So Long, John Edwards

(updated below)

Well, unfortunately my choice on Super Tuesday just got a lot easier. I was originally faced with the decision between voting for my candidate of choice (Edwards) or trying to influence the Obama/Clinton match-up. Now, 1 to 2% of the nation's voters have made that decision for me. Arguably, the media made that decision for those 1 to 2%. (I note that it could have been worse, since my other favorite candidate, Chris Dodd, never had a chance to begin with.)

I figure I'll take a moment and list some of the qualities I liked about Edwards:

• John Edwards was the most progressive voice of the top three contenders. Despite voices such as Kuchinich and Gravel in the debates, I think Edwards did the most to shift the overall discussion leftward.
• He called the War on Terror a bumpersticker. It recognizes and defuses the unstated tenet that we have lived under since 9/11, the idea that somehow all of the complexities of terrorism can be explained in black and white terms of us versus them, and that perpetual global war by "us" is an effective means of combating the "them". Also, in this political climate, it takes a pair for a presidential candidate to come out and say it.
• He was the only "mainstream" candidate in either party to not advocate an increase in military spending. We spend more on the military then the rest of the world combined. Our defense budget is 41% of our total budget. By contrast science, energy, and environment spending, factors that could substantially increase our security, is only 3%. Yet we are still losing two wars. If the reason we are losing those two wars is that we simply have not put enough money into the military, then that fact alone should be cause for re-evaluating our entire strategy in both countries, and our foreign policy generally. I suspect, however, that more money is not necessarily the solution, but rather a better distribution of money and realization that guerrilla warfare against an insurgency in an occupied country is a losing proposition. John Edwards seemed to recognize this reality, rather than pander to a public that thinks more troops and more wars will make us safer.
• He was unabashedly populist, and called out the corporate interests wreaking havoc on our country. This point is the biggest difference between him and Obama. Obama believes we can work with the insurance industry and the drug companies to achieve universal health care. Edwards understood that universal health care will have to come at their expense, and that they will fight tooth and nail to not let that happen. The same could ultimately be said about true progressive environmental policies at the energy sector's expense.
• He took public financing. Some might cynically point out that had he the fund-raising clout of Obama or Clinton, he probably would have rejected it. This is probably true. However, it helped to take him seriously when he said he would work to expel the moneyed interests from Washington.
  
• He believed that people were willing to make sacrifices in order to help the country and help their fellow citizens solve the big problems. Not only do I feel like his instincts were right, but a President who believes that people will be able to stomach some sacrifice in order to solve problems is absolutely necessary to combat global warming and our dependence on foreign oil. After 9/11, America was ready to make some sacrifices. The President told us to go shopping. The rest is history.
  
• He was angry. This was seen as a negative, but let me ask: don't you think anger is an appropriate emotion at this point in history? After what we've seen happen over the last seven years, shouldn't we hope that our next President will be a little bit upset over the mess he or she has been left? I would be.

The choice now between Clinton and Obama is subject of another post. Since I don't make that decision until Tuesday, I'll take this time to look back, rather than forward.

Update:

Thanks to Zach for pointing out Krugman's column in the comments. It is worth moving the link into the post proper.

Another interesting perspective comes from Sean-Paul Kelley at The Agonist, discussing why he is throwing his vote to Obama.