UPDATE: Joe Trippi says Obama and Hillary are “beating down the doors” for Edwards' endorsement. I can see Edwards endorsing Obama, or nobody; I would be totally shocked to see it go to Hillary, although there are some policy areas in which they're closer.
—-
So John Edwards is dropping out. Like David, I figured he'd stick around through Feb. 5; I have to wonder if there was a deal involved, most likely with Obama.
It has seemed pretty obvious that those two have more of a simpatico with each other than with Hillary. After 2004, Edwards changed his emphasis and rhetoric pretty drastically, changing from a centrist DLC-type Democrat with an emphasis on class divisions, to being a confrontational populist dead-set against the power of special interests and “corporate greed.” Russ Feingold pointedly enumerated the ways in which Edwards “evolved” over the last few years, and I don't think that's unfair. Edwards had a voting record; he made his bed; and perhaps the the failure of his campaign to catch fire was a consequence. So be it.
So, Edwards' change in language and substance might merely have been a Romney-esque conversion of convenience: Perhaps he was simply following the Zeitgeist, going where he thought the votes were. But I doubted that. David and I talked to Edwards in early 2006, when he was on his “poverty awareness” tour; and he spoke like someone who had had enough of choosing positions strategically, in order to find the most votes. And indeed, even after Katrina, and in spite of Edwards' best efforts, poverty still doesn't capture the imagination of the voting public. For liberals, it seems permanent, intractable, and therefore depressing; and conservatives follow Reagan's example in proclaiming it Someone Else's Problem. Why would Edwards choose this issue if it were mere posing?
Earlier than the other candidates, Edwards staked out ambitious health care and climate plans. He didn't wait for a consensus to emerge that Universal Health Care would be a central Democratic position; one could argue that he created that consensus. I hope he continues to shine light on the central issue plaguing our democracy today, which is the immense power of special interest money in our political system. That power relationship is simply not fully acknowledged by Obama's rhetoric of reconciliation, or Hillary's promise of insider-savvy. The policy proposals were terrific, and influential; but it's the last point that really needs to take hold in the public's consciousness, in order to truly change its expectations of government — what it is, and for whom it works.
Edwards is 54; even if Obama/Hillary do two terms, he'll only be 62 in 2016, so a future run is not out of the question by any means. In the meantime, he's got an opportunity to pull an Al Gore and do something heroic as a private citizen. (I doubt he'd run for his old Senate seat in NC this year.)
Anyway, if an endorsement is forthcoming, I'd have to imagine it will be for Obama. That's where I'm going. Fired up, ready to go.
I agree with Charley. When I parked my car at work this morning, my John Edwards sticker (next to my Thielman sticker) was proclaiming my support for the candidate with concrete, progressive values.
<
p>John Edwards had potential to unite the country – my father (a Goldwater Republican who despises Bush) and I both agreed on the same presidential candidate, no doubt prompted by the abandonment of the principles that defined Northeastern Republicans. He was an appealing guy, who would have given McCain or Romney an incredibly tough race.
<
p>I also agree with Charley on the next step. I don’t know what other Edwards supporters are going to do next week, but I feel myself drawn to voting for Obama.
the two candidates who are really pushing for unity, for the poor, for progressive values, for the middle class, and for a quick end to the war in Iraq are Edwards and Obama.
… I’m kinda depressed about the whole thing.
<
p>Edwards does have some consensus and rhetorical skill. I wish, oh how I wish, he had stayed in Senate and put it to work fighting the Repubs mano-a-mano. I’d bet even money that, had he remained in the Senate, he’d be Majority Leader right now.
<
p>I really don’t see much to get hopeful about with Obama. I don’t particularly care that he thinks the future is so rosy when what we got right now is two pounds of shit in a one pound bag. My hope is in somebody who sees clearly what is what. He doesn’t speak to that: it’s more hope and warm-fuzzies with very little in the way of recognition of the serious serious problems we’re facing. And here’s the scary part: the next president had better strongly address the structural and systemic problems in our democracy or they will only get worse. To my judgment, Obama has not shown me that he is serious nor willfull nor sober-minded enough to do that.
<
p>To be brutally honest: I think Hillary Clinton sucks up a years supply of the beltways Botox just to keep her face from contorting into a hideous grimace of pure rage. She. Is. So. Contained. And that can’t be good. At all. I feel nothing but pity for her…
<
p>Let’s face it, while our candidates are better than the Republicans, they’re still not all that great… And painting lipstick on a pig is such a Republican thing to do…
<
p>
I’m an Edwards supporter, and was expecting to vote for him on Feb 5.
<
p>I also voted for him in 1998 when he ran for Senate, knocking out Lauch Faircloth. I lived in NC until mid 2000, and have had strong ties since [my undergrad university, my brother, my closest friends, and my in-laws are all in different parts of NC].
<
p>He’d have been up in 2004, and if he hadn’t run for president, he’d have lost his Senate seat in the election. The South has trended GOP more and more in national elections, and he just wasn’t that well liked in NC. Remember, Bush did well in NC in 2004 and fightin’ terrah was a huge issue that played well in places like North Carolina.
<
p>So, if my “remained in the Senate” you mean was re-elected, then I doubt it but maybe. But, if by “remained in the Senate” you mean ran for re-election in 2004, I think you’re wrong… I don’t think he’d have been reelected.
Like I said, Edwards has some chops when it comes to rhetoric and persuasion. I’m convinced (and you should be as well, as an Edwards supporter) that had he decided to stay in the Senate, he’d still be in the Senate. (I’m sorry but Erskine Bowles was NOT a good candidate… and Richard Burr is just Barbara Bush in drag.)
<
p>I’ve heard it all before (“No way Edwards can beat Faircloth”, “William Weld will tear Kerry a new one.”, “Democrats for Romney (against TK).” “Schwarzenneger is unelectable.” “Howard Dean is the new jesus.”) and it’s all come to naught.
No offense, but his polling numbers were terrible at the time. I was taking a Campaigns and Elections seminar during the race, so I had to keep track of them… and it was pretty obvious that Edwards was pushing his POTUS quest at the time, probably a little too early, because it was an uphill challenge for him to be reelected in NC.
<
p>Now, that’s not to say he would have lost. However, I think if he both ran for President and ran for reelection, he would have lost both (and probably wouldn’t have been the veep choice).
I do believe, like Charley, that Edwards really means it, really believes in his positions, despite an earlier voting record that was not always consistent with his current values. I regret he dropped out before Feb. 5 and hope to understand his reasons soon.
<
p>Obama is my choice now too. He represents amazing change just by virture of who he is. Ted and Caroline Kennedy’s endorsements made me sit up and take notice too. It seems we may be in the midst of changing history at this moment, when a “skinny kid with a funny name,” who is bi-racial with a Kenyan father and Kansan mother, is a leading and legitimate candidate for POTUS.
I wasn’t huge on Edwards when Kerry picked him for VP. Figured he was a good strategic choice to help in the south, but didn’t really warm up to him that much.
<
p>This time around, I did. I think he went out and got himself a job and a mission after 04. I don’t think he put that much time in on the issue of poverty and such because of political ambition. As noted here, there are other issues that will propel a campaign much more.
<
p>So I’m glad Edwards influenced the agenda. I think he did well by himself (as opposed to Guiliani and Thompson) and hope he finds a niche outside of elected office the way Gore did. And I don’t mind that he’ll have more time to spend with Elizabeth and his family.
<
p>As for the future, I’m leaning Hillary. I think her combined experience as being an active participant in Gubernatorial and Presdidential administrations as well as in the US Senate would serve her well.
<
p>I also think she has a more realistic view of what it would take to pass her agenda when talk of bipartisanship and unity take a back seat to the rough and tumble negotiations of getting bills off the floor of the House and Senate.
<
p>It’s not that I think Obama is unqualified or woudln’t be able to do good. And if he wins the nomination, sign me up for a bumper sticker and a lawn sign. But between the two, I’m going with Hillary. No hard feelings, please.
would it matter to you if Edwards strongly endorsed Obama before next Tuesday?
It wouldn’t even matter to me if I knew Edwards would get a cabinet post or the VP slot under a President Obama.
<
p>If Obama won, I’d be glad if Edwards got an influential slot. (I don’t think he’d be a good VP for Obama, though.)
<
p>It’s not that endorsements don’t matter to me at all. But no, Edwards endorsing Obama does nothing for me.
The longer you watch and listen to them, you get the feeling that they are volcanic and always on the verge of an eruption. There is an intangible that is very unsettling. The physical person that you see bears little resemblance to the magma that is roiling within. Both are famous for explosive outburts of vitriol. Is that what we want in the White House? A time bomb?
<
p>As several have noted. The present election will likely point the direction where this ship of state is headed for a generation.
<
p>National politics has many peaks and valleys. Presidents with the best of intentions have been left on the scrap heap. We’ll soon see where we are headed.
Explosive bursts of vitriol? Like what?
Like this.
Edwards did push the agenda to the left and has been outspoken on universal health and issues dealing with poverty. I thought that Edwards would stay for the long haul to continue to push the platform even thought he didn’t really have a chance to become the nominee. I think that it’s telling that Edwards didn’t go the endorsement route. It is very telling that he didn’t back Hillary or Barack immediately.
<
p>My thoughts are that the union folk will go to Hillary and the changing of the guard supporters will go with Barack.
<
p>But in a lot of ways how could Edwards support either candidate? These are both big money lobbyists candidates. Barack is far to the right to Edwards on health care and Edwards did question a lot of Barack’s waffling of votes during the last debate. The credit card cap comes to mind.
<
p>Personally, I would love to have Edwards to be AG. The first thing I’d do and sit next to one of my R friends and watch his head explode. But honestly, he’d be great in that role, and would still be a POTUS candidate 8 years from now.
<
p>I’d say an endorsement will have a negative impact on his candidacy. Even if he does support Hillary (whom I am voting for).
I was quite surprised to find myself actually really liking Edwards this time around – something I didn’t feel in ’04. He was really the only candidate who spoke to the core problems with America today, while Obama’s made me nuts with his rhetoric and Hillary’s done little to deserve my support.
<
p>So I don’t know what I’ll do, or how I’ll vote. Maybe I’ll say, “to hell with it,” and vote for John Edwards anyway – its too late to get his name off the ballot, I would think. Maybe I’ll write in Al Gore.
<
p>But, I’m sorry, I just can’t get excited to vote for the currently constituted Barack Obama,unless he has a complete 360 in his rhetoric today, or Hillary Clinton… both of whom I view as war hawks, given their funding of the Iraq war (actions speak louder than words).
She’ll get more Edwards voters on Tuesday (maybe not in Mass., but nationally) than Obama will.
<
p>Sorry to see him go.
Do you have poll numbers that show that? I would have thought otherwise, but it would have been pure speculation.
<
p>Personally, I think this is a new wrinkle in the race – with both candidates needing to push to get Edwards supporters. Perhaps they’ll both tone their messages even more toward Edwards supporters… I will say this, unless Obama gets an overwhelming majority of Edwards supporters in his camp, he’s probably not going to be able to defeat Clinton here or across the country.
Polling certainly suggests that they appeal to the same demographic. And, as it turns out, today’s coverage (sorry, can’t find a link, I shoulda bookmarked it) included a poll that found Edwards supporters breaking 50% Clinton, 25% Obama.
<
p>I wouldn’t blame you for discounting a poll that may be flawed or partial or only of lefthanded California voters, but is it really such a stretch that Edwards supporters would break for Clinton? She has been running to the left of Obama pretty consistently for the past several months, and that matters to some people.
I just wanted to know more info. I’m still undecided, but I’m more negative on Obama, so it’ll probably be a write in (Al Gore) or Hillary for me, howsoever I’m moved. Honestly, I’m too busy with my own campaign (I’m a Field Manager for a special election on the same day) to really care too much, now that the only candidate I really liked of the three is gone.
Seems appropriate to me that a guy who always struck me as entirely, 100% phony (see: record vs. mouth) is now holding out for the best offer from the remaining two candidates in exchange for his endorsement.
<
p>Any bets on what he’ll get?
<
p>
which has been “authentic” from end to end as the Uniter not Divider opposed to nation building implemented compassionate conservatism.
Either he made a deal with whoever will benefit most from his dropping out, or he did some math and figured that dropping out now gave him the best shot at being the kingmaker at some future point.
would be better served if he stayed in and accumulated more delegates through ST. he would have been viable in several states…
He might believe that he was pulling too disproportionately from one candidate.
<
p>(That’s a guess – I don’t actually know if it’s mathematically reasonable)