John Edwards' bad luck

Maybe announcing in late-December was not so beneficial after all.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton appeared on the cover of Newsweek.  They definitely are the favorites, sucking time out of each news cycle.  Knowing full well that Obama and Clinton will get doused with attention in January when they make up their minds, John Edwards and his advisers thought that announcing in December was the best strategic move possible.  Nothing else would be going on in the news, pretty much guaranteeing Edwards the headline news story for the rest of the week.

Not so!  If you have been watching the television lately, John Edwards has not been getting the exposure he had hoped.  A few other stories came out of nowhere and got in the way:

• Death of President Gerald Ford, and five days of mourning
• Death of James Brown
• Rosie vs Trump
• Denver snow storm
• Imminent execution of Saddam Hussein

All of those stories, not to mention Bush's deliberation about troop levels, are just more viewer-friendly than John Edwards' major decision.  Edwards currently does have the advantage in Iowa and Nevada, since he has campaigned there for the last two years since the '04 Kerry-Edwards defeat.  However, January and February will be difficult months for Edwards, as Obama and Hillary are expected to make presidential announcements.  Can Edwards stay relevant?

Comments

[Anonymous]

John Edwards co-sponsored the massive increase in H-1b visas that blew away tech as an upwardly mobile career for Americans - it's never recovered from this massive betrayal

He also favored benefits for illegal aliens, that drive down wages of our poorest americans

he voted for the iraq war, that send our poorer young people to their deaths in iraq

And he voted for the patriot act, which threatens the Consititution.

He's a first class jerk

[George]

I tend to agree with Anonymous. I like Edwards in theory but what has he ever actually done? He's become a career campaigner at this point. If anyone thinks he can stand eye to eye with Al Gore, for example, WAKE UP.

And bottom line (as is the case with a lot of others): he voted for the war. So basically he blew his biggest decision ever. If you support Edwards, you have to come to terms with this.

[Administrator: Todd]

I agree with a few things the person wrote. But if you ask me, those sound like Lou Dobbs talking points. What "benefits" is he talking about for illegal aliens? How do "benefits" for illegal aliens drive down wages for poor Americans? What actually drives down wages for lower Americans is when CEO's and board members of large firms receive millions worth of signing bonuses each Christmas season, while lower employees get zip.
http://www.suntimes.com/business/181569,CST-NWS-bonusside21.article

No one disagrees that we should enforce security at our borders. But to say that all illegal immigrants are driving down wages is absurd. Many of these migrant workers are doing the work that many Americans won't do -- and are providing a valuable service to our economy. If there is a major problem that is caused by illegal immigration, it is identity theft. But many of these people have lived in the United States for an entire generation, and are following the law. John Edwards said quite clearly yesterday that illegal immigrants should have to pay a fine in order to work towards citizenship. Isn't that fair?

I am sure though that Edwards lacks some substance. But does he really lack more substance than Bush did in 2000? I doubt it. Edwards has traveled the world, and worked hard over the last two years. The politicians, on the other hand, have just been sitting there talking about doing things, while Edwards actually HAS doing them.

I'm probably not going to endorse Edwards (unless something major changes). But as of now, you have to admit that he thinks outside the box. He's not an establishment type. Isn't that a good thing?

There is obviously a down-side in every candidate, including Edwards. But remember, he stopped being a trial lawyer when he ran for the Senate in 1998, following the death of his son, Wade. That was almost 10 years ago. He at least deserves a chance.

And believe it or not, I think Hillary Clinton deserves a chance too. Yes, she voted for the war, voted for the Patriot Act, and can act authoritarian at times -- but she is one smart ladie! She could have gone on to bigger and better things, but decided to stay with her man when he went into teaching. If anything, Bill has held her back. It's not the other way around, as the media likes to portray.

Also, about Edwards, it takes balls to admit that you are wrong -- especially for a politician! He said he was wrong about Iraq. There's no Doc Brown around who can go back in the past to change his vote on the war. He has to live with it....and he admits it. What happened -- happened. He at least said he was wrong, and, unlike Joe Lieberman, favors a quick exit from Iraq.

Also, before I forget, the polar bear story raises the stock of Mr. Gore. The story was important because the Administration admitted that it was caused by "global warming." I have never seen them admit that before. The next time someone criticizes Al Gore for this global warming thing, we can reply by saying that even George W. Bush agrees! The more time that passes, the loonier you have to be to not see at least some benefits of reducing carbon emissions.

[George]

My dog has more substance than Bush in 2000. And I dont even have a dog. Does that make sense?

Anyway, I do like Edwards thinking out of the box. It's wonderful for politics today. In my eyes, it makes him more of a niche candidate more than a serious contender. In the end I think he's a pretender big time. Have I missed something or is Edwards making a career out of being a Presidential candidate? It's kind of empty.

The only way I could ever come around to Edwards is if Gore stays out and Edwards decides to make taxing carbon emissions significantly, and giving tax credits to the opposite side (hybrid, etc) a major part of his platform - in order to give incentives to citizens to stop being such dumb consumers.

The must be a candidate that tells us that we are part of the war - not just the soldiers. We have a duty in this as well and it doesn't include buying rubber magnet ribbons for our trunks.

[Administrator: Todd]

I completely see your point. I just look at what Edwards has been doing over the last two years, and I see more than a presidential contender. Yes, he has been campaigning -- but at least he has been getting a lot done.

- He set up the anti-poverty center at the University of North Carolina.
- He lobbied hard in six states for ballot measures that would increase the minimum wage. In all six of the states he visited, the minimum wage measure passed.
- He met with Hotel Workers in Nevada, and walked the picket lines with them for a week.

Certainly, I'm sure he may have had some deeper political motivation when he did all this. But he still was successful. He proved that he is capable of rallying for a cause, and making sure whatever he is rallying for gets enacted. That skill is soooo important if you are president. Part of your job is to convince the Congress to pass your agenda. At times, Clinton had trouble with that, even under a Democratic Congress (from 1993 through 1994). So in that respect, I think Edwards is prepared.

Again, I'm not disputing that he is a smooth-talker, and that he isn't as genuine as people think, and that there are a lot better candidates than him.

Gore is definitely more qualified, so is Hillary, so is Vilsack, Richardson, Biden, and even Clark. But you have to admit that there are some advantages of having a pursuassive speaker as your president.