Will Edwards advance his ideals or be cautious, unwilling to choose, unwilling to lead?

[BeyondGeography]

Can John Edwards Pass the Leadership Test?

John Edwards ran a campaign of integrity and ideas, which he and his supporters can be very proud of. He spoke for a tradition of populist progressivism, which long has had too few advocates. He spoke of a need to change America, to change America's priorities. But now that he has bowed to the inevitable fact that the Democratic Presidential candidate will be Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, the question becomes, "Can John Edwards pass the test of leadership?"

Can he provide direction to the 15% of Democrats who supported him in the primaries? Can he use this moment in time, this opportunity, to advance the causes he believes in? Can he support the candidate who more closely represents his ideals, or will he be cautious, unwilling to choose, unwilling to lead?

There can be no doubt that ideologically John Edwards stands closer to Barack Obama than to Hillary Clinton. This was evident in the Democratic presidential debates. Despite the successes of Edwards and Obama in life and politics, both are true political outsiders -- mavericks in a sea of conventional wisdom.

Indeed, the Clintons not only represent the status quo, they embody one of the Americas John Edwards so eloquently described -- the well-connected, powerful, prosperous America which is doing well, which has benefited by globalization, which has secure jobs. This is the America the Clintons courted and pandered to during Bill Clinton's presidency, and which they continue to represent. This is the America of special interests, which is as comfortable with the Clintons as with Republicans. But it is not the other America that John Edwards spoke so passionately about.

Certainly, there must be the temptation for Edwards to step back and let the two remaining combatants battle it out. This path offers Edwards the easy option of hedging his bets, perhaps in the hope that he will retain credibility with the ultimate winner and be able to advance his issues, and, dare I say it, his own interests after the election.

On examination, however, this path offers Edwards nothing at all. Let's assume -- and I think it is a fair assumption -- that, for the reasons stated above, there is no chance Edwards would endorse Clinton and that the choice he faces is endorsing no one or endorsing Obama. If he stands mute and Clinton wins, she will owe him nothing and she will not even be interested in his concerns; the best he will get is a courtesy lunch or a sub-Cabinet position in a non-critical department. On the other hand, if he fails to help Obama now, when help is most important, the leverage he will have with a victorious Obama would be much diminished than what it is now -- such is the essence of politics, a brutal blood sport. On the other hand, should Edwards see the wisdom of endorsing Obama now, his leverage would be greater than it will ever be and he can deal for commitments to support his poverty agenda, and perhaps even for an important position in an Obama Administration.

Surely I am not the first to think of John Edwards as Attorney General and if Obama were to make such a commitment, it would be no sell-out of values because John Edwards not only is eminently qualified to be AG, he may well be the most qualified Democratic attorney in America to be AG in a Democratic Administration.

I supported John Edwards in the 2004 Democratic primaries and donated to his campaign this time around. I have watched him grow in stature as a politician since the day in June 2003 when he appeared at an event at my house to explain to me and 75 other Democrats who he was and what he stood for. He ran a great campaign in 2004 and he ran a better one this time, but it was just not to be. But having come as far as he has come, he is not done.

He owes it to his supporters, to progressive Democrats, to all Democrats, and to all the voiceless people he speaks for to provide leadership and direction about what direction this country should go and who should lead them as the Democratic Presidential nominee in 2008. Silence, or none of the above, should not be an option.

Guy T. Saperstein is a past president of the Sierra Club Foundation; previously, he was one of the National Law Journal’s "100 Most Influential Lawyers in America."

http://www.alternet.org/election08/75770/

[saracat]

1. Ridiculous argument because it never addresses what would happen if Edwards endorses

Hillary? He could be her AG just as likely as Baracks. Very biased argument. And I am not for John endorsing either.

[BeyondGeography]

3. Endorsing Hillary would expose him as a total sham

That's what would happen.

[jackson_dem]

13. Will this be the new Obamite line?

If he doesn't endorse he is a coward. Oh, and he must endorse Obama!

I do agree it will be awkward if he endorses Hillary but we will never know what went on behind the scenes. Perhaps Hillary offered to do more for his issues than Obama? Bill Clinton did reduce poverty by millions.

If he endorses it almost certain that he will endorse Obama. The question is whether he will do it. Is he enthusiastic about Obama? After all he and Elizabeth have went through in recent years would he be willing to go through it all again for a candidate he is lukewarm towards? We also don't know the real story about Elizabeth. If things are bad did anyone really expect them to announce it to the world?

[BeyondGeography]

29. I hold no high hopes for Edwards as a leader

Having watched him pose as a DLC centrist, a populist, a supporter of the Iraq war and an opponent of it. He is, after all, the anti-greed candidate who can't tear himself away from $25 million personal hedge fund investments.

I like the campaign he ran this time around, even if it was clear to the more realistic among us that the presence of Obama pushed him further left than he otherwise would have been. I think he feels for the little guy, but, first and foremost, he feels for John.

To endorse Clinton at this point after the change vs. status quo stance he took during the campaign would only confirm for many of us that Edwards is a fundamentally unprincipled opportunist, no great crime as that is how we would define most politicians.

Meantime, Obama has inherited high-profile Edwards support in New Jersey, Arizona, Minnesota, New Mexico and California. His campaign is already helping out in a major way for Feb. 5. The fact that his highest profile supporters are migrating to Obama and not Clinton shows that they aren't going to let technical discussions about universal health care and mandates get in the way of advocating for fundamental change in this country, unlike many posters here.

[jackson_dem]

32. If he endores Obama will that change your opinion of him?

I don't want to rehash the whole "Edwards is a fraud" thing. He is not running anymore. I am wondering if your opinion will change if he endorses Obama.

[BeyondGeography]

34. Maybe

Depends how he handles it. Does he campaign fiercely for Barack Kerry- and Kennedy-style or does he use the Obama campaign as a personal platform of sorts? You never know with John, which is why, from my outsiders view, the people who know him best in the party have never been great fans of his.

[jackson_dem]

44. I think that's an unfair charge

Only Feingold has criticized him. Ted Kennedy praised him. Bill Bradley apparently preferred him but thought he was unviable after he lost Iowa. I don't think it is fair to say the people who know him consider him to be a fraud. Feingold is one, and there is strong reason to believe he was just carrying Obama's water. Kerry dislikes Edwards too but that is personal and happened long before Edwards' alleged conversion.

We don't know Elizabeth's condition. I would not hold it against him if he doesn't go all-out for Obama. I doubt he will. I think he will do some events for him, as opposed to one press conference and then disappearing, but he won't go all-out. How many precedents are there for that? A losing presidential candidate morphing into a surrogate for another during the primaries? Giuliani is the only example of this that I can think of. I would find it very demeaning to do that in the primaries.

[saracat]

37. Technical discussuins on healthcare and mandates get in the way? You mean like "facts"

Just saying something is "change " doen't make it so.If this is the resoning I hope to God Hillary wins. Jeebus. I am so done.

[BeyondGeography]

40. I forgot to add Washington to my list before

Here's another Edwards supporter who isn't hung up on that distraction:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004159326_webobama01m.html

[saracat]

41. Sorry.Not interested.

[BeyondGeography]

43. It hurts when I think, too, sometimes

[saracat]

20. So any of us who support John but do not support Obama are shams as well.Nice.

I have already voted. I am encoraging people to still vote for John.I don't give a rats ass but many view Hillary as the lesser of two evils. Frankly, in the GE, I think I would rather Hillary. And I am not a sham.

[desertflamingo]

35. nor am i...

a sham. i've voted for je for the 2/5 calif primary. i will NOT vote for obama. he is an empty suit as far as i'm concerned and no amount of endorsing by people i could give a sh*t less about will change my mind.unless and until je comes back into the race, i will more than likely NOT hold my nose opting instead to exercise my right as an american NOT to vote. i am sick to death of choosing the lesser of two evils and i have to tell you - it's tough for me to decide just how less evil obama or hillary are from each other. the point being? i think they're both evil. so there.

i am an EDWARDS DEMOCRAT!!

[SammyWinstonJack]

46. LOL!

:eyes: You forgot this, "imho".

[ClericJohnPreston]

4. Here here

Endorsing Hillary or Obama is like choosing between two different flavors of the SAME corporate candidate.

Supporting either one is supporting the machine that just silenced you, as that machine has dictated the narrative of the race. If anyone here is naive enough to think this "retirement" was voluntary, I have some land in Florida to sell to you.

John Edwards is true to John Edwards by avoiding each....like corporate plague.

[jackson_dem]

7. And Edwards must recognize that

He surely prefers Obama but I don't think he sees much of a difference between them. He just had his dream shattered. Why the pressure on him to endorse the next day? He isn't Giuliani. By waiting he can extract more concessions from them to adopt more of his platform (the parts they already didn't adopt...).

[Yael]

9. Please don't speak for him

Perhaps he doesn't want to negatively impact the upcoming Tuesday elections.

As I posted below, he has always counseled people to listen to ALL of the candidates and choose for themselves.

[jackson_dem]

15. I didn't

I gave my opinion that I believe he probably does not see much difference between them. As far as a preference, that comes straight from him. He called Obama a candidate of change and Hillary an instrument of the status quo.

[Yael]

18. I see a HUGE difference between them -- and John did as well. His classic line from NH:

"This is personal for me (in my soul) not political (Hillary) and not academic (Obama)".

You recall that? I thought it was one of the best lines of the campaign as he clearly delineated between the three of them.

Hillary is a policy wonk who would do whatever is politically expedient (aka status quo).

Obama talks in lofty platitudes, but he doesn't have a project plan (aka pleasing to the ear, but no there there).

[jackson_dem]

28. I did too. I meant differences between the two celebrities, not that they and John were the same

Edwards was different; the other two are very similar.

[Yael]

30. And in the same token, I believe Obama is much closer to John on many issues

but that is rooted in the Clinton fatigue issue (for one) and the fact that because Obama never gives any specifics, he seems to be able to morph his positions into the flow and in many cases, echos John.

[waiting for hope]

36. But Yael -

Clinton's health care plan is closest to his and I think that she will be more inclined for his energy proposals, whereas Obama's intentions are far to the right of them with Nuclear and the coal deal. I see him stuck between a rock and a hard place. Maybe he doesn't want a cabinet position, maybe he does. But, what I do see if he decides to stay out of it, he may go the way of Gore, which on so many levels, is a better place to be. Look at the influence and recognition Gore has now - if John's core issues are poverty and raising the middle class through jobs and health care, then he may just strike out on his own. Just my thoughts on the matter, would never want to argue with ya!

[Yael]

45. I kinda hope he DOES strike out on his own

Doing his own Gore thing. I would be more than happy to be in that world and out of the competitions and the nonsense I have seen this cycle.

Give me a hammer and point me in the direction to swing it.

:D

[Cant trust em]

2. I hope he endorses someone

The idea of a candidate not receiving the nomination and then receding out of public life is terrible to me. I hope that he uses the attention that he got to advance whatever cause he chooses. If he's not going to endorse someone then please do something major.

[Yael]

6. One thing about John is that he always asked people to listen to the

candidates and make up their own minds.

If he doesn't want to be in a role of spoiler or kingmaker at the convention -- why would he play that role on the eve of Tsunami Tuesday?

I think it would be perfect if he endorses the nominee at the convention and not before (his delegate count is done, IMO).

If he chooses otherwise, then he has reasons for it -- but don't assume for a minute that he isn't/hasn't thought this through. He is more strategic than that.

[Cant trust em]

42. I'm sure that he's thought everything through thoroughly

I just hope that he doesn't feel like if he doesn't get to be president then being involved in this process is out of the question. I remember watching him on the Daily Show a year or so ago before he entered into the race. Jon Stewart asked him if he would consider running for office again and Edwards' response was something along the lines of "If the right job comes along". I'd really hate for him to take his ball home because he didn't get to play the way he wanted to. I really have a great respect for John Edwards and I want him to stay involved in public life.

[Yael]

5. Oh jeez. Have these people never heard of timing? Strategy?

This is POLITICS not a football game.

Rank amateurs....

[hiaasenrocks]

8. The first sentence is enough to make me puke.

I voted for Edwards in SC last weekend. I sent him an email yesterday "thanking" him for lying to me about staying in the race. I'm sorry I threw my vote away and contributed to him picking up delegates so he could use them as leverage to advance his personal ambition.

[Yael]

10. Why? That how they see the role. They view "leaders" that put a ring

in the sheeple's nose and "lead" them around.

Some of us elect representatives, not leaders, but whatever -- they do what they want after landing at Dulles anyway.

[hiaasenrocks]

16. That's a strange collection of thoughts that means nothing.

[Yael]

19. Do you view your elected representatives as people whose

role it is to make decisions and then top down, force them on the population, or is their role to be the elected representative voice of the constituents they represent?

The constitution supports the latter -- and pork barrel spending shows that it is used when convenient to protect the phony baloney jobs (with credit to Mel Brooks)

When it isn't convenient, they are "leaders" who can direct the sheep where to go.

That goes against the Edwards' grain -- and why "is he ready to lead" in the title is supreme bullshit.

[hiaasenrocks]

23. Please see #22

[Yael]

26. Got it right beneath My apologies -- I misread you!

[hiaasenrocks]

22. What are you talking about?

My post was about John Edwards lying to me (and everyone else who voted for him) on a major issue -- his promise to stay in the race and take the fight to the convention.

He lied, and I regret giving him my vote.

That's what I wrote in my post. I'm not sure what you think you're responding to.

[Yael]

25. I misread you -- my apologies

I don't see this as personal ambition, but bowing out after McCains' Florida results so that the party could coalesce as he now believes that the (R)s will not go to a brokered convention. As long as they were, it was fine for us to -- but if they gel before we do, it will be a nightmare while we do their work for them.

My apologies for missing your point!!

[RestoreGore]

11. Now the badgering of John Edwards begins...

I hope he endorses no one.

[Yael]

14. But but but!! RestoreGore -- they want our vote

and this is how they demand it.

:rofl:

[jackson_dem]

17. RestoreGORE if a politician doesn't endorse he isn't a leader!

Look at Gore. Has he ever led on anything? :rofl: ;)

Gore and Edwards should stay silent if they aren't passionate about either candidate. Kennedy is and good for him. Gore obviously isn't and we will see if Edwards is.

[Yael]

21. Gore endorsed Dean in Oct (or Nov?) of 2003

Thank God he is staying out of the fray on this cycle. He has too important of a message than to play the ego endorsement, 15 minutes on TV for the sake of being on TV game we have been watching the last 2 months.

I hope John doesn't endorse, but if he does, I will trust that he has VERY good reasons (or concerns) for doing so.

[RestoreGore]

27. Oh yes, Al Gore hasn't endorsed... he isn't a leader!

And of course, John Edwards just can't be a leader on poverty unless he endorses one of the very candidates he had to set the platform up for in the first place...Absolutely amazing the levels some will stoop to in order to fish for votes. But hey, Obama has Oprah... what more does he need?

[ThatPoetGuy]

12. The question is, will John Edwards push for his ideas?

John Edwards had a man at his rallies. This man was born mute. When he was born, there was no way to heal his problem -- a severely cleft palate. When he was in his thirties, a surgical option became available -- but it would cost 5 thousand dollars.

A mute man can't earn enough money to pay five thousand dollars.

So he was mute for twenty more years, because he was poor, and his family was poor.

A volunteer group at a state fair helped him. He spent fifty years unable to speak. Now he can speak.

And he spoke out in favor of John Edwards.

Because Edwards wanted to help the poor. He wanted universal health care.

Will Edwards push for universal health care? Hillary supports universal health care. Barack Obama doesn't -- his plan will leave 15 million poor people without coverage. People like that guy will spend their whole lives sick or injured or mute, because Obama's plan leaves them in the cold.

Will Edwards continue fighting for the poor and the sick? I hope so.

And that means fighting against right-wing bullshit -- such dishonest spin as "handouts" and "mandates."

[red2blue]

24. I call bullsh*t

Let them both earn our support the way John did!!!

BTW i'm move to Hillary

we need health care for EVERYONE.

[raincity_calling]

31. Edwards dropping out

Cheeze It assumes JE lied to us. I suspect not. I percieve JE as a man of his word. I suspect he was pressured to quit. His decision appears to have been made in a very short time frame. On Tuesday night his campaign was making plans for him to go to Seattle for a fundraiser/rally before the Feb 9th caucus. Just a few hours later, people were being notified that he was dropping out. Something happened. Just what we will never know.

[Two Americas]

33. of course he was

Of course he was pressured to quit, just as all of his supporters are now being pressured to get in line. We have seen this same scenario play out the same way for years, and we still deny it?

I think we do know what happened. There is a split in the party, and the dominant faction just smashed the insurgency, under the guise of "unity" and presenting a united front against the Republicans. That was done the way it has always been done - by raising fears of the Republicans and frightening people back into the herd.

[saracat]

38. I agree.

[Mnpaul]

39. Why should Edwards endorse a corporate candidate?

Real leadership demands a candidate that won't sell out to corporate interests.