I really haven't been aiming to support anyone for a while, truth be told. This race started very early, and it gave us the luxury (and / or torture) of watching people for a while.
I was glad to hear that John Edwards was running when he announced, but didn't throw in with him right off the bat because I felt like I still didn't have the greatest sense of him as a candidate running at the top of the ticket. I thought he was an overall asset to John Kerry in 2004, but I didn't flip for his "Two Americas" message as a rhetorical point...or at least as a main theme.
As for Barack Obama, I was mighty impressed. And I still am, at moments. Last night in the debate he had a few outstanding answers, as he always does -- broadening Timmeh Russert's silly "Iran will not have nukes" gotcha pledge elegantly, expanding the theme into the nature of fear running this country. He also showed skill in handling the deeply stupid UFO question. And so on. Obama has always been the other candidate I'm most inclined to vote for, support, give $$$, etc.
Hillary Clinton is amazing. As intelligent as anyone who ever ran for President, no doubt. Great with in-depth, wonky policy stuff. And quick on her feet. I also think she's tough enough to beat any Republican, and her "electabilty" issues would largely disappear once she beat up on say, Rudy Giuliani in a few one-on-one debates.
Chris Dodd has been impressive of late. He's taken excellent pro-Constitutional stands, and frankly, I don't mind so much if he's doing to win hearts and minds in a primary. His are the kind of issues I WANT our candidates competing about: impress me by being tougher on Bush and the Republican's anti-American ways, not by splitting the difference with the GOP. I lived in Connecticut for some years and always thought Dodd was a solid enough Senator, though not a great leader -- so it was hard for me to imagine his candidacy as anything but futile at first. But like many others, I've taken him more seriously the longer he stays in. (Even if his record isn't stellar on every issue)
Joe Biden is a strange man indeed: just a dynamo who says the exact right thing at times -- often brilliant and caustic, like his Giuliani take-down last night -- and a bit of a buffoon at other times. I've never seriously considered supporting him, mostly because of his years muddying the political waters on Sunday talk shows. But I've been increasingly glad that he's in the race.
Dennis Kucinich -- hm. Now this is a surprisingly tough one for me, because it makes me question what I really believe not only about the issues, but about our whole political process. I agree with what Kucinich says about so many issues -- and in specific detail -- that it's a little disconcerting. He's dead right on health care, for example. But then... the rest of what he says makes me think he's a little nuts. The Department of Peace, for example. Yikes, really? Now? I just don't trust him to run a good campaign for the beliefs we share, wuthout getting sidetracked into silly stuff. And if anyone makes a well-meaning progressive worry about "electability" (even against his /her best intentions) it's Kucinich. I just don't think he'd beat the Republican nominee.
Bill Richardson. In the abstract, I was very excited about Richardson's candidacy. When I read that he was announcing, I looked forward to hearing more. And as Richardson says, yes, he does have a very impressive resume. Tuly the best of the candidates, for purposes of a Presidential run -- a Southwestern governor, an experienced diplomat, someone who knows energy policy, has lots of other good policy ideas, etc. But...Richardson has been incredibly disappointing in his ability to communicate simple ideas effectively. He's just a piss-poor candidate, I think. After the first two debates, I couldn't see supporting him.
*
*
So for me, it has effectively been between the so-called "frontrunners" of Clinton, Obama, and Edwards (frontrunners in that 1-2-3 order, it seems, for quite a while), with a serious look at Dodd as of late. Not original at all, I know. But hey, originality isn't my claim here.
The last week or so I started to gravitate more towards Edwards, and last night's debate closed the deal. Why?
On the positive side, he's framing the issues and arguments the way I think is most needed right now. He's a true economic progressive, and he's calling those issues exactly right. His take on war, peace, and Cheneyism has evolved to the right place, even if it started poorly. And he's in a fighting mode when it comes to the Republican legacy in general. I think that's why I like best -- it seems he can't wait to take on this failed rightwing movement, and the people who represent it, as soon as he can.
Someone wrote recently (and sorry, I'm paraphrasing and I have NO attribution...mea culpa) that while Edwards and Obama are both lawyers, Edwards is in trial lawyer gear, and Obama is in law professor mode. This is fitting, given that they both worked in those respective professions. But I favor the former gear right now, at least to help eradicate the Cheneyism of our current government. I'd grown colder to Obama's message of "bringing people together" recently -- it sounds good, but was starting to be too vague for my taste. I also don't care for his lapses into rhetorical triangulation with his progressive allies. (Argue this assertion below, of course.) And I'm sorry, but the "bringing people together" became a bit of a joke to me after the McClurkin debacle this week. (Fire away, Obama fans. Sorry, calling it like I see it here.)
As for Hillary Clinton: to be blunt, I just don't trust her on foreign policy. Her domestic record isn't bad at all -- admirable, all in all. But whatever her ultimate intentions, I think her accomodation of Cheneyite foreign policy is a disqualifier. Her vote on Kyl-Lieberman -- and her rhetoric surrounding it -- has been argued with considerable heat on this site for weeks. But after reading and re-reading the amendment, hearing the arguments on all sides, and then hearing her try to explain it again last night, I am convinced she's on a dangerous course. I don't think she's insane enough to want war with Iran -- far from it. But I do think she's willing to play chicken with fate, and once again throw in with the Cheneyites, no matter how she spins it. And they ARE insane. They want war. This is an inexcusable lapse in judgment for someone as brilliant as Sen. Clinton.
Mind you, I don't think Edwards is perfect. In part what helped me decide to support him actively was the necessary reminder that no candidate IS perfect, contrary to many candidate diaries one see on this site for (name your candidate). My main hesitation in supporting John Edwards was his vote on the AUMF for Iraq in 2002. It was a terrible decision (as it was for Clinton, Dodd, and Biden), and while he apologized for it, it took me a while to trust that his new clarity about the issue was genuine. After long last, I'm convinced. And while Obama's stance against the war in 2002 was a great point in his favor, I'm actually not convinced that a hypothetical Senator Obama in 2002 knowing he was running for President sometime soon, might not have voted for the AUMF, simply expressing strong reservations like a lot of other misguided / cynical Dems. Obama supporters may not think this is fair, and I'd understand. But we're partly guided by instinct in these choices. His record in the Senate and as a candidate is one of fairly safe choices. I just don't think the man wants to be disliked.
Edwards has finally shown that he's ready and willing to fight. In previous debates I've thought he did fairly well, but he didn't have the fire in his belly to really give the Republicans a beating. I'm now convinced. This is subjective, of course, but he seemed clearer and more forceful of late, and showing a passion that was only hinted at before. I'd seen him speak in person some years back and saw that quality, and wondered where it had gone. Last night I saw it again.
I've also seen Obama speak in person, and he's quite awesome too. But in the end, it's really Obama's philosophical approach to the challenges of the Presidency, and our times, that doesn't seem like the best match right now. Add in the fact that I now see that message as being a bit more hollow after the McClurkin affair, and he's just not my candidate. He's an excellent second choice, but I support Edwards more.
Both Edwards and Obama could be stronger in the resume department. But the resume guy is Richardson, with Dodd and Biden vying for second if you think a long-term Senate career is helpful. (It certainly shows experience, but it can be a liability as well, as John Kerry found out.) Both Edwards and Obama would ideally have a little more administrative experience, too. But in the end, no one's perfect, and they have long been the two strongest candidates that I agree with on most major issues (unlike Sen. Clinton, with whom I part ways on matters of war and peace).
Edwards is ready to fight and win. And he can. He will make mincemeat out of any Republican they throw at him, I'm convinced of that now. Perfect? Not by a long shot. But an excellent candidate, and someone with the potential to be a great President.
John Edwards for President.
*
*
If you're still reading... well frankly, I'm amazed. But thanks for sticking with it.
Argue your points at will. Fire away. I've mostly stayed out of candidate diaries to date, and that may include my own.
...Not really. But I won't get that fired up defending my choice. If you think I've been unfair to your candidate, though, this is a fine place to say that, even if I don't respond. Call me crazy, but I have a feeling others will.
Happy Halloween, Kosland. Going upstairs now to put on my Lynne Cheney costume. Boo!
*
*
(P.S. Three points:
- I'm aware that Edwards is something of a long shot at this point.
- Yes, I will vote for WHOEVER gets the Democratic nomination. It's insane to do otherwise.)
- Pie.)
Comments are closed on this story.