Well, despite these sour grapes on my part, the process is full steam ahead. More than likely, we will have our nominee by Feb. 5, a full seven months before the election. This means that we must take a closer look at our candidates and be sure we make an informed decision on who will lead our party, and hopefully our country after the disasterous Bush/Cheney years. Cleaning up this mess is going to take dedication, and new ideas as well as facing hard truths.
Many of you know I have been arguing for John Edwards for a long time now. I think John Edwards is the only candidate who has the stomach to truly take on the system and defeat the special interests that have blocked Progressive change under both Republican and Democratic Administrations. I think John Edwards is the one who has learned hard lessons, and wants to use that bitter experience to bring about the change we have all hungered for.
I think furthermore that two issues that have come up recently have proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that John Edwards is the one candidate who will fight for our values, and use common sense in making his decisions. These two issues are the sabre-rattling against Iran, and the Peru Trade agreement. Between these two issues, I think Democrats have effectively been shown that our two supposed frontrunners aren't nearly as dedicated to fighting for our ideals as John Edwards.
First, we have the Iranian situation and the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment. Of course we know that Senator Clinton, despite the lessons of Iraq, voted to give the Bush Administration a green light to go into Iran, wasting more young lives, and hundreds of billions of more dollars that could go to solving the myriad of problems that face America. Edwards spoke out against this amendment from the start. He had this to say about Clinton's enabling of the Bush Administration's next war:
"Today, George Bush and Dick Cheney again rattled the sabers in their march toward military action against Iran. The Bush Administration has been making plans to attack Iran for many months. At this critical moment, we need strong leadership to stand against George Bush’s dangerous ‘preventive war’ policy, which makes force the first option, not the last.
"I learned a clear lesson from the lead up to the Iraq War in 2002: if you give this president an inch, he will take a mile - and launch a war. Senator Clinton apparently learned a different lesson. Instead of blocking George Bush’s new march to war, Senator Clinton and others are enabling him once again.
"I have called for strong, capable diplomacy to deal with the challenge of Iran, and a carrots and sticks strategy aimed at results--not the Bush/Cheney path, which would escalate tensions, enable attacks, and lead to unintended consequences.
"The New Yorker recently reported that one reason the administration has not yet attacked Iran is because public opinion has turned against such a course. Senator Clinton’s actions undermine the American people’s opposition to war with Iran. Today’s advancement of the Bush strategy on Iran shows how much we need strong opposition on this issue. I learned my lesson the hard way in 2002, but it appears that others still have some learning to do."
http://www.johnedwards.com/...
I guess Clinton clearly didn't learn that you simply cannot trust George W. Bush with young American lives and national treasure. What word is it that is defined as doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?
Edwards was quick to let Senator Clinton know that she made a serious mistake:
"This morning we see that Senator Clinton is defending her vote to declare the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. She was entitled to her vote just like she's entitled to defend it. The problem is her explanation to Iowa voters is different than her explanation to the New York Times. Her backers told the New York Times that her vote was about shifting from primary election mode to general election mode. Now she's telling Iowans something different. Apparently she has an Iowa mode and a Washington mode too.
"We have already seen the devastating consequences of triangulation and manipulation in Iraq. Particularly on the critical challenge on Iran, where the administration appears to be readying the guns of war, Democrats deserve a nominee who only has one mode - and that's ‘telling the truth’ mode."
http://www.johnedwards.com/...
Indeed. It is time that we have a nominee that tells us the truth. Of course, lets not overlook the fact that Edwards was right about this all the time, and Clinton would have enabled George W. Bush to march into another senseless war:
"The new National Intelligence Estimate shows that George Bush and Dick Cheney's rush to war with Iran is, in fact, a rush to war. The new NIE finds that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that Iran can be dissuaded from pursuing a nuclear weapon through diplomacy. This is exactly the reason that we must avoid radical steps like the Kyl-Lieberman bill declaring Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, which needlessly took us closer to war. And it's why I have proposed that we pursue a comprehensive diplomatic approach instead."
http://www.johnedwards.com/...
Lets also remember that the key to leadership is not just to critisize, but find real solutions. See his plan for Iran here:
http://www.johnedwards.com/...
The other issue which show clearly that both frontrunners, Clinton and Obama simply are too afraid to fight the entrenched special interests is the Peru Trade Agreement. Evidently the loss of countless high-paying union jobs is no big deal to them. They continue to fight for big business over us, and signed onto yet another unfair trade deal. John Edwards didn't:
"I grew up in Carolina mill towns and so I've seen firsthand the devastating impact trade can have on workers and communities," said Edwards. "Presidents from both parties have entered into trade agreements like NAFTA and the WTO promising that they would create new jobs. Instead, in recent years we've lost millions of manufacturing jobs, seen wages stagnate, and run up larger and larger trade deficits.
"For too long, Washington has been looking at every trade deal and asking one, and only one, question - is it good for corporate profits? And they haven't looked at all at the harm it will do to workers, their wages, or to the U.S. economy. Like the failed free trade agreements before it, the Peru Agreement puts the interests of the big multinational corporations first, ahead of the interests of American workers and communities."
http://www.johnedwards.com/...
Along the way he challenged Clinton and Obama to take a stand for American workers:
"I grew up in Carolina mill towns and I've seen firsthand the devastating impact trade can have on American workers and their communities. America is bleeding jobs. Now, more than ever, it is time we take a clear stand against the Peru trade deal and any other NAFTA-like trade agreements that will needlessly cost America more jobs and hurt middle class and working families.
"Sadly, Senator Obama has chosen to support the Peru trade deal. While I am disappointed by his choice, and I hope he reconsiders, at least he has taken a position. Unfortunately, Senator Hillary Clinton still refuses to say whether she is for or against the Peru trade deal.
"On all issues, whether it is Iraq, Iran, Social Security or trade, voters deserve straight talk and a leader who will have the strength to tell voters where they stand.
"I believe the Peru trade deal continues failed trade policies. It is wrong for America, and I strongly oppose it. As president, I will promote smart and safe policies by negotiating better deals and rejecting bad deals, enforcing the terms of those deals, helping dislocated workers and communities and ensuring the products sold to American families are safe.
"For the sake of hard-working families in Iowa and all across America, I hope that Senator Clinton will finally take a stand, do what is right and join me in strongly opposing the Peru trade deal."
http://www.johnedwards.com/...
Unfortunately, Senator Obama did take a stand, against American workers and fair trade, Senator Clinton, well who knows:
"I'm disappointed by today's vote to approve the Peru trade deal and expand the failed NAFTA model that has cost us more than a million jobs. However, I congratulate the 132 members – including a majority of the voting House Democrats – for their courage in standing up and voting against this flawed deal. The vote should be an alarm bell for President Bush: other flawed trade deals, including South Korea and Columbia, need to be improved before they are brought before Congress.
"I believe that American workers and businesses can compete with any worker or company in the world as long as our government stands up and fights for a level playing field. American workers deserve trade agreements that strengthen and maintain, rather than undercut and erode, labor rights, environmental standards and wages.
"While I believe Senator Obama is wrong to give this president authority to risk American jobs with more bad trade deals, at least he has taken a position. Unfortunately, Senator Clinton has still refused to take a position on this proposal. I believe voters deserve to hear the truth and I urge Senator Clinton to join me in calling on members of the Senate to reject the Peru trade deal in the coming weeks."
http://www.johnedwards.com/...
To lead our party takes more than big talk and MSM fawning. It takes courage and the conviction to fight for our ideals. Unfortunately these two issues show that John Edwards is our only candidate who is willing to do that. I think Democrats and American workers need to take a long look at who is really representing them, and who they can really trust to fight for the ideals of our party. With the whole world watching, Senators Clinton and Obama failed that test.
John Edwards is the leader we can trust to tell us the truth. He is the leader that has learned his lessons and become a better person for it. He is the leader that doesn't have a primary mode and a general mode but fights for us everyday. He has constantly not only spoken to the problems faced by real Americans but has proudly put a Progressive vision for the world in the form of policy proposals for all to see. These two issues show why he is head and shoulders above both Clinton and Obama in this primary.
Comments are closed on this story.