Did John Edwards Admit He Voted for Obama?

By Anastacia Mott Austin

This is what we’ve come to, folks. Listening intently to sound bytes to figure out if John Edwards said "I voted for him" or "I voted for ’em," as he insists.

And why do we care?

Pundits are falling over themselves trying to figure out why John Edwards has yet to endorse either Democratic candidate for President.

Some say it’s because he remains bitter about his trouncing by both Clinton and Obama in earlier contests. Others insist it’s because Edwards’ wife Elizabeth has said in the past that she supports Clinton. Of course, she won’t admit to that now.

Others, in a stretch to be sure, say it’s because he may still harbor hopes that if the Democratic nomination comes down to a brokered convention, he may still have a chance at the nomination himself. That’s so unlikely that still others say it’s because he’s holding out for the veep spot, and might accept an offer from either candidate.

In an interview with People magazine released this week, both John and Elizabeth Edwards sat down to talk about their views on the political race.

The couple would not outright endorse either candidate, though Elizabeth said she liked Clinton’s health plan but not the "lobbyist money" she accepts, and John said he respected that Obama "really does want to bring about serious change," but wished he would show more substance under his stirring rhetoric.

However, this week on MSNBC’s "Morning Joe" show, John Edwards had the blogosphere all atwitter as he announced what sounded very much like "I just voted for him on Tuesday."

Luckily, or not, depending on how much stock you might put into what Edwards says and whether finding out is worth spending valuable time listening to a sound byte over and over again, the moment was recorded and we can all now debate endlessly.

Edwards himself rapidly backpedaled and insisted to USA Today’s Washington Bureau chief Susan Page that, being a Southerner, what he said was, "I just voted for ’em…it wasn’t meant to be male or female."

Mmm-hmm. Right. Because saying you voted for "them" makes much more sense. For what it’s worth, I joined the flocks of bloggers with no lives and listened, a few times, to the sound byte of Edwards on "Morning Joe" and I’m sorry, but he said "him."

Now to the more important part of the question, why do we care? So what if he voted for Barack Obama? Edwards may be in trouble with his wife, but why should the nation care who he voted for, especially since he won’t come forward and outright endorse either candidate?

Political experts will tell us it’s important because Edwards’ had a small but strong and loyal following, and if he publicly supports one or the other candidate, his supporters may follow.

In particular, say the pundits, if Edwards came out in support of Clinton, his pledged delegates, who may now decide on their own who to support, may get behind Hillary, giving her a small boost in the delegate count (Edwards’ had no superdelegates behind him, but 19 pledged election delegates from earlier primaries).

On the other hand, Edwards’ support among white, blue-collar workers – the group Clinton keeps saying she’s got the clinch on – may help Obama gain more ground in this area.

But so far, despite the seemingly obvious slip, Edwards says he will eventually endorse the candidate he voted for, just not now.

His stance echoes that of the remaining superdelegates who have yet to pledge loyalty to either candidate, something that annoys voters in both the Clinton and Obama support camps. With Obama’s decisive win in North Carolina, there has been a steady trickle of superdelegates to his side, even a few defections from Clinton, which has some reports saying that Obama now leads the superdelegate count as well as that of pledged delegates.

Voters say they would like the superdelegates to decide already, but as established long-time political leaders, they are hesitant to jump in before the nominee has been decided.

Edwards did say that Obama was the presumptive nominee, and he admired the candidate’s ability to be a leader who could unite the party, something desperately needed at this point. "What he brings to the table is the capacity, number one, to unite the Democratic Party."