I respect and like many of the other candidates in this race, but, unless and until one nails down the nomination, I won't get behind them. And, if you're a true progressive - and I have no doubt that many supporters of the other candidates are - I believe there's a case to be made that neither should you. If we - the progressive community that is so admirably represented right here on DKos - look with clear eyes at what progressive goals truly are, then look with clear eyes at how best to reach them, then look with clear eyes at who best represents the hope for a progressive America, we'll throw all our weight and every ounce of our heart behind John Edwards. That's my hope, my opinion. All I ask is that you please read my case.
I've put this diary together over the past few days in what little spare time I've had. It's been a labor of love. Feel the love, folks. But, mostly, feel the urgency. I hope you'll think of it as a service, in a sense. Here, in one place, I'll lay out the issues and the candidates' stances and the fundamentals of their characters...and I think, in the end, if you care deeply about the same progressive ideas and dreams that I do, then you'll come to the same decision I have.
Here's my prediction: on Jan. 4th, the picture of the race that the main stream media has tried to paint - that of a two person race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (my own hometown paper, the New York Times, has been especially egregious in this) - will have been proven to be more of their making than a fair-minded portrayal of the state of things on the ground. I believe John Edwards is going to win Iowa. And bust open the race in New Hampshire five days later. And take first or second in South Carolina. And, after that, the thing gets messy. The nation gets the race it's been waiting for (not the one that's the easiest storyline for the media to cover). The progressive Democratic party gets the candidate it deserves. And, in November, America gets the president it needs. I'm not talking about the universal healthcare the country needs, or the action on climate change, or the end to the war in Iraq, or the restoration of America's image abroad, or any of those utterly vital things. I'm talking about the leadership to get us there, because without it, we won't get any of it. And, as Edwards says, if we're going to get there, we need to fight for it -- not triangulate or compromise for it; not hope and speechify for it; but roll up our sleeves and plant our feet and fight for it. John Edwards is the only candidate who understands that. And right now, he needs your support. And I'm asking for your patience with me while I lay out my case.
First, let's start this off with one of John Edwards campaign songs! (click on the link to listen, if you're online...the man even has good taste in music!): http://graphics8.nytimes.com/...
And, in case you think before we even get going that Edwards is already out, watch this kick-ass interview by Chris Mathews on MSNBC's Hardball (from just a day or two ago): http://youtube.com/...
UPDATE: Thanks to philgoblue for bringing up this video of Doug Bishop introducing John Edwards. As philgoblue says in the comments:
This is damn moving -- one tough grown man cries and introduces John Edwards as a man who as president won't forget about blue-collar Americans.
I'll take Doug Bishop over Oprah every damn day of the week.
Watch the video: http://johnedwards.com/...
(back to my original post) This summer, I canvassed in New Hampshire for JRE. On Jan. 1, I'll be heading up there again, working long hours and pounding the pavement with the campaign until the primary on Jan. 8. I've given money. I'll no doubt give more. Why?
Because - and this is the central argument of this diary - When was the last time the most progressive serious candidate in America presidential politics was not only best equipped to fight for those progressive ideals but was, on top of it all, the most electable candidate? Never before in my life. Till now.
The first part of that statement -- that JRE is the most progressive candidate -- is where you'll find most disagreement among the supporters of other candidates (Obama has put himself forward as Progressive and he has much of the largely progressive youth behind him; Clinton has fought for progressive goals in the past). Here's why they're wrong:
The only fair way to do this is to look at each candidate's stances on the issues most progressives care about (I'm just going to address the top three candidates here):
IRAQ
Watch JRE's response to Bush's Iraq address: http://johnedwards.com/...
"We don't need debate; we don't need non-binding resolutions; we need to end this war. In order to get the Iraqi people to take responsibility for their country, we must show them that we are serious about leaving, and the best way to do that is to actually start leaving." -- John Edwards
The past: Give Obama his props: he was against the war from the start. Clinton voted for it. Edwards voted for it. That's the past.
Then what happened? Obama, once elected, never led a bold movement to stop the war. Clinton refused (and still does) to call her vote a mistake. Edwards came out with the kind of candor that has been his hallmark this campaign. Against the advice of those who would be his handlers, he wrote an Op-Ed that began with the sentence, "I was wrong."
And now the most important thing: What would they do? As far as I can tell, Edwards and Obama would do pretty much the same thing: Draw all combat troops completely out of Iraq, leaving no residual bases or presence (besides around the embassy) as quickly as can be done responsibly without making the situation worse. They both think that's about 9 months to a year. The reason I say "as best I can tell" is that Obama is pretty vague about this. Check out his website, go to the Iraq section under issues. You'll see what I mean. Then to go to Edwards' section (link above) and you'll see a detailed plan laid out right there for you. Clinton? She says she'd pull troops out too BUT she'd leave combat forces in (she refuses to clarify how many) for combat missions. As Edwards says, where are they going to be housed? That sounds like bases to him, and to me. And doesn't a US military presence, however limited, negate any benefit we might gain in goodwill from that part of the world by drawing down? After having spent a year in Egypt, I can tell you the answer to that: so long as the US is playing ANY combat role in Iraq, we'll be hated. So, on Iraq, Edwards is the most progressive, the most detailed, the most forthright.
UPDATE: That was the best I could do. Two Roads, in his comment, below, makes some excellent points. An excerpt:
Obama's Plan: The commitment is specifcially a 'strategic and phased' withdrawal of combat troops. Of the 160,000 or so troops in Iraq, less than half are combat brigades. And while it's true that another portion consists of combat support, the wording 'engaged in combat missions' still leaves room for tens of thousands of troops to remain for an unspecified period. In fact, the 'plan' states outright... American troops may remain in Iraq or the region, without stating how many, or for how long.
Edward's Plan: An immediate withdrawal of 40,000-50,000 troops and a complete withdrawal within nine to ten months, leaving behind in Iraq only a brigade of 3,500 to 5,000 troops to protect the embassy and possibly a few hundred troops to guard humanitarian workers. He does, however, say more troops may remain in the region.
In short, there's a big difference between withdrawing only combat troops and withdrawing all troops.
The rest of his comment is well worth reading. Jump to it here: http://www.dailykos.com/...
HEALTHCARE: Watch this excellent video of JRE laying his plan out in detail: http://johnedwards.com/...
First of all, there's this: Edwards came out with his plan many months before either of his rivals. Then Obama came out with a plan. It was Edwards-Light. While Obama claims to want to cover everyone in the country, his plan doesn't. The main difference? He doesn't make coverage mandatory. He says he'll make it cheap enough everyone can afford it...the problem? Much of the cost cutting of universal healthcare comes from the long term benefits of EVERYONE avoiding many expensive procedures by catching them early BECAUSE EVERYONE HAS HEALTH CARE BECAUSE IT'S MANDATORY. If you've got some segments of the population opting out of check-ups and such it just doesn't work. But don't take my word for it. Here's Paul Krugman, leading liberal light of the NYTimes, in a recent interview:
On health care Obama is behaving as kind of, "Let's make a deal." The idea that he would be talking even in the primary campaign about the big table is suggesting that he is not all that committed to taking on special interests.
On the big problems there's a fundamental, deep-seated difference between the parties. I've always just felt that his tone was one suggesting that his inclination is to believe that we can somehow resolve these things through a kind of outbreak of good feeling...
Among the Dems he seems to be the least attuned to what progressives think.
And, laying the case out in full detail, here are two editorials by Krugman, standard bearer for progressive thought:
http://www.nytimes.com/...
and
http://www.nytimes.com/...
And when Edwards first put out his plan, here's what Krugman said:
"So this is a smart, serious proposal. It addresses both the problem of the uninsured and the waste and inefficiency of our fragmented insurance system. And every candidate should be pressed to come up with something comparable."
Paul Krugman
The New York Times
And what are others saying about the Edwards plan?
"More than any of the presidential candidates, John Edwards has come up with a specific and plausible plan that provides for health care coverage for all Americans."
Nicholas Kristof
The New York Times
"[W]hile health care for all is now a popular slogan, Edwards is the only candidate offering a plan that would actually get to universal coverage."
-- Karen Tumulty
Time Magazine
And Hillary Clinton? Well, as Edwards says, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. She essentially copied Edwards' plan, point by point, seven months after he proposed it. With one all-important difference: she won't fight for it. Not like we need a fighter to fight for it. Not like JRE will. But we'll get to that in the next section.
ENERGY/ENVIRONMENT: here's JRE's Plan: http://johnedwards.com/...
Now, his stance on Global Warming, in his own words: John Edwards responds to global warming
I'll let David Roberts of Grist.org do the summary of the candidates on environmental issues:
David Roberts
grist.org
Jul 6, 2007
All of the Democratic presidential candidates put energy independence and climate change among their top-tier issues. They all support carbon cap-and-trade systems of varying strengths. They all at least gesture at renewable energy and hybrid cars. Most support ethanol and "clean coal." The aggressiveness of their climate and energy plans rises inversely with their chances of winning -- the better the chances, the weaker the plan.
Here's a quick and dirty rundown of some of the Democratic contenders' stances. We'll add descriptions of Republicans and additional Democrats and make any updates as needed as the campaign season progresses. These descriptions of candidates' positions are not and should not be perceived as endorsements. Grist does not endorse political candidates.
Hillary Clinton dutifully toes the Democratic line on climate change and energy independence, seeing the former as a way to reach young people and the latter as a way to sound tough. She's been somewhat vague on the details. Her distinctive contribution is the notion of a "Strategic Energy Fund" financed by repealed tax breaks and royalties from oil companies. Where she mentions specific solutions, she tends to focus on "clean coal" and ethanol. She signed on to the Sanders-Boxer climate bill, the most ambitious climate bill in the Senate, but only in May, after Edwards had endorsed bold emissions targets. On these issues, Clinton is studious and solid, but not out front.
Barack Obama's take on energy and climate is, well, Obaman: the rhetoric is soaring and high-minded, the policy proposals consensus-seeking and incremental. With the exception of showy gimmicks like his "Healthcare for Hybrids" bill, he's largely been a follower, signing on to multiple cap-and-trade bills and copping Schwarzenegger's low-carbon fuel standard. His main splash in the energy world happened when he came out cheerleading for liquified coal, which coal barons (especially in his home state of Illinois) loved but plenty of other folks hated; he later "clarified" his way back to safety. On these issues, Obama is largely platitudinous and reserved.
John Edwards is running left. What mixture of genuine sentiment and political calculation is behind that strategy only he and Elizabeth know, but it's translated into far and away the strongest, most comprehensive climate and energy plan among the three front-runners. He's stumping for 80 percent cuts in greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050, and fleshing that goal out with detailed proposals for a renewable portfolio standard, big boosts in fuel efficiency, changes to the energy grid and efficiency standards (the only front-runner to emphasize these), a green-jobs program, and more. On these issues, Edwards has done his homework and he's not trimming his sails.
ELECTION REFORM:
Here comes another campaign song! http://graphics8.nytimes.com/...
All I've got to say is watch this video from the YearlyKos convention: Edwards Challenges Democrats to Refuse Lobbyist Money
Yup, that's JRE laying it out, straight. That's Hillary Clinton DEFENDING Lobbyists. And, yup, if you watch the uncut verion, you'll see Obama jumping on the bandwagon after JRE's done the work. That right there is the three candidates in a nutshell.
Well, okay, I do have one other thing to say about it: Public Financing. Sure, JRE took matching funds -- public financing -- for the primaries (and ONLY the primaries; he's pledged to take them for the general only if the Republican nominee does the same). Sure, he took them because he had to. I'm no fool: he needed the cash. He needed the cash because Obama and Clinton were raising more money than anyone has ever seen politicians raise before. And he had to compete with them. Now he can. But the important caveat is this: he can do it without being beholden to big money interests the way Obama and Clinton are. And, more importantly, when he gets elected, he can fight for publicly financed elections without being hypocritical. Obama can't do that. And neither can Clinton. And to those who say if he wins the nomination he'll be crippled without the funds he needs to fight back against the Republican smear machine, I say this: we (the progressive community and - if he's nominated - the entire Democratic Party) can surely get his back for a few damn months. That's what groups like MoveOn are for. Besides, if you look at the state of the Republican Presidential race, it seems pretty likely that they won't be able to focus on anything but an internal blood bath till early summer.
As John Edwards would say, "This is an election, not an auction."
And, now, a few more issues, with the focus just on JRE. PROTECTING THE POOR, THE WORKING CLASS, and THE MIDDLE CLASS:
Another song! http://graphics8.nytimes.com/...
Here's JRE in his own words, on a bus tour to bring his message to the rural poor in Mississippi: http://youtube.com/...
And, JRE on TRADE POLICY: http://youtube.com/...
I could go on, but YOU CAN SEE DETAILS OF JOHN'S POSITIONS ON ALL THE ISSUES BY GOING TO http://johnedwards.com/...
And, here, a really great video (truly, watch this one) where John Edwards wraps it ALL UP, how all the issues come down to one big thing: http://www.youtube.com/...
SO....TO THE SECOND PART OF THAT STATEMENT:
Why JRE is the candidate who will actually fight for these progressive positions. Why, in other words, he'll actually bring about the changes we need:
It's really pretty simple. Hillary Clinton, by her own admission, is all about compromise. She believes to effect change (and she doesn't talk about sweeping change, but just change) you have to find a middle ground, start your negotiations from an already weakened position. (plus the fact that she's beholden to the special interests who own her.) Obama has this naive view that he -- because he's such a great guy, I guess -- can inspire big oil and the drug industry and lobbyists to kind of just play nice. Not JRE. Edwards thinks they're not going to give up their power unless you take them on and beat them.
Here's an interview where JRE lays it out pretty damn clearly:
http://youtube.com/...
THE THIRD PART of that central statement at the beginning of this email (the JRE is most electable part) is undebatable:
As Joshua Holland, in Alternet writes:
According to the New York Times/CBS News poll taken Dec. 5-9 (PDF), 63 percent of likely voters believe Hillary Clinton "has the best chance of winning in November"...Following Clinton, 14 percent thought Barack Obama was the best equipped...just one in ten gave the nod to John Edwards....
Despite having the highest "unfavorable" numbers of all the top candidates in both parties, Americans think Clinton is the most electable. Go figure.
But according to the CNN poll (PDF) taken Dec. 6-9, a starkly different picture emerges when voters are asked about head-to-head match-ups in November; when the leading Dems are pitted against the top Republicans, it's John Edwards -- not Clinton and not Obama -- who simply wipes the floor with the whole GOP field. "Edwards is the only Democrat who beats all four Republicans," said Keating Holland, CNN's polling director, "and McCain is the only Republican who beats any of the three Democrats."
Compare how Edwards and Clinton do in head-to-head match-ups:
Edwards 54% (+10)
McCain 44%
Clinton 48% (-2)
McCain 50%
Edwards 53%(+9)
Giuliani 44%
Clinton 51%(+6)
Giuliani 45%
Edwards 59%(+22)
Romney 37%
Clinton 54%(+11)
Romney 43%
Edwards 60%(+25)
Huckabee 35%
Clinton 54%(+10)
Huckabee 44%
[...]
These results are the diametric opposite of the received wisdom: Clinton, with an average margin of 6.25 points is the least likely to beat the eventual GOP nominee, while Obama's spread is 8.75 points and John Edwards beats the GOP field by an average margin of victory of 16 points
.
You can read the entire article (and see graphs) at: http://www.alternet.org/...
I'll add two things to that: 1. The same holds true in state by state poling. 2. This is DESPITE the fact that the media has been ignoring for the past year and Obama and Clinton have been dominating political pages, both with largely favorable stories (especially true of the media's love-affair with Obama).
And, now, the momentum is behind JRE. Just yesterday a Poll came out that showed him in the LEAD in IOWA:
Edwards takes lead in InsiderAdvantage Iowa poll
By Tom Baxter
Southern Political Report
December 18, 2007 —
John Edwards has leapfrogged over his rivals Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and leads the Democratic field in Iowa, according to the latest InsiderAdvantage/Majority Opinion poll. In the Republican caucus race, Mike Huckabee continues to hold a narrow lead over Mitt Romney.
The race among the three top Democrats is extremely close, with the potential for any of them to finish first – or third.
Edwards leads with 30 percent in a poll of Democratic voters who said they intend to participate in the Jan. 3 presidential caucuses, followed by Clinton with 26 percent and Obama with 24 percent.
Now, that's one poll. It could be an outlier. But the most recent polls, even ones just coming out today, show it, at a minimum, a three way dead-heat.
And the momentum is with JRE.
He's on the cover of Newsweek as I type this. To read the (very good) article, click here: http://www.newsweek.com/...
And after the last debate before the Iowa Caucuses? How did John do? Watch this: http://www.youtube.com/...
And this: http://www.youtube.com/...
Now that's momentum.
History has shown over and over again, what matters is momentum coming out of Iowa. John Kerry this time last year was in single digits, running in fifth place in the primary and everyone had counted him out. Iowans make up their minds in the last couple weeks. Recent polls show that fully 1/3 have yet to make up their mind. And they are moving towards Edwards: (see todays piece in the NYTimes -- even though the Times is a clusterfuck of anti-Edwards coverage...here they could sneak it in only in dribs and drabs:http://www.nytimes.com/...
When I'm up in New Hampshire in a couple weeks, sure, we're still gonna be the underdogs. But New Hampshire has a way of making underdogs winners. Especially when they come bursting out of the Iowa gate. And I believe that by January 9th this race will look utterly different than it does today. Then there's North Carolina, and Nevada and on to Super Tuesday. But there's on thing Obama and Clinton are counting on to take JRE out of this race: MONEY. They believe they have enough to battle it out for months, and he simply doesn't.
IF YOU'RE A PROGRESSIVE, IF YOU BELIEVE IN UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE, TAKING CARE OF THE NEEDIEST IN OUR COMMUNITIES, PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT AND BATTLING GLOBAL WARMING, AND TAKING THIS COUNTRY OUT OF THE POCKETS OF BIG CORPORATIONS AND BACK INTO THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE, PLEASE HELP PROVE THEM WRONG.
YEP, HERE'S WHERE I SHAMELESSLY HOLD OUT MY HAT...FOR THE PROGRESSIVE MOMENT, FOR ALL THOSE THINGS THAT I CARE ABOUT. FOR JOHN EDWARDS.
But not just for money. For support. If you can, travel to New Hampshire or Iowa. The campaign will get you there, by carpool or bus, and they'll help you find a home to stay in. I've done it before. It's hard work but a hell of a lot of fun. And, well, Ahem, if you can't then...maybe for money? If you're so inclined, please donate what you can.
If you want to help, here's how (thanks for listing this in an earlier diary, TomP):
Contribute on johnedwards.com:https://johnedwards.com/...
Your contribution could be doubled. Public campaign financing matches your personal contribution total up to $250.
If you live in Iowa, caucus for John Edwards and vounteeer. Check out Iowa for Edwards for more info: http://www.johnedwards.com/...
Road Trip for One America: With so little time left until the caucuses and primaries begin, we need your help now! Please join other supporters from all over the country as we travel to the earliest voting states—Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina—for a few hours, a few days, or a few weeks to help engage voters and spread John Edwards' powerful message.http://www.johnedwards.com/...
And you can do one more thing, too: if you have friends who you think could join in this cause -- ESPECIALLY IF THEY ARE NOT DAILYKOS REGULARS-- please forward this diary to them. The mainstream media may want to make this a two person race; they may be refusing to cover JRE; but there's a reason Al Gore believes the internet is our best hope yet for circumventing a system that keeps the people out of touch with the powers in the country. I ask you to help give John a victory in Iowa that will force the media to acknowledge the true nature of this race, instead of try to shape it to their needs.
One more song!http://graphics8.nytimes.com/...
And, finally, I want to leave you with this. If you think Obama's the only one who can deliver a speech, I say watch this one, y'all. It's the last five minutes of John Edwards' speech to the SEIU:
http://youtube.com/...
Here's wishing you all a season of much peace, great cheer, and the beginning of a new Progressive Era in America!
The opening of this diary has been updated to better reflect what I was trying to say. I don't question any one's progressive credentials. In fact, I assume them to be sterling. That's the whole reason I make my pitch here, to the largely progressive readership here at Dkos.