To John Edwards: Pull Your Finger Out and Endorse Obama Now!!

Or go into the history books as the biggest wuss the Democratic party has had since Hubert Humphrey!

Is that what you want? Historical reference as a weenie?

It's time for you to stand for something.
It's time for you to be a man and stand up and endorse Obama.

I thought you were against "the status quo" in Washington, Senator Edwards.
Time is quickly running out for you to have an impact on this campaign.

It's time for you to make a difference in how politics is discussed in this country.
This country needs you, we need your voice, we need your endorsement.

Help unite the party behind Obama now, John.

That is all.

His endorsement is pretty inconsequential.

it's time for Edwards to just do it, good God.

and they're free to do as they like. That's not enough to change anything.

And it would start the ball rolling. Obama is less than 200 delegates away from clinching the nomination. So, in my opinion, it would change something. We wouldn't have to wait for Hillary to get beat in Oregon, Puerto Rico, Montana, and South Dakota, where she will lose big.

uguu

He was the past Vice-Presidential candidate for Kerry.

He needs to release them. Today!!

Edwards can either help Obama by releasing his delegates, or he can hurt Obama by holding on to them.

This isn't going to go to the convention.
Edwards is not going to be "a power broker" at the convention.

Edwards endorsement would mean very little at this point. He is not even a superdelegate.

The 'aye'..., we don't need you anymore attitude.

But I'm not going to start a war with Clinton supporters over Edwards either.

even though it wouldn't have made a difference and Obama would have won NC anyway (as we've seen) Edwards should have endorsed Obama before the NC primary yesterday. Now it looks like he's just jumping on the winning team. If he would have endorsed Obama before the primary - it would have looked like he had something to do with it. It might have even caused a few Indiana supporters of him to go for Obama versus Hillary and might have put Obama into the win column in Indiana.

Now an Edwards endorsement means nothing.

And if he couldn't endorse Obama for some reason - he should have endorsed Hillary before the NC primary.

Again with Edwards - it will be too little too late.

Maybe he can sleep at night. Some people have actual principles, not just a driving desire to jump on the bandwagon.

This is Edwards we're talking about here. Principles don't apply.

Wife Acceptance Factor. Elizabeth Edwards has all but endorsed Hillary in interviews. Considering that she's never been elected to anything it's surprising how free she is with her opinion, when it's her husband's opinion that reporters and candidates really want. But it's clear now that John Edwards can't endorse Obama without pissing off his wife. Presumably if he shared his wife's enthusiasm for Hillary he would have endorsed her. He hasn't and so there must be a reason. That doesn't mean the reason is that he'd prefer to endorse Obama but it is clear he'd have trouble at home if he did.

First off, you often spoke about how Obama and yourself represented the change we needed, so I know you are sympathetic to him. Second, both states you claim overwhelmingly elected Obama. For Christ Sakes, do you need an engraved invitation?

And frankly, I don't think he cares much one way or another about what you personally think he should do.

He'll do what he'll do. Live with it.

The man has to learn to stand up take on the hard issues sometimes.

Edwards was taking courageous stances every time he was out in public. Unfortunately the media ignored him and he had no choice but to drop out.

Stances which are easy for a democrat to take.

Hey he was third on my list in the beginning. Behind the Kucinich and Richardson

From an Edwards supporter who thinks that he can do whatever he wants.

when you're appealing to liberals. Doing it while you're in office is another story.

he took the fight to Hillary and knocked her off the inevitable pedestal, letting obama stay above the fray.

You guys criticize Edwards and Hillary for voting on the IWR but Obama didn't even vote on Kyl-Lieberman when he was in the senate and had the opportunity. To me, that makes me skeptical whether he actually would have voted against the IWR or even voted at all had he been in the senate at the time.

he was against the war on Iraq and I know he was against the kyl lieman bill.

Here's the statement:

"Senator Obama clearly recognizes the serious threat posed by Iran. However, he does not agree with the president that the best way to counter that threat is to keep large numbers of troops in Iraq, and he does not think that now is the time for saber-rattling towards Iran. In fact, he thinks that our large troop presence in Iraq has served to strengthen Iran - not weaken it. He believes that diplomacy and economic pressure, such as the divestment bill that he has proposed, is the right way to pressure the Iranian regime. Accordingly, he would have opposed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment had he been able to vote today."


http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0907/Obama_No_on_KylLieberman.html

Actions speak louder than words.

I didn't support Edwards.
Obama missed a vote. It happens and he was right on the issue. You're grasping at straws.

He AVOIDED the vote - he was in D.C. earlier that day. It was cowardly.

Obama publicly stated his position on the bill (so your claim of cowardice is weak) and his one vote did not make the difference on whether it passed.

falls apart right there. If you don't think it was cowardly to avoid the vote on Kyle/Lieberman, you've drunk waaaay too much kool-aid. We all must be able to be honest and see the flaws of our chosen candidates.

down on one side or the other as opposed to picking at them both. I had him make the comment the other day that he was going to save his political capital for other stuff. I really don't think he's going to have any capital left.

just be "present".

Jumping on the bandwagon, getting in line... that's the way to "take on the hard issues"? I just don't get it.

He should've IMMEDIATELY endorsed Obama; I thought he didn't because either a) he figured (with possibly more info that we have) that Obama is really secretly a DLCer in the mold of Hillary (which may yet prove true, also to my disappointment); or b) he was hedging his bets in hopes of getting a cabinet post (most likely).

But... still.

legislation for oversight of contractors. His current stand on black water comes down to very few sign ups to the military. Ultimately his plan is to transfer contracting money from contractors to soldiers, and the remainder back to repairing America.

THe records that stood out to me were Barack's and Kucinich but Kucinich by a huge margin is a people's president. Oh yeah and Richardson who on good day is charismatic and has done wonders for New Mexico.

It was difficult for me to vote for Obama in the Texas primary, rather than Kucinich, who I was excited to even have the opportunity to see on my ballot.

Richardson would be a great VP choice, IMHO, but Obama needs someone with a starry **military** record, not just foreign policy experience. Plus, I think a ticket with a black man and a Hispanic man WOULD be a liability for the party, to my great shame. I think he should pick Jim Webb. Both for cynical reasons and because I geniunely think Webb "gets it" re: populism and the anger in this country. Then again, he aided and abetted the Reaganification of America. I need to hear him disavow that more, and strongly.

Edwards is a footnote.

could you people be any more obnoxious?

I'm certain they'll try.

He decided not to do so... So lets forget about him!!

We can do far better work phonebanking!

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/phonebankmap/

I will support him...

Obama really has the nomination. It looks like EE preferred HRC, who she kind or sort of endorsed - at least on the health plan. The media still brings up Edwards, but it's not clear what he brings to it now. There are very few states left and it's not clear he has leverage there. He is unlikely to have much leverage with superdelegates.

And withholding 20 votes like this makes it look like it is all about him, not about us winning the White House back this fall.

I'm tired of hearing how Edwards "will fight for us" and then pulls a disappearing act.

Edwards' endorsement could also have some influence on other super delegates who haven't yet endorsed Obama.

Edwards' endorsement could have a strong influence in West Virginia and in Kentucky, the next 2 states where primaries are scheduled in the next 2 weeks.

and he can not tell "his" delegates who to go to.

And Edwards is a super delegate. Once he endorses Obama, his pledged delegates are released to endorse Obama as well.

Where are you getting that from, Major?

Like a monkey who grasps money for a monkey grinder, he's holding on to them for dear life.

He needs to release them from their committment.

How hard is that to understand?

to Edwards in the truest sense of the word. His words to them would likely be given a huge amount of weight. So, even if he can "only" release them or not release them for the first ballot, his true power is that he has their trust, possibly even their complete trust, and if he could get whole heartedly behind the candidate it would make a huge difference.

Not to mention, in addition to these delegates, there are the people across the country who Edwards won over as supporters. The more actively Edwards supports the candidate the more likely they will be to stay in the Democratic fold. When looked at from a distance, not the zoomed in as in primary season focus, all of the Democrats had very similar position - there were differences and they are real - but the differences are small when contrasted to the differences between any Democratic position and McCain's positions.

To win in November, we will need all the Democrats united. The fact is that where the Republicans actually fractured on issues, we fractured more on personalities and perceived electibility - and very small differences on issues. We also have the majority of the country with us on every issue except the war on terrorism - which strong speeches linking to the fact that many conservatives now aee that the Kerry 2004 position was correct - could change that. Every Democrat wants:

- A serious health insurance plan affordable and available to everyone. There are differences in the plans, but I would wager that if it were possible (in a sci-fi like way) to look down the path with each 2008 candidate and see the plan Congress would send up for signature - there might be little or no difference. The other similarity is that any Democrat would sign it and McCain won't. (In fact, it was when Bush vetoed the S Chip expansion that I knew that if it came down to HRC, I would vote for her - because no matter what misgivings I had (and they were many) she would have signed, not vetoed it.

- On Iraq, the contrast between McCain and Obama is stark. Obama is not for permanent bases and sees the long term occupation that we've already had as counterproductive. The question there is - who is he listening to? Who would be more likely do do what Edwards supporters want?

- On global warming, McCain is one of the few Republicans with a serious record on this - but he has yet to join the bipartisan coalition that is forming around the first cap and trade bill. That bill is weaker than what Boxer or Kerry proposed, but getting ANY cap and trade bill passed starts to put a price on pollution. Looking at what happened with the clean air act that worked on sulfur emissions, technology moved faster than mandated. (Think of it - if you were a CEO of a power plant would you pay say 10% more to retrofit to the 10 year out standards or do just what was needed for the next year and incur costs every year to change to meet criteria?) Even Bush was pushed to negotiate at Bali (Nice hearings of SFRC on Bali if interested - http://www.senate.gov/~foreign/hearings/2008/hrg080124p.html and http://www.kerryvision.net/2008/04/in_defense_of_treehuggers.html#comments )

- economy - It is hard to get a bigger contrast that there is between McCain and Edwards on economic issues. McCain, who on many issues is a Republican moderate, is a true Goldwater conservative on economic issues. This is the area where libertarians, with us on civil rights and many social issues, are 100% against us. McCain - acting out of his truest beliefs - will not take an FDR type approach to the deep economic difficulties. There is a part of him that honestly sees nothing wrong with his view on the home foreclosure issue. Obama, on the other hand, personally worked on the South Side of Chicago to help people, who lost jobs when the steel industry downsized, use the Government programs.

This is not to say that the Edwards people (likewise HRC people) won't have moments seeing Obama on the stage in Denver when they won't have pangs of regret that it is not Edwards, surrounded by Elizabeth and their kids. I know - that especially as things hit bumps - I wish that Kerry would have run and been the one standing there. I feel this, even as there is NO stronger Obama surrogate than Kerry. But, just as Kerry's strong endorsement and reassurances make me more comfortable - for the people who trusted Edwards as I do Kerry, his backing once Obama is the nominee could do the same thing.

But it still doesn't make him a superdelegate.

You can look that stuff up. It's not a big mystery. It's just an actual fact. He's not a super delegate.

Because Edwards is sure as hell not ever going to endorse Hillary.

Even though we've seen a dozen threads here in the last 2 months saying he "was going to endorse Hillary tomorrow".

he didn't specifically mean you Obama supporters. It's not all about you.

Yes, he was very appealing as "a populist" but, to me, not all that believable.

I do respect John Edwards and truly hope that he will now "step in" and support Obama. However, I won't hold my breath. :shrug:

Although the Kerry endorsement must be a sore point too.

That wasn't a joke.

Hmmmmm... Because men are, what... the gender of principle? Of strength? Of courage? I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

Thank you for correcting yourself twice.

My gawd, has everyone at DU lost their minds?

Calling out sexist comments is a long-standing tradition at DU. It's not a new concept.

Your posts make you sound like you didn't know that.

you believe that courage and strength are male attributes. This excludes females since they cannot "man up". I understand the point of your OP.

Rather than as opposed to a woman?

:sarcasm:

How hard is it to figure out that what should be said is, "Be an adult."?

Even though the OP's explanation was different.

Which is true. It would sound strange to tell him to act like an adult woman, because John is not female.

the words "man" and "woman" are sexist.


It's "be a man, not a boy," not "be a man, not a woman."

John Edwards can do what he wants. It won't change a thing. My bet is that he is enjoying his break from this political 3-ring circus very much.

I supported Edwards from the 2004 primaries to the day he dropped out, but I'll admit that when it comes to this contest, he's not relevant anymore. Let Elizabeth and him focus on policy now and campaign for Obama in October.

After he endorses Obama he can go back to doing whatever it is he is doing and we can go on, too.

If it would, I'd be with you.

But Clinton isn't going to drop out because Edwards endorses and it isn't like a whole line of superdelegates is waiting to see what Edwards does.

his commitment, his promise, because it's personal, to take it all the way to the convention.

NOT

Where, pray tell, do you think he has his finger anyhow? Lay off JE, dammit.

LoL

wonder if he is going to hold out and carefully evaluate McCain and Obama too?

And we all know who "her" is.

LoL

And it's about $2 a share now.

John really blew it when he failed to get behind Obama early and big time. I supported him a year, and I think he has been a real flake the past three months.

I know that it has been tough for John these last few months, but time is growing short.

He was the co-sponsor of the Iraqi War Resolution.

He should have either endorsed Hillary or Barack.

He's lost all of my respect...for good.

John Edwards is all about John Edwards.

Why would he do that? His platform couldn't be farther removed from either of the the other two.

Edwards' platform was much closer to Obama's than Hillary's.

I was an Edwards supporter because he was so far removed from them both! Obama and Clinton are in agreement 95% of their voting record... Edwards rarely agreed with either.

when he was in the Senate -- i.e. when he had power -- he voted WRONG: Patriot Act, IWR, bankruptcy bill... just like HRC!

Edwards platform was just not all that different. Sorry., And his voting record was to the right of both of them. His HCP just like Obama's and Clinton's was based in Hacker's work. His plan for getting out of Iraq was essentially no different. It's amusing to see people swearing how different Johny Hedgefund was. It looks like you never read any of his policy proposals.

Edwards measures to the left of both Obama and Clinton on nearly every review we've ever seen here on DU... how nice you can pick the 5% difference out like that so easily.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008


... like fireplaces and famous authors they have known and loved and still feel the need to belittle at every turn? Sadly, some people never feel they are worth their own salt.

John would rather concentrate on causes than campaigns... You would rather concentrate on insulting fellow Democrats than uniting them. I think I would take John over you any day of the week, any week of the year, and any year of this or any other century...

Let's just keep separating the party with our labels.. Let's see how many labels we have placed on perspective Democratic votes to date..

They are white, they are black, they are male, they are female, they are old, they are bigots, they are racists, they are liars, they are republicans, elitist, menapausal...

Now have I left anything out?

No wonder our party is split... We are doing it to ourselves....

asinine remark calling Edwards out as not being manly enough. Where you get your material Ann Coulter?

And make his voice count and unite this party.

Do you enjoy seeing Carville go on tv and make comments about Hillary giving one of her "balls" to Obama so that "they can both have one"?

Enough already.

Doesn't get into the "group think". Makes me like him even more. So un-1984 of him it will anger many.

He either stands on his feet now or becomes an asterisk in the history books.

as Hubert Humphrey was. Dishonoring his memory to try to make your lame point is pathetic.

all he's done is talk. He hasn't done a tenth of what Dean has done, and Dean doesn't even claim to be a progressive. JE is all talk.

:shrug:

That is all.

He voted for the war!

for IWR and the bankruptcy bill. JRE DID!

know what you are reacting to anymore. And you wonder why you have no credibility.

When you say Obama fans, you don't realize you are talking about people who support the next President of the United States.

I said nothing about Humphrey who BTW was a real progressive. Your response is as addled as your entitled (NOT) candidate.

JRE's votes cost him credibility, so you are the one with the credibility deficiency.

Not to mention...SORE LOSER!!!!!

Humphrey a wuss and a weenie. You Obama surrogates don't even read posts. Just call names. Good luck with that.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I'm pretty sick of the Hillbots whining about being called names after they spew in threads calling other members names at this forum.

He's either a man or a mouse, which is it?

It just doesn't make sense for them to throw out an endorsement, why alienate one powerful politician for another. Plus from the interviews I've read, I would be willing to guess that JE voted for Obama in NC, and EE voted for Clinton. Maybe they could hold a press conference where they endorsed both candidates? Now that would be AWESOME.

When in Congress -- i.e. when he had power -- he voted WRONG: Patriot Act, IWR, bankruptcy bill.

His humble roots, rags to riches story and populist message were completely upended by the sprawling compound he built and now his failure to speak out is just the icing on the cake of errors.

I think Edwards is sorely disappointed in the way the DNC has slobbered all over O. This is why he will endorse Hillary.

He voted all wrong when he had the chance! IWR, Patriot Act, Bankruptcy bill...

At a rally here in SC in December 2007 after he finished talking about Tomorrow Begins Today (his campaign theme), a high school kid asked him how he, such a smart and skilled lawyer, could have voted for the Patriot Act. As he hemmed, hawed and stammered his way through a non-answer, you could feel the disappointment in the crowd for this native son!

His voting record killed him because it didn't jibe with his message.

Now Edwards is sorely disappointed that HIS two bids for POTUS have failed so miserably.

The truth will set you FREE! Quit blaming the DNC for HRC's and Edqwards' losses. ALL THOSE WHO VOTED FOR IWR WILL NEVER BE POTUS.

nt

at this point. He has shown his true colors with his unwillingness to take a stand!

You don't have a right to be anything other than a hero or a mortal enemy.

:sarcasm:

cultist?

Gee, I think I know a little about Edwards, being one of his most zealous supporters. I know you Obamatrons have ceded rational thought long ago, so anything I say will fall on your deaf ears.

Edwards is a POPULIST. He is a Progressive.

Obama is Repub-lite. He believes the Republicans are transformative. He thought Reagan was transcendant.

Edwards and I are LEFT-WING. Do you even understand what that means Obama man? That is a part of the Party that has been hijacked by "bi-partisan" loving MODERATES, who pretend they are liberals. You people read the Drudge Report for God's sake. EWWWWW. What is that smell? It is the smell of moderate Democrats who are selling out the core values of this Party for a MODERATE creation of David Axelrod, with words by Axelrod, recycled through Deval Patrick. It is the smell of LAZY Dems, who think they are liberals because they are voting for a somewhat Black man, when they never took part in anything remotely difficult or anti-racist in their lives. They bought their bona fides cheaply, at no cost, the current de rigueur method of those with an entitlement philosophy.

Edwards support Obama?

He is the ANTI-OBAMA. He is a REAL DEMOCRAT.

You're just putting off the inevitable.

IWR, Patriot Act, Bankruptcy Bill

Those are votes, those are actions, that affect people's lives.

And those are not populist or progressive votes.

His populist message blew up in the face of his votes... not to mention the sprawling compound he just built causing his neighbors' property taxes to go UP!

because Obama is so Progressive :eyes:

"Sorry, folks, but I dont have the guts to show up for the vote on Kyle Lieberman because if I vote YES, the Left won't like me anymore and if I vote NO, all the Republicans I'm sucking up to won't like me either. Yous see, I want it both ways!"

It's obvious that the Hillary supporters on this forum have lost all sense of civility and they are just working overtime to get everyone upset.

It's really over for Hillary and they know it.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:eyes:

Edwards did the smart thing by not endorsing either candidate. If he did, he'd opt for Hillary, whose campaign reflects Liberal values, unlike Obama who reaches out to Republicans like a DLCer. Hillary might be a DLC member but Obama is running the most DLC type campaign in Democratic history, so Edwards won't touch him with a ten foot pole.

The Obama supporters don't even like to admit how Obama's idol is Ronald Reagan.

yah got there folks.

if by some miracle he gets the nod.

sounds like the campaign plan of an Obama supporter.

When people start clamoring for decent, affordable housing for average and median income people in inner cities and developers call the shots.

his centrism and inability to take a stand failed to impress me in 2004 and the 2008 version may have sounded some of the right notes but in view of his hedge fund activities and his having supported the war for a full 3 years, I didn't trust him. I don't give a flying fuck if he endorses Hillary, Obama or Ron Paul for that matter. Let's see if he actually does something now instead of just yapping.

of no good democrat left unslandered. Starting flame bait wars between democrats isn't what sane democrats do.

a reason to endorse Hillary, since John Edwards was a DLC-affiliated New Democrat in the Senate.

his emotions everytime he talks about him on Morning Joe.


http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/01/fords_next_move.html

(who is prefaced with "even," implying some degree of surprise) has talked about "finding ways he could work with" the organization.

I'd say "close ties" means closer ties than "finding ways he could work with."

"Reach out to Republicans"....right out of the DLC playbook. That among other things.

DLC strategies are capable of keeping the Democratic party relevant when the national mood favors Republicans.

But you know that already.

In case you haven't noticed, less than 51% of the public call themselves Democrats.

The difference is that Obama talks about progressive values in a way that appeals to Republicans while Hillary changes her views with every new poll.

are starting to come around on that.

He couldn't even finish one goddamn senate term.

and shoving it into the faces of his most strident supporters. Instead, I see no responsible course except to do everything to mitigate the risk when Republicans go dirty in the GE.

I love that razor's logic Occam. It is as about as sharp as a BUTTER KNIFE.

Once again, Edwards= Democrat.
Obama= RETHUG-LITE

Like oil and water, totally incompatible.

Got it?

Actions speak louder than words.
Obama has spent more time working on progressive issues in his adult life as a community organizer and civil rights attorney than either Edwards or Hillary.

that accompany John Edwards "pulling his finger out" of this situation.

Why should Edwards jump into this mess?

He owes them nothing and will better serve his country by holding his sanction until it is truly needed.

And he's through. If he actually cares about the causes he talked about, he should get to work. JE is NO Howard Dean.

I think he wants to play both ends against the other. I don't have time for those kind of mind fucks.

Now's the time Johnny Boy! He'll make ya Secretary of ___________________. (Isn't that how the game is played?) Feeling kind of cynical tonight are we? Yep

The perfect name for someone who would spout such nonsense.

Let's see, in order to not be a "wuss" Edwards must knuckle under to the bullying Obama supporters. In order to be against the status quo, he has to endorse the "made for TV" politician created by the MSM and the corporate giants that run them. The country needs him, but not as he is, only as a rubber stamp. He can only "make a difference" by getting in line and marching lock step.

Sounds very sensible to me!

Perfectly logical!


:puke:

Of course it is logical......to a CULTIST! Obatrons=lemming cultists.

Obama=RETHUG-lite.

You had better believe that.

supporter. I never cared for JE. I made that known on this board before I ever started supporting Obama, and I could care less who he supports. Mr. Hedgefund is hardly the anti-corporate super hero that some have made him out to be and he's never done anything. Certainly he didn't in the Senate.

I don't see what relevance it has to my post.

that allows him to refuse to endorse Obama. A very wise decision on Edward's part.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

the unity of the totalitarian fascist state. How ironic, you want total conformity and lack of a dissident voice on the aptly named, DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND.

You Obamites WILL NEVER GET IT, WILL YOU? How many of you understand the irony of what you say? Any of you?

You have roused the ire of the Edwards LEFT-WING. We are not Hillbots. We are the TRUE DEMOCRATS, not you moderate bi-partisans. We have no stomach for Republicans or Corporations or INSURANCE INDUSTRY PUPPETS...like Obama.

Keep convincing yourselves you speak for everyone. YOU DON'T!

Keep convincing yourselves Obama is a , bwahahahhahahah, "progressive". He ISN'T!

We will stay and fight for the soul of our Party, long after you have crashed and burned in your misplaced zealotry.

I suggest you start by refraining from making posts the major message of which is a slam on another Democrat.

why would he endorse any of these two candidates? They won't be a change in that regard. Edwards himself would've been, though.

But I have to believe he would still rather have a Democrat in the White House than McCain, which is why if anything he should tell his delegates to go with Hillary.

John Edwards hate!

How dare he not endorse! Time to tar and feather him!

John Edwards stands for more more than the current two candidates combined. I proudly support him.

Where is Johnny?

But, but, but, John could be racist himself.

ignorance with that comment. How come you aren't calling out Biden or Gore? They haven't endorsed either and frankly I'm glad Edwards hasn't. Why should he? Elizabeth already said that it wouldn't do squat to help unify the party and you are doing a pretty nice job of keeping the divide in place. Screw you - if you understood anything about Edwards you would know it has always been about the issues. On that score, if it were not for Edwards, Obama wouldn't have any. Both he and Hillary adapted their platforms after Edwards would come out with a policy proposal.

But, he holds 19 delegates hostage and that shit ain't right.

and really, if Obama was all that, those 19 delegates wouldn't mean sqaut - so, what is it, is Edwards relevant or not? Here, try something new, like reading:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/14/opinion/14krugman.html

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2007/12/democratic_debate.html

http://pundits.thehill.com/2007/10/30/edwards-leads-in-big-ideas/

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/08/29/338433.aspx

http://select.nytimes.com/2007/08/06/opinion/06krugman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118489677980072602.html?mod=politics_pr

;)

and a few other issues. He will not endorse Obama. Elizabeth does not agree with his health care plan either. It leaves people out of obtaining health care and this is the most important issue for them both.

:hi:

especially when he says "I'll fight for you" and then makes a disappearing act.

Why so many people on the forum regard him as a knight in shining armor is beyond me. He's a mediocre politician.

Little Johnny is an opportunist.
He has always been an opportunist.
And he has not "stood up to fight" for anyone since 2004.
I'm almost as old as little Johnny, and yet, for some reason, he thought he could be President, clear back in 1998 when he first ran for the Senate - 10 gawd damned years ago.
He is much worse than you describe him, he's not even mediocre, he's milquetoast.

that's essentially what Sen. Feingold said about him.

god like persona that you all think will be the savior of the country. He is one big corporate shrill who has been taught what to say to fool the majority of you. He isn't nearly as liberal or "clean" as you think. Time to wake up and make informed decisions.

Please don't.

Please stay on the high road by endorsing neither of these disasters.

And that's why he is holding out.

fans treat Hillary supporters on this board.

rather than the campaign itself trashing reputable Democrats becuse of their endorsements. Richardson was called a traitor, Kerry and Kennedy were trashed as "ungrateful" and worse by people connected to the campaign itself.

On the boards, some Clinton supporters went so far as to bring up Chapaquiddick! Have Obama supporters done anything near this level to Clinton supporters?

I do think that we will very soon be at the point where everyone should be speaking reconciliation - though that can't completely happen until HRC accepts that she can't win - and she is not there yet.

- though I would not be happy - I would feel the same need for it for the same reasons. It's too bad the Clinton wing didn't get 100% behind Kerry in 2004. It's hard to believe the world wouldn't be in better shape.

he's showing him what I've always suspected: John Edwards TALKS a good game but unlike Bill Richardson, you can't depend on him in "your corner" when you truly need him.

Perhaps he will surprise me today. However, since his wife made a past statement to the effect that "America is yet NOT ready for a Black President," I won't be holding my breath for a John Edwards endorsement of Barack Obama. :shrug:

endorse him.

The real American choice in November is likely to be a person who is on economic issues, a Goldwater conservative and a man whose first job after college was as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago trying to help former steelworkers use programs the government already had. McCain blamed the people who couldn't pay their mortgages. The difference is stark on where McCain and Obama stand on the role of government. Everything Edwards has said is the opposite of McCain.

At this point, Edwards can take until the convention to endorse Obama - but if he is to retain credibility he will be out there working hard in the Fall.

when it matters - in the fall. He is important because he has some supporters.

In addition to delegates currently pledged to him, there are the people across the country who Edwards won over as supporters. The more actively Edwards supports the candidate the more likely they will be to stay in the Democratic fold. When looked at from a distance, not the zoomed in as in primary season focus, all of the Democrats had very similar position - there were differences and they are real - but the differences are small when contrasted to the differences between any Democratic position and McCain's positions.

To win in November, we will need all the Democrats united. The fact is that where the Republicans actually fractured on issues, we fractured more on personalities and perceived electibility - and very small differences on issues. We also have the majority of the country with us on every issue except the war on terrorism - which strong speeches linking to the fact that many conservatives now see that the Kerry 2004 position was correct - could change. (For support on that: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5877337&mesg_id=5883247)

Every Democrat wants:

- A serious health insurance plan affordable and available to everyone. There are differences in the plans, but I would wager that if it were possible (in a sci-fi like way) to look down the path with each 2008 candidate and see the plan Congress would send up for signature - there might be little or no difference. The other similarity is that any Democrat would sign it and McCain won't. (In fact, it was when Bush vetoed the S Chip expansion that I knew that if it came down to HRC, I would vote for her - because no matter what misgivings I had (and they were many) she would have signed, not vetoed it.

- On Iraq, the contrast between McCain and Obama is stark. Obama is not for permanent bases and sees the long term occupation that we've already had as counterproductive. The question there is - who is he listening to? Who would be more likely do do what Edwards supporters want?

- On global warming, McCain is one of the few Republicans with a serious record on this - but he has yet to join the bipartisan coalition that is forming around the first cap and trade bill. That bill is weaker than what Boxer or Kerry proposed, but getting ANY cap and trade bill passed starts to put a price on pollution. Looking at what happened with the clean air act that worked on sulfur emissions, technology moved faster than mandated. (Think of it - if you were a CEO of a power plant would you pay say 10% more to retrofit to the 10 year out standards or do just what was needed for the next year and incur costs every year to change to meet criteria?) Even Bush was pushed to negotiate at Bali (Nice hearings of SFRC on Bali if interested - http://www.senate.gov/~foreign/hearings/2008/hrg080124p... and http://www.kerryvision.net/2008/04/in_defense_of_treehu... )

- economy - It is hard to get a bigger contrast that there is between McCain and Edwards on economic issues. McCain, who on many issues is a Republican moderate, is a true Goldwater conservative on economic issues. This is the area where libertarians, with us on civil rights and many social issues, are 100% against us. McCain - acting out of his truest beliefs - will not take an FDR type approach to the deep economic difficulties. There is a part of him that honestly sees nothing wrong with his view on the home foreclosure issue. Obama, on the other hand, personally worked on the South Side of Chicago to help people, who lost jobs when the steel industry downsized, use the Government programs.

This is not to say that the Edwards people (likewise HRC people) won't have moments seeing Obama on the stage in Denver when they won't have pangs of regret that it is not Edwards, surrounded by Elizabeth and their kids. I know - that especially as things hit bumps - I wish that Kerry would have run and been the one standing there. I feel this, even as there is NO stronger Obama surrogate than Kerry. But, just as Kerry's strong endorsement and reassurances make me more comfortable - for the people who trusted Edwards as I do Kerry, his backing once Obama is the nominee could do the same thing.

And you think those of us who support Obama are "a cult." :shrug:

support him is real. Edwards himself is not running, but he leads one block of Democrats. If he is true to the populism that he spoke in 2008 and to a slightly lesser degree in 2004, then he could be the one to lead that wing of the party back in. There is no reason to question his sincerity - and there is a reason not too. Now is the time to recognize that we need everyone.

"I" don't think supporters of Obama are a cult, I am one, and I am not a cult member type person. (I support Obama, but it is still Kerry I see as the person I most respect and agree with.)

Populism is a very strong component of NC politics (conservatism and business/development are the other components). Dems who can get elected fall mostly along the Populism - Business axis these days.

To understand John and Elizabeth, UNC, and NC you need learn about Frank Porter Graham, then Terry Sanford and Bill Friday. For a flavor of NC and its people, watch Charles Kuralt's "North Carolina is my home".


Let me point out that this push against Edwards and the demands for him to endorse, etc. are also part of the RW attacks trying to make the supporters of candidates to fight each other and forget the goal.

Obama worked in NY for a couple of years after college which is also two years after the election of Mayor Washington.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/01/14/obama/

It is nearly impossible to establish a consistent timeline for the story of Obama and his family. I started looking at this after I read an article that interviewed friends of his mothers from high school and discovered that the "girl from Kansas" grew up near Seattle. and had a PhD. So I tried to sort out details of his family, trying to match the reported events with where they were living. Each new article I read raises new questions and concerns.

I had already noticed that you have to parse Obama the same way you do Bill Clinton ("the meaning of 'is'")

When I started looking closely at Obama, comparing what he says vs what he is, I found things that concern me a lot, some of which produce feeding frenzies among the RW. He really needs to be vetted properly by Dems before the convention, rather than waiting until fall to see what the Repubs have found..

Obama falls short of the standard set by the state motto of NC, Esse quam videri

a cult.

who don't adhere to your own standards of Obama hating orthodoxy. :rofl:

So Edwards was a coward for endorsing neither yet Richardson, who endorsed Obama only after he won about 10 primaries in a row, is somehow brave and courageous?

:shrug:

But, then Little John doesn't want to offend poor little Hillary.

Quite frankly, I think he is scared of her.

:eyes:

Barack is a second rate candidate. His health plan is second rate. He hangs with the likes of Rezko. He supports bigots like McClurkin. And he does nothing about Rev. Wright, until the media attention requires him to do something.

Yeah, that's real change. That's something to believe in.

Barack Obama: New carpeting, new drapes, same old Washington politics.

The GOP machine will tear him down quickly if he becomes the Dem nominee. They've already got everything ready to go.

Let's make history, America: the biggest Wag the Dog moment of 2008!

that said, he TOTALLY wussed out. He could've helped Obama in OH or PA, and he could have helped Hillary in NC. Even if he's not crazy about either of them, ONE of them is probably going to be Preznit. So either he hedged his bets for too long in the hopes of discerning the ultimate winner so that he could be in line for VP or a cabinet post (unprincipled and self-serving), or he simply lacks conviction and doesn't mind squandering what little influence he had left to make a difference. Not a leader, that's for sure. There's no mystery why Hillary and Obama beat him like a rented mule.

What on Earth does it matter now?

Thanks a lot John.

cost of Obama adopting a decent health care plan.

I love Obama, and I'm an Obama delegate to the convention in Texas, but his health care plan is weak as dishwater. That's my judgment (which is besides the point), but -- importantly -- that's the judgment of John and Elizabeth Edwards. I have chosen to publicly support Obama despite his health care plan; certainly not because of that plan. It was a tough decision for me, and I am certain it was an issue which inspired much debate at the Edwards household just as it inspired debate at my dinner table.

Obama could have had both Edwards endorsements any time he wanted it. Obama chose not to change his policy on health care simply to gain the Edwards endorsements (which says something admirable about Obama and his integrity). In return, John and Elizabeth Edwards chose not to make an endorsement of the candidate who offers the most change and best chance for sweeping the electorate in November but who also offers a health care plan that is far inferior to Hillary's (which says something admirable about John's and Elizabeth's integrity).

Obama will win with or with the endorsement of John and Elizabeth Edwards, and the fact that neither made any endorsement before the NC primary shows that they trust the voters to make up their own minds.

End of story.

John Edwards is not under any obligation to endorse or support anyone. He is a private citizen like all the rest of us, and he can vote for whoever the hell he wants to.

Why will this demand never die?