Martin Luther King, Jr.'s son, MLK III, endorses John Edwards and urges him to stay in the race. Certainly, I think he should. Thus far, Edwards' impact on the primary has been overwhelmingly positive and I see no reason to think that will cease to be the case in the future. Obviously the odds are strongly against Edwards winning the nomination, but the odds don't get better if he drops out, and he's doing more to advance his issues and his causes by staying in and hoping for the best than he would be dropping out and endorsing someone.
« No Middle Way in Iraq | Main | McCain and the Economy »
Edwards Marches Onwards
22 Jan 2008 01:46 pm
Comments (31)
Fair enough. You're now guaranteed to be Secretary of the Department of Andray Blatche in a Petey administration, pending Senate approval, of course.
What issues is he advancing and what evidence do we have that they are being advanced? I think he is just wasting time and money at this point, but what else does he have to do?
"What issues is he advancing"
I'll let Martin Luther King III answer your question:
I appreciate that on the major issues of health care, the environment, and the economy, you have framed the issues for what they are - a struggle for justice. And, you have almost single-handedly made poverty an issue in this election....
I am disturbed by how little attention the topic of economic justice has received during this campaign. I want to challenge all candidates to follow your lead, and speak up loudly and forcefully on the issue of economic justice in America.
...
I believe that now, more than ever, we need a leader who wakes up every morning with the knowledge of that injustice in the forefront of their minds, and who knows that when we commit ourselves to a cause as a nation, we can make major strides in our own lifetimes. My father was not driven by an illusory vision of a perfect society. He was driven by the certain knowledge that when people of good faith and strong principles commit to making things better, we can change hearts, we can change minds, and we can change lives.
So, I urge you: keep going. Ignore the pundits, who think this is a horserace, not a fight for justice. My dad was a fighter. As a friend and a believer in my father's words that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, I say to you: keep going. Keep fighting. My father would be proud.
Hillary would rather be running against Edwards, and Edwards needs her to keep attacking and diminishing Obama so he can move in.
(of course, i have faith that Edwards can prevail in a head-to-head with Hill and Bill)
I think it's because of Edwards that the other 2 have become much more progressive, especially Hillary who is strongly advocating progressive policies. Watching the market crash today, I had to go back read her economic agenda in Sunday's NY Times.
I heard Rick Hertzberg on NPR saying most people in his circle like Edwards' agenda but are voting for Obama.
My problem with Obama is that he is a reluctant progressive although the likes of Matt Y. refuse to see it or give him endless benefit of the doubt.
I'm all for this. I understand MLK III will find me callow and rude for looking at the horserace aspects, but really, I am callow and rude. So here goes:
Edwards will either deliver the nomination to Obama by filching votes in areas of Clinton's demographic strength (low income, elderly) or he'll do well enough to send us into a brokered convention and he'll get to play kingmaker (presumably picking the more progressive candidate). In either case, you throw a wrench in the works of dynastic restoration and ensure a more progressive nominee emerges.
I've seen it said that that no one but John Edwards can decide if or when he should drop out. That contention ignores the fact that at some point a candidate believed to be non-viable becomes Mike Gravel: totally ignored by the press, not invited to debates, etc. That is where Edwards is headed absent a change of electoral fortunes, and that result doesn't help his issues.
(To be clear, I'm just stating the argument here: I don't have a firm view on what Edwards should do, and don't see any particular reason that he has to make a decision before February 5.)
John Edwards has been selling his snake oil for the past 5 years now. Fewer people are buying it now than the last primary. I guess he can become a permanent presidential campaigner since he is "advancing his issues" (although no one can point to any practical good that results from this). So even though the candidates are virtually indistinguishable on policy questions (at least to the average voter) Edwards should stay in the race because he adds an extra rhetorical layer of "economic justice" on top of the same product being sold by the others?
"throw a wrench in the works of dynastic restoration"
Note the irony of who it is trying to monkeywrench a dynasty.
Who exactly is MLKIII and would anyone care what he said if he had a different grandfather?
"Edwards will either deliver the nomination to Obama by filching votes in areas of Clinton's demographic strength (low income, elderly) or he'll do well enough to send us into a brokered convention and he'll get to play kingmaker (presumably picking the more progressive candidate)."
Both quite possible scenarios.
Or he'll, like y'know, actually win the nomination and the White House.
I know it seems unlikely at the moment, but he's still the most progressive candidate and the most electable general election candidate. Let's see what the primary landscape looks like in mid-February when Edwards is winning GE matchups with McCain while both Obama and Clinton are losing GE matchups with McCain.
It's definitely not an endorsement.
In any case, I don't really value his opinion any more than anyone else just because his dad happened to be Martin Luther King Jr.
But here's a nice editorial from Larry Elder defending MLK III:
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1010
"Who exactly is MLKIII and would anyone care what he said if he had a different grandfather?"
I don't think anyone cares who MLK III's grandfather is.
However, MLK III's father is a national hero.
And since Edwards has picked up the banner of the cause MLK was fighting for when he was assassinated, it makes sense that MLK's son would fight for Edwards.
I'm sympathetic to the passage Petey quotes above, although I disagree with Petey regarding which candidate I think would achieve more for the downtrodden.
Still, I'd note that MLK III, on those occasions when he's made news, has distinctly failed to impress me. Examples, off the top of my head, include the conspiracy theories he promulgated about his father's death (including absolving James Earl Ray), unfortunate behaviour surrounding the sale of his father's papers (critical to protecting his father's legacy or literature and ideas), and the mismanagement of the King Center.
That editorial Mike links to allegedly defending MLK III is just a bunch of vituperation about other people held up as national African-American leaders. I'm not familiar with Larry Elder; until I saw his picture at the bottom of the page I assumed he was just aspiring to be another Limbaugh clone. I'm still not sure he isn't.
Mike:
I read the editorial.
MLKIII seems like a nice enough guy whose life has been dogged by totally unreasonable expectations that he follow in his [not grand ... whoops!] father's footsteps.
It doesn't give me any reason to give his opinion any higher weight than any other random nice-enough-guy. For his opinion to be cited by someone opposed to the "Clinton dynasty" is indeed ironic.
"I'm not familiar with Larry Elder; until I saw his picture at the bottom of the page I assumed he was just aspiring to be another Limbaugh clone. I'm still not sure he isn't."
Elder is indeed a right-wing scumbag.
If Clinton wins what will Obama have done besides burn $100 M and raise his profile.
Apparently Senator Obama mistakenly left with the wrong copy of "Reasons to Run for President" after meeting with his neighbor Ambassador Braun to compare notes.
I agree, Edwards' run has served his party well, but he could do even more good if we were to *hold public office*. My original beef with him is his decision to bail on his Senate seat in 2004, when his party really needed that seat. (Note this was before he'd been named to the Kerry ticket -- he'd already decided he was leaving the Senate.) If he doesn't win the presidential nomination, would he run againt Liddy Dole? I wish he would, but I fear he's been running for President for too long -- basically since 1998 -- and will no longer settle for anything less.
Edwards has so much more to offer than Clinton or Obama. He understands more about poverty than the other candidates, and he was the first of the three to present a viable health care plan for the country. I have a lot of respect for Clinton and Obama, but do you really think Hillary can get elected? I think she will be destroyed by negative ads come election time. And, unfortunately, I think there are still more racists than we want to admit who would never vote for an African American. Sad, but I've seen it. I live in an area that's thick with quiet racism. Edwards is by far the best choice for Democrats.
The longer he stays in, the more power he'll have, assuming this continues to be a near-tie. The Dems will be DESPERATE to have this resolved, so he'll be able to push somebody over-the-top and collect a handsome reward in policy and influence for doing so.
And considering his policies have been so relentlessly progressive, I'd say we liberals should egg him on to squeeze Every. Last. Drop.
I was going to chime in, but instead I´ll just say "What Petey said" throughout this thread.
If Clinton wins what will Obama have done besides burn $100 M and raise his profile.
Apparently Senator Obama mistakenly left with the wrong copy of
"Reasons to Run for President" after meeting with his neighbor Ambassador Braun to compare notes.
Posted by Audacity of Hype
My view is that many Edwards supporters are smart so they recognize an Obama administration would be better than a Clinton one, so effectively Edwards is splitting the anti-Hillary vote and acting as a spoiler. I could be wrong.
He has every right to stay in the race and demostrate a progressive candidate can garner major support and do well.
I was for Nader when Gore when down in smoke in 2000 and am unrepentant. The Clinton years were overrated.
However I now feel the Obama candidacy is a once in a lifetime opportunity. Hillary was losing and she had to go negative hard, and it appears to be working. It will be a shame if the left passed up this opportunity. I give Obama a lot of credit for going for the glory.
He has inspired a lot of young people and yes the Clintons may win but they've tarnished their reputation and legacy in the minds of a lot of these young Obama supporters. In a way that's a good thing I guess.
And considering his policies have been so relentlessly progressive, I'd say we liberals should egg him on to squeeze Every. Last. Drop.
I'm just afraid Hillary will triangulate her way out of it. That's what Bill did. And she's running on his record.
The big vote for me is the Bankruptcy bill.
She voted not present. She didn't vote no whereas Obama did.
In the last three debates the focus groups have all picked Senator Edwards as the winner of the debate. You'd think we'd actually want the most progressive candidate who wins the debates and has consistently polled ahead of any Republican. But no, we'd rather play race and gender politics and nominate the weakest candidate.
Mr. King is correct, Edwards should continue in this race and anyone that tells him to get out says more about themselves then they do about Edwards.
Who knows maybe our Party will eventually come to it's senses and realize that our best candidate is John Edwards. Nah! Why break our losing streak.
Edwards is the only hope for the Democratic party.
Otherwise, we will have a Republican in the White House.
Edwards is the only hope for the Democratic party.
Otherwise, we will have a Republican in the White House.
pmorlan: "In the last three debates the focus groups have all picked Senator Edwards as the winner of the debate."
Yeah, but a number of the participants have picked Obama as the candidate they'll vote for simply because they don't believe Edwards can win -- and the primary results have borne that out.
pmorlan: "You'd think we'd actually want the most progressive candidate who wins the debates and has consistently polled ahead of any Republican. But no, we'd rather play race and gender politics and nominate the weakest candidate."
1) John Edwards is the most "progressive" candidate in the race in rhetoric only -- and even then, not in ways I like (you may call protectionism "progressive", but I'm a liberal, and from where I stand, protectionism is as anachronistic as monarchy). The reality is that John Edward's voting record is more conservative than Hillary Clinton's. Has a single Edwards supporter on the planet ever taken stock of this fact? I think not. For some odd reason, our die-hard Edwards supporters have swallowed the words of smooth-talking Southern trial lawyer hook, line and sinker. 2) Obama's whole appeal is that he transcends race and gender (and class, too). Hillary Clinton has deliberately injected identity politics into the race in order to tarnish Obama. She has succeeded -- in guaranteeing that I, a unappologetic Democratic partisan, will never vote for her. And as a political realist highly critical of Naderites and Kucinich fetishists, that's saying something.
pmorlan: "Mr. King is correct, Edwards should continue in this race and anyone that tells him to get out says more about themselves then they do about Edwards."
I think he should stay in and take votes from Hillary in South Carolina. After that, he ought to do the honorable thing and throw his support to Obama.
pmorlan: "Who knows maybe our Party will eventually come to it's senses and realize that our best candidate is John Edwards. Nah! Why break our losing streak."
That's not likely because Edwards is most assuredly not our best candidate. Does anyone supporting Edwards remember Iowa? You know, that rural, white, blue collar state that Edwards campaigned in for a year, staked his whole candidacy on, and ended up losing to a black urbanite by 9 points? Yeah, Edwards is a real winner alright. And I'm sure the Republicans will ignore his populist demagoguery and record of "flip-flopping" (a new one seems to come out in every debate: bankruptcy bill, Yucca Mountain, free trade with China, etc.). Moreover, it's not like it'd be an advantage to eviscerate the GOP on the disasterous war that Edwards authorized, right?
"I think he should stay in and take votes from Hillary in South Carolina. After that, he ought to do the honorable thing and throw his support to Obama."
Well, as some have pointed out, he can likely help Obama if he stays in. It all depends, though, if he can still get votes. If he can and this leeches some votes from Obama, he can still be the kingmaker and throw it to Obama in Denver and even make a deal with Obama beforehand and announce it so that we avoid making a final decision at 3 AM again. In addition, if he can retain a high national profile running as a progressive, that will only weaken the old Clinton brand and the hand of the old party hacks (Reid, etc.). That all depends, though, on him still being able to get a good deal of Clinton's votes.
I have to agree with you on protectionism though, which is the biggest reason I haven't been able to support him in the primary because it would just make his otherwise progressive domestic and international agenda self-defeating.
Without claiming any notion as to how Edwards' possible perseverance or departure might affect the dynamics, all this 'Kingmaker' stuff seems unlikely. On his current trajectory, it doesn't seem as if Edwards will command a sufficient swing bloc of delegates - almost certainly, he will have a much smaller number than there are superdelegates. A 'Kingmaking' consortium of superdelegates may seem repellant, but more likely than Edwards in the same role.
Since Obama can not defeat Clinton in a head to head match up he should do the right thing and drop out of the race after his final victory in SC.
Only Senator Obama has the power to keep Clinton from winning the nomination. For the good of the party and the country he must make this honorable sacrifice. I urge all Obama's wonderful supporters to contact his campaign to make sure he understands what the greater good requires. Obama is such a selfless, honorable man who truly values the opinions of all the new people he has drawn into politics with his revolutionary call for hope and unity I am sure he will respond to your pleas.
Comments closed February 05, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I don't know if it's technically an 'endorsement,' but it certainly close. And a strong statement in support of Edwards's campaign and cause.
Shorter MLK III, to Edwards and his supporters: Don't go wobbly.
Posted by AJ | January 22, 2008 1:54 PM