Fish say, they have their Stream and Pond;
But is there anything Beyond?
This life cannot be All, they swear,
For how unpleasant, if it were!
One may not doubt that, somehow, Good
Shall come of Water and of Mud;
And, sure, the reverent eye must see
A Purpose in Liquidity.–From the poem “Heaven“, by Rupert Brooke
I am required to start this story with a great big “Full Disclosure”: I was very much a John Edwards supporter during 2007, for reasons I laid out after seeing him in a small room in May of that year, and I was a contributor to the Edwards campaign website’s “blogging community”. I did not, and do not, contribute money to candidates, including Edwards-and that’s so that I can write more dispassionately when it comes time to consider the endgame.
That said, let’s move on.
One of the reasons I supported Edwards was because his campaign was the one that was, in a big way, talking about making poor people into middle-class people. Remember the “Two Americas” messaging? If you don’t, he’s famously quoted from his 2003 stump speech in which he describes a country where we have…
“…One America that does the work, another America that reaps the reward. One America that pays the taxes, another America that gets the tax breaks. One America that will do anything to leave its children a better life, another America that never has to do a thing because its children are already set for life.”
In fact, I have often suggested that conversations like this from the ’08 Edwards campaign forced both the Obama and Clinton ’08 campaigns farther to the left than they would have been otherwise-and I would further suggest that the effort to “grab” Edwards voters after he dropped out led Obama to say things about the reforms that he wishes he could walk away from now.
In addition to operating the campaign’s web presence, the Edwards folks also provided the Internet “organizing ground” for OneCorps, which was intended to be a way for supporters and friends to do “politically agnostic” good works for the public good.
Sadly, as the Edwards campaign wound down, so did much of the inertia of OneCorps.
And so has much of the interest in doing something about those “Two Americas”.
And that’s what I want you, John Edwards, to come back and do something about.
Here’s the thing, John: while you might see your personal troubles as something that keeps you from being a public figure, I don’t.
I see what’s happened to you as liberating.
You aren’t running for anything anymore, and you have Elizabeth’s legacy to advance-and you no longer have to suck up to the Paul Begalias and Ed Rendells and Donna Braziles of the Democratic Party…and you damn sure don’t have to suck up to any Republican legislative leaders or the Doug Feith crowd to advance an agenda in a lame-duck session.
You are free, Mr. Edwards, and if you want to start doing some work to help broke people get organized again, or if you want to start asking hard questions about why banks and billionaires need subsidies and why those who are neither have to cover the bills…or if you want to do something that combines the civility aspect of “No Labels” with the energy of OneCorps and the policy direction of “Two Americas”…this is your chance.
In fact, by having no interest whatsoever in running for office, you may actually be in the best political situation of your life: you have a chance to be one of the few truly “honest brokers” in American politics, you have a chance to do truly good work, at a time when America truly needs the help, and you have the chance to do it in a way that bypasses both political establishments and taps directly into the giant well of “unrepresented” that is out there in every city and town in the Nation.
There are millions of Americans who want to see jobs coming back to this country, who are afraid that Social Security is looking more and more like a giant pot of money to be sold to the highest bidder, and who are worried that their kids won’t be able to do better in life than they did-and you are now in a position to do them a lot of good by getting out there and telling some hard truths about who’s winning and who’s losing-even when it’s Democrats who are having to endure some of the truth telling.
Beyond that, you can help to advance a legacy that I know means more to you than you could ever say-and it would give you and the kids a chance to honor someone that I know you miss more than you could ever say.
Look, I know you screwed up…badly…but this is America, the land of the second chance-and if you approach this as a chance to perform a public service, and ignore all the “professional” politicking that will pop up as we move forward, you could do something truly great.
Hold our politicians accountable.
Demand action on “Two Americas”.
Use your insight to point out exactly how the hustle is going down-and, once again, be the voice that stands up for those who want more from this country than just getting trickled on.
This is your chance to do right by someone you cared very much for, and a chance to do right by an entire Nation, both at the same time-and if I were you, I might just make this my New Year’s resolution.
…or out of it, who have the freedom to really speak their peace…and if edwards were to organize some good works at the same time…i’m all for it.
I would have voted for several of them. Yes. John Edwards can “afford” to work for social change without a personal stake in the outcome. Also, that would truly honor Wade’s memory. Interesting challenge; only time will tell whether Edwards will make a difference or remain a sad footnote to history.
This is not the first time a saint was married to a sinner. God bless his wonderful wife. Yes, Americans can and do forgive and forget, but in his case I doubt it.
…is that it’s hard to read the guy without really having been there.
<
p>but that said, the fact is that edwards’ rhetoric on the “two americas” issue did drive both onbama and clinton left.
<
p>at the moment, the only similar, organized, “pressure point” that is pushing obama politically today is the tea party community–and they’re not making him more progressive.
<
p>so if somebody would step up and take on both conservative republicans and conservative democrats who are preventing progress on these issues, that would be valuable…but the only person who could realistically do that would be someone who is already “burned” as a candidate, because you really have to take on elements of both parties to move a “two americas” program.
<
p>that means edwards is almost a default choice, simply because so few can fit the bill here.
<
p>would he be willing, and would he be believable if he did?
<
p>that’s hard to say, but if he’s ever hoping to find redemption of some sort, good works and truth-telling could help that process along–and i’m a bit of a cynical optimist, so if someone wants to seek redemption…i’m happy to see them succeed, but not that surprised if they fail.
While respecting Elizabeth Edwards tremendously and while grateful that Edwards raised a lot of important issues in the campaign, I’ve got to say that it was irresponsible of both of them to have continued the campaign knowing about the ex-Senator’s infidelities. Had he won the nomination, Sarah Palin would be presiding over the Senate today — at a minimum.
We knew about Clinton’s history of infidelity, and when he got called on another instance during his Presidency with a certain intern, his ratings did not suffer.
In Bill Clinton’s case, in 1992, the affair he pretty much conceded happened was in the past and Hillary and he successfully made it an issue in the past that they had gotten passed. In 1996, we did not yet know of Monica – and I know I still believe that Paula Jones was pretty suspect.
<
p>Edwards’ affair, which mathematics proves was continuing a few months after his wife got her devastating diagnosis, was not something that could be dismissed. At a point where a wife should be able to count on the love and support of her husband, he was cheating. I was not for Edwards, but I admired her strength and willingness to continue the campaign she believed in.
<
p>Edwards’ biggest asset was his ability to inspire trust in him based on his words and the image of him and his family. This trust existed in spite of the fact that his Senate record did not match his rhetoric. Even knowledge that he earned $500,000 from a hedge fund, which he said was for 2 to 3 day’s work a month on things he chose to work on, did not destroy that trust.
<
p>The affair destroyed the image of him as the dedicated spouse – even if that is what he might have been for decades of his marriage. That and the fact that he lied, with wide open blue eyes, when he confessed to the affair, saying that timing made it impossible that the little girl was his. A lie likely because he knew how damning the revelation would be that she was conceived a few months after the cancer diagnosis, really make it impossible to trust him.
<
p>In Edwards’ case, there was very little beyond trust, words and vision – his career itself was not extraordinary.
<
p>Even before the affair, Edwards was always the third candidate – far below the other two. (In fact, he won just one competitive primary in two elections. )But, had he won, I know that the majority of us would likely have voted for him because Bomb Iran McCain was unthinkable. But, less political people in the middle would likely easily vote against a man who disgusted him. I also doubt McCain would have gone with Palin.
<
p>I understand the desire to have the movement that all of you were creating back. The team that created that platform still exist and the need still exists. Edwards was the front man – and that is a role that he no longer can play. Certainly there is some young Mayor, Governor, Congressperson, or Senator advocating the same thing who can be the leader that Edwards really can’t.
…to see someone new come forward and take up this cause (cory booker?), but the fact remains that edwards did move this president’s campaign left, and he actually could come forward now, announce his contrition, and begin doing good works through the onecorps structure.
<
p>so far, all good things, but nothing unique that only edwards could do.
<
p>but here’s the thing: we need a truth-teller out there, who would be willing to take on recalcitrant democrats as well as republicans…and the thing that edwards could, almost uniquely, bring to the table is the very fact that he is more or less forever “burned” as a candidate, which makes him able to say and do things a howard dean or a jan shankowski or a claire mccaskell cannot.
<
p>the “new, young” voices of which you speak are going to be continuing to seek elective office, and that would make those folks beholden to political machines and corporate interests (can you say…obama?) who have a vested interest in shutting reform down.
<
p>to step into that role is to ask a lot of a potential future candidate…but edwards is “out of it”, and as a result he has freedom others simply would not.
I completely agree with Edwards’ effect on the campaign and I felt that was useful enough for me to donate to his campaign. Nonetheless, his record did not match his rhetoric. Kind of blue dog.
…but then again, since he can’t really be a candidate, and he would primarily have the potential to emerge as an advocate, his future voting record wouldn’t be an issue–which means that he could espouse points of view, and even help organize things like demonstrations or letter-writing campaigns to demand better health care, and i wouldn’t worry too much about the matchup between talking and walking.
…as to whether Edwards was a faithful spouce or not. That kind of thing just generally doesn’t enter my thinking when I’m trying to decide who would be the best President. I had other preferences in both the 2004 and 2008 primary, but the 1884 election I think is a case study in the disconnect. Grover Cleveland was upright as a politician in an age when corruption was the rule, but had to answer to “Ma, Ma, where’s my Pa (Gone to the White House – ha, ha, ha!)” because he sired a child out of wedlock. GOP candidate James Blaine on the other hand was politically corrupt, but had a reputation for impeccable personal morals.
among my friends and relatives who would have been affected. I do think that, in Edwards’ case, it was not just that he had an affair, but that it brought into question whether anything about him were true. He had already shifted 180 degrees on many issues from his Senate career. This was like a dam breaking and all the trust flowing out.
<
p>If I were alive in 1884, I would have voted for Cleveland over Blaine in a nanosecond – because he was not corrupt and because he immediately acknowledged his paternity.
<
p>Like you I admit that I never considered backing Edwards in either 2004 or 2008.
…that the biggest problem for the edwards “trust factor” is what happened after the affair was discovered.
<
p>i also suspect the only way he could really rehabilitate his public image, because of that trust problem, is to do things that are either issue-oriented or based around “good works” community organizing, as opposed to becoming involved in any kind of candidacy, and to make sure that while he’s doing it he’s not paying himself $900,000 a year to run the associated foundation, or some other similarly outrageous amount, from donated money.
if he could put aside his ego and do exactly that and over time it would both give him real purpose and rehabilitate him. It would be wonderful for his children if that were to happen.
Plus he was in favor of civil service reform, leniency towards Native Americans, and opposed to imperialism. Had the party renominated him instead of that creationist bomb thrower Bryan we might have stopped McKinley. That said, by that point Cleveland was fairly impotent against corporate greed and fairly anti-labor in his own beliefs. That said I’d take him over Blaine or Harrison any day and give him as many non-consecutive terms as he likes.
Plus: low information voters are very fond of voting on the basis of sentences that begin “All I know is —” That sentence would have sunk Edwards, because we expect our Presidents to have high moral character — which really means, show well on TV.
<
p>In any case, this story about Edwards is not consonant with his being an empathetic caring politician who will push the right policies.
…that edwards, as a candidate, could face some serious problems with that phrase…but it’s also true that low-information voters are also often “short attention span” voters…and even as it is tough for many voters to tell you today who tom delay or abrahamoff or william jefferson or trent lott or scooter libby are, before long edwards will be “that guy who did something”, and then he could assess his situation in a new light–although for my money, even at that point i think he’d be “burned” as a candidate.
…that a lot of people fault edwards more for the way he handled the discovery of the affair than for the affair itself, which is a common occurrence–but to reinforce your comment about how an individual can maintain a perceived “good record of personal morality” and perceived “unfitness for duty”, consider christine o’donnell or sarah palin or michelle bachmann or jan brewer.
Cleveland was an upright politician even in his private life, he confessed to siring the child to defend the good name of a married friend who was probably the real father. Call that what you will, I call that an upright act of friendship if there ever was one. Thats the exact opposite of John Edwards who forced his married friend Andrew Young to take the heat for his indiscretions.
…that, for a variety of reasons, i don’t see this analysis as being accurate.
<
p>clinton, as was noted, was not removed from office, despite his impeachment, and there is no reason to assume an edwards presidency with a similar scandal breaking would have had a different outcome.
<
p>a palin presidency?
<
p>i doubt it…in fact, i’d put the probability of a palin presidency at less than 25%.
<
p>you do not get elected to anything with 60% + negatives, and that’s palin’s big problem right now.
<
p>only about 25% of republicans see her as qualified to be president…and quitting her job as gov so she could “do more good for alaskans” is a “future candidacy problem” she probably cannot overcome.
<
p>beatin’ a fish to death with a stick probably didn’t help, either.
…but as President of the Senate, that is, Vice President of the U.S.
<
p>It might have come to pass had Edwards won the nomination, then the infidelity bombshell dropped (too late for the Dems to reconsider him), with the result that voters went for McCain.
…that McCain would not survive his term.
…fake consultant is forced to admit he hadn’t understood the comment correctly, and i would commend you for actually seeing another likely scenario.
my bad.
And thats the reason this got exposed when it did, his own people put the party and its platform above the candidate and made sure that torpedoed any chance Edwards would have been VP, kingmaker, or AG in either administration. That they would continue the campaign knowing full well this could sink their nomination, and that they could lie to other candidates to allow John to get a consolation prize, speaks to the deps of how little John cared about the progressive movement, that he would risk it to suit his own ego. Let the man rebuild his family in peace, that will be his greatest legacy to Elizabeth and if he truly loved her and regrets what he has done, it will be the only mission he has for the rest of his life.
…my advice to edwards (and we did not yet know about the affair) was to seek a commitment to a “two americas” agenda in return for supporting hillary or obama and endorsing them to his supporters–and to tell you the truth, i’ve always wondered if the large number of former clinton staffers in this white house was because they had the most recent experience or if they had an arrangement.
<
p>ag would also have been a good “get”–and you do have to wonder how that would have worked out.
…he wants to move forward–but it would be easy to simply “call it a day” and return to private life.
<
p>we’ll see…
…john edwards is forever bound up in her legacy–either because he does good work to advance that legacy, or because his own life is perceived to be in stark contrast to hers.
<
p>the question is not “does he carry her legacy?” but instead “how will he manage the challenge of bearing her legacy?”
I also supported Edwards, even financially, during his run for the presidency because of the noises he was making about “two Americas.” As someone who works in the legal arena, I see it all the time. There are definitely two tiers of “justice” in America.
<
p>But, if John Edwards really believed his own words, why did he drop off the map in advocating for them almost immediately after he stopped running? Why didn’t he continue to push One Corps programs.
<
p>I can also empathize with his current situation. He has two (three) young children to raise. I don’t know how much media attention he wants to bring on himself and his family at this point. He might start small, and anonymously, by going back to New Orleans and joining up with already existing groups that are trying to advocate for those who are trying to return to their homes. Or he could start a seed jobs program in New Orleans, North Carolina or another place that has been devastated by the economic or natural disaster. Or he could work with a domestic branch of the groups working against world hunger. Or he could help out low performing schools. Or work with the courts as a public defender for the poor and working class. No one’s stopping him.
<
p>I would love to see a sugar daddy step up and fund organizing for a liberal version of the corporate-backed Tea Party, but I don’t think Edwards is a viable choice for many reasons. I guess we’ll have to figure out a way to organize ourselves and that’s pretty difficult without money or media.
<
p>Elizabeth has expressed her wish that Wade’s foundation be continued. Maybe John should put all his efforts into that.
…let me point out that i don’t really disagree with much of what you’re saying here–and i’m entirely willing to concede that this is a unlikely proposition for edwards to accept.
<
p>and in fact, your suggestions for how he might start are exactly what i would do in his situation.
<
p>but as i pointed out in a comment above, what others can’t do, that he can, is speak freely, because, for the most part, politics has cast him aside.
<
p>why did edwards step away from onecorps?
<
p>one explanation, obviously, is that he wasn’t sincere about the effort in the first place…but it’s also possible that after two presidential campaigns and a whole lot of personal drama he simply decided to take his ball and go home.
<
p>”the fullness of time” may reveal the answer–but i have to tell you, if he were to say that he wants to get back into doing good works, i’d be happy to be supportive.
a man who wants to the poor to attain more wealth, but
does nothing but incite class warfare in a country where the bottom 50% pays 3-4% of the income taxes.
<
p>But he’s a politician, and really I wouldn’t expect anything more from him, so I’m just nit picking.
…that class warfare has been underway since the reagan era, in the guise of “trickle-down” economics and the “starve government” movements.
To echo what I’ve said about Newt Gingrich: men who cheat on their wives while they’re dying of cancer are not and should not be electable.
…but i actually see that, as i note in the story, to be an advantage for edwards, as it removes him from the “i’ll do whatever i can to be elected” camp and gives him freedom to talk about politics and political influence in a way others can’t.
I think John Edwards was a shallow, unintelligent, malleable man who did not think too far about a lot of issues. Friends who met him at an anti-poverty initiative at MIT noticed that he could barely answer questions that weren’t already there in the prepared talking points. Moreover he did 180s on Iraq, universal healthcare, and gay rights. He was probably the most far right, DLC style, Southern Dem in 04 and tried to become a Deaniac Democrat for 08. He just never seemed authentic, and I think the driving force of his push into politics, towards the presidency, and towards more progressive politics was Elizabeth. Bob Shrum documented how much of an anti-gay bigot the private Edwards was in 04 and how Elizabeth tried to coax him away from that, to little success. Shrum points out that Edwards only voted for the war after Elizabeth and Bob convinced him of its political popularity. Anyone who is either a bigot, or deserts his principles for popularity, is low in character to begin with, and then to cheat on your cancer stricken wife while using her disease as a campaign prop is really low. I hope he has the privacy and decency to patch his family back together and raise ALL of his children. But a man of that low character is hardly the ideal spokesperson for a progressive cause, particularly one he never sincerely believed in.
…to your comment is to recall that robert byrd moved quite a long way from his southern democratic segregationist past in the second half of his political career, which suggests that redemption can happen to the most unlikely folks–and we should be happy when it happens, even as we realize it very well might not.