Not at all surprising. I think the Edwardses were legitimately torn between the two candidates, but now they're adding one more voice to the wrap-it-up sentiment. One wonders if agenda-favors were promised by Obama — a special emphasis on poverty, a cabinet position, that kind of thing.
I hope so. Edwards played a hugely constructive role in this campaign on the policy side; realizing, perhaps earlier than the other candidates, that a strategy of stark departure from the Republicans was going to be a winner — not to mention downright necessary. It would be great to see him as part of an Obama administration, though I could imagine the Edwards' staying as public gadflies on poverty and health care.
Anyway, I think it's a fine choice.
Please share widely!
did a fine job of killing any talk on the news stations about Hillary’s win in West Virgina.
helped Obama keep Hillary away from 70%… in a week we’ll see what Obama’s media people will have up their sleeves to push his massive defeat in Kentucky out of the conversations of the chattering class.
What else is there?
Mm-Hmm.
Policy — you’d think it wouldn’t be such a stretch for Obama to embrace Edwards’ clear thinking on the economics of class and poverty.
<
p>Politics — Edwards, like Dean, was to some degree victimized by the DLC-think that has torpedoed our chances in several cycles, and which Clinton’s campaign (despite the public demotion of Mark Penn) has apparently not rejected, as her candidacy becomes more toxic by the week. Between the gas-tax pandering and the thinly-veiled race-baiting, at this point superdelegates should be stampeding the exits.
smells like a serious case!
who also thinks the Clintons murdered Vince Foster.
“DLC-think that has torpedoed our chances in several cycles”
<
p>Really? Last I checked former DLC chairman Bill Clinton has been our only successful nominee in my lifetime. No wonder his own wife hasn’t rejected the mentality. Evidence suggests it is a winner.
The triangulatory style of President Clinton made it harder and harder to describe why one would vote for Democrats. Yes, it can be successful for a highly skilled politician like Clinton but has failed at building the Democratic brand.
with the outrageous ossification of the Democratic Party, continuing to defend manifest failures like AFDC, along with its outrageous sense of self-entitlement and corruption. Remember the check cashing? Remember the then speaker, Rostenkowski?
<
p>Congressional Democrats have only themselves to blame for 1994. They spent the entire 1980s saying that “Well, Reagan may kick our asses from Maine to California and back again, but we will always own the Congress” and then they acted accordingly, and paid the appropriate price.
<
p>I never cease to be amazed by the ability of the Democratic Party to vilify their only legitimately successful national politician since Color TV and stereophonic audio were a techological wonders.
<
p>Republicans, over the last few years, decided that they are most successful when they cater to the most conservative base of their party. For putting this idea into practice, they are about to have one of the worst elections in their history. Reagan knew this, and placated, but never totally satisfied , the far right.
<
p>If Democrats decide that their failures are because they just aren’t liberal enough, then they will be rightfully trounced. A successful Democratic politician will placate, but never satisfy, progressives.
<
p>If progressives are ever happy, then you can be sure as God made little apples that the next election will be a resounding success for Republicans.
sure, most people actually supported the ban… but weren’t motivated to go to the polls because of it, or to support their particular Congresscritter because of it.
<
p>However, those who opposed the ban did turn out to vote out anybody who supported it. The minority was both vocal and active, and the Democrats failed to see that wave of frustration coming.
<
p>Was that the only reason? Of course not. But, I do think it played a big role. Check out where the GOP made gains, courtesy of wikipedia:
<
p>
<
p>light blue: 1-2 seat Dem gain
light red: 1-2 seat GOP gain
medium red: 3-5 seat GOP gain
dark red: 6 GOP seat gain
I’ll grant some ossification, yes, but the triangulating strategy has been religiously practiced by the Democratic leadership every election after 1994 with the weakest of results.
<
p>One might add that Clinton was helped along by Ross Perot in 1992 and by the Bob Dole not being the best of candidates.
<
p>Two other points about not being liberal enough:
<
p>(1) The biggest complaint about Democrats is that they don’t stand for anything. That’s a direct result of the triangulatory misadventure. Fear of being “too liberal” leads Democrats to be obfuscatory.
<
p>(2) While “liberal” is a decidedly unpopular label, surprisingly, “progressive” is popular. Go figure.
<
p>Finally, on catering to the far right: The Republicans are not failing because of bad political choices. They are failing because of bad policy choices. It is a testament to how well they do politics that they won the Presidency and picked up Senate seats in 2004.
kinda like too many women i know making sour faces at being called a feminist, but they’re all 100% for women’s rights. the terms mean the same thing, but each is somehow associated with a certain time, place or personage.
That one puzzles me, too.
I think thats the biggest complaint about Democrats from the left wing.
<
p>The problem, post 1994, is that the Democrats ran very shitty candidates, at least in Presdidential contests. Despite how much all of you love post-political Al Gore, he was a terrible, terrible candidate topping the ticket. Earth tones. The re-re-re-reinvention of Al Gore. [SIGH!!] Kerry may have been even worse. “some kind of test” before responding to viloent provocation. Ugh. Both somehow didn’t notice that negative attacks were killing them and they needed to respond.
<
p>As for the Congress, once it turns over, I think it stays turned over until the party in control does something to lose it; see 2002-2006.
<
p>Triangulation seems to mean when a pragmatic, non-ideological candidate abandons policies that are sacred and untouchable to some left-wing special interest because that sacred policy is (i)obviously bad policy and (ii) because that bad policy kills in the general electorate, and the interest group screams. Clinton on crime. Welfare Reform. There is a reason that these issues have disappeared from politics.
<
p>A new non-ideological Democrat could (will, eventually) reform education by breaking with the teachers unions on choice and/or vouchers. As with welfare, the longer it takes, the bigger the break will be.
<
p>Likewise, if Dems kill Republcians for a few cycles on healthcare, the workable policy will finally come from a Republican breaking with his/her party special interests, but can still be trusted not to nationalize or socialize American medicine.
Some things the market is great for. Some things it’s terrible at. And yes, yes, liberals don’t seem to understand economics as well as one would like.*
<
p>Making education more private and keeping health care private are not winning ideas — even if one can savor how non-ideological they might be.
*Conservatives aren’t much better: supply-side economics anyone?
economics is not yet a science. It’s a big guessing game, a misty continent lying somewhere between the oceans Math and English, floating on a shifting magma of Law, Policy and Greed. Someday it will be properly charted. But for now, it’s just an unfinished sketch with plump little cherubs drawn at the corners.
If the philosophy behind your healthcare position is either (i) that the market can fix everything perfectly, and the solution to the healthcare problem is therefore to free the market by privatizing and de-regulating in in toto; or (ii) healthcare is a basic human right such as the right to free speech and can therefore never be subject to markets or corporations, which are by nature unfair, evil, and an abuse of everything that is dear and good and beautiful in human civilization; then the position is purely ideological, and any policy based thereon will come to woe.
<
p>I don’t trust Republicans at present to make health care policy; any policy based purely on their ideological position would benefit only the very few.
<
p>I don’t trust the Democrats on this, either; any policy based purely on their ideology would attempt to benefit 100.00% of 350M people, plus illegal aliens, and would do little except create a new natural Democratic constituency of government bureaucrats, and leave the rest of us groaning under the tax burden while we hope to see the specialist next month.
<
p>In my view, workable, working solutions come when one side breaks from its ideological moorings and says to the other: “You’re right. X is, in fact, a problem. {Cue screaming in his/her base} But you’re solution of Y goes too far; let’s try Z”
<
p>Hence, Bill: Gee, AFDC is rife with abuse and does create perverse incentives to have more children rather than work. That is, indeed, a problem. {Cue the screeching on the left.} But the pure Republican solution of abolishing the system and relying solely on private charity goes a little too far, let’s try something else. “Only Nixon could go to China” is an example in a different context.
<
p>Note that in for to acheive long germ success, the ideological break on one side is met by a similar departure on the other.
<
p>Therefore, I think that a workable long-term health care policy will come from the Republicans, not the Democrats, but only after they get their heads beaten in on it for a few cycles, as Dems once did with welfare abuse.
<
p>To the extent that the current political weather allows Democrats in the next Congress to sweep in a policy without regard to Republican input (because of the few Republicans left standing), the resulting policy is likely to be an expensive, extensive, unworkable mess.
<
p>
… ever be the case that the creation of a constituency be the deciding factor in evaluation of legislation.
<
p>”…do little except create a new natural Democratic constituency…”
<
p>”…groaning under the tax burden…” Thats a legitimate concern.
<
p>”…creation of beaurocrats…? That too is a legitimate concern.
<
p>That people might thank one particular party… thats only a concern if they are being misled. Otherwise, thats the system. Can’t complain because one party gets the credit.
<
p>”Therefore, I think that a workable long-term health care policy will come from the Republicans, not the Democrats, but only after they get their heads beaten in on it for a few cycles, as Dems once did with welfare abuse.”
<
p>I agree about needing to consider very carfully what the extremes might result in, but such considerations must focus on the results, and not that the particulars about the solution can be (and often are by the opposition) described as extreem. Don’t fall into the trap of believing that something is “extreme” just because of conventional wisdom. If that ‘extreme’ option gets you where you want to be, then it is worthy of consideration and the label is misapplied.
<
p>As such, I consider that any workable solution will probably come from the Democrats because the conventional wisdom (however debatable) of the marketplace being the preferred mechanism combined with the conventional wisdom (again debatable) that markets work best when regulations err on the side of non-interference pretty much gets you where you are now. That pretty much means you have to buck conventional wisdom to get anywhere useful. The relative success and satisfaction rates of the system’s of other countries never seems to penetrate the ‘conventional wisdom’.
<
p>Simply put, what is needed is change and the GOP is a slave to it’s ‘conventional wisdoms’. I don’t see change coming from there. In fact, if individual GOP members proposed workable solutions with the needed changes, you’d almost have to say axiomatically that they are bucking their party’s values.
Um, doing things for the interest groups is almost the opposite of doing things based on ideology. One shouldn’t allow one’s cynicism about the one and one’s cynicism about the other to lead one to conflate the two.
Special interests just settle in accordance with where their bread is buttered. And then there is a self-reinforcing cycle.
<
p>Democrats generally support trade unions, Republicans do not. The teachers’ unions therefore support Dems, AND their own brand of education “reform” (i.e., no education reform, more money for education). Shocking, then, that elected Democrats favor education “reform” that tends to directly gore the ox of urban parents, who not-coincidentally are a less-well-organized constituency.
<
p>Are the Democrats really upholding the rights of labor to collectively organize, blah, blah, blah? No, they do what they’re told, and paint the resulting policy with pro-union makeup to sell it to the Teamstersand AFL-CIO.
<
p>Republicans tend to be anti-regulation, regardless of whether the regulation works or not. So if your business interests are thwarted by regulation, you are doubtless an ardent and contributing Republican. Once your business is big enough that regulation is just a barrier to entry to competitors, then you see why those regs are so helpful after all, and switch sides.
<
p>The thing is, when we’re starting off on making new policy with the pap spewed by the wings of the parties: “Only the market will save us” “Corporations are evil!” “Health care is a civil right, kind of like the right to trial by jury.” what we get is junk, for GIGO reasons.
<
p>To wit: I don’t want a new healthcare policy made by someone who thinks corporations and the profit motive are evil. Or wallow in bitterness about “corporatist” conspiracies, etc. while waxing rhapsodic about the greatness of Cuba or Hugo Chavez. I also don’t want policy made by people who think that the market is all we need, and don’t give a crap about those that are ill-served by the market. Or people who have to cater to these folks.
<
p>In other words, I want policy made by post-ideological politicians. Republcians who value the market, but aknowledge that it doesn’t fix everything, and that something additional is needed, and therefore break ranks on a regulatory issue. Democrats who acknowledge that the market is, historically, better than government at solving most problems, and probably ought to be harnessed rather than opposed.
<
p>The policy crafted by these people is likely to make AnnEM furious and gary grumble, and that is not necessarily a bad thing.
<
p>I accept that John Edwards endorsement is sincere. But????
<
p>There is still a contest going on. Yes, we have two fine candidates. But as Congressman John Tierney said, this race is energizing the electorate and both camps are demonstrating tremendous “enthusiasm.”
<
p>The ultimate prize is the Oval Office, but I for one think Hillary is the best candidate for the nomination! We will unite. But Obama can’t just spin Hillary away.
<
p>Hillary can win it!
<
p>
i’m starting to wonder how much of these final weeks has been somewhat choriographed by mutual consent. i guess we’ll know all in a few weeks.
Wouldnt he (Edwards) be the logical choice for VP, championing the populist message that Clinton is lately pandering to.
That the crowd that Obama cant get connected with for some reason. If those people are finiding the new populist Hillary believable imagine if they got to ride with an actual populist ..
and little to no state-level experience? i don’t think that will fly.
it is a major reason lots of clinton supporters give for choosing her.
One my main reasons for picking Clinton over Obama (after my first choice, Edwards, left) was the time she has spent in Washington.
<
p>Disagree with me if you want, but I felt her eight years inside the White House, her time in the Senate and her demeanor made her more suited to step in and be able to trade elbows with Congress.
<
p>Call me cynical, but I don’t think the tone is going to change in Washington. And it’s not the tone that keeps things from getting done. It’s the strongly help beliefs people have about their positions.
I’ll take the inexperienced rookie over the proven sell out anytime. There are all kinds of experiences.
Some of the most experienced people around can likely be found in the state correctional facilities 🙂
This would create a pretty balamced ticket on some counts. But they are both from the South sort of, Arkansas and North Carolina.
<
p>A Clinton/Obama team makes more sense.
<
p>
He’d probably be a bigger help in the cabinet.
For some reason, as things stand, McCain will wind up with the blue collar vote.
There arent a whole lot of people left in the democratic party that can still connect with them. Edwards does, and he has gotten far better at it then he was in 2004.
As an aside Obama is having major problems in rural areas. Whoever he picks as a veep can not be viewed as urban. Again Edwards fits.
Then there is goegraphy but I think of the three that is the least improtant factor.
<
p>
not to trust what politicians say. I mean, didn’t he just announce that he wasn’t going to endorse? And this a little while after he announced that he was staying in the race all the way to the convention (a couple of days before he “suspended” his campaign).
<
p>If you’re going to endorse, why pretend that you’re not going to, to the point of actually saying it? There’s coy, and then there’s just making sh*t up. Honest to crikey.
The only claim of not endorsing a candidates comes at the end of the article “Bottom line: the couple said they will not endorse either remaining candidate, saving their political capital for their own causes – his, fighting poverty; hers, fighting for universal health care.”
<
p>I don’t where that summary comes from but it was clearly wrong. This interview was the day before the NC primary, so they could have been saying no endorsement before the primary. The day after the primary, I saw Edwards on TV saying that he voted for someone in the primary and it was very likely that he would endorse that candidate.
Or did he ask People to, at least online? If so, I haven’t heard of it.
Edwards didn’t say he wouldn’t endorse. Ee said he wouldn’t endorse until the race was over.
<
p>(Hint, hint.)
This was an endorsement to wrap this up, but no need to be impatient. That being said, I could easily see Edwards heading Labor, HHS, or Justice.
…Li’l Johnny would be endorsing her.
<
p>What a tool.
I can see through you “Georgie” just as well as you see through Edwards.
I know it’s late, but try to be cogent.
You are saying, mindreader that you are, that Senator Edwards is endorsing Senator Obama solely because Obama is ahead. With your powerful predictive abilities you are also suggesting that Senator Edwards would endorse Senator Clinton if she were ahead.
<
p>Claims to such powerful mindreading and predictive abilities are typically full of s***.
I’ll stand foursquare by my comment, thank you.
I don’t claim to read minds, but remark the obvious.
<
p>And I’ve more or less deciphered the remaining incoherence. For the record, “geo999” is not short for George, Georgie, Georgia, Georgina, or 999 cheap cars.
<
p>I’ll not indulge you any further on that.
…this John Edwards is. After weeks of equivocating, he jumps on the Obama bandwagon.
<
p>Frankly, does anyone really care what he thinks?
i would be so disgusted at his promise-breaking opportunism if i were them that i’m not sure i’d care which way he had jumped.
…but I still am undecided myself.
http://demconwatch.blogspot.co…
Is he serious? The biggest dissapointment of this election cycle (and last) waits until the closely fought contest is fully decided and then jumps in and thinks it matters??? This is precisely the character we saw in ’04 when he refused to be a pit bull for Kerry and stood by silently as the Swiftboating continued for months. You want people to take you seriously Mr. Edwards? Then why not make your selection when you limped out of the race. Or if not then at least before the North Carolina vote when the door of this campaign was still slightly ajar. Your big endorsement yesterday shows nothing more than a continuation of your political cowardness and quite frankly was disrespectful to Sen. Clinton if you didn’t have the guts to do it when it might have mattered.
he could have decided the race was over and didn’t like the message coming out of WV.
<
p>This is what his former aides say about his thinking, I hear.
I wonder if the ‘lady in the pansuit will sing’ at the American Idol finale?
Can we get some kind of guaranty that they will spend the next four years with duct-taped mouths?
<
p>Easily as grating as the Bush-as-Saviour crowd, 1999-2001.
Could you please define Obamaton? Are all Obama supporters Obamatons? And could you please explain how name-calling is helping?
Are Obama supporters who endlessly quote right-wing attacks on Senator CLinton: She’d do ANYTHING to be elected! Vince Foster! No scruples!; look for and find racism under every rock, and then accuse ther Clinton campaign of being crypto Republcians every time they say boo.
<
p>In short, the supporters who have a net negative impact on the campaign.
The only people I see mentioning the Vince Foster thing are Clinton supporters, i.e., it’s one of those genearic complaints you throw out.
<
p>I also haven’t seen any “right-wing” attacks from Obama people here against HRC. But as I have pointed out, HRC has famoulsy argued that only she and John McCain, a rignt-winger if ever there was one, are qualified for the office of president.
<
p>Projection ain’t just a job at a movie theater.
Evidence A
Classic Obamatron syndrome
<
p>Evidence B
Samantha Power calls Hillary a “Monster”.
<
p>We haven’t seen many Clinton-supporters formally representing the Clinton campaign rant about lapel pins, have we?
Here’s another question:
Since Obama’s been raising the most money, I think that one has to ask where the money’s coming from. The claims that Obama’s not taking PAC money sound bogus to me. Also, the Hillary- bashing got out of control a long time ago. It’s in people’s power to stop it. Hillary’s dropping out of the race isn’t the answer. Granted, she’s been acting like a character from heaven-knows-where, and McCain is too dangerous and unstable (witness his legendary temper that he doesn’t keep under wraps very well, and his points of views on many issues such as reproductive rights, etc.) to be trusted at the buttom, but, quite frankly, there’s something about Obama that I really don’t like or trust either; I think his charisma is totally fake, and all his talk about change, hope, unity and inclusion kind of ring hollow, imo.
I really don’t think that it will come under any of the three Presidential candidates that we now have. McCain and Clinton would not make good presidents, and would furthur divide the country. I think that Obama would also. For a good long time, this country was divided by the good guys vs. the bad guys strategy, and I think that this would also occur under Obama; the Democratic Party consisting of minorities and better-educated, weathier whites, while the Republican party would consist of the whites that some people call “white trash” or “peckerwood trash” and the demagogic richer whites who wish to exploit white workingclass bitterness and pit the different classes and races against each other. This particular scenario, imo, is not a good thing. A big part of the Democratic failure has been because so many workingclass whites deserted the party in droves because their concerns and points weren’t addressed by many of the Democrats. Don’t get me wrong–there are lots of good, liberal democrats that I consistantly vote for because I like their positions and agree with them. However, imo, unless the Democratic Party finds a way to re-engage the white workingclass, it will continue to not succeed.
<
p>All that aside, however, I think that an Obama-Edwards ticket might go along way towards achieving that end and bringing many white workingclass ethnics back to the Democratic Party, but who knows?
<
p>Here’s another question: What would become of the arts in this country with a Barack Obama Presidency? I know this sounds wierd, and petty, but would the great, good venerable golden oldie-but-goody classic films quickly disappear into the dustbin of history because so many people, seeing them as dated or stereotyping all minorities and poor whites as being in gangs, or low on the totem pole of society, wouldn’t want them around anymore, and wouldn’t want them shown in movie theatres? Yet, under a McCain or Hillary Clinton Presidency, I see a continued ownership of the media by many corporations continuing, also making that possible.
Filings with the FEC show Obama has a massive base of donors with the avg. donation being under $100. Most of his donations come in under $50.
<
p>
<
p>Your arts question is interesting. All I can say to that is Ken Burns has endorsed him
“the Edwardses” didn’t endorse Obama. Elizabeth Edwards, who commands a great deal of respect in her own right, has made it clear that she is not endorsing Obama. I’ve also seen several news reports that she much prefers Hillary’s health care plan.
<
p>As for the nastiness towards Hillary, it only makes people madder to see Obama supporters deny it exists, or try to frame it as “both sides do it.” Go to the comment section of any of the most widely read blogs, like HuffPo, TPM, Washington Note, Kos, etc. They are cesspools of Hillary hatred. Comment after comment referring to her as “the monster,” “the bitch,” and a hundred even viler names; talking about her real motivations as if people are mind readers; accusing her of willingly undermining the Dems’ chances in November so she can run in 2012. She didn’t say a word about the Rev. Wright issue until more than a week had passed, she never ran an ad with Rev. Wright in it, and only ever made a couple of comments on the issue, yet Obama supporters routinely refer to her pushing the Wright issue. It’s much easier to blame her than to face how badly Obama screwed up on handling it.
<
p>Television pundits routinely say things like “when I hear her voice I cross my legs.” Imagine if they said “when I see Obama I worry that I’ll be carjacked.” The studio would be burned to the ground.
<
p>I really don’t think a lot of Obama supporters understand what a challenge he faces within his own party.
Is she a fighter or a victim? This cake and eat it too thing is wack, yo!
<
p>Start thinking about McSame, that is the task at hand.
<
p>Hillary knows this:
<
p>Clinton defends Obama from Bush