Carl Jeffers, Seattle and LA columnist and political analyst, in an article about the super delegate discussion, points out that Edwards’ endorsement for Clinton makes sense because of health care, toughness and GOP strategy for final election…such an endorsement would boost Clinton even further in TX, OH and PA and turn the tables in the superdelegate discussion.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpo…
The whole superdelegate article is worth the read, but on the Edwards endorsement impact, he specifically stated…
“…I believe it is likely that John Edwards may endorse Hillary Clinton for the nomination over Barack Obama. And if Edwards does so, I believe it would be for three reasons.
“First, I think Edwards may conclude that Clinton is the tougher candidate to both fight in the fall campaign and to fight back against the insurance and oil companies once she were in the White House. Second, I think Edwards may conclude that Hillary’s healthcare plan will come closer to accomplishing his goal of true universal health care that he feels so committed to and passionately about. And third (and this one will not be so openly discussed), Edwards was born in South Carolina and represented North Carolina. I believe he may conclude that there is a hidden issue of race in this campaign and a planned “southern and mid-states strategy” that Republicans and Swift Boat type groups will utilize in the fall campaign that will make it tougher for Obama to actually win versus Hillary’s chances to actually win.
“Finally, I believe that if Edwards is going to do this it will be soon as he knows he has, outside of Iowa, his strongest populist-middle class support in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin to a lesser degree. Consequently, he will want to have his endorsement really make a difference — and with those primaries looming, if he does make this endorsement it would likely be sooner rather than later.
“With the points I made earlier that suggest that not only is Hillary not out of this, but in fact, she may wind up ahead by June in both vote count and delegates, and then you combine that with the possible impact of a John Edwards endorsement were it to occur, then both sides will be switching their positions on how terrible the super delegate structure is. And if in a competitive battle both sides hate it, there may very well be a strong argument for leaving things just the way they are!”
(sorry for not using quote box, everytime I try that my computer erases the whole post)
Most of his supporters have already chosen sides. The SEIU is lining up behind Obama. His endorsement might help in N.C., but given Obama’s dominance in the surrounding states I don’t think it would all that much of a difference. However, given Clinton’s current troubles, it probably would help her more than it would help Obama to get his endorsement.
<
p>The main risk of endorsing is that if he picks eventual loser, then he might miss out on a chance to participate in or influence the next administration. He might conclude it is safer to sit it out, at least until it becomes obvious who is mostly likely to win.
<
p>
and union members don’t necessarily follow their union’s endorsements.
<
p>i noticed how in my state former edwards supporters are still ardent edwards supporters. so if edwards asks their counterparts in TX, OH, and beyond to support so-and-so, that will have a lot more weight than some a counter endorsement by a union that might not even represent them.
means nothing to me, a member. I’m supporting Clinton regardless of what my union wants to do.
However, the SEIU was one of Edwards biggest endorsers so I don’t think it is totally meaningless. I don’t believe that union members will slavishly follow their union’s endorsement any more than I believe that Edwards supporters will follow his endorsement.
The headline implies that the endorsement is a done deal. Until they shake hands in front of the cameras, it isn’t done.
Never heard of Carl Jeffers the political analyst but the idea that Edwards will conclude that Hillary is tougher is somewhat bonkers. Maybe he will – which would say more about Edwards than Obama if you ask me.
<
p>Obama has to date withstood every card the Clinton’s have thrown at him – the race card, gender card, experience card, 120 million smackeroos – all the advantages they had in name and fame going into this thing. I’d say he’s been pretty tough to keep with it.
<
p>And health care is a non-starter because at this point who the heck really cares about plans. They all got plans, they all got minor differences, they all want universal care. Hillary screwed it up the first time around on health care – got beat by an elderly couple called Harry and Louise. How tough was that? I’d say give the new guy a chance to try his luck.
<
p>And if Edwards is gonna do this, what is waiting for? He could have helped her before Wisconsin, which she could use. If she loses big there, which is unclear, it hurts her in Ohio and Texas and she looks weaker making it all the more likely Edwards wouldn’t endorse her.
<
p>And frankly, this so-called hidden issue of race comment and the southern states. Way off base. Look what Obama did in Virginia, a red-state. He won more votes there than all the Republicans combined. He won every demographic. Obama puts states like Virginia in play for us in a way Hillary can’t. Why are the red-state dems abandoning her like the plague, because she is a drag on the ticket and they worry about their own seats.
<
p>Never heard of Carl Jeffers and I think there is a reason why.
I’d say the Edwards endorsement is still up in the air despite what the sage Carl Jeffers seems to hope for.
<
p>