Question for Edwards supporters: How would you feel if he endorsed Clinton?

Important: THIS IS NOTHING BUT RUMORS AND SPECULATION AT THE MOMENT.  Specifically, I heard an interview on Rachel Maddow just now where the guy said there are rumors that he may endorse, and may endorse Hillary Clinton, by the weekend.

Although I'm an Obama supporter, I have NO vested outcome in your answers so please be honest!  I am only curious to see how you would react if it did happen.  I found myself speculating and realized I have no idea whatsoever.  

I appreciate your time & input!

•  As an Edwards supporter you left out one

  poll option.  Angry.  He attacked Sen. Clinton constantly for the Lobbyist Money issue.  That is a HUGE issue for me and he should not endorse Sen. Clinton for that reason. IMHO, he should wait till the nomination process plays out and campaign for whoever our nominee is (Obama or Clinton).

  by rickyscorpio on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:02:20 PM PDT

  •  Were John Edwards, of all people, to endorse

    the corporate candidate, that would tell us a lot about John Edwards.

    I just can't see him doing that. And I speak as a longtime Obamabot.

    by Fonsia on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:04:47 PM PDT

    •  They

      Are both corporate candidates. In case you didn't notice Edwards was the only anti-corporate candidate and we already stabbed him in the back.

      by RDemocrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:13:09 PM PDT

      •  exactly

        but people here don't pay attention to that.

        by Turkana on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:15:04 PM PDT

        •  I lean

          Clinton but am still depressed about Edwards. I don't want to hear anyone crying when we get what we deserve. Shiny objects usually lose their luster, substance doesn't.

          by RDemocrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:16:57 PM PDT

          •  you won't hear crying

            you'll hear rationalizing.

            by Turkana on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:19:57 PM PDT

        •  Well was Edwards pretending or not?

          That is what the Edwards' endorsement will tell us. If he endorses Clinton after calling her the "agent of the status quo" in the debate then he and his whole campaign were only pretending all along.

          by Gregory Wonderwheel on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:19:04 PM PDT

          •  otoh

            he's for mandates, and obama's not. either way, he'll have to explain himself.

            by Turkana on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:20:30 PM PDT

            •  Mandates are never going to pass Congress,

              and they all know it. They're a fig leaf.

              In fact, none of those plans would emerge intact after the legislative process, and they all know that too.

              by Fonsia on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:52:24 PM PDT

              •  even so

                edwards would push for them. obama doesn't even offer them.

                by Turkana on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:56:14 PM PDT

                •  Sorry, I'm threatened by mandates here in CA

                  from Ahhhnold.

                  I can't afford them. I'll have to pay the fine.

                  by Fonsia on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:02:39 PM PDT

                  •  arnold's plan

                    is not hillary's.

                    by Turkana on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:03:52 PM PDT

                  •  Better to risk the fines ...

                    if you get sick?

                    I'm just not sure the back-end penalties make any more sense than the front-end mandates.

                    by Magenta on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:14:31 PM PDT

                    •  When I get sick I ride it out on my own.

                      If I get really sick I'm screwed.

                      None of these plans help me. However, Obama has proven that he can get it done (he did it in Illinois against all odds), and Hillary has proven that she can't.

                      by Fonsia on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:59:02 PM PDT

                  •  OT but one of the things I prefer about

                    Obama's plan is that individuals get to choose whether or not they can "afford" the premiums--under mandates it's the government deciding for you, and I don't like that idea.

                    by oscarsmom on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:53:05 PM PDT

              •  You're right

                But the first rule of negotiation is you always start out asking for much more than you think you can get.

                by doubting thomas on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:59:32 PM PDT

            •  Yep...

              Edwards proposals on energy and health care are closer to Clinton, yet his stance on ethics reform is closer to Obama's stance. You know, I'm getting really tired of Edwards getting bashed for a rumor, and even if he does endorse Clinton, that doesn't mean he's a phony. This election wasn't only about ethics reform, it was also about a lot of other issues.

              by sarahlane on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:57:25 PM PDT

              •  His #1 was Poverty not Ethics Reform

                His #1 issue is poverty.  It seems to me that Clinton's health care plan and economic package might be more effective in that area.  But I would still prefer he choose Obama because I worry about Clinton's electability.

                by Valhalla on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:15:04 PM PDT

                •  Well....

                  it appears you and I both feel the same way about Obama/Clinton. I think Clinton's economic proposals are stronger...but Obama is more electable.

                  by sarahlane on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:04:59 PM PDT

                  •  I'm in good company!

                    Love your posts, sarahlane.

                    I'm honestly worried about McCain.  Losing two elections to Dumb-ya has destroyed my faith in the American voter.  I really hope that if Obama is the nominee, he's able to win the White House back for the Dems.

                    by Valhalla on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:29:24 PM PDT

          •  The two people we have

            left are both for status quo. Edwards was the one with ideas about Corp. and lobbyist.  Clinton has the lobbyist behind her and Obama has the Corp..  We turned our back on the only candidate who really represented our values.

            by Owllwoman on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:28:22 PM PDT

            •  exactly, but some people cannot see past...

              one or 2 issues, and they will end up being the mad ones...

              there are many many issues that Edwards cared greatly about, not just anti-corporatism and lobbyist money...

              and he extracted commitments from the other 2... i'd say that most likely, if he endorses, he will endorse the one who put some (or the most) teeth behind that commitment. That's why he wanted to meet with them; consider it an "endorsement" interview, aka, can you pass the sniff test... if neither does, he probably won't endorse at all...

              and there are things that need doing regardless of whether lobbyist money gets removed or not: UHC, economic justice for the working class, environment, veteran's care, etc... these can be moved on ASAP and will definitely make a difference in people's lives immediately...

              it will takes some serious backbone (as John always said) to get these things done and he wants to know if they're up to the task...

              as a matter of fact, i respect him more for taking the time to take a serious look at both of them and not just knee-jerk the way everyone supposed he would...

              --poligirl

              by poligirl on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:47:14 PM PDT

        •  Edwards was the one to say that both he and

          Obama were not taking money from lobbyists. So don't say that Obama and Clinton are the same. And Edwards also said that Clinton was receiving more money from the defense industry than any other candidate including the republicans.

          by ronnied on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:25:41 PM PDT

          •  read this tpm report, from last week

            edwards has issues with both of them:

            http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpoi...

            by Turkana on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:29:59 PM PDT

          •  Obama is getting cash from many Corp.

            The Corp. and the Lobbys of those Corp. are basically one and the  same thing.

            by Owllwoman on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:31:10 PM PDT

            •  Obama gets major support from Hedge Fund

              and Wall Street individuals.....Very rich people.

              by LNK on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:40:20 PM PDT

              •  well - I'll raise you on that one- Edwards worked

                for a hedge fund (and received buckets of money from them) so that can't be a real concern for him.

                by alba on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:45:39 PM PDT

                •  I worked in Wall Street and see huge difference

                  between where you work and being at the receiving end of donations from......

                  For all we know, Edwards could follow in the footsteps of the Nobel Peace Prize winner, wealthy banker who did so much for micro-lending to the poor......

                  by LNK on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:53:22 PM PDT

                  •  well we don't know what he will do

                    and he both worked for a hedge fund and received contributions from hedge fund employees. JRE is hardly pure on this issue

                    by alba on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:29:41 PM PDT

                •  actually...

                  Obama gets waaaaaaaay more money from hedge funds in this campaign than John Edwards ever did. Here's the link:

                  open secrets

                  --poligirl

                  by poligirl on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:57:42 PM PDT

                  •  in percentage terms, it's probably about the same

                    by alba on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:28:02 PM PDT

                    •  depends on the definition of "the same"...

                      percentage wise compared to how much they raised total, Obama's percentage is almost twice as much as Edwards...

                      granted, Obama's percentage is 1.1% of total and JRE's is .6%...

                      --poligirl

                      by poligirl on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:44:42 PM PDT

              •  Actually, he gets well over 90% of his money

                from small donations--under $200, I believe.

                by Fonsia on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:53:52 PM PDT

          •  Well....

            Obama only started refusing DC PAC/lobbyist money this election. He did take a lot of it during his Senate run. He's no purist when it comes that. And...we know Hillary is no purist either and actually doesn't seem to want to take any steps towards changing.

            by sarahlane on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:59:05 PM PDT

          •  And that

            Obama passed her on recieving money from the healthcare industry.

            by RDemocrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:42:53 PM PDT

      •  We stabbed him in the back?

        Seriously?

        I find it disturbing that you describe supporters of other candidates as betrayers, as if we somehow owed John Edwards our support.

        by mistersite on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:18:15 PM PDT

      •  All three are corporatists --

        Edwards simply based his whole campaign on running to the left to get nomination because Hillary had staked out the middle and she was 100% guaranteed to run.  If he'd gotten the nomination he'd have made a mad dash back to the middle where he's been most of his life.

        by Marie on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:22:06 PM PDT

        •  I would disagree...

          I wouldn't consider Edwards a corporatist. He fought them in the courtroom, refused PAC/lobbyist money since his first run in politics...and introduced legislation to regulate big pharma.

          by sarahlane on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:00:26 PM PDT

      •  here is what i wrote earlier in another...!!

        diary:

        keep in mind that Edwards extracted commitments on certain issues that are important to him from each one of the other candidates and he verbally got them. Verbally...

        If he endorses Clinton I suspect it will be because she either was the only one to keep her commitment or had the more solid "meat" to back up that commitment....

        Now, so far, we know that Clinton took time off of the campaign trail to fly to Chapel Hill expressly to meet with John. So far, Obama does not seem to have done the same.

        And there are many issues in this campaign. While we know that Clinton will not get the corporations and lobbyist money out of DC, we don't know if Obama will - his no lobbyist and PAC money is brand new for him for this election and he has been friendly with corporations too. What i'm saying is that he's a wild card in that respect.

        And there are many other pressing issues that can and need to begin getting dealt with ASAP - UHC, working class economic justice and everything that comes with it, the environment, poverty, etc...

        Also, getting stuff done in Washington is going to take a tough and no nonsense person. I think John probably is kind of interviewing them to decide if he thinks that either can really do what they're saying...

        While we don't know exactly what the commitments Edwards extracted from the others were, I have a hunch that IF he endorses either, he will probably have weighed many many things, including how the other 2 have responded to those commitments they made to him.

        We don't know what's going on behind the scenes and Edwards isn't prone to terribly rash decisions. That's one of the big reasons I support him - I trust him.

        --poligirl

        by poligirl on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:37:47 PM PDT

        •  Wow!!

          Very intelligent reply. I wish I would've come up with that!!

          Yeah, what she said!!!

          by RDemocrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:07:20 PM PDT

          •  thx RDem! i love the way you think as well.. n/t

            by poligirl on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:51:36 PM PDT

      •  Um...

        Since when is not voting for someone "stabbing them in the back"?

        by Medude24 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:46:31 PM PDT

      •  speak for yourself.

        who's this "we"

        No knives in my hand.

        by AlyoshaKaramazov on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:38:53 PM PDT

    •  well

      see his stances on Iraq, bankruptcy, patriot act.  this would be consistently inconsistent of him.  i wish i couldn't see him doing it, but i so can...

      by itsbenj on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:13:44 PM PDT

    •  Coming from a former Edwards guy,

      If Edwards goes Clinton I will be angry.

      Downright angry.

      Edwards passionately defended the Iraq War for a long while.

      Edwards voted to dismantle the bankruptcy system as we know it.

      Edwards voted for some screwball trade deals in the day.

      Then on all these issues and more, Edwards said he made a mistake.

      Edwards said, "I did it, and I was wrong."

      I listened to John Edwards this year.  And when John Edwards said he was wrong I took the man at his word.

      I believe that people can grow.  That people can learn.  That people can genuinely change their mind.

      But I also believe some people are venal. I believe some people will say certain things to get what they want.  To position themselves in a way they deem to be advantageous.

      Don't tell me John Edwards is going to endorse Hillary Clinton.  Don't tell me that.

      And it has not happened.

      But if it does?  If it does?

      If it does then I will have simply been "had."  I've been "had" before.  I'll be "had" again.

      But if John Edwards goes Clinton -- me?  Me?

      As for me I will wipe my hands clean of John Edwards.  As for me I will be mad.  As for me I will never be "had" by John Edwards again.

      by XOVER on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:21:09 PM PDT

      •  Maybe you're being had right now...

        and don't know it. Maybe Edwards know something you don't. If he endorses her, he'll tell us why and it will probably be for a damn good reason.

        Universal Healthcare is damned good reason for me and many other people.

        by cosbo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:30:38 PM PDT

        •  Under Hillary

          Universal Health Care is doomed.

          She will not have any coattails. The Republicans in Congress will not, under any circumstances, work with her. Do you understand how visceral the Hillary hatred is among Republicans as well as many independents? When they appeal to their base against "Hillarycare" their base will repeatedly re-elect them, because they've been well-trained to distrust and despise Hillary. Nothing Hillary says or does will change this; the well has been irrevocably tainted.

          But continue with your delusion about Hillary passing universal coverage especially with "communist" mandates. The only thing Hillary will be passing in the White House is time.

          by banjolele on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:40:29 PM PDT

          •  Do you really think

            Republicans in Congress care more about hating Hillary than they do about not creating new entitlements?

            Most of these people would eliminate Social Security and Medicare if they could. Their entire philosophy is based on the lowest possible taxes and the smallest possible government, as we've seen over and over. They don't believe health care is something everyone is entitled to, but just another commodity on the market for those who can afford it.

            The only way we'll ever get UHC is to have 60 Senate seats, and even then it will be very hard to get a unified Democratic Party on this. Republicans will not vote for it. Their entire health care reform plan is based on reducing costs - as if that were more than a spit in the bucket.

            If we compromise with them on this, we're going to hate what we get. Just look at Medicare Part D.

            by denise b on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:26:06 PM PDT

            •  As evidence...

              70% of Democrats think socialized medicine would be better than current system, while 70% of Republicans think it would be worse.

              Anyone who thinks polarization is just due to bad attitudes needs to think a little more.

               US Split on socialized medicine-Reuters

              by denise b on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:29:05 PM PDT

        •  there's no good reason to endorse

          Clinton. The idea that JRE knows some deep dark secret about Obama seems far fetched, especially as we already know what Clintonism means (HRC has not repudiated a single thing that her husband did while president).

          by alba on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:49:22 PM PDT

          •  Edwards is out of the loop,

            Let's face it.

            Tweety has just as much "inside information" as John Edwards has, for christ sake.  Probably more.

            Secret information my ass.

            by XOVER on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:53:25 PM PDT

            •  And are you in the loop to know this????

              by pioneer111 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:17:53 PM PDT

              •  oh i'm sure they think they are... but to think..

                that they know everything about what has been said/done etc... between Edwards and Clinton and Edwards and Obama is kind of arrogant imo...

                none of us know what the commitments were that were given to John by each candidate... nor do we know what was discussed at his meeting with Hillary....

                I for one would like to know if they've ponied up and put some teeth in their verbal commitment... at least HIllary thought enough of John to take time out to meet with him... so far i haven't heard that Obama has done so...

                --poligirl

                by poligirl on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:19:11 PM PDT

                •  "thought enough of John to take time out to

                  meet with him"?? - it's more like HRC thought about how desperate she was for his endorsement . .

                  by alba on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:36:52 PM PDT

                  •  everyone sees what they want to see i guess.. n/t

                    by poligirl on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:45:59 PM PDT

        •  Why does Hillary's failure to pass health care,

          In 1993 count as some kind of "positive" in 2008?

          And what still sticks in my craw from 1993 to this very day -- you may or may not know this -- is that Hillary was presented with a compromise on her health care plan.

          That compromise would have left 15 million not covered.  But everyone else would have been covered.

          But Hillary said, 'no' in 1993 to the compromise.

          In retrospect it is crystal clear that Hillary made a mistake in dissing the compromise.

          She made a hellacious mistake.

          Hillary will be experienced on Day One.  But will that experience be the right kind of experience or the wrong kind of experience.

          Hillary has some major hickies in her track record.

          by XOVER on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:51:38 PM PDT

          •  Hillary's Healthcare plan failed 1993

            But now she's running on Edwards plan. That actually has more of a chance of succeeding.

            Look. I already voted for Edwards. I could care less who gets it now. Hillary does seem more determined about UHC than Obama is currently undermining it. I have too many family member that don't have healthcare, so that's a real issue with and I suspect millions of other Americans.

            What I really think is that Edwards is pushing his platform and issues and see who is willing to go the furthest. If he thinks like I do, there's little difference between Clinton & Obama in terms of corporate interest. In the debate, Edwards attacked them both on that.

            I will also admit to feeling a little thrill if Edwards gives the big FU to Kerry and all the others who pretty much stabbed him in the back. He is human you know.

            by cosbo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:39:18 PM PDT

            •  i agree cosbo... i too see little...

              difference between the 2 in terms of corporate interest, and the no lobbyist/PAC money is new for Obama this past year...

              --poligirl

              by poligirl on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:22:47 PM PDT

          •  Hillary can't afford to fail at UHC for a...

            second time... not if she wants to be seen as successful... so there is that...

            --poligirl

            by poligirl on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:20:47 PM PDT

        •  oh you mean

          like how he told us "why" he dropped out of the race with no notice. What his "damn good reason" for dropping out after promising to fight til the convention? Uh huh.

          If he endorsed Hillary, I'd feel betrayed.

          by ACD on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:33:39 PM PDT

          •  maybe the "why" is personal... n/t

            by poligirl on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:24:07 PM PDT

            •  that's

              perfectly fine if the "why" he dropped out of the race is personal. Although many people would like to know the reason after putting so much heart, soul, money and effort into his campaign.

              Still, an endorsement of Hillary would be against everything Edwards was for during the campaign and we all know it!

              by ACD on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:11:30 PM PDT

              •  no we don't ALL know it... he was for many...

                things in the campaign, and not all of them were aligned with Obama...

                and i put my heart, soul, money, and effort into his campaign in spades... and i've been a supporter of his since 2004...

                --poligirl

                by poligirl on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:57:20 PM PDT

                •  well

                  this is getting pretty pointless, because we're both apparently big admirers of John Edwards and we really don't need to argue. I don't think anyway.

                  I just wouldn't be happy if he endorsed Clinton. Nowhere did I say he should endorse Obama either. But I'm done "arguing".

                  by ACD on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:03:43 PM PDT

                  •  me too... we're both entitled to our own...

                    opinions anyway... neither of us can be the arbiter of the other...

                    Pax ACD!

                    --poligirl

                    by poligirl on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:07:37 PM PDT

      •  I would feel utterly cheated along with angry.

        Edwards was my ideal. I thought he was fighting the toughest fight and that he was in stark contrast to Clinton.

        His policies were the most progressive and I just can't imagine him saying, "Oops. 'Twas a mistake. I really think the war was justified and we need more compromises with corporate America. Screw the poor and their entitlements; they should work for pennies." It would render everything he ever said null and void.

        I just can't believe he would. Not on my worst, most cynical day.

        by MrSandman on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:38:17 PM PDT

        •  His #1 enemy is the GOP not Clinton

          Of course he was hard on Clinton. She deserved it.  But his great enemy is the GOP - not Clinton.  If he thinks she's the best shot to beat McCain, then he has no choice but to endorse her.  I personally don't agree -- I think Obama is more electable.  But I can see the other side of the argument.

          by Valhalla on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:25:17 PM PDT

      •  What if he thinks Obama can't win?

        What if he thinks Obama can't beat McCain? Al Gore lost to the GOP cheat machine. John Kerry lost to the GOP cheat machine.  But the Clintons beat the GOP twice.  Maybe JRE thinks the choice is McCain beating Obama versus Clinton beating McCain.  Yeah, Clinton is not perfect but she's a whole lot better than McCain and I think if he endorses HRC it will be because he thinks she & Bill know how to win and he's afraid the GOP will swiftboat BO.

        by Valhalla on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:21:58 PM PDT

    •  I would feel sold out and betrayed.

      For Edwards to endorse Hillary is beyond unthinkable to me.... like finding out that my lover left me for a Fascist.

      If I can find an Email address, I'm going to write them, but the contact form seems missing from their website now..

      by John Poet on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:34:04 PM PDT

      •  I don't find Obama's

        courting Republicans, especially Republicans for a day to vote for him as particularly inspiring.  

        Edwards is about getting results for people.  IF and I still think it is a big IF, he endorses Clinton he will have solid reasons.  It also tells me that my hesitancy about Obama was also right.  

        My question would be why did he not endorse Obama?  Maybe there are good reasons for that too.

        by pioneer111 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:52:38 PM PDT

        •  I do find it inspiring.

          Obama is all about uniting the country. He's been saying that since his 2004 convention speech. He's still saying it. It's what he's running on.

          That's the major reason so many Republicans like him--they're sick of this constant division too.

          But, pray tell, how do you unite the country without including the folks from the other side who want to join you now?

          by Fonsia on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:59:22 PM PDT

          •  Edwards wasn't even able to unite enough Dems

            to win a single primary. What makes people think he's the best choice to unite the country?

            by limpidglass on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:02:36 PM PDT

        •  i agree... and pioneer, i know you have been...

          a staunch JRE supporter for a long time... i was wondering if you noticed the same thing i have, and it's even more prominent in this particular diary...

          many (not all but many) of the folks i see commenting that they'd be angry or feel betrayed are names that i have never seen in the pro-Edwards diaries, not even when they were prominent and he was deep in the race...

          so i guess i feel like screaming where on earth were they when John needed their support? where were their voices? where was their advocacy?

          --poligirl

          by poligirl on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:31:02 PM PDT

    •  I've heard there's a deal in the works

      From inside sources...can't say much more, but I have heard from people connected to Edwards and Clinton that they cut some sort of a deal before Super Tuesday, but Edwards is hesitant to endorse now because of Clinton's poor performance in the last 8 contests. Nothing is final, but I would not be surprised to see him endorse her if she wins Wisconsin, or after March 4 if she wins Ohio and Texas.

      by democrattotheend on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:55:49 PM PDT

      •  That was my impression too

        One of Obama's hallmarks is that you can look at his life, his legislative record, his words today, and they all make sense...there's a real consistency there.

        No such thing exists with Edwards. He's a personal injury lawyer...a wheeler dealer. Nothing wrong with that but it's the only way I can explain all I know about him...it's what gives his inconsistencies consistency.

        Anyway, right before he dropped out it seemed he did a 180 on Obama and Clinton. When he left the campaign I wasn't surprised. I'm sure Clinton promised him something and right now he's between a rock and hard place. He's probably trying to get Obama to make a similiar deal in exchange for his delegates.

        From all that I know of Obama, and given the fact that he hasn't yet met with Edwards, I doubt that any deal will be forthcoming.

        Nonetheless, if Edwards is really really smart, he will either endorse no one or endorse Obama.

        by eltee on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:30:44 PM PDT

      •  I heard shape-shifting reptilian aliens

        are in control of the world's governments and are trying to prevent us from ascending to higher dimensions. Inside sources, donchaknow.

        by grannyhelen on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:33:07 PM PDT

        •  roflmao! go grannyhelen! :D n/t

          by poligirl on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:37:02 PM PDT

        •  That starred Marc Singer...

          it was called "V".  Good miniseries.  :)

          by oscarsdad on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:31:33 PM PDT

          •  wow... yeah that was a great miniseries...

            i hadn't thought about it in years... :D

            --poligirl

            by poligirl on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:59:13 PM PDT

            •  Since it won't post on your diary, I'm

              saying it here.  You see, I decided to stop by your diaries and see what you were all about.  I wanted to post on one of your diaries from a week/month ago, but it wouldn't let me.  So...

              Congratulations on your soon-to-be graduation!  Here's my $2.01 about your "Where to Live?" question.

              I'm originally from the Virginia suburbs of DC; don't move there, whatever you do!  Winters suck (they're icky wet when it snows/rains, or so dry your skin cracks; and the temp changes so much you get sick).  Spring is okay, but rainy.  Summers suck, 90F+ AND 90% humdity from June to August, guaranteed.  If you step outside, you need a shower.  Some days the air is so heavy, it's hard to breathe!  Fall is the time to be there; great temp, beautiful fall colors, great chance to wear sweaters/jackets, plus the oaks smell great as their leaves turn brown and fall.  But two months in the fall and maybe gardening in the spring is not enough compensation for horrible Summer and Winter.  Unfortunately, it's pretty much the same all over the East Coast; you can choose your average temperature up or down the coast, but the humidity pattern is the same everywhere.  The West Coast DEFINITELY has better weather.

              East Coast people are different than West Coast, too.  Especially from Virginia northward, we tend to be permanently irritated and unlikely to reach out to strangers.  Everyone seems beneath our notice, unless we already know them.  If you are fascinated by neuroses, though, everyone has at least one that they nurture and defend zealously, as if they would die without it.  People aren't fake, they're more like blank walls.  If people didn't move their for a job, the whole East Coast would die out.

              Based on what you said about what you were looking for, I'd suggest Wisconsin.  Very small-towny, and I've liked every single person I've ever met from Wisconsin.  Not far from big town Chicago or classy Canada, either.  I hear Russ Feingold is there, too. :)

              I wish I could tempt you to Seattle, but from what you said it doesn't sound like your kind of place.  Plus, Seattlites have a bad attitude about people moving up from Cali.  I'm lucky I'm from Virginia, when I first moved here (1988) people looked at me rudely until they found out I wasn't from CA.  Plus, nothing newsworthy ever happens here. :)

              Best of luck!

              by oscarsdad on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:58:04 PM PDT

        •  One Source is Davit Icke

          http://www.geocities.com/...

          And since they made films and TV shows about it we know it is true.

          by Gregory Wonderwheel on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:20:44 AM PDT

      •  ahh, your inside sources are not very accurate...

        according to my inside sources...  :o

        so i guess we'll have to wait and see...

        --poligirl

        by poligirl on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:35:41 PM PDT

    •  They are both corporate

      Google Obama and Exelon.

      by Valhalla on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:13:03 PM PDT

  •  And in light of the

    comments from her campaign in the last few days, I can't see that they don't completely undermine the message he was trying to advance.

    I live Hillary's "Speeches don't put food on the table" speech. Is critical thinking a completely lost skill or do people actually miss the irony there?

    by johnsonwax on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:06:28 PM PDT

    •  oh you mean

      that she is giving a speech in which she denigrates speeches? that would be some irony.

      by Liberal Youth on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:11:14 PM PDT

  •  OT

    I'm fairly sure Ben Franklin didn't say that, not least because the term bacteria was introduced after he died.

    by neil on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:10:43 PM PDT

    •  touche

      thanks! I don't know how I didn't notice that...

      by rickyscorpio on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:28:48 PM PDT

    •  No one seems to know the source.

      A quick google shows one or two other suggestions (both post 1960s) but no solid leads.  I'll see what I can find.

      But you're right: it's most certainly not Franklin.

      by pico on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:32:33 PM PDT

    •  "Bacteria" and Ben Franklin

      "In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is freedom, in water there is bacteria." ~Ben Franklin

      I don't know if Benjamin Franklin said something like it or not but you're right that he wouldn't have used the word "bacteria" which is the plural of bacgterium.  

      The Oxford English Dictionary says the word "bacterium" didn't get into print until 1847.

      But it is interesting that the saying is credited to Ben Franklin all over the internet.

      Now I'm curious who really is the author of it.

      by Gregory Wonderwheel on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:38:23 PM PDT

  •  maybe he figured out

    obama isnt right for the country at this time

    maybe clinton is more committed to universal healthcare than obama

    maybe obama told him the truth about what he really can get done given the economic reality he will inherit.

    maybe obama couldnt explain to edwards his work on behalf of exelon

    maybe obama couldnt explain to edwards how he would handle an iraq withdrawel.

    maybe edwards knows more than we know.

    by countrysexual on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:11:16 PM PDT

    •  Maybe not. Pointless.

      by BuyLocal on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:14:08 PM PDT

      •  it isnt pointless

        if it makes people think

        instead of being sheep responding to the msm

        by countrysexual on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:17:13 PM PDT

        •  It's pointless to argue one's...

          perspective with a list of maybe after maybe.  Because it's all pointless speculation until Edwards articulates his reasoning for whatever his decision may be in his own words.

          by BuyLocal on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:20:40 PM PDT

    •  No way of knowing what he told Edwards.

      No way of knowing what Clinton told him either. But it wouldn't matter if we did know. The Obama supporters assumed that Obama would get both Edwards endorsement and his supporters, and I don't think they want to hear that he probably has sees both good and bad in both of them.

      by cackyp on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:25:20 PM PDT

      •  exactly. :D n/t

        by poligirl on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:39:49 PM PDT

    •  maybe he

      Maybe he asked them both which one would make him Vice President and desperate Clinton needing endorsements and delegates said "Yes", and Obama said "No".

      by William Domingo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:26:05 PM PDT

      •  Maybe this was the plan all along...

        and Edwards was always just working for Hillary.

        by BuyLocal on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:45:21 PM PDT

        •  No telling,

          but since we're talking about "maybes".

          by William Domingo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:52:12 PM PDT

        •  Actually, all the candidates ...

          are secretly working for Mike Gravel.

          by Jon Meltzer on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:07:18 PM PDT

    •  Well my girlfriend and her husband were

      strong Edwards supporters and they maxed out.So did her daughter and son-in-law. So her family gave close to ten thousand dollars. She said she is furious if he endorses Clinton. No she has a real right to complain. Ten thousand dollars is a lot of money. She would love to get it back if she could. She feels totally betrayed.

      by ronnied on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:31:01 PM PDT

      •  Wait before getting apoplexy because....

        in the long history of campaigns and Presidencies....often the two don't match.

        Wait until we have a Dem President and wait to see how that President responds to various pressure groups......

        Wait and see whether the new President delivers something good.

        Don't shut the door yet.....

        Even FDR wasn't the New Deal FDR when he ran......but he did respond to the Democratic coalition.

        by LNK on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 04:43:58 PM PDT

      •  Well...

        I've spent thousands of hours advocating for John online for the last five years. I may have not been able to donate much money since I'm poor but I've been a dedicated supporter. I will repsect his decision to endorse or not to endorse. The vitriol towards Edwards on this site over a rumor is getting beyond ridiculous.

        by sarahlane on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:08:38 PM PDT

        •  It's creepy

          The hate from so called Democrats towards JRE for thinking about HRC is creepy.  Dudes, she's a fucking Democrat!  She's one of us.

          The Democrat voters are torn -- about half for HRC, half for BO.  It's Clinton's fight versus Obama's fired up.  It's not an easy choice.

          by Valhalla on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 07:31:04 PM PDT

          •  Is she one of "us"? That is the question.

            There are Democrats who don't think Clinton is one of "us" and that is the reason they don't accept Clinton as a candidate.  Put in other words, Edwards said she is an "agent of the status quo" and so by that definition she would not be one of the "us" who see that the Democrats need to move away from the status quo.  That is the emotional divide that Clinton stirs up.

            Sure, Obama can be labeled as much as an agent of the status quo if you only look at some of his votes, but since he is talking against the status quo more than Clinton he has claimed the label of change agent and people believe all kinds of childish dreams and have all kinds of childish hopes for Obama.

            Women have the hope against hope for Clinton in the same way.  Both are politicians who are selling hope with little progressive history to their resumes. Incremental liberals, yes, far-sighted progressives, no.

            by Gregory Wonderwheel on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:32:26 AM PDT

      •  Seeing the amount of money used up

        is the part of all this campaigning that sickens me. And who is getting rich? The MSM! That is how the game is rigged!  That is why we will never get campaign reform unless it comes from the grassroots.

        Florida and Michigan media outlets are crying foul because they didn't get in on the action without the campaigning there.

        by Gregory Wonderwheel on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:27:02 AM PDT

    •  Excelon?

      Do you really want to discuss that?  I just read today that Penn's company does work for them.

      by kittycat9 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:23:41 PM PDT

      •  Obama is a candidate; Penn is not...

        there is a difference: one of them could be president, the other one could not...

        and now i have to get the yuck off me for saying anything about Penn...

        --poligirl

        by poligirl on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:43:31 PM PDT

    •  Would he then say he is "sorry" again?

      for making the mistake of calling Clinton an "agent of the status quo" like he said he is sorry for voting for the Iraq war?

      How many mistakes and how many times can he say "sorry" before he loses credibility?

      by Gregory Wonderwheel on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:23:59 AM PDT

  •  he won't endorse her

    if he does, he must know something that we don't, i suppose, or he's angling for atty general and she's promised it to him.

    by Sargent Pepper on