Edwards still standing

"He doesn't know it's a damn show! He thinks it's a damn fight!" - Apollo Creed's trainer, "Rocky" (1976)

For once the pundits and the pollsters seem to have gotten it right.  South Carolina was a big win for Obama; Clinton did take second place; and Edwards got nearly precisely the numbers predicted for him in the last Zogby/CNN poll.  They can now calmly return to doing what they were doing before, confident that what they say is true and that everyone is doing what they have been scripted to do.

Except that John Edwards is not doing what he is supposed to do.  He doesn't know it's a damn show.  He thinks it's a damn fight.

Edwards is staying in the race, as he has always said.  

His advisors are saying things like "look at the polls in Oklahoma" where Edwards is running a strong second, where Obama has little support.  And people like myself have been saying for some time that one of the two celebrity candidates, the ones getting all the media attention, is likely to pull out of the race at some point, possibly as soon as the morning after Super Tuesday.  If Edwards is still standing, it will be him against just one of them.

More practical types are saying that Edwards is staying in the race so that he can show up at the Democratic National Convention in Denver with truckloads of delegates, and play the role of kingmaker (or perhaps emerge as a dark horse favorite after a few rounds of deadlocked balloting).

But I think he's staying in the race because he actually believes the things he's saying.  He really does want to guarantee health care for all, end poverty in America, and strengthen trade unions.

In the next few days, the squabbling between Clinton and Obama is likely to become uglier and meaner than before.  If you thought Bill Clinton was a vicious attack dog before South Carolina, wait till you see him now.  The mainstream media called this race a long time ago, and are baffled at Edwards for still being in the ring this late into the fight.  (Meaning, those that even notice he's there.)

John Edwards has survived four rounds in the ring with the political equivalents of Apollo Creed.  His nose may be broken, his eye may be cut, but he is still standing.  Call him stubborn or call him persistent, but I grow more impressed with him every day.

Senator Edwards -- as long as you are in this fight, I am behind you.

Tags: Apollo Creed, John Edwards, Rocky Balboa (all tags)

Comments

49 Comments

Re: Edwards still standing

Heh, he's "wasting" your tax dollars getting Democratic messages out on every media channel in existence.  Would that all our candidates engage in such effective wastage.

by Kimmitt 2008-01-26 11:01PM | 0 recs
it is not effective

and what makes them democratic message if democrats are not voting for him?  

by MollieBradford 2008-01-27 03:30AM | 0 recs
Re: it is not effective

So you are saying that Democratic voters aren't for poverty issues, healthcare, getting out Iraq as soon as possible rather than later, real middle class support on issues like healthcare, fair trade bills, etc? Who knew.

by bruh21 2008-01-27 06:47AM | 0 recs
Re: it is not effective

Edwards message of economic inequality does resonate with voters!
That's why the Corporate Owned Media hyped "hope" and "inevitability" through the Corporate Christmas season.
That's why the Corporate Owned Media promoted sexy Obama Girl videos - and ignored Edwards poverty tour - while Bush declared the economy was GREAT.
Obama and Hillary both assisted in concealing the economy was tanking - and Edwards was right all along.
The Corporate Owned Media will always promote a corporate candidate spewing "hope" and "unity" - and dismiss a candidate addressing the corporate powers that rule us.

Sticking with Edwards cause he's sticking with us!

by annefrank 2008-01-27 07:40AM | 0 recs
Re: it is not effective
4 puny insignificant state have voted.
Let's hear from more of the country.
This primary system is incredibly broken.
by demwords 2008-01-27 08:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards still standing

He just raised some money, so I did not think he would quit.  I also read some from his campaign anonymously say they did not expect him to win a single primary.  I don't know.

by reasonwarrior 2008-01-26 11:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards still standing

I don't expect him to win a single primary, do you?

by MollieBradford 2008-01-27 03:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards still standing

Hi, Teresa!

by clarkent 2008-01-27 03:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards still standing

wait- so mollie is Teresa? That explains a lot.

by bruh21 2008-01-27 06:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards still standing

The writing style and the nasty sentiments are the same. Looks like a zombie and walks like a zombie.

I notice she never responds to the accusation, either.

by clarkent 2008-01-28 12:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards still standing

Do issues matter to you at all?

by desmoulins 2008-01-27 05:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards still standing

No- if this is teresa- she's only here to raise up a stink. It's what she does.

by bruh21 2008-01-27 06:48AM | 0 recs
he should spare his dignity

and drop out.  Why he wants to be seen as the DK or Nader of this race is beyond me.

by MollieBradford 2008-01-27 03:28AM | 0 recs
Re: he should spare his dignity

Hi, Teresa!

by clarkent 2008-01-27 03:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards still standing

This is no longer about winning primaries for Edwards.  It's about winning delegates.  It's about using this campaign as a platform to push a progressive narrative, while other campaigns extol "unity", "competence", or "the other candidate sucks".

In 1944, Vice President Henry A. Wallace vowed "I am in this fight to the finish." when the Democratic party machinery wanted him removed from FDR's ticket.  Yes, he lost that fight, and his next one in 1948.  It is still a proud legacy.  After reading the wonderful biography of him, American Dreamer by John C. Culver and John Hyde, I wondered what I would have done in those two cycles; would I have gone with the flow and Truman, or fought for the true New Dealer Wallace.  I have my answer now.

I'm with John Edwards in this fight until the finish.  

by CLLGADEM 2008-01-27 03:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards still standing

I wrote a diary recently on this. THe value of edwards staying in the race is not whether he can win the nonination, it's about the influence of progressives in the party. If one wants to guarantee that triangulation triumphs, the cult of personality triumphs, id politics trumphs over all other things- then sure- I can see why they advocate Edwards dropping out, but if one's concern are underlying Democratic values- then no way i hell should he drop out.

by bruh21 2008-01-27 06:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards still standing

actually, he's showing the non-influence of progressives in the Dem party. A certain sector of very wealthy Democrats always think that because they're rich it's their party. Just throw out some populist red meat and the dumb masses will come following like dogs. But these people are irrelevant.

John Edwards epitomizes that. A lifelong fat cat -- lawyer and hedge fund guy -- he came to power as a decided centrist but after 2004 and the continuation of the permanent campaign, seems to have sensed his only route to the white house was by tacking to the Naderite/daily kos left. And, sure enough, Daily Kos and a bunch of progressives actually (it astonishes me, frankly) bought it.

but working folk are smarter than that. Edwards' best demographic in SC was among voters in the above $100,000 range -- his sort of people, in other words. But actual Dems went someone who has a record of accomplishment -- like the Clintons -- or speaks to their hopes and dreams, like Obama.

an empty suit like Edwards running for ego only can turn himself into Nader for all real Democrats care. But he represents a marginal fringe of our party, and don't ever pretend otherwise. next time around either Edwards or someone of his ilk will once again run on how terrible the Dem party is and how some self-righteous elite needs to take it back. they'll once again be ignored.

I do hope some of the self-righteous Edwards' backers regret their months and months of vicious insults directed at real Democrats like Obama and Clinton and their supporters. those folks represent real Americans and shouldn't have been subject to the holier-than-thou denigration they received.

So Edwards can keep on running and Daily Kos can keep up their freak show of hatred toward real Democrats, but what they don't realize is the more they scream the more they show how irrelevant they are.

by CalDem 2008-01-27 07:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards still standing

Obviously, the Dem establishment prefers an empty suit like Obama - cause their lobbyist donations are safe with him.
Obama is nothing more than a tool for the Dem establishment and Corporate Owned Media.

Edwards has driven the agenda from the gitgo! urging CHANGE - while Obama and Hillary spewed hope and hype. NOW Oblahma and Hillary have copied his plans and material -and even Republicans are copying him now.

I voted for Edwards yesterday - and will continue to support him.
Voting for an empty suit just isn't my thing - and at this point - Hillary is farrrr ahead of Oblahma in substance.

by annefrank 2008-01-27 07:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards still standing

Edwards problem is that no one is listening to him.

I understand the frustrations of the Edwards Camp, Clinton and Obama has sucked the oxygen out of the room, leaving him strangled.

That is a fact.

He did not have different strategies to change, move along as the campaign progressed.

No one is listening to John Edwards.  He needs massive money to compete on Feb 5th and that won't happen.

Kingmaker?  To what?  Whom?  The deals are being brokered now, he hasn't won ANYTHING.

His super delegates are running away from him faster than you can say GO.

He has reduced himself to being irrelevant.

by Edna Howard 2008-01-27 09:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards still standing

Your post proves - our Corporate Owned Media uses public airwaves to choose our Corporate Owned Presidents.

No Democrat - not even Kucinich - would accept Edwards pledge to reject donations from Washington lobbyists - which Edwards has done throughout his political career.

Still waiting on Oblahma to "bring us all together" on FISA. Tick...tick...tick....

Oh wait - he can't even influence Dem senators endorsing him and voting against Dodd on FISA.

by annefrank 2008-01-27 10:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards still standing

Believe what ever you want. As I say up stream many of you on this issue are out of the mainstream of thought. No one reasonably objective can claim Edwards hasn't had a positive influence on this race.

by bruh21 2008-01-27 07:56AM | 0 recs
ROTFL

The wealthier the neighborhood in Iowa, the better Obama did.

Go here:

www.iowacaucusresults.com

And click on Polk County to look at the precinct-level results.

In the wealthiest suburban precincts (e.g. the WDM precincts in the 300s, Clive 4) Obama cleaned up and Edwards was barely viable. In one of the richest neighborhoods, Edwards was not even viable and the delegates went 6 Obama, 3 Clinton.

Alternatively, go to a site like FundRace and look at the big donors in the 50312 zip code (that covers the fanciest neighborhood in Des Moines) and the 50325 and 50266 zip codes (the wealthier parts of the suburbs). There are a lot more people giving to Obama than to Edwards.

The wealthiest Democrats appreciate Obama's self-actualizing, "dream big" rhetoric more than Edwards' message because the system works for them.

Also, many of them have disdain for labor unions. I have been told by Obama supporters, including a precinct captain for Obama, that labor unions served a purpose 50 years ago but are pointless now and just make American business uncompetitive.

by desmoinesdem 2008-01-27 08:51AM | 0 recs
WDM = West Des Moines

In the wealthy exurban precincts of Dallas County just to the west of Polk County, Obama had by far the most support. The delegate counts don't necessarily reflect that, but I know someone who was in one of those precincts, and Obama had as many supporters as Clinton and Edwards combined.

by desmoinesdem 2008-01-27 08:55AM | 0 recs
Re: WDM = West Des Moines

The corporatists are safe with Oblahma.
Unfortunately - ObamaBots don't realize "unity" doesn't pay for milk and bread.

In fact, Obama's "hope" and "unity" are used in the same way Republicans use gays and abortion. They're canards to get people to vote against their own best ECONOMIC interests.

by annefrank 2008-01-27 10:09AM | 0 recs
Re: WDM = West Des Moines

Here on Wall Street there seems to be an equal amount of corporate support for Clinton and Obama.  Edwards is hated by all.

Unfortunately, Edwards seems to underperform among the very lowest folks on the economic ladder, the ones he talks so much about.  I think there are a couple reasons, one being that income and race are correlated in a lot of places.  Also, I suspect these folks are more low-information and aren't so up on what the candidates actually stand for.

by Steve M 2008-01-27 10:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards still standing

Are you for Clinton or Obama?  I need to know becasue the thought of being on your side makes me physically ill.

by CLLGADEM 2008-01-27 12:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards still standing

yeah, we should listen to a guy whose tag indicates mutual support for the naderite edwards and the reaganite jim webb. that makes sense. good thing you're keeping that progressive flame burning.

for some people politics is all about attitude, not the issues. you're clearly one of those people. like most Edwards' supporters.  

by CalDem 2008-01-27 12:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards still standing

I am glad you assume to know me.  However your misunderstanding of Edwards and the condition of this country is duly noted.  Continue the personal attacks...

by SocialDem 2008-01-27 01:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards still standing

Jim Webb was not elected as a Reaganite, but as a progressive Democrat ready to end the war and rein in STDs (that's Stupid Trade Deals).  John Edwards has not bolted the Democratic party to run on a third party ticket.  Your arguments are more stupid than the aforementioned trade deals, and that's saying something.

Now answer my question.

by CLLGADEM 2008-01-27 01:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards still standing

Wow, you really are an idiot.

by SocialDem 2008-01-27 12:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards still standing

Didn't mean to infringe on your point, bruh.  My apoligies.

by CLLGADEM 2008-01-27 12:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards still standing

Perfect answer.

by inexile 2008-01-27 01:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards still standing

PS- I see this as a method of the movement rather than the party gaining traction. We won't win this cylce or maybe the next but over time we keep pushing that window further left of center by staying in the race even as the other forces try to push us out. they have the short term,b ut we can have the long. thats how the gop movement did it. they lost mutliple times before eventually winning with reagan. edwards can maybe our barry goldwater- clearly he's forcing the other candidates much further left than they would like to be. thats a good thing.

by bruh21 2008-01-27 06:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards still standing

Because our party's platform has forgotten working people for 4 cycles, and it will again if Clinton gets to write it herself.

by desmoulins 2008-01-27 05:38AM | 0 recs
Obama would be no different
His votes are nearly identical to Clinton's.
And repigs will shred Obama in the GE.
Dems seem to be sheeple to pick candidate who the repigs want to run against.
by demwords 2008-01-27 08:38AM | 0 recs
Reagan won 3rd time

It took Reagan 3 times to finally win the nomination and presidency. So I hope if Edwards does not win this time, he will try again in 2012. If we nominate Clinton or Obama, we will have President McCain for the next four years. By the end of 2012, the United States will be in deep economic trouble, the war in Iraq will be a disaster (think Vietnam), we will bomb Iran, the Supreme Court will be ultra-conservative,and health insurance costs will skyrocket. By that time, I expect most of the electorate to be really pissed at the republican party. They will remember the brilliant speech about economic fairness, universal health care and corporate greed given by Edwards at the 2008 Denver Convention and nominate him in a landslide in 2012. Edwards then will win the presidency in a landslide like Reagan did in 1980. Of course, I still think Edwards has a shot in winning the nomination. It is still too early to tell. However, I agree that us progressives need to keep fighting. The repugs and corporate democrats will silence us but we must keep fighting.

by harmony94 2008-01-27 10:31AM | 0 recs
I feel

that who ever wins R or D, that they will be a one term president. They will be inheriting all of this mess and the upcoming economic mess, that will be worse then it is now.

Not sure about the reagan scenario. It is a much different time. We have the media with nothing better to do (I can think of some better things) then to shred good people and forget the issues.

by kevin22262 2008-01-27 10:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Reagan won 3rd time

My view is that Edwards needs to beef up the record a little bit if he wants to come back for more, whether that means a post in the Administration, running for office again, or what have you.  As his Senate term recedes into the past, he can't just be this guy who bops around random jobs in the private sector for a couple years and then gins up the presidential campaign again.  He has the capacity to do a lot of good in positions other than President and I hope he'll put his talents to good use before giving it another shot.

by Steve M 2008-01-27 10:51AM | 0 recs
Mollie and gladiator...

you two are so annoying. You troll around trying to hijack diaries with your constant BS. Why do you do this?

There is absolutely NOTHING either of you can say that would change my mind. Every time I see one of you taking pot shots at others, it just makes me want to donate more to John Edwards.

All three candidates have pluses and minuses. All three candidates would do much better if one of the other candidates dropped out.

I still feel that Edwards is the best choice. This is the year of "differences" not necessarily change. Edwards, who I feel is the best candidate, is going up against the first viable black candidate and the first viable woman candidate. This does not mean they are not good candidates but it does make it much harder for the white male.

This is a much different election year. It is frustrating, fun and just plain crazy.

People are listening to and like Edwards message but this is a much different race.

I have seen here, at Dkos and many other places where people went to Obama yesterday and in recent weeks because they don't want Hillary and feel they must stop her.

I personally think this is silly, but it is the truth. Now if they would only vote for what they really feel and not vote polls and where the media leads them, then this could be a much different race.

by kevin22262 2008-01-27 10:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Mollie and gladiator...
Perfectly true!
Thank you so much for saying what I was thinking - over and over.
by inexile 2008-01-27 01:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards still standing

And his message is essential. We can't stand four more minutes, much less four more years of corporatist pandering by the Clintons or any of the Republicans.

by Hoomai29 2008-01-27 10:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards still standing
Obama panders to the corporatists also.  The coal and nuclear industry, etc.  
Your tax dollars will be used to prop up corporations not universal health care.
by pioneer111 2008-01-27 12:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards still standing

Somehow that pleases me a lot. To see your tax dollars going into John's campaign to tell truth about corporate greed. "Wasting my tax dollars" --lol democracy is so expensive.

Now we know, and we will do ev erything we can to make sure that the Edwards campaign spends your money carefully.

lmao

by inexile 2008-01-27 01:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards still standing

People claim Edwards is the most Progressive and yet he usually does better among conservatives than liberals.  He speaks for the poor and yet they don't vote for him.  That's a problem.

by Piuma 2008-01-27 01:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards still standing

Trust me, if your guy were running the most progressive campaign and doing the best among conservatives you'd understand why it's not a problem.

by Steve M 2008-01-27 01:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards still standing

I guess that's meant as a personal insult?  Here's some areas of support in the exit polls which run counter to John's supposed appeal which spell trouble:

He won "cares about people" but lost "can bring change".

His highest support among income groups was in $200,000+. He placed 3rd in every group under $75,000.  

He did better among Moderates and Conservatives than Liberals, and better among Very Conservatives than very Liberals.

He won Republicans with 43%, but was 3rd among Dems.

He did better in 65+ age group than in 18-65.

And those who want to keep troops in Iraq - he won with 41%

by Piuma 2008-01-27 02:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards still standing

Since I guess my point was unclear (how the heck did you take that as a personal insult?), I think it is absolutely fantastic if a Democrat can run the most progressive campaign and still pick up the most conservative votes.  One of the major arguments for Edwards is that he would be a map changer in the GE.

I honestly have no idea what your point is here.  My guy finished 3rd in the election, so you're going to rub it in by listing all the subgroups he finished 3rd in?  Obviously I'm not under the impression he won most of the subgroups!

Your argument as I see it is this: "the fatal flaw in Edwards' campaign is that he's not winning."

by Steve M 2008-01-27 02:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards still standing

No.  If a candidate does well among those who he appeals to AND also picks up the conservative votes then he's crossing over and it is a positive.  But the troubling thing about John, is he's not getting his base, or what would appear to be that.  You're misreading what I wrote if you think the figures just show he lost.  When you look just at how his support is spread among income groups, his highest support is from 200,000+, his lowest comes in the 4 groupings below $75,000.  Same with Ideology, it's the spread of his support.  And the area where he makes a surprising strong showing to actually win while losing in general are from two groups you would not expect to reward the "most progressive" in the race.  

I admit that it is hard to strip all these things away from each other.  Perhaps he does so poorly in lower income groups because they don't believe he can exact change despite his good intentions.  But that is a problem.  When you aren't able to play effectively to your base, it's a problem no matter how you spin it.

by Piuma 2008-01-27 02:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards still standing

And what of Hillary's Senate-leading $500 million plus in pork-barrel projects this year?  I'll take Edwards public-funds matching to that anyday!

by passionateprogressive 2008-01-27 04:27PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads