Obama gets Kerry's endorsement; now he needs Edwards

Like Al Gore before him, John Kerry today snubbed his former vice presidential runningmate and endorsed someone else for the presidency -- namely, Barack Obama.

What Obama really needs, though, is an endorsement from the man Kerry just snubbed, John Edwards. The question is how to get it. And I fear the answer might be: offer him the vice presidency.

I say "fear" because, personally, I don't want to see an Obama-Edwards ticket. First off, I don't like the new, angry, virulently anti-business John Edwards 2.0 that has emerged this election season -- and I don't think general-election voters will, either, once they get to know him. (Edwards's strong showing in national general-election polls is based mostly on people's lingering impressions from 2004, just as McCain's strong showing is based mostly on lingering impressions from 2000 and Giuliani's strong showing is based mostly on memories of 9/11. Things can and will change once voters actually start paying more attention to this election, which should happen around, oh, Labor Day.)

Second and more importantly, I firmly believe that Obama needs to pick someone older and more experienced, with "gravitas" and foreign-policy experience... someone like Joe Biden, for instance. A "message of change" is all well and good, but a lot can -- ahem -- change between now and November, like a terrorist attack or major developments in the Middle East, and a duo as inexperienced as Obama-Edwards would be extremely vulnerable to a major public-opinion shift in such an event, especially if the Republican nominee is McCain or Giuliani.

But Obama can't win the general election unless he wins the nomination, and it's becoming increasingly clear that Edwards is a major obstacle to that goal. At some point -- and we're not there yet -- it may behoove Obama to do whatever it takes to get Edwards out of the race, even if that means offering him the #2 spot and dealing later with the potential negative ramifications of that decision.

Obama lost to Clinton by 3 percentage points in New Hampshire, with Edwards drawing 17 percent. Does anyone doubt that, if the hard-core liberals who comprise Edwards's base had to choose between Obama and Hillary, the vast majority of them would pick Obama? He may represent a kinder and gentler sort of change than the mad-as-hell Edwards, but he's still a genuine "change" candidate, whereas Hillary remains the "establishment" no matter what her slogan of the moment says. Oh yeah, and she's despised for her triangulation on Iraq by those who believe the war is the defining issue of our time. It's an oversimplification to say that Obama and Edwards are splitting the anti-Hillary vote, but as a practical matter, that's basically what it boils down to. I bet Edwards's 17 percent would have broken down something like 10-4 for Obama if Johnny Boy were out (with 3 percent either for Kucinich or not voting).*

The bottom line is this: Obama needs Edwards out before Super Duper Tuesday. Otherwise, Hillary could sweep back into "inevitable frontrunner" status with a whole bunch of 40-percent pluralities on February 5, and suddenly people would start pressuring both Obama and Edwards to drop out, even though 60 percent of the party doesn't want to nominate Hillary (and even though the Dems' ban on winner-take-all delegate allocation makes it tougher to rack up a majority by getting 40 percent everywhere).

So, how does Obama convince Edwards to step aside? Ideally, he won't have to: if Edwards finishes third in both union-heavy Nevada and southern-fried South Carolina, you'd have to think he might drop out on his own. But what if, say, he finishes second to Obama in Nevada, and second to Hillary in his birth state of South Carolina, with Obama a close third? (Hillary shouldn't win S.C., but thanks again to the vote-splitting problem, she could.) In such a scenario, Edwards, despite losing the only state he won in 2004, could easily convince himself he's still in the first tier of contenders, and that he ought to make a stand on Super Duper Tuesday.

Perhaps, though, he could be made to see reason in such an event -- if the price were right. What if Obama came to him, the day after South Carolina (two days before Florida and nine days before February 5), and said: "Look, we both want change, but if we both stay in the race, Hillary's going to win. One of us needs to drop out before it's too late. You beat me in your home state, but I'm doing better than you nationally. If you withdraw from the race, I will make you my vice presidential runningmate, and we'll campaign together as a team, fighting for change."

Would Obama make such an offer? Would Edwards accept it? I don't know. (For what it's worth, Edwards will be 63 years old in 2016.) But imagine the political power of such a development. Just when it looked like Hillary was building up a major head of steam heading into Super Duper Tuesday (winning on Obama/Edwards turf in South Carolina, leading in the polls in Florida), the Boyz 4 Change ticket emerges, holding a joint campaign rally on Florida's Eve -- or maybe it would be better to wait until, say, February 2 or 3, after delegate-less Florida and right before Super Duper Tuesday -- to announce that Edwards is dropping out and will be Obama's runningmate, and that together they will change America. Hillary wouldn't know what hit her. And Obama would be your 2008 Democratic presidential nominee. Boom. Case closed.

Like I said, I don't actually like the idea I'm proposing, because I don't think Obama-Edwards is a good ticket for the general election, either strategically or in terms of earning my vote. But if things develop just so in the next few weeks, I can see this becoming a very attractive -- perhaps even necessary -- possibility for Obama to at least pursue.

It would be better, of course, if he could coax Edwards out of the race with a lesser offer (Attorney General? Secretary of Something-or-Other?), and maybe if Johnny Boy is looking weak enough, that would work. But if Edwards is still viable enough to drive a hard bargain, it might have to be the veep spot that Obama offers him. And if Hillary is still winning 40% pluralities, Obama might have to do it.

*As an aside, did any of the exit-pollsters ask the question: "Who's your second choice?" It's not on CNN's exit-poll page. It should be!

Comments

[JT]

Party line democrats voted for Hillary. The independants voted for Obama. Yes, I doubt that the liberals voting for Edwards would all flock to Obama. When it comes to real liberal issues like healthcare, Hillary is better. Obama is better than Republicans but Hillary is better than Obama.

What about Obama - Bayh?

[Joe Mama]

I wish Bayh would have sought the nomination himself.

[Alasdair]

JT - and your analysis is based upon the FACT that Hillary's Healthcare in 1993-1994 was SO bad that it couldn't even be passed by a Democratic White House with a Democratic Senate and a Democratic House of Representatives ? *That* "When it comes to real liberal issues like healthcare, Hillary is better. " Hillary ???

[David K.]

In light of having Dick Cheney, who one could argue has plenty of FoPo experience, as VP for the last 8 years, i'm not sure that having experience makes one good at foreign policy...

[sandy underpants]

I didn't know Democrats weren't corrupted by the medical industry like Republicans. Hillary's original healthcare program was brilliant, you just won't hear anyone ever say that because that opinion has no corporate sponsorship.

[David K.]

No no Sandy, you don't understand, in Alasdairs world
Democrat == Always wrong
Republican == Always right

So for him the only explanation as to why her bill could have failed is because it was BAD. It couldn't be, oh, say poltics or anything like that.

In some ways I envy him, it must be nice to live in such a simple black and white world...

[sandy underpants]

BTW, her new (latest) opinion on healthcare IS sponsored by big corporations, so you're safe, those insurance premiums won't be going anywhere and you can keep paying 700 bucks a month for being healthy until you actually need it, if you ever do. Thank god, I'd hate to live in a nation that gives out free or affordable prescription medication like all the rest of the countries on this planet.

[Brendan Loy]

David, I'm very well aware of the importance of not falling into the "Cheney trap." Clearly, experience is not sufficient to make one a good foreign-policy-oriented running mate. Ideology matters, too. That's why I like Biden: he has experience and an ideology I respect, a perspective on the war on terror that isn't radical like Cheney's but that seems to genuinely understand the nature of the threat.

In other words, experience is necessary but not sufficient.

[Brendan Loy]

By the way, one of CNN's analysts said on Wolf Blitzer's show tonight that Obama should pick Biden. YES!

Bayh!!!

[Matt LaFortune]

Love the political stuff on a blog that features Notre Dame sports info. I'm a political junkie who supports Obama (still recovering from watching the returns on Tuesday for three hours straight).

If Edwards gives Barack his endorsement, I think it's over. Obama could be riding two victories (Nevada- has the unions, S. Carolina- has the minority vote) into Super Tuesday. Most of the voters for "change" would go to Obama after Edwards bows out, but an endorsement before February 5th would solidify the nomination.

Wow, it felt good to talk about something other than basketball for a second. Back to my little corner of the blogosphere.

-Matt LaFortune, Black and Green
ndbasketball.blogspot.com

[David K.]

Fair point Brendan, i just get sick sometimes of the "so and so is inexperienced so they would be bad at the job" when some of our previous succesful leaders did so with not a lot of experience, and some of those WITH experience didn't do so hot.

[Condor]

"What about Obama - Bayh?"

It's hard enough to get folks to vote for a black man, but a black man AND a Bayh?

[Joe Loy]

Young Daddy Brendan :), since you & Old Grampa Joe find ourselves ~ for the Moment anyway ~ in the highly Unusual situation of having Competing dogs in this fight (Woof! Growl! Bite!!! Whimperwhimperwhimper :), let me just ask you:

...and, this proposed old-pol throwbackian Corrupt Bargain between the sainted Senator Demosthenes & the fearsome Snarlin' Johnny Proletariat would comport with their mutual determination to utterly defenestrate the Broken Old Washington Way of Doing things, just How, again? :}

{WAW haw haw haw / OKOKOK! I know I know! / Hey, I just HAD to grab the Rare opportunity to wallop you with a dollop of suitably-unreasonable sectarian threadrhetoric ;}

Yeah, it's a pretty good plan you got there. Not Perfect nor without some Risk, but what Is? / Meaning no offense to the hopeful Politics of Change nor the changeling Politics of Hope :), there will always be a place for the plain old Politics of Politics ;>. (Hat tip, Hubert Humphrey, RIP :)

I kind of like the idea of JohnBoy Bolshevik :] as AG ~ now There's a good battlestation from which to rain down Molotov cocktails upon The System ;> ~ but I Do think his public Joining with Barack at the veepHip in advance of Feb. 5 could be crucial to the success of your nefarious scheme coalitional inspiration :]. BECAUSE, notwithstanding the plausibility of your 10 to 4 to 3 New Hampshire redistributive thoughtexperiment, a simple Edwards Withdrawal ~ even if accompanied by a simple endorsement of Obama ~ will Not by itself generate so Barack-favorable a Split of the Edwards vote everywhere on Feb. 5. I.e., Ideology & Change are all very Well but there are core-constituency demographic-socioeconomic factors at work here, too (see, the Politics of Politics, above :). IOW, a non-Ticket-joining Edwards withdrawal could end up BOOSTING Blessed Mother Hillary ;> on Trouper Blooper Tuesday re her Delegate counts in, oh, say, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee and West Virginia / But if Fightin' Johnny Red actually Signs On as Smoothie Squire Barack's Main Man, more of the Carolina Neocom's ;> loyal Dem-voting remnant of downhome lowerincome Angry White Workingclass folks will likely say, Well, dammitall, OK then.

[yea]

id say there is about a 5-10% chance we have two brokered conventions this year. as a fan of chaos, how awesome would that be? edwards would go from afterthought to god, while ombama and hillary fought for all of his delagates.

[yea]

edwards is a really good man and is honestly the real change candidate in this election. hes right on the money about how the poor are getting a raw deal. all that being said, hes a horrible vp candiate who pushes obama too far left.

jim webb is the perfect vp candidate for obama. i have a man-crush on jim webb. he wont be a vp nominee cause the dnc wont want to give his seat up, but hed be perfect. liberal on a ton of good/important stuff, but a real bad-ass who can get those moderates who think terrorists are a real threat to vote democrat.

[Baxter]

edwards is a really good man and is honestly the real change candidate in this election. hes right on the money about how the poor are getting a raw deal. all that being said, hes a horrible vp candiate who pushes obama too far left

Now THAT'S funny.

Have you seen Obama's record as an Illinois state senator?? I really don't think you can turn that wheel to the left any more than it already is.

As for Edwards the "really good man", I'm assuming you're referring to how "good" he was suing every Dr on the planet for malpractice.

[Brendan Loy]

Baxter, I don't like Edwards, but can you point to examples -- with fully fleshed-out facts, not just snippy, snarky, misleading Reader's Digest versions of the facts -- of frivolous malpractice suits that he pursued? Not all malpractice suits are bad. Sometimes doctors do, in fact, commit malpractice, and they ought not be let off the hook just because of somebody's political agenda.

Everything I've read indicates that Edwards only took cases that had considerable merit, and the cases that have been used to smear him, like the "jacuzzi case," were actually totally legit once you scratch beneath the surface -- which, of course, the Wall Street Journal editorial page and other virulently anti-plaintiff publications generally don't bother to do.

Now, whether our medical malpractice system is desperately in need of major structural reform is a separate question. (Hint: the answer is yes.) But the mere fact that Edwards made his fortune in a legal area that sometimes lends itself to abuse, doesn't mean he himself abused it. Not all malpractice lawyers are amoral ambulance-chasers.

[Alasdair]

David K - @ 6:46 - so why did Hillary's Healthcare fail ? The Republicans couldn't do anything against it ... they had neither the House nor the Senate ...

Why did it fail ?

[Alasdair]

Brendan - why would you want Senator Biden, given his reputation for plagiarism from the clueless of the planet ? He didn't even plagiarise from someone worthy of respect - he chose Neil Kinnock (aka Neil Pillock) to copy (badly) ... (shaking head) ...

[Joe Loy]

Alasdair, from just which Clueful of the planet ought we best Plagiarise, then? :> Dame Maggie Thatcher? Lord Protector Oliver Cromwell?? [Meself, I'd plump for great Govanian Glaswegian Gordon Brown, badass bard Bobby Burns, definitive dietician Jonny Swift, & of course peerless Philosophe Tom Lehrer ;].

"... the Wall Street Journal editorial page and other virulently anti-plaintiff publications..."

And to learn This my son the Lawyer went to NDLS? Oy veh iz mir & Saints presairrrve us! ;}.

[Brendan Loy]

Don't get me wrong, the WSJ is a fine publication. But it has certain pet issues where its bias is so strong as to render its opinions far less valuable, and conflicts between businesses and the plaintiffs' bar is one of them. I was really disappointed with some of the unsupported -- indeed disproven elsewhere -- nonsense that they wrote about Edwards in '04 just because he's a plaintiff's lawyer.

[Alasdair]

Loy the Elder - for one thing, we should encourage "research", not plagiarism (so Lehrer would have been better than Biden) ...

Locally, he could try for JFK - no need to go for imports like Thatcher or Brown - even then, if he had to go to the UK, even Harold Wilson would be a better choice than Neil Pillock ... Gehenna, even Gorgeous George Galloway (the UK's answer to David Duke) would be better than Neil Pillock ...

Brendan - as we are learning more and more, the science isn't on the side of the plaintiff's lawyers like Edwards ... and each of the bad-science baseless lawsuits make the genuinely-based lawsuits *seem* more and more likely to be baseless pursuits of nuisance-suit settlements ... and that doesn't help plaintiffs who have valid cases ...

[Brendan Loy]

Alasdair: details, please? Which "bad-science baseless lawsuits" did Edwards pursue (that were known to be baseless at the time he chose to pursue them)?

Absent details, I can only conclude that when you say "plaintiff's lawyers like Edwards," you actually aren't discriminating between "good" plaintiff's lawyers and "bad" plaintiff's lawyers, in which case it follows that your faux-concern about the damage to "the genuinely-based lawsuits" is just that, dishonest faux-concern.

[Brendan Loy]

While you're looking up details to actually answer my question, here are a couple of posts from 2004 about this very issue:

John Edwards: ambulance chaser?

and

Ambulance-chaser update

Money quote from the first link:

Is Edwards a responsible attorney who goes after cases where there is real fault (not all medical malpractice verdicts are wrong, after all), or is he really an odious ambulance-chaser who does whatever it takes to make a buck, even if that means invoking flimflam science to trick gullible juries into persecuting innocent doctors?

The New York Times has an interesting article about Edwards's lawyering history, suggesting (rather plausibly, methinks) that there are -- you know -- two sides to this story. Yes, the article contains some quotes and anecdotes from Edwards's enemies suggesting that he's a money-grubbing bastard. But it also this quote, from a courtroom adversary who defended doctors and hospitals against Edwards's lawsuits more than a dozen times:

"He only took the best cases, and by that I don't mean the ones with the highest damages,'' Mr. Cooney said. "I mean the ones where somebody had done something really bad."

A spokesman for Edwards is also quoted as saying, "He employed a full-time medical staff to make sure the cases he took were those with the most merit, and he would not go forward with any case without the support of experts in the particular medical field."

Of course, you'd expect a spokesman for Edwards to say good things about him. And you'd also expect a New York Times article to highlight the positive about the Democratic candidate for vice president. But to me, the quote from a long-time courtroom opponent basically saying that Edwards is not an irresponsible ambulance-chaser is quite powerful.

See also this article, about how Jonah Goldberg odiously and indefensibly smeared Edwards by painting a completely legitimate and heartbreaking case as if it were some sort of frivolous suit pursued by Edwards.

[Alasdair]

Brendan - since I don't have the time to look up specific citations which could stand muster in a Supreme Court amicus curiae brief, how about I suggest that the suite of silicon implant liability cases which have since been established to have been poor to atrociaous science are a start ... then we go on to the increasing numbers of C-sections being done to try to avoid litigations of the type Edwards had as his specialty (from memory, his claims that cerebral palsy resulted from too-slow deliveries and possible oxygen starvation) - great emotionally-wrenching jury trial stuff, but how many women are paying for that now with C-sections which are more painful and have longer recovery times ?

(grin) And it's not "faux-concern" when one sees skilled competent caring professionals driven into retirement because they can no longer afford to practice the profession they have loved and to which they have devoted themselves fro decades ... specifically Ob/Gyns - Edwards' preferred targets ...

You also, for some reason, chose to practise a particularly weak style of debating technique, when you attempted to put into my words the 'straw-man' of "that were known to be baseless at the time he chose to pursue them" ... for one thing, I said "like Edwards", and for another, I said "as we are learning more and more, the science isn't on the side of the plaintiff's lawyers like Edwards " - at the time he was trying his cases, te science was still being accumulated - it wasn't known to be for his case nor was it known to be against his case ...

Such science, in the cases of silicon implants, drove a reputable company out of the silicon implant business, and it has since been established that the silicon implants were *not* at fault ... to the best of my knowledge, however, the lawyers involved have yet to return their profits from the time ...

[Alasdair]

Brendan - did you actually *read* the article you cite ?

It doesn't attempt to dispassionately analyze the facts and science behind Edwards' lawsuits ... it cherry-picks one of the the more powerful ones emotionally, for which science can be found and uses that one while the majority of the article is anti-Bush and anti-Cheney ...

What does your fair and equivalent research on the subject of silicon implant lawsuits show ?