Edwards Stifiling Change in 08′
The Democratic primary is a match between change and convention. Barack Obama embodies the hope for change for all Americans–the hope to right our broken political system. His counterpart, Hillary Clinton is the candidate of convention–promising change but ensuring a continuation of the established Washington system.
Meanwhile, John Edwards is running as the man angry at the present: at the economy, jobs, and war (which he, like Hillary, voted for.) When Hillary finished in third place in Iowa he said that the “status quo” had been beaten. He, like Obama, sees himself as a change candidate although more in the traditional ‘anti’ sense. All this has positioned him to divide the change vote and in so doing our hopes for change in the election of 2008.
It would be OK if this was by happenstance–say, if he were in contention to win any state. But considering the fact that John Edwards will not take one single state his candidacy is nothing more than a farce at best, a microcosm of everything that is wrong with America at its worse.
A farce because he cannot win: not one state, not the nomination. Yet, he continues to run as if his futile campaign is a serious contender when the end is known: he loses terribly.
One would say that, in the idea that is America, there is nothing wrong with him running for however long he wishes to. In practice, one would be right. John Edwards is justified in running a campaign that cannot possibly win because that’s the essence of democracy– anyone who has something to say can say it.
He sells himself as a man of the blue collar workers and the middle class, a man of the people, a candidate who wants to see things change for them, for America.
His message is not working though. It is not a winning argument anywhere, nobody seems to care about what he might do as president, mostly because he won’t be. This matters because by continuing to run he is taking votes away from change (which he supposedly supports) and giving it to the establishment (which he supposedly opposes).
Tonight in New Hampshire John Edwards broke the change vote. He took 17% of the electorate. Barack Obama lost by only 2%. Considering Edwards is billing himself as a change candidate, his voters are voting for change. In short, if Edwards was not in the race they would overwhelmingly vote for Obama over Clinton.
John Edwards has to see that his candidacy is destroying the hope for a change candidate in 2008. He has to see that his staying in the race will end with Hillary Clinton being nominated. He is giving the nomination right back to the establishment, the status quo, despite being against it in his message.
This tells me that John Edwards’ campaign is about himself, not a cause. If his cause is change, he would serve it better by dropping out, not by seeing himself through to the end. That’s why his campaign, at its worse, is America at its worse. It isn’t about something–it’s about someone.
3 Comments