Of all the Democratic candidates, the one I most agree with on the issues is John Edwards. But I have a big reservation about his candidacy.
He's been called FDR with a Southern accent, and there's little doubt that like FDR, John Edwards is a fighter. And that's just what we need in our next President. There are too many entrenched interests, who will not cede any ground without a fight. Getting everyone together at a table to talk is not going to accomplish much...at least not as long as many sense that they can get away with not giving up anything, as they have been doing for so long.
John Edwards has emphasized in this race his willingness to fight, just as he fought on behalf of his clients as a civil attorney, for social justice and a better deal for Americans.
So on policy, John Edwards is my man in this race. Howard Dean was my man four years ago, by the way. I am also attracted to Barack Obama, for much different reasons. I don't want to go too much into those here, except to say that he seems to have many progressive attributes about him, and perhaps it is naive to say so but it seems like he could be a transformational figure for our country just in who he is, ending a totally outmoded historical dynamic and replacing it with quite another.
But some of his policy stances are, surprisingly, too "third-wayish," reactionary, naive. Obama would be a fine presidential nominee, but on the issues he is not the best (I should mention that Hillary has just been a huge disappointment).
John Edwards is the best, but how could he possibly win. He has recently accepted federal matching funds, thereby unilaterally disarming in the race against the Republican nominee by accepting tight limits on the amount of money he can raise for his campaign. You might recall that in 2000, Al Gore accepted federal matching funds, and George Bush became the first major party candidate since the Watergate reforms to not do so.
Not only was Gore heavily outraised and spent by Bush, but since then, the amount of funds available to a Presidential candidate outside of federal matching limits has dramatically increased.
As the New York Times put it recently:
For 30 years after the Watergate scandal, the nation did well by the public financing campaign system, which served as a cleaner alternative to private political money. Congress let that die on the vine, failing to raise subsidy levels to meet campaign inflation. The result is candidates' gratefully wooing bundlers and selling privileged access -- with far too few questions asked.
I don't see how Edwards is going to competitive against a Republican candidate with several times the money that he has available for his campaign, no matter how powerful his message. That is a hill much steeper than even Gore faced. It appears to me that Edwards, should he be the nominee, would have his message drowned out and distorted.
But perhaps I am missing something? Can the Edwards folk here please set me straight on how Edwards, with this self-imposed limitation, could win in this environment?
Recently a common criticism of Obama has been that he is naive in many of his political instincts. I agree with this criticism to a great extent. But isn't it incredibly naive of Edwards to accept these kinds of limitations on the amount of money he can accept to combat the Republican nominee?