Edwards Wins Colbert 'Debate'

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both appeared Thursday night on Comedy Central's "The Colbert Report."

Clinton mocked her "3 a.m." ad. After fixing a malfunctioning projection screen and having a make-up artist address the challenge of Colbert's "too shiny" forehead, the host gasped, "Senator Clinton, you're so prepared for any situation."

"I just love solving problems. Call me anytime. Call me at 3:00 a.m.," said Clinton.

Obama added manufactured political "distractions" to host Stephen Colbert's "On Notice Board."

Reflecting on debate questioning about whether he wears a flag pin, Obama added "manufactured political distractions" to Colbert's "On Notice" board list of troubling phenoms.

"I think the American people are tired of these games and petty distractions," declared Obama, to Colbert's response: "Speaking for the news media, we are not tired of it, It allows us to ask the same questions over and over again, and we don't have to do any work."

So who won?

John Edwards.

The candidate of the adult wing of the Democratic party who didn't make it to Pennsylvania -- but who looks better and better in hindsight -- suddenly appeared during Colbert's faux news report on the courting by Clinton and Obama of white male voters.

"Finally, America's white men are being heard, and the candidates are attempting to address" issues of concern to them, Colbert said, as images of Clinton downing a shot and a beer and Obama attempting to bowl.

Mocking the efforts of both remaining candidates to secure his support, the former senator from North Carolina declared, "No white male vote is being courted more vigorously than this one."

Weighing his options, Edwards noted that, on the one hand, he did not want to cast a vote that was "anti-hope." But, recalling the response of a particularly virulent Clinton backer to former candidate Bill Richardson's endorsement of Obama, Edwards said, "On the other hand, I don't want James Carville to bite me."

Restating his campaign call for a more serious focus on economic issues -- which were almost entirely missing from Wednesday night's debate -- Edwards announced that he would vote in the upcoming North Carolina primary for the candidate who best advocates for ending poverty and providing universal health care.

Failing that, he said, "I will only support the candidate who promises to make me a spy. That would be so cool."

Even Colbert was cracking up.

Easily the least defensive and most good-humored "contender," Edwards reminded everyone of what was lost when he left the race -- and of why the remaining candidates really are still campaigning for his endorsement.

Watch the full segment on the Comedy Channel's website. (There's a commercial first, so be patient.)

Comments (26)

1. The only place that will not distort what John Edwards was and could have meant for this country. How is that the corporate sycophants haven't been able to reach into Stewart and Colber? Have we gone through a generational shift? Have we reached a tipping point in the media? Are these shows the modern version of Shakespeare?

   Posted by julien38 at 04/18/2008 @ 09:02am

2. And reminds us that Edwards is either wanting more ego-massaging...or hoping not to piss off somebody and lose a Veep slot.

   Step up, Johnny (Edwards) and endorse somebody or get out of the way.

   Posted by Mask at 04/18/2008 @ 09:03am

3. Are these shows the modern version of Shakespeare?

   Posted by JULIEN38 04/18/2008 @ 09:02am | ignore this person

   are you out of your freakin' mind?

   Posted by emile duBois at 04/18/2008 @ 09:12am

4. The whole show was awesome!

   Posted by poet128 at 04/18/2008 @ 11:12am

5. We have had a war on poverty for, what, 50 years now? Time to with draw and give it up, we must have spend hundreds of trillions of money, like LIBSWARNEDYOU says, we must have burned railroad cars of hundred dollar bills on a war we can not win..the more money we give away, the more "poor" show up for more.......

   Wow. This sounds an awful lot like.... The War on Drugs. Or the War on Terrah. The more money we give away, the more show up for more.

   Posted by cyrano at 04/18/2008 @ 11:12am

6. We have had a war on poverty for, what, 50 years now? Time to with draw and give it up, we must have spend hundreds of trillions of money, like LIBSWARNEDYOU says, we must have burned railroad cars of hundred dollar bills on a war we can not win..the more money we give away, the more "poor" show up for more......

   this is crap. the Vietnam war put an end to the war on poverty. the anti poverty measures that were taken have been by and large successful. a lot fewer people are poor, the old and children.

   Medicare, food stamps these have all been resounding success stories.

   they are just trying to rationalize greed and "me first and nobody else".

   Posted by emile duBois at 04/18/2008 @ 11:19am

7. "Why is Nichols and the nation STILL trying to convice people here that Edwards means anything..."

   Posted by JOMAMMA 04/18/2008 @ 10:59am

   So true, John.

   Some people, despite a preponderance of contrary opinion on this site, cannot resist showing up and repeatedly posting the same tripe.

   It gets old, doesn't it...

   Posted by drhammer at 04/18/2008 @ 11:32am

8. If Edwards and Kucinich were such "progressive" heroes, why were they utterly rejected by the people who voted? I don't believe for a minute that a vast media and moneyed-interest conspiracy did it. I think their policies were unworkable, and voters have more sense than to select "populist pap"!

   Posted by sntauri at 04/18/2008 @ 11:55am

9. this is crap. the Vietnam war put an end to the war on poverty. the anti poverty measures that were taken have been by and large successful. a lot fewer people are poor, the old and children.

   Medicare, food stamps these have all been resounding success stories.

   they are just trying to rationalize greed and "me first and nobody else".

   Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 04/18/2008 @ 11:19am | ignore this person

   This is substantially true. For instance, the elderly, formerly the most likely group to be impoverished, are now the least likely, largely due to Medicare and, secondarily, Social Security.

   However, I wouldn't say the Vietnam War "ended" the "War on Poverty," such as it was. It did hobble it, however. The Reagan Administration and the rise of the New Right, with its benefit freezes and elimination of job training programs, not to mention the racist campaigning against "Welfare Queens," further crippled anti-poverty efforts, and Bill Clinton, opportunist-supreme, added a few more nails by ending "welfare as we know it." The workfare scam, which has resulted in the loss of thousands of jobs and seen formerly unionized public sector workers returned to their old jobs as "Workfare" participants is perhaps the most sleezy part of that "reform," while the ruling that training and education cannot count towards the work requirement is typically mean-spirited, short-sighted and just plain stupid ("No, no, we don't need any more nurses. Better to let her do filing or mop those floors for $290/month.").

   Thank the gods for Monica Lewinsky; if not for her, Bill and Newt Gingrich would have privatized Social Security and probably moved onto Medicaid and Medicare, further enriching the parasitical scum of Wall Street while impoverishing ever more Americans. And bringing back the specter to many families of Grandpa or Grandma ending up on the streets.

   Let me add one sop to my Libertarian and Conservative friends. I don't like intrusive government (or non-profit) social workers invading peoples' homes either, so I've always favored the best anti-poverty programs available: a high minimum wage, laws and regulations that promote and support unionization, a fair trade policy and a militant working class. Alright, so it wasn't much of a sop.

   Posted by cka2nd at 04/18/2008 @ 11:56am

10. If Edwards and Kucinich were such "progressive" heroes, why were they utterly rejected by the people who voted? I don't believe for a minute that a vast media and moneyed-interest conspiracy did it. I think their policies were unworkable, and voters have more sense than to select "populist pap"!

    Posted by SNTAURI 04/18/2008 @ 11:55am | ignore this person

    Kucinich was rejected because no one gave him a chance of winning the primaries, let alone the general election. It's the same reason why Sam Brownback did not get more Religious Right votes in the Republican Party. Also, like Brownback and Mike Huckabee, John Edwards was a more viable alternative to Kucinich for folks who liked Dennis' politics.

    As for Edwards, a mix of factors ended his campaign, as I have argued several times here at The Nation. The relentless hostility of the mainstream and right-wing press, in particular to his economic platform, played a part. The attraction for a lot of Democratic voters to the idea of nominating either a white woman or a black man was also a factor. But Edwards' main problem was his own timidity in drawing a brighter light between himself and Obama on two crucial issues, well, three: the occupation of Iraq; the "War on Terror", in particular the will we or won't we attack on Iran; and health care reform.

    On all three issues, once you got past the original issue of authorizing the attack on Iraq, all three of the Democratic leaders sounded eerily similar. This first allowed Obama to move up and challenge Edwards and Clinton, and then even allowed Richardson to have a brief spurt when he took a hard stand for withdrawal from Iraq, hurting Edwards the most in the process. If Edwards had been the clear anti-occupation, anti-imperialist war, pro-civil liberties candidate among the top tier, he likely could have held off Obama's surge.

    As for health care, if Edwards hadn't dismissed single payer insurance as an option, if he had even said it should be considered in a study of other countries systems (see the excellent Frontline documentary that ran this week on PBS), he would have broken away from the pack, as well. This would have forced the candidates to debate the issues, and pushed the media to cover that debate at least a little bit, rather than letting everyone focus on personality traits, religous backgrounds, wardrobe and hair.

    Posted by cka2nd at 04/18/2008 @ 12:14pm

11. Posted by CKA2ND 04/18/2008 @ 11:56am

    Then why did things get WORSE in the 1970s, not atleast "marginally" better, if the WoP was merely hobbled?

    Posted by CKA2ND 04/18/2008 @ 12:14pm

    So your theory is, if Edwards had been the "good looking Kucinich"...he would have defeated Obama and Clinton?!?!?

    Posted by Mask at 04/18/2008 @ 12:18pm

12. Posted by CKA2ND 04/18/2008 @ 12:14pm

    Yes, Edwards' timidity did him in. Now what prevents him from endorsing a candidate? Is he hoping for a return at a deadlocked, brawling convention?

    Posted by sloper at 04/18/2008 @ 12:27pm

13. Is he hoping for a return at a deadlocked, brawling convention?

    Posted by SLOPER 04/18/2008 @ 12:27pm

    i bet he'll walk in like a wrestler on SMACKDOWN!!!!!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/18/2008 @ 12:28pm

14. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 04/18/2008 @ 12:28pm

    Another part of the "brokered Convention" scenario that HSUBFOOLS fails to take into account...that some "other guy" might challenge Al Gore for it, like Edwards and split the vote FOUR ways, and then come up with some "Obama/EDWARDS" "unity ticket" versus a "Gore/Hillary" "unity ticket" and the Convention becomes it's only little version of Baghdad outside the Green Zone.

    Posted by Mask at 04/18/2008 @ 12:48pm

15. Posted by MASK 04/18/2008 @ 12:48pm

    while the republiclones have theirs inside the dull zone........ (get those mortars ready, america)

    hey, do you know what "emo" means?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emo#Fashion_and_stereotype

    2008 BATTLE ROYALE!!! THE EMOCRATS VERSUS THE REPUBLICLONES

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/18/2008 @ 12:59pm

16. Posted by SLOPER 04/18/2008 @ 12:27pm | ignore this person

    he's likely waiting to see which way the wind blows. that's what politicians do.

    Posted by emile duBois at 04/18/2008 @ 1:08pm

17. The wind has blown, direction clear. FZ's chart calls it, as do others. Edwards' endorsement worth less with every passing primary. He seems to be sharing Billary's vain hope for a brawl to overcome the wind.

    Posted by sloper at 04/18/2008 @ 1:15pm

18. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 04/18/2008 @ 12:59pm

    Actually, there might be a LITTLE fireworks at St. Paul on Labor Day Weekend....

    if "Bush-44" (aka Maverick John) says something "maverick" (aka more moderate) and the Hard Right guys grumble or even boo!

    Posted by Mask at 04/18/2008 @ 1:33pm

19. by SLOPER 04/18/2008

    it's not a chart. ¡¡¡it's interactive!!!

    go to http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/29/delegate.counter/index.html

    "Democratic delegate calculator"

    do your own numbers.

    watch, i'm going to do a post obama gay-iman-airportbusbathroom-sex'n'meth-scandal-of-the-century:

    i give clinton 75% in every primary except guam which goes 100% to obama (they're into that kinda stuff)

    and my final tally of delegates is:

    clinton 2244

    obama 1785

    and bush44 takes the oath to uphold the pnac mission statement* in january......

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/18/2008 @ 1:55pm

20. *The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle.

    The Project for the New American Century intends, through issue briefs, research papers, advocacy journalism, conferences, and seminars, to explain what American world leadership entails. It will also strive to rally support for a vigorous and principled policy of American international involvement and to stimulate useful public debate on foreign and defense policy and America's role in the world.

    William Kristol, Chairman

    http://www.newamericancentury.org/

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/18/2008 @ 1:56pm

21. FROSTY ZOOM 04/18/2008 @ 1:56pm...

    Whitie way, or the highway...;^)

    You're either with us, or you're being messed with...;^(

    Posted by ttr at 04/18/2008 @ 2:43pm

22. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 04/18/2008 @ 1:56pm

    Actually there's nothing GENERALLY wrong with that...

    if it had been the RIGHT application of military strength....SOME diplomatic energy (instead of virtually none or even the opposite)....and a moral principle based more on facts than phoney assumptions and shoddy or "cherry-picked" intelligence and incompetent implementation.

    Like all "mission statements"...it's when you get into DETAILS that it gets dicey.

    Posted by Mask at 04/18/2008 @ 2:46pm

23. Posted by MASK 04/18/2008 @ 2:46pm

    exactly. i thought, "yeah! now i've got 'em. everybody knows kristol's a dink."

    then i read it. and i thought well, could be worse.

    better moneyfist destiny than manyfist destiny.

    but i posted it a) because i had already put the *

    and b) because, like any holy book, it's a load of balderdash once a few moneygrubbers get there filthies on it, all in the name of ME!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/18/2008 @ 3:04pm

24. in other words,

    everybody knows kristol's a dink.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/18/2008 @ 3:05pm

25. The president should be smarter than 20 year old potheads.

    Posted by MADLIB 04/18/2008 @ 1:32pm

    Unless he's a 50 year old former coke head....

    Seriously, though, they knew they were lying. The neocons had been pushing for war ever since the first Gulf War ended! I knew before Bush was elected that he would take us to war in Iraq.

    It was easy to figure out, too. All you had to do was find out who he was picking for posts in his future administration, and then read what those hawks had written about Iraq.

    If you didn't know, it's because you didn't investigate....

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 04/18/2008 @ 3:54pm

26. everybody knows kristol's a dink.---Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 04/18/2008 @ 3:05pm

    And he looks like a "full-sized" Dr. Loveless.

    Posted by Mask at 04/18/2008 @ 4:19pm