http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/The_Mudcat_lobby_Stop_Hillary.html

If it's genuinely policies Edwards is interested in, how could he possibly go for Obama over Hillary, when Hillary was far closer to his own in the most important areas?

And, could someone please locate John's fighting spirit in the saccharine Kumbayahs of Obama?

Gs5yeyte4dS cool site!!! [url=http://mardanows1.com]cool site!!![/url] http://mardanows2.com hj56e45e

I just posted this over at TPM cafe, but I think it's a different audience here, and I figured people would find it interesting.

Who does Edwards favor? From early Dec up to the NV primary, Edwards has aggressively criticized Clinton while treating Obama mildly and sometimes defending him against Clinton. I've compiled a list of examples of Edwards jumping into Obama-Clinton battles on Obama's side. The only exceptions I know of include the Reagan comment, for which Edwards criticized Obama, and the last debate, during which he joined Clinton a bit more than usual.

Has this alliance been strategic or personal? Who knows? But I do note that Edwards has been remarkably consistent. The Obama-supporting examples stretch from December, when Clinton was the frontrunner, to Clinton's dramatic post-Iowa fall, to her resurrection after NH. If it were purely strategic, you'd think that he'd have changed sides as the frontrunners changed. But decide for yourself. Here are the examples in chronological order:

On Clinton's "joke" about Obama wanting to be President since kindergarten
desmoinesregister.com 12/04/07
Edwards: "I want to confess to all of you right now," he told his audience, "in third grade, I wanted to be two things: I wanted to be a cowboy, and I wanted to be Superman."

On Clinton's criticism of Obama's experience in international relations
johnedwards.com 12/20/07
Chris Kofinis, John Edwards for President communications director:
"mudslinging |mŭd'slĭng'ing| (also mud-slinging)noun informal
the use of insults and accusations, esp. unjust ones, with the aim of damaging the reputation of an opponent. As in: Hillary Clinton said about Barack Obama, 'Now voters will judge whether living in a foreign country at the age of 10 prepares one to face the big, complex international challenges the next president will face.'
"Now we know what Senator Clinton meant when she talked about 'throwing mud' in the last debate. Like so many other things, when it comes to mud, Hillary Clinton says one thing and throws another."

On the Clinton flier attacking Obama's health plan
washingtonpost.com 12/20/07
Edwards campaign statement: "Iowa caucus goers have been sent a direct mail advertisement that appears to be an attack on Senator Obama by John Edwards, but is actually produced and funded by an organization supporting Senator Clinton," read a statement from the former North Carolina senator's campaign.
Jennifer O'Malley Dillon, Iowa State Director for the Edwards Campaign: "There have been a lot of misleading tactics and tricks in the last few weeks, but we've just never seen anything like this before...It's fine to have an honest debate about policy, but Iowans deserve better than planted questions and campaign fliers designed to fool them."

After Obama's defeat of Clinton in Iowa
nytimes.com 01/03/08
Edwards: "The one thing that’s clear from the results in Iowa tonight is the status quo lost and change won."

Ganging up on Clinton at the NH debate
nytimes.com 01/06/08
As Mrs. Clinton attacked Mr. Obama as waffling on the Patriot Act and Iraq war funding, she sought to make an ally out of Mr. Edwards. She suggested that Mr. Obama had hypocritically tried to paint Mr. Edwards as inconsistent on the issues. All eyes turned to Mr. Edwards, and he delivered a coup de grace — siding dramatically with Mr. Obama instead of Mrs. Clinton.
“Any time you speak out powerfully for change, the forces of status quo attack,” Mr. Edwards said, looking and gesturing toward Mrs. Clinton. Referring to himself and Mr. Obama, he added: “He believes deeply in change, and I believe deeply in change. And any time you’re fighting for that, I mean, I didn’t hear these kinds of attacks from Senator Clinton when she was ahead.”

On the dispute about Hillary's MLK comment and Bill’s fairytale comment:
abcnews.com 01/13/08
Edwards: "As someone who grew up in the segregated South, I feel an enormous amount of pride when I see the success that Sen. Barack Obama having in this campaign...I must say I was troubled recently to see a suggestion that real change that came not through the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, but through a Washington politician...I fundamentally disagree with that. Those who believe that real change starts with Washington politicians have been in Washington too long and are living a fairytale...We’ve come a long way in the 54 years that I’ve been on this earth. But not far enough. We still have work to do. And the hopes that both Sen. Obama and I have for this nation and this country that we love so much these are not false hopes, they’re real hopes."

And finally, the exceptions in which Edwards sides with Clinton against Obama:

On Obama's Reagan comment
abcnews.com 01/17/08
Edwards: "Senator Obama was speaking...used Ronald Reagan – President Ronald Reagan – as an example of change. My view is I would never use Ronald Reagan as an example of change..."

On Obama's "present" votes in the IL legislature
SC debate 01/21/08
Edwards: "What I didn't hear was an explanation for why over 100 times you voted present instead of yes or no when you had a choice to vote up or down."

Ponder this matrix of endorsements and their impact if made before Feb 5.

Columns: Billary, BO
Rows: Edwards, Richardson Gore

What would you all say is a winning combination for either candidate assuming that endoresments mean squat?

quote - MSNBC's site says:
"An immediate impact of Edwards’ withdrawal will be six additional delegates for Obama, giving him a total of 187, and four more for Clinton, giving her 253. - /quote

Yeah, but doesn't that only work if he withdraws rather than merely suspends?

Obama P
Richardson VP
Edwards AG

Studly Pantload:

I'm very sure he'll withdraw. Another thing from MSNBC:
"As expected, Edwards said he was suspending his campaign rather than ending it, but aides said that was simply legal terminology so that he can continue to receive federal matching funds for his campaign donations."

I think it has something to do with paying back his staffers

Something to consider:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/01/the-national-pr.html

Anonymous wrote on January 30, 2008 2:37 PM:
Something to consider:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/01/the-national-pr.html

Notice how Obama's support rises--as Edwards' fades away.

I tend to think that the only reason to drop out this close to super Tuesday is so that his presence doesn't dilute the anti-Hillary vote. I think his departure is great news for Obama and I ultimately expect Edwards to endorse Obama. As one of the "change" candidates it would make no sense for him to endorse the status quo, aka Clinton.

M Miller - thanx!

Maybe I am hearing what I want to hear, but I think Edwards sounded a lot of Obama's main themes in his speech.

uh, what you heard was Edwards reiterating his own themes, all of which Obama pretty much stole.

@ Anonymous:

Why should I consider anything that Andrew Sullivan says?

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59919

Matt Z..well said sir.

Angry vet hit on this earlier, so I don't want to take credit for the thought, but this was a brilliant, brilliant move by obama and edwards. Florida is totally off the media radar screen and edwards dropping out is drowning out anything associated with florida. All the media tonight will be talking about edwards and who he helps by dropping out. Brilliant media move.

Michael A (and Angry vet), I was thinking the same thing, though I'm not sure that they're really working together. If so, it's also smart for Edwards to hold off for a few days before announcing his endorsement. Let it simmer in the media for a little bit (and let Clinton talk about how much she loves Edwards for a few days), and then spring it before Tuesday.

If they're working together, that's what I see happening. But if Edwards doesn't make an endorsement before Tues, then I will assume that he's on his own.

Ghengis, I bet he will endorse before Tuesday and probably friday morning, before the weekend. I think this was planned. I bet after sc he was going to get out and wanted to time his departure with obama to help obama as much as possible. If it was right after sc, he would have sucked the air out of obama's win. Also, I bet edwards was pissed about the clintons game playing with florida as well. So, what better way to stick it to them but to steal their attempt at manufacturing a victory out of thin air. Brilliant move.

Michael, good point on the timing. From a solo point of view, you'd think that he would pull out after SC, which matters, rather than after FL, which doesn't. Certainly the timing is very convenient for Obama. On the other hand, he did a lot better in SC than he did in FL.

RJ,

That's just generic "outside the beltway" rhetoric against a frontrunner.

Look, if John Edwards wants a true legacy, one for which he is going to be known, he has to attach the policies he's been advocating for to potential legislation of broad and historic importance. The issue that absolutely best fits that description is universal health care.

And whose proposal, Hillary's or Obama's matches his own the best? Answer: Hillary's by far. If her plan makes it into law, he can rightly claim that he was for all practical purposes its architect. That change in direction in our society will be recognized for centuries to come. He will be part of that history.

But how would this be true if Obama's compromised, defective alternative gets put into law? Where is Edwards' bold contribution reflected in that pale imitation? What will happen to that plan as it is implemented, and fails to cover millions upon millions of more people than Edwards' own? How much will Edwards' vision be adulterated and forgotten in the process?

If I were Edwards, and was interested in a concrete legacy I would be able to point to, it would be hard to choose anyone other than Hillary.

>>>Clinton's too war-mongery, and Obama's "inspiriation-thing" is scary to me -- he has turned some of my best friends, ordinarily reasonable, rational, analytical people into automatons who can't do anything other than spout his talking points.>>>

Er, in other words, Clinton rode shotgun with Bush Cheney on the deaths of hundreds of thousands, helped trash our international standing by repeating Bush lies without even reading the intelligence, went enabler again on the Iran thing, won't admit the authorization was a mistake...

....and Obama is too inspirational?

My guess is that John Edwards will land in the white house as an attorney general for either Hillary or Barack. Of course he would always do what Al Gore does, except instead of ruin the environment by jetting all over the world, he could bild large homes in poor neighborhoods.

I'm an Edwards supporter who in terms of the "cozying up to power" question doesn't see any Obama advantage. Obama is well supported by big money interests, and he's favored over Clinton by Wall Street because his chief economic advisor is from the conservative Chicago School of Economics.

I might find all the arguments routinely made against Hillary more convincing if Obama was a candidate who presented a real contrast in terms of policy, commitment to issues I care about, and character. But, he doesn't. By now I'm use to settling for nominees who are more centrist or conservative than I would like them to be. But I find Obama's use of extremely personal character attacks and divisive, Chicago-style hardball tactics on the one hand, coupled with high flown rhetoric about a ending "divisiveness" and a "new" kind of politics on the other, to be very offensive. It's cynical and dishonest.

Just in from Progressive Dems of America

Edwards, the Obama Movement & the Fight for a Progressive Congress

Dear John,

John Edwards just announced that he is suspending his populist presidential campaign that had put corporate greed and economic injustice under the spotlight. We wish him and Elizabeth well. And we thank all of you who've worked so hard for John Edwards or for progressive stalwart Dennis Kucinich (now focusing on reelection to Congress.)

No matter who we've supported so far for president, many PDAers have seen firsthand the enthusiastic, youthful, multiracial movement that has embraced Barack Obama . The Senator hasn't been totally progressive on the issues, but our engagement with the inspiring Obama movement--which includes tens of thousands of open-minded newcomers to activism--leaves us hopeful. If the Obama movement succeeds, it could play an important role in the remaking of the Democratic Party that PDA is helping to bring about. (See PDA Advisory Board member Tom Hayden's recent endorsement of the Obama movement.)

As important as the presidential race is the fight for a progressive Congress. PDA chapters have been endorsing solid progressives for U.S. House seats. Eight have received national endorsements already.

Two of our endorsed candidates are battling for seats in Maryland and Illinois. Their campaigns are the most pressing--and need our help now to put them over the top.

* Donna Edwards in Maryland's fourth Congressional district. (Contact diane@pdamerica.org to volunteer to phone bank for Donna Edwards.)

* John Laesch in Illinois' fourteenth congressional district.

PDA's other endorsed candidates are: Clint Curtis, Corbett Kroehler and Samm Simpson (FL); Randi Scheuer (IL); Dr. Bill Durston (CA); and Mahdi Ibn-Ziyad (NJ).

Let's work to put more progressives in Congress.

And wherever activists gather, especially in the Obama movement--and wherever Congressional or presidential candidates gather--let's continue to promote and distribute the full progressive agenda.

In solidarity,

Tim Carpenter
National Director

Quote: I will write-in John Edwards in the GE if he would simply pledge to never mention the fact that he's the son of a mill worker again.

Hear me Mr. Edwards!!!

We GET IT John.

---------------------------------------

For those of us who grew up poor, that means a lot to us. Skull and Bones elites like Kerry rub some folks as bad as repugs. Maybe you should not be so wuick to rush to judgement, you shallow son of a bitch.

Dancing Bear,

Okay, first of all, if you're an anti-war candidate who has argued that the President made the wrong decision to take us into war, how could you possibly defer to his choice for Secretary of State, particularly when that choice was someone who was an architect of the war?

Second, no, Bush might not have nominated a peacenik, but he didn't have to nominate someone WHO WAS AN ARCHITECT OF THE WAR?

Third, there were others -- like Dick Durbin -- who voted against Rice? If Obama were as anti-war as he says, why didn't he vote no?

So it sounds like he was playing politics as usual . . . and not really giving us unwavering opposition to the war.

Typos...

Interesting that Edwards quits after losing Florida. (for a primary that didn't count) Also found curious that today is first time in over a month that his wife traveled with him. Isn't that about when the National Inquirer article about his mistress and unborn child came out? She's due to deliver in next couple of months.

I can't believe what i read from Obama supporters, " John Edwards must endorse Obama before feb 5th and campaign for him"This is no sense ,I'm a huge Edwards supporter and his crowd always follow him for one reason, he's a fighter, he's been talking about corporate greed like nobody else, about poverty, unequal outcomes, many issues than the other candidates would not have even mention without him in the race , what i always liked about him was the real approach to the problems, we gotta tackle down whats hurting us, beat it, defeat it and we all gotta sacrifice. All i hear from Obama is that he would be the messiah that would bring "change" to this mess, the mediator between "us" the real workers and the Exxon board of directors, that he's gonna have a party where my sick brothers and William Maguire would be invited, give me a break!!! This guy is gutless man that cant even confront Hillary Clinton without pissing on his pants and having all of his friends coming in his defense because he cant even defend himself!I will support HRC over Obama only cause i see in her more balls and backbone than what i see on Obama i dont even wanna go to the issues cause i don't even know the substance of his policies maybe he can erase the word change form his mouth a little and actually talk about substance in the incoming debate.