John Edwards: Out.

1_61_122706_edwards_2008John Edwards, whose scrappy, progressive campaign helped define the race more than delegate counts would suggest, will end his race for the White House today. From the Associated Press:

DENVER — Democrat John Edwards is exiting the presidential race Wednesday, ending a scrappy underdog bid in which he steered his rivals toward progressive ideals while grappling with family hardship that roused voters' sympathies but never diverted his campaign, The Associated Press has learned.

Edwards burst out of the starting gate with a flurry of progressive policy ideas - he was the first to offer a plan for universal health care, the first to call on Congress to pull funding for the war, and he led the charge that lobbyists have too much power in Washington and need to be reigned in.

The ideas were all bold and new for Edwards personally as well, making him a different candidate than the moderate Southerner who ran in 2004 while still in his first Senate term. But the themes were eventually adopted by other Democratic presidential candidates - and even a Republican, Mitt Romney, echoed the call for an end to special interest politics in Washington.

Edwards made poverty the signature issue of both his presidential campaigns, and he led a four-day tour to highlight the issue in July. The tour, the first to focus on the plight of the poor since Robert F. Kennedy's trip 40 years earlier, also was an effort to remind voters that a rich man can care about the less fortunate.


  • (Show?)

    John Edwards ran a serious race that elevated critical issues and helped define the Democratic primary more than was ever acknowledged by most mainstream coverage. For that, John Edwards performed an invaluable service for every progressive who cares deeply about poverty, global warming, and changing the way Washington does business. The Edwards and their hard-working supporters should be proud of their efforts and innovative, srappy campaign.

  • artsasinic (unverified)

    I am so unbelievably depressed. So now we are left with a scheming corporatist and a pie in the sky "can't we all just get along?" pied piper whose accolytes don't even know why they follow him except he's "change". And either one will probably get their butts kicked by McCain. God help us if we don't get more senators elected!

  • Stacy6 (unverified)

    As an Edwards supporter, I'll be calling the Obama campaign and asking him to ask Edwards to be his VP. As well as putting him in a vital public position, it's the best way for us to see President Edwards in 2012 or 2016. It's also the best way for us to avoid a Republic president in 2008.

  • Bill R. (unverified)

    It's hard for me to believe that Edwards would do anything to help HRC. In South Carolina she put out some negative robo-calls that suppressed his vote. I'm told he and Obama have had a much warmer personal relationship and are on the same page on the corporate influence issue. He has said he won't immediately endorse but could endorse before Feb. 5. I hope that will be Obama. I can see JRE being Attorney General or leading the charge at the cabinet level on healthcare. And if he wants it, VP.

  • Matthew Sutton (unverified)

    John Edwards added a unique perspective and voice to the debate on a number of vital issues. Hopefully his spotlight on the downtrodden and disadvantaged in our society and the fight against "big money" interests will continue to be advanced by Senator Obama.

    Here is Senator Obama's statement on Edwards' withdrawal:

    "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 Americans 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." --Senator Barack Obama 1/30/2008

  • A. Rab. (unverified)

    I am sorry to see Edwards go (had the electorate been limited to just my family, he would have won with about 80% of the vote). If nothing else, he and his supporters can be proud that Edwards really changed the terms of the campaign. Edwards failure to get traction is partially a result of his success in forcing Clinton and Obama to move to the left in what they campaigned on. If he is willing to accept it, he is still well placed to be Veep or have a cabinet position (say AG or a newly created poverty Tsar).

  • djk (unverified)

    I suppose it was inevitable, but I'd really hoped he would stick around through Super Tuesday. At that point, he'd have been through the primaries of about one half of the states. He really couldn't stick it out one more week? And if he'd followed his promise to stay on all the way to the convention, he could have kept the heat on the other two campaigns on issues they otherwise would rather ignore. Plus, he would have amassed enough delegates that he very possibly could have played the kingmaker at the convention, even if he didn't get to be the king.

    So, I guess I'm an Obama man now.

  • (Show?)

    I liked Edward's message, although his actual voting record was pretty bad for a Democrat. (And apparently, Edwards' supporters accepted his excuse that it was OK to be spineless while in office, even though they don't take that from anyone else.)

    I'm also flat out not convinced that he forced Obama to move left. My take on Obama is that one reason he's so fuzzy is that he doesn't want people to get scared about the serious progressive changes he envisions for the country.

    Apocryphally, if a single Republican who'd lost his job to outsourcing, and his son to the war, met each of the three candidates:

    HRC would tell him. "I'll meet you Republicans halfway. No! Three quarters of the way! 9/10ths of the way! How about 99/100ths of the way!! Anything! Just vote for me!",

    Edwards would slap the guy upside the head and say "You voted for Bush? What the hell did you think would happen, dumbass?" (truthful, and highly appealing to staunch Democratic activists, but it doesn't appeal to the guy being slapped),

    and Obama would say, "Let's not talk about the past - who killed who, who stole who's elections, who supported torture against who - let's just both agree that the country's direction needs to change". Staunch democratic activists don't like this. Many would not be unhappy to see Cheney strung up like Mussolini after WW2. But the Republican does. So he becomes an Obama Republican.

    And with that support, Obama fixes the country much better than HRC ever could.

    Assuming we're smart enough to elect him.

  • (Show?)

    Edwards would be a kick ass AG--the perfect place for him to fight battles against entrenched interests. Sorry to see him leave the race, but my best guess is that he wanted to open up rural ST states for Obama. Liberal base voters seem to favor HRC so far; the more moderated Dems--the kind of voter who likes Ben Nelson or Max Baucus or Stephanie Herseth--are more amenable to Obama.

  • (Show?)

    (by "liberal base" I mean lower income, lower ed, union-type households. They're distinct from the high income, high ed progressive elites--university types and the blogosphere. )

  • Pat Malach (unverified)

    "Edwards for AG!"

    That's a truly great idea, but first the Democrats have to win the White House.

  • Admiral Naismith (unverified)


    I guess now I'm for O'Bama, because he seems like a nice Irish guy.

    I hope there's even two candidates left by the time we get to May. If it's a done deal by then, maybe I'll write in Ken Kesey's corpse, which doesn't smell as bad as most of the candidates...

  • (Show?)

    Aargh! That's TWO presidential elections in a row in which Edwards has dropped out before I got a chance to vote for him! I can't imagine him ever mounting a serious campaign again, especially when he drops out only days before Super Tuesday. I'd certainly have a hard time taking him seriously again after this move, as much as I like his ideas.

    I don't agree with Obama's positions on several issues (and yes, he DOES talk about issues--go to his website & read it) but I'm backing him 100% now that Edwards is gone. After Billary's behavior in SC, I have seen enough of Them/Her to last a lifetime. Please, you two, please, please, please just go away before you completely destroy the party...again.

  • BCM (unverified)

    Black clouds settle in over the Team Billary HQ...

    Essentially, all of the JE votes are going to go Obama's way. Not that there's a lot of them, but enough to make a serious difference in a close race.

  • chris (unverified)

    Does this mean that he won't be on the ballot here? Kucinich, too? Anyone running as a progressive? I'm not willing to vote for Clinton or Obama. What's a radical like me to do?

  • (Show?)

    An iteresting datpoint on the South Carolina thig was that Edwards got around 50% of the white vote and Obama got around 25% of the white vote.

    If I'm doing my math correctly, that means that the woman that got up at the last Dem debate and basically told Billary to stuff their racist bullshit, was a good indicator that three out of four white voters didn't appreciate being patronized.

    I'm slightly encouraged.

  • Miles (unverified)

    Essentially, all of the JE votes are going to go Obama's way.

    I'm not sure there's good evidence for this. Some pundits have suggested that at best Edwards' voters go 50-50 to Clinton and Obama, at worst Clinton picks up a majority of them. This race is very fluid, and I'm not sure we can know what impact this will have until after next Tuesday.

    I see one of two scenarios:

    • Clinton wins most of the big states, with Obama picking up a few medium and small states. The campaigns continue, but Clinton becomes pretty unstopable after a few more primaries.

    • Clinton gets NY and NJ, but Obama scores a big win in CA. They basically split the delegates from Super Tuesday, leading to a truly competitive, extended primary.

    I do NOT see how Obama wins a majority of delegates next Tuesday. I hope that I am wrong.

  • Clay Shentrup (unverified)

    Now that Edwards and Giuliani are out, it's time to see what the blogosphere thinks of the 6 remaining candidates, using Range Voting, a voting method detailed in William Poundstone's Gaming the Vote

  • (Show?)

    Essentially, all of the JE votes are going to go Obama's way.

    I don't think this is true. It is in Oregon, where there's really two camps--pro-Hil and no-Hil--and the latter is split. But in the South, where voters' profiles are quite a bit different, I think there are three groups. My guess is Edwards voters have a serious decision in front of them, and betting they'll all go Obama isn't something I'm ready to do yet. So an endorsement by Edwards would be cool.

  • (Show?)

    So an endorsement by Edwards would be cool.

    Indeed it would. Richardson & Biden should make a public choice too and stop waiting to see which way the wind is blowing.

  • genop (unverified)

    I will miss the voice of reason that is John Edwards in the upcoming debate. Damn. For those who might take a pass on voting, now that your candidate is gone, please put in the nose plugs and make the minimal effort to vote for the Democratic candidate in the general election. Otherwise we can be assured that the Repubs will win and our Country's bankruptcy will be assured with continued wasteful spending on Iraqi democracy.

  • chris (unverified)

    I was talking voting in the primary--which I might take a pass on, but I'll still vote in the primary--just not for Hillary. I know this isn't popular among the Blue Oregon Nader Haters, but I'll probably vote for McKinney or some other third party candidate.

  • Blueshift (unverified)

    The New York Times is reporting that at his Denver rally today, Obama had his 10,000 supporters give Edwards a standing ovation.

  • Bill R. (unverified)

    With the proportional awarding of delegates I can see the Dem primary going all the way to the convention if it's close. Obama has been picking up steam nationally and in a number of states. Gallup has him within six just as of the last couple of days nationally. And the SF Chronicle has him actually leading the last couple of days in their Cal. tracking poll. Conn. went from a Clinton blow-out to dead even. Even in Florida, where the absentee ballots all went for Hillary the late deciders broke for Obama. It is volatile and the Edwards move makes it more volatile come Super Tues. The Edwards thing may just be a wash in this, unless he makes a firm endorsement.

  • chris (unverified)

    oops--meant to say I'll still vote in the GENERAL

    but y'all can probably figure that out...

  • (Show?)

    My guess is that Edwards basically ran out of money. The thing about Doozy Tuesday is that it's essentially national scale. If it's followed by a quick endorsement by JE, that might have been a factor too. And I sort of wonder if some of the recent Obama endorsements, esp. by Kennedy but maybe Sebelius too in a different way, just closed off the running room. Finally, but maybe it's first, I wonder about Elizabeth Edwards' health. JE took criticism for running at all in the face of it, but they decided differently. But that decision maybe looks different if one's running at best for marginal influence at the convention.

    Edwards has attracted both people to the left of Clinton and Obama ideologically, and self-described conservative Democrats who are economically populist. A lot of the former will be ABC people, as reflected in the comments here by folks who say they won't vote for HRC in the general if she's nominated. So a lot of those will go to Obama. Many of the latter may turn to Clinton, or just sit out the primaries. It is hard to say whether race or gender, or perhaps more specifically, anti-feminism around "social issues", may influence some of that.

    Other "chris" -- if you're not willing to vote for either Obama or Clinton, your choice is to abstain, either by not voting, or voting for someone who's not running. If you abstain in the primary, I hope you will nonetheless vote for the D nominee in the general, for the sake of the Supreme Court & the lower federal courts.

    If not, and this goes for anyone else who's planning to sit out the general under any circumstances, you need to get out & be organizing some piece of a force that would change the dynamics in the DP, IMO. Personally I don't have a good sense of a what such a strategy would be (maybe a focus on real healthcare reform, with a sufficiently long strategic horizon and commitment?), but whatever it might be, I suspect it would mean getting off of the presidential cycle timetable entirely, or looking to 2016 or 2020 rather than 2012.

    Of course, I don't have my own life together enough to do that, nor a clear sense of strategy, so I don't have great standing criticize anyone who doesn't take up that challenge. But that's part of why I come back to the courts as a focus and don't turn to abstention. I can vote to prevent further erosion in that sphere, whatever else I might think.

  • sadie (unverified)

    I just signed up to volunteer for Obama. Go Obama! I'll miss John, though.

  • Gordon Morehouse (unverified)

    I was hoping for Edwards/Obama though I knew it was a long shot, but now I'll hope for Obama/Edwards. Given some of what I've read on the net I'm not as enthused about Obama as a lot of others, but I think a combined ticket would lock up quite a bit of the base.

  • (Show?)

    there was a very interesting bit in Andrew Sullivan's blog yesterday about NYC's role in the primary. basically, if Obama performs in the manner to be expected (based on polling & previous results), he would come in second in New York overall -- but only a handful of delegates behind Hillary. and with Edwards out, he stands to do even better.

    i don't think anyone can just assume Edwards supporters will automatically go to Obama (i'd like to think so, but alas). there may be many who like her experience or buy the nonsense about Obama not having any solid platform (usually blathered by people who have not bothered to listen to a stump speech or read his website). those who want something different than a repeat of the 90s are likely to go to Obama, but i remember how i felt when Dean left the race 4 years ago: they could all go to hell. in time, i got down to work for Kerry, but when Dean was out, i had zero desire to support anyone else.

    still, for those who do want to throw in with local Obama campaign, come join us next Tuesday at Venues at 6pm (until whenever); 2808 MLK. good Cuban food, excellent drinks, lots of tv's, and possibly, hopefully happy cheering Obamaramas.

  • helys (unverified)

    I am glad Edwards ran. He has added a lot to the campaign.

    Just heard a Dem from the south announce that he and others are "not ready" to vote for a Black candidate. We will see Tuesday how that plays out. But Steve: I agree with your take on Obama. He cannot risk putting forward policies that are more progressive than voters can stand. Not to be a broken record but Obama will be as progressive as Americans will allow. Let's be real. Why wasn't Edwards campaign successful?? No. Obamas supporters are not supporting him just because he represents some nebulous "change." It's not about naivete it's about possibility. I think Obama is sincere as well as smart as hell and that he will take us in the right direction. Toward peace. Toward justice. Toward equality. More? -- well that is up to us all.

    It is a tricky equation. Yes, the Washington government only has so much power. The financial establishment and global corporations can and will stall changes that threaten their base. But when there is a broad concensus progress can better be achieved. And we can't underestimate the presidency especially after what Bush/Cheney has made of it.
    Obama as president will speak to a broad swathe of the American public. And take us as far in the right (left) direction as we can go. He is right to emphasize bringing us together. A country divided against itself... you know.

  • (Show?)

    Tuesday will be very interesting. I can't make a good prediction because I have no idea how well Obama's ground war is going. I know that he has been making heavy use of emails, meet-ups, and other electronic mechanisms, as well as good old fashioned organizing, to try to counter the Clinton money + elected officials machine.

    If Obama's bottom up organizing effort really can be put together nationwide in two weeks (a big IF) then he should do well.

    (And IF Obama can fire up Latinos, which up to now he has not been doing.)

    But if not, even with good performances in NY, there are just too many states, and I fear Clinton will come out Tuesday with 2/3 of the delegates. This would make it a very steep climb for Obama.

    Remember that this battle is being fought CD by CD, and even though Obama will rock in areas of the Deep South, there are other areas where he'll do terribly. Also remember that any CD where one candidate wins > 59% results in an add'l delegate for this candidate.

    I'm in California this Saturday through Tuesday. I'll try to post up some reactions, esp. on Tuesday AM when we're visiting some East LA precincts.

  • BCM (unverified)

    1 of Kari's candidates down, 1 to go

  • itsthestupiditystupid (unverified)

    Some comments (before he dropped out) by the only progressive presidential candidate (not Edwards) in the Demcrat (not democratic) Party (and why you Democrats are going to lose again):

    "...corporations can move jobs out of the country to places where workers don't have any rights. They don't have the right to organize, the right to collective bargaining, the right to strike. So what see is that the Democratic Party abandoned working people, and paradoxically they're the ones who hoist the flag of workers every two and four years only to engender excitement, and then to turn around and abandon their constituency. This is now on the level of a practiced ritual. At least a biannual ceremony, or every two years. So you can see how pernicious this becomes when the minimum wage increase was tied to funding the war. That, to me, says it all. Because it is inevitably the sons and daughters of working Americans that are the ones who are led to slaughter."

    "...what they're actually doing is unwittingly contributing to the destruction of the Democratic Party itself by saying that "these are the only points of view that we will deem acceptable within the Democratic Party." And those points of view are generally reinforcing the corporate mentality inside the party. And that's very destructive of the democracy. It actually contributes to the undermining of the hope for legitimate debate within a democratic society."

    "Is it just coincidental that the only time that candidates were asked to put themselves on the line as to their position on health care was at the Ark debate in Iowa, where each and every candidate invited, promised, that they would not participate in a single-payer system. Ark being an insurance company, by the way. You know, think about this. An insurance company sponsoring a debate in Des Moines, Iowa."

    "Impeachment would bring up the whole train of abuses that have caused our government to become less democratic. The lies to take us into wars, the eavesdropping, the wiretapping, the rendition, the torture, I mean it all becomes one piece. If people see the whole thing at once, it then creates a kind of awareness that will create some change. I have no doubt about that at all, none whatsoever. What's happened is that people just see bits and pieces and it is never being tied together. I feel we are losing our democracy to lies that took us into war, lies that caused the destruction of essential civil liberties, lies that are driving us into debt, corruption on Wall Street and a Democratic Party that has lost its will to fight these people."

    "I think there has been a serious loss of confidence in the Democratic Party over the last year. It has been interpreted as a decline of confidence in Congress, but in truth, since the Democrats took control of Congress, it's a decline of confidence in the Democratic Party itself."

    "So now the American people are being given a choice and, really you have candidates who voted for the war when they could have stopped it, or to fund the war and reauthorize it. All of them have voted to fund the war or reauthorize it. The war, you get to the point, where the war in the debates actually was given fours years life by having candidates Obama, Clinton and Edwards all agree that the war could continue to 2013."

    "Sen. Clinton took a hard-line position against Iraq, and she voted 100 percent of the time to fund the war until the last vote. Sen. Edwards took a hard-line position to attack Iraq. He voted all except one time to keep funding the war. Sen. Obama said he opposed the war before it started. He gave one, single speech, got elected - and his voting record is identical to Sen. Clinton's in voting to support the war. How can you expect anything different? Even if Sen. Edwards says he made a mistake, if you look at the track of preparing for another war against Iran the same people - Sens. Clinton, Edwards and Obama - all said of Iran that "all options are on the table," licensing George Bush's aggressive rhetoric and preparations against Iran. They said that, each one of them."

    "They [the Democrat leadership] console themselves on the myth that they do not have the votes, when all they have to do is tell the president, "We are not going to give you any more money." This is a basic civics lesson. The bill is made, introduced, it goes into committee, it comes back out, it goes to the floor, you know, eventually it can be passed. I will tell you how a bill isn't made. It is not introduced. It doesn't get to the floor. Since appropriations bills begin in the House, by the Constitution we can tell the president we are not going to give him any more money. He . . . has to use the money he has that is available to take a new direction that will result in ending the war."

  • MCT (unverified)

    Edwards dropping out is real disappointment for me. I agree with the commenter who said "he couldn't stick it out one more week?". Although all signs pointed to the likelihood that he would not have won big, I sure would have liked to see just how he would have done on Super Tues.

    In my biz I speak with folks in all walks of life. I generally strive to keep politics out of my work space, but I've noticed a great diversity of people who've said they were liking Edwards.

    So it's Obama for me now. What I like best about Obama is his ability to move, unite, and least during his speeches. And we need that so badly. There was a Washington Post article on Mon. re: Obama's policy of NOT courting the press. But I did watch him on Nightline last night...a good interview which showed a more earthy side as well.

    And reading his statement on Edwards dropping out gives me hope that there may be a slot for him in Obama's administration...if he is nominated & wins. If not VP, which can be a somewhat fluffy position (unless you're Dick Cheney of course)...well someone here said AG and that has some merritt. But Commerce, Interior, Labor, Energy, Health & Human Services....all would be a good fit for Edwards. I'd like to think as AG Edwards could kick some butt going after corporate crime. I'd pay for tickets to see that.

    Edwards is a man of principles and passion. We need him as part of a new team in DC.

  • (Show?)

    I have been a longtime supporter of Edwards. Many of my fellow Edwards bloggers have been advocating for him online since his first run back in 2003. It's a tough day for us. I was first drawn to Edwards because of his focus on poverty issues. I hope other candidates take a good hard look at some of Edwards policy proposals like his Stepping Stones Jobs Program. Edwards has the most detailed agenda to fight poverty, I sure hope the issue doesn't get lost in the shuffle now that he's out of the race.

    I haven't thrown my support to another candidate, and I may hold off until the general election. I will support the Democrat in 2008 no matter what, but I will vote for Edwards in the primary just to show my support for his platform.

  • (Show?)

    I must say I'm pretty disappointed that he dropped out. As soon as I heard it early this morning, I had to go over and post at Blog for Oregon. I was really hoping he'd stick through Super Tuesday. But maybe he realized what I was thinking - that without him in the race, Obama could win but with him in the race Hillary would win.

    This makes me an Obama supporter now. I previously was undecided because I wasn't happy with Hillary, but I just didn't see in Obama what I wanted to see in a presidential candidate. Neither of them really talk about poverty and the working poor. Having been a member of the working poor many times in the past few years, and having watched family members live on very little, it is an issue that is very dear to my heart. It's the biggest reason why I selected Edwards as my candidate.

    But with everything that Hillary has done in recent weeks, fighting rules that had been set up in advance only because it would benefit her to have them overturned, etc. has turned me off from her. Now I'll do everything I can to make sure Obama gets the nomination. I know a lot of Republicans who were considering changing their registration temporarily so they can vote for Obama. I'm going to really encourage that now.

    ... on my way to go sign up at Obama's web site. I also want to give my encouragement on naming Edwards his VP.

  • (Show?)

    BTW - if you haven't seen it, Obama has a big pic of John and Elizabeth Edwards on his web site with a thank you.

  • Chuck Butcher (unverified)

    So I'm shoved into the Obama camp. Not very willingly, but I guess I'll have to see if I can work up some enthusiasm. If somebody wants the Edward's endorsement, they'd better figure out what progressivism looks like. Edwards barely made that cut, so don't bother berating me.

    I've heard a fair amount about Edwards supporters going HRC, I have some trouble with that idea, but I suppose we'll see.

  • Grant Schott (unverified)

    I attended the John and Eliz. Edwards events in PDX last year and throughout 2007 was leaning towards him out of the top three . He had inherent weaknesses, though.

    First, losing VP candidates often have no juice and go nowhere they run for pres. after they run for VP (think Muskie, Shriver, Dole (in '80), Ferraro (who lost for the senate twice), Kemp (whose political career ended after '96) and Lieberman.

    Dem. activists like flavor of the month candidates and usually only have room for one known quantity- this year it was Hillary.

    Lastly, I think that Edwards destroyed much of his populist appeal with the three HHH's- haircut, hedge fund, and house (BIG one). He was always open to charges of being a phony candidate, and that didn't help.

    Still I like him and his message and wish that he would have done better. Maybe he'll run for NC Governor someday.

    Chris asked about names on the ballot. OR's filing deadline is in early March, and because Kucinich and Edwards have dropped out, their names won't appear. The only alternative (except for write ins)is to collect something like 5,000 sigs. to have them put on like the LaRouche freaks do every four years.

  • (Show?)

    I liked Edwards' slant this year even though it was a break from his personal legislative history. I donated to his campaign and as a former New Orleans resident (and Louisiana native) was proud that he began and ended his campaign in the 9th ward, where my mother used to live and where several friends are still trying to rebuild. I think his heart was in it; he had really moved left and wanted to take the nation in that direction, even if he lacked the magic formula to ignite the Democratic electorate behind him.

    At the same time I think his participation in the dehumanization and character-assassination of Hillary Clinton was suspect. I have no doubt that Hillary has strong ties to many within the halls of power, but when you look at her lifetime Senate voting record - even on many of the particular issues that were debated like corporate interests (subsidies, taxes) and health care - she's often to the left of Obama and on some issues even further left than John. I know there are some Edwards supporters who feel that Obama is their second choice but there are many, particularly in the solid working-class Democrat ranks, who see Hillary as closer to Edwards in terms of holding the party line and promising a gutsy agenda with some real accountability rather than vague "trust me" rhetoric.

    Now I guess we get to see whether Edwards believed himself in his own anti-Hillary moments or whether it was mere political gamesmanship. I hope that in letting go of the ambition he can bring unity to this party by playing a more even hand, and reaching out to the millions of Clinton supporters whom his earlier stances may have offended.

  • Daniel Spiro (unverified)

    I do look forward to the day, in the not so distant future, when a candidate who has made fighting poverty his/her biggest priority becomes President. But I'm not sure Edwards was the best candidate, this year, to stop the grid lock in Washington.

    Anyway, viva Obama. I just wish Edwards would quickly endorse him and ensure that the Democrats will give me someone to vote for in November. The idea of a war-hater like me voting for McCain makes me ill, and yet I can't vote for another Clinton (sorry Chelsea, but I'm sick of your family). Heck, maybe if Obama loses, I'd vote for him or Edwards in November whether or not their on the ballot.

  • (Show?)

    As long as Obama is spouting that kumbaya crap, he is not getting my primary vote. Assuming Edwards is on the ballot in Oregon, that's how I roll.

  • (Show?)


    Since our ballot won't be finalized for months, Edwards won't be on the ballot.

  • Miles (unverified)

    That's too bad, Stephanie. The "kumbaya crap" that Obama is spouting is a return to the way politics were done in Oregon for many decades. It's what brought us the great progressive policies on land use, the environment, protection of public spaces, and so on. The rigid partisanship of today isn't getting us anywhere. It's time to try something different.

  • MCT (unverified)

    I just can't begrudge the son of a mill worker his success in life. Why is that a problem for some people? Isn't that what the American Dream is supposed to be?

    And despite his HHH, he found the passion and the drive to bring Obama and Clintons to at least voice concern for the plight of American workers, and the stuggles of low and middle income. Will we now see their platforms drift right...toward the PAC money they're beholden to?

  • Paul Revere (unverified)

    Bi-partisanship is another name for date rape. The Progressive message and agenda is the best way to turn the country around.

    The masses are asses and the majority of people don't care about what happened the last seven years nor do they care that much about the future. They mostly live in the present and worry about their immediate needs -- paycheck, gas, beer. TV and the like. No vision, no change.

    The Republican Party is the worst it has ever been and I have no use for people who support Bush or the GOP. Bipartisanship at this time in history is like saying "Well, you are a Nazi, but that's okay. You condoned murder, theft, corruption, racism, bigotry, torture and more, but that's okay. Oh, well. Let's just all get along."

    Bullshit! Time for the kumbaya crap to go in the toilet. Time to take the country back from the Party of the Wide Stance.

  • (Show?)
    The masses are asses and the majority of people don't care about what happened the last seven years nor do they care that much about the future.

    Now there's a nicely small d democratic, progressive populist position if I've ever seen one. You, George F(ing) Will and William F(ing) Buckley should get together, you'd have loads to talk about.

    Paul Revere? Nah, don't think so. More like Edmund Burke.

  • d (unverified)
    <h2>Exit polls show people voting for Edwards all over the country. Suspended does not mean ended!</h2>
in the news

connect with blueoregon