Guest Column: Edwards-Obama, Go Edwama

                  By Paul Rogat Loeb

Personally, I'm backing Edwards because of all the leadingcandidates, I think he's taken the most courageous recent stands onissues from trade and the Iraq war to global warming and domestic andglobal poverty. But when young voters get excited about Obama, or I seehis vast numbers of grassroots donors, I get excited about thepossibility that he might bring a new generation into politics, andcombine his undeniable charisma with a vision of justice. When I seesomeone wearing an Obama T-shirt, my spirits lift. Even though I'mbacking Edwards, I feel a sense of kindred cause. I've actually gottena similar sense of shared hopes in conversations with supporters ofboth Obama and Edwards. And when I suggest the two running as a team,people respond with excitement. They see them together as powerfulstandard-bearers.

But for now at least, Obama and Edwards are dividing the bulk of theopposition to Clinton, which makes it far more likely that she'llbecome the nominee. That's a bad outcome for two key reasons: Clintonis likely to so mobilize the Republican base and demoralize manyDemocrats (particularly that broad section of the base that's angryabout the war) as to jeopardize not only her election, but also otherDemocrats running for state and federal offices throughout the country.In a recent Pew poll, she had both higher unfavorable and lower favorable ratings than either Obama or Edwards. In a July Fox poll(of citizens, not Fox viewers), 29% of voters (including 27% ofIndependents and 5% of Democrats) said they would "never vote for herunder any circumstances," compared to just 6% overall saying the sameabout Obama, and less than 1% about Edwards.

Yet even if Clinton does prevail, there's a good chance that she'llbe led less by principle than by her own desire for power, as witnessedby her refusal to apologize for her Iraq War vote (and her resistanceof a withdrawal timeline until just recently), her support ofthe recent Kyl-Lieberman amendment that opens a door to war with Iran,and an initial health care proposal so cumbersome and compromised itcollapsed of its own weight (with a little help from the insurance anddrug companies). Not to mention her mixed record of votes on the highlyregressive bankruptcy bill, her cozying up to Rupert Murdoch, and hersitting on the Wal-Mart board for years. Clinton also spent $36 millionlast November, the most in the country, on a Senate campaign she could have won in her pajamas,while Democratic candidates were desperately scrambling for cash thatshe could have transferred, and while both Edwards and Obama werepointedly not raising money for their own campaigns, just for others.

But the reasons to choose Edwards/Obama or Obama/Edwards aren't justabout an aversion to Clinton, but about the possibilities of shiftingAmerican politics. Both campaigns are anchored in genuine grassrootsenergy, as opposed to wealthy donors and Beltway consultants. Bothoffer the chance to draw new citizens into politics, for a vision thatbreaks from the automatic deferral to corporate interestscharacteristic not only of the Bush and Reagan administrations, but ofmany of Bill Clinton's policies as well. Where Hillary Clintonabdicated chance after chance to lead the opposition to Bush'sdestructive initiatives (especially before Bush's polls began toplummet), both Edwards and Obama have repeatedly spoken out (though Iwish Obama had more so of late) and worked to rally citizens againstthem.

Edwards/Obama or Obama/Edwards would draw--in the campaign, and, Ibelieve, in the White House--on Obama's years as a community organizerand experience living abroad and crossing every conceivable culturalline. And on Edwards's gut knowledge of what it means to grow up poor,his willingness to successfully take on some of the biggestcorporations in America, and his years since 2004 in traveling thecountry and listening on issues of poverty. Plus they have eight yearsof combined Senate experience, most importantly in the degree to whichboth of them have traveled across the country and genuinely listened tothe concerns and struggles of ordinary Americans. Compared to theRepublican field, their combined strengths will represent a powerfuland hopeful choice.

Clinton is leading right now, through name recognition, sympatheticnational media, and nostalgia for the years when we didn't have Bush inthe White House, not to mention a tightly controlled campaign thatavoids controversial stands. Most Democrats still favor othercandidates, but that majority is fragmented, making it hard for anyindividual candidate to get traction.

For Edwards and Obama to join together would radically change thatdynamic. It would let them speak in a common voice, and talk about howmuch Clinton's vision has been shaped by the pay-to-play nature ofWashington's conventional politics. It would allow them to raise thereal issues that we face, more fiercely than before. It would let themtalk about the kind of administration they could create together.

How could this ticket come to pass? By their talking with eachother, to be sure, but also maybe by enough ordinary citizens embracingthe idea. I think it's time to initiate a Draft Edwama online petitionto begin a groundswell. Perhaps local activists in both their campaignsneed to start a dialogue with each other. And maybe, just maybe, thetwo candidates will sense the potential, begin the conversationsthemselves, and in the process change the dynamics of this election.

Paul Rogat Loeb is the author of The Impossible Will Take a LittleWhile: A Citizen's Guide to Hope in a Time of Fear, named the #3political book of 2004 by the History Channel and the American BookAssociation. His previous books include Soul of a Citizen: Living WithConviction in a Cynical Time. See www.paulloeb.org   To receive his articles directly email sympa@lists.onenw.org with the subject line: subscribe paulloeb-articles