Enduring Questions for Today's Democratic Frontrunners

Like many Democrats (I suspect), I am "decided" only in that I have decided I will support any Democrat nominated. Otherwise, I am undecided and unwilling to jump on any bandwagon in an election crucial to America's future. Here then are key questions I would pose to each of the three front runners:

To John Edwards: You understand that it is not just misunderstanding or abstract polarization that divides America, but a fundamental conflict of interest over key questions like abortion, guns, immigration, health care, free trade and American leadership. However, many Americans see this as "the old politics of divisiveness" and want to "get beyond polarization." How can you persuade such Americans - many of them young and attracted to Obama -- that confronting corporate interests and the far right is something more than old, tired left wing populism? And how does such populism and your union support translate into a foreign policy and trade policy that is more than just protectionist?

To Hillary Clinton: your experience does count for something, and your coolness under fire and your pragmatic good judgment (manifested in your Senate work) recommend you. But, Clinton fatigue aside (and it is real!), your campaign seems cautious and uninspired. You have allowed old opportunistic right-of-center pols like Mark Penn to run things, and paid the price in Iowa for displaying so little vision. As critics have noted, the Bush White House was loaded with "experience" when it embarked on the disastrous policies to which we now seek alternatives! So how are you going to get the young people, many of whom have never been engaged in politics before and who are flocking to Obama, to believe that you represent the future? Beyond the details of policy and what happened in the last Clinton Presidency, what is your underlying vision for change and for America's future?

To Barack Obama: You incarnate hope and symbolize the new multicultural America; many young Americans resonate to your plea to get beyond red and blue and unite around a better future, and that's a good thing for American democracy. But such inspiring rhetoric will not suffice to actually govern. Your own career suggests at least a degree of caution and indecision and a reluctance to "offend" anyone that are incompatible with real change. Moreover, is it really possible to change America in significant ways without also dividing it? There is no parsing issues like a woman's right to choose, corporate opposition to universal health care, teaching creationism, or curbing free trade in the name of fair trade. How can you hope both to unite the country and lead it to real change? The realities of doing the second are not really compatible with the rhetoric of doing the first. Great leaders like Lincoln and FDR won elections but their visions attracted many enemies and they hardly "united" the country - Lincoln's vision led to civil war! Show us concretely how you can unite and change America at the same time.

I can sum up my concerns by saying that Edwards seems to represent change at the expense of unity, Obama represents unity but, although he talks about change, does not seem to grasp that politics is inherently about conflict, while Clinton aspires to both realist compromise and real change without making us feel confident about either.

Comments

[patriotscholar]

Please compare Hillary's record in the Senate to Joe Lieberman.

[ljsfolly]

Like in other blogs there has been mention several times that the media is at fault for missing the boat on the reality of what truly has happened in the past year. The media decided that Clinton would win the nomination beofre they even started the tours to small towns to get support for the caucus. Where the media has gone if you notice is to tout only the candidates that the media saw as viable not what we voters see and want. So Iowa was a wake up and smell the dirt media for you have been in the sand buried head first while the candidates were either sinking or standing tall. Just look at the stinked rudy and where he landed down the list after the media has screamed he and Romney were at the top. Top of what now? Clinton has said too many times she was going to win when there has been others saying not so fast, I don't like her! Now I can only hope the media has been raising their heads up and seeing who is viable and who stinks like a skunk. Edawards has been saying all along he was in second and he would win. Guess what he knew what the lying polls and media has been avoiding. Now who now is asking who and calling it polls? Makes me think the media guys are polling themselves.

[Nutcase]

Real change will not come easily. An anthropologist I knew said that human beings are the most adaptable animal on Earth but the most resistant to change.

From a political perspective, the preferred course is to intentionally divide the electorate. In trying to unite voters, you may get a majority but the commitment is weak. Dividing the electorate creates a committed following. Even a minority can prevail, if sufficiently committed and properly led.

When PhARMA has 103 more lobbyists on Capitol Hill than there are members of Congress and they have bought Clinton, Obama and Romney, nothing will change in the right direction without a fight.

The defense and insurance industries are two others that literally call the shots in Washington. They will not play nice. They will not volunteer to make meaningful concessions.

It took a fight to tame the tobacco industry, even with majority support. The fight will not be easy but it must be fought. It also must be fought with great ingenuity. The President has a Bully Pulpit. More importantly, he has levers and resources that are rusty from disuse.

Given that Clinton's and Obama's campaigns depend so heavily on the oppostion for funding and staff, Edwards is the only candidate on whom to lay our support.

Perhaps he could have his hair professionally mussed up. I really don't care how much he pays for a haircut. There are issues of great import confronting us. We need someone willing to fight. We need someone free to fight. Fighting for those who cannot fight for themselves is an honorable endeavor.

[LyricalLexicon]

There is no compromising with corporate interests, they are motivated by their bottom line not the welfare of the people. Edwards is the only one who will take on these people head on without backing down.

[LeeFromVA]

Any Democratic President is going to have a fight on their hands. The best way to overcome that is to have the support of the people. Obama is attracting independents and, yes, many Republicans into the fold. He will be able to do for the Democrats what Ronald Reagan did for the Republicans. Reagan had the support of many Dems and was able to move forward on his policies. Obama as president, with the support of the American people behind him, will be enabled to move forward on progressive ideas. Not sure why this concept is so foreign to Democrats? Probably because we haven't seen that since Reagan. Think about it. Every president since has been polarizing. The time is ripe for Obama.

[breakfast]

"Can't we all just get along?"

It's the fascism, stupid.

Impeach

[unchainthedogs]

Nice post. I agree with every word. EDWARDS 2008!

[WorkingClass]

The notion of cooperating with Republicans is insane. The Republicans must be destroyed. Also the Blue dogs and the DLC must be destroyed.

[JoeSun]

The writer of this article has fallen into a false meme pedalled by the Edwards' fanboys.

Obamas policies are about concilliation. Does that mean that he will compromise with Republicans on every single issue? No.

Obama as stated in his book that he believes the way to bring about change is to work together on issues where Democrats and Republicans have common ground. abortion, gun rights, and stem cell research are areas where Republicans do not see eye to eye, but there are some issues that Democrats and Republicans do share. Both parties want to restore the competitiveness of our educational system. Both parties want fairer trade with China. Both parties want to create jobs. Both parties want to restore America's prestige. I am sure that Barack Obama is the man who can bring talent from disparate sides of the political spectrum and mobilize it to produce change.

He did it in Illinois.

He did it in the Senate.

He will do it as President of the United States.

[factanonverba]

In the last year since the Democratic Party won control of both houses of Congress, the American people have in large part almost begged the leadership of the Congress to show some backbone and deliver on some their promises. That meant taking on the Administration and waging a battle. To believe as Mr. Obama does that we should let bygones be bygones and reach out across the aisle and reach an accommodation with the Republicans. Are you serious? Where has this man been? Under a rock? Certainly not in the Senate, otherwise he might have a few bruises and better off for it, ideally at least wiser. Does honestly think that neo-con wing of the GOP is going to just acquiesce and surrender their goals? Look at what they did to the Clinton Presidency. Look at the pernicious and never-ending attacks on Al Gore. Do you remember the Swift Boating of John Kerry? As progressive liberals, our values of tolerance and belief in the system sometimes do not serve us well. We fail to fight the good fight. I am more than battered after the last 7 years and I see an America that I haven't seen when I was a boy. Nooses in Jena, Louisiana and New York City. I see poverty in our inner cities that is not found in Europe and resembles more a Latin American favela. I see public housing being razed in New Orleans and the school system privatized and you want me to work with the Republicans? Mr. Obama you are a naive sycophant. Yours would be a disasterous Presidency, an inept one. Clinton too offers little but more of the same but at least she is competent.

[GurkenheimerLouie]

I like your post. You summed up my feelings exactly. I liked Chris Dodd best, but I share the concerns you have regarding the three top candidates. I have not quite made up my mind.

[rssrai]

Excuse me, populism is not old. Huckabee is a populist and if Obama is the democratic nomine and Huckabee is the repug nominee I may very well go with the populist over Obama. Obama has stolen every thing that JRE spouts only in a weaker way. JRE is the real thing and Obama is a wannabe. Huckabee is the real thing. I will take real over a fake wannabe any day.

[tiye110870]

The REPUBLICANS are WAFFLING, so, to take a message from LL COOL J..."MAMA SAID KNOCK YOU OUT"!

That's it, SIMPLE, just KNOCK THEM OUT, NO TRIANGULATION, NO HOPE, NO COMPROMISE, NO "WORKING FOR CHANGE" CRAP...JUST, KNOCK THEM OUT!!!!!!!

And the only "VIABLE" DEMOCRAT that I see that meets this "BACKBONE STANDARD" and hasn't "dropped out" of the race at this point, is EDWARDS.

[cblcar]

Yes, in not voting for Biden, Iowa has screwed the nation royally.

[happytrails]

We must keep asking Hillary what she stands FOR, other than getting herself elected. We must demand specifics. Does she have a vision for the future? Is she willing to FIGHT for change? Iowa is a good start to disposing of her candidacy.

And those of us who want to see a woman president must signal our disappointment in her.