On John Edwards Dropping Out

Before John Edwards said a single word in New Orleans about ending his bid for the presidency, before he set foot in an abandoned neighborhood in the lower Ninth Ward to talk about poverty, the same place he'd announced his candidacy 13 months before, the pundits were already deliciously speculating about two things: how would this dramatic development affect the bitter contest between Barack and Hillary, and where would Edwards' passionate supporters go now that their candidate was out? Would liberals flock to the more "changey" message of Obama? Would his white male base bolt for the less touchy feely Hillary?

And, most importantly, who would Edwards throw his endorsement to?

"Everyone is sitting here with a call list of people in the Edwards campaign," noted one Democratic strategist. "I'm sure that's what's going on right now across these two campaigns."

Watching this on MSNBC I had to laugh. Any reporter who thinks he or she knows anything about what the candidates will do at any given minute, much less tomorrow or next week, is seriously deluded. Or arrogant. Didn't they learn anything from Obama's seemingly implausible win in Iowa? Hillary's teary moment in New Hampshire? Or her stunning visit to Florida this week to praise voters for her so-called "victory"? This is precisely what makes national politics so maddening and entertaining, the unpredictability.

Take me, for instance. Tomorrow I was all set to spend time with Edwards in LA before the debate. It was on the calendar. As of yesterday morning, his communications director emailed to apologize for not getting back to me about the details. But we were still on. There wasn't a hint Edwards was going to bail. Even as Edwards was canceling campaign stops in North Dakota for a mysterious trip to New Orleans, some of his closest aides were still acting as if he was in the race. We're going all the way.

It must have been a tortured decision for Edwards, is all I can say. The crippling loss in South Carolina. Then the calls to Obama and Hillary.

And now it's over, his five-year quest for the presidency. "It's time for me to step aside so that history can blaze its path," Edwards told a small crowd in New Orleans, as Elizabeth Edwards and their three children stood beside him.

What I can't really say is this: why his campaign never took off. Why, despite his insistent message about the plight of the poor and the middle-class, his landmark health-care plan, his vow to end the war in Iraq, his railing against corporate greed, he couldn't generate much heat. Was the national giddiness over a first black or a first woman president too much to overcome for a white guy from the South? Was it the obsessive narrative about the $400 hair cut, the sprawling mansion and the hedge fund that did him in? Was there too much John Kerry baggage? Or maybe--and this comes from the ever-delightful Chris Matthews--Edwards was just too "glamorous"?

Whatever the reasons, the media can finally return to what it longed to do all along with the Democrats: focus on Obama and Hillary in their increasingly nasty battle for the nomination.

It's going to be a long, long season.

Both did pledge to Edwards to continue to carry his message of poverty and fight the good fight. I wouldn't hold my breath. It's hard to imagine either candidate stopping to talk to homeless people camped near a bridge, as Edwards did in New Orleans on his way to give his speech. Or picking up a hammer to go off and build houses for Habitat for Humanity, which Edwards and his family did right after his poignant speech.

In a campaign that was often too short on substance and too much about glitz, I will miss his voice.

"Today I am suspending my campaign for the Democratic nomination for the presidency," Edwards told the crowd in New Orleans toward the end of his speech. And then he made a little joke. "But I want to say this to everyone...This son of a mill worker is going to be just fine. Our job, for now, is to make sure America's going to be fine."

Follow Mona Gable on Twitter: www.twitter.com/monalg

Comments

[LeftLeaner]

Although, I'm reading this many days later, my sentiments remain the same, and I have no interest in the current campaigns.

I will vote Democratic like a good solider, but my heart is not in it anymore.

John Edwards was the ONLY candidate of the people, and now he is gone.

Thank you, John Edwards for trying "so hard" - but they wouldn't listen. So, so, sad.

[rougette]

Today’s NY Times: Paul Krugman praised Edwards for coming up with the ideas for the future, the ideas that Hill and Obama stole.
If there is no John Edwards in our future, we don’t have any future. I wrote the following to the John Edwards blog. I will vote for him here in NY on February 5.
I said that JRE would be the only one who could win. The Repugnicants are working right now on their slimy plans for cheating, lying … hey, wait a minute, could all that money for Obama be coming from Repugnicants who want him nominated because they know he’s easily beatable? Um, maybe Hill’s $$$ comes from them too. Those greedy Rebastards will do anything to keep control of the American people. We’re in deep doo doo, and it was because the “liberal media” banned JRE from their propaganda machines.
That, and “younger” people are just a lot of bidiness majors. Oh, why didn’t we have a draft! Maybe we will and it will last for McCain’s 100 years. If he lives to election day -- he really looks ill.

[graurog]

It almost brings tears to my eyes...Yesterday I recieved, in the mail, the bumper stickers, buttons and tee shirts supporting John Edwards.
Included was a note that the yard sign was delayed and would be shipped soon.
DAMN!!!
HE GAVE ME THE HOPE THAT KENNEDY USED TO GIVE ME.
RonG.

[fullorage]

You gave us hope and inspired us John Edwards.Your sane and truthful voice in this whole sordid affair we use to elect a president will be profoundly missed. Thank you for fighting the good fight for working class Americans. We needed someone to lay out the facts,what it is like to work your ass off for a meager subsistence,sixty, seventy or more hours a week,while the wealthy elite reap the benefits of our labor.The middle class is dying in America. Who will buy the goods produced in this country if we don't make enough to buy what we make? We must rise up to take back what is rightfully ours.As it now stands we have to force the issues of health care,homelessness,hunger,child care,social security,warmongering and so many more issues need to be taken care of.Sorry to see you go.Perhaps you can find a way to keep pushing the two remaining contenders to stand up and do what is right for this country and the millions of people suffering.

[abroadabroad]

That the Democrats even still have a base can be largely accredited to Edwards. He was the first candidate since before the era of triangulation who I felt didn't take my vote for granted. While the press got itself all wrapped up in making history, his quiet little candidacy might end up saving us all from ourselves. But I'll let those who still care choose my candidate, and come November I'll sleep-walk through having my vote taken for granted again.

[sa]

let's all repeat in unison:
john edwards SUSPENDED his campaign.
he did not end it,
or drop out of the race, he SUSPENDED it.

a very savy move.
let america get their minds around
hillary/obama as a presidential (losing)
canidacy,
then come in, the seventh inning,
with momentum, that the media and the republicans had stripped him of.

negative momentum was accumulating because
of the length of the campaign,
and the media/republican bias against him.
he brilliantly reacted before
the beast was too strong.

he's a better candidate than the others,
the false impression of media was gaining truck.

nice move john, see you in july.

[strangelet]

Why did the Edwards campaign never take off? Many of the Edwards-philic commenters on this thread seem to think it was either (1) media conspiracy, or (2) Americans just don't take poverty and income inequality seriously (it's unclear if these Americans are "Joe Six-Pack" or effete San Francisco wine snobs, or maybe both).

I think it's because he was running on what was essentially a Populist platform. He pretty much had to, because with two other very-well-funded and differently-historic candidates, he had to do something to set himself apart. Seriously tough luck.

The problem is that, while the American electorate has always been somewhat responsive to a Populist message (duh -- virtually all of us are regular folks), it tends to cringe away at the national level. I don't think this is mainly an artifact of media; rather, it is the fear of the unknown. A genuinely Populist president, or Congress, would do shit that we are really not used to. While we might agree that such shit is a good idea, we always start to think about the side-effects -- what will that do to the value of my house? To the unemployment rate? To the price of gas? To the price of a car?

A very large fraction of Americans, even those who "want change", really want steady, incremental change in a good direction. That way, you can adjust to it as it happens.

An over-the-top example: you ever watch "Dr. Zhivago"? The Bolshevik Revolution was MAJOR change. Damn few voters want *that* much change.

Populism is not Bolshevism, and (almost) nobody thinks it is. But dramatic policy changes, such as Mr. Edwards has proposed, engender the same kind of concern -- this is a great idea, but is it going to bite me in the butt?

To support a Populist, you have to be willing to "exist in the moment", and trust that your beliefs will *eventually* lead to a positive outcome. Seems like only about 15-20% of us are willing to do that (about the same as for Bob LaFollette).

[Bladernr1001]

"What I can't really say is this: why his campaign never took off. Why, despite his insistent message about the plight of the poor and the middle-class, his landmark health-care plan, his vow to end the war in Iraq, his railing against corporate greed, he couldn't generate much heat."

Answer: Because it is not really happening to most people. Most people pass upward through the classes as they aquire more education and job experience, not down. Could this be any more obvious to you liberals who are using the phony class warfare thing in a vain attempt to sell us into a socialist state. News of the demise of the middle class has been highly exaggerated.

[zeldamae]

Edwards will still be on the ballot on Super Tuesday and there will be a lot of us who will still vote for him to make sure someone knows the message he brought to this campaign was noticed. I don't want to choose between Clinton or Obama either--I'll leave it to those who feel strongly. Either of them will be a thousand times better in managing more of the same than the current administration. And I will promise to vote for either in the general election. In a positive note I met a man on the train last night who said he had been a life-long Republican and who said he would never vote Republican again even though he admired McCain. He said he thought Obama or Clinton would do a fine job.

[Magnulus]

I'm a John Edwards supporter. I'm disappointed with him dropping out, but it's not unexpected. To be honest his campaign was too focused just on his poverty message, and what he said was mostly negative.

Like it or not, "poverty" in America in the popular mind has a face, and it is not a white face. When you talk about poverty, you are invariably talking about the worst stereotypes people have about race. He should have tried harder to connect with "middle America", even if many in the "middle" feel more middle class than they really are. It is very telling that he spent alot of time advocating for causes important to black Americans, yet at the same time recieved little of their vote. He was talking to the wrong audience with the wrong message, even if on the issues he was correct. Before it was trendy, of the big three frontrunners, he had the plans and the other candidates played catch up. Lots of good ideas, lots of passion and sincerity, just really rough delivery.

I'm left not knowing who to support. I've already voted for John Edwards in the Florida ballot, but I can always donate more money. However, I'm left seeing both Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton as excellent candidates. I think it's important for Edwards supporters to focus on party unity and holding the candidates to promises to focus on the economy and the increasingly dwindling middle class and increasing ranks of the poor. Other than that, it's gotta be a tough decision for Edwards supporters and I don't pretend to know how they should vote: other than to support a Democrat candidate. Way too much is going to be lot if we get somebody like McCain, Romney... or God help us, Huckabee in the White House. This country cannot tolerate another 4-8 years of a Republican Reich.

[wrabbitt]

Its a shame that any candidate who actually wanted to bring the people back into the forefront, and make government more taxpayer friendly couldn't get anywhere. Sometimes i wonder if the elections are just smoke and mirrors. For example: HRC an insider with health care lobby money in her purse. who lied to us about health care is doing better than the one the people like. Does this sound strange to anyone else? She will be the best president for congress,no changes,no movement, higher taxes,more services cut. pay raises for those who play along and loss of everything to those who don't. Katrina did cause problems in New Orleans but, it was a rude awakening for the rest of the country showing the short comings of government and how well it protects itself. The enemy within is already here.

[bevkpp]

I am among those who are broken-hearted that we've lost the opportunity toi have John and Elizabeth in The White House. They are so kind and sincere, and I know they will do what they can to help from the sidelines, but we'll never know what an Edward's Presidency could have done to fight the corporate influences on our economy and the health care system, two huge influences on the lives of the little people. We all love you guys and wish you the very best, and thank you so much for being our voice!

[ldelp84227]

I actually had some hope for someone different and caring. I am sad that Edwards didn't do better but then he wasn't for the lobbyist, etc. I think the more money given to the other candidates, the more bought and paid for the election. Linda

[ToddinHB]

I knew the fix was in when I was a witness to the Nevada caucuses. Clinton and, to a lesser extent, Obama had very organized and well-financed workers. The process was a complete mess that should have meant nothing, but was played as a bona fide referendum on the candidates, and nothing could be further from the truth. Edwards' 4% showing had nothing to do with the will of the voters.

[DavidHP]

Edwards reaped what he sowed with his plotting with Clinton to exclude the truly progressive candidate, Kucinich, from the debates months back. Once the Kucinich, the real peace candidate dropped out to get re-elected to Congress, the press began excluding Edwards, leaving only the two corporately sponsored candidates in the running for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination. Gravel is not even mentioned in the press any more. The corporate media decided last year that Clinton and Obama who support a continuing combat mission in Iraq, and continue to support subsidising insurance companies with their "universal health care" plans will be the only candidates standing this summer.

I will not vote for any candidate who supports insurance companies and continuing the war of agreession in Iraq. I just wonder what happened to the majority of Democrats who claimed to be against the war and corporate control of the country.