COVER STORY: POLITICS

The Road Warrior

Even if he loses in Iowa's bigger cities, Edwards can still win by wrapping up smaller, far-flung precincts.

By Arian Campo-Flores and Suzanne Smalley | NEWSWEEK
From the magazine issue dated Dec 24, 2007

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: Phishmelt @ 08/13/2008 10:49:05 PM

    You would think he went for the POTUS just so he could help make sure Hillary wouldn't win. The way he endorsed Obama after Hillary trumped him.
    Thats what happens when you stall the VETTING process too long. We already know several Obama lies. Wait until the Repubs open the box of stuff they are collecting.
    Let Obama's vetting begin.

  • Posted By: vineguy @ 12/22/2007 4:50:09 PM

    Okay, tarheels.....blahblah. FACT---You cite National Enquirer as your source of the FACT that you stated as "rumor has it". National Enquirer? Boy, I really believe your drivel now. Such a reliable source of facts they are. FACT---National Enquirer story cites ONE UNAMED SOURCE for their libel. If that is what it takes for you to believe something about someone you obviously hate (I daresay if it was a story about someone you support you would be crying "they have NO FACTS") then I was right in my original post about you. You don't speak for this tarheel.
    By the way----a big Right on to rphernan!

    • Posted By: kdanieli @ 08/10/2008 10:42:39 PM

      Tarheel, what do you have to say about your hero now?

    • Posted By: tarheelsarenotforedwards @ 12/22/2007 4:56:22 PM

      vineguy, the National Enquirer broke the Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky story. They have a good track record of breaking scandals earlier than mainstream news sources.

      • Posted By: FWest10 @ 12/27/2007 12:59:34 PM

        tarheelsarenotforedwards, even a broken clock is right twice a day. The National Equirer publishes some true things from time to time, and lots of gossip and lies. You know that. No one able to type on a computer is dumb enough not to know that. So if you treat their "news" as fact, it's just because you've decided you want to, out of your dislike for a particular candidate.

  • Posted By: OhHowILovePolitics @ 12/21/2007 5:59:11 PM

    I'm not a fickle voter so things like this don't sway me, BUT, Edwards is SMOKIN' HOT in the cover photo! I've made my decision about who I would like to see in the WH. It certainly isn't a Republican.

    • Posted By: tarheelsarenotforedwards @ 12/21/2007 7:18:57 PM

      No wonder politics in this country are a mess. Seeing that we have a woman's hormones driving who she's going to vote for instead of the issues, no wonder we elect such poor quality politicians.

      • Posted By: rphernan @ 12/22/2007 4:15:05 AM

        So Mr. Tarheels has spoken for the entire Carolinas, bravo. Anything else oh wise one?

        • Posted By: tarheelsarenotforedwards @ 12/22/2007 4:43:54 PM

          I hear that Edwards poor working class neighbor that Elizabeth Edwards bad mouthed because he was poor is getting together a petition to have the Edwards move out of the neighborhood. The 25,000 square foot McMansion doesn't fit well with poor working class neighborhood that it was built in.

          • Posted By: montegoteam @ 01/01/2008 12:25:41 AM

            You've been watching too much Fox News or reading the National Enquirer. Any any case, you don't sound very informed or enlightened.

      • Posted By: OhHowILovePolitics @ 12/23/2007 9:30:41 AM

        Apparently tarheels....can't read either - I just said it didn't sway my vote - I vote on issues, qualifications, etc. Not hormones. You apparently see and hear what you want to see and hear - not what was actually said - taking lessons from Bill O'Reilly?

  • Posted By: Gingerivers @ 12/27/2007 8:19:59 PM

    The links referred to in the post have been apparently deleted by Ed Cone, sometime recently, perhaps even tonight. They were degrading, little more than a gang-bang and show what kind of a man John Edwards collaborates with, a man who allows the sexual degradation of women on his blog and then apparently goes on to delete the posts to save face. However, I made copies of the posts in question and will post them in their entirety as they have been saved at gingeriverseast.blogspot.com at the earliest opportunity.

  • Posted By: Gingerivers @ 12/27/2007 8:18:30 PM

    The links referred to in the post have been apparently deleted by Ed Cone, sometime recently, perhaps even tonight. They were degrading, little more than a gang-bang and show what kind of a man John Edwards collaborates with, a man who allows the denigration of women on his blog and then apparently goes on to delete it to save face. However, I made copies of the posts in question and will post them in their entirety as they have been saved at gingeriverseast.blogspot.com at the earliest opportunity.

  • Posted By: Gingerivers @ 12/27/2007 7:40:02 PM

    Edwards isn't the champion of the individual, nor of inclusiveness, nor is he or his wife a great builder of community that truly values fairness and objectivity. He is a politician who has been campaigning nonstop for years, crisscrossing the county with that and other well crafted sound bites for the hungry American public to digest.

    Ed Cone, politico who mostly reposts news, has been a John Edwards supporter and collaborator in North Carolina. Read the whole behind the scenes post on Cone, links included for clarity, here http://cone-word-up.blogspot.com/and here http://gingerriverseast.blogspot.com/

    Greetings to the editor of Newsweek and kudos for fair, unbiased and as always, accurate reporting.

    Ginger Bush

  • Posted By: schrutearmy05 @ 12/27/2007 3:53:45 PM

    And FWest10, what do you know about having your rights infringed upon by President Bush? Have you been wiretapped? I sure haven't. And how has President Bush utilized corporations any differently than Clinton or any other President? You're just spouting the same garbage that you hear on the news. You have no argument, only theatrics and talking points. And in regard to civil rights, lest we forget that President Bush's decision to go after Saddam Hussein has led to a tyrant-free Iraq, which has seen its first democratically run elections ever.

  • Posted By: schrutearmy05 @ 12/27/2007 3:39:10 PM

    To FWest10: Universal healthcare IS nationalized healthcare. Who do you think is going to pay for it? The government funds everything with our TAXES, ergo it's nationalized. Nationalizing anything is not equivalent to democracy; it's equivalent to socialism. With universal healthcare, you don't get to choose your doctor. You don't get to decide when you need to see him/her. You don't get to decide how much to pay for it. Look into any of these other societies you compared the US to, and you will see this. You will also see that their healthcare systems are failing, their tax rates are ridiculous, and the wait time for a hospital visit is dangerous. There is no way a nation can support a universal healthcare system without massive tax increases, and if you're willing to put your faith in the government to decide what doctor you should see, when you should see him/her, and how much you should pay for that visit, vote for someone who supports universal healthcare. When our taxes go through the roof, we'll have you to thank.

  • Posted By: FWest10 @ 12/27/2007 12:49:53 PM

    To Schrutearmy05: Edwards has never shown the slightest desire to "nationalize everything." He does want us to have universal health coverage, just like every other industrial democracy in the world. We are the only advanced industrial society in the world without universal health care. Heck, my Irish ancestors at the time of Christ had universal health care. Every clan maintained a hospital, and anyone could go there for free. It was just something you did for your people. It's far and away time the US caught up. As for civil rights and freedom, no President has ever attacked our rights the way Bush has: spying on Americans, suspending habeas corpus, letting corporations write our laws. For the sake of democracy, we have to get this current crop of corrupt Republicans out of office.

  • Posted By: schrutearmy05 @ 12/27/2007 11:56:03 AM

    To sweetwilli: You do understand that Edwards IS big government, right? He's telling you how much he's going to expand the government, raise your taxes, and nationalize everything. This is the DEFINITION of big government, and it results in less freedom of choice, fewer civil rights, and us having less control over our own lives. I don't need a huge bureaucracy to tell me how to live my life, and I bet you don't either.

  • Posted By: sweetwilli @ 12/26/2007 6:01:01 PM

    John Edwards has spent an entire lifetime protecting people fro big corporations and govenrment. Anyone who says trial lawyers are sleazy is either ignorant of what they trial lawyers actually do or they're just working for the big corporations he's taking to court. Edwards is an American hero. We should hope he does become president. If not we're stuck with just more greed and self serving politics. http://www.care2.com/c2c/group/Edwards08

    • Posted By: tarheelsarenotforedwards @ 12/26/2007 7:32:19 PM

      Edwards aggressive pursuit and suing of OBGYNS and other Doctors is the reason that health care is un-affordable to the poor and middle class because of the excessively high malpractice insurance that doctors must pay due the high number of lawsuits filed by Edwards and other trial lawyers.

  • Posted By: tarheelsarenotforedwards @ 12/25/2007 9:06:33 PM

    John Edwards still needs to come clean on his pregnant girlfriend who's pregnant with his illegitimate love child.

    John as put the lady up in a gated community in Governor's Club near Chapel Hill, NC to hide her from the public spotlight.

  • Posted By: D Silva-Surpha @ 12/21/2007 12:13:39 AM

    It's very clear by the comments here that the Republican party is scared to death that Edwards will get the Democratic nomination. BTW, what patriotic American gives a flying **** about $400 haircuts, when our best and brightest young Americans are being maimed and dying in a country where we should not be. In that country because of the criminality of this Adminstration and their cronies. Cronies that have been running for cover until the sheeples of this country's short attention span won't remember their names anymore - anybody even remember the name Feith? Honestly... the Pres and VP should be begging not to be impeached - and the Iraq War is only ONE reason that should be! Wake up people. The time is now. Hate-mongering under the veils of religion and the subversive influence of Corporate America - yes, I mean YOU Haliburton, Exxon-Mobil, and ALL of the pharmaceuticals has very nearly destroyed this country after 2524 days of Purgatory with the sloppy, slobbering gloats of Limbaugh, Coulter, and other homophobes (translation - "In the Closet"). It isn't a time to be a proud Republican -- or at least it WASN'T a good time to be a proud Republican. I've now registered as a Democrat, and it's because of Edwards.

    Edwards is the best candidate for anyone that actually works for a living. Yes, he's got a 25k sqft house. So WHAT? Like John Houseman used to say... "He EARNED it." And don't talk about his not having support in his home state... it's irrelevant. That's the talk of (1) the ultra-conservatives that have always hated his drive for equality and ending poverty, and (2) the Democrats that were annoyed because he had the audacity, ambition, and success to be in a position to be short-listed for VP in 2000 by Gore, and then to not run for a 2nd term in 2004. They knew what they were losing by him sowing his ambition! So what's wrong with him having ambitions - as long as it's for the right reasons? Don't each of you?

    • Posted By: tarheelsarenotforedwards @ 12/21/2007 9:42:10 AM

      Edwards was a questionable sleazy trial lawyer. He will say and do whatever it takes to get what he wants. He once claimed to have channeled the spirit of a dead woman in court to get the jury to take his clients side in the trial. Edwards suits against doctors drove up the price of malpractice insurance raising the cost of health care higher than the poor that he claims to represent can afford.

      • Posted By: rphernan @ 12/22/2007 4:25:32 AM

        Wow, Mr. Tarheel, are you sure you don't have a sickness or something? You talk about "shooting the messenger" and then you proceed to call Edwards a "sleazy trial lawyer". It's obvious that you're an Edwards hater given your chosen name, but maybe you should write a little more rational and people would take you more seriously.

        • Posted By: tarheelsarenotforedwards @ 12/22/2007 4:57:08 PM

          Trial lawyers by definition are sleazy. Edwards has this reputation in the North Carolina Courts. He's your typical ambulance chaser.

    • Posted By: tarheelsarenotforedwards @ 12/21/2007 9:44:37 AM

      The people of Iowa should understand that the people of North Carolina don't support Edwards. If the people who know Edwards don't support him, the people of Iowa should be careful and not make a mistake by supporting him based on his campaigning in their state. In 2004, Edwards couldn't help Kerry carry his home state of North Carolina and his birth state of South Carolina. Be careful with Edwards.

  • Posted By: vineguy @ 12/22/2007 4:49:34 PM

    Okay, tarheels.....blahblah. FACT---You cite National Enquirer as your source of the FACT that you stated as "rumor has it". National Enquirer? Boy, I really believe your drivel now. Such a reliable source of facts they are. FACT---National Enquirer story cites ONE UNAMED SOURCE for their libel. If that is what it takes for you to believe something about someone you obviously hate (I daresay if it was a story about someone you support you would be crying "they have NO FACTS") then I was right in my original post about you. You don't speak for this tarheel.
    By the way----a big Right on to rphernan!

    • Posted By: tarheelsarenotforedwards @ 12/22/2007 4:54:30 PM

      vineguy, the National Enquirer broke the Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky story. They have a good track record of breaking scandals earlier than mainstream news sources.

  • Posted By: rphernan @ 12/22/2007 4:02:47 AM

    What "facts" behind the article? You can spin facts any way you want by the way you present and/or write about them. Anybody who considers themselves informed about politics knows that this was not an accurate accounting of the "facts". Tarheels did you watch the vicePres. debate last year? He slammed Cheny constantly and there was a concensus that he won the debate, yet this highschool article indicates he was "unprepared" after they indicate he is famous for his preparation. Again, give me a break!

    • Posted By: tarheelsarenotforedwards @ 12/22/2007 4:53:04 PM

      rphernan, as much as you dislike this "highschool" article. There is a 4 * 5 inch area on the www.johnedwards.com website encouraging people to read this article. It's obviously not as bad as you think it is, if the Edwards campaign website is encouraging people to read this "highschool" article.

    • Posted By: tarheelsarenotforedwards @ 12/22/2007 4:51:04 PM

      During the VP debate in 2004, Edwards attempted to tell us that he was the next John F Kennedy or the JFK of this time. Then Cheney said that he knew JFK well and that John Edwards was no John F Kennedy. Edwards didn't know what to say when Cheney made this dig at him. Edwards was sitting there with his dumb smile on his face and nothing to say. It was hilarious.

    • Posted By: tarheelsarenotforedwards @ 12/22/2007 4:36:55 PM

      Thank you for the paid political add from "Edwards for President, 2008". You and the Edwards camp are the only people that think Edwards held his own with Cheney. Edwards looked like the Christians that were being to the Lions by the Romans when Cheney got a hold of him. It was a clear case of Cheney's years of experience dominating the political wannabe and newcomer. Cheney is a mean dude.

  • Posted By: tarheelsarenotforedwards @ 12/21/2007 3:37:05 PM

    Edwards tells you that he has blue collar roots and values because his dad worked in the mill all of his life. What he doesn't tell is that his dad was a manager in the mill and he actually had white collar roots and values. Knowing the whole truth changes how you view Edwards story.

    • Posted By: rphernan @ 12/22/2007 4:33:25 AM

      So his dad was a "Mill Manager". Woopdedoo. I think what matters here is that John Edwards was the first in his family to put himself through college; he is a man who worked hard and acheived the American Dream. He also sees that there are 35 Million American people who are working poor, where college is a stretch. What Republican Candidate has that understanding?

      • Posted By: tarheelsarenotforedwards @ 12/22/2007 4:39:37 PM

        Edwards is not alone in what he accomplished. I was also the first in my family to graduate college because I worked full time and attended school full time. I did what I had to do and I didn't expect a government handout to give me the college education that I worked long and hard for. America is the land of opportunity and you have to work to take advantage of opportunities. You can't rely on freebes from the govt.

  • Posted By: borntoraisehogs @ 12/22/2007 12:08:08 AM

    Who would vote for a multi- millionaire who wears a dorky digital watch ?

  • Posted By: rphernan @ 12/21/2007 6:22:36 PM

    I have to hand it to News Week; they really dropped a bomb at the last minute, which I assume was the point. They follow and perpetuate the idea that John Edwards doesn't exist, outside of reality of course, and then when they finally do put in their misnamed "Sleeper" cover story, it turns out to be an Attack Piece. I usually don't pay attention to who actually writes the stories, but I had to do so now because I wanted to see who the Clinton Campaign is employing. I'm convinced that either Campo-Flores and Smalley either have partisan reasons for their story, or they are politically incompetent, or both. John Edwards is not an infallible person, and maybe he doesn't have the background of Mother Teresa or Ghandi, but he is the only one speaking about Poverty, Corporate Greed, and the need to do something about it. I can understand bad writing, but what makes this even worse, is that this story was actually approved to publication. I dropped Time Magazine because I felt the writing was sub-par garbage. This is definitely a time for reevaluation of News Week. Give me a break!

    • Posted By: tarheelsarenotforedwards @ 12/21/2007 7:20:42 PM

      This article is definitely a case of shooting the messenger for printing an article that you don't agree with because you don't agree with facts behind the article. I'm replying twice since rphernan spamed this forum twice with his posting.

    • Posted By: tarheelsarenotforedwards @ 12/21/2007 7:17:19 PM

      Seeing that Edwards has been a distant third behind Hillary and Obama in the first four caucus and primary states, I can see why Newsweek treated him like he didn't exist. Even now, his chances aren't that good. My bet was that Newsweek did the article to hedge their bets in case he pulled off a miracle like Kerry did in 2004. I replied a second time since you spamed your posting twice.

  • Posted By: rphernan @ 12/21/2007 6:27:11 PM

    I have to hand it to News Week; they really dropped a bomb at the last minute, which I assume was the point. They follow and perpetuate the idea that John Edwards doesn't exist, outside of reality of course, and then when they finally do put in their misnamed "Sleeper" cover story, it turns out to be an Attack Piece. I usually don't pay attention to who actually writes the stories, but I had to do so now because I wanted to see who the Clinton Campaign is employing. I'm convinced that either Campo-Flores and Smalley either have partisan reasons for their story, or they are politically incompetent, or both. John Edwards is not an infallible person, and maybe he doesn't have the background of Mother Teresa or Ghandi, but he is the only one speaking about Poverty, Corporate Greed, and the need to do something about it. I can understand bad writing, but what makes this even worse, is that this story was actually approved for publication. I dropped Time Magazine because I felt the writing was sub-par garbage. Time for reevaluation of Newsweek. Give me a break!

    • Posted By: tarheelsarenotforedwards @ 12/21/2007 7:20:14 PM

      This article is definitely a case of shooting the messenger for printing an article that you don't agree with because you don't agree with facts behind the article.

    • Posted By: tarheelsarenotforedwards @ 12/21/2007 7:16:49 PM

      Seeing that Edwards has been a distant third behind Hillary and Obama in the first four caucus and primary states, I can see why Newsweek treated him like he didn't exist. Even now, his chances aren't that good. My bet was that Newsweek did the article to hedge their bets in case he pulled off a miracle like Kerry did in 2004.

  • Posted By: paxamerican @ 12/17/2007 9:57:53 AM

    John Edwards should be running a better campaign. He is the only candidate that can win Ohio. He should take a cue from Lou Dobbs and start rallying against Nafta and immigration.

    • Posted By: tarheelsarenotforedwards @ 12/21/2007 3:21:10 PM

      He can't say too much about NAFTA. He voted for China's admission to the WTO along with granting China most favored nation status essentially opening up the US Market to China. He has to be careful about throwing rocks when he lives in a glass house. China's WTO entry did significantly more damage to the American economy than NAFTA did. NAFTA only applied to Mexico, United States, and Canada.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse