It makes me feel like an indecisive mugwump, but in the wake of the Iowa caucuses, I've sent money to both Edwards and Obama. In a month, I'll have to choose, but as long as they're backing each other up more than sniping, I want them both in the race.
But why not just support Obama? He's got the charisma and momentum. He's bringing in new voters, particularly young voters and independents, who could dramatically broaden the Democrats' reach. He's worked and lived in an amazingly broad range of challenging contexts. I like how he raises hopes and expectations, and therefore what voters may demand. If we back him now, he can build on Iowa's momentum, beat Hillary Clinton and have a strong chance at defeating the Republicans.
But there are also real arguments to continue supporting John Edwards. Of the three major Democratic candidates, he's taken the most forceful specific stands on poverty, health care and America's economic divides. He's spoken out the most forcefully on the war--and used scarce campaign dollars to run ads trying to pressure congress when Iraq appropriations were up for a vote. He was the first to come up with a comprehensive global warming plan. He's been the most consistent in articulating how the domination of our politics by those Teddy Roosevelt called "the malefactors of great wealth" affects every other issue that we face. Despite being vastly outspent and dismissed by the major media, he's brought these issues into the common discussion in a powerful way. I loved Obama's post-caucus sermon of hope, but Edwards gave a talk that was even stronger, as he asked what it means for a country as rich as America to leave so many people without health care, decent jobs, and a future. It's no coincidence that the parents of the young woman who died when CIGNA refused to cover her liver transplant are now joining Edwards on the campaign trail.
If all those wary of Clinton coalesce around Obama, he really would become the odds-on favorite to defeat her as the Democratic standard-bearer. That would be a fine result because both Obama and Edwards poll considerably better against the leading Republicans than does Clinton, although Edwards is the only one who beats all the Republican candidates. And because Clinton was willing to help lead us into war with Iraq, helped increase the risk of war in Iran, and hoarded so many scarce campaign dollars in 2006 that it probably cost the Democrats an even larger victory. Despite her newfound scramble to claim the mantle of "change agent," she did little or nothing to challenge Bush's destructive agenda when he was riding high in the polls, and has cozied up to problematic corporate power from her first days serving on the board of WalMart. Even if she did get in, she has the potential to radically split the Democratic Party.
So I was delighted when Obama and Edwards beat her in the Iowa caucuses. But that doesn't mean Edwards should necessarily drop out. His presence pushes Obama to deal with the hard issues of power and wealth in America--ones that, to be honest, Obama has too often skated over in recent years. If voters do develop reservations about Obama, Edwards offers a strong alternative. While Edwards obviously remains a distinct longshot, his numbers are strong enough that voters deserve at least a chance to further weigh his promise--he's more than just a symbolic candidate. And I do want to see Obama tested just at least a bit more before we hand him the nomination.
As long as Obama and Edwards don't rip each other apart (and this week they feel enough like allies for me to dream of the promise of a joint ticket), I'm continuing to donate to both of them, doing my small part to help both offer their visions to America. If I had to vote today, it would be a hard call, but I'd probably still go for Edwards, though in a few weeks I might choose differently. But for now, I'd like to see both these strong voices continue to have a shot at leading America.
Paul Rogat Loeb is the author of The Impossible Will Take a Little While: A Citizen's Guide to Hope in a Time of Fear, and Soul of a Citizen. See www.paulloeb.org To receive his articles directly email sympa@lists.onenw.org with the subject line: subscribe paulloeb-articles
Of course, 9-11 and the war-on-terra was the tactic the GOP used (with plenty of complicit 'Democrats') to shove this agenda down America's throats.
Speaking of "complicit," here is Pat Buchanan's article "Nancy Pelosi, the AIPAC Girl, Leaves War in Bush & Cheney's Hands"
http://www.postchronicle.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=11&num=70952
and while Buchanan doesn't mention it, you could practically call Hillary "Nancy's Twin" in the "AIPAC-girl" category, sandwiched as she is between Schumer and uber-neo-con Lieberman. Note that at the end of his AIPAC story, Buchanan notes that American Jewish voters DO NOT support the AIPAC agenda, by almost 80%! (A stat. that is a mirror of Israel's own polling.
Also note that at the AIPAC conference in DC this past March, the attendees stood and cheered VP Dick Cheney's most bombastic "Bomb Iran Now!" rhetoric.
http://www.aipac.org/2785_2859.asp
AIPAC, the neo-cons, the war lobby, and the radical right all support the full-on *police-state* and *war powers* agenda that Cheney and Bush represent. A clear majority of Americans REJECT this agenda, but until now, have been FROZEN OUT of national media, and Pelosi's congress, discourse.
They are playing the game very well.
I see a definite bias against John Edwards which I do NOT understand. He speaks for the poor and the middle class. We outnumber the "elite" by millions. John Edwards apeaks for me and all the people I know who are like me. This prejudice will be the ruin of our country. We need John Edwards to get us out of the horrible mess we're in. Hope and change are all well and good but they have to be backed up by definite, well-thought out plans like the ones propounded by Mr. Edwards.
The msm does their damnest to trivialize and marginalize his candidacy by ignoring him and his message.
The utmost indignity was visited upon Elizabeth Edwards when she was on hardball with tweety, who after grievously insulting all trial lawyers (which she is), he ended the interview by telling her she had a "great face". I wonder if he would have dared to say something like that to any other candidate's spouse.
On the other hand, I would have like to see him say that to bill clinton. bubba would have cleaned his clock for him!