I'm what they call a "left conservative." That means someone who remembers when progressives were united around a vision of global economic justice, someone who cautioned against the displacement of that vision during the rise of an otherwise completely righteous identity politics in the '70s.
In a nutshell, it means someone who realizes that, while it is a sign of progress when Richard Parsons and Carly Fiorina can become CEOs of major corporations--it is not fundamental progress, it does not change the nature of institutions.
Apart from good ole' Dennis, hapless as he is, John Edwards is the candidate who comes closest to reviving that old vision. And yet, somehow, I just can't be for the guy. I'm a bit embarrassed about my reasons, they are so superficial--his naked ambition, his smoothness and, yes, his hair: it adds up to a package I just don't trust. His commitment is palpable, but it feels like a lawyer's commitment, a professional commitment, a determination to win whatever case he has.
But with Obama? Well, it is passing strange. With the exception of Iraq, his positions are as centrist and vague as his rhetoric. His ties to big money are established. But he's got something else--no, he is something else.
Bill Clinton said it best, actually--while he was slicing and dicing Barack on the Charlie Rose show. Just a Symbol of Change, he opined, not an Agent of Change. Like Hillary (say what?).
As an old-fashioned leftie I should be skeptical of a mere symbol, shouldn't I? Well, it depends. Obama is a very special symbol. He transcends the culture wars and identity politics simply in virtue of who he is. Andrew Sullivan gets it right in a recent piece called--Goodbye To All That. Exactly. Enough with us boomers and our ancient grievances.
Sullivan also emphasizes the impact of an Obama presidency on a world that now fears and despises us. Just the fact of it. Just the face. Just the name. At a stroke, America secures a new beginning--in its own eyes as well. Nothing else could do it so decisively. So what if he's inexperienced? He's smart. He's a quick study. He'll listen to Dick Holbrooke and Joe Biden and he'll make those sensible, centrist decisions. He's no radical, he's shown that, Lord knows--he'll be as deliberate and pragmatic in office as he's been in the campaign.
It's not the policy, stupid, it's the symbolism. Obama actually embodies what he represents. That means he doesn't just represent change. He is change.
Frederick Douglass said" Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground.... Power concedes nothing without demand. It never did and it never will." Frederick Douglass would have been appalled at political correctness. Silly man! He thought the truth was the answer.
Let me say that I was drawn to this web site and forum after reading your book "Mediated" which I consider to be an EXCELLENT commentary on the effects of mass media on society, culture, psychology, and politics.
Ass-kissing aside, let's not fall victim to idolatry here, and elect someone primarily because they "appear" to send a "message" to the "world" and can offer white Americans an opportunity to absolve themselves for the original sins of this republic. If all this seems too rosy, too religous, or almost too Hollywood to be true, it's because it is. It is a pleasant illusion to think that a well-spoken, inexperienced young lawyer with a mixed heritage and no apparent establishment ties can handle executive responsibilities by virtue of, well, his virtue. We're not voting for a new Pope here, we need tenacity in the name of the lower middle class, the poor, and the Constitution. Obama will be slaughtered in a general election if we are naive enough to give him this nomination, unless the Democrats are willing to systematically rig elections in key states as the GOP has proven themselves willing to do.
Consider this, as Vice President to Edwards, Obama will be the best diplomat and "face-man" we could have to reengage the world community as the moral beacon and guradian we once were. All the while, Edwards can do the dirty work of taking healthcare and corporate feudalism to task, which he's done most of his life.
Think about it.
"It seems I should be for John Edwards --so why am I for Obama"
I think you answered your own question with this comment:
"""I'm what they call a "left conservative."""
Edwards is a tad more to the "Left" than Obama.
Kucinich is the most "Left"of the candidates and therefore my favorite. I am supporting Hillary Clinton because she is the best of the Bunch as far as Strength, Ability and is Electable!!!
I believe Hillary will be more of Bill. This will not be a good thing as they both have sold out their ideals in order to stay in office. And Obama's vision is too undefined and plays on our desire to get rid of Bush without giving us too many details of what he will bring to the White House. I'm not sure if this vision is real or a manipulation in the same way the Republicans have manipulated the evangelicals, talking in language that appears to promise what they want and then not delivering once in office. In short, Obama is too vague. He is a crap shoot that I don't think I can chance at this moment in time.
I think we have to decide what the job is that needs to be done and then elect the person who will commit to doing it...and does it! By reading their records, we can attempt to predict which candidate will walk the walk. If you believe as I do that the job involves establishing non-profit, single payer healthcare system, a recommitment to the Constitution and habeas corpus, campaign finance reform, a turn around of our public schools, a socially conscious budget, an end to partisanship and a foreign policy based on negotiation and diplomacy first, then perhaps voting for a symbol is not the wisest choice at this moment in time.
And so when Big Tuesday arrives in February, my choice will be between Kucinich and Edwards. I believe their records show what they stand for and their actions demonstate their commitment.
Hillary would bring out Republican die-hards in droves, and would bring losses up and down the ticket.
Could she win? Yes, if everything breaks her way, she could eke out a 50.1% to 49.9% win...as Gore did.
But she is clearly not the best shot.
Edwards is far too much of a lefty to have any appeal to Independents or moderate Republicans.
Obama may share their views on the issues, but he comes across as someone who will listen to other views and do the right thing. He is honest, he is authentic.
To those who say he can't win because of his skin color, I say just watch. That is an absurd argument. The 5% of the country who feel that way are voting Republican no matter what.
If you want a winner, go with Obama. Or go down in flames in November.
Still, who can help but like Dennis Kucinich? Who wouldn't want to rally behind John Edwards as he attacks the self-serving rich? Who doesn't think that Biden is like "papa"--that father who knows best and still has the humor to be real?
Yet, President Washington, President Lincoln, President Obama--who cannot see the change just in the kind of name that follows the title? It seems almost unreal, yet it is as real as tomorrow's headlines. It is change. And, Barack embodies the change that he represents. He is change that is real, that we can count on.