Wishful Thinking: Obama/Edwards 2008
Mon Jan 01, 2007 at 11:34:22 PM PDT
2008 buzz is inevitable, but what I've found is the worst part is that it leads to speculation by people who wishfully ignore political reality.
These are the people who supported John Kerry from the very beginning. Yes, the rest of the Democratic voters reluctantly got behind him after it was clear he was going to win the nomination, but let's recap. John Kerry, a Massachusetts liberal with absolutely no charisma or ability to relate to the trials of the majority of the people in America. This is not a smeared perception of him because of the MSM; this is what the man is really like. And some Democrats thought that once the American people "understood" what he was "all about," he could start picking the drapes out for the Oval Office.
Two years later, this problem of wishful thinking has not gone away.
Of course, there's no reason that all candidates who aren't Hillary and Obama shouldn't be considered on this blog. However, some of the speculators need to wake up to the reality that is American politics -- in the mainstream, not in the insular progressive world. It is up to the liberals that make up the majority of primary voters not to choose a candidate that panders to their beliefs, but to pick someone who is either a moderate or capable of convincing voters that progressive values are American values. Someone who doesn't just look good on paper, but is electable in the general election. In short, not to repeat the mistakes of 2004.
There are some longshot candidates who will probably gain a lot of national attention in the next two years. I commend people who realize that enough could happen between now and primary season that either Vilsack or Clark could win; on the flip side, there's a difference between farsightedness and thinking that Dennis Kucinich or Joe Biden actually has a chance. I'll reserve judgment on Kucinich; I think he's running to draw attention to progressive causes more than an actual presidential candidacy. As for Joe Biden, which both Kossacks and HuffPosters are treating like a viable candidate...that is not wishful thinking; that is plain ignorance of political reality. The majority of the American people have not heard of him; while this is also true of Clark and Vilsack, neither of them has been a Senator for over thirty years, or a two-time presidential candidate. Joe Biden is from Scranton, Pennsylvania, and he tends to remind me of another Scrantoner: The Office's Michael Scott, who has an inflated sense of his own influence and importance. (This is also true of John Kerry, whose reputed consideration of another run shows that he fails to realize that very few people were voting for Kerry -- they were voting for "not Bush.")
Since John Edwards has announced his candidacy, many people have begun putting him in the same category as Clinton and Obama. While not as outright ridiculous as a Biden candidacy, it's just not true that Edwards as isn't a front-runner -- which is why he announced so early. Clinton and Obama's name-recognition stems from their own achievements; for most of the American people, Edwards is that cute also-ran from 2004. Clinton and Obama are holding off on announcing because they want to wait for the media buzz to die down somewhat; announcing their candidacy will build it right back up again.
The very first thing that strikes me about Edwards is that he has many of the same qualities of Obama. I wouldn't go so far as to call John Edwards "the candidate for people that think that the country isn't ready for a black President, especially not one named Barack Hussein Obama," but...I guess I just did. Many of the criticisms levelled at Obama should be hurled with equal force at John Edwards. Edwards' relevant experience includes just one term as a United States senator; just two years fewer than what Obama will have by 2008. While Obama has been criticized for having won after his challenger dropped out before what would have been a tough race, Edwards won his own race by just four percentage points -- around 83,000 votes in a state of almost 9 million. During his term, Edwards did not introduce any significant legislation; furthermore, he also supported and voted for the Iraq War resolution and the Patriot Act. I would argue that Edwards's time spent fighting against poverty is no more or less relevant than Obama's work in the Illinois Senate or as a community organizer.
Before Edwards supporters start harshly attacking me or accusing me of working for someone else (well, actually, I am working for Students for Barack Obama, so you can accuse me of that), I would ask them to read this first: Though these are all criticisms of John Edwards, I am not arguing that any of them cannot be overcome, because most of them probably will be. There is no prescribed formula for what makes a viable Presidential candidate, and I think the most important characteristic of any politician is an ability to inspire voters from all walks of life and to make them feel heard and understood. Obama and Edwards have both proven they can do this; it is hard to argue that any other Presidential candidate comes close in terms of personality or speaking ability. Obama and Edwards both voice populist themes, albeit in slightly different ways: Edwards has repeatedly spoken of "two Americas," while Obama has called for unity despite social and economic differences. Many perceptive Kossacks have noticed the similarities and called for an Obama/Edwards ticket, claiming it would be "unbeatable."
I believe the correct word is actually "unwinnable."
I'm a strong Obama supporter, though if Edwards managed to win the nomination I would be satisfied too. I think they both have strong qualities that none of the other candidates bring to the table (assuming Gore doesn't run...in my dream politics, we would have a Gore/Obama ticket). However, though either of them might be able to overcome their lack of experience, the two of them together would be a nightmare. All the Republicans would have to do is get behind McCain and a running mate with the most basic foreign policy credentials and they could start picking out their cabinet.
Furthermore, stop for a moment and picture an Obama/Edwards (or Edwards/Obama, it really doesn't matter) ticket. Imagine two young, handsome, young, charismatic, young men standing together on the podium. A large part of the American public will replace "handsome" and "charismatic" with "slick" and "empty", and all of those "youngs" will be filled in with "inexperienced." It would never work; the two would constantly be at odds for media attention, and their image would compound the suspicions of voters who believe that early forties is far too young to be President. Any ticket where the vice-presidential candidate brings the exact same traits as the presidential candidate and doubles the intensity of their shared flaws is doomed to failure.
Either of these men would make a great President, and the possibility of either of them winning is not far-fetched; Edwards is from the South and he has worked hard for the nation's poorest. Obama is the protagonist in a political phenomenon that has not been seen in decades (though I wish people would stop saying that he's going to fizzle out just because that's what happened to Howard Dean; it could happen to Obama, but in the minds of most voters, Dean flopped because of the scream and the scream alone, and Obama is far too deliberate to ever let that happen). I would bet with almost complete certainty that if neither of them win the nomination, one of them will win the Vice Presidential spot, which would give either one the experience credentials he needs to win later on.
But the two of them together is just not a possibility. Obama/Edwards is the dream of progressives who are wishfully ignoring political reality, and it would be a death sentence to a Democratic presidency.
Permalink | 29 comments