Edwards's endorsement would be interesting if it happens, but I'm not holding my breath...

[Bicoastal]

...I remember all the other times people were 100% sure he'd be endorsing one or the other by the end of the week.

Color me skeptical. :eyes:

[patrice]

1. Keeping his powder dry. Doing his own thing. Working with MoveOn recently.

I approve.

[helderheid]

2. It's not going to happen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hUW27EJFL4

[DearAbby]

3. I don't believe he will publically endorce either ...

If he were in mind to do so, wouldn't he had done it sooner to garner the most impact? As it stands now, Clinton has slim to no chance of winning the nomination. With or without his endorcement, that fact will not change.

[OzarkDem]

4. For the sake of real health care reform

I hope its true, but we've heard these rumors before....

[BeyondGeography]

5. He has more to gain by not endorsing anyone now

Going with Obama will look like piling on, endorsing Hillary means going with an almost sure loser and being permanently on the outside looking in with Obama, who will be around a long time.

Staying neutral means he'll be aligned with the people who are supposed to solve this mess such as Gore, Carter and Pelosi, come June 3 which is a promotion for John.

[Adelante]

6. Honestly, aside from his own devoted supporters

I don't see how it matters. I thought he would endorse Clinton a while back, but it never happened, and I don't see how it has much of an impact at this stage of the race.

[patrice]

7. If he did endorse Clinton, then, of course, it would matter.

Funny, how people in this party who say so much about how people matter write a few million people here and there completely off.

[Adelante]

8. What few million people?

The ones who already voted for him in the primaries? I don't see how that helps Clinton. He's not a superdelegate. He's lost almost half of his pledged delegates. Among his base, many have moved on to support one or the other candidate. Clinton already has the white working class vote Edwards might have expected to influence. He did poorly in Nevada and South Carolina, both states he might have expected to do a whole lot better, and he never polled well enough in North Carolina to project that vote going differently. What does he do for her? Perhaps he influences his remaining base who are not decided, but those devoted supporters aside, I don't see what he's bringing to the table. Except I can see some PR value in her getting endorsed by a former candidate, although Biden, as a superdelegate, would still do more good for Clinton.

[patrice]

10. I wasn't thinking about him helping Clinton

I was thinking his neutrality generally gives White Southern Democrats something to connect to. These are the folks who are not into Poli Sci and the statistically strategic formulations that you pros see everything through.

I wasn't thinking of the numbers in terms of this fucked-up process we're using. I was thinking of folks, who if they had their 'druthers, and weren't so disenfranchised by everything from the media, to the primary schedule, to their churches, would prefer and be active for JE, if all of the "air" hadn't been sucked out of the political environment by the other two super-candidates.

Superdelegates are a party thing that many people resent, so JE not being a superdelegate, though not very real politik, aligns his folks more with Obama supporters, because it was the moneyed interests behind HC who were bidding on the superdelegates. I know many white working class folks who don't like HC.

People who pick candidates out of their personal values move on to other candidates for practical reasons, but quite possibly retain some identification with their original choice - often because they perceive the system and its inertia as unfair to their candidate, unfair to their values and interests. This is what he brings to the table, and though you make a case for it being worthless in the primaries, if the GE is close, it won't be "nothing" and it most certainly will never be nothing to people who make these decisions for personal reasons, rather than as professional political operatives.

[bilgewaterbill]

9. JE is so 2007.

[elizm]

11. It would mean nothing. nt

[Cha]

12. One thing about John Edwards not

endorsing anyone yet is he waited long enough to see the hilary by Sniper Fire Lie spread out across the world and would undoubtedly remind him of all the other lies hilary is known for.

John Edwards isn't going to endorse a liar.

Why Is Hillary Clinton Lying?
by Robert Parry
March 26, 2008—Two weeks ago, I wrote a story that observed a disturbing trend in Hillary Clinton’s campaign – her growing tendency to stretch the truth, twist what her chief rival was saying and then rely on her supporters to go on the offensive against you if you spoke up.

These tendencies were troubling, in part, because they mirrored what had become so common during George W. Bush’s years: to declare that a fantasy is the truth and then to attack the patriotism or sanity of anyone who thinks otherwise. I wrote

A week later, I cited a report in the Boston Globe about Clinton exaggerating her behind-the-scenes support for the State Children’s Health Insurance Program – which was fashioned and passed by a bipartisan congressional effort led by Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, and Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. I noted that Clinton had transformed her peripheral role into a central theme of her campaign.

<snip>

Not surprisingly, these articles questioning Clinton's truthfulness drew furious reactions from Clinton’s supporters who seem on perpetual alert to any criticism of their candidate, so it can be repudiated as an example of “sexism,” “Hillary bashing” or membership in some “Barack Obama cult.”

<more>
http://baltimorechronicle.com/2008/032608Parry.shtml