http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/1...9475/761/458933

Yo, John! It's Time to Sh*t or Get Off the Pot
by democracy8888
Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:08:48 AM PST
The John Edwards endorsement watch has gotten ridiculous, with each major candidate "sneaking" off to kiss the ring of the third place finisher. It smells like political vanity to me...

[continue below the jump]

(brought to you by: http://www.freedomroadproject.blogsp...

democracy8888's diary :: ::
I lost a lot of respect for Edwards, given all his bluster about being a fighter and given his withering attacks on Hillary Clinton as the candidate of the "status quo," when he decided to wait out the election to see which way the winds might blow before making an endorsement. I suspect, more than anything else, Edwards is angling for a spot - ANY SPOT - in a Clinton OR Obama administration. If true, this undercuts his whole persona as a crusader for key progressive values and makes him out to be just like every other scheming, ambitious politician. He claimed to be different...

To me, Edwards and Gore are very similar political figures: lots of pious bluster, but very little real backbone; Neither of them advocated strongly for the issues they now champion when they actually had institutional political power. Al Gore clearly loves his celebrity status as moral conscience of the nation on the environment; he has literally grown fat off of that celebrity persona. Yet, Gore has undermined that position by being unwilling to try to affect policy for real change. I understand why he might not want to run for office himself, but I think, given his moralizing and apocalyptic rhetoric, that he has an obligation to use his clout to try to put people in office that WILL affect policy on climate change. Ultimately, policy change is central to any broader and substantive environmental change.

So, John and Al, how about growing a backbone and taking a stand. Yes, that stand might mean some political risks, but that is how it works.

Put your money where your mouths are. It is time to sh*t or get off the pot...

What do YOU think about John Edwards and Al Gore? If Edwards does jump in with an endorsement, what - if any - impact do you think it will have on the race at this point? Might it tip the balance to Hillary or Barack? Might it sway a significant number of working-class white or lefty voters to whoever he chooses? Or, has he waited too long and have most of his people already reshuffled to a new candidate? And what of Al Gore's studied silence in this race?

He's got something to barter with. Bush would call it political capital. If he uses it as leverage to get one of the other candidates to commit to making some of his priorties a part of their agenda, that is to make populist positions a larger part of their platform, what's wrong with that? To some degree he's already done so. His campaign gave voice to the concerns of millions of voters, and and those concerns deserve to be addressed by whomever the candidate is. If Edwards has to do some influence peddling to accomplish that, well he should.
Gore? Why would someone who has disavowed politics be politically motivated? His disdain for the whole process is warranted.

I agree with the title. The guy is just holding this endorsement over the heads of clinton and obama, so he will stay relevant. However, there are two problems:

1. Most of Edwards supporters now back Obama and are unlikely to run to clinton because John says so.

2. He was waited too long. His endorsement might have had an impact if he did it a day or two after he dropped out, not a month later. Each passing day, it becomes more and more pointless. I don't even know why Obama bothered to go to his house yesterday. Most people have forgot that he was even in the race at one point. Too much has happened, the other campaigns have done a lot since edwards bowed out. Edwards' supporters have gone to the camps they have wanted to go to and have solidified around Obama or Clinton. No one is going to be swayed by his endorsement. He missed the boat and it no longer matters what he says.

He could endorse clinton for all i care, it doesn't matter anymore.

To agree would be to reconcile your understanding of certain facts with the author's. Did I miss some facts that make his opinion the only plausible one? Or do you just think that he's probably right by way of cynicism?

You have asked some very interesting questions. I am going to spend a lot of time thinking about them, so don't be suprised if i never actually answer.

rhe·tor·i·cal ques·tion


noun

Definition:

question requiring no answer: a question asked for effect that neither expects nor requires an answer

I think the article assumes way too much.
If you don't know the facts, assumption is all that's left.

That's not to say the assumption isn't correct. However, it's still none the less an assumption and can only at best be assumed to be correct.

If though in making these sorts of statements you use words such as, Maybe, I think, or possibly, then the implication is that you don't know for certain, and in fact you are expressing an opinion on a perceived issue.

Maybe someone outta ask John?