The presidential field has winnowed down further, with Democrat John Edwards and Republican Rudy Giuliani announcing their withdrawal from the presidential race on the same day. But while the left-wing Democrat was serenaded as a trailblazer, the moderate Republican was mocked for "living an illusion."
While few were surprised by Giuliani's announcement (and subsequent endorsement of fellow moderate John McCain) after his distant third-place finish in Florida, Edwards' decision must have shocked at least one person -- New York Times reporter Julie Bosman, who must be feeling snake-bit after her Tuesday story portraying Edwards as the Energizer Bunny, motoring on and becoming a possible kingmaker at the Democratic convention.
"After finishing third in three of the four primary contests so far -- except in Iowa, where he beat Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York for second place by less than one percentage point -- Mr. Edwards has shown no sign of quitting, and his advisers have insisted that he still hopes to capture the nomination."
Bosman and coauthor Jeff Zeleny posted a story to the Times website Thursday morning on Edwards' withdrawal announcement, a piece highly respectful of the failed Edwards campaign, in a tone tinged with regret, and suggesting Edwards was a trailblazer on health care. And they still constantly referred to him as a "populist," not a liberal.
"John Edwards, the progressive Democratic candidate who made a populist, anti-poverty message the centerpiece of his campaign, has decided to drop out of the presidential primary race, and is to give a speech this afternoon at the same place where he began his campaign -- in New Orleans."
...
"Mr. Edwards had campaigned heavily in Iowa for months and months, fine-tuning a populist message and issuing many proposals, including one on health care, long before his rivals issued theirs. In the caucuses, he finished second, but just about a percentage point ahead of Mrs. Clinton."
The Times spun his last-place showings:
"Indeed, Mr. Edwards was poised to collect enough delegates in early nominating contests to potentially influence the outcome at the Democratic nominating convention in August, if neither Mrs. Clinton nor Mr. Obama won enough delegates to clinch the nomination."
Couldn't the same be said about Giuliani? Apparently not. By contrast with Edwards, the Times had nothing good to say about the former New York City mayor.
Wednesday's lead "news analysis," "Dizzying Fall For Ex-Mayor," by the tag team of Michael Powell and Michael Cooper, showed little respect for Giuliani:
"Perhaps he was living an illusion all along.
"Rudolph W. Giuliani's campaign for the Republican nomination for president took impressive wing last year, as the former mayor wove the pain experienced by his city on Sept. 11, 2001, and his leadership that followed into national celebrity. Like a best-selling author, he basked in praise for his narrative and issued ominous and often-repeated warnings about the terrorist strike next time."
....
"As Mr. Giuliani ponders his political mortality, many advisers and political observers point to the hubris and strategic miscalculations that plagued his campaign. He allowed a tight coterie of New York aides, none with national political experience, to run much of his campaign."
The tone throughout was unnecessarily antagonistic.
"Perhaps a simpler dynamic was at work: The more that Republican voters saw of him, the less they wanted to vote for him.
"Mr. Giuliani was a temple-throbbing Italian-American New Yorker who ruled a cacophonous city seen as the very definition of liberalism. He was somewhat liberal on social issues -- notably immigration and abortion -- where Republican candidates are invariably conservative. And he possessed a complicated family life: he has been thrice-married and has two adult children who rarely speak to him. At the beginning of his campaign last spring, he sat for a celebrity photo shoot smooching with his third wife, who snuggled in his lap."
For the complete version of this story, visit Times Watch.
