Edwards refuses to say whether he would endorse Hillary if she wins the nomination

[Herman Munster]

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/12/a-not-so-perfect-picture-of-party-unity/

On both sides of the ticket, the presidential nominating contest is growing increasingly combative, as voters may well witness Thursday during a debate in Las Vegas among the Democratic candidates.

So how is John Edwards feeling about Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York these days? So bad, apparently, that in an interview last week he twice refused to say whether he would endorse her should she win the Democratic presidential nomination.

It is a standard political question, which often comes with a standard answer. And it is highly unusual for a candidate to decline to answer whether he would ultimately support the party’s nominee.

[Hieronymus]

1. Did you really think he'd tell us that, in the middle of the primary??

[Herman Munster]

2. Edwards is an ass. Obama had the right answer

Obama said

“I am a Democrat, and I would support the Democratic nominee,” he said. With a smile, he added, “I intend it to be me.”

[rinsd]

30. That is a good answer.

[Hieronymus]

36. Obama did NOT say he would support Hillary .. that's the subject here.

[tritsofme]

5. I would certainly hope so.

Unless he has better plans that include betraying the party.

[Crunchy Frog]

6. They all did it in the last primary.

I thought it was pretty much standard procedure for all the candidates to affirm that they will support the eventual nominee.

[MethuenProgressive]

19. He's waiting to what the polling tells him to say.

The he flip flops and waffles on everything I expect him to endorse McCain any day now.

[itsrobert]

23. umm, Polling? You're getting HRC and JE confused

Hint: JE is the one with the better hair and much better ethics.

[Hieronymus]

39. You got that right.

[JI7]

3. i think he was trying to avoid what could come off as an endorsement

or be taken out of context and used that way before the primary is over. he might have been worried it would make those who are considering voting for him feel that he is giving up.

[babylonsister]

24. I agree. Why should he say anything at this point? Way too premature imo. nt

[mattclearing]

4. Maybe he's planning to run as a third party candidate.

After all, he doesn't have a Senate seat, doesn't seem to be interested in anything less than the Presidency, and seems to think that the Democratic Party is fairly broken.

I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that he'd leave the party and continue to run if he loses the nomination.

And I think that would be very interesting, because Edwards, unlike Nader or Perot, actually could forge a third party plurality out of people inclined to either side of the aisle, especially if the other candidates were Hillary and Rudy.

edited for typos

[FreeStateDemocrat]

28. If it's between a puke, Hillary or John Edwards, he has my vote.

[MrSlayer]

7. I think there are a lot of Democrats who may not vote for her if she gets the nod.

I will vote for her with great reluctance if she gets it but a lot of people in the party are going to have a hard time pulling the lever for her.

[avrdream]

10. So they would rather pull the lever for say, Julie?

Or Mitt?

Or Huckabee?

I so don't get this reasoning anymore.

[MrSlayer]

14. I don't get it either.

I really, really, do not want to have to vote for Hillary but vote for her I will as there is no real choice in the matter. The Supreme Court alone is reason enough to suck it up and get her elected.

[dionysus]

27. um, they'd just not vote at all.

i'm not one of those people, but they do exist. Just because there are some jaded dems that won't for for hillary under any circumstances, doesn't mean they'll vote repuke, they'll just stay home.

i don't know why that concept is difficult to grasp.

[JTFrog]

8. You mean the way that Hillary

endorsed Kerry when Edwards was running for VP? By standing with the republicans and criticizing the democratic nominee during a general election?

Let's just hope that if she's not the nominee she keeps her mouth shut this time. I'm not worried about any of the other candidates doing harm.

[BootinUp]

9. What are you talking about? nt

[JTFrog]

12. Obviously I was very confused

when I posted that. For the last two months I have been mixing up the 2004 and 2006 election cycle. For some reason I remembered Kerry's "botched joke" as happening right before November 2004, but it was 2006.

So I'm off to eat my crow. Can't edit my post because it's past the time.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. I Think Those Are Called Freudian Slips Which Reveal Our Truest Feelings

DSB

[blm]

20. The botched joke was 2006, but TeamClinton was backstabbing Kerry in 2004

race. Carville stuck the big knife in Kerry-Edwards on election night when he called Matalin at the WH to warn them about Kerry looking to make up the difference with Ohio's provisional ballots.

[itsrobert]

25. Yup, no help from Bill and Hillary in 2004

Bill didn't help Gore much in 2000, come to think about it.

[DURHAM D]

31. Gore ran away from Bill.

He didn't want his help. Stupid move. One of the many fatal errors of the Gore campaign.

[itsrobert]

32. And Bill busy doing Hollywood Fund-raisers for his wife

when he could of been raising it for Gore didn't help matters much.

[DURHAM D]

35. Bill is very good at multi-tasking (for a man) ... n/t

[billyoc]

11. Good move. I won't either.

She won't get the nomination.

[Inspired]

15. Why didn't they ask him if he'd support Biden, Obama, Kucinich,

or any one of the other candidates who are running? It's not a standard question, it's a stupid question asked by a stupid press who can't seem to focus on what is really important.

Maybe they should ask him about his plans to change America. That's the kind of questions our candidates should be asked.

I didn't hear him say he wouldn't support her. He probably doesn't appreciate being asked "Hillary this" or "Hillary that" all the time.

I'm not supporting him because he gives canned answers to standard questions or just falls in line.

[earthlover]

17. It is a stupid question....

More like a gotcha question. If Edwards says no, then he would get slammed for not supporting the party's nominee. If he says yes, he dignifies the question by framing everything in relation to Hillary being the nominee. Or worse yet, could be viewed as an endorsement.

Nobody has asked Hillary that question, I believe.

Obama answered the question very well.

I do find this question so typical of what is wrong with the political media. With all the substantive questions being unasked, it is questions about who is winning, etc that are asked!

I would have loved for Edwards to have responded...."why do you ask?" LOL

[Alexander]

34. It's a legitimate question. It was asked to everyone in 2004.

"Will you support the eventual nominee?" is a question that has been asked time and again to test party loyalty.

Edwards himself answered "yes" back in 2004. Why he doesn't answer the same way now is a mystery to me - this will kill him among Democratic primary voters.

[earthlover]

38. "Will you support the eventual nominee?" was NOT the question....

...it was framed as would you vote for HIllary....

This is quite a bit different from asking ALL the candidates in a debate if they would support the nominee...

All Hail Hillary! Sarc

[Catchawave]

29. My non-political/non-bloggy friends have no clue

what the candidates stand for. They don't trust the media to tell them either.

No wonder there's so much voter apathy in this country. Sad.

[Perry Logan]

16. The question should be "Will you support Hillary WHEN she wins the nomination?"

[earthlover]

18. Will YOU support the party's nominee WHEN Hillary does not get the nod? SARC

Enough of this presumptuousness. The Hillary campaign has reaked with smug presumptuousness for months now. Annoying as hell! This is an election, not a coronation. I know narcissism prevents one from even recognizing that others have a point of view other than one's own, but it would sure be a breath of fresh air for Hillary supporters to at least act like they respect the other candidates and recognize that the race is not over yet. I don't mind Hillary near as much as some of her supporters. Best part of her losing would be the comeuppance.

[Evergreen Emerald]

22. But, that is not true.

the campaign has not reaked of smug presumptuousness. They are campaigning at full speed knowing nothing is in the bag. The media has played it / the polls play it, but to put those attributes on the campaign is simply not fair or reasonable.

[mohc]

21. That was the question

Which is why Edwards answered it the way he did, and is the way this type of question is always answered. I fully understand that it is important that all the candidates that fail to receive the nomination rally in support of the nominee, that is not the point of that kind of question. He is basically being asked if he has given up and is ready to support Hillary.

[Forkboy]

26. I don't think any of them should answer such a stupid question.

I'm sure Edwards will support the Democratic nominee, but the question as is was about one specific candidate, one he is running against at the moment, in case people forget.

[Alexander]

33. Well, Edwards doesn't get my vote then.

This is the sort of petulant behavior that Edwards tried to show us he was above, back in 2004.

Apparently he'll say anything if he thinks it'll get him ahead.

[Renew Deal]

37. Edwards clarified his comments. Crisis over.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3714620