Lets hope him and Albert Gore come home to Obama after Tuesday.

If he were to endorse Clinton, would we also hear that his endorsement "means nothing" to real voters, a la the Kennedy endorsements?

Speaking as an Edwards supporter (I still support his policies), I have made my choice. And it ain't Obama. I respect John's right to endorse whomever he chooses to, but it won't affect my choice, which I'm sure he'll also respect.

But I think if he does, its Obama.  Why go down with a sinking ship?  Smart move to meet with Obama the day before the campaign narrative becomes about whether Obama is inevitable.

MSNBC just called Maine for Obama. WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Could it be that the Clinton 'campaign shakeup' story was released today, on the knowledge that it'll be wiped from the news tomorrow by a JRE endorsement?

I certainly hope note, but with the Clintons you just can't help but fear that other shoe dropping.

Edwards has been a tireless fighter against unfair free trade agreements.  Bill Clinton, God bless him, created NAFTA which arguably cost the jobs of millions of the people Edwards claims to be fighting for.  For Edwards to endorse Clinton would be a slap in the face to all those mill workers and steel plant managers who he claimed to care about.

retroactive application of the USSC sentencing changes. That would be fighting for the voiceless.

I wonder how many Clinton supporters are going to have unflattering things to say about Edwards if he endorses Obama...then again I wonder the same thing about Obama's supporters.

I personally think it would behoove Edwards to maintain neutrality; but that is a lot to expect I imagine.

My suspicion is they floated it today because they thought they would win Maine.

Hillary has been running on fighting for the voiceless since well before Iowa?  I hadn't heard that.  Then or now.

If Edwards endorses Obama it would be a slap in the face to anyone who believes in universal healthcare.  Also- Obama's operative, David Axelrod who was Edward's in 2004-used many of the same buzz Edwards words and phrases for  Obama. (Also Governor Deval Patrick in MA- "Yes we can"  was overused by Patrick in his successful run for office - Patrick has been a major disappointment since taking office-major rookie mistakes-"Just words"-another speech Obama "borrowed" from Patrick- so many of the same empty slogans)  I understand that Elizabeth Edwards was quite upset by this.  Anyone who has spent time with Hillary Clinton is blown away by the depth and breathe of her knowledge, experience and commitment.  MY hope is that the meeting in N. Carolina would at least have convinced the Edwards that Hillary has the gravitas- let's see what happens with the Obama meeting-maybe he'll play a little basketball -he's such a fun guy.

If Edwards endorses Clinton, it could give her a boost in delegates, and in a tight race, every delegate counts.

Other than that, it's not going to move the needle
very much.

As a longtime Edwards supporter, I have a few things to say. I was a strong anti-Hillary voter for a long time, but as Bill Maher has said, anyone who hates Hillary is out to lunch. I have never been a Hillary hater; I just did not want the dynastic rulership to continue. That said, about the time that the MSM became The Obama/McCain Show instead of The McCain & Hillary Show, I began to smell a skunk, and my skunk sniffer is almost never wrong. Like most Dems, I like both our candidates a lot better than those we have had in a long time, and up until the race card was played, Obama was clearly my second choice. I am not blaming Obama or Clinton for playing the card. I am blaming CNN, the entity that I think has become the devil of 2008. If Karl Rove was the devil in 2000, the mantle has been passed to CNN in '08.

Now I support the lady with the cackle from the Wicked Witch of the West. The reason I do so is vague, yet secure in its position. This has nothing to do with Obama or Hillary. It has to do with the corporate entity that insists on selecting our candidates and our President for us. The skunk I smell is that CNN has simply wanted McCain to be President all along. When the pundits thought McCain could defeat Hillary, they supported The McCain & Hillary Show, but when Huckabee and Obama started to show populist support, they re-thought their plans. Try to grasp the delicate nuance of what I am saying. The diversity voters are the new evangelicals. The MSM does not really support either one: they actually support no one but Wall Street and the corporations that pay their million-dollar salaries. The Reagan Era was the time when the MSM strung along, without genuine support, the populist movement of evangelical Republicans. We are about to enter a new era when the MSM will string along, equally without genuine support, a populist, diversity voting block.

The Republicans may or may not be orchestrating this whole charade, but they are the ones who stand to gain. Obama is getting his recent success from a unification of the African-American voters, and CNN loves it! They want the whole damn mess to continue to be about race. The Democratic Party establishment wants to take over the country politically for a long time, in much the same way the Repugs do, and the race card is their ticket. They want to unify minority voters in the same way the Repugs want to unite evangelicals. Do you see? It's just two sides of the same despicable coin.

The Dems can easily lose to McCain by supporting Obama. The millions of sheeple will fall for the same old bullcrap of fear, terrorism, capitalism, and support for the troops. What I fear is that Obama's seemingly widespread support is not deep enough. It's not hardcore liberal enough. It sounds good and we all want to believe it, but I am an old cynic who has watched the Dems lose too many times to underestimate the Repugs. Hillary is far too vain and ambitious to accept the VP position. If Obama or Edwards is the VP, McCain can just kiss his fat butt goodbye, but I am sincerely worried. If McCain selects Huckabee as his VP, we shall see one hell of a fight between the diversity crowd and the Christian & Wall Street crowd. We should never, ever, underestimate these buttholes, and I fear that that is exactly what we are doing. Can you picture Obama on a Windsurfing board? I am afraid that I can.

What issues is he more in line with Obama on?  What crap.  Yesterday, Obama said he'd raise emmissions levels by 2050.  He could care a less about the foreclosure crisis.  He's to the right on Edwards and Hillary on every economic issue.  John just doesn't like Hillary so issues apparently go out the window.

I have only seen Obama tance this more partisan stance in one speech. It did not ring true and  do not expect it to last.

I think the main issue isn't the Endorsement its that the Endorsement likely comes with 26 delegates.

At this point a 26 delegate swing is a good way for the DNC to manufacture a consensus as it looks like the final count without Edwards will likely be within 26 delegates.

I would expect this to be Deans way to try and force either Hillary or Obama out of the race.

Edwards also has to consider his future influence. If he endorses Obama, and Hillary wins, he may have less influence in a future Hillary administration and vise-versa. If his endorsement is about super-delegates, he is likely to have more influence closer to the convention.

The quesiton is what does Edwards want? Does he to become Attorney General? Does he want some specific policy?

Edwards made very clear what he wants, when he withdrew. He said he got promises from both candidates to make poverty issues central to their campaigns. Since then, I think he's been watching to see whose moving towards that promise.

I don't know who he'll endorse, and what effect it will have (except the 26 delegates, and as i understand it, they will simply be released). It seems to me that Hillary has moved further towards strongly supporting poverty issues, but I'm not in discussions with her campaign and Edwards is, so we'll have to see. I do think Hillary's supporters are closer demographically to Edwards' former supporters.

That's not to say that he doesn't want something ELSE; I doubt if it's VP, though, unless he's promised a lot of autonomy. I'd love to see him as AG. But again, I'm certainly not part of those discussions.

I was ultimately unable to decide between Clinton and Obama in the Georgia primary.  Lacking an "Uncommitted" slot on my unreliable electronic ballot with no varifiable paper trail, I cast my vote for Edwards.  There is still the matter of making a donation to one the two campaigns, and I will be guided by Edwards' endorsement, should he make one.  After all, I was willing to trust JRE with my vote, my time, and my money.  Why stop now?

Besides, the fundrasing email to Edwards' supporters on behalf of the endorsee is probably the REAL prize here, not the 26 delegates (not that they aren't sought either).  

My fear in all this, though, is that an Edwards endorsement will become more fodder for those who wish to play race/gender-baiting politics ("Look at the boys ganging up on Hillary", "See the white pols working to block Obama").  It would be pathetic to see it degenerate into that, but it could happen.