John Edwards now supports the Democratic Nominee.

[rinsd]

Edwards Clarifies Comment On Hillary: "I Fully Expect To Support" Dem Nominee
By Greg Sargent - November 13, 2007, 2:13PM

Today at a press availability John Edwards was asked by reporters about his refusal to say that he'd back Hillary for President if she wins the Democratic nomination. The Edwards camp has just emailed me his answer:

"I fully expect to support the Democratic nominee, and I fully expect to be the Democratic nominee."

"I fully expect" to support the nominee -- not quite "I will support." It's more than, "I'm not willing to talk about that at this point," which is what he'd said earlier. But it's still not a full commitment to backing the Dem nominee.

Not sure what this is about.

Late Update: A number of commenters below say that this is a sufficient answer from Edwards. Fair enough -- I probably am guilty of overparsing here.

But -- to all the commenters screaming "bias," please understand that the Edwards campaign sent us the above quote. They wanted us to post it.

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/11/edwards_clarifies_comment_on_hillary_i_fully_expect_to_support_dem_nominee.php

Welcome aboard John.

[wyldwolf]

1. kinda sounds like "double talk" to me

He fully expects to support the Demnom IF it is himself.

[Stop Cornyn]

4. No, this is what double talk sounds like:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3467484660780558302&q=hillary+%22flip+flop%22&total=26&start=0&num=100&so=0&type=search&plindex=6

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7888319527434788195&q=hillary+%22flip+flop%22&total=26&start=0&num=100&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4590903883600937421&q=hillary+%22flip+flop%22&total=26&start=0&num=100&so=0&type=search&plindex=4

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6194684901506464758&q=hillary+edwards&total=1622&start=0&num=100&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

[wyldwolf]

7. so there can only be four instances of what you think double talk is?

:shrug:

[Tejanocrat]

8. No, Hillary has given us more than 4 examples. You just seemed soft on the concept

and need a few examples so you could see what double talk sounded like.

[wyldwolf]

14. ok.. so because you believe Hillary has done this, that means Edwards has not?

:shrug:

[ecstatic]

11. lmao nt

[SteppingRazor]

2. To quote Freud, sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar.

I think this is a little overparsing here. If Edwards doesn't get the nomination, I'm sure he'll support whomever gets it.

[MaineDem]

3. Absolutely!

He never said he wouldn't support the nominee regardless of what some here will have us believe.

I'd bet my house on all candidates supporting the nominee.

[SaveElmer]

5. Sounds like double talk and waffling to me...

I fully expect...meaning there is a possibility he won't...

[Bluebear]

10. Ooooh "waffling"

:scared:

[frazzled]

6. I guess that Times article from today made him decide he'd better answer

Saying how standard such a question is, and how unusual it is for a candidate not to answer it (given that there is a completely standard answer)--and giving Obama's and Biden's cheerful responses to the same question from last week.

It only took three tries to get him to answer it. Bit of a tin ear, I'd say.

[goodgd_yall]

9. He had to answer the idiots who didn't understand his response to a DIFFERENT question

Pure and simple.

[Skip Intro]

12. If I'm not mistaken, Edwards has given two different answers to the same question.

ah - but this is a clarification, by no means doubletalk...

[Life Long Dem]

13. Gee and I thought he would support the repub nominee. I'm being sarcastic.

Glad to see he still will not answer the question of supporting Hillary as the nominee.

[NewHampster]

15. I foresee a Third party Revolution Coming