Forget Kerry, Let's Hear From the Big Three

Today, John Kerry did a brave and rare thing for a politician. He made an endorsement at a time when it actually matters.

Generally, politicians like to make endorsements when they already know who is going to win. That way, they get to look like they're making a difference without isolating a potential winner. But if the race is up in the air, they usually stay on the sidelines. The truth is, most politicians view endorsements in terms of how much they can help themselves, not how much they can help the person they are endorsing.

So Kerry deserves praise for making an endorsement at a point when no one knows what is going to happen.

Unfortunately for Obama, Kerry's endorsement won't make much of a difference in this race (do you know anyone who was waiting to hear what Kerry had to say?) For that matter, do you know anyone who is waiting to hear what their local senator, member of congress or assembly member thinks?

There are only a few people who have the potential to sway a large number of voters merely on the basis of their recommendation. Bill Clinton and Oprah have already spoken, but it is a pretty perfect time for rest of the big shots let us know what they think.

There are at least three people whose endorsements could change this Democratic primary. If they're going to do it, they should do it now, while it still matters.

Al Gore
Gore has convinced a huge number of Americans that the environmental crisis is the greatest threat we face, and many of these people would love to hear what he has to say about the presidential race.

Clearly burned by politics, Gore has tried to stay above the fray recently. But he knows both Clinton and Obama, and surely has thoughts about which one is better suited to address the environmental crisis. I honestly don't know which one of them is, and I don't think most Americans do either.

The environment has fallen off the table in this primary, and none of the candidates have spent much time telling us how they would address it, even though most Democrats believe it is one of the single biggest problems we face. A Gore endorsement would put his issue back front and center. So let us know, Al, what do you think?

John Edwards
Personally, I've found John Edwards hard to believe in this race, because his stances are so different from where they were four years ago. The moderate, electable "new Bill Clinton" of 2004 is now the populist, firebrand, anti-Hillary Clinton candidate. While his new rhetoric has attracted a loyal liberal following, it seems obvious to me that it has always been about how John Edwards can win, not about a real desire to change the country.

But maybe I'm wrong. If Edwards is in fact running on what he truly believes, and honestly thinks Clintonian triangulation needs to be stopped, then he should drop out now and endorse Obama, the only candidate who has a shot to beat Clinton. (Or he should endorse Clinton, if he thinks she's the better candidate, although that appears unlikely). The point is, John Edwards is not going to win, but he could make a huge difference, instead of playing the spoiler.

If it really is just about John Edwards, he'll stay in and rack up increasingly distant third place finishes. When he finally does drop out, it will be too late for his endorsement to make a difference.

Jon Stewart
He usually scoffs at attempts to draw him into the political process, pointing out that he is just a comedian. But Jon Stewart is one of the few celebrities who has a similar draw to Oprah, in that he has an audience of millions who all look up to him and want to be friends with him. He can scoff all he wants, but a simple pre-February 5th message of "get off your butts and go vote for XX" would have the potential to change the race.

Brendan Spiegel is the co-editor of Endless Simmer.

Comments

[Thabit]

I don't think Jon Stewart should just endorse Barack Obama , I think a Obama-Stewart ticket would be hard to beat. Jon Stewart for VP

[texanna]

You've really missed it with your comments on Edwards. First of all, in 2004 the Kerry handlers had him on a tight leash and I don't think we saw much of the real Edwards in that campaign. Secondly, he's made the populist issues he's campaigning on the focus of his public efforts since the 2004 campaign, so they are real. Of course, the corporatist media doesn't want the voters to get too much of what he's saying, because the issues he's passionate about would not be great for their bottom line/free market bonanza they're enjoying currently. Best to keep the voters distracted with all the horse race/poll-fueled media hype. John Edwards is not a spoiler, and I want him to stay in the race all the way to the convention.

[SCharb]

There are too many Johns in politics.

[stopwar]

Brendan Spiegel says Edwards should stop being the spoiler and endorse either Clinton or Obama "if he is in fact truly running on what he believes." First he suggests that all Edwards believes is that Clinton must be stopped; then he says maybe Edwards supports Clinton.

But I am supporting Edwards because of the things he says he believes in: true democracy, organized labor, government accountability, and the Democratic principles he and I both were raised with.

Because Edwards actually is running on what he believes about the roles of government and the presidency, he should continue to push for his principles, rather than support a candidate who doesn't share them.

Not only is Spiegel ignoring the issues, he is telling me, as an Edwards supporter, that the issues I care about don't matter.

But the things that Edwards believes do matter; the race is far from over (one percent of the country has voted, and now we know for sure that polls are literally misleading).

[CyberCitizen]

Sorry, I disagree with you about John Edwards. He is telling truth to power and framing the discussion of primary. He is waking up the people to the issues, and I want him to stay in throughout this race so that he can broker the election. Both Clinton and Obama are repeating his best lines, such as "I take this very personally" and myriad others. John Edwards is the most electable of all the Democrats when put in head-to-head matchups with Republicans. He beats McCain by a wider margin than either Hillary or Barack. Iowa is next door to Obama's Illinois; New Hampshire is next-door to Hillary's New York. If you vote for Hillary or Obama, you are voting for the money chase game that only CEOs and large corporations can win. To provide an alternative to the money chase, Edwards should stay in the race.

[MinuteMan]

Al Gore lost much of his clout when he decided to sit out the election.

With less than 1% of the vote cast so far, it's rather premature to count Edwards out. The two states that have voted so far generally end up going to the GOP in the general election: why let these fairly conservative voters pick the candidate? Besides, maybe one of the other two will have their own "macaca moment" and it would be nice to have an alternative.

I don't think that Edward's rhetoric has substantially changed since the last go-around, though he's a bit more forceful. That he's trying to win the nomination is a ridiculous "charge" that applies to all candidates so why make it?

[Kakie]

You've got to be kidding! Edwards is the most progressive and electable of the Democrats. Edwards has led on virtually every issue out there, from ending the war, to universal health care (his plan covers everyone, Obama's does not) to global warming to standing up to the corporate corruption in Washington.

Obama, despite his rhetoric, is a Washington insider--he has accepted $1.3 million in lobbyist donations, one of his top staffers is a lobbyist, and he has waffled on everything from funding for the war to the environment (he supports liquid coal, probably due to his associations with the coal lobby) to free trade (he just voted for the Peru Free Trade Agreement).

Truth is, Obama and Clinton are corporate Democrats. Edwards has spent his whole life battling corporate corruption as a trial attorney--unlike Obama and Clinton, he believes in standing up to the Republicans and special interests--we can't negotiate with these powerful interests because they will not give up their power, Edwards says...He'­s right..

The total delegate count after NH is this:
Edwards - 19
Clinton - 23
Obama - 25

It's still anybody's race...

Remember, Bill Clinton failed to win Iowa and NH and he won the nomination.

Let's let the voters decide this one. Remember, this is an election, not an auction!

[GonzoBum]

How about encouraging people to explore the candidates themselves and make up their own minds instead of blindly following people who have their own agenda to advocate?