Can Edwards make a comeback?
[cnn-photo-caption image= http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/11/12/art.john.edwards.indu.b.ap.jpg caption="Edwards gave a speech at Indiana University yesterday."]
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
The three dollar bill with the $400 haircuts is back. Former Senator, Vice Presidential candidate, Presidential candidate and adulterer John Edwards gave a speech at Indiana University yesterday. He was paid 35-thousand dollars for the appearance. He talked about Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, politics...everything except his adulterous affair with campaign filmmaker Rielle Hunter.
Afterwards there was a question and answer session. But no press and the questions he agreed to answer were submitted in advance...that way he could avoid anything that made him uncomfortable. Edwards is very careful...except when he's sneaking in and out of hotel rooms in the middle of the night to meet his mistress while his wife is home suffering from breast cancer. The National Enquirer caught him red-handed.
Edwards is expected to follow up last night's speech with a public appearance today in San Francisco and an upcoming debate with Republican Strategist Karl Rove at the American Bankers Association.
Why Indiana University would even want Edwards on their campus is another question.
Here’s my question to you: Can John Edwards make a comeback?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Is John Edwards' political career over?
Click the play button to see what Jack and our viewers had to say.(PHOTO CREDIT: AP PHOTO)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
In the end, he was too good to be true. John Edwards rode onto the national stage with a compelling message about poverty, about corporations that prey on the vulnerable. He had a record of standing up for the little guy…and he got very rich doing it.
He was tailor-made for politics – good looking with "aw-shucks" kind of country boy charm. He got to the Senate, onto the ticket as vice president in 2004 and was in the running for the White House himself for a while earlier this year.
Now it's all over. After denying it for months, John Edwards has finally admitted in an interview to be broadcast on ABC's Nightline tonight that he had an extramarital affair with a woman who worked on his campaign.
Watch: Cafferty: Edwards career over?
When the National Enquirer first reported this story in October of 2007, Edwards denied everything, saying "The story is false, it's completely untrue, it's ridiculous."
Interesting the story breaks late on a Friday and the ABC interview will be broadcast the same night the opening ceremonies are running on NBC. None of this is an accident.
Speculation around Edwards had included a possible spot on the Obama ticket as Vice President, or perhaps as attorney general in an Obama administration.
By tomorrow morning, he'll be lucky to get his calls returned by Howard Dean's housekeeper.
Here’s my question to you: Is John Edwards’ political career over?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
How does Edwards’ endorsement affect Dems’ nomination battle?
(PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
John Edwards has joined the growing chorus of voices who think the Democratic nomination battle is all over.
In his endorsement of Barack Obama yesterday, Edwards emphasized that it's time for the party to come together behind Obama. The timing of Edwards' endorsement was absolutely perfect. At a rally of more than 12,000 cheering Obama supporters, it was a masterstroke that literally wiped Clinton's big West Virginia headlines out of the news.
And, there's already some pay-off for Obama. He's now picked up eight of Edwards' 19 delegates. This puts him 180 delegates ahead of Clinton and just 127 short of clinching the nomination.
Edwards' endorsement goes a long way toward quieting the voices that say Obama can't win working-class, blue-collar voters. This is Edwards' constituency. Edwards has particular credibility on "issues of poverty and the plight of working people."
Actually, Obama may not need as much help among these working-class voters as some people think. Today, the United Steelworkers union – all 600,000 of them – endorsed Obama. It's another big loss for Senator Clinton as she had been aggressively seeking their endorsement.
And finally, Obama picked up three more superdelegates today – two of them influential members of Congress. Henry Waxman heads up the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and Howard Berman, who chairs the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Here’s my question to you: How does John Edwards' endorsement of Barack Obama affect the Democratic primary race?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
The power of John Edwards?
[cnn-photo-caption image= http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/2008/images/01/29/art.edwardssc.gi.jpg caption=" Senator John Edwards campaigns throughout South Carolina."]
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
He hasn't won anything yet, and his showing in some cases has been dismal. But John Edwards is showing no signs of getting out the race. Maybe he doesn't have anything else to do. His campaign says that Edwards will stay in it until the Democratic Party convention, and they're hopeful that we can still win it.
One top campaign official says quote: "There are numerous scenarios that lead to us being nominated." Right, like if Obama and Clinton drop out. But this same official points out that it's "essentially impossible" for one person to get a majority of delegates with three candidates in the race. That's because the Democrats allot all their delegates proportionally - no winner-take-all – and so far, Clinton and Obama have pretty much been splitting the lion's share of the delegates.
Even if he doesn't win, and he won't, Edwards could still play a role if the nomination ends up being decided by a brokered convention. In such a scenario, Edwards could use his delegates - potentially hundreds of them - to promote his platform or to act as a power broker. As one political analyst says: "It's obvious what he has in mind - if you can't be the king, then be the king or queen-maker".
And by staying in the game, Edwards can also influence the race in different states. For example, he could divide the white vote with Hillary Clinton like he did in South Carolina, which could help Barack Obama. Or, Edwards could attract some of the voters seeking "change", which could hurt Obama.
Here’s my question to you: If the Democrats wind up with a brokered convention, what role would John Edwards play?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
If Edwards drops out, who benefits?
[cnn-photo-caption image= http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/2008/images/01/21/art.edwards.ap.jpg caption=" Democratic presidential hopeful former Sen. John Edwards, waves to the crowd before a Democratic presidential debate in Las Vegas."]
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
By his own admission, John Edwards says he got his "butt kicked" in the Nevada caucuses, where he received only 4% of the vote.
Nonetheless, Edwards insists he's in the race "for the long-term" and will continue to fight for the things he cares about. In fact, he's now saying that he's the only Democrat who can successfully take on Republican John McCain.
But, now the former North Carolina senator heads into the South Carolina primary, where polls show him trailing far behind Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. The New York Times reports that even Edwards' closest advisers acknowledge he no longer expects to come in higher than third place. Edwards was born in South Carolina… this could be embarrassing.
But whether Edwards stays in the race, or gets out of it, he could affect the outcome. Some experts suggest that by staying in, Edwards might influence the result at the convention. They say even without taking first place in primary states, he could still wind up with "hundreds of delegates". And if the race is a tight one, those delegates could play a big role.
Other strategists say Edwards has another good reason to stay in it, at least in South Carolina, where he could end up sharing the white vote with Clinton - thus helping Obama win.
Here’s my question to you: Who would benefit most if John Edwards dropped out of the race, Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Time to leave Iraq?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
John Edwards says that as president there would be no more than 5,000 U.S. troops left in Iraq within 10 months.
Edwards told The New York Times the withdrawal would include forces who are training the Iraqi army and police. He says that extending the American training effort into the next presidency would require the deployment of tens of thousands of troops, which he calls "a continuation of the occupation of Iraq."
Edwards' plan calls for the immediate withdrawal of 40,000 to 50,000 troops... and within 9 to 10 months, the rest of them except the 35-hundred to 5-thousand troops who would remain to protect the U.S. Embassy and possibly do humanitarian work.
Edwards suggested he would allow for the training of some Iraqi forces outside of Iraq. But he says he decided on an almost total withdrawal because of the political failure of the Iraqi government.
His plan is at odds with the strategy of military commanders, who say the situation in Iraq is still too fragile to set a timetable for withdrawal of American forces. Edwards wants a more rapid and complete troop withdrawal than either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, who have suggested they're open to keeping U.S. trainers and counterterrorism units in Iraq.
Here’s my question to you:
John Edwards wants no more than 5,000 U.S. troops in Iraq within 10 months. Is that a good idea?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
@jackcafferty on Twitter
Recent Comments