I won't regurgitate what lots of people are saying about John Edwards, other than to point folks to this post by OpenLeft's Chris Bowers. Beyond pushing the field to embrace more progressive legislation, Edwards is clearly the single biggest reason the Democratic Party's two remaining Wall Street-backed candidates ever even mentioned economic class and corporate power during this campaign. His decision to leave the race means there will be even less pressure on these candidates to keep addressing these issues.
As nonpartisan watchdog groups have shown, Edwards faced a media blackout from day one - a blackout that was totally disproportionate in comparison to where he was polling. He was also grossly outspent by his opponents. That he managed to put up such a spirited fight and rack up such solid results in the face of these inherent obstacles shows just how powerful his message was. Imagine, for a moment, had he gotten equal media coverage and been able to match his opponents spending (the latter, I acknowledge, is tough to imagine, considering his populist message hurts his ability to raise such huge money). Had media coverage and money been equal, it is fair to say Edwards could be winning the nomination right now, considering he was competing vigorously for it with those things not being equal.
There will be many legacies of the Edwards campaign - from the rebirth of moral issues like poverty into election issues, to a model for how to run against corporate greed. His August 23rd, 2007 speech alone was a legacy unto itself - maybe one of the most important (and, sadly, little-reported) campaign speech in the last 30 years of presidential politics. As it relates to future campaigns, Edwards' most important legacy will be how his candidacy validated all of us who have been showing how economic populism is the most effective politics in the current era. His against-all-odds success in running such an effective race against such steep odds proves - once and for all - just how powerful progressive economic populism is as a campaign theme.
I really hope that if the remaining candidates take one thing away from his announcement today, it is that full-throated, power-challenging populism is something they need to embrace.
I grant that Hillary Clinton had a tremendous media advantage when the pre-campaign campaign began, about two years ago.
But Edwards was the VICE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE of the Democratic Party IN THE LAST ELECTION.
Further, I clearly remember that he had excellent press coverage at the beginning of his campaign.
It was admirable that he chose to announce his candidacy to a small gathering in New Orleans, to highlight the continuation of his "Two Americas" populist appeal.
The fact that little-known Obama's announcement to thousands of people on a frigid day at the Old State House in Springfield was also well-covered is not the fault of the media, Wall Street, or anybody else.
The point is: John Edwards started way better than even compared to Obama at the beginning of this race.
His failure to catch on was not the fault of the media. The media's lesser subsequent coverage of him was caused by his failure to catch on... even in a "change" election.
I think that he is a tremendous American, who deserves a place in the governance of this country, but - given his attributes in every area (including money, at the beginning) - he should have run a better campaign.
He just didn't.
Seeing as how the media likes to view this campaign as a horserace I guess the best way to describe how Edwards was treated is to say that the track handicapper (the media) added extra weight to Edwards that was not added to the other "horses" in this race. In racing the handicapper always adds more weight to the best horse in the race to help the other horses compete. But sometimes the handicapper adds so much weight that even the best horse can't overcome it. That's what happened when the media refused to cover Edwards. They added too much weight and he wasn't able to compete with the other two candidates who weren't given the extra weight of no media coverage.
Edwards is out, and you hurl insults at the two that remain?
You write "two remaining Wall Street-backed candidates"...
... but you fail to distinguish that Hillary did their bidding after taking their money...
... while Obama opposed their policies despite taking their money.
Such a huge difference should not be ignored considering your focus David.
The positives were his humble background, his record representing tort victims and consumers against the corporations, his ability to simply admit that he had been wrong, his conversion to represent the interests of the working class people and the medically-uninsured, his anti-war position, and his desire to change the rules back to reduce the great and growing disparity between the rich and poor.
All in all, Edwards forced the Democrats to examine the effects of free trade, the outsourcing, the undue influence of lobbying, the campaign financing system, and show people that the system can be changed but first it has to be named. He called it what it was - two Americas, one for the very wealthy and the other from the rest of us.
Finally, union membership has increased for the first time. It may be up to 7.6% in the private sector. Without organized labor, the Democratic party would not be able to organize or to increase minimum wages or provide safety on the job.
The deregulation under the Glass-Steagall Act that lifted restrictions on banks has taken us back to the roaring twenties. Complex financial instruments evade meaningful regulation. Stock prices are overvalued (price to earnings ratio) and debt to earnings of the average American citizens is at its highest.
National debt 9.2 trillion
Real GDP 2.65 over prior 7 years
47 Million uninsured
Median Household income $1,100 decrease in 6 years
Personal savings rate -0.5%
U.S. dollar down 0.68 Euros from 1.07 Jan. 2001
Consumer debt (2001) $7.65 trillion (now) 12.8 trillion
Gas in 2001 $1.39 /gal now $3.07/gal
U.S. trade deficit 2001 380 billion; now 759 billion
Edwards had more Wall Street backing than either Kucinich or Dodd, who also brought this up in the early debates -- when they were still allowed in debates by corporate mainstream media. But I'm certain, now that Edwards is out, any debate is pretty much useless to voters, because it's certain the corporate power and economic class issues will be dropped. All I can conclude is that the average voter in the states that have already voted didn't realize who their friends were in this race. Kucinich, who was largely ignored by voters, was their most likely best friend as President. Edwards may well have been another. But either one still would've had to contend with a corporate-stacked Congress.
It's really not about bi-partisanship any more. It's all about economics and who has purchased whose vote in Congress, except for a handful of Representatives and Senators who don't allow themselves to be bought. Corporate personhood and monopolies have grown so huge that it's impossible to even boycott the bigger ones that have so many holdings. Voters have become so cynical they don't even believe the more honest candidates anymore. But they are still apparently susceptible to media hype and manipulation.