A particularly and consistently wise Edwards Group person has suggested

[saltpoint]

to me that John Edwards is keeping a cool-browed even-handed approach in place because it is possible that he knows something we all do not know.

(Well, just for the record, IMO, John Edwards knows a hell of a lot more than I know, but that's a separate list!)

One thing I do recognize, though, is that the more influence he can wield on our ticket and in our next government, the better the party and nation will be.

[Ninga]

1. I agree, OC. The 64 thousand dollar question is.....what, when, and how it will surface.

Among the inside party leaders, political relevance can be a slippery and fleeting thing. Perception plays the biggest role.

John's cool-browed even-handed approach has kept him above the fray, for the time being. I expect that at some point he will surface and will make perfectly clear, his position.

Now that I am thinking about it, I am wondering if he will surface in time for the North Carolina Primary?

[saltpoint]

2. Good question, good points.

I bet John and Elizabeth have poured some lemonade or iced tea in a tall glass or two and talked this over.

I won't intrude on their discussion, but if I could be a fly on the wall...

Well. I agree with you that we'll just have to wait and see what develops.

But I love the influence his domestic agenda is having on this election cycle. It will boost the blue team and put the red team on the defensive.

And properly so.

Very good to see you, Ninga.

[midnight]

3. I cannot see what influence John's adult like ideas have had

on the remaining discussion of this primary. Please inform me. I could use some encouraging words from those who know this.

[Ninga]

4. For at least the past 18 months, John Edwards worked to educate and highlight the plight

of the poor and working class in the country.

He gave major addresses, launched and suspended his campaign in New Orleans, working to stress the forgotten city, state, and people of that area.

He has successfully raised the awareness of the American people.

I believe he holds a small deck of cards in his 26 delegates.

My only concern is that John did not stay in the Primary process long enough to demonstrate that he indeed had a considerable amount of Americans who supported his progressive platform.

I believe that if he had stayed in, at least until Super Tuesday, he would have received at least 15% or more, of the vote.


But he didn't stay in. And I do not know who pushed him out. I do not know who was responsible. Nor do I know if Edwards cut a deal, and if he did, what it was.

[saltpoint]

5. Yep. We're blind as cash fish on this one until more info is brought into the

light.

In the meanwhile, you are right to point out those emphasis points as being so characteristic of Edwards' true core beliefs.

[Ninga]

7. I am a student of the "dynamic". In my view, the time and distance put between his

Jan . 26th suspension, and the relevancy of the primary is starting to dim.

If I list all of the things about Edwards suspending that I "do know'.....they are very few and very puzzling.

I do not believe these to be speculation, but "facts" we can all agree took place.

1. He did it abruptly

2. He did it will little to no fanfare

3. He was somewhat "cryptic" in his language

4. He has not made one public appearance nor made one speech nor interviewed since.

5. His name and photo was used by the DNC in a fund raising effort, one time.

6. He has not endorsed nor said that he will or he won't.


Being so closed, unavailable, and out of communication does not ring right given the personal and heartfelt nature of his candidacy.

Not one word to his supporters, not one word from Elizabeth, Cate nor his close advisor's. A very closed and tight ship of control. Everyone toeing the line. Not one leak. Very curious.

Gone. Poof. Like a puff of smoke.

If Edwards were retreating to being a private citizen, then he would have said so.

He is behaving like a person who has been spurned and is under a gag order waiting to have his day in court.


Right now, he is not a player or a visible influence of any kind. He is not shaping the public perception, nor giving public advice.

He is not being deferred to, nor spoken about. His name is seldom mentioned.




He left a mark on this Primary, but as of now, his candidacy will only have a few lines written about it in the history books, his role will be reduced to being a footnote.

As for his future. It is a huge unknown.

[LiveLiberally]

9. I don't know the answers to your last point about his leaving either....

but I agree completely with your assessment of his positive effect on the race. Regarding Super Tuesday, it is so difficult to predict how the results would have changed, particularly as there was such movement in the polls in the last week (and how much was that due to Edwards dropping out?) I think he would have had a very good chance to break 15% in several states such as Wisconsin and Oklahoma and that would have given him more delegates. My understanding is that he doesn't actually control the 26 he has; he can recommend at the convention that they vote for a given candidate but acc. to Party rules they can vote as they wish. But they can't, I believe, side with another candidate until the convention even if he formally endorses a candidate before then. Maybe that is what he feared. If he had a significant pool of delegates and if the delegate count remained very close between Clinton and Obama, that might actually force the nomination to remain in the air until the convention in September, just two months before the general election. I know a lot of the democratic leadership feels that would be a disaster for the party's chances to win the GE. Maybe he felt the same. I personally think he ran to be President, not to be king or queen maker. But I don't really know.

[LiveLiberally]

6. John and Elizabeth's influence on the campaign is a great subject...

and I completely agree that the more influence John can wield in this campaign the better we will all be. It's indisputable (I believe) that beginning last spring he forced both Clinton and Obama to pay attention to and take more progressive stances on issues such as health care than either would have felt compelled to do otherwise. Clinton had been burned by the issue of health care before (in 1993-4) and was therefore perhaps more reticent to avoid the inevitable critics during the primaries. Obama, I think, is more of a political pragmatist (despite his 100% liberal voting record) and so would have preferred to keep his negotiating chips closer to his chest until at least the general election. John forced them both out of their respective dens, not only on this issue, but also more broadly on economic reforms, specific environmental policies etc... Frankly, when it comes to a concrete, progressive policy agenda, Edwards stands head and shoulders above the others.

But I don't think, unfortunately, that that influence has extended to one of the causes John and Elizabeth care most deeply about, that of poverty and socio-economic inequality. Both Clinton and Obama have given lip-service in speeches and obligingly added pages to their website dedicated to the topic. But neither have made poverty a central issue or argued forcibly that it is absolutely central to a progressive, democratic agenda. I'm very disappointed in this, because I think their neglect of the issue is due more to political expediency than to a genuine lack of concern. As a demographic group, the poor are a large (and growing) minority; as a political group, they have little voice. Disproportionately, few of them vote in primaries or caucuses, and hence their voices are comparatively easy to ignore. Meanwhile, our democratic contenders focus their attention on the great middle class -- which one politician famously defined back in 2004 as those making between $20,000 and $200,000 per year! This is a dangerous myth, because it pretends that a family of four can afford decent housing, good childcare, health insurance etc.. on 20k a year (they can't) and that those making over 150K aren't living better than 97% of Americans (they are and that's hardly "middle class"). It was Edwards who connected the plight of the poor with the squeeze of the middle class, who argued that to fix the latter you have to make eliminating poverty a central priority.

As for John's current influence, I think it's there, but it is at this moment more a matter of constraint than proactive prodding. This is one reason I'm glad he's held off endorsing either candidate. They both know the issues he and Elizabeth see as most important and so both are constrained to reinforce their commitment to specific policies he originally proposed. And I don't think his influence is due to his ability to sway a particular voting bloc. I agree with others that most Edwards supporters have, however reluctantly, chosen between the two remaining candidates. But I believe Edwards gained great credibility amongst a broad swath of the voting public by running a first-class, policy-oriented, respectful campaign. He remains an amazingly gifted politician who is capable of pushing reform in Washington because he knows the system but has not been co-opted by it. Neither Clinton or Obama are just pandering when they stress over and over that they want him to be an important part of their administration. Particularly as this primary campaign increasingly adopts scorched earth policies, whomever becomes the nominee will need John Edwards.

[saltpoint]

8. Yes. I really long for all the lip service to be converted to meaningful reform

and vigorously supported action.

A lot of people would throw in to make that happen, and that "central priority" talk we heard from John Edwards rang awfully true and real for many of us. Agree also that the first-class campaign he ran, as you described it accurately, was definitional. You call it "polcy-oriented," and by god that's exactly right.

It would be valuable to us as citizens to have Edwards' priorities in working context for say, the Justice Department. The 3 dangerous men that Bush as appointed to be AG have been successively abominable. What a system-jolting breath of fresh air it would be to have John Edwards in charge of that department instead.

Another extemely insightful and thoughtful analysis, PRT.

[Ninga]

10. We haven't gotten to that stage in the primary where we can latch on to "signals" because

we haven't gotten a nominee.

What I haven't been able to determine is what could Edwards do, to remain relevant. What would it look and sound like?

No one advances on their past laurels. His past laurel was his run the the presidency. It is now over.

How does he manifest his leadership? Isn't leadership getting people to follow you? How does he do that?

I am at a mental roadblock with this, and can not picture how he can make a major impact.

Unless.

He endorses.

[saltpoint]

11. Good logistical insight, but you are more-than-just correct here.

You're looking down the farther road.

Let me tell you, Ninga, I can't see around the next bend.

An endorsement would be interesting. I could honestly see him going either way, or possibly still holding out on one altogether.

If he holds out, though, it's as you say -- his impact is diminished.

It would be great to have some more information, wouldn't it.

[Ninga]

14. Well you hit the nail on the head. We don't know. Period. If Edwards were to call

for a press conference, lets say right before North Carolina.......then every news outlet in the world would be falling all over themselves to get a live feed.

His window is closing with each and every passing day.

I think the acrimony, vitriol, bitterness, and all the other crap that we are living with now, will only be more onerous by June, and it may be an exercise in futility for Gore, Carter, Edwards, et al to step in and mediate.

The public will have moved onto their summer plans, leaving the boring and ugly Democratic primary in the dust.


This game of politics has it all over the gambling of Las Vegas.

Instinct, smell, ear, timing and vision all play a role.

[saltpoint]

16. The trendlines right now don't favor a quick resolution. They favor your

assessment instead.

While it's not statistically likely, it is at least possible that the party will ask both the two frontrunners to take one for the team. Hillary -- you're out. Barack -- you're out.

They won't want to hear it of course, but Solomon wasn't planning to LITERALLY chop the child in half. It was just a figurative construction to bolster the legend of wisdom.

For Democrats this time, Gore and Edwards have kept pretty quiet for now. We have Mississippi, Pennsvyvania, Guam, Indiana, North Carolinea, West Virginia, Kentucky, Oregon, Montana, Suth Dakota, and Puerot Rico to vote still, plus some outcome or other on MI and FL's recalcitrant delegations.

The what-ifs are fascinating, if frought with peril:

What if an unforeseen development knocks either Clinton or Obama from the race?

What if Edwards re-enters the race for North Carolina only, as a favorite son, which may or may not be successful for first place but which would dramatically shift the outcome for the other two candidates?

What if Elizabeth says, "Let's not entangel ourselves in the delegate squabble; take the AG spot and shepherd in a new era of economic democracy?

What if Al Gore meets privately with Edwards and the two offer themselves as a potential ticket for a deadlocked Denver convention?

Etc.

It's a wild one.

[Ninga]

18. I have enjoyed this debate immensely OC. We are challenged as citizens in this journey.

We are required to diligently asses the reality of the current day, without having the luxury of seeing into the future.

So we only know what we only know, and do our very best in the meantime.

None of us have the privilege of seeing the iceberg.....yet we have to determine if the tip is substantial enough to keep us from drowning.

[saltpoint]

21. But wait. One point for consideration is that I feel I am the chief

beneficiary our your posts here. I like learning from people and you have been very patient with me in this exchange.

Much appreciated.

[Greylyn58]

23. To answer your quiry about John re-entering the race...

for the NC May 6 primary--That won't happen as far as I know, thanks to Jerry Meek.

Per the article in which this was announced: North Carolinians will not get a chance to vote for John Edwards.

State Democratic Party Chairman Jerry Meek excluded Edwards from a list of candidates he submitted Tuesday to the State Board of Elections for the May 6 primary. The Democrats on the North Carolina ballot will be U.S. Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois -- and former Sen. Mike Gravel of Alaska.

Meek, who has discretion under state law on whom to include on the ballot, said Tuesday that he had hoped to confer with the Edwards campaign before making his decision.

But Meek said no one with the campaign returned his calls....

To read the entire article, go here...

http://www.newsobserver.com/print/wednesday/city_state/story/926675.html


Even though my vote won't count, I still intend to write in his name.

[saltpoint]

24. One dreams upon the opposing lights of the hour, to swipe a

phrase from Robert Frost.

[shimmergal]

25. Wow!

I too have wondered about the "unforseen development" knocking one or the other remaining candidates out of the race--thinking perhaps that's one reason John suspended his campaign rather than ending it.

But them both taking one for the party--what an exciting possibility, and a way to immediately up the party's prospects in _every_ 2008 contest! The way we're going, there'll be so much hurt and outrage, a prospective electoral victory may well plummet into bitter defeat.

But would either of them do it? My feeling is, not without *Bush-style type blackmail or worse--and Democrats don't act that way. Do we?

[saltpoint]

26. Yep. It's going to be a strange, almost eerie sveral weeks coming up.

And that's if there's no endorsement.

If there is an endorsement, it will be interesting to see how much more we actually know by the Denver convention than we know now.

[LiveLiberally]

12. I agree -- I want him to be AG

Don't know if this is his desire, but I can't imagine a better person to turn the Dept. of Justice around. I have been profoundly ashamed of its incompetence, rank disregard for constitutional safeguards, blatant trampling of the sanctity of the law.... Enough said.

[saltpoint]

13. It's "enough said" because you are concise and clear but you said

it very well.

Agree -- it's been a real edgy 7-8 years. I'd like to go to sleep in the evenings feeling like someone with some bedrock decency was at the control panel n the Deparmtent of Justice.

[Ninga]

15. We are all engaging in wishful thinking. It would be magnificent if Edwards could play a role

that was so meaningful that it would help draw voters to the polls in November.

[LiveLiberally]

17. I think that's still a reasonable hope, don't you?

After all, he was always emphatic that he would support whomever wins the nomination. I'm not sure that would extend to accepting the VP role (as in does he want it? and/or would it be offered?) but I think he will actively campaign for the nominee. And that could make a real difference, particularly in swing states like mine (Wisconsin) that were strongly supporting his candidacy (he was polling about 17% here when he suspended his campaign.)

[Ninga]

19. Yes, it is reasonable to you, and to me. Do we count in the real world or only here?

[Ninga]

20. I need to leave this engaging and wonderful discussion to cook dinner. I will enjoy

a hearty glass of Chanti, and toast the thoughtful debate we engaged in.

Thank you.

[LiveLiberally]

22. Bon Appetit! And thanks too