Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

John Edwards: Democratic Pitchman

If you visit the Web site of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee this week, you'll be greeted by the large smiling face of a man who is neither a senator nor a candidate for office -- John Edwards.

Of course, Edwards is a former senator from North Carolina and, more recently, a failed candidate for president. Now that he has some free time (he appeared last week on The Tonight Show), Edwards is lending his star power (and the glow of those incredibly white teeth) to the DSCC's fundraising efforts. "51 SEATS ARE NOT ENOUGH," Edwards informs visitors to the site, asking them to pony up a contribution to the committee.

Edwards also sent out an e-mail pitch for the DSCC last week, saying, "The task in front of us is to help the DSCC build a fundraising advantage now, so that we can give Democratic candidates across the country the support they need in the frantic months ahead. Give today, and your contribution will be matched by a group of Democratic Senators, effectively tripling your contribution."

The DSCC had been doing pretty well even before Edwards offered up his help. Through Feb. 29, the committee had raised $64.1 million this cycle and had $32.8 million in the bank. In contrast the National Republican Senatorial Committee had raised $39.3 million and had $15.3 million on hand.

Edwards certainly brings some fundraising power to the table. Even though he wasn't able to stay in the race, his presidential campaign raised $52 million through the end of February, and he proved to be popular among liberal Democrats and netroots denizens.

Yet while Edwards is now willing to help the DSCC raise money, he hasn't actually opened his own wallet in quite a while. His presidential campaign hasn't given a cent to any other Democratic candidates or party committees. Same with his PAC, the One America Committee, which hasn't made a single contribution to another candidate since 2004 despite raising $187,000 this cycle and $2.8 million in the 2006 cycle. The last time Edwards really stepped up to help the party financially was all the way back in the 2002 cycle, when his PAC made $193,000 in contributions to other Democrats.

But maybe his fundraising pitch for the DSCC is a sign Edwards is turning over a new leaf. His presidential campaign does still have $5 million in the bank (though he also has $5.9 million in debt), and the committee -- and the Democratic Senate candidates it works to elect -- probably wouldn't mind getting their hands on some of it.

By Ben Pershing  |  March 24, 2008; 5:09 PM ET
Categories:  2008 Campaign  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Can McCain Save Sen. Sununu?
Next: About That New Ethics Office...

Comments

After reading this piece I see that the Post continues it's tradition of writing anti-Edwards opinion pieces that they pretend is news.

Posted by: Patty Morlan | March 24, 2008 6:02 PM | Report abuse

Oh Lord...I wish we had the chance to do the primaries over!

Posted by: Maddie In Florida | March 24, 2008 6:24 PM | Report abuse

America......don't you wish now that you hadn't listened to all those smear comments and noticed the Marginalizing of JRE and just voted and made JRE the Nominee??


I know I wish you had!!

Posted by: Deborah63 | March 24, 2008 7:16 PM | Report abuse

TOO LATE, DUMBOCRATS.

If you would have nominated John Edwards, you would have had more than SIXTY SEATS in the Senate after November.

Now, with a "CLINTON" or a "HUSSEIN", you will once again be in the minority in the Senate.

No matter who they bring out to help them, "CLINTON" and "HUSSEIN" at the top of the ticket is going to kill Congressional Democrats in November, like I tried to warn them FOR THE PAST YEAR.

It's over.

Posted by: framecop | March 24, 2008 7:28 PM | Report abuse

Would it have made you happier if his teeth were yellow and crooked? Old habits obviously die hard at the WashPost.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 24, 2008 8:01 PM | Report abuse

Wow, yet another attack on Edwards. Of course you can't waste your precious media time talking about the failing economy and the recession that Edwards predicted. Ignore and mock the only candidate astute enough to recognize the economic free for all we're in and attack him for *not* using his PAC money to buy favors (like Obama and Clinton do). And keep on giving John McCain a pass on not knowing anything about the economy, the difference between Iran and Al Qaeda, and being a big old hypocrite about Bush's tax cuts for the rich. You and your "journalist" brethren are a disgrace.

Posted by: Keri | March 24, 2008 10:19 PM | Report abuse

What a petty little piece, and hardly original. Apparently Mr. Pershing cribs his material from Chris Cilizza circa 2006. To wit: the star power Edwards brings to the DSCC (Leno did want him on his show, after all) is worth nothing; instead, Mr. Pershing wants Edwards to sign over his remaining campaign money - and never mind the vendors to whom the campaign is $900,000 in debt, a minor point to Mr. Pershing, who has no more aptitude for financial management than he has for "journalism."

Posted by: Sherry | March 24, 2008 10:21 PM | Report abuse

OK, so the Democrat Senate Campaign has more money than the Republican Senate campaign. But it's not like the Republican Congressional Campaign, which raised millions but thanks to Christopher Ward can barely pay its service fees at the bank.

Posted by: CapitalCat | March 24, 2008 11:00 PM | Report abuse

Why are Mr. Pershing and the Washington Post still afraid of John Edwards?

Wouldn't the public be better served by articles about the people who are actually campaigning?

This is a total waste of bandwidth and not worthy of space on any "news" site.

I know it's a crazy idea, but how about reporting on actual news or asking questions of the folks in the race vs. writing about an old email received by millions of people.

Posted by: Pat | March 24, 2008 11:26 PM | Report abuse

Framcop wrote:TOO LATE, DUMBOCRATS.

Its idiots like you that voted Bush into office Twice! What a moron Repubatard you are! Haaaah haaaa!

Posted by: Ceci | March 24, 2008 11:55 PM | Report abuse

The Washington Post, like most of the corporate media, just can't help themselves, can they. By lack of positive media attention and talking more about haircuts than poverty, they sunk the campaign of the most substantive agent for change, and the most electable candidate, in the Democratic field. Now the gratuitous slaps have just become second nature even when the need to protect the the $6 billion market cap of The Washington Post Co. has passed.

Posted by: MikeM | March 24, 2008 11:57 PM | Report abuse

say, i got those emails too, and can someone from the post or anyone, i heard from someone in edwards' camp that he had nothing to do with the emails. could they be using his image without permission? that would be pretty brazen.

it's true as another commenter pointed out, edwards would have been the best for our party. the country needed and wanted a true progressive president, but we were apparently too star-struck to see it.

Posted by: kenshin | March 25, 2008 12:15 AM | Report abuse

Ceci said: "Framcop wrote:TOO LATE, DUMBOCRATS.

Its idiots like you that voted Bush into office Twice! What a moron Repubatard you are! Haaaah haaaa!"

Actually, IDIOT, I've never voted for a Republican in my life, and I never will.

Just like most Americans WON'T vote for "CLINTON" or "HUSSEIN" in November.

You idiots blew it again by getting suckered by the media AWAY FROM JOHN EDWARDS two elections in a row.

They told you Dean was a phenomenon, YOU FOOLS flocked to Dean.

They turned on Dean and claimed that Kerry was the most electable, YOU FOOLS flocked to Kerry.

Then in 2007/2008, they screamed "CLINTON V. OBAMA" from day one, and YOU FOOLS flocked to those two.

You idiots will never learn.

Posted by: Ceci | March 25, 2008 12:15 AM | Report abuse

Ceci said: "Framcop wrote:TOO LATE, DUMBOCRATS.

Its idiots like you that voted Bush into office Twice! What a moron Repubatard you are! Haaaah haaaa!"

Actually, IDIOT, I've never voted for a Republican in my life, and I never will.

Just like most Americans WON'T vote for "CLINTON" or "HUSSEIN" in November.

You idiots blew it again by getting suckered by the media AWAY FROM JOHN EDWARDS two elections in a row.

They told you Dean was a phenomenon, YOU FOOLS flocked to Dean.

They turned on Dean and claimed that Kerry was the most electable, YOU FOOLS flocked to Kerry.

Then in 2007/2008, they screamed "CLINTON V. OBAMA" from day one, and YOU FOOLS flocked to those two.

You idiots will never learn.

Posted by: framecop | March 25, 2008 12:16 AM | Report abuse

Why did Edwards ever leave the race? This seems unclear. Yes, he was running about 10% but that percent of the Convention delegates would be something now.

Posted by: Caller | March 25, 2008 12:45 AM | Report abuse

Obama so-called race speech - was not a "speech for the ages." Rather, it was a politically expedient attempt to divert attention from the real issue, which is not race relations at all, but rather Sen. Obama's judgment, or the lack thereof, with respect to the inflammatory and polemical views expressed by his pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Sen. Obama has made a touchstone of his campaign for the presidency that it is not so much experience that counts, but rather judgment. While experience is much more important than he would have the electorate believe, he is right to focus on judgment as a critical factor in the determination as to whom should be our next president. If Sen. Obama is the Democratic nominee, as he very well may be, then voters in November should ask themselves not how good his speech was, but rather what kind of judgment has he actually exhibited with respect to the deeply divisive views of the Rev. Wright.

Posted by: Obama Wright Scandal | March 25, 2008 3:22 AM | Report abuse

It's amazing how people throw around references to an "Obama-Wright scandal". I keep looking and I don't see anything except a mainstream black prophetic preacher and an insightful presidential candidate.
Those who are shocked by what Wright says need to visit a black church and actually listen to their sentiments for once. Those who question Obama's judgement need to read his book and really sit down and listen to his speech. Ignorance is bliss, but stop criticizing people you don't know.

Posted by: FLRepublican | March 25, 2008 4:58 AM | Report abuse

to all of you that long for edwards, you can still cast a write in vote for him...exercise your choice...

Posted by: dwight | March 25, 2008 7:48 AM | Report abuse

Do they teach even rudimentary economics to journalism students? Let's see, if I have $5 million in the bank and $5.9 million in debts, how much of that $5 million should I give away? Just asking.

Posted by: Peter | March 25, 2008 8:30 AM | Report abuse

Oh, didn't you hear? Edwards is out of the race--no need to beat him down anymore. We read this from the media all through his campaign--"technically we agree with his point, and he has been exemplary in fighting his cause for more than a few years, but you gotta admit, he ain't Obama."

Can't we all get over ourselves and admit that what he's asking for is a reasonable goal for the democratic party without severely attacking his integrity?

Posted by: Alex | March 25, 2008 8:37 AM | Report abuse

Every day I loose more and more respect for the Washington Post.

What happened to journalistic standards? Actual news? Unbiased reporting?

Hey Ben Pershing- I hear the National Enquirer is hiring. You're perfect for the job.

Posted by: omelas | March 25, 2008 8:49 AM | Report abuse

Since she's still in the race and won't catch him with the amount of delegates left, her only hope is that he wrecks his nomination with a scandal, or that she's selected at the Convention. So, if the votes don't count, can we ask then that Edwards or any of the other ones come back and wait in the wings as well?

Posted by: alreds | March 25, 2008 9:11 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Pershing - was there some deadline you had to meet? Looks like you saw the DSCC website and then decided to throw in some irrelevent statistics about the NRSC and then bash Edwards a little bit. Did this article take what, five minutes to write?

Posted by: Testing123 | March 25, 2008 9:27 AM | Report abuse

Yet another media wannabe sniping at some imagined and superficial flaw of John Edwards'. Why do so many "news" personnel sound more like extras from teen drama queen movies like Heathers and Mean Girls? Honestly, Mr. Pershing, you may have the mentality and emotional maturity of an adolescent girl, but please don't insult the American people by assuming that we are similarly handicapped.

Which, of course, begs the question: Why is the dissemination of information in our society given over to people who are nothing more than glorified teen drama queens? Could this be the reason that the United States is circling the drain economically, politically, and socially?

Posted by: Ragua | March 25, 2008 10:22 AM | Report abuse

JOHN EDWARDS, THE SHOULD BE PRESIDENT!

Posted by: MARTA | March 25, 2008 10:31 AM | Report abuse

The big question is: How do we get Edwards back into the race? He could win it all in a walk.

Posted by: RA Melder | March 25, 2008 10:35 AM | Report abuse

Maybe Edwards could be a running mate to the eventual winner of the nomination, if they don't kill each other. I wish Edwards would come out with his choice for leader along with Al Gore. There has to be an end to this madness.

Check out the cartoon in the Toronto Globe and Mail. It is the best succinct analysis of the election campaign to date:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/v5/images/newspaper/20080325/cartoon-600.png

Posted by: DH | March 25, 2008 10:44 AM | Report abuse

Thank God success doesn't go straight to the "head" of the class in all occupations. It is unfortunate that the highly successful journalists are so cocky they feel a distinct need to participate in shaping our government. Guess it would not be too bad if they knew what they were talking about but most journalists are influenced by their ability to brown nose their way into the world of the rich and famous rather than remain with average folks who still believe that truth is stronger than fiction.

Posted by: PJay Amadio | March 25, 2008 10:46 AM | Report abuse

Folks..if the members had looked at which candidate actually had ideas, plans and realized what the real problems our country faces...and not be rushing headlong to "make history" John Edwards would have swept every caucus and every primary and nearly duplicate that commanding performance in Nov...Every substantive issue that hrc and BHO are triumphing today were stands JRE made since 2006..the remaining ones have both liberally taken from JRE's positions on healthcare, the war, Veterans treatment and dismissal from the sitting jerk and his accomplices..Women's and children's financial struggle..poverty in America..jobs lost in the hundreds of thousands..corporate welfare and greed...The DISAPPEARING MIDDLE CLASS...the assault on Unionized workers.. the gaping difference in the average workers pay and the obscene millions heaped upon CEO's with multi-million dollar bonuses with poor to terrible results from their'leadership'..The assaults on pension plans..corporate takeovers and ransacking/looting the workers hard earned and rightful benefits of a defined pension plan, health insurance..even stripping of sick days and slashing vacation time too..
Sadly we all have to share the blame, some for not getting John's message heard everywhere and often...others that were too distracted to learn and those that heard and couldn't recognize the average woman or man were ignoring their true best hope..The press is equally if not more so at fault for the coverage and public proclamation of the "historic implications" raised into the campaigns..literally bypassing John and his prophetic message...We will all suffer for our minimalizing of his voice..JRE who never spoke ill of an opponent...never took lobbyist money..took an oath to not engage in dirty politics..stood for every man woman and child..America we put aside our best champion so we could "make history" regardless of what we have to sacrifice to do so...
That saddens me.. ..what could have been

Posted by: not2dumb | March 25, 2008 11:03 AM | Report abuse

Caller wrote "Why did Edwards ever leave the race? This seems unclear. Yes, he was running about 10% but that percent of the Convention delegates would be something now."

He was pushed. The Washington Post isn't the only institution who's afraid of him, it's highly likely the Democratic party is as well. Yet it doesn't hesitate to borrow his photo and name to raise money for other candidates.

Mr. Pershing, you can't believe everything you see. Mr. Edwards hasn't necessarily condoned this use of his name and photo, or these emails. He would be by far the best person to clean up the mess of the past 8 years but the party just wants to use him.

Posted by: Noracharles1995 | March 25, 2008 11:13 AM | Report abuse

Edwards has run two presidential campaigns on the same theme and has won exactly one primary in the process. Both campaigns started with a second place finish in Iowa and then fizzled.

Between the presidential campaigns he was the vice-presidential candidate enlisted by John Kerry to help the ticket in the South. Bush ended up winning all the Southern states by similar or greater margins than he did in 2000. Edwards was relegated to speaking in the backwaters and had an embarassingly poor showing in a debate with Cheney. I bet Kerry wishes he could have taken a mulligan on the Edwards selection.

Everyone except the DNC seems to realize that Edwards is a lightweight and a phony.

Posted by: daniel hancock | March 25, 2008 11:19 AM | Report abuse

Has the Washington Post become a Fox News Agency in the Politico? I can't believe I took the time to read all these posts! John Edwards is a decent man. Barack Obama (who cares what his middle name is!!!!), and Hilliary Clinton are decent people. I hope a democrat becomes our next president. We can't go wrong with any of these people. Suck it up, stop complaining, and stop the HATE!!!

Posted by: Deb | March 25, 2008 12:08 PM | Report abuse

I am a strong Edwards supporter also and am continually amazed at the media fear of Edwards. This election really showcased the corporate hold on our media for me, when Edwards could only get bad press or be ignored. He was America's best hope and we have been denied by the corporate controlled press. I haven't watched msm since he was forced out. I HAVE stopped purchasing as much as possible from large corporations, opting for small local businesses as much as possible. I started to vote with my wallet and it has been very satisfying, as well as showing my friends and family how to do it as well. We are healthier and happier as a result.

Posted by: jeanruss | March 25, 2008 12:49 PM | Report abuse

This is news? As a strong Dem, I get email daily from DSCC or DCCC to raise funds - why not? And virtually every Dem luminary lends his/her name to an appeal. Today it Madeleine Albright - just an example of how wide the doors swings open for fund raising appeals. Bottom line: Edwards lending his name and smile to raise funds is no big deal. Why act like it is? Hmmm...

Posted by: Doug in ABQ | March 25, 2008 1:47 PM | Report abuse

I can't believe that Edwards is still getting the same treatment by the press that Gore got in 2000. Give the man a break. He is no longer running. Thanks to you and others like Maurene Dowd, we have missed the opportunity to have two great Democratic presidents.

Posted by: jib | March 25, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

hey, jib - do the math here. ms. dowd has one vote in the booth, "you" has has the same number, and "others like you" is too broad to define so i'll ignore the generality unless you have some hard data to declare the number of voters "you" and ms. dowd fooled. in the meantime, at last count, i think clinton and obama had more than two votes.

Posted by: shabbycynic | March 25, 2008 3:03 PM | Report abuse

The corporate media is still obviously threatened by John Edwards--how else to explain this story demeaning Edwards' attempts to help his party in the upcoming Congressional elections? Unbelievable!

Edwards has campaigned for progressive candidates and progressive issues for years--campaigning for Ned Lamont in 2006, and helping to get minimum wage initiatives passed in six states. He is now carrying the torch for his party once again by supporting the DSCC(BTW: How can he contribute $ when he has $5 million on hand and owes $5.9 million?)

Independent watchdog groups and observers have long noted the corporate media's scant and negative treatment of Edwards:

http://journalism.org/node/8196

http://www.freepress.net/news/30321

Corporations like the Washington Post Corporation, affilliated with other corporate giants like MSNBC, NBC, and Microsoft, are now playing the role of "king makers" in our society and virtually determine our nominees with the amount and tone of their media coverage--McCain and Obama have received the lion's share of coverage, most of it overwhelmingly positive. Edwards was the most progressive and the most electable, and the corporate media knew it...thus their shabby treatment of him.

We need drastic media reform--We need to adopt a system like that of England and France, whereby all candidates during an election cycle get equal air time and a governmental agency monitors this--after all, by law, the airwaves are public property.

We need to let the voters determine our nominees--not the corporate media.

Posted by: Kathy | March 25, 2008 3:03 PM | Report abuse

"The corporate media is still obviously threatened by John Edwards--how else to explain this story demeaning Edwards' attempts to help his party in the upcoming Congressional elections? Unbelievable"

I agree with this comment 100%. I am a strong Edwards Democrat, and I am sorry to continue to read about the corporate media still attempting to marginalize John Edwards. He was the best candidate, either Democrat or Republican for our country at this time. What is it going to take for us, all of us, to realize that we are in deep trouble, economically, politically, socially, and morally??

John Edwards was out best hope!! Now, I have to agree with Jay Leno, when he says "you get the President you deserve".

Posted by: Marta | March 25, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

John Edwards was, is, and always will be a true leader. That is why sniveling followers in the MSM, who never had an original idea in their lives, fear him.

His plans and his platform have always been carefully and thoughtfully crafted and yet he also showed quick thinking on his feet (the call to speak to Musharraf after the Bhutto assasination is just one example).

I would feel so much better with him at the helm of the ship knowing that over 30 leading economists endorsed him as we sail the treacherous waters of a national recession now. But sadly, too many people are completely swayed by money and media and juvenile journalism and now our best hope for the president is out of the picture. FOR THE SECOND TIME!!!

Posted by: Rosy Baldwin | March 25, 2008 3:56 PM | Report abuse

How petty can the Washington Post be?

Down ticket candidates need every bit of help we can muster, and I thank John Edwards for doing the necessary asking on their behalf. I so wish he were going to be the candidate!

Karita Hummer

Posted by: Karita Hummer | March 25, 2008 7:10 PM | Report abuse

Washington Post sure can be petty and biased. What is Ben Pershing's problem? I decided to give some money to the DSCC just to say that I firmly support Edwards's agenda. I have been rejecting previous DSCC appeals because of their corporatist agenda. When they say they will match my donations threefold, I know it is with corporatist donations.

The media manipulated us into George Bush, now it seems to be manipulating us into John McCain. The media have totally lost my trust.

Posted by: CyberCitizen | March 25, 2008 7:42 PM | Report abuse

John Edwards was my choice. When he left the race, I really thought Obama was a breath of fresh air, now it appears that air is very sour, indeed. He sat through that preachers hate, week after week, so we now know the true nature of Obama. He was my choice, now I would never vote for him and I hope a lot of Americans feel the same. It is fortunate we have been given this incite, before the election.

Posted by: Dene Belden | March 25, 2008 8:04 PM | Report abuse

Edward should count only fifty: LIE-berman is a defacto Repuglican.

Posted by: Shag | March 25, 2008 9:48 PM | Report abuse

You want to know why the media is still tearing down Edwards?

Because they are HAUNTED by the idea that if they release their full fury on Clinton or Obama, LIKE THEY WANT TO, that somehow, John Edwards would be the fallback candidate for the Democrats.

Even though he's already out of the race, EDWARDS is still somewhat of a firewall against and all out CORPORATE MEDIA onslaught against Clinton and Obama, and the media can't stand it.

The media resents Edwards because of the media's own fears of him.

And for those who keep talking about how many primaries someone has "WON," no one "WINS" squat!!!

Stop letting the media frame everything, you clueless idiots.

The goal is to try to GET PEOPLE TO VOTE FOR YOU.

The problem is most people vote BASED ON WHAT THEY HEAR ON TELEVISION ABOUT YOU because that's where most voters get their info/exposure from.

None of the candidates control that, and all of them are at the mercy of it.

The day that Obama entered the race, Edwards was done for because the media was ONLY ONLY ONLY going to hype "CLINTON v. OBAMA" and marginalize all of the other candidates, including Edwards.

People didn't turn on our televisions all of 2007 to "CLINTON v. OBAMA v. EDWARDS" headlines.

The headlines were all "CLINTON v. OBAMA," and they were that way by design.

Posted by: framecop | March 25, 2008 10:31 PM | Report abuse

The Post was pathetic in covering the candidates earlier. Substance was lacking. As many posted above, Edwards didn't get a fair shake. Reporters and their editors were gleeful over making it a woman vs. black race.

Now, instead of some substance, it's more of the fluff BS about the candidates, and a gratuitous crack at Edwards.

And the media wonders why they are held in such low regard . . .

Posted by: InKentucky | March 25, 2008 10:35 PM | Report abuse

Apparently the Washington Post has jumped on the spineless bandwagon of trashing John Edwards yet again. John is taking positive action and continues to do so throughout his life and for his country, not himself. Clearly this writer doesn't know of what he writes - but only goes with the Main Stream... Do your homework Ben!
Our country lost a great opportunity for a better future when John left the race. I only hope he can continue to influence the presidential campaign and our country with keeping the issues alive that HE brought to the forefront!

Posted by: lataet | March 25, 2008 11:23 PM | Report abuse

Daniel Hancock writes Edwards "had an embarassingly poor showing in a debate with Cheney."
I gather this is Mr. Hancock's opinion. It is not; however, fact. The majority of polls released immediately after the debate rated Edwards' performance very favorably.

It is true that Edwards on the ticket did not help Kerry in the South. It was the wrong ticket. There were problems between the Kerry/Edwards machines from the beginning; Kerry was swiftboated; and Kerry ended up being an ineffectual campaigner.

While I fully support Mr. Hancock's right to his opinion, it is my belief that objective analysis of Mr. Edwards public life clearly indicates he is no political "lightweight".

Posted by: Rob Hanke | March 26, 2008 12:00 AM | Report abuse

Mean comments about John Edwards will get you no where, he's beautiful in his heart and soul in addition to his nice white teeth. Sounds like jealously as usual. LEAVE JOHN EDWARDS ALONE.

Posted by: Lee | March 26, 2008 12:44 AM | Report abuse

Edwards, I recall, spent some of his own money to help victims of subprime loans loaned out by Fortress.

Posted by: OklahomaVoter | March 26, 2008 2:09 AM | Report abuse

If the main stream media had done their jobs and vetted all the candidates instead of falling in love with one of them ,maybe John Would still be in the race cnn ignored him like he was invisible
don't let the media elect the next president .Do you think if we had heard about Rev Wright last yr Obama would still be in the race?

Posted by: maggie | March 26, 2008 10:20 AM | Report abuse

If the main stream media had done their jobs and vetted all the candidates instead of falling in love with one of them ,maybe John Would still be in the race cnn ignored him like he was invisible
don't let the media elect the next president .Do you think if we had heard about Rev Wright last yr Obama would still be in the race?

Posted by: maggie | March 26, 2008 10:20 AM | Report abuse

It is because of you and the almighty punditocracy that Edwards' campaign could not get their message out! All of you took it upon yourself to anoint either Obama or Clinton as the only candidates. Shame on you and the rest of your fellow blowhards for having nothing of substance to actually say!

Posted by: Jo Ann | March 26, 2008 10:44 AM | Report abuse

Clearly, this article is opinion-minded and not objective journalism. I was an Edwards supporter from the beginning and still am now. John Edwards was able to rise above al of this garbage [that Hillary and Barack are slinging back and forth] and actually talk about the issues that are the most important to average Americans. The media have never given equal coverage to all candidates, and citizens have constantly fallen for the coverage-hook, line, and sinker.

Posted by: fanatic | March 26, 2008 12:29 PM | Report abuse

I'm a former Edwards supporter and I don't think the Post was biased against Edwards simply because they wrote about the inconsistencies in his record. It is true that Edwards doesn't have a very progressive voting record to back up his populist rhetoric. He has always been a centrist. This isn't bias...it's good reporting. It would be biased for them to say that he hasn't exercised any leadership in his unwillingness to endorse. So I'll say it:

John Edwards is a calculating politician more interested in his own accumulation of power than in articulating principles or promoting the candidacies of progressive politicians.

Posted by: Jeremy | March 26, 2008 12:48 PM | Report abuse

This is the worst presidental election I have witnessed and I have witnessed many.
The press, about all, ignored John Edwards
and all they could talk about was the 1st. black and the 1st. woman. The worst I could hear about Edwards[by Bill O'Reilly
and his gang] was Edwards paying $400 for a haircut. Now look what a choice we have.
I hope the Super Delegates do their job. This is a case for the reason they exist.

Posted by: Bob Peters | March 26, 2008 1:29 PM | Report abuse

If Obaman gets the nod he will lose big time for the the Demos, Nader and his VP wil make a big hole in his bid, The Jew citizens have Isarel, America whites Britain , African citizens will have Kenaya to Arm.....double OO

Posted by: Raul | March 26, 2008 3:41 PM | Report abuse

If Obaman gets the nod he will lose big time for the the Demos, Nader and his VP wil make a big hole in his bid, The Jew citizens have Isarel, America whites Britain , African citizens will have Kenaya to Arm.....double OO

Posted by: Raul | March 26, 2008 3:41 PM | Report abuse

If Obaman gets the nod he will lose big time for the the Demos, Nader and his VP wil make a big hole in his bid, The Jew citizens have Isarel, America whites Britain , African citizens will have Kenaya to Arm.....double OO

Posted by: Raul | March 26, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

If Obaman gets the nod he will lose big time for the the Demos, Nader and his VP wil make a big hole in his bid, The Jew citizens have Isarel, America whites Britain , African citizens will have Kenaya to Arm.....double OO

Posted by: Raul | March 26, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

If Obaman gets the nod he will lose big time for the the Demos, Nader and his VP wil make a big hole in his bid, The Jew citizens have Isarel, America whites Britain , African citizens will have Kenaya to Arm.....double OO

Posted by: Raul | March 26, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Surprised by the Edward campers, seems many quite bitter but then their choice cnadidate has done little to defuse such anyway. Sorry JE folks, he did NOT prevail and hence is the voters to date HAVE made different choices. Seems Edwards can busy himself with MANY public service areas, the choice is his and could likely do better than if had slipped into the WH as CIC. Hope he and his family are doing well, more hope/prayerful for ELizabeth and her medical battles. (Frankly, thought EE would have made an EXCELLENT CANDIDATE...think she would have been a better first fem offering than the one we have presently !!! )

Posted by: Bozzy | March 26, 2008 7:31 PM | Report abuse

Rob Hanke disagrees with my assessment that Edwards had a poor showing in the vice presidential debate with Cheney and cites poll results.

If my memory serves me right, some polls did actually show Edwards winning but he was debating one of the most unpopular political figures of our time and if Cheney had debated a vacuum cleaner, there would be polls showing that thirty-four percent thought the vacuum cleaner won.

I must note Edwards never mentioned the debate while he was running in 2008 and never used any clips from it in any of his advertisements. In fact, Edwards rarely mentions the 2004 vice-presidential campaign at all. Evidently he does not think that he had a very good showing otherwise he would have promoted it more.

Edwards has had comparatively favorable coverage in both his races for president and has never gotten beyond the twelve percent of true believers such as Mr. Hanke. He is something like one for forty in presidential primaries and no matter how a person feels about Edwards, it is hard to put a positive spin on that.

Hopefully Edwards can find something constructive to do with the rest of his life rather than continuing to be a perennial candidate engaging in quixotic quests for the presidency.

Posted by: daniel hancock | March 26, 2008 9:40 PM | Report abuse

Although I don't agree with all of them, as a whole posts on this article are refreshingly intelligent and well-written. What a difference from the agonizingly ignorant posts I've seen following other political articles.

Posted by: Tim | March 27, 2008 2:47 AM | Report abuse

I want to see John Edwards step up and take a stand as a superdelegate and former candidate as Bill Richardson did. I imagine that he is holding his cards (and his supporters) close to his vest because he has ambitions to be appointed to either an Obama or Clinton cabinet. Mr. Edwards, do you truly not have a preference for one of the candidates? Do you truly think Mrs. Clinton can win - with her only option to win by the superdelegates going against the popular vote and pledged delegates? I would think that Mr. Edwards would remember that Mrs. Clinton did little to support the Kerry/Edwards ticket in 2004 to keep her options for 2008 alive. I want prominent voices in the party to speak up before the Clintons destroy the positive tone and momentum that will propel us to victory in the fall with an Obama v McCain match-up.

Posted by: bethechange1 | March 27, 2008 1:49 PM | Report abuse

I want to see John Edwards step up and take a stand as a superdelegate and former candidate as Bill Richardson did. I imagine that he is holding his cards (and his supporters) close to his vest because he has ambitions to be appointed to either an Obama or Clinton cabinet. Mr. Edwards, do you truly not have a preference for one of the candidates? Do you truly think Mrs. Clinton can win - with her only option to win by the superdelegates going against the popular vote and pledged delegates? I would think that Mr. Edwards would remember that Mrs. Clinton did little to support the Kerry/Edwards ticket in 2004 to keep her options for 2008 alive. I want prominent voices in the party to speak up before the Clintons destroy the positive tone and momentum that will propel us to victory in the fall with an Obama v McCain match-up.

Posted by: bethechange1 | March 27, 2008 1:49 PM | Report abuse

I want to see John Edwards step up and take a stand as a superdelegate and former candidate as Bill Richardson did. I imagine that he is holding his cards (and his supporters) close to his vest because he has ambitions to be appointed to either an Obama or Clinton cabinet. Mr. Edwards, do you truly not have a preference for one of the candidates? Do you truly think Mrs. Clinton can win - with her only option to win by the superdelegates going against the popular vote and pledged delegates? I would think that Mr. Edwards would remember that Mrs. Clinton did little to support the Kerry/Edwards ticket in 2004 to keep her options for 2008 alive. I want prominent voices in the party to speak up before the Clintons destroy the positive tone and momentum that will propel us to victory in the fall with an Obama v McCain match-up.

Posted by: bethechange1 | March 27, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

I want to see John Edwards step up and take a stand as a superdelegate and former candidate as Bill Richardson did. I imagine that he is holding his cards (and his supporters) close to his vest because he has ambitions to be appointed to either an Obama or Clinton cabinet. Mr. Edwards, do you truly not have a preference for one of the candidates? Do you truly think Mrs. Clinton can win - with her only option to win by the superdelegates going against the popular vote and pledged delegates? I would think that Mr. Edwards would remember that Mrs. Clinton did little to support the Kerry/Edwards ticket in 2004 to keep her options for 2008 alive. I want prominent voices in the party to speak up before the Clintons destroy the positive tone and momentum that will propel us to victory in the fall with an Obama v McCain match-up.

Posted by: bethechange1 | March 27, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

What are thse bloggers tallking about ? All Bill Clinton did after managing to lose both houses in Congress to the Gringrich-Lott leadership two years after taking office, was go on the fundraising trail giving speeches to potential donors. He had neither mandate nor the votes in Congress to do anything the Republicans didn't want,so he went raising money for the other Democratic Politicians to get back Congress? That's new ? The catfight between Clinton and Obama has jeopardized a golden opportunity to pick up many seats in Congress, especially with large numbers of old Republican congressman deciding its time to retire. That well may not happen. Like hubby Bill, Hillary considers herself to be the Second Coming and will sacrifice the rest of her party to obtain her obsessive goal of power. In Stupid Bill's case, he chose to lie, and play childish word games under oath, look straight in the camera and bold-face lie to us, the public and Congress. Sorry, Bill, you deserved what you got for doing that, not the extramarital stuff. If he actually just told the truth, gave a speech with a few artifcial tears in his eyes saying,"Aw shucks, I messed up, I'm sorry, the whole Monica-gate would have dissapated in a couple weeks. He may have had lost a few popularity points in polls, which he was incessantly obsessed with but could have won them back without difficulty.

The Slick Willie of old dissappeared then and after some of the really stupid things he has said in his wife's campaign, I think he seems more Stupid than Slick these days. Perhaps his outrage at being attacked and not worshipped by the politcians and public after that affair and his battle with heart disease from too much fatback and hog jowells have left the emotional part of his brain damaged. Hillary has utterly mismanaged her own campaign for the same reason :Arrogance. Expecting overwhelingly, people to worship simply because she, as always Bill's wife (for some unknown reason other than power) and she of course has a vagina rather than a penis. Not even the British Royalty has this degree of Arrogance. That darn, Obama, get back in your Rightful place in the woodshed where you belong. And stop raising more money than me, boy.

Posted by: KRitt from WA | March 27, 2008 2:09 PM | Report abuse

What are these bloggers tallking about ? All Bill Clinton did after managing to lose both long-held houses in Congress to the Gringrich-Lott leadership two years after taking office, was go on the fundraising trail giving speeches to potential donors. He had neither mandate nor the votes in Congress to do anything the Republicans didn't want,so he went raising money for the other Democratic politicians to get back Congress? That's new ? The catfight between Clinton and Obama has jeopardized a golden opportunity to pick up many seats in Congress, especially with large numbers of old Republican congressman deciding its time to retire. That well may not happen. Like hubby Bill, Hillary considers herself to be the Second Coming and will sacrifice the rest of her party to obtain her obsessive goal of power. In Stupid Bill's case, he chose to lie, and play childish word games under oath, look straight in the camera and bold-face lie to us, the public and Congress. Sorry, Bill, you deserved what you got for doing that, not the extramarital stuff. If he actually just told the truth, gave a speech with a few artifcial tears in his eyes saying, "Aw shucks, I messed up, I'm sorry," the whole Monica-gate would have dissapated in a couple weeks. It was great material for Saturday Night Live, though. He may have had lost a few popularity points in polls, which he was incessantly obsessed with but could have won them back without difficulty.

The Slick Willie of old dissappeared then and after some of the really stupid things he has said in his wife's campaign, I think he seems more Stupid than Slick these days. Perhaps his outrage at being attacked by the politcians and the public not worshipping after that affair and his battle with heart disease from too much fatback and hog jowells have left the emotional part of his brain damaged. Hillary has utterly mismanaged her own campaign for the same reason:Arrogance. Expecting overwhelingly for people to worship simply because she, as always Bill's wife (for some unknown reason other than power) and she of course has a vagina rather than a penis. Not even the British Royalty has this degree of Arrogance. She knew, from incessant polling and demographics, FL and Mi should go her way. She said nothing to the DNC when they tried to shift datesor after the DNC punished them. Only when these votes mattered, did her Majesty decide that people in MI and Fl were'victims' as if she had nothing to do with it.
"That darn, Obama, get back in the woodshed where you belong. And stop raising more money than me, boy. You're making me look bad in front of the peasants."
Also for other critical posters,this WAPO writer is running a blog, its not the front page headline and I do think Edward's actions, as the last VP on the Dem ticket and one who got quite a bit of support in the nonination process, deserves a little attention somewhere in the paper. But I guess, you don't read the rest of the WaPo, just the political junkie portion, which few others do in comparison with the front pages.

Posted by: KRitt from WA | March 27, 2008 2:48 PM | Report abuse

How much has the Obama campaign contributed to various Democratic candidates? It seems to me that he is the one who reaps the most in contributions. Of course, he also has the highest burn rate - $1.5M a day.

Posted by: old dem | March 27, 2008 8:03 PM | Report abuse

Edwards was my second choice after kucinich so it would be nice if he made a choice to endorse like Richardson and Dodd did. He may be still hoping that the mud wrestling match between Obamaniacs and Clintonites will cause a turn toward the white man on a white horse with white teeth to save the party and country.

Posted by: djw3505 | March 28, 2008 6:01 AM | Report abuse

How do you expect Edwards to give the Presidential campaign contributions away after it notes He owes more in debt than he has in the bank. John Edwards had the wrong people advising him in his campaign. I still think he was the best choise. Hillary is the most viable candidate to deal with all the leaders in this country and the world. BHO thinks he can lull people into a hipnotic state and do what he wants.

Posted by: American worker | March 28, 2008 6:20 PM | Report abuse

How do you expect Edwards to give the Presidential campaign contributions away after it notes He owes more in debt than he has in the bank. John Edwards had the wrong people advising him in his campaign. I still think he was the best choise. Hillary is the most viable candidate to deal with all the leaders in this country and the world. BHO thinks he can lull people into a hipnotic state and do what he wants.

Posted by: American worker | March 28, 2008 6:20 PM | Report abuse

You newspaper "people" seem to be hung up on Edwards' physical appearence. Hair, teeth.... Why mention his "incredibly white teeth"?
Do you all have a sort of "crush" on Edwards?
He would have made the best candidate, and would have, I believe, won the presidency.
Maybe four years from now.

Posted by: Ipak | April 2, 2008 10:40 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company