Elizabeth Edwards Denies Endorsement Rumors

UPDATE: During an interview on Tuesday afternoon with MSNBC, Elizabeth Edwards denied rumors that her or her husband were on the verge of an endorsement. A rough transcript is below, or watch the video:

MSNBC: I do want to get you on this issue in terms of the news value. Can you say to me right here on MSNBC that you or your husband will not endorse in the next week? That is correct?

EDWARDS: I would be surprised. Things can happen at any day, as we found out today, a very big day on the political scene. So you never say never, so I don't know that the situation could not happen in the next week that would change our minds. But our current -- my current inclination is not to say any more than I have said. I'm willing to repeat it as many times as people want me to. John would have to speak for himself. He's also on vacation.

EARLIER:

With only days away from the North Carolina primary, what has become of John Edwards? While his wife has begun to take an active life in the political fray (including a few shots at John McCain's healthcare plan), the former presidential candidate has remained silent.

Today, Hillary Clinton will pick up a big endorsement from North Carolina governor Mike Easley. But the biggest North Carolina endorsement, Edwards himself, seems nowhere in sight. The New York Times reports on the conflicting pressure faced by John Edwards:

Many of Mr. Edwards's supporters in North Carolina have been quietly pressing him to endorse Mr. Obama, and a large group of them, led by Ed Turlington, his campaign chairman during the last presidential race, came forward publicly last week to support Mr. Obama.

On the other hand, Mrs. Edwards, her husband's closest and most trusted adviser, has made it clear that she favors Mrs. Clinton; aides said she had recently tried to persuade Mr. Edwards to do the same.

Read Huffposts continuing coverage of the North Carolina primary.

See the latest North Carolina polls.

Comments

[Horatio]

With all due respect to Mrs. Edwards, who gives a shit who she's endorsing?

[thirdgo]

It's all about who gets Edwards' 19 super delegates.

[scottingham]

Clinton and Edwards both voted for the Iraq War...birds of a feather.

[liveon]

If this is true then all of the talk by the Edwards about breaking away from the control of lobbies is sort of the "fake it till you make it" philosophy that Hillary is so well known for. Not to mention the 2.3 billion in federal earmarks that she's requested (nearly 3x the largest ever requested by a single senator) for 2009. Read the Rolling stone article regarding the Queen of pork". Change? Not with Hillary. Elizabeth must know that Hillary's healthcare mandate will never get pushed through. Back to corporate politics as usual.

[talkingclock]

There's nothing wrong with a woman being president, just not this woman. She is not even in the same league as Margaret Thatcher or Angela Merkel.

[rubicon101]

I knew exactly what sort of posts I would read in this column because it was a prominant woman supporting Hillary.
I've been censored for some things I wrote on this blog, mainly because I'm against Barack Obama as the democratic choice and for Hillary as she would be better leader.
Yet the vile and disgusting things that Obama supporters are allowed to say against Elizabeth Edwards is indicative of what HuffPo is all about.
You have to wonder what the campaign of "change" is all about.

[mtrav]

They are a constantly vile irritation to rational thinking people. It would be change for the worse if their candidate were elected.

[CivilDisobedient]

There is no "change." Every candidate since time began has promised to bring change. Obama is nothing special. He's an excellent bullshit artist. His fans are some of the meanest, most dishonest people I've seen here, since the bushies all "magically," disappeared. They became Obamians. Temporarily.

[mshinbone]

I think we must be reading different posts. The negative comments are directed at Senator Clinton, not Elizabeth Edwards. From what I've read, the vast majority of comments are praise and respect for Elizabeth Edwards, and disbelief that she might favor Senator Clinton. I'll agree that most of these posts are anti-Clinton, but not Anti Elizabeth Edwards.

[talkingclock]

Now HRC and Bill Clinton are not transparent, what are they still hiding from t he public that we as voters have a right to know. Like the Clinton donors, that they do not want to reveal until it's too late. The donors to HRC senatorial campaign, and the Columbian talks that Clinton participated in? They expect this from Obama and he has been transparent, even revealed his earmarks, all of them. Hillary only put those out that she thinks make her look good. For somebody who wants to be the puppet, to a former not so great president, she will be that puppet!

[ayc]

If this report is true, I have lost a lot of respect for Elizabeth Edwards.

[mtrav]

She has a right to her opinion, doesn't she?

[gwhizz]

NOT IF THAT OPINION IS, "I think someone else might have a better idea." THEN NO NO NO ONLY IDEAS ALLOWED ARE THOSE THAT ARE YAY OBAMA.

Sincerely,
Huffpo

[americanwomaninpa]

mtrav: Of corse she does! I don't think Elizabeth really gives a damn what anyone thinks about her choice! good for her!

[Sandy972]

I second that. I am absolutely astonished that Elizabeth Edwards would even consider voting for Hillary. Surely she has an ulterior motive. What could that be? Shame on you Elizabth! I thought you were actually someone we could trust to do the right thing. And to think I was hoping your husband got the nomination. Thank God he did not.

[qwr]

Elizabeth Edwards has been hired the Center for American Progress, a think tank started by John Podesta, Bill Clinton's former chief of staff. Jay Carney's piece is here:

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/04/elizabeth_edwards_joins_cap.html

Even if it is the case, as some reports have it, that there are Obama supporters at the CAP, the question is, who got Elizabeth the gig? Do you think all those years of hanging out at home qualifies her for a think tank? Clinton clearly got her the gig, and the deal probably was that EE would talk about health care and only attack Obama from this position. This is how EE probably justifies herself. I suppose we need to ask EE to think about human life in general. Who voted for war? Who threatened Iran with nuclear annihilation?

[kay]

Gore is with Obama on the gas tax holiday.

Clinton is with Bush and McCain.

When she ran for Senate she said a gas tax holiday was a boon to Big Oil, and it is.

So, what changed? Hillary Clinton did. Obama and Gore are where they always were.

Nothing's changed about the gas tax. Conservatives have been trying to get rid of it for decades, and to suspend it is to end it. Clinton knows all this.

When did getting rid of the gas tax stop being a gift to big oil? After Pennsylvania? Why? How?

Elizabeth Edwards is supporting this? All for the magic word "universal" in the Clinton health care plan?

That's some trade-off.

[harrisjb]

I'll tell you what changed - Gas went from $1.50/gallon to $4+/gallon.

Take off the tin foil hat - it's the economy, stupid, remember?

[kay]

Consumers are now hitting a price point where they will have to conserve. That cuts into oil company profits.

All Clinton is doing is allowing them a little leeway on the price point.

She should stop turning to Greenspan for economic advice. He's been discredited. he always goes for the quick, popular fix rather than a long term solution, and his ideas always, always benefit the biggest the most.

She should pick up an economics paper written after 1998. Things have changed.

[NCMan]

can you link to that quote where Hillary said the gas tax holiday was a boon to big oil in 2000?

In 2000 Hillary was against the gas tax holiday because the proposal at the time didn't PAY for it. The money was going to be lost to the highway funds and not replaced.

The gas tax holiday being supported by Clinton NOW, includes a windfall profits tax on the oil companies to replace the gas tax money into the highway fund.

See the difference? It's not that complicated.

McCain on the other hand justs wants the gas tax holiday without replacing he funds with the windfall profit tax.

And Obama doesn't support the gas tax holiday at all. The reason he states is because of the loss of revenue for the highway fund. He likes to imply that he is unaware of the Clinton proposal for the windfall profit tax on the oil company to put the revenue back into the highway fund.

[kay]

All the gas tax holiday does is lower the price point for gasoline. Oil companies can then stretch the profit margin wider. There's a point at which they can't raise prices higher, or consumers will begin to conserve. A gas tax holiday opens the gap for profit, not taxes.

If Clinton is then proposing to tax them on windfall profits, she's only taking a percentage of that increased profit margin.

It was a bad idea in 2000, and it's a bad idea now.

When is the last time a politician voted to reinstate a tax? Never.

To suspend it is to end it. Oil companies have been trying to end it for 30 years.

Clinton just handed them that, under the guise of "populism".

It's typical short term thinking, for quick political gain, and it's dumb.

[CivilDisobedient]

Gore is with Obama on the gas tax holiday. link please? Why does Obama not get behind the gas tax relief?? People are really struggling, and he can't see fit to give them at least a little, relief??? Obama is no dem.

[kay]

Hillary Clinton offers proposals that are essentially a free lunch. It's true for her health care plan and it's true for the gas tax holiday.

All winners, no losers. That isn't how things work.

Because she presents them in impeccably presented bullet-pointed sound bites doesn't mean they are sound policy.

She always, always goes for the poltical quick fix rather than the better long term solution.

It's also true of her truly wacky proposals on mortgages. She's going to give you a "holiday" on your mortgage, too. For 90 days?

Obama is telling the truth. That's why it's harder to sell. I'm ready to hear it.

[mshinbone]

He opposes the "gas tax holiday" because it will save the average American $30 dollars and cost the Highway Trust Fund $10 billion at a time when the bridges and roads in our country are falling apart.

Wouldn't it make more sense to reduce the tax permanently and replace it with a windfall profit tax on the petroleum industry?

[tedbear]

John Edwards was my original pick. I liked him in 2004 and did some volunteering for him, for one reason his trial attorney experience should have come in handy in the political arena. Now, he has not endorsed anyone. His wife is coming out with her choice of Hillary. Is it because of the gender thing? We don't know. What we do know is that John Edwards did impress many as a sincere person who wanted the best for the nation. Hopefully, he will either not endorse or endorse the person closest to his sincerity in my view, that being Obama.

[slc20]

If Edwards supports Hillary, after all his anti-corporate rhetoric, he will tarnish his reputation (and rightfully so). If he exposes himself to be a hypocrite the caliber of Hillary, he will lose the respect of those millions of people to supported him BECAUSE of the very things that have turned them off from HIllary.

I have always respected John Edwards because of his anti-lobbyist and anti-corporate ideals.
He'll definitely lose my respect if he endorses Hillary, who has been funded by the lobbyists John supposedly despises.

[baldingeagle]

Why would he be a hypocrite. Hillary is close to Edwards on healthcare than Obama is! Oh, that's right, Clintons are hypocrites. Obama is pure. What utter nonsense.

[Cowperthwaite]

I don't get these postings. Edwards and Clinton were clearly the most similar in their plans for health care, reducing poverty, etc. The only big area of difference was PAC money. That argument seems silly because people like Obama rake in hundreds of thousands from people related to special interests. His fundraisers just make them bundle it differently. I mean, voters are that dumb to believe Obama really doesnt have ties to special interests. Look at those grants he gave out to his campaign funders. Look at Rezko. Look at his whole career before running for President. It's just a convenient argument for Obama to make so he can highlight a difference with Clinton.

I will say this, Bill Clinton's white house was probably full of lobbyists and it was the most successful economic (and probably overall) administration ever. So, the whole PAC hate argument doesn't really work. You can't stimulate an economy and not pay attention to the economy's major players.

Weird.

Edwards should endorse with his head and chose Clinton since she's the most able to carry out his policies.

[Zammie]

I would be very disappointed if Edwards were to endorse Clinton now, given the delegate math. What is needed is for superdelegates to wrap this up, not to cause the agony to be prolonged. Clinton is not going to catch up in pledged delegates, and the popular vote argument is flawed, in that it does not include caucus states that Obama won handily. It is therefore difficult to see how an endorsement of Clinton could be anything but self-serving, and certainly not beneficial to the party as a whole.

[talkingclock]

John Edwards, where was he when his endorsement would have counted for something, at least Richardson had the gumption and guts to stand when it counted most.

John Edwards with his $400.00 hair cut does not have his priorities in order. He is a day late and he does not have that weight that he could have had. He needs to have to guts to take a stand, which obviously by his actions he does not. If you're going to endorse either one of the candidates then do it already. Enough said.

Obama O8.

[desmirl]

Is her choice based on sexism or racism, because it surely isn't on the qualifications of the candidates. Who wants a LYING Clinton back in the White House? Or worse, TWO OF THEM?

[cc76]

Elizabeth Edwards is all about "universal health care." She's pretty much a one issue gal, it seems. So that probably explains the Hillary preference. (Altho' I am scared-scared-scared of what Hillarycare 2.0 would look like given her lack of specifics on how the poor will fulfill their obligation and the fiasco in Massachusetts.)

John Edwards, on the other hand, stands a lot to lose by endorsing Clinton. You can't be a sincere populist, anti-corporate kind of guy and want the candidate who has the deepest t ties to special interests: Hello --> Colombia? Penn AND Bill Clinton? Bill Clinton took $800,000 from the Colombian government to lobby for CAFTA. Who else is he and (by virtue of marriage) she taking money from? Never before would special interests have had such a direct and nefarious link directly to the White House.

[vincealy]

I like the Edwards. By refusing to get involved early they have become irrelevent, Elizabeth should realise. There was a chance to get health care when Hillary was in the white house. Rather than work accross party lines she decided to "fight" even some in her own party her my way or else approach caused her to miss that chance. It is a good vote getter for her. Time to actually improve access to care. HRC the most devisive politician will not be able to accomplish it

[dtd]

So Elizabeth Edwards wants her husband to be true to his southern roots by joining the fear of the black candidate campaign. It was to be expected! And she better bet if John Edwards ever runs again, we will NOT forget!

[MeLuvHillary]

So if white people choose Hillary over Obama it's ONLY because they are black fearing racists. Do you even think before you type? I'm black and I support Hillary. So, are black people who don't support Hillary racists as well? Black, white, brown, etc., racism is wrong. It can be just as evil and hateful no matter the source. Don't project your inner deficiencies on everyone else.

[gwhizz]

Oh wow. This new hope and unity thing is really catching on.

[MeLuvHillary]

Inspiring isn't it?

[alamacTHC]

well THAT would be a kick in the ass. I organized our law firm to come out for Edwards early. We sent him money, and I did as well from my own personal funds on several occasions. I also did mailers and other outreach efforts to try to get him the nomination. It seemed a natural thing for Edwards to endorse Obama early, since the Clintons are such obvious corporatists, liars, and general-purpose scum(and/or douche)bags.

And now Elizabeth is pushing him to endorse Hil-pig??? WASSUP WID DAT, ELIZABETH??? Have you lost your fricking mind????????

If Edwards endorses the Sow, I've had it with him and will never support another thing he does. PERIOD.

[baldingeagle]

Very intelligent post. You organized your law firm? What do you do there? Toilets?

[americanwomaninpa]

baldingeagle:

lol