I hate arrogance, I pray Edwrds supports Hillary. I want a leader not a cheerleader. It is 2008, we are at war. WAKE UP AMERICA! She can beat McCain...many HIllary supporters will vote for McCain if Obama gets the nomination...not the other way around. LOGIC.

It's sad to see the Hillary supporters so devisive. That is not what we need today. We need to come together as one party, one people, one nation. That is what Obama stands for. I think Senator Edwards will definitely support Obama. Remember, Hillary voted for the war. Obama did not!

Wow Nancy...you seem a bit peeved. Fact of the matter is that Edwards would have already endorsed Hillary if he was going to. As for your Hillary or nothing position, that's pretty lame. Leader not a cheerleader? lol. Obama has substance. He has more experience than Hillary. Only executive experience Hillary had was her blundered healthcare plan. And FINALLY, Hillary is not electable. A vote for Hillary is a vote for four more years of GOP rule.

I have posted this before. While watching C-SPAN over the weekend, several callers stated they were Republicans but voted as Democrats so Obama will be the nominee including one from downstate Illinois (Jerry White?). They are doing all they can to make sure Obama is the nominee to affect the election in November. Seriously people, this should be looked into.

Nancy, one thing you have to know is that, while some of the Clinton supporters will be voting for McCain if Obama should win the nomination, there will be alot of Obama republicans voting for Obama. We can not say that about Hillary. There is nothing like Hillary republicans is there.

Nancy, one thing you have to know is that, while some of the Clinton supporters will be voting for McCain if Obama should win the nomination, there will be alot of Obama republicans voting for Obama. We can not say that about Hillary. There is nothing like Hillary republicans is there.

Hillary has already substantially beaten McCain in Florida, a Republican state. How does anybody miss that. She didn't even campaign. She also beat Obama in Florida and he was the only candidate running advertizements (no matter how he justifies it, he violated the agreement and media ignores it). The fact that he asked someone in SC emphasizes he wanted cover for something he knew was questionable. However, when Hillary went there after the election, she was touted long and loud on CNN, Fox and MSNBC as violating the agreement.

The only reason Obama would cancel the meeting tonight before the trifecta would be if he thought he wasn't going to get the nomination, period. It would take him totally over the top.

Hopefully this means that Edwards is really thinking things out and will support the candidate that the poor and middle class support or stay out of it. Tucker on MSNBC was laughing about the demographics in Virginia tonight whipping Hillary. White, rich, college educated. How many times do you see Obama talking to his audiences? Reminds me of Bush's campaign when they wouldn't let you in unless you supported him.

NANCY...FOR OBAMA TO COME THIS FAR YOU THINK HE IS A CHEERLEADER. FYI- THE USA IS A REPUBLIC AND NEITHER A DYNASTY NOR MONARCHY. IF YOU'D LIKE TO MAINTAIN DEMOCRACY AVOID NEPOTISM, ETHNICISM, ETC. LOOK AROUND THE WORLD, THE SO CALLED DEMOCRATIC NATIONS HAVE FAILED...B/C THEY ENTERTAIN NEPOTISM, ETHNICISM, ETC. REMEMBER A GOOD LEADER UNITES A NATION...THE PRESIDENT IS NOT THE ONLY ONE WHO RUNS A NATION BUT WE THE PEOPLE ARE ALSO VIGILANTES OF GOVERNMENT. WE HAVE SEEN LEADERS WITH SO CALLED WHO DO NOT HAVE SUBSTANCE. HILLARY SHOULD JUST TAKE A SEAT AS A CONSULTANT B/C SHE HAD HER TIME AND IT IS NOW OBAMA'S MOMENT. WHY CAN'T THEY SHARE THEIR SO CALLED WISDOM...WOULD NOT SUPPORT GORE, KERRY/EDWARDS. PLEASE LET US STOP THE DIVISIVENESS AND PREACH FOR THE FUTURE...LOGIC!!!!!!!!!

Obama is about to lose relevance--because we're starting to learn the Republicans voted for him in Open primaries, and in open caucuses. So, if he's not thinking he needs to get some Edwards supporters on line, this is just the height of arrogance. Or maybe we haven't seen that yet?

I find it fascinating that different news outlets are reporting different reasons for the cancelling/rescheduling as fed by (hopefully) different Obama aides. Either the campaign didn't get on point with the same message, or several somebodies got the story wrong. All in all, it makes both the Obama campaign and the different news outlets look incredibly sloppy.

To all you Americans with Blinders on. Do you think Obama was a mis-spelling for Osama. Do you think that this is a long term muslim strategy.

Do some homework. The only candidate on the ticket is Hillary.

I can't understand how some of you are contriving this as arrogance. The media was staked out around the Edward's home, making the meeting far more of a media spectical than a meeting. To me it makes perfect sense that the meeting be rescheduled to a more private time, and I am sure this was agreed upon by both sides.

If Edwards endorses Clinton, somethings up. Somethings in it for him. He repeatedly aligned himself with Obama, calling Clinton the "status quo", berating her for having the MOST Lobbyist money. If he endorses Clinton, he sold out. Period.

"I hate arrogance, I pray Edwrds supports Hillary. I want a leader not a cheerleader. It is 2008, we are at war. WAKE UP AMERICA! She can beat McCain...many HIllary supporters will vote for McCain if Obama gets the nomination...not the other way around. LOGIC."

what makes you think she can beat mccain?

As an (international) outsider who obviously won't be voting, but who's watching this race really closely, I can definitely see both sides of the Clinton v Obama debate. If Hillary is nominated, some Dems will either refuse to vote in the general election, or vote McCain. The exact same thing will happen if Obama is chosen over Clinton. I think Edwards would be better to stay away, and avoid endorsing anyone. His endorsement has the potential of upsetting way too many of the party faithful, no matter which way he goes. That said, the longer the fight goes on, the better for the Republicans. If it isn't already, this race is threatening to get messy for the Dems in terms of the delegate count (Florida, Michigan, the New Mexico recount) and the last thing the party needs (or wants) is a brokered convention in August. The best theory I've seen out there in the blogisphere and media generally is for Clinton to be at the top of this 'dream ticket' with the potential for the Dems to hold onto power with Clinton for two terms, and then Obama for two terms. Maybe this is wishful thinking, but it's hard to see either candidate putting any meaningful distance between the other with pledged delegates, even after Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania. There's a million different estimates I've seen out there for the delegate as well as popular vote count, depending on which camp's political 'spin' you believe, or news organisation you prefer. What goes without saying is that this is a statistical dead heat, with Democratic voters torn 50-50 straight down the middle. At the end of the day, the political reality will surely force these two onto the same ticket?

Obama isn't relevant because some Republicans voted for him? Please be serious. He won by large percentages in several states with record turnout numbers for the primary. Heck, my yellow dog could probably beat the Republicans this year, so if you like Hillary, then vote for her but please ease up on the silly conspiracy theory stuff.

Obama's cocky messianism is going to cost him in the end. Sure, he has attention from youth, so so did Paris Hilton. Big deal.

Edwards is a wise man. He doesn't need to publicize his endorsement to anyone, especially to Obama. His head's big enough as is.

Edwards lost the race for John Kerry so if I were Obama or Hillary, I would avoid his endorsement like the plague!

Remember, Hillary voted for the war. Obama did not!

Posted by: Mia | February 11, 2008 6:09 PM

Obama couldn't vote one way or other; he wasn't even in the Senate; he was still an Illinois state senator. Can you honestly predict what way he would have voted if he was in the Senate at that time given the circumstances and the false intelligence rammed down the throats of our legislators in Washington? Washington D.C. is not Illinois. In fact, the New York Times reported the following:
"Though Mr. Obama is framing his candidacy to appeal to Democrats who have long opposed the war, until recently he was not among his party’s most outspoken voices against it...." "These days Mr. Obama dismisses the suggestion that it was easier for him to speak against the war because he was not serving in the Senate and therefore not obligated to vote on the matter. He recalled worrying, at the time, that he might lose his Senate primary election because of his decision to oppose the Iraq invasion."*

*http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/26/us/politics/26obama.html

An example of opportunistic politics where a decision is based on the degree of self-promotion.

Be clear.

LADIES....LET'S MAKE HISTORY.....VOTE HILLARY 08....THE ONLY CANDIDATE!

V Cast writes: "To all you Americans with Blinders on. Do you think Obama was a mis-spelling for Osama. Do you think that this is a long term muslim strategy."

YOU'RE the one with blinders on and a lobotomy to boot.

To answer your question, NO we don't think someone having a name that sound like bin Laden's is part of a secret strategy.

Do you have any proof to back up such absurd claims? Of course you don't, you're just spouting off from your posterior.

Or maybe you received an email from some other pinhead and just assume it to be right without bothering to verify anything.

What color is the sky in your world?

Say Nancy,
Perhaps you better wake yourself up. Hillary Clinton has accepted vast amounts of money from the oil industry and the weapons industry. Use some of that profound LOGIC of yours, put one and one together, and tell how quickly she will get us out of the retarded war she voted for. I do believe, however, that you and your ilk would vote for McCain and his "10,000 year war" - as you are already halfway there supporting Hillary.

Helena,
It is so incredibly retarded to vote for or against someone because of their sex.

Obama vs. McCain = Obama
Clinton vs. McCain = McCain

Count on it.

Anybody who thinks the Republicans are going to vote for Obama is a puts. Of course they say that NOW, hello?, but come November and they'll go for their nominee. Mark my words. Of course they hate Clinton, because she has a chance to beat their nominee and of course they love Obama because they have a chance to beat him. But if Obamaphiles (Joel Stein's word) are so keen to believe the Reps. then go ahead vote for Obama and watch the Republicans take the White House in November. What is that saying about the Republicans falling in line and the Democrats falling apart? Sadly, it seems to be happening and the question is: who will take the heat for that?

The republicans are scared to death of Hillary Clinton and salivating over the prospect of going up against Obama.

When Republican pundits say they are afraid of Obama, you can bet the opposite is true. They are not stupid you know.

Given the involvement of the Obama campaign's National Finance Chair, Penny Pritzker, in the Superior Bank S&L Scandal (which cost U.S. taxpayers $440 million), Edwards should endorse neither Obama or the Clintons. (See following article)

Obama’s Pritzker/Superior Bank S&L Scandal Link?

Penny Pritzker is the National Finance Chair of 2008 Democratic Party presidential candidate Barack Obama’s campaign. Yet according to the Encyclopedia Judaica, the Obama campaign’s national finance chair “served as chairman of the Superior Bank from 1989 to 1994, but the savings and loan institution collapsed” in July 2001.

Created at the end of 1988 as the successor bank to the failed Lyons Savings Bank, the Oakbrook Terrace/Hinsdale, Illinois-based Superior Bank was 50 percent owned by Chicago’s billionaire Pritzker family. Yet, according to an Oct. 16, 2001 statement before the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs by Ely & Company Inc. President Bert Ely, the Pritzker family’s Superior Bank “started life with enormous tax benefits and a substantial amount of FSLIC-guaranteed assets under a FSLIC Assistance agreement.” In a Dec. 2002 article (“Tremors In The Empire”) that appeared in Chicago Magazine, Shane Tritsch noted, for instance, that for investing $42.5 million in the failed Lyons Savings Bank before it was reopened as Superior Bank, the Pritzkers and their business partner received an estimated $645 million in federal tax credits and loan guarantees; but “by one estimate, it would have cost the government $200 million less simply to shut Lyons down.”

Yet according to Ely’s Oct. 16, 2001 statement, “Superior’s trick, or business plan” under Penny Prtizker’s chairmanship was apparently “to concentrate on subprimelending, principally on home mortgages, but for a while in subprime auto lending, too,” after the Pritzkers’ bank acquired its wholesale mortgage organization division, Alliance Funding, in December 1992.

With a business loss estimate of between $350 million and $1 billion, the 2001 failure of the Pritzkers’ Superior Bank represented the largest U.S.-insured deposition institution to fall between 1992 and 2001. But according to a Feb. 7, 2002 report of FDIC Inspector General Gaston Gianni Jr., “the failure of Superior Bank was directly attributable to the Bank’s Board of Directors and executives ignoring sound risk management principles.”

Coincidentally, the Obama presidential campaign’s National Finance Chair was a member of the Superior Bank’s board of directors which apparently ignored sound risk management principles. As the Aug. 7, 2001 issue of the New York Times observed:

“The Pritzkers controlled half the board seats. Penny Pritzker…was on the board, and Glen Miller, a top financial officer in the Pritzker organization, was chairman of the audit committee…Penny Pritzker…was designated…to watch over the Superior investment.”

Business Week magazine also noted in a Sept. 10, 2001 article (‘The Pritzkers’ Empire Trembles”) that “as of July [2001],” Penny Pritzker “was still a director of the thrift’s holding company, Coast-to-Coast Financial Corp….”

The Superior Bank board of directors on which the Obama presidential campaign National Finance Chair sat “paid dividends and other financial benefits without regard to the deteriorating financial and operating condition of Superior,” according to FDIC Inspector General Gianni’s Feb. 7, 2002 report. As Ely & Company Inc. President’s Ely’s Oct. 16, 2001 statement observed:

“Superior paid $188 million in dividends in the 1989-1999 period, which gave Superior’s stockholders an 18.1 percent pretax cash return on their initial investment of $42.5 million in Superior.”

Before Superior Bank’s 2001 collapse, stockholders like the Pritzker family members also “may have reaped additional profits from the substantial tax benefits the Federal Government gifted to them” when they acquired the failed Lyons Savings Bank in 1988 and created the successor Superior Bank, according to Ely’s Oct. 16, 2001 statement. Between 1992 and 1998, for instance, Superior Bank claimed a Federal tax credit of $10.6 million and only began to pay a meaningful amount of Federal income tax in 1999.

To avoid being punished for the failure of Superior Bank, the Pritzker family agreed to pay the FDIC $460 million. Yet even with this settlement, the failure of the Superior Bank due its board’s apparent mismanagement cost the federal thrift insurance agency (and U.S. taxpayers) about $440 million.

The 1,400 Superior Bank depositors whose savings deposits in excess of $100,000 were uninsured, however, brought a federal civil racketeering suit against Penny Pritzker and other former Superior Bank officials. Not surprisingly, Business Week magazine reported in September 2001 that “the collapsing Superior Bank, a $2.3 billion thrift that” Penny “Pritzker chaired from 1989 to 1994” was “ putting the family business savvy under the klieg lights in Washington and beyond.”

Less than two years after the U.S. Senate’s Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs held a hearing on “The Failure of Superior Bank,” former Superior Bank Chairman of the Board Prtizker, coincidentally, began to financially back Obama’s 2004 campaign to become a U.S. Senator from Illinois. As David Mendell recalled in his 2007 book Obama: From Promise To Power:

“Obama was confident that he was destined for more than a day job running a foundation or practicing law or languishing in the minority party in the Illinois senate…He invited a group of African-American professionals to the house of Marty Nesbitt, who had served as finance chairman of his congressional campaign. Nesbitt is…vice-president of the Pritzker Realty Group, part of the Pritzker family empire…Nesbitt arranged a weekend gathering to help Obama reach inside the deepest pockets he knew—those of the Pritzker family…

“…Nesbitt knew that if Obama could sell himself to Penny Pritzker, her support would not only reap huge immediate financial dividends but also be a crucial step in the foundation of a fund-raising network.

“So in late summer 2002, Obama, Michelle [Robinson-Obama] and their two daughters drove to Penny Pritzker’s weekend cottage along the lakefront in Michigan about forty-five minutes from Chicago…”

Given the past involvement on the board of a failed savings bank that engaged in financially reckless subprime lending of the 2008 Obama presidential campaign’s National Finance Chair, it’s not surprising that an article in The Nation magazine (2/11/08) by Max Fraser, titled “Subprime Obama,” reported that “only Obama has not called for a moratorium and interest-rate freeze;” and that Josh Bivens of the Economic Policy Institute said that “There’s been less emphasis from the Obama campaign on the really dysfunctional role of the financial industy in the subprime mess.”

Incidentally, former Superior Bank Chairman Penny Pritzker contributed $100,000 to the Democratic National Committee [DNC] in 2000.

Please see the latest national polls:

Obama 48%, McCain 42%
Clinton 43%, McCain 43%

No other candidiate will galvanize the right wing Republicans like Hillary Clinton. They will come out in droves to defeat her.

Just put Obama up in the debates against old man McCain and see what happens.

The Republicans I know who voted for Obama did so because they feel betrayed by the direction the current administration has taken the Republican party. They realize that Obama is the best candidate in the next election; that only he can bridge the current divide.

Obama's speech against the war was not an act of self-promotion. At the time, he was in a tough battle for the US Senate. His stand was not the most popular, but Obama stood up for what he believes in.

Fact: The majority of democrats not up for re-election in 2002 voted against the war. Hillary was in the minority in her own party. She didn't bother reading Senate intelligence reports. She insisted her vote was not an authorization for war when the resolution was titled, "An Authorization to Use Military Force Against Iraq."

Six years later, Hillary still refuses to admit that her vote was a mistake. Not only did she blunder the most important foreign policy issue of the last 20 years, but she also refuses to admit past mistakes. Those are not qualities I look for in a president.

Nancy, Hillary is not a leader. She failed us on the most important subject, our armed services. She voted to send our sons and daughters to fight a war for Haliburton. She is a political opportunist and doesn't deserve to a Senator let alone President. She had her chance to lead and lied instead....

I can only hope that Edwards endorses Hillary Clinton.

I was an Edwards supporter and YET again I was unable to cast a living vote for the candidate of my choice in the Massachusetts primary.

All this primary has done is strip the party of it's best candidate and left us with an unnecessarily weakened candidate or an unsupportable one.

I cannot, just cannot vote for Barrack Obama. With the troubles coming to the country it's irresponsible that he's running seriously rather than as an introductory campaign.

I've been a Democrat all my life and I hope the party doesn't embrace the happy harikari that Obama's offering.

I am a former Edwards supporter and I, for one, hope that he does not endorse Hillary Clinton. I used to hope and pray that he endorses Obama but, quite frankly, at this point, I don't know if an Edwards endorsement would even matter for Obama. Obama seems to be doing pretty well on his own. If Edwards was going to do it, he needed to do it before Super Tuesday, which he didn't. And if he does endorse Clinton, I, as a former Edwards supporter, will lose all respect for him.

Oh, and by the way Nancy, take a look at these results since your initial post --

Maryland --
Obama 60%, Clinton 37%

Virgina --
Obama 64%, Clinton 35%

D.C. --
Obama 75%, Clinton 24%.

Sorry Nancy.

I am an Edwards supporter who dearly hopes he endorses neither candidate. It would compromise his own principles, and it would be too divisive. It looks like I may be right about the latter.

Vote for McCain out of spite???!!! What exactly would that accomplish?

The deal with democracy is that we each agree to accept the will of the majority. We may not always be pleased by it, but we have committed to the ideals of the group knowing there will always be differences. The main set of beliefs should prevail.

Better to not vote at all than vote against your own party in this election. Think how harmful that would be to the country.

Obama has a cult following. He has no substance. He is all about selling blue sky. He speaks very well but his past actions do not support his speeches. He reminds me of Sir Laurence Olivier many years ago when he received an award. The entire audience was absolutely wowed by his speech - after all, he was a classical actor. Days later everyone started to dissect it and found it sounded wonderful but made absolutely no sense. And that's Obama. Watch his eyes when he gives his speeches. They're always the same. He is a well-rehearsed actor and he is seducing the country. Unfortunately, his fall (and it will happen) will probably hurt a lot of us.

Harry, a local Dem party official here said the same thing about Obama. She had met him, Clinton, and Edwards at private fundraisers, and said he was the only one she couldn't connect with. She said it was because he had this blank look in his eyes, like he just "wasn't there," or wasn't focused on the person he was talking to. And she also said that everything he said and did seemed rehearsed. She really wanted to support him, but said he turned out to be huge disappointment.