Today former Sen. John Edwards, in his first public speech since dropping his White House bid two months ago, praised Democratic rivals Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, but declined to endorse either candidate.
What is Edwards holding out for?
Interesting story in this week's New York Magazine by John Heilemann.
It's hard to tell where most of it is coming from, but the Edwards' non-endorsement is one of the mysteries of the campaign since Edwards dropped out.
Edwards, of course, was the most progressive major candidate in the race and the one who once ranked as the most electable of the Democrats.
I, and many others who longed for a progressive candidate, miss his brand of truth telling terribly.
One story has it that Edwards asked Obama for a Cabinet Post and Obama turned him down, arrogantly, as if he didn't need his support.
On the other hand, I strongly believe that Bill Richardson (whom I also admire) was turned down for a Cabinet Post by Clinton. And may have gotten a better deal from Obama.
Don't trust any of these guys. I am sure that James Carville will let us know soon enough what he meant by that "30 pieces of silver" crack about Richardson.
Heilemann, who has had good sources in the past, writes:
"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"....
"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 .....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."
Heilman writes that this story suggests that Obama's diplomatic skills could use some refinement. It also raises the question, which has cropped up after New Hampshire, Super-Tuesday, and the Ohio and Texas primaries, of Obama's capacity to close the deal.
"For all its rhetoric about practicing a new, more virtuous brand of politics, the Obama campaign has been going after Clinton hammer and tongs. Rarely a day passes without his people dubbing her a liar and a fraud. (Although when it comes to Snipergate, it's hard to blame them.) They have accused Bill Clinton of McCarthyism and invoked the infamous blue dress on which he left his, er, DNA--the latter coming on a blog post arguing that he actually makes McCarthy look benign. Indeed, it sometimes seems as if the Obamans are actively trying to cede the moral high ground."
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
The real question to me is "why does the media expect Edwards to endorse someone since neither Clinton nor Obama will forcefully endorse his agenda?".
He dropped out because he saw he couldn't win and expected one or the other of the remaining candidates to rapidly take a significant lead following his departure.
Staying away from the horse race is the best way to put pressure on the future president regardless who it finally is.
I liked the way this column built suspense. Obviously because it was a Fleetwood column it was obvious that the surprise ending was going to be either that Clinton=Good or Obama=Bad. And it was hard to see how Edwards not endorsing could reveal Clinton=Good. So that the conclusion would be Obama=Bad was pretty obvious from the get go. But since there is no particular reason why Edwards refusal to endorse Obama should have that conclusion, it was a mystery how the argument could be strained to reach that conclusion.
I gather the strain is supposed to be that Obama is arrogant, because good candidates are the ones who properly abase themselves for endorsements. People who do not trade Cabinet posts for endorsements are clearly too arrogant to make good candidates.
It is obviously Clinton's choice whether she drops out or not. But she would be doing a favor to her supporters if she dropped out so that they wouldn't have to keep embarassing themselves like this.
"Edwards, of course, was the most progressive major candidate in the race."
Uh, sorry.
His campaign rhetoric was the most progressive, but not his record.
Edwards was a consistent DLC voter in the Senate, and I would say his DLC roots are showing to this day.
I believe this is just a bunch of crap news again. I say let them keep going and the best man/woman win the nomination and then we can all go for the winner. Get it all out and savory the backstabbing crap because this is minor compared to what the swift boaters are going to toss at them. We have seen what they did to McCain, Gore, and Kerry (I can't even believe the stunt with Kerry since Jr got his self out of Vietnam with help of daddy, but they disgrace a Vietnam veteran and got away with it).
I do hope we have become smarter today.
The whole article smacked of a hit piece. After all, once again we were fed the talking point that it has been the Obama campaign on the attack. Hillary Clinton has repeatedly LIED about Obama and his record in this campaign. Period. The latest lie came as an attack on Obama saying he was a professor. She claimed he wasn't - and attacked him for it.
But he was.
Gee, if someone lied about me, I think I'd be justified in calling them a liar. So per the article: Clinton spreads lies about Obama, Obama calls her on it - and HE is the one on the attack. Right.
And I just don't believe that Edwards or Richardson would be so petty as to insist on a cabinet position for an endorsement. So we are to believe that both Edwards and Richardson were begging to support Clinton and begging to work in her Administration - then in a jealous fit of rage and rejection they flipped over to Obama? Right.
And when it comes to snipergate it's HARD to blame them? How about it's IMPOSSIBLE to blame them, because Obama continues to speak the truth (Hillary LIED) while Hillary continues to lie and spin and mischaracterize in her attacks on Obama - NOT the other way around as the article claims.
Sen Obama is more pragmatic in his approach to healh care reform -
When Sen Clinton as first lady had a - my way or the highway - approach to health care we all know what happened
Sen Obama's plan may not be as compreshensive as Sen Edwards would like - BUT it can pass the legislature and become law -- so if we do not at least start to "right" the ship and set the course in the right direction we can have another four years on nothing happening
Sen Edwards can come off the idealist - but it didn't win him enough support to make anything happen
If Sen Edwards is to be taken at his word all these years - he would be endorsing Sen Obama, If he cannot bring himself to do that - then stay on the sidelines
I think what Richardson saw was the past vs the future - the Clintons and their ways are the past - Obama and his supporters are the future --
I don't think it was a cabinet position promise - I think is was a desire to move the country forward and of course be part of it (andnthen is someone wants to show their appreciation - all the better)
Nothing about Obama's "diplomatic" skills - this was a private conversation being relayed by one third party to another
a few things seem obvious:
(a) Edwards has made himself less relevant waiting so long
(b) Elizabeth is the brains of the family
(c) John Edwards has one more shot after Penn primary and before NC primary as a factor
(d) Edwards donors/votes have already overwhelming moved to Sen Obama
(e) Sen Edwards is jealous of Sen Obama's campaign - this seemed abundantly clear when he questioned Sen Obama's "experience" (having been 1- term senator with far less experience when Edwards ran for Pres in 2004)
(f) Edwards is a great trial attorney - looking for the best deal
As an Edwards supporter in 2004, I was happy when Kerry made him VP. Edwards was noy unhappy and muffled as VP cand - he has tried to make good on some of his bad senate votes/poor choices with an honorable campaign this year
If Sen Edwards endorses Sen Clinton - he will lose a lot of credibility with his supporters by supporting the candidate of the lobbyists and pacs and old Washington
I think Edwards is just waiting to throw his support behind the nominee rather than coming out now and trying to influence the nomination process.
Of course, that's a complete guess, but I suppose it's as good as any one else has.
I am a Hillary supporter but I don't believe the Snubbing stuff by Obama. I think Hillary is the better candidate but that doesn't mean I think Obama is stupid. Neither of the two would willfully dismiss, or disregard Edwards.
No, he's not a superdelegate, but he is very respected in the Democratic Party, and his opinion may persuade voters.
It's ridiculous to pretend to know what Edward's will do when it is very likely that he hasn't even sorted that out yet.
We can speculate endlessly. We'll know Edward's mind when he speaks it.
Soooo, I guess its what? A personality contest? Hillary can BS with the best of them. Surely, as lawyers the Edwardes know that. Obama is on a learning curve that will serve him well, if, he gets the nomination. I think Obama takes this more personally than the other two.
This one is simple, Jealousy and he is nothing but a politician.
Unfotunately I had him pegged wrong. He is the reason I even started watching the campaign and thought about voting at all. I never have until now. His stance against lobbyist and special interest got me involved from his announcement speech in New Orleans. His desire to make "Two Americas One" again was nice too. But he is all politician and short on Leadership. Politician does not mean leader. If he were a true leader he would have put aside his personal pain and jealousy and backed the man who could further his agenda and party the most. He would have brought "Two America's" together, white and black. Could you imagine a son of the south and an african american working together, fighting together to end poverty and the lobbyist sell-out in Washington. It would have been beautiful if only he had been a leader instead of a politician. He may have even ended up VP as a result. Now, instead he will sit on the fence until it is obvious to him what is best for him because he is no more than a politician after all.
I've always suspected that Edwards is trying to see which one will make him the better offer, i.e. VP. Understandably, neither wants him in that position. Who would? If anything, Edwards has a long record of losing, not winning. He's a one term Senator, nothing more. All this talk of him being a major player/party elder is just BS.
SO WHAT if John Edwards doesn't endorse? I'm no analyst, expert, or campaign strategist, but I think it's probably the wisest political decision he could make under the circumstances, considering the high emotional responses to this primary contest. Edwards' past voting record has been made an issue, and if he makes the "wrong" choice in endorsement now, it could effectively kill his political future. Far better to take the less divisive role and support the Democratic Party candidate. Let Clinton and Obama fight it out to the end, throw his support behind THE NOMINEE, and work within the new administration to move his campaign message of change forward.
I personally don't know anyone concerned about health care at the national/legistative level. One of the primary reasons Edwards didn't get anywhere is he focused to much on Health care. The same fate would have fallen on Obama had he had shifted his focus. After Edwards dropped out Clinton picked it up for the next couple of debates. Look where it got her.
Gore made a similar error by focusing too much attention on the environment.
Certainly it is good to have a President ally on health care or environment, but hardly something to stake a candidacy on.
i don't get why it's ok, (and even, as a sign of her womanly strength, admired) for hillary to sling mud and play dirty til the cows come home and yet obama is immediately pilloried for the slightest misstep in his effort to be the first washington d.c. politician in many, many years to actually run a campaign with some real integrity and not just more of the same old-school hillary lip-service
Loading comments…
Posted March 29, 2008 | 11:16 PM (EST)