John Edwards’ withdrawal from the presidential race has the potential to shake up super-duper Tuesday in a big way, if Edwards throws his support to one of the remaining candidates, and if his supporters follow his lead.
So here’s what I want to know. There are lots of Edwards supporters on this site. Do you know who you’re voting for on Feb. 5? (Charley has already endorsed Obama.) And will it matter to you if Edwards himself endorses before then?
UPDATE: Clinton (official statement, interview) and Obama have both got statements out praising Edwards.
Please share widely!
I used this comment elsewhere, but since you posted the question in two places, I’ll answer it in two places…
<
p>It wouldn’t even matter to me if I knew Edwards would get a cabinet post or the VP slot under a President Obama.
If Obama won, I’d be glad if Edwards got an influential slot. (I don’t think he’d be a good VP for Obama, though.)
<
p>It’s not that endorsements don’t matter to me at all. But no, Edwards endorsing Obama does nothing for me.
AP Reports:
after all John has been to the Bilderburg meetings. Guess they didn’t think Edwards was evil enough at heart.
<
p>http://video.google.com/videop…
First comes the feelings of loss of the voice of the working class Democratic family/party I was born into.
<
p>Mixed with the loss is a strong reluctance to get behind either Obama or Clinton.
<
p>I really don’t believe that any of us know the MESS that the next POTUS will face given the falsehoods, secrecy and deception of the Bush Administration. S/he will need to have extraordinaory courage, wisdom and ability to overcome crushing odds. And be tough to boot. Hillary fits that profile. But, the baggage and damn it, Bill’s behavior!
<
p>The Obama story is inspiring. Maybe I am jaded following the Patrick campaign (okay, not maybe) of hope. It just isn’t connecting for me. Hope may cut it to be “leader of the free world” yet the reality is the next POTUS will be “leader of an empire in serious decline”.
<
p>If the primary were this afternoon, I would write-in Edwards.
<
p>As an afterthought or a future thought –
<
p>Edwards for AG….that could work.
That’s quite a mess they’ll be cleaning up…
I think that either BHO or HRC will get done the things that I care most about… signing environmental and energy legislation coming out of Congress. Either of them will bring science back to the EPA. Good will toward the US will increase with either. Both HRC and BHO will do such a good job as POTUS that, with a Dem Congress, I’ll get the enviro and SCOTUS changes I want.
<
p>Am I getting sucked into the “electability” argument? The race/gender voting assumption argument? Maybe. If BHO gets the nod, how many women/seniors who would have voted for HRC will stay home or vote GOP? If HRC gets the nod, how many black/young citizens who would have voted for BHO will stay home or vote GOP/Paul*? How could this change with VP nominations for either candidate? If BHO gets Sebelius to run with him, will he be able to hold on to large number of HRC supporters? Who could HRC nominate as VP to sure up her support of current BHO supporters?
<
p>
<
p> * I think there are plenty of young BHO supporters who would break for Ron Paul if he runs as a 3rd party candidate.
not because she is a woman. The fact that she is a woman is a bonus. If Barack Obama is the nominee, whether he has a woman on the ticket with him is irrelevant to me. The question is will he have someone who has alot more experience than he does, particularly with working in Washington, D.C., to balance out the ticket and will he use that person for help when he needs it.
I’ve long been rooting for Richardson, Biden or Dodd, in that order, to be the VP choice for the Dems.
<
p>I don’t think it’s as necessary for Hillary to pick from this group because she’s married to Bill. But it wouldn’t hurt her to pick one of them.
Better for Dodd to stay in the Senate, I think, instead of being pulled away from opposing retroactive immunity.
Even if we get 60 Dems (we’ll probably get 55 or 56), some of them will be like Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor and Joe Lieberman, and some of the Republicans we get rid of will be “moderates” like Susan Collins or Gordon Smith. Hopefully we can throw out that closeted hypocrite Mitch McConnell in Kentucky. But the Senate will be tough to navigate. I presume Children’s healthcare will be doable, because Bush’s veto was the block on that. But Republicans will remember how they blocked healthcare reform in 1994, and that helped them win Congress. That’s their only way to win it back…
<
p>We will only get one shot to do universal healthcare.
<
p>
I have been a longtime John Edwards supporter(from 2004) who will now proudly support Barack Obama for President. We must look to the future and not the past. Thanks to John and Elizabeth for running a true People’s Campaign.
Go Obama!!!
which was all about the past, means nothing?!!! Don’t experience and qualifications count any more?
Politics doesn’t work that way. Why aren’t Biden and Richardson still in the race? They are both more experienced and “qualified” than either Obama or Clinton. Obviously, experience is only one factor and probably not even the most important one.
I gave him some cash early on, along with a contribution to Edwards campaign. If Edwards endorses Hillary, I’ll probably still go with Obama.
<
p>Edwards will apparently making his announcement in NO at a Habitat for Humanities site. He’s pushed the discussion to the left which is where I want it to go.
<
p>As others have pointed out, whoever ends up as the next POTUS is going to face a boatload of problems, coupled with a dearth of good options.
<
p>BTW, for all of the hair pulling and eye poking that’s been going on between Obama and Hillary devotees, the criticism and questioning of candidates positions expressed around here is nothing compared to what is coming in the MSM. And if the economy continues heading south, we’ll see just how long the bi-partisan talk lasts.
To answer your questions:
<
p>1. It will not sway me one way or the other if John Edwards endoreses someone. I have NEVER chosen a candidate or an issue based on an endorsement.
<
p>2. I do not know at this time for whom I will vote on February 5th – which feels a bit strange barely a week before a presidential primary. If I were called by a phone canvasser doing voter ID, I would call myself “undecided”.
<
p>3. I guess I will get a bit more sleep, catch up where I am behind in the areas of my life that need catching up, and mourn for a while. No other candidate resonates with me at all in this race. Sad but true.
<
p>4. I will store the Edwards yard signs I have been distributing in the off site storage my law office uses – after all, who knows what the future may bring?
<
p>5. I will continue in civic engagement, and learning how the political process works – after all, all politics are local. But my “heart” is not engaged in the national election with John Edwards out of the race.
<
p>And that is the best answer I can give you.
If I were called by a phone canvasser doing voter ID, I would call myself “undecided”.
<
p>Got that call last night, before this news…and I did label myself undecided.
<
p>Now, I think I have some serious leanings, so…on one hand, Edwards solved a dilemma for me, on the other hand, I did really lean in his direction for pretty much most of the race, so I’m sad he’s decided to drop out.
<
p>However, he did a LOT for the debate on our side, and he made a huge impact on the race as a whole.
last night, I found that many of our fellow progressives are in the same boat. Some are going Hillary, some are going Obama. Many don’t have a clue what they are going to do. A couple mentioned writing in Al Gore. All the people I talked to were active Deval supporters. It’s really strange that people who all lean the same way are so divided. Based upon those conversations, I’m guessing that MA is going to be really close. Hillary may be just a tad ahead. Only a fraction of the very active people are participating in this cycle. Not one person felt that an Edwards endorsement would make a difference.
I am leaning Obama right now, but if Edwards came out and endorsed Clinton, I think that would throw me back to the totally undecided category.
but nobody else I talked to last night felt it would make a difference for them. I don’t think I’ve ever seen such indecision before, especially from previously politically active people. I haven’t cared from the beginning. I’ll vote for whomever wins the primary. I’m seriously thinking of writing in Al Gore because I believe he would have been the clear frontrunner if he had entered the race. Any Dem who is elected is going to spend four years cleaning up the mess. Whomever it is needs to recognize what needs to be fixed from day one.
I think it will take far longer than four years to clean up the damage done during Bush’s presidency.
It’ll take generations; I’ll count myself lucky if I see it in my lifetime, and I am not old. But I wish I were convinced that either Obama or Clinton represented as solid a start on the project as I believe Edwards did.
No idea who I’ll vote for – I just can’t get excited about Obama or Hillary – and an Edwards endorsement will make absolutely, positively no difference on my choice. Honestly, because I see almost no difference between voting for Hillary or Obama, my vote may become a protest vote for Al Gore or something like that. Obama’s hippy dippy rhetoric is a real turn off and, lets face it, both of them have voted to fund this war. Whether or not Obama didn’t support it when he wasn’t in the Senate is meaningless, because he certainly hasn’t been a leader in the Senate in its opposition, at least before he announced his candidacy. Voting for Hillary isn’t an option, either. So all my choices majorly suck now. If McCain wins the Republican nomination, I really think we’re in trouble in ’08.
<
p>Funny thing is if you poke around at the right-leaning blogs, you’ll find some Republicans feel the same way about their chances if McCain is the nominee. I don’t find it worth worrying about – It just boils down to the whole “electability” thing. There’s no way we can predict who will show up to the polls, what will drive them there (or make them sit on their hands), and how they will vote, especially with nine months of campaign left.
I don’t buy the “electability thing,” I’ve been a big opponent of voting on it in the past. However, there’s a lot of polling data – aka empirical evidence – that shows both Hillary and Obama will face a tough time against McCain. Honestly, it brings up the old adage to me: why vote Republican lite when you can vote for the real thing? All three candidates have voted to support Iraq war funding, all three supported the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill… plus, McCain and Obama both appeal to Independents. It’s not a good matchup on an empirical level, not the gut instinct many people feel about electability – to which you’d be absolutely right to not only disagree with, but openly mock LOL.
Maybe we should take this to a different diary – an interesting discussion but not the topic of this diary. But here’s one more thought:
<
p>What we can’t forget is that McCain is just absolute poison to a significant portion of the Republican base. Are these folks going to do the field work that’s necessary to elect McCain in the general election? Will they even vote?
<
p>For all of the negative things I’ve seen Democrats say about Clinton and Obama, I’ve seen much worse from Republicans about McCain.
<
p>And apparently these folks haven’t given up on stopping McCain from getting the nomination:
<
p>
<
p>The bottom line is the only thing we have control over is how hard we all end up working for the eventual Democratic nominee.
If the only other option is a Democrat… and don’t think for a second that the same Republitrash sources won’t prop up McCain versus a Democrat in the general election, tearing down a Hillary or Obama.
<
p>Obviously, what happens from here on out is mere theory, but I’m not as optimistic about winning today as I was a year ago.
On Hannity and the Other Guy, she said she’d vote for Hillary Clinton over John McCain — or “Juan McCain” as wingnuts call him.
You have two history-making, potential Great Presidents in front of you, and the only thing that sucks is your holier-than-thou attitude.
<
p>But hey, make me eat my words. Send me your lit when you run for State Rep and I’ll check it out.
I think they suck. I’m not particularly interested in voting for either of them – and I really don’t give a damn that they’ll be “history making,” I just want someone who will be a good president. Obama’s whole Purple America thing rubs me the wrong way. I’m not trying to be holier than thou, I just don’t like it. I’m sorry, but that’s my opinion.
<
p>While I don’t think Clinton would be a terrible President, I don’t think she’ll be a particularly good one. There are a whole lot of people I’d rather in there before her.
<
p>So, yes, I think my choices suck, especially given the fact that I only have a week to decide between two candidates who’ve done absolutely, positively nothing to inspire me.
the choices do seem to suck. It’s not about your age or anything else. You’re a voter and you’re entitled to feel whatever the hell you feel about this race. I loathe condescension.
<
p>As a former Edwards fan, I know exactly how you feel. Edward’s strong outcry against the corporate powers that are sucking the vitality of this country was the primary reason why I supported him. His populist message about the rest of America – my friends, family and neighbors, resonated with me, because it’s been a long, long time since anyone bothered with “the little people.” Every four years, I read the Selling of the Presidency, because I think it’s important to know the weaknesses of the candidates – because while big money makes you stronger in terms of the campaign, when it comes to leading the country, it can cut the heart out of a social agenda. To wit: the Medicaid drug benefit. While the two leading candidates right now are the most corporate and big business friendly of the candidates, but the reality is that every one of the top tier candidates has a money trail in some form or another. The Selling of the Presidency will make you sick.
<
p>That said, I knew about two weeks ago that I would have to find another candidate. John, God bless him – wasn’t getting it done. In that, I am far more pragmatist than idealist. Yet, in thinking about whether it would be Hillary or Barack, I finally recognized what I was doing. I was internally demanding that Hillary should be “perfect,” when over the years, I was completely willing to compromise certain issues with the other candidates. In the many years that I have been a voter, I have disagreed profoundly with numerous candidates on various issues, but cheerfully pulled the lever for them (now optiscan) because I wouldn’t let hoping for “perfect” stop me from voting for “pretty good.” It’s that realization that I was demanding more from a female candidate than I would of a male that put me in her camp, not to mention the nonsense that was coming out of New Hampshire. It triggered a huge reponse in me.
<
p>So Ryan – I think we all just do the best we can with it. At the end of the day, at least for me, it’s better to have a 75% (of your views) than a 30%. It’s easy to get caught up in the rhetoric and politics of payback, but 75% is always better than 30%. Good luck.
…you changed the phrase “my choices suck” (Ryan’s) to “…seem to suck.” The difference is important, which is why you used it.
<
p>Ryan can hold and write about whatever opinions he wants. But if he writes foolishly, he can expect others to take note.
But it doesn’t matter. From Ryan’s perspective, his choices “suck.” All the data, all the rhetoric and other assorted BS anyone else wants to toss his way won’t necessarily push him from the dark tunnel of “suck” to “I love my candidate.” Sometimes political malaise is just what it is. I know I sure as hell felt like that about John Kerry in 2004. I had to hold my nose, shut my eyes and plug my ears to vote for that guy.
<
p>And I have to tell you, I don’t think he writes “foolishly.’ He’s far more thoughtful and deliberative than some on here. I not only “get” him, I dig him.
Here’s why I think you’re wrong. I care primarily about three things: 1. Climate change. 2. Health care 3. War and our safety in the world. There are many other important things, but I think they’re pre-eminent.
<
p>Obama and Hillary are both pretty darned good on 1 and 2. We can talk about who’s got a better health care plan (I lean Hillary, but I’m not totally sure about it); both of their climate change plans have been widely lauded by people who seem to know what’s up.
<
p>The difference for me is on war and peace issues. I think Obama has considerably better judgment, instincts, language, and advisors, from what I know. But Hillary would also clearly be a vast improvement from the current administration; her husband is plainly a very good asset, well-liked abroad; and if we saw a return to 1990’s-style international relations, that would be by and large a very good thing.
<
p>And everything we know from polls says that either of these two candidates is viable in a general election. I think Obama would wear better on the public than Hillary; he’s a better speaker; I imagine a better consensus-builder (though I don’t know for sure); and better able to use the bully pulpit to shift public opinion.
<
p>Sucky? I don’t think so. I wish you would be more specific in your complaints.
But the man’s entitled to his opinion I recognize that you want everybody to just make their mind up and support your guy, but I don’t think that’s fair. It’s assumes that everyone cares about the same issues as you do, as you’ve enumerated for us. It also assumes there’s no grace period for people to just figure it out after a major candidate has dropped out of the race. So – give him some space. Today, all the candidates may seem like they suck. Maybe tomorrow, not so much.
<
p>As for being a good consensus builder – well, we’ll see; not if the crap that I witnessed after New Hampshire was any indication. (they should really keep Mr. Jackson under wraps if they insist on the same with Bill) I was still with JE at that point and I was absolutely incensed by some of the “consensus building” points that were being tossed out there. I kept thinking, “if she was a guy, they wouldn’t be saying those things.”
He should shut up — the sooner the better as far as the Obama campaign is concerned. The guy is a huge liability — could easily cost Obama the nomination if he says any more stupid things.
Where did Charley claim that Ryan didn’t have a right to his own opinion, or that Ryan was somehow obligated to support Obama, or to decide right this instant? It looked to me like Charley was simply offering his own opinion.
Ryan’s a big boy, and if he “needed his space”, he wouldn’t be posting his opinions in public.
<
p>Obama’s not “my guy”; Edwards was. But you gotta come down somewhere, don’t you? I hope Ryan settles with Obama, recognizing that no one’s perfect.
<
p>Also agreed w/ David on Jesse Jr. — If there’s anyone who could take down Obama’s campaign, it’s him. I would worry more about him than any GOP attack ad.
First, your priorities are very close to mine, but I don’t think any of them is going to happen unless we change the climate of DC. That’ll only happen if we have a President who gets the problems and speaks about them openly. The only candidate who was really doing that is now out of the race. Perhaps some of my frustrations has more to do with my disappointment than the actual candidates, but I just can’t get enthused about voting for either of them. Although, I think the choice is starting to become clear, even if it won’t be an enthusiastic decision.
The point I’m about to make is fodder for a longer conversation, but I’ll start with this for now: Edwards can talk about the problems in DC all he wants. Anybody can. But DC runs the way it does for reasons that are fairly fundamental to politics, to American culture, even to human nature. I’m not saying change is impossible. I’m saying I need a lot of convincing that someone knows which changes won’t work, which ones will, and how to make those ones happen.
<
p>My bet is, an Edwards first term would have looked like Hillary’s venture into health care, writ large. That’s why I like Hillary, because she took her bruising and learned from it.
He is waaaayyyyyy too young to realize that these candidates don’t suck at all. IOW, no context; he’s a college student. Check back with him in 40 years and he’ll have a deep and abiding personal understanding of what a sucky candidate really is, I’m sure.
…he was around for John Kerry. Kerry was pretty sucky.
Now there’s a candidate who could appeal across New England, the Mid-Atlantic, the South, the Mountain West, the West Coast…
<
p>John Kerry was a good candidate. Yeah, he came from New England wealth, and he talked high-falutin’ language, but he at least fit some archetypes of what a President looks and sounds like.
<
p>But, Fritz?
You make it sound as if he’s never read anything more than TeenPeople magazine. Give the guy some credit for knowing some history and context.
Two of my favorite bloggers are Matt Yglesias and Ezra Klein, both of whom are preposterously young to be as smart and wise as they are.
<
p>And Ryan’s pretty good, too — even though I don’t share his total disillusionment with the two contenders.
And nothing I’ve said removes all credit from his perspective, so there’s no need to overreact. His perspective is limited and that is simply fact. (shrug)
Ageism is no argument and has no place here.
<
p>Some random thoughts…..
<
p>I agree with Ryan that both candidates “suck.” First, I believe in socialism and I do not think that any president in a capitalist society can create the kind of revolutionary change in the world I would like to see become a reality (except maybe Kucinich, maybe).
<
p>That said, I’ll be taking 5 minutes out of my day to go vote for who I think will be the lesser of the two evils that the media has chosen for us and who will become our president (and who I think can beat war-monger McCain)- not that I trust that our votes will be counted properly. That person will be Barack Obama. I am voting for Obama not because I believe in his “hopeful” replica of the Patrick campaign (right down to the colors and slogans), but because I find him to be slightly more progressive and slightly more honest than Clinton.
<
p>Now just because I don’t think any of the candidates can create the kind of revolutionary change I’d like to see doesn’t mean they won’t create change. I think Obama will be good at uniting our country and the world. I applaud him for speaking about gay rights in Black churches (and I do not fault him because he was endorsed by anti-gay preachers.) I applaud him for saying he favors decriminalizing pot – the war on drugs has been devestating to our youth and has contributed to an uptake in crime and joblessness. And I appreciate his unwavering opposition to the war, though I wish he had the backbone not to fund it.
<
p>I can’t vote for Hillary for several big reasons. Here are a few:
<
p>I just can’t bring myself to vote for someone who served 6 years on the board of Wal-Mart without ever sticking up for the unions/workers.
<
p>Her rally in Florida seemed disingenuous considering her pledge not to campaign there.
<
p>Her and her husband injected race into the debate during the SC primary.
<
p>She supported the lawsuit to try to prevent workers in Nevada from voting in the Casinos.
I’ve been out for about 6 months now =p
<
p>And part of me thinks you’re being sarcastic… but if you aren’t, rest assured, I know quite a bit about each of the Presidents who have been around for at least your lifespan. But I don’t think it’s any more fair to compare today’s candidates with those of the distant past than to compare Barry Bonds with Babe Ruth: Barry Bonds was on drugs and expectations for what a President should do, coming from liberals and progressives, is vastly different as well.
I was making a general observation with tongue-in-cheek. Feel free, of course, to reject that if you need or want to. You and I agree more often that not, although your friends are pretty cranky in the morning. Hope you have big plans for graduate school! 🙂
Now guiltless.
Since I’ve lost the candidate who really speaks for me, I’m going with the candidate who is most likely to be the more competent manager once she gets into office.
<
p>Let’s face it, the next president is going to face a complete mess (the economy, the war, health care) and Clinton looks to me as if she is more capable of dealing with all of that.
I’ve been an Edwards fan since 2003 and did a fair bit of canvassing in NH for him this year. I would have voted for John next Tuesday, but I’m happy to vote for Obama instead since it gives me the maximum influence on the nomination. My reasons for favoring Obama over Clinton are:
<
p>1) Electability — I see BHO generating more enthusiasm both among regular Dems and from potential new voters. To some extent he is packaging liberal principles in a new and possibly more effective way.
<
p>2) Kick-ass orator — When he is on, as in his SC victory speech, I get a real sense of a brain and a soul behind the speech. He is saying the right things about the Democratic agenda, and not too many of the wrong things (social security, religiosity) to bother me.
<
p>3) Campaign ethics — HRC has been running a chickenshit campaign, including a scurrilous attack robocall aimed at Edwards at the last minute in SC. She has impressed me as having more of a negative than a positive message.
<
p>3a) Mark Penn — Hillary’s key advisor consults to strikebreaking corporations and seems to be somewhat responsible for the campaign tone in (3) above.
<
p>4) General comfort — Obama is a man of about my age, educational background, and sense of humor. The latter two factors may not help his electability but I like them.
<
p>5) Foreign policy — There seem to be serious differences in their Mideast and other policies, with Obama on the more sensible side. This goes beyond their positions in 2002 (obviously I forgave JRE’s 2002 vote).
<
p>Against that, there are reasonable arguments (such as Krugman’s) that Hillary is more progressive in domestic policy, and the worry that as an outsider (like Bill in 1992 or Carter) he will have more trouble getting his agenda across. But for me the balance is overwhelmingly on Obama’s side.
Do they matter at all to you? Or are those trumped by things like “General Comfort”, i.e., he is a man of about your age?
Obviously it’s valuable that HRC was deeply involved in a White House. But the two of them have been U.S. Senators for about the same amount of time. Each of them did a variety of things before being U.S. Senators — naturally HRC did more things because she is older. Qualifications? Neither has ever managed an operation larger than their current campaign, both are obviously very smart people and should be able to figure out what they’re doing. Why do Clinton people think that there’s so obviously a great difference?
Barack Obama has been Senator for only 2. I hardly think that is the same amount of time. Did Barack Obama serve on the staff of any congressional committees? Hillary Clnton did. She was part of the staff for the congressional committee considering the impeachment of Richard Nixon.
Was Barack Obama’s reputation smeared and was he unrelentingly hounded by lies about himself and about hi sfriends for a number of years? Hillary Clinton was and she was able to rise above it al and then go on to be elected the U.S. Senator from New York.
<
p>Those are just a few examples of why Hillary Clinton has far more experience than Barack Obama and is the best choice for president of the United States.
Barack Obama:
<
p>John Edwards has spent a lifetime fighting to give voice to the voiceless and hope to the struggling, even when it wasn’t popular to do or covered in the news. At a time when our politics is too focused on who’s up and who’s down, he made a nation focus again on who matters – the New Orleans child without a home, the West Virginia miner without a job, the families who live in that other America that is not seen or heard or talked about by our leaders in Washington. John and Elizabeth Edwards have always believed deeply that we can change this – that two Americas can become one, and that our country can rally around this common purpose. So while his campaign may end today, the cause of their lives endures for all of us who still believe that we can achieve that dream of one America.
<
p>Hillary:
<
p>John Edwards ended his campaign today in the same way he started it – by standing with the people who are too often left behind and nearly always left out of our national debate.
<
p>John ran with compassion and conviction and lifted this campaign with his deep concern for the daily lives of the American people. That is what this election is about – it’s about our people. And John is one of the greatest champions the American people could ask for.
<
p>I wish John and Elizabeth all the best. They have my great personal respect and gratitude. And I know they will continue to fight passionately for the country and the people they love so deeply.
I voted early for Edwards so I don’t need to make this decision.
<
p>I may have voted for Edwards anyway (he’ll still be on the ballot), or have sided with Clinton.
“To the truly enlightened, altruism is the purist form of self preservation” -Bill Clinton
<
p>This century we have:
<
p>John Edwards:
Heroes
<
p>Barack Obama
For over a year now I have been looking forward to casting my vote in the Massachusetts Primary for John Edwards. Since I didn’t vote early, I still have that opportunity. Across America hundreds of thousands are now thinking about their choice next Tuesday.
<
p>My natural inclination is to lean toward Obama. The issues are close between him and Clinton but I think that Obama may offer a better opportunity for lasting change than Clinton. (And I am more than a little concerned about the Bush Clinton Bush Clinton cycle turning American into Argentina.)
<
p>The great Democratic Presidents offered lasting change to this country. FDR gave us social security, the Wagner Act and the notion that government has responsibility for action during recession. Kennedy/Johnson brought us progress with the Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, Fair Housing, Medicare, Medicaid. For a variety of reasons the Bill Clinton Administration did not offer that type of lasting change. We need that more than ever now.
<
p>After eight long years of incompetence and hard right rule, the good accomplished in the 90’s has been largely washed away. We need the next President to have a vision to make permanent progress on the issues of crushing economic inequality, health care and the environment. Changes that gain near universal acceptance and can’t be turned back so easily.
<
p>I still believe of our national leaders John Edwards brings the best hope for that type of progress. But in his words yesterday he assured us that our next president, a democrat, will be a progressive. We must weigh the pros and cons of both Clinton and Obama and make a choice. I have many friends who will still vote for John Edwards next Tuesday. I respect that but I am trying to arrive at a choice that will result in delegates. But I will pay careful attention tonight to the debate and carefully consider the words of my friends hear and look once again at the candidates for who best offers that path to the future.
That’s a cheating sentence to offer us:
“Kennedy/Johnson brought us progress with the Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, Fair Housing, Medicare, Medicaid.”
<
p>It would be equally true to say that Nixon/Johnson brought us progress with the Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, Fair Housing, Medicare, Medicaid.
<
p>Don’t delude yourself about President John Kennedy. He inspired many, but he didn’t unite the nation. He barely won in 1960. There were two times he united the nation: the Cuban Missile Crisis and his death. He handled the Missile Crisis excellently, but nations always unify when under threat of attack.
And nations always unite in mourning.
<
p>The U.S. Senate is the roadblock between universal healthcare coverage and the American people, and those 100 egos there will not be swayed by Barack Obama’s tremendous, uplifting rhetoric.
Nixon/Johnson brought us OSHA and the EPA. Just sayin’.
Leaked today showing her sitting by silently as Wal-Mart fought the Unions. Yuck.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05…
<
p>She was on the board in 1986 as a prominent Arkansas lawyer and the wife of the governor. She seems to have made some small accomplishments toward their hiring more women and being more environmentally friendly. As milo200 says, she did nothing to try to change their overall anti-union policies, but the story suggests that as the only potential dissenter on the board she could not have done much and perhaps decided to concentrate on what she could do.
<
p>If she cared about unions as much as Edwards or as much as me, she probably could not have done that. And her continued employment of and friendship with Mark Penn also indicates that while she officially supports improved rights to form unions and would be a vast improvement over any Republican, it’s not a high priority for her as it would have been for Edwards. It’s a major argument against her in the primary, in my opinion.
Were I to take a stab at the whole “electibility” thing, which comes up as an argument from time to time, I’d call it for Clinton. Warts and all, she’s disciplined and the bags she carries includes considerable campaign strength.
<
p>Obama’s strengths are very different, and also substantial, but I worry that he will be too easy to knock off message and off stride, to smear.
<
p>But–before anyone starts explaining how I’m wrong (or how I’m right)–I don’t even go there, because I do not trust my own opinion about how voters whom I do not know will react during a campaign that hasn’t happened yet. And I don’t trust your opinion either. So I’m not going to base my primary vote on that.
<
p>My problem is that, contemplating a Clinton versus an Obama presidency, I feel I have just about as little to go on. This is thanks in part to a political process that rewards ambiguity and punishes those that stand for policies (as opposed to those with the best, for lack of a better word, “brand”).
<
p>You can spin that any way you like in your head (Obama will be fantastic! Obama will have no mandate! Hillary will hit the ground running! Hillary will be Clinton III–sweating only the small stuff and managing the status quo!).
<
p>The problem is the candidates have not given us much to go on in that respect. They are rorshachs onto which our imaginations are free to see what we like. These future counterfactuals say more about us than about the candidates.
<
p>I was ready to vote for Edwards, despite the depressingly low probability that he would go on to win any primaries, because he generally linked progressive policy proposals to a grass-roots, bottom-up theory of power that I share. (Perhaps not perfectly, but that was his appeal for me.)