He is a handsome man by some definitions, but let's say that his timing shows what he thinks of this race.
Obama already won N.C. on his own, and that was the only state Edwards had any real clout. Edwards just came out to try to put Hillary in the grave, but I will note the following:
1. All the important votes have taken place.
2. He waited until his decision would mean nothing except symbolically. I mean Obama swept the south, so in my view Edwards is late.
3. He is a multiple time loser. Who cares what he thinks? The only thing he seems to be able to win was one term in the Senate (1998-2003),
I think some people have made him up to be more important than he really is. Right now, he is just a fat cat giving his endorsement to the guy who already looks like he has won the nomination (big deal). It's easy to jump on the bandwagon when there is little option. I wonder if there is a cabinet position that was put on sale.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 50
I wont be doing the "I am butt hurt" voting either, if my chosen candidate doesn't secure the nomination I'll vote for the one who represents my values best.
He'll make an outstanding attorney general.
And I dont know how much of a difference his endorsing Obama is going to make.
And on that note I would say elpresidente Bush is the biggest coward of them all...I dont see him doing anything for McCain which I am sure makes McCain grateful.
Attorney General Edwards sounds about right to me...or how about VP Edwards.
The group: We Comment Back
Lori, haven't you heard, just today President Bush confirmed it for us. He said "if America elects a Democrat as President, we are sure to experience another Terror attack on the Homeland"
Yesterday Edwards was in Philly to kick off Half in Ten, a new effort to reduce the poverty rate by 50 percent during the next decade. The campaign is a joint project of the Center for American Progress Foundation; ACORN, which organizes activists in low-income communities; the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and the Coalition on Human Needs. Its aim is to advocate federal and state policies that will help people get out of poverty, including expansion of earned-income tax credits and increases in the minimum wage.
Edwards has always fought against special interests and lobbyists, and has been an advocate for real change from day one. It was his wife, Elizabeth, who kept him from endorsing Obama sooner -- she favors Clinton's health care plan above Obama's.
Dolores, why don't you write one generic article for all Obama endorsers and call them Coward. You called Richardson a Coward, now Edwards. Did I miss Chris Dodd's article. LOL.
give the ladies time to heal their wounds. I know. You guys are not feeling down. It's OK. There will be a woman president in your lifetime. NOT THIS ONE!
Watch and Learn.
Look at your choices. Hillary? Obama? One is a pathological liar, one is a rookie with no experience. He has good intentions on some issues, on the other issues like taxes, he is a communist. Hillary is a communist too. A stincking lying communist.
John Edwards? Mr $400 haircut knows how it feels to feel the pinch. LOL. At least republicans don't pretend to be for the mass with populist rhetoric. On the contrary we invite them to aspire to become rich, that's the American Dream. The American Dream is not to tax people who make money and distribute it to the lazy so they never get off their butts. That's what the democrats want. Clinton, Obama, Edwards, all of them. They are bady for this economy. Pick your loser. McCain will win.
Lawyers......
What was he waiting for? He waited until the news Media (Time Magazine, MSDNC, ...) declared Obama the winner for him to come out. Not before super Tuesday when all those southern states were in play. Not before Ohio and Penn, when it could be useful. Not before his own state.
Then again the guy lost his district to Bush. Tells you about his power. He was afraid to be humiliated again. So he played it safe. Wait until where I could make the difference goes by, then endorse somebody. That way the person I endorse will not risk losing on what is regarded as my strong region. Same thing with Richardson. Wait after New Mexico, Arizona, California, Texas, then endorse. Isn't this obvious.
You know that dirt bag, James Carville said if Mrs Clinton gives a cohone to Obama they would both have two. I disagree, actually Obama has three for standing up to the Clintons. All these guys would have melted long time ago. I will tell you what, if she gave a cohone to Edwards, he would still be missing one.
Why? And, what does this say about the dozens of republiCONs who've yet to endorse Johnny Wadd McSame?
I'm not concerned about what the Republicans do. I'm concerned about what we do. And if Edwards is indicative of the game-playing in our party this year, we're in a greatly weakened position.
If the Hillary supporters (and I'm one of them) are not appeased at the convention, the party will have to endure a large Hillary write-in vote in November. Given that, and the normal 3-5% that Nader usually gets, Obama could lose this if it's close...........and it will be.
We have a power struggle going on right now in our party.
The New Left thinks their agenda is what the people want. However, very few of their minions (think Ned Lamont in Connecticut in 2006) have been elected.
The other faction, which I belong to, is the Conservative/Moderate branch. One of our favorite candidates, Travis Childers in Mississippi's 1st District, just won this week in a special election................in a staunchly Republican district.
That's what's going on.
Neither you nor are are "we" when it pertains to democrats. You are most certainly not one, and I wouldn't be caught dead as one, least not in their current pseudo-rightwing form.
Why do you keep insisting upon plaing this stupid game? You're not fooling anyone, but you certainly make a fool of yourself.
"If the Hillary supporters (and I'm one of them)"
I can certainly believe that, at the moment, you are absolutely a Hillary supporter, just as many other republiCONs are. The last thing in the world you people want right now is to have to face Obama in November.
"Obama could lose this if it's close...........and it will be. "
Yeah, you bet. The old man who admittedly knows next to nothing about economics and really, really likes the Bush plan that seems to be working so well for so many, who cannot figure out who our friends and enemies in the middle east are, who thinks it's just dandy that we stay in Iraq forever, and very important for us to invade and occupy Iran as well, and who reportedly has a vicious, uncontrollable temper, has lashed out publicly with vile, offensive verbal assaults against his wife, who has been immersed in sleazy and potentially illegal relationships with the very lobbyists that he claims he has nothing to do with, who cannot even be bothered to follow his own campaign finance reform law, who actively sought out the endorsement of, and refuses to repudiate the vicious, anti-American and terroristic comments of some of the country's most vicious, hate-filled, unAmerican ministers, and who is 72 years old and has had very serious health issues already...yeah, THAT's the guy that Obama is going to have a REALLY tough time beating in November. You bet.
That crack don't smoke itself, do it Bret?
" HA, HA! the DEMs are panicking and fighting each other. Now they need to be appeased at the convention. Typical thin skinned Cry Babies. Grow up! "
That crack don't smoke itself now, do it Christos?
Yes, you most certainly do. The religio-kooks, the neocon nazi fascists, the libertarians, and the "real" conservatives are all pulling for power and control of the party. The neocons and religio-freaks have destroyed your party. Good luck piecing it back together. The REAL fractionalization hasn't even begun yet.
That aside who represents your faction in the presidential race? HILLARY? LOL. Now don't be stupid by saying yes. Both of them have similar records. One voted 97.1% with their party the other one 96.5% over the same period. Unless they ducked different important issued by not voting, that suggests they are the same. The ranking that found Obama most liberal had Clinton coming not too far. Guess you pick the lesser of two evils.
Regardless, this is a party representing people with totally different agendas. You've got the educated looking at the non-educated with contempt. They expect them to follow them because they know and the other group doesn't. That has always been the struggle with that party. An alliance of litterature lovers and high school dropouts.
This election two group emerged. Woman (mostly of all colors minus blacks) and African American (males and females). Put all that together and you have chaos. People willing to vote against their economic interests, principles (they have no clue anyways) and support McCain. Good timing because the GOP has major issues.
Bert is still holding out hope for Romney, but, in the meantime, he's praying that Hillary gets the nomination, because he, like all good little wingnuts, knows all too well that the GOP doesn't have a rat's chance in hell against Obama in Nov.
The GOP is a party in utter turmoil, and the real fun hasn't even begun yet. Just wait until the Ron Paul gang launches their attacks, the religio-kooks launch their attacks, the libertarians launch their attacks, and the neocon nutbags fire back to defend insane McSame. Grab a comfy chair and some popcorn, kiddos...it's gonna be a real freak show in GOP land in the coming months! HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA!!!!
However you believe standing on the side to throw insults has or will change people opinions, sorry it won't change a thing, so get over it and move on. Just tell us the truth and what your true agenda is. Being a sore loser because this current party in power, the republicans and their president will be driven from office unlike anything ever known to happen in American politics and dear Delores in your delusion state of mind; girl-friend your on the wrong of history and its so sad, but everyone has a right to their opinion. But coward such a word is meaningless afet the disaster called Iraq the worse blunder in American history. But I know Delores you really do work for the GOP and even calling yourself a black female Sen. Hillary supporter and to lose and not support the Democratic party over sour grapes because she was not the nomiee, the thinking is not logical, which in my mind means only one thing, you're not who you pretend to be, you're a fake and a fraud and you should move over to the Republican side and stay there.
After eight years are you better off, gas at $4.00 be damn, trillions spent with the so-called best milltary in the world and they can't find Osama and no WMD's we got lie too and American lives have been wasted and childern and women have been the victims. So vote for old, Sen. McCain if you choose, but the old fella is starting to show signs of dementia, remember Ronald Reagan his second term, didn't know what day it was and this is the Republican party hero, what a crock, a snow job to bring that second rate actor in from of the public, amazing how he could still remeber his lines. And you want to vote for Sen. McCain cause you don't like Sen. Obama because he beat Sen. Hillary Clinton, give me a break I just don't believe you, otherwise have a nice day.
You can't possibly be happy that Travis Childers got elected in Mississippi on a clearly Conservative agenda. This guy is the antithesis of everything you believe in. However, he's looking pretty good to me.
Right. A democrats takes a seat that has been in the hands of the loonie toon rightwing for what...3 decades? But, that's not a democratic victory, is it? Nope. Not at all. That's a republiCON victory, in the eyes of delusional moonbat wingnuts such as yourself.
Guess what, genius? This is a harbinger of what lies ahead. The democrats have figured out how to grab republican voters, just as the republiCONs did when Rancid Redink Ronnie rose up to being destroying the middle class in 1981. Get used to it. The tables have turned.
Yes, you most certainly do. The religio-kooks, the neocon nazi fascists, the libertarians, and the "real" conservatives are all pulling for power and control of the party."
Best re-framing of essential truths that we have seen today.
Republicans are admitting publically that they will not match Democratic fund-raising for the first time in forty years.
Rasmussen Reports this week that Democrats are now trusted more on all ten critical issues in the election this year.
Loss of confiedence in Republicans has fallen fastest in area of national security.
Bret : "You can't possibly be happy that Travis Childers got elected in Mississippi on a clearly Conservative agenda."
Clark : Right. A democrats takes a seat that has been in the hands of the loonie toon rightwing for what...3 decades? But, that's not a democratic victory, is it? Nope. Not at all. That's a republiCON victory, in the eyes of delusional moonbat wingnuts such as yourself."
The 1st District of Mississippi was held by Democrat Jamie Whitten for 54 years, Clark, until 1994, when Centrist Republican Roger Wicker won it. It hasn't been in Republican hands for 30 years, like you "claimed". Wicker was the 1st Republican to hold the 1st District of Mississippi in over 100 years. Moderate Travis Childers fits perfectly with the population base. Man, you just love spewing Leftist nonsense without any documentation at all, don't you?
Now do you see why you're considered a Left Wing kook on Gather? No need to answer, Clark, that was a rhetorical question.
Awwww, I was looking forward to that.
Meanwhile, Conservative Travis Childers and others like him, are winning seats all over America. Look for more of that in November.
John Edwards' game-playing is a bad thing for all Democrats. Is this not obvious?
I don't see why this is obviously a bad thing. Can you elaborate?
You wrote - Obama bought him off..............and they waited until after Hillary blew-out Obama in WVa to blunt the trauma from losing so badly there. - isn't that a good strategy if he is probably going the capture the nomination and looking to pull in a certain demographic to bring party unity? Would you say it was a bad thing if Hilary did the same were she in Obama's position? She's pretty much lost the race and yet is still trudging on. I'd say her game playing is a lot worse for all Democrats than Edwards'. At least Edwards put his bid in at an opportune time. Hilary will get her due soon, I'm sure.
It's all politics.
And the Hilary write-in thing, all that's going to do is make room for McCain to win. You think that kind of game playing, in effect handing the win over to the Republican, is good for all Democrats?
Sounds like what you're saying is we should hate the players, not the game.
When a candidate quits, his supporters & delegates don't know what to do. To solve that dilemma for good folks who believed in him, you should always declare your endorsement, so that those supporters & delegates know who to campaign for. Edwards didn't do that. He played those good folks like poker chips. Not good.
If Hillary had been far ahead, like she was before Iowa, Edwards would have given her his delegates immediately. But that's the kind of game-player he is. He angled for his next job with his support. Do you not see the sleaziness of that?
I agree with you though, the Hillary write-in vote and the normal 3-5% of the vote that Ralph Nader usually gets, will be enough to sink Obama. The Republicans will come together like they always do, and they'll nip Obama by 2-3% percentage points. But McCain is a pretty good candidate, and from the standpoint that he's always been a Centrist, he'll attract a lot of the Independents on his own. He's quite different than Bush, so that argument will fall away once the debates begin.................which will be disastrous for the Obama campaign. They'll try to tag McCain as "Bush-Lite", which he isn't. Bush was FAR right of anything McCain stood for.
In addition, Obama has to overcome huge losses in states like Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, New Jersey, West Virginia, and Kentucky (coming up next week - Obama is down by 20+ points). No Democrat in history has lost all those states in the Primaries and gone on to win the White House.
If Obama doesn't pull to the Center, he'll lose badly. I don't expect him to pull to the Center anytime soon.
Stephanie, the game is just fine.
But slick players like Edwards skew the game. He could have done a lot better for the party.
I think you hit the nail on the head with your assessment of Edwards. But I think Obama did a good job of leveraging Edward's endorsement as well, at least for what it's worth now.
No doubt about it - Obama knows how to work it. He's a Chicago Machine politician, after all.