Recently in John Edwards Category

by Mark Adams

Survey USA:
OhioPoll
HT: Steve Soto

by Mark Adams

No doubt Senator Clinton is sorry for invoking the tragic memory of Robert F. Kennedy's assassination as a reason to stay in the race. No doubt she was not thinking like some Wise Guys making a not so subtle threat. That's not what happened.

Senator Clinton said she had been attempting to point out that previous campaigns had also continued into June.

Democrat Robert Kennedy was running for his party's presidential nomination when he was shot dead in June 1968.

A spokesman for rival Democrat hopeful, Barack Obama said Mrs Clinton's comment "has no place in this campaign".
She was not making Obama on offer he can't refuse. Not really.
"My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June... We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it."

Observers say the remarks could be damaging if people were to interpret them as an indication that Mrs Clinton believes the assassination of her rival would benefit her campaign.
Throughout this campaign, the memories of JFK, RFK and MLK have been invoked to describe the inspiration and agendas of Barack Obama and John Edwards, but not Hillary Clinton. Maybe she was feeling left out.

Unfortunately, Hillary did not talk about Robert Kennedy today as an icon of the progressive movement, a man whose leadership stands as a cornerstone of what it means to be a Democrat to a generation. She spoke of him as just another politician doing what it takes to win, and she didn't even get that right.

Here's a hint. Don't use seminal historical figures to justify your hacktakularness. Say that you want to be like them, not that your sorry-ass behavior wasn't anything worse than they did -- unless of course you're a Republican making your own icons look bad by association with you.

Just leave our heroes alone.

by Mark Adams

... to fight for Obama and to make my dream come true of appointing John Edwards as Attorney General ... it would drive Jonah Goldberg off the edge.

... the suggestion that John Edwards would be even considered for Attorney General is horrifying. I really can't think of any mainstream political figure more inappropriate for that job than Edwards.

See, since the day Edwards bowed out of the race, I couldn't think of anyone MORE appropriate for the AG job -- and now I know my instincts were spot-on.

Seriously, can you think of someone who has been more stupid, more wrong about more things than the guy who made the absurd notion that fascism is a phenomenon of the Left the running joke of Blogtopia? [Y!Sctp!]

If this is what it will take to keep the Doughy Pantload awake at night, quaking in his pee-stained footie PJ's, I'm all the more for it.

In fact, I can think of a fairly long list of bed-wetters who should lose sleep with John Edwards in charge of the Justice Department, starting with this fool.

by Mark Adams, Cross-posted at American Street

Still mulling my choices, and I know I have more than enough time to do so. The lovefest masquerading as a debate last night did little to push me one way or another. What I saw was the Democratic ticket at a panel discussion, not a pair of bickering rivals. I just can't figure out who's driving the bus and who's reading the map and giving directions.

John Edwards himself isn't making any hasty endorsements and neither am I. I've enjoyed a unique experience organizing the online effort for Ohio Edwards supporters. It's been absolutely fascinating contacting so many netroots supporters in Ohio and throughout the nation, as well as the contact I've had with the online team at the Edwards campaign.

I've never been so engaged in politics, and I've been a political junkie since the day they brought a TV into the main lodge at summer camp, something foreign to us kids roughing it in the semi-wilderness of Camp Fitch in the Pennsylvania panhandle -- and we watched Richard Nixon resign.

We Edwards supporters even have a name for ourselves that is only now starting to emerge. Edwards Democrats. Or the even shorter, slicker Edmocrats with a simple switch of the first two letters in Democrats.

We know who we are. We know how important the message that John Edwards brought to the presidential campaign was to all of us and how he forced the debate back to important issues again and again, always moving the discussion forward towards progress. He may not have gained delegates or donors, and delegates, but he set the terms of the debate and in the end, those issues he championed became the issues that now define both of the remaining Democratic candidates.

  • -- how he shined a spotlight into the dark corners of our society that the corporate media keeps in shadows and the Village Idiots who parade around Versailles on the Potomac ignore.

  • -- how uncomfortable he made all who opposed him for his righteous indignation and powerful and unwaivering theme until they simply had to adopt his message as their own.

  • -- how he led on every important issue, forcing his opponents to tinker around the edges of his plans to distinguish themselves just to remain relevant.

  • -- how he proposed a comprehensive universal health care plan that was so well thought out, and presented such an appealing way to co-opt those who cry "socialized medicine!" at every democratic medical reform initiative; yet covered everyone and provides a path to a single-payer system by forcing the free market worshipers to put up or shut up and prove the superiority of their deluded ideology by directly competing with something they hate and fear -- a parallel government run system -- a plan Hillary and Barack could only veer from in insignificant ways merely to create talking points.
And now it's over, a new chapter begins.

Suddenly there are all these policy wonks I respect making arguments (some persuasive, some stupid) why I should support the Obamanon over Hillary -- and my wife informing me that they're all morons and that we all better back Clinton or get used to perpetual war and perpetual recession because the Republicans will figure out a way to beat Barack, but not the Clintons. I learned long ago never to dismiss my wife's instincts lightly.

I mentioned George Lakoff's piece in HuffPost in my earlier post, but failed to mention that it was an argument to endorse Obama disguised as a policy piece by a renowned political scientist.

Obama's style is painted in the best possible light over Hillary's issues driven argument for the White House. Lakoff remarkably transforms the difference in style as an issue itself -- as if liberal intellectuals who have long dismissed the shallow pandering to performance points as inferior to policy details now have permission to be inspired by Obama's rhetoric because style has been promoted by Professor Lakoff into a legitimate issue.

Nice try George. I'll take that under consideration.

Paul Rosenberg, another true wonk whom I admire at Open Left insists he is not trying to make the argument that Barack Obama isn't ready for prime time -- and goes on to devastate Obama on style and substance in piece after piece.

Also at Open Left, Matt Stoller takes a quick swipe at Clinton, but notes: These people are not on our side, they only align with us more than the Republicans do.

So the quandary continues. In my opinion we have two good, "electable," sincere Democratic candidates. I could support either of them, but I doubt with the enthusiasm I had for John Edwards. I don't have the answer, yet, to Lambert's question, "What kind of politics can turn the opportunity into permanent, progressive change?"

There are so many out there right now telling me the vast philosophical differenced Hillary and Barack represent. Obama represents "post-partisanship" at a time when I believe partisan politics is what we need to forever bury the discredited conservative agenda only the entrenched still promotes. Yet Barack goes out of his way to tell us that he will fight for our values and not cave into the assaults from the right. Meanwhile Hillary blurs the differences with the expertise only decades of obscuration can accomplish by insisting that she too has a Kumbayah streak in her.

Arguments about their respective coattails are mere theory at this point, and with more and more Republicans deciding to spend more time with their think-tanks and lobbyist friends, I don't think the choice between Hillary or Barack will make or break the opportunity for a bullet-proof Democratic majority in Congress.

Both will get us out of Iraq, but not nearly as quickly nor completely as I would like. Both will address climate change, but it may be too little too late. Both will move tax policy back towards rationality, direct an effort to untie the noose the energy cartels have around our necks, throw the union busters out of the labor department, replace some of the ideologues with actual judges, and restore some integrity to our justice system and foreign service.

My big issue has always been health care, but my plan is closer to what Dennis Kucinich wants than anything we'll see coming from these two.

The press will probably give Obama a longer honeymoon than Clinton. But they will turn on any Democratic White House as they always do -- and with Bill Kristol at the NY Times and Karl Rove at Newsweek and the Wall Street Journal, the smears against even a McCain administration would start the day after inauguration day.

All of this means that for the next four years, I will have a lot less to bitch about, but I won't be so emotionally married to our next administration to lose my perspective, which is probably a good thing, for me if not the country.

by Mark Adams, (Cross-Posted at the Street)

Larry Sabato is a very smart man, having come closer than anyone I've seen in predicting the outcomes of recent elections. However I'm unclear when he made the switch from prognosticator to campaign adviser, offering this unsolicited advice to John Edwards:

Edwards can play a critical role, though. He shows every sign of continuing his campaign, which is certainly his right. But he may have the ability to determine the Democratic nomination by ending what will very likely be a losing campaign and endorsing either Obama or Clinton. (One assumes it would be Obama, given the antipathy that exists between Clinton and Edwards, but with politicians you never know anything for sure until they do it.) Usually candidates never withdraw until they run out of money or energy. Edwards may have sufficient quantities of both to last through February 5th, but he may discard his ability to play kingmaker if he waits that long. Maybe he doesn't mind: Most presidential candidates really don't care much who is President if it's not them.
I don't know about you, but I find that fairly insulting, both to the integrity of John Edwards and to my intelligence.

Actually writing publicly what I confided privately a month ago is not something I take lightly, but Sabato and the punditocracy is right to a point. Barring something catastrophic, John Edwards will not be the Democratic Parties nominee because everything hinged on Iowa.

Before Iowa, in the face of polling data that was less than inspiring, I knew that Edwards could not win without a 1st or very narrow 2nd place in Iowa. He needed to tie Obama not Clinton there and take that momentum into New Hampshire. Barring an outright win in Iowa where a 2nd place in NH would have been acceptable, he probably would have got the Culinary Union endorsement in Nevada, won NV, and improved his standing in South Carolina from respectable to inevitable.

Right now, Edwards doesn't even look viable in South Carolina. A good showing in South Carolina was the ticket to being competitive on Tsunami Tuesday, a locomotive that would steadily pick up steam and get enough free media attention to counter the gross domestic product of Micronesia that the other candidates will pour into the major US media markets in the months to come. All of that hinged on Iowa, the key domino in what was always an unlikely Quixotic journey.

We all knew that, and if we didn't do the math, knowing that Edwards practically lived in Iowa the last three years should have told us something pivotal would happen on caucus night. I know that's the reason I've learned more about the absurdity of the political dynamics of that little state than I ever wanted to.

Under the fold, I'll let you in on some of the math that bears this out, and why Larry Sabato's cynical statement is all wet. As long as he keeps going, Edwards can write his own ticket.

by Mark Adams
Cross Posted at American Street

Bartlet: (quoting) "By God, I'm 50, alive, and a king, all at the same time."
Toby: I turned it on just as they got to the scene when Richard, Geoffrey and John were locked in the dungeon, and Henry was coming down to execute them. Richard tells his brothers not to cower, but to take it like men. And Geoffrey says, "You fool. As if it matters how a man falls down." And Richard says, "When the fall is all that's left ..."
Bartlet: "...it matters a great deal."
The scene my favorite fictional president was remembering was from the Oscar winning A Lion In Winter, (1968), the story of Christmas 1182 with Henry II and a typical family get together -- everybody at each other's throats. A time when honor was held in the most high esteem, yet seldom achieved, yet the way great men and women left this world is still remembered centuries later.

A leader who knows how to fall won't just be remembered as a Richard, or a dick, but if he truly inspires, they call him Lionheart.

So the question arises what is the honorable thing for John Edwards to do now that his fall from the lofty heights of being a presidential candidate is all but certain? If you were his adviser, his Toby Zeigler knowing that the fall was all that was left, what would you tell this former Dauphin to ensure that the fall indeed mattered a great deal? How should he be remembered?

Is the honorable thing simply falling on his sword? Or should he fight on, resurrecting another memorable Peter O'Toole role, dream the Impossible Dream? Is it simply enough to have fought the unbeatable foe, trying to right the unrightable wrong -- then just walk away?

And the world, will be better than this,
That one man, scorned and covered with scars,
Still strove with his last ounce of courage,
To reach the unreachable star.
And who knows? I'll share with you all the facts and calculations that "prove" it's next to impossible for even Barack Obama to get to the White House later today, let alone why anyone should still hold out hope John Edwards has any shot in hell of even being a kingmaker.

But for now, I'm thinking that John must slog on. Besides, as Elinor of Aquitain told her Husband, Henry, "In a world where carpenters get resurrected, everything is possible."

Dang.

This is why I try so hard (yet fail so often) to not predict the outcome of political campaigns.

So, let's recap. Hillary Clinton wins this year's "Comeback Kid Award," doing something the original Comeback Kid never did: win the New Hampshire primary. Barack Obama gets the culinary workers union endorsement in Nevada, which I'm told "ensures his victory" in the caucuses there. In Michigan, Hillary is looking pretty smart now for leaving her name -- virtually unopposed -- on the ballot, so she'll get some positive press after her win there --and they'll count those delegates even if the DNC doesn't. And South Carolina? Wait and see. Same for Florida. And as for Super-duper Tuesday, it might as well take place in a galaxy far, far away.

[UPDATE: Cynics will point out that this is two elections in a row where the Clinton team was shocked by the results -- not exactly inspiring confidence in whoever is running that campaign.]

In other news:

John Edwards, who slammed Hillary for crying (and then blew off the question as to whether he himself had ever cried in a campaign setting) must feel kind of ... silly this morning. He'll be reading stories about how women voted for Hillary out of sympathy and solidarity, as evidenced by numbers showing that one-third of voters had not decided on their choice until the final three days of the campaign.

In other words, look for plenty of stories about how Edwards got trumped by the gender card ... again. Paging Rick Lazio!

[Actually, and in all fairness to Edwards, Clinton's win may have owed much more to the wave of Independent voters who voted for McCain and not Obama. Similarly, how'd the youth vote do -- did they turn out for Obama this time? I haven't seen any final results on that.]

Would it have killed John McCain to read his victory speech off a teleprompter? I got tired of looking at the top of his head while he read his dreadful victory speech word-for-word in that inconguous sing-song voice last night.

Mitt Romney: If you get a chance, watch any video of Romney's speech last night. Actually, watch Ann Romney, who was standing behind and to Mitt's left. When he says, "Well, we won another silver medal," Ann Romney briefly touches the side of her nose. In poker parlance, this is called "the tell." In other words, she's tired of hearing about the damn silver medals already and probably told him that when all the volunteers and campaign officials finally left them alone. Bet you a nickel!

Mike Huckabee: Anything is possible for him at this point.

Rudy Ghouliani: The traditional media has dubbed him the "real winner" last night, apparently because all his opponents are in disarray. That might be, but at some point the dude has to put some points on the board. That said, he did beat Ron Paul.

UPDATE: Fred Thompson: Yes, he got smoked by Dennis Kucinich AND Ron Paul.

Dear Mark Shields

| | Comments (0)

by shep

Hi Mark,

On the News Hour New Hampshire Extravaganza, I thought your answer on Hillary’s "comeback" was brilliant (also a nice point on the "is blowing 20-point lead a great victory" question). At least, I agreed with it: roughly, female sympathy and backlash at the treatment Hillary has received from the press and her rivals over that last few days (why it wasn’t reflected even in late polling) turned the female vote out for her big time.

Wish I could say the same for your answer on McCain: “the anti-Bush”. Other than finally turning on Rumsfeld, and an all-too-tepid resistance to US sanctioned torture, he’s barely been off his knees before Bush since 2000.

I think the real Republican story is that rank-and-file Republicans, particularly Evangelicals, simply reject Romney (the Mormon) and Gulianni (the philandering New Yorker) and are choosing one of their own in Huckabee. Regardless of their automaton-like fealty to the Republican Party, they have been trained to despise (any) government (pretty shrewd of Huck to play the populist) and to do (and believe) what their preachers tell them.

Oh, and the (conspicuously unspoken) story with Edwards is that the corporate media ignored, marginalized or outright ridiculed him – because, obviously, they hate his anti-corporate, populist rhetoric – so his message never reached the voters who would be energized by it. Others simply bought into the media-framed “no chance against the frontrunners” status (breathtaking chutzpa considering that he came in second in Iowa).

IMHO, for what it's worth.

Best,
[shep]

[Cross-posted at Dispassionate Liberal]

  • Hillary sheds a tear on the trail, gets blasted by Edwards. Not good for either one of them -- too late for Clinton, too harsh for Edwards, although it may be a moot point for either one.
  • Newsweek puts Obama on the cover. Most revealing part of the story? The narrative relating to Michelle Obama. This article is the first of many to come. We're all about to get to know her a lot better as we should -- far more important than a candidate's pick of a running mate is his/her pick of a life-mate.
  • Joe Trippi says the Clinton campaign is broke. Hunh. On the other hand, if Joe Trippi is so smart why isn't Howard Dean president?
  • Bob Shrum says he knows why Clinton is losing. Hunh. On the other hand, if Bob Shrum is so smart ... oh never mind.
  • Who cares what dick Morris says? He's just vile. And Bill Kristol is a wanker.
  • Hello, Walter Mondale! Hillary asks "where's the beef?" Brilliant -- she just locked up Minnesota.

Archives

Two ways to browse:

OR

Videos