In case there was any doubt, I thought I’d post my primary endorsement in a last minute sort of way. Naturally, I’m endorsing John Edwards as the candidate that should win the nomination, and of course the Presidency. Via Avedon, I found this post that explains why.
He’s the only candidate directly confronting the fundamentally broken nature of political news coverage in the US; he’s the only candidate directly engaging the problem of economic inequality at any length; he’s the only candidate I’ve seen directly address the ongoing catastrophe in New Orleans; and his repudiation of his early support for the war on Iraq leads me to believe he’s interested in a less interventional foreign policy than any of the other candidates (except Ron Paul and Dennis Kusinich). He made many of these points while running for VP, of course, so I was inclined to like him when the primaries began. He’s not afraid to be a liberal, and he’s not willing to parrot Republicans’ rhetoric to bash Democrats, both of which are habits that drive me nuts about the other leading Dems. He’s charismatic and smart and a good campaigner–it’s really not easy for a bleeding-heart liberal to win a Senate seat in North Carolina, as I know from watching the state close-up for nearly twenty years.
But yesterday I had pointed out another reason why I support him: The entrenched power elites are really scared of him.
Note: I’m endorsing only for myself and not for any other writers at Pandagon. If anyone else has a different opinion, I hope they use this space to make that endorsement. (I know Auguste’s guy is Kucinich.) I know Edwards is far from perfect; he was hawkish on Iran around this time last year (though he backed off) and he’s made some comments that indicate that he might be personally homophobic, but in truth, his actual policies and approaches on the issue are the same as the other major candidates and he’s also indicated a willingness to be open-minded. He did not, like Obama, invite people who blatantly oppose gay rights to host events for him. His vote on the Iraq War resolution was wrong, but unlike Hillary Clinton, he’s distanced himself admirably and leaked a story indicating that he was reluctant to vote that way in the first place. He’s sounding more and more like he’s embracing a quick withdrawal of troops from Iraq.
I can’t say that I’d never work for a campaign for a candidate that I wouldn’t vote for, but I can’t see a circumstance that would lead me to do so. I accepted the job with the Edwards campaign because I believe in the candidate. In the past year, I’ve found that my attitude is not necessarily the prevailing on in politics, which surprised me.
I’m sad that I feel that I have to endorse the one white guy running in the race. I’d love to say vote for the woman or vote for the black man, because this country really does need a break in the endless stream of white men holding onto this office. But this seems to be one of those “only Nixon can go to China” moments. The other two major candidates have felt like they have to be centrists in order to compensate for their minority status, which means that they’re less progressive than the white guy. While I think that role modeling is an important issue in identity politics, the practical needs of women and people of color come before the need to see role models in the White House, and Edwards looks like he’s the best prepared to deliver on the emergency need issue, which is mainly the lack of economic opportunity. More than role models or reproductive rights, women and people of color are being held back in this country because they aren’t getting economic opportunities or basic services. That needs to be fixed first; we are in an emergency situation, as the fallout from Hurricane Katrina amply demonstrated.
On the issue of electability that was so big in 2004, I tend to think all three candidates have an opportunity to waltz into the White House this year. That said, Clinton has the highest possibility of turning out the vote against her, which can be fatal in a polarized nation like ours. Obama slightly edges out Edwards in the personality department and I think he could pick up a lot of swing states in the Midwest on the hometown appeal, but Edwards is running a better campaign, so it’s a draw there. But either of them should win pretty easily. Considering that it should be an easy win for the Democrat, now is the time to move on progressive issues, and get the most progressive candidate in there, to demonstrate to the party elite that progressives can win, so that more have a chance to run.
115 Responses to “Primary endorsement post”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
My first thought was; that man is so handsome…but that has nothing to do with why I think he’ll make a much better leader than Bush because I thought Harper was cute but I voted for Martin.
I’m writing this election off, for all intents and purposes…
Until the mass media is discredited enough, the Repubs are going to force whoever that wins to clean up the mess, so they can do it all over again.
The mess is really big, though, and in the vein of Marx Bros, I’m not going to vote for anyone who’ll have us.
I’m sad that I feel that I have to endorse the one white guy running in the race. I’d love to say vote for the woman or vote for the black man, because this country really does need a break in the endless stream of white men holding onto this office.
Man, I am so relieved to see I’m not the only one bummed about that. I suppose I should’ve realised that only the white dude would feel they can afford to be a big ol’ liberal instead of a centrist but ,,, it doesn’t really help to know that, I guess.
I know this is a very trivial remark, and who wins the Democratic primary is a very serious topic.
But still, I have to say it.
He sure does look like he has really flexible lips in that photograph.
Ironically, it was your brief employment by the Edwards campaign, or rather the dispicable way Edwards rolled over and surrendered to the nutbag fundies rather than fight, that convinced me that I didn’t support Edwards.
Given the inevitable venom, obstructionism, and sheer nastyness that any Democratic president will meet from the Republicans, I put “willing to fight” as my main criteria. Since none of the top tier candidates seem to have that quality, I say go for the symbolism, which is why I favor Obama, with Clinton as my second choice.
Not that my opinion makes one bit of difference, I live in Texas, so the primary will be settled long before I get to vote, and my vote matters even less in the national election.
I’m with you on Edwards. He’s sufficiently non-threatening to the zeitgeist that he actually has room to be radical. Anything Obama or Clinton might do will be filtered through race and gender glasses. Both are aware of this fact, and it pushes them towards accommodationist positions. HRC is my second choice, in part because I think she’ll go after the VRWC - I fear that Obama might make some sort of idiotic compromise with movement conservatism. Of all the Dem candidates Obama strikes me as the most likely to appoint Supreme Court Justices (at least one, perhaps two in the next term) who will further erode civil liberties and potentially strike down Roe v. Wade.
Edwards is obviously the most progressive and honest of the candidates, and the only one willing to talk systemic injustice rather than tinkering. But he has repeatedly shown that he is passive and defensive in the face of repeated attacks on him and his. The next Dem nominee has to be as willing to kick and gouge at an RFK not MLK level.
QFT.
Can someone please explain to me why the Republican primaries are all about chest beating, pissing contests, and generally striking fear in the electorate while the Democratic primaries are about being “centrist?”
Does it really all boil down to there not being a monolithic block on the left like the Religious Right? Since there is no one group to which to pander to gain delegates on the D side does it prevent leftward Overton movement until the general election? And by then does the “centering” nature of the Democratic primaries impede the potential of progressive movements and ideas since the truly progressive ideas and candidates are whittled away before the non-wonks among us tune in for the general election?
I’m on board with Edwards as well. During the last Presidential campaign, I had enough money to contribute. I don’t this time. To my ears, Edwards is the only one really talking about class issues for those of us living on the fault line.
The more I see of Obama, the less impressed I am (my what a cynical campaign). I’d have to go with Dodd second, and Hillary third, followed by Obama.
But, I’ll vote for any of ‘em over the Republicans.
I wish we had an actual labor party.
The sad thing about an endorsement from me, though, is that no one I still know in the state of Iowa would listen. They’re probably Huckabee people–my relatives scare the shit out of me.
“The mess is really big, though, and in the vein of Marx Bros, I’m not going to vote for anyone who’ll have us.
It does seem like the first disqualifier for anyone to become president is to actually want the job…
I’ve been for Edwards since day 1. You are correct that he is the only one (of the “big three”) who doesn’t seem to be afraid to be a liberal. I’ve gotten into arguments w/a friend of mine who says that I should vote for Hillary, but the only reason he can give me is that she’s a woman. I’ll keep it short and won’t get on my soap box. I’ll just say “Vote for John Edwards!”.
You’re right, MAJeff. Obama’s my senator, so I get to hear about his shady real estate deals with Tony Rezko and know that his mentor in the Senate was Joe Lieberman.
He’s charismatic and a wonderful orator, but he’s from Illinois. He’s dirty. That’s how this state works.
I don’t like his voting record enough, and he’s such a political animal. He’s HRC all over again, and I can’t stand her.
I voted for him, and it was the right thing to do, as the local GOP first ran Jack “I forced my ex-wife, 7 of 9, to go to S&M bars” Ryan, and followed that up with Alan “Carpetbagger” Keys.
But as a candidate himself…not so fond.
I might vote for Edwards, but I’m tempted just to right in Kucinich/Feingold.
Amanda, I agree with most of what you say, and that’s why tomorrow night I’ll be a Precinct Captain for Edwards at the caucus. Thanks to you and everyone who didn’t let his name get lost in the media shuffle.
I went with Edwards as well, for many of the same reasons you did, Amanda. I also feel the pang of supporting the white guy in a situation like this one, but I feel comfortable because I figure that if Edwards does win, he’ll probably select either a woman or a minority as a running mate, and if he doesn’t win, I’m certainly happy to vote for either Clinton or Obama in the general. This will be the second primary in a row where I’ll get to vote for someone as opposed to against someone. It’s a good feeling.
On a side note, Amanda, how long before some right-winger looks at this post and uses it as “proof” that you have the political equivalent of battered-wife syndrome?
I’m voting for Edwards, too! He has really addressed class issues. Besides, even if he hasn’t endorsed gay marriage, Elizabeth Edwards has, and she seems to have A LOT of influence on her husband.
Jeff - I wish we had a real labor party, too. And I have a rellie who is going for either Huckabee or Giuliani. Bleah. The ‘rents, however, are voting for Clinton, which I can live with.
I’m in NH. I’m a local democratic somebody the way things work. And I am voting for Edwards next Tuesday, as is Dr. may aka the anti-bob. We too have been with Edwards as you have. Signs go up post Iowa, but rural snow covered roads only do so much. It is the candidate’s positions not sex or race that influnced my (our) choice.
I feel good this cycle because I actually like a candidate (Edwards) instead of just figuring I’ll hold my nose and vote for whoever isn’t the Republican. I actually wound up rather liking Kerry in the end, but whatever.
I don’t understand why anyone would like Clinton, as opposed to just being psyched because she’s a woman and kicks ass. Which is a good thing, but she’s too linked to a bunch of real bad people.
And I truly don’t get Obama or why anyone likes him. He’s so obviously a smiling face in an empty suit.
Jeff - I wish we had a real labor party, too. And I have a rellie who is going for either Huckabee or Giuliani. Bleah. The ‘rents, however, are voting for Clinton, which I can live with
My parents make me giggle. I’ve got a post over at my place about a chat with mom about evolution. But my parents are both leaning towards Edwards. This from someone, in my dad, who voted for Reagan twice and says, “The republican party moved away from me.” Yeah, dad…you’ve moved a bit, too though. His first Dem pres vote was Clinton in 1996…now Edwards….I’m working on ‘em slowly.
I’ll be voting for Edwards, though it’ll be long after it has ceased to matter. Our nomination process is beyond broken. It kills me that he’s unilaterally disarmed though. He’s going to go dark from basically February through September, and that’s going to hurt. All those great things he’s saying won’t matter if all anybody hears are the Rethugs chanting “rich trial lawyer” all day, every day on every channel. The only saving grace is that the Rethug candidates are so vastly unappealing compared to our slate and the shitpile they’ve created is so deep that it may not matter what they do.
Ive been behind Edwards since 2004 - and he remains the *only* candidate to whom I have ever given money.
I believe he actually gives a shit, and I believe that 2004 taught him he needs to fight. His issues are the ones I care about - my biggest point of difference with him is same sex marriage - and frankly I’m not so sure he truly opposes that as realizes stating so would be a really quick way to alienate a large portion of Middle American. I suspect he’ll come around on that one.
There’s something charismatic about Edwards that I haven’t seen since RFK. And his wife is damned cool.
You’re right, MAJeff. Obama’s my senator, so I get to hear about his shady real estate deals with Tony Rezko and know that his mentor in the Senate was Joe Lieberman.
Hmm… if the Rezko deals are what I’m thinking of, I looked into that extensively (in Internet terms) a while back and it seemed totally innocent. Like Whitewater but with less legs. You probably have a point about Holy Joe though.
Yeah, that one baffled me. The correct response, it seems, would be to spend most of your time ignoring politics altogether. It’s a Christian thing: turning the other cheek.Read today’s NY Times article on Edwards
Does this sound like the School of the Americas model to anyone else?
And why now is he coming out with this, one, two days before the Iowa caucuses? Has he really thought it through?
I am a Hillary supporter.
But, here is one thing I don’t understand about John Edwards. Why does he call himself a populist? Based on his record, the Seneca native is the most libertarian of the top-tier candidates in both parties. Of course, Kucinich is the most libertarian if you include everybody.
Breaking through the sex or color barrier to the white house would be wonderful, historic, a great way set a new tone for the 21st century.
But if Clinton or Obama gets the nomination and wins, my bet is that the margin is somewhat narrow: there are still too many mouthbreathers in the USA that will never vote for a black man, or a woman, no matter how good they are.
And after all these years of Bush, I think it’s time for a candidate that just beats the snot out of the GOP, and has enough coattails that the down-ticket races are blowouts too.
So, yeah, I’m for Edwards. I also think that he has the best handle on what’s wrong, and the best plan for moving forward.
I guess I’m looking at Edwards as my second choice after Senator Dodd. As much as I like many of Edwards’ positions on things, Dodd has stated far more emphatically that he will bring troops home sooner rather than later.
And there’s this thing they call the Constitution. You might have heard of it. Just an ol’ “piece of paper” that has served this country quite well over the past few centuries. Dodd is the only one I am aware of who has stated that he will totally restore the Constitution and rule of law and NOT continue using all the tools that Little Boots and Darth have spent the last seven years pulling into the WH and using to spy on US residents.
YMMV
You know what I love about this is how the wingnut trolls I see everywhere are accusing folks on the left of being so caught up in “identity politics” yet here we are–further to the left as a group than most Democratic voters I would guess–and here we are chatting about Constitutional restoration, class and economic relations, the war. You know, issues.
Why in the hell can’t we have a broader discourse like this? I got so pissed at fucking Emily Rooney on our local PBS tonight doing all the horse race spin doctor bullshit.
I’m so sick of the pathetic state of political discourse. I don’t mind rough and tumble. I do mind irrelevant. I do mind inane. I do mind nonsense. Treat me like a citizen, not a childish consumer.
“But, here is one thing I don’t understand about John Edwards. Why does he call himself a populist? Based on his record, the Seneca native is the most libertarian of the top-tier candidates in both parties.”
Is his voting record for six years of his life the only thing we can judge him on, or should we also consider his entire body of work? (honestly, given the importance of legislative records in running for President, the truth can be considered any number of places in between.)
You are correct that by the most scientific measure–comparative votes when Clinton and Edwards were simultaneously in office in 2001-04–that Edwards more frequently voted with the Republicans.
I’m really happy to hear this, Amanda! You are in some very good company, and I agree that Edwards is our best hope for (1) beating the fucking snot out of whichever Repub clown-car occupants they serve up and (2) moving this country in the right direction.
He’s sufficiently non-threatening to the zeitgeist that he actually has room to be radical. Anything Obama or Clinton might do will be filtered through race and gender glasses.
I’m going to preface what I’m about to say with the fact that I actually STILL can’t decide which candidate I support, and at the end of the day it doesn’t matter to me because I vote in New York, which doesn’t have an important primary, and even so I’ll be out of the US and thus not able to vote in the NY primary.
But I will say this.
Waitwaitwait. So we have to vote for the white guy because he’s “non-threatening”. We have to avoid voting for a woman or a black man because anything they do will be filtered through race/gender issues. So you’re saying I better buck up and vote for the white guy because ummmm, well because what? Because feminism and racism haven’t been wiped off the map yet? Well sweetie, they’re never going to be with that kind of logic.
This is EXACTLY what creeps me out about the left’s blanket support of Edwards. It’s proof that either A) most leftists are secretly still too racist and sexist to believe that anyone but a pale male can be president, or B) most leftists are so conciliatory towards the extreme fringe of the far right that they don’t even allow themselves to vote for the candidate they think is best for the job.
Of course, the annoying thing is that I like Edwards, agree with a lot of his positions, and think he’d make a fine president. And I have my issues with Clinton and Obama. And the bottom line is that if I voted for Kerry, It’ll be easy to vote for almost any Democrat. We’re spoiled for choice compared to 2004. But this “vote for the white guy, because we all secretly know nobody’s ever going to take a woman or a person of color seriously!” makes me feel like I accidentally found my way to a post at Freeper Land.
I spoke too soon.
Except.. nobody’s said that. Several people have said that they support Edwards because he is more liberal than Clinton or Obama. There is some speculation that the reason why he’s more liberal is because as a white male, he can afford to be, but the fact remains that he is, so purely on the issues, he’s the most appealing candidate to a liberal.
Hi Amanda! Do I need to say anything
So you’re saying I better buck up and vote for the white guy because ummmm, well because what? Because feminism and racism haven’t been wiped off the map yet? Well sweetie, they’re never going to be with that kind of logic.
You really, really misread that. She was talking about the effect of the media on Obama and Clinton, that Clinton and Obama have had to tack to the middle because of the way the media goes after them, and that leaves, oddly enough, the white guy, who one would expect to be the most conservative of the bunch, in the position of being the most progressive. I support Edwards because I support him on the issues–he’s been practically calling for a class war, which is something I’ve been wanting to see a major candidate do your years.
One other thing–I didn’t read Amanda as issuing marching orders. Hell, she’s not even speaking for the other posters on the blog. She’s putting forth her reasons for supporting this particular candidate, not telling other people how they should vote.
MA Jeff, that post was not a reply to you.
As I said, I’m not advocating that we all HAVE to vote for Obama or Clinton because of identity politics.
But the concept that we should shun Clinton and Obama simply because “they can’t win” isn’t civilized debate of the issues. It’s racism and sexism of the worst kind. The fact that we have a woman and a black man as frontrunners in the lead up to the primaries kind of indicates that, clearly, people will vote for them, and they can win. We’re not talking about Shirley Chisolm, here (would that we were, though).
And rose, yes, someone in this thread is saying that. The person I quoted above, Togolosh. As well as Snarkilicious, now that I re-skim the thread. Furthermore, it’s something I’ve heard over and over from well meaning leftists outside Pandagon and related blogosphere circles. Hilariously enough, quite a few of whom are the same people who voted for Nader in 2000 despite the fact that they themselves knew he really couldn’t win. Which is the main reason this ticks me off so much and forces me to believe it’s just the bigotry talking.
The bottom line is that all three front-running candidates are pretty much neck in neck in terms of stances on the issues, voting records, and the likelihood that they’re just slick voices in pretty suits. All three of them also have strong points and things they’ve said and done that indicate their hearts are in the right place. Pick who you like, whatever. But DO NOT tell me with one breath that Edwards is the only electable candidate because he’s the white guy, and then in the next breath whine that anyone who doesn’t think otherwise is playing at “identity politics”. That’s what I go to Fox News for.
Oppo, I think you’re misreading. It’s about how Edwards is the most progressive candidate, and progressives have been put in a situation of voting for symbolic gains for black people or women, or voting for a candidate that will turn over more practical results for those groups. Which sucks, but how it is. I can’t speak about Obama, but I do think Clinton tacks center to “compensate” for being a woman. I don’t think she needs to, though, since her reputation as being a big, scary liberal precedes anything she can actually do, and people still seem to like her for that.
Well, the idea that they can’t win strictly because of race or gender is foolish. I think Obama actually has slightly better chances than Edwards at picking up Midwestern swing states. Clinton might lose some votes due to sexism, but it’s a specific strain of sexism—i.e., voters have been hearing sexist slurs against her for 15 years now, and some have sunk in as specific to her. Another woman might escape more easily.
Amanda and others: to clarify, I’m not criticizing your main post, I’m criticizing Togolosh’s comment, which I thought I made apparent by quoting it at the top of mine. When I skimmed, though, I did find a few others saying the same thing as Togolosh, and this meme of unelectability is unfortunately not limited to the 2 or 3 commentors in this thread who brought it up. I’ve been hearing it at least since Obama spoke at the DNC back in 2004.
I’m not a liberal, but if I were I’d vote for Edward for political reasons. He has the best chance of winning the general election. He doesn’t have the baggage of Clinton, and i he isn’t a total unkown who could tank like Obama.
I bet he could also pick up Virginia and North Carolina if the Republicans keep going they way they are.
DingDingDingDing, we have a winner, guys.
Thank you, Amanda, for this thoughtful post in support of JE. As someone who was once super excited about Clinton and Obama, I have to agree that we’re in an emergency situation here and we have to vote on the issues
Well argued, Amanda. I describe Edwards as my “least un-favorite” of the main candidates. The most succinct way I can put it is that I think that Edwards is the one who wants to win so that we can start to fight in earnest. Hillary wants to win so she can fight on our behalf while we watch from the sidelines, and Obama wants to win so that no one will fight any more.
That’s true only if you don’t count Kucinich and Dodd.
If you discount “electability” and the MSM crowning of the royal triumvirate and look at their policies I find it very hard to believe that most people here align more closely with Edwards than with Kucinich. And both are certainly far more honest than Edwards. And both actually *do* something once in a while.
I understand that Dodd’s civil liberties / follow the Constitution message doesn’t appeal to everyone but I don’t understand how anyone can claim that Edwards is more progressive than Kucinich.
At this point I don’t see why people feel like they need to endorse one of the top three, rather than the person they think is best for the job.
I would add that the idea of any of the top three candidates “fighting” for much of anything runs counter to their histories. If they can barely be bothered to propose legislation or vote against bad legislation it seems almost silly to expect them to lead some sort of radical change once elected to President. Tigers changing their stripes and all that.
Glad to see the Edwards support! Granted I’ve never met any of the candidates, but I really feel like hes the only one who genuinely cares about struggling Americans.
Am I the only person who believes Clinton wants to be President just to prove a point? I think some candidates, particularly Edwards and Kucinich, are driven by strong personal feelings and a burning desire to change our nation for the better. On the other hand, I think Hillary desperately wants to go down in the books as the first woman President and will do whatever it takes to make that happen. Maybe Im projecting because Ive never been a big fan of hers, but much like most of the Republicans, she seems in it for the glory rather than the good of others.
TheOpponax:
This is what you quoted “He’s sufficiently non-threatening to the zeitgeist that he actually has room to be radical. Anything Obama or Clinton might do will be filtered through race and gender glasses.”
It sounds to me like the poster was simply reiterating Amanda’s point about him having room to get on board the crazy liberal train because he doesn’t send the wingers into a tizzy for being black or a woman.
I do not want Clinton to win.
Do we really want 24 years of 2 families presdentin our country?
Seriously, we need new blood in there.
I do not want Clinton to win.
Do we really want 24 years of 2 families presdentin our country?
Seriously, we need new blood in there.
You’re just doing this because he looks a little bit like Carcetti. If Obama looked like Bunny Colvin, this endorsement thing could take a whole new turn.
Now, for me personally, I’m a Dodd guy, because I like the experienced, intelligent person who has no shot of winning. See also: Tsongas in 1992, Bradley in 2000, and absolutely nobody in 2004.
Bunny would be great. But personally, I’m holding out for the Omar/Muzone ticket.
oppoponax - actually yeah, snarkilicious did talk about “electability”, albeit i guess with a new twist on it i hadn’t heard before - about it being a big enough margin that it will be decisive and stuff.
but what togolosh said was actually “Anything Obama or Clinton might do will be filtered through race and gender glasses. Both are aware of this fact, and it pushes them towards accommodationist positions.”
(emphasis mine)
i share your dread of the “electability” stuff and tend not to put up with it when i see it. this i think is different, more about the “i want to vote for the most progressive candidate, but why the hell does it have to be a white dude” angst many of us are feeling.
oops, jasmine said it while i was attempting, wouldn’t have said the same damn thing as her if i’d known.
t sounds to me like the poster was simply reiterating Amanda’s point about him having room to get on board the crazy liberal train because he doesn’t send the wingers into a tizzy for being black or a woman.
Except of course that Edwards isn’t really on board the ‘crazy liberal train’ any more than the other candidates are. And everyone should know by now that the wingers are staunch Republicans and won’t in a million years vote for any Democrat, ever.
In fact, that’s a big part of why all this “we have to support the white guy” idea rubs me the wrong way. Because it’s basically saying that we have to appeal to an extremist group who won’t vote for our candidate, anyway. I love how many people on the left would rather pander to the furthest fringe of the right, rather than just vote their conscience.
And yes, obviously I’m 100% with those who support Edwards based on the issues. It’s those who say “well nobody’s going to support a non-white non-male candidate!” who bug me. This is what Togolosh and others have said. It wasn’t my reading of Amanda’s post, though.
I haven’t yet read all 52 (and counting) comments but wanted to ask:
What about the VP slot? Everybody is talking about the candidate, but nobody (again, I’ll read 52 comments in a moment) seems to be talking about the running mate.
I think we’ve seen, to the WHOLE WORLD’S detriment, the kinda influence the VP might have (please God, I don’t believe in You, but let it be POSITVE this time).
@Oppomax:
One wonders why you see fit to hijack this thread for the purpose of attacking a strawman liberal…
The reason I can tell that Edwards is more liberal than HRC is that my hard-core (haven’t voted dem in a national election ever) Republican parents say they are going to hold their noses and vote for Hillary in the general… They’d rather vote for her than any of the “bat-shit crazy” posse in the GoP. But when I mention Edwards — “too socialist” — or Obama — “ummmm”… (I live in AL, btw)
I’m not sure what their fall-back position is if someone else takes the Dem primaries, but I can’t wait to find out…
/slightly snarky, but true none the less
yeah see tho, i was a kucinich supporter until a week or two ago, when i read that he stated were he to win the nomination he would pick ron paul as his running mate. and i’d rather eat my own underpants than support ron paul in any capacity.
so i went with my second choice, edwards. i’m excited to watch the caucus coverage tomorrow. i’m in illinois so our primary is super tuesday, at which time myself, my boyfriend, my roommate and my mother will all be voting edwards.
i like obama as my senator but hes keeps talking about working across the aisle and i dont trust the implications of that type of rhetoric. it sounds like fancy talk for compromising on issues that matter in order to be popular. gross. clinton is owned by corporate interests and i cant see her changing much in the way things are being run.
so, edwards. my second choice is bill richardson, but in the general election i would vote for that robot girl from small wonder if i had to in order to beat the republican candidate.
I’ve been an Edwards guy for a year now, since he first picked you (Amanda) and Melissa to blog for him; though that didn’t turn out as we all might have hoped, it made me take a serious look at him.
If the nominee is Clinton or Obama, they’ll have my vote in November. But John Edwards clearly is the only candidate talking honestly and consistently about the wealth disparity and the corrosive effects of the widening gap. Where Hillary and Barack are oblique, John Edwards is frank, candid, and for a top-tier candidate, really gutsy.
Hmmm, don’t know if I’m “lost in moderation” or what but:
Has anyone anywhere been speculating about running mates? Is the #2 spot that little important?
For all the reasons Amanda points out, Edwards is the least odious of the Big Three.
But as many who are still wary of Edwards in the thread point out, none of the Big Three is that good on a whole host of key issues, e.g. our bloated military and executive power. Even on healthcare, supposedly a signature issue for the Dems this year, the argument boils down to who has the least flawed partial solution. Neither Clinton, nor Obama, nor Edwards would even put single-payer/Medicare-for-all on the table as a negotiating position.
At a certain point, many of us will feel the need to bite the bullet and vote for a lesser evil (not all of us, however, as many, perhaps most, of us live in states whose primaries don’t much count and whose solidly red or solidly blue states’ electoral votes aren’t in play). But lesser evilism, while an unfortunate but occasionally necessary tactic, is an unacceptable longterm strategy.
So what are progressives going to do in the next four years to build the foundation for a viable, progressive presidential campaign, inside the Democratic Party or outside of it, next time ’round?
Can someone please explain to me why the Republican primaries are all about chest beating, pissing contests, and generally striking fear in the electorate while the Democratic primaries are about being “centrist?”
Does it really all boil down to there not being a monolithic block on the left like the Religious Right? Since there is no one group to which to pander to gain delegates on the D side does it prevent leftward Overton movement until the general election? And by then does the “centering” nature of the Democratic primaries impede the potential of progressive movements and ideas since the truly progressive ideas and candidates are whittled away before the non-wonks among us tune in for the general election?
These are great questions, Swedgin.
While I think the lack of a strong, pro-organized, monolithic progressive voting block makes a difference (the most obvious dog not barking here is unions, and the main problem is their size), I think party elites are much more important in explaining the different styles of the two parties in the primaries. The people paying the bills (metaphorically and literally) of both major parties push each rightward. The GOP is happy to give “social issues” over to the Christian right, thus mobilizing that constituency. The Democrats give less to their progressive base, but can always point to the GOP and scare them with thoughts of how bad they are (and they are bad).
It’s also very important to note that the media narrative systematically denies the centering nature of the Democratic primaries. Instead, we’re told that just as the Republican Party is driven rightward in the primaries, so the Democratic Party is driven leftward. This is of course absolute nonsense, as any careful look at any Democratic presidential primary campaign since at least 1976 would indicate. But this narrative helps systematically crowd out actually progressive candidates and provides an awful lot of additional cover for Democrats to move to the right.
It seems more to me about garnering support from disenfranchised republican voters and independents who may now be receptive to progressive ideals.Also, someone suggested I read this article about Obama’s rhetoric of “hope” and “bipartisanship”. I haven’t yet, but the snippets I saw seemed intriguing.
Pretty much what Opo said.
I seriously can’t decide who to vote for. I’m leaning towards Edwards, largely since I’ve liked him since 2004 and I love that he tackles class issues. But I’m not quite sure that I’ve ruled out Obama or Clinton yet. Gaaah! My poor brain.
Would vote for whoever wins the primary, yes. But it would be nice to know who I’m voting for in the primary before it comes time to pull the lever. I guess I’ve got some research to do.
Margalis: don’t know about Dodd, but I understand Kucinich’s record on choice is quite poor.
I like Dodd’s backbone, but dislike his fratboy sexism; meanwhile, Edwards strikes a note with me of both decency and a steadily growing strength. He’ll get my vote.
I support Edwards enthusiastically for President.
But I don’t get this idea (shared, apparently, across the entire political and sexual identity spectrum!? except me) that he might be to ‘hot’ to be President.
To me, he looks like a cross between Keneth of ‘30 Rock’ and David Brent of ‘The (BBC’s) Office’.
Maybe this is a narrative you should all start embracing to make Edwards appear more electable
I have been pulling for Edwards since he announced. I am closer ideologically to Kucinich, but since I’m in Colorado, and not a registered Democrat, I don’t really have any say. I will vote for whoever gets the nod, but I really have been excited by what Edwards has been saying.
Hillary is to corporate, and perhaps she’s centrist because she feels she needs to be as a woman candidate, but really, Bill was pretty corporate as well, signing NAFTA. Obama… I like the rhetoric, but I haven’t really heard anything concrete. And the whole “reaching across the aisle” talk… It’s nice, but I don’t think christofascist-racist-oligarchs, no matter what percentage of congress they make up, have any legitimate part to play in fixing the mess of the last 8 years. They will be as obstructionist as they can possibly be in retaining the status quo, and for every inch given to them, they will take a mile. Best to tell them to fuck off until they regain some semblance of sanity. They have offered no valid ideas for 8 years.
I want a candidate that will flat out say… we are breaking as a nation. Bush has killed the middle class, given too much power to corporate cronies, and is trying to remove any sort of safety net for the poor. Iraq is second to me after that. We need to fix America, and I feel Edwards is the candidate who has been speaking to that. I would like Edwards to talk more about reducing military spending and returning to the constitution… Reversing the march towards a surveillance state, but other than Ron Paul and Dodd, nobody seems to be addressing that.
I used to be firmly on board the Kucinich train. I voted for him in 2004. But this time around, I just can’t do it. First the Ron Paul thing, and now this — Dennis Kucinich + Larry Flynt. (Usual disclaimers re: porn apply. It’s not all bad, I’m pro-sex worker and generally sex positive. But Larry Flynt isn’t a friend to women.)
So I’m not sure who to vote for. Won’t make a difference as I’m in Mass now, and by the time our primary happens it’ll probably all already have been decided.
I don’t think Clinton’s centrist because she’s a woman, I think she’s centrist because in reality, she’s pretty darn conservative. She’s certainly no liberal.
I think both Clinton and Obama have that tiresome attitude of “tut-tut, we know how big-boy politics works, and we have to compromise and work ‘both sides of the aisle,’ and don’t you voters worry your pretty little heads about it.”
I’ve liked Edwards since he was the VP candidate. I like him still. He’s got my vote.
And BTW, he’s not “the one white guy” running. Of cousre, the MSM decided long ago that there are only 3 Democratic presidential candidates, so he might as well be.
“Has anyone anywhere been speculating about running mates? Is the #2 spot that little important?”
If you hire Richard “The Big Dick” Cheney, he’ll tell you who the best VP candidate is - and he won’t even need to do anything but look in the mirror…
All kidding aside, it does seem that under the Clinton and
CheneyBush II administrations the VP was much more than a spare part.In Clinton’s version this worked out well.
In Bush’s version, Bush became the VP for all intents and purposes with Cheney making himself the actual president. Since Cheney was not elected, and could not be elected under his own name, this was bad on principle. However, Cheney is also a psychotic one-man world-destroying machine, so it REALLY hasn’t worked out at all.
When some future historian writes The Decline and Fall of the American Empire, Cheney will have a very prominent role, alongside Nixon, Hoover, and other lesser presidents…
I think I got lost in moderation. But I wanted to drop this bit in about Kucinich - he’s a friend of Larry Flynt.
And while I’m happily pro-sex worker and sex positive, Larry Flynt is clearly no friend to women.
So, yeah. That disappointed me greatly. I don’t think I can vote for Kucinich this time around.
I’m more than a little surprised at how few people here want to address the fact that Edwards has, at two very key moments in his political history, shown that he has no spine: the 2004 VP debate and the blogger controversy.
I honestly don’t get you, Amanda. He threw you and McEwan overboard in order to placate his enemies who, by definition, would never be placated. Gutless, gutless, gutless.
I’m an American expat, but otherwise a long-time North Carolina resident, and I’m just not that into John Edwards. It’s hard for me even to accept he’s the most progressive guy out there. First, it was a huge disappointment that he didn’t bother to run for re-election of his Senate seat, that he let his presidential ambitions get in the way. He did NC a big disservice as now we have Burr and Dole.
Contrary to popular opinion, although NC usually goes Republican in presidential elections, there are often Democratic senators, governors, and state congressmen/women. State government is Democratic and has been for a long time. NC is not as conservative as you might think. Edwards’s senate seat had been held by a Republican, but before that by a Dem. Part of me thought he didn’t want to run for re-election because he was scared of losing, as that seat often switched hands, and it’s better to quit than get fired.
As an NC resident, I felt he failed me. So that’s the first issue I have with him.
Next… wasn’t Edwards a major writer of the USA Patriot Act? You don’t see that touted on many campaign websites, but my understanding is he was the primary author. That’s disturbing if it’s true.
Finally, that house. I lived in Edwards’s town in NC, which is not a town of billionaires, and it’s really hard to listen to someone talk about two Americas, and found a poverty center, and then build that monstrosity. I’ve heard people explain this as “well, he’s not that into jewelry, cars, travel, etc,” but no one needs a house like that. It’s consumption at a ridiculous level. How can a populist justify that?
In regards to the other candidates: my sons are black, born in Ethiopia, and I find Obama particularly inspiring because of this. I really want to be able to tell them that a black person is president. That’s probably a naive, liberal thing to want, but I truly think his nomination as the Democratic candidate would be a watershed moment for the entire country.
Because there hasn’t been a victorious liberal Presidential candidate since the early 70’s. Meanwhile, unapologetically conservative candidates have won in landslides.
Seeker, I think you’re misremembering it. Though he wobbled a little, John stiffened up, said he was offended but would not fire Amanda. Then Amanda quit on her own days later, when it became clear that the constant attack would be a liability to the campaign.
I credited John with the spine, and Amanda with the wisdom. He still has my vote.
Which is exactly why he should have dug in his heels and insisted that they stay. If you see the attacks of people who want to destroy you as “a distraction” then your judgment is questionable. In less than an hour I am going to go and buy some things which are important to me. If somebody tries to mug me along the way and I allow them to hit me whilst they take my money because I view keeping my funds and protecting my body as “a distraction” to my desire to go out and shop, then that makes me a coward and an idiot.“Because there hasn’t been a victorious liberal Presidential candidate since the early 70’s. Meanwhile, unapologetically conservative candidates have won in landslides.”
Actually the last “liberal” to win office was Lyndon Johnson in 1964, and even his liberal bona fides were in doubt until he pushed through civil rights legislation.
Neither Jimmy Carter, nor Bill Clinton can be considered “liberal”, and JFK had to emphasize fiscal conservatism and military toughness (emphasizing his military career and promoting the “missile gap”) to get elected.
Honestly, FDR was the last really liberal/progressive president…
Granted, if you mean socially liberal. In terms of economic and fiscal views, LBJ was an FDR-style liberal going back to his first election to the House in 1937.“insisted that they stay”
Have you tried insisting that Amanda do something she has decided against?
Somehow I think that she would have stayed if Edwards had stopped seeing her and McEwan as distractions and opened his fool eyes to see her as a weapon.
Gutless.
My first thought was: Oh shit. GREG STILLSON?
You guys will think I’m crazy, but really our last liberal President was Richard Nixon.
Bizarrely enough, AtomicFruitbat has a point, if one talks about the economic and positive activist role of government and ignores his raving fascist tendencies and crimes. He was kinda both at the same time. He is, hands down, America’s most contradictory and paradoxical president.
“Bizarrely enough, AtomicFruitbat has a point, if one talks about the economic and positive activist role of government and ignores his raving fascist tendencies and crimes.”
Somehow I think recognizing Nixon as the one-and-only actual “liberal-fascist” will not make Jonah Goldberg happy…
Absolutely no love here for Richardson, I see. Sigh.
The Edwards endorsement was predictable. I like him, but I like Richardson better.
We have so many PIECES of a great President to choose from: Hillary’s experience and subtlety, Obama’s cross-cultural appeal and charisma, Edwards’ iconoclasm and populist/progressive message, Dodd’s integrity…but we don’t seem to have a candidate that has ALL of those qualities. We have GOOD candidates, not GREAT candidates.
Amanda, I’m sorry if this is too personal, but I’m a little surprised that you don’t resent Edwards caving in to Bill Donahue and cutting you loose from his campaign. Put it this way: You’re being a bigger person about it than I might have been.
I’d have to agree with Bitter Scribe; but then again, I’m from Michigan, and he’s effectively cut me loose too, along with every other progressive voter in this state, by withdrawing from our primary. He’s not alone, of course; so has Obama, so has Richardson, and Kucinich *wanted* to but missed the deadline.
(Guys, maybe it’s the principle of the thing but ya know what? Romney, our *oy* native son is running ads after every local TV newscast. Think the corporate Republican leadership is going to refuse to seat *his* delegates??)
Sure, anything but Bush–but I’m not convinced that he can walk the walk yet.
i’m leaning toward edwards. i really, really didn’t want to go for the “white guy.” i have been intrigued by the possibility of making history by selecting either a woman or an african american candidate.
BUT.
out of the three front runners edwards seems to have thoughtful plans and he does talk about real issues. i think he has the best chance of getting us out of the messes we are currently in, and taking the country in a new, positive direction. i love that he talks about the working-class whereas the other candidates can only focus on the middle class, and continue to ignore the lives of poor people in this country.
my only reservation is that i hate his stance on gay issues. he has said that he has grappled with the issue of gay marriage, and can’t fully support it. he seems to feel bad about this, but feeling bad is not enough . we do need a candidate that will also be supportive of gay americans. kucinich is the only candidate who is, but we know he’s not really viable.
This is really weird — I totally agree with opoponax and seeker and am surprised that more people here on this site don’t. First, obviously there is no exciting candidate in the top 3, and obviously everyone feels like we’ll vote for whoever wins out (Clinton, Edwards, or Obama).
But given three flawed candidates, why not pick the hugely charismatic black guy? My impression is that the only reason Edwards hasn’t got as long a record as caving to the right as Clinton does is b/c he …. hasn’t got as long a record as she has. When push has come to shove, he’s giving in over and over again.
Obama has done the same, granted. But at the end of 8 years in which the US has become a crazy, hyper-racist, torture-enthusiast pariah state, switching gears and having an optimistic black man as our President sounds awesome to me.
I suppose the fact that Edwards has been out of the Senate for so long actually works in his favor. He was as much of a lily-livered centrist in the Senate as Clinton and Obama. Fortunately for him, Americans never remember anything or bother looking at a politician’s record. If he gets the nomination and is ultimately elected, I would be shocked if he follows through on his liberal promises as president.
Remember, Bill Clinton pretended to be much more liberal in ‘92 than he ultimately proved to be in office.
Erika:
Tell me about it. I was at a Clinton-Gore rally in Austin in 1992 and the populist, compassionate talk (especially given fantastic speeches by Gov. Anne Richards and Barbara Jordan) was wonderful. Didn’t go anywhere for the eight years in office, but it was nice to be lied to so well.
Clinton may have really wanted to be a liberal. He got his ass handed to him in 1993, lost Congress in 1994 and gave up trying.
Clinton didn’t lose Congress, the Dem Congress lost Congress. You may forget what a total drift they were for the first two years of the Clinton presidency. They only time they showed any backbone was when they refused to be stampeded into, you know, helping a Dem president. They were supine, stubborn, gutless in the face of GOP obstructionism and refused to help Clinton craft a Democratic set of achievements (of any kind) for those two years. They have only themselves to blame for that.
A longer post got eaten, but I want to state that I am actively against Obama in the primary. He attacks Democrats with right-wing talking points and embraces the “caving in to your opponent’s every wish” style of bipartisanship.
I’ll hold my nose in the general if he gets the nod, but he reeks like traitor Joe Lieberman.
On the same thought, perhaps the best visual synopsis of those two years is found, unsurprisingly, in Doonesbury. Dem congressmen are shown as refusing to agree to any White House proposal unless bribed first (Gimme a helicopter ride in Marine One! and the like).
stogoe: It’s interesting to watch Obama. While people attack or support Clinton or Edwards because of what they are or aren’t people support Obama on the basis of what they believe him to be. Like Paul for the GOP he is the inkblot candidate.
We have so many PIECES of a great President to choose from: Hillary’s experience and subtlety, Obama’s cross-cultural appeal and charisma, Edwards’ iconoclasm and populist/progressive message, Dodd’s integrity…but we don’t seem to have a candidate that has ALL of those qualities. We have GOOD candidates, not GREAT candidates.
I wouldn’t go any further with that if I were you.
I mean, you’ll eventually get the idea to start mixing and matching Democratic candidates, assembling them into one patchwork creature, and trying to hit it with lightening to bring it to life (Think Paul Krugman cackling “It’s alive, it’s ALIVE!” and Markos saying “Yeth Mathter”).
And then the Republicans just animate the corpse of Saint Reagan and win in a landslide.
And then Haiti invades and conquers due to the unforeseen voodoo gap.
I hate it when that happens.
He attacks Democrats with right-wing talking points and embraces the “caving in to your opponent’s every wish” style of bipartisanship.
While still holding himself out as some sort of post-partisan progressive.
Did I mention I find his schtick very cynical?
Clinton may have really wanted to be a liberal. He got his ass handed to him in 1993, lost Congress in 1994 and gave up trying.
That dog won’t hunt.
Immediately upon taking office, Clinton folded on gays and lesbians in the military and invested all his political capital in balancing the budget. His tax increases made that possible…and helped doomed the Congressional Democratic majorities. He (and Hillary) also blew healthcare reform, in part by ignoring single payer, which would have at least given them a position of strength from which to negotiate.
Clinton always represented the Robert Rubin wing of the Democratic Party: free trade absolutist fiscal conservatives who saw the supply-side, kleptocratic nonsense coming from the GOP as bad for Wall Street.
Bob Woodward famously quotes Clinton from the early months of his first term telling his cabinet that “we’re the Eisenhower Republicans now.” He was precisely correct.
Yes, Edwards has his faults, and maybe the rhetoric and fiery speeches will turn into words he said to get the nomination if he’s actually elected. But I honestly like the things Edwards says. I would love to see a woman or black president, and I will vote for Clinton or Obama in the general election if they get the nod, but it seems that some people don’t believe that some of us support Edwards on the issues and not because he’s a white guy or even the least of a dozen evils. Edwards has earned my support by speaking to the issues I care about. Personally, I am excited by his candidacy, and that’s something I haven’t been able to say since I’ve been old enough to vote.
I’m a Dodd supporter for his filibuster on FISA, career support of abortion rights and education and his position on decriminalizing marijuana. He’s been the only candidate to talk about how serious the loss of Habeas is. He voted against creation of the Department of Homeland Security (aka Big Brother). He also has the most progressive voting record on bankruptcy reform protection. I like that he’s trying to protect ballot access for non-English speakers. And he’s the only And on Iraq, even though he voted for the IWR, he didn’t co-sponsor it like Edwards did. And here’s Durbin’s amendment #4865 to the IWR:
Dodd voted Yea, Edwards Nay. That’s a HUGE difference between the two. If you want a link, it’s here.
I will say in Edwards’ favor that he is very strongly against the money = political speech precedent and was making speeches against it on the Senate floor as of 1999.
One thing I think *none* of the candidates have discussed enough is trying to resurrect and improve upon the ergonomics standards the Department of Labor issued, that Bush then ended. As the S.O. of a software engineer with a serious repetitive strain injury from typing/programming this is something that affects my life very seriously. I wish the candidates would discuss it more.
On the Obama front, y’all are right about undermining Dems. He keeps bringing up the insolvency of social security, which is a GOP talking point, not a Democratic campaign issue. He’s freaking 50-somethings out. And it also really bothered me that when he spoke at Boston Common he didn’t bring up marriage equality once. Or reproductive rights. I know he only supports civil unions and is in favor of parental notification laws, but… christ… if you can’t talk about sexual equality in Massachusetts, where can you???
Mireille — if you are genuinely excited by Edwards, that’s awesome and I respect it. For me, C/E/O don’t make me enthusiastic *at all* the way, say, Howard Dean did. My impulses are with the people here who suspect Edwards would go the way of Clinton I (his record suggests it) and, obviously Clinton II would be Clinton II (that’s what she’s running on).
I think whoever said that Obama is the “wishful projection” candidate is probably right, and we don’t know how he’ll turn out. But in a blah field, that’s my pick.
Well, hes not the only one. Huey Long comes to mind as a “liberal fascist”.
hear hear, i hope Obama wins, but i’d be glad with Edwards, too. i disagree with your “only Nixon could go to China idea” reasoning, though: Edwards is no Nixon!
(thank goodness).
Who’s the pick for the Republican primary?
Doug, I’m hoping Romney wins the GOP primary. He’s one of the easier guys to beat, with his bizarre flip-floppery and the Mormon thing turning off lots of people.
And if he somehow became president, he’d probably be more restrained in doing bad things than the others, since he’s willing to bend to public opinion. While he’s far worse than a Democrat on any of these issues, lacks Giuliani’s bloodthirst and Huckabee’s theocratic leanings.
doug, i personally like mccain for their side. i figure we dems have a tendency to repeatedly shoot ourselves in the feet, and to me mccain seems far less batshit insane than any of the other possible republicans. i like that hes willing to stand up to the rest of them and go “no, seriously, torture is BAD.”
Seeker—I remind you that the Edwards campaign kept us on, and then we resigned of our own accord. Which is a much different thing than throwing us overboard.
Seeker, I can’t resist saying “I told you so.”
Then kindly permit me to remind you of my earlier post: The fact that the two of you were noble and Roman enough to fall on your swords does not mean that Edwards should have permitted you to do so. That attack on his people was a test of strength: first, a moral test of his backbone in the face of assault; second, a tactical test of his ability to use his opponent’s attack as a springboard to an even more vigourous and effective counterattack. He failed both tests. Add the incredible failure of the VP debate in 2004 and we have three strikes, he’s out. Frankly, I think that the Democratic party has had enough Neville Chamberlains and Horace Wilsons.Thomas, I think that answers your gloat as well.
jessilikewhoa:
“i like obama as my senator but hes keeps talking about working across the aisle and i dont trust the implications of that type of rhetoric. it sounds like fancy talk for compromising on issues that matter in order to be popular.”
As Iowa Rep. Dave Loebsack, my Representative, a staunch progressive and as complete an unpolitician as there is, put it: You have to have at least a cordial working relationship with the people you work with in order to really get things done. As long as Democrats and Republicans are Hatfields and McCoys the Congress will remain obstructed and largely ineffectual. This doesn’t mean that you compromise, it means that you establish a connection on a human level so that you can even talk, and then you get to know where everyone stands so that you can assemble allies on particular issues. It doesn’t matter if their reasons are not yours as long as the legislation passes.
Right now the Republicans vote as a bloc because they’re forced to from the top down. Recall the Republican Congressman who actually cried as he voted for CAFTA because it would be devastating to his constituents. Most of this is to protect Bush and Cheney. But Bush and Cheney will be gone in 2009.
It is simply not true that there is no value in reaching across the aisle. Kucinich reached across to, of all people, Walter “Freedom Fries” Jones to cosponsor his last bill to withdraw from Iraq. Feingold reached across to McCain for campaign finance reform even though McCain’s reason for support it was completely partisan and cynical. Iowa Sens. Harkin and Grassley worked together on a good farm bill that was torpedoed by, among other things, Blue Dog Democrats protecting powerful agribusiness interests in their states. And, of course, there was the memorable scene of the Republicans rising to support Kucinich’s call for impeachment. Sure, they were hoping to defeat it, but as with McCain-Feingold what they hope to do doesn’t matter. It’s what the outcome is that matters.
I saw Barack Obama right before the caucus. He offered this version of diplomacy: He would tell the lobbyists and any opposition exactly where he stood. They had a choice: Work with him or be shoved aside by him and the army of popular support behind him. Reaching out doesn’t mean selling out. Negotiating does not mean compromising. Diplomacy is not soft.
Obama talks about hope and about what ordinary people can doso that he can negotiate from a position of strength, with an army at his back that believes that if it fights hard enough it can beat any odds. I can live with that.
As to his being “centrist…” No. He sometimes uses conservative rhetoric to bring disgruntled Republicans and independents into the discussion, but I have a hard time telling his positions from Edwards’ (all the candidates are to my right). For me it comes down to approach, and I think Obama’s is finally more effective.
I was in the “no Edwards” camp over the whole Amanda/Melissa blogging thing too. And then I decided to read through all of the proposals on Obama/Clinton/Edwards site in detail over the weekend. I ran those up against the major issues I will be voting on, and Edwards won, hands-down. Clinton has (no surprise) moved more towards the center than her initial exploratory stuff suggested. But, in writing, she has a variety of good proposals. In contrast, Obama has nothing–absolutely nothing–written down that compares to either Clinton or Edwards. You can’t tell what he’s actually proposing. His website works more to assuage people as to how “centrist” he is (see the “people of faith” link) rather than to spell out what his real plans are. I don’t see him as the candidate of change at all–he needs to propose something, something different to win that award.
Edwards is not only solid on all of the issues, he’s really visionary, but you already knew that from Amanda’s post. I was pleasantly surprised & I am solidly in his camp. I hope he does well in NH.
For the record: I also think Obama is a little creepy where women are concerned. To wit: watch the “Women for Obama” YouTube video which is creepalicious. It stereotypes women in the worst possible way (think Democratic version of 2004’s “safety moms”). Make sure you especially listen to the “guilt gene” scene. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ASwQGwTDII
I’m still in the Edwards camp - just where I started - myself. Obama keeps doing things that ALMOST win me, then he says or does something that pushes me back to Edwards. He is the proudest liberal in the bunch, and If being liberal can you elected - it will become the wave of the future. A future I can live in.