Edwards refuses to promise to support Democratic nominee (if he doesn't win)

Bitterness.

....go over to the dark side or just go away?

support the nominee?

He won't stay bitter forever and will endorse Hillary in time.

How low can you people sink?

What a disloyal loser. He could have at least responded by saying that he doesn't plan on losing and left it at that. But no, he had to sink so low as to imply he might not support the Party if he loses. How snobby is that?

And so far as I know, not a single primary vote has been cast and we don't KNOW who the Democratic candidate is yet.

He didn't answer the question. He never implied he wouldn't support the party.

And NO candidate should answer this question because it makes them sound like they would be accepting defeat before the fact.It's a bullshit question.

I know you hate the guy, but be fair about it and read his actual words before posting the name filled diatribes.It doesn't make you look too good when you end up responding to words that were never spoken. :shrug:

The question posed to him was simply a speculative one, so Edwards did not have to admit defeat. Like I said earlier, he could've either told the reporter he didn't plan on losing or he could've said he would support whoever the Democratic candidate would be. Edwards, not surprisingly, did neither, a true show of selfishness whether you want to admit it or not.

BTW, I don't hate the guy, so you're wrong on that account, although he does make me squirm everytime he opens his mouth and I would hate it if he got the nod because I doubt he would stand a snowballs chance in hell of winning the general election. IMO, he's the only one of our top 5 candidates who would definitely lose in 2008 to a Republican.

I don't think he'd lose in the GE (I'm more worried about Hillary than him, and I don't think Gravel and DK can win either, though it's not impossible).

“I’m not willing to talk about that at this point,” he said, waiting silently until the next question was asked.

_________

I'm not too enamored of that response, either, but it's a far cry from "refuses to promise".

on edit: I don't think it's really very revealing of anything. It's obviously intended to be a little portentous tidbit, but I don't find it very resonant.

I'll be interested in hearing the campaign's response to this once it bounces around the web for a while.

It just seems the guy's heart is not quite in this campaign. He's getting short shrift from the MSM, predictably, but he seems a little reticent much of the time in interviews and debates.

change his mind - just like he's done with every other position he's made.

Stop being so perfectly disingenuous.

The blame for that lies largely with the electorate, who are less likely to support someone who appears to be considering the possibility of defeat than someone who claims they are invincible.

Not a very pleasant topic for a candidate in the middle of a race.

...Hillary would probably say the same thing if she were asked that REALLY DUMB question.

I smell fear.

Here endeth the lesson.

Senator Edward's ideas of governance are quite far removed from Senator Clinton's. In that respect Mayor Giuliani is closer to Senator Clinton than Senator Edwards - certainly in the areas of foreign policy and trade.

when he turned negitive. If they can't win on their policies and ideas and have to attack other candidates then I don't want them. If Clinton or Richardson turned on another Dem I'd drop them too. I think at this point Richardson is my first choice.

There hasn't been a single vote cast in the primary. Why should he answer hypothetical questions about losing? Anyone who would hold this against Edwards either has never competed in anything in their life or is just looking for a reason to be outraged at him.

Of course he will support the nominee.

That being said, I also wouldn't endorse her if she wins. She doesn't represent Democratic Principles to me. I will not endorse anyone who has supported outsourcing and supports Kyl/ Lieberman as well as the Peru trade agreement.And my Democratic credentials are as good as anyone's.Just the fact that you don't endorse someone doesn't mean you don't support the Democratic Party, or won't vote for the nominee.I will try to vote for the nominee but if it should be Hillary, I will not endorse her or contribute to her campaign either financially or with effort. I do not approve of what she represents.I will never support a corporate sellout who has the blessings of Rupert Murdoch and Mark Penn.

no candidate in their right mind addresses a hypothetical about them LOSING, it sounds defeatist. He answered the question totally appropriately.

nt

Your thread title is misleading. He didn't refuse to promise to support the Democratic nominee. He refused to promise to support HRC.

I refuse to promise anything at all about my general election vote a year in advance.

As a matter of fact, I refuse to promise anything at all about that vote at any time.

It is, after all, my vote, and my choice. I don't "owe" it to ANYONE.

when he first started running, which seems like about 20 years ago.

The guy is a two faced hypocrite, that talks out of both sides of his mouth....

I have always said I will back the Democratic nominee no matter who it is...

I am revising that...if John Edwards is the nominee I will not commit to voting for him...

It has been repeatedly stated that we have an obligation to vote for the nominee but I see one can make an exception for Edwards based on what he did NOT say.An refusal to discuss "endorsement " is NOT the same as a refusal to vote for a nominee! This post is the height of hypocrisy.

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/11/edwards_clarifies_comment_on_hillary_i_fully_expect_to_support_dem_nominee.php

It just took him a while to find the right formulation. :sarcasm:

The question was nothing about "promising" and it was not a question about supporting the Democratic nominee---only about supporting Clinton. It was a not an honest question and Edwards was right to respond as he did.