I think it is more important for Obama to speak with the same voice that got him here ... not adopt the voice of others. Edwards had his angle and his was one of many of the voices Clinton "found" in the course of the campaign.

Obama wants a transformative campaign ... he has tried to stay on that message ... and I think he should stick to it ... but continue as he did today to use his elbows one on one against the dark side of the force.

"The math that almost certainly dooms Clinton"

Let's see. Getting the Edwards endorsement is not nearly as important to Obama as adopting his speaking style would be, as Clinton did. Right, because voters love it when a candidate pretends to be someone else, and because pretending to be Edwards worked so well for Clinton that she (almost certainly) didn't win.

I give up.

Joan Walsh: "I doubt even an Elizabeth Edwards endorsement could change the math that almost certainly dooms Clinton's candidacy, but it would be a nice political consolation prize for having the most progressive health plan."

Almost certainly? That sounds like a hedged bet. Be more confident -- make the full bet. The math dooms Clinton's candidacy, period.

that after the election is done, you will still continue running the same loops, over and over again.

TPM Election Central has a little "insider" story about the 'promise' Edwards obtained from both Obama and Clinton when he left the race; they allegedly promised to go on a poverty tour during the general election campaign. While TPM seemed to see this as somehow separate from the campaign, I don't think the two are mutually exclusive, and are in fact quite complementary. Edwards on a poverty tour with Obama would be a great opportunity to highlight Obama's policies on equality and the economy.

Funny about Elizabeth. I went from having great admiration for Clinton to being very disappointed in her, and Elizabeth Edwards apparently did the opposite. Wouldn't she be an awesome VP pick, though? (Just kidding; too many factors make it impossible, of course.)

The VP fantasy was about Elizabeth Edwards, not Clinton.

I live in one of the Philadelphia suburbs that was hotly contested during the primary, and I got a lot of flyers from Obama (almost every day in the last couple of weeks). At least, I thought they were from Obama - they were actually from the Employees Service Union in support of Obama, although that was in very tiny print.

I found it interesting that those ads were very different in tone from the Obama campaign ads I saw - they were much more "populist", and focused on specific economic issues. (One said something like Obama will use the money we're wasting in Iraq to support your kids' schools, another one said Obama would provide health care for kids, etc.) I was an Edwards supporter originally, and I thought the ads were reminiscent of the Edwards campaign ads and speeches.

Ms. Walsh, you do realize that you'd just about the only one still talking about Senator Clinton, don't you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYmtgO7Hx3I

when did you ever see a Jeff-Jax crowd go nuts like that over an Edwards speech on the American Dream

only a flaming racist would think that Edwards has anything on Obama in terms of "populist fire"

Also, saw Joan on hardball

Of course as predicted, Joan believed that the John Edward's endorsement wasn't important, but the Elizabeth Edwards non-endorsement was.

Also, what was really important about Edwards speech was that he said nice things about Hillary. Yes, he really did.

Why does Patrick Buchanan get shit about being a racist and every one lets Joan Walsh skate?

"I doubt even an Elizabeth Edwards endorsement could change the math that almost certainly dooms Clinton's candidacy".....

Almost certainly? That you even consider this as a variable says very much about your credibility or thoughtfulness. This message and the siren cry is a pandering to a select portion of society,half of which make less than 42K, that makes this place sound like an echo chamber. oh wait, we don't talk about class here.

Bringing up Elizabeth is interesting however. This following and support of Hilary because she has somehow overcome a great tragedy, that empowers women in general, is quite ridiculous and has nothing to do with the experience or tragedies of 'everyday people".

The Edwards have faced something human that compared to the crosses that Hilary has had to bear seem to put things in perspective.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/07/24/candidates_in_chief.html

right?

or does hillary get a dispensation because she always despicable while bush is only 88 percent of the time

I thought I was the only one who noticed this. From the title I had expected the piece to be about Obama with reference to the endorsement of Edwards. I came away wondering why it seemed to be about Clinton.

I then exercised the edit/find/highlight-all option in my browser and came up with these stats:

Edwards mentions: 11 (including two references to Elizabeth Edwards and one in the article title)

Obama mentions: 10 (Including one reference in the article title)

Clinton mentions: 14 (None in the title)

Go figure…..

I agree go figure....thanks for the facts. I am also interested in the number of hits since Joan has chummed this feeding frenzy that she has refused to moderate. Go figure? It seems that it is some people's interest to ignore the facts and help their career.

"make the full bet. The math dooms Clinton's candidacy, period."

An interesting challenge you issue. The other interesting question is why an editor is so.....ahhhh? I think the question of a bet is interesting. You are asking Joan to make a career bet, which we don't have to consider.

Joan seems to have turned herself into a concern troll for Obama -- which, considering she's the editor in chief of this site, is quite a feat.

Guess she can't figure out how to express how outraged she is that Obama appears to have bested Clinton.