What Does An Edwards’ Endorsement Mean?

The big breaking political news yesterday was that former presidential candidate John Edwards jumped on the Obama Bandwagon and offered his endorsement.

But what does this mean? Nothing really. It means that those who still support Edwards because they like what he stands for, even though he dropped out of the Democratic primary race at the end of January, will go to Sen. Barack Obama.

The Illinois senator’s main rival, Hillary Clinton, was hoping to have the former North Carolina senator’s support. Besides his issues, both Clinton and Obama would gain Edwards’ delegates and former donors. And ironically, North Carolina was the state that Obama won last week.



The need of Edwards has been so great that both of the political rivals courted Edwards in February with individual private meetings to talk about the issues, among other things.

And why did the New York senator want the former Democratic Vice Presidential candidate’s support, besides the delegates? Edwards represents the old Democratic Party in a lot of ways. He’s one of the few candidates that talked about helping the lower class while others in both parties were falling over themselves to mention in every speech how they are going to help the middle class, just to gain their votes.

Certainly, a high-profile former candidate like Edwards, whose soft image has warmed a lot of Americans, is what Hillary needs to show the public how in touch with them she is by having a humble man support her.

But ultimately, because most of Edwards’ policies and beliefs closely resemble Obama’s, he gave his support to the candidate with the most delegates. And because of that, and because they are alike in other ways, there was an alternative reason why Edwards threw his support to the leading Democratic political candidate and it’s because of that title that eluded him in the 2004 presidential election: Vice President.

Yes, it’s very possible and extremely likely that Edwards is setting himself up to become Obama’s right-hand man. After sacrificing his role as senator for the role as president four years ago and the failed Kerry-Edwards ticket in 2004, this may be the only chance he has left of getting into the White House with some dignity, unlike Independent Ralph Nader, who has not won the presidential election in the last 16 years, but keeps running anyway.

Is it hypocritical of Edwards endorsing Obama and seemingly setting himself up as a vice presidential candidate while just a few months ago he criticized the Illinois senator for his inexperience? Sure it is, but that’s the game of politics. But whatever their rivalry was, it is nothing compared to Obama and Clinton’s. They drew a lot of blood and attacked each other. Having an Obama-Clinton ticket would be a little hard to swallow for some Democratic voters after the months of mudslinging between the two.

And Edwards may be a better choice than Clinton. Having a biracial black man may not set too well for many older Democrats and Republicans, who are unhappy with the presumed GOP nominee John McCain. But having a woman like Hillary Clinton, who has been caught doing a few dirty tricks during this campaign and represents the far left of her party, will leave a bad taste in their mouths.

Granted, a ticket like that is what many middle-aged and young voters are hoping for. That would be a true symbol that the races and sexes are now equal. But still, it may be too much for some close-minded voters in both parties, who cannot look past a person’s skin color or reproductive organs.

So, besides sharing the same anatomy, Edwards and Obama do share the same philosophy, such as fighting special interests in Washington. They are very close on the issues and seem to be a far more believable match than Obama and Hillary. And with Hillary vowing to fight to the very end in this race, and may destroy the party in the process, Edwards might be a better choice of uniting the Democrats if Obama gets the nomination.

Let’s not be too surprised that Obama shatters the predictions of many political analysts, who have been saying that Hillary maybe his VP, and chooses Edwards instead. After all, politics is a funny little game. You just never know what will happen sometimes.

Ron Paul’s Swan Song?

I would like to say that presidential candidate and Republican Congressman Ron Paul reads the Times Observer but even I don’t have that big of an ego. He told his supporters in a video on his campaign Web site that “though victory in the conventionally, politically sense is not available in the presidential race ...”

Many have been speculating that this is his swan song and he’s packing it in, even though he hasn’t said it outright. Yet.

Personally, I liked a lot of the things that Paul had to say on some of the issues he was addressing that the major, traditional presidential candidates wouldn’t want to say behind closed doors much less to a national audience.

However, in my last editorial I said that it was time for the Texas congressman, Democrat Mike Gravel and independent Ralph Nader to pack it in because of their lack of support. I expressed my views on a few comments pages of videos about these gentlemen on YouTube and got a good number of thumbs down marks for my troubles.

And while Paul hasn’t come right out and say that he is quitting the race, his 7 1/2-minute video isn’t exactly encouraging his supporters to keep up the good fight until he’s sitting in the Oval Office. Hopefully, his supporters will accept that Paul is stepping down, if that is indeed what he’s doing. After all, why give your all for someone when the odds are overwhelmingly against him?

But what is the sense of supporting a candidate that you want to be the next president of this country if he truly doesn’t have the delegates, money or poll numbers to help him gain that? It’s like beating a dead horse. It serves no purpose but again, many diehard supporters refuse to acknowledge that their candidate’s ship is sinking when it has already hit bottom.

Working for real change is something that would make many frustrated voters happy, since many are tired of using binoculars to see the soaring costs of living and health care that are climbing higher with each passing day. However, a good dose of realism, support and order is needed to accomplish this almost impossible goal.

And to Paul supporters; don’t worry about your favorite presidential candidate. Texas Republican primary voters wanted to keep him as their U.S. representative, which Paul won. The District 14th seat won’t have to get used to anyone else’s backside for a few more years.

It’s Time To Pack It Up, Boys

Like that drunk guy at a party who doesn’t know it’s time to go home, that pretty much sums up presidential candidates Mike Gravel and Ron Paul. And in many respects, let’s throw in Ralph Nader as well.

Republican candidate Mike Huckabee had the good grace to bow out last night. He was clearly not even close to gaining the delegates that John McCain was able to secure to getting the GOP’s nomination.

But fellow Republican candidate Ron Paul does not want to give up his bid for the White House, even though he hasn’t even come close to second place, much less first. And that’s a shame because Paul was the type of no nonsense candidate who told it like it is and offered real plans, instead of pie-in-the-sky remedies that many love to serve up. It’s that type of gumption that has given him a small but devoted support. Sadly, that support wasn’t enough to allow the Texas congressman to win the Lone Star State, one of many states that McCain snagged away.

And Paul’s Democratic counterpart, Mike Gravel, can’t escape the duo-eclipse of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. There is no evading them, no matter what Gravel supporters might think. Just like Paul, Gravel has not even come close to winning second place. And it seems that he can’t capture the type of support that Paul has been able too. Also, what’s even more embarrassing is that neither CNN, nor FOX News, refuse to even acknowledge him when showing their primary recap poll.

Then we have Ralph Nader, the independent candidate. He wants to change America, which is great but there must be a better way than wasting supporters’ time, energy and money every four years by running a losing campaign. Here’s a hard truth to Nader and his supporters: The American public told Ralph four times that they don’t want him for president! How can a guy not take a hint if he’s only running because he honestly thinks he’s going to win?

Sure, Americans admire the underdog and this is what these three gentlemen ultimately are. And some of the best underdogs have won but sometimes, they lose too. I don’t see these underdogs having their day. What becomes admiration for campaigning against top players like McCain, Obama and Clinton quickly becomes embarrassment if they don’t have the delegates, financial support or major voter turnout. Or not coming close to winning the presidential election four times in a row.

But there is no telling that to the diehard supporters of these three. Some have said that while they won’t win the presidential election, they do bring important issues to light and force the more popular candidates to address them. That sounds like a ready-made acknowledgment that their candidate is going to lose spectacularly but won’t admit it to themselves. Denial can be an ugly thing in politics.

But bringing up important issues is a great thing but running a no-win campaign and raising false hopes in supporters usually makes them look like a joke to the majority of Americans. If they truly want to bring awareness to unspoken issues, then they need to find a better alternative.

And there comes a time when the supporter has to ask the question if it’s wise to even vote for a candidate who is losing badly. The standard reply to that is that these die-hard hopefuls want change from the traditional Democrat/Republican top candidates. We can all see that. But why vote for change if the candidate has better odds of hitting the lottery than becoming president? Here’s another hard truth that supporters have to accept: There really is such a thing as throwing your vote away.

But hey, it’s a free country and one can do that. But it might be wise to actually support and vote for a third-party candidate (and at this point, Gravel and Paul are basically that since neither one is likely to get the nomination) who is strong in the polls, has backing and might have a good chance of winning.

Because if a candidate doesn’t have those three crucial ingredients for winning, and let’s use Nader as an example, then this paraphrase of the popular saying will be true: “A vote for Nader is a vote for McCain.”

It might be best that since these three have great political experience that they might actually work with Congress or organizations that have real pull in Washington and work for change that way.

Because if the only desire to run for the White House is to spread the issues, then running a campaign into the ground with little to no media attention isn’t working. And preaching to the choir only goes so far. There are better ways of doing it boys but if there is no national support like the type that McCain or Clinton has, it’s time to pack it in and think of a better approach.