|
||
John Edwards Is A Loser
John Edwards is a loser. He has won exactly two elections in his life and lost 31. Only one of his wins and all of his losses were in presidential primaries and caucuses. He remains perfectly positioned to continue to lose with a Kucinich-like consistency. Nothing but egomania keeps Edwards in the race now. All presidential candidates are egomaniacs but some of them have party status worth preserving that forces them to drop out when they hit the wall. A loser like Edwards has no status or dignity to lose. Campaigning and losing is his life. So, he will continue his simple-minded, losing campaign and deny Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton the one-on-one contest they deserve.
If John Edwards stays in the race, he might, in the end, become nothing other than the Southern white man who stood in the way of the black man. And for that, he would deserve a lifetime of liberal condemnation.
Maybe Edwards is already not a factor in the campaign because Edwards voters would split evenly between Senators Obama and Clinton if Edwards dropped out. But we'll never know unless Edwards does the right thing and gets out of the way of the only two candidates who have a chance to get the nomination.
The white male monopoly on the Democratic nomination has finally come to an end. Someone has to tell John Edwards.
Related: Jane Smiley: Shut Up, Larry
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
The final word to Larry, from a letter to John Edwards from Martin Luther King III -- who is far better equipped to speak about "black man" vs "white man" than Larry:
"So, I urge you: keep going. Ignore the pundits, who think this is a horserace, not a fight for justice. My dad was a fighter. As a friend and a believer in my father’s words that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, I say to you: keep going. Keep fighting. My father would be proud."
Read the full letter at
http://www.johnedwards.com/news/20080121-mlk-iii-letter.pdf
Edwards, ahem, *beat* Clinton in Iowa, so logic goes out the window from the get-go here. But playing along, how exactly does Edwards's continuing his campaign obstruct any other candidate from becoming the next president -- the premise of the post being that Edwards is such a losing loser guy and all? Doesn't that mean that one of his non-Southern- white-male betters will, by very definition, win, prevail, and gloriously triumph? What'd I miss?
Oh yeah Larry, elections about being white, black, male or female ... not about the serious issues facing the nation. So far America as a nation has been losing for 8 years straight on jobs, national deficits, trade deficits, a functional justice system, habeas corpus, bill of rights, wars, and peoples homes but I'm rooting for it still. Who are you rooting for?
One has to agree, Edwards keeps running on something other than batteries. What? You say, an attorney with an ego? That's new...
Bobby Vassallo
At the most recent debate, Obama said he would build nuclear power plants to reduce America's greenhouse gases emissions.
Edwards said he would require new coal-burning plants to sequester their CO2 output before they would be licensed to operate.
I prefer Edwards solution.
Now, if you have something substantive to say, Mr. O'Donnell, please say it.
I expect better from you Lawrence. To call someone generic names without addressing real issues or policy.
The lack of substance in you article suggests to me that your friends in the financial world are scared crapless about Edwards, and you are willing to spread FUD to help them out. After all, the last thing they want to see is a real progressive like Edwards or Kucinich.
With your tone here, I wouldn't be suprised if you started writing glowing reviews of Lieberman.
I can only say that Edwards is the only one of the three that actually says something.
It is a shame because to say something productive (read contrary to status quo) is to make enimies of major money contributors, and big media. This fact reduces his money, and exposure, which is reflected in his lower ratings. He may be the worst candidate, but we will never know because Mcdonnell's favs won't speak their true mind.
Ok O'Donnel as technical advisor on the West Wing your candidate won, obviously you have lost touch with reality ! Like most people commenting on this blog I don't give a shit what you think ! Edwards has 18 electoral votes to Clinton's 24, I hope Edwards will stay in the race until after super Tuesday.
If people are serious about wanting change Edwards is the ONLY candidate to give us change and he is the ONLY dem that can beat ANY repig nominee !
Obama can play the race card if he wants, but it will cost him at least one vote.
We have been extremely fortunate to have many excellent candidates to choose from. The first woman, a fine black candidate (though NOT the first) among them. It would be historic for either of them to progress to the presidency....BUT wouldn't it be a shame (not to speak of racist and sexist) if the best candidate happened to be a white, southern man who was marginalized by the press because he wasn't a woman or black?
John Edwards would eviscerate the influence of the disgraced corporate wing of the Democratic Party.........THAT is why we don't find coverage of his campaign on MSM.
REAL SIMPLE.
Didn't Edwards also lose the election for Vice President, in the general election and in the Electoral College, in 2004?
"The white male monopoly on the Democratic nomination has finally come to an end. Someone has to tell John Edwards."
What does his race/gender/Southern roots have to do with it? Are white males, especially ones from the South, not allowed to run for president anymore in O'Donnell's world?
I'm not an Edwards supporter, but last time I looked, there were quite a few of those. I think O'Donnell should at least respect the fact that Edwards has received a considerable number of votes in the primaries and caucuses so far.
Of the three top runners, I would have preferred Edwards, but he doesn't seem to be making it. I would prefer not to have the Clintons back in the WH. I do think Hillary is capable and qualified and I would vote for her. I may consider voting Republcian (ugh) if Obama is the nominee. His resume is too light for these difficult times.
Ugggh...why do i waste my time reading this garbage? I'm not an Edwards supporter but I'm getting sick and tired of elitists(like the majority of writers on HuffPo) telling us who is electable or who should get out of the way. O'Donnell doesn't mind calling Edwards a loser, and that should not be surprising. However, candidates like Edwards and Kucinich (who I'm sure is another 'loser' in O'Donnell's world)are the only candidates who even mention the poor & working class. I suppose having a woman or a black man in the White House may sound good to a rich, white, baby-boomer like O'Donnell. He'll get his centrist, corporate candidate (Clinton or Obama) and he can smugly write here in a later column how he supports "real change" in Washington or some other nonsense. Could we have one, just one, election where the pundits would just shut up and let us make up our own mind?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
