...today in New Orleans, CNN reports. Even with two Americas, he couldn't find even half a country's worth of support.
Jeff Taylor parsed Edwards' "two Americas" idea back in 2006. Steve Chapman followed him around in July.
Edwards to Drop Out...
Comments to "Edwards to Drop Out...":
Alice Bowie | January 30, 2008, 9:23am | #
I'm shocked...shocked I tell u !!Good. The last thing we need is to have taxpayers footing the bill for his haircuts.
T | January 30, 2008, 9:34am | #
sage,The rumor I hear is that in exchange for a valuable prize to be named later, like Attorney General, he'll throw his support to Obama. As much as I didn't want that smarmy bastard in the White House, I'm not sure the AG is any improvement.
Let's remember one of the lessons of Iowa: Hillary Clinton is NOBODY'S second choice.
D.A. Ridgely | January 30, 2008, 9:41am | #
You have to figure he cut a deal with somebody.An out-of-court settlement? But who was he harming the most? And, once out of the race, does he really have anything to bargain with?
Oh, and where's the obligatory thread on Giuliani's imminent withdrawal? (And who's going to break it to Dondero?)
Greg N. | January 30, 2008, 9:45am | #
The libertarian intelligentsia is killing it with the good lines this week. First Will's "national greatness," and now your "two americas".Nice job, libertarians.
joe | January 30, 2008, 9:48am | #
D.A.R.,I don't know who he was harming the most, but his endorsement could be big.
As for bargaining, leaving now, in time to back somebody for the Feb 5 contests, is his bargaining chip.
Another one bites the dust! Another one bites the dust, HEY HEY!
joe | January 30, 2008, 9:52am | #
Edwards' campaign says he won't endorse anybody "right away."OK. I'll go to the vending machine first.
Lost_In_Translation | January 30, 2008, 9:58am | #
And people were afraid that the primaries would drag on too long. By the end of the day Feb 5th, we'll be down to a 2 man race in each party, which is likely to be resolved before March.Then we can get on with the business of choosing the worst possible choice come November.
Matt J | January 30, 2008, 9:59am | #
Attorney General Edwards.(shivers)
Somebody offer him a daytime judge show quick!
anon | January 30, 2008, 10:00am | #
Even before good ole' boy Johnny was considering dropping out, the other top liberal candidates were schmoozing, cuddling, coddling, sucking up, sucking on, the Democrats' favorite source of revenue: trial lawyers.Where? Puerto Rico of course. In a seaside resort. Edwards was right with his "other America". There are lawyers, then there are those who work.
Nutter | January 30, 2008, 10:00am | #
(And who's going to break it to Dondero?)Dondie's already abandoned Rudy like he was a Mexican hooker on her 18th birthday.
Lost_In_Translation | January 30, 2008, 10:04am | #
Hey, stop bashing lawyers, they perform valuable services for the country........much like coyotes prevent rotting meat from becoming too prevelant and spreading disease...
...of course we still shoot the bastards.
Poor Edwards; he'll have to go back to feasting on the flesh of bereaved parents.
dhex | January 30, 2008, 10:08am | #
Attorney General Edwards.as much as that may be icky, it sounds better than Attorney General Giuliani.
highnumber | January 30, 2008, 10:14am | #
Amen, dhex!sixstring | January 30, 2008, 10:18am | #
dhex,You have a point. Listening to Rudy concede the Florida primary and his kind words for McCain left me with the same, sickening thought. Where would Rudy fit in a McCain administration? AG has got to be top of the list.
There goes the "too many" excuse for excluding Gravel from debates.
Oh, goddamn, dhex. You don't need to ruin my morning with the thought of Giuliani as AG. That wasn't nice. He'd make Reno look like a poster child for restraint.
Herman the German | January 30, 2008, 10:37am | #
"we'll be down to a 2 man race in each party"You calling Hillary a man, LIT?
Herman the German | January 30, 2008, 10:43am | #
"The rumor I hear is that in exchange for a valuable prize to be named later, like Attorney General, he'll throw his support to Obama. As much as I didn't want that smarmy bastard in the White House, I'm not sure the AG is any improvement."Robert Novak reported yesterday that the Obama campaign has been hinting around behind the scenes that Edwards may be given the AG position in an Obama administration.
nebby | January 30, 2008, 10:46am | #
Poor Edwards; he'll have to go back to feasting on the flesh of bereaved parents.Now this I do not get. People go to lawyers because they have been screwed by someone. The hospital with the drunk doctor gets a pass, but the only person willing to help the parents with no money up front is the ghoul?
Haved fun licking the boots of the powerful.
Matt J | January 30, 2008, 10:49am | #
Attorney General Giuliani.(shivers)
Somebody offer him a...
Ah fuck it. We're screwed.
Matt J | January 30, 2008, 10:56am | #
The hospital with the drunk doctor gets a pass, but the only person willing to help the parents with no money up front is the ghoul?It's the percentage of their cut that makes them a ghoul.
SugarFree | January 30, 2008, 10:58am | #
Matt J,Edwards is just a product of his environment, an evolutionary adaptation to various pressures. Something in the ecosystem must sup on the flesh of the dead, why shouldn't it be trial lawyers?
Gilbert Martin | January 30, 2008, 11:05am | #
Good riddance to Edwards.His "two americas" routine was never anything more than socialist drivel.
Of course almost everything the other two leading Democrap twits say is also socialist drivel.
nebby | January 30, 2008, 11:08am | #
"It's the percentage of their cut that makes them a ghoul."It's a big cut because they spend their own money developing the case and take all the risks. Again, plaintiff lawyers are the only professionals that as a class help those with no money. Try to get your doctor to accept a deal where he only gets paid if you are cured of your cancer. Plaintiff lawyers make this deal every day.
I never understand how libertarians justify not supporting plaintiff lawyers. You are against government regulation, how are people who are victims of those who act negligently supposed to seek redress? Does your version of libertarianism include no method of dealing with people who harm others?
Lord Jubjub | January 30, 2008, 11:08am | #
One thing that has occurred to me is that if the nominations are settled by sometime in March, that will give third and fourth party candidates plenty of time to gather attention before the conventions.Normally, at this time, there are enough major party candidates still in the race to keep the MSM from looking at other parties. With all of April, May, June and July with no 'horse race' news to present, they may try to generate some by looking far afield.
lunchstealer | January 30, 2008, 11:12am | #
Whew! That's one unacceptable D candidate gone, one to go.Now to sort out the mess that is the GOP primary. I haven't been this underwhelmed by my options in decades.
joe | January 30, 2008, 11:26am | #
It's the percentage of their cut that makes them a ghoul.You mean the percentage the clients agrees to upo front? Do I actually have to explain how the profit motive works, and is essential to getting the best person for the job, to a bunch of libertarians?
joe | January 30, 2008, 11:28am | #
I think bakers' make too much profit as a %, those ghouls!No no, CEOs! No, drug companies. No, oil companies.
Globey | January 30, 2008, 11:31am | #
I thought there were three Americas. Or do people still lump Central America in with North America?P Brooks | January 30, 2008, 11:31am | #
how are people who are victims of those who act negligently supposed to seek redress?Do a little research on Nataline Sarkisyan and then defend Edwards.
Matt J | January 30, 2008, 11:32am | #
It's a big cut because they spend their own money developing the case and take all the risks.If you feel the same way about executive pay packages then I will bow to you intellectual honesty.
Gilbert Martin | January 30, 2008, 11:34am | #
"Now this I do not get. People go to lawyers because they have been screwed by someone."Some do - and some don't. What they do instead is try to manufacture some greivance and/or blow some small greivance into a huge one hoping to hit the lawsuit lottery and get a big payoff - or get some deep pockets corporate defendent to settle out of court since it would be cheaper to litigate.
This could be fixed with a loser pays legal fees system the way it is in other countries.
J sub D | January 30, 2008, 11:35am | #
You have to figure he cut a deal with somebody.He's a one term senator and a losing VP candidate. A promotion to any cabinet position is more than he deserves. He'll get one if he fellates/performs cunnilingus* to the eventual nominee.
I couldn't find a verb form of the word. Is there one? Is this a job for a Wellesley scholar?
whit | January 30, 2008, 11:55am | #
"People go to lawyers because they have been screwed by someone."OR because they WANT to screw someone. the partisan bias is amazing here. do you honestly think that everybody who sues and.or goes to a lawyer with a grievance has a LEGITIMATE, or even a truthful claim?
of course not.
edwards completely lost me (not that he ever had me) when he claimed with a straight face that while he did get a lot of money and support from trial lawyers, that they were NOT a special interest - unlike the evil corporations, etc that contributed to his opponents, that lawyers were only interested in fighting for people's rights and the constitution
lawyers are like ANY other interest group - teachers unions, cop unions, firefighter unions, machinist unions, proctor and gamble, phillip morris, the NRA, etc.
they want to fight for THEIR POV, their constituents, and increase THEIR power.
they are ALL special interests. that doesn't make them bad or good, it just is what it is. for edwards to claim that trial lawyers are unique among special interest groups in that they are only trying to fight the good fight is so absurd, only a leftwing ambulance chaser like edwards could make that claim
x,y | January 30, 2008, 12:37pm | #
Which half are the middle class in?T | January 30, 2008, 12:40pm | #
OR because they WANT to screw someone.I married a lawyer, so yeah, that fits.
R C Dean | January 30, 2008, 1:12pm | #
There are lawyers, then there are those who work.Hey! I resemble that remark!
Rhywun | January 30, 2008, 1:13pm | #
Which half are the middle class in?Depends where you live. NYC (and California), or anywhere else.
Matt J | January 30, 2008, 1:22pm | #
joe,Uncle. I'll admit my own distaste for ambulance chasers clouded my libertarian sensibilities in this case.
MayorOmalleySuxs | January 30, 2008, 1:29pm | #
@ whit | January 30, 2008, 11:55am |I agree with you almost 100%. The little tiny bit I disagree with is lumping the NRA with the rest in your examples of special interests. The NRA was originally a regulating body for shooting sports similar to the Amateur Trapshooting Association (ATA) or National Skeet Shooting Association (NSSA). The NRA only became a polictical lobbying group as its primary purpose once shooters became grist for the gun control lobby's mill. Most NRA members just want to be left alone not gain power. If I was sure that the 2nd admendment would not be subject to death by a thousand cuts I'd drop my NRA membership. However, for as long as my gun ownership is blamed for the failure of the "war on drugs" and other unrelated social ills I'll have to keep on renewing my membership.
whit | January 30, 2008, 1:36pm | #
mayor,look, i am in agreement with the NRA on nearly everything. my point was just a general one about interest groups. any group naturally lobbies for what it wants. those things it wants are naturally going to be the things that benefits its members, and not necessarily society at large. since i tend to agree with t he NRA, i *do* think what they lobby for will benefit society, but it's not an effect argument so much as an intent argument.
plenty would argue that what the NRA argues for hurts society. while i would strongly disagree, i accept that ANY special interest group needs to be viewed with the understanding that it is their job to advocate for a POV, not to help the entire society (not that such a thing is even possible).
i'd also say the same about the ACLU fwiw.
fwiw, i once spoke to an aclu attorney who candidly admitted that plenty of ACLU d00ds often disagree with the very argument they are making and don't necessarily even want to win, it's just that they want to put THEIR argument out there as part of the process.
Gilbert Martin | January 30, 2008, 1:56pm | #
"my point was just a general one about interest groups. any group naturally lobbies for what it wants."Indeed they do but there is a signigicant distinction between groups who are lobbying against government expansions of power that encroaches on their freedom or property rights and groups that are lobbying for government to either make other people do something or prevent other people from doing something or to get some taxpayer subsidy or handout.
There are "defensive" lobbyists and "offesenive" lobbyists.
whit | January 30, 2008, 2:03pm | #
"Indeed they do but there is a signigicant distinction between groups who are lobbying against government expansions of power that encroaches on their freedom or property rights and groups "yes, but again it's largely in the eye of the beholder.
for example. one could argue (if you were pro-choice) that pro-choice groups are arguing to expand the right of women and get govt. out of women's private body parts.
OR one could see pro-life groups as arguing to expand the right/protections of the unborn and the minimize govt. funds and authority to protect those doing the killing.
see? depending on your POV it is still a matter of perspective.
which is why i am pragmatic and accept that in general - interest groups are all fighting for their POV and their constituencies and any claim that some are all pure and holy is utter rubbish. they aren't nor SHOULD they be.
it's like an adversarial justice system. when you get arguments from more sides and more POV's you generally get better decisions
Gilbert Martin | January 30, 2008, 2:13pm | #
"yes, but again it's largely in the eye of the beholder."No, I don't think so.
In most cases, it's readily determinable whether what a group is lobbying for involves a government expansion of power into something that it previously had not been involved in.
joe | January 30, 2008, 2:40pm | #
Indeed they do but there is a signigicant distinction between groups who are lobbying against government expansions of power that encroaches on their freedom or property rights and groups that are lobbying for government to either make other people do something or prevent other people from doing something or to get some taxpayer subsidy or handout.Other than Gilbert Martin likes groups he characterizes as the former, and doesn't like groups he characterizes as the latter, what might that difference be?
Gilbert Martin | January 30, 2008, 3:01pm | #
It's the same as the difference between keeping your own money and getting a handout os somebody else's money.nebby | January 30, 2008, 5:34pm | #
"It's a big cut because they spend their own money developing the case and take all the risks.If you feel the same way about executive pay packages then I will bow to you intellectual honesty."
If it is an executive pay package and not owner profits the executive usually has $O invested in the company. If the CEO of GM puts up his personal funds to develop the new car, he should get a huge stake. Why is this OK for venture capitalists, but not for lawyers?
To all who jump on the insurance company propaganda bandwagon about "lawsuit lottery" ask any defense attorney what percent of the cases he has faced at trial were frivolous and even the most die hard defense attorney will tell you it is 1% or so. Plaintiff attorneys put up their own money behind a case. They have no motive for pursuing a frivolous case. Frivolous cases getting anywhere are so rare that each one becomes a news event propped up by the insurance company PR machine.
The incentives are against frivolous lawsuits by individuals. (of course, like in any system there are outliers). Ironically, the contingency fee system greatly discourages them. You want to see frivolous check out the cases where one company sues another. In those cases the lawyers on both sides are making big hourly money no matter who wins or loses. The incentives are totally different there.
Funny, no one ever talks about those.
Pro Libertate | January 30, 2008, 10:17pm | #
I'm glad that he's out. Now he can dedicate more time to talking to dead people.