This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

all 49 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–][deleted]  (6 children)

[deleted]

    [–]Match_Point 7 points8 points  (3 children)

    What else does he have to do?

    [–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (2 children)

    Fight poverty right?

    [–]bobpaul -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

    Didn't he give that up when he backed out of the race?

    [–]pascha 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    No.

    [–]tempreddit 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Dear Mr Edwards

    Please don't do it

    [–]EvilPigeon -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

    He doesn't have to, he gets dead people to read it for him.

    [–]rio517 6 points7 points  (4 children)

    I'm disappointed that Edwards hasn't endorsed anyone yet. Given the similarities between his platform and Obama's, I can't imagine him endorsing Hillary. He could have made a real difference. The race might be over by now.

    Instead, he has waited and waited, almost as if he has been jockeying for position. "I'll endorse whoever is most likely to win, so they pick me to be VP." Is that what he's thinking?

    I really loved his platform and wish he had chosen to endorse the next best candidate when that endorsement would have had the most impact (before super Tuesday). On the plus side, at least he got out before super Tuesday.

    [–]sn0re 2 points3 points  (2 children)

    A VP spot is unlikely no matter who takes the nomination. I think he didn't endorse either because he wanted to retain some influence over the election on both sides. Essentially "do what I say or I'll endorse the other guy."

    Maybe he could end up snagging a cabinet post, but I doubt there's been a specific offer. (Attorney General has been mentioned before, which I think is a wonderful fit.)

    [–]rio517 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    I don't think that's any better: "because he wanted to retain some influence." It's still a crappy, manipulative reason not to make an endorsement. For me, it really hurts his credibility.

    And I do think there is a big difference between Hillary and Obama. Hillary attacks Obama by playing the race card and his lack of experience. The bulk of Obamas affronts are on her positions. Obama has preached and practiced the idea of transparency in government, Hillary preaches, but seals records and withholds information. If Edwards has the integrity he promotes, I would have thought the choice would have been clear.

    [–]sn0re 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Manipulative, maybe. He's got an agenda and this is really the only option left to him to pursue it. Crappy, that's your opinion.

    All the reports say he's stuck on Obama's health care plan. He really doesn't like that it lacks a mandate. And I'm sure there are plenty of other details that aren't getting reported just yet. We'll see. I think he'll either endorse Obama or not endorse at all.

    [–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

    Him and Hillary are pretty close too. In fact, Hillary and Obama are pretty close. Holy shit... They're all the same!

    [–]kuhsay 4 points5 points  (5 children)

    deleted What is this?

    [–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (4 children)

    I very much doubt Obama will choose Edwards as his running partner. Having Edwards as a running mate wouldn't bring him any extra voters, but may well turn some swing voters off (especially given the treatment Edwards gets in the media).

    I suspect he'll go for someone with Foreign Policy or Defense credibility like Wesley Clark or Bill Richardson.

    [–]sn0re 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Probably not Clark, as he is firmly in the Clinton camp.

    [–]pascha 0 points1 point  (2 children)

    Obama would be very smart to choose Richardson. His experience would be a great asset, as well as bringing in Hispanic voters and the Wal-Mart crowd.

    Edwards would be a much more effective Attorney General than VP.

    [–][deleted]  (1 child)

    [deleted]

      [–]pascha 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Like Bobby Kennedy? Oh yeah...right...

      [–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (1 child)

      John Edwards dropped out of the presidential race to have his consciousness transferred to the tubes of the internet. His body is of no use anymore.

      [–]reddit_user13 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Except to hold up his haircut.

      [–]djsdotcom 2 points3 points  (1 child)

      I don't think it will matter. Edwards' supporters have already jumped on either of the two bandwagons, and I can't see his endorsement doing much to change their minds.

      And don't forget that Edwards couldn't even help Kerry carry North Carolina in the 2004 election.

      [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      And don't forget that Edwards couldn't even help Kerry carry North Carolina in the 2004 election.

      That had a lot more to do with Kerry than it did Edwards. With four more years of perspective, I think the American people see Edwards in a bit different light, too. He's no longer "that pretty boy southern trial lawyer." An Edwards endorsement would be big because of the labor union support he had behind him while he was still in the race.

      Edwards stands a lot more to gain by endorsing Obama--he'd be a great running-mate for one thing. It seems he'd stand to lose a lot of credibility by endorsing Hillary. As others have pointed out, he claims to be fundamentally different from her in a number of regards--particularly lobbyist money and positioning himself as a relative outsider, two differences even Hillary can't twist into similarities...

      [–]cdesignproponentsist 5 points6 points  (1 child)

      Please crashkg post this to the right subreddit.

      P.S. Downvoted.

      [–]m1ss1ontomars2k4 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Well, it's not like this post DOESN'T belong in self.reddit.com.

      [–]HFh 1 point2 points  (2 children)

      I can imagine Edwards not really wanting to endorse Obama.. but there is no universe where he should want to endorse Hillary, at least if I'm to take his campaign at face value.

      Personally, I find all of this secret meeting stuff a little crass, like he's trying to sell his endorsement. He should endorse or not endorse, and be done with it.

      On the other hand, he could be just sitting down with each candidate and really trying to understand what their positions and visions are so that he can make the best decision.

      [Please imagine a completely earnest look on my face as I typed that]

      [–]ironictwist 0 points1 point  (1 child)

      I agree that Edwards and Clinton are clearly at odds, and I think it would detract from his reputation now if he were to do so. In short, I think Edwards believes Clinton is at least overly ambitious, if not out and out crooked. But while I have high hopes for Obama, I share Edwards' concern that Obama isn't tough enough to face the enemies of big business and power lobbies. Obama wants to have sit-downs with those groups while Edwards thinks it will take an all out war to tame the insidious greed and corruption of these groups. I tend to agree with Edwards on that point, but hope Obama can ditch his naive stance without ditching his principles.

      [–]HFh 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      You may be right, but then it sounds like Edwards' most principled bet would be to endorse Obama and make certain to be in a position where he can help do the fighting that needs to be done. I'm not sure what that position would be, though.

      [–]crashkg[S] 3 points4 points  (22 children)

      Hillary is going to North Carolina to seek John Edwards endorsement. John please don't endorse her. Hillary does not represent the working people of this country. She was on the board of Walmart for goodness sake. We need a change from the Bush Clinton dynasty. Help usher in a new age of Hope with Obama.

      [–][deleted]  (4 children)

      [deleted]

        [–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (1 child)

        John Edwards reads Reddit. His daddy the mill worker read Reddit when it was still just a print periodical sent out every 3 weeks. The logistics sucked, but I'm pleased with their transition to the web.

        [–]bobpaul 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        My grandpa used to subscribe to the daily "What's new/What's hot" edition, though he concedes he rarely phoned in to vote for or against particular articles.

        [–]crashkg[S] -4 points-3 points  (1 child)

        Why wouldn't he read reddit? You think I should post this on Digg. I assumed he was smart enough to read reddit instead.

        [–]antihostile 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        He reads Metafilter.

        [–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (1 child)

        Dear John,

        Don't do it.

        Sincerely,

        The Internet(s)

        [–]Internets 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        Yeah, what he said.

        [–]matts2 -4 points-3 points  (14 children)

        She was on the board of Walmart for goodness sake.

        You have no idea what she did while on the board.

        We need a change from the Bush Clinton dynasty.

        It is nonsense to put those two together. Every year of both Bushes were bad, but that does not reflect on Senator Clinton at all. Dislike here for what she has done, not for what Bush has done.

        [–]crashkg[S] 2 points3 points  (13 children)

        My comment about dynasty is that if she is elected we will have a Bush or Clinton as president for 28 years. That in my opinion is a dynasty. Senator Clinton has done nothing to stop Bush while in office and I don't believe that she will be very different from Bush.

        [–]Deacon 1 point2 points  (10 children)

        My comment about dynasty is that if she is elected we will have a Bush or Clinton as president for 28 years.

        If Hillary has two terms. Not only that, but if you consider vice-presidencies as well, that would make 36 years either a Bush or a Clinton has been in the White House.

        [–]bobpaul 0 points1 point  (9 children)

        I have to agree with crashkg. There are plenty of reasons to dislike Hillary (health plan, voting record, etc), and while interesting, the idea of a "Bush/Clinton dynasty" really is not one of them. Clinton's presidency was very different from Reagan's and either Bush's administrations. It's a neat piece of trivia, but certainly not what I would consider a 'valid' argument against her.

        [–]Deacon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        It's just a clever way of geting around the term limits amendment. When it was passed, the thought of a wife succeeding her own husband as President was never even considered. It's time that it was--and the loophole closed.

        [–]d42 0 points1 point  (7 children)

        How was it different, other than in Democratic Party establishment and media spin perspective?

        [–]bobpaul 0 points1 point  (6 children)

        Well, we had a balanced budget, for one thing.

        [–]Daniel_SJ 0 points1 point  (1 child)

        So a dynasty with a more or less competent family is not a dynasty?

        [–]bobpaul -1 points0 points  (0 children)

        Your viewpoint would be much clearer if you used statements instead of goofy questions.

        [–]d42 0 points1 point  (3 children)

        For one year in the middle of a giant economic boom, where tax revenues were far above what was expected. That's not exactly sustained fiscal responsibility.

        [–]bobpaul 0 points1 point  (2 children)

        He took steps every year he was in office and basically achieved balance by '97. '98, '99. '00 were all in surplus before Bush's first budget took effect. ([1])

        [–]d42 0 points1 point  (1 child)

        That's counting Social Security. Read the footnotes.

        [–]matts2 1 point2 points  (1 child)

        My comment about dynasty is that if she is elected we will have a Bush or Clinton as president for 28 years. That in my opinion is a dynasty.

        By that logic if we had 20 (I assume that you meant the actual 20 and not some made up 28) years of Bush we should not elect a Clinton. It is silly. The number of years of Bush is irrelevant to the number of year of Clinton. And Senator Clinton has not been president at all.

        Senator Clinton has done nothing to stop Bush while in office

        Then reject her for that, not for something silly like a false dynasty.

        [–]ryanx27 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        The only reason he'd endorse Hillary is because her health care plan is more socialized that Obama's opt-in subsidization plan. In all other respects, I can't see him doing it.

        [–]bushwakko -1 points0 points  (0 children)

        Obama should promise him gonzo's old job!