In the thick of the Democratic presidential primary, a top operative offered up John Edwards' withdrawal from the race and endorsement - on the condition the person he endorsed would offer him a spot on the ticket.
David Plouffe details the deal that "a senior Edwards" adviser" tried to ink before the South Carolina primary, spilling the beans in his book "The Audacity To Win."
Plouffe, then campaign manager for Barack Obama, was worried after the New Hampshire loss and polls tightening in South Carolina.
He said that the rival Edwards camp was in trouble and wanted to make a move with either Obama or Hillary Clinton while Edwards was "at a point of maximum leverage."
In this portion of the book, Plouffe hedges a bit, saying he's not sure Edwards was aware of the effort's specificity.
But he also has direct quotes, suggesting he documented the conversation.
Read the excerpt after the jump.
Plouffe writes:
Publicly his team insisted they could resuscitate his campaign in South Carolina. But privately, it soon became clear they knew otherwise, and some time after the debate, I got a call from a senior Edwards adviser.This was the pitch:
"Listen. It's clear unless the race is shaken up, Hillary is going to win. You guys might not even win South Carolina. What would shake the race up is John ending his campaign, but not simply to endorse another candidate. All things being equal, John prefers Barack. They should announce they are joining forces and will run as a ticket. Edwards can vouch for Obama with blue-collar and Southern whites and is running on a change message.
"It's a perfect fit. And it has to be something that big to slow down Hillary. You need a big shakeup in the race and this could be it."
I listened intently and replied that obviously this was something I would need to discuss with my boss. "Am I authorized to raise this offer with him?" I asked.
"Yes," came the reply. But then right at the end of the conversation, the Edwards rep added a new wrinkle: "Just to be clear, we're going to talk to the Clinton people too. That's not where John's heart is, but he is at a point of maximum leverage now. We want to see what each of you is thinking."
My initial reaction was that this was a nonstarter. Of course we wanted Edwards's support and his message was certainly closer in spirit to ours than it was to Hillary's. But political deals like this rarely work: people see right through them.
Plus I couldn't imagine Obama agreeing this far out to lock in his running mate without going through any process or even being certain that we would be the ones making a selection.
Obama's answer was quick and firm: he would cut no deals. If he won, he did not want to be locked in to any personnel matters, and he had little interest in deciding on a vice presidential pick in the heat of the primary campaign.
We decided he would talk to Edwards personally and make clear there could be no promises. During that conversation, Obama reiterated that we wanted John's support and thought it would make a difference, and clearly there could be a potential role for him down the line.
But if he endorsed us now, there could be no hint of something concrete in the future.
Shortly after this I checked in with my Edwards contact. Clearly Edwards had already downloaded his conversation with Obama. The contact said that while John's inclination was to be with Obama, it seemed the Clinton folks were more intent on gaining his support.He did not allude to specifics, but the message was that Hillary might offer specific commitments. "Well " I said, "we have made clear that we would value your support and think it would be very meaningful. I hope this is where you decided to hang your hat."
I strongly doubted that Clinton was offering Edwards anything concrete, and certainly not the VP slot. She knew better than most how important decisions like this were, and I had a hard time believing that even a crucial endorsement on on this level, days before South Carolina, would warrant much more than a thank-you and a promise to talk further down the line.
I don't know if Edwards sanctioned these diplomacy missions or the level of specificity and brazenness that was presented to us.The Edwards saga petered out after that ... Eventually he endorsed us; it came at an important time, and we were grateful to have his support.
Last week, TPMDC outlined another campaign bombshell from the book - the Obama team orchestrated some of the Florida/Michigan mess in hopes of boxing in Clinton.
Late update: The Washington Post' Greg Sargent spoke to the "Edwards adviser," who says Plouffe's account is "entirely accurate."

TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com

bvd
November 16, 2009 6:11 PM
And all this knowing he'd had an affair and fathered a child while his wife was fighting cancer. Edwards proved to be as low as the lowest Republican. The damage he could have done to this country - all for his ego - is unimaginable.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
November 16, 2009 6:46 PM in reply to bvd
Heck, we almost elected VP Lieberman. Edwards couln't have been worse than that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bvd
November 16, 2009 6:56 PM in reply to bluebell
I detest Lieberman too but the point is that the scandal came out during the fall campaign. It would have lost Obama the election (see Thomas Eagleton for further reference). If you don't think McCain-Palin would have been a disaster - and a far greater one than Lieberman as vp - I'll pass on further comment.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bvd
November 16, 2009 7:04 PM in reply to bluebell
I detest Lieberman too but the point is that the scandal came out during the fall campaign. It would have lost Obama the election (see Thomas Eagleton for further reference). If you don't think McCain-Palin would have been a disaster - and a far greater one than Lieberman as vp - I'll pass on further comment.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rich in NJ
November 16, 2009 8:38 PM in reply to bluebell
If Lieberman had been elected VP, we would not be seeing the craven fool that we are seeing now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rb6
November 16, 2009 10:37 PM in reply to Rich in NJ
I think this too. Lieberman's unredeemable flaw, so far as I can tell, is that his vanity outstrips his principles by a mile. He's like a little lapdog seeking validation. If, in 2004, anyone had thrown him a bone in the presidential campaign he would be forever grateful.
OTOH, and I sincerely mean this, I still think he would have campaigned better than John Edwards.
As my mother said about Edwards: The whole always seemed to be a lot less than the sum of the parts. The difference was sincerity.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lestatdelc
November 16, 2009 7:26 PM in reply to bvd
Except the is zero proof of paternity. The rest of your post I agree with.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
November 16, 2009 8:35 PM in reply to Lestatdelc
Don't let the fact that the kid looks just like Edwards sway you . . . .
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mycomment
November 16, 2009 7:40 PM in reply to bvd
staggering, isn't it? that is what enrages me to no end -- this lying sos would pursue office with this shit in the background.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CN
November 16, 2009 6:17 PM
At this point, can anything John Edwards has done be considered a "shocker"?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GTFOOH
November 16, 2009 6:19 PM
This dude was trying to screw everybody!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
millebornes
November 16, 2009 6:24 PM
JE is dead to me.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rmwarnick
November 16, 2009 6:28 PM
Edwards taught us all not to back any politician solely on his issue positions. Character counts above all.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tom Wells
November 16, 2009 6:55 PM in reply to rmwarnick
I think you are right.
JRE was right in so many isuses, better than Obama.
Yet, Obama's inherent decency matters more.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jenesq
November 16, 2009 10:53 PM in reply to Tom Wells
JRE's rhetoric on many issues was "better" than Obama's. His actual record, not so much.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael A
November 16, 2009 6:39 PM
And his voting record. Edwards voting record was far to the right of traitor joe. Edwards was just a bunch of hot air and that is all. It used to drive me nuts during the primaries. Everyone was listen to what he says. Big deal. The voting record spoke volumes and sucked. That's what counted. When he had a chance to do something, he didn't. Why would he be any different as president or vp. Pathetic.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
November 16, 2009 7:02 PM in reply to Michael A
I agree. His voting record didn't match anything that came out of his mouth. I knew he was a phony and wondered if he was fooling around. Now we know for sure
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
November 16, 2009 8:37 PM in reply to Michael A
Agree. Edwards was full of shit. His rhetoric never matched his senate record yet the netroots lapped up his BS. Russ Feingold called him a phony.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
xargaw
November 16, 2009 6:41 PM
We all be thankful that the Edwards campaign fizzeled and Clinton and Obama had the presense of mind to not make any deals with him.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lyleleander
November 16, 2009 6:42 PM
Unbelievable. If you wanna screw around and put your own political future on the line... by all means, knock yourself out. You won't be the first, and you certainly won't be the last. But to put your entire political party in imminent danger, your entire country (You Betcha), for nothing more than your own pathetic ego? Words can't describe how putrid that is.
Edwards has some serious sociopathic and narcissistic problems that I hope he's addressing somehow.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael A
November 16, 2009 6:45 PM in reply to lyleleander
Unfortunately serious sociopathic and narcissistic problems are not treatable. I tried for ten years with my ex and it just got worse. The problem is that they truly believe their superiority and lies. They live in an alternate reality created by their lies. It really is unbelievable.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
November 16, 2009 6:50 PM in reply to Michael A
Thank you for explaining Congress.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael A
November 16, 2009 7:04 PM in reply to bluebell
Too funny. And true.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MNPundit
November 16, 2009 6:44 PM
I never trusted him. But I can't claim any high ground.
I distrust anyone with a southern accent.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CVille Dem
November 16, 2009 7:07 PM in reply to MNPundit
How about Bill Moyers? He is the exception that I always think of. For me it isn't a matter of NOT TRUSTING a person with a southern accent; I just think that most of them are dumb as hell!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MNPundit
November 16, 2009 7:17 PM in reply to CVille Dem
Fiance watches him, I am usually reading blogs while she's doing that. I've lost my patience with television except for Rachael Ray and Stargate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
November 16, 2009 8:42 PM in reply to CVille Dem
Bill Clinton is dumb as dirt. William Faulker was a moron. Hugo Black was a drooling idiot.
Yep, a southern accent proves you're stupid.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CVille Dem
November 16, 2009 8:53 PM in reply to FreeRider
Gee, you really make a case for yourself. I never like to put people with low IQ's down, so I will just say to you -- one plus one is two, and two plus two is four -- keep going and come back later. I'll try to help you to understand what "dumb as dirt" means (hint: it does not include people that you simply disagree with politically, especially if they are better educated than you).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
November 16, 2009 10:07 PM in reply to CVille Dem
Hate to get in the middle of the personal beefing, but, speaking as someone who speaks with a southern accent (or, to be specific, an amalgam of the accents of Mitch McConnell and John Edwards, with a varying degree of Appalachian thrown in depending on my proximity to the mist cover'd mountains of home), I do think stereotyping based on accent is rather bad form. Why, I've even gotten to the point where I don't flinch at New York or Boston accents.
But just to show I'm even-handed, I never cared much for Faulkner.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hollywood
November 17, 2009 6:12 AM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
I have the greatest feeling for the land of your birth and the language of your family, but ....but in America as a whole the Southern accent has always been the one of slavery, then war, apartheid, now obesity, illiteracy, religious intolerance, and succession fervor. Southern accent means big trouble to the rest of us. Honestly do you think all we other Americans do not hear some human rights/civil rights nightmare in your drawling polite verbiage? The birth of America really is the Northeast and the Mid Atlantic. The south has always been along for the ride. Boston is the cradle of Liberty ...... not Atlanta ......
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Official A
November 17, 2009 8:44 AM in reply to hollywood
Oh, for God's sake! Get a clue.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
November 17, 2009 9:10 AM in reply to hollywood
After that post, you are barred from ever claiming that your brain cells have not been destroyed by moonshine.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
November 17, 2009 9:39 AM in reply to hollywood
Thing is, that's an ugly slippery slope. If it's okay to stereotype white southerners for the way they talk, then you basically give yourself permission to stereotype black people, then Latinos, then first generation immigrants . . .
The urge to classify people based on the way they talk springs from the same part of our brains, the part programmed by evolution to identify and fear "Other," that has given us millinea of war, slavery and strife. No matter how much you want it to be right, it isn't.
On the other hand, when I run into the attitude, I try to recall the advice of a senior partner gave me when I was a young associate: "I learned a long time ago that most people from North of the Mason-Dixon line think anyone from the south of it is a complete blithering idiot. If you always keep that in mind, it will give you a tremendous advantage over them."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
November 17, 2009 10:19 AM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Accents have been around for a long time...
"Thy speech bewrayeth thee..."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hollywood
November 17, 2009 12:35 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Again, I truly appreciate the feelings of southerners who are the liberal secular minority in a sea of bible-thumping redneck illiterates .... but the demographics and the social norms of the deep south do not lie and are not hard to find information on.
George Bush's loyal 28% is mostly a southern thing with a bit of the redneck west thrown in for flavor. If you look at the Red/Blue map of where the Republican party has it's most loyal following in America it is the south. If you think what holds America back from social progress is the right wing of the republican party then please admit their political mindset DOMINATES the south and is quickly being run out of the north. Look at the map of the 2004 reelection of Bush and tell me where the ignorant and bigoted warmongers dominate. Jesusland sucks and drags the rest of us into the swamp along with it. Thanks!
If it is "war, slavery, and strife" that you abhor then what the hell do you think the CIVIL WAR was all about??? Peace loving Americans are anguished about the over 4000 deaths our nation has endured in the Iraq War. Can you even grasp the over 400,000 deaths in the "War Between the States" in a country with a far smaller total population? The north and northeast have paid a terrible horrible price for the continued participation of the south in our destiny as a nation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
November 17, 2009 9:51 AM in reply to hollywood
God Almighty. You've heard of busing, right?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NotBornEveryMinute
November 16, 2009 11:49 PM in reply to CVille Dem
I followed your instructions, starting with 1+1=2,... I got all the way up to "sar+casm". Please tell me what that equals.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Official A
November 17, 2009 8:46 AM in reply to CVille Dem
Got irony?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
November 17, 2009 9:08 AM in reply to CVille Dem
Your post proves that you are indeed dumb as dirt. It must be your southern accent.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Will work for shoes
November 16, 2009 10:10 PM in reply to CVille Dem
Gee, well, thanks.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
November 16, 2009 7:03 PM
I know that if I ever wanted to run for high office I would hire David Plouffe. Brilliance abounded in the Obama campaign.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael A
November 16, 2009 7:08 PM in reply to lousgirl84
I think obama had alot to do with that brilliance. Plouffe obviously is good and so is Axelrod, but look at the leader who ran the show. Obama. I think the campaign spoke volumes about obama and his leadership style more than anything else.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
VivaAmerica!
November 16, 2009 7:11 PM in reply to lousgirl84
I met him at one of his book signings and he was so good when it came to answering question from the crowd. Didn't stumble on anything, shook hands, very friendly. One thing that struck me was that he reminded me so much of Obama when he's on stage. The pauses, the hand gestures, they are the same. I notice that kind of stuff.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
holyhandgrenaid
November 16, 2009 7:07 PM
*sigh* John Edwards: routinely finding ways for me to regret voting for him in two separate NH primaries...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
racetoinfinity
November 16, 2009 7:14 PM
Too bad psychopaths, sociopaths, & narcissists can't be "treated." They're stubborn in their delusions and coldness all right, but I gotta think if one of them wanted to, (that's the hard part), he could heal.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael A
November 16, 2009 7:24 PM in reply to racetoinfinity
You would think. I went through three different "therapists" and a ton of personal research and the answer is always the same. There is nothing that can be done. It really is shocking when you think about it. Just type in a search for narcissism and check it out. I didn't believe it myself. It only took ten years of battering my head against an immovable wall.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
November 16, 2009 8:41 PM in reply to racetoinfinity
And a shark could become a vegetarian if it really wanted to.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
twirling fartknocker
November 16, 2009 7:24 PM
But he was collecting paychecks from his bogus foundation for the supposed benefit of the poor. The poor, dammit! Doesn't that count for anything?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
PSG
November 16, 2009 7:25 PM
John Edwards and company, meet underside of bus. He basically is becoming the poster boy image for craven politicians. The more I hear about, the more it feels like a parody is going on. To think he was the most popular candidate among the netroots for a while is absolutely insane in retrospect.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
midnight rambler
November 16, 2009 8:03 PM in reply to PSG
Let's not forget that Ron Paul was the darling of a lot of liberal netroots people too, solely for opposing the Iraq war. It just goes to show how shallow people's political whims are, even those who appear to be informed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
November 16, 2009 10:17 PM in reply to midnight rambler
There's a reason I'm such a cantankerous contrarian about netroot CW.
Watching Hamsher and co. flounder about when it turned out wishing away Lieberman's carefully prepared independent run wasn't actually a plan was pretty much my eye opener.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
November 16, 2009 8:17 PM in reply to PSG
Well, he was the only Democrat speaking to the working class, particularly in 2004. Hillary wised up but not before it was too late. I think it says more about the state of the Democratic Party than anything else.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Orlando
November 16, 2009 7:48 PM
Once an ambulance chaser, always an ambulance chaser. Slimy to his core. I need a shower just reading this crap.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
November 16, 2009 7:54 PM
Who really cares? This is nothing but gossip and beyond that is utterly and completely useless. Stop wasting everyone's time with this garbage! Our country's economy is in tatters, our upper classes think everything is going to go back to how it used to be and there are no jobs for about 10 million Americans who need and want to work. In light of present circumstances, who gives a flying fuck to Philadelphia about this bullshit?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
November 16, 2009 8:45 PM in reply to oleeb
Apparently, you give a shit. Otherwise, you would not have read it then taken the time to post how much you don't care.
By the way, the insurance industry called. They need your help derailing healthcare on the basis that "it's not good enough."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
November 16, 2009 9:12 PM in reply to FreeRider
Hello asshole! Haven't been bothered by you in a while. Why don't you go fuck yourself?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
November 17, 2009 9:11 AM in reply to oleeb
Because I'm having too much fun fucking with you!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
escowles
November 16, 2009 8:39 PM
In what world is it a "shocker" that a candidate leaving a primary field tries to position himself for VP? Oh, right, in Washington, where saying out loud what everyone knows to be true is considered offensive.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
screaminmeme
November 16, 2009 9:06 PM
I knocked on doors in NH for JE. I want my time -- and contributions -- back.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kash79
November 16, 2009 9:56 PM
When a NQ story on you is absolutely spot on you know your life is a f'cked up. BTW, to know more about aliens descending onto the W.H. for a secret summit pick a copy of the latest NQ.
JE reminds me of cartoon characters who walk for a moment or two in midair, past the edge of the cliff, before hitting rock bottom.
I'm sorry I supported this dick with a small "d" for like two seconds before I began paying attention to Barack.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jenesq
November 16, 2009 10:39 PM
I never liked Edwards and yet I could never articulate the reason why. I don't have a knee-jerk dislike for trial lawyers, and I hoped I wasn't simply being shallow (eg, put off by his over-coiffed looks). Well, now I know. What a self-absorbed snake that guy is. I am so glad I never fell for that son of a.... millworker.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
StarShineSpeaks
November 17, 2009 1:50 AM
I can't say it's a surprise but can you imagine if his little sex scandal would have hit Obama in the last days! That's why the smartest guy won! Politics! Blah!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
larue
November 17, 2009 2:31 AM
Mr. Joshua. I am ashamed you even covered this mess of shit.
It should have been beneath you, and your blog, and your principles.
You lower your self and your blog ideals to HuffPo or tabloid levels to do what you have done.
I'm ashamed of you and your position and effort in this regard.
It's purely tabloid and sucks.
We, your readers and supporters, deserve better.
You have cheapened your blog and your cred in the blogosphere.
And I for one, am not happy for this.
The progs/libs need better from you if you really represent our voices.
MUCH fuckin better.
zHarumph.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jenesq
November 17, 2009 9:56 AM in reply to larue
Must be a defensive Edwards supporter! Dude, here's a clue: this information was in a significant political book that people are talking about. The only "tabloid" aspect of this is JRE himself, who proved that beyond a doubt by screwing around on his cancer-stricken wife with some bimbo.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
November 17, 2009 10:00 AM in reply to larue
Why would a story about one of the candidates for the Dem nomination for President in '08 be "beneath" TPM?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
superking
November 17, 2009 2:33 AM
Paraphrasing HST, if there's one thing the American voter can't stand, it's a loser. The stench of defeat never washes out, which is why Gore or Edwards or Kerry will never be a viable candidate for President. Clinton made such a stink about losing that she might survive politically.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dswx
November 17, 2009 5:18 AM in reply to superking
Not really. Bush Sr. lost to Reagan. Heck, Reagan lost his first time around too.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
arias
November 17, 2009 9:32 AM in reply to superking
Not to mention Nixon's loss to Kennedy before sweeping '68 and '72.
Primary losses are one thing, general elections another. Democratic losers in the general election don't get a second chance.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jenesq
November 17, 2009 9:59 AM in reply to arias
Actually, anything is possible. Just ask the ghost of Grover Cleveland!
Gore might have won in '08 if he had run. The only reason that recent Dem losers in the general election haven't had a second chance is that a lot of them proved to be completely rotten candidates (Mike Dukakis, anyone? Walter Mondale? Heck, even Kerry wasn't exactly setting the world on fire.)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Skybolt
November 17, 2009 10:02 AM
It's always funny to watch so-called liberals and leftists reveal their puritanism when it comes to sexual matters. Edwards did not commit a crime. If John Edwards had been the VP candidate, and the voters had rejected the ticket over an irrelevant private matter, that would have been a failure on the part of the voters, not on the part of John Edwards.
Edwards had the best platform and would have been the best president. If he has a problem in his marriage, that is between him and his wife. It has nothing to do with how he would govern. No one has a right to know anything about a candidate's personal life, and no one has a right to expect any particular kind of behavior from a candidate when they are not at work.
It's none of my boss's business what I do in my personal life, and it's none of your business what John Edwards does in his. If snooping around in the personal lives of politicians is important to you, and you have a need to judge a candidate based on your evaluation of their sexual behavior, join the Republicans.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
readytoblowagasket
November 17, 2009 10:22 AM in reply to Skybolt
No it isn't.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
November 17, 2009 11:58 AM in reply to Skybolt
"It's always funny to watch so-called liberals and leftists reveal their puritanism when it comes to sexual matters. Edwards did not commit a crime."
Puritanism? Sexual matters?
This is so wrong headed and illinformed.
Just because you aren't a Christian conservative who hates gays, choice, minorities etc. doesn't mean you embrace betrayal and deceit. That's more like Christian right propaganda that liberals have no "morals" -- morals defined by the correct policy views on their hot-button gimmick issues (like hating gays, etc).
On the contrary, being a liberal is more about social justice than anything. Liberals, in principle, are far more ethical than conservatives, who have a view of society that comes down to "I have mine, if you don't, too bad, now get out of my face".
Not puritanical at all. It's called integrity, ethics, and in general not being a total selfish lying asshole. Ironically enough, that's more the domain of the ostensibly Christian me-firsters in the GOP.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Skybolt
November 17, 2009 1:26 PM in reply to AnswerFrog
The mere fact that you think Edwards's sexual behavior is anything but a private matter, and believe it should be a political matter or a factor in an election, demonstrates your puritanism.
Supporting a candidate means you support their platform, not their sexual fidelity or their performance as a spouse. I don't care if John Edwards (or Barack Obama, or Mitt Romney, or Mike Huckabee) is the best or worst husband on Earth, or if they're rotten parents, or if they cheat at cards. I am only interested in what they do or will do in office. People are complicated; how they act in one area of their lives is not a reliable guide to how they will act in any other.
If you were not a puritan, you would not care at all what any politician does in their private life, period. Americans in general feel they have a right to an opinion about other people's sex lives. Progressives need to realize that any attempt to police the sexual lives of others is essentially conservative. Think of all the harm that has been done to this country because progressive Dems failed to fight for Dem politicians' right to sexual privacy. Gary Hart, Eliot Spitzer, John Edwards -- all ruined, in part, because American progressives refused to give up that precious American right of pretending they are pure.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DKC/Feral Cat
November 17, 2009 3:01 PM in reply to Skybolt
I'm with you Skybolt. We've become such a bunch of prudes with regards to sex. The betrayal of the Democratic Party regarding working Americans (most of us) and the poor is beyond disgusting and will effect us for years and years to come. Edwards' affair won't. We are headed for another serious crash and further job losses, but this bunch in power now have summits and send the front man out on trips. How is it possible to listen to Summers or Geithner and not know that they are in on the biggest heist of taxpayer money in our history? How is it possible to forgive them for not working for what should be the core of what it means to be a Democrat i.e. universal single payer health care?
They are all sociopaths including the guy who wrote this book and the guy that made the ham handed offer to him.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
November 17, 2009 3:44 PM in reply to Skybolt
"People are complicated; how they act in one area of their lives is not a reliable guide to how they will act in any other."
Personal flaws at minimum raise red flags about the person. I guess this is why we always look at the biography of presidential candidates -- to guage as best we can their character. But if someone demostrates egregious unethical and deceitful behavior to the people closest to them, how can we expect them to be honest with the public??
And your label of puritanism is essentially a strawman. On the face of it, it's also untrue -- a single *bachelor* Edwards playing the field would be a nonissue. Instead we have a deeply dishonest guy who lies about being the father, lies about the affair, apparently lied about the timeline, and so forth. He comes off as a total fake, who in his public life, accommplished nothing. (As Senator in NC, he was very moderate, and became suddenly liberal out of office.)
This is about integrity, not about sex -- things that most people think matter for people we trust with the public good. How about if Edwards was killing puppies on the side? A personal issue?
It's even more egregious with Edwards because we all know that he had the audacity to try to become the Dem nominee (or VP nominee) despite having this bombshell scandal waiting to blow up. He could have destroyed the party's chances and he knew it. The sheer recklessness in the public sphere is probably the root of much of the enmity towards him.
As for Spitzer, your argument is just as weak there. Spitzer wasn't merely having an affair, he was visiting prostitutes, technically a crime. How can you send people to jail while violating the law yourself? If Spitzer had campaigned to legalize prostitution it would be one thing, but he did not.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Skybolt
November 17, 2009 4:39 PM in reply to AnswerFrog
What crime was Spitzer indicted for? What crime was Spitzer convicted of? The answers are none and none. That is what a huge criminal Eliot Spitzer is.
What laws did John Edwards break? None. What lies did he tell you about his platform or his plans? None. That is how John Edwards has been reckless.
Of course this is all about sex. You are sure that Spitzer's or Edwards's sexual behavior tells you something about how they behave in public life, but there is no evidence that it does. What actual crimes were they accused of? In what scandals were they involved while in office, what charges of corruption? None. There's just the sex. You are offended because they did something sexual that you, personally, find offensive.
Puritans always pretend that they are focused on something besides the sex, but they never are. If Spitzer or Edwards had done some equally embarrassing thing that was not sexual -- that is, something irrelevant to their performance in office that you might be grossed out by -- they would not have had to leave the public eye in disgrace. Their enemies would have attacked them, many of their allies would have closed ranks, and they would not have been the subjects of ridicule as they have been. I'd say the odds are even as to whether they would have had to change their plans at all. But let a man do something sexual, and here you come.
My label of puritan is not a strawman because it's accurate. It's because of your way of thinking that we do not have politicians like Edwards, Spitzer, and Hart reaching their potential as political leaders. Americans have to grow up and learn that politicians are not heroes, they are not role models, they are not inspirational, they are just people who have chosen a particular career and want you to hire them. Unless you think it's appropriate to inquire into the consenting adult sexual behavior of your plumber or doctor, in which case you have really serious problems, then you need to get over the idea that hiring a politician is different than hiring anyone else. It does not matter if they are good or nice people. All that matters is that they support and implement the correct policies.
Mind your own business.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
readytoblowagasket
November 17, 2009 10:20 AM
Who the fuck cares?
And who couldn't guess this anyway? Are you serious?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Got Kids
November 17, 2009 11:05 AM
Can you guess who outed Edwards extra-marital relationship? Or was it coincidence the news broke while Obama was in Hawaii?
Ruthless! I love it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Desidero
November 17, 2009 1:03 PM
Wait, I thought it was only Hillary who was arrogant enough to make demands of the winner.
And Obama's team pushed the $400 haircut story? And he & Edwards worked to use Michigan & Florida for their advantage?
Say it ain't so, Joe!!! Next you'll tell us Hillary's team didn't really send out those Obama-in-Somali-garb photos.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
quinn esq
November 17, 2009 3:12 PM in reply to Desidero
Hillary's team didn't really send out those Obama-in-Somali-garb photos.
Sayin'.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?