« Edwards Speaks: But Who Listens? Edwards Endorses Obama
Judge rules for straight student friend of gays in freedom of expression case »



Edwards Endorses Obama And Rains On Clinton’s Parade

May 14th, 2008
By JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief


obama_edwards250x200.jpg

Former Democratic Senator John Edwards endorsed Senator Barack Obama for the party’s presidential nomination — giving Obama a long-sought-after endorsement that both he and rival Senator Hillary Clinton sought…and raining on Clinton’s post-West Virginia primary political parade.

It was a sign of just how quickly this see-saw political drama can change, with Clinton last night insisting she’s in it for a while and can win last night, pundits seemingly rethinking Obama’s strength as a candidate even if he got the votes to be nominated, and the conventional wisdom seemingly starting to veer a bit against Obama’s electability, even though some poll numbers put Obama ahead.

But the main significance is this: in his endorsement Edwards came on a day when Obama picked up some more Superdelegates and added to the impression that the party is now starting to come together around Obama, even though the Illinois Senator was clobbered by Clinton — and blue collar voters — in West Virginia yesterday.

Over the past week many pundits wondered why more Democratic superdelegates and party bigwigs haven’t come foward to endorse Obama — and this could mark the start of Obama’s parade. It’s big news that in media terms is overshadowing Clinton’s win and the loss Barack suffered among several demographic groups in West Virginia.

Clinton needed to get a message out that she is still viable. West Virginia got her the media spotlight. Obama needed to the message out that he is ahead and can unify the party to start the battle against presumptive GOP Senator John McCain. Edwards’ endorsement now got him the media spotlight, and shoved West Virginia (for now) down in the news story rank.

Just look at some of the media coverage. MSNBC (linked above):

Democrat John Edwards endorsed former rival Barack Obama on Wednesday, a move designed to help solidify support for the party’s likely presidential nominee even as Hillary Rodham Clinton refuses to give up her long-shot candidacy.

Edwards made a surprise appearance with Obama in Grand Rapids, Mich., as the Illinois senator campaigns in a critical general election battleground state.

The endorsement came a day after Clinton defeated Obama by more than 2-to-1 in the West Virginia primary. The loss highlighted Obama’s challenge in winning over the “Hillary Democrats” — white, working-class voters who also supported Edwards in significant numbers before he exited the race in late January.

Edwards made a point of praising Clinton:

Edwards, who received a thunderous ovation when Obama introduced him to a crowd of several thousand, said, “brothers and sisters, we must come together as Democrats” to defeat McCain. “We are here tonight because the Democratic voters have made their choice, and so have I.”

He said Obama “stands with me” in a fight to cut poverty in half within 10 years.

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.”

CNN reports that the GOP and Clinton camps were quick to respond to the endorsement:

After the announcement, Republican National Committee Chairman Robert Duncan released a statement asking, “why didn’t Edwards endorse sooner?”

“Edwards’ endorsement of a candidate he previously blasted as inexperienced, hypocritical and lacking substance will not help Obama with voters looking for real change,” he said.

Edwards dropped out of the Democratic race on January 30 after poor showings in the early contests.

He told NBC last week that Obama, the Democratic front-runner, is the party’s likely nominee. Both Obama and Clinton, had sought Edwards’ blessing.

Clinton campaign Chairman Terry McAuliffe said Wednesday that “we respect John Edwards, but as the voters of West Virginia showed last night, this thing is far from over.”

According to CNN’s latest estimates, Obama has 1,884 total delegates (pledged: 1,600, superdelegates: 284). Clinton has 1,718 total delegates (pledged: 1,445, superdelegates: 273).

Edwards, meanwhile, has 19 total pledged delegates who may or may not pledge their support for Obama at the Democratic National Committee’s August convention in Denver, Colorado.

Imagery matters in politics because it helps shape perceptions of momentum. Clinton is expected to win the upcoming Kentucky primary handily. Obama is expected to win Oregon handily. Will one of them come up short in this see-saw political drama?

So in 24 hours we’ve seen the “see.”

And now we’ve seen the “saw.”

What’s the next “see”?

[CORRECTION: We erroneously had “white collar workers” in this post. It has been fixed to “blue collar workers.” TMV regrets the error…JG]



This entry was posted on Wednesday, May 14th, 2008 at 4:31 pm and is filed under Primaries, Newsweek Blogitics, Conventions, Superdelegates, West Virginia, Democratic Party, Elections, Democrats, 2008 Elections, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Politics. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Viewing 9 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    Yeah, as I said in another post, I think this endorsement, unlike most, actually is significant due to the effect upon superdelegates. It's another encouragement for them to declare for Obama and end the contest. As for whether or not it will have any impact in November, it depends upon Edwards actions over the next few months. If he, and especially if he and Clinton, were to actively campaign for Obama in the fall in the swing states where they are stronger and he is weaker -- Ohio, PA -- then they can truly make a difference. Edwards won't have a huge impact, but if he can convince just 5-10% that Obama is better for them than McCain, then it can be enough to swing the state. If today's endorsement is the end of Edwards' activity on behalf of Obama, it will matter little.
    • ^
    • v
    It's a mighty big prize for those with stars in their eyes.
    • ^
    • v
    Pundits are forever stupid. The reason there was no rush of supers to Obama was twofold. One was to give Clinton some room and respect without making it look like they were pushing her out and the other was that Obama likes to rolls them out a little at a time. Not all at once.
    They know it but, they just cannot help reverting to permanent stupid.
    One reason Edwards decided to come out today was that the latest obsessive storyline of the press - pushing the fake story of Obama has problems with blue collar voters (nevermind that he is getting the same as Kerry and Gore- white guys) they were starting to do some damage to Obama and Edwards felt he needed to come out now and stop the damage by the press. There is a difference between a fake storyline and one that they harp on obsessively until it begins to do some real damage. And the press has done enough damage to Obama already over the past 2 months with their obsessions.
    • ^
    • v
    Appears to me who won the John Edwards lottery.

    Barak Obama promised John Edwards more then Hillary did and by a wide margin.

    Given the fact that John Edwards was spurned by John Kerry his former running mate from 2004 to endorse Barak Obama over John Edwards tells me that Barak Obama literally may have offered John Edwards something rather significant in the possible Obama presidency.

    Nothing wrong with this. That is after all. Politics. Problem is if the truth came out those who favor Obama would be aghast that their political messiah is nothing more then a:

    Politician.

    Say it ain't so Joe. Say it ain't so.
    • ^
    • v
    Barak Obama literally may have offered John Edwards something rather significant in the possible Obama presidency.

    I agree, in fact the endorsement seems a likely result of Hillary's campaign finance problems.

    She simply couldn't afford the jet skis.
    • ^
    • v
    "Obama literally may have offered John Edwards something rather significant in the possible Obama presidency. Nothing wrong with this. That is after all. Politics. Problem is if the truth came out those who favor Obama would be aghast that their political messiah is nothing more then a: Politician."

    Yup, this is politics but Obama has positions in his administration that he needs to fill. He's not going to give them to people who don't support him. Besides this is a fairly benign form of politics.

    A malignant form of politics is when a candidate (such as Bush) claims to be a compassionate conservative.... and it turns out he supports torture and takes away constitutional rights of US citizens. Or that Bush campaigned on a humble foreign policy and did not believe in nation building, but then turns around and invades countries that don't threaten us while ignoring the terrorists who are America's sworn enemies.

    So this is certainly politics, but not all politics are bad.

    So, what position do you think Obama offered to Edwards? I would say VP, and that would help Obama with his blue collar white male vote, but the way Edwards stood up for Hillary suggests that Edwards wants to stay in Hill's good graces, so perhaps she may be VP, which would mean that Edwards might be Attorney General... maybe?

    His Comedy Central video spoof- where he said he wants to be a spy, suggests he's interested in the CIA- as the Director. But I think he's was just having fun with the spy bit. And I think he would make an awesome AG.
    • ^
    • v
    Oh yeah, a moonbat trial lawyer specializing on defendants avoiding prosecution. I wonder how this clown would try to indict real criminals instead of the fake cases he tried as an ambulance chaser. Great AG alright!
    • ^
    • v
    Just to make sure I'm clear, no one has any evidence that anything was promised to Edwards by either candidate, but we've already figured out it's been done and what the likely position is? Just checking that I got this.
    • ^
    • v
    "[CORRECTION: We erroneously had “white collar workers” in this post. It has been fixed to “blue collar workers.” TMV regrets the error…JG]"

    Oh let me guess, you wanted to write "blue collar workers" but you were THINKING "uneducated whites" and it turned into the hybrid "white collar workers". After all, the new code is "urban=black" and "blue collar= white working class".

    (I should note that this isn't a criticism, just a thought based on the recent use of these new words)

Trackbacks

close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus

« Edwards Speaks: But Who Listens? Edwards Endorses Obama
Judge rules for straight student friend of gays in freedom of expression case »

By posting comments on The Moderate Voice you are acknowledging and agreeing to the following general comments policy:

(1) The Moderate Voice's comments are hosted by Disqus (http://disqus.com). If your comment doesn't appear immediately, please be patient since it is an off-site system.

(2) All e-mail received from readers by The Moderate Voice is considered intended for publication unless otherwise indicated in the initial message from the writer. Please do not send us attachments unless you contact us and we agree to it.

(3)The Moderate Voice reserves the right to edit all e-mail and posted comments for content, clarity, and length.

(4) Our comment space is reserved for comments that relate to a post's topic. You should not reprint lengthy text from your own works or those of others, including news articles. You MAY link to them.

(5) Comments that are abusive, offensive, contain profane or racist material or violate the terms of service for this blog's host provider will be removed and the author(s) banned from future comments. Such comments also violate the very SPIRIT of this site -- which was created to encourage thoughtful and vigorous discussion among readers who may share differing viewpoints.

(6) All points of view are welcome on The Moderate Voice, with the following exceptions:

(a) Comments posted several times a day with the intent of dominating, re-directing or hijacking the thread by turning a discussion into the equivalent of a bitter shouting match.

(b) Comments posted several times a day that insult or call other commenters or blog writers names or repeatedly make the same point with the effect of or clear intent to annoy other commenters or blog writers.

(7) Name-calling, personal attacks, racist comments or use of profanity by any commenter, whether they are by persons who agree or disagree with the views expressed by The Moderate Voice will NOT be tolerated and will result in the deletion of the comment and the banning of the commenter's ISP address, without notice. In some cases a comment may be deleted and the writer will be given another chance. Commenters who virtually ASK The Moderate Voice to ban them by ignoring any warnings or daring TMV to ban them will quickly get their wish.

(8) Anonymous commenters should identify themselves with the same moniker, so readers know their comments are coming from a single individual. If they don't, they are subject to a banning.

(9)If we have problems with inappropriate or inflammatory comments from a commenter who it turns out gave a fake email address that person is subject to immediate banning.

(10) Quotes from material appearing on The Moderate Voice with attribution are allowed. Reprints are allowed only by permission from The Moderate Voice. You may request permission by e-mail.

(11) The Moderate Voice is a personal site. It is not the Government. It is NOT aligned with any political party. It is NOT promoting any specific candidate for office. It is not a public institution or a media organization. It is not a neutral site. It is intended to express and disseminate the authors' varying points of views. Writers on this weblog WILL take positions. It reserves the right to limit comments to those that, in its view, comport with its stated comment policy. Comments that do not comply are subject to deletion and banning of the author's ISP.

Disclaimer:

--Reading and posting comments at The Moderate Voice constitutes acknowledgment of and agreement to the terms outlined in this comment policy. This comment policy may be revised in part or in full at any time.

--All comments must comport with applicable state and federal laws. The Moderate Voice has no obigation to monitor, edit, censor, or take responsibility for comments. It may or may not act upon a violation of its comment policy once a suspected violation has been brought to its attention. Therefore, commenters are solely responsible for the content of their comments and should ensure that that their comments are lawful and fall within the stated guidelines of both The Moderate Voice and its hosting company.

--The Moderate Voice is not be responsible for injury or liability to any reader or commenter resulting from its own communications or those of commenters, that may be offensive, misleading, inaccurate, illegal, or otherwise unsuitable in the view of the reader. Readers and commenters further agree to indemnify and hold harmless The Moderate Voice from claims resulting from the use of any material appearing on The Moderate Voice which damages the reader, commenter or any other party.

--The Moderate Voice is not responsible for and might disagree with material posted in the comments section. While we strive for accuracy in our posts and DO correct errors, material posted by The Moderate Voice in its posts -- or those left by others in the comments section -- may or may not be accurate.

Read and Post at your own risk.