For well over a year, I have supported John Edwards for President. But it is painfully apparent that the presidency is not to be for Mr. Edwards.
I don't regret my support, at all. John Edwards has driven the debate in this cycle, and has put issues like poverty and an even-playing field for the American worker on the radar screen of the Democratic Party again -- issues that should never, ever have dropped off our radar to begin with.
But unfortunately, "President Edwards" does not seem a possible result at all -- at least not in this election cycle.
So, I'm left to choose from either Senators Clinton or Obama, or Representative Dennis Kucinich.
Dennis Kucinich:
Why? I was glad he ran in 2004. He brought a needed voice to the debate. Everyone - including Dennis - knew he didn't have a serious chance. I thought he was running to the hightlight the issues he cared about, and I respected him for that. But the 2008 race is different. You don't run an issues/vanity campaign two cycles in a row. We heard you the first time Dennis. This time, your campaign seems to be more about you instead of the issues. You are not the party's saviour. Kudos for your 2004 run, but in 2008, you need to exit - stage left even.
Barack Obama:
What an excitement he's brought to politics. It is wonderful to see so many people who have never been involved in politics become involved. He deserves respect and admiration for that alone.
But, IMO, his campaign isn't saying a lot, at least not specifically, and not in comparison with the other campaigns. He's a great motivational speaker, but what does he want to motivate us to do?
He also a neophyte, at least at this level of politics. Running for State Leg is quite a different thing than running for President. His race for Senate was against Alan Keyes. I'm pretty sure anyone with a "D" after their name would have made quick work of Mr. Keyes.
Running for the Presidency is very real. The stakes don't get any higher. The Publicans aren't going to run a clean race. There will be no putting aside negative politics to do what's best for the country. Is there anything in Obama's past that can be used against him? Obama has not been vetted, but rest assured, he will be. And not just by the Publicans, but by the COM as well. If there is anything -- anything at all -- you can bet it will be found and used against him to the nth degree.
Finally, regarding Obama, I don't like his use of right wing frames, and I'm still pissed off at his usage of homophobia to appeal to black evangelicals in SC. Do I believe Obama is a homophobe? Of course not. But in a way, that makes the pandering via McClurkin even worse. But, politics is a very ugly business, and other people I admire and respect have sometimes engaged in some very nasty shit, too.
In the end, make no mistake. I can be pissed, and still see things for what they are. If Senator Obama is our nominee, I will not hesitate to support him and cast my vote for him this November. If he is not our nominee, I will look forward to Obama being around on the political stage for many years to come. He is a young man, and has incalculable opportunites before him.
Hillary Clinton:
Hillary Clinton is not as liberal as I'd like, but she's no Joe Lieberman, either. Nor is she a populist, at least not in the same vein as John Edwards. She is, however, a damned good Democrat.
Yes, she (among many others) made a monumental mistake voting for the Iraq War Resolution. She has, however, voted against additional no-strings funding, and has promised to begin withdrawing our troops if she becomes President.
HRC is experienced. She really is "Ready to Lead" from day one. She has a 35-year career. She is a sitting, two-term Senator from the State of New York, where she draws support not just from the Democratic bastion of NYC, but usually conservative upstate NY as well. You have to go back to Eleanor Roosevelt to find a First Lady of the stature of HRC. Both were trusted confidants and advisors to very popular Democratic presidents. Hillary wasn't simply having tea with ambassadors' wives - no way, no how, no matter how badly some would like to spin it.
Hillary Clinton and her husband have to be the most thoroughly vetted politicians in the history of the Republic. There is nothing - n-o-t-h-i-n-g - that hasn't been been drug out into the light of day about the Clintons. All the smears have been smeared. All the dust has been busted. All the dirty laundry rummaged through. All the closets snooped. It is finished. And Hillary is still standing. Not only is she vetted, she's unbelievably freakin' tough.
Recently, a close friend said, "Hillary Clinton would be a good president, but Barack Obama might be a great president." My friend might be right. But again, Obama hasn't been vetted, and has never really played hard ball campaign politics at a level higher than the State Legislature. I cannot risk this vote on what might be, not when our country is in such dire straits. Not when we have lost so narrowly in the last two election cycles. I have to go with a known, tough, experienced, competent candidate. And that candidate is Hillary Clinton. I know she would be a very good President. She might even be a great one.
Finally (and thanks if you've labored through my ramblings this far), I am incredibly excited at the very, very real possibility of seeing either the first woman president, or the first African-American president. I never thought I'd live to see the day. The lesson there, IMO, is never, ever give up on this country.