Wednesday, January 30, 2008

So long, John


Word this morning is that John Edwards is done. The conversation will quickly center around who this benefits more, but I think it's worth taking a moment to reflect on what his candidacy has meant to the party and the race.

First of all, his announcement will come from the same place he announced his candidacy -- New Orleans. He is down there to work on a Habitat for Humanity project. His campaign, which the media defined around hair, hedge funds and houses, will leave with the message that ending poverty is important, even if it is not a useful campaign slogan.

Those who focus on the alleged "hypocrisy" have missed the point. And those who urged him to step aside and clear the way for one of the other two, don't get what Edwards has been trying to do. I've written about this before, but it's worth repeating. Edwards made this campaign better. He raised the issue of poverty, even though other don't talk about it. He was the first to put out a plan for universal health care, and forced the hands of his competitors to do the same. He spoke out passionately about his mistake of voting for Bush's war.

Maybe I give him too much credit, but I have always believed his sincerity. I still remember his appearance on the February 4, 2007 edition of Meet the Press, when he told Tim Russert of his plan to unveil a plan for universal health care, which would cost between 90 and 120 billion a year. Russert rightfully asked how Edwards planned to do that without raising taxes. Edwards, in a sign that he understands the necessity of universal health care, didn't skip a beat saying: "Yes, we'll have to raise taxes." Russert asked again: "But you'd be willing to increase taxes to provide health care?" Edwards answered: "Yes, absolutely."

On that same program, Edwards was asked about his 2002 vote to authorize Bush's war in Iraq. He was asked "why shouldn’t voters in Democratic primaries say, ‘On the big issue of the war, Obama was right, Edwards was wrong’?" Edwards' response: "I was wrong. They should say that."

I could be wrong about him. He may have fooled me just like the other 15 percent or so who support him. But I think he was a special, and unfortunately overlooked candidate, and I think the party lost an important voice today.

No comments: