the "winner." Or the person he believed would win. He pulled the trigger now because he can still get some credit for it.

But then I'm someone who admired Edwards' policies and rhetoric more than I admired Edwards. I never really bought his transformation from centrist democratic senator to man of the people. I don't dislike him, but as far as I'm concerned the best thing about Edwards was always his wife.

And the pony he rode in on.

-------------------------------------------
“We must separate loyal party members from counter-revolutionaries. The first shall inherit our glorious future. The second must be purged from us and history” -Mao Zedong

Well, some people are probably incorrectly but legitimately concerned that a long primary season equals less time to Define The Other Candidate, regardless of whom is running. A lot of this concern is disingenuous, but some of it is genuine. Perhaps Edwards falls into that camp.

at MSNBC, and Tweety is now all loving Edwards--ugh

Top story--not Hillary's giant win.

Obama always distracts after a loss--this is it for WVa.

it's not related to this post

but

jeralyn merritt at TALK LEFT has a very important post up entitled

"another electibility argument regarding caucuses"

with regard to those fabulous caucus majorities obama rolled up,

merritt's post discusses the importance of taking into account the votes of the elderly, especially elderly women, in assessing whether obama should get the demo nomination.

to kill Clinton's news cycle.

I wonder if Elizabeth will endorse? It's pretty clear that Obama isn't getting hers right now.

edward's endorsement today was hurriedly arranged, and, i would guess, was intended to redirect the evening news shows away from discussions of senator clinton's big win in west virginia and of obama's weakness among working class voters.

Seriously? How? Even his demeanor towards the working class betrays that.

God, please have Elizabeth endorse Clinton or, at the very least, stress that she's not endorsing Obama.

I thought it was funny how many news accounts had that in it.

my theory...

If Obama is so damaged by the time the Convention comes around that SDs are going to nominate Clinton instead, Obama will step aside and throw his support (and his campaign organization) to Edwards.

she just said--and precisely to kill the pro-Hillary news.

He doesn't win Democrats Obama needs, and the media mocking and utter dismissal of him ensures he won't help win non-Dems either, i think.

it's funny--on the one hand, Obama pretended WVa didn't happen until now, and now Edwards proves how devastating it really was and they knew it.

they just said--Elizabeth is explicitly not part of endorsement and not traveling to appear with Obama--that's good at least.

Now Obama can declare victory once again and then Edwards can sign up to run as his VP. That way Barry can take the summer off to go wind-surfing while the RNC sharpens up their buzzsaw.

Isn't it nice how all the other Dems jump in to help Barry every time that girl gives him a thrashing? Poor baby.

Kennedy, Kerry, Richardson, Dodd, Leahy, McGovern, and now Edwards - all "Losers" for Obama.

Stuck pigs squeal. For a guy who didn't think WVA mattered, he's sure trying to cover over the results.

wanna add this to your post? it's the NYMag "obama blew it" story-- http://nymag.com/news/politics/powergrid...

or whatever cabinet post he wants.

But why not promise univeral health care?

Edwards is dead to me now.

----------------------------------------------
“We must separate loyal party members from counter-revolutionaries. The first shall inherit our glorious future. The second must be purged from us and history” -Mao Zedong

Is that under that scenario, Elizabeth would be backing Obama, too. And I know she's hinted earlier that she preferred Clinton, but since when does consistency have anything to do with politics. If anything, Edwards is setting himself up for access to Obama's money machine. That could be helpful in 2012 or even 2016. And it's always better to endorse a winner, especially at a moment when he needs you.

I agree that Obama is not prepared for a long fight or the potential of a humiliating defeat, but I also think that even for a politician he has an enormous ego. One that may not permit him to envision a humiliatiing loss.

so the report of the endorsement opened the news, but apparently the timing wasn't right to get Edwards' speech leading the news.

Heh.

seriously old politics--

and Obama's in a packed stadium which they said they wouldn't do anymore.

I want to express my joy at this wonderful news.

------------------------------------------------
“A true friend stabs you from the front” -Oscar Wilde

Truly. Edwards endorsement is as meaningless as all the others, except this one appears to have been quickly arranged by the Obama camp. While I don't know what it was, clearly they did something to move Edwards today. But why did they need to? What is it they're hearing from SDs? For a guy who has this whole thing sown up, he seems to be moving as fast as he can to paper over the rough spots. And if the GE were his only concern, he wouldn't be flailing around like this.

The other good thing is that given the last minute arrangements, I'd say Obama needed Edwards because he's out of any other big news. While I never believed there was some huge SD block just waiting to join the O-bandwagon, this cinches it. Because Edwards is nice, but a lot of SDs would be nicer.

That said, I just recently posted that it wouldn't effect me or my thoughts about Edwards if he were to endorse Obama now that North Carolina had voted.
Edwards did not try to sway the outcome of this election with his endorsement, and that is a credit to him.

they keep doing all these media-tailored and purely visual and symbolic things but never the tangible and practical things and issues these voters want dealt with.

This was definately done to change the news cycle. I'd be suprised if all the SDs don't start to suddenly flow to Obama. It looks pretty bad when the supposed nominee gets his ass kicked royally. I think they'll largely come out before Kentucky gets to vote. To me, it makes him look weak for the party to have to protect him from further drubbings, but I can understand why my ex-party would do it. My ex-party. 36 years...

As one of the four founders of Corrente, I am embarrassed by this comment thread as it is developing.

You guys want "fuck you" language, well, now you got it, and from me, the sane one, the old-fashioned liberal who voted for Obama but refused to join with those Obama enthusiasts who seemed to want to crush the critique going on here at Corrente, despite the sometimes disparaging words for this blog I have found myself running into on other blogs, ones for which I have real respect.

The reason I held out is that for the most part, the critique being carried on here, and a concomitant defense of the Clinton campaign against the incessant attacks from both the press, the Obama campaign and the OFB was well founded and well argued, and happening at very few other places.

Corrente was informally an Edwards blog. But
it didn't take any of you more than a minute to start to maintain various versions of "he's dead to us now." Some respect for those of us who bring you this blog might have suggested that you take it just a little bit easy.

Don't you people get it? You are doing exactly what you continually complain about the Obama Fan Base doing. What many of them did to Krugman, for instance, the minute he said something mildly critical of a specific Obama position, and mildly supportive of a Clinton one.

I understand your disappointment. Despite the fact that I voted for Obama, I don't share the same deep fears about an Obama presidency that some of my colleagues do, but I am sufficiently fond and respectful of both Clintons to feel how much this must hurt.

I do not include Lambert in this condemnation; he reported an important development and asked for a discussion, exactly as he should have. I was in the process of doing the same thing before I noticed that he'd already got it up. I was going to add a caution that commentators try and deal with their understandable disappointment in ways other than attacking Edwards, until they'd given at least some thought to where we are in this campaign.

It is as ridiculous to call John Edwards a panda bear considering the issues he chose to run on, and the populist approach he took, as it was and continues to be to call Bill Clinton a pander bear, who ran in 1992 on a promise to raise the taxes of top income earners, and was unafraid to make a frontal attack on Reaganomics, and not just because it was a failed economic theory, but because it promoted an economic policy that was fundamentally unjust. That's running as a liberal.

This is a potentially important turn in the campaign. But an even more important turn has been taking place under your noses and you don't seem to have noticed it. Hillary Clinton is making a graceful attempt to wind down her campaign, while not giving up, and by making sure that she remains a viable candidate, right through to last primary. There are all sorts of signals the campaign is giving out that this is what is happening. And frankly, some of you are as oblivious to it as the fucking SCLM, who have to ignore those signals in order to continue to keep writing their dime-store narratives about the Clintons.

I have deliberately not aimed this at any particular commentator. Because I like and admire all of you. Even when I disagree with you. All of you have helped to make this blog a force in the blogisphere. There have been costs associated with that, but I still feel proud of what Corrente has been about through-out this campaign season.

But an insularity has begun to creep in, at a time when it's as clear as dust on a piano that we need to think about the fact that we're entering a transitional phase as surely as the Clinton campaign is. I'm not proclaiming that her candidacy is dead. Her candidacy has always been about more than her winning the nomination. I'm not even pronouncing her chances of achieving the nomination over. They are importantly damaged, however, even after W. Virginia.

I can't tell you how disappointed I've been that there has been so little productive discussion here about Hillary as Vice-President.

Perhaps I shouldn't have started this discussion with a comment instead of a post; I will be posting more on the Edwards endorsement and its multiple meanings, so perhaps I should just leave it here.

weird--Edwards is talking walls and divides, not "unity".

I really believed in John Edwards.

.
This SUCKS.

No further significance. Except if you're worried about John having to sleep on the couch for a while.

...for the rest of us

I was for Edwards from the start and canvassed for him in New Hampshire. To me there is no question that he is a smart man, but I really don't understand his endorsement.

Two groups of voters: working-class men and working class women. He's just pissed off the women and is it clear he can deliver the men? I don't see that this helps Obama; I don't see that this helps Edwards; I don't see that this helps the Democratic Party.

If this move has a negative effect on Hillary in the Kentucky and PR primaries and results in her being shut out of the possibility of the nomination, then I see the fracture of the Democratic Party as being complete.

Buchanan, and that more of them and DC will now get w/Obama.

and that KY is far more important bec of the giant loss in WVa.

John Edwards, MAJOR Disappointment…NARAL/Obama Doesn’t Surprise Me, A Perfect Fit

http://insightanalytical.wordpress.com/

What must Kate Michelman be thinking now?
She endorsed Edwards and now he endorse a piece of sexist crap who calls women reporters "sweetie."

NARAL,we know about them

is all that "how can a rich guy with a giant mansion and 400-dollar haircuts care about people?" and all that stuff now down the memory hole? Now Edwards is supposed to help Obama with the workingclass ???

funny.

that I - an Edwards skeptic - seem the least upset by this turn of events. But then I'm also not surprised. I thought for awhile Edwards would go with Obama, he was just waiting to make sure Clinton wasn't going to pull it out (if she had, he'd be endorsing her right now). He's a politician and this is smart move for him to make so he made it. The idea that he'd endorse the person who probably only has a 10% chance of winning because of policy is very unrealistic, IMO (and that goes for all politicians, not just Edwards).

lambert, this reminds me of Kennedy's endorsement. Obama is having trouble with hispanics in California, send Ted Kennedy! As if that's the same thing as Obama reaching out to hispanic voters with policy ideas. And this is why I have little hope for him in the GE, he doesn't have any idea how to fix his problems. He has no second act.

That reeks

------------------------------------------------
“A true friend stabs you from the front” -Oscar Wilde

As one of the four founders of Corrente, I am embarrassed by this comment thread as it is developing.

You guys want “fuck you” language, well, now you got it, and from me, the sane one, the old-fashioned liberal who voted for Obama but refused to join with those Obama enthusiasts who seemed to want to crush the critique going on here at Corrente, despite the sometimes disparaging words for this blog I have found myself running into on other blogs, ones for which I have real respect

Especially the part about how much this place is starting to sound like dKos in every detail except the choice of targets.

And she also has a sharper ear than y'allz do if you haven't picked up on HRC's "winding down" comments today. She's had a "one on one" with everybody from Katie Couric (and i assume the other national anchors as well) to Wolfie Blitz and said the same things in every one.

Oh, I forgot...lots of folks are too "pure" to own a TV set or see what information the great unwashed is getting. Never mind. :)

I wanted to add that many of you have added comments while I was writing mine, so my previous comment may seem curiously inappropriate to some of you.

I also wanted to add some observations.

Of course today's event was meant to change the narrative from Hillary's WV win, and Barack's loss, especially in regards to questions it raises about his ability to attract the white working class. That is allowed. It isn't a dirty trick. And yes, it could indicate a certain desperation on the part of the Obama campaign, although I doubt how real is that perception.

Another way to look at today's development is that Obama and his campaign realize they've got a problem and they are working on ways to reach out to the working class of whatever color, especially the working poor, who are the people that both Elizabeth and John Edwards been at the most pains to make us aware of. Isn't that what you should want to see Obama doing? And Lambert, yes, why not universal health care? Just because Obama has not yet changed the particulars of his health care plan doesn't mean he never will, or that he will never find himself having to. The fact that he has needed this help from Edwards means that much of the triumphalism expressed by Stoller and Bowers was probably a bit hasty.

One more observation; I haven't yet had a chance to look at how this is being talked about on cable news, but I doubt that it will not be noted that Obama has made public a worry that Clinton has been highlighting. It is also quite possible that Edwards' endorsement will raise the stakes in a place like Kentucky, and that Obama will be forced to try and win there, or cut down Hillary's win, and Edwards might be part of that campaign.

Most of all what this shows is that this primary isn't yet over, just as Hillary has been saying; Obama hasn't won it yet, and she hasn't yet lost the nomination. I still maintain that she's preparing herself, her campaign and her voters for her note being the candidate, and she's showing us that she meant what she said about the need to unify the party in its effort against McCain presidency and for a Democratic congress with a real majority.

And once again the SCLM pundits were wrong. Remember when they kept wondering why Edwards didn't endorse, Clinton or Obama, but do it, he was told, before no one cares about your endorsement. Well, today, I can assure you that everyone cares about this endorsement.

Sarah, hold on, my sweet, this might just be an exciting development that will allow the Edwards to add some of their excellent input into the campaign and the next administration. I know you wish it had been an endorsement for Hillary, truth to tell, so do I; she needed it more than Obama, and I bleed inside whenever I start believing that it isn't going to be Hillary, even having voted for Obama.

He was #2 from the bottom on my list (above only Obama). Records matter and Edwards record in the Senate was not at all populist or like anything he campaigned for president on. It's rare to have a transformation like that as suddenly as Edwards did.

Let us not forget that Edwards, along with Obama were the two who started the sexist comments on Hillary, thus giving the press free reign to join in the fun. I've been quite consistent in my critique of Edwards. I'm disappointed, but not at all surprised.

I cannot figure out what is going on. As I said in an earlier post, I put Obama's chances at being the nominee at about 90%. I cannot envision the democratic party I have come to know and cringe at standing up to the media narrative and choosing Clinton. If they had that kind of spine the media narrative wouldn't suck so badly for them.

Yet, if Obama has the nomination sown up, as everybody says, then he should be able to wait three lousy weeks. He should be willing to go and campaign in WVA and KY and risk the loss. He should lead in seating Florida and Michigan. All of that would help tremendously in his GE efforts. Instead, we get round after round of trying to force her from the race. Which only makes sense if he's still fighting for the nomination.

My own opinion on what's going on has changed over the last few weeks. I think what Obama fears is losing the popular vote. So he's not only trying to show SDs that he's aware of his weaknesses, but also trying to use the media narrative to suppress turnout and make it harder for Clinton to top him in the vote count. I've always thought Obama's hold gets a lot iffier if Clinton wins the popular vote, only because most Americans still believe that elections are decided by who get the most votes (cute, aren't they?). That memo his campaign sent out a week or so ago about how using the popular vote was the same as using voters' heights was the tell for me. Why trash a metric you expect to win? If SDs are worried about Obama's electability, the easiest way to justify nominating Hillary is "she got the most votes." You can argue with that, but it puts you on the wrong side of the American myth.

I don't think Clinton is sending signals that she's giving up, I think she's smartly trying to walk a very thin line. Obama is the favorite, she is not. If she looks like she's going to damage him, the party might step in and stop the race. So what she's doing is making her argument for why she should win, while trying to reassure the party that she's a team player who isn't so set on winning she's going to take everyone down with her. I thought she did a good job of that last night.

As for Edwards, I think it's a mixed bag for Obama. It's always good to get an endorsement and will be even better if he gets Edwards' delegates. However, endorsements haven't meant much in this campaign and so I suspect when Obama gets pasted in Kentucky next week, the press will be worse because he was supposed to have addressed his problem. Just as Ted Kennedy was supposed to have addressed the latin@ problem in California.

Seriously, many of the Supers and big shots were supposed to stay "neutral" to make it look like Hillary had a "fair shake".

HRC's strategy is the same as it has been since late Feb: win the popular vote and important states and make the case to the supers. Nothing has changed and she's well on her way to winning the popular vote. Make no mistake, Obama's loss in WV was humiliating and a massive repudiation of him and all his supporters. Record turnout and the anointed nominee could barely get over 25%. Another 2-to-1 loss and Obama is out, there is no question about that. Edwards was hastily paraded in front of the world to stem off another embarrassing loss in KY and to help him hold onto Oregon. Edwards nor Obama wanted to do this, but its a necessity since Obama's electability argument is now out the window with another loss. Obama had done well with white men and indies but hasn't recently. His base, with the exception of 95% AA support, has evaporated. Anything to get white men back.

that's what i'm thinking. He's the only big fish left.

BTD at TalkLeft has a good point:

"The Kentucky contest, previously a foregone conclusion for the Media, now becomes a test. For Barack Obama. He needs to go in to Kentucky, WITH John Edwards, and fight for their votes. He needs to show he cares about the voters of Kentucky. Particularly white working class voters. An interesting development indeed."

Kentucky is now a must win for Obama, or his strategery failed and Edwards' career is toast.

------------------------------------------------
“A true friend stabs you from the front” -Oscar Wilde

Again.

And once again, we return to the contested narrative!

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

I hate the pissing contests that go like "I did such and such so I know what such and such people think", but I grew up in the hood. The trailer hood. Not poor by any means, but had friends who were. (best friend grew up in a place with 9 members that was smaller than my ROOM is now and it aint that big.)

Edwards populism never really resonated with workers and the lower because it fundamentally misses the mark. Where I grew up, we didn't care if companies had large profits--we all wanted to be billionaires. The populism that resonates is simple: give us the tools to compete and we'll take over from there. I mentioned it on a previous thread, but Obama and the OFB have a "savior of the masses" mindset while Hillary is more of a "referee". Edwards is of the "savior" variety populism which just doesn't fly. In an abstract sense, lobbyists may contribute to structural inequalities but they are not evil in and of themselves.

When Edwards was in, he attracted much of the same "creative class" as Obama does now (though perhaps not the brutes). He did OK in Iowa, but not as good as he should have if he really had credibility. He got trounced in Nevada--the workers rejected him almost unanimously. They also repudiated Obama who only made it close because caucuses are rigged (I was there and know that).

But I digress.

i guess you can't see how this fight has descended into childish, fact-free name calling and rhetoric. i haven't even read all the comments, they'