Edwards calls it quits!
Submitted by rungavagairun on Wed, 01/30/2008 - 13:18
http://www2.arkansasonline.com/news/2008/jan/30/democrat-edwards-ends-pr...
I didn't expect to hear this today. It seems to me likely that this news plays in Barack's favor. What do you all think?
Bookmark/Search this post with:
»
- rungavagairun's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Not happy
I guess it's one of those days. I am SO unhappy at this news (and yes, Obama is my candidate of choice). Edwards brought issues to the campaign that the other two would never have touched. I know I'm still moaning about missing Richardson (especially during the debates!) but I am not going to be happy seeing just two podiums set up tomorrow night.
So I'm not sure who is helped by this becoming a two horse race, I think we're the losers, though. Now if Edwards had endorsed Obama and encouraged his delegates to vote for Obama, that would have been better. :)
And what IS tomorrow's debate going to be like? Hmmmm...
Looking at it from the outside...
...I'm not happy either.
Although Edwards is no better on foreign affairs, he's far better on corporate misbehavior and economic class interests. The Democratic candidates now highlight race and gender, but not class. As much as I've put into race issues in my life, and as much as I consider myself a feminist, when it comes down to it, class is the elephant in the room that no one in polite society talks about, even when we're more than knee deep in elephant dung.
As a Green, I can't vote in the NY primary. If I could, I would have voted for Edwards. Without him, it would be Obama. Despite Obama's conservatism, I see the possibility that his election might open up some space for a viable progressive popular movement. I think Hillary is less open in that regard, as well as being more committed to militarism and a kind of default position in favor of American imperialism or exceptionalism.
Regardless of which one wins, presuming that the Dems fail to find a way to lose, public pressure through a popular, left-populist movement is the most important element in bringing about a change that's more than just getting rid of Bush and his extremism.
If anyone has read Rabbi Arthur Waskow's piece on "Presidential Politics Through Spiritual Eyes", you'll have seen Waskow making the point that JFK wasn't a very good president, but that he mattered because of what he symbolized.
"In 1960, John Kennedy was elected President. He brought a fresh sound and look, youth and a sense of possibility, to the Presidency. But – his policies? He campaigned about a "missile gap" – presumably, the US was way behind the USSR in nuclear weapons. It was a lie. He sent US troops to Vietnam, the beginning of that appalling lethal quagmire. He dithered as the sit-in movement erupted.
"And yet – he mattered. He mattered because he symbolized a fresh new energy. He spoke of a new day, he played touch football, he looked like a new day, though he did little to bring it.
"The real change, the real new day, was happening in the streets...."
I heartily concur. I wouldn't expect a President to do the right thing unless pressed to do so by a sufficiently strong mass movement. I see more reason to hope that Obama would yield to pressures coming from such a movement than that Clinton would.
As for whom Edwards' withdrawal helps, I'd like to think it's Obama. Some pundits are making the point that working-class voters are more likely to go for Clinton, just on reputation for being worker-friendly. Ditto for women. But I find it hard to see how those who are attracted to Edwards' economic populist message would see Clinton as the next best candidate for stirring the anti-corporate pot. The return of Billary as a hot live issue is more likely to make them see her as a retro candidate (as Republicans evidently came to see Giuliani) rather than as a forward-looking one.
looking from inside the party
Yeah, I'm bummed too. I wasn't going to vote for Edwards, but I was hoping his continued candidacy would influence the other two candidates to take a more progressive poverty stance. I read somewhere that he'll have a major speech on poverty sometime this week. I hope, with his delegates, he'll have some pull to strengthen the Democratic candidate's eventual positions on domestic issues.
I liked what Bill said when he wrote "I wouldn't expect a President to do the right thing unless pressed to do so by a sufficiently strong mass movement." I'm reading Zinn's "A People's History" and many abolitionists were able to push Lincoln into a stronger anti slavery position. Wendell Phillips wrote of Lincoln:
"If the telegraph speaks truth, for the first time in our history the slave has chosen a President of the United States... Not an Abolitionist, hardly an antislavery man, Mr. Lincoln consents to represent an antislavery idea. A pawn on the political chessboard, his value is in his position; with fair effort, we may soon change him for knight, bishop or queen, and sweep the board."
I think both Hillary and Obama can be moved with a strong movement that pulls the political center to the left. I have no opinion on who is more malleable to being moved in that direction.
I'll have to read Rabbi Waskow's piece, but I don't think JFK was a bad president. He died before he has a chance to really accomplish much and it's impossible to really judge what he might've done. Many of the criticisms against JFKs policies about Vietnam and Cuba are valid. He did have a Test Ban Treaty passed though, and he had his "Strategy of Peace" speech just after the Cuban missile crisis which gave hope for better relations with the U.S.S.R. But just as the abolitionists moved Lincoln, I do think the civil rights protests were moving JFK to a stronger civil rights stand. When JFK died, he had the Civil Rights Act and a tax cut in Congress. I do agree that JFKs style and his oratory were more important than his actual legislative achievements in inspiring people like me to serve our country and be more activist. If you want a liberal though, the Kennedy to look at would be Bobby or Teddy.
Goodbye John Edwards
I was an Edwards supporter and am sorry to see him go. He had the most Progressive platform of all three candidates, but I secretly suspected that if he got the nomination, he was going to swing way to the center for the November election.
I think his leaving definetly helps Obama. Most people are either for or against Hillary and Edwards supporters are likely to go for Barack now.
Speaking of which, GO OBAMA!