COLUMN: Edwards the man for political change
To me, it’s no surprise that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton enjoy around-the-clock media coverage and significant support among Democrats. This upcoming election is a “change election,” and what better embodies change than the exciting prospects of having either a woman or black president? But we shouldn’t vote on the basis of gender or race. If you want real change, John Edwards is your candidate.
Both Obama and Edwards are running as reformists, but I doubt whether Obama can deliver on the change to which he gives lip service. Edwards backs up his rhetoric with sound policy. On health care, he was the first major candidate to propose a comprehensive plan. The New York Times called it smart and Time magazine praised him for being “the only candidate offering a plan that would actually get to universal coverage.” Another example is Edwards’ ambitious plan to curb climate change, which received the envied endorsement of the League of Conservation Voters.
Also, Obama is too committed to bipartisanship and compromise to achieve change. Now is not the time for compromise, now is the time for conviction. Edwards found out the hard way, from his defeat in 2004, that we have to fight aggressively for change-the entrenched powers won’t easily relinquish their influence.
Edwards is uniquely prepared for this fight. For 20 years, he fought irresponsible corporations in the court room on behalf of working-class Americans. And time and time again, he beat these corporations and their armies of lawyers.
In 1998, Edwards decided he could best represent and defend the underprivileged by going into public service. He ran for the Senate and won, defeating an incumbent Republican senator in a very conservative state. Obama’s supporters-African Americans and youth-would be better served under an Edwards administration. Edwards is intimately aware of the issues that face the African American community. African Americans are adversely affected by poverty and the lack of health insurance, two issues which are Edwards’ domestic priorities. Youth voters should rally behind Edward’s campaign as well. He has given special attention to youth voters and their concerns throughout his campaign. Take the issue of education: Edwards has proposed a national initiative to pay one year of public-college tuition, fees and books for more than two million students. In return, students will be required to work part-time in college, take a college-prep curriculum in high school and stay out of trouble.
I like Obama, no doubt, but 2008 is not his year. He is too inexperienced a campaigner, and I am not confident he could weather attacks from the formidable Republican attack machine. Remember, Obama is only 46 years old-his presidential ambitions can wait. I am less a fan of Hillary Clinton. The differences between her and Edwards are especially pronounced.
I have no qualms with a woman in the White House, I’d just prefer another woman there: Elizabeth Edwards, as First Lady. Her bravery in dealing with her breast cancer is inspiring. I also appreciate that, unlike her husband, she supports gay marriage. Hillary doesn’t deserve a monopoly on the female vote, because Edwards’ policies better address womens’ issues. Like African Americans, women are adversely affected by issues of poverty, employment and health care.
My biggest reservation with Hillary: she is the biggest recipient (from either party) of special interest contributions-namely the defense, health care and drug industries and lobbies. She is beholden to the very interests that are diametrically opposed to the radical reforms we need. Edwards, by stark contrast, does not take money from Political Action Committees or lobbyists.
Finally, Edwards is simply more electable than Hillary. National polls consistently show that Edwards is the strongest candidate against the Republican candidates. He is also strongest where it matters, in the battleground states. Better still, he is the only Democrat who actually beats Republican candidates in traditionally red states like Virginia and Oklahoma. Hillary is too polarizing a figure to garner such support.
And the reason Edwards bests Hillary in these pair-ups against Republicans is that he’s authentic and sincere.
Many insinuate that because Edwards is wealthy, his populist message is contrived. But Edwards was not born rich; his wealth is self-made. He grew up in a working-class community, where his dad worked in a textile mill for 36 years. He’s the proud product of public education and became the first member of his family to attend college.
Edwards’ story is a textbook example of the American dream, a dream that, today, is increasingly elusive for millions of Americans. He has not forgotten his roots and is running to ensure that all Americans have the same opportunities he was afforded. In short, I support John Edwards because I think he commands the moral authority America needs right now. I share his disgust with the inequality in America. I share his outrage at our broken political system. I share his commitment to restoring American global leadership, on issues like climate change and Darfur. And, most of all, I share his optimism that America can (and must) tackle these and other issues.