RECENT POSTS
- White House State Dinner Party Crashers
- Obama to Lay Out Emissions Goals in Copenhagen
- Free Bird
- The "Good" War
- The Presidential Planner
- Under the Stars, Obama Toasts India’s Prime Minister
- White House State Dinner – Who Made the Exclusive Guest List?
- Admiral Mike Mullen To Geneva for START Talks
- VP Biden to Indian Prime Minister: “You’re the Hottest Ticket in Town”
- FLOTUS on the State Dinner: Like a Swan, "Calm and Serene Above Water, But We're Paddling Like Mad, Going Crazy Underneath"
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Edwards May Endorse, Says Obama "Is Clearly the Likely Nominee"
May 09, 2008 10:31 AM
Former Sen. John Edwards, D-NC, took to NBC and MSNBC this morning to chat about poverty, though of course Clinton v. Obama was the main course.
Hosts on Morning Joe played the audio of Sen. Hillary Clinton's USA Today interview in which Clinton made comments that seemed to many to approach race-baiting, referring to an AP article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me. There's a pattern emerging here."
(Listen to the audio HERE.)
Edwards was asked if Clinton's case against Obama could cause an "insidious undermining" of Obama.
"That's a very legitimate question," Edwards said. "I think it's fine for Hillary to keep making the case for her. I think when that shifts to her contention about everything that’s supposed to be wrong with him -- and I don't agree with some of what she just said, by the way -- I think that then we're starting to do damage instead of being helpful."
Edwards told NBC's Matt Lauer that "right now Barack Obama has the better chance" of beating Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., "because it looks like he’s going to be the nominee. But I think what he brings to the table is the capacity, No. 1, to unite the Democratic Party. No. 2, to bring in new voters, to bring in people who haven’t been involved in the process over a long period of time, and to get people excited about this change.”
Asked if Rev. Jeremiah Wright will hurt Obama in the Fall, Edwards said, "it depends on how he responds."
"It's very difficult to make the math work," he said of Clinton's chances.
He wouldn't tell when asked who he voted for on Tuesday. He said he may still endorse.
Edwards on MSNBC said it's "highly likely" that who he voted for is whom he will ultimately endorse.
"I have enormous respect for both of them," he said.
He said Obama "is clearly the likely nominee."
He wouldn't answer when asked if he and his wife Elizabeth Edwards voted for the same candidate.
- jpt
May 9, 2008 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (46)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
For all of you Clinton supporter that say you won’t vote for Obama in the general election, that thinking is just ridiculous. You would rather thousands of military and Iraq civilians continue to die every day in a war without end thank to McCain continuing Bushes policies. You would enable Millions to go without universal health care and preventable medicine, and absolutely nothing being done about our environmental and energy problems that are growing direr every day. All because your feeling are hurt about your candidate not wining the race. You guys are missing the forest for the trees. Come on now…Clinton and Obama’s policies are virtually identical. I understand your hurt feelings but its time to move forward and come together on this.
Posted by: Benabong | May 9, 2008 12:34:42 PM
ProgressiveDemocrat....let me say this for you AND LEAVE RACISM OUT OF IT. I am a 49 year old white female WHO VOTES FOR THE BEST CANDIDATE TO LEAD/REPRESENT THIS GREAT COUNTRY. Not Africa (Obama's church pledges a non-negotiable allegiance to Africa), and I want someone with more experience than 143 days working in the Senate. BO has spent more time running for Pres!
JFK was a 12 year Senator, so I wish they'd leave those comparisons alone.
Again....OBAMA COULD BE PURPLE...IT'S NOT HIS SKIN COLOR....IT'S HIM.
Posted by: Debra | May 9, 2008 12:22:32 PM
Sen Clinton engaged in no race baiting; the media is engaged in race baiting. Why no media talk about the black racism in the voting against Sen Clinton? Obama's lead against Sen. Clinton in delegates and votes resulted from the black racism in voting against Sen. Clinton.
Obama does not have the requisite number of delegates for the nomination; he has no presumptive lock on the nomination. The Democratic nomination process is still in progress and concludes when all of the remaining states have voted and the superdelegates select the best qualified candidate using their independent judgment. Sen. Clinton is the best qualified presidential candidate and she must continue her fight for the future of America.
Swiping the nomination from Sen. Clinton with the premature end of the nomination process is a subversion of the Democratic nomination process and this will result in Obama’s crashing and burning in November and the Democratic Party a train wreck in November. I will vote McCain. McCain will be president and four more years of Bush under McCain.
Posted by: crat3 | May 9, 2008 12:20:03 PM
ProDem, Hillary puts America first and so does McCain. I see Obama as a One World guy who will drag America down, and frankly, I think he's running as much for Africa and the Middle East as he is America. He hasn't proven he's fit to be POTUS and I won't take a chance on him. He shouldn't have been in such a hurry to run.
Posted by: HoosierSue | May 9, 2008 12:16:06 PM
Wow. You can tell from the Clinton supporters on this board that the only reason they voted for Clinton is because she is white. They are the same folks who will vote for the diametrically opposed McCain solely because of skin color. Pathetic.
Posted by: Progressive Democrat | May 9, 2008 12:15:14 PM
The fact that Clinton supporters would even consider voting for McCain speaks volumes as to their ability to understand what Hillary's campaign is even about. Ask yourself this question, do you think Hillary would vote for McCain over Barack Obama? No, she even said so during a debate. Talk about dis-illusioned and out of touch supporters or just right wing nut hacks pretending to be Hillary supporters. Either way, pretty out of touch with what her campaign has been all about.
Posted by: Progressive Democrat | May 9, 2008 12:10:55 PM
Debra, it's sad to see that the media and voters don't hold a black candidate to the same standards as a white candidate. It's as if they're saying that we can't expect as much from a black candidate, that we have to cut him some slack. I don't happen to agree with that; I believe we're all equal and should be held to the same level of accountability.
Posted by: HoosierSue | May 9, 2008 12:09:37 PM
If this is going to be an election where you can't say the word white or black, shoot me now. I am a Hillary/McCain supporter who will feel so bad for McCain in the fall when he has to pussyfoot around everything he says. OBAMA COULD BE PURPLE I WOULDN'T VOTE FOR HIM. ALOT OF WHITES, LIKE MYSELF, NOT RACIST, JUST DON'T LIKE WHO AND WHAT HE IS ABOUT. Even if he has Hillary as VP, sorry, gotta pass. She is an amazing candidate who would truly work her a-- off with her incredible brain (and experienced first husband). Timing is everying and it's just a shame she had to run against the first black man. Sorry, if Obama was white he wouldn't be where he is. Gary Hart had one photo with someone on his lap and was out. Obama has a laundry list of losers from Wright, to Ayers, Hamas, and a questionably angry wife...and I believe he could have a drug bust on his record or be a pedophile and THE MEDIA/LIBERALS WOULD STILL PUSH HIM THROUGH.
Posted by: Debra | May 9, 2008 12:05:02 PM
Mrs. Clinton's statement contained an obvious racial component. Her objective in making the statement is unclear. Mr. Obama received support from blacks and Mrs. Clinton's support has been mostly from whites. Given the data a prima facia case could be made that race has played a major role in the process.
Posted by: texasdemocrat | May 9, 2008 11:58:25 AM
I also see that, to make up for women Dems. who have been alienated by the MSM's sexist treatment of Clinton and claims to favor Obama (from GE owned NBC, a massive contributor to Bush's campaign! go figure) that women are being threatened that if they do not support Obama, Roe v. Wade will be overturned. Given that IL Now refused to endorse Obama in 2004 and now because of his poor record on women's reproductive rights legislation in IL (their conclusion was that he chose political cover, instead, with his "present" votes,) it's not clear what women would get out of an Obama presidency.
Posted by: IL resident for Clinton | May 9, 2008 11:53:32 AM
I think Edwards has been angry at Obama for stealing his thunder. Edwards was supposed to be the "change" candidate from the grassroots. He was supposed to be the next JFK (thinking back to 2004)
Funny how his dreams have gone down the drain in 2008!
Posted by: kissthesky | May 9, 2008 11:51:32 AM
IL resident for Clinton:
Elsewhere on a well respected blog I have read that the Democratic Party will be unrecognizable to longtime Democrats because of the enrollment of so many students (young people for the most part). The working class will have drifted. There will be the addition of something called the "creative class."
Dem. Party will not be recognizable. Question: Who will represent the working class white voter? Can I even say "white voter" or is that now verboten?
Posted by: countallthevotes | May 9, 2008 11:50:55 AM
count...so you are saying that these states were racist...because the whole Wright thing was racist...and seeded by Wright to stop Obama so he could say, "See this country is still racist and will NEVER give a black man the Presidency." I guess you're saying the people in these states could not see through the news blitz and the lies.
Posted by: cindyct | May 9, 2008 11:11:14 AM
cindyct,
Obama's early wins in states predominantly white were prior to Rev. Wright, Ayres etc. No one knew anything about those things. I do think they would have amde a difference.
Posted by: countallthevotes | May 9, 2008 11:07:52 AM
Il...this is the first time in MANY years including the Clinton years, that we have seen this large a turnout and voter registration. So who do you credit? I don't think it is McCain, and certainly not the Clintons.
Posted by: cindyct | May 9, 2008 11:05:56 AM
Exit polls... whenever there's a surge in new voters, those voter usuallt break 60-40 or 70-30 for Obama. Also young voters... I for one can testify to this
Posted by: Vanessa | May 9, 2008 11:04:07 AM
katrina...if I remember correctly Obama won, early on, quite a few states that didn't have a LARGE black population. So I don't see any reasoning in her statement except using it ti scare whites.
Posted by: cindyct | May 9, 2008 11:03:00 AM
Prog...I am with you. I think Edwards could bring a lot to the ticket....
Posted by: cindyct | May 9, 2008 11:01:09 AM
Clinton was citing an AP article on the voting demographics which stated Obama was losing ground among white, working class voters. This wasn't the most politically correct reference she's made in her career as a politician, but to deride the comment as playing the race card is rather like the pot calling the kettle black...No racial pun intended.
Posted by: katrina | May 9, 2008 10:59:26 AM
In response to all the comments crediting Obama with being the candidate responsible for increasing the Democratic Primary turn-out, not only have I never seen any data to back this up, but believe an alternative explanation is possible. Perhaps the closeness of the race has brought up the number of voters. A second point is that, to the extent that Obama has influenced young voters to register, his campaign and the MSM's unbalanced treatment of Clinton apparently is responsible for the threat that older Democrats will either sit out the election or vote for McCain, thus very possibly wiping out the supposed reason that so many superdelegates have give for endorsing Obama. I guess we'll see.
Posted by: IL resident for Clinton | May 9, 2008 10:58:30 AM
Post a comment


