Edwards Out
January 30th, 2008 | by Scott |I guess this means no dilemma for me come Super Tuesday.
Surely he will be endorsing Barack very soon.
I imagine that there are promises of a pretty spiffy cabinet position in an Obama presidency waiting for Edwards.
I had personally harbored thoughts that he remained in the race for Elizabeth. I don’t know the extent and prognosis of her condition but she obviously drew great joy through the prospect of her husband getting the nomination.
But that wasn’t to be. With Barack absorbing more of the “two Americas” message that made Edwards resonate so sharply with middle America there really wasn’t much room for him.
Thankfully, the speculation that he was holding out to play kingmaker at the convention was unfounded.
But I guarantee this: If the Clinton-Obama scuffle was ugly before, we ain’t seen nothing yet. Also somebody dropped out on the GOP side but all those guys are running together for me. 
Obamania rules.
69 Responses to “Edwards Out”
By greg on Jan 30, 2008 | Reply
I was looking at some stuff last night and came across a site called “evangelicals for mitt”, where they were whining about Huckabee and calling for him to drop out since he’s taking votes away from Romney. But it seems he’s going to stick around though next Tuesday at least.
By matt elliott on Jan 30, 2008 | Reply
I continue to be amazed at how well McCain continues to show. Although I’ll likely vote for the Dem nominee come November, McCain remains my favorite Republican.
By John on Jan 30, 2008 | Reply
You are so lucky to actually have a choice in this election. For me the primary isn’t till April by which time everything will be long done. This is a system which is just broken.
By Scott on Jan 30, 2008 | Reply
Yeah, he’ll limp through Super Tuesday but barring some miracle he will have to drop out after that. You can only run so long broke.
By Scott on Jan 30, 2008 | Reply
I’m not much of a McCain fan. One, I think his age has to be an issue. But secondly I don’t hear much difference between him and GW when it comes to war.
By Scott on Jan 30, 2008 | Reply
John, you very well may still have a counted vote. I see both races going the distance at this point.
By Jonathan on Jan 30, 2008 | Reply
Scott said:
You’re right, there’s not that much difference between them regarding what to do about Iraq going forward…we’re in it for the long haul. I don’t necessarily agree staying forever will help or is worth it, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to take a position that we shouldn’t abandon Iraq to the mess we’ve made.
Important distinctions to me are that in the McCain vs. GWB negotiations regarding torture, McCain was on the anti-torture team. Also, I don’t believe that McCain would have used 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq nor done such a horrible job post-invasion.
By Scott on Jan 30, 2008 | Reply
Granted, there are many positive aspects to McCain’s tenure in the senate. From early on he was the one GOP candidate who ran in support of the Bush War policy and I’m not a fan.
When he said in his New Hampshire victory speech “nothing should unite us more closely than the imperative of defeating an enemy who despises us, our values and modernity itself. We must all pull together in this critical hour and proclaim that the history of the world will not be determined by this unpardonable foe, but by the aspirations, ideals, faith and courage of free people. In this great, historic task, we will never surrender. They will” I could just close my eyes and hear GW.
I’ve also seen a capitulation to the more right-wing end of his party that seems more opportunistic than I previously expected from him.
Granted, if push came to shove I’d rather see him than Huckabee or Romney. But the repeated melanoma’s, age, position on Iraq and capitulations bother me.
By Jonathan on Jan 30, 2008 | Reply
greg said:
Evangelicals for Mitt is by David and Nancy French, among others. I knew David when we were both students at Lipscomb. From reading his writings at the National Review Online, I see that David and I often have a different perspective on politics…but he did take the admirable step of putting his money where his mouth is and joining the army reserve and then deploying to Iraq.
More on David here: link
By Jonathan on Jan 30, 2008 | Reply
The New Hampshire victory speech quote doesn’t bother me. I think there is truth in what he is saying. I can respect that point of view and believe he would have taken a very different path in exercising that imperative than GWB has.
About the capitulations, yes they’re annoying but they (almost?!?) all do it for votes. I take more stock in the fact that for the most part he apparently doesn’t pander when it comes to his actual policies and actions.
By Scott on Jan 30, 2008 | Reply
Maybe it’s a sensitive issue with me and I blanch from using such universal language but I believe that there are a lot of things that should “unite us more” than defeating others in war: the common good of all people seems to me more worthy of our common union.
By the way, with Justin seemingly MIA today you are zooming back up the charts. After a strong 2007 Greg is looming in the Edwards slot.
By P & C on Jan 30, 2008 | Reply
Scott, are you having an Obamagasm right now?
By Jonathan on Jan 30, 2008 | Reply
Yep, I had noticed that Justin was leaving me in the dust and that I needed to get busy.
By Scott on Jan 30, 2008 | Reply
P & C, that has to be a Limbaugh term. Am I right?
By matt elliott on Jan 30, 2008 | Reply
McCain is one those guys with whom I often disagree on policy but respect like crazy. Like Jonathan, I don’t feel like McCain would’ve gotten us into this Iraq mess to begin with, and I’m grateful for his courage on the torture issue. It’s not that I want McCain to be president; it’s just that I want to know that if my side loses, then the president will be someone I can really respect even if I disagree with him.
By matt elliott on Jan 30, 2008 | Reply
By the way, Scott, McCain’s mother is what — 148 years old? He’ll be fine!
By len on Jan 30, 2008 | Reply
Any chance of Edwards negotiating a VP nomination?
I think the main reason he did poorly was not that he was ignored for being white and rich, but that he is a trial lawyer. They tend to be a sleazy bunch not much-like by the American public.
By len on Jan 30, 2008 | Reply
And what about me!? Don’t give that third spot to Greg just yet. If you ever get around to those posts on atonement I can shoot up the charts.
By P & C on Jan 30, 2008 | Reply
Scott — nope. As far as I know, I made that one up! I coined it after watching how his wild-eyed followers absolutely slobber over him at his rallies and on blogs.
By P & C on Jan 30, 2008 | Reply
But Limbaugh will probably steal it from me. The fat bastard!
By Scott on Jan 30, 2008 | Reply
Matt, I can see that. Wasn’t McCain the son of a mill worker? Or am I getting him confused with someone else?
Len, it would be interesting if Edwards would fare better as a VP candidate a second time around. It’s compelling to me. I hope to get back to atonement tomorrow.
P & C, you should trademark that.
By matt elliott on Jan 30, 2008 | Reply
I think his dad was a goat-herder like Obama’s. was. Goat-herding used to be a REALLY hot occupation back in the day.
Or maybe it was his 148 year old mother who took with up with a no good millworking man from Massachusetts who died from too much whiskey and left her with three faces to feed. Or maybe that was James Taylor.
You’re right — it all runs together.
By matt elliott on Jan 30, 2008 | Reply
I think his dad was a goat-herder like Obama’s was. Goat-herding used to be a REALLY hot occupation back in the day.
Or maybe it was his 148 year old mother who took with up with a no good millworking man from Massachusetts who died from too much whiskey and left her with three faces to feed. Or maybe that was James Taylor.
You’re right — it all runs together.
By Scott on Jan 30, 2008 | Reply
Which one was it that was tortured?
By Tracy on Jan 30, 2008 | Reply
I could get behind McCain. I think.
By Scott on Jan 30, 2008 | Reply
I think that still makes him kinda jumpy.
By Jonathan on Jan 30, 2008 | Reply
P & C,
google search for obamagasm yields 3720 hits. You may have trouble establishing ownership.
By greg on Jan 30, 2008 | Reply
“that has to be a Limbaugh term”
Do a google search on it. No idea where it originated, but it’s everywhere.
Give me a couple of college basketball posts and I’ll overtake Jonathan and Justin. I’ll be unstoppable.
By greg on Jan 30, 2008 | Reply
But while I’m in the Edwards slot, someone get me mirror!
By Scott on Jan 30, 2008 | Reply
A couple of College basketball posts? Sure. When does the season start?
By Scott on Jan 30, 2008 | Reply
This post claims to be the originator of the term:
http://www.proudtobecanadian.ca/index/weblog/6143/
By Scott on Jan 30, 2008 | Reply
Just found it on a free republic message board from December 11, 2006.
By Scott on Jan 30, 2008 | Reply
December 5th 2006 on Hang Right Politics. Apparently Rush said it around the same time.
By greg on Jan 30, 2008 | Reply
“When does the season start?”
you make me sad…
By Scott on Jan 30, 2008 | Reply
Hey, I’m kidding. I know full well that the season is ongoing and my Hogs play MSU tonight. And Calipari is still a schmuck.
By Belinda on Jan 30, 2008 | Reply
Well of course I’m very sad that Edwards has had to drop out of the race. I truly believe he was the one that had the best opportunity to reclaim our place in the world. That being said, I have to say I’ll be an Obama supporter now. The Clintons have just been way too chummy with the Bush family, and she’s never apologized for her war votes.
By Belinda on Jan 30, 2008 | Reply
I don’t see any comments from Justin . . . should we send someone to check on him??? Maybe he’s dead.
By Scott on Jan 30, 2008 | Reply
Belinda, I don’t think we have to worry. You asking for him should be enough to elicit a response.
By Justin on Jan 30, 2008 | Reply
I was tempted to not respond since everyone’s asking where I am. I do have a job. Actually four. Cause unlike some of ya’ll, I don’t believe in the government stealing from others to keep me dependent.
Obamagasm is just the natural extension of Gorbasm, which was a Rushism, pre my knowing what was going on. Remember Gorbachov? (sp)
Belinda, if Clinton had apologized, would that make it ok? If that’s an important issue, you might should talk to someone who opposes all wars of aggression, not just Republican ones.
By SG on Jan 30, 2008 | Reply
The thing is, if I were going to vote democratic, Edwards would have been the guy to make me do that. The others are too sensationalized for me to know who they really are. It seems like thay are both to busy being good candidates to be decent statesmen/leaders/public servants. I can get behind McCain though. He may be old but the guy is tough!
By Politics & Culture on Jan 30, 2008 | Reply
Sigh… I thought I had invented the term. Either I had heard it and forgot, or I was thinking of the famous Gorbasm (which is very similar to an Obamagasm).
Other than Ron Paul, I don’t like any of the candidates. I will vote in November, but I will definitely be holding my nose. They are all just professional politicians (yes, even the “Rock Star” Obama). They all claim to be the candidate of change, but the only one who would really change things is Ron Paul.
By Justin on Jan 30, 2008 | Reply
P and C, if you watched the debate tonight, really if anyone watched the debate tonight, they should have noticed that out of an hour and 22 minute debate, Ron Paul only got a little over 7 minutes of talk time.
Its pathetic. And shameful. The media blackout of Paul after his decent showing in Iowa has been astounding. If you wanna know why our country is headed to hell in a handbasket, its because we’ve been lobotomized by coward media, hell bent on maintaining the status quo. If you have actual ideas about anything, they sure as hell are gonna do their best to keep you from doing so.
Unbelievable.
By Jonathan on Jan 31, 2008 | Reply
P & C said:
Now that we’ve established that you can see the future, could you give me a tip on the super bowl outcome?
In terms of policies, what you said may be a decent summary if oversimplified (though I assume you’d consider universal healthcare to be a big change). But I’m more interested in something else. I can’t stand the gridlock of battles that are all about politics and nothing about progress, toxic poison of our current liberal vs conservative pissing match. Obama aims to change this. Maybe he will fail but I have hope to the contrary. In a climate where people delight in denouncing someone like McCain as being “liberal” instead of calling him “moderate”, we do need to change.
By Justin on Jan 31, 2008 | Reply
What’s hilarious is that we get so polarized in this country with the liberal and conservative labels… when on the broader spectrum throughout the world, both sides of our political eisle fall pretty close together.
Our country was founded on classical liberal policies, but now, what was once called classical liberal, is now called either paleoconservatism or small l libertarianism. What passes for conservatism these days is basically FDR LBJ liberalism (also known as neoconservatism) and what is called liberalism today is more socialist capitalism.
Labels are ridiculous.
By Jonathan on Jan 31, 2008 | Reply
Justin said:
Time for some Justin baiting (don’t know why since it won’t help me usurp him the comment totals). Yes, Paul is at a disadvantage because the media doesn’t take him seriously. But the media also doesn’t take him seriously because many Americans don’t take him seriously. My Republican friends say things like: “He’s insane. He doesn’t understand the constitution. The constitution tells us what government must do and what government can’t do, but it doesn’t preclude the government doing things that don’t fit into those two categories. He doesn’t understand that.”
I think it’s a convenient excuse to blame the media…(maybe I’m wrong) but I think most engaged people have a decent understanding what his message is and what his ideas are and most aren’t biting (though he has been remarkably successful given his disadvantages). For the unengaged part of the population, they don’t know him because they are unengaged, not because the media is ignoring him.
By Justin on Jan 31, 2008 | Reply
I think the problem is more that those that call themselves conservatives often don’t understand the Constitution, not Paul.
The constitution says that only the congress can coin money, and that money has to be gold or silver, etc. But, we have fiat currency.
The constitution says that the Congress must declare war, but the congress continually gives the president whatever power he wants to do whatever he wants.
The constitution doesn’t permit the vast majority of federal spending and law that we have currently. Paul isn’t saying that those things are necessarily bad, but that if our country is gonna work correctly, we have to respect that contract of governance and amend it when we see fit. Or just get rid of it if you want to do that. Don’t just claim respect for the constitution when you’re talking about guns, and then ignore it when it talks about civil liberties.
By Robin on Jan 31, 2008 | Reply
I watched Paul in a couple debates. He has some good ideas and I think he knows what he’s talking about regarding the constitution. However, if he talks long enough he starts to sound kooky and that’s what turns me off. He might just be passionate about what he believes, but he starts to sound like a loon. If he tempered that he might be perceived differently. Just my humble republican opinion.
By Justin on Jan 31, 2008 | Reply
Robin, I understand what you mean, but I believe the reason he sounds like that is because you, and many others, are so conditioned to hear things in soundbites. But reality is more nuanced than that. Just saying “getterdone” isn’t enough. Whether your making decisions on how to govern the country or deciding how to raise your children, real ideas are nuanced. They are not black and white. And television is not a medium for nuance. I don’t think there’s any question that television has made it easier for us to be manipulated. If someone looks good, like Mitt Romney, or can crack funny jokes like Mike Huckabee, and no one is allowed to discuss anything of substance, people have to make decisions with the extremely limited about of understanding they have. And then, it becomes the norm to desire that limited understanding, anyone whose governing is determined by an overarching philosophy, like Pauls, is looked at like a crazy person. Most politicians use sound bites and talking points rather than substantive thought to manipulate the people into supporting them.
By Scott on Jan 31, 2008 | Reply
Justin said: “Labels are ridiculous.”
Come on now, Justin. You are the king of labels: socialist, fascist, etc. I’ve heard you lob a few
I think we have a pretty healthy history of fringe candidates that have good things to say that never are able to break through to the mainstream. Justin’s comments about the constitution have merit but it is part of a much bigger question of whether the constitution is a static or dynamic document. Scalian Originalism hasn’t caught on for a reason. There is more to it than just original intent. You have to consider 200+ years of court decisions, public expectations and values and not just the original text. (Sound familiar?)
I reject Paul because I disagree sharply with libertarianism, not because I’m prone to sound bites.
Nevertheless, there is much too the idea of nuance that I think is true. I had a lengthy discussion with someone yesterday on how my views have changed in recent years. (She stated that I had done a 180 where in reality it is a 360. I did vote for Dukakis in ‘88) Much of that swing back to the left is because of my rejection of the originalism of a black and white world.
By Jonathan on Jan 31, 2008 | Reply
I must repent/backpedal a little. McCain was hard to take in the debate last night.
By Scott on Jan 31, 2008 | Reply
I didn’t see the debate. What was it that bugged you?
By Jonathan on Jan 31, 2008 | Reply
Scott,
I watched about the last 3rd because my wife insisted (I was busy catching up on a backlog of Tivo’d Daily Show/Colbert Report). Lisa can’t stand McCain and was providing commentary. The whole extended segment was about did he (Romney) or did he not ever advocate a “date certain” for withdrawal from Iraq. As Paul pointed out, it was a petty quibble in the minutiae instead of the real over-arching issues. And McCain was right there in the middle of the silliness making such a big deal and parsing Romney’s words and claiming they meant something that Romney says they didn’t.
It was unpleasant all the way around and I was seeing clearly the negatives that you and my wife had been saying about McCain. You and Lisa might get along. She started out supporting Edwards too.
By Scott on Jan 31, 2008 | Reply
I really struggle with a McCain presidency, as I mentioned yesterday. I see a great deal of capitulation and a clinging to the Bush War Doctrine for better or worse. And it bothers me greatly that it seems to be working. His position on other issues and his past as a maverick is not enough to mitigate those concerns for me.
By Politics & Culture on Jan 31, 2008 | Reply
McCain is candidate for the Republican establishment. Previous “establishment” candidates were Gerald Ford in 1976 and Bob Dole in 1996. The only one with a chance of defeating HRC or BO is Romney. So if the GOP nominates McCain, they will get what they deserve in November.
This just in: Obama was the Most Liberal Senator in 2007.
By Belinda on Jan 31, 2008 | Reply
Justin, yes, to some degree, I would have a different opinon of Hillary if she had apologized (like Edwards). I still don’t think she’d be my first choice though. I have the mental picture of Bill and Poppa Bush hand in hand and don’t like it at all. Something along the lines of “sleeping with the enemy.” John Edwards seemed to have the best ideas and the right focus. He was simply overshadowed - much like you feel Dr. Paul is. Justin, maybe we’re more alike than we realize. Scary huh?
By Scott on Jan 31, 2008 | Reply
Bill and GHWB were working together for a humanitarian cause. I have a hard time viewing that as sleeping with the enemy but working together for the common good as we are supposed to.
By Robin on Jan 31, 2008 | Reply
I did not see the debates last night except for one clip of McCain and Romney bickering. It was not pretty. Well, I hope you all can figure out who you want for president. At this point, I am not voting since there is no candidate that I want in the office. Maybe that will change, but I doubt it. Good luck picking between all the libs.
By Jonathan on Jan 31, 2008 | Reply
P & C said:
Shocking!
As Justin already mentioned, that just means that he is equivalent to a moderate “social democrat” in Europe and too conservative for much of the rest of humanity.
“Who wants to be like the European a-holes?!?” retort is registered and is unnecessary unless someone is just looking to boost his/her comment total.
We’ve already discussed one church/politics parallel today: a diversity of opinion on how to interpret and apply the ancient documents. This is another…liberal/conservative in politics is parallel to liberal/conservative or progressive/traditional in church. These are convenient labels that carry little substance, grossly oversimplify the real nuance, but are particularly useful for demonizing he who has a different perspective than I, establishing who the enemy is, and suppressing any impulse towards unity, community, commonality.
By Scott on Jan 31, 2008 | Reply
From CNN:
Responding to the study, Obama spokesman Bill Burton said, “Only in Washington can you get falsely attacked for being like Reagan one week and labeled the most liberal the next. The tendency of Washington to apply a misleading label to every person and idea is just one of the many things we need to change about how things operate inside the beltway.”
The full study is set to be released in March. The National Journal also notes Sen. John McCain, who is criticized by conservatives for some of his positions, did not take enough votes last year to qualify for the survey.
By Scott on Jan 31, 2008 | Reply
Jonathan hits on the church parallel. We need a report like this on ministers in the COC. Who is the most liberal preacher out there? Most conservative?
By Jonathan on Jan 31, 2008 | Reply
tree-hugging universalists are among the most liberal by definition
By Jonathan on Jan 31, 2008 | Reply
I was recently helping a friend figure out how to play one of your podcasts on her computer and heard a little bit of one of your sermons. I must admit that I was unprepared for the southern accent. Admittedly, I’m from NC and went to school in TN and know you’ve spent your days in AR, TX, etc, but still I was somehow surprised.
By Scott on Jan 31, 2008 | Reply
redemptive reconciliationist
But, touche.
And yeah. I’m a hick.
By Jonathan on Jan 31, 2008 | Reply
we’ve already established accuracy is not an essential quality for the use of labels
By Robin on Jan 31, 2008 | Reply
I couldn’t get the podcast to play - do I have so have certain software?
By Jonathan on Jan 31, 2008 | Reply
If the flash player doesn’t work for you in your browser, go here:
http://sfreeman.podomatic.com/
right click the download link for a given podcast and save the mp3 to your desktop and then open the mp3 with Windows Media Player
By Politics & Culture on Jan 31, 2008 | Reply
Hey, I was just pointing out something I found on the interwebs…..
I’m an unapologetic conservative/libertarian. But I happen to like Obama a lot more than Billary (and many other Demeecrats).
By Justin on Jan 31, 2008 | Reply
Man, I’m gonna have to work hard to keep my lead.
By Jonathan on Jan 31, 2008 | Reply
yep