Edwards takes a slamming

Oped | Charles Krauthhammer
Edwards' pitiful campaign

Mike Huckabee is not going to be president. The loss in South Carolina, one of the most highly evangelical states in the union, made that plain. With a ceiling of 14 percent among non-evangelical Republicans, Huckabee's base is simply too narrow. But his was not a rise and then a fall. He came from nowhere to establish himself as the voice of an important national constituency. Huckabee will continue to matter, and might even carry enough remaining Southern states to wield considerable influence at a fractured Republican convention.

Fred Thompson will also not be president. His campaign failed, but quite honorably. He never tacked. He never dissimulated. He refused to reinvent himself. He presented himself plainly and honestly. Too plainly. What he lacked was the ferocious, near-deranged ambition (a.k.a., fire in the belly) required to navigate the bizarre ordeal that is today's nominating process. Political decency is not a common commodity. Thompson had it. He'd make a fine attorney general, and not just on TV.

Then there is John Edwards. He's not going to be president either. He stays in the race because, with the Democrats' proportional representation system, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton might end up in a very close delegate race -- perhaps allowing an also-ran with, say, 10 percent of the delegates to act as kingmaker at the convention.

It's a prize of sorts, it might even be tradeable for a Cabinet position. But at considerable cost. His campaign has been a spectacle.

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080125/OPINION04/801250389/1054/OPINION

It's not even worth the time to read.

George W. Bush appointee, contributes to The New Republic, etc.

He never met a person with a (D) behind their name that he didn't hate.

Why is this crap even on DU? Are we carrying water for the Rethugs now?

just like some freakin' thing from Drudge about Clinton and Obama is on the rec'd list at the Daily Kos. Last time I checked, we stayed away from kool-aid stands.

Having said that the Republicans are most afraid of an Edwards candidacy. They would have to invest more in the American people than they would like to do.

Here's another one of his "Gems" from Media Matters:


Charles Krauthammer, syndicated columnist and Fox News contributor: On the August 16 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, Krauthammer claimed that Sheehan's protest is "hurting our troops and endangering our troops." Krauthammer went on to state that Sheehan's statements "have to be attacked because they are libeling America, endangering America, and they are untrue from beginning to end." When Fox News contributor Juan Williams questioned whether Sheehan's statements actually endangered American troops, Krauthammer retorted, "You don't think it's encouraging, you don't think it's going to encourage Iraqis who are attacking us, particularly this kind of stuff about American imperialism?"

as someone in the Democratic Party NEEDS TO! Kucinich is out of the race, BUT, of all the candidates, he didn't have to say why he changed his mind (and it's okay to change your mind at times), BECAUSE these were his positions from the beginning (well, other than "choice").

I posted this knowing who Krauthhamer is, certainly don't agree with his positions and assessments of even the Repubs. At this point, I still support Edwards because he is drawing attention to what needs attending AND he is using public financing for his campaign. What caught me in this op-ed was the following quote by Russ Feingold:
"The one (presidential candidate) that is the most problematic is Edwards," Sen. Russ Feingold told The Post-Crescent in Appleton, Wis., "who voted for the Patriot Act, campaigns against it. Voted for No Child Left Behind, campaigns against it. Voted for the China trade deal, campaigns against it. Voted for the Iraq War. ... He uses my voting record exactly as his platform, even though he had the opposite voting record."
I think this does something to Edwards credibility - how can it not? BUT, like I said, regardless of his past votes, he is taking the stands that I want a Democrat to take.

some of the money the stole from the nation or break up their monopolies.

:thumbsup:

and not Clinton and Obama?

:shrug:

Hmmmm.

They are aware of his appeal to the Dem base.

More importantly...they couldn't even beat him in a rigged race, as they have the last two Democratic contenders.

The margin Edwards would have would be impossible to overcome solely by cheating - not necessarily so with Hillary or Obama.

If not, we need one.

NoFederales

"The one (presidential candidate) that is the most problematic is Edwards," Sen. Russ Feingold told The Post-Crescent in Appleton, Wis., "who voted for the Patriot Act, campaigns against it. Voted for No Child Left Behind, campaigns against it. Voted for the China trade deal, campaigns against it. Voted for the Iraq War. ... He uses my voting record exactly as his platform, even though he had the opposite voting record."

It's generally a good idea to know what your enemies are saying, particularly when they can draw so powerfully from one of our own!

that the author was Krauthhammer. His message is always the same. "Screw the middle class. Promote policies that favor the super rich."

don't forget that part.

is as accurate as Bill Kristol. What is interesting is that John must have done something to threaten the neocons for him to even take the time to write about him. So, I guess it is nice to see him mentioned by this shithead in this light.

and Matthews, and Blitzer, and Will, and Nofacts, and Safire, and Broder, and all the rest of the "pundits". That's reason enough, IMO

to the minister. who does not bellieve in evolution, and to the total non-starter, lazy and smarmy, from Tennessee is like comparing a peach to two prunes.

Edwards is toast in any general election. Thank goodness he will not get there.

I can give some kind of half hearted support to Hillary or Obama in the general. I would be disgusted by Edwards for many of the reasons laid out by the author.

Because you spam every pro-Edwards diary with your overt dislike of him, then go to negative diaries to concur with neo-cons.

Or maybe it's the neo-cons concurring with Feingold?

"The one (presidential candidate) that is the most problematic is Edwards," Sen. Russ Feingold told The Post-Crescent in Appleton, Wis., "who voted for the Patriot Act, campaigns against it. Voted for No Child Left Behind, campaigns against it. Voted for the China trade deal, campaigns against it. Voted for the Iraq War. ... He uses my voting record exactly as his platform, even though he had the opposite voting record."

I was not addressing my comment to you. But since you asked, I haven't a clue why Feingold turned on Edwards when Clinton and Obama had identical voting records in continuing to fund the war. Obama was against the Feingold-Kerry amendment, then backed off. Clinton supported Kyl-Lieberman, which Feingold was also against.

I like Feingold, and I appreciate what he did for FISA, which is more than I can say for Clinton and Obama at the moment, but I think it would be helpful if he took a deep breath and not utter stuff from neo-cons, if indeed this is the case. I couldn't locate where you found Feingold mentioned that op-ed, but it seems uncharacteristic of him, and frankly, I don't think stirring up a bee's nest at the DU is a very prudent idea. That comment belongs at Townhall.com or Freeperville.

I'd like to see it in context, with date it was spoken. Maybe we oughta ask Krauthammer to document his source on it.

It's toward the end of the interview:

http://www.postcrescent.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080117/APC06/801170560/1036/APCopinion

Also, It was not my intent to stir shit up but to point out that THEY felt it necessary to go after Edwards. Why?

so what if the author's a neo-con

Edwards' decision to stay in the race looks more and more like narcissism

today's (friday's) NY Times endorsement of Hillary Clinton and general comments sums up my views exactly

Edwards never impressed me.....

and his supposed ability to fight bad corporations is most puzzling of all

apparently based solely on his work as a trial lawyer

yet....just because some lawyer has filed suit against some corporations does not mean they have any capability to on the political stage to rein in corporations' power

Um. Yeah.

Like being an IRS auditor wouldn't necessarily mean one could do their taxes right.

or..

Like being a District Attorney wouldn't necessarily mean one would have an idea of how to reduce crime.

or..

ad nauseum

So, what would mean one had a "capability to on the political stage to rein in corporations' power"?

Hillary and Obama don't even really mention this problem while it's right out front as part of Edwards campaign.

At least he's naming the evil.

The others I guess are laying low and plan to change the system once they're inside I suppose.

As for narcissism I'm not even sure you know what that word means. What do you mean "narcissism"? How is Edwards narcissistic? Where did you read that word and then decide to use it? Do you you know what it means?

Candidates who don't talk about it are not likely to do anything about it. Look where huge chunks of their money is coming from. The debt will be repaid.

Why bother? I also skip anything by the Doughy Pantload. They are both so predictable!