Edwards supporters: The Huffington Post calls John Edwards a loser and a racist

[RestoreGore]

I cannot believe they allowed this POS to be printed. I am so angry about this and I am definitely writing to Lawrence O'Donnell. There is no reason for it, and it sickens me. I am SICK AND TIRED of having this race decided FOR ME. John Edwards deserves to run like any other man or woman in this country and I will be damned if I will put up with reading this kind of garbage. I put up with it as an Al Gore supporter for many years and responded to it. I don't then intend to sit silently by while the corporate media and their minions work to push out a good man with a platform that actually helps the American people. Edwards supporters who read this, I think this deserves a response. I would never support asking either of the other two to get out under the same circumstances.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-odonnell/john-edwards-is-a-loser_b_81045.html
John Edwards Is A Loser
Posted January 11, 2008 | 09:01 AM (EST)

John Edwards is a loser. He has won exactly two elections in his life and lost 31. Only one of his wins and all of his losses were in presidential primaries and caucuses. He remains perfectly positioned to continue to lose with a Kucinich-like consistency. Nothing but egomania keeps Edwards in the race now. All presidential candidates are egomaniacs but some of them have party status worth preserving that forces them to drop out when they hit the wall. A loser like Edwards has no status or dignity to lose. Campaigning and losing is his life. So, he will continue his simple-minded, losing campaign and deny Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton the one-on-one contest they deserve.

If John Edwards stays in the race, he might, in the end, become nothing other than the Southern white man who stood in the way of the black man. And for that, he would deserve a lifetime of liberal condemnation.

Maybe Edwards is already not a factor in the campaign because Edwards voters would split evenly between Senators Obama and Clinton if Edwards dropped out. But we'll never know unless Edwards does the right thing and gets out of the way of the only two candidates who have a chance to get the nomination.

The white male monopoly on the Democratic nomination has finally come to an end. Someone has to tell John Edwards.
~~~~~~
end of excerpt

[acmavm]

1. Yeah. Saw it already. Sometimes I just ignore what's on that

blog. You can find some pretty mean shit on there. And untruthful to as well. This is just the perfect example of what I mean.

[RestoreGore]

3. Well I sure will respond to it

Ignoring it got us Bush over the man who deserved to be there. I don't intend to ignore this.

[ihavenobias]

130. Check It Out: Fellow HuffPo Contributor Responds!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=331425&mesg_id=331425

[ihavenobias]

129. Hold On A Minute: This is NOT reflective of everyone at Huffington Post

While it's not perfect, there are a LOT of REALLY great bloggers there that you don't see many other places. Like Bob Cesca for instance, who I think DUers would LOVE if they don't already.

With that said, the article in question is *terrible*.

I just don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater here.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/american-patriotism-crush_b_72649.html

[1corona4u]

2. I don't support Edwards, but that's totally unacceptable

journalism.

[David Zephyr]

17. I agree. That was a shitty thing for him to write.

I agree.

[UpInArms]

90. that was not journalism and no reasonable person should

accept tripe like that. Arriana should have used editorial discretion and not allowed this to be published on her site.

Shame on them all.

[blondeatlast]

4. O'Donnell had really hti the bottom with this one, and I respected him on McLaughlin.

Jaw-droppingly bottom of the barrel, O'Riellian bottom of the barrel.

Awful as hell.

Sack him, Arianna or lose any credibility you still have. :wow:

[RufusTFirefly]

81. Respect and McLaughlin?

I'm not sure I've ever seen those two in the same sentence!

[TahitiNut]

5. Well, he 'succeeded' in getting over 7 pages of responses so far.

What an asshole! :grr:

[Time for change]

6. That's one of the most arrogant stupid articles I've ever seen

First, labeling anyone a "loser" based on the number of elections they've lost is contemptable.

And essentially, the premise of this is that white males have no right to run for president.

[blondeatlast]

7. This isn't just for Edwards supporters--it's for everyone concerned about how the arrogant, asshole

punditry manages to manipulate our election process.

Please consider editing the "Edwards Supporters" out.

[blondeatlast]

8. Let's hop Olbermann sees this tripe and calls O'Donnell out on it.

O'Donnell wants so badly to be KO you can practically see him fluttering his eyelids when KO speaks to him--and KO is clearly an Edwards fan.

[bullwinkle428]

10. This very article is clearly "Worst Person"-worthy!

KO needs to throw down the gauntlet!

[Catchawave]

14. I just emailed Keith w/nomination for Worst :)

KO really doesn't tolerate hateful words by people who are so self-imporant.

[halobeam]

61. I'm going to do that too

[MzNov]

63. Good idea Catchawave !!!

This really really sucks.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

9. Utterly breath-taking in its stupidity...

I don't even know where to begin.

[Catchawave]

11. Good rebuttal by Jane Smiley "Shut up Larry"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-smiley/shut-up-larry_b_81091.html

When I read Lawrence O'Donnell's post calling John Edwards a "loser" and threatening a lifetime of infamy if he doesn't get out of the race, I immediately went to O'Donnell's bio to see his party affiliation. I was sure it would say "R" -- but it didn't. It didn't say anything.

However, I am fairly sure in my own mind that Karl Rove paid him to write that post. Look at it this way: O'Donnell attacks the only candidate in the race with explicitly progressive policy positions, and the only candidate in the race who hasn't accepted corporate money, and the only candidate in the race who understands how corporations are poisoning American politics and American life with their unrestrained power and influence.

In addition, O'Donnell maintains that the only two candidates we can have to choose between are Clinton and Obama. Both Clinton and Obama have serious electability issues. If you believe that there was no Diebold factor in New Hampshire (something that I think requires further investigation but will not get it, I am sure), then you have to acknowledge and fear the Bradley factor -- that there is a core group of American white voters who will not vote for a black man no matter what they say to pollsters. By the same token, polls among voters of all types have shown that Clinton has the highest negatives -- the highest number of voters who will not vote for her under any circumstances.

Hillary Clinton aroused incredible antagonism in the 1990s. The antagonism she aroused was not rational, but then, neither is voting. So, what O'Donnell proposes is prematurely reducing the choices of Democrats to the two candidates that are, on the face of it, the least electable. It was clear from the op-ed that Rove wrote a few weeks ago that the Republicans, whose own candidates run the gamut from the ridiculous (Fred Thompson) to the psychopathic (Rudolph Giuliani) and the theocratic (Huckabee) have already begun to see finagling the Democratic primary race as their only chance. If O'Donnell happens to be a Democrat and he buys into this strategy, then the infamy is his.

But I thank him for one thing -- he persuaded me to send a nice fat donation to John Edwards. /end

[XOKCowboy]

15. Ya beat me.. Nice slam Jane...

The comments are pretty good too.

[Lex]

16. Jane Smiley always *always* rocks.

The article she blogged about Bill Kristol's addition to the NYT was superb.

Here: http://www.alternet.org/story/72747/

[Milo_Bloom]

21. This lie is still being told?

"and the only candidate in the race who hasn't accepted corporate money"

Dispelled that one myself a few days ago.

[blondeatlast]

69. Love her political writings, love her novels.

She's one who can stand proudly in Molly Ivin's shadow.

[Connie_Corleone]

12. It's a disgusting article.

And he's not doing my chosen candidate any favors by writing this crap.

There is no reason for Edwards to drop out. He's polling around 20% in the latest national poll. Any candidate who is still getting more than 10% support nationally shouldn't have to drop out.

[XOKCowboy]

13. Jane Smiley - Shut Up Larry

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-smiley/shut-up-larry_b_81091.html

When I read Lawrence O'Donnell's post calling John Edwards a "loser" and threatening a lifetime of infamy if he doesn't get out of the race, I immediately went to O'Donnell's bio to see his party affiliation. I was sure it would say "R" -- but it didn't. It didn't say anything.

However, I am fairly sure in my own mind that Karl Rove paid him to write that post. Look at it this way: O'Donnell attacks the only candidate in the race with explicitly progressive policy positions, and the only candidate in the race who hasn't accepted corporate money, and the only candidate in the race who understands how corporations are poisoning American politics and American life with their unrestrained power and influence.

In addition, O'Donnell maintains that the only two candidates we can have to choose between are Clinton and Obama. Both Clinton and Obama have serious electability issues. If you believe that there was no Diebold factor in New Hampshire (something that I think requires further investigation but will not get it, I am sure), then you have to acknowledge and fear the Bradley factor -- that there is a core group of American white voters who will not vote for a black man no matter what they say to pollsters. By the same token, polls among voters of all types have shown that Clinton has the highest negatives -- the highest number of voters who will not vote for her under any circumstances.

Hillary Clinton aroused incredible antagonism in the 1990s. The antagonism she aroused was not rational, but then, neither is voting. So, what O'Donnell proposes is prematurely reducing the choices of Democrats to the two candidates that are, on the face of it, the least electable. It was clear from the op-ed that Rove wrote a few weeks ago that the Republicans, whose own candidates run the gamut from the ridiculous (Fred Thompson) to the psychopathic (Rudolph Giuliani) and the theocratic (Huckabee) have already begun to see finagling the Democratic primary race as their only chance. If O'Donnell happens to be a Democrat and he buys into this strategy, then the infamy is his.

That didn't take long...

[Lex]

19. She's about 1000 times smarter than Larry

and more correct too.

[Milo_Bloom]

18. Except that he is kinda right.

Edwards has lost.

After 6 years of campaigning in Iowa, he barely squeeked out a 2nd place finish.

After 6 years of campaigning and 2 completely different messages, he still can't ignite any fundraising fire or generate real support in the polls or actual vote counts.

Even his old allies, Kucinich and Kerry have abandonded him and suspected allies like Lamont aren't bothering with him.

Edwards has every RIGHT to run, but at this point he has to realize that he doesn't add anything to the dialogue and has absolutely 0 chance of winning.

[Lex]

20. What's the delegate count again?

nt

[Milo_Bloom]

22. So you actually believe he can win?

Seriously?

[Lex]

23. Are you answering my question with a question?

Seriously?

[Milo_Bloom]

25. Yes, because it answers the initial question.

[Blaze Diem]

28. Well its early in the race. And by the way Clinton/Obama are tearing up the

unity of the Dem voters with their RACE baiting, I wonder just who will be most appealing across the board when the racial dust settles.
As long as Edwards is in this race he brings his message to the American voters. THAT is why he should absolutely remain in the running.
Of course Corporatists want him out ASAP. The truth he speaks of corporation's choke-hold on America is what they don't want the voters to hear.

He has every right to remain in this race and speak up proudly as to the bleeding of this Nation via Corporations.

[Milo_Bloom]

30. We are not talking about RIGHTS, we are talking about realities.

Of course Edwards HAS the right.

However, for some reason (I think because of the duplicity of the messenger and the fact that he IS a corporatist as much as anyone) he doesn't stand a chance in this election. Despite campaigning longer than anyone (nearly 2 full election cycles), the public and the vast majority of the democratic party have rejected him.

People can try and blame "the media", but that is just silly, because if the media had its say, Obama would have won New Hampshire in a landslide and/or Clinton would have won Iowa. Dean wouldn't have become the top primary fundraiser in 2004 and Ron Paul wouldn't have raised over 30 million in 2008.

Edwards is beginning to look like Nader, who despite having no real chance of winning, is so desperate to be important that he is willing to stick around long past his viability date.

Till this day I fully supported Nader's RIGHT to run in 2000, but I can also acknowledge that he muddied the waters.

I support Edwards' RIGHT to run now, but people need to realize he doesn't have a real chance and thus, is just playing spoiler or attempting to play kingmaker and that makes this article, at least in some fashion, correct.

[JHB]

34. Spoiler? How? It's not as if someone like Zell Miller or Lieberman will win unless he bows out

And trying to play kingmaker? Since when has that not been one of the realities of politics?

What's to be gained by his dropping out?

[Milo_Bloom]

40. To Some Clinton and/or Obama ARE Zell or Lieberman.

What's to be gained is that people will truly choose between the viable candidates, instead of throwing their vote away on a candidate who doesn't have a chance of winning.

[americanstranger]

49. Throwing their vote away?

What, Democrats now only get to vote in the primaries, and that's it?

You're ignoring a vital part of the Democratic (both tall-D and small-D) process, and that is influencing the debate. Maybe people are willing to vote for Hillary (or Obama - Lord forbid i get labeled a partisan here), but they just want a little bit more attention paid to their pet issue - let's say, media consolidation.

If Edwards stays in until the convention, he could come to the convention with, oh, let's say 118 delegates. Not enough to win the nomination, but plenty to use as bargaining chips to get either Obama or Hillary to take a step in Edwards' direction in terms of what their campaigns will do about media consolidation.

Why shouldn't Edwards be allowed to do that? Stating that voters who vote for Edwards (as I intend to do in the NY primary, thank you very much) are 'throwing their vote away' is every bit as absurd as O'Donnell claiming that Obama and Hillary 'deserve' a two-person race.

Neither one of them has earned anything at this point (except 3 or 4 delegates apiece more than Edwards), so at this point neither one of them 'deserves' any such thing.

- as

[Milo_Bloom]

65. The same argument used for Nader

Nader had every right to run.

He was trying to get candidates to embrace his policy concerns, which neither of them would do.


And again, I support Edwards' RIGHT to be in the contest for whatever reason he wants... whether it is to play kingmaker, his own ego or just to build a war chest for him to use later for something else.


However, the reality is that Edwards is a minor player who will have no impact at the convention (due to superdelegates), so, yes, people who are voting for Edwards are in essence throwing their vote away, which I also support their right to do.

[americanstranger]

72. What, at this point in the game, makes Edwards a 'minor' candidate?

It's not as though he's behind by hundreds of delegates at this point.

His campaign is still viable.

His message resonates with an awful lot of people.

So, please tell me. What leads you to consider his candidacy as 'minor' at this early point of the primaries? Media narrative? Another candidate's 'inevitability?' Your say-so? What, exactly?

- as

PS: And again - you're talking about me (as an Edwards supporter) 'throwing my vote away.'

I'm a life-long Democrat and I've always rallied around the eventual nominee, and always cast my vote on election day for that nominee. I intend to continue that tradition in this year's coming election.

But Edwards talks about a lot of things that make sense and are very important to me. Where do you get off telling me (or anyone else) that believing in Edwards' message and wanting that message to be part of the Democratic campaign even if Edwards is not the nominee is 'throwing my votes away?'

A little arrogant, no?

[Milo_Bloom]

80. The facts.

"So, please tell me. What leads you to consider his candidacy as 'minor' at this early point of the primaries? Media narrative? Another candidate's 'inevitability?' Your say-so? What, exactly?"

Despite campaigning fairly non-stop for 6 years Edwards has been unable to:

Break 20% in national polling.

Raise signficant funds.

Win a serious primary or caucus


People are trying to blame this on some silly media conspiracy, but that is untrue as proven by what we have seen in the recent past. Dean, with little media coverage, managed to become the front runner and raise significant cash. Ron Paul, same as Dean was able to raise money without media coverage.

Edwards has name recognition, experience on a ticket and despite all that has been unable to get PEOPLE to support him.

THAT makes him a minor candidate.

And the reality is that his message will not become a part of the democratic campaign, because it doesn't have enough support among democrats.

I don't think it is the message, but instead the messenger.

But, whatever the reason, it is obvious at this point that he doesn't stand of chance of winning and because of the superdelegates, won't play a real part at the convention either... so yes, I am sorry to tell you, but voting for John Edwards right now, is, unfortunately, throwing your vote away, because it won't actually count in the decision making process. With that said, that is not to say you aren't making a statement, but you could make the same statement by voting for Kucinich or writing in Gore.. both of which NO ONE (at least not me) argues your RIGHT to do... however, it will have the same effect as voting for Edwards.

[americanstranger]

83. And of course, this is all cast in stone, and nothing can ever change.

Got it.

- as

[Milo_Bloom]

84. After 6 years of campaigning... yeah, as far as Edwards is concerned.

Same with Kucinich.

[americanstranger]

92. All righty then! I'm cancelling my homeowner's insurance!

After all - my house hasn't burned down since I bought it! It'll never burn down!!

Okay, I'm done. Good luck to your candidate, and may no unforeseen circumstances pop up, ever.

- as

[Milo_Bloom]

93. Unforseen circumstances won't change Edwards lack of appeal.

[MilesColtrane]

66. "the fact that he IS a corporatist as much as anyone"

Yeah, corporations just LOVE guys who extract millions of dollars from their pockets for the pain and suffering their faulty products cause.

:eyes:

[Milo_Bloom]

85. He took from one corporation and gave to another.

Or don't you realize that law firms are corporations too?

[MilesColtrane]

94. ...Limited Liability Partnerships actually.

Sure the firms he worked for, and the one he co-founded, made money.

They also helped families who had someone they love maimed or killed by negligence.

Not buying your characterization of Edwards, or what he did for living.

[Milo_Bloom]

97. Same thing.

LLC's, LLPs, C-Corps, S-Corps, etc.. all exist as individual entities.

You buy "not buy" what he did for a living all you want, but it is what he did for a living. He was a plaintiff's attorney... nothing more... nothing less.

[MilesColtrane]

101. Just out of curiosity, have you ever worked towards generating profit for a corporation?

Or, do you own any stocks or mutual funds or pension shares that are invested in a corporation?

If so, then you are a "corporatist" and your judgement on progressive politics, policies, and candidates is not to be trusted.

If not, then I heartily congratulate you.

[Milo_Bloom]

103. Of course I have... I currently help run 2 different corporations.

Which is why I know one when I see one.

[MilesColtrane]

115. Then I can only assume that you'll be sitting out the Democratic primaries.

Because if you don't see Hillary and Obama's positions and rhetoric as being more influenced by corporate money, then I'll take your assertion that you know one when you see one with a truckload of salt.

[Milo_Bloom]

125. Of course not, I will be voting.

[JHB]

32. The point is, this is a process to be seen through...

...and it ain't over until it's over, at the convention. Why should they throw support to anyone else prematurely?

If Obama or Clinton want the support of Edwards and/or his supporters, let them do something to earn it.

If we're talking "seriously", then let's be serious: if you want something from a politician, twist their fr**king arm.

[RestoreGore]

36. It isn't hard to now see why Al Gore has fallen out of love with politics

It all sucks. I hope John Edwards stays in up to the convention. I hope he wins Nevada and a few other states and gains more momentum, if for nothing else to show the corporate media and the political hacks in this country what democracy really means. If they think they will dare tell us that Obama and Clinton already are the ONLY two we have to choose from, well frankly, they can kiss my ass.

[OneGrassRoot]

39. Absofuckinlutely agree with EVERY SINGLE WORD YOU SAID!

[Blaze Diem]

38. Why should Edwards leave this Primary race?

As the race-card is batted back & forth by the Obama/Clinton camps, I am really sickened.
It is to the point that if Edwards DID drop out now, I don't think I would support either Clinton or Obama. I want to know both of them can rise above the racial issue being used to thwart the other.
I need to hear from either one of them on this issue before I can gain the respect necessary to hand over my support.
Until then, I'll stick with the man and his message for all humanity, John Edwards.

The racial division growing by the Clinton/Obama camps has divided me AWAY from either of thm.
thanks a lot.
nice going.

[JHB]

75. Was this to me or the poster I was answering?

If it was to me, I'm not sure where I said anything that contributes to the ire you feel to the Obama and Clinton camps (of which I am neither).

Just curious.

[Blaze Diem]

89. No not you JHB. I appreciate your posts..and #32 is correct.

My ire is directed to those who want John Edwards out of this race. I will defend Edwards if he chooses to continually offer himself up to be excluded, shut out, shut up and dismissed, because he has spoken the truth about the ownership of our Nation by the corporations.

His message matters and he should be allowed and encouraged by the Dem party, and always be given a forum in this race to state the obvious.

No, my ire is certainly not directed at your posts. I find you with a much more open mind than some DU posters on the subject of John Edwards.
Hope this clears up your question.
Blaze

[Milo_Bloom]

41. So you had no problem with Nader?

I didn't and still don't have a "problem" with Nader, but I do acknowledge that he muddied the waters.

[JHB]

57. No, but I think he's irrelevant to this discussion

There's little point in scorching Ralph over Florida 2000 when the count (ignoring, for this discussion, vote fraud issues) was close enough that you could equally blame the Socialist Worker's or Workers World parties.

However, I don't see what that has to do with the Democratic Party's _internal_ primary process, especially when he's not THAT far behind, when his withdrawl is unlikely to give either Obama or Clinton a decisive advantage, when it would remove his ability to influence the debate, etc.

Bringing up Nader in this situation is talking apples and alligators. And as I mentined in another post here, "realism" would suggest he stay in for maximum influence.

I just don't see this situation they way you seem to.

[Milo_Bloom]

73. I don't see how he is irrelevant...

I am arguing that every candidate has the RIGHT to run.


However, also, addressing the fact that when it is clear that a candidate will not be viable, as is the case with Edwards, they only wind up serving as a distraction.

Both Obama and Clinton have their platforms and are not going to alter them to appeal to Edwards voters, because in the end, they both think they can win the delegates necessary without his help. (And because of superdelegates, they are right).

O'Donnel seems to believe that a majority of Edwards voters would go to Obama, so Edwards is only acting as a spoiler for Obama, which is a valid point.

Some argued that Nader SHOULD have dropped out when it was clear he couldn't win AND he was siphoning votes away from a PARTICULAR candidate. That is exactly comparible to the claims in this article that everyone seems to be freaking out about.

[JHB]

116. Well there we have it then...

Your assessment (and O'Donnel's assessment) of the probabilities and "reality" of the present situation differs from that of other people (for example, the hypothetical split of Edwards supporters to the Obama and Clinton camps (not to mention a "dropout" category)), which leads you to advocate a course of action that differs from the courses of action other people advocate based on their assessment.

And you have not made a compelling case as to why your assessment should be considered superior.

So yes, Nader is irrelevant here, IMO. And if Clinton or Obama should choose to smugly ignore a nontrivial faction of the party, then let them do so.

[Milo_Bloom]

126. Guess you didn't read what I wrote.

I am not advocating a course of action.


I am just stating that O'Donnels opinion is potentially valid if you believe the majority of Obama supporters will go one way or the other.

Nader continues to be relevant, because Edwards has exactly the same chance of winning or influence the democratic candidate as Nader did of the presidential election.

[JHB]

131. Oh, Crimoney...

If I have conflated your defense of O'Donnel's veiwpoint (i.e. its validity) with O'Donnel's view AND advocacy of a particular course of action, then I apologize for the extra words I placed in your mouth.

That said, I've seen nothing that indicates that an Edwards withdrawl would shift a decisive level of support to either Obama or Clinton, so I obviously disagree with O'Donnel's assessment on that score. And I've already pointed out that we disagree on the ability to influence vis-a-vis staying in or dropping out.

[Milo_Bloom]

133. There is some indication.

You said you've seen nothing that indicates that an Edwards withdrawl would cause a shift?

http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WSJ/MGArticle/WSJ_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1173354182450

"Indeed, Edwards voters in Iowa favored Obama over Clinton as their second choice by a nearly 2-to-1 margin in caucus-night surveys. Edwards supporters in New Hampshire also said they had a far more favorable impression of Obama than of Clinton, according to election-night surveys there."

Earlier polls showed an even split, 'A mid-December survey of voters nationally conducted for The Associated Press and Yahoo News found that Edwards supporters split about evenly between Clinton and Obama when asked which candidate would be their second choice.' but the Iowa and New Hampshire polls are more recent and relevant.

[americanstranger]

55. That's why they play the games, dude.

Disclaimer: By posting this message, I am not wishing anything bad to happen to any of the candidates, or making unfounded accusations with the intent of damaging your favorite candidate. Partisans, take note of this disclaimer. Thank you.

What happens if Obama slips and falls down the steps of his campaign plane and breaks his back, making him physically unable to continue campaigning?

What happens if Hillary gets ensnared in a gigantic FBI investigation of Congressional corruption, and for the good of the nation she decides to step aside until her named is cleared of these scurrilous charges?

(Reverse them if you want - Hil falls down the plane steps, Obama faces corrutption charges. Or make up your own exigent circumstances if you wish, just don't accuse me of hating your damn candidate and saying bad things about them. It's a hypothetical.)

Now, should either of these circumstances result in people who don't trust Hillary or who think Obama is too slick having to vote for that person before they get the nomination? I don't think so.

It's life, dude. Anything can happen. Edwards can conceivably win. It's not as though Hillary or Obama leads him by hundreds of delegates at this point.

- as

[grmamo]

48. I thought it was - Obama 25, Clinton 24 and Edwards 18 or 19 - only 2 states - it is not over

edited - to indicate that the primaries and the general election are for all the people not just a very very few.

[americanstranger]

52. You're right!

It's just that some entitled pundits - and maybe a few Obama or Hillary supporters - think that the primaries should be declared over. O'Donnel in particular seems to believe that White Guys should have to quit running for president if there's a Black Guy in the race - to prove they're not racist.

But where does that leave Hillary? To extend O'Donnell's absurd notion, after Edwards dropped out to prove he isn't racist, who's the white person left in the race?

Would Hillary then have to drop out to prove she isn't racist?

That's one of the goofiest damn things I've ever read, anywhere.

- as

[Milo_Bloom]

58. So after 2/5 when he is far behind in delegates, you think he should drop out?

[americanstranger]

64. If he can continue and wishes to, no.

If Edwards believes in what he's saying and even if he realizes he's not getting the nomination, then he should hang in and get every delegate he can and take them to the convention to make a deal.

That's what I want him to do.

Now if, at some point, Edwards happens to edge out either Hillary or Obama in the delegate count, would they be encouraged to drop out?

If your favorite candidate gets behind by 40 or 50 delegates, do you want that candidate to drop out? Wuold you encourage your own candidate to do so?

- as

[JHB]

70. Why should he?

First: Don't count your delegates before they're elected.
Second: You have yet to propose a downside to not dropping out. Invoking Nader and "realism" are nonsequiturs.

[Milo_Bloom]

77. Well, it was the counter to the idea that he is somehow actually close.

Someone seemed to suggest that because he is technically close in delegates he shouldn't drop out, so I wondered if that same logic applies after 2/5 when he will be far behind.


"Second: You have yet to propose a downside to not dropping out." The downside to him not dropping out is that O'Donnel may be actually right and might be siphoning votes away from Obama and, thereby allowing Clinton to seal a nomination, despite getting less than 50% of the popular vote.

Obviously, as I have said many times, he has the right to do anything he wishes, however at this point, his only actual roll in this campaign is that of spoiler.

[JHB]

117. I think you can guess my evaluation of O'Donnel's likely accuracy here

If John Edwards stays in the race, he might, in the end, become nothing other than the Southern white man who stood in the way of the black man. And for that, he would deserve a lifetime of liberal condemnation.

I don't buy this "Edwards is siphoning off whites who will never vote for a black man" argument, and come the general election any such people will be voting Republican anyway. And without that, the rationale for assuming Edwards supporters will decisively skew toward backing either of the current frontrunners evaporates. Even O'Donnel concedes he may be wrong:

Maybe Edwards is already not a factor in the campaign because Edwards voters would split evenly between Senators Obama and Clinton if Edwards dropped out. But we'll never know unless Edwards does the right thing and gets out of the way of the only two candidates who have a chance to get the nomination.

(O'Donnel's line about "the right thing" is included for completeness and giggles over circular reasoning, not becase it's worth the pixels its appearing on.)

Given the weakness of the main point of that argument, I stand by my statement: "You have yet to propose a downside to not dropping out."

Certainly not one that makes an ounce of sense to anyone outside the Obama and Clinton camps.

[Milo_Bloom]

134. I think it only makes sense to the 80%+ not voting for Edwards.

[Occulus]

120. And take a look at THIS:

IOWA CAUCUS RESULTS (per Wikipedia) - February 10, 1992:

Tom Harkin (76%), "Uncommitted" (12%), Paul Tsongas (4%), Bill Clinton (3%), Bob Kerrey (2%), and Jerry Brown (2%)

NEW HAMPSHIRE PRIMARY (per Wiki) - February 18, 1992:

WINNER: Senator Paul Tsongas
RUNNERS UP: Governor Bill Clinton, Senator Bob Kerrey, Senator Tom Harkin, Governor Jerry Brown, and mayor Larry Agran

No percentages on that last one, but Bill Clinton didn't "win" either Iowa or New Hampshire, and he went on to two terms as President.

It isn't over by a long shot.

[JHB]

123. Do keep in mind that at that point in 1992...

...the campaing press had already "anointed" Clinton as the frontrunner, based on fundraising and liking him more than the others.

The 1992 situation probably isn't the best comparison. But yes, it ain't over 'til it's over.

[earth mom]

127. There are unanswered questions about Iowa and NH is being recounted.

Which hardly proves Edwards is out, if anything it will probably prove otherwise.

BTW-you really buy into that propaganda they dish out on Faux don't you? :eyes:


For your education:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2668119

[krabigirl]

24. What a hack.

I can't believe that he said Edwards would be seen as the white man who wouldn't get out of the black man's way. How racist and disgusting. I don't give a fark if a candidate is black, hispanic, gay, female, or whatever. How superficial. I care about the issues, and the fact that the corporate interests in this country are trying to shut Edwards up is EXACTLY a reason for me to support him! I've always been distrustful of large corporations.

What a loser.

[RestoreGore]

42. I agree wholedheartedly, and...

It is as if this article also intimates that supporters of Mr. Edwards or any subsequent endorsers of his are racists as well, and that is simply despicable. Is Hillary Clinton a racist then because she won't drop out? Are we all mysogynists as well because we aren't supporting her just because she is a women? Is that not also an insult by him to them in stating the only reason we should even consider them is because one is a woman and one is black? I'm sorry, I don't care about gender or race, I see sincerity and heart, and I don't see it in them. This article clearly shows where reason and logic have gone in our debates... out the window. I am supporting John Edwards because of his stances on poverty, the environment, and the corporatization of our government, and I believe if his message was heard more widely he damn well would win this election sans corporate and political hacks working against his message for obvious reasons.

[Misskittycat]

26. Jane Hamsher at FireDogLake.com slams it as well, and her

readers agree.

[AX10]

27. Go to HELL Larry! Edwards has every right to run.

:wtf: is this: "The white male monopoly on the Democratic nomination has finally come to an end. Someone has to tell John Edwards."

:puke:

[americanstranger]

29. I can't believe the lack of attention this is getting in the blogoshphere.

I've been checking all day, and I'm not seeing anyone writing about it. Weird.

But anyway... Larry O'Donnell - exhibiting the ultimate Sense of Media entitlement or the worst case of Liberal White Guilt ever? You decide.

- as

[redqueen]

68. I wish I could say I was surprised it didn't get much coverage.

Too many people have already bought the "it's either Clinton or Obabma" meme.

[mmonk]

31. Sooooo what makes him racist, being southern or being white?

And where's the list of 31? Oh, I see, primaries for president in ONE election. What a d*ck head.

[madmom]

33. My take on this is if Obama would drop out (no I'm not saying he should) Edwards would

have a chance against Hillary, and if Hillary would drop out Edwards would have a chance against Obama, so what the f*&k's the difference.I've always said "for having only two letters IF is a mighty big word!" What a stooge!:banghead:

[Javaman]

35. Although, I still check HP, it has slide into the fluff description of

news sites.

After the "make over" with sections, it reads more like the national enquirer now.

[OneGrassRoot]

37. Sadly, I've come to think (and this is for fellow Edwards supporters)...

that ANY press is potentially helpful. I always liked Lawrence O'Donnell...REALLY liked him...so this was a kick in the gut.

But the way this society works now, any press is good press, especially if people are PISSED about what was said.

It could work in John's favor. At least maybe...just maybe...he'll be discussed more, even if it's in the vein of him being a "spoiler." I think if the American people were more aware of who all is still running, other than the top two on both sides, they would cheer for the underdog.

ESPECIALLY if that US Chamber of Commerce piece accompanies any discussion about Edwards.

[donkeyotay]

50. Revving up the $60 million propaganda campaign?

"The Chamber of Commerce which has been in the forefront of outsourcing our jobs to India and China and insourcing people to take white collar and IT jobs has just woken up to the fact that John Edwards has steered all the democratic candidates toward Populism. Donahue claims they have raised $60 million dollars plus to attack any candidate supporting populism (and saving jobs in America). As of New Hampshire primary night all democrats have taken on John Edwards' message of populism. Edwards has changed the nature and issues of the campaign."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2641270

[halobeam]

79. oddly enough, it did piss me off to donate twice to him today.

[grmamo]

43. What a jerk, who is the racist when a white man can not run against a black man or a woman for that

matter. The democratic party is for everyone not one group of people. Two states have voted and it is all over? Should we all just quit now and let that be it? The delegates, from what I understand, are Obama 25, Clinton 24 and Edwards 18. I am so tired of some people acting like the primaries are over. Edwards can help by staying in until the convention. I hope he will have brokerage power if he doesn't win. I respect him and believe in his most of his positions. Look at congress, they just give in and never fight and they are in control. We do not need more people who just give up....John Kerry that comment is for you and those in congress.

[Generator]

44. Shit on a shingle

And some here QUIT DU over posts like that. I.E. O'donnell is as flame worthy and full of shit as any DUer ever is. I thought "journalists" were a little better than the average yahoo around here.

I'm shocked. But then I remember didn't O'Donnell know that ROVE outed Plame and did nothing about it? He's one of them-he may play a Democrat on Teevee but in the end he's for himself first, last and always like every other journalist slime-aka "Washington insider."

[Hoof Hearted]

45. As a Hillary supporter I must say that's one of the most idiotic things I've read lately

and there's been so much to choose from! That article is tacky, amateurish, spiteful, speculative and downright nasty.

I don't read the Huffington Post, too much garbage like the article you brought us.

[Seabiscuit]

46. O'Donnell is *not* Huffington Post.

He's just a prick that sometimes writes articles that get published on Huffington Post and elsewhere.

[RestoreGore]

82. So these sites don't vet whose posts go on them? n.t

[Seabiscuit]

106. I don't know why Ariana allowed that piece onto her website,

perhaps she hadn't read it ahead of time, and knew of other "liberal" articles written by O'Donnell, I don't know. It's not like her to allow something like that to slip onto her website. It has me puzzled, because I've met her and she seems like the last person who'd ever call Edwards a loser and a racist.

[RestoreGore]

107. I'm beginning to think many people aren't what they seem n/t

[Marie26]

47. Wow, that's stupid

I'm surprised at O'Donnell.

[ZinZen]

51. O'Donnell is a Hilllary shill

his posts in the pasts have been very pro Hillary.

[Divine Discontent]

96. THANK YOU!

I thought to myself, this guy sounds like a Hillary Clinton shill...

too funny. Nailed it. Thank you

I am giving MONEY to Edwards on behalf of this man right now...

[nonconformist]

53. As opposed to Obama, who has only beat Alan Keyes?

My cat could have beat Alan Keyes.

[jasmine621]

54. Arianna is such a HC hater, this stance puzzles me? nt

[Greylyn58]

56. Wow! I just don't know where to begin....

This has got to be one of the sleaziest posts about John Edwards. The last election was stolen and yet O'Donnell calls him a loser. Damn! Should I be looking for an R somewhere in your background, sir? Because frankly you sure talk like one of them. :shrug:

I think I will be turning down the volume from now on whenever you pop up on Olbermann's show because you clearly have nothing of value worth hearing.

[Marnieworld]

59. Lawrence O'Donnell jumped the shark for me when he dyed his white hair red recently

He looks like a wrinkled leprechaun. Nevermind any of Edwards positions? Makes me wonder what his motive was for writing this.

[americanstranger]

67. Must have been Red Dye No. 3...

...and i think it seeped into his brain.

- as

[XOKCowboy]

60. I sometimes post when I'm a little inebriated...

and always regret it.

I think Larry had a few too many VSOPs when he wrote this trash. The problem is I doubt he regrets it. Being a dumbshit pundit get ya the big bucks nowadays.

[MzNov]

62. Wow. This is one of the most anti-candidate pieces I've seen so far.

and somebody please tell me why John Edwards has to take the fall as the angry white guy. WTF !!!!

Edwards is white, yes we know, but are we as Dems really looking at skin color in this race, or gender? We're considering a black man, a woman, a hispanic man, etc. so what exactly is O'Donnell's angle? Maybe he just likes Kerry, a stiff white guy who doesn't show much emotion at all!!! :shrug:

Wow.

[lumberjack_jeff]

71. Ariana's not real keen on populism either. n/t

[MilesColtrane]

74. Hilariously wrong headed opinion piece...

Sounds like old Larry is projecting his candidate's weakness onto John Edwards.

It's all about electability is it, Larry? Yeah right.

What a tool.

[judaspriestess]

76. Wow

Not only does he insult Edwards he insinuates Obama can't win it on his merits alone, he needs the white man to bow out so the inferior black man can win?? All Democrats should be royally pissed about this article.

I see the chamber of commerce is backing up their threats against John Edwards. I fear its only going to get worse.

[librechik]

78. y'know, I/ve been worried about this sort of thing

I guess the Dems in Charge have decided that it's the end of the hegemony of white males.
It's just Edwards bad luck that he's not a woman or African American--they could care less about his policies.

This sort of thing is craziness.

[MagickMuffin]

86. Wow, Did Larry write this at a Bar while drinking with his buddies? Cocktail Weenie Eater

That's what crossed my mine when I read his trash talk.

Who does he think he is? He's NOT in charge of OUR democracy.

I have been losing respect for him over the years, but this really has done it for me. Respect has to be earned and he has lost any respect and accountability.

IIRC, Edwards announced his candidacy WAY before the other two declared. So, WHY should edwards be forced to drop out???

I happen to support John. I would find it unbearable if he were to drop out now. We need John in the race to force the other two to bring the Democratic Party back to its base. The DLC has tried to marginalize the left wing of the party. The DLC would love nothing more than to force John out.

I find it very interesting that the republicon candidates get air-play ALL the time. Rudy hasn't won jackshit, yet the media still gives him air time.

It's quite obvious that the media doesn't want John's message to be heard.

Here's an exchange between Olbermann and Milbank about Edwards: From Jan. 9.............

OLBERMANN: I‘m presuming that was an egg. Among the Democrats, in which scenario or what scenario is either Senator Edwards or Gov. Richardson, who‘s on some sort of news bubble right here, viable past super Tuesday next month?

MILBANK: Well, with the usual preface that nobody knows what they are talking about at this point, I think it‘s fair to say that the only way it‘s not Obama or Hillary is if the two of them are caught in some sort of a love triangle with Dick Cheney at this point. We‘re not sure among the two of them but we are not seeing any movement among the other two, although Bill Richardson may be moving back home to Sta. Fe.


Maybe THEY have quit listening to the message. Every time I've listened to John's speeches I KNOW what he's saying. It's becoming more and more apparent that John is going to have a FIGHT on his hands.




WarPaint; Words and music Happy Rhodes

In the red
All the cruelty dealt
To one big soul
In the black
All the hiding from
The pain in the dark
Now as I go into battle
I am armed for the fight
With the knowledge of ten men
Strength of nine
As I walk through fire
I am shielded from the flame
Although the guilty parties
Take no blame
Don't try to tell me there's no
Reason for any moment in time
Every memory of mine
Those years are lines of
Color on my face
My past is warpaint
The past is warpaint
Every line
Represent the death of naivete'
In the air
Every eagle drop one feather
Just for me
There is a deafening warcry
And it's ringing in my ears
It is drowning out floods
Of noisy tears
On the path behind me
I leave many gravesight
Every tombstone
Mark one conquered night
So don't try to tell me there's no
Reason for any moment in time
Every memory of mine
Those years are lines of
Color on my face
My past is warpaint
The past is warpaint
Don't try to tell me there's no
Reason for any moment in time
Every memory of mine
No those years are lines of
Color on my face
My past is warpaint
The past is warpaint
Don't try to tell me there's no
Reason for any moment in time
Every memory of mine
Those years, they're lines of
Color on my face
My past is warpaint
The past is warpaint
And I fight to the death
I fight to the death
I fight to the death
I fight
htaed eht ot thgif I


< Lyrics found at www.mp3lyrics.org/2tS >

[Yael]

87. Thanks, but I am a progressive democrat, not a communist seeking a dictator

:hi:

[readmoreoften]

88. Any candidate who wants to beat Obama is racist. This beats anything the hillheads ever pulled.

Can you imagine Hillary folks telling people that Obama and Edwards were racist for just RUNNING?

Why wasn't everybody racist for running against Al Sharpton back in 2004? (I'd actually vote for Sharpton, dammit!)

[MissDeeds]

91. O'Donnell's a frequent guest on Olbermann

and commentator on other MSNBC programs. Maybe we should let them know we're mad as hell.

[Divine Discontent]

95. Where was his sarcasm tag after all that bullshit?

Really, he forgot his sarcasm tag... because what I just read was absolute DUNG.

What a worthless opinion piece.

[Kajsa]

98. What an idiot!

Don't tell me there are people who take this guy seriously.

:shrug:

[OwnedByFerrets]

99. FUCK YOU O'D

[pmorlan1]

100. O'Donnell Is Not The Only One

Lawrence O'Donnell is not the only Democrat viciously attacking Edwards. We've noticed over the course of this campaign that there is an organized effort by some Democrats to go on the TV talk shows and attack Edwards. Most of the most brutal attacks come on shows like Tucker & Glenn Beck. Yeah, I said Tucker and Glenn Beck. So why are Democrats on right-wing shows eviscerating another Democrat? Good question. The people we've seen are Peter Fenn, Bill Press & Amy Stoddard. Sometimes they go on these shows by themselves and sometimes they go as a team and take turns whacking Edwards. It's happened far too often to be an accident. These people are deliberately going after Edwards.

Here is a link to video on Media Matters that shows Peter Fenn knocking Edwards. It's not very long but it gives you an idea of his attitude towards a fellow Democrat.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200801100009?f=h_latest

I know it sucks to watch Tucker but the next time he has any of these folks on his show I would encourage you to watch and see how they go after Edwards. You can also read the transcripts from the past shows although the transcripts don't give you the laughing and nasty tone that you get when you actually hear them. Of course now that I've been telling everyone about this maybe they will back off but I bet before long they will be back at their old tricks.

There was also a story in the NYT today that showed how the DLC has been dissing Edwards.

D.L.C. Leaders Cut Edwards Out

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/11/dlc-leaders-cut-edwards-out/

And of course this Reuters story in the Guardian could very well explain why there is an organized attack against Edwards.

U.S. corporate elite fear candidate EdwardsReuters Friday January 11 2008

http://www.guardian.co.uk/feedarticle?id=7217369

[LittleClarkie]

102. Not the biggest Edwards fan at the moment but that's over the top

Hmm.

[natrat]

104. hufpo is pathetically full of themselves-FUCK fluffpo

[AzDar]

105. So JRE should 'drop out' to 'get out of the way of a black man'?

That, boys and girls, is RACISM.
Lawrence O'Donnell is a racist, talentless, clueless, HACK.
GO, JOHNNY, GO!!!!!

[RestoreGore]

108. Yep. 48 STATES TO GO

[Blue_In_AK]

132. Exactly!

The three major candidates -- and Kucinich and Gravel -- should be treated EQUALLY. This racism/sexism stuff is just making crazy. We shouldn't run the risk of being called a sexist or a racist just because we disagree with the candidate. It infuriates me.

[cynatnite]

109. It wasn't HuffPo...it was Lawrence O'Donnell...

HuffPo isn't my favorite blog because I feel it get's too anti-Hillary, but I don't blame HuffPo for what O'Donnell said about Edwards. They have a lot of contributors including a conservative jerk (can't remember his name) who offer a wide variety of opinions. This guy did considerable slamming of women over the Duke rape case. Pissed me off to no end. It's what helps HuffPo keep diverse in order to maintain the huge following it gets.

Blame O'Donnell since he said it. He's got a history of being very outspoken and has been a source of controversy in the past. Personally, I think he gets off on it.

[DianaForRussFeingold]

110. The Huffington Post ,,,corporate media owned ?......or what ?

K&R... Deserves a response all right!
You would think this POS garbage came from Ann Coulter!
not the huffington post....

Did you know?-- Edwards is the only presidential candidate who has never taken a dime from a corporate or foreign lobbyist!
--We the people, need a president
that will be an advocate for us...
That's the CHANGE America needs!

--Senator John Edwards said that he will ban anyone who has worked as a corporate lobbyist or has lobbied for a foreign government from working in an Edwards Administration.

"We will not replace corporate Republicans with corporate Democrats. I hear people argue
that the way that you can get things done is to sit at a table with drug companies,
insurance companies, oil companies, and negotiate with them and somehow
they will voluntarily give away their power.
I think this is a complete fantasy."

"We didn't get universal health care but we got NAFTA.
we need universal health care!
we didn't need NAFTA...!"
"I don't think you can bring about change by taking their money
or sitting down at a table and trying to make a deal with them."
John Edwards
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWbXNUbUj0A&feature=related

" Edwards challenged Senator Clinton and the other presidential candidates to join him in demanding the Democratic Party lead the way to real reform by refusing, as a party, to take campaign contributions from Washington lobbyists."
"One Democracy Initiative" to return the power in Washington to regular people and
end the unique power of lobbyists."

http://www.johnedwards.com/news/press-releases/20071229-lobbyist-ban
check out John Edwards web site! please, make an informed choice! Diana :kick:

[SmellsLikeDeanSpirit]

111. Fuck O'Donnell. That's all that really needed to be said in this thread.

[mnhtnbb]

112. Agreed

[Elidor]

113. Good god, that's awful

So wrong. The white man who stood in the way of the black man? Oh, let's not go there. That's just wretchedly ugly.

[debbierlus]

114. The last sentence says it: White Male Monopoly - the Race Card

I would LOVE LOVE LOVE to see a person of a different race or a woman take POTUS. HOWEVER, I do NOT like this woman or this black man. Not racist. Not sexist. I don't like their POLICIES.

And, I think the white male has the BETTER policies. I will not let gender or race decide my vote. I am voting for the BEST PERSON FOR THE JOB.

I know that is Kucinich, but Edwards is the only realistic shot.

[kurth]

118. Lawrence O'Donnell: Eat Shit And Die.

[kelligesq]

119. MSM tryiing to force their choices on us - Edwards most acceptable natiownide & they dont like it

:mad:

[surfermaw]

121. I BEG your Pardon...they would not split evenly

[JHB]

124. So what would be the split and why?

Hypothetically, of course.

[Beelzebud]

122. I didn't expect this from O'Donnell... I guess he's just an idiot like most pundits...

[tokenlib]

128. What a stupid posting by O'Donnell...

He must like Hillary. Needless to say, if both Edwards and Obama stay in the race, the anti-Hill votes are split and she wins by default. All this does is piss off the Edwards people. Hasn't O'Donnell ever heard about trampling all over someones pride? I am outraged by this. I suppose he contibutes to Hillary behind the scenes too. If he thinks this will help stop Hillary--he's insane!!