Edwards is out.
I think he waged an important and worthy
campaign. The former senator played a defining role in the Democratic
Party over the past year, by setting the agenda that others followed on
issues like health care and the Iraq War, and by shining much-needed
light on the fact that one in eight people live in poverty in the world's richest country. (Full disclosure: Edwards wrote the foreword to my book, so I'm biased. But I voted for the guy in the 2004 primary, too, so I've been biased for a long time.)
Speaking of bias, this article
talks about how Edwards' decision to end his presidential campaign may
have been
influenced by the "antsiness" of "several major contributors," who
wanted to line up behind Clinton or Obama. There's nothing wrong about
listening to your supporters, of course. But it made me wonder how much
say these "major contributors" have over presidential (or any)
candidates, even those brave souls trying to reform the system. How
much do they call the shots regarding whether you
run, how you run, whether you stop running — and, for that matter, what
you do when you get in office? Perhaps what we really need to focus on
is another signature theme of the Edwards campaign: reining in the
influence of money in politics.
For more on that, you might want to check out this book Free Lunch, which has interesting things to say about the ways that monied interests are corrupting our political system, and generally screwing over everyone.
Update: I also need to mention that I was a contributor to Edwards' campaign, but not a "major contributor" — more like a "random guy on the Internet" contributor. Now excuse me while I line up behind Obama.
|
blogs 
