<p>With Dodd getting behind Obama one wonders what is going on with Edwards. His lack of endorsement of either of the two candidates suggests to me one of the following posibilities:</p>
<li><p>The candidate he prefers is not winning and he doesn’t want to back a loser.</p></li>
<li><p>He genuinely likes/dislikes them the same.</p></li>
<li><p>He doesn’t want to endorse a candidate that his wife dislikes.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Any others?</p>
<p>I think he’s waiting to be absolutely sure of the nominee so he can gain maximum benefit from the association.</p>
<p>VP - I check the news several times a day looking for that Edwards endorsement. One does wonder why he’s waiting so long. I also wonder if he’s going to wait until the end of this week, so his impact will be big on Tuesday. If he endorses too soon, people may forget, but if he does it just days before the primaries, it might have a stronger impact… that could mean putting the nomination away for Obama, or keeping Hillary in the race.</p>
<p>I speculate way too much :)</p>
<p>I suspect that John Edwards doesn’t want to make the same mistake Al Gore did. You’ll recall that he endorsed Howard Dean just before the Iowa voters went to caucus and ended up with egg on his face. Had John Kerry actually won the Presidency whose phone call to the White House do you think Kerry would have answered first, Al Gore’s or [name anyone whose last name doesn’t begin with Bush]. John Edwards wants access to the White House. He can only win by waiting. I do think, however, that if Hillary loses either Texas or Ohio that Edwards will be endorsing Barack Obama.</p>
<p>I agree with zoosermom (post 2). Who wants to back a loser? I agree he’s waiting to ensure he backs the winner.</p>
<p>I was talking to someone recently who was on his staff at the headquarters, and I was griping about how he dropped out too early. She said that one reason he dropped out (seemingly) so early, was because he wanted to have enough money left to continue to pay his staffers for another couple of months. She said that a lot of candidates don’t do that-- they stay in too long, and then paid staff are left to clean up everything (for free), because there’s no money left to pay them.</p>
<p>That last bit is neither here nor there w/regard to this thread-- just thought it was interesting.</p>
<p>Sounds like Edwards is more interested in helping Edwards with the endorsement rather than helping the person being endorsed.</p>
<p>“Sounds like Edwards is more interested in helping Edwards with the endorsement rather than helping the person being endorsed.”</p>
<p>But, weren’t the violins playing in full-syrup mode when he said he just wanted what is best for the country?</p>
<p>“Sounds like Edwards is more interested in helping Edwards with the endorsement rather than helping the person being endorsed.”</p>
<p>Edwards is even more self-absorbed than most politicians. He used to be one of those ambulance chasing attorneys who advertises on TV. When he ran as Kerry’s VP, he couldn’t even win his home state. This former North Carolinian thinks he’s a dope.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As an Edwards supporter, I would also want him to endorse the person who will win and who will, consequently (hopefully) place him in a key position in his or her cabinet, where he can be the most effective at implementing his ideas about what’s “best for the country.” </p>
<p>Edwards has excellent ideas and detailed policies (many of which both Clinton and Obama have borrowed and used as their own), and I would certainly want him to endorse the person who will be the most likely one to win and put him to work.</p>
<p>So, as far as I’m concerned, whatever helps Edwards ultimately helps us all.</p>
<p>dntw8up: NC has consistently voted Republican since 1968, with the exception of Jimmy Carter in 1976 (and that was only because he ran in the wake of Watergate). So, no fault of Kerry or Edwards (who won SC, by the way-- where Edwards was born and spent a good part of his youth-- also attended Clemson before he had to drop out because of lack of funds); I doubt seriously if a Democrat will carry NC this year, either-- even though we all know Obama walks on water. ;)</p>
<p>As an aside, Edwards never advertised his services on TV (he didn’t have to), nor was he an “ambulance-chasing” lawyer. I still don’t get the disdain for lawyers who defend people who have been damaged irreparably. </p>
<p>In addition, only the wealthy can really put efforts (and money) into helping the poor. It’s time people realized that. The poor really do not have the financial means and connections, nor the luxury of time and energy, to help other poor people in any meaningful way. That really is up to the government and to the wealthy of this country. And let’s face it, the wealthy could do other things with their time, energy, and money that worry about those less fortunate. Seriously.</p>
<p>Obama’s guru is David Axelrod, who ran Edwards’ 2004 presidential nominee campaign. Elizabeth Edwards has already publicly complained about Obama stealing her husband’s campaign slogans/words/speeches, etc. Of course this is cause Axelrod is writing the stuff. </p>
<p>Axelrod was quoted in NYT article in March 2007 (I think) that he’s using the same message with Obama he used with Edwards, but that it didn’t work with Edwards in 2004 cause (in Axelrod’s words) Edwards fell down on the job and failed to deliver the message properly. I wouldn’t think Edwards would be all warm and fuzzy about this guy and jumping at the chance to endorse the chosen one.</p>
<p>Yeah. I think Edwards hates both equally. Or he prefers Hillary but doesn’t want to back a losing candidate. </p>
<p>This is just speculation on my part, but maybe he thought he was doing Hillary a favor by stepping aside, thereby not splitting the white vote. Remember, this was back in the ancient history times of this election when it was thought that voters would split along racial lines.</p>
<p>“In addition, only the wealthy can really put efforts (and money) into helping the poor. It’s time people realized that. The poor really do not have the financial means and connections, nor the luxury of time and energy, to help other poor people in any meaningful way”</p>
<p>I completely disagree with that. I volunteer a lot, as do my girls, and the volunteers I know are rarely wealthy. The manhours of a group of middle-class or even poor people can be quite meaningful. I fundamentally think that the federal government should not be charged with the priorities that one usually thinks of in terms of volunteering.</p>
<p>That Axelrod sounds like a real charmer.</p>
<p>I think Edwards didn’t do well in 2004, because he’s a Southerner (pure and simple); I think that’s one of the reasons he didn’t do well this year. He didn’t do well as Kerry’s running mate, because-- well-- he was Kerry’s running mate. Nobody wanted to vote for John Kerry (though I did, of course).</p>
<p>Regardless, Bush exploited the fear of terrorism so well, and the evangelical Christians were backing him so fervently, that there was no way anybody was gonna beat him. Those rigged voting machines probably helped a lot, too.</p>
<p>“NC has consistently voted Republican since 1968, with the exception of Jimmy Carter in 1976 (and that was only because he ran in the wake of Watergate). So, no fault of Kerry or Edwards…”</p>
<p>Other than Edwards, between 1968 and the present, neither the democratic presidential nor democratic vice-presidential candidates were senators from NC. Presidential and vice-presidential candidates who have served in the senate generally carry their state. Edwards’ failure to win NC for the Kerry/Edwards ticket shows that constituents in his home state don’t support him, even when supporting him would get a North Carolinian in as VP (and all of the perks the state would reap from his position.)</p>
<p>“As an aside, Edwards never advertised his services on TV…”</p>
<p>I’ve seen his advertisements.</p>
<p>dntw8up: Can you could provide a link to Edwards’ TV ads for his law firm? As I’m sure you know, he stopped practicing law in 1997. I never saw TV ads-- not once-- and, again, I doubt he needed to do that to secure clients. </p>
<p>NC has always had Republican senators. Jesse Helms held on to his NC Senate seat for 24 years. John Edwards beat Lauch Faircloth (Faircloth was a little to the right of Jesse) in 1998, but only by a margin (51%). Our last Democratic Senators ended terms in 1993 (Terry Sanford) and in 1973 (B. Everett Jordan).</p>
<p>NC tends to vote for Democratic Governors, but rarely for a Democratic Senator-- and never (doesn’t matter if he/she is in the NC Senate or not), do we carry a Democratic presidential candidate. As stated before, that hasn’t happened in decades.</p>
<p>zoosermom: I agree that getting actively involved, and consistent volunteerism, are worthwhile and helpful-- absolutely. However, if you have a computer and (obviously) the time to post on this board, you are not “poor.” </p>
<p>The key phrase in my comment above was “in any meaningful way.” While I believe local involvement/volunteerism can be both effective and helpful, in many ways, I really meant “meaningful” in a broader sense (ie, laws are enacted; taxes are changed; universal health care is provided, etc). As voters, we can elect the people we think will work to provide positive impact in those areas, but that’s about all ordinary citizens can do to create permanent and long-lasting change, in a more far-reaching, broader sense.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>By the way, Al Gore (despite winning overwhelmingly in his TN Senate run), did not win TN in his bid for president in 2000.</p>
<p>TN, like NC, has been steadily moving to the right (ie, Republicans). I’m optimistic that the tide may be turning, though. One can only hope. :)</p>
<p>Janie, we’re going to have to agree to disagree. It’s those suggestions that you made that I adamantly don’t think the federal government should be involved in. State and local? Sure. But not federal. But that is in no way an attack on you or your views.</p>
<p>zoosermom: No, I understand what you’re saying and agree with you, for the most part. I said earlier that those who really have the means to take care of the “poor” (and by poor, I mostly mean those at poverty level in this country) are those who are wealthy, as well as the government. The wealthy (relatively wealthy and otherwise) are in a position to do what they can with volunteerism and philanthropic deeds, and that’s why I don’t understand why people hold such disdain for those who are wealthy and try to make a difference. Again, they are the ones who have the money, the clout, the connections, as well as the luxury of time-- to try to make a real difference.</p>
<p>I do believe, though, that in order to make real, concrete changes, like universal health care-- or even simply making it more affordable for ALL; changing taxes so as not to simply benefit the wealthy; ensuring that poor people get to go to college via grants, etc) rests with the government. Neither you nor I can make health care more affordable for everyone in this country; all we can do is vote for the person we think is more likely to make that a reality. (Universal health care may or may not be of interest to you, but it’s just an example of something we, as ordinary citizens, can’t change by simply volunteering at a local hospital.)</p>
<p>Whether something like that is enacted at a state or local level, chances are the money to help do that would stem, in part, from the federal government.</p>