I've been thinking about something ever since Ralph Nader endorsed John Edwards for president. Could John Edwards reprise Nader's role as spoiler and take enough votes from Obama down the stretch to throw the nomination to Hillary?
First, my answer: Not yet, but with last night's results there is a very real possibility that this could happen.
There are some similarities between Edwards and Nader that are too strong to ignore.
- Both believe very strongly in their populist, anti-corporate beliefs.
- Given his Iowa and New Hampshire showings, his comparative dearth of resources and the primary calendar, Edwards has only a snowball's chance in hell of taking the nomination.
- Like Nader, Edwards has stated the corruption in Washington and scope of abuses by corporate America are so egregious that his crusade for the working class will continue to the very end, no matter what happens.
- And though Hillary is far from George W. Bush, the netroots generally regards her as a far less acceptable choice in these primaries than Obama. Most Edwards supporters, if given a binary choice, would more naturally fall into the Obama camp.
A few things to note before folks become indignant at the very comparison of these two men:
Unlike many of you, I don't hate Nader or question the wisdom of his running. I mostly agree with both Nader and Edwards when it comes to their anti-corporate rhetoric.
And I know that it's not Edwards's job to 'give' the nomination to Obama. Obama has to earn it. And I'm not saying it's Edwards's fault if Obama can't.
My question really concerns how the race is shaping up, and the choice Edwards will very likely be faced with if the current dynamic holds after South Carolina -- a Clinton/Obama narrative, with Edwards going 0-4.
You say Obama isn't Gore, and Hillary isn't Bush? Well, that's true, but let's all remember a few things:
- Al Gore circa 2000 was tarnished by fundraising scandals and had overseen the abomination called the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Gore was nothing like the rock star he's rightly regarded as today. Liberals still argued that, given the significant amount of ideological overlap between Gore and Nader, it would have been unforgivable for Nader's presence on the ballot to have helped throw pivotal states to Bush.
- No, Hillary isn't George W. Bush. But but back then, Bush campaigned on No Child Left Behind, "compassionate conservatism," a bipartisan record as Texas governor and a "humble" foreign policy. Yes, his core conservative philosophy was anathema to progressives and he was dumb as a rock, but none of us knew he'd become the war criminal and constitutional scofflaw that he is today.
2b) I'm not saying Hillary could turn out to be just as bad as Bush, but it's safe to say that any far-reaching ethics legislation and overall government reform will be dead; that we won't see a new era of openness and accountability in our government; and that with Hillary's hawkishness, war with Iran or some other "rogue state" will increase as a possibility compared to an Edwards or Obama administration.
And as has been pointed out in the comments below:
Its not just Clinton, but also the people around her that will gain power. Mark Penn. Terry McAuliff. Rahm Emmanuel. Harold Ford. These are the dems that have disdain for the grassroots in general and the netroots in particular. They have espoused the notion that we need to be replublican-lite to win elections and that change must occur slowly.
So, it seems to me that at some point those who lambasted Nader for going the distance should ask themselves if the same arguments they offered then will soon apply to John Edwards as well.
Well, do they? Why or why not?