“One America” or “Two Americas” – Important Differences in the Views of Obama and Edwards

[Time for change]

I perceive these as dark times for our country. Not only have we just endured 7 years of the worst and most lawless presidential administration in our nation’s history, along with the failure of our Congress to respond accordingly; but it appears likely that for the first time since 1972, when I first became old enough to vote in a presidential election, I will be disappointed in my Party’s choice of nominee. Yes, I’ll still vote for him or her, for reasons that I have previously explained. But if either of the two current front runners wins this nomination I will have difficulty mustering up much enthusiasm – unless I change my mind about them, which is still possible.

Since 1972, my main criteria for feeling good about the Democratic nominee has been adherence to the general liberal principles of the Democratic Party, going at least as far back as FDR and his New Deal. In domestic affairs, that means at the very least, recognizing that the purpose of government is to improve the lives of the American people – not to cater to special interests at the expense of the American people. And in foreign affairs, that means recognizing the basic principles of international law as put forth in the United Nations Charter, especially the principle that war should be used only as a last resort to defend the vital interests of our country.

I have serious concerns about the extent to which our two front runners adhere to those basic principles. In both cases, there is evidence for and against. Though I have serious concerns about both frontrunners, this post focuses on the contrast between the world views of Obama and Edwards, since this is something I have thought a lot about recently.


Emphasis of the Edwards campaign on fighting poverty

My initial opinion of John Edwards was mainly formed in 2003-4 during his presidential campaign. What impressed me most about him was his emphasis on poverty – a theme that I don’t recall being emphasized by a serious major party presidential candidate since I’ve been old enough to vote – with the possible exception of George McGovern in 1972.

What was so surprising about Edwards’ emphasis on that issue was that poverty is considered a losing campaign issue in this country. Those most affected by it are the least likely to vote, and they certainly don’t contribute much money to political campaigns. Furthermore, it’s almost impossible to raise the subject without being accused of “class warfare”.

Yet, as I discuss in this post, Edwards has not only made poverty a centerpiece of both his 2004 and 2008 presidential campaigns, but he has developed comprehensive plans for eradicating poverty in our country.

This is extremely important in my view. In a slight revision of one of Jesus’ most famous quotes, I would say of presidential candidates that whatever they neglect to do for the least powerful of their constituents they neglect to do for their country.


One America or Two Americas – The striking difference between Obama and Edwards at the 2004 Democratic National Convention

The contrast between the world views of Edwards and Obama was starkly evident at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, when Obama exploded onto the national scene with his “One America” speech. At the very same convention where Obama spoke of “One America”, the theme of Edwards’ speech, consistent with his presidential campaign, was “Two Americas”. That theme indicated a straight forward acknowledgement of the increasing income disparity in our country to Gilded Age proportions and 37 million Americans (12.7% of the U.S. population) living in poverty.

Obama’s theme of “One America” was optimistic, hopeful, and “politically correct”, and it was very enthusiastically received by a large number of Americans. Edwards’ theme of “Two Americas” was more daring and less “politically correct”, in the sense that most Americans don’t like to hear criticism of their country. But it certainly depicted the reality of the current state of our nation much better than Obama’s speech did.

An article in The Nation appearing soon after the Convention opined that it isn’t difficult to reconcile Obama’s “One America” theme with Edwards’ “Two Americas” theme. The apparent basis of that opinion was that Obama was speaking of an aspiration, whereas Edwards was speaking of the current reality. But it’s not at all clear to me that Obama was speaking of an aspiration, rather than what he considered to be a reality. For example, Obama said “There's not a liberal America and a conservative America; there's the United States of America”. That’s a nice aspiration, but it was stated as a fact rather than as an aspiration. I agree more with what Paul Krugman had to say on the subject, in “The Conscience of a Liberal”, as much more reflective of current reality:

The central fact of modern American political life is the control of the Republican Party by movement conservatives, whose vision of what America should be is completely antithetical to that of the progressive movement…

To be fair to Obama, he did note in his speech that there is a lot of work to be done, and he was reasonably specific about some of the issues that need work. I think that this is what gets to the heart of my ambivalence about him. He does in fact espouse many of the liberal principles that are so important to me. But then he says things that seem to negate those principles – even in the same speech or the same book (more on that shortly). He acknowledges many of the problems that we have in our country, but it is not clear to me how serious he is about addressing those problems. Why acknowledge, for example, that “With just a slight change in priorities, we can make sure that every child in America has a decent shot at life and that the doors of opportunity remain open to all”, in a speech in which the theme is “One America”?


A few words on partisanship vs. bi-partisanship

Strongly related to the “One America”/”Two Americas” difference in the views of Obama and Edwards are their views towards partisanship versus bi-partisanship. Obama repeatedly emphasizes the need for more bi-partisanship in our country, whereas Edwards repeatedly emphasizes the need to oppose the rich and powerful in order to provide more opportunities for the poor and powerless. I am much more in agreement with Edwards than Obama on this issue. I believe that Paul Krugman nails the bottom line for this issue very well. Following his above-noted statement on how right wing ideologues have taken over the Republican Party, Krugman continues:

Because of that control, the notion, beloved by political pundits, that we can make progress through bipartisan consensus is simply foolish. To be a progressive, then, means being partisan – at least for now. The only way a progressive agenda can be enacted is if Democrats have both the presidency and a large enough majority in Congress to overcome Republican opposition. And achieving that kind of political preponderance will require leadership that makes opponents of the progressive agenda pay a political price for their obstructionism – leadership that, like FDR, welcomes the hatred of the interest groups trying to prevent us from making our society better.

I absolutely agree with that. I think that failure to recognize the need for partisanship in today’s political climate is foolish – as Krugman says.


From Obama’s autobiography – “The Audacity of Hope”

The thing that bothers me most about Obama’s general views is a few passages from his book, “The Audacity of Hope”. Those few passages worry me far more than his theme of “One America” that he spoke of at the Democratic Convention of 2004. I’ve said before that Obama has a lot of good and creative things to say in his book. So why should I hold a few pages against him, when the good majority of his book is pretty good? That’s what I’d like to explain here, and ask if people think that I’m making too big a deal of this. First I’ll quote some of the paragraphs (all from the first chapter) that upset me the most, and then I’ll discuss why those paragraphs upset me so much:

I also think my party can be smug, detached, and dogmatic at times. I believe in the free market, competition, and entrepreneurship, and think no small number of government programs don’t work as advertised...

We Democrats are just, well, confused. There are those who still champion the old-time religion, defending every New Deal and Great Society program from Republican encroachment, achieving ratings of 100 percent from the liberal interest groups …

Mainly, though, the Democratic Party has become the party of reaction. In reaction to a war that is ill conceived, we appear suspicious of all military action. In reaction to those who proclaim the market can cure all ills, we resist efforts to use market principles to tackle pressing problems… We lose elections and hope for the courts to foil Republican plans. We lose the courts and wait for a White House scandal. And increasingly we feel the need to match the Republican right in stridency and hardball tactics.…

Yet our debate on education seems stuck between those who want to dismantle the public school system and those who would defend an indefensible status quo, between those who say money makes no difference in education and those who want more money without any demonstration that it will be put to good use…

We know that the battle against international terrorism is at once an armed struggle and a contest of ideas… But follow most of our foreign policy debates, and you might believe that we have only two choices – belligerence or isolationism….

Yet publicly it’s difficult to find much soul-searching or introspection on either side of the divide, or even the slightest admission of responsibility for the gridlock…

I began silently registering … the point at which the denunciations of capitalism or American imperialism came too easily, and the freedom from the constraints of monogamy or religion was proclaimed without fully understanding the value of such constraints, and the role of victim was too readily embraced as a means of shedding responsibility, or asserting entitlement… All of which may explain why, as disturbed as I might have been by Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980…and his gratuitous assaults on the poor, I understood his appeal. That Reagan’s message found such a receptive audience spoke not only to his skills as a communicator; it also spoke to the failures of liberal government… For the fact was that government at every level had become too cavalier about spending taxpayer money… A lot of liberal rhetoric did seem to value rights and entitlements over duties and responsibilities… Nevertheless, by promising to side with those who worked hard, obeyed the law, cared for their families, and loved their country, Reagan offered Americans a sense of a common purpose that liberals seemed no longer able to muster….

To be fair, Obama did include a sort of disclaimer:

This telling of the story is too neat, I know… I know of very few elected Democrats who neatly fit the liberal caricature… I won’t deny my preference for the story the Democrats tell, nor my belief that the arguments of liberals are more often grounded in reason and fact.

But in my view the disclaimer was rather weak compared to what went before it.


My opinions of Obama’s criticisms of the Democratic Party

This is how I view some of the above quotes by Obama:

“I think that my party can be smug, detached and dogmatic at times… Mainly though, the Democratic Party has become the Party of reaction.”

Those are awfully tough words for a politician to use against his own party. The Democratic Party is not the party of reaction – the Republican Party is. It is statements like these that can and will be used by Republicans against the Democratic nominee, no matter who it is.

“There are those who still champion the old-time religion, defending every New Deal and Great Society program from Republican encroachment…”

The New Deal exemplifies what is best about the Democratic Party. It lifted millions out of poverty at the time, and it served for many decades as a bulwark of financial security for the American people. Republican encroachment against New Deal programs since the early 1980s has been one of the worst things to befall our country. This statement by Obama is something I would expect more from a Republican than a Democrat. It belittles the best of the Democratic Party, and it obscures the pressing need we have to reverse Republican encroachment against perhaps the most successful group of programs the U.S. Congress has ever enacted.

“… and achieving ratings of 100% from liberal interest groups”

When the term “interest group” is used in a pejorative sense it is generally taken to mean a small group that has a financial interest in a particular political outcome. Thus, if the oil industry participates in the writing of energy legislation, it is acting as an interest group. Groups such as the International Red Cross, human rights organizations, or the ACLU, on the other hand, are not “interest groups” in that sense. It seems to me that lumping such organizations under the term “interest group” diminishes them by implying that their purpose is merely to enhance their own wealth or power.

“In reaction to a war that is ill conceived, we appear suspicious of all military action.”

In the first place, members of Congress should be suspicious of all military action, and I have serious qualms about any Congressperson who isn’t. Secondly, this is a straw man statement if I’ve ever seen one. What military action could he possibly be talking about that Democrats were suspicious of but shouldn’t have been suspicious of? If anything, Democrats and Republicans both have been way too eager to facilitate military action that they should have been suspicious of. A statement like this does nothing but give credence to the Republican myth that Democrats are “weak on defense”.

“We lose elections and hope for the courts to foil Republican plans.”

What on earth is he talking about?

“We lose the courts and wait for a White House scandal.”

Wait for a White House scandal? We have a whole pile of more White House scandals right in front us than our country has ever seen, and yet we’re hardly doing anything about it. What is he talking about? Words like this serve only to inhibit Congress from exerting their responsibility to hold the Executive Branch accountable for their actions.

“And increasingly we feel the need to match the Republican right in stridency and hardball tactics.”

When’s the last time that happened?

“Yet our debate on education seems stuck between those who want to dismantle the public school system and those who would defend an indefensible status quo, between those who say money makes no difference in education and those who want more money without any demonstration that it will be put to good use.”

There he goes again giving credence to another Republican talking point: The stereotypical “tax and spend” liberal.

“We know that the battle against international terrorism is at once an armed struggle and a contest of ideas… But follow most of our foreign policy debates, and you might believe that we have only two choices – belligerence or isolationism.”

I find the implication that Democrats have acted as isolationists in regard to George Bush’s “War on Terror” to be ridiculous. The truth is much the opposite – Many Democrats as well as Republicans have served as rubber stamps for the Bush administration’s grab for ever more power and adventurism in foreign affairs. The Iraq War and Military Commissions Act of 2006 are two of the most egregious examples.

“I began silently registering … the point at which the denunciations of capitalism or American imperialism came too easily.”

Denunciations of imperialism came too easily?? The United States is currently the most feared and imperialistic country in the world. We have done tremendous harm to numerous countries over the past several decades through our imperialist adventures, the most recent example being our invasion and occupation of Iraq. Denunciations of American imperialism within our own country, especially among politicians, have been far too infrequent. To imply otherwise is to condone and facilitate more of the same.


An overview of the different world views of Edwards vs. Obama

It has occurred to me that it might be reasonable to excuse Obama’s positioning himself towards the center on the grounds that, as the first African-American in our country to have a good shot at the presidency, he is likely to appear threatening to a number of white voters.

By emphasizing “Two Americas”, John Edwards sends out the message that there is something very wrong with our country, and he intends to change it. By emphasizing “One America”, Obama sends out the message that perhaps not much change is needed. Similar signals are given through Edwards’ emphasis on the need to stand up to the rich and powerful, vs. Obama’s emphasis on bi-partisanship. And I suppose that Obama’s criticisms of Democrats, as I recounted above, are meant to further emphasize his “bi-partisanship”. The end result is that Edwards’ signals are very threatening to the rich and powerful, whereas Obama’s signals are much more reassuring. It doesn’t matter how often he uses the word “change” in his speeches. Though he uses the word a great deal, the message that he sends out is one of status quo rather than of change.

It may (or may not) be true that there is enough racism in this country today that an African-American candidate for president has to position himself towards the center or the right – thereby making himself appear non-threatening – in order to have a reasonable chance of winning. But if he campaigns towards the center, then what’s to say that he won’t govern towards the center?

The bottom line for me is this: I feel that at this point in our history we badly need a president who will assertively reverse our move to the far right that has occurred over the past three decades. When our leaders speak about poverty in our country or the need to curb the interests of the rich and powerful for the benefit of all Americans, these issues gain new legitimacy in the eyes of the American public. John Edwards has shown that he is not afraid to aggressively pursue that course of action.

[skipos]

1. There are differences between E & O, but I really like them both.

Hillary is really the only status quo choice in this election imo.

[Faygo Kid]

2. Very good, my fellow Silver Spring-er. Now what about Hillary?

This is a thoughtful post, and encapsulates my support for John Edwards. But does Hillary get a free pass?

Do I smell a rat here? With all due respect, of course.

[EOTE]

4. Self delete

[Time for change]

10. If my purpose was to advance Hillary's candidacy I think I would have said something about her

beyond that I would be disappointed if one of the current frontrunners wins the nomination.

I have posted several OPs where I described why I supported the candidacies of Kucinich and/or Edwards:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=988702
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=656635
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1583928
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2530373
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2564957
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2602279

I would be disappointed if either Clinton or Obama won the nomination, as I note in the OP. I emphasized Obama in this post because I had more to say about him.

The main problems I have with Clinton are:

With regard to war issues: Her vote for the IWR and Kyle-Lieberman, along with her refusal to admit that either one was a mistake.

On domestic issues, the main thing I have against her is the support she receives from lobbyists and other Republicans, including Rupert Murdoch; and also her statement that she doesn't believe that receiving money from lobbyists is likely to influence a Congressperson's vote. That is hardly a credible statement, and it suggests that campaign finance reform is not an important issue.

I am not, however, aware of statements she has made that disparage the Democratic Party as do the statements that I quote from Obama's book in this OP. That is something that I have been thinking about a lot lately, it is very disturbing to me that a prominent Democratic candidate would say those things, and I wanted to discuss it. Also, I thought it could be enlightening if some Obama supporters had something to say about that.

But that being said, again, I would most deifnitely vote for Obama over any of the Repukes.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

3. "All of which may explain why, as disturbed as I might have been by Ronald Reagan’s election.."

This is downright SCARY!

"All of which may explain why, as disturbed as I might have been by Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980…and his gratuitous assaults on the poor, I understood his appeal. That Reagan’s message found such a receptive audience spoke not only to his skills as a communicator; it also spoke to the failures of liberal government..."

WTF?????????????? Is this OBAMA? What's wrong with him?

Thank God I'm for Edwards!!!

[Divine Discontent]

23. Yeah, not very good thoughts...

good job OP on this written work and compiling all this.



Edwards - Ready To Lead

[9119495]

75. It does say something about our failures. 6 years after Watergate

a republican hit the white house. How was that possible? I think the Democratic party let the nation move away from a civil rights battle that was not yet over. We lost the South and though I don't really give a shit about them, it did put the party on the defensive. It is not that liberal government is bad. It is that ineffective liberal government is bad.

[Time for change]

76. I don't quite understand what you're saying

If we lost the south because of the civil rights movement, how would have we retained the south if the civil rights movement was more effective?

[9119495]

78. I'm saying that if the party would have kept up the battle...

I think they would have been seen as THE party for America post-Watergate. Carter's domestic messes (not his fault) did not help matters, but the conservatives brought out their exclusive church-y, fear mongering message, and the Dems did not answer with much.

[Time for change]

92. Yes, it is scary

I was very disappointed when I read those quotes from Obama in his book.

[madeline_con]

5. Thanks for the analysis. John Edwards '08! n/t

[ryanmuegge]

6. Great post. Very interesting.

Obama comes off as an idiot in these excerpts. I have serious reservations about him now. Like you, though, I support whoever the Democrats nominate.

The last thing we need right now is a weak-willed apologist who wants "bipartisanship." We need somebody who is unabashedly liberal.

[stravu9]

7. Superb Post!

Yes, I support John Edwards and John Edwards alone will get my vote this year. No MATTER WHAT.
If he is not the nominee I will for the first time in my life, not support the Democratic Party Nominee!
It's been a long time coming but I feel I would have no other choice but to , at last break ranks!

As "V" says: "People should not be afraid of their Governments. Governments should be afraid of their People!"

[stickernation]

80. hi ! vote in the General.

Appreciate your support for JRE and right on ! Just want to say - if he DOESN'T win the nomination, you should still vote for the Democratic candidate this November. THANKS !

[smokey nj]

8. K&R!!!

[unc70]

9. I completely agree and also sound the alarm

An excellent piece of work.

Since Iowa, I have been trying to clarify why I have become increasingly angered, alarmed, and really pissed off by Obama. I began by trying to understand why I found his speeches mostly boring and not inspirational. Each step since then exposes more to make me scream.

Everywhere I look, I see new examples of a manipulative, even insincere, side to Obama. He repeatedly uses the RW talking points against his Democratic opponents. He callously uses the progressives of his own party as a whipping boy, re-leveraging the culture wars for his own benefit, but to the detriment of his party and his country.

In the 3 Jan 2007 NYTs article introducing Obama to the country (you know, he's cool), he lectures that Baby Boomers needed to get other themselves, to give-up the rancor and fights of the 1960's (and replayed in the 1990's). It's time for a new type of politics. (btw not government)

As I've asked before, which of those issues must we throw overboard? What doesn't fit with his new type of politics? Civil rights? Gender equality? The handicapped? Equal pay? Family leave? Anti-war? Gay rights? Reproductive rights? Privacy? Accountability? Social justice? Human rights? Health-care? Bill of Rights? Education? Labor law? Workplace discrimination? Poverty? Mental Health? Any of the many other things we've fought?

Why did Obama begin his unity campaign for the Presidency by attacking the progressives in his own party, even depicting them as the problem? I can't imagine Obama would not know that he has attacked the very core of the Democratic party in his clumsy attempts to attract Independent and Repub support. He is much too smart for this to be an accident. I am left with no alternative but to conclude that he will cynically use anything to further his ambitions, even undermining his own supporters.

I am really saddened by where my search for understanding of Obama has brought me. Say it isn't so.

[Catchawave]

11. Why did Obama give a John Edwards speech today, covered on CNN ?

Oh he was "angry" or "acting angry" and used the "fight" word over and over.

I will fight the corporations...
I will fight for the middleclass....
I will fight ... oh well, you get the gist.

[Selatius]

21. Probably in a bid to strip away support from Edwards? With Edwards gone, they would have to...

switch their support to Obama or Hillary, and he's probably banking on most of them switching to Obama.

[LSK]

60. because John Edwards is DEFINING the debate

And that is why Edwards must stay in it for a long time.

[Radical Activist]

18. Boomers fighting yesterdays battles

becomes a problem when younger generations are left out and ignored as they have been for the last several election cycles. It doesn't help to fight yesterdays battles when there are new advances to be made.
Obama has a real point when you think about how much of the '04 election centered around what Kerry did in Vietnam. Its not helping us with young voters and its not helping us win over a lot of baby boomers either. The Democratic Party will ignore Obama's points at its own peril.

[Hermes Daughter]

33. You miss the point...

I think this post has made it beautifully clear that anti-boomers who ignore Obama's points will do so at the peril of the Democratic party and the tragic reality that has made this country "Two Americas."

[Radical Activist]

45. Realistically

the chance of boomers being ignored is zero to none. Its a matter of whether a younger generation finally gets to participate and have a say.

[jaybeat]

50. But we're not doing the younger generation any favors

If we let the advances of the 1960s (or the 1930s, for that matter) be rolled back. These "battles" should be over, done with, settled. But the forces of power who lost those battles want to reopen them, they want to re-fight them, reverse our gains, and take us ultimately back to the days of the Robber Barons.

Prescott Bush wanted to overthrow FDR and respond to the Republican Depression with the policies of Hitler and Mussolini. His descendants clearly have the same objective.

And we should elect a candidate to oppose those efforts who somehow makes it sound like the advances of the New Deal, Great Society, and the movements of the 60s somehow went "too far"? Sounds more like he would join them instead of fight them.

[Radical Activist]

61. I don't think arguing about what Kerry did in Vietnam

or whether Bill Clinton avoided the draft and smoked pot accomplishes any of the things you're writing about. Its amazing how much of our elections are about boomers figuring out what group a candidate fit into in the 60's. Do you think anyone under 30 gives a shit?

I don't see anything from Obama suggesting he wants to roll back the progress of the 60's. If we're going to accomplish the next forward step then we have to approach those issues from a perspective that makes sense to young people instead of using the same old arguments and continuing the same old grudges and social divisions that conservatives have been exploiting for the last 30 years.

[lastliberalintexas]

53. Um, no

It's a matter of whether the younger generation finally gets off its ass and participates. Historically, the under 30 crowd has abysmal turnout rates. If and only if they finally understand that until they show up, politicians don't give a damn about them, then they might be able to flex a little political muscle.


And I say that as someone who is only mid 30s, my demographic isn't that great in voting either. I remember the days of trying to get 18-22 year olds interested in politics on the college campus, or getting 25 year olds to focus on something other than the opposite sex (or I guess even the same sex!). I get tired of seeing post after post that says the younger generations are not allowed or able to participate- THEY are the ones deliberately choosing not to participate.

[Radical Activist]

58. Thank goodness we finally have a candidate that engages young people

that gets them to show up and vote like they did in Iowa. I saw it happen.

Its no wonder students don't invest any time into elections or the Democratic Party when no candidate speaks to their issues. Gore ran on almost nothing but social security and health care for seniors and that's almost all the party has talked about for a decade. It is a chicken and the egg thing, but young people are active. Go to an anti war protest and you'll see them. What we don't have is a Democratic party with a strategy and desire to harness their energy into elections.

[stickernation]

82. this is why an edwards/obama ticket would be ideal.

if you want it the other way fine, but i think Edwards belongs at the top of the ticket.

i agree 100% that triggering the social networking generation is a critical competency that Obama brings to the Democratic Party and they'd be idiots to turn up their noses at it.

[kenfrequed]

52. What about substance?

I heard a lot of this "new Democrat" nonsense in the lead up to the Clinons. And who were these "New Democrats" or "third way" sorts? The DLC.

Yes, getting young people into politics is crucial, but it is also important to deal honsetly with the issues and get this country back from the right wing swing that has been the mode of politics for over 25 years now.

[Radical Activist]

59. I don't see anything "new democrat" coming from Obama.

He has deliberately distanced himself from that philosophy and that wing of the party an many occasions. I don't interpret unity as being synonymous with giving in. There's nothing corporations fear more than a public unified to work together toward their common interests.

Obama has plenty of substance despite the over-used and by now cliche line about him. He has policy proposals every bit as detailed and substantive as what Edwards or Clinton have. Why aren't we talking about the books Clinton or Edwards wrote about their political views? There aren't any.

[kenfrequed]

67. Hmm true

He has put out proposals, but ideally I would prefer Kucinich, Edwards would be my "compromise vote" with the corporate scum that have infested our party.

[stickernation]

81. good for you

i am glad to see your perspective because we agree on fighting corporations through the use of government. i am glad to see your assertion of obama's substance and your recommendation of his book - I'll make sure to pick it up.

[ClericJohnPreston]

91. PERFECTLY STATED!

Mirroring my own developing cynicism and questioning the LACK of critical thought by his partisans.

[asdjrocky]

12. Wonderful, and well thought out post!

Keep up the good work.

[AmBlue]

13. Very well done.

Thanks for putting this together. Very clearly reasoned.

The only choice, given all the above, is John Edwards.

:kick:

[OzarkDem]

14. Obama is ashamed to be a Democrat

I've said this before with regard to his statements insulting and demeaning the core values of our party. One gets the impression he's a Democrat of convenience, because it furthers his own professional goals. Its no wonder he espouses bipartisanship at a time when its impossible to do without capitulating to the GOP agenda.

I'm proud of my party and its legacy of protecting and advancing the rights of all Americans regardless of income or class. I'm not sure why Obama rejects that notion.

Great post, thanks!

[TahitiNut]

15. THIS is the way candidates SHOULD be discussed. Thank you! (Recommended.)

I agree in every sense, word for word. This captures a part of my deep misgivings regarding Obama.

:thumbsup:

[Time for change]

70. Thank you

I was hoping that some people would have the same concerns about this that I do.

[Radical Activist]

16. Obama has personally done work to organize the poor

to fight together for their own economic interests. None of the other candidates have that experience.

What's step one for a labor organizer or community organizer who wants to win something? Unity, unity, unity. There's nothing that the corporate special interests fear more than a public unified to work together for their common interests. Its the only way change will happen.

I think you would understand Obama's world view better if you looked at what he has done rather than spinning his words as being more conservative than they are. Its healthy for the party to look inward and recognize its failings from time to time. That's how growth happens.

[Time for change]

22. It's true that I'm not very familiar with his work as a community organizer

I've heard about it, but I'm not familiar with the details, and I don't recall him saying much about that in "The Audacity of Hope" (I read it several months ago, and I loaned it to a friend, so I don't have access to it now). I do say in this OP and in the other article that I posted about Obama (linked to in this OP) that he had a lot of good things to say in his book. I do talk in some detail about those things in my other OP.

But I take issue with your saying that I'm "spinning" his words. I quoted his words verbatum in this OP -- how can that be construed as spinning them? I also provided my own interpretations about his words. If you disagree with my interpretations, then tell me what you disagree with, rather than accuse me of spinning his words.

You say that it's healthy for a party to look inward and recognize its failings from time to time. I absolutely agree with that. But I very much disagree with Obama's criticisms of the Democratic Party, for the reasons I state in my OP. If you disagree with my criticisms, then I'd appreciate it if you'd tell me what you disagree with.

[Radical Activist]

27. First

You claim Obama talks constantly about bipartisanship and you characterize that as a move to the center. I hear him talk about unity, which is not the same as bipartisanship and doesn't necessarily mean moving to the center. You make a big logical leap there. Just because someone talks about unity doesn't mean they're taking the triangulation approach and I don't think you referenced anything to support that interpretation of his words.

Show me on what issues and in what way Obama is supposedly moving to the center. Show me anything other than the way you personally interpret his speeches about unity. There's a difference between moving your positions on the issues to the center and making a progressive platform appeal to moderates. Its a big difference and you don't seem to distinguish between the two.

And understanding Reagan's appeal doesn't mean someone approves of or agrees with it. We had better understand what Reagan did that appealed to people if we don't want to let it happen to us again. Implying that his understanding makes Obama less supportive of Democrats or somehow less liberal is ridiculous.

Also, where did you compile your quotes from since they were all taken from different parts of the book?

[Time for change]

35. With regard to my contention of Obama moving towards the center

I don't believe that talking about bipartisanship or unity alone constitutes a big move towards the center. I disagree with emphasizing bipartisanship in today's political climate, for the reasons that Krugman mentions, where I quoted him above. But I don't think that that alone proves that a candidate has moved towards the center.

My assertion of Obama moving towards the center mostly involves the quotes from his book. You say "Show me on what issues and in what way Obama is supposedly moving to the center. Show me anything other than the way you personally interpret his speeches about unity". The issues are from what I quoted from his book. In my interpretations I explained why I felt that his statements were antithetical to liberal/progressive causes. You apparently disagree with my interpretations, but I don't understand why because you haven't told me.

You say that there's a big difference between moving towards the center and making a progressive platform appeal to moderates. Yes, I agree. But the quotes from his book that I provide here are, to me, unwarranted criticism of the progressive cause, NOT a way of making the progressive cause appeal to moderates... although it is true that much of the rest of his book DOES attempt to make progressive causes appeal to moderates. That's why, as I say, I have ambivalent feelings about him. Those different parts of the book just don't appear to have been written by the same person.

Where did I compile the quotes? I don't recall the exact page numbers, and I have loaned the book to a friend, so I can't tell you what they are. But I can say that they were all within a very small number of pages, possibly 2, and they were all from the first chapter.

[Radical Activist]

42. The quotes you copied

aren't about his positions on specific issues. Most come from a chapter giving his view of the current political climate and how we got where we are today.
So, once again, we have one of thousands of blog posts, diaries, etc. accusing Obama of moving to the middle that doesn't name a single specific issue position where Obama has sold out to the Republicans, as we're constantly told he has. To borrow a much overused phrase, the accusations of Obama being more conservative lack substance.

[Time for change]

71. "The quotes you copied aren't about his positions on specific issues"

Regardless of whether you call them "specific issues" or not, those quotes certainly do represent his political views, in that when you criticize a political party for holding certain views or conducting certain actions, that says a lot about your own views. If he's changed his mind about those views, that's great. I'd like to know about it. Anyhow, I find some of those statements very disturbing, for the reasons I've given. If you disagree with my statements regarding his statements, that's fine. But you haven't addressed a single one of them, except to say that they "lack substance".

[stickernation]

84. very well defended.

first of all both of you kudos for a frank discussion of the relative merits of the selected Obama quotes. both of you are discussing your opposing contentions with great elucidation and it rocks.

radical activist contends that Obama is still the community activist he once was - that he is in sync with the troubles of poverty just as much as John Edwards appears to be. radical activist may be projecting somewhat, but it is clear that Obama is the canvas upon which he can paint his dreams of reform. all of this makes me very optimistic that Obama is a righteous candidate who would merit my support above Hillary Clinton.

in my opinion, John Edwards is a far superior canvas for change than Obama. I point to Obama's handlers, to his debt to the mainstream media, to his compromised positions on several issues, to the rah-rah attitude of his campaigning. However I respect your support of Obama's candidacy.

Still, this is a political season. The cherry-picking of Obama's quotes will continue, whoever may be the compiler, and the end result will be an Obama loss to Clinton in the key states of SC and NV. It is understandable and helpful that the OP raise such issues with Obama during this period of consideration and comparison. Connecting the dots on Obama has become a necessity due to his own vague stance on the issues during his debates and speeches. So consider my candidate as well. Read his speeches and understand the change he bespeaks. Should Obama decide to throw in the towel, we Edwards supporters will need your support.

[jaybeat]

54. What, exactly, are the Democratic Party's "failings"?

Its healthy for the party to look inward and recognize its failings from time to time.

Which of the following does Obama (or you, for that matter) consider a failing:

The New Deal? (including, but not limited to Social Security, Medicare, banking regulation, pension regulation, rural electrification, etc.)
Labor rights?
Unemployment insurance?
The minimum wage?
The FDA?
The Civil Rights Act?
The Voting Rights Act?
The Clean Water Act?
The Clean Air Act?
The Endangered Species Act?
Title IX?
Affirmative action?
The Great Society? (including, but not limited to, Food Stamps, AFDC, War on Poverty, etc.)
Automotive fuel economy standards (CAFE)?
Automotive safety standards?
Food safety standards?
Consumer product safety laws?
Energy conservation standards?
The Environmental Protection Agency?
(obviously, I could go on...)

Now, of course, there are some things that Democrats have done or spearheaded that many, including myself, *would* consider failings? Are these some of the things Obama is talking about? It doesn't sound like it, from the quotes in the OP, but I'm all ears:

Internment of Japanese Americans during WWII
Giving a free pass to Nazi scientists after WWII
The Korean War
The Vietnam War
The covert/overt war on Cuba
Support for the Shah of Iran
Blank-check support for Afghani rebels against the Soviets, without regard to long-term consequences
Failure to impeach Ronald Reagan and George Bush for Iran-Contra
Confirmation of Clarence Thomas and abuse of Anita Hill
Support for the Bush I Gulf War
NAFTA
So-called "welfare reform"
Failure to stop the Rwandan genocide
Delayed and inadequate response to genocide in Bosnia and Croatia
Failure to oppose the Supreme Court appointment of George Bush as President
Resistance to improving CAFE standards in the guise of protecting the US auto industry
Unwillingness to prevent appointment of Samuel Alito, John Roberts and other extremists to Federal courts
Failure to investigate election tampering and fraud
Failure to contest Presidential election results in Ohio, Florida and elsewhere in 2004
Support for CAFTA
Continued funding of the war in Iraq
Failure to impeach Cheney, Bush and others
(I'm sure I've left plenty off of this list, too, but you get the idea.)

So, as you can see, at least for myself, I have no shortage of things about which I feel the Democratic Party, or elected officials who belong to it, have failed at, done wrong, or whatever.

But I do think it is very troubling if, in fact, Obama chooses to mention as "failings" things that I and many progressives feel Democrats have done right, and ignore things that many of us also feel Democrats have done wrong.

[Radical Activist]

64. How about the 1984 election.

If the Democratic Party were successful then the Republicans would not have succeeded at rolling back so much of what you listed.
Obviously, the party failed at delivering a message for a progressive agenda that connected with the public. He doesn't just fault Reagan for that, he also faults Bill Clinton. Quoting the parts about Reagan but omitting his criticism of Clinton's third way is a bit of deceptive selective quoting on the part of those who want to paint a misleading picture of Obama as a conservative.

I don't see Obama arguing against the good programs you listed and I'd invite you to provide a quote where he does. He does criticize NAFTA in his book, along with CAFTA, the problems of welfare reform, the failure to stop genocide, and makes many progressive arguments.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

74. Wrong

Edwards does... (and he wrote a book too, "Ending Poverty in America: How to Restore the American Dream.")
http://us-elections.suite101.com/article.cfm/candidate_john_edwards

What the Washington Times “reports” (in a 2004 unsigned editorial): “During his career of allegedly championing the helpless, he took no pro bono cases.” (apparently quoted from the NYT)

What the New York Times actually wrote:But Mr. Edwards handled no notable pro bono cases, the typical vehicle for lawyers who want to have a larger impact.

There is no formal database that lists lawyers and their pro-bono work. Most lawyers I know do a lot, but never report it (because there is no-one to report it to).
Not to mention that Trial lawyers only get paid if they win. So any case he lost was paid for out of his own pocket.

[hfojvt]

17. I have not read the book, nor seen him speak

but I had problems with an article based on the book

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/5

but I still think he would be much better than Clinton

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/70

It almost seemed like some of "The Audacity of Hope" was directed at the liberal blogosphere.

[Time for change]

38. Nice posts

I think that "The Audacity of Hope" was directed at moderates whom Obama hoped to win over by showing how "moderate" he is.

As I said, he does have some good and important things to say in that book. But given the things he said about Democrats in the first chapter of his book, I just don't understand his appeal to Democrats. In particular I don't understand why he's polling better than Edwards in the Democratic primaries.

[pmorlan1]

19. Great Post

Thank you for posting a very well reasoned piece. I'm an Edwards supporter because I think he is the only candidate that is willing to take on the entrenched interests. We see how powerful those interests are by the way the media has treated Edwards and the way the Party insiders have tried to stab him in the back. And yet, despite knowing that this would be an uphill battle Edwards is out there everyday campaiging his heart out. Indeed, in the last debate Edwards was the one candidate who actually looked energized. When asked about it he said it was because he believes so much in his message and I think that's true. When you passionately believe in what you are saying it does give you more energy.

I don't want Hillary because I KNOW how much she is tied to the special interests but Obama worries me as well. He has used too many right-wing talking points in this election that imediately had my inner radar going off. When we got closer to the Iowa caucuses he practically channeled Edwards campaign. This really bothered me because it showed that he was willing to say anything in order to win which makes me doubt everything he says. And what you have outlined from his book is also very troubling.

I think both Hillary & Obama have relied upon our Party's desire to break the glass ceiling. I know that I share in that goal. However, I think they are hoping that we won't look past our desire to see either a woman or an African American elected. Those of us who have been around for awhile know that just having a woman or African-American isn't enough if they support the same type of policies the current crop of white guys support. While nothing would please me more to elect a woman, an African American, Latino or Asian American I think that at this time in our country the white guy is actually the most progressive candidate. We need Edwards to get the entrenched interests out of Washington so that we can take our country back. We don't need to elect a woman that will go along to get along or an African-American man who will compromise away more of our rights in a misguided desire to appear bi-partisan.

[eridani]

31. Long before Edwards decided to move in a more populist direction--

--Kucinich was taking on entrenched interests.

[Time for change]

39. I think that either Kucinich or Edwards would make an excellent president

Unfortunately, it appears at this time that Kucinich is not a viable candidate. I'm hoping that Edwards still has a chance.

[Larry Ogg]

40. Ding Ding Ding Ding –We Have A Winnerrrr

But alas – I must regrettable and brutally reprimand you for not paying close enough attention to the corporately owned conservative biased M$N – as they have spent immeasurable amounts of air time ignoring and marginalizing Denis Kucinich and his objective sense of moral values which is based on understanding, experience and true Democratic ideals.

What is wrong with you liberals, don’t you realize the immeasurable harm, grief, pain and suffering, that someone like Kucinich would cause the status quo? Why do you (liberals) continue to hope for a better and more equitable world, even after the M$N has given you all the facts you need to know – so you can convince yourselves that this system of class hegemony is better than any Democracy. Why? Because M$N said so, that’s why. Stop searching for and talking about the truth, and stop impugning the efforts of the conservative biased elites and their corporately owned M$N by reminding people of someone or something or a better way, they can not have it…

And now eridani must be punished... Bad eridani... :spank:

[stickernation]

85. Edwards supporters feel your pain !!!

Is Kucinich really so pissed off at Edwards that he can't see where Edwards has been influenced by him.

Would Kucinich consider an appointment as Attorney General ? Just curious !

[Larry Ogg]

102. I can’t speak for Kucinich, nor can I speak for other Kucinich supporters,

But I can speak for myself…

I’m sure you have heard the saying, “It’s not about if you win or loose, it’s how you play the game”. Yet still - it seems apparent and natural that people would think, if their guy is winning - the game is being played fair, and if their guy is loosing - the game is rigged; I guess you could call it selective discernment of right and wrong - yet for some the truth is bitter or sweet according to their character. So it is that we allow such a state to become a mitigating factor in our electoral process, ware the judges have become bias to the dictates of unfamiliar mortal masters, and the forth estate is now a trophy mounted high upon a wall of corporate greed, so now, by what new standard do we then call ourselves a Democracy, for the door is open to the most esthetic cheats, and integrity must compete in a world of buyer beware as justice becomes everything but fair…

Again I can’t speak for Kucinich, but I’m sure he knows how the system works, and I can imagine he realistically understands his chances of winning the Democratic nomination within this totally corrupt system, but through the debates he is able to shine the light on some real inconvenient and politically embarrassing truths - that is literally outside the paradigm of social discourse. Within that context I don’t believe Kucinich is pissed off at Edwards, as they both must surely know, campaigning within this feigned political system is like walking on eggshells over thin ice. I am happy you believe Kucinich has had an effect on Edwards, can I take this to mean also that he has had an effect on you as well?

To answer your question, “Would Kucinich consider an appointment as Attorney General?” I would like to believe that Kucinich would welcome any position of greater influence in opposition of those forces within our government – that seek to destroy it. But you should also keep in mind that those same forces that want nothing more than to keep Kucinich and his voice out of the debate – also have their sights on Edwards, which is a positive testament to him. So I also keep in mind the reply I gave to eridani above. It is not meant to be critical of Edwards who is much less inconspicuous as an opponent to the enemies within (for obvious reasons), but take it as meaning Edwards is subject to the same treatment…

[Snotcicles]

43. Delete. nt

[jaybeat]

55. Keep in mind Edwards fought and won against them in court(nt)

[eridani]

101. Yes, but he backed off of the fiery lawyer thing in the Senate

Kucinich has stood up against the Iraq war and funding it from Day 1. He was against NAFTA when Edwards was still for it.

I think that Kucinich has definitely helped to push Edwards in a more populist direction.

[LSK]

tell us, what year did Edwards get the E.G. Sawyer case?

[eridani]

100. What year did Kucinich face down the Cleveland bankers" n/t

[Radical Activist]

62. So was Obama.

Dennis and Barack are the only candidates with a real background in left wing movement activism, although Obama more so since Dennis started running for office at such a young age.

[Time for change]

88. Thank you -- my sentiments exactly

Women and minority races would be much better off with a President who represented their interests and needs, than they would be with a President who didn't do that, regardless of their race or gender.

[lisainmilo]

20. Great Analysis!

K&R

[Leopolds Ghost]

24. : clap : clap : clap :

I don't have a dog in this fight (yet) but I agree with everything you say!!

So Obama wants "market solutions" to "government problems"?

I take it he's one of the people who wants to use Katrina
as an opportunity to dismantle New Orleans' housing projects
in favor of a market solution for the tens of thousands
of forcibly displaced poor families of New Orleans, like his
opponent Hillary, whose husband engineered the policy?

[Helga Scow Stern]

25. Thank you for that well-reasoned analysis.

It makes sense that now Obama is imitating Edwards. I saw someone on Bill Moyers last Friday who called Obama a "bargainer", which meant that it was hard to trust him because he seems willing to take whatever stance is popular. He said that depending on the audience, he imitates whomever the people listening want to hear -- if it's white liberals, he has a good Kennedy impression, if it's a black audience, he channels Stokely Carmichael or MLK. He said that as a black man he was proud to see that someone of his race had come so far, but that he'd like to know who Obama really is.

[Fresh_Start]

26. K&R outstanding

thank you

[WAKEUPAMERICA]

28. John Edwards: $7 Million Dollars In One Day - Make It Happen

Time for change; I would first like to say, I found your post here exceptional and very well thought out!
Thank you for writing it! I have never been for obama or clinton and i will not vote for them if they are
nominated...i plan to vote for John Edwards even if i have to write him on the ballot myself. with that said

i would like to draw some attention to a great cause,I hope you don't mind?...it is posted over at Kos..here is a excerpt of it
to read the rest go to http://kingoneeye.dailykos.com/

John Edwards: $7 Million Dollars In One Day - Make It Happen Hotlist
by KingOneEye
Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 08:01:30 PM PST

There's been a lot of talk in these parts about how the media is shutting John Edwards out of the race. He has been excluded from polling. His campaign events have not been covered. Other candidates with less to show for themselves receive more attention. Etc.....

All of the these things are true. And all of the solutions I've seen have merit. We definitely need to put pressure on the media to cover this election fairly. But the media is probably not going to alter course and suddenly exhibit a journalistic integrity that they haven't even thought about since their freshman year of college. They need to be given a reason to change course; a reason that fits their definition of news.

So either Edwards could engage in a high speed police chase with Britney's kids on his lap and a missing white girl in the trunk, or he could raise $7 million dollars in one day.

[SammyWinstonJack]

51. ...

:thumbsup:

[Time for change]

90. Thank you for posting this

And welcome to DU :toast:

[farmboy]

29. Wonderful, thought-provoking analysis. Thanks for your effort. Keep up the good work here at DU.

[Mithreal]

30. Obama campaign needs to lay off the RW talking points

Obama criticized Senator Clinton for her Kyl-Lieberman Amendment vote that neither he nor McCain even voted. Congress' KLA approval may be inadvertent authorization for war with Iran, at the very least it creates more tension in an explosive area. Obama called it a blank check for the President to attack Iran and I repeat, he did not even take time to vote. This is inexcusable. Am I just being fussy or expecting too much, no excuses please?

If Obama can understand the appeal of Reagan's message than how come he doesn't seem to understand the Progressive message. He learned from Reagan the use of words and imagery that Republicans wanted to hear.

Expect Obama's message to mimic Edward's or Clinton's in places. The pundits say they all do that, say what the audience needs to hear in order to win. On The Daily Show Obama says after making a joke about Gravel, during Iowa debate preparation "so we're preparing and one of my staff said, 'The thing you gotta understand is this isn't on the level.' And I think that really strikes to what people are frustrated with in politics is that so much of what we talk about, so much of what we say, it's not true, people know it's not true, all the insiders understand that we're just game-playing and in the meantime you've got these hugely serious problems which are true."

I have been troubled by what Obama said. What I think he said is that he is saying in his debates (and other appearances?) the message he must give is a lie and everyone knows it. He must say what needs to be said to win. If that is not what he said then please explain to me because it is a huge problem for me.

I am struggling to keep an open heart and mind to all Democratic candidates in case I am stuck with someone I wouldn't choose but Kucinich and Edwards have my support. I can understand their message and I have a clear picture where an Edwards win will take America.

[mnhtnbb]

32. When Obama announced his candidacy, I read "The Audacity of Hope"

and came away with the same reservations about him you are expressing.

His views do not represent mine; I do not believe he will fight the entrenched powers that be
that are turning this nation into a fascist dictatorship. I do not believe he will bring the change
that is needed because he doesn't see what's needed.

[AndyA]

34. K & R - Why do I feel that Barack is saying what he feels he must say to get elected,

without any real desire or motivation to actually *DO* what he's saying?

Perhaps it's for the very reasons expressed here.

Change needs to be more than a sound byte - bringing real change is going to require action, strength, commitment, and a will to look the status quo in the face and stare it down. I just don't think Barack has it in him.

[watrwefitinfor]

36. Kicking & Rec n/t

[balantz]

37. K&R

Great Post!
:thumbsup:

[redqueen]

41. Nice post!

K&R

:thumbsup:

Thank you. :)

[Snotcicles]

44. Excellent, rational and eloquent. nt

[Snotcicles]

49. Kick nt

[Javaman]

46. There have always been two americas...

and moron* pointed that out with his* "have mores" statement.

however, since moron* has dismanteled the US. It's now the, "have even more" and the "have even less", america.

[lumberjack_jeff]

47. Excellent. An aspirational speech starts with something like "I have a dream..."

Not "There is one america..."

Further illustrating why the MLK comparisons are not apropos.

An article in The Nation appearing soon after the Convention opined that it isn’t difficult to reconcile Obama’s “One America” theme with Edwards’ “Two Americas” theme. The apparent basis of that opinion was that Obama was speaking of an aspiration, whereas Edwards was speaking of the current reality. But it’s not at all clear to me that Obama was speaking of an aspiration, rather than what he considered to be a reality. For example, Obama said “There's not a liberal America and a conservative America; there's the United States of America”. That’s a nice aspiration, but it was stated as a fact rather than as an aspiration.

Very astute observation, I fully agree. I find it frustrating when we elect people to fix what is wrong, but choose them on the basis of their capacity for telling people that nothing is wrong.

[Time for change]

72. Yep -- I think that that's what the Carter-Reagan election came down to

Reagan telling us what we wanted to hear, and Carter telling us what we needed to hear. Americans made the wrong choice then, and they've been paying for it ever since.

[cooolandrew]

48. Hardly the most scandlous charge ofObama. Barack inspires and that is huge change for all Americans.

Barack is saying this is where we went wrong in tbe past by not motivating the whole of hte public like Reagan did and this is the direction he will take. We have to recognise mistakes to correct them. It's not his attempt to undermine the party but to show a new direction for the party.

[jaybeat]

57. Which "mistakes"?

See my post above. Telling us clearly what things Obama considers "mistakes" will tell us a lot about what kind of "change" he is likely to work for as President.

[Time for change]

73. But in the excerpts from his speech that I posted in the OP, tell me

which of those are really mistakes that Democrats have made? Was the New Deal a mistake? What war(s) is he referring to that Democrats have been suspicious of that they shouldn't have been suspicious of?

[bjobotts]

94. Yeah, Obama inspires us to accept what the corps push off on us.

That's his change. We must accept what big business offers. Right.

[BrklynLiberal]

56. K&R

[LSK]

63. I do not believe in a "Free Market", I believe in a well regulated market

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2673260

Seems to me that Obama should read some Thom Hartmann and Paul Krugman.

[Radical Activist]

65. Would you like to quote his criticisms of Clinton's third way?

Quoting what he wrote about Reagan connecting with the public but failing to quote his criticisms of Clinton's third way politics is a little misleading.

[stickernation]

86. go for it !

haven't read the book yet.

[Time for change]

89. Are you talking about Hillary or Bill?

Why don't you quote it?

I recognize that he's said a lot of good things, things that I agree with, both in his book and elsewhere. One of the central points I made in my OP is that I have a hard time reconciling the good things he's said with the kind of things that I quote from his book.

[Stop Cornyn]

66. The difference between Hillary and Obama is paper thin. We need Edwards.

[mother earth]

68. As they shamelessly all steal from Edwards. Edwards continues

to be the only man who swore off corporate influence peddling money. We need to get corporate welfare out of our gov't and our election process!

He leads by example & the others are petty imitators with no real substance. I want more than rhetoric, I want action. Edwards all the way!

[99th_Monkey]

69. You've just given me one more reason to support Edwards, and my list is already quite long.

Thank you for the excellent analysis, and for sharing it at DU.

[Cant trust em]

77. Good luck trying to get that iron clad majority

I would love to see the day that we never had to compromise because our congressional majority was so tight we could tell Republicans to go F themselves. I just don't see that happening any time soon. Getting things done in Washington is about finding the people who are on the fence and getting them to agree with you. Let's not try to fool ourselves into thinking that there is a black and white world made up of good guys and bad guys. There are people on both sides of the aisle that will cross the line on some things and we need to find them on those issues.

[bjobotts]

95. We are there, we have that majority now. Motivated by necessity.

[Cant trust em]

98. I can hardly call a 51-49 majority "iron clad"

[AntiFascist]

79. I think an anti-corporatist message can be bipartisan...

look at the support drummed up by Lou Dobbs.

[grantcart]

83. In complete agreement

I like Obama and if he becomes the nominee would be enthusiastic.

Your post however makes the case for Edwards against Obama on very substantive grounds. Unlike the Clinton attack which was is now in full force:

a) in Meet the Press which seeks to win evey argument by recasting the context of every question so that she actually was trying to advance the argument that her record on Iraq was better than Obama's. That because Obama gave a few ambiguous statements during the presidential campaign so as to not embarrass the nominees that this somehow missed the fact that he got it right from the beginning.

b) The wink and nod mud attacks by surrogates on his activities as a teenager.

c) The near hysterical reaction by both Clintons that the democratic party is not all about them.

President Obama will someday be a great president but as your post argues there may be a need for a more therapeutic approach but what is called for at this time is surgery. The only one in the race that advocates surgery is Edwards. Massaging the system will not work. I am not anti corporate, but our current situation is one of complete legal bribery and corporate greed and lobbying is destroying the country. It is very much akin to commercial fishing. They keep over reaching until it is over fished and the industry collapses. Because you want a tough reasonable approach to fishing quotas does not mean that you are against fishing, just the destructive greed which threatens the whole community.

In an earlier time Franklin Roosevelt brought in structural corrections. Conrad Black's book Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Champion of Freedom clearly shows that FDR did not attack capitalism, markets and commercial activity he saved it. This conservative billionaire (now serving time because of you got it corporate greed) puts forth the most convincing argument that FDR saved first the democratic party, then the US political system, modern capitalism and western civilization roughly in that order.

By attacking the base problem Edwards similarly attacks the root cause of the problem; the commercial interests of America have completely monopolized the political and even the scientific. All of the candidates are against global warming but only Edwards is going after the problem that makes it possible for commercial interests to dictate public policy. By attacking the core problem of the "Selling of America" it will be possible to address all of the other issues.

Edwards allows the democratic party to regain its focus, to stop being second rate commercial sell outs and to regain its vision. All in time for President Obama to carry forward in 8 years.

What differentiates your post from what we see of the Clintons is that you in critiquing Obama you did not attempt to manufacture something out of air "a complete fantasy" or something out of context.

[stickernation]

87. ROCK AND ROLL

exactly what I believe. Obama should throw his weight behind an Edwards/Obama ticket. They are like a law firm. Kucinich for Attorney General, Richardson for Secretary of State, and Clinton goes back to fight in the Senate. Obama will also be PRESIDING over the Senate, which will be very sweet for him and provide great leadership for the supermajority that will sweep in on the Edwards/Obama ticket coattails. Eight years of President Edwards and Obama takes over. THAT'S MY PROPHECY AND I'M STICKING TO IT :)

-s

[bjobotts]

93. Excellent post. I've been syaing this all along. Obama's endless platitudes

are devoid of any substance or any reality. We need to be partisan or nothing will change. How can Obama expect the very people causing the obstructionism to join in ending it? It's ludicrous. Necessity is the mother of involvement not 'hope'. A starving person 'hopes' he will find food but the fact that he was starving is what motivated him to go in search of food. John Edwards represents this necessity. He alone sees the urgency of stopping the corporate take over of our laws and institutions. He is more aligned with FDR who would have dedicated parts of this speech to Obama to consider: (from FDR's speech at the democratic national convention June 27, 1936)

".....For out of this modern civilization economic royalists carved new dynasties. New kingdoms were built upon concentration of control over material things. Through new uses of corporations, banks and securities, new machinery of industry and agriculture, of labor and capital-all undreamed of by the fathers-the whole structure of modern life was impressed into this royal service.

There was no place among this royalty for our many thousands of small business men and merchants who sought to make a worthy use of the American system of initiative and profit. They were no more free than the worker or the farmer. Even honest and progressive-minded men of wealth, aware of their obligation to their generation, could never know just where they fitted into this dynastic scheme of things.

It was natural and perhaps human that the privileged princes of these new economic dynasties, thirsting for power, reached out for control over Government itself. They created a new despotism and wrapped it in the robes of legal sanction. In its service new mercenaries sought to regiment the people, their labor, and their property. And as a result the average man once more confronts the problem that faced the Minute Man.

The hours men and women worked, the wages they received, the conditions of their labor-these had passed beyond the control of the people, and were imposed by this new industrial dictatorship. The savings of the average family, the capital of the small business man, the investments set aside for old age-other people's money-these were tools which the new economic royalty used to dig itself in.

Those who tilled the soil no longer reaped the rewards which were their right. The small measure of their gains was decreed by men in distant cities.

Throughout the Nation, opportunity was limited by monopoly. Individual initiative was crushed in the cogs of a great machine. The field open for free business was more and more restricted. Private enterprise, indeed, became too private. It became privileged enterprise, not free enterprise.

An old English judge once said: "Necessitous men are not free men." Liberty requires opportunity to make a living-a living decent according to the standard of the time, a living which gives man not only enough to live by, but something to live for.

For too many of us the political equality we once had won was meaningless in the face of economic inequality. A small group had concentrated into their own hands an almost complete control over other people's property, other people's money, other people's labor-other people's lives. For too many of us life was no longer free; liberty no longer real; men could no longer follow the pursuit of happiness.

Against economic tyranny such as this, the American citizen could appeal only to the organized power of Government. The collapse of 1929 showed up the despotism for what it was. The election of 1932 was the people's mandate to end it. Under that mandate it is being ended.

The royalists of the economic order have conceded that political freedom was the business of the Government, but they have maintained that economic slavery was nobody's business. They granted that the Government could protect the citizen in his right to vote, but they denied that the Government could do anything to protect the citizen in his right to work and his right to live.

Today we stand committed to the proposition that freedom is no half-and-half affair. If the average citizen is guaranteed equal opportunity in the polling place, he must have equal opportunity in the market place.

These economic royalists complain that we seek to overthrow the institutions of America. What they really complain of is that we seek to take away their power. Our allegiance to American institutions requires the overthrow of this kind of power. In vain they seek to hide behind the Flag and the Constitution. In their blindness they forget what the Flag and the Constitution stand for. Now, as always, they stand for democracy, not tyranny; for freedom, not subjection; and against a dictatorship by mob rule and the over-privileged alike...."

snip-end

Get it? Against being ruled or governed through economic tyranny by the over privileged. Edwards knows this. Obama just wants to get elected. Listen to what is actually being said not the manner in which it is spoken. Obama reminds me of the winners of Miss Universe pageant when they say all they want is world peace...DUH! We all want what Obama wants...for everybody to get along and to compromise in order to get what is best for our country but just look at the obstructionism in the senate...republicans are doing it just to prevent dems from getting anything passed for nothing but political reasons without any real consideration of the issues at all. Wake up...Obam is just more of the same...the rule of the money party over the have nots. Look at the issues and not the people. Republicans did everything they could to make a "one party rule" and Obama will not stand against them...he will be used to make 'us' like what 'they' are doing.
Vote Kucinich or Edwards for any real change...However, Edwards is the contender.

[DianaForRussFeingold]

99. Great History lesson

:patriot:
I think we should use platitudes right back at them--
backed up with facts... Can you imagine having a president who actually--SHOWS he cares?

John Edwards working hard for change: (Upper 9th ward New Orleans)

John Edwards is determined to be a voice for our families. :yourock:
That's why I am voting for him--
for my family and every other family (rich and poor) in America...

[bobbolink]

96. Only one disagreement : "Those most affected by it are the least likely to vote"

Who were the people in '04 who stood in line to vote 3 hours, 5 hours, 7 hours... and even longer?

Were those muddleclass people???

This is a crap "statistic" that has come to it's time to disappear.

[DianaForRussFeingold]

97. K&R Great Op!

:) If Edwards is the next President of the United States.
He will take on out of control Corporations,
as did FDR.
No other candidate can or will...

While Obama is an inspiring, powerful and charismatic speaker,
the corporate media is aiming against Edwards, who threatens their strangle hold
-- their obvious agenda -- marginalize him and his message...

Edwards is the only one of the top three presidential candidates-- who has never taken a dime
from a corporate or foreign lobbyist.

We the people, need a president
who will be an advocate for us.
That's the CHANGE America NEEDS!

"We didn't get universal health care but we got NAFTA.
we NEED universal health care!
we didn't need NAFTA...!"
"I don't think you can bring about change by taking their money
or sitting down at a table and trying to make a deal with them." John Edwards
He's determined to be a voice for regular families, like ours--that's why I am voting for :yourock:
John Edwards for my family and every other family (rich and poor) in America...