Irony of the 2008 Election: John Edwards, White Man, Is the Best Candidate

by Maryscott O’Connor – crossposted from My Left Wing

What a cruel mockery for liberals it is that in a year wherein we have viable candidates as historical firsts — both a black man and a white woman — the best person for the job just happens to be a white man.I’m hard pressed to tag John Edwards as an unlucky man, given the many blessings he’s received over his lifetime; but he’s also inarguably had one hell of an up and down journey. Granted, his career as an attorney brought him great wealth and prestige, and his marriage seems to have been one of true love from the beginning. But then there was the tragedy of his son’s death, and his wife’s battle with cancer; and politically, the man seems to have been born under the also-ran sign.

Coming in second to the plodding ballast that was John Kerry in the 2004 primaries, Edwards settled for the vice-presidential slot on what ought to have been a winning ticket, but was, of course, ultimately doomed by Kerry’s inability to beat a sure loser. Through no fault of his own, Edwards was relegated to a footnote, simply because of a combination of the fearfulness of primary voters and the power of the status quo in the Democratic Party.

And now, facing a line-up of outright buffoons in the Republican Party, Edwards would be a sure thing — the Golden Boy, the Perfect Candidate against any of the doddering, stammering, absolute morons vying for the Republican candidacy. He has the charisma, the intelligence, the energy, the idealism — not to mention the plans and the sensible, liberal policies to back it up.

But instead of being the sure thing he absolutely would be in any other year, Edwards once again has the exasperatingly rotten luck of facing the media maelstrom that is the historical match-up of the two powers-that-be- and media-crowned “front-runners,” Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Make no mistake about it, Hillary Clinton was long ago named by the powers-that-be in the Democratic Party the candidate of their inclination; and Barack Obama was anointed by the media not long after, when it became clear that his particular brand of charismatic speaking played well on television. It makes good TV.

John Edwards, on the other hand, seems by comparison — and here comes the irony — just more of the same old, same old. White male, southern to boot — haven’t we had enough of that? Aren’t we ready for CHANGE?

But goddamnit, she may be a woman, but Hillary Clinton is just about as entrenched a politician as they come; the fact that she has a uterus makes NO goddamned difference in her policy decisions. And frankly, nothing Barack Obama has said, regardless of how eloquently he has said it, indicates that he intends to be the so-called “agent for change” he claims to wish to be. In fact, everything Obama and Clinton have said indicates they intend nothing more than more of the SAME — the same tired policies, with pitiful tweaks and pathetic twists, none of which will ever make a damned bit of difference in this horribly perverted country.

John Edwards, on the other hand, if one listens to what he actually has to say, knows good and goddamned well how fucked up this country is, and how radically things have to change, systemically, in order for the majority of the people in it to benefit from that change.

So let Hillary Clinton rail about how much she has changed and will continue to change; let Barack Obama wax eloquent about how he won’t do more of the same and he will bring about change… But if true change is what this country really wants and believes it really needs, then it would do well to listen closely to John Edwards — and then vote accordingly in its primaries.