Edwards endorses... who? [UPDATED]

Oh my God I'm writing a campaign diary.

It has been widely reported that John Edwards is having endorsement talks

"He's torn," the aide said "He has reservations about Hillary, which are pretty apparent."

On Obama, the aide says, Edwards worries "whether he's tough enough to be President of the United States."

with both Democratic presidential campaigns.

... the Clinton camp confirmed that Mrs. Clinton had met privately on Thursday with former Senator John Edwards in North Carolina. Mr. Edwards, who has dropped out of the race, has not made an endorsement. But Mr. Obama is scheduled to meet with him too, on Monday night, Obama allies say, and is also flying to Mr. Edwards’s home in North Carolina.

Will he make an endorsement soon?

Granted, I didn't get around the blogosphere much over the weekend, but I'm kinda stunned at the silence with regards to these meetings. Iceberg Slim writes today:

...[Hillary] is not sneaking around to see John Edwards for nothing.

Yet I woke this morning to a report on ABC's Chicago affiliate that Obama had won in Maine, and he is going to meet with John Edwards today.

As you can tell by all the links in this diary, this information is widespread. So is meeting with John Edwards really "sneaking around?" Is that the only way anyone is going to mention these meetings?

I commented in Iceberg Slim's diary about the meetings, as did mattinjersey, but have yet to see a reply that discusses the propriety of the characterization of Clinton's meeting with Edwards, or that expresses any thoughts on who Edwards may endorse.

Since I didn't spend much time online this weekend, I'm wondering if I've missed any great deal of speculation on these meetings around these parts, or if for some reason speculation is of no interest.

More than anything, I'd like to hear from Edwards supporters on what they think and feel about these meetings. I had planned on voting for John Edwards in May, and wonder where most of your thoughts of support have moved of late.

UPDATED 12:16 pm CST Mon Feb 11 2008 - Just heard on MSNBC that Obama has cancelled his meeting with Edwards today. Hmmm...

UPDATED 3:15 pm CST Mon Feb 11 2008 - Sources close to Obama and Edwards now say the meeting has been rescheduled for privacy. Sneaking around is okay, I suppose, if both Clinton and Obama get to do it?

•  Poll is incomplete

  I think the most likely scenario is he doesn't endorse.

  by droogie6655321 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:31:05 AM PDT

  •  Agreed n/t

    by grannyhelen on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:34:24 AM PDT

  •  Poll is incomplete

    It doesn't include Mike Gravel.

    Granted, all Gravel did is show up at Edwards house, drop a stone in a pond, and walk off.

    by RBH on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:34:48 AM PDT

    •  Gravelmentum

      Mike's plan was to win Alaska and surge to victory.  That didn't happen.  But Take II is to get the Edwards endorsement and then sweep on to victory.

      by JeremiahFP on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:38:09 AM PDT

    •  shake the lake

      Gravel for press secretary

      by 88kathy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:40:22 AM PDT

    •  Joke if you must

      But Mike Gravel has the batshit crazy old coot vote locked up.

      by Jon Stafford on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:41:35 AM PDT

      •  Based on that, GRAVEL is the

        only candidate who can beat McCain.  

        by KeepingItBlueKrstna on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:46:20 AM PDT

        •  Nice.

          That would be one hell of a grizzled, wacked-out election.

          If only...

          by Jon Stafford on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:52:36 AM PDT

          •  They'd settle it by

            arguing with a grizzly bear. The first one to persuade the bear to wear reading glasses would be the winner of the Presidency. It would really save on election costs.

            by Batfish on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:09:07 AM PDT

            •  That could be the greatest debate...

              ...since John F. Kennedy was fellated beneath the podium by Marilyn Monroe while Richard Nixon broke out in a cold sweat.

              by Jon Stafford on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:17:19 AM PDT

              •  Knowing that

                you can understand where the sweating came from!

                by Batfish on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:31:02 AM PDT

      •  Nader might steal it though

        (a damn shame, Ralph has made great contributions to our country).

        by JeremiahFP on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:46:36 AM PDT

        •  Feh.

          Nader's biggest contribution to the country is the human bag of shit sitting in the White House right now.

          by Jon Stafford on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:51:59 AM PDT

          •  Sadly true

            But he made some truly impressive contributions as a public advocate (seat belts, the Environmental Protection Agency etc. . . .).  It's a damned shame he played a role in Bush's election -- and I hope to God he plays no role in McCain's election (which, will never happen).

            by JeremiahFP on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:56:42 AM PDT

            •  My issue with Nader...

              ...is that, from what I've read about him, he's basically an attention whore.  If there are cameras around he wants to be in front of them.  I do believe he fought for some good causes.  But like many zealots his self-righteousness translates into ego.  That's a shame, and it cost Al Gore the White House.

              by Jon Stafford on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:01:16 AM PDT

              •  I disagree with the attention whore part

                From what I've read and heard, Nader is generally not an attention whore.  He rose to prominence at least partly because he let a ton of college students and young lawyers handle press conferences.

                He was able to pass so many bills in the 60s and 70s because he was notorious for not caring who got the credit.

                In 1972 the Dems offered him the VP slot and he turned it down.

                I agree that his self-righteousness has had devestating effects on the country.

                by JeremiahFP on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:48:58 AM PDT

    •  I agree,

      where's Pie?

      by bnldem on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:40:28 AM PDT

  •  wish I could edit it

    What do you suppose these meetings will accomplish, then, and why would anyone characterize such a meeting as "sneaking around?"

    by wanderindiana on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:35:10 AM PDT

    •  Because they're overly partisan.

      But both candidates will pressure Edwards ... a LOT. Those delegates he has are like fillet mignon. They're like the Glengarry leads. They're gold to both Obama and Clinton.

      But I don't think they'll be going to either via an endorsement.

      by droogie6655321 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:36:54 AM PDT

      •  I don't think he can promise those delegates

        He can urge his delegates to support someone, but they're not bound to obey him.

        by Geekesque on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:38:06 AM PDT

    •  When there is no story, or no

      there there, the media (and this time the blogosphere is not excluded) makes one up.

      by KeepingItBlueKrstna on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:37:43 AM PDT

      •  Meetings with a former candidate not a story?

        I wish you'd elaborate on why it's a non-story.

        by wanderindiana on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:50:52 AM PDT

        •  Not a non-story, as in

          a story that should not be reported, but a non-STORY as in a totally expected story with little to no new information.  A former candidate meeting with the candidates? Pretty much to be expected, given his statements when he exited the race.  And since they don't know what is going to come out of it, they need to sex it up a little. And I don't mean literally. I KNOW that wasn't what they meant by sneaking around.  Ick.

          by KeepingItBlueKrstna on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:05:42 AM PDT

          •  gotcha! n/t

            by wanderindiana on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:13:16 AM PDT

  •  I kinda hope he doesn't endorse in the primary

    Then comes out all hellfire a'blazing in the general election for which ever candidate wins.

    by nightsweat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:41:27 AM PDT

  •  I hope he doesn't endorse

    unless one of the other two candidates come close in line with what made him the best candidate.

    by TXsharon on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:45:42 AM PDT

    •  I agree

      I think that he should hold out for a key position in shaping economic policy for the campaign that he endorses.

      I would be very dissapointed if he endorsed Obama, because I think that the bend over and take it attitude that characterizes the Obama campaign is antithetical to the things that drove working class voters to Edward's campaign.

      I'd like to see him endorse Clinton, and be brought on as the chief economic policy advisor, and eventual VP.  I think that would ensure her large leads in both Texas and Ohio on 3/4.

      Obama is going to win the Potomac Primary (MD/VA/DC) on the basis of the black vote, and more importantly the votes of whites with postgrad education.  The latter group has beent he secret to Obama's success.  And that's a huge problem when the percentage of the electorate represented by them falls off a cliff in the general.

      by ManfromMiddletown on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:17:40 AM PDT

    •  well his campaign adviser Mudcat Saunders

      said he would do everything in his power not to let Edwards endorse Clinton. He said the Clinton policies have been devasting to the poor in this country. And David Obey who had back Edwards switched to Obama. I just can't see him endorsing Clinton after he attacked her on lobbyists and her not being a change agent. But I could be wrong.

      by ronnied on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:57:04 AM PDT

•  Hi guy!

  A few minutes on, saw your name and had to pop in.

  In answer, I can see Elizabeth endorsing Obama and John endorsing Clinton.  And I'm serious about that.

  Hope things are well and you didn't have a tip jar up when I wrote this...so put it up!

  by kfred on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:32:41 AM PDT

  •  Yet another poll option I missed.

    Clearly, I am not the most skilled poll crafter.

    Things are well, and hope the same is true for you and yours on this frigid midwestern day... but skip the tips -- what I really want is people's thoughts on the meetings, whether or not to characterize them as "sneaking around" is appropriate, and who they'd like to see the former candidate endorse.

    by wanderindiana on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:37:55 AM PDT

  •  would that mean that

    the Edwardses are going to endorse a Hillary/Obama ticket?

    by FerrisValyn on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:42:01 AM PDT

•  MSNBC this morning

  From Domenico Montanaro at MSNBC's FirstRead:

  *** What does Edwards want? Also over the weekend, we found out that Clinton had privately met with Edwards in Chapel Hill, NC on Thursday. And Obama will do the same tonight. Previously, Edwards had won assurances from both candidates that eliminating poverty would be bigger focuses of their campaigns and potential presidencies. But these meetings seem to suggest that Edwards wants something even more than that. Edwards has the potential to play kingmaker in the Dem race. But what does he want in return?

  by wanderindiana on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:33:28 AM PDT

•  His endorsement could go either way

  I'd love him to endorse Obama and be his running mate but what actually will happen is so unpredictable that I can't say.

  by byteb on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:35:18 AM PDT

  •  I'd like to see

    My thought is that Edwards would not be a good choice for VP.  Already been there, did that, doesn't seem he really ended up adding much to the Kerry ticket (though he certainly did no harm).  I would love to see whomever our nominee is (hoping it is Obama) appoint him AG.  I think he would be an awsome AG.  The AG is supposed to be the people's lawyer, not a tool for the administration to do it's dirty work.  Edwards would do a fabulous job of bringing some integrity back to that office and actually having it be the public service oriented position that it should be.

    by Nathan in MN on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:42:51 AM PDT

    •  He's done that before

      on a losing ticket. I don't think he be interested in going again, and I'm not sure he'd be asked. AG, maybe, or a Supreme Court seat if he's done with active politics.  

      by gracchus on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:52:53 AM PDT

    •  my independent sister was affected

      She didn't vote for Kerry in 2004 because she had what I can only describe as an irrational disgust for John Edwards. I tried like hell to convince her to vote Democratic, but she wouldn't because Edwards was on the ticket. Granted, she's just one person...

      I have to agree with you on the VP thing... I'd rather see someone else get the nod.

      by wanderindiana on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:53:54 AM PDT

    •  I'm warming up to that idea

      Initially I thought it was a little insulting when Edwards was in the running, to suggest him for the AG job.  I probably felt that way because the job has been so disgraced by Gonzales and now Mukasey.  But it would certainly be refreshing to know that someone like Edwards was running DOJ.

      I do hope for him to have a position where he can affect policy though.  There's potential for the VP job to be influential in a good way if you think about a sort of polar opposite of Cheney with similar responsibilities and influence.

      There's so much work to be done cleaning up after the Bushes both at home and abroad, I don't know how one president is going to do it, even with the best advisors and staff.  Two at the top in a partnership of sorts sounds great to me, as long as they can work it out.

      by joanneleon on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:56:28 AM PDT

    •  he would make a good Justice, too. nt

      by terra on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:16:54 AM PDT

    •  Kerry put him in a box,

      muzzled him, would not allow him to aggressively travel, campaign, or pursue media opportunities.

      It was, I have heard him say, the most frustrating time in his life.

      He would be an awesome running mate for Obama, assuming he could be given some latitude to do his thing.

      by attydave on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:35:16 AM PDT

  •  I was thinking about Edwards as VP

    but I don't think Obama can afford to neutralize the biggest argument he has against McCain -- that McCain voted for the war -- when he would have Edwards on the ticket, that did the same thing.

    by genxerd71 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:46:00 AM PDT

  •  The longer Edwards holds out his endorsement,

    and if he gets something in return, like the V.P. spot, the worse it looks for Edwards. It looks like he is not as concerned with fighting for all of us, but more concerned with fighting for himself. The way I see it the longer Edwards hold out, the less effective his endorsement will be.
    I have read that he is having a hard time deciding because he can't abide by no mandates in Obama's health care plan, and he also doesn't think Obama is strong enough to fight the fight.
    I have also read, Hillary's ties to corporations, and lobbyists makes it difficult for him to endorse Hillary.
    Hillary is not going to throw over the corporations, and the lobbyist money. Obama is not going to get stronger overnight, he might be persuaded on the mandates, but to do so would just prove to Edwards, he was right about Obama's strength.
    The longer Edwards hold out and hold firm is not productive for either one of these candidates, and especially not productive for Edwards. I might be all wrong on this one, but that is just the way I see it.

    by Vera Lofaro on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:50:08 AM PDT

    •  He's not obligated to endorse anyone

      And maybe he'll pass on doing so.

      by gracchus on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:53:52 AM PDT

      •  Strangely, that choice seems to be missing

        from the poll in this diary.

        by cdsmith on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:02:04 AM PDT

        •  Duly noted.

          Not so strange if you knew how poorly I craft polls.

          by wanderindiana on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:14:32 AM PDT

      •  This is true,

        but then it might make him look like a sore loser. Maybe he doesn't care, however, I think he wants to be somewhat effective.

        by Vera Lofaro on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:06:03 AM PDT

        •  Why does he look like a sore loser?

          There's no rule - written or unwritten - that he has to endorse anyone. And as for being "somewhat effective," that only works if he backs the right horse. Frankly, I think he would look a lot more gracious if he declined to endorse and said he plans to work like hell for the eventual nominee -- and then did so. That would guarantee him influence with whomever got the nomination. It's not necessarily to his advantage to endorse at this stage, not matter what you're saying.

          I think you're being a bit disingenuous here -- I think you want to bully him into making an endorsement to help your favored candidate.

          by gracchus on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:12:48 AM PDT

          •  Not at all,

            I think John Edwards has so much promise, I would hate if he were perceived to be anything less. I think waiting so long to endorse, or not endorsing doesn't make him look good. Perhaps sore loser was the wrong term. What I want is to see Edwards come out of this looking as good as he can look. Who and when he endorses is important to the candidate he endorses, it is also important for him, especially if he wants to go forward with his ideas and positions. That is simply my opinion, I don't want to hear anything negative about John Edwards.

            by Vera Lofaro on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:26:06 AM PDT

            •  You'd be wrong, then

              Waiting to endorse does him no harm, whatsoever. Chill.

              by gracchus on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:40:53 AM PDT

    •  I don't think Edwards would even take

      a VP slot.  He found out first hand what it is like to be stifled in that slot and end up losing.

      I do think he would take AG if it were offered by either candidate, and that would indeed be fighting for all of us and he would do it well.

      I don't think his aim is to be productive for anyone except the American people and I don't think how long he holds out or whom or whether he endorses impacts that one iota.

      by KeepingItBlueKrstna on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:56:43 AM PDT

    •  When Edwards endorses

      (assuming he does, and I'm not convinced he will) it will be because he feels confident enough and he has worked out the issues he is most passionate about with said candidate.

      I don't think he cares as much about the extent of his power with his endorsement as he cares about lending his credibility.  Edwards is for real, IMHO, and playing political games comes second to doing what he feels is the right thing.  Personally, I don't think the whole kingmaker thing gives him much of a thrill.  He wants to find the best way to effect real change and quickly in this country.  He knows we've got to work quickly.

      He seemed to lean more toward Obama in the debates, but I'm told that the Obama campaign rebuffed him when he approached them.  The Clinton campaign might be more amenable to compromising with him right now.  I've heard a few speeches that Hillary has given recently and she seems to have been leaning more toward Edwards' type of language.  I believe she is listening to the people and I think she just might be more likely to listen and adapt than Obama will.

      So, at the moment, I'm thinking that if he endorses, he might endorse Hillary.  This is exactly the opposite of what I thought a week ago though.  A week ago I thought it was about a 50/50 chance that he'd endorse Obama or endorse no one at all.

      by joanneleon on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:05:47 AM PDT

      •  I also heard about that rebuff,

        however I heard about it from my oldest daughter who is smart, but ill-informed about anything political. She didn't cite her source, just told me she heard it. I didn't see it anywhere.
        Will Hillary apologize for her war vote, will she apologize for her Iran vote? Will she throw the corporations and their lobbyists overboard because Edwards asks her to for his endorsement?
        Will Obama give up his no mandates for Health care? Will he pledge to fight and not compromise?
        As interesting as this is, I can not see any candidate honestly changing positions for this coveted endorsement. Additionally if either one does, it wouldn't play well with their ardent supporters. I always felt Edwards was an honest broker, but I wonder, why he is holding out his endorsement. I think it would be more effective, for him to endorse, get back in the game and fight for his strongest cause, all of us.

        by Vera Lofaro on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:14:38 AM PDT

        •  I think it's more likely

          that Clinton will apologize for her war vote or at least explain it better than she has to date, than it is likely for Obama to agree to "mandates."  

          On the lobbyist money issue, both candidates have problems with that, but Clinton has a bigger problem.  I've been listening to her speeches more carefully lately and in both speeches and debates, both of them are backing away, strongly, from the lobbyist influence thing.  Miracle of miracles, I really think that the message has gotten through, thanks to John Edwards, and that they will be very careful about lobbyist influence.  I even believe that they would, yes, throw them overboard.  Personally, I believe our biggest problems with lobbyists will be in the Senate, in the House to a lesser extent, but not so much in the White House.  Obama and Clinton both know that their staff and advisors will be vetted by the netroots activists.  And they know that Americans of all persuasions are sick and tired of corruption.

          by joanneleon on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:21:52 AM PDT

          •  I don't think you can say,

            lobbyists money or corporate money is only a problem in the Senate and not with the White House. Who ever wins, will be looking forward to 2012 and re-election, just as every other President. We all know how costly these Presidential runs are, they need money, the corporations need favors, court decisions, bills passed and laws written. To think the sitting President has no influence or takes any money from these people is very naive. I seem to remember the Medicare/Prescription drug bill was a campaign promise of George W. Bush. He managed from the White House to get that bill passed, and who benefited by that passage, that would be pharmaceutical companies, and HMO's. Corruption starts from the top down, not the bottom up. I think this is a  very important issue, and I think John Edwards did too. At least that is what I got from his campaign.

            by Vera Lofaro on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:33:41 AM PDT

            •  Going forward

              I was talking about going forward.  Without a doubt, the Bush administration was/is beholden to lobbyists.  Maybe it is naive to think that going forward, it will be less of a problem with the White House, but that's what I think.  I think the pendulum has swung in favor of the people and against the lobbyists and that it has become very clear to these two candidates.  Their recent online fundraising was an eye opener to many, including the media and the candidates themselves.  The huge turnout at the polls was another gigantic message sent to all politicians, and has most certainly been noticed by Obama and Clinton.  I don't think it's naive to see these major events and realize that the people want change, and the candidates would be fools not to deliver it.

              I don't think anything changes overnight or easily but these things we are seeing happened neither overnight nor easily.  Things are going to be different in the White House, one way or another.

              by joanneleon on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:18:50 AM PDT

              •  I really, really, hope you

                are right. I just don't see it happening with Hillary in the White House, she has become way too dependent on lobbyist money. It is a hard habit to break.

                by Vera Lofaro on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:05:11 PM PDT

        •  personally

          I think it would show more of a lack of character form either Clinton or Obama if they were to change their policy platform just to get an Edwards endorsement.

          This comes from somebody that really likes John Edwards, mind you, but the talk of whether he is compromising his values by going to the highest bidder goes both ways.  

          I hope neither of our leading candidates "sell out" their particular visions for our future (even if some of us may think they are making improvements to their platforms) -- because it would simply indicate that their visions were just created for political expediency in the first place, and weren't stances they truly believed in.

          by RidleyGriff on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:50:38 AM PDT

          •  I totally agree with you on this point.

            by Vera Lofaro on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:07:47 PM PDT

    •  Well I think Obama has proved he is a fighter

      look how he took on the Clinton machine and he is winning. So to think he is not a fighter is so totally wrong.

      by ronnied on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:01:09 AM PDT

•  And I would add...

  No F'ing Clue to the poll...

  by dvogel001 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:36:21 AM PDT

  •  Oh, boy.

    Yes, I am a lousy pollster.

    by wanderindiana on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:38:39 AM PDT

•  He shouldn't endorse.

  If he's genuinely going to step aside and let history take its course, he ought to keep his options open with both candidates.  He'll have a strong voice regardless of which candidate gets the nomination if he holds off endorsing.  If he does endorse and guesses wrong, oops.

  by Geekesque on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:37:23 AM PDT

  •  I would hope

    that if he endorses, and the other candidate wins ("guesses wrong" is a horrid way to put it; endorsements are not predictions), that he'd still have a strong voice.  I like to think that's not true of an Obama administration, because my support would be severely shaken if it were.  Endorsements should NOT become another form of political bribery.

    by cdsmith on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:00:20 AM PDT

    •  It's much better to have someone win

      thanks, in some small part, to your efforts than it is to have someone win despite your effforts.

      by Geekesque on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:21:33 AM PDT

•  Interesting

  Frankly, I have the same reservations about Obama's toughness.  But, on balance, Edwards is a rational person.  There's now compelling evidence that the tide is turning in Obama's favor.  That doesn't mean that Hillary can't still pull it.  It won't be over until Obama has the required delegates. Period.  So the mounting evidence supporting Obama pushes Edwards to give him the nod.  Between these two fairly matched candidates, the sooner it's decided, the better. Edwards really can't go "wrong" with either.  But his endorsement can do a lot to solidify Obama's gains and allow the party begin coalescing.

  by Ms Johnson on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:37:46 AM PDT

  •  What I wonder about

    After seeing him go directly after Hillary on the issue of lobbyist money at YearlyKos last August, I just can't imagine he'd ever throw his support to her. Do you think Edwards could ever give an endorsement to Clinton?

    by wanderindiana on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:44:08 AM PDT

    •  That is exactly what I was thinking too.

      It would say, I am throwing my support to Hillary because what happened with the whole lobbyist thing, I was only kidding. Waiting too long and bringing this much attention to this endorsement is a foolish move. The endorsement would have been more effective if it was given before Super Tuesday. Since it wasn't makes me believe Edwards didn't want his endorsement to be overshadowed by the Kennedy and Move on endorsements, or maybe he was waiting for the results of Super Tuesday to see which candidate was in the lead, therefor better benefiting Edwards. I have really mixed feelings on this Edwards endorsement.

      by Vera Lofaro on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:56:53 AM PDT

      •  I like your reasoning.

        Seems that you and plenty of others who bothered to comment here (thanks, by the way) think that no endorsement might be the best move (still kicking myself for not adding it to the poll).

        by wanderindiana on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:02:17 AM PDT

      •  That's a Good Point

        I think, though, that JRE's doing an ideological purity vs. pragmatism debate with himself.  I think the lobbyist issue is very important to him.  But, if he thinks that HRC would ultimately be better at pushing through initiatives that benefit the working class because she's more adept at (forgive the expression) "busting balls," which does he choose?  It's an interesting situation.

        by Ms Johnson on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:06:05 AM PDT

•  If He Goes Clinton, His Supporters Won't Follow

  If there's anything I can say about Edwards supporters, its that they are passionate about taking lobbyists out of the equation and removing the profit motive from our poverty-assistance systems.  A Clinton endorsement would be tantamount to going back on his word and contradicting his own message.  I don't think his endorsement in that sense would mean anything other than a switch of pledged delegates.

  by BrockAun on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:38:17 AM PDT

  •  I Think It Depends

    on the case he makes. I don't see him endorsing Clinton.  But if he does, there are compelling reasons to do so.  I think it's just a matter of how appealing his logic is.  But I agree that many of his supporters won't go along. That's probably also true - though to a lesser degree - if he endorses Obama.  

    by Ms Johnson on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:45:49 AM PDT

  •  I supported Edwards for years,

    my decision to switch to Obama was a tough one. The main reason I was supportive of Edwards was Corporations, Corporations and more Corporations, with all their lobbyist money and their power with our law makers. Edwards convinced me Hillary is the corporate candidate, she is their gal. I just can not see him throwing his support to her.

    by Vera Lofaro on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:00:25 AM PDT

  •  I see two stumbling blocks to Edwards

    endorsing Obama.  (1) The sense that he may be too conflict averse and will compromise too much, give too much away, as Democrats in Congress have been doing for far too long.  (2) The mandatory healthcare issue and the right-wing frames Obama has used (can you say Harry & Louise?).

    As a committed Edwards supporter, I am now supporting Obama with reservations and concerns.  In actuality, Clinton had too many checks in my negative column.  There's no perfect candidate, but Edwards came close.  I ranked them early on:  Edwards, Obama, Clinton.

    Finally, you Obama diehards would do well to understand that there is a sizeable segment of the population which is put off by "movement" dynamics.  It feels too damn irrational.  Some of us who have been around a while longer, have a healthy fear of overwrought crowd psychology.  I've decided that Obama has more substance than the behavior of his supporters might indicate, but you turn a lot of people off with with the "movement." stuff.

    Anecdotally, locally I see about a 70/30 (Obama/Clinton) split of Edwards folks.  The more politically knowledgeable people are, the more likely they are to support Obama.  Some female Edwards supporters probably feel freer to choose Clinton now, but again the more dialed in the woman is, the more likely she will support Obama.

    Just my two cents.

    by Wise Woman on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:01:19 AM PDT

    •  pretty valuable thoughts

      Two cents goes a long way around these parts... thanks for your thoughts. I find myself thinking in much the same way, though I'm not so much put off by the Obama "movement" -- leery, yes, but I try not to see it as too negative (hence my question about whether or not Hillary's visit to Edwards was "sneaking around").

      by wanderindiana on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:06:18 AM PDT

      •  Calling Hillary's visit "sneaking around" may be

        another example of what Krugman calls "Clinton Rules" of media reporting.  Some in the media really treat the Clintons like fair game in some hunting expedition.  Actually, Krugman's point is that in recent times all Democrats are treated that way by the media when they win or are in power.  It probably results from their over-reaction to being labeled the "liberal media" by the Republicans for so long.  Whatever the cause, it would be nice if they just reported without all the editorializing.

        Clinton made a quiet unannounced visit to Edwards.  Is that "sneaking?"  Arguably it is, but why use the most pejorative term you can think of--that's Clinton Rules.  Why not just say Clinton made an unannounced visit, or quietly met with.....?

        by Wise Woman on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:15:50 AM PDT

    •  I was with you until this...

      The more politically knowledgeable people are, the more likely they are to support Obama.

      I would think the opposite would be true.  Hillary seems more versed in the nitty gritty than Obama which is what makes the wheels turn in Washington.  But that's just my take.

      In my opinion, both of them talk too much about compromise and reaching across the aisle.  To be a successful negotiator, you must start out asking for MORE than you're going to get, not less.

      And the only thing I want anyone reaching across the aisle for is to smack some of the those blowhards upside the head.  (Well, not literally....most of the time anyway.)

      by KeepingItBlueKrstna on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:19:07 AM PDT

      •  Please note how limited my observation

        actually was.  I prefaced it with "anecdotally" and confined the observation to my sphere of influence and acquaintance.  I'm very active as an organizer and in the Democratic Party, so I see a lot of folks, but this is strictly still a local observation.  It was not in any way a commentary on the relative political skills of the candidates.

        The original Obama diehards here are another story.  Many of them are completely new to the political process, which is a good thing, but which makes many of them hard to be around sometimes, especially when he wins--they tend to gloat.

        But I'd still have to say that anecdotally, as between Hillary supporters and Obama supporters here from the beginning, the more educated and politically savvy ones went mostly to Obama.  The smartest ones of all were Edwards supporters, but I might be a bit biased--lol.

        by Wise Woman on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:36:13 AM PDT

  •  Right on

    Clinton won't even release their tax returns.  No telling what scandal could come out of those.

    by dan667 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:34:57 AM PDT

•  I heard a rumor that...

  Edwards was planning to endorse McCain if he didn't get the nomination.

  by Trix on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:38:30 AM PDT

  •  A blog reported

    that an aide talked to a reporter and told him that the UFO Dennis Kucinich saw has captured John Edwards and therefore he will not be able to endorse anyone at all.

    Apologies to Trix cause it was her idea first and to the diarist, because your questions are valid.  The gossip item on which they are based, not so much.

    FWIW, I don't think he will endorse and the "sneaking around" meme is just an attempt to make Hillary look conniving.  (And I say that as someone who doesn't actively support Obama or Hillary at this point.)

    by KeepingItBlueKrstna on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:43:50 AM PDT

    •  That wasn't a UFO Kucinich saw...

      

      by Trix on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:45:04 AM PDT

      •  You're a good sport, Trix.

        Well played.

        by KeepingItBlueKrstna on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:47:19 AM PDT

    •  Actually, it makes Clinton look respectful

      If she went to visit John Edwards and tried not to make a big media hurrah about it, it's to her credit.  But then someone found out, and then once it was a story, it would have been dishonest for Obama to not mention that he's talking to Edwards, too.

      by cdsmith on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:05:45 AM PDT

      •  It may make her look respectful to you,

        and I agree with your point, but "sneaking around" is very rarely used in a positive light. Whoever used this phrase meant for it to impact her negatively.

        by KeepingItBlueKrstna on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:08:23 AM PDT

      •  I Agree

        And it's not likely she showed up unannounced dressed in all black and snuck in through the doggie door. I'm sure there have been on-going discussions with both campaigns since he "suspended".  It's to nobody's advantage to have a media circus outside the Edwards' door.  Makes Edwards look like an attention seeker and whichever candidate doesn't get the endorsement (if any) looks like a schmuck for having traveled down there only to walk away with his/her tail between his/legs. "Here's footage of Sen. Clinton departing the Edwards home having - apparently unsuccessfully - courted Sen. Edwards support."

        by Ms Johnson on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:38:55 AM PDT

•  Does it really matter?

  I was an Edwards supporter, but even I don't think his endorsement is going to count for all that much.  I mean, sad to say, but he was basically a non-issue in the race.  Besides, by now his supporters have probably already made their alternate choice (if I had to guess I'd say they broke 2/3 for Obama and 1/3 for HRC, but that's just a guess.)

  And I'm not sure endorsements in general are counting for much in this race.  After all, even with the endorsements of Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and Deval Patrick Obama was unable to win my state of Massachusetts (although you'd never know it driving around Cambridge!).  Maybe voters are actually making up their own minds!

  by Jon Stafford on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:40:28 AM PDT

  •  It matters still

    In Iowa they go vote in the state caucus(Apr), if he asks them to support someone else they could.(They are allowed to even without his asking but would be more likely to stay with him).
    Therefore Iowa delegates to the convention could belong to someone other than Edwards.

    by B P Pgh on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:48:34 AM PDT

    •  convention politics v. caucus politics

      Never really thought about that comparison until now, after reading your comment.

      by wanderindiana on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:08:47 AM PDT

  •  great point on MA and endorsements

    I would like to see more former Edwards supporters chime in on which way they are leaning... I think your guess is validated by poll results (though I suck at crafting polls, as has been noted prominently in this thread).

    by wanderindiana on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:48:58 AM PDT

  •  It might matter...

    if he not only endorsed, but campaigned on the ground.  Kennedy et al. did not bring CA or MA to Obama, but they narrowed the gap.  

    by kkbmom on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:59:16 AM PDT

•  tough enough?

  i had the same reservations about edwards.

  by missreporter on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:42:16 AM PDT

  •  How Remarkable! You must not know how tough you

    have to be to fight and win against corporate defense lawyers.  Trials are merely the marginally more civilized substitute for medieval "trial by combat."

    by Wise Woman on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:46:43 AM PDT

    •  understood

      but i questioned him after he sat there and let dick cheney lie in his face over and over, and gave him pass after pass...like when cheney said he never saw john edwards on the senate floor...i would have given him the biggest figurative backhand smack...john knew he was lying.

      of course, i don't know what it's like to be two feet away from the dark lord and smell his vile venom breath.

      by missreporter on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:33:06 AM PDT

      •  It's probably disgusting, but when you are the

        running mate, you're in a tough spot with advisors out the kazoo giving you conflicting advice, particularly that you are not to outshine the nominee.  The tougher Edwards we saw in this campaign is what we could expect in a President, IMHO.

        But....this is the year the public craved more "let's all get along" messages.

        by Wise Woman on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:45:02 AM PDT

•  I've moved to Obama, and it's semi-soft support.

  I'll probably continue to support him, no matter what Edwards does.

  But I'm confident Edwards will do the right thing. That he'll only endorse someone who is willing to step out and do something bold for this country. Otherwise he won't endorse anybody.

  by danthrax on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:47:16 AM PDT

•  Actually,

  an endorsement would make a difference to me, even though I've been known to think for myself for many years.

  This nameless aide said Edwards wanted to know

  "who's going to carry on the mantle of fighting for the voiceless," and is trying to gauge which of the two "will sign their name in blood in order to make that commitment.

  That would mean something to me.

  Just to put the 'tough enough' quote into context this is what that aforementioned nameless aide said Edwards was concerned

  "whether he's tough enough to be President of the United States. If you look at what Edwards ran on, which is not negotiating with the special interests, taking away their power, that's pretty different than the Obama model."

  link

  by moira977 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:56:01 AM PDT

  •  Thanks for the additions

    My diary was pretty blockquotey to begin with and I questioned where to cut that -- glad you added it back into the mix.

    by wanderindiana on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:10:24 AM PDT

•  Obama or neither

  I can't believe he would endorse Clinton.

  by Paleo on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:58:39 AM PDT

•  I'm an Edwards delegate...

  and there's no way I'll vote for Hillary.  I don't think you'll find many pledged delegates that feel otherwise.

  by neia on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:03:48 AM PDT

  •  So you can take your Edwards delegate vote

    and do whatever you want with it now?  I'm asking sincerely -- is that how it works?

    by joanneleon on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:14:10 AM PDT

•  If he endorses the Clintons

  it will go against everything his campaign stood for, especially his main focus of being against the "status quo."

  If he endorses the Clintons, it will prove that his campaign was a farce, an exercise in vanity.

  And I'm afraid that's who he's going to endorse.

  by Slatersan on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:06:35 AM PDT

  •  I hate it when people use endorsements

    to foment opinions of the endorser.  It's their right to back whomever they think is best.

    But in this case, it would seal the deal in my mind that (contrary to the conclusions I reached in '04 and '08) the real John Edwards was the Senator from 1998-2004, not the presidential candidate, and that is NOT a good thing.

    by bawbie on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:14:21 AM PDT

    •  I know what you mean about

      "the real John Edwards" problem.  

      by sophically on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:35:00 AM PDT

  •  I Think Your Post and That Immediately

    preceding are admirable for their passion, but I will disagree in this respect.  I supported JRE until it became clear that, for whatever reasons, his candidacy just wasn't taking off.  I doubt seriously that he will endorse Clinton.  But I also think that if he believes that, between the two, HRC will more effectively govern (and therefore, marshall through policy initiatives that address other important policy concerns, (e.g. poverty, universal healthcare), despite his reservations about her connections to corporate lobbyists, that his conclusion is worthy of consideration by his supporters.  We may ulimately decide otherwise.  But I don't think "never, ever, no-way-in-hell" is the right approach.

    by Ms Johnson on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:23:21 AM PDT

    •  Could not agree more!!

      by Wise Woman on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:24:47 AM PDT