Colber Show: Why Edwards Lost the Nomination

Both Edwards and Hillary Clinton were on The Colbert Report last night (Obama was too, live from satellite). He was broadcasting (live?) from Philadelphia. Needless to say, the Colbert Report writers had written some hilarious material for both of them.

Clinton came on first, to thunderous applause, and delivered her joke flawlessly and got a great response. Edwards then came on for an even longer cameo and inadvertently showed the real reason he lost the nomination.

The jokes were great. His delivery was AWFUL. It was almost like he didn't even get the jokes. He didn't know where to pause, he didn't know what words to emphasize. It was like a vacuum of charisma.

more below the fold:

Here are a few of the awesome jokes (that Edwards screwed up).
That is the reason I think he lost the primary so quickly (he faced some strong competition). His policy is dead-on, but his charisma and likability are totally absent. Others have commented about how the media and reporters just don't like him. Someone, I can't remember who, made the comment "Edwards couldn't get the [political reporters] to like him if he personally had sex with all of them." Edwards has the looks to be President, and quite possibly the qualifications and correct agenda, but he just doesn't have the charisma (neither does John McCain for that matter,although reporters do like him, which is why I don't think he's a threat to Obama, Huckabee would have been worse). Its a serious problem for Edwards that he comes off as even more unlikeable than Hillary (although technically has lower negatives). Even when making jokes he just sounded like another empty suit politician.

Jokes:

(Edwards comes on for his Ed-Words segment)

"I haven't figured out which one of these two candidates I'm going to support. On one hand, I don't want to seem anti-hope. On the other, I don't want James Carville to bite me." Then the board behind him read: "Carville hasn't had shots." This was the only joke Edwards actually delivered successfully.

"If we put our minds to it we can end poverty in 30 years" says Edwards. The sign behind him then reads: "Bush Ended Middle Class in 8." Hilarious.

"I want a platform thats consistent than my values," says Edwards. Board behind him reads "universal haircare."

"I will only support the candidate who promises to make me a spy." - Edwards

"I don't know if I've ever mentioned this before, but my father was a mill worker." - Edwards

Obama came on over the satellite and brilliantly delivered a joke where he put "these political distractions" "on notice." Then went on to comment on grizzly bears.

He says something about how he wants health care "for every man woman and child." and obvious swipe at Obama. Overall it wasn't clear want point he was trying to make by being there and not endorsing either of them. Something about poverty, health care, blah blah blah. I wish he would just endorse Obama already. Although I understand the fear of Carville bites :P

p.s. Colbert also had a great interview with Patrick Murphy on the same show, I recommend anyone who missed it try to go watch it.

UPDATE:

In retrospect I should have been less harsh. And probably used a different title.

Look I'm sure Edwards is a nice guy and very pleasant in regular everyday life. I would be glad to vote for him for president or senator or anything else. I certainly don't mean any ill will towards the man. The point I was trying to make, using some over-dramatic wording and exaggerations, is that a lot of times on the stump his performance seems forced, like a robot, or like he wasn't prepared. This phenomenon was particularly present during Colbert.

It annoyed me that he went on there and laughed and joked about his endorsement yet he still refuses to endorse anyone. Why won't he just endorse the person he thinks is the best candidate? I don't care if he endorses Clinton at this point, but it is severely annoying to go on there and tout his non-endorsement dangling it above the other two candidates holding it random for some kinda health care pledge.

•  I had a completely different oppinion than you

  I thought Edwards was the star of the show last night.  I didn't think Hillary's segment was particularly funny, and I didn't think she delivered it that well.  She didn't get nearly the response that Edwards did.

  I never supported Edwards for president this cycle, but I don't see any reason to pile on about him losing.

  by smash artist on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:38:32 AM PDT

  •  Piling on and then asking him to endorse

    your candidate. Doesn't make good bedfellows.

    by Owllwoman on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:41:32 AM PDT

  •  I'm not piling on, just proving a point

    Edwards had a lot more jokes and they were funnier, but he didn't deliver them well. He also didn't get as good a response as Hillary did when she entered, and I thought she did much better.

    I like Edwards he was my 2nd choice after Obama but I think the fact that Hillary got more applause, in a very pro-Obama crowd, shows something.

    The jokes being really funny saved Edwards a bit. Maybe I'm being really tough on him but he just really didn't seem comfortable/natural during the whole thing.

    by wiretapp on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:42:18 AM PDT

    •  Hillary got the applause she did

      because the audience was warned very harshly before the show to be nice to her when she came on (someone diaried on this last night).  

      by smash artist on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:47:39 AM PDT

    •  I think the point is that

      your opinion of Edwards is that he lacks charisma. I don't think that proves anything.

      I'm still trying to figure out how your argument is buttressed by the treatment McCain receives from the media. If McCain doesn't have the wow factor as you indicate here in your diary then why haven't the media dismissed McCain or disparaged him in any way at all?

      by mbair on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:46:00 AM PDT

    •  Huh?

      What are you even talking about? Edwards stole the show last night. Do a google blog search. He killed!

      And I don't get the criticism of his delivery or lack of charisma. Barack Obama's oratory -- when he's NOT reading a prepared speech, is awful. Stumbling and bumbling, hemming and hawing, hesitating. I noticed it as the debates started and, seriously, it's like nails on a chalkboard to my ears. I hope to got he gets to work with a vocal coach because he needs to learn to speak more fluidly before the general election campaign starts.

      Give him a script, and he's one of the best public speakers. Ever. But that all disappears when he debates or sits for an interview. I get the sense that he's got all these great points he wants to make, but his mouth can't keep up with all he wants to say. Happens to me, too (except I'm sure my own thoughts pale in comparison), but I'm not running for President.

      by pmcmscot on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 02:05:54 PM PDT

  •  Yep, I agree - Edwards was spot on

    My daughter (age 32) and I watched the segment together, and we were hooting with laughter. We both thought Edwards completely nailed his jokes, and was utterly charming in the process.

    by Audio Guy on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:14:47 AM PDT

•  John Edwards lost because he

  had a message the Corp. feared. His message was for change, real change. He didn't stand a chance running against them.  And that is the real problem. Once a person becomes President, their plans are taken over by the Rich leaders of the World and the Corp.

  by Owllwoman on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:39:55 AM PDT

  •  They targeted Edwards first letting Obama under

    the radar.  They really believed he would not be able to overcome being a black man.  It is still their hope.  So Edwards had to go quickly.  For the most part the media pretended he didn't exist and so he didn't.

    by yoduuuh do or do not on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:54:30 AM PDT

    •  Great minds think alike! n/t

      by MrMichaelMT on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:55:12 AM PDT

•  I didn't see the Colbert report

  I'll have to get it on iTunes.

  I think it's safe to say that JRE didn't lose the nomination due to a lack of charisma though.

  by jay w on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:41:01 AM PDT

  •  Here jay w

    h/t NC DemAmy

    You decide. I'm sure spending 8 times the amount of money......

    by LaEscapee on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:45:36 AM PDT

    •  I thought he did pretty well for a noncomedian nt

      by Hillary2008 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:37:55 AM PDT

•  the most disturbing part of this post

  I hated to believe that Edwards would endorse Hilliary. Even though he hasn't actually come out.He was my 1st candidate of choice.During the debate he criticized the status quo.Now he is one of them.I wonder what they offered him for his endorsement.This goes to show Edwards is just another bs politician and part of the status quo he denounced.

  by desnyder on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:41:53 AM PDT

  •  Edwards didn't endorse anyone on the show. NT

    by smash artist on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:43:03 AM PDT

    •  appearing with her

      is an endorsement in itself.BTW This is an election NOT a comedy.There are to many atrocious things going on in the entire world right now that need attention.This is not one

      by desnyder on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:20:53 AM PDT

      •  I don't know about this

        This is an election NOT a comedy.

        Maybe a tragedy? I can't see us having any kind of real discussion in this campaign anymore. I agree with your sentiment here, but I'm very cynical about the press doing even a barely adequate job in this cycle, very cynical.

        by mbair on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:48:52 AM PDT

  •  What??

    He didn't endorse anyone.

    At least wait until he endorses someone before slagging him and calling him a shill.

    by jay w on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:44:56 AM PDT

    •  that is my point

      I stated he did not endorse yet.That is part of the problem.She also has been quoting him quite often.He has come closer to Hilliary than Obama.When you are against the status quo,usually you stay as far away as possible. He has the right to endorse either,but by endorsing no one it leads me to believe he doesn't believe in the hope and change of new politics or he would have stepped up by now.

      by desnyder on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:18:36 AM PDT

    •  Pre-slagging

      is essential in political discourse. "Be prepared," that's my motto.

      /snark.

      by mbair on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:49:52 AM PDT

  •  Because he might think Hillary is the better...

    candidate, he has to be a fraud and opart of the status quo?

    I guess we know where you buy your kool-ade, huh?

    by Niniane on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:44:01 AM PDT

•  Screw you

  and your demand he endorse Obama.  He lost due to favoritism in the press for Obama and HRC.  If anybody got snubbed by the MSM, it was Edwards.  He declared war on poverty.  Obama doesn't talk about poverty except for the day after Edwards dropped out.  He's a godamned centrist former DLC card carrying apologist for the nuclear industry.  Yeah I'll vote for him, but I'm not expecting much.  I'm jsut hoping we get the coattails that put dems in real control of Congress.

  by jbfunk on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:44:03 AM PDT

  •  as others said before...

    one of the major reasons Edwards got such shitty media attention is because the reporters simply didn't like him. The reason they didn't like him, lack of charisma.

    by wiretapp on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:52:20 AM PDT

    •  ahhh no

      it's because he talked about poverty and the underclass.  the MSM doesn't like the underclass and sure as hell acts like poverty doesn't even exist.  Obama and HRC embraced this ideaology and are still in the race because they are BOTH playing nice with the media.  Both are centrists and neither will bring serious changes to government.  It wasn't charisma, it was because he represented the what amounted to historically as the strongest candidate in the field for the dems.  He is a left leaning white southern democrat and a damn good one.  His only problem was he talked about poor people.  

      HRC supported the war and Obama voted for the Roberts Confirmation.  Both made questionable recent votes in the Senate.  Hell even though he didn't vote for it in the end, Obama helped write the bankruptcy laws that benfitted the credit and banking industry.  Edwards got slammed for being a lawyer and in fact Obama piled on to the Rethug talking point a la HRC style and re-enforced it as a criticism of Edwards in the media and meanwhile Obama had a 504 group of elite lawyers working for him in San Francisco.  I'm tired of the self rightousness of the Obama camp in the face of criticism.

      I like him and will vote for him in the Fall, but he is being painted in an almost saintly light that is just not an accurate portrayal of he true self.    

      by jbfunk on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:15:08 AM PDT

      •  Right

        It wasn't charisma, it was because he represented the what amounted to historically as the strongest candidate in the field for the dems.  He is a left leaning white southern democrat and a damn good one.  His only problem was he talked about poor people.  

        and morality. The poverty message was about morality in this country and it gave the Dems a powerful in as far as breaking the GOP lock on supposedly values voters.

        But I think the message he put together in the presidential race was more than that. It was about the broken system in DC and how money in politics gives regular people in this country, the lion's share of the middle-class, bad policy.

        The treatment he received has nothing whatsoever to do with anything substantive, it was all a clandestine attempt to destroy the message by trashing the messenger. Oldest trick in the book. It was a message that most people agreed with, by the way, and the power structure in this country which includes the media today didn't want to see that out in the open in a presidential race. That kind of conversation is bad for the sponsors, don't you know.

        The media are the gatekeepers and said No to the Edwards Trojan horse delivery. Simple as that.

        by mbair on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:58:42 AM PDT

      •  I don't deny this was part of the reason

        But I think charisma and authenticity both also had something to do with it.

        I didn't realize I painted Obama in any way like that at all, seems like your real gripe is with someone other than me.

        by wiretapp on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:24:24 PM PDT

    •  Are you out of your mind?

      I mean really. The press corps didn't like Edwards because he didn't have charisma? They didn't like him and they continued to marginalize him throughout the year and the primary season because Edwards threatened the money.

      "The Money" pays these people's salaries, publishes their books and you have to keep the sponsors happy. Media today across the broadcast and print spectrum and especially in the DC press corps is all for profit. That the DC press corps rolled out the red carpet for Hillary and then Obama should tell you something.

      And that debate Wednesday night should tell you something else. They're coming for your candidate too because they like McCain more than they like chocolate ice cream and puppie dogs. You even concede in your diary that the media like McCain absent charisma, but they reject Edwards and his perceived lack of charisma on your part that is. That's totally irrational.

      by mbair on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:05:46 AM PDT

    •  From Fair.org

      Taking Offense at Edwards
      Media can’t forgive his anti-establishment rhetoric

      By the time the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primaries passed in early January, there had been several distinct cycles in the media coverage of the fight for the Democratic nomination. Hillary Clinton went from inevitable nominee to also-ran to comeback kid in the space of a week, for example, while Barack Obama was transformed from hopeful newcomer to sure-thing front-runner in one evening.

      One media trend remained remarkably steady, though: the press corps’ hostility to the John Edwards campaign.

      I think we agree here, this is just the set-up for the follow up comments.

      by mbair on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:08:04 AM PDT

      •  Also from FAIR

        Edwards’ anti-corporate rhetoric was clearly off-putting to many pundits and reporters, who were shocked that the sunny optimist they covered in 2004 transformed into a serious critic of money-driven politics who talked passionately about poverty. Rather than engage his arguments about corporate control over the political system, the media caricatured Edwards for having a large house, a brief stint working for a hedge fund, and his expensive haircuts (the "three Hs," as they would become known in the mainstream press--see Extra!, 11–12/07).

        When you can't discredit the message with a reasonable argument then you discredit the messenger. Simple as that. Get a grip because it's going to happen again.

        Gore was an "inventor," Dean was "angry," Kerry was a "flip-flopper," Edwards was a "phony."

        Obama is a "...."

        I'm not sure what they're going to do here. Terrorist? Unpatriotic? Aloof? COndescending? Elite? Take your pick. All of these candidates weren't just fuck-ups. The media created these caricatures instead of engaging these candidates on the issues and used their time reinforcing these false narratives. It'll happen to Obama too. What will you say then? That Obama lost his charisma? That Obama was whatever the media pronounced him to be? Curious.

        by mbair on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:14:22 AM PDT

        •  WHy they didn't/don't engage

          Edwards’ establishment-challenging rhetoric on economics and trade policy would be easier for the media to denounce if the public didn't seemingly agree with him (at least insofar as it expresses itself through opinion polls). So the press has generally either scorned Edwards as a phony or dismissed him as irrelevant.

          Also from fair.

          by mbair on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:15:01 AM PDT

        •  The 3H's case in point

          Dana Milbank's haircut smear, video available at mediamatters.org

          On the December 11 edition of MSNBC's Countdown, host Keith Olbermann asked Washington Post national political reporter Dana Milbank about the repeated references in that day's edition of the Post to the cost of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards' haircuts. Milbank replied that he is "guilty of the haircut slander." Milbank added: "But what we do in our business, in the shorthand way, is sort of have a phoniness meter out there, and the $400 dollar haircut speaks of that the same way Romney having the illegal immigrants twice return to work in his home even ... as he's complaining about illegal immigrants." Milbank did not explain how Edwards' haircuts are in any way analogous to Romney's reported use of a company that employs illegal immigrants. (The Boston Globe reported that Romney fired the landscaping company that the illegal immigrants worked for only after he was confronted with the issue for a second time.)

          While Milbank identified an inconsistency between Romney's actions and his stated views, he offered no justification for suggesting a similar inconsistency in Edwards' efforts to fight poverty while paying for expensive haircuts.

          by mbair on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:17:26 AM PDT

      •  A few more gems from FAIR's article

        it's a quick read, but I'm posting this for the benefit of the diarist who I don't think will take the time to read the analysis from FAIR:

        The New York Times’ Adam Nagourney (1/5/08) argued that "the results in Iowa . . . suggested that the Democratic and Republican contests were to a considerable extent two-way races: Mrs. Clinton and Senator Barack Obama of Illinois for the Democrats, and Mr. McCain and Mr. Romney for the Republicans." How Edwards coming in second in his race and Mike Huckabee winning his "suggested" that their candidacies should be dismissed, Nagourney didn’t explain. The Los Angeles Times (1/10/08), meanwhile, managed to label Edwards as the third-place finisher in Iowa in two articles on the same day.

        Yeah, I bet they didn't explain.

        A few days earlier, USA Today (1/7/08) included this peculiar line:

        The Democratic contest is a two-person race, dominated by Clinton and Obama. That leaves Edwards, a former North Carolina senator who is a close third, and Richardson, New Mexico’s governor who is a distant fourth, waiting for a stumble or a political earthquake to create an opening for them.

        How a "two-person race" can have a "close third" is entirely unclear.

        "eniterly unclear" gets the euphemism of the month award from me.

        by mbair on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:20:42 AM PDT

  •  Obama was never DLC

    And I believe Edwards was at one point. Edwards' voting record in the Senate is hardly as progressive as his rhetoric. I admire the way he ran his campaign and am glad he was raising the issue of poverty, but I think he has been overly sainted since he dropped out. I don't doubt his sincerity on the issues he talked about, but it doesn't jive that well with his voting record.

    by democrattotheend on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:31:17 AM PDT

    •  My understanding

      is he left very quickly and ended his association with the DLC.  Given his centrism, I draw the conclusion that it had very little to do with political philosophy and it was far more likely he saw the writing on the wall.  The DLC was HRC territory and was a springboard for her candidacy.  Knowing he was looking to '08 as well, he realized it made little sense politically to be associated with the DLC.  He left to get out of HRC's shadow and establish his own identity.  I also belive his departure and desire to run on his own has a great deal to do with the animosity and viciousness of this election.  There is definitely sentiment in centrist Dem circles that Obama jumped the ship and ran out of turn this time around.  I don't think insiders anticipated his high degree of ambition.  Strategically it was a brilliant move on his part.  

      BTW Obama's rhetoric doesn't jive well with his voting record either.  He's a centrist.  His only major claim is he was against the war as a state rep from IL.  Anybody could have done that.  You feel me?

      Read his diary from 9/05 on Kos.  He makes a clear case for DLC style centrism.  He just calls it by a different name.  It's why he's been embraced by the MSM.

       

      by jbfunk on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:25:18 AM PDT

      •  The DLC tried to claim him

        but he told them to remove his name from their list. He never asked to be on it.

        by democrattotheend on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:40:25 PM PDT

        •  and

          that is a politically astute explanation by one of the best young politicians in US national politics.  Plus the explanation does nothing to refute my speculation about his ambitions or his actual political philosophy.  It reminds me of his brilliant Clintonian explanation of why he "missed" the vote on Iran back at the end of last Sept.  No doubt he's a good politician and he will do well in the general especially as people continue to underestimate his political talent.  Bottom line though is he's not that progressive and he was embraced by the MSM early on due to his centrism.  Have you read the diary from 9/2005?

          by jbfunk on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 06:35:14 AM PDT

•  Eh?

  He lost because he was out-spent by the other two and completely ignored by the media.

  This diary is not going to be received well, I predict.

  by MBNYC on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:45:12 AM PDT

  •  no prediction neccessary

    its already not received well lol. I didn't mean to trash Edwards, he's a good guy and I liked his agenda/stances on issues. Just trying to be honest about the charisma thing, which is part of the reason he was "out-spent" (read: couldn't raise as much) and "ignored" (read: not well liked).

    by wiretapp on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:55:02 AM PDT

    •  Yeah, but

      here's the thing: you can't measure charisma like you can measure heat or water. There aren't any units of measurement. I met him on several occasions, and he was charismatic enough for my tastes.

      by MBNYC on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:03:02 AM PDT

•  Yet another beating...

  ...of a thoroughly dead horse.  A diary is a terrible thing to waste...

  by Ken in MN on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:46:09 AM PDT

•  If Edwards wants a 16th minute of fame ...

  ... he'd better drop an endorsement before nobody cares  what he thinks.  Just sayin'.

  by RavinDave on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:49:38 AM PDT

•  Dude, grow a sense of humor

  I don't know what show you watched, but Edwards was hilarious last night.  My wife and I laughed our asses off.  We both thought he was the funniest of the three, especially the edWord segment, and she's a HUGE Obama supporter.  

  by stevegfromkc on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:51:09 AM PDT

•  Those are some funny jokes!

  As far as that charisma thing goes, it's very interesting. I've met Hillary in person several times, she is a totally different being than the one you see on TV. In real life she is charming, personable and spontaneous. I wonder if Edwards is the same way? I know Kerry came across as flat to me. I liked what he said but he didn't move me. I think after years of meet and greet and having to deliver the same speeches over and over, I guess you can lose your spontaneity. These guys talk like they're on a high wire, any movement one way or another and plunk.

  by the fan man on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:52:28 AM PDT

•  He lost

  because he didn't, and perhaps couldn't put together a good enough organization. That sounds generic, but that is, I believe, why most losing candidates who aren't physically repulsive or utterly devoid of charisma or on the fringe, policy wise, lose.

  The question of WHY he couldn't put together a good enough organization is probably the more interesting one, for Edwards, or anyone else who has gotten kind of close, but not close enough--that is, if you cared about the question at all. The sort of superficial read to me is that Clinton was more effective as the establishment candidate while Obama was more effective as the insurgent candidate, and there was no room for Edwards in that mix, but again, there is that question of WHY was Edwards not effective as either. And again, there isn't much point in hashing this out, especially since I don't see much point to Edwards running for president again, but I do believe that in the end, he simply wasn't able to suffienctly connect with or convince either of those sides of the electorate that he was the best candidate, but if he's not running again, there's not really much point in digging too deep into why that was the case. (And no, I don't think it was a media conspiracy)

  by JMS on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:54:18 AM PDT

•  He lost the nomination because

  the "corporates were afraid of him"--almost as afraid as they are of Obama. But when they trashed Edwards (way too early) they had no idea that Obama would take his place. They thought they were insuring their Clinton compromise.

  by MrMichaelMT on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:54:54 AM PDT

  •  I don't disagree wiht you

    but now the "corporates" are affraid of Obama, and Edwards should come to his defense. But why was Obama, a relatively unknown 1st term senator, able to put together such a bigger organization than Edwards?

    The way Edwards acted last night, to be honest, just kinda pissed me off. Thats why I wrote this diary. He's gonna hold his endorsement up in the air instead of just endorsing who he believes will be the best candidate.

    by wiretapp on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:58:39 AM PDT

    •  I think he thinks

      he's bargaining for his causes. But Obama is too principled to bargain like that.

      by MrMichaelMT on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:00:26 AM PDT

•  Well, different strokes, I guess...

  I don't find Obama inspiring at all.  And I could say more bad things about Obama, in a non-trollish non-Republicanesque way, except that I'm going to have to vote for the guy in November, like him or not (and I most definitely do NOT like him or the more, uh, visceral, of his supporters).

  This post strikes me as merely churlish.  Edwards is not obligated to endorse anyone.

  by AndyS In Colorado on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:57:25 AM PDT

  •  trollish maybe, but Republicanesque?

    what was Republicaneque about my diary. Call me trollish if you want, I like to write controversially, but never Republicanesque.

    I would vote for any of the 3 over any Republican. I said in the diary that Edwards might be more correct about policy issues than the others. How is that Republicanesque?

    by wiretapp on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:11:51 AM PDT

    •  Please reread what I said

      And I could say more bad things about Obama, in a non-trollish non-Republicanesque way, except that I'm going to have to vote for the guy in November, like him or not (and I most definitely do NOT like him or the more, uh, visceral, of his supporters).

      No, I am accusing you of being churlish, not trollish or Republicanesque.

      Some Obama supporters seemingly can't stand the thought of having merely grudging and disliking support.  And they get counterproductive by lashing out at others' candidates, past or present.

      If you want Obama to be president (and I assume you do) you're going to need people like me.  The future, not beating the dead horses of the past.

      It just seems like dissing Edwards is about the last thing you want to be doing right now.

      by AndyS In Colorado on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:26:30 AM PDT

      •  I agree

        I don't get the Edwards hate here on this blog from Obama supporters. I think it's irrational precisely because is not in the race anymore. I just don't see where the well-spring of animosity is flowing from.

        Maybe it is personal or mean spirited like you said. But I also agree that Obamans have got to understand that they need people like us and diaries like this do nothing to bring me personally on board.

        by mbair on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:40:20 AM PDT

•  He lost the nomination

  because of the aumf. He has plenty of charisma.

  by discocarp on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:57:59 AM PDT

  •  I can see how he might

    have lost your support because of that. Really, I think that's a principled stand on your part but if you look at 2004, Dean was the only one pure on Iraq and he didn't do so good either. Dean had to deal with the full on assault from his fellow candidates because he was the front-runner, but Dean was also buried and caricatured by the press corps.

    I think that most people can forgive on Iraq. I'm basing that opinion on the work I did volunteering in NH, but also here on this site Edwards was always strong in those straw polls.

    by mbair on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:36:38 AM PDT

•  Edwards scared the bejeebers out of the elite.

  Give America back to the americans.
  Can't have that.
  Clinton's corporatist message has kept her in this.
  Obama is somewhere in the middle.
  Both are Wall St. approved, or they would be on the outside looking in.

  by manwithnoname on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:59:25 AM PDT

•  It all comes down to Iowa

  He basically lived in Iowa since 2004 (with a detour to New Orleans in the wake of Katrina) and couldn't get better than 2nd/3rd place there.

  Game over.

  Had he won Iowa, he certainly had more ability to leverage that win than Huckabee did.

  by other72384 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:00:13 AM PDT

  •  I have to admit

    that coming in second was a tough blow to the campaign, but the fix was already in, my opinion only.  As far as the media treatment Edwards got from beating Hillary you can see a couple of examples reported by FAIR.org in this comment. See the problem with the "narrative" is that Edwards was always classified as second tier, but that didn't fit the results in Iowa. So what do you do then? You ignore the results. And that's exactly what they did.

    But I agree that he needed a resounding win in Iowa to change the tune, drone really, of the press corps and he didn't get it.

    by mbair on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:43:00 AM PDT

•  Yeah I'm sure that was THE reason

  .....but this one makes more sense.

  ---- Edwards had no natural constituent within the party once Obama and Hillary got into the race. There was no demographic he could count on to show up at the polls.

  by rbrianj on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:00:33 AM PDT

  •  of course not the ONLY reason...

    Wasn't Edwards in the race just as long as Obama? Didn't he have a natural constituency (populist, white males, ect.?)

    I'm not saying charisma is the only reason. But I don't get your point. It sounds like you are pulling a Geraldine Ferraro.

    by wiretapp on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:14:21 AM PDT

    •  A natural constituency?

      based on a populist agenda and race identification? For real?

      Listen, my recollection is that "populist" was never used to describe the Edwards agenda until after he left the race before that it was most frequently dismissed as "anti-corporate rhetoric." Once he was no longer a threat to the power structure int his country then he was a populist.

      I thought you were saying that he lost the nomination because he lacks charisma based on his appearance on the Colbert Show last night since that's exactly what you wrote in the diary.

      by mbair on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:34:00 AM PDT

    •  Everything begins with demographics

      Women are a majority in the Democratic Party....around 60%.....African Americans are the next largest demographic with the Democratic Party. Take this and add to the fact the historical nature of these two candidates....it's easy to see why Edwards never had a real shot. He had to win Iowa outright to create the momentum...which never happened to out weigh these factors.  

      by rbrianj on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:18:59 PM PDT

    •  I mean why do you think....

      Obama cracked that "And then there's John" joke about Edwards in the SC debate.

      by rbrianj on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:23:15 PM PDT

•  I remember seeing an ABC podcast segment

  with one of their interns summarizing a video journal of her time with the Edwards campaign.

  It was like night and day.

  Whereas Edwards' stump persona often felt forced and contrived, behind the scenes he really had this genuine sense of warmth and humor about him. I don't know why there's such a disconnect, my guess is that it has something to do with Consultant Syndrome.

  by Stroszek on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:09:54 AM PDT

  •  Weirdly enough, for a guy who was a

    successful trial lawyer, he seems shy to me. But then, I've read about actors who are painfully shy but can put themselves out there in character. A politician can't really do that because he is supposed to be himself... not playing a role.

    Edwards is definitely stiff and awkward in some public situations like debates, but in a one to one interview, he seems to focus in and the natural warmth comes through. That is probably how he connected so well with juries.

    by blindyone on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:19:33 AM PDT

•  I've never been a big fan of Edwards

  He's fine enough, just never understood the love. That said, the one thing the man doesn't lack is charisma or a sense of humor.

  by BrighidG on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:30:56 AM PDT

•  How stupid is it to chose a president

  on their ability to tell jokes? Or their charisma?

  Presidential and political news are different from celebrity news and should always be. It is the networks and cable that have made reporters into celebrities to the detriment of us all. Chris Matthews even said he would give up his celebrity to be a Senator, not his position as a journalist, but his position as a star

  I don't think any of the candidates could trade in their day jobs for stand up comedy and I'm glad about that. They need to connect with people to gain their trust, hear their concerns and govern in their best interest. The less they try to sell us on their own celebrity and the more they act in our best interest the happier I will be

  Edwards was by far, the best candidate and the one most willing to take on the corporations, poverty, the war, etc. It is also why he was belittled and ignored by the press.

  by jhshamrock on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:34:03 AM PDT

  •  You make some good points here

    And any negative comment about Matthews is going to get a rec from me. He thinks life is really just a campaign after all which sounds like a really super philosophy to live by.

    But I agree and I think it's death to choose based on charisma or celebrity because it makes the candidate really vulnerable. If you don't have a really strong, "yeah d'uh", message then you don't have anything to stand on when the trash hits. I think this is particularly true for Democrats who seem to have a completely different standard to live up to as far as policy and leadership but then too, especially this cycle since we're going up again McCain, the darling of the press.  

    by mbair on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:23:34 AM PDT

•  Why I was tepid toward Edwards.

  I still have residual disappointment from his performance in the VP debate with Cheney.  He SHOULD have stomped Cheney into a quivering puddle of sneering goo -- but he didn't.  He had all the tools, skills and opportunity to voice the outrage we were feeling here on Kos -- but he didn't.  He had absolute golden opportunities to nail Cheney's fetid arse to the wall -- but he didn't.  (Recall that he rightfully accused Cheney of trying to link Hussein to 9/11.  Cheney denied it and the matter was dropped.  Nevermind that Cheney had repeated that same nonsense a scant few hours earlier).

  Didn't make me hate the guy, you understand.  Just blew a hole in my confidence in his abilities.

  That and the "speaking to dead people thing".

  /I kid, I kid ...

  by RavinDave on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:36:57 AM PDT

•  Just watched it ...

  I thought he was funny and charming. I liked that he couldn't help but crack up when the words came on the screen. No, he doesn't have a career ahead in stand-up comedy, but I thought he was great for what it was.

  But then I also liked Al Gore and never found him wooden. And I like Obama but don't find him especially inspiring. So, Lord knows I am not the typical voter.

  by Magenta on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:03:42 AM PDT

•  Edwards didn't fit with our need for authenticity

  Edwards has a powerful message, but Bush had a powerful message too ("uniter, not divider"), and having been duped into voting for Bush on the basis of a message, we're looking for someone this cycle who exemplifies his message, as in "My American Story" by BO.  Edwards lives in a 20,000 sq ft mansion.  He gets $400 haircuts.  He "consults" for $500,000 to a Cayman Islands hedge fund.  Does anyone have a problem with him as an effective agent of a populist message?  I know I know I know his father was a mill worker.  But there's still something about what he's done with his earnings that jars one's confidence in him as Everyman.  Colbert nailed it with the $8,000 jetski wishlist, and he wants three of them!  BO isn't middle class now, but he's fresh out of the middle class, and he moved up by writing a book (without a ghost writer), not by working as a trial lawyer.  Apologies to those out there who are lawyers, but the wealthy trial lawyer image just doesn't fit with the populist message.  Think about those slimeballs who advertise "We can help you get what you deserve,  and it won't cost you a penny," i.e., we'll just take a third.  Just doesn't work IMHO.    

  by Mundaily on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:07:12 AM PDT

  •  I know, but FDR wasn't joe six pack. Edwards, if

    you believed his message, was a class traitor. Rich and willing to help those who weren't at the expense of his fellow fat cats.

    by the fan man on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:41:36 AM PDT

    •  I know

      look how badly FDR did as an advocate for people outside his tax bracket. I mean really, he was nothing but a disgrace to this country doing all that crazy stuff.

      /snark. Just in case.

      by mbair on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:10:33 AM PDT

      •  I still have a sense of humor, but I understand!

        by the fan man on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:21:33 AM PDT

        •  Just in case

          someone thought I was posting that FDR was a deadbeat in earnest. You never know and those TR/hides really hurt.

          by mbair on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:24:45 AM PDT

  •  Yes it does

    If you make millions advocating for some poor schlub out there and win your cases against an army of corporate lawyers then I think that directly translates to a credible and effective agent of change with a populist agenda.

    As far as the 3H smears that you peddle in this post, please read the FAIR.org piece that came out after Edwards dropped out.

    Edwards’ anti-corporate rhetoric was clearly off-putting to many pundits and reporters, who were shocked that the sunny optimist they covered in 2004 transformed into a serious critic of money-driven politics who talked passionately about poverty. Rather than engage his arguments about corporate control over the political system, the media caricatured Edwards for having a large house, a brief stint working for a hedge fund, and his expensive haircuts (the "three Hs," as they would become known in the mainstream press--see Extra!, 11–12/07).

    I also saw this on media matters:

    Dana Milbank's haircut smear, video available at mediamatters.org

    On the December 11 edition of MSNBC's Countdown, host Keith Olbermann asked Washington Post national political reporter Dana Milbank about the repeated references in that day's edition of the Post to the cost of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards' haircuts. Milbank replied that he is "guilty of the haircut slander." Milbank added: "But what we do in our business, in the shorthand way, is sort of have a phoniness meter out there, and the $400 dollar haircut speaks of that the same way Romney having the illegal immigrants twice return to work in his home even ... as he's complaining about illegal immigrants." Milbank did not explain how Edwards' haircuts are in any way analogous to Romney's reported use of a company that employs illegal immigrants. (The Boston Globe reported that Romney fired the landscaping company that the illegal immigrants worked for only after he was confronted with the issue for a second time.)

    While Milbank identified an inconsistency between Romney's actions and his stated views, he offered no justification for suggesting a similar inconsistency in Edwards' efforts to fight poverty while paying for expensive haircuts.

    It was all a scam. And it's instructive today to bloggers here because they're going to line up against our candidate, who I think is going to be Obama, in favor of McCain. That much should be clear to you at this point.

    by mbair on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:16:21 AM PDT

•  This is not a candidate who lacks charisma

  He brought us to our feet that day and he wasn't even closing. This is the middle of the America rising stump speech. Besides how much damn charisma do you need when you're telling the fucking truth?

  You can peruse my diary that I wrote inspired by the FAIR piece about my experiences in NH volunteering for Edwards. Everybody agreed with the problems we face in this country as articulated by John Edwards in his presidential run. That bad policy for regular people in this country is the direct result of the way we finance our elections. John Edwards is offensive

  The media didn't dismiss him due to a lack of charisma which is your perspective and you're in the minority here I might add. They buried his ass under a pile of trash because they didn't want to give Edwards a platform to discuss the real systemic problems we have in this country. Money. Power. Information. Keep us dumb and cynical, keep us down and keep fleecing the tax-payers, consumers and anyone without the kind of money you need to buy advocacy in government.

  by mbair on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:31:08 AM PDT

  •  Edwards asked why people were hungry.

    And that's precisely why the media ignored him. Fixing that would involve changing a system that works, as Barbara Bush might say, quite well for them.

    by Magenta on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:50:28 AM PDT

    •  What a scum bucket

      I mean really. The disgusting part is that she didn't misspeak, she really believes that.

      by mbair on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:01:22 AM PDT

•  Well maybe it's about the money

  Edwards had only enough money to contest Iowa.  When he lost there, he didn't have enough to compete.  His hard-edged populist message probably scared off big money contributors who imagined he favored the kind of income redistribution that would hurt their interests.  Hillary and Obama have managed to finesse that problem.  She, by doing the loaves and fishes miracle, claiming she'll find money to pay for new entitlements without telling us where, and he, by organizing a huge army of small donors.  Maybe if Iowa were coming up in January 2009, Edwards's populist message would win because the economy is going to be in recession by then and people would be more receptive to a populist message, but he'd still need to figure out a way to raise money  to get the message out to them.  We really need an overhaul of the way we finance campaigns.  The money standard set by the 2008 campaign is obscene.  

  by Mundaily on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:49:31 AM PDT

•  Charisma or not

  Anyone has to admit that the level of discourse and attention to the issues has deteriorated a bit more every day since Edwards left the campaign. And it's not just that the media is talking about gotcha stuff. If Edwards had been at that Philly debate, I guarantee you he'd have called out Charlie and Georgie when they started with those ridiculous questions. He'd have wrested control of that debate in a heartbeat, by refusing to answer silly questions about haircuts and flag pins, instead telling them to cut the shit (only much more politely) and used his time to talk about universal health care and economic justice.

  He was definitely the grown up in that campaign. Damn, I miss him. And, yes, I know he's no longer running so my post is purely hypothetical and irrelevant. That's all true, so why is this thread even necessary?

  by pmcmscot on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 02:15:59 PM PDT