The Nation magazine endorses.....

[Armstead]

....No one specific yet.

But they do discount Hillary and seem to give wary support to both Edwards and Obama. It is more favorable to Edwards ultimately.

Most important, they say, is the need a coalescing of progressives to form a movement to hold all of the candidates' feet to the fire.


http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080107/editors

Excerpt:
With Democrats running left and Republicans slouching right, we believe this election presents a historic opportunity to precipitate a progressive realignment. There is ferment in the air, a yearning for change and for a resuscitation of America's most inspired dreams of justice and equality. The kindling is in place, but the right spark has not yet been struck. There is a danger that many of this campaign's most contentious issues could find resolution in policies even more malign than the status quo......

.....What is needed most now is not a candidate but a movement to surround that candidate, to brace his or her resolve, to press for the best platform and to hold him or her accountable for implementing it if elected. For this reason, we choose not to endorse a candidate for President at this time but rather to call for the rise of a broadly based small-d democratic movement, as only such a movement can create the space necessary to realize this moment's full potential. Nonetheless, we see differences among the candidates that reflect their relative willingness and ability to foster this movement and advance its agenda....

...The leading Democratic contenders--Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama--have been covered from various points of view in these pages. There are aspects of each candidate and campaign to be admired, and also those that cause concern. Hillary Clinton has proven herself a dedicated centrist, and when the center moves left, she has shown, she can move too.....(However), a Hillary Clinton administration could see a revival of her husband's advisers and their procorporate neoliberal policies. Certainly the presence of familiar and high-priced pollsters and lobbyists in the upper echelons of her campaign, as advisers and donors, is a worrisome sign. (Both Obama and Edwards have declined lobbyist donations.) The experience Clinton touts is likely to frustrate the change she promises. To be sure, her election would represent a historic breakthrough for women, and a Clinton presidency even modestly responsive to an ascendant left would be far better than a Clinton presidency triangulating in the wake of the Reagan revolution. But there's little reason to believe it would make ample space for a progressive agenda.

In contrast, Barack Obama and John Edwards are reaching for new ground. Each also presents the risks--and promises--of unknown potential.....

...Edwards is the campaign that has most effectively responded to the spirit of progressive populism that lifted Congressional Democrats to victory in 2006.



MORE

[wyldwolf]

1. I have a great idea! They should endorse...

Cynthia McKinney!

[Armstead]

2. I think they should endorse Hillary, just to see your reaction

[wyldwolf]

12. My reaction would be: "WOW! I can't wait to see 'progressives''* reactions!!"

[Renew Deal]

3. Didn't they endorse Lieberman in 2004?

I kind of remember that.

[Armstead]

5. I find that hard to believe

[cali]

6. Certainly not. You're thinking of the New Republic

Anyone who reads The Nation would never make such a suggestion.

[Renew Deal]

14. Yes, you are correct!

Thanks!

[cyclezealot]

11. Not only been a nation reader for 20 years

but, a Nation associate. Each year we send cash to support their investigative team. Lieberman. You are really off base. A Nation on line poll voted Kucinich number one by its readers. The vote was like 2-1 to the next highest nominee. Edwards. Hillary only got like 4% of teh vote. Not that it's readership reflects the magazines' positions. But, I'd say they need consider their readers views if they want to continue having us be a Nation Associate.

[frazzled]

13. They endorsed Howard Dean in 2004

It looks like they won't be making an official primary endorsement this time.

[Armstead]

17. Not yet...They seem to have left the door open

They said they are not making an endorsement "at this time."

I think they are witholding judgement, and making the broader point that progressives have to unite behind someone. They just haven;t said who they believe it should be yet.

[frogmarch]

4. Thanks, Armstead

The Nation certainly recognizes progressive populism when they see it, and they, like so many of the rest of us, see it in John Edwards. :thumbsup:

[Vincardog]

7. Does everyone have to ignore Dennis Kucinnich?

[Armstead]

9. From the article:

"In his stands on the issues, Dennis Kucinich comes closest to embodying the ideals of this magazine.... A vote for him would be a principled one.

But for reasons that have to do with the corrupting influence of money and media on national elections as well as with his campaign's shortcomings--such as its failure to organize a grassroots base of donors and web activists--a democratic mass movement has not coalesced around Kucinich's run for President. The progressive vision is there, but the strategy necessary to win and then govern is lacking. In most cases, the rules of the Iowa caucus require that a candidate reach 15 percent of the vote to achieve "viability"; supporters of candidates who fail to do so can choose another candidate. Simply put, many Iowans will soon face a question that the rest of us may have to answer later: if not Dennis, then who? "

[Kolesar]

15. Dennis got all of 4% in my congressional district, 20 miles east of Cleveland

I don't think he yielded any delegates to the convention from any Ohio district. Oh well.

[Snotcicles]

18. Was that pre or post Blackwell? nt

[ozone_man]

16. If not Kucinich, then Edwards.

The next most progressive candidate. I think he should let Clinton and Obama fight it out for the corporate wing of the Party, while he takes the ball and runs left. It's the winning strategy, because that's where core Democratic principles lie, not in corporate economics. Plus there's a huge opening for a populist to rally the masses caught in the collapsing economy. The two Americas message is finally going to get some traction.

[Warpy]

8. "Wary support to Edwards"

should be the watch word. After all, he campaigned as a populist to gain his Senate seat in NC and then voted like a conservative.

I love his rhetoric, it's spot on. But yes, my support is wary.

For me it's between Richardson and Edwards with Dodd a close third.

[joeybee12]

10. I like The nation, but they whine too much...

...like when the Register endosred Hilary, they dissected the reasons for that. Now, if they were a nwesmagazine that was in the sole business of critiquing the media, then fine, but they aren't. Slamming the endorsement smells of sour grapes. Endorse whoever you want and let others endorse whoever they want.

[Tejanocrat]

19. Here's my favorite excerpt:

"On the campaign trail Edwards has displayed a smart, necessary partisanship--denouncing corporate power and its crippling influence on government. He has argued with conviction that government does best when it does more for its citizens. ... In a series of bold initiatives, he has called for an end to poverty in thirty years, universal healthcare, a hike in the minimum wage to $9.50 by 2012 and an 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050--accomplished in part by the creation of a green-collar jobs corps. His policy proposals are not always perfect, but they are uncommonly detailed and crafted in conjunction with progressive organizations. Most important, his programs were announced first, and they clearly pushed Clinton and Obama in a progressive direction. His healthcare plan stops short of a single-payer program, but it unapologetically includes employer mandates and tax increases. Likewise, although he voted for the Iraq War and his plan to end it doesn't commit to full and immediate withdrawal, he has repudiated that vote and proposes a faster pullout than his two main rivals. And Edwards is the only leading candidate to connect the war and the home front, bravely arguing that an ambitious domestic agenda would require cuts to the military budget. His is the campaign that has most effectively responded to the spirit of progressive populism that lifted Congressional Democrats to victory in 2006.

[nealmhughes]

20. I'll take Edwards to win, Kucinich to show and Obama to place is obviously

what they wanted to write but could not bring themselves so to do.

You know, for purely pragmatic reasons, I second that order. With a bet like that, one can't be off for Nation readers and editors.

[Armstead]

21. kick