Could 'Mr. Change' really endorse 'Ms. Status Quo'?

The folks over at ABC News have an online story up that delves into John Edwards' reluctance to endorse after pulling the plug on his own campaign ahead of the Super Tuesday primaries. And they say he is torn over a "heart-versus-head split" (fitting for Valentine's Day, no?).

The heart goes for Barack Obama, whose political rise essentially meant the end of Edwards' ambitions as the charismatic senator from Illinois adopted a populist message that echoed Edwards', wrapped it in the trappings of a movement and used it to build a massive grass-roots campaign -- leaving the telegenic Edwards in the dust.

The head goes for Hillary Clinton, which has to have a few people scratching their own. Edwards spent a lot of time and energy painting Clinton as part of the problem in Washington. For him to line up behind her now could be a tough sell, and probably raise questions about his own credibility. Particularly if part of the thinking involves which decision would carry the most political heft, as the ABC item says Edwards is contemplating.

It's one thing for a team player to back the party nominee once it's settled, but it's something entirely different to swallow an entire campaign approach and back a former rival as a function of cold calculation.

-- Scott Martelle

Photo credit: Jay L. Clendenin/Los Angeles Times

Comments

[Rick Barnes]

I find it amazing that there is all this talk of Obama haviing thee momentum. He has done very well and won in many small States. Clinton is winning the big States and dont forget she won in both Michigan and Florida. Those States if a campaign had been on would likely have been hers anyway.

Polls today show her with big leads in PA and OH. Is that a suprise to people? What has created the Obama momentum is the calendar. If Ohio and PA had voted on Super Tuesday or the week after, then we would all be talking about how Obama is trying to catch up.

They did not vote so we need news.

As to Sen Edwards. He will do what he thinks is best. He is not very relevant at this point.

[Chicago Tony]

Perhaps the LA Times should focus on demanding specifics from the two remaining candidates, rather than wasting time on second guessing Edwards based on third hand information from "aides" that spoke with another media outlet. Moreover, who could sincerely doubt that Edwards is in a tough spot.? Obama, the self-proclaimed candidate of "change" has not really given us any specifics on what exactly he would "change." This is not his fault. Neither Obama's supporters nor the media demand specifics from him. If you look at his record as an Illinois Senator and in Congress, there are several examples of items he neglected to "change." Even on the stump, he does not stand for universal health care but, rather, advocates an "idea" that, at best is little better than the current structure and, at worse, after the opponents to any health care reform nibble at it under the guise of compromise, will be exactly the same as the current structure. Does a non progressive position on health care not suggest a non progressive position on other economic justice issues? Further, put yourself in Edwards shoes. Obama assailed him in Iowa for "permitting" an outside union group to run positive ads in Iowa. Obama then turned around and "permitted" an outside union group to run negative ads in Nevada. This from the self-proclaimed agent of change. Next, you have the Antoin "Tony" Rezko situation. What kind of advocate of political change requests a sweetheart land deal from an entrenched political donor who (rightly or not) is largely believed to be corrupt? Finally, is it not fair for Edwards to wonder whether Obama has the maturity to handle the position of President? Did you watch the debates in Myrtle Beach before the South Carolina primary? Obama stated that he would have to see Bill Clinton on the dance floor before he could determine whether he was a real "brother." Sure, it's funny. But it is also somewhat of an undignified comment for a would-be world leader to make. Also, during that debate, Obama stated that he did not vote for caps on usurious credit card interest rates and, when called out on it, said he thought the caps proposed in the legislation were too high (so, now, there are now no caps at all). Yet he never proposed an amendment or follow up legislation to make the caps lower. Perhaps Edwards is also growing tired of the long orations by Barrack Obama that offer platitudes regarding change rather than solutions. Hillary is no dream boat. She is very much politics as usual when it comes to campaigning. She is also as ambiguous as Obama on ending the war in Iraq. But she does have a track record, better than Obama's, on actually fighting for controversial social justice issues - e.g., pushing for universal health care back when nobody but "liberals" thought it was a good idea (i.e., before business realized it will save them money on their insurance and make them more competitive and before many established insurers realized they would have more, not less, business because more people would be insured). But she is by no means a slam dunk, as evidenced by her lack of a vote (up or down) on the recent bill that will give telecommunications companies complete immunity for allowing the government to spy on customers. Obama voted against that bill (took a stand), Hillary didn't vote. Anybody in Edwards shoes would have a tough decision to make. Perhaps, if the media did its job and demanded specifics from these two candidates, rather than second guessing Edwards based on unverified, third-hand information published by ABC, Edwards would not feel as if he were in a pickle.

[Bookie]

Hillary = a "slam dunk" one way or another ... by hook or by crook. All this talk about winning states and such has to do with appearances and p.r. and such. It will look better for Hillary if the big states go along with her. But it probably will not matter for her nomination. She will get it and all will pay. Heaven help us all.

[Marks]

Rick Barnes had to work for the Hillary campaign sometime to say those those things.

Michigan and Florida delegates aren't counted and only will be if the DNC pays for those states to have caucus.

She leads in Ohio, because Gov Ted Strickland (D) is guaranteeing her a win. Everyone knows Ohio has voting problems. They did when former Governor Bob Taft (R) guaranteed a Bush Presidential win in 2004.

Staffing those voting places with partisan for Hillary workers under Governor's directives is easy. They were partisan for Bush in 2004 and machines went screwy for Bush.

In PA, his arrogance, Gov Ed Rendell (D) with an asinine take, some whites there won't vote for a black candidate and he used Lynn Swann (R), Hall of Fame Steeler and sports commetator as evidence, when Swann lost the governor's race to Rendell. He embarrasses voters in PA to serve his distorted point of view

Rendell can hire staffers at voting places, supporting Hillary to win by any means. They have to agree with Rendell or desperate to have that one day job.

If problems happen, recounting has to occur, some will have jobs for couple of weeks. There is an incentive by some workers to screw with voting machines means longer employment.

Obama will compete in Ohio and PA, will probably win! He will fill 18,000 seat Arena's with people screaming his name in those states.

Long as the delegate race stays close between Hillary and Obama, his crowds grow ever larger and louder!

Zogby must be doing the polling in Ohio and PA, beware their data!

SurveyUSA is doing better.

[Julie]

No one won Florida or Michigan -- she simply cheated the DNC by refusing to take her name off the ballot and still -- especially in Michigan over 40% went to UNCOMMITTED yes, nearly half coming out anyway to make it clear they want to vote for someone other than her in an election that counts.

[Valorie Kleiman]

I really Liked Bill Clinton, when he was president and I could not understand why people had such negative feelings about him. The Clintons appear to be very polorizing, and will stop at nothing to win. I've dropped my FOB membership, recently. They make me sick, they represent all that's ugly and dirty in politics.

[Rigo Partida Jr.]

Clearly we are headed in a new direction here in the United States with Obama. I have read the comments and beleive otherwise in regards to certain conditions of politics now. We have had what 20-30 years of presidents sur named either bush or Clinton. What has our country accomplished. I will tell you a sesaw political structure and a very bad economy. People who have very little education and income favor clinton mightily. Why is the question ? Is it because they see strength or because they are ill informed and see that her husband will be making some of her decisions for her. Wake up America the time for a new political change has come. We have been hearing about the baby boomers for so long it sickens most of us. It is time now for the new generation to take a hold of this country and steer it in a new directions for change and a better democracy. Edwards should make the right choice and endorse Obama. Hillary is clearly overmatched here. She crys everytime it gets tough. I do not think thisis what america needs an emotional rollercoaster of a person who might make a rash choice . KInd of like her ok to go to this war and spend millions of tax payers money and young american lives.!! Besides i think Edwards will the light. I am an educated Latino and I favor obama. Why because he is no nonsense. When other latinos ask me whom i want i am quick to let them understand that Hillary will be the president not Bill. That Obama is a representation of the American spirit and great melting pot. Most hispanic/latinos do not have a high education . I bet if they were able to have cable and or access to real information that pertains to them they would have easily votyed against Hillary. Showing that she was against driving licenses for everyone and showed signs of being a political yes person like most politicians they would have gone the other way. The reason they voted for her is that the spanish channel news did not focus on this. This is where most hispanics get thier information. They are also low income so most do not have cable to view the debates. Which hillary sees as a possitive rightfully so ,since her poor supporters do not get to listen to what she tells the rich. Hillary is just another politician and she is using her knowledge to make this more of a "hey its me Clinton" But what can one expect she is not supposed to know how to take a punch right. I support Barack Obama. It is time america embraced itself and accepted its diverse population and welcome the possibility of a multi ethnic person by breaking the biggest of them all glass ceillings the presidency. He has the answers To many problems. He was a grass roots person. A regular joe. Now let me see Hillary Clinton Silver spoons right? So who better to understand our desires then someone who went thru much of what we did. I hope edwards endorses him and he might lose in texas, we all know texans are not fond of anyone but themselves. But ohio I will predict goes to Obama as well as wisconsin. People in those states are highly educated and are also accepting of the Great american melting pot theory. One more thing Hillary won michigan and florida becasue the other candidates did not campaign there. I vote for caucuses in both those states sometime before the convention and I am sure hillary will not win those....PLus this is The USA the majority does not decide for the minority. It must be equally measured so a system of balance exist. So if California had like 1000 delegate to give would that be fair to all the other states with say 10 or even 100 ..NO ... The popular vote would clearly be a disadvantage to states that is why we have delegates and the one with the most won needs to be given the nomination not some inside super delegate...So Mr. edwards chosing Obama is using your head as well as your heart. Unless you want more of the Same old washed up politics that accomplish very little to continue in washington. thanks have a nice day :)

[ay bee]

I've been following this election thing for quite some time now. As an outsider (African) watching from the sidelines, I must admit, sometimes it bleeds my heart knowing that most Americans dont know what they want. The Republicans for the past 7 years have given you "AMERICANS" nothing but the middle 'finger' to everything starting with ending the war to building up the economy. And you guys have the nerve to put them back in there? hmmm how smart! On the other hand, I have nothing but love for the Clintons, but we have Hillary Clinton here that voted/supported the war without thinking twice about it implications, the impact, devastation and pain her decision will inflict on the nation. Contrary to her misinformed decision, Obama voted against the war from day one realizing the devastation this war, which was'nt suppose to be fought in the first place will bring to this country. This was a test of his ability as a natural leader with fore-sight vision to do the right thing. He definitely demonstrated good jugdement. In the midst of it all, I urge you sound-minded AMERICANS to vote for this man for the courage he has shown from day one. Therefore, in conclusion, I also urge you AMERICANS to take a good look at yourself in the mirror and ask yourself if living from paycheck to paycheck is fun. If your answer is NO, then go all the way for OBAMA. He is the only one that's capable of changing things around. Now that's where change should start. AND by the way EDWARDS is old news, I rather not talk about him. Bye! bye! from Africa.

[Denis DeFrange]

If Edwards indorses Clinton it will fracture the Dems big time and as an ex-Edwards supporter it will turn my oppinion of him around.