You remember the song? "Torn between two lovers, feelin' like a fool. Lovin' both of you is breakin' all the rules."
Seems particularly apt as we watch the reported inner turmoil John Edwards is having over the endorsement of his two former rivals. Is it just me or is it increasingly unseemly for John Edwards to pretend he doesn't have an opinion on this? Isn't this a perfect example of the "triangulating" that Edwards accused Hillary of engaging in? Coming at an issue from two opposing angles so that you're covered either way?
Is that the way he would have made decisions if he'd been elected Commander-In-Chief? Seems to me that a president is often forced to make decisions in far less time and with far greater consequence (Katrina, anyone?). Yet after 18 debates he's still not sure?
Maybe that's because Edwards' endorsement decision is not really about who he thinks should be president. Maybe it's about who he thinks WILL be president. And it may be that Edwards is trying to figure out what's in it for him and in so doing he shows us what he was really in it for. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the politics-as-usual that he claimed to be so far above.
This is the time for John Edwards to remember his hero JFK's sentiment and ask not what can be done for him but we he can do for us. Can he help unify the party? Can he help unify the country? Obviously, if the people thought he could do those things he'd still be in the race. However, leadership is an internal thing not an external one. It comes from within and in the best of cases it rises up when one is without. In other words, you don't need to be elected a leader in order to act like one.
Those of us who support Edwards do so because he called out what we'd recognized as truths before we even knew he existed, and given that we have no candidate left willing to recognize the importance of those truths, I and others like me are left to weight two candidates with some, about-equal strengths and many, about-equal drawbacks. The few times Obama isn't vague, half the time his specifics alarm me (CTL? S.970? rather careless about studying policy, I think) and Clinton's declared hawkiness and comfort with and enabling of Monsanto and all her other corporate friends. I very, very honestly cannot find a preference between them. The earlier comment about those demanding Edwards endorse while belittling him is right-on enough for you to step back and reassess your purpose in this essay.
Gosh! What a silly title. What a silly opening paragraph.
I worked for John Edwards in Iowa. I have met him several times; heard him speak numerous times, and am familiar with his policy positions. And yet I have no idea if he is in inner turmoil. Indeed I have no idea what he is up to since he suspended his race. I would really like to know how Michael Seitzman is so in tune with the inner workings of John Edwards' mind.
I don't think that it reflects on John Edwards in any way that he has not endorsed either Obama or Clinton. The decision about whether to endorse is hardly a HurricaneKatrina-type situation. The process of nominating a delegate will go on regardless of what John Edwards does or does not do.
To me the most intriguing question is why is his endorsement so sought after, and the most intriguing observation is that many who seem to seek his endorsement belittle him in the process.
If Edwards was in favor of nuclear energy to generate electricity than I would relieve believe he is interested in both reducing pollution and eliminating poverty. The parts of the world that use the least amount of oil are also the poorest -- Oil brings industrialization and industrialization reduces poverty.
If people haven't made up their mind by now, they're not going to vote anyway.
1. Edwards loves to be courted like some royalty.
2. Edwards is holding out for the best deal
Edwards, a Boomer himself, was completely clueless to this and he thought the working-class Boomer economic crises was most paramount.
Barack has one issue that is more appealing to my generation's demographic than Edwards did and my demographic combined with Generation Y is a larger bloc than relying on populist Boomers who are actually grown-ups that too rather rule all by themselves. Populists thought their altruism was most important.
Not all Americans felt the populist campaign and people blame Edwards. They need to recognize what Americans, politicians, and business created in a culture of denial.
I could have told him that the economically handicapped populace does not care about a populist electorate. Had not Edwards paid attention to where the country had gone in all wanting to be rich?
People didn't want to identify with the reality that they were working class. The people all believe they are supposed to be rich and their economic stances that are crippled are temporary. They didn't want to identify with the fact that they were the comman man. The culture had changed and Edwards was treating the people as if they were not complicit in creating this culture.
I believe that you need a fluffy character building campaign of HOPE to bring people back to a level of compassionate humanity first before a populist campaign can be regarded. People have to erase cynicism first in order to make a populist campaign matter. Other than that, the country has someone like Hillary promising what she will do which isn't to change anything or the country. You get a politician promising bartered exchange for votes if they provided some cosmetic solutions when the culture was not going to CHANGE.
"The "Yes we can!" refrain that Barack Obama trumpeted in his concession speech was actually the campaign theme adopted by Deval Patrick, Deval Patrick is a top Obama supporter who rode the slogan to the Massachusetts governorship in 2006." www.taylormarsh.com
Obama - Present.
Hillary - President!
Whoever Edwards 'might' endorse, there is absolutely no guarantee that former Edwards supporters would ever vote lock-step for either Sen. Obama -or- Sen. Clinton, ... just because Sen. Edwards endorses either of them. And why should they? I think voters have already made up their minds, and an Edwards endorsement is *not* going to change their minds. Besides, Hillary and Obama have an almost 'identical' voting record in the Senate, and both have pledged to bring the troops home from Iraq. The only real difference between them, beyond *both* of their own camp's brand of cultural divisiveness, seems to be that the majority of blue-collar union member 'lunch-box Democratic voters' probably fall in line with those who make $50,000 or less, and that seems to be benefit Sen. Clinton; Edwards seemed to be on the side of blue-collar union members, irrespective of union boss endorsements. Furthermore, Edwards has firmly stated in debate that universal health care needs to be *mandated*; Hillary's universal health care plan speaks to Edwards' call for universal health care being effective for ALL Americans, only 'if' it is, *mandated*. Of course, I don't know whom Sen. Edwards might choose to endorse, ... and I do not really care. If Sen. Edwards chooses to endorse, in my opinion, it will be based upon whom Sen. Edwards believes is best for America; I'm fine with either a Sen. Clinton, Edwards endorsement, or a Sen. Obama Edwards, endorsement. Either way, there is not much difference between Hillary -&- Obama, so, ... in the grand scheme of things, it really doesn't matter either way, does it!? ;)
it seems to me that edwards is trying to stay relevant in this election and his best chance of doing so is to hold tight to his endorsement.
this story about edwards somehow being "torn" between the two candidates sounds like a bit of PR to give the press something to chew on and edwards some wiggle room to slide out of his previous positions - attacking sen. clinton - just in case she becomes the nominee.
Edwards really does not have to endorse anyone. He is no longer center stage. He did not win one primary and has now had two bites at this same apple. If the public wanted him in a national role they could have put him there.
Truly he joins the ranks of many great people who have not been picked for president. Surely the U.S. public is missing someone great by not voting me president. My mother was a lovely woman who also was not voted president, nor was any of my grand parents made president. Eleanor Roosevelt or Albert Einstein were also not voted president. John Coltrane and Miles Davis and Sister Mary Eileen from Our Lady of Lourdes school also were not made president of the United States. Hey Senator Edwards you are in good company. Let it go! Relax life is good and you have had a good life. God Bless You! You don't have to endorse anyone. Let it go.
If I had to hazard a guess, his feeling about Obama is that the stupidity of offering to call a halt to bitter bipartisanship coming from the party who is being pounded into the ground so successfully by it is guaranteeing a continued pasting of the Democrats. His years as a stunningly successful trial lawyer have taught him that the kind of people a progressive president will face are prepared to chew off any hand that reaches out to them. He may feel that Hillary is too entrenched in politics as usual, but recognizes that she's a fighter when she needs to be. Obama doesn't fight; he votes present, is conveniently absent, or presses the wrong button and writes it off as a boneheaded mistake.
We needed this man desperately, and wound up with two razzle dazzle "historic candidates" instead. I swore that 2004 was the last effing time that I would hold my nose and vote, and it's hard not to abide by that decision now.
That JFK "ask not" quote was a steal from Kahlil Gibran.
When it's 'last candidate standing' and in my mind, the wrong one was endorsed, should I care?
I still hold out hope for an Edwards' candidacy and subsequent presidency.
It aint over until the fat lady sings and I dont hear ANY singing at this point.