A top priority for progressives regarding next year's presidential election should be convincing Barack Obama and John Edwards to join forces as a ticket and defeat Hillary Clinton.
Were one of them to drop out, the other would easily take first place in the polls. But neither of them is likely to drop out. As a result, unless they join forces, we will face a choice between a pro-war, pro-corporate Republican and the pro-war, pro-corporate Hillary Clinton. Jeff Cohen recently laid out the case against Clinton.
Together, Obama and Edwards could announce their candidacy as a ticket today, take the lead in the polling tomorrow, and keep it through the primaries. They would also stand a much better chance of defeating a Republican in the general election than would Clinton. She is the designated loser, and what's frightening (and motivating) is the thought of how awful our future would be even if she were to win. This is a case that ought to be clear to a wide range of progressives. Even if you're committed to backing whoever the Democratic nominee is, as a progressive you have an interest in making sure it is not Hillary Clinton. And even if you're fed up with the entire Democratic Party, you can recognize the danger of Clinton becoming the nominee.
Personally, I'm a Kucinich supporter. I keep pushing and prodding and waiting for America to come to its senses and back Kucinich. I'm not a party loyalist. I believe that when a party fails, it should be opposed from outside of it for its own good and for the good of all of us. I'm not a fan of Obama or Edwards. Were they to gain the nomination as a ticket for president and vice president, I might or might not vote for them, depending on their positions at that point and the other options available. I consider Cynthia McKinney a true progressive and a hero.
All of that having been said, I think it is high time we all realized that the top electoral priority for progressives (other than instituting honest and credible vote counting) has got to be preventing Hillary Clinton from gaining the Democratic nomination.
Karl Rove opposes Hillary for the same reason Osama bin Laden opposes Bush (in order to give her a boost), but the right really does despise Hillary Clinton. Nothing would be more divisive from the party that refuses to challenge Bush-Cheney, discuss impeachment, end the occupation of Iraq, or undo NAFTA or any of Bill Clinton's other handiwork (like the media-conglomerating telecom act).
But the real problem with Hillary Clinton is that the left
cannot stand her. If anything could revive efforts to push a
third-party candidate or tempt an egocentric billionaire to jump into
the race, it would be nominating Hillary Clinton. If anything could
depress voter turnout to the point where a Republican "victory" was
just barely credible, it's nominating Hillary Clinton.
Getting Clinton out of the #1 spot, on the other hand, might reduce her
influence on Congress, including on Nancy Pelosi, the person primarily
responsible for Bush and Cheney's free passes and immunity from
impeachment. Even groups like the National Organization for Women that
flip-flopped from pro- to anti-impeachment at the end of last year
might start to recover their soul were Hillary Clinton's influence
reduced.
The strategy of combining Edwards and Obama ought to be especially
appealing to those who really support Edwards or Obama. But it's even
appealing to those, like me, who support some other candidate.
Edwards, in my view, is a very corporate-friendly, military-friendly
Democrat, but decidedly a huge progressive cut above Clinton. Today's
John Edwards is a candidate whom progressives could promote without
nausea. On many issues he's a candidate we could be proud of. In other
areas, he could be worked on. And he's shown himself capable of
changing for the better. As an added benefit, if an Edwards election is
stolen from him, there is reason to believe that – without John Kerry
around – he might challenge that theft.
Obama is much more of a blank slate than Edwards, and some of the bits
he's filled in are pretty disturbing. Others are encouraging. And there
is a chance, there is at least a possibility, that Obama would serve as
a better president or vice president than what he campaigned as. It's a
very slim chance, and this sort of wishful thinking is a very bad habit
for progressives. But here's the thing: we know for a fact that Hillary
Clinton would govern from the right. She has an established record. And
we can be sure she would choose a running mate to the right of herself.
So, how do we do it? How do we make Obama-Edwards or Edwards-Obama a
ticket. Well, asking one of them to take the vice presidency is going
to be a heck of a lot easier than asking one of them to drop out, which
is our other option. And we're asking them to take a likely vice
presidency rather than an unlikely presidency. I doubt they'll need a
game theorist to explain this one to them. Plus, they can't be unaware
that Dick Cheney has turned the vice presidency into the real seat of
power. In fact, these two candidates could work out from the start an
understanding of the role the next vice president would play.
But which one of them should take the backseat? In favor of Obama
stepping back, he has less experience governing, he has less experience
campaigning, and his positions are less progressive. In favor of
Edwards stepping back, he is behind Obama in the polls, and he is
horribly handicapped by his vote to support the Iraq War and the
speeches he made in support of it. Of course, we can and must leave it
up to the two of them, but I would prefer to see Edwards take the vice
presidential nomination, and I think he may have the humility and
understanding needed to approach Obama with such a proposal. In the
meantime, I think we should suggest it to both of them.
an edwards obama ticket is a really interesting idea... but will the DNC really turn their backs on a clinton that quickly? there's a great interview with edwards josh marshall did on veracifier. (Veracifier dot com) and he does seem really presidential.
1
September 10, 2007
wallowamountainman: scouting around the AFP
started with your WWIII earlier post. Don't agree at all with that one.
But the Obama-Edwards ticket offers eight years of Obama, followed by 8 of Edwards. Nice.
I'd like to see that. Hillary might lose to Mccain. (posting this after Mitt essentially quit after super duper tuesday with the hill running neck and neck with the obam.
2
February 07, 2008
Write comment
Did you enjoy this article? Please bookmark it onto:
Writings 
A top priority for progressives regarding next year's presidential election should be convincing Barack Obama and John Edwards to join forces as a ticket and defeat Hillary Clinton. 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
