Cross posted from Anonymous Is A Woman Cross posted from Anonymous Is A Woman
First, my congratulations to Barack Obama, not just for his convincing victory in South Carolina, but for a stirring speech that has to inspire all but the most hard hearted and cynical Democrats.
Last night, immediately after he spoke our telephone rang. It was my mother-in-law, who had been calling Dan all night, passionately discussing election updates and cheering on Obama, her chosen candidate. Anybody who knows my husband Dan will tell you his personality is enthusiastic and sparkling. Compared to his mother, though, he’s a dud. This woman invented enthusiasm. Dan handed me the phone, “It’s mom. It’s for you.”
I shot him a quizzical look and took the phone. Her bright voice bubbled with inspiration as she asked, “So, who’re you voting for now?”
“I’m sticking with Edwards.”
“Awwww Kaaareen!”
I think I’m officially the family curmudgeon. I am that hard hearted cynical Democrat. At that moment, the TV screen flashed to Edwards. “Pat, I love you but gotta go.” I said. Even she wanted to hear Edwards, whom she had backed last time. I was for Howard Dean back then.
What Obama's wonderfully upbeat speech failed to do for me, John Edwards' speech did. It captured every reason I'm still for him.
Where Obama talks of uniting us, Edwards speaks about fighting for the disenfranchised poor, the working class whose salaries have been stagnant for years, those who have lost their insurance, their pensions, now their homes and their safety net. He promises to be their voice to speak truth to power.
When Obama speaks of uniting black and white, men and women, and young and old, I am with him. But when he challenged the notion that the rich don’t care about the poor, he lost me. Not irrevocably but as long as John Edwards is in there fighting. That’s because I don’t believe the rich, as a cohort, actually do care about the poor, the middle class or their own workers. I think there are individuals who are rich who happen to be very caring and lovely. And many of them support John Edwards as well as Barack Obama and other Democrats.
But can anybody tell me honestly that the top CEOs of America’s most powerful and prosperous corporations care about the workers whose pensions they’ve gutted and whom they have laid off? Did Kenneth Lay, Jeff Skilling, Jack Walsh, Dennis Kozlowski, and Frank Nardelli really care as they rode a wave of excess into a new gilded age while leaving their companies all the poorer?
Too often when industries fail, high wages for the workers, and the unions that won those wages for them, are immediately blamed. You see that in the struggling auto industry. But not enough people, even today, point the finger at CEOs whose extravagant salary, bonuses, mansions, servants, and exclusive condos – all paid for by their companies – bankrupt their investors. Indeed, those CEOs and the business writers who cover them, feel a great sense of entitlement to exactly those expensive perks, which often continue as their companies fail to meet profit goals. When those same executives screw up on the job, they leave their corporations with golden parachutes that were negotiated into their contracts to insure them against failure. In other words, they have no incentive to succeed since failure is just as lucrative for them.
But their workers lose jobs, fall into long term unemployment, lose health benefits, which usually are employer provided, and lose pensions and often their life savings, which have been tied up in company stock and company 401 (k) plans.
Most of the super rich, in fact, still live by the ethos of Gordon Gekko, from the 1980s film Wall Street, that “greed is good.” When that movie came out, the audience, not realizing that Gekko was the villain, actually cheered when he gave that speech.
The public has been so seduced by Reagan era assumptions about the absolute wisdom of free markets that any attempt to fix a now failing economy can’t get beyond band aid approaches to shore up industries. No plan, no matter how much it stimulates the economy in the short run, will help the structural inequity built into our economic system. We’ve already seen this in a roaring economy, where the profits do not trickle down to the worker. So, merely stimulating profit and strengthening industry will not help the ordinary worker.
Putting money in the pockets of displaced and unemployed workers to increase their buying power, while helping some of this short term pain, will actually be more helpful to the Asian worker whose products we still import far too often.
The type of structural changes needed, including tax incentives to encourage American corporations to bring jobs back home; a tax code that penalizes them for exporting jobs; government investment in infrastructure and green industries, which will produce more jobs as well as help the environment; and some sensible regulation to protect worker and consumer safety; raising the minimum wage; providing a living wage; and investing in education are all solutions that will never be implemented without a fighter willing to take on entrenched interests and ideological free marketers. A fighter, not a uniter, will have the only chance of putting forward the bold ideas that challenge these entrenched notions and fixing what actually ails our economic system.
The last set of bold ideas that radically altered our economy and drastically realigned our politics came from Republicans. But they were the supply side, free market, shrink the government ideas of the Reagan era. And they weren’t so new either. They were the shopworn laissez faire capitalism ideas of the 19th century all gussied up in brand new phrases. They failed in the 1930s and they are once again failing the common man and woman.
That’s why this is the perfect time to re-evaluate their failure and to critique their underlying assumptions. This is the time to talk about what an efficient and well run government can do to help its citizens become once again the prosperous and productive workers that they were from the 1950s through the mid 1960s. It’s the time to remind people of the policies that truly ensured prosperity for the largest number of Americans rather than just a privileged few, such as FDR’s New Deal, which rescued our country from the Great Depression, and JFK’s New Frontier, when we were encouraged to “think not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country,” rather than the Reaganesque “Greed is good.”
I think John Edwards is the one willing to challenge the economic orthodoxy coming out of the ivory tower universities and corporate boardrooms. And I believe that is why the media, ever the handmaiden to centrist corporate interests, has deliberately marginalized his campaign.
It is possible that Obama’s message might have still resounded more effectively than Edwards’ message has. It probably would have because Americans do like optimism, hope, and unity more than they like angry populism. But I think the fight would be much closer and John Edwards’ ideals more closely examined if the media hadn’t focused so much on the horse race rather than the issues.
I don’t like being had by the media. And the best way to keep the issues alive and to keep both the true frontrunners, Obama and Clinton, focused on a progressive agenda that doesn’t forget the basic economic inequity in our country is to keep John Edwards’ campaign alive a little longer so that it can exert some leftward pressure on the frontrunner.
So, for now, I’m sticking with Edwards.
I will admit that I am pleased to see that Obama slapped down the Clintons, because I really did not like the tone of that campaign in SC, and apparently, judging by exit poll info, neither did a lot of people in SC.
For now I suspect JRE to continue through TX and OH - in the latter in particular he should have a chance to pick up some delegates.
Then we'll see what he decides to do. While he is in the race he will continue to have my support.
When I read my statement which I blogged here about my change of heart in the direction of Obama. It was a very poignant moment for me. I read my husband what I wrote and I actually cried when I got to the bottom part at the end (the postscript) about John Edwards.
He is awesome. So a part of me honors your decision.
Currently Here are the numbers: Total Delegate count = 4,049 - To get a majority = 2,025.
To date standings:
States primary / caucas held
Total delegates decided: 156 = 3.85% of delegates determined
Obama 70 44.87%
Clinton 57 36.54%
Edwards 29 18.59%
Current standings with super delegates (not final)- super delegates can switch
Magic # % to number
Obama 152 34.31% 2025 7.51%
Clinton 230 51.92% 2025 11.36%
Edwards 61 13.77% 2025 3.01%
443 10.94%
I get so tired of people telling me to transition to Obama. This thing is not even 4% decided with actual primary / caucas being held.
Stick with Edwards.....
We have to take the media out of this. Different papers, stations, and networks have their own agendas. And it is usually not to serve the public interest.
The only way to dilute the ability of the media to manipulate us is to have one primary day (no caucuses anywhere). And get the candidates out there to more places (less saturation of three or four states). It would be possible for more to hear the candidates directly because the candidates would actually get to within a couple of hours, or much less in most cases, of most Americans.
Additionally, we have got to form groups of video mp3 "truth squads." "Arm" us with video footage on you tube (especially the candidate stump speech), factcheckers, powerpoint presentation, etc. Imagine getting those speeches from last night to really large audiences! The viewer-ship of cable news on Sat night isn't much. But we could actually expand the audience dramatically if each of us promised to show 100 people the best stump speech we've heard for our candidate.
When I talk about it with them, I ask, "Aren't you angry about Enron? About corporate greed? About the war in Iraq? And they say, "Yes, I am."
"Would you rather have a candidate who was angry like you are? Or would you prefer a candidate who didn't seem to think it was worth getting angry about?"
"I want a candidate who is passionate about these issues, but anger doesn't help."
"How do you know if a candidate is passionate about an issue? Does it convince you that the candidate is passionate if he/she says, 'I am passionate about this issue' in calm, measured tones? Or might it not be easier to believe if that person actually raises his voice when he says it?"
"Ummmm...."
I like John Edwards and Hillary Clinton. But neither of them offer the possibility of transformation. There is no great draw of new participants to the Edwards campaign. His angry populism is not producing a ground swell of public support. Whatever is holding him back now would persist into the general election.
And Senator Clinton, to my dismay, has demonstrated in the last few weeks that she represents a continuation and validation of the 50.1% governing strategy. In this regard, she just continues the major rifts in our society and leaves fertile ground for the Republicans to flourish in. It wouldn't be a full repudiation of conservatism. And we would go on living in the binary red-blue world.
Partisanship is not the real issue. The Republican Party has become more ideologically pure over time. This is really a battle of competing ideas at this point. Though it is often misrepresented as petty partisanship. Unifying the parties is not the solution to getting progressive things done. Transforming and unifying the public is. I think Senator Obama at least has that potential. I don't see it in the other two candidates. But I freely admit that I don't have all the relevant facts here, and I am open to accepting new information that would change my opinion on that.
Last, I think I make clear that I am unsure whether Senator Obama can actually do this. I am uncertain whether the public is open to changing their approach. But if they are and we can field a candidate that can truly take advantage of that, then that is what I would want. I'd like to take the 60%+ people who disapprove of President Bush's performance and turn that into a governing majority for progress.
That said, Congrats to Obama for SC and to all his supporters here and elsewhere.
Still, I am glad that something positive about Edwards has finally resurfaced here.
I will stay with Edwards and keep giving him money as long as he stays in it.
BTW, teacherken had an excellent post up about his support not long ago too. And it was well received.
And thanks to whomever helped me out.
Does anyone remember "Macaca?"
Or Howard Dean's "yawwww!" after Iowa 2004?
On a darker note:
What about Paul Wellstone's last election race?
(These candidates are in planes and vehicles all the time.)
Anyone remember RFK's 68' campaign?
or George Wallace's in 72'?
I, of course, hope nothing like these senereos comes to pass. I certainly pray no harm or accident befalls any candidates (GOP, DEM, or 3rd party). Still, life is a gamble & campaigns are even more so.
Then there is also the "buyer's remorse" and campaign fatigue.
We'll see what tomorrow brings. Until then and beyond I'll stick with Edwards.
Steve
I am sorry he used the insulting language in the first sentence, but the rest of it is very interesting.
PETETENNEY wrote:
You poor deluded idiots, or plants, who are whining and babbling that Edwards should get out of the race now either don't understand the way American presidential politics works, or are too young to have ever watched a brokered convention. Probably both.Admittedly, at this time the Edwards campaign seems an uphill climb against an entrenched and united mainstream media which is terrified of Edwards's populist message. That their "experts" on television and in print have once again betrayed their viewing and reading publics at the behest of their corporate ownership is a testament to their effectiveness if nothing else because, once again, they have convinced a nation of sheep to go against their own interests, convincing them that night is day, day is night...and the coronation of Obama or Clinton is inevitable.
It's most definitely NOT!
If Edwards stays in past February 5th, and there's every indication that he will,there is a rare but increasingly likely scenario. It's thrilling to watch, as it reaffirms the way in which we choose our leaders in a manner that is almost exclusively American.
The political selection process will continue on through the remaining states right on up to the August convention EXACTLY AS IT SHOULD, allowing each state the opportunity to participate in the selection. You people who are clamoring for Edwards to abandon the race in favor of one or the other of your preferred candidates have every right to do so, even if your "choice" is a choice AGAINST something as silly as a "damned nasal twang", or a haircut...or the fact that he made a fortune as a (gasp) trial lawyer or all things! He IS a lawyer, so are Hillary and Barack...He's evidently just better at this nafarious occupation than they are! And in spite of the deliberate lies of the Hillary ad and such stupidities as screeching rants full of hilariously repetitive invective but little else, he has spent his entire life in the public and private sectors fighting FOR the poor and the disenfranchised rather than against them. He's gotten rich taking DOWN the big corporate interests who DO make their billions on the backs of the middle class and the working poor. That some people choose to believe otherwise is a testament to the effectiveness of propaganda...and these same peoples' willingness to believe whatever they are told by the Rush Limabaughs, Matt Drudges, Bill O'Reillys...and George Bushes of the world!
Right now, even if one or the other of the two leading candidates run the table on Super Tuesday, which is unlikely, neither Clinton nor Obama will have enough delegates to be assured the nomination on the first ballot. With the increasingly shrill cat fighting between the two front runners continuing through the remaining weeks and months, it will become more and more difficult for either candidate to put aside personal differences and rancor in favor of party unity. After several ballots show the same deep divide between the Clinton and Obama camps, party leadership will become increasingly alarmed as it realizes that neither candidate is going to budge an inch...and leadership will turn to the ONE candidate among the remaining three who CAN bring the party back together...John Edwards!
And it will be the correct choice! When the trappings of celebrity, name recognition and media "endorsement" fall away, John Edwards will finally be recognized for what has been evident all along...that HE is the ONLY Democrat who wins easily against ANY of the Republican candidates.
And if he chooses his running mate well...a Richardson, a Biden...or even a Clinton or Obama...it will make the certainty even more certain.
And,SURPRISE, an American public clamoring for change after the disaster of the last eight years will discover that this man represents change that will be truly effective, not merely hopeful...
And we are ready for it!!!
Hell, I could still hope for a Gore/Edwards ticket.
Also, I have to repeat, I will support whomever the eventual nominee is. It's important to get the Republicans out and start challenging their assumptions.
I listen to Hillary Clinton speak, and more often am hearing John Edwards's words. I listen to Barack Obama speak, and more often am hearing John Edwards's words. And I'm glad. The more they adopt his views, the better our party and our country will be.
John Edwards has said he is in this to the Convention, at least. Just as John Edwards is standing up for all the homeless veterans, the single mothers turned away from shelters, the people living paycheck-to-paycheck, the uninsured, the still-unreconstructed Gulf Coast, the labor movement, the family farmers, and more -- as long as John Edwards is standing up for me, I will stand up for John Edwards.
I'll be a strong Obama supporter if he is the nominee - he is a close 2nd for my vote.
I honestly don't have a back-up plan at this point, other than I'll vote for the eventual nominee in November.