Edwards Donors Prefer Obama

I know it's kind of skimpy but...

...will John Edwards endorse Obama based on the will of his donors?

John Edwards' former donors broke toward Barack Obama by a 2-to-1 margin over Hillary Rodham Clinton in February, the first full month after Edwards dropped out of the Democratic presidential nomination fight.

The analysis by CQ MoneyLine identified 287 former Edwards contributors who donated to Obama for the first time during his record-breaking $56 million month. Collectively, though, the former Edwards donors amounted to a small fraction of Obama's haul, sending in $200,000. In comparison, Clinton banked $114,000 from 138 Edwards donors who had not given to her in past months as she piled up a personal-best $35 million in February.

"I looked at both the candidates and basically the reason I chose to shift allegiance over to Obama was how I perceived his message of hope," said San Diego lawyer Blake Muir Harper.

"One of the things I think is wrong with our country is that the people have been left behind by big business, big corporations, big government, big everything. We need a return to 'We the people,' no exceptions. From my perspective, Obama seems to be more aligned with the people's interest rather than big corporate interests and government interests," he said. "Whereas Hillary is, to me, a vote more for the same old, same old, politics as usual."

•  Now when is John going to get off his ass

  and make the endorsement?!

  by bethrsingleton on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:14:56 PM PDT

  •  That's what we'd all like to know! n/t

    by Stand Strong on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:15:41 PM PDT

  •  We're past the time when the endorsement matters

    It may have made a small difference in Ohio.
    NC will go for Obama in a big way.

    by ParaHammer on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:16:10 PM PDT

    •  I think it would carry weight, though

      especially with which way the tide is going.

      by Stand Strong on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:18:10 PM PDT

      •  Don't agree. Let Edwards remain silent.

        I think many of his supporters would prefer he remain silent, for one thing.

        by keeplaughing on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:44:22 PM PDT

    •  I don't agree

      a JE endorsement would make a big difference.  It would certainly take some of the question out of which way ex-JE supporters will lean. (those undecideds, if there are any left)

      It would tell Clinton where all those extra votes and delegates are likely to go, and maybe make her think, some.

      by second gen on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:19:31 PM PDT

    •  PA

      Edwards can make a difference there.  PA is a state where the economy is of vast concern, and an economic populist like Edwards who has made poverty his cause of life is trusted.  He could help sway some votes in PA.  All Obama is needs to do is make Pennsylvania close, and Clinton will have no choice but to get out.  Well, reasonably.  But then, hers IS a campaign run by Mark Penn.  So I dunno.

      by deaniac83 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:24:43 PM PDT

    •  Disagree...each one captures the narrative...

      ...for the news cycle...the more Obama gets, the more HRC supporters are forced to face the truth...

      by Aqualad08 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:31:53 PM PDT

    •  The endorsement would matter to his delegates

      Several in Iowa already moved to Obama. He still has some committed to him.

      But with his own delegates going to Barack on their own, and his donors' preferences established, it might be a good time for John to follow his people.

      by BobzCat on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:34:25 PM PDT

    •  We're at a time when every endorsement

      matters more than ever. Silence is complicity.

      by tbird on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:51:29 PM PDT

  •  After he gets the okay from Elizabeth.

    Sneed hears Edwards' wife, cancer survivor Elizabeth Edwards, does NOT favor Barack Obama's candidacy . . . but NOT because of racism. "She feels her husband should have been the man in the center of the presidential sweepstakes, rather than Obama," a source said.

    Link.

    Don't know how much there is to this.

    by xndem on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:33:11 PM PDT

    •  would that be like wanting McCain to win

      because you want other democratic candidate to lose?

      by lisastar on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:13:14 PM PDT

      •  McCain might win...

        No matter who wins our nomination...  Al Gore anyone?

        by happy237 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:22:58 PM PDT

        •  no question

          and it's even more likely if Bill Clinton keeps saying how great he is.

          by lisastar on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:38:45 PM PDT

  •  If Edwards had any integrity or moral courage

    he would have endorsed someone by now. It is a complete mystery to me that he cannot speak his mind after such a lengthy period.

    In my opinion, Edwards' silence and fence-sitting at the present time is destroying whatever legacy he thinks he has left behind with the dKos community. For a long time, dKosers were bashing Obama while worshiping Edwards uncritically. It is interesting to note that a lot of former Edwards supporter never mention how much hostility they generated against Obama back in February and early March.

    Often, it was vitriolic to the point of outright hatred and disdain. For them, it was Edwards or bust, on a sacred mission like kamikaze pilots. Where are they now?

    by mobiusein on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:46:53 PM PDT

    •  Where are who now?

      Edwards supporters? Many of them, like me, support Obama.

      But thanks, with your asinine comment, for plugging my latest opus:

      Al Gore is a coward.

      by david mizner on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:03:40 PM PDT

      •  I'm an Edwards donor

        and I'm disappointed in him. Now-if anything happens to hubby-Obama is the kids' new Daddy!

        by Virginia mom on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 04:24:53 PM PDT

      •  you've used this

        "Gore Coward" line enough numbers of times (at least 10 times, it seems). Could you please find some real justification to defend Edwards instead of disabusing Gore's good name (by associating him with the tag "coward" one too many times)?

        by NeuvoLiberal on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:18:02 AM PDT

  •  I am more concerned that he speak out

    against saying the candidate from the opposing party is more qualified than your fellow candidate.

    by lisastar on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:10:17 PM PDT

•  Yeah - I'm gonna send him an email and say

  he can forward all the money I donated to the Edwards campaign to Obama - and give his endorsement to Obama too!

  by moose67 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:19:34 PM PDT

  •  That would be illegal.

    Sorry.  If you want to give to Obama, give to him.

    by TomP on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:33:42 PM PDT

    •  Is it illegal for a candidate who has dropped

      out of a primary race to use his funds in support of another candidate?  I can see how it would be, makes sense, just didn't know it was "the law."

      What happens to the unused money?  Can it be donated to the DCCC, for example?

      by keeplaughing on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:43:17 PM PDT

      •  he keeps it

        for his third failed run for president.

        by missreporter on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:17:44 PM PDT

        •  Ouch. Really though? The candidate just

          keeps it?  

          by keeplaughing on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 04:46:17 PM PDT

          •  No...

            But the campaign sure can and do whatever they want with it as long as it is legal.

            by happy237 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:26:47 PM PDT

    •  I know that - it was "tongue in cheek"

      and I doubt he'll be endorsing anytime soon either.

      by moose67 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:41:46 PM PDT

  •  He is still getting federal matching funds...

    by happy237 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:25:24 PM PDT

•  That's right

  I was trying to remember who I gave money to this cycle, and I forgot (J.) Edwards!

  by happymisanthropy on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:21:01 PM PDT

•  I Just Look To This

  Young people, young people, young people .....

  by webranding on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:23:28 PM PDT

  •  Young people getting inspired

    Check out this one two.  These are even younger generation.

    by jalenth on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:37:46 PM PDT

•  based on their analysis, I wouldn't count

  I was an Edward's backer, but sprinkled small donations to a few candidates (e.g. Dodd, Obama) as a reward for doing something I liked.  After Edwards was gone, I went big for Obama.  But since it wasn't my "first", I'm not in the 287 number.

  It wouldn't surprise me if there are others in the same situation.

  by zzmarkzz on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:26:47 PM PDT

•  data is nice, but, thanks for the flash gordon.

  by 2nd balcony on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:28:36 PM PDT

•  No surprise, this site was mostly for Edwards

  I was too, and most broke hard for Obama.

  Some went to Clinton of course, and a few (hard to understand them) "still" claim to be for Edwards and exist in some sort of alternate reality where they can pretend to be morally pure. (in an alternate reality I'm for Gore too).

  Edwards, like Clinton, perhaps wants to run again in 2012. I'm disappointed in him somewhat, but we'll see.

  by Judgment at Nuremberg on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:31:16 PM PDT

  •  And some have no preference,

    which si a legitimate moral position and no alternate universe at all.  

    by TomP on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:34:50 PM PDT

    •  This notion

      that Obama is vastly more progressive or antiestablishment than Clinton evaporates in the face of the facts.

      But hey, I suppose we can allow these people their delusions.

      by david mizner on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:10:23 PM PDT

      •  Corporate lobbyists are people too.

        That's the difference.  Obama recognizes the problem.  Hillary embraces the status quo.  She'll never work to change it - it's where she gets most of her money.  Corporate lobbyists gave Clinton his limited power while president and they give HIllary her power now.

        by keeplaughing on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:37:09 PM PDT

      •  at this point

        the progressive position is to fucking win and build the party, not tear it apart.

        Fooling around with division and Clinton is not the progressive position.

        To me, it's a very easy choice at this point. Earlier, I concede that the choice would have been  closer.

        by Judgment at Nuremberg on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:46:00 PM PDT

•  I was an Edwards supporter first

  Although I never gave him any money this go around.  By the time he dropped out I was itching to hop on the Obama bandwagon.

  I really wish he would endorse Obama now and dive right into campaigning for him in rural Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Indiana.

  by Sir Walter Raleigh on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:32:34 PM PDT

•  Well, I was an Edwards...

  ...donor who then donated to Obama, and looking at the numbers (2 to 1 ratio) it doesn't really surprise me. It seems natural that a progressive campaign's supporters would go to the most progressive person remaining. What DOES surprise me is that Edwards has not endorsed Obama. If he just want to not get involved that would be understandable. If, however, he is actually considering HRC, then I don't know where is mind is.

  by lams712 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:35:16 PM PDT

•  Leave Edwards alone.

  I think he's extremely jealous of Obama.  (Sorry Edwards supporters, but that's what I think and I'm not alone.)  

  John knows nothing about who Obama is.  He did not work with him in the Senate, or anywhere, ever, and John was virtually living in Iowa for the years that Obama has been in DC.  

  John is limited enough to not understand how sophisticated Obama's strategy for winning something is.  For John and his amateur campaign, attacking everyone and everything back with vengeance is considered "fighting" whereas, as someone put it so well, Obama knows how to fight fire with water.  Given John's obvious lack of understanding of the concept, we can forgive his misconception that Obama is not a fighter.

  After six years in the Senate, Edwards could not win the endorsement of a single Senator.  Obama got two from the get-go after only two years in the Senate.  That must really have frosted Edwards.

  But John repeats the Clinton talking point that all Obama is is inspiration and speeches.  He does if affably, but he does it.  He has refused to say anything positive and substantial about Obama ever.  Yet, even if all one knows about Obama is how he beat Edwards so soundly, one has to recognize that he's at least a good campaigner.

  Each time Edwards opens his mouth about Obama, I hear, and see and feel, the jealousy.  Edwards is a narcissist and that makes it very hard for him to endorse Obama.  I think he was also counting on American racism, and that rug was pulled from under him, too.

  Give him time to lick his wounds.

  by keeplaughing on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:38:11 PM PDT

  •  That's a good analysis.

    I also think that Eward's is holding back in case Clinton and Obama both implodes, then he can be the one to rescue the party.  That's why he suspended, and not ended his campaign.  He is still hoping to be viable.

    I also think that the reason he didn't endorse obama is because he had asked for a potential position in the Obama administration and was turned down.

    Obama doesn't want to make that kind of deals for an endorsement.  I heard Howard Fineman tell one of the shows (Chris Mathews or Joe) he was on that Edwards had asked Obama for a position and was adamantly turned down and that was after either NH or NV.

    So there may be some hard feeling from Edwards there.
    I don't have any proof, just a suspicion from things I've heard.

    by jalenth on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:46:34 PM PDT

    •  I read that too, and an Edwards aide apparently

      confirmed it.  But all these unnamed sources always make me cringe, really.  Still, Edwards himself said something like Obama didn't work hard enough for his endorsement.

      Obama promises nothing to any of his supporters.  He wants to be free to choose people who will do the best job, regardless of whom they supported in the primary.  If he promised something to someone just for supporting him, he could miss out on someone like Wes Clark, because he'd promised the position to someone else.

      I think he's right, and I approve!

      by keeplaughing on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:21:36 PM PDT

  •  My initial gut reaction

    was that you're way off base but after analyzing what you have to say I can't say you're wrong.  I was an Edward's supporter early in the campaign because I truly believed he'd had a life-changing experience with his wife's cancer and wasn't the plastic candidate I saw in 2004.

    However, his recent silence about the campaign abuse by Hillary is deafening and I'm beginning to feel a bit hoodwinked by John Edwards.  

    You'll catch a lot of flack from die-hard Edwards supporters for your post but I fully understand your distrust at this time because human nature says it's a possibility.  If you're right that his own narcissism is ahead of his loyalty to country and party then it truly is a sad day.  I'll continue to hope that there's something else that's driving his inaction but I have an open mind.  Politics makes people irrational.

    Let's hope you're wrong.

    by artmartin on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:48:21 PM PDT

    •  Thanks. Don't get me wrong, though, I

      think Edwards has a lot going for him and would have been and may someday still be a good president.  I fault his campaign for their mishandling of the haircut video, the charity story, and the hedge fund issue.  I think John's media team slept through the campaign.

      All the candidates are good ones this time, and they all have flaws and political risk factors.  Obmam's done a blazing job at campaigning.

      Politics IS irrational.  John and Elizabeth are obviously emotional people, and mostly that's a good thing.  No one anticipated an Obama.

      by keeplaughing on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:28:04 PM PDT

  •  No

    By all reliable accounts Edwards (like most strong progressives) has doubts about Obama's toughness and willingness to stand up to the GOP and corporate power, and why wouldn't he?

    by david mizner on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:06:00 PM PDT

    •  LOL! Ya, uh, ok.

      by keeplaughing on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:28:50 PM PDT

•  I'd rather BHO get Gravel's endorsement.

  Unlike Edwards/Clinton/Lieberman/DLC establishment, he uses his (questionable) judgement on the issues, not on what the polls say. He is honest and real, albeit a little batsh*t.  He is no phony Brect girl.

  by zerzan on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:42:34 PM PDT

  •  that's Breck, zerzan, B-r-e-c-k.

    maybe you had him confused with Bertolt.

    by lisastar on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:04:41 PM PDT

  •  Ha

    Yeah Barack is anti-Establishment; now that's funny.

    by david mizner on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:06:58 PM PDT

    •  Just a question.

      Obama worked hard to push the ethics reform bill through the Senate last year, and it did pass in its' original form.  Hillary and many other Dems who love their earmarks voted for each and every amendment to gut that bill. Isn't it time some former candidates got off their asses and helped out the lone remaining progressive?  If Obama gets a mandate, as he says all the time, he will be able to further a more progressive agenda.

      by Bluesman48 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:41:35 PM PDT

  •  I'd treasure Al Gore's

    above any

    by TNforkerry on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:13:10 PM PDT

    •  I'd like a Barbara Boxer endorsement.

      by keeplaughing on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:30:55 PM PDT

•  I gave to Edwards.

  I felt he was the real deal. If he endorses Hillary (the corporate candidate) I will know I had him pegged all wrong. And I will never support him again. If I knew how to send that message to him, I would.

  by kitebro on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:52:40 PM PDT

•  More talk today

  about his leaning toward Hillary.  I guess Elizabeth is very upset that Obama "took his place" and is pushing him in Hillary's direction.  

  Now this is from Michael Sneed of the Chicago Sun-Times, and she's a sleazy gossip columnist.  But I've heard these rumblings before.  

  So the question is, can Edwards to damage to Obama with a Hillary endorsement in NC?

  By the way, I wrote him a week ago.  I'm trying to do something positive every day.  

  by 57andFemale on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:58:12 PM PDT

  •  The Clintons leak these things when the chips

    are down.  This is at least the third time this rumor has surfaced.

    Remember when NPR was reporting that Richardson endorsed Clinton?

    by keeplaughing on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:32:22 PM PDT

•  Have you ever thought

  that maybe Elizabeth needs him right now if she is not doing well.  He may be avoiding attention from the press for personal reasons

  by TNforkerry on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:12:08 PM PDT

  •  I think this may be part of it, too.

    Why should he endorse?  He's got peace and quiet now.

    by keeplaughing on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:33:35 PM PDT

•  While Sen. Clinton has

  completely lost any chance of getting my vote, Sen. Obama has yet to earn it.

  HRC's tactics, "misstatements" and outright lies have been nothing short of disgusting.

  I voted for Edwards in the CA primary, and because I live in CA, I feel I have the "luxury" of not having to cast a vote for President, and it not cost any Dem the election.

  The rest of my family is voting for Obama now.

  by Guadalupe59 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:37:56 PM PDT

•  I personally broke for Hillary

  And will continue to contribute to her efforts out of my limited resources.  Edwards was the best choice, but Hillary is by far the most electable of the remaining candidates.  Furthermore, Obama would have no coattails or reverse coattails in many parts of the country.  In any case, we will all come together in the end.  And I think John and Elizabeth Edwards are doing just fine not endorsing anyone for now.  Obama should be pleased they aren't endorsing since Hillary is closer to the Edwards message.  This is just my humble opinion of course.  Oh, and here is an idea.  Why don't enough delegates abstain or vote for other candidates on the first ballot to throw the convention open to other candidates and other ideas.  It would make for great interest, and would not necessarily lead to a Democratic defeat.  Why are people so afraid of a contest anyway?

  by happy237 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:19:47 PM PDT