The Edwards Imperative: Because The Politics Of Compromise Have Failed
Edwards should be Democratic nominee because he is the most progressive and electable of the top three candidate and the only one who understands that entrenched interests like the telecoms, banks, credit card issuers, health insurers and oil companies aren't voluntarily going to make some sort of "bipartisan happy consensus" that costs them billions of dollars and a ton of power, whether doing so saves millions of lives, trillions of dollars and makes the country prosperous and safe or not.
Just is not happening.
And anyone who thinks it is (hello, Mr. Obama) is both living in a fantasy land and certainly is suffering from amnesia, because nothing, nothing in the last 30 years, indicates that megacorporations are giving up any power, even a small amount, without a fight to the death.
Strike you as over the top? Why then, for example, did oil companies insist on continued subsidies when they were making record profits? When was the last time health insurance companies were okay with any expansion of universal health care, unless as with the Medicare drug benefit, it was going to make them even more money? And let's all remember the record industry, who think that they own music you bought, and that you're only renting it and can neither give it away, sell it or even, much of the time, copy it for your own use.
The filthy rich haven't become richer than any time in U.S. history because they were willing to give any sucker an even break, and only a sucker would expect folks like Scaife, Mellon and Murdoch to "compromise" when they've been winning by not giving an inch.
We could go through policy positions and compare the candidates, one to an another, and the end result would show that Edwards is slightly more progressive than Clinton and Obama: a slightly better Iraq plan, a health care plan that is about equivalent to Clinton's and better than Obama's, a much better rapport with labor, and so on.
But that's not what this nomination battle is about. All three candidates are offering basically progressive policies, minus the big promise to definitely get out of Iraq post-haste.
And the question isn't even, really, do you believe them, though for the record I have real doubts about Clinton and Obama. However others don't, and that's fine -- in most respects its a gut-check thing, all of them have checkered pasts with some votes that are less than sterling, so in every case each of us has to decide, "Do I really believe this candidate this time?"
Instead we need to ask, while taking them at face value, does their plan to actually push through a progressive plan make sense?
Clinton says that she's got the experience to make it work. Even granting that being the first lady allows her to take credit, the fact is that the Clinton years saw the Democrats lose both the House and the Senate and saw Bill Clinton put through many bills that were, to put it kindly, essentially conservative in nature. And Hillary Clinton's one big moment in the sun, healthcare reform, ended with her being given a resounding drubbing by the health insurance lobby. She was never given such an important policy position again by her husband. Voting for Clinton is taking on an old scarred fighter with a bad win/loss record. And all of this is before we get to Mark Penn, the union-buster, being her chief right hand man.
Then there's Barack "Consensus" Obama. It's hard to even take this seriously. In 2007 the Republicans in Congress killed, through technical filibusters, almost twice as many bills as any Congress ever has. For the last 7 years, George "I won the vote that matters 5-4" Bush has ruled the country by running rough-shod over the opposition party, giving them essentially nothing. There has been no consensus-driven voting or decision-making in the U.S. in 7 years, and there wasn't that much in the '90s, either. Oh, sure, I understand that Obama and many Americans would like to go back to the land of consensus-driven politics, where there's a center and where everyone works for what is best for America by splitting the difference. It's a pretty picture. But there's no middle left.
There's no room for splitting the difference between torturing and not torturing. There's no room for splitting the difference between selling illegal wars based on lies and not selling illegal wars based on lies. There's no room to split the difference between respecting the Constitution and not respecting the Constitution.
There's no middle left and anyone who thinks that the vast majority of Republican Senators will respond to good will is living in a world of denial. Nothing, absolutely nothing, in Republican behaviour in the last 7 years indicates that will happen. Just as nothing in the behaviour of oil companies and health insurers indicates they're interested in "compromise" when not compromising has done so very very well for them and taken them from victory to victory.
Which leaves us with John Edwards: who wants to kick ass, take names, and help the middle class stop getting reamed out by credit card companies, banks, oil companies, Wall Street and all the other invertebrates whose existence is based on sucking blood from ordinary people while denying they have any responsibility for how pale and weak the middle class has become.
Can he do it? Many Democrats, used to having their teeth kicked in for years by Republican bullies, say no. They reason that without 60 votes, they'll still have to compromise with Republicans and so they want a Compromiser-In-Chief sitting in the White House.
But compromise, tried for damn near 20 years, has gotten us nothing but our teeth kicked in, our lunch money stolen and thousands of soldiers and probably a million Iraqis dead. And strangely, despite not having 60 votes at any point during their period of rule, the Republicans got through most of what they wanted.
So perhaps the key to getting Republican votes isn't to come forwards sniveling on ones knees asking what the price for the votes is. I suggest the key is to have a president aggressively make the case that the American people want health care, want lower oil prices, want fairer credit card policies -- a president who is willing to go the wall over it.
That's what John Edwards is offering. What Obama and Clinton are offering is, in effect, nothing more than what has already been tried and failed. Clinton's experience amounted to, at best a tie, and more realistically, to a decade where the right wing got much of what it wanted. Obama's "compromising" is exactly what Daschle, Reid and Pelosi have tried to do, leading to spectacular failure and ending in a Democratic majority Congress which Republicans like more than either Democrats or Independents.
It's time for a new approach, and amongst the three front runners in the Democratic field, that means Edwards. As with FDR, if his approach works, he will be both the most loved and most hated man in America, and some will wring their hands about how divisive that is. But if "unpleasantness" is what is needed to stop going to war illegally, to end the shredding of the Constitution and to stop the destruction of the Middle Class, so be it. An unwillingness to really fight means that those who will, the Republicans, will walk all over those who won't.
The time for the failed politics of compromise is over.
Now it's time for John Edwards.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I voted for John Edwards in the 2004 primary after watching the debates. Back then he was the only guy talking about the poor and the middle class out of the whole roster of candidates. He's never wavered from that platform since.
The GOP and their buddies on TV really do not want Edwards as the Dem candidate because he's got the best shot at winning.
They want Hillary because they have the best shot with her as the candidate after years of painting her as their nemesis. I think they are also counting on the racists and xenophobes of this nation not being able to bring themselves to vote for Obama.
If the Dems truly want to win in 2008, they will nominate Edwards.
The important thing is, John Edwards has the potential to bring over countless former rethuglican voting people who are sick and tired of lies, mismanagement and outright failure and want a new direction without investing too heavily on something out of their realm.
This is why the right is praying Hillary wins it.
And the same reason they would love to see Obama take it too.
Going against Edwards would be a downright scrappy endeavour.
I did not think Edwards had it in him to carry the fight before, I was focused on Al Gore coming back... But here lately, Edwards has shown the clarity of vision to take on a fighting stance against fascism in our country and it has not only propelled him forward, it is showing that the position of leadership he is taking on has what we can see is a shaping effect on the man that is very refreshing after having so many leaders who run and hide then show mere shadows of themselves in terms of accountability and responsibility.
I am absolutely looking forward to an Edwards nomination and furthermore an Edwards Presidency.
He's got what it takes to really win all the way.
Edwards /Obama 08!
Edward's, like Clinton voted for the Bankruptcy bill, didn't stand up to the banks or credit card companies then, he talks a mean game but then that's what trial lawyers are good at.
But when it mattered, Edwards voted for the Iraq War Resolution and the Patriot Act. In addition, he along with Clinton and Obama "refused on Wednesday night to promise that they would withdraw all American troops from Iraq by the end of their first term, saying in a televised debate here that they could not predict the future challenges in Iraq."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/26/us/politics/27web-dems.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
What a pile of rubbish. Don't they think that the Iraqi people are smart and brave enough to figure out the mess they created?
Polls show the Iraqis want us out.
Most Iraqis Favor Immediate U.S. Pullout, Polls Show
Leaders' Views Out of Step With Public
By Amit R. Paley
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 27, 2006; Page A22
BAGHDAD, Sept. 26 -- A strong majority of Iraqis want U.S.-led military forces to immediately withdraw from the country, saying their swift departure would make Iraq more secure and decrease sectarian violence, according to new polls by the State Department and independent researchers.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/26/AR2006092601721.html
Yes. John Edwards is the candidate offering a new direction. He already has plans ready to go to make changes happen.
Edwards is also the candidate who leads. He was the first to present his programs to us, and he was the first to speak out on a number of key issues. When I hear Obama starting to borrow John's language on fighting corporate interests and giving people healthcare, and see Hillary using John's talking points about helping the poor, I am reminded that John is the true original thinker in this field. He leads in this campaign, and is ready to lead as president.
John Edwards reaches both democrats and republicans when he speaks in union halls. He speaks to the common interests of working men and women who need swift action to preserve their opportunities, and give them a voice in their government. Edwards is prepared and resolved to fight and win. Yes, it is time for John Edwards.
I agree!!!
Many dont like Edwards because he was a personal injury lawyer, BUT I love him because of that - he was willing to FIGHT for the underdogs and was very successful at it. We need someone to fight for us middle class now.
Edwards stands for us..
del 8300
IE 7
Hope springs eternal, doesn't it? How many of these faux elections -- contests in which the major candidates all represent minor variations in the status quo -- will we tolerate before demanding real change and overhauling our federal government?
My guess: Never, despite all the bleating on this site and elsewhere. I think I'll become a money-lender or a government contractor and join in the massive fleecing. Might as well.
Good heavens, we have to make a choice! I happen to agree that Edwards has the best chance to fight Rs to the wall, that doesn't mean I will not vote for the actual candidate who runs in the election.
If I were in Iowa, I would be voting for Edwards for the exact reasons Ian Welsh has clearly indicated. Edwards is unequivocally a fighter and has experience fighting the kind of battle we need to have. The entrenched interests need to have their heads banged against the wall or they will continue to ride roughshod over us.
I like Kucinich, but Edwards has a better chance of being elected. He isn't a bad second in this field.
Welsh is correct. Clintonwould lose a national election because toomany Americans just haate the Clintons...and that rage will propel them out of their lazyboyz to vote against her. And she has taken too much money from the defense and pharma industries, not to mention Murdoch, to be independent of these interests. Obama is too vague..I don't think I know what he would do. And this is, sadly, still a racist country. Edwards is the most electable...and he seems to be progressive. Everyone should read Naomi Klein's new book The Shock Doctrine. The Times has hired Bill Kristol. We need a progressive in the White House NOW. And we need to boycott the New York Times.
It's a fact that entrenched interests DO own many politicians, but you forgot to mention any of the entrenched interests that own Democratic polticians, such as teacher's unions, the trial lawyer lobby, AFSCME, etc. And when you refer to the "filthy rich", I assume you're including John Edwards in that group. He's the one who's building a mansion that would make Jed Clampett blush, while at the same time campaigning on the notion that the rich are at the root of our country's problems. But I guess that doesn't count, since he earned his fortune the old-fashioned way--by convincing juries that doctors are actually the cause of birth defects.
Edwards is all talk no action. His 6 years spent as a Senator did not witness even one law passed to help the middle class.
We don't need to waste the Presidency on a man who's still trying to find his political identity. Let him sit this one out. Let him actually accomplish something first. Then I'd be more than happy to vote for him.
the key to success for democrats is to get to sixty votes in the senate. otherwise, gridlock will remain. until that happens, americans will continue to grow apart.
a president has the power through vetos and now signing statements to push things through. and, as bush/cheney have proven, there are tricks to play to get your way.
if you believe in the yin and yang, it's time for the scales to swing the other way and favor the dems. however the main stream media is owned by too few peopleand through rapid, relentless and repeated impressions (usually a phrase of suggestive words) and the ability to slant the news, they point the public in any direction they want. until the press ownership is diversified, this will continue to impede any social movement.
however, i believe still in the basic goodness of my fellow man. and most of us usually come to our senses in time. after the 04 election, my faith in the u.s. was deeply wounded. then the 06 elections gave me hope again, even though the crop of dems in washington are disappointingly spineless. it is true that the numbers for change against an uncompromising president are much greater than those required with a friendly president. however, the only insurance of lasting change is to maintain a veto proof majority in congress.
the other shining light exists on the internet. the web allows individuals to exchange ideas with one another with very little interference from the powerful elite. it is our chance to take back the press. when the web is as widely viewed as the msm, then it will be possible to approach the news with a more objective outlook. that, i hope, will allow our natural unity as americans to come to the front.
i'm not sure any of the candidates for president is the answer. i am encouraged by the attrition in the congress. those retirements should help shake up the status quo. but at this time i'm leaning towards edwards.
this could be a meaningful year.
great post! and if the dem party faithful can pull their heads out for a minute, they'll give us edwards. i'm a ron paul fan, but i don't think he'll be nominated. my second choice is edwards. the only way the dems will win is edwards. he has great appeal to those of who work for a living.
John Edwards is far from a fighter. When he was in the Senate he did absolutely nothing to stand against the corporations and did nothing to create jobs for Americans.
And let's not kid ourselves: He gets paychecks from Hedge Funds.
The real test of principle is sacrifice. You can test what a man really believes by the sacrifices that he has made. Edwards has not sacrificed anything to fight poverty.
If John Edwards gets into the white house, expect another "I made a mistake" speech.
You know what, there's nothing wrong with Hillary Clinton as president. Or Barrack or John Edwards, or Dennis Kucinich, or Christopher Dodd, Bill Richardson or Joe Biden.
They would all make good presidents, and compared to King George, they're Abraham Lincoln, each and every one of them. There's a potential danger in this constant cutting down of the candidates, who are all ultimately on the same side. Because you might convince 38 % of the voters that John Edwards is the one and only choice, when another 42 % vote hillary as the Democratic nominee. Then come the night of the national election, how many of those you've convinced of her ineptitude are going to venture to the polls. Conventional wisdom says people will back their party regardless, but conventional wisdom has a habit of falling to the wayside some election nights.
I'd like to see a candidate who promises the American people, that should they get elected they would be proud to have people like Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, and Barrack Obama serving in their administration, instead of trying to undermine, belittle, and discredit each other.
There's nothing wrong with any of these people. And while it might be an interesting exercise in rhetoric to elevate one above the others, it's gotten a little tiresome. We need good people running this country, so st
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
