Edwards Speaks: But Who Listens? Edwards Endorses Obama
May 14th, 2008 | 7 responses
Today John Edwards is endorsing former competitor Barack Obama…
It is a late endorsement, given when the horses are already in the home stretch, and one horse is the stronger runner long distance, but the other horse has more than a neck and neck lead, and also appears to be running on the inside track next to the rail.
Clinton won over Obama by more than 2 votes to 1 in West Virginia. And it is said that so-called “white, working-class voters” also supported Edwards before he dropped out of the nomination race.
Edwards’ endorsement could be seen as an effort to bolster that group and to perhaps draw them to Obama now.
Senator Edwards, dropped out of the nomination race after three months of hoofs to the track hard running.
The AP reports:(writers Nedra Pickler and Stephen Ohlemacher in Washington, Gary D. Robertson in Raleigh, N.C., contributed…)
A person close to Edwards, speaking on condition of anonymity, said he [Edwards] wanted to get involved now to begin unifying the party. Obama also signed on to Edwards’ anti-poverty initiative, which he launched Tuesday with the goal of reducing poverty in the United States by half within 10 years.
David “Mudcat” Saunders, a chief adviser for Edwards on rural affairs during his presidential campaign, said the timing of the endorsement couldn’t be better given Obama’s resounding loss in West Virginia on Tuesday.
“For Barack Obama, I think he ought to kiss Johnny Edwards on the lips to kill this 41-point loss,” he added. “The story is not going to be the 41-point loss. It’s going to be Edwards’ endorsement.”
Maybe.
But there are other overt and covert considerations to evaluate… even though most of the big news media has decided today to frame this news as being about Obama only, rather than seeing that it may also massively stimulate his opponent to more determined than ever. Among those considerations to weigh might be these:
If the endorsement is meant to show solidarity by one party member toward one of the candidates, that is a fait acoompli. Unifying the party at this point is likely premature. Unifying isnt done by one person saying ‘unify now.’ It is a far more many layered process that includes more meeting and greeting with many groups and people. That would be later. Not now.
Also, Edwards may be looking to see if there might be a place as VP should Obama be the Democratic candidate. Edwards was John Kerry’s VP pick in the 2004 election, which was lost to George Bush and Dick Cheney.
Certainly Edwards holds to liberal ideals, and/ but endorsements dont mean what they once did. Many ho-hum over endorsements and go ahead and vote as they saw, see, and still see fit. John Edwards can endorse Obama or the moon, and it wont change the mind of those with dedicated circuitry otherwise. Not Dems, not Repubs, not Indies.
BUT:
–Obama has a total of 1,887 delegates, needing only 139 delegates short of the 2,026 required to ‘winner take all.’
–Clinton has 1,718 delegates, according to the latest tally by AP, 308 short of the 2,026 required for “winner take all.”
AND:
this is the crucial part:
Edwards has 19 pledged delegates he won in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. According to AP, most of those delegates have already been selected, meaning they are technically free to support whomever they choose at the party’s national convention, regardless of Edwards’ endorsement.
THAT, I think, is the meat of this news, as well as its possible momentum.
And though most voters with their own ideas about who they’ll vote for, may not care who Edwards endorses… you-know-who is surely listening and strategizing about those ‘freed up’ superdelegate votes….
It may be a show-down at the OK corral at the Democratic Convention in Denver, after all.
As I wrote at TMV yesterday, contenders who are given a win by default are one kind of winner. And, winners who take it to the absolute lung-busting last moment, are an entirely different kind of winner altogether.
What will come now in terms of each candidate’s strategies, is anyone’s guess.
____________
see Tully’s take at blog “Stubborn Facts,” re endorsers/superdelegators positioning themselves in order to reap the bounty for themselves and their interests for the next four years, here.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
7 Responses to “Edwards Speaks: But Who Listens? Edwards Endorses Obama”
Well, technically they could vote for whomever they wished anyway. There is no legal obligation for a “pledged” delegate to vote for the candidate they're pledged to, though any candidate can remove any of “their” delegates they feel might be disloyal and vote for someone else.
I look at the bigger picture with the excited Demmie voters: Now it's Gore's turn!
(Save it for the convention! That'll drive the TV ad revenues to all-new heights.)
dear tully, thanks for that point. Does it ever seem like this part of our electoral process has its own strange underlying agenda? It reminds me a little of Aristotle's golden mean…. only some are considered fit to rule/ vote (be superdelegates), not all (common voters). (Aristotle wdnt say, I don't think, 'any child can grow up to be president,' either)
This idea of super-labile superdelegates. I keep thinking maybe we need super-super-ultra-super delegates who aren't quite so maybe-I-will and maybe-I-won'tish (technical term)
dr.e
dear DLS, This that you left at the other post, “It's a mighty big prize for those with stars in their eyes.” That's poignant too.
Gore, Bloomberg, that really does seem like fantasyland thinking, I'd agree. The LIbertarian Nat Convention is here weekend after next. I hope to go. I hear Bob Barr is going to try hard. I also hear distant thunder ref Murtha, but havent heard on that for a long time.
I just wonder, if we all were gamblers (re this dem nominee process), if we'd win big at the blackjack tables by placing our bets and knowing when to hold…. or if we'd be out on the sidewalk wearing barrels. lol
dr.e
You're welcome, archangel. What, an underlying agenda? Say it ain't so!
Seriously, the nomination is only one ring of the election-year circus, even though it's usually the only one anyone pays any attention to.
dear Tully, that part about endorsers/superdelegators positioning themselves now in order to 'be in the right place at the right time' for the next four years to reap the bounty for themselves and their interests, is so important for people to be watching.
I moved the link you noted in your comment (to your article from your blog) up into the body of my article above so it can be more readily seen. Very cohesive. Thank you.
dr.e
You're welcome, again. People get so focused on the one ring of the circus they never notice all the other rings. And the ringmasters like it that way! But the other action is very very real.
Every four years the parties have their own internal re-alignment struggles, and those in turn have profound effects on how the national parties exercise their power over their members in office, and what they aim for in their national agendas both overt and covert. We tend to think of the parties as monoliths, but they're really coalitions of thousands of smaller state and county parties and special interest groups (and their subdivisions) all with their own competing agendas, all fighting for power and position within the national parties to advance their own interests and agendas through the aggregated political influence of the national parties.
Once someone understands that, things like the Florida and Michigan flap gain crucial context and aren't nearly so puzzling.