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.
The Stupidest Thing Said This Campaign Season So Far
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):
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.
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.
| Also in Election 2008 | |||
| So the Stupak Amendment Sucks: Here's What You Can Do About It Find out how your representative voted on and call their office, to thank them or to tell them that you'll be supporting a pro-choice democrat in the next primary. Post by Jill Filipovic. November 10, 2009. |
Bill O'Reilly Goes After Sesame Street: ‘We May Have To Ambush Oscar’ "Add one more soldier to the Left's war on Fox News: Oscar the Grouch." Post by Ben Armbruster. November 10, 2009. |
Focus on the Family's Insurance Plan Covers Abortion (And Other Ironies of The Latest Assault on Choice) If anti-choice pols want to assure taxpayers they won't subsidize abortion, why haven't they tried to abolish tax breaks for employer-sponsored health insurance? Post by Eyal Press. November 9, 2009. |
|