Why John Edwards mattered

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I was iffy on him for much of the campaign, I admit, but John Edwards was my clear preference for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Back in December 2006, when he got into the race, I wrote two posts explaining why -- sere here and here. In the first of those posts, I wrote this:

I'm confident that the more you learn about John Edwards the more you'll like him and, yes, the more you'll support him. Indeed, I have come to admire John (and Elizabeth) a great deal over the past few years. John fights the good fight for working families, social justice, and a better America. He has been an active supporter of a minimum wage increase. He has worked to put an end to poverty. He has launched a grassroots effort to support Democrats at the state level. And he has elaborated a foreign policy that envisions America as a moral leader once again and that addresses the key challenges ahead: Iraq, Islamic terrorism, North Korea, Iran, Russia, HIV/AIDS in Africa, nuclear proliferation, energy supply.

I was a blogger at his One America Committee, and this blog, The Reaction, was the fourth featured blog there. And although I wanted Al Gore to get into the race, and although I would have supported Gore enthusiastically, I maintained by admiration for Edwards and, ultimately, supported his candidacy. But I was realistic about his chances from the start, writing this early on:

To be sure, it won't be easy for him. Though he benefits from having run with Kerry in '04 and from not being in Washington at a time when Washington is extremely unpopular and voters may be looking for an outsider, Clinton is the clear frontrunner and has distinct advantages in terms of organization and money, and Obama is, for now at least, the sexy candidate who is fuzzy on policy but abundant in ideas and inspiration.

Well, there we are again: Clinton is the frontrunner and Obama is the inspirational candidate -- and Edwards has suspended his campaign. But did Edwards fail? In the obvious sense, yes. He didn't win. And yet he contributed a great deal to the campaign, so much, in fact, that he has been a significant influence on both Clinton and Obama, as well as on the substance of the debate within the Democratic Party. As Libby put it the other day, Edwards was "invaluable in injecting progressive issues into the debate". Like Edward and Capt. Fogg, I was sad to see him drop out.

Yes, he mattered. Here's Krugman in today's NYT: "Edwards, far more than is usual in modern politics, ran a campaign based on ideas. And even as his personal quest for the White House faltered, his ideas triumphed: both candidates left standing are, to a large extent, running on the platform [he] built." His key contribution, Krugman suggests, was in the area of health care (which I wrote about almost a year ago), but there were many other "less dramatic examples of leadership," including on climate change, which I consider to be the most pressing issue of our time. Krugman continues: "If Democrats manage to get the focus on their substantive differences with the Republicans, however, polls on the issues suggest that they’ll have a big advantage. And they’ll have Mr. Edwards to thank."

And if the next president, hopefully either Clinton or Obama, succeeds in getting something significant done on health care and climate change, as well as on poverty and Edwards's other key issues, they will know where to look for the ideas and inspiration that made it happen.