Edwards Out: Whither the Democratic Party?

John Edwards is dropping out of the presidential race today. Edwards was the candidate I was supporting; even though

I live in a state that will have almost no part in choosing the Democratic nominee, Edwards had energized me with his "two Americas" rhetoric and I really felt like he was a candidate I could get behind and be happy with if he were to win the general election.

When it comes to politics I find myself simultaneously fascinated and repulsed by the horse-race aspect of the primary season. Since it was a foregone conclusion I'd be voting for a Democrat this November, the only question was which one it would be. I've had numerous discussions with friends and family over the past few months, and we've talked about issues, electability, and the elusive "it factor" that a candidate has to have to capture the country's imagination. I thought Edwards came out ahead in all three of those areas, though obviously the majority of Democrats (at least hose in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada, and Florida) felt otherwise.

I had hoped Edwards would stick it out through the convention, believing that a strong third place showing might give him some juice within the party when it came to the platform. But then I realized that the days of the platform being hashed out in smoke-filled back rooms is long gone. The Democratic platform is set in stone right now; it's not the platform I would like, but the party has decided that it needed to move to the center in order to take back the the center and prevent another Republican presidential victory. The result has been softening on a number of issues that I (and many other) Democrats believe strongly in; I can only hope that this calculated decision pays off. I saw it happen on a smaller scale here in Pennsylvania when anti-choice, anti-gay-rights Bob Casey won the Democratic Senate primary over Chuck Pennacchio and Alan Sandals. He went on to beat Rick Santorum in the general election, which is certainly a good result.

But at what cost to the party? My imperfect knowledge of recent Democratic history tells me that Bill Clinton and the "New Democrats" spearheaded this slide to the center as a reaction to the loss of the so-called Reagan Democrats in the 1980s. I do think it's telling that, since then, the only Democrat who has taken the White House was Clinton himself. Maybe Democrats don't want to move to the center, and they were responding to Clinton himself in '92 and '96 rather than to a centrist message? The Gore and Kerry losses could be taken as indictment of the Third Way as a way for Democrats to re-capture the White House, though of course both candidates had other problems as well (And then there's that whole thing about Gore actually getting more votes than Bush in 2000, but I digress).

Anyway, with Edwards out of the race this primary campaign looks like a race to determine the path of the Democratic party. We have a New Democrat (Hillary Clinton) and a more traditional one (Barack Obama), and I'm much more comfortable with the latter than the former. I'll vote for Clinton if she ends up being the nominee, but I hope everyone realizes that just because she's his wife that doesn't mean she has Bill's ability to inspire and energize voters. I think he won twice because he motivated centrists to vote for him, not because he was aligned with the core values of the Democratic party, and I'm worried that Hillary will expect the same results and be disappointed when those people don't come out to the polls (or, worse, vote for the Republican). Apparently, when the Democratic nominee isn't named Bill Clinton, the Democrats don't win, and the only thing worse than a New Democrat in the White House in 2008 is no Democrat in the White House.

[UPDATE 1:35 PM]: Just watched Edwards' valedictory speech, a typically classy speech in which he called on Obama and Clinton to uphold their promise to him to make poverty a central issue of their presidency. Let's hope that happens. He ended his speech to the strains of U2's "Walk On," which was very a propos and a much better choice than "Pride (In the Name of Love)," which he's used before.