Will this have as big of an impact as Bill Richardson's endorsement? Hasn't Hillary won every state except North Carolina after that? John Edwards knows how to win Presidential campaigns, though. No doubt. Oh wait.
Breaking News on CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/14/edwards.obama/index.html WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former Democratic presidential nominee John Edwards will endorse Sen. Barack Obama Wednesday at a campaign event in Grand Rapids, Michigan, according to Obama's campaign. The endorsement could help Obama reach out to white, blue-collar voters -- a demographic group that Obama has failed to capture, most notably in the recent Pennsylvania and West Virginia primaries. Edwards had campaigned on the message that he was standing up for the little guy, the people who are not traditionally given a voice in Washington, and that he would do more to fight special interests. After dropping out of the race on Jan. 30, Edwards asked both Clinton and Obama to make poverty a central issue in the general election and a future Democratic administration, something both agreed to do. An endorsement from Edwards -- who ran as vice president on Sen. John Kerry's ticket in the 2004 presidential election -- would have a significant impact on the race, Democratic strategist Peter Fenn said. "You could make an argument that the change issue does benefit Barack Obama, that he picks up that support. You could also make the argument that there's a lot of support out there amongst people that will go to Hillary," he said. "The big issue here is who will he endorse." Some political pundits predicted in the past that Edwards' supporters are more likely to lean in Obama's direction "The conventional wisdom is that Barack Obama will pick up maybe 60 percent of them, and in some places, that makes a huge difference," former presidential adviser David Gergen said. Time magazine journalist Joe Klein contends Clinton "represents a lot of the things that [Edwards] campaigned against, you know, the old Washington Democratic establishment that he believes got too close to the corporations in the '90s." Edwards announced he was dropping out in New Orleans, the same city where he declared his run for the 2008 Democratic presidential race. "It is time for me to step aside so that history can blaze its path," he said. With his wife, Elizabeth, and children at his side, Edwards said he couldn't predict "who will take the final steps to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue," but he said it would be a Democrat. Edwards trailed Clinton and Obama in the early contests, including a third-place finish in Tuesday's Florida primary with 14 percent of the votes. He also came in third in key races in New Hampshire and South Carolina. Klein said Edwards played a positive role in spurring his competitors during the early part of the campaign. "On a lot of substantive issues like health insurance, he was the first one out of the box with a very ambitious universal plan, and I think he forced the others to become bolder in a lot of their policy prescriptions, energy dependence and so on," Klein said. John Edwards is a South Carolina native with an undergraduate degree from North Carolina State University and law degree from the University of North Carolina. Before entering politics, winning a Senate seat from North Carolina in 1998, Edwards was a lawyer representing families "being victimized by powerful interests" and gaining "a national reputation as a forceful and tireless champion for regular, hard-working people," according to his campaign Web site.
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/XOEq-ImGWJ0&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/XOEq-ImGWJ0&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
SJC -- this is not meant to be a flame, but I'd like to understand why you support Obama. We see eye-to-eye on many issues, so it puzzles me why you would be drawn to him, given his policy stances.
It seems to me that he is more sincere than Hillary. Obviously, I don't have a vote and I follow this from abroad, so I have a bit less exposure to the campaigns. But I personally can't stand Hillary. On the issues, I will admit that I am not 100 % familiar with what their respective programs are, especially with regard to domestic issues. But, with the US president being probably the most important politician in the world, I like the general idea of having someone in this position who reaches out to others - a uniter, not a divisive person. I think it is important that the world perceives the USA as positively as they should be perceived. Personally, I think that George W. Bush has done a lot of damage in that regard, whether he was right or not on some issues. Things like Guantanamo and a few other issues really really hurt the way the USA are perceived across the world - not only in Muslim countries, but anywhere. I will admit that I do not know if Obama will be able to live up to the high hopes people have in him, in the USA and around the world. But at least he inspires people to have hope - to overcome barriers. That's already a whole lot more than I could say about Hillary. McCain seems like a decent and respectable fellow to me, on a personal level. But outside the USA, the current perception is that he might be more of the same, continuing what President Bush has been doing. Perhaps that is unfair. Since I am not a US citizen, I judge the candidates more on my personal perception of them and on my belief what impact they would have on the rest of the world, rather than on party affiliation. I am old enough to have been sort of a fan of Reagan, then I liked Bill Clinton (don't know why I like him, but can't stand his wife), and I would have preferred Gore to Bush. Not sure about Kerry. So in essence, I am unbiased as to party affiliation, and I will admit that I go more by who seems more likeable and generally "a better person" and more than anything by what I think a candidate's impact on world peace would be than by other factors such as experience, voting track record, etc. My preference is Obama>McCain>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hillary. Edit: Bit of a repetitive ramble here...but too tired to edit...
hmmm......We likely have conflicting interests. My biggest issue is the American economy. Yours likely isn't, although if the economy of Germany is important to you, there is obviously a correlation between the US and Germany, economically speaking. Obama is for reduced free trade and higher taxes. Both of these make America less competitive in today's global economy. Both are recipes for disaster. On your other points, I disagree that Obama is any kind of "uniter". He has not united anybody during this campaign, except for African Americans, college students, and the super rich liberal crowd (latte liberals). In fact, we could possibly have right now the most divided democratic party of all time. If that's what he means by "uniting", then I think he has failed. He's also one-by-one pissing off our foreign allies, by threatening to screw around with NAFTA (pissed off Canada and Mexico), threatening to ban all toy imports from China (pissed off China), threatening to invade Pakistan (pissed off Pakistan), etc. I don't think he does much to help our reputation, other than the fact that his name isn't Bush, but that's irrelevant since Bush cannot run again.
Hardly. This election is over. Obama is the nominee. Edwards had perfect timing. He dominated the nightly news headlines, and not Hillary in a "doesn't matter" vote in West Virginia.
The main thing Edwards wants is another run for president, which means he couldn't afford to be wrong when making an endorsement. So he had to wait until it was over. Edwards' ambition for the future was more important to him than making a impact on choosing this year's nominee.
He was looking for a place in the cabinet. Just like Bill Richardson. If Obama wins the general election, I see both of them having spots.
One of the reasons Edwards left the Senate after 2004 was because he realized his re-election was doubtful. It was also good timing for his first run for prez.
Of course these are both lies of omission. Obama is not for reducing free trade; he is FOR fair trade, which means he is against giving tax breaks to corporations that export American jobs to countries without labor laws or enviromental controls. And the only taxes he favors raising are those for people making over 200K, who have received unprecedented breaks and can afford the increase to help pay down the deficit and cover the cost of Bush's war. First, Bush is not irrelevant as McCain has promised to continue all of his policies. And you, texxx, continue to support him in that. Second, Obama has not threatened to "invade Pakistan." That's one of your favorite lies, but it is still a lie. China is an excellent reason for us to revisit our trade agreements. They have been exporting toys to us that have been making American kids sick. They are able to do that because they have precious few safety controls in place. And Nafta needs to be renegotiated as it's been very bad for US workers. But nobody, and I mean nobody, could piss off the international community like Bush did (I think our German friend would back me up on this). As for Obama's coalition, it's been sufficient to take down the most powerful political machine in Democratic Party history. Spin it however you like. A first term senator just took down the Clintons. You can't do that with a sliver of out of touch people. And with that, I will step away and hope for a meaningful conversation between SJC and the Jorge brothers about the relative merits of a President Obama. Have at it, friends.
I'm guessing the following right now: Edwards: Attorney General Biden: Sec of State Hagel: Sec of Defense
The beejster "swoop and poop" technique. Classic. "Fair trade". That's funny. Just Obama whoring himself out to try to get some of those union voters in the rust belt who hate his guts. It's reduced free trade, friend. Your taxes example is BS. What % of Americans own stock, champ? A lot. More than just those >$200k yearly earners. How will they be impacted by the capital gains tax change? What about the absolutely stupid idea to impose a windfall tax on oil companies? Bottom line is taxes will rise from where they are now under Obama. Obama's coalition looked splendid in West Virginia. Also in California. And Texas. And NY. And PA. And Ohio. Oh, snap, he lost all of those states' primaries. The democratic party is split, brah. No uniting.
According to this: http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/05/14/edwards_told_aides_he_would_consider_veep_role.html It's what he wants. We'll see!
