Edwards Will Announce His Endorsement on Tuesday ---->

[Stephanie]

According to DUer Truth2Tell, Edwards says he will not endorse anyone before Tuesday.

Assuming Tuesday is the day, who will it be?

[NJSecularist]

1. If he is going to wait until Tuesday

He might as well wait until Wednesday so he doesn't needlessly exclude himself from somebody's administration. On Wednesday we'll know who has the better chance at the nomination.

[JDPriestly]

2. If he endorses anyone, it will be the frontrunner.

I don't expect him to endorse anyone, but he is free to do so. Until then, I am voting for John Edwards. In fact, regardless of which candidate he might endorse, I will write the name "John Edwards" in on my November ballot. I have compromised on one candidate after the other. I backed Kerry in 2004 because I liked him well enough and thought he would win. I'm not compromising this time. I will vote for Edwards because I agree 100% with everything he stands for and because I trust him.

The Democratic Party is not going to win or lose based on my one vote in Democratic Los Angeles. So, for the first time in my life, I probably won't back the Party's candidate.

[featherman]

5. A bold position and I applaud your principles

I like John too and my wife has voted for him in CA already. But (not being snarky just curious) agreeing 100% means you agreed with his vote to authorize Bush's invasion of Iraq and unleash death and destruction to so many? This is a big issue for me and I thought John was very, very wrong on that one. But, hey, that's just me. I'm sure you have your own opinion. I know he has apologized.

[JDPriestly]

23. I was also fooled by Bush's and especially Colin Powell's

statements that they had proof that Saddam Hussein had WMDs and that they knew where they were. I naively believed that, especially considering the shame that Johnson's lies about his reasons for increasing combat in Viet Nam had caused for Johnson, no American president would send American troops to war without a very good reason.

Although members of my family warned me that the war was wrong, I did not realize that I had been duped by Bush until I watched the movement of our ground troops across the desert. The pace at which the troops moved, the path they took, the attempt to rapidly enter and take Baghdad all convinced me that Bush and his administration knew before they went into Iraq that our troops had nothing to fear from WMDs.

So, I also supported the War in Iraq before the invasion and understand where Edwards went wrong and why. I also understand why Edwards and Kerry did not want to say they were wrong in 2004. Kerry was repeatedly ridiculed for waffling and changing his mind and voting inconsistently in the Senate. Why consistency is so highly valued, I do not understand. I greatly prefer a president who has the moral courage to admit mistakes to one who is rigid. No one is perfect. Show me a man or woman who claims he or she has never been wrong on any stance or a congressman who has never made mistakes in voting, and I will show you someone who is either inexperienced or a weasel, afraid to commit on anything.

So, Edwards' vote on the IWR was wrong, but then, I was wrong in supporting the war months after the IWR. I did not realize until April 2004 that the UN Investigators had reported to the UN well before Bush sent the troops into Iraq that Saddam had no WMDS. I was working long hours at the time of the pre-invasion and just was not informed.

Condemning legislators for changing their minds upon learning new facts or seeing old facts in a different light results in rigidity that prevents creative problem-solving. So I think your unwillingness to forgive Edwards is counterproductive. If you now think Obama will never make a mistake, I want to see what you think about that four years from now.

[featherman]

27. Thank you for your courteous and complete response

You seemed very intense and I was worried that you might answer angrily. Whew.
As far as Obama making mistakes, I certainly hope so. How else do we learn?
I'm 63 and have been around DEM politics since the 1952 convention (I was 8 but enthralled). These guys and gals are human like you and me and the best we can hope for is that they lead with their heart and always try to do the right thing. Like John and Elizabeth.
(and that's it for me. I'm snowed in up here in the NorCal mountains and going to bed)

[JDPriestly]

40. I'm 64 and also remember the 1952 convention

I sat on my father's knee, and he explained the whole thing to me. My father was a devoted Democrat.

I'm glad that young people are so strongly supporting Obama although I cannot. I am having arguments with one of my children about the Obama attitude toward the Reagan era and "entitlements." The Reagan version of history needs to be corrected. The "entitlements" were about better education and labor policies. Reagan just crushed the future of the country when he defunded what he called "entitlements." He lowered the federal expenditures on education by 60%. That was ruinous for our schools and meant near illiteracy for so many. He lowered the labor budget something like 57%. We see the results in stagnant wages and outsourcing. So, Obama's tribute to Reagan disgusts me. Sorry about that. But, I'm 100% Edwards. I believe that education and labor programs should be well managed, but I support them 100%.

[LiberalFighter]

35. I don't recall that part about how rapid the troops moved. Good point.

As for Kerry not being consistent. That is a bad trait for a Senator. The Senate was designed to allow them to deliberate the facts and take their time. That is why Senators have 6 years instead of 2 years for their term of office.

[Lucinda]

3. "... there is no chance it will happen (any endorsement) before Tuesday, or even after... "

Looks like its neither.

[Maddy McCall]

4. I don't think that he's said he will endorse on Tuesday.

He only said that he wouldn't endorse BEFORE Tuesday.

[Stephanie]

6. If you read the OP that's exactly what I said.

[Maddy McCall]

8. But your headline said that he will announce his endorsement on Tuesday.

He said in the conference call that he won't announce on Tuesday and maybe not even after Tuesday.

[Stephanie]

9. You're correct.

I choose to believe he will announce on Tuesday based on Truth2Tell's post.

[MonkeyFunk]

16. it makes no sense to endorse on Super Tuesday

[Stephanie]

20. Actually you're semi-correct >

Per Truth2Tell:

No endorsement before Tuesday. "I will be meeting with each of them... there is no chance it will happen (any endorsement) before Tuesday, or even after... "

[thoughtcrime1984]

7. He may not endorse at all, he may endorse the one who will best

reflect his platform, he may endorse the one who will give him the position he wants, who knows? I would like him to be either Obama's VP or in his cabinet, but I am not certain of that happening, by a long shot.

[water]

10. He wants the VP nod, but he won't get it.

They need someone with military experience.

WK is probably the best choice.

[Maddy McCall]

12. Who is WK?

[water]

14. Wesley Clark, sorry! :P

[The Iron Maiden]

28. If you're saying Wesley Clark ....

as an answer to McCain's Military experience... Jim Webb is a better choice and more relevant choice. If Clark will be anyone's VP, it would be Hillary's, as he is already advising her campaign...

[newmajority]

31. Jim Webb needs to keep his senate seat

As for Clark, I don't know why he shouldn't be considered. He may be advising Hillary now, but once Obama is the nominee, he won't be doing so anymore.

In any case, I don't think it's a good idea to take any more Democrats out of the senate, like Webb. Unless you can guarantee an even more progressive senator would take their place.

[LiberalFighter]

36. Why? There wasn't any military experience with Bush/Cheney!

[Quixote1818]

11. He is going to see who won the most on Super Tuesday and pick them

Thats my guess.

[Stephanie]

13. I'll be very disappointed if he does that.

I hope he will support the candidate who best represents his beliefs, before the verdict comes down on Tuesday.

[flyarm]

15. not a fat baby's fart of a chance!!..no he won't.

he never needs to endorse..he suspended his campaign he did not withdraw.

end of story..for now..


http://www.slate.com/id/1004841/

explainer: Answers to your questions about the news.
Do Delegates Have Free Will?
Ted Rose
Posted Tuesday, March 14, 2000, at 3:02 PM ET
Last Thursday, Bill Bradley withdrew from the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, and Republican John McCain announced that he was "suspending" his campaign. Bradley said he would not release his delegates to the Democratic nominating convention. Similarly, news reports suggested that McCain used the term "suspending"--as opposed to "withdrawing"--in order to retain control of the delegates he has won so far. How do the candidates keep control of their delegates?
The two national parties set the rules for the selection and responsibilities of their delegates. (All states have their own laws regarding delegates, but in recent decades the U.S. Supreme Court has struck them down, ruling that the parties can set the policies.) Democrats dictate their policy from the top down: All delegates are pledged, but not bound, to reflect the conscience of the candidate they were chosen to represent. The Republican Party, on the other hand, relies heavily on its organization in each state to set the rules regarding its delegates. A handful of state parties give delegates complete autonomy to vote at the convention for whomever they chose. Others require that the delegates vote for their candidate until the candidate releases them from that obligation.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On the Republican side, McCain will have considerable leverage at his party's convention, because he'll have at least six delegations obligated to remain in his corner. He would lose the support of these delegations only by officially releasing them, not by withdrawing from the race. (McCain delegates from a seventh state--New Hampshire--would be released if he did withdraw.) Under GOP rules, six delegations are needed to pass a motion that would allow McCain to bring a special amendment to the convention floor for consideration by the entire Republican Party--not to mention the audience watching at home. (Note to Bush: Incorporate campaign-finance reform into party platform in advance.) McCain will also have enough support to be officially nominated for president at the convention.

Bill Bradley may say he is retaining his delegates, but in the Democratic Party an official withdrawal severely weakens a candidate's power at the convention. Since he has withdrawn, Bradley will not be able to appoint supporters to the all-important convention committees, which determine the rules and the platform for the convention.

In addition, he will lose a significant number of the delegates already placed in his column by news organizations. In the Democratic primary process, one group of delegates from every state--the at-large delegates--is officially allocated late in the primary season. If a candidate drops out of the race, party rules dictate that his at-large delegates are to be distributed among the remaining candidates. In New York, for example, MSNBC News reported that Bradley earned 87 delegates. At the convention, this number will drop to roughly 70.As a result, Democratic candidates, unlike their Republican counterparts, have a real incentive to "suspend" their campaigns, as opposed to ending them. In recent history, a number of Democrats have chosen to suspend their presidential candidacies, including Al Gore in 1988. By contrast, only one other Republican in recent memory has chosen to suspend a campaign that made it into the primaries: John McCain's new nemesis Pat Robertson, in 1988.

[Stephanie]

17. The campaign is over, the staff is going home.

Suspending it is just a legal way to cut their final paychecks. My friend on staff in NC is heading home, game over. But good work by you, Fly! You fought the good fight. Who do you like now?

[flyarm]

26. i know it is over..but he still can march into the convention with his delegates! eom

[Maddy McCall]

25. PLEASE...

post this in an OP. Everyone needs to see this.

[LiberalFighter]

37. I would go with keeping my delegates and have more influence in the party platform

[1corona4u]

18. I don't know, but I did happen across these tonight...

They seem to like each other...

[Stephanie]

19. those are intense

where did you find them?

[tandem5]

21. on tuesday... no I don't see that happening. nt

[liberalla]

22. Me either!

I will be surprised if he does...

[dugggy]

24. Yawn

[jlake]

29. He will endorse the frontrunner on Wednesday. I think that will be HRC.

[Stardust]

30. Edwards' truthiness is slightly questionable right now isn't it? Over 40% of

Californians vote by absentee ballot and I know at least one Edwards' supporter who'd appreciate some guidance. First Kucinich, now Edwards, and I feel like I'm blowin' in the wind.

[goodgd_yall]

32. He's not endorsing anyone n/t

[Apollo11]

33. Edwards has decided not to express a preference

This is what I understood from his pull-out speech in New Orleans.

For Edwards to endorse Obama or Hillary would be seen as divisive.

He knows that his endorsers and supporters will make their own decisions.

Edwards will support the Democratic Ticket, whoever wins the nomination.

He understands that as Democrats we must all unite around our ticket.

Division and in-fighting will only lead us to defeat in November.

He also wants to keep open the door of working for the next President.

[Control-Z]

34. He'll wait until Gore jumps in?

Ok, I'm dreaming. I know. But it's a nice dream, so don't wake me up!!

[TexasObserver]

38. I thought John meant he was not going to endorse for Tuesday

I did not infer from that statement that he would endorse ON Tuesday. That seems counter-intuitive, given John's ability to speak clearly whatever he thinks. If he intended to endorse on Tuesday, he would say so now.

My read is that he is saying to his followers: You vote your conscience, your choice, and let the votes fall where they may.

[Freddie Stubbs]

39. Your headline is exremely misleading

"Edwards Will Announce His Endorsement on Tuesday"

""I will be meeting with each of them... there is no chance it will happen (any endorsement) before Tuesday, or even after... ""