Can John Edwards Pass the Leadership Test?

John Edwards ran a campaign of integrity and ideas, which he and his supporters can be very proud of. He spoke for a tradition of populist progressivism, which long has had too few advocates. He spoke of a need to change America, to change America's priorities. But now that he has bowed to the inevitable fact that the Democratic Presidential candidate will be Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, the question becomes, "Can John Edwards pass the test of leadership?" Can he provide direction to the 15% of Democrats who supported him in the primaries? Can he use this moment in time, this opportunity, to advance the causes he believes in? Can he support the candidate who more closely represents his ideals, or will he be cautious, unwilling to choose, unwilling to lead?

There can be no doubt that ideologically John Edwards stands closer to Barack Obama than to Hillary Clinton. This was evident in the Democratic Presidential debates. Despite the successes of Edwards and Obama in life and politics, both are true political outsiders--mavericks in a sea of conventional wisdom. Indeed, the Clintons not only represent the status quo, they embody one of the Americas John Edwards so eloquently described--the well-connected, powerful, prosperous America which is doing well, which has benefited by globalization, which has secure jobs. This is the America the Clintons courted and pandered to during Bill Clinton's presidency, and which they continue to represent. This is the America of special interests, which is as comfortable with the Clintons as with Republicans. But it is not the other America that John Edwards spoke so passionately about.

Certainly, there must be the temptation for Edwards to step back and let the two remaining combatants battle it out. This path offers Edwards the easy option of hedging his bets, perhaps in the hope that he will retain credibility with the ultimate winner and be able to advance his issues, and, dare I say it, his own interests after the election. On examination, however, this path offers Edwards nothing at all. Let's assume--and I think it is a fair assumption--that, for the reasons stated above, there is no chance Edwards would endorse Clinton and that the choice he faces is endorsing no one or endorsing Obama. If he stands mute and Clinton wins, she will owe him nothing and she will not even be interested in his concerns; the best he will get is a courtesy lunch or a sub-Cabinet position in a non-critical department. On the other hand, if he fails to help Obama now, when help is most important, the leverage he will have with a victorious Obama would be much diminished than what it is now--such is the essence of politics, a brutal blood sport. On the other hand, should Edwards see the wisdom of endorsing Obama now, his leverage would be greater than it will ever be and he can deal for commitments to support his poverty agenda, and perhaps even for an important position in an Obama Administration. Surely I am not the first to think of John Edwards as Attorney General and if Obama were to make such a commitment, it would be no sell-out of values because John Edwards not only is eminently qualified to be AG, he may well be the most qualified Democratic attorney in America to be AG in a Democratic Administration.

I supported John Edwards in the 2004 Democratic primaries and donated to his campaign this time around. I have watched him grow in stature as a politician since the day in June 2003 when he appeared at an event at my house to explain to me and 75 other Democrats who he was and what he stood for. He ran a great campaign in 2004 and he ran a better one this time, but it was just not to be. But having come as far as he has come, he is not done. He owes it to his supporters, to progressive Democrats, to all Democrats, and to all the voiceless people he speaks for to provide leadership and direction about what direction this country should go and who should lead them as the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008. Silence, or none of the above, should not be an option.

Comments

[teamsterwife]

Still voting for the Best! Can't wait to cast my vote tommorow for John Edwards!

[Independent voter]

The longer Edwards waits the more irrelevant he becomes and he must be acutely aware of this fact.

It would appear that the clintons have bought his silence, if not his support.

[zreeb]

He was trying to campaign against a bunch of things he voted FOR in the senate. Looking at his record, he doesn't know when to stand up.

Still would have been better than Clinton though.

[msfiskvletterman]

2/2/08
11pm
Alexandria, VA

I'm voting for Edwards.

[blackpope]

if you don't know the facts about politics be sure to put a disclaimer (personal opinion one) at the beginning of your post...there's a lot of false perverted thinking on this post and it just irks me...take time to know the candidates,issues and positions that's the very essence of being american!!!!

[retarius]

America missed a chance to put someone into office that was not indebted to big corporatio­ns...someo­ne that might actually have made decisions about the country based on what was best for the nation as a whole, rather than supporting legislation that benefitted their corporate backers.
Somehow, having lived in America for 20 something years, I am not surprised that the opportunity was missed.

[Heartlander]

Edwards passed the leadership test a long time ago. Now we need to ask if Obama can pass the leadership test.

[Chuckbutcher]

Some of you folks mistake Dick Cheney with the role of the VP, in reality as an AG Edwards would have more concrete influence than VP. The VP is, by Constitution, the successor to President by tragedy and the President of the Senate, so what?? That includes exactly one lever of power, a vote in the Senate in case of tie, any Dem would have that same vote.

[NYCBri]

I completely disagree with your post. JE should NOT endorse anyone. That way both sides will have to say and do things that will try to attract John Edwards supporters. His leaving the race now is what may lead these two candidates to talk the talk of Populism more than if he endorses. If he endorses then the one who wasn't endorsed will seek their votes elsewhere and will not even need to bother posturing for populist positions. The best thing JE can do is nothing!

This all assumes that JE has any influence at all on his supporters. But your own post makes that same assumption as well, so nothing is lost from my argument as a result.

[factanonverba]

Vote for John Edwards on Tuesday and send him and the establishment a message.

It's time we take the bull by the horns.

[nellie]

Actually, standing back is the position of integrity. By standing apart from these candidates, he encourages them to behave themselves and stay unified. It would so easy for him to grab headlines and bargain for a power position by endorsing. Instead, he has chosen unity and civility in the Democratic party so that we can win in November.

He passes the leadership test with flying colors.

[boaz16]

Obama supporters first thought Edwards was stealing their votes, and now are blaming him for not shoving "their votes" over to them? Poppycock.

[boaz16]

An endorsement would be a waste and misuse of Edwards's political muscle. His supporters are not going to flock to the candidate he sees fit because his endorsers. much like his campaign, have attachment to ideas that came out of it, not just the man. I hope he doesn't endorse, and unlike Ted Kennedy sees the wisdom of not further dividing the party and having the ability to be credible in supporting whoever comes out on top.

[Nutcase]

You say, "There can be no doubt that ideologically John Edwards stands closer to Barack Obama than to Hillary Clinton. This was evident in the Democratic Presidential debates."

Wrong. There is plenty of room for doubt. Clinton's health care proposal was closer to Edwards. Other issues were also closer. That is a wash.

In one debate Edwards was accused of siding with Clinton against Obama and in another of siding with Obama against Clinton. Isn't it possible he didn't side with either; he was just sticking to his takes on the issues?

Both Clinton and Obama are corporate-owned. Neither was as close to Edwards as they should have been to call themselves Democrats. I feel the need to upchuck every time I hear either one of the candidates or their supporters speak of change. Neither candidate means it or their corporate sponsors would demand their money back.

I will be somewhat disappointed if Edwards endorses either. I am afraid that either will lose to the Republicans.

cognito ergo populistae

[zeldamae]

I don't want Edwards to endorse anyone. But I actually think he is in policy closer to Clinton. Obama's health care plan is Republican. I'm voting Edwards still. Proudly. Also Obama supporters who keep saying Edwards needs to do this or that really bug me. I don't see the Clinton people doing that--and I no longer have a dog in this race.