Huffington Post To Edwards: DROP DEAD! (You Won't Believe This Article)

Actually the article has nothing to do with the Kerry endorsement of Obama. In fact, it's barely clear if the article has any point (it is incredibly short) other than to insult John Edwards and scare his supporters into abandoning him! Here is one of the most shocking excerpts "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." I'm still shocked that anyone would have the gall to actually write such a thing. I'm doubly shocked that the Huffington Post would publish it. The article goes on to suggest that Edwards is a egomanic and implies he may even be a racist if he doesn't do the "right thing" and bow out and leave the game to those who are his superiors (Clinton and Obama). My god!

Another shockingly blunt excerpt from the "article" if we can even call it that: "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." Good Lord! What has John Edwards done to warrant such a hit piece from a Progressive website??? Again, this isn't some kind of Republican Slime Machine like Fox News calling Edwards a loser and a racist. None of us would be terrible shocked by that. This is an article in the Huffington Post for crying out loud. Hell hath no fury like the DNC scorned.

The rebuttal was straight-forward and to the point. My favorite section was this gem: "However, I am fairly sure in my own mind that Karl Rove paid him to write that post. Look at it this way: O'Donnell attacks the only candidate in the race with explicitly progressive policy positions, and the only candidate in the race who hasn't accepted corporate money, and the only candidate in the race who understands how corporations are poisoning American politics and American life with their unrestrained power and influence." Still, I am a little troubled that an article as poorly written as Lawrence's was even allowed to be published! It seemed more like an angry anti-Edwards comment to an article than an actual article. It was devoid of any real point other than that this werido passionately hates John Edwards. Disliking Edwards is fine. Even publishing peices critical of Edwards in the Huffington Post wouldn't necessarily raise any eyebrows (at least not from me). But something so poorly written and devoid of content? I'm disappointed in Arianna for allowing that one to get posted at all.

What a piece of crap article. Oh man, is he getting a letter from me. And the corporate media, the pundits, the Huffington Post, and those who want to push Edwards out can all go to hell. 48 states to go, and hopefully John Edwards will be running in each and every one of them!

Outrageous!

The only loser in that article is the one who wrote it ...

that is disgusting!
i concurr green diggler

"O'Donnell attacks the only candidate in the race with explicitly progressive policy positions, and the only candidate in the race who hasn't accepted corporate money, and the only candidate in the race who understands how corporations are poisoning American politics and American life with their unrestrained power and influence."

Even if this were true, how does that prove that Edwards isn't a loser?

Here's something even more disturbing: do you even know what the delegate count is so far? The media is calling this horse race and universally declared that Edwards is so far behind (after only two states have voted) that it would be "egomaniacal" not to drop out. Let's review the scorecard for the Dem candidates: Obama has 25, Clinton has 24 and Edwards has 18. Ah, but the media told us that Edwards is so far behind after new Hampshire that this former vice-presidential candidate is embarrassing himself by remaining in the race. Well, what do you think? Do those number represent a blow out? Again only TWO states have voted. But let's move on to the Republicans. Surely if Edwards is an "embarrassment" with only 18 delegates then the pudits would be making the same claim for anyone on the Republican side with so few, right? Let's review: Romney has 24, Huckabee has 18 and McCain has 10. Waitaminute -- we were told that coming in third with only 18 delegates was a "failure" so overwhelming that Edwards must be a -- how'd they phrase it? -- "egomaniacal loser" to remain in the race. (reminder: only TWO states have voted). Meanwhile McCain snags only 10 delegates and the press is proclaiming him the defacto Republican candidate. McCain-mania (as the press dubs it) is sweeping the nation. For the love of God what is going on with our mainstream media in regards to John Edwards?

Helicopter: If true, he's standing up for the people, not corporate interests which proves that his priorities are in the right place. It proves that he's standing up against corporations running our country on our behalf which makes him a winner to most of us. And, if he loses because the media set him up to lose by calling him a loser - then the media is the real loser, along with the rest of the country.

Crob: It's just more proof that we're right. Corrupt politicians and MSM are experts at skewing and spinning things to look one way when they're another - and it f-ing works! Corporate run MSM is in it for the advertising money and to make sure their tax rates don't change. What grass roots organization out there has our backs on this??!!

It isn't hard to now see why Al Gore has fallen out of love with politics. It all sucks. I hope John Edwards stays in up to the convention. I hope he wins Nevada and a few other states and gains more momentum, if for nothing else but to show the corporate media and the political hacks in this country what democracy really means. If they think they will dare tell us that Obama and Clinton already are the ONLY two we have to choose from when it is far from over, then frankly, they can kiss my ass.

What's the next state up? Michigan. I used to live in Michigan and still have family there. Michigan has to be one of the hardest hit states in terms of a devastated economy. Once the factories started packing up and moving over seas to take advantage of the child labor, exploit the impoverished living conditions and total absence of any kind of labor or environmental laws -- it started an almost irreversible downward spiral. Poverty and low wages are rampant. Here is a state where Edwards should do fantastic! What could Hillary's message possibly be? That she'll politely request the major manufacturers give up the cheap child labor and come back to the US? And what could Obama say? That's he'll "work with companies" to get them to give up the slaves, er, I mean foriegn labor? Again, here's where the Edwards message should play well. As he said it best, "You can't 'nice' these people to death!" We need better trade agreements and we need to make it more difficult and more expensive for companies to enjoy US benefits without using US workers. Obama doesn't have the experience or, frankly, the toughness to deal with what's ahead in terms of standing against corporate America. When will the wake up call for our friend Obama be? Probably when he goes to shake the hands of GE, GM and Haliburton and pulls back a bloody stump! These guys aren't interested in being "friends" or finding common ground. They want cash. Lot's of cash. And if they have to beat Obama into the ground to get it they, frankly, have no problem with that. We need a fighter, not a uniter.

So much of modern culture is characterized by stories of self - indulgence and self destruction. So much of modern politics is focused not on honest differences of policy but on personal attacks. So much of modern media is dominated by people who earn fortunes by demeaning others, defining them by their worst moments, exploiting their agonies. who's happier? the uniters or the dividers? the builders or the breakers? the givers or the takers? -Bill clinton

Yeah, I definitely just donated $250 to the Edwards campaign as a response to this nonsense. If you donate $250 or less, the campaign gets matching funds. This helps a lot since Edwards is the only candidate who isn't a corporate whore...

See, it's simple - less political candidates you have to choose from enriches the democratic process. No need for you to make your own choice, I've done it for you.

This article is completely full of sh-t, and this O'Donnell guy is a joke, I can't believe Arianna Huffington allowed this garbage to be posted on her site. This is a seriously disappointing post from a site I usually enjoy reading a lot. I was just plain stupid, unreadable.

*******"Yeah, I definitely just donated $250 to the Edwards campaign as a response to this nonsense. If you donate $250 or less, the campaign gets matching funds. This helps a lot since Edwards is the only candidate who isn't a corporate whore..."*******

My sentiments EXACTLY, pcamacho! Well said. K Street is the single most debilitating force in the U.S. political landscape. If there were ever a place for one of those highly-praised defense industry "smart bombs" to go off course, I could think of no better. Of course I would never advocate violence but if only Pat Roberston would be as vocal about God's wrath on K Street as he was about the school board in Dover, PA, this would be a good place for him to do it.

pcamacho: I just did the same thing and donated to Edwards. Maybe this article has some benefits after all, as reverse psychology.

Journalists (in my humble opinion) can't relate to Edwards or his messages about jobs, the economy and poverty in general. None of the reporters are hungry or struggling or getting 5 phone calls a day from Capital One wanting to know where their minimum payment is. And -- let's just be real -- none of these guys on TV have ever really fought their way up from poverty. They were born upper middle class (or higher) and went to the good colleges and then took nonpaying internships with local news stations. And why not? Mummy and daddy will support them through their internship. I know, I know. Too snarky. But do any of us believe the talking heads can really understand what the hell Edwards is talking about? Do these guys really have any clue what being "working poor" means? So it's no wonder they are writing Edwards off as just "pandering to the crowd." They all grew up in the gated communities and never saw their folks get divorced over money or saw members of their families evicted. So to them poverty and outsourced jobs or the subprime mortgage crisis is not "real" to them in any meanigful way. It's just words on a telepromopter and Edwards (and Kucinich!) are just some guys talking about a subject that isn't as sexy as abortion or gay marriage. Thank god for Current! At least here real people can talk about subjects.

This headline is misleading to readers. It suggests that the Huffington Post itself has published an editorial telling Edwards to drop out of the race. HuffPost is hosting the piece by O'Donnell, and is also hosting the piece by Smiley. So why not "Huffington Post to O'Donnell: Shut the Hell Up"? I would argue that a more accurate hed would be something like "O'Donnell on HuffPost: Edwards Should Drop Dead (You Won't Believe This Article)