I am going to open a thread to discuss the first few paragraphs of a new New York Magazine story covering the President primary.
http://nymag.com/...
Those first few paragraphs reproduced below go into what happened that kept Edwards on the fence.
In the days after John Edwards’s withdrawal from the Democratic race, the political world expected his endorsement of Barack Obama would be forthcoming tout de suite. The neo-populist and the hopemonger had spent months tag-teaming Hillary Clinton, pillorying her as a creature of the status quo, not a champion of the kind of "big change" they both deem essential. So appalled was Edwards at Clinton’s gaudy corporatism—her defense of the role of lobbyists, her suckling at the teats of the pharmaceutical and defense industries—that he’d essentially called her corrupt. And then, not least, there were the sentiments of his wife. "Elizabeth hasn’t always been crazy about Mrs. Clinton" is how an Edwards insider puts it; a less delicate member of HRC’s circle says, "Elizabeth hates her guts."
But now two months have passed since Edwards dropped out—tempus fugit!—and still no endorsement. Why? According to a Democratic strategist unaligned with any campaign but with knowledge of the situation gleaned from all three camps, the answer is simple: Obama blew it. Speaking to Edwards on the day he exited the race, Obama came across as glib and aloof. His response to Edwards’s imprecations that he make poverty a central part of his agenda was shallow, perfunctory, pat. Clinton, by contrast, engaged Edwards in a lengthy policy discussion. Her affect was solicitous and respectful. When Clinton met Edwards face-to-face in North Carolina ten days later, her approach continued to impress; she even made headway with Elizabeth. Whereas in his Edwards sit-down, Obama dug himself in deeper, getting into a fight with Elizabeth about health care, insisting that his plan is universal (a position she considers a crock), high-handedly criticizing Clinton’s plan (and by extension Edwards’s) for its insurance mandate.
The implications of this story are several and not insignificant. Most obviously, it suggests that the front-runner’s diplomatic skills could use some refinement. It also raises the issue, which has cropped up in a different form after New Hampshire, Super-Duper Tuesday, and the Ohio and Texas primaries, of Obama’s capacity to close the deal.
My thoughts quickly. I cannot judge his answer on the poverty deal. But the idea that because Edwards lost, Obama was supposed to endorse HIS health care plan rather than defend his own is silly. A lot of us disagree with Obama's position on mandates but I don't see how Elizabeth could have expected him to change his mind ... especially since they lost, didn't they ?
And I think the inability to close the deal has more to do with how strong Clinton is electorally and intelligence-wise than with some inner weakness of Obama's.
And I think it is to his credit that he didn't change who he was to try to seduce the Edwards (unlike a certain other person). Of course I wish he had been more effective at luring them to our side but oh well. At least I am not nervous about them endorsing Hillary anymore.
But enough of my musings. Let's chat away about what you guys think !