Now that he is leaving the race. Here's what the New York Times had to say about his exit:
John Edwards, the progressive Democratic candidate who made a populist, antipoverty message the centerpiece of his campaign, announced his exit from the presidential primary race on Wednesday, saying he was stepping aside "so that history can blaze its path."
The Associated Press also gave Edwards a positive sendoff.
It was the second time Edwards sought the Democratic presidential nomination. Four years ago he was the vice presidential running mate on a ticket headed by John Kerry.
Four years later, he waged a spirited, underfunded race on a populist note, pledging to represent the powerless against the corporate interests.
And in between those two runs, what did he do? Among other things, he joined a hedge fund that made investments of the type he condemned during this last campaign. Joining the hedge fund was consistent with his behavior in the Senate, where he spent much of his time investing in companies that did things he deplored on the campaign trail. He spent six years in the Senate — and accomplished nothing for the "powerless" while he was there.
But what he did does not seem to matter to most on the left. This morning, I heard a local left-wing talk show host (and former Democratic congressional candidate), Dave Ross, say that Edwards really cared about the poor. Here's a hint for Ross and others with the same view: A man who really cared about the poor would have done something for them sometime during his life, not just talked about them during a campaign. And it is embarrassing to remind Ross of this, but Edwards made his millions by persuading juries, using arguments that, in some cases, he must have known were false.
Nor do these leftists seem much bothered by the gap between how Edwards voted as a senator, and what he was promising during this last campaign.
Breathtaking. People can change their minds about something. But everything? The man served one term in the Senate. He left not a single substantial piece of legislation to his name, only an endless string of votes on trade, education, civil liberties, energy, bankruptcy and, of course, war that now he not only renounces but inveighs against.
. . .
Nothing new about a convert. Nothing new about a zealous convert. What is different about Edwards is his endlessly repeated claim that the raging populist of today is what he has always been. That this has been the "cause of my life," the very core of his being, ingrained in him on his father's knee or at the mill or wherever, depending on the anecdote he's telling. You must understand: This is not politics for him. "This fight is deeply personal to me. I've been engaged in it my whole life."Except for his years as senator, the only public office he's ever held.
So I won't miss him, and no decent person should, either. But we should worry about the large number of people who were willing to accept his words during this campaign, without ever asking whether he had done anything for those he claims to care about.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
Posted by Jim Miller at January 30, 2008 01:43 PM | Email ThisBYE!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on January 30, 2008 01:57 PMThat's hilarious! Edwards is to the progress of history a lot less than a speed bump is to the progress of my beater car.
Posted by: deedub on January 30, 2008 02:03 PM"If he can think of anything that Edwards ever did for the poor as a senator, I would be happy to add that to the post. Anything."
And this quip:
"And I must say that his comments about Edwards remind me of the old quip: Ross should be grateful that he is not a young woman, because, if he were, he would be pregnant all the time. He is just too willing to believe what sweet talkin' guys like Edwards say."
We'll see if he replies.
Posted by: Jim Miller on January 30, 2008 02:03 PMToo funny, 2nd only to Ragner's earlier electile dysfunction post! Haha
Posted by: Duffman on January 30, 2008 02:17 PMBut I hear Nader is again thinking about a run. Maybe that will be someone who the Nutroots can get behind.
Posted by: Jeff B. on January 30, 2008 04:03 PMDid you subscribe to his site? That's the only way that you'd receive solicitations.
You could have also blocked them as spam - did you ever try that? Or were you more happy to receiving them & then complain on blogs?
Posted by: aloishus on January 30, 2008 04:38 PMMaybe he will even define fascis, or facism or even fascism for us!
Posted by: Michele on January 30, 2008 05:14 PM1. to say you are for something, but never have done anything consistent with those saying when you have a chance; or
2. to say you are for something, but do the opposite when you have a chance?
You keep operating under this claim that has been proven false, that us Republicans are defending the violations of Republicanism perpetrated by our elected officials.
Why?
Posted by: pudge on January 30, 2008 06:02 PMAre you liberals clear now? I'm getting fairly sick of being called a fascist and Nazi, simply because you don't understand the history of the term, and have bastardized it to your purposes.
Posted by: katomar on January 30, 2008 06:20 PMIf we don't stand up to bastardized revisionist history, the changing of the meaning of words, phony fact and the continued repetiton of lies no one will.
I proudly stand up to correct their lies with you.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 30, 2008 06:47 PMGee, he used the same strategy the Republican Party has employeed for the last 20 years.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on January 30, 2008 08:44 PMhilarious!
Posted by: Will on January 31, 2008 12:10 AMThat's an extremely odd thought to have, but at least it is not fallacious. Just silly and pointless.
Because there is one other possibility: he thinks there is something wrong with people of like minds *who disagree with himself* agreeing on things. But that would be a combination of the ad hominem and question-begging fallacies.
So to his credit, I prefer to think he is very silly and pointless, rather than completely illogical.
Posted by: pudge on January 31, 2008 12:57 AM"isn't Hillary terible?"
"why yes, she is!"
"just the worst"
"right indeed"
"and also the democrats are all crazy"
"well said!"
it's priceless, and I am forwarding it to all my friends.
Posted by: Will on January 31, 2008 05:54 AM"isn't Hillary terible?"
"why yes, she is!"
"just the worst"
"right indeed"
"and also the democrats are all crazy"
"well said!"
it's priceless, and I am forwarding it to all my friends.
Posted by: Will on January 31, 2008 05:56 AMI still don't know if I'm having more fun reading all of your ego stroking comments after these silly and pathetically biased "articles", or reading legitimate journalists trash you guys in other venues.
I especially like the global warming as a myth because it's cold outside argument.
this might be my new favorite site, I could really kill some time here.
Posted by: Will on January 31, 2008 04:52 PMit's called patience, grasshopper!!
Posted by: Rick D. on January 31, 2008 09:27 PMand yes, I am the first person in the history of the intertubes to double post...if you get through to Guinness, let me know and I'll do a short interview...
stick to the guitar, brother.
Posted by: Will on February 2, 2008 11:53 AM