Jessica

Vozel

Read Jessica's bio and previous columns here

January 7, 2008

John Edwards Smartly Wrests Mantle of Change from Hillary

After months of speculation, spin and dissection of minor details, the 2008 presidential election is finally taking off, with the Iowa and New Hampshire caucuses as well as the key debates held in New Hampshire on Saturday night shedding new light on the race. While these early caucuses do not historically predict who will be the Republican and Democratic presidential nominees, it’s refreshing to have a concrete indication of favored candidates that has slightly more weight than dead-end media polls. 

After Sen. Barack Obama won Iowa, former Sen. John Edwards – who came in second – had a choice to make during Saturday night’s debate: Side with Obama as a fellow “agent of change” or side with Sen. Hillary Clinton against the Iowa caucus victor and possible new frontrunner.  Edwards chose to align himself with Obama, focusing on the fresh voices he or Obama would bring to a government that has been dominated by the same couple of families for almost two decades. 

During the debate, Clinton accused Obama of (what else?) flip-flopping on Iraq war funding and his support of the Patriot Act. Edwards then shot back with a response more impassioned than Obama’s defense of himself: “We (Edwards and Obama) have a fundamental difference about the way you bring about change. But both of us are powerful voices for change. And if I might add, we finished first and second in the Iowa caucus, I think in part as a result of that. Now, what I would say is this: Any time you speak out powerfully for change, the forces of status quo attack. That's exactly what happens.” He then went on to clearly identify Clinton as the “status quo” by saying “I didn't hear these kinds of attacks when she was ahead.”

In siding with Obama, while still highlighting their differences, Edwards made a wise choice.  Despite Obama’s Iowa victory and the close race in New Hampshire, which has Clinton and Obama in a dead heat, Clinton is still a phenomenal force to be reckoned with. She is also a divisive candidate, probably the only one in the pool of Democrats who has such zealous detractors, fervent supporters and few who can say they are undecided about her. To side with her would be dangerous because her steadfast supporters would never sway in Edwards’s direction and her detractors can be quite vicious.

Obama, on the other hand, does not have the political legacy that Clinton has. Many Americans seem to be feeling him out, dipping their toes in the water without fully committing to an opinion about him. Edwards is in much the same position, which for the time being is an advantageous one, and has maintained that by emphasizing the fresh outlook he and Obama bring to the stale political arena in Washington. 

After Edwards took his shots, Clinton retaliated by pointing out that she is “not just running on the promise of change, I'm running on 35 years of change,” citing the education and health care reform she worked for. While she makes a valid point about the emptiness of campaign rhetoric, Edwards’s remarks are more likely to adhere. They pack a powerful message about the status quo, which relates not just to politicians but the rest of the domestic axis of evil – corporate America and the pharmaceutical and health care industries.

In a few lines, Edwards both smartly deprived Clinton of the mantle of change and established himself as the candidate with the courage to speak out even when the opposition is fierce. 

Edwards now has the task of separating himself from Obama to ensure that his remarks don’t just bolster Obama’s campaign while doing little for his own. He should continue to advocate for the middle class as the voice of the little people, which has become his defining agenda and could be quite successful if he is able to get the middle class to vote in record numbers. But it would also help him to reach out to America’s young people, who have had a profound impact on Obama’s campaign (a poll on the youth-centered social networking site Facebook has Obama ranked as the Democratic favorite by 60 percent).   

After Saturday night’s debate, I have a new respect for Edwards and would like to see him be the rising star in this election. If not, however, I would settle for an Obama/Edwards ticket in 2008. 

© 2008 North Star Writers Group. May not be republished without permission.

Click here to talk to our writers and editors about this column and others in our discussion forum.

To e-mail feedback about this column, click here. If you enjoy this writer's work, please contact your local newspapers editors and ask them to carry it.

This is Column # JV038. Request permission to publish here.