John Edwards, An Appreciation

I've done a brief remembrance of John Edwards's campaign for The Guardian. A taste:

It's widely noted that there's no enormous policy gap between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Less widely noted is that it didn't always have to be that way. Both Clinton and Obama are running on domestic platforms that are much, much, much more ambitious than anything Al Gore or John Kerry put on the table. And not because Kerry was a notably right-wing Democrat or Clinton a from-the-left insurgent. Rather, the centre of gravity within the party shifted several notches left between the last cycle and this one. In part, that was a response to shifting dynamics in the real world. But to a surprising extent, it was simply a response to John Edwards.

Something I don't get into in the piece is the extraordinarily vigorous efforts of Edwards-supporting blog commenters -- most notably Petey. As the months went by, I came to think increasingly well of Edwards, and those commenters along with the work of Edwards' formal online communications team made a big difference. Beyond that, what Jon Cohn said.

Comments

Hurray for Petey. Even though his guy lost, he did change MY's mind.

Posted by 2cynicalbyhalf | January 30, 2008 12:20 PM

Does that mean Petey wasn't somehow affiliated with the Edwards campaign?

Posted by otto | January 30, 2008 12:22 PM

Does that mean Edwards had a lock on the "living in mom's basement" vote?

Posted by Bill | January 30, 2008 12:24 PM

The important question is . . . Who will Petey now endorse?

Posted by southpaw | January 30, 2008 12:27 PM

Er, what are these "much, much more ambitious" platform proposals supposed to be, exactly?

Posted by Mixner | January 30, 2008 12:28 PM

Edwards is and was a fraud. His closing argument routine was doomed to fail on a macro-level because it was fundamentally dishonest. Now the D's get to make a choice between the two candidates with a chance, as it should be. Edwards can go back to that other America to frolic with his rich people friends.

Posted by Beer Here | January 30, 2008 12:30 PM

Can't let that go Beer Head. Edwards was hardly born rich, like the walking calamity George W. Bush. He made his money defending ordinary people from your beloved big corps. Yea, I know, trial lawyers, yadda yadda. Everyone hates 'em till they need one.

Posted by nightjar | January 30, 2008 12:46 PM

Both Clinton and Obama are running on domestic platforms that are much, much, much more ambitious than anything Al Gore or John Kerry put on the table.

Is that true about Gore? I seem to remember him running as a determined populist at a time when (at least the perception was) the center of gravity was much more to the left than it is now. Other than possibly health care (which in 2000 owed as much to Hillary Clinton's failures as anything else), on what other domestic issues are Clinton and Obama more ambitious than Gore was? The Environment? Social Security? Fiscal policy? Immigration? Help me here...

Posted by Ethel-to-Tilly | January 30, 2008 12:50 PM

much praise to John Edwards for running to help the American people. I think he's a great guy and a strong voice, along with Elizabeth, for equality of opportunity. I could never get behind him as a candidate for reasons that Russ Feingold recently put to better words than I could, but I do think he's an admirable politician, for the most part. it was a bit sad to see him parroting Clinton's deliberate distortion of Obama's Reagan comments, but I don't hold that too much against him.

there are some significant policy differences between Obama and Clinton, however. especially regarding technology, innovation and the internet. Clinton's proposal for nationwide broadband fails to properly support net neutrality and is based on a terrible, fatally flawed model. Obama also has inner-city renewal efforts which have been much under-publicized and which seem more likely to have a strong positive effect than anything Clinton is offering. While her health care coverage is mandated and arguably stronger than Obama's plan thereby, it is also based on a worse model in the first place than Obama's plan.

the most crucial difference between Obama and Clinton is in who their appointments will be, which can only be read by who is currently advising them on important matters. Clinton's advisers, for the most part, are hawks and DLC centrist Dems. Obama's are much more varied, more dovish and pragmatic, but more hawkish about humanitarian matters. this is the one that firmly sinks me into Obama territory, he has Samantha Power where Clinton has Richard Holbrooke, the "Henry Kissinger of the Dem. party", as we was recently referred to in the Nation.

I do sincerely hope that Edwards will endorse Obama, but I don't expect that his supporters would necessarily just jump when he says so. if he goes out in favor of Clinton, it will put a lot of his rhetoric in a more questionable position, especially regarding the Iraq war. if he's sorry about that vote, he should back Obama.

Posted by onceler | January 30, 2008 12:53 PM

Yep, it's a pretty negative comment on a party's primary-campaign structure that it was always such a longshot for it to nominate the candidate who was best on the issues AND obviously the most electable AND clearly the most "experienced."

But we live in the Age of Media so Duh Media Rule!

Posted by RKU | January 30, 2008 1:01 PM

Other than possibly health care (which in 2000 owed as much to Hillary Clinton's failures as anything else), on what other domestic issues are Clinton and Obama more ambitious than Gore was? The Environment? Social Security? Fiscal policy? Immigration?

None of the above.

Hillary and Obama may be more ambitious on health care reform than Gore or Kerry were, but that's only because the dust has finally settled enough from Hillary's failed previous effort to allow any Democrat to make health care a significant issue again. And this time around her plan isn't nearly as ambitious as it was in 1993.

Posted by Mixner | January 30, 2008 1:08 PM

Matt,

You are writing a column for a British audience and using a baseball reference like "swing for the fences?"

Posted by Vadranor | January 30, 2008 1:09 PM

RKU, what definition of "experienced" are you using? Obviously he wasn't the most experienced of *all* the candidates (so you're unfairly dismissing Biden and Richardson while complaining about unfair dismissal of Edwards), but I don't understand what contortions you're going through in order to claim that he's even the most experienced of the top three. Legislative experience and experience in the White House don't count, but trial lawyer experience does (though community organizing and the being sort of lawyers that Obama and Clinton were doesn't)?

Posted by KCinDC | January 30, 2008 1:13 PM

I found Edwards personable, but at least in what I heard in the debates, he sounded even more vague than politicians usually do - seemed to speak in very broad generalities, from what I heard.

Posted by Paul Maurice Martin | January 30, 2008 1:16 PM

Edwards decision to drop out today totally undermines Clinton's plans on celebrating her "win" in Florida and using the subsequent news stories as momentum for next Tuesday. Edwards must have known this would happen, and it only helps Obama in this news cycle.

Posted by UVaGooner | January 30, 2008 1:18 PM

How can we know whether the shift of the party's center is due to Edwards' voice, or a reaction of everyone against the disaster that is the Bush administration?

Posted by Jocie Fong | January 30, 2008 1:29 PM

The idea that your idiot band of commentors has any influence on your policital views is quite horrifying.

Posted by Ikram | January 30, 2008 1:32 PM

As someone who supported and worked for Edwards in both 2003-4 and 2007-8 I know I will miss his voice—strong and passionate for economic justice, progressive policies, and sticking up for the underdog. In refraining from an endorsement, he expressed some misgivings about each of the remaining frontrunners, wondering whether Barack Obama is tested enough to take on the task, and feeling that Hillary Clinton is too wedded to old-style politics and corporate interest. I tend to agree. Must be why I supported him. Although Obama supporters on some blogs are angry that Edwards would question their candidate’s experience, Edwards has said himself that he doesn't think he was ready to be president when he ran in 2004. Remember, that was then, this is now. We'll get a chance to see how Clinton and Obama present themselves in the California debate. As Alexander the Great said, the race now belongs "to the strongest" (if not the best, in my opinion). I can't help thinking that my party has lost its best opportunity to elect a great president, one concerned to fight for the interests of working people of all backgrounds. In honor of John I’ll close with the following:

Tom Joad: I been thinking about us, too, about our people living like pigs and good rich land layin’ fallow. Or maybe one guy with a million acres and a hundred thousand farmers starvin’. And I been wonderin’ if all our folks got together and yelled –

Ma Joad: Tommy, they’d drag you out and cut you down just like they done to Casey.

Tom: They’d drag me anyways. Sooner or later they’ll get me one way or another. Till then –

Ma: Tommy, you’re not aimin’ to kill nobody.

Tom: No, Ma, not that. That ain’t it. Just, as long as I’m an outlaw anyways, maybe I can do something, just find out somethin’, just scrounge around and maybe find out what it is that’s wrong and see if they ain’t somethin’ that can be done about it. I ain’t thought it out that clear, Ma. I can’t. I don’t know enough.

Ma: How am I gonna know about ya, Tommy? They could kill ya and I’d never know. They could hurt ya. How am I gonna know?

Tom: Maybe it’s like Casey says. A fellow ain’t got a soul of his own, just little piece of a big soul, the one big soul that belongs to everybody, then –
Ma: Then what, Tom?

Tom: Then it don’t matter. I’ll be all around in the dark. I’ll be everywhere, wherever you can look. Wherever there’s a fight so hungry people can eat, I’ll be there. Wherever there’s a cop beatin’ up a guy, I’ll be there. I’ll be in the way guys yell when they’re mad. I’ll be in the way kids laugh when they’re hungry and they know supper’s ready and where people are eatin’ the stuff they raise and livin’ in the houses they build. I’ll be there, too.

Ma: I don’t understand it, Tom.

Tom: Me, neither, Ma, but – just somethin’ I been thinkin’ about.

Posted by edwardian | January 30, 2008 1:34 PM

Very nice piece, Matt. You hit the nail on the head.

What Edwards did was 'losing well' - losing in a way that his ideas came out ahead.

The Dems in Congress need to take a lesson from this: if you can't win, then lose well.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | January 30, 2008 1:43 PM

KCinDC:

Sorry, I should have indicated that I meant "political" experience.

Admittedly, Edwards wasn't exactly a Bob Dole in this category, but he had served a full term in the Senate (winning in a very difficult state for Democrats) and also run (an admittedly weak) national campaign as VP candidate.

By contrast, Obama began his presidential campaign two years after being an obscure IL state legislator and the only real campaign in his life has been against a totally-broke Alan Keyes in an extremely "blue" state.

Hillary's a much more arguable case, since she's been in the Senate a shade longer, and also has years of national campaign experience at the side of her husband. But he was the candidate in those, not her.

Posted by RKU | January 30, 2008 1:44 PM

One America. That is what Edwards stood for and in his gracious speech he announced that he had gotten pledges from Clinton and Obama to put the poor at the front of their campaign and their presidency. I like to think Matt is right that Edwards pushed the other two to remember the weak and disadvantaged; he certainly tried but couldn't get enough people's attention. His proposition is simple: A country is judged by how it treats its weakest residents. The homeless, the working poor, those working far from home to support families, the injured soldiers too addled to fill out their own disability applications, the workers and the infirm. Here's to One America.

And here's to Petey, who never gave in.

Posted by Peter Driscoll | January 30, 2008 1:53 PM

The idea that your idiot band of commentors has any influence on your policital views is quite horrifying.

I can almost sympathize with this person's pathologies. After all, the chances of Yglesias noticing this comment are slim, indeed. Really, this is an insult directed at all of the commenters. But if you are an observer and actual participant in the comment threads here, how credible is the insult?

Posted by mpowell | January 30, 2008 2:12 PM

I'll miss Petey. Goodbye friend and Godspeed, oh wait he's not going anywhere.

Posted by beowulf | January 30, 2008 2:17 PM

Petey needs his own blog during campaign seasons. He could be making ad money for himself rather than The Atlantic. I suspect the reason he doesn't have one is that he knows he'd spend most of his time deleting stoopid comments and banning idjits. But here's the thing: if I got banned by Petey, I'd still lurk.

Posted by artappraiser | January 30, 2008 2:24 PM

Petey for Congress. Even if I wasn't an Edwards supporter, I'd still say he was the best damn commenter I've read on any blog. Fully focused.

Posted by Will | January 30, 2008 2:43 PM

Uh, can we get a grip here? Edwards is still a relatively young man who looks even younger, so I doubt he's going away.

Also, just because he campaigned as a progressive doesn't mean he earns the right to the mantle of an actual progressive just yet. His record in the senate is still his record, poverty center notwithstanding, and until he decides to get back in the legislative game that record remains firmly centrist.

Also, Petey did more than most Edwards supporters to drive my sentiments, if not my vote, away from Edwards.

Posted by anon | January 30, 2008 2:48 PM

It's fine that Edwards moved the campaign to the left, but the guy had the opportunity to actually move the country to the left as a US Senator. Instead, he was the typical cautious, feckless, conservative southern Democrat-- including sending 4,000 brave American servicemembers to their deaths in Iraq.

John Edwards, as a politician, talked left and governed right. So I must confess I am not a fan.

Posted by Dilan Esper | January 30, 2008 2:48 PM

Thanks John for moving Obama and Hillary to the left. But what are they going to do now? Will his absence move them back to the center-right, deferring to the banks and pharmaceutical companies? I'm not so hopeful that either one of them is going to take up those fights in the way John would in order to restore some sanity to our system.

Posted by clb72 | January 30, 2008 3:20 PM

I think Edwards could see things getting worse under Bush for the bottom half and moved to address that. Of course the others were compelled to move towards his populism but I think they did so as the evidence mounted since last July that we were headed for economic hard times.

He only impacted the others in that they were compelled to usurp his populism to meet the nation's concerns. But they haven't usurped his visionary capabilities nor his dedication to do something about it.

Will they walk their new talk? Or will they do like every Dem since Carter and abandon the poor after tossing a few crumbs their way?

Color me cynical till they prove me wrong.

Posted by Kevin Hayden | January 30, 2008 4:54 PM

I think Edwards could see things getting worse under Bush for the bottom half and moved to address that. Of course the others were compelled to move towards his populism but I think they did so as the evidence mounted since last July that we were headed for economic hard times.

He only impacted the others in that they were compelled to usurp his populism to meet the nation's concerns. But they haven't usurped his visionary capabilities nor his dedication to do something about it.

Will they walk their new talk? Or will they do like every Dem since Carter and abandon the poor after tossing a few crumbs their way?

Color me cynical till they prove me wrong.

Posted by Kevin Hayden | January 30, 2008 4:55 PM

Thanks for the shout out on this sad day, Matthew.

Posted by Petey | January 30, 2008 5:20 PM

Petey, the crowds are gathered for your concession speech...

Posted by otto | January 30, 2008 5:33 PM

Yeah, single most convincing comment campaign ever, and highly entertaining. Thanks Petey.

Posted by dr. zeuss | January 30, 2008 5:40 PM

Petey, Nick, and Neil from Ezra's old place convinced me. Now I'm hoping he'll be Obama's Attorney General.

Posted by eriks | January 30, 2008 5:48 PM

I've pretty much always agreed with Petey on Edwards even though he and I mostly don't get along. It's sad but not surprising that Edwards never got any "traction". The traction monopoly made sure of that.

Posted by John Emerson | January 30, 2008 6:24 PM

"Also, Petey did more than most Edwards supporters to drive my sentiments, if not my vote, away from Edwards."

Have to agree w/ anon there. Petey has a negative gift for persuasion.

Posted by kyle | January 30, 2008 6:56 PM

I concur with the above suggestion, Petey needs to get his own blog, its time to get paid.

Hmm, which person on the Atlantic masthead would I kick off the lifeboat to make room for Petey-- nah, that's too easy.

Posted by beowulf | January 30, 2008 6:58 PM

kyle and anon, your comments make you sound stupid.

Posted by eriks | January 30, 2008 7:17 PM

I wasn't trying to sound esp. smart, asshat. The truth is I came onto the blogosphere to shore up my leaning towards Edwards and one of the things that irked me right away was Petey's (and other Edwards supporters) contemptuous attitude immediately after the caucuses, like they somehow knew better than everyone else. I can dismiss full-on Obama-battiness because it's fairly flimsy on its face, but not this. It strikes to the heart of what I truly hate about lefty/progressive/radical politics: mainly that no matter how much some partisans talk about how they want to do something to help "the people", in real life they have little appreciation for how "real people" actually think and how they see themselves. For ex., as skeptical as I am of Obama, there's no question now that he's at the head of what could become a huge generational shift in politics, an idea that I think deserves deeper consideration than has been given. The fact that many Edwards supporters somehow couldn't get off their pedestal and try to understand/engage with/try to siphon off this particular trend (particularly when Obama's $25-50 contributors have been widely discussed since summer) was a mystery, given that they touted themselves as "true" populists. The icing on that particularly bitter cake was that many of these supporters spit on Obama's perceived constituents, dismissed the "wine-track", and "privileged college students with no experience" and "dumb independents". Not all quotes are attributed to Petey, but hey, he was the most visible among Edwards people.

Now, I'm no frequenter of MY's blog, but I would have been a perfectly willing inductee of the cult of both Edwards and Petey if the latter had just been a little more generous about the people who voted for the others.

Posted by anon | January 30, 2008 7:47 PM

In any case, I'd just like to add that none of this is personal since I don't know Petey or anyone else on this board. It's a campaign, after all. The reason why I'm reading this blog is because I'm looking for various opinions, and the way people express those opinions is inevitably going to affect their effectiveness somewhat. And I'd also like to reiterate that I still would have most likely voted for Edwards on the 5th, and I respected Petey's opinion (when not angry) because he's mostly reasonable. But it doesn't change that you lose the hearts and minds of undecideds when you present an unappealing front. And yeah, I would have been the easiest all-in Edwards convert in America if he was just, y'know, nicer about it. Call that stupid, but in retail politics it's also completely valid.

Okay, enough of this. No more horserace coverage for me. No more reading this blog every morning. Edwards has effectively made the decision for me by dropping out.

Posted by anon | January 30, 2008 8:20 PM

Perhaps the potentially saddest reason why we may regret Edwards' stepping out of the race can be found in the following polling item from today:

The latest Rasmussen Reports survey of Election 2008 shows Republican frontrunner Senator John McCain with single-digit leads over Democratic Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. McCain now leads Clinton 48% to 40%. He leads Barack Obama 47% to 41%.

This should be the democrats year. A chance for a big progressive change election. Of course, these polls don't necessarily foretell the outcome of the race next November, but I get a sense of foreboding.

Posted by edwardian | January 30, 2008 9:39 PM

Petey deserves serious props and it's nice of MY to give them rather than joining in the smirking, etc.

Posted by jonnybutter | January 30, 2008 10:26 PM

i've been hearing so much of this, and it's nonsense. the country was moving in this direction before Edwards stepped forward; it's the reason there was the huge grassroots movement that propelled Howard Dean forward. John Edwards spoke his own version of this nascent progressivism, but he was not responsible for pushing it. we were, the people out here that demanded, found and then voted for candidates who would be more progressive.

as for Obama, his career shows that his current platform is just a reiteration of what he's always stood for. he didn't create a platform to match Edwards; why the hell would you model yourself on someone the voters don't really care for? that's like a football team modelling itself on the Arizona Cardinals rather than the New England Patriots. sheesh. i'm sorry only a tiny minority of the Dems ever wanted JE; we didn't need to go thru an entire (2nd) primary process to figure that one out.

Posted by t.a. barnhart | January 31, 2008 12:49 AM

...but I would have been a perfectly willing inductee of the cult of both Edwards and Petey if the latter had just been a little more generous about the people who voted for the others...

Nice to see someone display the courage of their convictions.

I too plan to decide who to vote for by picking some random blog and seeing which candidate has the fewest rude supporters posting comments there.

Posted by DMonteith | January 31, 2008 7:44 AM

"much, much, much"

Unless you are trying to summon a demon named "Much", there is really no need to use it three times.

Posted by Njorl | January 31, 2008 9:06 AM