Dear John: It's Now Time to Endorse Hillary

An Open Letter to Senator John Edwards
from Will Bower

Dear Senator Edwards,

I am not writing to you that I might sing the praises of one candidate or condemn the actions of another. You already know the faults and merits of Senator Clinton and Senator Obama more intimately than most of us ever will.

I am not writing to you in outrage over the now-(in)famous preachings of the the now-(in)famous Reverend Wright. You by now have heard these sermons for yourself and have come to your own conclusions.

I am writing to you because Barack Obama -- for all his many strengths and merits -- is no longer an electable candidate in his 2008-bid for the White House.

To win the White House, a candidate must win Ohio in November. To win Ohio in November, a candidate must win Ohio's independent voters. The events of this past week have lost Barack Obama those very voters, and irrevocably.

If you want your party to win the White House in 2008 -- and if you want it to do so as peaceably as possible -- you now must endorse Senator Clinton.

Yes, Senator McCain probably will win with the male Independents of Ohio. Senator Clinton, however, has a good chance of winning over the women there; and with the women, the state.

I could have written to Al Gore about this matter, but his resentment towards the Clintons is all but too well-known. I could have written to Howard Dean, but he's busy enough as it is with the crises in Florida and Michigan. I could have written to Nancy Pelosi, but she has already abused her power as a potential broker in this situation in such a way as to make her voice illegitimate. I could have written to Jimmy Carter, but he would not have the same impact on this race as could you.

That leaves only you, Senator Edwards.

I am not writing to you to tell you how your endorsement of Senator Clinton may or may not help you in your own causes. You already have an idea as to this as well.

I am not writing to tell you that Senator Obama still will have a bright future waiting for him; whether it be in the halls of the Senate, or in the State House of Illinois, or perhaps -- one day, in the years to come -- in the White House itself. You already know of the many great things Senator Obama can still do for our nation.

I am writing to you to shine a light on the fact that you now are the last, best hope of giving an endorsement which will actually make a helpful difference to your party; especially with your party being in the predicament in which it now finds itself.

Now is the time, Senator Edwards, for you to endorse Senator Clinton for President of the United States in 2008.

Thank you,

Will Bower

Comments

[LonesomeThunderbolt]

Speaking of "electoral history," let me try this one on you. Except for 2000, every candidate since 1892 who won the nationwide popular vote also won the electoral vote. Yes, Ohio is the "epicenter of the electoral universe." And as Clinton says, "As Ohio goes, so goes the nation." But conversely, as the nation goes, so goes Ohio. So, whichever candidate carries the country as a whole will carry enough swing states, including Ohio, to gain an Electoral College majority.

Until recently, that candidate has pretty consistently been Obama. The Rev. Wright controversy has knocked Obama back and put some wind in Clinton's sails. And the battling has put both of them slightly behind McCain in general election matchups. But as the Democrats stabilize and unify behind their nominee--and as G.W. Bush's 8-year legacy is brought back into focus--there's no reason to think the Dem nominee won't pull ahead. As long as Obama is leading McCain nationally, he'll be leading in Ohio.

is why

[Will Bower - Huffpost Blogger]

You're speaking my language, Thunderbolt. I appreciate and respect that.

While I enjoyed reading your argument, I can only restate that I believe Obama has become -- and will remain -- unviable in Ohio come November.

All the same, thank you for responding. I've just clicked "I'm a Fan of LonesomeThunderbolt".

Will

[LonesomeThunderbolt]

Thanks for your response post, Will. While Ohio (with 20 electoral votes) will almost certainly be the deciding state in November, there is one other scenario in which Obama (or Clinton) could win without Ohio. Kerry was 18 electoral votes short of the needed 270 EVs in 2004. If the Democrats win back Iowa (7 EVs) and New Mexico (5 EVs)--which Gore carried in 2000 but that tipped to Bush in 2004--that would be 264 electoral votes. Colorado (9 EVs) is another targeted swing state for the Dems, which if they carried, would put them over the top. But I really believe if the Dems win the national popular vote, they would carry Iowa, New Mexico and Ohio--in which case Colorado and Nevada (another targeted swing state) would be icing on the cake.

[hoohound]

edwards won't commit until he has something solid to trade for, and that won't happen until the convention or shortly before. in the end, the superdelegates will decide if obama is the more electable of the two in the general, as the delegate count will be about the same between them.

[dwmorris]

Great post! How do you respond to the oft repeated argument that Obama is a "map changer?" Is it remotely possible that he can put together enough electoral votes without Ohio?

[WillBower]

At this point, I can't yet see which of swing red-states Obama will be able to shift blue. Iowa? Nevada? Colorado? Florida? Missouri? It looks like all of the above will go McCain in a McCain-Obama match-up.

The one state I see that Obama might have -otherwise- shifted back from red to blue is New Mexico.... but with McCain being from neighboring Arizona, even -that- is in question.

[joeysky]

I think the chance of DEM winning the GE is getting lesser by the passing day. After FOX run the story of Rev. Wright, Obama really lost the support of mainstream American.

[getrealalready]

I'd like to see Edwards stand up for Obama, myself...

[getrealalready]

excuse me, Mr. Bower, but do you presume yourself to be God almighty, the all knowing referee of right and wrong? Your presumptiveness is dangerously misleading. It also lamely follows suit with other bloggers self-ordaining themselves as ministers purporting to be more politically correct than Rev. Wright.

[getrealalready]

so i guess you will now try to take me out in the ring. sir-

[WillBower]

Hmmm. I don't understand your "take me out in the ring" comment. Am I missing something?

[WillBower]

Hey there, getreal. If you re-read my post... "I am not writing to you in outrage".

I am not passing judgement on either Reverend Wright or on Barack Obama.

[getrealalready]

Excuse me for the strident voice, but I get outraged when an individual makes premature determinations and coerces voters how to vote before more conclusive data take shape to help us decide whether or not Obama is still electable.

[drmavis]

It's way too premature for this. For one, an Edwards endorsement will not carry as much weight as you think it will - although he was a presidential candidate, he is but another junior senator. And the high profile endorsements from Ted Kennedy and John Kerry for Obama didn't have nearly as big an effect as one would have expected. Secondly, one ought to wait until this all dies down and settles out before making any rash decisions - remember that Bill Clinton had the huge Gennifer Flowers scandal during the nomination process and still won the election. And if you look at polls since the Wright controversy broke (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/latestpolls/index.html), Obama is still doing better than Hillary in FL, NY, CA, and CT against McCain. Plus, look at what happened in IA yesterday - Obama GAINED delegates - and rural IA has many similarities to rural OH. So in short, I think you're doing exactly what the Clinton camp intended for people to do after their kitchen sink barrage - overreacting and not using their higher level thinking skills.

[Will Bower - Huffpost Blogger]

I agree with you, Mavis, that an Edwards endorsement might not be the be-all-and-end-all. That said, I don't think there are any endorsements left to be made that -could- be as impactful.

I would also say that Gennifer Flowers wasn't nearly as affronting as is Reverend Wright to the demographic on which I'm focusing. Scandalous, yes. Threatening, no.

As for the polls, you are correct in your observation that Obama is still performing better than Hillary against McCain in the states you've mentioned. However, the bigger picture shows that she is rising in those same polls, while Obama is falling in them.

As for the delegates in Iowa: They are exactly that -- Delegates. Not voters. Had ABC released the Reverend Wright story in the weeks leading up to Iowa, I have my doubts as to whether or not Obama could have won the state as he did. This, of course, is rhetorical... so we'll now have to turn our attention to PA, IN, KY, WV, etc.

[getrealalready]

so i see you are human after all...

[BlogMoses]

Sorry Will.... your post is premature... Rev. Wright's comment won't make Obama unelectible... The jury is still out on that. How he he has handled the situation and continues to handle it will affect whether or not voters will turn away from him. It may affect the polls in the short-term due to the initial shock of the videos (which every news station made sure you were shocked with repeated replay), HOWEVER if Barack continues to show voters what's in his heart and what his vision of the country is and answers any questions voters have on his church in the long-term he will regain any voters that have doubts about him due to this latest flap. Barack Obama is not his pastor.... they share religious views not political views. We don't need another dynasty in the White House and continuations of the Red state and Blue State divide.

[Will Bower - Huffpost Blogger]

Moses. You bring up two issues to address. One, prematurity. Two, damage control. With the prematurity issue, it is my belief that the demographic I mention in my letter has already seen and heard enough to close their minds -- rightly or wrongly -- on the matter. As for damage control, there are certain articles already surfacing which place Obama at the scene of many of the controversial sermons which Obama has claimed he never attended. *If* there is any authenticity to these articles, Obama will have very little wiggle room -- too little wiggle room to win him back the voters he'll need in November.

[getrealalready]

Only if Obama is found to be lying would I eat my words.

[getrealalready]

Perhaps Mr. Bower should go to a zionist temple for a few sermons and see what that's like!

[WillBower]

I'm game. If there's anyone in the DC-area who'd like to invite me to such a thing, I'll go.

[BitJam]

Will Bower said:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I could have written to Nancy Pelosi, but she has already abused her power as a potential broker in this situation in such a way as to make her voice illegitimate.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Can you elaborate on why you think the voice of the chair of the 2008 Democratic convention is illegitimate? Is it because she puts the good of the Democratic party ahead of Hillary Clinton's political aspirations?

You did mention that the Clintons have managed to alienate Bill Clinton's former vice president but you neglected to mention that the Clintons have also converted the DNC chairman into an enemy when they tried to stage a coup against him. Is your objection to Nancy Pelosi that Clinton (perhaps with her endorsement of McCain over Obama) has managed to alienate her as well?

In addition to the stale argument that the only states that count are the ones Clinton managed to win (perhaps with Rush Limbaugh's help), you now seem to be adding a similar argument that the only voices that count are the ones that support Hillary Clinton.

[Will Bower - Huffpost Blogger]

BitJam.

The role of the chair of the 2008 Democratic convention is -not- to endorse a candidate. This past week, Pelosi has all but done exactly that.

Clinton did not endorse McCain over Obama. She has said repeatedly that either she or Obama would make a better president than McCain. Clinton was simply stating -- rather factually -- that the Republicans will attack Obama's lack of experience, and that it will be harder for them to do the same to her.

And my point is not to say that anyone's voice counts more than anyone else's. Rather, I'm focusing in on truths within our Electoral history. Many an election historian has pointed out that both Gore and Kerry dropped the ball in regards to Ohio. As I see it, Obama has now dropped the ball in Ohio in a way that he will not be able to recover it.

[BitJam]

Although Clinton may very well have stated that the Republicans would attack Obama's lack of experience, she also said:


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I think that I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience that he?d bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


If the Republicans choose to attack Obama's experience then they don't need to make any ads of their own, they can just replay Senator Clinton's words.


As the chair of the 2008 Democratic Convention, Pelosi has long maintained that if we go into the convention divided we will leave it divided and that will hurt our chances in the general elections. The reality of the situation is that Obama has a substantial lead in overall delegates, an insurmountable lead in pledged delegates, a lead of almost one million in the popular vote, and a significant fund raising advantage. Obama has gained nearly 50 superdelegates since super Tuesday while Clinton has actually lost superdelegates. For Clinton to erase Obama's lead in pledged delegates, she will have to win all the remaining races with 30% margins, unlike the 6.5% delegate margin she got in her "big win" in Ohio.


I realize the Clinton camp has been trying to circulate the ridiculous idea that the race is very, very close. Pelosi has not fallen for this Clinton talking point but that does not make her biased against Clinton. Nor is it Pelosi's fault that Clinton's scorched earth policy, as exemplified by her quote above, made a "dream ticket" impossible.


Sometimes sports fans thinks the refs are all biased against their team when in reality their team is simply losing fair and square. The same thing can happen in politics. The skewed views you have presented here, in particular your blindness to Clinton's endorsement of McCain over Obama and your unspecified feeling that Pelosi's lack of support for Clinton is a veiled endorsement of Obama, shows that Pelosi's desire to give the losing candidate's supporters several months to heal is legitimate and justified.

[nysc92]

I agree with you Will. I have been listening to conservative talk radio over the weekend, and there are a lot of people upset over Rev. Wright's comments, and in my opinion, put him against McCain, and he becomes unelectable. (lots of talk around seniors and blue-collar workers jumping to McCain's camp b/c of the comments). It has been really unfortunate that there has been so many double-standards in the primaries, and as a woman, I am just sickened that it's OK, to bash women, but we have to hold race to higher standards, that is not right, and not equality. I am hopeful Sen. Edwards will come out and support Sen. Clinton. I think the democratic party as a whole really needs to think about the electibility factor, and do something soon, don't drag this out to August. (And for goodness sake, let MI/FL count!)

[getrealalready]

THE RIVER IS LONG; THE RIVER IS WIDE.
YES, FOR GOODNESS SAKES- LET MI AND FL COUNT.

[efranklin]

Edwards has to endorse Clinton because of the Wright speeches? What gives? He could just as well do the same for Obama on account of Ferraro's remarks. Are we now reducing this nomination contest to who can least be associated with controversy? How about being half of a once impeached co-presidency. Is that within the realm of this absurd game of guilt-by-association?

[Will Bower - Huffpost Blogger]

No, E. Franklin. Edwards doesn't have to endorse Clinton because of Wright's speeches. Edwards doesn't have to endorse anyone for anything. However, Wright's speeches will lose Obama those voters that could have otherwise carried him in this race. Again, I focus on the white, independent, lower-income women of Ohio... as they will most likely be the demographic the decides the fate of this election. Edwards would be doing both himself and his party a favor by getting his party back on a path that can still put a Democrat in the White House.

[getrealalready]

Someone like yourself, Will Bower, should get Reverend Wright's entire sermon so we can ALL hear THE WHOLE THING. Before you write Obama off as unelectable, we would ALL be privvy to how much of it is incendiary and/or reactionary to statements such as Geraldine Ferraro's. Never mind Ohio.

[getrealalready]

my feelings exactly, efranklin-