For the past few weeks, I have struggled to make a decision as to which candidate to support. Let me say right off that I was a fervent Clark supporter in 2004. I worked my butt off for him, and was disappointed that such a great candidate ran such a poor campaign. I understand why he has now endorsed Clinton -- it's a great endorsement for him, and a Clinton/Clark ticket would be, in my opinion, about the strongest possible Clinton ticket. If that's the ticket, I would be happy to support it. But, as I said in my first diary, I am not falling into line behind the General's endorsement.
Having come to accept that Clark was out as a candidate in 2008, I have had to look closely at all the other candidates. I think we have a great crop of candidates. Any of the candidates would do a pretty good job. So how to choose?
Obama was my initial choice once I realized Clark wouldn't run. He got Iraq right from the beginning. After years of "good v. evil" rhetoric, it is refreshing to hear a politician who understands that the world is too complex for easy categorization. He has an honesty and a candor that is refreshing. I read Audacity of Hope. I studied his positions. I think he would be a good president -- maybe one day even a great one. I think it is past time that we have a black (or a woman) as our President.
I would be happy to vote for Obama if he becomes the nominee. But I just don't feel what I hoped for when I listen to him. Reading Audacity of Hope, I was interested, but not overwhelmed. I disagree with his statement in the book that he didn't think schoolkids mind saying "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. (I was in grade school when the words were added to the pledge by Eisenhower, and felt really pressured to repeat them at a time when the concept of an all-knowing "God" seemed scary and punitive, so I don't agree with Obama's assertion on this issue.) He is at times inspired and inspiring, but I also wonder about his true commitment to what it takes to win a presidential election. I appreciate that he has concerns about the effect of a campaign on his family, especially his children. I find myself wondering if Obama really wanted to run this time around, or whether he allowed himself to be pushed too fast and too far by those who idolize him and want to see him become president. I know there was enormous pressure on him to run NOW, not to wait, to seize the moment, which may never come again. I've met Obama supporters who speak about him reverentially, as if all that would have to happen is for him to be President and somehow, magically, everything would be healed and the country would be whole again. So much has been projected onto him. The great hope -- the savior. It's a tough burden for anyone to carry. It is easy for hope to get overblown into hype.
I feel that in 2004, after Kerry lost, we were desperate for hope. Hope came with the Democratic victories of 2006. Yet somehow those Democratic victories have fallen far short of what we hoped for. The big lesson of our 2006 victories is that, without strong leadership and a clear commitment, our elected officials are more inclined to dash our hopes than to challenge entrenched and powerful interests.
For 2008, we already have hope. We have not only hope but the best chance in a generation to win big against a demoralized, disorganized, and discredited Republican party. We need someone who can take our hopes and forge a new direction out of the destruction that the Republicans have wrought. Is 2008 Obama's year? I see the passion for ideas and philosophy, but I don't see the passion for the actual task of wresting control of the ship of state away from those who have steered us wrong, and who continue to chart our course. I would love to see him on the ticket, but as V.P. in 2008, not at the top of the ticket.
So who does that leave for the top of "my" ticket?
Because of Clark's endorsement, I gave Hillary a strong look. I am not a "Clinton" hater. I have always been amused by the visceral reaction she evokes in many. Like Hillary, I am a woman and a (former) lawyer. Early in my career, I worked in Washington (U.S. Dept. opf Justice, back when that was something to be proud of). I have a lot of respect for what she has achieved, and a pretty good sense of how difficult it was to achieve it. D.C. politics are not for the faint of heart, and she has survived and thrived.
Years ago, I cried when Mondale nominated Geraldine Ferraro, surprised by the depths of my own reaction to the first possibility of a woman on the ticket. As a woman and and the mother of a daughter, I would love to see a woman president. But I won't vote for Hillary in the primary just because she's a woman, even though it is past time for a woman president. If she is the nominee, I will vote for her, because I think she would be a decent president. Not a great one, but a decent one. I don't think America can survive another term of the current-style Republicans, and if Hillary is the nominee, she has my vote. She's a well-known quantity, and she knows how to work the system. So if you think the system works, or you don't think it can be changed, then Hillary is not a bad choice.
But Hillary is not my first choice. Yes, she is competent and hardworking and tough. What turns me off most about Hillary is that whenever I hear her speak she is almost always speaking about herself, not about her vision for us. I hear her repeat: "I am the most experienced." "I am the most competent." "I have been tested and survived Republican attacks." "I am the one ready to lead from day one." It's a given that all politicians have to have strong egos and are in some fashion ego-driven, but I get the feeling that Hillary's campaign is mostly about her, and not enough about us. That turns me off. I want to know what her vision is for America, other than an America headed by the first woman prsident. What is she passionate about, besides being President? What course will she chart, and how will it be different from what has been done before?
I also have deep concerns about her corporate ties. I know she has learned to play within the system, and that she thinks that, in her hands, the system can work better, but she has shown more interest in winning the "game" than in changing the rules. (I am reminded of Lily Tomlin's joke: "The problem with winning the rat race is that you're still a rat." ) I want to see the rules changed, and the playing field leveled. I don't see Hillary's passionate commitment to that.
I also have deep reservations about having endless years of two-family rule, but that issue has been blogged in depth before, and I have nothing new to add. I don't think we need any more dynastic ruling families. It is time for a change.
Still undecided after looking at both Obama and Clinton, I turned my attention to the second-tier candidates. (For reasons explained below, Edwards was at the VERY bottom of my list, not even on my radar screen, so I assessed the "second tier" candidates before Edwards.)
Biden is very likeable. I liked Biden when he ran years ago. (His candidacy imploded after a college-age plagiarism indiscretion came to light.) I think his personal struggles have made him a better person. Every debate I've watched, Biden shines, because he has nothing to lose so he speaks forcefully and directly. But he just doesn't seem right for President in 2008. He's become the elder statesman, the congenial senator, the savvy insider who knows all the players. I'd love to see Biden in the Cabinet somewhere, but I just don't see him energizing the voters as our nominee. For whatever reason, he hasn't caught fire, and it is unlikely that he will. I'm not voting for Biden in the primary.
Richardson looked good at first, but has faded more every time I see him. I keep seeing him as a used car salesman earnestly telling me how honest he is and how I should buy a car from him because he's such a great guy. Great resume. Don't see adding "President" to the list any time soon. I also don't see him as V.P. Cabinet level for sure, but not on the ticket this time around.
I flirted with Dodd for several weeks. How can you not admire a Senator who has, almost singlehandedly, championed repairing our Constitutional rights against a virtually unchallenged administration while part of a do-nothing Congress? And the telecom immunity filibuster! I knew nothing about Dodd before this year, and I have some concerns about financial contributions from interests that he oversees, but right now he is looking tough, principled, and courageous. I could vote for Dodd. But as a leader he suffers from the same problem as Kucinich (though for different reasons) -- he leads on the issues himself, but he can't seem to insipre anyone to follow him, and that ability to inspire is one of those ineffable qualities of leadership that a good president needs. I respect and admire Dodd, and would be comfortable voting for him as the nominee, but honestly I think we need him more in the Senate where, with a Democratic President in office, he can muster the Senate troops to show some backbone and protect the Constitution.
I know there are some Kucinich supporters on dK. He recently came to my small town to speak at the farmers' market. I agree with a lot of his positions, but I just don't see him as President. Not in this universe. And honestly, as the mother of a 26-year old daughter, a 60-year old married to a woman about my daughter's age just creeps me out. But I definitely admire that he is the only one who has had the courage to push impeachment. We need him to keep working on that!
Is Gravel even still in the race? I know nothing about him except for the bizarre rock-throwing ad. I assume he dropped out when no one was looking.
So, having looked at everyone else in the race, and still undecided, I decided to take a look at Edwards. When I first started looking for "my" candidate, John Edwards was at the VERY BOTTOM of my list. I didn't like John Edwards in 2004. I thought he was a lightweight. I thought he tried too hard to be "Mr. Optimistic". I thought the "Two Americas" theme was trite, and wondered if Edwards was trying to model himself after Richard North Patterson's fictional candidate (Kerry Kilcannon). As a former trial lawyer myself, I am familiar with all the rhetorical skills Edwards has honed so well. I also know that, when you have such highly developed rhetorical skills, there can be a fine line between using them to persuade and using them to manipulate. I wasn't sure if Edwards in 2004 was being sincere or manipulative.
And then there was Hugh Shelton. I hated Edwards for Hugh Shelton. Edwards was running in 2004 on being the"positive, nice" alternative to all those supposedly divisive other guys. But Hugh Shelton was one of his (paid or unpaid) advisors. Hugh Shelton lied about Clark's "character", and Clark failed to actively fight back, and the lie stuck. Even now, even here at dK, every now and then someone posts the "Clark had character issues and that's why he was retired early" lie that Hugh Shelton spread. (Shelton had to finally admit it was a lie when Clark was called to testify at the Milosevic war crimes trial, and the defense raised the issue to try and impeach Clark. Shelton admitted that his statement was "just politics" and had no substance.)
I didn't like anything about Edwards in 2004. First and foremost was his war resolution vote. Huge mistake. Patriot Act vote. Huge mistake. Smiled too much. Vain about his hair. One-term Senator from a Southern State. What qualifies him to be President? And in 2004, I don't think he was qualified. I don't think he had the maturity, or the experience on the national scene, or a relevant vision around which to unite the country. I think Kerry picked him because, on the stump, Kerry had the charisma of cardboard, and maybe he hoped Edwards would help him "connect" with people more. Whatever. It didn't work.
So having written Edwards off in 2004, I wasn't inclined to favor him in 2008. Honestly, I thought his focus on poverty was a dead-end. Poor people don't control the power. Poor people don't have a voice in the system. And sadly, most people might care about poverty intellectually but would rather ignore it than address it politically.
Fast forward to late 2007. The more I heard Edwards, the more I started thinking that what he is saying about the system is absolutely right. The system is broken. Government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" has quietly given way to government "of the special interests, by the special interests, and for the special interests."
The more I saw him, the more I saw a different John Edwards from 2004 -- more mature, more tempered; less "positive" or "nice", but far more powerful and more realistic. And he "gets" it -- the system is broken -- it doesn't work the way we envisioned it. The difference between 2004 and 2008 is 4 years of relentless destruction by the Republicans has brought the system to the tipping point. We have had four more years of unchecked executive power, four more years of obscene corporate profits, four more years of criminality at the highest levels of government, four more years of environmental destruction. Yes, we want to seek common ground, but before we can talk about common ground we have to at least be on the same field. Somehow, while we weren't looking or weren't paying attention we lost access to the playing fields of power -- and our government, our officials, our regulators, our justice system, our health care, our environment -- all of it was either sold to the highest bidder or warped and distorted to promote an agenda of personal power and corruption that threatens the very foundations of our system of constitutional democracy.
It isn't just Bush's fault. We let this happen under Clinton and under Bush 1. Eisenhower warned against the power of an unchecked "military-industrial complex". With Reagan, somehow too many Americans started to believe "Government isn't the solution; government is the problem." If those who hold the seats of power don't themselves believe in the power of government to do good, then they feel no obligation to act for the greater good. Government becomes just an engine to promote an individual or group agenda, not the means to achieve the vision of democracy, equality, and justice that America -- with all its faults -- still symbolizes.
Four or eight years ago, no one on the national stage was talking about this. For the past five years, Iraq has, understandably, dominated the news, and at first I was flabbergasted that Edwards was focusing on poverty and a broken system of government when Iraq was the question for national politicians. It seemed to me to be the wrong focus. But I am begnning to see more holistically. All the issues are related to the same core problem. We have Haliburton/Blackwater's Iraq because the system is broken, just like we have no health care, no adequate response to Katrina, obscene oil company profits, and no action on global warming. It's all part of the same problem.
Because Edwards now gets the "big" picture, I don't care what he did or didn't achieve during his one term in the Senate representing a fairly conservative Sourthern state. I probably wouldn't have voted for him then. I vehemently disagreed with his vote on the AUMF in 2003. But I totally respect his willingness and ability to stand up and take responsibility for his mistakes. How many politicians are willing to do that?
I appreciate that some voters wish for a candidate who has always held the same positions regardless of changing conditions. I understand that it gives people the illusion of confidence in consistency. But we are living in a world of liquid chaos where events on the other side of the globe over which we have no control and even less understanding can shape and affect our lives. I want a candidate who is equally fluid, dynamic, and authentically responsive to change and who constantly reasses and refines his or her understanding of a changing world. (I'm not talking about a Romney, who shifts in the wind, but one who authentically reasses based on changing circumstances.) Edwards was wrong in 2003. In 2003, Edwards stood with his constituency, the majority of whom supported the AUMF. It is easy for Obama to say he opposed the AUMF from the beginning (so did I). But Obama was not in the Senate at the time, so we don't really know how he would have voted had he been subjected to the same pressures. I want to know how a candidate responds to mistakes and errors. We have seen a President who refuses to acknowledge mistakes. Do we really think we are going to get one who never makes any?
I don't feel that the best candidate for President is necessarily the candidate with the strongest resume of previous political accomplishments. What had Kennedy accomplished before he ran? Or Lincoln? They are considered great presidents in part because of their ability to inspire others to push the boundaries of their times and consider the world in a different light. Kennedy -- despite the glaring human flaws and weaknesses that we now know he had -- managed to invoke the spirit of Camelot and an idealistic America on the rise again, willing to take on even something as challenging as space exploration. Lincoln -- a trial lawyer born in a log cabin -- managed to excise the stain of slavery while preserving the union not because he had a long list of previous accomplishments but because he "saw" that such a heinous institution was a cancerous inconsistency that could ultimately destroy a nation founded on freedom and equality.
I am not saying that Edwards is a Kennedy or a Lincoln, or an FDR. We can't know that. We can't expect that. We can only ask who, of all the candidates, has seen outside the "box" of current thinking and postulated a new direction that promises greater equity and justice for the greatest number of people? Yes, Obama symbolizes hope for greater inclusion of all within the system. And Clinton suggests a return to the system that Bill mastered in the 90s. But Edwards is the only candidate who has challenged the core assumption that the system, though flawed, just needs a new leader to make it work better. Clinton suggests we just leave it in her hands. Obama talks of including all within it. Only Edwards focuses on taking power away from those whose money and influence have warped the system, and changing the playing field to eliminate or at least improve its inherent flaws. And he is right. We all long for peaceful cooperation and bipartisanship. But until the power and influence that has corrupted our system is addressed, the underlying problems will remain. It will be a fight of epic proportions, because those who have bought their power and influence will not give it away. Is the fight winnable? It may not be. Does that mean we give up without a fight and say goodbye to the America we long for? What else is worth fighting for? What else promises so much for our children?
I have read several posts on dK that accuse Edwards of "pandering." According to Webster's, a "panderer" is "One who caters to the base desires of others or exploits their weaknesses." What base desires or weaknesses is Edwards' appealing to? He talks about poverty, injustice, and a broken system. He's refused to take money from lobbyists, and he has limited himself (some would say crippled himself) by taking public financing. To whom is he pandering? Certainly not the special interests who would stand to lose if he were elected. Is he pandering to us? But it is not our basest instincts and weaknesses he is catering to, but our highest and most idealistic selves. Is it all a sham? Is he saying this while not believing any of it? Maybe. We can't know what is really in his heart. But he is still the only one saying it. And it is not what most people want to hear. People don't want to hear that the system is broken. It sounds too difficult. It's a lot easier to say the system is fine, it just has the wrong person at the top. So what does Edwards stand to win by telling people what they probably don't want to hear? It has limited him financially since he has refused lobbyist money. It hasn't gotten him much media attention. It hasn't gotten him frontrunner status. But it resonates because it is true. So maybe he's saying it because it is true.
To me, his refusal to take lobbyist money makes him the only Democratic candidate who is not beholden to special interests. I have read the posts (including kos) from those who claim that it has fatally wounded his ability to campaign for several months against what will no doubt be relentless Republican attacks. But if we really believe that public financing is a less biased and more wholesome system, we have to be willing to apply it to ourselves. Almost 20 years ago, I left my law practice, my marriage, my house overlooking the Pacific, and everything else that I had invested many years to create to embark on a journey that changed my life profoundly and forever. Letting go of all these things was not easy, and at first I kept trying to hold on to the same life I had had, while at the same time wishing and hoping that everything would change. One day it struck me: You can't say you want everything to change but be unwilling to let go of anything you have. At that point, I let go, and just allowed whatever was going to happen to happen, because letting go of the old system was the right thing to do. Ultimately, once you make the decision that the old system doesn't work anymore, you have to stop putting any more energy into it, and trust that a new, more wholesome configuration will manifest to take the place of the old.
What applies personally also applies to larger systems. In the old days. people believed the earth was at the center of the universe. As more information became available, keeping that earth-centric world view took more and more effort. What had first been a simple system required more and more permutations to make it "come out" in favor of the then-prevailing world view. Anyone who challenged the system (Gallileo) was threatened with death, because a lot of energy was invested in that world view. Finally, no matter how hard people worked to support it, the system just didn't work any more. The "new" system -- with the earth revolving around the sun -- just worked better. Once that became known, and accepted, the old system disintegrated and the new world view took hold.
Edwards isn't talking about changing our view of the universe, but he is talking about making fundamental changes in our system of accountability and transparency to address the core of corruption that has skewed the system. That's the kind of fundamental change we are facing. We may not be ready for the truth. But it is staring us in the face, and sooner or later we will come to it. Edwards may not win -- not because he isn't right, but because we may not be ready to let go of the old ways and embrace a new model. We are only putting off the fight, and leaving our children with the problems we created but that we lack the courage to address.
I apologize profusely for such a long and personal post, which has wandered pretty far afield of my original intent, which was just to address my feelings about all the candidates. I will end by touching on one or two other reasons I have decided to support Edwards. The first is the "Elizabeth" factor. When I first heard that she had had a recurrence, I really felt it was potentially problematical to elect someone who might have to deal with the terrible grief that the loss of a loved one brings. I felt it would be a distraction that a president could not afford. But I have heard Elizabeth speak, and read her writings, and have come to admire her enormously for throwing herself into life with a passion that is inspiring to all of us. Of all the political spouses (including Bill) I think Elizabeth has the most to bring to the White House. Her struggle reminds us all of the beauty and fragility of life, and of the importance of family and love and courage. If Edwards is elected, her spirit and wisdom will be an asset and an inspiration.
Finally, I was exremely moved by the diary "Timeline of My Decision" by karatexplosion that was posted here a week or so ago. I don't know how to do links so I hope someone else will post the link. Also, a beautiful poster of Edwards by RedJet, which I hope RedJet will repost here.
Thank you to those of you who have had the patience to read this entire diary. I know many of you will disagree, and that's great. I have tried to make it clear that, although I have chosen to support Edwards in the primary, I am not "against" any of the other candidates, and will vote for our nominee. Whoever wins the nomination (and ultimately the presidency), we would be lucky to have the talents of the other candidates in any Democratic administration. Although I favor an Edwards administration, I would love to see Obama as V.P., and Clinton's talents as a true "policy wonk" put to good use for our benefit. Biden can start having those long talks with foreign leaders; Richardson can work on a compassionate immigration policy; Dodd can muster the troops in the Senate to restore our Constitutional rights; and Kucinich can . . . well I'm not sure where Kucinich fits in, but I'm sure he'll be out there, somewhere, advocating for peace, justice, and the American way.
Let me know your thoughts, and take the poll!