Although I will support him if it comes down to it, I have been very uninspired by Kerry. So I've been re-examining Edwards and Dean. In doing my research, I came across another great blog post by Mark Schmitt of
The Decembrist that points out something about Edwards for progressives to keep in mind:
Edwards is the first politician who, when he talks to a room full of middle-class people, doesn't necessarily seem to be promising something to them. Sure, he's a little vague about just where the line is between the "Two Americas" -- it's "the rich and powerful" and "everyone else." But when he gets specific, when he starts talking about the ten-year-old girl who goes to sleep hoping that it isn't as cold tomorrow as today because she doesn't have warm enough clothes -- it's got to be apparent to any audience that he's not talking about what he's going to do for them. He's making a moral claim about what our country owes to those who have the least, not promising something to everyone who "works hard and plays by the rules." And, shocking as it is, that's a big deal. And it matters that it comes from a candidate who is generally perceived as a moderate -- if only because he's a southerner -- rather than the leftmost candidate in the race. Although I think that's a very subtle distinction, and I agree with every word of Joel Rogers' argument in The Nation, "Progressives Should Vote For Edwards".
It also, surprisingly, permits a kind of optimism. The Shrum populism [ed: associated with Kerry and Gore] is just a complaint, it doesn't lead to a structural revamping of the economy that would really change the circumstances that the rich and powerful are rich and powerful. Edwards' vision, on the other hand, suggests something that it is within our power to change. We can do something for that ten-year-old girl, we can generate what the folks at the Economic Policy Institute call "broadly shared prosperity."
Dean's transformation of the Democratic party was largely procedural, though not unimportant. He helped the party see that enthusiasm could be as valuable as converting a swing voter at the 50th percentile. He showed that money could be raised from supporters of any age, income or background, that the only contributors were not those on the Democratic National Committees official list of proven contributors. And he showed how giving up control of a campaign, letting it be driven by its supporters, could generate tremendous enthusiasm. Edwards' campaign has been more conventional in procedure, and in the end, while doing "better than expected," he is still unlikely to be the Democratic nominee. But if Democrats hear his language, the willingness to make a moral claim about what our country should be like, not just what he will do for the middle of the middle, it will be a powerful voice.
The Shrum influence both drives me crazy and puts me to sleep. Edwards' message has always been one of the strongest out there from a progressive point of view, and I think it's worthy of consideration.
Because if something happens to Kerry (not sure what that could be...), we'll have only two serious candidates to consider. And most of us on dkos have had months to evaluate Dean, so I thought I'd throw a little more Edwards into the mix.
