Three reasons
Like it or not, we are poised on selecting a candidate for president … Christmas frivolity will suck the oxygen out of everything else, we’ll finish that off with post-event headaches and cleanup, begin to prepare for a New Years toast with prayers for a better year — then BANG! We’re nominating.
While none of the Democratic candidates are my Dream President, every one of them is better than we’ve got now by a long shot and could be not only credible but powerful in turning the tables on our long drop into obscurity, our turn toward fascism and plutocracy. But pick we must — and for me that’s simple, at the moment. Edwards by a mile … and here are three reasons.
1. I want somebody to fight for me. To care about my kids and grand kids. To remember that “one nation, under God” means ALL of us, black, white and whatever is in between, with God firmly on the back burner. To get back to the “pull together” policies that unified us, and made us feel that our citizenship is worth two nickles. To begin regulation of all that’s gone overblown and unattended, indeed, encouraged in the last seven years. To stop the downward slide of liberty and civil rights that we’ve endured.
2. I’m tired of dynasty; the “devil we know” is still the devil. The Bush and Clinton clans have given us a fair look at their resonant signals and we know what to expect from each. A pox on the Bush’s, of course — but the Clintons will give us more moderate progressivism and corporate chumminess; and as much as I love Big Bill, it’s Hil that will call the shots … me, I don’t care much for what she says or how she votes. When I listen to her I think of the the Bible quote about being “lukewarm” and “spat out.”
More Hil means more Carville and more Emmanuel, more triangulating and more slide to the right — that’s making me crazy. You don’t negotiate with terrorists — and playing footsie with the GOP, the corporations and energy giants is just that. Besides, Bill’s recent back-track about Iraq is directly opposed to Hillary’s vote [and his earlier opinion] and catching the imagination of the public … I don’t want to worry about pillow talk gone sour or power struggles in the primary relationship of my president.
3. I’m impressed by vision, innovation and righteous anger, in fact I’m hungry for it — and John’s the man who’s displaying all three. I want to go firmly Left, to come back to some kind of balance in a world so far Right that we think it’s normal to be racist and sexist, talk incessantly about the Old Testament and are obligated by birthright to kick anybodies ass who doesn’t agree with us.
Kudos to Chris Dodd, who continues to impress me as well, but we all know he can’t topple the Big Two. Obama is an impressive man, and his day may come but I don’t think it’s next year — he’s enduring Muslim swiftboating at the moment, and his race plays against him in the South. He and Hil have the money — Edwards is doing a Howard Dean and relying on his web base rather than big business, and frankly, that means something to me. I’d like to think my candidate believes in something bigger than profit … and while that may be true of several of them [of course Kucinich, dear Dennis who will always be marginal in the political arena] I see it at the forefront of the Edwards campaign.
If you want a little cross-check about that, examine MSM’s reporting on Edwards — much ado is made of Hil and Obama, usually arguing over a position originally proposed by John. He isn’t credibly covered in the mainstream — he’s usually just the Third, read that “also ran.” He is by far the more progressive of the Big Three, yet he is not perceived so. And that’s poor reporting, media with an agenda, talking. If ever we needed clear information about the pigs in a poke, it’s now!
So today — what I think today, and with time closing in on us — my guy is John Edwards. I worry about Elizabeth, I worry about money for his campaign, I worry about the public inability to pick out what’s good for them as opposed to what “looks good.” And mostly I worry that WHOEVER is next in the White House will be facing an increasingly hostile world, a nation that has lost belief in government and the “commonwealth,” and one that is salted with religious GOP’ers who will hide behind their name tags like roaches at noon … and worse, the next warm body in the Oval will be staring down a likely recession [if we’re lucky.]
John Edwards is no superhero — but he’s the guy I “hear plainly.” Maybe growing out of the need for a superhero is one of the perks of the Bush years — it’s about ALL of us. And Edwards understands that, best of all.
I’m sure many of you favor someone else, and I’ve still got time to change my mind. But so far … from what I’ve seen, heard, felt … I’m pro-Edwards. He’s my guy — like me, he’s firmly, uncompromisingly liberal and proud of it.
So there it is there. You’re invited to go over to the blog and let me know what you think — or reply to this post if you want anonymity [but thanks to Bush, that’s pretty much an illusion.]
Jude
Just Some Thoughts on The Democratic Slate
Timothy V. Gatto, OpEdNews
November 28, 2007
The more I think about it, the more the Democratic Party in this country gets me shaking my head in wonder. Sometimes I really don’t know whether or not the Democratic Party has been hijacked by the far-right, or whether the media is controlling things (not much difference there) or if the American people have just lost their minds.
First of all, for Hillary Clinton to be the “front-runner” for the Democrats is patently absurd. This woman is about as much a representative of the American People’s hearts and minds as Brittany Spears is a model for mothers. She can be nasty, crude and vulgar as witnessed by the tell-all books that have come out about her. Her husband is firmly allied with the Bush camp on so many matters that lately it’s difficult to believe that Bill Clinton was once a Democrat. Not once has Hillary Clinton decried this insane war that we have entered into, based on lies and distortions from the Bush cabal. She continues to believe that this nation is not “occupying” Iraq, but bringing some kind of “security and freedom” to the Iraqi people. Of course most Americans with half a brain can understand that we invaded them, took out their infrastructure, disbanded their Army and Police Forces and left them to fend for themselves.
It’s no wonder that the nation of Iraq fell into sectarian violence, even though most of what we call “sectarian” is really opposition to our occupation of that country. It was a wrong decision to “go it alone” in Iraq and even worse than that, the United States had no plan to administer the country once we defeated its armed forces. Clinton never acknowledges that we had no right to attack Iraq, and she says that “if she had known then, what she knows now, she would never have voted for the authorization of force” in Iraq. That’s a small comfort after she voted for the Kyle/Lieberman Amendment that designates Iran’s Revolutionary Guards a ‘terrorist” organization. She is firmly in the camp of this “Global War on Terror” and is its main proponent in the Democratic Party.
The truth is that she is completely unelectable. She is such a polarizing force that the Republicans will join ranks and do whatever it takes to remove her. It isn’t because they fear her policies; she is as much as a corporate lap-dog as any of them. It’s because she is a mean spirited woman that will do whatever it takes to make sure that her enemies, of which she had many, and those that made her life as First Lady a nightmare, will suffer tremendously.
As far as her being elect able, there are so many Democrats that see her as a Washington insider who has not used her Senate seat to do anything to stop the policies of George W. Bush. She has consistently voted for all funding for the war, she has yet to voice a dissenting remark about the Patriot Act, The FISA fiasco, or the Warner Defense Bill and the Revamped Insurrection Act or any of those nefarious pieces of legislation that have undermined our Constitution. Democrats with any sense will understand that Hillary Clinton will never take a ‘red” State. If she wins the nomination, we might as well just look forward to another four years of corporate Republican rule that will squeeze this nation’s Middle Class out of existence. It is quite clear from her stance that we will never leave Iraq and will be headlong on a course to war with Iran.
Barak Obama has about as much chance of winning the election as he does selling ice cubes to Inuit’s. This guy is still wet behind the ears, never says hardly anything of substance, and hasn’t been a force for anything in the Senate. He has charisma to be sure, but that isn’t enough to be the first African-American President. There must be some substance behind him, something that will enthrall voters, not just pick him because he is the lesser of two evils. Obama will have a tough time breaking down the race barrier in the South and the middle of this country. The first African-American President must be something special to make people leave their prejudices behind and vote for the person. Unfortunately, as much as people don’t want to hear this, Obama isn’t that man. You can look forward to four more years of Republican rule if he is the nominee. He simply is unelectable. Maybe if he stays in the Senate and makes a name for himself, but this is not the time for him, oh, by the way, he also has his corporate backers, lots of them.
Kuchinich and Gravel are magnificent. Unfortunately, there is not even a tiny chance in hell of seeing either of them win the nomination. That’s just the facts, as much as they both could be astounding Presidents. They just never got the momentum that they needed. I could see them on a third party ticket. I’d like that.
Richardson is too crafty. He seems to never want to take a side. He’s a good man but a poor campaigner. Dodd sounds good, but he is so entrenched in the corporate side of politics, no matter what he says or does, nobody really believes him. He sounds like a reformer, but you only have to look at his campaign donations to see which side his bread is buttered on.
I think that the only way that the Democrats can win this race is if John Edwards were the nominee. I believe that when people go to their caucuses and primaries, they will understand this just before they pull the lever or punch the button. John Edwards seems to have had an epiphany of late. He sounds almost as progressive as Gravel and Kuchinich. I think he realizes that this nation can’t give up it’s sovereignty to the corporate cabal that now runs this country. I believe his time out of Washington and his wife’s illness has made him rethink many things. I also believe he could tear up the rural “red” states. This is the candidate that could win. He’s the best chance we have unless Al Gore comes tiptoeing out of wherever he is with a vengeance.
These are just my thoughts. I’m sure that people will have plenty to say, but before you write those comments, think about what I wrote. We really need to change the direction of this country. People that aren’t on the Mainstream Media are really angry. This nation is more split than I’ve ever seen it. Some people in this country are becoming ashamed to be Americans. That’s a pity. I feel that way myself sometimes. I look around and wonder what happened? This isn’t where I though we would be. This nation has done more in the last decade to tarnish it’s image and ruin it’s democracy than at any time in its history. Things need to change. I would hate to see the alternative.
That’s the way I see it. ++
Former Chairman of the Liberal Party of America, Tim is a retired Army Sergeant. He currently lives in South Carolina.
If Edwards Wins: The January 4th Narrative
David Mizner, MyDD
Tue Nov 27, 2007
We’ve spent months debating which of the candidates would make the best nominee and president. But no less important than what these candidates would do is what their victories would mean. There will be a story line coming out of the primary, and it will have a huge impact on the battle between the two wings of the Democratic Party, the PPs (progressive-populists) and the CCs (centrist-corporatists.)
- Clinton Captures the Iowa Caucuses, Secures Frontrunner Status
MIKE GLOVER, January 4
Des Moines, Iowa (AP) - Senator Hillary Clinton won the Iowa caucuses here yesterday, securing her frontrunner status and positioning herself to sweep through the nominating contests. The victory was vindication for both the Clintons’ vaunted political machine and the Democratic political establishment, which in large measure rallied behind the Senator.
“Voters made the safe choice, probably a wise choice,” said David Gergen, former advisor to presidents both Democratic and Republican. “Voters opted for experience over change, toughness over vision, and, you could argue, competency over character.”
She held off spirited challenges from two candidates–Barack Obama and John Edwards–who both cast themselves as outsiders confronting a system embodied, they asserted, by Senator Clinton. The loss was a blow particularly to Edwards, who unlike Obama, may not be competitive in New Hampshire and beyond.
Observers said the loss called into question Edwards’s strategy of using a populist message to try to appeal to the party’s activist base. “He made the same mistake that Howard Dean made in 2004,” said Will Marshall of the Progressive Policy Institute. “You can make some noise running left but you can’t win a primary. Will these candidates ever learn?”
An Obama victory would be more ambiguous. An Edwards victory would be a jolt to the central nervous system of the Democratic Establishment.
More than his rivals, Edwards has run as a progressive. A movement progressive, if you will. What does that mean, to run as a progressive? It means that that you call yourself a progressive. Also that you reject Republican frames and build progressive ones. And lead on issues of importance to progressives. It also means that you stand with progressives. All those “special interest” groups that centrists blame for the failure of Dems? Edwards wants their support, aligns himself with them. Meanwhile he spurns the special interest group that’s actually harmed the party: corporations.
Edwards is doing what no other presidential candidate is doing, has ever done: trying to create a labor-green-netroots coalition. He’s focusing on economic justice, climate change, and issues that most animate the sphere, like foreign policy, media conglomeration, and internet freedom. His outreach to the netroots hasn’t been flawless–he should’ve made civil liberties a priority and spoken out against the red baiting of Move On–but if the sphere has failed to coalesce behind him, the fault is not his.
He’s had success wooing progressives–partial, yes, but partial it could only be given the celebrity and money of his rivals. Edwards has won important union endorsements, and he’s likely to get the backing of UNITE-HERE, a particularly vibrant union, and its powerful Nevada affiliate, Culinary Workers Local 226. A Teamsters endorsement is also a possibility. He’s also won raves from ACORN, a leading grassroots anti-poverty group, and the endorsement of Iowa for Sensible Priorities, which seeks to reduce the military budget. Issues related to economic justice are closest to JRE’s heart (I’d argue that they should be closest to the heart of the movement), but he has also embraced rhetoric and positions that have won him the only major environmental endorsement so far and an intense following in the sphere. Although few elite bloggers have backed him with endorsements or fundraising appeals, Edwards has more support in the sphere that any other candidate.
An Edwards loss would be a loss for the progressive wing of the party. Never mind that the loyalties of progressives are divided, the MSM and the Democratic establishment would claim that the loss demonstrates the folly of trying to appeal to progressives. Of running left.
Yesterday at HuffPo Tom Edsall asked a group of (male) writers if the Edwards campaign provided a fair test of populism. Most gave the correct answer: No. As Chris Bowers said:
- Media, money, identity, along with pre-established name recognition, favorability, and image all play roles. It isn’t just about the candidate’s message. To date, I think it could be argued that Edwards has actually done quite well, given comparatively low media coverage and money spent in Iowa. He has had little going for him in the state apart from message.
But the patent truth pointed out by Bowers won’t matter. The Establishment marginalizes progressive voices, then blames progressivism for their marginalization.
I chose to support Edwards not because I believed he was ideal, but because I believed he was the candidate most likely to reinvigorate the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. The campaign he’s run has done nothing but strengthen my belief. It saddens me–frightens me–to think that if Edwards loses, it might be many years before a top-tier candidate runs a comparably progressive and populist campaign.
But there is an alternate scenario, one that we could help to make a reality.
Edwards Captures Iowa Caucuses, Creates Upheaval in the Race
Mike Glover, January 4
Des Moines, Iowa (AP) - Former Senator John Edwards won the Iowa caucuses here yesterday, throwing the Democratic nomination process into turmoil. With a reliance on retail politics and a populist message, Edwards defeated two rivals who outspent him more than ten to one. Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will now try to slow his momentum in the nation first primary, to be held in just four days in New Hampshire.
Although Edwards had campaigned heavily in the state and pinned his hopes for capturing the nomination on a win here, it was still a striking upset, one that validated his emphasis on economic inequality. Crisscrossing the state he relentlessly sounded his populist themes, railing against corporate interests which, he said, had corrupted the political system and rigged it against middle and working class Americans.
“This is a real wake up call for the moderates in the party,” said political analyst Stu Rothenberg. “This is not Bill Clinton’s party anymore. Which means it might not be Hillary Clinton’s, either.”
An Edwards victory would be great for progressives; what more, really, do you need to know? ++
“So keep fightin’ for freedom and justice, beloveds, but don’t you forget to have fun doin’ it. Lord, let your laughter ring forth. Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce. And when you get through kickin’ ass and celebratin’ the sheer joy of a good fight, be sure to tell those who come after how much fun it was.”
~ Molly Ivins, 1944 - 2007
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
Add comment November 29th, 2007