It Seems I Should Be For John Edwards -- So Why Am I For Obama?

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.

Comments

[SSmith8562]

All the Repubs I know in here in Dixie won't even call Obama by his rightful name. They just laugh and say that there is no way they'll vote for 'Hussein.' (Don't get them started on Clinton ...) The only Democrat they'd vote for is John Edwards. Let's face reality. Sexism and racism is at the heart of the GOP. There isn't enough time to change their minds in this election cycle. Social experimentation aside, we can't afford another so called moral victory. Too much is at stake here such as future Supreme Court nominees. Don't waste your vote in the general election by wasting your vote in the primary.

Our best chance at regaining the White House IS JOHN EDWARDS.

For those Obama fans out there, please compare and contrast his policy issues with those of Edwards. Aside from Edwards having the most complete, comprehensive platform of all the candidates, he came out with his policies long before Obama did! As the late great, Oscar Wilde said "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery."

[joebhed]

Very intelligent posts here.
This page should be scribed as a public education piece that every PoliSci student in the country gets to kick around the classroom, if they still have those.
Present scription excepted, of course.
Like Tom, I know I should be supporting Mr. Kucinich, without a doubt, but for some reason I am stuck on voting for John Edwards at this point.
And, I admit, it is early.
Time will tell us all a lot more about these candidates than we know now.
They must first serve a term as the potential-­candidate, which some are doing better than ever.
I think the problem with Barack is that he has too long a term as a candidate-elect.
At some point, people are just going to demand more than slogans and symbols.
Meanwhile, I am hearing John Edwards' message more and more clearly as something that I happen to believe in.
We need a revolution to get back in control of American politics.
And we very well know who the bad guys are.
And I know that Hillary does not believe in that revolution against the bad guys. If she is not one of the bad guys, she has slept with one of them.
And, please excuse this, but I need to hear Barack calling a spade a spade.
It definitely ain't there yet.
Edwards was last election's "hope" candidate.
He is far from perfect, and, again, it is early.
The real problem is that we are dealing with a corporatel­y-controll­ed electoral system that supports both parties, and so we find ourselves talking about our choices from within an obscenely limited set of possibilities. This or that primary in this or that red or blue state, leading up to the elctoral college vote of representatives chosen by political cronies who serve at the "pleasure" of party contributors.
Makes you want to stay home some times.
Maybe that's the point.

[NABNYC]

Obama's appeal to an old lefty is clear. He is a good-looking, highly-successful member of one of our nation's most oppressed minority groups. His very success is deemed by many as a "symbol" of how wonderful our country is, and how "we" have succeeded in overcoming racial oppression, as demonstrated by the fact this young man is a successful candidate for president. We look at him, he speaks the magic words and gives us that terrific grin, and we all get hallmark goosebumps and think "Yes, he can save us."

And for everyone who might feel guilty in realizing that this country did exactly almost nothing to help blacks integrate fully into our society, or who realizes that many blacks still live in "black" neighborhoods and their kids go to "black" schools,(now legally sanctioned by the fascists on the Supreme Court), and they continue to have less opportunity, earn less money, get hired last and fired first, have worse health, worse health-care, and die younger than whites just because they are black, and just because they are denied opportunity, then the idea of a black president seems to erase the reality of the dismal failure of this society to do anything meaningful to eradicate the effects of centuries of racism.

When you look beyond the obvious, there's not much else there. Obama's policies are not quite so Republicansas Hillary's are, but they are awfully close. He has not taken any positions that would be considered far outside the mainstream Republican party -- what the Republicans were before the fascists took over. A nice-looking black young Republican man.

Vote Edwards. A millworker's son who is openly admitting that the politicians are all on the take, and the system has got to change.

[demockracy]

Both Obama and Hillary are trying to out-muscle even Bush when it comes to the military (see www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/06/15/war_budget/)

A relevant excerpt: "Among presidential candidates, only Rep. Dennis Kucinich and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson even mention the possibility of cutting the defense budget. Indeed, presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are now competing with each other in their calls for expansion of the armed forces. Both are supporting manpower increases in the range of 80,000 to 100,000 troops, mostly for the Army and the Marines. (The current, Bush-backed authorization for fiscal year 2008 calls for the addition of 65,000 Army recruits and 27,000 Marines by 2012.)"

In addition, Obama's health care proposals are much *worse* than Hillary's (and she's the biggest recipient of health care insurance money). See www.nytimes.com/2007/12/07/opinion/07krugman.html?hp, for just one example. Sure, Jonathan Alter says confrontation is going to get us nothing, so Obama is lulling the opposition into believing he's one of them...

Except, don't we want a guy who says what he'll deliver rather than faith in some kind of legislative underhandedness? Haven't we had enough head fakes? As Thomas Frank says: The Christian right voted for no abortion or gay marriage and got tax breaks for the rich and a war in Iraq.

Is there something about liberals that makes them believe they are immune to this kind of deception too?

[leftbehind2000]

I hear what you are saying Mr. de Zengotita. And, being very similar in persuasion, I started out from the same place you find yourself.

I know I won't convince you of anything. Hell, it's very likely you won't even read this. But I have a grave concern about Obama after seeing him in action over the past few months.

The symbolism I get. Having a man of color in the White House would be a tremendous thing. But after the inauguration - after all the hoopla, the ceremonies and the high 5's, how will Mr. Obama LEAD?

With a platform as vague as his is, and with a new and inexperienced President already beholden to special interests, will he survive?

We can't afford a failed Dem presidency right now any more than we can afford to have another Republican in the White House.

For all of the surface negative Edwards exhibits (as a balding middle-aged white man, I too can understand these as well), he has a very clear vision and presents a very clear message. He represents a very clear change of direction from the last 8 years. Let's not kid ourselves - from the last 30 years.

Only Edwards (sans Kucinich) espouses a return to the great society represented by New Deal democrats as built by FDR, reinforced by JFK and upheld by the Warren SCOTUS.

With Obama as VP in this environment, this candidate who represents the SYMBOL we all embrace can mature into the LEADER we all want.

[Brickfielder]

The message that America would send to the rest of the world, by voting symbolically instead of realistically, is that you've totally lost it. Washington is not Hollywood.

Like the rest of Australia I watched in disbelief the last time you elected a nice guy like George Bush over a candidate palpably more competent than he was, but who didn't understand that playing at president is what gets you elected.

We do not want messages. We want an America that knows what it's doing.

[cuthbertallgood]

I am not in favor of bringing Evangelists to the table to discuss the rights of people they detest. I am not in favor of giving hate preachers a platform at official party events. I don't like the religionism out of the GOP with Dobson and Robertson, but I am equally opposed to it out of Obama with his McClurkin and his Hezikiah Walker. I guess you are ok with pandering to reactionary churchs, as long as it is done with a D after the name?

[pithy]

We ned a scrapper right now, to back the repugs into a corner and undo the damage they've done to the country, both domestically and abroad.

As much as I like the "idea" of Obama, I think they'll eat him alive in Washington - as they did the high-minded Jimmy Carter who simply didn't know how to play the game.

Edwards has been a shark in the courtroom - but a shark with a heart for the right causes. He knows how to play the game and has the balls the Dems need to start pushing back instead of always caving in.

Edwards is my guy - and I think the media has waaay underestimated him.

Send him some dough today, if you can!

[CatfishJohn]

....of all people, that old right wing curmudgeon robert novak said it most concisely and said it best when a few months a o he stated soemthing to the effect of "leave it to the espresso and quiche deomcrats to nominate a woman or a minority when any reasonable white male candidate ( e.g. edwards, dodd, biden) would win after the failure upon failure of bushco...d­ont know where you are writing from sir, but int eh all important and vital battleground states of kentucky, missouri, w. va,. ohio, iowa and even virginia that are going to be up for grabs in 2008, a candidate as - and i am sorry to say this- "demographically difficult" for those folks with a middle name of hussein top boot CANNOT WIN those states...s­ymbolism is nice in the theathre and the arts, but Dems urgently need a true and capable liberal with a backbone like edwards- and alas, a white one- not an opportunisitc, chameleon-like female or minority candidate.­...if battleground/border state went for bush based on the southern strategy/ red state "wink and nod' racism in 2000 and 2004, what makes you think obama will somehow swell a tide of progressivism and tolerance in 2008 ????...tha­t notion alone is utterly quixotic--- with or without the broadscale failures of bushco. ....

[anonposter]

Beware all "Left Conservatives". Beware of Rove dirty tricks and "Conservative" postings. Just remember that Rove offered to help Obama's campaign to help him beat Hillary - so why would Rove want to beat Hillary - because he knows Hillary has the best chance of winning in the general election but Obama doesn't. I sincerely hope that Obama isn't associating himself with Rove or Rovian tactics because it would ruin his reputation and credibility with anyone decent and cost him the election. Question all the MOTIVES for Republican­/Conservat­ive postings and articles and don't buy-in to anything without first giving it careful consideration. An election is not just another football game or a popularity contest - it's purpose is to chose someone who represents YOUR viewpoint to run the country for the next 4 years - not "the crowds" viewpoint or the most popular viewpoint. Think everything through for yourself don't just follow the crowd- the crowd is blindly running itself over a cliff almost always.

[Steamboater]

Since when is ambition, naked or clothed, even in an expensive suit, a sin? And as for Edwards' hair and costly cut, so what? I couldn't care less about those things. Give me someone who knows what he's doing and gives a shit about the poor and middle class. Sure, Obama cares but he does have little experience. Symbols are nice but that and several quarters wouldn't get you on a bus. Edwrads is a sharp speaker too. He's a lawyer. Words and how to work them to negotiate is what we need. Look at the reckless imbecile who's in the White House now. Not only does he have contempt for the law but he can't even put a sentence together. Edwards can do it all and he has the experience and know-how to do so. Obama doesn't, and he won't win the general election. As I've said before, the GOP will play the race card. It won't be upfront by sly and devious and their message will get through and we'll have another republican thug in the White House.

[esl]

Oh, you mean change in that a rich black kid raised by white grandparents can become president? What it would prove it that money is more important than skin color. But if truth be told most Obama support comes from old time liberal men who just can't stand the thought of a woman president. Liberal only goes so far, you know.

[tbone99]

Good question to yourself Thomas . Why do you support someone who you admit is a symbol.?
Reality 101
Since announcing his candidacy for the Illinois Senate seat, Obama has raised the astonishing sum of nearly $21 million and has built close relationships with a number of traditional fat-cat donors. one of Obama's leading career patrons is Skadden, Arps ($53,271, according to the most recent disclosure filings), a leading corporate law firm .

Several of the firm's lawyers donated money to Obama and also helped raise money for him as well, icluding a corporate litigator at Skadden who has represented major financial firms in consumer class-action suits.

Others who have helped raise funds for Obama's Leadership PAC include John Gorman of Texas-based Tejas Securities, a major funder of Senate Democrats (and of the Bush presidential campaigns) and Winston & Strawn, the Chicago-based law and lobbying firm. Individual contributors to Obama include some of the best-connected lobbyists in town, including Jeffrey Peck (whose clients include MasterCard, the Business Roundtable, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce) and Rich Tarplin (Chevron, the American Petroleum Institute, and the National Association of Manufacturers).

Exelon, a leading nuclear-plant operator based in Illinois, is a big donor to Obama, and its executive and employees have given him more than $70,000 since 2004 and $159,800 to his campaign this year. A plant operated by Exelon had leaked tritium several times over the past decade.

In one of his earliest votes as a senator, Obama helped pass a class-action “reform” bill that was a long-standing goal of business groups. (The bill was the focus of a significant lobbying effort by financial firms, who constitute Obama's second-biggest single bloc of donors.)

The bill was also heavily championed by high-tech firms. Shortly after the vote, dozens of big-donor executives affiliated with a PAC called TechNet came to Washington . The agenda was top-heavy with White House officials and congressional Republicans, but Obama was picked to address the PAC’s policy lunch.

[Qbear]

"John Edwards got some good news today. Q-Notes - the “leading gay news source of the Carolinas” - decided to endorse the controversially coiffed candidate. From Out For Edwards:

After a series of meetings between the editors, the staff and the publisher, Q-Notes has endorsed John Edwards for President. His concrete, progressive policy positions (including steadfast support for pro-LGBT issues), his commitment to returning power to the people from moneyed special interests, his outstanding polling strength against the Republicans and his positive impact for down-ticket candidates nationwide combine to make him the best candidate in the race.

Q-Notes encourages all lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender voters to support John Edwards in the primaries and beyond.
We’re not sure we’re going to take you up on that offer, Q-Notes. We’re still undecided, but rest assured we’ll be taking a stand soon enough."

http://www.queerty.com/

[Nutcase]

Strange. Really strange.

All of those reasons for Edwards (you forgot Biden) and you go for something far, far less.

Centrist? Such as the DLC? Such as NAFTA? Just what does he offer beyond putatively being some vague symbol? How about a hint? Nothing.

Another vague symbol flashes before my eyes. Do you remember that candidate who represented Compassionate Conservatism?

Centrist? Given the problems facing us, many caused by centrists, why would that be a positive?

He wants to bring people to the table. Well, Pakistan is on the front burner right now. Will he be able to bring all of those elements to the table now that they have, for now, finished rioting over his wonderful insight?

He is now reportedly moving to become a populist at the last minute to steal some of Edwards upsurge in Iowa. He said the right words but do those listening know of his support of the free trade that is taking their jobs?

If one looks too closely, Obama doesn't even stand up as a symbol of change.

One last problem: people are not always honest. They may say that they are willing to vote for a Black. They may say that but any margins he holds over any of the Republican candidates are small enough to be obviated by the difference between what they say and what they do.

Do you want to gamble on that small margin and chance a Republican taking advantage of the racism that lurks beneath the surface?

Losing even part of that margin will translate to fewer Congressional and state candidates riding the wave into office. What a sorry outcome awaits us in return for supporting a novelty. If novelty is what you want, the first women candidate could lead us down the same path.