An Edwards Postscript

Before I get started, I just want to link to this bit of insight from Atrios today.

As sad as I am to see the candidacy of John Edwards for President come to an end, I can’t say that I’m surprised. I think there are a few reasons why this happened and I’ll try to elaborate, for whatever it is worth.

I don’t know if it was completely by intention or by design, but Edwards ended up pigeonholing himself more than a little bit by risking everything for that one big throw of the dice, as it were, in Iowa. He absolutely needed to win the caucuses and establish himself as a player for fundraising purposes to last throughout the campaign. But of course we know what happened.

And by tailoring his campaign to win in Iowa to the degree that he did, he ended up also tailoring his message primarily to an audience of people who I would call (with respect) “Dick Gephardt Democrats,” primarily (but not exclusively) older, white male unionists – heads of households, parents who had raised their kids or were in the process of doing so before their job got shipped to God knows where. Meanwhile, younger voters (as well as African Americans) lined up for Barack Obama and women voters, above all other groups, have come to the aid of Hillary Clinton (I don’t really know how the Hispanic vote is shaking out on the Democratic side at the moment, though it’s pretty damn obvious that they’re making their voices heard on the Republican side, and that and the fact that not enough of this country is focusing on the war right now are the only reasons why McCain is the frontrunner). I said at one point that we needed to see a “second act” of sorts from the campaign that showed Edwards reaching out to Latinos, LGBT individuals, and others; he’s done that, but I think it should have been publicized more.

And by the way, speaking of HRC and Obama, I don’t begrudge them anything here. They crowded Edwards off the stage, but that’s politics; I’ve expounded at length about the shafting Edwards received from our corporate media, primarily because he’s embodied everything they absolutely despise in a trial lawyer by working tirelessly on behalf of poor people, particularly children, who were wronged terribly, as well as the fact that, by focusing on poverty and the devastation after Katrina, Edwards publicized the shameful neglect endured by many in this country for all to see, and that’s hardly the type of feel-good story the corpocracy wants its media to blather on about, particularly darling little Katie Couric with her soft-focus, nearly penitent schmoozing of our “betters” such as The Almighty Petraeus.

But as I contemplated the end after South Carolina (and really, what else could have transpired after that – actually, since that happened, I’m glad Edwards is bowing out now; some kind of craven exercise in hanging on to secure some kind of a delegate-related favor from HRC or Obama at the convention is utterly beneath him), I happened to come across an article about Edwards that appeared in the Bucks County Courier Times recently written by Charles Krauthammer, of all people, and I just want to link to it here and comment on it since (unbelievably) it slightly supports some of my thoughts.

And of course it’s a hit piece. And of course it focuses on some Edwards flip-flops (name a politician who hasn’t done that) and mocks his sincerity. But it actually doesn’t mention hair cuts, hedge funds or a fancy home.

It does mention Edwards’ vote for the bankruptcy bill in 2001 (though Edwards was gone by the time it passed in 2005 – God knows how many permutations it went through in those four years). It mentions his vote to store waste in Nevada’s Yucca Mountain (which may have been prudent at the time seeing as how he was a senator from North Carolina, but I believe he said he discovered information since that vote that, had he known previously, would have led him to vote no – take that however you want). And like many others, he supported “No Child Left Behind” before Dubya decided to underfund it.

And on and on.

But I thought Krauthammer actually touched on something in his insidious way, and that was the fact that Edwards’ record as a senator stood in contrast to his tireless work as an advocate for the poor as a lawyer and his efforts since leaving the Senate as a presidential candidate. I’m not entirely sure that that’s accurate, but that’s how it played out in the threadbare media coverage he received (and by the way, Edwards’ FINALLY RATES A HEADLINE on the web site of the New York Times today with the news of his departure).

But of course people like Krauthammer would never acknowledge the fact that the Iraq war and the devastation of Katrina legitimately spurred an impulse within Edwards to bring the issues that truly matter front and center. And anyone with a pulse knows that that’s what the Edwards campaign was all about.

Still, though, I think it’s sadly ironic that, by basically blowing off his record in the Senate, Edwards didn’t really give the skeptics (who may not have been won over anyway because of the other two “stars” in the party – Edwards may not have gotten their votes even if he had received decent media coverage) a reason to see how, like Hillary Clinton (to be fair), he had been working his whole public life towards the goal of winning the White House (say what you want about the Clintons, but that much is certain). I say it’s ironic because that’s the same thing John Kerry did as nearly as I could tell in 2004 (and I think it was another tactical mistake by Edwards to not play up the fact that he’d run in a presidential campaign before), and apparently, the two of them have had a bit of a “falling out,” though I won’t pretend to know the story on that.

It’s also sad that candidates such as Edwards who have a paper trail by virtue of their time spent in Washington have less of a shot of winning the White House since they’re more ripe for attack ads; that may be part of the reason why we’ve elected governors as presidents as frequently as we have for the last 30 years or so (I wish I could take credit for that observation, but I didn’t come up with it – I forget who did, though). I think that’s also a small part of Barack Obama’s appeal, the virtue of the fact that he’s an unknown commodity in many ways (though I readily admit that there’s much more to him than that).

Also, though I know Edwards couldn’t rail against corporations and take their money at the same time, I think his decision to rely on public financing turned out to be a big mistake (Markos noted that almost as soon as Edwards made the decision, and he was right). If your opponents aren’t going to agree to something like that, why should you? And with all due respect to Edwards and the campaign, I really got tired getting hit up on for dough every day through the Email; yes I know they didn’t have a choice, but they should have foreseen this.

I guess that’s about all I have – I have no idea where I’m going to go from here. Maybe I’ll try to write in Edwards for the PA primary in April; I’ve done that in the past for other candidates. If I’m not happy with where HRC or Obama are going at that moment, I’ll give that a thought (of course, the general election is a wholly other story – I’ll support the nominee).

Here’s more on the announcement today from SusanG at The Daily Kos, including a clip of Edwards’ speech ending the campaign (I’ll try to embed it later).

Thanks for all you’ve done, John. Best to everyone, particularly Elizabeth.

Update 1/30/08: Here's the video.



Update 1/31/08: Here are some good thoughts from Meteor Blades and Devilstower at The Daily Kos.