There was a time when Ralph Nader made sense. He was once a strong voice crying out against corporations and their detrimental, dehumanizing effects on the American body politic, but, somewhere he lost his way. In 2000, though, Nader had only his anger left. He seemed not so much to be fighting for the presidency--which he could not win--but simply to be heard.
I'm all for that. I support those who speak up on behalf of progressive causes and I believe in fighting for differing voices to be heard--that's why sites like DailyKos are so important. Ultimately, however, Nader's candidacy was just enough to sink the chances of Al Gore in 2000.
Certainly there was blame enough to go around. Gore ran something of a limp campaign and was loathed by the press, while Bush's constant stumbling and dissembling were portrayed as the simple, likeable traits of a regular guy. Regardless, the fact remains: If there were no Nader campaign in 2000, it's unlikely we'd have had seven years of George W. Bush.
Don't tell Ralph Nader that, though. After helping to install Dubya in the White House in 2000, he ran again in 2004 and talked about running again this year. "Some men," the boss said in Cool Hand Luke, "you just can't reach."
Today, we are faced with a similar problem. John Edwards--an unquestionably great man and fighter for good things--cannot win the Democratic nomination, but will not leave the campaign, siphoning votes from Barack Obama and, therefore, helping Hillary Clinton win the Democratic nomination.
Don't get me wrong: Clinton is no Bush. I would work for her election were she to win the nomination. She is, however, the most hawkish, corporation-friendly Democratic candidate. Clinton is also the most beatable of the Democratic candidates because she is a uniter. Of Republicans. And independents.
I'm not just making this up. According to current polling, Clinton fairs the worst against Republicans in head-to-head match-ups. Edwards, oddly enough, does the best, but he will not win the nomination. I truly don't know why he hasn't caught fire, but he simply hasn't. He is right about one thing, though. Americans do want change and Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton probably won't be enough.
So it's time for Edwards to go.
Obama is not only a better choice than Clinton, he's also the best chance we have of putting a Democrat back in the White House. If Edwards truly believes that's important, he will step back and endorse Barack Obama for president. If he stays and damages Obama's chances enough, we may remember him as the Nader of 2008--the man who let Republicans keep the White House.