John Edwards's Next Act

Post-campaign, John Edwards is concerning himself with an issue larger than a potential endorsement of one of his former rivals.

From The Politico:

John Edwards--former North Carolina senator, two-time presidential candidate and darling of the left--started a new chapter of his political narrative today.

He and his wife Elizabeth Edwards are joining an multi-million dollar anti-Iraq war campaign dubbed "Iraq/Recession." The couple will join a coalition that includes MoveOn.org, the Service Employees International Union and the Center for American Progress.

The Nation expands on the project's mission:

The multi-million-dollar Iraq/Recession Campaign, which launches Monday, seeks to remind voters, in the words of organizers, that, "As economic concerns weigh heavily on the minds of Americans, opposition to President Bush's reckless war in Iraq continues to grow. The massive cost of the war in Iraq - hurtling toward one trillion dollars - has increased demand for a strategy to bring U.S. troops home. The Iraq/Recession Campaign will highlight the majority of Americans who want to see leadership on investing in critical priorities at home and establishing real security throughout the world."

But endorsement talk is never far behind when it comes to looking for clues as to Edwards's intentions; this is how The Hill framed its piece on the anti-war coalition:

Former presidential candidate John Edwards (D-N.C.)...will join several groups that have endorsed Obama in a new effort to end the Iraq war.

Indeed, both MoveOn and SEIU have endorsed Obama but another coalition member, Center For American Progress, is run by John Podesta, former Chief of Staff under Bill Clinton. So I'd hesitate before reading too much into this alliance, especially considering Edwards of all people would be more likely to give Clinton a pass on her war vote, as he made the same judgment at the time. That's not to say he's getting ready to endorse Clinton, however, it's merely to second The Nation's take on how Edwards is casting his post-primary, pre-general election role:

He has, however, begun to identify the role he may play in a fall Democratic campaign - not as a vice presidential running mate, which seems extremely unlikely, but as an outspoken advocate for a party platform and ticket that recognizes how an unnecessary war has diverted resources and energy away from the real work of building a functional and just domestic economy.

Even if he has yet to pick a candidate, John Edwards has "endorsed" an approach to the 2008 race. And it's the right one, especially in a contest with John "100 Years of War" McCain.



Display:


Re: John Edwards's Next Act (none / 0)

" The couple will join a coalition that includes MoveOn.org, the Service Employees International Union and the Center for American Progress.
 Do I sense an endorsement coming.....?????


Hillary Clinton is not a monster,....as far as I know.. We are all Hussein JUNIOR.. ///.. FEINGOLD/BOXER 2016
by Its Like Herding Cats on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 02:02:05 PM EST

Re: John Edwards's Next Act (2.00 / 2)

I doubt it.  He's definitely taking the high road in this to keep his name clean.


NJ Hussein Independent
by NJIndependent on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 02:17:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: John Edwards's Next Act (2.00 / 2)

which is a good thing.

He is one of the few people in the party who can bring everyone together to unify the party when this mess is over with, however it is going to end.

I, for one, am very excited to see what the future holds for John Edwards. I think the next chapter in his political story will be a very exciting one.


Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America
by JDF on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 02:32:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: John Edwards's Next Act (none / 0)

Wait! I am confused. Are you saying he really did mean the things he said during the primary? But that's not possible. He supported it so there is no way now he's against it. You must have gotten the story wrong.


by bruh21 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 02:02:44 PM EST

Re: John Edwards's Next Act (2.00 / 1)

Is there any point to this snark, at all?

Or are you just patently against civilized conversation?


Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America
by JDF on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 02:33:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: John Edwards's Next Act (none / 0)

On the contrary I am all for reason. that's my entire point. What I am against is how in the primaries people act in an exagerated or irrational ways  so that the discourse which people should have been happening is only happening now. If you think this primary has been a healthy one, consider how both the Obama and Clinton supporters are acting here and elsewhere. So please don't lecture me about what I am adding to the mix-- I could practically link to everything on the recommend lists of both this site and Daily Kos as to why that would at best be pot calling the kettle black, and more likely projection.


by bruh21 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 02:42:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: John Edwards's Next Act (none / 0)

i guess the problem is that what you said just did not make that much sense. hard to get the joke if the delivery is garbled. and not sure that the primary has been a healthy one, but do think that it was edwards that made it about anything at all besides the horserace.


by memstrong1 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:12:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: John Edwards's Next Act (none / 0)

its because i did it straight rather than indicating i was joking.


by bruh21 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:13:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: John Edwards's Next Act (none / 0)

I agree Edwards tried. It was  one of the reasons I supported him over the remaining choices. Its one of the reasons I am  now agnostic about the ouotcome. I don't sense any real differences between the two choices. THey are both deeply flawed candidacies going into the GE


by bruh21 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:14:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: John Edwards's Next Act (none / 0)

i hope he doesn't endorse at this juncture. Even if that endorsement went to Obama.

What he should do however is call up Todd or Jerome and ask him to put the new texas polls up on the front page.

if someone claims that Hillary winning Ohio by 10points is a mandate, on a night that she'll probably lose Texas (and VT by 20+ points), that person should be asked to stick to other matters regarding politics.


!
by alex100 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 02:14:31 PM EST

Re: John Edwards's Next Act (none / 0)

?????


by bruh21 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 02:22:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: John Edwards's Next Act (2.00 / 1)

It seems like Edwards is trying to become a gore-esque "post politician" and fighting for an issue he really cares about, rather then getting down into the mud of gov't.


by pholkhero on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 02:20:02 PM EST

blogs to endorse (2.00 / 2)

Open left has links to a series of polls on dailykos, openleft, blue majority. The blogs are getting set to endorse (Obama) based on the vote. I don't want the blogs to endorse anyone for it leaves no room for analysis on actual policy positions, which frankly has not been done enough. If you don't want the blogs to turn into a massive Obama cheer leading party, I suggest you vote.
NoSlaves.com | The Economic Populist
by Robert Oak on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 02:27:27 PM EST

Re: blogs to endorse (2.00 / 1)

I think its a foregone conclusion since the polls do not take into consideration gaming by a dedicated group of supporters. Its not a real poll, and they know they shouldn't be treating it as such, and the fact that they do says to me they don't care that its not real.


by bruh21 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 02:32:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I know (none / 0)

there is no doubt the cult is there. I saw on youtube someone had dedicated their lives to thumbs down rate any comment that wasn't hysterical about Obama in the comments. That's 500 comments per thread. I feel like I'm surrounded by fire ants. But you still have to say something.
NoSlaves.com | The Economic Populist
by Robert Oak on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 02:38:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I know (2.00 / 1)

Well, I am not against your point. I posted a diary saying that rather than attacking each other with such vitriol that maybe, just maybe, the most intense dislike should be held for McCain. Some of the responses included several who said if candidate X didn't win, they would vote for McCain. It's all I am going to cut off my head to spite my nose, but what I was told was that I endorsed whatever candidate that the poster didn't support. No reasoning with that kind of thought process at all. See my comment, and the response to it above for another example of what i mean.


by bruh21 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 02:47:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

myself (2.00 / 1)

I'm about policy, heavy focus on trade, economics, labor and I won't support anyone who is out to destroy the US economically or working America. That of course means no McCain but it disturbs me that so few are looking in depth at these issues. I'm an issue blogger.
NoSlaves.com | The Economic Populist
by Robert Oak on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:04:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: myself (2.00 / 1)

My issue beyond process is healthcare, race and sexual orientation issues. Media consolidation is a biggie for me. Economics in general is very important.

I would say prioritization-- the above issues trump foreign policy by only a small amount, but they are issues I tend to look at even when elections are not occuring.

I stopped looking for a non candidate specific discussion of healthcare when I realized that several of the people to whom I was discussing the issue had no idea what they were talking about. I am not an expert. I don't even claim to be. I just know enough to  know when someone else is bs'ing me on a topic.

I remember having the discussion and mentioning Walmart, comparing our system to other countries and discussing how the dreaded mandate discussion (at least by some) made no sense because on the one hand they were against mandates, but for single payer. The later being a system of mandates as well. I have variously been told these things aren't important (poster couldn't figure out why I would be discussing Walmart (largest single free rider in the country with regard to healthcare), that definitions I've been using for years aren't the definition of words (ie "universal healthcare"-- one poster actually changed the definition on Wikipedia after I pointed out that his or her definition wasn't the generally understood one rather than accept that his definition wasn't the generally understood one), linking to pre 2007 articles of Ezra Klein on healthcare were met with claims that I was "appealing to authority," etc.

As for McCain- I think that its a sign of how they derive their support in general. if they are basing it solely on personality or identity or whatever, and it's not really about progressive=values, but insteand progressive=candidate, then it makes a twisted sense. They can say McCain is more liberal than CLinton because they are busy demonizing her. THey can say McCain is better than Obama becuase they demonize him. Yes, it's irrational. But that's been this election cyle.

It's like now everyone is realizing- surprise, surprise, we got to win the toss up states, and we aren't going to win the red states, but this wasn't discussed during the primary. On the process level, I have to ask- where were these people when it mattered? The same is grue of these issues.


by bruh21 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:21:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

single payer (none / 0)

I'm for that also and I have seen people now claim, since Obama is enabling privatization of public schools....that public education hasn't helped anyone....ever. I have seen statements that are so not based on fact, statistics, history or as you point out, what works in other industrialized nations pretty much everywhere. I don't know what these people are thinking on a health care plan that doesn't kick in until 2012 plus no mandate for everyone to be covered. Hillary is not single payer but the closer we get the better it is in my view and she leaves the door open for the real Progressives to potentially get their licks in on amendments when the great congressional lobbyist battle begins.
NoSlaves.com | The Economic Populist
by Robert Oak on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:08:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: single payer (2.00 / 1)

Short answer: it's not about thinking for too many, and they will have buyers remorse. What some of them failed to miss is how much they are like Bush supporters. Whether they support Clinton or Obama- there are the behavior traits they have in common. In this way, we ended up with the two worse candidates because neither of them have campaigns centered on issues. THey are both centered on their personalities and their identities.  I am not surprised by the vitriol, and I am also not going to be surprised with what will happen in the GE. A lot of real discussion has been swept under the bridge and thats going to be a problem come t he GE.


by bruh21 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:11:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: John Edwards's Next Act (2.00 / 3)

Frannkly neither candidate has done enough to earn Edwards endorsement. Complaining about NAFTA two weeks before the Ohio primary won't cut it.

I glad he is instead trying to his "eyes on the prize" so to speak and working to make sure the Democrats stay focused on it too.  

As he always said during the campaign, this election isn't about him, Obama or Clinton. It's about our country's future.


by alexmhogan on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 02:33:26 PM EST

Re: John Edwards's Next Act (none / 0)

Just popped into my head. Being that the media is drolling to do an Edwards endorses ??? story, it would be great if he, instead of picking between Clinton and Obama, have a public endorsement of campaign issues he want to see the Democrats talk about. Like proverty, fair trade, workers rights. It might for at least one news cycle inject some issues back into the race.


by alexmhogan on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 02:38:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: John Edwards's Next Act (2.00 / 2)

I miss John Edwards in the debates.


by mrobinsong on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 02:48:33 PM EST

Re: John Edwards's Next Act (none / 0)

Damn straight I remember his campaign
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2007/05/12/AR2007051201512. html

If either Clinton or Obama would make a similar call for the upcoming anniversary.
March 2004..1st
March 2005..2nd
March 2006..3rd
March 2007..4th
March 2008..5th

The nomination would be theirs.
Won't happen. That is why Edwards won't endorse.
http://icasualties.org/oif/


"If you want to end war and stuff, you gotta sing loud"...Arlo Guthrie
by nogo war on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 02:48:57 PM EST

Re: John Edwards's Next Act (none / 0)

Why won't he come out and endorse?


by nzubechukwu on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 02:55:51 PM EST

Bravo, John! (2.00 / 1)


by palamedes on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:19:29 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.