighted bitterness.  cutting off one's nose, as they say.

    and i maintain, that the above prediction is groundless, and borne out the despair of seeing one's chosen candidate on the verge of a loss.  i'd probably feel the same way, for a bit, but i'm certain i'd come to my senses and gave the alternative a cold, hard look.


    I wasn't (none / 0) (#133)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:27:56 PM EST
    ascribing anything to your vote.  I was speaking to the reasons why AA's vote for Barack:  because he's black.  Re-read my statment.

    You have your own valid reasons for voting for BHO.  Free country and all that jazz. I was just saying that blacks will blame the GE loss of Barack on racism.  Far from it.  He will lose because he is sorely lacking on policy and the GOP will frame him as an out-of-touch elitist.

    Sorry, I'm just one of those great unwashed low-info voter here.  Next time I will be more succinct in my posts so you creative class types won't have to think so hard.


    ah ha... (none / 0) (#137)
    by VicAjax on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:37:38 PM EST
    when i read "that's why YOU voted for him" i thought you were talking about me.  i understand now.

    but yes, i am a creative class type, and i'm not going to apologize for it.  once upon a time, it was something to aspire to, i don't know how anti-intellectualism has spread from the GOP to the Democratic party... but i have my theories.

    i also find it unhelpful for folks to be pre-attacking blacks as a group for a hypothesized rationalization about a supposed Obama loss.  it's beyond sour grapes.


    better chance at GE because likely nominee? (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by DandyTIger on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:07:34 AM EST
    That doesn't make any sense. The polls show Clinton has a better chance in the GE. Obviously there will be a big bump once the nominee is coroneted, and after the ceremony in August. But the real hard cold realities of this disaster will become obvious along the way. And certainly by November. I don't understand this reasoning.

    I'd like to see all the big players in the dem party start working hard toward unity. That means pushing for counting the rest of the primaries, and of course counting MI and FL. Mostly that means the nominee needs to be seen as legitimate. And please, stop this kick out the bubba movement going on.

    So there's that. Ah, I feel better I let off some steam. But I also agree with the main point about endorsements at this stage don't matter too much. What will matter is if there are lots of them. If there is the usual piling on that makes the race over before MI and FL (and the rest of the primaries), there will be a price to pay.

    It makes perfect sense (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:08:19 AM EST
    you can not beat mcCain if you do not get a chance to run against him.

    Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by 1jane on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:43:04 AM EST
    Well she came to my part of the state of Oregon yesterday without an endorsement from Edwards.  Her campaign held two private fundraisers which took in $100,000 and a free public event with attendance estimated at 525 to 550 people. Senator Obama drew a crowd of 2,500 and former  President Clinton drew a crowd of 2,000 when they were here last month.

    Obama shows strong signs of going head-to-head with McCain, especially with McCain's lack of diplomacy and less than thoughtful remarks while on the campaign trail.


    Obama's "thoughtful" remarks (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Josey on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:59:09 AM EST
    about Dems to his Billionaire donors, explaining why they're not voting for him: because they're ignorant, racists, and cling to their guns and religion - will emerge in GOP ads.
    McCain is not radical Bush and Reagan Dems now voting for Hillary will stick with the GOP in Nov.
    For some reason - people don't like being called racists and ignorant. Especially behind their backs.

    while I agree (5.00 / 0) (#113)
    by p lukasiak on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:12:51 PM EST
    that the remark was "twisted" as you say, I think that between the whole "bitter/clinging" remarks, and his recent "lose your dignity" remarks, its pretty clear that Obama's "understanding" of white working class voters come from a sociology textbook, and isn't about them as people but as them as a sociological phenomenon.

    Far more disturbing to me was Obama's attacks on Clinton for "pandering" to working class voters with her gas tax holiday proposal.  When you're proposing a $1000 'middle class tax cut" when we've got massive annual deficits, calling out another candidate for "pandering" to other segments of the electorate is pretty much showing your utter disregard for that segment of the electorate.  Obama's message ultimately comes down to "you're not voting for me, so screw you"...

    and to stay on topic....

    I didn't hear an "m" at all from edwards.  All I heard was "er" (no "h" either.)   The first time I listened I was expecting to hear "him" because that what we were being told we would hear, and I thought I'd heard "hmer" or "hrim" but I wasn't sure which.  So I went back to listen to it, and heard neither...and listened three or four more times LOOKING for an "m", and not finding it.


    I hope this... (none / 0) (#99)
    by Thanin on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:22:13 PM EST
    "Reagan Dems now voting for Hillary will stick with the GOP in Nov."

    is true.  Reagan democrats keep us from unifying a message with their conservative stupidity.


    we had an opportunity to include them (5.00 / 0) (#109)
    by Josey on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:04:06 PM EST
    until Obama played the Race Card to smear the Clintons as racists.

    I dont want to include them... (none / 0) (#119)
    by Thanin on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:49:06 PM EST
    Id rather lose and be conservative free than be conservative lite.

    can Dems win w/o conservative lites? (none / 0) (#130)
    by Josey on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:07:22 PM EST
    Oregon (none / 0) (#134)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:29:08 PM EST
    ain't PA or OH.  

    Police and Lawyer Logic (5.00 / 0) (#106)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:46:28 PM EST
    Victim:  "I am being stalked and harrassed by an obsessed maniac. I need help."

    Law Enforcement: "Sorry, we can't help you until you've been injured or killed.  Call us when that happens."

    So BTD, we need to lose the GE to prove a point??


    logic (none / 0) (#22)
    by Salo on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:09:48 AM EST

    that's just silly (none / 0) (#28)
    by DandyTIger on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:12:09 AM EST
    if that's all he meant.

    He was ducking the question (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:13:17 AM EST
    although what he ... (none / 0) (#58)
    by Salo on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:32:54 AM EST
    ...did and did not say told you everything you need to know.  without actually saying it.

    You're right. (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Chimster on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:11:51 AM EST
    What does "becoming the likely nominee" have to do with "better at beating John McCain"? I missed that point too.

    And as for an Edwards endorsement, I don't think it will mean much for Barack, but if he had endorsed Hillary, it would have meant a whole lot to her campaign. She needs a morale boost right about now.

    If he does endorse Obama, you can bet the MSM will cry even louder for Hillary to drop out.


    I saw the clip of him (5.00 / 6) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:07:46 AM EST
    speaking about the candidates and it was wonderful.

    He did himself proud today I thought.

    Who he voted for does not much matter. who he endorses does not matter.

    But how he comported himself today does. And it was a model for all Democrats.

    I was disappointed a little bit in that People (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by rooge04 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:10:31 AM EST
    article that he spoke to the historic nature of Obama's candidacy as an African-American while Elizabeth had to remind him that Hillary being a woman is historic as well.

    Yup (5.00 / 5) (#39)
    by nell on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:19:20 AM EST
    happens every day. A woman for president is not historic, but an African American man is. This was started by the media hailing Obama (rightfully so) when he won Iowa, but saying nothing when Hillary won NH and also made history and instead said she won because of the Bradley effect. Obama's campaign, as well as Edwards' campaign, also pushed the idea that she was not historical by saying she was the past, same old politics, the status quo.  

    Burns me up inside. Just one of the many reasons I have become so bitter about this election. They have no idea what this would mean for girls and women not just in our country, but all over the world.


    both are historic (1.00 / 0) (#97)
    by independent thinker on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:17:47 PM EST
    The problem I see with some supporters of either candidate is that they seem to identify with race or gender as a means to advance their own insulated group. Others, who can identify with the common, historically marginalized aspects of both groups can look past their own candidate's "historicness" and see it in the larger context of advancing all marginalized groups.

    Clinton's recent comments about hard working whites, in my mind, smacks of pandering to the first group I described above.


    I couldn't agree more. (none / 0) (#122)
    by MMW on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:10:35 PM EST
    I'm from a Caribbean Island, we had a female Prime Minister - No Dynasty for 15 years, 1980 - 1995. And did I mention those were our most prosperous years. Parliamentary system and she was the party leader. Country in a shambles right now - one step forward, three back.

    She had come from a rich family and gave her PM salary for education scholarships.

    I too thought that in the US I would have more opportunities.


    I think that was just another "tell" (none / 0) (#48)
    by IndiDemGirl on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:25:09 AM EST
    that he was voting for Obama. He was/is keeping his vote a secret, but he knew who his choice was.  Therefore, I think since his choice was Obama he was reflecting more on Obama's signficance at that moment.  

    I think in any other conversation he would highlight the historic nature of both candidates.


    His Wife (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by flashman on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:37:29 AM EST
    and because I am pitiful at spelling ppls names, I'll just say Ms. Edwards has endorsed Hillary's health care plan.  If John endorses on who has the best policy, then he'll come out for Hillary, assuming health care is as important to him as to his wife ( a fair assumption, IMO )  If, however, he wants to just hedge towards the odds, he'll back Obama.

    Considering Donna Brazile's (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Kathy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:42:27 AM EST
    recent proclamation about the new face of the dem party, I find it hard to believe that someone who is adamantly for the working class would come out in favor of Obama.

    Again, I think Edwards is being coy here.  If he was supposed to talk about his poverty work, then he should have moved the conversation along.  

    But, also again, I don't think who he endorses matters at this point.


    I'm sure John realizes (none / 0) (#77)
    by cawaltz on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:45:09 AM EST
    that sometimes surrogates say and do dumb things. I daresay that if asked Obama would say wwrte off the white, working class. On the contrary, I think he IS looking for a way to connect(because I suspect he is smarter than Brazile and realizes he can't win without at least SOME of us).

    Then again (none / 0) (#67)
    by cawaltz on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:42:17 AM EST
    John does believe that the process in Washington is part of the problem. He feels special interests and in particular money has interfered with politicians acting inthe best interest of the average Americans.

    Absolutely (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by chancellor on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:28:39 AM EST
    Both John and Elizabeth have said that, to them, the issues matter more than who is the standard bearer. In spite of many here believing that Edwards is just the typical politician, that it's all about him, that he wants to stay in the spotlight, I just don't think there's any evidence of that in his behavior. He has deliberately stayed OUT of the spotlight until now, very graciously, IMO, allowing the two remaining candidates to have the media field all to themselves. Now that he has chosen his future path, a path that continues his long-time concern about eliminating poverty, he is taking advantage of the news media's revived interest in him to push for his new program and his convictions, not for either of the candidates. His conduct this morning is why I will always consider myself an Edwards Democrat, even though my current support is for Hillary.

    it isn't wise for Edwards to endorse now (none / 0) (#88)
    by Josey on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:03:45 PM EST
    because he's involved with a Poverty project and plans to do the voice over for a film about poverty.
    And poverty includes all races and genders.

    A model for those who want unity, not a model (none / 0) (#36)
    by IndiDemGirl on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:17:10 AM EST
    for those supporters on either side who want revenge.

    I agree (none / 0) (#56)
    by Leisa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:31:54 AM EST
    That is exactly the point (none / 0) (#73)
    by ruffian on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:44:22 AM EST
    I bet he doesn't express any preference at all until Hillary bows out.  He is essentially saying he will support the nominee of the party.  He is showing what it means to lose gracefully.

    Makes me proud (none / 0) (#100)
    by riddlerandy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:30:18 PM EST
    that I voted for him

    Very proud of Edwards (none / 0) (#115)
    by stefystef on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:21:18 PM EST
    I voted for him after he dropped out because John Edwards was the right choice for the Democratic Party.

    I'm sorry that so many people were so short sighted.


    I was an Edwards supporter (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:08:52 AM EST
    early and strongly.  I thougt he did not have the baggage of the other two.
    but his gutless way of doing this has made me not so sorry he didnt win.

    He'd be a fool if he didn't endorse Obama (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by dianem on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:10:48 AM EST
    Edwards is a politician and I don't think he has given up on the idea of being President one day. He stands to gain nothing by endorsing Clinton, it would lose him support among black and young people, as well as much of the web support that helps him considerably. t would also mark him as a rabblerouser among the Democratic elite, who decided some time ago to back Obama. Endorsing Obama, even this late in the game, will give him more credibility with those groups, and he can claim (justifiably) that he didn't declare earlier because he didn't want to imply that he was trying to bias the voter's.

    young people (5.00 / 0) (#33)
    by Kathy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:14:40 AM EST
    will no longer be young when/if Edwards makes another bid.

    That is the nature of young people.  They grow up.


    Well (none / 0) (#116)
    by Nadai on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:22:16 PM EST
    they get older, anyway.

    I Don't Know About That....He Is Not The (none / 0) (#49)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:26:28 AM EST
    most beloved politician from the State of NC.

    But (none / 0) (#135)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:32:13 PM EST
    it's okay for him to make women feel left out?

    Time and time again....women. Just take 'em for granted.  John won't be as cute as he is now in a few years.  THose boyish good looks won't work on women when they know he coulda helped out Clinton and chose not to.

    Works both ways.


    Women will forgive him (none / 0) (#143)
    by dianem on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:23:55 PM EST
    For Elizabeth's sake, if nothing else. Elizabeth Edwards should be running for President. She might even make it.

    I think (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by madamab on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:14:38 AM EST
    he won't endorse until the voting is over.

    Speaking as someone (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Molly Pitcher on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:20:32 AM EST
    who 4 years ago was happy to see Edwards (homeboy here) on the ticket, I have never been all that enchanted by him.  I did not hear an 'em' or 'im' in a strategic place.  (I'd probably know the difference.)  But I think he looked like a future prom king waffling about who'd he like to be his queen.  In other words, I do not regret not backing him in the primary here!

    Um... (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by kredwyn on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:23:26 AM EST
    But it would surprise very few people if Mr. Edwards eventually endorsed Barack Obama, considering they both ran on messages of change...

    They have all run on messages of change.

    Did the NYTimes expect Democratic candidates to run on messages of "More of the Same You've Been Getting for the Past 8 years"???

    Change (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by cawaltz on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:32:21 AM EST
    The difference of course being that the change Edwards and Barack speak of is process change. Hillary, on the other hand, feels the probem isn't the process but the individuals who have headed the process. The biggest difference between Obama and Edwards was that Edwards had solid policy positions and Edwards didn't want to ride the unity pony. In that respect, Clinton is closer to him. At the end of the day, policy wins out over process, because I do not believe we get anywhere but nowhere by holding hands with the GOP leadership.

    I know... (none / 0) (#68)
    by kredwyn on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:42:22 AM EST
    But the piece didn't specify...and all three candidates had "Change" messages/signs. :)

    This is true (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by flyerhawk on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:37:31 AM EST
    But that may be the biggest criticism of her campaign.

    Had she embraced the change theme early on I doubt Obama's campaign would have gained any steam at all.

    But she ceded that message to Obama.  That was a fatal flaw on the part of her campaign.


    sorry... (5.00 / 0) (#80)
    by kredwyn on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:48:59 AM EST
    you lose me...I don't care who "came up with" one of the oldest campaign strategies "first." IIRC she was discussing her ideas of "Change" back in August...

    And I don't think she actually ceded anything.

    As is noted in the post above yours, there are different forms that "change" manifests itself.


    His endorsement (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by flyerhawk on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:24:54 AM EST
    will come as a nail in the coffin type thing.  

    Since he isn't a superdelegate he can't sway the primary however he can finish off the losing nominee by openly endorsing the winner.

    He won't endorse either candidate until after Oregon.

    Seriously (none / 0) (#66)
    by flyerhawk on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:41:59 AM EST
    why in the world would someone low rate this comment?

    My take (none / 0) (#71)
    by Chimster on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:43:41 AM EST
    He voted for Barrack because he's the likely nominee and he will endorse him the minute the nominee is clear. Why? Because he's being smart about not didviding the party. Although I'm bummed he endorsed Barrack, I'm glad he had glowing things to say about Hillary. He's a class act.

    Edwards was my first choice (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Belswyn on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:29:03 AM EST
    Early in the race I told people I liked all three, but had a preference for Edwards. Actually, that position hasn't changed. I still like all three and all three are much, much better than McCain.

    I've been reading Talkleft for about six years now, I guess, and it seems to me that any of the Dems is light years ahead of McCain and we all ought to be acknowledging that despite our preference for Hillary, Obama, or Edwards, on any of the issues that Talkleft cares about.

    Just the other day McCain gave another speech about the grave constitutional abuses being perpetrated ... not by the President ... but by liberal judges.

    Rahm's not a traitor, because his only loyalty (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by shoephone on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:43:50 AM EST
    is to himself and his own agenda. His nickname is "the killer".

    I saw the interview and (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by stefystef on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:44:46 AM EST
    Edwards was not endorsing Barack Obama.  He just said that the Democratic candidates, both, had a good chance to beat McCain in the General Election.

    He said Obama because it seems that he would be the nominee.

    Edwards was supporting the party nominee, not Obama.

    There's a difference.

    Not a traitor. Bandwagoner, that's all. (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by rooge04 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:46:05 AM EST
    It's funny to me how easily these people are led by popularity. And he's never been for Clinton. His brother hates her and holds Obama fundraisers in CA all the time.

    And am I missing something or wasn't Hillary supposed to lose NC by like 25 and IN by 10? LOL

    It's high school. (5.00 / 0) (#90)
    by madamab on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:04:27 PM EST
    They just want to be "in."

    Just like the OFB want to be "in" with the Kewl Kid.

    It's sad, really. They forget that a political party is, you know, supposed to actually do stuff, instead of get to go to the cool parties and hang with the cool people and rake in cash to your Cayman Islands account.


    36% turnout in NC she needed 45-50 to win (none / 0) (#93)
    by ChuckieTomato on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:05:26 PM EST
    because 38% of the dem. vote was AA. That's over 600k AA's voting. I'm not sure about Indiana but it's not too difficult to see why she lost NC

    Edwards was doing... (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by reynwrap582 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:59:01 AM EST
    Exactly what the democrats should have been doing this whole time.  It's not the candidates that have made this campaign so "divisive", it's all of the dem officials and upper level dems and surrogates going on the air screeching about how the process is tearing the party apart.

    The approach should have ALWAYS been "The democrats are having a spirited campaign because BOTH of our candidates are so dang good, we're just trying to decide which remarkable candidate to nominate!  Look at the republicans, they didn't exactly have a deep pool of good options like we do."

    That's sort of the message Edwards was conveying here.  It sounds like he voted for Obama, but he was very careful to say that both of our candidates are incredible (I don't really agree that both are, but that needs to be the message from Dems).

    If that had been the message all along from the party and officials and surrogates, this divisiveness would hardly exist.

    Of course, since Edwards was lucky enough that he didn't have to vote in a CAUCUS STATE where his vote would be public, he can always just say he voted for whomever becomes the nominee.

    One of the last remaining adults in the party (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Marvin42 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:03:43 PM EST
    What struck me was not whether he endorsed one of the other, but I realized he is one of the few people left in the party that I admire. He actually said a lot of things I agree with. And  I compare him to what a lot of other people in the part have been saying lately I realize how far the leadership of the party has sunk.

    How depressing.

    He said "em" not "him" (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by vicsan on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:04:10 PM EST
    Now, I just have to say how much Mika and David Shuster make my blood boil. Neither of them try to hide their bias toward BO anymore. They both make my head explode. Mika cannot control her giddiness any longer and Shuster is out for revenge against Hillary for her getting him suspended. I'm giving up teevee if Hillary isn't the nominee. I cannot listen to the Obama love fest any longer. It's just too much. Every network, every talking head, every newspaper HATES Hillary. It's unbelievable.

    Okay. Now I feel better.

    Don't worry (none / 0) (#111)
    by Emma on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:07:06 PM EST
    The Obama Love Fest will end on June 4, give or take.

    Edwards is irrelevant (5.00 / 0) (#95)
    by ChuckieTomato on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:11:19 PM EST

    Gosh (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Steve M on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:03:27 PM EST
    I sure have no regrets about supporting John Edwards.  I don't disagree with a word he said in this whole interview.

    John, I love you, but stop playing games. (none / 0) (#1)
    by rooge04 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:59:12 AM EST
    He's been waffling and going back and forth on TV constantly about these two. The interview in People led me to believe he was an Obama supporter (in spite of healthcare being his "thing").  But these little games are just ridiculous. Endorse or don't.   But quit being coy.

    he's avoiding the Richardson (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Salo on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:04:01 AM EST

    pay respects to Clinton effusively, highlight everything good about her, highlight the aggreement and accord with her.  Commiserate the supporters, Olive branches etc.

    This is how Richardson should have acted. Dodd too.  

    Yanks don't understand manners.  Southerners really are like Brits in their manners.


    And they're scared. Can you imagine (none / 0) (#12)
    by rooge04 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:05:40 AM EST
    the backlash if they were to endorse Clinton? My goodness!!! They would call for heads on a platter.

    Or if he endorsed (none / 0) (#20)
    by Salo on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:08:25 AM EST
    Obama.  Richardson got badly hurt and diminshed his dignity when he endorsed obama.

    Richardson did it to himself..... (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:23:46 AM EST
    ...no other super who endorsed Obama has been subjected to what he was because no other super handled it as badly as he did.

    I don't think so (1.00 / 0) (#34)
    by Get 27 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:14:59 AM EST
    The governor can endorse whoever he believes will be the best candidate/president. If he had endorsed my candidate's opponent, I would not think any less of him. His beard is quite dignified too.

    All This Talk About SD's Voting The Will (none / 0) (#42)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:20:50 AM EST
    of the people....Richardson didn't...FYI, the beard is to cover up the double chin.

    As for Edwards, I guess if it is okay for Richardson to go against the will of the people, then Edwards can too.


    How did Richardson diminish his dignity? (none / 0) (#101)
    by independent thinker on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:35:01 PM EST
    Seriously. He made a reasoned decision and did not go out of his way to denegrate the Clintons. He is the one who was denegrated by being called a Judas.

    Shouldn't he be able to endorse who he wants when he wants? Isn't that what the Clinton campaign has been saying for months? The fact that Richardson didn't choose Clinton makes him a Judas? Puh-leeez!

    The time has come to bring the party together. One way or the other we will have a nominee soon. Let the supers make their choice without bashing their choice.


    Ididn't call him Judas. (none / 0) (#120)
    by Salo on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:56:39 PM EST
    But his Endorsement clearly backfired.

    He's just trying to maximize the impact, (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by MarkL on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:04:02 AM EST
    knowing that actually no one actually cares who he endorses now.

    He is being too coy by half (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Kathy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:12:02 AM EST
    What's the point of him being on television?  Is he a pundit now?

    (and, as a southerner, I heard "'em," though I don't think that means anything)

    Jeralyn is right--endorsements no longer have value.  From my point, Edwards is holding back his until there is a clear winner.  Interesting, don't you think?  It just goes into my theory that the SDs have told both candidates that it ain't over.

    Though, the whole tone of this piece really bothered me--sounded like they were graciously "allowing" her to continue.  Sort of like that old Andy Griffith episode where he "allowed" Opie to run away.


    But (none / 0) (#4)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:02:52 AM EST
    then he wouldn't get so much attention anymore.

    I've come to realize John does (none / 0) (#6)
    by rooge04 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:03:45 AM EST
    love being in the spotlight.

    Bingo! (none / 0) (#144)
    by bridget on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:50:48 PM EST
    sometimes writing a one word post is better than a long post ;-)

    I agree (none / 0) (#5)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:03:13 AM EST
    stop milking.  just do it.

    Waffling = Waffles = obama (none / 0) (#38)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:18:10 AM EST
    However, I am surprised Elizabeth wouldn't have more clout regarding his endorsement.  He should look at his past experiences which would tell him obama will not win.  And other sd's sure don't have a problem voting against what their constituents want.

    Obama can win... (none / 0) (#103)
    by independent thinker on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:42:49 PM EST
    IMHO. A lot of the arguements about big states, traditional blue states, etc. is so much bluster. Really, do you think New York, New Jersey or California won't go democratic if Obama is the nominee? The time has come to close ranks and stop talking in us and them terms about fellow Dems.

    The truth is that Clinton has strength in certain swing states and Obama has strength in others. My opinion is that Obama will bring some new states into play and if Clinton campaign vigorously for him that he can carry the swing states she performs well in.

    We have to strong Dem candidates. Please, stop claiming one or the other can't win in November.


    I have long lost all respect for John Edwards (none / 0) (#139)
    by bridget on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:51:19 PM EST
    the candidate who run for the first year on an apology. Spare me.

    So the way he explained away his campaign 2004 tops the reasons. Wanting to be admired for having apologized for a wrong vote always seemed unethical to me. Thruout campaign 2004 24/7 he answered "even had I known then what we know now ... blahblah blah." Thruout campaign 2004 he had no time to think about his pro war vote. Guess only I was shocked to hear him say so on MTP. Well, finally late in 2005 he took some time to think about Iraq.

    Then he covered up his own questionable political history by deciding to run an all out negative anti-Clinton campaign. Who knows, Joe Trippi, the MSNBC tweety buddy, may have encouraged him in that endeavor. Of course, it earned him the support of the media and esp. the netrooters. He and his wife didn't spent his time on dkos for nothing.

    Besides anyone who followed the 2004 campaign should know that Edwards despite his repackaging image or whatever one wants to call his new persona never had a chance in this primary. The straw polls on the net were a joke but the Russerts enjoyed telling his viewers about it cause Hillary Clinton got how many votes on dkos polls? 10?

    Obama could be Reagan and Nixon incarnated and Edwards would still endorse him because issues and esp. poverty and health was never the deciding factor for John Edwards. He wants a career in politics. So If HC is the winner, he will endorse her. Guess he is still waiting ... Maybe ... so he is still waffling. Unless there is news of his public endorsement while I type.

    Coy your name is Edwards.

    His appearance on Colbert was too cute and the People interview was too lame for words. He is stretching out his 15 minutes of fame because he knows once he endorsed its all over for him. And he enjoys being considered important in the manner of Gore right now.

    my two cents


    On the death penalty (none / 0) (#2)
    by Salo on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:01:27 AM EST
    Obama's stance may get him in trouble. he sorta straddles it and should for the sake of the General Election just be a Lawn'order hardliner.

    he may well get tripped up in debates on this issue.

    After the general election--undermine Capital Punishment to the max of course.

    Obama straddling? say it aint so! (none / 0) (#18)
    by thereyougo on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:08:08 AM EST
    I call it hem and haw. The guy can't find a word when it matters and people are listening, deer in the headlights.

    He is pro death penalty (none / 0) (#25)
    by Jeralyn on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:10:55 AM EST
    he doesn't straddle. He is against the death penalty for the wrongfully accused (who isn't?) and against it for young gang members (I agree with that.)

    His position is fully outlined here.


    Scalia, Thomas (none / 0) (#50)
    by IndiDemGirl on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:27:42 AM EST
    are not against the death penalty for the innocent if they are already convicted.

    There's some complexity (none / 0) (#55)
    by Salo on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:31:09 AM EST
    to be exploited though.

    He will be asked on a case by case basis about gang shootings by minors and he'll be made to waffle. you'll see.

    i'm not talking about technical legalities. I'm taking about the politics.


    Willie Horton style (none / 0) (#136)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:34:13 PM EST
    ads are already running against him regarding the death-penalty and gangs.

    Gentleman, start your engines.


    Who cares (none / 0) (#3)
    by Jim J on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:02:36 AM EST
    Endorsements are the most overrated thing in politics and in the media.

    I think that was his point! (none / 0) (#11)
    by Salo on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:05:00 AM EST
    at this moment he's on the clean-up crew.

    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by cawaltz on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:15:27 AM EST
    John said the reason he left the race is he didn't want a long, drawn out, divisive primary. Well, THAT didn't work out real well. I'm betting he is hoping that he can soothe some egos and maybe help the winning coalition mend some fences.

    For what it is worth, while I admire John Edwards, his endorsement of either candidate would not have swayed my deision on who to support.


    Jeralyn (none / 0) (#10)
    by nell on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:04:41 AM EST
    I don't think Edwards is actually a superdelegate. I think he just brings clout in terms of the delegates he earned voting for the person he endorses.

    I heard a recap of the interview, it sounded like he voted for Obama, but from the way he responded to a question about Elizabeth, I got the feeling that she may have voted for Hill.

    Oh well, doesn't matter anyways.

    The press says it is over, this just gives them one more storyline to pursue this angle. Even Edwards thinks Obama will be the nominee.

    Whatever, I have faith in my candidate.

    I wouldn't put it past the Edwardses (5.00 / 0) (#81)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:54:27 AM EST
    to have decided between themselves that they would each vote for a different candidate.  I supect they have been very conflicted about this whole thing, and I can see them agreeing that the way to deal with it would be to give one vote to each candidate.

    That said, we know Elizabeth is a pretty avid blog reader, although I haven't heard of her posting recently.  She's surely read enough of Kos and Firedoglake, etc., to see what's been going on there, and I cannot believe she isn't as horrified by it as we have been.  So I do wonder how that's played into their thoughts.


    Edward's delegates (none / 0) (#17)
    by Chimster on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:08:01 AM EST
    What happens to Edwards delegates if he endorses Obama? Do they basically all go to Obama?

    You are correct, Edwards is NOT a Super (none / 0) (#30)
    by IndiDemGirl on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:13:31 AM EST
    Though he may "release" his delegates in FL and other states.

    you are right (none / 0) (#31)
    by Jeralyn on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:14:05 AM EST
    and I removed the last sentence, thanks!

    Talk about hedging your bets (none / 0) (#16)
    by Lil on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:07:55 AM EST
    I was an Edwards supporter first, but his unwillingness to take a stand kind of makes it seem like he can't make a decision. And I thought it sounded like he's playing games at this point.

    Edwards should give the opening address (none / 0) (#37)
    by eric on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:17:53 AM EST
    at the convention and pull an Adlai Stevenson.

    I know, I know, won't happen.  Still, I can dream...

    I let go of Edwards (none / 0) (#40)
    by Foxx on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:20:23 AM EST
    very early on when I got an email from his campaign saying Hillary was the SAME as Bush. Not policy x is the same but she herself is the same. His treatment of her during the pile on debate put the icing on it.

    I respect what he is doing here however. I believe him that he sees strengths in both of them. He doesn't want to make things worse for Hillary. At least I hope that's it. I suppose he could be in Obama's camp and waiting for instructions.

    He could be (none / 0) (#60)
    by Leisa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:34:56 AM EST
    looking ahead...  to 2012.

    Academic (none / 0) (#46)
    by Addison on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:24:31 AM EST
    Just as someone familiar with the VA/Carolina pronounciation of "him" versus "em," I believe it was "him." There was way too much "ee" (as in "weed") in the word, and not enough "uh" (as in "thumb") for me to think he was shorting the gender neutral "them."

    But I could be wrong.

    Two things (none / 0) (#53)
    by DFLer on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:29:43 AM EST
    1. He was on the show to talk about his poverty program, which was mentioned in Mika's intro, but of course Shuster & MZ spent all the time talking about his possible endorsement.

    2. If Mika is right about Edwards and his wife voting for different candidates (at the end of the segment), I'll bet she voted for HRC and he for BHO.

    I plainly heard Edwards say (none / 0) (#64)
    by shoephone on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:39:21 AM EST
    "im", as in "him".

    I just voted for 'im on Tuesday.

    He is going with the person he perceives as having the momentum, while still being nice (and somewhat patronizing) towards Hillary. He "admires" her.

    Also clear to me that Elizabeth voted for Hillary. I guess she wants universal health care more than she wants "hope!" and "change!".

    I have no problem with that at all. (5.00 / 0) (#79)
    by rooge04 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:47:23 AM EST
    It's the coyness he's been displaying that is somewhat annoying.

    I'm not slamming him (none / 0) (#94)
    by shoephone on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:06:24 PM EST
    It doesn't matter either way because he's not endorsing.

    I think the interview showed, more than anything, what an embarassment Mika B. is as a "journalist'. And Shuster is simply a shill. I can't even believe they get paid for those amateur performances.


    I wish he were the nominee (none / 0) (#92)
    by digdugboy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:05:11 PM EST
    And I really credit him for pointing out that in one on one meetings with both Obama and Clinton they both demonstrate passion for meeting the needs of this country. This is such a drastic change from GWB who seemed concerned only with one-upping his daddy and worrying about his legacy as a war-time president.

    Doing the math on this... (none / 0) (#117)
    by mike in dc on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:28:29 PM EST
    ...I used both Slate's delegate calculator and the Demconwatch website's numbers, plugged in Clinton wins by 40 in WV and KY, by 20 in PR, and Obama wins by 10 in OR, MT and SD(seems pretty reasonable), then assumed she got her best case scenario out of the FL/MI RBC ruling, and that they validated her superdelegate endorsements there as well...

    and she still would need...

    another 194 delegates...

    ...out of 295.5 remaining superdelegates and add-ons.  I should add that, considering Obama is probably going to pick up another 30 or so delegates from the add-ons, that she probably needs something like 194 out of 260 or so--that's about 3 out of every 4 uncommitted supers.

    Pretty daunting.  But then, it's probably worse than that, because Obama is likely to shrink that pool of uncommitteds by another 50(at least) before June 3rd.  

    To summarize, in what has to be close to the best case plausible scenario for Sen. Clinton, she has to win about 194 out of about 210 remaining uncommitted superdelegates by mid-June in order to become the presumptive nominee of the party.
    That's about 92%.

    To block Obama from winning the nomination outright, and force/justify taking it to the convention floor, we add the uncommitteds and Edwards delegates to the mix(about 80), and divide by 2.  Clinton would still need about 150 additional superdelegate endorsements to have enough to block Obama from having 2209 outright--under these best case scenario assumptions.
    The only other thing she could do is persuade enough superdelegates to withhold their endorsements after the voting is over, so that neither of them has enough delegates to declare victory, and then she can either cut a deal or try to fight it out at the convention.

    But her odds are between slim and none...

    ...and Slim's getting ready to leave town.

    Have you folks lived in the south? (none / 0) (#118)
    by boredmpa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:36:03 PM EST
    I think he voted obama, but just an fyi: in my opinion "em" is a non-gendered term.  

    I voted for "em" can apply to a man or a woman, it's partially a result of the common usage of "him/he" to apply to a hypothetical person that could be male or female. It's also closer to "um" with some people.  It's also connected to people using "them" to refer to a single person that could be male/female because we don't have a gender neutral option.

    It's the southern version of "per" or any other gender neutral pronoun

    Did he also (none / 0) (#140)
    by cannondaddy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:06:01 PM EST
    say something to the effect of "Obama's doing just fine without my endorsement"?

    Edwards says did not say him--gender neutral (none / 0) (#141)
    by jawbone on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:16:10 PM EST
    Per this USA Today blog.

    "I said I voted for 'em,' " Edwards said in an interview shortly afterwards with USA TODAY. "I'm a Southerner. ... It wasn't meant to be male or female."

    All cleared up!

    well... (none / 0) (#142)
    by VicAjax on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:18:16 PM EST
    living in NYC i know plenty of creative and uncreative HRC supporters!

    as for being gay (off topic), my own opinion is that neither HRC nor BHO really go far enough in their gay rights platform... which should be full marriage rights for all and immediate repeal of DADT (probably the worst legacy of the Clinton admin).

    "Be a man" comment was ridiculous... (none / 0) (#145)
    by Exeter on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:19:20 PM EST
    Especially when she qualified it with, "why can't super delegates make up their mind, show some conviction... BE A MAN and pick somebody?"

    Yes, Mikah, a big part of being a man is choosing things and sticking to it, unlike the little ladies that are always too skittish to make up their minds.