THE DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIALS' QUEST FOR GENUINENESS
>
Today's NY Times claims John Edwards is "an increasingly angry man." Edwards is campaigning against powerful insiders.
At each stop, he let out the same battle cry: a populist attack on big oil, big pharmaceutical companies, big insurance companies and corporate lobbyists in Washington. These he described as being “powerful insiders” that had “rigged the system” against the ordinary working man, leaving him poorer, degrading the environment and blocking access to affordable health care.
It's all true. It describes Bush and his cronies to a tee. Does the shoe fit anyone else? Well, it absolutely fits the pathetic pygmies™ running for a chance to personify a third Bush term. Thompson's picture could be the illustration of this in a dictionary. So could Mitt Romney's or Giuliani's. Or Newt's... or any of them. Edwards' problem though, at least for now, isn't the pygmies; it's Hillary and Obama.
But as local polls show that his early lead here has diminished, putting him on par with Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama, he has become more willing to use this confrontational approach, inside of Iowa and out.
Outside the state, the Edwards campaign issues a near-daily barrage of news releases: decrying President Bush and Rudolph W. Giuliani as part of “greedy special interests,” knocking Rupert Murdoch for acquiring The Wall Street Journal, calling Mitt Romney a “radical Republican” and criticizing Mrs. Clinton for accepting donations from lobbyists.
Ah ha! Breaking Reagan's 11th Commandment. Oh, wrong party. I take that back. I especially take it back because what he seems to be implying is, unfortunately, true-- and Edwards is being very, very mild in his criticism. Hillary is the Insider candidate. I'm sure they'd prefer a Republican but you'd have to be a mental pygmy yourself to think a Republican is going to even have a chance-- at least in an unrigged election-- in 2008. No one wants a third Bush term; well, that isn't true; no one outside Utah and much of the Old Confederacy wants a third Bush term. So the Insiders will take the next best thing (best for insider and corporate interests): Hillary.
She's surrounded by the all the worst of what the Inside the Beltway Democratic Establishment has to offer, from the Liebermanoid Neocons to the Terry McCauliffes and the lobbyists and elitists and anti-grassroots careerists. So why hasn't DWT endorsed someone else? Well, there are a few reasons but for the sake of this post, there's only one I want to point out: I'm still waiting to be convinced that Edwards (and Obama) are genuinely not that and wouldn't turn into that were they to be elected. So far I'm supremely unconvinced. A billion miles better than any of the Republicans? Certainly. So much better than the rest of the Democratic field that I should bother? I'm less certain about that. I'm more certain that Tom Allen (D-ME), Rick Noriega (D-TX) and Andrew Rice (D-OK) will make much better senators than Susan Collins, John Cornyn and James Inhofe and that electing them will help guarantee an independent judiciary as well as a progressive and populist climate in the Senate. I'm more certain that progressive insurgents like Donna Edwards (D-MD), Randi Scheuer (D-IL), and Mark Pera (D-IL) will be far better Democrats than reactionaries Al Wynn, Melissa Bean and Dan Lipinski. And I'm more certain that a whole slew of progressive House challengers-- from Democrats Victoria Wulsin, Jon Powers, Eric Massa, Angie Paccione, Jim Himes, John Laesch and Darcy Burner to Independent Steve Porter will make far better legislators than the rubber stamp Republicans they are seeking to replace. And that's why, if you visit our Blue America page you will not find anyone running for president. That could change-- but I doubt it will.
This morning's Democratic debate at Drake University in Des Moines did nothing to convince me that any of these presidential candidates is anything more than just better than the Republicans. I guess at this point that's going to have to be good enough. Even a C or a D is better than an F. I'll continue looking for a sign of genuineness from these Democrats and for a sign that any of them will indeed put the interests of ordinary Americans first. So far what I see is that all of them have bought into the Inside the Beltway conventional "wisdom"-- pushed by the odious and deceitful Biden (who, in truth, is running for Secretary of State, a job he is utterly unfit for)-- that the occupation of Iraq is going to stretch out towards eternity. That isn't encouraging.
Labels: Blue America, Democratic presidential race
posted by DownWithTyranny @ 11:38 AM
4 comments
|
Reddit
4 Comments:
I've been put off by Edwards' slick southern persona... But I recently realized that rejecting somebody for such superficial reasons is just as stupid as selecting somebody on the same lame basis.
What woke me up about Edwards is the two back-to-back articles in the August Esquire with him on the cover (just going off the newsstands). The first is an interview piece, the second, by the great Charles P. Pierce, is a thumbsucker about the real Edwards versus the fake construct of our idiot press.
Pierce says, and I agree, that Edwards has deepened in the past couple of years... that he's gone from being another JFK wannabe to more closely resembling the Bobby Kennedy of 1968, fired up with a real sense of mission, and a real populist agenda.
Sure, he's a captive of the corporate powers. They all are. But he's the only one who's really offering a vision of changing that, which we desperately need if we're going to reverse the slide toward fascism.
I highly recommend those Esquire articles. Both are now online at esquire.com... search on John Edwards, and they'll come up at the top of the list.
on Bill Moyers' show, Bruce Fein articulated his reasons for favoring impeachment, one of which really struck me. He pointed out that, without impeachment, the precedents for imperial presidency will pass, probably, to a democrat and that republicans could have to live with hillary's unilaterally imposed rule. hey - i'm not looking to live with that, either.
until these guys - the candidates - start addressing their intentions to restore the law - including re-establishing and enforcing the checks and balances that might well limit their own powers - i can't pick any of 'em. we talk about the need for shared sacrifice and a strong social contract to inspire everyone to be an active participent in that "society". i believe that someone needs to say, "the president has gone way too far and the presidency is now too powerful and i would sign executive proclamations which would, once again, ensure something like a level playing field... because that is what has made it all work."
it's time for someone to make those barbara jordan speeches which made me so proud to be an american at a time when it was very difficult to be anything but thoroughly embarassed.
i so want to be inspired again. and, in fact, i am sometimes, but only to be disappointed and depressed a moment later... because it's nearly always and pretty much only al gore who makes me proud to be an american these days.
Yea, if only Gore would run. But barring that, I'm tending Edwards. I love Kuchinic, but alas . I like some of the others Obama and Dodd especially. All of 'em would have the makings for a fine cabinet. But Biden not for State.
I'm not marrying any of them though, til they promise to fix my Constitution. Clinton and Biden though, very bottom of my rankings. And I'd love to have a woman Pres.
And Howie, find me a Dem Act Blue can get behind to run for Marsha Blackburn's seat, I'm blanking on my district #. And I would volunteer full-time to get whoever it is elected.
Dee, alas, the very gerrymandered 7th CD was designed to never elect a Democrat. In 2002 Blackburn won with 71%, causing Democrats to run in the other direction in 2004. Last year, in a really bad Republican electoral season, she still managed to wind up with 66% of the vote against Fightin' Dem Bill Morrison-- even after she had ammassed one of the most spectacularly reactionary voting records in Congress, worse even than Mean Jean Schmidt, Roy Blunt, Marilyn Musgrave, John Doolittle, or any of the commonly mentioned arch-villains of extremist politics.
Post a Comment
<< Home