Well, maybe not “all.” But they did tell People (to the great annoyance of the rest of the MSM) that:
they will not endorse either remaining candidate, saving their political capital for their own causes – his, fighting poverty; hers, fighting for universal health care.
They also went into some detail about what they liked and didn’t like about each candidate:
Mrs. Edwards didn’t hesitate: “I like Hillary’s health care plan.”
What doesn’t she like about the senator from New York and former first lady? “The lobbyist money,” she adds.
On Obama, she says: “The fact that he has motivated so many young people to be involved, I think is fantastic.”
But, she adds: “I don’t like his health care plan or his advertising on health care, which I think is misleading.” …
[John said] “I like something different about Hillary. I think her tenacity shows a real strength that’s inside her.”
What doesn’t he like about Clinton? “Um, still a lot of the old politics,” John Edwards said.
As for Obama, he says: “Sometimes I want to see more substance under the rhetoric.”
But he cited two things he likes about the charismatic young senator from Illinois: “One is, I think he really does want to bring about serious change and a different way of doing things. And secondly, I think it’s a great symbolic thing to have an African-American who could be president.”
And here’s the best line, immediately following John’s “symbolic thing” comment:
At that, Mrs. Edwards rolled her eyes and, gripping the arms of her kitchen chair with some exaggeration, seemed about to lunge from her seat. “What about the great symbolic thing about a woman …”
“It’s important. It’s important,” her husband said. “I know it.”
Insert your own punch line here.
The “msm” is often accused of creating of focusing on simplified narratives that they almost create out of whole cloth and then repeat until the American public swallows them whole.
<
p>And yet the Edwards, who are anything but naive about candidates or the information available about them, don’t seem to have a lot of different feelings.
<
p>Should they be criticized for not finding the substance available about Obama’s plans?
<
p>Should they think twice about Hillary’s integrity?
<
p>Or are they now to be considered “compromised”? Simply two more American folk who have fallen for whatever the media peddles?
<
p>Rather than being annoyed with this, I think the msm actually could find some validation in this, much to the annoyance of some bloggers.
about the annoyance of the MSM is that the Edwardses gave the interview to People, as opposed to, say, Newsweek or some other “respectable” publication. You can feel the sneering disapproval dripping off of MSM reports about this interview. Quite amusing.
If hes not endorsing and therby rallying his pledged delegates to one of the two remaining candidates than it really doesn’t matter what he thinks. He’s an unemployed American who does not hold elective office and is not running for one, so basically his opinion is just as valid as mine which is why People should interview me instead.
<
p>He’s old news and in four years John boy will be an afterthought.
they didn’t stop liking/respecting the guy just because he had to drop out of the race. just a guess…
The old fashioned kind of letter. You know, written in longhand, my best palmer script.
<
p>From communications with other diehard John Edwards Supporters [our shorthand for this him is JRE, by the way] NONE of us want JRE to endorse anyone, and all of us still prefer him to any active candidate.
<
p>And, as far as I am concerned, the fact that John while unemployed [or maybe retired, or maybe self-employed as he once was and as I have been since 1981] choose People magazine may be because…[drum roll] People magazine gives longer more accurate quotes and less punditry.