Edwards Reconsidered

There have been good reasons not to support John Edwards for president. For years, his foreign-policy outlook has been a hodgepodge of insights and dangerous conventional wisdom; his health-care prescriptions have not taken the leap to single payer; and all told, from a progressive standpoint, his positions have been inferior to those of Dennis Kucinich.

But Edwards was the most improved presidential candidate of 2007. He sharpened his attacks on corporate power and honed his calls for economic justice. He laid down a clear position against nuclear power. He explicitly challenged the power of the insurance industry and the pharmaceutical giants.

And he improved his position on Iraq to the point that, in an interview with the New York Times a couple of days ago, he said: "The continued occupation of Iraq undermines everything America has to do to reestablish ourselves as a country that should be followed, that should be a leader." Later in the interview, Edwards added: "I would plan to have all combat troops out of Iraq at the end of nine to ten months, certainly within the first year."

Now, apparently, Edwards is one of three people with a chance to become the Democratic presidential nominee this year. If so, he would be the most progressive Democrat to top the national ticket in more than half a century.

The main causes of John Edwards' biggest problems with the media establishment have been tied in with his firm stands for economic justice instead of corporate power.

Weeks ago, when the Gannett-chain-owned Des Moines Register opted to endorse Hillary Clinton this time around, the newspaper's editorial threw down the corporate gauntlet: "Edwards was our pick for the 2004 nomination. But this is a different race, with different candidates. We too seldom saw the positive, optimistic campaign we found appealing in 2004. His harsh anti-corporate rhetoric would make it difficult to work with the business community to forge change."

Many in big media have soured on Edwards and his "harsh anti-corporate rhetoric." As a result, we're now in the midst of a classic conflict between corporate media sensibilities and grassroots left-leaning populism.

On Wednesday, Edwards launched a TV ad in New Hampshire with him saying at a rally: "Corporate greed has infiltrated everything that's happening in this democracy. It's time for us to say, 'We're not going to let our children's future be stolen by these people.' I have never taken a dime from a Washington lobbyist or a special interest PAC and I'm proud of that."

But, when it comes to policy positions, he's still no Dennis Kucinich. And that's why, as 2007 neared its end, I planned to vote for Kucinich when punching my primary ballot.

Reasons for a Kucinich vote remain. The caucuses and primaries are a time to make a clear statement about what we believe in -- and to signal a choice for the best available candidate. Ironically, history may show that the person who did the most to undermine such reasoning for a Dennis Kucinich vote at the start of 2008 was... Dennis Kucinich.

In a written statement released on Jan. 1, he said: "I hope Iowans will caucus for me as their first choice this Thursday, because of my singular positions on the war, on health care, and trade. This is an opportunity for people to stand up for themselves. But in those caucuses locations where my support doesn't reach the necessary [15 percent] threshold, I strongly encourage all of my supporters to make Barack Obama their second choice. Sen. Obama and I have one thing in common: Change."

This statement doesn't seem to respect the intelligence of those of us who have planned to vote for Dennis Kucinich.

It's hard to think of a single major issue -- including "the war," "health care" and "trade" -- for which Obama has a more progressive position than Edwards. But there are many issues, including those three, for which Edwards has a decidedly more progressive position than Obama.

But the most disturbing part of Dennis' statement was this: "Sen. Obama and I have one thing in common: Change." This doesn't seem like a reasoned argument for Obama. It seems like an exercise in smoke-blowing.

I write these words unhappily. I was a strong advocate for Kucinich during the race for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination. Two weeks ago, I spoke at an event for his campaign in Northern California. I believe there is no one in Congress today with a more brilliant analysis of key problems facing humankind or a more solid progressive political program for how to overcome them.

As of the first of this year, Dennis has urged Iowa caucusers to do exactly what he spent the last year telling us not to do -- skip over a candidate with more progressive politics in order to support a candidate with less progressive politics.

The best argument for voting for Dennis Kucinich in caucuses and primaries has been what he aptly describes as his "singular positions on the war, on health care, and trade." But his support for Obama over Edwards indicates that he's willing to allow some opaque and illogical priorities to trump maximizing the momentum of our common progressive agendas.

Presidential candidates have to be considered in the context of the current historical crossroads. No matter how much we admire or revere an individual, there's too much at stake to pursue faith-based politics at the expense of reality-based politics. There's no reason to support Obama over Edwards on Kucinich's say-so. And now, I can't think of reasons good enough to support Kucinich rather than Edwards in the weeks ahead.

Comments

[castlerider]

Obama won Iowa,but hey- it aint over... Still a long way to go yet.

This will not be like '04 by any means. Obama spent 9.5 million more then any other Dem candidate.
Edwards, on the other hand went a hell of a lot further for a guy who did not have corporate or lobbyist backing. In the face of this fact, actually, Edwards was the victor. That's truly a lot to celebrate for and look forward to....

Thanks for a great post. Your points made are extremely heavy on their own merits and accuracy and I believe will have farther implications because of this. Kucinich will not be easily forgotten by any means, but his actions in this regard will travel alongside his memory and cause its own whirlwind of reaction, thanks to a brilliant post like this.

[PeaceCzar]

GRAVEL.

GRAVEL.

GRAVEL.

A man who will NEVER pander or change his message. You want to know why he wasn't campaigning in Iowa? Watch this. Who else will tell you that corn ethanol and farm subsidies are bad policies? Demand the TRUTH from your leaders.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=1pxM3ifyP-E

[radlib1]

I, too, took one of those on-line questionnaires about which candidate my own views most closely mirrored -- and the fairest one of all turned out to be Dennis Kucinich! Okay, I like his policies and his political positions -- but, sorry, folks he is not now nor ever will be "electable" (maybe to the Senate, but not to the White House). Too bad (and sad to say), but he looks too much like a dwarf Mr. Spock to get elected President. Also, he doesn't seem to me have the "character" or "temperament" of a true leader -- and he just showed that when he "sold out" to Mr. Smooth Obama. Don't get me wrong, Obama's not a bad guy (he's still preferable to Hillary), but the only major Democrat truly standing up for and fighting for the poor and the middle class is John Edwards.

Edwards is the Real Deal. Hillary and Obama are still part of the Money Party (note their Wall Street and corporate backing) , not the People Party (which Edwards -- and Kucinich) represent.

Vote for John Edwards for President in the primaries in N.H, in S.C., in Florida, in California and everywhere throughout this land! He's the one who can beat each and every Republican they throw at him.

[realitytrumpsbull]

Kucinich said 'impeach' during the dem debate.
I think that's just awesome. I don't want
a Pandidate, I want someone that'll cleave
to the Constitution. What does Kucinich have
to say about the debt?

[research]

I wondered about Kucinich suggesting Obama too, till the MSM spent more time on Kucinich then ever before.

Largest Poll So far: 150,000

MORE then the Iowa caucus!

FRONT RUNNERS nationally:

Kucinich 31%
Gore 24%
Edwards 15%

Still in the race:

Obama 13%

Hillary 4%, Richardson 4%, Dodd 1%, Biden 1%, Gravel 1%, Other 2%

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?pid=249126
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/29506
http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2007/08/5255_kucinich_wins_d.html

The on line sites were not sponsored by any candidate, anyone was welcome to vote, but just once. 150,000 people were motivated enough to enter their on line vote. This shows intent, motivation, the exact people likely to vote.

MSM polls are landlines phone polls. Do YOU even answer your phone? Or like so many people, do you wait for the answering machine? Do you even own a land line, many people's only phone is a mobile phone, which the pollers cannot call legally. How many of you would agree to spend your time on the poll? What question did they ask: Who would you vote for if the election was held today? Who will you vote for in the primary? Who would you like to see as president? Who is most likely to win? When in the day to they call? What days do they call? What about unlisted numbers? Do they publish every study or just keep taking polls till they get the result they want?
Great link on problems with modern phone polling.
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/cell_phones_and_political_surv.php

With infinite money and power at stake, With the entire rethugs party willing to steal, kill and torture to get what they want, back room poll fixing payola would be Sunday school.

[freespeach]

Good post. This bit sums it up....

As of the first of this year, Dennis has urged Iowa caucusers to do exactly what he spent the last year telling us not to do -- skip over a candidate with more progressive politics in order to support a candidate with less progressive politics.

I don't understand why Kucinich would do this.

But it appears as though he is throwing in the towel just before he could have made a difference.
He could have been part of the discussion for the next month or so. Never a threat to win, he still could have forced his honest pro-impeachment, people before corporations ideas into the discussion.

Stabbed in the back on his impeachment initiative by his own Democratic party, he may just be burnt out. The death of his brother must also be a strain.
Whatever the cause, the Democrats are better with him in the race talking about issues no one else will touch.
Corporate America must be pleased.

[TheKiddy]

I wanted also to thank you for the clearly heart felt post. But, I wish you and the rest of the writers at Huff Post had spoken out earlier to the importance of John Edwards' candidacy.

[TheKiddy]

I have always admired Dodd, and followed his career. (Well, not from the beginning I'm not that old). God bless 'em.

[kahalaman]

Kucinich has miffed a lot of Dems by throwing his support to Obama. I admire DK for a lot of reasons, but Edwards has always come across as the more viable progressive candidate. Looks like we won't be seeing an Edwards/Kucinich ticket!

[handyallen1]

edwards is our hope ill vote for the democrat who wins but i won't like it this two party system stinks

[texanna]

I was never a Kucinich supporter even though on those online "tests" I seemed to match up to his positions. The reason was and is that everytime I hear him interviewed he just seems very shrill. Maybe the chip on his shoulder is a result of being dissed by everyone, I don't know and I don't care. If this is his reaction to the primary, what on earth would he be like in the general election campaign? What would he be like if he were elected when someone in the international community dissed him? No, I think his behavior is unbecoming of a President and for that reason, I would never consider him seriously. This latest move adds a level of duplicity onto this assessment and that's sad, because even though I thought he was a loose cannon I at least thought he was an honest loose cannon.

[glitzqueen]

I was delighted to find this message in an e-mail from PDA this morning, Mr. Solomon, and hope your endorsement came out in time to do Edwards some good.

I've been an Edwards supporter all along, but I also had a great deal of respect for Kucinich, until I heard him spewing petty invective against Edwards yesterday on Air America. He was in such a snit about ads a group has been running for Edwards that he wouldn't even answer Thom Hartmann's questions about he'd stop a similar group if one tried to support him, when laws bar any communication between campaigns and these outside groups. He just kept sceaming about changing the laws and blaming Edwards for the situation. Kucinich threw a FIT -- an infantile tantrum worthy of Shrub in his worst mood -- and lashed out unreasonably at Thom, too.

It isn't hard to see why he's trying to throw support to Obama, who doesn't represent change at all -- just more accomodation of the corporatists. Kucinich simply wants to hurt Edwards, because he's in a fury about those ads and probably also resentful that Nader endorsed Edwards.

While I realize there was a recent death in the Kucinich family and that all the candidates' nerves are no doubt fraying from this stupidly long campaign, things don't always go smoothly in the White House, either. Better sooner than later that he's shown this nasty side of himself, I guess.

[leftLibertarian]

The only Democrat worth voting for is Kucinich.

He voted against the Iraq War Resolution and the Patriot Act.

He brought articles of impeachment against the criminal Cheney.

Yet he polls around 2% because most Democrats don't like these positions.

[davidly]

If the reactions here are any indication, Kucinich may have hurt any chance he had this evening. I suspected when I heard the news of his second choice recommendation that he would weaken the resolve of his would-be caucusers in Iowa. I hadn't thought about Mr. Solomon's reaction, however.

I really don't think that the supporters of any other candidate would show so much integrity. I mean really, try to imagine someone abandoning Clinton or Obama or Edwards or Paul or you name 'em. They'd just make up some excuse and vote for them anyway. I don't see how this suddenly makes Edwards a better choice, so be it.

Ironically this integrity is a reflection of Congressman Kucinich, which makes the latest development all the more tragic.

[amberglow]

or maybe it was just Clinton talking to Edwards?

there was something a while ago about Hillary caught on tape talking to Edwards about debates, i think.