As someone who was NOT an Edwards supporter, I give John Credit; He let you choose your candidate!

[FrenchieCat]

And he probably knows now, that he will not "affect" the support from Edwardians for either candidate; most who have already migrated to one campaign or another.

Let's face it; Edwards had a low percentage of support nationwide which is why he dropped from the race. What he does have are passionate activist supporters who would work on a campaign like there was no tomorrow.

Although I never much cared for Edwards, when I contrasted his stance while he was in the Senate compared to how he campaigned in 2008, I will give him credit for upholding a view that I do believe represented his campaign; it is about the people.

Whomever he endorses, and I personally believe that him endorsing Clinton would be anti-against everything he preached during this particular campaign (if she stole his health care, I'm not sure why that would endear him more to her....but he did rail against the Status Quo, and Status Quo she is), at least he allowed his staunchest supporters to go where they wished.

Whom he will effect via his endorsement will be the media reports that "the working class candidate" has chosen Hillary or Obama. However, I believe that most of his core supporters have chosen a candidate, and maybe that is how it should be.

[saracat]

1. "Low support is NOT why John suspended his campaign" and while he does have passionate supporters

we will not , for the most part, tranfer that effort to another candidate. Edwards supporters were about the issues, not the cult of personality.Some of us may vote for Hillary as she has the only universal health care program(based on John's) and the only poverty program with substance.Some may, mistakenly IMHO, back Obama , thinking he is a candidate of "change" though there is no evidence it is more than just physical. It is inter sting that you would not be able to understand the reason he might back his own health care plan if she "stole" it. John, I am sure could overlook that for the sake of our having health care.But make no mistake, Edwards supporters are not sheeple. We will find our own way and will follow our own direction regardless of John's endorsement or lack of it.But our passionate suppiort and working on a campaign like there is no tommorrow was reserved for the candidate who represented the issues and he in no longer in the race.

[AtomicKitten]

2. Hmmm, and all this knowing Hillary is the #1 recipient of lobbyist cash.

[saracat]

3. And Barack has not really disavowed the lobbyists either. And he

bowed to lobbyist interests in Illinois and scuttled the healthcare plan there.He'd do it again. Oddly , as John stated Barack may be "too weak" and Hillary is at least a "fighter".

[JackORoses]

5. He has taken no Lobbyist money and will have no Lobbyists in his White House.

Is that not disavowing?

[saracat]

6. Really? Look back farther. This is the ONLY campaign he has not taken PAC or lobbyist money.

And he promised in IOWA to reserve a seat at "the table for the health care industry and corporations.He "guaranteed" it. What do you think that means? He sold out to the lobbyists and scuttled health care in Illinois.He will do it again.

[JackORoses]

7. Edwards Healthcare plan also depended on Insurance Corporations

Even though he declared them the enemy. How do you defend this?

He wasn't proposing a Single Payer system.

Obama is honest enough to say that we will have to negotiate with the currently existing players to achieve lower Healthcare costs. He wants transparent negotiations which take place in public.

Clinton and Edwards would make it illegal for you to not pay one of these Insurance corporations. Where would their negotiations take place? Behind closed doors, of course.

[saracat]

8. And Obamas doesn't cover everyone. I would trust edwards to be able to deal with the insurance

companies. I would not trust Obama.he sold out in Illinois.

[JackORoses]

9. None of the plans cover everyone

Making it illegal not to pay insurance is not the same as Universal Healthcare.

It is still wholly dependent on the Insurance Companies to set the rates and pay on all claims, while they are making a hefty profit.

How could Edwards deal with the same companies he calls enemies of the American People?
Wouldn't he have to do exactly what he said he wouldn't do?

Hillary and Edwards focus on making it a law for everyone to have Insurance, but they just assume this will lead to lower insurance rates because of more customers. This is nowhere near a certainty.

Obama says rather than making Insurance the law, which could take money from people who cannot afford it, let's concentrate on getting those rates down through direct public negotiations. The only way to get the Insurance companies to lower rates voluntarily is to expose them before the American People and hold them accountable.

We can't just make a Mandatory Insurance law and assume that prices will go down because of market forces.
We must take direct action to make these prices lower.

[saracat]

12. Obama advances the specious argument that many don't have insurance because they "can't

afford' it and then thinks lowering the price is the answer? Right.He doesn't even understand What the problem is.

[JackORoses]

14. the problem is that noone can afford health insurance

How does making Health Insurance mandatory change this fact?

Lowering the price is the only answer.

Edwards and Clinton attempt to do this by making insurance mandatory in the hopes that market forces drive prices down. But everybody will still have to pay whether they go down or not. If you don't your, wages will be garnished.

Obama attempts to do this by directly negotiating these prices. By forcing the Insurance companies to determine their rates in a public forum. This is a much more certain way of achieving lower rates.

So which is a better way?

The first, where you are forced to pay for Insurance whatever the rate is, affordable or no.

or the second, where lower rates are negotiated first off as the priority, and this enables you to pay for insurance on your own.

[jackson_dem]

11. Look at his record of serving corporate interests

Example: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon.html

[jackson_dem]

10. And Obama the #1 recipient of Wall Street cash

[AtomicKitten]

15. ha, ha -- the data says otherwise

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. Funny I VOTED FOR EDWARDS and don't particularly care for either

of the two left standing. I will hold nose when I vote in November. After all, who selected the candidate is the MSM... congrats... my clothespin should have all their corporate logos.

[Cha]

13. I see on another thread

that John Edwards was worried about Obama's "toughness" as a candidate?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4578194

Who was the tough one in 2002 when so many were going along with the misbegotten bush War On Iraq?

<snips>
"What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the President today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings. You want a fight, President Bush?

MOre..
http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/02/remarks_of_illinois_state_sen.php