Will we ever know why John suspended his campaign?

[AndyA]

There are lots of theories as to why he suspended his campaign when he did, but do you think we'll ever get anything of substance from John about it?

I find it so strange (still) that he went from "I'm in all the way to the convention" to gone virtually overnight.

How does that happen? I realize he wasn't doing as well as we all hoped, but he was gaining traction and donations were still coming in at a pretty good rate, so money wasn't an issue.

I wonder if John will someday explain exactly what happened to make him reverse directions so abruptly. I think those who worked so hard for him deserve to know exactly what happened.

[Horse with no Name]

1. I will always believe

from the sadness he portrayed, that the DNC forced him to step down.
It was overnight.
His poll numbers were rising.

I will tell you ONE thing...he would have taken Texas by a storm had he stayed in and with all the crap from these other two...he would have proven himself to be the adult and surpassed them.

However...the Democratic Party decided they were going to make "history"...at the expense of the election.

[ChiciB1]

17. I Believe The Democrats DID Do Him In & He's Been Gracious Enough

not to voice out loud what so many of us feel. He is doing it for the Good Of The Party, but for many of us, seeing what they did to him just made us turn away in search of another outlet and many WILL go Independent or NPA. What we have seen this time around is BIG HOGS pushing THEIR agenda and leaving "we the people" to wonder why and very very disgusted!

I will always support John Edwards and he may want to be a part of a Democratic Administration, but to me THEY SCREWED HIM! And it's left a very bad taste in my mouth and all the the mouth wash I use just doesn't "wash" it away!!

[LiveLiberally]

2. Oh I think we'll know some day....

when he writes his memoirs. Personally, I am willing to wait for years & years to finally know, if that means he has years and years of public service ahead of him.

[Two Americas]

3. hey AndyA

Good to see you.

Not sure why this is such a mystery. He was forced out, of course. That is standard normal procedure in politics and always has been.

We will know the details within 3 or 4 years, I predict, but I don't think knowing the details now is of any particular value. We could know the precise details, and just as many people would still be in denial as there are now.

[Ninga]

7. It is a big mystery. Think about what the heck you are saying!!! His platform was his

promise. He professed a deep and abiding devotion to the underclass. He said he was their voice and he would fight for them all the way to the convention.

He did not have to quit right there and then at that very moment. He could have gone out with a room full of his supporters instead of a hasty pulled together middle of the day nothing.

Sorry to say but you are not correct that the way he went out was standard normal procedure in presidential politics. Every other candidate who fell off did it on their own terms, and especially after giving it their all. Edwards had a lot more to give, and a lot more to say and it was very possible he could have gotten a hand full of delegates on Super Tuesday. I guess the working class and the poor wasn't worth telling Howard Dean and the other delusional leaders to go to hell.

[Two Americas]

11. context

I did not say "that the way he went out was standard normal procedure in presidential politics."

I said that pressure and coercion - power - have always been involved in political decisions like this, and I think people are being naive to not suspect that as a first explanation. Read insiders' accounts of administrations and campaigns throughout history and this becomes obvious - politics is about power, the game is played rough and it is played for keeps, and pressure and coercion are common.

[Ninga]

21. If you are correct. Then Edwards was the only candidate so far, that has dropped out

because of coercion. GOP included. Unless I am wrong, who else was coerced???

[Two Americas]

25. Edwards was the only threat

The wealthy and powerful knew that Edwards was a threat. We know that.

Why do the right wingers know so clearly what the battle is about and where the battle lines are and we don't?

[Ninga]

4. AndyA, no one knows. John did not say why he had to suspend. He did not take

questions, he did not hold a press conference, we simply do not know. He went to the microphone made his remarks and turned and walked away. No questions.

You are correct, he was raising money, in fact had raised a good amount that week.

His paid staff was in the Super Tuesday states, volunteers were out canvassing.



John Edwards is one of the top lawyers in the country. He is as tough as nails. And you people think he was "pushed" out? Think about it...John Edwards willingly letting people push him around.

It doesn't pass the smell test.

[cornermouse]

5. So now you're implying that Edwards was raising money

that week for a campaign that he knew he was going to end a few days later...

That would smack of unethical actions. I do not consider Edwards unethical.

Why do you continue to push other posters around and smear Edwards?

[Ninga]

6. Money WAS raised and campaign workers were assigned. It is the plain fact.

I do not share your deductions about his ethics. He made a quick and hasty decision as far as i am concerned.

Do you think it was a good and wise decision for him to suspend? I don't. It might have been a bad decision, but not an unethical one.

I did not push you around. It seems to me that people here do not like to think about Edwards in the same terms as they do others. I call that hypocritical.

Don't pick a fight with me, I'm not the one that quit on you.

[cornermouse]

15. I repeat.

"I do not consider Edwards unethical."

Since you do not share my deductions about his ethics (see your answering post), it is reasonable to infer you consider Edwards unethical. And there is very little logic involved in your statement that although Edwards is one of the top trial lawyers and is tough as nails, he quit because he made a hasty decision. So why are you here?

[Two Americas]

12. pushed around

American history is full of examples of people who were at least as strong as Edwards being pushed around.

Do you know the story of Hubert Humphrey's career, and his deal with Johnson? Have you read about the power plays within the Lincoln administration? The Jackson administration? The Grant administration? The deal that put Hayes into office? The Harding administration? More recently, the Nixon and Kennedy administrations? The role of the Chicago machine in the 1968 election? Have you heard the tapes of Lyndon Johnson's phone calls to U.S. Senators?

While we may find it comforting to hold on to fanciful and romantic illusions about politics, and to deny that it driven by raw power, and is often ugly and crude, the historical record thoroughly and emphatically contradicts that view.

[saracat]

8. I believe John stated the reason "why " in NOLA. He said he had to step aside to

"allow the party to make history." And I think there was more. I think he was forced to step aside and I think it was obvious by how he "read" that speech that was obviously unfamiliar to him. Something happened and I feel that possibly Cate was threatened. Perhaps her car accident wasn't an accident. Call me a tin foiler if you will, but John would fight till the last dog died unless they threatened his child.That is my hypothesis. Otherwise, John had nothing to gain by suspending. It makes no sense.

[Hermes Daughter]

9. A weird theory

I agree with saracat and ninga -- and Cate being threatened is interesting. But I don't think the DNC or DLC or Dean or the party pushed him out. It doesn't fit with how he stood up to them and didn't listen to them -- ever. I don't think he would have paid the least attention to them. Remember he said it was "the hardest decision he ever made" and Elizabeth's remark to the reporter (who she brushed off) that it was "complicated." More and more I've come to believe it wasn't the party. I don't consider myself psychic but I keep thinking it was someone higher up, maybe even international like the CFR or the Bilderbergs. I've even thought it might have been Gore. He would listen to Gore. Gore has vacationed at Figure 8 Island so they're closer than we realize. And tonight he said "never say never." I think something is up. But it's a great mystery. I just don't think he would have paid any attention to the centrist Dems who are sort of pathetic and he openly defied. Does that make any sense?

[Two Americas]

14. he made a deal

Off the record deals are made all of the time in politics. Edwards got something, and was no doubt told that if he didn't agree, that he would get nothing. What presidential campaign in history, what political career, what administration ever in American history did NOT involve power, pressure, coercion and back room deals?

The thing that makes Edwards withdrawal - or suspension - odd is how clumsy, unexpected, and illogical it was. It was not covered up with very good PR, which suggests stress and urgency coming from some direction.

Once in a long while we have had political leaders who cannot or will not be pushed around - JFK -and the Pentagon and intelligence community were relentlessly trying to bully him - RFK, Dr. King, Paul Wellstone. Any pattern you might imagine seeing there.... well that would be "tin foil" right? Let's keep our gentrified and naive illusions in place, or the powers that be might take our white picket fences and two car garages away from us. (Those of us who don't have those can speak freely because we have nothing to lose.)

Billions of dollars and immense power are at stake in these political games. It is a blood sport.

[Ninga]

23. Not really. Edwards whole career was devoted to his fight against powers bigger than him, and

he was very successful. He knows how to fight, and he know the law.


I think it is simple why he left. He made a mistake in the heat of the argument that was made to him.. and agreed to quit.

His judgement did not serve him well at that moment and not only did he allow them to force him out, but he didn't even get to do it in his style or on his terms.

Too very, very, sad.

[Two Americas]

26. I think you are right about that

"He made a mistake in the heat of the argument that was made to him... and agreed to quit."

"His judgement did not serve him well at that moment and not only did he allow them to force him out, but he didn't even get to do it in his style or on his terms."

That rings true to me, Ninga.

He was forced out, as I said here, but he didn't need to cave - as I was screaming back when he quit.

[saracat]

35. I by no means think Dean or anyone else "acted' alone. I think this was a

concerted effort by whomever the "real players" are. And tinfoil hat or not, they are dangerous and the one who has made a "deal" is likely to be Obama.

[Andrea]

47. It makes sense to me n/t

[vanboggie]

10. I hadn't put that 2 and 2 together, Saracat

I, too, surmised that his family had been threatened, but I hadn't thought about Cate's accident. Your theory is a real possibility.
I survive the loss of Edwards' candidacy by knowing he's still alive. He was too much like Bobby Kennedy to have been allowed to make it to the Presidency in our world of crooked politics. Sadly, it was enough to make me give up caring about politics. This is the first time in my 57 years that I don't care about a Presidential election. With Frick & Frack or McCain as our annointed leaders, I'm convinced we're doomed.

I'm still studying how to stick my head in the sand, but I'm getting there. :grr:

[Two Americas]

13. bingo

You nailed it. People are working too hard at finding an explanation about this.

I predict that within 3-4 years we will find out exactly who made the critical phone call and what they said. But Edwards was obviously surprised, caught off guard, unprepared and conflicted about his speech. There also is no logical explanation as to why he needed to quit right then. I don't know how much more obvious the circumstantial evidence could be that he was pressured to quit, and a candidate being pressured to quit should not surprise anyone who has read American political history in any depth at all. I think the reason most people are rejecting this is because they are not very well versed in history and have an unrealistic and naive view of politics in general.

[Ninga]

20. Well TA darn it all, I must be stupid. You are so right, he didn't have a choice. He had to

follow in the steps of every other politician in history who has been pushed around and pushed out. Silly me for wanting a candidate with more backbone.

I am working hard to find an explanation because I care and want to know how to view him if he ever decides to run for office again.

If he stays a private citizen, no explanation is needed. But if he runs for an office in which I would get to vote for him, you can be assured I would want to know why he stopped in the way he did.

Political history is useless unless candidates learn from it, but much sadder if they repeat it.

And anyone who fronts an "Oh, well he was just pushed out and forced to leave the race, and it's normal." Is just making far reaching excuses. And quite frankly, history didn't serve Edwards very well if he became one more statistic instead of saying...."not me, not now."

Why didn't the fighter stay and fight or at least open the door for another run by hanging in and doing well on Super Tuesday and maybe even on to March 4th Ohio and Texas.

He didn't stay in long enough to offer more people a chance to vote for him, which leads me to believe that it is unlikely that he will ever run for office again. He did not stay in long enough to memorialize his message and platform. Voters have short memories and his agenda is already starting to fade.

He gave hope to people, and his message was so strongly tied to him in such a personal way, that to go poof so quickly, doesn't wash. Think about what all of you are saying, the powers that be stepped in and second guessed his candidacy and determined how he would leave the race.

He has avoided the mantel of a public figure, he hasn't made one speech, nor even commented on the 5th anniversary of the war. All this silence from a man who had so much to say?
As far as i know there are no facts to back up the far fetched reasons given here that have excused him from leaving when and how he did.

Hey, I just thought of something. Perhaps the followers of Obama and Clinton are not the only lemmings. Wouldn't it be absolutely shocking to find out that the very thing many of you are so high and mighty about......you know the "blind follower - kool aid drinking" slams made toward the followers of other candidates....is going on here with the blind followers of Edwards.


There is a moral to the story I am trying to tell. And it is " moral outrage needs to start by an honest assessment of ones own candidate" before you harshly judge the motives of others.

[Two Americas]

24. don't you remember?

When Edwards dropped out, almost everyone was excusing and apologizing for Edwards. There were only a couple of us who were angry and critical of him.

I don't know why you are now angry with me. I am not trying to be "high and mighty" nor am I "harshly judging others" nor expressing any "moral outrage." I am not saying "oh, well he was just pushed out and forced to leave the race, and it's normal."

[Ninga]

22. Cate has not left school, and Edwards, the big time lawyer fighter, would step

down from running for POTUS, and the FBI, Secret Service and Justice Dept. would allow threats against a candidate???

[saracat]

28. Yes. And Edwards had already been threatened. And

a possible attacker had already gotten close to him, and had in fact stolen his confidential schedule from a hotel. Edwards did NOT have SS protection or a body guard.He didn't want such protection reasoning it didn't allow him to connect with the people. And you aren't seriously suggesting the Corporate controlled Bush Justice Dept. would go out of their way to protect Edwards are you NUTZ? But In any event , I don't think anything could have persuaded John to behave in the manner he did unless someone he cared for was threatened. He wouldn't be fearful for himself. No other argument makes sense.It isn't as if he got "bored" and quit.

[bobbolink]

48. As I keep saying, don't forget "the letter"

It was what, about a week before he suspended that that threatening letter came out from the national head of the Chamber of Commerce?

Saying how they weren't going to tolerate anyone who spoke against corporate America?

John was singled out in that letter.

It was eerie, and I went "Uhoh" at the time...

Too close to be a "coincidence".... :tinfoilhat:

[earth mom]

16. I heard here on DU that Ted Kennedy or maybe Bill Clinton helped push Edwards out.

For the sake of the "historic race between a Woman and an African American" of course.

Yeah, some historic race. :eyes: Full of b.s., backstabbing and disrespect!

[Catchawave]

18. Had he stayed in the race

there was no possibility of clear winner by the convention. Forcing him out before Super Tuesday was supposed to guarantee a clear winner. But it didn't, oh, the karma :evilgrin:

[Greylyn58]

19. Boy is that an understatement

It is so full of Karma.

[saracat]

31. Howard Dean had something to do with this as well , I am sure. Obama was and is his protege.

[Hermes Daughter]

37. Interesting...

... because Ted Kennedy was Edwards' mentor. Also, Bill Clinton was very pro Edwards. Hmmmmm.... Maybe Billy promised him AG and/or 2012 if Hillary didn't win. I'm inclined to believe Edwards left for a higher motive than fear. I think he's a "high road" kind of guy... always! But it was a gamble to play for "integrity" and fold like that. Still, given the current debacle... he'd be road-kill by now with the media's love for O and those two destroying the Dems chance for a win in the GE.

[saracat]

39. Bill can't promise anything. So i doubt he had anything to do with this. TPTB seem aligned with the

O and it is too horrible to speculate "why". All I know is O is similar to Bush and the GOP are not that opposed to him.

[ClericJohnPreston]

27. With all deference Ninga

we might never know what the exact words or provocation was to force Edwards out of the race. What is clear, and what you seem to be missing or purposely denying, is the fact that whatever it was, was significant enough to get him out.

Once you accept that John did not quit of his own volition, which is clear, does it really matter what the threat was?

[Ninga]

29. I sadly wrote earlier to Two Americas, that I believe John erred in his judgment

and too quickly capitulated and deferred to those who pressured him.

So I differ from those who say John did not quit of his own volition. I believe he did.

And although I have wished the wish and hoped the hope, I come back to the same conclusion. It was a hasty decision on his part, and retrospectively, not in his best interest,

[saracat]

30. And you have absolutely no more reason to base your conclusions on than

any other supporter. I prefer to give John the benefit of the doubt based on his long history of loyalty and keeping his word.I do not immediately assume the worst of someone I have given my loyalty to. We differ. John had nothing to gain from this.He didn't "need" money OR a position. He can do just as much without one. And he continues to work on those issues, so I believe the only answer is that he had to protect someone.Mudcat Saunders was quoted as saying John was a formidable opponent because they would have to "kill" him before he gave up.
There was nothing of any material value he could have been offered to make him quit.So I do not believe this suspension was of his own volition and as he was not a man to "cave " easily , or one that needed to make a "political deal" , you haven't offered me any kind of substantive argument as to why you think so poorly of Edwards and seem so intent on throwing him under the bus and being dismissive.

[Ninga]

32. I wasn't going to answer you, but I have too much self respect not to.

If everyone who ever made a mistake in this life, had to worry that their family/friends/supports would not understand, then no one would ever take a risk or chance making a mistake.

It was very unkind of you to call in to question my opinion regarding him. Your assessment is not my truth.

And as far as what John would do or not do, fight or not fight, the fact of the matter is what ever drove him to suspend, it appears as though it was done very quickly. Haste makes waste.


I do not argue with your assessment of his loyalty and keeping his word.


Much different from making a mistake, and he could have waited 5 more days and didn't. I call that a mistake.


John Edwards is a humble and warm person, who admitted he made a mistake in voting for the IWR which makes him a very special person in my book.


I will say it again, he made a mistake in when and how he quit. ,

[ClericJohnPreston]

33. If you ever had respect for the man

you would give him the benefit of the doubt. There is no evidence to contradict that gift of confidence.

If you would rather not, then I'm sure you will find life free of stress on the Obama side of the fence....right? ;)

[saracat]

34. I am not judging you. I just don't know how anyone can argue John made a

"mistake"' if we don't know "Why" he made the decision he did.And I believe he should be given the benefit of the doubt. I could very possibly be wrong and John may have absolutely no good reason to have suspended but logic dictates otherwise to me.The very fact alone that the decision was made in "haste" by a very measured and considered man, indicates something bad happened.

[Hermes Daughter]

36. Elizabeth confirms this

After the "suspension," she brushed the reporter aside and she, who is usually so eloquent and talkative, only said, "It's complicated." This shows it was a "decision" not a mistake and that something did happen. I don't know if it was bad. It's possible he saw the blood-bath coming and was warned to get out by a higher up who wants him in. He's certainly looking good now for a go at 2012 after McCain digs us deeper in over the next four years. If HRC and BO trash this election they're done for politically and can never run again. If John had stayed in, he'd be in the trash heap with them. What he did was puzzling, inconsistent, done in apparent haste "by a measured and considered man" BUT... it could also have been a high stakes gamble ("the hardest thing he's ever done") that left him with his values and integrity intact and maybe -- just maybe -- better able to help the country in the future and in the long run.

This is a man who only lost one law suit that I know of. Give him some credit. He did and does care. He knew what he was doing and he's not going away.

It could have been he was threatened (I'm sure he was) but it could also be that he's taking a longer view of things. Trust him, he knows how to win.

Stay true!
H.D.

[saracat]

38. I agree about Elizabeth and she did say it was"complicated" but somehow I don't believe this was

just a political decision and I do not believe it was a willing one but heck, thats just my opinion. I still say he was the best of the lot . But I wouldn't count on him running again. He would run too much of a risk of looking like a Kucinich .He might run for another office but not president IMHO.And our whole nation is poorer for it.

[Two Americas]

40. getting confused

I am not sure which side to argue on here. :D

I think we are all relatively in agreement, no?

[saracat]

41. Some of us agree that John was forced out and others think he

suspended from his own volition.I only took exception to John not being given the benefit of the doubt and also object to being classified with the Kool Aid drinkers because I give John the benefit of the doubt. I have never thought him perfect or engaging in Obamalike idol worship.As far as the suspension of the campaign goes, no willing suspension or "deal making" makes any sense to me. I have stated my reasons why.I would hope that we all agree that John would have been our best choice for president.

[Two Americas]

42. aren't they the same?

Aren't both true? He was pressured, and he decided to drop out because of that pressure.

In fact, I don't see why the following can not all be true:

- Edwards was a great candidate

- Edwards made a mistake (many good people have made mistakes)

- He was pressured to drop out (very common in politics)

- He made the decision to bow to that pressure ("live to fight another day")

- He made a deal (all politicans make deals: it is the job description)

I don't see how whether or not Edwards is a good guy hinges on any of those.

[saracat]

43. Actually they are NOT all the same and while they "could " all be true, I doubt they are

How can anyone judge whether someone made a mistake if you don't know WHY they did something? " A mistake" is an error in judgment and if someone is compelled to do something against their will or under coercion, it can hardly be either a deliberate decision OR an error in judgment.

As to whether any of these effect whether Edwards is a good guy, well yes they do ,to an extent. If he made " a deal" that betrayed all of his supporters and he deliberately lied to us while continuing to take campaign donations, many would have a problem with that. I do NOT feel he did that. And I can't imagine what kind of a "deal " he would make to sacrifice that kind of integrity.I wasn't under the impression that anyone had anything to offer him that would be worth the betrayal.And while "most" politicians make deals, one has to have something to trade and no one has yet suggested anything that John needed that badly.

I do think that if there was a possibility of threat to someone he loved, I think he might be pressured to give up but I do not believe he could be persuaded to do it just for his own self interest.

And as for living to fight another day? That is absurd. He certainly won't get another shot at the presidency. This isn't like 3 strikes and you win!

But maybe I am just not that cynical about him. Or maybe it is just that the whole thing doesn't make any sense.

[Two Americas]

44. well I don't know for certain

I think all of those could be true, I don't know that they are.

How can anyone judge whether someone made a mistake if you don't know WHY they did something? " A mistake" is an error in judgment and if someone is compelled to do something against their will or under coercion, it can hardly be either a deliberate decision OR an error in judgment.

Well that has happened to me in job situations. There was pressure because of office politics, I decided to leave, then I wished I had stayed and fought. So there was coercion, I made an intentional decision, and later thought that it was a mistake. All three things were true. Seems like a common scenario to me.

As to whether any of these effect whether Edwards is a good guy, well yes they do ,to an extent. If he made " a deal" that betrayed all of his supporters and he deliberately lied to us while continuing to take campaign donations, many would have a problem with that. I do NOT feel he did that. And I can't imagine what kind of a "deal " he would make to sacrifice that kind of integrity. I wasn't under the impression that anyone had anything to offer him that would be worth the betrayal. And while "most" politicians make deals, one has to have something to trade and no one has yet suggested anything that John needed that badly.

A deal is not necessarily a bad thing, is not necessarily a betrayal, and does not necessarily represent a lack of integrity. "Drop out John and I will make sure that the candidate and the leadership will support your platform and ideas" for example. Happens all of the time in politics.

I agree that it is odd and difficult to make sense of, I just don't understand why people are rejecting out of hand the obvious, most common, and most likely scenario.

[saracat]

45. Because many of us don't feel that it is the most likely scenario?

I agree with what you are saying about a "mistake" you feel you made and i understand your point . But again, you know "why" you chose to leave your job. We don't "know" that John "chose" anything.So I really can't even begin to speculate as to whether he made a "mistake".

And the "deal" part still makes little sense. John is too good a lawyer not to realize that that kind of bargain would be impossible to enforce.And he certainly would have been in better stead to make such a bargain if he was going to by staying through Super Tuesday and getting more delegates.

We may never know the answer to this but I prefer to err on the side of giving John the benefit of reasonable doubt.

Anyway, I Luv Ya Two America's but I really have to go with my gut on this one and the Most likely scenario that you conceive just doesn't work for me.But, hey, I can be wrong!

[Two Americas]

46. ok

So you are saying that you think there was some extraordinary coercion that bordered on threats, and that he had no leverage to bargain for anything? Certainly he would have been in a better bargaining position after Super Tuesday, but maybe whoever pressured him wanted to make sure he dropped out before Super Tuesday.

I am just using the hundreds of well known examples from accounts of similar situations from the past in historical narratives as the context for understanding this.

I still don't see how you are giving Edwards the benefit of the doubt. (Not arguing, just trying to understand what you are saying.)