So yesterday Edwards finally got off his ass and endorsed Obama, so now the question is what will his pledged delegates, superdelegates and union endorsements do? Even before he endorsed Obama the vast majority Edwards supporters went straight to Obama, so now that Edwards has officially made his choice and the primary is all but settled it would be hard to imagine them not flowing straight to Obama. Well today (actually late last nighht) we have our first, New Hampshire Democratic Party delegate Joshua Denton:
Joshua Denton of Portsmouth, 26, an Iraq war veteran, says he thinks that both Obama and Hillary Clinton would be a better president than Republican nominee John McCain. He thinks that Obama is the change the country needs, along with having the best chance of beating McCain in the general election.
"My fear with Hillary was just because she is who she is -- for better or worse -- she would sink, not just lose the presidency," but Democrats in Congress, Denton said Wednesday.
I'm sure there will be more where that came from.
Update: Today the United Steelworkers Union became the first pro-Edwards union to endorse Obama since Edwards' endorsement yesterday (other unions switched to Obama before Edwards' endorsement). They released this statement:
We find ourselves once again in agreement with Senator Edwards, this time with his decision last evening to endorse Senator Barack Obama. And thus today, the United Steelworkers enthusiastically endorses Senator Barack Obama to be the next president of the United States.
All of us, including we hope Senator Clinton for whom we have the utmost respect, must now do everything we can to ensure that Barack Obama is the next president of the United States. Now is the time for contention and division to cease, and for us to unite behind the changes for which Senator Obama and our members are calling.
Update #2: Washington Rep. Jim McDermott endorsed Obama.
Update #3: Obama was also endorsed by Communication Workers of America president Larry Cohen, who is also a superdelegate.
Update #4: It has been announced that Reps. Henry Waxman and Howard Berman of California, and both powerful committee chairs, have endoresd Obama as well. Here's Waxman:
Senator Obama’s vision for change has inspired tens of millions of Americans. And he’s also proved that he has the experience, judgment, integrity, and toughness to bring real reform to Washington. Our nation faces big challenges. We need to bring our troops safely home from Iraq. We need to solve global warming and finally enact universal health care legislation. And we need to create new jobs and strengthen our middle class. Senator Obama is the leader we need both here and around the world. He will be an extraordinary President, and I look forward to working with him to make his vision for change the new reality in Washington.
And Berman:
Barack Obama has laid out a foreign policy vision driven by principle and conviction, and he understands that our moral authority and our safety as a nation go hand in hand. I spoke with him about a number of foreign policy issues that most concern me. He assured me that he shares my views. The moment President Obama takes office, we’ll send a powerful message to the world that America is back and ready to lead again—that we haven’t abandoned the values that made us the light of the world, and neither should anyone else.
Quite a busy day.
Update #5: At least Six (possibly all 8) Edwards pledged delegates from South Carolina have switched to Obama. They are Daniel Boan, Christine Brennan-Bond, Robert Groce, Susan Smith, Mike Evatt and Lauren Bilton. You can definitely say goodbye to Hillary's WV advantage from WV.
Update #6: Obama just gained an extra pledged delegate from North Carolina, and Hillary lost one, after they actually finished calculating the vote. It seems weird that they are constantly giving Obama more delegates after the fact in all these elections, but they never underestimate Hillary's delegate numbers on election night. Not saying there is some conspiracy there or anything, it just seems odd that they always overestimate the number of delegates for Hillary. It seems to happen quite often.
After months of waiting, it is finally time. John Edwards is set to endorse Obama at 6:30 EDT tonight. This is the biggest endorsement in quite a while, but at this point it won't have much impact, aside from perhaps encourage the party to coalesce around Obama, which is always good. Unfortunately his endorsement comes too late in my mind, as the time for Edwards to prove his commitment to fighting for change passed long ago. If he was indeed serious about fighting the status quo he would have endorsed Obama soon after pulling out of the race, back when Obama's chances of winning were anything but certain. But he apparently didn't have the courage to stand up for his professed values, or stand up to the Clintons. Even Bill Richardson, Clinton friend and former appointee, endorsed Obama long before Edwards did, and he took a lot of heat for it too. But Edwards waited until Obama had all but secured the nomination before finally stepping up to the plate and standing up for what he spent his entire campaign saying he believed in. The New York Times seems to suggest that Edwards really did hold off an endorsement as part of a political calculation:
And he had another consideration: how to position himself for a job in the next president's administration. As Mr. Edwards saw it, aides said, Mrs. Clinton seemed to be more likely than Mr. Obama to win the nomination.
If that is true, that is pretty pathetic, and proves everything cynical I had ever thought of Edwards.
So, I'm disappointed that Edwards waited so long, but better late than never right? He proved he wasn't the principled "fighter" he pretended to be during his campaign, but he did eventually take the right side, which means maybe he did really mean everything he said about change, or maybe he is just a giant political opportunist...it is hard to say. I really want him to be genuine, but I just can't see how he could really be the person he made himself out to be when he failed to stand next to Obama while he got attacked by two sides in a divisive war of attrition.
Anyway, we'll see what Edwards says, maybe he can redeem himself a bit more.
We'll see if Edwards is going to actively campaign for Obama, it might take the edge off Kentucky. We'll also have to see if this means Obama gets Edwards' popular vote (about 400,000) and delegates (19--although I'm not sure if that is a current estimate, since Obama has already picked up some Edwards pledged delegates in Iowa [MSNBC is saying he has 18]). That would help to ensure the math is impossible for Hillary, not that he needed any more help.
Update: Edwards is speaking, he made a funny joke, he said that when the odds turned against Hillary she showed character, haha, well, I don't think he said "good" character, but she certainly did reveal something about her character.
Update #2: Edwards gave his usual "two Americas" speech, but didn't really focus on heaping praise on Obama, as he did with Hillary, but he did say that the people have decided and that it is essentially over.
Update #3: Pat Buchanan and the rest of the punditry are tripping over themselves to paint this in a negative light, by repeatedly emphasizing his nonexistent "white problem", by repeatedly suggesting that Obama was trying to make up for his "huge loss" in WV (as if that was unexpected or unexplained), and by trying to set up Kentucky as a must-win for Obama, even though everyone knows Kentucky is just like WV, and is an exception, not the rule. But yeah, they are just going crazy trying to paint Obama as having some electoral problem, despite no evidence of that. I don't know how people watch that stuff every day, I can feel my IQ dropping by the minute while those idiots are spewing their nonsense.
So in fewer than 24 hours after the Pennsylvania primary finished up Obama received many endorsements. Obama picked up the endorsement of Oklahoma Governor and superdelegate Brad Henry who had this to say of Obama:
I believe Senator Obama is uniquely positioned to unite our nation and move beyond the divisiveness and partisan skirmishes that too often characterize politics as usual in Washington.
Senator Obama understands that the serious concerns facing average Americans must transcend partisan games if we are to rise to the challenges of today and tomorrow. He is a strong, committed and inspirational leader, ideally suited to bring together Democrats, independents and Republicans.
Obama also picked up the endorsement of Nebraska superdelegate Audra Ostergard.
Obama also got the endorsement of 49 prominent former Edwards supporters who cited the following as their reason for supporting Obama
John Edwards has dedicated his life and career to fighting poverty in America. Barack Obama demonstrated that same commitment when he turned down a high-paying job on Wall Street to work in Chicago communities decimated by steel mill closings. Senator Obama is now the only candidate in the race who doesn’t take money from PACs and federal lobbyists. We can count on him to stand up to special interests in Washington, DC on behalf of working men and women in America.
This is yet another example of why Edwards would be a giant hypocrite and sellout if he endorsed Hillary, and it also shows that he isn't being very true to his campaign rhetoric by sitting on the sidelines and not getting behind the only candidate that wants real change.
Former Rep. Charlie Wilson, notably played by Tom Hanks in Charlie Wilson's War, endorsed Obama as well. Wilson took the opportunity to call McCain and the Republicans on their ignorant foreign policy:
I can't think of any capacity where [the Bush administration] hasn't erred as far as foreign affairs and diplomacy is concerned. This idea that the neocons have that you go in and conquer the Arab countries that have somehow offended you, and all of the sudden the world is wonderful, is just the most absurd thing I've ever heard really.
And last but not least, prominent foreign policy expert, war zone veteran, and professional peacemaker in Bosnia Sheryl Crow endorsed Obama today:
I could not be happier or more relieved to hear a presidential candidate of our beautiful but struggling country speak about consciousness and the idea of aiming for lofty goals without the cynicism we have all become accustomed to. I refuse to embrace the rhetoric that says that the kind of hope and ideals Barack Obama speaks of cannot be achieved without having the kind of leadership that has become mainstream in this country; leadership that is based on special interest monies or based on well executed fear campaigns facilitating the greed of a few and the demise of our honorable standing in the world theatre. I am proud to support Barack Obama in his desire and mission to see America return to her greatness.
I have carefully watched, like everyone else, the campaigns of both the democrats, as well as the republican candidate, and I could safely say that only one candidate is speaking to the beliefs I feel this country was founded on.
I believe, like Barack Obama, that we can change our future, but not by repeating our history. It's my belief that the idea that Barack Obama cannot do the job because of his lack of experience is an empty argument for we have put our faith in experienced Washington insiders who have lied and cheated and look where that has gotten us. And, I will not be deterred in my support of Barack Obama because of ad campaigns that are meant to incite fear in us where our security is concerned, when the candidate running the ad voted to take us into war.
It is time we demand better for ourselves and vote against the cycle of manipulation and insinuation. It is time for us to choose leaders who represent the best parts of ourselves. Everything in this life is about intention and here is our opportunity to say to ourselves and to the world that we deserve and desire better for ourselves and our offspring.
I have great hope that we will begin to see ourselves differently. And, I pray that we will begin to wake up and really emotionally invest in the plight of all people in this country as our own, otherwise, we will continue to stand divided. And, that we find it in ourselves to demand greatness from our leaders and not fall back on what we have endured for so long. It is time for us to dare to be conscious.
Reuters reports that "Former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards (currently struggling with obscurity) said on Thursday he would not accept the nomination for U.S. vice president as he did four years ago."
One problem John, no one asked.
He had his chance at making a difference a long time ago. All that talk about change versus the status quo, all that talk about fighting lobbyist influence, people loved it. I was skeptical, given how his rhetoric didn't match his record or even his rhetoric from 2004, but I gave him the benefit of the doubt. What he would do with his endorsement after dropping out was his test, to show if he really cared about change. He showed that he was all talk. He showed he didn't have the political courage to actually stand up and support change, to help unite the party and fight the status quo, who he rightfully identified as Hillary. All of his superdelegates naturally went to Obama, as did his fundraisers, his unions, and almost all of his supporters. They apparently really cared about change. As for Edwards, his 15 minutes is up, and I'm disappointed.
Today 8 of Edwards' pledged delegates from the Iowa caucus switched over to Obama, now that Edwards is no longer in the race. Hillary apparently got 1 (or lost one?), expanding Obama's already overwhelming delegate advantage by 7 (some reports are saying 9 or 10 now).
Seven (or 9 or 10) more delegates between her and her political ambitions. And for some perspective for those who haven't been paying a whole lot of attention, this is equal to or more than the number of delegates she gained in her "amazing super huge devastating game-changing blowout comeback" (if you are to believe the media's analysis) from March 4th. Add the net of 8 (9? 10?) Obama gains when they finally counted the remaining ballots in California, and the wins from Wyoming and Mississippi, he has been stomping all over her in March. Of course you would never know that from listening to the media, or Hillary's campaign, because both like to report that this is virtually a tie.
In the ever increasingly desperate spate of attacks coming from the sinking Clinton campaign there has been one in particular in the last week that is one of the most ridiculous yet. I have been tempted to blog about it, but I always just assumed it would go away and be a non-issue, because honestly, it was not only ridiculous, it was also a perfect example of Clintonian hypocrisy. Yet I apparently underestimated (or overestimated as it were) the character of Hillary Clinton, because not only did the attacks continue for days, she even brought them out in a nationally televised debate last night. So let’s talk plagiarism.
It started when Hillary’s campaign (I’m sure some lucky intern got stuck on this mission) noticed that Obama, during one of his speeches (while he was addressing another baseless attack by Hillary that words count for nothing) said a few lines that were very similar to something Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick (an Obama supporter) said in a speech back in 2006 when he was responding to the exact kind of attacks by the Republican incumbent in that race (again, Hillary loves to "plagiarize" disingenuous Republican talking points):
But her dismissive point, and I hear it a lot from her staff, is that all I have to offer is words — just words. ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, [applause and cheers] that all men are created equal.’ [Sustained applause and cheers.] Just words – just words! ‘We have nothing to fear but fear itself.’ Just words! ‘Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.’ Just words! ‘I have a dream.’ Just words!
Indeed, you could have cut and pasted those words from his speech and given them to Obama, complete with pronouns, and it would have been the perfect comeback for Obama against Hillary, in large part because the attacks were both identical. Here is what Obama said recently in Milwaukee while responding to Hillary’s attacks:
Don’t tell me words don’t matter! ‘I have a dream.’ Just words. ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.’ Just words! [Applause.] ‘We have nothing to fear but fear itself.’ Just words — just speeches!
These two sentences are obviously almost identical, as were the attacks being disingenuously levied against Deval Patrick and Barack Obama. They almost make a very good point, a very obvious point, that anyone could have come up with independently without any trouble. He wasn’t borrowing a speech, he wasn’t repeating some detailed top secret plan, he was using an example of great historical speeches by presidents that echo long after they have passed, speeches that inspired and lifted up Americans, in order to make the obvious point that words do in fact matter. Commentators have used these examples before to defend the power of words, I have referred to famous orators in the past to refute these same claims from Hillary, it is an obvious and simple argument, and could have easily been independently conceived. The idea of the example was borrowed from his friend and supporter in this case, but it doesn’t make the example any less poignant. We don’t have copywriting in public discourse, and just because someone made a point once, doesn’t mean it cannot be made again in a similar situation. To take issue with this would be incredibly pathetic, right?
Yes, it would be, and it was, when Hillary Clinton seized on the borrowed example and ran with it, attacking Obama over it for days, and using it again in last night's debate. Here is what the Clinton campaign originally had to say:
Senator Obama is running on the strength of his rhetoric and the strength of his promises and, as we have seen in the last couple of days, he’s breaking his promises and his rhetoric isn’t his own.
When an author plagiarizes from another author there is damage done to two different parties. One is to the person he plagiarized from. The other is to the reader.
The campaign also posted videos on the clip juxtaposing the two speeches on YouTube. Then, Hillary had the audacity to say it wasn’t her campaign who started all this:
It's not us making this charge, it's the media. The media is finally examining my opponent which I think is important. We're trying to pick a president, someone for the toughest job in the world.
This, despite the fact that their campaign posted the videos, and her communications director, Howard Wolfson, made the original claim of plagiarism. As Beth Fouhy of The Huffington Post put it, "Any suggestion that the story had a life of its own, apart from the Clinton campaign, is disingenuous."
Governor Deval Patrick came to Obama's defense saying:
Sen. Obama and I are longtime friends and allies. We often share ideas about politics, policy and language. The argument in question, on the value of words in the public square, is one about which he and I have spoken frequently before. Given the recent attacks from Sen. Clinton, I applaud him [for] responding in just the way he did.
Patrick also stated that he didn’t see any reason for Obama to specifically cite him as the source of the example in question. David Kusnet, former speechwriter for Bill Clinton, also weighed in on the "controversy" calling it "silly", and went on to explain how to is a ridiculous argument to accuse a public official of plagiarizing ideas, quotes or lines.
Obama has no problem giving credit where credit is due, which is actually a rarity among politicians who don’t necessarily want to constantly interrupt the flow of a speech citing every possibly similar line or example from all previous speeches from all past and current politicians anywhere in the world. Back in a speech in December:
But you know in the end, don’t vote your fears. I’m stealing this line from my buddy Deval Patrick who stole a whole bunch of lines from me when he ran for the governorship, but it’s the right one, don’t vote your fears, vote your aspirations. Vote what you believe.
Around this same time came a floor of examples of Hillary "plagiarizing" lines from all over the place, including Obama, here are just a few:
"Yes We Can" from Obama, which has become a bit of a motto of his entire campaign (which yes, is also a phrase originally used by Cesar Chavez during the farm workers rights movement, either way, she is "plagiarizing" from either Obama or Cesar Chavez by her own criteria)
Hillary "plagiarizes" from Bill Clinton multiple times
In response to the strong condemnations of Obama’s supposed "plagiarism", ABC News rightly asked Clinton campaign officials, including Howard Wolfson, who made the original attacks against Obama, if they could say that Hillary hasn’t done the exact same thing that they are now lambasting Obama for:
In a conference call just now the Clinton campaign would not guarantee that Sen. Hillary Clinton, has never used someone else's rhetoric without crediting them.
So at this point, I figured this non-issue was going to go away, because it was obviously ridiculous and desperate to begin with, and there is ample evidence that Hillary is being a complete hypocrite in attacking Obama, when she herself has been caught in more examples of "plagiarism" than Obama has. Once again, I gave Hillary too much credit. It turns out she thought it was important enough to bring to the debate, to attack Obama yet again, instead of talking about substantive issues and acting like a mature leader:
After this the debate goes on with the usual talk that we have heard in the last 18 debates. In the end, Hillary gives a "heartfelt" little speech which many pundits hailed as a big comeback finish for her, "genuine" and "sincere", showing the people the "true Hillary", just like when she teared up and saved her candidacy the day before the New Hampshire primary. To me, however, the speech came off as totally contrived, her caring completely faked…which was confirmed by the fact that she managed to plagiarize both Bill Clinton AND John Edwards in her "genuine, true Hillary" moment:
Is it possible to get hypocrisy poisoning?
Now I don’t care about politicians borrowing lines or ideas or examples from others, and I don't care if they cite them or not, but what I do care about is when supposed "leaders" disingenuously attack others on things they have done themselves. We don’t need another president who unabashedly spews hypocrisy and attacks opponents just to score cheap political points, regardless of how pathetic and without merit the attack is. And we certainly don't need a "leader" who will do this to someone in her own party, someone who is obviously going to be our nominee, and our only chance at winning the White House. I'm frankly disgusted with Hillary Clinton, and I'm amazed that every time I think she can't get any lower or pettier, she somehow lowers the bar just a little bit more.
And for the record, Obama has great experienceunder his belt, many legislative and personal accomplishments, and specific goals and plans for when he is president. Just because he is also a great orator, and can inspire and energize people of all walks of life, doesn’t mean he doesn’t have great depth and substance. It is incredibly disrespectful to try to trivialize his unique abilities, and to attack his millions of supporters as naïve or foolish.
Today is apparently a double elimination, two-for-one special. Rather suddenly, John Edwards officially bites the dust. The end effect of this is up in the air, but everyone wants the big Edwards endorsement (suddenly now that he is over he has more media attention than ever, and I'm sure the irony wasn't lost on him). All I have to say is this, if he endorses Hillary, or choses to not endorse anyone, thus leaving Obama hanging, he is a giant hypocrite. All that campaign rhetoric crap about "change" vs status quo will be out the window, he'll be turning his back on change, and basically every single campaign statement he has ever made, and trading it in for political favors. Personally I don't think this will be the case, at least I hope it won't be, because I think John Edwards is a decent guy, but nonetheless the whole thing makes me nervous. I hope it all works out to Obama's benefit, but who knows what will happen next anymore.
The primary is finally over, and now it is really time to get to work. The Republicans still think they can deceive the American people into accepting another 4-8 years of Republican disasters, so we have to keep the pressure on. Any support you can give to Obama's campaign, whether monetary or voluntary will help us keep this movement successful. The time for change is now!
