532 Edwards Must Go
This is a blog about the Middle East. I talk about U.S. politics only in so far as they affect the Middle East. But I must confess that part of the reason for my light blogging in recent months has been my obsession with the U.S. presidential race. After John Edwards placed a distant third in his native South Carolina, I am breaking my usual policy to say this: Edwards needs to go.
His dismal performance in his own state shows that he has no chance of winning anywhere. That he’s still in the race suggests that he’s hoping to be a VP nominee and that he wants to leave the door open to invitations from Clinton and Obama. I don’t buy this giving-voice-to-the-voiceless bullshit for a second.
His only utility as a vice-presidential candidate is that he’s a southern, white male. But southern, white men who vote on race and sex will vote for the Republican white man before voting for the woman or the black man, with or without John Edwards as a running-mate. He’s useless in November. Remember that this is the man who lost a debate to Dick Cheney, perhaps the most uncharismatic—and, among Democrats, reviled—U.S. politician out there.
Alas, he’s not yet totally useless. He could prove a king-maker in the primaries. I suspect—and perhaps Edwards voters will write in to prove me wrong—that Edwards voters would break for Obama or McCain before Clinton. Edwards himself seems to favor Obama over Clinton. If he drops out and lends his support to Obama, Obama wins.
As long as he stays in the race, he aids Clinton by siphoning off Obama votes. If this is the aim, why not actually drop out and support Clinton? Because he knows that she uniquely inspires the same hatred among Republican and independent voters as Cheney does among Democrats? I doubt it. The minute he thinks he can safely pick a winner to get him on the ticket as the VP, he’ll drop out and support whoever can best help his career. Which is a terrible reason to continue running for president.
Cut the shit, Edwards. Time to quit. You’re not running for president. You’re running for vice-president. It’s time to choose your side.
9 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
40 queries. 0.161 seconds. CMS: WordPress. Design: modified Hiperminimalist Theme.
RSS for posts and comments.
Valid XHTML and CSS.
Actually, the latest is that Edwards staying in the race is GOOD for Obama because he siphons away white male voters who would normally vote for Clinton, not Obama. This shit makes my head hurt.
Comment by Abu Muqawama — January 28, 2008 #
The op-ed page and the Sunday talk shows are enough to make anyone’s head hurt.
I lost valuable sleep watching Obama venture into deep Clinton territory on the George Stephanopoulos show (he comported himself with dignity as Stephanopoulos baited him) on Dubai TV late last night. Maybe I was just tired, but the circle of pundits afterwards seemed grotesque. I had no idea Cokie Roberts was such a monster! You can’t go to Washington, Abu M. It does horrible things to good people.
But on this new pundit wisdom: What’s the idea here? That white males are more racist than sexist?
Comment by The Skeptic — January 29, 2008 #
I don’t think it’s as cynical as that, just that Clinton has more support in the unions than Obama. So white, working class makes would go to her before Obama. Race and gender have nothing to do with it. (I hope.) I have downloaded but not listened to ABC This Week yet. I like George Will, though, and he’s usually one of the guys on the panel at the end.
Comment by Abu Muqawama — January 29, 2008 #
Are unions really so relevant still? I’m surprised to hear that. And I had the impression the large ones had made overtures to minorities and immigrants in recent years and so weren’t just about white working class males any more. Though yes, I can see Edwards appealing to said WWCM (and still don’t think he’s such a bad sort, and Elijah you have no right giving him grief for his haircut when you spend so much time getting the perfect retro frames for your glasses).
And yes, Washington does horrible things to nice people. The Hill is full of overgrown hyper-ambitious student government types (‘vote for me, don’t I just look like a leader?’) and there’s just too much tooth-flashing and clueless posing and self-promotion all round. But you have to hope that intelligent, well-informed people will still join the game and resist being transformed totally by it.
Comment by SP — January 29, 2008 #
I get the feeling that my man Edwards has been an equal opportunity pain for Clinton and Obama, in the debates at least where he keeps pushing them both. I think he’s ambitious enough to want to stay in the race long enough to make _sure_ he’s a kingmaker and then go with whichever candidate offers him the best deal / chance of winning. Right now that appears to be Clinton rather than Obama (from the number of delegates they have thus far, although Feb. 5 could change that). Of course I think it makes more sense for Obama especially, but Clinton too, to go with a high-profile technocrat with a reputation for competence like Biden or Richardson.
In any case, trying to be VP is not at all a terrible reason to stay in the race. Statistically VPs end up being Ps, and you could just say that he’s running for P in nine years rather than running for VP now. And the people who are really hurting the democratic nomination race are Obama and the Clintons (esp. the Clintons) with their disgraceful bickering rather than the runner-ups like Edwards.
Or maybe we can look forward to the dream independent ticket: Ron Paul – John Edwards ’08 running on immediate pullout of Iraq (the only good thing about Ron Paul). Because if Clinton wins, I may just have to vote Republican.
Comment by issandr — January 29, 2008 #
Abu M – I like Will, too. Especially alongside the rest of those punks. Unions, eh? Looks like Obama doesn’t need Edwards for that now that he’s got Kennedy, the granddaddy of corrupt union politics, on his side. Should be interesting to see how this shakes out.
SP – Yeah, unions still matter. Witness all the dirty shit that went down in Nevada. The Dems haven’t quite shed their Tammany Hall past.
I didn’t mention anything about Edwards’ haircut here. But his haircut sort of stands in for all the used-car-salesman-itude that I hate about him. He’s the prototypical sleazy, pandering, faux-populist politician, with all the substance of Dan Quayle. But chicks dig him. Chicks, alas, don’t dig my glasses. Paraphrasing Dorothy, “Girls don’t make passes at boys in horn-rimmed glasses.”
Issandr – I was wondering if you’d write in to defend your man. It’s easy to take the high road of reasonable dude concerned about insuring children when you’re an irrelevant piece of furniture on the stage. When he’s actually on the hot seat, he descends to, “Yeah, well, Cheney’s got a lesbian daughter!” And I seem to remember him sniping at Hillary just a few weeks ago, before it became so amply clear that he’s not a contender, and people stopped asking him what he thinks.
On Clinton, I hear you, bro. If she wins, I will probably vote Republican in the presidential elections for the first time in my life (or throw my vote away on a third-party candidate if the Republicans choose someone even more objectionable). And I fear plenty of others will do the same. Which leaves me wondering why you don’t throw your support behind the guy who has the best chance of beating her?
Comment by The Skeptic — January 29, 2008 #
My dad says he wants to vote for Edwards b/c the longer Edwards stays in, the more he pushes the debate to the left (which is another way of you saying how easy it is to say all that voice-for-the-voiceless shit when you’re just running for VP).
I don’t like him. I agree about the haircut and the used car salesman. He is sleazy and he turns me off.
Go Obama.
Comment by Lo — January 29, 2008 #
Looks like he got the memo, ya Shakkak. He’s quitting the race.
Comment by SP — January 30, 2008 #
Who knew Edwards reads The Skeptic? Nice.
Comment by Ash-Shakkak — January 31, 2008 #