It's Official: John And Elizabeth Edwards Will Not Endorse In Prez Race
John and Elizabeth Edwards have finally made their endorsement plans -- or lack of them -- official.
On the eve of potentially decisive voting in Indiana and North Carolina, with political tensions at white-hot levels, John and Elizabeth revealed all in an interview with People magazine, of all outlets.
The news in the interview is that they confirmed they will not endorse either candidate in the presidential race, because they are "saving their political capital for their own causes -- his, fighting poverty; hers, fighting for universal health care," reports, um, People mag.
John also shared his thoughts on the pros and cons of Hillary and Obama...
On Clinton: "I like something different about Hillary. I think her tenacity shows a real strength that's inside her."What doesn't he like about Clinton? "Um, still a lot of the old politics," John Edwards said.
As for Obama, he says: "Sometimes I want to see more substance under the rhetoric."
But he cited two things he likes about the charismatic young senator from Illinois: "One is, I think he really does want to bring about serious change and a different way of doing things. And secondly, I think it's a great symbolic thing to have an African-American who could be president."
At that, Mrs. Edwards rolled her eyes and, gripping the arms of her kitchen chair with some exaggeration, seemed about to lunge from her seat. "What about the great symbolic thing about a woman ..."
"It's important. It's important," her husband said. "I know it."
Anyone else miss their presence on the political stage right about now?
Late Update: I should qualify that question. There's no doubt that Edwards' presence in the presidential race was salutary in many ways. Whatever his flaws, and whatever you think of his sincerity and/or motives, he forced a focus on certain issues that has basically vanished with his departure.
The presence of the Edwardses had a healthy effect on our political discourse, too. There is little doubt that the decisions by Obama and Hillary to appear on Fox would have been far less easy politically if Edwards, who led the way in taking on the wingnut media, had been in the race to call them out for it. And Elizabeth's constant scolding of the political media for its obsession with trivia and addiction to pre-fabricated narratives amplified the liberal media critique in various useful ways -- even if it was partly motivated by a desire to get her husband more attention.
You needn't have been an Edwards supporter to recognize that these contributions were valuable.
Comments (321)
Her, yes. Him, no.
May 5, 2008 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd prefer her to Hillary thats for sure.
May 5, 2008 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I prefer a tooth abscess to Hillary. Elizabeth, in my book, is on par with a sprained ankle. I never thought someone so shrill could be adored by so many.
May 5, 2008 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I strongly suspect neilrica is ABSOLUTELY correct:
* John prefers Obama
* Elizabeth prefers Clinton
As a couple that respects each other, they presented their combined opinion of neutrality instead of their individual opinions above.
The Edwards are classy people!!! Bravo!
Eric, outstanding post—very fair, and very well presented.
May 5, 2008 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
John and Elizabeth aren't endorsing? Huh? Since when did we start electing couples and spouses as vicarious identities?
If they're this divided even on endorsing, it's a good thing Edwards wasn't put into office. The whole point of an executive leader, as opposed to a deliberating committee, is an executive must be decisive.
My wife has her profession and I have mine, with different education, skills and experiences. I couldn't do her job and she couldn't do mine. They're both specialized and technically demanding in different areas.
These people who seem to think politics is like running the family store or farm... :rolleyes:
May 5, 2008 11:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with your principal point, though. As much as I do respect Edwards, he's also bought into the oligarchy that is the Democratic Party of today. We've promoted these politicians to celebrity/demi-god status, and this is reinforced by the whole Superdelegates process. It's a bit frustrating.
May 6, 2008 7:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not really.
I didn't think he'd endorse. He hasn't shown much in the way of balls at all, AFAIC, not in '04, not now. If he had any, he'd go ahead and endorse.
I think they would endorse Hillary and are scared to anger the Obama supporters.
But I'm just guessing -
May 5, 2008 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not sure the exact reasons, but I agree that it is rooted in cowardice for sure.
They have nothing to gain by endorsing either. So why rock any boats.
May 5, 2008 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wouldn't be so prone to think so if I hadn't noticed a distinct lack of will on his part to rock a boat over a number of years now.
He let Dick Cheney rip his throat out - and I thought This is this great trial lawyer?
O well.
May 5, 2008 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ridiculous!
May 5, 2008 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
You see the same person I see.
May 5, 2008 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is the essence. Apparently all John does anymore is run for President, so this is a simple political calculation ... he can't call the winner so he won't endors. Reminds me of someone voting FOR the Iraqi Invasion because she was AGAINST it, or whatever the stupid, tortured, opportunistic reasoning was that time.
Nuts to Edwards. Don't need him.
May 5, 2008 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
word
May 6, 2008 4:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you don't even have an opinion on who should be the next president, how could you have managed that job yourself?
Leadership? They had a very large contingent of voters behind them. They blew it. i have lost respect for them.
May 5, 2008 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree in that I think they want to endorse Hillary; however, he knows that if he does that he's going to look like a huge hypocrite after attacking her during the campaign for being part of the problem.
May 5, 2008 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Word up Tena!
May 6, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not really, no.
May 5, 2008 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I don't miss their presence. Who cares? If down the road he proves his dedication to the struggle of those in poverty- yeah I'd respect him, but right now it looks like it was his ploy at being a nominee that didn't shake out. He's like a watered down Jimmy Carter with none of the resume. (btw I'd vote for Jimmy Carter right now)
May 5, 2008 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said.
May 5, 2008 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I definitely miss their presence. If Edwards were still in this race, you can be sure that he would be winning a substantial chunk of those working-class white votes about which everyone is babbling. This would likely have split states like OH and PA in three such that Obama would have emerged as the winner. Besides, he did help to keep the conversation focused on issues instead of folderol like flag-pins and suchlike.
May 5, 2008 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
quite agree. Edwards gets way too much credit for "talking about poverty", cause all he really did was say his daddy worked in a mill, say how much it sucks to be poor. he had not much in the way of specific proposals to fix the plight of the poor, but he did occasionally mention them, sure. but, when I listen to Obama's speeches, there is plenty about poverty and people who are struggling. the idea that poverty "disappeared" from the campaign is just a commonly agreed-upon fallacy. I think the media, bloggers inculded, have simply bought into this narrative without really checking to see if its true or not.
May 5, 2008 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's for damn sure.
May 5, 2008 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, its like they're ready to put him up there with MLK and Jimmy Carter in his humanatarian struggles when he did one program in Louisiana post-Katrina and I seem to have missed the stats on what that accomplished. I might be off-base and if I am I apologize, but I think if the stats were that astounding I would have saw a commercial about them rather than how he was born not far from here and his daddy worked in a mill. I don't think he's McCain or anything but he damn sure ain't deserving of the respected people's fighter mantle he's been adorned with.
The guy's a politician not a saint or ultimate moderator. People think he would have reigned in Clinton? People think he would have stunted her efforts? Maybe so, maybe not. Hillary has proven that she would do damn near anything to win. The fact people dream about John being able to curtail the gutter tactics that Clinton and the media have perpetuated is sad.
Greg has update where he talks about how much better it would be with Edwards to make the media address substantive issues. What a fuckin crock of shit. Pardon my french. Now Edwards is the ArchAngel of Media Integrity ready to smite the wicked hands of the bullshit shills? Get a grip. Since when has one person of real proven integrity ever done such a thing? Did MLK? Take a look at his Time Magazine covers - notice the artist portrayals before and after the Vietnam remarks.
Were their remarks valuable? Yea sure but nothing they could possibly say would deter the profit machine that is our media. Instead of shedding tears about their departure why not blast media shills who perpetuate this stuff? Its not like you don't have a voice Greg. Thousands of people read your posts and commentary every day. Why do you think there are 259 replies to this post with 4 recommendations? Cause it is bullshit. Pure fuckery. Why cry about John and Liz? Why not do your duty and be a person who represents that substance and integrity you find lacking? Do you refuse to report the fuckery you say you dont like? Hell no. You're right there posting away every frigging bullshit argument, phone conference and mailer. Who the hell is going to force a campaign to be substantive? Us? posting our bullshit replies on TPM? Or you the guy with the power of the pen?
Fox? Appearing on Fox? That's the big thing they would have had an impact on?
Blame yourself and hundreds others like you for the unhealthy political discourse. Where was the massive backlash for all the bullshit that has come out this primary? Be honest, has the majority of the unhealthy political discourse come from the MSM and one particular dem candidate? Is your distaste for it obvious to anyone who comes across your writing?
You want Johnny to be referee when that's your job. Stop being a coward about it.
That's my rant. Its probably unfair. Maybe if John Edwards was here he'd keep me in line.
May 5, 2008 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not unfair at all and mirrors the micro-rant I gave my husband when I saw the latest update.
May 6, 2008 1:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks- I thought it was just me. I have deleted many a reply before posting it but I had to pull the trigger on this crap.
May 6, 2008 8:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with all of that.
I just don't think Sargent is that great a journalist or blogger nor do I feel he's even trying that hard. He seems a kind of smug incurious weather vane really. Your typical MSM guy.
Josh is his best when he's really pushing himself, tackling issues intellectually, and working through his thought process. Josh is at his worst when parroting accepted truths of the MSM, or cutting corners and being PC, such as the WMD, Iraq, etc.
I see his TPM's staff expansions mostly as the sort of people who would be in any MSM news room, basically punching the clock, chasing ambulances and doing the weather.
I understand from a business perspective why Josh expanded TPM, having a family and all. The early investigative reporting was excellent. And there are some good contributions on TPMC such as Taplin and Warren. But overall, TPM seems to have wandered off course, having expanded too quickly and lost focus.
Josh should stop the tabloid poll watching for page views and comments. It's just generating revenue to pay the staff for content that's largely a waste of reader's time. I have to wonder if Josh is maintaining this out of loyalty to staff and pride, or if he thinks it's really contributing good journalism and blogging.
May 6, 2008 6:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree about Greg. The most fired up I've read him is on "Taking on Fox" and on his "Horse's _____" blog but you can look at the articles and see where his heart is.
I realize too from a business perspective there have to be some pressures on Josh and Greg. If he(Greg) really hit Wolfson or whoever with tough questions would he still get access down the road? Josh has been pretty straight up as things have gotten worse. I really commend him because its hard to see someone you believed in sellout every principle you thought they had. But Greg, a member of the media, crying to have a politician still be a viable candidate for the purpose of keeping the media in line is pretty cowardly an act.
The stupid poll watching is terrible.
"Poll A says Positive!"
"Poll B says Negative!"
"Poll C says Positive but Negative!"
Oh snap! Ok it is political data of sorts but wtf purpose does it serve besides perpetuating the entire media whore Donner Party wagon train to hell following opinion polls? Is the public served by them? I'd say no for the most part.
May 6, 2008 8:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
But that is kinda the irony of it though. Who cares if he has access if he doesn't ask anything worth hammering on?
It is like the eternal 'keeping the powder dry' rationalization we hear from them on why Congressional Democrats never do what they claim to want to do.
What good is access if you don't do anything substantive and worthwhile with it?
May 6, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
regular profiles in courage
May 5, 2008 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's clear: The couple is split. And since they can't agree on whom to endorse, no endorsement!
Good thing John did not become president! He would have been unable to act unless his wife agreed with the course of action!
HRC: would be a mistake. Her deviousness would mark an entire presidency. Her desire to "fight" would make the White House a daily soap opera.
Obama: Much better choice!
May 5, 2008 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ditto.
May 5, 2008 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think they added to the race, but I'm glad that John Edwards isn't siphoning votes from one of the other candidates b/c I'd hate for the race to be determined that way.
Hopefully, he'll be a great A.G. either way.
May 5, 2008 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
At this point, you're as likely as Edwards is to become the next A.G.
Other than his ever dwindling potential impact on this primary battle, John Edwards has no political capital.
The man has succumbed to the standard, Democratic dry-powder syndrome.
Like so many prominent Democrats before him--think Mario Cuomo--Edwards' careful playing of his hand will end when he discovers that the game has long since ended and his cards have become worthless.
May 6, 2008 2:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nope, I don't miss them.
May 5, 2008 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
"substance under the rhetoric"
grrrrrr
I would say Obama's Senate term so far well outpaces Edwards' one term, which was quite lackluster, and not very progressive.
May 5, 2008 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen to that...when I read that line, I'm like "Pot, meet kettle. No, wait, the kettle has actually done shit. Fuck you Pot."
May 5, 2008 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!
I love our comments.
May 5, 2008 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
your -
your comments.
damn it - I would love a preview function.
May 5, 2008 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey now, I love our comments too.
May 5, 2008 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Anyone else miss their presence on the political stage right about now"?
Not me. I initially supported the Edwards, even sent him money. But his refusal to endorse Obama has left him a cipher in my eyes. Wonder if he'll reimburse my donation?
May 5, 2008 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
of course. I just really thought he was supporting Clinton because it was clear a long time ago that she is. I didn't even think about a split ticket.
May 5, 2008 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
John Edwards lacks testicular fortitude.
May 5, 2008 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Id hate to get into the male vs female thing here. But Edwards is fucking himself by not endorsing who he thinks is the better candidate and it is his WIFES fault.
She wants Clinton for the soul purpose of the health care plan. And after her spat with Obama talking about it, as vocal as she is, she's holding them both back, and I think Edwards is just rolling with it.
Just what my feelings are from what I have read. It's a damn shame too.
May 5, 2008 11:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not cowards, no, but calculating beasts who think "political capital" is theirs alone to spend. To be a coward means to have at least an inkling that a world larger than themselves exists. They have no honor, if this is their reasoning.
Which happens to be a core failure of Sen Clinton's campaign.
Pax,
M.
May 5, 2008 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
The thing which is odd to me here is the implicit notion that political capital is something you can just hoard and save for later. The stuff has a shelf life.
In February, Edwards was on fire. He had basically the entire progressive blogosphere behind him 100%. If he'd dropped out and said he was giving up Presidential aspirations but he did want his supporters to help with such-and-such movement, the amount of political capital he'd have had available to him at that moment would have been incredible.
Now... maybe less so? He's retreated from the public eye and the people who were agitating for him before have moved on to other things. I don't know how much attention he can grab. He does have some "political capital". And considering many of his previous diehard supporters are now diehard for Clinton or Obama, it's probably correct right now that if he endorsed, a certain amount of the political capital he holds now would evaporate.
But... how long does he intend to hold it? Can he just wait until the middle of next year and try to remake himself as a new Al Gore, no longer in politics but vocal and influential on his issue? Or by that point will the political capital have just evaporated over the year he was hiding from the public eye, and turned into "Oh, yeah, John Edwards, the guy that was running for President"?
May 5, 2008 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just to tack on that Gore did win the popular vote in 2000. That kind of political capital has a much longer shelf life than two failed attempts at the nomination.
May 5, 2008 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
plus, let's face it. legislatively, John Edwards is no Al Gore. Gore did some things I found annoying, like campaigning against "dirty" words in rock & rap songs, but his work on the world wide web and new technology, environmentalism, increased work safety standards, his denouncement of the Iraq war, his Nobel prize, give him a kind of sway no other American politician on the left has. Edwards' accomplishments are few indeed. he voted wrong on many key issues, and rhetorically attacked fellow Dems using right wing frames numerous times. on the Iraq war, he was even worse than Clinton, trumpeting bogus propaganda from the high hills, co-sponsoring the force authorization, etc. there's no way he was going to end up the nominee, just about any time the talk comes down to actual issues, Edwards first has to go through a litany of apologies for his past mistakes before he even got to talking about his plans going forward. which made him suspect, of course, to many.
May 5, 2008 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wish them well. But I see them basically as do-gooder capitalists and not leaders of people. I especially hope that her health holds out and they figure out what their contribution can be.
May 5, 2008 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
So who is the anti capitalist in the race you speak of? Curious?
May 5, 2008 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
There was always something empty about Edwards. I certainly admire Elizabeth and wish her the best, but I don't think it matters much one way or the other who they endorse or don't endorse. I agree that they are split but it sure would have been courageous for them to say that. What's the harm?
May 5, 2008 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
thank you for saying that.
It has always bothered me about him. and he always scared me for that reason.
May 5, 2008 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a Yankee by birth, so I was always afraid that it was Edwards' "Southern style" that put me off and didn't want to succumb to such stereotypes. I tried hard to follow what he was about, but always came up empty. Yeah, yeah, the populist stuff, but coming from a malpractice attorney (I have a medical background) always bugged me. It's not that he's not a likable guy, just no spark, too timid, no real message.
May 5, 2008 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Someone clue me in. What did Edwards do between being a Senator and now?
What I mean is, Jimmy Carter has all his stuff (habitat for humanity, voting rights) and he is actively involved in them.
Is Edwards? I know he always talks about poverty things being "his issue," but is that just something he's run on, or is there action behind it?
Curious. I've never heard much about him outside of his political ambition.
May 5, 2008 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Essentially nothing.
May 5, 2008 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
He ran for president. Oh and started a charity that, apparently, is being completely ignored.
May 5, 2008 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yawn, he'll support whomoever wins and picks him as a running mate.
May 5, 2008 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except Edwards has already stated he is not interested in the vice presidential ticket.
May 5, 2008 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
No one ever is.
May 5, 2008 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can only thank him.
May 5, 2008 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it shows the insane bind Edwards has been in between the two, and indicative of why he didn't do better in the primaries: weak spine. The stranglehold the Clintons have politically on him keep him from endorsing Obama outright.
His message on poverty hasn't been backed up with much substance either. But his endorsement of Obama would mean a lot to his former supporters.
May 5, 2008 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
That neither of them have thrown in with Sen Clinton speaks volumes. She should have had them by now.
She should have had a great many things she does not now have, such as formidable leads that will only grow worse after tomorrow.
I mean, NC is their state. Ambition trumps achievement.
Pax,
M.
May 5, 2008 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone else wonder about the stories that have floated around in the last two weeks about Edwards holding out his endorsement for a cabinet appointment?
To my ears that sounded like one of the campaigns was trying to freeze an Edwards endorsement of the other by pre-treating it as a quid pro quo. I can't see Edwards being that craven and I can't think of another reason to float that story.
Not that it matters much. Edwards supporters have already overwhelming moved to Obama. I don't think an endorsement now would have any effect, either with the vote in the remaining states or among the super delegates.
May 5, 2008 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Leaving HOW much "political captial" to spend on "their own causes"?
That'd be bup and kis.
May 5, 2008 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Hillary Clinton is for temporary relief."
- Terry McAuliffe
Not for internal use. Use only as directed. Avoid contact with eyes. Excessive use or prolonged exposure may cause irritation, redness, nausea, blurred vision, cynicism, financial instability, fifty more years in Iraq, and death.
Temporary relief, with a long list of side effects... or long-lasting change?
Yes we can.
May 5, 2008 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
PressureOn
Apply directly to the Super Delegate.
PressureOn
Apply directly to the Super Delegate.
PressureOn
Apply directly to the Super Delegate.
PressureOn
Apply directly to the Super Delegate.
PressureOn
Apply directly to the Super Delegate.
Well, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
May 5, 2008 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was the line that jumped out at me, too. I hope that gets some play with the MSM in the next 24 hours (but not holding my breath).
Besides that, McAuliffe is just an ill-informed fool. The nonsense about $100-150/person as a result of the gas tax? Are you kidding me? That works out to in excess of 550 gallons. Or about 28 tanks of gas.
And, most importantly (although they're betting -- probably correctly -- that no one's ever going to nail them on this when it matters), neither he nor anyone else from the campaign has ever adequately responded to the accepted fact that consumers would never see much, if any, of the "savings" from this so-called holiday, since it would simply be translated into higher margins.
This whole issue gives me a headache.
May 5, 2008 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Disappointed in him, as usual. I would have voted for him, but seeing this, maybe it is good he didn't go forward. I did vote for him in the primary, sigh.
May 5, 2008 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't miss them at all. Fundamentally, I think they are pretty self-interested (not rare among politicos, I'll admit). I always thought John wouldn't endorse, to hold himself out as a "party elder" or even a dark horse in the event of a brokered convention. Delusional, but definitely a possible explanation of the mindset.
Note that Illinois and New York moved up their primaries to boost the hometown candidate. North Carolina did not.
May 5, 2008 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
um, no.
May 5, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
What political capital?
May 5, 2008 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
He wanted a deal to be VP to endorse, and didn't get one.
He's really not the guy he pretends to be.
May 5, 2008 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
People!! They went to People to announce this?
What's the matter with them??
May 5, 2008 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love all the talk about The People deciding this -
This isn't the damn general election. The People have nothing to do with this, unless they are Democratic People.
Please give all the Star Spangled Banner shit a rest on this.
LOLOLOL!
It's the fookin Primary - LOL
y'all slay me. Ooo disenfranchisement! Well, shit, man - we disenfranchise all the Republicans in the closed primary states every 4 damn years!!!!
May 5, 2008 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love how Elizabeth writes in the NYTimes that we all must take the election seriously and goes after the media for being superficial, and then she sits down with PEOPLE magazine for some superficial banter.
They're both proving to be pretty fake.
May 5, 2008 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, that's some intense cynicism. I think they just like feeling important.
Let's be a tad kinder towards Mrs. Edwards though please. It's very sad that she has her particular prognosis so let's cut her some slack.
Oh, and enough of this love for John Edwards ok. He cheats on his wife like Bill. It's not a secret in DC.
May 5, 2008 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
OOoo - really?
shame on him if that's true.
May 5, 2008 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your sort of like the white, bespectacled Malcolm X,eh?
May 5, 2008 10:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your sort of like the white, bespectacled Malcolm X,eh? But seriously, do you just hop on other people's comments. Where and when did John Edwards cheat on his wife. If anyone cites Mickey Kaus, they deserve to be banished for an eternity.
May 5, 2008 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cite your source please.
May 5, 2008 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
sorry, i meant to post in reply to Liam below.
May 5, 2008 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
What the hell are you talking about. I said none of the things that you just complained about. Learn to read first, before you go off on another one of your misplaced, and misguided whine fests.
May 5, 2008 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am sick of the Edwards endless self promotion, including John flying out to appear on the Leno show, weeks after he had already withdrawn from the race. What the hell was the point of that, and what the hell was the point of him announcing that he would not accept the VP slot, that no one expected would even be offered to him.
Mrs. Edwards has taken to writing op-eds in papers such as the New York times. They are certainly still trying to stay in the limelight. What are they really up to. Is there a reason that they are not endorsing a candidate.
Here is some wild speculation to mull over:
What if the Edwards are seriously contemplating pulling a Ross Perot like run in the general election. I would not put it past them. Elizabeth appears to want the White House even more than her Husband, and she knows that her time to attain it me be short.
May 5, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
All in perfect Clintonian time and timbre.
May 5, 2008 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't imagine a third party run would be their goal. If I had to speculate, it would be that they are trying to do what they can to keep pressure up on the issue of health care. My best speculation is that Hillary probably said the right things and gave more assurances on the issue to try to get their endorsement but they realized that she was not the likely nominee, making it somewhat pointless. Perhaps, rather than poverty czar, he is angling to be the ombudsman on the issue of health care.
May 5, 2008 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
YYYYYAAAAAAWWWWWWWNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!
May 5, 2008 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jon Edwards won one senate race. He did well in the 2004 election and earned the VEEP spot, largely because he's an attractive southern white democratic male.
It's good that he was a champion for poverty, but other than, who cares.
I don't know why the media gives him so much attention. As if he commands some great constituency.
And he's one to talk about "liked to see more substance," you mean, like when he'd be bite his lip all the time and emote how he feel our pain and won't stop fighting for you.
Why doesn't he do something like try to stop the war. That might actually be useful.
Yawn
May 5, 2008 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
"...won one Senate race..."
That sure sounds familiar...Hmm.
Wonder if there any candidates left who fit that bill?
Double Yawn.
May 5, 2008 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's drinking your milkshake.
May 5, 2008 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said.
May 5, 2008 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
except that Obama has also won an Illinois state senate race as well as 2 re-elections to that office.
oh, and the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination.
May 5, 2008 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except that he was never first lady.
May 5, 2008 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's overlooked in that shallow snark is that Obama has dedicated nearly his entire adult life to public service. Four turns as state senator, PIRG, grass roots politicking in Chicago, etc. I'll take that over some rich lawyer who profited handsomely from her husband's incredible connections, got credit for executive experience while in a largely ceremonial role, and again was elected US Senator with her husband's political assets (in two largely uncontested races).
If you peel back the covers, HRC doesn't look so accomplished.
May 6, 2008 7:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah Two
May 6, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
As much as this is news, it's also not. Not for me, anyway. I knew Edwards was never going to endorse, and the quotes here are just more of the same stuff the two of them have been saying and doing since he dropped out of the race. Still, I guess it adds some closure knowing where they stand on endorsing either of the candidates.
May 5, 2008 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
None of you have sufficiently shallow reasons for rejecting Edwards, so allow me to show you how it's done:
He always reminded me too much of John Davidson. And I just couldn't wrap my mind around a Love, American Style presidency. Every time he gives a sit-down interview, I flashback to Hollywood Squares. He is polished and perfect in the way a soap opera actor is.
I think a lot of it is the hair.
May 5, 2008 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink