Letters to the Editor
-
Um ...
... I thought the John and Elizabeth Edwards had publicly stated that they wouldn't endorse either Clinton or Obama. Or was that just for the lead-up to the NC primary?
-
Meh
OK. He's waited just long enough for me not to care.
-
A pity
I watched Edwards' TV appearance where he all but endorsed Obama, and I still can't understand why he didn't do it earlier. The lame reason he gave was "I think it's important to wait and let the people have their say." Um...are the two mutually exclusive? It's not like endorsing Obama would have somehow prevented people from voting - it would have given them more information in making their choice.
-
It's a little late
This would just make Edwards look as if he was endorsing just because he wanted to be associated with the winning team. It's way too late to make any real difference in the election. I would lose some respect for Edwards if he endorsed now - but I won't if he votes for Obama at the convention.
-
The timing would be about right
As noted elsewhere, it blunts the already dubious "message" of WV coming now. If it had come before WV, and not affected the outcome (extremely likely) it would have been seized upon as evidence that "even Edwards can't help Obama in Appalachia" by those inclined that way.
If the putative endorsement includes him asking his 19 delegates to go with Obama, that would also more than balance the small pickup HRC got in WV. Double whammy.
-
Still means something
This is NOT a meaningless endorsement (assuming its really Edwards). Yeah, its late in the game, yeah, hes getting the nod regardless. But this is a deal-closer. Edwards has stayed above the fray, and come out as something of an elder-statesman/voice of reason in the party.
Gore would be the only thing bigger. Maybe
(PS- Koppleman, I'm sure you were in a hurry to get this up, but your text was almost word for word what HuffPo had earlier)
-
Just a few reflections
1. I like John Edwards and really respect him and Elizabeth. Elizabeth would have made a much better candidate than Hillary and John, and, even, perhaps, Barack. John's endorsement is big, but it will not usher Clinton off of the stage.
2. I do not like Hillary; and I started out as one of her supporters.
I am currently being called by the state party which is seeking my coorperation in some joint effort. I will not engage (and I am a good, strong and effective worker) unless Obama is named the candidate.
3. I have written in previous letters that Salon needs to explore the black/white female rift within our nation. Doing so would go a long way toward understanding why so many black women cannot stand Hillary Clinton.They have no respect for her- not because she is white, but for reasons having to do with her character flaws.
Hint- it has to do with HONESTY, as opposed to dissembling, TRULY hard work, STANDING on your own (as opposed to using your husband's status), and showing RESTRAINT (as opposed to zeal) in using every card in your hand, even if it means you hurt someone else (race, gender, status, etcetera).
This represents a very large divide in America.
-
prediction ...
It'll be Edwards endorsing Obama tonight, and Gore endorsing him next Wednesday.
I'll bet all of my pocket change on it.
-
I'm not inclined...
...to game it to death. Every endorsement from a known and respected figure (NOT Hamas...) is a good thing, no matter the reasons or the timing. It's all part of the tidal wave that will have to develop for the general...
-
Edwards is bucking for the VP slot, perhaps?
Please don't do it Obama. Look at what Edwards did for Kerry. A big fat nothing.
-
Well that does it
John and Elizabeth are nothing but a couple of JUDASESESES!!!!
If I saw them on the street I'd spit at their feet!!
(figgered I'd just beat the trolls to the punch ;)
cheers!
-
@banyantree
Oddly, I feel exactly the same way about Obama. I started out as a supporter, but have come to abhor the way he has allowed his campaign to use race to divide this nation. Hillary Clinton has not once attacked Obama using race, even though his supporter's would have it otherwise. Clinton has made a few mistakes, but has been honest and upright throughout this campaign, and has shown her legendary dedication to hard work throughout. Obama has not even bothered to study the issues for debates, and felt it appropriate to take a tropical vacation during a gap in primaries. Obama has been propped up by powerbrokers and has not earned the candidacy, but has been promoted to the position by Americans who have been race-baited into believing that a woman who fought for rights for all for her entire life was a racist and had to be defeated. I have filled out an application to leave the Democratic Party, and will proudly be an independent for the first time in my life, simply because I cannot support a candidate who has behaved so shamefully and benefitted so greatly from his shame.
-
@jebldmm
You have GOT to be kidding. Happy there in Bizarro World? I think the Clinton campaign must have recently lined up her most terminally cognitively dissonant followers to send out messages like yours. Projecting guilt, and not even in an original way - just taking the most obvious complaints against her campaign practices, and slinging them back, with the twist of claiming to be a recent convert. Oh so Rove of you.
-
He just did.
According to Ambinder over at The Atlantic.
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/yup_its_edwards.php
-
jebldmm
Hey
I've been watching your posts with some level of interest as you always struck me as someone with whom one could have a reasonable debate.
I was just wondering, do you still agree with this statement you made way back in January?
"Gender is NOT important[Read the article: Edwards for president?] I don't understand how anybody who considers him/herself a feminist could say that gender was "important" in selecting a president. Feminism isn't about women being first, it's about our being equal. In a fair society, the best person wins, regardless of their gender."
Permalink Monday, January 8, 2007 05:24 PM
I might be off here...but you seem to be veering heavily towards the exact opposite of your earlier assertion.
I do apologise if this message is too forward, like I said - you're one of the few people here that seemed genuinely open to honest debate (unlike some of our more...vociferous friends, i.e lolcait, ShawnWM, PTG, rufus11 etc)
cheers