Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
FAREWELL, EDWARDS CAMPAIGN.
The hope of John Edwards pushing forward, all the way to the convention, ends today. Edwards is scheduled to drop out of the presidential race at 1 pm this afternoon in New Orleans, where he'll also be speaking about poverty, an issue that animated his 2008 campaign from the beginning.
His departure is a sad moment, not least because Edwards' policies on health care, inequality, education, and so much more have framed this race, setting the progressive standard for his better-funded, media darling competitors. Hillary Clinton began her run imagining Edwards as her chief rival, and therein lay so much of his power: He alone had the ability, early in the primary, to define what it meant to challenge Clinton from the left.
And we'll miss Elizabeth Edwards' place on the national stage. The whole country was riveted by the story of the husband and wife team who chose together not to give in to cancer, but to fight on in a campaign more defined by issues than most.
That's not to say the Edwards campaign wasn't flawed -- it was. Check out my piece from Monday, in which I speak to Edwards advisors and other experts on why his populism failed to catch on. I also discuss who Edwards voters are likely to flip to, and explain why, somewhat counter-intuitively, Clinton may have an edge.
That's the question sure to be on everyone's lips today.
--Dana Goldstein
COMMENTS (8)
Test
Posted by: Anonymous | January 30, 2008 11:10 AM
How is is counter-intuitive? We've seen exit poll results since Iowa that show Edwards' voters, notwithstanding his lefty message, coming from the right side of the party.
Posted by: Aaron S. Veenstra | January 30, 2008 11:23 AM
Should Edwards withdraw as a candidate, America loses another voice. He was the only candidate on both sides of the political aisle speaking to and about Rural America.
And the wordsmiths and pundits, never got their head around Rural America and its importance to the public discourse.
Shame on the "loud" voices!
Posted by: Jaango | January 30, 2008 11:57 AM
Speaking as one Edwards supporter, Hillary would be my last choice. Obama gets my vote on Super Tuesday.
Posted by: nj progressive | January 30, 2008 12:21 PM
I know my wife was an Edwards supporter, who will be going to Obama now. For her, choosing between those two was just picking who she thought would do a better job.
I must admit, I'm surprised - I thought Edwards was in there until Super Tuesday, at least. My guess is that Elizabeth's health is worse than I thought - best of luck to the Edwardses as they deal with this.
Posted by: 32_Footsteps | January 30, 2008 12:38 PM
I am a middle-aged, female, left-of-center Edwards supporter. I will be voting for Obama on Tuesday.
Posted by: JenK | January 30, 2008 12:39 PM
It may be that Edwards supporters are not a monolith, and vary by region. Polls certainly have told us in the rural/Southern regions he was drawing a white "conservative" vote, which likely came out of Hillary's pile, but among people I know (Northeasterners), he was viewed as the most progressive viable (non-Kucinich) possibility. Many of that second group have suggested Obama is their second choice.
So, we may see Clinton do better in the Southern portions of Super Tuesday, but Obama could soar (vis a vis his current polling) in the northern/western states.
Rumors are that Elizabeth is REALLY having health problems, and that's the explanation for the sudden pullout. How horribly sad for a fine pair of people.
Posted by: demtom | January 30, 2008 12:50 PM
Thank you for article sesli sohbet
Posted by: sesli chat | September 12, 2009 8:18 PM