- ‹ previous
- 3625 of 8795
- next ›
The John Edwards Endorsement: A Last Chance To Prove He's No Phony
A few weeks ago, I was talking to an influential Hillary Clinton fundraiser. When the subject of John Edwards (still in the race at that time) came up, she started sputtering about his hypocrisy. His expensive hair cut, his big house--the guy's a phony, she exclaimed derisively, and his populist, anti-Washington, help-the-poor rhetoric was all just for show. He won't last.
She was right on that final point. As for his authenticity, that was a question that chased Edwards. During his six years in the U.S. Senate (1999 to 2005), Edwards was no working-class hero. He did not develop a reputation as a firebrand willing to take on the powerbrokers of the nation's capital. At that time, Senator Paul Wellstone was the populist champion in the Senate (until his tragic death in October 2002). Wellstone waged one fight after another against corporate interests, lobbying influence, and the sway of big-money. I don't recall Edwards standing shoulder-to-shoulder with him during all these uphill battles.
Yet on the campaign trail, Edwards became Joe Hill in a suit.
Wellstone once told me that you always have to allow for redemption within politics. And perhaps Edwards' conversion was genuine. Why not give him the benefit of the doubt? His message was powerful and well-delivered--even if not embraced by a plurality of Democratic voters. But if Edwards wants to prove he was truly speaking his heart and mind, he has no choice when it comes to endorsing one of the remaining Democratic contenders. He cannot support Hillary Clinton.
During the campaign, as he called for ending poverty, Edwards pointed to Clinton as part of the problem. Let's roll the tape on a speech he gave in New Hampshire last summer:
The system in Washington is rigged and our government is broken. It's rigged by greedy corporate powers to protect corporate profits. It's rigged by the very wealthy to ensure they become even wealthier. At the end of the day, it's rigged by all those who benefit from the established order of things....
Politicians who care more about their careers than their constituents go along to get elected. They make easy promises to voters instead of challenging them to take responsibility for our country. And then they compromise even those promises to keep the lobbyists happy and the contributions coming...
It's a game that never ends, but every American knows -- it's time to end the game. And it's time for the Democratic Party -- the party of the people -- to end it. The choice for our party could not be more clear. We cannot replace a group of corporate Republicans with a group of corporate Democrats, just swapping the Washington insiders of one party for the Washington insiders of the other. The American people deserve to know that their presidency is not for sale, the Lincoln Bedroom is not for rent, and lobbyist money can no longer influence policy in the House or the Senate.
There is no way to read that passage as not a direct assault on Clinton. Edwards was calling her out as a "corporate Democrat" willing to benefit from the crooked politics of Washington. The reference to the renting of the Lincoln Bedroom was a sharp punctuation mark. (During the Bill Clinton presidency, big donors to his campaign were rewarded with overnights in the White House.)
This was not a solo blast. At the debate before the New Hampshire primary, Edwards slammed Clinton for being aligned with "the forces of status quo" dead-set on blocking change in Washington.
Those were some charges. Did Edwards mean what he was saying about Clinton? Did he mean it when he proclaimed that poverty eradication was the cause of his life?
In the past few days, Edwards has met with Clinton, and he's due to see Barack Obama, presumably to figure out if he should endorse either. If Clinton ends up the Democratic nominee, it will not be hypocritical for Edwards to campaign for her. He can reasonably argue she will be a better president than John McCain. But if the choice is Obama or Clinton, he is stuck. Were Edwards to pick her over him, he would be endorsing a "corporate Democrat" fronting for the status quo over the fellow whom he approvingly cited as an advocate for change. If Edwards pulled such a move, all those powerful words he left behind on the campaign trail would have no meaning.
There's been speculation among the politerati about what Edwards might want in return for the few delegates he managed to collect before leaving the race. (He cannot hand them over automatically to any candidate; he can only suggest his delegates follow his lead.) Would he like to be attorney general in a Democratic administration, perhaps as a stepping stone toward the Supreme Court? He could make a good A.G. But if Edwards horse-trades away his principled opposition to Clinton for a job, it will indicate he's nothing but another say-anything/do-anything politician.
The issue is not whether he was right in his criticism of Clinton, but whether he was genuine on the campaign trail. An Edwards endorsement of Obama would not be slam-dunk evidence he's truly become a Wellstonian populist. But an Edwards endorsement of Clinton--though welcomed by the Clinton camp--would prove that Clinton fundraisers' point: he's not for real.
You are absolutely right. An endorsement of Hillary Clinton by John Edwards would be a major disappointment to those who believe in him.
Another hack job against the Clintons. Maybe you people in the MSM need to find a new hobby. Like supporting all the Democratic candidates instead of trying to divide the electorate. But, back to the article. No guessing who you're supporting, right? And in your view, if Edwards endorses your candidate of choice, Obama, then he's for real. But if not, then he's a fake. Of course, remember, this is your view only. And 50% of the country disagrees with you. And I am one of them.
On what planet does Mother Jones qualify as mainstream media? So many Hillary Clinton can't accept that some of the criticisms of their candidate are completely valid.
It has nothing to do with which candidate David Corn is for. Edwards was very clear on the campaign trail that Obama was a fellow change candidate, while Hillary was the embodiment of the status quo. If he were to reverse course and endorse Hillary now, it would mean he was lying back then, or that he's had a post-candidacy conversion to the insider cause of lobbyists and defense contractors.
I would be thrilled if Edwards withheld his endorsement of both candidates. I don't think Obama has yet earned that endorsement. I believe that Obama has stated many many times that he is uninterested in refighting the battles of the 60's and 70's. I haven't heard his opinions on labor unions. I haven't heard any plan that proposes what he would do to stimulate job creation or to stem the tide of the loss of jobs. All I have heard is that he promises change. Bush brought real change to America. It wasn't good change but it was change.
I see several hurdles to an Obama endorsement that the author either is unaware of or failed to mention.
1. Edwards' most endearing message had to with him being able to wage the "battles" that needed to be fought. He criticized both Obama and Clinton for taking special interest money. But more specifically, he made numerous sleath comments about Obama's lofty rhetoric.
2. Remember when Obama went after him in a debate for being tied to the trial lawyers? That probably did not go over well with Edwards. He was forced to defend his association in response.
3. Health care, Edwards' plan is nearly identical to Hillary and Edwards repeatedly argued how Obama's plan left millions uninsured.
He did call Hillary apart of the status quo in NH but we all remember that was after a devestating loss in Iowa where he was trying to latch on to Obama's momentum. That hardly qualifies as a principled stand against Hillary or commitment to Obama.
How so?
When you look at Obamas and Clinton's votes she is to the left of him on social issues. She is also more radical on healthcare.
I'd rather he supported a "corporate democrat" than an independent like Obama - making friends with republicans above his own electorate.
So Wellstone said one must allow for redemption in politics - except Hillary Clinton, I suppose.
As a working-class activist, I'm extremely uncomfortable with the cult of Obama, particularly since the ranks are so heavy with the educated and privileged, and I never hear them speak about the needs of the poor. (Probably because they don't actually know any.)
And I would love to know where people get this idea Obama is a progressive. His voting record looks pretty darned corporate-friendly to me!
Clinton's not any better, of course, although she does have the edge on health care.
But mostly, I haven't seen much from either remaining candidate that makes me even want to vote for them, let alone work or raise money.
In fact, it seems clear to me that the only principled choice for John Edwards is to endorse neither.
I don't see why people keep saying that John Edwards is a hypocrite. A man can be wealthy and still care about the poor. John Edwards got rich defending the interests of working class people against the insurance companies. It isn't rich people he hates as much as people who will do anything to be rich.
No matter who Edwards endorses, it won't matter. Anyone with a lick of common sense can see he was a phoney. Real populists don't take $50K speaking fees to talk about poverty or work for hedge funds in exchange for $500K.
Both Democrats should avoid his endorsement like the plague if they have any hope of not looking phoney themselves. The onlyt thing to say about Edwards is that if I need some cash in exchange for a questionale legal claim, he is the ambulence chaser to call.
Finally, Paul Wellstone was out of touch and ineffective as a Senator. You can't get anything done in a body like the Senate by being a firebarnd. He needed maturity that the Left-wing crazies have never obtained.
Dear John:
As you wind down your campaign, please don't forget about the millions of poor Americans who are left without a voice for change that you represented. Of the remaining candidates, I urge you to support Hillary Clinton.
Obama is the candidate of the rich, as we can see from his fund-raising numbers and polls. He is also the establishment candidate, as we found in his support from Senators Kennedy and Kerry. Obama's stance on possibly invading Iran and Pakistan, and limited health care for all put him at odds with everything you stand for. Finally, his supporters are not your supporters, in fact they campaigned against you, eventhough you campaigned for them.
Hillary Clinton is the candidate of the working class as shown by her poll numbers and as evidenced by the states she won. Hillary doesn't have the high-powered party establishment types backing her candidacy, in fact, most of them have come out against her, on a personal basis. Hillary's health care plan addresses the needs of all Americans. She is the only remaining candidate of either party who offers pragmatism, progressivism, and moderation to the exercise of government. Without you, the middle and working classes can only rely on Hillary. As you consider who to throw your considerable prestige behind, think of your wife and all women, who have waited so long to find their voice in America.
I'm sure Hillary would surely act as your champion if you needed a job cleaning up her lawn at one of her multi-million dollar homes.
The only logical choice is for Edwards to endorse McCain.
If Ann Coulter is endorsing the Democrats over McCain, then what does that say about them?
Edwards cannot openly support Clinton without sacrificing his dignity. The best he can do for her is to remain silent, to not endorse anyone. I can see why some think he's doing just that, but I don't agree. I believe he will endorse Obama. He doesn't need a deal. Edwards would be a great Attorney General, he's a natural.
As a mother, and as a daughter, a sister, an aunt, a female, a stay at home mom, a neighbor of a mill worker, an immigrant, and a resident of Illinois I'm appalled that people disapprove of Hillary's actions.
BTW I'm black.
Is John Edwards a hypocrite if he endorses Sen. Clinton because he thinks she's got the best chance of winning? That's ultimately what we want, right? I'm still on the fence with these two candidate, but look at the demographic info for the voters of each. Clinton does better with the likely battleground voters for this election. Obama does very well with voters we can expect to vote Dem in Nov no matter what. We've got to look stategically at the swing states and what their voting pops are like.
Hack Job against the Clintons? The article states, "Edwards pointed to Clinton as part of the problem," so doesn't it follow that if he endorses her now he's contradicting himself?
Could it be that you see the article as a hack job because your candidate, Clinton, is running behind Obama? I don't the article as a hack job, but I can't say the same for your comment.
Karl, its the complete opposite! Clinton does well with bread and butter democrats in safe dem states. Obama is waking up democrats in red states, bringing tons and tons of new young voters into the system, and attracting considerable numbers of independents and republicans. Hillary has not following in those 2 groups and that's an understatement. With Hillary, at best we eek out a narrow win with the same old red/blue map by focusing on a few swing states. With obama, we are looking at a possible 50 state strategy (ok, 45) and potentially a landslide a la reagan. He's a phenomenon, Hillary is the same stale old stuff.
As for Edwards, neither candidate is a perfect fit for him but I predict an Obama endorsement.
A simple question: On what basis have you decided that Obama cares more about poor and working-class people than Clinton? Can you point to anything at all that justifies that conclusion, particularly a conclusion stated so definitively?
Edwards should either endorse McCain or endorse none of the above. We have to think about moving the Republican party to the left before we can actually take our own party back. Barack and Hillary use the Republican party as an excuse to walk the corporate line. As far as I am concerned, that makes them useless. A divided, weakened, and unorganized conservative base is just what we need to get a real liberal populist into the White House. A liberal elitist will actually move the political center to the right.
Dean 2012
Here! Here! My sentiments exactly. The only person that has been half-way fair is Craig Crawford.
Today, Hillary Clinton was the only Democratic U.S. Senator "Not Voting" on the Democrats' proposed legislation in the Senate stripping telecom immunity from the FISA renewal bill; all but the most conservative Democrats voted for the provision, the Dodd Amendment, No. 3907. Senator Obama, like most Democrats, voted "Yea" on this Democratic provision. No Republican voted "Yea" on it. Only Democrats favored it. In other words, Hillary was the only Democratic Senator refusing to vote on whether to provide retroactive legal immunity to telecom companies that illegally assisted the Bush Administration to spy against American citizens without a warrant. She was the only Democratic Senator to avoid voting on whether the FISA bill should be stripped of its ex-post-facto provision, its provision that violated the U.S. Constitution's dictum: "No ... ex post facto Law shall be passed." George W. Bush must have been pleased with her today.
Wow.
Ya can't criticize Hillary about anything, or WHAM ... the cry-babies start whining that she's being picked on ... can you say, "politics"? Or, can you say, "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen"?
Some Clinton supporter commented here that Obama looked pretty "corporate friendly" Are you kidding me???
Hillary was a 'Goldwater Girl' in college; a self-proclaimed Republican!
Hillary sat on the board of Directors of Wal-Mart for years!
Hillary accepted campaign monies from Rupert Murdoch!
Hillary doesn't LOOK like a Corporatist she IS a Corporatist!
Hillary's not a DEM or an Independent, Hillary is Republican-Lite!
All this about Obama being a candidate of the rich and a candidate of cultists has got to stop. My mom was a single mother who raised my sister and I on 30K and sent us both to college. My sister and I are still broke. We are as working-class as you get and all support Obama. And as for cultists -- chew on this -- I supported Hillary until November 2007, because I didn't believe the Obama hype. But then, guess what? I read more about him then read one of his books and decided he was great and that Hillary was nothing that I thought she was. So take your cultist crap and shove it. And stop underestimating the intelligence and commitment to social justice of Obama voters.
Hillary OK, you fail to say why you're appalled. Care to elaborate?
So he (Edwards) should endorse Obama,....a two year congressman, who can make powerful speeches.
His becoming president is laughable,....so much so, that it will probably happen!
Good luck America.....just keep being inspired and don't become perspired!
Hillary's strongest supporters are menopausal
women, unmarried women,
and the undereducated non-
blacks....and this makes
you Clinton backers proud??
Sounds like you need Edwards'
endorsement more than I
thought you did.
I think it's unfair to say Obama's not for the poor. Remember he worked a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago? This guy's no elitist. Hillary deserves credit as well. Their policies are almost the same in reality, except for Health care and how to enforce insurance coverage or whether to make it a choice.
This may not be PC, but I really feel SOME of the less educated voters and the elderly are either more afraid of change and are making the safe choice, totally reasonable, or just don't read as much and remember Hillary and her husband and don't know much about Obama. That's why campaigning is so important.
Why would you assume that Edwards will make his choice based on principles or beliefs? Do you really believe anything he said on the campaign trail? The same guy who channeled a dead baby in order to win one of his landmark cases that made him rich (and made healthcare, especially childbirth, in America much more expensive). The same guy who was a conservative Democrat, then a moderate Democrat, and now an extreme liberal Democrat? Edwards is a phony, that has never been in doubt for anyone who has paid attention. The only thing that will drive him to choose between Clinton and Obama will be: what's in it for Edwards? I imagine one or both will offer him the VP slot, or attorney general, or whatever he asks for.
Although the Media worked for many months to eliminate John Edwards from the scene. In the final analysi s, he is the ONLY CANDIDATE who is able to successfully win and election with any Republican. We just cannot sit idly by and allow candidates to muff another elevtion,WE NEED JOHN EDWARDS
paul page: wow, I'm dizzy from all that spinning.
1. Obama's donors have given an average of $200 each; his fundraising is successful due to the huge number of new donors he has attracted. Clinton has fewer donors, many giving the maximum of $2300. Who's the candidate of the rich?
2. Hillary has had major establishment backing since even before she announced. Everyone knows her, and she has allies in pretty much every state that were ready to work for her. The only person that could be more establishment would be Bill.
3. He has never said anything remotely similar to 'lets invade Iran'. That's simply a lie. With regards to Pakistan, he has said he'd consider a covert operation to get Osama Bin Laden. Not a full scale invasion.
4. Exactly which 'working class' states did Hillary win? Obviously she was going to win Arkansas after being first lady there, and by extension she got TN and OK. She won NV mostly on Las Vegas, while Obama won the rural areas. MI and FL tell us nothing since they weren't contested. (In order to say they count, you have to argue that campaigning has no influence on the outcome. That's simply ridiculous that anyone would claim that all this time and money they're putting in has no effect.) After that, you've got CA which she held due to early voting, and the northeast, which is the opposite of poor, and she had the benefit of living in NY to capture it and its neighbors. Even then she only won her home state by 15%.
5. The bulk of the party establishment supports Hillary because she was the presumed nominee from the moment she announced. That's why she has the big superdelegate lead. Portraying the former President's wife as some sort of political outsider is about the most absurd argument you could possibly make on her behalf.
6. You think people should support her based on her gender? So much for equality.
I really think it is irrelevant who John Edwards endorses. This nomination will be decided by superdelegates... so much for a free and fair system?
John Edwards a phony? I thought he was "My Little Pony"! If you don't believe
me watch the ads on Nicktoon
next saturday morning.
What if Hillary makes him a deal and says he can be Poverty Czar in her administration, and Obama says he can't guarantee anything. What then? Put the doubts about Edwards sincerity aside for just a second, and assume that he does truly care. What would you do in that situation if your goal is to eliminate poverty? Nothing is ever simple when it comes to politics.
By the way, I love Paul Wellstone as much as the next person, but Wellstone had the extreme advantage of representing a state that only once in the past 50 years has voted for the Republican Presidential Nominee (The only state with that distinction). Try striking up a populist tone in a Red state and see how long you're relevant.
Lastly, the idea that an insincere Edwards took up the cause of poverty for political gain is laughable when you ask yourself this question: what candidate has ever gained politically by talking about poverty?
The saddest part about Edwards failed candidacy is how quickly people wish to kill the messenger when it comes to poverty and populism issues. The weapon of choice this time was a warped and twisted definition of hypocrisy that as applied, would mean a person that advocates for the homeless must not themselves live in a home. Ridiculous.
You are all forgetting one major point. The working class poor (those earning less than $50k a year or those with little education) aka Dunkin Donut Dems are one of Hillary's main supporters. She has overwhelmingly won their votes consistently. Edwards can't endorse Obama because if helping the poor is truly the 'cause of his life', he would not be in alignment with those whose voices are not heard!
Spin it however you want creepy Obama cultists but you are flat out wrong!
When Bill has his well-timed
cardiac "event" this summer,
his long-suffering spouse will waltz to the nomination.
Edwards' endorsement won't mean spit.
Working as a community organizer doesn't get rid of one's elitist status just like growing up in mill towns doesn't make one a populist. The plans that Barack and Hillary have on paper provide aide and comfort the enemy.
Which candidate is talking about issues that affect the poor? Which candidate is drawing support from voters making less than $50,000? Is it Barack Obama? NO. It's Hillary Clinton, the candidate talking about universal health care.
If Edwards truly cares about these positions, he really only has one candidate to support: Hillary Clinton.
Case closed.
I think David Corn is right on in his analysis. I always see JE as a phony guy. I am guy a black republican leaving overseas. I am proud that Obama is running and got this far. This whole thing will give a better image of the US in the world. But it does not mean I will vote for him.
Back to Edwards story, I am waiting to see which way he will. The fact that he is delaying this just shows once again he was just fooling around on the campaign trail.
It just amazes me that some Democrats are anxious to replace the Republican ex-cokehead with no foreign policy experience with a Democratic ex-cokehead with no foreign policy experience.
Obama's mouth writes checks his administration would have no chance to cash. He would be a disaster as president.
Edwards is the greasiest fraud in the game and that is saying something indeed. He will endorse HillCo because they will do whatever it takes, fair or unfair, to win. Barry will not know what hit him.
Clinton's new desperate strategy to paint Obama as the elite candidate is merely serving to highlight another weakness she has relative to him.
People are coming to know more about Obama. They know he is smart and can inspire people to follow. And they are learning his history of personal sacrifice and consistent focus on working class issues. As they do they are simply moving away from HRC, in the logical order of escalating intertia: young and first time voters, then independents, then black voters, and lastly other core democrat constituencies. Clinton cannot stop the bleeding because she has never had a coherent message besides, I'm next in line for the throne, get with the program.
Clinton's problem throughout has been contradictory messages.
Item:
1. the effective administrator slash bureaucrat, even through she never held an executive position.
2. the Experience candidate who has the same legislative experience as her opponent.
3. the outsider change candidate who spent 16 years riding shotgun as first lady plenipotentiary in Arkansas then the White House.
And now
4. the Working Class candidate, who hasn't lifted a finger for the poor since the 1970s, but who has racked up millions exploiting her political associations in the business world.
Sam, forget about red states. They don't matter. We'll end up with zero electoral college votes in those states. It is suicide to even waste money or resources on them. Forget about blue states too for the same reason. Swing states are the only ones that matter. But ultimately swing voters are the same almost anywhere: working-class white men and suburban middle-class white women. They've been the swing voters for the last thirty years. If you don't appeal to them, you lose.
I distinctly heard John Edwards say on some news program, before he dropped out, that he thought himself and Obama were more electible than Clinton.
Wow - I was beginning to think I was the only one who recognized Edwards as a fake!
Who CARES who he endorses?! He's a slimy hypocrite, period.
It's more than passing strange to see the left fall for a charismatic candidate the way the right has in more recent times (e.g., Ronald Reagan). Obama's speeches, while invigorating at first, soon become tiresome for their utter lack of substance. And yet the adoration continues, and continues, and continues--matched in its ceaselessness (and substantive emptiness) only by the constant personal attacks on Senator Clinton. What gives? A liberal politician who says follow me because I am different, i will do great things (but don't ask me what) is no better than a right wing one. We don't know what he really will do, or how he will do it. Unite people? How? It's a sugarcoated fantasy lacking even the substance of gingerbread beneath. You don't have to warm up to Senator Clinton. But let's stop with the name calling that is as bad as the Swiftboaters' and stick to substance. Obama might be a good president one day. But he has zero experience in the federal government. (He started running for President before he even hung his coat in his senate office.) That matters folks, it matters a lot if you want anything to actually get done, and our agencies to do their jobs well and not like they've performed in the summer of 2001, during Katrina, during the subprime meltdown, etc.
Hackjob??? Opinion piece, yes! Hillary supporters cast Obama supporters as rabid, misguided, even cultlike. I think, as the saying goes, those who live in glass houses...
Obama's record belies his amorphous "change" stance: Tony Rezko land deal, voting for damage caps in negligence cases in Il senate (his wife was named General Counsel of University of Chicago Hospitals soon thereafter), voting "present" on right to choose issues in Il senate, missing the vote on the Neocon Iran War Act of 2007, not promising to fight for universal health care. I cannot believe Mother Jones would so unconditionally embrace this candidate. Instead, it should urge John Edwards to come back to the race. At least he focused the debate on the issues, forcing the two human schwahs to discuss something other than themselves and their race to the Whitehouse.
Isn't it possible to be for someone and yet be against no one. I, myself, am for Hillary Clinton but I have nothing against Obama. I believe, given the circumstances, Obama needs the experience and someday he will get my vote. I am a college graduate and a working woman.
Just because I'm voting for Hillary does not mean that I'm poor or uneducated. People bring people together not politicians, but we have a voice this election year to make history. I for one am excited about someone "different" coming to the White House.
With Edwards out of the race, I've shifted to the Obama camp. People note the pattern of choosing non-female front runners and accuse me of sexism, and as much as I appreciate the Clintons, it's a question of picking a winning front runner who isn't part of a political dynasty.
However, it would not surprise me one bit to see Edwards endorse Hillary. She's inauthentic in comparison to Edwards in the early campaign, and certainly in comparison to Obama throughout his campaign, but it's been noted again and again that her constituents are largely lower-class working white women, the same target demographic his populist campaign needed to win any traction.
Edwards sought those voters with strong rhetoric and charm, as Hillary's husband did years ago. Hillary won them with gender identity and brand recognition. Edwards does face a choice that will determine his authenticity, it's just a question of whether he decides to appear authentic to his target constituency or to the nation at large. I hope that he sticks with the one America message and gives the nod to Obama.