Speaking as an Edwards supporter, I find this post hard to write. But the time has come to admit that much of the public simply does not like the man. His apologists blame a lack of media coverage, a charge which is true up to a point; beyond that point, it's a dodge.
So why should the man stay in the race? Three reasons:
1. Edwards functions as an insurance policy. What if a hitherto-unknown (or under-reported) scandal should engulf either Clinton or Obama? Or both?
2. Edwards is the only thing standing between Hillary Clinton and a lock on the nomination. One argument holds that lingering racist attitudes will harm Obama's chances in the south. Edwards and Hillary could split the non-Obama vote, which -- paradoxically -- gives Obama a chance to prevail in some southern states.
3. Edwards could play kingmaker in a brokered convention. Obviously, he would want the Vice Presidency. The question is -- what kind of Vice Presidency? Dick Cheney has brought a new level of power to that office -- although I'm sure that, on a moral level, Edwards would resemble Obi-Wan more than Darth. No presidential candidate would want a Number Two who harbors that level of ambition -- but in a pinch, deals get made.
One of the things I admire about Edwards is that he does not hide his naked ambition. Yet I am convinced that his primary ambition is to do good.
10 comments:
I disagree that much of the public doesn't like the man. For a truer example of that phenomenon, much of the public doesn't like Hillary, but I perceive no such generalized dislike for Johnny "John" Edwards on any large scale, particularly among Democrats. I'd bet he would make a lot of Democrats' second choice selection.
It's just that the Democratic primary voters like (one of) the other two better.
And, of course, the money thing becomes its own self-fulfilling prophecy. When you can't compete on a money basis, your message cannot compete on an equal basis with others who have the money, making for fewer people who can be swayed by that message they don't hear as much, so pollsters say you don't have much support among the voters, and with diminished prospects, the money dries up further (rinse; repeat).
...sofla
It's an awful thing to have to accept, but it is becoming more obvious at every election that the American voters are too ignorant to support a worthwhile candidate.
I guarantee you that most voters can tell you all kinds of information about their favorite sports team or some celebrity, but have nowhere near that depth of knowledge about the candidates or their positions
Although I pride myself on my cynicism, I would advise against losing all faith your fellow citizens. To do so is tantamount to losing faith in democracy.
Besides, I happen to think that the politically-obsessive folks who loiter around blogs have been waxing hyperbolic about the differences between the candidates.
A lot depends on whether Edwards is smarter than his opponents or not. I think he's smarter than both of them combined. By choosing to run without the corporate and lobbyist financial backing, he can campaign in South Carolina as a victim of the system just like most of SC's poor and strapped populace. When Edwards says he can win SC because "I talk like this", he's underscoring the native son identification and one of the few remaining features of that culture, its language. I love Hillary and want her to be POTUS. I like Barack and want him to be POTUS. I don't really trust John, but I will vote for him in my state's primary if he's on the ballot.
i have to agree with joe on a number of counts here.
first, it is discouraging to admit that edwards may not carry the day. my sense on why this might be happening, secondary to the verified fact that he is just not getting coverage (there are numbers to prove this; the corporate media is scared to death of him!) is that he is NOT bringing an uplifting message. his emphasis is on how bad things are and how much work there is to do. the electorate has CONSISTENTLY for i think its entire history elected the more positive and optimistic of the two candidates, and i'm sure this principle operates to some extent for the primaries. which helps explain the obama appeal.
and then, again as sofia said, there is the money issue. because the FEC has had to shut down operation - due to the stubbornness of bush and repug henchmen in congress in insisting their fec nominees get in, so they have not nominated anyone else, and so now the terms are up for all but i think three members; on quorum, no commission (which also has an effect on our ability to get oversight and investigation for the entire campaign and election process, by the by) - edwards cannot count on any of the finance matching checks to be cut for him. kinda convenient, doncha thin'?
second, all that being said, i agree also that the electorate is really not THAT ignorant that we should give up hope, and yes, that would be tantamount to giving up on democracy. all we have to do is look at the fact that, despite the shaping of elections by the corporate media, the american people have elected a democrat every general election since 1992 (we know SCOTUS placed bush in in 00, AND that kerry really won in 04, so there you have it.)
in addition, the polls showing just how much and for how long americans have disapproved of bush is encouraging, especially - again - in light of the media propagandizing.
and there was far more push against the iraq invasion from the get-go than we saw against nam back in the day, until it was well into the tens of thousands of soldiers sacrificed.
and on and on; people are not dummies, but if this evil crew keeps it up, stripping education from all but the rich, in addition to gutting the free press, we'll not have enough informed folks with enough reasoning power to govern our sorry selves anyway.
third, with regard to edwards specifically, i agree that he should NOT withdraw until the bitter end (geez, that GAWDAWFUL piece by larry o'donnell on huffpo REALLY ticked me OFF). he stands to gain a great deal, not least of which is to force the two 'anointed' front runners to look at his issues.
i have to wonder tho if he'd consider running as VP yet again. that would be a tall order, but i suppose it would be hard for him to refuse at this point....just as hard as accepting, i'm guessing.
the only caveat to the notion of a VP slot for him is the likelihood that hillary and obama are both considering each other as running mates. i mean, think of how powerful that ticket could be in terms of embracing the bulk of democrats out there. the only problem with it, of course, is that it would totally alienate the southern dems (racist misogynists, as they tend to be), which is where edwards would come in real handy. so that piece should be pretty interesting. in fact, given how important edwards could be as a VP candidate on that count - i.e., countering the resistance to having a woman AND a black on the ticket - i'd say edwards is really smart to stick it out.
and, a really sad and sick notion strikes me here, given the resistance to having a woman OR a black in the oval office, the possibility of losing that person to a violent rightwing idiot is altogether too real a consideration. sorry to bring that up, but there it is.
finally, like sofia, i don't really feel edwards is disliked; hillary will be much more difficult to promote against the onslaught of hillaryhate we can expect from the right. in fact, if edwards were so disliked, how could we explain that, for so long, he was the ONLY dem who was beating each and every repug candidate in each and every poll. don't know if that's still true, but it certainly was, and before the hillary/obama show was thrust into high gear.
i actually feel he has a lot of appeal, and that the numbers for hillary and obama expose the power of the media to select our candidates. which is why i was so infuriated by the decision against kucinich in NV; the 'rights' of the corporate media, my rosy rearend. how dare that delusion trump my rights as a voter???
just ran across this at crooksandliars:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/01/21/martin-luther-king-iii-to-john-edwards-i-challenge-all-candidates-to-follow-your-lead/
seems john-boy got a whale of an endorsement from mlk's own son.
read it; it's incredibly powerful.
this thing may not be over yet. especially when you look at how viciously hillary and obama are going after each other now.
John Edwards keeps the candidates takling about issues that matter to most Americans. Without John Edwards no one would ever even mention health care, he started that. Without John Edwards no one would address the Gddamned bad economy. Everyone else thinks things are going great for middle class. Until John Edwards stood up and said most of American is broke, D.C. thought the "recovery" was just fine. No one else mentions veterans (including McCain).
Without John Edwardsno one would even mention Unions. Without John Edwards no one would notice NOLA. All Clinton and Obama want to talk about is how pissed off they are at each other.
John Edwards is the conscience of this campaign season, and he needs to stay in, if only to keep some perspective on how bad things really are for most of us.
The Clinton and Obama campaigns, and the DNC, won't alienate Edwards or try to injure him. Without him on board and campaigning, the South will be lost again to the Republicans, in a blazing landslide for McCain if he's the candidate. McCain won South Carolina because he's military, Sir. You have to be in the South, Sir, not just visit there, to get a sense of the sacredness of the military in the South. (Tom Wolfe says the white South's character is chiefly Scots-Irish and military -- everyone serves in the military, it's part of the culture's heritage.) Only an Edwards, or a Wesley Clark as a VP candidate, can counter McCain's appeal in the South.
I was utterly disgusted by last night's debate. Edwards got only a few scattered moments to make his case, and as often as not, he did not do so effectively. As pointed out earlier, he is giving us the hard truth and most people don't want to hear it. Hillary was striking out in fairly Rovian fashion and Obama was not responding well. Many of the responses he made to her charges were simply bogus.
Is this the best the Democratic Party can do? I sure hope not. McCain will be a formidable competitor and getting a Diebold-proof victory will be difficult.
I really wish we could ditch all three of these and find someone better.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 21, 2008
CONTACT:
Chapel Hill Press Office
919-636-3203
SOUTH CAROLINA FOCUS GROUP: EDWARDS WON THE DEBATE
CNN's Focus Group of Undecided South Carolina Voters: "They Thought That Senator Edwards Won the Debate." After the debate, CNN reported that a focus group of seventeen undecided South Carolina Democrats said Edwards won the debate:
Anderson Cooper: "Erica, did your undecided voters in the room say who they felt won?"
Erica Hill: "They did. The interesting thing is they thought that Senator Edwards won the debate." [CNN, 1/21/08]
CNN's Focus Group Had a Great Reaction to Edwards When He Jumped in After the Clinton-Obama Personal Attacks.
Erica Hill talking about CNN's focus group: "What didn't pay off were attacksŠThat may have played well in the debate hall, but it left our voters cold and left an opening for John Edwards to grab his best reaction."
John Edwards: "This kind of squabbling -- how many children is this going to get health care. How many people are going to get an education from this?" [CNN, 1/21/08]
NBC's Matt Lauer: "I thought it was a particularly strong night for John Edwards, who seemed to walk the fence and try and calm down the bickering, at the same time calling attention to the issues." On the "Today Show" this morning Matt Lauer said, "I have to say, I'm not one, I don't want to handicap this thing and call a winner or a loser, but you have to echo what John Edwards said, aren't there three people in this debate. I thought it was a particularly strong night for John Edwards, who seemed to walk the fence and try and calm down the bickering, at the same time calling attention to the issues. How do you think he did last night?" Tim Russert: "Well, John Edwards was able to be the odd man out and look reasonable and much more focused on issues than personal positions." [NBC, "Today Show," 1/22/08]
CNN's Amy Holmes: "I thought the winner was John EdwardsŠThis actually ended up being John Edwards' night." "And like many of the guests you've had on previously, I thought the winner was John Edwards. I thought he really helped himself tonight where he could come in above the fray, refocus the debate on the issues. This actually ended up being John Edwards' night." [CNN, "Larry King Live," 1/22/08 (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0801/22/lkl.01.html )]
KIRO Radio Talk Show Host | Seattle Times Contributor Carl Jeffers on CNN: "I believe that actually tonight was John Edwards' best performance. And actually he came out better than he has in any other debate." On CNN immediately after the debate, Carl Jeffers said, "And I believe that actually tonight was John Edwards' best performanceŠBut, Edwards clearly came out very well tonightŠhe certainly helped himself, and I believe now, even if he comes in third, as a result of his performance tonight, can keep going to the convention where he may still have a role to play." [CNN, 1/21/08]
CNN's Candy Crowley: John Edwards probably won - he "was the one who was on message, who kept bringing them back and saying, what does this have to do with children's health care." Larry King: "Candy, if you were keeping score, who won?" Candy Crowley: "Probably John Edwards simply because he stayed out of it. I talked to people who were in the room during the debate and I said, well, what did you think and they said, well I thought it was too much arguing. So, if you buy into the old political saw that when A and B argue, C is the beneficiary, John Edwards was the one who was on message, who kept bringing them back and saying, what does this have to do with children's health care, that bite that you played. So, if I had to guess, it would be him." [CNN, "Larry King Live," 1/22/08 (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0801/22/lkl.01.html )]
The Hotline's Jen Skalka: "I'd score this one for John Edwards." "This was the rowdiest debate by far in the Democratic contest. And while each of the candidates had fine moments, I'd score this one for John Edwards. Especially in the standing portion of this two-hour rumbleŠ tonight, he was the catalyst for the action." [http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2008/01/rough_and_tumbl.html, 1/21/08 (10:06 PM)]
CNN's Bill Schneider: "John Edwards got himself back in it - he showcased his style and his key issues, and is clearly back in the game." 10:37 PM | "Here's some quick post-debate thoughts: John Edwards got himself back in it - he showcased his style and his key issues, and is clearly back in the game. He showed he continues to deserve to share a debate stage with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and voters here will likely give him another look after tonight." [http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/01/21/schneider-some-final-thoughts-%e2%80%93-two-different-strategies/, 1/21/08]
The Nation's John Nichols: "Edwards effectively pointed to the heated squabbling between the two frontrunnersŠas a deviation from the issues that matterŠIn short order, Edwards had gotten the best of both his opponents." "John Edwards effectively pointed to the heated squabbling between the two frontrunners in anticipation of Saturday's South Carolina Democratic primary as a deviation from the issues that matterŠIn short order, Edwards had gotten the best of both his opponents. That was the order of the night. Again and again, Edwards took the side of one of the frontrunners against the other, effectively serving as an arbiter between the two. It was an ideal position for Edwards, the outsider candidate who is struggling to distinguish himself from two opponents with more money and better poll positions." [http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?bid=45&pid=273581, "CLINTON, OBAMA COME TO BLOWS; EDWARDS WINS ..." 1/21/08 (10:47 PM)]
NBC's Andrea Mitchell: Edwards "did very well in the debate." [MSNBC, "Morning Joe," 1/22/08]
The New Republic's Jonathan Cohn: On universal health care, Edwards "had the best argument of all," asking Obama "whether he would make the same sort of argument about Social Security." "Clinton and Edwards would require everybody to obtain health insurance and Obama wouldn'tŠClinton and Edwards framed the argument perfectlyŠIt was Edwards, though, who had the best argument of all. When Obama said, as he has frequently, he doesn't want to force people to buy health insurance, Edwards asked whether he would make the same sort of argument about Social Security: 'The problem with this argument is you can make exactly the same argument about Social Security. ... I mean, you think about the analogy. What George Bush says is he wants people to be able to get out of the Social Security system, choose, elect to get out of the Social Security system. Well, that's exactly what this argument is. ... This argument is you shouldn't have to have health care. If you choose not to have health care, you shouldn't have to have it. And that is a threshold question. It is a judgment. It's a fair policy debate.'" [http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/01/21/debate-blogging-hard-truths-and-half-truths-on-health-care.aspx, 1/21/08]
The New Republic's Jonathan Cohn: On Edwards, "From the day this campaign began, he's driven the policy agenda." "Right now, John Edwards is talking about poverty. And that alone is reason to be thankful he's on the stage, even now. From the day this campaign began, he's driven the policy agenda--not just by embracing ambitious policy initiatives but also by focussing everybody's attention on people who, frankly, don't get enough explicit attention in politics." [http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/01/22/is-this-debate-too-ugly.aspx]
The Hill's Sam Youngman: Edwards "likely won favor with viewers by repeatedly trying to take the high road and stay above Obama's and Clinton's demolition derby." [http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/clinton-obama-throw-sharpest-elbows-yet-at-debate-2008-01-21.html, 1/21/08 (10:40 PM)]
Wall Street Journal's Susan Davis: After the Debate Descended to the Personal, "Edwards said to applause 'How many people are going to get an education from this? How many kids are going to be able to go to college because of this?'" "The biggest benefactor of the fight might be former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards who is fighting to regain a foothold in this race. Edwards has repeatedly been given the opportunity to take the higher ground as the two frontrunners throw insults. 'I also want to know on behalf of voters here in South Carolina, this kind of squabbling, how many children is this going to get health care?' Edwards said to applause. 'How many people are going to get an education from this? How many kids are going to be able to go to college because of this? We have got to understand - you know, and I respect both of these - my fellow candidates, but we have got to understand this is not about us personally. It is about what we are trying to do for this country and what we believe in.'" [http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/01/21/obama-clinton-trade-jabs/, 1/21/08 (9:23 pm)]
TPM's John Marshall: "8:58 PM ... Edwards comparison of 'choice' in health care to 'choice' is Social Security is a pretty good analogy." [http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/064342.php]
TIME's Mark Halperin: "Made the best of the situation: On a level playing field, Edwards would have won the debate by a wide margin." [http://thepage.time.com/excerpts-from-mark-halperins-debate-report-cards-3/]
Paid for by John Edwards for President.
John Edwards for President
410 Market Street, Suite 400
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Post a Comment