The Ponder Point

The Edwards dilemma

With the election changing, the media will soon go back to an old question, who will John Edwards endorse. Before march 4th it seemed unlikely that he would endorse anyone, there was little to gain. If he endorsed Obama and Obama won, he would just be jumping on the bandwagon. If he endorsed Clinton, and she lost, if would have been worthless. Now that the race is more even, there’s a good reason to endorse either, or neither. With Hillary, he may like the fact that she seems more like a fighter, a trait that he himself praises. As both politicians take an offensive, man against the machine belief, he may find himself more attuned with her. The problem, is that if he were to endorse her, he would just be one of MANY people she owed. He would be at the back of the line behind Ohio Governor Ted Strickland, Indiana senator and former governor Evan Bayh, Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell, Ohio rep Tubbs-Jones, and countless others. More importantly is that he wouldn’t have as much to bring, as she is already doing well amongst many of the Edwards voters, the working poor. While Obama does not appear to be a fighter, Edwards may realize that Hillary was a fighter, and failed in 1994 to get universal health care, then just spent the next 14 years ignoring it. He might decide that Hillary is all talk, or that another tactic is needed. More importantly, Edwards has more to offer, as his appeal to blue-collar workers would help Obama far more than Clinton. There is also the fact that Obama will have fewer dogs at his heal, begging for scraps. Since Edwards offers more, and has less competition, tacitly speaking, it would be best for him to endorse Obama, but as we’ve seen so far, there seem to be few rules in this election season that stick.

Posted at 04:01PM Mar 06, 2008 by Taylor Garvey Poro in General  |  Comments[0]