Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Edwards Endorsement
Edwards is back in the spotlight trying to decide whether to endorse Hillary or Obama. My question is: Who the hell cares anymore?
First, let me say something about the ridiculousness of Edwards. He wants to give his endorsement to the person who will campaign to the ends of the earth in support of the poor. What a pompous ass - to presume that you are the lord and savior of the working class. Why has the media enabled him to anoint himself as the candidate of the poor? Because he got rich suing corporations (which, ironically, costs working class jobs)? But moving on...
Are Hillary and Obama competing for his piddling support? The guy has allowed WEEKS to elapse since he left the race. His supporters have moved on already. He had a chance to be relevant a week ago before Super Tuesday, but not anymore. That was a time when Obama needed all the earned media he could get.
Now, in the later February contests, Obama has enough time (and money) to compete in each state. Edwards voters, meanwhile, have had all this time to make a decision (and, no doubt, been inundated by campaign ads). The marginal utility to either candidate of an Edwards endorsement is near zero.
Edwards shot himself in the foot by not endorsing earlier. It is likely that he is now shopping himself around to both to see what he can get in return. Hillary is more likely to pimp herself out (intentional usage, more later...) for the endorsement because, lets face it, she needs the positive press in the current all-Obama-all-the-time media cycle. On the other hand, Obama doesn't need Edwards's blessing. He is already the change candidate... What else does Edwards have to offer? Not much.
Edwards has something to offer Hillary - come to think of it, that would be a match made in heaven. Hillary will offer him whatever he wants in exchange for his support and, if the pot were sweet enough (VP?), he would probably repudiate his earlier statements and endorse her. Is that not the perfect example of shameless prostitution on each side?
The only reason the endorsement is in question is that Edwards is trying to extort something. Let Hillary have him.
more at cynicpress.blogspot.com
Comments (5)
Wow, that's got to be one of the most bitter and ignorant posts I've ever seen.
February 12, 2008 7:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with Workerbee - what a horrible and nasty post.
And I'll add that as someone who supported Edwards, but upon the suspension of his campaign became an Obama supporter, posts like this one, clearly from an Obama supporter, make me wonder if I made a mistake. You're not doing Obama any favors here, Sam.
February 12, 2008 7:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Have to agree with workerbee and wordie on this. And where do you get off speaking for the entire electorate and saying that an Edwards endorsement won't mean anything?
I will pay very close attention to any recommendation made by Edwards. Some Edwards supporters I know are have not "moved on" and are still struggling to make a decision.
"Pompous Ass" for taking the lead on a discussion about issues that affect the working class majority in this country? You lost me there.
As for the media "allowing" Edwards to anoint himself as a candidate of the poor. If the media could have gotten away with preventing Edwards from speaking at all, they very well might have done that. But Edwards was already too well known after having been a VP candidate for Kerry. So totally closing him out would have exposed media bias to the point nobody would outsource their thinking to the media anymore--if there are many left who do.
Who could have missed that the media worked against Edwards just as soon as Edwards beat Hillary in Iowa and showed himself to be a real threat to any status quo candidates? After his Iowa upset where he beat Hillary, the media ignored the significance of that win, then promptly tried to discredit him by labeling him the "angry" candidate. (just as they called Ross Perot a crazy when he said NAFTA would mean job losses)
February 12, 2008 8:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ignorant and bitter are absolutely the words to describe the post. Obviously, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton disagree with Sammy about the importance of Edwards' endorsement. And observers all over the board recognize Edwards contribution to the policy discussion in this campaign.
Lucky for Sam his candidate doesn't share his ignorance or bitterness.
February 12, 2008 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
If I were Edwards, I would defnitely endorse Clinton because the endorsement is going to be worth much more to Clinton than to Obama. Even if Obama is more a change candidate, it still makes more sense to endorse Clinton. Edwards can endorse Clinton for universal healthcare alone. He can ask Clinton to offer him the position to make universal healthcare a reality, which will make his name forever associated with the most important achievement of the early century. Think Roth IRA.
Edwards has a foundamental problem with Obama. I don't think he is drinking Obama's Kool-aid as Obama supporters here that Obama can bring the people together just for being able to talk good. He is more a fighter and he appreciates Clinton's willingness to fight!
I believe Edwards will be endorsing Clinton tomorrow. At least I'm hopeful. Go Hillary!
February 12, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment