|
I can understand why people from many camps have been suggesting that Edwards just drop out, but I can't stand the futility arguments among other things. For one thing, Edwards is not out yet-- I will acknowledge that his chances do not look good for a nomination, but people often forget in the midst of this, that he beat out Hillary Clinton to take second place in Iowa. Considering Edwards' modest finances and less name recognition and establishment support compared to Hillary and even Obama, this was no mean feat, and Edwards has consistently been demonstrated to be perhaps our most electable candidate, right up there with Obama.
But more importantly, I just feel that Edwards provides a crucial voice to a primary process that often gets shamefully transmogrified into a dumb, bread-and-circuses gladiatorial contest. He is the candidate who has been the toughest at standing up to big corporations and protecting American workers, not just in labor unions but at the level of individuals as well. He's the candidate who IMHO has the strongest "gut-level" comprehension of the gnawing anxiety and sense of the brink that American families feel today, with our safety net cut out from under us as our costs increase, as our health insurance disappears, as our college tuition debts balloon to dangerous levels and as our most critical knowledge jobs are outsourced overseas.
In short, Edwards IMHO has provided the single strongest voice against this pernicious "race to the bottom" that is, Thomas Friedman's foolish and short-sighted brand of globalized neoliberal economics which encourages the lowest-common-denominator to minimize labor costs-- damaging workers and countries which have strong environmental, safety and human rights protections since these tend to increase wages and the cost of labor (in return for a higher standard of living), and encouraging the rush to strip away all these protections basic to decent first-world societies, as a way to boost corporate profits at the expense of workers. When the lowest-common-denominator is allowed and even encouraged, and when businesses essentially profit from bypassing such environmental and worker protections, then everybody loses, worldwide, since then the wages and protections for workers in every country are pushed down at the service of the most naked form of capitalism, not unlike the Gilded Age of the late 1800's. Yes, I know people will bring up Edwards' support for the Iraq War and I'll fault him for that, but he's been more contrite than just about any of the other supporters for that. And his defense of workers, his opposition to outsourcing and similar programs that undercut the viability of American workers, and his environmental stands are the heart of the progressive movement that we're supposed to represent. We need his voice, it reminds us of why we're Democrats and it gives us specific examples of how our country can be shaped for the better by applications of our progressive principles.
And if Edwards ultimately is not the nominee? Well, for full disclosure purposes I will note here that I would immediately support Barack Obama. In fact I think an Edwards-Obama or Obama-Edwards ticket would be our most powerful ticket for the GE (which is also why I hope that Edwards and Obama supporters will support each other as well). I had earlier been a Hillary supporter, but after Iraq, her favoritism toward big business and the Rupert Murdochs of the country against workers and organized labor, and even more so with these recent racial remarks flap-- which I worry could potentially harm our Party and the progressive movement to the point of fraying our coalition for the first time since FDR assembled in in the early 1930's-- I cannot support her. However, I would fully respect other Edwards supporters if they made a different decision. Just my two cents.
|