I have been critical of Obama because in my opinion he is trying to be a "centrist". That has been my problem with him. I am not a centrist. I am very liberal and I like progressive candidates. My concern with Barack, who is my senator and I voted for him in 2004, is what I thought was his tendency to appear "centrist". But then I read this recommended diary that (finally) clarified the issue. According to the diarist, I have been making a mistake, perceiving Barack's "inclusivism" for "centrism".
Great, I should feel better now, and consider supporting Barack I guess. But how good is to be "inclusive" that way? Does it really help?
Well, here is something that Barack said when he addressed the audience at the Connecticut state Democrats' annual Jefferson Jackson Bailey fund-raising dinner in August 2006.
"I know that some in the party have differences with Joe,". "I'm going to go ahead and say it. It's the elephant in the room. And Joe and I don't agree on everything. But what I know is, Joe Lieberman's a man with a good heart, with a keen intellect, who cares about the working families of America."
and he continued,
"I am absolutely certain that Connecticut's going to have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the United States Senate."
So is that part of being "inclusive" also? Does being inclusive mean supporting the ones who disagree with you and abandoning the real progressives who want change? Does Barack really believe that Joe Lieberman is a man with "good heart who cares about the working families of America"? If so, I really question his judgment. And, if that is what his "inclusivism" involves, I have to say: No thanks. I'd rather support more confrontational candidates who are willing to stand up to the special interests and the corporatist greed, and who are not afraid to say so. And because of that, I am supporting John Edwards. I feel much better choosing principles over "inclusivism".