I was undecided until the last month or so before Iowa, and choose to support Edwards based on what seemed to me to be Edwards' more progressive agenda and his understanding that the system needs to have core changes. I think Edwards did a great job in the face of relentless media hype over a "Clinton/Obama" two-person race, and given his comparative lack of financial resources. Last night, as the caucus results came in, I agonized over the tenuous lead Edwards maintained over Clinton. I felt that a third-place finish would finish Edwards, and validate the "two-horse" race meme that the MSM has postulated. So Edwards' win over Clinton (narrow or not) seems to me to give him credibility to continue at least through New Hampshire, and possibly South Carolina. I will continue to support him, because I feel that he has staked out the boldest positions as a progressive candidate. But I also feel Obama deserves recognition for what he accomplished, and that we are blessed with two candidates who can change the dynamics in Washington.
I concede what Edwards' critics point out -- that his Senate record and prior run in 2004 did not reveal the same dedication to a progressive agenda that he currently portrays. That doesn't bother me. As a Senator, he represented a conservative Southern state. In 2004, he cut his teeth in his first presidential run, where no doubt the campaign "experts" played a major defining role. I am comfortable having a candidate who can grow and mature and asses how to respond to a dynamic and changing world.
My support stems from my belief that Edwards' strong progressive stance and his framing of the issues of broken government, broken system, and the need for core changes have driven the debate and forced both Obama and Clinton to address the issues that Edwards has raised. Edwards has helped pull the party back to its roots, give it some "backbone," and steer us away from the 2004 mindset that to win, Democrats need to be Republican "lite". So I applaud Edwards for his courage, and will continue to support him until either it becomes clear that he cannot win, or it appears that his candidacy is hurting the party's chances in November, or aiding Clinton's chances to be our nominee.
Although I didn't really expect Edwards to win in Iowa (i thought the lack of media coverage and his limited financial resources were pretty big hurdles to overcome), I was overjoyed to see him beat Clinton (even if not by much), and glad that Obama had such a resounding victory over Clinton. Given Obama's convincing victory, I feel he deserves the congratulations and recognition of all Democrats who are committed to seeing our party change both to become more inclusive and to become more progressive. Given that Edwards carved out a niche to the left, and Hillary and Bill have always been more to the right in our Democratic spectrum, Obama falls naturally into the center of the Democratic spectrum. I understand those who feel that he has not carved out as bold a progressive agenda as Edwards. I also believe that were he to use the same rhetoric as Edwards, he would instantly be accused of being "the angry black man" -- a stereotype that would be both scary to the electorate and fatal to his candidacy. Just like Hillary has tried to prove her toughness by taking a more hawkish stance, to ensure his electability in the general election Obama has to steer clear of rhetoric that has (perhaps unfairly) earned Edwards the label of "angry."
Honestly, I don't think Edwards deserves the "angry" meme that has been circulating in the MSM. I think there is a huge difference between "angry" and "intense" or "committed" or "passionate". I don't see Edwards as angry so much as I see him as passionate about the issues that he defends. But it seems clear to me that if the media feels that Edwards -- the white male alleged "pretty boy" -- threatens voters with rhetoric that suggests "we're mad as hell and we won't take it any more", then I can only imagine how an "angry" Obama would be portrayed -- not just by the MSM in the primaries but by the Republicans who have made a career pandering to the worst fears of the worst segments of their base.
So I can't blame Obama for not matching Edwards' rhetoric. It isn't who he is, and it isn't something that would benefit him or us if our purpose is to defeat the Republicans in November. Each candidate has to play from his or her strengths and to his or her constituencies, while trying to broaden their support and become more inclusive. If I have any concerns about Edwards, it is that I worry that he might be too progressive, and that his policies (which I agree with) might not be centrist enough to win over enough Independents and moderates. I feel Obama -- while not progressive enough for my liking -- stands a good chance to make our party more inclusive, and that's a good thing.
So in short, I feel we need both Edwards and Obama to make this a truly historic election, one in which progressive ideals and the politics of inclusion all have a part to play to bring a new Democratic party into power. Not the party of Bill Clinton (whom I admire and respect for what he was able to accomplish, but whom I don't want to see in the White House again). Not the party of Hillary Clinton, whose constituencies and powerbrokers are all pretty familiary faces. An Edwards presidency would be historic in returning the party to its roots as the party "of the people" and "for the people", but an Obama presidency would also be historic. And just as I can trust that Edwards has grown and matured as he became more sure of himself and more authentic, I can trust that Oabma, who has walked the tightrope between two worlds all his life, will also be a powerful voice for a different America. (His speech after winning Iowa was one of the best I've heard from any candidate.)
Originally, I felt that Edwards at the top of the ticket and Obama as VP would be a great ticket for the Democrats. I still see that as our strongest ticket, mainly because Edwards has survived a national election and has more experience in the national arena. But if that is not to be, I would hope that, if Obama is the nominee, he would seriously consider Edwards as his VP, and that Edwards would put his ego aside and see that he and Obama together would help move this country in a desperately needed new direction. I strongly hope that Edwards will resist the temptation to "go negative" on either Obama or Hillary. We don't need that, and it could poison their ability to work together for the country's benefit.
To my mind, what could be more powerful than the symbolilsm of a Southern white man and a black man from biracial roots working together to fight for the changes that are needed while at the same time reaching out to unite us in a common cause? I hope it will be Edwards/Obama. But I would be almost as happy with Obama/Edwards. What do you think?