Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

John Edwards to Quit Presidential Race

Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:01 AM EST
politics, election, associated-press, edwards, democrat-john-edwards
Nedra Pickler, Associated Press
< PreviousNext >
showing 1 of 5 photos
<p>Democratic presidential hopeful former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., campaigns at the carpenters' union hall Tuesday, Jan. 29, 2008, in St. Paul, Minn.  (AP Photo/Jim Mone)</p>

Democratic presidential hopeful former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., campaigns at the carpenters' union hall Tuesday, Jan. 29, 2008, in St. Paul, Minn. (AP Photo/Jim Mone)

Advertise | AdChoices

DENVER — Democrat John Edwards is exiting the presidential race Wednesday, ending a scrappy underdog bid in which he steered his rivals toward progressive ideals while grappling with family hardship that roused voters' sympathies, The Associated Press has learned.

The two-time White House candidate told his staff that he planned to make the announcement at a 1 p.m. EST event in New Orleans that had been billed as a speech on poverty. The decision came after Edwards lost the four states to hold nominating contests so far to rivals who stole the spotlight from the beginning — Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama.

"He just said it was time to get out," said Dave "Mudcat" Saunders, Edwards' rural affairs adviser. "I still don't like walking away, but it was John's decision."

The former North Carolina senator will not immediately endorse either candidate in what is now a two-person race for the Democratic nomination, said one adviser, who spoke on condition of anonymity in advance of the announcement. Clinton said Wednesday that Edwards called her to inform her about his decision.

"John Edwards ended his campaign today in the same way he started it — by standing with the people who are too often left behind and nearly always left out of our national debate," Clinton said.

Obama told reporters Edwards had exited the race in a "classy" way. "I think he's run a great campaign," said Obama, who aides said also spoke with Edwards Tuesday and asked for his endorsement. Obama aides said Edwards called again Wednesday morning to confirm the news he was dropping out.

In a statement from his campaign, Obama said Edwards "spent a lifetime fighting to give voice to the voiceless and hope to the struggling, even when it wasn't popular to do or covered in the news."

"While his campaign may end today, the cause of their lives endures for all of us who still believe that we can achieve that dream of one America," the statement said.

Four in 10 Edwards supporters said their second choice in the race is Clinton, while a quarter prefer Obama, according to an Associated Press-Yahoo poll conducted late this month. Both Clinton and Obama would welcome Edwards' backing and the support of the 56 delegates he had collected, most of whom will be free to support either Obama or Clinton, though some will probably look for guidance from Edwards.

Edwards' advisers said officially he would "suspend" his candidacy, but that was simply legal terminology so that he can continue to receive federal matching funds for his campaign donations.

An immediate impact of Edwards' withdrawal will be six additional delegates for Obama, giving him a total of 187, and four more for Clinton, giving her 253. A total of 2,025 delegates are needed to secure the Democratic nomination.

Edwards won 26 delegates in the Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina contests. Under party rules, 10 of those delegates will be automatically dispersed among Obama and Clinton, based on their vote totals in those respective contests. The remaining 16 remain pledged to Edwards, meaning his campaign will have a say in naming them.

Three superdelegates — mainly party and elected officials who automatically attend the convention and can support whomever they choose — had already switched from Edwards to Obama before news of Edwards' withdrawal from the race.

Kate Michelman, an adviser to the campaign and former president of NARAL-Pro Choice America, said she spoke to Edwards Wednesday morning and was disappointed to hear he planned to leave the race.

"He felt that this was the moment to take this step, given the reality of this campaign. This campaign has been about two celebrity candidates — excellent and qualified candidates — but celebrity candidates," Michelman said.

Edwards waged a spirited top-tier campaign against the two better-funded rivals, even as he dealt with the stunning blow of his wife's recurring cancer diagnosis. In a dramatic news conference last March, the couple announced that the breast cancer that she thought she had beaten had returned, but they would continue the campaign.

Their decision sparked a debate about family duty and public service. But Elizabeth Edwards remained a forceful advocate for her husband, and she was often surrounded at campaign events by well-wishers and emotional survivors cheering her on.

Edwards planned to announce his campaign was ending with his wife and three children at his side. Then he planned to work with Habitat for Humanity at the volunteer-fueled rebuilding project Musicians' Village, his campaign said.

With that, Edwards' campaign will end the way it began 13 months ago — with the candidate pitching in to rebuild lives in a city still ravaged by Hurricane Katrina. Edwards embraced New Orleans as a glaring symbol of what he described as a Washington that didn't hear the cries of the downtrodden.

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

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

Edwards' rise to prominence in politics came amid just one term representing North Carolina in the Senate after a career as a trial attorney that made him millions. He was on Al Gore's short list for vice president in 2000 after serving just two years in office. He ran for president in 2004, and after he lost to John Kerry, the nominee picked him as a running mate.

Elizabeth Edwards first discovered a lump in her breast in the final days of that losing campaign. Her battle against the disease caused her husband to open up about another tragedy in their lives — the death of their teenage son Wade in a 1996 car accident. The candidate barely spoke of Wade during his 2004 campaign, but he offered his son's death to answer questions about how he could persevere when his wife could die.

Even as Obama and Clinton collected astonishing amounts of money that dwarfed his fundraising effort, Edwards maintained a loyal following in the first voting state of Iowa that made him a serious contender. He came in second to Obama in Iowa, an impressive feat of relegating Clinton to third place, before coming in third in the following three contests.

The loss in South Carolina was especially hard because it was where he was born and he had won the state in 2004.

___

Associated Press Writer Mike Baker in North Carolina contributed to this report.

© 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Nedra Pickler's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: none
  • Regions: United States , Denver
  • Public Discussion (150)
Jump to discussion page: 1 2
kevinb66

Now let's see who this empty suit endorses. Hopefully he will end up as someone's running mate again so he can be a drag on their ticket.

  • 6 votes
#1 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:15 AM EST
Kevin Dicks

I'm sure you're so much better than he is. Much more compassionate and friendly, and much more caring. I'm sure you do so much more for your fellow man than he does, which allows you to make that righteous judgment.

  • 46 votes
#1.1 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:32 AM EST
MaryGJ

His "empty suit" was full enough to make him millions...how empty is that?

  • 15 votes
#1.2 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:36 AM EST
kevinb66

allows you to make that righteous judgment.

What righteous judgment are you talking about? I called him an empty suit. Meaning he's fairly brainless. He only speaks in platitudes and constantly pits one class against another. There wasn't anything to him the last time he ran and there was even less to him this time around. He couldn't even come in 2nd in his own home state.

  • 5 votes
#1.3 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:02 AM EST
Bill Harrison

kevinb66 #1

Preach it brother!! Edwards gives empty suits everywhere a bad name.

  • 5 votes
#1.4 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:12 AM EST
DanielI

Now let's see who this empty suit endorses. Hopefully he will end up as someone's running mate again so he can be a drag on their ticket.

Very intelligent comment.

  • 3 votes
#1.5 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:50 AM EST
Double Demon

I predict he will endorse Obama. Unless he has decided to get out because of his wife's health, I think that this was a calculated move. Coming out with it today would be perfect timing for the Obama campaign considering Billary claimed victory in Florida last night.

  • 5 votes
#1.6 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 11:33 AM EST
Chasing

Coming out with it today would be perfect timing for the Obama campaign considering Billary claimed victory in Florida last night.

It's only perfect timing if a) he endorses Obama, or b) most of his supporters go to Obama. However, polling has shown that his support goes pretty evenly to the two remaining candidates - with the rest undecided. And those undecideds clearly aren't of the Obama "fervent idealism" vote (or they'd have been with Obama in the first place) and are therefore able to be picked off by Clinton's superior GOTV machine - remember, most last-minute deciders in Florida broke for Clinton, even after the mauling she'd just received.

It seems more likely that Edwards will wait to endorse until after Super Tuesday - otherwise he risks backing the wrong horse. If he waits until then, a more clear leader might have emerged, and he could safely hitch his wagon to them. If he goes too early, and mis-judges, he risks being frozen out.

Also, keep in mind he's more in-line with Hillary than Obama on health care.

  • 3 votes
#1.7 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 3:16 PM EST
Mike Rupert

I find your comments, Kevin, often void of much of any meaning or substance, and really does no favor for your interpretation of things. On the contrary, somewhat pits people against your rather shallow, and at times, fairly ugly and uninformed statements.

  • 4 votes
#1.8 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 3:52 PM EST
kevinb66

I find your comments, Kevin, often void of much of any meaning or substance, and really does no favor for your interpretation of things. On the contrary, somewhat pits people against your rather shallow, and at times, fairly ugly and uninformed statements.

At least I've got that going for me.

I had specific comments with regard to Edwards as a candidate. If you disagree with them fine. But your comment has done nothing to refute anything I've said about Edwards. Instead, you attempt to attack me personally.

Talk about no meaning or substance.

  • 3 votes
#1.9 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 4:02 PM EST
MaryGJ

#1.7 Chasing

remember, most last-minute deciders in Florida broke for Clinton, even after the mauling she'd just received.

I am a Florida voter and I say BS. Do not put the spin on anything in Florida because it does NOT COUNT. The data is flawed so it cannot be used effectively except to fuel more lies about Florida. Obama never spoke there, he never campaigned there. I know people who worked their butts off for him just to get his name out there. Despite the Clinton machine and lack of campaigning over 500,000 people voted for him. Imagine if he had been allowed to campaign. Imagine if Florida had not changed their primary date what could have happened. It was an unlevel playing field and Billary knows it.

The delegates do not count and neither does Hillary Clinton's claim to victory.

I will say this again and again:

The Democrats and the Republicans were not responsible for the high voter turnout in Florida--it was the property tax amendment to the state constitution that drove voter turnout.

  • 4 votes
#1.10 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 4:46 PM EST
Chasing

I am a Florida voter and I say BS.

Just because you're a Florida voter doesn't mean you have some magical intuitive knowledge of polling data, or the veracity thereof. Sorry.

  • 2 votes
#1.11 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 7:29 PM EST
MaryGJ

I did not say I did. But I believe I have more of a right than somebody who does not live nor vote in my state. I said the data is flawed and it is.

  • 2 votes
#1.12 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 7:44 PM EST
spiffie

What makes the polling data flawed?

  • 2 votes
#1.13 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 8:18 PM EST
Chasing

I said the data is flawed and it is.

Prove it.

  • 2 votes
#1.14 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 8:34 PM EST
MaryGJ

I don't have to prove anything. How can it be okay when the votes do not count? How can it be okay when no one was allowed to campaign? How can it be fair when folks did not vote because they knew it was not going to count?

The election is flawed, skewed. Get over it.

The Democrats and the Republicans were not responsible for the high voter turnout in Florida--it was the property tax amendment to the state constitution that drove voter turnout.

  • 1 vote
#1.15 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 8:51 PM EST
Chasing

I don't have to prove anything.

If you make a statement of fact then yeah, you sort of do have to prove it, otherwise it's just an uninformed opinion. And if that's what it was, that's fine - nothing new under the sun, there (not in relation to you, specifically, but opinions in general).

How can it be okay when the votes do not count?

How can what be OK? I think they should count.

How can it be okay when no one was allowed to campaign?

No-one meaning....no-one. Ergo, level playing field. In fact, more level than states in which candidates with huge warchests battle it out against those who are nearly broke, if anything.

How can it be fair when folks did not vote because they knew it was not going to count?

If all of the candidates - and all of their supporters - knew it was not going to count, then why would any one candidate's supporters turn out in greater numbers than any other's?

The Democrats and the Republicans were not responsible for the high voter turnout in Florida--it was the property tax amendment to the state constitution that drove voter turnout.

And it was anti-gay sentiment that drove turnout in 2004, but that doesn't make Bush any less the President.

  • 3 votes
#1.16 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:20 PM EST
Kevin Dicks

How can it be okay when no one was allowed to campaign?

She did answer it. Nobody was allowed to campaign. When Obama campaigns, he gives Hillary a run for her money, he did not have that chance and so Hillary won on name recognition only. That's why it's flawed and skewed.

  • 5 votes
#1.17 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:51 PM EST
Chasing

She most certainly did not prove it, though she did give an opinion. And that's fine. I counter with the opinion that Floridians have access to news channels and, moreover, were aware of his very-recent crushing defeat of her. If he doesn't have "name recognition" than I'm Ronald McDonald. And I ain't.

Moreover, if her assessment is right, then Obama is screwed on Super Tuesday, because he has no prayer of campaigning to the extent he did in the early-primary states. So I guess he should just throw in the towel now, huh? Or maybe that particular opinion is as bogus as it sounds, and he does have a chance after all.

Just as he did in Florida.

PS - the "flawed" and "skewed" was in relation to actual polling data, not the election in general, the seating of candidates, or any of that. Those who decided at the last minute (post Carolina) broke for Clinton. That's actual data. She called BS. She has not proven that data incorrect, no. Far from it.

  • 2 votes
#1.18 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:06 PM EST
MaryGJ

Kevin some people do not seem to understand that simple fact. There were people who did not vote in the primary because they knew it would not count. Go on some of the Florida blogs people.

IMO Hillary could have really come out of this smelling like a rose. She could have said to Obama and Edwards let's all go to Florida and thank ALL of the voters. But no she wanted all of the publicity and recognition for herself. She shows everyone once again how opportunistic and calculating she is. Afterall, this would have been for the good of the party--that she does not understand and neither does her husband.

  • 1 vote
#1.19 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:30 PM EST
MaryGJ

Chasing they might have broke for Clinton, but again the votes were not counting so there is no idea of how many people would have voted but did not. It is a do over situation in order for there to be no doubts.

Remember this vote was driven by the property tax amendment NOT the primary. There were people who do not own property who probably did not vote and who might have voted in the primary if it counted. College students to name one group.

Do you get it now? If not, forget it I am moving on.

  • 2 votes
#1.20 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:39 PM EST
Chasing

Do you get it now?

I get it, I just respectfully disagree with your assessment. And I'm moving on with you.

  • 3 votes
#1.21 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:51 PM EST
Reply
agio

I wish him well. Edwards is a good guy, and probably would have made a good president. But his campaign never seemed to catch on outside of the left-wing blogosphere.

  • 21 votes
Reply#2 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:17 AM EST
Mountaineer

I think he would have made a terrible president.

He had nothing to offer as a senator in the state of North Carolina (even when he actually showed up) and he has nothing to offer now. This has always been the one candidate which forces me to ask myself: "What the heck is he doing here?"

The guy couldn't even win his home state. What an embarrassment.

  • 4 votes
#2.1 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:21 AM EST
Mountaineer

Props to him for running a more positive campaign though. I will always admire him for that.

He was definitely the most civil of the candidates.

  • 14 votes
#2.2 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:41 AM EST
CuriousG

My guess as to why he had trouble winning in S.C., is he didn't pander to their typical issues. He isn't your typical southerner or politician.

  • 9 votes
#2.3 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:01 AM EST
Chasing

I agree, I think he'd have made a fine President. But he's young enough, still, to make another run, in 4, maybe 8. Although to remain viable that long he'd have to stay somehow an active political figure.

  • 5 votes
#2.4 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 3:17 PM EST
Scott Isaacs

Maybe he should ponder endorsing and campaigning for Obama in return for being Obama's Attorney General. That would keep him in the public eye.

  • 1 vote
#2.5 - Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:14 AM EST
Chasing

Maybe he should ponder endorsing and campaigning for Obama in return for being Obama's Attorney General. That would keep him in the public eye.

It would, but I don't think in quite the way that screams "presidential material". But then, we are living in strange times.

  • 1 vote
#2.6 - Thu Jan 31, 2008 1:12 PM EST
Scott Isaacs

Chasing:
Spitzer rode high profile prosecutions into the Governor's Mansion. Why not Edwards riding high profile prosecutions into the White House?

  • 1 vote
#2.7 - Fri Feb 1, 2008 6:37 PM EST
Chasing

That presumes Edwards pulls off high profile prosecutions, but I suppose it could happen.

  • 2 votes
#2.8 - Fri Feb 1, 2008 11:45 PM EST
spiffie

War crimes against the prior administration? ;-)

  • 2 votes
#2.9 - Sat Feb 2, 2008 10:48 AM EST
MaryGJ

Ship Cheney and Bush to Gitmo and waterboard them. Maybe they'll tell the truth for a change since that kind of toture is supposed to be so effective. Chickenhawk cowards...That punk Shrub could not even watch Saddam's hanging.

If Edwards waits too long his endorsement won't mean a thing. If Obama does well on Tuesday, who needs Edwards?

  • 3 votes
#2.10 - Sat Feb 2, 2008 4:38 PM EST
Kevin Dicks

I know. I wish Edwards would endorse Obama already. If he endorses Clinton he'll be seen as a sell-out because his views aligned much more with Obama's.

Perhaps he's pissed at the both of them for not letting him win and he's not going to endorse.

  • 4 votes
#2.11 - Sat Feb 2, 2008 5:00 PM EST
MaryGJ

I think the Edwards has lost any clout he had by not coming out and endorsing somebody. The Cali SEIU did not wait for him. So, by Tuesday John Edwards means nothing IMO. We are marching on without him. Besides, I do not want to hear the media talking about what a big role he played in helping Obama. I think we can do it without him. If he wants to get on the Clinton bandwagon, I do not know about you all but I think he will be viewed as a hypocrit. Exactly why Billary won't be on Obama's ticket.

This is a people movement not a politician's.

  • 2 votes
#2.12 - Sat Feb 2, 2008 5:44 PM EST
Reply
Apple Annie

He will be Obama's running mate I bet, if Obama gets the nod.

  • 13 votes
Reply#3 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:18 AM EST
Green Henry

That would be a great ticket.

  • 8 votes
#3.1 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:21 AM EST
Eric Near

I don't know why I feel this way, but he looks like a vice president. I thought that in 2004 as well.

  • 8 votes
#3.2 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:23 AM EST
caroaber

He'll be a running mate for sure, either Sen. Obama's or Sen. Clinton's. In the meantime, he can bide his time brushing and primping his lustrous hair.

    #3.3 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:01 AM EST
    spiffie

    Either candidate would frankly be quite dumb to pick Edwards as VP. He doesn't bring anything to the ticket at all. Obama's best choice would be Richardson for his policy experience or Sebelius or Napolitano, who might help deliver a red state. Clinton has a lot more choices (although if she gets the nomination, I personally think Obama is her best choice by far, even though it will never happen).

    • 9 votes
    #3.4 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 12:44 PM EST
    oneburn

    Maybe I'm alone on this (even though I don't agree), but I think that if Obama chooses to run with a white man as VP, the punchline of the south will be about assassination, and some of these Southerners are dumb enough to attempt. It's almost like Obama has to run on as VP with Clinton to condition the country for 4 years, and then move up. But what do I know.

      #3.5 - Thu Jan 31, 2008 3:11 AM EST
      Bill Harrison

      But what do I know.

      Not much.

      • 1 vote
      #3.6 - Thu Jan 31, 2008 2:39 PM EST
      Scott Isaacs

      That kind of protection from assassination is like a Chris Rock joke: "Here's my Vice President, Al Sharpton. If you kill me you'll get somebody you really don't like!" ;-)

      • 2 votes
      #3.7 - Fri Feb 1, 2008 6:38 PM EST
      Reply
      Kevin Dicks

      This was unexpected. I thought he'd go on through to Super Tuesday and become kingmaker. Well, this is pretty good news for Obama, because the majority of Edwards voters picked Obama as second choice.

      He'll probably endorse Obama, if he endorses at all. It would be great if Obama picked him as VP. That would be a great ticket.

      • 22 votes
      Reply#4 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:24 AM EST
      CuriousG

      It would be great if Obama picked him as VP

      Amen!

      I doubt it will happen, but I do think it is the best of all worlds. There's no question, Barak has the message, but John really does understand how to stand up to the insurance and pharmaceutical companies, who are the major road blocks to universal (or single payor) health coverage.

      • 4 votes
      #4.1 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:31 AM EST
      eviefalcon

      Too bad, I was going to vote for him on Tuesday. Looks like Obama is now getting my vote....

      • 13 votes
      #4.2 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:45 AM EST
      agio

      I think is to his credit that he dropped out before Super Tuesday, rather than waiting to become kingmaker at a brokered convention.

      • 9 votes
      #4.3 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:19 AM EST
      Ratigan

      I agree w/ Agio, I think it would have been suspect to say "Vote for me so I can vote for me". Classy move. I just hope he will campaign for Obama and not endorse (or not) and sit down. We need his help on the campaign trail.

      • 3 votes
      #4.4 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:58 AM EST
      Double Demon

      I think that this might have been calculated and brokered by party leaders like Ted Kennedy. I have no proof, just my opinion. If he says he is getting out because of his wife's health then I think it was a spur of the moment thing, but if it was for some other reason, it was brokered by either Clinton's or Obama's party supporters, whoever gets the endorsement.

      • 1 vote
      #4.5 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 11:36 AM EST
      Chasing

      Well, this is pretty good news for Obama, because the majority of Edwards voters picked Obama as second choice.

      Says MSNBC:

      Four in 10 Edwards supporters said their second choice in the race is Clinton, while a quarter prefer Obama, according to an Associated Press-Yahoo poll conducted late this month.

      So they may not break for Obama as much as you think....

      In any case, if he's angling to be VP, he'll probably wait to endorse (if he ever does) after Super Tuesday, so he can see which way the wind is blowing. He wouldn't want to prematurely hitch his wagon to a failing campaign.

      • 3 votes
      #4.6 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 12:42 PM EST
      Double Demon

      Kevin was referring to the Exit Polls from South Carolina which had a majority of those polled saying their second choice was Obama. I guess you all were right, he didn't endorse anyone. I agree with Chasing, he is trying to be VP again. I thought that there was a chance party leaders had convinced him to get out and endorse Obama, I guess my fantasy was only that.

      • 2 votes
      #4.7 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 5:42 PM EST
      Reply
      Green Henry

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

      But the themes were eventually adopted by other Democratic presidential candidates

      And that is why long-shot candidates aren't a waste, why supporting one isn't throwing your vote away. Even though he won't get the nomination, Edwards pushed the major candidates to be more progressive. He influenced the race in a significant way and forced Obama and Clinton to take up some initiatives that they wouldn't have otherwise.

      • 19 votes
      Reply#5 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:26 AM EST
      CuriousG

      Edwards is not an empty suit, and I think was the best all-around candidate. Unfortunately, both Hillary and Barak will continue to molly coddle the insurance and pharmaceutical industries, further postponing any hope of real universal health for all Americans.

      • 13 votes
      Reply#6 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:28 AM EST
      Brian Ford

      Re: Empty Suit -- Ironic that the person who initially made the comment (#1) did so without going into any real detail. Nothing like empty rhetoric calling out an empty suit, no?

      I find it especially hard to buy considering this article's assertion that he was one of the first Democratic candidates to outline plans.

      Sounds to me as though the real issue was his relatively empty pockets.

      • 17 votes
      #6.1 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:34 AM EST
      kevinb66

      Sounds to me as though the real issue was his relatively empty pockets.

      Empty pockets? All he has to do is take out a loan on that massive complex he has in South Carolina. Edwards is full of cash (as well as some other things). He's just doesn't want to wager his personal fortune for his supposed ideals.

      • 4 votes
      #6.2 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:04 AM EST
      Bill Harrison

      Edwards's pockets are far from empty. He's just a bit more dishonest about it than most politicians. In his peculiar world, the trial lawyers lobby isn't a lobby at all:

      . . .Trial lawyers have proved to be the financial mainstay for Edwards's two presidential bids, as well as for the Democratic Party in general. An analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics found that nearly a third of the $30 million Edwards raised during the first nine months of 2007 came from lawyers, many of whom were attracted by his success as a plaintiff's attorney. And of the $82 million lawyers have donated to federal candidates so far during the 2008 cycle, 77 percent of it went to Democrats.

      • 5 votes
      #6.3 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:18 AM EST
      Brian Ford

      Empty pockets?

      I said "relatively" empty pockets. It doesn't matter where the money is coming from (or where it's not coming from) if it's not there, or not being used.

      Still, much easier to dwell on that rather than expanding on your own rhetoric. But, if you wait long enough, I'm sure Bill Harrison (is it okay if I mention your name today?) will step up to the plate for you.

      • 9 votes
      #6.4 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:29 AM EST
      kevinb66

      His pockets are only "relatively" empty if you compare him to people like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates. To the average person his pockets are overflowing. He's just not willing to put his money where his mouth is.

      • 5 votes
      #6.5 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 11:18 AM EST
      CuriousG

      not willing to put his money where his mouth is.

      Or, he believes the people should actually have a say in who's elected rather than who has the most money to plaster the airwaves with sound bites and innuendo.

        #6.6 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 3:15 PM EST
        Reply
        SuperUnspecial

        about time

        • 2 votes
        Reply#7 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:30 AM EST
        Maureen Mower

        This really saddens me. I had hoped he would stick it out to the end. He might have done much better in states like NY and California, where there are huge numbers of residents living in poverty.

        I hope that whoever wins the nomination picks him for VP, and I hope he accepts.

        I don't trust Obama. Too many Republicans like him far too much. So if I get my second wish, it would be a Clinton/Edwards ticket in November. (My first wish having been Edwards as Pres, and either of the other two as VP).

        Of course, when all this got started, I was actually rooting for Mike Gravel - but he's had no media attention and can't raise enough money to compete. Heck, he isn't even on all the state primary ballots. Edwards was my second choice. Now it seems that by the time November rolls around, I'll be voting for my third or fourth choice instead. So much for "hope"...

        • 4 votes
        Reply#8 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:48 AM EST
        Ratigan

        Too many Republicans like him far too much.

        A dubious criticism. One that I resent somewhat as we were on the losing end of that thought in 2000 and 2004. In 2004, Bush said he won a mandate. The millions of people who voted against Bush had a different opinion. Maybe it's time we back a candidate that doesn't claim a mandate for a party that is opposed by millions.

        Republicans like him, so I don't is pretty thin. If you don't like something about him beyond that, then that's fine; but if that's all you've got, you really need to take another look at your vote.

        • 4 votes
        #8.1 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 11:03 AM EST
        Maureen Mower

        That isn't what I mean. He is, to a large extent, considered the most conservative of the Democratic candidates, which is why he appeals to a lot of moderate Republicans. But that's also why he does not appeal to me at all. The last thing we need is another Conservative in the White House right now.

        I also do not like his healthcare plan, I disagree with his stance on gay marriage, and I don't think he's had enoug experience in the Senate to have a clue what he'll be facing if he wins the Presidency. There's also the fact that while some may find his speeches inspiring, I find them sounding far too much like a Sunday sermon. I think that he speaks that way on purpose, as it hypes up emotion and can sway some voters that way, which I find to be a bit underhanded.

        Anyway, that's my opinion. I'm voting for Hillary in the PA primary because she's the only one left that I'm willing to support, but she's still my third choice. If she loses the nomination, I will vote for Obama in November, but only because a conservative Democrat is still better than any more Republicans in the White House.

        Man, how I wish there was a viable alternative!!!

        • 1 vote
        #8.2 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 11:19 AM EST
        Mountaineer

        The last thing we need is another Conservative in the White House right now.

        Actually, the last thing we need is a partisan nutjob of either party.

        • 6 votes
        #8.3 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 11:28 AM EST
        WhyIt

        If Hillary wins, though, the anti-Clinton Republicans will come out and vote in droves. A vote for Hillary is essentially a vote for McCain or Romney (probably McCain now).

        • 8 votes
        #8.4 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 11:32 AM EST
        MaryGJ

        The moment she is nominated the Repubs will be popping the champagne--business as usual. Also, the Shrub's family will be relieved since Billary can shutdown any investigation into the Shrub's secret government.

        Get ready for Jeb, then Chelsea, then Jeb's son, then Chelesa's son...I should be dead and gone by then if not sooner.

        • 6 votes
        #8.5 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 1:54 PM EST
        Maureen Mower

        Actually, the last thing we need is a partisan nutjob of either party.

        I would agree with that, except that it seems to be a dig at Hillary, although I don't see her as particularly partisan. Besides, "Conservative" is not a party - at least not a viable one. It's just one of the extremes within the party.

        I really don't get why so many people dislike Hillary so ardently. Bill was the one who screwed around (literally) - yet he gets standing ovations and people throw all the insults at her. What gives?

        • 2 votes
        #8.6 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 1:55 PM EST
        agio

        FWIW, moeloe I'm equally sick of the both of them.

        • 1 vote
        #8.7 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 2:35 PM EST
        MaryGJ

        I really don't get why so many people dislike Hillary so ardently. Bill was the one who screwed around (literally) - yet he gets standing ovations and people throw all the insults at her. What gives?

        Here are a couple of reasons:

        In 1992, when Gennifer Flowers revealed that she had had an affair with him (which he admitted to only years later and then claimed it was confined to one encounter), she uttered the famous words on the CBS 60 Minutes programme: "I'm not sitting here as some little woman standing by my man like Tammy Wynette. I'm sitting here because I love him."

        She later had to apologise to the country singer Tammy Wynette who wrote and sang "Stand by Your Man" but was not the character in it - but Mrs Clinton had successfully made her point to the American public.

        Then in January 1998 the story about the president's affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky broke - which Bill Clinton strenuously denied.

        Mrs Clinton was defiant once more, declaring in an interview with the NBC Today show that it was all inspired by "this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president".

        She had a difficult moment later that year when her husband admitted to having had a relationship with Miss Lewinsky, and TV viewers watched them walking across the White House lawn - Chelsea between them - to the helicopter waiting to take them on holiday.

        Hence the problem I have with the feigned emotion she displayed in NH. You mean she did not drop one tear or show ANY hurt when her man was caught cheating but you are going to be emotional because you care so much about America? Oh, please I cannot take it...

        • 3 votes
        #8.8 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 2:43 PM EST
        WhyIt

        The Clintons are neocons just as much as Bush. They were just doing it small-scale and more covertly, almost as if to "slick the rails" for the coming of Bush. Let's see ... expansion of NAFTA, membership in the WTO, the overuse of force at Waco, our involvement in Bosnia ....

        • 3 votes
        #8.9 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 4:14 PM EST
        Chasing

        You mean she did not drop one tear or show ANY hurt when her man was caught cheating but you are going to be emotional because you care so much about America?

        You have absolutely nothing to show that this claim has any validity whatsoever, apart from wishful thinking.

        • 3 votes
        #8.10 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:29 PM EST
        Maureen Mower

        So you dislike her for being the victim of her husband's inability to keep it in his pants, and for trying to maintain her dignity after he publicly humiliated her?

        How absolutely ridiculous!

        • 3 votes
        #8.11 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:00 PM EST
        Reply
        Deron Dantzler

        I wish he would endorse Obama. He and Obama maintain a more similar ideology than he and Clinton. He should endorse Obama to boost Obama coming into February 5.

        • 3 votes
        Reply#9 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:50 AM EST
        Eric Atienza

        Biden and Dodd given minimal media time, Biden and Dodd out. Richardson given minimal media time, Richardson out. Kucinich, given the least amount of media time since the beginning, finally out. Edwards, in the last few weeks relegated to a second tier amidst pointless drama about Clinton's gender and Obama's race, Edwards out.

        Congratulations media, you've successfully chosen our final two for us. Good job on letting that happen, America.

        • 18 votes
        Reply#10 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:56 AM EST
        A. H. Min

        Meanwhile, Huckabee was given minimal time, and he's a front-runner. Giuliani was given all the time, and he's out.

        Vote GOP 2008 ;-)

        • 4 votes
        #10.1 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:07 AM EST
        agio

        Vote GOP 2008 ;-)

        Because the last eight years were not enough suckitude.

        • 18 votes
        #10.2 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:21 AM EST
        Brian Ford

        Vote GOP 2008

        I'm conflicted. Elsewhere on Newsvine I'm told not to vote GOP, but a self-proclaimed right-wing nut.

        • 6 votes
        #10.3 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:37 AM EST
        Ratigan

        Good job on letting that happen, America.

        Maybe there's a reason the media focuses their collective attentions on certain candidates. Like they've get all the votes and they're the ones we want to hear about. Don't mistake Media attention with vote-getting. They don't hold the voters' hands into the polling station. The voters do that on their own.

        • 1 vote
        #10.4 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 11:05 AM EST
        Eric Atienza

        Of course media doesn't make the final choice for anyone, but a LOT of people are passive when it comes to news. I think it's fair to assume that the number of people that go out of their way to research on the Internet (or elsewhere) is currently a minority and so a large percentage of the population relies on the news industry to direct their attention. When half of the airtime at every eight person debate is taken up by 2 or 3 speakers, attention is focused on them by a passive audience.

        News coverage (all major broadcast news, and all major print publications) has been even more lopsided in this extended election cycle and when it comes down to a choice between candidates we've been hearing about for a year and candidates whose name we've heard but whose position we know nothing about, most people will make their choices between the former.

        • 3 votes
        #10.5 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 11:18 AM EST
        CuriousG

        re: Media coverage

        The media knows if they cover the issues, they'll lose their AD Audience (attention deficit). Covering the horse race doesn't require thinking, only counting the poll numbers and dollars raised, as those are the same as votes in the voting booth. They certainly don't hurt, but Iowa and New Hampshire proved that thinking wrong this year.

        • 1 vote
        #10.6 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 3:22 PM EST
        Reply
        More Than Happy

        Edwards was never really in it, I think. He was too focused upon being cute, and all of the liberal stuff he talked about on the campaign seemed very tacked-on. I thought he would have continued on, but I guess he saw the writing on the wall.

        • 1 vote
        Reply#11 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:06 AM EST
        A. H. Min

        Sorry, but I have to say good riddance. Edwards complains about health care companies' greed. But the reason they charge so much is because of ambulance chasers like him going around and suing doctors who weren't TRYING to malpractice.

        Just my (harsh) opinion.

        • 3 votes
        Reply#12 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:06 AM EST
        AdipicAcid

        But the reason they charge so much is because of ambulance chasers like him going around and suing doctors who weren't TRYING to malpractice.

        Just my (harsh) opinion.

        Which as multiple studies have shown, is not based in any kind of objective reality. Between one and two percent of the total cost of health care can be attributed to malpractice insurance.

        • 13 votes
        #12.1 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:18 AM EST
        Ratigan

        So you think malpractice should be an intentional tort? So when they accidentally amputate the wrong arm or leg, or the pool motor that is known to be dangerous sucks the intestines out of a little girl, no recourse? Sound idea (until it happens to you or someone you know).

        • 5 votes
        #12.2 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 11:07 AM EST
        Bill Harrison

        There are tort lawyers and then there are cherry-pickin' big settlement tort lawyers. Guess which one Edwards was:

        "Over time, Mr. Edwards became quite selective about cases. Liability had to be clear, his competitors and opponents say, and the potential award had to be large.

        "He took only those cases that were catastrophic, that would really capture a jury's imagination," Mr. Wells, a defense lawyer, said. "He paints himself as a person who was serving the interests of the downtrodden, the widows and the little children. Actually, he was after the cases with the highest verdict potential. John would probably admit that on cross-examination."

        • 4 votes
        #12.3 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 12:18 PM EST
        CuriousG

        Bill,

        Surely even you can appreciate a deterrent. That's what many of these cases were to others who might try to ignore consumer safety with their products or services.

        With his success and demand, why wouldn't he take on cases that might actually be precedent setting for other cases? While it may be easy to postulate the potentially lucrative cases were merely against big companies because they were big, it's more likely to be because of the egregiousness of the (mis)action.

          #12.4 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 5:28 PM EST
          Bill Harrison

          Just read the whole Times piece. The payout to him was the driving factor.

          • 1 vote
          #12.5 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:06 PM EST
          CuriousG

          Yeah, it's just awful when a Democrat is as successful at making money as a Republican.

          Me thinkest you're reading too much into the article, regarding the authors supposition on John's motives for taking cases.

          • 1 vote
          #12.6 - Thu Jan 31, 2008 9:18 AM EST
          Scott Isaacs

          CG:
          You have to admit that it didn't look good when he got the $400 haircut. LOL It looked kind of spendthrift for a battler of the poor.

          • 1 vote
          #12.7 - Fri Feb 1, 2008 6:41 PM EST
          Reply
          Dennis P. McCannDeleted
          CoryPerry

          Now Obama can finally shore up his VP running mate!! I think you will see an Obama endorsement by Edwards coming shortly!

            Reply#14 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:16 AM EST
            Ratigan

            I prefer the idea of Edwards as AG.

            • 4 votes
            #14.1 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 11:08 AM EST
            CuriousG

            Have to agree here. He'll have much more legally binding influence as Attorney General than as VP. As AG, he'll be able to dramatically curtail the influence of the lobbyists and corporations sucking dry the govt coffers.

            • 1 vote
            #14.2 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 4:03 PM EST
            Reply
            Jace

            I'm really sad to see him go. Now I'll have to support Obama as the lesser of two corporate evils.

            I just hope Elizabeth is in good health.

            • 6 votes
            Reply#15 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:24 AM EST
            Noah BradleyDeleted
            The Observer

            There are two Americas. Those running for President and those who are not.

            Goodbye, John!

            • 2 votes
            Reply#17 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:40 AM EST
            DanielI

            Now Obama can finally shore up his VP running mate!! I think you will see an Obama endorsement by Edwards coming shortly!

            Obama-Edwards

            That would be sweet!

            • 1 vote
            Reply#18 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:51 AM EST
            Dan Hallo, aka, Zoilus

            The fact that a swiftboater like Bill Harrison shows such animosity towards him is enough for me to give him a nod for Obama's running mate.

            • 13 votes
            Reply#19 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 11:05 AM EST
            Scott Isaacs

            Congratulations to John Edwards on his campaign. Now he starts the next phase of his campaign which is driving the best bargain to endorse HRC or BHO and bring his delegates. Ironic it would be if he was the candidate of change and then decided to support HRC since she has 35 years of experience getting us here.

            • 2 votes
            Reply#20 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 11:35 AM EST
            WhyIt

            I sure hope he endorses Obama, if anything as a counter to Shillary's little game in Florida and Michigan where she broke her promise not to campaign or be on the ballot. And now she wants those delegates to be reinstated! What a dishonest gal. This is a Presidential race, not Bingo.

            • 3 votes
            Reply#21 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 11:38 AM EST
            Division by Zero

            I was disgusted by the fact that Hillary went on national tv to claim victory in the Florida beauty pageant and to say that she would make sure that Florida's delegates would be seated at the convention. I suppose the DNC's rules mean nothing when you're trying to get elected? Florida got stripped of its delegates because they moved their primary ahead of Super Duper Tuesday. That should have been the end of it right there.

            • 2 votes
            #21.1 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 1:06 PM EST
            Bill Harrison

            True it was disgusting but what more perfect stagemate for Evita than that old crook Alcee Hastings holding up an upside down poster no less.

            • 2 votes
            #21.2 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 2:05 PM EST
            MaryGJ

            I have to agree with you on that one Bill. And to think I actually sympathized with that crook when they tried to impeach him. I guess you know who he owes his loyalty to.

            As a Florida voter, I am on a writing campaign to the DNC to stop her from having her way. Do you think she would want to seat Florida and Michigan if Barack had beaten her?

            • 3 votes
            #21.3 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 6:25 PM EST
            Bill Harrison

            Of course she wouldn't but imho it was a mistake for the Dems to strip both MI and FL of their delegates. Penalize them? Definitely. Strip them? No.

            I tell you what though, after looking at some of the polling in the big states (NY, CA and NJ) it looks like a blowout for Hillary on Tuesday. And she's comfortably ahead in MO (always a bellweather state) and MA too. It will be interesting to see what these polls look like once the Edwards droput has been factored in but given Hillary's support among poorer voters and women I can't see this putting Obama over the top.

            • 2 votes
            #21.4 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:19 PM EST
            Reply
            Alexander.

            wow. i am shocked to go this far in the race and then drop out six days before the big day! sounds like a deal was brokered

            • 2 votes
            Reply#22 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 12:09 PM EST
            Chasing

            It is odd timing, isn't it.

            • 2 votes
            #22.1 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 11:36 PM EST
            spiffie

            I don't know. Florida was Edwards's last shot at coming in a respectable second place in a primary. After Florida, I doubt he had the money to campaign in multiple states, and with a string of distant third place showings, it's not likely he was able to raise much money. Donors don't stick with losers.

            • 2 votes
            #22.2 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 11:54 PM EST
            Chasing

            Florida was Edwards's last shot at coming in a respectable second place in a primary.

            Yes, and call me jaded, but on Super Tuesday he was still certain to get a somewhat respectable (if distant third, in most cases) vote - and all the Dem states proportion out their delegates (no winner-take-all), which would leave him with a substantial hand to play in a brokered convention and all but guarantee him (in that case) of any position in the next administration that he wanted, right up to VP, probably.

            • 2 votes
            #22.3 - Thu Jan 31, 2008 1:16 PM EST
            Reply
            Timothy Marquez

            I think it's doubtful that any candidate will pick a running mate before winning the nomination (except Huckabee, who has already chosen Stephen Colbert). It reminds me of that old saying about counting chickens before they're hatched. That said, I have felt since Iowa that Edwards was running for VP. He spent more time in Iowa than anyone and barely edged out Clinton for 2nd.

            • 2 votes
            Reply#23 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 12:17 PM EST
            Mike Rupert

            Personally, proud of Mr. Edwards. The guy has guts, intelligence, and we'll be seeing more of him, for sure.

            • 8 votes
            Reply#24 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 12:22 PM EST
            Reba

            I am bummed. My heart is borken. He was the only candidate I could really get behind.

            • 5 votes
            Reply#25 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 12:55 PM EST
            melissa-w

            I voted for and supported Edwards in SC, and am disappointed he is pulling out. The media made this a two-person race, when Iowa and New Hampshire were close. It was more interesting to talk about a female running and a minority than a white guy. He was the leader in policy development, but he just couldn't get his vision across. I will vote for whoever the democrats put forward, but my fear is that Hillary will drive the Clinton-haters to vote for McCain, and that the closet rascists will come out in droves to vote for McCain against Obama. I've gotten at least 2 e-mail forwards about Obama not being patriotic, one of which someone included the whole thing about him being Islamic, and added in her own words that Obama would kill all the first-born white children. I requested her to stop sending me her rascist drivel, but those are the people that will come out in November. They will lay low until then. My prediction for November: McCain will win in a close vote and the dems will get our hearts broken again.

            • 1 vote
            Reply#26 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 1:05 PM EST
            Dan Hallo, aka, Zoilus

            no.

            • 1 vote
            #26.1 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 1:07 PM EST
            Reply
            bluecollarbytes

            Goodbye Mr. Edwards. We hardly knew you.

            • 2 votes
            Reply#27 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 1:32 PM EST
            Jump to discussion page: 1 2
            Leave a Comment:
            You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
            You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
            (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
            Newsvine Privacy Statement
            As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
            FUN STUFF:
            • Leaderboard |
            • E-Mail Alerts |
            • Top of the Vine |
            • Newsvine Live |
            • Newsvine Archives |
            • The Greenhouse
            COMPANY STUFF:
            • Code of Honor |
            • Company Info |
            • Contact Us |
            • Jobs |
            • User Agreement |
            • Privacy Policy |
            • About our ads
            LEGAL STUFF:
            • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
            • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
            • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com