Aside from the obvious demographic benefits an Edwards endorsement could have, his decision to throw his backing behind Obama also has symbolic import. Edwards is widely seen as one of the major party figures who had remained on the sidelines in the race between Clinton and Obama. That he has stepped in to the fray in hopes of, perhaps, bringing this race to an end should send a powerful signal to undecided superdelegates about the direction of the contest.
Officials announced the news shortly after Mr. Obama landed here late this afternoon. The campaign has timed the announcement to coincide with the start of the major evening newscasts, which would have otherwise focused on Senator Hillary Clinton’s landslide victory in West Virginia, which raised new questions about Mr. Obama’s strength with white working class voters.
Lots of buzz on the internets about a big endorsement for Obama tonight. Via Taegan Goddard:
Sen. Barack Obama's campaign is planning to announce "a major endorsement" tonight at 6:30 pm ET.
We've heard it from good source that it will be John Edwards.
John Edwards said it's over and sent a signal to the Clinton campaign:
John Edwards, a former candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, cautioned Sunday that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton “has to be really careful that she’s not damaging our prospects” by staying in the contest against Senator Barack Obama.
That's really wise advice. But, Clinton's spokesman, Howard Wolfson, is still in a fighting mood, apparently. Puffing his chest out on FOX today, Wolfson delivered some classic fifth grade school yard taunts:
But Howard Wolfson, a senior Clinton adviser, struck a feisty note on Fox, saying that if Mr. Obama wanted Mrs. Clinton out of the race, there was a simple way to ensure that: "Beat her. Beat her in West Virginia, beat her in Puerto Rico, beat her in Kentucky." Mrs. Clinton, of New York, is favored in those coming contests; Mr. Obama holds an edge in the others, in Oregon, Montana and South Dakota.
That would almost be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.
The Clinton campaign is rife with bullies who threw their weight around, yelling at people, screaming at people. I experienced that twice myself early on, before I supported anyone and just wanted a Democrat who could win. (And, trust me, I had very few interactions with Clinton staffers.)
There's nothing better than seeing the bullies get their butts kicked. And, that's exactly what's happening now.
So, Clinton and her entire staff should heed the words of John Edwards. The Clintons and their vaunted brain trust screwed up their own campaign. They don't need to inflict their ruinous behavior on Obama and the rest of the Democrats anymore.
And while we're on the subject of Clinton campaign people, the best line of the day, didn't come from anyone on the Sunday shows. It came from Al Giordano:
I personally don’t believe a word McAuliffe says about anything, and look forward to the moment, once Obama’s the nominee, that McAuliffe won’t be sent out, not even once, to be a surrogate on TV anymore.
Today's NY Times ponders the role of John and Elizabeth Edwards in the primary battle between Obama and Clinton asking: "What will the Edwardses do?" There are rumors that Elizabeth Edwards wants to endorse Hillary Clinton.
Who knows if either will actually endorse. But it is probably helpful to review the speech John Edwards gave called "The Moral Test of Our Generation." It was one of the most powerful speeches Edwards gave during his campaign. Which candidate passes the moral test laid out by Edwards?:
And a few weeks ago, around the sixth anniversary of 9/11, a leading presidential candidate held a fundraiser that was billed as a Homeland Security themed event in Washington, D.C. targeted to homeland security lobbyists and contractors for $1,000 a plate. These lobbyists, for the price of a ticket, would get a special "treat" -- the opportunity to participate in small, hour long breakout sessions with key Democratic lawmakers, many of whom chair important sub committees of the homeland security committee. That presidential candidate was Senator Clinton.
Senator Clinton's road to the middle class takes a major detour right through the deep canyon of corporate lobbyists and the hidden bidding of K Street in Washington -- and history tells us that when that bus stops there it is the middle class that loses.
When I asked Hillary Clinton to join me in not taking money from Washington lobbyists -- she refused. Not only did she say that she would continue to take their money, she defended them.
Today Hillary Clinton has taken more money from Washington lobbyists than any candidate from either party -- more money than any Republican candidate.
She has taken more money from the defense industry than any other candidate from either party as well.
She took more money from Wall Street last quarter than Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and Barack Obama combined.
The long slow slide of our democracy into the corporate abyss continues unabated regardless of party, regardless of the best interests of America.
We have a duty -- a duty to end this.
I believe you cannot be for change and take money from the lobbyists who prevent change. You cannot take on the entrenched interests in Washington if you choose to defend the broken system. It will not work. And I believe that, if Americans have a choice, and candidate who takes their money -- Democrat or Republican -- will lose this election.
For us to continue down this path all we have to do is suspend all that we believe in. As Democrats, we continue down this path only if we believe the party of the people is no more.
An eclectic mix of candidate surrogates on the the shows today. Huckabee, fresh off his impressive wins in Kansas and Louisiana yesterday, is the only candidate to appear and he's on twice. This GOP race isn't over.
Besides that, you can see Tom DeLay, Karl Rove and George Bush this morning. That's enough to ruin a Sunday, huh? Bush is the only guest on Fox, because Fox is the GOP's network. Meaning there is no reason for any Democratic debate on that network -- ever.
Now, I'm all sure you'll all be watching Bush on Fox:
ABC's "This Week" — Govs. Tim Kaine, D-Va., and Martin O'Malley, D-Md.; Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va.; former Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas.
___
CBS' "Face the Nation" — Former Gov. Mike Huckabee, R-Ark.; Joe Trippi, former John Edwards campaign adviser; Karl Rove, former deputy chief of staff to President Bush.
___
NBC's "Meet the Press" — Huckabee.
___
CNN's "Late Edition" — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio; former Secretary of State Colin Powell, Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., and Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J.
Okay, up til now, I have discounted national polls on the presidential race. The specific state polls were what mattered. And, the nomination will be decided based on state outcomes so I still prefer state polls. However, on the eve of the voting in almost half the states this coming Tuesday, national polls can give a sense of where the candidates stand. Tonight, we get the results of the latest The Washington Post/ABC News poll conducted from January 30 through February 1 (Wed. thru Fri):
Two days before voters in 24 states go to their polling places, 47 percent of likely Democratic voters said they back Clinton and 43 percent said they support Obama, with neither candidate decisively benefiting from the departure of former senator John Edwards (N.C.) from the race. By contrast, McCain's wins in primaries in South Carolina and Florida and the winnowing of the Republican field have had a dramatic result: The senator from Arizona is now the clear front-runner for his party's nomination.
McCain leads former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney 48 percent to 24 percent among probable GOP voters as he continues to rapidly consolidate support, particularly among moderates and liberals. Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee runs third in the new poll with 16 percent, and Rep. Ron Paul (Tex.) is fourth at 7 percent.
I have a slightly different take on Obama's speech today than John. First, today, with Edwards dropping out, the campaign is on a completely different playing field. It's one-on-one between Obama and Clinton. For political geeks, it doesn't get much better than this current contest. We are watching two masters of the game engage.
Two things are interesting to me: First, Obama keeps injecting Bill Clinton into the discussion. He did that again today in Denver. Last week, after the South Carolina debate, the punditry were discussing how Hillary was playing for February 5th while Obama was trying to win South Carolina. But, Obama kept making a point of discussing both Clintons, not just Hillary. The media kept wondering if Bill got under Obama's skin. I wonder if it wasn't really the other way around. Obama drew Bill into the campaign -- and Bill acted like Bill does. Only problem is that Bill isn't the candidate. Makes one wonder if the Obama campaign had research showing that the more Bill is the issue, the less support there is for Hillary. She loses the patina of a historic candidacy when the campaign isn't about her. Obama did get the Clinton campaign off its message. Today, she even had to tell us "This is my campaign, it is about my candidacy." (Anyone else hear "I'm relevant"?) That's not something a campaign should be telling us six days before Super Tuesday.
More after the jump...
Second, Obama is using Hillary's language -- the very language she used against him. He kept talking about "Day One." That was a trademark term of Hillary's stump speech. Obama has turned it on her, which is actually somewhat masterful. That makes it hard for the Clinton team to start whining about what Obama is saying. He is re-defining one of Clinton's main talking points. He also talked about Clinton's votes on Iraq and Iran -- and some of the statements she's made during the campaign. But that's fair game according to Clinton. At the South Carolina debate, Clinton said, "I believe your record and what you say should matter." So, it matters.
I don't see what Obama did as all that negative. To me, he went on the offense -- trying to throw the Clinton campaign off their game. We keep hearing that Obama needs to show Democrats that he can play to win, that he can take on the Republican machine in the general election. I think that's what he's showing us. I really don't see it as negative and mean or "blistering." I mean come on, if Barack wanted to get ugly about the 90s, there is plenty to throw out there. But that's not what the Obama did. (And let's not forget, it's the Clinton campaign, and their surrogates, that keeps dragging up dirt about Obama's youthful indiscretions, not the other way around.)
Anyway, that's my take. The dynamics of the campaign changed dramatically today when John Edwards dropped out. Seems like Obama got out in front of it all today.
Wow. I'm a bit surprised by the tenor of the attack, and by the attack at all. Both Hillary and Obama get into these mood swings where they attack, then make nice, then attack again. It all started when the race got close, and real, in December or so. But I have to say, this is particularly pointed from Obama.
"Democrats will win in November and build a majority in Congress not by nominating a candidate who will unite the other party against us, but by choosing one who can unite this country around a movement for change," Obama said, speaking as rival John Edwards was pulling out of the race in New Orleans, leaving a Clinton-Obama fight for the Democratic nomination.
"It is time for new leadership that understands the way to win a debate with John McCain or any Republican who is nominated is not by nominating someone who agreed with him on voting for the war in Iraq or who agreed with him in voting to give George Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran, who agrees with him in embracing the Bush-Cheney policy of not talking to leaders we don't like, who actually differed with him by arguing for exceptions for torture before changing positions when the politics of the moment changed," Obama said....
"I know it is tempting — after another presidency by a man named George Bush — to simply turn back the clock, and to build a bridge back to the 20th century," he said in Denver.
"... It's not enough to say you'll be ready from Day One — you have to be right from Day One," he added in unmistakable criticisms of Clinton, who often claims she's better prepared to govern, and her husband, who pledged during his own presidency to build a bridge to the 21st century.
So what gives? My take on this after the jump...
Sometimes campaigns go negative when they're desperate and behind. Obama isn't really behind, and has no real reason to be desperate - most commentators don't think Super Tuesday will give us a definitive nominee either way.
It's possible that the Obama folks are reacting to exit polls from South Carolina and Florida that showed more Dem voters thought Hillary was being too nasty than thought he was being too nasty. Though, it's not clear that the appropriate lesson from the polls is to get nastier. But, Obama may have read this as an opening.
Also, this could be a reaction to Hillary campaigning in Florida the past few days - and that's exactly what she did - in violation of the agreement that all the candidates accepted that no one would camapign in Florida (as a result of the DNC punishing Florida for moving up its primary in violation of DNC rules). What's more, Hillary now wants all of those delegates reinstated, after she was one of the people who agreed with taking those delegates away, and even more importantly, since all the candidates agreed not to campaign in the state this is a non-contest that gives us no indication how Floridians would have really voted had there been a real campaign and a real election. Hillary changed her mind because she won. That's pretty ballsy, and duplicitous, and this may be Obama's retaliation.
And finally, it may also be further fall-out from whatever convinced Ted Kennedy to enter the race on behalf of Obama. Nobody knows what really happened behind closed doors, but again, perhaps Obama and company have finally decided to pull the gloves off. (Having said that, friends who watched the Nevada primaries said that the Obama folks already had the gloves off there.)
It's primary day in South Carolina. Polls are open until 7:00 P.M. These are the latest -- and last -- numbers of the daily tracking poll from Reuters/CSPAN/Zogby:
Obama, an Illinois senator, gained two points on Clinton overnight to lead 41 percent to 26 percent just hours before voting began in Saturday's primary. John Edwards was in third place after slipping two points to 19 percent.
We'll keep an eye on things in S.C. throughout the day and report the tallies once the votes start rolling in tonight.
The poem of the week is "First Fig" by Edna St. Vincent Millay. It's short, simple and quite beautiful.
South Carolina Democrats vote tomorrow. Not an understatement to say this past week was very intense -- one of the most intense and contentious of the campaign so far. Two recent polls in South Carolina give the lead to Obama.
The latest daily tracking from Reuters/CSPAN/Zogby shows tightening in the race:
Barack Obama has a 13-point lead on rival Hillary Clinton but his support has eroded slightly on the eve of South Carolina's Democratic presidential primary, according to a Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby poll released on Friday.
Obama's edge on Clinton slipped by two points overnight but remained in double digits, 38 percent to 25 percent, in the rolling poll, with John Edwards gaining two points to climb to 21 percent and inch closer to second place.
Another weekend of presidential politics on the Sunday shows. And the big news is that yesterday's two-time sixth place finisher, Rudy Giuliani, makes an appearance.
Edwards has two appearances. Huckabee one. Romney's on Fox so they can all figure out how to destroy McCain's campaign. The rest are staff or surrogates for the various campaign.
Russert, however, is operating on a different plane this morning. He has nothing to do with the candidates today. He will "devote the full hour to insights and analysis" with among others, presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin. Apparently, he's going to put this all into context for us in a way that only Russert can. Aren't we all so lucky that Russert takes the time to do that for us? It's not easy defining history. The full line up is after the break.
Rudy, Rudy, Rudy. What can he even say at this point?:
ABC's "This Week" — Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y.
___
CBS' "Face the Nation" — Former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C.; David Axelrod, strategist for Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign; Howard Wolfson, communications director for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign.
___
NBC's "Meet the Press" — Doris Kearns Goodwin, presidential historian.
___
CNN's "Late Edition" — Edwards; Mike Huckabee; Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind.; Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C.; Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-D.C.; Gov. Tim Kaine, D-Va.
"Fox News Sunday" _ Former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts and Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.
5:00 I'm hearing from sources in Vegas that the Democratic turnout was huge, far more than expected, and that the number of new voters registered was also huge. That bodes well for us in the fall, and would continue the pattern of strong interest among Dems in this election.
4:06 PM: NBC just called Nevada for Hillary Clinton.
Senator Hillary Clinton: 50.33% Senator Barack Obama: 45.26% Senator John Edwards: 4.14% Uncommitted: 0.23% Congressman Dennis Kucinich: 0.05% Senator Mike Gravel: 0%
78.96% precincts reporting
This just in: A political friend in Vegas just called to report that Hillary is doing better than expected across the casino caucues, even the ones that haven't been reported on TV yet. This is bad for Obama, as in order to win Nevada he needs to win Las Vegas, where he has union support, and win it big. My friend, who is quite good at such things, says he thinks Hillary is going to win Nevada.
Hmmm... interesting dynamic. Edwards last night blasted Obama over an ad that the pro-Obama culinary union in Nevada is running on Spanish-language radio. Edwards usually teams up with Obama against Clinton. This is an interesting switch. Here is the text of the ad, then Edwards' response:
UNITE HERE Negative Ad (Translation from Spanish) Hillary Clinton does not respect our people. Hillary Clinton supporters went to court to prevent working people to vote this Saturday - that is an embarrassment. Hillary Clinton supporters want to prevent people from voting in their workplace on Saturday. This is unforgivable. Hillary Clinton is shameless. Hillary Clinton should not allow her friends to attack our people's right to vote this Saturday. This is unforgivable; there's no respect
Sen. Obama is defending our right to vote. Sen. Obama wants our votes. He respects our votes, our community, and our people.
Sen. Obama's campaign slogan is "Si Se Puede" ("Yes We Can"). Vote for a president that respects us, and that respects our right to vote. Obama for president, "Si Se Puede" ("Yes We Can").
Paid for by UNITE HERE Campaign Committee
Edwards' response and my reaction after the jump...Here is Edwards' response to the ad:
During a “Get Out the Caucus” rally in Las Vegas today, John Edwards made the following statement calling on Senator Obama to denounce the UNITE HERE radio ads.
“Just a few days ago, on a stage where all three of us were participating in the debate, there was a discussion of putting behind us and stopping the race politics that had been going on for a few days before that between Senator Clinton and Senator Obama. And everyone pledged that this kind of divisive politics that divides the Democratic Party and could divide America would come to an end.
“Senator Obama made that pledge. I was sitting five feet from him when I heard him say it. And now it turns out that in the last twenty-four hours, there's a radio ad that's being run—a malicious radio ad attacking Senator Clinton. That is exactly that kind of divisive politics. It's being run right here in Las Vegas.
“I denounce it. This kind of ad, I don't care who's doing it—in this case it's Senator Obama's supporters—but this sort of thing needs to stop. And from what I've seen, Senator Obama has not said a single word about this. Nothing…when two days ago, three days ago, he sat on a stage in front of America and said this kind of politics had no place in America. That is divides America. It divides the Democratic Party. And he denounced it. Well, now it's happening…by his supporters…right here in this campaign twenty-four hours before the caucuses. And what I have to say is he should speak up. If he really means what he says—and this is not just talk—he should speak up and denounce this kind of divisive politics. It is not what the Democratic Party needs. It is not what America needs. And let me say this very clearly, vis-a-vis Senator Obama, I will not divide America. I will unite America.”
This is quite interesting. For the longest time Edwards has been teaming up with Obama, and blasting Clinton. Now he's teaming up with Clinton and blasting Obama. Even more ironic, Edwards is blasting Obama over an ad that, while nasty, is basically correct. (And for added irony, Obama demanded that Edwards take down some 3rd party ads in Iowa - Obama may now be regretting his assertion (which is, I think, correct) that candidates can influence such ads.) Clinton's surrogates have been trying to make it harder for workers of the state culinary union to vote, and per Bill Clinton's TV interview the other day, the Clinton campaign is on the side of those trying to block the union members. Again, to me what's most interesting is that Edwards is blasting Clinton. To some degree, Edwards is trying very hard to be relevant, and to pose himself as the true "adult" in the race. Whether it will work is another question.
Another week chock full of presidential candidates with a former Democratic nominee and GOP wannabe thrown in.
Clinton gets a full hour with Russert. Besides that, we get Romney twice, Huckabee twice, Edwards once and Thompson once. And, even Rudy makes an appearance.
There should be some news coming out of these shows today, mostly on the GOP side where it's getting very contentious:
ABC's "This Week" — Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.
___
CBS' "Face the Nation" — Former Gov. Mitt Romney, R-Mass., and former Gov. Mike Huckabee, R-Ark.
___
NBC's "Meet the Press" — Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y.
___
CNN's "Late Edition" — Romney, Huckabee, former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., and former Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn.; Abdul-Qader al-Obeidi, Iraqi defense minister.
"Fox News Sunday" _ Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani.
I've heard from a number of women, and read stories from a number of women, who find sexist the media (and public's?) reaction to Hillary's tearing up the other day. One example of such outrage was over this comment from John Edwards:
"Edwards, speaking at a press availability in Laconia, New Hampshire, offered little sympathy and pounced on the opportunity to bring into question Clinton's ability to endure the stresses of the presidency. Edwards responded, 'I think what we need in a commander-in-chief is strength and resolve, and presidential campaigns are tough business, but being president of the United States is also tough business.'"
Clearly, Edwards is hitting Hillary back for challenging Obama's readiness for office. But some felt that this was sexist of Edwards: "Today he deployed against Hillary the oldest, dumbest canard about women: they're too emotional to hold power." Which gets into some interesting questions, after the jump...
Are women, on average, the same as men? Emotionally? Psychologically? In the way they approach problems and solutions? In the way they handle human relationships? When it comes to showing emotion? Is the charge "sexism" because someone is saying there is a difference between men and women or because someone is saying that the supposed difference makes women less qualified to be president, or both? (What if a female candidate were to say that the differences between the sexes make women MORE qualified than men - or at least her status as a woman makes her uniquely qualified - would that be sexist too?) Now take the word "woman" out of it altogether. Is it wrong for a candidate to say that their opponent is emotional, empathetic, and strives to settle differences peacefully, and that those aren't qualities we need in a commander in chief during wartime? Is it okay to make those charges if you leave the word "woman" out of it? Then again, Edwards did leave the word woman out of it, but since his target was a woman, you could argue that it was implied. So is it okay to make those charges against a man who is emotional, empathetic and all the rest? Or is that sexist too, or even homophobic?
I'm not sure. Discrimination is a nuanced affair. You can make the same comment about a white man and a black man, or about a straight guy and a gay guy, and what was a funny joke suddenly becomes racist or homophobic. Why? Because historical context matters when discussing prejudice. It's not that offensive to make fun of someone for being left-handed, but to suggest they're limp-wristed is a no-no. Sure, both are simply benign physical attributes, but one is historically charged, in the same way that the degradation of women is historically charged. Is that why it's wrong to comment on a woman being emotional? The same way it might be offensive, in some contexts, to suggest that a gay man is more sensitive?
I really don't know. As someone who isn't a member of the group in question (be it gay, black, woman, etc.) it's often difficult, if not impossible, to recognize more nuanced bigotry against that group - you have to have lived with it for a lifetime to recognize the more subtle stuff. But having said that, every group has its members who just aren't happy unless they can spot the daily bigot who's holding them down. And if they can't spot him, they'll create him.
65% Reporting - Clinton ahead by 5092 Clinton 39% Obama 36% Edwards 17%
UPDATE: 10:27PM. Hotline reports that the exit polls today showed a 39%-39% tie between Hillary and Obama.
UPDATE: 10:00 PM. Joe and I were discussing this, and a reader wrote in with the same analysis: If Hillary wins this, first, it's a huge victory for her. But. And the but is important. The debate will be as to how Obama had a double-digit lead coming into today and suddenly lost in a matter of hours? We suspect there will be two schools of thought - either Hillary won because New Hampshire is racist, or she won because she cried. Either way, not a great message. Having said that, if she wins, she wins, and it's a win she desperately needed, so it's still a good thing.
All polling places are closed. McCain wins the Republican race. Still too close to call on the Democratic side. Univ of NH and Dartmouth have yet to report in. Being university areas, Obama could do well.
New Hampshire Primary -- Republican President - GOP Primary New Hampshire - 61 of 301 Precincts Reporting - 20% Name Party Votes Vote % McCain , John GOP 13,347 37% Romney , Mitt GOP 9,985 28% Huckabee , Mike GOP 4,362 12% Giuliani , Rudy GOP 3,280 9% Paul , Ron GOP 3,074 9% Total Write-ins GOP 878 2% Thompson , Fred GOP 487 1% Hunter , Duncan GOP 206 1% Keyes , Alan GOP 30 0% Marchuk , Stephen GOP 18 0% Tancredo , Tom GOP 12 0%
