Home › Elections 2008 › Elections
Edwards backs Obama
Endorsement comes day after Clinton trounced Obama in West Virginia
AP VIDEOS
- • Edwards: Obama the 'One Man' to Lead America: After much speculation, John Edwards is endorsing Barack Obama for president. Edwards ended his own presidential campaign in January. (May 14)
- • Sen. Barack Obama Reacts to Edwards' Endorsement: Barack Obama says he is thankful for John Edwards' endorsement. But, he adds he is more thankful for the causes Edwards has brought up during this campaign. (May 15)
- • Clinton Campaign Presses Forward: The chief advisor for the Hillary Clinton campaign says she is still working on winning the democratic nomination. Terry McAuliffe says the campaign is not concerned about John Edwards' endorsement, but what voters have to say. (May 15)
- • McCain Lays Out Plan if Elected President: Sen. John McCain lays out what he would hope to achieve by the end of his first term in office if he is elected president. (May 15)
STORY TOOLS
More Elections
- Obama continues balancing act today in Denver
- Dems choose Obama in thunderous acclamation
- Popularity of early voting, absentee ballots strong in primary
Share and Enjoy [?]
GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. — Democrat John Edwards is endorsing former rival Barack Obama, fresh signs of the party establishment embracing the likely nominee even as Hillary Rodham Clinton refuses to give up her long-shot candidacy.
Edwards was to appear with Obama in Grand Rapids, Mich., as Obama campaigns in a critical general election battleground state.
The endorsement comes the day after Clinton defeated Obama by more than 2-to-1 in West Virginia. The loss highlighted Obama's work to win over the "Hillary Democrats" — white, working-class voters who also supported Edwards in large numbers before he exited the race.
Edwards, a former North Carolina senator and the 2004 vice presidential nominee, dropped out of the race in late January.
Both Obama and Clinton immediately asked Edwards for his endorsement, but he stayed mum for more than four months. A person close to Edwards, speaking on condition of anonymity, said he wanted to get involved now to begin unifying the party. Obama also signed on to Edwards' anti-poverty initiative, which he launched Tuesday with the goal of reducing poverty in the United States by half within 10 years.
When he made his decision, Edwards didn't even tell many of his former top advisers because he wanted to make sure that he personally talked to Clinton to give her the news, said the person close to him. Edwards' wife, Elizabeth, who has said she thinks Clinton has the superior health care plan, did not travel with him to Michigan and is not part of the endorsement.
David "Mudcat" Saunders, a chief adviser for Edwards on rural affairs during his presidential campaign, said the timing of the endorsement couldn't be better given Obama's resounding loss in West Virginia on Tuesday.
"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."
Edwards waged a scrappy underdog campaign for the Democratic nomination, always outshone by the historic nature of Obama possibly being the first black nominee and Clinton the first woman. But Edwards was considered their strongest contender, even as he balanced the rigors of the campaign with the personal blow of Elizabeth's returning breast cancer.
Edwards promoted progressive policy ideas and came in second to Obama in Iowa before coming in third in the following three contests and dropping out in New Orleans, the location a reminder of his attention to poverty.
Obama has a total of 1,887 delegates, leaving him just 139 delegates short of the 2,026 needed to clinch the nomination. Clinton has 1,718 delegates, according to the latest tally by The Associated Press.
Edwards has 19 pledged delegates won in three states: Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. Most of the those delegates have already been selected, meaning they are technically free to support whomever they choose at the party's national convention, regardless of Edwards' endorsement.
Associated Press writers Nedra Pickler and Stephen Ohlemacher in Washington and Gary D. Robertson in Raleigh, N.C., contributed to this report
Comments
This site does not necessarily agree with comments posted below. Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. Break our rules, and we will ban you. No exceptions, no second chances. Read our privacy policy & user agreement.
John Who?
Does anybody really care who John Edwards supports?
#1 Posted by Sanity on May 14, 2008 at 8:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I care more about what John Edwards has to say than let's say.... John Mccain.
McCain promises four more years of the status quo. No thanks to John McSame!
Obama in 2008!
#2 Posted by Ironside on May 14, 2008 at 8:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
John Edwards is always crying about the "Haves vs. Have-nots" while firmly planted in the world of "Haves". When is he going to give his pile of money to the "Have-nots" he claims to champion?
#3 Posted by pauls on May 14, 2008 at 9:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Does this mean that Hilary won't have to bring back all of the stuff that was stolen from the White House under her husband's administration?
Will they have to change the name if Obama is elected to be politically correct?
#4 Posted by chickendog on May 14, 2008 at 9:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What has 100 eyes and fifty teeth?
The front row of a Hillary for President rally in West Virginia!
My money is on 'Mudcat' for VP!
#5 Posted by chickendog on May 14, 2008 at 9:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
West Virginia? Who cares?
So, Hillary Rodham Clinton won the West Virginia Democratic primary by a huge margin.
And your point is?
Of course she won West Virginia. Hillary was in her element, pantsuit deep in old, uneducated, white people – the kind of people who hate blacks and change and will vote for anyone as long as they’re white and willing to pander to their needs.
West Virginia is a state where family trees don’t branch, where a virgin is any eight year old who can outrun her brothers, where it takes two people to eat possum because one has to watch for traffic.
Sorry: Couldn’t resist. I grew up in Southwestern Virginia and West Virginia jokes flowed like moonshine (which was, at the time, our best cash crop). Do you know why West Virginia University put Astroturf in its football stadium? So the cheerleaders won’t graze at halftime.
Now that we have all the state stereotypes out of the way, let’s look at some more rational reasons why Clinton’s win in wild, wonderful West Virginia doesn’t really mean all that much.
The Clinton argument that she, and only she, can win swing states is stupid. You can’t compare primary results to what might or might not happen in a general election. Plus, claiming to be the candidate of choice in West Virginia is hardly a claim to fame. The state went for George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004. The last Democrat to win West Virginia was her husband. Looks like the state loves bubbas, dumb ass faux Texans and bleached blonds in pantsuits.
She will probably win Kentucky and Puerto Rico, another meaningless primary because PR is not a state and doesn’t count in the general election.
But it doesn’t matter. Politics is a game of numbers and even a classic rules-bender like Clinton can’t make the numbers work in her favor. Obama has an insurmountable lead in all the numbers that count and no amount of posturing by her and her loudmouth campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe can change the facts.
Superdelegates continue to break in Obama’s favor and a win in a hick state like West Virginia won’t change their minds. Besides, many of them are sick of Clinton and her husband.
So why stay in? Numbers come into play again – numbers like $20 million in campaign debts and she needs superficial wins in West Virginia, Kentucky and Puerto Rico to try and convince enough gullible idiots to waste more money in contributions to her failed campaign.
Clinton’s logic defies reality but that shouldn’t surprise anyone. She has become the George W. Bush of the Democratic Party, the serial liar who ignores the facts and tries to impose her will on a nation that has long tired of her.
Clinton is history and the longer she continues her charade the more she will become an embarrassing pimple on the body politic.
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cont/n...
#6 Posted by bicoastal on May 14, 2008 at 9:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Don't vote for this ragehead!!
#7 Posted by The_Brooks on May 14, 2008 at 9:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
A classic, bicoastal!
Hilary does have a broad stance, however!
#8 Posted by chickendog on May 14, 2008 at 10:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Why isn't she Hillary RODHAM Clinton anymore?
I haven't heard a reference to her maiden name since the primaries began. While she served as First Lady, gaining all her "experience," and during her first years in the senate, that was her OFFICIAL title: Hillary RODHAM Clinton.
Now, I suppose, using a hyphenated last name seems too progressive, too feminist, too pretentious. Remember, Clinton's target market is "working class" conservative democrats. ("Working class" was the popular euphemism for "lower class," in mid-20th century England.)
#9 Posted by leftovers on May 14, 2008 at 11:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Johnny edwards and his 400 dollar hair cut fits right in with the far left. I heard dick morris the other night say obama will not be elected because of one single factor, his health care proposal would give 12 to 20 million illegals the right to free health care and that alone will lose the election.
personally I can't think of 1 reason to vote for this far left candidate.
people believing in him are the same followers that thought oj simpson was innocent
#10 Posted by grouper25 on May 15, 2008 at 7:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Post your comment
(Requires free registration.)