Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

November 13, 2007
By: Kevin Drum

EDWARDS AND CLINTON....From the New York Times political blog:

So how is John Edwards feeling about Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York these days? So bad, apparently, that in an interview last week he twice refused to say whether he would endorse her should she win the Democratic presidential nomination.

It is a standard political question, which often comes with a standard answer. And it is highly unusual for a candidate to decline to answer whether he would ultimately support the party's nominee.

....Between campaign appearances last week, as he rode through eastern Iowa in his campaign van, Mr. Edwards declined to answer whether he would support Mrs. Clinton.

"I'm not willing to talk about that at this point," he said, waiting silently until the next question was asked.

What did I miss? Or was it something behind the scenes? Sure, Edwards has been taking on Hillary Clinton pretty directly, but I can't remember anything going on between them that might have caused this level of bad blood. It's especially odd since Edwards quite plainly will endorse Hillary Clinton if she's the Democratic nominee. Anything else would be political suicide.

Very mysterious. I wonder if this is purely heat-of-the-battle campaign talk or if it goes back before that?

Kevin Drum 12:23 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (52)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

It's not mysterious at all. When you ask a politician that is running for office whether he will endorse his opponent should he lose, most will refuse to concede the hypothetical: what do you mean, should I lose? Ask Hillary if she'll endorse me when (not if) I win.

It's more effective for a politician in a competitive race to deny the possibility of defeat, at least until that defeat becomes inevitable. Sure, Hillary has a strong lead in the polls, but not a single delegate has been chosen yet.

Posted by: Joe Buck on November 13, 2007 at 12:28 PM | PERMALINK

the bloggers are mostly news aggregators, so that's proabably a job you can do forever. Also, bloggers who provide a viewpoint from substantial expertise- Brad DeLong etc. -don't get old. But the problem is op-ed writers aren't building their own seperate expertise so they get stale.

Posted by: CalDem on November 13, 2007 at 12:28 PM | PERMALINK

I'm not in JE's head, of course, but this strikes me more as "It's too early in the campaign for me to talk as though I've already lost it." Which seems perfectly reasonable.

Posted by: apostropher on November 13, 2007 at 12:28 PM | PERMALINK

I was interviwed once by a buddy, asking me if I'd "do" a girlfriend of my girlfriend. He knew the honest answer was yes but for a myriad of reasons I refrained from answering in the affirmative. I'm sure Edwards faces a similar dilemma. Or not. I'd still say yes.

Posted by: steve duncan on November 13, 2007 at 12:29 PM | PERMALINK

Why is it political suicide for Edwards? Does he really expect to have a political career if he fails to win the nomination in 2008? This campaign is do or die for him, so why would he want to prematurely concede to his opponent?

Posted by: Dan on November 13, 2007 at 12:32 PM | PERMALINK

"It's not mysterious at all. When you ask a politician that is running for office whether he will endorse his opponent should he lose, most will refuse to concede the hypothetical: what do you mean, should I lose? Ask Hillary if she'll endorse me when (not if) I win."

All the other Dem candidates except Edwards have already said what you say "most" would refuse to say.

Posted by: Jammer on November 13, 2007 at 12:34 PM | PERMALINK

By answering the question, Edwards would subconsciously be feeding the perception that he will lose. I'm sure he'd say the same thing about Obama were he asked. This is much ado about zippo.

Posted by: MeLoseBrain? on November 13, 2007 at 12:38 PM | PERMALINK

I'm sure it doesn't seem this way to one person who is writing about political issues, but when you're reading them, questions raised such as this one start to really sound like, "If you don't jump on the Hillary bandwagon, you're not a good Democrat."

Now that MIGHT matter in 11 months from now, should she become the nominee. But the barrage of "well, she's the nominee, so we'd better join in and so should you, if you know what's good for you" by the media almost a year out does get a bit tiresome.

Posted by: geml on November 13, 2007 at 12:39 PM | PERMALINK

How about some better questions.I am so tired of hearing the questions being asked over and over.All these MSM Idiots can do is try to trip up a canidate.Just ask better questions.Maybe we need to shorten campaign time if moderators can't come up with anything better than this.

Posted by: john john on November 13, 2007 at 12:41 PM | PERMALINK

Me and John Edwards makes at least two...

“No nation is permitted to live in ignorance with impunity - Thomas Jefferson

Posted by: MsNThrope on November 13, 2007 at 12:43 PM | PERMALINK

"I'm not willing to talk about that at this point," he said, waiting silently until the next question was asked.

I thought Edwards was all about answering questions. It was Clinton who wouldn't answer them.

Posted by: Ara on November 13, 2007 at 12:46 PM | PERMALINK

It's simple. If she gets the nomination, he'll have no choice but to support her. But he loves his country and doesn't want to see the Democratic party throw away yet another election.

And maybe he was envisioning a Rudy vs. Hillary race, with Rudy pulling in the far-right vote simply because of the "anybody but Hillary" factor and winning in a close election. Even a fleeting thought of throwing the election to Rudy probably just about brought a tear to Edwards' eye, and a candidate simply can't afford to be seen crying on camera. So he had to cut off that line of questioning abruptly.

Posted by: sadf on November 13, 2007 at 12:48 PM | PERMALINK

Whoever gets the nomination, the support of the other candidates will be pointless window dressing. Will Hillary supporters leave the Party if Obama wins? Will Obama supporters go to Gulliani if Edwards wins?

Reporters need to start asking relevant questions.

Posted by: tomeck on November 13, 2007 at 12:51 PM | PERMALINK

"If Hillary gets the nomination, but then tacks far to the right by calling for strikes against Iran, waterboarding of US citizens, and immunity for telecoms in the wiretapping case, will you support her candidacy regardless?"

That's the question Edwards is being asked. He answered it correctly.

Posted by: Wapiti on November 13, 2007 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINK

Edwards' response sounds like that of someone who's a.) focused on winning, b.) tired of the Clinton coronation, c.) tired of lazy questions from reporters, and d.) probably a little frustrated that he's not getting the kind of traction he'd like. There's nothing unreasonable about his response. This is a tempest in a teapot.

Posted by: junebug on November 13, 2007 at 1:00 PM | PERMALINK

It would be my guess that Edwards has figured out he is not going to win the nomination. At first, when he is confronted with a force stronger than his, there is resentment, but soon he will mimic the behavior of the force he cannot beat, and will endorse it, if not outright embrace it.

Posted by: Brojo on November 13, 2007 at 1:03 PM | PERMALINK
It's especially odd since Edwards quite plainly will endorse Hillary Clinton if she's the Democratic nominee. Anything else would be political suicide.

Unlikely. Political suicide would be backing Clinton more than reluctantly, and without constant challenge on policy. If he turns around and does the good soldier thing, he loses the only potentially useful part of the political brand he has established, and becomes another valueless faux maverick like John McCain. More importantly, if he telegraphs that he will do that, he loses that now, and says that the differences between him and Hillary don't really matter all that much.

Those who might hope that, if they fail, they might still see the bottom of the ticket or a cabinet position in a Clinton administration, of course, may be willing to accept the price of minimizing differentiation in response to such a question to protect that possibility. Those who aren't interested in keeping those particular doors open have no reason to do so.

Posted by: cmdicely on November 13, 2007 at 1:30 PM | PERMALINK

This is a completely standard question that every politician answers with "I'll support the nominee, and I will be that nominee." By choosing not to answer, he's sending a very specific message. And it's a terrible message.

I am sure that Hillary, Obama and the rest of them, if asked this question, would acknowledge in a heartbeat they would support the eventual nominee (okay, maybe not Kucinich or Gravel).

Posted by: Joe on November 13, 2007 at 1:30 PM | PERMALINK
This is a completely standard question that every politician answers with "I'll support the nominee, and I will be that nominee." By choosing not to answer, he's sending a very specific message. And it's a terrible message.

It seems to me that the message he is sending is that he views party as a vehicle for advancing principles, which are what really matters, rather than mouthing principal as a means of advancing the party, which is what really matters.

I don't see this as a "terrible message". Do you think it is, or do you see a different message, and, if so, what "terrible" message do you see?

Posted by: cmdicely on November 13, 2007 at 1:38 PM | PERMALINK

What Junbug said at 1:00 pm. Has anyone asked Clinton if she'll support Edwards if he's the nominee? Just talking about this energizes the Clinton inevitability gravity in the media.

what's really annoying is seeing the headline "Edwards Won't Promise To Suupport Clinton as Nominee!" (exclamation point added)over at TPM when what he actually said was that he didn't want to talk about that right now. Well, If i were him, i wouldn't either.

Posted by: URK on November 13, 2007 at 1:47 PM | PERMALINK

Sounds like straining to find a blog topic.

Some blogging experts feels one post/day is enough to keep you from being forgotten. I wish I had even that discipline myself.

Posted by: Luther on November 13, 2007 at 1:50 PM | PERMALINK

I'm so sick of Edwards-bashing. It's absolutely maddening to watch Democrats on the verge of both betraying their base AND failing to nominate the one candidate who would, without a doubt, trounce the Republican candidate. Every post-WWII Democratic president has been a southerner.

Clinton arouses insane hatred among a small but very vocal and influential minority in this country. Obama has turned out to be an uninspiring dud on the campaign trail, not to mention characterologically conciliatory, which just isn't going to cut it these days. But John Edwards -- the economic progressive, the one with a sane foreign policy (see his recent statement on Iran), the first one with a comprehensive health care plan, etc., etc. -- is the one being crushed with asinine squibs like "the haircut" and now this. It's very depressing.

Posted by: lyofbrooklyn on November 13, 2007 at 1:53 PM | PERMALINK

What did I miss?

Simpy that Edwards is expressing what a lot of us are feeling.

As a Democrat, I fear a Hillary candidacy. Sure there will be changes, however, for the most part it will be more of the same old crap with a softer hand.

FISA will be fixed/consulted but spying on Americans will continue, for the most part, unabated.

- No campaign finance reform

- PR produced pressers.

- More Stupid "free-trade" agreements

- The continued sell-off of the American middle class.

- A more sensible, but still insane approach to foreign policy (after all even Bozo the Clown would have a saner approach.. so its not saying much).

- A Whitehouse dominated by political positioning/posturing instead of a focus and *real* policy issues.

- Continued media consolidation and beltway elitism. And the Craptacular news coverage associated with it.

I'm guessing Edwards sees this. I certainly do, my peers certainly do. Not sure why you don't see it as well.

Posted by: Simp on November 13, 2007 at 2:11 PM | PERMALINK

lyofbrooklyn: It's absolutely maddening to watch Democrats on the verge of both betraying their base AND failing to nominate the one candidate who would, without a doubt, trounce the Republican candidate.

Disagree. Edwards has portrayed himself as a standard-issue liberal Democrat. Nothing wrong with that, but the GOP has the playbook on how to beat him mastered: a tax-and-spend, bleeding heart liberal who will destroy the economy and leave us vulnerable to terrorists. No sweat.

If everything else were equal between the candidates, I'd give the Southern white male a demographic edge. But that alone won't make him electable when he's so weak otherwise.

Posted by: Rebecca on November 13, 2007 at 2:13 PM | PERMALINK

Forgot:

Will I vote Dem if Hillary is the candidate? Yes.

Will I endorse, speak highly of, phone bank, bumpersticker for her? Most likely not.

Posted by: Simp on November 13, 2007 at 2:13 PM | PERMALINK

Why don't we ask HRC that same question and see what her answer is?

If it's not some variation of "There's no reason to answer that question right now" I'll eat my cat.

Posted by: MNPundit on November 13, 2007 at 2:18 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe a better topic to address would be, Why do members of the press insist on asking this stupid, pointless question? As many have said, it's obviously meant to demean the candidate being asked -- as in, So, now that you're an obvious loser, will you get behind the Anointed One? And we all know the answer in the very long run is, Of course...any Democrat, even one as disheartening as Hillary, is superior to that gang of lunatics on the other side. But I don't see why it's such a big deal Edwards doesn't feel like saying that today.

Then again, the breathless coverage surrounding it is of a piece with everything else I've read about Edwards in the last year. The press really doesn't want him in the race.

Posted by: demtom on November 13, 2007 at 2:20 PM | PERMALINK

It is only polictical suicide if Edwards has a political life after failing to get the nomination. I see no evidence that he would have such life.

Posted by: Yancey Ward on November 13, 2007 at 2:20 PM | PERMALINK

lots of good answers here, esp. junebug, cmdicely, and demtom.
Yes it's a standard-issue question, but it's precisely that fact which has made it hackneyed and worthless.

However, I think Edwards' real reason for not answering is this: he's declared the Washington establishment broken and corrupt. He's equated that establishment with Clinton. So how does he, at this time, say he'll support her as the nominee without fatally undercutting his own strongest line of attack?

Posted by: along on November 13, 2007 at 2:34 PM | PERMALINK

I have a way-too-long-for-comments version of this at my place, but essentially: along is right.

Clinton's candidacy is dependent on making us believe that there is no substantive difference between her and the other candidates. She's been stressing this from the start. Unfortunately, there are substantive and essential differences -- differences to which Edwards has been very successfully drawing attention.

Edwards' candidacy is perhaps best understood as an attempt to push Democratic discourse to the left. He can't do that effectively if undercuts himself by saying yeah, sure, I'd support Clinton. That's what the "centrist" establishment wants to achieve, and it's what I want to avoid most desperately in this election.

We can become Clinton supporters later out of pragmatism if she wins the nomination. Before that happens, though, we might want to figure out if we actually want to nominate her.

Posted by: Mike Meginnis on November 13, 2007 at 2:51 PM | PERMALINK

I see no evidence that he would have such life.

Yancey, who gives a fuck what a concern troll thinks?

Posted by: glorified jughound on November 13, 2007 at 3:09 PM | PERMALINK

He's trying to draw some attention to himself, simultaenously drawing negative attention to Hillary. The media will be only too happy to comply.

It probably will not make any difference to the nomination, but it will supply the RW with another talking point against HRC "even her own party doesn't trust her".

Posted by: Horatio Parker on November 13, 2007 at 3:28 PM | PERMALINK

All hail Hillary, because the MSM and party bosses tell us to!

Thank God John Edwards is giving that line of thought the figurative finger.

Posted by: Vincent on November 13, 2007 at 3:31 PM | PERMALINK

This is a very minor screwup by Edwards, which he just walked back with the standard answer of I fully expect to support the Democratic nominee, and I fully expect to be the Democratic nominee.

Posted by: Alex R on November 13, 2007 at 3:33 PM | PERMALINK

Anything else would be political suicide.

Well it was political suicide for Howard Dean.

The minute Dean promised to be faithful to any Dem Party candidate was the minute a 527 ad was rolled out, the one that compared Dean to Osama bin Laden. Dean made a fatal mistake with the Dem loyalism BS. Bush used Osama bin Laden against Dems, and now Dems were used it against Howard Dean. It was ugly what those beltway Dems did to Dean.

Howard Dean's response should have been that same as his ad were, the slogan about being a candidate of the people: People-powered Dean, so Dean should have said, "I listen to the people, not the politicans". Howard's following was very powerful, enough so to have seriously damage the Dem party and had he so chosen to do so, and run as an independent, Dean could have seriously split the Dem party. If Howard had stood his ground, he would have been Democratic candidate, instead of that loser Kerry.

So asking someone about their loyality is nothing but a baiting game.

Dean isn't crazy, but this partcular response from Kevin Drum shows how truly partisan he is, and that Hillary is everybit the unquestionable new leader, as Bushism has been to the GOP. Hillaryism won't be any different that Bushism, and I don't believe that Hillary will be any different Bush.

Posted by: Me_again on November 13, 2007 at 3:50 PM | PERMALINK

Edwards has portrayed himself as a standard-issue liberal Democrat. Nothing wrong with that, but the GOP has the playbook on how to beat him mastered: a tax-and-spend, bleeding heart liberal who will destroy the economy and leave us vulnerable to terrorists. No sweat.

Rebecca, if you're going to think like that, why not just nominate a Republican? Oh, right, that's who Clinton is -- a moderate Republican. No thanks.

If the Democrats cannot take progressive positions, they really don't deserve the presidency. Midterm elections were won on Iraq AND economic progressivism.

Republicans are going to play the terrorism card no matter what. It's up to Democrats to CHANGE THE TERMS OF THE DEBATE. If Clinton wins as a hawk, what happens when Republicans actually challenge her to pull the trigger on Iran?

Ditto on economic policy. If you're going to roll over and play dead because you're afraid of Republican ranting about tax-and-spend, it's over before it even started.

Posted by: lyofbrooklyn on November 13, 2007 at 4:04 PM | PERMALINK

I'm with Joe Buck. This is similar to those questions going after Wes Clark to say that he would be Dean's vice president. Naturally he had to say "No" to stop people from seeing him as an also-ran. Those going after Edwards on this are just trying to trick him into conceding to Hillary.

Posted by: catherineD on November 13, 2007 at 4:14 PM | PERMALINK

First, that question is obnoxious, particularly this far out from even a single primary or caucus. Sheesh.

How about waiting for some actual signs of "inevitability" being real rather than the fervid imaginings and hopes of the MSM?

I daresay that Hillary's penchant to plant questions in her audience (very VERY Bush-like) may be the golden BB that could sink her "inevitability". Hopefully, in the near future that stupid question will be thrown at Clinton about Edwards, or Obama, or Richardson, etc.

Why didn't they ask Edwards his favorite ice cream too?

Posted by: Praedor Atrebates on November 13, 2007 at 4:25 PM | PERMALINK

Strange too this comment by Chris Bowers regarding Hillarys recent planting of questions.

The real potential problem facing the Clinton campaign as a result of this story is that it is acting utterly tone-deaf to the desires of Americans for change from the opaque, propagandistic Bush era. This is a time when calls for transparency in the next administrations will be at a greater level than in some time. Planting questions on multiple occasions will cause significantly increased doubts about your campaign even if these are only isolated incidents.

Is there ANYONE who believes that Hillary is going to run a "transperenct" presidentcy, cause I sure as hell don't for minute think that she will.

Hillary will talk about the need for secrecy EVERY bit the same as Bush did, and will use the need for secrecy because of terrorism JUST LIKE Bush uses it, and what could the GOP say, they certainly supported Bush doing it all this time. BUT there is no doubt in my mind about this at all. Bower's really is naïve if thinks Hillary is that much of a change from Bush. The Clintons have been in lockstep with Bush the whole 9 yards of his ball game.

When Bush want to invade Iraq, he told the UN he didn't need another agreement with UN. Bill Clinton told Katie Couric that Bush DIDN'T NEED Another signed agreement with the UN, the Desert Storm one was still good???

Don't forget that Bill said "those 16 words were just a mistake" in Bush SOTU address. Saddam did get any yellowcake from Africa and Clinton KNEW what Wilson was trying to prove at time too.

The Clintons, if they are elected won't walk into the Whitehouse as they were in 1992, but rather as were leaving in 2000 with the Marc Rich pardon, the favors and contributions and the gifts they got from Marc Rich's wife.

When Bill Clinton was asked about the Marc Rich pardon, Clinton regreted that he had done it, and then made the stated, "I should have let them do", and what the hell that is supposed to mean I'm not sure, except that maybe Bush Jr, was going to pardon Rich.

Marc Rich was a seriouls breach of faith. The Clintons took something for themselves when they left the Whitehouse in 2000, not caring what the American people thought of it either.

Posted by: Me_again on November 13, 2007 at 4:26 PM | PERMALINK

I am sure that Hillary, Obama and the rest of them, if asked this question, would acknowledge in a heartbeat they would support the eventual nominee (okay, maybe not Kucinich or Gravel).

Is there any evidence that Hillary has been asked this question? If so, I'm not aware of it. This dumb-ass question just feeds into the Hillary coronation scenario and there are millions of us very uneasy about Hillary Clinton being the nominee.

If asked the question, "If Hillary Clinton is the nominee would you support her?", I'd have to give it some thought and couldn't answer affirmatively. And I've voted for Democrats since George McGovern.

Posted by: Pug on November 13, 2007 at 4:36 PM | PERMALINK

Yancey is not a concern troll; he doesn't pretend to be interested in the success of liberal or progressive causes, but makes very clear that he is ideologically opposed.

Whether or not Yancey is a just-plain-troll is another question, but he is certainly not a concern troll.

Posted by: cmdicely on November 13, 2007 at 4:44 PM | PERMALINK

Newt Gingrich was quoted as saying that he thinks that Clinton will be the nominee w/Obama as her running mate. Putting aside whether or not Gingrich is a tosser, I think he's bang on with this- that is, provided Clinton wins, I think she'll pick Obama as her VP.

-Z

Posted by: Zorro on November 13, 2007 at 5:32 PM | PERMALINK

This was a very impertinent question that should not have been asked until after a couple primaries. Obama is the one who stuck his foot in his mouth with his answer, in my opinion. Edwards gave exactly the correct response.

John Edwards has been running on a platform of ending politics as usual. His entire working career has been in opposition to large corporate interests, unlike Hillary Clinton's record. If he sticks by his objectives, does not support her publicly if she wins the nomination, & she blows it, he might be able to salvage his career. Remember, he is the most popular candidate at this time to come out strongly against corporate interests.

Now as to Kevin's very obvious bias toward Hillary. . . At this time, I support Edwards over any other candidate, with Obama a fairly close second. Kevin, it is now your turn. My question is just as legitimate, if not more so, than what was asked Edwards.

Posted by: bob in fla on November 13, 2007 at 6:05 PM | PERMALINK

provided Clinton wins, I think she'll pick Obama as her VP.

Maybe. Obama would add a lot to the ticket. Or if there isn't too much bad blood between them, picking Edwards as her VP would make sense.

But not vice versa. Nobody else would pick Hillary for the Veep slot, because she brings too much baggage with her. Too much attention would be drawn to the veep candidate as the wingnuts froth and foam about Hillary, taking attention away from the actual presidential candidate.

And then the obvious question is, if she'd be such a liability as a veep candidate, what sense does it make to have her as the presidential candidate?

Posted by: bob on November 13, 2007 at 6:06 PM | PERMALINK

Rebecca: Edwards has portrayed himself as a standard-issue liberal Democrat. Nothing wrong with that, but the GOP has the playbook on how to beat him mastered: a tax-and-spend, bleeding heart liberal who will destroy the economy and leave us vulnerable to terrorists. No sweat.

lyofbrooklyn: Rebecca, if you're going to think like that, why not just nominate a Republican? Oh, right, that's who Clinton is -- a moderate Republican. No thanks. [....]

Sorry, I should have said more. In my view Clinton and Obama offer contrasting techniques for how to counter the expected Republican attacks:

Clinton: Has indeed tacked right to appeal to the middle. Has a name brand in economic administration. Can attack back as hard and dirty as they can, and has a rapid-response war room for defense.

Obama: Negotiates successfully with those who disagree and doesn't alienate them. Straightforwardly states his goals. Defends himself effectively when attacked. Has a "teflon" quality similar to that which allowed Bill Clinton and (love him or hate him) Ronald Reagan to govern in the face of the worst their enemies could throw.

People say they're not sure Obama can defend himself, but he's stood up to everything the Clinton machine has produced. That machine is one of the best in the business.

Republicans are going to play the terrorism card no matter what. It's up to Democrats to CHANGE THE TERMS OF THE DEBATE.

Obama wants to do that.

Ditto on economic policy. If you're going to roll over and play dead because you're afraid of Republican ranting about tax-and-spend, it's over before it even started.

It's easy to propose a progressive agenda, but I need to see some way to defend it from the GOP attack we all know is coming. In my opinion, Clinton and Obama have let us know how they plan to do that. Edwards has not.

Hope that's clearer. :-)

Rebecca

Posted by: Rebecca on November 13, 2007 at 8:11 PM | PERMALINK

And how did that old playbook work out for the GOP in November, 2006, Rebecca?

The game may have changed in the last few years.

Posted by: Pug on November 13, 2007 at 8:18 PM | PERMALINK

Hi Pug,

The 2006 election almost seemed like a single-issue election about the Iraq war to me. Do you disagree? I know W has gifted the Dems with a huge anti-Republican sentiment for 2008, but I'd still like to select a candidate I think can take advantage of it.

(Do you have a pug?)

Posted by: Rebecca on November 13, 2007 at 8:49 PM | PERMALINK

lyofbrooklyn wrote:

"Every post-WWII Democratic president has been a southerner."

Not true. JFK certainly wasn't a southerner.

Posted by: Lee on November 13, 2007 at 10:43 PM | PERMALINK

He said, in a decent, respectful manner, that he would support the democratic nominee and that he expected to be the democratic nominee. What do you and the morons at CNN want--a blood oath and an extended discussion of all of the democratic candidates out on the hustings and how each of them makes him feel in his innermost soul?

This is stupidity on a par with talking about his hair and whether candidates wear makeup.

Posted by: Anon on November 13, 2007 at 10:51 PM | PERMALINK

Its pretty simple. Just look at it. John Edwards is running a campaign as if he has nothing to lose. His wife is terminally ill with cancer and he, like myself, sees clintonism and triangulation as a fundamental poison for the democratic party.

Political Suicide?

I dont think Edwards much cares about his political future, a refreshing change for a politician. Thats what politics is supposed to be. Standing up for what you believe, not hedging your bets for future, self-indulgent considerations.

Posted by: jeff on November 13, 2007 at 10:52 PM | PERMALINK

This is Edwards' "Last Hurrah." Should he not capture the nomination, since IMO a Dem will be president for the next 8 years, he will have no national political base during that time...since he won't be going back to the Senate because he refused to run for re-election to the senate...bvecause his defeat was certain from the polls then.

His all-out campaign using such words as "untrustworthy" is an irritation to many Dems who thought that this was supposed to be a run against Bush Inc.

IMO, that's why he doesn't climb in the national polls.

Posted by: art fulme on November 13, 2007 at 11:23 PM | PERMALINK

Hi all,

Just to be clear, I think what Kevin was saying is that it would be political suicide not to support the eventual nominee, -not- that it's political suicide not to win the nomination. Apparently some misunderstanding on that one.

Posted by: MarkC on November 14, 2007 at 8:01 PM | PERMALINK
Post a comment









Remember personal info?










 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly