Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama Pays a Visit to John Edwards

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) made a pilgrimage to North Carolina today to visit with John Edwards, according to his spokesman.

"Senator Obama visited this morning with John and Elizabeth Edwards at their home in Chapel Hill to discuss the state of the campaign and the pressing issues facing American families," said Bill Burton.

An earlier meeting between the two men was canceled when word of it leaked to the media. Both Edwards and Obama wanted the chance to get together in private without scads of television cameras and reporters hovering.

Both Obama and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) covet an endorsement form Edwards, the former senator and two-time presidential candidate who left the '08 race last month after failing to place better than second in the early primaries and caucuses.

Obama advisers said today's meeting went well but that Clinton, too, likely had a positive meeting when she traveled to Chapel Hill earlier this month and were not reading between the lines.

Edwards retains a considerable following, especially among certain union members. And he is closely allied with the deep-pocketed trial lawyers community.

Edwards is expected to endorse a candidate but who and when remain a mystery.

More on this story tomorrow.

The Post's Dan Balz contributed to this item.

By Chris Cillizza  |  February 17, 2008; 5:51 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Clinton Ups the Ante in Wisconsin
Next: Pining for JFK?


ysxhqnr pdqhlgonu kbny kopulwrjy qbpvicok qledr utrkol [URL][/URL] uxeznqav dtxhkw

Posted by: ahegnpyid lfbdn | April 16, 2008 11:39 AM | Report abuse

uqedbjvpy tnsmbfqzj mhpb ctkjvyfwx nyjdo tfonup somk [URL=]dpraykfo kclavxouy[/URL]

Posted by: vqdji eqsdvkghz | April 16, 2008 11:37 AM | Report abuse

djuqv hkbmryu ujktvmzwf lusojtv xugl jnitfxb fwhj mtfbcgj cyvh

Posted by: xeqo vgkbrhz | April 16, 2008 11:36 AM | Report abuse

djuqv hkbmryu ujktvmzwf lusojtv xugl jnitfxb fwhj mtfbcgj cyvh

Posted by: xeqo vgkbrhz | April 16, 2008 11:35 AM | Report abuse

fvyx tnxg otevmjhsu bpthjgnu rfyvp xnkegmo yuikovgp

Posted by: spqfcynv jftniuqwv | April 16, 2008 11:33 AM | Report abuse


Didn't she cry during the South Carolina debate? cry on a stage, in front of millions of viewers. She cried, when Sen Obama and Edwards, hit her tough questions and statements.
This was not the trait of a strong emotional leader. This was the trait of a spoiled rotten brat; she couldn't get her way during the debate,so she started crying.

Then, when she lost Iowa to Obama, and saw another impending win by him in New Hamshire, what did she do? She ran to daddy, "Bill Clinton", and said, "Daddy, Daddy, Daddy, help me win the New Hamshire Primary, Please!!!!!!!, " He being the good, "( #@!%^! -whipped)" father, helped her win the New Hamshire Primary......

When stuff gets tough for Hillary, she has to run to daddy, or pout and start crying like a little school girl, to get her way.
She is a spoiled rotten little brat and the last thing we need in the White House,
GEORGE W BUSH "JR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"" IS ENOUGH.......

And Hilliary Clinton has the audacity to say, Obama is not ready for the Presidency. Neither is she, if you look at the evidence in her campaign.......

VOTE A, "MAN", INTO THE WHITE HOUSE....VOTE OBAMA, the only people he can run too, is "Michelle Obama", and the American People.

Posted by: othomps2000 | February 21, 2008 7:13 AM | Report abuse

I wish Edwards endorses Hillary Clinton. I hope John decides endorsement subjectively.

Posted by: kreisch | February 18, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

gIVES ME A LECTURE ABOUT being naive, then proceds to bash obama. Then links to krugman.

Wow. Keep it up clinton propogandist. Maybe some non-dittohead will buy it. I don't it. Clinton is gop. Her downfall will parallel the gop's. irrelevance for a generation. They sure earned it.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | February 18, 2008 4:36 PM | Report abuse

John Edwards possible love child was not picked up by the mainstream press.

The Republicans will pick up the Sinclair story.

He has already been offered $100,000 to tell the story. The bidding will just go up.

Please remember that in the Duke Lacrosse case, a person succeeded in slandering many with false accusation, at great emotional and societal cost.

Why didn't Mr. Sinclair report this story 6 years ago?

It is 100% clear that Mr. Sinclair is raising his story because there is a presidential election.

Not even a senatorial election was enough for him to come forward. And mind you, Obama's competitor in that race fell out for matters related to swing clubs in France with his ex-wife. There was certain ample room for smut to have been recorded.

Mr. Sinclair thus paints himself, at best, as a very dodgy individual. Not dissimilar to the woman in the Duke case. The press is right to go slow, and to leave the full burden of proof on Mr. Sinclair.

Had Sinclair awoken the next day, in a lucid moment, and gone to turn himself in for breaking the law, and then reported the person he now accuses, he would have some integrity to be considered.

Mr. Sinclair had ample time to show such. And should be ignored until he overcomes long odds and proves his story.

Posted by: tdn0024 | February 18, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse


You took up enough space for twenty posts. Why didn't you just provide a link?
Or was it on a GOP web site?

Here's just one problem area I see:

"Finally, I am not arguing that we "unilaterally disarm" in the face of Republican attacks, or bite our tongue when this Administration screws up. Whenever they are wrong, inept, or dishonest, we should say so clearly and repeatedly; "

During his short stint, his first, in really campaigning in a legit race for office, he has dumbed down any reproach of GOP policies, instead aligned himself with them, placed ads on GOP web sites, identified himself with the Reagan image; let's face it Rove might want this guy to win, but DFLERS don't.

How naive to think that if the next President is a Democrat, any Democrat, that they're going to get-ff scott free and avoid the destructive right wing attack machine.

BTW, in case you hadn't noticed the belittling that's been going on against the Clinton applies to others that dispute.
Read the article about "Clinton Rules."

Posted by: vammap | February 18, 2008 12:52 PM | Report abuse

I don't see Obama picking someone who is Jewish, or female. Though I like Spitzer and he'd be a great AG. Seems to me that Richardson makes more sense to me, or another western state.

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | February 18, 2008 12:38 PM | Report abuse



Posted by: bsimon | February 18, 2008 11:57 AM | Report abuse

What is edwards waiting for? Hillary or Obama? what's the holdup?

Just one post from me today. I stumbled on this from the kos. Altough I do not want to back down. We cannot defeat the fascists by becoming them. Some people only respect strength. Some people will only back down when scared. These are universal truths. but I'm trying to disagree without being disagreeable. :)

when you look into the eyes of the devil sometimes the devil looks back.

Peace and God Bless. Heaven help us.

"Tone, Truth, and the Democratic Party
by Barack Obama
Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 07:38:41 AM PST
Update [2005-9-30 10:38:41 by Armando]: From the diaries by Armando. Since it is not our normal practice to promote diaries from our representatives, I think I should explain why I chose to promote Senator Obama's diary. Simply put, Sen. Obama's diary addresses in substance an issue that has been a major focus of discussion in our community. Given the source, the topic and the specific thoughts, and the discussion sure to ensue, it is my judgment that promotion was the right thing to do.

I read with interest your recent discussion regarding my comments on the floor(1, 2, 3) during the debate on John Roberts' nomination. I don't get a chance to follow blog traffic as regularly as I would like, and rarely get the time to participate in the discussions. I thought this might be a good opportunity to offer some thoughts about not only judicial confirmations, but how to bring about meaningful change in this country.

Maybe some of you believe I could have made my general point more artfully, but it's precisely because many of these groups are friends and supporters that I felt it necessary to speak my mind.

Barack Obama's diary :: ::
There is one way, over the long haul, to guarantee the appointment of judges that are sensitive to issues of social justice, and that is to win the right to appoint them by recapturing the presidency and the Senate. And I don't believe we get there by vilifying good allies, with a lifetime record of battling for progressive causes, over one vote or position. I am convinced that, our mutual frustrations and strongly-held beliefs notwithstanding, the strategy driving much of Democratic advocacy, and the tone of much of our rhetoric, is an impediment to creating a workable progressive majority in this country.

According to the storyline that drives many advocacy groups and Democratic activists - a storyline often reflected in comments on this blog - we are up against a sharply partisan, radically conservative, take-no-prisoners Republican party. They have beaten us twice by energizing their base with red meat rhetoric and single-minded devotion and discipline to their agenda. In order to beat them, it is necessary for Democrats to get some backbone, give as good as they get, brook no compromise, drive out Democrats who are interested in "appeasing" the right wing, and enforce a more clearly progressive agenda. The country, finally knowing what we stand for and seeing a sharp contrast, will rally to our side and thereby usher in a new progressive era.

I think this perspective misreads the American people. From traveling throughout Illinois and more recently around the country, I can tell you that Americans are suspicious of labels and suspicious of jargon. They don't think George Bush is mean-spirited or prejudiced, but have become aware that his administration is irresponsible and often incompetent. They don't think that corporations are inherently evil (a lot of them work in corporations), but they recognize that big business, unchecked, can fix the game to the detriment of working people and small entrepreneurs. They don't think America is an imperialist brute, but are angry that the case to invade Iraq was exaggerated, are worried that we have unnecessarily alienated existing and potential allies around the world, and are ashamed by events like those at Abu Ghraib which violate our ideals as a country.

It's this non-ideological lens through which much of the country viewed Judge Roberts' confirmation hearings. A majority of folks, including a number of Democrats and Independents, don't think that John Roberts is an ideologue bent on overturning every vestige of civil rights and civil liberties protections in our possession. Instead, they have good reason to believe he is a conservative judge who is (like it or not) within the mainstream of American jurisprudence, a judge appointed by a conservative president who could have done much worse (and probably, I fear, may do worse with the next nominee). While they hope Roberts doesn't swing the court too sharply to the right, a majority of Americans think that the President should probably get the benefit of the doubt on a clearly qualified nominee.

A plausible argument can be made that too much is at stake here and now, in terms of privacy issues, civil rights, and civil liberties, to give John Roberts the benefit of the doubt. That certainly was the operating assumption of the advocacy groups involved in the nomination battle.

I shared enough of these concerns that I voted against Roberts on the floor this morning. But short of mounting an all-out filibuster -- a quixotic fight I would not have supported; a fight I believe Democrats would have lost both in the Senate and in the court of public opinion; a fight that would have been difficult for Democratic senators defending seats in states like North Dakota and Nebraska that are essential for Democrats to hold if we hope to recapture the majority; and a fight that would have effectively signaled an unwillingness on the part of Democrats to confirm any Bush nominee, an unwillingness which I believe would have set a dangerous precedent for future administrations -- blocking Roberts was not a realistic option.

In such circumstances, attacks on Pat Leahy, Russ Feingold and the other Democrats who, after careful consideration, voted for Roberts make no sense. Russ Feingold, the only Democrat to vote not only against war in Iraq but also against the Patriot Act, doesn't become complicit in the erosion of civil liberties simply because he chooses to abide by a deeply held and legitimate view that a President, having won a popular election, is entitled to some benefit of the doubt when it comes to judicial appointments. Like it or not, that view has pretty strong support in the Constitution's design.

The same principle holds with respect to issues other than judicial nominations. My colleague from Illinois, Dick Durbin, spoke out forcefully - and voted against - the Iraqi invasion. He isn't somehow transformed into a "war supporter" - as I've heard some anti-war activists suggest - just because he hasn't called for an immediate withdrawal of American troops. He may be simply trying to figure out, as I am, how to ensure that U.S. troop withdrawals occur in such a way that we avoid all-out Iraqi civil war, chaos in the Middle East, and much more costly and deadly interventions down the road. A pro-choice Democrat doesn't become anti-choice because he or she isn't absolutely convinced that a twelve-year-old girl should be able to get an operation without a parent being notified. A pro-civil rights Democrat doesn't become complicit in an anti-civil rights agenda because he or she questions the efficacy of certain affirmative action programs. And a pro-union Democrat doesn't become anti-union if he or she makes a determination that on balance, CAFTA will help American workers more than it will harm them.

Or to make the point differently: How can we ask Republican senators to resist pressure from their right wing and vote against flawed appointees like John Bolton, if we engage in similar rhetoric against Democrats who dissent from our own party line? How can we expect Republican moderates who are concerned about the nation's fiscal meltdown to ignore Grover Norquist's threats if we make similar threats to those who buck our party orthodoxy?

I am not drawing a facile equivalence here between progressive advocacy groups and right-wing advocacy groups. The consequences of their ideas are vastly different. Fighting on behalf of the poor and the vulnerable is not the same as fighting for homophobia and Halliburton. But to the degree that we brook no dissent within the Democratic Party, and demand fealty to the one, "true" progressive vision for the country, we risk the very thoughtfulness and openness to new ideas that are required to move this country forward. When we lash out at those who share our fundamental values because they have not met the criteria of every single item on our progressive "checklist," then we are essentially preventing them from thinking in new ways about problems. We are tying them up in a straightjacket and forcing them into a conversation only with the converted.

Beyond that, by applying such tests, we are hamstringing our ability to build a majority. We won't be able to transform the country with such a polarized electorate. Because the truth of the matter is this: Most of the issues this country faces are hard. They require tough choices, and they require sacrifice. The Bush Administration and the Republican Congress may have made the problems worse, but they won't go away after President Bush is gone. Unless we are open to new ideas, and not just new packaging, we won't change enough hearts and minds to initiate a serious energy or fiscal policy that calls for serious sacrifice. We won't have the popular support to craft a foreign policy that meets the challenges of globalization or terrorism while avoiding isolationism and protecting civil liberties. We certainly won't have a mandate to overhaul a health care policy that overcomes all the entrenched interests that are the legacy of a jerry-rigged health care system. And we won't have the broad political support, or the effective strategies, required to lift large numbers of our fellow citizens out of numbing poverty.

The bottom line is that our job is harder than the conservatives' job. After all, it's easy to articulate a belligerent foreign policy based solely on unilateral military action, a policy that sounds tough and acts dumb; it's harder to craft a foreign policy that's tough and smart. It's easy to dismantle government safety nets; it's harder to transform those safety nets so that they work for people and can be paid for. It's easy to embrace a theological absolutism; it's harder to find the right balance between the legitimate role of faith in our lives and the demands of our civic religion. But that's our job. And I firmly believe that whenever we exaggerate or demonize, or oversimplify or overstate our case, we lose. Whenever we dumb down the political debate, we lose. A polarized electorate that is turned off of politics, and easily dismisses both parties because of the nasty, dishonest tone of the debate, works perfectly well for those who seek to chip away at the very idea of government because, in the end, a cynical electorate is a selfish electorate.

Let me be clear: I am not arguing that the Democrats should trim their sails and be more "centrist." In fact, I think the whole "centrist" versus "liberal" labels that continue to characterize the debate within the Democratic Party misses the mark. Too often, the "centrist" label seems to mean compromise for compromise sake, whereas on issues like health care, energy, education and tackling poverty, I don't think Democrats have been bold enough. But I do think that being bold involves more than just putting more money into existing programs and will instead require us to admit that some existing programs and policies don't work very well. And further, it will require us to innovate and experiment with whatever ideas hold promise (including market- or faith-based ideas that originate from Republicans).

Our goal should be to stick to our guns on those core values that make this country great, show a spirit of flexibility and sustained attention that can achieve those goals, and try to create the sort of serious, adult, consensus around our problems that can admit Democrats, Republicans and Independents of good will. This is more than just a matter of "framing," although clarity of language, thought, and heart are required. It's a matter of actually having faith in the American people's ability to hear a real and authentic debate about the issues that matter.

Finally, I am not arguing that we "unilaterally disarm" in the face of Republican attacks, or bite our tongue when this Administration screws up. Whenever they are wrong, inept, or dishonest, we should say so clearly and repeatedly; and whenever they gear up their attack machine, we should respond quickly and forcefully. I am suggesting that the tone we take matters, and that truth, as best we know it, be the hallmark of our response.

My dear friend Paul Simon used to consistently win the votes of much more conservative voters in Southern Illinois because he had mastered the art of "disagreeing without being disagreeable," and they trusted him to tell the truth. Similarly, one of Paul Wellstone's greatest strengths was his ability to deliver a scathing rebuke of the Republicans without ever losing his sense of humor and affability. In fact, I would argue that the most powerful voices of change in the country, from Lincoln to King, have been those who can speak with the utmost conviction about the great issues of the day without ever belittling those who opposed them, and without denying the limits of their own perspectives.

In that spirit, let me end by saying I don't pretend to have all the answers to the challenges we face, and I look forward to periodic conversations with all of you in the months and years to come. I trust that you will continue to let me and other Democrats know when you believe we are screwing up. And I, in turn, will always try and show you the respect and candor one owes his friends and allies.




the fascists. The only power they have is the power WE give them. americans own anerica. Not the party loyalist red coats. Treason is to choose money or group (party over country. For all their garbage abotu taxes and the founding of this country. We did not revolt because of taxes. We revolted because of taxation without representation. We have representation now. We need to fix the tax code, not scrap it. We need to fix the government not scrap it, paulites.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | February 18, 2008 11:48 AM | Report abuse


Obama "hating drek" that's published in the UK? Give me a break! That's really stretching it....

There is little, if anti-Obama stuff, out there in the U.S. where Americans are voting, and it's coming in the most palatabale forms, mostly from the New York Times Op-ed and Editoral writers and from Krugman of the Wash Post.

All cite the lack of specifics and the presumption of being another JFK, MLK, Reagan because he can get a crowd of people enthused.

I don't think Democrats ever needed an infusion of enthusiasm, because they already had it; it was there before Obama took to stage.

For the Obama campaign to be so presumptious as to associate it soley to his message, is just framing...

The perception among many Democrats is that his revivalist style will fall flat on its keister once it faces off against the GOP machine in the real race...

Posted by: vammap | February 18, 2008 11:44 AM | Report abuse


No, I'd be Jason in Philly, who used to be a regular campaigner/Dem activist in VA until I moved up here for work. I read the Fix all the time, but really didn't start putting in the effort to post (well, read and then post) until recently.

Posted by: faberman.jason | February 18, 2008 11:20 AM | Report abuse

Obama deserves credit for looking at weather forecasts and making the most of the snowy weekend. Clinton flew into Wisconsin Saturday night after focusing on Texas and Ohio through the week, which proved a big mistake for her as Sunday and now Monday morning have seen heavy storms. Clinton had to cancel all of Sunday's campaign events and instead managed to wander through a grocery store and visit a diner. Obama had to cancel a town hall meeting, but used the weather as a good opportunity to slip away to North Carolina.

While the timing of Obama's trip was excellent, allowing him to avoid a snow storm and to have his name tied to Edwards just a couple days before the primary in Wisconsin, where Edwards has some popularity after a strong showing in the 2004 primary, I doubt Edwards will make any endorsements this week or anytime soon. My suspicion is that Edwards still wants to be at the top of the Democratic ticket eventually, and he wants to avoid alienating anyone and to appear uncompromising in his platform. He'll fall in line as a good soldier after the nomination is more settled. Both candidates would like his support now, but an endorsement at this point would surprise me.

Posted by: blert | February 18, 2008 11:12 AM | Report abuse

AndyR, you might be right that the econ soundbite will come back to haunt Mac, but personally I think it's refreshing for a politician to actually tell the truth.

He says he's no econ expert, and perhaps HRC or Obama will hit that point in the fall. But does anyone think that HRC or Obama know a lot about the economy either?

I think all the president really can do is set the macro-strategy for government, and let the technocrats implement. My guess is, Mac's would be a strategy of lower spending, holding the line on taxes, and a quasi-market approach. Bush's was one of management scorecards, lower taxes, outsourcing and privatization and A 76s, and other MBA stuff. My guess is HRC's would be much government intervention in the market, extending the pain and hammering the US economy. I have no idea about Obama's thoughts.

Posted by: JD | February 18, 2008 11:00 AM | Report abuse

Blarg- interesting questions, but I don't think its possible to reliably identify 'former' supporters of Edwards and re-poll them now.

If Edwards doesn't endorse today, I'd expect him to wait until there's a final decision made.

Optimyst- Edwards as elder statesman? For what? One Senate term & two (failed) Presidential runs?

Posted by: bsimon | February 18, 2008 10:25 AM | Report abuse

Last post for now -

Many of the overnight posters were inane, banal, or worse. I focus on one of the least offensive, here, because it made allegations tha can be refuted with facts.

CliffinWA., Dan Morales was twice elected AG, statewide, but his promising career ended in disgrace when he was prosecuted for giving an attorney friend a piggy-back ride on the tobacco case.

Victor Morales was not an invention of Karl Rove. He was a Quixotic high school civics teacher who campaigned out of his pick-up truck. Rove may have enjoyed VM's run, but he did not create it.

VM was aided by his name confusion with Dan Morales. This happens in TX all the time.

An old San Antonio lawyer named Gene Kelly runs for statewide office every two years and he has won D nominations. Then he stays home and basks in the free advertising it gives his law practice.

We even elected an avowed Nazi to the Supremes because he had the same last name as both a beloved US Senator and a well liked Congressman. He was soon impeached and removed.

BHO is like none of these TX characters - there is not a constitutional law professor among them. Karl Rove is not working magic against the Ds, as we speak. Of course, that may change.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 18, 2008 10:09 AM | Report abuse

faberman.jason - Are you Jason in MD who used to be a regular poster?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 18, 2008 9:51 AM | Report abuse

I agree with optimyst -

An Edwards-Gore firewall may be just the thing Howard Dean needs to make sure superdelegate/MI/FL chaos doesn't tear the party apart.

CC - Have any of you reporters checked to see if Dean or Gore have made any secret visits to Stately Edwards Manor?

Posted by: faberman.jason | February 18, 2008 9:49 AM | Report abuse

Speaking of former trial lawyers, the betting now is that Bill White, the most popular elected D in TX, the 91% Mayor of Houston, will stay neutral. He counts Bill Clinton as a friend.
One former D Mayor of Houston, Lee Brown [the same Lee Brown who had served as NYC Police Chief and Clinton's Drug Czar] has endorsed HRC. Another, Bob Lanier, has not endorsed, but favors HRC.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 18, 2008 9:49 AM | Report abuse

I agree that you can't equate white males to Edwards supporters directly, but I think they act as an indicator of where his folks are more likely to go.

The real advantage of an Edwards endorsement is his connections to the fund-raising potential of the trial lawyer network that he is tied into. It could possibly a 5-10 million dollar windfall, which would come in mighty handy in Ohio and Texas.

Posted by: AndyR3 | February 18, 2008 9:38 AM | Report abuse

Blarg, I think what you have said about JRE is valid for much of the country, but he did have a constituency in the south, and in the border states, including OK. I think most of them have alread y had their primaries.

So what may be at stake here is trial lawyer money and influence. Kirk Watson, Austin's State Senator, was a former trial lawyer and an avid JRE supporter. His switch to BHO was dutifully reported by yours truly, here. Many Austin plaintiff's attorneys will follow suit, raise money, and engage in get out the vote work.

This is more subtle than polling, but may have as much effect, as these money and networking sources are disproportionate to their vote strength.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 18, 2008 9:37 AM | Report abuse

AndyR3, Edwards was supported more by white males than by any other demographic. But I'd be careful about equating white males to Edwards supporters. He never even won 50% of that demographic. That's why I want to see a poll that asks former Edwards supporters who they support now, and whether they'd be swayed by his endorsement. But I don't expect to see that; such a poll would be too hard to conduct. There weren't many Edwards supporters to begin with, after all.

Posted by: Blarg | February 18, 2008 9:29 AM | Report abuse

Edwards won't just sell his soul, he'll auction it to the highest bdder.

Posted by: baseballguy | February 18, 2008 9:22 AM | Report abuse

Edwards won't just sell his soul, he'll auction it to the highest bdder.

Posted by: baseballguy | February 18, 2008 9:22 AM | Report abuse

The promises that HRC and Obama made in public about a role in their administrations was just lip service. The real promises will be made behind closed doors (See Dean meeting with Kerry in 2004).

Blarg, the exit polls from VA and Maryland indicate that Edwards' supporters (ie white males) are going to Obama mainly. although Wisconsin's exit polls will be a better indicator.

JD, I agree that the Iraq war policy (or lack there of) is where Bush and McCain are the closest and it is also the reason why McCain will lose in the fall. That and his idiotic comment about how Economics isn't his strong suit. It may be true but you don't say that if you are running for President of the country that is the world's largest economy.

Posted by: AndyR3 | February 18, 2008 9:17 AM | Report abuse

JD, I agree that it is the perception on Iraq that fuels statements like oneill's.

Blarg, my wife remains a JRE fan. So my anecdotal evidence from a poll of one CPA, female, MS in taxation, of a certain age, white, is that JRE fans now completely support BHO.

Plaintiff's attorneys in TX had been strong for JRE and they seem to be breaking more toward BHO than HRC - I get this from news stories and from friends.

Hardly "scientific".

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 18, 2008 9:14 AM | Report abuse

Mark, you realize of course that the main similarity between Mac and Bush is Iraq/middle east policy. For many (more on the left than the right, seems to me), that's the only issue that counts.

Posted by: JD | February 18, 2008 8:58 AM | Report abuse

Has anyone seen any data on where Edwards' supporters have gone? For some reason, there are no questions about Edwards in the CNN exit polls that I've looked at.

CC says that Edwards still retains a considerable following. And I'm not sure that's the case. Yes, if Edwards were still in he'd get a substantial fraction of the vote, but I imagine that almost all former Edwards supporters have chosen whether to support Clinton or Obama. (Or, in some cases, stay home.) So I question what his endorsement would do at this point. If he'd endorsed immediately after dropping out it might have mattered, but now I'm not so sure.

Posted by: Blarg | February 18, 2008 8:47 AM | Report abuse

jimoneill50 -

McC is not close to GWB in policies.
Short list of polar differences follows:

unitary executive
human contrib to global warming
stem cell research
subsidies for Big Oil
formation of Iraq Study Group
cap-and-trade carbon credits

You may determine for yourself who is on the side of the angels, in each instance.
I merely suggest they are very different.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 18, 2008 8:34 AM | Report abuse

Edwards recognizes Obama's rhetoric as historically relevant in Presidential politics. Lincoln was a relatively inexperienced politician from Illinois who spoke with hopeful rhetoric.....

Posted by: glclark4750 | February 18, 2008 8:21 AM | Report abuse

Wow, a lot of rubbish posts to ignore today.

I really hope this Obama v Clinton fight doesn't split the democratic party. I am not American, and felt quite neutral coming into all of this (although I definitely wanted a democrat....Gore being my out and out number 1), but the desparation of the Clintonistas to try and get back into power has turned me off her/them. Bill's comments referring to Obama as Jesse Jackson mark II were awful. I still can't believe some Clinton supporters are claiming that it is Obama injecting race into the campaign. At the end of the day, the race issue may have worked in his favour, but the Clinton's have no one to blame for that except themselves. They tried to capture the white vote by painting Obama as the black candidate and it backfired big time.

The other thing they are doing which makes me quite angry is their attempt to seat the Florida/Michigan delegates. These states knew the rules and broke them. The candidates agreed not to campaign in these states. Clinton broke this rule through her virtual-campaign in Florida. That was bad enough. Now she wants to seat these delegates. I think this is outrageous and a new low that the campaign has stooped to. Please Hillary, if you are to win, and you still have a chance to do so, stay classy. Win hard, but fair.

Still despite her sins, I would still probably support her against McCain, because she is much closer to me in terms of ideology. I prefer the way McCain goes about things though. Regardless, I hope Democrats unite to win the presidency, as even though I respect John McCain, he feels very close to Bush in terms of policies.

Posted by: jimoneill50 | February 18, 2008 8:18 AM | Report abuse

Add the seventh large paper in TX to the Obama endorsements.

Houston Chronicle
Dallas Morning News
Fort Worth Star-Telegram
San Antonio Express-News
Austin American-Statesman
El Paso Times
Corpus Christi Caller-Times

I cannot find HRC's TX newspaper endorsements in a single web search.

I will try to check out other papers individually. This is a half holiday!

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 18, 2008 7:42 AM | Report abuse

Andy, both candidates have publicly said that JRE has a place in their admins, or some such. See, for example:

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 18, 2008 7:25 AM | Report abuse

I don't see what Edwards gains from Endorsing Hillary. She won't give him a real position in her administration since all those places are already taken by her cronies.

At least with Obama he would have a more willing ear for advisement and possibly a cabinet position or Judgeship. Also if it is true that his wife is pro-Obama then I hope he listens to her, she is by far the more politically savvy of the two.

Posted by: AndyR3 | February 18, 2008 6:50 AM | Report abuse

John Edwards endorsement means more to HRC than to Barack Obama so as an Obama supporter I don't care what Edwards does. If he had endorsed someone when he quit the race it might have meant something but his endorsement now means very little to nothing.

Edwards was only in this race for himself and he doesn't care what the voters want. I believe he will back the dreaded status quo candidate he so despised during the debates.

As each primary goes by his endorsement means less. 10 years from now after Obama has had his 8 years in office people are going to say John who ?

Posted by: talisman2008 | February 18, 2008 5:45 AM | Report abuse


Posted by: nurseratchet | February 18, 2008 5:06 AM | Report abuse

It looks like Obama is the only one that could beat McCain:

Obama vs. McCain-

Posted by: davidmwe | February 18, 2008 2:50 AM | Report abuse


You're not kidding. I was at the Democratic Party dinner in Wisconsin yesterday, and I actually had a Hillary supporter tell me to my face that I was a cultist for supporting Obama, as well as pretty much saying I was young and foolish, and that she, because she was older, had "developed wisdom", and that's why she was voting for Clinton.

We debated for quite awhile, and she made blatantly false statements at least five times, and mischaracterizations throughout.

I feel like she was kind of emblematic of how the Hillary supporters have been behaving on the Web, and how they've been behaving in real life, too. They're certainly not doing a good job of building goodwill with the Obama supporters. It'll only hurt them in the general election if (God forbid) Hillary becomes the nominee.

Posted by: ASinMoCo | February 18, 2008 1:04 AM | Report abuse

When all the candidates were in the race, I always favored Sen. Edwards. I believe that most of his supporters would rather see him endorse Mrs. Clinton. I hope he will consider the consequences of his actions, especially since he is still young and could run again in 2012.

Posted by: maitami | February 18, 2008 1:00 AM | Report abuse

Wow... any regular readers of this blog will realize what a crazy onslaught of Billary Propaganda these posts have been.

Obama fans take heart... she is getting desperate, and her trolls are out on the web going bananas...

I'm really going to enjoy watching them as she loses over the coming weeks...

Posted by: Boutan | February 18, 2008 12:52 AM | Report abuse

Who are all these paranoid nutcases that come out on the Fix? The Paul-Kucinich ticket will wait for 2012.

Posted by: aaron.astor | February 17, 2008 11:58 PM | Report abuse

Those who think Obama is the stronger Dem candidate should back away slowly from the tube of glue.

Everything that's been said about Hillary has pretty much already been said, but there's still a lot about Obama that hasn't yet been covered, like these:

Maybe the MSM - despite their current fluffery for Obama - are actually setting him up for a fall, waiting to cover those issues until after he gets the nod.

And, while the MSM is too corrupt to cover the following issue, if a regular citizen really presses him on it at a public appearance and gets it on tape, I don't think he's going to look very good at all:

Posted by: LonewackoDotCom | February 17, 2008 11:50 PM | Report abuse

The failure of John Edwards to endorse says much more about him than either Clinton or Obama. Not endorsing would have been a fine decision. Yet, this tribune of the working class expected Obama to leave the campaign trail and make a pilgrimage to the multi-million dollar, 28,000 square foot Edwards compound. The Southern gentleman certainly is not lacking in chutzpah, and leaking his beefs about C + O to the media demonstrates a certain lack of class. Edwards is like a petulant teenager who plays divorced parents off of each other, withholding his affection and attention until he sees who is willing to pony up the bigger gift. Edwards is making this all about himself, and voters and contributors know it.

Posted by: Brian15 | February 17, 2008 11:46 PM | Report abuse

From Sarah Baxte of the Sunday Times (UK) @ :
Clinton's camp has been circulating stories criticising the "cult" of Obama in the hope of portraying "Obamania" as a mass delusion. Media Matters, a watchdog organisation sympathetic to Clinton, compiled a report headlined, "Media figures call Obama supporters' behaviour 'creepy', compare them to Hare Krishna and Charles Manson followers".

It was forwarded by Sidney Blumenthal, a top Clinton adviser, to select reporters.

So, as you read all the Obama-hating drek in the posts above, remember that you are reading talking points from the Clinton's negative spin machine.

Posted by: egc52556 | February 17, 2008 11:28 PM | Report abuse

The National REview makes it clear who the Republicans would like to run against.

Posted by: Trumbull | February 17, 2008 10:33 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 17, 2008 9:02 PM | Report abuse

Read this New York Times Article:

What Obama is pushing:
"A soft civil religion is something our country desperately needs at a time of deep partisanship," Mr. Wolfe said. "He wants to go back to the Reagan years as a Democrat, with Democratic policies."

"What is troubling about the [Obama] campaign is that it's gone beyond hope and change to redemption," said Sean Wilentz, a historian at Princeton (and a longtime friend of the Clintons). "It's posing as a figure who is the one person who will redeem our politics. And what I fear is, that ends up promising more from politics than politics can deliver."

From the day Mr. Obama announced his candidacy, he has billed it as a movement, and himself as the agent of generational change. He has mocked his rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton, for accusing him of raising "false hopes." "We don't need leaders who are telling us what we cannot do," he said in New Hampshire. "We need a president who can tell us what we can do! What we can accomplish! Where we can take this country!"

Accounts of the campaign's "Camp Obama" sessions, to train volunteers, have a revivalist flavor. Volunteers are urged to avoid talking about policy to potential voters, and instead tell of how they "came" to Mr. Obama.

"If you don't talk about issues in great detail, if you do it in a way that is not the centerpiece of your campaign, of your rhetoric, then you become a blank screen," Mr. Wilentz said. "Everybody thinks you are the vehicle of their hopes."

Posted by: vammap | February 17, 2008 8:47 PM | Report abuse

Okay where's the factual evidence for a thesis many of us have already been contemplating?

I haven't found it.

To the contrary, Rove, in an interview I saw on Fox, is keeping up with the usual lingo, Hillary would be the best candidate to run against and win.

Many of us have often thought, since every single GOP pundit is singing that song, that the opposite is true.

Even though polls say different. We all know polls can change overnight.

Posted by: vammap | February 17, 2008 8:23 PM | Report abuse

BTW, Hillary is leading in the Polls in Texas!

Texas: Clinton 54% Obama 38%

Posted by: vammap | February 17, 2008 8:18 PM | Report abuse

I like this post and am reposting. It is more important than ever. Texans you know about this?? Beware.
Obama is a strawman in the great tradition of Carl Rove win-win scenarios
Jan 29, 2008 Originally from Martinwls
Obama is nothing but a strawman being set up to be knocked down in November by the disciples of Carl Rove.

This strategy was perfected in Texas by Carl Rove between the defeat of Ann Richards in 1994 and the total destruction of the Texas Democratic Party in 2002. The basic formula: (1) during the primary support some pathetic loser with either an hispanic name or an other ethnic identity, (2) claim that anyone who runs against him is a bigot, (3) get the strawman nominated, (4) all his "individual" campaign contributions dry up after the primary, and then (5) roll over him like a pie crust in November.

An example of this was Rove's backing of Dan Morales, a simple minded school teacher from Mesquite, for U.S. Senator from Texas multiple times during the 90's. Rove loved the win-win scenario:

(1) Morales gets nominated and the democrats have a guy with no qualifications or experience who can't possibly win the general election, or (2) the democrats mount a campaign to nominate a competent experienced candidate at the cost of alienating the hispanics.

Carl Rove wet his pants laughing every time it worked - and it worked multiple times.

When the Texas Democrats finally came up with the ethnic "dream ticket" in 2002, which, being in the midst of a recession should have been a good year for democrats like 1982 had been, Carl Rove and Tom Delay presided over the complete destruction of the democratic party in Texas. The black U.S. Senate Candidate, the Hispanic Governor Candidate, the former Quarterback of a National Championship University of Texas Team, and numerous other outstanding down ticket anglo candidates lost. There was not a single statewide office holder left, in a State where the entire cabinet must each be directly elected statewide. And, control of the Texas House and Senate went over to the Republicans. Texas was like a laboratory for strategies to be applied nationwide.

Today, Carl Rove is wetting his pants thinking about how effective their boy Obama has been at wrecking the democratic party.

Look what Rove's accomplished so far using his puppet Obama: (1) Celebrity press enthusiasm consumes all the oxygen from the system so that Dodd, Biden, Richardson could not get a breath - each of them extraordinarily competent, experienced and electable; (2) Broken up the alliance between black voters and the Clintons; and (3) Marginalized John Edwards, their worst nightmare.

Now, you may say that Obama is too obsessed with his one shot at power to be willingly used by Rove. But, all Rove needed was for some delusional loser (like Dan Morales, in Texas) to come along and be exploited. Obama, who didn't even win a contested election in Illinois, got all full of himself and decided to take a shot, figuring it would be his last chance at fame. And, Bingo, Rove has his straw man. What a genius!

Again, for those of you who weren't watching, Obama's republican opponent in the 2004 Illinois U.S. Senate race WITHDREW after his wife accused him of abuse. At the last minute, the Republicans put in the crazy Alan Keyes, who WASN'T EVEN A RESIDENT OF ILLINOIS to take the place of their nominee. Obama, who may originally have been the Illinois Dan Morales, ended up being the nationwide Dan Morales.

Rove is like that. He rebounds from set backs even stronger than before. That's his genius. Who knew that he could create a Dan Morales on a national scale? All it took was a little flattery, the amazing "jam session" instinct that Republican grassroots has for recognizing the obvious and opening their wallets to make it happen without creating any paper trail, and PRESTO, Obama becomes the strawman. Rove is like the leader of a jazz band, with the grassroots Republicans forming a huge rhythm section playing on intuition and instinct. It's almost beautiful, if only American voters weren't being played like a tenor sax.

Once again, as in Texas, Rove has created the Republican win-win situation: (1) Obama get's nominated only to get rolled over like a pie crust in November, or (2) a minority group get's mad because the Democrats didn't waive the ethnic strawman through to represent the party in a crucial election.

Wake up Obamaites, your candidate is a hollow man - a Rovian strawman. Clinton and Edwards are the only viable candidates left. Sure, Biden would have been better. But, IT'S TOO LATE. Pick from the remaining competent candidates and try to salvage something from this election.

Rove must laugh every time he hears the vapid, inane, silly and meaningless chant: "Yes We Can!" He must think it is the death rattle of the Democratic Party.

Posted by: CliffinWA | February 17, 2008 8:16 PM | Report abuse

How many surrogates and endorsers does Obama need to cop-opt the nomination?

Hillary sent out a mailer in Wisconsin about the differences in their Health Care Plan and on CNN's Political Ticker, Kennedy came out attacking her for saying the truth, that:

"Obama's healthcare plan will leave "15 million people without coverage." The ad also includes a photo of seven people standing in a row underneath text that reads "Barack Obama, which one of these people don't deserve healthcare?"

Kennedy called this "fearmongering."

Outrageous distortion of simple facts by Kennedy. Obama's plan will leave people out. Period.

Why isn't there a position statement on Health Care from the Clinton camp?

As a DFLER, to have a candidate who actively praises RR and his legacy, actively seeks Republicans and says he is going to create a different climate in Washington, is PIE IN THE SKY.

I can't imagine that John Edwards could endorse a candidate, who is not emblematic of Edward's own values and beliefs..

Posted by: vammap | February 17, 2008 8:16 PM | Report abuse

my, my. more fairy tales from hillaryland??

How about a reality chewck?

Obama is endorsed by the six largest papers in Texas.

Houston Chronicle
Dallas Morning News
Fort Worth Star-Telegram
San Antonio Express-News
Austin American-Statesman
El Paso Times

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 17, 2008 8:12 PM | Report abuse

I think the whole media focus on super delegates is going to inhibit endorsements until after the Ohio & Texas primaries. These super delegates crave publicity, not controversy. After March 4 I imagine the floodgates will open up.

Edwards can probably have more impact in alliance with Gore as a neutral party elder brokering a compromise between the candidates if they remain close than by endorsing someone now.

Posted by: optimyst | February 17, 2008 7:25 PM | Report abuse

Today is February 17th, and the Wisconsin primary and Hawaii caucus are on February 19th. Edwards needs to endorse Obama on Monday, February 18th. The longer Edwards waits to endorse and campaign for Obama, the weaker his position will be. Many Edwards' union support, public support and superdelegates now support Obama. If Edwards endorses Hillary or Obama after March 4th, it won't mean much other than good news story for about a day or two at best. Supporting Hillary would make Edwards look like a opportunist politician who has joined with the "status quo". But if Edwards announces his intention to endorse and campaign for Obama, this would go a long way towards helping Obama and elevating Edwards's role in a future Obama administration.

Obama in 08!

Posted by: ajtiger92 | February 17, 2008 7:18 PM | Report abuse

Whoa, bondjedi, hyperbole much? I'm an Obama supporter, but we need to keep focused on the ongoing elections. Anyway, word on the street is that Edwards may decide not to endorse anyone at this point. Other rumors are floating around that he had been leading towards Clinton, and that Elizabeth was pushing for Obama. Don't know whether any of that is true, and I'm not sure whether any journalists do either.

Posted by: Nissl | February 17, 2008 7:11 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, baby! I can hear those cans of whoop-ass being cracked open already. John and Barack must have been cracking them open on the Edwards' porch, while Bill and Hillary flail about the Midwest, drinking their bitter wine. Bill Clinton has no legacy and will be lucky to register as a footnote tos history, while Barack's name will echo in eternity.

Posted by: bondjedi | February 17, 2008 6:52 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company