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

Comments

[Chazzbird]

OK,
Edwards could well be the king / queen maker though, if he manages to hold enough delegates at convention time to tip the scales in a close contest between Hilary and Obama by releasing those delegates to one or the other.
Might he be opting for a plum cabinet or other appointment in the new administration, since his future electoral viability does not look rosey.

[jbatch]

One more thing: Edwards is the only Dem who beats every Republican candidate in a head-to-head race, according to polls. Seems like a factor in any equation of who's a "loser" doesn't it, Larry?

[truthyguy]

Well, I guess O'Donnell is right for reminding us simple folk that we have no right to vote for anyone unless it is for one of the candidates in the field that media has preselected for us.

Thanks Larry. For a second there I thought we were in the pre-Bush/Rove United States and I could actually consider all candidates and select one for myself. That was really stupid of me.

[Herm]

".....gets out of the way of the only two candidates who have a chance to get the nomination."
**********­**********­********
Wait, we already have the answer to that question. Unfortunately, if Clinton and Obama are the only 2 democrats left standing for the nomination, they are also the ones who cannot get elected. Even if Clinton did not have so much baggage, so many negatives - this country will not elect a woman president - yet. Same is true for a black man - yet.
Yes, I am a supporter of John Edwards. Wouldn't it be refreshing to have a president who is not beholden to any interest except the voters? Think about it. In the history of this nation, that has never happened.
As far as O'Donnell and his ilk, it may be foolish to pine for a democrat for president - every other consideration notwithstanding. Back off a little and let the process go forward. Selecting a nominee nearly a year before the election - not good.

[johnqeniac]

STFU O'Donnell, you corporate media weanie. There's NO difference between Obama and Clinton. They're both corporate-owned. I can't even tell them apart. The press hates Edwards because he's willing to take on corporate fascist power.

[LiamR]

Frankly, I'm surprised that someone who writes and offers political commentary for a living wouldn't construct a better argument for paring the Democratic field down to two candidates so many months before the convention. What the Democratic elite, media elite, and Hollywood elite have in common comes into focus in Mr. O'Donnell's post - which is an arrogant disdain for us "little people."

Mr. O'Donnell and his colleagues really do think that those of us who struggle in the middle and lower income brackets are awed by their celebrity. You can't blame them, really, as many of us do appear intellectually lazy when we spend hours watching television commentators. But really, half the time we're just trying to escape from the frustration of trying to make ends meet in the age of NAFTA. We know that what's on the screen is theatrics - particularly when it involves the presidential campaign.

We may be lazy at times, but we're not stupid. Just watch us vote during the primary season, Mr. O'Donnell. You might learn something.

[Setec]

Thanks for having the guts to say what everyone outside the liberal blogosphere already knows. Edwards is finished. He's running on delusions of grandeur right now.

[missntexas]

Excuse me, Lawrence, but Edwards is running on an economic program. Long before Hillary or Obama discovered the "Jobs" situation, he was on top of it. Now I'm for Obama but I do not want Edwards to get out of the race. Originally I was for Biden. I want a backup to Obama. I do not want Hillary Clinton, especially after the problems with the culinary union and the teachers union. How can Bill and Hillary Clinton cause the Democratic party to self-implode? We honestly do not need this.

[intuition]

I see it differently. I think Edwards is the only Dem candidate the GOP truly fears can beat their candidate. They feel they can defeat any minority candidate because of the deeply ingrained bias that exists in that party.

[AlexandraT]

John Edwards has been a positive voice in this election process. He may be missing "it" but has added important dimensions to the dialog, proposing a comprehensive universal health care program before the other candidates and in spite of his oft-focused-on, though completely irrelevant $400 haircut, focused on less glamorous issues, like closing the poverty gap. Whether or not he loses, he is not now, nor will he ever be, as marginal as Kucinich. There is more to influencing policy than poll numbers. He is good for this country and will never be a "loser."

[grantkuper]

I appreciate you on the McLaughlin Group and enjoyed your West Wing contributions. However, I disagree with you on John Edwards.

Many agree that John:
1) has campaign issues that have been very substantive
2) has proved to be a bellwether on issues that the others later adopted
3) has been hard-hitting, but fair
4) has done well considering campaign funds
5) has polling (Rasmussen) showing exceptional electability in a general election

Some (Nader & Perot) went beyond the pale to throw an election to the opposition. Since we are not in the general election, he is not a 3rd party candidate, and we are early in the primaries, that is not the case here.

Thankfully, most Dems are pleased with the field. We have reason to hope for a stronger general election consensus than we see emanating from the Republicans. You say John, "...might, in the end, become nothing other than the Southern white man who stood in the way of the black man." Consider 1) John has been very publicly supportive of Barak, and 2) John has stated, unequivocally, that he will support the nominee of his party.

As far as being a "loser," John is a Horatio Alger story with a heart, a Southerner who has won in the Republican heartland with an unapologetic pro-civil rights message.

As a New Orleanian who believes that John "feels my pain" more than the other candidates (he kicked off his campaign here), I believe there are plausible scenarios under which he emerges as frontrunner. Perhaps a major stumble, scandal, by another candidate, wins Nevada and gains momentum, or the economy trumps Iraq as the seminal campaign issue. And it could be that while John does not currently figure as #1 for most Dems, he could be #2 for many, a position that has catapulted others in past races.

John deserves to stay in, fight the good fight, expose K Street influence we see encroaching on other campaigns, and give voice to a loud, but loyal opposition to Barak & Hillary.

[famcola]

Could Edwards be an effective V.P.for either of the other two ?

[kurtf]

Mr. O'Donnell's ignorance is utterly comical, or at least it would be, if it weren't so sad. Thus far, John Edwards has actually won a presidential primary. How many has Obama won to date? Of course, Obama did win the Iowa Caucus, but a caucus is different than a primary where voters actually have to go out and vote. That said, the latest polls, depending on how much stock you want to put into them, show that Edwards is very much in the hunt in Nevada. If Edwards pulls out a win or even manages a strong 2nd, how can you count him out? He is right that 99% of the country has not had a chance to vote yet. For O'Donnell to call Edwards a loser when this is still very far from over just plain crap. It would be like saying the Cubs are out of the playoff hunt after losing the first couple games of the season. I commend Edwards for staying in the race, not only because I think he still has a great shot, but because it is healthy for the process. It is important that voters have three strong choices. Also, Edwards' presence helps to shape the debate and already, we have seen both Obama and Clinton come around to Edwards' way of thinking on a number of issues. I dare say Edwards may just end up enhancing the eventual nominee's chances to win in November, and that nominee may well be Mr. Edwards. Also, if Edwards does fall short of the nomination, it doesn't hurt him to maintain a high profile in order to launch a successful return to the political arena, where he can continue to make a positive impact - perhaps a return to the Senate, a run for governor, or even getting offered a position in the next administration. Whether it is in 2008 or not, I believe John Edwards may well be President of the United States one day, and at that time, I'll be quite interested to see whether Mr. O'Donnell still regards him as a loser.

[EuGeneTherapy]

Actually, I kept waiting for the part when this blog would reveal itself as tongue-in-cheek, but it never did. Usually I'm on target with you Lawrence, but you are dead wrong here.

The corporate media and republican operatives want, no NEED either Hillary or Obama to be the democratic candidate, that is the only chance they have to win. Republicans are apopleptic for some reason about Hillary, and a black man running for president rules out the entire south yet again, making moot Howard Dean's successful 50 state strategy.

If people could think for themselves and ignore media hype, Edwards would win hands down. He's fighting to save America, and that includes fighting the corporate media.

Keep up the good fight, John!!!

[Wulfstan]

Obama and Hillary are just Bushlite corporate shills. If you want that then go ahead and make my day, but please don't pretend that either are progressive. It will be the same corporate shit that we heve been enduring for the last seven years.

For real, positive chnage I recommend voting for Edwards and Kucinich. Gaga Brownose McCain is the fascist front runner and maybe Edwards is the man to defeat him.