Why This Edwards Voter Is Now Backing Obama

I gave John Edwards more money than I've given to any candidate in my life, and I'm glad I did. He raised critical issues about America's economic divides, and got them on the Democratic agenda. He was the first major candidate to stake out strong comprehensive platforms on global warming and health care. He hammered away on the Iraq war, even using scarce campaign resources to run ads during recent key Senate votes. He'd have made a powerful nominee—and president.

I've been going through my mourning for a while for his campaign not getting more traction, so his withdrawal announcement didn't shock me. But sad as I am about his departure, I feel good about being able to switch my support to Barack Obama, and will do all I can to help him win.

I've actually been giving small donations to both since Iowa, while hoping that the Edwards campaign would belatedly catch fire, and exploring ways the two campaigns could work together. With Edwards gone, I think Obama is the natural choice for his supporters, and that Edwards should step up and endorse him as his preferred nominee. All three major Democratic candidates have their flaws and strengths—they all have excellent global warming plans, for instance. But Edwards wasn't just being rhetorical when he said that both he and Obama represent voices for change, versus Clinton's embodiment of a Washington status quo joining money and power.

Here are a dozen reasons why I feel proud to have my energy, dollars and vote now go to Obama:

1. The Iraq war: Obviously, invading Iraq remains the most damaging single action of the Bush era. Obama spoke out against it at a public rally while Clinton was echoing Bush's talking points and voting for it. Obama's current advisors also consistently opposed the war, while Clinton's consistently supported it. It's appropriate that Clinton jumped to her feet to clap when Bush said in his recent State of the Union address that there was "no doubt" that "the surge is working."

2. Clinton's Iran vote: The Kyl-Lieberman bill gave the Bush administration so wide an opening for war that Jim Webb called it "Dick Cheney's fondest pipe dream." Hillary voted for it. Obama and Edwards opposed it.

3. The youth vote: If a Party attracts new voters for their first few elections, they tend to stick for the rest of their lives. Obama is doing this on a level unseen in decades. By tearing down the candidate who inspires them, Clinton will so embitter many young voters they'll stay home.

4. Hope matters: When people join movements to realize raised hopes, our nation has a chance of changing. When they damp their hopes, as Clinton suggests, it doesn't. Like Edwards, Obama has helped people feel they can participate in a powerful transformative narrative. That's something to embrace, not mock.

5. Follow the money: All the candidates have some problematic donors—it's the system--but Hillary's the only one with money from Rupert Murdoch. Edwards and Obama refused money from lobbyists. Clinton claimed they were just citizens speaking out, and held a massive fundraising dinner with homeland security lobbyists. Obama spearheaded a public financing bill in the Illinois legislature, while Clinton had to be shamed by a full-page Common Cause ad in the Des Moines Register to join Obama and Edwards in taking that stand.

6. John McCain: If McCain is indeed the Republican nominee, than as Frank Rich brilliantly points out, he's perfectly primed to run as the war hero with independence, maturity and integrity, against the reckless, corrupt and utterly polarizing Clintons. Never mind that McCain's integrity and independence is largely a media myth (think the Charles Keating scandal and his craven embrace of Bush in 2004), but Bill and Hillary heralding their two-for-one White House return will energize and unite an otherwise ambivalent and fractured Republican base.

7. Mark Penn: Clinton's chief strategist, Mark Penn, runs a PR firm that prepped the Blackwater CEO for his recent congressional testimony, is aggressively involved in anti-union efforts, and has represented villains from the Argentine military junta and Philip Morris to Union Carbide after the 1984 Bhopal disaster.

8. Sleazy campaigning: Hillary stayed on the ballot in Michigan after Edwards and Obama pulled their names, then audaciously said the delegates she won unopposed should count retroactively. She, Bill and their surrogates have conducted a politics of personal attack that begins to echo Karl Rove, from distorting Obama's position on Iraq and abortion choice, to dancing out surrogates to imply that the Republicans will tar him as a drug user.

9. NAFTA: Hillary can't have it both ways in stoking nostalgia for Bill. NAFTA damaged lives and communities and widened America's economic divides. Edwards spoke out powerfully against it. Clinton now claims the agreement needs to be modified, but her husband staked all his political capital in ramming it through, helping to hollow out America's economy and split the Democratic Party for the 1994 Gingrich sweep.

10. Widening the circle: Obviously Obama spurs massive enthusiasm in the young and in the African-American community. I'm also impressed at the range of people turning out to support his campaign. At a Seattle rally I attended, the volunteer state campaign chair had started as Perot activist. The founding coordinator in the state's second-largest county, a white female Iraq war vet, voted for Bush in 2000 and written in Colin Powell in 2004 before becoming outraged about Iraq "I've always leaned conservative," she said, "but Obama's announcement speech moved me to tears. The Audacity of Hope made me rethink my beliefs. He inspires me with his honesty and integrity." As well as inspiring plenty of progressive activists, Obama is engaging people who haven't come near progressive electoral politics in years.

11. The story we tell: Obama captures people with a narrative about where he wants to take America. His personal story is powerful, but he keeps the emphasis on the ordinary citizens who need to take action to make change. Clinton, in contrast, focuses largely on her personal story, her presumed strengths and travails. Except for the symbolism of having a woman president, it's a recipe that downplays the possibility of common action for change.

12. Citizen movements matter: Edwards not only ran for president, but worked to build a citizen movement capable of working for change whatever his candidacy's outcome. Obama has taken a similar approach, beginning when he first organized low-income Chicago communities and coordinated a still-legendary voter registration drive. His speeches consciously encourage his supporters to join together and constitute a force equivalent to the abolitionist, union, suffrage, and civil rights movements. Like Edwards, he's working to build a movement capable of pushing his policies through the political resistance he will face (and probably of pushing him too if he fails to lead with enough courage). In this context, Clinton's LBJ/Martin Luther King comparison, and her dismissal of the power of words to inspire people, is all too revealing. She really does believe change comes from knowing how to work the insider levers of power. Edwards and Obama know it takes more.

That's why this Edwards supporter is proud to do all I can to make Barack Obama the Democratic nominee and president.

Paul Rogat Loeb is the author of The Impossible Will Take a Little While: A Citizen's Guide to Hope in a Time of Fear, named the #3 political book of 2004 by the History Channel and the American Book Association. His previous books include Soul of a Citizen: Living With Conviction in a Cynical Time. See www.paulloeb.org To receive his articles directly email sympa@lists.onenw.org with the subject line: subscribe paulloeb-articles

Sean Paul Kelley January 31, 2008 - 9:47am

Sean Paul Kelley's diary | printer friendly version |

( categories: Analysis | USA: Campaign 2008 )

Great Analysis

It's posts like this that make Agonist the great site that it is.Thanks for posting this cogent analysis.
TOPD

lesbrost January 31, 2008 - 12:06pm

There's a nice piece on the current status

of the "Will Edwards endorse Obama?" question over at Daily Kos.

“I despise ideologues masquerading as objective journalists.” - Bill O'Reilly, March 30, 2007

Mark January 31, 2008 - 12:52pm

better than any premature endorsement.

Edwards & Edwards supporters should wait

As soon as Edwards endorses either the campaign will swing back to the right, where both Obama & Hillary clearly feel most comfortable. Their identicle voting records attest to this.

If Edwards is given the AG and publicly guaranteed that he will have the independence to investigate the scoundrels that have dragged this country down and to restore enforcement of out laws, then that is when he should hold his nose and endorse either Obama or Hillary

I and my friends gave to Edwards both time and money this year, we think this action would serve our nation's health better than any premature endorsement.

S Brennan January 31, 2008 - 1:09pm

Mary and I

decided last nite that we would now support Obama, for many of the reasons mentioned above, and will caucus for him here in WA.

_{"I beseech you in the bowels of christ think it possible you may be mistaken."}

Scott M January 31, 2008 - 1:10pm

I haven't quite decided, myself

But to me, Don made a good argument for Obama - the practical one. He's more likely to beat McCain...

_{"Vanity, Vanity, all is Vanity."}

Raja January 31, 2008 - 2:37pm

I think so as well.

_{"I beseech you in the bowels of christ think it possible you may be mistaken."}

Scott M January 31, 2008 - 2:44pm

Perhaps

Perhaps not.

There's a wholelotta time between now and then.

For me, now that Edwards' campaign is suspended, I think I'll bide my time.

ww January 31, 2008 - 3:24pm

Any thoughts on

POLICY maybe. I would actually be curious. Considering that Edwards policy positions, and the things he actually wanted to accomplish were he President is more likely with a Hillary Presidency.

Does anybody even think about why we elect presidents anymore???

I am beginning to doubt that they do. I looked on Andrew Sullivan's pretend blog the other day, and he actually maintains this weird dual affinity for Obama and Ron Paul. You just about have to spin your head till it comes off to get your head around that one, other than Sullivan would tend to like the more conservative of the dem choices, but Ron Paul??? AND Barak. How could that be possible?

I don't know but does anyone out there really care about healthcare, or education, or the environment, or global warming, or energy policy, or . . .

just wondering.

Now before I get jumped on here, I have of late been leaning more and more to Obama because I think his policy positions are maturing. For example, and in particular his think tanks have begun to revisit the issue of the uninsured in his healthcare policy. So I am watching that. I have always felt that Obama's policies are half baked, mainly because I don't think he really thought in his wildest dreams he'd be here today running for President of the United States. He's basically a one term Senator who has never ever faced a serious election, but I am totally impressed with his learning curve. He has no understanding of economics however, but he is trying to learn. And this guy is a quick learner.

If his policy's can move more in line with the Dem party and he can pick up some of the progressive values (that Hillary does have), his ability to inspire is a real plus during this time of fear, doubt and uncertainty. But he is not there yet for me. All the Presidents I have felt to be great, are great speechmakers.

Scotjen61 January 31, 2008 - 1:58pm

Not thrilled by either of 'em..

But I'll probably go with Obama as well. Mostly because we can't afford to slip any deeper into dynastic rulership in this country. (Although I'll shrug and vote for Hillary if she gets the nom..)

geoduck January 31, 2008 - 3:49pm

Not Yet Decided

Now that Edwards is out, I've been trying to decide who to vote for as well.

I agree with much of this post except for point 8 about the Michigan primary. I don't claim to know why Senator Clinton kept her name on the ballot but I do agree with the decision. In fact, I was disapointed that Edwards, who I supported, withdrew his name.

I know that Michigan violated party rules, but I think that the overriding principle of both parties should be that every vote in every state must count. That is sacred.

I also find it frustrating that the Democratic Party would seat delegates selected in the Iowa caucuses, which do not allow absentee voting and require individuals to vote in public, but will not seat delegates selected in a genuine primary such as Michigan or Florida.

swinn January 31, 2008 - 5:13pm

I'm wich you

In that keeping their names on the ballot seemed like the thing to do. It always struck me as the smart thing to do too.

It rankled me quite a bit that party bosses got to decide who I could vote for and who I couldn't. The candidates empowered them to do it.

ww January 31, 2008 - 5:17pm

That was awesome. I wasn't

That was awesome. I wasn't up to writing something similiar - it's nice to see others make the all too easy, obvious case. There are actually several more deplorable things about Hillary that could've been added, but how many do you need?

Nominay January 31, 2008 - 6:32pm

Obama sure has no class here

Eyewitness account at the State of the Union Address

As Clinton approached, Kennedy made sure to make eye contact and indicated he wanted to shake her hand. Clinton leaned towards Kennedy over a row of seats and Kennedy leaned in towards her. They shook hands.

Obama stood icily staring at Clinton during this, then turned his back and stepped a few feet away. Kennedy may’ve wanted to make peace with Clinton but Obama clearly wanted no part of that.

If I had been in Hillary's place, I would have walked right up to Obama, tapped him on the shoulder, smiled and offered my hand. I refuse to be ignored by anyone.

My respect for him went down a notch.

adrena January 31, 2008 - 6:35pm

Hey, it's all sexism, not a

Hey, it's all sexism, not a question of her character. How about some more ad hominen attacks from you and ww? No need for points of substance or being rational.

Nominay January 31, 2008 - 6:45pm

oh give it a break already,

you made it clear where you stand - you will just have to deal the fact that others disagree.

Tina January 31, 2008 - 7:16pm

DFWM - get respect, give respect

Funny thing Tina - I would've - but unfortunately I knew that you'd reply to me like this ... so here we are. Therefore let me clarify.

It's not about disagreement, it's about being antagonized - personal slander was thrown at me, that's why. So if you don't want to hear this anymore, then don't tolerate that either.

Nominay January 31, 2008 - 8:44pm

I think

that as long as people are being rude to each other they shouldn't complain when it comes back on them. I don't care if people disagree, only that they do it with out insulting others. The elections are long way off and I think every one should grow some thicker skin.

Tina January 31, 2008 - 9:13pm

My point, repeated ..

Nothing came back on me. That would be the other party. If someone attacks me unjustly, you bet your ass I'll dish it back at them, and they'll be sorry.
Any questions or additional comments or criticisms or accusations? Condemnations or threats? Lectures perhaps? Layman psychological observations maybe?
Or are we done yet?
Good. If not, bring it on.

Nominay January 31, 2008 - 10:58pm

Yaaaawn. eom

"[T]he liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism. -FDR

ww February 1, 2008 - 9:30am

Awesome

Thanks. Anything else?

Nominay February 1, 2008 - 2:01pm

Or, perhaps Clinton was being,

uh, disarming for other reasons. Perhaps Obama has too much personal integrity to pretend that he's not pissed. There's a zillion and one ways it can be spun. I put more weight on Clinton looking over at Obama before jumping up to applaud Bush's praise of The Surge.

(To make a rational choice, you clearly must avoid being either swayed or offended by rabid followers - there are just too damn many of them.)

Gordon January 31, 2008 - 7:14pm

Something you said, Gordon

There's a zillion and one ways it can be spun. That's certainly true. I spinned this incident as a negative for Clinton, you spinned it as positive for Obama. You believe he showed personal integrity by snubbing Clinton. I believe he showed a lack of graciousness and class.

To me, this incident speaks volumes about his character. But right now, everyone is so swept away by Obama mania that I fear he may not receive the critical analysis needed to determine suitability for the presidency.

adrena January 31, 2008 - 9:18pm

It is kinda ironic

that Obama would shun Hillary while also saying he will talk to any world leaders. :D

Tina January 31, 2008 - 9:28pm

Correction

I meant to say: I spinned this incident as a negative for Obama

adrena January 31, 2008 - 9:36pm

What I was trying to say,

is that there's no way we know what actually happened in that incident. Would you like your every move in a crowd caught by a long distance camera and analyzed? Maybe Clinton was genuinely trying to be friendly. Maybe Obama was distracted by something. Maybe Obama snubbed Clinton because he thought this was a move for the cameras. We'll never know on this, and it strikes me as being a very petty thing to judge either of them on. Especially if you can't subpoena the entire video library and see the whole interaction. It doesn't speak volumes; it doesn't even speak a complete sentence.

Yes, I favor Obama over Clinton, but if I've ever said anything you can take as lizard brained on the subject then I'm afraid I didn't say it well. To me this is all a matter of preference. I favor Obama, but I will happily vote for Clinton if she gets the nod.

The single major reason I favor Obama is that his election will put to end a very, very ugly chapter (or volume) in our history. Sexism and racism are both problems, but sexism will not be ended by a female president. After all, the very worst sexists are married (I have never met a sexist gay man, and I lived 25 years in the SF Bay Area). Sexism has a personal component that racism does not. Racism is purely social. I doubt seriously the glass ceiling is significantly less solid in post-Thatcher Britain.

Gordon January 31, 2008 - 10:47pm

I didn't mention

sexism. But hey, he behaved most graciously at the debate last night. I'm happy about that. Time to move on.

adrena February 1, 2008 - 8:10am

with edwards gone, i am left with only one vote in the fall:

i'll vote against the republican. in a meaningful way, which is to say, for that person most likely to beat mcstain or whoever is the republican choice.

you'll never get me to say that i am strongly in support of hillbama. sorry, they both burned bridges with me long ago. i think she's the better choice, if only because she's proven she can hack it in the Village. i don't expect either (or both of them, as i think we're likely to end up with) to change much, end the war/occupation, bring health care to the uninsured, or do much more than sputter as the american economy and standing in the world continues to decline. indeed, i suspect that either/both of them would be one-termers, and we'll get a True theocrat/fascist republican after that, in reaction to their failure to clean up bush's mess.

apres la, the deluge.

chicago dyke January 31, 2008 - 9:22pm

unfortunately

I'm afraid that what you write is true. I wish Edwards would have stayed in thru Super Tuesday, if only to keep the others from getting to arrogant.

Tina January 31, 2008 - 9:35pm

I think he would have

if money wasn't an issue.

adrena February 1, 2008 - 8:27am

The Overqualified Are Unelectable

I'm still waiting to know the real reason Dennis Kucinich didn't hang in there. It's certainly not a lack of tenacity, or courage or confidence, or support. I suspect 'electability' is coming to have two definitions; qualities as a candidate/campaigner, and possessing permission from TPTB... Which is where Ron Paul comes in, somewhat the Republican side of the coin, which makes a [small but notable] difference. Apparently.

(The coin of earnestness, uncompromised decency, unguarded discourse and action, all that stuff that makes a candidate overqualified.)

With Kucinich out of the race, Paul stands alone, Nader not withstanding.

I'm still waiting. It'll be a short wait (or I'll never know). The election isn't where the actual battle is any more than the Oval Office is where the actual levers are, no matter what has occurred. I have a hunch Kucinich didn't simply toss in the towel after the Texas B.S. was backed by the Supreme Court, but rather that some information reached him. (Now, don't knock my tin foil hat; even it's skeptical about this hunch.) It's a strong hunch. Nobody fights that hard and then stops in their tracks as if the laws of inertia don't apply to them. It took some real braking, and brass, to end his run -so I'm curious as hell -a bit about what impelled him to end his run, but more about what he'll do further. If it ain't a short wait, it'll be an eternal one -the deeper story will either pop out soon or not soon at all, but Something's going to turn, and it isn't the election.

I doubt Edwards has as much clue, though perhaps the same info...

Obama? Have you seen the Kennedys endorsement? It's not like he's being endorsed by Ramsey Clarke or Bill Moyers or Jimmy Carter or Noam Chomsky or even Dennis Kucinich himself. Ask Willie, or better yet, I'll ask him myself...

What's at stake here isn't so much the office of President as an unknown [to me anyway] god knows what, which isn't to say it makes no difference at all whom the Presidency falls to -just ultimately damned little.

Even now, the capable and the competent and the courageous are being circumscribed, vehemently, immediately, and the wolves in sheep's clothing and the spineless of the Democratic Party are simultaneously delineating something further into detail each day by what they don't do [or attempt, or even mention], much like a big black circle void of stars says something to an astronomer... It's a huge and quickly growing pressurehead.

The Lakota Secession matters a lot. Puerto Rico is next. Things are shredding. Force or Counterforce takes myopia to worship -these will not contain. Obama? As supplanting Edwards? A difference? An RCH (mechanics term) if that.

Remember Eisenhower's warning? Remember he specified 'sought or unsought'? That was a weird detail...

All I'm saying it's bad enough TPTB don't represent us, let us at least not seek to represent them. I know enough to see what I don't know.

Zuma February 1, 2008 - 12:58am

Press Release from Sacramento for Edwrds

Thursday, January 31, 2008

Dear Fellow Edwards Supporters,

On Wednesday Sen. John Edwards ended his Presidential bid the same way he began it -- with class, dignity and compassion, building homes for the homeless survivors of Hurricane Katrina . As he had done throughout the campaign, John Edwards used his last act as a Presidential candidate to bring the focus of the nation to the victims of racial and economic injustice and to highlight the devastation that the Bush Administration has wreaked upon not only the people of New Orleans, but upon the American people and the people of the world.

Sen. Edwards provided an inspirational example of speaking truth to power while providing compassionate service to our most disenfranchised sisters and brothers. His campaign gave hope to the hopeless and a voice to the voiceless. As Dr. King had done forty years earlier, Sen. Edwards reminded us that there comes a time when silence is betrayal, and it was John Edwards who broke through the deafening silence by speaking out with passion and conviction for peace and social justice. All of John Edwards supporters will continue to support him in his cause of standing up for working families, universal health care, his fight against poverty, lobbyists and corporations, and in his efforts to bring this war to an end. We know that this is in no way the end of the road for John Edwards and we look forward to John Edwards playing a vital role in the Obama administration.

When John Edwards declared that it was time for Americans to become patriotic about something other than war, it wasn't a campaign slogan. Rather, it was a call to action. As the members of Sacramento for Edwards, we answered that call and are so incredibly proud to have joined John and Elizabeth Edwards on their road to One America. From the bottom of our hearts, we thank John and Elizabeth, their lovely children, and the entire Edwards campaign family for running such a principled and courageous campaign. We thank them for taking up the struggle to end the scourge of poverty as the "great cause of their lives." We thank them for developing a detailed plan to provide quality, affordable health care to every American. We thank them for taking the most aggressive stance against the war on Iraq of any major candidate in either party.

We are so very proud to have played a role in this historic campaign. Although we are saddened by the fact that this phase of our journey has come to a premature end, we will continue to march forward together, hand-in-hand, knowing that one day we shall reach that elusive promised land.

Towards the end of his life Dr. King asked Americans the prophetic question, "Where do we go from here?" Yesterday as we grappled with the disappointing news that our campaign had reached its conclusion, the members of Sacramento for Edwards were forced to grapple with this same question. Where do we go from here? Do we abandon our struggle to eradicate the evils of war, poverty and injustice? Or, recognizing that our initial path has been blocked, do we seek out an alternative path, do we make a way out of " no way, " to continue down our road to One America? Overwhelmingly our members responded with the same tenacity and resolve that our inspirational leaders, Elizabeth and John Edwards, have demonstrated throughout their lives. We have decided to build on the solid foundation that Sen. Edwards created and to continue our struggle, through Super Tuesday and beyond, for transformational change -- for change we can believe in.

While a small handful of our members preferred not to endorse any candidate at this point, nearly 90% of us have chosen one person as the candidate most qualified to pick up the torch from John Edwards and to carry it all the way to the White House. We have decided that one candidate, and only one candidate, is most qualified to assume the leadership of our movement for progressive social change. This is the candidate who empowered the powerless by working as a community organizer on the mean streets of Chicago. This is the candidate who challenged racial injustice by passing up a lucrative career in corporate law to work as a civil rights attorney. This is the candidate who worked as a tireless champion for peace and social justice while serving in the Illinois state legislature. This is the candidate who now serves as the most progressive member of the United States Senate. This is the candidate who we will nominate as the standard-bearer of our party and who we will elect as the next President of the United States. This is the candidate who will bring us change we can believe in. THIS CANDIDATE IS SENATOR BARACK OBAMA, AND THE MEMBERS OF SACRAMENTO FOR JOHN EDWARDS ARE PROUD TO ENDORSE HIS CAMPAIGN FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

Tomorrow Begins Today!
Sacramento for John Edwards
www.CAProgressives.com

johnedwards2008 February 3, 2008 - 1:47am

on Charlie Rose

Edwards said his supporters he thought would go to Obama instead of Clinton. seems he was right.

what about an Obmaa/Edwards ticket? That's one i could support whole heartedly....

and then harangue them till the cows come home...

bernadene February 3, 2008 - 12:58pm

Search

latest

User login

Navigation

Team Agonist

Thoughtful

Global

Timely

Who's online

Online users:

Syndicate

Why This Edwards Voter Is Now Backing Obama

Comment viewing options