Barack Obama and John Edwards are both men who have hopeful visions of America's future. They differ, however, in their perception of what it will take to bring about transformational change. Obama's followers apparently believe that he will be able to break down the opposition with his golden words of hope. John Edwards, on the other hand, has made it clear that he expects a fight with the Republican/Corporate Alliance and he wants us to know that he is up to the challenge. Many Democrats have actually chosen between Edwards and Obama based on this one distinction, alone.
It's a subject that we really ought to examine in greater depth...
It has been rather amazing to see what Barack Obama has been able to do with the very same theme John Edwards first popularized four years ago. Remember? It was John Edwards who got the attention of the Democratic Party in 2004 with his One America Campaign; he repeatedly criticized the Republicans for their efforts to 'divide America' in order to achieve their political ends. He could smell and taste the sweet fruit of cooperation and wanted it just as much as Barack Obama wants it today. But John Edwards is not the same man that he was four years ago. After the failure of the Kerry-Edwards ticket in 2004, John had some time for reflection and that is when he arrived at the conclusion that it had been a big mistake for him to support George Bush's war. While this changed position was certainly significant in itself, I think it also reflected a new willingness within John Edwards to question a number of old political assumptions.
He could see that the doubts he had felt about Bush's motives and methods---that a rising tide of patriotism eventually overwhelmed---were right all along. If he had trusted those inner doubts about Bush's lust for war, he would have ended up on the right side of history. I think this 'rude awakening' also influenced his perceptions of what is necessary to prevail against the Republican Party. He was a front row witness, after all, to the campaign of character assassination that the Republican Party---once again---used to pull off yet another victory over the Democrats. (If the strategy hadn't succeeded as well as it did, the final vote wouldn't have been close enough for them to steal.)
I think this is a big part of the reason why John Edwards is focusing on a new message this time. Of course he would like---as would I---to see everyone 'come together' and end their divisions and join together, hand-in-hand, in a new spirit of cooperation. He wouldn't be a Democrat if he didn't feel that way. It's just that he now has a fresh memory of what our Republican Nemesis is capable of and he knows that The Republicans are going to fight with tooth and nail and misinformation and character assassination and lies about almost every aspect of any health care program that any Democrat might propose.
He knows that when the Bad Guys start employing all of their power and resources and wicked inspirations---through the Republican Party---they are not going to be interested hearing Barack Obama talk about 'ending divisions' in the country. Negative campaigning is a strategy that has worked for them time after time after time. One of the most famous of Democratic defeats in recent decades was Hillary Clinton's [foolish, in hindsight] effort to sell the Republicans and their sponsors on a compromise plan that they never had any intention of considering. They had intended all along to throw up a firestorm of opposition (i.e., divisiveness) in order to utterly defeat the Democrats.
John Edwards knows that once he (or Barack or Hillary) try to get any legislation passed that would actually improve the financial security of the bottom 2/3 of America's citizens, the only way it will be possible to maintain a non-divisive atmosphere is by simply giving up and not pressing the Republicans for any real change. You know, kinda like how the new Democatic Congress caved in on Iraq last year after Bush made it clear that he would put up a huge fight that they might regret.
I would say that John Edwards now has a more mature understanding of the political landscape and realizes that we need to be willing to call bad guys Bad Guys if we want to be able to stop those bad guys from continuing to hurt people through their political efforts. The ultimate political reality we are facing is that it is going to be necessary for us to accuse and define the Republicans and their corporate sponsors as a threat to the American people. Why? 'Cause if the Democrats in 2009 were to actually try to do something that would give average Americans more financial security, the Republicans would most certainly invest themselves fully in a concerted effort to demonize us, to misrepresent our motives and our methods, portray us as people who are ultimately a danger to the American people. That is what they do. We need to reveal these people to the electorate, not let them get away with their evil machinations.
I suspect that at some point John must have realized that his experience in successfully arguing cases of moral import to juries as a trial lawyer actually made him the best qualified Democrat in the field to represent the American people when the time comes to argue the case for Universal Health Care to Congress and the Republican minority. I really think that John is the only one of the three who could overcome the firestorm of Republican resistance (especially if he had Obama on his team as VP) that is sure to come.
You see people, the Republicans fully intend to be devisive (i.e., define us as a threat to the American people) and they will loudly scream that we are the ones being divisive whenever we voice any criticism of their policies, motives, etc. We will not be able to win against these people if we are not willing to define them to the electorate. In order for us to define them (in a way that will defend us from their attacks), we will need to criticize them. And yes, that is divisive. We need to let the American people know who WE are and who THEY are and why they should want to identify with US (it's because THOSE people actually are are a threat to US). When the other side is committed to trashing your reputation with a huge investment of resources, it is absolutely necessary for us to embrace divisiveness because that is the only way we are going to be able to provide a victory for [the vast majority of] the American people.
What does JE mean when he says he is ready to fight the Republican/Corporate opposition? Does he mean that he plans to engage in angry shouting matches? Of course not. Think of the decorum he was accustomed to in the courtroom. Does he mean that he plans to lead a mob of angry Democrats carrying baseball bats to the doors of Congress? Pretty funny, huh? The big difference between Barack Obama and John Edwards is that [at least for now] Barack Obama believes that he can inspire the people who feel extraordinarily threatened by progressive change to give up their resistance and hop on the Obama bandwagon.
The funny thing about this year's race is that I absolutely love Barack Obama, the man. I would most definitely like to see him move into the White House in 2016, when he has reached the age that John Edwards is this year. We can have both, but Edwards is the guy we need right now. The way I see it, current Obama supporters are facing a win-win situation. They don't have to give up on the dream of having Barack Obama in the White House if they choose to support John Edwards this year. As Vice President of the United States, Barack Obama would be in the ideal situation to become America's first black President in 2016.
Yes, it's regrettable that we must be strident in our efforts to obtain justice, but that unfortunately is the reality we are dealing with.
REPUBLICAN NEMESIS
REPUBLICAN NEMESIS (printer friendly format)