Why I'm for John Edwards
Tomorrow, Senator John Edwards will bring his presidential campaign to Portland. (RSVP for the free town hall event here.)
So, it seems like a good time to tell you why I'm supporting John Edwards for President - with my volunteer time and a check big enough to hurt.
He's a good guy. I had a chance to spend a day with Senator Edwards last summer, driving him around Portland to a handful of events. I saw him operate up close and when he was "off camera". In private, he's much like he appears in public. I've seen enough politicians mistreat hotel staff and young campaign aides; I was impressed that Senator Edwards was the opposite - a good guy, affable and decent.
He's right on the issues. His health care plan is detailed and progressive. I've spent a lot of time recently thinking about health care, particularly Senator Wyden's health care plan. They're not the same, but as I commented somewhere recently, I sure would love to see Senator Wyden join a President Edwards in the Oval Office to hash out a universal health care program.
His multi-facted strategy to attack poverty shows an understanding that everyone and everything in our economy is connected - from the minimum wage, labor law, predatory lending, higher education, teen pregnancy, and more. There is no silver bullet that will end poverty; just a sustained and deliberate strategy to remove obstacles and support people lifting themselves up.
He understands that fighting global warming and creating energy indepedence can't be just a bunch of regulations and rules. Rather, his plan calls for strong investments in renewable energy technology, modernization of the auto industry, rethinking incentives in the energy industry, and creating a GreenCorps within AmeriCorps.
He's got the confidence to be authentic. Aren't you tired of slick politicians saying exactly what they think you want to hear? I know I am. But John Edwards is defying all the conventions - and just being himself. From his presidential announcement -- in a 9th ward backyard in New Orleans, sans balloons and bunting -- to the matter-of-fact way that he and Elizabeth announced her cancer diagnosis... he's just speaking from the heart. And that translates to the politics.
Certainly, a platform on ending poverty isn't the usual way that politicians make middle-class voters squeal with glee. And his commitment to being specific on the issues is surely drawing fire from the typically paranoid consultants that hover 'round presidential campaigns. (And, did you notice? His town hall event tomorrow is free, public, and attendees aren't being screened for political loyalty. Take that, Karl Rove!)
He's building a transformational movement for progressive change. Wow, that's a mouthful. But if you've been watching John and Elizabeth Edwards - and the Edwards '08 operation - you'll notice something special happening. Slowly, carefully, and deliberately, they're building an organization that will last beyond the campaign... and into the White House. By the time he takes the oath of office, should he win, I'm confident that he'll have a core of some 8 to 10 million diehard supporters committed to his policy agenda.
Ronald Reagan used television to go "over the head" of Congress and speak directly to the American people. That worked in the 1980s, and it gave him tremendous power. In the second decade of the 21st century, a President John Edwards will surely be the first president to speak regularly and personally to Americans via their inboxes. And can there be any doubt that a First Lady Elizabeth Edwards will be blogging from the White House? She's been hanging around the blogs for a decade and has a personal understanding of the communications and organizing power that's there.
He can win. Politics, of course, is the art of the possible. And if you don't win, you can't make policy change. As Susan Estrich once told me, "It's nice to be right, but it's more fun to win." Of course, winning isn't everything -- but it's an important thing. And there's no doubt in my mind, that this Carolina son-of-a-millworker has what it takes to go all the way. I'm not necessarily a fan of the Iowa caucuses, but can there be any doubt that those voters know these candidates the best? John Edwards has led in Iowa for months.
He's a decent and authentic progressive; he can win; and he'll lead a transformational movement for real change. That's why I'm for John Edwards for President.
Tomorrow, come see what all the fuss is about.
|
May 1, 2007 |
Kari Chisholm | Comments (90 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | May 1, 2007 3:24:08 AM
All the more reason to get involved now, when it counts. Don't wait until the Oregon primary. (And, btw, it's still possible that our primary could move up.)
Posted by: JTFrog | May 1, 2007 4:07:59 AM
I have a hard time getting behind any candidate that voted for the war let alone was inside on the intelligence committee where they knew the info was being fixed and yet still wrote and co-sponsored the IWR.
Posted by: MNeumann | May 1, 2007 5:31:04 AM
I'm so sick of hearing about who voted for the war resolution and using that as a litmus test. You act like you don't know or remember what really happened or what was actually said.
Just two examples
linkFor those that repeatedly claim Kerry voted for the war, how about checking your rhetoric at the door and look at the facts rather than the Republican talking points. Bush alone took the country to war and is responsible for the current mess. Did Kerry manipulate CIA intelligence? Did Kerry lie to the American people in a state of the union address? Did Kerry exaggerate WMD claims and invoke images of a nuclear holocaust to press the case for war. No. No. No.
In fact if you read what Kerry said on the Senate floor during the vote he clearly warned the President against rushing to war when there were other options to try first. Yes you have to protect America, but clearly pursuing a war of choice with Iraq based on deliberate false claims is an impeachable offense rather than smart foreign policy. -IFK Editor
MORE...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution
CLINTON FLOOR SPEECH:
If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?
So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.
MORE
Please go back and read the entirety of the floor speeches.
Posted by: Frank Dufay | May 1, 2007 5:31:12 AM
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Kari. I too have questions about the war vote, but "decent and authentic" has a lot of appeal to me as I look to what we have right now.
Posted by: Frank Dufay | May 1, 2007 5:52:43 AM
“approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable.” It means “America speaks with one voice.”
That's what Kerry said. That was not my voice, nor the voice of the millions of Americans who marched in the streets in hopes of stopping the rush to war. America was most certainly not speaking with one voice, and it most certainly not about giving George Bush the authority to speak for us.
Posted by: Frank Dufay | May 1, 2007 5:55:49 AM
Very clever, Kari, on how anyone who comments on this thread has their name next to "Why I'm for John Edwards." :-)
Posted by: Sharon | May 1, 2007 6:37:47 AM
I love Edwards, too. I am wondering about his organization, though. He is the only top tier Dem candidate who has not hit me up for dollars.
Posted by: Karl Smiley | May 1, 2007 7:13:48 AM
The war vote IS a litmus test for me. According to the constitution only the legislative branch can take us to war. The war is ultimately their resposibility. There was enough evidence available at the time to convince many of us that Bush and the neocons were lying us into a war. People in congress should have had better access to information than we did. Those who voted to give Bush the power to make war were irresponsible and incompetent. I won't vote for one of them to be our next president.
Posted by: BOHICA | May 1, 2007 7:15:45 AM
Edwards does possess the necessary leadership skills I am looking for in a President. If he did, he never would have voted for the IWR and the patriot act. I want someone with proven leadership skills, not a follower and that was what Edwards was in the Senate.
"The mark of leadership is not to standup when everybody is standing, but rather to actually standup when no one else is standing." Pulitzer Prize winning author Samantha Power
To bad Russ Feingold, the only Senator to vote against the Patriot Act, isn't running.
As other people have stated, with Oregon at the ass end of the primaries, its kind of hard to get excited about any of the candidates.
Full discloser.
I was an active Clark supporter last time and hope he throws his hat into the ring as he is the most qualified leader with the most experience. He was also against the Iraq invasion from the start and has been working with both houses on National security issues and helping get Dems elected (he was the most requested surrogate speaker for house candidates this last election).
He is also trying to stop this murderous bunch from starting a war with Iran.
"Its about changing minds before its about killing people."
Wes Clark
Posted by: BOHICA | May 1, 2007 7:17:42 AM
Edit the above to read;
Edwards does NOT possess the necessary leadership skills I am looking for in a President.
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | May 1, 2007 7:37:47 AM
there is a reason Barack Obama has swept past Edwards in both the polls and fundraising: he inspires the kind of hope that no other candidate can. we had a powerful glimpse of what that hope can do 4 years ago when the Dean for America campaign not only pushed Howard Dean to the front of the party but brought hundreds of thousands of previously inactive Americans and Democrats -- myself included -- back into politics with a belief that we matter and we could make a difference.
Dean's campaign foundered (a knife-in-the-back campaign joined in eagerly by Edwards among others; yea yea, i know: politics) -- but the greater campaign among progressive and 'roots Dems and indies is stronger than ever. and while not every deaniac has gotten behind Obama, many have. college students prefer him, far and away. he is bringing in more money in the Dean style -- thousands of contributions under $100 -- than any other Dem, by far.
i believe Edwards is sincere, genuine, a good leader; if he wins the nomination, i'll be happy to support him. but he won't. Obama is the progressive candidate in this race, the one who can raise money, and, more importantly, the one who can inspire hope across a broad range of this country. Edwards is a nice guy; Obama is a winner.
you drove the wrong guy around town, Kari.
Posted by: Phil Jones | May 1, 2007 8:16:35 AM
I like John Edwards, too, but if he wants his campaign to be successful, he'd better take some testosterone shots or learn to be more forceful in his public speaking. His performance in last week's debate was pathetic.
Yes, John Edwards is a nice guy, but you know what they say about 'nice guys' in contests.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | May 1, 2007 8:21:30 AM
you drove the wrong guy around town, Kari.
Well, I don't believe Barack Obama has been to Oregon yet during this campaign. (And for the record, we'll be happy to promote his first visit here at BlueOregon.)
I think Barack Obama is a great guy as well. I happen to think that Edwards/Obama would make for a fantastic ticket.
So, I'm not going to go negative on Obama here, but I haven't seen enough substance from his campaign yet. He's running an uplifting and inspirational campaign, but so far, he seems to be running a cautious and substance-free campaign too.
Posted by: Sal Peralta | May 1, 2007 8:30:01 AM
Please go back and read the entirety of the floor speeches.
I'm not one who holds up the war resolution vote as a litmus test for my support 5 years later. I'm more worried about getting our troops out of Iraq and reducing our dependence on foreign oil than I am with what members of the Senate raised their hands and said yes to the Decider's Imperial folly in 2002.
Having said that, I can also say in no uncertain terms that actions speak louder than words. It's the vote that matters, not the rationale for the vote.
Posted by: Moses Ross | May 1, 2007 8:32:56 AM
I sure wish someone would talk this glowingly about Dennis Kucinich or Mike Gravel. They were the only Democratic presidential candidates that spoke the real truth to power at the recent debate.
In fact, the most memorable answer of the debate (not including Biden's one word answer) was Mike Gravel's statement...
"And why not get out (of Iraq)? What harm is it going to do? Oh, you hear the statement, "Well, my God, these soldiers will have died in vain." The entire deaths of Vietnam died in vain. And they're dying in vain right this very second.
And you know what's worse than a soldier dying in vain? It's more soldiers dying in vain. That's what's worse."
Posted by: doretta | May 1, 2007 8:34:03 AM
America was most certainly not speaking with one voice, and it most certainly not about giving George Bush the authority to speak for us.
It makes no sense to predicate our politics on wishful thinking. George Bush has had the authority to speak for us for six years now.
It's just not true that things looked the same at the time as they do in hindsight. Many of those Senators were genuinely not voting "for the war". They were voting to give the only President we had as much leverage as he could get and urging him to use it wisely. It's easy to second guess but much harder to be the one making the decision in real time. If we are really looking for someone who will never make a mistake, we are doomed to permanent disappointment.
Posted by: anonymous | May 1, 2007 8:49:44 AM
Please tell me why I should support a candidate who had the personal judgement and foresight to vote for the war, vote for the Patriot Act, get $400 haircuts twice, go to beauty spas in Iowa for $200 a pop (multiple times), and owns a $10 million dollar home? hmmmm?
Posted by: David Wright | May 1, 2007 8:55:52 AM
Interesting post, Kari. As an independent, R-leaning voter I actually think Edwards has the best chance of any of the Democrats for winning in the general election. I think an Edwards-Richardson ticket would be serious trouble for the Republicans.
I posted my analysis of the debate on my own blog. Phil Jones, I have to strongly disagree with your assessment that Edwards' performance was "pathetic". Granted, I viewed the debate not as a Democratic partisan but rather as an open-minded independent voter with no particular reason to support a Democratic candidate. However, I thought his low-key, moderate performance was quite appealing.
Posted by: Sal Peralta | May 1, 2007 8:56:32 AM
I can understand criticizing Edwards for policy positions, but why should anyone denigrate the financial success of a self-made man like Edwards?
Posted by: Pat Ryan | May 1, 2007 9:19:23 AM
The Republicans and all spinners on the Right, like "anonymous" above are going to be pounding on the (absolutely illogical) idea that wealthy people cannot be liberal without being hypocrites.
I live in a 1500 sq ft house, but I understand that some folks, (perhaps even "anonymous") live in houses that are even bigger. These people obviously cannot be trusted.
***********
Kari, tell Edwards that in the debate, with the lighting and all, i noticed that he definitely needs his barber stylist to attend to that unsightly ear hair......
I'm just sayin'.......
Posted by: Charlie Burr | May 1, 2007 9:32:51 AM
I sure wish someone would talk this glowingly about Dennis Kucinich or Mike Gravel.
Submit a guest column if you want. But if the implication's that Blue Oregon will become Edwards central, it won't. Two editors support Edwards (Jesse and Kari), one's undecided (Jeff), and I'm supporting Obama. Also, contributor T.A. Barnhart (above) has posted endorsement of Obama's campaign.
Posted by: Charlie Burr | May 1, 2007 9:36:11 AM
Sorry, last sentence should have read: "posted an endorsement of Obama's campaign."
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | May 1, 2007 9:37:03 AM
Moses wrote, "I sure wish someone would talk this glowingly about Dennis Kucinich or Mike Gravel."
Well, I think I was one of the first people to write anything about Mike Gravel in the blogosphere - over a year ago.
Posted by: Garrett | May 1, 2007 9:41:09 AM
"People in congress should have had better access to information than we did."
Karl Smiley I have a question about this. Did the Congress have better access or did they receive the same snow job stuff the American people received? I'm pretty sure it has come out since the drum up to war that members of Congress were given more access to documents than the American people and they painted a much bleaker and frightening picture that Iraq may actually be hiding WMDs. I'm not saying the war was justified or that I was for it. I'm just playing devils advocate.
I know it is easy to look back and see how wrong this was now but come on. At the time I believe something around 70% of Americans were for this war. They believed a lot of the facts cooked up by the administration to get us into this war. I for one wasn't for the war but I surely didn't think Saddam had given up everything to the inspectors. I refuse to take someone's name off the plate simply because they authorized the use of force at a time when something like 70-80% of the American public wanted this resolution because the administration cooked up a bunch of facts about Al Qaida meeting with Iraqi officials. They gave the same stuff to the Congress. It was years after that the information came out that the info they were receiving was coming from sources that consistently gave us bad intel.
I don't know why anyone would take someone like John Edwards off the table. He's a good man and would make a fine President if he is our nominee regardless of the fact that he suffered from the same eye glaze that 70-80% of Americans also suffered in the run up to the Iraq war.
Posted by: Karl Smiley | May 1, 2007 10:18:52 AM
Garrett,
Congress had the sole responsibility to take us into war or not. They all have staffs which can search for information for them. They ignored the UN inspecters and guys like Scott Ritter and Hans Blix.... and they ignored common sense. Why would Saddam "cook something up" with AlQaida? They were one of the biggest theats to his secular rule... and, if Saddam really had WMDs do you seriously believe that the Bush administration would have attacked them?
Posted by: Buckman Res | May 1, 2007 10:49:29 AM
He's a good guy...a good guy, affable and decent.
You describe someone who would make a great fishing or drinking buddy.
Unfortunately those traits aren’t what make a good president. Edward’s showed his lack of stones and poor decision-making when he eagerly followed the Congressional lemmings as they took us over the cliff into Iraq. I also remember his poor performance against Cheney in the vice-presidental debates where he looked like a decided political lightweight.
He now whines about being misled by that cunning, diabolical mastermind George Bush. If that’s an example of his streetsmarts and ability to interpret data then I hate to think how Putin, Ahmedinajad, or some other cutthroat world leader would use Edwards if he were in
the Oval Office.
Posted by: pat malach | May 1, 2007 11:14:33 AM
Garrett's comment about the context of the Iraq War Resolution is spot on!
That vote is a story about how well did lawmakers stand up to the political pressure to go to war.
Like Karl says, there were a lot of good reasons for anyone with a tiny knowledge of Middle East dynamics and thimble full of skepticism to know that the Bush administration's case for why the United States should invade and occupy Iraq was a whole lot of hooey.
But more than 70% of distracted Americans wanted revenge for 9/11, and Cheney, uh, I mean Bush, exploited that by making up a fake case against the neocon's favorite "democracy" labratory, Iraq.
Remember this one: "You're either with us or aganist us"? People were buying that crap.
I had a "letter" published in the local paper questioning the wisdom of invading Iraq, and I got a call at 6 a.m. from a guy who just wanted to let me know that I was an idiot and "he knew where I lived."
That context is important. Because that's the environment G.W. and crew created before getting Congress' "permission" to go to war. Edwards failed to stand up to that pressure, as did Hillary and the others who actually had to face that pressure. (Obama wasn't even in the room at the time so we'll never know for sure how he would have voted in the same circumstances).
I believe Edwards is sincerely sorry that he did not stand up to the political pressure to go to war. And one can hope he's learned the lesson that sometimes leadership requires NOT giving the people what they want.
But Hillary's "if I'd known then what I know now" is dishonest and inexcusable. Why didn't she know then what she knows now? And her recent comments about terrorist attacks requiring "swift" and "immediate retaliations" show she's learned little about measured and intelligent use of force against extremist losers. It's the difference between lashing out wildly for revenge, exploiting tragedy for your own nefarious or naive purposes, or doing what's necessary to protect the country.
We've all learned lessons the hard way. Unlike our current Commander-in-Chief, John Edwards seems to be an intelligent, thoughtful man who has learned some hard lessons from life. Surprise, he's a human being. But he's a pretty darn good one and he's getting better all the time.
Dismissing him for his War Resolution vote seems short-sighted and vengeful.
Posted by: Garrett | May 1, 2007 11:38:57 AM
Karl,
You bring up good points but I still don't think that the Bush administration gave Congress factual data. I think that in the rush to make a case for war they used bad intel and didn't do much checking as to whether it was factual or not as long as it justified thier reasons for war. As for Saddam "cooking something up with Al Qaida." The enemy of my enemy is my friend. I don't think Saddam gave any thought to teaming up with Al Qaida but I remind you that we teamed up with the Soviet Union to fight Hitler and continued to team up with wretched dictatorships to fight Communism after WWII. There is plenty of precedent to justify the case of Saddam teaming up with Al Qaida. Especially with a bunch of informants telling us there was, the administration not really checking their sources and may I remind you a REPUBLICAN controlled Congress not checking their sources either. Saddam didn't exactly cheer on what happened on Sept. 11th but he did say we deserved it. I know there was no connection but I could see how it would be easy to assume there was.
Your points are interesting but still don't justify why you wouldn't vote for a guy who was lied to just as much as we were. A congressional staff just isn't that big. Also staffers usually can't get clearance to check into classified data unless their Congressman is on a defense or intel committee. The information they were getting pointed to a possibility of links with al Qaida and evidence that Saddam hadn't destroyed all the chemical weapons. All you are doing is looking back with hindsight and saying it was a bad idea. Edwards has done exactly the same thing and said it was a mistake and he is sorry.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | May 1, 2007 11:46:29 AM
Quoting Buckman Res, who first quotes me:
He's a good guy...a good guy, affable and decent.You describe someone who would make a great fishing or drinking buddy.
I'd suggest reading beyond my first paragraph.
Posted by: ST | May 1, 2007 12:07:37 PM
I don't even need to scan the comments to know that some person who knows very little chose to make a snide comment about $400 hair cuts. Am I right? Of course I am.
The truth is, JOHN EDWARDS DOES NOT GET $400 HAIR CUTS!
John Edwards' campaign arranged for him to receive two quck hair cuts last quarter in his hotel room while he was on the road, and the stylist sent the campaign 2 bills for $400 each.
John Edwards wasn't walking around looking for an expensive hair cut, like some people IMPLY with their foolishness.
And the hair cuts did not cost $400 each. That cost most likely included the fact that the stylist had to take his supplies and go to Edwards for the hair cut.
How many hair cuts does Edwards get in a 3 month period? Definitely more than 2, so the fact that only 2 hair cuts were charged to the campaign should let any INTELLIGENT PERSON know that something unusual happened there.
They were specially arranged hair cuts.
John Edwards did not find out how much they cost until after the campaign had paid the bills. He, John Edwards, a guy who still wears a cheap watch and eats at Wendy's and does his own shopping, was shocked by the cost of the hair cuts, and disappointed this his campaign paid the bill, so he paid the campaign back.
As for his house (I won't do a scan for comments on that one), how many Presidential Candidates don't live in big house on large estates? It's called room and security. If John Edwards becomes President, he's going to need a house big enough for Secret Service, for visiting Heads of State, for staff, and so on.
Do people ever think before they take the latest Edwards smear and run with it?
Posted by: pedro | May 1, 2007 12:17:23 PM
people who making claims about 70-80% public support for the iraq war resolution (iwr) are mixing up numbers. in fact, the iwr was voted on and passed in oct 2002 as a pre-election political stunt which many dems, including edwards, fell for. at the time going to war with iraq had minimal support amongst the public. from oct 2002, through the beginning of the war, support fluctuated, only reaching 70% in april 2003, the 2nd month of the war.
i have seriously mixed feelings about edwards. on the one hand, he is saying all the right things, and i have no doubt that he is sincere. however, his new persona is so at odds with his congressional persona.
kari asks "aren't you tired of slick politicians saying exactly what they think you want to hear?"; well, imho, that's exactly what edwards is doing. telling the base what they want to hear. i like what i hear, i believe he is mostly sincere, but i feel he is just reflecting our desires, rather than taking his own stances. that's not necissarily "bad", but it is worrisome--what does he do when he actually has to stand up and lead on his own? (fwiw, i have the opposite problem with obama, i don't think he pays enough attention to the base.) what's the real difference between edwards recent conversion on the war, and romney's recent conversion on abortion? when romney tells the republican base what they want to hear, many bloggers mock them for their stupidity, when edwards tells what we want to hear, we praise him for his leadership, and forget his past errors.
in contrast, howard dean, the last grassroots hero, was actually a bit at odds with the base with a lot of his policy prescriptions.
the dem primary is starting to remind me of the 2006 california governor's race where edwards = angelides, obama = westly, and hillary = the governator. that's what really worries me.
Posted by: ellie | May 1, 2007 12:30:14 PM
Great post, Kari -- I've been looking forward to it since you mentioned it last week.
I'm still on the fence on who to support -- Edwards, Obama, and Gore (yeah, I know) are all appealling to me. I admit I fell for Obama early on but I've been re-thinking Edwards as my first choice.
It's nice to hear what others think about the choices and why they support who they do. Thanks.
Posted by: pedro | May 1, 2007 12:42:48 PM
"There is plenty of precedent to justify the case of Saddam teaming up with Al Qaida."
garrett, are you seriously bringing up right-wing propaganda to justify edwards iwr vote?!? come on!
the declassified intelligence documents were undeniably misleading, leaving out the countervailing evidence that kept the classified version balanced, and bolstering the dubious claims that bush was using to push the war. so yes, they were lied to, however, to anyone who was paying real attention at the time, it was obvious they were being lied to. senators graham and durbin were on the intelligence committee, had access to the classified intelligence docs, and were very vocal in warning their senate colleagues that the declassified docs contradicted the the facts.
voting against the iwr was an exercise in political courage, voting for it was a political calculation that it would better to have been on the supporting side, after the fact, when all is said and done. i understand that not everyone had the courage or foresight to vote against it. edwards had his reasons i'm sure. i won't use this as a "litmus test" for my vote, but neither will i excuse him taking the politically easy way out because he was being lied to. if you know you're being lied to, and you let yourself get mislead by those lies, well how is that any better than actually believing what the lies stood for.
Posted by: Patrick | May 1, 2007 12:52:05 PM
Why do so many people say that the iraq war resolution is the deal-breaker for them? I mean, don't get me wrong, I thought it was a horrible mistake back then, too. Unfortunately, our options if this is a necessity are gonna be Kucinich or Gravel.
They're both good guys, and I absolutely loved Gravel's performance at the debate, but they're not gonna win in a general election. You can try to rationalize your support however you like, but the fact remains that in modern times, we need someone who can look and act the part of President enough to convince people who first associate the word 'Vote' with American Idol, not the President.
People say that they'll vote Obama because he was against the Iraq War Resolution when he was still in Illinois, I contend that this argument is worthless. I like Obama, am excited at the people he brings into the process, and distinctly remember saying "He's going to be President one day" But that day should not start in January 2009.
Obama's votes and statements since he's held national office don't seem to me to be terribly in line with the ultra-progressive image that he's often portrayed with. I can only hope that 2 terms in the VP's office would help to prove that his actions can match his words.
Posted by: sharon | May 1, 2007 12:58:32 PM
It is interesting that not one lefty, progressive, green, or feminist activist that I know is supporting Hillary. The only supporters of her seem to be women in their 50s and 60s. And so many Democrats, especially the Gen X men, seem to just loathe her.
Posted by: Dan Walter | May 1, 2007 1:15:55 PM
Posted by: pedro | May 1, 2007 1:18:32 PM
"People say that they'll vote Obama because he was against the Iraq War Resolution when he was still in Illinois, I contend that this argument is worthless."
i am not currently supporting obama, but how do you contend that being right about the iraq war in 2002 is worthless? of all the problems i have with obama (and i have a lot), his prescience about iraq is a big, big plus in his favor. in 2002 howard dean was in the exact same position, and in 2004 that was largely what brought together his grassroots following.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | May 1, 2007 1:23:05 PM
I don't believe in absolutes so I won't be adamant about opposing anyone who voted for the war and refuse to make an exception, but the senators and representatives who did sign Bush's blank check helped grease the skids to go to war. What is worse and according to Dick Durbin's recent confession, people on the intelligence committees knew the public was being lied to and they used the excuse about being sworn to secrecy to justify their craven yea votes and/or silence. Too bad, they didn't follow Daniel Ellsberg's example when this nation needed a profile in courage or two and before our military racked up 30,000 or so casualties and the Iraqis millions when you include the refugees.
There is also the matter of Senator Byrd's speech warning his fellow senators "This is an unprecedented and unfounded interpretation of the President's authority under the Constitution, not to mention the fact that it stands the charter of the United Nations on its head."
My favored candidates are Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich and Bill Richardson. Of the three I believe Richardson would be the more skilled in the foreign policy arena. But my forecast is that Hillary will be the Democratic nominee because she already looks like the oligarchs' / DLC choice and their attack dogs will go after Obama and Edwards just as they did against Howard Dean.
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | May 1, 2007 1:29:58 PM
So, I'm not going to go negative on Obama here, but I haven't seen enough substance from his campaign yet. He's running an uplifting and inspirational campaign, but so far, he seems to be running a cautious and substance-free campaign too.
Two things on this, which is unfortunately becoming a talking point that might hurt Obama, which will be bad if he wins the nomination. First, it's not true. His website rather comprehensively deals with the issues. Second, it doesn't necessarily make good strategic sense to go into great detail, especially when you're running the kind of campaign Obama is. Obviously, he needs plans, but the reason he's highlighting his personal story is because that's what's getting people inspired. There's a reason to criticize style over substance, but not when the substance is there. Each candidate is running a campaign that will help them in the campaign and ultimately make them more electable in November.
But if the implication's that Blue Oregon will become Edwards central, it won't. Two editors support Edwards (Jesse and Kari), one's undecided (Jeff), and I'm supporting Obama. Also, contributor T.A. Barnhart (above) has posted endorsement of Obama's campaign.
I'm strongly leaning Obama, however. It's also worth noting that while I have only one primary vote, I can actually still support the campaign of more than one candidate. If I had 100 votes, I'd probably give fifty to Obama, forty to Edwards, and six to Richardson and four to Hillary. Among the major candidates, there's not one I'd think of forsaking for a third-party candidate, which says a lot. I twice voted for Nader.
While I don't speak for all the editors and writers on Blue, I gotta think that sentiment is the the norm, not the exception. I wish Edwards well!
Posted by: Garrett | May 1, 2007 1:36:56 PM
Pedro said, "garrett, are you seriously bringing up right-wing propaganda to justify edwards iwr vote?!? come on!"
Right wing propoganda to you or an easy inferance for the average joe in America who didn't read up on middle east history before this war and knew that Iraq was a secular country that bin Laden would rather bring down that work with? I understood it would have been improbable for bin Laden to work with Saddam. Maybe even impossible but I had also had recently taken a course in college about Middle Eastern history and that point had been emphasized.
Also Pedro that isn't right wing propoganda dribble I was stating. Precedent is defined as, "prior in time, order, arrangement, or significance." I pointed out the fact that the US and Soviet Union teamed up to take down Hitler when they were unlikely allies. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. It may have been unlikely that Saddam and al Qaida would work together but it was definitely possible (of course we know now that they did not).
Posted by: Pat Ryan | May 1, 2007 1:39:38 PM
Welp, Clinton's Old Man absolutely gave away the store to the Old Time Religion of deregulation. Starting with the financial markets and energy and moving on to NAFTA, CAFTA, etcetera.
Both seem to still believe that this was a SUPER idea. These are fundamental issues regarding the long term health of the Dem Party, the Progressive movement, the nation and the world. That, coupled with her Calculated Cluelessness regarding foreign policy and her acquiescence to the destruction of the Bill of Rights, does not make me "loathe" her.
****************
As for Edwards, I was an early supporter, but the deal breaker for me will be how fast and effectively he and his staff respond to various Swift Boaty gambits from the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.
So far, Obama has been way more effective as this rapid response stuff. Given two alleged similar candidates ideologically, I'll go with the one that proves to be the best defensive Street Fighter in the next few months....
Posted by: Buckman Res | May 1, 2007 1:43:32 PM
I'd suggest reading beyond my first paragraph.
I read your eloquent endorsement of Edwards in its entirety.
Curiously you omitted any reference or defense of his vote on the Iraq war.
Posted by: Charlie Burr | May 1, 2007 1:54:48 PM
I appreciate Jeff's comments above, and would add that when my wife and I saw Obama in Florida two weeks ago, Obama talked substance extensively to both a small audience of contributors and a larger rally of more than 2,000 at the Cuban Club. On an issue I care deeply about -- global warming -- Obama spoke very forcefully about creating a cap and trade system, dramatically raising fuel efficiency standards and the importance of biofuels. Also, calling Obama "cautious and substance-free" is an obvious attack even when prefaced by "I'm not going negative on Obama here ..." Will post more later.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | May 1, 2007 2:03:15 PM
If I had 100 votes, I'd probably give fifty to Obama, forty to Edwards, and six to Richardson and four to Hillary.
Hmmm.... Now that's an interesting idea for a buzz poll...
Posted by: pedro | May 1, 2007 2:17:13 PM
"Right wing propoganda to you or an easy inferance for the average joe in America who didn't read up on middle east history before this war"
garrett,
it was an easy inference for the average joe because it was plastered allover cable news after bush's sotu speech. it is right wing propaganda because of it's origin (bush admin operatives in the cia) and that it was known to be factually incorrect, but used to forward the interests of the administration anyway. that it may have been believable does not make it any less propaganda--in fact, that is why it worked as propaganda, because it was believable.
i will excuse any average joe who believed it to be true, but not any senators... they should have known better. mostly they probably did know better, but were politically weak.
Posted by: Russell | May 1, 2007 2:31:25 PM
Pat Ryan said:
So far, Obama has been way more effective as this rapid response stuff.
Buckman Res said:
Edward’s showed his lack of stones and poor decision-making when he eagerly followed the Congressional lemmings as they took us over the cliff into Iraq.
Edwards showed his enormous stones and quality decision making skills when he was the first to say no to the faux news debate. There wasn't a rapid response from Obama and Shillary sure didn't take the lead. Edwards is the guy. He has the election experience, the enthusiasm that was lacking in '04, and the personal story to become president.
Posted by: Sean | May 1, 2007 2:54:42 PM
I'm on the fence right now. I've signed up for info from a couple of campaigns and got emails from Barak & John. Barak was sent to "Friend", John was sent to "Sean".
John wanted me to send a post card to my rep with a great photo of Bush on the deck of the aircraft carrier four years ago....when I clicked send...it asked me to chip in $5 to cover printing, postage and...wait for it...
Carbon offsets.
Wow.
Is he really running that green? If so, more power to him for doing the right thing with the millions pouring in.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | May 1, 2007 3:35:51 PM
Is he really running that green? If so, more power to him for doing the right thing with the millions pouring in.
Yes. He's pledged to make the entire campaign (and later, the White House) carbon-neutral. Info here.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | May 1, 2007 3:36:54 PM
And if you're on the fence, be sure to come to the free and public town-hall event. No better way to judge than to see him in person.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: East Bank Thom | May 1, 2007 3:10:56 AM
I'm having a hard time getting behind any candidate. Not because i'm not pleased with the Democratic field. I mean, my god... check out the Republicans.
It's just that we don't seem to have an impact here in Oregon on the presidential primary process. In 2004, i was totally inspired by Howard Dean and "gave till it hurt." In 2000, i was all behind Bradley. And then came Oregon's primaries. Done deal. No bother to vote. "My" candidates had already dropped out.