this is at the level of petty gossip.

gossip is so beneath this website.

go Obama.

yep. petty and gossipy.

when I read this, I immediately asked who the heck is:

"...a Democratic strategist unaligned with any campaign but with knowledge of the situation gleaned from all three camps..."

It sounds as if he was in Edwards' home serving the coffee.

A witness who won't tell us his name isn't giving us much to trust.

That said, I can see this happening. It could be very true. But I still file it under 'rumor'.

My opinion of Edwards' actions was that he is holding out his very important sway until it is most useful. He still wants power, and by NOT committing to a candidate, who still need his endorsment, he has it. And so his issues must still be addressed.

Hmm.. the more I think about it, this kinda gossip just makes me ill. lets stick to facts, please.

Isn't it a riot that the media are wringing their hands over what Edwards thinks NOW? Shit, maybe if they were paying attention to more than haircuts a few months back, we'd be sending the right man up against McCain already.

His response to Edwards’s imprecations that he make poverty a central part of his agenda was shallow, perfunctory, pat.

So first this seems like rumor.

But then I am tempted to assume its true. Then, I ask myself, What would I do if I had just crushed John Edwards in a state he campaigned for seven straight years and the state of his birth and he sat me down to tell me how to change my message, and then had my healthcare plan attacked by his wife?

Perfunctory would probably be the nicest imaginable description of my response.

The pompous Latin and catty adjective choice made me have to look twice to make sure it wasn't another Lemos concoction.

Brian Donohue,

Totally agree! Thanks for that little piece of commentary. That's the real issue - all this quibbling over Hillary or Barack is just arguing over which centrist is more electable.

Either way though, I'll happily vote for them over McCain because he's truly frightening.

I can believe that Obama may have blown it with Edwards, but Edwards standing as the arbiter of someone's credentials on health care and poverty is kind of rich. He ran a fine campaign on these things but has almost no record on them. If I were Obama I would also be thinking "Why am I supposed to be sucking up to this guy?" It's not as bad as having to suck up to Kos, but it's up there.

The neo-populist and the hopemonger had spent months tag-teaming Hillary Clinton, pillorying her as a creature of the status quo, not a champion of the kind of “big change” they both deem essential.

And HRC and Edwards 'tag-teamed' Obama on healthcare. And Obama and HRC 'tag-teamed' Edwards by talking among themselves, and pretending it was already a 2 candidate race. In short, they played off one another and formed temporary alliances when it was to their political advantage.

“Elizabeth hasn’t always been crazy about Mrs. Clinton” is how an Edwards insider puts it; a less delicate member of HRC’s circle says, “Elizabeth hates her guts.”

Oh no! Did they fire Elizabeth from her role as candidate's wife for this oh so terribly mean and hurtful statement? Why hasn't the media distracted us with this bullshit before this? If they don't rush to report it, and let it dominate the news cyle for a week, we'll have to talk about something real, like in the Iraq and our economy! Oh no!

For all its rhetoric about practicing a new, more virtuous brand of politics, the Obama campaign has been going after Clinton hammer and tongs. Rarely a day passes without his people dubbing her a liar and a fraud.

Practicing a 'virtuous brand of politics' does not mean exempting the other candidate from criticism. And when she tells a ridiculous and absurd lie, is refuted by the facts, sticks to her lie, until at length a video shows her actual arrival, then it is not illegitimate to point out the now obvious--that she is a liar. And if she has built her campaign around such foreign policy 'experience' as being greeting by little girls with flowers on air-strips, then it is also fair to point out that her vaunted 'experience' doesn't amount to much than a lot of exaggeration--as her schedule shows--when not our right lies--as Bosnia shows.

I don't think she should quit, but I do think she should read the writing on the wall. She should stay in and run a solid issues based campaign and concede after the final primary.

Winning for her now means:

A. Obama Self-Destructs. Obama makes a fatal mistake. Like stepping in font of a bus, or they find a dead body in his basement.

B. The voters change their mind. Something radically changes the national dialog. Like a nuclear bomb in Golden Gate Park, or dogs spontaneously learn to speak human.

C. Hillary out 'politics' Obama. The super delegate vote breaks her way and overcomes the pledge delegate gap.

Option A and B are the reasons that Hillary should stay in the race. If those things happen, she'll destroy McCain in the general. But if it's option C, then there will be a lot of pissed off independents who might have voted Democratic this time around and a lot of pissed off Democrats who are not to keen on the whole super delegates thing. Basically winning with option C will mean that she'll have one hell of a tough time winning the general election.

"Winning for her now means:"

Yes, you're right. She could have stayed in the race after February and won in scenarios A and B by running a slow-burn, attack-McCain-mercilessly campaign. She could have conceded (not in so many words, but with her actions) that she had almost no chance while staying in on the grounds that that it's absurd to drop out behind 150 delegates when the other guy has not wrapped it up yet. Even if she would have done that, she would have had a 1-5 percent chance. All the maneuvering and attacking has increased her chances very marginally. Forget about what she's doing to Obama, she should think about what chances the Democratic nominee will have if she gets the nomination. Her negatives will be in Bush territory by then.

madfarmer:

I wonder is Charles Lemos & Norm have an Ed Norton / Tyler Durden thing going on here.

In any case, if Edwards truly prefers Hillary to Obama, I expect his endorsement will arrive sometime between now, and her ultimate defeat this summer. Any day now...

There are also rumors that Al Gore prefers Obama because he doesn't like the Clintons. In the end, it's just rumors. And in the end, it's whoever has the most pledged delegates. Does anyone truly believe that the so-called "Superdelegates" would go against the pledged-delegate vote?

Thaddeus:

Winning for her now means:

I think you sum things up admirably. But I am a little surprised you grant any credence to (A.) or (B.). (B.), while possible, is obviously grasping at straws, magical thinking, as you pretty much concede. (A.) might have been vague worry without much to motivate it. But what no one has noted about the Wright episode is that Obama didn't just bounce back to where he was in the polls, as though 'recovering': he's shot ahead and now has a 10 point lead over Clinton in national polls with Democrats, his first double digit lead over her since the primary began. Some of that probably had a more than a bit to do with Clinton's bad press week (re: Bosnia), but I think he also clearly took a negative and turned it to his advantage. He can clearly do damage control, and I find wildly implausible that someone with his political skills is going to shoot himself in the foot.

Meanwhile, the allegedly "experienced" executive cannot and is not paying her own bills, . It's easy to be a "fighter" when it's all just talk--including talking about doing things, which she seems to consistently conflate with actually doing things.

that should say "her own bills, including health care premiums for her own campaign staff."

Not sure why I am having trouble linking these days: I'm not doing anything differently???