Edwards' endorsement would be more valuable to the Clinton camp. If he's looking to be a value-added endorsement and get that AG nomination, that might be the way to do it.

I don't think it's likely that he would endorse Clinton anyway.

If Edwards endorses Clinton, it would seriously diminish his long-term standing in the party. Hillary Clinton is the epitome of the Washington establishment. Endorsing her would be antithetical to everything Edwards claims to stand for. Such an action would place political expediency over principle, validating Russ Feingold's questions about the sincerity of Edward's support for progressive positions during the primaries.

Frankly, I think it's too late for that preening phony Edwards to matter in this race. Sure, his campaign was "progressive"-sounding but not much in his past was. He sued rich companies and profited handsomely. He was not impressive in the Senate. Hedge funds? Don't get me started...

It's just too late because most of his supporters have already voted, throwing their vote away for him or voting for one of the other two still in the race.

He didn't have a big draw at his events and won't if he actively campaigns for either candidate now.

His head is for Hillary -- i.e. he's triangulating in case the triangulator wins -- but his heart is for Obama.

Give me a break. Just sh*t or get off the pot, John. Do something that actually matters or stop primping for the cameras.

Here is where you will see Edwards arrive by private jet.

Gary airport (quick trip to Hyde Park)
Pewaukee airport (trip in limo down the Kennedy)
Waukegan airport (no will be watching private hanger 1 hour trip to Chicago)

If it is secret they can do it.

I had come to the conclusion that Obama's claim to share Edwards position on the issues was only a self serving attempt to woo Edwards supporters. It's the reason so many of us have refused to be co-opted.

The contempt displayed towards the issues and we the voters by the Obama campaign and some of their supporters is demeaning and an insult. I will not vote for Barack Obama, I simply can not based on the arrogance displayed in this post.

Mares, voting or not voting because some people like to navel gaze about the campaign is.... ummmm... not rational. Go read the issue papers put out by the candidates themselves, figure out what you really believe in, then come back and navel gaze with the rest of us.

I never said not voting, I said I was basing my decision NOT TO VOTE FOR OBAMA on the opinion I had formed based on yes, the arrogance of some Obama supporters, like the author of this article, and those I have read similar comments by on Obama's site, on the Edwards site (attempting to troll for votes) and elsewhere. It shores up my early concern about Obama's legitimacy as a presidential candidate based on his refusal to address the issues substantively, his lack of a detailed stance on the issues that need to be addressed, and his record of corruption.

As to John Edwards and Obama meeting, it was OBAMA who cancelled that meeting last week and it's been OBAMA who has NOT BEEN WILLING TO RESCHEDULE ANOTHER ONE. The word from Edwards staff is that Edwards has attempted several times to RESCHEDULE ANOTHER MEETING but OBAMA HAS BEEN DRAGGING HIS HEELS.

I was willng to give him a chance, given the fact that I have felt I couldn't vote for Clinton, but the arrogance of Obama and I felt that was confirmed by the drivel above has solidified my concerns about Obama. He shows a terrible disrespect for the issues and the people of this country. It puts me in mind of his buying into the mythologizing that monster Ronald Reagan, who started the dragging this country back more than a hundred years.

I and many others have felt that Obama would be little different than Bush, that has been a concern. He doesn't take the real issues facing us seriously. In that and so many other ways, he's no more a proponent of positive change, than Bush is a compassionate conservative.

Nor am I alone. I fwd'd the blog above to many of my fellow Edwards supporters. We've been congregating at a forum that was created after the Edwards blog was taken down, and on a few blogs and a mailing list.

If I'm so wrong, then demand Obama answer why he has avoided addressing his refusal to address those important issues, refused to reschedule a meeting with Edwards, yet he and his drones still think that we have no choice but to vote for him.

The election is his to lose, don't cry to me when and if he does. BTW, the polls in PA and OH aren't looking so good, and the hogwash above is the same sort of garbage that brought about the crushing defeat in Iowa of HoHo Dean.

by the way, middle-aged white woman speaking here (44, nearly 45; and the last election in which anyone had an opportunity to vote for a ticket that did not include a Bush or a Clinton took place when I was 13. I missed 1980 by 6 months).

Look, when you give a speech to 20,000 voters, you're not going to get into too many policy details (especially when you're so good at rallying people around what so many of us feel the country has lost: a commitment to American constitutionalism - American Civil religion, as some have put it) - and you're not going to be able to take questions. (You might not even be able to keep the crowd quiet enough to hear most of your stump speech.) That's something that works in a smaller crowd.

And if you've got huge numbers of supporters, some of them will be unreasonable (Clinton has unreasonable supporters, too, like the ones spreading the "Obama is a Muslim" emails, which I'm pretty sure they know are false, but effective).

But he has also given many detailed policy speeches to specialized audiences (i.e., the talk at the Wilson Center on foreign policy, very nuanced, very detailed, and I don't disagree with a word in it, is quite typical), and he has issued detailed policy positions on just about every subject imaginable.

Have I memorized all of his positions? Of course not. But I have read many of the speeches in particular and each time have come away - even after reading a few with which I disagreed (they were too leftist for me) - impressed with his command of detail, subtle understanding of the issues, and ability to see the perspective of those who disagree and honor it without forgetting and standing up for what he believes in.

And note that this is VERY effective as a tactic - that's what he learned as a community organizer & state senator. He knows how to find the common ground that gets the measure he was committed to passed.

He has a lifelong track record of getting things done, not just of standing back up after being attacked. What IS Clinton actually experienced at? Getting attacked, and attacking back, and not giving in.

Well, a lot of us just don't want that to be what politics is about any more, and we see a man who is able to reach past the divide - and in doing so to get things done. His race complicates matters for his attackers. They know how to attack either Clinton; they've had lots of practice. They'll attack him, too, she's right about that, but for some reason it tends to backfire. Like Reagan (yes), he seems to have some Teflon on him. I didn't understand it with Reagan, but I understand it with Obama.

And: It's time to play a little offense, not just settle for defense.

Go to the website if you want to know his stances on the issues or read or watch some of these speeches. Yes, the inspirational speeches are there, too, but there is more detail than anybody but a policy wonk could possibly want to know, and he's been out ahead on a lot of important but not highly publicized policy positions, including ones where he stuck his neck out (See WashPost article on recording interrogations: initial opposition from everyone including veto threat from IL gov, passed Senate 35-0 and enacted. NOT an isolated example. See Obsidian Wings in 2006 on him popping up everywhere on obscure policy wonk issues like containing loose nukes (absolutely crucial) (by the way, Bill Clinton was good on that, too; I assume Hillary Clinton also takes the right stance, but again I think Obama stands a better chance of getting it done.).

And he knows, as do you and I, that the details of any 10-point plan are going to change anyway: he'll have to work with Congress, and get 60 senatorial votes for anything controversial.

Do I have website links handy? Beyond www.barackobama.com, I do not. But there are some terrific blog & MSM posts. (I have some on another computer with specific people I had in mind to forward them to, but I don't have time, anyway.) (I find Andrew Sullivan's site a very good way to find good stuff without much effort of my own - another guy I sometimes disagree with but always respect).

If you actually care to discover what and whether Obama thinks and has said about issues, and whether he succeeds in getting things done, really, you only have to look at the record. It's quite impressive.

I wanted to vote for him for President (some day, I didn't think it would be this soon) after the convention speech in 2004, I admit. But I've got to tell you, it was wonderful to be able to share his brilliant articulation of what I also think America stands for with friends from other countries (first person I shared that video with was a guy from the Congo (the one that used to be called Zaire). By that time I really believed we had very little chance of regaining our stature in the world after GWB's presidency, and my optimism about that plummeted even further after Bush was reelected in 2004 (and I began to think they might be right about my fellow citizens).

But they weren't. What our fellow citizens lacked was leadership that could motivate us to follow our best impulses, not our worst - including, yes, our hopes, not our fears.

That post about what Hillary Clinton's Gettysburg Address might have consisted of (policy proposals) is pretty dead on. Rhetoric matters. Rhetoric alone won't win me over, but rhetoric plus principled, thoughtful pragmatism, does. The simple fact is that he is a natural politician, and she is a natural professor, Senator, or behind-the-scenes policy developer. I'd like her to stay in a role that suits her talents better.

And if we must get wonkish: no taxes on senior citizens earning $50,000 or less is a nice little specific outtake from his detailed domestic and economic policy proposals, which are very specific and attentive to the needs of the average citizen but also to what actually works rather than to what works better in a poll. I like his stimulus package and his health care plan better, too, and I could talk to you about why if I had time.

Fundamentally, I think he thinks honestly and seriously about issues. And yes, I think he has not just the experience (as do his advisors) but the JUDGMENT to be right on day one. (A line he can also use on McCain, who has appropriated her slogan of experience by saying in an ad that he has the experience to be C-in-C from day one.)

Meanwhile, though, I've been busy sending leftover bumper stickers to WI, TX, OH, VT, & PA -to people who are also serious about the issues, not just enjoying the excitement of actually having a candidate we don't have to hold our nose to vote for. Those, people, too, may have the ability to move people like you who have swallowed Clinton's message that he's all talk.