Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

The Stupidest Thing Said This Campaign Season So Far

Posted by Jane Hamsher, Firedoglake at 10:16 AM on January 11, 2008.


Lawrence O'Donnell's ridiculous statement on John Edwards is offensive on so many level it's hard to count.
senatorjohnedwards000
Edwards

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get Election 2008 in your
mailbox!

 

Ding ding ding! We have a winner. Stupidest thing anyone has said this campaign season goes to Lawrence O'Donnell:

John Edwards is a loser. He has won exactly two elections in his life and lost 31. Only one of his wins and all of his losses were in presidential primaries and caucuses. He remains perfectly positioned to continue to lose with a Kucinich-like consistency. Nothing but egomania keeps Edwards in the race now. All presidential candidates are egomaniacs but some of them have party status worth preserving that forces them to drop out when they hit the wall. A loser like Edwards has no status or dignity to lose. Campaigning and losing is his life. So, he will continue his simple-minded, losing campaign and deny Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton the one-on-one contest they deserve.
If John Edwards stays in the race, he might, in the end, become nothing other than the Southern white man who stood in the way of the black man. And for that, he would deserve a lifetime of liberal condemnation.
A couple of points worth making (though I'm sure there will be many more):

1. People in New Hampshire had their asses handed to them making these kinds of pronouncements before the primary. O'Donnell seems to be the only one who didn't get the memo. John Edwards has earned the right to stay in the race as long as he wants to and can, he's a serious candidate and his presence is not a matter of anyone else's convenience.

2. Edwards has pretty much single handedly driven the populist, anti-poverty message this campaign, which both Clinton and Obama have been heavily appropriating of late. Just as Bill Richardson made a valuable contribution with his "no residual forces in Iraq" promise in the debate, so too has Edwards dragged everyone kicking and screaming onto the "dangers of corporate America" turf. That has value, and that value is ongoing unless you want to boil the slog to November down to simple horserace politics.

3. It is hardly fait accompli that Edwards votes would accrue to Obama. One diarist over at MyDD observed that as a Clinton volunteer on the ground in New Hampshire said were actively (and successfully) targeting the Edwards vote with low and middle income voters. So while CW had it that Edwards remaining in the race was a spoiler for Obama, that may not in fact be true. Nobody -- and certainly not Lawrence O'Donnell -- knows for sure.

4. Jerome Armstrong: "Certainly, Obama and Clinton have a monetary edge over Edwards, but don't discount earned media or Edwards having enough funds to compete well enough. All of the post-Iowa national polls have shown Edwards trending up into the 20 percents, and he's viable. There is no frontrunner."

5. The ugly identity politics on display here is a prime example of the place that nobody -- especially liberals -- wants to go. The day we stop talking about substance and this election all becomes about race and gender, we all lose. It is, abjectly, the stupidest thing that can happen in this campaign season.*

They're already mocking O'Donnell's ridiculous statement over at Kos. And rightly so. It's offensive on so many levels it's hard to count.

Update: * To clarify: I think there are very good discussions of race and gender that need to be had and hopefully having the these two candidates be our frontrunners will lead to that happening. What I meant to say, and probably didn't say clearly enough is that a bunch of gender and race baiting that leads everybody to run off into their identity corners -- which then becomes the arbiter of who supports whom -- is a bad day for everyone.

Update II: Chris Hayes, writing about the Edwards campaign in The Nation: "Few remember that the signature economic policy of Bill Clinton's presidency, balancing the budget, originated as a plank in the platform of his primary rival Paul Tsongas. If the next Democratic President manages to pass universal healthcare or a carbon cap-and-trade, we'll owe the Edwards campaign a significant debt.

Digg!

Tagged as: clinton, obama, edwards, o'donnell

Jane Hamsher is the founder of FireDogLake. Her work has also appeared on the Huffington Post, Alternet and The American Prospect.


Franken-Coleman Update: Norm Returns To Senate As Non-Senator
Al Franken, has been declared the winner of the Minnesota contest but has yet to be sworn in as court battles continue.
Post by Ryan Grim. January 21, 2009.
A Bar Stool View of This Moment in American History
Some reactions to Obama's inauguration speech (which, yes, I watched in a bar).
Post by Joshua Holland. January 20, 2009.
Franken-Coleman Recount: How Far Will It Go?
Will Norm be able to take this all the way to the conservative-controlled US Supreme Court?
Post by Phoenix Woman. January 10, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
And the award for "Biggest Exageration Goes To...."
Posted by: drmflorida on Jan 11, 2008 10:28 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, it was a stupid thing to say. But if you really think that was the stupidest thing said, you haven't been watching the Republican debates.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

O'Donnell seems to have decided to try to make a career of pissing people off
Posted by: UnEasyOne on Jan 11, 2008 1:19 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sometimes it's amusing, sometimes not.

Edwards is definitely a longshot - now that 1/2 of 1% of the country has relegated him to second and third place respectively. I think he can still win - but he has forced HC and BO to present their own healthcare plans and he is holding their feet to the fire.

It isn't impossible - by any means - that the poor and middle class will notice (in spite of the MSM blackout) that the other candidates aren't even claiming they will do anything much different than business as usual.

Change my ass.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How About The Anti-Democratic Slur...
Posted by: pdxstudent on Jan 11, 2008 5:08 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...felt subtly in O'Donnell's call to let Edwards (and presumably anyone with less money and media-blessings) get out of the way of the one-on-one match Obama and Clinton "deserve."

Take a frickin' hike, you neoliberal, anti-democratic apologist. There is nothing more obviously a sham about what we call democracy in America than our pluralist elections. Saying Obama and Clinton should be seen more than any other candidate is patently against any coherent notion of democracy.

It's not hard to understand why this thought comes so naturally to jerks like O'Donnell, when our method of elections are themselves anti-democratic. Those who are *allowed* to appear viable, either by economic fortune and otherwise manipulation, have abso-fucking-lutely no right to be heard on anything but the merits of their bid to be public representatives. Anything less than this, which is to say how things currently stand, is an abomination to our much hallowed "freedom."

We will not have democratic elections worthy of the name until:

(1) all candidate coverage is publicly funded or otherwise administered. It's the people's government, so they should pay for running it every step of the way.

(2) and/or we employ a Condorcet method of ballot casting, collecting and counting. The most straight-forward and popular version of this is known as Instant Run-off Voting, which contrary to all the unsupported arguments is of no more expense than our current system, though who is to say that we should be allowed to bargain with democracy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Shortsighted
Posted by: lamar on Jan 11, 2008 5:33 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't particularly like Edwards, but I suspect the man knew how to win a complicated medical malpractice cases.....repeatedly. Despite my personal misgivings about the guy, he's no loser. What a dumb thing to say.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» GApeach Posted by: georgiatim22
public deserves multiple candidates
Posted by: Grandma Crabby on Jan 11, 2008 8:12 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
good grief.

Hillary and Obama deserve a one-on-one match-up? gimme a break. Doesn't the public deserve a choice between MULTIPLE candidates? Personally, if we're going to have anything like a true democracy, how about 5-6 political parties and 4-5 good candidates in all of them!

Oh, that would be too confusing for the American consumer....I mean voter.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

hadashito
Posted by: hadashito on Jan 11, 2008 9:15 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
ODonnell's ravings do not deserve a rebuttal. This little issue is not about politcal personalities at all but about Lawrence ODonnell who has been making a public ass of himself, especially lately, with wild, outlandish, emotional pronouncements in several venues - - not just that TV "news" joke, MSNBC. The only good thing about that channel is K. Olbermann. The rest of the MSNBC clowns, particularly ODonnell and Chris Matthews, are a continuing embarrassment to the news media - - an entity that seems not to understand embarrassment, and certainly not journalism, competent political commentary, or news. ODonnell is apout right for MSNBC. Olbermann is the the sole exception and is the only thing keeping MSNBC on the air. Fox News is stupid comedy. MSNBC is stupid without the comedy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: hadashito Posted by: Shey
O'Donnell
Posted by: jr9657 on Jan 11, 2008 11:16 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When I read this post yesterday on the Huffington Post, I could not believe that they would even give this blowhard space to write such garbage. I would have to agree with you in that, yes, this is the most stupid thing I have seen thus far. O'Donnell reminds me a bit of Coulter, no brains or substance, while spouting off a bunch of mindless dribble.

It'll be interesting to see O'Donnell and the rest of the MSM eat their words when Edwards does win!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

privileged people defending their status will always have the second-best arguments
Posted by: Suzon on Jan 12, 2008 2:30 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Their most useful tactic, therefore, is the personal attack. Anyone taking a courageous stand against the status quo which damages so many and obscenely rewards the top 1% will be rubbished in this way. It's a given.

I believe that John Edwards will be up to the task. He's not a loser but a winner of many tough court cases and seems to be very solidly grounded.

If Edwards' campaign was doomed, he wouldn't have been attacked in this desperate way. He may be the Silky Sullivan of American politics.

It's far from over, folks.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

cisc
Posted by: cisc on Jan 12, 2008 7:56 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Edwards noticed what the rest of the candidates and the Elite Punditry Class, or as Atrios labels them, "the Villagers" have failed to notice and are just now figuring out-what the cheerleading and happy talk on Fox hoped to hide-real America is hurting in a big way. No one is entitled to having the Presidency handed to them-we had that with W-look what happened. Hillary and Obama need to earn it and having to deal with Edwards point of view will only make them stronger and better should they be the one. Hillary was definately made better by not being so inevitable. Obama definately makes me think of Jack Kennedy-but unlike Dana-I know what happened at the Bay of Pigs. I want to believe we are a decent enough people that race does not matter but however much promise he has he is still a rookie. I am a female of Hillary's generation-I know damn good and well we still need that ceiling shattered. But I think the stupidest thing I have heard this election season is Mitt saying there are not two Americas, we are all one. Sure. That's why you support the war and have five sons that do not serve and you don't have to worry about paying for your wife's medical care. Nor will you lose everything you have to save her life. You will pay brown people of unknown origin to do your dirty work and then you will climb on top of their misery to get elected. I'm sorry John Edwards is a middle aged white southern man, my guess is he won't be elected-but it is my right as an American to be given the opportunity to hear him.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'd like to be as big a loser as Edwards!
Posted by: Shakti on Jan 13, 2008 11:59 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The man is super-smart, incredibly focused, hugely energetic and is a totally self-made multimillionaire. This is what losers are made of? I don't think so.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]