If we’re going down that road, let’s also line up Perot for putting Clinton in the White House.
Personally, I think he’ll go for Obama. His policies and Hillary’s are close enough where I don’t think Edwards would have a strong preference off the bat, but I’d imagine that Obama’s refusing to accept money from lobbyists is appealing.
As far as his influence, I think it’s vital right now. This is probably the most important week he could come out for either campaign. Hillary is stumbling and could use some good news, and Obama is this close to being in a situation where he can start pulling away from her. Edwards’ endorsement could very possibly make or break this race if his supporters are still on the fence.
If Edwards were just to say “hey, this guy is pretty swell. Y’all should vote for him/her”, then it wouldn’t mean all that much. If he got down to Ohio and Texas and campaigned for his choice, then it could matter. The candidate can’t be everywhere at once and having a generally well liked proxy isn’t a bad thing (just ask the Clintons).
I want to say that Edwards will go for Obama, but I don’t have any evidence of that other than wishful thinking and a sense that the winds are blowing his way.
Let’s see: a blowjob versus most of a million dead, and 4 million in exile, and women getting killed in nasty ways for not wearing a headscarf of the right color. And habeas and the Fourth Amendment being gutted, and the Justice Department turned into a machine to politically persecute the regime’s opponents. And the fuckup of the recovery of New Orleans. And that’s just a start.
I’m sorry, I forgot, on your side, to tally up the cigar and the semen-stained dress. I’m sure they look great on you.
Oh I see, you only want to count the effect of a independent / third party candidate if you have an issue with the policies of who ended up in office.
If you want to play that game, maybe we wouldn’t have been in the crap we are in today is Perot hadn’t of affected the outcome in 1992. Who’s to say how a slightly different course of action from 1992 - 1996 may have changed current times.
Well, if it came to it, I’d certainly be willing to thank Perot for his role in getting this country the one decent President we’ve had in my lifetime. Credit where credit’s due, and all that. Even if I’m not at all certain how much of a spoiler Perot was, especially compared to Nader.
I apologize, I wasn’t trying to highjack the thread and abuse another dead horse.
Please carry on with the Edwards endorsement discussion
That’s a good point. He doesn’t have the star power to just say a name and send people in that direction, he’d have to actively campaign. I’m not so sure myself that he would be very aggressive about that.
You’re talking like it was Nader who did all that. Look, Nader and his followers were well-intentioned people of a political wing that, believe it or not, had felt frozen out and marginalized under the Clinton Administration, and with considerable justice; they knew they had no hope of winning, but they still felt they were getting an important message out. I was tempted to vote for Nader myself. Nobody had any way of knowing what the Bush Administration would turn into.
I still think Nader would make a kick-ass AG under any Admin with the imagination to consider it, and the bold stand he took in 2000 should not be held against him. *
- But if Nader spoils this election, it’s tar-and-feathers time!
Nader is now persona non grata to most Democrats, and rightly so. Check out the recent documentary An Unreasonable Man, which actually made me a little more sympathetic to him and his supporters (and made the point which BrainGlutton did, about how marginalized they felt). I’m not as angry at him as I was eight years ago, I admit. Still, he said that there was practically no difference between Gore and Bush, which I think is now universally seen as fatuous if not delusional. Despite being begged by many longtime friends and supporters to withdraw, he refused, and his presence on the Florida ballot was decisive. He even ran again in 2004, so the likelihood of Obama or Clinton naming him AG is now miniscule. Plenty of other skillful, savvy Democratic lawyers and judges out there without Nader’s immense baggage.
Interestingly enough, when endorsements matter they may not matter well.
Of course he does better considering only primary voters, but still … maybe as an influence on the superdelegates and with specific demographics of importance, but overall … meh.
My guess: Edwards endorses Obama after today"s “Potomac Primary” win gives him a clear delegate lead – for which Edwards cannot claim credit, but he could claim credit for giving Obama an extra boost and propelling him to victory in future, more closely contested primaries.
Obama went to Chapel Hill, NC, to meet with Edwards yesterday. (It was supposed to be a secret meeting, but reporters spotted him.)
In answer to the OP, I think at this point it’s not likely to matter much. All the former Edwards supporters have by now had plenty of time to make up their own minds. If Edwards had endorsed in advance of Super Tuesday, I think it would have swung a goodly number of people. But it’s easier to sway someone who’s just starting to think about a choice, than someone who’s already reached their own decision.
He’s busy holding his wet finger up in the air.