Why I cannot Fathom John Edwards Endorsing Hillary Clinton

[MadBadger]

It all goes back to the NH debate post Iowa. He used that debate to side with Obama and attack Hillary. He accused her of being the status quo and said that change won in Iowa, which represents himself and Obama. He also said that whenever change is picking up steam basically, status quo always tries to tear it down. To me, if he endorses Hillary, no matter how much he may agree with her on other policies, he would be endorsing the status quo against who even he considered to be an agent of change.

[jackson_dem]

1. That is in a campaign

It was obvious Edwards was in trouble because he didn't win Iowa. Edwards did beat Hillary and it gave the campaign one last shot: arguing that the two change candidates were first and second and the election was about change. If it stuck the media would keep Edwards relevant, and it did work briefly until he finished with 17% in New Hampshire. It was also a way of trying to peel off some Obama supporters. It was clear after Iowa the Edwards campaign's best remaining hope was to turn it into a two person contest between him and Obama. Once Hillary won New Hampshire, in hindsight, the writing was on the wall.

Obama has also painted Hillary as representing the status quo. Do you think he will still be saying that if he loses the nomination? No, he will be out there talking about all the change Hillary would bring.

Hillary is arguably closer to Edwards on the issues, most notably on health care and trade.

[dkf]

6. Edwards big thing is about lobbyists and corporate interests

Issues wise, all three are similar.

[jackson_dem]

10. Obama is as corporate as Hillary and Edwards knows it

Remember Edwards pointing out that it was Obama who had raised the most money from the drug industry--of candidates in either party (Hillary was second)--during the Nevada debate? He is closer to Obama on lobbyists but compare lobbyists to health care. Which is more important? The only big issue he is closer to Obama on is poverty.

[CalebHayes]

17. Remember Obama schooling Edwards on something he already knew...

Edwards was playing dumb in the NV debate.

[jackson_dem]

18. It was clever on Edwards' part

He used his "question" to get a hit in against both of his opponents. Guess who is #2 behind Obama in drug company dough?

[JI7]

2. he was trying to claim some of Obama's win for himself

and turn it into an Obama vs Edwards campaign with Hillary out of the race.

later on when Hillary won NH he went after Obama.

[MadBadger]

3. Not with the same fervor that he went after Hillary.

[JI7]

12. Obama was still doing well,

i'm not sure what will happen.

but i just would not be surprised if he did endorse Hillary. i hope he endorses Obama of course.

whatever he does, i hope we don't see a bunch of bash threads popping up.

[jackson_dem]

15. We now know why

Edwards had been considered dropping out for "weeks" before finally doing so. One presumes that after New Hampshire he realized it would take a miracle to win and his heart was no longer in it. That is when Elizbeth reportedly concluded it was over. If it wasn't NH then it was Nevada. Edwards did not go after Obama or Hillary aggressively in Nevada. He didn't appear to need to. At the time there was little polling on Nevada and two pre-debate polls had him competing for the win. The polls turned out to be wrong, partly because it was a caucus, but there didn't seem to be a need for him to attack in Nevada at the time. After Nevada I am sure Edwards knew it was over.

[jackson_dem]

11. Yup

[ingac70]

4. And those nasty robocalls her campaign pulled...

on Edwards in SC. When he had a bad showing there, I knew it was over.

http://thepage.time.com/2008/01/26/daughter-of-a-curtain-salesman-hits-son-of-a-millworker/

[jackson_dem]

14. Iowa wounded him mortally

He was fighting on a wing and a prayer after Iowa and Hillary winning in New Hampshire was the fatal blow. Had she lost it may have become a two person contest between Edwards or Obama, or a three way contest between a weakened but aggressively negative Hillary (remember the ad blitz she reportedly had planned when she was expected to lose NH?) and Edwards and Obama.

Who damaged him the most in Iowa? Look at what Obama sent out in Iowa. http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/Obama%20Oppo%20on%20JRE%20-%20On%20Labor%20in%20Iowa.pdf

[musicblind]

25. oops

double post

[musicblind]

26. I know it's off topic but ... is that true?

Did John Edwards really support NC's right-to-work laws? I am from NC. I haven't heard of this, but have probably just been living under a rock. What were Edward's reasons for voting for them?

[jackson_dem]

36. He wasn't governor of NC or a member of the NC legislature

He had no authority over them at any point. I don't know whether he made a statement on them in his 1998 campaign. What I do know is he had a 100% AFL-CIO rating in the Senate.

Here's an example of how the game can be played. It is "true" Obama voted against raising the minimum wage twice. Is it misleading? Yes. He also voted to raise the minimum wage on the same day those two times. You can easily swiftboat him on this by leaving the second part out. This is what Obama's cronies did to Edwards, and to a lesser extent, Hillary on the netroots. The PA is the best example. It passed 98-1 but they NEVER mention that when using it to paint Edwards and Hillary as DINOs.

[musicblind]

39. Oh thank you for clearing that up

I'm a big Edwards fan and did a bit of a double take when I read that pdf file that was posted. :)

[karynnj]

31. The accustaions look to be true -

I remember that in one of the debates, Biden was infuriated that Edwards was acting as though he was the only voice of the union people and the poor. That was not his Senate record. It is fair to honestly point out where the record does not match the rhetoric. Edwards had to bridge the two and, for many, he didn't succeed.

I also think Edwards damaged himself by going EXTREMELY negative To the point that he called HRC corrupt and and even questioned if she had a conscience. His attacks on the people in the US Senate actually working on an exit plan clearly infuriated people like Feingold.

[jackson_dem]

35. Edwards' Senate record is a 100% AFL-CIO rating

Again the (Obamite swifboat pushed) netroots "fact" that he is a fraud is accepted without looking at the evidence.

[karynnj]

38. The Obama thing doesn't say otherwise

and Edwards likely had the information out there. I don't see how stating someone can EVER be a fact, it is always a subjective assertion. I don't know the story on whether he backed NC right to work laws - and don't think it worth the time to goggle it - if you think it's a lie make the case that there were lies. It seems your problem is that listed like this, Edwards' actions are at variance with his rhetoric - and YOU than make the jump to it making him look like a phony. But, there are 2 other possibilities - 1) he changed and 2) those actions were not representative. He needed to make the case that one of the two was true.

The question is whether any of these points are not true. If they are the piece is unfair. If they are true, it is fair for an opposing campaign - though not for a journalist who would need to include the relevant positives. Edwards' own attacks went further calling HRC "corrupt".

[kennetha]

5. Mere Tactics

That was mere tactics. The idea that Hillary Clinton represents "the status quo" is laughable and got Edwards nowhere. What? She represents the Republican status quo?

Right now, Obama is making an absurd argument that Clinton somehow represents something "old" while he represents something "new." What's the substance to that claim?

[MadBadger]

8. The substance is that she wants to return to the 90s, and Obama wants to start a new chapter.

[kennetha]

13. Nonsense

There is hardly any daylight between Obama and Clinton on most issues and where there is daylight, Clinton's proposal's are more far-reaching, more visionary, and much better thought out. The main example is National Health insurance. But there are others.

It's just an empty posturing slogan. There is no substance whatsoever behind it. It's just an attempt to play on "Clinton-fatigue." Very clever and political, but utterly empty.

[Recursion]

28. It's not about the issues

I'm realizing that Clinton supporters don't "get" the fact that this isn't about issues (there's not really much difference between Clinton, Obama, and even Edwards on most issues).

When we say Clinton represents the "status quo" we mean she represents divisive us-against-them constant-campaign-mode politics.

[karynnj]

32. Not on foreign policy - look at Obama's team of experts vs HRC's

If we want a real change from the mindset that took us into Iraq, it is far more likely to come from Obama.

Consider that no matter who is President, things like the heathcare legislation will not be dictated to Congress, but negotiated with them. The President has a far more dominant role as CIC and on foreign policy. On both of those issues, I trust Obama and the people on his side over HRC and the people on her side.

[jackson_dem]

16. Those are empty Obama slogans

They both have the same basic agenda and policies. It makes no sense that Obama can be "change" when Hillary isn't when their platforms are basically the same. The differences are relatively small. Even on health care they have the same goal but are advocating different paths to get there. Obama's aides have not ruled out going to mandates in the future if that proves to be necessary, although Barack won't mention this on the stump. ;

[MadBadger]

19. Changes is in the name. There is a level of bitter partisanship that is attached to the Clintons

[kennetha]

29. More Nonsense!

As if with a new face and a new name you could change the sometimes bitter disputes that divide Americans. This is a complex country, with many competing agendas out there. Sometimes they can be reconciled through compromise and consensus building. Sometimes you have to mobilize and fight for a 51% solution. I believe that Clinton has the wisdom and experience to know the difference. I don't think Obama can change the entire fabric of American politics simply by being the new face and a good speaker -- which is basically all he is offering that's more "future oriented" than Clinton.

[rodeodance]

21. He is on a bridge to nowhere--He has explained little of what this futue will

be--lots of change--but change to what. He gets stumped!

[Eurobabe]

7. No way will JRE go Clinton. n/t

[TexasObserver]

9. John is a Democrat and has the ideals and commitments to prove it.

Hillary doesn't. She's Lieberman in designer pant suits.

[Ichingcarpenter]

22. The line it is drawn

The curse it is cast
The slow one now
Will later be fast

As the present now
Will later be past

The order is
Rapidly fadin'.

And the first one now (hillary)
Will later be last

For the times they are a-changin'.

[maximusveritas]

20. We'll just have to wait and see

I don't think it's clear which way he'll go and that's a good thing. It makes the endorsement worth a little more.

[readmoreoften]

23. I'll be upset if he endorses either. /nt

[shadowknows69]

24. If he does I'll know he was full of shit

John's message was so antithetical to what Clinton represents, I can't see it either. That being said he may endorse the one who gave him the best job offer in his meetings yesterday.

[TexasObserver]

27. They are at opposite ends of the Democratic continuum.

I cannot fathom John Edwards blessing Hillary. I can't imagine him making a deal with her, either, if for no other reason than she's not trustworthy. She could promise to nominate him for the Supreme Court, then throw him to the wolves when she does.

The fact is that John Edwards is more liberal than Hillary or Obama, more Democratic, more progressive, more committed to really helping the little people. I'm speaking of the Munchkins, of course.

[noel711]

30. Did it Happen? did John endorse Her?

I heard they met, but heard nothing else. He's meeting with Barak tonight, But in
the meantime:

Why are we in a stew when nothing official has occurred?

[Occam Bandage]

33. It's a campaign. He is a politician. Everything he said was posturing.

[GoldieAZ49]

34. Hillary said in her campaign stump speech that John Edwards would be a part

of whatever she does.

Meaning she has offered him a position in her administration.

Edwards meets with Obama today, sounds like negotiations are under way. All three are lawyers, their will be some kind of deal.

Just have to wait and see which way it goes.

[Avalux]

37. It certainly goes against his "bucking the system" message if he does.

Hillary is the establishment and has strong corporate ties. Wouldn't make any sense to me either. I would prefer if he didn't endorse anyone.