If John Edwards endorses Sen Clinton he would lose most of his credibility with those of us who supported him

Sen Clinton's chief strategist is Mark Penn, a lobbyist her campaign paid $4.3 million this month for his services. Burston Marseller, the firm Penn is CEO of represents Abu Dhabi based companies who are buying up US interests --

Sen Clinton has taken more corp and pac money than all the candidates oput together

John: what exactly is there to think about?
--
But I also think the window where John Edwards endorsement could have had any real impact on the vote has passed. He should have endorsed before Super Tuesday - and is he wasn't ready he should have endorsed before yesterday's primary/caucuses--

This is diff to me than Richardson who has a large Hispanic following - his endorsement will matter now and anytime up to Texas --

The idea of Edwards in his home summoning the two remaining candidates to meetings in the heat of the race kind of disturbs me --
His voice was not silenced on major issues - he silenced himself by not become a surrogate for someone while championing his issues -- he could still be out there talking to thousands of people about his issues --

I have to say - I am a little disappointed in John-

the thing is, does JE endorsement mean anything now? I think JE took too long...Most of his supporters have already decided by now where they are going to go and some of his endorsers have already moved on...i dont see his endorsement having as much of an impact other than it will make the news for a day...
He is old news now..
its clear seeing the results from Super Tuesday and yesterday's drubbing that Obama isnt in need of his endorsement...it would be bigger news and a lift for HIllary if he endorsed Her...

JE = old news

He has to endorse Obama, the majority of his supporters have gone to Obama, his unions have gone to Obama, his superdelegates are going to Obama, and Obama is part of the change vs status quo argument of his campaign. Anything other than an Obama endorsement would make no sense at all, and show that Edwards wasn't being sincere about change. Regardless of their stylistic differences on how to go about talking about change, Obama at least wants change, Hillary is more than comfortable with the past, with corporate politics and lobbyists. There is no way in hell Edwards can endorse Hillary.

The mandate issue for health care is a non-issue, for two reasons. One, mandates don't work, and many experts have pointed this out. With or without mandates, all of the plans are less than what we need, which is more like Kucinich's TRULY universal health care plan. Two, this all has to get through Congress, meaning that none of the specifics are actually controllable by the president. Hillary can hope about mandates all she wants, and campaign on them all she wants, but whether or not they get through Congress is virtually out of her hands. Pretending that just because you campaign on specifics it will mean people will get those exact plans is disingenuous. Part of the reason Obama focuses less on specifics (although he has clear policy specifics, he just doesn't focus on them as heavily as Hillary, because specifics and false promises are all she has) is because he isn't the kind of leader who will promise what he can't deliver. Hillary doesn't care, she will say anything and do anything to get elected. Regardless, the mandate issue is ridiculous at best.

In the end, Edwards has no choice but to endorse Obama, if he doesn't he is a giant hypocrite, and he will have been exploiting poverty and "change" as a talking point rather than truly caring about it. I like the guy, but if he doesn't endorse Barack I'm going to lose all respect for him. In fact, if he is seriously torn between the two, it makes me doubt his sincerity, because it isn't a hard choice. I think he has known who he was going to endorse all along though, because it is the obvious choice. This is just a show.

There is the appearance in this of horse trading for the nomination, if this "secret talks" report is accurate. What is there to talk about? Who will give more attention to poor people? Come on. This seems to be more about who will appoint him AG (both should want to) or some other kind of quid pro quo. Surely not VP!? If Edwards wanted to endorse, he should have done it before Super Tuesday, or he should have stayed in contention, and gathered more delegates to trade with.

How popular was Edwards in Ohio? About as popular as Obama.

Clinton 42
Obama 19
Edwards 18

Columbus Dispatch Poll 1/23-31

You Obamafans are very delicate flowers apparently.

As others have said, Edwards' time has passed. If he endorses Obama, it makes the news for a day and fades quickly as it's the expected choice based on his own description of the two of them being the "change" candidates after Iowa. If he endorses Clinton, he looks like a hypocrite and Clinton will only make it worse for him by trying to keep it in the spotlight for as long as possible leading up to March 4th.

The "tough enough" critique is pretty laughable, too, coming from a candidate who's been little more than a paper tiger since he accepted the VP slot back in 2004.

An Edwards endorsement may not matter much in terms of public opinion or future voting intentions, but there is the matter of the 26 (according to CNN) Edwards delegates. Does Edwards have any sway over these individuals? In a close delegate race, 26 could be a significant number...

Edwards waited too long!
Anyone interested in the genesis of the Hispanic versus African-American debate should read Frank Rich in the New York Times today:

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/frankrich/index.html

It explains alot. It sounded like alot of that historic "tension" was spin to me.

Speaking as an Edwards supporter, his endorsement would have an enormous impact on me. I know all you Obama supporters think that it's obvious that we would all fall all over ourselves getting to Obama. But Obama's moderation and his naive belief that the Republicans will all melt in front of his charisma practically disqualify him in my mind. Moreover, Obama's reluctance to actually push issues rather than his own image make him seem like a lightweight to me. If Edwards could overcome his reservations about him in this regard, it would go a long way to easing my mind.

And for those of you who think that Edwards is irrelevant, all I can say is that you'd better hope not. You're voting for Obama because you *think* he supports the positions that Edwards in fact came up with. But you find yourselves fighting with Clinton supporters, telling everyone what Obama **really** means when he talks about Reagan, or when he refers to unions as "special interests," or when he rewrites legislation to favor the nuclear power industry. You'd better hope that John Edwards is out there, holding Obama's feet to the fire. Otherwise, you're going to get a middle-of-the-road, go-along-to-get-along President who'll be too busy accommodating his Republican buddies to care about the issues you care about.

Either Clinton or Obama is (hopefully) going to be President; the other one will definitely continue to be a very powerful Senator. If Edwards is serious about his constituency and his cause and his own personal future (I believe he is serious about all of these) *of course* he's talking to *both* of them. Perhaps getting some commitments that constituency and cause that they will act on, no matter which one is president and which one remains a senator. Possibly letting them know that he would like a role in the new administration, whichever one is forming it.

That doesn't mean he's saying the same thing to them (one conversation may begin "I'm not going to endorse you but I want to talk to you about ..." and the other "I plan to endorse you but first I'd like to talk about....") Who knows? But he would be dumb not to take this opportunity for serious talks with both. And the man is not dumb, not by a long shot. (Nor is he 'imperial' that I've ever seen: there was nothing in the article about him 'summoning' them to his home, although if he has a place in DC it's probably a good meeting place.) And Edwards isn't without clout -- especially when it comes to turn-out of people who might not normally vote. I'm sure that both Clinton and Obama are quite happy to meet with him and would very much like his endorsement.

OBAMA '08!

I'm an Obama supporter and Edwards sympathizer who would agree with a few parts of Anna's post. Obama's reference to poverty in yesterday's VA speech sounded almost Edwardsian.

There is also this little matter: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4218509&page=1

But ya know, I though Edwards ran an honorable campaign, much better than last time, and I'll respect whatever decision he makes.

Elizabeth Edwards is the endorsement I *really* want.

P.S. Spread the word: The Field is back
http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/

I agree with Anna.

With his strong expressed opposition to candidates taking money from special interests, it's difficult for me to believe Edwards would endorse the candidate who just set the record for taking lobbyist contributions. Obama has taken zero dollars. At last report, Hillary had taken over $840,000.00 from lobbyists.

"I also think Hillary is less likely to compromise than Obama on healthcare"

Yes, that's why she rejected a bipartisan compromise that had lots of support after her version had failed in 1993. It would have covered tons of people, if not everyone. But she killed it, all or nothing.

If she doesn't get what she wants, she torpedos any alternatives. The result: no healthcare for 15 years.

Very disturbing leadership qualities, if you ask me. A lot like Bush.

Whomever Edwards chooses to endorse, it will be a product of deal making, rather than a close matching of positions. 'Give me this job if you win, adopt this position in your fall campaign' for example. Don't you just hate the cynics we've become?

The only reason that I can see Edwards endorsing Clinton is if she offers him the VP. Given where she is right now, I think she does not have much choice.

I believe that he will accept. I'm afraid I don't buy the "Born again" image of Edwards. This is a guy who IMHO is dying to get to the WH. If he accepts, he will be telling his supporters that that's the only way that he can help the administration implement the policies "dear to him" ... and most will buy it.

My two-cents.

According to the CNN story on this: "Two friends close to Elizabeth Edwards say she has been in support of Barack Obama, whose campaign has been touting a list of endorsements from former Edwards backers."

If that's the case, it's even harder to imagine Edwards backing Clinton.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/10/edwards-meeting-with-clinton-obama-on-endorsements/

Observer2 -- Your posts are right on. E.g. "Clinton just talks about fighting everyone, but as we saw in 1993, without a big mandate, it is hard to get much progress. She had both houses of congress and still failed."

I'm afraid a lot of Clinton supporters find it more emotionally satisfying to have her "fighting" for a progressive agenda, rather than actually creating a mandate to make it happen. OBAMA IS NOT ABOUT COMPROMISING AWAY OUR AGENDA! He is about finding new ways to communicate this agenda that, because we've had no visionary leadership, has been bogged down for decades! These are exciting times!

"You know, you may be right ptw. Also, I have been saying who would want to be the clintons' vp. Nobody with any integrity or backbone would want that job. However, edwards does fit the bill. No integrity and no backbone."

I always thought someone like Richardson would be their VP. You know, to play up the Latino votes. Seems more fitting with Clintonian identity politics.

Edwards also never helped Kerry much in the south in 2004, so there goes that arguments. My guess is that the Clinton team knows that Edwards' supporters are a diverse group, will not follow his endorsement, and VP would be too high a price.

But why would he sell out for them? He could not endorse and push his agenda as a public figure, maybe get involved with Carter's organization.

If he backs Clinton and she loses, he will lose all credibility.

You Obamaites crack me up....you folks would set him on fire at just the thought of him siding with the Queen, it just cracks me up. lololololol.

I'm an Illinois resident. I'm way more familiar with Obama's voting record as a senator than most of his current supporters. And here is a partial list of some of my favorites.

--Voting to confirm Condoleeza Rice for Secretary of State -- after running an explicitly anti-war campaign.

--Voting to reauthorize the Patriot Act

--Voting to move most class actions to federal court, thus cutting off access to justice for thousands of people injured by the negligence of doctors and manufacturers

--Watering down environmental legislation that would protect people from leaks of nuclear power plants for the benefit of his 6th largest donor, Exelon Inc.

--The fact that many of my students who support him are under the impression -- that he cultivates -- that he's not taking campaign money from corporations or lobbyist.

So Petey2, look at that list and tell me he's not going to compromise our agenda. Son, he's already done it. Wise up!!

And I don't mind his poaching Republican voters. All I want to know is when he's President, and he's reaching across the aisle to Republicans in Congress, who is he reaching across to? The Republicans who supported torture and who stole money from the poor to fund tax cuts for wealthy people. In short, the Republicans who helped deliver the nightmare of the past 8 years.

I'm amazed at how happy Obama supporters are with his conciliatory message. I'm still angry at the Bush Administration for turning us into a nation of torturers, for ripping apart our safety net which was never very generous to begin with. And frankly, I just don't understand why everyone isn't as angry as I am.

And for those obsessed with Edwards' voting record, he was a senator from North Carolina, and if you have even a passing interest in representing your constituents, he couldn't vote like a liberal. Obama has no such excuse. He arguably comes from the very Bluest state in the nation.

And for all this, I literally don't care anymore. There is literally no difference to me between Obama and Clinton.

Well, Anna, I'm glad you're not trying to say you're proud of Hillary's record. Two things. One, Obama often talks about, not just his legislative successes, but his regrets. And these regrets were partly what propelled his candidacy, because he recognized in himself the potential for becoming a transformational leader who could reshape the playing field. But when I said the point of Obama was not that he will compromise away the progressive agenda, I was responding to those who conflate his empathic style with middle-of-the-road policy making (think Democratic Leadership Council?). I was not saying he never behaved like a politician. If you want someone who entirely shuns political thinking, then support Kucinich or someone (and say goodbye to the White House). This is precisely what's so exciting about Obama. Yes, he understands politics. But he also understands leadership. Therefore he has a significant chance to actually move the location of "the middle of the road" (similarly to the way Reagan did with his "Morning in America" -- but in the other direction).

Clinton talks about her (for example) health care position as a starting place, highly implying that she sees the process as a fight that will end with some compromised level of success. Obama, on the other hand, sees a big part of his job as helping us re-envision the political (and, I daresay, cultural) landscape.

"On Obama, the aide says, Edwards worries "whether he's tough enough to be President of the United States.'

Pretty hilarious, considering that Obama kicked his ass out of the primaries before Super Tuesday.

awb said "If John Edwards endorses Sen Clinton he would lose most of his credibility with those of us who supported him".

It would certainly seem an astounding compromise of his values for John Edwards to endorse the corporate fueled Clintons.

I think Edwards endorsement will be more useful for Barack than Hillary. Edwards appeals to the demographics that Obama is struggling to attract; But he has to campaign for him.

If not anywhere else, Edwards will play a huge role in the NC primary and this election may well go through NC.

Also, at the end of the way Edwards is a politician who will have no leverage at the end of the primary. While "issues" may lead him closer to one candidate than the other. At this point it depends on what they're willing to offer him and also he'd want to endorse a winner.

From previous reports- Edwards seemed willing to endorse Obama for a Attorney General and the Obama camp refused to make any long term deals.

P.S: Hillary's reaction to her secret meeting- "I'll use John's expert expertise a lot in the White House."

Anna,

Any long list of "laundary" at this point will not change many minds. I don't think any of us are voting for a messaih. He is not perfect, but he is 100% perfect compared to Billary.

Having said, I don't agree with every pointed you listed in your post.

In general endorsements don't matter much unless is comes with a strong organization.

I just don't see Edwards as having that much of an organization. It really seems like he is just whoring for attention.

There really isn't much of a public policy difference between BHO and HRC. I'm sure either would welcome his endorsement. I just don't see it as making a difference in the minds of many voters.

Now I'd be interested in knowing about Edwards' pledged delegates. Do they have to vote for Edwards on the first ballot or are they free to vote for whoever they want?

For Kash79,

You are a typical Obama supporter -- completely indifferent to facts. That "list" may not be convincing, but it's his record. You have to process it and explain it -- that's what supporters do. 100% perfect compared to Billary? Please -- they're like carbon copies of each other.

And Petey2, you are way more confusing to me. I have no idea what your core values are -- for me, it's the war and protecting ordinary people from the abuses of the powerful. Obama has already demonstrated through his voting record that he will side with the powerful against ordinary people, even on issues where he touts himself as a champion. He has NOT offered unwavering opposition to the war. He has sided with insurance companies and energy companies against poor people. But he says things that are completely at odds with his voting record, designed to dupe people -- probably like kash79 -- into thinking he's something completely different.

And Petey2, Morning in America? Only the most cynical -- or youngest -- observers of politics would use that as a model. Those of us who lived through it knew that it was a smokescreen of lies designed to pretty up the ugliness of Reagan's agenda -- condemning welfare queens and busting unions and foreign policy adventurism. If you're telling me that Obama is talking nice to the conservatives, but he's going to take a sharp turn to the left, that's great. But everything he's done and voted on suggests otherwise. He's a moderate, and nothing more than a moderate. Get used to it.

Transformational? Please. His idea of transformation is making you feel good about all the triangulation he'll be doing. Lovely. You enjoy yourself. I'll be standing here, demanding he carry through on the Edwards agenda.

Like you, I was prepared to tolerate these kinds of compromises -- in 1992, when Bill Clinton struck a similar bargain with Democrats. In four years, when Obama comes to you and tells you how hard he tried, but he couldn't (a) deliver a health care plan because the insurance companies prevented it, and (b) he couldn't close Gitmo because the Joint Chiefs of Staff advised against it and he was too naive to stand up to them, and (c) he couldn't make the massive investment in energy independence because the oil companies invested too much in Congress to allow it, then maybe you'll be a little more skeptical, maybe even cynical. Maybe even angry.

Not to interrupt the usual BS about which candidate Edwards should endorse, but let's stop and think about this report for a minute. Clinton had a "secret" meeting with Edwards, but it's not a secret anymore, so someone leaked it. Whodunit and what was the motive? I don't think that it was team Hillary. After all, she was the one who eluded the media to sneak over to Edwards house. If she wanted the story known, why would she sneak? And it was an Edwards aide who confirmed the meeting, as well as a planned meeting with Obama.

If it was an Edwards person who leaked the story, what's the motive? Edwards has been quiet on an endorsement so far. If he leaked the story, I would assume that he did it to generate some press, a little intrigue to whet our appetite and stir up the media for an upcoming endorsement.

Now all this suggests another question, why did Clinton sneak? One possibility would be to try to catch Obama off guard. A second would be avoid looking like she was hitting on Edwards only to have him throw a drink in her face if endorses Obama.

So the question of whether someone from Edwards' team intentionally leaked the story is important. If there was no intentional leak, then the Edward aide's statement about how there have been meetings with both candidates could just be a cover for keeping a Clinton-Edwards deal secret. On the other hand, if Edwards' people leaked the story, that's a bit of a middle finger to Clinton, who was trying to keep the meeting secret.

Curiouser and curiouser.

Either Clinton or Obama is (hopefully) going to be President; the other one will definitely continue to be a very powerful Senator.

This statement assumes that neither Clinton nor Obama would accept the VP position. Do we assume this? There's never been a black or female VP either and it's not unthinkable, especially in light of Cheney's prominent (or should I say dominant) role in the current aboministration, that one or the other might take the leap.

And in each hypothetical case, how much stronger do we think a Clinton ticket with Obama would be and vice versa?

This is a sincere question - I have no clue whatsoever. My Mr. Know-It-All presumptions begin and end with the indisputable fact that David Shuster is the journalistic equivalent of Mother Teresa.

Two alternative questions:

1) If Hillary is the nominee, who are the strongest VP choices (in order)?

2) If Obama is the nominee, who are the strongest VP choices (in order)?

Ghengis, I agree: "This may go down hard for Clinton supporters and may seem unfair, but this "charisma" or "mojo" or "teflonness" is a critical trait for presidents."

It's important to stress that his "teflonness" is not ALL that Obama has going for him, but it's substantive -- in a pragmatic sense -- because it'll help him a great deal in not just "fighting" for a progressive agenda, but actually passing it. Progressives hate the Reagan analogy, but it's fitting, because Reagan actually changed the political and cultural landscape in a substantive way; that is, he changed the way Americans thought about themselves. For the first time in about 50 years we have a progressive poised to do the same -- but he also happens to be extremely intelligent, curious, dignified, honest, etc. As has been pointed out, he's not perfect (and he's not pretending to be). But he's the right person in the right place at the right time. I'm just thankful he had the wisdom and courage to recognize this and to step up to the plate.

NEWSFLASH: Just came over MSNBC that the scheduled Edwards-Obama meeting has been cancelled. Don't know exactly what this means, whether it's a scheduling conflict or what.

I personally don't think his endorsement will mean that much, since most Edwards voters have already gone one way or another. But it could have an impact on influencing some undecideds in future primaries.