TNR BLOGS

July 03, 2009 | 7:55 PM
July 03, 2009 | 7:37 PM
July 03, 2009 | 7:12 PM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM
June 29, 2009 | 9:09 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
11.02.2008
Getting Inside John Edwards's Head (With Help From Those Who Know Him)

Just wanted to pass along some insights into a possible Edwards endorsement amid his semi-stealth meetings with Hillary and Obama. I'm told by people close to Edwards that his thinking is essentially this: Edwards likes Obama personally, thinks he really intends to change the status quo, but isn't convinced he's ready to be president* and has concerns about whether he's tough enough to take on the GOP. (I'm told the second concern looms larger than the first.) On the other hand, Edwards is lukewarm on Hillary personally, doesn't think she'd change much of anything, but thinks she'll really pummel the GOP. As for Elizabeth, it sounds like she's just as conflicted. I've heard she's even more down on Hillary, but is also impressed by Hillary's willingness/ability to kick GOP ass.

Bottom line: It sounds like Edwards could really go either way, or neither.

My own take is this: The atmospherics of a Hillary endorsement would look very, very bad for Edwards. You can't spend six months bashing someone as a symbol of everything that's wrong with Washington, then embrace that person and expect to come away smelling like roses. Particularly not when there's another extremely viable candidate out there talking about 90 percent of what you campaigned for. If Edwards cares at all about his reputation, a Hillary endorsement is a terrible move for him. (For what it's worth, I'm not saying Hillary is a symbol of everything that's wrong with Washington--far from it, I think she'd make a good president--just that this was Edwards's argument for most of the campaign.)

Having said that, I'm not convinced a Hillary endorsement would be bad for Obama. Edwards's former supporters have already voted with their feet--the recent evidence suggests they've largely flocked to Obama. But an Edwards endorsement would help Hillary retain the aura of front-runner a little longer, something that hasn't been especially useful to her. And it would probably motivate a lot of Obama (and former Edwards) voters, who saw it as a betrayal by Edwards. I think they'd suspect some nefarious backroom deal here--exactly the kind of thing Edwards and Obama vowed to change about Washington.

If, on the other hand, Edwards endorses Obama, the risk is that the race starts to look like Hillary against the world--and, in particular, two male politicians ganging up on her--which is a development that has served her well. Not least in New Hampshire.

The counter-argument is that team Hillary needs something--anything--to stop the flow of bad news right now, and an Edwards endorsement would accomplish that. I can see the logic there, but I still think she's better off with Obama getting it. (Maybe I'd put it this way: Best case scenario for Hillary is Obama getting it, second best is her getting it, worst is Edwards doing nothing.)  

*Obviously one could raise the same question about Edwards himself...

--Noam Scheiber

Posted: Monday, February 11, 2008 12:17 PM with 24 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

kj_593 said:

I guess the string of victories doesn't mean anything to John "I won South Carolina in 2004" Edwards.   If those are his only reservations, then I think he needs to endorse Obama and get it over with.  That, or just stay home and take care of Elizabeth.  Either way, I don't think it will dramatically effect Obama's momentum.

February 11, 2008 12:42 PM

blackton said:

I doubt it will really dominate much of any news cycle. If he goes with Hillary, it will seem like sour grapes because Obama stole his thunder, if he goes with Obama it will look like he is just jumping on the bandwagon. Either way, it will be a 1.0 trembler, and not the earthquake he imagines it is going to be. For it to matter at all he has to have good timing so he better wait until after the potomac primaries after things slow down so he can get the most out of it.

February 11, 2008 1:06 PM

ralphnelle said:

I don't think Edwards matters that much, especially now. Seems to me his endorsement is a yawner from beginning to end, i.e., unless he endorses Hillary and reduces his campaign to a big pile of hypocrisy.

February 11, 2008 1:07 PM

tomeg said:

What is the appeal of endorsing another candidate after you have dropped out of the race? The best it can accomplish is maybe give a leg up on a cabinet appointment or other reward. But the potential for pissing people off, sometimes in unpredictable ways, is so much higher. If Edwards thinks he can win friends and influence people by endorsing either Hillary or Barack, he'd better think again. If he eschews endorsement, then he can comment and interview all the way to the convention, and continue to get his ideas across. (Beware of becoming a Buchanan, however, and don't overdo it.)

February 11, 2008 1:12 PM

gregstolhand said:

Why is the willingness to "kick the GOP's ass" a good thing.  Why not endorse a candidate because of better policies for the people not to enact some kind of revenge for the past 8 years.

By the way 50% of the country actually likes conservative ideas and principles so getting HRC in to knock some heads may sound great but will not lead to much change other than who gets to decide what ass is kicked.

February 11, 2008 1:13 PM

stanmvp48 said:

"I've heard she's even more down on Hillary, but is also impressed by Hillary's willingness/ability to kick GOP ass.

Bottom line: It sounds like Edwards could really go either way, or neither. "

So Elizabeth is down on Hillary but Edwards could go either way.  

February 11, 2008 1:17 PM

achester99 said:

This is sort of ridiculous.  Obviously Edwards isn't going to make an endorsement without the candidate's blessings, and your implication is that both candidates would prefer for the OTHER candidate to get it.  If that is the case, then he obviously won't be endorsing anyone at all!

And what happened to those rumors of Obama making Edwards AG in exchange for an endorsement?  Why would he do that if an endorsement would be better for his opponent.

Anyway, I think all this mishegas is reading too much into past results (NH or whatever).  There is no way an endorsement is BAD for a candidate.  No one will say, "Well, I was gonna support candidate X, but now that a former candidate is doing so I will change my mind" unless that former candidate is Mike Gravel.

February 11, 2008 1:25 PM

arsonplus said:

Before the Idaho and Kansas numbers came in and Edwards endorsement would have credited with selling Obama to white men. Today as blackton wrote, it will either look like bandwagon jumping or bribe-based hypocrisy.

Which is a shame, I always like the guy. He just seems to have crap timing.

February 11, 2008 1:30 PM

Noam Scheiber said:

Campaigns almost always want endorsements from prominent politicians with reasonably large followings. It's a reflex if nothing else. So it's no surprise that they'd both be courting Edwards. My point is just that, contrary to what they might think, Edwards doesn't really help either one of them, and could easily help the person who doesn't get his endorsement.

February 11, 2008 1:36 PM

stgla said:

HE would be dumb to endorse.  Best move would be to publicly say that he loves them both, list their various virtues, urge them to take on his issues (or congratulate them for already doing so) and wish them well.  He could go on to say that his vote in the NC primary will be a secret ballot (is it?)  Given the high interest in whether/who he'll endorse, such a speech would get press coverage.

Or he could wait until one of the candidates starts to pull away in pledged delegates and use an endorsement to nudge the party toward close ranks around the leader, blunting the effect of superdelegates.  Not sure if he has any/many delegates to reassign but if he does, they could actually matter.

February 11, 2008 1:44 PM

CharlesFosterKane said:

Come on, endorsements are so last week...

Seriously, though, Edwards missed his moment. Now any statement by him would be anticlimactic. I say, unless the dynamics change drastically, he continues to sit it out.

February 11, 2008 1:45 PM

JosephCuomo said:

I think I agree with most of the posters on this thread, that an Edwards endorsment wouldn't mean very much. But it's difficult to see how a JE endorsement of Obama would, as Noam suggests, help Hillary. If anything, it would just reinforce the notion (as victories in Kansas, Louisiana, Nebraska and Maine have already done) that Obama is riding the wave of an unstoppable movement.

But I do agree with Noam that given JE's many, insistent attacks on HRC, an endorsement of Hillary would cheapen Edwards, make him look like a flip-flopper, or a liar, or a backstabbing, backroom dealer.

Maybe stgla is right and Edwards would be dumb to endorse anyone.

Maybe, instead, he should just compromise, do a cameo on the next youtube "Yes We Can" video, and, at the same time, offer Hillary a $400 haircut.

February 11, 2008 2:01 PM

BHLnyc said:

I tend to agree with CFK that Edwards' time has come and gone. His endorsement would have meant something pre-Super Tuesday. Now it adds little. The same may be true of Gore as well, though slightly less so.

February 11, 2008 3:03 PM

cypess said:

I am (was) an Edwards supporter, and I think that the time for an endorsement is at the moment you withdraw.  Mitt did that, and it was hard for him, but that's how you maintain a bit of your "thunder."  At this point, unless Edwards were willing to go whole hog and actually campaign with the person he endorses, then I'd feel it would be hollow.  

Moreover, those JE people who went to either side will just think that JE was a fraud if he chooses the other one (i.e. if I support Hillary and JE chooses Obama then I'd rethink my initial support of *Edwards* - because he thinks differently from me - than I would rethink my allegiance to Hillary).

Also, a big reason for JE's support - from what I heard from friends - is because he was a standard white male protestant and seemed the most electable.  He filled a demographic slot, nothing more.  Now that he's dropped out, those people won't care who he endorses... they're likely for McCain now.

February 11, 2008 3:33 PM

virginiacentrist said:

My understanding is that Hillary's campaign message-tested "Shouldn't John Edwards be home with his sick wife?" (paraphrased) in Iowa.

I doubt that impressed anybody in the Edwards family.

Edwards should wait on his endorsement until North Carolina nears. Obama will probably win NC anyway, but at least then Edwards could take credit and gain some political capital.

February 11, 2008 3:39 PM

virginiacentrist said:

blackton (Re the newscycle):

There really isn't much going on. An endorsement would eat up an entire day with positive news for the recipient.

If it's timed correclty (like...the day after a debate), then it could wash away whatever else was going on...like another mediocre Obama debate performance.

February 11, 2008 3:41 PM

miceelf said:

VC: Re the message-testing. Do you have a source for that? Because if so, that's really sh!tty.

February 11, 2008 3:55 PM

psantillana said:

This was always the big and true difference between Obama and Clinton/Edwards/Krugman. Believe me it wasn't healthcare mandates. It's the investiment in vilification itself - regardless of the target. Edwards actually agrees with Obama on almost everything, and yet he can't give up that ethos, clinging to it despite the fact that it certainly didn't work for him. It's not rational.

February 11, 2008 4:11 PM

virginiacentrist said:

micelf:

Here's the info on the call itself.

www.pollster.com/.../more_on_the_ugly_iowa_calls.php

The article doesn't directly link HRC's campaign to the polling firm, "Influent, Inc"...I'm trying to track that down right now.

February 11, 2008 4:39 PM

virginiacentrist said:

My friend in the Obama-Iowa campaign first alerted me to this - I'll shoot them an email.

February 11, 2008 4:42 PM

Ghost in the Machine said:

"'Sen. Obama has been talking about hope and change and improving the morale of this country,' Mr. Anchia said. 'Gen....

February 11, 2008 4:45 PM

stanmvp48 said:

FRANKLY I EXPECT BOTH OBAMA AND CLINTON TO PROMISE NOT TO APPOINT JOHN-BOY ATTORNEY GENERAL.  I ASSUME THEY INTEND TO CAMPAIGN AGAINST BUSH'S UNFIT APPOINTMENTS PARTICULARLY ASHCROFT, GONZALEZ. HOW CAN THEY DO SO IF THEY INTEND TO EVEN CONSIDER APPOINTING AN A.G. WITH ABSOLUTELY NO QUALIFICATIONS OTHER THAN THE POSSIBLE ABILITY TO DELIVER A FEW VOTES.  OR AM I MISSING SOMETHING ABOUT HIS QUALIFICATIONS?

February 11, 2008 5:46 PM

sephirothic77 said:

either campaign would love to have edwards' endorsement, if only for the brief momentum of that day's news cycle...  but if edwards were to come out for obama and spend some time in OH and PA campaining for those white male voters (many of whom i suspect are still on the fence because they have lingering fears of a racial backlash against obama)...  he could very easily be seen as the man who put obama in the whitehouse...   don't wait john!  you are the change you've been waiting for!

February 12, 2008 10:25 AM

The Stump said:

I have no reason to doubt John Heilemann's account of Obama's two meetings with Elizabeth and

March 30, 2008 4:18 PM