John Edwards: too nice a guy
The hounds who brought down the Presidential candidacy of my favorite contender, John Edwards, often hectored his supporters about his ego. But truth be told, his ego wasn't big enough.
If Edwards had been more of a self-centered jerk, he would have stayed in the race much longer than he actually did. He would have picked up some more delegates. He might have been in a position by now to decide who the winning candidate would be, and stop the bloody scratch fight that's tearing the Democratic Party apart. He might even have had a shot at capturing the nomination himself in a brokered convention.
If he were still around today, the picture for the Democrats might seem a little brighter. As it stands, however, it's not too bright at all. God help America.
Comments (10)
Absolutely! It was a shame that, growing up in a mill town, that he didn't get into a fight that broke his nose. Seriously, it would have marred his good features, but have made him more authentic as a battler, both in the courtroom and on the stump. Edwards was right about "two Americas. Unfortunately, they coexist within the Dem party today.
Posted by Don Lief | May 4, 2008 4:58 AM
I recently re-registered as a Democrat - previously not affiliated with a party - so that I could vote for Obama in the primary. Now I'm thinking "what's the point?". Obama & Clinton have so alienated the supporters of their opponent that John McCain is pretty much a shoe-in at this point.
Posted by Frank | May 4, 2008 5:39 AM
Money must have something to do with this. How much financial security should he have sacrificed by financing his own losing campaign?
Posted by Allan L. | May 4, 2008 8:13 AM
My wife thought John Edwards was the best candidate but then again, she picked me too. My only problem with Edwards was that he didn't eviscerate Dick Cheney in the Vice Presidential debate back in 2004. I was all ready for a "You can't handle the truth" moment and John seemed unprepared for Cheney's attacks. How can a big-time trial lawyer not be ready for that? Maybe he is too nice as you suggest, but it remains a mystery to me and a history-changing disappointment.
As for the campaign today, I can draw on my experience writing jokes about Bill Clinton as he approached reelection. There's usually a comedy take that everyone works off of - with John McCain it's that he's old. I have personally tried to fight these designated hooks at times to no avail, although every now and then, I've actually introduced a minor take to the country with the other comedy writers jumping on board for a week or so. That is a thrill.
With McCain, for example, I think there should be more discussion of the rich-wife syndrome but nobody's buying it. This take sure worked with John Kerry, and though Mrs. Kerry had much more money, Mrs. McCain has beer money. That's funny, right? I think there's a hook there for John McCain. How can he run the federal budget when he doesn't even run the family budget?
The hook in the year before President Clinton was running again in 1996 was that he couldn't possibly win. That's hard to remember but it's true. It was only after the race went head to head with Bob Dole that Clinton's fortunes rose.
Maybe that's going to happen again. I admit it's ugly right now. You realize that Hillary latched onto this Eight Belles horse at the Kentucky Derby? She tried to glum onto it like she was duck-hunting all over again in Pennsylvania. So what happens to Hillary's horse? It came in second, broke both ankles, and had to be euthanized. What's the take going to be on that? First, I'd advise against direct comparisons to Hillary's campaign. You never should go with death references to individuals - that's one of the rules, and there are few.
My take is that Hillary put a curse on this poor animal, just as she has cursed the campaign and the country. I see it like in Young Frankenstein, when the horses neigh at the mention of her name.
I understand the gloom out there - it does feel like a bad stretch right now, but remember, this thing could still sort itself out. There's months of head-to-head campaigning - probably between Obama and McCain. Grieve not everyone - it could be another joke-writing situation like back in 1996. (Although admittedly we get pastors, instead of bimbos - what a letdown.)
Still, I can see Barack returning to greatness on the trail. He needs to stop floating like a butterfly, and start stinging like a bee, and I think he can do that against McCain.
So my advice: Be not bummed out. Enjoy Oregon's time in the national spotlight. Just don't ride any horses when Hillary's in town.
Posted by Bill McDonald | May 4, 2008 8:52 AM
I generally agree about Edwards. But on the up side, the uproar over lapel pins and bittergate and crazy preachers does indeed distract me from thinking about how overwhelmingly destructive the Bush era Republicans have been. Seriously, it never ends. If it weren't for this Obama-Clinton slugfest I don't know how I'd take my mind off of it. I'd have to eat a great big bowl of broken glass for breakfast every day just to get through it.
Posted by telecom | May 4, 2008 1:06 PM
The Obama campaign proves what an inspirational leader he is. He leads the pack in fundraising and grass roots activism. Neither the Clinton machine nor McCain's wealthier demographic come close. His performance in the campaign alone fills that suit of his perfectly in walking his rhetoric. This is reality. The here and now. Ignore it at our peril.
Posted by genop | May 4, 2008 1:10 PM
John Edwards was the only candidate that the Republicans were afraid of. If he ever runs again, I will donate the maximum up front. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both give in part-way to special interests; John McCain sold his soul to special interests and the Republican extremists.
Posted by CyberCitizen | May 5, 2008 7:13 AM
"My only problem with Edwards was that he didn't eviscerate Dick Cheney in the Vice Presidential debate back in 2004..."
Lessee, Silky tried to distance himself from Iraq, but voted for the resolution to go to war. Ergo; he's a hypocrite. Strike one.
Silky ham-handedly tried to throw Cheney under the bus regarding his gay daughter, but just looked like a total ass instead. Strike two.
Silky was for NCLB, then he was against it. Silky was for the Patriot act, then he was against it. Ergo; flip-flopper. Strike three.
Silky isn't as smart as Cheney. Period. It seems manipulating juries is easier than running for VP.
Posted by Chris McMullen | May 5, 2008 4:13 PM
>tried to distance himself from Iraq, but voted for the resolution to go to war. Ergo; he's a hypocrite. Strike one.
At least he acknowledged that it was a mistake, unlike Hillary Clinton and Jeff Merkley (HR2).
>ham-handedly tried to throw Cheney under the bus regarding his gay daughter, but just looked like a total ass instead. Strike two.
He was being gracious, for God's sake. John Edwards has no issues with Dick Cheney's gay daughter.
>was for NCLB, then he was against it. Silky was for the Patriot act, then he was against it. Ergo; flip-flopper. Strike three.
Some people never learn from their mistakes, or even acknowledge them (see above).
I loved John Edwards as a Presidential candidate and I especially loved Elizabeth Edwards as a potential First Lady. I am still pining for them to rescue me from the Hobson's choice at the top of my ballot.
Posted by Portlandia | May 5, 2008 11:23 PM
"It seems manipulating juries is easier than running for VP."
Are you accusing him of fixing jury verdicts?
Or are you deliberately confusing the words "manipulate" and "PERSUADE"?
Unless he's cheating, he can't control what the jury decides to do in the deliberations room.
Move to Saudi Arabia if you don't like the American civil justice system.
Posted by Sam | May 5, 2008 11:35 PM