Some pundits have tried to make the case that John Edwards strategically sided with Barack Obama against Hillary Clinton in the debates because he felt that he would have a better chance in a head-to-head contest against Obama than with Hillary.
Maybe. But I think it really is due to the fact that Edwards and Obama are more aligned with what the Democratic party wants and aligned on how to achieve it.
Anyone who has been reading my diaries or comments here on Daily Kos knows that Edwards is my first choice for President. (I just sent my absentee ballot back to Oklahoma marked for Edwards.) But Obama has been and still is my second choice.
I have read some commentator compare Edwards to FDR and Obama to JFK. I think that this is accurate in many respects. But that really is just two sides of the same coin. I believe that Edwards and Obama are simply emphasizing different aspects of their common vision for America.
The Power of Reason and Righteous Outrage
I am much like Edwards: for twelve years I was an attorney in private practice and I saw the same abuses of middle class and poor people by wealthy corporations who took advantage of their lopsided bargaining power. Because large corporations have such excessive bargaining power in relation to the consumer/customer, the people who run them often behave like psychopaths. This was the theme behind the 2003 film The Corporation. In fact, I know that there have been studies showing that the number of CEOs in charge of large corporations that are believed to be actual psychopaths is disproportionate in relation to the general population as a whole.
You can't effectively negotiate in good faith with a psychopath. Psychopaths have no conscience. They will do anything to win...especially deceive. That is why you must beat them. As Daily Kos readers know, such corporate entities commit Murder By Spreadsheet as has been articulated so well by our own NYCEve.
See my post on Life's Four Corrupting Influences and tell me how many of them heads of large corporations are subject to. Of the corrupting influences: money, power, sex and vanity, probably at least three of them are in play here...and probably all four.
But John Edwards has a weakness. His personality is probably very similar to mine. While he has great skill at analyzing the issue and can even frame a passionate and intelligent argument and can sway a jury to give a big verdict after becoming outraged at a tremendous injustice (like what we see in our health care system right now), the ability to translate that into political support is not 1:1. (Permit me a small digression: the criticism of Edwards that he is "angry" is really his expression of righteous outrage. The line between "outrage" and "anger" is a pretty fine one. Maybe even a little too fine for the public at large to understand in a short time.)
I suspect that people like me can sometimes come across as cold and lacking feelings. It's not that we are lacking empathy, but our training and experience means we have to play our cards close to our chest. We have also learned from experience that we must often bury our emotions to do our job well. Opening up invites people with no conscience to exploit it as a weakness.
Lawyers like myself believe in Justice, not merely as instrument of law but as a personal motto. When we see large corporations taking advantage of relatively weaker parties, we want to fight to make things right. However, the courtroom is not the best forum for this. First of all, the poorer wronged client can't afford it and will almost always be overwhelmed by the strength by the lopsided resources, even if their case has great merit. Secondly, the courts are very slow. It is better to have some mechanism to prevent the injustice in the first place. But as Edwards says: they will not give their power voluntarily...no matter how nicely you ask them.
To sum it up as best as I can, Edwards supporters are probably often "head over heart" in their personalities.
The Power of Speech
Barack Obama believes in Justice, too. I am certain of it. As a community organizer, I am sure he saw how those without societal bargaining power are exploited and abused.
If I weren't so alone and afraid, they might pay me what I am worth. -- Mark Heard, Nod Over Coffee
People who are "alone and afraid" need someone to lead them. Someone charismatic who can organize them. It takes a very unique individual to do that. People like this have the Power of Speech. They naturally have the ability to mesmerize crowds with their words and inflection. Obama has this power.
You see, workers and voters derive their power the same way: collectively. Once they learn how to act together -- with one voice -- they can accomplish great things. So to combat this, the wealthy have devised ways to keep them in line: fear and debt and "bread and circuses."
But Obama has a weakness that many people like him have: he is a dreamer, and as such, has a harder seeing the reality of the competition he is up against.
In my (admittedly) amateurish psychological analysis, Obama supporters are "heart over head" types.
It would be a incredibly powerful ticket to put the two together in the general election. The only differences between us is how to best accomplish these goals. Hopefully at some point we will come together and work in unison toward what we both want: Justice.