John Edwards has decided to endorse Barack Obama as the Democratic nominee for President.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/?nav=globaltop
I suspect he would have discussed this with Clinton first, which would mean that she understands that it is over. But I believe she will stay in through the last primary. You'll note that she has been less adversarial to Obama in the last few days, including in her CNN interview today.
Next stop, John McCain.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 216
In the end, it's the candidate that is important, not the endorsers.
Linda G., May 14, 2008, 6:22pm EDT "
Idiot.
It is just one mans opinion. Edwards is a private citizen for now he can endorse who or no one it is his choice.
I think Edwards is a fine person but I prefer to make up my own mind.
I am also happy to read that Clinton "appears to be finishing off the campaign with class and dignity."..
Many of us will write in Hillary anyways.Very many in the caucus states that didnt get a say.A large bunch in Florida and Michigan and of course the dumb hillbillies in W.Virginia and Kentucky,the bitter gun toting PA people,and all the other uneducated blue collar workers.....
"I'm deeply honored by John's support. He is a true leader who dedicated his career to improving the lives of ordinary Americans.
"John ran a strong, principled campaign for president, focusing on a number of important issues where we share common ground -- universal health care, bringing our troops home from Iraq, and eliminating poverty in America.
"The way he ran his campaign was also important. He ran in a way that reflected our shared conviction that we need to fundamentally change politics.
"Like our campaign, John's campaign never accepted donations from Washington lobbyists or special interest PACs.
"Let's welcome John Edwards to the campaign with an outpouring of the kind of grassroots support that is bringing our political process back to the people."
I thought my first choice would endorse our next president , Barack Obama!!!!!
Thank you John.
John Edwards has 16 pledged delegates, more than Hillary picked up on West Virginia.
START THINKING before you say 'it does not matter'
Carville in 92 said 'it's about the economy, stupid'
"It's about the delegates, STUPID"
Many Hillary supporters are BITTER indeed. Unfortunately they are no Annie Oakley and have nothing to cling to. LOL.
McCain will get our country further entangled in foreign policies that can't win; will continue the failed economic policies that have eaten away at the fabric of American families; and will sell his soul to whatever special interest will fill his campaign coffers -- from religious right to oildom.
Thanks for posting this news.
One has but to read the comments in this thread or in many others to see how angry Americans really are. Many here at Gather are approach these threads with such anger and bitterness. It doesn't seem to matter which candidate they support, there is just incredible anger.
In this thread, Clark Kent stops by just to call someone a name. His victim made a comment which seemed equally angry and skewed, and then followed up with a disingenuous reply.
My point is that most of us claim to be sick of the way things have been going in Washington. Most of us claim to want more cooperation between the politicians. Most of us are quick to criticize the grid lock in government. Most of us claim to hate the spin mongers who speak with such a partisan agenda.
And yet... here at Gather the same kind of polarization exists in spades. It is not restricted to followers of any one candidate. Even many Obama supporters, (he, being the candidate who most clearly states a desire to unite), are willing to stop by and throw gas on the fire.
I would find this amusing and entertaining if it weren't so divisive... but it is divisive. This nation faces problems the likes of which we have never seen before. We need to work together and share in the sacrifices that will be necessary to right our path. We will need to work with all the people, not only within our country, but worldwide to solve these problems.
It is depressing to see so many angry citizens name-calling others who they don't even know.
And Doug, I so agree with you. People say they want unity but they sure don't act like it. We've become such skeptics that we wouldn't know a good candidate if our lives depended on it, and that's sort of where we are right now.
We really do need to change ourselves if we want our government to change. How can we expect them to act differently if we keep doing the very things we say we don't want them to do?
Let's see if we can put aside our opinions long enough to listen to others. We all might learn a thing or two.
Thanks again Doug.
One of the reasons that I read your articles, (although I don't always comment), is your even-handedness in moderating the thread. I think a lot of us really appreciate your demeanor.
I just heard Bush invoke the Nazis in his speech to the Knesset in Israel. He was criticizing those who would speak with Hamas. Has he no shame?! He must have read Linda's comment! For those of you who have an issue with Obama's declared intention to engage in dialogue with our enemies, I ask you... what would you do? Would you continue the stalemate? Would you summon the military to drop a load of bunker-busters on a good part of the world? Really, I just don't understand the reluctance to this notion.
Yeah it's not automatic. Those delegates are not fictional, they are people. One of them, a 26 year old army vet from NH, went to Obama today. There is nothing formal recording on paper, so they can switch back anytime (so can the supers by the way). We are taking all of them at their words. EVERYTHING is determined at the convention (including pledged del) but they go up there with already having picked sides. We expect them to move to Obama and they started (actually they started before 4 IOWA del of Edwards switched to Obama after Ohio TX).
I am not aware that Hamas is allowed to vote in US elections. Obama has publicly defended Israel's right to exist, and it is inaccurate to accuse him of siding with terrorists against Israel. It is worth noting that Jimmy Carter, who is now publicly feuding with the Bush administration over israel policy, is the guy who brought us the Camp David Accord which removed Egypt from the anti Israel block. If you want a U.S. President to play a role in the israel/palestine peace effort, it is best for that president to reach out to both sides, as George W. Bush's dad did.
Doug, good observation about the need for civility. I mostly measure up to that standard, though I long ago stopped trying to be nice about George W. Bush. I realize that 33% of americans still think he is doing good, but it is notable that his disapproval number is over 50% now. I do not have a problem being civil about mcCain, though I have to say it was very strange for him to suggest a vacation from gas prices then follow it up with a very serious announcement on the need to take action against climate change. The two ideas simply do not fit together.
Long time no see. I hope you are doing well.
MSNBC reports that 4 Edwards' delegates have come out for Obama since John announced his support yesterday. So much for "it won't make any difference".
Edwards is not a leader. He pretty much said yesterday when people lead, the leaders will follow. The guy is not relevant. The main thing Obama wanted from him is those 18 delegates and he also has bargaining power on those 13 delegates from FL. Add to that, taking him to Kentucky. When he is done with him, he will give him a boot at the rear end.
They are going to Obama because they don't like her (who does?) and Obama has sealed this.
Liberals will always be liberals.
In your comments you refer to Dick Morris as a "piece of worthless scum." As a scientist I could probably make a case that scum is not completely worthless, but again it's not a particularly civil way to express an opinion of an actual human being. I'm not a big fan of Dick Morris either, but he is in fact a fellow human.
So I guess my point is that we all deserve a little respect, even if we appear not to sometimes. And not to pick on just you or Clark, others here and elsewhere have been significantly worse in their choice of words, and provided significantly less support for their positions. I myself have been ashamed of some of my own comments in the past; something I've tried to rectify more recently.
But getting back to Doug's point, we (all of us) often are quick to demean those who don't agree with us. In truth, some of the comments and articles on Gather and elsewhere are embarrassing in their abusiveness. But a better way to get our points across, in my opinion, is to present our opinions based on our interpretation of factual information in a civil discourse. We won't all agree, but at least we can all talk. And that's really what this is all about - talking through our differences so we can find a path forward.
David, I truly wish that more people could remember that during an election year.
Because of the proportionate nature of the Democratic delegates, Obama cannot reach the threshold solely on the state voting. He'll need the superdelegates (as would Clinton). The superdelegates have been moving to Obama since the NC/IN contests, and it's likely that they will commit soon after the last primary in early June. So barring any huge change in events the nominee will be known by that time and it won't go all the way to the Convention.
"I myself have been ashamed of some of my own comments in the past; something I've tried to rectify more recently."
The same is true for me, David. I have made comments that I regret. And have then kicked my own ass for being mean-spirited. Politics and religion, baby!
Joe Lieberman, for example, is quite liberal on many social and environmental issues, but obviously much more identified with the conservatives on the Iraq war, etc.
John McCain, though he has a pretty conservative record overall, is considered to be too "liberal" for the far right conservative wing of the Republican party.
My point is that while there certainly are people who hang their shingle on the far right or left ideologies, I daresay most elected respresentatives have varied views on how to accomplish the goals of the nation. Many are quite pragmatic, though I admit that party pressures generally push them off to the edges for many votes.
My hope is that a less ideologic White House will enable many of the class of 2006 to work together while they still have some of their ideals.
The head of John Edwards South Carolina presidential campaign told CNN that at least six of the eight delegates Edwards won in S.C. are ready to vote for U.S. Sen. Barack Obama at the Democratic presidential convention.
Columbia attorney John Moylan appeared on the cable news channel this morning.
Edwards endorsed the campaign of his former rival last night.
Edwards' delegates are free to vote for whichever candidate they choose, but delegate Robert Groce said he would choose Obama.
"I was elected to represent John Edwards. I will honor his request," said Groce, 40 and a Summerville resident. "I'm very comfortable that either one (Obama or U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton) could assume the office and do a good job. The party has really benefitted from having so many good candidates."
Edwards' S.C. delegates plan to release a statement later today.
As for the issues, during the primaries there really isn't a whole lot of differnce within each party on the issues. The healthcare differences between Clinton and Obama are pretty minor, and in the end meaningless as any plan (by anybody) will need to be tweaked once a broader range of stakeholders is included in the process (including your competitors in the primaries, and hopefullyl also your competitors in the opposing party). Once we get to the general the issues become more important because there are very definite differences between the Democrats and the Republicans.
It is just one mans opinion. Edwards is a private citizen for now he can endorse who or no one it is his choice.
I think Edwards is a fine person but I prefer to make up my own mind.
Lori F., May 14, 2008, 7:04pm EDT "
Exactly, Lori. Edwards is simply a private citizen. So, I guess if people are swayed by Edwards endorsing him, then they'd be swayed by anybody else. The problem here is that there is a significant portion of the population in America that does not think for themselves, but relies on others to make up their minds for them.
If Sue like Bill, then I can't possibly like Bill!
If Dave doesn't like Ed, then I go with Dave and will not even get to know Ed myself!
This is not the way a democracy can survive, never mind flourish and mature. Citizens who abdicate their individual thoughts to someone else's opinion actually do not deserve to live in a democracy. They deserve to live in a totalitarian regime where a tyrant tells them what to think, what to believe and how to act.
Back to Edwards. I want Obama to be free of the democratic shysters and slick con artists. He is a refreshing burst of air into the political process, and I was hoping Edwards would have remained neutral, rather than being seen at that rally, speaking as though he was still a candidate.
This is Obama's time. He needs to marginalize Clinton, put the Kennedy's back in Martha's Vineyard, and keep away from the past democratic hacks as much as possible.
Dear God, please do not let Jimmy Carter any where near him!
"Someone's singing, Lord, Kum ba yah!
Someone's singing, Lord, Kum ba yah!
Someone's singing, Lord, Kum ba yah!
O Lord, Kum ba yah"
: )
As for the rest, I agree that Obama will have to be his own man. The endorsements of Edwards and others are marginally beneficial at best, though Edwards and Clinton have enough of a following that they could benefit Obama simply by telling their suporters it's now okay to support Obama.
I can't see Obama spending too much time with Hillary, not after the stark contrasts shown in their way of thinking (not policy, mind you, but divisive politics vs inclusive politics). She unfortunately represents so much of what he has campaigned against.
Somebody here is singing it to be somewhat sarcastic as if Edwards endorsing Obama is a "Kum ba yah moment. Many sick people abuse this religious song and ascribe it to liberals. In fact, the song has strong religious roots and was often sung by Christians.
When Romney started campaigning for McCain, his supporters came around. I am one of them. I will be voting for McCain holding my nose. Let's see if the DEMs will do the same. Doubt it. The hatred is palpable.
The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and … regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.
Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.
The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel…
The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar - or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity).
The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society.
The leader is not accountable to any authorities…
The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members' participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group…
The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt in order to influence and/or control members. Often, this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion.
Subservience to the leader.
The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.
Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities.
Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.
The most loyal members (the "true believers") feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even consider leaving) the group.
A traditional Bush' brown-nosers could probably explain it better than me.
But I think she will keep a relatively low profile. One of the potential problems with her as the nominee would have been her ability to galvanize the Republicans. Many of them who would stay home claiming the country deserves Obama after Bushes two terms, would actually be actively out there campaigning against Hillary. The fringes of the conservative wing of the party dislike the Clintons that much. So she might be more helpful in more private settings encouraging support for Obama.