John Edwards, populist hero with a proven record of connecting with white working class voters has vouched for Barack Obama.

if he's such a populist hero, how come he's not the one still campaigning? having lost two presidential elections in a row, i think edwards has proven, very effectively, just how little support he has, with any class, working or otherwise.

having endorsed sen. obama, he now displays a complete detachment from reality. wonder what the wife, who publicly supports sen. clinton's proposed healthcare plan, had to say to him about that?

Secondly it would be to risky for him, for should he go to Kentucky and still get his butt handed to him it would really end up hurting him.

He may send Edwards, if Edwards is going to go beyond the endorsement, but if Edwards does he will have to praise Clinton the same as he did today and he would come close to canceling himself out of helping at all.

For Edwards I suppose it could be a lowering a stature, i.e. proof he's not influential.

For Obama? That even with help his problem with certain demographics is solid as ever.

So what kind of movement would we need to say that this endorsement has made an impact? How much movement would be needed in the polls to avoid a loss of this bet?

Though if this now makes Kentucky a test, so be it. I'm sure Hillary would love nothing better.

In 2004, Bush/Cheney beat Kerry/Edwards 59.55% to 39.69%.

Since them Edwards has all but faded from the picture (for reasons that should be discussed).

So after she wins KY by 20+ something, will they bring out Gore?

Bring out Gore before Puerto Rico?

They can gring out all these Dems  - but the one thing they cannot do is fool the voters.

They can have their little wankfests and hakas'til the cows come home.....this just strengthens the resolve of the Clinton voters and pushes them away.

He is not the most respected Dem.

There are quite a few others I respect a good deal more than Edwards. Some of them are even alive.

It's like Obama supporters telling women...we'll get over it and vote for him in November.

No we won't...get over it OR vote for him.

I can think of very, very few things I've heard from Obama, his supporters, or his detractors that make me think he would make a good POTUS. I find him and the talk about him to be mostly hot air.

Also, it feels like a betrayal - I supported Edwards before he dropped out... after he did, Hillary came closest to his positions on the things that matter to me (health care, economy). It feels like he betrayed Elizabeth in her passion for universal health care...

And it feels like he betrayed Hillary... all to jump on the Obama bandwagon...

After viewing tonight's endorsement by Edwards, and then reading through the comments thread (#3) below, I feel compelled to offer a few words and ask a simple question. And I ask you to hear me out, and thank you for doing so given I'm currently in "hostile" territory and doing it in the comment thread (which I realize may not be appropriate, but unfortunately in the heat of this moment while watching the kids, I wasn't able to figure out how to post a "diary.")

I have often been puzzled by the deep anger felt by Clinton supporters for Obama, a tremendous candidate, in my opinion, who comes not without his warts. And this coming from a 33-year-old husband with two young girls who talks with his white, middle-class mother on a daily basis about the race (who is as strong a Hillary supporter as there is, and a regular reader of this site.)

We have discussed at length the flaws of both, the impressive positives that each bring, and always butt heads over who is more "electable." And yet, she is always angry by the time we finish talking. And I did not fully understand this anger, particularly given my own disappointments with the Clinton campaign and some of its let's-play-into-the-fear-of-voters tactics cooked up by Penn (who we all, I think, can agree to dislike). And to be honest, I'm not sure I fully do understand the hostility. However, reading through the comments, I recognized the anger expressed well, not because I agreed with the sentiments, but because I have, over the course of this campaign, directed equally passionate rage against Clinton. Look, do I like her lobbyist stance? No. Do I like her hawkish foreign policy stance on Iran? No. But I won't go on, particularly because I realized, listening tonight to Edwards, that for all the reasons I wouldn't vote for Clinton in this primary, the reasons I WOULD vote for her were she in the general election outweigh any misgivings I have about her when compared to McCain. Because on the issues, they are very, very similar.

And so I ask: when Obama officially wins the nomination (if indeed he does), will you sit out perhaps the most important election of my generation? If Obama wins, will you stand on the sidelines and watch a McCain campaign run on a platform of continued war in Iraq and continued corporate tax-breaks?

And if so, how? If the tables were turned (and there were many moments I saw them turning), I would never have said, "I'll sit it out if Clinton wins."

Watching Obama now throw out policy after policy in a rag tag approach seems truly pathetic and rather desperate.  

So, why did all the education, creativity and income not demand anything of this man?  Why did it take the "alleged racist" low income uneducated voters to do that?  

If Obama wins in November, and he may not, I'm betting he will be a failure... like Jimmy Carter was.

Then who can they bring out after PR?

Carter?

What they don't get is that this just strengthens the resolve of the Clinton supporters.

Oh and how about the BOOS when Edwards said nice things about Hillary?

I'm just dumbfounded.

Fired up my Monster again and looking for jobs in Canada. Really just fed up now.

That's funny.

Edwards knew the results he wanted to create, but he never connected because he never hatched a feasible "Theory of Change" explaining how to get us there. He just rattled on about lobbyists and such.

Now he's endorsed Obama, who spouts the very same Theory of Change - prattling about lobbyists - which is to say, no Theory at all.

I can't imagine how tired she must be and to know your lovely daughter is in the trenches with you....

Terry McAuliffe, the Clinton campaign chairman, responded to the endorsement: "We respect John Edwards," he said in a statement, "but as the voters of West Virginia showed last night, this thing is far from over."

But I do wonder slightly if Obama is getting pressure to perform in Kentucky.  There might at least be two influential voices in the DNC who realize what's happening, who know this guy isn't going to win, who think he has to PROVE he can win, who are actually listening to core Democrats.  And they're saying, "do something Obama, or else".  And what does he do? He asks Uncle Johnny Edwards to save him. ;-)

I have every confidence that this endorsement will be as good as the Kennedy clan endorsement.  (as in, it will mean nada.)  Obama isn't fooling real voters.  His strengths are far behind what is necessary to win the presidency, or if he gets a win, to govern.  People know that their lives aren't a game -- even if the DNC only knows that it would be cool to have the MLK incarnate give the nomination speech on "MLK I have a dream" day.  Now they'll get that, but I don't think many people will be impressed.

The voters had been told that was over - and they showed up anyway - and kicked his arse up one side of the stree and down the other - didn't even win one county-and no dempographic except maybe the small AA vote.

Who thinks John Edwards will make one bit of difference in KY - show of hands please.  Are they trying to suppress the vote again, like they tried to do in W Va?

Regardless of who gained the nomination there are some people who would have refused to vote for the winner in the GE. Gender, race, and age differences trump politics for some. There are always some people determined to punish the nation for failing to nominate their candidate. I am seeing a lot of that here just now.

I also understand that after 8 years of the Bush Presidency there are some people who believe what this country needs most is another Republican in the White House. I suspect most of those are Republicans.

Think about it - everyone knew Obama was going to win NC, but after PA it started to get closer.  The Obama campaign was confident they'd still win NC (as BTD says, the demographics were there), so they kept Edwards in pocket for a rainy day.

CNN: this makes John Edwards relevant (hubris).  PN could not deliver the Cath vote.  Begala: One man, one nam, the man on the panel questions that this sounds like sexism.  Woman: must have been tough for Edwards listening to crowd for Obama. Q? except for Booing Clinton, has healing begun? No.  People are emotional want it to play out.

Fox: other political coverage (a professor pushing a 'racism against Obama' meme?)  Fox is going to go after Obama and is not going to tolerate being called racist for it. duh.

For the most part, this has knocked Clinton out of the news, but no party unity and Kentucky is now a contest.  (Let's be real, he could lose by 20 pts and the media will spin it for him as something he needs to work on for the GE)

The question for many people not in the tank for Obama will be whether or not Edwards can help stop the blood letting in these states.

These Dem weasels keep trying to stifle the voters.

If there is one thing that Obama's humiliating loss in W Va showed, it was that the voters want to have a voice.

And they will have a voice.

They were told all week it was over - and when they got their chance to vote they delivered a message.  Methinks Ky will do the same.  Thought now it will be a two-for-one blow.  A slap on Edwards and a slap for Obama.

Maybe even a three for one blow - a slap for the Dem establishment.