It was primary season, 2004. Edwards was slightly intriguing to me but I was routinely caught between two impressions - thinking he was too smooth/suave, or thinking that his smoothness was actually a curse because it got in the way of seeing his sincerity.
I was a Dean fellow in 2004, and I also really liked both Clark and Edwards. I thought those three were the only three that were good at not accepting GOP terms for debate. One time I actually saw Edwards say the magic words, "I can't accept the premise of that question" in a debate, and I about jumped out of my chair cheering. It's hard to grasp just how hungry I was for that attitude back then.
I heard the buzz about how inspiring and energizing and downright magical he was in the big campaign events near the various election days. I also heard the occasional impression that it was inspiring while it was happening, but sometimes wouldn't stick... I wondered if that was Edwards' "smoothness", or just fickle voters.
Edwards' rise in Iowa in 2004 is still an intriguing story to me, mostly because a lot of it still feels untold in the wake of the Dean and Kerry narratives. The Edwards/Kucinich deal struck me as genius. But even after that, it surprised me how well Edwards performed in the New Hampshire primary immediately afterwards, in a region that was supposed to be cool to him.
I still really liked Clark but I think I was starting to resent him being in the race. I don't remember the details, but I think Clark just barely won Oklahoma, and I remember the headlines: "Clark Stops Edwards From Stopping Kerry".
I was mostly heartbroken about Dean, but when Kerry accepted Edwards for his Vice President, I was given new hope about the ticket - even though I got the subtle vibe that Kerry had caved somehow in choosing Edwards. I still had some concerns about Edwards - Kerry really had beaten him in their lone one-on-one debate (was it on Hardball?), and Edwards didn't seem to be able to get a good grasp on Cheney in the VP debate. But while thinking that Cheney swamped Edwards on the radio, I rewatched it on my Tivo and thought Edwards did quite well...
We know how it turned out... the loss, and the rumors of Edwards second-guessing Kerry's poor strategic choices. We'll never know how Edwards would have reacted as the top of the ticket, but his instincts seemed sound. I still believe Kerry was essentially a defensive choice for Democratic nominee, when we really needed someone on offense.
Over the next couple of years, I kept track of Edwards. I was one of the few listeners to his podcast. It was informal, and real, and charming, and it finally broke through the smoothness logjam for me. At some point, through the podcasts, I finally believed the rest of the way that Edwards was 100% sincere and the real deal. I even started to write some theme music for his podcast (unsolicited) but I never got around to completing it and sending it. ;-)
I saw Barack Obama at the convention. I thought his speech was thrilling. I saved the audible.com recording of it on my iPod. I thought it was inspiring and hopeful and... a little bit vague, but not really in a bad way. Vague, in the same way that a Unitarian church service can be vague. (My friends and I have a joke about this; "Let us pray, or whatever!") In politics, I think soaring lofty rhetoric asking for unity can sound good, but... the devil is in the details.
Over the next couple of years, there were thing about Obama that got me really excited about him. The thing that got me most excited was Obama's diary to dailykos making some pointed comments about our discourse. I loved that, because he was trying to start a dialogue there, and he knew it wouldn't be well-received. I'm one to believe that people get stronger through confrontation. I thought it was a great opportunity for daily kos to get stronger. But instead, I just saw a big backlash against Obama on this site, and a lot of people tearing him down by dumbing down his points and acting indignant about what he did. I think that if people had chosen to debate his points on the actual merits, it could have been a great discussion, but instead it just got dumbed down. To be honest, I think a year previously, it could have been a thrilling discussion, but I saw that moment as something of a signpost in dailykos' evolution - snark had overtaken reasoned thoughtfulness to a degree that it had become a different site in my mind.
There was a period of time there where on dailykos I felt like I was one of Obama's rare defenders. I supported what he said about religion, even though I'm not particularly religious myself, and I supported his views on discourse. But at the time, most people here saw him as betraying us.
I still liked Edwards but was routinely on the fence about who to support.
I think it was Edwards' general response to Katrina that pushed me over the edge to being in the Edwards camp. It seemed like a direct expression of who Edwards is, rather than some attempt to put across a constructed message or label. I feel like I know his family. I feel like I understand his and Elizabeth's response to her cancer, that you have to do what you care about most to make your time and passions matter, because otherwise what else would you do? This is also exactly how he and they responded to their older son's death, and a lot of good came out of it. It makes me furious to hear that described as heartless ambition - I think the decision is the definition of heart.
Obama's campaign has never really caught hold for me, and I have to say that in many ways it is more the fault of many of his supporters than of Obama himself. I tend to find them strident, rude, and thoughtless. Like there is too much kool-aid. Not everyone, and not so much at this site - but you go elsewhere, and the idealism level is the sort that feels like it has blinders on - and it gives me some perspective and understanding on how Iowa may have backlashed against Dean due to being annoyed by his supporters.
I have also started to see Obama in a different light. I liked Obama's attempt at debating daily kos. Even though others saw that as Obama playing into Republican frames, I saw that as a case where the Republican frame had some truth to it, and where Obama's intent was ultimately constructive - to deal with it head on, to make us (him and us) stronger as a unit and a group. But since then, I've seen him as more compromising in other ways - embracing centrist language too easily, offering up the progressive half of the compromise before there is any reason to believe the other side will respond in kind.
Beyond that, I have become concerned about Obama because sometimes his tone just seems off. The Pakistan thing actually did bother me. And I get that what he said was accurate, and that Biden defended him, and that Clinton especially misrepresented it. But the way he presented it did make me feel doubtful. I just think the man is green and a little bit naive, and as time goes on I am less and less convinced that he will react effectively to Republican attacks. His whole approach is to be above the fray - even his "negative" attacks against Edwards come across as more passive-aggressive and whiny to me than as actual effective attacks. It just sometimes seems that his message is bigger than his Self, and that when it comes right down to it, I find myself doubting that he will have the power - the internal power - to come through. Because at the end of the day, the message and the narrative and the campaign all gets stripped away, and it comes down to the man (or woman). I am very uncomfortable with the idea of Obama's first true test being the one that decides this presidency.
Of the three, I think Edwards is the most tested. Good Lord, is he tested, what with personal tragedy and several very tight campaigns behind him. And it's become clear in this campaign in particular that he is a tough son of a bitch. He's taking the riskiest platforms, the kind that gets the Democratic establishment up against him, and he's sticking to it. I just believe at this point that this man knows power.
This is really what it comes down to for me. Power. Not the power that one wants to attain, but the power that one has from within. And this man Edwards has it.
I do worry about one thing. Obama's supporters are the most idealistic of the big three - a large part of his supporters are the least likely to move on to another candidate for pragmatic reasons. I worry about a repeat of the Clark headline from 2004: "Obama stops Edwards from stopping Hillary."
But overall, my decision is not anti- any other candidate. It's 100% pro for Edwards. And I think it comes down to one thing for me. There are a lot of things this country needs right now, but it's all pretty simple on abstract terms. We need to fight for what is right, and we need to care for who's been hurt. And Edwards is the one who can do both. When I say it comes down to one thing for me, I'm referring to what kind of man Edwards is. He has that combination of qualities. Throughout his life and history, he has proven it over and over again, and it is as simple as this: John Edwards is a warrior with heart.