As you can see in most of my news articles tonight, the talk is surrounding John’s Iowa delegates and what they are going to do. The NY Daily News reported,
"Edwards’ campaign co-chair in the state, Rob Tully, tells us the Edwards Team will be sending out an e-mail tonight asking their delegates to hang tough. "Neither of these candidates can make it all the way to the nomination on their own, and it allows us to reiterate our loyalty to John Edwards and the issues he championed," Tully said."
I couldn’t agree more! Why should they throw their support to Clinton or Obama? Sure, it would help one of them gain more delegates but they honestly don’t deserve them. I don’t say this because I am bitter over the fact no one paid attention to John. I say this because we all know John was the best choice when America is in a recession. And this is just looking at the issue of the economy. Anyways, The Quad City Times went on to report this e-mail is coming from John’s own mouth stating,
"Tully said he had talked to a top Edwards campaign official about how to proceed this weekend and expected to send an e-mail sometime Thursday.
"I’m speaking for John. The word came from him," Tully said."
With all of the chatter, guess who’s campaign is the most active in getting Edwards delegates. Hillary. In Newsweek, an Iowan web designer Lance Jenkins received a solicitation from the Clinton campaign. Listen to their strategy:
"....both campaigns are actively pursuing the 30 percent of county delegates pledged to John Edwards; his estimated 14 statewide delegates--now free-agents--would be a major boon. "Absolutely they’re fair game," says Karen Hicks, a senior adviser to the Clinton campaign. "We are reaching out to a lot of them, trying to persuade them to join our team." But Jenkins says that the Clintonites are going a step further--and cites himself as evidence. According to Jenkins, the robocall he received from the Clinton campaign was a solicitation. "It said something like, ’As the county convention nears, we ask that you consider Hillary,’" he recalls. "It rattled off a bunch of Clinton’s talking points, like experience, substance, ready on day one, etc." The only problem? Jenkins is committed to Obama--meaning that, in Jenkins words, "Clinton is actively pursuing pledged delegates."
This isn’t to say Obama’s people aren’t fighting too because all of the articles below tonight mention that his people are doing so.... it just appears that Hillary’s people are being more aggressive about it. The thing is, this is a lose-lose situation for both Hillary and Barack because the NY Daily News reported,
"Hillary herself called me," said Edwards’ co-chairman Rob Tully
"All of a sudden we matter again," said Edwards backer John Heitland, the Hardin County Democratic chairman.
The bad news for Clinton is she left a poor impression with many Edwards supporters and other Iowans when she bad-mouthed the state’s caucuses after she finished third, calling them undemocratic. And some blame her for the negative tone that’s crept in.
"It’s gotten kind of nasty, and I think most of that’s come from the Clinton side," said Heitland.
The bad news for Obama is that Tully planned to ask his people to go to the conventions and stick with Edwards. "It gives us a chance to say that we are not happy with the fighting that’s been going on," he said.
I like to consider myself a hardcore Edwards Democrat. I want to say thank you to all of the Iowans who are sticking with John at the convention. I want to make sure the Democratic Party knows that I think they made the wrong choice in supporting the "firsts" and not the "issues". A Clinton delegate or an Obama delegate do not speak for me. An Edwards delegate speaks for me. If McCain wins the election you can bet I will be helping in the mass production to make bumper stickers which state, "Don’t Blame Me.... I Voted for Edwards".
I am excited to share an article with you tonight called, "Chance meeting fails to score a scoop". Journalist Rosemary Roberts had the pleasure of scoring seats next to John and Elizabeth this past Sunday at an UNC-Duke women's basketball game in UNC's Carmichael Auditorium. Don't worry -- she didn't pester him as they were all there for the game and not a impromptu interview for the inside scoop to where John's head is at. However, she did manage to get a little bit out of him.... nothing groundbreaking but I will take ANYTHING at this point! Here are some of my favorite questions and answers:
"Senator Edwards," I began. (I'm never sure how you address former senators but I stuck with "senator.") "Are you going to endorse Hillary or Obama?"
I knew Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama had flown to Chapel Hill seeking his endorsement. After all, Edwards had finished third in the Democratic caucuses and primaries before dropping out.
Edwards smiled and replied to my endorsement question: "I haven't decided."
Next question: "Would you be interested in the office of the vice presidency?"
I was hoping for a scoop with this one. Headline possibility: "Edwards eager to be Democratic veep candidate!"
Edwards smiled and replied: "No comment."
John was as gracious as ever and all smiles. I was expecting, "I haven't decided yet" in terms of the endorsement. I am amused by his "No comment" response about VP because during the campaign he said he wasn't interested in being anybody's VP.... of course.... he was speaking as a man running to be the President of the United States and didn't want to look like he would settle for second best. Ms. Roberts also mentioned Elizabeth looks like she is doing fine considering her continuing cancer battle and recent loss of her father. I will leave you with a little note to make sure you read the article as there is a cute snipet in there about Emma Claire and her involvement in the pregame activities. Thank you Ms. Roberts for a little piece of Edwards post-suspension announcement news.
I am pleased to share that John has an upcoming event scheduled. He will be a speaker at the Manufacturers' Association's 103rd Annual Event Wednesday, June 18 at the Bayfront Convention Center (Erie, PA). I encourage you all to send a 'Thank You' note to the association for recognizing John as a man of the people.... particularly those in the manufacturing industry (like my father and his father).
Please act swiftly to overturn the FCC's Dec. 18 vote to relax media ownership rules. By co-sponsoring the Resolution of Disapproval (SJ Res. 28) introduced by Sen. Byron Dorgan, you will be taking a stand for investigative journalism, local news and competition in our state.
Research shows that media consolidation means fewer perspectives and less of the news our communities need. This is especially troubling in an election year when citizens depend on our media for the information they need to make fundamental choices about the future of our country.
When the FCC voted this December, it ignored nearly universal public opposition -- just like it did in 2003, when the Senate voted to overturn similar rule changes.
The FCC's decision to let Big Media get even bigger will erode localism, diminish minority ownership and decrease competition.
I have a bone to pick with Mark Weisbrot over an opinion piece he wrote titled, Media Has Large, Often Unnoticed Role In National Politics. By first looking at the title, I am sure many of you were thinking the same as me.... "Finally, someone who is going to really put it out there that the media fed to our country who the frontrunners were going to be for the Democratic nominee." He really disappointed me when he compared John Edwards to Barack Obama. He described John as, "The media can also veto candidates, as in the case of John Edwards. He was not by definition a "marginal" candidate: a U.S. senator and vice-presidential candidate in the last election, at various junctures he polled better against potential Republican contenders than the other Democratic candidates. He led his rivals in introducing a serious health care plan, and arguably transformed the contest in his appeal to the Democratic base on that and other issues.
But the media rejected Edwards, by a combination of ignoring him and subjecting him to much more negative reporting than the other major contenders. The same was true in 2004 for Howard Dean, who rallied the Democratic base but found himself with five or six times as many negative articles in the media than his major democratic primary opponents.
The media does much more than directly influence the opinion of voters. Most donors, politicians, institutions and other important political participants will not waste resources on a candidate that they think is unlikely to win. They often look at how the media treats a candidate in order to make this decision. If the media does not take a candidate seriously or is obviously hostile to him or her, these potential supporters will look elsewhere."
That's not to say that Edwards would have won if the media had not rejected him; most likely he would have lost anyway. But he would have been a more serious contender." I didn't have a problem with the first part. John did make the Democratic Party this election cycle. He also was leveled with the most criticism because of his more progressive approach to really make change in this country. This is a bad thing apparently? Now listen to what he said about Obama,
"On the other hand, Obama knew how to define his candidacy within the limits of the media's constraints and still have a mass appeal. From the beginning of his campaign he mostly avoided challenging powerful interests, and talked about "getting all sides to the table" and overcoming "decades of bitter partisanship." The media and punditocracy lap this stuff up like honey. At the same time he was able to tap into the voters' deep desire for change, with inspirational speeches, transcendental narratives, and celebrity-studded videos."
Instead of standing up for John and pointing out exactly what was wrong with this election, he later in the article called Obama's campaign style as "genius". This is exactly why so many of us Edward Democrats are still on the fence about who we are or aren't going to vote for in the remaining primaries and caucus' and the general election. Mr. Weisbrot is basically supporting the idea that as long as you say what everyone wants to hear, the media is going to eat up because he can give a good speech. The whole "bring all sides to the table" is.... and I hate to use a Bill Clinton line here.... a fairytale. I don't care if you are Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.... John Edwards had it right. We need to stop sitting at home on our couches and hoping for change. We need to FIGHT for change. I don't want to HOPE for something to happen because you know what.... I've been hoping for a long time and what has honestly changed THAT much besides things getting worse versus getting better? How many Americans are going hungry every night? How many American soldiers are overseas away from their families? How many Americans don't have health care? And this is what gets praised? The status quo campaign tactics the media has dicated from the beginning? When are people going to stand up for John Edwards, who in my opinion, is still VERY relevant. This is a man who set the Democratic platform. You can call this sour grapes but when articles like this come out it really angers me. I hate to say it but in the end both Clinton and Obama's statements of representation on what John and we stand for will be nothing but empty promises. They will do as Mr. Weisbrot said.... tell us what we want to hear until they are "President of the United States". We cannot become voiceless because all of those people I spoke of are who John and Elizabeth spoke for and continue to speak for. This is why I come back here day after day. I will not let the media run the show. I may be just a small blog on myspace but I hope you, your family, and friends talk about what you read and really have dialogue because I think our fight was Edwards Democrats has just begun. What could be more exciting than that? MY tomorrow begins today!
We really can't let this guy get any further can we? Think about it and please add your name by going to the Democratic National Party's web site below!! ~~Diane (MySpace profile: Idaho (STILL) for Edwards)
----------------- Thank You ----------------- From: Virginia STILL for John Edwards (MySpace profile) Date: Feb 26, 2008 2:55 PM
I wanted to let you know that I am supporting the Democratic National Committee's FEC complaint against John McCain, and hope that you will support it, too.
by John DeSio, The Village Voice February 25, 2008
Though he's officially left the race for the White House John Edwards is still hoping to shape the debate, lending his name to a new "out of Iraq" movement and targeting John McCain for defeat. Edwards, the former North Carolina senator and twice-failed candidate for Democratic Party's presidential nomination, has signed up along with his wife Elizabeth to help launch a new effort that will present the war in Iraq as fiscally irresponsible, and place much of the responsibility for the war on Senator McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee for president.
The "Iraq/Recession" campaign, led by a coalition of unions and activist groups such as SEIU, Move On, and the Center for American Progress, will look to tie economic troubles at home to military spending abroad. It will also look to highlight the choice between an anti-war Democrat and a pro-war Republican. Edwards reeled off a laundry list of issues — from healthcare to the mortgage crisis to the potential recession to the number of Americans living in poverty — as symptoms of overspending in Iraq.
"All these things are made much worse by concern about what's happening in Iraq," said Edwards in a conference call with reporters. "The war in Iraq, at least from my perspective, needs to be brought to an end for a lot of reasons."
Edwards criticized McCain's support for the war and his recent statements that he would be willing to stay in Iraq for "100 years," if that's how long it takes to win.
"This is not what the American people want to see," said Edwards. "If they see a direct connection between the spending in Iraq, the economic anxiety caused by that, the price of oil, the price of gasoline, all those things, and this ongoing war in Iraq. For that reason, among others, they want to see this war brought to an end."
The $20 million initiative will target not only McCain but several Republican senators facing tough reelection battles this year. But it was clear from Edwards' comments that the McCain is the top priority of the effort.
"We want to make certain that the American people know that they have a very clear choice in this election," said Edwards. "And that choice is between a Democratic nominee for president that will end this war and who will focus on all these issues that are creating economic anxiety and insecurity among so many Americans, because that's what the American people want to see; and the other choice being Senator McCain, the Republican nominee, who intends to continue the war, to continue the incredibly failed policies of George Bush."
Edwards added, "The American people deserve that choice. I think it will be absolutely clear what the voters want when that choice is presented to them."
Since the news is still pending on the Edwards endorsement, there really isn't a lot of news coming out about John.... sure I could talk about Obama or Clinton but what kind of Edwards Democrat would that make me? I do want to point to my favorite news article of the night: At last, John Edwards has everybody's attention. Let me just say that my favorite part of the article is at the very end in regards to his pending endorsement,
"Talking with reporters Monday, Obama said he doubted Edwards would endorse either of his former rivals. And why should he be in any hurry? For a candidate who struggled to be heard, the anticipation every time he clears his throat must be nice."
John shouldn't be in any hurry because like I said yesterday, when he makes that decision, I want to make sure he didn't make a hasty choice because I am going to trust his judgment -- no matter who he picks. You know.... he may not endorse anyone.... and that case.... that means I have to vote McCain because if John can't trust a Democrat who can you trust? (Calm down, this is a joke lol ....maybe) ;) Either way.... I hope the media is holding their breath in pain for that hot story that John Edwards endorsed ___fill in the blank candidate___.
I know many of you are chopping at the bit already about my title 'Obama Doesn't Recognize Our Voice'. I came across this article, The Courtship of John Edwards, which shared Obama's comments about what an Edwards endorsement could mean for his campaign. Obama was quoted to saying,
"I think John still has an enormous following, I think he has a lot of credibility and so we would love to have his support," Obama said. "But right now, what I think is most important is for me to make sure that I am getting out and talking to voters."
What will be "most helpful ultimately," Obama said, "is that the people have a sense that I will be fighting for them in the White House, that my priorities are their priorities. If they know that, then the endorsements will probably have less sway."
So, in my opinion, Obama has just reduced the meaning of John's endorsement. I too believe it is important to get out to the voters in the closing months of the primaries fight. However, we, Edwards Democrats, are still voters too in the general election. There are approximately 500,000+ and counting of us out there who support John Edwards. Our votes don't count? Our voices don't matter? If I remember correctly, as the author of this article pointed out, John Edwards said he would fight for me. Not Obama. He isn't into "fighting". All I have to say is that by him saying that people don't look to endorsements isn't swaying me towards him. I and many other Edwards Democrats are actively waiting to see who John endorses. It is important to me because he knows Clinton and Obama better than we ever will. I trust his judgement to choose a leader for this country.... if it isn't going to be John Edwards, then who? I find Obama's comments arrogant. He just brushed the meeting and endorsement possibility aside. However, if he really didn't think it would make a difference.... why visit John at all? I don't know about all of you.... but if there is one thing I know about Edwards Democrats, we are a well organized, hard working group of people. Who wouldn't want us backing them in the general election? Obama needs to wake up.
Photo Credit: the good reverend from the DailyKos per ABC News
There you have it.... it has happened. John (with Elizabeth) and Barack met yesterday in Chapel Hill, N.C.. According to the article, Obama and Edwards Sit Down in North Carolina, the moments captured in the pictures were allegedly taken at the end of the meeting. Obama's campaign released a statement about today's meeting:
"Sen. Obama visited this morning with John and Elizabeth Edwards at their home in Chapel Hill to discuss the state of the campaign and the pressing issues facing American families" (Source: Obama visits Edwards).
I have two links to share with you of video coverage of the meeting. Obama visits Edwards in Chapel Hill actually has video of Obama's exit as seen in the pictures above. Barack Obama Speaks Exclusively with NewsChannel 7 from Wausau, Wisconsin spoke with Obama. In the middle of the interview, the reporter asks him about the meeting that took place today. He basically says this has been an ongoing dialogue with John but he just hadn't seen him since before he dropped out of the race. He also said the meeting didn't secure an endorsement. Let the countdown begin.... who will John Edwards endorse? Barack Obama? Hillary Clinton? Let the games begin!
Some of you may have seen "Edwards is rumored to be flying to Ohio to endorse Hillary" floating around over at the DailyKos. It was a comment stating just what the link says, it is rumored that John is flying to Ohio to endorse Hillary. There was NO SOURCE for the information. The one interesting thing to read in this area are the comments. One poster said,
"Actually, it's Davis Bender on Rachel Maddow. Two Edwards supporters who aren't happy about the prospect of a Hillary endorsement. Bender (Political analyst for Air America)said he's hearing the rumors, so give that the level of credence you wish."
There is and has been talk of a Hillary endorsement as of late but they are all missing sources. I think this links back to the meeting John and Hillary had and to my knowledge, the "Obama-Edwards" meeting has yet to happen. I am not saying it isn't going to happen because Obama has been quoted stating, "We're gonna make it happen". I think it comes down to Obama and Edwards wanting the same opportunity to meet without a media spectacle in Chapel Hill. It is a waiting game.... and I know it is driving many of you crazy but we will hear something soon. I still think it comes down to before the Texas and Ohio primaries. The waiting game continues....
Dick Cavett interviews Congressman Tom Lantos tells about his experience in a work labor camp during World War II. He escaped to a safe house established by Raul Wallenberg but later learned he lost his whole family in the Nazi's in Death Camps.
VIEWPOINTS by David Rossie Commentary, February 10, 2008
"Johnny, I hardly knew ye."
-- A 19th century Irish folk song about a young man who lost his life while serving with the British East India Company.
The 19th century is long gone, and so too is the British East India Company -- which in a way was the precursor to Blackwater, but without the generous employee benefits, not the least of which is immunity for criminal acts. But never mind.
The song itself might stand as a sad farewell to the presidential candidacy of John Edwards, because thanks to the mass media, we never really got to know Edwards and what he stood for before he, like other Democratic hopefuls, was swept under by the tsunami-like coverage of Clinton and Obama.
Sure, we heard and read for a while about his rise from poor mill-hand's son to successful lawyer, but always with the snide aside that he was a trial lawyer, which is like the asterisk after Roger Maris' home-run record. Somehow there is something demeaning about being a lawyer who goes after the clients of corporate lawyers. Or so we're told.
And of course there were the smirking references to the $400 haircut by pundits who wouldn't dream of mocking W for flitting about the Persian Gulf gathering up baubles, bangles and beads from porcine sheiks.
It's not that Edwards didn't have anything to say. He had plenty to say, but a lot of it was unpleasant, such as his assertion that we were ignoring the reality of two Americas: the have-nots and the have-plentys-who-want-a-whole-lot-more. An America with the finest health care available -- to those who can afford it, and too bad about the 40 million or so others who can't. But then, they can always go to the ER if they fall ill, as W pointed out.
It was easier to listen to abstractions about how it's time for a change and the power of experience, no matter how vaguely defined.
So Edwards was dismissed as just another populist, singing the same old tune he'd sung four years ago when he was doing his best to breathe life into John Kerry's sluggish campaign. Perhaps it's not fair to say Edwards' cries went unheard.
Obama heard them. When it became clear, thanks to pundits such as Paul Krugmanm that Obama was trying to peddle a health care plan that only an insurance company could love, he adroitly paid lip service to Edwards' plan -- after Edwards dropped out.
But as far as the media were concerned, Edwards might as well have been Mike Gravel or Ron Paul. His ordeal was summed up emphatically one recent night during NBC's brief report on the previous night's Democratic debate, as described by Mrs. Greenspan. Ninety-nine percent of the coverage, predictably, was devoted to Mrs. Clinton and Obama once again reprising "The Bickersons." The other 1 percent consisted of what Mrs. Greenspan described as Edwards injecting a note of humor into the proceedings, when he reminded the moderators that "there are three of us in this debate."
That was it. End of coverage. Mrs. Greenspan and Brian laughed. How many of those who were interested in what Edwards might have had to say, laughed along with them?
Contrast the media's cavalier treatment of Edwards with their fawning coverage of a resurgent John McCain in his battle with the animatronic Mitt Romney.
Much has been written and spouted about Romney's abandonment of all the principles he espoused as governor of Massachusetts, and justifiably so. But McCain has matched him, stance for stance, flip for flop; everything from abortion, gay rights, Bush's tax cuts for the rich, and most of all his shameful embrace of Falwell and Robertson, both of whom he had earlier excoriated.
How to account for McCain's experience on the road to Damascus, or Minneapolis? Easy if you're David Brooks or Gail Collins.
In a column headed "The McCain Transition," Brooks ascribes it to "his character, his integrity, his honesty."
Collins' take: "McCain is all about honor and keeping his word."
Where are those grinning clowns who used to show up at Kerry speeches dressed as flip-flops when we need them? And where is Edwards now that we need him all the more?
Jonathan Prince, John's Senior Advisor, has made a statement to the NYTimes which may indicate when John may endorse Hillary or Barack:
"You can't make a judgment until Ohio and Texas," said Jonathan Prince, who was a senior adviser to John Edwards of North Carolina, who quit the race two weeks ago. "In this campaign, every time he has surged ahead, voters take a pause. If momentum keeps slamming into a wall, then you do have to come down to the numbers."
Didn't I just say this? I will have to go back and re-read my blogs but I am pretty sure I said that if he didn't make an endorsement before or after Super Tuesday, then he is waiting for big guns like Texas and Ohio before he decides to back someone.... and would you look at that? Prince makes a statement about Texas and Ohio. Of course, this is all pure speculation as to a time John may endorse but.... can you blame the guy? Edwards Democrats haven't had it easy either.... making the decision to either stand our ground and vote for John.... vote for Hillary or Barack.... not vote at all.... and this is just the primaries and caucus'. Those of us who have voted in the primaries or caucus'.... we have been weighing our decisions for the general election.... support the Democrat nominee? Vote Republican? Vote Independent? Not vote at all? Write John's name in? I like that idea.... the Edwards Democratic Party needs to get John's name on the ballot! That way our voice still gets heard in the name of John Edwards! ;) At any rate, we may be getting closer folks to the answer of 'the John Edwards Endorsement'!
The following article, The Edwards Primary, stated that it was a scheduling conflict as Obama's reason for not meeting with John yesterday. With that settled, it still doesn't calm the wonder that many of us have on who John is or is not going to endorse. I think if Obama meets John before March 4th, we may hear something before this date. Why? Texas and Ohio. Some big number delegate grabbing states. Much of the behind the scene chatter is stating that Clinton needs John's nod more than Obama because of his momentum. However, John may not be comfortable endorsing the "status quo" -- the very type he fought throughout his entire campaign. So why not the automatic win for Obama? I think because John is human. He doesn't want to be hasty. He wants to be fair. He heard what Clinton had to say.... hopefully he will hear what Obama has to say.... and then he will make (or not make) the difficult decision where not everyone is going to be happy. In such a historical election, he is in a rough spot. Some pundits say it doesn't matter what John Edwards thinks.... I disagree.... there are almost 500,000 of us who potentially could make or break the nomination and the general election. In a country where voter turnout isn't known to be good but has improved this election cycle, we Edwards Democrats still have a voice and I believe we can still make a difference. John's decision could make the difference of who's campaign will ride the wave to the nomination or shipwreck before the convention.
The big news story today was supposed to be the meeting between Obama and Edwards. It did not occur today afterall. The story is being spun a few different ways. Obama-Edwards meeting a no-go, for now states it is supposed to be re-scheduled according to Obama's campaign. No explanation as to why it was canceled. No date released at this time. Then, Obama Skips Visit to Court Edwards states it was a choice by Obama to skip the meeting because of his positive showing this past weekend. Finally, Obama on Edwards Meeting - "We're gonna make it happen." states just that.... he said he still wants to meet with John but would not elaborate any further.
I found an actual recent quote from John at salon.com:
"Speaking to a local radio station, Edwards explained the meetings: "I promised both Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama [that] before I decided whether I would endorse anybody or who to endorse that I would meet with each of them. So that's what that was about."
So, with that in the back of your mind, John had agreed to meet with both of them. You can read it a few different ways.... this is what I've heard.... Clinton has the endorsement in the bag.... Obama's momentum has made him arrogantly cast John aside as unimportant.... Obama had a scheduling conflict.... what do you think?
I wanted to close by saying that I am sad the blogging activity will cease at JohnEdwards.com tomorrow. The Edwards cause cannot stop. We cannot stop. We are Edwards Democrats! Stay informed! Stay connected!
The John Edwards for President blog will go offline tomorrow, Tuesday, February 12th.
Before that happens, we want to thank you one more time for your support, participation and enthusiasm. It has been a huge part of our campaign, and we could not have imagined it any other way.
Elizabeth has called blogs "the new town squares" and bloggers the "modern day pamphleteers." With that thought in mind, we hope that you will continue to blog, chat, debate and discuss the issues that are important to you, and to our country, even if it is in a different square.
From all of us here at the Edwards campaign, thank you and best wishes.
The story of the night! Word on the street tonight is Obama has momentum now with a successful weekend at the polls. There is also word that Clinton has replaced her campaign manager. Why is this important to us Edwards Democrats? Again, I have to stress that the "Edwards" support from us the voters or John himself could play a big role from here on out. According TBeau, a blogger at JohnEdwards.com, Hillary secretly visited with John Thursday morning at his home in Chapel Hill, N.C. The article goes on to state that Obama will have a meeting with John tomorrow as well. The article states he is "very torn" over who he wants to endorse. Things are heating up in the Edwards endorsement hunt daily. Keep it here folks! Tell your Edwardian friends to join us here nightly as well! ;)
Ever since my choice for the democratic nomination, John Edwards, suspended his campaign, I have been besieged by friend and stranger alike, urging me to vote for Barack Obama. Literally no one I know has approached me about Hillary. Maybe that says something about my friends or Hillary or maybe it says something about me. It doesn't matter, because the only way I hold my nose and vote for her is if she's the nominee in November. The thing is, I couldn't bring myself to vote for Obama, either. Many of my friends are somewhat incredulous at my recalcitrance, but I have my reasons.
First a little background. My mother was a proud and politically active woman of mixed ethnicity but I think she identified most often as black. She was a filmmaker, author and journalist and paid close attention to the goings on of the day. She was deeply involved in the Civil Rights movement and I was raised in an politically aware home. But let's be honest, unless you know me or are very race conscious, you wouldn't know I was anything but Caucasian (or maybe Latino. I get that on the streets of NYC all the time). That said, I was raised in a multi-ethnic home and am myself very conscious of my heritage.
I am a feminist and a civil rights activist and I would be more than happy to see the first woman president or the first black president. The thing is, I will not and cannot sacrifice my overall political beliefs and I flatly refuse to do something so base and crass as to sell my vote for race or gender. This year's race for the democratic nomination has been framed by the media for over a year as Clinton vs. Obama and as a result, the candidate most committed to the wellbeing of the people, John Edwards, was marginalized from the start. He really never had a chance and for that, the mainstream media should be ashamed. It's clear, at least from my perspective, that John Edwards preached what was fair and good: An end to the dominance of Big Pharma and the insurance company lobby, the return of the government to the people, the end of corporate media dominance...oh.... Ooops!
So, John Edwards was, for my money, the most progressive, committed and honest person in the democratic race and he got my support. When he dropped out, I fully expected a switch to click in my head and start to get excited about Obama, but you know what? I couldn't do it. I don't like his heathcare plan, he strikes me as an appeaser, I don't fully trust him and he never says anything. It drives me nuts. His speeches are like revival meetings and while I love a good call-and-response, "Yes we can" doesn't really say much besides, well, "yes we can." Besides, I'm loyal. When I support someone, I support them and in the absence of an endorsement from Edwards, I felt no compelling urge to vote for Obama.
The thing is, it's all about November, for me and who can beat John McCain (for he's clearly the likely nominee). Unfortunately, the only candidate who was the clear winner in that contest is no longer in the race. In poll after poll, you democrats all over the country named Edwards as the candidate you thought could most beat the republicans in November and in poll after poll you named Edwards as the candidate who most cared about people. And what did you all do? You voted against your interests and against the interests of the country as a whole. I just don't get it. If you really thought Obama or Clinton were more likely to win, the results would make sense, but you didn't. You said Edwards was a better candidate and cared more about you and then you went out and voted for someone else. Shame on you.
LEWISTON, MAINE -- During a town hall meeting today, Hillary Clinton opened the floor to questions and a woman, who identified herself as a former supporter of John Edwards, told Clinton she is now supporting her.
The woman said she hopes Clinton will “consider John’s policies and his fighting spirit when you get to the White House.”
Clinton, who had mentioned Edwards' work on health care in her speech (something she has not done in quite a while), told the woman she and Edwards “have a lot in common.” Clinton called Edwards a “fighter” and told the woman, “I will be a fighter and I intend to ask John Edwards to be a part of anything I intend to do in the White House.”
Edwards has not formally endorsed any candidate since dropping out late last month. But both Clinton and Barack Obama have said they intend to court his base of supporters - in fact, Obama told reporters he spoke to Edwards a few days ago but wouldn't elaborate on their conversation.
When asked whether Clinton’s comments on Edwards were calculated, her campaign denied that the reference to Edwards earlier in her speech was planned.
CBS News' Maria Gavrilovic contributed to this report.
As if this election couldn't get even more ridiculous....
It's a trap! The following rumor is not true.... John Edwards has not endorsed Barack Obama. I repeat.... John Edwards has not endorsed Barack Obama. When I was searching the news tonight I noticed "Did you mean 'John Edwards endorses Obama?'" in my news searching for John Edwards. I was like, "WHAT?" Then I heard over at the DailyKos it was a rumor that started by an Obama supporter but Laura cleared it up with this article: John Edwards Endorses NOBODY (so far). John has not endorsed anyone at this time.
It's a trap! DNC urges caucuses in Florida, Michigan. Who does this benefit? I guess it depends on who you support. If you think the DNC is trying to advance Hillary to give her a few more delegates against Obama.... you will think Clinton. If you think the DNC thinks an Obama caucus' turnout would benefit Obama.... you will think Obama. I think this whole idea is wrong. Why are they doing this now? E-mail the DNC to let them know how you feel. It was bad enough that our voices for John Edwards weren't heard in Florida AND even more particularly in Michigan. The DNC are a bunch of hypocrites. Punish the states and then reward them? I smell something rotten! Here is the contact info: http://www.democrats.org/page/s/contact
Super Tuesday is over but it was nice to see some of you 'John Edwards Democrats' out at the polls yesterday. I want to personally thank every person who is accounted for by a number in the following tally:
Alabama - 7,933 (99% of precincts) Arizona - 21,902 (98% of the precincts) Arkansas - 5,374 (94% of the precincts) California - 170,013 (99% of the precincts) Connecticut - 3,408 (100% of the precincts) Delaware - 1,241 (100% of the precincts) Georgia - 17,990 (99% of the precincts) Idaho - 137 (100% of the precincts) Illinois - 39,001 (99% of the precincts) Kansas - 53 (100% of precincts) Massachusetts - 19,889 (100% of the precincts) Minnesota - 972 (87% of the precincts) Missouri - 16,747 (100% of the precincts) New Jersey - 14,607 (99% of the precincts) New Mexico - 2,025 (98% of the precincts) New York - 19,725 (99% of the precincts) North Dakota - 283 (100% of the precincts) Oklahoma - 42,718 (100% of the precincts) Tennessee - 27,644 (100% of the precincts) Utah - 3,525 (99% of the precincts)
This amounts to approximately 415,187. Almost a half a million Edwardians roaming the great USA. If I could shake the hand of every one of these people who are represented by these numbers, I would. We are strong group. We were not intimated by the media or the candidates supporters to buy into the media hype. I know there are actually more of us who are out there but made the difficult decision to turn their vote to Obama or Clinton.... and I am sure it wasn't easy for them. All I can say is, I have no regrets with my vote. I believe it was my friend Mari who said we need to get those bumper stickers out, "Don't Blame Me, I Voted Edwards". lol :) This is true. I don't know what is going to happen now. The pundits were saying on Super Tuesday that if Clinton won CA, NJ, and NY -- she would likely get the nomination.... and she did. Scary thought. Here's my thing.... if Clinton gets the nomination, I don't see her asking John to be her VP.... and if she did.... I do not see him accepting because it would be a hypocrisy. The status quo/change ticket. Um, no. If Obama won the nomination, I could see him asking John to be VP. Change/Change ticket. Nice. However, most people believe John really meant what he said when he said he will not run for VP. As you know, some pundits call him a "loser" VP because he didn't help Kerry. To me, Kerry hurt Kerry. Not Edwards hurt Kerry.
With the Super Tuesday madness over, where do you stand? Do you think Clinton will win the nomination or do you think Obama is going to clean up the majority of the remaining states? Will you support Clinton or Obama if they are the nominee? Are any of you considering voting Republican? What do you think will likely be the face off: What Democrat v. What Republican? I am full of questions tonight! I want to know where your heads are at. :)
One of my readers asked who I'd vote for, now that Edwards has left the race.
If I were going to cast a ballot Tuesday, I'd still be voting for John Edwards. Why?
Because I don't trust either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton to carry the banner of progressive causes. The only power we have is in our votes, and if one of them walks off with enough delegates to pin down the nomination Tuesday, they have no incentive whatsoever to keep their word to Edwards. They will immediately start moving to the right and currying the conservative vote.
We're supposed to take it on faith that both of these candidates are a lot more liberal than they appear. Well, it's going to take more than a few speeches to convince me.
What would convince me? A candidate who takes a strong, uncompromising position on something that would benefit us instead of industry. Neither of their health care plans does it for me, although I'd give Hillary's the edge. Obama lost points with his various comments about how universal health care isn't possible. (Or practical, or whatever.)
Hillary is a triangulator and a corporatist; I think we're all familiar with her liabilities. Obama is someone who came up in Illinois statehouse politics - a place that's hardly a bastion of ethics. He showed exceedingly poor judgment in allowing his friend - someone who was then already under a cloud - to cut him a deal on the land next to his house. (Didn't I just hear him say today that it was just as important to be right on the first day as it was to be ready?)
And finally, I'd like to note that I do have exceedingly sound instincts. (Go back and read my posts from the past six years.) Although I was a big Dean supporter and someone who didn't think John Kerry had what it took to win (or govern effectively), it didn't make me sick to my stomach to vote for him.
I feel sick now. I don't believe Hillary will back down from the unitary executive trend if elected, and I don't believe she's strong enough to prevent another war. If anything, I think she's raring to prove herself "strong enough" to be commander-in-chief.
And I don't believe Obama is either strong or ruthless enough to root out the right-wing extremists with whom Bush has populated the government.
I hope I'm wrong. I pray I'm wrong. But I fear for our country. I don't think either of them will do what needs to be done. Yes, there will be some improvements. But as to the future direction of our country, I don't know where they want to lead.
Tomorrow is our day. Super Tuesday. As you know, I am not conflicted with my decision to vote for John Edwards tomorrow. :) However, I do feel for those who have decided not to vote for John.... believe it or not. I understand many of you feel like a vote for John is a wasted vote and you want to vote for either Obama or Clinton to support the party against the potential Republican nominee. I respect that. I meant it when I said that we all have a difficult decision to make with John's campaign suspended. We can still vote for John and collect delegates. What I am asking of you when you go to the polls tomorrow is to think about how John Edwards set the Democratic Party platform this election cycle on health care, poverty, rural America, tax reform, working families, predatory mortgages, import safety, ally relationships, the environment, and much more. If you have decided John will not receive your vote, please make your choice on who you believe will best represent the Edwards agenda. I now have an opinion on which candidate I believe most closely matches John's ideas. We know both Obama and Clinton have used and continue to use many of John's ideas but I will not share that at this time who I think is the closest. :) Sorry. Back on track here, now, for those like me who have decided to vote for John Edwards on Super Tuesday, our day is simple. We turn up to vote. Vote John Edwards. The end. So much simplier than deciding your second choice, isn't it? ;) With that said, please watch these two G-R-E-A-T videos supporting voting for John tomorrow!
Sticking with Edwards By: ruleraddison (YouTube)
Stand by Your Man! By: RosyB9 (YouTube)
Super Tuesday.... One Choice.... One Voice.... One Vote.... John Edwards!
John Edwards a true blue Peoples' President By Isabel P. Ball
February 03, 2008
"2 down, 48 more to go," John Edwards, forever optimistic and sunny, his index and middle finger prompting, blared in his concession speech after a third place win in New Hampshire.
Then, came South Carolina, his hometown, and in the preliminary gave him a conservative 18%. Again, he came in third, outpaced and seemingly forgotten by the same population that gave him a win in 2004. Once again, John, with grace and dignity conceded with his usual beaming, winsome smile and a promise to fight on to the end of the race, focused to the convention and all the way to the Whitehouse.
Again, the caucus in Florida gained him another third spot. There was no concession made since some legal bind disallowed the democrats from campaigning in the state. But according to some reports, Hillary did appear and campaigned in Florida, and that unethical tenacity bagged for her the first slot in the polls.
One quiet day, with suddenness--like a sneaking natural disaster--totally unexpected, John Edwards, was ironically in the headlines. I saw it flashed in the CNN, "EDWARDS WITHDRAWING FROM THE RACE." My heart sank like the Titanic.
Exactly, in a manner that the media reporters had always wanted to blitz to America and to the world the news story of an obit of John Edwards candidacy, was an actuality on that ominous day on Jan. 30. I was imagining the corporatocracy and the mediatocracy beaming and rejoicing, while to the poor, the hapless, and the middle class of America grieved.
Apart from the class that he sought to bring forth prosperity into the lives, many other Americans of varying status who admired his devotion to his unpopular, populist causes shared in the gloom. To these, many supporters and followers, it was an event and show of passion equal to when an American hero has departed.
At John Edwards blogs, are entries of followers drowning in sorrow, pain, and tears inconsolable as I am, as I have felt in the few times in history at the passing of some great individuals. The most recent times were during the death of Princess Diana and John-John Kennedy. They have so much affected the hearts of millions for their humanitarian deeds, dignity, and humility, thus, befitting a public mourning.
To our gratitude, John Edwards is a living legend and hero for all that he stood for as a candidate, empathic and genuinely caring of the little people. Even in his speech, his populist platform, which he admitted as, "not getting any vote," to him it is the cause of his life and described as personal to him. At least, my fear that John might meet an untimely demise in the hands of some delusional mind, upon gaining his quest, such as often befalls upon individuals so brave and resolute in their position I can now put to rest.
When did America ever have a candidate so purposeful, so dedicated, so vehement even it is foolhardy? In recent memory, it is only John Edwards unwavering in his script delivered on his every stump speech of his strong disaffection with the lobbyists, greedy corporations that impoverish and enslave great many Americans. Some say he is like a broken record and rote even to his own supporters.
No, John, would not even think about changing the text and tone of his message, angry by some media standard, because it is truly what he believes in, derived from what he sees now happening in America being divided by a widening gap between the rich and the poor Americans.
John is genuinely empathic to the cause having lived in a community of factory workers, and hailing from a hard-working, poor family himself. He is an epitome of someone who has lived the American dream, through diligence and education. Being the only member in his family to have a college degree, John, is a brilliant trial lawyer, truly caring of the hapless citizens. While he helped lift the lives of some hapless victims of negligent, greedy corporations, as well, he was rewarded gratuitously—thus--elevating himself to a respectable status as a millionaire. Because he has experienced it, therefore, he believes in such opportunity, and he tries to pave the way to the many Americans a way to achieving that dream, if not lesser.
For all his endowments as a man with a pretty face, a hair that is luxuriant even for a 54-year-old man, his mansion that was a fruit of his labor, and some hedge fund, to the green-eyed status quo he became the object of satirical criticisms, which somehow affected his political image, rather irreparably.
No doubt, in the roster of Democrats, his political programs stand out, being the more progressive-minded of the other two rivals, Clinton and Obama. John´s progressive agendas were original, and copied by the rivals; a true universal health plan, total and specific time to pull out troops from Iraq, an economic stimulus package to abate recession, a clean and honest government free from lobbyist influence, are among the popular ones.
Unfortunately, the media gung ho and enamored at Obama, a black candidate, and Clinton, the first woman candidate as being historic, dimmed on John´s programs. Blasted by some blatant conspiratorial maneuvering, he received dim-lighted reception from the media, dumping his candidacy to total insignificance. According to a Journalism Academy´s research, John Edwards only received a ratio of 1:5 media exposure as against those allocated to Clinton and Obama. This is happening in America because of the power of the corporations. Unfortunately, John, our modern day knight was jousted.
The fading away of John Edwards in the political scene, though, hopefully, literally, only a suspension--meant the loss of hopes and dreams to the burgeoning numbers of the less fortunate Americans that the trial lawyer, a millworkers son, ardently espoused in his campaigns fearlessly. As he often flaunts, he is the only candidate that takes no dime from any lobbyist or corporation. Operating on a clear and honest conscience, John is much more straightforward and blatant than most conventional politicians. He owes no one a favor by which to influence him in his policies. He is indebted to no one, but to his constituency and only to his supporters beholden to his programs to change America.
While America remains as the frontier of everything progressive in all fields of human endeavor and civilization, sadly, it is more and more in the stranglehold of a new class, that of the super wealthy corporations that get wealthier by the day, along with its paid cohorts, such as the reporters and anchor people that play favoritism and force feed their brand of faux pas punditry down the throats of the people. Usually, the media cater to candidates that have money, and those with agendas that are not in direct conflict with the corporations´ ravenous appetite for money and glory.
Disguised as trying to help America, these corporations, because of their greed, are contributing to the peoples´ declining economic status in a country looked upon as the wealthiest in the world, and without a doubt.
The devaluation of John Edwards´ principles and ideas, as a politician of true hope and change, has further pushed the other America, the less fortunate class, farther away into an island of desolation. To us supporters is thrust upon the herculean task of keeping his ideals and hopefully, his campaign alive.
The following video is a response to all of those who are trying to get me to switch my vote Super Tuesday. I have been receiving a lot of messages today from a certain candidates supporters.... which I am fine with.... I am open to dialogue and sharing why I still believe John Edwards is the best candidate. ruleraddison (YouTube) has sumed it up best to how I am feeling right now.
The Beltway Establishment is bewildered and bothered by John Edwards — he's never fully been one of them. The national press also had a difficult time understanding and defining him clearly, describing him in turns as optimistic or angry, as a populist or a phony. He started this election cycle with a bang, putting out one hard-detailed policy initiative after another. His health care plan had the blogosphere abuzz and was an unexpected shot in the arm for a flailing progressive movement. Edwards followed up with environmental, education, economic, trade and labor plans that reinforced the perception that he was walking a true progressive path, so much so that Ralph Nader went on television to call him "the most progressive mainstream presidential candidate I've seen in years."
Obama and Clinton, who for months kept promising to unveil their plans, were caught off-guard by the aggressiveness of Edwards' positioning. And when they finally revealed their plans, their ideas tended to be sketchy in some instances and, in others, stunningly similar to the ones Edwards had put forth long before. The media mostly looked the other way at this policy boosting, and instead focused on an almost fetishistic anointing of either the first female or the first black president of the United States.
But John Edwards is tough. Perhaps this is what the pundits have either failed to understand or willfully neglected to point out. His campaign has faced challenge after challenge and his personal life has been struck by tragedy, yet he remained in the race long past the media's expectations, unbowed. Edwards and his wife, Elizabeth, understand what the passage of time means in a life, and they've made hard and clear decisions about how they're going to live.
I observed the candidate on the campaign trail when reporters weren't around during each of the four primaries and found that he was always strikingly calm in spite of the whirl around him. Edwards, I've been told, is guided by a faith that runs deep but which he refuses to unleash on the general public. During his tenure as a senator from North Carolina, at a prayer breakfast in D.C. where he was said to have given a moving speech, he was advised to bring up his faith again and again as a political tool. Edwards said, "No," and has been intractable on the matter ever since.
In the month before the Iowa caucuses and just before the start of a town-hall meeting of more than 300 people, an aide took me backstage to say hello. Edwards was standing alone in a large, dark room. He smiled brightly, manners impeccable, but there was a slight vulnerability emanating from him. While he's been described by those close to him as supremely confident, in that moment I felt something else. He reminded me of the "good son," the man who still wore the aura of wanting to please his father, to give the task at hand his best. It was an oddly touching quality, and something told me to politely leave him be. He was gracious to a fault, hands in his pockets. Before leaving, I muttered, "You're on the right side of things," and he nodded with a certainty that was not at all cocky, but instead youthful in its hopefulness, replying, "Yes. I think I am."
Five minutes later, he was onstage, vulnerability gone, and whipping through his stump speech, calling down corporate lobbyists for the "stranglehold" they have on Washington lawmakers, promising that they'd never be part of his White House, reminding his audience that, unlike his two main opponents, he's never taken a dime of D.C.-lobbyist or PAC money, castigating the health-insurance and pharmaceutical companies for murder by spreadsheet practices, and defending labor unions as an essential voice in preserving the American middle class.
By now Edwards' back story is well-known. What hasn't been closely scrutinized is the effect that his hardscrabble background, the job uncertainty his father constantly faced, the moving from mill town to mill town must have had on him. The simple answer is that the hardship made him strong, but what's never discussed is the humiliation that must have come with it. Edwards' character seems to be a peculiar blend of self-effacing humility and nervy boldness. He doesn't tout his virtues in private, as I would have expected from him or any other politician, but he does retain the manner of a tough guy who grew up around a lot of other tough guys. If he'd had less-than-solid parenting, it's easy to imagine that his more pugilistic qualities could have been expressed a different way. Edwards is proud of recounting his father's admonishment, "Son, I don't ever want to see you start a fight, but you better not walk away from one either. If someone hits you, punch 'em in the nose." He is a Southern boy to the core and unapologetic for it.
In the lead-up to the Iowa caucuses, John and Elizabeth Edwards would campaign two 36-hour marathons within one week's time. Reporters assigned to cover them were left exhausted, drained and grumpy. But Edwards, hour after hour, seemed preternaturally fresh. Onstage, he had a passionate, buoyant presence; offstage and while on the road on his bus, he played the host who wouldn't hold court. Edwards would be engaged one moment in casual conversation, relaxed, easy smile intact, then suddenly he'd be somewhere else altogether, completely private and difficult to read. He seemed to be either concentrating on something that passed earlier in the day or preparing himself for what is coming. It's a strong inner life that pulls him momentarily apart from his companions and a quicksilver, intuitive intelligence that allows him to re-enter the conversation without seeming to miss a beat. The effect is vaguely confusing if one expects nothing more than the uncomplicated, amiable man the media consistently portrays Edwards as, confusing because he never seems to strain between his engagement in two different worlds.
Edwards had no speechwriter on his staff; he wrote his own words. He listened to his campaign manager, David Bonior, union activist and former House whip, and to Joe Trippi and rural adviser Mudcat Saunders, who were brought into the campaign by Elizabeth. It's his wife whose counsel he deeply relies upon. Edwards exhibited a gentle regard toward Elizabeth and daughter Cate, and both women acted as surrogates on the trail.
Super Tuesday voters, I have some bad news for some of you. Some of you are awaiting an endorsement from John before Super Tuesday to help you make a decision to vote for either Obama or Clinton. You will not get that help from John. An article from CNN, Edwards will not endorse before Super Tuesday, says it all in the title. He will not be endorsing either candidate. Let me help you make a Super Tuesday decision, John Edwards. Now, wasn't that painless?
"So, what you wanna do?" the friend asked. "A target?" the wanna-be jihadi replied. "I want some type of city-hall-type stuff, federal courthouses."
It was late November 2006, and twenty-two-year-old Derrick Shareef and his friend Jameel were hanging out in Rockford, Illinois, dreaming about staging a terrorist attack on America. The two men weren't sure what kind of assault they could pull off. All Shareef knew was that he wanted to cause major damage, to wreak vengeance on the country he held responsible for oppressing Muslims worldwide. "Smoke a judge," Shareef said. Maybe firebomb a government building.
But while Shareef harbored violent fantasies, he was hardly a serious threat as a jihadi. An American-born convert to Islam, he had no military training and no weapons. He had less than $100 in the bank. He worked in a dead-end job as a clerk in a video-game store. He didn't own a car. So dire were his circumstances, Shareef had no place to live. Then one day, Jameel, a fellow Muslim, had shown up at EB Games and offered him shelter. Within hours of meeting his new brother, Shareef had moved in with Jameel and his three wives and nine children. Living together, the pair fantasized about targets in Rockford, a Midwestern city of 150,000, with a minuscule Muslim population and the lone claim to fame of being the hometown of Cheap Trick.
The fact that Shareef was a loser with no means of living out his imagination didn't stop his friend from encouraging his delusions of grandeur. On the contrary, Jameel continually pushed Shareef to escalate his plans. "When you wanna plan on doing this?" he asked Shareef, talking about the plot to go after a government building. "Because we have to make specific plans and dates."
"I wanna case one first," Shareef said. There was only one problem: Jameel's car was in the garage getting repaired. "We can case one when you get the car back."
"What about time frame?" Jameel prodded.
"I like the holiday season," Shareef said, displaying an ambivalence unusual in a suicide bomber hellbent on murdering civilians. "Hell, we ain't gotta hit nobody —just blow the place up."
Finding a meaningful target to blow up in Rockford isn't easy. A hardscrabble town in the middle of America, the place is not much more than an intersection of interstates and railway lines, with little of note that might attract the attention of terrorists. So Jameel suggested the main attraction in town: CherryVale Mall, a sad-sack collection of clothing stores and sneaker shops on the outskirts of Rockford. "The mall's good," he told Shareef.
"I swear by Allah, man, I'm down for it too," Shareef said. "I'm down for the cause. I'm down to live for the cause and die for the cause, man."
When Jameel got his car back from the garage, the two men went to case the mall.
"If you ever wanna back out . . . 'cause, you gotta let me know," Jameel said. "I'm checking your heart now."
"I'm down," Shareef said.
"We ain't gonna get caught," Jameel assured him. "Don't worry."
"I'm not worried about getting caught," Shareef replied. "Not alive."
For all his bluster, Shareef was, by any objective measure, a pathetic and hapless jihadist — one of a new breed of domestic terrorists the federal government has paraded before the media since 9/11. The FBI, in a sense, elevated Shareef, working to transform him from a boastful store clerk into a suicidal mall-bomber. Like many other alleged extremists who have been targeted by the authorities, Shareef didn't know that his brand-new friend —the eager co-conspirator drawing him ever further into a terror plot —was actually an informant for the FBI.
Why We Will Miss John Edwards Posted February 1, 2008 | 06:50 PM (EST)
He was supposedly a late convert to his class based populism and had voted as a Southern moderate in the Senate. He was ambitious and wanted to run for President from the time he first campaigned for the Senate in North Carolina.
I don't know John Edwards but I can see there's probably some truth in these charges. Personally though, the reason I will miss John Edwards in this race is simply because now I don't have anyone to vote for.
What was different about Edwards was that he was running against the system, whereas Hillary IS the system and Obama would like to be. Edwards took strong stands early that became progressively stronger as the campaign wore on.
Edwards made clear that the Insurance companies were the reason we didn't have Universal Health Care and that they would have to be beaten to get it. He asserted that the system in Washington was rigged by corporate power to protect corporate interests.
Edwards made clear that the interests of Wall Street were not the interests of Main Street; that fairness to the tax code had to be restored; that every trade deal had to put workers and wages first.
Edwards proposed Public Financing of political campaigns. He asserted that the corporate lobbyists would have to be driven from the halls of the Capitol if we were to have a chance at real change, but noted that real change also demanded "corporate power be put at the service of democracy and not the other way around."
Edwards proposed capping greenhouse gases and "ratcheting down the cap every year" if we were to have a chance at stopping global warming. He was honest enough to say upfront that sacrifice was going to be required from all of us if we were stop ecological disaster, but also that the bottom line on Wall Street was going to have to be weighed against a standard of sound environmental practice and policy.
These were pretty radical positions, but the way Hillary and Obama ended up mimicking many of them you wouldn't have known that one candidate was running against the system and the other two were running to be in charge of it.
However this was supposed to be a change election. It was important for Hillary and Obama that Edwards not outflank them on the Left by too much lest he be identified as the REAL candidate of change. So rather than a verb, change became, in this election, first a noun, and then a commodity.
It was so disgusting to watch -- and so effective -- that we should probably count on this kind of Hillary-Obama newspeak becoming a feature of future Democratic primary campaigns from now on.
In fairness to Hillary-Obama, it is also possible that Edwards did not mean to get so far ahead of himself, that he would have preferred to situate himself closer to the political center. It is possible that Edwards was actually forced to the hard populist positions he ended up embracing by the soft center-left focus of the other two campaigns.
It is possible, but nevertheless the fact remains that Edwards went there and the other campaigns were dragged far beyond their consultant driven comfort zone because of it.
In leaving the race, Edwards maintained that we are at a transformational moment--that there is no going back. I think this is true though we can be sure that whoever the eventual nominee is will try to go back. On the real side we know that Hillary is a creature of the corporate status quo and Obama, like Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter before him, has a genuine emotional need for compromise and consensus politics.
But I think events will outrun them. As Humphrey Bogart once said to Paul Henreid, "Well Mr. Laszlo, it seems like Destiny has taken a hand."
Buyer's remorse: Missing John Edwards yet? (Update) by Straightforward Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 05:50:17 PM PST
Caution appears to be the theme of the evening between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, which is a grave disservice to me, to mine, to my community, to my state and my nation -- not to mention what passes for my party today. The chief result of John Edwards's departure from the primary race seems to be detente between the remainders on the field. Press your mute button, and they might as well be running mates already, whether it's Obama-Clinton or Clinton-Obama. The sweet pleas for Edwards voters weren't convincing, in my opinion.
"This is the passionate cause of my... public service," says Hillary about health care, the words haltingly spoken because they're so unnatural to her. Mimicry has never been her strength, and she wears Edwards's words and themes like an ill-fitting coat. Yet we're presumed to accept the performance, and she appears satisfied by it, because Edwards himself isn't there to offer, in himself, a contrast between the real and the artificial.
Obama, meanwhile, appears equally satisfied with his lot this evening, as he's comfortable retreating into the conceptual, the academic, and isn't pressed to raise his game to the gut-checking energies of Edwards on the stage. "No, it's not a swipe" against Hillary when he adopts Edwards's position on pushing back the influence of lobbyists in Washington, and indeed it isn't a swipe. Detente requires comity. After the tragicomedy of the "snub" of Hillary in the House chamber on Monday night, it's best to make nice, show we can play together. Would Edwards, drawing clear distinction between his and Hillary's views on lobbyists, would he have soft-pedaled in response to Wolf Blitzer's question about a "swipe"? He didn't in the past, time after time.
Hillary garners applause for opposing "the health insurance and the drug companies" in her answer about lobbyists' influence. That's nice. She didn't oppose their checks, any more than Obama has. I recall a candidate declaring that he'd never accepted any of that money, that he would ban them from working in the White House, so there was a measure of credibility in opposing lobbyist influence. "You can't 'nice' these people," he said. "We can't trade their corporate insiders for our corporate insiders." But he's gone, and what we have is detente now. Corporate fat cats can relax in that detente.
Is this what we have instead of a primary contest now? It reminds me of the criticism of the Democratic National Convention of 1988 when planners adopted off-colors -- off-red, off-white and off-blue -- for the convention hall. Pale shades of the real thing in 1988, and pale shades of the real thing in 2008. Edwards seems to have taken the debate with him, leaving behind only a self-satisfied garden party.
I wondered through today how the two would address the wounds that each opened last week. Obama slammed Clinton on being a lapdog to Wal-Mart, and ABC's discovery of documentary film of Clinton's decided lack of activism against Wal-Mart's union-busting rhetoric seems to support Obama's attack. But in response to Obama last week, Clinton slapped him with his questionable dealings with the "slum-lord" Rezko of Chicago. The legal system of Illinois caught up with Rezko in recent days, giving credence to Clinton's charge. It looks like even these developments are covered by the new detente -- you don't twist the knife in my back, and I'll not grind the shiv in yours.
This is where we are: choosing between two lesser lights when we could have had the real thing.
What's particularly noteworthy in this piece is the fact that Rhode Island's primary will not be held until MARCH 4th!
Emphasis added
The order of names on Rhode Island's presidential primary ballot will be determined Friday.
Secretary of State Ralph Mollis is scheduled to hold a lottery at 5 p.m.
Mollis' office said the Democratic candidates are expected to be Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
John Edwards dropped out of the Democratic race this week and initially, his campaign asked the secretary of state to remove his name. But NBC 10 has learned that Edwards' campaign has since asked for Edwards' name to remain on the ballot.
New York Times By PAUL KRUGMAN Published: February 1, 2008
So John Edwards has dropped out of the race for the presidency. By normal political standards, his campaign fell short.
But Mr. Edwards, far more than is usual in modern politics, ran a campaign based on ideas. And even as his personal quest for the White House faltered, his ideas triumphed: both candidates left standing are, to a large extent, running on the platform Mr. Edwards built.
To understand the extent of the Edwards effect, you have to think about what might have been. At the beginning of 2007, it seemed likely that the Democratic nominee would run a cautious campaign, without strong, distinctive policy ideas. That, after all, is what John Kerry did in 2004.
If 2008 is different, it will be largely thanks to Mr. Edwards. He made a habit of introducing bold policy proposals — and they were met with such enthusiasm among Democrats that his rivals were more or less forced to follow suit.
It’s hard, in particular, to overstate the importance of the Edwards health care plan, introduced in February.
Before the Edwards plan was unveiled, advocates of universal health care had difficulty getting traction, in part because they were divided over how to get there. Some advocated a single-payer system — a k a Medicare for all — but this was dismissed as politically infeasible. Some advocated reform based on private insurers, but single-payer advocates, aware of the vast inefficiency of the private insurance system, recoiled at the prospect.
With no consensus about how to pursue health reform, and vivid memories of the failure of 1993-1994, Democratic politicians avoided the subject, treating universal care as a vague dream for the distant future.
But the Edwards plan squared the circle, giving people the choice of staying with private insurers, while also giving everyone the option of buying into government-offered, Medicare-type plans — a form of public-private competition that Mr. Edwards made clear might lead to a single-payer system over time. And he also broke the taboo against calling for tax increases to pay for reform.
Suddenly, universal health care became a possible dream for the next administration. In the months that followed, the rival campaigns moved to assure the party’s base that it was a dream they shared, by emulating the Edwards plan. And there’s little question that if the next president really does achieve major health reform, it will transform the political landscape.
Similar if less dramatic examples of leadership followed on other key issues. For example, Mr. Edwards led the way last March by proposing a serious plan for responding to climate change, and at this point both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are offering far stronger measures to limit emissions of greenhouse gases than anyone would have expected to see on the table not long ago.
Unfortunately for Mr. Edwards, the willingness of his rivals to emulate his policy proposals made it hard for him to differentiate himself as a candidate; meanwhile, those rivals had far larger financial resources and received vastly more media attention. Even The Times’s own public editor chided the paper for giving Mr. Edwards so little coverage.
And so Mr. Edwards won the arguments but not the political war.
Where will Edwards supporters go now? The truth is that nobody knows.
Yes, Mr. Obama is also running as a “change” candidate. But he isn’t offering the same kind of change: Mr. Edwards ran an unabashedly populist campaign, while Mr. Obama portrays himself as a candidate who can transcend partisanship — and given the economic elitism of the modern Republican Party, populism is unavoidably partisan.
It’s true that Mr. Obama has tried to work some populist themes into his campaign, but he apparently isn’t all that convincing: the working-class voters Mr. Edwards attracted have tended to favor Mrs. Clinton over Mr. Obama.
Furthermore, to the extent that this remains a campaign of ideas, it remains true that on the key issue of health care, the Clinton plan is more or less identical to the Edwards plan. The Obama plan, which doesn’t actually achieve universal coverage, is considerably weaker.
One thing is clear, however: whichever candidate does get the nomination, his or her chance of victory will rest largely on the ideas Mr. Edwards brought to the campaign.
Personal appeal won’t do the job: history shows that Republicans are very good at demonizing their opponents as individuals. Mrs. Clinton has already received the full treatment, while Mr. Obama hasn’t — yet. But if he gets the nod, watch how quickly conservative pundits who have praised him discover that he has deep character flaws.
If Democrats manage to get the focus on their substantive differences with the Republicans, however, polls on the issues suggest that they’ll have a big advantage. And they’ll have Mr. Edwards to thank.
I want to send my love and support to the Edwards'. It is easy to send an e-mail but something I thought would be cool is to send postcards with inspirational messages to John and the entire family even. I think state post cards are the most influential because -- wouldn't it be cool to receive a series of postcards from every state? I think that would be inspiring to the Edwards clan. He has support everywhere. We can't all be together sometimes to support John but through the mail we can. Also, sign the postcards: Name, a John Edwards Democrat. What do you all think? If you are going to do this, please post a comment at my blog entry below or at my myspace blog with the state you'll send a postcard from. I will send one for Oklahoma. We can repeat in states also. Here is the address:
John Edwards 410 Market Street Suite 400 Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Pre-Announcement Thoughts: I got a phone call from a friend of mine at 8:30am with the news.... John Edwards is dropping out of the race at 1pmEST. My initial reactions are shock. My second thought is Elizabeth. She has not been on the campaign trail since the New Hampshire primary. In my opinion, she didn't look good. I wasn't there in New Hampshire first hand to see what she looked like in person but on television I thought she looked awful. I did some digging this morning and found this article which came out right after midnight which said she just needed a break and had a cold. This article also mentioned she had a doctor's appointment but it went fine. In fact, they said she would be back out on the campaign trail today. It just doesn't add up to me.
Right now, the media is touting the "it's about time" attitude along with he didn't have the resources or support. Let me first say, wow, look at all the media buzz John is getting for dropping out. Gee, thanks media for focusing on him NOW. ::shakes head:: Okay, let me re-focus here. For those of you who have been following my blog, you and I both know it was not about the resources. The money was coming in. They set records last month for fundraising and were getting ready to set another already this month. Also, for those of who who have been following the campaign, there has been no indication except for a run to the convention to collect delegates. These delegates would be our voice and his bargaining at the convention. We gave, now you have to give us something. For example, had John went all the way through, Clinton or Obama may have given him a VP spot?
The question each and everyone of us has now is, what are we to do with our vote? Especially us Super Tuesday folks. I have received a variety of responses to this. Some said they will now support Obama or Clinton.... some said they will not vote.... some said they are undecided (understandable of course since the announcement hasn't been made).... and some said they will still vote for John Super Tuesday. That is where I am. I am still going to vote for John Super Tuesday and let me tell you why.
Before I do that, understand, this is my opinion. You don't have to agree with it or like it. From the beginning, the media has shaped this election about the "firsts" and not the "issues" which I have said many times. I will not give up my right as an American to vote for Obama or Clinton just so I can help them tie up who the nomination is going to go to. Many of you have expressed to me this morning that a vote for John is a wasted vote. I don't agree. It is a vote for who I believe this country needs as a President in the White House. People started questioning me, "But, you know he isn't going to win so why should I vote for John?" I am deciding to vote for John because I want him to know that my vote wasn't bought by the media. People have been cornered into voting for Clinton or Obama because by not supporting the "firsts", you are supposed to feel guilty about that. As I have said before, it is supposed to be about the issues. We are supposed to be looking at ALL of the candidates this way.... not their race or gender. The issues have been forgotten EXCEPT when we have debates. John is the leader of the issues and has won every debate.... especially the last two. What did we see the next day? A replay of status quo bickering between Clinton and Obama and NOT John making the statement that this isn't about them.... it is about us. So, with all of this said, I know many of you are going to shift your support now to Obama, Clinton, or maybe even a Republican.... anything is possible.... but I am pledging to you right now that John Edwards will receive my vote Super Tuesday.
Post-Announcement Thoughts: John's speech to leave the 2008 Presidential race is over. I didn't get the answers I wanted. Why did he decide now? Why not attend the debate? Why not go through Super Tuesday? He suggested it was his time to step aside for history (aka Obama and Clinton) but people from Oklahoma and Minnesota almost made him change his mind. He doesn't want us to give up. He will never forget the work we did. He wants us to be united as a party. Speaking of the party, before I go any further, Obama and Clinton have released statements: Obama Statement John Edwards has spent a lifetime fighting to give voice to the voiceless and hope to the struggling, even when it wasn't popular to do or covered in the news. At a time when our politics is too focused on who's up and who's down, he made a nation focus again on who matters – the New Orleans child without a home, the West Virginia miner without a job, the families who live in that other America that is not seen or heard or talked about by our leaders in Washington. John and Elizabeth Edwards have always believed deeply that we can change this – that two Americas can become one, and that our country can rally around this common purpose. So while his campaign may end today, the cause of their lives endures for all of us who still believe that we can achieve that dream of one America.
Clinton Statement John Edwards ended his campaign today in the same way he started it - by standing with the people who are too often left behind and nearly always left out of our national debate.
John ran with compassion and conviction and lifted this campaign with his deep concern for the daily lives of the American people. That is what this election is about - it's about our people. And John is one of the greatest champions the American people could ask for.
I wish John and Elizabeth all the best. They have my great personal respect and gratitude. And I know they will continue to fight passionately for the country and the people they love so deeply.
In my opinion, both of these candidates put something on their websites with statements for us to see. By doing that, they may take more of our votes for Super Tuesday and defeat the other.
Back to John. I think it is going to be very much a waiting game for his future. VP? Cabinet position? No one knows. We won't know for quite some time unless there is a breakthrough somewhere. I feel like I have so much to say but I can't put it into words right now except to say directly to John, Elizabeth, Cate, Emma Claire, and Jack -- Thank you. And to John specifically, a big thanks from a papermaker's daughter from Northern New York who still believes the middle class will rise again with John Edwards as President of the United States. It may not be 2008 but 2016? I believe John. I believe.
What am I going to do now? In terms of voting, I am taking it one day at a time. The next vote I have to be worried about is Super Tuesday. I have not changed my mind. I will be voting for John Edwards in Oklahoma on Super Tuesday. As far as the general election, I don't know what I am going to do at this time.
It has been a pleasure working for John on myspace. Even if he never saw my site or heard my name, I know he knows that people like me and you fought hard to get people to hear his voice. I have met so many tremendous people here who have taught this rookie a thing or two! ;) I have always been a voter but never involved like this.... following the day to day.... donating money.... etc.... With that said, this myspace isn't going ANYWHERE! I will continue to follow the Edwards' causes. I will likely revamp this a bit in the coming weeks. I do not know what capacity my blogging will be. I am up in the air about that right now. Bottom line, I am not deleting this space. I may delete my Pro-Choice for Edwards myspace and Universal Health Care for Edwards and combine information here. We'll see though.
One thing is for certain.... from now on.... when someone asks me what party I am with.... my friend Jeremy put it best.... 'I am a John Edwards Democrat'.
Fair Media Now is not a representative of or authorized by any candidate or candidates committee.
Some entries on this page appear in their entirety. This is done in order to preserve articles due to the constantly changing nature of the internet and for educational and research purposes in line with Copyright law.
