What a waste. When John Edwards decided to get into N.C. politics and came from nowhere to win the 1998 U.S. Senate race here, a lot of folks thought he might become a great U.S. Senator, knuckle down to representing the interests of working folks in North Carolina, pay attention of business and build tenure in Washington. It's the kind of thing that Sam Ervin and Jesse Helms understood: Become a long-term presence in Washington and you have a chance to have long-term impact on policy.
And it seemed that Edwards had a winning approach. He ran as a Southern moderate with a strong populist appeal, and it appeared he was in line to become a Senate rainmaker. Alas, that hope began waning just a few years after he was elected, when Edwards began pursuing a spot on the presidential ticket. After a promising early start in the Senate, where it looked like he might have an impact on the health care debate, Edwards committed to national politics and seemed never to look back. His politics turned leftward, and he lost some support in North Carolina he once had among voters who in 1998 saw him as a new and independent voice.
Still, he retained a hard core of N.C. supporters who believed in him and his message, and who today are expressing their anguish on the Internet over what they see as a betrayal -- of his wife, of his party, of those who worked hard in his behalf and of the truth they once thought Edwards would champion.
What a waste.
Saturday, August 09, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
8 comments:
Ya'll made him with your endorsement. If a man can't carry his "county" and "state" during and election that should say a few things. Lauch Faircloth ran the worst campaign 10 years ago.
Well, no. We didn't endorse anyone in the 1998 Senate race.
The good news for Edwards is his party could care less about lies and cheating. Remember Slick Willie and Jim Black (the locals continued to whine about all the good he did for Charlotte though he stole an election from the voters and Republicans.
Hey Jack,
You're a veteran newsman, so I wonder: Do you really think the comments sections of articles and blogs really add anything to the reader experience or the public dialogue, or do you think it's just a way for people to push the same ignorant ideas over and over again (e.g. the above post about "lying, cheating" democrats)?
I find here, and especially at Mary Newsome's blog, that many intelligent discussions are killed by lots of nonsense by people with agendas and nothing more. What do you think?
Let's define people who ruin serious discussions: those with whom I disagree. And while we're at it let's define "people with an agenda" for the sake of Mary's blog: the effort to advance an idea that does not hold at it's center the sanctity of "new urbanism". (Note that attempting to advance ideas promoting new urbanism and it adjuncts is not evidence of an agenda. It is evidence of intelligence and proper thought)
By the way, Skippy, you might want to take note of the fact that your post has nothing to do with the subject of Betts' blog post. That would pretty much mean that it was not a part of an "intelligent discussion".
I'm no expert on blogs, but it seems to me that the ability to comment allows those with an interesting point of view to share it, and those who want to disagree or sometimes rant can do so as well. We don't try to moderate what can be posted as long as it's not obscene or otherwise offensive.
I wonder how many people who are shocked SHOCKED about Edwards cheating on his wife voted for Sue Myrick who we all know started dating her current husband when they were both still married to other people.
There is something that has bothered me about Edwards for a long time. Its the second family thing. I just can't help but feel like they had those younger two kids specifically to produce another male heir to replace the kid who died in the car wreck. I know that it is none of my business but I feel badly for that younger daughter. They seem to treat her well enough but surely she realizes that they were going to keep trying until they had a boy.
I get the same vibe off of Gore.
Jack, it wasn't a few years... it was a few weeks. As I recall, he was barely sworn in before he was off to Iowa and New Hampshire! Obama is doing the same thing, only about two years doing what he was actually elected to do and off after the bigger office... and what did I hear? 180 Senate votes on which he voted "present"? Not willing to take a position on 180 bills but ready to "lead"? Give me a BREAK!
I'd like to see a constitutional amendment that requires that any elected official must complete at least his entire first elected term prior to running for any other office. So the job you were elected to well first, then ask for a promotion. Just like the rest of us are expected to do!
Post a Comment