More on Edwards REFUSAL to Say He WILL Support the Dems Ticket
by holden caulfield, Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 04:14:36 PM EST
There is wonder and anger from Democrats all over at John Edwards refusal to say that he will support the Democratic Party if he is not chosen to be our Party's nominee for President.
------------
This began with a report in today's New York Times:
So how is John Edwards feeling about Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York these days? So bad, apparently, that in an interview last week he twice refused to say whether he would endorse her should she win the Democratic presidential nomination.
It is a standard political question, which often comes with a standard answer. And it is highly unusual for a candidate to decline to answer whether he would ultimately support the party's nominee.
When asked the same question last week, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois did not hesitate.
"I am a Democrat, and I would support the Democratic nominee," he said. With a smile, he added, "I intend it to be me."
Neither did Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, who declared: "Of course. What's the choice, Rudy Giuliani?"
-------------
The item in the Times led Sen. Chris Dodd (Conn.), who is also competing for the nomination, to criticize Edwards.
"I am surprised at just how angry John has become," Dodd stated. "This is not the same John Edwards I once knew. Of course, we should all come together to support the nominee. I wonder which of the Republicans John prefers to a Democrat?"
----------
From Greg Sargent at TPM:
Today at a press availability John Edwards was asked by reporters about his refusal to say that he'd back Hillary for President if she wins the Democratic nomination. The Edwards camp has just emailed me his answer:
"I fully expect to support the Democratic nominee, and I fully expect to be the Democratic nominee."
"I fully expect" to support the nominee -- not quite "I will support." It's more than, "I'm not willing to talk about that at this point," which is what he'd said earlier. But it's still not a full commitment to backing the Dem nominee.
But -- to all the commenters screaming "bias," please understand that the Edwards campaign sent us the above quote. They wanted us to post it.
-----------
Edwards now says..."I fully expect to ".....
What the hades is with that? Why couldnt he just say "I will?"
Explain the qualifier. Its lame and insulting to all Dems.
We as a huge natiowide Party, made up of millions of voters select our nominee and we have the right to Demand that anyone who runs for office in our system - supports our Party's choice!
--------------
From the blog Urbangora:
John Edwards Imitating George Bush
There are times in the Democratic primary when I think John Edwards makes the most sense of any of the candidates and has effectively coupled a seriousness of purpose with an appropriate sense of outrage at the status quo. Then there are other times where I find him just plain annoying. Two recent moves by Edwards fall in the latter category.
The first is his refusal to promise to support Hillary if she becomes the nominee. When asked about this, he said, "I'm not willing to talk about that at this point."
This is profoundly irritating. There is an extent to which both Edwards and Obama ought to be going after Hillary, but it falls far, far short of the point that you start questioning whether you will support the Democratic nominee. Not only does this make the Democratic Party look far more divided than it actually is or should be, but it makes Edwards look incredibly petty.
-----------------
From The Carpetbagger Report:
In any presidential primary, candidates are routinely asked whether they would back their party's eventual nominee, no matter who gets the nod. As a rule, it should be an easy one -- anyone who wants to lead the party's presidential ticket should obviously want to support the party's eventual nominee.
That's disappointing.
I suspect this is an extension of Edwards recent criticism of Clinton's campaign. He's been going after her quite a bit, and by hedging on this question, Edwards seems to be saying that Clinton is so problematic as a nominee, he may not even be able to endorse her after the primaries.
But that's really the wrong attitude to take here. At some point, party unity has to mean something. It's fine to take on your rivals, but at the end of the day, Democrats have to be willing to support Democrats. The alternative is Joe Lieberman.
Dems have to believe, particularly in this climate, that any Democratic candidate would better serve the nation than any Republican candidate. That Edwards' hostility for Clinton has reached the point that this is no longer clear is not a good sign.
-------------
--------------
-----------
myDD - skin
-----------
55 Comments