Nation-Building >> Why Edwards over Obama? | return to front page

I think it largely inevitable that Obama will declare his presidential ambitions before the end of January. I am a native of Illinois, and have a deep respect for this man. But I think that in the end he is running for the wrong reasons. His motives are gold, but his assessment and strategy are based on the reality crafted by fawning media coverage, and the illusion of invincibility that arises from never having truly been tested in a national campaign by a worthy opponent.

In a nutshell, Obama is being seduced by the tales of his own prowess and his own exceptionalism.

Edwards, meanwhile, is walking a deliberately harder path. Edwards gave up his Senate seat in 2004 to run and has spent the intervening two years building genuine grassroots organizations. And now as he announces his campaign he is embracing the very issues that even mainstream liberals tend to overlook - the poor, the weak. The symbolism of announcing from New Orleans brings tears to the eye - a commitment and statement about just who Edwards has in mind. Recall that no other candidate in 2000 even mentioned poverty - not even my champion, Howard Dean - as a policy goal.

Ultimately, Obama's desire for the presidency makes him a less effective Senator. Edwards is the one who has demonstrated a willingness to challenge the status quo, whereas Obama seeks to build consensus across an aisle and a divide that has been poisoned. Do we seek incremental change or revolutionary progress? That is the choice before us.

Edwards has my support, unless Gore runs. I regret that I must publicly hope that Obama decides to serve the people of Illinois and the nation as Senator, completing his term and being a force for renewal and ethical action, rather than waste the opportunity he has been handed in a bid for the Presidency.