reflective

Actually a good legal background is helpful for us non-criminals as well. The point was that Edwards deliberately masked his support for Obama to avoid tipping his hand prematurely, which would only have fueled widespread speculation and diluted the ultimate impact of his endorsement. A careful analysis of what he said, however, shows that he was subtly signaling that he will endorse Obama.

Now to the issue of timing. When Edwards was asked whether he would endorse anyone before the North Carolina primary, his response was "When I have something to say, I'll let you know." He could have given a more tentative response such as "I don't know" or "I have no plans to endorse at this time." In the context of the comments he made about Obama and Clinton, his response to the timing question suggests that his endorsement of Obama will come very soon. While he could wait until right after the PA primary to endorse Obama, I believe it is more likely that he will do so as early as this Thursday. posted 03/31/2008 at 16:02:10

No I am not a lawyer, but I am well trained in the law. I have found the legal background useful though in the larger effort of reading the tea leaves. posted 03/31/2008 at 05:08:49

Edwards is a highly accomplished lawyer who long ago mastered the ability to deliver subtle messages without conveying a general sense that he has tipped his hand. Let's take a closer look at what he said.about Obama and Clinton. When referring to Obama he used the words "who could be the next president of the United States". His statement did not refer to the nomination, but instead looked beyond the nomination to the presidency.

In contrast, his words regarding Clinton praised her more for her past service and referred to her campaign in terms of its historic importance in having paved the way for women to seek the presidency. The use of the word "historic" points to how people will look back on her campaign and in some sense carries an air of finality. Also, he could have made this point simply and directly with the words "historic campaign as a woman for the presidency." By including the words "for the nomination", he somewhat inconspicuously shifted the emphasis toward the point that ther campaign will be viewed as historic by virtue of her bid for the nomination. It is a subtle reminder of the high likelihood that she will not get the nomination.

My interpretation of all of this is that Edwards has by now made his decision to endorse Obama. All that remains is the question of when he will decide to announce it. He could very well do this as early as this Thursday. posted 03/30/2008 at 22:31:06

As an Obama supporter, this is why I am pleased with the remarks made by John Edwards yesterday about Obama and Clinton.

Edwards is a highly accomplished lawyer who long ago mastered the ability to deliver subtle messages without conveying a general sense that he has tipped his hand. When referring to Obama he used the words "who could be the next president of the United States". His statement did not refer to the nomination, but instead looked beyond the nomination to the presidency.

In contrast, his words regarding Clinton praised her more for her past service and referred to her campaign in terms of its historic importance in having paved the way for women to seek the presidency. The use of the word "historic" points to how people will look back on her campaign and in some sense carries an air of finality. Also, he could have made this point simply and directly with the words "historic campaign as a woman for the presidency." By including the words "for the nomination" in the sentence, he somewhat inconspicuously shifted the emphasis toward the point that ther campaign will be viewed as historic by virtue of her bid for the nomination. It is a subtle reminder of the high likelihood that she will not get the nomination.

My interpretation of all of this is that Edwards has by now made his decision to endorse Obama. All that remains is the question of when he will decide to announce it. posted 03/30/2008 at 21:14:34

I just realized that you are suggesting Edwards was tacitly endorsing Clinton, not Obama. So the first sentence of my post immediately below this should read "I completely disagree." posted 03/30/2008 at 17:38:57

I could not agree more and I will go even farther. Lets start with the fact that Edwards is a highly accomplished lawyer who tends to choose his words carefully. Yesterday when referring to Obama he used the words "who could be the next president". His statement didn't refer to the nomination, but instead looked beyond the nomination to the presidency. In contrast, his words regarding Clinton praised her more for her past service and referred to her campaign in terms of its historic importance in having paved the way for women to seek the nomination and the presidency. By including both "for the nomination" and "for the presidency" in the sentence he managed make that point while at the same time subtly suggesting that her particular campaign will be looked at more as a campaign for the nomination. When asked whether he would endorse anyone before the North Carolina primary, he stated "When I have something to say, I'll let you know." He could have said "I have no plans to endorse at this time" or "I don't know," but he didn't.

My interpretation is that John Edwards has by now made his decision to endorse Obama. He will have "something to say" to the media when he decides the time is right. He could wait until April 23, after the PA primary. Or he could do it as early as this Thursday. posted 03/30/2008 at 17:25:45

Maybe it's because I am an Obama supporter by I read John Edwards's comments as at least dismissing any notion that he will endorse Hillary Clinton. posted 03/30/2008 at 15:12:30