Observations on the Edwards passion

I originally posted this as a reply in another thread, then someone suggested I post it alone. I've taken the opportunity to make some small revisions, but mostly it's the same.


I, like others not completely happy with either Clinton or Obama, would like to give my Feb. 5 primary vote to John Edwards, and maybe I actually will, even though I know it will ultimately not change anything. As wonderful as the intentions are of those who want to "send a message" by voting for Edwards even after he has left the race, and as much as I sympathize with them, I still feel they will not make any difference.

But not for the reasons you might think.

Back in late 2003 or maybe early 2004 -- and Saracat will, I think, back me up on this because she was there -- I told a small group of assembled Democrats in Phoenix that the party ought to get behind a ticket and not waste time, energy, and re$ource$ on a long, drawn-out primary battle. I said that from a strictly pragmatic viewpoint, a Kerry-Edwards ticket offered the best chance for beating booosh/cheeeeney. I also said that I thought ultimately that would be the choice of the primary voters, but it would come too late to do any good. The focused energy had to be there from the beginning. We will, of course, never know what might have happened if the Kerry-Edwards ticket had been able to mount a concerted assault from, say, April or May instead of August.

And yes, there were people here on DU who attacked me for turning over our right as voters to choose the party nominee, EVEN IF it meant dragging out the process and spending the resources. In the end, it simply meant that we were all thinking about ourselves and our personal preferences and not about the "greater good." At least, that was the way I saw it. Many disagreed with me.

So now, four years later, I personally would much rather see John Edwards at the top of the Democratic ticket in 2008 than either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama because Edwards is much closer to my own philosophy. (He was in 2004, too.) But I also understand that, even though he was part of the 2004 ticket, his populist views and his anti-corporate politics run afoul of the Powers That Be. Certainly against the republican party, but also against many democrats'.

Why, then, given that the Edwards platform resonates with so many more people, and especially with those whose lives are most severely and directly and NEGATIVELY impacted by the policies of the corporate-backed PTB, did he not fare better when it came down to the actual voting? In my humble opinion, I think it's because the Powers That Be -- :tinfoilhat: but with some seriousness -- found a way to neutralize the Edwards passion. The means was identity politics, and the messenger was the MSM. The 2008 Democratic primary campaign was all about "the woman and the Black man," and the white southern boy didn't have a chance, no matter what his message. Indeed, as the OP of the other thread said, it was more about personalities than issues; I think it was more about persons.

Was this intentional? Is there an Oz-like machine behind the Obama candidacy that put him out there to divide the voters along certain lines so that, no matter what happened, one of the non-populist candidates would win? I don't think anyone doubts that there is a machine behind Hillary Clinton. And I also think there's enough of an anti-Hillary machine that, had there not been an Obama, that machine would have gone to someone else. That it was able to put its resources behind Obama as a Black man and a viable candidate suggests that it's there and it's quite powerful.

I think that machine knew that if the Democratic nominating fight came down to Clinton vs. Edwards, Edwards would win, or at least he would come close enough that his populist message would get substantial coverage. What would we be hearing from John Edwards on the stock market crises, the drop in numbers of jobs, the sub-prime meltdown, the foreclosures, the stimulus plan, and on and on and on if he were still running close to the front?

The PTB know that the war in Iraq is not going to wind down quickly even under a new administration. It's simply not logistically possible. Yet so much of the MSM coverage has been on the differences, however slight or great, in war policy between Obama and Clinton; so little attention has been paid to the economic issues about which presidential policy could actually have an impact. And that lack of coverage to economic matters -- in-depth coverage, that is -- protects the PTB, protects their candidates, and effectively silences John Edwards.

Voting for Edwards in the primaries now will not change the ultimate outcome because there simply are not enough people who care, who share the Edwards passion. This is sad, and it may even be disastrous in the long run, but it is also true. A vote for Edwards at this stage will be a symbolic gesture, and symbols are very powerful to those bearing them -- but they're not effective in lining up delegates.

I'm not sure if I posted it here on DU or not, or just in a more private forum, but I said some weeks ago, during the height of the mud-slinging between Clinton and Obama, that if I were Howard Dean, I'd sit them down and tell them to make nice RIGHT NOW. I'd tell them that the party was going to get behind a united ticket, which at the time I thought should be Clinton/Obama (based on age and experience). And then I thought one of President Hillary's first acts after the inauguration should be to appoint John Edwards as Attorney General, with a mandate to clean up the corporate corruption that has sucked so much real wealth out of our economy. After a year or so, when a Supreme Court vacancy allowed President Hillary to appoint a justice, Edwards should be her first nominee. (This kind of involvement would also allow the real person that is John Edwards more time to spend with his family and STILL have a very powerful influence on the direction our nation takes in the near future.)

We need -- DESPERATELY -- someone to proclaim as loudly as possible that not only is our economy completely broken but that its brokenness is the direct and intentional result of pro-corporate (which is not quite the same as pro-business) right wing governmental policies. I don't think either Hillary or Obama will do this, and in the coming months theirs are the only voices that will be heard. (And should the economy worsen dramatically, we will need that populist voice even more desperately.) But by uniting behind a ticket and essentially forming a government in anticipation of the election and inauguration, I think the Democrats can do more than just "win."

I've become more and more of a socialist the past few years, and less and less concerned with personal "winning." I think the republicans have slowly become aware that of their remaining candidates, only John McCain has a chance against the Dems, and I think they are in a position to unite behind him much the way they united behind booooosh -- fanatically even if they don't agree with him on every issue. It is more important, therefore, in my opinion, for the Dems to look more pragmatically at the general election and less emotionally at the primaries. That may be the first step toward truly unifying our side and working together to make real change.


Tansy Gold

I would like to dispute your last line

"It is more important, therefore, in my opinion, for the Dems to look more pragmatically at the general election and less emotionally at the primaries. That may be the first step toward truly unifying our side and working together to make real change."

only to the extent that that ship has sailed. Obama mania is permeating the atmosphere and I believe it has been released by design but I am not going to discuss that.We had only one candidate who could definitively defeat McCain and we, and, or, the Powers That Be, rejected him.The emotionalism of the primaries will determine this years nominee and the outcome of the election.Nothing can now be done.But perhaps your words of wisdom may be applicable to our next electoral adventure.Who knows? Maybe some are capable or learning, or at the very least learning to question what is presented to them.