OPINION & EDITORIAL
Cry not, Edwards has sights on 2012
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Carla Dogan:
- Next UW chancellor has big shoes to fill (December 11, 2007)
- Some forms of discrimination useful (November 15, 2007)
- Super seniors wasting time, money (November 28, 2007)
- Score one for state credibility (October 30, 2007)
- Elderly, not students, shall inherit Earth (October 16, 2007)
Related Stories:
- John Edwards may prove best option (December 4, 2007)
- Whoa, how the angry have fallen (January 20, 2004)
- '08 speculation fueling junkies (October 26, 2006)
- Primary voting trends simply horrifying (January 24, 2008)
- Gore good choice for nomination (March 15, 2007)
by Carla Dogan
Friday, February 1, 2008
Political affiliations aside, you have to feel kind of bad for John Edwards.
He had long been the trailing third candidate in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, and he would have gone into next week’s Super Tuesday without a single victory from the earlier caucuses and primaries. In a contest increasingly viewed as “Obama versus Clinton,” he did not stir up enough political drama (read: petty attacks) to hold the attention of the American media. It makes sense for him to simply cut his losses now and save up for a run in 2012 or 2016. But for some reason, he waited until just two days ago to take that route. It is possible that the former senator’s ambitions for the presidency are part of a roundabout strategy that extends well beyond this year’s general Election Day.
Presidential candidates with extreme or unique views seldom make it to the
upper echelons of politics. Therefore, to distinguish them, a lot of national
attention is given to superficial differences. This year, the Democrats appear
to be reveling in the novelty of choosing between a black man and a white woman
for the nomination. However, by keeping his 2008 campaign running as long as
possible, Mr. Edwards has publicly demonstrated stamina and commitment to his
own ideals. Consequently, he has maintained a large following, far greater than
the dwindling base of former Sen. Mike Gravel.
Now, with Mr. Edwards dropping out of the race before next Tuesday’s primaries,
his pyramid of support will have to be guided elsewhere. Specifically, his
endorsement could give an enormous advantage to whichever Democratic candidate
he chooses. This is something that either Mr. Obama or Ms. Clinton will
seriously consider when choosing a running mate.
Given the timing of Mr. Edwards’ departure from the campaign trail, it is possible that he has negotiated some kind of deal with one of the frontrunners. If so, the early primaries may have just been a way for him to prove his influence — and now he may be leveraging his kingmaker clout for a shot at the vice presidency.
With Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama trading blows seemingly every day, it appears
improbable that either will choose the other as a running mate. If Mr. Edwards
were to endorse, say, Mr. Obama, then the senator could use Edwards’ voters to
leap ahead of Ms. Clinton in future primaries until he earned the nomination.
Mr. Obama could then repay Mr. Edwards by making him his running mate.
“Obama-Edwards” would certainly be a better team than the 2004 ticket of
“Kerry-Edwards.” Before he became John Kerry’s running mate, Mr. Edwards
labeled Mr. Kerry as a “Washington insider” during a mudslinging phase similar
to the current Clinton-versus-Obama situation. In the 2008 election issues,
however, Mr. Obama and Mr. Edwards seem to agree more than they disagree and
could overcome prior mudslinging because their attacks were not so much based on
fundamental disagreements in philosophy.
John Edwards would be better off as a vice presidential candidate for a number
of reasons — reasons that have more to do with timing than anything else. The
return of Elizabeth Edwards’ breast cancer will no doubt continue to impact
both of their lives. Right now it would be better if he were performing the
less intense duties of the vice president while supporting his wife.
Meanwhile, he can still gain White House experience and use it in the political
arena. He’s got the time and resources to run again in 2012 and 2016. If he
spends four to eight years as VP, he’ll have a myriad of advantages going into
future elections. After all, 14 of our nation’s presidents were once vice
presidents themselves. Edwards knows this. He may have been campaigning all
this time with an eye on 2012.
Carla Dogan (cdogan@wisc.edu) is a junior majoring in economics.
Anonymous (February 1, 2008 @ 1:43am):
I'm not crying. So... I won't.
Anonymous (February 1, 2008 @ 2:27am):
Carla,
You write some of the most mundane articles to be featured in the BH.
I keep forgetting you write on Fridays; next time, if I remember, I just won't read the paper to save myself the pain of it.
Anonymous (February 1, 2008 @ 6:56am):
2012? Are you serious?
Not going to happen. Edwards won't run against a sitting Democratic president in a primary.
Anonymous (February 1, 2008 @ 11:05am):
ummm...isn't it 2008? write about something that matters.
Anonymous (February 1, 2008 @ 11:28am):
Edwards is a vastly flawed candidate. Populism isn't change. People have ben spouting for populism for the past 100 years, and every time they've tried it, eventually, it has crumbled in on itself. This is why Edwards lacks support among professional and the higher educated.
Beyond that, when Edwards talks about not pandering to the special interests, it's complete hypocrisy. Labor is a special interest, and a very dangerous one at that. They are large, protectionist and uneducated, particularly compared to other portions of the population. And protectionism is a disaster (for reference please see the Smoot Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 that turned a relatively minor market correction that made up for years of unwise stock transactions into a world wide, decade long Great Depression that resulted in World War II).
Now, I agree with you that Edwards would be a good VP if that position is moved back to the dinner and funeral attender that it should be. But John Edwards is going to have to move far, far to the center to ever have a shot at the presidency.
Anonymous (February 1, 2008 @ 7:32pm):
A "populist" zillionaire, what a great idea!
Anonymous (February 2, 2008 @ 8:55am):
"A "populist" zillionaire, what a great idea!"
Only if their name is Reagan.
Anonymous (February 2, 2008 @ 12:27pm):
Carla, what a wonderful article. I think you may be on to something. But where is the Obama endorsement? Maybe Edwards is waiting till Monday? In any case I agree with you whole heartedly I would so love to see an Obama Edwards ticket. Edwards was the clearest opponent to Iraq and now Obama is closest. That is why Move on endorsed Obama. If Hillary wins we will be stuck with more of the same. Even last Thursday she would not renounce her vote for the war.
Anonymous (February 2, 2008 @ 3:59pm):
Edwards make Reagan look like a pauper.
Anonymous (February 2, 2008 @ 7:08pm):
Edwards make Reagan look dead.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
