Top Leaderboard, Site wide
November 29, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Get Truthdig's headlines in your inbox!






The Chain


Truthdig Bazaar

Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention

By Manning Marable
$16.50

more items

 
Ear to the Ground

Edwards Said to Be Leaning Toward Clinton

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Feb 18, 2008
Obama and Edwards
drudgereport.com

Obama calls on Edwards in Chapel Hill, N.C.

Barack Obama flew down to the home of John and Elizabeth Edwards on Sunday for a secret meeting that didn’t stay secret for long. Both Obama and Hillary Clinton have courted their former rival’s endorsement, but the Associated Press reports that Edwards is leaning toward Clinton, in part because “Obama has been less attentive.”


AP via Google:

People close to the Edwardses, speaking privately, say they have been torn about whom to support. The former North Carolina senator is concerned that Obama may not be ready for the presidency and that his health care plan is inferior. But Edwards was highly critical of Clinton—her policies, her ties to special interests and her character—during his campaign, making it more difficult to support her now.

The couple has been impressed with Clinton, who has more effectively courted them since the 2004 vice presidential nominee dropped out, people who talk to the Edwardses say. Obama has been less attentive, they say, and some of those close to the Edwardses have been annoyed that Obama has continued to ridicule him for once saying his biggest weakness is that he has a powerful response to seeing pain in others.

Still, since Edwards has left the race, Obama often praises him in public. This week he told Wisconsin voters that Edwards will “be a major voice in the Democratic Party for years to come, and I want him involved and partnering with me in moving this country forward.”

Read more

More Below the Ad

Advertisement

Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By A. Historian, February 19, 2008 at 5:26 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I concur. 

I will lose all respect for Edwards if he endorses Hillary over Obama.

Report this

By waxman, February 18, 2008 at 9:07 pm Link to this comment

HOWS YOU NEW BABY CYRENA   ?? DOES HE HAVE BIG EARS ????

Report this

By cyrena, February 18, 2008 at 7:05 pm Link to this comment

Louise,

You took the thought right out of my mind.


•  “Everything else in this “report” is pure speculation.”

I re-read it, (the article of course, since it isn’t a ‘report’) and I could find nothing in it other than ‘speculation’, on how the Edwardses ‘feel’ about how much attention or non-attention they are ‘perceiving’ from Obama.

And when I got to this part, (the first read though), I was appalled.


“…and some of those close to the Edwardses have been annoyed that Obama has continued to ridicule him for once saying his biggest weakness is that he has a powerful response to seeing pain in others.”…

Ok…I never even knew that John Edwards had once stated this as his ‘biggest weakness’. That only would trouble me, if he viewed this as a personal weakness, as it most certainly is NOT a ‘weakness’ to have a powerful response to seeing pain in others. Rather…it is a strength in ANY leader, or ANY human being, to take seriously, the suffering of others. I’m very sorry, (if John Edwards did say this) that he would perceive it as a weakness. But, maybe he meant it in different terms.

What is of course equally AWFUL, is IF in fact, Obama has actually ‘ridiculed’ him for saying that. I have NOT heard him (Obama) do any such thing!! Now that doesn’t mean anything, since I don’t hear or read every word that Obama says. (Just like I didn’t hear Edwards make the statement either).

But, back to the whole gossipy tone of this writing; (speculation is the more diplomatic term) who SAID that Obama ridiculed him for making the statement, and how is it that he has allegedly “continued to do this?”

See what I mean? This kind of stuff sounds like the Hollywood Report, or the National Enquirer or something. Or is this some politically themed version of “All My Children” or “Days of Our Lives”?

This is annoying for the pure theatrics that it is. They do a better job on West Wing, and we KNOW that’s just a TV script.

Geeze…

Report this

By w000t, February 18, 2008 at 2:33 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

If this proves to be true and Edwards endorses Clinton even in part because she kissed his ass more, then I for one am relieved he didn’t do any better in the primaries. One of many changes needed in American politics is a move away from that kind of egotism.

Report this

By rbrooks, February 18, 2008 at 1:29 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

To John Edwards -
As a supporter and admirer, I’m gritting my teeth at the volley of reports that you will endorse Hillary Clinton.
I just wanted to note, with all respect and good humor, that Molly Ivins weighed in on Hillary in a broadside only Molly could deliver. We can only imagine what she would say now, but here she is in 2006:
http://freepress.org/columns/display/1/2006/1304
I think she would share your concerns about Obama but I believe she would go along with Gary Hart:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-hart/politics-as-transcendence_b_86490.html
Please endorse Obama. Whatever your concerns with him, he does not represent, as the Clintons do, business as usual; and, for what it’s worth, one of the most embarrassing campaigns in recent Democratic history.
For our children, for our grandchildren - we have to try something else.

Report this

By AgathaX, February 18, 2008 at 10:13 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

So Obama is not willing to stoop to Hillary’s pandering depths?  And this is a bad thing how?

I know Hillary’s been stroking the ego, John, but do not imagine for a second that folks who supported you are as impressed by that as you are.  You couldn’t sell yourself or Kerry; you sure most assuredly cannot sell Hillary.

Go with the guy that treats you like a man and not with the desperate diva willing to tell you whatever you want to hear.

Report this

By Jeanine Molloff, February 18, 2008 at 9:49 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This contest should run down to the wire.  The longer and harder these two have to fight in their quest for the nomination; the better for the people.  Support either one at this point and they have no incentive to speak of issues other than the moronic fluff in the mainstream, I mean corporate media.  Don’t support either one UNTIL they come closer to the solutions WE WANT.  Remember, NEITHER ONE was speaking about pulling out combat troops before 2013; UNTIL THE DEMOCRACY SOUND MACHINE STARTED ISSUING VERY POINTED ULTIMATUMS.  THESE ‘CANDIDATES’ ARE BOTH CORPORATE TO THE HILT.  THEY HAVE NO INTENTION OF SERVING THE PEOPLE, UNLESS IT BEHOOVES THEIR CORPORATE BOSSES.  THE ONLY WEDGE WE HAVE IS THE TEASER VOTE.  TEASE ONE CANDIDATE, BUT FLIRT WITH THE OTHER TO SEE WHO ‘IMPROVES THE DEAL.’ SORRY FOLKS THAT’S HOW THE POLITICAL GAME IS PLAYED.  THESE ARE NOT NICE PEOPLE WITH A CONSCIENCE.  THEY ARE CORPORATE SHILLS, BIG EGOS AND ALL.  NEVER TAKE THE FIRST DEAL PUT ON THE TABLE.  IT’S A SUCKER DEAL.  LEARN TO THINK LIKE A SHREWD NEGOTIATOR AND YOU’LL GET MORE EFFECTIVE RESULTS.

Report this

By Maani, February 18, 2008 at 9:33 am Link to this comment

Louise:

“Speaking of which, I hope this contest runs right down to the wire. The longer we can keep Obama and Clinton in front of the voters, the longer we keep the issues that are hurting repubs as much as dems in the spotlight. And since both candidates have similar positions on those issues, that’s a good thing.  Of course there are those who say this gives McCain time to refine and improve his technique, but it also delays a clear definition of attack for the repubs.”

I completely agree with this.  I have never agreed with those who say that “dragging” the nomination on until the last moment is necessarily a “bad” thing, for the reasons you cite: it keeps the definition of the “issues” clear b/w the Dems and GOP, and keeps the GOP guessing as to which “attack plan” they will need to use (yet allows the Dems MORE time to formulate THEIR much clearer “attack plan”).

Meanwhile, McCain gets to keep shooting himself in the foot, or putting that foot in his mouth.

Good call on your part.

Peace.

Report this

By click212, February 18, 2008 at 9:23 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Thank God Edward hasn’t drunk the hysteria Kool-Aid. Maybe reason will win after all.

Obama full of sound and fuzzy, signifying nothing. Hillary is definately the more qualified and substantive candidate. Obama ring master of the dog and pony show.

Report this

By Louise, February 18, 2008 at 8:49 am Link to this comment

Hold on a minute. Did Edwards say he was going with Clinton, or did people close to him say he was going with Clinton?

Folks, you have to read more than the headline ...

***

“People close to the Edwards’s, speaking privately, say they have been torn about whom to support. The former North Carolina senator is concerned that Obama may not be ready for the presidency and that his health care plan is inferior. But Edwards was highly critical of Clinton — her policies, her ties to special interests and her character — during his campaign, making it more difficult to support her now.”

[So is the “they” the Edwards, or the people close to them?]

“The couple has been impressed with Clinton, who has more effectively courted them since the 2004 vice presidential nominee dropped out, people who talk to the Edwards’s say. Obama has been less attentive, they say, and some of those close to the Edwards’s have been annoyed that Obama has continued to ridicule him for once saying his biggest weakness is that he has a powerful response to seeing pain in others.”

[In other words, people close to them feel Clinton has more effectively courted him, while Obama has been less attentive. So, is that hearsay, gossip, or just a few observers opinions?]

“Still, since Edwards has left the race, Obama often praises him in public. This week he told Wisconsin voters that Edwards will “be a major voice in the Democratic party for years to come, and I want him involved and partnering with me in moving this country forward.”

[Hmmm ... is that a bid from Obama for Edwards to hold an important position in his Cabinet?]

“None of the other former Democratic presidential candidates — Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, Bill Richardson or Dennis Kucinich — have endorsed Obama or Clinton, reflecting the party’s split over who would be the best president.”

***

Speaking of which, I hope this contest runs right down to the wire. The longer we can keep Obama and Clinton in front of the voters, the longer we keep the issues that are hurting repubs as much as dems in the spotlight. And since both candidates have similar positions on those issues, that’s a good thing.

Of course there are those who say this gives McCain time to refine and improve his technique, but it also delays a clear definition of attack for the repubs. Besides, McCain can barely raise his voice now. I don’t anticipate he will suddenly become a fire-brand after the dem convention. And not being sure who the candidate is means he has to prepare two strategies. At what point in time will he slip and overlap?

Meanwhile, this is a non-story, other than having a video of Obama leaving the Edwards home, acquired because of a “tip-off” that he was there. And the report that Obama was there to “... discuss the state of the campaign and the pressing issues facing American families.” Everything else in this “report” is pure speculation. 

However I did just hear a news report that said, “Obama was asking Edwards to help him define the issues most important to Middle America.” But that too is too non-specific to be little more than media speculation.

Report this

By dimaggio5, February 18, 2008 at 8:43 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

John, aren’t you the same guy who said “if you want
the status quo, vote for Hillary…”
Yeah, she’ll really bring the country together!

Report this

By Aegrus, February 18, 2008 at 8:42 am Link to this comment

Call it sour grapes if you like. Hillary Clinton was the clear opposition candidate to the campaign John Edwards was running. Endorsing her would be completely out of place.

Report this

By bert, February 18, 2008 at 8:41 am Link to this comment

John Edwards was my first choice for president. Well, second, after Russ Feingold. But he decided not to run.

Should this rumor prove true and it does not match your expectations, don’t be too quick to condemn. And don’t be too quick to say you will never support Edwards again.

It is best not to burn your bridges behind you nor name call becasue the person you oppose today on a particular political issue may be the person you have to work and whose position you support tomorrow.

Politics makes strange bed fellows.

Good example - I strongly oppose John McCain for President and stand in opposition to most of his positions. Yet we both are opposed to the use of torture and I support him on that position.

In brief what I am trying to say is disagree with positions and issues. But don’t attack the man. You never know when Edwards could well be your ally again.

Report this

By Maani, February 18, 2008 at 7:43 am Link to this comment

Wow!  how typical!  Now that something turns AGAINST all of the Hillary-bashers, it’s time to bash the person responsible - the formerly highly respected Edwards!

It apparently hasn’t occurred to any of you that maybe Edwards knows more than ALL of you with regard to Hillary and Obama (having known them both for quite a while and having campaigned alongside them for over a year), and is able to see the “big picture” and see that, DESPITE Hillary’s lobby and PAC money, she is the BETTER CANDIDATE OVERALL for “getting the job done” on the issues.

Boy, what a bunch of “sour grapes” comments!

Peace.

Report this

By Aegrus, February 18, 2008 at 6:59 am Link to this comment

How disgusting. If this rumor becomes true, there will be some serious question regarding his anti-corporate stance. Yeah, everyone has some small portion of corporate money in their pocket, but Hillary is the only candidate who has defended taking lobbyist and PAC cash.

Johnny boy, if you want to abandon your constituency and embolden a dying candidate with a pitiful campaign, don’t ever run for office again because I won’t be fencing your double-talk.

Report this

By M. Martin, February 18, 2008 at 6:50 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

John Edwards accrued a lot of respect by leaving the race when he did and how he did—on a high notes, respectful of his followers, respectful of the process, and respectful of the message he had adopted in the course of the campaign.

Endorsing Clinton would throw all of that out the window.  There is simply no way that such an endorsement would not be seen as a disavowal of the core message of his candidacy and a piece of rank political opportunism.

I have NO doubt but that Hillary has been a damn’ site “more attentive” than Obama has.  After eight straight losses, her campaign needs all the help it can get.  I’m sure she’s making some big promises, up to and including a spot on the ticket.

I’m equally sure that Clinton/Edwards would lose in the general election just as decisively as Clinton/anybody.  Edwards would once again be seen as a pandering ambulance chaser with no core principles.  Clinton would be confirmed as someone who (in the words of a recent radio ad) “will say anything….and change nothing…”  Both independents and progressives would dessert the democratic party in disgust—the former to stay home, the latter to either do likewise….or hold their noses and vote for McCain.

Report this

By Ray II, February 18, 2008 at 5:53 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I like John Edwards…in a little experiment I did way back when the campaign first got going, his was the only campaign that responded to an email I sent to all the then announced candidates, both Dem and GOP, by honoring my request for a bumper sticker that didn’t ask for money to support his campaign.  That was impressive to me and I was supporting him for the first half of the primary season.  But…if Edwards now supports Hillary after all the debates language he used to show her connections to corporate entities…I will lose all respect for him.

Report this

By jackpine savage, February 18, 2008 at 5:18 am Link to this comment

Is it all about the attention, John?  If that’s the case, maybe you should have stayed in the race…

Report this

By nathaniel, February 18, 2008 at 5:07 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Edwards says he is against corporate interests in Washington, but he’s going to go with Hillary, the candidate who has taken more lobby money than virtually every politician in government (even tho Obama took no lobby money), because she gave him more cookies than Obama did?

Ridiculous.

“Weh! Pay more attention to me! Weh!” - John Edwards

Report this
 
Monsters of Our Own Creation? Get tickets for this Truthdig discussion of America's role in the Middle East.
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook