Edwards Must Go

The most common conclusion from last night's NH primary was that a poll can be wrong even when it is an average of 10 other polls, all with small margins of error. But I drew a second conclusion from last night's primary, which was that if Edwards wants change in Washington as he says he does, he should now quit the race.

Edwards earned less than half the votes that Obama and Clinton each earned. Edwards is no longer in the top-tier candidate and his chances of winning the nomination - or the general election - at this point are close to none because of his narrow message and lack of appeal to independents.

The reason for this is that he has been in the public scene for years and people know everything about his life. They have also heard his message of having a radical anti-corporation approach to addressing problems, and you know what? His message and approach are not resonating with people. If he was a new candidate with a fresh face, I would have still thought that he may be able to rebrand himself with a new message and expand his appeal. But there is nothing more there. He has been in the public arena for years and there is nothing else about him that can possibly seem refreshing. Over the past few years, we have seen everything that Edwards has been and can be, and it is not going to get us the White House.

So then the question becomes, does he mean it when he says this election is about change and America and not about him? In the NH debate last Saturday, he made it clear that he found his philosophy of change very close to Obama's and radically different than Hillary's, whom he referred to as "forces of status quo." But what he has to acknowledge is that while his own campaign doesn't seem to be going anywhere at this point with no money or prospects of raising any, his staying in the race will only take away votes that would most likely go to Obama and help him win the nomination over those forces of status quo and establishment.

If John Edwards stays in the race, his chances for winning will most likely not be any better than they are today. But his very stay will split the change vote, which would potentially leave Hillary as the winner. So if Edwards is sincere about doing what's best to bring about fundamental change, he must now give up his run.

Follow Sam Sedaei on Twitter: www.twitter.com/SamSedaei

Comments

[Spookcatcher]

This commentary is the biggest sham so far after Iowa and New Hampshire. Hillary Clinton is the logical choice to drop out of the race, as should McCain on the republican side if you want to draw a line in the sand for change to be in the direction of moving Democracy forward and breaking away from the ties of the past. Edwards message is so right on that every one especially HRC and Obama have stolen almost ever talking point Edwards has authored just to cloak themselves with. They are Elitist protectors and have NO intention of dismanteling the Corporate American grip on Government or for the American Supremists continuing advances in World Dominance. Obama is a new face for the old guard and Kerry's propaganda endorsement BS is more proof positive. Edwards scares the ruling class because he might actually try to do something about them.

[DontSpin]

I think someone else agrees with Sam: John Kerry.

[mouselion]

Sorry Sam, you're wrong on this one.

He came in a close second in Iowa, it's not surprising he didn't do well in 'yankee conservative' NH (meaning folks are more Establishm­ent-orient­ed, whether Rep. or Dem.), he might not do great in Michigan -- but will do better than NH, there where there's a solid working-class bloc. And then there's South Carolina..­.

Edwards does resonate with the a lot of people in the nation. Methinks you see him as a threat to Obama, and that's what's coloring your thinking.

[Cathexis]

I disagree, Sam, and suggest that this is exactly why allowing Iowa and NH to lead off is a Bad Thing.

Neither of these two states is in anyway representative of the country. Just because Barak did well in Iowa and (from an Obama supporter perspective) may have been "robbed" in NH, you suggest that Edwards bow out?

Way too early, my friend. Don't become so afraid of Hillary that you'll jump through any hoop to avoid her nomination. Let's see what the rest of the country thinks ... or at least, some part of it beyond one agrarian Plains state and one small New England state.

[WBum]

..or remain stubbornly behind candidate likely to lose the nomination and effectively hand it to Hillary...
So, I'm stubborn. I suppose you are tenacious or maybe persistent. Why don't you look up "brokered convention" and then recant your uninformed assertion that Edwards will hand the nomination to Sen. Clinton. And what's up with identifying the male candidates by surname and the female by her given name? Is a little sexism showing?

[sandpiper]

Why not bail out now, or soon? Edwards could urge his followers to join the Obama Tsunami, sit back and watch the results (possibly doing a little campaigning for Obama himself between now and Super Tuesday, if he's in the mood) then, grinning like the Cheshire Cat, emerge in a partnership on an Obama/Edwards ticket, kicking some Republican ass in November.

Nothing personal against Hillary. She can either give the world a few more carefully rehearsed tears, or grow up and settle happily for becoming Secretary of Something.

Then again, we've needed another woman on the Supreme Court for quite a while now ...

Just a few post-New Hampshire musings in the realm of political improbabilities.

[mamacita]

I would have thought the so-called political experts would have taken a hint from NH that they obviously don't have a clue as to what the REAL PEOPLE are thinking out on the street. Iowa and NH are only two states, and they are certainly NOT representative of Mainstream America! It is ridiculous that we are supposed to believe that this primary is all but official at this time!

[realrick]

What a bunch of drivel! History completely shoots down your arguments.

For example, I would remind you that Ronald Reagan ran for President 4 times, starting in 1968, and it took the 4th time, in 1980, to be the charm. And, on his 3rd try in 1976, Reagan went so far as to go to the convention and even named the person he would like to have as his running mate, Gov. Richard Schweiker. None of this behavior was looked at as traitorous and the GOP welcomed Reagan to be their candidate in 1980 and president for two terms.

By comparison, Edwards' vow to continue on after only 2 primaries, during only his second run, is totally negligible. If he is not successful this year, he is still very young and his future in the party is still quite bright.

More importantly, Reagan transformed his party and gave it a winning, albeit false, image that enabled it to score tremendous congressional victories even after he left office. He knew how important it was, for his party, for his voice to be heard.

The same is true of Edwards. He believes, along with millions of Americans, that his populist message of corporations strangling our country is the TRUTH, no matter how many "experts" pooh-pooh it or media mavens label it as angry. Thus, his campaign MUST go on, and, God willing, one day, it will transform the Democratic Party and our country.

I can see that you support Obama. Fine. If he wants the nomination, he'll have to beat 2 strong candidates, not one. Obama is compared by a lot of his media darlings to JFK, mostly because of soaring rhetorical speeches. Well, Jack Kennedy beat out Democratic legends Hubert Humphrey and Lyndon Johnson to get the nod in 1960.

Time to see if the proof is really in the pudding for Obama or whether all those JFK comparisons are just so much BS.

[Tellmethetruth]

Hum...did Hillary Clinton get another 14% of her vote from John Edwards who dropped from 30% in Iowa to 17% in New Hampshire?

Obama's camp is wanting to eliminate Edwards because they see him as drawing anti-Clinton votes from Obama to Edwards. But, I wonder if that is true. If Edwards were gone, why assume his supporters wouldn't go for Clinton as much as Obama?

[nellie]

Sam, I'm surprised at this post. For someone who is so savvy about the media, you should know that the main reason Edwards trails is not because of familiarity. Who is more familiar than Hillary Clinton? It is most likely because of the media blackout dropped on Edwards because of his anti-big-b­usiness-co­rruption message. And Edwards isn't the only one suffering from the media blackkout. We see no coverage of Kucinich, and we saw no coverage of Biden, Dodd, or Richardson. The media fell in love with the Clinton/Obama match, so that's what we got.

As for Edwards dropping out, I think this would be a grave mistake. We're looking at a brokered convention, in all likelihood. If Edwards drops out, there's no guarantee his delegates would go to Obama. I think that was made very clear by the New Hampshire results. We just don't know how people are going to vote.

So let's keep this very strong populist voice alive and kicking. I want Edwards to continue to push the debate toward good governance. And perhaps at the convention, he'll have some bargaining power and can determine himself where his delegates will go.

[ACELiberal]

Why should he go? what is wrong with his staying in the race? I am a woman and far left of Edwards and he has my support and my vote. He is the only candidate bringing real understanding of poverty to the table. what is your deal with him?

[lottapaws]

I should have added that a third wheel, or fourth and fifth, add a dynamic that is not seen with only two candidates. That is good as it allows for more dimension, you can find out a lot more about the candidates because they must prepare for campaigns against more issues, etc.

Deciding the race upon a handful of states is ludicrous. Why should the rest of the states expend the finances for primaries if we believe that the first two or three caucuses are the decision makers. Why should any but the top candidates even bother to campaign? Money and the media should not determine our candidates! That is and should always be the voters' right.

[lottapaws]

I never have agreed with the view that a third person/party should not be allowed if it is a perceived spoiler. As a Republican, I was not happy that Ross Perot was the spoiler as a third party candidate, however, I would defend to the wall his right to run. Trying to pressure him to drop out is against all fundamentals on which our country is built. As an American and a true believer in freedom of choice, my vote should be for the candidate I want, not the best out of those who others want!

The view reflected in this article is that I must go along with the majority which is not the principle on which this country was founded. You don't have to like having a spoiler, but you should defend that person's legitimate candidacy with fervor.

There is always the chance, no matter how miniscule, that a spoiler could actually be victorious. That is why football games must be played and that is why elections must be held. On any given day, anything can happen! You don't have to like it, but you should love the principle on which it happens!

[Mike5000]

Kos and Huff are both Clintonistas. They're not dissing Edwards for Obama's sake. They're just trying to avoid more third place finishes for Hillary in non-Diebold states.

[andygaus]

Obama and Clinton tend to shy away from specifics. Only Edwards gets down to brass tacks about what needs to be done and the very real fight that is necessary. Even if he does not win, he is the only candidate who can keep the others honest and force them to confront issues they would rather not talk about. For that reason alone we need him in the campaign. I don't believe Clinton, because I think her every word is a ploy. I don't quite put faith in Obama, because I'm not sure he knows what's involved. I believe Edwards. And as someone else pointed out, it doesn't make sense to call the most electable candidate a spoiler.