Posted by Jed Lewison on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 6:13 PM Pacific

"I hope Democrats don't take another look at John Edwards"

"I hope Democrats don't take another look at John Edwards"
--- The unspoken words of every political operative in the GOP

If the squabble in Myrtle Beach made just one thing clear, it is this:

John Edwards is the only Democrat ready to take on the Republican Party this fall.

::: Edwards talked issues; Hillary, Obama squabbled :::

The bickering between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama has been brewing for weeks now, but reached a new level of intensity on Monday night in Myrtle Beach.

Though their back and forth threatened to drain all substance from the debate, John Edwards showed leadership, and stuck to the issues, urging Hillary and Obama to focus on what's really important.

We have got to understand, this is not about us personally. It is about what we are trying to do for this country, and what we believe in. -- John Edwards, trying to tone things down on Monday

The debate settled down, but by Tuesday, Obama and Hillary once again returned to personal attacks.

::: NBC: At it again on Tuesday :::

Take another look

The most pathetic aspect of all this is that in the end, neither Hillary nor Obama helped themselves.

They divided the Democratic Party, and gave Republicans renewed hope for November.

If they keep it up, they will render themselves unelectable.

Fortunately, despite what just about every powerful figure in American political discourse wants you to believe, Democrats still have an alternative to Hillary and Obama.

You know his name. It's John Edwards, and on just about every objective measure, he is clearly the best choice to be our nominee.

It's time for Democrats to take another look.

The most progressive candidate

The most important reason why Democrats should reevaluate John Edwards is that he is the most progressive candidate in the race.

He's led the field on everything from health care to stimulus proposals, and the others have followed. He's been bold when they've been cautious. And as the economy takes center stage, his message of economic populism is exactly what the Democratic Party needs to offer to America.

Throughout this campaign, from day one, John Edwards has been the only Democrat consistently talking about poverty and economic justice.

On Monday, before the debate, Martin Luther King, III, the first son of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., highlighted this, urging Edwards to continue leading the fight for against economic injustice and inequality.

In a discussion on MSNBC last night about the squabbling and economic issues, Keith Olbermann, Howard Fineman, and Rachel Maddow focused on Edwards' leadership on economic issues.

::: Olbermann, Maddow on Edwards :::

Experience

Edwards, isn't just the most progressive, he's also the most politically experienced.

Edwards is the only Democrat to have ever won an election in a red state.

He's the only Democrat to have actually beaten a tough opponent, incumbent Republican U.S. Senator Lauch Faircloth.

In 2004, Edwards was our party's nominee for Vice President -- ensuring that he's at least as well-vetted as Hillary Clinton.

Because Rudy Giuliani's cancer forced him to drop his U.S. Senate bid, Hillary Clinton has never faced a tough general election opponent.

Neither has Barack Obama, though he did win a tough battle for the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate in 2004, defeating a wealth businessman who had poured $28 million into the race, only to see his campaign unravel in the face of domestic abuse allegations.

In 2000, Obama challenged incumbent Democratic congressman Bobby Rush. He lost handily.

Electability

Public opinion surveys clearly show that John Edwards would be the Democratic Party's best nominee.

For example, in all polls since October 1, Edwards does better than either Hillary or Obama against John McCain.

On average, Edwards leads McCain by 2.7%. Obama leads by just under 0.5% and Hillary actually trails by 0.5%.

Edwards wins 57% of the matchups, losing just 14%, while Obama wins 43%, losing 36%, and Hillary wins 44%, losing 50%.

Let me just emphasize that: since October 1, against John McCain Edwards loses just 14% of polls. Obama loses 36% and Hillary loses 50%.

A great campaigner

Can you imagine Mitt Romney or John McCain trying to do battle with Edwards, or getting under his skin during a debate?

Edwards is unflappable. He's simply the best, and any objective observer would agree.

Monday night was just the most recent example.

::: CNN focus group prefers Edwards :::

Vote for the best

A lot of very smart people say that John Edwards is their favorite candidate, but they are reluctant to vote for him because they don't want to waste their vote.

It's really between Hillary and Obama, they say, so voting for Edwards would be a mistake.

Huh? Do you really want to let the media and pundits tell you who to vote for?

This is a delegate battle. When you vote for a candidate, you're helping him or her win delegates. Even if Edwards doesn't win the most delegates, those delegates still play an important role in nominating the next president.

Wouldn't you like to see Edwards in the king- or queen-maker position?

If you think the squabbling is bad now, imagine how much worse it will get if you vote for one of the squabblers, effectively pushing Edwards out of the race in the process.

All truces aside, Obama and Hillary are already engaging in all out warfare. Scary as it may seem, with Edwards our of the race, the fighting will get more intense.

I can tell you one thing for certain: every Republican operative in Washington, DC is hoping you don't take another look at John Edwards.