Why Edwards May Be The Best Choice For Women and Blacks

The choice in 2008 may not be between a historic vote for a "black" or a woman candidate and a vote for another white guy, it may be between symbolic and concrete progress. Electing Obama or Clinton would be an amazing symbolic triumph, but putting a black or female face in the White House doesn't necessarily do anything for the concrete living conditions of black Americans and women.

Because these groups are disproportionately poor, the quickest way to make a real difference for them is to reduce class inequality. And only Edwards is making class inequality a central part of his platform. So, ironically, the best choice for blacks and women may be the white guy.

Of course, I'd like to see both symbolic and concrete progress, but it looks like we're going to have to choose. In that case, it's not obvious to me that symbolic progress wins out over a concrete improvement in the daily lives of the groups that Obama and Clinton represent. What do you think?

Comments

[caliwmn760]

Good article. JOHN EDWARDS 08, he is the voice of the people.

[teamsterwife]

Agreed! Go Johnny Go! I hear he has been surging!

[RadCenter]

Amen.

We can't afford another four years of polarization that distracts us from the pressing needs of the nation!

Edwards '08

[jdm58]

Having re-read Dr. Kings "Dream" speech in it's entirety, and his son's letter to Edwards about the campaign, I also came to the conclusion that Edwards was the best nominee choice we Dems have. We MUST get beyond gender and race, and look at the substance of the message (and lack of message) of these candidates. From the beginning, Edwards has been on point regarding not only what ails America, but how he proposes to fix it. He deserves to stay in the race, regardless of what the MSM pollsters say (they got New Hampshire wrong too), and he deserves the support of all of us who truly want CHANGE in 2008. Otherwise, we're going to have four more years of our President pandering to Washington corporate lobby interests, and no effective help for the majority of people in this country who are trying to scrape by a living and who pray every day they don't get too sick to work. I believe many people are afraid of "Change" that is substantive (policy), and therefore may settle for change that is superficial (race or gender).Many don't want to identify with the subset of lower middle class or poverty, since it would mean admitting that all is not well with the American Dream. It's too easy to look the other way when homeless people are begging on frozen street corners (and how many of them are Vets?). It's too easy to chose to buy a product from China since it is less expensive than the same product made here, even though it means that another American may lose his or her job. It's too easy to just go shopping- it makes us feel good, even though it racks up more debt, and tightens the stranglehold that our failing economy has on us. Heck, even Bush wants to send us "rebate" checks, so we'll go out and spend even more! But Edwards understands the bigger picture of how this is just wrong, and because of this, he gets my support.

[jrterrier]

I haven't heard or seen Elizabeth Edwards lately. Does anyone know how her health is?

[Tubby]

The only way anyone will be able to cast a meaningful vote for Edwards is if he is Hillary's running mate.

The Breck Boy is finito. Get over it.

[belltor]

Seems that Martin Luther Kings son seems to think that John maybe be the best of all three candidates.

Please go to link regarding letter MLK III
sent to John Edwards this month.

http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2008/1/22/143341/885

[amberglow]

Edwards is the only progressive--and only adult--in the race. And the only one running for our benefit instead of his/her own (he's already got his, and devotes all his time to us).

People need to look past the packaging and examine the policies.

[wmnorton]

Nixon created the Southern Strategy. Ford lost in spite of it because he pardoned Nixon. Reagan won with it twice, Bush 1 won with it, Clinton won because Perot ran (twice), Bush 2 won with it twice. Hillary and Obama both reinforce the southern strategy and will lose because of it, even in a change election. Edwards can win because he will break it up.

[tompoe]

During the Bill Clinton years, we got ourselves a nifty WIPO emergence, which eliminates "fair use" doctrine (great if you're a content provider), the DMCA, which abuses Internet users from enjoying rapid technology advancement of telecommunications, and NAFTA, taking jobs out of the U.S. We can expect more with our current candidates. Unless, of course, we like the idea of single payer healthcare for everyone, immigration reform that respects what the United States stands for, return of our troops, and no silly insistence that we deserve an embassey in Baghdad, so we must keep troops in the country we occupy. We can vote on symbolic notions, or we can vote on issues.

Who would we trust more to sincerely try to improve the health and well-being of everyone than Kucinich, who speaks and acts as we would, if we were an elected official?

[Dap]

Dear Ms. Wade,

I'm thinking your essay is profound, John Edwards, is the best choice at the present time, Senator Obama is a young man, his time is in the near future, Senator Clinton is a part of the old guard, who's time would be better spent mentoring, instead of holding on to power with a death grip.

Truth be told, many in the old guard on both sides of the aisle have made some serious mistakes, especial recently, time for them to step aside gracefully, while helping to bring our beloved Republic into the 21st Century.

Ok, I have a bias, because I'm one of the last of the Baby boomers, same age as John Edwards, I think we are best equipped to move our Country forward at this time. Hand over the reigns to us American, we are conservative and progressive we are balanced and equipped.

John Edwards is the "We", in We, the People.

I say this as an Illinois person that supported Senator Obama in his Democratic primary run to be our junior Senator from Illinois, He's a good man, His future is bright, but His time has not come to be President, not just yet, we still have work to do to make way for Senator Obama, a little more seasoning will not hurt Him. Agape.

John Edwards... the "We" in We, the People.

John Edwards/08

[unionave]

We forget that when Bill was the Pres he never saw a Repub idea that he did not like . When they talk about helping the not too well off just think back to NAFTA . That really gave the shaft to the low income group . And still is .
When they talk about the help they gave the Black people , think back to him signing the welfare bill and who he brought in to sit in front of the cameras while he signed it . Only a small percent of the people on welfare at the time were Black . He has done as much damage to poor people as Katrina .

[EngineerBill]

Every time I read or hear that Edwards didn't carry his home state just makes me want to throw something at the screen! Look if you make Yao Ming a guard and put the guard in the Center position it doesn't work out too well. The problem was that the Kerry-Edwards ticket was reversed! Get it? It is not Edwards fault that he "lost" his home state. It was us Dems fault for picking Kerry in the first place.

[BDLamb]

I agree. Pick another election to make symbolic gestures over. This election must count in a very real way and no grandstanding historical firsts are going to matter more than getting this country back on track. "RepublicanBrain" seems completely unaware that we are discussing the Democratic primaries and that McCain and Paul are actually on the Republican ticket - that seems to just about sum him up. Keep it up with the brainy remarks & thanks, again. :)

[StrategicThinker]

Just ask Clarence Thomas how much of a difference "cosmetic" change makes. It wasn't positive change for the black community, putting Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court.

What we have this time are iconographic voters who are more concerned with ethnic and gender symbolism, than they are with real, substantive change.

There are too many Democrats who would never consider an Edwards Presidency to be "change" because on the "surface" he looks like every other President, even though he's proposing a radically different course for the country than Presidents in the past have, and Clinton and Obama are only proposing incremental baby steps, at best.

But, Democrats tend to have a "groupie" mentality. They don't care much about substantive change. They want to feel good, and they chase the "HIGH" of the feel good thing, which is what a "first" black President or a "first" female President would give them.

Of course what Edwards is proposing would be better for Women and Blacks, but he's not a woman or a black person, so many Democrats either don't care or don't understand why it shouldn't matter.