Edwards Considering Endorsing Hillary?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:42:18 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

By Big Tent Democrat

That's what ABC says:

Though he sometimes aligned himself with Obama — and against Clinton — as a candidate, several Edwards campaign insiders say the former senator began to sour on Obama toward the end of his own campaign, and ultimately left the race questioning whether Obama had the toughness needed to prevail in a presidential race.

"He is much more torn than people realize," said one former aide who has stayed in contact with Edwards. "Honestly, he has serious reservations about both of them."

Me too, John. Me too.

< Rule Are Rules, Except When They Are Not | How Hillary Now Sees the Path to the Nomination >

The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

Menu

Home | About | RSS
E-Mail | Comment Policy |
Search
Login

Make a new account

Existing Users

Username:
Password:
Creator and Principal Author
- Jeralyn E. Merritt
TL Alumni

Contribute To TalkLeft

Sections
Site Credits
- TalkLeft Graphics by C.L., Our Man in Hollywood (2006 - 2008)
- TalkLeft Header Graphic by Monk
- Powered by Scoop
Legal
- All Content Copyright ©2002-2024. Reprints only by permission from TalkLeft.com
- Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.
- TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.
"The pump don't work 'cause the vandals took the handles"
© 1965 Bob Dylan

Edwards Considering Endorsing Hillary? | 123 comments (123 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Marvin42, (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by Claw on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:27:55 PM EST

I don't think that anything will stop the Obama Momentum stories. Watching CNN covering primaries is like watching an hours-long Obama ad.

It has been, but... (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by Marvin42 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:39:19 PM EST

I swear I already sense a shift in the MSM coverage. Since he has been declared a front runner there is almost now a turn towards "Hillary can do this only if." If Edward endorses her watch for stories about how this is exactly what she needs to win,etc...

I am so sick of the MSM, they have stopped being anything close to journalism and have just becoming the creators of another reality show. Except this time the outcome ACTUALLY matters!

Sigh.

Parent

Not all bad for Clinton (5.00 / 2) (#31)
by badger on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:47:26 PM EST

The next part of the narrative, after "momentum", is "peaking too soon", followed by "Clinton comeback" if she does well in WI. I'm still skeptical that WI is a lock for Obama - Edwards did very well there in 2004 in the same places Hillary could do well. An endorsement might help there.

Like a lot of people, I started a few years ago saying I'd never support Clinton, and then got tired of the mindless Obama and Edwards cheerleading and Hillary-bashing a few months ago, looked more closely at the candidates and issues, and ended up voting for Clinton in our caucus.

Our caucus went 2:1 for Obama, but the support was "squishy" - most people that spoke in favor of either candidate admitted it was a difficult choice. Outside of the 'net, Obama's support doesn't seem all that intense to me.

Parent

: What state did you caucus in? Can you tell us (none / 0) (#143)
by derridog on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:49:07 PM EST

any more about why you thought his support was squishy?

Parent

Riding into the Alamo like that would be (5.00 / 2) (#20)
by Geekesque on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:36:59 PM EST

much in line with the strategic genius that he displayed in this campaign.

Heh (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:40:51 PM EST

Good one.

Parent

Sorry to be off topic (none / 0) (#50)
by Same As It Ever Was on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:15:49 PM EST

But what are your thoughts on Acevedo's endorsement of Obama's. I had always thought that Puerto Rico's delegates were Clinton's. Also, is there truth to what I've heard that he controls allocation of all of the delegates?

Parent

Totally false (5.00 / 1) (#55)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:30:25 PM EST

The Acevedo endorsement is more a curse than a boon. He is a dead man walking in PR. think Blago in Illinois.

Rosello has the pull in the Pr Dem Party.

Parent

Actually I think he may (none / 0) (#63)
by Florida Resident on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:47:03 PM EST

have done this to harm Obama.

Parent

: Don't worry (5.00 / 3) (#85)
by Kathy on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:23:11 PM EST

Howard Dean just sent me a personal email (I love it when he calls me "Katherine") saying that this will all be worked out and we're in great shape. Oh, and he wants some money.
I feel really assured now.

Parent

Heh (5.00 / 2) (#26)
by Steve M on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:41:26 PM EST

You beat the guy after the media marginalized him from day one. Now you want to gloat. Awesome.

Parent

Gloating? No. (none / 0) (#33)
by Geekesque on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:48:15 PM EST

He lost because he didn't have what it took to win. People knew who John Edwards was in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. He finished second in Iowa in 2004 and won South Carolina in 2004. So, it's not that he was underexposed or blacked out in those states.

Parent

Gosh (5.00 / 3) (#47)
by Steve M on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:12:01 PM EST

You may not be gloating, but your comment sure was.

Let's see, in 2004 Edwards got 37% of African-American voters in South Carolina. In 2008, he got 2%. Do you really think it's fair to say the difference was attributable to a lack of "strategic genius"? Show a little class.

Parent

: Public financing. (none / 0) (#133)
by Geekesque on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:40:48 PM EST

Worst campaign decision this side of Giuliani's Florida strategy.

Parent

Brat! (none / 0) (#117)
by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 04:20:00 PM EST

Parent

If Edwards does endorse Clinton, (5.00 / 3) (#28)
by my opinion on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:42:43 PM EST

the main stream media along with pro-Obama websites will say it's not important and/or attack Edwards. Yes, many of the same sites that supported him will suddenly change their opinions.

If he endorses Obama, the media and pro-Obama websites will say it is the most important endorsement of the election.

The media is not supposed (none / 0) (#39)
by my opinion on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:53:37 PM EST

to play politics. That only happens in countries that aren't democracies (or democratic republics).

Parent

NBC stinks (none / 0) (#54)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:28:30 PM EST

Parent

: So Does Much of the NYT (5.00 / 2) (#70)
by BDB on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:00:32 PM EST

If Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich are supposed to speak for me, they don't. They tear down every Democratic candidate. Then there's William Bloody Kristol who is never right and never out of a job.
Krugman is the only op-ed writer worth a damn.
And who can forget the journalistic contributions of Judy Miller. Or Jeff Gerth.
The supposedly liberal Times ran a relentless campaign against the Clintons in the early 90s, particularly Whitewater. Heck, Carl Bernstein hates Hillary Clinton and even his book takes apart the Times' work on Whitewater.
And I'm not even going to get into what happened to my once beloved Washington Post. Still some decent reporters (Tom Ricks, etc.) but what Fred Hiatt's done to the editorial page would make the baby jesus cry. Or at least Katherine Graham turn over in her grave. Since when does the Post think it's not against the law if the President did it? I'm sure Nixon wishes they'd taken that position 30 years ago.

Parent

Saying how the media is biased was my original (none / 0) (#62)
by my opinion on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:41:36 PM EST

point. How is that just politics? Are you saying that it is OK to have media biased against one candidate?

Parent

: I am also only giving my opinion of where (none / 0) (#72)
by my opinion on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:01:33 PM EST

things currently stand. I am just pointing out that the way they are is not acceptable in my opinion. Just because something is true doesn't make it OK.

Parent

If Edwards endorses Clinton (none / 0) (#66)
by Josey on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:50:54 PM EST

Obamabots will say he's racist.

Parent

And if he endorses Clinton (none / 0) (#76)
by andrewwm on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:03:04 PM EST

The Clinton Crew will call him sexist. I've already seen a couple of people pre-emptively do that on this blog in the comments.

Me personally, I think he's going to do it based on policy positions, not the race or sex of the candidate.

Parent

I'll Say The Opposite (none / 0) (#81)
by BDB on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:21:17 PM EST

If Edwards endorses Obama, I don't think it's because he's sexist.

I do think Obama runs the risk if he has too many establishment white guys standing behind him of alienating women voters. Not because any one of them is motivated by sexism per se, but because of how it looks. More because it looks like the establishment is trying to pick the candidate. It's the same reason why Clinton's "inevitability" campaign was never going to work.

I don't think that's likely with Edwards because he isn't really part of the establishment. Also, it helps that Kennedy's and Kerry's endorsements were a couple of weeks ago (boy, that already seems like forever ago doesn't it?).

Parent

: Edwards (none / 0) (#112)
by auntmo on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:46:40 PM EST

Here's another part of the article BTD quoted from:
"But not withstanding his often caustic criticism of Clinton, on a series of high-profile issues --most notably health care and energy policy---Edwards stands closer to Clinton than to Obama.....
"He's now in a position where he's thinking, who's really ready to be president?' the veteran Edwards aide said, 'I know that he believes she's going to do what she says he'll do. Not that that isn't the case with Obama, BUT THERE'S MORE MATURITY THERE WITH CLINTON."
His endorsement will be over the ISSUES.
And Edwards knows his insistence on healthcared mandates is closer to Clinton to Obama. He also knows Obama voted FOR the huge Energy Bill giving subsidies and tax cuts to big oil, but Clinton voted AGAINST.
His own aides, in this article, say Edwards is leaning to Clinton on the issues, based on her "maturity" and ability to actually get things done.

Parent

I am not talking about the politicians. (none / 0) (#68)
by my opinion on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:57:29 PM EST

Also to point out that there is no bias in the media you only point to a couple of examples, I am referring to the overwhelming majority.

Parent

No need to, it is even obvious to you, who said (none / 0) (#106)
by my opinion on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:16:23 PM EST

as much in your other comments:
"What I think is that while unfortunate, it is reality, and so therefore it is better than we can identify the bias and thus not be tricked into believing we are being addressed objectively."
and:
"I would only say that while we "can't imagine" all the ways they'll attack him, we can imagine how they'll attack her, and we know that it already works with about 50% of the American public. That's not a good starting point."

Parent

That means (none / 0) (#118)
by BlueLakeMichigan on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 04:33:14 PM EST

That media bias merely exists.

Parent

Yes, and my original point is about (none / 0) (#137)
by my opinion on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:25:01 PM EST

that bias.

Parent

: Again your own words above point this out. (none / 0) (#153)
by my opinion on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:32:59 AM EST

Parent

Juan Williams (none / 0) (#83)
by lily15 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:22:11 PM EST

my new favorite, Juan Williams...Fox has Williams and Alan Colmes, who are not buying the Koolaid.

Parent

Gergen (none / 0) (#103)
by Shawn on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:11:17 PM EST

Uh, why does Gergen saying Hillary's likely to win indicate a bias? For a long time, Chris Matthews was saying she was likely to win and I certainly don't think he's pro-Hillary.

Parent

: lol (none / 0) (#105)
by Shawn on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:15:43 PM EST

I didn't even start supporting Clinton until Edwards dropped out, so this isn't a big thing with me....I'm just trying to figure out how an analyst saying Hillary is likely to win shows that he favors her.

Parent

Why Edwards Should Endorse Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#93)
by BDB on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:37:07 PM EST

Better for him politically and on policy -

The Political

Obama doesn't need him right now. Clinton does. It stands to reason if he endorses her and she wins, he's going to have much more pull in her administration than he will ever have in Obama's.

The Policy

Even if Clinton loses, Edwards has a chance to influence the healthcare debate by endorsing Clinton. Indeed, I think this is where he does her the most good. Obama and his folks have been very good about muddying the water on healthcare, obscuring the fact that most liberal healthcare experts prefer her plan. It is because of his prior criticisms of Clinton that Edwards would have credibility. And by weighing in on Clinton's side in the healthcare debate, even if Clinton doesn't win, Edwards has the opportunity to push Obama towards a better policy.

If he endorses Obama, I think he gets very little. There's no incentive for Obama to chance his healthcare plan then. There's no incentive for Obama to give him very much in exchange for his endorsement. All he gets is a place on the bandwagon. That can be fun, but it's often not very influential.

One More Reason (5.00 / 2) (#95)
by BDB on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:45:08 PM EST

One more reason why Clinton needs him more is that he could attack Obama in ways neither she nor Bill can. One of the things the Obama campaign has done very well is shut down Hillary's ability to attack, mostly because the press hates the Clintons. Now, the press hates John Edwards, too, but he's not a woman and not a former president so making his criticisms illegitimate is more difficult.

Frankly, when I read that article it struck me as a campaign preparing its supporters for a Clinton endorsement. But, of course, I would want to read it that way.

Parent

: Well, me too. I hope you're right. (none / 0) (#146)
by derridog on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:57:58 PM EST

Parent

"Change" not "Chance" (none / 0) (#94)
by BDB on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:38:08 PM EST

You'd think by now I'd have heard the word change enough, I'd spell it right.

Parent

He'll get invitations (none / 0) (#132)
by oldpro on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:39:12 PM EST

to some of the right cocktail parties and dinners...social stigma removed...letter of recommend for his kids to the colleges they want to attend...

Depends on what he wants and from whom he wants it.

Parent

Maybe this lends more strength to my theory... (4.00 / 1) (#17)
by reynwrap582 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:26:01 PM EST

After Obama's meeting with Edwards was 'canceled' right before the Potomac Primary, I had a feeling it was for more reasons than just because there were helicopters flying overhead and crowds. Obama not being able to deal with a crowd? Please.

I don't know the inside story, but when I heard it I had a feeling Obama thought that Edwards might be leaning towards a Hillary endorsement, and that by delaying the meeting, Obama might get Edwards to hold on his decision until after, at least, the Potomac Primaries. If they had met as scheduled and Obama didn't bring enough to the table, Edwards could have pretty much immediately endorsed HRC. Without the meeting, Obama could have acted like he wasn't given a chance to talk it over with Edwards.

If Edwards supports Clinton, (1.00 / 1) (#9)
by SpindleCityDem on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:07:34 PM EST

do you think he will begin his statment by calling her a "Corporate Democrat"? Do you think he will mention how she refused to take tough stands on key issues? How she's too polarizing a figure to win a general election? Do you think he will compliment her record on trade and health care? Do you think he will mention how she was too indebted to insurance and drug companies to bring real change to Washington?

Probably not.. And if he endorses (5.00 / 10) (#10)
by oculus on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:10:54 PM EST

Obama, I doubt he'll mention Rezko, contributions from nuclear energy industry, "present" and pushed the wrong buttons in IL Senate votes either.

Parent

Heh (5.00 / 3) (#11)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:14:07 PM EST

It is like some of these folks have never seen a political campaign before.

Too funny.

Parent

: Obama and his campaign (none / 0) (#96)
by Josey on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:50:09 PM EST

consistently attacked and smeared Edwards directly or indirectly spreading disinformation.
I can see why Edwards would endorse Clinton.

Parent

I hear ya, brother! (none / 0) (#1)
by Steve M on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:45:57 AM EST

Like Edwards said in the New Hampshire debate, you cannot nice these people to death.

If his insiders continue (none / 0) (#2)
by oculus on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:46:09 AM EST

leading their thoughts, his endorsement isn't going to be the earth shaking event many predict, no matter whom he chooses.

Would help in PA (none / 0) (#3)
by jdj on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:50:33 AM EST

edwards endorsement would really help Obama in PA I think.

I sure hope he speaks out (none / 0) (#4)
by athyrio on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:51:51 AM EST

not so much to help either candidate, but to help the stupid Democratic party, find their way out of this mess....we are so gonna lose this GE if this continues...

yes (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by Nasarius on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:59:22 AM EST

After the nominee is determined, I'm sure he will. I noticed in the article that Clinton has effectively promised him a cabinet post (come on, AG), which is reassuring to me. It would, if nothing else, ensure his voice stays relevant.

Parent

: I'd rather he was made (none / 0) (#156)
by Maggie Mae on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 05:07:54 PM EST

Secretary of Labor, as opposed to AG. He'd have more power to help form policy, as it pertains to workers rights.

Parent

Weird timing (none / 0) (#6)
by magster on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:02:29 PM EST

Clinton sure could have used his help 10 days ago. If he had reservations about Obama to the point of endorsing Clinton, he should have tried to prevent this February Obamathon. Now all his endorsement could do is keep things a tie so that the convention is brokered.

Tinfoil hat: Edwards' campaign is only suspended, and his endorsement is a last ditch effort for his own candidacy in a brokered convention.

Actually perfect timing (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by Marvin42 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:19:17 PM EST

Edwards endorsing Clinton soon would be a significant stumble to the whole "Obama momentum/inevitable" story line. Before Potomac primary it would have been buried by the big win, now it will linger for 3 weeks or so.

Parent

: Good point (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by Lena on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:24:41 PM EST

The demographics in the Potomac Primaries weren't going to change, so why endorse HRC in the face of inevitable wins for BO?
Now if he endorses her, it has room to settle in before TX, OH, and PA.

Parent

Maybe it wouldn't have mattered much (none / 0) (#7)
by Cream City on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:06:44 PM EST

in the Potomac primaries?

But it could have a lot of impact in Wisconsin, where he has had quite a following (he appeals to the ol' populist strain still strong here). So maybe that's why this is being leaked now?

Parent

Edwards has always done well in the South (none / 0) (#53)
by andrewwm on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:24:57 PM EST

He would have been a great surrogate for LA and downstate VA. If he'd endorsed before LA and gone down there, it might have actually done a lot of damage to BO.

Parent

Except in 2004 (none / 0) (#119)
by BlueLakeMichigan on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 04:36:10 PM EST

When he didn't help bring any southern states home for the Democrats.

Parent

Dude was running with John Kerry (none / 0) (#126)
by Shawn on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:07:37 PM EST

John Kerry couldn't win a Southern state with Daisy Duke as his running mate.

Parent

: Hahaha (none / 0) (#136)
by BlueLakeMichigan on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:50:51 PM EST

There were a ticket, though. Edwards was ostensibly there to geographically balance it out, and that didn't happen. My thought, now that I think further on the subject, lead me to believe Kerry may have felt Edwards could reach out to Ohio working class and middle class voters. If only they were allowed to vote...

Parent

How (none / 0) (#45)
by tek on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:10:06 PM EST

could he possibly be the candidate in brokered convention?

Anyway, you know Howard Dean has pronounced that a brokered convention would be hard on the party.

Parent

To Clinton (none / 0) (#8)
by Grey on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:06:51 PM EST

If he endorses, I bet he'll go with Clinton. It seems to me that the totality of the comments he's made about Obama and Clinton , taken together with what he's most passionate about - health care and the economy - would lead him to endorse her.

I know that's still against the conventional wisdom, but I think it would actually make more sense.

Bet it's healthcare (none / 0) (#14)
by BernieO on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:21:30 PM EST

Edwards was so committed to universal health care that he has to be really unhappy about Obama's lack of mandates, (except for parents). I would bet he also did not appreciate Obama trying to demonize Hillary on this issue, making it that much harder to achieve universal coverage.

Parent

: And his healthcare advisor (5.00 / 1) (#86)
by BDB on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:26:43 PM EST

was on the Clinton conference call denouncing the Harry & Louise ads. Edwards already had reservations about Obama giving insurance companies a seat at the table, seeing him mimic the industry's anti-reform campaign can't have made him feel better about that.
Frankly, I'll be very disappointed if Edwards endorses Obama. He's used none of the populist rhetoric and he's attacked UHC from the right.
Now, that doesn't mean I think he necessarily endorses Clinton, either. But I think the healthcare stuff is a lot bigger than the lobbyist stuff. Obama has several federal lobbyists working on his campaign, including those who have registered while working on his campaign (now I wonder who they intend on lobbying?) and has lobbyist bundlers. So while I think Edwards cares about PAC/lobbyist issues, I think it's easier for him to say that Obama isn't much better than Clinton on this issue than it is to say that Obama's healthcare weakness doesn't matter.

Parent

I THINK SO TOO--CLINTON (none / 0) (#59)
by felizarte on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:37:27 PM EST

and I think the notion began in So. Carolina after the debate when he had a 20-minute meeting with Clinton. His instincts as a defense lawyer is for the underdog and Hillary has certainly received shabby treatment from the media and other Obama operatives; a feeling of betrayal and perhaps even disrespect from Kerry and other sectors that he thought he had been loyal to.
Perhaps he feels a certain affinity to Hillary's situation (beyong the Healthcare issue) after the Kennedy's whom Bill and Hillary campaigned for when Ted was getting a good fight for the senate from Mitt Romney.

Of course he is a grown man and this is after all politics. But he is still a human being and have feelings, even if candidates are not supposed to show the effects of personal betrayals.

Besides, endorsing Hillary is a significant thing. Endorsing Obama, he would be outshone by the other stars in Obama's firmament.

And if Hillary wins Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania, she will be the nominee and the scene will become altogether different.

Parent

: yeah. It might be personal too. I dont remember (5.00 / 1) (#142)
by derridog on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:44:10 PM EST

who it was (maybe someone here does), but one of the "punditocracy" called Elizabeth Edwards a "ballbuster." Was that Tweety?
I think that John would be fully aware of the misogyny that's out there and it might influence his feelings toward Obama. it certainly has influenced mine.

Parent

Obama is very polarizing (none / 0) (#74)
by Josey on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:02:33 PM EST

among Dems.
His "Harry and Louise" ad against universal health care is deplorable!
He mocked unions as "special interests" and bashed trial lawyers.
McClurkin.

Parent

Obama is very polarizing (none / 0) (#75)
by Josey on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:02:40 PM EST

among Dems.
His "Harry and Louise" ad against universal health care is deplorable!
He mocked unions as "special interests" and bashed trial lawyers.
McClurkin.

Parent

I'm thinking maybe he'd be (none / 0) (#16)
by Firefly4625 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:24:47 PM EST

less torn if (as I've heard) so many of his former staff-people weren't in the anti-Hillary or the Obama camp (including maybe Elizabeth? Or is that just rumor?).

What I mean is, if Edwards' wasn't getting pressure from others close to him maybe he'd be less reticent about endorsing Hillary. Or, maybe that's wishful thinking on my part - it just looks to me that somewhere back a few weeks ago John and Hillary had a meeting of the minds...

Probably accurate (none / 0) (#22)
by Virginian on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:39:12 PM EST

But I think JE is his own man too...whatever decision he makes, I think we can be certain it was his, and wasn't done to make other people happy...

Parent

: Some of the leakage indicates (none / 0) (#37)
by oculus on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:51:27 PM EST

Elizabeth Edwards supports Obama. Maybe just w/i the Edwards's household, but he apparently values her opinion a great deat.

Parent

I read something the other day that was from (none / 0) (#58)
by Angel on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:36:06 PM EST

Elizabeth Edwards. It was an absolute denial that she is in the Obama camp. Apparently there was some report that came out from a "friend" that said she was. But she made a press announcement that she isn't in his camp. Telling to me....

Parent

The Edwards Campaign (none / 0) (#87)
by BDB on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:27:24 PM EST

Has denied that Elizabeth Edwards is anti-Clinton. Not that that means it's true. It is politics.

Parent

Qualification: (none / 0) (#19)
by Claw on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:30:35 PM EST

I don't think anything other than massive wins in TX, etc. will stop the Big Mo stories.

Re the boy in the sombrero: yes, (none / 0) (#30)
by oculus on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:46:40 PM EST

really cute; although I once tried a murder case in which the adorable pre-school aged son of defendant entered the courtroom just as the jury was going out for a break. A juror [Latino grandmother, small grocery store owner] patted the boy on the head. I thought, oh no, she'll vote to acquit. She didn't though.

BTW: to what do you attribute the huge turnout for the HRC rally in TX?

How can the 04 VP candidate (none / 0) (#34)
by oculus on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:48:19 PM EST

be considered by anyone as the "upstart" candidate?

Since your linkage may be deleted, (none / 0) (#35)
by oculus on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:49:52 PM EST

here it is:

WSJ

After Obama's anti-NAFTA speech today (none / 0) (#40)
by maritza on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:55:32 PM EST

I am now firmly in the Obama camp when before I was on the fence.

Controls (none / 0) (#49)
by tek on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:14:44 PM EST

As president, Hillary will control the standards in any trade agreement so they have to be the same as the U. S. standards, hence; no more Chinese junk filled with lead, etc.

The labor standards would have to be the same as well, no cheap labor coming in, no tax breaks for corporations sending jobs out.

That way, we can still reap the benefits of the global market, but not be undermined by lack of safety standards and cheap labor markets in other countries.

Sounds good to me.

Parent

This will definitely (none / 0) (#52)
by SpindleCityDem on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:23:42 PM EST

resonate in Ohio.

Parent

Words, Not Deeds (none / 0) (#110)
by BDB on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:42:16 PM EST

Via what looks like a fairly pro-Obama website in Ohio, here's a post explaining why Obama's attacks on Clinton are misleading and why they have essentially the same trade records.

Parent

: To be clear (none / 0) (#111)
by BDB on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:44:50 PM EST

The link is about a mailer, but the mailer seems to be trying to make the same attack he did in the speech:

This mailing is trying to make it appear that there is differences between Obama and Clinton that historically does not exist. Furthermore, it creates the impression that Obama is against international trade agreements, which is also not accurate. Third, it implies that Clinton has directly called NAFTA a "boon" to the economy when in reality that is how Newsday characterized her position on NAFTA.

Parent

anti-Nafta (none / 0) (#114)
by auntmo on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 04:00:46 PM EST

That's odd. Obama has supported every single free trade legislation so far.

This must mean he has flip-flopped again.

Parent

Too little, too late (none / 0) (#57)
by americanincanada on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:35:46 PM EST

I think a lot of those voters, having listened to him in the past, may consider this too little, too late. Not to mention pandering.

Edwards endorsing Clinton could (none / 0) (#60)
by MarkL on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:38:05 PM EST

help Obama in the GE, should he get the nomination---especially if he attacks Obama from the left on the economy and health care.
It will be a kind of reverse Sister Souljah, inoculating Obama from criticism that he is too liberal.

Hillary's misjudgments? (none / 0) (#71)
by oldpro on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:01:28 PM EST

I heard Carl Bernstein say that Hillary did everything she could think of to talk Bill out of signing NAFTA...that she opposed it...as she did CAFTA.

I wish she'd say that....

SAme here... (none / 0) (#77)
by americanincanada on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:11:59 PM EST

I wish she would too.

Carl has no reason to lie, he hates her.

Parent

oldpro (none / 0) (#82)
by Kathy on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:21:19 PM EST

I don't think it's her way to say bad things about her husband's policy choices while in office. Good marriages are founded on not telling your partner he's an idiot in public. That's what home is for.

Besides, can you imagine how the media would spin it if she said, "I didn't support him and I told him so." They would crucify her. (And, in case you were wondering, only Obama can say he didn't support something years ago without actually having to be on record proving it)

Parent

Kathy (none / 0) (#131)
by oldpro on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:33:27 PM EST

I don't think she has to handle it that way...by "making him look like an idiot in public." And, I don't think it amounts to "saying bad things about her husband's policy choices while in office."

Here's what she could convey: she was a sounding board for Bill as he will be for her...and sometimes they agreed and sometimes they didn't. In the end, in the 90s, Bill was 'the decider!' This time, I'll take his input... but I'll be the president and the president, as GWB says, is 'the decider!'

Perhaps you remember, if you say the debate, when Tim Russert quoted Bill Clinton to Hillary, having an opposite position from hers on (I forget what) and Hillary said something like "Well, I' here and I'm the candidate"...Russert pressed the issue twice and Hillary finally smiled (the patient wife smile!) and said..."Well, I'll talk to him!" (The "when I get him home!" was implied!) It was a funny and charming moment and Russert lost that round of gotcha.

It would be a very positive thing, I think, for Hillary to speak of some of their policy disagreements...they are real and the voters would respond, I think. The press...? Same old. Doubt they could crucify her over it...but they might try! I could be wrong...just my 2 cents.

Parent

: oldpro (5.00 / 1) (#138)
by Kathy on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:31:09 PM EST

I know exactly what you are saying, and if this were a sane world, I would agree. I remember that moment very well with Russert, and how I was thinking, "wtf? Why is he pressing this?"
I still stand by my statement. I think they have lasted this long in public life (together) because they don't openly disagree with each other. Much as my partner doesn't reprimand me for telling puns at parties (I gotta million of 'em!), but when we get home...it's another story.
Think about this headline: "Hillary: Bill Wrong on FISA" and think about what the talk shows and so-called journalists would do to that story. We'll be having folks talking about how she's lying or saying that she doesn't trust his judgment (why else would she question it?), then it'll go from "why didn't she speak up?" to "marriage on the rocks!"
I think she'd rather talk about healthcare and fixing the environment than that crap.
(of course, I could be wrong, but this is just my opinion, and frankly I would rather hear her talk about issues because that's what makes people love her--when they see how brilliant she is)

Parent

I've read that before, and I think maybe she has (none / 0) (#89)
by Angel on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:30:29 PM EST

mentioned it but I can't put my finger on where.

Parent

Nevermind (none / 0) (#80)
by BDB on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:18:01 PM EST

I read an earlier post and misunderstood. I see what you're saying now and I agree with most of it. I do think there's a boiling anger towards the media in our society right now and I think one of the reasons Hillary has been so hard for Obama to shake is she taps into the desire to change that part of Washington.

It's Easier to Fight Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#107)
by BDB on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:18:17 PM EST

For starters, the media has tied both hands behind her back. Every time she attacks him she's either a racist or shrew. And the Clintons do care about their reputations among Democrats and African Americans. Obama has been able to use that and the media bias against her and BIll.

McCain won't give two craps about whether African Americans hate him and the GOP won't mind being called racist. Oh, they'll mind, but it won't stop them. The RNC chair will not be making any trips to Central LA to make amends.

Obama has never run a campaign against a strong GOP candidate. He's very good at taking out Democrats, but they can't smear him the way the GOP can.

And I actually think it's worse not to know how they'll attack. Part of what made Kerry so weak playing defense is that he couldn't believe he needed to, I honestly think he could not believe anyone would buy the smear that he wasn't really a war hero. With Hillary everyone has heard it all before. Hearing she killed VInce Foster again is not going to move her negative ratings. In fact, if her Senate race and this campaign is any indication, her positives go up the more she's on the trail, in part because she's so much better than her media image.

Obama's media image is just a little lower than Jesus's right about now. That's a very long way to fall. And if you can't envision it, then you need to. The Rezko television commercials. The comparisons of McCain's Vietnam record to Obama's present votes. The drug jokes. The underground racist slurs. The feminization, which they successfully did to two war veterans, including a war hero, so I wouldn't be so sure that Harvard Law Review guy can simply laugh it off.

I've read today many Obama supporters mocking John McCain going after Obama on hope (at MyDD) and saying how it will never work. Don't bet on it. McCain has a very powerful personal story, every bit as powerful as Obama's. McCain has spent years in the public and rightly or wrongly a lot of Americans feel they know him and are comfortable with him (I'm not, but I'm a hardcore Dem). McCain is a media darling who gives them access, something that Obama doesn't do and could rapidly cause them to turn on him when compared to McCain. And he has bigger bipartisan reform success than Obama, McCain/Feingold comes to mind.

None of this is to say Obama can't win against McCain, but the easy dismissal that he could not be a formidable opponent or that Obama could not be torn to shreds by November scares the heck out of me. I'm hoping folks are just arguing that because they need to make his electability argument to try to get the nomination and they aren't really blind to the dangers that are ahead if he gets the nomination.

Parent

Tone, Truth & the Democratic Party (5.00 / 2) (#127)
by BarnBabe on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:13:09 PM EST

In Sept 05, Obama wrote a first diary to the DKos community defending the position of Democrats as to why Judge Roberts was affirmed. The community was respectful but they were not looking for any excuses when Democrats voted for Roberts. The Senator came back and wrote a short response diary. He never ever wrote a diary there again. Why not? If bloggers are a media fare too, then why did he not come back especially with such a huge following there. Is this an example of not making himself available to the media? I think so. I also think he is trying to avoid being tagged too liberal. He wants everyone to come together. I don't. Then we become Penguins.
I was for Edwards although I knew all along his chances were slim. I am reminded of Jimmy Carter as a new President who wanted to change the old DC ways and was hope after Nixon. It flopped. He tried to do things but he did not know how to play the game. I respect the man but he has made a better X-President than the days he was in the WH.
Carter was a good man but he did not know how to play the game. I don't think Obama is ready to play that game either. Hope, Change, Vagueness.

Parent

: Obama's game (5.00 / 2) (#139)
by hairspray on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:26:04 PM EST

I believe it is to remain untouchable and vague so as to slide into the WH. He may turn out to be a good president after all, but he is not only getting a free pass, he has engineered one. The GOP will go racial, something the Dems won't do. It is okay to attack Hillary on the gender issue, but not Obama on the race issue. So it has been comfortable for him in the runup to the nomination. And his campaign/supporters have tried to paint the Clintons are racist. Clever game.

Parent

What an excellent post. i agree with every word. (none / 0) (#140)
by derridog on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:34:04 PM EST

Parent

No wrong doing was found (none / 0) (#151)
by my opinion on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:25:01 AM EST

in the endless false conspiracies and investigations by the media and the republicans into Hillary Clinton. Are you going to invent some more? It is easy to do about anybody.

Parent

: Well you answeredmy question. Yes you will (none / 0) (#155)
by my opinion on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:23:31 AM EST

continue to throw out unproven conspiracy theories about Hillary Clinton. Again it is easy to make up unproven conspiracies because it requires proving a negative which is impossible. You can do that all day, but that is fallacious.
The fact that you got all of these from the media that is biased against Hillary Clinton proves my original point.

Parent

Uhm... (none / 0) (#101)
by Kathy on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:05:31 PM EST

I'm hard pressed to find a point in this campaign where Obama struck back directly against Hillary. When he challenged her in the debate, she challenged back and he kept backing down--same as he did with McCain.

Now, if you call sending out dubious mailers that smear her healthcare plan and her husband's presidency, or telling a crowd of 10,000 people that she's polarizing, then I guess you have a point, but those kinds of baseless attacks strike me more as cowardly than proving that you are a winner.

Parent

What a strange argument (none / 0) (#121)
by Kathy on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 04:44:03 PM EST

I did not realize we were in opposing parties. I suppose world domination trumps substance any old day.

Parent

: You are incorrect. (none / 0) (#152)
by my opinion on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:27:43 AM EST

My original post was about media bias.

Parent

i truly wonder why you are posting here. (none / 0) (#141)
by hellothere on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:43:48 PM EST

i am glad you are. it reminds me just how much many of the obama supporters have turned off the regular democratic voters. you know the ones, the older women, the white vote, the average joe. all the ones that ya'll keep telling to get out of your way that is till you need our money and votes.

Parent

: hillary wins a lot of people. (none / 0) (#158)
by hellothere on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 06:11:34 PM EST

the thing some obama supporters receive rather distant sometimes frustrated comments due to the tone that many of us received early on. i wasn't an hillary supporter but was an edwards supporter. i found the tone often to be rude and insulting. i came here to get away from it and not for a yeah hillary blog. a number of us appreciate the nuanced discussions with supporters for both the remaining candidates.
it might be nice for the obama side that is so strong in their support to remember that there are a number of others whose vote will desperately be needed. many of us are quite turned off by the demonizing of hillary.
i for one deeply hope that obama is everything you believe, but i have very real fears that he isn't sorry to say. i just want my country to be put back in shape. please don't give me a obama commercial. i welcome honest discussion, but the commercials are not helpful. thanks

Parent

NAFTA: (none / 0) (#84)
by SpindleCityDem on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:22:13 PM EST

"You know, in the years after her husband signed NAFTA, Sen. Clinton would go around talking about how great it was and how many benefits it would bring," Obama said in Janesville, Wisconsin. "Now that she's running for president, she says we need a time-out on trade. No one knows when this time-out will end -- maybe after the election."

As Is So Often The Case with Obama (5.00 / 2) (#90)
by BDB on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:32:17 PM EST

His actual record on this issue isn't much different from Clinton's.

Parent

Is there any record... (none / 0) (#91)
by Shawn on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:35:16 PM EST

of Obama saying anything against NAFTA before he ran for president?

Not a rhetorical question, btw. I'm honestly curious.

Parent

the problem with Obama's record (5.00 / 2) (#97)
by Kathy on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:51:16 PM EST

is there's not much of one. He straddles just about every issue the same way Michelle did in the infamous, "I'd have to hear her tone" response. Ditto, "the party of ideas." Say one thing in the beginning, then say another at the end.

ex: "I like strawberry ice cream very much," he said. "But then, I think we have to give credit to vanilla, because vanilla is very tasty. And you know, I gave a speech against neapolitan at the convention, and, you know, that was very hard for me, because I really do value all ice cream, and I think we should protect it. "

My daddy always said listen to the first thing out of somebody's mouth, because that's the truth. The rest is either window dressing or backpedaling.

Parent

Shawn (none / 0) (#115)
by auntmo on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 04:04:26 PM EST

No, there isn't.

In fact, he voted for every free trade agreement that has been proposed.

It's only NOW , for the election, that he's saying he's against NAFTA.

Parent

Oh? (none / 0) (#122)
by BlueLakeMichigan on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 04:46:52 PM EST

Like how he voted NO on implementing CAFTA in 2005? Hmmm, good logic. No = Yes? Hmmm...they both voted Nay, I'll grant you that, but out and out lying to try to score political points? Tsk tsk.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&sessio n=1&vote=00170

Parent

Fair Enough (5.00 / 1) (#123)
by BDB on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 04:59:12 PM EST

But you have to admit Obama is trying to make it look like he has a lot different record on NAFTA and free trade than Hillary when the truth is he doesn't. He had opportunities at debates to say whether he would pull out of NAFTA and he said No. His answers were the same as hers.

This is pandering, pure and simple. And it's untruthful pandering at that.

If Obama wants to be seen as different from Clinton on this issue, he could actually take positions different from hers. Crazy, I know.

Parent

BTD (none / 0) (#125)
by auntmo on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:03:28 PM EST

Thank you.

You're right. Obama is pandering, AGAIN.

He told his supporters his plan was universal healthcare. It's NOT.

Lotta pandering on Obama's part.

Parent

But not Clinton's part? (none / 0) (#129)
by BlueLakeMichigan on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:31:56 PM EST

He did say it was universal but now he calls it "affordable health care for all" in his stump speeches.

Parent

: Sorry bad title (none / 0) (#130)
by BlueLakeMichigan on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:32:26 PM EST

I was thinking one thing with the title and went with something else in the body....

Parent

But (none / 0) (#128)
by BlueLakeMichigan on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:28:15 PM EST

I don't see what the conflict is about. I agree with you that their trade records leave MUCH to be desired and are damn near identical. (I have to work overtime to find a difference in their records)

But if he tacks a different way during the campaign, isn't that going to be considered pandering?

I'll give you guys this...Obama did distort on Clinton's support of free trade, which FactCheck tells me she started to change her opinion on in 2005, not 2007. So, in the interest of honesty, I'll say he was not fair on that issue.

Parent

Where is the link? (none / 0) (#88)
by BDB on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:28:18 PM EST

What am I missing?

: Nope. No link. (none / 0) (#145)
by derridog on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:51:27 PM EST

Parent

Got 'er figgured (none / 0) (#92)
by Sunshine on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:36:21 PM EST

The only reason that Edwards is out and Obama is now in the lead is that Obama has a great voice, he would be a great TV anchor. If Edwards had Obama's voice and Obama had Edwards voice, things would be much different.. What we have here is the Presidency being run like American Idol.. If Edwards, now as second runner-up, endorses Hillary, I don't see that it helps that much, her voice is not that great and she doesn't fit the stereotype, have you noticed, Hillary is a woman..

I'm Glad (none / 0) (#108)
by Salt on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:19:18 PM EST

He and Elizabeth should come to Ohio and join the ground team they would be greatly appreciated. And Ohio hearts Edwards and family from 04.

It's a NEWS organization spouting this (none / 0) (#109)
by Kitt on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:19:38 PM EST

Until it comes out of John Edwards' mouth, I'm not speculating on anything.

Power??? (none / 0) (#113)
by auntmo on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:59:14 PM EST

He's not a "power" guy. He focuses on issues that matter to him, and Clinton matches his passion for those issues.

Edwards doesn't think Obama is tough enough to get anything done. That's clearly reflected in the article BTD quoted.

Talk about naive (none / 0) (#120)
by BlueLakeMichigan on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 04:41:52 PM EST

You act like John Edwards doesn't care about achieving power and fame and title. That he's PURELY in politics to advance the issues and nothing else. If Edwards doesn't think Obama's tough enough, that's not just about "getting things done", that's about winning the general against the GOP machine, and that is an argument over who has a better chance of grabbing power. It's not pure altruism.

Parent

Naive??? (none / 0) (#124)
by auntmo on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:01:26 PM EST

I'm not sure you actually read the post I was responding to.

But basically, Edwards thinks Obama is too naive to achieve anything substantial.

He's right.

Parent

Yes (none / 0) (#134)
by BlueLakeMichigan on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:42:59 PM EST

I did read the post. Edwards may think Obama's too naive to achieve anything. I think that's far too cynical. Let's call the whole thing off!

I think he was in the race and still dangles his endorsement over the other two candidates' heads like a fishing hook primarily for the sake of power.

Is the power he wields going to be used for progressive ends? I believe so, but he's still in it for power. It's naive to think he's doing all this for other reasons.

Parent

: Oh scratch that (none / 0) (#135)
by BlueLakeMichigan on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:48:06 PM EST

I'm going nuts, just a bit. I give. You're right.

Parent