So long, John

Word this morning is that John Edwards is done. The conversation will quickly center around who this benefits more, but I think it's worth taking a moment to reflect on what his candidacy has meant to the party and the race.

First of all, his announcement will come from the same place he announced his candidacy -- New Orleans. He is down there to work on a Habitat for Humanity project. His campaign, which the media defined around hair, hedge funds and houses, will leave with the message that ending poverty is important, even if it is not a useful campaign slogan.

Those who focus on the alleged "hypocrisy" have missed the point. And those who urged him to step aside and clear the way for one of the other two, don't get what Edwards has been trying to do. I've written about this before, but it's worth repeating. Edwards made this campaign better. He raised the issue of poverty, even though other don't talk about it. He was the first to put out a plan for universal health care, and forced the hands of his competitors to do the same. He spoke out passionately about his mistake of voting for Bush's war.

Maybe I give him too much credit, but I have always believed his sincerity. I still remember his appearance on the February 4, 2007 edition of Meet the Press, when he told Tim Russert of his plan to unveil a plan for universal health care, which would cost between 90 and 120 billion a year. Russert rightfully asked how Edwards planned to do that without raising taxes. Edwards, in a sign that he understands the necessity of universal health care, didn't skip a beat saying: "Yes, we'll have to raise taxes." Russert asked again: "But you'd be willing to increase taxes to provide health care?" Edwards answered: "Yes, absolutely."

On that same program, Edwards was asked about his 2002 vote to authorize Bush's war in Iraq. He was asked "why shouldn’t voters in Democratic primaries say, ‘On the big issue of the war, Obama was right, Edwards was wrong’?" Edwards' response: "I was wrong. They should say that."

I could be wrong about him. He may have fooled me just like the other 15 percent or so who support him. But I think he was a special, and unfortunately overlooked candidate, and I think the party lost an important voice today.

Nice strategy

Update: NBC News reported that Giuliani is done. He will endorse McCain tomorrow.

McCain's win

We'll know next week how much tonight means for the Republicans, but if the pundits are to be believed (and I think they probably are this time) the story is becoming pretty clear for the Grand Old Party.

If they're right, Mr. 9/11 is embarrassingly done, after bizarrely ceding the first few primaries. If they're right, Hair Gel is done, after wasting a fortune. And if they're right, "100 years" McCain will be the anointed candidate of the right wing (though how far right remains to be seen).

Next comes the speculation from liberal-minded people such as myself: What does this mean for the Democrats? Now here is some real speculation, but I'm going to give it a shot.

(Quick aside: Matthews called McCain Lazarus, not Phoenix, because we're living in "this Christian time." He really said that.)

So what about the Dems? I think if this is all true, it's probably bad news for them. Set aside the head-to-head polls, which show that the only Republican who can beat one of the Dems right now is McCain. There's something else that is worth discussing as the Dems head for a long battle, and the Republicans get a breather.

In baseball, when a team wins in a 4-0 sweep, and waits for its opponent who is battling a long seven-game series, people question the impact. And the conventional wisdom always is that the team that is rested wins. I'm not convinced this works in baseball (players can get complacent and sometimes it's better to keep playing, as opposed to resting), but it probably works better in politics.

McCain will get to rest. And while that could be a shot at his old age ("100 years" serves as a way to mock his Iraq policy as well as his age) I mean it more in the sense that he gets to rally the base. He gets to build up his war chest. And he gets to start beating the drum that he has a chance to win. He can rally the hard-core Republicans who don't like him and convince them that he now becomes their only choice.

Who cares?

In framing the message of this blog, I have tried not to acknowledge what I find to be stupid news stories, and try to focus on what is actually important in politics right now. I try to write about the message and the trends; how people are voting and why.

With the 24-hour news cycle, we are subjected not only to unimportant stories, but also analysis of the unimportant stories. The first two that come o my mind were stories from reputable newspapers dissecting Clinton's laugh and her blouse.

Well, now we have "The Snub."

When I woke up I saw a story about Obama walking away from Clinton at the State of the Union last night as she approached Sen. Kennedy. I shrugged and moved on. I assumed it would be over by midday. I, once again, gave the media too much credit.

It has turned into a thing. The blogs are all over it, including the Times. And it will surely be discussed in the next few days (certainly Chris Matthews will talk about it this afternoon).

But who, really cares? I like to stand up for the media. I think people don't understand how hard the job of a journalist is. But it's moments like these that I think the pundits deserve all the criticism they get. (Photo: New York Times)

Peace, out

Mr. 9/11, Mr. third-place (sometimes fourth) in Florida said that "The winner of Florida will win the nomination." So ... it's looking like he'll battle Fred Thompson for most disappointing campaign.

Response to SOTU

As I was waiting for Gov. Sebelius, I was reminded of Jim Webb's brilliant and strong response to the SOTU last year. Here's a refresher.

My new best friend

I'll take name suggestions in the comment section. (She's a she.)

Life on Mars?

Great moments in SOTU history.

In 2004, shortly after announcing a goal of sending astronauts to Mars, Bush was silent on the issue in his SOTU. It gives me an excuse to play Bowie.

Endorsements

Ted Kennedy's upcoming endorsement of Obama is getting a lot of play. It's the lead story in the New York Times. The TV people are saying its a bridge to the Democratic establishment, to the old guard, to the Kennedy generation.

Now Marc Ambinder reports that Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius is also planning on endorsing Obama. This won't get as much play in the national media, but it will certainly matter in middle America. Sebelius will give the Democratic response to the State of the Union tonight and is an extremely popular Democrat in a red state.

And while we're at it, ABC reports that Toni Morrison will endorse Obama too. This likely doesn't matter at all, but as ABC notes, its interesting because it was Morrison who famously referred to Bill Clinton as the country's "first black president."

More race baiting

If you thought the Clintons were getting the message that the race baiting wasn't working, forget it. BC yesterday compared Obamas success in SC to that of Jesse Jackson in 84 and 88. The Clintons obviously know a lot more about winning elections than I do, but it's hard for me to believe that this rhetoric helps them.