I Miss John Edwards
I recall a couple weeks back writing about John Edwards as spoiler in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination. I felt that Barack Obama’s loss in New Hampshire was due, in no small measure, to Edwards siphoning off significant numbers of voters that, given a choice between just Obama and Senator Clinton would have chosen Obama.
It turns out now that I was probably wrong on several counts. One, it is not apparent where Senator Edwards’ supporters will turn since he withdrew from the race this Wednesday: they may go to Senator Obama, they may go to Senator Clinton. Second, I think that his dropping out now reduces his potential as kingmaker come August. Since the Democratic primaries are generally proportional, with the candidate getting 51% of the vote receiving the same number of delegates as the candidate with 49%, Edwards had some weight to throw around, by potentially giving his delegates to whomever he chose at the convention. Had he stayed in past Super Tuesday, he might have picked up a significant number of delegates, and helped choose the eventual nominee.
It is, of course, a testament to his integrity that he didn’t opt for that course. It’s a little bit unseemly. It seemed unlikely that he’d win any of the Super Tuesday contests, so why gum up the works by remaining in the race and giving voters there a false choice. I am all for open-access to the ballot, and I wish it were easier for candidates to run for high office. Alas, the way our system is set up today, three candidates on a ballot practically ensures we get stuck with a winner who didn’t get a majority of the vote. I think Edwards recognized this.
I am genuinely sorry that Senator Edwards’ campaign didn’t take off. His was the platform which most spoke to my sentiments about our country and what is right and what is wrong with it, and what we can do to right what is wrong with it. But not winning Iowa or New Hampshire ensures the press doesn’t take you seriously, and Edwards wasn’t even taken seriously before Iowa, such was the media’s fascination with Clinton’s innevitability and Obama’s inspiring message.
It is totally out of my hands, of course, but I am torn between Clinton and Obama at this point. On one hand, I think Senator Clinton is a totally capable, immensely intelligent person who has a reasonable set of policies and the skill to implement them. On the other hand, half the country hates her guts, and nominating her is, it seems to me, asking to lose. Remember, in the last thirty years, the more seemingly likable candidate has always won. (Obviously I don’t really believe that George W. Bush is more likable than Al Gore, but the polls showed more people would rather drink with Bush, and that’s apparently the standard of likability in the USA.) Obama is immensely charismatic, and my understanding, based on first hand reports from colleagues who have seen him, is that he is truly inspiring, and can win over anyone who hears his message. I like the idea of once again having a president with a vision and a healthy intellectual curiosity. But I am told by others that there is still too much racism in America, and that Obama cannot win nationally.
I don’t know how it will all play out next Tuesday, which is when we may have a true front-runner. I wish it could have been Edwards.
Filed under: Current Events, Politics, Rantings on February 1st, 2008 | 4 Comments »