Top Edwards Adviser Joe Trippi: Hillary And Obama Are "Banging Down The Doors" For Our Endorsement

Comments (107)

barfly wrote on January 30, 2008 12:34 PM:

Look at it this way: if Edwards endorses Hillary, alot of people who backed him will feel betrayed.

Angry Vet wrote on January 30, 2008 12:34 PM:

It's getting better all the time! Watch and see what happens at 12 CST.

nisleib wrote on January 30, 2008 12:35 PM:

I don't see how Edwards can endorse Hillary without looking like a total sell out.

Dan wrote on January 30, 2008 12:38 PM:

After Trippi stood next to Mark Penn for that infamous post-debate interview in which Penn brought up "cocaine," he must, MUST counsel Edwards to endorse Obama.

strawhat wrote on January 30, 2008 12:39 PM:

Good luck to JRE. I was hoping he'd stay in longer, because he affects the national discourse for the better. He's the only one who talks about poor people.

The best thing any Dem president could do in the next year or so would be to appoint JRE, Jimmy Carter, and maybe Bill Clinton to go to the Gulf Coast and get done what should have been done as soon as the water subsided. That pres should give them all the resources they need--money, manpower, machinery--to help the people. Anything and everything they need *right now* -- a Marshall Plan for the people of the Gulf Coast.

Anonymous wrote on January 30, 2008 12:42 PM:

i hope hillary will do all she can to get edwards supporters and endorments and bill richardson supporters and endorments on her side.... we can't afford to have obama in the white house with out knowledge and leadership skills to run the white house.

May be after 8 years he can run again

GO HILLARY

Franco wrote on January 30, 2008 12:43 PM:

Edwards may endorse the CLINTONS,she had a sneaky little grin on her face this morning talking about him. If he does, then all of you who ragged on Russ feingold need to send his pac 100 bucks. Because he would have been right about Edwards being a liar.

lampwick wrote on January 30, 2008 12:43 PM:

It would nice if one of the campaigns could try to lure Edwards, not by bribing him with promises, but by actually going out and making a strong move to tackle the issues Edwards cared about, like poverty and NOLA.

kjoe wrote on January 30, 2008 12:43 PM:

I would like to see Edwards participate in Thursday night's debate.

As a questioner---a prominent questioner.

Objections? Seconds?

Now is the Time wrote on January 30, 2008 12:46 PM:

The more I see of Hillary Clinton, the more she reminds me of George Bush. Yesterday she staged a political rally after the polls closed in an election that didn't count so she could declare victory just like someone else I know? Can you say "Mission Accomplished?"

I think the voters of South Carolina should be insulted that on Saturday she left their state, with their delegates that will be counted, before the poles even closed. But for Florida she has a grand celebration? I guess it was too warm down there for her to wear a flight suit.

Think about it... She was in such a hurry to get to Tennessee so she could focus on Super Tuesday and the "Millions of voters who could finally have their voices heard." It was so urgent that she couldn't stay an extra few hours to thank the supporters that went out to vote for her. But now, less than 3 days later, she finds time to make a special trip to Florida AFTER they have voted. Her need for a photo op hopefully will backfire, because I can't take another 4 years of fairy tales.

Edwards should back OBAMA....

barfly wrote on January 30, 2008 12:47 PM:

My guess is that this was planned to blunt the effect of Hillary's Florida win. Of course, the media has already blunted it--as is proper.

josh-quasimoto wrote on January 30, 2008 12:48 PM:

I sincerely hope that the good words that Mr Edwards used to help us good citizens understand his message are words that he continues to live by. No doubt that the future direction of this country and all of its citizens from the poorest to the richest, from the darkest skinned to the lightest skinned and from the youngest to the oldest will need all the good men and women will need people like Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Dennis Kucinich, Bill Richardson, Sheldon WHithouse, Barbara Boxer etc to help us focus on the true needs of the people and the land that we all live on. Keep on talking and keep on working, we need change or change will be thrust upon us!

dan wrote on January 30, 2008 12:52 PM:

Did anyone see Trippi on MSNBC after S.C.? He was livid, and obviously so, over the Clinton robo-calls the night before the vote. He went after the Clinton rep twice, looking for an apology or some response (the rep, a woman whose name I don't recall, somehow managed to smile, shake her head no while Trippi talked, and didn't answer).

I saw something visceral there, and I can't believe that Trippi, anyway, would counsel in favor of a Clinton endorsement.

AKA wrote on January 30, 2008 12:53 PM:

Edwards as VP on the Obama ticket, or Edwards as AG in an Obama administration.

Clintons are not what America needs and over 70% of primary/caucus voters to date have sent this clear message to the Clinton campaign.

No surprise that Clintons are not listening to the will of the people.

But Obama should.

hadenough wrote on January 30, 2008 12:53 PM:

The question now is will trippi admit he was working for obama all along.

Anonymous wrote on January 30, 2008 12:53 PM:

Maybe I'm just an Obama partisan, but I'll be shocked to see Edwards endorse Hillary. Unless she promises him VP or Secretary of Labor or something.

Bat Guano wrote on January 30, 2008 12:54 PM:

Jeeze, maybe the Edwards folks are finding out what it feels like to be bugged with donation requests every day!

... I did donate to Edwards last fall (pissed at Ann Coulter's "fag" reference), and for the longest time I got heavy-handed calls pressuring me to give more money. I like the guy, but damn, ease up, people.

ProDem wrote on January 30, 2008 12:56 PM:

My question is what would be the most "PERFECT JOB" for John Edwards in a Democratic Administration, whether it be Hillary or Obamas'??

My answer would be JOHN EDWARDS would be the BEST ATTORNEY GENERAL in this country's history!!!!

DRinOH wrote on January 30, 2008 12:58 PM:

Edwards' vehement advocacy for the poor has certainly had a dramatic effect on tone of the campaign. That said, if he really wants to do all he can to shape the race he has to make an endorsement, and I don't see how he can endorse Hillary given what he's said already.

And it looks like and endorsement would mean a lot. Experts, including Ambinder, call it a tossup.

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/01/super_tuesday_projection_130_1.php

Josh wrote on January 30, 2008 1:01 PM:

After the way Trippi went after the Clinton surrogate about the robocall in South Carolina, I would be shocked if it isn't Obama.

barfly wrote on January 30, 2008 1:02 PM:

Look at it through Edwards' eyes. He sees himself as the next Bobby Kennedy, but instead of fighting the mob, he'll fight corporate sleaze. Obama, of course, is JFK--a young, imperfect, but ultimately charismatic leader with a sympathetic heart.

gtash wrote on January 30, 2008 1:04 PM:

I gave money to John Edwards for President as recently as yesterday. And proud to have done so.

I think he will speak for himself, but I suspect this has to do with Elizabeth no matter what he may say. The man is dedicated, but I don't think he would stop dead in his tracks unless it were something more personally important.

All the blather about who his supporters will go to is pointless. Let the man say what he thinks. He hasn't failed to that so far, and I do not expect him to stop now.

WWNPHD wrote on January 30, 2008 1:05 PM:

I feel like AG isn't the best platform for tackling poverty. My prediction: Obama adds to the federal bureaucracy by creating the new Department of John Edwards Kicking Ass on Poverty 24/7.

Eric wrote on January 30, 2008 1:06 PM:

Rudy drops out and endorse McCain based on principle.

Edwards drops out and will endorse whomever is the highest bidder.

Edwards wrote on January 30, 2008 1:06 PM:

Edawards has to endorse Obama. otherwise his silence is CLINTON-BOUGHT! Let's SEE how much Edawards wants CHANGE...or is he going to seel out to the Clintons. It would have to be viewed that way because all Edwards positions are AGAINST NAFTA, etc...

Keith wrote on January 30, 2008 1:06 PM:

I had forgotten about the robocalls in South Carolina.

His endorsement will probably mean more than any other endorsement still out there (yes, more than Gore's).

Edwards wrote on January 30, 2008 1:07 PM:

Edwards=Bobby....Obama=JFK.....

Volum wrote on January 30, 2008 1:07 PM:

barfly wrote:
"Look at it this way: if Edwards endorses Hillary, alot of people who backed him will feel betrayed."

Sorry, same goes for Obama.

If part of your agenda is to remove lobbyists and PACs from influence, supporting a candidate who's top ten donors are corporate lobbyists and PAC's makes no sense whatsoever.

Edwards' and Obamas platforms are almost polar opposites.

Ryan Scott wrote on January 30, 2008 1:08 PM:

Speaking of endorsements, Obama's webpage is notably silent on his whereabouts tomorrow and Friday, though it does list an event for Saturday.

So, he's keeping the next couple of days open, and he happens to be in the mid-Western states. Either he's still hoping for Richardson's endorsement, or he's got it and word will leak out tonight or tomorrow.

liberal historiam wrote on January 30, 2008 1:10 PM:

I think Barack Obama needs the endorsement far more than the Clintons.

Remember: We are talking about 8 years of presidential favors to call home.

Also I think you need to consider the historical tendencies of the Democratic party. For whatever reasons, and one can think of many, the party has a tendency to run NorthEast liberals in the general election, and get slaughtered on a fairly regular schedule.

Hillary is a NorthEast liberal.
So in a sense she has history on her side.

Publicus wrote on January 30, 2008 1:10 PM:

Federal lobbyist. Forgot about that one too.

frankly0 wrote on January 30, 2008 1:13 PM:

If Edwards wants to see what promises to be his most enduring legacy, universal health care, come into being, whom does he go with?

Hillary, who saw his idea and was happy to copy it and advocate for it, or Obama, who saw it, compromised it, and then attacked both Edwards and Hillary with Republican talking points on an absolutely key feature of Edwards proposal?

I think if Edwards is good to his word that he's really looking to see his policies implemented, he's going to find it hard to justify going with some abject compromiser like Obama.

And, of course, where in Obama might Edwards locate anything that resembles his own fighting spirit? And who's loved by the privileged latte sipping elites -- Hillary or Obama?

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 30, 2008 1:13 PM:

Edwards' and Obamas platforms are almost polar opposites.

A gross exageration, that. All three of the democratic frontrunners were only separated by a whisker's bredth. I grant that Edwards' and Clinton's platforms were more similar to each other than to Obama's (owing largely to the fact that Sen Clinton crafted her platforms by little more than copying and pasting from Edwards' website). That said, Edwards' and Romney's platforms are polar opposites. Edwards' and Obama's platforms are about as different as white and purple eggplants.

Mark F wrote on January 30, 2008 1:18 PM:

I've got to guess that most of Edwards' support will go to Obama no matter what. While I passionately support Obama's candidacy and have since he announced, I would have gone for Edwards as a second choice. Hillary was never an option for me. The thought of her in the White House fills me with fear and loathing.

In order, my candidates of choice have always been:

1). Obama
2). Chris Dodd
3). John Edwards

I think there's plenty of "anyone but Hillary" sentiment out there. I think Edwards' supporters--once they get over the shock of losing a very good candidate--will tend to align themselves with Obama.

corinne wrote on January 30, 2008 1:19 PM:

Edwards shouldn't endorse anyone but if he does, I'm hoping he'll go with Hillary.

I agree with this statement: "I think if Edwards is good to his word that he's really looking to see his policies implemented, he's going to find it hard to justify going with some abject compromiser like Obama."

I can see Obama making promises to Edwards that he'll never keep. And Obama won't fight as hard as Edwards would because, God knows we wouldn't want to offend anyone.

Tithonia wrote on January 30, 2008 1:21 PM:

LOL! Well said, Greg D @ 1:13pm!

frankly0 wrote on January 30, 2008 1:21 PM:

My guess is that this was planned to blunt the effect of Hillary's Florida win. Of course, the media has already blunted it--as is proper.

This strikes me as exactly wrong. In fact, since Edwards is dropping out precisely because of the Florida vote, it will be impossible for the media to pretend it wasn't critically important. And it will also be impossible for them not to mention that Hillary won, and by a huge margin.

markg8 wrote on January 30, 2008 1:22 PM:

As an Obama supporter I'd like to applaud John Edwards and his campaign. He's brought great issues to the debate that otherwise might have gotten short shrift and lately has been a voice of sanity helping pull the party back from irrevocable division.

He was my first choice in 2004 and second in 2008. I'd like to see Obama make him Attorney General. John can do this country a great public service prosecuting Republicans for their crimes against the constitution and Wall St. corner cutting wizards who have trashed the economy.

I think John's temperament as a trial lawyer is suited to righting those wrongs. Resurrecting and depoliticizing the DOJ will be a huge job in the next administration. If he decides to run again in 2016 it'll be high profile job that'll keep him in the spotlight too.

DeLassus for President 2012 wrote on January 30, 2008 1:25 PM:

In order, my candidates of choice have always been:

1). Obama
2). Chris Dodd
3). John Edwards

Uh huh, but what about your preferences in 2012? Can I count on your endorsement?

Anonymous wrote on January 30, 2008 1:26 PM:

frank, I think you're making a gross assumption in saying he dropped out "because of FL" and hillary's "huge win" (lol as I typed that). wait and see what he says, but I doubt he was pinning his hopes on FL ala Rudy.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 30, 2008 1:26 PM:

In fact, since Edwards is dropping out precisely because of the Florida vote, it will be impossible for the media to pretend it wasn't critically important. And it will also be impossible for them not to mention that Hillary won, and by a huge margin.

That is an interesting point, dear Frankly0. I had not thought of it that way. I guess that we will see if everyone is talking about Clinton in Florida in a few minutes.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on January 30, 2008 1:28 PM:

Edwards should back the American people by staying in the race.

The Grand Panjandrum wrote on January 30, 2008 1:28 PM:

"I don't expect him to do anything today," Trippi said. "His will be a very coveted endorsement. He's got a fairly large following in the party, both on line and off, and I can't think of anybody else who would be bigger or more coveted."

Yes Edwards would be very important to either candidate, but Trippi never one to miss an opportunity for hyperbole, seems to have forgotten that Al Gore is still alive and breathing.

I do suspect Edwards wants the Labor or DOJ appointment. I have no facts to back up my speculation.

lm945 wrote on January 30, 2008 1:31 PM:

Once again, California will not have a true voice in choosing our Presidential candidate.

The whole point of moving up California's primary is so we could be heard.

I sincerely hope his reason for dropping out before Super Tuesday is not Elizabeth's health. But if he's out for any other reason, I will be seriously PISSED.

Wes, SC wrote on January 30, 2008 1:32 PM:

Frankly0, 17% is NOT a huge margin when no one campaigned in the state, and she was up more than 20% in the polls.

But what is a huge margin is the almost 30% margin in SC where she AND your former president campaigned and spent HEAVILY!

Mark F wrote on January 30, 2008 1:34 PM:

Gallup shows Obama gaining:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/104044/Gallup-Daily-Tracking-Election-2008.aspx

It's interesting to compare Edwards' performance during the same time period. Note the early part of the graph, where Obama and Hillary are heading in opposite directions--Hillary gains while Obama loses a little, then Obama gains while Hillary loses. Clearly, the race is tight and between the two of them. But look at what's happening with Edwards during the same timeframe. He's generally tracking below Obama, but with a very similar trajectory. Then, around January 17-18, Edwards' support begins falling off. At the same time, Obama's support starts to climb. It's all within the margin, of course, but viewed from that angle, the numbers look good for Obama.

frankly0 wrote on January 30, 2008 1:35 PM:

frank, I think you're making a gross assumption in saying he dropped out "because of FL"

Oh yeah, I'm sure that anybody will believe the story that the proximate cause of Edwards' dropping out was something other than the Florida vote.

If the Florida vote is just a "beauty pageant", why would a major candidate drop out immediately after he had a poor showing in that unimportant event? Doesn't make lots of sense, does it?

alexanderc wrote on January 30, 2008 1:36 PM:

That's going to be some debate this coming thursday, Clinton vs. Obama. I'd like to see an Obama/Edwards ticket, but I don't see Edwards backing Hillary though either way. That can not be possible.

eriday wrote on January 30, 2008 1:36 PM:

What about Trippi? If the Edwards' campaign wants to get as much millage as possible from an endorsement, on Friday Trippi could say "It doesn't look like Edwards is going to make an endorsement, I'm going to work for [Obama | Clinton]". Then on Saturday, Edwards can make his endorsement. Then on Sunday the talking heads can spout their wisdom. All of which leads into super Tuesday.

frankly0 wrote on January 30, 2008 1:37 PM:

Wes,

What everyone knows is that the demographics of SC are very far skewed away from the demographics of the vast majority of states, and that that is why Obama did so well.

Look at the numbers.

BionicWoman wrote on January 30, 2008 1:38 PM:

If Edwards is smart, he'll endorse the candidate that offers him a cabinet post as Secretary of Labor. If it turns out to be Hillary - what does it matter as long as he has the opportunity to the most good.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 30, 2008 1:38 PM: Once again, California will not have a true voice in choosing our Presidential candidate.

There was a commentator on NPR last night making a pitch for California's primary to come first next go around. I thought it was a very good idea. California has the most diverse electorate and the most diverse economy in the nation, so it would be impossible for candidates to win there by pandering to specific voting blocs (farming, textiles, Hispanics, etc). The great argument against California is that it is so large as to preclude personal appearances, but if it were first, that would allow lots of time for personal appearances all over the state because no one would need to be campaigning anywhere else. I think that it is a very good idea, although one unlikely to go anywhere.

Christopher London wrote on January 30, 2008 1:39 PM:

EDWARDS has a clear choice. While he does not agree with HILLARY or OBAMA on many of the issues, he did however lead the progressive agenda and should be credited with advancing the dialoque. The alternative for EDWARDS is to join the CLINTON MACHINE which is clearly politics as usual or give OBAMA'S Movement a bump. I think doing the latter will take more character, carry greater risk and alienate him to a Clinton Whitehouse if she gets the nomination. However, if he endorses Clinton, it will be a defeat of good over EVIL.

ObamaIn08 wrote on January 30, 2008 1:47 PM:

I will be out volunteering for Obama in CT this weekend and have taken the day off work on Feb 5 to drive voters to the polls for Obama. Does anybody else sense a wave of Obama-Mania!

Jose Lopez wrote on January 30, 2008 1:48 PM:

If you listened to his speech today, I do not see anyway he could endorse Clinton. She stands for everything he is fighting for. Look for him to endorse Obama by Friday!!!

liberal historian wrote on January 30, 2008 1:49 PM:

This strikes me as exactly wrong. In fact, since Edwards is dropping out precisely because of the Florida vote, it will be impossible for the media to pretend it wasn't critically important. And it will also be impossible for them not to mention that Hillary won, and by a huge margin.

Yawn.
Okay I'll bite.

Since Florida was off the table by agreement, show me one shred of evidence that Edwards is vacating his ambitions because of the vote there. One single shred of evidence outside of your own mind! One!

Regarding the bit about the media not being able to pretend...yada yada yada...

Wake me up when this happens.

zzzzzzzzzz..........

More. Better. Zealots. Please.
Wow. Primaries: The silly season for sure

Lonny wrote on January 30, 2008 1:52 PM:

I find it unlikely that Edwards would endorse Obama (because of the Kerry endorsement), but I find it even less likely he'd endorse Clinton. It would like a betrayal whereas an Obama endorsement might look like a sellout.

I think Edwards should challenge both candidates to take up his message. If he says nothing it might look like a Clinton sellout.

If he were to endorse Obama he'd have to kiss and make up with Kerry. They had a nasty split after their 2004 loss. He'd also have to make some substantial constructive criticisms of Obama's campaign.

The real question is who are his supporters going to vote for. He'll still be on the ballot for Super Tuesday. If he wins, it'll be a repudiation of both Obama and Clinton. Unlikely as it seems. I predict that they'll split with a greater percentage going to Obama than Hillary.

liberal historian wrote on January 30, 2008 1:53 PM:

What everyone knows is that the demographics of SC are very far skewed away from the demographics of the vast majority of states, and that that is why Obama did so well.

Oh my.
What everybody knows?
Or what you have assumed to be true?
I caught you out on this line of personal interpretation the other night. You have got a knack for skewering reality to fit your fanaticism.

Suggestion:
Become a good liberal again.
Learn to think critically.

Joe Trippi? wrote on January 30, 2008 1:53 PM:

Does anyone still take Joe Trippi's advice anymore? He's a total train wreck of a campaign manager.

djcrow22 wrote on January 30, 2008 1:57 PM:

Can someone explain why an Obama-Edwards ticket is/is not feasible? Who are the VP choices for Obama? I supported Edwards specifically for his anti-corporate stand, which in my mind is the key to unraveling the whole lobbyist/pay to play/fascist government we have now.

Ms wrote on January 30, 2008 2:00 PM: frankly0 wrote

...since Edwards is dropping out precisely because of the Florida vote...

MSNBC just reported that Edwards didn't get out because of Florida.

They said he made his decision after South Carolina.

As an Edwards supporter, I just hope he endorses Obama before Tuesday. I mean, why bother to endorse anyone if you're not prepared to do it before the largest grouping of primaries in history?

I honestly wish John had stayed in to be Kingmaker in August. Since he's decided against that, I truly hopes he endorses Obama, and does it soon. Before Tuesday.

carlos,nyc wrote on January 30, 2008 2:01 PM:

There's only one reason Edwards dropped out now. It's the same reason he will not be part of the Obama administration. Just google "Edwards love child" to find out.

Matt wrote on January 30, 2008 2:03 PM:

You know, I'm pretty happy to support whichever dem gets the nod. But the manner in which Hillary supporters are gloating over their Mickey Mouse, fairly dirty Florida and Michigan wins is like watching a WWF wrestler choke out a retarded kid and then start cheering about it. Sometimes y'all just need to show a little class. The way the Clinton campaign is suddenly pushing for MI and FL delegate seating disgusts me.

Ms wrote on January 30, 2008 2:07 PM:

Carlos,

Stop spreading that awful muck. That "love child" stuff is complete BS. It has ONLY run in the National Enquirer.

The National Enquirer "evidence" is that a women who worked for his campaign is pregnant and that some of her friends speculate the father is Edwards... oooooo

In truth, She has denied Edwards is the Father. The actual father has already come forward. The father is not Edwards.

sue wrote on January 30, 2008 2:12 PM:

The fact that Hillary is saying "I'm reaching out to Edwards' supporters" seems to indicate that she doesn't have (doesn't think she will get?) Edwards' endorsement, so she's going to work "aggressively" for his supporters.

Edwards - Please endorse Obama!

Anonymous wrote on January 30, 2008 2:13 PM:

There is absolutely no way Edwards can support Clinton without tarnishing his credibility. His stances on the issues are much closer to Obama's anyway. I agree with earlier post that the timing of this was to blunt any traction she got from Florida.

I think Obama will get a one-two Edwards and Gore endorsement on Fri/Sat and on Monday they will all be on the same stage in one unified anti-Clinton moment. How sweet will that be?!!! It is definitely time for change.

If only Monica could be there as well.

Jeremy wrote on January 30, 2008 2:23 PM:

Prediction: Edwards will wait until after next Tuesday before saying anything else.

If Clinton emerges as a clear favorite for the nomination . . . he won't need to endorse her and won't campaign for her until the general election.

If Obama somehow emerges as a favorite . . . he will endorse Obama within the week and begin campaigning for him immediately.

If it remains unclear because Clinton wins but only narrowly . . . he will endorse Obama by noon the next day to steal the headlines away from her.

carlos,nyc wrote on January 30, 2008 2:39 PM:

Dear Ms.,
Yes, we all know some other guy (Andrew Young) has taken responsibility for the pregnancy. But no one believes it, nor should you. Young is, after all, still living with his wife and children, while looking after Ms. Hunter who's staying down the street. Do you know of any wife who would allow her cheating husband to continue living in the same house with their kids while looking after his pregnant girlfriend? Young is obviously providing cover for Edwards.

Jaybee, SC wrote on January 30, 2008 2:56 PM:

I've been a loyal Edwards supporter to the end, and I hope he doesn't endorse Hillary. I have shifted my support to Obama, as have most of my friends who were fellow Edwards supporters. Bill Clinton has really hurt his wife's candidacy by taking shots at Obama.

A friend had a great idea: sponsor a debate amongst all of the SPOUSES of the current candidates of both parties. Let's see how outspoken Bill is in that venue!

Ala wrote on January 30, 2008 3:02 PM:

I've been an Edwards supporter, and I'll be voting for Hillary.

I wish all good things for John, my hero Elizabeth, and their beautiful family.

ChrisO wrote on January 30, 2008 3:03 PM:

liberal historian:

I notice you're good at dismissing other people's thoughts without presenting an alternative. Your condescending tone fits in nicely with a lot of other Obama supporters. The demographic makeup of South Carolina is different from the rest of the country, whether you want to admit it or not. 80 pecent of blacks voted for Obama, and 75 percent of whites didn't. That's not made up in someone's head. Are you suggesting that the rest of the electorate is more than 50 percent black, like SC? Or are you one of those Obama supporters who tries to shout down the opposition with cries of racism when these actual facts are presented? I'm not saying SC wasn't a good win for Obama, or that it doesn't count. But extrapolating it to indicate how much support he has nationally makes no sense without taking demographic factors into account.

Obama supporters seem to be very fond of polls, but actual results don't seem quite as important to you. Like, you know, the actual number of flesh and blood voters who went to the polls in Florida and expressed an overwhelming preference for Hillary. But apparently since there were no delegates at stake, those voters don't actually exist.

Ry wrote on January 30, 2008 3:19 PM:

John Edwards and Barack Obama both shared common themes in their campaigns. They both stressed the desperate need for political reform and a change in politics as usual, and an end to corporate lobbyism. I remember when Edwards spoke out against Hillary Clinton as an agent of the Washington status quo, and what he said in Iowa of Senator Obama:

""I think our voices together are more powerful than our voices alone."

I hope that John throws his support behind Senator Obama, and I would expect him to after bearing witness to the similarities in the trajectories that each campaign has taken in the last several months.

08barack wrote on January 30, 2008 3:23 PM:

To Now is the time:

Now is the Time wrote on January 30, 2008 12:46 PM:

The more I see of Hillary Clinton, the more she reminds me of George Bush. Yesterday she staged a political rally after the polls closed in an election that didn't count so she could declare victory just like someone else I know? Can you say "Mission Accomplished?"

I think the voters of South Carolina should be insulted that on Saturday she left their state, with their delegates that will be counted, before the poles even closed. But for Florida she has a grand celebration? I guess it was too warm down there for her to wear a flight suit.

Think about it... She was in such a hurry to get to Tennessee so she could focus on Super Tuesday and the "Millions of voters who could finally have their voices heard." It was so urgent that she couldn't stay an extra few hours to thank the supporters that went out to vote for her. But now, less than 3 days later, she finds time to make a special trip to Florida AFTER they have voted. Her need for a photo op hopefully will backfire, because I can't take another 4 years of fairy tales.

Edwards should back OBAMA....

You are so right. I hope the voters of America see Hillary for what she is and that being someone that doesn't give a damn about anyone other that herself. I agree with you oin that the people of South Carolina deserved better that what she showed them on primary evening. So, you see, the racism Bill was spewing all over the place is in fact how the Clinton truly feell toward people of colour.

David wrote on January 30, 2008 3:37 PM:

I have supported and voted Yesterday in what is now called the (Beauty Contest) where 2 million Democrats came out to vote and voted for Senator Edwards.And I have been raked over the coals on most of the blogs by Senator Obamas supporters and really have a hard time understanding why i should support him. Because it seems to be getting more toxic everyday and have had my age thrown in my face as if it was something Dirty so maybe sometime down the road i'll look again but as of now I think most of us old people who supported Senator Edwards most likely will take a break from this speeding out of control train to see if Sanity prevails.Sadly this Election is reminding me of the one in 1980 just hope History dosen't repeat itself. Peace everyone

KFC wrote on January 30, 2008 3:42 PM:

LOL at the Florida vote anonymous? 4th largest state in the nation, where Hillary won over 800,000 votes? Oh yeah--something to laugh at there. Like little unimportant South Carolina where Barack won the black vote only is what matters? LOL at that! 800, 000 votes--say it with me. Florida will count in the end and Obama will not, thank god, be the nominee. He's an arrogant, got nothing to say, candidate. His refusing to sit next To Hillary at the SOTU tells everything you need to know about the guy. Edwards appealed to the working class, Obama does not. He has nothing to offer them or the rest of the country. More Edwards' supporters will go to Clinton.

Now is the Time wrote on January 30, 2008 3:45 PM:

08Barack,

Thanks. I am still mad about it. Don't get me wrong. I used to be a big Hillary fan- bought and read her book- rooted for her in her elections- even wished she had run for persident in 2004. But, she began a downward spiral for me when she called for John Kerry to apologize to the troops in 2006 when he was obviously telling a joke about Bush. In my book, she hasn't done much right since then. This is just the latest dirty trick.

Michael A wrote on January 30, 2008 3:54 PM:

LOL KFC out of 10 million registered voters, let's see that's um 8% I think. Katherine Harris did better in her senate run.

Now is the TIme wrote on January 30, 2008 3:55 PM:

KFC,

Over 50% of the votes that were cast in the Democratic Primary were absentee. Obama and Hillary were tied for the votes that were cast yesterday.

Also, go to the Huffington Post to see the 4 pics to evlauate for yourself and determine if Obama snubbed Hillary.

Unimportant South Carolina? You apparently mirror Hillary's disrespect. If it was so unimportant, why not say it to begin with? "I'm here at in your state, at your debate, in your home, asking for your vote, BUT YOU ARE UNIMPORTANT." (And I will leave the state before the poll workers leave if I don't win)

Remarkable! I hope the other state take notice.

Mike in Jacksonville wrote on January 30, 2008 4:01 PM:

The reason many of us voted for Edwards is because we didn't like Clinton or Obama.

Honestly I would rather see him endorse, and would much more likely vote for Bloomberg than either of those other two.

Mollie wrote on January 30, 2008 4:04 PM:

Carlos,
Your talking about a rag magazine. If you want to believe it, go for it. This is from the Hillary clan.

RC wrote on January 30, 2008 4:09 PM:

I think half of Edwards voters will vote for neither Hillary nor Obama. The other half will split between those two.

Go HIllary wrote on January 30, 2008 4:12 PM:

You Obama supporters spew vicious attacks and respin Hillary all the time. It's no wonder why you emulate your canidate who does the same. You all say that you are running against both Clintons, but Hillary is doing what she is doing with attacks from Obama and the media. And one more question, how excatly is it changing Washington politics when you drag an old drunk like TED around? Can't have it both ways! New & old politics!

Sharon wrote on January 30, 2008 4:31 PM:

I like Edwards, but never saw him as a Presidential candidate for the same reason I feel this way with all the other candidates of past and present, with the exception of Senator Barack.

For decades now, we have been seeking justice in this country for Black Americans. During the last election....I did not hear Edwards saying anything remotely close to what he's aying now about black america and the poor. And if he did, he NEVER expressed with all the passion he is doing now. Why didn't he do this last election with just as much passion? Why not....because no one black who had a chance to win was on the ballot before. Typical America! We finally get a qualified black candidate and NOW WHITE AMERICA WANTS TO TALK ABOUT AND TAKE CREDIT FOR WHAT THEY WERE TOO AFRAID TO TALK ABOUT IN THE PAST! I don't like White America wedging an even further gap between black americans, and I definitely think it stinks that they have the GULL to say the EDWARDS IS THE ONLY ONE TO BRING THESE ISSUES TO THE TABLE! Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton both brought these issues to the table and still are. No one is listening to them! It didn't matter when they spoke about the same issues that Edwards is speaking on now. That's because white america, and black america knew they were not going to win because of that exact reason....they speak up for and care too much about black people. I wonder if Senator Barack spoke up as forcefull as Edwards is speaking up now; being a black man, just how many white people would begin to turn a blind eye to him? They will say "he's getting too radical". People really need to take a deep look within themselves and see what's really going on here. Edwards did nothing except maybe bring the attention to WHITE AMERICA and for that I thank him! Now, if he wants to show us he's real and sincere....WE EXPECT HIS ENDORSEMENT TO BACK SENATOR BARACK OBAMA! Maybe it can become a Obama/Edwards ticket to the White House. That, I can live with!

carlos,nyc wrote on January 30, 2008 4:32 PM:

Mollie,

Are you old enough to remember that the Enquirer broke the Monica story? They were accused of being a rag, and thus not credible, back then. Turned out the Enquirer was right, and the Clintons were liars.

sharon wrote on January 30, 2008 4:42 PM:

To the post of "Go Hillary" on Jan 30th. Outside of the last debate when the two of them went at it, give me one time that Obama attacked, slandered or did any vivious attacks on Hillary or Edwards, or anyone? In fact, he was getting flack because he WAS NOT fighting back! JUST GIVE ME ONE AND GIVE IT WITH FACTS PLEASE.....
HILLARY IS A LIER JUST LIKE HER HUSBAND! And the only reason she is running now is because she has BILL BY THE BALLS! As a woman I admire this, but it has no place in our politics in this country right now. Already had one family in the white house with their own personal agenda to get back at someone! If Hillary IS THE RIGHT PERSON FOR THE JOB, then she should be strong enough to run on her own accord and her own strengths and so-called experience, and not her husbands. RUNNING FOR THE PRESIDENCY THE WAY SHE IS; THIS IS NOT WHAT I WOULD CONSIDER A STRONG, INDEPENDENT WOMEN. She instead should be telling her husband to shut up and sit down...she's got this. But that will never happen, because without Bill Clinton, Hillary does not stand a chance of winning this election!

drew wrote on January 30, 2008 4:43 PM:

I realize that some Clinton supporters may view this as a "vicious personal attack" but I've been asking and asking for one example of Clinton's experience leading to superior judgment. No one ever replies.

It wasn't Iraq or Iran, Pakistan or torture. It's not Social Security, where her answer is to re-appoint the commission that already reported twenty years ago. (Their plan was the basis for Obama's commonsense recommendation to raise the earnings cap.)

And now, in the last weeks, with her campaign driving away solid Democrats to run a Karl Rove wedge campaign, her experience has led to her being crushed in South Carolina, a red state Obama can clearly put in play.

How about it Clinton supporters? What has her experience ever done for the nation?

Zarmina wrote on January 30, 2008 4:45 PM:

I am concerned about what the candidates will do for Afghanistan. Yesterday, a report came out that Afghanistan will soon become a failed state. The Republicans have messed up their chances of fixing Afghanistan. What will the Democrats do? I think with Hillary, you will have the same old thing. Obama is probably the best bet, and so I hope Edwards gives his support to Obama.

Zarmina Faizi
http://www.theafghanistandirectory.com

sharon wrote on January 30, 2008 4:53 PM:

Clinton Supporters? Are you out their? We are still waiting for the answer to what has Hillary done for us, or our Nation? She took money fromt he very corporations she was supposed to be fight against to get us health care that SHE STILL HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO DO IN OVER 8+YRS! She speaks of 35 years of experience......then why are we just hearing about resolving our issues for the poor. AND what did Bill Clinton do that was SO VERY SPECIAL for America that as soon as he was out of the white house....IT ALL FELL APART! It was just a facade folks! BLACK AMERICA WAKE UP TOO! It was just a facade!

CyclingLeft wrote on January 30, 2008 5:09 PM:

As an ardent John Edwards supporter, I am sadden by his exit from the race today. I feel that neither Clinton or Obama deserves his support and hope that he does not endorse either candidate before the convention. I think that by not making an endorsement he can have more of an impact on pushing both Clinton and Obama to a more progressive agenda. Secondly, by not endorsing he is more likely to be able to serve in either candidates cabinet should he/she be elected in the fall. I'd like to Edwards as attorney general regardless.

Ms wrote on January 30, 2008 5:25 PM:

Carlos,

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Yes, the National Enquirer gets a story right now and then. But there's a reason no other newspaper has picked up the story. It's because this National Enquirer "story" doesn't even come close to any level of journalistic standards.

The entirety of the National Enquirer's story about Edwards can be summed up in one word, hearsay.

The National Enquirer stories on Edwards (they've done two of them) point out that a women who did some work for the Edwards campaign is pregnant. Ok, so what? Well, the Enquirer interviewed some of her friends. The Enquirer claims these "friends" say the pregnant woman said Edwards was the father. (AKA, Hearsay)

I suspect it was more like this "Wow, she like, worked for Edwards (along with hundreds of other women), do you think like maybe he's the father? Oh, the National Enquirer is on the phone, Wow, yeah, she might have said he's the father."

So then the Enquirer asked the woman if this was true.
She denies it, on the record.
He (Edwards) denies it, on the record.
And in fact, the actual father has gone on the record and claimed paternity.

Where is the story? There isn't any, it's just another National Enquirer hearsay special.

But lets take this one step further. Lets hypothesize that the story is true, that he is the father. If she's denying it and he's denying it, how could this ever turn into a scandal? Bill Clinton cheated on Hillary how many times? Who the hell knows, but everyone suspects it was a LOT.

Yet you'll recall that the only reason Bill Clinton's escapades were ever proven was because Lewinski was forced to testify in court. Without that court case and involvement of law enforcement, the Lewinski affair could never have been proven, and would never have been proven. Bill would have denied it, and no one could ever prove otherwise.

Well, if she's denying it, there won't be a court case. Meaning this allegation (true or not) could never be proven. If it can't be proven, it's not a scandal, and it couldn't hurt Edwards.

This is not the reason Edwards left the race. In fact, I won't be surprised of Edwards endorses Obama in the next 3 days and becomes his de-facto running mate.

voxpopgirl wrote on January 30, 2008 5:30 PM:

Around 1pm today on MSNBC, I watched Edwards' political advisor Mudcat Saunders intensely convey to Nora O'Donnell that:

"I'm gonna do everything in my power to have John Edwards NOT endorse Hillary Clinton".

sisyphusjns wrote on January 30, 2008 5:55 PM:

I supported John Edwards in 2004. I went with Hillary this time, but I still really liked John.

I think the most incredible and inspiring thing that has happened in this campaign was the Edwards continuing their campaign after Elizabeth's cancer dianosis.

There was no denial, they acknowledged it, and then they decided to continue to fight for what they believed in. They possess a strength that you hope have, but you also hope you never have to show.

I certainly hope thy'll stay in public life.

patchwork wrote on January 30, 2008 6:06 PM:

Cannot understand why Edwards did not throw and endorsement to one or the other of the opponents. What? Why? What is he waiting for?

Phyllie wrote on January 30, 2008 6:32 PM:

Sorry to see Edwards leave but I think Edwards will support Obama. Obama has talked about poverty in his speeches. I dont think Hillery would do good in the general election. I hope Obama wins it all. Go Obama We can We can We can.

Anonymous wrote on January 30, 2008 7:26 PM:

I'll vote for Obama over McCain and McCain over Hillary.

Jason X wrote on January 30, 2008 7:27 PM:

I don't know if this is true or not, but isn't it in Joe Trippi's best interest (ie future career) that he hype how he's making Edwards into an important player?

kozmik wrote on January 30, 2008 7:35 PM:

Now we see if Edwards was for real or just a populist gambit by and for the estalishment.

If Edwards endorses Hillary, he goes from populist to sell out, overnight. Hillary and Bill of NAFTA and WalMart as champions of the poor and working people? Get real. Tehy'll do as they've always done: pass "3rd Way" and DLC Reaganomics with a little social liberal tokenism.

NCcarboys wrote on January 30, 2008 7:41 PM:

I can speak for many Edwards supporters. We are still Edwards supporters. If we have to choose between Clinton and Obama, it'll be Clinton. You Obama people have been too cut throat and nasty to all of us, and now you want our support? I don't think so. Support the same people who took over Daily Kos and banned some of us from even speaking out? I don't think so.

anna nemos wrote on January 30, 2008 7:52 PM:

Much as the mainstream corporate media pigs want to say that Edwards people are Obama people--I LEFT the Obama campaign disgusted with its corporate atmosphere. Obama has got to come clean to Carol Marin NOW--before we waste more time on his cult of 'obama mania'--does this seem like a hitler youth rally or what?
He's the son of a banker's daughter. Imagine his grandma denying a loan to Edwards' grandma. Read about the 3 big questions that will nag him til he answers them:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/marin/766215,CST-EDT-carol30.article
anybody who dives head first into an SUV that then blazes past rolling tv cameras with tires squeeling has a lot of growing up to do. WHERE'S AL GORE?

Ry wrote on January 30, 2008 8:13 PM:

@NCcarboys

You can't say something like that without sounding disingenuous.

Charlie L wrote on January 30, 2008 8:22 PM:

Universal, single payer health care is a pipe dream that Sen. Clinton can't deliver on. The Republicans will fight her every step of the way and nothing will change. Hilary already knows this and most of the democrats who claim this is one of the core principles of the Democratic party know this. They would just rather fight the Republicans, compromise if not an option. This is the same thing the Democrats were going to do to Bush if 9/11 hadn't happen.

Republicans do the same with the Pro Life thing. Yeah it's one of the core principle for the far right of the party, but they aren't going to the wall to fight for an all out ban. They spend their time on endeavors that will be more lucrative to those the people that contributed to them the most, big business.

Obama knows this and that is why his platform stresses making it affordable, which can be accomplished. Getting more people paying for insurance will of course increase profits for insurance company, but it also gives them and incentive to lower prices. Obama's more focused on getting things done, building consensus, not fighting for things just to appease the base.

MARTIN EDWIN ANDERSEN wrote on January 30, 2008 8:28 PM:

Barack Obama's questioning of the relevance of Hillary Clinton's type of "experience" in confronting the new challenges the United States faces receives validation from an interesting case in American history.

It also points to why Obama's outsider status might actually be just what is needed to successfully restore the U.S. to international political creditworthiness.

Lincoln biographer David Herbert Donald showed how what might have been perceived as the Great Emancipator's serious shortcomings as a war president and commander in chief actually turned out to be some of his greatest assets.

Remember, Lincoln came to the presidency having only meager experience--much less than Sen. Obama's--in public office, let alone experience in the Executive Branch. (Lincoln's experience in the military was limited to little more than two months service during the Black Hawk War.)

According to Donald, Lincoln was also fortunately unburdened by convention, precedent, and standard operating procedures in facing war's challenge. (The parallels with Obama kind of leap from the page, no?)

However, Lincoln was also a quick study who grew into greatness through trial and error in pursuing the most significant of his goals.

Lincoln also knew democracy's ancient lessons. When Cicero finished speaking, the people said, "My, how well he spoke." But when Demosthenes finished speaking the people said, "Let us march!"

"Public sentiment is everything," Lincoln noted. "With it, nothing can fail, against it, nothing can succeed. Whoever moulds public sentiment, goes deeper than he who enacts statutes, or pronounces judicial decisions. He makes possible the enforcement of these, else impossible."

Martin Edwin Andersen
Churchton, Maryland

anna nemos wrote on January 30, 2008 8:31 PM:

Ry--Do you KNOW what the word disingenous means?

Ms wrote on January 30, 2008 9:49 PM:

I'm an Edwards supporter, I've spoken with half a dozen Edwards supporters today.

Each have become so disgusted by Bill Clinton's attacks that they will definitely be voting for Obama.

Well, all except one who will probably vote for McCain.

Angellight wrote on January 31, 2008 5:47 AM:

At a recnet debate, a reporter asked Hillary about the dislike between the Latino and Black populations and she answered back "that's Historic", but what she did not Say or try to Do is try to bridge the divide by stating something like "yes, that is too bad" or "and we will try to work on bridging the differences." NO! It is to her advantage to pit one group against the other for her own personal gain. She is no change agent and she is no Real champion for unity. Maureen Dowd's new op-ed piece gives an insightful glance into the real Hillary. That it was her in the beginning who Snubbed Barack and not the otherway around. She is one way for the cameras and another way when no one is apparently looking. However, I do think the facade is coming off.

Kit wrote on January 31, 2008 10:58 AM:

As an Edwards supporter, I'd love to see an Obama/Edwards ticket. I think he'd have more leverage in a new democratic administration running with another relative newcomer.

Wanted to see Hillary do well at the start - an excellently able woman with a lot of talent - but was completely put off by her smear campaign, designed to specifically stir up latent racism in floating voters. I'm glad people were quick to see through her good cop / bad cop routine with "slick" Willie.

cal1942 wrote on January 31, 2008 12:24 PM:

I've been an enthusiastic supporter of John Edwards.

I have to say that I believe that the best thing he can do is to endorse no one.

When the nominee is chosen he should address the convention with an appeal for unity. God knows we'll need it especially given the fluffy light loyalty and arrogance of so many of Obama's supporters.

And no, he won't be a VP on anyone's ticket. He far outshines all of them. He went through that once before, bound and gagged by Kerry's consultants.

Endorsing anyone would tarnish his potential position as the leader of liberal organizations to keep the party nominee's feet to the fire during the general election campaign and, in the unlikely event that our nominee wins the White House, to keep pressure on the President.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)