Daily Kos

Dear John...

Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 08:08:50 PM PDT

Yes, it's a lame joke. Gallows' humor and all that. My apologies, Senator Edwards...but it's time to face the truth. You will not win this nomination.

I really hoped it wouldn't come to this. I've been an ardent supporter of yours for months, and believe that you have the best platform of the major candidates. Watching the media ignore you has been infuriating, and the enmity you've earned from the megacorps has only increased my respect for your devotion to the needy and your willingness to fight for them, and us all. I have the greatest sympathy for the situation you're in with your wife and her cancer, and have found others' willingness to see it as a mark against you either unfortunate, sad or obscene, depending on their reasons.

Yet it has clearly come to this: you came in third in your home state in the Democratic primary. You would almost certainly win it in the general, were you our candidate, but you will not be our candidate. It is simply reality, barring an unprecedented miracle or an all-too familiar tragedy, that your nomination will not happen.

This is now a two candidate race, and my wife and I must make our choice based on those two candidates. Though we will support the eventual nominee with all our power, we see inspiration in Senator Obama and old DLC forces around Senator Clinton. That makes the choice an easy one.

I do not write this to ask you to leave the race at this time. Your presence has infused the primaries with a progressive energy that it would not have otherwise had. It has been frustrating watching Senators Obama and Clinton adopt your rhetoric while no one, save for your supporters on the web, reveals this truth. Yet it has also been inspiring to see you do something that needed to be done -- remind the candidates that they're running for the Democratic nomination. Barack Obama has turned into a stronger candidate and fighter for it, and Hillary Clinton has developed a better progressive voice for it.

The problem is, I have no interest in voting for a "kingmaker." We have no kings in this country. I have no interest in a brokered convention. The smoke-filled room should be a subject for history books, not modern speculation. And I truly believe that there is potential greatness in Senator Obama, a greatness that Hillary Clinton, for all that she is infinitely preferable to any of the warmongering nutcases running with Rs in front of their names, does not have.

I know that hagiographies have been passed out left and right among the bloggers and diarists during this primary season. Passions run high as we see the possibility to throw the Republicans a hundred anvils, the chance to do what hasn't been done since FDR saved this country twice -- move us forward in a massive, necessary way. We can make changes that will make our country great again, and any one of our candidates will make at least some of those changes (yes, haters, even Hillary). Nevertheless, Caroline Kennedy's endorsement only drives home what many of us see in Senator Obama: a man who might be the next John F. Kennedy.

I say this with great deliberation and care. President Kennedy was not perfect. He was a moderate in many ways, a Cold Warrior who attacked Eisenhower for being soft on Communism(!), and his record on civil rights was mixed. He followed through on the disastrous Bay of Pigs, and if the stories are true, made William Clinton look like a celibate.

Yet President Kennedy had a power to inspire, uplift and advance our nation in great ways. Ultimately, he was greater than his faults, because he both believed in America and helped us believe in it. He was steady, yet sane, during the Cuban Missile Crisis (my father was in SAC at the time, years before I was born, and he told me that they saw a distinct possibility of nuclear war during that time). He fought Communism in the Western Hemisphere with human rights advances and the Peace Corps rather than Contras and death squads. Perhaps most importantly, his New Frontier was at the heart of his vision for America:

...the frontier of unfulfilled hopes and dreams. It will deal with unsolved problems of peace and war, unconquered pockets of ignorance and prejudice, unanswered questions of poverty and surplus.

We need that vision today. We need a president who will guide us to the 21st Century's New Frontier. I believe you had the greatest vision for that future, Senator Edwards...but you will not be president in 2009.

Of the two candidates, either would repair the vast and terrible damage to America done by the blood-soaked traitors currently serving through Albert Gore's presidency. (To those of you who believe that one of the other Democratic candidates is evil incarnate...well, I guess you want President McCain or Romney or Huckabee.) Yet for all that I will support Senator Clinton if she is the nominee, I see in Senator Obama not merely the vital and necessary return to competent leadership, but a realignment that could undo the political, cultural and societal damage done to this country by the Reagan (Counter)-Revolution. We need that vision today, and I pray that you will, after February 5, see the need -- and yes, the hope -- that I see for the new, progressive dawn in America Senator Obama would bring.

I wish you and your magnificent wife nothing but success in your continuing fight to help those most in need in our country. I hope to see you serve an important role in Washington during the next presidency. It is simple fact, however, that your chances of being that president are slim indeed. Thus, I will now support Senator Obama's campaign, and urge others to do the same.
--
(/) Roland X
Hope is a phoenix

Tags: 2008 elections, Primaries, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, president, Democrats (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 57 comments

  •  you know (3+ / 0-)

    anything can happen in a brokered convention.

    Didn't you ever see The West Wing? :)

    "We must all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately." - Benjamin Franklin

    by CaptUnderpants on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 08:10:38 PM PDT

    •  I'd rather see Hillary take an honest election... (4+ / 0-)

      ...than see Edwards emerge as the "compromise" candidate thanks to five old white guys smoking cigars. And I say that as an ardent Edwards supporter, and one who thinks Hillary is the least of our batch.

    •  brokered convention = broken party (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      CaptUnderpants, Blue Wind

      and a trouncing by unified Republicans.

      Stay unified and go into the general fighting strong under a unified banner!

      Unite behind Obama!

      John W. McCain, Bush's third term.

      by aaraujo on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 08:18:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The last brokered convention was 1952, (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      CaptUnderpants

      and the party will never let it happen.

      •  The Last No-Incumbent Election was 1928 (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Ranting Roland

        There is no precedent for this election in modern analytical terms. That's one reason why the polls aren't predicting the primaries, and the general will be even worse.

        If no candidates receive a majority of super/delegate votes when the convention starts, say because it's 3% Edwards, 49% Clinton, 48% Obama, then the Party can't do anything to stop a brokered convention where Edwards names his price for breaking the tie. Unless the Party makes delegates vote faithlessly to Edwards (or someone else), which is a very costly proposition, especially when Republicans blast them for it in the general immediately following, starting with the Republican convention 2 weeks later (unless it too has a brokered, but doctored, convention, and maybe even then - you know Republicans).

        "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

        by DocGonzo on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 08:30:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Huh? (0+ / 0-)

          The Last No-Incumbent Election was 1928

          Maybe this just didn't come out the way it was intended.  Who was the incumbent in 1952 again?

          •  You're Right (0+ / 0-)

            Adlai Stephenson, so forgettable. Even more than Dewey. Truman should have run instead. The next half-century would have looked a lot different (and a lot less like Nixon).

            "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

            by DocGonzo on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 08:44:00 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You think HST would have beaten IKE in 1952? (0+ / 0-)

              Truman didn't think so or he would have run.

              •  Truman Got Primaried (0+ / 0-)

                Truman didn't want the primary battle with Stephenson. But with the Korean War, Truman was up against something real.

                However, if he could have convinced Americans Eisenhower wouldn't really end the war, but instead turn it into a half-century armed stalemate evolving into a nuke blackmail game, he might have got somewhere.

                Eisenhower was one of the great conmen of all time. "Military/Industrial Complex warning" my ass. He tried to name it after Congress in his first draft, after overseeing its culmination in the US corporate culture and commitment to open-ended Cold War. If Truman could have shown that to America, he could have won.

                But then, hindsight is 20/20. Even now most of America doesn't realize what a fraud Ike was. FWIW, Thompson could probably have pulled it off, but he wouldn't have taken Eisenhower's comrade in arms MacArthur's poison pill invading Korea, especially with a draft.

                "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

                by DocGonzo on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 09:47:44 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  Yes. They can. (0+ / 0-)

          They can just swing the super delegates. There's more than enough control there.

          •  I'm Not So Sure (0+ / 0-)

            I think the backlash from that would be powerful, even just among Democrats. Republicans wouldn't cross over as much to vote for either Clinton or Obama (probably Clinton selected that way), and they could lose the election.

            But the DNC did just totally screw the voters of Michigan and Florida, even though it was their state parties (not the voters) who broke the primary schedule rules. So maybe they are indeed that complacent and reckless.

            "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

            by DocGonzo on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 09:49:47 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  The last brokered convention was in 1956... (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Ranting Roland

        Special to The New York Times

        CHICAGO, Aug. 17 -- Senator Estes Kefauver seized the Democratic Vice-Presidential nomination by an eyelash today.

        The Tennessean edged out Senator John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts on the second ballot in an open floor fight to become the running mate of Adlai E. Stevenson of Illinois. Mr. Stevenson was renominated for the Presidency last night.

        The Democrats picked two men who fought each other bitterly in the primaries to oppose the Republican slate in November. President Eisenhower and Vice President Richard M. Nixon are expected to be renominated at San Francisco nest week.

        The Stevenson-Kefauver team shared the spotlight at the final session tonight of the Democratic National Convention with former President Harry S. Truman, who had opposed the selection of both.

        Tonight they came to accept their nomination. Mr. Truman came to bid for party unity and to take back some of the harsh things he had said against Mr. Stevenson this week. Besides saying that Mr. Stevenson was "to defeatist to win," Mr. Truman in his private conversations has mispronounced the Tennessean's name as if it were spelled "Cowfever." Tonight he pronounced it correctly.

        Linky

  •  Why Kingmaker Edwards (9+ / 0-)

    Voting for Edwards, even if we knew he wouldn't win, isn't the same as just voting for whoever we prefer Edwards would send his delegates to in a "brokered convention". Because Edwards would be able to extract concessions in favor of his agenda from the recipient, instead of just letting them inherit voters who don't really agree with their agenda.

    Just as Edwards keeps them stealing his voters by stealing his issues, even if they don't have the guts to go much closer to his positions and steal all his voters (and trounce the third candidate outright), he can go all the way to the convention, and get his agenda into theirs.

    And then he has a chance of running again later, anytime in the next 20-30 years, in a country that's already come around to his way of thinking, because he led it there.

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 08:20:33 PM PDT

    •  I understand that... (0+ / 0-)

      ...and considered it. But a combination of 1) my belief in grassroots Democrats choosing our nominee, and 2) what I must admit is a desire to not see Hillary become our candidate if we can avoid it, forces me to concede a bitter truth: Edwards will almost certainly not be our nominee, and given that, Obama is by far the better candidate.

      Nevertheless, I'll take any of them over the freak show in the R column any day.
      --
      (/) Roland X
      Hope is a phoenix

      •  Edwards for Obama (4+ / 0-)

        It's hard to see Edwards handing the deal to Clinton instead of Obama. It would be much easier for Obama to accept Edwards' platform conditions than for Clinton. Unless it's not, in which case Obama isn't really as progressive as he seems.

        Edwards is actually therefore insurance for both his agenda and for Obama over Clinton. Without Edwards representing his constituency that's voting for him, his agenda has no voice either in public or at the deal table. And there's every chance that Clinton would get a majority of Edwards' voters, without Edwards calling her out to keep them in the more progressive camp.

        I think Edwards, more than anything else, is a great strategist. He was a 1-term senator who almost won the Democratic nomination in 2004. He turned that into the VP candidacy, which is very rare for Democrats (Republicans do it all the time). And he also moved from his "loser" status in 2004 (2 time loser, primaries and general) into an untainted primary run in 2008 against much stronger candidates than in 2004. It's not only a meteoric rise, it's a stellar staying power. He (or his strategy team, doesn't make a difference) seems to be able to work the entire game to his best advantage, especially when it's structured against him. I like the idea of him representing a constituency through the primaries despite the extremely bad model of the electorate the primary system offers.

        "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

        by DocGonzo on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 08:38:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  but the purpose of the superdelegates ... (0+ / 0-)

          ... is to deny any power to third-place kingmakers.  They are free to vote for anyone, most are Democratic Party insiders (sitting senators, governors, and the like).

          Also, I like Edwards the best of the three, but if he can't crack 20% in his home state, I don't see how he can hope to do better than 20% in other states when he has to contest 20 at once.  And any state where he doesn't get 15%, he gets no delegates.

          I go back and forth on Obama: he alternates between terrific speeches (where he increasingly borrows from Edwards' populist rhetoric) and doing something to piss me off.  For example, he's been running a commercial I've been seeing on cable that tells me I should vote for him because some Republicans like him.  But if it's between him and Hillary, I guess I have to go with Obama.

      •  Here is the problem (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        dewley notid

        Us grassroots the ones who have been in the trenches doing the grunt work aren't getting to choose the nominee. It is being chosen by young voters, indies and some crossover pugs who have never and possibly will never put in the effort that activists have contributed over the years.

        Face it neither of the other two have battled against what the netroots have railed against, Obama has even had the temerity to come here and publish a diary telling us we are to extreme. They both represent the capitulation that is rampant in D.C.

        Without Edwards presence in thios race we on the left will be tossed under the bus like yesterdays news.

        Sad but true.

        •  I sympathize. (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          LaEscapee

          But what are the other options? We run the smoke-filled rooms? We do not defeat the enemy by becoming our enemy -- we just replace them.

          Democracy isn't perfect, but it's the best system we've got. I'd rather lose the primary honestly than win it in brokering.

          OTOH, I'll take any legal win we can get in November. And both Obama and Clinton have faced the RWNM -- in Hillary's case, the 90s come to mind.
          --
          (/) Roland X
          Hope is a phoenix

          •  Here is my point (0+ / 0-)

            I trust John Edwards not to cost us. He is an intelligent man who has controlled the dialogue throughout this race and I fully expect him to continue that mission.

            Not only has he driven the debate on the left, he has the pugs talking about things that they never would have been discussing without his imput. If he withdraws now or in the near future I think the other two would wind up alienating so  many voters just with their identity politics ther could be no recovery. At this point he is the buffer to blunt the truly nasty things that would surely be the focus.

            He and Obama actually work well together, if he had not been in this race she would have destroyed Obama long ago. As a reference point look at this thread from mid Nov. following the Philly debate, if you remnember that was the debate Obama said he was going to start to take on Hillary.

            He actually has to stay in, I truly beleive this.

            •  Shorter Roland :-) (0+ / 0-)

              I do not write this to ask you to leave the race at this time. Your presence has infused the primaries with a progressive energy that it would not have otherwise had.

              We don't want him to leave the race, either, but we figure a vote for Obama will do more good towards keeping HRC from winning CA than will a vote for Edwards.

  •  It's not really his home state (5+ / 0-)

    He was Senator in North Carolina.  

    Mr. Ellinorianne for CA State Senate! (Gary Pritchard ActBlue CA-SD-33)

    by Ellinorianne on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 08:24:43 PM PDT

  •  So it really comes down to . . . (7+ / 0-)

    . . . the lesser of two remaining evils?

    And "hope-dacity?"

    You're certainly entitled to vote as you see fit.  So long as Edwards is in, he has my vote.

    The Democratic party: nominating unelectable Presidential candidates since 1972. (inapplicable within 3 years of Watergate and to the man from Hope)

    by raatzie on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 08:31:52 PM PDT

    •  NOT the lesser of two evils... (0+ / 0-)

      ...but the greater of two goods.

      The lesser evil is Mitt Romney. That doesn't make him good, just not as evil as "Bomb Iran" McCain or the Dominionist Huckster. Any D wipes the floor with them.
      --
      (/) Roland X
      Hope is a phoenix

      •  Hope you're right . . . (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        dewley notid

        . . . fear you're very wrong.

        The Democratic party: nominating unelectable Presidential candidates since 1972. (inapplicable within 3 years of Watergate and to the man from Hope)

        by raatzie on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 08:42:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I meant that policy-wise... (0+ / 0-)

          ...and decency-wise. Though I think the only election we really have to worry about, assassinations aside (crosses fingers) is Clinton vs. McCain. The hate St. McCain's getting from the base would vanish if he were facing Hillary, and the media would have their one-sided hatchets sharpened.

          To be honest, in terms of drubbings, my dream match-up is Obama vs. Willard. I'd rather see Edwards crush him, but Obama would be walking away while Mitt was trying to figure out where the shiv was...
          --
          (/) Roland X
          Hope is a phoenix

    •  The audacity of hopping (5+ / 0-)

      on the bandwagon doesn't quite have the same ring to it eh? I'm with you win, lose or draw I'm sticking with my choice for who I believe will do the best job. It isn't a popularity contest. It's a contest for the direction of our country.

  •  Ahem... (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Roland X

    Res Ipsa Loquitor.

    Frankly, it's been known among progressives here in The South that nobody really trusts Edwards as far as they can comfortably spit a rat.  I don't know why that is, frankly, but that seems to be the "vibe" I get around these parts.  

    I, too, do not want to see Ulysses Edwards McGill throw in the towel just yet, because he has done what Special K could not do which is keep The Kid from the South Side and The Park Ridge Princess honest.  

    Yes, it's been maddening that the MSM has mostly ignored Edwards, but that's because they are beholden to their corporatist masters.  My hope is that he does well enough to last until Denver, then wrangle for a Attorney General spot.

    Saint Dharma

    "Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible." -- Frank Zappa

    by SaintDharma32 on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 08:50:45 PM PDT

    •  SD, is that you?!? (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      SaintDharma32

      M'man! How're you holding up?

      Yeah, Edwards losing SC was a bummer, and I hope he keeps keeping' both of them honest. OTOH, I'm rooting for Secretary of HUD or HHS myself. :-)
      --
      (/) Roland
      Hope is a phoenix

      •  Uh-huh. (0+ / 0-)

        It's-a Me, Saint D.  

        I was actually hoping that he would come in second at the very least, but third isn't exactly something to sneeze at.  What's also very telling is that considering these were the states (NC and SC) that kept both Strom "Lich" Thurmond and Nearly Normal Jesse Helms in office for many years, there was a higher turnout among Democrats this time around than in the 2004 general election in SC.  

        Carolinians are by and large Very Red, with the urban areas like Asheville (the Berkeley of the South), Charlotte, The Triangle of Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill, Charleston and Columbia being more purple than red.  

        The Park Ridge Princess would do well to remember this fact while she's in My Home State.  There's a reason why there are three stars on the flag, in that there are essentially three states in Tennessee.  There's Memphis, which has been Democratic for a while now (which Obama will probably do well in.)  There's Middle TN which has Nashville and the Governors Mansion (and the current Gov is a Democrat who endorsed Clinton while he was mayor of Nashville.)  And then you have the East, which is predominantly Red, with Knoxville and the Tri-Cities of Greenville/Johnson City/Kingsport which are more purple than red.

        So Edwards would do well to visit here...hint, hint.

        Saint Dharma

        "Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible." -- Frank Zappa

        by SaintDharma32 on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 09:04:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  PLEASE DON'T GIVE UP AFTER JUST FOUR PRIMARIES (5+ / 0-)

    And don't fall for the media hype about 'must-have' states.    I never thought SC was a must-have for Edwards, and i doubt his campaign did either.

    Recall Edwards came in second in Iowa and we still have ahead of us all the most Iowa-like states:   midwest, northern tier, southwest, non-coastal west.   Also the three SWING states are yet to vote;  Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida.   They tend to be conservative as well -- that's why they are swing states!

    Edwards has carried the rural conservative demographic in the primaries so far,  so ... don't give up yet.   If by end of day 2/5/08 he hasn't won a single state, then will I worry.  

    •  We're IN a Super Tuesday state (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      bruinbown

      I love Edwards, but Obama isn't that far away from him politically, I love (most of) the New Man From Hope's style, and I want to help prevent Hillary from taking California, my adopted home. I've come to love this crazy land of "fruits, nuts and flakes," proud to be one of 'em myself, but my fellow Californians have done things as crazy as electing the Terminator for Governator.

      Again, I'm not a Hillary hater, it's just that if she wants to run as the Term III Clinton, I remember too much of that presidency (NAFTA, DMCA, Don't Ask Don't Tell, Welfare "Reform," etc. et. al.) to want her to win the nomination.
      --
      (/) Roland
      Hope is a phoenix

  •  You Wrote My Diary . . . (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Sandy on Signal

    Thanks, Roland X, for eloquently, courteously, and civilly writing just what I was thinking.  I had even thought of the same "Dear John" title.  I'm glad I don't have to write it now because I don't really have much time tonight, but I agree totally with what you have articulated.  I agree that Edwards has in large part forced the other candidates to address issues they would otherwise have ignored, and that he has driven both Obama and Clinton towards the left.  I would love to vote for Edwards on Feb. 5 (in California), but I think the choice between Hillary and Obama is critical, and I would rather ensure an Obama win than risk a win for Clinton.

    Of the two other candidates, Obama is by far the more inspirational and also more authentic.  No, he is not perfect, and his supporters have to guard against projecting messianic qualities on him.  That's not good for either Obama or us.  But he is highly intelligent, articulate, and inspired.  And Clinton's avid enjoyment of mud-slinging politics as usual has turned me off to her big time.

    As a  woman who remembers what it was like to struggle for equal rights, I would LOVE to see a woman president in my lifetime.  I hope that this will happen, but I hope it is not Hillary Clinton.  I have always respected her accomplishments, and admired her husband's political skills and accomplishments.  But Bill's (and Hillary's) behavior during this campaign has been really eye-opening.  I don't want either of them back in the White House again.  If she is the nominee, I will vote for her because I don't think we can survive another round of Republican rule, but she and her husband have totally turned me off to her candidacy.

    I wish Edwards were a more viable candidate.  I agree that his campaign has received far less coverage than it deserved, but I don't see how he can win enough delegates to earn the nomination, and at this point I want to ensure that Hillary is not our nominee more than I want to vote for Edwards.  Edwards will no doubt have a place in an Obama administration, and can continue to speak out on the issues that inspire him and matter to us.  He is more likely to have that chance in an Obama administration than a Clinton one.  I will see how the next few days play out, but if Edwards does not seem viable in California on Feb. 5, Obama has my vote, and my support.

    •  Glad I inspired somebody. :-) (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Sandy on Signal

      I felt a little trepidation about wading into the primary wars around here, but I'm a writer both by trade and nature, and I had to say something.

      More than anything else, I felt sad watching Edwards' speech, something I hadn't felt before while listening to him. It's brave for him to continue soldiering on, but more than a little Quixotic. I truly hope he keeps moving the discussion forward, but I think he knows it's over for his campaign. And while it felt good to vote for Dean here in CA in 2004, that was when Kerry was already the nominee. We've got a real fight still going on over here, and I see a real difference in the two survivors. I mean to be a part of that difference.
      --
      (/) Roland X
      Hope is a phoenix

      •  Well, (0+ / 0-)

        Let's hope that the one's who support him are his Sancho Panza just so he can keep tilting those windmills.

        From this day forward, I shall refer to him as The Man from LaMancha.  And no insult is implied.

        Saint Dharma

        "Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible." -- Frank Zappa

        by SaintDharma32 on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 11:01:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  agree and well said (0+ / 0-)

      both the diary and hummingbird's comment are my sentiments too.  

      thanks

  •  I choose differently (0+ / 0-)

    I'm sticking with John to the end.

    But you wrote an excellent diary and I understand where you are coming from.  Good luck.

    In the event that John is not our next president, I certainly hope we get Obama.

Permalink | 57 comments