Progressives need a candidate against Obama

As the Senate begins debate on extending Bush-era tax cuts, many Democrats are still venting their anger over President Obama's deal with Republicans that extend the cuts of the wealthiest Americans in exchange for extending unemployment benefits and other deficit-raising programs. Some Democrats are even talking openly of challenging Obama in the 2012 Democratic primaries. This nascent movement was a topic of discussion on NPR Wednesday. The problem is, the angry Democrats have to find a viable candidate to hang their hopes on.

The solution to this problem should be quickly obvious: former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina is available. John has received a boost in publicity recently with the death Tuesday of his estranged wife, much-admired suffering spouse and author Elizabeth Anania Edwards. John should fit the mold of the "progressive" Democrats because he spent two presidential campaigns talking about the poor in this country and identifying with the common folk. Edwards' stock speech was all about helping the poor and striking back at the oligarchs and big business. He even ran an anti-poverty think tank, which was intended to keep him occupied between presidential campaigns.

Not only would he fit the mold and have the progressives' sought-after list of priorities, but Edwards would also have the sympathy vote on his side, thanks to his wife's death from cancer. That sympathy would help him with the women's vote — after all, Elizabeth encouraged him to continue his presidential campaign even after she received her cancer diagnosis. His affair with a campaign videographer might add a few votes from the wayward husbands voter bloc, thereby covering all the key electoral constituencies.

Edwards will need a running mate of course, and I hear Al Gore isn't doing much these days. Gore would bolster the "progressive" ticket. In 2000, his speeches always included pedantic rants against big business, big pharma, big insurance, big oil, big coal, big trouble and Big Macs. The campaign theme should be apparent: Against the big boys; for the little guys.

For progressives, it's a dream ticket: Edwards-Gore in 2012.

Skeptical of Edwards from the beginning

It's comforting to remember from this vantage point that I was skeptical of John Edwards from the beginning, but not because I suspected he was a self-centered, egotistical, lying, untrustworthy philanderer. I was skeptical of Edwards back in 1998, when he announced a run for the U.S. Senate because he had no political record. He had never run for political office and had only occasionally voted. D.G. Martin, who had a political history and a defined resume, seemed the more logical Democratic nominee.

But when I met both Martin and Edwards at a N.C. Editorial Writers meeting before the primary that year, it was obvious that Edwards had the skills, knowledge and sharp wit necessary to be a good campaigner and even a good senator. Martin, despite his campaign experience, seemed a little ill-at-ease explaining why voters should choose him. Edwards, in contrast, was selling himself with the confidence of a carnival barker.

After that, Edwards' political career took off like Fourth of July grand finale fireworks. He was mentioned as a potential vice presidential nominee for Al Gore. His skills as a litigator translated well to debate in the Senate, and his charm and intelligence made for an impressive campaigner. He won praise in articles in national publications. In 2004, he was John Kerry's running mate and bolstered the ticket. Soon thereafter, he was named to head a program studying poverty at UNC (a transparent effort to keep Edwards' name in the news as he prepared for 2008). In the 2008 campaign, he was widely regarded as Hillary Clinton's prime rival for the Democratic nomination. Had Barack Obama not surfaced and if some events had fallen differently, Edwards could have won the nomination.

What an embarrassing turn of events there might have been if a newly elected president had been forced to admit the paternity of a child with a skanky videographer working with his campaign. It's not just that Edwards, whose incessant primping with his hair turned into a youtube sensation, was playing around, but he was doing it while his wife was battling cancer. He was doing it even after he had been given the perfect way out, when Elizabeth Edwards' cancer returned in 2007. But he was such a narcissist that even his wife's morbidity could not sway him from his ambitions, and she obediently went along, even though she knew about his affair. All politicians are egotists; why else would they claim to be able to solve the world's (or the city's or state's) problems when others have failed? And this egotism leads many to risky behavior and sexual infidelity; they want to share themselves with the people!

It's fortunate for the country that Edwards fell behind in the early primaries and dropped out of the campaign early. He was last seen in Haiti, helping out after the earthquake in another example of his egotism, hinting that he will single-handedly solve the problems that have defied other persons and organizations. Let him stay in Haiti or in some other Third-World country where the poor need help and there is plenty to keep him busy. Just keep him out of the news. America has had quite enough of John Edwards.