John Edwards reminds me of my college friend Whitney...

[CoffeeCat]

When I was in college, a friend of mine had a dilemma.

She had been dating this guy for three years and loved him.
However, they met when they were younger, and she found
herself doubting the relationship.

At college, Whitney was introduced to this really gorgeous
guy. She had classes with him and got to know him and started
falling for him.

She was an emotional wreck. She had a long history with one
and was really starting to like the other.

She came to me, looking for advice. She wanted me to help her
make a choice. She was torn between the person with whom she
had a long history, and the excitement of a new person.

She was so hyperfocused on these choices, and so insistent
that her problem was "which one do I go with?".

My answer to her, "Sweetheart, if you are struggling between these
two, then the answer is neither. If either one of them was 'the person'
you wouldn't be struggling and you wouldn't be in my dorm room asking
me what to do. You obviously have misgivings about both of them.
Instead of making a choice, why don't you just chose yourself and move
forward with your life without forcing a choice. Stand on your own
two feet without either of them."

That was my advice to Whitney, and it would also be my advice to John
Edwards right now.

[Horse with no Name]

1. Stellar advice. n/t

[Occam Bandage]

2. Here's what I believe is a slightly more accurate depiction:

There was a young man named John. He was a very talented salesman, and there were two start-up companies that were offering him a job. Both offered him similar positions, and promised to give him similar responsibilities. But the two companies were in direct competition, and only one would be able to survive. He knew that he was talented, and could give the company he chose a boost. But if John picked the wrong one, he would be unemployed.

So John decided to wait until things became more clear.

[blondeatlast]

5. Indeed.--smart non-move on his part. nt

[spooky3]

7. you could be right but I don't see it that way for these reasons

(a) He is wealthy enough that he doesn't need to grovel for a job in any administration. He would take one only if it gave him the opportunity to advance the things he cares most about to a greater extent than his private approach could. So your "unemployment" analogy doesn't hold.
(b) He is more interested in getting his issues advanced than in the benefits to himself, because he's lucky enough to have the option to sit on his veranda and sip tea if he chooses--or return to his law practice. The only inducement of an admin. job is that it could give him more power to get things done.
(c) If he felt the way you say, he would have said from the beginning that he would stay neutral. Once there is a clear winner emerging, he has no "chips" to offer as an incentive to get attention to his issues. The winner would likely blow him off unless s/he thought he would be helpful in the administration; an endorsement wouldn't have any value.

[Occam Bandage]

9. Yes, yes, yes, he wants to advance his issues. And he's a politician. Politicians know

that the best way to advance your issues is to take a position of power. You don't take a job in politics for the money.

Why would he say from the beginning he'd stay neutral? His value is maximized if his endorsement is a possibility, if there is a clear leader, and if there is still a threat of the other candidate coming back to win.

[karynnj]

10. employment conveys more than a pay check

Both his and the op's analogies work. IN JRE's case, taking a"job" would equate to being on that team - presuably both in winning the election and going forward.

[spooky3]

3. I like it; I want him to stay neutral.

Of course I realize that JRE has a lot of critical info we don't have. He may decide he has good reasons for speaking out later.

[PATRICK]

4. I think

he is taking the active role every other party supernumeray is- on behalf of the party and November. I think he is trying to help them resolve the contest peacefully with the least damage and the best platform. Of course that is the noble interpreatation but it is also the most necessary since an endorsement can actually make everything worse for everyone. It is unlikely to be actually effective but can be perceived as unduly influential nevertheless.

He might want to start a call to unity should the process become more clear than it is now and cut off grim moves to fight it out on the Convention floor with uncomfortable superdelegates. After the meetings with Hillary she came out against new elections in Florida and Michigan. Obviously she is not prepared in any way to concede anything and has signalled her intent to make it go to Texas and Ohio. It might be that Edwards was trying to get her realistically to face the poll music- which might not be clear to us but from an insider point of view might be more decided than even the most energetic ordinary Obama supporter realizes. So this the crucnhc point and there is Edwards and people assume he is angling for personal advantage or is bargaining his role as an endorser rather than advocate. I think the individual candidate's want the latter more than he does. He wants to help arbitrate the end of the contest and it isn't time yet.

[spooky3]

8. interesting point

[PATRICK]

6. dupe/delete