Edwards' Endorsement Of Clinton Imminent?
On this week's Chris Matthews Show, Richard Stengel of Time magazine made a prediction in the "Tell me something I don't know" segment of the program:
John Edwards. Senator John Edwards -- remember him? -- who's been conspicuously silent since he dropped out of the race, will endorse a Democratic candidate probably before North Carolina, certainly before North Carolina, possible before Pennsylvania. And our own Mark Halpern [sic] on the page [sic] says it's going to be Senator Hillary Clinton.
The transcript needed some quote marks or capitalization, since Stengel was referring to "The Page" on the Time website, written by Mark Halperin. Now, some may take this with a grain of salt, since Halperin has already gotten in some trouble over characterizing what John Edwards is thinking. But for the sake of discussion, let's take Stengel at his word, and assume his (or Halperin's) prediction is accurate.
If John Edwards openly endorses Hillary Clinton, what could it mean to the nomination race? For starters, it would surprise a lot of Edwards supporters. Most of the unions backing Edwards have moved into the Obama camp, and they may be disappointed by Edwards going the other direction. However, one of Edwards' core constituencies of support was among white men -- who are now firmly in the Clinton camp (if exit polls are to be believed). So while either endorsement from Edwards is going to please some of his supporters and annoy some others, it's not outside the bounds of possibility that he would back Hillary, and influence voters as a result.
The problem for Edwards is that the window of opportunity to make such an endorsement (and have it be relevant) is fast closing. I have written about this before, calling on Edwards, Gore, and Richardson to make up their minds, already. And it bears mentioning that if Edwards endorses Clinton, but Gore (or, to a lesser extent, Richardson) endorses Obama, it could be seen as balancing out for the two campaigns.
But just taking Edwards' endorsement of Clinton on its own, how much would it help Hillary and how much could it hurt Obama? Because Edwards has waited so long to do so, two things are immediately apparent. The first is there aren't that many states left to vote. The second is that Edwards' endorsement may be reduced to a regional influence rather than a national one.
The only states remaining in the contest that an Edwards endorsement would probably carry any weight are the Appalachian states -- North Carolina, Kentucky, and West Virginia. John Edwards served as U.S. Senator from North Carolina, so this is where his opinion would likely matter the most. Kentucky and West Virginia share similar demographics in some ways to North Carolina, and in other ways not so much. So his influence on voters there would be less than in North Carolina, but probably more than in any of the other states left to vote (including Pennsylvania). Even in North Carolina, Edwards' influence may not be as weighty as some would think. He did, after all, quit his Senate seat when it became apparent that he might not win reelection there.
But again, for the sake of argument, let's assume that Edwards' endorsement would be listened to closer in these three states than anywhere else in the country. This could be a problem for Barack Obama. As things currently stand, Obama has a solid lead in North Carolina. Polls for Kentucky and West Virginia are almost non-existent, leaving us to pure speculation about the electorate in these two states. But while Obama has been consistently leading Clinton in North Carolina, his lead may not be insurmountable for Hillary -- with Edwards at her side.
Hillary Clinton actually led in the North Carolina polls for all of the later part of 2007 -- it wasn't until very early in 2008 that Obama started leading. His current lead is only about 7 or 8 points, so it's not inconceivable that Edwards could swing some of those votes back to Hillary's column. And maybe, just maybe, as goes North Carolina, so goes Kentucky and West Virginia. Maybe.
If that does indeed happen, it likely wouldn't be enough to let Hillary catch up in pledged delegates before the convention, so even if she won in these three states (with her expected victory in Pennsylvania), Barack Obama will likely still lead in pledged delegates when the Democratic Convention begins. But psychologically, it would be a huge victory for Clinton, and a huge defeat for Obama, for several reasons.
Obama has done exceptionally well in the South so far, winning six states (AL, GA, LA, MS, SC, VA) to Clinton's two (AR and TN). Winning three more states would even things up for Hillary, especially if she also re-wins in Florida. The other big reason this would be a big loss for Obama is bigness. If Hillary wins Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Florida -- and also North Carolina -- then she will have swept all the "big" states except Illinois, Obama's home state. This would greatly bolster her argument for how electable she is in the general election. And no matter how the remaining states vote, this argument -- made to the superdelegates -- may be what decides the nomination.
Now, there are a lot of "ifs" in all of that, I freely admit. If Edwards endorses Clinton. If she can grab North Carolina. If West Virginia and Kentucky follow. If she can successfully make the electability argument to the superdelegates. If, if, if. But it's a clearer path to her actually winning the nomination than anything else the Clinton camp has been touting of late, so even though it rests on everything breaking Clinton's way, it's at least worth examining at this point.
So, Senator Edwards... we're all waiting to hear whether Richard Stengel was right or not. How long is it going to take you to make up your mind? That creaking sound you hear is your window of opportunity, slowly sliding shut. If you're going to endorse either candidate, you need to do so soon, before it slams shut entirely.
[Happy St. Patrick's Day to all my Irish and wannabe-Irish readers! Or, more properly, in the original Gaelic: Beannachtaí na Féile Pádraig oraibh!]
Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com
Loading comments…
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
An endorsement of Hillary Clinton from John Edwards would be a great honor.
HuffPost's Pick
Interesting points all. This came as real (potential) news to me.
I can imagine the consternation down at hope-n-change H.Q!!.....
Chris' thinking regarding North Carolina is much in line with my own.....
There is no doubt that superdelegates WILL decide this thing.....
I can say an Edwards endorsement (of Clinton) might make a SIGNIFICANT difference here in Oregon. Edwards populist mesage resonated VERY well here.
Of course, if poulist rhetoric were all it took, we'd be preparing for the Kucinnich administra
Oregon votes late...(5/
As I said, Edward's populism sold well here, particularly his stance on health care, and a Clinton endorsement might encourage Oregonians to remember that pretty speeches without nuts-n-bolts ACTION doesn't get get much done for working people.
Health care (which both Edwards and Clinton are MUCH stronger on than Obama) is a HUGE issue in this state. While funding issues prevent it from being universal, Oregon has single payer health care in place now. In point of fact, while Hillary was being defeated by the insurance lobby in
HER efforts to implement health care reform at the national level,....
Hard tellin'...
The T.V. segment mentioned in the post was, I believe "Tell Me Something I Don't Know".....
For me,...Chri
Wow, almost had me going there until I got to the part that this little rumor is being peddled by mark Halperin, the insider tool, who almost destroyed all credibility at ABC, swinging it hard to the right, before abruptly going to Time.
Think about it- Barack gives an inspirational, brilliant speech on the most sensitive taboo topics this county has, that no other politician would ever touch, with every network carrying it live and over the internet. Hillary is in need of attention so out pops another "rumor".
Hillary and Bill represent everything John and Elizabeth loath in politics. If he endorses, it will be to Barack.
How delusional and divisive. Sure, you want to play the race thing. ..."white men already support Clinton".
But in your denial of the realities, I'll help out. HILLARY IS MORE PROGRESSIVE THAN OBAMA CAN EVER DREAM TO BE. He's too in bed with his Corporate Donors.
Hillary offers Universal Health Care-Obama doesn't
Hillary had a record and policy for Middle Class, with health care, protecting and helping in economics, jobs, living wage(9.50)
Hillary was the first to talk of closing Corp loophles and wants fair trade. And she was opposed to Free trade from the onset as Bernstein reported.-
Hillary surpasses on Environment with Green Collar Jobs program, Connie Mae financing for Green Building, HIGHER CAFE Standards, conservation and smart city grids.
Hillary's record and policy is what the people want and Edwards identifies with.
GOOO Hillary and Edwards!
If Edwards endorses Hillary, his credibility will be destroyed and his political career will be over. The Clintons represent everything he spoke out against during his campaign.
I would be wholeheartedly disappointed in Edwards if he went with Clinton. He clearly called her a "Status Quo" politician in the famous New Hampshire Debate. One can only wonder what brought about such a change in opinion. It would certainly reinforce the perception that at heart he is not much more than the sheisty ambulance chaser some think lawyers to be.
Universal health care is a make or break issue for many people like me. If you look closely at what happens after the ambulance arrives at the hospital, Obama does not cut it with his history of compromises to the medical insurance industry.
So much for Edwards' credibility.
If he endorses Hillary, that would be a stark contrast to the rhetoric from his campaign. I vivdly recall Edwards defending Obama from Hillary after the Iowa caucus. He characterized her as the status quo attacking the voice of change.
He wants to fight against the lobbyists and then endorse a candidate who accepts more money from lobbyists than any of them.
No wonder he never gained any traction. His authenticity (or lack thereof) obviously was apparent.
See Chris Weigant's Profile
* * * UPDATE * * * NEWS FLASH * * *
Jay Leno just announced that John Edwards is scheduled to appear later this week on the Tonight Show...
-CW
Yep - looks like he is supposed to be on Thursday night.
Well, heck - people use the late night talk shows to announce their candidacy - why not go on Leno to endorse. Actually, maybe Edwards should go on "Who wants to be a millionaire" and use his lifelines to "call a friend" and "ask the audience".
I would think Edwards would endorse Hillary because she has the better health plan. And, in case you haven't noticed, Obama isn't making many new friends these days. (By the way where is Kennedy, Kerry and Dodd? Shouldn't they be out there supporting their candidate?)
And, the sound you hear is not the window of opportunity closing for Edwards it's the sound of the Obama bubble slowly deflating.
Mark Halperin's columns and talking head events always have a pro-Clinton bias and a bias against Obama. I will wait and see.
See Chris Weigant's Profile
sandiaview -
This is a good point. Nothing is public yet, this is just a rumor from one journalist. It's even really a second-hand rumor. So until Edwards goes public, nothing is for certain...
-CW
Edwards' Consultant Opposes Clinton Endorsement
by Steve Kornacki | January 30, 2008 | Tags: PoliticsBarack ObamaHillary ClintonJohn Edwards
Dave "Mudcat" Sanders, one of Edwards' consultants was just on MSNBC. Asked which of his opponents Edwards is most likely to endorse, he said:
"Being a southerner, being an American who has been devastated by the trade policies of the Clintons, I'm going to do everything in my power to see that he doesn't endorse her."
I will be very surprised if Edwards endorses Hillary. If he does, I think it will hurt him more than it will help her. It certainly will tell me a lot about Edwards. So stop hedging your bets Johnny. Put up or shut up until this thing is over.
Such talk about Edwards leaning one way or the other right now does nothing more than be the carrot in front of the horse. A tease with no end. To paraphrase Mr. Miyagi:
Man walk on road. Walk left side, safe. Walk right side, safe. Walk down middle, sooner or later, get squished (make squish gesture) just like grape. Same here. Edwards either endorse "Obama," or endorse "Clinton." But Edwards "don't know" (make squish gesture).
EDWARDS IS YESTERDAYS NEWS. HIS ENDORSEMENT IS MEANINGLESS NOW.
The "Superclass" is (inevitably) rising, and you either ride the coat-tails, or you get left in the past.
The aristocracy has returned and we will live to see that it is not a new idea, any more than it is a better class of people. Quite the contrary, by my estimation.
I had hoped for better from Edwards, but... I guess the writing is on the wall.
http://www
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
