John Edwards is a distant second choice for me in this election. I have some doubts about his authenticity, though. My impression is that he's a good guy with some good goals, but that he's willing to do some shapeshifting and be a little dishonest to win. I don't say "do anything to win" because it seems he doesn't stoop to dishonest attacks on his opponents, and I salute him for that, but I'd rather he not prop himself up in disingenuous ways either.
First problem: his Senate record
It's not just a sketchy vote here or there. He really was a very different person, a DLC centrist and a full-blown hawk on the war. He didn't just vote for authorizing diplomacy--he was actively cheerleading for the war. See for yourself:
I salute him for apologizing for the mistakes he made, including this one. But he made so many mistakes that I've got to seriously question his judgment. It's better to apologize than to make mistakes and fail to admit them, but it's better yet not to make so very many mistakes in the first place. Sometimes it seems like he's apologized for half his record:
I've heard him give the excuse that he got caught up in the moment as a part of a broken system. Isn't that very poor judgment? Shouldn't we be looking for an independent thinker who can speak out against the broken system when it matters, rather than after the fact? What if Washington spirals into some new destructive groupthink again under his watch, and he falls for it?
Second problem: his inconsistent themes
I think even his supporters must agree that he's changed his tune quite a bit. In 2007 alone he started out as the sunny optimist, then when that didn't work he became the anti-Hillary attack dog, and when that didn't work he became the fiery anti-corporate populist fighter. The latter image, which seems to be the cause for much of his support on dKos, seems to have only shown itself in the last couple months.
These different personas aren't completely inconsistent with each other, but the shapeshifting does makes it hard to put much stock in the current version of Edwards. There is an honest common thread in all his personas -- deep concern for the working class -- but I think the details change too much according to campaign strategy. Therefore I don't buy his two-month-old "anti-corporate fighter" shtick. He doesn't seem to have fought harder for the working class than other Democrats do, and he wasn't making that claim himself until November or so. Why should we believe him now?
Third problem: How's he gonna fight?
He talks a lot about "standing up" and "fighting." But, um... how? Is he going to walk up to CEOs and punch them in the nose? Will he indict thousands of them on felony charges? Is he going to follow in Bush's footsteps abusing exective orders and signing statements? Just what kind of punches does he plan to throw?
The best explanation I've heard is that he's going to use the "bully pulpit" of the Presidency to grow public support for his plans and shame legislators into supporting them. But that's basically Obama's plan, too. When it comes to actually doing this, Obama has advantages in his record, his policy proposals, and his rhetorical ability.
Obama's already got one of the strongest records in the Senate on ethics reform. He's got the strongest proposal (or, more detailed PDF link) on ethics reform and government transparency. And he has a much better ability to inspire than John Edwards does. Edwards is a smooth public speaker, no doubt, but he can't carry a soaring, moving speech like Obama can, and that skill will be essential on the bully pulpit. Some of you may even prefer Edwards' speeches, but even you can't deny that Obama generates more excitement and moves more people than Edwards does. That will make his pulpit more powerful.
Obama has shown how he will fight: by inspiring public support for his plans, by inspiring people to get involved and pay attention to government, and by making government transparent so an engaged electorate can uncover malfeasance and hold politicians accountable. He will hold "21st century fireside chats" with him and his cabinet members, national broadband meetings through which he can help keep the public engaged. In all sincerity, I ask you: What will John Edwards do that would be better? What fighting moves will he use that Obama won't?
Fourth problem: the Time article
This article in Time, Kerry's Regrets About John Edwards, is one thing that really makes me doubt Edwards. I've seen his supporters voice contempt for this article, but I haven't the facts contested. If the facts of this quote have been thoroughly debunked anywhere, post proof in the comments and I'll happily update the diary accordingly:
Edwards had told Kerry he was going to share a story with him that he'd never told anyone else—that after his son Wade had been killed, he climbed onto the slab at the funeral home, laid there and hugged his body, and promised that he'd do all he could to make life better for people, to live up to Wade's ideals of service. Kerry was stunned, not moved, because, as he told me later, Edwards had recounted the same exact story to him, almost in the exact same words, a year or two before—and with the same preface, that he'd never shared the memory with anyone else.
Edwards people: What's your defense here? Was Kerry lying? Was the author lying about what Kerry said? If not -- if John Edwards actually did this -- how can anyone support him?
This story is consistent with another problem I have with Edwards, his willingness to use personal tragedies (his own and others) in his rhetoric to advance himself politically. Everyone does this a little bit, and in small doses it's good to bring up the plights of specific people who would benefit from your policies. But Edwards does this so much I think he crosses the (admittedly subjective) line into being exploitative. The story about Kerry, if it's true, really reinforces the interpretation that he's exploiting these tragedies, and that's a deal-killer for me.
-------------------------------
I'm sure I'll get attacked by Edwards fans here for doing some kind of "hit piece," but that's really not my intention here. I honestly don't understand why Edwards has been propped up on dKos as some kind of purist progressive messiah, so I'm sharing the things that seem inconsistent with that view. Feel free to explain why you think this is wrong. Why you don't believe the funeral story, or support him in spite of it. Why you think he'll be the strongest fighter, other than "he says so."
First edit
Changed the title to "criticism" from "concern" to avoid the inaccurate accusations of concern trolling. Here's how Kos defined concern trolling:
"concern trolling" — offering a poisoned apple in the form of advice to political opponents that, if taken, would harm the recipient.
That's just completely irrelevant to this diary. It doesn't make any sense. I can see how Edwards truebelievers might call this regular trolling: I would strongly disagree, but at least the accusation would make sense. But this diary has nothing to do with concern trolling.