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

[ProudLiberalDan]

I'm really getting tired of hearing Obama supporters imply that Obama is somehow "entitled" to John Edwards' votes because Obama isn't Clinton and therefore Edwards should get out of the race because he is a longshot to win -- as if winning is the only reason to run and campaign.

At the convention, John Edwards can release his delegates and ask them to support Obama if he wants to. There is no reason for him to drop out before February 5, especially when only two small, unrepresentative states have voted.

Keep in mind, this "ganging up" on Clinton backfired in New Hampshire, and there is no guarantee that Edward's voters will go to Obama. Some might stay home. Some will go to Clinton. A few might even go back to Kucinich. Some will go to Obama, but there's no guarantee that MORE will go to Obama.

One should be careful what he wishes for. It may not give him the outcome he thinks he's entitled to.

[DontSpin]

He said it: "Edwards Must Go" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-sedaei/edwards-must-go_b_80663.html

[CyclingProgressive]

I refuse to be a part of the "American Idol" nation following the flavor of the day and sucking up fast food instead of vetting the details of each candidates program. We have only seen less that 1 1/2 of 1% of the public vote and we have 48 of 50 states to go. If you want to get fat on MSM junk food, you will pay in the end for failing to do your homework. This is a long race, and it could well end in August at the convention, not this early, not for quick gratification. Follow the money, do your homework, pay attention to specifics. Always know that it isn't about the candidate, it's about the progressive agenda and who best plans to implement it.

[jr9657]

You could not be further from the truth than you also believing that Edwards is out of this race! You and the rest of the media who have totally dismissed Edwards as the most viable of all the candidates really gets under my skin.

Edwards is the only candidate who is actually standing up to big media and other corporations who want to drive this election in the way they want. Unlike his opponents of Clinton and Obama, Edwards has not taken the money of lobbyists and PACs. Of course they're the most popular candidates with big money backing them. Edwards has more scruples and guts than that.

I hope you and the rest of the media will, one of these days, actually do your job of reporting "on" elections and quit trying to be fortune tellers predicting the future.

[MamaBear2008]

Man, Spiegel, when you're wrong, you're wrong!
Your comment that Edwards' is all about how he can win rather than the good of the country couldn't be more wrong...and would be best directed at the other leading contenders. One of whom is the most devisive figure in decades and the other hadn't even committed to a single position for many months after throwing his hat in the ring.

Edwards is the leading Dem with the greatest chance of bagging the general election. No surprise that mainstream media have tried from Day One to bury this man. He stands for people--all Americans of every political stripe, along with the vulnerable, our children and young adults, families, the elderly, those struggling to make ends meet--not for corporate greed which is choking our democracy to unconsciousness.

I only hope America wakes up in time and fights back. He is America's Champ.

Shame on you, Spiegel. I'm disappointed.

[eaglecapri]

Brendan, you're a genius!

In respect to Al Gore, sometimes silence speaks louder than words. He was Clinton's VP for Christ's sake! If he hasn't endorsed them - yes THEM - by now, you know an Obama endorsement is coming down the pike! They say, you have to know when to drop the bomb....and since timing is everything....

Obama '08

[libgma]

When Obama was just a gleam in the eye, John Edwards set out to challenge the inevitability of Hilary. He has been talking about two Americas since 2003. He has been studying poverty since 2005. None the less and at every turn, Huffpo snarks at his every move. Why don't you come right out and endorse Obama and note that endorsement openly while snarking.
I am amazed that Mr. Edwards has gotten this far without you, without Hollywood, without the DLC. Could it possibly be his message? According to you, No. The only good place to start out in life is Harvard or Yale if you start elsewhere the Huffpo will describe you with contempt, faint or flagrant.
Hasn't Edwards done well without you?

[JoAnnCr]

This is the first time all 50 states will have a chance to weigh in on not only who should be our next president but on what issues are important. John Edwards speaks the truth over and over again. He boldly presents aggressive policy. Courageously charges corporations with influincing the government to line their pockets at the expense of most everyone else. And he looks you in the eye and tells you he will stand up for you just as he did so many who needed him as a trial lawyer.

I suggest the media stop trying to make the decision for the people of America and just report the truth. You, Brendan Spiegel, should be first.

Not only should John Edwards not get out of the race, he should go all the way to the White House.

[Mack20]

There is a huge battle in the Democratic party between the "Clintonistas" and the "Populist-Progressives", (I just came up with that; basically the rest of the party, the anti-Clintonistas). Of course the MSM will only focus on a battle they have been trying to start, fuel, promote, whatever: The Christian coalition vs. whichever right wingers they can get to hate them. Or maybe vice-a-versa. It's not real clear because the liberal media doesn't understand the right and is simply going with the flow and throwing up anything and everything in hopes of a wall sticker.

The democratic split probably goes back to the "Clintons in the White House" days. I know Al Gore hasn"t forgiven the Clintons and probably blames them, along with everyone else, for his 2000 loss. Gore must be awfully afraid of the Clinton machine to have stayed out of this election. But he is also a politician and will wait till" the contest is done to take the winning side as he schemes to be something with the UN (like the President, hoping the aliens land while he gets to be the leader of the Earth) or the Global Warming Czar or Carbon Tax Guru or some such.

Of course he may just ride into the Democratic convention this summer on his white steed, answering the hopes and prayers of most of the party, the savior, ready to reluctantly accept the nomination while holding all the trump cards.

[Mike5000]

Why would Edwards endorse Obama? Why would ANYONE endorse Obama? Obama has a great smile and great suits and a great "Change!" slogan but he's just another DINO like Clinton. Obama wants to invite corporations to the table so that they can keep on writing our laws. John Edwards will level the playing field. Clinton, Cheney, Obama - they're all corporatists. It's true that Al Gore and John Edwards were once both DLC robots themselves - controlled by the corporations and clumsily losing elections. But Al and John got smart. Al Gore is saving the planet, and John Edwards will save America. This country is built on government OF THE PEOPLE BY THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE. John Edwards is the only electable Democrat with the ability and the strength of character to repair the damage that the neocons and DINOs have done to America.

[traveler501]

re: "The moderate, electable "new Bill Clinton" of 2004 is now the populist, firebrand, anti-Hillary Clinton candidate"

That's just a little too easy. And for the record...Hillary Clinton is not Bill Clinton. There is no real issue there, moreover you are completely obscuring his actual message of helping the Middle Class with your apparent Clinton obsession. Edwards may not make it, but to brand him as a simple opportunist just doesn't get it. Good lord, man, his wife is using the last year or two of her life to help him get elected...an educated, motivated, professional women who clearly and geniunely believes in this man...after knowing him through many ups and downs (not many marriages survive a child's death, incidentally). There are many ways to see Edwards' sincerity (you DO know sincerity when you see it, don't you?)...but if no other way works for you, look through Elizabeth's eyes.

[AnninCA]

I haven't studied Edwards a lot, but from the debates and what I've seen, he seems only interestd in spinning and digging at Hillary.

I don't see the populist appeal that you guys seem to see.

He reminds me of a lot of the men in suits.

[HearNoWeasel]

According to this, the way to choose our nominee is:

#1) Let Iowa and NH narrow the field to 2 candidates.

#2) Line up celebrities behind these candidates, so the remaining 97% of voters can choose between Jon Steward, Oprah et al, instead of actual candidates and actual positions. Much easier.

It's a new twist on representative democracy.

[NewsNag]

Thanks, Brendan, but I think you may have stopped short of thinking this through entirely.

Edwards can ask his delegates to vote to nominate Obama if he, Edwards, realizes he, himself, can't get the nomination. So as Edwards stays in the race, he not only can impact the eventual choice of nominee, but he can, just as importantly, keep the populist message in the public eye and at the same time encourage the nominee and the party platform to incorporate his ideas and goals.

Did you know all that? Or not? And if not, then why should you have access to posting to the HuffPost? And if so, then why wouldn't you mention that also? You write your post as if you have no clue about how things work. No offense intended, though. Just curious.

Also, Edwards' "Two Americas" theme in 2004 and his current populist platform are not only compatible, they are cut from the same cloth. There are "Two Americas" because of the social and financial problems Edwards is focusing on in 2007-08. 2 plus 2 equals four.

Pretty simple, both points, if you, ahem, think about it.

Love,
News Nag

[swokm]

2 out of those 3 would endorse Edwards. The other, of course, IS Edwards. So you find it hard to believe that Edwards has become steadily more progressive the more he learns of corporate corruption in government, but you have no problem believing that Al Gore did the SAME thing in between 2000 and 2004? Since Edwards currently has 27% (18/67) of the delegates so far allocated, quite a few agree with him. Gore won't endorse because a) he is a damn boy scout, b) he can't sacrifice the ability to work with whomever is elected by being partisan now. Governmental accountability and fighting corporate collusion is what has formed the majority for the Daily Show for years, and is also Edwards' core message. Really, it isn't rocket science here. But the fact this article says a candidate with 27% support should just "drop out" when less than 1% have voted yet is telling.