Why Edwards May Be The Best Choice For Women and Blacks

The choice in 2008 may not be between a historic vote for a "black" or a woman candidate and a vote for another white guy, it may be between symbolic and concrete progress. Electing Obama or Clinton would be an amazing symbolic triumph, but putting a black or female face in the White House doesn't necessarily do anything for the concrete living conditions of black Americans and women.

Because these groups are disproportionately poor, the quickest way to make a real difference for them is to reduce class inequality. And only Edwards is making class inequality a central part of his platform. So, ironically, the best choice for blacks and women may be the white guy.

Of course, I'd like to see both symbolic and concrete progress, but it looks like we're going to have to choose. In that case, it's not obvious to me that symbolic progress wins out over a concrete improvement in the daily lives of the groups that Obama and Clinton represent. What do you think?

Comments

[kirotahoe]

the only two weapons the people have to combat the inequality factor are the vote and economic boycott.

since boycott is impossible we're left to vote. and what a quagmire a national election is. how many ways are there to unduly influence an election, let me count the ways.

this is why not only must the democrats vote for a formidable candidate, they must vote in overwhelming numbers. why? because that is the only way to insure a correct result. as we have seen in too many elections now, anything remotely close can be stolen. only if the great sleeping public can recognize a fraud can we be sure of accuracy.

i would also suggest that by far the most important way an individual can influence government, and therefore the inequity of our society, is to be active in local government. even if it is just to familiarize yourself and vote. government power trickles upstream. if enough change happens locally, by definition it will change the national paradigm.

i like edwards/obama

[RobtBrock]

Edwards couldn't carry his home state. Nothing to see here...mov­e along.

[LeftLeaner]

I have been touting Edwards as the obvious candidate who's platform is to support the middle class and less fortunate and banning influential lobbyist groups from his Administration.

After carefully scrutinizing both Hillary and Obama's record, as well as considering the influence of their huge war chests from Powerful Special Interests, I made Edwards my choice months ago.

My commitment went so far as to making a contribution of $250 between me and my out of work husband.

We are so frustrated that the public is being manipulated by the MEDIA, and missing the forest from the trees.

EDWARDS is the man of the people, not the other two, and noboby's listening.

EDWARDS is my CANDIDATE as long as he hangs in there.

EDWARDS in '08.

[pithy]

Hadn't thought about it that way, but I do agree -

As a woman and a staunch democrat, I would like to have voted for a woman for president - but I've never even considered voting for HRC. The blow-back she'd get from the Repugs would make her presidency useless - just four years of Limbaugh, multiplied by hundreds, screaming at us day and night.

I've supported Edwards from the start because he's dead on about the insidious tentacles of corporate greed wrapping around everything in sight and squeezing the life out of our democracy.

I hope people who are on the fence might consider at least voting for Edwards in the primary, if only to teach the MSM that the pundits are NOT writing the script for our lives.

[RepublicanBrain]

Or, we could pick a sensible candidate who would cut spending, making things better for all people rather then just a few.

Vote for McCain or Paul.

[Wilburrr]

A northern liberal will not carry the South in the general election.