John Edwards has not endorsed either candidate. Meanwhile, Hillary's "kamikaze" campaign continues to increase the probability of yet another four years of Republican rule.
It's time that John Edwards got off the fence and went to Indiana to help Obama and to persuade the Democrats of Indiana to "End It Here."
According to reports, the reason John Edwards has withheld his support from Obama thus far is this: despite having more in common with Obama politically in some ways, when Edwards made a pitch to both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to pick up Edwards's poverty issue and run with it, he found Hillary more receptive and encouraging than Obama.
If that is indeed the reason, what I would say to Edwards about that is two-fold.
For one thing, get over it. There's just too much at stake to let that get in the way of doing what you can to prevent this needlessly extended campaign to continue to damage the prospects of the Democratic Party for November. How well do you think your "poverty issue" will be served if John McCain becomes president?
For another thing, I wonder if you understand that Obama might have been wise not to follow the path you wanted him to follow. Don't assume that your message coming from Obama is the same thing, politically, as that message coming from you. It is one thing for a white North Carolinian who has made a fortune litigating against corporate malfeasance to talk about poverty, and "Two Americas." It's an altogether different thing for a black candidate with a background as a community organizer in South Chicago to emphasize the importance of addressing poverty in America.
Obama's chance for the presidency has depended on his running not as a black man, not as another version of Jesse Jackson, but as a man who transcends his race and is capable of building bridges across the divisions that separate Americans. Your issues would have undermined that effort.
So for both those reasons, Senator Edwards, I hope you can put aside whatever pique you may have felt at the lack of enthusiasm in the reception Obama gave your pitch to him.
I hope you will come to the aid of your party, of your country, and yes, of the poor and underserved in America, by coming out now to endorse Barack Obama for President.
And I hope you will go to Indiana, and do all you can with those constituencies that were most responsive to you --many of which are the very constituencies whose support Obama has had the most difficulty gaining in his competition with Hillary Clinton-- to get them on board, too.
Please go to Indiana and tell them that they should support Barack Obama to end this damaging campaign and to make sure that their party, and your party, gets to take the White House back from the forces that serve power and privilege at the expense of average Americans.
Andrew Bard Schmookler's website www.nonesoblind.org is devoted to understanding the roots of America's present moral crisis and the means by which the urgent challenge of this dangerous moment can be met. Dr. Schmookler is also the author of such books as The Parable of the Tribes: The Problem of Power in Social Evolution (SUNY Press) and Debating the Good Society: A Quest to Bridge America's Moral Divide (M.I.T. Press). He also conducts regular talk-radio conversations in both red and blue states.
Considering the fact that the media led Dumbocrats by the nose to this mess that they are in now, John Edwards should allow it to play itself out just like he said he would. Neither Clinton or Obama has any chance whatsoever in November, and the election ended the day Edwards suspended his campaign, so why should he get involved in this mess. He and Gore should continue doing exactly what they are doing...focusing on issues, not IMAGES, which is what Clinton and Obama's campaigns were always about from the beginning...NOTHING BUT IMAGES.
by
Wethe Leaders (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 14 comments)
on Wednesday, April 23, 2008 at 6:44:53 PM
yes, why should edwards get off but not al gore???
this is just another obama campaign smearing tactic of john edwards to hedge the bet that he endorses hillary over barack.
besides, edwards suspended cuz he didn't want to be the kingmaker. by endorsing, he would be. especially with NC around the bend.
edwards can't help it if obama keeps sticking his foot in his mouth every couple minutes, alienating voters left and right...first it was lgbt vote, then it was union workers, now it's rural voters. what's left? why should all us dems keep figuring out how to dig obama out of the last stupid thing he said? and you know murphy's rule applies--the second we nominate obama, then he'll say something about rednecks with the dixie flags on their trucks, and we'll look like idiots.
besides, last i looked, mccain was still creaming both h and o in matchups. so how's it we're going to win this election?
all obama really has to do (or hillary for that matter) is be a true progressive. what is so wrong with that? denouce nuke power, for a start? get obama to fix his health care plan?
by
kenshin (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 18 comments)
on Thursday, April 24, 2008 at 12:19:57 AM
Because the "political markets" just like "poll numbers" are based on present conditions which are a product of previous television news coverage. The media had the Reverend Wright footage, the Rezko and Ayers information, all of 2007 when they were pushing and promoting Barack Obama. They sat on it until they got him nominated, because the GOP always wanted to face either Clinton or Obama, and the political media is made up of DC insiders and former politicos who still have connections in DC and still have the same agenda as many who still hold office there. They do their part to MANIPULATE VOTERS into nominating the easiest candidates to beat, which is why they were infatuated with Dean and then Kerry in the 2004 election cycle, and Clinton and Obama all during the 2008 election cycle. They determined that Edwards was the most difficult to beat both times, so they ignored him in 2004 and after he finished second in Iowa in 2004, they started the meme that he was only "RUNNING FOR VICE-PRESIDENT." So Democrats nominated Kerry quickly and then demanded that he choose Edwards as his running mate, because that's what they had been conditioned to want by the political press. In 2008, they attacked him from the beginning over a house (all candidates running had bigger houses than most of us), bloggers (what they wrote on their own time), media production expense (haircut), and hedge fund (which donated money to both Clinton and Obama and the DSCC but you never heard about), and after he finished 2nd in Iowa this time after being attacked all campaign long while Obama was PROMOTED by the media, they ignored Edwards and focused on Clinton.
Poll numbers are a result of political coverage, and the "political markets" are a response to the political climate, which is subject to change once the coverage changes. In a few weeks, those numbers will shift, because the coverage of Obama has shifted to the scandals that the media sat on all of 2007 until they got 1) EDWARDS OUT OF THE RACE because they didn't want him to be the alternative to Clinton, and 2) made sure that Obama would have to be the nominee, which they are pretty sure of.
by
Wethe Leaders (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 14 comments)
on Thursday, April 24, 2008 at 5:59:56 AM
I don't claim to have superior knowledge to that collective wisdom of all those people who put their money where their mouth is.
You do?</blockquote>
And now the response comes: <blockquote>Yes I do"</blockquote>
So I congratulate you, Wethe Leaders, on your opportunity.
Now you have a chance to join the "put your money where your mouth is" gang on, for example, Intrade.com and make some easy money.
Knowing what you know better than the dupes who --collectively-- assess the probability of a Democratic victory in this year's presidential election, you can make a big bet against those who have been conned by the media into illusions you have escaped.
For every 40 cents you put down --betting on a Republican victory-- you'll be able to walk away with a dollar come November.
If your certainty is warranted, it will be like taking candy from a baby.
Good luck!
by
Andrew Bard Schmookler (297 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 140 comments)
on Thursday, April 24, 2008 at 10:42:13 AM
But, I don't gamble. The Democrats have blown another election, because they'd rather be driven by surface-level media promotion than substantive issues. They'll never learn.
by
Wethe Leaders (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 14 comments)
on Thursday, April 24, 2008 at 11:40:47 AM
You are absolutely right Edwards is doing what he should. As a member of the class that lives from a paycheck rather than investments, I saw Edwards as the only candidate who truly represented my interest. Obama could have easily gotten the Edwards endorsement, but chose not to. Apparently, he didn't feel that it was that important. Now it is looking important, and I am seeing these articles saying that Edwards needs to get off the fence and endorse Obama. I am even reading contrived explanations as to why it was OK for Edwards to advocate for working stiffs but not Obama. Why should Edwards support a candidate who won't advocate for Edwards' supporters? It just doesn't make any sense. If Obama is that desperate it STILL is not too late to make those changes to his platform that might bring Edwards and his supporters into the fold, but he doesn't do it. Meanwhile, I don't have a dog in this primary fight and neither does Edwards. McCain looks like a one legged man in an ass kicking contest. Whoever wins the primary won't have any trouble from him.
by
vidiot (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 171 comments)
on Wednesday, April 23, 2008 at 7:19:25 PM
"Obama could have easily gotten the Edwards endorsement, but chose not to."
That's not my understanding of what happened. Obama and Clinton both eagerly sought Edwards' endorsement.
What do you mean by "easily"? If you mean, adopting Edwards' message, then it seems to me that you would need to deal with what I say above about how that message might have worked in politically disadvantageous ways in the mouth of an African-American candidate.
As for your saying that Obama does not advocate for those voters, I am not sure what speeches from Obama you're listening to, and what position papers from Obama you're reading.
Every speech I hear from him has plenty in it that advocates for working class families struggling in today's Bushite America.
by
Andrew Bard Schmookler (297 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 140 comments)
on Wednesday, April 23, 2008 at 7:58:39 PM
"Easily." You might remember that when Edwards dropped out of the race, most people felt that Obama would get his endorsement. I felt that way too. Let's face it, Clinton pissed off a lot of working people when he walked across the aisle of Congress and campaigned actively to pass NAFTA and to give China most favored nation status. He was counting on a short memory, but no one forgets a screwing like that.
"you would need to deal with what I say above about how that message might have worked in politically disadvantageous ways in the mouth of an African-American candidate." I mentioned earlier that I thought that this was a contrived explanation. Edwards took a position that was politically courageous whether you are black or white. It wasn't easy for him and he knew that it was not the kind of position that would open the pocketbooks of wealthy donors. If this position doesn't fit into Obama's political calculus, I don't see any point in supporting him. I remember in the late 1960's, MLK made a poor peoples march through Appalachia and he began speaking out against poverty among both black and white. Now that was transcending! Why not Obama as well?
I know that Obama has gotten a beating for the "bitter" speech and that it was one comment cherry picked out of context, but it IS one of the more recent comments about the plight of working people. Even when it is placed in context in is not reassuring. It was a laundry list complaints that we are well aware of but not real remedies and it has a curious detachment. It seems like working people are just an after thought. I think that he has misunderstood the union endorsements that he has gotten. It isn't that labor likes him, it's that labor hates Clinton. But why worry about it, that may be just enough anyway. The sad truth is, we don't have a candidate this cycle.
by
vidiot (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 171 comments)
on Wednesday, April 23, 2008 at 9:25:17 PM
MLK emerged as an articulate, prophetic leader of the Negro Civil Rights movement. After he was assassinated, he became a national hero. But he was definitely the leader of a particular, oppressed people.
Do you really think that any black man who runs as --or is seen as-- the leader specifically of that people, as MLK was, could be elected president in America today?
Even as it is, with Obama running in a way that transcends race (cf. his even-handed race speech), many believe that America is not ready to elect a man of color.
Many have observed how the issue of "poverty" is perceived by most Americans as a racial issue. Have you not followed how that works in America? Even though most people in America below the poverty line are not black, that tends to be the case. That's how the Republicans used "welfare" (and "welfare queens") back in the 80s and 90s.
Edwards can speak of the poor, and appear to be a champion of the people generally. If Obama were to do so, he'd appear to be a champion of black America.
Have you noticed how the CLintons tried --e.g. around South Carolina ("So did Jesse Jackson")-- to paint Obama as a "black candidate." They knew that if they could succeed in doing that, they could beat him. The "black candidate" cannot get enough white votes to get elected. They mostly failed, but they continue to try. (As it is, Hillary outpolls him with whites, particularly in states with medium to large black populations.)
Obama would be foolish to articulate his concerns for average Americans --which run throughout his speeches-- in a language that, though it might assuage Edwards, would help his opponents marginalize him in that way.
by
Andrew Bard Schmookler (297 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 140 comments)
on Wednesday, April 23, 2008 at 10:02:00 PM
So, I'll bite. I don't plan on engaging you - since you seem to be one of those 'I have to have the last word types.'
But since you haven't seemed to notice, this is the most ridiculous presidential election, ever.
None of the candidates are any different than the others. Clinton, Obama and McCain are all practically the same people. Asking what was probably the best Democratic presidential candidate to jump on the side of the crack-pot republicrats that he was running against is ridiculous.
It really says something that none of the other drop outs' endorsements have been worth anything, but that John Edwards' endorsement will swing this campaign to either side. And as a short digression, I'm still pissed that he dropped out.
I don't expect any of the people that John Edwards was running for president to help to simply be swayed by empty promises to earn an endorsement. Obviously they haven't, or we wouldn't have this problem of a split Democratic party that we have right now. Funny, while people like you are arguing about which democratic candidate is better, the Republicans have their front runner and are running a unified presidential campaign.
I wonder if John Edwards was trying to avoid this problem when he dropped out? Maybe he realized that running against two bull headed republicrats wasn't going to heal this country?
It was interesting to see while it was still being reported how many people were still voting for Edwards after he dropped out, which by the way, he did because his core reason for running was to be fulfilled by his running mates. When he dropped out of the race he got pledges from Obama and Clinton that they would both 'make ending poverty central to their campaign.'
Have you seen either of them doing that? No? Why do you expect then, that he would give either of them his endorsement.
Do you know what has been central to these campaigns? Screen time on cable news, talk of war with Iran and Iraq, ending 'terrorism', et al. Oh, did I mention screen time on WWE wrestling? What is this, a fucking circus? I thought we were running for president here.
So yeah, asking Edwards to jump off the fence so your republicrat candidate can get the 'edge' to ensure 4-8 more years of the same old? Give me a break.
by
three_sixteen (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments)
on Thursday, April 24, 2008 at 4:16:23 PM
Don't compare, in any light, Obama and MLK. Believe it or not, Martin Luther King III endorsed Edwards, and gave him this excellent letter to frame and put on his wall.
