Edwards prefers Obama but thinks he is unready, possible GE loser. Thinks Hill will "pummel" GOP

[jackson_dem]

Getting Inside John Edwards's Head (With Help From Those Who Know Him)

Just wanted to pass along some insights into a possible Edwards endorsement amid his semi-stealth meetings with Hillary and Obama. I'm told by people close to Edwards that his thinking is essentially this: Edwards likes Obama personally, thinks he really intends to change the status quo, but isn't convinced he's ready to be president* and has concerns about whether he's tough enough to take on the GOP. (I'm told the second concern looms larger than the first.) On the other hand, Edwards is lukewarm on Hillary personally, doesn't think she'd change much of anything, but thinks she'll really pummel the GOP. As for Elizabeth, it sounds like she's just as conflicted. I've heard she's even more down on Hillary, but is also impressed by Hillary's willingness/ability to kick GOP ass.

Bottom line: It sounds like Edwards could really go either way, or neither.

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/02/11/getting-inside-john-edwards-s-head-with-help-from-those-who-know-him.aspx

[Mojambo]

1. He shouldn't endorse.

Neither of these candidates deserve his endorsement, IMO.

[jackson_dem]

3. It sounds like he should endorse Hillary

If he thinks Obama is going to lose then go with Hillary. Hillary is far better than McCain and whatever he thinks of her I am sure he would agree with at least this much.

Edwards is astute. Obama has not shown that he is tough enough. Edwards pounded Hillary for months while Obama would meekly launch indirect criticisms of her during debates and hope his media buddies would get his bashes in for him. Edwards would stand up and do it himself.

[BeyondGeography]

5. And now Edwards is home and Obama is beating Hillary

:freak:

[jackson_dem]

13. Dukakis beat Jackson in 1988. Kerry beat Dean in 2004

Does anyone really think Dukakis was tougher than Jackson? Kerry tougher than Dean?

Obama is still in the race because the msm selected him, not because he was tough. It was Edwards, not Obama, who knocked her off the pedestal by starting the lobbyist attack theme and then going after her alleged inconsistencies in a fall MSNC debate. The latter is when Hillary's number began to fall and since the msm told the masses there were only two candidates they by default went to Obama.

[BeyondGeography]

27. Look, you've convinced yourself that Obama will lose to McCain

even though every poll says he runs better against him than Hillary. It's your intuiton vs. the facts of her high negatives (44% vs. 31% in the latest CNN poll) and her losing men to McCain by 57-39 in the same poll. You keep pushing these lame Dukakis comparisons, even though Obama gets 20,000 people to drop what they're doing in order to hear him speak and Dukakis was the world's only passionless Greek. Wake up.

Keep fighting the last war. The Republicans are putting a candidate out there who abhors negative campaigning, and all you paranoid Hillbots can do is talk about Karl Rove politics. McCain hates that kind of game and Obama will call him on it if he goes there. The country is obviously ready to upgrade the quality of the discussion. McCain's negatives will soar to Hillary-like levels if he goes in that direction or is even seen to tolerate swiftboating, and Obama is the first Democrat we've had in decades who is capable of going over the ehads of the noise machine and connecting with voters.

Stop playing defense when there's no need to.

[jackson_dem]

Those polls are cause for concern

Kerry and Bush had big leads over Gore and Bush respectively at this time in 2000 and 2004. They both suffered 11 point swings after they became defined by the other party. Bush led by 11, Kerry by 8. Bush lost by a few tenths while Kerry lost by 3 points. If Obama's 3-4 points are to believed history suggests he will lose by 7-8 after the rethugs are done with him.

McCain basically lied to win the Florida primary. You think he and the rethugs will play nice with Barack? The rethugs know the odds are against them and will use every dirty trick in the book in order to hang on.

McCain's negatives will soar, as will Obama's Any nominee will have high negatives by the election. This is why the polls showing Obama leading by 3-4 points are not worth the paper they are printed on. Once the rethugs are through with him his negatives will be as high as Hillary's are after they have smeared her for 16 years. Then there is the whole experience issue, especially during wartime that Obama has to somehow clear.

[anigbrowl]

41. So, because Hillary is behind

it means she's going to beat McCain? Your 'analysis' of past polling data really doesn't mean anything.

[jackson_dem]

43. What kind of logic is that?

Her being a few delegates behind right now in the Democratic primary says nothing about whether she can win a general election against the rethugs.

Typical Obamite. When the data conflicts just dismiss it out of hand. Obama may somehow win but anyone who thinks his negatives won't rise like they did for every other "new" nominee of any party is simply naive or a blinded by hope or dope. He is clinging to a small three or four point lead right now. Obamites think seven or eight months of sustained attacks from rethugs won't affect that. :eyes:

[polpilot]

121. Obama 48% v. McCain 41%, Hillary 46% v. McCain 46%

[BeyondGeography]

47. Men aren't going to vote for her

and close to half the country is rejecting her. But she's willing to play butt ugly, so let's nominate her. Even if she manages to win that way, she won't be able to govern.

Using your logic (though your argument really doesn't merit that term) ALL politicians are fated to be as unpopular as Hillary Clinton once the "rethugs" are done with them. But you ignore how much has gone into these ratings, how long it actually takes, rightly or wrongly, to be as reviled as Hillary Clinton is, and you imply that she has nothing to do with it; it's all the by-product of "rethuggery."

Well, if Hillary is so poorly rated by much of the country, why is it that John McCain's neagatives rarely exceed 35%? Could it be that people have assessed his character to be of higher quality? Could choices, tone and the record actually have something to do with it? Is it even possible that we might have someone who is at least as well perceived, or must we enter the fray with damaged goods?

Obama/McCain is a better match-up for us for another reason: He's able to draw contrasts where she isn't. Hillary has run on experience. McCain has more. Hillary says she's the Democrat best equipped to be commander-in-chief. McCain will kill her on that score. Hillary's IWR vote will be used to portray her as a flip-flopper, as was the case in 2004. And, incredibly, Hillary is weaker on reform than McCain, takes more money directly from corporate interests and has defended waterboarding where McCain has always opposed it, giving independents a slew of reasons not to consider her.

[jackson_dem]

64. The gender card

It is sad when progressives say we shouldn't nominate a woman because men won't vote for her. That isn't the case. If it were how is she only running four or five points worse than Obama against McCain?

It isn't about playing ugly. Obama, with his swiftboating of the Clintons on race, has proven he can do that. There is a difference between dirty and being smart and tough. Hillary is the latter.

All politicians--who win their party's nomination and become universally known and suffer attacks from the other party for months do wind up with high negatives, at least in modern times. Maybe FDR didn't. How long does it take to be reviled as her? Not that long. Ask John Kerry or George W. Bush, the 2000 version.

Barack is that you? :wow: Yes, the rethugs are nice folks. If only we got together and held hands and tried to understand them more! Why do evil Democrats do bad things to make the rethugs angry? What we need is another Reagan to put those bad libbies and their "excesses" in place!

You're comparing McCain to Hillary? McCain has never been the party nominee. Dick Gephardt is probably the closest Democratic analogue to him (fairly well known, ran twice). If he wins, as he should barring a freak occurrence, he will experience what Kerry and Bush experienced. Hillary is universally none. The comparison to Hillary is Al Gore. Gore was as well known in 2000 and as associated with Bill Clinton. Gore? He was down by 11 at this time. Hillary is down by 3. You must think Gore ran a great campaign if you think he made up 11 points on his own...

McCain's negatives are 43%, only eight points less than Hillary and only 2 less than Obama according to http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/favorables/election_2008_republican_candidates_running_in_2008_presidential_election
What happened to Giuliani? He had the lowest negatives of anyone. Now he is at 61%. As he became better known, not in the name recognition sense but in the depth of knowledge one, his negatives increased.

The contrast argument is a very real one that folks will have to assess. The opposite argument would be McCain will slaughter Obama on the threshold question of experience. Game over. Hillary neutralizes him on security and foreign policy and beats him on domestic issues.

The flip flopper thing is an Obamite hope. They think St. Obama, who they don't acknowledge has ever flip flopped, is immune from this because of his perfect record. Anyone who runs against McCain will be attacked as a flip flopper. It goes to McCain's perceived strength. He would be stupid to take it off the table. There is enough in both Hillary and Obama's record for him to work with. Obama has the added bonus of "present" which goes to him not being up to the task of being president.

[BeyondGeography]

81. If there's one point you really shouldn't have missed this season

it's that change has trumped experience. And who's the change candidate in Clinton vs. McCain? Most of the country will have a hard time siding with us on that one. Add her indifference to red states and the obvious reluctance of men outside the Democratic Party to even consider her, and we're stuck with the same math that has given us scant governing majorities (when we have them) and staying up all night to see who won Florida or Ohio.

You're having a difficult time understanding why things stand where they do, what Obama has managed to achieve (especially where he has had the time to campaign), and why people like Ted Sorenson, who have been following politics for 50 years see Obama as a potential game changer in American politics, someone whose appeal transcends traditional party lines. This at a time when Americans are literally screaming for the game to be changed. If we're ever to have a Democratic presidency that amounts to more than appointing judges, avoiding international calamities and achieving more than legislative fine tuning, we need a leader who can speak persuasively to the majority of Americans. Hillary Clinton will never be that person.

Finally, your comment that Obama "swiftboated the Clintons on race," which is an outrageous falsehood, tells me that, for all of your intelligence, you really aren't thinking clearly about Obama and this campaign. That's enough for now.

[jackson_dem]

93. If so then it would be Obama vs. Romney

Instead McCain emerged from the rethugs and Obama is tied with Hillary. Change does trump experience this time. I do agree with that but it is not the only thing. "Change" means nothing to someone who believes Obama can't keep him safe when he goes to New York. On the netroots, with the warped view of Hillary, it assumed she represents no change. She does. She can argue change with McCain and neutralize him on experience. Truthfully, McCain can argue change as well. Because of his "maverick" reputation he can distance himself from the Bush years and claim he is running to return the party to the party's "core beliefs", a return to Reagan. How successful he is in this remains to be seen but if he gets anywhere on that he can then pummel Obama on security due to inexperience.

In the general the msm will put its gloves on. Obama can't keep repeating "hope and change" then. If he can't convince folks they should trust him with preventing another 9/11 he won't win. That is a very big threshold question for him. Hillary won't face that.

Obama is a potential game changer. He is also a potential disaster, another Dukakis. Hillary is the safer bet. She won't be a trans formative president but she will be a good one. She has a great chance of being a good two termer who successfully hands it off to her veep (she won't make the same mistake the Clenis did). As far as governance goes they will be about the same. Obama can potentially change the dialogue of the country like Reagan did. He can also, as easily, lose 40 states or win and wind up another Carter.

[flyarm]

129. so what ??? Edwards numbers were higher than that and you weren't concerned then were you?

numbers and polls change..get over it ..Obama will not beat the Repigs..he has dirty stuff going to come out and kids don't vote and the biggest base of Obama is kids..

do not count on them for Nov...

fly

[flyarm]

130. i hate to tell you this..but white men in the south won't vote for Obama either.

and i do know that after knocking on doors in SC and here in Fla for Edwards..

don't kid yourself..the white men will vote for McCain in the south.

i heard that repeatedly when knocking on doors in the South.

fly

[Arugula Latte]

135. Well, frankly, I don't think either Dem. candidate is expecting most of the southern states

I mean, if the Dem. candidate picks up a state like Georgia, Alabama or Mississippi, it will be frosting on the cake -- not the cake. We don't need the far southern states to win the general election.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

108. The OP is based on GOSSIP, check the link - no quotes, not even paraphrasing

I hope DUers will make a point of fact checking the OPs posted in this forum.

There are alot of misleading OPS that don't pan out when the facts are checked.

I visited the link provided, and there isn't ONE single quote of John Edwards,
nothing, NADA.

There isn't even paraphrasing of what Edwards said, because the writer of the blog
linked, Noam Scheiber - is writing about what someone who knows someone thinks is happening.

More crap.

FOLLOW THE LINKS, THEY DEBUNK MANY OPS.

[Obamaniac]

117. I find it funny that Clinton supporters claim that she would do better in the GE

Given the fact that:

1) Her support seems to be concentrated in overwhelming Democratic areas. She seems to lack crossover appeal.

2) She has the highest disapproval ratings of any candidate in the race - Democratic or Republican.

3) Obama fares better against McCain in every poll taken.

4) She trails McCain badly among independent voters and has lost the independent vote in every primary against Obama, save Massachusettes.

Also, her much vaunted campaigning abilities leaves much to be desired as well, given that she went from being the "inevitable" Democratic nominee to probably losing this race to a first term Senator, who no one had even heard of four years ago, in two short months.

So why exactly should we think that Hillary is going to win the general election? Oh ya, because she says so.

But to respond to the question posed in the OP, I think you Hillary supporters are really setting yourselves up for another huge disappointment when Edwards endorses Obama - which he will.

It's obvious that Edwards is only trying to get a "better deal" out of Obama, so he's leaking this story about possibly endorsing Hillary. It's not going to happen. You Clinton supporters will only feel another crushing blow after Edwards endorses Obama.

If I were Clinton I would try to minimize the endorsement's impact, but instead you guys are playing up its importance and turning it into a horserace type thing which you can't possibly win.

[blm]

133. Kerry WON. RNC stole it for Bush and Terry McAuliffe's DNC let them do it.

Dean would have had the exact same Dem infrastructure in place that Kerry had because that was HOW McAuliffe wanted the party - COLLAPSED so NO Dem nominee could win.

Hillary2008 was running since 2000.

[Lefty-Taylor]

15. "Not tough enough"????? Obama is beating HRC by 10 to 20 percentage points in each jurisdiction

lately. He's tough and can deflect McCain's volleys where Hillary can't. Please John Edwards endorse Obama.

[jackson_dem]

20. And? Kerry beat Dean. Dukakis beat Jackson

How tough were they against the rethugs!!!!

[blm]

132. Kerry won - Hillary's boy Terry McAuliffe never secured election process. RNC stole it

for Bush while Terry sat on his hands.

[Yael]

22. Obama is handling himself pretty well. Not only that, but in the General

it isn't one candidate against another, it is the full DNC against the full RNC.

[jackson_dem]

26. Two names

Michael Dukakis
John Kerry

They did even better than Obama in the primaries but when it counted...

[blm]

134. YOU are FULL of it - Would Hillary have won in 2004? Explain HOW.

.

[Sapphocrat]

69. Or, if he really wants Obama to win, he should endorse Hillary.

Most salient points, IMO:

The atmospherics of a Hillary endorsement would look very, very bad for Edwards. You can't spend six months bashing someone as a symbol of everything that's wrong with Washington, then embrace that person and expect to come away smelling like roses. ...

. . .

If, on the other hand, Edwards endorses Obama, the risk is that the race starts to look like Hillary against the world--and, in particular, two male politicians ganging up on her--which is a development that has served her well. Not least in New Hampshire.

. . .

...I still think she's better off with Obama getting it. (Maybe I'd put it this way: Best case scenario for Hillary is Obama getting it, second best is her getting it, worst is Edwards doing nothing.)

Of course, a HRC endorsement could backfire and actually work in HRC's favor. I know more than one real-life Edwards supporter who would vote for a doorknob if JE endorsed it.

I don't agree that "worst is Edwards doing nothing"; that's probably his best bet.

Fascinating little piece. Much to ruminate over here.

This is the part of politics I love, btw.

P.S. I also love that it sounds like much of Edwards' thinking is in line with my own (although both concerns are of equal importance to me):

Edwards ... isn't convinced he's ready to be president and has concerns about whether he's tough enough to take on the GOP. (I'm told the second concern looms larger than the first.) On the other hand, Edwards is lukewarm on Hillary personally, doesn't think she'd change much of anything, but thinks she'll really pummel the GOP.

[NJSecularist]

10. What a freaking joke

Edwards gets put on this pedestal by some members on this forum. An undeserved pedestal. Yes, I applaud him for bringing up the issue of poverty and trying to bring it to the forefront of his campaign, but when have his words ever led to action? He could have written the Official DLC Handbook with his senate voting record.

[margotb822]

60. I agree

Neither can accurately represent his platform. I think he is better off just staying neutral.

[Tarheel_Dem]

2. Well, as much as I love John & Elizabeth, I think it would be the

height of hypocrisy to endorse HRC. I was a supporter, and it didn't take me two seconds to make up my mind after he dropped out. From the people I spoke with about Edwards, they were all turned off by the "fighting" references. People, by and large, are sick of the fighting because it just hasn't accomplished anything. And if Obama thinks he can pull people to his side in order to get things done in Washington, then I'm all for it.

We don't have to guess what we'll be in for with HRC. The media hates her, the GOP hates her, hell even some Dems hate her. I'm ready to take a chance on someone who seems willing to work with whomever to get things accomplished for the American people.

[jackson_dem]

4. What is better? President Hillary Clinton or President McCain?

It is hardly hypocritical for a Democrat to try to prevent the rethugs from keeping the White House for four more years.

[Renew Deal]

40. The question isn't what's better. It's what's the difference.

The choice between a real "conservative" and a fake one is not a choice.

[Alcibiades]

44. Anyone other than our nominee will be like another term for Bush

I don't care whether it's either Senator. I don't have a dog in this fight anymore, but if you think there's no diff between Clinton and McCain, you're just wrong.

[jackson_dem]

45. Yup

And by extension if there are no differences between McCain and Clinton there must not be any real differences between Obama and McCain since there are tiny differences between Clinton and Obama.

[GainesT1958]

25. Endorsing Hillary...

Would go against virtually everything John Edwards has stood for--and definitely everything for which he's campaigned. He would lose a great deal of political, and personal, respect should he do so. How would it look: white Southerner goes for the white candidate? And it would make a mockery of his renunciation of his pro-IWR vote. He stands to lose far more politically than he would ever gain with a Hillary endorsement, both nationally and on a state level.

Besides, were I he and she tendered an offer of a Cabinet post in exchange for support (say, AG), I wouldn't trust her to follow through were she to win. I really don't think her word means anything except as a means to secure a vote, or financial support.

After all, he doesn't need her to ensure political, policy or personal success. If anything, his future in that regard is a lot brighter without becoming entangled in her political briar patch.

Let the process play itself out, John.

B-)

[jackson_dem]

30. Edwards stands against everything McCain represents

If he thinks Hillary is the only one who can beat the rethugs then it is logical for him to endorse her. I agree that he would be hurt politically if he endorsed her but the fact he is even debating this shows he was being sincere when he said it wasn't about him. He can't help lead to four years of President McCain just to salvage his reputation among the netroots. If he remains undecided he should stay silent in the end. If he strongly believes only Hillary can win or that Obama will bring change and can win then he should endorse.

[Tarheel_Dem]

37. I could not agree more, and if I were Edwards, and hoped to have

any chance at a political future, he should run a mile from the Clintons. He took great pains to in his campaign to separate himself from the establishment Dems, and then to turn around an endorse the very epitome of "The Establishment" would be devestating to me.

[Lefty-Taylor]

6. As an Edwards voter and someone who reads a lot of "Inside Baseball" political thinking, that blog

is one of the most convoluted, back-and-forth pieces of spurious speculation I've seen in a long time. Let me be clear in my own direct assessment: Edwards won't endorse Clinton. If he does, I'm sadly disappointed. But I don't think he'd compromise his convictions that far.

I am certainly tired of too much amateurish tea-leaf reading regarding the meetings and cancellations of meetings.

Does anyone else agree?

[jackson_dem]

8. How is preventing McCain betraying his convictions?

[Lefty-Taylor]

62. Oranges and apples. Edwards would be betraying his convictions by supporting Republican Lite HRC.

[jackson_dem]

65. How can Hillary (the devil) be rethug lite when St. Obama isn't?

What policies make her evil that Obama doesn't share? And the only sane thing for a Democrat to do if they believe Obama is going to lose the general is to support Hillary. Hillary is much better than McCain, at least from a Democratic view. Naderites may disagree.

[Lefty-Taylor]

76. You ask a valid question. Here's how they differ (& I never called HRC evil, so don't put words in

my mouth): Hillary voted for the war. Obama didn't have to vote, granted, but he spoke out against it.

HRC supported her husband on three acts that I care about. The awful act of terrorism in 1993 when Bill bombed Iraqi civilians to support George Sr. (look it up if you've forgotten); the Telecom Act of 1996 that consolidated control of the media into corporate hands even more than it already was; the so-called "welfare reform" act that subjected the poor to deeper poverty. That is the Clinton record. And it is shameful (if you're progressively minded).

There are some specifics.

[jackson_dem]

83. It always goes back to "he isn't Billary" with so many Obama supporters

Those aren't differences. Those are grievances against the Clintons and assumptions that Obama would have acted differently. Aside from the Iraq war resolution and welfare, there is nothing to suggest what he would have done on the others. He supports Clinton's welfare reform. Given the media love for him we can guess what his media position...Edwards stood up against media consolidation and look at what they did to him...Basically every modern US president has been involved in some military action (Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Nixon, LBJ, JFK, Ike, Truman, FDR). It is hard to see Obama not using force at some point too.

I can understand supporting Obama over the IWR. I don't understand disregarding his platform, his ideology, his record (all three are the same as Hillary's with only tiny differences that don't all cut in Obama's favor) just because he is not "Billary."

[kristopher]

111. Obama endorsed Lamont, Hillary sat on her hands while Bill Stumped for Lieberman

[BlackVelvet04]

11. LOL and you know this how?

Let me be clear in my own direct assessment: Edwards won't endorse Clinton.

[berner59]

16. Hillary's demographics...

I would think appeals to Edwards more...she's getting the working class blue collar vote while Obama's getting the highly educated/wealthy vote and the African American vote... Plus her health care plan is HIS anyway...

[CoffeeCat]

7. This underscores that reporter's...

...account of what went on behind-the-scenes of one of the debates.

During the commercial break, Edwards chastised Obama and told him to get
in the debate and fight...and fight back! Edwards obviously cares about
Obama and probably has some serious reservations about Clinton, but he's
not sure about Obama's ability to "fight" and get in the ring and play the
rough, dirty game that is politics.

I dunno.

Wake me up, when it's all over.

[jackson_dem]

18. Obama is a wuss

It is sad to say but look at the debates. The most memorable example is Obama saying "Those questions should have been asked earlier". Everyone on the planet knew he was referring to Hillary not "asking those questions" during the lead up to the war. Obama couldn't turn around, face Hillary, and say "Senator, I am glad you are asking questions now but why didn't you ask them when it counted in 2003?", or something like that.

[Bread and Circus]

51. For Edwards to tell Obama how to win an election is like Sonny Liston

to tell Ali how to fight after Ali's knocked his ass out.

[jackson_dem]

66. You haven't paid attention this election cycle

A racing analogy is better. Edwards is the driver who got his car up to Hillary's and knocked her out of the way. Obama, with his superior horsepower (msm) was able to capitalize once Hillary was thrown off line. Edwards' inferior car faded to third but left Hillary's car permanently wounded.

[Bread and Circus]

72. Well, you haven't been paying much attention for 4+ years with that

analogy...

1.) Clinton has gotten the lion share of press these past several years.
2.) Edwards had the "rock star" label on him back in the 2004 primaries.
3.) Nationally, Obama was unknown and a total long shot until he won in Iowa, where it's all about organization and retail politics.

You can blame it on the MSM all you want but both Clinton and Edwards have had more than their fair share of it. It's true that it's a double edged sword for Clinton, but Edwards has been treated with nothing with nothing with kid gloves (especially considering his record doesn't match his rhetoric).

Obama is just a better politician and better campaigner than Edwards, flat out. He needs no pointers from the guy who has very little electoral success to begin with.

[jackson_dem]

87. False premises

1) Clinton did get slightly more press than Obama. BUT it was usually negative while Obama got by far the most glowing press of any candidate running in either party. Obama benefited from the media, Hillary didn't, and Edwards was ignored from the beginning by the msm although he polled near Obama early in 2007.

2) That was 2004. He didn't in 2008. In 2004 folks weren't looking for a "fresh face" anyway. They wanted a steady hand who could fight Bush on security. That was Kerry. Maybe if Edwards didn't run in 04' his 08' run would have turned out better.

3) That's another myth of "Obama the underdog". Obama got so much msm coverage that he quickly passed Edwards, the 2004 VP nominee, in name recognition. If that doesn't tell you how much the msm helped him nothing wil.

The data shows Edwards wasn't treated with any gloves. His wife got more coverage than him during the first five months of 2004. He got something like 1/6 the coverage of St. Obama (even though his record doesn't match his rhetoric the media has NEVER questioned it. There is a thread up about this. Bill was right. His Iraq record has never been questioned while the rest of it is covered in isolated cases but ignored by the msm) and 1/7 the coverage of Hillary.

Joe Montana was a better quarterback than Bill Walsh could ever be. Why did he listen to him? Obama is great politician. He isn't a deity. Why does he have advisers? How many Senate elections has Axlerod won in red states? Obama needs advice like all people who put their pants on one leg at a time.

[Bread and Circus]

103. Well, have you ever thought that maybe Obama knows how to work the press

and Clinton and Edwards don't?

Or is it all just a big conspiracy that the "bad men" at the main stream media all went on a retreat to make damn sure Obama got all the favorable press and Clinton and Edwards got all the bad press or no press at all?

Or is it all controlled by a mastermind somewhere? Some shrunken figure behind a green curtain?

Look, I supported Clark in 2004 and we all cried "media blackout" then whilst Edwards basked in the sunny rays of being the "media golden child". In retrospect I realized Clark was just a bad campaigner and deserved alot of the lack of serious interest that he received. I was a grassroots "draftclark" organizer and I can tell you that we, the volunteers, had a better organization than the one he sent to Michigan when he finally declared.

I think Obama has done as well as he has because of his organization of a real grassroots campaign and he's done an amazing job. It should tell you something about his leadership skills.

And if Edwards heart is really with Obama, why isn't yours?

[jackson_dem]

105. No

Here is why: Al Gore. John Kerry.

If you accept, like most progressives, that the msm is a rethug organ then it is only a matter of time they do to Obama what they did to Gore and Kerry. Gore and Kerry were treated well by the msm, and Gore in particular basically wrapped it up with the aid of the msm because the msm declared it over after his 2 point New Hampshire win. When the general came the msm served their corporate rethug masters.

I don't see much of a difference on the issues between him and Hillary. I don't agree with Edwards that Obama will bring change and Hillary won't. They both bring pretty much the same thing. I do agree with Edwards that Obama may not win because he isn't tough and I also think his inexperience would be a problem (Edwards sees it as a problem for an Obama presidency. Good intentions can only go so far... As Carter. I see it as an electability problem). I am gravitating to Hillary because I believe she can win and Obama can't, at least not this time. Once he gets more experience he would be fine in 2012 or 2016.

[Bread and Circus]

110. Wow from Mark Penn's lips to your keyboard. I guess that 5million really paid off...

good night sweet heart.

[Tennessee Gal]

9. Thank you, Jackson.

"Edwards is astute. Obama has not shown that he is tough enough."

Valid point. It will take toughness to defeat the Repugs and that is our top goal.

[jackson_dem]

21. And apparently Elizabeth agrees

Edwards is "lukewarm" to Hillary but Elizabeth is supposedly down on her but even despite that she recognizes Hillary will kick rethug tail if we nominate her.

[book_worm]

12. As a former Edwards supporter if he comes out for HRC it won't influence me in the least

that is his opinion and I have mine at this point, but I don't think he will necessarily come out for Clinton.

[Ino]

14. "doesn't think she'd change much of anything, but thinks she'll really pummel the GOP"

Well, I'm confused. If she's not going to change the status quo, why would she have to pummel the GOP? If he's referring to the General Election, pummeling the GOP isn't an issue... is she going to pummel the GOP VOTERS into voting for her? I think not!

[jackson_dem]

23. It is an issue. He clearly thinks Hillary will win and win big. He thinks Obama may lose

And the "change" thing is probably taken out of context. He probably means changing how Washington works. Obviously Hillary brings change, most notably her health plan which is very similar to Edward's.

What good are a few months of Obama speeches about "hope" if he loses in a landslide? President McCain. Preventing that should be the top priority of every Democrat. You could argue Obama is more likely to win but Edwards, who saw Obama in combat up close, clearly thinks otherwise.

[Lefty-Taylor]

61. JD, You're ignoring virtually every poll that shows Obama having a

much better chance than HRC in defeating McCain. By far. Where's your logic? It seems like you're stuck in the Jacksonian past.

Hillary would get trounced. That's not me. That's a majority of the American voters, if the polls are even close to being correct.

[jackson_dem]

68. They aren't correct

I am sure I've mentioned the Kerry 04' and Bush 00' polls at this point in those cycles in this thread. To keep it short, Bush was up 11 and Kerry up 8 at this time. They were "new". Once the other party began attacking them they got weaker and on election day Bush lost by half a million and Kerry by 3 million. They both suffered 11 point swings. If Obama does he will lose by 7-8.

The analogue is Gore 00' or even Bush 04' for Hillary. Universally known, basically everyone had an opinion on them. The "new" candidate looks good because they are unknown and people hope they are what they want them to be. As they get attacked, defined by the other party, their warts get exposed they lose steam. Hillary, like Gore and Bush, will not lose ground. She will gain by default like they did because disenchanted voters who don't necessarily like her will wind up voting for her because they realize she is better than the alternative.

Obama, despite having 0 negatives ads every run against him, the msm loving him for years is only running 4-5 points better than a woman who the rethugs have attacked for 16 years. I look at that and see Hillary as stronger.

[Lefty-Taylor]

84. You've offered a good, respectable response. But you've neglected one thing. Obama brings a new

sensibility to the campaign front: He's dynamic where Gore, Kerry weren't and certainly Hillary isn't. Hillary would be more of the same -- same old fodder for the GOP machine to rip apart. Obama has energized a new base -- one the DLC doesn't even approach.

And if she did win, she wouldn't be what we need (in my humble opinion). She'd again be more of the same and not much different than McCain.
I know you don't agree but look at their records. Very similar.

[dkf]

119. I love Gore, and Kerry's ok, but they weren't exactly likable.

Obama is. And he is funny too.

McCain is plain old awkward.

[countmyvote4real]

17. Then let Edwards (RFK) be Obama's (JFK) AG backup.

Edwards should not endorse either before their final respective delegate counts. Super delegates should not be included.

On edit: I tried to make the headline more clear about the roles I was assigning to the current personalities.

[Yael]

19. That was a great read

Thanks for posting it.

He makes a lot of sense.

[Divine Discontent]

33. I concur..

it's a tough decision, honestly. I would have spent weeks thinking about it, and talking to them both, too. I think he will endorse soon to tip the scale for whom he thinks should be president, not necessarily who will fight the GOP the hardest (although I would guess that IS a decision that plays into this for him also, as it would me). I believe he will come down on the side of Obama, but much like how that blog is back and forth, I wouldn't be shocked to see him endorse Hillary, because he knows their attack machine will go after the GOP candidate hard. Obama's draw is his positiveness, but I believe he needs to be more tough against the status quo and big business (& big biz of war!), but I'm still sticking with Barack unless John says some major noteworthy things to change my mind. I really love that Sen. Edwards, and I believe he knows a LOT about what's going on, and what's best for this country. He was so amazing in his stump speeches and in those debates, I believe he was more than ready to lead this country.

[Orangepeel]

24. I don't believe this as far as I can throw it.

I believe Edwards is conflicted. Both candidates have their strong points and a lot of people are conflicted. But I don't believe for a minute that it's because he thinks Clinton will really pummel the GOP.

[jackson_dem]

32. The Clintons have been beating the rethugs since 1992

Obama "beat" Alan Keyes. When Obama met Bush even Bush made fun of Keyes.

[Orangepeel]

35. It's not 1992 and Hillary isn't Bill

and Edwards can read a poll.

You are welcome to believe what you want. But if Edwards does endorse Clinton, which I wouldn't be surprised by, I won't believe that this stupid reason is the reason.

[jackson_dem]

39. Edwards can read a poll

He must remember the polls showing Kerry up by 8 points at this time in 2004. He must also remember the polls show the "new", "fresh face" Bush leading Gore by 11 at this time in 2000. He knows what happens once "new" candidates are defined. Those polls are worthless. If anything they are cause for concern. If Obama, like Bush and Kerry, suffers an 11 point swing he will lose by 7-8. Hillary will only improve as McCain's negatives rise and hers stay the same.

It isn't a stupid reason. Have you participated in any of the debates? Edwards has had ample opportunities to size up Obama. Reportedly during one debate he implored Obama to get tough and fight during the break...

[Orangepeel]

52. She starts out tied with McCain. She didn't start out tied with Obama

Obama has run a better campaign than Clinton has. She might very well still win the nomination. And, if she does, I'll happily vote for her. But There is nothing about the way she has run her campaign shows that she has the best chance to "pummel the GOP."

[jackson_dem]

71. Like Dukakis and Kerry? Remember Kerry coming from single digits to win 46 states?

Democratic primaries are a completely different animal than the general election. Obama is no underdog. He has almost the entire msm on his side. People forget that and remember only name recognition that Hill had. She never even had a financial advantage.

[Orangepeel]

92. Well, she won't have any more of the MSM on her side in the general

And she did have a financial advantage. She started out with a senate war chest that was much bigger than Obama. I happen to think that Obama has a better chance. It isn't easy to get new people involved in the process and he and his campaign deserve credit for that. But regardless, McCain will not be easy to beat, no matter which candidate is running. Thinking so grossly underestimates his backers desire to win.

It is stupid to think that Clinton will be able to win easily and/or pummel anyone. I have too much respect for Edwards to believe that he is stupid.

[qazplm]

38. I get the sense you are trying to make a point here

but not 100 percent on what it is. Can you repeat it twenty more times? Thanks.

[MagsDem]

56. Well believe it, because that part is true

[Metric System]

28. So essentially the difference is that Hillary will kick GOP ass, while Obama will lick GOP ass. n/t

[Cant trust em]

29. Sounds like the rationale of many a DUer n/t

[Proud2BAmurkin]

31. Edwards didn't get where he is being stupid

[Thrill]

106. Where is he at? He's not even popular in his own state

And won't run for a statewide office, because of the fear of humiliation.

[Donnachaidh]

127. why the hell would he even NEED to run for office?

someone sounds like they have an obsession over Edwards. :rofl:

[democrattotheend]

34. Kind of sad

I've heard this "not-tough-enough" argument from a lot of people. I asked a guy in my office today why he supports Hillary, and he basically said he's afraid Obama won't play dirty enough to win. If that's Edwards' main concern, it speaks to a pretty sad state of affairs in American politics.

[Yael]

54. She is playing dirty and she is losing

Did he miss that part?

[rwheeler31]

36. Who he endorses should not matter.

The more important thing is to get those strong legal eagles to fight for our candidate.

[Blue State Bandit]

42. McCain may be the nominee, but Obama would be running against

the entire neo-Conservative legacy, that McCain has embraced.

Obama has been careful not to let the primary process get too out of control by flaming Hillary for

political points.

He has also been careful not to dis the moderate repubs that are teetering on the fence, the ones

that may weather the approaching shit storm facing the repubs.

But make no mistake, once the GE is in full swing, their will be no need to play nice.

The Iraq war will become a club...

The economy will become a hatchet...

And the shredding of the constitution will become

the rope we hang McCain and the Neo-Cons with.

[MagsDem]

46. Spoken by a confirmed Obama bot

Noam is full of shit, IMHO. I don't think Obama has a prayer of getting an Edwards endorsement.

[zulchzulu]

48. Frankly, I'm surprised anyone cares what Edwards thinks at this point

I feel like he abandoned his supporters by dropping out before Super Tuesday and a day after he was pounding the podium that he was in the race all the way to the Convention.

I don't particulary care what he does or doesn't think about Obama. If he goes ahead and endorses Clinton, then everything he said in the last two years he campaigned for President would mean nothing. That would be the ultimate betrayal to his supporters, who wanted change...

[Yael]

59. A day after Joe Trippi was hounding us in emails

about donations for the latest fund raiser.

That is the only regret I have about supporting John. If nothing else, he could have stopped that fundraising drive and 'suggested' that it kick off on Feb 1 instead of Jan 27.

[jackson_dem]

73. President McCain will bring change?

Oh. He will "change the trajectory" like Reagan?

People at DU and on the netroots in general have a warped view of Hillary. Edwards know she isn't satan and that she would be a lot better than McCain. If he concludes Obama can't win then the logical thing would be to support Hillary to prevent the rethugs from keeping the White House.

[mtnsnake]

125. One of the most sensible posts of this thread. Thank you, jackson.

You seem to have a habit of making sense. :thumbsup:

[jackson_dem]

131. Thanks, you could say I am pro-sense

;)

[loveangelc]

49. what the hell has hillary ever done to make anyone think she's tougher against the GOP?

yes, she's "still standing" and good for her, but they are also...

[MagsDem]

55. Fought against them for 35 yrs....

As opposed to Obama who is campaigning on the promise to cave into them by "working with them" and pandering to their Reagan lovefest.

[Tarheel_Dem]

67. i'm so sick of this 35 yrs. bullshit. does that include the time she

spent working as a "Goldwater Girl"? And you think working with the opposition to get things done for the American people is "caving"? Good luck with that strategy. Unless Hill can get a super majority in the Senate, she'll be doing a lot of "caving" as well.

[Yael]

88. And the Clinton polarization of the country got us 8 years of Bush

[Dogmudgeon]

91. Gee, I thought that was Ralph Nader and the SCOTUS

:shrug:

I guess I was wrong.

--p!

[Yael]

95. Al Gore should have taken that in a landslide

it wasn't until he got the Clinton albatross of divisiveness off his neck that he was able to move on.

[Dogmudgeon]

112. Um ... were you in the USA in 2000? Over age 12?

This supposed Clinton divisiveness wasn't a factor. It was polled repeatedly. It was on TV every night and on the Internet (which was much wonkier in 2000), because it was what the press was talking up, trying to make it an issue. I think Fox showed it as being an issue, but it never really stuck.

Besides, Clinton left office with outstanding positives, over 80% in some polls.

Gore "moved on" because he was perceived as having been treated unjustly. Then he re-made himself as an environmental activist.

--p!

[Yael]

123. Mid 30s and yes, I lived in the USA -- but thanks!

I guess we all have our recollections of that time.

[jackson_dem]

97. That and Gore

I love Al but he sucked as a candidate in 2000. The funny thing is he lost for the same thing the folks who now love him hate Hillary for: he was seen as too calculating and inauthentic. If he ran as himself it would have never been close.

[jackson_dem]

74. The Clintons have beaten the rethugs over and over again

Obama "beat" Alan Keyes.

[Dogmudgeon]

85. She beat Rudy Giuliani and Rick Lazio

Both were strong opponents, extremely well-financed and hungry for the Senate.

Then she courted, and won the trust of about half of the Republicans in NY state.

And Obama's record against the Republicans is ... ?

--p!

[Bread and Circus]

50. So I was right, if Edwards endorses Clinton he's endorses someone who is against

his principles. Who knew?

But if he thinks Obama is so "inexperienced" how does he account for the ass whipping he just got from Barack? How does he account for the 15,000+ crowds that Obama regularly pulls? How does he account for Barack's political machine that is under Barack's command that has totally rocked Hillary's world?

None of this still adds up.

Edwards is angling for something.

[Lefty-Taylor]

63. Thanks, B&C, for some reason. I agree. (And I supported Edwards.)

[jackson_dem]

75. You're confusing different things

Obama is not inexperienced as a politician. He is not ready to be president because his political experience, aside from 2 years in the Senate, does not prepare him for the White House. There is a difference between being a good candidate (Bush) and a good president...

[Tarheel_Dem]

78. Obama had a political career before he went to Washington

just like WJC. And I don't count HRC's tenure as a First Lady as experience. Geez..if that's the case why don't we vote for Laura Bush, at least she's more popular.

[Bread and Circus]

94. I don't know it seems like Clinton has done a very good job

of laying down for the Republicans on large and important matters of the last two decades. The IWR "I'll take George Bush at his word" being the most salient example, but it's a long list.

And the only executive experience she's ever had was the 1993 health care task force, which according to Navarro and Paul Starr, she screwed up beyond belief. Go back and read Navarro's papers on this. If you know anything about health care policy, you'd know she was carrying water for the HMO's even back then.

[Moloch]

53. This from someone....

who (according to most Americans, not me.. ) lost a debate to dick cheney. Obama will do much better than Clinton in the GE.

In the end, people will choose between the two candidates. Nobody gives a rats ass who Edwards or Gravel endorse.

[SammyWinstonJack]

57. .

:boring: Deal with it!

[Moloch]

82. Deal with what?

nt

[judaspriestess]

136. I was looking for you the other day to give you an 'anonymous'

heart, I couldn't find you bluestate so I'm sending you a heart in spirit:hi:

[anamandujano]

80. I agree Edwards won't have much influence. It would be fun to see

the ho media try to make a big deal out of it after they made him as good as invisible when he was running.

Of course they'd both love to have him just as moral support. If he goes with Obama he'll have to play second fiddle to Kennedy and Kerry. As a Hillary supporter, I think he might help with the universal health care argument since his is almost identical (so they say.) I'm not sure how Edwards would finesse the fact that Obama is not offering universal but politicians are good at that.

He might do better for himself to stay out of it and go with the winner. It would be better for the party, maybe not so good for his future office.

[Bread and Circus]

58. here's what you should have quoted:

from the article:

"My own take is this: The atmospherics of a Hillary endorsement would look very, very bad for Edwards. You can't spend six months bashing someone as a symbol of everything that's wrong with Washington, then embrace that person and expect to come away smelling like roses. Particularly not when there's another extremely viable candidate out there talking about 90 percent of what you campaigned for. If Edwards cares at all about his reputation, a Hillary endorsement is a terrible move for him. (For what it's worth, I'm not saying Hillary is a symbol of everything that's wrong with Washington--far from it, I think she'd make a good president--just that this was Edwards's argument for most of the campaign.)"

[jackson_dem]

77. That's one guy's take and he is echoing Obamite talking points

What the thread is about is Edwards' thinking.

You are right. Edwards' reputation would take a hit if he endorsed Hillary. America would take a far larger hit with President McCain. The fact Edwards is thinking about this puts to rest the BS spewed about him being a fraud. The political thing for him would clearly be to endorse Obama, especially since Obama is the only one he has a shot at being veep with.

[Renew Deal]

89. The entire article is one guys take.

There's no quote from Edwards in there. A Hillary nomination means president McCain. The day she's nominated is the first day of the 2012 campaign.

[Bread and Circus]

90. Well, it seems like Clinton has run a very shitty campaign considering

all of this was hers to lose.

So, is she a shitty campaigner? Or is Barack the new Bill Clinton?

Don't even try to blame it on the MSM. That works on the weak minded but I'm immune to Jedi mind tricks.

[jackson_dem]

98. The msm matters a great deal

Ask Gore and Kerry, or even Howard Dean...

-snip-

Hillary Clinton is getting the worst press and Barack Obama the best press of any major presidential candidate

http://www.cmpa.com/election%20news%202_1_08.htm

Whether coverage of the candidates was positive or negative.

Obama: 47% positive, 16% negative.
Clinton: 27% positive, 38% negative.
McCain: 12% positive, 48% negative
Giuliani: 28% positive, 37% negative
JDNE

Net numbers

Obama +31
Giuliani -9
Clinton -11
McCain -36

http://www.journalism.org/node/8187

These are from the first five months of the campaign. If anyone has a newer study post it. There is little reason to believe the tenor of reporting changed from that point until Iowa. Since then as the sniping has escalating the positive numbers for each candidate must have dropped, with the brief exception of the media orgasm for Obama after Iowa and McCain's favorable coverage since New Hampshire.

[Drunken Irishman]

70. I think they'll have a great talk when they meet and Edwards will endorse based on heart.

[Beregond2]

79. Endorsement

If he is really thinking this way, I am disapointed in him. He ran an idealistic campaign that did not compromise on the basis of what would make him more or less electable. That being the case, why should he hesitate to endorse the candidate who more closely matches his own beliefs? Meaning Obama, of course.

[jackson_dem]

101. It says so in the OP. He thinks Obama may lose and isn't ready to be president

That may change after he meets with Obama but right now he could be thinking Hillary is the only one who can stop a President McCain. He is also concerned about whether Obama is ready to be president. Let's look past the slogans for a moment. That means even if he does thing Obama is a good guy and sincere in wanting change that he thinks he will be a lousy, ineffective president because he isn't up to the job. Then the issue would be comparing what an ineffective Obama could achieve with what an effective Hillary could.

[dpbrown]

86. Obama is NOT tough enough to take on the GOP - especially after his Reagan love-fest

There's only so far you can get on charisma and polish, and it doesn't extend to having a successful government.

[jlake]

96. I respect John greatly, and hope that he endorses Hillary.

I accept his opinion on Obama's likability - though I disagree - but John knows the score, and the right thing to do - and I hope he does.

Obama will not win the GE - and as John says, Hillary will pummel the GOP.

John, Please endorse Hillary and campaign for her.

[SammyWinstonJack]

99. Well duh! thinks obama is a GE loser? Duh!

:spank: Why did you drop out John? Why? You had them on the run! :wtf:

[loveangelc]

100. edwards can't pick hillary :(

[calteacherguy]

102. Since she wouldn't kick GOP ass, but Obama would

that's incredibly ironic.

[Political Heretic]

104. If what you say is true, then the only non hypocritical thing Edwards can do is:

either endorse Obama or not endorse.

I'm sure but if this is true, and I have my doubts, and Edwards doesn't think much of Hillary personally and doesn't believe that she will change anything, but only thinks she'll "win" then he needs to go back and take a HARD LOOK at the campaign he ran and the things he said he stood for and figure out that she isn't an option.

[jackson_dem]

107. PH, you are like the 9th Obama supporter to say that

I don't understand that argument. I can see you disagreeing with Edwards but what is hypocritical about trying to prevent a President McCain? If Edwards concludes that Obama cannot win then he has a choice between helping Hillary win the nomination or doing nothing and having McCain beat Obama in the general. McCain stands against what Edwards stood for; Hillary is close to it. It is only logical for him to support Hillary if he thinks she is the only remaining Democrat who can beat McCain. What good is an Obama nomination if he loses and we are stuck with McCain for four years? He would be another William Jennings Bryan. We'd have great speeches during the campaign but be stuck with years of rethug rule.

[joshcryer]

109. Edwards would not be hypocritical to endorse Hillary.

She has all his positions.

[Dawgs]

126. Hah - "She has all his positions"

Yeah, Edwards just loves lobbyists.

[countmyvote4real]

113. It's forest or trees. n/t

[countmyvote4real]

114. self delete

duplicate

[Recursion]

115. It's a big risk for Edwards to endorse at this point

If he backs the wrong horse, he's pretty much shut himself out of the party

[SKKY]

116. Edwards will wait until after the DC/MD/VA primaries...

...if the "Big Mo" stays with Obama as it has thus far, he'll go with Obama. That's my thinking. He doesn't want to be on the wrong side of this and look bad in the eyes of those who voted for him.

[cali]

118. Hmmm.

He thinks Obama, who has more experience than he himself has, isn't ready to be President? Typical JE. And it's become ridiculous to say Obama won't fight. I've been saying for months that Obama isn't just a fighter, he's a hell of a smart fighter.

[Vinca]

120. Edwards is beginning to come off as wishy washy.

At this point, I don't think it would make much difference to either candidate if he endorses them.

[Adelante]

122. Edwards thought he was *ready* and Obama's not

What a fucking joke. I wish he'd endorse Hillary and get it over with.

[SaveAmerica]

124. You guys keep saying 'Edwards Says' this is clearly not written by Edwards

I'd wait until he says anything before slinging all the stuff around here (too late).

[OnionPatch]

128. I was a supporter of his

but he was not able to do that well in the last couple of elections. If he really said this, pardon me for not taking too much stock in his election strategies and predictions.