Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Edwards's Departure & A New Democratic Race

Former senator John Edwards (N.C.) ended his bid for the presidency today in New Orleans, bringing to a close a five-year quest for the nation's highest office.

John Edwards
Former Sen. John Edwards is ending is campaign for the White House. (AP)

Edwards was joined by his wife, Elizabeth, as well as his three children on stage. He took part in a Habitat for Humanity event following the announcement.

Edwards did not endorse either Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) or Barack Obama (Ill.) today and has no plans to weigh in for either candidate in the immediate future, according to aides.

"It's time for me to step aside so that history can blaze its path," Edwards said to a small crowd of supporters and reporters.

Edwards spoke in person to both Obama and Clinton yesterday and informed both candidates he was considering leaving the race. Sources familiar with those conversations insist Edwards did not asked for any sort of quid pro quo in exchange for an endorsement but rather asked Clinton and Obama to promise him to keep the focus on the issue of poverty as the campaign moved forward.

Today Edwards said that the two remaining frontrunners "both pledged to me and through me to America that they will make ending poverty central to their campaign for the presidency."

In a statement released this morning, Obama praised Edwards for shining a light on the issue of poverty and serving as a voice for the middle class in the campaign.

"While his campaign may end today, the cause of their lives endures for all of us who still believe that we can achieve that dream of one America," Obama said of Edwards and his wife, Elizabeth.

Clinton echoed those sentiments: "John Edwards ended his campaign today in the same way he started it -- by standing with the people who are too often left behind and nearly always left out of our national debate."

For Edwards, the decision to leave the race marks a significant reversal. Despite poorer-than-expected performances in Nevada's caucuses and South Carolina's primary, Edwards had pledged to remain in the race through the convention. His senior campaign strategists believed that if the former North Carolina Senator continued to accrue delegates through Super Tuesday and beyond, he would be in a position to directly influence the identity of the nominee.

Edwards struggled from the start to disrupt the dynamic of a two person race between Clinton and Obama. A win in Iowa's caucuses might have done the trick but Edwards came in second -- well behind Obama and slightly ahead of Clinton. In New Hampshire, Edwards attacked Clinton as a defender of the status quo and tried to cast the race as a choice between two change candidates: himself and Obama. But, New Hampshire voters disagreed, handing Clinton a stunning win and relegating Edwards to third place. The die was cast. Edwards received a dismal four percent in Nevada and, in his home state of South Carolina, ran a distant third last weekend.

Less than 48 hours ago, his campaign announced a new advertising effort in 10 states set to vote on Feb. 5 and reiterated their insistence that he was in the race to stay.

"This thing is going for a long time," deputy campaign manager Jonathan Prince predicted at the time.

In the end, it was not so. The campaign was loath to discuss the reasoning behind Edwards' decision before he formally made it, but the long odds of actually winning the nomination must have played a significant role in making up Edwards' mind. Edwards has also been at this game since at least 2003 -- ending up as the vice presidential nominee after a stronger than expected showing in the 2004 primary process and announcing his second run for the presidency in late 2006 from the same place he will end his race today: New Orleans.

With Edwards out of the race, the Democratic fight becomes a true two-person affair with Obama and Clinton battling one another for delegates on Super Tuesday and, in all likelihood, beyond. As we wrote earlier this week, Edwards' Super Tuesday strategy of focusing on states in the South and with significant rural populations seemed to make Obama's path rather than Clinton's more difficult over the coming weeks.

Edwards' departure also throws open the debate over whether his supporters will flock to Obama or Clinton.

Opinions differed in the moments after the decision became public.

Charlie Cook, a political analyst and publisher of the Cook Political Report, said that the racial divisions apparent in early votes could impact where Edwards' supporters ultimately wind up.

"While one can plausibly argue that Edwards withdrawal may unite the anti-Clinton vote, one can also argue that Edwards overwhelmingly white block of supporters come loose and might behave much as other white Democrats have done in the contests after Iowa, not vote for Obama," Cook said. "I don't know which of those arguments will prevail."

Carter Eskew, a senior Democratic strategist unaffiliated in this contest, offered a contrary opinion. He argued that "on balance" Edwards' departure will help Obama more than Clinton. "The Edwards voter profile is closer to her voters, but if they weren't for her before, not sure they will switch now," he said.

Exit polling conducted yesterday in Florida suggests that Edwards supporters are equally inclined to back Obama and Clinton. Forty seven percent of Edwards backers in Florida said they would be "satisfied" with Clinton as the nominee with 13 percent saying they would be "very satisfied". A similar 47 percent said they would be "satisfied" with Obama as the party's standard bearer with 19 percent saying they would be "very satisfied". Those trends were affirmed by exit poll data from South Carolina's primary on Jan. 26 as more than six in 10 Edwards supporters said they would be satisfied with either Clinton or Obama as the nominee.

By Chris Cillizza  |  January 30, 2008; 1:38 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Florida: First Thoughts on McCain, Clinton Wins
Next: Winners and Losers: Florida Primary Edition


At a recnet debate, a reporter asked Hillary about the dislike between the Latino and Black populations and she answered back "that's Historic", but what she did not Say or try to Do is try to bridge the divide by stating something like "yes, that is too bad" or "and we will try to work on bridging the differences." NO! It is to her advantage to pit one group against the other for her own personal gain. She is no change agent and she is no Real champion for unity. Maureen Dowd's new op-ed piece gives an insightful glance into the real Hillary. That it was her in the beginning who Snubbed Barack and not the otherway around. She is one way for the cameras and another way when no one is apparently looking. A reporter asked her if she thought she was snubbed by Barack Obama and instead of trying to defuse the situation (like Barack would have for unity's sake) she commented on how she put her hand out and is still waiting. That was such spin and such a divisive remark. However, I do think the facade is coming off.

Posted by: wdsoulplane | January 31, 2008 5:54 AM | Report abuse

Obama is the one that could never win a general elction .If he was elected to run against the GOP they would just do what they hve done in every election , and that is play the fear factor in saying that Obama has no experien when it comes to National defense ( which is true ). They would scare most independent voters in voting for them and you would see another 4 years of GOP in the white house

Posted by: FritzieGr | January 31, 2008 12:50 AM | Report abuse

For what little its worth I'm glad to see so many other people are disappointed Edwards is out of the race. With all the focus on Obama/Clinton, it was easy to forget that had he not had to go up against two historical candidates, his chances would have been much better. I like both Barack and Hillary a great deal, but Edwards insistence on pro-poor, pro-union, and pro-piece ideas are going to be difficult to completely replace. My hope is that he will become Secretary of Labor and help turn it around for the working men and women out there.

Posted by: StrayCatSeventeen | January 30, 2008 6:35 PM | Report abuse

People people People...I cannot believe all of the folks ..Edwards supporters to be sure...who wonder at Edwards dropping out before super Tuesday. Look y'all...he is a world class opportunist. It is pretty clear he would have been under the 15% threshold in most if not all of the super Tuesday contests and received no delegates. He has really struck a wrong chord with Americans given his divisisve, shallow, opportunistic, manipulative rhetoric. And he is very unpoplular in the south, NC and SC in particular. I'm in NC and he couldn't win dog catcher. I feel some sympathy for those counting on Edwards to bring meaning to their lives. Hire a lawyer and sue somebody for no reason and maybe you'll feel better. Or get a life. This is a happy day for the USA!

Posted by: GGGF55 | January 30, 2008 6:16 PM | Report abuse

Edwards' chief issue, poverty, is a phoney issue. The only Americans who are poor are those unwilling to work. The voters saw Edwards' populism for what it was: self-indulgence and fraud.

Posted by: ravitchn | January 30, 2008 5:34 PM | Report abuse

Claudia - how do Jews feel about Obama?

Posted by: jimoneill50 | January 30, 2008 5:19 PM | Report abuse

"Since Iowa Obama has not done well with the white vote, last night he did worse than he did in SC, 23% to his 25% in SC.

The whites who went to Edwards are going to hold their breath and vote for Hillary.

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | January 30, 2008 04:14 PM

you racists show your face. Keep it up. Racism is really helping hillary. Your doing great. Hows the weather in la-la land

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 30, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Why does Charlie Cook keep pounding the race drum? Frankly, he has become part of the problem. Reporters defer to his political judgments because of his years of experience and admittedly impressive ability to spout off on any Congressional race with merely the district number as a prompt. However, his analysis is stuck in the the cynical mindset of the '80s, '90s and early '00s and is rooted in a arrogant disdain for the voters.

Posted by: jonathanmstevens | January 30, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

'My fellow democrats, ask yourself this: Can you support in good conscience a candidate, HRC, who wants to change the delegate selection rules (FLA. & Mich.) in the middle of the game? I can't. That's the way Republicans do business. Has anyone thought thru the consequences of seating the FLA. and Mich. delegations and what would happen if that decided the nomination?

John, end this maddness. Endorse OBAMA. Do it now while your voice will still be heard and make a difference.'

Posted by: m_tommy | January 30, 2008 03:26 PM

Man you Obamaheads crack me up. First of all the seating of FL and MI delegats would not happen until either HRC or BHO get the nomination. They also both endorsed doing so, Obama did it last year at a fundraiser in FL. Both canidates have been doing fundraising there, the deal was not to campaign there. The one who broke that promise was Obama, by running his ads on cable which were broadcasted last week all over the country.

I wish you people who back him would look at the numbers but that would take both thinking and some work, you'd all rather have 'hope' and sing kumbaya. Since Iowa Obama has not done well with the white vote, last night he did worse than he did in SC, 23% to his 25% in SC.

The whites who went to Edwards are going to hold their breath and vote for Hillary.

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | January 30, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

I am surprised. I thought he would continue at least through Tuesday. Perhaps there are personal reasons.

All three of the top Democratic contenders are center left so I think Edwards' supporters are up for grabs. I think someone would be wrong to see votes for Obama and Edwards as "anti-Hillary" votes, therefore Obama claims most of them.

It will be interesting to hear what kind of tune we are singing next Wednesday.

Posted by: AlaninMissoula | January 30, 2008 4:12 PM | Report abuse

All the best to the Edwards family.

Posted by: lylepink | January 30, 2008 4:10 PM | Report abuse

just adding my vote for edwards as attorney general (preferably in the obama administration, of course).

he could raise hell, and he'd do more with the job than he could as VP.

i also feel for the guy -- something was missing, but i don't know what. but i have nothing but respect for him and elizabeth.

Posted by: news.briefings | January 30, 2008 3:27 PM | Report abuse

I've been an Edwards supporter since his announcement, or actually 2004. With his loss in Iowa and NH, I moved to the Obama camp out of necessity. The writing was on the wall.

My fellow democrats, ask yourself this: Can you support in good conscience a candidate, HRC, who wants to change the delegate selection rules (FLA. & Mich.) in the middle of the game? I can't. That's the way Republicans do business. Has anyone thought thru the consequences of seating the FLA. and Mich. delegations and what would happen if that decided the nomination?

John, end this maddness. Endorse OBAMA. Do it now while your voice will still be heard and make a difference.

Posted by: m_tommy | January 30, 2008 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Edwards supporters need to throw their support to Obama. Can you imagine an Obama vs. McCain race. Obama is 46 McCain is 71, it will be a race about the past vs. the future. Democrats will get a coalition of the young, the middle aged and yes even the old. Many old people are very forward looking and they want to hand the country over to the next generation. Obama will be that next generation against a McCain. If Hillary is the nominee McCain will crush her in a landslide, independents and the old voting block will flock to him. Hillary they know is divisive and they don't want another four years of a divide America. I hope democrats make the wise choice of looking forward and not backwards.

Posted by: lumi21us | January 30, 2008 3:22 PM | Report abuse

'1] I do not know anybody who ever was for DK.'

--he had quite a few fans in NY, mark. where i live is an old aritists/boho community, altho very upscale now, very 'social justice/activist place.

also, strangely, as I said, kucinch seemed to have had a lot of fans in the catskills, which is something like half radical rightwing/militia and half vacation homers and artists. ron paul big up there too, of course.

'2] Are you telling me there are some physicians in your congregation who like HRC?'

absolutely... again one of the major philosophical underpinnings of judaism is helping those in need, and many physicians beleive single payer is the only way to bring fairness to the health care system. most of the docs i know--and i have several as neighbors and friends - loathe the insurance companies and bemoan how they have damaged patient care with their profit-driven buisness model.

that said, of course there are differences among jews, too --there are your scarsdale types, cross county, who are mostly interested in making money. but these aren't the people i know, or want to know.

and yes, hillary is pretty popular in NY, most dems seem to like her, think she's a decent senator and i don't hear much grumbling from r's either.

Posted by: drindl | January 30, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

Goodbye Edwards! Thank You for being a great voice for the party and those who seek a true progressive path. It's a shame the media killed your bid from the start.

Hopefully Edwards will get the VP and we have an Obama/Edwards ticket. What Edwards needs to do is announce on Feb 4 that all of his supporters should vote Obama, the only decent democrat left. Those of us on the far left who supported Edwards will definately go to Obama since he's a democratic and Clinton is basically a Republican war monger. Edwards needs to assert this though, and let the people know that Clinton will only be a minor step up from Bush. Obama is by no means a flawless candidate, but I think he could do a good job and he has some potential to make real change.

As for those who think Clinton will now win because white people will vote for her I ask this, why are you so hung up on race? It seems the media wants to make this a black v.s. white which is just ridiculous. Yes most Clinton supporters are white, but most of those people have been for Clinton since the beginning. Personally, I think since Bidan, Dodd, and Richardson dropped most voters who would go for Clinton were already supporting her. I think most of the Edwards vote is anti-Clinton. And BTW, Obama has a much better chance of beating McCain than Clinton (there really is not much of a difference between McCain and Clinton). Clinton is too polarizing and McCain would get more from the middle and beat her(and some of us on the far left would look for a third party before supporting Clinton). Obama, on the other hand, is a more likeable guy, who would sound much more different on the issues than McCain. With Obama, McCain could be exposed as a conservative who is more to the right (and more in line with Bush) than people realize.

Bottom line Obama beats McCain or Romney
Clinton maybe can beat Romney
McCain beats Clinton
Huckabee could still win the nomination but he could not win a general election

Posted by: mcgratsp | January 30, 2008 3:16 PM | Report abuse

for the clinton supporters here using edwards droppingout as a club to bash obama. Edwards is droppin gout so clinton doesn't win. Sacraficing himself for his country. He is a true patriot. The edwards and the tillman's are what this country is about. The gop/clinton is what is wrong with it. Choose wisely.

"John Edwards: It's time for me to step aside so that history can blaze its path
By: Nicole Belle @ 11:59 AM - PST

Download | Play Download | Play (h/t Bill)

The Edwards campaign has put the full speech up on YouTube.

I began my presidential campaign here to remind the country that we, as citizens and as a government, have a moral responsibility to each other, and what we do together matters. We must do better, if we want to live up to the great promise of this country that we all love so much.

It is appropriate that I come here today. It's time for me to step aside so that history can blaze its path. We do not know who will take the final steps to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, but what we do know is that our Democratic Party will make history. We will be strong, we will be unified, and with our convictions and a little backbone we will take back the White House in November and we'll create hope and opportunity for this country.

good luck John.

God bless. May your wife get health if it is God's will.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 30, 2008 3:06 PM | Report abuse

Mark-in-A: Apropos Ron Paul--life's little ironies--a friend in upstate NY [RP fan] just sent me the following, on American Idol meets the Republicans. It's worth a laugh on this dreary day if you haven't seen it:

Posted by: radicalpatriot | January 30, 2008 3:04 PM | Report abuse

Meanwhile, two more senior GOP House members are packing it in, Kenny Hulshof and Tom Davis. Hulshof is joining a crazy governor's race in MO, while Davis simply sees the handwriting on the wall for him in his Dem-trending VA district.

The minority caucus in the 111th Congress will be younger, less experienced, kookier, and smaller.

Posted by: Spectator2 | January 30, 2008 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Although I disagre with much, the edwards mindframe is to be respected if their people are going to be obama's. How anyone can hate obama right now I do not understand. You can call bush and many in his party terrorists. He deserves that.

what has obama done to generate hate from the right and moderates? Just being himself? So he's a terrorist muslim? that is why the race questions come into play. not by obama, but by his enemies.

A agree with some said above but not all, at all. Jsut thought I could save some people soem trouble. Be respectful of what edards represented. Otherwise clinton will get them by default.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 30, 2008 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Mark - well, just goes to show me... every time I start to think I understand something about Texas, I find out that I'm wrong.

Posted by: rpy1 | January 30, 2008 2:39 PM | Report abuse

"Some tips for Obama supporters, from an Edwards partisan
by JedReport
Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 08:15:10 AM PST
Here's a list of ten thoughts for Obama supporters, from an Edwards partisan.

Don't worry, they aren't snarky. They are actually thoughtful (I hope) and sincere. For real.

I don't speak for all Edwards supporters, just for myself.

JedReport's diary :: ::
These are no particular order.

Probably the most visceral concern that people have about Obama is the Donnie McClurkin thing. Now, I know you're probably sick of hearing about it, especially given how the Clintons were last weekend, but the racialiciosness of the Clinton campaign does not excuse the McClurkin incident. You should bookmark Obama's apology for McClurkin and have at hand quotes from his recent speech repudiating homophobia at Ebenezer. Firing back with Hillary's position on DOMA will not be convincing. You need to make a positive case for your guy. For a lot of people who'd otherwise support Obama, getting this wrong would be a deal breaker.
Read this article (Subprime Obama) and this article ('Irresponsible' Mortgages Have Opened Doors to Many of the Excluded). The latter article is written by his chief economist. It might take awhile to get it, but inside these articles you'll find the reasons why many Edwards fans are so skeptical of Obama on an ideological level.
Stop hating on Paul Krugman. If you want to be neutral, fine. (Though you shouldn't be.) I know Krugman seems like he's being tough on your guy. The reality -- hard though it may be to see -- is that in the long run, Krugman is giving him very good advice.
Never utter the name "David Brooks" in the presence of an Edwards supporter unless you append "is a piece of poo" or some equivalent. If you don't understand why even right now Brooks is undermining your candidate, read this diary.
Concede that the mandates battle for what it is: Obama chose an inferior policy option because he thinks it is more viable politically. Moreover, the only excuse for him having gone Harry and Louise is that he was responding to some pretty rough attacks by Hillary Clinton. It's actually a fair argument to make -- Hillary started hammering him during the Las Vegas debate in November, and continued with some pretty heavy artillery in Iowa.
Don't take everything Obama says as gospel. Nobody is perfect. It's okay to disagree with him. He's also a good politician. Sometimes he's lying. That's cool. If I thought he was 100% honest, I'd be concerned.
Help Obama's campaign get some pickup truck in it. Believe it or not, when Bill Clinton ran in 1992, people thought he was too much of an elitist blowhard. Carville put some pickup truck in him. The line of attack on Obama is going to involve making him out to be an elitist. Don't let him get on the wrong side of a culture war.
Don't get cocky. If the election were held today, Hillary would win. More Edwards supporters lean to Hillary than to Obama. I'm not one of them. I lean towards Obama. He's got so much more upside. But you'd be surprised at the number of people who are deeply skeptical of Obama.
You can learn a lot from people on this site, sometimes by just listening. I know I have. I'm one of the younger Edwards supporters -- I'm just 34. I have much more cultural affinity towards Obama than I do Edwards, even though I'm white and was born in Chapel Hill. Still, despite all of Obama's generational chasm bullsht, you can learn a lot from people who have been around the block a time or two.
The conservative movement -- typified by hacks like David Brooks and even expressed by co-opted organizations like the DLC -- are the enemy. Their aim is to crush every dream and ambition you have, unless you happen to own a huge corporation. I know we here a lot of talk about post-partisanship and such. That's a brilliant way to hoodwink Republican voters into supporting Democrats. But when push comes to shove, the only thing the conservative movement will respect is being defeated. They have no respect for you or me, and when you compromise with them, they have even less. In short the only good member of the conservative movement is the one on his knees, begging for mercy.
Well, there you have it. Ten tips. Some of it's probably good advice. Some of it is probably crap.

I'm wishing you and your guy luck not just because you need it, but also because I sincerely hope he is able to pull this off and win, not just in the primary, but also the general.

Finally, at the risk of sounding cheesy, I'd like to thank John Edwards and his campaign staff and his supporters around the country for having run a phenomenal, graceful, classy campaign.

Edwards put issues that matter front and center, and I hope Barack Obama can pick up that mantle.

EDWARDS SUPPORTERS ARE A LITTLE TOUCY today. Still i appreicate their passion and their goals of helping botht he country and obama. good to know. Lay off of edwards and his people. Edwards is a great man. Focus yoru venom where it should be focused. On the people who got us here. The gop and the clintons

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 30, 2008 2:36 PM | Report abuse

Edwards campaign: Unsung hero: Elizabeth Edwards.

Posted by: nooztime | January 30, 2008 2:35 PM | Report abuse

The obamistas have argued florida didn't count or matter, but if that's so, how could it have driven John Edwards out of the race? If Edwards had won Florida like Clinton did, wouldn't we be talking about his renewed viablity?

Posted by: tonysmith | January 30, 2008 2:33 PM | Report abuse

I would be surprised if Obama got much of the vote that would have gone to Edwards on 2/5. As someone who was undecided between the two until Obama became viable (and my anti-Hillary vote wasn't destined to be just a protest vote), I have to believe that the anti-Hillary vote that might ever have voted for Obama would have voted for Obama on 2/5, Edwards or not.

So the voters who would have remained with Edwards on 2/5 specifically don't like Obama and won't vote for him now that Edwards is gone. They will either stay home or vote with Hillary.

Posted by: ravishah516 | January 30, 2008 2:33 PM | Report abuse

"PRINCETON, NJ -- Barack Obama has now cut the gap with Hillary Clinton to 6 percentage points among Democrats nationally in the Gallup Poll Daily tracking three-day average, and interviewing conducted Tuesday night shows the gap between the two candidates is within a few points. Obama's position has been strengthening on a day-by-day basis. As recently as Jan. 18-20, Clinton led Obama by 20 points. Today's Gallup Poll Daily tracking is based on interviews conducted Jan. 27-29, all after Obama's overwhelming victory in South Carolina on Saturday. Two out of the three nights interviewing were conducted after the high-visibility endorsement of Obama by Sen. Edward Kennedy and his niece Caroline Kennedy.

Clinton's lead in the three-day average is now 42% to Obama's 36%. John Edwards, who dropped out of the race today after Gallup conducted these interviews, ended his quest for the presidency with 12% support. Wednesday night's interviewing will reflect the distribution of the vote choice of former Edwards' supporters as well as the impact, if any, of Hillary Clinton's popular vote win in Florida on Tuesday.

These national numbers are a critically important indicator of the political environment when voters in more than 20 states go to the polls next Tuesday. At the moment, Obama has the momentum among Democrats nationally.


That's before the edwards announcement. Not to gloat. Just trying to marginalize and point out the hillary propogandists here. She has zero chance. I know oobama needs the seasoning, but keep it on the issues.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 30, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Edwards and Obama both have been running as iconoclastic "change" candidates, so it strikes me that Edwards' departure from the race has to help Obama more than it will help Hillary. Beyond that, someone who is searching for a candidate to support at this point is probably going to gravitate toward Obama, since he's getting all the positive media exposure and he's rising in the national polls (Gallup has him going from 15 back of Hillary to 6 back in a single week).

btw, that Rassmussen poll showing that McCain would beat Obama by six points seems deeply suspect to me, considering that Obama beat McCain's vote total in South Carolina by 20,000 or so.

Posted by: pjkiger1 | January 30, 2008 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Hey, Chris, there have been a number of important developments in House races, including Tom Davis's, over the past week or so.

While the presidential race is obviously of huge importance, those of us who are into the nitty-gritty of politics (which is just about everyone that reads your blog) can get tired of just hearing about that. Please, PLEASE, discuss what's going on with the upcoming Congressional races.

Posted by: rlalumiere | January 30, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

if you too want rush and fox marginalized great. Why do the right and left bicker, jd. Let's get these goals done. Are you calling fox and emailing o'liely or should I today? :)

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 30, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Before the "I'm running for president" announcements, the media was expecting the '08 election to be a McCain-Clinton contest. I hope that this indeed will be the case, because the best way to end the political divisiveness in this country is to elect a president who is a moderate.

The battle for the GOP nomination seems as much an internal battle for the party's direction. McCain's win last night represents an acknowledgment by the GOP that they cannot continue to put forth right wing candidates and expect to win in '08. There's no other explanation for the most reviled GOP member winning in Florida. (True conservatives hate him!)

Hillary is hated by the extreme left of the DNC in the same way that McC is hated by the right wingers. She's deemed too moderate by the die-hard liberals - which is precisely the reason I personally support her candidacy and why I would vote for McCain if Obama gets the nod instead of her. Ted Kennedy's and John Kerry's endorsements of Obama are proof-positive to HRC supporters that he is further left than she is. Even my GOP friends say that if a Dem had to win, despite personally disliking her and won't vote for her, they prefer that it be Hillary than Obama in the White House. They, too, see her as being considerably more moderate than Obama.

As far as where Edwards' support will go, my guess is that he'll end up endorsing HRC. Just a gut feeling, but there's no love lost between him and John Kerry, and he wouldn't want to be seen as agreeing with the guy on anything. Schoolyard stuff, but I've long believed that life is an awful lot like high school.

Posted by: femalenick | January 30, 2008 2:21 PM | Report abuse

All my goals thus far have been achieved. So far everything I say and fight for has to to fruition. If that is yoru plan to jd, then more power to ya.

If you are a gop'er for mccain or huckabee, your doing pretty good. If you are for obama, good.

HAHAHAHAHAHHAAH. I'm not understanding you right now jd? Who are you supporting again? Rudy? Good luck with that. And the niners may win the superbowl this weekend

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 30, 2008 2:21 PM | Report abuse

I completely agree with kbloom: "John Edwards ran a visionary campaign based on issues, moral responsibility, and integrity."

For those of you wondering where his votes will go, the one I cast for him on Tuesday will go to Hillary. I hope that whomever the Dems finally nominate, the vote I cast here in Florida in November means more than the one in the primary or the one in 2000 - you know, actually counts and all that.

Posted by: mgl_8 | January 30, 2008 2:20 PM | Report abuse

right. I have been here for months. your plan is working to perfection. :)

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 30, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse

rufus, I most assuredly do NOT want you gone. Your continued posting here can only further cement the public's view of you as the face of the American Democrat party.

Which is pretty good for conservatives.


Posted by: JD | January 30, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

What are you saying mark? Obama-Paul? :)

Differant goals, domestically. Polar opposites. Also, paul does not seem ot have the necessary support to force that bi-party pairing.

I say paul and other real republcains definatly have a place moving forward. Paul deserves much credit for the current state of america (with many gop'ers now listening to reality). He must be rewarded for his patriotism. Someone like pual will probably be running the RNC after an obama win. Paul represents what his party was.

Low taxes, non intervention overseas, econmic, and so on. He may be a figure of the past. But he is the gop of the future. How else, rudy mitt jed?

for the gop to regain their relvance they must either go back to their roots, or change drastically looking otwards the future. they now are the party of the past. they need to start with new ideas, rather than rehashing teh same thing for decades.

Make no mistake, the gop is done. If they want to come back into the fold they need a drastic face-lift. Just trying to help you people. We are all americans after all, even if the gop'ers have forgot this

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 30, 2008 2:11 PM | Report abuse

I doubt anyone posting on these boards is a sample of where Edward's supporters will go. His supporters don't strike me as the type of people that would want to take the time to post their political comments. Most of them are to busy working or worrying about their finances.
We can speculate all we want...but I don't think the analysts or the media will be able to "get inside" the Edward supporter's heads.

Posted by: badger3 | January 30, 2008 2:11 PM | Report abuse

John Edwards ran a visionary campaign based on issues, moral responsibility, and integrity.
I will still vote for him next Tuesday.

Posted by: Kbloom | January 30, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse

from cnn. Altough I would never assume.

"Whom do you think John Edwards will endorse?
Hillary Clinton 29% 10858
Mike Gravel 4% 1683
Barack Obama 67% 25466

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 30, 2008 2:05 PM | Report abuse

You're using information from Florida exit polls? According to Dana Milbank, it didn't matter what the people from Florida had to say.

Posted by: badger3 | January 30, 2008 2:05 PM | Report abuse

rpy1 -

I can see how you would think that, but I read my online "Daily Texan" every day and there have been two stories related to DK that both drew blog comments. One was about DK's inspired "Alliance for Peace" Parade. Here is a quote.

"The alliance held a nationwide walk on Sept. 15, but Austin did not participate because of a conflict with the Austin City Limits Music Festival.

Not many UT students attended the march, which was held during the Longhorn football game against Kansas State."

The other was when DK got thrown off the ballot by the SDC for scratching out the "loyalty oath" and immediately lost his suit to get back on in USDC-WDTX.

Only two blog comments:

"Typical stupid Texans. Even the Democrats in Texas are moronic, inbred, knuckledragging idiots. Let Kucinich run. That loyalty oath is ridiculous."


"Whatever, a vote for Kucinich is like a vote for Ralph Nader."

On the other hand, BHO draws a crowd that is enormous, 20k+ in the rain outside on a Friday, and many articles about him in the DT get big responses. RP would excite student comment, too.

So that's why I think no one cares about DK in Austin.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 30, 2008 2:03 PM | Report abuse

Hillary's "victory" speech last night just made me feel sick. What will she NOT stoop to? Dana Milbank hit the nail on the head in WaPo today on that topic. What a goose she is.

My feel is that most Edwards voters are "change" voters. Hillary has a 50% cap on her support I suspect. Now Obama will begin to romp it home. But it will still go beyond Super Tuesday.

All the best John Edwards. You were my man in '04. I moved to Obama a little earlier than some... but the rest of your supporters will now follow.

Posted by: Boutan | January 30, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Post you jd. Unless you got something for me.

you know I do that to anger you gop'ers. Like you do to me. Every week I feel is the last for rush fox savage malkin. Every week I'm dissappointed. you only have to deal with me in the short term. you can leave this site.

I will not leave my country. And I won't stop until you remove your people. I'm here for balance. You want me gone? you know how to accomplish your goal. If that is not a priority for you, then be happy about my posts. LEarn from them. :)

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 30, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

John Edwards is a good man, and he would have made an excellent president, because he is smart, experienced, and he actually cares about the American people. An Obama or Clinton Administration would be crazy not to give him a high position in their Cabinets. America need him very badly.

Posted by: FilmMD | January 30, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

The Edwards vote will break for Obama even if Edwards doesn't endorse and if he does I think he will endorse Obama! One of the core issues of the Edwards campaign is TRADE POLICY and the Clinton's are the architects of NAFTA and the like! BAD trade policies for the middle class the poor and unions! I heard Mudcat Saunders a top advisor for Edwards on MSNBC say he will work as hard as he can to make sure that Edwards DOES NOT endorse Hillary! Senator Barack Obama for President of the United States of America! ITS TIME!

Posted by: gfsurrette | January 30, 2008 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Mark in Austin, no, I was thousands of miles away in a state as blue as Kansas is red. But I heard about it from people who were there. John Edwards has some lifelong fans in Lawrence now, even if his accent does sound a lot like a certain ex-coach's.

And speaking of, you're right. The Jayhawks have quite a team this year. This might be the year they finally get past the first weekend. I was a sophomore at KU the year Danny and the Miracles won it all. That's a long, long time ago for us Hawks.

Posted by: novamatt | January 30, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse

"leave the Golden EIB Microphone. (applause) I will not retire. I will not concede. (cheers and applause) I will not drift away! I will not fade away, until every American agrees with me --

AUDIENCE: Rush! Rush! Rush! Rush!

RUSH: -- as I have always said.

AUDIENCE: (cheers and applause)

AUDIENCE: Rush! Rush! Rush! Rush!"

Fascism. And I don't have any reservations about calling it. It is by the definition of the word. The gop are terrorisits and propogandaists. Again, not because I say so, but by the definition of those words.

the right should fear being fascists. I should not fear calling them on it.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 30, 2008 1:56 PM | Report abuse

so Rufus says he's done for the day, then posts, by my count, 9 more times?

What happened, mom said you can stay down in the basement awhile longer?

Posted by: JD | January 30, 2008 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Let's have an Obama-Richardson ticket, with John Edwards as Attorney general.

Posted by: ponpal | January 30, 2008 1:52 PM | Report abuse

"RUSH: Thank you. I love you, too.

AUDIENCE: Rush! Rush! Rush! Rush! Rush! Rush! Rush! Rush! Rush! Rush! Rush!

RUSH: My friends, my friends, there is reason for optimism, there is reason for hope. By the way: "change" is a stupid slogan, and so is "hope," but I know some of you want hope. Be of good cheer. From the shadows of this setback, let me offer this uplifting thought. In Florida, half the liberals voted for Mrs. Clinton. One-third of the Republicans voted for Senator McCain. Our friends in the media predicting my demise (boos) talk about how conservatism is dead. Let me ask a simple question, ladies and gentlemen. Why is it that all of the Republican candidates claim, to now carry the mantle of Ronald Reagan? Senator McCain is the most recent. "McCain Claims Conservative Mantle." Said McCain (impression), "It shows one thing: I'm the conservative leader who can unite the party." How can I be said to have lost, ladies and gentlemen, when what I stand for is rock ribbed conservatism, and each one of these candidates -- each one of them flawed, by the way, which has caused many conservatives to be wandering aimlessly in the electoral woods. How can it be said that I have lost or that conservatism has lost, when all of our Republican candidates claim to be conservative and to carry the conservative mantle?

AUDIENCE: Rush! Rush! Rush! Rush!

hahahhaha. The gop is scared poopless. Trying as hard as they can to hate clinton but get her elected at the same time. It's all they know. funny to watch, yet sad. do not pity these people. They've made millions destroying their country and lying to the elderly (fox rush clinton bush). they made their bed's. Do not pity sending them to the irrelevance abyss where they belong. Time to cut teh chains of millions and allow them to think for themselves.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 30, 2008 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Sometimes I really wonder whether Hillary supporters can think beyond the primary. The point of the primary is to select a candidate who will go on to win the general election. If Hillary is going to win in November, she'll need the votes of Obama supporters.

But many of Hillary's supporters don't seem to care about that. On this site today, I've seen Clinton supporters call Obama supporters nuts, racists, and cultists. And that's without even mentioning the things they say about the candidate himself.

It's fine to like Hillary better than Obama, or vice-versa. It's fine to refuse to vote for one of them, with a good reason. But when Hillary's supporters demonize Obama and his supporters, that's just bad for the Democrats in general. Winning the primary is nice, but not if it makes you lose the general election. Grow up, people.

Posted by: Blarg | January 30, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Gop!. forcing a free people to bend to your goals or ideals will never work. Most times the opposite of yoru goals happen. Same with the d's media, supporting clinton. People have brains of their own .this is not a nation of dittoheads. to force yoru will on a free peopel clinton/gop will alwys yeild the opposite results. Escipcially when people have zero trust for their government and media.

It's fun to watch. But a true american already knows what's going to happen. A true american follows the heart of this great nation. No propogand is needed. His/her goals are americans and vice versa. the gop 9clinton included) brand of shove it down you ropponents throughts is done. Time to re-unite the countyr and all to be free again. not just the fascist gop

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 30, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

In my opinion, the supporters of John Edwards are unlikely to switch to a candidate so closely embraced by Senator Kennedy. It seems more plausible that they will now go to Senator McCain (if he is the nominee) - or to Mayor Bloomberg, if he runs.

Posted by: index1 | January 30, 2008 1:45 PM | Report abuse

Mark-in-A: Greetings again, back in the same old blog, after our sorties to the IA Register [and the NH Concord Monitor, or did you forgo that one?]. We are on at least two threads here. [I am Nigerian orphan who want share with you my millions of dollar]

I do like Ron Paul, although I do not wear RP buttons or give contributions--I don't for anyone, yet. But I find it amusing and amazing beyond belief, though, how the mainstream media and the RNP have tried to marginalize if not actually demonize him. Ron Paul not only talks the talk but has also walked the walk--at least far more than any other politician I know--about getting government off our backs, that government is the problem and not the solution, that the excessive tax burden on the people should be reduced, that we should have a policy of fiscal restraint, etc. etc. Now where have I heard all that before [but only as talk]??? What do conservative Republican values have anything to do with those sorts of ideas?

I need to get my amusement wherever I can, no matter how sadly ironic!

Posted by: radicalpatriot | January 30, 2008 1:36 PM | Report abuse

An Obama/Richardson ticket would definitely lead to a Republican victory! Richardson has stated he wants a national water policy plan which includes diverting water from the Great Lakes. While people don't really care for Granholm too much here in Michigan anymore, her resounding "HELL NO" to Richardson & Washington greedily grabbing our Riparian rights is shared by the voters of the Great Lakes States. Michigan won't vote for Obama anyways since he doesn't care about Michigan voters when he purposefully took his name off our ballot, made no effort to get it back on the ballot, and now wants to make sure we're excluded (& Florida's delegates) from the convention. So, Obama, won't get Michigan on his own because he doesn't care about our voices or votes, Richardson on the ticket will surely lose not only Michigan, but also, Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana.... oh yah, great strategy there. Yes, lets further destroy the one resource that attracts tourists in the midwest since no one is willing to tell the auto companies to grow up & move into the 21st century!

Posted by: neecee | January 30, 2008 1:35 PM | Report abuse

"Bush authorizes the NSA to police the Internet-but it'll be AT&T doing the policing
By: Nicole Belle @ 10:29 AM - PST Want to know why getting that retroactive telecom immunity is so important to Bush? It's not just about tapping phone calls.

Scholars & Rogues:

Following up on my post from a little while back discussing Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell's desire to police the Internet, the Washington Post's Ellen Nakashima confirmed last weekend that the Decider had signed a classified directive authorizing the NSA to more expansively monitor intrusions on federal networks for signs of cyberattacks:

Until now, the government's efforts to protect itself from cyber-attacks -- which run the gamut from hackers to organized crime to foreign governments trying to steal sensitive data -- have been piecemeal. Under the new initiative, a task force headed by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) will coordinate efforts to identify the source of cyber-attacks against government computer systems. As part of that effort, the Department of Homeland Security will work to protect the systems and the Pentagon will devise strategies for counterattacks against the intruders.

As Brian has said recently, the U.S. is absolutely not ready to handle cyberwar on almost any front. I'm all in favor of redirecting tax money towards protecting and strengthening our Internet infrastructure against any one of the millions of crippling threats it can face, rather than expensive, crappy weapons systems that have little measurable effect except fattening defense contractors' coffers.

But in an expansive profile of Mike McConnell, the New Yorker's Lawrence Wright touches on the myriad obstacles our intelligence community faces towards handling a real threat, and why they get it wrong so often.


opps, here's the post. Fear teh yale plan. Take america back from those who stole it. They don't own this country. We do

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 30, 2008 1:34 PM | Report abuse

For bloggers this should be a warning. your rights are being taken away. Be aware the government is spying on you. Better make it good. It may show up in court. Free speech? Only the gop has free speech in america. Are the people whom just posted from being watched? i doubt it. Only the left. While the real terrorists and the gop continue to do their worse. Enjoy it while it lasts gop. Your irrelevant come 09

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 30, 2008 1:33 PM | Report abuse

Mark, are you sure you're really in Austin? I would think that (being a college town) would be a great place to find Dennis supporters...

Posted by: rpy1 | January 30, 2008 1:30 PM | Report abuse

" wonder what the folks in America that wish to kill other Americans who might disagree with McCain shall do?
dtodeen | Homepage | 01.30.08 - 7:18 am | # "

First they are asking if kennaddy is scared for obama now this. don't do it gop. don't do it. The american people see you now. it's not worth it. Taxes to the rich, ie money, is not worth it. Support your country. Stop being traitors of face teh consequences traitors face.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 30, 2008 1:28 PM | Report abuse

drindl, I am amazed by two of your assertions, although I take them to be consistent with your local experience.

1] I do not know anybody who ever was for DK.

I could call every D Jewish lawyer and engineer and businessperson I know and ask and it would be like they never heard of him. They are generally people committed to social justice, as you say, and certainly, civil liberties.
But DK? No. That really surprises me.

2] Are you telling me there are some physicians in your congregation who like HRC?

I suppose this could be a TX v. NY thing. A lot of people in NY like HRC, obviously. Even the D Party pros here do not. So my local viewpoint would be different than yours.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 30, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse

Mark_in_austin - "Dave, did Carter REALLY say BHO was "titillating"?"

I smiled at that myself. According to the story, it's a direct quote...

Posted by: dave | January 30, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Obama supporters apparently are not living in the same country as me. It's like the bizarro world in Superman comics.

In their parallel country, southern and rural voters can't wait to vote for a lightly experienced, liberal black man for president. They also waited to make this decision until their hero, Ted Kennedy, gave them their orders. As far as racism is concerned, what racism?

Posted by: lpeter59 | January 30, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

I was an Edwards supporter. I had nothing against Hillary, and as a woman took pride in her campaign. I would happily have voted for her if she'd won the primary. Until South Carolina. Now I am an Obama supporter, and don't know where I'll end up if he doesn't win the primary. I suspect there are more than a few of us out here thinking like this. Many Democrats were appalled at the tactics that were used by the Rovians et al on the Clintons from 1992-2000. The Clintons failed to realize that we'd be just as appalled when similar and worse tactics were used by them on our own candidates. Go Obama and thank you John Edwards.

Posted by: whittrl | January 30, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Right on q. Clinton supports pulling the race card. LEave it out wuss. clinton has enough prblems without you helping obama :)

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 30, 2008 1:17 PM | Report abuse

TO: CSNEED1937 | January 30, 2008 12:03 PM
Re: your post. That's what I hate about the south; ignorant, racist, bigoted, red necked, idiots that can't deal with a different color. I can see that you are one of them. I am white and voted for Obama. I would write what I really want to write but it would not be posted.

Posted by: gfaigen | January 30, 2008 1:16 PM | Report abuse

The hillary's and di fi's and rockafller's and lieberman's. Those are the the dems siding with the fascists. The obama's edwards and keenddays are the ones standing agaisnt them. to back clinton is to back bush.

The proof is in the pudding.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 30, 2008 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton will carry Edward's torch for universal health care, ending the war, minority rights and immigration reform.

Obama is a whiner who demands preferential treatment. If you question Obama's record or such you are a racist.

Barack "special treatment" Obama is not right for America.

Posted by: mehuwss | January 30, 2008 1:16 PM | Report abuse

dO NOT WASTE YOUR VENOM ON OBAMA, edwards supporters. He like you are on the same side fighting the same battle agaisnt eh same foe. Do not forget who is the enemy of america now. you have new america and the new demoractic party agaisnt the gop and the old moderates. Pick a side, but choose wisely. Our children's future is at stake. It's easier and safer to be a clone robot, but it is disasterous for our country, as the last 8 years have shown.

Eithe ryou are fighting the fascists in america, or enabling them. The future is today. Let these cry baby elementary school children take their balls and go home. Let them enjoy the irrelevance they have earned. Do not pity or fear the fascists. they made the bed they must lay in.

But know your enemy and yoru freind. Edwards supporters! you are freinds to this great nation. And freinds tot eh new democratic party. Don't throw away john's work to spite obama. the future is now.

"Wednesday January 30, 2008 07:50 EST
What "bipartisanship" in Washington means
Whenever the mavens of "bipartisanship" attempt to do more than spout pretty platitudes, they invariably reveal just how vapid and bereft of substance are their slogans. Former Sen. Bob Graham -- who recently joined David Boren, Sam Nunn and others in threatening the country with a plutocratic Michael Bloomberg candidacy if the presidential candidates failed to become more "bipartisan" -- has an Op-Ed in today's Washington Post which is a classic entry in this genre.

Graham purports to list a slew of problems suffering from a lack of bipartisanship -- "huge gaps in national and homeland security"; "Nearly 50 million Americans still have no health insurance"; crumbling infrastructure; high gas prices; and a lack of a brighter future for the next generation -- and then proposes a litany of shallow process "solutions" such as a bipartisan cabinet, changes to the format for presidential debates, and regional primaries. Those "solutions" are total nonsequiturs. How would they resolve any of the intense differences over those policies? They manifestly wouldn't.

But more importantly, "bipartisanship" is already rampant in Washington, not rare. And, in almost every significant case, what "bipartisanship" means in Washington is that enough Democrats join with all of the Republicans to endorse and enact into law Republican policies, with which most Democratic voters disagree. That's how so-called "bipartisanship" manifests in almost every case.

Many people, especially partisans, always believe that their own side is compromising too much and that the other side is always winning, so it's best to consult objective facts in order to know how "bipartisanship" works. Here are the vote breakdowns by party over the last couple years on the most significant and contentious pieces of legislation, particularly (though not only) in the area of national security.

In almost every case, the proposals that are enacted are ones favored by the White House and supported by all GOP lawmakers, and then Democrats split and enough of them join with Republicans to ensure that the GOP gets what it wants. That's "bipartisanhip" in Washington:

To support the new Bush-supported FISA law:

GOP - 48-0

Dems - 12-36

To compel redeployment of troops from Iraq:

GOP - 0-49

Dems - 24-21

To confirm Michael Mukasey as Attorney General:

GOP - 46-0

Dems - 7-40

To confirm Leslie Southwick as Circuit Court Judge:

GOP - 49-0

Dems - 8-38

Kyl-Lieberman Resolution on Iran:

GOP - 46-2

Dems - 30-20

To condemn

GOP - 49-0

Dems - 23-25

The Protect America Act:

GOP - 44-0

Dems - 20-28

Declaring English to be the Government's official language:

GOP - 48-1

Dems - 16-33

The Military Commissions Act:

GOP - 53-0

Dems - 12-34

To renew the Patriot Act:

GOP - 54-0

Dems - 34-10

Cloture Vote on Sam Alito's confirmation to the Supreme Court:

GOP - 54-0

Dems - 18-25

Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq:

GOP - 48-1

Dems - 29-22

On virtually every major controversial issue -- particularly, though not only, ones involving national security and terrorism -- the Republicans (including their vaunted mythical moderates and mavericks) vote in almost complete lockstep in favor of the President, the Democratic caucus splits, and the Republicans then get their way on every issue thanks to "bipartisan" support. That's what "bipartisanship" in Washington means.

Leaving aside how shallow and, shall we say, unserious is this endless chirping for more "bipartisanship" -- as though it's a magic feel-good formula for resolving actual policy differences -- it's hard to imagine how there could possibly be any more "bipartisanship" in Washington even if that were the only goal. Other than formally disbanding as a party -- or granting a permanent proxy of their collective vote to Mitch McConnell -- how could Congressional Democrats possibly be more accommodating than they already are?

-- Glenn Greenwald

We got them where we want them. RAcism is dead, if we allow it to die. Fear and terrorism against americans is dead, as we do not fear to give power to those that would enslave us anymore. New america is within our grasps. John's plan is in our grasps. If you believe what he said, then back obama. If you backed him because he is white, back hillary. Just know why and what you are doing.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 30, 2008 1:13 PM | Report abuse

Novamatt -

Rockchalk, that bb team is scary good. Were you in the crowd at the station?

Dave, did Carter REALLY say BHO was "titillating"?

There's your nuclear engineer as wordsmith!

RadPat, good to hear from you. The Austin American-Statesman was gleeful this morning
that the TX primaries in March might mean something this year. All the bloggers immediately jumped on the editor for not mentioning Ron Paul, and perhaps unfairly I thought of you and our first series of posts.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 30, 2008 1:10 PM | Report abuse

Much like the ypocrite gop goin after the dem's ubn terms or immagration when reagan offered teh last amnesty and the gop did nothing to solve the issue in two decades.

Like with the terrorism issue when the gop supplies our enemies then calls the dem's unpatriotic.

Like the r's who impeach a president over a bj, but support lies if they lead to war and the splintering of the country.

All edwards supporters out there. don't think about what might have been, and get angry. Think about what is. it is not obama's fault he is gone. Obama never went after edwards. He went out of his way to praise him.

You must think of this in terms of teh future vs the past. Or the future democratic party agaisnt the current gop. And clinton is gop. Get yoru priorities straight ladies and gentlemen. Who is the cause of your anger and why?

The gop machine is to balme for where we are. Let's not forget that. use yoru venom on who is to blame

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 30, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

While I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat--[a plague on both their Houses, they've made wormsmeat of America]--I am actually sorry for the Democratic Party that Edwards has left the race. He seems [like Obama to some extent] to represent what are the best virtues of the Democratic Party when it is not merely playing antagonist to anything and everything Republican [like a mirror-image Ann Coulter].

And I see these virtues as putting people and country above the Party [something Republicans have never done for many years]. You may not have agreed with Edwards on whatever issue, or even believed him, but he did seem to keep focused on the American people. That focus could be the saving grace for the Dems, and it is a virtue, it is in Obama but not in Clinton.

The real victory in Florida is that Giuliani is stuffed into the trashcan of history now, where he belongs.

America will get what it deserves. It is now up to the rest of America to decide if it wants the left-for-right mirror-image of President Clinton-Clinton to replace President Bush-Cheney--or if it wants something better.

Posted by: radicalpatriot | January 30, 2008 1:03 PM | Report abuse

last one, I'm don for the day. But slinton is gop. The gop are hypocrites. Edwards support goes tot eh future, obama.

"That's the same John Ashcroft, of course, who -- once he and his party were in power -- immediately discarded those "principles" and went on to approve and help implement far more invasive and unchecked surveillance programs than the ones which, when sought by Clinton, he scorned as Orwellian Big Brother tyranny.

But Republicans were unabashed in attempting to limit government power when Democrats controlled the White House. And does anyone doubt they will be so again if a Democrat is in the White House in 2009? Even when it's grossly hypocritical, that's how our adversarial system is actually supposed to work; one party opposing the other's unchecked power is an important form of checks and balances. One can be forgiven if one's recollection of this concept is rusty since it's been many, many years since we've seen it in action, and we're highly unlikely to be given a refresher course over the next 15 days.

-- Glenn Greenwald







Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 30, 2008 12:59 PM | Report abuse

coloradodog - I've not heard of any attacks by Obama on Clinton. It's been mostly defending himself against the various whispering campaigns and outright lies by Bill. He did point out that her "healthcare reform" amounts to a 200 billion dollar give-away to the private healthcare industry and dosn't even guarrantee insurance for even one person not having it now (and I work in the healthcare industry and am well aware of that - so does bhoomes and he can verify this). Also, new polling numbers are out today. Rasmusson, Zogby, ABC, NYT, USA, all showing Clinton loosing to McCain by, and this is the best of them, 48-40. Furthermore, as the campaign continues, she is evening loosing that 40 points, as roughly half of her support is weak. Obama also looses, by the way, but by a 41-46 margin, with his core support strong. Interestingly, especially becasue of he topic here, Edwards tied McCain. It looks like the Democrats are seizing defeat from the jaws of victory once again.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | January 30, 2008 12:57 PM | Report abuse

" It was just good and decent people taking time out of their busy schedules to thank other good and decent people for their support."

"Maybe, John, if you had tried out for American Idol you might have had a better chance at reaching that public psyche with some of that basic truth you always spoke..."

"And the whole time he was a gracious man. Great man, John edwards. I have much more respect today for him than I did yesterday...A true american patriot. This will not be forgotten. You haven't heard th elast of John edwards."

"John Edwards ran a good, clean campaign; played by the rules; was always gracious to one and all, candidates, public, press. The economic causes he championed need the attention they haven't received since the days of JFK, LBJ, and JEC. It seems his dedication was genuine, much more than the quadrennial lip-service that they've had lately. It's been a very long three decades for the poorest among us--and that with all the politicians singing "Hallelujah! Amen! I have seen the Lord!" day and night. A lot of folk are still waiting for the first drop to trickle down to them. Patience has not paid."

Will somebody please tell me what time this lovefest ends?

Posted by: dave | January 30, 2008 12:56 PM | Report abuse

For those asking about John Edwards' delegates:

If memory serves, there is a "gentlemen's agreeement" that he has the right to endorse another candidate and endow them with whatever delegates he has earned (or will earn).

For those who are so certain that Hillary will now win the nomination, I only remind you of this:

In a primary contest in Florida that was run largely on name recognition and national media exposure, HRC won 50-33 over Barack.

That margin of victory is still smaller than Obama's win in South Carolina, and Hillary is still trying to wash the tread marks off her back from being run over there.

Only in MI and FL have fewer Democrats come out to vote than Republicans. More of the die-hards will back Clinton. Obama can bring the independents and the new voters.

In Florida, a state that's 41% Dem., 37% Rep. and 19% Independent, McCain would spank Hillary. Obama puts FL in play. Remember that. Also remember that GOP turnout in the South is likely to be depressed with a McCain nomination. Hillary won't be able to compete there. Obama can explode African-American turnout and put GA, SC, NC, KY, TN, and AR in play.

Posted by: cam8 | January 30, 2008 12:56 PM | Report abuse

"That all fell on deaf ears, of course. In 1997, the Clinton administration sought increased surveillance powers over Internet communications on the ground that such powers were necessary to stop terrorists and other criminals, who were using the Internet to do bad things. In particular, the Clinton administration wanted a law requiring that any encryption technology allow the federal Government to bypass it for spying purposes.

Our stalwart small-government conservatives vehemently opposed those proposals, and the opposition was led by then-Sen. John Ashcroft, who argued in an Op-Ed:

J. Edgar Hoover would have loved this. The Clinton administration wants government to be able to read international computer communications -- financial transactions, personal e-mail and proprietary information sent abroad -- all in the name of national security. . . .

Not only would Big Brother be looming over the shoulders of international cybersurfers, he also threatens to render our state-of-the-art computer software engineers obsolete and unemployed.

Granted, the Internet could be used to commit crimes, and advanced encryption could disguise such activity. However, we do not provide the government with phone jacks outside our homes for unlimited wiretaps. Why, then, should we grant government the Orwellian capability to listen at will and in real time to our communications across the Web? . . . .

The protections of the Fourth Amendment are clear. The right to protection from unlawful searches is an indivisible American value. . . .

Every medium by which people communicate can be exploited by those with illegal or immoral intentions. Nevertheless, this is no reason to hand Big Brother the keys to unlock our e-mail diaries, open our ATM records or translate our international communications.


Clinton is gop. Fear the yale plan

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 30, 2008 12:56 PM | Report abuse

I'm greatly disappointed. Edwards understands and speaks the truth about the challenge we will all face in bringing about necessary changes.

I'm not that happy with either Clinton or Obama.

I share the reservation many have expressed about the prospect of a "dual presidency." I'm troubled by how indebted the Clinton camp are to casino gambling interests; Hillary has too often voted pro-war and anti-civil liberties in the Senate.

I'm troubled by Obama's inexperience in the executive side of international relations. He would certainly be a more inspirational leader than Hillary, but can he be tough when he needs to be tough?

Both have the kind of groundedness in religious faith that allows me to hope they would ultimately lean in the direction of peace and justice.

I'm not ready to choose between them. All I can do is wait and see how each of them picks up on Edwards's challenge to give more emphasis on the problem of persistent poverty in rich America.


Posted by: richard.e.edwards | January 30, 2008 12:55 PM | Report abuse

call your congressman. And your senator.

""Trust Us" Government
After vowing yesterday to veto a 30-day extension of the Protect America Act, the White House and Congressional Republicans today agreed to a 15-day extension. The Senate will now proceed to vote on the various amendments pending on the Cheney/Rockefeller bill and will then almost certainly vote in favor of that bill in some form, granting amnesty to lawbreaking telecoms and new warrantless eavesdropping powers to the President.

Realistically, there are really only two possible ways for all of this to be derailed: (1) the Senate passes one or more pending amendments which is unacceptable to the White House and thus provokes a veto of the bill Congress passes (the most likely candidates: Sen. Feinstein's amendment declaring (again) that FISA is the "exclusive means" for eavesdropping and/or Sen. Feingold's amendment compelling the disclosure to Congress of the secret FISA court rulings which the White House claimed prompted the need for changes to FISA in the first place); or,

(2) the House stands firm with the bill it already passed and refuses to provide telecom amnesty and new warrantless eavesdropping powers, even once the Senate does so. At this point, option (1) seems far more likely, as the Blue Dogs can single-handedly fulfill all the President's demands by voting (along with the Republicans) in favor of the Senate bill.

The White House -- understandably -- is extremely confident that they will win, as they always do, telling "conservative journalists" with whom they met today: "once the Senate votes to make FISA permanent -- including immunity for the telecoms -- the House will acquiesce." And here is what the GOP leadership is telling Democrats in light of this extension: "House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO) warns: 'This is the Democrats' last chance - in two more weeks, if they fail to get a bill completed, there will be no more excuses available.'" Note the tone Congressional Republicans use when they "warn" Democrats and give them their marching orders -- that of an increasingly impatient teacher warning a delinquent student.

With all the focus on the travesty of telecom amnesty, it has been easy to forget just how Draconian the Protect America Act really is, how radical are the warrantless eavesdropping powers it vested in the President. In essence, that bill allowed the Government to eavesdrop on every single international telephone call made or received by an American with no restrictions or judicial oversight whatsoever, and further empowered the Government to read every international email sent or received by an American with no restrictions or judicial oversight.

In a meeting with several bloggers this morning, Russ Feingold provided a very concise and easy-to-understand explanation for why this is so threatening:

"Trust us" Government is exactly what the Republican Party has come to stand for, with the eager help of many Congressional Democrats. Under this "theory" of government, there is no need for oversight or limits on the power the President possesses because he is Good and you can trust him and his underlings to exercise those powers only for your Protection. Nobody needs to look over his shoulder or "check" what he's doing. We can place blind faith in our leader.

This is what Republicans previously pretended to believe about "Trust Us" Government, from Ronald Reagan's 1980 acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention:

"Trust me" government is government that asks that we concentrate our hopes and dreams on one man; that we trust him to do what's best for us. My view of government places trust not in one person or one party, but in those values that transcend persons and parties. The trust is where it belongs -- in the people"

glen greenwald






brother? Not me? Camera phones. Security cameras. Email phone satalitte? We are living in a fascist police state.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 30, 2008 12:54 PM | Report abuse

Edwards' showing in 2004 made it appear to a lot of us who want real change in Washington that he was THE best option we had for that to happen - if not in 2004, then now.

I think Edwards' believed that, too. But he was eclipsed by another - another agent for change who was far less encumbered by all the baggage of a multi-millionaire trial lawyer (or $400 haircuts).

I'm certain that Edwards is disappointed. So are his supporters. I am, too. (I'd hoped that we'd be having a truly substantive debate between the only two REAL agents of change - Edwards and Obama - by this point in the process.)

And I'm sure that there's a place for John Edwards in whichever nominee's upcoming Democratic administration.

Meanwhile, my heart goes out to Elizabeth Edwards. She's one classy, courageous and inspirational lady! (You can just tell so VERY much about a person by their spouse.)

And finally, my heartfelt gratitude to you, John Edwards, for running a clean and honorable campaign! That fact alone makes your prospects for the future all the brighter (I hope).

Posted by: miraclestudies | January 30, 2008 12:52 PM | Report abuse

Just a reminder to those discussing HRC's "win" in our Florida non-event Democratic primary:

Florida is a closed primary state. The results may look somewhat different than those in the earlier races as independents and republicans cannot vote in the Democratic Primary. Therefore, the segment of Obama's support which comes from independents and republicans (which is considerable) does not show up in the results. I'm not sure if any of the other early states have been "closed primary" states.

Also, since the candidates had pledged not to campaign in Florida when the national party decided to strip the state of its delegates, name recognition was much more in HRC's favor than in Obama's.

In addition, a huge number of Floridians voted absentee or early -- some nearly a month ago -- before Obama's Iowa and SC wins, further highlighting his lack of name recognition in the state.

Posted by: dhajra | January 30, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse

ben smith? The edwards haircut guy? the obama hit piece master? he says 9/11 politics is over. WOW. That's your boy, right cc? Will you act right now, cc, and stop the clinton love?

"Rudy defeat marks end of 9/11 politics
By: BEN SMITH and DAVID PAUL KUHN | 01/30/2008 12:19 AM
Giuliani's loss is the beginning of the end of a period in Republican politics that began on Sept. 11, 2001."

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 30, 2008 12:45 PM | Report abuse

Now what? We've got Hillary and Obama displaying poor judgments in their Rovian attacks on one another. Let's hope they wise up and shut up about each other before more voters get disgusted with them and vote for McCain. What the hell is wrong with these guys?

Posted by: coloradodog | January 30, 2008 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Where is Jimmy Carter? Funny you should ask.
From the wires...
"Former president Jimmy Carter praised Barack Obama's run for the White House as "extraordinary" and potentially healing.

The elder statesman of the Democratic party also revealed that he had also spoken at length with former president Bill Clinton about his involvement in the 2008 presidential race.

"Obama's campaign has been extraordinary and titillating for me and my family," Carter said in an interview at his Georgia home Monday in which he stressed that he and his wife have never endorsed any presidential candidate since leaving the White House.

"We have four children with their spouses, we have eleven grandchildren, four or five of them are married, and all of them, except one, are for Obama," he said in an audioclip of the interview on the Wall Street Journal's website.

"I think that Obama will be almost automatically a healing factor in the animosity now and the distrust that relates to our country and its government," said Carter, 83, who was president from 1977-1981.

The 2002 Nobel Peace prize laureate added that his Democratic successor in the White House had called him Monday to confirm his participation in an event Carter has organized.

But the tension over race that erupted on the Democratic campaign trail last week dominated the conversation, Carter revealed.

"I got off the phone with a long talk with Bill Clinton who called me this morning trying to explain that he was not raising the race issue, and that sort of thing. I won't got into detail," Carter said.

Clinton "has said a few things that I think he wishes he hadn't said," the Wall Street Journal quoted Carter as saying.

"He doesn't call me often, but the fact that he called me this morning and spent a long time explaining his position indicates that it's troublesome to them, the adverse reaction.

"I told him I hoped it would die down...the charged atmosphere concerning the race issue. And I think it will," he said."

To this I say, if it walks like an endorsement and talks like an endorsement and sounds like an endorsement...

Posted by: dave | January 30, 2008 12:43 PM | Report abuse

During the '04 campaign, Kerry and Edwards and their wives had just given a late-night speech in Kansas City and were on a train headed to New Mexico. An hour down the tracks, something like a thousand well-wishers had gathered at the train station in Lawrence, Kansas, a very blue dot in the very red sea of Kansas, just to voice their support.

The conductor didn't slow the train down, but the candidates, getting ready for sleep, saw and were amazed by the size and enthusiasm of the crowd, and it was too late to stop the train by the time they had gotten a message to the conductor. Imagine: dark night, dark night, dark night, huge gathering of people shouting your names and waving your signs, dark night, dark night.

The people lined up for a half-mile along the tracks in the middle of the night were disappointed they didn't get a chance to see Kerry and Edwards, but they knew the game: it's 270 electoral votes to win, and Kansas wasn't on anyone's to-do list. No one in presidential politics cares about places like Lawrence, Kansas. It might as well be Lawrence, Gabon, or Lawrence, Luxembourg.

But John and Elizabeth Edwards cared. They sent word to folks in Lawrence that they would come back to thank them. And sure enough, a couple of days of hard campaigning in New Mexico and Colorado later, they kept their word, and came back to Lawrence to talk for hours to an overflow crowd of thousands of Kansans whose votes didn't matter, just because it was the right thing to do. It wasn't about electoral votes, or what the polls told them to do, or what some consultant told them to do. It was just good and decent people taking time out of their busy schedules to thank other good and decent people for their support.

We get too wrapped up sometimes in the numbers games and "framing" the narratives that we forget what this is really all about. And I want to stop for a moment and think about what good, decent, honorable, caring human beings John and Elizabeth Edwards are, and thank them for what they've brought to this race and to the '04 race, what they've brought to the Democratic Party, and what they brought to little old Lawrence, Kansas. Thank you, John and Elizabeth, and my best to you both. Hope to see you around again sometime soon.

Posted by: novamatt | January 30, 2008 12:37 PM | Report abuse

"Mark, earlier on, a leading Jewish publication suggested the only two candidates who most conservative Jews would vote for would be Rudy or Hillary, because they were the most connected to Israel. Huckabee and Romney, never, because all observant Jews here are very concerned about church/state separation, naturally. "

Is choosing an outside influence over the good of your nation stills treason? I think so. India China isreal? time to have our politicans represent america. nto isreal. we had enough of that.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 30, 2008 12:36 PM | Report abuse

I can't understand why Edwards would not endorse Obama.

Posted by: hschoenbach129 | January 30, 2008 12:23 PM

Because he wants the AG job if/when HRC gets the nomination, and manages to steal the election. :-)

Posted by: JD | January 30, 2008 12:31 PM | Report abuse

dmorale, if you call yourself a true fiscal conservative, you cannot seriously be for HRC.

She is running on a potentially devastating campaign promise - federal sponsorship of universal healthcare.

When our deficit is already measured in the hundreds of billions, how many more hundreds would she add through this initiative?

Posted by: JD | January 30, 2008 12:28 PM | Report abuse

I too, can't help but wonder about Elizabeth -- the warmest woman in politics. Knowing something about cancer staging, I can tell you her prognosis is not good, but I think she beleived so much in John, and his vision for the country, and unlike the mean-spirited jerks who constnatly pounded on him for growing up poor and doing well in the world, I think he was sincere--that she didn't want to give up while it still looked like he had a chance.

It's a sad commentary on politics that someone who was born with a silver spoon up their butts like bush or mittens is worshipped by the r party, but someone who made it on their own is ridiculed. And the media's pathetic coverage [or lack of it--did they ever bother to talk about anything but this childish drivel about his hair?] Again, pathetic and juvenile.

'The south FL Jewish vote is skewed elderly, but they liked McC better than RG or WMR, who both pandered strongly on Israel and in RG's case, on the entire neocon line.'

Mark, earlier on, a leading Jewish publication suggested the only two candidates who most conservative Jews would vote for would be Rudy or Hillary, because they were the most connected to Israel. Huckabee and Romney, never, because all observant Jews here are very concerned about church/state separation, naturally.

Liberal, social-justice Jews leaned toward Kucinich. IN any case, toward the end it became clear that voting for Rudy was essentially throwing your vote away after all his losses--the obvious flaw in his 'strategy.'

So more conservative R Jews would have favored McCain. However socially liberal Jews [who far outnumber conservatives] will favor Hillary, and that plus McCain's invisibility on Israel will tilt that vote to her. Most of the Jews I know won't vote for ANY R at this point in time no matter what, and that is true of everyone who belongs to my Reconstructionist congregation.

Posted by: drindl | January 30, 2008 12:28 PM | Report abuse

ok DenVinBer1. The sky is red up is down and left is right. We know. We have seen your people's faces the last 8 years.

do not blame the left for your parties downfall for a generation. It is not edwards or obama's fault. They just drew the line in the sand. You and those like you destroyed your party. If you want someone to blame, look in the mirror. Do not sabotage your countries future out of spite.

You fascists had your chance. you showed yoru faces and made yoru choices. It was the wrong face and the american people reject yoru choices. Now stand down and stop sabotaging your great nation. Choosing party/money over country is treason. Always will be

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 30, 2008 12:25 PM | Report abuse

With Edwards out, it may come to a McCain Obama race. We may have a choice between the too young and inexperenced v. the too old. This race may end up being more about age than race or gender.

Posted by: Chris_Dionigi | January 30, 2008 12:24 PM | Report abuse

I can't understand why Edwards would not endorse Obama. Most of what i heard in the first debates was his anger at the influence of lobbyists in Washington and at HRC for accepting tons of money from them. Also, the openness of the Edwards campaign and his honorable campaign tactics are in direct contradiction to her's. What she did in Nevada regarding the casino polling places which she once had endorsed and her pledge to Back the DNC re Florida which she has just trashed are not tactics Edwards would have used. Congratulations to Edwards for his great campaign. I wish he had found his voice in the last

Posted by: hschoenbach129 | January 30, 2008 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Edwards voice, reason and vision will be missed from this debate. I wish he would have stayed in as he has forced attention to the issue of poverty which no one else really wants to seriously talk about. The media's role in this race leaves much to be desired. Look at past headlines when the big two made policy annoucements and compare their plans to John's. More times than not John was there first (ex: fiscal stimulus) but never got the credit. If the spotlight would have been put on him and his policies I think things would have been different. But in this day of People magazine like political coverage who wants specifics when we can talk personalities and celebrity.

Posted by: krantsu | January 30, 2008 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Is anyone surprised? I'm not, the guy is a loon! He never cared about the poor or struggling middle class, he just thought they would fall into his plan. As for the other two candidates, one who's change theme is ridiculous (yeah change is good but not when it means higher taxes, socialized medicine and heading our country into the direction of European countries) and the other who claims she is against big business but has millions invested in them and who's husband takes millions a year, "by consulting," from the Saudi's. What a joke! Fear not the Republicans will prevail!

Posted by: DenVinBer1 | January 30, 2008 12:14 PM | Report abuse

With Edwards out,do we now look to the stars for an answer?

Posted by: TheDameDomain | January 30, 2008 12:14 PM | Report abuse

I would like to weigh in on the McCain vs HRC/Obama fight.

In my view, I believe McCain is now creating a new Republican party. A party without the religious freaks and more moderate fiscal minded voters.

I like conservative fiscal policies (registered dem here)...which are not necessarily always Republican values considering how Bush has spent us into debt. So for either HRC or Obama to defeat McCain you need to "steal his thunder" and appeal to a more fiscal agenda and back away from the liberal tax and spend strategy of Bill/Gore/Kerry.

I think HRC has portrayed herself as a more moderate Dem and Obama is taking more of a liberal side with Kennedy/Kerry endorsements. Having said that, HRC is the only Dem in a position to appeal to those fiscal voters who happen to also be moderate Dems. If it comes to McCain vs Obama, I might lean more toward McCain because of the fiscal policies not because he advocates them but because he has been consistent in them. Obama has now alligned himself with the liberal wing and that will ultimately play into McCain's winning strategy.

Posted by: dmoralestx | January 30, 2008 12:10 PM | Report abuse

For what it's worth, I would like to have voted for Edwards in the Georgia primary, but worried about throwing away my vote. I'll go with Obama for sure now. Hillary is qualified to be president, but the prospect of a choice between her and McCain is a little depressing. It's time to move on.

Posted by: vrob90 | January 30, 2008 12:09 PM | Report abuse


Thanks for posting a balanced report on WaPo. All the media bias against Clinton is making me want to vote for her.

Posted by: krm22201 | January 30, 2008 12:08 PM | Report abuse

When all is said and done, the Democrats are left with a polarizing Hillary and a young buck name Barack. I wished the Democratic party Godspeed.

Posted by: Gharza | January 30, 2008 12:07 PM | Report abuse

"John Edwards has spent a lifetime fighting to give voice to the voiceless and hope to the struggling, even when it wasn't popular to do or covered in the news."

Just when exactly was it not popular to give a "voice to the voiceless and hope to the struggling"? This is the type of idiotic statement that gives populism a bad name.

Posted by: dave | January 30, 2008 12:04 PM | Report abuse

I hear that mikeb. At least they show their faces and lose credibility. this is not cheerleading. What ever happened to credibility? What happens to clinton when edwards backs obama? "OH, this is great for clinton because." HAHAHAH

Everything can't be roses always. sometimes people have to acknowledge reality.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 30, 2008 11:59 AM | Report abuse

I have to wonder about what some people are saying that the anti-hillary vote will now consolidate - I have to feel that Edwards' vote will be split in some way between Obama and Edwards. It is not certian that Obama will pick up the vast majority of support.

We will have to see.

I am uncertain of the motives not to wait through SuperTuesday - and uncertain of the consequences, whether they be unintended or intentional.

Posted by: Miata7 | January 30, 2008 11:59 AM | Report abuse

0 for two am I. Thanks for the post. I'll shut up about Dennis now.

Posted by: dave | January 30, 2008 11:58 AM | Report abuse

well said Birddog. If you support clinton and think she would put edwards in that position, I can see that wisdom. To me, as an obama supporter, I see her as a status quo republcain. I don't think, if she is the establishment, she would nominate edwrads to take on said establishment. Whereas obama is about the future vs the past. He could and I think will do that, or at least try.

If obama is change and clinton is the past, why would she want edwards? doesn't make sense to me. Would be great and show the rest of us non-clinton supporter she is finally listening. But I doubt it. Great post Birddog.

When we get someone in there that cares for teh country, as opposed to one party, he could do some good work. Edwards has a fire in his belly. LEt's let it beniefet all americans. Not just some. The doj has been destroyed by gop crony meat puppets. Some serious work needs to be done. Edwards is teh right guy.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 30, 2008 11:56 AM | Report abuse

It's pretty funny, surfing these sites and listening to the Clinton folk figuring that Edwards' supporters will go to Clinton. Look, you have a pretty decent sampling of them right here. I haven't heard of more than one or two going to Clinton anywhere. All of us are now Obama supporters. For many (most?) of us, it's either Obama or McCain. Hillary is a pathetic joke; Bush dressed in drag.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | January 30, 2008 11:56 AM | Report abuse

My party has to stop acting schizophrenic.

If McCain is the Republican Nominee, which seems ever more likely, the Democrats better think twice before nominating someone with only oratory to back up his agenda, or lack therof.

To be honest, even as a young, but staunch, Democrat, I might vote for McCain if it becomes an Obama-McCain match-up.

Posted by: djcirin2005 | January 30, 2008 11:55 AM | Report abuse


Yesterday, over 1.6 million Floridian Democrats went to the polls knowing that, for the forseeable future, their votes may not count.

Yet, they went.

Almost 1 MILLION people pulled the lever for Senator Hillary Clinton and hardly anyone even mentioned it.

The media and the Obama nuts can spin it all they want. But no one made those voters vote for her.

They did it because they want her to be president.

Senator Clinton has a ton of support throughout the country.

You keep saying she can't win -- yet she gets 50% of Florida. She has major leads in most of Feb 5 states, including 25+% in Massachusetts, home of 250,000 college students.

Obama is not qualified. Good speeches don't qualify someone to be president.



Posted by: DickeyFuller | January 30, 2008 11:53 AM | Report abuse

How do magazines get articles written so quickly?,8599,1708147,00.html

Goodbye Mr Slipnfall, we hardly knew ye

Posted by: JD | January 30, 2008 11:53 AM | Report abuse

If the comments here from Edwards supporters are representative, then the preponderance of his support will go to Obama. While exit polling of nominal Edwards voters may show a more even split, there is heavy favoritism among strong Edwards partisans for Obama over Hillary. After all, if they were going to be for Hillary, they would already have been with her.

Hillary's problem is that circumstances meant that she started out with all of the potential support she could get, which was at one time more than 50% of the Democratic voters. But structurally, she could only lose, not gain, supporters. Her campaign has unavoidably been a downhill slide, the only question being whether the slide would be slow enough and gradual enough to see her through the primaries with a majority still intact. Doesn't look like it at this point.

Posted by: Stonecreek | January 30, 2008 11:48 AM | Report abuse

Let me be one of the first bloggers to suggest that John Edwards would make a terrific Attorney General in ANY Democratic Administration who was serious about cleaning-up the rampant white collar crime and political payola that is infecting and ruining our country today. His experience as a successful trail lawyer who specializes in personal injury lawsuites would make him a formidable foe in any court room proceedings and his well known dedication to promoting the interests of the middle classes and down trodden could help give him the needed ledgitmacy in the court of public opinion when Edwards went after the Big Fish, such as Haliburton and BlackWater for corruption and graft associated with their dispicable behavior during the Iraq War.

Edwards was always my second choice for the Democratic nomination behind Clinton because of his unwavering passion for justice and his outspoken support of the causes most affecting the middle and lower classes. I also liked the idea that Edwards (unlike Obama) was already known as somewhat of a pariah amoung the Right Wing element for making some of their biggest backers in the Insurance Industry and corporate world pay for their cavilar attitude towards the rights and well being of the little guy and Joe Six-pack.

Finally please note that I think it is critical that who ever ends up as the Democratic nominee for President be willing to appoint someone to the position of Attorney General of the United States who will be willing to face off with the Screw Balls and Right Wing panderers who make-up the majority of the US Supreme Court Justices at this particular point in time.

Specificly, it is Critical for a Democratic US Attorney General to try and stymie the erosion of the Rights and privilges of the middle classes being nakedly steamrolled by the Roberts Court.

John Edwards is clearly and undoubtedly the MAN FOR THE JOB....


Posted by: Birddog08 | January 30, 2008 11:43 AM | Report abuse


No need to step on edwards on the way out. he's a good man. Bashing him will not help your party of cicus clowns. The gop is done. Don't blame edwards or obama for that. You fascists and your propogandists did this to yourselves. Now hold your noses, nominate john mccain. And be happy about it. You people killed you own party. Do not sabotage yoru country. Get back in your caves gop.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 30, 2008 11:42 AM | Report abuse

It's nice to see all the warm wishes for The Edwards Family.I have always like Elizabeth and wish them well.

As for the fall out from both Edwards and Mayor 9/11 I have to say that Edwards will no doubt stay out of it, he would have endorsed otherwise. I agree that they will be split, with more going to Hillary. As was pointed out by Cook in Chris' post.

"While one can plausibly argue that Edwards withdrawal may unite the anti-Clinton vote, one can also argue that Edwards overwhelmingly white block of supporters come loose and might behave much as other white Democrats have done in the contests after Iowa, not vote for Obama," said Charlie Cook, a political analyst and publisher of the Cook Political Report. "I don't know which of those arguments will prevail."

The Rudy vote will like wise be split. Too many people do not like either, it's nice to see the GOP playing the Dem role in this election.

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | January 30, 2008 11:41 AM | Report abuse

Enough with the glowing obituaries for the Edwards campaign, which has been going on for five years now without results. He had neither charisma nor original ideas. He lost because he deserved to. Neither his campaign nor its end is particularly interesting, neither as politics nor as theatre.

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | January 30, 2008 11:38 AM | Report abuse

dave, it was actually posted here -- I went looking for it. The title is:

"Why Kucinich Dropped Out Now"

if that helps at all...

Here's wild speculation on the timing of the announcement by Edwards: it was a gift to Obama. This way, Clinton's win in Florida last night needs to split time with Edwards dropping out.

More likely, I think, is that he got five minutes to think about it, and decided that he had done as much as he could in this race.

Posted by: rpy1 | January 30, 2008 11:37 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 30, 2008 11:35 AM | Report abuse

For any of you interested in the nuts and bolts of the DeLay indictments, they have begun to filter into the Travis County DA's race.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 30, 2008 11:34 AM | Report abuse

Sen. Barack Obama has wasted little time paying tribute to his departing rival John Edwards. He just issued this statement:

"John Edwards has spent a lifetime fighting to give voice to the voiceless and hope to the struggling, even when it wasn't popular to do or covered in the news. At a time when our politics is too focused on who's up and who's down, he made a nation focus again on who matters - the New Orleans child without a home, the West Virginia miner without a job, the families who live in that other America that is not seen or heard or talked about by our leaders in Washington. John and Elizabeth Edwards have always believed deeply that we can change this - that two Americans can become one, and that our country can rally around this common purpose. So while his campaign may end today, the cause of their lives endures for all of us who still believe that we can achieve that dream of one America."


Very nice and well written. Almost like he knew this was coming. Hmmmm??

Posted by: zbob99 | January 30, 2008 11:33 AM | Report abuse

Two heavyweights, Edwards and Rudy Giuliani, are getting out of the ring today, leaving behind different modes of fighting for the presidency and being beaten.

Edwards worked hard on the campaign trail, basing his claim to the nomination on an honorable Democratic tradition of fighting for the poor and dispossessed.

Giuliani, on the other hand, tried to ride the 9/11 wave that made him rich all the way to the White House, disdaining the early primaries and expecting to be anointed with even less effort than lackadaisical Fred Thompson, who at least showed up for the early contests.

Posted by: connectdots | January 30, 2008 11:33 AM | Report abuse

EAsy tom1966. your forming at the mouth, buddy. :)

When edwards endorses obama will you appologize for hurting my feelings? HAHAHAHAHAH Just kidding.

I used to get accused and banned here for hurting people's feelings. I just wanted to try it once. :)

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 30, 2008 11:32 AM | Report abuse

Then I must have missed the announcement by Kucinich (wow!). I also must have missed the Fix discussion on his announcement and where his support went to. I can't seem to find that thread, CC.

Posted by: dave | January 30, 2008 11:30 AM | Report abuse

"JKrish -

Here's my concern with Obama v. McCain. By all means, I would push for him. But how does he differentiate himself from McCain sufficiently? I don't see it. Granted, McCain's average campaigning skills and average speaking skills may help, but I think Clinton is better able to draw the necessary and critical policy distinctions that we will face in the next decade. Could Obama do it?

Posted by: tungjimwu | January 30, 2008 11:09 AM"

for me the question is how does clinton differinciate herself from mccain. She is the same candidate, minus health care as mccain.

So you think obama cannot contrast mccain, and clinton can? Ok. I don't get that. Obama can say he is agaisn teh war from the begining, clinton is in the same boat as mccain.

both mccain and obama would move toward accountability for washington which is good, clinton would not. clinton represents what people hate about politics, neither obama nor mccain do (change, straight talk), earmarks, lobbyists, lie spin discredit misdirection.

Clinton cannot win. She should be running a republican as she is closer to lieberman than kennaddy obama or edwards.

I don't get how obama could not contrast mccain but clinton can. i don't see that at all. Old vs new. War vs peace.

Hopefully all woudl end fox and rush's carrer's, so that is good. That's one of my major goals, so it's all good. clinton being the less likely to do this because she likes that world so much. I want that world gone. Clinton wants to continue that as politics 2000. Time will tell. Clinton cannot win the general. It's not possible. So, where clinton supporters go from there I'm not sure.

I'm thinking clinton supporters are really republcains who vote democratic. Think about the future. The old folk that support her won't be around forever. the illegals that support her will either be going home or legal (where they can vote for whoever they choose when their citizenship is not at stake). Think about the future. Clinton can't win now, and she can't build her party for the future. to support her is to sabotage the democratic party, imo

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 30, 2008 11:27 AM | Report abuse

I agree with mark_in_austin. While I'm personally very disappointed, I am concerned that Elizabeth's health may be an issue here. I hope that's not the case, and wish them both all the best.

Posted by: jnfr | January 30, 2008 11:26 AM | Report abuse

"One can also argue that Edwards overwhelmingly white block of supporters come loose and might behave much as other white Democrats have done in the contests after Iowa, not vote for Obama."

I'm glad to see the Clintons have managed to make this about race. Doesn't his Iowa win demonstrate that Obama can get the vote of a place where the vast majority is white and not particularly educated?

Posted by: philb1 | January 30, 2008 11:23 AM | Report abuse

This is indeed good news for Hillary. If Edwards stayed, the democratic nomination process could be in chaos because nobody could clinch more than 50% delegates at the end (for example: Clinton 45%, Obama: 40%, Edwards: 15%). Now he is out, if his votes will split between Clinton and Obama, it allows Hillary (or whoever leading in getting most delegates on Feb. 5) to clinch the nomination on Feb. 5.

Posted by: dave_whal | January 30, 2008 11:19 AM | Report abuse


I was wondering when the first Obama cultist would try to SPIN Edwards HELPING Obama somehow. The facts clearly dont bear that out.

Edwards tried to be a 'change candidate' It failed. Then he tried to be a poor middle class candidate. Not a strength of obamas either.

The more edwards INFLUENCED the vote, the better Obama did. Iowa. The less he impacted the race, the better CLINTON did. Nevada.

And if you DIDNT NOTICE, Edwards was chewing Obama a new one FAR MORE than Clinton at the end of the race.

Edwards was backed into a 'status quo' white boy role. He had no radical cause, such as being african american or woman. In fact, the John Kerry endorsement was a SLAP in the face to Edwards, and did NOTHING to put edwards profile into the Obama camp.

the bottom line is edwards split the white vote in this increasingly racist nomination, where african americans INSIST on voting for Obama.

So you go stick this in your pipe and smoke it, and keep SPINNING it for Obama.

With much surpressed laughter Tom Davie.

Yee haw. Its a great dayt o be a Clinton supporter.

Posted by: tom1966 | January 30, 2008 11:19 AM | Report abuse

ok, so maybe there are only two viable candidates left, but news flash, mike gravel has not dropped out of the race. way to be fair and balanced, chris. how many might be inclined to vote for gravel if he hadn't been marginalized and excluded from the debates and the pages of this nation's papers? seems to me, chris, you write this blog to be informative. well, you've informed me that you're part of the problem in this country, sucking the big teat of the corporate-backed candidates. now's the time for change alright. it's time for you and this paper and all the media to start recognizing ALL the candidates.

Posted by: slickwil2000 | January 30, 2008 11:16 AM | Report abuse

While people had looked to Edwards staying in the race as a means of potentially determining the nominee at the convention, by dropping out he is just as much lending his influence to determining the nominee. The campaign has almost certainly looked at polls telling them who Edwards' supporters look to as a second choice.

Not having seen such polls myself, I hesitate to speculate who will get the bigger bump between Clinton and Obama. Conjecturally, a case could be made either way, but we'll see more clearly in a week. Edwards himself went from joining Obama in heavy attacks on Clinton in one debate to siding with Clinton against Obama in the next, so it isn't entirely clear to me who he thinks is the frontrunner or to whom he will lend his weight.

I have to wonder, too, if Edwards hasn't been mulling the potential of a VP slot. With enough delegates in his pocket, he could broker the VP position at a tight convention, but as the race shapes up more and more to a Clinton-Obama fight, Edwards would have had a hard time securing more than a small handful of delegates, if that. If Edwards does want the VP spot again, he is probably better to drop out now and court one or both of the remaining candidates.

Posted by: blert | January 30, 2008 11:16 AM | Report abuse

Thank you to John Edwards for waging a spirited and clean campaign. Best wishes to Sen Edwards and his family - especially Elizabeth in her battle with breast cancer.

At the Nevada caucus, three out of the four Edwards supporters at my precint changed over to the Obama side during the realignment. These were all elderly white males. I hope this is reflective of other Edwards supporters in other states. If it is Obama will get the majority of Edwards voters.

As McCain is the front runner for the GOP, then how can Hillary win on her 35 years of experience vs. McCain who has 50 years of experience? This year's election is about real change and shoring up the American infrastructure for future generations. Hillary cannot beat McCain, but Obama can.

Posted by: Nevadaandy | January 30, 2008 11:13 AM | Report abuse

Anyone want to bet that Edwards will get more media coverage in the next few days than he has throughout the entire campaign, and it will all be nicey-nice talk about what a wonderful guy he is.

Take a well-deserved rest, John and Elizabeth, and always know those of us who supported you stayed with you to the last.

Ironic, five minutes before the first AP story hit the web that John was departing the misinfromation maelstrom we call a political campaign, our county chair emailed me to see if I would give a short speech in support of the Edwards campaign, at our local Kansas caucus, an offer which I was glad, even proud, to accept. But now I'll be stumping for Obama instead.

So, this is something of a personal note to John and Elizabeth Edwards, posted on an obscure political blog, if they ever see it, then I am glad for it.

I am disappointed, certainly, but I also know how much relief you must both be feeling, mixed with all those other emotions, so let me speak for everyone here who supported you, we still think you are the leader of this pack, if not in the vote numbers, at least in terms of policy.

Every one of your policy statements was picked up and co-opted by your opponents. From Hope to Change, to One Ameica, you were the leader.

But our venerated media did a number on you, and all the advertising and grassroots support in the world can't overcome their stranglehold on the pliant public's vague awareness of their own increasingly desperate reality.

We live in a strange era of a money-grubbing media pandering to a profligate public mania with the most trivial of pursuits.

Maybe, John, if you had tried out for American Idol you might have had a better chance at reaching that public psyche with some of that basic truth you always spoke...

I'm supporting Obama now, for obvious reasons. But I will never change my mind that you chose to represent The People, first, and the others followed your cue time and time again.

John Patterson

Posted by: JEP7 | January 30, 2008 11:12 AM | Report abuse


Big Media (including the Washington Post) killed John Edwards by ignoring his campaign. They needed to make sure that no president took office who would level the playing field between income classes.
No where in this column is that truth mentioned. Cillizza and the rest of the right wing mouthpiece reporters are choosing for us and lying to us. Get ready to have John McCain stuck up your @ss, as well as lots of not so subtle slams on Obama and Hillary.
Democracy doesn't mean much if we don't get level handed exposure to the candidates. America...where you can vote for the candidate of the media's choice.

Posted by: fishingriver | January 30, 2008 11:12 AM | Report abuse

optimyst - "And to Dave, if I mischaracterized you in the prior thread as a Clinton supporter, my apologies. I am curious of your opinion about my analysis of the dem. vote last night."

I can see my thoughts on FL might lead someone to think that - so no problem. My response is on the previous thread. Unsurprisingly, we seem to still disagree!

Posted by: dave | January 30, 2008 11:10 AM | Report abuse

JKrish -

Here's my concern with Obama v. McCain. By all means, I would push for him. But how does he differentiate himself from McCain sufficiently? I don't see it. Granted, McCain's average campaigning skills and average speaking skills may help, but I think Clinton is better able to draw the necessary and critical policy distinctions that we will face in the next decade. Could Obama do it? Perhaps, but we don't know. Governance is more than just ideas. Maybe he can, but I believe Hillary will. I think both candidates would do great things for America's future, but I think Hillary is the one that's shown she can work across the aisle while running on a progressive plank.

I have no problems with Obama's campaign. In the 90's, that's what Clinton did basically. Now's not the time and place for that. For the Democratic Party, and for the progressive agenda, I think we need someone that can mold the debate, clarify the issues.

Posted by: tungjimwu | January 30, 2008 11:09 AM | Report abuse

Does anyone know the rules of the Democratic Party Convention? What happens to the delegates that Edwards has already won? Must they stay pledged to him in the voting, can he instruct them to support someone else, or are they turned free to support whoever?

Posted by: peterhoward | January 30, 2008 11:08 AM | Report abuse

I like John Edwards , he seems like a nice guy , but i really think he needs to be with his wife and family.

I really think that he will end up endorseing Obama , if he gets behind someone. If that is the case i think it will help Obama more then Clinton.

This thing really is about the "Past -vs- Future".......Clinton would be a dream come true for the Republicans because , they have mountains of scandals and Clinton trash to use against Hillary and Bill.

I just don't see Hillary as being electable in the General Election , she is a lightening rod for all that is wrong with Washington and would bring with her a house divided , and another do nothing congress.

Obama really is the best chance for the Democrats to move forward for a better tomorrow.

Posted by: cakemanjb | January 30, 2008 11:06 AM | Report abuse

Come on now. You woudl not believe in endorsments if it goes to bama. If clinton gets it, it's the biggest news of the year.

Like michagan and florida. Like the gop hypocrites, the street always run one way.

That is why she is done. Old politics. Everything can't be rosy all the time. She/people must acknowledge reality from time to time. Like bush she never admits a mistake, ever. Very bad charcteristic for someone who has made so many mistakes. Again, like bush.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 30, 2008 11:06 AM | Report abuse

The key poll is mccain vs obama/clinton. I don't think any non-clinton supporter in the world would say she can win that race, right now. Obama can beat anyone the r's put out there. If he can just get past the moderate gop sabotuers in his own party.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 30, 2008 11:03 AM | Report abuse


I think one of the things left out in your discussion is the fact that, of the remaining candidates, I think HRC's campaign and planks run more in line with what Edwards was basing it on. I mean, Edwards voters are largely core Democrats, who have largely swayed to HRC. What kind of impact will that have?

As a HRC supporter, I'm wary of an Edwards endorsement. Personally, I don't believe in endorsements, but I know they make a dent of some sort. I'm hoping he stays out of it until February 5th, although it feels like whoever champions poverty will have an edge. (as an aside, with all the news on obama's potential back room dealings with edwards on the ag spot, it is somewhat funny that people have completely dropped the whole 'what did hillary and edwards talk about after the debate' angle).

for me, I'm hoping that the progressive agenda is moved forward, that the democratic party has an identity to it, and I believe said candidate best equipped to do it to be HRC. At the end of the day, though, I'm a dem. For all the vitriol that seems to be in the blogosphere these days, I like Obama as well, and if he wins, I'll be pulling for him come November.

Posted by: tungjimwu | January 30, 2008 11:03 AM | Report abuse

I truly do not understand this decision by the Edwards camp unless it has personal motivations - and I too hope that it has nothing to do with Elizabeth Edwards' health.

As to the commenter that his possibility for having a voice at the convention was waning, I disagree in full. Until the Super Tuesday results come out, there is no way of knowing what was going to happen. While I will concede that Edwards was probably not going to win any of those contests, if Clinton and Obama split the delegates, and Edwards takes a few, neither Obama nor Clinton will likely have enough come the convention.

During the convention, if neither candidate has received the requisite 2025 delegates, the first vote will be nothing more than a token. After the first vote, the delegates have the option to vote however they would like. While it is still probably unlikely that Edwards would end up winning, further acrimonious debating between now and the convention could easily persuade the delegates that Clinton and Obama control to turn to Edwards in a second vote. In the alternative, Edwards will be able to release his delegates to one candidate or the other, and thus have a huge impact on the nominee - possibly in exchange for either the seat of VP or AG.

Either way, unless there is personal motivation behind the drop-out, it strikes me (and many strategists) as unwise - especially since he doesn't plan to immediately endorse either candidate.

Posted by: marinebio72 | January 30, 2008 11:00 AM | Report abuse

the pragmatic Democrats who want to win the general election will vote for Clinton.

Posted by: politicalobserver1 | January 30, 2008 10:49 AM

This sentiment is repeated by many posters as FACT, most notably lylepink. BUT, all the head to head polls show Obama performing better against the Republicans than Clinton. Furthermore, nothing will wake up the dispirited Republican base like the chance to vote against Hillary Clinton. It is no accident that more and more red state Democratic politicians are supporting Obama - they know that HRC at the head of the ticket will have a toxic effect on down-ticket Democratic candidates.

Posted by: jimd52 | January 30, 2008 10:58 AM | Report abuse

I would have much rather this race been between Edwards and Obama instead of having Clinton in there. But now the choice is clear. If Clinton is our nominee she will never beat McCain. Obama can. He draws from the independents just like McCain. Clinton only gets the base, which is why she is not competing in all the states like Obama. She is only going to the traditional liberal states like New York and California. Please Democrats, don't pick a general election loser like her.

Posted by: goldie2 | January 30, 2008 10:56 AM | Report abuse

Edwards brought up a lot of good issues in this campaign, so he'll be missed. First out with a health care plan, first to bring up the "donut-hole" Social Security cap idea, etc. Best wishes to him & family.

In terms of the campaign, I think it helps Clinton more than Obama. Edwards had a lot of long-term Dems, and I think they'll break for Clinton.

And dave, I'm pretty sure that Dennis K dropped out already. Contenders were starting to show up for a primary race for his House seat.

Posted by: rpy1 | January 30, 2008 10:55 AM | Report abuse

"My vote will be with none of the current candidates. My disgust with media coverage, however, will be felt in what I buy and what I communicate to advertisers. May the ongoing decline of the media be slow and painful for all of its willing co-conspirators.

Posted by: upstate111 | January 30, 2008 10:48 AM

then you let the media and the gop win. You allow them to successfully disenfranchise you. That is your choice. But the only power they have is the power you give them. Take it back this year.

Obama-Dodd 08

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 30, 2008 10:54 AM | Report abuse

on another note, rudy is done.


I feel better now. We got america back from the fascists, people. Regardless of how the election turns out we will be able to build a new america regardless. America has embraced change. The beast I have been fighting has been slain. It took a couple years. But we changed this great country from the ground up.

Thank you all political junkies for being a part of the future. While dragging the past behind like a ton of bricks, we now are not slaves to it. The future starts today.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 30, 2008 10:52 AM | Report abuse

Is anyone aware of any polls asking Edwards supporters who their second choice was? I saw a second-choice question in the Republican exit polls from Florida. It seems like some pollster should have asked Democratic voters this, to help stop the speculation about where Edwards' supporters will go. (Or at least fuel the speculation with some actual data.)

Now that he's out of the race, Edwards has time to devote to the next phase of his life: The 2012 campaign!

Posted by: Blarg | January 30, 2008 10:52 AM | Report abuse

I, too, will miss John Edwards in the campaign, but I am convinced he is doing the right thing. He helped push the other candidates to address his progressive agenda, but now there's no more for him to offer, and his absence will lend more clarity to the results of the rest of the primaries and caucuses.

As for his motivation, he obviously recognizes that he can't win the nomination, and he probably had no interest in playing some sort of "kingmaker" role at the convention -- not at the cost of staying in the race and spending millions more dollars that he doesn't have.

Finally, on the question of where his voters will go, I don't know how anyone can make any definitive judgment about that. As with any candidate's supporters, Edwards's are not a monolith and, in the absence of an endorsement, they may very well split between the other two. (As an Obama supporter, I would hope most of them would support him, since I think his agenda is closer to Edwards's than to Clinton's, but who knows?)

Posted by: jac13 | January 30, 2008 10:52 AM | Report abuse

I respect Mr. Edwarsd. I think his policies were a little over the top with regard to anti corporations and pro little guy. Beleive me I am pro the little guy buit his polices came off as give aways form another time in the Democratic party. Those ideas don't work because they are not pragmatic. It was Bill Clinton of the 90's who brought pragmatism and electabilty to the Democrats. It was the a "little too far to the left" Kennedy's Democratic party who could not win the White House. John Edwards is of that mold. As to who he will support, my guess is HRC. I think he was leaning that way in the last few debates. I think his voters will be split closely, but overall I think HRC will get the slim majority. The anti Clinton vote will go to Obama, but the pragmatic Democrats who want to win the general election will vote for Clinton.

Posted by: politicalobserver1 | January 30, 2008 10:49 AM | Report abuse

As to which candidates' Edward's supporters will go to, I know two of them, and one will vote for Clinton and the other for McCain. Both are labor union Dems.

Posted by: lorddunsmore | January 30, 2008 10:49 AM | Report abuse

The real losers here are the voters.

The next big loser is the mainstream media, including this newspaper.

This election put the credibility decline of the media on display for everyone to see. How pathetic.

A recent example, effectively mocked by Jon Stewart, is on display at

By pandering to race vs. gender, the media (including you, Chris) contributed to the decline of an informed electorate who now go to polls woefully uninformed.

My vote will be with none of the current candidates. My disgust with media coverage, however, will be felt in what I buy and what I communicate to advertisers. May the ongoing decline of the media be slow and painful for all of its willing co-conspirators.

Posted by: upstate111 | January 30, 2008 10:48 AM | Report abuse

All Praise to the one true God.

Thank you for all the great work you have done and will continue to do, Mr. Edwards. It just wasn't in the cards this year. Edwards was right. He was first on some major issues. And the whole time he was a gracious man. Great man, John edwards. I have much more respect today for him than I did yesterday.

A true american patriot. This will not be forgotten. You haven't heard th elast of John edwards.

Now it's on, for real. :)

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | January 30, 2008 10:47 AM | Report abuse

I had the same thoughts on the timing but did not actually want to type anything about it - not that I am superstitious but just really hoping that's not the reason. While I had stated previously that for me, listening to Edwards rhetoric is like fingernails on a chalkboard, I certainly wish him and his family well.

And then there were two...(well, actually isn't Kucinich still technically in it too?)

Posted by: dave | January 30, 2008 10:47 AM | Report abuse

I feel bad for John Edwards. Wish him very well.

I wish he will endorse HRC as Obama is all air.

Posted by: VoterfromIL | January 30, 2008 10:46 AM | Report abuse

You can make a good argument either way on where his voters will go, but nobody really knows.

Posted by: vbhoomes | January 30, 2008 10:06 AM

Before I start discussing politics, let me add my hopes that this isn't motivated by Mrs. Edwards' health.

I agree. I did note that he and Obama split the rural counties in North Florida. Whether the rural white "rednecks" will go for Obama or HRC is very uncertain.

Obama carried two counties on either end of the state with heavy military populations - Escambia in NW Florida home of Pensacola Naval Air Station and Duval in NE Florida (where I live) home of two large Naval bases and where the Democratic vote is heavily African-American. Outside of A-A vote, I expect that the antipathy many in the military feel towards HRC contributed. Obama also carried Alachua county, home of the University of Florida and Leon County, home of Florida State and Florida A & M (historically A-A) as well as the capital of Tallahassee.

Certainly, Obama can now be the sole anti-Hillary and as it becomes more and more likely that McCain will win the GOP nomination, the electability factor ought to start entering the equation.

The idea of Obama and McCain having an adult discussion on the issues during the campaign will be refreshing. Of course, the 527's on both sides will be spewing dirt.

Posted by: jimd52 | January 30, 2008 10:46 AM | Report abuse

Let me give my opinion in but first I want to thank Edwards for running.

I have always liked him and his populist campaign because unlike Hillary or Obama, he focused on the disadvantaged, truly blue collar, good old American values and I respect that. If Hillary were not running, I would back Edwards because he is a tough guy, and I truly believe that he would stand up and fight for the American people. So, thank you Senator Edwards.

I am not going to make a prediction of where his vote goes but if I were a true die hard Edwards supporter, I would stick with him and vote for him come Tuesday. Why? Because it still sends a message to the other two candidates that his issues need to be addressed.

Posted by: dmoralestx | January 30, 2008 10:44 AM | Report abuse

I supported Edwards but now I'm voting for Obama.

Posted by: john.kolden | January 30, 2008 10:43 AM | Report abuse

Nothing more to say than, as meldupree wrote:
Godspeed and courage to the Edwards family.

Posted by: ddozier | January 30, 2008 10:41 AM | Report abuse

I think that this unquestionaly helps Barack Obama. The vote will split, but I'd imagine Obama will take 2/3 of it. I think it will be easier for Edwards' supporters to warm up to Obama instead of Clinton, if this trend has not already begun. Will Gore endorse Obama? i've read some leads, which posit that Gore will endorse Obama tomorrow or Friday.

New Yorkers for Obama

Posted by: legan00 | January 30, 2008 10:40 AM | Report abuse

Senator Edwards, perhaps because of his background as a successful trial lawyer, always gave me (and, presumably, many Democratic voters) the impression he was primarily interested in winning elections and winning over voters rather than achieving the causes that he spoke about. In short, many people thought he was a phony. Here is a prediction: in one or two years he will be back to making millions again as an attorney.

Posted by: Dshemin | January 30, 2008 10:39 AM | Report abuse

"Edwards' departure also likely means a further coalescing of the anti-Clinton vote behind Obama -- although it is clear from recent votes that process was already well under way."

Yes, with the exception of the troglodyte vote, those who would never vote for either a woman or an African-American. It's the final component of the GOP Southern Strategy implemented courtesy of the D party. Not that it's a bad thing.

I also question the timing of this decision. I'm more inclined to be suspicious and wonder if this isn't the result of a deal between JRE and the other campaigns. At this point, both will pick up JRE's voters (aside from the troglodytes) and so both stand to gain.

"....whatever Access Hollywood drivel they can make up."

"I am JE supporter and will support HRC now for the second reason, since I am AA."
AA = Alcoholics Anonymous?

Posted by: judgeccrater | January 30, 2008 10:37 AM | Report abuse

John Edwards ran a good, clean campaign; played by the rules; was always gracious to one and all, candidates, public, press. The economic causes he championed need the attention they haven't received since the days of JFK, LBJ, and JEC. It seems his dedication was genuine, much more than the quadrennial lip-service that they've had lately. It's been a very long three decades for the poorest among us--and that with all the politicians singing "Hallelujah! Amen! I have seen the Lord!" day and night. A lot of folk are still waiting for the first drop to trickle down to them. Patience has not paid.
Despite all of John Edwards' urgency, now has not been his moment. The man has a lot to offer his party, no doubt, but it also seems that there are many things he has to tend to in his personal life, and it may be a blessing that he has a little bit of time to dedicate to his family after the strenuous demands of his non-stop campaigning.
A week ago it was a woman, an African-American, and..., uh..., John. I think John will be more missed than his vote tally ever managed to show.

Posted by: rarignac | January 30, 2008 10:37 AM | Report abuse

Affluent, liberal, educated whites and African-Americans support Obama. Neither of those catagories describes most Edwards supporters. Thus, HRC gets the net gain from this.

Posted by: Dliodoir | January 30, 2008 10:37 AM | Report abuse

And neither Edwards nor Richardson will make endorsements. Edwards needs a job, won't somebody please give him a job! Also, Richardson is old school Clinton comrade, even if he's on the out. He's like the black sheep of the Clinton flock.

That 20 minute convo at the debates b/w Edwards and Clinton over which so much was made? I bet she was asking him to stay neutral.

Put Edwards in charge of Justice!

Posted by: thompsmd | January 30, 2008 10:36 AM | Report abuse

I think the Edwards vote will split. Union voters will move to Clinton, while privileged and campus liberals will move to Obama.

However, I wonder how the Southern vote will go? Clinton's personality and demeanor may be a strike against her. Obama seems much more, shall we say, well mannered? He might be able to get some God-voters in rural and Southern areas while keeping big city liberals if he plays his cards right.

Posted by: thompsmd | January 30, 2008 10:32 AM | Report abuse

Senator Edwards exit from the Democratic primaries, one week before Super Tuesday adds to the excitement and uncertainty that is part of the fabric of the 2008 contest for the Democratic presidential nomination. No doubt both the Clinton and Obama camps are hoping for an endorsement from the departed Edwards.

Moreover, if Edwards does endorse either Obama or Clinton, will it resonate with Edwards's constituency and will they now vote for his preferred candidate? Edwards began and now is ending his quest for the presidency in New Orleans, LA. This place is full of symbolism (the devastation of Hurricane Katrina and the almost abandonment of New Orleans and the Gulf by the Federal Government) and the images from New Orleans backdrop dovetails nicely into Edwards' noble rhetoric about doing more to help the poor in this country.

Senator Edwards values appeal more to the liberal wing of the Democratic Party who are seeking something new (those who are more likely to support Obama); but most of those who have voted for Edwards have been white, male, working class, and older than 18-29 (those voters who by their profile are more likely to now join the Clinton campaign). So, it remains to be seen next Tuesday evening on how his departure affects either of the two remaining candidates quest for the nomination.

Beni Dakar
Duluth, GA

Posted by: wedaconnectionmoderator | January 30, 2008 10:32 AM | Report abuse

I believe that JE's supporters will mostly move to HRC for two reasons:
1, She is white; Already seen that in SC, JE and HRC splitted white votes;
2, Both are pro-union, Obama only had one union (indeed he lost the union members)

I am JE supporter and will support HRC now for the second reason, since I am AA.

Posted by: our00700 | January 30, 2008 10:25 AM | Report abuse

Senator Obama has a line in his stump speech regarding the conventional wisdom that "the poor don't vote." I'd suggest that if the poor do, in fact, turn out in more significant numbers than in the past, it will be due in no small part to the spirited campaign of Senator John Edwards. The remaining candidates owe him their thanks for that. He will be remembered for his passion in addressing the needs of the common people, and certainly his wife Elizabeth will be remembered for her courage. Best wishes to them both.

Posted by: thewolf1 | January 30, 2008 10:24 AM | Report abuse

Obama/Edwards an unstoppable combination for the White House...

Posted by: nerakami | January 30, 2008 10:23 AM | Report abuse

I like Edwards. He was my first choice for awhile. I think he made the right decision for the country to drop out now and let his supporters influence the results on Super Tuesday as to whether they get behind Clinton or Obama. All my friends who said they were going for Edwards also said they would go for Obama, especially after the Hill & Bill show in S.C., so it will be interesting. Go Obama! I'd love to see Richardson selected as his VP and Edwards as Attorney General. The thought is almost enough to make me feel hopeful. More War McCain? There's a cause for depression.

Posted by: SarahBB | January 30, 2008 10:21 AM | Report abuse

I add my warm wishes to the Edwards', a class act all the way.

In attempting to infer a motive for the timing, perhaps they saw the possibility of their strategy in the south impacting Obama unfavorably so they preferred not being a spoiler at a time when it appeared that their hopes for a significant role in the convention were waning.

And to Dave, if I mischaracterized you in the prior thread as a Clinton supporter, my apologies. I am curious of your opinion about my analysis of the dem. vote last night.

Posted by: optimyst | January 30, 2008 10:21 AM | Report abuse

This is very interesting. This article highlights just this (in the closing),
The Edwards Factor:
(This is not necessarily good news for Obama.)

Posted by: davidmwe | January 30, 2008 10:20 AM | Report abuse

Thank you John Edwards, for bringing an honest, adult voice to the are a good man and we are lucky to have you in public life.

Poverty is an issue that is complex and affects all people in this country. Maybe Edwards can work with Jimmy Carter on this in the future? Where is Carter? Time for him to speak up...he usually does.

Hopefully Edwards will endorse Obama and actively campaign for real change...and down the road become a part of the Obama administration....Atty Gen?

Posted by: BGreat_in2008 | January 30, 2008 10:20 AM | Report abuse

On the issues, John Edwards set our party on the right course. I hope that he endorses Obama because I don't think Hillary can beat McCain.

If it's those two, both hard core right wingers will sit out McCain and many Dems who are dissapointed in Hillary's tactics will also lack enthusiasm.

That will leave it up to independents who, in my opinion will choose McCain.

Also there's the irrational Hillary hatred that will keep other like minded independents from voting for her.

Men will vote for McCain in droves.

Obama is different though. He could beat McCain on both the War and the Economy as well as his youthful vitality.

All Edwards fans....I am one of them....endorse Obama for victory in 08!

Posted by: eafcommunication | January 30, 2008 10:20 AM | Report abuse

Most of his votes will go to Hillary. Most unions endorsed Edwards or Hillary. Now union members will vote for Hillary

Posted by: dave_whal | January 30, 2008 10:16 AM | Report abuse

I'm with williamhunt. Please, John Edwards, throw your support to Barack Obama and campaign for him. You both want a real change from status quo politics-it's a natural team. I would definitely support John Edwards for AG in the Obama administration.

williamhunt-I think Obama/Richardson would be a fantastic ticket. But I wonder if Obama/Napolitano wouldn't be even better: that way we still get to shatter the glass ceiling for women in this election, plus she'll also bring in the Southwest! What do you think?

Posted by: ASinMoCo | January 30, 2008 10:16 AM | Report abuse

I, like most of us, hope that this isn't something to do with Mrs Edwards' health and if it is then I wish them all the best in their future.

John Edwards is a good person who has worked his way up from the bottom to the top and has helped out alot of people along the way.

The timing of the announcement does however have a suspicious feel to it. I could imagine a situation where say Al Gore called him and asked him to step aside for the good of the Obama campaign. Just throwing it out there. Also How about Edwards running for his old seat in NC again???? Dole vs Edwards anyone....

Posted by: AndyR3 | January 30, 2008 10:15 AM | Report abuse

Congratulations Senator Edwards on a hard-fought campaign. Best wishes to you and your family.

Posted by: dnbraggs | January 30, 2008 10:14 AM | Report abuse

First of all, Chris, let me compliment you on your new beard. Very nice.

On Edwards decision, like others, it saddens me. I got used to having him around on the campaign trail. My first thought was to wonder about Elizabeth. I've been a fan of her's ever since she appeared on the national scene in 2003. I wish her the best.

Posted by: Cyn2fromMaine | January 30, 2008 10:11 AM | Report abuse

Now it is down to Hillary vs Obama.
The question is which one will get the Edwards vote. We may know in a few days after the Super Tuesday primaries.

Was the Florida primary meaningless according to the big city newspapers?
I don't think so. His poor showing made Edwards aware that his fight was futile, and he decided to get out of the way before Super Tuesday. He did the right thing.

Now it is a fair contest between Hillary and Obama. I cannot wait to see the reaction from both sides.

Posted by: rjldec1 | January 30, 2008 10:10 AM | Report abuse

The Edwards campaign did the Democratic Party a great service by focussing the issues. He should bring it to a fitting conclusion by endorsing Obama in time to influence the February 5th primaries. We can then look forward to having him as Attorney-General in an Obama/Richardson administration.

Posted by: williamhunt | January 30, 2008 10:09 AM | Report abuse

Edwards made the right decision, Give him credit for throwing his hat in the arena. Its a tough business. You can make a good argument either way on where his voters will go, but nobody really knows.

Posted by: vbhoomes | January 30, 2008 10:06 AM | Report abuse

John Edwards is a good man. I hope he spends the time well with his dear wife, Elizabeth, and the children. Leave the fight between Clinton and Obama. Godspeed and courage to the Edwards family.

Posted by: meldupree | January 30, 2008 10:03 AM | Report abuse

Although I'm an Obama supporter, I'm kind of disappointed that both Kucinich and Edwards have dropped out. I have always liked Kucinich and I have liked Edwards more and more as I listen to him... but think about it. We have two candidates now, neither of whom are white men. Compare that with the Republicans, who are all white men. That is truly historic. Even so, I wish he would both Kucinich and Edwards had stayed past super Tuesday.

What I don't like about this whole system is that a handful of states get to decide who gets weeded out. I understand the reasoning behind Iowa and NH, and I don't completely disagree with it, but I do think that they have too much power to make or break candidates. So many candidates have dropped out even before Super Tuesday... that is disturbing for me, and I don't think it is good for the democratic process.

Posted by: sgsilver | January 30, 2008 10:02 AM | Report abuse

I don't understand why he would drop out this close to Super Tuesday if he didn't have plans to endorse someone. It just doesn't make sense. Also, how will the delegates he's already won be dispersed? Does he get to choose where they go?

Posted by: katharinerusso | January 30, 2008 9:59 AM | Report abuse

Edwards made a great contribution to this race and drove the policy debate from the start. His voice will be missed in this camoaign as Cilliza and Co turn back to the snub, the card, the tears, or whatever Access Hollywood drivel they can make up.

Posted by: sfmandrew | January 30, 2008 9:58 AM | Report abuse

Time to find out how strong the Anyone But Clinton movement really is among primary-voting Dems.

Posted by: bsimon | January 30, 2008 9:56 AM | Report abuse

It will at least break up the McCain victory news cycle.

Posted by: klotlikar | January 30, 2008 9:54 AM | Report abuse

Despite their differences, Obama and Edwards supporters have similar interests at heart: they both earnestly want change and to negate the influence of special interests in washington. I can't possibly see why an Edwards supporter would switch to simply does not make any sense.

Posted by: icr7 | January 30, 2008 9:54 AM | Report abuse

I, like dave on the previous thread, do not understand JRE's decision on its face. He had enough money to compete in small media market rural states, especially in the south.

So I infer private motivations and
thus am constrained to wish Elizabeth Edwards every edge in her fight with cancer, and both of them well in their personal lives.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 30, 2008 9:53 AM | Report abuse

What a shame, he will be missed. Edwards ran a good campaign based on the issues affect America. Good Man

Who Will John Edwards Endorse?


Posted by: PollM | January 30, 2008 9:47 AM | Report abuse

Wow. Just, wow. You know, I feel bad for the guy, just bad timing's all. Do hope he endorses and gets a place in whatever administration's to come. (Go Obama!)

Posted by: schencks84 | January 30, 2008 9:46 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company