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

[libladyohio]

I love it - the MSM blacklists any positive coverage of him then brands him a loser when he can't win sans any press buzz. Now supposed democrats like Mr. O'Donnell, a man I admired a lot before this inane post, are turning on him.

Some of what I hear from supposed progressives is disheartening. I was listening to Mark Green and Arianna this morning on Air America, and I heard them disparage Edwards for siphoning off "change" voters from Obama. That's just an astonishing comment since Obama has been pushed to more of a "change" posture only because of Edwards who has been espousing serious change all along, while until lately Obama was all about compromise with the neocons, about being non partisan.

I just fear that with Obama or Hilary not a whole lot would change. Or better said, not enough would change.

The now incredible economic disparity in this country must go away. Edwards is the only one with any chance this year who might change the status quo, which is now a small number of the very wealthy and then the rest of us, who must settle for crumbs. The system is broke and must be fixed one way or another.

[madprogressive]

Lawrence, are you kidding. There is a reason Obama is doing so well, and it is not his race. He is one of the chosen ones. Unlike most of the idealist, I am a realist. I have actually looked up the voting records and donor lists of the 3 leading Democratic candidates. Obama is acceptable as a black man because he is essentially a coporatist. Hillary is correct, there is little difference between the two. Obama's donor list looks remarkably similar to Clinton's. John Edwards is being dismissed by everyone because he is the only one who will actually try to make the changes necessary to rescue America from the Corporatist who've captured it. As an African American who supports John Edwards, the white Southerner you deride, I understand what this election is really about. The voting electorate is superficial, and that is what has caused this nation to sink to the level it has. Against conventional wisdom, African Americans do actually vote on the issues, not race. I swould no sooner support Condaleeza Rice as I would Clarence Thomas. Being a black man does not get my vote, issues and my concerns do. I am cynical and questioning enough to understand America is not mature enough to elect an African American nor a woman. And in the event it is, Clinton and Obama are the wrong ones. We need a John Edwards type leader in office(no matter race or gender). Someone who will restore the balance of power between the people, the rich, and Corporate America. So, Mr. Odonnell, John Edwards is not a loser and should not drop out of the race.

[deminmo]

People in the media have already divided up
Edwards supporters between Obama and Clinton,
when Edwards throws in the towel. I am glad
he is still there, makes the other two more
interesting.

[johnie2xs]

Larry, you just entered the realm of such luminaries as Karl Rove, Bill Krystal, Chris Matthews, and Joe Scarborough. Not exactly great company. Who the hell are you to think you can make, or in any way, suggest what the American People should think, when your whole ilk has been "measured ,and found wanting".
You're entirely entitled to your opinion, but to go further and suggest that "You" know what has to be done, is nothing but "Humbug Hubris". For you to profer these thoughts you are in affect saying that we don't deserve a choice. And further, you have the gaul to frame Edwards' candidacy in the most racist of contexts, with that "white man, black man" crap. It's this attitude, in the MSM, put forth by goofs like yourself, that pisses the interested members of the electorate, off.
Why don't you do us all a favor and stifle, yourself.

[dashofbitters]

Can it be true after all, that the Democratic leaders (D.L.C.) really do eat their own children? Personally, I found it very hard to endure their cold and deliberate destruction of the Howard Dean campaign. I thought I would never vote as a Democrat again, although I have voted as a Democrat since 1940. But, along came John Edwards resurrected from his own part in the Dean destruction. His positions and his manner of addressing them convinced me that I could still be a Democrat. Behold! The D.L.C. is consuming my favorite child again as ruthlessly as they did Dean. Actually, they have done everything they can do to exclude John Edwards from the nominating process.

If I live long enough to participate in it, I will be happy to support a third party, which this country desperately needs if a real democracy can exist.

[hoodie]

Give me a friggin' break! Standing in the way of real change? Do you really believe this? Have your head examined and then examine just how much money Obama and Hillary have taken from defense contractors, then take a peek at Edwards. With Hillary or Obama we will have more of the same...more and more individuals becoming millionaires off of the blood of our soldiers and the Iraqi people. We are a disgusting nation and if you don't believe the read "Free Lunch" or anything by Matt Taibbi. Can we please pull our heads out of our backsides long enough to see the major disaster we are to become.

[gerontion72]

At least Edwards isn't winning on behalf of the plutocracy that runs this country.

[jcorrington]

I used to like you Larry, until: this article and the one you wrote defending Vick killing the dogs.


del 8300
ie 7

[provgrays]

Calling Edwards a loser hardly qualifies as commentary.

[Bushocchio]

John Edwards may not be "winning" but he is not the "Loser" O'Donnel paints him as. The opening remark about losing 31 primaries falls as a rather weak argument. Abe Lincoln lost a bunch of times too.

Edwards isn't a loser, so much as a runner.

Not just literally, but metaphorically too. He ran well enough in 2004 to get himself a spot on the ticket. I suspect that wasn't his first choice, but he did make the grade. A respectable finish in any sport.

And when Bushco stole Ohio, Edwards wanted to fight - for the win. Unfortunately for America, the loser that time around was Kerry - who had the chance to unveil some really ugly monkey business, but decided that status quo vote chicanery was okay.

The status quo is not okay. Obama may make some headway to change it, but I remain unconvinced. If O'Donnell is so in tune to Winners and Losers, that he ought to realize that Obama has to WIN on his own. Obama can make a deal with Edwards to help craft that win. Or he can adopt some of Edwards positions to pull votes away. But if his strategy is just to have surrogates call for Edwards dropping out, that probably won't work too well.

There is so much talk of change from team Obama... but "Where's the beef?"

The top 3 Dems all have faults, inconsistencies, political baggage etc. But RIGHT NOW Edwards is the one aiming to truly upend the system. That has many people's attention. And it will get their votes. If Obama wants those votes he'll have to do more than have aligned pundits calling John Edwards names.

Edwards is running to fix the problems as he sees them. He is unlikely to "win." But there's a very good chance he'll be push the envelope come convention time. Exactly how it plays out remains to be seen.

No one expects 3rd place marathoners to just up and drop out. Neither should Edwards. You never know if the folks in front of you will stumble.

[langstonhughesfan]

I'm not an Edwards-hater at all. He's okay. And I also like Hillary, even though she's not getting my vote. I think the Democratic side has an embarrassment of riches--great candidates to choose from. But at the end of the day, O'Donnell is right. Is it cold-blooded to say it the way he does, yes, but I would like to see Edwards call it a day. He's standing in the way of REAL CHANGE whether Obama or Clinton wins. Either one of them would be a monumental change from what we've endured for hundreds of years. They are both stellar in comparison to the Republican side and I am proud to be a Democrat right now. And I do like what Edwards stands for...I just wish he'd stand on the sidelines now, and give real change a chance.

[Anahid]

What is the difference between Obama and Clinton? Other than skin color and gender, they're both right-of-center candidates. Mr. O'Donnell's criteria for a President seem to be the color of one's skin; politics, and policy be damned. What this country needs is a progressive. Why not have Clinton, or Obama quit, so the truely qualified candidate, Edwards, may win. Mr. O'Donnell, it's your kind of punditry, and reasoning that has encouraged uninformed and ignorant voters to empower the destructive forces in our country.

[Hephaestion]

John Edwards is unbought and unbossed.
When Shirley Chisholm ran for president, those were considered GOOD qualities. Or is O'Donnell upset tha Edwards will aggressively take on the corporate interests that are destroying the lives of most Americans?

[TJoad]

If O'Donnell is fretting now about Edwards, then he'll surely curl up in the fetal position and begin sucking his thumb when Bloomberg enters the race as an independant and plays this election's "Nader" spoiler role allowing the Repugs to snatch victory form jaws of defeat.

[swardo]

Oh crap. My crush on O'Donnell just died.