With a Last Call to Action, John Edwards Will Exit the Race
John Edwards has canceled campaign events that were scheduled for today in February 5 primary and caucus states and will instead fly to New Orleans, where his populist campaign to make poverty an issue in American politics began.
Aides say that the former senator from North Carolina will end his formal run for the Democratic presidential nomination in the impoverished city that was so battered both by Hurricane Katrina and the official neglect that came before and after that mighty storm.
Edwards did not want to abandon the presidential race. He kept up an intense schedule of events in “Super Tuesday” states even after a credible but disappointing third-place finish in his native state of South Carolina’s Saturday primary.
The money was short — too short for the media buys necessary to compete in the television “air wars” that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are preparing to reach voters in the score of states that will vote February 5. Media attention was scant, and usually focused on the question of why he was staying in the race. And even sympathetic Democrats were starting to abandon Edwards — who never made much secret about his differences with the Clinton camp — for a surging Obama campaign.
But Edwards pressed on.
As late as Tuesday night, when Edwards won 14 percent of the vote and carried ten counties in Florida’s Democratic “beauty contest” primary, the former North Carolina senator was still on the trail. More than 1,000 union members and activists rallied for his populist call to action at a Carpenters union hall in St. Paul.
Edwards recalled the legacy of his late colleague in the Senate, Paul Wellstone. The Minnesota crowd cheered the memory of one Democrat who made fighting poverty central to his politics and the hope that another Democrat might yet carry the fight forward.
But Edwards recognized it was no longer possible to do that as a third-wheel presidential candidate.
So instead of flying from St. Paul to Fargo for a scheduled event anticipating the February 5 North Dakota caucuses, Edwards and his team turned their plane toward New Orleans.
In the city where he launched his bid for the presidency a year ago, it is expected that he will say that he is no longer a candidate. But the speech is being billed as an anti-poverty address. And Edwards aides say that that campaign will continue. The 2004 Democratic vice presidential candidate will continue to seek to influence his party and his country to recognize and address the painful reality that there are “two Americas — one rich and one poor.”
It is, Edwards says, “the mission of my life.”
–John Nichols
Copyright © 2008 The Nation
John Edwards for Secretary of Labor?
Or Health and Human Services?
John Edwards was a very good candidate and he presented his arguments forcibly without any of the gutter tactics of the Clintons. I respect him for that and I hope he will help prevent her from winning so we are not faced with two candidates in the next election who will guarantee more wars.
Is this the magazine that said it wouldn’t endorse any candidate that wasn’t for full troop withdrawal from Iraq? (that’s a serious question by the way) If so that leaves Ron Paul in the primary and McKinney in the general( Nader is soooo yesterday and the greens have been dying to nominate a woman or person of color for years). I figure with too centrist candidates third partiers could do well this year but it will require the support of the ENTIRE anti war movement one way or another. END the war and end the supports to the corporations and that is more than half the progressive battle.
Thanks for saying the right things, Mr. Edwards, even if you didn’t even do them. Since it’s down to Clinton vs Obama (Coke vs Pepsi as another poster has said), I’ll be sitting out the presidential primaries this year.
John Edwards will still be on the ballots in Super Tuesday states and I encourage people to vote for him.
The best comments on Edwards came from Senator Russ Feingold. Feingold, while explaining his suspicions with respect to Edwards, basically said, “The one that is the most problematic is (John) Edwards, who voted for the Patriot Act, campaigns against it. Voted for No Child Left Behind, campaigns against it. Voted for the China trade deal, campaigns against it. Voted for the Iraq war … He uses my voting record exactly as his platform, even though he had the opposite voting record.”
In politics, it ain’t what you say, it’s what you do, that counts. And now, the choice is between Billary-O-Bama–which is to say, no choice at all. Man, am I ever glad I moved to Canada.
“In politics, it ain’t what you say, it’s what you do, that counts. And now, the choice is between Billary-O-Bama–which is to say, no choice at all. Man, am I ever glad I moved to Canada.”
Says the person who either a) left the fight behind or b) is a right-wing shill trying to get people to feel demoralized. Either way, what have you done lately other than blog?
The Corporate Media’s Obama-as-Airbag-For-Hillary strategy has worked. The hit was much less obvious than the one on Dean in Iowa well before the scream.
The elections are over.
The corporations have won. Any lesseroftwoevilism now can only worsen our problems.
Can anyone explain to me why Sen. Feingold doesn’t run for President? He’s always appealed to me, even though he is from a neighboring state (the great state of Wisconsin!)
A shame, but I think it will have one benefit — Edwards voters will switch to Obama and Hillary is really going to start to take a beating in these races.
I would expect Obama to seek out Edwards as his running mate. Seems like a natural fit.
Lots of us here in WI were pushing for Feingold to enter the race. Lots of homemade signs all over the place about a year ago. I think he likes being a Senator and saw that the establishment was gearing up to support Hillary. I don’t know if he saw Obama on his radar, but I think Feingold thinks he is best suited to be active and effective in his role as Senator. We’ll keep trying to convince him.
We will get corporate spokespeople as president until we have publicly financed elections.
Feingold would have been a great president. As it is we will probably elect a president who will repair most of the damage that Bush has done, but will continue to pander to large corporations.
John Edwards for Attorney General.
Get used to thinking “President McCain”…
Anybody advocating progressive legislation for the common people wll be marginalized and ridiculed, period!
The ruling elite pick and choose the candidates for the duopoly, knowing the willfully ignorant public falls for it every time. This procedure might as well be in ‘The Farmer’s Almanac,’ or the ‘Guiness Book of Records’ for the record-breaking (thirty year) confidence game in D.C. politics.
If I may modify the old saying, “the more things change, the more they remain the same,” to, “the more things change, the worse they become.” Does it make any sense?
I’m afraid daveg may be right about an eventual President McCain. Edwards was the last progressive candidate.
Someone give me the 3 top reasons I shouldn’t shift to Obama as opposed to casting a symbolic Green or other vote or just staying home.
skeezyks
“Can anyone explain to me why Sen. Feingold doesn’t run for President? He’s always appealed to me, even though he is from a neighboring state (the great state of Wisconsin!)”
Feingold imo would be one of the best presidents that the US has ever had…BUT and its a big BUT…the American people would not vote for him.
The US is a right wing nation and change will have to be incremental…The problem is not the political leaders ..The problem is the people who are unaware and are being manipulated and don’t care…
It would be great if it were an Obama/Feingold ticket with 8 years for Obama and 8 years for Feingold.
Edwards for attorney general
and let him attack from the court room…his strength
Well peaceman we can either enlighten the public or turn to coercive methods. Strikes, unauthorized protests that jam commerce and transport or my favorite violence. It’s not hard or expensive to build fertilizers bombs. Just sayin.
My candidate, The Honorable Dennis Kucinich, dropped out a week ago.
My second choice is Cynthia McKinney http://www.runcynthiarun.org/node. You can find more information also at http://www.allthingscynthiamckinney.com/node.
Even though I was not persuaded in the least bit by John Edwards talk due to the undeniable reality of his past record, I am sorry that it is now Obama and Clinton, at let us not forget Gravel.
I am reading numerous blogs expressing dismay and pessimism. While I admired the progressive Edwards, I still see major differences between Senator Clinton and Senator Obama in their perception of the issues. Also, Clinton would seem to be much more beholden to the corporations than Obama. He is realistic about the need to work with business, while she is likely to be an extension of big business practices. Change brings discomfort to some, relief to others. Obama may have that special capacity to bring us together for the good of our country. Clinton represents little change over the past 20 years of the Bush/Clinton dynasties.
peaceman
“First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.” -
— Mahatma Gandhi
Even many Republicans realize what a mess Bush has created…this is an opening…Unfortunately our adversaries the neocons and the Bush suoporters do not give way even as they lose…but its an opening…keep pushing and keep informing people…
Since the corporate media told us who the front-runners were a mere four weeks into this campaign, those who were not one of the top two or three AS MEASURED BY MONEY RAISED IN THAT FOUR WEEKS from big-money donors like corporations and their lobbyists, were marginalized by that same media. Both Edwards and Kucinich, but especially Kucinich, were ignored as far as possible during the debates organized and moderated by these same media and Kucinich was actually excluded from some.
We desperately need (1) full taxpayer funding of all federal campaigns so character and ideas count for more than money raised and so the power lobbyists exercise by having earned “access” is destroyed, (2) neutral debates on real issues moderated by the League of Women Voters and broadcast on public TV and radio, (3) free TV and radio time on the airwaves that belong to us for all candidates to present themselves to voters.
Here’s a live feed to John Edwards’ speech in New Orleans.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2005/04/12/VI2005041201240.html
The backdrop behind his podium is priceless — ramshackle homes that are the legacy of Katrina. Kudos to you, John Edwards, for this powerful visual statement.
dmac sez: “As it is we will probably elect a president who will repair most of the damage that Bush has done, but will continue to pander to large corporations.”
With all due respect, these two outcomes are mutually exclusive. “Bush” did not cause the damage. Corporate governance did.
While most Americans are sedated with endless Brittney speculation, politically aware Americans are sedated with the endless Clinton/Obama drama.
In the meantime, the murder of Iraqis goes on, Bush sells off theAlaskanwildernesforfree,
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/26/6648/
the spying on americans continues, millions of children are starving, etc, etc, etc.
Well, you dumb, bleeping Democrats, there goes the only person who could’ve defeated John Endless War Reinstate Conscription McCain, or Willard The Only God Is Money Romney. Au revoir, auf wieder sehen, adios. And why wouldn’t you support him?: because he was part of a losing team in 2004 and in the world of contemporary American politics we always shoot our wounded. Brilliant! So enjoy another four years of brutal Republican rule and spend those years grumbling bitterly about how Hillary lost because she’s Hillary and a woman, and Obama lost because he’s black.
“Says the person who either a) left the fight behind or b) is a right-wing shill trying to get people to feel demoralized. Either way, what have you done lately other than blog?”
I did leave the fight behind, precisely because there isn’t one. If you think this quadrennial “election” is anything but a diversion from a real fight, then you should probably pay closer attention to how things really go down in your country. By the way, I work in politics, sometimes 12-14 hours a day. How about you? In fact, I work for an unabashed pro-working class mainstream political party. Of course, no such entity exists in the US. One must move elsewhere to participate in the institutions of a functioning democracy. Best of luck.
Barring illness or an accidental death, Hillary will be our next president. I guarantee it.
It is very doubtful Edwards or Obama will be her running mate. Bill may be, but I doubt that also.
Good people having progessive views and opinions have little to say about it.
“The 2004 Democratic vice presidential candidate will continue to seek to influence his party and his country to recognize and address the painful reality that there are “two Americas — one rich and one poor.”
I believe that the widening rich/poor gap is a real danger to this nation. I hope Edwards can exert some influence, but given the big money behind political campaigns and lobbying efforts, it frankly appears doubtful.
Anne Faith, I thought those “ramshackle homes” you refer to were new and under construction habitat for humanity type homes…? Perhaps the rich poor divide is closer to home than we think?
“I did leave the fight behind, precisely because there isn’t one. If you think this quadrennial “election” is anything but a diversion from a real fight, then you should probably pay closer attention to how things really go down in your country. By the way, I work in politics, sometimes 12-14 hours a day. How about you? In fact, I work for an unabashed pro-working class mainstream political party. Of course, no such entity exists in the US. One must move elsewhere to participate in the institutions of a functioning democracy. Best of luck.”
Thanks for the clarification, just testing the waters. I work my butt off too - and you’re right, there is no party that represents what you’re talking about. There is a growing movement though, or at least a growing sense of discontent that may manifest itself as such. I think the part where you say “to participate in the institutions of a functioning democracy” is key here - it’s precisely because there is no such thing here that I think it’s important to stay, at least for now. None of which is to say that there isn’t important work to be done elsewhere - in fact, the transformation that needs to occur here is global, not just isolated to one country (although clearly there are countries that are more democratic in practice than the US). Best wishes and good luck to you as well.
ps: For anybody who dares to make the assertion that the US is the most democratic country in the world, please wake up! If you are foolish enough to assert such a thing, I’m not even going to bother responding; the evidence to the contrary is sufficiently clear to provide its own answer. I would hope that people reading here would be sensible enough to see through the façade of a democracy in the US, but you never know.
Now we are stuck with four to eight years of neo liberalism.
Very sad day for America.
thinkingmom, LOL. You’re absolutely right! After I looked at them more closely, I realized they were brand new homes (some unfinished). So no, they’re not ramshackle, just humble. Nothing wrong with that. My bad.
countess January 30th, 2008 11:51 am
John Edwards was a very good candidate and he presented his arguments forcibly without any of the gutter tactics of the Clintons. I respect him for that and I hope he will help prevent her from winning so we are not faced with two candidates in the next election who will guarantee more wars.
…….
speaking of gutter tactics, Countess, ahem. How does one obtain such a selective memeory stream anyway? Seems to me that your guy has voted for as many war spending bills in his time in the Senate as has Senator Clinton.
I am sorry to see John Edwards exit from the race. Both Obama and Clinton are corporatist candidates and he (Edwards) was the only one speaking for the working class in this nation.
I suppose Ill write in Nader’s name, third times the charm they say…….
Edwards for Attorney General.
Edwards for Attorney General- Give them hell!
what i’ve not seen mentioned here, granted i’m skipping through these, but if obama really wanted to make a difference, and put to practice his speech of hope, then he would announce, tomorrow morning, that edwards will be his v.p. that highly intelligent, yet simplistic act would/could prevent us from spending the next 10 months discussing an upcoming election, it would, for all practical purposes, be over.
then we could anxiously await edwards’ natural ascension to the presidency.
That may very well happen. Edwards would be a fine choice for the Attorney General position. And there will be three judges appointed to the Supreme Court during the next four years. That is the biggie.
As long as she maintains her health and if there is an election, Hillary Clinton will be the next president.
I’m a member of the LP and a ron paul fanatic but I’m going to give my advice to greens anyway. Nominate Cynthia she was my representative and yes I participated in the right wing conspiracy to vote her out of office (only the 2nd time I was underaged when the first happened). Everything that made her a liability as a Dem legislature is an asset. She’s frank and loud about progressivism. She’s colorful and an attention grabber. Furthermore Third parties only function on excitement. More Nader will not be exciting to even Nader voters. New Blood and New success for all non major political parties. Unless Paul bolts to the LP or LP/CP combo. Then Old Blood and new success but just this once.
~Hi Lino~ I cannot see Edwards being a VP choice for either Obama or Hillary. Remember, after the last debate, Edwards ran TV ads in South Carolina, saying he was the ONLY candidate of the three, who was adult or mature enough to be the president.
Now after that political blunder, how could Edwards support his running mate as a VP, and have an ounce of credibility? I can see the Republican TV ads now. It would be a disaster for Hillary to have Edwards as her running mate, after what Edwards broadcast about her childish behaviour during the debate. He has dropped out now and his words about her are a moot issue. Sure as hell is hot, Hillary does not wish to see it raised again.
A lot of folks mention attorney general, and there’s good reason for that. And I certainly don’t know Edwards’ preference. But I go back to my earlier comment: labor, or health and human services. If Edwards’ remaining life passion is to implement the policies he has been promoting, those are the right places for him. If we want universal health care, or genuine fair trade, we need Edwards where he might really have that kind of power and impact.
A caller to NPR’s “Talk of the Nation” just identified himself as a long-time Southern Democrat. He said he and a lot of others would never vote for Obama. After mild questioning, he admitted it was based on lack of substance and….RACE.
President McCain indeed.
Having Hillary run is another vote for McCain’s policies.
I think we’re jumping the gun here. I don’t think Hillary is a shoe in for the nomination. Not only that, Obama is now ahead of Clinton by 3 percenatage points in California. And Obama has a better chance of beating McCain than Billary. And the Kennedy endorsement is HUGE for Obama. And if Richardson tips to Obama, things could change very quickly.
I LOVE the idea of Edwards as Attorney General. Who should be Sec’y of State? How about Kucinich?
I have no prediction on whether it will be Clinton or Obama, but neither one of them will win.
colleen- Feingold does very well with rural Republicans here in Wisconsin, I’m sure someone here has the numbers but I think he received 5-8% more votes than Kerry in the 04 elections and Kerry was running against a despised Bush while Feingold was running against an established Republican who had won many elections in the state.
Where I disagree with Feingold is comparing Edwards Senate record to his campaign. Some people change because they see the light. I voted for Bill Clinton enthusiastically and agreed with Mandate for Change when it was written. But I have since become a member of the Green party. For me it took the militarism of a post-9/11 America to realize where I belonged. Who knows why Edwards changed but he did. Same with Al Gore. There may well be ideologically pure progressives out there but I suspect most of us came from more centrist politics, at least during some point in our lives. And for Edwards maybe it was simply not being part of the system any longer, being able to back up and see the forest through the trees. Maybe it was not having to raise a million dollars a month for 6 years to stay in the Senate. What matters was that he brought up issues that no one else was talking about and he did change the tone of all the Dems. I would have liked to have voted for him, not sure what I’ll do now….
skeezyks: I don’t believe that “long time southern democrat”. I live in SC. The long time racist southern democrats started leaving the party when Strom Thurmond did. It took a generation but they’re gone. Why do you think over half the democrats in SC are black? Basically, the good news out of all this is that we really don’t have to worry about racism affecting the outcome because anyone who wouldn’t vote for a black, wouldn’t vote for a democrat anyway.
No wonder people don’t vote.
Look’s like McCain vs. Clinton……some choice.
Obama, Clinton, McCain, Romney. My god, can someone wake us up from this neoliberal/neocon/conservative nightmare?
Yesterday, on the Nation website, I read a somewhat buried article explaining that Obama’s proposal for economic stimulus is to the right of Clinton’s. It also explained that his three top economic advisors are good Wall Street types; one of them, in fact, was the subject of a flattering article by George Will.
So, on the economic front, an Obama presidency can only mean Change, if you consider more right-ward drift to be change.
Here’s the link to the Nation article.
http://www.thenation.com:80/bletters/20080211/fraser
I wrote a web letter criticizing Obama and the Nation, but as of yesterday, at least, the Nation did not post it. Here’s my letter:
Thanks so much for this fact-based article on Barack Obama. Most of the progressive community has been seduced by his charisma and his effect on young people. We’ve heard so much about the inspiration he creates. Meanwhile there has been little acknowledgement of the hard facts. His voting record in the Senate, his propoals on bread and butter issues, and now, his list of economic advisors demonstrate that he is, at best, a centrist. More to the point, during periods less dominated by the interests of corporate America and Wall Street, a politician with his views on the economy would have been recognized for what he is, a moderate Republican.
As recession looms, and ordinary Americans lose their jobs, their healthcare or their homes, it is time for real change in our national economic priorities. With his record and his advisors, Obama almost certainly cannot deliver such real change — particularly if his proposals challenge the centrist Clinton from the right.
Nevertheless, the Nation, like many in the mainstream media, has devoted a great deal of ink to the “Hilary vs. Obama” choice for the Democratic nominee. If a progressive magazine does not care to amplify truly progressive voices largely ignored in the mainstream media, who will?
I hope I am wrong about Obama. He is an inspirational orator and an intelligent, obviously likeable man. Nevertheless, I make my decisions about voting based not on someone’s public persona but on their public record. As a result, unlike his large and growing following, I am not filled with hope that real change is coming any time soon.
As a Kucinich and Edwards supporter, I have come around to believing it is worth putting some energy into making Obama be the best candidate he can be. He has the roots, insight and intelligence to be better than he will admit in the campaign. He is, I am convinced, using image and metaphor to communicate who he is. I can only hope he will not compromise his principles and potential. There will be a lot of hate and prejudice come out against him. It is already rampant on the internet. The Christian right will get ugly, I believe. I hope the Christian left, and all of the left, will stand against it. I do not want that hate and prejudice to win.
Please think about it.
As for Hillary, she is too imperialist for me to support and would end any chance, I believe, of having an opposition party. We have scant now. I have some hope in the young people who are supporting Obama. I can only hope. Hopelessness is not a choice if I am to remain free.
Join us, Edwards supporters!
www.gp.org
Edwards is a hypocrite. He claims to be for the common man but he is outrageously extravagent in his personal life. If I had Bill Gates’ AND Warren Buffet’s fortunes combined there is no way I’d pay $400 for a haircut or live in a 28,000 square foot mansion.
This too shall pass but not in our children’s lifetime.
I just saw this on rawstory.com:
Nader launches ‘08 exploratory site:
http://www.naderexplore08.org/
I think it is time to vote ABC - anybody but Clinton.
Back in ‘04 when Edwards was running, I knew a lot of republicans who hated Bush, and said they’d vote for Edwards if he won in the primary. If he were to become the VP candidate for Hillary or Obama, he might still get a lot of those votes. I also knew republicans who hated McCain in ‘02, and I’m sure the idea of McCain taking over where Bush leaves off is as sickening to them as it is to us.
I give up!!! This has been nothing but an Obama and Hillary carnival since day one. This is what the corporate media wanted…and this is what they got. The media defeated Kucinich, and now the media has squashed Edwards.
Huh…Mr. Ralph Nader where are you? Please step forward.
The loss of John Edwards in this campaign is huge for those of us who had Hope for a better quality of life for the people of this Country and by extension, the World.
Of all the candidates I think John Edwards would have done the most to get the people off the streets, into safe housing, with food to eat and the social services to help them re-establish their lives. I sure do hope he continues to do what he calls “the mission of my life”.
I just heard Edwards speech from New Orleans. It made me cry. It’s not that I’ve been so enamored of this old southern Dem, it’s just painful to know that economic populism and caring for the poor can never break through into mainstream political discussion, even among many Dems who call themselves progressive.
This is a dark day. Around the country and the world, corporate CEOs and Wall Street billionaires are lighting up their cigars and celebrating
Mr John Nichols,
All the rants and and blathers take us nowhere because, as you know and as some of us know, the next president has already been picked up by the Powers that be regardless of votes-which don’t count anyways. Election circus is Hollywood entertainment for fools.
But, let us get into real business. What happened to those spanks and slaps on the wrist that your insider buddies were supposed to inflict upon the two rascals Bush and Cheney for their crimes against humanity? Of course I wouldn’t dare offending your buddies with the provocative word ‘IMPEACHMENT’
Nader’s back in. Check it out here:
http://www.naderexplore08.org/index.html
If it’s Hellary, count me in.
Rebel Farmer:
Not only that, Obama is now ahead of Clinton by 3 percenatage points in California.
Where’s the source for this? Can’t find it anywhere.
For those who are wondering who the secretary of state will be in the next democratic administration, it will take a catastrophe for the person not to be Richard Holbrook, regardless of who becomes president.
Attorney General. Why not Supreme Court Justice since the next Prez will most likely get to appoint one if not two!!!
For the record, The Nation is a liberal magazine, not a progressive one. They do publish progressive viewpoints but they have a liberal bias.
Hmmm, Justice Edwards sounds cool.
I have no problem with Richard Holbrook. Anyone who can sing with Willy Nelson on the Colbert Report can’t be all bad
Ok I tried to edit my last comment but the system wouldn’t let me…
Sing on the Colbert Report can’t be all bad…. is how that should have ended. (I should do this at work!)
The corporations have won….. Well no, it is the will of the poeple to have an aggressive person willing to kill and cause mayhem as president. Do not rob the people of their voice. They want supremacy as a guarantee of safety and wealth. The people are not ready to abandon this goal. Expect McCain to win, he is the one most trusted to keep the belligerent attitude going, consistent with the American temperament and mentality. You can dream if you want, but if you expect the American people to respond in a wise way you will be disappointed. This is not a wise or intelligent population. For the American people McCain will seem like the right choice.
Bomb,bomb, Iran. Like McCain said: “There will be more wars”. Of course there will be, America will make sure of that. Now let’s go for something to eat and a drink.
hi kem patrick,
i agree with you. but as you know, they all say things in the heat of battle, only to eat crow later. i’d forgive edwards for having to eat crow should obama wise up. also, in one of the earlier debates, it was indeed nice to see obama and edwards having hillarious doing the backward shuffle. you are also correct: hillarious/edwards would indeed be a disaster. i can’t imagine edwards wanting the position that much. imagine, hillarious on top of you for four years. ughh.
John Edwards showed he had the capacity to speak like he had a conscience (a feature notably lacking among most presidential contenders for the past 50 years).
My hope comes from people like Paul Hawkin (Blessed Unrest)
http://www.democracynow.org/2007/5/23/author_paul_hawken_on_blessed_unrest )
and David Korten (Living Wealth Better Than Money)
http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?ID=1834
and not the political system–who are facilitators of what is wrong with this world rather than servants of the people which is their rightful job. The change must come from the bottom up because the top is corrupt and perverse through and through.
~Hi again LINO~ Actually Hillary is not near as bad as some picture her. In comparrison to McCain, she looks pretty good, their stands on almost every issue are poles apart. Hillary is a fighter, very intelligent and a work-aholic. She did, almost by herself, keep the Wal-Mart board in line, she often got her way and she did fight very hard for the employees and Wal-Mart went down hill in many ways after she left their board.
I don’t favor her, but I will vote for her if she is the Dem’s nominee. Actually, Clinton’s platform is not far different than that of John Edwards if one takes the time to read them. Obama has a far different platform and I do not faver his stand on several important issues. He is the finest orator I have ever seen and heard. That is smart politics. We’ve had lots of smart politicians over the years. It’s the issues that we should be most critical of.
And yes, candidates say dumb things during a heated campaign and some cannot be taken back or fixed. Whoever advised Edwards to run those final TV ads, wasn’t very snart that time. I do wonder if the decision was made in haste and at a time when Edwards was very tired. I can picture that easily happening then.
Bobist: Someone give me the 3 top reasons I shouldn’t shift to Obama as opposed to casting a symbolic Green or other vote or just staying home.
Voting the least worst corporate puppet allows the corporatocracy to heal its war wounds, to fight another day. Better to leave the war wounds open for further infection/weakening, so it’s ok to vote third parties. But the other reason to vote third parties is because that vote is your voice. How do you expect a public servant to carry our your policy if you fail to articulate it? The corporatocracy wants you to silence yourself, by voting least worst or by not voting at all. Clearly, you have to make yourself heard, so vote third parties - and take election day off work - tell the boss you’re spending the day at the polling place, mingling with the crowds - and you expect full pay.
vote 3rd party for local elections (mayor, county commissioner, st sen, st legislature, congress, US senate). voting for a quadrennial pres candidate like nader i believe is a mistake. mr nader made his political ambitions clear years ago, but did he ever choose to run in an election he could have won?
the best third party candidacy in all of american pres politics occurred when a former sitting president ran as a third party (the progressive party actually) candidate in 1912 creating a split in the republican party, he garnered less then 30% of the vote and came in 2nd.
but how was this party created (by educated elites) and what was it’s message ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Party_%28United_States%2C_1912%29
“The party was funded by publisher Frank A. Munsey and its executive secretary George W. Perkins, a leading financier. The platform called for women’s suffrage, recall of judicial decisions, easier amendment of the U.S. Constitution, social welfare legislation for women and children, workers’ compensation, limited injunctions in strikes, farm relief, revision of banking to assure an elastic currency, required health insurance in industry, new inheritance taxes and income taxes”
there are two reasons to vote for a 3rd party. to draw attention to legit social issues ignored by existing parties. often these ideas percolate into the mainstream 20 years later (FDR’s policies for example). also a national campaign draws attention to local campaigns increasing greens chances of being heard in community.
if you want you want to imagine the election as a mandate on your conscience do so vote. you may believe (as our experience has dictates) the dem or repub will win, so be it, support the best candidate from your choices. a or b will still oversee our government.
edwards told hillary in a pre-presidential debate that they should do something about the maginal candidates (kucinich & gravel), which means that he would like to keep me from hearing what the two best candidates have to say and that means that edwards is not my friend. good riddance to him and on to the BUYING OF THE PRESIDENCY - MAY THE BEST FUNDRAISER WIN!
there are many reasons why john edwards could have chosen this moment to exit.
1 the poor showing in SC coupled with poor showings in the other three contests IA NH NV.
2 dwindling resources needed to publicize his campaign (yes corporate media time is very expensive - and campaign reform is sorely needed in tis country).
3 the upcoming race on 2/5. by exiting now he actually is doing both the other dems a favor by letting the voters see w/out illusion who the two probable candidates will be (voters in NY CA IL NJ etc.. no longer have to ponder edwards harboring their votes on their behalf at the election either clinton or obama. if you listen to his concession statement he says he’s glad his platform (class inequity, poverty) has become part of the others discussion/policy.
4 the upcoming debate in california tomorrow will reflect this reality, 2 candidates on the stage. and i suspect it will be an excellent way, for the voters in the 22 states voting on teus, to see how these 2 fare w/out a moderator (like in SC where edwards could - legitimately siphon attention to his ideas- move the candidates away from confrontation).
5 edwards may have his most political strength now with less then 100 delegates, teusday 2/5 over 1600 delegates will be allotted. by leaving the campaign now his perceived victory (i was 3rd before super teus) will be enhanced at the convention in denver. because the obama/clinton race is so raucous, i doubt neither will be on the same ticket, edwards has a chance with both as VP. although i agree w/ others that edwards probably won’t be on ticket.
the polls are not encouraging. mccain is leading both obama and clinton. it isn’t the end of the world (the polls) it merely reflects the intensity of the dem race which is showing serious divides w/in the dem party. now that mccain is the established candidate the repubs will start joining the attack against clinton and obama. i’m certain obama will prevail on this score. clinton(s) is a magnet (like the fridge magnets you can buy at walmart) that attracts controversy.
obama is amicable, and is preaching a message of unity towards repubs (even in the primaries,though his voting record /like clintons/ is considered left of center, more progressive then edwards. obama did not initially endorse/create the war (as kennedy observed in his endorsement, feingold observed on these pages). obama is running right early for the general election. i know this sickens many, but the reality is (ugly word right REALITY) 1/2 the country voted for bush2 (metaphorically, diebold machines and all) these people don’t like clinton(s), they don’t like bush as an individual (noted by approval ratings), there not necessarily supporting the war and may appreciate an easier out (a dem pres vs. mccain). these people live here and just because they haven’t treated us well doesn’t mean they also shouldn’t be considered americans (war criminals should be prosecuted, appropriate social programs enhanced) when the economy collapses we’ll all be effected (prog’s and corp’s).
but we can’t be too overreaching in our conclusions about mccain/obama in the general because obama’s strategy (like jackson, like dean) has been to bring new registered voters into the fray, like in SC (as nyt’s observed SC could be in play in the general b/c of high voter turnout), all 4 dem contests so far have generated enormous voter turnout (especially among youth and minorities) these voters are participating (maybe not on alevel high enough to comprehend mr naders essays, or the intracicies of green politics) but their voice is being heard and if if obama is the candidate this support in the general will swell. obama is the insurgent dem candidate.
vote your conscience in the dem primary, please encourage edwards to pledge his delegates to obama before 2/5………
vote for cindy in CA, kucinich in OH and please ralph run for public office you can win so your voice can be heard…………
see ya on the streets of denver
peace…
John Edwards as Vice President would be the only thing that would give me hope at this pint.
Obama can’t crash through against Hillary.
The Country was mis-led in NOT being informed that Edwards was the strongest candidate against John McCain.
This was corporate-dominated media.
The women and blacks were fooled into mindlessly supporting their own, and probably giving the Presidency to the republicans.
Hey, I’ve got a crazy idea. How about we vote for someone who will bring some principles back into our government which we pay for and we elect?
With Edwards out, Obama is the one to do it. Hillary has proven that she will not and cannot. Place your vote and read some more on this topic if you feel like it at http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/27/14512/4399/221/444226
I left the USA in 2003 after Bush invaded Iraq. The reason is that I have not paid one dime in Federal income tax (legally) by living and teaching in Thailand (for $14,000 a year, but in the last year the dollar has dropped so much in value that I have realized a 30% increase in my salary if computed in USD).
I have been a Kucinich and then an Edwards supporter, and now I am supporting Obama. Remember that Hillary Clinton voted for the authorization for Bush’s illegal and unconstitutional war of aggression. Edwards did too, but had the courage to admit he had made a mistake. It tells me an awful lot about Hillary’s character that she continues to refuse to say she was wrong.
More importantly, I believe that if it comes down to a vote between McCain and Clinton in November, McCain will win because the voters find him more likeable (despite being wrongheaded on all the major issues except immigration). Therefore, unless you want to live through another 4 years of a Republican President, vote now for Obama. I belong to Democrats Abroad in Thailand, and will be voting for Obama next Tuesday in Bangkok.
To the Clinton supporters, I have to say that I was ABC (anybody but Clinton) in 1992, and I will vote 3rd party in 2008 if Clinton wins the nomination, because I am just so sick of Republicrats and the DLC. Sorry, but I have a visceral dislike for the woman.
KEM PATRICK__I agree with your assessment of Hillary as an intelligent, fighter and worker. She has her faults, but has to take a lot of unnecessary trashing because it is almost a national pastime by now. I guess all of the Obama supporters can go ahead with the Billary blab if they want, but the Repubs will play nice on Obama until he is picked as the nominee and will then let loose. Get ready for nonstop Hussein cracks and much more to follow. Hillary has a better chance to beat McCain as he is proud of being a warmonger and she is no worse than 90% of all the Congress for voting with the majority. We have no idea what Obama can do if he gets in and runs into the bulldozer going the other way.
Top three reasons for progressives to vote for Obama.
1. NAFTA. NAFTA. NAFTA.
well, two more to round it out…
2. Relevance
3. It’s him vs. the GOP and The Clintons
If we aren’t excited about this, so called progressives will never be relevant in the US.
Aren’t the Obama people a little worried about his supporting Liebermann in ‘06 over the endorsed Democrat, Lamont, in CT?
http://boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/03/31/obama_rallies_state_democrats_throws_support_behind_lieberman/
If progressives support a slippery player like Obama, indeed, they’ll no longer be relevant in the US. Why would progressives support someone who lavishes such praise on Liebermann?
Should progressives feel obligated to support politicians who suck up to other Bush allies?
Indeed — which other neocons does Obama admire?
One of Obama’s economic advisors supports partial privatization of Social Security, and another is so center-right that George Will wrote a flattering column about him.
http://www.thenation.com:80/bletters/20080211/fraser
Obama–Change we can believe in?
Nor for this Edwards supporter.
Paul Bramscher.
Yes.
Who knows? He says he admires Clinton.
Vote down the Clintons and the GOP.
The day there’s a viable, and yes, relevant Left candidate, believe me I’ll vote for them.
That’s what I work for every day.
What excites me about Obama is actually an unintended consequence of his candidacy - this idea that his presidency could be transformative in its symbolism. Not in its policy positions.
Coke vs. Pepsi is actually a choice. There’s an organized campaign against Coke all over the world. It’s a strategic choice. Is there any chance that Pepsi as a corporation is any better than Coke? If it is, it’s insignificant.
Social movements and trade unions have decided to take on Coke.
If they hold Coke accountable, or say, Nike (over Reebok), the idea is that the others will follow.
Be relevant. Get out of the Common Dreams silo.
We need a real social movement to make real change.
So…Just do it.
Now, I’m not saying give them your money. I’m giving my money to local community based groups.
Sophia1729: “May the best fundraiser win”. Well said!
Man, are we in a pickle. I seriously wish everyone who hasn’t yet voted who can vote in the Dem primary will vote for either Kucinich or Gravel.
Check out Mike Gravel’s strong statement on Kucinich in the Huffington Post yesterday. Those guys were the only ones who took clear positions on issues, fergodssake!
Amidst all the blather about which politician is going to save us or screw us, the post by Poet is beautiful to see:
“The change must come from the bottom up because the top is corrupt and perverse through and through.”
Please think about how change has happened throughout history - “The change must come from the bottom up”.
We The People need to stop investing our dreams in some politician, and start investing our lives in building a movement for social justice. Whoever is or is not President, WE NEED TO BE A MOVEMENT.
Political despair, and sniping nastiness, do not build movements.
http://www.naderexplore08.org
Fellow pissed off people, let’s do this.
John Edwards is a white male and the only one who could have beat the Rethuglicans. Look forward to eight more years of war. What a dumb country.
Sad to see this wonderful man and his exceptional wife leave the race. Hopefully, it’s not the last we’ll hear from him. I thank him for his effort and very hard work in bringing certain very important issues to the table.
“Since the corporate media told us who the front-runners were a mere four weeks into this campaign, those who were not one of the top two or three AS MEASURED BY MONEY RAISED IN THAT FOUR WEEKS from big-money donors like corporations and their lobbyists, were marginalized by that same media. Both Edwards and Kucinich, but especially Kucinich, were ignored as far as possible during the debates organized and moderated by these same media and Kucinich was actually excluded from some.”
Bernice raises a very good point here and a worrying one. Businesses continue to bribe the American presidential candidates BECAUSE IT WORKS. Voters every time keep on falling for it. The only way that there can be real change, I think, is when people take the corporations by surprise and vote for the one WHO IS NOT THEIR FAVORITE CANDIDATE. If financing a candidate does not automatically translate in electoral success, corporations would be less eager to support candidates financially and the candidates would end up less funded and less compromised.
Why is it so difficult to get this message across ? If you see a candidate who has very large campaign funds, it means that this candidate is highly compromised, because a lot of large corporations have expectations from that person and he or she has to deliver. Vote for the underfunded guy (or girl) and it will ensure that he remains loyal to the public trust.
The problem with democracy is that the ones who vote for a certain candidate are not the ones who in the end pay that candidate’s bills. Those are the corporations who bribe him and finance the election campaign. What’s worrying to me is that this apparently works: Just throw a lot of money to an election campaign and apparently you can convince the voters that ’somehow you are the best candidate’.
It is only when voters start to think for themselves that they see this pattern and start to act contrary to what the corporations expect. Only in that way can you get out of the vicious cycle.
I don’t have to tell you who is my favourite candidate; I guess you’ve all heard her name, even though she has no megacorporations behind her shouting it from the rooftops. It is, of course, CYNTHIA MCKINNEY !!
so, basically, the “voters” in iowa and new hampshire and nevada determined, in january, who we, the rest of the country, get to vote for???? is there something wrong with this picture? the only thing more fucked up than any bush presidency is this system we’re discussing.
Until we get public funding of elections and free media time for candidates, this is what is going to keep happening. Corporations are going to fund only candidates who don’t threaten their free-ride gravy train. The Corporate Media are going to deep-six anyone who hints at returning to the labor policies and mixed economy ideology which created the large middle class of the Postwar United States. Read Robert Kuttner’s new book THE SQUANDERING OF AMERICAN for how we got here and what we must do to change our situation. “Stimulus packages” aren’t going to do it.
.
I’ll say it again…
http://www.ontheissues.org/ Ralph…Ralph_Nader.htm
We needed Ralph Nader as President in 2000.
We needed Ralph Nader as President in 2004.
We NEED Ralph Nader as President in 2008.
Never before as we do now.
.
http://www.ontheissues.org/ Ralph…Ralph_Nader.htm
Copy the whole line including his name and paste in your browser. Read what Ralph Nader stands for. A honorable trustworthy leader.
Eric Barth,
I couldn’t agree more. No talk of real economic change can break through on a large scale, in this media and campaign financing system. Just won’t happen. The media and the campaing financing system need to be re-constructed from scratch. And we should engage in politics on a local level, where there is an opening for truly progressive candidates.
I may run for a local office myself someday, once my kids are a bit older.
Sorry for delayed reply…away from the computer,yesterday.
Losertarian, The strikes, work slowdown/walkouts are my cup of tea, as they’ve been successful in the past. The fertilizer I’ll have to pass on. But I understand you. Perhaps, in order to save our country, it may very well be the last resort, but as a commited pacifist, the former seems more productive than the latter. Hey, the French can do it, and if we were really commited, we can do it here in the USA.
Colleen, I love Ghandi’s quote. I started reading all the comments on this article and the other article about Edwards and the CD’ers solutions and ideas on who to vote for and what to do next. At least there is a tiny minority who clearly understands the current situation. I watched Amy Goodman interviewing Ralph Nader on ‘DEMOCRACY NOW!’ awhile ago, and he may run again. As Off22 posted above, go to www.naderexplore08.org and see what is there.
Watching Edwards’ brief withdrawal speech on C-Span left me feeling hopeless and betrayed. And did anyone else get a weird vibe off that 15-min. clip? John looked as if he was hiding something and Elizabeth stood directly behind him as if she didn’t want the camera to catch her expressions. When I could see her, her face was puffy and her eyes had a devastated look. What IS the backstory here?
I had just sent his campaign another donation, based on his promise to keep fighting through Super Tuesday, and I can’t understand why he up and quit WITHOUT EXPLANATION. He would have garnered more delegates on Feb. 5th and had more leverage relative to the party platform. Instead, he said the other two candidates had promised to include his main campaign pledges in their programs — WHAT? Does he for ONE MINUTE trust these two corporate-compromised candidates to do any such thing? I have no idea who to vote for now.
And no, not Ralph Nader — PLEASE. For years this amazing man had a major role in transforming consumer protection, safer cars, food safety, the environment and so many other good causes through the PIRGs he founded and the lawsuits he brought. He always said he’d stay out of politics so he wouldn’t be compromised — remember? I believe that one year he was named the most admired (or trusted, or both) man in America! Then the damn Presidential bug bit him, and no one can seem to cure him of it.
Yes, John E. would be a great Atty Genl, and that’s a tremendously powerful position. But I want to know what’s going on in his life now that made him turn his back on his most loyal supporters — not even inviting us to contact him as to who we would like him to endorse (if anyone).
“The 2004 Democratic vice presidential candidate will continue to seek to influence his party and his country to recognize and address the painful reality that there are “two Americas — one rich and one poor.”
”
I hope he realizes the rich enrich themselves using the msinahceM dooH niboR called the 16th amendment.
Nanny
Electing Nader would indicate intelligence on the part of the American public. You are asking for the impossible.
I know lizard but I have to speak my true feelings. If we had a real President instead of an oily politician maybe America can win a place in this world that we can be proud of again. Hopefully his high standards will be an example to the people and especially the children. Don’t give up hope there are silver linings in the clouds.
have you read his interview with Amy Goodman in democracynow.org ?
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/31/ralph_nader_launches_presidential_exploratory_committee
just copy and paste in your browser.
So what if you think the American public is not intelligent enought to vote for Nader? The question is if you are intelligent enough to vote for him.
Remember, voting for Nader cannot be considered a vote that will make him the next President. It has nothing to do with strategy or winning. It is a vote for what you think is right and just for our country.
Hopefully he runs and continues to hammer at the 2-party system which prevents any meaningful progress from occuring in our country.