Last fall I wrote a diary explaining why I'd just decided to support Edwards. In it, I said that the decision became easier once I stipulated to myself what should have been obvious from the start: no candidate is perfect, and no candidate will ever be perfect.
For me, the late Paul Wellstone came closest, but even he made some bad mistakes over the years -- nor would Wellstone have had much luck if he'd run for President, I'm guessing. All arguable, of course... but accepting that no candidate will be everything you want him/her to be is a sign of political sanity.
Given that, I chose John Edwards even though I wasn't crazy about his voting record in the Senate, especially his AUMF vote. That was close to a dealbreaker for me. As I wrote in my diary supporting him: "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."
I thought JRE did the country a great service by focusing on the issues he did, in the way that he did, and I'm sad to see him go. But he didn't catch fire with enough voters. Even if you believe that our way of choosing candidates is wanting -- and I believe it is, on many levels -- or that the news media is shallow and / or corrupt (no argument from me there either!), that's a bigger fight than any one candidate can take on, while trying to get elected.
There have been other primary elections where my candidate bit the dust, and I felt there was nowhere to go except a standard hold-your-nose vote. I'm ecstatic don't feel that way this time.
Like Edwards, like ANYONE, Barack Obama isn't the perfect candidate. They don't exist. If it were up to me, Obama would pepper his talk of unity and change, inspiring as they are, with more specific contrasts to the Republican party. He's one of the most intelligent, eloquent people to run for President in a long time, and I'd like to see him employ those formidable talents to really lay out the differences between the Democratic and Republican agendas for America. I know you can't be a strict political party booster when you're running for the White House, but a little more fighting spirit would be nice. I know he has it in him. So if I could have the Obama I wanted, I'd order up less caution and centrism, at least rhetorically.
But the idea that Barack Obama is merely a spouter of platitudes is ridiculous. He has a very admirable -- and decidedly progressive -- legislative record. And while I think he may oversell its value, he actually has brought people together, in his Chicago days. It also needs to be admitted that he has built up an amazing electoral organization from scratch. As much as he undersells his executive capabilities, he's obviously got a lot of talent there. And an expert in Constitutional Law?....I love that.
Maybe best of all, in my personal opinion: he actually didn't support the Iraq debacle. It's a legit argument to point out his voting since then, and to mention (as I did in my Edwards support diary) that Obama didn't really have to make that decision in the Senate. But I confess to a huge sense of relief that we have a candidate who does not have to backtrack and apologize for his war vote.
My main reason for not supporting Senator Clinton? This is from my previous diary:
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.
I also would love to see a new political era, frankly, that does not involve the Clintons dominating the Democratic party. Since writing the passage above, Bill Clinton has stepped into the spotlight... and if that's any preview of what an HRC presidency would offer, I'm not on board.
I'd also like to stipulate that there have been some supporters of EACH of the three main candidates on this site who have demonstrated less-than-admirable behavior at times, but in the end it doesn't amount to much. It's a sign of engagement and passion, and despite the nastiness, behind most of these fights has been a desire to find someone to help get the country out of the nightmare Cheney-Bush years. Understandable. The behavior of supporters on this site has never affected who I support or don't, and I hope it hasn't affected yours. That's a bad reason to embrace or reject a candidate.
Finally -- in the end, one candidate can only make so much difference. There's a lot more work to be done than choosing a President. Of course that's important, but really not as important as the generations-long work of changing the way politics is done in this country. For me, that work will mostly be waged on a local level. If enough people keep pushing in enough places for long enough, then ANY President will have to listen to our voices. It's really up to us to make our politicians what we want them to be... and if they want, to show them the door.
It's going to be a long, arduous process, but I take heart from a lot of what I see outside the Beltway.
In the meantime, the not-perfect-but-pretty-damned-great candidate I support for President is Barack Obama.
And bless you, John Edwards.
Comments are closed on this story.