Actors Robbins, Sarandon hit the road for John Edwards

January 8, 2008

DOVER, N.H. — Academy Award-winning actor Tim Robbins, famous for his part in hit film The Shawshank Redemption, is playing a new role: opening act for Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards.

The actor-director and his partner Susan Sarandon campaigned for the former North Carolina senator one day before New Hampshire voters go to the polls in a crucial vote that could shape the rest of the primary contests.

edwards-robbins-sarandon.jpgAnd though he may not be Oprah — who famously hit the trail for rival Democratic hopeful Barack Obama — Robbins had crowds cheering at a local Elks club when he complained Edwards was not getting enough attention for his second-place finish in Iowa behind Obama and just ahead of former first lady Sen. Hillary Clinton.

“Even today after John Edwards comes in second in Iowa, we’re still being told it’s a two-person race,” Robbins told the crowd. “We’re the voters, we decide who the front-runner is.”

Why should anyone listen to Robbins? He doesn’t really know himself. “I’ve been told to ‘shuddup’ a lot in the past couple years,” he said, referring to heat he endured for criticizing the Iraq war. “They say, ‘what does an actor know?’ Well, probably not much.”

Take that, Oprah. Nonetheless, Robbins said he believed Edwards was the most electable candidate and best placed to replace President George W. Bush when he leaves the White House in a year.

“I believe he (Edwards) has the best chance to beat a Republican in November,” Robbins told reporters. “John Edwards deserves more attention and I believe he’s the best candidate.”  

Click here for more Reuters 2008 campaign coverage

— Photo credit: Reuters/Carlos Barria (Edwards joined by actors Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon at campaign rally)

13 comments

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/

Even though the media refuses to do their job and report FACTS so educated voters make their decision instead of being biased and suppoting ONE candidate. WE THE VOTERS WILL NOT STOP EDUCATING WHERE MEDIA FAILS MISERIBLY by Giving Obama a free ride and doing a disservice to the country. It really is about Obama’s message. He can’t point to a record of accomplishment so he talks about bringing people together and giving people hope. The media has forgotten their job! They are responsible to inform voters of the differences between candidates, not to endorse or support just ONE! As they have with obamaboy!
**CNN last night Lou Dobbs said they polled the young voters supporting obama (which is how he is winning the recent caucuses) NOT ONE COULD SAY WHERE HE STOOD ON ANY ISSUE?? With the country at odds with so many foreign countries, it is horrifying to think of Barrack “Hussein” Obama (Muslim) running our country. You think we are in trouble with bush/Chaney!
ROCHESTER, New Hampshire (CNN) – A group of about a dozen anti-abortion protestors interrupted one of Barack Obama’s New Hampshire rallies Monday night.The group shouted in unison, “Abortion is abomination,” forcing Obama to pause in the middle of his speech. When the noise erupted, Obama first paused and looked up into the balcony where they were standing. They were escorted out by police.Before leaving the room, one protestor yelled, “True change is ending abortion!” Change has been a major theme of Obama’s campaign.

Posted by Obama hugh mistake | Report as abusive

I agree with Robbins: Edwards is the MOST ELECTABLE candidate for the general election.

The corporate media are trying to shut him out. The PEOPLE need to vote for him.

Posted by Oscar | Report as abusive

Yes, I agree with Tim Robbins comment, that Edwards deserves more attention.

Posted by A. Douglas | Report as abusive

Media picks the top candidate based on how much money they can spend on advertising not based on voter’s opinions. It has been very obvious from the beginning the media doesn’t believe John Edwards will pay off for their advertisers! So, they ignore John completely. Just like they did when Gore won the noble peace prize. Media stop being of value when the news department became part of the entertainment department. Advertisers are deciding who is viable presidential candidate and who is not! If the media had any validity to their reporting, the focus would be on the number of contributors! That is a variable that would show who is being supported by the voters and not the advertisers.

Posted by Shelley | Report as abusive

There really isn’t a difference between Obama and Edwards as far as I can see. What I do see is two socialists running for the presidency, neither of which has an inkling regarding how bad the economy is now and will continue to be when they increase taxes to “help” the lower portion of the economy. Also both of these candidates are members of the CFR, a private think-tank that promotes one world government and therefore the destruction of the US Constitution and our borders and therefore also the destruction of the US middle class. No president should pledge allegiance to private groups such as the CFR before they pledge allegiance to the flag. Surprisingly, this is not even a secret. Rockefeller wrote at about it at length in his books.

Posted by Max | Report as abusive

The cult like atmosphere surrounding the Obama phenomenon
is frightening. Thought, logic has evaporated!

Excitement! Hope! Cooperation! The world continues to laugh at us. Is this the Miss America contest?
No substance. An American Idol atmosphere, a revival meeting….Faith, no evidence, no facts…

The Media have decided Obama is the man. Why? Maybe the only way a Republican has a chance is to have a weak Democrat heading the ticket….

Posted by inessa | Report as abusive

John & Elizabeth Edwards are honest, great Americans. It would be such a shame to watch the Bush family raddle the Iranian saber for the next 11 months only to scare the American people into voting for John McCain over a baby-faced, “un-electable” Ovama. We need John Edwards more than ever. And the Edward’s people need to think about releasing a Vice Presidential pick ASAP to strengthen/have a chance of beating Obama and Hillary.

Posted by Daniel | Report as abusive

I can’t believe Robbins and Sarandon are using the “unelectable” argument. This simply points to the fact that Edwards is a white male. Nader and Kucinich stand apart from the establishment, so I can understand why they get support, but to put Edwards into that category covers some very important facts.

Let’s put this into perspective: if one looks at the records of Obama and Edwards in the public and private sectors, there is no question that Obama has the better, more progressive record. Edwards’s senate career is as bad as Clinton’s. Obama has problems as well, but it is the best amongst the three. John Edwards took half a million dollars from Fortress Investment Group, a hedge fund with ties to the sub-prime lending fiasco. He claimed he was studying “poverty.” Obama, on the other hand, forwent riches to be a community organizer and civil rights lawyer. Don’t get me wrong, I like Edwards, and would support him if his candidacy were viable; it’s just a shame that he gets so many votes because he is a white male. I despise Hillary Clinton and would never vote for her, but the fact that she is a woman is a plus, not a minus, as is Obama’s race. This unelectable argument is BS. I’m disappointed in Robbins and Sarandon. They should be supporting Kucinich or Obama.

Posted by generic109 | Report as abusive

yes, lets put it into real perspective. Obama voted for the patriot act, voted to fund the war without benchmarks, voted present on the amnesty for telcoms, waited to see how Hillary was going to vote before casting several other key votes.When it came to the tough votes, Obama failed. Its easy to say what you would have done had you been senator, but once you are a Senator, your votes, or lack thereof, will tell one you.

Posted by The Realist | Report as abusive

Obama voted for the Patriot Act II, which was a bad thing, but the act was significantly better than Patriot Act I, which Edwards and Clinton voted for. Obama recently voted against war funding, and Clinton followed HIM. Tell me what vote Obama followed Clinton on.

Clinton’s dismal record goes beyond her votes, which were bad enough. She went in front of the Senate to bolster Bush’s claims that Saddam gave shelter to those responsible for 9/11. She also claimed not have read the NIE, an 80-page document, before voting for war. Edwards claimed “he didn’t remember” whether he read the act or not.

Posted by generic109 | Report as abusive

to Max: It is good for our Noble Experiment that such an insight into the thinking of True Americans can still appear in the Liberal Media. Thanks, you most certainly do fill a much needed void.

Posted by quousque | Report as abusive

Thanks guys for all your support, and now in these trying times for me personally, i have been abandoned by everyone, your support means all that much more.

I am seeking volunteers to help me staff a new project to help learn more about poverty, if you are blond female between 5-4 and 5-7, send me a pic and lets discuss poverty over coffee.

Posted by John Edwards | Report as abusive

All is forgiven.
Need help with any super-empowered, or extremely independent, academic data-strategy that will raise awareness of womens exceptional plight in this new poverty?
Alas, I just HAVE cut down on the caffeine, let’s make it wine and cheese.
Best to Liz.

‘Mandy

Posted by CaptDMO | Report as abusive