Edwards In Secret Endorsement Talks With Obama And Clinton

Time Magazine:

Time Magazine's Mark Halperin is reporting on his blog The Page that:

JOHN EDWARDS IN PRE-ENDORSEMENT CONVERSATIONS WITH REMAINING DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES.

HELD SECRET MEETING WITH HILLARY CLINTON ON THURSDAY IN CHAPEL HILL.

SCHEDULED TO SIT DOWN THERE WITH BARACK OBAMA MONDAY.

Clinton snuck there from D.C. undetected by the media -- met at the Edwards house.

Click here to visit The Page at Time Magazine's Web site.

Read the whole story: Time Magazine

Comments

[Hope42]

Edwards could have stayed in the race through Super Tuesday and garnered even MORE delegates for himself for negotiating power. It looks to me like that conference with Hillary after the debate in which she came out STRONG for universal health care was when he told her he was going to drop out because he hoped that she would achieve his goal of universal health care if she were to be elected and he had struck a deal with her.
No way Hillary had a chance against Obama on Super Tuesday for very many delegates had Edwards stayed in the race.
Now what is being discussed now between and amongst them I really don't know. I hope Edwards gets a cabinet post whoever wins...HEW, Labor, AG would all be great.
Looks like Obama has too much ego to go for that though. He is really getting to act and look too smug for me. Starting to remind me of the smug b*****d we have in the White House right now and I don't want 4 more years of THAT. His wife acts smug also - didn't like her saying she didn't know if she would endorse Hillary if she won the nomination.
And then there's the factor that any criticism sent Obama's way will always be called racist and we'll have to walk on eggshells with what we say or the press says. Not good, in my opinion. Already the Obama supporters are about to throw a tantrum if he doesn't win. Reminds me of the Repubs and the right wing members of their party who hold their breaths and have tantrums if things aren't to their liking.

[flodlite]

Who was it that 1st brought "race" into the 2008 primarys ? Think back. That plus the fact the media does nothing but praise Obamma on his wonderous campaign. BUT, in those praises, the only issue that I have heard Obamma actually address was on health care.
Obamma then, almost mirrored, Hillary Clintons plan to give choice on personal or outside coverage. There is no substance to the media's comments and I hope people can see through that. Hillary Clinton is very emphatic when discussing issues on healthcare, education, Iraq, economy, etc., defining steps to be taken to acheive her goals. BUT, as mentioned re. the above comment,... if Obamma losses the nomination, don't discard any type of reprocussion.... I am retired now, doing great. I worked 39 years at an auto assembly plant in Michigan. My wife and I had the best years of our life during the Bill Clinton Administration. I know Hillary Clinton is the person to restore our economy and bring this country back to the world power it was. I guess by now you know we are voting for Hillary Clinton. PLEASE VOTE

[bbmjr]

By suggesting that the talks Edwards is having with Obama and Clinton are "secret," Mark Halperin's article suggests there is something sinister going on. Why didn't the article just state that the talks were "private?" A much less pejorative term, and more accurate. Why is it that some journalists want to stick their knife into someone rather than publish the clear, unvarnished facts?

[frappe]

Given the tightness of the race, I'm sure both candidates are deeply desirous of Edwards' endorsement (his delegates).

What alarms me about this delegate counting business now is that apparently "super-delegates" are now being included in the estimated totals for each candidate. I think this is dangerous in that it might presage an effort to "broker" an outcome that does not dovetail with voters' sentiments. The truth is that "Pledged delegates" would more accurately measure the will of the people.

It is my feeling that "pledged delegates" should be the only numbers counted in determining the final outcome of the race. Super delegates, if needed, should be awarded to that candidate that finishes with more "pledged delegates". Leave the super delegates out of the election equation until absolutely necessary.

By so doing, you are honoring the voice of the people as opposed to getting results via "twisting arms" or "pulling strings" (behind closed doors).

[FlaObamican]

Dear Senator Edwards

I am a 51 yr old Florida republican. I am an Obamican. I ask that you put your support behind Senator Obama. I truly believe only the hope for tomorrow can beat the fear of today. McCain and Clinton represent the fear of today. I will never vote for the Clintons again!

Thank you.

[aznurse]

Although this is a wonderful story, isn't tomorrow the vote for the FISA bill? I hope the Dems don't cave.

[FlaObamican]

Dear Secretary Powell

I am a 51 yr old Florida republican. I am an Obamican. I ask that you put your support behind Senator Obama. I truly believe only the hope for tomorrow can beat the fear of today. McCain and Clinton represent the fear of today. I will never vote for the Clintons again!

Thank you.

[FlaObamican]

Dear Senator Edwards

I am a 51 yr old Florida republican. I am an Obamican. I ask that you put your support behind Senator Obama. I truly believe only the hope for tomorrow can beat the fear of today. McCain and Clinton represent the fear of today. I will never vote for the Clintons again!

Thank you.

[Didi47]

Dear FlaObamican:

I thought you said you were a Republican. So doesn't that mean you never voted for the Clinton's in the first place?
_________________

Dear Senator Edwards:

I ask you to read the Obamayts already flaming you and your family in case you dare endorse Hillary. Please read their typical past posts and threats to Hillary voters on this site and most others and then choose.

Go Hillary.

[MartinEdwinAndersen]

It is doubtful that the media-saavy audiences in the upcoming "Crabcake primary" states will buy into the faltering Clinton campaign.

Too many questions about why Hillary won't release her taxes until after she becomes the Democratic nominee--if that happens.

(Doesn't she trust Democratic voters to make informed decisions?)

A lot of anxiety out there, too, about her plan to garnish workers' wages as part of her mandatory medical insurance plan.

Parents in particular would probably like to know what Bill and Hillary have to offer young people in terms of messages about the importance of honesty and integrity--given all the scandals surrounding the former First Family.

And of course there is still a lot of anger out there how the Clintons engaged in racial coding on the eve of the celebration of the Martin Luther King, Jr., holiday.

Finally, the metro area is home to a lot of human rights activists as well as recent immigrants who came to the United States fleeing political oppression, many of whom are likely to be less than impressed with Hillary's flip flopping on the issue of torture.

With such fundamental questions hanging in the balance, what Democrat worth the name will buy a bridge back to the 20th Century?

MARTIN EDWIN "MICK" ANDERSEN

[Didi47]

To MartinEdwin:

The ones who had a chicken in every pot during that time I imagine. including immigrants..

Not to mention, they had jobs, homes, no war, extra ordinary international respect (before the Republicans turned it into a side show) hope, cheer and unity etc.....

That's who.

[VivaZapata]

With Mrs. Clinton, it's not an inability to grasp the issues and respond accordingly, and it's not that the campaign manager arranged for her to be in the wrong place or at the wrong time. Before the two senators from New York voted to authorize the war in Iraq, hundreds of thousands of young people jammed up the whole east side of manhattan protesting that issue. Clinton and Schumer ignored the will of the people and went along with Bush. Then, years later, she voted yea on Kyl-Lieberman. She is seen cynically as someone who will calculate what is best for her career and vote accordingly. The trouble is she gambled incorrectly. She thought that she could take her antiwar constituents for granted, and to some degree that is true, but along came someone who, though not in the senate at the time, stood up and criticized the entry into the war. If he did so for political reasons of his own, it doesn't matter because he gambled correctly. The thing is: more people feel that he was genuine in his opposition to the war. Elections are not rational, or we'd have a much different political landscape today. Obama has emotional appeal as evidenced by all the pro and con words posted herein. Firing her manager cannot take back the embarrassing derisive laughter that was her response to Gravel for criticizing her vote on Kyl-Lieberman, nor will it change her calculated responses to issues in general. That is who she is; that is what people respond negatively to; that is her nature. She might be a better person than what she projects, but it's what she projects that matters in terms of electability. The Democrats would have been better served in the general election by that rancher from the Dakotas, or lots of others with broad appeal, at the head of the ticket, but it's all about money and muscle, not ideas and strength of character.

[jsomerville5]

VivaZapata: Very well put.

[Seafarer61]

The biggest challenge facing Obama following his nomination will be bringing Clinton supporters back to the fold.
Your post provides a perfect example. It's not an endorsement of Obama based on his qualifications, it's another musing on "everything that's wrong with Hillary."
People seem to be voting "against Clinton" rather than "for Obama."
As a result, I see very troubling signs ahead for November. Do not underestimate John McCain.
Independents and moderates have been clamouring for him to run for years and it finally looks like this is his best shot at it. These folks, contrary to what many believe, will NOT vote for Obama en masse, especially if there is another terrorist attack between now and November.
Obama has done extremely well with traditional Democrats and moderate Dems but he won't pull enough votes away from moderate Republicans and middle of the road independents to win WITHOUT the support of Hillary loyalists.
It will be interesting in October to read all the threads on HuffPo from the resident Clinton bashers...begging her supporters to "think of the party" first.

Call it "make up sex."

[VivaZapata]

Dear Seafarer61,

I wasn't "bashing" Clinton; I was pointing out the reasons for her negatives. Exit polls have not shown your premise to be the case. Independents and moderate Republicans have voted for him over Hillary. I agree with you that, after such a bitter fight, it may be hard to win over the other side, but I think that that will be the case for both Clinton and Obama. As for McCain, the media will be behind him no matter who the Democratic candidate is, so you're right, defeating him will be challenging. I differ with you as to who has the better chance of doing that. Anti war people will have a very hard time voting either Clinton or McCain. Most would go for Clinton. All would go for Obama.

Obama's biggest negatives are the Rezko case, and his cocaine use in his youth. Racist Americans won't vote for him. That's a given, but they probably wouldn't vote for Clinton either. As for drugs, her all too prominent husband inhaled. Rezko? She still has Whitewater in her past, and other questionable dealings. Dirt will be slung by McCain. Obama will be able to weather it.

[JUSTME]

"That is who she is" perfectly sums up the growing opposition to Clinton. No matter how much "experience" a candidate has, it will not fly if you can't get past the "who she is" question. Who Hillary is is a woman willing to race-bait if it will advance her ambitions. She is a woman who will tolerate public humiliation and profound disrespect from her husband in order to advance her ambitions. She will say anything and do anything to get ahead. She will refuse to concede anything to anyone at any time or even acknowledge the existence of a winning opponent.

Hillary's attitude towards Obama is that of an indulgent mistress to an uppity house servant not worthy of serious attention. And she fails to understand that, as much as Americans are repelled by "who she is," they are drawn to Obama for "who he is." Americans are turing to Obama, Sen. Clinton, not because we are unable to make serious political decisions on our own or because our judgment is wanting, but because we are rejecting, finally, the political "establishment" that seeks to put another Washington insider back in the White House. You cannot begin to understand or imagine how sick we are of everything that Washington has become and of the lies and corruption. It is, absolutely, time for a change.

[IkeChicago]

Latest election results, Obama takes the overall
lead in delegate count.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/delegate_counts.html

[ebbtide]

I don't get Edwards. Is he jockying around, DC beltway style for a job or what? I thought he was a good candidate, but failed to get his message across effectively. I thought he was the champion of the working people, hated lobbyists and corporations and now he seems to be playing , behind the scenes, mind you, some sort of game. I don't like it. Guess I had a false impression of Edwards.

[godlessclif]

Edwards is the champion of working people. That is why he will not endorse either one of these candidates.

Edwards is probably asking for new rules to strengthen unions and Hillary and Obama's backers won't let them give him that.

Obama and Hillary are backed by strong NAFTA and Globilization forces as in McCain.

Huck is the only champion of the working guy still in the contest.

[sparkandy]

Huckabee's a lunatic. He's the ONLY Republican who would make this Republican vote for ANY Democrat, even Obama. He's way too conservative for progressive Republicans and Independents, and if he's nominated he'll lose in the biggest rout in the history of the world.

[YWC]

Edwards endorsement now means next to nothing...There's only one canidate he can back and not look like a total trial lawyer (fruad).

It's Obama or bust John, and lets not act like you have a choice.

[Macready]

well said YWC . . .

[godlessclif]

Lets not act like this is a democracy and people have a choice. The big banks and big media have picked Obama and will smear anyone as a racist who does not go along.

It really makes me sick.

[markusmarkus]

"The big banks and big media have picked Obama..." On what evidence do you base you assertion? Links or leave!

Obama08

[Lesjoan]

John might endorse Clinton they both believe in universal healthcare your candidate Obam doesn't.

[horacekent]

You know what I miss most about John Edwards,.......???

It's the story about the mills,......about the people who worked in the mills,......and about the people who lived in small mill villages.

That's what I miss most about John.

John, tell us about the mills.

[gba]

Funny, funny, funny

[BrooklynLager]

Okay, that was funny.

But John Edwards is a good person - I think he's not endorsing because both Obama and Clinton are both centrists on economic issues.

He won't endorse Clinton - Mudcat Sanders and Elizabeth Edwards are adamant about that. Will he endorse Obama? I hope so.

[IkeChicago]

I think John Edwards missed his chance to be relevant, most of his supporters are now supporting Obama. So what is it that Edwards has to offer when his supporters have already made their choice.

[kevenseven]

Ike, that is how '07 went.

Obama pulled that rug right out from under John, and no hard feelings either.

ON to victory!

[Lesjoan]

Prove it I support Hillary and I supported John first.

[Giordano Bruno]

I remain unconvinced by the media candidates, HRC and Barack. I believe the Democratic Party will regret overlooking the Edwards candidacy. Barack is way too vague, and Hillary way too abrasive (perception, in politics, is reality folks).

John McCain is likely going to win, and we have squandered a historic opportunity to capitalize on the incompetent Bush years.

As for which of the two who remain, does this Edwards supporter favor. I am in no hurry. Besides I already voted for John in the California primary. Even after he pulled out.

As a dispassionate observer, the Democratic contenders are anything but presidential these days.

Giordy

[mark77]

Let's have a debate without namecalling or worse. Let's just talk about the issues and the facts. I respect both HRC and Obama, and I know all of us who support Democrats really want universal health care. But after examining both of their plans, it's a fact that Obama's health care plan is the truly universal plan, and here's why:

It says right there in Clinton's health care plan that only tax refunds will be provided as assistance.

"Unlike the current health system where insurance premiums send people into bankruptcy, the plan provides tax credits for working families to help them cover their costs."

That means that you will only get in assistance what you pay in taxes. If you lose your job and lose your income, you won't get any assistance. The working class that don't pay much in taxes won't get assistance.

It says right there in Obama's plan that he will not only provide tax refunds, but sliding scale subsidies to the poor who can't afford insurance.

"Individuals and families who do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP but still need financial assistance will receive an income-related federal subsidy to buy into the new public plan or purchase a private health care plan."

That covers EVERYONE, including those who are working class, impoverished or unemployed. This plan is the most similar to Edwards' proposal. If you want univesal health care, I'd encourage you to look beyond the surface. It's not a universal health care plan just because it has the word universal in it. If you want to disagree with me and say that HRC will subsidize the unemployed­/impoveris­hed, I challenge you to find where her plan says that. I have asked that question many times here, and no one has yet been able to give me an answer.

[Ping]

The difference between Obama's plan and Clinton's plan is that Clinton's plan has no chance of passing.

[Lesjoan]

Wheres your HOPE, I believe Hillary is more of a fighter than Obama and can get more done if elected.

[godlessclif]

As we kucinich supporters say "Si se perde"

Yes we can have single payer health care like Canada

Why does neither Hillary nor Obama want to give us that.

CTHULHU for president.

Why support the lesser of two evils
when you cna have a greater more powerful evil?

[img]http://faroutshirts.com/images/Cthulhu4Prez-Preview.png[/img]

[Gerahufff]

Michael Moore who directed Sicko, the documentary about our horrible held care system says both plans have bad and good. His main criticism is that Hillary and Obama have both given the insurance companies a place at the table. Obama's plan is no better than Hillary's. We need a socialist model.

[markusmarkus]

Gera, do really think that any health plan that does not include the current players - insurance, healthcare providers, pharma - would have a snowball's chance in hell of passing?

Say you set up a healthcare system with the gov't as the signal payer. Just what are all those people who now work for Aetna, Humana, etc. supposed to do for jobs?

[godlessclif]

sí podemos tener cuidado médico

Si se purde!!!

[Paulitik]

A little late John, don't you think? You might have actually helped someone when you were still relevant, like before Super Tuesday.

[godlessclif]

if Edwards was a whore like the rest of them he would have traded his endorsement for the Attorney general post before super Tuesday.

What you DLC dollies don't understand is some of us don't sell out butts for money.

[horacekent]

In my opinion, the Clintons are politically filthy. Nothing is beneath them & they will say & do anything to win. Should they win, they will come into the White House with 20+ years of political favors to payback & lobbyist to please.

Why can't we make a clean break & fresh start?

I know why the Clintons are fighting to gain & retain power. I think Bill is terrified of being eclipsed by Barack - prior to Obama, many saw Bill as the most charismatic leader, capable of communicating & connecting with people in a way, not seen for a longtime. Compared to Obama, Bill looks quite ordinary.

Do we really want to have to look at, hear & deal with the Clintons again? What's wrong with us? Don't we feel worthy of going for something so much better? The Clintons are filthy!

[Araxiel]

The Clintons just need to go away. Aren't we all just really, really tired of the calculating, triangulating, obfuscating, whining, lying, exaggerating, crap that is the trademark of this family? I am a Democrat, but never voted for WJC, and would not, even at gunpoint, vote for HRC. We need a new beginning, and I think Obama is the best chance. It is a new age and a new time, and the old Bush/Clinton world view doesn't work anymore.