The major reason for this, I think, was because I was viewing this entire shindig in terms of individual states and momentum. That is not, however, what this race has turned out to be. This is a race for delegates. And in such a race, Senator Edwards stands to benefit from every delegate he gains.
As long as he continues to pull between 15-20%, neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama will likely gain enough delegates to secure the nomination on their own. That means that they need John Edwards. And seeing as his chances of winning are virtually non-existant, John Edwards really does not need either of them. They may have to change their message to appease him if they want his support in Denver. John Edwards is in the position of power. But only as long as he remains in the race.
The second John Edwards drops out, his message becomes powerless in the election. Obama and Clinton will be free to keep with their own themes and promises, and hope that they are able to attract Edwards' supporters with their own brand of politics. But if John Edwards stays in, he is able to best decide who conplies with his message, and can possibly turn the eventual nominee down a path much more like his own presidency would be.
John Edwards serves his own best interest, and the interests of his supporters, by staying in this race until the end. Can John Edwards be the next President of the United States? I'm 99.9% sure that the answer is no. But in this style of race, one in which delegates matter, a vote for John Edwards is not a waste. Rather, it is a vote of confidence; a vote that you trust him to choose which of the other two will best carry his message to the White House. A vote that you believe that even though victory may seem impossible, that the message doesn't necessarily have to die.
So, I'll admit it. I was wrong. In my fiery rush to find support for Obama, I forgot what this campaign is really about: the message. John Edwards' chances may be gone, but his message is alive and well. And the best way for him to make sure it finds a way onto Pennsylvania Avenue is to stay in the race. This will hurt Hillary in the South, and could hurt Obama in places like California and New York. But if John Edwards truly cares about his ideals more than the office, it is the right thing to do.
If Edwards continues at this rate, he'll pull in 325 or so delegates. Assuming he doesn't have another Nevada, he may break 400. Certainly not enough to win, but in a campaign where I expect most states to be decided by single digit percentiles, that may make a difference.
By August people could be so fed up with ObamaHillary that people could be yearning for a diffent choice. In a negotiated convention, that would be possible. We could see the Edwards ascendancy then. Heck, we could see the ascendancy of anyone if the support is strong enough.
Of course we could get sick of Obama and Hillary long before that, making an opening for Edwards. (He still has the problem of the Media's lovefest with the "historic" candidates though.)
Read the "The Hill" article I linked to somewhere here. Even Edwards own team is looking at this as more of a kingmaker situation than anything else.
Also, it keeps the GOP attack machines somewhat diffused for lack of a single target.
Of course having Edwards as kingmaker would be OK.....I just would like him to crown on himself.
As one who was an Edwards supporter (still regard him very highly) and am now an Obama supporter, I couldn't agree more. John Edwards needs to stay in this. And I pray he doesn't do a premature tag-team.
The more Edwards is in the race, the more the focus will be on poverty. And we cannot keep our heads in the sand about this. The permanently unemployed, the underemployed, the house poor, those in foreclosure, those in bankruptcy because of high medical bills, need someone to speak for them every day. The two "leading" candidates have to address many issues in the course of their campaign days. But John Edwards is on a life mission. Let's make sure his megaphone is turned on and his audience wide.
Even Southern Dems like LBJ did something about poverty. But the last two Democratic presidents, not so much. We have got to get our priorities straight. It's not all about you or me. It's about doing what is right for those who can't. Despite the wallowing-in-self-interest that is the modern GOP, people matter. And the Reagan,Bush,Bush reigns of aggrandizing the rich have gotten the US off track. Bush can claim his sanctimonious high ground, but where moral values come in, he misses the boat, every time. Our candidates need to make that clear and say it often. (A slang alternative: It's the people, stupid.)
I think Edwards' anti-poverty message is exactly right -- Bush has totally screwed all but the rich in this country. But it is historically inaccurate to say that President Clinton did "not so much" about poverty. Most significantly, the number of poor people in the U.S. declined during the Clinton presidency from 38 million to 31 million, even as the population grew.
According to the St. Pete Times:
Gary Burtless, an economist with the Brookings Institute, says there's no getting around the numbers.Sure, Burtless said, the dot.com craze may have helped the economic numbers, and some may argue that the U.S. economy was due for an up-cycle during the 1990s, "but the fact is, there was significant economic growth during that period. It's tough to get around that."
"To the degree that a president can effect economic progress," Burtless said, "most would say Bill Clinton did well above average."
Here are a few facts from Clinton's economic record:
* Longest economic expansion in American historyA record 115 months of economic expansion. The economy grew at an average of 4 percent per year.
* More than 22 million new jobs
More than 22 million jobs were created in less than eight years -- the most ever under a single administration, and more than were created in the previous twelve years.
* Home ownership
The homeownership rate increased from 64.2 percent in 1992 to 67. 7 percent.
* Lowest unemployment in 30 years
Unemployment dropped from more than 7 percent in 1993 to just 4.0 percent in November 2000. Unemployment for African Americans and Hispanics fell to the lowest rates on record, and the rate for women is the lowest in more than 40 years.
* Higher incomes at all levels
After falling by nearly $2,000 between 1988 and 1992, the median family's income rose by $6,338 during the Clinton Administration, after adjusting for inflation. African American family income increased even more, rising by nearly $7,000 since 1993. After years of stagnant income growth among average and lower income families, all income brackets experienced double-digit growth. The bottom 20 percent saw the largest income growth at 16.3 percent.
* Lowest poverty rate in 20 years
Since Congress passed President Clinton's Economic Plan in 1993, the poverty rate declined from 15.1 percent to 11.8 percent in 2000 - the largest six-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years. There were now 7 million fewer people in poverty than in 1993. The child poverty rate declined more than 25 percent, the poverty rates for single mothers, African Americans and the elderly have dropped to their lowest levels on record, and Hispanic poverty dropped to its lowest level since 1979.
* Paid off $360 billion of the national debt
Between 1998-2000, the national debt was reduced by $363 billion - the largest three-year debt pay-down in American history. We were on track to pay off the entire debt by 2009.
* Converted the largest budget deficit in American history to the largest surplus
Thanks in large part to the 1993 Deficit Reduction Act, the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, and President Clinton's call to save the surplus for debt reduction, Social Security, and Medicare solvency, America has put its fiscal house in order.
* Lowest federal income tax burden in 35 years
President Clinton enacted targeted tax cuts such as the Earned Income Tax Credit expansion, $500 child tax credit, and the HOPE Scholarship and Lifetime Learning Tax Credits. Federal income taxes as a percentage of income for the typical American family have dropped to their lowest level in 35 years.
* More families own stock than ever before
The number of families owning stock in the United States increased by 40 percent since 1992.
As a matter of policy, Clinton's policies may have in some instances, indirectly helped the poor. But draconian welfare reform did not. Had it been better equipped with training programs, it may have done better. But it didn't. To be sure, endless welfare helps no one. But just ending it doesn't solve the problem.
That more people own stock is misleading. Because pension systems have been sharply reduced (a trend taking off under Clinton and taken to the extreme under Bush)people must have their 401ks and Iras. Many include stock. We are on our own. So, we have to take care of ourselves in many cases as the numbers of companies offering traditional pensions dwindle.
Lowest unemployment rate means nothing. We are never told the real numbers -- those whose outsourced and off-shored jobs disappeared permanently and workers who never found meaningful work at the height of their earning years. Millions of fifty-something workers were dissed by their companies and were either unemployed or underemployed thereafter.
Clinton does deserve credit for shoring up the pensions system. That is to say, he, unlike Reagan or Bush I or II, his administration monitored pension systems which tried to liquidate and drop off a cliff retirees who had contractually owned their pensions. I personally am grateful for that because his administration helped my Dad when the company he worked for for decades was bought out and the new one tried to liquidate the pension system.
Also, as retired presidents both Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter are (where giving and addressing poverty are concerned) exemplary.
And you are also right that macro statistics like stock ownership and unemployment are not particularly meaningful without understanding what is behind them. I included them as part of providing an overall record, and speaking from an economic perspective, one can say that low unemployment and high capital investment are generally more positive indicators than their opposites.
But given a fair reading of the entire record, the Clinton economic record is pretty good. The most significant statistics, as far as measuring what his policies did for the poor, are poverty rates and the distribution of income growth among all earning levels. Furthermore, the EITC was a very important piece of legislation.
Also, I wouldn't give Clinton too much credit for increased home ownership rates. Much of that has to do with the reckless monetary policies of one Alan Greenspan. A man who should be publicly disgraced and then maybe jailed for gross negligence. He created the historically low interest rates that created the mortgage bubble. Irrational exuberance was his making. And as mortgage lenders and underwriters were having a field day loosening the most very basic of banking controls, the Federal Reserve sat idly by and did nothing. Now this year they have finally decided to exercise their regulatory authority, bravo guys! Better late than never.
Not to mention, that Clinton signed into law the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act a much overlooked act at the behest of Citibank. The merger of Travelers Group with Citibank has been the most costly mistake our government has allowed. Citigroup has had its hands in every major financial debacle since the time of its merger. Who helped finance the WorldCom and Enron scandals? Who has been a key player in the securitization of mortgages and the creation of this complicated chain of financial transactions? Citibank should appropriate BASF's catch phrase. Citigroup, we don't make a lot of the financial disasters you know, we make them bigger!
What this country needs, aznew, and in my current role as teachersoccerdem I'll tell you just what that need is in 2,800 boring words. We need a leader like JFK was. A man who inspired hope to a nation. A Democratic Reagan--a new Kennedy. Never mind that there are some rewriters of history who will say that JFK was merely a whoremonger with the sex drive of a tomcat with 40 testicles, a guy who shared our beloved Marilyn Monroe with his brother and then dumped her. A guy who had an affair with a mafiosa's babe, named Judith Exner. All this while his wife was home watching her maid ironing her nylon stockings and dollar bills. And, to top it all off, a guy, this RFK, who left a bunch of Cubans with their stomachs and brains blown out on the beach of the Bay of Pigs and others rotting in prison after promising them he'd give them air support when they invaded Cuba. By God, he was an inspiration!
So--what we need is another inspirational guy like JFK, and Obama may well be him. What you don't understand, aznew, is that WHAT WE DO NOT NEED is a president like Clinton who conferred with Alan Greenspan weekly, a President who Greenspan, a staunch Republican, said was totally conversant with economic policy and could understand all the points of economic matters that Greenspan spoke to him about. We don't want that sort of guy again, or Hillary, do we?
Finally, we don't want Hillary and a return to the 90s, with all those jobs, great expectations when you graduated college, great employment opportunity, budget surpluses, yatadayatada.... No, we want hope, not the wife of a man from Hope.
I hope that teachersoccerdem hasn't bored you but has rather enlightened you as to what this country needs. I look forward to your understanding of my teaching, and
I approve this message.
Or the more likely scenario, Edwards gains delegates and I believe he then has the ability to make a deal in a contested race (which this very well may be). As an Edwards supporter, if it comes to this I hope he deals with Obama. I can't imagine him throwing his support to Clinton based upon his politics.
I like my crow with gravy. How do you like yours?
Here's the much more likely scenario:
http://thehill.com/leading-the...
Or she can be really nice in hopes he sides with her.
Hmmmm. Edwards has a really strong hand here.