If Edwards endorses Clinton....(from an Edwards supporter)

it'll be clear to this 5-year Edwards supporter that he sold out for some type of promise. In this campaign, he stood solidly against everything Hillary's candidacy meant in terms of its character, ethics, and decency. He stood against their kind of politics and, as he himself noted numerous times, he and Obama were far closer on those as well as overall closer on the issues.

It's time for Edwards to put his endorsement where his mouth is, or rather, where his heart is. And his endorsement or lack thereof will tell us everything about his true heart:
1)No endorsement = not as committed and passionate to his causes as he led us to believe because there's a clear distinction between the two remaining candidates and to lay low is to declare himself indifferent after all.
2)If he supporters Clinton, it's clear he did so for his own political future for the reasons above.
3)If he supports Obama, it's clear he picked the candidate that, while an imperfect match to his ideals, is a close cousin. It'll be clear he stuck to his ideals and is committed to the kind of change he spoke so fondly of.

"If he endorses a candidate I don't like he's dead to me!!"

He differentiated himself as not taking lobbyist money and challenged her to do the same (which she declined) way back at YearlyKos.

He hammered her on this topic in debate after debate.

He set himself up as the issues being "Personal, not political (Hillary) or academic (Obama)".

The distinct lines he drew were that Hillary was the status quo and wouldn't change a thing because, unlike him, she is the largest recipient of Pharma, Insurance and Oil money -- of any candidate, both sides of the aisle.

It would speak volumes.

going to work for the people who are in need

Yeah that NAFTA and MFN support for China was a real Godsend for working folks....
:sarcasm:

Bill Clinton help the lower classes????

I ask because this was and is ME and my family-

Welfare reform and it's associated fall-out were a nightmare.

Please educate me -

We havent had progressive taxes since Reagans first term. He dropped the top personal rate to 28%

if he doesn't get every crumb on the table, mob mentality and mob rule take over, people go berserk, start throwing things, screaming, taking their toys away and having fits.

Every little thing must go his way or the planets will fall out of alignment.
:eyes:

I think the best thing for him to do is not endorse. The reason being is that his causes will be overshadowed by endorsing either of them. I think the Al Gore approach of staying above the fray will serve him much better.

when Edwards and Obama "teamed up" against Clinton. Edwards said something like "when agents of change start changing, the status quo always pushes back" or something like that.

BO a new one - regarding his health care program, as it would leave roughly 15 million still uninsured?

but I think that being an agent of change vs. representing the status quo speaks much more loudly than any one specific issue. Even the war.

If he endorses Hillary, he's lost me.

:eyes:

I can be talked out of this with a more reasoned argument, but it seems like it would be great if they were X factors until the convention. Any thoughts on this, DU?

Are you referring to the whole population or their state.

I have no problem with super delegates committing after their state primary or caucus has been completed (like Boxer did).

The question for me (and the reason why I hate super delegates) is should they all have to vote in line with their state or should it be proportional.

In other words, Clinton won California by like 57-43. Should 57% of their delegates have to go to Clinton or should she get the whole thing?

Kennedy, Kerry and the Gov of Mass all endorsed Obama. Obama lost Mass. Should they be required to vote for Clinton even though they don't support her?

These are examples of why I hate super delegates.

they want and change their minds at anytime. They are not required to do or be anything but responsible with their vote.

Define that and the whole world is yours.

That a party that has been screwed at least 2 times (I think it's actually 3) by the electoral college system would have a system that is quasi-electoral college.

But I was thinking back to the late 19th Century.
The Democratic candidate (Blaine, I think) won the popular vote, but lost the electoral college vote.

of graft or greed. The point of the electoral college was, to my knowledge, to fix the problem of heavily populated states pulling the majority of the popular vote and thus diminishing the choices of voters in other locale.

Democracy is not a very expedient form of government. But so long as people are voting, there will be challenges.

I hate the thought that the delegates could assign their support based on past political favors.

I don't think they should vote as their state did - as that would not be in proportion to the vote.

:bounce:

I'll be happy with whichever candidate he endorses. This is about WINNING against Republicans, NOT about "our feelings."

:hi:

Like me you supported Edwards.

Now you've switched to Obama (I've switched to no one)

So if he endorses your guy, then he is sticking to his principles.

If he switches to the other person, then he's sold out.

Whatever...

each other out. He's not going to please both of us - so he'll just have to do as he sees best.

:shrug:

And I would WELCOME his endorsement of Hillary Clinton.

My read on Edwards is that he says what he thinks. It would be an endorsement of someone I think shouldn't get our nomination, but in a democracy the grown ups disagree on what's best for the country sometimes. That doesn't make him a sell out. That only makes him an honorable man who disagrees with me.

I'm really tired of stupid posts.

i will still like my vote for him.

he knows who fucked him..he knows who pulled the plug on his campaign..he knows..

and i trust John and Elizabeth to do what is right for the most people!

fly

I saw the rumor threads but they are just conjecture and prove nothing.

About the only thing I can imagine is that some powers in the party that he is beholden to promised him something for leaving the race or it was something much simpler - not having enough money to do a good job on Super Tuesday and unwilling to incur the debt that would happen.

Your insinuation that his family was threatened doesn't make sense. He wasn't doing well enough to make a difference and the analyses showed that his voters would split. So, it was not to either side's advantage. Accepting that Edwards rethought staying in until the convention is far more sensible than the accusations you made about Kennedy (I assume that is who you were implicating.)

I recall an AP piece saying 25% of JRE supporters went to Obama, while 40% went to HRC.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kugkNSa9xxo

An Edwards endorsement of Hillary would be for nothing more than crude political expediency.

it would make Edwards look like a sellout in the publics eyes as Clinton is the antithesis of what he passionately spoke about which will make Obama appear increasingly like the sole genuine flag bearer of change.

Strange bedfellows.

Seriously, your post is complete bullshit. You think Edwards doesn't know that Obama is completely full of shit on the stump everyday, in every debate? He does.

You think Obama didn't know Rezko was a slum lord when he wrote letters to help him get millions in govt money? You think Edwards doesn't know that?

Tony Rezko made Obama in Chicago. Handpicked him and gave him the money to get where he is. He OWNS Obama. And for Obama to pretend he barely knows him proves to me what a complete crook Obama is.

I am coming to the same conclusion, we don't need a rookie in the WH right now, we need Bubba with total access to the Oval Office. Bill Clinton is the only one out there right now unless Al Gore saves our party, that I know will be able to handle the job from day one. If JFK could initially fuck up repeatedly with all the experience,intellect and charisma he had, can we reasonably expect a lightweight, inexperienced BO do much better. It's too dangerous and serious right now to take a chance on the others. Give the keys to Hillary with Bill riding shotgun and let them cleanup another Bush mess. This seals the deal for me I will now do what I said I would never do and vote for Billary tomorrow instead of Edwards. It is the best thing to do for the Democratic Party and working class Americans.

to chose the best way to put the money i gave him and the volunteer work i did for him ..to the proper place to get the most... for the poor and middle class.

I am surprised in myself..i thought i would lean to Obama..but i am not ..because of the cheating i saw with my own eyes..from the Obama camp,..and because of the attitude of those supporting that man..he is a liar..and he is a cheat..and his supporters reflect his campanign..manipulation, lies , and obnoxious behavior..and i will not support anyone..on either side who does not reflect my values.

so i am left to support no one.

fly

John Edwards is a politician. He has been running for office since he left the senate. He developed a wonderful platform that spoke to many people and gave them hope. His devotees are profoundly dedicated to him.
All that being said, he is still a politician - nothing more, nothing less.

there is a lot that we don't know

think he would do an out of character thing like that?

I am a long time Edwards supporter and I want him to endorse Hillary.

With supporters like you, it's a wonder John Edwards didn't win the nomination. :sarcasm:

:shrug:

yet, if he decides on Hillary, so be it. I like and respect BOTH candidates. For the life of me, I do not understand this need to villainize the opposing Dem in the primaries...

There will never be a perfect candidate. Yet, I do believe either will do their best to move things towards a progressive agenda, even though I know I won't always agree with them.

who has no specific antipoverty program?

:shrug:

Actually I'm good with John Edwards decision either way.

Though I think endorsing Obama would be real cool. Even if Edwards, or even Kucinich.... got the Nom and won the GE, we would still have to fight in the House and Senate to get anywhere. Once we seize political power, I expect to have to push hard during the 2008-2010-2012-2014-2016 cycles to get significant improvement, as well as the fight to maintain that political power. In this country and as well as other countries.

During the recovery from the Great Republican Depression

(1929 thru 1936) FDR and his Dem majority congress had to be lobbied, pushed, threatened, arm twisted to get any of the things that are considered to be the back bone of the New Deal. The Socialists, Communists, Liberals and Liberal Democrats all had to push for these achievements. We almost didnt get Social Security and Unemployment "Relief". The Wagner Act was possibly the most important win, the phrase " The Right to Collective Bargaining" entered the mainstream lexicon decades ago. Labor rights are Civil Rights. Since the Taft-Hartley Act, the Wagner Act has been watered down to nearly a crust of its intial glory.







I think I want to look past that. No endorsement could mean he wasn't able to get the kind of commitments from Obama or Clinton, to make it worth while.

That would be just be too weird,

sort of like Kucinich telling primary/caucus folks to go for Clinton. I tend to agree with this.

Well again, let me play devils advocate here,

What if Edwards waited until late or after the last Primary to Endorse Obama ? IT might seem he had waited until later to pick his race horse, waited until the last stretch. But on the other hand, that might be more statesman like..... Let the 2 fight it out until the last primary, then lets say Edwards endorses Obama with a 322 pledged delegate lead, and then we wait until the convention. Putting Kucinich, Edwards & Obama on the same stage @ that point would be great theater, as well as a declaration of victory for Obama.

On the other hand, (again), I think you correctly point out " is a close cousin". Before Edwards dropped out, he and Barack have had more than a couple of public love fests, well not love fest , but there does seem to have been a connection between the 2 in one of the debates I saw. SO in a a way they have demonstrated that they are cousins.

Honestly, I just cant read as much into a potential JRE Presidential endorsement as you are. Though you raise many good points

I personally hope he doesn't endorse at all. If Obama or Clinton can't make it without his endorsement, then so be it. There's only about half an inch difference between their policy stances anyway.

is a better match for his policy ideas? go read both candidates' position papers. it is a perfectly reasonable idea.

maybe he's annoyed that he did all the dirty work of attacking Hillary, and Obama got all the credit for running a 'clean campaign' while Edwards was carrying his water? who knows?

maybe he doesn't like either one of them, personally or professionally? maybe he likes them both equally?

that's a nice little damned if he does, damned if he doesn't scenario you've set up there. In reality, you have NO FUCKING CLUE what caused John to drop out, do you? Didn't think so.

But apparently you've chosen to support Obama, so if Edwards doesn't agree with you, clearly he sold out. That's such shit.

If it is Obama ...congrats to their team, Edwards is a national treasure.

If it is Obama ...congrats to their team, Edwards is a national treasure.

Both Clinton & Obama have sold out to the corporations so they are equal in many many ways.

Edwards will choose one of them on the basis of whatever gut feeling he has that he will ultimately be able work with them and get stuff done!

I'd say he's leaning toward Clinton ONLY because she doesn't have an EGO the size of the United States that Obama has.

Look no further than * to see how a MASSIVE EGO fucks everything up.