Hillary is just setting up her 2012 campaign at this point. It's never too early to start running for the next time.
Posted by Muck at May 15, 2008 07:03 AMI really can't blame Edwards. After all, Obama would have been willing to offer more. Edwards appeals to a demographic Obama needs help and Hilary doesn't. I'm sure she would have loved his endorsement, but would have been inclined to offer less for it. It's also worth noting that it was made very clear this was John Edwards endorsement and not a joint endorsement made be he and his wife.
Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated
Don Henley-The Garden of Allah
Posted by Radix at May 15, 2008 07:28 AMI a, with you, eriposte, that we should be above the childishness and let the endorsements pass by. People can endorse whomever they want, frankly. Let them be known.
I also agree that superdelegates have to pony up and be known at some point as well.
By the way, I would have taken Biden over Edwards - though he is an even bigger chatterbox..
Posted by the young Judith at May 15, 2008 07:28 AMClinton should continue to build her coalition of "Hillary Democrats" that will be formidable in 2012.
Until then, this live-long Democrat looks forward to doing everything I can to see that Obama is defeated in the fall..
I agree with all
Posted by me at May 15, 2008 07:54 AMEdwards jumping on the Obama bandwagon after making sure that he will be the nominee is due to the fact that he wants something in return. Veep is most likely but a cabinet position is probably a good second choice. This is when the opportunists come out. He could not endorse earlier because he could not be sure who would win. This is not about who he thinks is "right for the job" this is about what's in it for Edwards. Typical politician. Democrat or Republican, they are all about the power. There is no change to be had from any of the current crop. Just like the Dems taking over the congress in 06. Still we have record revenue to the feds accompanied by record spending. Nothing will change even when the Dems have a veto proof majority and Dem president. You will still have war, massive spending, waste fraud and mismanagement, entitlement spending heading for disaster etc. Oh, and don't hold your breath for single payer heatlh care either.
Posted by manapp99 at May 15, 2008 08:18 AMThe migration will continue primarily because white Democratic delegates don't want to be labeled the "party of racists" who denied the first "viable" black man a shot at the presidency and risk dealignment of black voters away from the party.
Race and class divisions in the Democratic party mirror the fractures that exist across America, and they can't be reconciled within a political campaign process by deploying a seamingly endless string of dubious conversions and endorsements.
Clearly, the primary contest will be decided by party insiders. Nothing new here. But, catapulting the least-best candidate into the nomination seat out of fear and redemption is astonishing.
Posted by fafnir at May 15, 2008 08:25 AM"Until then, this live-long Democrat looks forward to doing everything I can to see that Obama is defeated in the fall.."
like what, printing some Monkey T-shirts?
Posted by T2 at May 15, 2008 08:35 AMHey, Eriposte, take some of that energy and direct it at McCain, instead of trying to divide the Democratic Party. Your columns resemble GOP talking points. What side are you on? Quit tearing down Obama. You and Hillary are sore losers, like your in gradeschool or something. Did you flunk math in school?The nomination is determined on pledged delegates, NOT POPULAR VOTE.Why do you insist on tearing down the party. You and your kind are a scourge to the party. Whose loyalty are you for? The party or your candidate. Wake up and quit dragging down Obama.
Posted by Joe at May 15, 2008 08:44 AMawesome post, eriposte. heartening and inspiring. THANK YOU! :)
Posted by kangeroo at May 15, 2008 08:49 AMEdwards was my first choice based on his central message of two Americas. I'm glad to see that he was able to re-inject this campaign (at least for one news cycle) with the stark problems of poverty in our great country.
Am I surprised he went with Obama? No. I wouldn't have been surprised if he went with Clinton either. He was going to face criticism from either side no matter which candidate he chose to endorse.
Now I do take exception to some Clinton diehards criticizing John for not waiting until everyone had had a chance to vote. Remember, there were tons of superdelegates that announced their support for Clinton before ANY votes had been cast.
Posted by trublueCO at May 15, 2008 08:50 AMIf the commenter is working to defeat Obama in the fall, that person WAS NEVER A DEMOCRAT! That goes for the rest of you whiny babies who say they'd vote for McCain over Obama. We don't want you traitors in the Democratic Party. Get the hell out and go join the GOP. You make me sick. We'll win without you Judas's. Go crawl back under the rocks you slithered out from under. You are scum of the earth.
Posted by Joe at May 15, 2008 08:52 AMWhy yes Joe, the nominee is determined by the delegates. But it's how the delegates vote at the convention that counts. So until the convention nobodies won anything yet. Thems the rules, we all want to follow the rules don't we?
Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated
Don Henley-The Garden of Allah
Posted by Radix at May 15, 2008 08:53 AMDodd, Kerry, Kennedy, Richardson, Edwards. Handwriting meet wall.
Posted by T2 at May 15, 2008 08:53 AM
Until then, this live-long Democrat looks forward to doing everything I can to see that Obama is defeated in the fall..
A life long democrat that just witnessed the last 8 years of the worst president this country has ever had that has done more to destroy all that democrats (and really anyone that loves what our country stood for) ever really believed.
Really? really??
I find you sad and very misguided. Good luck with what ever group you land in but as for me and what I think the democratic party is to be after November " don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out"
Jeeez what a sad set of convictions you have.
Eric in Austin
Posted by ercl at May 15, 2008 08:53 AMJohn Edwards has vowed to fight poverty in this Country for the next 30 years. This is a life-long professed passion for Edwards. Perhaps Obama's attitudes and opinions are closer to Edwards on the issue.
"Obama stands with me" in a fight to cut poverty in half within 10 years", a claim Obama confirmed moments later.
Edwards also praised Clinton, saying "we are a stronger party" because of her involvement, and "we're going to have a stronger nominee in the fall because of her work."
He said Clinton is a "woman who is made of steel. She is a leader in this country not because of her husband but because of what she has done."
Then Obama gave one of his most animated addresses in days, much of it devoted to his guest's favorite topic, fighting poverty. In America, he said, "you should never be homeless, you should never be hungry." Edwards said that "as President, he (Obama) vowed to "lift up every American out of poverty."
Obama, speaking to reporters said Edwards can help draw working-class voters and others to his campaign.
"I have no doubt that John Edwards can be extremely helpful to us campaigning in every demographic. But his passion and credibility when it comes to issues of poverty and the plight of working people in this country, I think, is a message that is powerful and one that fits with the kind of vision I have for America."
The fact that Edwards flew to informed Clinton personally sets the stage for the way we all should respect all candidates.
Posted by JudithOne at May 15, 2008 09:01 AMBy-the-way, I endorse neither candidate. I only endorse a Democratic President.
Posted by JudithOne at May 15, 2008 09:05 AM"He could not endorse earlier because he could not be sure who would win. This is not about who he thinks is "right for the job" this is about what's in it for Edwards. Typical politician."
manapp99, "typical politician" is not always a negative (although I disagree that Edwards is a "typical politician." Perhaps Edwards understands that Obama is probably going to win the nomination. If Obama has promised him a position where he can make a difference in fighting poverty, then that is called 'working within the system to make a change.'
Posted by JudithOne at May 15, 2008 09:23 AMEvidently Joe doesn't like anyone to support another candidate. Sad. This is the kind of discord that we don't need on this Blog. I can assure you Joe, that no one here is a traitor to the Democratic Party if they do not support Obama.
Posted by JudithOne at May 15, 2008 09:30 AMAll of the liberal Supreme Court justices are over retirement age. Souter is 68, Breyer is 69, Kennedy is 71, Ginsburg is 75, Stevens is 88. The next president will probably determine the makeup for the Supreme Court for decades.
Posted by croatoan at May 15, 2008 09:33 AMOne of the reasons why pro-Obama forces have been trying to force her to quit...
And exactly what proof do you have of this? People talking about delegate counts etc. does not equate to "forcing Hillary to quit".
One of the reasons why pro-Obama forces have been trying to force her to quit
That "experience" thing! Kinda like Obama saying he tried the tax free gas thing in Illinois and realized it didn't work. And talking about experience, why exactly couldn't she be bothered to read the NIE before she voted pro death and destruction in Iraq? She didn't have a copy of it what with her being on the Senate Armed Forces Committee? Maybe that's the "hawk" thing?
Posted by phidipides at May 15, 2008 09:36 AMSteelworkers Union endorses Obama. Add another 220,000 to list of the delusional. Has Clinton had any endorsements lately, after her massive 12 delegate pickup in WVA?
Posted by T2 at May 15, 2008 09:41 AM"All of the liberal Supreme Court justices are over retirement age. Souter is 68, Breyer is 69, Kennedy is 71, Ginsburg is 75, Stevens is 88. The next president will probably determine the makeup for the Supreme Court for decades."
croatoan, and that is exactly why a real supporter of the Democratic Party will not sit this one out.
Posted by JudithOne at May 15, 2008 09:52 AMT2, Hillary picked up one Super from TN.
Mrs. Seven of Six thinks the Obama campaign held onto the Edwards endorsement especially for his MI tour. She thinks another big Democratic gun, Al Gore, will back him for his FL tour.
But endorsements are just politics right?
Posted by Seven of Six at May 15, 2008 09:53 AMA "real supporter" of the Democratic party would not materially block the counting or revotes of MI and FL.
Posted by JoeCHI at May 15, 2008 10:04 AMI'd say Edwards came in with his endorsement yesterday to deflect the WV win and knock it off the airwaves with this "new" development. Smart move.
Edwards was my pick and I was amazed he didn't go anywhere with his rhetoric---which shows why I shouldn't be running any presidential campaigns just like most of the TLC commenters. I'm glad he endorsed Obama and it would have been very surprising if he'd endorsed Clinton. His endorsement should have influence given he was the first pick of most progressives.
We'll let all the states vote and the party will then demand that all the super-D's commit immediately. Obama will go over the top and that will be it.
Hopefully the Hillarians will then begin to let go of this very curious personal attachment to a figure of the past and the unappealing prospect of creating (another) family presidential dynasty. And hopefully they'll stop this weird argument that Hillary is "essential" to success against the most corrupt and failed political party and movement in our history.
If the voters refuse to vote for policy in this election, with everything crumbling around us, then they never will, and any informed person will have to conclude our democracy is an irreversible failure and act accordingly.
Posted by at May 15, 2008 10:09 AMabove by me.
Posted by euzoius at May 15, 2008 10:09 AMAnd it looks like the "popular vote" mantra is the last egg in Eriposte's Hillarian basket. Pity it's such an amorphous concept in this primary, with caucus states and primary states making this an apples to oranges comparison, and one never of great meaning in previous primary contests.
Oh, well, when all one has is lemons.....
Posted by euzoius at May 15, 2008 10:14 AMIncredible. Right-wingers like manAPE99 created a shitpile and then complain because the Democrats haven't cleaned it up despite Dear Leader's veto threats and ReThug filibusters.
Posted by Gay Veteran at May 15, 2008 10:38 AM"Dodd, Kerry, Kennedy, Richardson, Edwards. Handwriting meet wall."
Where's Biden? Then all the men will have teamed up to keep the glass ceiling there. Wow, five men to take down one woman, what a bunch of wimps. And waiting till the dust is settling...way to go Edwards.
Posted by peter at May 15, 2008 10:48 AMIt's called throwing in the last husbanded reserves at the crucial moment and adminstering the coup de grace, peter.
But then your dog is a far better strategist than you....
Posted by euzoius at May 15, 2008 10:52 AM"Then all the men will have teamed up to keep the glass ceiling there."
Yeah Peter, how all those blacks in the Republican Party doing?
Posted by JudithOne at May 15, 2008 10:56 AM"Until then, this live-long Democrat looks forward to doing everything I can to see that Obama is defeated in the fall"
If you ever were a life long Democrat, which I doubt, you no longer are. True Democrats don't work for their party's defeat.
In better news from my home state, a longtime vocal critic of the war, Rep. Jim McDermott has now endorsed Obama.
Posted by Upton at May 15, 2008 11:08 AMThank you Eriposte....
Sen Edwards' "endorsement" reinforces the view that Elizabeth by far has the better political acumen in the relationship (grin).....
The endorsement reeks of political calculation, considering the Edwards' comments in People magazine last week....
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/05/its_official_john_and_elizabet.php
Posted by PaulieB at May 15, 2008 11:24 AMjust in: Henry Waxman for Obama. Another delusional person. And the president of the Communication Workers Union just endorsed.
Posted by T2 at May 15, 2008 11:27 AM"If you ever were a life long Democrat, which I doubt, you no longer are. True Democrats don't work for their party's defeat."
Upton, that's my sentiment, exactly.
Posted by JudithOne at May 15, 2008 11:37 AMSay, how many Dems would like to see Edwards as Attorney General? Show of hands, please.
Don't be coy......
PaulieB, what do you mean by putting "endorsement" in quotes? That it "wasn't" an endorsement? And now you're trashing Edwards as well? Incredible.
Posted by euzoius at May 15, 2008 11:38 AMAnother delusional person.
What's with the 'delusional' thing?
Posted by snark at May 15, 2008 11:42 AMEuzoius:
Just questioning Edwards' motives....
Last week he sat for People magazine and stated that he was not going to endorse anyone until after the primaries...
What happened to change his mind between then and Tuesday night's phone call from Obama??
Posted by PaulieB at May 15, 2008 11:46 AM"A "real supporter" of the Democratic party would not materially block the counting or revotes of MI and FL."
Florida and Michigan were told not to change their primaries or their votes would not count. Right? In some circles, rules don't apply I guess.
Posted by JudithOne at May 15, 2008 11:55 AMto snark. Its just a personal joke. Back in the old days when Clinton was still in the race, I saw many of her supporters reference Obama supporters as being delusional...because they fell for the hollow rhetoric, shiny suit and fancy speechmaking, and the idea that there could, with the right leadership, be Real Change to the Same Old Politics.
Posted by T2 at May 15, 2008 11:58 AMObama persuaded Edwards that instead of endorsing him after the primaries that it would be better if he did it now? He was being coy with the incredibly influential People magazine?
There's no point in withholding one's endorsement until after it matters, is there? Just another massive (but certainly expected) blow for Hillary to have to take.
The front is collapsing everywhere, Hillary, and your position is frankly untenable, Gen'ral Eriposte's Fight-to-the-Death! "advice" notwithstanding.
Posted by euzoius at May 15, 2008 12:00 PMEt tu, Waxman?
One of the Dem party's greatest, longest-serving progressives delivers a tremendous blow. Where's Troubled Hillarian when you need him?
Troubled Hillarian (or any other Dem Obama Hater (tm)), why can't our party's most progressive member figure out that Obama's REALLY a Repub? Wait, I know!----Waxman's a Repub TOO!! Why didn't I think of that?
If only this were a straw man argument. But Troubled Hillarian (and others) will find it quite persuasive.
Posted by euzoius at May 15, 2008 12:34 PMnaral has done dumb things in the past and has just added to the list. What was the purpose? They have just alienated about half of their members maybe.
Posted by bernarda at May 15, 2008 12:56 PM"Florida and Michigan were told not to change their primaries or their votes would not count. Right? In some circles, rules don't apply I guess."
No, the rules do not say that states who move up their primaries will not count. They say that if a state moves up its primaries the recommended punishment would be to decrease their delegates by half (or give leniency if the democrats in the state acted in good faith). The only reason for not counting the votes would be if the state's democrats misbehaved. And since in both states there was either a Repub majority or supermajority there was little the Dems should do so the states should have been given leniency, and it was a stupid and inappropriate decision by the DNC. and it wasn't based on the rules.
Posted by rjarnold at May 15, 2008 01:02 PMI expect many politicians to jump on the bandwagon now that they see Obama as the likely winner. It's what politicians do. They expect to get something by aligning with the winner - a position, influence, support, etc. Not that all of them endorse entirely on that basis, but it's certainly a big factor.
Posted by DeanOR at May 15, 2008 01:13 PMAs Joe said way up this thread, the nomination is determined by delegates, not popular vote.
The popular vote, as eriposte well knows, is not an absolute. Clinton supporters use the votes in two bogus primaries that are not part of the Democratic Party's determination of the candidate. Clinton, in fact, has violated her pledge to the DNC to not participate in those primaries by leaving her name on the ballot in Michigan when she could and should have taken it off, and then by demanding delegates from those two primaries.
Further, this new "metric" does not account for the fact that many states choose their delegates by caucus, and thus would be penalized by this change of rules after the fact.
Finally, some states have open primaries. There is no way to exclude Republican and independent voters who either crossed to vote for a candidate or to cause mischief. So eriposte's self-righteousness over the popular vote ignores a lot of sleaziness to come to that self-delusion.
However, if eriposte would rather spend his summer and fall railing against the Democratic Party instead of getting a Democrat into the White House, then he can. The Republicans have always thrived on divide and conquer. Too bad eriposte will never learn the lesson.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at May 15, 2008 01:38 PM"And it looks like the "popular vote" mantra is the last egg in Eriposte's Hillarian basket. Pity it's such an amorphous concept in this primary, with caucus states and primary states making this an apples to oranges comparison, and one never of great meaning in previous primary contests."
Nice smoke and mirrors: "popular vote" concept amorphous? And "never of great meaning in previous primary contests"?
Is the "popular vote" more or less amorphous than the concept of "Real Change"? And do you mean that Obama is just playing by the old political rules (i.e., popular vote doesn't count) that applied in past primaries? Where's the Real Change in that then?
I'm almost too tired to suggest (again) that if the situations were reversed, Obama disciples would take the crusade to the convention and not give up until he and they had used every old or new weapon in the political arsenal. They be crying "But the popular vote!" "Don't tell us to shut up and go away."
Now THAT would apparently actually be Real Change! But wait ...
By any measure, each candidate has significant and widespread voter support and both are legitimate contenders. Let the contest play itself out.
Great post, Eriposte.
Posted by Merleanne at May 15, 2008 01:46 PMI'd like to make some comments.
I think that there was a significant statement made by Hillary yesterday while interviewed on NBC evening news.
She said that the Florida and Michigan delegations will no doubt be seated, and that the issue should be resolved by May 31st.
That is what the Obama suppporters are worried about. And trying mightily to engage in misdirection about.
If Hillary succeeds in getting them seated, Obama's pretention to be the Democratic Standard Bearer has a great deal less cache to it. And it may be that Hillary would then lead in pledged delegates (just remember folks, the super delegates don't enter the picture unless they absolutely have to).
And engaging in sloganeering "Yes we can!" or "Change we can believe in" (What change? What change has he demonstrated since being in the US Congress?)
Like I said before, this is a primary season. That Obama has foolishly allowed himself to be convinced by his advisors to stop campaigning (excepting a bit in Oregon) is basically a strategic mistake.
You Obama-rama Landers, you keep on creating your own reality.
The reality is that this race is far from over, and Clinton and Obama both are basically neck-and-neck.
And like Hillary said on NBC evening news, she is not a quitter, she is a fighter.
And that's what we need in our Democratic Candidate. Not someone who thinks he has it won, and stops campaigning.
So many neophyte mistakes, this Barack Obama campaign is committing....so many mistakes.
Many a slip between the cup and the lip.
Posted by Troubled American at May 15, 2008 02:06 PM"However, if that scenario happens, we can make it clear to the entire world that the superdelegates went against the winner of the popular vote. That alone is worth fighting for."
Thank you eriposte. Hear hear! Isn't it amazing how all the dems who were so outraged when Gore went down while leading in the popular vote now think the popular doesn't matter anymore.
____________________
"If you ever were a life long Democrat, which I doubt, you no longer are. True Democrats don't work for their party's defeat."
Um, yes, because somehow it's more important to be beholden to an abstraction (THE PARTY) no matter what it stands for or who it elects than to actual principles. Jeezus. Who care about loyalty to THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY? If Lieberman were running would we HAVE TO BE LOYAL? Talk about sheeple and group-think. Get a spine people.
_________________
Oh, and finally, I hate the disgusting T2 commenter here. He isn't even as smart as a monkey and doesn't deserve to be called a primate.
However, if that scenario happens, we can make it clear to the entire world that the superdelegates went against the winner of the popular vote. That alone is worth fighting for. - eriposte
So you want to delegitimize the Democratic nomination process? Gee, thanks. That will sure help us unite the Party.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at May 15, 2008 03:54 PMSure, because "uniting THE PARTY" is really way more important than having actual voters' voices count.
Jeez. I think the current nominating process SHOULD be deligitimized - it's a stupid, undemocratic system.
Posted by at May 15, 2008 04:31 PMHillary's last remaining option is to delegitimize the Dem nomination process. That's where every one of her current arguments leads and where the wild-eyed "Fight to the Death" Hillarians can't wait to go.
She's a Fighter! (tm) What the "fight" accomplishes and who it benefits isn't exactly clear, but Fight On!
Posted by euzoius at May 15, 2008 04:34 PM"Have actual voters voices count!"
We're now at the level of simple fact-free sloganeering. Great.
"Stupid, undemocratic system".
It's a highly democratic "system" and has been in place for decades, sheesh. What ridiculous hyperbole.
Posted by euzoius at May 15, 2008 04:40 PMWhy is this news?
One unqualified sigle-term Senator endorsing another unqualified single-term Senator....why is this news?
Well, it might be news because of the audacity of these two thinking -- for one, in the past, and for the other, in the present -- that [they] were qualified to be President of the United States of America.
Posted by Bagley at May 15, 2008 05:10 PMWell, you assured us all for months that Hillary would be the Dem nominee, Bags, so I'm not too sure you have a very good grip on the situation. In fact, I'm sure you don't.
Are you going to max out for McSame? Have you already done so? I hope so!
BTW, is McSame a Bagley-certified "conservative"?
Posted by euzoius at May 15, 2008 05:22 PM"Well, you assured us all for months that Hillary would be the Dem nominee, Bags...."
She is still in the race.
Posted by Bagley at May 15, 2008 05:32 PMeriposte,
"It's in our best interest to be constructive in our advocacy of Sen. Clinton and enable her to win the popular vote."
That is the worst possible scenario, hopefully Obama will be ahead in both Pledged Delegates and the popular vote when it's over so the Supers don't need to make a decision other than to affirm the procedural and democratic victor. Otherwise Hillary will stay in to the bitter end to the detriment of our chances in November.
Turn the page.
However, if that scenario happens, we can make it clear to the entire world that the superdelegates went against the winner of the popular vote. That alone is worth fighting for.
So, Eriposte is joining the Clinton party and is no longer a Democrat.
Or, at least he's on the record as being such.
Because, no person of principle thinks that it's fair to place ANY weight in election results in which one candidate was not allowed to campaign and wasn't even on the ballot.
Most of all, when Clinton drops out and endorses Obama, Eriposte can get his sanity out of the safe deposit box.
Posted by Geek, Esq. at May 15, 2008 07:29 PMFwiw, Fidel Castro, Kim Jong-Il, and Saddam all won the popular vote too, technical details about the rule of law, other candidates being on the ballot, and campaigning being allowed notwithstanding.
Posted by Geek, Esq. at May 15, 2008 07:31 PMI very much like the quality of this post, eriposte. It is balanced, constructive, and forward looking. And though I voted for Obama rather than Clinton, I want to compliment Hillary today, as well. Her rebuttal to Bush's horrid comments, made during his trip to Israel, were admirable. With Obama's comments on the same subject, it is gratifying to see both Democratic candidates closing ranks against the President's latest outrageous remarks.
Posted by Copeland at May 15, 2008 09:52 PMEdwards was clever to delay the endorsement until after West Virginia, because it would not have made any difference there.
Posted by bob h at May 16, 2008 03:33 AMA final request. Let's not respond to endorsements of Sen. Obama by behaving in the same way that we have criticized some Obama supporters of behaving. We can be and should be better than that. You are entirely within your rights to criticize the endorsements but please do so in a polite and thoughtful way.
Look in the mirror, eriposte.
Posted by joel dan walls at May 16, 2008 02:30 PM