Before the 1968 Democratic convention, Eugene McCarthy famously told Ted Kennedy that he would step aside and allow him to pursue the Democratic nomination, adding that he wouldn't have done it for Bobby but would for Ted ("85 Days: The Last Campaign of Robert Kennedy," Witcover, Jules). McCarthy could not forgive Bobby Kennedy. Before the New Hampshire primary, McCarthy had a plan to secure the nomination as an anti-war candidate, a plan that was in large part co-opted by Kennedy's entrance into the race.
Of course, Kennedy claimed that he didn't want to divide the Democratic party in two over the war if he wasn't sure that he could secure the nomination against President Johnson. In Kennedy's mind, McCarthy's win in New Hampshire effectively divided the party anyways, taking away the main barrier to Kennedy's entrance in the campaign.
In many ways, this rivalry was responsible for dividing a strongly anti-war Democratic party into many pieces, allowing pro-war Hubert Humphrey to secure the nomination at an insane convention. Needless to say, things may have been extremely different if not for Kennedy's tragic assassination after the California primary. Even still, McCarthy showed absolutely no signs of giving way to Kennedy; the convention was going to be divided regardless.
Reading this story recently, I thought back to two years or so ago and thought about what a John Edwards strategy session must have been like. Make no mistake about it, the Edwards folks saw the same weaknesses in Clinton's campaign strategy as the Obama strategists. They saw a strong anti-war message, coupled with a message of higher purpose and a number of individual populist issues could ignite a part of the Democratic party that has been wandering in the wilderness, looking for leadership.
And so the strategy was in place and a new variable enters the mix: Obama. Of course, when it comes down to stump speeches and hand shaking, Edwards and Obama are heads above any other politician that was in the presidential contest, with the possible exception of Huckabee. Still, Obama was newer, was able to portray a more consistent message, and to many people represented the exact change both Edwards and Obama envision.
And so Obama, in many ways, ran Edwards' dream campaign, probably more successfully than anyone ever thought possible. I can see why that would make Edwards angry and even bitter, why it might make him stop short of any open support, and why, like in 1968, it would cause him to look past the needs of the party and search for a small piece of revenge, even if that just means waiting a couple months to show his support.
I'm not angry with Edwards yet. I'd be angry if he supported Clinton, because she represents everything he ran against. But I understand that presidential dreams are strong and for even the most well-intentioned men, they can fog the most obvious decisions.