Link: In New Orleans, Edwards calls it quits.
In a surprise move following a sub-15% performance in Florida, a primary with no delegates, John Edwards called it quits before Tsunami Tuesday. I'm curious how people who were supporting Edwards, like myself, are now leaning. I voted early, so I'm kind of screwed; I don't get to cast my vote for a candidate who will be continuing to campaign now. That's the risk in voting early, I suppose.
I don't have a very good sense of where Edwards' support will roll. I think it may break differently in each state. From my personal experience and a look at super-delegates like Grijalva, it would seem to be flowing to Obama here in Arizona, but there are some pollsters who claim that Edwards staying in was the best thing he could have done for Obama on Tsunami Tuesday because a majority of his support will roll toward Hillary in a larger number of Tsunami states. I find that assertion counter-intuitive, but it's certainly possible. The polling over the weekend will indicate if there is a predominant trends in each state, but I suspect we simply won't know how it will play out until the returns come in Tuesday night - and that's how it should be, I guess.
The biggest question in the primary race now is whether Edwards or Gore will endorse before the critical Feb. 5th contests.
And then there were two... I guess we're going to find out if America is ready for a female or black President this cycle. I pray that it's so, otherwise President McCain or President Romney will be an even bigger disaster than President Bush.
My wife voted for Rudy early...so, she's out of luck. I voted for McCain early, but it looks like my votes gonna count.
Posted by: ThinkRight | January 30, 2008 at 02:28 PM
I meant "vote is" not that I voted more than once...
Posted by: ThinkRight | January 30, 2008 at 02:28 PM
I can't believe he left the race - actually brought tears to my eyes...it's kinda like watching the death of democracy right in front of you. I haven't voted yet (mostly cuz I like to go to the polling place) but will be voting for Obama. F%^K!! Not that I don't like Obama, but F*#KITY! Can't we have an election where the PEOPLE decide and not the F*%KING media???? It's like going to a restaurant and having to choose between chicken and beef when you're a vegetarian...maybe Edwards and Gore can run as independents...
[pinches self and wakes up from daydream]
Posted by: Tasha Nelson | January 30, 2008 at 02:39 PM
After his poor showing in So.Carolina, I was sure he'd drop out then. When he didn't, I was sure he was waiting until after Super-duper Tuesday. The timing is a bit weird, but maybe he felt that it was over and that it would be better to let people vote for a viable remaining candidate.
I disagree with Michael. I think that Edwards supporters will swing 2-1 towards Obama.
and a vote cast is NEVER wasted.... (well, other than fools that vote for Nadar!
Posted by: azw88 | January 30, 2008 at 02:54 PM
Like Mike, I voted early for Edwards. Now I am going to urge all Edwards supporters to go for Obama.
I'm not sure Obama has much chance of winning the nomination, but I am going to line up behind youthful optimism--the belief that it's not too late to to effect a basic sea change in the American political system.
Hillary is nothing more than an old suit. I see nothing in Clinton to make the heart of this old (and I do mean old) lefty beat faster.
I'll throw in with the "naive" youth movement. It at least promises that we might change the political milieu.
Posted by: Art Jacobson | January 30, 2008 at 03:52 PM
As an Obama supporter, I can't see how Edwards could either endorse Hillary OR choose to endorse no one. Art is correct (and Edwards said himself in several debates) that Edwards and Obama stood united for substantive change. Hillary would offer more partisan rancor, gridlock and increases the likelihood of GOP gains in other races because of the ire she elicits from our opponents.
Hillary and her husband have behaved shamelessly of late, most recently when Hillary falsely asserted that Obama blew off her handshake at the State of the Union speech, despite the fact that both Obama and Senator McCaskill refuted her bogus version of events.
Obama has offered hope for change and renewal. Hillary is the candidate who WILL say anything to win and who is the poster child for the status quo in DC.
Posted by: Rex | January 30, 2008 at 04:37 PM
As part of my ABC thinking (Anybody But Clinton) I was on the fence between Edwards and Obama. John Edwards settled my dilemma amd made up my mind for me.
Oh well.....
Posted by: azw88 | January 30, 2008 at 04:51 PM
The Clintons have had many shameful moments in the last month or so. I think that Hillary took herself to one of her lowest levels in the SC debate when she made the statement about Obama,"practicing law and representing your contributor, Rezco, in his slum landlord business in inner city Chicago" trying to connect Obama to the legal problems of Antoin Rezko.
Amy Goodman said this on yesterday's broadcast of "Democracy Now:" "Norman Hsu – was arrested for swindling investors. Hsu had raised some $800,000 for Clinton’s campaign during a time when he was a fugitive from justice."
The Clintons fight dirty with their eye on the prize. If elected to the presidency, no one is going to hold them accountable for running a dirty campaign.
Hillary just keeps getting away with things that no other candidate could get away with. No one questions her on her "35 years of experience" and that is the one that really upsets me.
This latest thing about being "snubbed" is just ridiculous and not very presidential. Thou must not snub Hillary!!!
Posted by: Liza | January 30, 2008 at 05:06 PM
I accidentally cut off Amy Goodman's quote. Just want to clarify this happened last year.
"Last year one of Hillary Clinton’s top fundraisers – Norman Hsu – was arrested for swindling investors. Hsu had raised some $800,000 for Clinton’s campaign during a time when he was a fugitive from justice."
This doesn't bother Hillary. She still wants to try to smear Obama for being associated with Rezko. The Clintons are used to this, however, as they have more or less had to fend off one scandal after another. If anything comes up on this, so what?
Posted by: Liza | January 30, 2008 at 05:43 PM
So the general is only going to be about sex or race?
Grow up, Bruce.
Posted by: Cactus Wren | January 30, 2008 at 06:29 PM
Can someone explain what happens to all of the delegates that Edwards has already won (and probably still will win)? Are those delegates free to vote for whomever they want?
Posted by: Gretchen | January 30, 2008 at 07:38 PM
They are tied to him until he gives them an official release, or 'gives' them to a another candidate.
Posted by: azw88 | January 30, 2008 at 07:48 PM
Edwards is suspending his campaign, not terminating it, so he'll retain 26 of the state level delegates he's already won, but will lose the rest. Those twenty-some district level delegates are now uncommitted and will hit the convention floor as free agents, or be picked up by the continuing campaigns during the state selection processes this spring. Edwards may pick up further delegates with votes (like mine) cast before his suspension, or despite his suspension. There is a pretty good explanation here (http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/edwards-out.html)
Posted by: Michael Bryan | January 30, 2008 at 08:27 PM
Lost votes are good reasons to wait to vote and mail back your ballot closer to the election date. You never know what might happen. I am surprised Edwards bailed before Feb 5. I mailed my ballot in today, and voted Obama.
Posted by: Daniel Patterson | January 30, 2008 at 08:37 PM
I watched his speech on youtube and cried my eyes out. I'm voting for him anyway. I ordered a mail-in ballot and it still hasn't come. I wonder how many other people are having this problem.
I'll tell you what done him in - a media which persisted in calling this a two-person race. Someone compiled the number of lies Bush has told - 935 - I wish someone would compile the number of times the media didn't include either Edwards or Kucinich when mentioning Democratic candidates. And just one more thought: "they" say Hillary is divisive and other "theys" say Obama will be divisive. Believe me, folks, if Jesus Christ and Moses were the candidates, Repubicans would be shredding them because shredding Democrats is what Republicans do best! Don't make your decisions based on your guess of who will be "less divisive" - vote for the person you think/believe can do the best job!
Come the general, I'll vote a straight Democratic ticket - during the campaign I'll devote my energies to the three excellent LD 26 Democrats who are running. I may not be able to save the country, but I will do my darndest to try to put Arizona on a better path!
Posted by: Francine Shacter | January 30, 2008 at 08:43 PM
I also voted early by mail and voted for Edwards. Wonder how many other Democrats in Arizona did this. I would have voted for Obama had I known that Edwards would withdraw. I really thought he would stay in longer, although I didn't think he had much of a chance at winning the nominiation. Anyone know if these votes will even be counted? Where do any delegates that Edwards would have won go?
Posted by: Zelph | January 30, 2008 at 09:52 PM
I just got my ballot today, voted Obama, and it goes out tomorrow.
Yes, I re-registered from I to D so that I could vote for him.
He is the most impressive person I have seen in politics in a very long time. Mark Warner of Virginia is another who really "has" it.
Posted by: kralmajales | January 30, 2008 at 10:11 PM
I mailed my early ballot for Obama weeks ago.
I do NOT think Kennedy or the Kennedy Family support FOR Obama was a wise thing for Obama to openly accept.
Ted is LIKE Bill in that they both POP-OFF and do NO GOOD to there cause!
What Ted did in supporting Obama MOVED HILLARY TO THE CENTER and OBAMA TO THE FAR LEFT!
This PLAN was NOT by accident as Bill and Ted got together to DITCH OBAMA and he took the bait!
McCain the Senator who was the "GATEKEEPER" for Vincente Fox and his plan to import 100 million Mexicans into the United States JUST for our SOCIAL SERVICES has bore fruit as the BUSH REBATES backed by CONGRESS will give Tax Rebate Checks to ILLEGAL ALIENS over that of the low income retired American Citizens who will get ZERO REBATES after working there whole lives!
As for the VOTER Mike I feel your VOTE was cast in "GOOD FAITH" and the Candidates know that early voters did just that!
The problem IS the CANDIDATES don't give a crap about you and me the VOTER ; all they care about is getting a "PLACE AT THE TABLE" to further "THEIR POLITICAL GOALS" the Early Voter be Damned!
Its like McCain - Fiengold that desrtoyed the First Amendment of the Constitution "Freedom Of Speech!" Making 60 to 30 day CITIZEN endorsements of Candidates ILLEGAL under McCain-Fiengold and now you see McCain using his own corrupted law to benefit himself.
Remember McCain IS the KEATING 5 as his wife IS a KEATING!
The MOB IS MOVING INTO THE WHITE HOUSE FOLKS; and I don't mean LOBBYISTS!
Posted by: Dwight D. Leister:Chair:Leister4Congress | January 30, 2008 at 10:33 PM
Addressing the "Specific Topic" - Edwards calls it quits; I lose my Vote" Mike this shows you that Edwards was always and always will be a "Deal Maker!"
As a Trail Lawyer this DEAL MAKING is KEY to aceiving your clients goal (yea sure) like hell it gets the trial lawyer his MONEY no matter what; screw th client!(voter)
Posted by: Dwight D. Leister:Chair:Leister4Congress | January 30, 2008 at 10:57 PM
Iam surprised Mike would fall for Edwards "LINE" as John Kerry HATED THIS CREEP as did his Wife!
They knew what he was and warned all of you??!!
I guess Mike was in some Illegal Aliens Court Room wqith Isabele Garcia working for more and more Illegal Mexican Nationals Rights over that of you and me the Legal American Citizen and Taxpayer funding all this Crap!
Posted by: Dwight D. Leister:Chair:Leister4Congress | January 30, 2008 at 11:00 PM
I rest assured that no President could be a bigger disaster than the incumbent.
Posted by: Richard | January 31, 2008 at 05:24 AM
Richard, I agree that this President has been one of, if not THE worst, Preseident ever. However, the next President could EASILY make things worse......
McCain's deisre to bom, bom, bomb Iran comes to mind.
Posted by: azw88 | January 31, 2008 at 07:13 AM
Francine, I totally agree with you that the Republican party will be trying their best to shred Democrats in the general election. And winning is definitely issue #1. But unifying people who share our beliefs is a crucial step towards winning that we seem to be ignoring.
1. There is a HUGE group of people stuck in the middle between Democrats and Republicans, trying to find someone to vote for. These people are crucial in winning the White House.
2. There is a HUGE group of people left of the Democratic candidates who see through the endless political hedging and poll chasing of the average political candidate, and they will remain apathetic until someone like Obama inspires them to vote.
3. Once a Democrat gets into office, Washington will continue to be the place where ideas go to die unless we form a coalition bigger than the standard 50-55%. This is the kind of organization and unification I see Obama standing for, and that's what I think he means when he rails against the 'divisive' nature of politics as it stands.
Posted by: JohnRose | January 31, 2008 at 09:37 AM
John, Obama burned my toast when he invoked Ronald Reagan. I will spare you the long litany of things Reagan did that were awful first for California,where as Governor, he ruined the excellent state University system. Then he topped that by making what I consider Bush-like statements about not wanting paper until 2 minutes before he needs it and other comments, which I cannot correctly quote, but which I heard as the Bush "I'll run the country on a business model and listen to advisors, blah, blah, blah." Whew!!! I sure as heck don't want any more of that kind of excellence.
In my heart of hearts, I hope the big two get so tangled that the only person not thoroughly besmirched will be John Edwards who will come riding on a white horse to save us all!!! (Nice fantasy, no?)
Posted by: Francine Shacter | January 31, 2008 at 01:09 PM
I switched from Edwards to Obama in Dec., my husband switched on the night of the South Carolina primary. We saw Obama and Caroline Kennedy yesterday in Phoenix (also appearing on the stage were a passionate Grijalva -himself a former Edwards supporter- and a fired-up Napolitano). I've got a long list of reasons for supporting Obama, but I'll give you the shortest one, the bottom line: this presidential election will be decided by independents. Hillary will NOT get the independent vote. I'm not saying this is right or wrong, it just is. Obama will get that vote, he already has; some people volunteering with me at Obama's Tucson headquarters tell me they're independents, and they're not just voting for the guy, they're volunteering for him. If McCain is the republican candidate and Hillary the democratic candidate, it'll be close but I think independents will swing to McCain and he'll be our next president. If it's McCain vs. Obama, the independents will split but I think Obama will get most of them, and he'll be our next president (if Romney's the republican candidate, quite frankly I think either Hillary or Obama would win). So, sure you can be pissed off at Obama, sure you can wonder whether he's too naive, sure you can question if he's too inexperienced. Fine. Then ask yourself one question: what do I really think will be better for this country? If you answer President McCain, then vote for him or vote for Hillary. If you answer President Obama, then vote for him. Like I said, I've got a nice long list of reasons why I'm voting for Obama, I admire the guy tremendously and agree with him on most things, but this is the bottom line: I think he can win, and I think this country will be better off if he's our president.
And my apologies for this rather long-winded comment...
Posted by: mhp | January 31, 2008 at 02:05 PM
Francine, he involked Reagan to make the point that Republicans had folks that had a vision (whether you agreed with it or not, Reagan was great at communicating a vision). He didn't praise Reagan or his policies. Obama was right, the Democrats have not had a leader that effectively communicated a vision. THAT burns my toast.
Posted by: azw88 | January 31, 2008 at 03:24 PM
like mike i voted early for edwards...but i feel the strategy is edwards can throw his delegates to obama..i'm so disappoint edwards dropped out before feb 5 and am still trying to figure out why he did.
Posted by: kathie crow | January 31, 2008 at 04:00 PM
Kathie,
I think he did it as the ultimate, unselfish patriotic gesture. I admire the man and I would have voted for him; however, there are not enough of us.
Posted by: Mariana | January 31, 2008 at 04:26 PM
Francine, first of all- the primary reason Bush's leadership plan didn't work is not because he has lots of advisors that he listens to. It's because he's a total nitwit and has no ability to think or synthesize other people's ideas to come to his own conclusions. Obama is smart, and the advisors he's choosing and the respect they have for him are really a breath of fresh air for me. (Thanks Michael for the great videos)
As far as the Reagan quotation... you should see the quote in its context : http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/01/clintons_are_lying_about_obama.html
Obama doesn't fit well into sound-bites, he's a bit cerebral, but he was making a very subtle point. In no way was he praising Reagan for his ideas or the effect of his policies. He's just saying that Reagan got a lot of people on his side and sent America in a new direction. If anything, I think he's proposing himself as a counterpoint to Reagan- someone who will get a lot of people on his side and send America back in the right direction.
Posted by: JohnRose | January 31, 2008 at 05:22 PM
I was a Reagan supporter in the '80's, became an independent in 2000 and finally a Democrat in 2004 because I was inspired by the Dean campaign. This year, I am proud to support Obama after considering both Biden and Edwards.
Today's Tucson Citizen has a column I wrote(http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/daily/opinion/75554.php) in which I offer my take on what Obama said in Nevada about Reagan.
While I appreciate the views of long-time Democrats who never liked Reagan, I think the fact that Obama appeals to me and to them speaks to his broad base of support and the fact that he will be our party's strongest nominee in November.
Posted by: Rex | January 31, 2008 at 05:50 PM
This is Obama's infamous statement about Ronald Reagan: “I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path, because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown, but there wasn’t much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people—he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."
I am not getting out of this that Obama is praising Reagan. He is essentialing saying that Reagan (or his handlers) correctly understood that Americans were ready for change and Reagan offered a return to optimism, etc...Americans wanted the country to be about something other than Vietnam, Watergate, and the Iran hostage crisis that pretty much dominated the last year of Jimmy Carter's one term as president.
Obama is right, Francine, and I really do not think he was praising Reagan's policies as he was pointing out that Reagan understood the temperament of the 80's.
Posted by: Liza | January 31, 2008 at 06:02 PM
The media screwed Edwards. If Obama had not raised the money that he raised, they wouldn't have paid any attention to him either. [NOTE--I'm voting for Obama.]
The media skews public perception and then bitches about it.
Posted by: Gretchen | January 31, 2008 at 06:38 PM
Someone told me today that you can go down to the County Recorder and ask to change your vote if your candidate has dropped out. Does that sound right to anyone? I haven't had a chance to research this, but it sounds worth looking into as a possibility for Edwards' voters who would now like to go with a different candidate (hopefully Obama!)
Posted by: Lauren | February 01, 2008 at 03:56 AM
Gretchen,
You might find this article about John Edwards to be interesting:
www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1708147,00.html?imw=Y
I would not assign sole responsibility for the early demise of John Edward's campaign to the media.
Edward's had a good strategy for being the "other" candidate to run against Hillary. He had name recognition from 2004 and he remained a public figure letting it be known he would be a contender in 2008. He also had a populist message that resonated even better in 2007 as the American middle class keeps taking the hits for the failing economic policies of George Bush that have resulted in unprecedented concentration of wealth.
However, what no one predicted was the meteoric rise of Barack Obama. Obama has had a lot of media attention, to be sure, but he is not a flash in the pan media creation. If he were not worth watching, the cameras would move on.
At the end of the day, Edwards simply got squeezed out by the other two candidates. After Iowa, voters in New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina were clearly saying that they did not want a three way race. Despite his more progressive populist message, Edwards failed to attract the early voters.
Hillary has always been a given because she is the pick of the democratic party elite. Had there not been an Obama, John Edwards would most definitely have been the "other" candidate. There just wasn't room for three.
Posted by: Liza | February 01, 2008 at 01:13 PM
Fixing my link to the article about Edwards:
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1708147,00.html?imw=Y
Posted by: Liza | February 01, 2008 at 01:19 PM
Lauren,
If you still have your early ballot and have filled it out but not turned it in, you can swap it for a new one. If you already turned it in or mailed it, you're out of luck.
Posted by: mbryanaz | February 01, 2008 at 02:21 PM
Liza...
"Obama is right, Francine, and I really do not think he was praising Reagan's policies as he was pointing out that Reagan understood the temperament of the 80's."
I think you have it exactly right.
Obama's problem is the difficulty the electorate has in understanding the comments of an intelligent speaker.
They have been so used to the Bush inanities that they are unacustomed to the views of an educated thoughtful person.
It is this quality, probably more than any other, that sets Barack above everyone else in the race.
The Clintons have always been clever. We need intellectual substance at the helm here.
The times will require much more than paliatives to weather the challenges.
Both those resulting from our national GOP brain fart this century, and perhaps even more so, those mother nature has in store for us in the not too distant future.
I think Obama has tapped into the undercurrent of frustration that Americans, and others are experiencing as the current leaders simply toy with very serious issues.
Ever since Lincoln, America has seemed to have the remarkable good fortune to have someone appear who was right for the situation that confronted us.
I think Obama is that person now.
Hope to hell the electorate has enough sense to realize it too.
Posted by: Metacomet | February 01, 2008 at 02:22 PM
Unfortunately, Americans don't always vote for the smartest person for president. (Bill Clinton was an anomaly. Maybe it was that Leo charm?) I remember when polsters asked, "Who would you most like to attend your backyard BBQ-- George Bush or Al Gore?" Of course, W won that poll. I knew then that Al would lose the race.
Posted by: Pamela | February 01, 2008 at 05:56 PM
Lisa--
I agree with you. Edwards--"two Americas" theme could easily be viewed or defined as class warfare--a theme that would unlikely have won him the Presidency even if he had won the primary. It's just that it bothers me when the media gives most of its earned media time to those with the money. Also, I have not forgotten what they did re the "Dean scream" in 2004.
Posted by: Gretchen | February 01, 2008 at 11:56 PM
McCain is an absolute abysmal imbosol!! He’s a RHINO republican and tried to shove amnesty down our throat 2 times with "HIS OWN BILL". HE IS FOR TAXING USA companies only to solve a so called GLOBAL warming problem. Well what about the rest of the WORLD? You people drink the kol-aid of the press and are completely UNINFORMED.
ROMNEY is this COUNTRYS BEST HOPE.
You want to know something else, STUPIDY BREADS ITSELF. You will believe anything someone tells you if you are uninformed and that is what the liberal media is counting on.
DO YOUR OWN HOMEWORK!
John McCain should be renamed as JUAN McCain. Have you noticed who his heading up his HISPANIC outreach group for this race. If not, Google "McCain and Dr. Juan Hernandez.
I WILL NOT, SHALL NOT AND CAN NOT VOTE FOR JUAN McCain, I would rather the Republican Party dissolve, period!
Posted by: Richard | February 03, 2008 at 04:21 PM
Edwards supporters in the State of Arizona! Your count votes! VOTE FOR JOHN EDWARDS and please get the message out. 14% at least of the democrats polled re: Democratic primary are UNDECIDED! Most importantly, Edwards didn't QUIT he SUSPENDED his race~ legally votes cast for Edwards in your State on Super Tuesday will count!
Posted by: Dianne | February 04, 2008 at 04:57 AM
"You want to know something else, STUPIDY BREADS ITSELF."
This constitutes prima facie evidence you are of the Republican persuasion.
It is also an absolute truth.....
Stupidy does, in fact, bread itself.
(don't post if you are drunk or this fucking stupid)
Posted by: Metacomet | February 04, 2008 at 10:53 PM