John Edwards as Vice President?

Given John Edwards recent endorsement of Barack Obama, media pundits have been discussing the viability of an Obama-Edwards ticket. This is no doubt better than an Obama-Clinton ticket, as Obama can rightfully claim he is moving on from the past.

Clinton, however hard she tries, just cannot disassociate herself from years of bitter partisanship. Clinton's record on progressive issues does not match her rhetoric, and Republicans will expose it ruthlessly in the general election. From a progressive point of view, Clinton should also be a no-go. In an ideal world, voting and campaigning for NAFTA should automatically eliminate her from working class votes, and voting for the invasion of Iraq should eliminate anyone who expects her to provide meaningful change.

Edwards record on the issues is patchy at best, but his new found zeal for issues pertaining to poverty seems far more genuine than Clinton's. Edwards point blank accepted responsibility for his vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq, calling it the greatest mistake of his political career. He made poverty a central theme of his campaign, and publicly admitted mistakes regarding trade issues.

Edwards is a tireless campaigner and would do an awful lot to siphon rural voters away from John McCain. In strategic terms, Edwards is an excellent choice.

At this point, the Democrats should be gearing themselves up for a serious fight with the Republicans. Although Clinton is a good scrapper, the Democrats should do their best to take the high road and present a ticket that symbolizes serious commitment to change. Clinton symbolizes all that is bad about the Democratic Party, and it is time to move on.

Ben Cohen is the editor of www.thedailybanter.com and a contributing Mixed Martial Arts writer to www.espn.com. He can be reached at [e-mail]

Comments

[MBryant]

I like Edwards as Attorney General. Maybe it would put some authority in the office to have a litigator in it and not just the Prez's best buddy. However, President's usually put someone in this office they can ABSOLUTELY trust (even your brother or personal attorney) and Edwards is not that guy. So it may not happen.

I supported Edwards -at first suspicious of his "slickness" but he was the one most willing to speak truth to power. But for whatever reason - the party, the country just doesn't "get" him - he hasn't been that successful in elections. He seems to have everything going for him but it just doesn't add up to votes. I don't think he's a good Veep choice...

I think Edwards wanted to support Obama but was began leaning to Clinton when she "wanted" his support. Later he realized it was just flattery and he, like Richardson - realized he just thought it would be good to have the thing over and focus on the fall. The timing of his endorsement - which took the win out of Clinton's win in West Virginia - affirms this. Actually West Virginia is one of the poorest and more rual states in the country - should be Edward's folks - and he took their voice away. But he did it as other Dem leaders are doing to try and promote momentum towards wrapping this up. If he was unenthusiastic it's because his support is more about settling than

[haiku1]

"Given John Edwards recent endorsement ...' needs an apostrophe at the end of Edwards. "Edwards record..." needs an apostrophe as well. Edwards' endorsement, Edwards' record.

As to the substance, I think Edwards is profoundly uncomforable when he's not in charge of shaping the message. I liked his message when he was running last year, but in 2004 he seemed to wilt when he was asked to serve someone else's candidacy. Maybe he's learned more; maybe Obama's guys, Axelrod et al, would provide more latitude for individual initiative than the Shrum-crafted disaster that was the Kerry campaign, but I'm not optimistic.

[JimR]

What about Edwards as attorney general?

[ProgressiveNotLiberal]

Seconded!

[burnt]

I was leaning hard in the direction of John Edwards before the media dismissed him and he was forced to drop out. I respected his decision to hold off endorsing, especially since he was not a super and his wife was promoting the Clinton camp.

I expected him to endorse when it was fully apparent that the race was over and the timing was good. That is exactly what he did. I do NOT for one second believe that he was holding out as a means of exerting leverage. Until anything resembling that cynical viewpoint is reported with proof, I will continued to believe that his intentions were admirable... for supporting the Democratic Party in the best way he could.

Having said that, I do believe that he would make a good VP and can see logic for that choice. However, there are also many other fine individuals who have credentials and talent and who should also be granted consideration.

Obama's administration will need a wide array of strengths to address the number of problems that will be dumped wholesale on the American public by the current administration. The VP candidate should be chosen with an eye for expanded authority and responsibility to help solve those problems. If that is to be the case, Obama should carefully weigh all the available possibilities.

[juangault]

I thought Richardson was more genuine in his endorsement speech, and they looked more comfortable with each other. Edwards is going through some bad times right now. It was a very good thing he did to endorse Obama, but it didn't take much bravery after how his state voted. It does show he respects the will of the majority. I hope to see him in the future in a national position, helping to get the good ship America off the rocks, where the Republican Neocon pirates left it.

[grendl]

The way John Edwards showed party unity, in the zeal in which he endorsed Barack Obama was fantastic.

He set aside his own political aspirations ( of course not really ), to back a fellow Democrat, instead of endorsing Senator John McCain over him, the way Hillary did in the turncoat move of the century.

Listen, the blue collar, white voters with the grade school education need someone to throw them a crumb. They can't go to their local watering hole and admit to their buddies they voted for a woman or a black man, for fear of getting laughed out of those establishments, and social circles.

Sure, they're racists, some of them, but some are fence sitters, more ignorant than anything that they share more in common with Barack Obama than Blake Fleetwood would ever admit. They need something, anything that would allow them to vote for Mr. Obama, or even Hillary, and John Edwards provides that argument.

White males didn't disappear magically because a woman and black man were running for president, as much as some wish we would have. And they need to see someone in government who doesn't revile them for their privilege, or seek reparations, or vengeance for centuries of advantage. Edwards would be perfect.