The John Edwards Endorsement: A Last Chance To Prove He's No Phony

[NYCGirl]

from David Corn at Mother Jones

http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/02/7191_the_john_edward.html

A few weeks ago, I was talking to an influential Hillary Clinton fundraiser. When the subject of John Edwards (still in the race at that time) came up, she started sputtering about his hypocrisy. His expensive hair cut, his big house--the guy's a phony, she exclaimed derisively, and his populist, anti-Washington, help-the-poor rhetoric was all just for show. He won't last.

She was right on that final point. As for his authenticity, that was a question that chased Edwards. During his six years in the U.S. Senate (1999 to 2005), Edwards was no working-class hero. He did not develop a reputation as a firebrand willing to take on the powerbrokers of the nation's capital. At that time, Senator Paul Wellstone was the populist champion in the Senate (until his tragic death in October 2002). Wellstone waged one fight after another against corporate interests, lobbying influence, and the sway of big-money. I don't recall Edwards standing shoulder-to-shoulder with him during all these uphill battles.

Yet on the campaign trail, Edwards became Joe Hill in a suit.

Wellstone once told me that you always have to allow for redemption within politics. And perhaps Edwards' conversion was genuine. Why not give him the benefit of the doubt? His message was powerful and well-delivered--even if not embraced by a plurality of Democratic voters. But if Edwards wants to prove he was truly speaking his heart and mind, he has no choice when it comes to endorsing one of the remaining Democratic contenders. He cannot support Hillary Clinton.

During the campaign, as he called for ending poverty, Edwards pointed to Clinton as part of the problem. Let's roll the tape on a speech he gave in New Hampshire last summer:

REST OF ARTICLE AT LINK ABOVE

[chimpymustgo]

1. I think we're beginning to see who the real phony is. These threats are disgusting.

[dkf]

3. Look, I believe John Edwards, but if he endorses Hillary then I'll have to take a second look.

because I do believe that Hillary is the antithesis of almost everything he was espousing.

That is why I am having a hard time believing he would even contemplate endorsing her.

I mean, if he does endorse her, wouldn't you be flabbergasted?

[CoffeeCat]

12. I would be flabbergasted...

Edwards ran on ending corporate corruption in politics, and he went after
the neocons and politicians who take "quid pro quo" campaign contributions
from corporations who expect something in return.

For God's sakes, he went after Obama for "wanting to negotiate with corporations."
Edwards made the point that "you can't negotiate with these people" and that
you must take away their power and never bring them to the table.

Ok fine. Obama wants to sit down and negotiate with corporations. Hillary, on
the other hand, is in the pocket of these corporations and their dirty money
flows from her fingers.

I don't get this. I really don't get it.

Edwards, surely could understand why many people would be very disappointed and
dispirited if he endorses Hillary.

She indulges in everything Edwards rallied against.

Ultimately, a Hillary endorsement, would beg the question, "Did Edwards
really mean what he said on the campaign trail?".

[RaleighNCDUer]

10. Threats? nt

[Yossariant]

2. Obama is no more or less phony than George Bush. They are both smarmy panderers.

[dkf]

5. A Harvard Graduate takes a job as a community organizer and you doubt

that he cares about people?

[Tarheel_Dem]

9. and considering who you support..you would surely know "phony"

[joeybee12]

4. Yup, if you're not for Obama, you're scum...

...Edwards has a right to endorse whomever for whatever reasons...even if it's only clear to him.

[Botany]

6. What a hit piece

John Edwards legal practice helped "the little guy" and he has given up
millions in legal fees to go work with and help the poor.

:tinfoilhat: I betya this is a pre-emptive strike on Edwards before he
endorses Obama.

[onehandle]

7. He can endorse either one and that's fine with me. I'm with the nominee.

Will it influence me? Not really. I already voted for the best candidate: John Edwards.

[cyclezealot]

8. Cynics take nothing for granted

. Going on faith is a republican thing.

[melody]

11. I think we all have to stop thinking like children and shopping for the perfect dad and mom

NONE of these people are perfect. They're all flawed human beings. A good look at Edwards' background as an
attorney shows a history of working for individuals against big corporations. To say otherwise is disingenuous
as hell and David Corn (and Mother Jones' editorial board) should be ashamed. Senators don't just serve in
the senate as autonomous creatures -- they are there as representatives of their constituents. Wellstone
(for whom I had immense respect) served a much more liberal constituency than did Edwards. To play the game,
one must stay in it. Who would you have rather have had in congress -- a right-wing Republican politician or
Johnny Reid Edwards, a Democrat? I'd rather have had Edwards compromise AND stay in the senate than risk him
losing to a Republican.

As for his hair and his house -- Hillary lives in beautiful digs. Obama has a nice place, too -- one hell of
a lot bigger than mine. Edwards became rich fighting for people like us. I'm not a Marxist by any means -- I
think John should keep his house without having to answer for it. (BTW, Sam Walton lived in a 2200 square foot
house ... now there was a servant of the people, huh?) John was a poor kid in the beginning. He worked
hard and now he SHOULDN'T have something to show for it?

Quite frankly, these all sound like the same GOP talking points hurled at Edwards (Al Gore, too). David Corn should be ashamed
for reciting them ... and Mother Jones for printing them.

[demokatgurrl]

21. Such an excellent and eloquent post. As an Edwards

supporter, I would like to see him not endorse anyone. Neither of the leading candidates espouse (with any sincerity) what he did. They are both co-opting his positions to court him for endorsement and his supporters for votes.

and I am now a Clinton supporter, but it's by default. She's no Edwards. Neither is Obama.

[ThatPoetGuy]

24. Thank you for that post.

The article turned my stomach.

[AndyA]

13. John Edwards is in the same position as the rest of us.

He has to decide who to endorse/support out of the two remaining, second best, candidates we have.

Hillary and Barack are both less progressive than John, so it's going to be a stretch for him to endorse either one of them. So, does he take the path of "I must not allow a Republican in the White House, therefore I support the Democratic nominee even though I disagree with them?"

Or does he determine that Hillary is in a better position to weather the GOP storm that will attack the Dem nominee?

Or does he go with Barack's "change" message, even though there are many doubts as to whether he can really do as he says?

Regardless of what John may or may not do, it will be a compromise for him, and that is not a reflection of his being genuine in any way. He's making the best educated decision he can given the circumstances, and I think it's hard to second guess any eventual endorsement, and there may not be one for all we know. :shrug:

[NYCGirl]

14. But, using Edwards' own words:

The system in Washington is rigged and our government is broken. It's rigged by greedy corporate powers to protect corporate profits. It's rigged by the very wealthy to ensure they become even wealthier. At the end of the day, it's rigged by all those who benefit from the established order of things....

Politicians who care more about their careers than their constituents go along to get elected. They make easy promises to voters instead of challenging them to take responsibility for our country. And then they compromise even those promises to keep the lobbyists happy and the contributions coming...

It's a game that never ends, but every American knows -- it's time to end the game. And it's time for the Democratic Party -- the party of the people -- to end it. The choice for our party could not be more clear. We cannot replace a group of corporate Republicans with a group of corporate Democrats, just swapping the Washington insiders of one party for the Washington insiders of the other. The American people deserve to know that their presidency is not for sale, the Lincoln Bedroom is not for rent, and lobbyist money can no longer influence policy in the House or the Senate.

How could that not be talking about the Clinton administration (with the "Lincoln Bedroom" reference)?

[surfermaw]

15. Hasn't the Clintons always been about povety, ?

I think so!

[surfermaw]

16. NYC Girl, we don't need you to tell us anything about Edwards

he is probably not going to endorse until the Convention, when he throws his support behind Albert Gore

from a N.C. old girl

[NYCGirl]

18. Tell it to David Corn. He wrote that.

And Al Gore will not be nominated at the convention. And if by some impossible set of circumstances he is, you'll hear that Sherman statement.

[asdjrocky]

17. Welcome to the Obamanation-

I'm so glad the Obama people I meet out there in the real world are nothing like the person who posted this rw crap.

It's funny, it's been shown so many times here at DU that the term "phony" originated from Faux Noise and other rw sources, but here it is, being repeated again at DU.

What a tool this OP is. And it's stuff like this, that will make it so easy for me to make my choice.

[NYCGirl]

19. David Corn is right wing now? Mother Jones is right wing?

:rofl:

In what universe?

[asdjrocky]

20. I'm talking about the term 'phony'-

Aren't you bright enough to realize that? Or are you one of those "recent" converts to politics, who is still a bit week behind the ears?

[NYCGirl]

22. My first vote was cast in 1972 for George McGovern. I'm not "week" behind

the ears, but I'd say your calling me right wing is very "weak."

[asdjrocky]

23. Funny, it's seems you'd know better.

My first vote was in 1980, and I know when I'm perpetuating rw talking points. Why don't you?

[Straight Shooter]

25. Maybe Edwards is having a tough time with Obama's position on tort reform.

You know, trying to make sure that plaintiffs have to file class action suits in federal court, rather than district courts, which makes justice harder to obtain for injured consumers and easier for the defendant corporations to win.

Maybe Edwards has a tough time with Obama schmoozing with the likes of George Soros and Warren Buffet to shape his policies.

The article was on MSNBC.com yesterday. I'm sure a little search will pull it up for you.

[NastyRiffraff]

26. Please. John Edwards doesn't neet to "prove" he's no phony

Certainly not to David Corn, who has written hit pieces about John in the past.

Personally, I'll support whatever decision John makes, including a non-endorsement. There are factors going into an endorsement that aren't public. Because I know John is "no phony" I think he'll make the best decision possible, even if it pisses off David Corn.