Sen. John Edwards used to be considered a frontrunner in the crowded race for the Democratic Presidential nomination. Well now that frontrunner status of Edwards has faded to a point where, at best, Edwards is in the upper second-tier of candidates. There are several reasons to blame for his political demise, all of which were brought upon by John Edwards himself.The John Edwards of 2004 was a cheerful, hopeful, friendly, semi-populist candidate. His message was one that resonated with many Americans. So when John Edwards entered the 2008 race, he was immediately one of my favorites. But as the campaign dragged on, Edwards underwent a noticeable transformation. He went from the cheerful candidate of '04, who always had a smile on his face and appeared to be the nicest person in the world, to a harsh, angry populist. Now, don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with the populist message, and in fact I agree with much of it, but any candidate who appears angry is an immediate turn-off.
And while Edwards was getting angrier and angrier, he was simultaneously moving further and further to the left of his opponents. The mainstream appeal that Edwards had in '04 was quickly eroding. I would find myself watching clips of Edwards' speeches or reading transcripts and thinking to myself, "what exactly is this man thinking?" He began saying the most radical things and, at times, sounded certifiably insane. I suppose Edwards moved radically to the left to pick up the support of the far left wing of the Democratic Party, but if anything, his leftward journey backfired. As Edwards was pulled to the left, his poll numbers, both in Iowa and nationally, dropped. He may have picked up the votes of the more radical liberals, but he alienated mainstream Democrats and Independents, including myself. Edwards had always been my second choice after Sen. Clinton, but I was and still am baffled by his dramatic shift to the left. I consider myself a 100% liberal Democrat, but not a radical left wing Democrat. I'll also point out that the further a candidate moves away from mainstream America's ideals, the harder it is for him to win a general election. And to anyone who disagrees with that point, how exactly would you explain the fact that Sen. Clinton, and to a lesser extent Obama, run better against top GOP candidates than Edwards? The more centrist positions of Edwards in '04 led me to become a supporter of his, but this time around he has completely turned me off on the idea of voting for him.
The final straw for Edwards came in September when he was (despite what he would want you to believe) forced into taking public financing for his campaign due to his dismal fundraising. The fact is that by doing this, Edwards appeared desperate and needy. Voters want someone who is strong and has the ability to out raise the Republican opposition. For those that know and follow politics, they know that by taking matching funds, Edwards severally handicapped himself if he was to somehow win the nomination. From the start of the primary season to the DNC in August, Edwards would essentially be broke, and hence unable to respond to the sure firestorm of attacks by the Republicans. The last thing Democrats need is a candidate who is unable to put up a fight against the GOP for nearly 6 months. Its hard to make-up for 6 months of constant onslaught and attacks in just 2 and half months. Democrats would fare much better with a candidate who can respond to Republican attacks and put up their own ads to gain crucial momentum and support heading into November 2008.
And now, just under 6 weeks from the Iowa caucus, John Edwards is trying to fight his way back up to the top. The problem for him is that many Democrats, such as myself, have completely tuned Edwards out. His constant negativity and growing unelectablity have put him out of the running for the Democratic nomination. It is no longer Clinton vs. Edwards vs. Obama, but rather its just Clinton vs. Obama with Edwards being the pesky little fly that just won't go away but has no shot at stopping the big dogs.
7 comments :
Edwards was bitter since day one, remember in June at the CNN debate he outed Hillary and Obama for their votes on the war funding bill ("I don't wanna name names, but...").
What is so admirable about a candidate who tries to play both sides of an audience, the beloved centrist? Give me a candidate who has values and beliefs and will run on THOSE instead of trying to play the polls. Give me a candidate who will openly answer a question instead of giving political mumbo jumbo, where you don't really know where they stand. FDR was an unabashed liberal and was elected to four terms in office. Why has the Democratic party allowed the Republicans to paint liberalism as bad instead of standing up for their principles and explaining the basic principles that this nation was founded on and for which they once stood? Why do Democrats feel that they need to represent themselves as Republican-Lite to win elections. I won't be voting for ANY centrists in 2008.
^It amazes me that some people think Hillary is "Republican-lite". Hillary has been a strong voice for the Democrats for decades and her record demonstrates that.
And the Republicans have certainly not brainwashed me into thinking liberalism is bad. Hillary certainly has values and beliefs and she does run on them.
But one point at at least tried to make was that Edwards himself tried to play both sides of the crowd. He went from being a moderate to moving to the far left to gain some votes.
Hillary can't answer a straight question about whether she thinks the NAFTA has been a success but she wants to pass free trade with Peru, even though the majority of Americans are against it. Hillary wouldn't answer whether she supported the New York governor's plan to allow illegals to get driver's licenses. Hillary says she supports equal rights for gays but will not support their right to marry. "Don't ask, don't tell" should show us that there is no compromise position of "inalienable rights". I could have seen myself supporting Hillary before the campaign began but I see no solid stance on the tough issues and I see her willingness to appease conservatives at the expense of liberals in her own party. I cannot in good faith support her in next year's elections, even if it puts another Republican in the White House!!
^so you would rather have Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney over Hillary Clinton? I do not like Barack Obama or John Edwards, but I would support either of them if they get the nomination, simply because the other option is much, much worse.
^I have voted for the "lesser of two evils" for the last time. If it means Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney get elected, so be it. I'm not going to continue supporting candidates who try to play the middle instead of standing up for what they believe. I would support a more progressive candidate but the Democratic party has gotten to where they think the only way to get elected is to appeal to more conservatives instead of exciting the liberals in their own party about supporting them. I have voted Democratic for the better part of 30 years. and have seen no real change in course. You can't appeal to conservatives AND liberals alike and if the candidate is more concerned with appealing to conservatives, they can forget my vote. BTW, when the candidates started becoming "poll runners", that's when the American electorate got turned off to them and explains why such a small percentage of eligible voters no longer bother voting. If a candidate could appeal to those disenfranchised voters, they could win in a landslide, but they're not going to do it by trying to play the middle all the time.
Ron Paul is the only straight shooter on the Republican candidates side, all the others are me too and trying to play both sides. Enough said.
Post a Comment