« Poll: Democrats’ Concern Is Candidate Electibility
TMV Posts To Be Featured On Newsweek’s New “The Ruckus” Newsweek/MBA Group Politics Blog »
Why John Edwards may be the best option for Democrats
Like many of my Democratic friends — like many Democrats period — I’ve been struggling with the current crop of candidates. Whom to support?
I’ve never much cared for either Clinton or Obama. The former is too much of a centrist triangulator, and I don’t trust her on foreign policy. The latter is too much of a feel-good, group-therapy Oprah candidate, and I don’t like his use of Republican talking points in trying to take down Clinton. Both would be fine presidents and both are on the right side (which is to say, the liberal-progressive side) on most of the issues that matter to us (climate change, in particular), but it seems to me that we can do better.
I admire many of the other Democratic candidates, including Dodd and Biden, but what about Edwards? I used to blog at his One America Committee, and, absent Gore, he was long my preference. He seems to have learned from his initial support for the Iraq War, to have developed a keen appreciation for foreign affairs, to have built a solid policy platform around key issues like health care and poverty, and to have deepened his message beyond the trite “two Americas” routine. And yet… Maybe I was still longing for Gore, maybe I was still waiting for one of the other candidates to step up and inspire me, maybe it had something to do with the fact that he was behind, well behind, and looking more and more like a long shot. Whatever the reason, I lost interest in Edwards. That’s too strong, perhaps, but I’ll stick with it. Something about him began to bother me and his message just stopped resonating. I’d heard it all before, I was tired of it, and his whole candidacy seemed to lack a certain power to it, an essential reason to support it.
Although I will support whichever Democrat emerges from the primaries — which is to say, I will support any Democrat over any Republican (and I’m not generally so hyper-partisan) — and although I do not intend here to endorse a specific candidate, I must say that I’m beginning to like Edwards more and more. Again.
Indeed, he is, once more, my preference — I think. It may be that he is the least bad of the top three Democratic candidates, but I would like to think rather that he is the strongest of three fairly strong candidates. Whatever my reservations with respect to Clinton and Obama, I do not dislike them generally, and, reservations aside, I can admit that they are highly credible candidates.
And yet — those reservations, upon which I have only touched here (see here for Clinton and here for Obama). Besides, I’ve generally liked Edwards a great deal (see here and here). And yesterday, in a short post that got me thinking, and got me writing this one, Atrios put the differences clearly and powerfully:
Obama: The system sucks, but I’m so awesome that it’ll melt away before me.
Edwards: The system sucks, and we’re gonna have to fight like hell to destroy it.
Clinton: The system sucks, and I know how to work within it more than anyone.
I, too, think the system sucks. So do many of us. The question is, who can do something about it? Obama is, I grant, serious about policy, but he is essentially running a cult of personality campaign. Plus, his message of two Americas as one, of healing the rifts, is, I think excessively idealistic and, indeed, naive. Naive because the other side, the GOP, plays rough. Although it would be nice to have a uniter rather than a divider in the White House, the reality of American politics is that there are two major parties that generally do not aim for compromise. And, to an extent, why should they? For us, what does compromise mean other than selling out Democratic principles and embracing Republican ones. Remember that the other side — and I’m not just referring to Bush/Cheney but to most on the Congressional side and certainly to most of the presidential field — continues to support a losing war in Iraq, wants to bomb Iran, supports the use of torture, rejects diplomacy and internationalism, advocates theocratic social policies, cares little for environmentalism and even less for the climate crisis, and so on and so on. This is the Republican system. Not only would Obama not be able to overcome it, he would find himself having to make compromises with Republicans who, in turn, would be working to destroy him.
As for Clinton, I have no doubt she knows how to work the system. She’s proven she can, and her tenure in the Senate has been marked repeatedly by efforts to reach out to the other side, including, most worrisome of all, on Iraq and Iran. As with Obama, she would find herself having to make compromises with Republicans, who, even more aggressively and vindictively, would be working to destroy her.
Which, again, leaves Edwards, a sound voice for progressive values (and one who is polling well against possible Republican opponents) at a time when the two leading candidates are hurling dirt at one another and otherwise putting themselves in a position to act like Joe Lieberman. No, they wouldn’t be that bad, don’t get me wrong, and Obama in particular is admirably progressive, but what America needs now is a fighter, I think, not a cult of personality or a triangulator. Some combination of the three, along with the better qualities of Dodd (the system sucks, but we need to defend the Constitution), Biden (the system sucks, but I’m crazy enough to speak my mind), Richardson (the system sucks, but I speak Spanish and have travelled the world as a diplomat), and even Kucinich (the system sucks, so let’s impeach Bush and Cheney), would be ideal, but, barring that, and barring a Gore run, the best option may very well be Edwards.
Think about it.
(Cross-posted from The Reaction.)
17 Responses to “Why John Edwards may be the best option for Democrats”
Edwards is the system. Why are so many fooled so easily? Is it the cutesy looks and the “sunny” smile? (Note that Edwards is now challenged by Obama on these important-to-Democratic-voters criteria.)
If one actually listens to the candidates, Edwards has, by far, the best grasp of American reality since he’s been stumping for literally 5 years.
Obama is my 2nd choice, but, as an earlier thread pointed out, being black means he simply cannot be as angry as Edwards, lest scare off soccer moms and dads.
Edwards is a lawyer (boo) who actually did the right thing in standing up against corps and for people. Had he not gotten rich, too, folks wd say he was an altruist- but how many public defenders ever make it in politics.
However, unless he wins in Iowa, he’s slated for a Secretary job in an O or C Admin.
If Hillary gets in (and it is she who is the system on the D side) then one can only hope a Bloomberg steps in.
Food for thought indeed. I have liked Edwards for a long time and still do. His heart is in the right place and he has walked the walk in service to the downtrodden. My only reservation is that I have never seen America elect a president on a platform of helping the poor or excluding all corporate interest from the negotiating table. Like it or not corporations are here to stay. If I thought he could get elected on this platform I would support him but I fear his platform is a loser, and it is indeed imperative that we elect a Democrat in 2008 for the sake of the Supreme Court alone. But I will happily support whichever Dem wins the nomination.
Edwards could eventually become the VP candidate.
Quite an interesting perspective on a blog called the moderate voice.
I think this sort of “hyper-partisan” zealotry is why we can’t seem to solve the problems we have. It isn’t the “system” that sucks, but the extremists of left and right who only seem interested in vanquishing the other side. It’s the purest form of arrogance, this certainty that your politics is holy, the other side is evil.
Without compromise, democracy is just totalitarianism. That’s what an Edwards presidency promises? I sure hope not.
AZ: Your assessment of the political situation may have had truck pre-W, but to even suggest that the R’s have not been the fomenters of rabidity the last decade is to announce that Whitley Strieber was right, and there are aliens among us, and they do not speak Spanish.
Interestingly, Obama has support among Republican voters, in Red states. See the following. It cannot all be written off to the GOP’s offering a weak field (with the two best-known leaders both being RINOs from Northeastern states). It also is evidence that the 2006 elections (down with Bush, down with the war, down with the GOP, too) may indeed be repeated in 2008.
Thanks, cosmoetica, for so eloquently illustrating my point about the politics of extremism. What Bush represents politically is quite mainstream, if one takes the time to read American history. But rather than debate, we seem to prefer demonization these days, don’t we?
Like you, Michael, I lean towards Edwards, although I could support any of the Democratic candidates. I believe the rise of corporate power as the greatest threat the nation faces. Edwards has a successful track record in fighting them in the courts. His decision to go with public financing for his campaign tells me he favors public campaign finance as a method to reduce their influence. I also like his combative stance towards them, as opposed to compromising with them when they already hold too much power in government. I would like to see mmore focus on restoring the balamce of power among the 3 branches of government, as well as restoration of individual rights under the Constitution.
Well, Edwards just received the First Lady of Iowa’s endorsement, so that ought to a big boost for him. I must say that cosmo’s absolutely right. Edwards is the best candidate, with the clearest vision, and a political touch that could match that of Bill Clinton.
If we believe that torture, theft of land and natural resources and genocide are still mainstream values.
I would add to Don Q’s comment—if we believe that politicizing previously nonpartisan government agencies is a healthy trend for our democracy. One example of this is the Civil Rights Division’s decision to take on mostly reverse discrimination cases and prosecute voter fraud rather than vote suppression. Another occurred in our intelligence agencies.
Also we might find Bush mainstream if we believe that the Constitution should be reinterpreted by the president’s lawyers to mean whatever he’d like it to mean.
I would add to Don Q’s comment—if we believe that politicizing previously nonpartisan government agencies is a healthy trend for our democracy. One example of this is the Civil Rights Division’s decision to take on mostly reverse discrimination cases and prosecute voter fraud rather than vote suppression. Another occurred in our intelligence agencies.
Also we might find Bush mainstream if we believe that the Constitution should be reinterpreted by the president’s lawyers to mean whatever he’d like it to mean.
Extremism and demonization preferred over history.
AZ: ‘Thanks, cosmoetica, for so eloquently illustrating my point about the politics of extremism. What Bush represents politically is quite mainstream, if one takes the time to read American history.’
Your second quoted sentence is what makes your own point, but then, if you recognized that, you would not have uttered sentence 2.
DLS: No one cannot say you don’t live your credo.
Especially when it’s not mine. Truth too close for comfort once again, I guess…[sigh]
DLS: Cull TMV’s archives. Like AZ, you’re deliciously unawares.