Edwards: Clinton didn't choose words well on race

WASHINGTON — Former Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards said Sunday that he thinks Barack Obama will be the party's presidential nominee and that Hillary Rodham Clinton must be careful not to damage the party's prospects in November as she continues her campaign.

"I know how hard it is to get up and go out there every day, speak to the media, speak to crowds, when people are urging you to get out of the race. I mean, it's a very hard place to be in. But she's shown a lot of strength about that," said Edwards, a former North Carolina senator who exited the race in January.

"But I think the one thing that she has to be careful about ... going forward, is that, if she makes the case for herself, which she's completely entitled to do, she has to be really careful that she's not damaging our prospects, the Democratic Party, and our cause, for the fall," he said in a taped interview broadcast on CBS' "Face the Nation."

Clinton says she's staying in the race despite losing to Obama by a wide margin in North Carolina and barely winning in Indiana, which helped cement his status as the front-runner. She touts her overall electability in a general election and, pointing to demographics, recently told USA Today in an interview:

"There was just an AP article posted that found how Senator Obama's support among working _ hardworking Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how the, you know, whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

Some accused Clinton of reintroducing race into the campaign. Edwards seemed to give her a pass.

"She's in a very tough, very competitive race that's been going on a long, long time. And you know, she didn't probably _ I'm sure she feels like she didn't choose her words very well there," he said.

"What I think is, at the end of the day, when this is over _ and I think it is likely, certainly, at this point, that Senator Obama will be the nominee _ that the Democrats will unite. We'll all be behind our nominee. And we'll be out there campaigning our hearts out," Edwards said.

David Axelrod, Obama's chief campaign strategist, disputed Clinton's assertion.

Axelrod said Obama and Clinton split Indiana voters who make $50,000 a year or less, and that Obama performed better among non-college-educated voters there. He said the same was true in North Carolina. Both states voted last week.

"The words weren't well chosen, but the thesis was wrong," Axelrod said on "Fox News Sunday.

Edwards, meanwhile, said he "might" still endorse a candidate, but "I don't think it's a big deal, to be honest with you."

Comments

[rikoriki]

I'm really disappointed by Edwards, and I voted for him in the CA primaries by mail before he dropped out. I can understand his pussy-footing only as an attempt to stay neutral so that he could possibly be drafted as a unifier in the event of a hopelessly split convention. Not exactly disinterested.

As for Hillary having chosen her words poorly, that's balderdash. What's ill-chosen about "white"? That's exactly what she meant, in fact she used it twice in one sentence just to be sure no one missed the point. I think she was in part signalling to the superdelegates that Obama could not win the general election without this micro demographic (patently false) and in part it was a signal to the WV voters that voting on the basis of race was to be encouraged.

I can't believe that Edwards is so naive as he sounds. He has lost my support.

[ebbtide]

You know, I am tired of John Edwards, "former candidate for the nomination". He is trying to stay in the headlines for some reason, most likely some aspiration to get back into it. Who cares what he says?

[rimofheaven]

I agree. I believe he is a coward. Nothing he says really matters any more. When he could have made a difference, he chose to stand by and watch, but in his silence he merely endorsed all of the negative politics coming from the media and Clinton's bridge burning behavior. Now he is trying to have it both ways.

[blindjester]

"Who cares what he says?"

Funny you should say that....

[robXdion]

Oh, he's not so cool now, huh?

[JiminNC]

Always someone, almost daily throughout this campaign to say, "Aw shucks, she just mis-spoke, she's tired, it was after eleven, she didn't mean that, she's being misinterpreted, twisting her words."

My questions ... does she ever say anything she means? Does she ever mean anything she says?

[GeorgeKaplan]

He "knocked" the comments and he also said he understood how she could have said something as dumb as she did from exhaustion due to the rigors of the campaign. Kind of like the bitter comments...

[TGCNY]

In some case I feel the Edwards are bitter about losing the election and nomination back to back but thatshouldnt be a reason not to endorse either candidate get over yourself edwards. If you think these type of thing will hurt the party then do something about endorse already.

[Tropiholic]

Perhaps that "hard working white" comment by Hillary will be the final nail in her superdelegate coffin.

[S1m0n]

What's the aphorism about never really knowing someone until you share an inheritance with them? Well, the democratic party is discovering that you don't know someone until she loses an election.

And boy, it's ugly.

[BonzaiBoy]

I am an Obama supporter, but I am willing to believe that Clinton chose her words poorly in her interview.

That being said, however, she needs to heed her own words--if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Was it not Clinton herself not so long ago practically crucifying Obama over his "bitter" comments? If the MSM wasn't willing to give Obama a pass on that one, then in all fairness they shouldn't give Clinton a pass on this one.

[Catharsis]

Took you that long, eh, Edwards?

[ema]

John Edwards was the most progressive of the "viable" candidates. He was a leader on the issues of health care and the growing disparity between the rich and the poor in this country. He was a leader on tackling unregulated corporate greed. He doesn't want to endorse because he thinks endorsements are bs. He wants to let the democratic process unfold and he is not hedging his bets with the winner so he can get a job.

The media chose Clinton and Obama over Edwards. It made a much better story. White vs black. Female vs male Young vs old. The media makes its money from conflict. Without conflict there is no story and a white guy just wasn't an interesting story in this election.

And the media got what they wanted. The party is being torn apart.

Has anyone considered that John Edwards might be trying to smooth things over because he is the real unifier, "the adult wing of the democratic party".

I hate to say, but I think we will lose in November. Democrats have gotten so nasty to each other. They are starting to sound like Republicans.

[Nezua]

''The media chose Clinton and Obama over Edwards. It made a much better story. White vs black. Female vs male Young vs old. The media makes its money from conflict. Without conflict there is no story and a white guy just wasn't an interesting story in this election. And the media got what they wanted. The party is being torn apart.''

I totally agree. We should never let the media choose ANYONE to run for President ever again except white males. We have GOT to keep the party together at all costs.

[S1m0n]

"John Edwards was the most progressive of the "viable" candidates."

Which Edwards? The Edwards his platform illuminated bore no relation to the Edwards who voted in the Senate. You true believers got suckered.

The inescapable conclusion is that John Edwards' platform was nothing but a strategic decision made on the basis of polling, and on the advice of consultants after considering the others in the race. He decided that was where the fertile ground lay, and cultivated it dilligently.

It remained for folks like Russ Feingold--who really has been walking the talk--to remark on how little Edwards' votes resembled his platform. "He's running on MY voting record," Feingold remarked.

[TheInsomniac]

Absolutely right on. I was a supporter of Edwards, the candidate. But that Edwards was a far cry from the one who has actually voted for years now. I'm glad he moved the ball forward. But I think the voters got it right when they recognized that the trial lawyer was simply trying to win another case with a big settlement that the American people once again could not afford to pay.

[Roses]

I think you're right about the power of the media, but not about the cause and priority of their intentions. Edwards, at this point in the race, has accumulated populist power and wants to bring down the power elite in Washington and around the nation. He just may have succeeded, or at least resulted in some change. The visual media is moopolized by the big power eite. Obama was still an unknown quatity and Clinton would play by their rules and not resulted in too much change. Edwards was just too risky to have such a powerful job as president. I think their ratings were of secondary importance to their long range planning.
Obama '08

[AKJM]

Very well said EMA. Before the first caucus there were viable candidates, upper tier and lower tier, a hatchet job on Kucinich. In the end the media ignored Edwards and ran with the conflict. The conservative media and Rove played the democrats; stick with Obama we loose, change to Clinton we loose.

[harriscrl3]

I disagree John Edwards NEVER came off as authentic to me and these back and forth not showing who to endorse proves it to me. There was something about him that I always felt like he was acting the role rather than being himself. Plus there was those 400 dollars hair cut. John Edwards was just a poor candidate to me and unfortunately he didnt have anything to help him through like charisma, name, money or NOT voting for the war. Personally I also think its the Clinton name that got Hilary where she is but then again its usually the name that get people in these positions anyway.

Carol

[amoment]

A few days before the NC and Ind. primaries, Huffington Post and probably others ran a story saying John Edwards doesn't have any clout. It is interesting to me that just a few days later, John Edwards began to talk. This makes Edwards, in my opinion, about himself.

[donaldw6]

John knows he waited way too long to endorse, and he's fallen considerably in my estimation because he should have shown more courage. His comments here are ok, but I don't really care now whether the guy ever endorses, or if he holds onto his nineteen or so delegates until 2012.

[ramblingjohnny]

I agree he wanted to be so badly on the winning side that he stayed on the fence and left is option open for far too long. Just like like many superdelegates who should have face reality a long time ago. These peoples are scrambling to get on Obama side now but had they been more realistic it would have been over two month ago!

[useyourbrain]

No, all the other politicians weighed in too early. They should not be supporting either candidate until the nomination. Look at what happened with Gore and Dean. It doesn't help the eventual nominee to have people opposed to him then come to his aid for the general. They should all keep their mouth shut until there is only one candidate left or the nomination.

[ema]

You are totally right.

[maribelle1963]

Mr. Edwards, with all due respect, SPEAK UP. Who do you endorse?

I've voted for you in '04 and would have again this year if you'd still been in. I hope to see you as VP or AG. But for god's sake, man, SPEAK UP. What are you waiting for?

The superdelegates are supposed to LEAD.

Lead already, damnit.

[on2them]

Edwards needs to get with the plot...when does tough cross over to sabotage for him and the rest of them...geez, HC has crossed the line numerous times and always gets a pass while the party begins to smolder.

[aplegrand]

I don't understand why everyone wants Edwards to be on the ticket as VP with Obama. Edwards was already on a ticket, 4 years ago. And he lost. Time to move on. He has done nothing to help Obama's prospects so Obama should look elsewhere when thinking about a VP.