Election Central | Talking Points Memo | Edwards Clarifies Comment On Hillary: "I Fully Expect To Support" Dem Nominee

Edwards Clarifies Comment On Hillary: "I Fully Expect To Support" Dem Nominee

By Greg Sargent - November 13, 2007, 2:13PM

Today at a press availability John Edwards was asked by reporters about his refusal to say that he'd back Hillary for President if she wins the Democratic nomination. The Edwards camp has just emailed me his answer:

"I fully expect to support the Democratic nominee, and I fully expect to be the Democratic nominee."

"I fully expect" to support the nominee -- not quite "I will support." It's more than, "I'm not willing to talk about that at this point," which is what he'd said earlier. But it's still not a full commitment to backing the Dem nominee.

Not sure what this is about.

Late Update: A number of commenters below say that this is a sufficient answer from Edwards. Fair enough -- I probably am guilty of overparsing here.

But -- to all the commenters screaming "bias," please understand that the Edwards campaign sent us the above quote. They wanted us to post it.

Late Late Update: Ed Kilgore is uncomfortable with Edwards' statement:

For some of us old-timers, the Edwards formulation was evocative of the highly calculated mantra repeated endlessly by Ted Kennedy in 1980, before he decided to challenge Jimmy Carter for the Democratic presidential nomination: "I expect President Carter to be renominated, and I intend to support him."
Any way you look at it, Edwards has guaranteed he's going to get asked this question again until he specifically says he'll support the nominee no matter who it is, much as Obama has already done--and perhaps until he gets into the habit of saying that much as he dislikes HRC, she's far preferable to anyone the opposition can nominate.

Still Later Update: Here's some video of Edwards answering the question.

Comments (76)

js wrote on November 13, 2007 2:15 PM:

Trial lawyer talk.

Jake D wrote on November 13, 2007 2:20 PM:

Greg:

What the hell more "full commitment to backing the Dem nominee" do you expect?! For Edwards to withdraw and write a check to Hillary for the balance of his campaign account? What exactly did Hillary say when asked if she would support Edwards if he won the nomination (oh, that's right, no one ever asked HER Hind-ass that)?

Joe Klein's conscience wrote on November 13, 2007 2:21 PM:

Do we really care? Has anyone asked Hillary the same question? Will she support Edwards if he is the nominee? Does anyone outside the pearl clutching beltway care about this?

Dana wrote on November 13, 2007 2:25 PM:

TPM is in the bag for Hillary. Always trying to stir up nonsense to shield Mrs. Clinton. Have you noticed that this blog goes WAY out of their way to protect Hillary? TPM readers, take note.

Hi there, Clinton Talking Points Memo.

erasmus wrote on November 13, 2007 2:25 PM:

That formulation suits me -- should have been his initial response, imo.

frankly0 wrote on November 13, 2007 2:26 PM:

"I fully expect to support the Democratic nominee, and I fully expect to be the Democratic nominee."

For the logically minded, this could be interpreted as saying nothing more than that Edwards will support himself as Democratic nominee.

Too clever by half, if you ask me.

Anonymous wrote on November 13, 2007 2:27 PM:

I'll bet he'll support Barack.

Anonymous wrote on November 13, 2007 2:29 PM:

Greg Sargent seems to particularly shield Hillary. At lest Josh seems to have a more open mind as he realizes that Hillary is simply not Presidential and not capable of bringing together the country at a time of great need.

Salmon Jack wrote on November 13, 2007 2:29 PM:

Greg -

Look, pal....maybe he had a bad hair day or whatever. You can bet he'll back her - that's not the question...how ernest and persistent will Edwards and others support her?

Bottom line......we've got to win this one and the Dem candidates have been entirely laggard in attacking both Bush and this crazed group of Repub candidates.

Time to get our act together - she's not my choice, but if she gets it, hell...I'll support her.

Salmon Jack

illinitarheel wrote on November 13, 2007 2:35 PM:

If you're "not sure what this is all about," I, for one, am sure. What it's all about is trying to cope with a rather stupid question. Why don't you ask Hillary if she'll support Obama? You can ask all of them after the primaries are over. Before then it smacks of trying to embarrass a candidate.

Steve wrote on November 13, 2007 2:35 PM:

John knows that being asked that question is tantamount to being told you have no chance to win. It is a negative to his campaign no matter how he answers.

I have no doubt that he would support whoever the winner is as would any of the other candidates. With the possible exception of Gravel who lives in a world all to his own.

Max wrote on November 13, 2007 2:37 PM:

Jeez, "I fully expect to support the Democratic nominee" too, but that doesn't mean I hope it's Senator Clinton!

How come no one's asking Clinton what her plans are for after _she_ loses the nomination?

Jake D wrote on November 13, 2007 2:38 PM:

Calling Will, bm, Brian, joe subscriber, Michael Lafferty, Joe, Richard Joseph, IVoted4Nader, Outside the beltway, Mary, and RJ!!

DTM wrote on November 13, 2007 2:39 PM:

Once again I wonder if Edwards has said anything different about any of the other candidates.

Because unless he has said something different about other candidates, it is difficult to explain why Greg et al. are making this about just Clinton.

gussie wrote on November 13, 2007 2:40 PM:

Obviously should've been his first response, but "I fully expect to support the D nominee" is perfectly clear, Greg.

The reason for his bumbled first response is clearly this: the question frames him into a corner. Like asking, "Are all options on the table in regards to Iran?"

The problem with the latter question is, it focuses on Iran, it advances the Enemy Number One narrative. The fact that they're asked if they'll keep all options on the table in re. Iran, instead of in re. Pakistan, or Canada, or Saudi Arabia, is the problematic frame.

The problem with "Will you support Clinton" is the same, it advances a narrative that undermines Edwards. Why not ask if he'd support Dodd, or Biden, or Gravel? Because they're pushing the inevitablity narrative, which undermines Edwards, so he bumbled his first response by saying, 'I don't want to talk about that at this point.'

Which is actually a pretty reasonable thing to say, when I think again. Much politer than, "That's a stupid fucking question, of -course- I will, and you -know- I will, and the only reason you're asking is to play horserace games, but fortunately nobody's gonna buy your bullshit."

Except there's always a buyer.

PapaJijo wrote on November 13, 2007 2:40 PM:

God damnit, knock it off, Greg. What the hell is the matter with you?

What "this is about" is you contiuing to make a big deal out of absolutely nothing. There was nothing unusual about his initial response to a stupid, hypothetical question. And now you're splitting hairs because he's not jumping up and shouting "I support Hillary Clinton!"

If Clinton wins the nomination, of course he will support her. Every chance he gets.

Thanks for doing the GOP's work of making the Democratic candidates appear petty and bickering.

tom in ma wrote on November 13, 2007 2:41 PM:

Given the state of the electorate, the only way that the Republicans can win the election is for a split in the Democratic Party. Hence, it is in their, and in only their, interests to stir up such animosity between democratic rank and file and democratic candidates that splits become possible. Is there any Democrat that cannot support any of the Democratic nominees for President? Have we learned nothing from the Ralph's excellent adventure in 2000?

goethean wrote on November 13, 2007 2:44 PM:

Edwards should have said: "No --- I'm going to vote for a Republican, jackass. What do you think?"

kjoe wrote on November 13, 2007 2:45 PM:

It kind of reminds me of gene mcCarthy's attitude in 1968. He resented the question about Humphrey, at a time when Humphrey was on that tightrope of not pissing off LBJ.

McCarthy, if i remember correctly, endorsed hhh late and kind of half-heartedly.I cast my vote in 1968 on the same basis I did in 1992. I voted against Spiro Agnew, I voted against Dan Quayle. No responsible citizen should have wanted either of those two idiots a heartbeat from the presidency.

Quayle was gwb senior's biggest political mistake. Muskie danmed near saved hhh.

Dana wrote on November 13, 2007 2:47 PM:

Has anyone asked Hillary the same question?

Greg wrote on November 13, 2007 2:47 PM:

memo to commenters: The Edwards campaign sent me this comment unprompted. I didn't ask for it. I didn't even do the original post on this.

The Edwards camp WANTED us to post this. They asked us to.

along wrote on November 13, 2007 2:48 PM:

I think you're overlooking the obvious. Edwards' longest and strongest line of attack has been that the Washington establishment--Republican AND Democratic--is broken and corrupt beyond repair. He has also within the last two months strongly associated the Clinton machine with that same corrupt establishment. So how does he answer this standard-issue question--which itself has become hackneyed and worthless--by saying yes, he'll support Clinton? It would directly undercut any traction he might be getting right now, and severely disappoint his core supporters. No answer is the best answer, and this second try, a standard deflection, is not bad either. It's all anyone will get from him before February.

brewmn wrote on November 13, 2007 2:48 PM:

God, is this the stupidest mini-controversy yet. Sometime, not posting about something is the right decision.

corinne wrote on November 13, 2007 2:51 PM:

You're not sure what all this is about?
How about: Why is this question being asked now?

Why all the breathless questioning about whether Edwards will back Hillary for President if she wins the Democratic nomination? Why should we care about that now, before the first vote is cast on January 3?

"I fully expect" to support the nominee -- not quite "I will support."

For pity's sake stop parsing the man's words. This is ridiculous beyond belief.

loki wrote on November 13, 2007 2:52 PM:

Because unless he has said something different about other candidates, it is difficult to explain why Greg et al. are making this about just Clinton.

I agree this is pretty damn frivolous.

But it's not difficult at all to explain why Greg is "making this about Clinton." Edwards was asked about Clinton.

Greg isn't making about her...it is about her.

Jake D wrote on November 13, 2007 2:52 PM:

Greg:

John Edwards asked you to post the following?

"Not sure what this is about."

Jake D wrote on November 13, 2007 2:55 PM:

If not, THAT is what we are taking issue with.

Anonymous wrote on November 13, 2007 2:57 PM:

It's about not suggesting that he's a loser, or that he's not confident in his own campaign. Hillary Points Memo strikes again...

framecop wrote on November 13, 2007 2:59 PM:

GREAT STATEMENT FROM JOHN EDWARDS!!!

Screw you, Greg!

I'm so sick and tired of the media trying to PROPAGATE CLINTON AND OBAMA INEVITABILITY!

He should have said, "I'll answer that question when YOU ALL ASK HER if she'll support me if I am the nominee."

Do they not realize that it might actually be OFFENSIVE to ask other candidates whether they would support another candidate for the nomination when they are still running?

Of course they do.

SCREW THE MEDIA!

Edwards' comment was spot on.

All of those people speculating about how Edwards will support are IDIOTS.

Who will Clinton or Obama support when Edwards is the nominee?

grayslady wrote on November 13, 2007 3:01 PM:

The reason the Edwards campaign probably asked TPM to post this response is that TPM was making way too big a deal out of this. Time to put an end to silliness.

Michael wrote on November 13, 2007 3:05 PM:

framecop, unless something really, really strange happens, I don't think we will have to worry about edwards as the nominee. I can see one of the dark horses doing something wacky and getting the nod before edwards. This really is a non-story and he should have just said that he will support whoever the nominee is and that it will be him. It really is a no-brainer and he blew it. Even richardson got that one right when he was asked it and so has every candidate since the beginning of time. He blew it. We should just move on.

Jake D. you are about as much an edwards supporter as I am a Mr. 9/11 supporter.

Jake D wrote on November 13, 2007 3:10 PM:

Do you like to dress as a woman too?

tom wrote on November 13, 2007 3:12 PM:

Who asked this question?

We all know now Clinton's folks have recruited people to ask suggestive questions of her. Why not have pro-Clinton plants at Edwards' talkstops?

scott stroud wrote on November 13, 2007 3:13 PM:

Thought you might be interested in this article that appeared in our paper on Sunday. Then-Gov. Bush's comments weren't published when he made them because his father, the former president, gave us an interview on the same subject that evening.
Thanks for considering.
Scott Stroud
Politics/Govt Editor
San Antonio Express-News
210.250.3266

Bush's views on Iraq have changed in a decade

Web Posted: 11/11/2007 12:25 AM CST

Sig Christenson
Express-News

Ten years ago today, then-Gov. George W. Bush stood on a small road in Fort Sam Houston National Cemetery and defended his father's decision to end the first Gulf War after 100 hours of fighting.
"There are a lot of Americans (who say), 'Why didn't you go get him?'" Bush told the San Antonio Express-News, referring to Saddam Hussein. "Well, I'm confident that losing men and women as a result of sniper fire inside of Baghdad would have turned the tide of public opinion very quickly."

That Veterans Day, Bush said efforts to ferret out Saddam from his many Baghdad hideouts would have transformed the battle from a desert conflict to an unpopular "guerrilla war."

A decade later, proponents of the Iraq war, including President Bush and his father, dismiss those reservations, saying the 9-11 terrorist attacks forced the conflict.

"The world has changed since 1997," White House spokesman Blair Jones said Friday. "Since that time this nation experienced one of the most horrific moments in our history — the attacks on September 11, 2001.

"As the president has said many times, one of the lessons learned from that day is that we have to take emerging threats seriously. We have to deal with them before they fully materialize."

Still, the fears expressed 10 years ago have become reality. The United States is mired in a ground war, with no military or political solutions in near sight. Insurgents, using increasingly sophisticated roadside bombs to target coalition troops, are waging the very guerrilla war that Bush predicted.

A crowd of several thousand had largely emptied the cemetery after the governor delivered the Veterans Day keynote speech on that cloudy, cool morning when Bush broke away from a media gaggle and chatted with the Express-News about Iraq. The governor praised his father's decision to abruptly end the offensive, launched to drive the Iraqi army out of Kuwait.

Both men have consistently supported one another on how they handled their conflicts in the Persian Gulf. Back then, the elder Bush told the Express-News his son "got it right" in his assessment of the first Gulf War.

The former president also suggested that the decision he did not make — to send U.S. troops all the way into Baghdad — would have led America into another Vietnam-like conflict, "and one guerrilla war in my lifetime was enough."

That day he said taking the war to Iraq's capital would have been a form of "mission creep" that would have exceeded his mandate to prosecute the war and unraveled the 31-nation Persian Gulf coalition. Such a decision, added Bush, who served from 1989 to 1993, "would have made a (Gamal Abdel) Nasser" out of Saddam — a reference to the late Egyptian leader who remains a hero in the Arab world.

"Whose life would I sacrifice in perhaps a fruitless hunt for this tyrant?" he asked. "I feel very comfortable with the decision. I feel history will be very kind to that decision."

The comments of both men a decade ago stand in contrast to statements they made at the end of last week. President Bush said at a Terrell Hills fund-raiser Thursday that history would vindicate his decision.

"Some day people are going to look back at this time and day and say, 'Thank God there was a generation that did not lose faith ... because the Middle East is a place free of suiciders," he told supporters attending the private event for Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, after visiting with wounded GIs at Fort Sam.

The troop visit came at the post's Center for the Intrepid, where up to 150 veterans suffering amputations and burn injuries, many from the Iraq war, visit the center for rehabilitation sessions each week.

As the president met with troops and his backers before heading to Crawford, his father lashed out at critics of the war.

"Do they want to bring back Saddam Hussein, these critics?" he told USA Today on Thursday. "Do they want to go back to the status quo ante? I don't know what they are talking about here. Do they think life would be better in the Middle East if Saddam were still there?"

So far 3,861 American troops have been killed in Iraq, with this being the worst year of the war, according to an Associated Press count. With seven weeks left in the year, 856 troops have died. In all, 28,451 military personnel have been wounded in action.

The younger Bush told the Express-News a decade ago that people didn't "really fully understand" why Gens. H. Norman Schwarzkopf Jr. and Colin Powell, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs, decided to stop the invasion "because it seemed so easy out in the battlefield."

"The mission wasn't to destroy his forces, the mission wasn't to destroy Saddam Hussein, the mission was damned sure not to occupy Baghdad," the elder President Bush told the Express-News at the time in a phone interview. "The mission was to end the aggression, kick him out of Kuwait. So when the commanders said mission accomplished, I was very happy to declare victory."

Other key members of the first Bush administration have made similar statements, including a chief proponents of the Iraq invasion, Vice President Dick Cheney. In an April 15, 1994, interview, he said Arab troops would have abandoned the coalition if the Americans had pressed on. U.S. forces would have stood alone in an occupation of Baghdad, he said, and seen greater casualties.

"Once you got to Iraq and took it over, and took down Saddam Hussein's government, then what are you going to put in its place? That's a very volatile part of the world and if you take down the central government of Iraq you can easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off," Cheney said in the interview, which was done by C-SPAN and surfaced last summer on YouTube.

He added, "It's a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq."

Neither Bush nor his son expressed regret in the 1997 interviews over the failure of U.S. forces to pursue and destroy the Iraqi army's Republican Guard, in retreat after one-sided desert clashes that exposed their vulnerabilities to superior American firepower and discipline.

Neo-conservatives who pushed for the invasion of Iraq years later, though, chafed over the decision, saying it allowed the still-intact Republican Guard to put down rebellions the first Bush administration had sparked in southern and northern Iraq.

A humanitarian crisis emerged in northern Iraq that led to the creation of a safe haven for Kurdish refugees who fled into the mountains following attacks by Saddam's troops. The area has since emerged as one of the country's most stable regions, but attacks by Kurdish fighters have pushed Turkey to the brink of invasion.

Jones, the White House spokesman, said Saddam had become a growing threat to the United States and the world, "a murderous dictator who menaced his people, invaded his neighbors, had a history of using weapons of mass destruction" and violated 17 U.N. Security Council resolutions. He said Saddam had been given the chance to disarm but "instead chose to defy the world," and that the United States was safer with him gone.

But long before crafting the policy of pre-emption, Bush had a different position. Pointing to Iraqi efforts to toss the U.S. inspectors, he said 10 years ago this week that Clinton would be wise to talk with his father, saying, "I think my dad conducted himself brilliantly during Desert Storm and understands the situation pretty clearly."

The subject came up again in an Express-News interview with the elder Bush when the USS San Antonio was commissioned last year in Texas.

Asked about the wisdom of invading Iraq, Bush said, "I support the president 100 percent on that, but you know our mission as you may remember wasn't to do anything other than to eject this guy from Kuwait, which we did. Salute, come home, and that's what we did. You don't hear it much anymore, incidentally, 'Why did you not march into Baghdad?' You don't hear that so much."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sigc@express-news.net

DallasNE wrote on November 13, 2007 3:14 PM:

More gotcha questions. I am already up to my eyebrows in meaningless questions like this.

What does this have to do with what kind of President either Hillary Clinton or John Edwards would be. If your answer is nothing, we agree.

What I want to know is how do we get out of Iraq. What would you do about Social Security, health care and the stumbling economy.

I could care squat about these gotcha questions.

Greg wrote on November 13, 2007 3:16 PM:

please see the update I added to the post

Michael wrote on November 13, 2007 3:16 PM:

Only when I go out on the town.

cptspalding wrote on November 13, 2007 3:22 PM:

I find TPM a lot more interesting when it sticks to what it does best -- serious muckraking and insightful analysis. When it gets into parsing down to the atomic level what a candidate says or how John McCain responds to a supporter who uses an epithet to describe a democrat then its not much better than CNN or Fox News.

Maybe next time TPM decides to post something like the above examples, you could add a sentence explaining why we should care.

Jim H wrote on November 13, 2007 3:23 PM:

This is what happens when you run a campaign that has the image of being outside the beltway, but then come up short. Do you do the Ralph Nader? Do you weaken the party in the most important election of the last 50 years, in a showdown with evil? But if he does the traditional promise, who will believe his revolutionary call?

Tweety started sniffing "1968" in this election, meaning, the Democratic insurgents won? No, they didn't. Humphrey won, but he was so wedded to LBJ's war that he couldn't beat Nixon, with his doubletalk promises of peace and especially his guarantee to crack down on the hippies and the drug-takers and the commies. So maybe the insurgents should do some thinking about how to play these cards.

Brian wrote on November 13, 2007 3:29 PM:

I don't know what is more ridiculous, Greg Sargent "reporting" on this and then feeling compelled to give us a "late-breaking" update, or me wasting my time commenting about it. Greg, I love you man, but you need to stay away from this crap.

kristin wrote on November 13, 2007 3:30 PM:

I wonder if he would consider running as an independent should Hillary get the nomination....I'd respect any candidate who refuses to support anyone from either party who they believe is not going to do the absolute best job for this nation. This is definitely the time for bold decisions we can not afford to be afraid of losing, we must do what is right. The less of two evils is not gonna do it at this point. I believe this country is ready for that kind of boldness we just need someone to step up to the plate.

loki wrote on November 13, 2007 3:35 PM:

A quick word about bias.

I scanned just the half-month of November's Election Central and found what could be construed as both positive and negative pieces about Obama and Clinton and Edwards.

Amoung other things, TPM drew attention to Bill Clinton playing the gender card, to Hillary's campaign planting questions, to serious criticisms from Edwards and Obama camps...not to mention the Republicans.

Interesting form of bias there guys!

Desider wrote on November 13, 2007 3:41 PM:

Alright, I'll get crap here, but it was an easy question to answer - "I'm a Democrat - I will support the Democratic nominee, which I of course expect to be me". "I fully expect" are weasel words.

I wonder how Lieberman put it?

Desider wrote on November 13, 2007 3:49 PM:

Not that I don't sympathize with Edwards having to deal with the Washington Post and others trying to call the election over a month before the first primary and ignoring actual issues over horserace jockeying.

NJ Lawyer wrote on November 13, 2007 3:50 PM:

I no longer support Edwards because he is not playing a constructive role in the nomination process.

Ad Absurdum wrote on November 13, 2007 3:50 PM:

The eventual nominee deserves no more support from the party than what Ned Lamont received.

BubbaNW wrote on November 13, 2007 3:53 PM:

Have they asked Hillary if she will support Edwards? I'm guessing her answers would be similar. Why are they pestering just him with this loaded question?

Fred App wrote on November 13, 2007 3:55 PM:

Greg, no one's criticizing you for posting the Edwards comment. The criticism is for the accompanying commentary (presumably your own) that implies that Edwards should have given Hillary a strong endorsement.

They're rivals, for God's sake. The reason is Edwards didn't want to answer the question in the first place is because it's the last thing on his mind. He's not thinking about which nominee he'll support because he's spending his energy trying to make sure that HE'S the nominee. The only reason anyone would ask this question was that they thought Edwards was a sure loser. And if he answered the question, he sure would look like one.

Also interesting that they asked him if he's support Hillary, not any of the other candidates. As far as I know, she hasn't gotten a single vote yet. A little early to start the coronation.

And while I have tremendous respect for this Web site, I have to agree that everything that Greg writes sounds like it's coming from someone on the Clinton payroll. You want the MSM to be more objective? Practice what you preach.

OUtside the beltway wrote on November 13, 2007 3:56 PM:

I'm still waiting for hillary's answer on how she's going to get out of Iraq while ElectHillary Central is worried about nonsense

audiophileguy wrote on November 13, 2007 4:01 PM:

While this is fascinating reading, I am not sure I understand the "problem" being discussed. As a committed Democrat, I believe I retain the right to support and vote for the candidate I honestly believe is best for our nation in the general election---regardless of party affiliation. Furthermore, I believe that every single American has the same rights, including John Edwards. Please correct me if I am wrong about this.

Ethan wrote on November 13, 2007 4:01 PM:

Jake D.

Did you miss my last comment on the last thread? Or just ignore it?

Ethan wrote on November 13, 2007 2:29 PM:
Cool Jake. Great. Why? We've come this far, lobbing blog bombs at each other, I'm sick of it and would like to hear why you think he is better than Hillary. NOT why Hillary is worse, mind you, but why you think JE is better and specifically what he plans to do that you find favorable to the other candidates plans. Thank you.

Still waiting......

iVoted4Nader wrote on November 13, 2007 4:02 PM:

When will someone ask Ghoulliani if he will support Ron Paul if RP wins the Republican nomination?

Michael wrote on November 13, 2007 4:16 PM:

Agreed desider, it really is a no-brainer. I don't know what he was thinking.

Alan wrote on November 13, 2007 4:23 PM:

As I recall Edwards made much of Clinton's parsing. So to those of you who are angry with Sargent why don't you ask Clinton the same question and then make a judgement. Why does Edwards give a lawyerly answer and its ok but when Clinton qualifies then its triangulation. Hi there Democrats: Democrats are not the enemy.

I will vote for the Democratic nominee. Period.

DTM wrote on November 13, 2007 4:27 PM:

loki,

That is why I wrote "Greg et al." (meaning Greg and the rest of the people framing the story in this way, including Eric Kleefield).

Now, your defense appears to be that it isn't Greg's fault the story was framed in this way originally, and he is just going along with the flow. But Greg is a human being, presumably capable of independent thought and action, and so he does not in fact have to go along with this framing if it doesn't make sense.

Jake D wrote on November 13, 2007 4:28 PM:

Ethan:

There's an entire new thread about John Edwards's healthcare proposal -- you can also check his web site for other proposals -- have fun : )

gtash wrote on November 13, 2007 4:34 PM:

Wasted breath. Wasted coverage. Wasted Topic.

robenoir wrote on November 13, 2007 4:56 PM:

"Mr. Edwards, would you care to speculate on what you'll do if you LOSE?" Gee, why would anyone who wants to be a winner not try to avoid answering that question?

framecop wrote on November 13, 2007 5:44 PM:

Actually, Michael,

You only have to worry about John Edwards not being the nominee because neither Clinton or Obama has a snowball's chance in hell of winning a REAL LIFE General Election.

The Republicans know it, and want to run against both.

The big money cable news pundits know it, and are more than happy to promote Clinton and Obama.

Ironically, the only ones who don't know it are Democrats, who are fooled by backwards looking big media polls that don't have tell you anything about November 2008.

framecop wrote on November 13, 2007 5:46 PM:

Besides, he was asked whether he would "ENDORSE THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE."

What in the world would he do that for?

Why would anyone "ENDORSE" the "NOMINEE"?

wes2 wrote on November 13, 2007 5:49 PM:

DING. Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a winner.

Today's award for most strained political analogy designed entirely to demonstrate that the analogizer Knows More Shit Than You Do goes to ...

Ed Kilgore!

Carter-Kennedy? 1980? Could Obama even vote then?

Ethan wrote on November 13, 2007 6:28 PM:

Jake D, you mean the thread with 6 comments (none yours) all pretty much trashing his proposal?

Now there's a ringing endorsement.

And I looked at his site and I'm NOT "having fun". In fact I find his use of the term "universal healthcare" TOTALLY disingenuous. He talk about how he is going to provide "universal health care for every man, woman and child in America" and then goes on to talk about how insurance will be affordable this and that... Universal healthcare is tax-payer subsidized, govt regulated health care that is FREE for all individuals in a country. I find his use of the term totally incorrect. Either he is blowing smoke or he is trying to fool you into thinking he is touting a truly progressive plan.

I've now read both health care plans (the full PDFs mind you, not the soundbytes) and I have to say that Hillary's is far superior. They both have similar themes and proposals -- which are great -- but Hillary lays out with specificity how her plan will save/re-invest $110B while covering every American. I personally think that we SHOULD have universal free coverage for all Americans without a single insurance company involved, but that is unlikely in this cycle.

So, I'm not expecting a response from you Jake b/c all you do is duck... but I will say that you certainly have not convinced me that your candidate is worth voting for... And I just looked at Obama's full plan PDF as well and it is very good (especially with an emphasis on preventative care), but I still prefer Hillary's.

And I've already gone over Hillary vs Edwards' energy plan on a previous thread... So, if you have anything else at all that is substantive, I'd be interested to hear it, but won't expect a response...

JEaton wrote on November 13, 2007 7:05 PM:

Why does Edwards have to answer that question? He should say he expects to be the Dem nominee and beyond that he's not commenting on hypothetical scenarios. End of story.

Wish these Dems (male and female) would show some balls! I'm tired of equivocal answers.

Jake D wrote on November 13, 2007 7:22 PM:

Ethan:

You said that JOHN Edwards is my candidate?

loki wrote on November 13, 2007 7:23 PM:

DTM wrote:That is why I wrote "Greg et al." (meaning Greg and the rest of the people framing the story in this way, including Eric Kleefield).
Now, your defense appears to be that it isn't Greg's fault the story was framed in this way originally, and he is just going along with the flow. But Greg is a human being, presumably capable of independent thought and action, and so he does not in fact have to go along with this framing if it doesn't make sense.

"Framing the story?" Edwards was asked if he'd support Clinton. Not anyone else. Clinton. It is about her. (and Edwards, of course) "Greg et al" are not "framing it."

I've made no defense of anything or anyone. I simply stated the obvious. This isn't about framing. It's about a question to Edwards and his response. Pretty simple.

TPM, in my opinion, has wasted space with all of this. As I mentioned before it is frivolous. But they did not make it about Clinton. It is/was about Clinton.

Rydra Wrong wrote on November 13, 2007 7:28 PM:

The people who ask this type of question are only trying to make trouble for the person questioned. They know full well that Edwards will support Clinton if she's nominated, Clinton will support Edwards if he's nominated and both of them will support Obama if he's nominated. But they also know they can stir up a tempest in a teapot by making the targeted candidate choose between either seeming to undermine his loyalty to his party or showing less than full confidence in the eventual success of his own campaign. Edwards knows there is no good answer and has chosen the lesser of two evil choices.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on November 13, 2007 9:04 PM:

Until someone offers verifiable proof that Clinton is not DINO . . . I'm okay with any DEM not supporting Clinton throughout the entire Primary season.

Once a DEM candidate offically becomes the DEM nominee, he/she/it NEEDS E-V-E-R-Y DEMs suppport.

frayedknot wrote on November 13, 2007 9:56 PM:

Greg wrote on November 13, 2007 2:47 PM:

memo to commenters: The Edwards campaign sent me this comment unprompted. I didn't ask for it. I didn't even do the original post on this.

The Edwards camp WANTED us to post this. They asked us to.

If this is true, why didn't you point that out initially? Surely, that changed everything, no? You are willing to act in a report what that this or that politician wishes even in if the news isn't, you know, newsworthy or if it is newsworthy you leave out the part that is, and posting post facto is weasly beyond words.

Nice work. Your credibility grows.

Amber wrote on November 13, 2007 10:58 PM:

TPM is one of my bookmarked blogs and excellent, but your obsession with this question is showing some Hillary-bias and very Fox News-esque. Edwards probably know that he and Obama are going to help Hillary self-destruct and drag herself right out of a nomination. David Kurtz is to TPM and Hillary as Roger Ailes is to Fox News and Rudy. Get over this question and give Edwards credit for not getting aboard the Hillary-will-be-the-nominee-like-it-or-not bandwagon. You're showing bias. It's insulting to everybody who comes to you to get away from the pack journalism of the MSM.

calvin wrote on November 13, 2007 11:44 PM:

I saw this story in the New York Times this morning along with quotes from Dodd, Clinton and Obama saying they will support the nominee.

It's such a standard question. I can't believe that Edwards would run in the Democratic Party primary and not be willing to support the nominee if it isn't him.

To paraphrase what someone on Blue Hampshire said, "I fully intend to win the lottery, and you may fully expect me to buy you a car."

I wouldn't call the car dealer with a promise like that, would you?

onceler wrote on November 14, 2007 12:44 PM:

um, have y'all lost your minds?

GreenVTster wrote on November 14, 2007 1:36 PM:

Did anyone ask Hillary yet if she will pledge, right now, to endorse Gravel if he wins the nomination?

space wrote on November 14, 2007 6:50 PM:

Good for Edwards. I won't be voting for Hillary. Glad I'll have company.

runescape money wrote on December 6, 2007 2:18 AM:

runescape money runescape gold runescape money runescape gold wow power leveling wow powerleveling Warcraft Power Leveling Warcraft PowerLeveling buy runescape gold buy runescape money runescape items runescape gold runescape accounts runescape gp dofus kamas buy dofus kamas Guild Wars Gold buy Guild Wars Gold runescape accounts buy runescape accounts runescape lotro gold buy lotro gold lotro gold buy lotro gold lotro gold buy lotro gold lotro gold buy lotro gold runescape money runescape power leveling runescape money runescape gold dofus kamas cheap runescape money cheap runescape gold Hellgate Palladium Hellgate London Palladium Hellgate money Tabula Rasa gold tabula rasa money lotro gold
buy lotro gold Tabula Rasa Credit
Tabula Rasa Credits