Increasingly, leaders on the left--people who were fighting the good fight long before the internet existed--are heaping praise on John Edwards. They're united in their belief that of the Big Three, he's the best choice.
First it was Ralph Nader, then it was Michael Moore, now it's Norman Solomon, a longtime writer, media critic, and antiwar activist, who points out that Edwards:
...sharpened his attacks on corporate power and honed his calls for economic justice. He laid down a clear position against nuclear power. He explicitly challenged the power of the insurance industry and the pharmaceutical giants.
And he improved his position on Iraq to the point that, in an interview with the New York Times a couple of days ago, he said: “The continued occupation of Iraq undermines everything America has to do to reestablish ourselves as a country that should be followed, that should be a leader.” Later in the interview, Edwards added: “I would plan to have all combat troops out of Iraq at the end of nine to ten months, certainly within the first year.”
Now, apparently, Edwards is one of three people with a chance to become the Democratic presidential nominee this year. If so, he would be the most progressive Democrat to top the national ticket in more than half a century.
The main causes of John Edwards’ biggest problems with the media establishment have been tied in with his firm stands for economic justice instead of corporate power.
Weeks ago, when the Gannett-chain-owned Des Moines Register opted to endorse Hillary Clinton this time around, the newspaper’s editorial threw down the corporate gauntlet: “Edwards was our pick for the 2004 nomination. But this is a different race, with different candidates. We too seldom saw the positive, optimistic campaign we found appealing in 2004. His harsh anti-corporate rhetoric would make it difficult to work with the business community to forge change.”
Many in big media have soured on Edwards and his “harsh anti-corporate rhetoric.” As a result, we’re now in the midst of a classic conflict between corporate media sensibilities and grassroots left-leaning populism.
Solomon had planned to support Kucinich but was incensed by his decision to throw his support to Obama, whom Solomon sees as clearly less progressive than Edwards. Refuting the oft-repeated claim that the policy differences between Edwards and his rivals are trivial, Solomon says:
It’s hard to think of a single major issue — including “the war,” “health care” and “trade” — for which Obama has a more progressive position than Edwards. But there are many issues, including those three, for which Edwards has a decidedly more progressive position than Obama...
Presidential candidates have to be considered in the context of the current historical crossroads. No matter how much we admire or revere an individual, there’s too much at stake to pursue faith-based politics at the expense of reality-based politics. There’s no reason to support Obama over Edwards on Kucinich’s say-so. And now, I can’t think of reasons good enough to support Kucinich rather than Edwards in the weeks ahead.
I wish these leaders had backed Edwards earlier and in a more organized way (insert joke about the left here.) But their opinions are important, in any case, and as the race moves on, Edwards will be the leading candidate among the activist base. I'll end on the words of another leftist leader who likes Edwards, the excellent Barbara Ehrenreich:
For my money, John Edwards is the best candidate out there...I like Edwards because he’s taken up the banner of the little guy and gal in America's grossly one-sided class war.