Why Is Edwards Still Sitting On The Fence?

stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust

New York Magazine   |  John Heilemann   |   March 29, 2008 08:20 PM


Show your support.
Buzz this article up.

In the days after John Edwards's withdrawal from the Democratic race, the political world expected his endorsement of Barack Obama would be forthcoming tout de suite. The neo-populist and the hopemonger had spent months tag-teaming Hillary Clinton, pillorying her as a creature of the status quo, not a champion of the kind of "big change" they both deem essential. So appalled was Edwards at Clinton's gaudy corporatism--her defense of the role of lobbyists, her suckling at the teats of the pharmaceutical and defense industries--that he'd essentially called her corrupt. And then, not least, there were the sentiments of his wife. "Elizabeth hasn't always been crazy about Mrs. Clinton" is how an Edwards insider puts it; a less delicate member of HRC's circle says, "Elizabeth hates her guts."

But now two months have passed since Edwards dropped out--tempus fugit!--and still no endorsement. Why? According to a Democratic strategist unaligned with any campaign but with knowledge of the situation gleaned from all three camps, the answer is simple: Obama blew it. Speaking to Edwards on the day he exited the race, Obama came across as glib and aloof. His response to Edwards's imprecations that he make poverty a central part of his agenda was shallow, perfunctory, pat. Clinton, by contrast, engaged Edwards in a lengthy policy discussion. Her affect was solicitous and respectful. When Clinton met Edwards face-to-face in North Carolina ten days later, her approach continued to impress; she even made headway with Elizabeth. Whereas in his Edwards sit-down, Obama dug himself in deeper, getting into a fight with Elizabeth about health care, insisting that his plan is universal (a position she considers a crock), high-handedly criticizing Clinton's plan (and by extension Edwards's) for its insurance mandate.

The implications of this story are several and not insignificant. Most obviously, it suggests that the front-runner's diplomatic skills could use some refinement. It also raises the issue, which has cropped up in a different form after New Hampshire, Super-Duper Tuesday, and the Ohio and Texas primaries, of Obama's capacity to close the deal. But equally important is how it bears on the questions du jour among Democrats who see their once-uplifting primary campaign descending into self-destructive mayhem: How can we put this thing to bed? How can Clinton be stopped from putting the party through three more months of hell? Where are those vaunted "party elders" who can convince her that it's sayonara time?

Keep reading.

Read the whole story here.


 
 

Comments
352
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next › Last » (5 pages total)

Hedging his bets.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:46 PM on 03/31/2008

Maybe the Edwardses think that Obama is a hypocrite who will "revisit" all of his campaign promises, once he's safely in the White House, where none can call his power to account -- to quote Lady Macbeth.

Or maybe they suspect he's a graft-taking crook and are waiting to see what happens in the Rezco trial.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:31 AM on 03/31/2008

The headline to this post is misleading because the statement "Elizabeth hates her guts" came from a Clinton staffer, and was made some time ago.

If Edwards was really pro-Obama, he'd have endorsed Obama already. It's harder to tell where Gore is concerned. Whatever his opinion actually is, his silence may simply be an exercise in aggravation-avoidance.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:21 AM on 03/31/2008

Edwards knows Obama will lose the general election and like Hillary will wait for his chances in 2012. Edwards has seen in Obama what others less close to him will find out in the general election.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:05 AM on 03/31/2008

Good point, and probably correct. Edwards wants to be in a position where he can support the ticket no matter who is on it, leaving an opening for himself in 2012, should the Dems lose this one.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:23 AM on 03/31/2008

Everyone who is blasting Edwards for not endorsing either Obama or Clinton because they wont talk about the issue that means the most to him is total crap. Edwards now is just like every American- a regular voter in the election, which means he has the right to not support either candidate until he agrees with something they say. I'm pretty similar- neither candidate has won me over with what they are saying during this ridiculously long nomination process. I dont think he is trying to make them say what he wants to get his nomination- maybe he is just not convinced either of them will do anything about something important to him. Give the guy the benefit of the doubt. He cares about a lot of people in this country- not just the elite. Endorsements dont really mean that much anyway- people make their own mind up eventually- and if they dont, they dont deserve to vote.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:46 AM on 03/31/2008

What I find ironic is if Edwards came out and endorsed Obama, he would be praised for his judgement. Typical of Obama supporters whose idea of "vision" is "anyone that agrees with us." If Richardson had endorsed Clinton as he promised only weeks before his turncoat affair, you would of railed against him as well.

Such "our way or the highway" pontifications will be seen, years from now, as what destroyed your candidate in the general.

See ya on the ledges in November.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:13 AM on 03/31/2008

Frankly, I don't see this as a negative.

Hillary told Edwards what he wanted to hear and Obama refused to.

Makes me think more highly of Obama.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:39 AM on 03/31/2008

EXACTLY my reaction. I'm so glad Obama refused to pander to this obnoxious, self-righteous windbag. I like Elisabeth -- who wouldn't? But despite my respect for her as a seemingly nice and intelligent person, I think her husband is totally irrelevant. Not only has he lost his own state TWICE, his new-found poor man's populism doesn't jibe at all with the fact that they had the most expensive and large house in their county built during this election. Two Americas indeed.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:02 AM on 03/31/2008

Ever hear of a guy named Roosevelt? His family was one of the richest in America with quite a spread up in Hyde Park. Yet, by all standards his administration did more for the poor and working class than any other. You don't have to wear sack cloth to be a friend of the poor. Anyway, I'd rather explain his $400 haircut than Obama's "We hate America rant".

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:28 PM on 03/31/2008


Why do you still like Elizabeth if you think her husband is an "obnoxious, self-righteous windbag?" Because, politically, the two Edwardses are as one.

She lives in that large, expensive house that you're so envious of, too. In fact, Elizabeth Edwards was also a successful lawyer.

Could it be that you only "like" Elizabeth because she is very sick?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:28 AM on 03/31/2008

I like her for the way she confronted Ann Coulter. She is clear-minded, direct and fearless.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:33 PM on 03/31/2008

Maybe she doesn't like Obama's "militant" college Afro. We can't have a black man walking around in the WH without straight hair now can we? Who does he think he is to dare wear his hair naturally! Those Afros are just so threatening with all that exotic strangeness. Its just downright un-American!!!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:58 PM on 03/30/2008

When you make an assumption like that with NO basis in fact - you come off like a total Idiot!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:33 AM on 03/31/2008

Maybe she just dislikes what's "under" the Afro.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:29 AM on 03/31/2008

A very smart brain in a potential leader??? ... Maybe she is just envious of Michelle Obama.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:59 AM on 03/31/2008

Like a "typical white person", there is a "typical Obamination. Criticize anyone who doesn't kiss Obama's ring. Someone in response to an article on Huffpost last week wrote an Open Letter to John Edwards, in which she heaped praise upon John and said he was so much like Obama that the natural thing would be to throw his support to Obama. It was a long letter (probably longer than the 250 word max) so effusive with praise to John Edwards, but it did not say "I hope Elizabeth is doing well. Or I send my love and prayers to Elizabeth and the children." Nothing but imploring Edwards to endorse Obama. "Typical Obamination.......now that he hasn't spew hatred and vitriol toward John. I hope he read the comments cuz he would get a true picture of the "typical Obamanut.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:44 PM on 03/31/2008

Edwards is still sitting on the fence because he likes the feeling of the rail as it slides up his..... No seriosly, He's there for the same reason Al Bore is there. Once you jump off the fence you lose all leverage your support might of had. Obamaniacs are trying to force hillary out of the race before Pennsylvania. I believe that Edwards and Bore don't think that will happen. This will make Edwards more important for Obama and Bore more important to the DNC in case of a deadlocked Convention. In the immortal words of Schwarzenegger, "you moved too soon" applies to Richardson. His support will not be as valuable in May if Hillary runs up Pennsylvania, North Carolina and others.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:53 PM on 03/30/2008

"You're likable enough, Elizabeth."

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:49 PM on 03/30/2008

What does this mean? Elizabeth is a smart, educated woman with a wonderful laugh. She is to be admired for her education, her undying support of John and campaigning when she was also fighting for her health and life. Most of all, I admire this woman, who upon losing her only son in an accident, she had two more children at an age that made pregnancy challenging. to say the least, She is wonderful and has had many painful trials in her life and faced each one with that brilliant smile.

Elizabeth is wonderful! Have you Obamanuts no shame?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:52 PM on 03/31/2008

This article presents too cut and dried a case to be believable. I just don't buy it that Obama "got in a fight" with Elizabeth Edwards, and then Hillary swooped in and was all convincingly charming. It doesn't fit the litmus test of, "Yeah, life is like that." It sounds more like an attempt to diminish Obama's strengths while minimizing Hillary's weaknesses, at a time when she needs a boost.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:11 PM on 03/30/2008

I can buy it. Obama stood his ground and the wife wanted to prove something by challenging him. He got baited into arguing with her, and she wouldn't let it go. He gets defensive and so she dislikes him more. Happens all the time. Meanwhile, Hillary knows the female vs. female dynamic better and played up her charm while giving Edwards the ego stroke he wanted. Hillary knows Elizabeth doesn't like her. Natural female distrust. So she played the game like a chameleon.

The question is who can you trust? The one that kisses your ass or the one that has integrity for their position while respecting yours?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:04 AM on 03/31/2008

Hey robX
Were you a fly on the wall, or the best psychic in the world? Your discription of what might have happened is absolutely ridiculous. But it does fit into the delusional thinking of an Obamination.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:58 PM on 03/31/2008

...and, of course , none of your post is based in actual first hand knowledge of the facts.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:44 AM on 03/31/2008

"...and, of course , none of your post is based in actual first hand knowledge of the facts."

Perhaps I missed something, but but this article doesn't seem to meet that critieria either....

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:33 AM on 03/31/2008

WHY IS EDWARDS STILL SITTING ON THE FENCE? (I don't know. Because it feels so good?)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:46 PM on 03/30/2008

Obama repeatedly told Edwards that he wasn't going to give him anything. Obama's campaign said that Edwards would have to "earn his own delegates." From day one it was clear that Obama wasn't going to pander and when Edwards says that Obama "blew it" the reality is that Obama refused to "kiss Edwards' ass."

Hillary, on the other hand, has been dealing with him pretty publicly since November, going so far as to figure out a way to shoulder out the rest of the presidential candidates. When it comes down to it, Obama took the moral high ground and Edward was holding out for a better offer. Now Edwards is useless, go figure.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:46 PM on 03/30/2008

I choose to admire John & Elizabeth Edwards for what the are attempting to do with their time on earth. A human being must be fearless & confident to even think of what they are attempting to do. I see two people involved with living life as it is. Neither of them are fence sitters. As for those who are obsessed with Sen Edwards, the politician- there is a great deal more to John & Elizabeth which none of us will ever know.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:50 PM on 03/30/2008

To argue over health care at this point is absurd. Both Clinton and Obama want a national health care plan. The President can only suggest to the Congress - it's the Congress, both Dems and Republicans that will hammer out a solution. There will be a compremise and we will see health care as a reality that will be amended over years to improve the system. The GOP will not go for a mandated system to start. Obama's plan is the most realistic to start with. We can move to a single payer system. Let's just get it started!

Obama 2008

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:16 PM on 03/30/2008

REQUIRING ALL AMERICANS BY LAW TO HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE is just oppressive if that insurance isn't made affordable at the same time. We have this kind of plan in MA and it's oppressive. It doesn't make health insurance any more affordable and, on top of that, there are heavy fines if non-compliance. It wouldn't be "national health care" in any way, shape, or form, and is one of the stupider ideas Democrats have come up with of late. (I say this as a lifelong Democrat myself.)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:50 PM on 03/30/2008

"REQUIRING ALL AMERICANS BY LAW TO HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE is just oppressive if that insurance isn't made affordable at the same time."

True; and such is why the best path forward is Conyers' H.R. 676 Bill, or the "Medicare for All" bill. A Single-payer, government funded, all-inclusive healthcare system is what we need and deserve.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:20 PM on 03/31/2008

Spin city...face it, your guy couldn't close John "2 America's" Edwards...pretty weak.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:22 PM on 03/30/2008

By my informal survey and accounting in real life
and over the internets, (a series of tubes),
Obama got about 60% of JE's voters WITHOUT JE's endorsement.
Would a quick endorsement really net more in an election
process longer than emphysema?

How then did Obama "blow it"? JE was not in a position
to dictate much of anything to these two if the public
was not that interested in his ideas. So Clinton was
courting JE's VOTERS, not his ideas, better than Obama.

Methinks the unnamed unaligned insider's insight is
lacking in critical real world scrutiny and is not worth
too much on the ground.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:02 PM on 03/30/2008

So the respondees to your "poll" cast their vote for a SECOND choice candidate. How lovely.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:47 PM on 03/30/2008

I think it's amusing that Edwards couldn't see the difference behind Obama and Clinton's response to him when he dropped out of the race. Clinton was behind and needed that endorsement more than Obama, pure and simple. So of course she's going to try harder to manipulate Edwards into thinking she is really listening to him. If he's only going to endorse the politician who tries harder to manipulate him, then John Edwards really doesn't know what he's doing. Obama's background as a community organizer and the people he represented as an attorney were working with primarily poor people. Edwards knew that already, but he felt like preaching it to him anyway to assuage his own busted ego.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:59 PM on 03/30/2008

I love it when Obamaniacs interpret anything Clinton says or does in a negative fashion.

Edwards dropped out before Super Tuesday and she was close behind Obama. Back then, just 6 contests were over and she won 4 of them. She had good hopes for Super Tuesday, so she was far from desperate or needy.

She was the only candidate who appeared at the State of the Black Union in New Orleans. Obama was too busy campaigning, but she took the time, because she cared.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:59 PM on 03/30/2008

Obama was a wildcard and he has grown stronger and stronger. White AMerica was unprepared, but often historic changes are really a reflection of a movement as much as a particular individual.The disastrous Bush years have created a vaccumm and an urgency for fundamental change on all fronts. From environmental concerns to war in Iraq, people are no longer willing to put up with being lied to, being compromised, and being being thrown under the bus by their government as has been the case for the last 8 years.

Edwards' silence is a negative reflection on him and not on Obama. Obama hasn't blown anything. Edwards could have been part of something and has chosen to opt out instead. Again, it smacks of self-interest and pettiness on some level.

An Obama/ Edwards ticket would have been a strong pairing but an Obama/Richardson ticket would be awesome.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:35 PM on 03/30/2008

Edwards could have been a part of what? Heck, I follow the elections and primaries closely and I have no idea what Obama will do if elected. All I get from him are vague phrases, stolen from motivational tapes. Hope blabla Change blabla believe blabal yes we can blabla Chaka blabla dreams blabla...

Most of the ideas ask you to use your own imagination, because he will not tell you what he is going to do, how he is going to achieve the change he promises. Lots of people will be deeply disappointed, if he is elected President, because everybody will espect something that he will not deliver.

Edwards may have an impact in North Carolina, but, let's face it, he was not a powerful running mate for Kerry. An Obama/Richardson ticket is anything but awesome.

I liked Richardson, but his explanation why he is going to endorse Obama turned him into a bad joke. Besides, what will he bring in? He failed to deliver his state in 2004 and I don't see his strength with the Hispanic vote.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:15 PM on 03/30/2008

You don't follow the elections or you would be plenty educated about what Barack direction wants to take the country in and how to accomplish it.

We won't be disappointed if Barack fails to achieve these grand ideas. It will be our failure not his. If we don't stay engaged and hold Congress' feet to the fire, nothing will change. It doesn't matter who president is.

The internet makes finding stuff like this interview with Barack being quizzed by the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board prior to gaining their endorsement: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/