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

[TheIndependenceParty]

Hey Larry, ... Do you have a personal beef with Edwards? Do you really feel that the election process should be decided by a caucus, ... and a tiny primary with 200,000 voters, ... or are you looking for a simple two dog race of your liking?

Read this, http://www.guardian.co.uk/feedarticle?id=7217369, and get back to us, please.

A few of us here would like to shake the corporate tree and see what falls out. Edwards, as lead candidate or even VP candidate, might help to do that.

As it stands, the balance of the choices seem infatuated with Corproations and their money.

So, for now, ... let's just let the money ride, eh? If Edwards loses again, ... you'll have the ego-centric pride of knowing you told us so. Inasmuch as you say his votes will split 50/50 to Obama and Clinton, ... what can it hurt?

Or are you afraid he really might be a dark horse coing up from behind as we hit Super Tuesday?

[THISTLE]

I totally agree, it is astonishing that the
media places Edward's in the top tier.
This is a guy who couldn't even win his home
state in 2004. He did not run for re-election
because he could not win a 2nd term in the
Senate. And if I hear son of a millworker,
and that mill, one more time - I will scream.
I watch Edwards on the stump and before crowds,
and it's clear he needs what he thinks he is
getting from these audiences. That's sad,
because he has young children whose Mother is
very ill. It would seem that spending time
making precious memories with his children
and their Mother is much much more important
than giving his empty speeches. And I am
very bothered by the fact, that the people
whose daughter died from not getting the
liver transplant are on the stage with Edwards
is in very poor taste. He appears to be using
them, and also the man who could not speak
until he was 50 years old. I am confident this
upsets many people. Edwards appears to be
very phony in so many ways. Dragging his
lovely children on the campaign trail instead
of spending real time with them and their
Mother is disturbing and shows Edwards has
some real problems within himself.

[AuntSally]

Hmm.

Made an ass of yourself on national television over the Mormon affair, and now your contribution to the public dialogue is to flail away at a sincere and thoughtful man.

Take a pill Lawrence, and call me after the elections....

[Tellmethetruth]

http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/blio.asp?display=Total&Cycle=2000
Business donated $1,228,476,385 of which Democrats got $513,445,271 and Republicans got $705,068,823 Labor gave $90,187,531
The Grand Total donated for 2000 elections was$1,633,534,367 Democrates spent $722,594,512 Republicans spent $895,338,890

http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/blio.asp?display=Total&Cycle=2004

Business Corporations donations $1,510,293,157 Democrats received $672,278,568 and Republicans received $832,497,466
Labor gave $61,702,483
$Grand Total spent for 2004 elections $2,031,675,877 of which Democrats spent $968,131,070 Republicans spent $1,055,173,534

http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/blio.asp?display=Total&Cycle=2006
2006 Election:
Business donations total $1,133,433,773 of which Democrats got $491,114,294 Republicans got $625,787,189
Labor $66,670,698
Grand Total spent in 2006: $1,580,110,253 Democrats spent $737,487,617 Republicans spent $818,599,117

Bottom line: 2004 Election cost $2billion to elect a President. Most of that money raised went to the Main Stream Media - They have turned our elections into a major business in which money changes hand from one pocket to the next.

Democracy is a commodity, bought and sold on the free market with our tax dollars and our votes.

For the Record: Labor is only able to give about 6% of the money it takes to compete with Corporate financing of the campaign. About 50% of the unions support Clinton and the other half Edwards - Obama only recently picked up one in Nevada.

(My apologies for those who hate repeat posts - but the money says it all).

[duckfan00]

Wow !! It must be the water at MSNBC. Edwards is forcing the others to have detailed policies on jobs,Iraq and healthcare. Another premature and ridiculous call by a so-called political expert.

[tbone99]

Edwards, who finished second to Obama in Iowa, leads all four major Republican candidates — Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee — in the poll in Ohio. Obama and Clinton each leads in just the matchups with Giuliani and Romney.
So do we want to get the Repugs out of office or do we want to congratulate ourselves on how PC we are?
Obviously Larry is the latter.

[LyricalLexicon]

Obama and Clinton deserve a two-person, you have got to be kidding me. I guess John Edwards is doing something right because the corporate owned media is scared to death of him. I am willing to bet if Edwards got as much coverage as Clinton and Obama, his poll numbers and fundraising would be a lot higher. I don't see anything simple-minded about Edwards drawing attention to corporate America's control of our government and wanting to take the fight to the special interests. Everytime I hear simple-minded statements about Edwards from bloggers like Lawrence it makes me want to vote for John Edwards even more.

[Nihilvorx]

I'm not sure what the bias here on Huffungtonpost is all about. There is an article on the front page about how Edwards is tanking on the blogs. Supposedly , he's only getting a few hundred posts written about him. I'm not sure on the methodology, but I can find more than a few hundred written in the last hour on sites like DailyKos.

Anyway, I go to their raw numbers and see that Edwards, by their own count, has more posts then the two candidates above him, so the placement seem arbitrary at best.

Anyway, the blogger above has constructed a post where he can say "loser" in every sentence and come out thinking he has said something substantial about Edwards. Yep, forget about the fact that only Edwards is pushing a detailed platform that deals with substantial, defining issues from a progressive position. The media is right... We should only pay attention to candidates who do things the "proper" way and campaign on image and slogans.

The media is only protecting us from ourselves. Edwards is a loser. Oh dear, what a substantive post. After all, Obama and Clinton have won so many more elections. Wait, they haven't?

[ihavenobias]

Why Lawrence, why?! I stuck up for you after the mormon issue flared up, and rightfully so.

But you will NOT have my support this time. I'm incredibly disappointed and will now take everything you write with a large grain of salt (assuming I even read it).

[CTModerate]

Oh, no. Now you've done it Larry.

All of DailyKos will be here screaming at you for defaming their God.

Don't you know you're not allowed to take the name of Edwards in vain!!!

[zagyzebra]

My first instinct was to vote Hillary out of a conviction to support womanhood, her experience, and her husband's international likeability factor (diplomacy our country is in desperate need). Then, I stumbled across a little known fact that Hillary's PR firm in Cali is the same one that is representing the studios in the writers strike. Ugh - bad anti-labor, major corporate connection.

I next gravitated to Obama, the sound of whose voice just resonates. What I've come to be highly suspicious of, however, is his sidestepping serious issues at just about every public appearance, which, coupled with his non-attendance or non-voting at crucial senate votes, is quite telling, and negative.

Next, Edwards. Everytime I see this man, he's blasting corporate greed, blaming mega-corporations for the demise of the middle class (oil prices, check; TV programming and msm news manipulation, check; credit crisis, check; housing decline, check; general lack of progressiveness, check). He swings and fights with elegance and grace. He's the only one boldly carrying the message of taking control back from the major corporations that are breaking anti-trust, monopoly, labor agreements right and left, and are holding our pursestrings with their ineptitude and cartels. (Anyone read Atlas Shrugged?)

We Americans really need to start waking up to the facts, and vote for the candidate who consistently recognizes the underpinning of what is ruining our country: corporate greed and power. And until we do, serious changes are not in the big picture. (As a primer, I seriously suggest every citizen of this country read The Assault on Reason, by Al Gore.)

Obama is not the unifier, either. Au contraire, Edwards is not black nor female and actually therefore holds a candlestick of a chance to win against a Repub. Further, he's southern, which is always a plus, for whatever reasons, when it comes to the voting public. And who is the only candidate to pay attention to New Orleans (home of the biggest domestic horror in recent memory)? Edwards. Watch carefully, Americans, Obama gives it lip service; Edwards gives it action!

[inmyhumbleopinion]

This is such hogwash, I can barely believe it. We've had two Democratic primaries so far. Two. Within states that barely make up a fraction of the national voting population. If, in fact, John Edwards fails to make a dent after Super Tuesday, I'll concede your point. But to make this statement now is just plain irresponsible. Choice is paramount to this election. Narrowing it down to two contenders this early in the race is just plain stupid.

[stopwar]

So O'Donnell makes yet another call to let oddsmakers decide the election! More than half a year from the convention, O'Donnell wants to narrow the field based on current standings, rather than continue the debate over the issues that matter.

No one - - not even Obama or Clinton - - denies that Edwards is raising issues no one else is: poverty, fair trade, nuclear power, labor's right to organize, higher education. Those issues must stay in the campaign, and Edwards is the one who will keep them there.

Then, when Democrats beyond the one percent who've voted in Iowa and New Hampshire discuss those issues, and realize that they agree with Edwards, the whole election could turn around. Whether he wins or not, however, Edwards is doing the party and the country a service by keeping those issues on the table.

[woundedduck]

For chriminy's sake Lawrence, take a breath. You may be right that for the party's sake Edwards should bow out sooner rather than later, but to say a white man is standing the in the way of a black man is a bit too simplistic. Considering that Obama's and Clinton's platforms are nearly indistinguishable, there isn't a whole lotta "black" for Edwards to stand in the way of.

[AntonBursch]

I posted a Diary on Daily Kos about John Edwards that I think most of you would like to read. It was about how Tony Snow reacted to hearing the name John Edwards on Real Time With Bill Maher last night.

Yeah, and the show briefly mentioned where people like O'Donnell are coming from with Edwards. It's not a flatering portrait.

Here's the link. It was probably the fastest Recomended diary on Daily Kos of all time. I was still doing a second run thru spellchecking right after first posting and it was already up on the list.

If you support Edwards, it's a must read. I think. If you don't. Well, give it a read, see what you think. It's short and to the point.

Thanks

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/12/0458/77196/809/435494