Skip to main content

From a chat on the Washington Post website:

In response to a question about a possible Edwards endorsement, Trippi responds:

John Edwards led on every single issue and pushed both Clinton and Obama on everything from the war in Iraq to Poverty. He has had an enormous impact on this election cycle and still will.

I am in complete agreement with him so far. But see below:

Trippi continues:

I would caution that he may play a key role in bringing the party together by not endorsing -- that may not help him personally but it may be exactly what the party and the country needs

I really don't understand that part.  It is obvious to me and to all but the most deluded Clinton supporters that a) she can't win; and b) her tactics are tearing the party apart and hurting our chances in the general election. An endorsment from Edwards (and preferably Gore and Richardson) would give Hillary an excuse to bow out with what little dignity she retains at this point. How does not endorsing help bring the party together?  

Is Trippi saying that he thinks Edwards will work behind the scenes to convince Clinton to step aside? That would be OK too, I suppose, but I thought JE was a little more straightforward than that. And how would that "not help him personally" as opposed to an outright endorsement?

I am, of course, assuming that any forthcoming endorsement would be for Obama. Maybe I'm wrong. I understand that the lack of a mandate in Obama's health care plan may be a big sticking point, but I find it hard to believe that he is even considering a Clinton endorsement, especially after the last couple of weeks.

Bottom line from Trippi after another question about endorsing:

I really do not expect John Edwards to endorse at this point. Or I should say I would be surprised if he does. But then again he could surprise me. How is that for a run around answer to your question?

Weaseling aside, it sounds like he is pretty sure JE will not be endorsing anytime soon.  

Full disclosure: I was and am an Edwards supporter - Edwards/Obama would have been my dream ticket for sixteen years of enlightened leadership.  I would have voted for JE in the primary if he hadn't already dropped out by then.  I voted for Obama, not because he's black, not because I'm enraptured by his oratory, not because I'm sexist, but because I believe he is the sole remaining viable candidate who will be able to begin healing this country (and the world) of the wounds suffered over the last eight years.

Originally posted to soonerhq on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:55 PM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  By all signs (11+ / 0-)

      Edwards is right where a lot of strong progressives are: he prefers Obama to Clinton but has concerns about his caution, his moderate policy proposals, his tendency to use rightwing talking points, and, above all, his apparent unwillingness to fight the Republicans and corporate power.

      Of course, it doesn't help that Obama has mocked his concern the poor, hasn't spoken much about poverty in recent days, has given us (yet another) reason to doubt his commitment to fair trade, and has used Harry and Louise-style ads to attacks JRE's approach to health care reform.

      •  Good points all... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sam07, brentmack

        but is it really a good idea to stand on the sidelines because Obama might be less progressive than you wish, while HC pushes the country closer and closer to four years of McBush?

        In real life, pragmatism counts.

        •  There are things about Clinton's programs (6+ / 0-)

          that are closer to his.  People who went to her because of those things may well think Edwards is betraying them if he picks someone because of politics, not strictly policies.  I think not endorsing but being a strong voice for other races' candidates and for his own issues is the best thing he could do.

        •  Here is the rub (6+ / 0-)

          What you see as Hillary pushing the country toward 4 years of McBush, the virtually half of the voters who voted for her see Obama as doing the same thing. Neither of which would be true if both sides would quit the petty squabbling and politics of personality and focus on the problems facing the country.

          How could there be any advantage for anybody when clearly half the electorate favors one over the other? It's best to stay out of the way and let things work out, then work with both to repair the damage if that is possible.

          Edwards Democrats ActBlue LA-01, NC-08, IN-06, KY-01, NC-09, IA-03, WA-08

          by LaEscapee on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:45:25 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Don't get me wrong (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          I voted for Obama, I prefer him, but I don't begrudge anyone for coming to the conclusion that Hillary is more likely than Obama to fight the Republicans and would make a better general election candidate.

          Outside of Obamaland, there are good reasons to question how good a nominee and president Obama would be relative to Clinton. Sorry, but for some people, backing Obama is just not the only moral choice.

          All that said, I'd argue that there will come a time in early summer when there'll be a push by the PTB to end this thing. Perhaps Edwards could play a more important role at that point. If he endorses now and Hillary crushes Obama in Pennsylvania, then JRE would be just another Ted Kennedy, a big name whose endorsement didn't matter all that much.

          •  When you have Rush Limbaugh... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            telling Repubs to go vote for Clinton in the Dem primary, just so they can vote against her in the GE (exit polls show that it did happen in MS, and may have cost Obama several delegates), I fail to see how any Democrat can believe that HRC can overcome the anti-Clinton vote.

            Maybe Obama can't overcome the racist vote, but at least with him you have an energized group of (mostly) young people who might actually vote and make a difference this time around.

            •  YOU MIGHT (0+ / 0-)

              Fail to see Clinton overcoming the anti vote but its only in those few places that she needs that it matters

              I am convinced Clinton would be elected over McBush--But she will kill the down ticket types because of the anti vote that shows up in places like say my state that would come out in droves to wack her

              I like her from a policy perspective although I am generally in O's camp now.  
              She is a tough campaigner and is in fact causing me to be less supportive as I watch what hers folks do

              Anyway, the real point is it aint as simple as you might like it to be.  

              In the end I think if she the nominee she wins but its more of the same BS at the margins.  If Os the nominee he either wins BIGGER or loses by a sliver.  

      •  And Obama's Poverty Record Is Inadequate (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mattman, Redstateresident

        But so is Clinton's.

      •  David I am truly trying to understand (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        soonerhq, brentmack, cybrestrike

        how you have come to the positions that you hold. The only person in this race who has truly been poor, whose young mother was on welfare when he was a child, is Senator Obama.

        The only person in this race who sacrificed six figure jobs right out of college to work with the poor for a salary of $10,000 a year is Sen. Obama.

        The only person in this race who actually lived and worked with poor people in their neighborhood is Sen. Obama.  There is a difference between arriving in the neighborhood at 9:00 am and leaving the neighborhood at 5:00 pm to go back to where you live.

        Obama has mocked his concern the poor, hasn't spoken much about poverty in recent days,

        When you have actually been poor, you don't have to talk with poor people about it all the time. Once they understand your story, they know you understand theirs, and trust that having experienced poverty, you will do whatever you can to help them.

        We can change the world. Let's start with America. Obama for America '08

        by Blogvirgin on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:14:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  The Edwards Endorsement (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        David does a great job here of succinctly describing the concerns that I believe John Edwards, and many of his supporters, have with Obama.  These concerns are real, and Obama's Canada/NAFTA scandal and the Harry and Louise style attack ads obviously have not helped matters.

        In fact, it is interesting to consider what might have happened HAD Edwards actually immediately endorsed Obama after dropping out.  

        Obviously, as an endorser of Obama, Edwards would have been hounded by the MSM to comment upon Obama's use of Harry and Louise style ads, and Obama campaign's strategy of having a campaign adviser allay concerns (forget about the disputed content) regarding "free trade" right before the Ohio primary.  Duh!  

        You can say that Edwards could easily have responded with "no comment" (perhaps), or maybe even tried to put a positive spin on the Harry and Louise ads (very difficult if not impossible for Edwards to do), but no matter what he did, Edwards would have been used by the MSM to further embarrass Obama at these very low points in Obama's campaign.

        So, in a peculiar way that is perhaps surprising to those Obama supporters wishing Edwards had long ago endorsed Obama, consider that there have been a few advantages in Edwards NOT endorsing!  

        One of the more funny aspects of the question as to whether, and when, Edwards should endorse is that virtually every single opinion about what Edwards/Obama and Clinton are "doing" about this endorsement is based upon speculation.

        Sure, we have some data points, like this latest comment from Trippi.  Take it for what it's worth.  And, we do know that there were meetings many weeks ago.  We also know that the first meeting between Obama and Edwards was canceled. Why? We know that the two did eventually meet...with a helicopter taking pictures from above!  

        We also know that an endorsement was said to be imminent right after those meetings, but for reasons presently unknown to the general public, the endorsement never happened.

        I have read my share of interesting speculative takes on this. Today, I would like to offer my own unique speculation.  :)  Sure, why not?  

        My reading of the events suggests to me that Edwards was fully prepared and ready to endorse Obama after those meetings. Obama welcomed the endorsement, but, to his credit, wanted control over the timing of announcing the endorsement.  You will notice that the Obama campaign feels very strongly about timing endorsements to get maximal advantage...which is a good idea.

        I believe that the Obama campaign was (and continues to be) somewhat wary of an Edwards endorsement. They feel that it could be used by the MSM to resurrect that awful meme (which the MSM used following the New Hampshire debate) that they pumped out into the public, about the race becoming two men against one woman, or to use the words of their meme, "ganging up" against Hillary.  That meme does not serve the Obama campaign at all.

        I fully believe that the Obama campaign had internal polling that essentially showed Obama comfortably ahead in the next 10 contests, by large leads.  

        They then conducted a potential cost/potential benefit analysis of an Edwards endorsement, and I believe they reached an inescapable conclusion (I would have as well):  the best choice for them was to hold off with an Edwards' endorsement.  Simply put: they had no NEED for an Edwards' endorsement to win the next 10 contests, and the potential downside of a "ganging up" meme being disseminated...was just not worth the risk.  

        So, I think they told Edwards that they were going to put his endorsement on ice for awhile, and that they would "use" it at some point in the future.  They might even have told him that they might not even want to use it, but certainly asked him to not endorse Clinton (who I think could really have used Edwards endorsement!).

        They thought about using Edwards' endorsement before Wisconsin, but again, they had Wisconsin in the bag.  Why even risk disrupting the favorable dynamic with a dramatic Edwards endorsement?  They thought about using it before Ohio, but then again, the Harry and Louise mailers they were using en masse did not mesh well with an Edwards endorsement at all. I also think that they had polling showing that they were going to lose Ohio.  The only question was by how much, and what if Edwards had endorsed, and they still lost? That would have made Obama look...well...even worse off in Ohio.

        I think they finally settled upon using the Edwards endorsement right after Obama won the Texas primary.  The plan, I believe, was to combine an Edward endorsement, with a Richardson endorsement, and the endorsements of the reputed 50 other superdelegates ready to go, to essentially ask/compel Hillary to drop out.  The Texas primary win was to be the end of the campaign...if they won it.  And they had the pieces in place, including an Edwards endorsement, to push it.  

        But, as fate would have it, the turnout for Hillary along the Rio Grande Valley was massive (in no small part due to Bill Clinton campaigning up and down that Valley for days, flattering the people with unprecedented visits from an ex-president.)  Hillary ended up winning the Texas primary, and the whole "compel Hillary to drop out" plan had to be shelved.  

        At this juncture, my sense is that Edwards has probably decided that his endorsement will be used only as part of a "party coming together" around the nominee moment.  Richardson and Gore endorsements, I suspect, will be the same. You might think that an Obama win in Mississippi would be such a moment, but that is not quite the case. Texas was such a possible moment.  Pennsylvania will afford the next possible opportunity.  

    •  I really don't see all the reason for the (6+ / 0-)

      anti-clinton fervor, I'd prefer Obama slightly, but not by that much and I really doubt that he's the reformer he's cracked up to be, and as far as healing the wounds, I don't see that happening until the goopers are beat back into their holes.  Our differences with them are not personal, but political, policy differences and to the extent that they are placated our policies will fail.  I'm a progressive because I think progressive, liberal policies are what makes good societies function properly-not cause I root for them like they are a baseball team I grew up with, so I see no way to constructively cooperate with goopers.

  •  He and Richardson should both endorse Obama (21+ / 0-)




    It rubs the loofah on its skin or else it gets the falafel again.

    by Fishgrease on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:56:59 PM PDT

  •  Thanks (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    moira977, mayan, kubrick2008, DixieDishrag

    Hopefully we will hear from JRE after the election.

    "In Japan, American occupation forces quickly became 50,000 friends. In Iraq, they would quickly become 50,000 terrorist targets. " James Webb, Sep 02

    by ParaHammer on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:57:12 PM PDT

  •  Mighty stand up... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    brentmack, GWboosebag, Sun dog

    as the party collapses into HRC's hogwallow.

    "We're all working for the Pharaoh" - Richard Thompson

    by mayan on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:57:34 PM PDT

  •  You know, I kind of expecting Edwards to (9+ / 0-)

    endorse Obama.  Especially with all the divisiveness out of the Clinton campaign.  I would think Edwards would take a stand and be bold, as he was campaigning.  But I guess everyone is deathly afraid of crossing Hillary.

    Too bad.

    President Obama announces a beginning to phased troop withdrawal from Iraq - New York Times: January 26, 2009

    by kubrick2008 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:58:36 PM PDT

  •  Showboating all the way to the Convention (4+ / 0-)
    •  He won't have anything to showboat by then (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sam07, slaney black

      His importance in this decreases by the day.  In the week after he dropped out he should have made the principled choice and endorsed Obama.  It would have had an impact.  At this point, it would give Obama a few headlines and a bunch of teevee stories where they end every statement with "But do endorsements really make any difference?" with the clear implication that they don't.

      The time for showboating is long past.  It's the 250 superdelegates giving Hillary this unconditional support in spite of the fact that she lost the delegate battle in the primaries.  They are giving tacit approval to what her campaign is doing and they are the lever to ending her bid quickly.  If a large chunk of them take their thumbs off the scale, it tips over and Obama is the presumptive nominee.  

      •  Right, because (8+ / 0-)

        the only principled choice is to back Obama.

        Maybe he has principled doubts about Obama's ability to win and to stand up to corporate power? I know I do.

        •  Obamabots generally don't understand (6+ / 0-)

          how someone could not possibly just LOOOVE Obama. They all think Edwards should be swooning and fainting like they are.

          I think Edwards like Hillary's UHC plan and hates Obama's. And that was a critical issue for him. Obamabots tend to forget that Edwards the issues guy and fainting and reverence was not part of the agenda.

          Spears/Hilton '08

          by cosbo on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:31:31 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  In this very thread (7+ / 0-)

            Edwards has been charged with cowardice and racism because he doesn't pray at the Church of Obama.

            I'm going to say this once more slowly:

  ' corporate...power..and..the...Republicans.

            •  Who said JRE was racist? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Sun dog, cybrestrike

              I read the thread, didn't come across that.

              All you have to do is look at the Clinton 1990's, her corporate funders, and her backtracking on debating on Faux to see why endorsing her would be a betrayel of his principles.

              The ruling class has been dividing whites and blacks for 400 years--it is nothing new.

              by Kab ibn al Ashraf on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:13:36 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  As I pointed out in my diary (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Sun dog

            I was an Edwards supporter before he dropped out.  I know the issues and the candidates positions on the issues. I know that HRC's healthcare plan is closer to JE's, Obama doesn't talk enough about poverty, etc.

            I also know that HRC is alienating traditional Democratic voters, benefiting from Repub crossovers who have no intention of voting Dem this fall, and showing a general win-at-all costs mentality, even after the race is, for all practical purposes, over.

            At this point it doesn't matter whose policies match yours most closely. What matters is that HRC almost certainly will not win the nomination, if she does steal it she will be crushed by McCain and the anti-Clinton vote, and every day and every dollar she spends tearing down Obama might as well be coming from the RNC.  

            I don't LOOOVE Obama - I don't even get a thrill up my leg like Tweety.  But I do LOOOVE my country, and I don't think it can take another four (or eight) years of Republican rule. Anything that JE can do to derail the Clinton express to hell must be done ASAP.

            •  No it doesn't commenter (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              He can wait, and so shall you if you are a true supporter.  Otherwise, you are disingenuous about your support of JRE.  

            •  See what I see something completely different... (0+ / 0-)

              In Clinton as bitchy & ruthless as she is, is willing to fight all the way. That's the kind of person we need to win the general. Someone relentless. I don't care one way or another about Clinton...but I do admire her tenacity. If Kerry had been like that, he would have been president today. Thing is ....Obama who gives up when the politics looks to get too rough.

              I'm an Edwards supporter, I couldn't give a flying fuck who gets the nomination at this point. Obama doesn't inspire me, and Clinton doesn't thrill me.

              Which one can beat McCain? Please don't repeat the stupid electoral map from last week. It doesn't mean shit.

              Who is still winning despite all the negative press? Clinton is. That's what's going to happen in the fall. The press is going to go hardcore for McCain.  They've started already. Who can  stand up to that and win?

              Spears/Hilton '08

              by cosbo on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:57:16 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  What exactly is Clinton winning? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Sun dog

                Maybe I missed a primary or 20. Obama is leading in pledged delegates, states won, and the popular vote (even without considering the people who participated in caucuses) and is gaining fast in supers.

                Yeah, HRC won Ohio, RI, and TX (although Obama ended up with more TX delegates than she did). And it took Obama one week (and two "small" states) to erase her gains.

                I don't believe in win at all costs, no matter what the stakes. That's the kind of thinking that led to the President of the United States authorizing torture.

                •  It's nutty in here (0+ / 0-)

                  You're insane if you believe your candidate has principles but Edwards supporters who don't toe the Pure line on him are denounced as not real supporters of JRE.  And Hillary is winning because, well, up is down?  And Obama isn't a fighter but JRE is.  Blea on this thick-headed scene here.  I knew really savvy Edwards supporters in Iowa but here the level is about junior high.  

                  It's all 'Obamabots,' strawmen, and a one-dimentional understanding of politics.  I'm not sure why so many of this type ended up with Edwards.  He was a pretty good candidate.  I supported him strongly for the nomination in 2004.  Because he made sense that year as our nominee.  I still believe he would have unseated Bush.  This year, Obama makes way more sense in terms of what the country is looking for and our ability to build a working majority than either Hillary or Edwards.  

                  Oh, and if any of you guys are still around, it would be principled of  Edwards to endorse because Hillary is running a divisive campaign and hurting our chances in November.  Because Edwards claimed after Iowa that Obama's win was a good thing because it showed the country was hungry for real change and he and Obama were the ones who represent that.  The two choices are Clinton and Obama now.  Obama has won the pledged delegate battle.  He's being attacked simultaneously by Hillary and McCain, both from the right.  It would be principled to help end this thing so we can win the election and get some of those changes that Edwards is supposedly so principled about.

                  These turkeys revere him and make twice the leader out of him than he's ever been.  And then they accuse Obama supporters of doing that with a candidate who actually could take us to the White House and carry a mandate doing it.  

                  Enough.  I'm sick of the JRE worshippers acccusing others of doing what they are totally guilty of.

              •  Fighting isn't (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                soonerhq, Sun dog, cybrestrike

                going to get 5-10 Senators to support a health care iniative if HRC wins the nomination.

                Any President that "stood up to corporate power" would be handed 20% unemployment by the Fed about 8-12 months before 2012.  

                We're nowhere near standing up to corporate power in this country.  Grow the party, get 65-75% of people voting, then talk about standing up to corporate power and the CCCP--corporate controlled consumer pseud-journalists.

                The ruling class has been dividing whites and blacks for 400 years--it is nothing new.

                by Kab ibn al Ashraf on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:16:40 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  Principles? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cosbo, mattman

        What is your definition?

        Do what I think?

        The responses of the faithful are laughable to say the least.

        Edwards Democrats ActBlue LA-01, NC-08, IN-06, KY-01, NC-09, IA-03, WA-08

        by LaEscapee on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:29:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Actually each day Edwards sits out (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        The more the bloggers clammer for his endorsement, and I bet other Dems do too.

    •  How is he "showboating"? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      soonerhq, NearlyNormal

      Have you seen Edwards turning up on the Sunday morning news shows (as Richardson did) or thrusting himself into the public eye in any other way? Yes, he did on one occasion lend his name to an effort by progressive groups to draw attention to the costs of our continued presence in Iraq at a time of economic turmoil at home. But is that bad? The only other publicity was when Clinton and Obama, for reasons of their own, decided to visit him in N.C. I don't know where you come up with denigrating remarks like "showboating" to describe a man who has withdrawn from the limelight.

      •  In a perils of Pauline Sort of Way (0+ / 0-)

        If this thing drags on without too much movement, Edwards could be a king maker.  But his performance in the primaries - given his name recongition from 2004 and his obvious talent - was pretty weak.

  •  John Edwards (7+ / 0-)

    gets a little bit smaller every day.

  •  Generic Edwards Support Comment (8+ / 0-)

    Just to spare the real Edwards supporters the trouble.

    *clears throat

    John Edwards would not endorse either of the two corporate hack faux progressive candidates we have now.

    Glad that's out of the way.

    Taking Daily Kos back, one anti-McCain diary at a time.

    by bhagamu on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:01:45 PM PDT

    •  I never understood this self-righteous thing (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LoLoLaLa, Kab ibn al Ashraf, SDuvall

      with edward's supporters. And the equating hillary with BO is just mindless. I liked edwards but you people are weird. I mean really. If you honestly believe that Obama is closer to HRC than Edwards, you should provide some evidence in that regard.

      Also, we all let you get away with this noise, but remember, before his recent progressive conversion, he was just another ex corporate lawyer Democrat centrist with a shitload of money in the bank who voted for the patriot act and the war.

      so please get off your high horse. Right now he is silent while the the party is falling apart, no matter who is responsible. (hillary)    

      •  If you're going to pan (8+ / 0-)

        everyone who's keeping their mouth shut at this moment, you're going to need a pretty big kitchen.

      •  pretty sure bhagamu was being snarky (n/t) (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
      •  Well 148,764 (4+ / 0-)

        Thank you for "letting us get away with this noise".

        So many things wrong with the comment you made. Yes unfortunately the two are closer to each other than you would care to admit, they are both free trading centrist with damn near mirror image voting records. Obama on the war, he was against it, before he funded it, before he was against it. JE was not a corporate lawyer, the money he earned, yes he earned it, was fighting against the criminal corporations for the little guy.

        Yes he voted for authorization and patriot act and admitted that was a mistake, we all make them even your chosen candidate. Can you say credit card interests rates, CTL, or lobbyest money?

        So to attack JE just because he hasn't fallen in line the way you would like smells of grapes and they aint sweet.  

        Edwards Democrats ActBlue LA-01, NC-08, IN-06, KY-01, NC-09, IA-03, WA-08

        by LaEscapee on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:26:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Evidence (5+ / 0-)

        of Obama's moderation on policy and his closeness to corporate power?

        How much time do you got?

        Is Obama closer to HRC than to Edwards? Hard to say, but there are plenty to reasons to question whether Obama is up for the requisite fight against corporate power, whether it's his secretive K-Street project

        Or his genuflecting before Wall Street leaders:

        “But I believe that all of you are as open and willing to listen as anyone else in America. I believe you care about this country and the future we are leaving to the next generation. I believe your work to be a part of building a stronger, more vibrant, and more just America. I think the problem is that no one has asked you to play a part in the project of American renewal.”

        Yeah, that's the problem, Barack, that no one (you) has asked Wall Street titans to help.

        •  the second link makes the opposite of your case (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          soonerhq, cybrestrike

          but more importantly: No one believes Obama is flawless. Or the most progressive candidate of all time. Neither was your boy. The difference is he is the most progressive candidate who can win. To continue to push this idea that Hillary and Barack are cut from the same cloth, ignores quite a bit.

          -his history as a community organizer
          -the 50 state strategy
          -grassroots organizing
          -refusal of Lobby/PAC money
          -push for government transparency  
          -push for business transparency

          These seem like progressive ideas to me. Maybe to you being progressive means losing Primary and General election. Shit, Nader does that and he is more progressive than the two of them.

  •  Edwards was gonna take on Special interests... (5+ / 0-)

    but can't endorse Obama who doesn't accept money from special interests (and Hillary does).  That would be an easy way to do it.

    Or, how about Obama being against the Iraq War from 2002.  that's another.

    I feel like a lot of Democrats are not able to take a gutsy stand when they need to.  No wonder some Republicans say the shit they do.

    Take a Stand: Richardson, Edwards, Gore, etc.  

    Waiting around til the convention to show your intentions is really lame at this point.

    Obama as won 30 primaries/caucuses to Hillary's 14.  What more needs to be done!  

    President Obama announces a beginning to phased troop withdrawal from Iraq - New York Times: January 26, 2009

    by kubrick2008 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:02:42 PM PDT

    •  Yeah, that's Gore's problem (8+ / 0-)

      a lack of courage.

      Me thinks some Obama supporters may be getting a little carried away.

      •  This is Gore's problem (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Catte Nappe, benny05

        If that happens, the convention could turn to a compromise candidate. Al Gore is the most obvious and perhaps the only contender who could head off a complete meltdown in the party. After all, he already won the popular vote for the presidency. It was only because of a fluke at the Supreme Court that he was denied his turn at the wheel. No one could deny that he's ready on day one to assume the presidency. "It's the rational choice if this turns into a goddamn mess, which it could," says the Clinton adviser, who doesn't want to be quoted seeming to waver about Clinton's chances of securing the nomination.

        "The era of Scooter Libby justice, Brownie incompetence and Karl Rove politics will finally be over this year" Reject Marc Rich justice and Mark Penn politics.

        by IhateBush on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:06:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm sorry, that ship has sailed.... (0+ / 0-)

          If the convention installed Gore there would be blood in the streets and the party would fragment.  It would certainly insure a Republican win in November, because it would be obvious that the Democrats aren't any better than the Republicans.

          "It's the rational choice if this turns into a goddamn mess, which it could," says the Clinton adviser, who doesn't want to be quoted seeming to waver about Clinton's chances of securing the nomination.

          What is this?  More Clinton BS to muddy the waters and put everyone at each others throats?  THE WOMAN IS A TROJAN HORSE!

      •  I didn't say Gore wasn't being bold. But ... (0+ / 0-)

        he could endorse to help push this to an end.

        Edwards has been flirting with endorsing (meeting with each candidate) and Richardson has been totally lame about endorsing.  I will, I won't...

        President Obama announces a beginning to phased troop withdrawal from Iraq - New York Times: January 26, 2009

        by kubrick2008 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:06:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Here's what you said (5+ / 0-)

          I feel like a lot of Democrats are not able to take a gutsy stand when they need to.  No wonder some Republicans say the shit they do.

          Take a Stand: Richardson, Edwards, Gore, etc.


          You said Gore is unable to take a gutsy stand, and I'm sure next thread you'll be wondering the words and behavior of some Obama supporters make people ill.

        •  either Obama wins this on his own (5+ / 0-)

          or he doesn't win it at all. If he can't overcome Hillary, then he certainly can't overcome McCain.

          He's not owed anything by Gore, Edwards, Richardson, etc. He knew what he was doing when he ran for president.

          In one breath the Obama believers swear that their movement is entirely people-powered and beholden to no institution; in the next they scream bloody murder that none of the party elite are stepping in and abrogating the primary process by endorsing Obama.

          Demanding that the supers preempt the primary process by coming out for Obama is a more polite way of saying that the people can't be trusted to make the right choice here--and that's about as antithetical to the supposed spirit of Obama's movement as you can get.

    •  Maybe it is simpler than that..... (1+ / 2-)
      Recommended by:
      Hidden by:
      be inspired, benny05

      He may not be willing to endorse Hillary because she is a corporate hack, but he may not want to endorse Barack for his own reasons.

      He did say he didn't know if Obama was tough enough for the job and he wanted to see more fight.  He may also have mixed emotions about helping to put an African-American in the White House.

      Don't start screaming at me, but it is a thought.  

      I know that he was ambivalent about gays and gay marriage and he apologized for having those feelings, sort of.  He said Elizabeth was OK with it, but that he wasn't there, yet.  Maybe he's not there for an AA in the WH, either.

      Sorry, I'm just trying to think thru why he hasn't and possibly won't endorse...

    •  Edwards was representing a special interest (0+ / 0-)

      The majority of Edwards big money donations came from the special interest group called the legal profession.

      The interests of the people and the interests of the legal profession are not aligned.  

  •  Trippi's comments make little of no sense to me.. (7+ / 0-)

    Edwards charged both candidates with carrying his message forward, but there is just so much they can do at this point in time.  His message was not resonating enough to get him better than a second place finish in Iowa when he had really been campaigning there since '04.  I was hoping he would get some traction, but that's history.

    Why would he sit by and watch the party torn apart when he and a few other people could put an effective end to it?  Especially when Hillary has made it clear that she is perfectly OK with destroying the party.  Does he think that a new party could rise from the ashes?  Maybe so, but will there be a country when it does?

    Clinging to his handful of delegates and refusing to endorse seems kind of petty right now, I don't see it looking better later in the game unless he is manuevering for a position in the administration.

    I wonder why Gore and several other party elders aren't more vocal in ending this?

  •  It is possible that (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mattman, limpidglass

    Gore or Edwards may have to end up being the nominee.  Ferraro's comments were one of many things that are right now destroying both candidates chance to unify this party at any time.  

    If that happens, the convention could turn to a compromise candidate. Al Gore is the most obvious and perhaps the only contender who could head off a complete meltdown in the party. After all, he already won the popular vote for the presidency. It was only because of a fluke at the Supreme Court that he was denied his turn at the wheel. No one could deny that he's ready on day one to assume the presidency. "It's the rational choice if this turns into a goddamn mess, which it could," says the Clinton adviser, who doesn't want to be quoted seeming to waver about Clinton's chances of securing the nomination.

    "The era of Scooter Libby justice, Brownie incompetence and Karl Rove politics will finally be over this year" Reject Marc Rich justice and Mark Penn politics.

    by IhateBush on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:05:19 PM PDT

  •  It's too late for Edwards (7+ / 0-)

    If he wanted to contribute anything to this campaign at all, other than platitudes, he should have come out and said something about the decidedly harmful turn the campaign has taken. Whether he endorsed any candidate or not, he could have said something about the nasty politics being played. It is too late for Edwards to add anything to the race other than questions about why he has done nothing so far.

    •  He has been raising money and working (5+ / 0-)

      for candidates at lower levels than president, ones who do share his issues.  The presidency is not all that he cares about.  

      •  Then why did he run? (0+ / 0-)

        The Presidency must mean something to him to devote the time and finances to running. It must mean a lot to him if he talked with his wife about taking time away from her to campaign for President. The Presidency is the bully pulpit, the place where one gets the chance to make big things happen. It can also cause a lot of problems if the wrong person gets into office. Many of the causes Edwards supports might suffer if the wrong person is elected President. Edwards cannot just ignore the race and hope for the best if he is truly committed to those causes. I don't think that Edwards felt that if he could not be President then it didn't matter who became President. But I could be wrong.  

  •  Bringing the country together by... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sam07, Sun dog, mama hearts obama

    ...letting the s**t-throwing continue for 3 more months. Yes, Joe, we will all hate each other with the burning intensity of a billion exploding suns by then.  Totally unified in our vow to destroy the other faction first, before taking on the Republican nominee.

    We need 100 Obama endorsements, stat!

  •  John Edwards led on every single issue (5+ / 0-)

    Why do fringe candidates always feel that way about themselves? You led on every issue but you came up waaaaay short

    pushed both Clinton and Obama on everything from the war in Iraq

    jigga what?

    Hillary is a Skrull

    by LoLoLaLa on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:08:59 PM PDT

  •  Why is he not endorsing? (4+ / 0-)

    I'm really starting to have trouble with those in our party who choose to remain silent, while our party is becoming more divided with every passing day.  I would like to believe that there is some grand plan that we mere voter's aren't privy to, but it is getting harder and harder to believe.  

    Obama told us this would be a long hard fight against the status quo, with each passing day it becomes more and more clear who really wants change, and who is happy with politics just the way they are now.

    "Hope is that thing inside us that insists...that something better awaits us if we have the courage to fight for it." --Barack Obama

    by loree920 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:10:18 PM PDT

    •  why indeed!? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      soonerhq, slaney black

      Edwards supporters i'm sure have solidly voted Obama since his exit and he should support Obama as well. What are Edwards, Richardson, Dodd, and Gore waiting for?? they should have picked a side (Obama's)before march 4th if you ask me. I am an Edwards Supporter but i have waited too long for him to speak up. Where are you Edwards!?

      "We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office. Aesop "

      by soulsurvivor on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:21:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  There could be some truth (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    importer, mattman, mvr, soonerhq

    in this idea.  Hillary is at a point where she wouldn't bow out if Jesus Christ returned and endorsed Obama.  Complete bunker mentality.

    I don't know exactly how Edwards would/could bring the party together for November, but I do understand that it will be far harder for him to play a role in uniting the party if he endorses before Clinton drops out or loses at the convention...

  •  Timing matters. My respect for Edwards remains (7+ / 0-)

    what it was partly because he is not just leveraging his delegates and status for his own glory, but (so far as I can tell) actually worried about the overall good.  Waiting to unite thes behind the obvious winner is a smart move.  It won't piss off the Pennsylvanians by making their votes irrelevant.  And it will head off a long uneasy summer.

    Obama can survive the next month so long as the delegate counts are not messed with.  

  •  2 cents (8+ / 0-)

    This is what I have felt all along, I don't think JE is worried about any special favors from either candidate. When he withdrew he made it clear he was stepping aside for history to blaze it's path (paraphrase). JE was never about himself personally, of course any politician has an ego, but his candidacy was the epitomy of "for the people". After going through the things he has gone through in his and his families lives he realized action in support of others is what it is about.(IMO)

    By not endorsing either of the remaining candidates he allows himself to support the party. Anyone watching what is going on in this primary can see there will be much healing needed. JE has the respect of every faction involved now and those that will be involved come time for that healing, and can be a voice of reason when needed. He proved it over and over oin the campaign and there is no reason that shouldn't continue.

    He has other things going on right now such as the Iraq/Recession effort and is affiliated with progressive groups to hammer the pugs with this message. There is no need for him to get involved at this time because the only thing that will happen is one side will end up disparaging his choice, and this will weaken any future efforts to advance the Democratic Party.

    We don't need to re-define the Democratic Party, we need to re-claim the Democratic party~John Edwards

    2 cents

    Edwards Democrats ActBlue LA-01, NC-08, IN-06, KY-01, NC-09, IA-03, WA-08

    by LaEscapee on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:15:49 PM PDT

    •  I respectfully disagree. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I'm an Edwards suppoter and I was sad to see him go... It's past due for the party elders to step up and take a side. this Primary is getting ugly and I don't see any good reason Edwards and Gore, Richardson, Dodd and others haven't come out and publically endorsed Obama. He is the obvious choice in my eyes for Edwards especially to give his endorsement to.  It really baffles me and I think we have waited long enough for a decision by these guys.

      "We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office. Aesop "

      by soulsurvivor on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:28:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  OK Bruce McF said it better (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        benny05, soonerhq

        It is right below this comment. No matter which side he endorses half the party will discount the endorsment. That is how the party is voting, and an anyone who does endorse is instantly pulled into the everyday squabbles.

        Hos staying out of it allows him the appearance of neutrality. What may be discerne from this whole thing is, he has not endorsed Hillary and that should be a telling sign considering past statements.

        Edwards Democrats ActBlue LA-01, NC-08, IN-06, KY-01, NC-09, IA-03, WA-08

        by LaEscapee on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:37:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  What you said ... that's why. (6+ / 0-)

    It is obvious to me and to all but the most deluded Clinton supporters that a) she can't win; and b) her tactics are tearing the party apart and hurting our chances in the general election. An endorsment from Edwards (and preferably Gore and Richardson) would give Hillary an excuse to bow out with what little dignity she retains at this point. How does not endorsing help bring the party together?

    Its not the "act of not endorsing" ... there is no such act.

    Its the fact of not having endorsed if the Clinton camp decides to fight to the bitter end no matter what damage it has caused. Because those who have endorsed will be dragged into the mud as well, and there will need to be some people that are not covered in mud to help with what needs to be done to heal the divisions (or at least staple over them firmly enough to hold until December).

    If endorsing can bring the process to an end, that's one thing ... but that is precisely in the hands of the people you refer to as deluded, so inferring that they will suddenly become rational in response to someone endorsing the other side does not make much sense. It seems more likely that they will automatically discount it, on the basis that the person is now an Obama supporter and they relegate anything an Obama supporter says about their need to get out to save the party into the concern troll file (hint, its often a grey metal file that is close to cylindrical).

    •  Solid post (0+ / 0-)

      Maybe I am giving too much credit to Clinton. I would hope that if enough heavy hitters were to endorse Obama right now, even HRC would realize it's time to step aside. I may be underestimating her ego, thirst for power, or whatever else it is that is driving her over the cliff.

      •  Its the fact that the possibility remains ... (0+ / 0-)

        ... that Obama could implode. For a group of "heavy hitters" to have that clout, it has to be in reaction to an event, so that the media story is, "well, that confirms what we were thinking too" and Obama moves from front-runner to anticipated nominee even among disinterested observers based on the positive feedback loop that results from that.

        If she had been declared the loser of Ohio or Texas on the night of March 4th, that would have been an opportunity. The Clinton camp had very successfully framed the run between Super Tuesday and Junior Tuesday as ... well, exactly that, a run between two big events.

        Until then, its until the next opportunity arises and

  •  Edwards supported the war (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slaney black

    and has a dubious voting record. He seems to be just another triangulator to me. I really dont see why people like him. Plus, he blinks too much. I dont trust blinkers.

    2+2 = 5 : For Extremely large values of 2

    by Eidolon on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:20:51 PM PDT

  •  to me it is not the endorsement we need (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    loon with a view

    We just want to see party leaders be disgusted with how this game is being played. I don't give a crap if he thinks HRC is a better candidate, but neutrtality is destroying the party as the race-baiting mudslinging continues.

  •  Why Do People Care What Joe Trippi Thinks? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NCDem Amy

    He lost the last 2 campaigns he has been involved in. He mismanaged the Dean campaign right into oblivion.  Who cares what he thinks?  

  •  I, too, am an Edwards supporter (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    soonerhq, VA Breeze, Valhalla

    and would've liked an Edwards/Obama ticket, but an Obama/Edwards ticket is almost as good.  Besides, who says he is out completely?  I had read that most polls had Edwards as voters' second choice.  If the other two are deadlocked, might the delegates accept him as a compromise?  Remember, he suspended his campaign, not ended it!

  •  Edwards must endorse.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    and he must endorse Obama and he must do it now.  He cannot approve of what is going on now.  Everything he stood for and campaigned on is in jeopardy because of Hillary Clinton and her scorched earth tactics.

    He needs to stand up and be counted.  If he doesn't I will come to regret that vote I cast for him.

    Any party that would lie to start a war would also steal an election.

    by landrew on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:37:05 PM PDT

  •  No endorsement, after the Ferraro episode?? (0+ / 0-)

    Where's the integrity, John Edwards? What do you stand for? Clearly the Clinton campaign is using race as a wedge issue to win Penn. So you stand on the sidelines?

  •  quite frankly (6+ / 0-)

    Even if Richardson, Gore, Edwards, Pelosi, Reid, and the whole gang stood up today and endorsed Obama, I don't think Hillary would drop out.

    "This...this is the fault of that Clinton Penis! And that powermongering wife of his!"

    by CaptUnderpants on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:40:21 PM PDT

  •  Folks are waiting for two "new" democrats (0+ / 0-)

    Gore and Edwards to endore Obama? I wouldn't hold my breath.

    Nor do I care.

    Maybe I would, if they won back the senate seats we lost in Tennessee and North Carolina.

  •  Instead of focusing on Trippi, why not Scott K (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    in Neb, who has a great post here:

    "Brand this Cowboy".

  •  I am glad Edwards didn't endorse Obama (0+ / 0-)

    It makes it look like "men against women", especially when he missed his chance before super Tuesday (the original one) when Hillary was still the inevitable one.

    Now an endorsement for Obama would effectively be a Hillary endorsement. There are plenty of women (and men) who see no reason to abandon Hillary yet, regardless of her erratic and destructive campaign thus far.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site