Edwards To Endorse Obama

by: Chris Bowers

Wed May 14, 2008 at 17:41


TPM Election Central reports that John Edwards will endorse Barack Obama at 6:30 p.m., eastern. This adds to Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson's Obama endorsements, making Obama 3-0 among endorsements of former competitors.

No word on whether this means Edwards will push his delegates to support Obama. However, it is hard to imagine that he won't, since what kind of endorsement would it be otherwise? Assuming Edwards pushes his delegates, then Obama will secure not only the current 19 Edwards delegates, but also the 13 prospective Edwards delegates from Florida and all 55 of the uncommitted prospective delegates from Michigan. In other words, Clinton would be shut out of all conceivable delegate option no matter how Michigan and Florida are seated, and Obama will reach the magic number according to all counts on June 3rd at the latest. As much as anything else could at this point, this endorsement really helps bring the nomination campaign to a quick and decisive conclusion.

Update: Also, in terms of the popular vote, which I will discuss in a slightly different way later tonight, this endorsement ends any question of legitimacy. According to every single popular vote count, neither Obama nor Clinton have majority support. Since 50% + 1 is required to win the nomination, according to the popular vote argument, technically speaking "the will of the people" is for the delegates to not choose a nominee on the first ballot at the convention. However, now that he enjoys the support of Edwards, Richardson and Dodd, Obama has enough backing to reach 50% + 1 in any popular vote calculation.

Update 2: Michigan Messenger is live-blogging the endorsement event.  
Chris Bowers :: Edwards To Endorse Obama

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Edwards To Endorse Obama | 44 comments
Any word on how active Edwards will be... (0.00 / 0)
in campaigning for Obama?  

Maybe he will press the flesh in Kentucky?

Cunha for Congress (FL-06)

P.S. I'm not a big fan of John McCain

I doubt it (4.00 / 2)
In fact, I don't think it would even be a good idea.  Edwards campaigning for Obama in a primary would imply the primary is still going on.  The goal is to end that impression, not support it.
[ Parent ]
Disagree... (4.00 / 1)
...the press wants this thing to go on... and Obama was playing nice with Hillary, letting her get a big win in WV uncontested, and she shoved a knife in his back as a response.  They still have to fight it.  Send Edwards down there full time...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!
[ Parent ]
Knives are not delegates (0.00 / 0)
  And the supers are smart enough to understand what Hillary's pulling.

 I've developed enough faith in Obama's ability to put together a game plan that includes every possible Hillary attack. He's needed it.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

[ Parent ]
Finally. N/t (4.00 / 1)


We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  
Declaring the winner (4.00 / 5)
Given the timing, I think this has more to do with Edwards declaring Obama the winner than endorsing him in the primary.  Yesterday was Clinton's last day of guaranteed good press, so this seems to be very good timing.
I agree (0.00 / 0)
I suspect that the reason Edwards didn't endorse sooner is that in the back of his mind, he somehow suspected that Clinton just might be able to pull it off, and he didn't want to be on the wrong end of things.  Not politically courageous of him, but he reached the right conclusion, so I'll credit him on that.  This is just one step closer to a peaceful conclusion to the primary season.
[ Parent ]
What turned him, I think.... (4.00 / 2)
...was Hillary's hard working white voters comment.  I think that legitimately pissed off edwards... hence, the endorsement.

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!
[ Parent ]
Yeah Sure (0.00 / 0)
Another win in a Southern state like Kentucky won't be noteworthy at all. Yeah sure.
[ Parent ]
As it doesn't change a thing it's not noteworthy. (4.00 / 1)

[ Parent ]
Well timed (4.00 / 9)
  Edwards' endorsement pours a nice bucket of ice-cold water on the Clinton campaign's desperate attempts to spin her predictable West Virginia blowout into some kind of game-changer.

 Edwards a key face card in the Democratic deck, and his appeal is exactly within the demographic where Obama is weakest. This helps at many levels.

  A pre-WV endorsement wouldn't have substantially changed the results, and would have resulted in a dismissal of his effectiveness. But by doing it now, he smothers any newfound media buzz about Clinton.

 

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

I hope he cleared this with Elizabeth first. (4.00 / 1)

Maybe (0.00 / 0)
watch Elizabeth endorse Clinton.

John Edwards sold out healthcare today that is for sure.

I will give him credit though - he never did give a reason for people to vote for Obama. He praised Clinton and then just ran off a list of Dem ideals that could apply to either one of them.

Frankly Edwards was already old news, and losing news at that. I don't think this endorsement is anymore that a one day news cycle.

I feel bad for Edwards given that he campaigned in Iowa for four straight years and ended up endorsing the newbie who beat him.

I hope John at least got his Jet Ski.

[ Parent ]
No way is this a one-day cycle (4.00 / 3)
The MSM hasn't even begun to get a handle on this. It's got too many interesting angles and unanswered questions.

This, in combo with the NARAL endorsement, is going to dominate until Tuesday night.

Watch for a big delegate (super and perhaps Edwards' pledged) net gain over the next couple of days.

Or dig deeper into denial, if that's still working for you.

One point of agreement -- I doubt Elizabeth is on board with this.

[ Parent ]
We will see (0.00 / 0)
Angles and unanswered questions? I said 'news' not chatter.

And some of that chatter won't be pretty will it given the nature of the corporate MSM.?

Denial? It is never over until it's over. It isn't over yet. When it is over the question will be if it is over for Obama one way or another?

Here we have a chance to take advantage of a pro-Dem electorate and define what Democrats stand for and build that brand for years to come which is Liberalism, and with Clinton she would do that.

Instead we might get a guy who never tries to brand Democrats because his DNA is in middle of the road post-partisanship triangulation. What a waste of an opportunity. Instead of progressive Liberalism the Democrats will become know for not being that much different that Republicans. We will just be confirming what people already think. What a waste of an opportunity.

[ Parent ]
asdf (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
"technically speaking" (0.00 / 0)
is a totally inappropriate phrase, since there is no such rule, whether technically, in spirit, or any other way.


New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.
video (0.00 / 0)
http://play.rbn.com/?url=apliv...

or go to nytimes.com and follow the link.

(requires realplayer)

"I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that."
-Lawrence Summers

I should add (0.00 / 0)
That's a live stream.  

"I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that."
-Lawrence Summers
[ Parent ]
Yeah, but not of much (4.00 / 1)
value unless he helps dispel the mistaken assumption perpetuated by the Clinton campaign that white, blue-collar workers reject Obama's candidacy.  Such an assertion is itself a masterful spin, and as such an untruth passed off as fact (something akin to: "if you say it enough times it becomes fact).

Long overdue, but welcomed.

have Edwards' pledged delegates been selected? (0.00 / 0)
if not, can Edwards just pick people who he knows will endorse Obama?

Does anyone know how this works?

Yes, most have (0.00 / 0)
been selected.  This excerpt from: http://www.realclearpolitics.c...
edwards_gives_long_awaited_endorsement_to_obama.html

"Edwards has 19 pledged delegates won in three states: Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. Most of the 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."

However, I wonder, like you do, if these delegates are like-minded enough to lean toward or endorse Obama.  This could potentially mean another 19 delegates in Obama's corner?

[ Parent ]
Try this link (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
Someone said there was an election in WV last night (4.00 / 3)
but I seem to have completely forgotten what that was about.

Looks like they had this lined up and waited to release it in classical form. The Obama campaign plays excellent chess.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

Absolutely right (0.00 / 0)
this was well played.
[ Parent ]
Election? What election? (0.00 / 0)
I think your retort captures the essence of the meaning of yesterday's primary.  Too little; too late; too biased.
[ Parent ]
Edwards (4.00 / 1)
I wouldn't be surprised if the Edwards endorsement was a done deal months ago, and the Obama campaign saved it for just this moment.  

I think a couple of writers are already at work on a book about this campaign, and I look forward to a good read.  The contrast between the smart new politics of the Obama campaign and the clueless Clinton effort could not be sharper.

More good news. (0.00 / 0)
Obama is now sporting a flag pin.
Obama/Edwards ticket? (4.00 / 3)
This is pretty appealing to me, actually, although I can see the arguments against it...  And it'd fulfill Edwards wish to finally (most likely) be the frontrunner for the nomination in 8 years.  What do others think?
three arguments (4.00 / 1)
(1) Edwards supported the Iraq War. But I'd rather have someone who slipped in the dark days of 90% Bush approval and has since become a progressive champion, rather than someone like Jim Webb who screwed up on the warrantless wiretapping issue with zero excuse.

(2) Edwards won't bring in key demographics because he didn't help Kerry win NC. But this ignores that Kerry outperformed Gore in no other southern state except for North Carolina. Also, Obama will run a 50 state strategy and has NC within striking distance. Kerry didn't pour any resources into NC at all. Add to that, Edwards has appeal to rural white working class voters, which have become Obama's (manufactured) Achilles heel.

(3) Edwards said he wouldn't accept. But how many times do people say "I wouldn't accept it" and then accept it?

To me there are only two arguments for whether someone would make a great VP candidate. One is if they're a good campaigner. Two is if they'd make a great president. Edwards has shown himself to be great for both.

[ Parent ]
Why wouldn't Edwards be the perfect running mate? (4.00 / 4)
He would be message-reinforcing (change, youth, outsideryness) and demographic-balancing (white, southern, Appalachian) all at once.
Been there, done that (4.00 / 1)
Edwards at VP doesn't exactly scream "SOMETHING NEW!"
[ Parent ]
Yeah, this is the typical answer... (0.00 / 0)
But it's really not that good of one... Most likely, no matter who Obama picks they're not going to be "new".

The question is, would Edwards be a good VP?  I think the answer is definitely yes to this.  Would he benefit the ticket... that is, perhaps, slightly more questionable, which is obviously I guess where the hangup is.

[ Parent ]
I'm biased (0.00 / 0)
I never liked John Edwards in the first place, never understood his appeal four years ago and thought he did nothing for Kerry, so I'm biased.  

I'd be up Elisabeth, though.  She has gone a long ways in helping me reach a solid neutral position on her husband.

[ Parent ]
Popular vote claim in Update 1 (0.00 / 0)
You say
However, now that he enjoys the support of Edwards, Richardson and Dodd, Obama has enough backing to reach 50% + 1 in any popular vote calculation.

This makes no sense to me.  While the popular vote is not a valid metric in the context of the election or one that can be accurately measured due to the caucus and MI problems that we have all discussed, I do not understand how endorsements by former candidates translates into "popular votes" for Sen. Obama.  To claim that a candidate somehow controls those who voted for them in this manner is beyond mystifying.  
No runoff (4.00 / 1)
Here is the logic:
  1. If delegates follow the "popular will," then no one will reach 50% + 1 at the convention.
  2. If no one reaches 50% + 1 at the convention, then other candidates will have some delegates.
  3. All of those other candidates have supported Obama, so he goes over the top.

Without a run-off in terms of actual voting, the endorsements become the only run-off available. It isn't pretty or perfect, but it is the only metric available to reach 50% +1.  

[ Parent ]
Simple Greater-Than (0.00 / 0)
The only argument that has any chance to fly is a direct head to head.  There is no 50%+1.
[ Parent ]
Your logic is flawed (0.00 / 0)
If Obama does reach the 50% + one pledged delegate on May 20, like predicted--and very likely, then your first argument goes right out the window.

It isn't difficult.  That means the majority of pledged delegates goes to Obama, and, unpledged delegates--if they follow the "will of the people" then a majority of unpledged delegates will also endorse Obama.  If a majority of pledged and unpledged delegates go to the same candidate, that candidate DOES get a majority off available delegates, pledged and unpledged.  That candidate wins the nomination.

[ Parent ]
Runoff? (4.00 / 1)
Chris:

Thanks for the response.  I guess I am just not following the logic here.  Clinton's attempted "popular vote" argument has been, "I got more people to vote for me than he did, so I can do better in the GE and the Super Delegates should put me over the top."  

Of course there are many problems with her argument, including what constitutes a vote and how one counts the "popular vote", that it boils down to nothing more than spin where some votes are counted and others are not or cannot be counted (due to inability to vote for Obama in MI or non-reporting by some caucus states and viability threshold issues in many caucus states).  

But, I don't think that they ever said that the delegates should mirror the results of the popular votes.  It seems that, as long as she has more raw votes (according to her definition), she has some viable claim to the S.D.'s.  In this calculation, I just don't think that endorsements matter.  

It is true, though, if the "delegates" that Edwards won go to Obama, that will further put her in the hole, but, I think we all know that she has no chance on a delegate argument.  

Just seems to me to be an apples and oranges type of comparison.  Though, I do wish the whole "popular vote" issue would go away.  

[ Parent ]
Great Timing, Great Location (0.00 / 0)
This is nice warm cup of STFU for Hillary. It's no coincidence this is being done the day after WV, and being done in MI.

I'm sure the folks over at Talkleft are contemplating ritual self-mutilation at this point.

Sorry, but after the shit Clinton has pulled this cycle, I'm not exactly in a forgiving mood.

Regarding popular vote (0.00 / 0)
It's important to think about the "worst case" scenario - always be prepared - the media will mention this, as in WV, Marc Ambinder had a post, just on the fact that small WV gave neary a 150K bump in pop vote totals, to Clinton.

The next three contests, could add what, to Clinton's totals?

West Virginia has a population of under 2 million - but still was able to give 150K votes to Clinton.

Puerto Rico is more than twice that size.  It is more than possible that PR could give 200-250K votes to Clinton.

Kentucky - population of 4 million as well.  I would say, that Kentucky could give 300K votes to Clinton.

That's a possible 550 voters, which puts Clinton ahead.

Oregon - 3.6 million voters.  (though I think more democrats). The margin will be closer, so figure that 50-100K votes for Obama.  

That would still be a very possible 450K vote increase for Clinton.

So, in your post, think about some of those numbers.  

I hope for much LESS of blowout in KY next Tuesday.  Hopefully, no more than 100K between the two states, for Clinton.  Be better if it is equal.


PR won't be so outsized (0.00 / 0)
Kentucky is likely to be a huge Clinton victory, nearly as much as WV was, but polling doesn't show Obama losing by 40 points there. Ten points is more likely, and polling has been rare enough there that it could be much closer.

Clinton could get close, perhaps even ahead, but then you get in to the morass of which states count and whether a proper count is actually possible, given the different sorts of contests and criteria for voters.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
The delegates don't give a shit about the popular vote. (0.00 / 0)
A lot of ink and pixels have been shed by pundits, HRC and her supporters, and worry warts like Chris about the popular vote but the delegates -- super and pledged alike -- don't appear to give two shits. If they did, HRC wouldn't be getting solidly thumped in the super delegate race.

Obama is in the process of getting more than enough super delegates to put him over the top, MI and FL included or not.


Chris, let's get to the issue of identity politics (0.00 / 0)
And discuss it.  You know Edwards' history of the unions, being from the poor, rising up to doing well, but also being an community activist for awhile.  I want to see another diary about the identity, meaning not just urban, gender, racial, etc politics, so this context of the endorsement is clearer here that overlaps with the Edwards endorsement.

Edwards To Endorse Obama | 44 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox