AN OPPORTUNITY FOR EDWARDS TO LEAD

BROOKLINE -- SEN. JOHN EDWARDS'S chances of passing Senators Hillary
Clinton and Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination
seem slim and none at the moment. Edwards must get a more compelling
plan to lift America and demonstrate leadership, or his campaign is doomed.

Clinton and Obama will not be out-spent, out-organized or
out-messaged, unless Edwards seizes voter interest on an issue with
the impact of the Iraq War. Re-declaring war on poverty will not pass
his competitors, and declaring peace in Iraq is not a distinction.

Edwards's chance for leadership requires his challenge to an older
and more destructive war ignored by the front-runners, the war on
drugs (killing many times more Americans than terrorism and the Iraq
war combined). Drug reform has presidential and popular precedence
(consider how Franklin Roosevelt gained popularity by opposing
Prohibition), and it's no gamble since Edwards is certain to lose in
his current campaign approach.

Reform's adoption in several states (diversion of nonviolent
offenders to treatment instead of detention, approval of clean-needle
programs, methadone maintenance and medical marijuana) demonstrates
mainstream support.

This reform can command attention while distinguishing Edwards from
Clinton and Obama. Both war policies are remarkably similar examples
of the emperor wearing no clothes, the recognition of which can
change the order of the front-runners.

Like the Iraq war, the drug war exemplifies the principle
"garbage-in, garbage-out." Because both policies' fundamental
predicates are impractical aspirations divorced from reality, the
results are counter-productive. Zero-tolerance is nonsense in a world
of caffeine and anti-depressants. Supply interdiction of globally
available plants defies common sense. Punishment never has restrained
addiction.

Prohibition still fails to promote abstinence and always is corrupted
by capitalism. The drug war's foundation, conflicting with basic
human instincts, dooms it to worsening abuse just as the Iraq war's
reliance on force instead of negotiation encourages terrorism. Built
on impossible expectations, both wars' collateral damage beggars any
temporary illusion of progress.

Edwards should promote drug war reform and link its chaos to the Iraq
fiasco, generating a winning conversation for two reasons.

The drug war's failure is obvious to most Americans. Consider all
those with a family member at risk of drug abuse, or who is
experiencing or has survived abuse. Drug war advocates' claim that
reduced punishment for drug offenses would send the "wrong message"
to children or addicts. That assertion has no more credibility than
that the troop surge would facilitate tribal reconciliation in Iraq.
More or better punishment obviously is not the answer to either problem.

Drug war reform, like the Iraq war, requires an admission that the
candidate's former war support was wrong. Edwards's courage to admit
both wars' mistakes could project a strength contrasting with
Clinton's balky evolution on Iraq. Edwards could effectively
cross-examine Clinton on her support for incarceration and
pre-emptive force in Iraq, given his skill and her record.

Edwards's only risk is Obama's adoption of this issue. Obama could
use the drug war's naked racism to powerful advantage. He is unlikely
to appreciate this opportunity, however, given his lack of experience
in campaigns and government. Still, taking no position (or worse,
opposing reform) to protect his poll standing could jeopardize
Obama's core support.

Attacking the drug war on the same terms as the Iraq war should be an
underdog's dream. The media love this issue, and Edwards's adoption
of this "third-rail" issue would have an epic storyline. The
front-runners' embrace of the "conventional wisdom" behind
chronically bipartisan drug war-making would indefensibly endorse a
status quo that tolerates this worsening health and safety problem.

By demonstrating a leader's courage, Edwards can grow his support and
undermine his competitors. Or, he can hammer society's chronic
tolerance for poverty, until Edwards stands on the convention podium
behind the party's nominee.