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.
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.
It's the fascism, stupid.
Impeach
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.
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.
And those of us who want to see a woman president must signal our disappointment in her.