I’ve been asking myself this over the course of the past couple weeks, especially since he didn’t endorse before Super Tuesday when I think it really could have made a difference.
And now ABC News reports that he may back Hillary because of her “experience.”
Obviously it would seem very odd that he talked about change so much on the campaign trail and then reversed and picked Hillary. That would rank up there as one of the stranger things that’s happened so far in this campaign because it would mean Edwards is aligning himself with one of the ultimate insiders. This is somebody who unapologetically takes money from PACs and lobbyists, something he specifically stated creates an atmosphere where real change can’t happen. So yeah, endorsing Hill would be extremely odd.
My advice to Edwards is to stay out of it and remain neutral. Don’t get into the endorsement game. Don’t let the idea of being able to hold sway seduce you. Because if Gore’s endorsement, the de facto “President” in many Democrats’ eyes, didn’t matter in 2004 then why would a guy who has failed to capture his party’s nomination twice? Gore has stayed out of it this time around, and that’s a smart move. And honestly, I think most endorsements are essentially worthless. At the end of the day it’s all about a compelling message, and nobody giving somebody else a thumbs up can replace that.
But I put it to you readers…what do you think?
It seems to me that if it’s really true that John Edwards is torn about who he would endorse were he to endorse that the most reasonable course of action is to not endorse. I mean, if he feels torn because there are things he likes about Clinton, but then there are other things he likes about Obama, then he should probably just say that.
Indeed. If Edwards’ says they’re both great and lays out their strengths, I bet both of them will respond by talking about his poverty message. He’ll also build more credibility with voters by being able to demonstrate he’s above taking sides, i.e. not playing politics.