See post here.
John Edwards has been on tv for two weeks saying there was no reason for him to endorse either candidate. What changed? In two words: West Virginia. In four words: West Virginina and Kentucky. . . .
I don't think Edwards' endorsement has anything to do with who would make a better candidate. It's about ending the growing perception that Obama can't win against John McCain because he can't get rural, blue collar, less wealthy and less educated voters.
That perception was magnified yesterday with Hillary's win in West Virginia. There's concern it will grow when Hillary wins Kentucky. Since Edwards (and other Democrats) believe Obama will ultimately win the nomination, Edwards is trying to nip that line of thinking in the bud.
But, isn't this short-sighted? Shouldn't the focus of Democrats be on which Democratic candidate is better able to beat John McCain in November so we can take back the White House rather than on something as amorphous as which one stands for "change" and has "a new vision?"
And I'm still struck by the fact that Edwards gave no reason other than enthusiasm for choosing Obama and made no reference to McCain. Party unity is one thing and it could have waited three weeks. Winning is important too.
See also here.