You are absolutely right. An endorsement of Hillary Clinton by John Edwards would be a major disappointment to those who believe in him.

Another hack job against the Clintons. Maybe you people in the MSM need to find a new hobby. Like supporting all the Democratic candidates instead of trying to divide the electorate. But, back to the article. No guessing who you're supporting, right? And in your view, if Edwards endorses your candidate of choice, Obama, then he's for real. But if not, then he's a fake. Of course, remember, this is your view only. And 50% of the country disagrees with you. And I am one of them.

Another hack job against the Clintons. Maybe you people in the MSM need to find a new hobby. Like supporting all the Democratic candidates instead of trying to divide the electorate. But, back to the article. No guessing who you're supporting, right? And in your view, if Edwards endorses your candidate of choice, Obama, then he's for real. But if not, then he's a fake. Of course, remember, this is your view only. And 50% of the country disagrees with you. And I am one of them.

On what planet does Mother Jones qualify as mainstream media? So many Hillary Clinton can't accept that some of the criticisms of their candidate are completely valid.

It has nothing to do with which candidate David Corn is for. Edwards was very clear on the campaign trail that Obama was a fellow change candidate, while Hillary was the embodiment of the status quo. If he were to reverse course and endorse Hillary now, it would mean he was lying back then, or that he's had a post-candidacy conversion to the insider cause of lobbyists and defense contractors.

I would be thrilled if Edwards withheld his endorsement of both candidates. I don't think Obama has yet earned that endorsement. I believe that Obama has stated many many times that he is uninterested in refighting the battles of the 60's and 70's. I haven't heard his opinions on labor unions. I haven't heard any plan that proposes what he would do to stimulate job creation or to stem the tide of the loss of jobs. All I have heard is that he promises change. Bush brought real change to America. It wasn't good change but it was change.

I see several hurdles to an Obama endorsement that the author either is unaware of or failed to mention.

1. Edwards' most endearing message had to with him being able to wage the "battles" that needed to be fought. He criticized both Obama and Clinton for taking special interest money. But more specifically, he made numerous sleath comments about Obama's lofty rhetoric.

2. Remember when Obama went after him in a debate for being tied to the trial lawyers? That probably did not go over well with Edwards. He was forced to defend his association in response.

3. Health care, Edwards' plan is nearly identical to Hillary and Edwards repeatedly argued how Obama's plan left millions uninsured.

He did call Hillary apart of the status quo in NH but we all remember that was after a devestating loss in Iowa where he was trying to latch on to Obama's momentum. That hardly qualifies as a principled stand against Hillary or commitment to Obama.

How so?

When you look at Obamas and Clinton's votes she is to the left of him on social issues. She is also more radical on healthcare.

I'd rather he supported a "corporate democrat" than an independent like Obama - making friends with republicans above his own electorate.

So Wellstone said one must allow for redemption in politics - except Hillary Clinton, I suppose.

As a working-class activist, I'm extremely uncomfortable with the cult of Obama, particularly since the ranks are so heavy with the educated and privileged, and I never hear them speak about the needs of the poor. (Probably because they don't actually know any.)

And I would love to know where people get this idea Obama is a progressive. His voting record looks pretty darned corporate-friendly to me!

Clinton's not any better, of course, although she does have the edge on health care.

But mostly, I haven't seen much from either remaining candidate that makes me even want to vote for them, let alone work or raise money.

In fact, it seems clear to me that the only principled choice for John Edwards is to endorse neither.

I don't see why people keep saying that John Edwards is a hypocrite. A man can be wealthy and still care about the poor. John Edwards got rich defending the interests of working class people against the insurance companies. It isn't rich people he hates as much as people who will do anything to be rich.

No matter who Edwards endorses, it won't matter. Anyone with a lick of common sense can see he was a phoney. Real populists don't take $50K speaking fees to talk about poverty or work for hedge funds in exchange for $500K.

Both Democrats should avoid his endorsement like the plague if they have any hope of not looking phoney themselves. The onlyt thing to say about Edwards is that if I need some cash in exchange for a questionale legal claim, he is the ambulence chaser to call.

Finally, Paul Wellstone was out of touch and ineffective as a Senator. You can't get anything done in a body like the Senate by being a firebarnd. He needed maturity that the Left-wing crazies have never obtained.

Dear John:

As you wind down your campaign, please don't forget about the millions of poor Americans who are left without a voice for change that you represented. Of the remaining candidates, I urge you to support Hillary Clinton.

Obama is the candidate of the rich, as we can see from his fund-raising numbers and polls. He is also the establishment candidate, as we found in his support from Senators Kennedy and Kerry. Obama's stance on possibly invading Iran and Pakistan, and limited health care for all put him at odds with everything you stand for. Finally, his supporters are not your supporters, in fact they campaigned against you, eventhough you campaigned for them.

Hillary Clinton is the candidate of the working class as shown by her poll numbers and as evidenced by the states she won. Hillary doesn't have the high-powered party establishment types backing her candidacy, in fact, most of them have come out against her, on a personal basis. Hillary's health care plan addresses the needs of all Americans. She is the only remaining candidate of either party who offers pragmatism, progressivism, and moderation to the exercise of government. Without you, the middle and working classes can only rely on Hillary. As you consider who to throw your considerable prestige behind, think of your wife and all women, who have waited so long to find their voice in America.

I'm sure Hillary would surely act as your champion if you needed a job cleaning up her lawn at one of her multi-million dollar homes.

The only logical choice is for Edwards to endorse McCain.

If Ann Coulter is endorsing the Democrats over McCain, then what does that say about them?

Edwards cannot openly support Clinton without sacrificing his dignity. The best he can do for her is to remain silent, to not endorse anyone. I can see why some think he's doing just that, but I don't agree. I believe he will endorse Obama. He doesn't need a deal. Edwards would be a great Attorney General, he's a natural.

As a mother, and as a daughter, a sister, an aunt, a female, a stay at home mom, a neighbor of a mill worker, an immigrant, and a resident of Illinois I'm appalled that people disapprove of Hillary's actions.

BTW I'm black.

Is John Edwards a hypocrite if he endorses Sen. Clinton because he thinks she's got the best chance of winning? That's ultimately what we want, right? I'm still on the fence with these two candidate, but look at the demographic info for the voters of each. Clinton does better with the likely battleground voters for this election. Obama does very well with voters we can expect to vote Dem in Nov no matter what. We've got to look stategically at the swing states and what their voting pops are like.

Hack Job against the Clintons? The article states, "Edwards pointed to Clinton as part of the problem," so doesn't it follow that if he endorses her now he's contradicting himself?

Could it be that you see the article as a hack job because your candidate, Clinton, is running behind Obama? I don't the article as a hack job, but I can't say the same for your comment.

Karl, its the complete opposite! Clinton does well with bread and butter democrats in safe dem states. Obama is waking up democrats in red states, bringing tons and tons of new young voters into the system, and attracting considerable numbers of independents and republicans. Hillary has not following in those 2 groups and that's an understatement. With Hillary, at best we eek out a narrow win with the same old red/blue map by focusing on a few swing states. With obama, we are looking at a possible 50 state strategy (ok, 45) and potentially a landslide a la reagan. He's a phenomenon, Hillary is the same stale old stuff.

As for Edwards, neither candidate is a perfect fit for him but I predict an Obama endorsement.

A simple question: On what basis have you decided that Obama cares more about poor and working-class people than Clinton? Can you point to anything at all that justifies that conclusion, particularly a conclusion stated so definitively?

Edwards should either endorse McCain or endorse none of the above. We have to think about moving the Republican party to the left before we can actually take our own party back. Barack and Hillary use the Republican party as an excuse to walk the corporate line. As far as I am concerned, that makes them useless. A divided, weakened, and unorganized conservative base is just what we need to get a real liberal populist into the White House. A liberal elitist will actually move the political center to the right.

Dean 2012

Here! Here! My sentiments exactly. The only person that has been half-way fair is Craig Crawford.

Today, Hillary Clinton was the only Democratic U.S. Senator “Not Voting” on the Democrats’ proposed legislation in the Senate stripping telecom immunity from the FISA renewal bill; all but the most conservative Democrats voted for the provision, the Dodd Amendment, No. 3907. Senator Obama, like most Democrats, voted “Yea” on this Democratic provision. No Republican voted “Yea” on it. Only Democrats favored it. In other words, Hillary was the only Democratic Senator refusing to vote on whether to provide retroactive legal immunity to telecom companies that illegally assisted the Bush Administration to spy against American citizens without a warrant. She was the only Democratic Senator to avoid voting on whether the FISA bill should be stripped of its ex-post-facto provision, its provision that violated the U.S. Constitution’s dictum: “No ... ex post facto Law shall be passed.” George W. Bush must have been pleased with her today.

Wow.

Ya can't criticize Hillary about anything, or WHAM ... the cry-babies start whining that she's being picked on ... can you say, "politics"? Or, can you say, "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen"?

Some Clinton supporter commented here that Obama looked pretty "corporate friendly" Are you kidding me???

Hillary was a 'Goldwater Girl' in college; a self-proclaimed Republican!

Hillary sat on the board of Directors of Wal-Mart for years!

Hillary accepted campaign monies from Rupert Murdoch!

Hillary doesn't LOOK like a Corporatist she IS a Corporatist!

Hillary's not a DEM or an Independent, Hillary is Republican-Lite!

All this about Obama being a candidate of the rich and a candidate of cultists has got to stop. My mom was a single mother who raised my sister and I on 30K and sent us both to college. My sister and I are still broke. We are as working-class as you get and all support Obama. And as for cultists -- chew on this -- I supported Hillary until November 2007, because I didn't believe the Obama hype. But then, guess what? I read more about him then read one of his books and decided he was great and that Hillary was nothing that I thought she was. So take your cultist crap and shove it. And stop underestimating the intelligence and commitment to social justice of Obama voters.

Hillary OK, you fail to say why you're appalled. Care to elaborate?

So he (Edwards) should endorse Obama,....a two year congressman, who can make powerful speeches.

His becoming president is laughable,....so much so, that it will probably happen!

Good luck America.....just keep being inspired and don't become perspired!

Hillary's strongest supporters are menopausal
women, unmarried women,
and the undereducated non-
blacks....and this makes
you Clinton backers proud??
Sounds like you need Edwards'
endorsement more than I
thought you did.

I think it's unfair to say Obama's not for the poor. Remember he worked a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago? This guy's no elitist. Hillary deserves credit as well. Their policies are almost the same in reality, except for Health care and how to enforce insurance coverage or whether to make it a choice.
This may not be PC, but I really feel SOME of the less educated voters and the elderly are either more afraid of change and are making the safe choice, totally reasonable, or just don't read as much and remember Hillary and her husband and don't know much about Obama. That's why campaigning is so important.

Why would you assume that Edwards will make his choice based on principles or beliefs? Do you really believe anything he said on the campaign trail? The same guy who channeled a dead baby in order to win one of his landmark cases that made him rich (and made healthcare, especially childbirth, in America much more expensive). The same guy who was a conservative Democrat, then a moderate Democrat, and now an extreme liberal Democrat? Edwards is a phony, that has never been in doubt for anyone who has paid attention. The only thing that will drive him to choose between Clinton and Obama will be: what's in it for Edwards? I imagine one or both will offer him the VP slot, or attorney general, or whatever he asks for.

Although the Media worked for many months to eliminate John Edwards from the scene. In the final analysi s, he is the ONLY CANDIDATE who is able to successfully win and election with any Republican. We just cannot sit idly by and allow candidates to muff another elevtion,WE NEED JOHN EDWARDS

paul page: wow, I'm dizzy from all that spinning.

1. Obama's donors have given an average of $200 each; his fundraising is successful due to the huge number of new donors he has attracted. Clinton has fewer donors, many giving the maximum of $2300. Who's the candidate of the rich?

2. Hillary has had major establishment backing since even before she announced. Everyone knows her, and she has allies in pretty much every state that were ready to work for her. The only person that could be more establishment would be Bill.

3. He has never said anything remotely similar to 'lets invade Iran'. That's simply a lie. With regards to Pakistan, he has said he'd consider a covert operation to get Osama Bin Laden. Not a full scale invasion.

4. Exactly which 'working class' states did Hillary win? Obviously she was going to win Arkansas after being first lady there, and by extension she got TN and OK. She won NV mostly on Las Vegas, while Obama won the rural areas. MI and FL tell us nothing since they weren't contested. (In order to say they count, you have to argue that campaigning has no influence on the outcome. That's simply ridiculous that anyone would claim that all this time and money they're putting in has no effect.) After that, you've got CA which she held due to early voting, and the northeast, which is the opposite of poor, and she had the benefit of living in NY to capture it and its neighbors. Even then she only won her home state by 15%.

5. The bulk of the party establishment supports Hillary because she was the presumed nominee from the moment she announced. That's why she has the big superdelegate lead. Portraying the former President's wife as some sort of political outsider is about the most absurd argument you could possibly make on her behalf.

6. You think people should support her based on her gender? So much for equality.

I really think it is irrelevant who John Edwards endorses. This nomination will be decided by superdelegates... so much for a free and fair system?

John Edwards a phony? I thought he was "My Little Pony"! If you don't believe
me watch the ads on Nicktoon
next saturday morning.

What if Hillary makes him a deal and says he can be Poverty Czar in her administration, and Obama says he can't guarantee anything. What then? Put the doubts about Edwards sincerity aside for just a second, and assume that he does truly care. What would you do in that situation if your goal is to eliminate poverty? Nothing is ever simple when it comes to politics.

By the way, I love Paul Wellstone as much as the next person, but Wellstone had the extreme advantage of representing a state that only once in the past 50 years has voted for the Republican Presidential Nominee (The only state with that distinction). Try striking up a populist tone in a Red state and see how long you're relevant.

Lastly, the idea that an insincere Edwards took up the cause of poverty for political gain is laughable when you ask yourself this question: what candidate has ever gained politically by talking about poverty?

The saddest part about Edwards failed candidacy is how quickly people wish to kill the messenger when it comes to poverty and populism issues. The weapon of choice this time was a warped and twisted definition of hypocrisy that as applied, would mean a person that advocates for the homeless must not themselves live in a home. Ridiculous.

You are all forgetting one major point. The working class poor (those earning less than $50k a year or those with little education) aka Dunkin Donut Dems are one of Hillary's main supporters. She has overwhelmingly won their votes consistently. Edwards can't endorse Obama because if helping the poor is truly the 'cause of his life', he would not be in alignment with those whose voices are not heard!

Spin it however you want creepy Obama cultists but you are flat out wrong!

You are all forgetting one major point. The working class poor (those earning less than $50k a year or those with little education) aka Dunkin Donut Dems are one of Hillary's main supporters. She has overwhelmingly won their votes consistently. Edwards can't endorse Obama because if helping the poor is truly the 'cause of his life', he would not be in alignment with those whose voices are not heard!

Spin it however you want creepy Obama cultists but you are flat out wrong!

When Bill has his well-timed
cardiac "event" this summer,
his long-suffering spouse will waltz to the nomination.
Edwards' endorsement won't mean spit.

Working as a community organizer doesn't get rid of one's elitist status just like growing up in mill towns doesn't make one a populist. The plans that Barack and Hillary have on paper provide aide and comfort the enemy.

Which candidate is talking about issues that affect the poor? Which candidate is drawing support from voters making less than $50,000? Is it Barack Obama? NO. It's Hillary Clinton, the candidate talking about universal health care.

If Edwards truly cares about these positions, he really only has one candidate to support: Hillary Clinton.

Case closed.

I think David Corn is right on in his analysis. I always see JE as a phony guy. I am guy a black republican leaving overseas. I am proud that Obama is running and got this far. This whole thing will give a better image of the US in the world. But it does not mean I will vote for him.
Back to Edwards story, I am waiting to see which way he will. The fact that he is delaying this just shows once again he was just fooling around on the campaign trail.

It just amazes me that some Democrats are anxious to replace the Republican ex-cokehead with no foreign policy experience with a Democratic ex-cokehead with no foreign policy experience.

Obama's mouth writes checks his administration would have no chance to cash. He would be a disaster as president.

Edwards is the greasiest fraud in the game and that is saying something indeed. He will endorse HillCo because they will do whatever it takes, fair or unfair, to win. Barry will not know what hit him.

Clinton's new desperate strategy to paint Obama as the elite candidate is merely serving to highlight another weakness she has relative to him.

People are coming to know more about Obama. They know he is smart and can inspire people to follow. And they are learning his history of personal sacrifice and consistent focus on working class issues. As they do they are simply moving away from HRC, in the logical order of escalating intertia: young and first time voters, then independents, then black voters, and lastly other core democrat constituencies. Clinton cannot stop the bleeding because she has never had a coherent message besides, I'm next in line for the throne, get with the program.

Clinton's problem throughout has been contradictory messages.
Item:
1. the effective administrator slash bureaucrat, even through she never held an executive position.
2. the Experience candidate who has the same legislative experience as her opponent.
3. the outsider change candidate who spent 16 years riding shotgun as first lady plenipotentiary in Arkansas then the White House.
And now
4. the Working Class candidate, who hasn't lifted a finger for the poor since the 1970s, but who has racked up millions exploiting her political associations in the business world.

Sam, forget about red states. They don't matter. We'll end up with zero electoral college votes in those states. It is suicide to even waste money or resources on them. Forget about blue states too for the same reason. Swing states are the only ones that matter. But ultimately swing voters are the same almost anywhere: working-class white men and suburban middle-class white women. They've been the swing voters for the last thirty years. If you don't appeal to them, you lose.

I distinctly heard John Edwards say on some news program, before he dropped out, that he thought himself and Obama were more electible than Clinton.

Wow - I was beginning to think I was the only one who recognized Edwards as a fake!

Who CARES who he endorses?! He's a slimy hypocrite, period.

It's more than passing strange to see the left fall for a charismatic candidate the way the right has in more recent times (e.g., Ronald Reagan). Obama's speeches, while invigorating at first, soon become tiresome for their utter lack of substance. And yet the adoration continues, and continues, and continues--matched in its ceaselessness (and substantive emptiness) only by the constant personal attacks on Senator Clinton. What gives? A liberal politician who says follow me because I am different, i will do great things (but don't ask me what) is no better than a right wing one. We don't know what he really will do, or how he will do it. Unite people? How? It's a sugarcoated fantasy lacking even the substance of gingerbread beneath. You don't have to warm up to Senator Clinton. But let's stop with the name calling that is as bad as the Swiftboaters' and stick to substance. Obama might be a good president one day. But he has zero experience in the federal government. (He started running for President before he even hung his coat in his senate office.) That matters folks, it matters a lot if you want anything to actually get done, and our agencies to do their jobs well and not like they've performed in the summer of 2001, during Katrina, during the subprime meltdown, etc.

Hackjob??? Opinion piece, yes! Hillary supporters cast Obama supporters as rabid, misguided, even cultlike. I think, as the saying goes, those who live in glass houses...

Obama's record belies his amorphous "change" stance: Tony Rezko land deal, voting for damage caps in negligence cases in Il senate (his wife was named General Counsel of University of Chicago Hospitals soon thereafter), voting "present" on right to choose issues in Il senate, missing the vote on the Neocon Iran War Act of 2007, not promising to fight for universal health care. I cannot believe Mother Jones would so unconditionally embrace this candidate. Instead, it should urge John Edwards to come back to the race. At least he focused the debate on the issues, forcing the two human schwahs to discuss something other than themselves and their race to the Whitehouse.

Isn't it possible to be for someone and yet be against no one. I, myself, am for Hillary Clinton but I have nothing against Obama. I believe, given the circumstances, Obama needs the experience and someday he will get my vote. I am a college graduate and a working woman.
Just because I'm voting for Hillary does not mean that I'm poor or uneducated. People bring people together not politicians, but we have a voice this election year to make history. I for one am excited about someone "different" coming to the White House.

With Edwards out of the race, I've shifted to the Obama camp. People note the pattern of choosing non-female front runners and accuse me of sexism, and as much as I appreciate the Clintons, it's a question of picking a winning front runner who isn't part of a political dynasty.

However, it would not surprise me one bit to see Edwards endorse Hillary. She's inauthentic in comparison to Edwards in the early campaign, and certainly in comparison to Obama throughout his campaign, but it's been noted again and again that her constituents are largely lower-class working white women, the same target demographic his populist campaign needed to win any traction.

Edwards sought those voters with strong rhetoric and charm, as Hillary's husband did years ago. Hillary won them with gender identity and brand recognition. Edwards does face a choice that will determine his authenticity, it's just a question of whether he decides to appear authentic to his target constituency or to the nation at large. I hope that he sticks with the one America message and gives the nod to Obama.

Just read the community rules - no slamming a group based on gender, race, etc. Apparently it is acceptable to the blogmasters to slam on the basis of age. Age by gender is really acceptable. One of the reasons women who are not dependent on men support Clinton is the backlash of hatred of women, especially menopausal women, we see from Obama supporters. We are not afraid of change; we are afraid of the same old misogyny rules.

White female Clinton supporter to white male Obama supporter: "You're sexist"

White male Obama supporter to white female Clinton supporter: "Well you're sexist AND racist, nyah!"

If Edwards were to endorse HRC that would make him a liar and a phony. I don't think he would. He is going to stay out of it and endorse Obama when he wins the nomination.

Edwards' support of Obama makes the most sense and is most likely.

Edwards is even yet the best prepared to become president--due to his very serious and very real program of studying the economic, social, and bureaucratic challenges to the American republic over the next few years. He has convened the best experts and thinkers on the issues of the day to formulate a set of understandings that underpin his message. No other candidate for president has worked this long or hard to prepare a leadership agenda for the day. If you think Edwards is just a "haircut," you haven't been paying attention.

Robert Fast: "Edwards would be a great Attorney General." There are campaign photos of him with his sleeves rolled up. Man, I think of Bobby Kennedy when I see them.

Obama was a community organizer in Chicago. That is an occupation that seeks opportunity at the lowest level--kids on the street. He's already explained the "present" votes in the IL senate, where he was a leader. (Keep a bill "alive" so that it can be modified for a renewed chance for passage.)

“Tony” Rezko bought a lot next to Obama's house AFTER Obama closed on his land. Later, Obama purchased a 10-foot strip in order to build a fence separating his lot from Rezko's. Some have attempted to elevate the details of this purchase to something sinister. Good luck there. Rezko also donated money to Obama, and indirectly to support Clinton in 1996. He also posed with Bill and Hillary Clinton during the Clinton presidency.

Another hack job against the Clintons. Maybe you people in the MSM need to find a new hobby. Like supporting all the Democratic candidates instead of trying to divide the electorate. But, back to the article. No guessing who you're supporting, right? And in your view, if Edwards endorses your candidate of choice, Obama, then he's for real. But if not, then he's a fake. Of course, remember, this is your view only. And 50% of the country disagrees with you. And I am one of them.

Jes hit the nail right on the head with this comment.

the principled thing to do is avoid any endorsement, to keep talking about solutions that address the issue of poverty.

endorsing any campaign will make Edwards yesterday's news, rather than the mystery to come. so hold out john! pay no attention to columnist who seem to want to make you the news of the day, then move on forgetting you ever ran.

no need to be headline fodder for folks who should be spending their time researching and reporting facts.

the best thing to do is stay the course

Note the Patriot Corporation Act

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut?pid=283830

Absolutely. After graduating magna cum laude as Editor-in-chief of the Harvard Law Review (possibly the highest honor any American law student can achieve), Obama passed on the lucrative offers of employment he received from multiple quarters to do civil rights law work at a much lower salary. Before that, he spent a number of years in his mid-20s doing low paying community organizing work in Chicago. This does not fit the profile of most corporate dems (including Hillary)

John Edwards on the Supreme Court? An ambulance chaser for the Supreme Court? You folks are a hoot! Ha! Still laughing!!!

There's another way to look at this that you are overlooking. You say that Edwards can campaign for Clinton in the general election without appearing to be a hypocrite.

This implies then that it is not hypocritical for Edwards to campaign for, or by extension endorse, the person whom he believes will be best able to move the country in the direction he believes it should go.

So what if Edwards sincerely believes that Obama simply isn't up to the job of being president or that Obama is insincere in his views?

It that's true, then why ought Edwards not to endorse Clinton? In fact, if that is Senator Edward's sincere conviction, isn't it his duty for the good of the country to endorse Clinton?

Wellstone's idea is the best one in this piece. I have always believed that a Hillary Clinton presidency would be about "redemption" as much as anything else - certainly Bill's obsession with winning a second term is not so likely to become her prime directive, having achieved unique historical significance by virtue of her election alone.

Having seen her husband's presidency tragically flawed by the vile Republican impeachment ambush - despite all the triangulating and "reaching across the aisle" - it is difficult to believe that she'd feel compelled to hold hands with corporate Republicans, or grovel for lobbyists' favors. What motivation would she have to blemish her legacy with a tainted record, or a lackluster one?

As for John Edwards, his behavior in his last debate was revealing. He spent as much time pandering to potential Clinton supporters as Obama's. To assure his own legacy, the latter day populist should endorse neither Hillary nor Barack, unless each agrees to offer the VP position to the other if victorious, and ALSO agrees to accept such an offer if that is her/his fate.
Knowing Al Gore would be the outgoing president if there were any justice in our political system, I find it easier to accept that history may not be made with the election of the first woman. I think we are far more likely to see a 16 year period of Democrats in the White House if Hillary heads the ticket in 2008, thus I support her. Yet, as with most Clintonites, I am ready to join the Obama crusade if need be. If not, I would hope that Barack has the grace, humility & patriotism to serve loyally as VP; but I can't help being skeptical. Audacity has never been a word with positive connotations for me--and I think the young man has a great deal to learn about the limitations of "hope."

Well, one thing is for sure after reading all the post on here, and boy did that take awhile,Democrats can be just as bad as republicans when it come to trying to down Democrats and I saw that from Obama,Clinton, and Edwards backers. We democrats talk a lot of crap about being the party of high ideas and of the people, but that doesnt hold true really does it? One lady was right why do we have to be for or against? Why cant we really just like/love one candidate over another, but ultimatley not hold anything against them.Is it too much to expect from voters to think that Clinton/Obama might both be good Presidents, that either way we as Americans and Deomcrats win??? Oh and to the site manager you really should review these post more their is a lot of inaccurate info on here about Clinton and Obama that is not opinion based an can be disputed factually. I think that should be handled quickly.

Obama doesn't take money from lobbyists. Clinton does. Obama doesn't have any lobbyists on his staff. Clinton does. True, Obama has taken corporate donations, but NOT dontations from lobbyists. Just thought you should know.

Um, no, she is not to the left of him on social issues at all in any way. Barack Obama was voted as the most progressive democrat by the National Journal.

And Hillary's health care proposal has mandates which are a traditionally conservative plank. And by the way, Hillary is a member of the DLC. Wake up! Hillary is Republican lite while Barack is the REAL DEAL. And he offers WAY more contrast to McCain than she does.

So many set heels here, so few entries seeking to understand and communicate. And we all blame Rove, Cheney and pals for being so obtuse. They're the nasties!

Anyway, let's get back to the smearjobs, the dramatic "and I'm a 70 year old arkansas resident who raised my 8 children while i worked in the mills, and I'm voting..." enough!

We WORK at being resonable folks or we become the ones we detest. right?

I'm voting because i want my two boys to live in peace. HRC and Barack seem the choices. It's my opinion though, that HRC, for all her experience, lacks judgement. And peripherally, the campaign she's headed has been one that feels like this thread; dismissive, vitrolic, and at times, petty. And historically it appears to me that the clintons, when pressed, are accustomed to running that way.

The posts by "Jes" above are boilerplate, pasted into comment sections following any story that might suggest anything less than positive things about HRC. Clue 1: Mother Jones is certainly NOT the mainstream media. Clue 2: it's posted multiple times. Clue 3: virtually identical posts show up after stories by other media.

I suspect that this is part of an organized effort to "swarm" media outlets, possibly by HRC's campaign but more likely some groupies.

I listen to Obama and hear intangibles. I listen to Clinton and I hear specifics.

Can the media stop the Obama hype for a moment? They did this after Iowa and brought out the actress in Clinton. A repeat of such hype will only endanger the race before the start. It is better for Edward to withhold his endorsement and let the better candidate win!

Brad, you hit it right on the head. Thank you.

Would hate to have Clinton be the nominee. After all Obama has shown his willingness to stand up for all our dearest liberal principals in his long and distinguished political career. All the speeches made are as worthwhile as those ramblings on CSPAN when no other members are in the chambers. Did he vote to oppose the most recent Bush request?

I listen to Obama and hear intangibles. I listen to Clinton and I hear specifics.

Posted by: Obama Skeptic on 02/13/08 at 1:07 AM Respond

I am so sick of this, it just shows your lazyness. He is telling you about his vision, and if you want more specifics do some research, in fact, there is a 64 page Blueprint for Change on his website. Try clicking on issues. Also, almost everyday on the blog they post a detailed outline on his policies, from service, to poverty, to healthcare, to the economy, to foreign policy. Clearly the people who say this are only doing so to try and convince others that it's true. I swear, sometimes I think there should be a text on where each person stands on the issues before you are allowed to vote.

test*

"there is a 64 page Blueprint for Change on his website."

And the details are all there.

Thanks for posting that Tiff.

Obama is yes WE can - HRC seems to say only SHE can.

The choice is simple.

I'll go for inspiration over coronation anyday.

Didn't Senator Edwards already tacitly endorse Obama when he characterized himself and Obama as the change candidates and Clinton as the Beltway Insider?

Edwards should have endorsed Obama right after Super Duper Tuesday. All this waiting, and even meeting with Clinton, erodes his credibility as a progressive.

perhaps no endorsment would be the solution.
Edwards Democrats are a movment that is growing.

As an "Edwards Democrat" I have decided to support Obama. Like others, I can't imagine that Edwards would endorse Clinton and, if he did, I would be very disappointed.

However, I do wish people would stop suggesting that Edwards would make a good AG or Supreme Court justice (or even the next DNC chair). John Edwards' value is as a policy wonk and he'd have very little opportunity in the next administration to effect policy changes in those positions. The next AG will be totally bogged down in FISA, torture and other "war on terror" fights, leaving no time for domestic policy issues. And he could get a cabinet position or other appointed position in which he could implement domestic policies that would positively affect far more citizens than any SCOTUS justice.

I'm certain that in an Obama administration, John Edwards could really have an impact on poverty and equality issues.

With all the passionate and strident comments and diatribe here, it's clear that no one is going to change anyone's mind by reading any of this. Perhaps the enthusiasm for your candidate of choice would be better served by volunteering in your community, or signing up to go door-to-door for your chosen candidate.

Great piece. Our household supported Edwards for a full year, and were left wondering which candidate to support next.

Hillary sealed her fate yesterday, by not showing up in DC to vote against immunity for the phone companies. She proved to me for the last time that no matter what words come out of her mouth, she is still a corporate owned hack.

We sent our first donation to Obama's campaign this morning.

I'd certainly prefer it if John Edwards simply didn't endorse anyone. Why should he? From what I've seen, neither has done anything to make them deserving of his endorsement or his supporters.

John Edwards has NEVER taken lobbyist or PAC money. Obama accepted over $1 million in lobbyist/PAC money for his senate race and only stopped taking that money for his presidential run AFTER John Edwards threw down that challenge. Hillary's taken from Daddy Bush's Carlyle Group.

Obama, who's busy being a uniter, brought together corporate execs and right-wing republicans, and ended up voting for an expansion of NAFTA (so much for being pro-union), voted to allow credit card companies to increase interest rates above 30 percent, and voted for Bush's 2005 energy bill. (Which certainly made coal, oil and nuclear companies happy.)

Now, all of a sudden, they've shown an interest in poverty? A week or so ago neither so much as mentioned the word in the debate and Obama went so far as to mock John's compassion in interviews.

It's time Democrats in general and progressives in particular starting asking hard questions of Obama and Clinton, and expecting substantive answers.

As far as Edwards being a phoney, it just sounds like 'sour grapes' to me. Here's a guy who comes from a working class family, who managed to put himself through school to become the first person in his family to earn a college degree. And not from an ivy league school, because he couldn't afford to attend one. Then, through hard-work, determination, talent and luck, he became successful enough to allow his wife to build her dream home. Don't bother with the 'ambulance chaser' line, because if your loved one were injured by a faulty piece of equipment, he'd be exactly the kind of attorney you'd want representing them.

So, how does any of that make him a phoney? Were you aware that he and Elizabeth shop at Target and Ross Dress for Less, or that the wedding bands they're wearing cost a combined total of $33? Are you suggesting that he should give away everything he's earned in order to earn the right to defend the poor?

In truth, John Edwards is the epitome of the American dream. Isn't this what we tell our children, that if they're willing to study hard and work hard they can grow up to be anything they want, maybe even president?

He wants to be a voice for people living in poverty. In this country the only way one has a voice is by having money. John didn't have enough - that's obvious, just look at the media coverage he received before suspending his campaign.

Even with that suspension, almost half a million supporters voted for him and we're still hard at work to see his dream for the American people realized. I'm very proud to call myself an Edwards Democrat.

If john Edwards can admit he was wrong on Iraq, why can't he change as a politician? I have more respect for a person who can admit they were wrong than for a person who speaks in circles and says nothing.

I'm with you, Joe - I would be thrilled if Edwards withheld his endorsement of both candidates. With the war in Iraq, the war against the poor, the abysmal quality of our public education, our economy and declining dollar, out utter lack of COMPASSION for our fellow human beings, I think we need more than platitudes and "inspiration." We need experience and we need answers. I tell you who is hoping for an Obama nomination - the Republican Party. Then their corporate media will run all kinds of nasty little lies about Obama that our undereducated populace will eagerly lap up.

And thank YOU, Sandra, I couldn't have said it better.

I was INCENSED when Moveon.org sent out their poll - the day AFTER Edwards announced he was dropping out. Here was Moveon's opportunity to TRULY endorse a progressive candidate - and bolster support for Edwards - and they blew it. They'll never see another dime of my money.

I'm having a hard time with either Clinton or Obama. Who would have thought, after the war in Iraq and Katrina, that the Democrats could screw up again but they are. McCain could very well take it.

I couldn't agree more. I was a John Edwards contibutor and supporter because I believed in his message and that he would back up the message with action. There is no way he can endorse Hillary Clinton and look us in the eye or himself in the mirror.

Frankly, I don't care about John Edwards opinion. I actually voted for him in the primary (mailed in before he withdrew), but after finding out that he lives in a $5 million, 10000 sq. foot mansion, he holds no credibility with me on 'eliminating poverty', or on the environment.

Thank you.

Historically, the divided party loses the election. Not only do we have a fractured party at one of the most critical points of our nation's history, we have got a media that is OWNED by the Republican Party. If you don't believe me, read Money, Media & the Mess in America By Robert Perry http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/012805.html. The unthinkable could happen and McCain could well take it if we don't get our act together.

Well, has this gotten some response! I agree with Paul Page and Hillary OK. But to add to the comments. John can endorse whomever he wishes..this is still a free(?) country. All of you need to understand that his choice is based upon personal beliefs and knowledge,which is different than yours and mine. I for one will listen to why and who he endorses...if anyone, it is his choice! What someone says in a debate can be taken many ways. Also we seem to only hear and remember the things we want to and most importantly those things that further our own beliefs. Quit beating up Edwards endorsement prospects and Hillary too!

You are soooo right Pamela. Dems are splitting themselves between Obama and Clinton and backers of whoever loses the nomination will feel sorely slighted....possibly to the point of staying home or crossing party lines to give it all to McCain. There very well may be no unifying the Democratic party, despite the candidate who might make the mistake of calling themselves "the uniter." We've all heard that crap before.

I believe that Edwards was the candidate most feared by the Republicans. The lobbyists certainly didn't want him. Republicans will have a field day with either Clinton or Obama. You'd think that all we'd need to do is run footage of Iraq and Katrina from now until election day & WHOEVER the Democratic nominee is would sail into the White House. But nooooo, the Dems have to go & screw up again.

I'm not sure the GOP is worried about any Democrat candidate -- one thing they've learned in the past two presidential campaigns is that they can count on the Democrats to self-implode.....albeit in 2000 it was with help from the Supreme Court. I'm sure that Karl Rove, in his semi-retired state, is salivating over the upcoming election, no matter if it is Obama and Clinton. At least with Clinton, all the skeletons have been out there for years and who know what swift-boat maneuver they will use to bring down Obama.

Stupidity knows no race, sex or creed.

You'd better check out Roll Call. Three senators did not vote: Clinton, Graham, and Obama.

Sorry folks, new to this site: I actually thought my post would show as a response to Cettel.

Cettel, on the final FISA bill, Obama was a no-show, just like Clinton.

I disagree with your assessment of both Clinton and Edwards. Clinton's health plan, rather than Obama's, does cover everyone in this country. Edwards was the first to put forth any health plan. In fact, the remaining candidates' platforms are primarily a version of the Edwards platform, again, which existed first.

There is so much spoken and written that villifies Hillary -- 3 of 4 negative news stories on the Democratic race condemn Clinton. That is not evenhanded reporting. I rarely see anything written in defense of the woman or honest reporting. My women friends would love to see a woman as President and I and they would love to see a woman who is running against a man for President treated equitably.

When I look at Obama's speeches I hear "We won in the East, we won in the West...Hope...Change..." What I hear is polemics, not a straightforward examination of this nation's problems. I demand more than celebrity from my politicians. We must remember that JFK did not initiate the War on Poverty, but did get us involved in what became the war on Vietnam.

A Populist in Austin Texas

Hallelujah Steven!
There are a lot of like-minded people here in Dallas.

And to Interferon: If HRC's supporters are menopausal, it's because they are the women who were on the front lines in the 60's and 70's fighting for women's liberation and civil rights! They're the women who have battled and struggled their entire lives -- had to prove themselves over and over -- had to win 3 times the awards to get half the opportunities as their male counterparts. Why must you resort to petty name calling to make your point?

I love the hypocrite Edwards thing when it comes to ending poverty.... did you all miss that Hillary too has a expensive house.... Hillary too has an expensive hair do (she doesn't do that herself TRUST ME).... Hillary too has money. Granted, she wasn't running on the populist platform but she was quick to embrace it and nobody dogged her for it. People who continue to say John is a hypocrite because he has money just don't have anything else on him because the other candidates have money too.

Back to the point, I know a Clinton endorsement would be a hypocrisy.... that's why I don't believe she will be his choice. Obama seems like the obvious choice but like many Edwards supporters, we don't think either is a good choice.

I as a former Edwards supporter now strongly support Obama, and voted for him when I thought Edwards couldn't pull it off. For those who insult Edwards for being rich, FDR was rich and did more for the common man than any other president in history. Edwards didn't win but he did donate to this election campaign the most detailed most progressive policy platform, perhaps ever in electoral politics, which both other candidates are now at least in part running on.

Obama supporters aren't a cult, they're a movement, many of whom are sick and tired of the Clintons and their free trade pro corporate agenda, (and yes many of us are angry about it). Why did left wing voices like Michael Moore and Rage Against The Machine run against Gore and for Nader in 2K? Because Gore aligned him self with free trade and other parts of the Clinton agenda that hurt average and working class Americans. Why did Hillary win the votes of those who earn under $50K before the Potomac primaries? For the same reason that anyone who isn't a millionaire supports Republicans, because not all of us in that income range have the time or inclination to delve into politics the way we should, and people fall for shallow lines. It's time for us to really think about what the Clinton's gave us and stop supporting them, we don't need a pro war pro corporate Republican lite candidate running against an actual Republican in November, the other half of America loses either way.

There is a reason Nader endorsed Edwards and is threatening to run if Hillary wins the nomination, and a reason he will have my support if that happens. We know how bad the Republicans are for 90% of America, and we don't need more Republican lite from the Clintons, we need real Change!

I don't think voters failed to resonate with Edwards' message. I don't think they believed him because his record was not consistent with his campaign rhetoric.

Obma's foreign policy positions and the neoliberal economic advisors he has surrounded himself with, do not give reason to hope he would be substantially different from the Clintons.

He may have voted against the war but would he end it?

If you are talking about electability you must remember that not only is HRC going to bring rightwing Repubs to the polls in force just to vote against her, she has lost the vote of a large number of progressive liberals like me.

As an Edwards supporter, doner, & volunteer; I agree with the above & would like to add: look at Obama's Wall Street ties, & economic advisers

My post was in response to AB's post up near the top: sorry, first time here.

Since then I've read more, this 62 Page Blueprint for Change, must be something NEW on Obama's site, it wasn't there three weeks ago.

Obama has taken more then 10 million, from Wall Street, according to Center for Responsive Politics!

As for Edwards house: 'Mud Cat' 20 year friend explained, Edwards already owned the land, and had to use 'up' the money from the sale of his D.C. home!

Edwards is the ONLY one of the three, born into a working blue-collar family!!
Obama's mother was a college educated anthropoligist, his father graduated from Harvard. His grandparents retirered to Hiwaii, very expensive place to live! His family PAID his way thru TWO IVY LEAGUE colleges!!Columbia and Harvard!!and he worked on Wall Street! For someone with nothing to hide, why is he hiding everything???

Let me be perfectly clear. What is disappointing is that America and my fellow Democrats did not pick the best candidate who took the lead on all the issues. Perhaps if Edwards does not make an endorsement it is not him who is a phony but a reflection of the other candidates. Perhaps if niether meets Edwards standards then it is they who are phony. I have my own preferences; but as a supporter of John Edwards and someone who gave a lot of time and money into his campaign I must state two things. The first being that I trust Edwards's judgement and want him on the ticket as a Vice President in 2008. The second being that unless he is offered such a role in the next White House publicly I will not be able to support another candidate without an endorsement. Many of us on the Edwards side have made our preferences and what we want from the other candidates clear. I feel Sen. John Edwards was clear as well. I demand victory in 2008 and will not settle. I am willing to donate and raise, campaign hard for the candidate who shows me they have the insight to want such a leader as their Vice President. From then it is entirely up to Edwards. G-d Bless John Edwards and everybody who stood by him, fought with him and continues to do so today. There are many of us. Perhaps the other candidates should stop and take a real look at whether what we the voters and supporters want is important to them. Whether they are dedicated truely to creating One America, winning in a general election and taking our Democratic Party in the right direction.

John Edwards brought that direction. I'll support whoever brings him and that direction into their campaign and assume he would do the same.

Sincerely,

Jeremy K.
Miami, Fl.
A John Edwards Democrat

I would also like to add that there is a candidate I don't support and there is a candidate I'm much more disappointed in then Edwards for not taking initiative on what I addressed in the comment above. I strongly disagree and agree with some other comments here.

So You Want My Support?

Show me. Don't just count on my support or take it for granted. John Edwards most certainly did not.

The Democratic Party needs a new direction and Edwards is already the leader in that fight.

No VP No Me

and there are a lot of people like me.

Love,
A Young Progressive Democrat With a Spine

I don't know that the Democratic Party needs a new direction as much as to RETURN to their roots and be PROUD of it. I lived in Michigan during its golden age - we had a Democratic House and Senate and a progressive Republican governor (Miliken) and it WORKED. Another reason I was a big Edwards supporter had to do with the fact that I worked in politics for over 10 years & could count the number of people I met with any integrity on one hand - Dave Bonior was one of them. With Edwards out of the race, I am having a really hard time mustering any support for either Obama or Hillary - someone's got to lean on Gore to run.

["I don't know that the Democratic Party needs a new direction as much as to RETURN to their roots and be PROUD of it."]

Fair enough.
All we need to do is scour the Democratic party for someone who holds to the principles laid out so eloquently by Thomas Jefferson.

{"I think, myself, that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious. I believe it might be much simplified to the relief of those who maintain it."

"Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread."

"I own I am not a friend to a very energetic government.
It is always oppressive.
It places the governors indeed more at their ease, at the expense of the people."

"When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated."

"A noiseless course, not meddling with the affairs of others, unattractive of notice, is a mark that society is going on in happiness. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them, they must become happy."

"To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father's has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association - the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

"No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him."

--Thomas Jefferson--
Father of the Democratic Party}

Now..., which Democrat holds most closely to the Party's root principles?
Someone..?
Someone..?
Anyone..?
Buehler..?

As an "Edwards Democrat", I am really getting tired of people (presumably Obama supporters) saying that Edwards must endorse Obama or be shown to be a fraud. Both Clinton and Obama are more centrist than Edwards, and if I had to say which of them is more centrist, I would say Obama. It is certainly fine with me for Edwards not to endorse before the eventual Democratic nominee is determined. I am no fan of Clinton, but I can see how she might actually be closer to Edwards in some ways than is Obama .

Isn't it beside the point whether he's a hypocrite? It matters a lot more who he endorses than how sincere he is.

John Edwards has been a big let down for me. He is not part of the working class as he portrayed in his speeches. Your article is right on the money. If he supports Hillary for a job, he will have proven himself to be a big phoney.

Edwards a poser? He deliberately embarked on a campaign that, while marking him as 'different' had absolutely no chance of electorat success. If he was just "posing' then he is really a lunatic.

Somehow, I don't think so. Until proven otherwise, redemption fits. That's why I supported John.

That's why I'm still having trouble deciding between Clinton and Obama.

I'm having a hard time supporting either Obama or Clinton.

I don't know about Edwards holding back, it seems to me he wants to wait until there is a winner. So he can weasel his way into whoever wins. It seems he is not going to back who he thinks is the best.

Obama is receiving contributions from people donating $25. I know, because I'm one of those people. That's why it's easier for him to collect more money because he isn't tapping out big donations from corporations or lobbyists. So check the facts. You're wrong.

So is Clinton. I have made three $50 contributions to her during the past 60 days. Go Hillary!!

Sorry, Obama did vote. And Clinton was in the area, but chose NOT to vote.

Rowena: Obama, Clinton and Graham did not vote on the passage of the full bill in the Senate (S.2248), as photon's feather said.

If we're talking just about Dodd's amendment, yes, it seems only Clinton and Graham didn't go on record on that point.

You can check the roll call votes here:
www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00020
And here:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00015

Fully 40% of the Dems in the Senate (19 of them) joined with 100% of the voting Repubs and voted to hand the executive branch this power, regardless of what the 4th Amendment says, and regardless of their oath to the Constitution.
34% (17) of the Dems voted to shield the telecoms from prosecution for their past criminal behavior.

Didn't they RUN on holding the administration accountable for this crap just 2 short years ago?!?!
And WON, because Americans WANTED that accountability?!?!

I agree with Sandra. Edwards underwent a paradigm shift and moved toward a progressive politics. Now Obama is using the anti-trade rhetoric of Edwards to appeal in Wisconsin and Ohio when before he appeared to be more of a free trader. Who is the phony one? Why would Edwards walk picket lines and set up a poverty center if he were a phony? That is a lot of work to do for someone who is insincere. David Corn lost my respect for such a biased analysis of Edwards.

The John Edwards Endorsement: A Last Chance To Prove He's No Phony.
************
Ha! This phony article is a last ditch effort to persuade the smartest, most passi