Breaking News: Edwards Weighing Clinton Endorsement

Both the Huffington Post and ABC News are reporting that John Edwards is considering endorsing Hillary Clinton for president. To be clear, both stories state that Edwards is torn and do say he is weighing his decision carefully. From the ABC News story:

As he weighs a possible endorsement in the Democratic race, former Sen. John Edwards is as split as the party he once hoped to lead — and is seriously considering supporting Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, despite the sharp criticism he leveled at her on the campaign trail, according to former aides and advisers.

In case some publicist floated this story to gauge public reaction, allow me to share mine:

John Edwards, if you are reading this, I will be deeply disappointed if you endorse Hillary Clinton. I realize this is a tough decision. You reflect the struggle that many Democrats have gone and are going through, but in my opinion, Hillary Clinton's style and leadership skills go against almost everything you stand for. Hillary Clinton is not only losing ground to Obama, some bloggers are asking her to step down. She is dividing the Democrats with her divisive presence.

In deciding who to support after you suspended your campaign, I asked myself four questions:

• Which candidate represents the kind of drastic change that John Edwards was pushing for?
• Which candidate will best stand up to corporate Washington interests?
• Which candidate's message most closely aligns with John Edwards message?
• Which candidate inspires hope in the voting public the same way John Edwards inspired hope in me?

That person, I finally concluded, is Barack Obama. John Edwards, you said it yourself that you and Barack Obama represent change, and Hillary Clinton represents status quo, and as you were my presidential pick, I took that to heart when deciding to back Obama.

If you endorse Clinton, was what you were saying during that debate a lie? I've never had reason to distrust you. Please don't let that start now.

No one can know what is in your heart right now, but if you endorse Hillary Clinton I will know that what I suspected about her is right after all: she makes offers that people can't refuse. And you will be a willing participant in the kind of backroom Washington chicanery that you so railed against and criticized when I saw you speak in Los Gatos, California.

Now having said all that, I, too, am conflicted. I feel that if you were part of an Obama administration or a Clinton administration, you would be a healing presence, a uniter, a do-er. Vice-President Edwards? Attorney General Edwards? If you can't be my president now, I will happily accept that.

I just hope it's part of an Obama administration.

Comments

[Kate]

Um--why does he have to endorse anyone? If he's so conflicted maybe he should just stay quiet about it. I think the time to support either Obama or Clinton was when he pulled out of the race, not now. That said, I would be really surprised (and disappointed) if he endorsed Clinton since he clearly aligned himself with Obama in the debates.

[D]

I never liked Edwards (though I dig his wife). Sorry guys. I thought his campaign rhetoric, while no doubt impassioned, was incredibly angry.
I happen to think he's an opportunist too. I won't be surprised by a Clinton endorsement... by an apparent reversal of A LOT of what he said on the stump. But I will be disgusted. My typical reaction for him and other studied, plotting politicians.

[PunditMom]

Even if it was angry, that was OK with me -- there's plenty in this country to be angry about.

[D]

Touche - lots to be angry about, indeed!

But the point is, do we want to continue to be angry and bitter and resentful and, by virtue of all of that, mad at someone? Do we want to focus on our differences? Do we want to go to a rally or speech and leave really charged up about beating someone or sticking it to someone? Regardless of whether we've got legitimate reasons to believe they put us on the wrong path?

Or do we want to be reminded about what unites us and instead get charged up to fix things - together? Because I'm convinced it's the only damn way we'll make any progress.

I guess I'm just exhausted with being pissed off and divided, sick of calling names and judging.

I don't want my three children growing up angry and resentful and suspicious of those who disagree with them. I don't want them disaffected with politics and the anger it seems to inspire.

I just want things repaired - and if someone continues to remind me that it's possible, continues to inspire me to act better, continues to demand that I work hard for the cause, I will.

[Jennifer James]

If he endorses Clinton, then his whole campaign was full of s---. I mean it! I will then know that he is simply looking to get a cabinet position.

I'll tell you this much -- he will not endorse until after March 4. He wants to see first if Hillary can pull off a TX, OH win because who wants to back a loser?

[Lawyer Mama]

I can't believe he'll endorse her. Seriously. I just can't.

[lildb]

*sticks fingers in ears and hums - la la la*

I refuse to believe he'll be endorsing her, and in fact, I'm kind of thinking he's just gonna keep to himself entirely on who he'd prefer at this point; I think he still wants them to keep talking more detailed policy stuff and showing their hands better and better, and maybe he's even desirous of one or the other conceding graciously, as he did, in order to lessen the divisions within the party - like we need division.

[KL]

If Edwards endorses Hillary, I lose a bet with my husband (http://undomesticmama.typepad.com/the_undomestic_mama/2008/01/edwards-out-but.html?cid=101990374#comment-101990374), which could end up in McCain's campaign!!!!

Seriously, though, I agree with everyone else's comments, and if he does support Hillary, I hope he gives us a true and honest account of why he chose to go in that direction.

[Cheryl]

Reading the policies, I do see that Hillary's positions are closer to Edwards' positions than Obama's - but I think that Edwards needs to think about how many times Hillary has said something and then done the other, about her vote allowing action in Iran reflecting the vote for action in Iraq even though she knows what the Bush administration is capable of, and her deep involvement with big business and the status quo.

I agree that if Edwards is conflicted, that it is much better to endorse no one than than to endorse the "lesser of two choices." However, if he feels that he can make a difference within the administration of one of the two candidates, I can understand the choice of endorsing the candidate whose administration he feels would allow him to make the greater difference. I just hope that obtaining a position where he feels he can help further change does not require him to compromise his principles.

[PeterAtLarge]

I'm amongst the bloggers who have written to Clinton (in my Feb. 14 entry) asking her to step aside, especially if Texas and Ohio don't provide dramatic evidence to the contrary. I've also written separately to John Edwards, expressing my dismay at the rumor being reported. Let's hope it's just that.

[Magpie Ima]

I'd like to see Mr. Edwards keep his mouth shut on this one and show some principles. But I suspect few of us can imagine the back room dealings that are going on right now. It's all over as far as I'm concerned. Clinton looks like more of the same, and so does Obama. The difference? Hillary has more experience and more concrete plans. I don't like her, but I'm not falling for Obama's vague message of...what, exactly? Oh, right, "change".

The voters have to choose between the lesser of two bad choices--but Edwards doesn't. I hope he endorses no one.

[independent]

Sorry, I have to disagree. I would support Edwards endorsing Hillary. Her campaign has inspired me to start writing to Senators, congressman and the DNC, and to finally want to vote for someone, not against another Republican. The media has given Obama a free ride during the primaries. My focus will be on changing Congress, where the Democratic majority has so far failed to do what should be done: impeach the criminals in the Bush administration.

[honglien123]

New York Magazine has an interesting editorial on the possible media bias towards Obama which I rather agree with. I'm admittedly a cynic and have never thought that either candidate can deliver on the drastic change that everyone seems to be wanting; but to say that Obama represents a more principled politician (is there such a politician?) is to not acknowledge that he's just as dirty as Hillary Clinton.

http://nymag.com/news/politics/powergrid/44211/

[Ginny]

I'm the opposite, I wish Obama would step down.