Edwards' Former Campaign Manager To Endorse Obama Today

I'm hoping today will be a big day for endorsements. I find it interesting that almost everyone who was supporting Edwards before has endorsed Obama except for the candidate, some say it's because Elizabeth wants Clinton, but  heck, at this point Edwards may as well come out for Barack.

ABC News has learned that David Bonior, the campaign manager for the 2008 presidential race of Sen. John Edwards, D-NC, will endorse Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, today.

Bonior, a former Michigan congressman, was once the second highest ranking Democrat in the House, and is influential with labor unions.

Tuesday night's results were said to be key to Bonior's decision -- specifically the fact that Obama's lead over Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, appears insurmountable.

Bonior is also said to like Obama's general positive tone, as well as Obama's message of change and stance against taking money from federal lobbyists.

Let the flood begin!

Maybe this guy can help us with the so called "white-voter" problem we have (that we really DON'T have).

Also, Barack will be appearing on The Situation Room tonight around 4, hopefully someone other than Wolf is doing the interview, I nominate Cafferty :o)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Also, did anyone get a load of the Huffington Post?

They have this picture:

With a huge caption calling it the changing of the guard. Notice the imagery, the Clintons are walking away, and Barack and Michelle are coming towards us smiling and waving. I like it :o)

According to the article it links to, releasing the news of the $6.4 million dollar loan isn't helping them as much as the release of the $5 million loan did last time:

Clinton advisers said they were concerned that the candidate’s online fund-raising, which boomed after her victory in the Ohio primary in March and in Pennsylvania in April, had slowed by comparison on Tuesday night and Wednesday, and that her donor base was either tightening somewhat or playing wait-and-see, despite her public appeal for money on Tuesday night. Clinton aides did not send out the near-hourly e-mail blasts bragging about online donations that came after previous successes.

Add this to the flood of Superdelegates and other Endorsements are are going to be receiving, and today is going to be a great day! My tip jar got jumped three times ~lol~ so here it is if you can't find it.

And because I love pics of Barack and Michelle:

•  where Bonior will help is in MI & with the unions

  & incidentally he will help with pro-life Democrats should he want to (though he generally is low-profile about this).

  by Belvedere Come Here Boy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:11:04 AM PDT

  •  hopefully Edwards people and delegates too

    I hope that this could open the door to more Edwards campaign folks (Joe Trippi perhaps?) jumping to Obama officially.  It is pretty clear that in the voting booth, Obama picked up more of Edwards' supporters than Clinton did, so it follows that his official campaign staff would make the same decision.

    by WahooMatt on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:21:51 AM PDT

    •  yea, but not Mr. Edwards himself

      who is keeping his cards (for Clinton) close to his chest

      by Great Uncle Bulgaria on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:39:51 AM PDT

      •  After the campaign the Clintons have run

        this is a mystery - but one that isn't even interesting any more. One thing is sure - John Edwards's agenda is tied in some way to the Clintons. I can't believe I believed in him and supported him for so long.

        It's depressing and disappointing that his silence during the Clintons' scorched-earth assault on the Democratic party, when he could have at least spoken out in defense of what remains of the Democratic party's chances in November; and his choices, including dropping out when he did, have not lived up to his campaign rhetoric; there's probably a good reason for that. Ask me if I care.

        The "two-party" system in this country is, in reality, the Republicans and their allies in the Democratic party - the Clintons and their corporate-friendly DLC - and the rest of the country. That battle has barely begun. Anyone who is wondering where the Clintons' loyalty will be in the GE needs to remember who they work for and who their friends really are. It isn't us.

        by obiterdictum on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:56:13 AM PDT

        •  yeah yeah

          al gore agenda is tied to the Clintons too

          as is Joe Bidens

          silly

          She fought like hell with the bullets she had

          she lost

          Im glad of that-- but she would have been a great albeit very imperfect president (just as Obama will be)

          your connections make no sense

          by Redstateresident on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:03:08 AM PDT

          •  Isn't ridiculous?

            Edwards stays neutral like Gore and he gets crap like this from my fellow Kossacks. I really don't understand why people would want to bash good Democrats like John just because he chose to stay neutral. If he came out for McCain tomorrow....then I could understand the vitriol!

            by sarahlane on Thu May 08, 2008 at 08:58:51 AM PDT

          •  Big difference

            Neither Mrs. Gore or Mrs. Biden have lauded HRC in public.  They are truly independent and could play a role in the event that HRC tries to sabotage the DNC convention.

            I thought this was Edwards' strategy as well, until his wife started praising HRC.  It does make sense that Edwards would support HRC, since they are pretty close on foreign policy, both having supported the Iraq war.  Maybe he's just torn between a candidate with whom he shares neocon foreign policy goals, and a candidate with whom he shares domestic policy goals?

            by Subterranean on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:31:20 AM PDT

            •  Because of course

              John Edwards has absolute control over Elizabeth Edwards

              The little wimmen folk down thar in Noth Carolina jes do what their menfolk say

              Good god do you not even see the sexist bullshit you are spewing

              by Redstateresident on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:52:49 AM PDT

              •  Now you're putting words in my post

                It's just commen sense - if Edwards and his wife disagree on who he should back, then it would be destructive for her to go around praising HRC in public, while he remains silent, because it creates the perception that both of them support HRC.  It's even worse if we assume sexual equality in the marriage, because then we see them as a team, and the only public comments on the race by any member of the team suggest that the team backs HRC.

                Add to that the fact that both HRC and Edwards cheerleaded for the Iraq war, and it's even more certain that the team backs HRC.

                So please take your kneejerk, sexism victimhood bullshit somewhere else.  It's clouding your judgement and forcing you to see the world in black & white.

                by Subterranean on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:59:33 AM PDT

        •  Many Super's must be tied to the Clintons

          Why doesn't Obama have more Supers in his column than HC by now?  It confounds me, because he clearly is winning on every other measure.  If the Supers are supposed to follow their constituency, why doesn't the column have the same ratio as the Pledged?

          by beans on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:21:48 AM PDT

          •  They dont' have to follow their constituency

            Also, there are A LOT of SDs that are not in office. Among the Superdelegates that are actually elected and up for re-election, Obama is leading.

            The party insiders make up the Cliton lead in SDs

            by Muzikal203 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:46:06 AM PDT

        •  I think a lot of the highest profile SDs may

          have been keeping quiet so they could maintain an air of neutrality if this thing had really gone all the way to Denver.  The fact that some of them are now feeling comfortable to speak up signals to me that they're no longer worried about that.

          by lineatus on Thu May 08, 2008 at 08:25:22 AM PDT

        •  Do you dislike...

          all the other Dems who haven't endorsed like Al Gore? Has he disappointed you too?

          by sarahlane on Thu May 08, 2008 at 08:56:42 AM PDT

        •  has it ever occurred to you...

          that maybe he's a little BUSY these days? His wife has stage 4 cancer, and they basically put their lives on hold for him to run for president. If this is the kind of thing that makes you turn on someone, you must have a hard time keeping friends.

          Grow up and STFU.

          by snookybeh on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:17:50 AM PDT

      •  Edwards is booked on the Today Show tomorrow

        I think that an endorsement is a definite possibility.

        by Yirmiyahu on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:13:25 AM PDT

        •  I hope so, but I'll believe it when I see it :-)

          by txjenny on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:21:32 AM PDT

        •  does he have UMW supporters? Else I'm not sure

          it helps in WV. I hope it's not an ego thing.

          by Belvedere Come Here Boy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:23:32 AM PDT

        •  I'll bet a $25 contribution to Obama...

          That he won't.

          by RichM on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:55:21 AM PDT

          •  that's a win win situation n/t

            by Yirmiyahu on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:46:33 AM PDT

      •  Why Hasn't Edwards endorsed Obama?

        I just wrote a diary on it about five minutes ago: This Is Why Edwards Has Not Endorsed Obama.  You may find it interesting...

        by James Kroeger on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:37:45 AM PDT

      •  No, I take his point to not be a kingmaker

        I think there is much to be said for why Edwards dropped out, saying he had no wish to use his few delegates (28?) to be either a kingmaker or a spoiler.  Quite a principled decision I thought.  I did not get the sense that either he or Elizabeth is pro-Clinton, quite the reverse.

        I suspect that why you like that picture of the Obamas is because Michelle has on her secret wink, wink dKos colored dress.  Boy, talk about codes!

        by arthura on Thu May 08, 2008 at 08:11:43 AM PDT

      •  Irrelevant

        Edwards is no longer relevant.

        by Fabienne on Thu May 08, 2008 at 08:22:13 AM PDT

        •  agreed...

          the guy is a wimp and a horrible democratic vice presidential candidate.  He only won 1 election in his life.

          He's a nobody and should fade away into oblivion.

          by tibor75 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 08:35:00 AM PDT

          •  You know....

            I don't want people like you on my team. I'm a progressive, I don't bash fellow progressives for no good reason. Your comments are ridiculous, especially if you consider yourself to be a lefty. Why call a fellow progressive who has done a ton of great work for Democrats, the party and minimum wage increases in multiple states a nobody?

            Do you think a guy who built two learning labs for kids a nobody? Do you think a guy who helped move the candidates to the left this election is a nobody?

            by sarahlane on Thu May 08, 2008 at 08:54:04 AM PDT

        •  bla bla

          Same old tired insult from my fellow Kossacks I've read a hundred times on this site. Edwards chose to stay neutral like Gore, why does Edwards deserve your insults?

          I haven't endorsed anyone yet and I'm an Oregonian, I must be irrelevant too.

          by sarahlane on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:02:18 AM PDT

      •  At this point, is JRE's endorsement worth much?

        by dsinha on Thu May 08, 2008 at 08:41:27 AM PDT

      •  Edwards is/are now irrelevant.

        waited to long. Gore/Carter have the stature within the party to make a difference as peacemakers when all is said and done, Edwards never did.

        by tnichlsn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:00:48 AM PDT

    •  Bonior is a great guy!

      I met him during the campaign, he is such a down to earth, focused, person of decency.

      I'm glad to hear that Bonior, along with many other top Edwards advisors, are now in the Obama camp.

      by NCDem Amy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:57:44 AM PDT

      •  That he is indeed - I met him in DC, pre-announce

        ment, with Elizabeth and John -- I could not BELIEVE how down-to-earth he was!

        A buddy of mine had worked on his MI Gov primary-campaign and said the same thing, even though he didn't make it he was just a fantastic person.  He's always been so staunch an advocate for working people, you know he's just a true, loyal progessive Democrat and a terrific person.

        by Timothy J on Thu May 08, 2008 at 08:22:33 AM PDT

        •  would be a good vp imho n/t

          by seesdifferent on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:03:06 AM PDT

      •  Come on people

        anyone that has been working on someone else's campaign that comes out to endorse is looking for an office in the West Wing.

        by Alohaleezy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 08:40:50 AM PDT

  •  But, but, but....

    ...only Hillary can win Michigan! Don't believe me?  Just ask her, she'll tell you!

    I agree.  This is a good pick up for Obama.  Bonior has serious cred in MI, and with those "White Working-Class Voters" (whatever the hell that means, seeing as this is a change election, and all the usually political memes will prove false in the end...)

    by Ken in MN on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:24:26 AM PDT

    •  Macomb County in MI is Reagan Democrat country

      and Bonior still has people and strong roots there too. He is even regarded kindly by some in the military and business fields for his work.

      by Belvedere Come Here Boy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:29:20 AM PDT

      •  Macomb County...

        From what I understand and remember (having lived in Michigan for a few years (1988-1992), Macomb County is the ultimate Reagan Democrat County of the whole country. Maybe that was just Michigan pretending its Detroit suburbs were more important than they really were,...

        by The Mort Man on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:10:26 AM PDT

        •  Still is as ultimate battleground in MI

          Macomb is ethnic, auto-related, hunters, fishermen, bedroom communities.

          Wayne is Detroit. Oakland for the most part is Republican with a Democrat lean in the very south of that county.

          So that is where the contested population is. McCain has gone through Macomb as will the Dems.

          It is not really a "new exurb" type place where Obama is really strong.

          Before the unraveling lately, Hillary would have done quite well in Macomb.

          by Belvedere Come Here Boy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:15:44 AM PDT

    •  Yes, only Hillary can win MI...

      ...as long as she's the only one on the ballot...

      by Aqualad08 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:51:48 AM PDT

      •  And even then there's a chance she'll lose

        to uncommitted.

        by Muzikal203 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:02:26 AM PDT

      •  not fair!

        Remember, "uncommitted" was also on the ballot. And according to the Governor of my state, Pennsylvania, ANYONE would rather run against a person than "uncommitted". (roll of eyes here).

        by The Mort Man on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:12:07 AM PDT

        •  So in the General Election

          You have a ballot with

          1. McCain

          2. Uncommitted

          What are you going to do?

          Explain to everyone that a vote for Uncommitted is a vote for Barack?

          And you will succeed with GOTV?

          by griz4u on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:59:57 AM PDT

          •  You're not seriously suggesting . . .

            that you think Obama's name won't be on the ballot in November, are you?  Once the nominee is chosen, then his/her name will be on all ballots in November.

            by djs on Thu May 08, 2008 at 08:30:52 AM PDT

            •  I believe that the point is...

              ...that only Hillary's name was on the MI primary ballot, and how ludicrous it would be if the general election ballot was structured the same way...

              by Ken in MN on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:14:32 AM PDT

  •  Is he a super? n/t

    by 57andFemale on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:47:40 AM PDT

    •  Nope, but it's still a great endorsement!

      The more of Edwards people that endorse us, the less of a chance he has of endorsing our opponent without looking like a hypocrite :o)

      by Muzikal203 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:49:25 AM PDT

      •  he may not be a super, but he's super

        David Bonior is someone for whom I have enormous respect and admiration - I will always be grateful to Mr. Bonior for his valiant effort to stop NAFTA. I watched him (along with Marcy Kaptur)  night after night on C-SPAN educating the American people about what was terribly wrong with the so-called "free trade" agreement that was being pushed by Newt Gingrich, Bill Richardson and the Clinton Administration

        Bonior participation in the Edwards campaign made me think long and hard about voting for Senator Edwards.

        
        
        ````
        peace
        
        

        by peace voter on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:13:43 AM PDT

      •  Bonior IS a superdelegate -- eom

        cl

        Religion is like sodomy: both can be harmless when practiced between consenting adults but neither should be imposed upon children.

        by Caoimhin Laochdha on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:46:32 AM PDT

        •  Proof?

          by Muzikal203 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:48:19 AM PDT

        •  Oops, just dbl-checked-NOT a superDEL anymore eom

          cl

          Religion is like sodomy: both can be harmless when practiced between consenting adults but neither should be imposed upon children.

          by Caoimhin Laochdha on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:50:12 AM PDT

    •  No, but he's got SDs (esp. MI) in rolodex eom

      by Belvedere Come Here Boy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:49:26 AM PDT

    •  He can probably swing

      The 5 "uncommitted" delegates in MI who were not explicit Obama supporters.

      As a reminder, MI selected its elected delegates on April 19. There were 36 uncommitted slots. Most of those (31, by my guess) were known Obama supporters. But unions--especially UAW--picked up about 5 slots. At least a couple of those people were former Edwards supporters who were remaining uncommitted to see how the campaign worked out.

      So I suspect Bonior's endorsement would swing at least 3 of those still-uncommitted elected delegates. Not to mention the at large delegates assigned to uncommitted in MI.

      by emptywheel on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:56:57 AM PDT

      •  not just MI, he's a former Majority Whip

        He and Gephardt and Biden can toss back a few beers. There are few grand old men who are out of office like the two former who have street cred with the core.

        by Belvedere Come Here Boy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:05:40 AM PDT

  •  Bonior need to be part of Obama team IMHO !!!N/T

    .

    by RomeyDa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:05:20 AM PDT

•  Is he a superdelegate?

  If he's a Michigan delegate, then this wouldn't count.

  by davidkc on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:11:20 AM PDT

  •  No, nt

    by verily on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:15:36 AM PDT

  •  He's not a SD n/t

    by genxerd71 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:15:48 AM PDT

    •  that's crazy

      how can he not be super?  The criteria are very weird.

      Either way, helpful endorsement.

      by anoodle on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:20:53 AM PDT

      •  He refuses to wear the cape

        and the banana-hammock.

        by jamfan on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:37:28 AM PDT

        •  lol, rec for comment of the day n/t

          by boofdah on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:43:21 AM PDT

      •  They're pretty simple

        Via Wiki:

        19 Distinguished Party Leaders (DPL) (officially 22[3] less 2 Senators and 1 Governor here counted in those categories)

        31 Democratic Governors (incl. the Mayor of DC and Governors of Territories)

        48 members of the Senate (46 Senators and the 2 Shadow Senators from DC)

        223 members of the House of Representatives (includes the 4 Congressional Delegates from DC and from the Territories)

        398 Democratic National Committee Members (actually 402 delegates with 398 votes, considering the 8 Democrats Abroad delegates with ½ vote each).

        Bonior is in none of those groups.  

        by Adam B on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:40:32 AM PDT

        •  amazing

          considering the fact that he served as elected Democratic Whip in the House for eight years

          that distinguishes him in my book - far more than let's say, Debbie Dingell.  I know she's not a distinguised party leader - just one of those trouble makers who pushed MI to buck the primary/caucus calendar agreed upon by all 50 states.
          
          
          ````
          peace
          
          

          by peace voter on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:20:58 AM PDT

          •  But ...

            ... the DPLs are all on a slightly-higher plane of accomplishment -- leaders of an entire body, or former DNC Chairs:

            President Jimmy Carter - GA
            President Bill Clinton - NY - Clinton
            Vice President Walter Mondale - MN - Clinton
            Vice President Al Gore - TN
            Speaker Jim Wright - TX
            Speaker Tom Foley - WA - Clinton
            House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt - MO
            Sen. Majority Leader Robert Byrd - WV
            Sen. Majority Leader George Mitchell - ME
            Sen. Majority Leader Tom Daschle - SD - Obama
            DNC Chairman Fred Harris - NM
            DNC Chairman Robert Strauss - TX
            DNC Chairman Ken Curtis - ME - Clinton
            DNC Chairman Charles Manatt - CA - Clinton
            DNC Chairman Paul Kirk - MA
            DNC Chairman David Wilhelm - IL
            DNC Chairwoman Debra DeLee - MA
            DNC Chairman Chris Dodd - CT
            DNC Chairman Steven Grossman - MA - Clinton
            DNC Chairman Joseph Andrew - IN - Clinton
            DNC Chairman Roy Romer - CO
            DNC Chairman Ed Rendell - PA
            DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe - VA - Clinton

            (Jim Wright's still alive?)  Bill Gray and Tony Coelho are both former House whips who aren't SDs.

            by Adam B on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:24:44 AM PDT

•  Welcome Bonior -- Get your man to endorse too

  John Edwards - if you value your supporters OPINION, you too will come out and endorse Obama...NOW

  by cscmm on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:11:47 AM PDT

  •  I was and Edwards supporter, where has he been?

    I live 30 miles from his house and have met him several times. I've been so disappointed he simply vanished. Total loss of cred in my book.

    by Ptown boy in NC on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:22:13 AM PDT

    •  something's up

      I am annoyed but I feel like there's either a family issue at the fore, or, he was waiting until a pivotal moment - like NOW.

      don't know. I won't give up my sig line just yet, but I do want him to help end the scuffling and help get the Democratic Party united after McCain now, not later.

      by michele2 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:25:12 AM PDT

    •  he's jealous and too concerned about politics

      to make an endorsement for hillary or obama

      1 )If he endorsed Hillary and she lost, his political career is really more toast than it ialready is

      2. if he endorsed obama, he'd have a role in administration but perhaps like hillary would find it hard(er) to run again in 2012 because Obama would win,

      it doesnt matter much to me if he endorses or onot.. would it have helped obama a month ago? yes

      now??  it is insignificant.  Edwards has very little political relevance anymore.  his voters have moved on...

      he is not on the level of gore/ carter/ clinton...

      he is closer to the ex-vp candidate level of insignificance that includes ferraro, leiberman.

      if bentsen were alive.. he'd be much more respected than edwards...

      by njhoo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:01:54 AM PDT

      •  wtf?

        what a nasty thing to write - are you trying to pick a fight?
        
        
        ````
        peace
        
        

        by peace voter on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:22:51 AM PDT

      •  useless

        by LaEscapee on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:29:52 AM PDT

      •  Bill Moyers & John Edwards

        Like Bill Moyer states in this diary on the rec list?

        and it’s the triumph of ambition for self over ambition for the country.

        Bill Richardson should go down in history as a hero. Anyone who endorses/declares after him just reminds me of a 7 year old child who picks the winner of the Super Bowl in the last 5 minutes.

        by Spoonfulofsugar on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:58:57 AM PDT

        •  My opinion of Richardson went up

          around that.  I've always thought he was extremely intelligent and able, but that demonstrated vision and independence as well.

          Sadly, my opinion of JRE has settled back to where it was when he sponsored the IWR.  His economic message was my favorite of all the candidates, but I find myself wondering how much of his conviction at any given time is just ambition and opportunism.

          by Urizen on Thu May 08, 2008 at 08:05:19 AM PDT

        •  Since the quote is about Clinton-why use it here?

          by VA Breeze on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:09:58 AM PDT

      •  God, where does this bs bile come from?

        amazing that this is a democratic site sometimes.

        by okamichan13 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:00:02 AM PDT

        •  I don't get it...

          It's okay that Gore stays neutral but it's not okay that Edwards does. They throw insults at Edwards left and right which is completely undeserved. Why would any good hearted progressive want to bash Elizabeth and John, who were able to move the Dem platform to the left this primary season? Their behavior reflects poorly on this site. They ran a great progressive campaign and because they don't endorse their vilified? I thought we had respect for fellow progressives, but I guess if you're a progressive and you don't endorse Obama, you get treated like crap.

          by sarahlane on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:14:17 AM PDT

          •  And this surely isn't the way to win

            in November. I don't see how shitting on anyone who isn't with you now is supposed to bring them to your side later on.

            Obama has always had admirable words for Edwards. I'd sure like to see the same from his supporters.

            by okamichan13 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:40:46 AM PDT

    •  Edwards = Disappointment for me, too

      I was a donor and I am SO disappointed in Edwards since he dropped out. There was so much he could have done to help Obama but instead, nary a word except a halfass comedic spot on Colbert Report sorta giving the nod to Obama.

      Shallow.

      by Spoonfulofsugar on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:41:23 AM PDT

      •  No...your comment is shallow

        John Edwards staying neutral is not. Will you please call Gore and Carter and every other Dem that hasn't endorsed your preferred candidate shallow? Might as well be consistent.

        I worked my butt off for Edwards. I didn't take offense that he didn't endorse and respect his opinions. I think our party is better off because of the race they ran. They made UHC and fighting poverty big issues during the primaries. That's a good thing! We have Elizabeth constantly making the rounds fighting McCain's sham of a health care plan. That's a good thing! John and Elizabeth really don't deserve all the insults my fellow Kossacks have thrown at them for not endorsing.

        by sarahlane on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:09:28 AM PDT

  •  Edwards is not endorsing anyone

    The Edwards' already came out and said that they would not be endorsing in a recent People Magazine interview that was picked up by lots of other news sources.

    http://www.people.com/...

    I don't have a problem with him staying neutral - he may have a role to play in helping to bring the party back together, since he's been talking to both campaigns.

    by meowmissy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:29:19 AM PDT

    •  Endorsement is not about non-neutrality

      anymore.  It's about party healing.  An endorsement for Obama today can be based on nothing more than wanting the party to move forward together.

      by jenesq on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:31:02 AM PDT

      •  party healing doesn't require an endorsement

        To me, an endorsement is explicitly about being non-neutral. It's a just another thumb in the eye of Clinton supporters.  We need someone to reach out to them in a more diplomatic fashion to help bridge the gap.

        I think both he and Al Gore could serve well in this role - calling for Democrats to come together and support the nominee.

        by meowmissy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:51:06 AM PDT

      •  All you see it from is YOUR Obama support

        perspective HEALING will explicitly require some Hillary supporter perspective

        WHy whack at them during the fight or when they are hurting?

        They support their candidate  still

        by Redstateresident on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:06:33 AM PDT

    •  too late now

      he should have made a choice and tried to make a difference whichever candidate. I was an Edwards voter but I found his dissapearence strange.

      by cacamp on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:57:25 AM PDT

    •  By staying neutral- maybe it kept peace at home

      Maybe John and Elizabeth disagreed on who was best

      Then-if Obama does want Edwards to help out and use him in his administration, or even earlier in the election process, he would be tolerable to former Clinton supporters because of his neutrality

      Let's win in November!

      by VA Breeze on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:16:18 AM PDT

  •  Maybe tomorrow

    According to MSNBC's "First Read," Edwards is booked on the TODAY Show for tomorrow.

    by Yirmiyahu on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:17:23 AM PDT

    •  He's not going to say anything

      every time he's booked somewhere, people speculate over whether he's going to endorse, and he ends up spending the time asking for jet skis :oP

      by Muzikal203 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:56:16 AM PDT

      •  but the media decided Tue that the race is over

        I don't know why the perception changed so suddenly, but I think now is the time when we're gonna see all the undecided-until-the-end superdelegates come out... This will be the first Edwards media appearance I'm paying attention to since he dropped out.

        by Yirmiyahu on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:44:59 AM PDT

•  Today is going to be a BEAUTIFUL day!!

  Tips and good cheer :o)

  by Muzikal203 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:12:03 AM PDT

•  always

  liked Bonior - he seemed like a straight shooter in the 90's;

  by pollwatch on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:14:31 AM PDT

•  Cool...

  time for the avalanche.

  by First Amendment on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:15:01 AM PDT

•  He will definitely help with unions

  I fully expect John Edwards to be Obama's Atorney General.

  by Drdemocrat on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:15:19 AM PDT

  •  I said months ago that Edwards would make

    a good Secretary and Health and Human services.  He wants to get Universal Health Care going -- who best to PUSH it thru but Edwards.  

    Just imagine if he were able to work with Obama to finally once and for all get everyone healthcare?  History making.

    Attorney General would also work - he could go after some of things Bush refused to investigate.  But I think since Univ Health Care will be the FIRST thing Obama tackles (besides war) -- Edwards would be FRONT and CENTER for that job.  Constant press coverage.

    by cscmm on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:18:41 AM PDT

    •  awesome

      I would love to see JRE in any of these cabinet roles. I will kiss the ground the day that JRE (or the new AG) calls for investigations. My faith in our process and government will be restored.

      please let it happen.

      by michele2 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:27:19 AM PDT

    •  Better qualified for HHS

      JRE's legal experience really isn't suitable for the kind of AG we need now--someone with a ton of experience in Constitutional law, who can backpedal all the crazy Bush-executive-power-grab bullshit.

      Actually, if Obama himself weren't going to be president, he'd be an exceptionally well-qualified AG!  Fortunately, he obviously understands the qualities required for that monumental task.

      by jenesq on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:34:04 AM PDT

      •  OK - but

        Obama is the only Dem to say Bush and Cheney have not committed impeachable offenses.
        http://www.usatoday.com/...

        by katz5 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:45:54 AM PDT

        •  OK,OK. Obama has also said

          he would ask his AG to review whatever information
          is available, and determine whether or not an inquiry is warranted.

          by I give in to sin on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:24:40 AM PDT

        •  Unity

          Impeachment may be well justified but it certainly does not feed into the idea of unifying the country.  Furthermore, it would tie up Congress for years.  They already do very little, if anything, that is relevant to the actual citizenry of this country, and impeachment would give them a good excuse to ignore making any real changes.  Let history do the impeaching.  Bush and Cheney are hopefully the last gasp of the old robber barons and imperialists.

          by Fabienne on Thu May 08, 2008 at 08:31:29 AM PDT

      •  I think Daschle is first in line for HHS

        If Obama wins.

        by Sir Walter Raleigh on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:11:13 AM PDT

    •  AG. I'd like him as AG

      But he has to endorse Obama.  How in the world can this race baiting appeal to John Edwards?  

      by 57andFemale on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:48:49 AM PDT

      •  what makes you think it does

        Just cause he does not react immediatley the evry little political thing in the battle?

        by Redstateresident on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:08:13 AM PDT

        •  He's spozed to be a leader

          Leaders are spozed to call bullshit on things like race baiting.  When they don't they take on some complicity in them.  Silence can get loud.

          by Urizen on Thu May 08, 2008 at 08:08:44 AM PDT

          •  BAd AL Gore

            Bad Harry Reid
            Bad every Democrat who didnt say anything about everything Urizen thinks is most important

            bad

            by Redstateresident on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:28:38 AM PDT

          •  Maybe Edwards is wasting his time

            focused on trivial things like poverty. What nerve.

            by okamichan13 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:37:52 AM PDT

•  wolf is doing the interview

  sorry.

  by glutz78 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:20:13 AM PDT

  •  wonder if he'll ask about 'outrageous' preacher?

    And will that make Wolf an outrageous interviewer.
    Sorry, I'm still made at a segway Wolf made using that claim last week. Man we've seen some bad media and sorry journalism.

    by JohnB47 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:25:39 AM PDT

  •  Dammit!

    Oh well, Barack knows how to handle idiot interviewers well.

    by Muzikal203 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:28:19 AM PDT

    •  God knows, he's had plenty of experience.

      by obiterdictum on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:58:35 AM PDT

  •  CNN and "white men"

    CNN has subtly harped on Hillarys "white men" myth for over a week. Now they're trying to put forth a blue/red divide myth in the Democrat Party. Watch Wolf make that his main talking point tonight.

    by cacamp on Thu May 08, 2008 at 08:05:09 AM PDT

    •  Wolf Blitzer is an idiot

      Proof of his density on Tuesday night:  "Well, it looks like Obama will win North Carolina and Hillary will prevail in Indiana, so I guess we'll just have to carry on to West Virginia next week."

      (True, we will carry on to West Virginia next week, but it was never going to be a decisive contest in this race -- think Wyoming, for an equal-and-opposite comparison --and it completely ignored what every other single person on the tube, Lanny Davis excepted, could understand.  Give him a dye job and a sense of humor and he'd be Maureen Down.)

      by djs on Thu May 08, 2008 at 08:35:39 AM PDT

  •  Unless Wolf changed from CNN

    How is it he is doing the interview on the Today Show? Or are you talking about Bonior going on the Situation Room?

    by benny05 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:01:52 AM PDT

•  This is not going to affect much n/t

  by stevej on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:23:41 AM PDT

  •  Every little bit helps, and that's one more

    person who can contribute time and money to the campaign. Maybe he can offer insight to reach some voters Obama's having trouble with right now.

    :o)

    by Muzikal203 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:29:35 AM PDT

  •  Would you prefer not having his support?

    Not sure what your point is.

    it will matter in Michigan.

    by okamichan13 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:08:33 AM PDT

•  who chooses where Edwards' delegates go?

  Is it Edwards himself or the delegates? There are about 19 I think. Anyone know more about this?

  by MarcoNYC on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:26:34 AM PDT

  •  Sixty-one

    according to Slate.  And the delegates themselves get to decide.

    by sagra on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:37:01 AM PDT

    •  Yep