Edwards Should Not Endorse
Posted by
Kevin
There is a lot of talk floating around about whether or not Edwards is going to endorse before North Carolina’s primary. It doesn’t appear that he is going to — he seems to like both Obama and Clinton for different reasons and is having a hard time deciding. If I was him, I would tkae the same route that Gore has taken and not endorse anyone.
Al Gore has turned himself into the Democratic Party’s resident wise man on climate and environmental issues. Gore is very well liked within the party and has built himself a reputation for knowledge and insight about environmental issues that is unrivaled in official Democratic Party circles. That combination of popularity and knowledge has put Gore in a unique position: for the rank and file, his position is the least acceptable position for a national Democratic politician to take. People can go farther than Gore, but no one with national aspiration can dismiss his positions on the environment. His position has become the default position of the party. But that only works becasue he is not seen as an active player in the quest for office. If Gore were to come out for someone, then the other condidate would be compelled to minimize or even attack Gore’s positions and the followers of the non-endorsed candidates to take sides: him or their choice for national office. Instead of a unifying force, he becomes a divisive one.
Edwards has the opportunity to follow much the same path. He is well liked among the Democratic base. Like Gore, he is the leading champion of an issue where the rank file membership is more progressive and fart-thinking than the current Democratic leadership. Like Gore, he has the knowledge, the mini-celebrity, and the financial base to create an effective platform for creating change. But all of that changes the moment he endorses. Gore, in fact, becasue of the last few years of goodwill he has built up, might actually be better positioned to endorse and come out of the process with his position as Democratic Environment Guru intact. Edwards has barely started on the journey. If he endorses now, then he throws away any possibility of becoming the Al Gore of poverty and economic injustice. I, for one, would hate to see that happen.
“Like Gore, he is the leading champion of an issue where the rank file membership is more progressive and fart-thinking[sic] than the current Democratic leadership.”
I’ve always thought the rank and file membership thought that way.
Comment 3/24/2008
But, but… You state that the only reason Gore has the position he has is “becasue he is not seen as an active player in the quest for office.” Edwards has not been actively seeking office since - well technically he has not withdrawn yet - but let’s say it has been just under two months. And his nae has certainly been mentioned as a possible VP.
Gore’s career in political office started in ‘78 and culminated as a Clinton VP. Edwards has one term in the Senate, and if he now endorses a Clinton, he throws away any chance of eventually becoming an Al Gore? That just don’t make no sense.
Comment 3/24/2008
Ted
Not sure whats confusing: Edwards has the opportunity to do for poverty what Gore did for the environment within the Democratic party structure. Picking Clinton over Obama or vice versa destroys his opportunity because it makes him not a free agent but an appendage of a campaign.
Comment 3/24/2008
Nothing is confusing, it’s illogical. Gore did what he did after a substantially longer political career than Edwards currently has, including a stint as VP. So, when you state an endorsement “throws away any possibility of becoming the Al Gore of poverty…” my reply is that is not how it worked out for Gore. Edwards can remain politically active (as in endorsing candidates and holding office) for another 10 or 15 years and then, after establishing his bona fides as Gore did, become an elder statesman if he so chooses.
Comment 3/24/2008
Okay
We have a fundamental disagreement about how Gore got where he is, I think. Gore did not become the go to guy until after he stopped participating in the intra-democratic fights. It was only after he dropped away from electoral politics that he established the bona-fides that he needed to become to environmental go to perosn for the Dmoecrats. He could not have been that person until he dropped out of electoral politics becasue participaitng in those intr-party fights provides incentive for the other side in those fights to tear you down and thus you cannot become a unifying figure across the party.
Edwards has done enough on the electoral stage to become familiar to Democratic activitsts; now he has to establish his credentials on poverty an economic injustice in the same manner Gore did with the environment - -in a way that is explicitly outside the intra-party fights of Democratic electoral politics.
Comment 3/24/2008
I agree with what you say about Gore. And you have to agree with me that Edwards will have other opportunities in the future to drop away from the intra-democratic fights. He is not throwing away future possibilities by staying in politics now.
Comment 3/24/2008
I’m guilty of “fart-thinking” more often than I care to admit…
Comment 3/24/2008
I agree with Ted, sort of. It’s splitting hairs, though. By endorsing in this campaign, Edwards doesn’t throw away the chance to become “the Al Gore of economic justice,” but he does delay that possibility. Basically, it prevents him from being that guy right now, but doesn’t prevent him from ever becoming that guy.
Comment 3/24/2008
Tgirsch, exactly. However, how long will that delay be? If he could be that guy right now, being removed from politics for just under two months, how long would an endorsement delay him from being that guy?
Comment 3/24/2008
Ted
Okay, good point. Delay is more accurate than ruin. I thik the delay would be significant, though, since this campaign is getting pretty heated among the activists and picking a side now would probbly be rememerbed in those circles for a while.
Comment 3/24/2008
And with that, peace and understanding has been restored. And I do agree that Edwards picking Obama or Clinton now would carry more, and more lasting, baggage than his campaign, during which, for the most part, he did not offend anyone.
My biggest objection to your idea is that Edwards just plain doesn’t look the part.
He is a very young looking 54, and gurus need to have some grey - unless they are software gurus, in which case they can’t have any grey.
Comment 3/24/2008
He can’t just add grey; he’s got to pack on the pounds, too.
As to how much good Edwards can do now, I’m not so sure. I’m afraid he still has a bit of a credibility issue. I’d like to see him run with this, I really would, but he needs to build up that credibility. Right now, he’s a one-term lawmaker with two failed presidential bids under his belt. He needs to get some accomplishments — I agree, outside of politics — under his belt on that front before he can be a difference maker anywhere near on the order of what Gore has been.
Comment 3/24/2008
Sorry, Ted, you’re just wrong about gurus.
Comment 3/25/2008
Dan M, Nah, Hall (and Torvolds, and Knuth for you old timers) aren’t gurus, they are gods.
Comment 3/25/2008
“My biggest objection to your idea is that Edwards just plain doesn’t look the part.
He is a very young looking 54, and gurus need to have some grey”
I am sure some of that 400 dollars per haircut can go towards a little grey at the temples ..
Comment 3/25/2008
Hey, wait a minute! Isn’t this post directly related to the subject of the ongoing primary season? And didn’t you just say less than a week ago that you weren’t going to write about that any more?
Why do liberals lie so much?
*ducks*
Comment 3/25/2008
“Why do liberals lie so much?”
One of my favorite questions.
Comment 3/25/2008
I know, Morris. I was openly mocking you.
Comment 3/25/2008
Ah, Ted, I stand corrected.
Comment 3/25/2008
“I know, Morris. I was openly mocking you.”
I know. I was returning the open mock.
Comment 3/26/2008