If Edwards and Obama are both outstanding candidates---and I believe they are---then why must we face an either/or choice? Why not consider a rational plan to enjoy the political benefits of having both men serve as President in consecutive 8-year administrations? The question is which of these gentlemen should serve first?
One reason why it makes sense to put Edwards in the White House first is the simple fact that he is older than Obama. If John were to go first, Barack would be 55-years-old eight years from now, the same age that John will be this year. If Barack were to go first, then John would be 63-years-old eight years from now. We'd be able to enjoy the public service of both of these men in their prime years if John goes first.
If Barack were to serve as John's VP, it would pretty much guarantee that he would become America's first black President, so all the hopes and dreams of the black community would be fulfilled on John Edwards inauguration day just as surely as as they would be if Obama had won it outright. He would be a big winner on that day and the joy of all of his ardent supporters would probably be quite rapturous.
The other conceivable possibility---that of John Edwards serving as Barack Obama's VP---is not something that realistically has a chance of ever happening. There is no way the Democratic Party would accept the selection of the losing VP candidate of the previous election as this year's VP nominee. Not a chance. The proposal would be vetoed at the highest ranks of the party. In contrast, an Edwards/Obama ticket would likely be heralded as the best hope of the Democratic Party since FDR.
What better stage for Barack Obama to occupy during the Edwards years? He'd be in an ideal setting for using his gifts to inspire the American people to support some long overdue transformational change. Barack just might find that he'd learn a lot while serving as Edwards' VP for an extended period of time. Barack's current vision depends a lot on the willingness of implacable enemies to warm up to his descriptions of the wonderful blessings of cooperation. My sense is that John Edwards has a far better sense than Barack does right now of the need to 'define back' when the Bad Guys start using inuendo and character assassination to define your character and your goals as a threat to the public.
Of course, none of these arguments will mean much to long-time Obama supporters, but even they need to face up to the fact that recent history has shown that Barack Obama may be even more 'fatally flawed' as a candidate than they imagine John Edwards to be. How is it that Barack Obama, the man with the magical communication skills, managed to lose to Clinton in New Hampshire, what with all the momentum and money his campaign was able to spend? Do they even know what they are doing? How could you lose such an important state when so much depended on it and your candidate has these awesome oratorical skills that are suppose to simply enrapture everyone who listens to him? Is there any reason for us to believe that his team knows how to beat Hillary, even if all of John Edwards supporters were to join in the effort?
I would urge all former Edwards supporters [currently supporting Obama] to consider the impact that it would have if you returned to the fold, and injected a spike in John's polling percentages. Direction is everything. One conceivable development that could change everything is an attack by Bush on Iran, which would highlight Hillary Clinton's culpability. With a couple of breaks, it could again look like a three-way race and John would be in a position to enable us to put him in the White House first, and then Obama...
Comments are closed on this story.