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.
LOL … John Edwards’ phoniness has been apparent for all to see for quite some time now, which probably explains why he has floundered in the polls and lost in Iowa and NH, yet the only reason O’Donnell sees fit to condemn him is because he’s “standing in the way” of a black man.
Hmmm. Is he accusing John Edwards of racism?
O’Donnell escalates his attack here:
The white male monopoly on the Democratic nomination has finally come to an end. Someone has to tell John Edwards.
Could John Edwards be guilty of misogyny, too, in addition to racism? After all, he’s staying in this race in spite of the fact that the Dem party is seeing its first real opportunity ever to make history by nominating the first black man (after Bill Clinton) or first female for president in the history of our country.
To liberals like O’Donnell, it’s not about Democrat voters choosing the candidate who they feel would best lead this country, it doesn’t matter about qualifications, but instead ensuring that Democrats get into the record book of political “firsts.”
It’s all about the priorities, you see.
Related: House Majority Whip James Clyburn, a member of the CnR Coalition, is displeased at the Clinton campaign’s strategy of attacking the candidacy of Barack Obama, and may be close to issuing an Obama endorsement.
This is fascinating to watch: Essentially what we’re seeing more and more Democrats do is to strongly imply that all Democrats must do their duty by kissing Obama’s ring and crowning him as the next nominee for president, and if they don’t, then perhaps they’re “racist” or “rigging the vote.”
Perhaps the Democrats aren’t as unified as the mediots have made them out to be?