This is why I'm voting for John Edwards in my California primary absentee ballot this week, and why I think every Democrat should consider him as well.
This is why I'm voting for John Edwards in my California primary ballot this week, and why I think every Democrat should consider him.
First, a few facts. I hate the Iraq war. I was against it from the moment President Evil Eejit started talking it up. I also hated everyone in Congress who supported it, including the Democrats. I was proven to be absolutely correct, though none of the some 70 percent of America who are now against it as well have neither apologized nor applauded the 25 percent of us who swam against the tide in the middle of all the bullshyte rush to war.
So the war looms large in my primary decision. Hillary, for reasons unclear to me, supported the war then and has never disavowed her vote. She joins every other Republican candidate but Ron Paul in that, though they are more vociferous in their support. Though in some ways, she mirrors Huckabee's stance. Liked the war, hated the execution. Whatever.
Here's what I don't understand. The Republican candidates HAVE to love the war because 80 percent of their party faithful love it to this day. However, some two thirds of independents and some 90 percent of Democrats hate the war and want out. So, someone tell me why Hillary is trying to please the Republican party and the independents who lean that way? It makes no sense -- morally or politically.
I have heard tell that Hillary has told people privately that, as the first serious female contender for the White House, she can't be against war. Not just the Iraq war -- any war. Maybe that explains her Iran stance as well. That's all well and good, Hillary, for the sexist voters. But, if you haven't noticed, Dems are generally not sexist. And that's not a good enough reason for me and shows political cowardice, not leadership.
Then there's Barack. He was against the war from the start as I was, if safely from his seat in the Illinois state legislature (as Dean was as governor of Vermont). You would think for an anti-Iraq war Dem, Barack would be the obvious choice. But I have other superseding problems with Obama.
First, I've seen Barack on a few TV shows and he's great at appearing charismatic with a big smile and being relaxed and funny. Then I wait for the great line to give it all some seriousness. And I honestly don't hear it. He seems cool but you expect a presidential candidate to get something serious across about his plans for our country at some point. And the times I've seen him, he doesn't bother. Well, Barack, this ain't no goddam American Idol. It's about the future of the country. I know you like to talk about Lincoln and MLK in hopes of people connecting you to them, but all I can ask is "where's the beef?"
The young seem to be transfixed by you, mainly because they can't see how green you are. You're charisma does get people who never vote to vote, so that may be the difference. But I also disagree with your bi-partisan talk, however much it helps you get elected. The problem in our political system has not been rabid partisanship on both sides, it's been rabid partisanship on ONE side. And an unholy alliance between the religious right and corporate America who got a moron elected with support from the Republican sheeple.
(off-topic -- It is amazing to me how Republicans will say Hillary's experience as First Lady as nothing to do with real experience, yet W's thin terms as Texas governor were not the reason he was elected. He was electable to Republicans because he was a President's son. I'm going to say a First Lady has more day-to-day experience with decisions in the WH than a son who comes visiting dad once in a while.)
So when Barack tells us we need to understand and get along with evangelicals, I just see a guy who will sell out his party to get elected. No one loves the Dem base, except...
John Edwards. Whether through clever strategy or speaking his true thoughts, Edwards has captured the anti-corporate sentiment of me and many others. Corporations are the REAL enemy of our time. And if you believe (though even this simple tenet sounds naive in these times), that the ONLY reason for government is to serve the public good, then Edwards is your man. And he doesn't talk about incremental changes in the way corporations rule government (unlike Obama's underwhelming Iowa speech of making things a "little" better for people), Edwards says they need to be pushed out of the political process forever to let the people rule.
As far as Edwards on Iraq, although he initially voted for the war (and that's still hard to overlook), he apologized for his vote years ago and has made up for it with the most aggressive rhetoric of any major candidate on getting out immediately upon taking office.
As far as the general election, Edwards polls incredibly well. Although taking a classic progressive stance, the independents see him as moderate and likable. So he has excellent chances of winning, especially against the likes of McCain who is leading national polls today and was vociferous on supporting Iraq just a few short months ago.
So that's my vote. As you age, you realize every vote is a compromise. But Edwards, IMHO, is the optimum choice for the country at this time. He's not an appeaser to the right wing, he doesn't support slow maneuvering out of Iraq, and he's not hated by half the country already (a la Hillary) or untested on the national stage (a la Obama). Make Obama his VP and we could have 16 years of a Dem WH.