Is the Edwards rumor true?

[Adelante]

I've been hearing all day that John Edwards has decided to run again for his Senate seat. Is there any truth to this, does anyone know?

[Leilani]

1. He sure isn't out there campaigning for Kerry!

And isn't Erskine Bowles already the Dem candidate for that seat?

[Padraig18]

6. He's been busy raising money for Kerry.

Of course some people would prefer he be out there glad-handing and making a 'show', rather than doing substantive financial work for our presumptive nominee... :eyes:

[KittyWampus]

40. Just Did A Google Search Looking For Edwards Doing A Kerry Fundraiser

didn't find anything.

Also haven't seen posts here on DU talking about how busy Edwards is raising money for Kerry.

Maybe I didn't do a proper search...

[cosmokramer]

45. That's because he isn't.

[Padraig18]

57. You don't have to have 'a fundraiser' to raise money, for pity's sake.

You can also raise $$ by putting the Kerry campaign in touch with GROUPS who have raised funds for YOUR campaign. Google THAT, instead... :eyes:

[KittyWampus]

58. You Mean GROUP. As In Edwards' GROUP Of Largest Fundraisers

Wasn't that group comprised of republican law firms which are being investigated for telling their employess they'd be reimbursed for their donations to Edwards?

[Padraig18]

63. 'republican law firms'?

Can you back that piece of libel up with facts?

[maddezmom]

64. Roy Black

not sure if he's a republican, but he's Limbaugh's lawyer.

[Padraig18]

65. That may well be.

My point is that I'm sick and tired of the lame-assed attacks on (fill in the candidate's name) being 'supported by Republican (fill in the name of the group). cryingshame can't prove a god-damned thing she wrote, and I'm calling her on her bullshit statement.

[Jack Rabbit]

2. I don't know, but I hope so

Edwards served himself well in the primaries. He is now a national political figure. North Carolinians would do well to re-elect him.

Edwards could try again for the White House in 2012, when Kerry is termed out.

[Sulldogg]

3. The primary hasn't been held

in NC yet, so he could still get back in it.

As for his chances, I think he lost whatever cross-over appeal he had during the campaign. And at best he looks like an idiot for saying he wasn't running, and at worst he looks like an opportunistic asshole.

[kanrok]

11. Let's not hold back on our opinions here.

[Sulldogg]

54. That's what I think of him

and I'm from NC.

He's had a poor attendance record, even before his campaign, and if he decides to go back on his word here, I'm still voting for Bowles in the primary.

[Adelante]

4. What happens?

To Erskine Bowles, then? I wonder how the logistics of something like this would work.

[kstewart33]

5. Doesn't make sense

None at all.

[Bombtrack]

7. "you've been hearing" Well where????????

Otherwise this post is just really free of substance sorry. Not mad at you, but we already see that some have started to bash Edwards for it, a few posts through

[Padraig18]

8. I've listened to the news all bloody day, and this is the 1st *I've* heard

:shrug:

[Adelante]

21. It's not a substantive post

It's a question post. It was on CNN today, CBS, and I saw it on a couple of boards, one the Kerry board. I wondered. I promise I'm not part of a conspiracy to bash John Edwards. I'm not more detailed because it's a case of having television running in the background and sort of overhearing.

[Adelante]

28. I just noticed your avatar, Bombtrack

I love Bob Graham :)

[cosmokramer]

44. CNN broadcast today. Heard it myself.

[Josh]

9. Bowles is leading in the polls right now -

(http://www.dcpoliticalreport.com/2004/NCPoll.htm#S1)

and the backlash of Edwards re-entering would surely give the seat to the Republicans.

That said, this seat has switched parties every election year since 1976, so technically it is due for Republican take-over, regardless of who the candidate is.

[AP]

12. Maybe it's just due for a new face, which would be Bowles's?

[kodi]

16. and how is bowles, who lost in 2002 to libby dole a new face?

inspire us with your wisdom

[AP]

17. I didn't know that every new senator wins their first time out.

Why so angry, by the way?

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AP]

38. I'm clueless because I pointed out that Bowles is not currently a senator?

Whatever.

[kodi]

53. no, your "Maybe it's just due for a new face, which would be Bowles's"

he is not a "new" face to anyone with even a smigeon of knowledge about north carolina politics.

"new face" is hardly descriptive of anyone who has already run for a state-wide senate election and garnered a million votes.

advice, stop digging yourself a deeper hole by trying to explain yourself out of your comment, you were just wrong. it doesn't mean you are a bad person, after all i was right and i AM a bad person

[mouse7]

56. Only thing "clueless" here is disregard of Bowles '02 performance

Bowles did great against a very popular Dole in the South in a year when Dems did incredibly crappy.

The pundits predicted Bowles would be destroyed by Dole in that race, and Bowles made it close against all conventional wisdom.

Bowles earned the respect of the party in 2002, and it wouldn't be fair to Bowles after he waited on the sidelines for Edwards to make up his mind before entering the race.

If Bowles ends up winning that race, he will have done it when he was basically the only Dem around that hadn't completely written that race off as unwinnable. He's earned the chance to win it.

[AP]

59. Make a list of everyone who has won that seat since '76 and tell me if

they hadn't run before, and how Bowles ranks on the scale of "new face."

[mouse7]

55. Bowles gave Libby Dole a very tough race

The fact that Bowles gave incredibly popular Libby Dole a tough race in the disasterous-of-all-disasterous year for Dems of 2002, is reason enough.

[AP]

19. By the way, Edwards's 1998 victory was only time elected R. defeated in NC

in the 20th C:

"Edwards, the political neophyte, unseated Republican Sen. Lauch Faircloth -- the only time an elected Republican senator was defeated in North Carolina in the 20th century."

http://www.newsobserver.com/edwards/coverage/story/3438009p-3056069c.html

(Note that article is interesting in another context.)

[brainoverload]

10. From a March 18 Washington Times article

Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina insists that he will not get back into the race for his Senate seat now that he has abandoned his presidential bid, despite speculation among some Democrats.
"He's said he's not running for re-election," spokesman David Ginsberg said yesterday. "Nothing has changed."

[AP]

13. I think the rumour that Edwards will be VP is more likely true.

[cosmokramer]

39. That is a rumor created by Edwards supporters only...

...and is completely NOT TRUE.

Won't be a senator or other legislature.

Won't be someone without FP experience.

Both of the above are from the State Director for the Kerry campaign in Ohio, and NOT rumors.

[AP]

52. Actually, I heard the rumor from someone who wasn't an Edwards supporter

who was told by a US Senator who was not an Edwards supporter that it would go down that way.

But it's still just rumor (although not one STARTED by Edwards supporters).

[ochazuke]

14. Probably not a good idea for him.

He couldn't be an outsider anymore. It's too early to say who is best to succeed President Kerry in 2012, however.

How about Governor?

[Thrill]

15. Edwards should run for

Govenor of NC

[TheDonkey]

23. When are the Gubernatorial elections for NC. Gov. Edwards

would be a nice title to carry into a presidential nomination race in 08

[ButterflyBlood]

32. the current governor's up this year

but he's a Democrat.

[Darkamber]

68. And a friend of Edwards

No...Edwards won't run for Governor either, but he'll probablly stump for both positions to make sure they stay in Democratic hands.

[atre]

18. Where do you hear the rumor?

I am in N.C., and I've heard absolutely nothing about any plans for entry into the race for the seat he is vacating. With Erskine leading in the polls now, it certainly would not be well-received among Democrats in this state.

I'd imagine that this rumor was created and is being spread among Clark supporters for two reasons: 1) to make people think the chances of a Kerry-Clark ticket are greater; and 2) to discredit Edwards as a opportunistic hack, with no regard for what is best for his party or his country. Sad state of affairs, indeed, but this isn't much different than what this handful of Clark supporters (not all, mind you, there are many good ones) have been doing all along to a number of candidates.

Back to the "rumor" that the OP created: I think that if he is not slated for the VP slot on the national ticket, my guess would be that his political career is over and he'll return to the practice of law (probably as a lobbyist, as former NC SoS Edmisten is doing). And this is a shame because he would make a much better future CIC than any of the other prospective VP candidates.

[Adelante]

22. I don't create rumors

I merely asked a question. You are free to do a search and see if you can find me advocating Wes Clark for VP; you won't. I think Clark has better value for a Kerry administration than a job like VP. But as to your last point, Edwards as a better Commander In Chief than Clark, unless you are pointing that at somebody else, that's just silly.

[atre]

24. Wesdem

You've posted a rumor without any sourcing; without any trail at all to give it even the slightest hint of credibility. Until you can show me otherwise, I'm assuming that you created the rumor.

I actually never specifically mentioned Clark. However, I think you should take a political science class if you think Clark would make a great President. In the modern television age, resumes do not matter one bit. If you stand up there on the podium and read your

Historically, the record is very mixed on whether generals make good Presidents. Grant and Taylor were two of the worst Presidents we've had. Eisenhower was good, but his success appears to be the exception rather than the rule.

[Thrill]

25. Easley is up for re-election

Edwards could in it now

[Adelante]

27. No

I posted a question. If you look on the forum listing you will see the symbol for question (?). I also restated something I heard with my own ears on CNN. I referred to it as a rumor, because I had no verification, and posed it as a question. I started no rumor.

In any case, it occurred to me just now to check the Edwards blog where something like this might be under discussion. It was this morning when somebody there heard the same thing on CNN. So, we still don't know if it is true, but at least you now know it is true I heard what I said I heard and started no rumor.

http://blog.johnedwards2004.com/homepage/04/03/17/1918231.shtml

As far as my political education goes, my job was political campaigns for 15 years so I don't really need lessons from you, but thanks. My belief in Wes Clark has much less to do with his military background than his brilliant leadership, analytical, organizational, and foreign policy skill. Edwards supporters are more concerned with Clark's military background than Clark supporters ever are, something I always find surprising.

[atre]

31. Yeah, "national security" overcompensation certainly hasn't been

the focal point of the Wes Clark boosters here at DU and off of DU. Take Michael Moore for example; he never claimed to support Clark because of his military background in the post-9/11 age. < /sarcasm off > Oh, wait! He did! How many times have Clark supporters here said, "They can't touch us on national security with Clark on the ticket!"? I've lost count. C'mon. Let's be reasonable. Clearly that is why Clark has much of the support he does.

I am glad to see that you support Clark for a different reason, though- vague, indeterminable leadership qualities. It strikes me as remarkably similar to all the chest-thumping that goes on about Bush's supposed "leadership" qualities. Leadership itself is so indeterminable; how can we really know?

Believe it or not, I greatly admire Wes Clark. Two things have been slowly unraveling that admiration, though: 1) my love of argument; and 2) Wes Clark supporters at DU (especially the Neanderthals who engage in Republican anti-lawyer smears).

I'm also glad to see you are working in the trenches to support progressive candidates, but phoning prospective voters, knocking on doors, and putting up posters does not equal an advanced political eduction. I can assure the people at the top of those campaigns understood the impact of image in the Television Age.

[Adelante]

34. Try not to be so condescending

I said it was my job -- I made my living at it -- you can actually learn a lot about politics that way.

[democratreformed]

61. Perhaps "the television age" is exactly what keeps from getting the real

leadership that many of us long for. I have a real problem with "campaign skills", "political skills", etc. being used an argument against someone. IMO, "political skills", "campaign skills", "speaking skills", and "image" do not necessarily guarantee leadership skills OR a good heart. The biggest thing I liked about Wes Clark was that his heart was with his country and its citizens. Of course, there was also that dream that true intelligence, character, and integrity would once again be something to look up to.

Yes, it is maybe odd that many of us Clark supporters do not put his military credentials at the top of our list; however, his proven record in diplomatic processes over the years was a big plus with me.

To get back to the original topic, it is rather sad that television and other media has so much say so over what people choose.

[atre]

33. One more thing

Now that I see that you did not invent the rumor nor did you spread it with reckless disregard for falsity, I must apologize for my harsh criticism of your question. Since CNN did report the rumor, your question is a fair one.

Despite the "report" on CNN (did they say from whom?), I do not give it much weight. After saying for so long that he would not run for the seat, I don't see him upsetting any intra-party comity we have within this state. It would smack of selfish opportunism.

[Adelante]

36. Accepted, thank you

I wish I knew more to tell you more. I wasn't in the same room with the TV, but just heard a guy saying this. I didn't even pay that much attention, just like, hmmm. Then I saw it around the web today, so I thought somebody here might know and I asked. I guess if it is true or not true, there may be some sort of followup this week.

[Jai4WKC08]

35. From a Washington Times article

Brad Crone, a Democratic consultant in Raleigh, said he has heard the rumors about Mr. Edwards' re-entering the race but hasn't seen any evidence that it will happen.

Rather, he suspects Mr. Edwards is hoping to hitch his fortunes to Mr. Kerry's. He doubts, however, that Mr. Kerry will pick Mr. Edwards for his vice-presidential nominee because, among other reasons, "I don't think he can win the state for Kerry."

"He's running for attorney general more than he's running for vice president," Mr. Crone said.

"The conventional wisdom is it's like waiting for someone to ask you to the prom," said Mr. Vercellotti. "He's waiting for a call from John Kerry."

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040318-121628-2366r.htm

[Adelante]

37. Thanks, that's the likely source

Probably the CNN guy read this and repeated it. The Washington Times is not to be trusted in any situation, so we'll have to wait and see.

[cosmokramer]

42. CNN--broadcast today was the source.

Check CNN for links or transcripts. I heard it myself on CNN.

[Darkamber]

62. Here's the transcript...

"CHUCK TODD, EDITOR IN CHIEF, THE HOTLINE:
Good morning.

CROWLEY: OK. Senator Edwards bowed out of the race and that's the last we've heard from him. But you know a little bit of what he's up to?

TODD: There's a little bit -- well, I don't know what he's up to, but there was an interesting little bubbling speculation last week about this idea that somehow he might end out jumping back into the Senate race in North Carolina. You know, he is -- that seat is up for re-election. He chose not to run for re-election. But there's an interesting little thing happening back there about the redistricting, and so the filing deadline actually has been extended into late April.

And so this little speculation even got a -- one paper actually did a story about how donors are pushing Edwards -- they wish he wouldn't get out of the limelight. They're worried that he's got nowhere to go after this and nothing to serve. And he's not picked as running mate -- what does he do?

CROWLEY: No platform.

TODD: No platform. Nothing. You know, maybe -- does he write a book? But what does he do to get the experience that he was supposedly lacking anyway -- because that's why he didn't win this primary. And if he's no longer a senator, what does he do?

A lot of people poo-pooed this idea that somehow he would dump -- brush Erskine Bowles aside and run for his old seat, because as somebody reminded me, he was here in town, all last week, didn't cast a single vote in the Senate.

CROWLEY: Interesting. So we'll keep an eye out on him. "

Please note that this is all based on the Washington Post article and is not backed by Edwards at all. I don't see him as changing his position.

One interesting bit of news is that Edwards will be a key speaker at the ND State Convention. But this bit about him running again is a rummor based on one news article and speculation by the talking heads quoted above.

[napi21]

26. Could he even get on the ballot?

Most states close filing long before elections.

[Freddie Stubbs]

29. Yes. The filing deadline is May 7

[incapsulated]

30. All she did was ask a fucking question

What is wrong with you people???

Jesus!

[DjTj]

43. wounds take time to heal...

...I'll admit that my gut still tells me to be skeptical when I see a post about Edwards with a Clark avatar next to it...

*sigh* There clearly weren't any bad intentions in this oist, but I think many former Edwards people probably feel the same way.

[cosmokramer]

47. Sorry, but the viciousness of some of these posters...

...is uncalled for, regardless of their wounds.

[DjTj]

48. very true.

like i said, WesDem clearly had no bad intentions in her post, and nobody should be jumping on her.

I make no excuses, but only try to explain the behavior.

[Adelante]

51. Appreciate it, DjTj

I do know how it feels :)

[cosmokramer]

41. HERE IS THE SOURCE FOR THE EDWARDS RUNNING FOR SENATE SEAT...

CNN reports (TODAY) that it's because of redistricting: Edwards thinks he might be able to win it again.

Check CNN for the links...it was on broadcast.

[DjTj]

46. redistricting?

Aren't Senate seats statewide elections? Is there something particular about the way North Carolina elects Senators?

Any NC natives know anything about this?

[cosmokramer]

50. I don't think there is anything in particular...

...as senate races are always statewide races. Just reporting what CNN said.

[SW FL Dem]

49. I respect Edwards and would love to see him in the Senate n/t

[WI_DEM]

60. would that be fair to Erskine Bowles?

and would he be willing to step aside for John Edwards?

[be inspired]

66. No, it's not true

There's no truth to the rumor that John Edwards will run for his senate seat again. There's already a candidate running for that seat, Erskine Bowles, a friend of Edwards for whom Edwards will likely stump.

- An Edwards Democrat

[Darkamber]

67. Welcome to the DU

that pretty much says it...except I agree that Edwards will not run for his seat again. That whole rumor is based on unnamed supporters feelings, but not on anything Edwards has said or done.

[Adelante]

69. Do you have a source?

Or is it an opinion? Fine if it is, but was the story denied by Edwards?

[Cuban_Liberal]

71. Bizarre thinking.

He does nothing to start the rumor, probably hasn't heard it anywhere, yet it's somehow incumbent upon him to deny unsupported gossip? Ummmm.... OK? :eyes:

[newyawker99]

70. Hi be inspired!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast: