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
We progressives may be shooting ourselves in the foot (again) grasping defeat from the jaws of victory by voting based on political correctness and "feelgoodism" rather than on common sense. John Edwards would be an outstanding President and highly electable in a general election. I support him primarily from his bold decision to refuse PAC monies in order to accept Federal campaign monies instead. He also is passionately pro-labor and pro-middle class. The other two think that there can be compromise with the "loot and pillage" mentality of the corporatist Republican party. Look at how the Senate minority has obstructed even the most modest change and a "Mr. Decider Guy" President armed with his toy Veto Pen.
This is a war we can win only if the Progressives can "run the table" in November, taking the White House, 60 Senate seats (not counting the traitorous Joe LIEbermann) and retaining the House (hopefully sans Pelosi as Speaker...
We must ask ourselves what does John Edwards want, he can’t win, he has no money to win. In the unlikely case that John Edwards is the nominee, he cannot raise money for the general election because he accepted matching funds from the Federal Government. I know that many John Edwards voters are not aware of these facts, many think that Edwards has a chance to win, they don’t realize that Edwards plan to broker their vote for his own personal advancement.
At no point has John Edwards used his vast fortune to fund his campaign, he believes in using other people money, no matter how poor they are, talk about representing the poor. Mitt Romney uses his own money, John Kerry used his own money, John Edwards even refuse to use his fortune as collateral, when called on to do so, he choose to use Federal Matching Funds as collateral, what a man, what a candidate of the poor and the disenfranchised. Is the any Edwards supporter that think if Edward used $10 m of his vast fortune, he would be any poorer tomorrow, or would miss any of it, I don’t think anyone does. John Edwards prefers to eat off your plate (even the poor and working class) than to eat off his own plate even with the heaping helping that he took.
You are so right...th
i think it is ironic that in one sentence you say that edwards is staying in the race because it is all about him and his ego, then in the next sentence say that hillary and obama "deserve" a one-on-one race. Does that not make it about them? They don't deserve ANYTHING. they are working for us, the voters. and don't assume that edwards is taking votes away from Obama. that "Southern white man who stood in the way of the black man" comment reeks of lame-ass logic that has become more and more common among you pundits. Ideas like that are one of the worst things about the internet - people like you get to spread your total inane nonsense more easily and quickly. it is a miracle that you have been given a forum here.
Edwards will have my vote as the is the only candidate who has the balls to talk about poverty, labor, corporate interests and disparity in wages
John Edwards has the right content of Character and conduct ----his voice is necessary and important because it basically comes down to: "Might FOR Right rather than Might IS right". His actions speak louder than any of the other candidates
I'm tired of hearing about losers. Tell me who the winners might be.
>And for that, he would deserve a lifetime of liberal condemnati
Not from this Liberal. I don't support John Edwards because as a member of the Senate Intel Committee in the run-up to the war, he was briefed more thoroughly as to the spurious nature of the intel that got us there, yet unlike other Dems on the committee, he voted to give Bush the authorization. Bad judgement, in my book. But "standing in the way of the black man?" I guess my definition of liberalism differs from O'Donnell's. Mine doesn't include viewing or treating people differently simply because of their race. If Edwards truly believes in what he's doing, then stepping aside just because his opponent has darker skin and a different background than he does would be nothing more than another form of racism--the condescending kind.
this is one edwards supporter who will NOT default to obama. i'll vote repub - unless it's huckabee or romney - first.
Don't be so sure Edwards votes will go to Obama. The assumptions that saturate EVERY media (including this one)is ludicrous!
Everyone and their granddad wants to write off Hillary. Arrrggghhh!
Lawrence..
How unfortunate that one who would have us believe that he cares about racism, in America, would, at the same time, depict the world in such black and white terms as "winners" and "losers."
I was thinking that myself, what we need in this democracy is less choices. We only have two parties to vote for, so why would we need more than two choices per party in the primaries. Besides there are only two sides to any issue, so more than two voices on a subject is just noise.
No one really cares what a pundit thinks, anymore.
Remember NH? The media got it completely wrong!
99% of Americans have not voted, yet. So let the people decide!!
It seems that either ODonnell could be either a very lazy journalsit, or a very lazy thinker. Or, he could simply be projecting.
Traditionally, politicians have stayed in presidential races long after its clear they cannot win simply to have a voice in the party platform. Edwards is nowhere near that position yet, as both Iowa and NH allow independents into the mix. The race will tighten, Mr. O'Donnell. What if a quorum of delegates is not won by any of the top three candidates? Now is clearly not the time to leave this race.
When you call for Edwards exit, whose water are you carrying?
I can't believe Mr. O'Donnell could pen such thoughtlessness. This election is not about what Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama "deserve." They "deserve" nothing. They're applying for a job.
This election isn't about them, it's about what they can do for us. The candidates are seeking a position that was created to serve "We the people."
Mr. Edwards is nothing more than a "white man who stood in the way of a black man?" Reverse the colors in that sentence. Would you say it then? No, and either way, it's a racist statement. The candidates' skin color, nor gender, should play a role in whom we select. We should hire the best person for the job.
Didn't Dr. Martin Luther King say he dreamed of a time when we would not be judged by the color of our skin, rather, by the content of our character? Of course, we're talking about politicians and lawyers here, real character may be hard to find, and it is subjective.
Still, I prefer to judge the candidates by their record, their experience, their leadership capablities and by the plans they intend to execute once elected.
You don't have to vote for John Edwards, but as a taxpaying voter, I'd like the opportunity to vote for him. I'd like to make the decision for myself instead of you, or anyone else, making it for me. (This isn't Russia.)
When I compare the candidates records and what they've spent their lives doing, I go with Edwards, hands down. If Obama is all about working with other people to create great "change," why hasn't he done this yet while in the U.S. senate?
I'm a college-educated, working-class Democrat. I may not be smart enough to have made the kind of living Mr. O'Donnell has, but I have enough sense to know that trying to tell a candidate to drop out of a political race in order to benefit the other contenders, and risk silencing a voice who speaks for so many of us citizens..
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
