Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« $11,600 | Tune in Tomorrow to Learn Abou... »

Tuesday, January 2, 2007

The Contenders: John Edwards

posted by on January 2 at 16:00 PM

Sure, November 2008 is nearly two years away, but it’s apparently never too early to declare one’s intention to run for president, and thus it’s never too early to get to know the people who might be the next leader of the free world. This month we’ll be taking a brief look at them.

John_Edwards_NYC.jpg

John Edwards

Party: Democratic

Age: 53

Status: Declared on December 28, 2006

www.johnedwards.com

Edwards, a former trial lawyer turned vice-presidential candidate turned populist crusader, officially threw his hat in the ring last week. In October, a poll of Democrats in Iowa, which will hold its much-hyped caucus on January 14 of next year, found that Edwards was the front-runner among likely Democratic candidates, beating Hillary Clinton by 20 points and Barack Obama by 23 points. As others have pointed out, it’s only Iowa, and it’s very early, but still, those result are impressive.

Beginning in 1998, Edwards served one term as a Senator from North Carolina. He resigned in 2004 to join the Democratic ticket with John Kerry, and after he and Kerry lost to Bush-Cheney II, Edwards signed on as the director of the Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity at the University of North Carolina. In 2000, he was named “sexiest politician alive” by People magazine. In 2002, in the Senate, he co-sponsored Joe Lieberman’s resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq, and then voted for the war—a vote he now says he regrets. Edwards supports gay civil unions (but not gay marriage), abortion rights, and the death penalty.

His wife, Elizabeth, was diagnosed with breast cancer the day after the general election in 2004 and has been quite public about her battle against the illness. Their first son, Wade, died in a car accident in 1996, at the age of 16. They have three other children: Catharine, Emma Claire, and Jack.

Edwards declared his candidacy in New Orleans, in the hurricane-devastated Ninth Ward, by promising to re-establish America’s moral leadership in the world; rejecting the idea of a “troop surge” in Iraq and calling instead for troop withdrawal; promising to end poverty; conveying his concern about global warming; and taping this YouTube video.

RSS icon Comments

1

I don't think Edwards ever resigned from his Senate seat.

Posted by DOUG. | January 2, 2007 4:27 PM
2

Edwards declined to run again in 2004, and North Carolina does not have an "LBJ Law" like in Texas, where a candidate can be on the ballot for two different positions. Edwards, in the middle of a run for the White House in '03, withdrew his name in the race for his seat so that Democrats could line up a good candidate. Unfortunately, Erskine Bowles, former Clinton CoS, lost that race.

Posted by Will | January 2, 2007 4:34 PM
3

This is the guy.

Posted by laterite | January 2, 2007 4:35 PM
4

Let me plug my blog...

Washington For Edwards

wa4edwards.blogspot.com

Posted by Will | January 2, 2007 4:37 PM
5

crooksandliars.com has yesterday's Stephanopoulos interview where Edwards refers to the increase of troops in Iraq as "The McCain Doctrine". Brilliant! THIS guy totally gets it.

Edwards/Obama '08!

Posted by DOUG. | January 2, 2007 4:46 PM
6

If we must listen to two more years of “Two Americas”, all I want to know is where the line is drawn. How little do you have to make to qualify to be in the America he wants to help, and how much do you have to make to be in the America he wants to screw? (And if there is a gap betwixt the two, what does he have planned for that America?) Common John just give me a nice round non-nuanced number that I can grab hold of. ($30,000? $40,000? $50,000? $100,000? $75,456.32?)

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me | January 2, 2007 4:57 PM
7

Pity the poor rich people.

Posted by keshmeshi | January 2, 2007 5:07 PM
8

On the The Huffington Post, John Bohrer writes about presidential candidate John Edwards' response to a question about marriage equality. During his recent trip to New Hampshire, "Edwards called the issue "the single hardest social issue for me personally."

"Civil unions? Yes. Partnership benefits? Yes," he said. "But it's a jump for me to get to gay marriage. I haven't yet got across that bridge."


Bohrer writes:

A better answer for Senator Edwards to give to his gay supporters may be, 'When it comes to legal equality for same sex couples and their families, marriage is the only currency of commitment the real world universally understands and accepts. But as it stands, most of our country is not there yet, and may not be for a generation. It is for this reason, I cannot say there will be any great action during my term. I can only say that the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice. The president is just one person, and he alone cannot bend that arc. But I do believe that in time, as more come to the realization of equality, it can and it will bend.'

This answer identifies the solution to the legal inequalities and the political reality. While both conclusions are evident, the idea that the country is not ready for marriage equality is much better understood than the fact that only marriage is full equality. The latter is a bitter pill to swallow before the American public, but coupled with the former, it goes down a lot easier.

Speaking the truth on this subject is pragmatically the most important thing Senator Edwards can do for same sex couples -- as a candidate or as president. For, few, if any, expect him to promote marriage equality by the constitutional powers of his office. Instead, his unofficial power of the bully-pulpit will have the greatest impact on the future of equality in this country.

That's why it's important he stops "struggling" and tells the country the truth -- all of it.


Posted by John Wilkinson | January 2, 2007 5:10 PM
9

J.W. @ (8). Is that long moral arc crap the answer we should have given women in 1920 and blacks in the 1870 & 1965? I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect leadership with insight to justice and the political brass to lead to it (regardless of how “popular” the just solution may be today.)

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me | January 2, 2007 5:24 PM
10

Or the Jews in Nazi Germany? (“Just be patient, the moral arc will vindicate you in a few generations, but it wouldn’t be politically expedient for me to take any actual action on your behalf at this time.”)

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me | January 2, 2007 5:33 PM
11

Remember all the nice things Bill Clinton said to the gays (before he gave them don’t ask don’t tell and DOMA)?

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me | January 2, 2007 5:37 PM
12

YGBKM at 9 & 10 --

Please don't misunderstand . . .

Bohrer's opinion is his, raised by me as a way of pointing out Edwards' expression that "... it's a jump for me to get to gay marriage." I've seen nothing else in the press about Edwards' public statement on the matter -- which is a sad fact.

Candidates for office have had over a decade to prepare for the inevitable question about marriage equality. No candidate should be caught by surprise by the question. And certainly, no candidate should be unprepared to link the freedom to marry with our long history of social equality movements. Further, no candidate should be unprepared to use aspirational language -- community building, strong kin and family networks, stability, commitment, etc., etc. -- to frame this issue at its most positive, without the caveat proposed by Bohrer.

If Gerald Ford could be nudged in the right direction by the fact of a long-time gay couple lovingly restoring his childhood home, what does it take to get candidate Edwards to come around?

Posted by John Wilkinson | January 2, 2007 6:13 PM
13

Edwards is the winner.

Posted by Zander | January 2, 2007 6:54 PM
14

John Edwards knows a lot about poverty, after all, he's helped throw a lot of people into it with:

- his co-sponsorship of H-1b visas,

- his support for illegal aliens,

- his vote for MFN-China

but what about stuff like iraq war and the patriot act?

well, he voted for them too

About the only think you can say for Edwards is, he spent so much time running for president that he didnt have time to do more damage as senator

Posted by Nibblenook guru | January 2, 2007 7:07 PM
15

Edwards is the only chance of the current batch of Democratic contenders. Can't they figure it out that a sitting senator cannot be elected President? the only time in the last hundred years that a senator was elected President was Kennedy in 1960. In the US we prefer governors and others with little or no experience in international affairs for our president. Apparently being an idiot helps, too.

Posted by check the facts | January 2, 2007 8:24 PM
16

No way can Edwards win the presidency, and I doubt he can get the nomination. He only served one term as senator and has been out of the national spotlight since 2004. He would be a decent VP choice, though.

Posted by Gabriel | January 3, 2007 2:32 AM
17

There is no evidence that the death penalty deters crime or even offers "closure" for victims families. I cannot vote for a candidate who supports state-sponsored murder.

Posted by Papayas | January 3, 2007 10:49 AM
18

What a hottie! Kudos to him for speaking his honest opinion about gay marriage (not everyone can be a 'decider')—people should stop waiting for the perfect candidate to say all the controversial things we liberals want to hear while also being widely electable (p.s the absence of gay marriage isn’t equitable with women's suffrage or the civil rights movement--sorry all repression isn’t equal).

Also, respect his ‘two Americas’ analysis. Sure it’s simple—but at least it acknowledges the seriousness of class that exists in America. Two Americas acknowledges that even with ‘hard work’ many are entrenched in a cycle of poverty—so many other politicians and fellow Americans would like to believe that with just enough ingenuity and hard work anyone can overcome their hardships. The same opportunities don’t exist for everyone—what high-profile politician has the balls to say that? A hot one.

Posted by Lyly | January 21, 2007 11:47 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).