John Edwards' sudden announcement of withdrawal from the presidential race is a huge surprise, with broad implications for the race, advocacy organizations and voters. Unlike Rudy Giuliani's Oceanic Airlines campaign crash-landing into the Gulf off the Florida Keys, John Edwards managed to struggle with the controls long enough to deploy his parachute when it became clear that his engines had failed. And the landing gear stuck. And the plane had lost all cabin pressure. Also known as Iowa, Nevada and Florida.
Speculation is already rampant about Edwards' supporters. Did he pull more progressives from Obama or more white folks from Hillary? Time will tell. But there is a strong case to be made that the natural recipient of Edwards' support should be Barack Obama.
As I wrote earlier this month in anticipation of Edwards dropping out, there is little question that John Edwards and Barack Obama are the candidates, Democratic or not, most committed to advocacy for working people. Edwards' history of legal advocacy and Obama's deep-rooted experience with community organizing and advocacy have demonstrated their willingness and ability to step up to the plate for those struggling to make ends meet. As elected officials, each has initiated or supported legislation that would advance the cause of working people and organized labor. Each has been willing to walk picket lines, and publicly advocate for those struggling to resolve labor disputes.
Particularly in today's economic turbulence, progressives are champing at the bit to elect such an advocate for the middle class. As Obama points out, corporate CEOs make more in a matter of minutes than many Americans make in a week, month or year. With faulty trade agreements moving jobs to Mexico and overseas and mortgage rates suddenly spiking, the middle class, to an infinitely greater degree than Bush's have-mores, are in bad shape.
For decades, no President has been willing to extend himself to prioritize protection for those in the greatest economic need. (See Reform, Welfare.) 2008, in that regard, presents a tremendous moment of opportunity. And voters who'd settled on Edwards for his progressive values are very likely to decide that Obama is their best choice. And, in the opinion of this humble commentator, that's the right call.
Edwards' timing, however, is more of a boon to Hillary Clinton. With only six short days before Mega-Whopper-Enormo-Tuesday, Edwards' institutional support (read: labor unions) will have a tough time revising their message to their members. For large unions that have spent months talking to their members about why Edwards is the right choice, they'll have only 120 hours or so to call them all back and say, "Actually, never mind. You ever heard of Barack Obama?" (Assuming, of course, they even bother. After all, no one ever claims that rank-and-file union members go in lock-step with their unions, as the California Teachers Association demonstrated robustly earlier this week.)
This brings us, then, to the horse race. As it stands, even if Edwards 10% in New York all went to Obama, Clinton would still win the state, but in California this announcement could swing the race (according to USA Today's nifty poll tracker). By tomorrow or Friday, we'll see new polls that indicate how the race has shifted. Pundits will be looking at the jump in Hillary and Barack's numbers, to be sure, but also about the demographics of those still undecided, and the issue priority for those who switched.
Barack Obama is the natural choice for progressives focused on economic and social justice. But with six days to make the case, Edwards supporters have some reading to do.
Edwards was already a compromise and only suitable due to public financing of his campaign.
Where does the acquiescence end?
If you want change vote Nader and be prepared to fight the good fight against whoever gets elected. If a Republican does get elected, let us hope that we may find the courage to fight as citizens and finally decide once and for all whether we are a Christian nation or a nation for all, whether we want citizens rule our nation, and whether women, minorities, and workers actually have rights. Progressives should know that change does not come from the successful election of a candidate, anyways. The Democratic Party, at the end of the day, has been an obstacle to addressing these issues which have been unresolved since the founding of our nation.
There is nothing progressive about Obama. He is an inspiring speaker with an excellent speech writer. He speaks of CHANGE and HOPE, but his best ideas were Edwards' and he doesn't have the specifics to back it up like Edwards did.
I'm totally disgusted with the MSM and the Democratic party for forcing the current candidate choices on us. It's all the Game, and we just lost.
Most voters don't care what the MSM or liberal blogs think, and so they don't buy this anti-Hillary stuff. The election is not a referendum on Hillary Clinton (contrary to the assumptions of many bloggers and writers on sites like the Huffington Post). Clinton's message appeals to working class Americans and that's why she will earn a slight majority of Edwards voters.
More upscale Edwards supporters will probably vote for Obama, but quite frankly there weren't many of those to begin with.
The hatred the so-called progressive wing has shown for Hillary Clinton is frankly astonishing and astonishinly stupid. They have fallen in love with Obama and are blind to his faults. When Hillary wins a clear majority of the Feb. 5 states, hopefully liberals will return to earth.
Obama? He sounds like he is ready to roll over and play dead for the GOP. I am not sure if knows what "fight" means.
Hillary? Sure she is polarizing and triangulating, but against the GOP, maybe that is a good thing.
70% of Americans make less than $50,000 a year in income.
95% of women make less than $50,000 a year in income.
The majority of the "poor" in America and any other era in human history in any nation on the earth are women and children.
The majority of women are supporting Hillary Clinton. If Edwards supporters want to help the "poor" they would choose to help women and children now living in poverty, many of them single mothers, and the majority who are supporting Hillary Clinton.
Why? Because Hillary Clinton has spent her life working towards legistlation either in Arkasas or in the Whitehouse or in the Senate on issues that relate to women and children, and the poor know this.
There's nothing "progressive" about losing.
Mr. Edwards can throw his support wherever he wants, including down the toilet, because he makes no difference. Neither do the few people who wasted their time supporting the loser.
We're at war. Lead, follow or get out of the way. "Progressive" at this point means thinking one or two steps ahead and getting on board to actually moving things forward a notch.
I don't know that Edwards couldn't be trusted, I've just had too many bad experiences in the past with candidates who promised the moon and then failed to deliver.
I don't agree with every little thing Obama has voted for & I still want a single-payor health insurance (not even Edwards was willing to fight for that). Obama, however, seems genuine in that he appears to be running a general election campaign in the primary & won't need to veer right once he has the nomination. Obama is a progressive who can bring in independents, moderates and even plenty of GOP votes. He's the left's answer to Reagan.
Why the hell would you assume we had not already read and reviewed Obama's policy statements? I know all I need to know about him. THAT is WHY I was supporting Edwards. So, now what? Compromise? Too old and too tired to do it again.
Here's what Lincoln Chafee said about those who voted for the war:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/30/191653/018/37/444394
Worth reading.