If you can’t even work your magic on John Edwards, how are you going to accomplish anything when meeting with Mahmoud Ahmedinejed and Hugo Chavez?
In the days after John Edwards’s withdrawal from the Democratic race, the political world expected his endorsement of Barack Obama would be forthcoming tout de suite. The neo-populist and the hopemonger had spent months tag-teaming Hillary Clinton, pillorying her as a creature of the status quo, not a champion of the kind of “big change” they both deem essential. So appalled was Edwards at Clinton’s gaudy corporatism-her defense of the role of lobbyists, her suckling at the teats of the pharmaceutical and defense industries-that he’d essentially called her corrupt. And then, not least, there were the sentiments of his wife. “Elizabeth hasn’t always been crazy about Mrs. Clinton” is how an Edwards insider puts it; a less delicate member of HRC’s circle says, “Elizabeth hates her guts.”
But now two months have passed since Edwards dropped out-tempus fugit!-and still no endorsement. Why? According to a Democratic strategist unaligned with any campaign but with knowledge of the situation gleaned from all three camps, the answer is simple: Obama blew it. Speaking to Edwards on the day he exited the race, Obama came across as glib and aloof. His response to Edwards’s imprecations that he make poverty a central part of his agenda was shallow, perfunctory, pat. Clinton, by contrast, engaged Edwards in a lengthy policy discussion. Her affect was solicitous and respectful. When Clinton met Edwards face-to-face in North Carolina ten days later, her approach continued to impress; she even made headway with Elizabeth. Whereas in his Edwards sit-down, Obama dug himself in deeper, getting into a fight with Elizabeth about health care, insisting that his plan is universal (a position she considers a crock), high-handedly criticizing Clinton’s plan (and by extension Edwards’s) for its insurance mandate.
March 29th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
I remember Obama calling Romney ineffective when he dropped out of the race. Smart guy, huh? I prefer Clinton over Obama any day.
March 29th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
I’m really just beginning to think Obama is an asshole. Seriously – I genuinely liked the guy months ago (even though I wouldn’t have voted for him for ideological and policy reasons).
I didn’t like the “You’re likable enough, Hillary” during the debate. It was uncalled for and disrespectful. I mean here’s a guy that hasn’t paid his dues deciding to piss on the first lady to a president in his own party. Can you imagine Romney or McCain doing that to Liddy Dole, had she decided to run?
Obama’s entire persona is off-putting. The guy is stuck on himself. “We’re the change we’ve been waiting for”. Please. Ferraro is right. Obama is lucky to be who he is.
And who he is is an asshole.
March 29th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
I think an Edwards endorsement coming after a double digit Clinton win in PA and before NC could shake thinsg up big time.
Edwards is just holding his fire until it’s most effective. Before NC.
March 29th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
jim,
Gosh, an Edwards endorsement of Clinton before North Carolina would be astonishing. I’d completely forgotten where Edwards was from. He may have just have enough pull left in the state to swing it Hil’s way if she can win by 10-20 points in Penn. That would make Hillary, as they say, “the Comeback Kid”.
March 29th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
It would be completely worth it just to watch Chris Matthews’ head explode if Edwards endorses Hillary.
March 29th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
#2 titcr
March 29th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
And oddly enough, the people who supported Edwards aren’t part of Clinton’s base. I was somewhat surprised to note that, per the exit polls, Edwards wasn’t winning the working class, lower income whites he pitched his entire campaign to, but rather upper middle class, educated whites. They’ve been voting mostly Obama since then. So an Edwards endorsement potentially opens up an entirely new subset of the electorate for Hillary to mine; and it’s a subset that Obama isn’t necessarily in Obama’s wheelhouse.
March 29th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Matthew,
Last year, I spent a couple weeks going over the exit polls from the 2004 Democratic primaries and was very surprised at what I found. Particularly the exits for here in Wisconsin.
Kerry won the state 40%-36%. But the breakdown was fascinating:
Edwards won among those who made $50,000 or more by a few points, whereas Kerry won among people who made less than $50,000 by 11 points. Edwards won among people with a college degree by two points, Kerry won those without one by 9 points. He lost union members by 8 points. Edwards also lost among Democrats by 17 points, but he won independents by 12 and Republicans (it was an open primary) by 16.
So Edwards styled himself as a man of the people in 2004 and 2008, but even then, he always attracted the support of white, upper-middle class voters.
March 29th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Just some thoughts on these points — not necessarily thought through. Is this indicative of the “What’s Wrong with Kansas?” thinking of a lot of liberals? They get very frustrated with the white middle class because the WMC doesn’t vote in it’s own interest (as defined by the liberals).
Isn’t it likely that Edwards’ populist approach is more pitched to upper middle and wealthy folks like himself who think they’re populist and in tune with the needs of the middle class, than it is the the middle class itself?
The result being that the professoriate in Madison said to themselves, “Yes, this is what The People need!”, while The People were saying, “What is this crap Edwards is peddling?”
March 29th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
#2 Adam: What makes Liddy Dole untouchable if she decides to enter the political arena? I’m not going to put on the kid gloves. What is she, royalty or something? I thought we did away with that when we said “No” to King George…
March 29th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Sounds like Edwards wanted someone to kiss his ring and Obama wouldn’t do it. Of course Clinton did. I prefer someone who doesn’t grovel, particularly to someone as fake as Edwards. The perfect comparison is McCain and Romney. Their press conference together was painful to watch and it was evident it was not sincere.
And who is Elizabeth Edwards to bicker with a candidate? This makes me like Obama more rather than less.
March 29th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
Fred,
Of course she’s not royalty and anyone and everyone should be made to articulate their positions. The point is that Barack Obama has a way of talking to people in a dismissive sort of way (case in point, “You’re likable enough, Hillary”). He ought to watch that because Obama didn’t get where he is on his own. So he shouldn’t be so stuck on himself.
March 29th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
Just a note on these Texas conventions. Is anyone else seeing what a mess these things are. They started 16 hrs ago and they’re at 43% done. Obama looks like he’s poised to net 9 delegates or so. Is this really how we pick delegates? Day long meeting where who knows what is going on.
These caucuses are how Obama gained his delegate lead and I think what happened in TX and in WA shows that caucuses are really in no way representative of the will of the people at all.
Obama netted more delegates from winning Alaska where all of 400 people showed up than Clinton did from winning Texas where around 3 million did. And Obama is going to get more delegates from a caucus in Texas where a mere fraction of that 3 million or so showed up.
The whole system is wacky.
But this idea that idea that pledged delegates represent the will of the people when they’re based on such arcane and insane rules is absurd.
As is, btw, the idea that Puerto Rico could play such an important role in this. It’s not even a state and it doesn’t even vote in November yet a big win there by Hillary could net her a few hundred thousand votes in the popular vote and possibly vault her into the lead in that count.
I hope this whole circus continues all the way to Denver where a bleary-eyed Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann announce Al Gore as the nominee on the 14th ballot at 3:47 AM
March 30th, 2008 at 12:03 am
#13–>Being from Alaska, I just want to note that nearly 9,000 people voted on the Democratic side, and even more on the Republican side. It may not be the same turnout that Texas had, but we had our say. Alaska pride!!!
I voted Romney, but I’m all for McCain b/c he’s the guy now. Obama or Clinton, it’s fine either way. I know who I’m supporting.
March 30th, 2008 at 12:55 am
Guys, remember that the Edwards are going through some tough times with his wife’s condition and the media pressure.
What is sad is that on Hillary’s own web page she is encouraging her supporters to go to his page and harass him to endorse her.
As far as Obama’s diplomatic skills, unlike Hillary he is a man of his word. Sure he could just bs Edwards and talk about having more poverty programs and than not follow through. Sure he could say he will make his plan universal and not do it, or just to get the endorsement adopt a “universal” policy that won’t work and won’t pass congress (as forcing people to buy it will mobilize the Republicans against it). I think the difference between Obama and Hillary is he didn’t lie to the Edwards’. Hillary has 100 different faces and can’t be trusted.
Hillary engaging Edwards in a long policy discussion doesn’t mean she will follow through. There is a reason why Edwards wife hated Hillary, there is a reason why he ganged up on her.
All that would happen with an Edwards endorsement of Hillary would be that the race would be prolonged, Hillary still would lose the state vote but would be easier at getting it reversed. Edwards has more character than to allow that.
Look at the donor base to Hillary and donor base to Obama….who is more committed to fighting poverty. Obama is the only candidate that wants to double international aid for poverty and most people with poverty don’t live in the United States. Obama grew up in poverty.
It is a really tough decision for Edwards, very tough. He will likely endorse Obama if he wins Pennsylvania.
Also remember what happened with Edwards in 04..He supported Kerry (became his VP) and their relationship wasn’t great. He wants to be sure whoever he endorses is someone he is definately comfortable with.
Remember it’s not just Edwards..Richardson NEVER liked the Clinton’s and it took him a month or two to make an Obama endorsement, same with Dodd. Kucinich has not made an endorsement, neither has Biden or anyone else for that matter. Look what happened to Richardson, that “painful conversation” Hillary had with him. Edwards knows if he picks the person that loses the primary or general election Clinton will screw him over.
He is in a very tough position…and as heated as this races is whatever he does he upsets half the democrats, and remember that his state is very conservative as well.
I respect Obama for not immediately commiting to these things he sees won’t work to get an endorsement. I think it is a fairy tale that Hillary as president would get a monumental bill like this passed when she failed bacause of the same arrogance we are still seeing.
Forcing people to buy it would be something that mobilizes the Republicans so it doesn’t pass.
Just because Edwards supported Obama early on doesn’t guarantee an endorsement..It is a tough decision..Was very tough for Richardson. If Obama wins Pennslvania I can’t see ANYONE endorsing Hillary as the race will be over. The Edwards endorsement won’t mean so much being later. Richardson if he endorsed him before TX and OH this race would be over.
Also remember that Obama did commit to make poverty a bigger part of his platfrom when Edwards left. How Obama screwed up was making jokes about Edwards in the week after he dropped out about how they answered the question of their “biggest weakness” in the debates. This was a VERY BAD mistake when trying to get an endorsement and probably hurt him more than anything, especially as Edwards answer was helping poor people was his weakness he liked to do it so much. This made it very difficult.