Why John Edwards Believers Should Support Barack Obama
Can We Still Build One America? Yes We Can
(Note: I was the former Director of Online Engagement for John Edwards for President. The following reflects only the personal views of the author, and in no way represents the views of John Edwards, his campaign, nor anyone else currently or formerly affiliated with his campaign.)
The first time I spoke to John Edwards about joining his campaign, I mentioned the Wellstone quote that's in my email signature, 'Politics isn't about big money or power games; it's about the improvement of people's lives.' His voice brightened considerably. "That, right there," he said, "is the point of this campaign." I believed him. I gave up everything and moved to Chapel Hill. And that remained the point of our campaign for One America through the very end.
Now I, like many Edwards people, face a choice we never wanted, but we cannot ignore. We must decide after John, which remaining candidate is the best bet to finish what we started -- making real improvements in the lives of the people who really need it?
After many conversations, comparisons, and soul searching, my personal answer, and my advice to other Edwards believers wrestling with the same question, is Barack Obama. Here's why:
The Issue
Throughout the campaign, John Edwards talked about ending poverty in America as the moral challenge of our generation. For me, this was always at the heart of our effort to build One America. And no issue better represents our fierce commitment to look out for one another, not because it's politically popular, but because it's just the right thing to do.
So which candidate would be most likely to fulfill the dream of ending poverty in our time? It can't be about simple agreement. Surely, both candidates would flip a switch to end poverty right now, if they could. No, it's about priority. Changes this big require leaders to put it all on the line and inspire a nation to stand up and join them. So the real question is: Who is more willing to put this cause front and center, and who is more able to get the job done?
I'm a web guy. So I went to the campaign websites to see what they had to say. Here's what I found:
The Commitment
Obama lists "poverty" on his main issues list, which is accessible from any page on his site. It links to a dedicated page that names the problem of 37 million Americans still trapped in poverty, and offers a 15 point anti-poverty agenda to solve it.
Obama's proposals run the gamut from familiar progressive pillars like indexing the minimum wage to inflation, all the way to innovative new projects like replicating the highly successful "Harlem Children's Zone" in 20 high risk neighborhoods across the country.
His agenda includes plans for creating entry level jobs, reducing recidivism, anti-poverty tax reforms, pre-natal care for at risk populations, urban community development funds and significant rural investment.
Hillary, unfortunately, does not list poverty (or any equivalent) amongst her major issues. Nor, as far as I can tell, does the word "poverty" appear on any of her policy pages. I don't doubt for a moment that Hillary genuinely cares about poor people. But how can you lead a nation to combat a problem you don't even mention?
Because there is no "poverty" issue page, an apples-to-apples comparison of their agenda is tough. Hillary's "Strengthening the Middle Class" page, presumably the closest thing, has nine proposals. But if you take out items that either affect poverty only incidentally (like "Returning to fiscal responsibility") or explicitly aren't about the poor, (like "Lowering taxes for middle class families") you're left with only five points. And that's counting three proposals, ("Hillary's Innovation Agenda," a "Strategic Energy Fund" and "Confronting growing problems in the housing market") which might very well help reduce poverty, but they don't mention how, or seem explicitly designed to even try.
I'm not a policy expert, and I'm not qualified to parse the details. But I do think there's a clear difference in priority here. And while the details of plans will invariably change, core commitments will not. Obama comes out ahead.
The Record
Another way to tell what a candidate will prioritize in the future is what they've chosen to prioritize in the past. As a voter I can't know either candidate personally or fact-check the mountains of he-said-she said on every side. So once again, I went to the websites to let the candidates speak for themselves.
Obama's poverty page references his work in the Illinois legislature expanding tax credits for the poor and fighting for affordable housing. Hillary's site makes no coherent case for her record on poverty, but does frequently reference her accomplishments on some important relevant issues, such as children's health care.
It's perhaps even more instructive to look back at the choices they made before they knew anyone was looking, and how they talk about those choices now.
Obama's "Meet Barack" page describes his first job as a Chicago community organizer as a choice to "improve living conditions in poor neighborhoods plagued with crime and high unemployment." It goes so far as to say Obama chose a career in politics specifically as a long term strategy to "truly improve the lives of people in that [poor] community and other communities." In the list of overall issues he works on now, the very first is: "the poverty exposed by Katrina". Not bad.
"Hillary's Story" also shows admirable commitment. It describes how she ran a legal aid clinic for the poor when she first arrived in Arkansas, and that Carter appointed her to the board of "the United States Legal Services Corporation, a federal nonprofit program that funds legal assistance for the poor."
The distinction here is somewhat subjective. To my mind, Obama's career choice was likely more deeply formative, more comprehensive as an anti-poverty strategy and more noteworthy in its lack of connection to routes towards traditional success. But honestly, they both deserve real credit, and the fact that both major contenders for the nomination began their careers in these ways makes me proud to be a Democrat. Onward.
The Movement
If the candidate's commitment and record tell us who is most willing, how can we evaluate who is most able? From where I sit, both Hillary and Obama appear to be both highly intelligent, competent people. But as John Edwards so often reminded us, no president can end poverty on their own. Transformational change of that magnitude requires an equally large movement of people fighting to make it happen. So who is building that movement?
Again, I'm a web guy. If you look at the numbers, they both have passionate grassroots support, but the difference is clear. Obama supporters have created 9x more local groups, 10x more national groups, and 15x more personal blogs. Obama's web traffic, donors, and online to offline volunteers smash all records. And I can tell you, there's no technology or trick to generate that kind of energy -- it just has to be real.
But this goes beyond the numbers, and yes, far beyond the web. After all, Barack Obama isn't John Edwards, and I can't know if he'll actually put ending poverty at the top of his agenda. But by inspiring millions of people to believe in their own power to create change, I do know his campaign is laying the groundwork for those of us who will.
The Future
We always thought of winning the presidency as merely the first step in a generational effort to build One America -- and so it remains. We must keep speaking out, organizing, and fighting at every opportunity -- in every town hall, statehouse, Congressional house and the Whitehouse until poverty is history and the dream of One America becomes reality.
And right now, I believe we have to pick our best hope for a president who will be a partner in that effort. If Hillary is nominated she will deserve our vigorous support. But because of his commitment, his record, and his unique ability to swell our ranks with people fired up and ready to begin the struggle of a lifetime, I believe Barack Obama is that best hope.
So, can we still build One America? Yes. Yes we can.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Ben, I'm really glad for you that you have found another candidate to support. I have not. Like others who have posted comments I don't see much difference between the two remaining candidates and I do see too many things they share. One of the most troubling things for me about Sen. Obama was his position on unions during the Iowa caucus time when he labeled the unions that supported Sen. Clinton as "special interests". I am also troubled by his healthcare plan which doesn't cover everybody AND includes the vested corporate interests in trying to effect any reform. John was correct in saying during the debates that these business interests are not interested giving up their place at the trough. I don't see much hope in Sen. Clinton either, so I remain as undecided today as I was the day John Edwards suspended his campaign.
"Another way to tell what a candidate will prioritize in the future is what they've chosen to prioritize in the past."
Voting present? Healthcare as a selective option for those who can afford it now?
No thanks.
I've been an Edwards supporter since the 2004 elections when I voted for him in those primaries. I switched my support to Obama the day after he suspended his campaign.
Obama is the more progressive candidate and vocally spoke out against invading Iraq at a time when doing so earned you the label of 'traitor'. That was brave and showed leadership. He also agreed not to take lobbyist money like Edwards. He's spoken out against corporate influence on our policy and laws. Hillary has defended the gobs of cash she's received from insurance and health care company lobbyists.
As Molly Ivins wrote about Senator Clinton:
"Sen. Clinton is apparently incapable of taking a clear stand on the war in Iraq, and that alone is enough to disqualify her. Her failure to speak out on Terri Schiavo, not to mention that gross pandering on flag-burning, are just contemptible little dodges."
Hillary has played it safe, pandered to the right and the center instead of standing up and showing leadership. She took money from Rupert Murdoch for Pete's sake. What kind of Democrat takes money from the CEO and creator of Faux News, The GOP Propaganda arm?
But I am extremely disappointed to learn that Edwards is now considering an endorsement of Hillary - the status quo as he called her. If he does, he's lost my support for good because it will illustrate that he is willing to go against his beliefs to further his own political career.
I fully concur with Molly Ivins, who didn't live to see Hillary's appalling lies in defense of her vote against the Levin Amendment, or for vote for the continued use of cluster-bombs on civilians.
If John Edwards actually endorses this person, the one he correctly identified as THE "establishment" representative of the corporations, of the enemy, essentially, then I never want to hear his name again.
First and foremost, Edwards people are not "believers" and never will be. We are family. We are brothers and sisters that come out of a tradition that started with Tom Paine and are on a continuum of the struggle to widen the circle of prosperity. It is a struggle that says that there can be no true "freedom" without a fair wage for a fair days pay. "A necessitous man is not a free man." John Edwards continues to move left and towards Dr. King and his call to redeem this system by making it be born again. In other words, it is time for a revolution. It is time for men and women again to be measure by their work and not how much was in their wallet. It was a call to arms in a class war that no one wants to talk about. Edwards call to "reward work over wealth" was nothing short of audacious and courageous.
So, no, We are NOT believers, we are family. And we leave no brother or sister behind.
Will the remaining candidates look in the lonely, dark and desolate places in rural American where poverty is hidden? Will they really see and hear the stories of the homeless under the bridges who begged John on the last day of his campaign "Please, don't forget us". Will they see that empire survives only by keeping people down in those places?
I need to keep up the pressure on in any way that I can to hold people accountable who seek our trust. I have had that trust betrayed too often.
I need to hear the word "union" again. Uniting people of common cause no matter what the gender, what the race or what the age or what their status.
I will not jump on any bandwagon unless it plays the right tune. And plays it specifically and loudly. We need Bread and Roses i.e. a share of life's glories. Not some scraps from the table.
Calling us Edwards believers rather than supporters sets a tone that I find distasteful.
To expect Edwards supporters to cheerfully support either of the two corporate-owned candidates is too simple-minded. Both acknowledge that their voting records are essentially the same. They both take money from the same corporations. The healthcare proposals of both guarantee greater income and profits for the insurance companies but make no significant changes in a system that is number one in costs and number 37 in outcomes.
Edwards should not endorse and his supporters will just have to wait for another election cycle to find any hope.
cognito ergo populistae
While words like "hope" and "change" might be vague, they are also stirring something deep within people who have been turned off to politics for years.
So if there's sizzle with Obama, where's the steak? In the plan he announced today to put billions into infrastructure job creation, a program much like the one FDR implemented to raise up the working and middle class -- a plan funded by the tax cuts for the rich McCain wants to keep, and the savings from a war that has bled our coffers with an explosion of cronyist graft and greed of stunning proportions.
If Obama suggested a new welfare program, or something else that reminded people of the '60s, he'd have a hard time penetrating the post-Reagan cynicism about government's role which, sadly, young technocrats and their peers have inherited.
Phrasemaking and word choices are important when trying to communicate with an entire nation, riven with divisions but hungering for engagement, unity and progress. That's Obama's genius, and I'm going to bet he can back up it with action.
I agree with you completely.
We desprately need infrastrcuture reapirs bridges highways ports. It would put many people to work. Hopefully help pay down on the huge defict that has been amassed over the last 7 plus years
I'm an Edwards supporter who has not decided which of the two remaining candidates I should support. Like you, fighting poverty is a huge issue for me. Even though Obama has a poverty proposal on fighting poverty, his 20 promise neighborhoods proposal seems very small scale to me. However, Obama does have a history of working for the working poor as a community organizer. Hillary's energy proposal is much stronger than Obama's proposal and will result in a huge boost in job creation. Neither Obama or Hillary have proposed a jobs program for the unemployed like Edwards did. This is a huge missing link in their platforms. Heck, if one of them started pushing a proposal like Edwards Stepping Stones Jobs program I would seriously consider backing that candidate.
Very level headed talk Brandzel. But as you say, you can't know what is in the candidate's hearts. Obama's history seems more authentic to the motive of ending poverty. And more recently, his record on lobby reform and voter rights are true progressive goals that will do a great deal as a first step to ending poverty. McCain Feingold campaign legislation is a start as well.
What is at issue first, is campaign and lobby reforms along with voter rights. Until these are accomplished, political power will remain in the hands of people who's ultimate goal is literally to create poverty. So in terms of the goal of ending poverty, the most politically feasible, given the sentiment of the public, first step is to empower the public through election and lobby reform. Then a grassroots movement of public conscience can be heard over noise of the business interests.
In terms of political positioning for this, either Obama or McCain are well ahead of Clinton. Clinton’s rather large corporate donations tend to discredit her as a champion of campaign reform regardless of any true feelings she has about ending poverty.
If you check, you will find that Obama's corporate contributions at least equal Clinton's. I suppose that is one reason Obama never mentions the corporate control of our government, media, et al. You will also notice that Obama, as well as Hillary, continually "make nice" with corporate America. It makes sense that they received the lavish media coverage. It wasn't just the first viable woman vs. the first viable black. They want a very corporate-friendly President, and all the people now running will accommodate them. Please, Democratic nominee, whoever you are, please prove me wrong.
Thank you for that very eloquent exposition. The Hillary/McCain supporters who complain that Obama doesn't refer to specifics ignore two things: a) that his past speeches, debates, & current platform all manifest a plethora of specifics and b) his so-called "platitudes" have won him every contest he's entered since Super Tuesday and two out of the three preceding it. It's nice to have a candidate who can offer substance AND inspiration at a whim. I hope he and Edwards team up to fight poverty together.
I drew the same conclusions as yours, in deciding how to vote in my state's primary.
It was painful not to vote for John Edwards, since his name will still on the ballot, but I feel we have a better chance of recovering some economic justice in this country under Obama than under a woman whose husband gave us media conglomeration, financial industry deregulation, NAFTA, PNTR for China and wrongheaded welfare "reform".
I hope, however, that Sen. Edwards won't endorse either candidate, unless it becomes crucial to secure the nomination for Obama -- since he can exert more moral pressure on both by aligning with neither.
I also hope that, in his future public life, he'll make it clearer that our middle class is sinking toward poverty, while the richest keep taking all the gains. It's the future of America's entire working class that's at stake -- and middle-class people who don't recognize this category includes them are deluding themselves.
"middle-class people who don't recognize this category includes them are deluding themselves"
Absolutely. First brick and mortar companies went off shore, now the IT jobs have gone too. So the vaunted "technology worker" that was supposed to be the salvation of the U.S. economy is now making about what a Burger King manager makes.
I don't understand how even the greediest of men cannot understand that without a middle class, this country loses its economic stature as the worlds largest market and its tax base. You know, the tax base that pays for the defense of rich people's money.
Thanks for seconding that thought, Mr. Herrington, and I now second your additions to it. BTW, from your profile I found your blog. Extremely smart stuff there. I look forward to reading more of it.
2/13/08
3:10pm
Alexandria, VA
I voted for John Edwards yesterday.
Obama apparently thinks he doesn't need Edwards' endorsement -- that he's doing just fine without it. Hillary met with Edwards; Obama cancelled a meeting he set with Edwards. I wonder, if Obama gets the nomination and wins the election, will he truly understand the enormous value of John Edwards and ask him to serve in a capacity in keeping with the quality of the man? Perhaps as Attorney General or Supreme Court Justice? It is also possible that Edwards has other plans. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. In any case, we have definately not heard the last from the man who should have been our next President.
I voted for John Edwards on Feb 5th. It was not a wasted vote. John Edwards was the only candidate with the courage to tell Americans the truth, make clear exactly where he stood with wise, thoughtful plans, never take lobbyist money, and take public funding. His passion, his strength, his will, and his vision were so powerful Clinton and Obama -- both of whom spoke in generalities and platitudes -- were forced to follow his lead. Ultimately they both stood on, and began running on, the platform John Edwards built.
But he also threatened corporate America -- which controls our mainstream media -- by making clear that as President he would put the interests of the people and our country before corporate greed. And so they set out to destroy him, knowing that he could not raise the necessary money if they silenced him. THEY GAVE HIM ONE-FOURTH THE MEDIA COVERAGE OF CLINTON AND OBAMA. And so most Americans didn't hear what he was saying, but they certainly heard about the haircuts.
John Edwards has made the greatest contribution of anyone to this election campaign. I also believe he has not endorsed either candidate because deep in his heart he knows that neither of them has the strength or the will to fight those battles that must be fought if we are to turn this country around.
I am deeply troubled by both candidates. Neither has the brave heart that John Edwards has, and neither will bring the passion, the commitment, and the absolute will to fight the forces that are destroying us.
I desperately want to hear -- and I am listening closely -- from Clinton and Obama the kind of deep, passionate, commitment for those things Edwards was fighting so hard for, but I am not hearing it. We have lost the opportunity to have a great man lead this country away from the abyss. Like Edwards, I must watch as history takes it course. I will vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is. But I do not trust that Obama or Clinton will do what it takes to make it right.
Thank you, Ben. I appreciate your perspective and I am moved to believe with Obama, as I was and am with Edwards, ... that these moments in our history demand more than any other in my memory, and that these two candidates DO UNDERSTAND that swelling mandate. Hillary does so only because she hears the hoofbeats of Obama closing fast upon her.
IMHO, Hillary would not accept a call as Obama's VP, ... But I would hope Edwards would. Perhaps Hillary could mount a campaign to become Majority Leader in the Senate, and dump Harry Reid. It will take a team of Democrats and Progressive Independents to clean up the mess that is our Government, indeed, our Nation.
At this point all the candidates are just talk, so attacking one or the other for what they say, or how they say it is pointless, and destructive. I do feel that Obama is driving the debate today, by bringing common concerns to the forefront, ... labor, trade, the influence of lobbyists, and the impact of health insurance discrimination and availability. Hillary echoes them, ... after the fact. She never mentions NAFTA, and she never mentions lobbyist money. She revels in the support of Rupert Murdoch, and by so doing, belies her supposed focus on the mainstream, and the common people. She is focused upon wealth.
I miss Edwards, but have to go with Clinton now--she's practical, a fighter, and i don't look to politicians for "hope"--i want concrete proposals and someone who knows that anything worth doing that helps people is always worth fighting for. Both Clinton and Obama are too center-right for me, but at least i know what i'll get with Clinton. Everyone who writes about Obama everywhere has to hedge their words with "if" and "possibly" and "hopefully", etc--that's no good.
"have to go with Clinton now--she's practical"
No doubt... And a salient consequence of her so-called "pragmatism" (translation: the end justifies the means) is her appalling neo-con voting record on issues that matter most.
Ben, thank you for doing the hard work of actually researching your second choice candidate. So many of us don't do that. We follow only the campaign of the person we initially support, and don't look at the record or campaign of the others.
I honestly don't believe that Edwards would endorse Hillary for any reason other than jealousy of Obama, though I suspect he would have trouble admitting to that. But I've thoroughly researched all three candidates, and Obama is more progressive than Edwards or Hillary, and I'm sure that Edwards at this point knows that.
Obama's gotten more done than any of the candidates to chip away at corporate dominion over our political process. He has accomplished more legislatively than any other candidate to bring health care to people who couldn't afford it, and has done more legislatively for women, working people and minorities in protecting their civil rights. Those are just plain old facts. What's important is not what candidates say during a campaign. What's important is what they have managed to get done while in power.
Obama gets things done in a political environment, and that's why I chose to support him in the first place. His speaking skills and his ability to organize and run a strong national campaign were a welcome surprise.
What has Obama gotten done in a political environment? How has helped get us out of Iraq? How has he helped working people against corporate interests? What has he done to help the poor? How has he protected civil rights...i
You seriously think that Edwards would only endorse Hillary out of jealousy of Obama? That's laughable. Edwards platform was more progressive than Obama's, that a plain old fact. Personally, I think Obama was much more progressive as a state legislator than he has been in the U.S. Senate. His record in IL is what gained my respect for him. That said, I'm not sure whether Obama or Hillary will actually push for bold legislation as POTUS. I sure don't want a lot of half measures, but I fear that's what we'll end up with especially if we only gain a couple more seats in the Senate.
I think she said why she was voting for Hillary, but didn't tell anyone to do the same. But I heartily agree with you that there's no reason to get all upset if someone comes to a different conclusion--there are valid reasons for voting (and not voting) for either one of them. The only conclusions than annoy me are the ill-informed, rude ones. And the ones that say I'll vote for McCain (or not vote at all) if Obama isn't nominated. No matter who is the democratic nominee, there will be a clear difference between that candidate and McCain and any ambivalence I have about Obama or Hillary will be much less important than my total lack of ambivalence about not wanting McCain to succeed Bush.
"I can't know if he'll actually put ending poverty at the top of his agenda..."
If you "can't know," then that means no, it won't be at the top of his agenda.
Just hoping for it doesn't mean it'll happen.
Yes, Edwards was a better candidate, and I'd love for Edwards to be the vice-president with Obama. But just because Obama believes in vague words like "change" and "hope" doesn't mean that it'll happen. I find disturbing the lack of analysis of Obama's (and all the candidates') voting record and positions, on the part of the mainstream media.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
