Edwards endorses Obama in move to unify support

I smell sweet victory!

It will certainly smell pretty bad when the republicans turn up the heat on Barack, but working around farmers, I've been able to adjust to the smell of manure.

THE VIDEO!

There's one man who knows in his heart that it's time to create one America, not two. And that man is Barack Obama! - Edwards

There's one man who knows in his heart that it's time to create one America, not two. And that man is Barack Obama! - Edwards

Is that what he said? Seriously. Cause if it is that's a dumb ass thing to say. Much more to the point would be if Edwards said "America is now at least two countries, maybe five or six and Obama is the man to lead the leftist , race grieving, college graduate, 19 yr old part of America. Hip Hooray!!!!!"

The Obama who will unite America is a fabrication and a mentally diseased fairy tale.

Barack Obama has been a member of a RACIALLY DIVISIVE CHURCH for almost 20 years. Is there some part of this sentence you and your friends don't understand?

Obama leads the successful, educated younger generation.

arcanebliss,
thanks for the link. John Russell, sometimes you just make me sad, from what you write, it's hard to imagine it's much fun to be you. Let go of the anger and embrace the reality.

Is that a nation recognized by the U.N.?

arcanebliss,
thanks for the link. John Russell, sometimes you just make me sad, from what you write, it's hard to imagine it's much fun to be you. Let go of the anger and embrace the reality.

I'll pray for you.

I love how having the support of the well educated is a negative thing. As well as motivating young people to become active in their country, to state what their needs & wants are. While I think the management of the country over the last 2 terms would be enough to motivate the younger generation to see "daddy knows best" isn't always true.

With a war against science & the environment. I think many young people ( myself included ) are tired of it. And ageism is very apparent in our nation today, older people tell younger people we don't know what we're talking about. Without actually knowing where our minds lie. And many of these people were told the same thing when they were younger. It's a vicious cycle.

Regardless of age, sex, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity we're all here together. Let's work together instead of pointing fingers.

who will unite America is a fabrication and a mentally diseased fairy tale.

You mean like "I'm a uniter, not a divider" nightmare creator George Bush?

Thanks for your perspective.

You mean like "I'm a uniter, not a divider" nightmare creator George Bush?

And, don't forget about 'bring ethics back to the White House'. Ha!

who will unite America is a fabrication and a mentally diseased fairy tale.

You mean like "I'm a uniter, not a divider" nightmare creator George Bush?

Thanks for your perspective.

Don't try the cheap tactic of associating me with George Bush.

Obama cannot unite America . It is a pipe dream. I will grant you , he can and does unite the far left with the mentally disturbed far far left. I'm not sure you can win the Presidency with that as your constituency though.

To anyone who thinks Obama will be uniting America any time soon, I've got something for you -

http://johnrussell.newsvine.com/_news/2008/05/14/1489370-a-years-worth-of-trumpet-magazine-rev-wrights-warped-world-view-

America is now at least two countries, maybe five or six and Obama is the man to lead the leftist , race grieving, college graduate, 19 yr old part of America. Hip Hooray!!!!!"

If you really think a candidate who:

- supports the PATRIOT Act
- supports the Iraq occupation
- supports building a giant fence on the Mexican border
- and supports taking away means for consumers and employees to hold corporations accountable

... is in anyway leading "leftists," then you need to rethink your definition of the political "left."

JohnRusssell-

Don't try the cheap tactic of associating me with George Bush.

And yet, you don't have a problem linking Obama to his pastor?

Do you honestly believe 'the uniter' has done anything other than divide the country?

hen you need to rethink your definition of the political "left."

I'm pretty sure JohnRussell's definition of "left" is anyone left of him, which I dare say apparently includes 90% of the country.

If you really think a candidate who:

- supports the PATRIOT Act
- supports the Iraq occupation
- supports building a giant fence on the Mexican border
- and supports taking away means for consumers and employees to hold corporations accountable

... is in anyway leading "leftists," then you need to rethink your definition of the political "left."
3 !

Huh? Daily Kos, Move On, TPM, all are left wing vehicles. They all enthusiastically support Obama. THis isn't even a matter for debate.
#

I'm pretty sure JohnRussell's definition of "left" is anyone left of him, which I dare say apparently includes 90% of the country.

You have never seen me make a right wing comment or support a right wing politician. Your view is so skewed you think any criticism of Obama must be right wing. This is so pathetic.

Huh? Daily Kos, Move On, TPM, all are left wing vehicles. They all enthusiastically support Obama. THis isn't even a matter for debate.

So you're saying those things I've listed are characteristics of a "leftist" then? Because they're all true of Obama.

Your view is so skewed you think any criticism of Obama must be right wing. This is so pathetic.

Nor have I seen any other comments in this thread more ad hominem and vitriolic attacks than yours.

It took him a while, but His timing was spot on!

Don't try the cheap tactic of associating me with George Bush.

Why not? Your tactics for smearing Obama are even cheaper. If you're going to swing low, wear a cup.

JohnRussell,

Huh? Daily Kos, Move On, TPM, all are left wing vehicles. They all enthusiastically support Obama. THis isn't even a matter for debate.

It is true, Obama is getting support from across the spectrum, because some of those people and media sources are from what you consider the left, doesn't mean Obama is a leftist. He clearly holds some positions that are embraced by the left, and others that are conservative, and many that are centrist. I support Obama, just as I believe you once supported Bush, not because I agree with all of his views, he is much too conservative on some issues, and too liberal on others and we have different ideas of how to solve a problem on still others. I am aware that he appears to have what this country needs right now, and will be a great president when America most needs one

I believe a non partisan source has described Obama as the most liberal US Senator currently in office.

And I have never supported George Bush, and never voted for him. I do believe that there is a 'war' of ideologies afoot throughout the world, and there is an ongoing threat from Islamic jihadists, but there are better ways to wage that 'war' than the course we are taking in Iraq.

I believe a non partisan source has described Obama as the most liberal US Senator currently in office.

Care to provide a link so everyone can validate the veracity of that?

My quick looking into your statement shows this is just another twisted bit of illogical partisan analysis of voting records. The 'most liberal senator' myth continues to linger

Ok, time for the self-appointed flame police to pile in, sirens wailing. Much of the rehtoric in this exchange ON BOTH SIDES has been over the top and ad hominem. If that's the kind of exchange you want, go somewhere else. Those of you who have been using facts, not emotion, or have at least been somewhat sensitive to others, thank you.

I don't know if we'll ever know why he waited so long. His endorsement would have been key at many different points in the race, but he's held his powder dry much too long in my opinion. Now it has the appearance of being nothing so much as jumping on the train just before it leaves the station.

I really hope it's nothing quite so cynical, but I really think he diluted any effect he might have had. If he wants to increase his influence again, I think his best move is to hop a plane and head to Kentucky tonight. He might be able to keep down Clinton's numbers there so that it's not the blowout that WV was.

I'd heard he actually had issues with some of the details of both Barack and Hillary's posistions and had been having conversations with both of them since he stopped campaigning.

I don't want to be too cynical either, and believe he's timed this pretty well. Not too soon as to tick off the Clinton's, and not too late to be a Johny-come-lately (no pun intended, really). Hillary has been softening her attack on Barack over the last week, indicating to me a slight move towards bringing the party back together around the probable nominee, Barack.

I don't want to be too cynical either, and believe he's timed this pretty well.

I don't know. I think I disagree. If Edwards really wanted to have maximum impact, he should have endorsed early and then been the Obama campaign's answer to Bill Clinton. The Clinton campaign finally found a role for Bill that really helped them, which was to send him throughout rural and small town areas helping Clinton rack up big numbers in those areas. Edwards could have been the answer to that strategy, serving much the same role for Obama, while letting Obama perform where he does best: in front of large urban crowds.

If Edwards had done that, and if it had a measurable effect, he could have written his own ticket in an Obama White House. He certainly could have bought himself a place at the table for any issue he wanted, including health care or poverty. Instead, he sat out PA, IN, and WV where he might have done the most good for Obama, which really limits now the effect he'll have on the race. If they send him to Kentucky, it will be a good thing, but it's too little too late to have much of an impact, I think. The electorate has somewhat hardened in their positions, and it's not likely that even with Edwards, Obama will be able to make many inroads for those voters in the week left.

You certainly bring up valid points, spiffie. Though had Hillary bowed out earlier, we wouldn't have seen nearly the turnouts in the later primaries or had as many of the democratic debates giving both Hillary and Barack needed free airtime.

Either way, it is what it is at this point, and all our punditry is philosophical until we see what, if any, changes in voting blocks in the coming primaries.

Plain and simple, Edwards waited so long to make his endorsement so that there would be no chance he would pick a losing candidate. If Clinton was leading by this much, he would never be backing Obama.

Still, I'm hoping Edwards is considered to be VP for the General Election. I think an Obama/Edwards ticket is almost as good as an Edwards/Obama ticket (biased opinion: I was a HUGE Edward's supporter).

Plain and simple, Edwards waited so long to make his endorsement so that there would be no chance he would pick a losing candidate.

I'm willing to reserve judgement on that point for a week or two. I think if Edwards really jumps into the campaign and proves himself the asset he could be, then it will suggest that he waited to make an endorsement based on genuine concerns. If he makes this endorsement and disappears into the ether, it will suggest that he waited to pick the winning side without much conviction behind his decision.

Spiff:

I must respectfully disagree. Look at what Mudcat Sanders said:

"For Barack Obama, I think he ought to kiss Johnny Edwards on the lips to kill this 41-point loss," he added. "The story is not going to be the 41-point loss. It's going to be Edwards' endorsement."

I think it's perfectly possible that Edwards did not endorse until today on Obama's wishes. A month ago looking ahead, it could be easily seen that the worst press day approaching for Obama would be the day after the WV primary.

It's wasn't like Edwards was keeping his powder dry. More like Obama was Braveheart crying "Hold. Hooold!! HOOOOLD!"

Rachel Maddow brought that up on David Gregory's show at the top of the hour. I agree that if that's the case, that Obama received the endorsement a week or two ago and asked Edwards to hold it until today, then that was a smart strategic move because Edwards probably couldn't have made much difference in WV based on the polling. They certainly couldn't have reversed the defeat.

However, I disagree that if Obama received the endorsement any significant amount of time before Indiana and chose to hold it that it was a smart move. Edwards could have made a real difference in Indiana, and an Obama win in Indiana could have dramatically precipitated the endgame.

If the timing was after Indiana, then I think Edwards missed the VP boat.

Hooold!! HOOOOLD!"

I agree with you Lack. The timing was perfect. Not omly did he steal the day media-wise, he wiped out the delegates she gained last night.

Now Barack has a Son-of-the-South to fight for him in Kentucky.

I hope he serves in the Obama administration in any capacity. he'd be great.

Great. I wonder why it took him so long?

I wonder the same thing. I glad he did it but I would like to hear an explanation. If you endorse him now what changed since he dropped out of the race?

spiff:

Ah Rachel. I have a wicked crush on her, but unfortunately, I'm, er, not her type.

:^{)>

Yeah, me either, even though I guess I'm on her team.

You know, the more I think about this, the more I'm convinced that this is good short-term tactical timing, but probably has large downside potential for next week.

The good news is that now Edwards has a lot of incentive to go to Kentucky and campaign hard for Obama. The bad news is that he only has a week, and I don't know if that's enough time to make much of a difference, given the current Hillary-as-working-class-hero narrative that Obama and Edwards will be fighting against.

Hillary currently has about a 30-35 point lead in KY based on polling. If Obama doesn't do any better than a 20 point loss to Clinton on the 20th, I think there's a real danger that two narratives will become the new "conventional wisdom": 1) Obama can't make inroads among white, working-class folk even with Edwards helping him, and 2) Edwards doesn't have the pull that the media is granting him tonight.

In effect, the announcement now, even though train-wrecking media coverage of Hillary's WV win, may hurt more in the long run. Now KY is both a referendum on Edwards' influence among those voters and Obama's ability to pull together the party with such institutional support.

If Edwards wants the VP slot or any significant influence in an Obama presidency, he has to help prove that this endorsement is the major factor that the media is playing it up to be.

I'm now more worried about next Tuesday than I ever was.

Great. I wonder why it took him so long?

He wants a job?

spiff:

You're overthinking. Seriously, go back to the 1992 primaries. Gerry Brown actually beat Bill multiple times after the nomination was sewn up. A loss in KY next week means nothing since it's clear O will have earned the majority of pledged delegates that night, and THAT will dominate the coverage.

We've reached silly season for the contest--not that I'm calling for Hillary to drop out. The opposite, actually. This is almost certain to be the only 50-state primary in my lifetime (born in '53 with about twenty years left if I'm good) or even yours (you got fifty years left, hopefully). Might as well play it out. They didn't stop the Super Bowl when Eli clinched it with 30 seconds left, did they? But still. Hillary's hoping for a Hail Mary and those only hit one in a hundred times.

Don't blame her for hoping or trying for it, but the rest of us have start planning and behaving as if that won't happen.

Seriously, go back to the 1992 primaries. Gerry Brown actually beat Bill multiple times after the nomination was sewn up.

I actually used Brown's late-cycle victories in '76 and '84 in a comment yesterday (along with those of Frank Church and Ernest Hollings). However, there's something today that none of Carter, Mondale, or Clinton had to deal with, and that's the 24-hour pundit class. Also, I think that in '76, '84, and '92 each ultimate winner actually did manage to clinch the nomination decisively by the end of the contests, something that Obama probably won't do.

I expect Obama's majority of pledged delegates will be important, but I also think we'll see plenty of autopsy-type reporting of exit polling to see why Obama can't improve his numbers among certain classes of voters (assuming he actually doesn't improve his numbers), and that will be made only worse because now he has Edwards on his side.

spiff:

Granted, no historical analogy is perfect, but the obverse is that the pundit class hates yesterday's news, and Hillary will soon be yesterday's news. What she says or does just won't move the needle.

Speaking of yesterday's news:

Audio of Rumsfeld on Iraq creates buzz: Audio of luncheon with media military analysts posted on Newsvine

Hillary will soon be yesterday's news

Hillary won't be yesterday's news until she drops out or until the convention is over, whichever comes first. As long as she's fighting it out and holding her troops with her, the media is looking forward to a brokered convention with more salivating than an Alaskan Husky in Texas in summertime.

Audio of Rumsfeld on Iraq creates buzz: Audio of luncheon with media military analysts posted on Newsvine

I actually saw that. MSNBC better be careful plugging their own properties or they'll end up looking like Wolf Blitzer at his worst. ;-)

I think the timing was great, but even better was the place it was set. Michigan, a place that the Clinton's are trying to get counted, or revoted, was absolute genius for the Obama campaign.

The crowd was hungry and electric. They were truly ecstatic! If there was a revote, people there would definitely remember this day.

spiff:

Talk about "buzz." One of the guys who was AT THE LUNCH just showed up on my article.

Spiff:

I must respectfully disagree. Look at what Mudcat Sanders said:

"For Barack Obama, I think he ought to kiss Johnny Edwards on the lips to kill this 41-point loss," he added. "The story is not going to be the 41-point loss. It's going to be Edwards' endorsement."

I think it's perfectly possible that Edwards did not endorse until today on Obama's wishes. A month ago looking ahead, it could be easily seen that the worst press day approaching for Obama would be the day after the WV primary.

"The story is not going to be the 41-point loss. It's going to be Edwards' endorsement."

This whole charade is a riot. The Obama worshipping media can make the story anything they want, obviously. Doesn't mean the voters give a crap. Edwards' endorsement means something to political junkies who frequent things like Newsvine. The vast majority of voters couldn't care less.

The timing was held off so as to boost Obama after the WV vote. It was best for the Democratic party, it would have been better for Edwards personally to have endorsed earlier.

According to CNN, Edwards has 19 pledged delegates. If they all go for Obama, he has 6 pledged delegates until a majority of pledged delegates that are currently valid.

blockquote>

Why is it taking everyone so long? I'm ready for this to be OVER.

Me too, me too.

I certainly would love to see John in the veep position, but I think he's better suited for either Attorney General or Health and Human Services Secretary, where his heart is for working for consumers and eliminating poverty and hunger.

Richardson might be a better pick as VP to help bring the Hispanic vote. And, if not as VP, he should be Sec of State.

I heard Edwards say in an interview last night (forget where) that he's not interested in the vp spot. He's concentrating on helping the poverty-stricken. Guess the vp of the USA can't do that...and be a vp at the same time. Wait, what's wrong with that sentence?

Wait, what's wrong with that sentence?

Too much is wrong with it. I don't know why it wouldn't be possible. Have you ever watched C-SPAN? Their attendance is awful.

Edwards could easily serve in the Administration and focus completely on poverty issues.

The VP has to be able to focus on a broad range of issues. And, in these times, a VP candidate with foreign policy experience is pretty important. I'm thinking Richardson would be perfect. In 1997, Clinton appointed Richardson as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.

Edwards as Attorney General makes the most sense to me.

AG makes the most sense to me also.

I watched the rally streaming live on CNN, (no talking heads) and Obama was talking about how JE announced he was starting a new initiative to cut poverty in the US 50% in 10 years. I think Edwards might have other plans from AG after hearing that. Obama of course said to count him in on that fight.

BTW, for those of you that did not see the whole thing--it was an awesome speech. By both of them. What is the faint count now? Another woman fainted during Obama's speech.

I'm a straight male and I fainted at the thought of Obama / Edwards.

But privately, he told aides that he would consider the role of vice president, and favored the position of attorney general, which would appeal to his experience of decades spent in courtrooms as a trial lawyer in North Carolina; and his desire to follow in the footsteps of Robert F. Kennedy, one of his heroes.

From here.

Wish I could say I'm sorry, but I'm not!

I subscribe to CNN news alerts and got an email from them @ 4:22 Central, checked it out, forwarded it to my wife, who wanted to make sure I wasn't kidding, and came here to make sure it had been seeded.

lol @ "When Obama flops in November"

[shakes magic 8-ball]

When Obama flops in November,

You willing to put your money where your mouth is, JohnRussell? $100 bucks says Obama wins. You get to name either Clinton or McCain. The loser pays the $100 to a charity of the winner's choosing.

vas
When Obama flops in November,
You willing to put your money where your mouth is, JohnRussell? $100 bucks says Obama wins. You get to name either Clinton or McCain. The loser pays the $100 to a charity of the winner's choosing.

haha
Vas, that looks like a sound investment at the moment. ;]

Vas can I get some of that action, oh I should ask Mr Russel if he can afford a second hunski eh?

Fine with me.

20 years with Rev Wright.

http://johnrussell.newsvine.com/_news/2008/05/14/1489370-a-years-worth-of-trumpet-magazine-rev-wrights-warped-world-view-

This one issue alone will deny Obama the election.

The Republicans have no intention of letting this die, nor, from their perspective should they. Barack Obama is a sitting duck.

How you say, can this trump the war, and trump the economy? Just watch.

This is visceral. This involves love of country and perception of just what America is all about.

Obama is irrevocably linked with a rabid America and white hater. The Trumpet Magazine material makes this crystal clear. All of this will come out and come out and come out as the weeks and months progress.

If Obama wants McCain beaten he should resign from this nominating process TODAY.

The article John Russell linked above: "a years worth of trumpet magazine rev wrights warped world view" was written by Stanley Kurtz.

Stanley Kurtz, the Neoconservative pundit. With a biased, disreputable point of view. Sources supporting my argument are in the comments area of the linked article.

JohnRussell,

Great, it's official then. If Obama wins, you will send $100 to Carpenter's Shelter in my or Barack Obama's name (your choice) and with an eCard sent to me. I'll do likewise if you win. You still need to pick your candidate and your charity.

The article John Russell linked above: "a years worth of trumpet magazine rev wrights warped world view" was written by Stanley Kurtz.

Stanley Kurtz, the Neoconservative pundit. With a biased, disreputable point of view. Sources supporting my argument are in the comments area of the linked article.

You have no argument. Stanley Kurtz, whatever he is, is not the issue. What is in Trumpet magazine is the issue. Kurtz is reporting what is in the magazine and he is correct about this. If you think he's wrong about something else, go find the applicable thread and apply your wisdom there.

I agree. I will let you know what my charity will be. Just to be clear, if Obama loses to either Clinton or McCain, you lose, correct?

The bet was based on your statment "when Obama flops in November". But I did say "You get to name either Clinton or McCain", forgetting that if Clinton somehow becomes the nominee because the superdelegates start thinking like you, then we'll never know if Obama would flop in November. But I'm fine with you picking either one -- though if you pick Clinton our bet would be on who's the Democratic nominee, not the November contest. I pretty sure you don't want that bet.

So how about this: Your money's on McCain, mine's on Obama, and if Clinton somehow gets the nomination the bet is off. Fair enough?

I will take the bet on McCain, even though, I don't want him to be President and I am a little concerned he will show some 'impairment' in the mental department due to advancing age at some point in the campaign. Nonetheless , Obama has too much baggage for a general election when key states will take issue with his personal history. We bet.

Deal. Now I hope you don't skip out on me like Cliff Potter. My word is my honor.

John Russell
You have no argument. Stanley Kurtz, whatever he is, is not the issue. What is in Trumpet magazine is the issue. Kurtz is reporting what is in the magazine and he is correct about this. If you think he's wrong about something else, go find the applicable thread and apply your wisdom there.

The author is painfully biased on the topic he is addressing and has already previously been called out for publishing material that is false and misleading. Such is important to address when considering the quality of the article you're reading.

Deal. Now I hope you don't skip out on me like Cliff Potter. My word is my honor.

What was the bet he lost to you?

He hasn't lost it yet, but since he disappeared without leaving contact info, he's effectively skipped out. Bet was pretty much the same as ours. (I have a third one with Bill Harrison)

It is ironic, because there are people here on Newsvine that think you are Cliff Potter.

Gee--I told you there were streaming it on CNN.com/live listen to me next time :)

Gee--I told you there were streaming it on CNN.com/live listen to me next time :)

Oh ... I know. I was watching it on CNN. My comment about the Network News shows was just an observation. It didn't surprise me that they continued with their regular nightly newscast. It's pretty typical actually. The pundits have been wondering about Edwards for months, and when he finally does give an endorsement, the major networks ignore it.

They should have showed the whole event.

they do claim to be public airwaves do they not? And we wonder why voter turn out is low?

Democracy is advanced citizenship. But--they need real information to decide for themselves.

More NPR--not less.

Edwards is giving his speech right now.

It's not on NBC Network News, it's not on CBS network news, nor is it on ABC network news.

Who could have guessed (sigh)

Are you serious? You think the networks should have shown Edwards endorsement of Obama as a news bullletin worthy of interrupting programming? Man, you are waaaaaaaaaaaaay off the deep end. I have to make a note of that.

Are you serious? You think the networks should have shown Edwards endorsement of Obama as a news bullletin worthy of interrupting programming? Man, you are waaaaaaaaaaaaay off the deep end.

Yes, the endorsement was worthy of interrupting programming. And here's my rationale: The Democratic race is so tight and the general election is so very important that Edwards' endorsement was a significant leg-up for Obama. Those of us who support Obama were thrilled to hear of it, and I'm glad it was covered in a timely manner.

BTW, that said, what programming on TV is so good anymore that an important political move wouldn't trump it? Television has become an almost total wasteland. It was nice to hear good news for a change.

In other words something would have made YOU happy, or one side of a two sided argument happy, and the networks should drop everyhting they are doing and take care of that. Maybe that's not all that reasonable Lisa.

Remember, John, that half of this country is Democrat or independent. Edwards' endorsement of Obama was newsworthy to all of us in that group, not just me. And it should've been newsworthy to all who are going to vote.

I feel it is the civic responsibility of all U.S. citizens to know as much as they can about all of the candidates, not just those in their chosen party. November 08 will bring one of the most important elections this country has ever had. I believe it is short-sighted and narrow-minded to not listen to every person who has any influence over this election. If Americans aren't paying full attention now, they will deserve what they get (unless, of course, we get another Katherine Harris-style election outcome).

They stop getting a freed ride when we go to the ballot box.