Edwards Bows

John Edwards has been relegated to an after-thought these last couple of weeks, and after Florida's beauty contest last night, he saw the hard political handwriting and will reportedly make an exit today - symbolically - in New Orleans. The wingnuts rejoice over the defeat of the most liberal of the remaining Democrats:

He won’t be missed. Not the cloying, braying sanctimony. Not the hypocritical Fox-bashing. Not the oleaginous class warfare. Not the odious politicization of Memorial Day.

That was the odious Michele Malkin. But she's got it wrong - those are exactly the reasons Edwards will be missed.

I don't know who his supporters go to, or whether he will endorse Obama or Clinton or neither. But I know which party gets to keep his ideas, and that's a good thing.

UPDATE: Somebody smart just told me something I have to repeat: for the first time in American history, the nominee of a major party won't be a white male.  Obvious, yeah. But when you say it aloud...

Comments

[Slappy]

This Edwards supporter is sad. And I suspect many of us dont know who to support now in the primaries. I certainly dont. My vote will be based on who is most likely to not lose to McCain in a general election. I have to say, I think Obama at this point is least likely to lose. He will more easily pick up some Southern states and he is not despised like Clinton is. And his anti-war stance is more believable and in better contrast to McCain's wish to remain in Iraq for years to some. As far as battle tested, he's more than held his own against the obviously more experienced (nationally) politician. He also is I think a more inspiring figure. Huge small donation numbers and has had great success with the youth. I think Clinton would still win, just not as safe a bet.

[Slappy]

Looks like I made up my mind as I was writing that. Maybe I did. I could be swayed.

Who will the more liberal amongst us prefer? I hope it pushes the two to the left looking for my vote. Not that it means much once elected I suppose.

[Tom W.]

Or Slappy you might look at policy and ask, which of final two is more liberal.

I think betting on Obama's electability is like hoping the thinnest of fine eggshells stays intact for 10 more months...his obvious talent, notwithstanding.

[Tom K]

Tom:

In order the make the question "which of final two is more liberal" a meaningful starting point for comparison of Hillary and Obama, don't we need to know how you define "liberal"? Or do you just mean to ask Slappy whose policies he generally finds more agreeable?

[Ralph]

Being despised by Michele Malkin or ridiculed by Charles Krauthammer is a good thing. To my mind, there is not doubt that John Edwards was our best hope at defeating John McCain. I don't think Hillary has much of a chance, Obama will fare better. But I am sad for the party because we may have blown another one again for the sake of star-power and fund-raising. I don't have much faith in the Democratic primary voter to even consider the general election when they pull the lever for Hillary or Obama. We might just be licking our wounds come November, gearing up for four years of Grandpa McCain and the ongoing march of supply-side economic disaster.

[Slappy]

This country will never have a prez that satisfies my liberal self. Im all too aware I have to share this piece of property with Tom K. So as far as liberal goes, they are about as liberal as this country will tolerate in today's America. And the truth is, they are more similar than not. Getting a sane Dem in the White House is paramount. And they are both sane. Winning is most important. Period. They pass all my major policy issues.

My priorities are getting out of Iraq and setting up universal healthcare. I expect both to accomplish these goals. Assuming the Dems control both houses. Edwards would have made a bigger difference for this country. Obama and Clinton will put it on the right track and I can live with that.

My biggest problem with Clinton is I dont trust her on Iraq and she is a bigger gamble in the election. I dont care for Obama's religious references. I prefer my candidates not talk about how their faith guides them and all that garbage. Obama however does have more potential to be a prez that those who normally dont care about politics can look up to and get behind. And if he can accomplish that, especially with the young, the Dems can be set up to govern for many years to come. Clinton can never pull that off I think. Too much baggage. Even the major Dems can't seem to get behind her. I think Ted Kennedy's reasoning was dead on.

[Tom W.]

slappy, not to say yu're naive about Teddy - but it really was about the media moment in the sun, the chance to play king-maker. I admire the guy, but he is a politician after all. His reasoning was "how to make the biggest impact and use my capital wisely." A good risk.

I'd argue you're both doing some strange calculus on the electibility with Obama and Clinton. She's a much better bet, in my view. Don't for a moment think McCain won't hit hard.

[The Viscount]

Sorry to see him go - he was my first choice.

I'll happily vote for the nominee - there are things to like about both remaining candidates.

I didn't feel that way when Dean stepped down in '04, so there's that.

[Linda]

Hmmm. In comparing who can beat McCain, may I humbly suggest that Florida just offered a hint. Hillary just got 200,000 more Florida vote than McCain when her voters knew that their votes may not even count. I suspect that many more dems would have been at the polls if there were delegates at stake. I keep hearing this knee-jerk meme that Obama is more electable than Hillary, and I just don't see it. If that were so, the polls across the country would show a very different story. And much as we may wish otherwise, I don't see the south rising up to vote for Obama in November. I think he would lose every single one of those states to McCain.

[Slappy]

There is a reason many of the big Dem names have backed Obama. They think he will win. Kennedy may have his own interests in mind but backing Obama shows he thinks Obama can/will win. If Kerry/Kennedy etc were so confident in Clinton, they probably would be backing her. Maybe my calculus is similar to theirs.

[Tom W.]

Linda makes a good point, and I'd like to add to it:
I think the electoral map sets up better for Clinton than Obama. Forget the "magic" - that will all be gone like a thin mist by November, and think hard politics. Go state by state. If Clinton can pick off an Arkansas and grab Florida, she's in. I don't see Obama doing well in either state. And don't go thinking he'll will South Carolina - that ain't happening. I think she'd do better in Virginia, turning out the Federal employees and contractors in the northern burbs. I suspect she can challenge McCain in his southwestern lair better than he.

[Tom W.]

Slapster, look at the endorsement list - she's got plenty of names too. Why, young Bobby Kennedy is beloved by environmentalists the world wide and is cutting ads for her in California. That's just one example. She has more Senators and more Governors. I'm sure his backers think he can win and is worth the gamble - you know, a bet on a strong 3-1 contender is often a better bet than an even money wager. So what?

[bruce b.]

TW, I don't think either Clinton nor Obama wins without strong support from the other's constituency. If somehow the constituencies can be put together (Clinton: big gender gap/increased turnout with white women; strong support from seniors; white working class "traditional base"; Latinos; Obama: African-Americans; independents; huge turnout among youth; middle-class and upper-middle income "new economy" types), then the Democrats have the potential for a LANDSLIDE, re-alignment style election.

Thus, it is important right now to LIMIT acrimony between the two camps.

[ChrisW]

Before everyone gets too far into analyzing the state by state prospects for all the (I think three) presidential candidates, or who has what endorsement, etc, I offer a humble suggestion: What hit me over the head was Tom's update comment. Didn't hit me watching the coverage last night, or in reading it today. That, to me, is worth talking about some more. Doesn't matter what side you're on or who your choice is, history is history, and this is an important piece of it for all of us.

[Tom K]

Bruce:

I'll answer in Tom W's voice --

At last we agree: Obama should stop using cynical exploitation of sexist sterotypes to cover his paper-thin experience and ignorance of the world, so that he doesn't cost Hillary the electino.

[Slappy]

Tom W: What gets the better odds: Clinton winning nomination or you finishing your book on time? Your publisher needs to pick an off year.

I'll happily send my money to either candidate.

[Tom K]

And they'll happily take it and, maybe, once every 20 years ago -- shortly before an election that looks to be bad for incumbents -- they'll join with their cohorts across the aisle in agreeing to send you back a few fractions of a penny for all the tax dollars they'll have mulcted from you to fund the bloated, corrupt and inefficient programs they've promised to reform.

Power to the people in charge!

[Tom K]

err . . . make that every 20 years "or so" . . . though I guess it works in either direction, forward or back.

[Slappy]

"...bloated, corrupt and inefficient programs..." Do you mean the Pentagon? War on drugs? Domestic spying programs? Or are only the programs that help feed and educate the poor bloated and inefficient?

Fuck me. This can lead to nowhere good.

[bruce b.]

TK said:

At last we agree: Obama should stop using cynical exploitation of sexist sterotypes to cover his paper-thin experience and ignorance of the world, so that he doesn't cost Hillary the election.

Nice one.

Now for an area where we (perhaps) disagree:

they'll join with their cohorts across the aisle in agreeing to send you back a few fractions of a penny for all the tax dollars they'll have mulcted from you to fund the bloated, corrupt and inefficient programs they've promised to reform.

Along side Slappy (and how can anyone ever disagree with someone named Slappy), I have to wonder which programs you are talking about. The main program everyone has "promised to reform" is health insurance. the only reason federally run health insurance (i.e. medicare) is "bloated" in this country is because of the crazy way that the Republicans did the Prescription Drug bill ("Medicare Part D"). What other Federal programs are you talking about that are "bloated"? The military is bloated, but sadly, no candidate that i know of is promising to "reform" it.

[Muataman]

"To my mind, there is not doubt that John Edwards was our best hope at defeating John McCain."

Where do people come up with this stuff? Based on Edwards' track record he couldn't beat Harold Stassen. I mean when was the last time the guy even came close in an election. On the other hand, based on the track record of her and her husband, Hilary appears to be the one democrat who knows how to win an election.

[Ralph]

"To my mind, there is not doubt that John Edwards was our best hope at defeating John McCain."

--between Obama, Hillary and Edwards, not the all of the other Dems. Edwards would have a better chance in my opinion.

Where do people come up with this stuff? Based on Edwards' track record he couldn't beat Harold Stassen. I mean when was the last time the guy even came close in an election.

Huh? First of all, the general election is what counts. John Edwards defeated incumbent Lauch Faircloth (R-NC) in a close race Senate race. Kerry/Edwards almost beat Bush/Cheney in 2004. And there is no reason to think that Obama or Hillary could fare much better in the south than Edwards against McCain.

On the other hand, based on the track record of her and her husband, Hilary appears to be the one democrat who knows how to win an election.

Yes. She won in New York State. The last time someone from New York State became president? Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

[Muataman]

"John Edwards defeated incumbent Lauch Faircloth (R-NC) in a close race Senate race."

Not THE Lauch Faircloth.

"Kerry/Edwards almost beat Bush/Cheney in 2004".

I remember that. Almost beat Bush/Cheney is pretty impressive. And I recall Kerry/Edwards running a heckof a race. Sorry Buddy but I'm tired of wimpy Democrats settling for "almost". Syanora John.

[athyrio]

the numbers in florida told me that Hillary is indeed more electable than Obama...That being said, I was very pleased tonite to hear Carl Bernstein admit that Hillarys policies are actually closer to Edwards than Obama's are...so that cemented it for me....I am going for Hillary....remember that the republican smear machine will go after Obama as soon as we nominate and no way can he stand up to that...too many negatives...Like this Rezko scandal which trial starts on Feb 25th..Might be skirting legality but the smell might get pretty strong and I am sure the swiftboaters will feed that fire...

[Tom K]

*Do you mean the Pentagon? War on drugs? Domestic spying programs? Or are only the programs that help feed and educate the poor bloated and inefficient?*

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

No, not only those.