It seems to me that if it's really true that John Edwards is torn about who he would endorse were he to endorse that the most reasonable course of action is to not endorse. I mean, if he feels torn because there are things he likes about Clinton, but then there are other things he likes about Obama, then he should probably just say that.
« Superdelegates | Main | Panic in the West »
Edwards Endorsement
13 Feb 2008 03:33 pm
Comments (126)
I disagree. When I went into the voting booth yesterday, I couldn't vote 60% Clinton, 40% Obama. Edwards may feel obliged to figure out who he wants to lead the country and that's his perogative. (Of course, his endorsement speech will likely include lots of reasons why both candidates are great, because they are.)
John Edwards. A nobody. No first place in any primary or caucus. Why should we care who he endorses? And if he endorses Hillary, it'll make him look only like a angry loser. John, don't go away angry because you lost to Barack, the better man. Just go away.
I have been a very strong John Edwards supporter for the last two campaigns. But I'm not sure I want him to weigh in on this particular matter, nor do I see how an endorsement, given this level of nomination fight, would help either the candidate or the agenda for which his supporters backed him.
Would an Edwards endorsement really matter? I mean, after all, how many times has this guy lost? (Couting as VP in '04.) Does he have *that* many people in his corner that a move of those people would make any noticible shift in polls and voting? His supporters have already made up thier own minds about whom to support.
Making an endorsement is different from making a vote in that you're making it public, so there will be consequences. If he backs Obama, he will be shunned by the Clintons for good. If he backs Clinton, he will alienate most of his former supporters who have already made the decision to now back Obama.
The only reason Edwards' endorsement might matter is in helping shift some delegates in the direction of the candidate he endorses. His impact on the voting will be minimal.
Edwards' endorsement loses value (to the extent it retains any at this point) with each passing day.
Look, obviously he knows the in's and out's of both Clinton's and Obama's proposals- as a former litigator, not to mention Presidential candidate, one can safely assume he's done his homework. And he knows by now the other intangibles each candidate brings to the table. Millions of his fellow Americans have already had to make the decision with less information. If he still hasn't decided, then it seriously makes me question how he would have made difficult but urgent decisions as a President.
I agree with Matt - Edwards just shouldn't endorse at this point, but rather should be a unifying figure after one nominee emerges.
I think it would help Obama. Wouldn't hurt. At one point in the primary Obama said he had been a community organizer while Edwards was making money as a trial lawyer, not exactly the most tact thing to say, but it might appeal to independents. I hope Obama gives Edwards something good in exchange for an endorsement. His campaign is about working together, overcoming differences, etc.
Edwards' endorsement has already occurred. He withdrew from the race.
Progressives will never forgive John Edwards if he helps Hillary Clinton try to derail the best opportunity for real change we have seen in America for forty years. To back Clinton now for the sake of his own political prospects would be rightly seen by progressives as a sell-out and a betrayal of the highest order. Out of respect for John Edwards and his record on behalf of the progressive cause, I will assume that this is not what he intends to do.
Well Matt, that's a pretty transparently desperate attempt to prevent Edwards from endorsing Clinton. If you thought it was certain Edwards was going to be endorsing Obama you wouldn't be advising him not to endorse, no matter how "torn" he may feel.
It should be obvious to every one you have drunk the Obama kool-aid.
John McCain said it best last night:
"I do not seek the presidency on the presumption that I am blessed with such personal greatness that history has anointed me to save my country in its hour of need."
At least McCain has a shred of humility left in him.
It seems to me Edwards should have concluded by now that Hillary Clinton cannot deliver the kind of progressive change Edwards says he is looking for, but that Obama probably can deliver that change.
First, Hillary Clinton was supposed to be the better manager of the two candidates - the "doer" as opposed to the "dreamer" right? But it turned out this that her campaign has been financially mismanaged, and has bungled away lead after lead after lead in state after state, in part through the sloppy expenditure of resources, ineffective organization and erratic strategy. Obama's campaign has been smooth as silk and fabulously effective.
And what we are seeing in the management of the campaigns would be born out in governing style. The myth of Hillary Clinton the brilliant political operator and competent managerial technocrat is being put to bed as a myth. Hillary Clinton was put in charge of health care in the 90’s and badly lost that fight. She supposedly learned some lessons from that experience. But she has now been running a campaign for a year, and it looks like she’s going to lose this fight too. We see the same self-destructive attributes at play: secrecy, a bunker mentality, divisive people skills, cautious poll-tested wind reading, and faulty political radar. It would likely be the same thing if she were President. Although I'm sure she would assure us weekly that she knows how to fight for progressive change because she knows “how the Republican attack machine works”, I imagine we would see the same lack of actual results that we have seen with her other major initiatives.
If Hillary Clinton is such an effective “fighter”, why is it that she keeps losing? Effective fighting isn’t just some sort of combination of brassy demeanor, strident posturing and angry declamations. Those self-indulgent attributes might make the faithful feel good for a while by feeding them red meat, but they aren’t very effective. Isn’t it instead the case that the true measure of effective fighting is victory? Obama has had to fight hard every step of the way to get where he is, coming from far back in the polls, and has faced several rounds of attacks along the way. And he keeps sailing through them and coming out ahead, while Clinton keeps losing ground. Isn’t it clear by now that the Obama approach to fighting for change is more politically successful than the Clinton approach? Isn’t it also clear by now that Clinton and her people have an inferior read on the American people, but that Obama gets it?
What does Hillary Clinton have to show for her seven years in the Senate? Less than Obama has accomplished in half the time. Bragging about her right wing attack battle scars is no evidence of future success. Losers have a lot of battle scars too.
If we are looking for someone who can actually deliver progressive change instead of just issuing tough-sounding, crowd-pleasing promises about it, I would say Obama is the only candidate from this pair that has already proven he has what it takes.
Craig: I saw that @ MyDD, Mark Halperin of Time calling Obama a pussy and insinuating at the time and in his apology that these were John Edwards sentiments. Personally, it just confirms my own suspicions of Halperin and questions I had about him.
I can't believe he isn't getting called out across the board about this, but then again it was okay to call JRE a pretty girl, the Brecks thing etc. So maybe that is why?
John Edwards may be for Hillary. Therefore, he must be flamed.
Fact: John Edwards is a good man. Both Hillary and Obama are basically running on his platform, and they wouldn't be if he hadn't made such specific proposals, particularly on health care.
I'm just loving this theme I keep seeing pop up in the "will Edwards endorse?" stories about his concern that Obama isn't "tough enough" for the general election.
What in God's name does John Edwards know about being tough enough for a general election? Is he drawing on his vast knowledge of what it's like to be a presidential candidate in a general election? Is this the same John Edwards who smiled all the way through the 2004 election while John Kerry was being eviscerated by Bush/Cheney?
Although I didn't support Edwards for president, I had gained a lot of respect for what he's trying to accomplish. But this whole thing just reeks of political calculation. I'm surprised the media hasn't seen through this yet.
I think he is sincerely torn about the poverty issues that are closest to his heart. That said, if he endorses Clinton, I will conclude that the concern about human rights, iraq, & foreign policy in general was primary posturing & nothing more. Oh well.
John Edwards. A nobody. No first place in any primary or caucus. Why should we care who he endorses? And if he endorses Hillary, it'll make him look only like a angry loser. John, don't go away angry because you lost to Barack, the better man. Just go away.
I couldn't have put it better myself.
In any case, Edwards has shown he's not any good at this game. His endorsement was a lot more valuable when he got out.
I'm not sure Obama would even want it now ... boys ganging up on HRC, etc.
I concur with south side. Edwards has lost the ability to tip the scales with his endorsement of Clinton or Obama. He maybe coulda kinda sorta made a difference before Super Tuesday. It's too late now. However, he may not actually be interested in influencing the outcome of the primary. He may be more interested in his next job. In any event, John Edwards has already done the party and the country a great service by shifting the discussion in the way he has.
"John Edwards may be for Hillary. Therefore, he must be flamed."
Yup.
I'd like to see Edwards endorse Clinton solely over the UHC issue.
It'd be hard for him to do. The tactical advantages for Edwards of endorsing Obama are overwhelming at the present time, but I hope he decides to defend his groundbreaking UHC plan at any costs to himself.
His entire campaign was based on doing what's right, not what's expedient. And that's exactly what a Clinton endorsement would be.
I don't see how he could possibly think it would be a good idea to jump on the Hillary boat now.
A couple people touched on this above, but I think it's interesting. If you're geniunely torn between two decent candidates, why vote for one or the other? This was how several of my friends in California, and I, felt before the primary.
I ended up voting, but depending on the hour or day - or last article/post I had read, my vote really could've gone either way. A couple of my friends chose not to vote at all, and they are usually regular voters.
"I'd like to see Edwards endorse Clinton solely over the UHC issue."
Wow, nothing as informative as the single-issue voter. Actually, this isn't even so much a single-issue type of vote but a sub-single issue vote over one aspect of a plan: mandates.
Except, she didn't even manage to copy the whole health plan, a mandate w/o an enforcement mechanism is closer to Obama's proposal to Edwards, & if you care even a tiny, tiny, tiny shred about war or foreign policy you have excellent reason to doubt Clinton's capacity or willingness to fight for liberal values. It's not just that she's worse on those issues: it's that it is extremely hard to reconcile paying attention or caring about those issues at all (& Petey, I don't think you do based on past experience) with the sentiments attributed to Edwards in that article. A willingness to abandon an issue because Mark Penn tells you it polls badly has implications for poverty, too.
"Actually, this isn't even so much a single-issue type of vote but a sub-single issue vote over one aspect of a plan: mandates."
Yup. And that's worth a vote for an otherwise unattractive candidate.
Edwards should stand his ground to defend his groundbreaking UHC plan. Someone latched on to it, and someone didn't.
"Except, she didn't even manage to copy the whole health plan, a mandate w/o an enforcement mechanism..."
But, of course, Clinton did latch on to Edwards's enforcement mechanisms in the wake of his departure from the race.
It was precisely her willingness to go on record proposing "automatic enrollment" and defending potentially garnishing wages in the weekend before Super Tuesday that earned her my vote.
That was the same time frame during which Obama was launching his second round of "Harry & Louise" ads attacking UHC...
John McCain said it best last night
I was really hoping that this was a googlenope, but no, it's been written once before. Damn.
You should really go through Obama's and Hillary's speeches, and count up the number of times they use the word "I", and report back regarding who thinks they are the only one who can save the country.
Anyway, I don't think there is much to be gained from endorsing either one of them, it would burn his bridges with one of them and it wouldn't change anyone's vote at this point, and if he doesn't have strong opinions about it, why bother?
He should, of course, still vote. If you're geniunely torn between two decent candidates, why vote for one or the other?
I've posted about this before, sorry, but my reason is that one, you can always find a tiebreaker. They are similar, but they are not identical. If you are torn on the policies, consider the intangibles. They matter, too.
For me, it is important to find a tiebreaker. If my foremamas could be beaten and imprisoned and fight for 70+ years for the right to vote for such luminaries as Zachary Taylor, then surely I can muster the energy to make an informed vote. Ditto for African-American suffrage. And we all benefit from universal suffrage, and everyone should keep in mind that others came before you and fought, and failed, for the right to vote.
/climbs down from soapbox
As an Obama supporter, I hope Edwards doesn't endorse Obama. I obviously wouldn't want him to endorese, HRC either. But, at this point, I would not want it to seem like the "boys" are ganging up on HRC. The tag-teaming in the debate hurt Obama. At this point, HRC is going down of her own accord. No need to pile on.
"Yup. And that's worth a vote for an otherwise unattractive candidate.
Edwards should stand his ground to defend his groundbreaking UHC plan. Someone latched on to it, and someone didn't.
Posted by Petey | February 13, 2008 4:34 PM"
I wish I lived in a world where detailed health care plans became policy. In that world, the Clintons would have passed UHC over a decade ago. You've just become obsessed with one wonky detail - mandates - over everything else, such as Kyle-Lieberman just as you became obsessed with Edwards to the point you injected him into every thread, no matter whether or not it touched on Edwards at all. Putting "defend his groundbreaking UHC plan" in bold is not coherent thinking. The idea that Clinton could ever get a UHC plan with mandates passed is just a fantasy, so a HRC presidency would just mean having no UHC, an ascendant GOP after it should have been sent down to McGovern levels after Bush and a liberal hawk who backed the war (someone like Holbrooke or Pollack) at SoS trying to negotiate with the Republicans on hawkishness. But at least she would have lost the fight to get your wonky line in a piece of legislation passed!
Does anyone really give a fuck about the plastic clown/sonofamillworker? I suspect his endorsement would do active damage to anyone unlucky enough to get it.
After South Carolina, I don't see how Edwards could endorse Hillary Clinton, without selling his soul.
With his campaign in its last throes, Clinton's campaign decided to kick him when he was down: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/Clinton_robocalls_hit_Edwards.html
Matt's right. Edwards should NOT endorse unless it's Obama. Clinton doesn't deserve it. Should he choose to endorse her, he should be shunned. I speak as a former supporter who even voted for him in 2004.
The ground-breaking UHC plan that's worse than any UHC plan in Europe in almost every respect.
If doing what is right is important, why didn't Edwards come out for single-payer? Perhaps it is because that plan wouldn't be...politically expedient?
Gasp! Politicians care about politics. News at 11.
I don't think any of the comments above touched on the possibility that he isn't torn at all and has already made up his mind. I always suspected he got out of the race to allow Obama to go one-on-one with Clinton. It became the conventional wisdom that Edwards would endorse Obama and that assumption would have neutralized the endorsement. If it seems like he's anguishing over the choice it give the endorsement more weight through surprise.
I don't believe Edwards is stupid and I think he knew exactly what he was doing the moment he got out of the race. Combine this with the way Obama deploys these endorsements strategically and it makes sense--at least to me (waiting for Ohio?). I would be shocked if he endorsed Clinton. I think it's equally likely that he endorses Obama or stays out entirely.
"I wish I lived in a world where detailed health care plans became policy. In that world, the Clintons would have passed UHC over a decade ago."
No. Bill Clinton didn't run on any specific healthcare plan in 1992. That's a large part of the reason he couldn't pass anything in 1993 or 1994.
Run on a plan, win, and it's easier to enact the plan if you have Congressional control. That's how George Bush managed to enact his tax cuts for the wealthy and his massive prescription drug scam - he ran specifically on them in 2000..
Clinton in 2008 is running on the groundbreaking Edwards UHC plan. If she wins by running on that, she'll have an excellent chance of enacting it into law between 2009 and 2010.
As an Obama supporter, I hope Edwards doesn't endorse Obama. I obviously wouldn't want him to endorese, HRC either. But, at this point, I would not want it to seem like the "boys" are ganging up on HRC. The tag-teaming in the debate hurt Obama. At this point, HRC is going down of her own accord. No need to pile on.
As an Obama supporter, I hope Edwards doesn't endorse Obama. I obviously wouldn't want him to endorese, HRC either. But, at this point, I would not want it to seem like the "boys" are ganging up on HRC. The tag-teaming in the debate hurt Obama. At this point, HRC is going down of her own accord. No need to pile on.
Except, she didn't even manage to copy the whole health plan, a mandate w/o an enforcement mechanism is closer to Obama's proposal to Edwards, & if you care even a tiny, tiny, tiny shred about war or foreign policy you have excellent reason to doubt Clinton's capacity or willingness to fight for liberal values.
Quite right, Ketherine. For six years on foreign policy and national security, Clinton has been a go along to get along Senator, and did absolutely nothing to fight back against the Bush agenda. And she just skipped the vote on telecom immunity telecom immunity which Obama voted against. This new myth of Clinton the "fighter" is based on nothing but talk - no action.
I like Edwards but since he dropped out of the race this whole endorsement "dance" has hurt (to me) his aura-
If he was firmly anti-establishment and about change, then what's the dilemna?
And this constant floating of "what should I do?" makes him look weak
He should have just said right after dropping out
"I do not plan to endorse anyone' I will work for my issues and support the Dem Candidate" or pick one and work for them --
This whole back and forth makes whatever he says more meaningless -- to say he thinks Hillary is more of a fighter and he wants change in Washington is kind of an oxymoron--
My opinion: don't endorse and when there is a superdelegate/flordia/michigan casino -- then Edwards and Gore and Dean and other Dem party biggies can come in and negotiate -- with credibility
John McCain said it best last night
I was really hoping that this was a googlenope, but no, it's been written once before. Damn.
You should really go through Obama's and Hillary's speeches, and count up the number of times they use the word "I", and report back regarding who thinks they are the only one who can save the country.
Anyway, I don't think there is much to be gained from endorsing either one of them, it would burn his bridges with one of them and it wouldn't change anyone's vote at this point, and if he doesn't have strong opinions about it, why bother?
He should, of course, still vote. If you're geniunely torn between two decent candidates, why vote for one or the other?
I've posted about this before, sorry, but my reason is that one, you can always find a tiebreaker. They are similar, but they are not identical. If you are torn on the policies, consider the intangibles. They matter, too.
For me, it is important to find a tiebreaker. If my foremamas could be beaten and imprisoned and fight for 70+ years for the right to vote for such luminaries as Zachary Taylor, then surely I can muster the energy to make an informed vote. Ditto for African-American suffrage. And we all benefit from universal suffrage, and everyone should keep in mind that others came before you and fought, and failed, for the right to vote.
/climbs down from soapbox
Except, she didn't even manage to copy the whole health plan, a mandate w/o an enforcement mechanism is closer to Obama's proposal to Edwards, & if you care even a tiny, tiny, tiny shred about war or foreign policy you have excellent reason to doubt Clinton's capacity or willingness to fight for liberal values.
Quite right, Ketherine. For six years on foreign policy and national security, Clinton has been a go along to get along Senator, and did absolutely nothing to fight back against the Bush agenda. And she just skipped the vote on telecom immunity which Obama voted against. This new myth of Clinton the "fighter" is based on nothing but talk - no action.
John Edwards is regarded as a moral beacon and voice of political and policy wisdom by many very committed Democratic activists. His endorsement wouldn't single-handed decide the race of course, but I wouldn't dismiss it.
Personally, I regard Edwards as a good man and a fairly talented politician. I never supported him for the nomination in 2004 or 2008 (although I was somewhat torn -- while still overall leaning toward Obama -- in 2007-8 before the early primaries), but I still think Edwards weighing in on one side would be a point in favor of the candidate he endorses. I'm solidly enough in favor of Obama that I don't think an Edwards endorsement of Clinton would sway me toward Clinton, but if I were either 1) more on the fence, and more torn between Clinton and Obama, and/or 2) regarded Edwards more highly than I do (which is moderately highly rather than extremely highly), it might make a difference.
I like Edwards but since he dropped out of the race this whole endorsement "dance" has hurt (to me) his aura-
If he was firmly anti-establishment and about change, then what's the dilemna?
And this constant floating of "what should I do?" makes him look weak
He should have just said right after dropping out
"I do not plan to endorse anyone' I will work for my issues and support the Dem Candidate" or pick one and work for them --
This whole back and forth makes whatever he says more meaningless -- to say he thinks Hillary is more of a fighter and he wants change in Washington is kind of an oxymoron--
My opinion: don't endorse and when there is a superdelegate/flordia/michigan casino -- then Edwards and Gore and Dean and other Dem party biggies can come in and negotiate -- with credibility
"Does anyone really give a fuck about the plastic clown/sonofamillworker? I suspect his endorsement would do active damage to anyone unlucky enough to get it."
And I agree that the Democratic voters in Ohio and Texas would respond to an Edwards endorsement by turning against his choice. Thus Obama supporters should continue to slash Edwards to ensure he endorses Clinton.
You Obama supporters are all doing a heckuva job!
After South Carolina, I don't see how Edwards could endorse Hillary Clinton, without selling his soul.
With his campaign in its last throes, Clinton's campaign decided to kick him when he was down: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/Clinton_robocalls_hit_Edwards.html
Matt's right. Edwards should NOT endorse unless it's Obama. Clinton doesn't deserve it. Should he choose to endorse her, he should be shunned. I speak as a former supporter who even voted for him in 2004.
I don't have to flame Edwards. He's already a flaming asshole.
F@ck healthcare! - this election isn't about healthcare and as long as US citizens are divided on this issue, they're not going to get better health care anyway.
There are much bigger issues at stake.
I don't have to flame Edwards. He's already a flaming asshole.
"No. Bill Clinton didn't run on any specific healthcare plan in 1992. That's a large part of the reason he couldn't pass anything in 1993 or 1994.
Run on a plan, win, and it's easier to enact the plan if you have Congressional control. That's how George Bush managed to enact his tax cuts for the wealthy and his massive prescription drug scam - he ran specifically on them in 2000."
Tax cuts for the rich have been the guiding Republican philosophy since Reagan. It's what Republicans do. FDR didn't run on the New Deal after all, which is a much bigger deal than mandates. For both tax cuts and the prescription drug benefit, Bush was able to get enough support in Congress from people who were sympathetic to him. Where is the proof that Clinton could do that? Two data points do not make a trend. In addition, the prescription drug benefit had the added political benefit of seeming to be bipartisan because the media bought the whole idea of "compassionate conservativism" including helping seniors buy their drugs instead of what it actually was, a handout to big pharma. Clinton lacks the political skill to pull of this sleight of hand. The most important thing when getting legislation passed is making sure that you either have 1) enough votes to kill any attempt to filibuster it or 2) have an opposition that can be bought off enough or has enough pussies they won't filibuster. Clinton will be entering office with high negatives, so running against her will have some political benefit to Senate nominees in purple states. Your vision basically amounts to:
1) Clinton backs mandates
2) Clinton somehow beats McCain
3) Magic happens that make working with Clinton good for one's political career
4) Mandates are passed as part of a UHC bill.
Petey said: "I hope he decides to defend his groundbreaking UHC plan at any costs to himself."
"His entire campaign was based on doing what's right, not what's expedient. And that's exactly what a Clinton endorsement would be."
Come on Petey. I've heard of single issue voters, but this is (in my humble opinion) ridiculous.
To base an endorsement one on aspect of one type of plan that address one (admittedly major) issue, would be silly- not to mention counter-productive in regards to what Edwards had hoped to achieve.
His ENTIRE campaign was based on or structured around his fight against special interests.
NO candidate in this race has taken more money from special interests than Sen. Clinton.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?cycle=2008
The other primary focus of Edward's campaign was bringing change to Washington. He even railed against Clinton in the NH debate as being part of those forces that are continually against change, and fight change.
And his (reported) reasons for possibly not endorsing Obama? That Obama is not "tough" enough for the White House? Well, he's been tough enough to create a movement and ground organization from scratch to be (today at least) ahead of Sen. Clinton in delegates, even though Clinton had the name recognition and the Party machinery behind her from day one.
Edwards also worries that Obama is not ready for the Presidency…..but Sen. Clinton is because she was First Lady and a Senator for 4 more years than Obama? And what has she done during her 7 years in the U.S. Senate that demonstrates her superior experience and/or readiness?
Well, she voted to give the President authority to go to war in Iraq, cosponsored a bill to ban flag burning, opposed making retroactive unjust sentencing for people imprisoned for possessing crack cocaine, voted for the Kyle-Lieberman amendment, voting AGAINST a ban on the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas, and supported regressive and unjust federal mandatory minimum prison sentencing - http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2008/01/clinton-aides-a.html
...Just to name a few issues where Sen. Clinton has most certainly NOT represented progressive voices or policies or anything resembling the change that Edwards championed during the primary.
But because Obama does not include mandates or automatic enrollment in his health care proposal Edwards should endorse Sen. Clinton?
Would it be more dramatic for Edwards to endorse Clinton because it would be unexpected or "counter-intuitive" or because her campaign is in trouble, and if she can turn it around with Edwards endorsement, it would give him more political clout? Perhaps.
But talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.....such a move certainly would NOT be consistent with 95% of everything that Edwards has fought for over the past (at least) 4 years.
Obama supporters: Run on weak plan, which you never discuss in nearly the detail of the other candadate=mandate for change.
Or something.
There's another possibility -- HRC campaigns on Edwards style plan with mandates (but no option for people to sign up with Medicare-style system instead of inefficient private insurers). Somehow HRC manages to beat McCain through just enough Democratic turnout. Health care plan introduced, faces opposition, all Republicans and key Democratic bigwigs whine about mandates, mandates are dropped by HRC just like all inconvenient political dedications, and once again we extreme fringe-y liberals get lectured on how we need to grow up and get used to understanding 'how politics works'.
Does anyone really give a fuck about the plastic clown/sonofamillworker?
Well, yes, actually.
As far as I (and a large number of people) was / are concerned, beyond any specific positions he had taken, Edwards' general ideas about the direction America needs to take resonated.
I perceived them as more complete and authentic, the closest representation to my own ideas and feelings about where our focus as a nation should be after seven years of The Worst President, Ever.
I voted for him in the California primary because Hilary and Obama don't particularly thrill me. I wanted my primary vote to reflect my choice. I'll hold my nose and vote for whoever the Party nominates... because the alternatives are awful or horrible.
And, the fact that Edwards' ideas were effectively marginalized and discarded in the Clinton / Obama race, and will not be given a voice should either become President, I'm not wild about.
So, yes; I do give a fuck about that particular son of a millworker -- and his wife. You forgot to mention her, being so wrapped up in being a troll and all.
"Obama supporters: Run on weak plan, which you never discuss in nearly the detail of the other candadate=mandate for change."
You get a mandate for change by getting an electoral mandate by beating the other guy by more and having coattails to get more of your guys elected to office in Congress. Obama is currently beating McCain by more than Clinton, including among whites. The number of people who actually vote on the specific details of health care plans would be enough to fill a couple of student papers. In addition, Clinton's base, downscale, economically insecure Democrats, tend not to support mandates, so fighting for mandates on their behalf wouldn't be a mandate for change as much as depending on the fact that your supporters are not wonks who read your plan.
weak plan, which you never discuss in nearly the detail of the other candadate=mandate for change.
I guess I would have thought "a lot more people supporting you over the other guy=probably a mandate for what you want to do rather than the other guy's"
"F@ck healthcare! - this election isn't about healthcare"
Spoken like a true English turd who already lives in a country with universal healthcare, novakant.
Your friends and neighbors already have UHC, so you can breezily tell the American people to go fuck themselves.
You're doing a heckuva job, Obama supporters!
Edwards also worries that Obama is not ready for the Presidency…..but Sen. Clinton is because she was First Lady and a Senator for 4 more years than Obama?
Nevermind how much experience Clinton has. For Edwards to make the claim that Obama isn't ready is laughable. Obama is running for president with a bit less than one term in the U.S. Senate... compared to a full one term for John Edwards when he ran in 2004. Give me a break.
Petey seems to be the last defender of the Edwards cult. I can't imagine he would offer much to either ticket. He had a long, rather inglorious record of dancing to the prevailing tune, and belatedly reinvented himself as a progressive. Obama and Clinton have weak points, but Edwards has flipped and flopped more times than a goddamn yo-yo. Remember that heroic bipartisan address to support the Bush war? As for his health-plan, it was a weak attempt to fudge his way towards single payer, without admitting it. Definitely all hat and no cattle.
"There's another possibility -- HRC campaigns on Edwards style plan with mandates (but no option for people to sign up with Medicare-style system"
Too late. Clinton has already publicly defended the features of Edwards' UHC plan that would allow folks to choose a public coverage option over a private option...
"mandates are dropped by HRC just like all inconvenient political dedications, and once again we extreme fringe-y liberals get lectured on how we need to grow up and get used to understanding 'how politics works'."
Still another possibility: plan passes WITH an individual mandate but without an adequate gov't option, adequate subsidies, or regulation of insurers. After all, insurance companies LIKE individual mandates. Clinton trumpets signing of universal health care plan! But either mandates aren't enforced, or the major noticeable effect is making lower middle class families buy high-deductible, high-co-pay, low-coverage limit, generally crap insurance plans that don't help them much at all. "See? This is why the gov't shouldn't try to regulate health care," says the GOP.
Whether mandates are good or bad policy depends on the rest of the deal, the rest of the deal is more important, & I trust Obama's priorities & political skills more than HRC's. I also thing he'll have a bigger Senate majority & an easier time lining up the wuss caucus & peeling off a few republicans.
Since I have been a strong supporter of Edwards through two presidential campaign seasons I'm not the most objective contributor on this. However, I feel more or less the way he does about the two remaining candidates—I can see upsides and downsides to both. Hillary will has taken a lot of special interest and corporate money, and that will damage her ability to fight for the kind of healthcare plan she is proposing. On the other hand, Obama's plan begins by leaving large numbers uninsured so that even if he is willing to make it one of his highest priorities and stand his ground against HMOs, insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, etc., he starts out behind the curve. Oh, and because of the historic opportunity this election presents to enact important progressive legislation getting healthcare right actually is pretty damn important. I am just interested to see how the chips fall for Clinton or Obama at this point. Oh, and perhaps because I'm a bit older (in my 50s) can't quite commit emotionally to the entire Obama package as much as some. Life has its tragic side, and its defeats and setbacks, as well as its hopeful moments. Obama's latest speech began to acknowledge this a bit more directly. Meanwhile, I'm watching and waiting. If Edwards does endorse either candidate he's bound to disappoint significant numbers of his supporters, however. By the way, Jose's comments on Edwards seem a bit over the top just because Edwards seems torn about endorsing one of these two contenders.
"Whether mandates are good or bad policy depends on the rest of the deal"
Agree.
"the rest of the deal is more important"
Disagree.
Without a mandate, nothing is possible.
The weird thing is I'm pretty sure UHC is not Petey's top concern.
Based on previous posts, I would have thought it was something like:
1) Global Warming
2) Energy
3) UHC
In my mind, getting out of Iraq is the most important issue, b/c it makes this country substantially wealthier and more prepared to deal with all the real issues we face. That's ultimately why I back Obama. I trust him far more on this. I wish it was more than just trust, but that's the predicament a war opponent find himself in these days.
I think an Edwards endorsement would still be a very good thing to get, although I tend to agree that he sort of missed his moment if he was trying to achieve maximum impact.
I understand Petey's feeling about mandates on principle. But I just don't buy any of that stuff from Clinton. I think she went with a more progressive health plan to maneuver to the left for the sake of the Democratic primaries. But if Clinton were to get the nomination, she would move right back in the middle of the road where she has been for seven years, with her finger to the wind. Much of her announced plan would be out the window by November. And once in office, I would find it amazing if she pushed really hard for anything she has endorsed. She's probably just going to pass the buck to some sort of bipartisan committee. I just don't see any real record of accomplishment since she's been in Washington, either with her Husband or on her own. She drifts with the winds.
As a pre-Iowa Obamabot I think an Edwards endorsement would be a big deal. If he had guts he would do it a few days before Ohio and Texas, when it's more of a gamble. He'd have a place in history.
Otherwise, he should stay out of it and try to be an arbiter if it goes to the convention. Maybe that would be the more helpful thing to do? I suspect an endorsement would be better and I'll be mildly disappointed if he doesn't. Obama wasn't smart to bash trial lawyers, and of course a lot of trial lawyers are bad, but it's a conservative talking point. But maybe it's the way he feels?
Anyways I've always thought Edwards was genuine and authentic and his family is awesome. My dream was Obama as President and Edwards in the cabinet. Attorney General Edwards? That would be insane. After Gonzales and Mukasey and Ashcroft. Obama needs to step up and offer him something.
Petey, a large, large part of your pro-Edwards argument was always that he'd revitalize the Democratic party. Do you think Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama is more likely to do this?
Anyone else notice how the Edwards Cultist Petey can't answer real questions about how Edwards carried Republican water on Iraq? How his health-care plan was just a weak attempt to slither towards single payer? How Edwards went around as the working man's friend while living in luxury?
"I think she went with a more progressive health plan to maneuver to the left for the sake of the Democratic primaries."
Probably so. But going on record commits politicians in the future in crucial ways.
Obama will be unable to push for a mandate in 2009 because of how he went on record in 2008.
Clinton will be unable to NOT push for a anything less than the Edwards plan in 2009 because of how she went on record in 2008.
I don't care how she got there. I only care where she is.
I think Reality Man and Dan Kervick have pretty well summed this one up.
I have a great deal of respect for Edwards, and his plan was marginally better than Obama's, but it's awfully hard to get worked up about "universal health care" that's achieved via a partially subsidized individual mandate. This falls well short of what I'm looking for in a UHC policy, and it hasn't played well to date with actual voters.
The net negatives for Hillary far outweigh her positives, and the odds of her sticking to her guns on this point in the general election and beyond are minimal. I'll freely concede this issue on points to Clinton, but she still hasn't come close to winning my vote.
"Without a mandate, nothing is possible."
What's the specific rationale here? I've heard three, in decreasing order of plausibility:
Is it that the mandate is the only possible sweetener to lessen insurers' resistance to the other stuff enough for it to pass? Or that the free-rider problem will wreck the plan financially & there is no other plausible way around it? Or some sort of Klein-ish argument that a mandate is what prevents underfunding because the public DEMANDS adequate $?
If your focus is exclusively on domestic economic issues a Clinton endorsement is at least plausible, and I know that's pretty much your focus, and fair enough. But Edwards got in the door as far as he did by saying a lot of stuff about foreign policy & civil liberties--and as far as those issues, if he endorses Clinton, well, Feingold is right to be cynical.
Petey, by your logic if "going on record commits politicians in the future in crucial ways", then how do you explain the changes in Edwards' own stance on a number of things? I am sorry, but you just don't make sense here - and I think you know it.
"Obama will be unable to push for a mandate in 2009 because of how he went on record in 2008.
Clinton will be unable to NOT push for a anything less than the Edwards plan in 2009 because of how she went on record in 2008."
Since when does politics actually work like that?
Also Petey,
As an Obama supporter, I certainly do not think there is anything wrong with you continuing on to defend Edwards, his policies (including for UHC), and his vision for America in this and other comments sections.
However, I sincerely believe that you do your candidate and his ideas (all of them, not just one) a disservice by now supporting Sen. Clinton, and conversely attacking Obama, mostly on the basis (at least in this comment thread) of one issue.
I did not choose John Edwards as my candidate during this primary. However, he was always my strong second choice, mainly because his policies (overall) and his vision for the country were more in line with my own (and the way I saw it, Sen. Obama's).
But where Edwards to endorse Sen. Clinton, after everything he's said during the campaign, after all of his passionate speeches about the adverse influence of corporate America on working people, I would lose all the admiration I've acquired for him over the past few years.
And I think I would have reasonable grounds (based on what I've said above) to do so.
Not that he or you should care about what I think or feel.....but anyway, there it is.
(oh, the other thing: how on EARTH can Edwards trust the former community organizer less than Mark Penn's #1 client on labor issues? The fact that Hillary Clinton has excellent reasons to dislike the GOP is not actually proof that liberals can trust her.)
Also Petey,
As an Obama supporter, I certainly do not think there is anything wrong with you continuing on to defend Edwards, his policies (including for UHC), and his vision for America in this and other comments sections.
However, I sincerely believe that you do your candidate and his ideas (all of them, not just one) a disservice by now supporting Sen. Clinton, and conversely attacking Obama, mostly on the basis (at least in this comment thread) of one issue.
I did not choose John Edwards as my candidate during this primary. However, he was always my strong second choice, mainly because his policies (overall) and his vision for the country were more in line with my own (and the way I saw it, Sen. Obama's).
But where Edwards to endorse Sen. Clinton, after everything he's said during the campaign, after all of his passionate speeches about the adverse influence of corporate America on working people, I would lose all the admiration I've acquired for him over the past few years.
And I think I would have reasonable grounds (based on what I've said above) to do so.
Not that he or you should care about what I think or feel.....but anyway, there it is.
I would just like to go on record as one Obama supporter who would like Edwards's endorsement, and does think it matters. I will be disappointed in Edwards, someone I very much admire, if he goes with Clinton. Why? Because although I know Clinton has adopted Edwards's mandate-approach to health care reform, I also think that, above health care reform, Edwards's candidacy was devoted to the idea of removing special interests from the political calculus. This ideas is shared by Obama, not Clinton. And, without this underlying ideal, I wonder whether Clinton can be trusted to actually work for health care reform, etc.
I can understand why Edwards would stay neutral. If he endorses Clinton, though, it would look to me like he was making a decision based on the calculus of which endorsement would give him more political power (and, given Obama's momentum and lead in pledged delegates, I think Clinton needs the endorsement more at the moment).
What lies behind all of Petey's rhetoric is the simple fact that his favorite candidate lost out to Obama. This Hillary love is just an act of revenge, masked by some talk of principles. Thin gruel, Petey, thin gruel.
"If your focus is exclusively on domestic economic issues a Clinton endorsement is at least plausible, and I know that's pretty much your focus, and fair enough. But Edwards got in the door as far as he did by saying a lot of stuff about foreign policy & civil liberties--and as far as those issues, if he endorses Clinton, well, Feingold is right to be cynical.
Posted by Katherine | February 13, 2008 5:29 PM"
"However, I sincerely believe that you do your candidate and his ideas (all of them, not just one) a disservice by now supporting Sen. Clinton, and conversely attacking Obama, mostly on the basis (at least in this comment thread) of one issue.
I did not choose John Edwards as my candidate during this primary. However, he was always my strong second choice, mainly because his policies (overall) and his vision for the country were more in line with my own (and the way I saw it, Sen. Obama's)."
I have to agree with both of these sentiments. Edwards's progressive moves on foreign policy did much to make me warm to him this cycle. Who he wants to endorse for his own reasons is his own choice. However, it would be silly to endorse solely on Petey's logic over a relatively minor technical issue that has been inflated by this primary season beyond its actual importance (compared to, for instance, whether or not to stay in Iraq) that few people outside of DC think tanks and Ezra Klein's blog's comment threads actually care about, especially when it's the type of wonky detail that can easily be inserted or lost depending on dozens of factors with little relation to whether or not the sitting prez had that particular detail in their plan. After all, the budget that got passed in 2006 only got enough votes once the Republican leadership passed the Horse Slaughter Ban to satisfy the pro-horse Republican House rep from the Saratoga Springs area.
"Or that the free-rider problem will wreck the plan financially & there is no other plausible way around it?"
Exactamundo.
Sans mandate, any potential bill will not make the majority of Americans better off in terms of their coverage. That will have one of two possible results:
1) Recognizing that outcome, Democrats and/or a handful of GOP moderates in the Senate will peel away, resulting in no bill in '09 - '10.
2) A bill will get passed that is a functional disaster, resulting in a significant political disaster for the Democratic coalition going forward.
Pick your poison.
In my mind, getting out of Iraq is the most important issue, b/c it makes this country substantially wealthier and more prepared to deal with all the real issues we face. That's ultimately why I back Obama.
Obama says he wants to:
- Increase the size of the U.S. military (65,000 more soldiers; 27,000 more Marines; new equipment, armor, training and skills; new equpiment for the National Guard and the Reserves, and unspecified additional military "investments.")
- Maintain a military presence of unspecified size in Iraq for an unspecified duration, including troops to "protect American diplomatic and military personnel" and to "continue striking at Al Qaeda." He also "reserves the right" to "intervene" in Iraq to "provide civilians with a safe haven" from genocide.
- Send "at least" two combat brigades into Afghanistan.
He's also alluded vaguely to spending unspecified sums of money on non-military aid and assistance to Iraq.
That doesn't sound like "getting out of Iraq" or freeing up spending for "real issues."
Petey's totally irrational grudge against the English raises it's ugly, silly head again and is even more comical since the addressee isn't even English himself. As for the English health system, well let's just say it's rubbish, expensive and unjust and only looks good to some because US health care is even more f@cked up.
"What lies behind all of Petey's rhetoric is the simple fact that his favorite candidate lost out to Obama. "
My favorite candidate finished clearly in third, which means he lost out to two candidates.
And actually, it was his inability to overtake Clinton, not Obama, that strategically led to his demise.
(If I were to bear any factional grudge, it'd be towards Clinton for eliminating Edwards' biggest potential advantage in the campaign by stealing away his UHC plan. But I'm more interested in the future of the left than in factionality...)
"Sans mandate, any potential bill will not make the majority of Americans better off in terms of their coverage. That will have one of two possible results:
1) Recognizing that outcome, Democrats and/or a handful of GOP moderates in the Senate will peel away, resulting in no bill in '09 - '10."
You first have to get from point A - Clinton being the nominee - to Point B - President Clinton actually introducing a UHC bill with any chance of passing. This is a bit like watching libertarian utopians debate whether or not there will be police once we enter the beautiful Randian anarcho-capitalist ponies-for-everyone stage of the state melting away.
You Obama supporters are all doing a heckuva job!
Yes, Petey, we're doing a heckuva a job at winning, something John Edwards was abjectly incapable of doing. Although you claim to support Clinton based purely on UHC (as I'm sure Edwards will as well, if he in fact endorses her) you're not fooling anyone; You've thrown your support behind Clinton in order to spite the rest of us for not realizing what a goddamn dazzling candidate we had in the person of John Edwards. (At least Edwards would trade his support for a cabinet position; What's in it for you?) So formidable and beloved by the people was he that the African American urbanite who poached lily-white, blue-collar, rural Iowa from our Hero has now raised 1000 x as much money from the very Americans our Champion had vowed (as of 2006) to defend. You need to face reality, Petey: Barack Obama is a better politician than John Edwards. Period. Now, Barack Obama is also a better politican than Paul Wellstone was, and if the two had run against each other, I would have undoubtably bemoaned Paul's inevitable loss. But Paul Wellstone was genuinely more concerned about his constituents and his conscience than his own political power. Paul truly was as close to a saint as one can find in this cut-throat business. And when you seemingly hold John Edwards (someone who voted for the War, the bankruptcy bill, numerous free-trade agreements, etc.) in the same regard as someone like Paul Wellstone (or Russell Feingold, for that matter), you do a great disservice to the memory of a true populist political hero.
Thanks for your comment Jennifer.
You just said- in TWO paragraphs- exactly what I was trying to say.
Hopefully, people will bypass both of my (needlessly long) comments above and just read yours.
Sans mandate, any potential bill will not make the majority of Americans better off in terms of their coverage.
The people who would remain uncovered without a mandate, healthy people who choose to forgo health insurance, are not the people who tend to be the brunt of the free rider problem-- those with pre-existing conditions and working class families who use the emergency room as a health care provider of first resort because they have nowhere else to go.
We're not talking about an all-or-nothing distinction here in terms of cost savings.
"As for the English health system, well let's just say it's rubbish"
With your relentless advocacy against UHC, novakant, you make the prototypical Obama supporter. Heckuva job!
"With your relentless advocacy against UHC, novakant, you make the prototypical Obama supporter. Heckuva job!
Posted by Petey | February 13, 2008 5:59 PM"
Petey, you're wandering into projection territory. The respect that Edwards earned from me this primary season was very much in spite of you and your postings, which to me made Edwards less appealing through no fault of his own. You act like you're the standard-bearer for liberalism to whom we must all bow and anyone who disagrees gets mocked by you.
"I also think that, (absent) health care reform, Edwards's candidacy was devoted to the idea of removing special interests from the political calculus. This ideas is shared by Obama, not Clinton. "
Agreed.
I absolutely think there are decent rationales for Edwards supporters going with Obama. I just personally think UHC trumps those rationales.
Petey says:
"His entire campaign was based on doing what's right, not what's expedient. And that's exactly what a Clinton endorsement would be."
No, his entire campaign was based on arguing against/apologizing for his entire public record up until that point. He was the Democrats Mitt Romney.
then he should probably just say that
yes.
"You act like you're the standard-bearer for liberalism to whom we must all bow"
Bowing seems a tad bit excessive to me.
Mere acknowledgement of my ideological and strategic supremacy would suffice.
Uh, can everybody pipe down a little bit, particularly in the flame wars with Petey?
Look, I'm an Obama supporter, and I'm for moving the ball forward on healthcare, which I think Obama has a plan to do, but I think it is clear that Clinton has co-opted more of Edwards' plan than Obama has. If that is THE most important issue to a voter AND if said voter thinks that Clinton has just as much chance of enacting her fifty-two point plan as Obama does his, then it is consistent for Petey to support her.
I, for one, would like to see us reduce costs and expand coverage of health care, but I'll admit that I'm not enough of an expert on the topic to know for sure whether mandates are necessary to achieve real progress. There does appear to be some debate on this topic by people who know far more about it than I.
I guess that this is not the one issue upon which I'm willing to base my decision to the exclusion of all others. Transparency in government, ethics reform, pragmatism and moral clarity in a foreign policy: I tend to think that a President's policies matter in the first 100 days, and beyond that, we have to look to his/her temperament and his judgment about how he or she approaches government. In these matters, I think Obama has a more humble and more inclusive outlook that speak well to avoiding the excesses of the Bush and Clinton years.
Petey: Mere acknowledgement of my ideological and strategic supremacy would suffice."
The sad thing here is that you're perfectly serious.
"The sad thing here is that you're perfectly serious."
The previous supplied pre-requisite applies to everyone but Korha.
Korha must bow.
Edwards is a monkey and I control the electric prods.
I hope we can all agree that Petey is basically Ezra Klein, minus the style. There's nothing wrong with being a tired old concern troll, but there's no reason to take him as more than a single, rather self-pitying Edwards supporter. There are good defences for John Edwards, but an economically and politically illiterate fixation with healthcare is not one of them.
Come on, Petey's understanding of how policy processes work is entirely accurate. For example, FDR running on behalf of balanced-budget moderation prevented him from putting forward any kind of ambitious progressive agenda. If history teaches us anything, it's that it's the precise details of electoral platforms that matter, not whether or not you have the votes.
Scott, the fact that FDR believed as a matter of principle in balanced budgets mattered far more than his platform. Petey is ass-backwards on this one. Platforms change and evolve or are discarded. The one thing they are not is binding.
Please don't take novakant on British health-care seriously. The system works well, and is generally well-regarded by British people. Certainly, you find ocassional bad things happening, but the vast majority of patients are reasonably content.
Petey,
Your first choice candidate is out and didn't win a state.
Your second choice candidate is *planning* her Alamo in Texas, where she will have lost 21 of the last 29 states.
Tell me again . . . Why should I care if Petey's first and second choices activate their wonder twin powers?
(I suppose I'll have to bow too.)
Poor old Petey. He really is the Sancho Panza of the 2008 election, destined to trail plump and sad behind one lunatic after another.
Maybe we should take up a collection and get Petey a nice gold watch or something suitable for when Clinton final throws in the towel?
Maybe we should take up a collection and get Petey a nice gold watch or something suitable for when Clinton finally throws in the towel?
The system works well, and is generally well-regarded by British people. Certainly, you find ocassional bad things happening, but the vast majority of patients are reasonably content.
Yeah, just like the tube, it's rubbish, eventually it'll get you were you want to go in most cases, but the whole system is rotten. I know two London doctors very well, one of whom has spent 20 years working for the NHS and there's no end to their tirades - should I take your word over theirs?
I am for UHC goddammit.
I'm just pointing out that it is fraught with problems. And UHC isn't the same everywhere either, it works better in Germany for instance, though they have their own particular problems. If you want to implement UHC in the US it would be beneficial to take a good look at these problems, instead of engaging in wishful thinking.
Anyway, in the face of possible future US actions leading to the death of a further few (ten- hundred-) thousand people, I am not all that bothered about the health care system US citizens prefer to implement.
Novakant, my friend, what makes you think I don't work in the NHS? And believe me, I've seen the system operate for about 40 years now, and it is much improved. And yes, most people are fine with it. Don't trash something that is still deeply valued by people in Britain, just to sound tough.
I hope we can all agree that Petey is basically Ezra Klein, minus the style.
Ezra Klein is noted for his style? I'd say he's Ezra Klein, with four times the assholery.
I really couldn't care less who Phoney Baloney John Edwards endorses. I hope he doesn't endorse my preferred candidate and thereby transfer that fresh stench of loserdom thereto.
What a shocker. The white trash trailer park boy done good comes home and supports the candidate whose only solid support is poor, uneducated whites.
Heck of a job there John. Nice exclamation mark on your opportunism and the candidacy that will be remembered with a $400 haircut.
Dude, for $400 you can get a haircut, a blowjob and a good fuck from a high-class bimbo. Just ask your new butt buddy, slick Willie.
but that approach would not give him the quid or the quo
OK. At the bottom end of 105 comments (which means it'll never get read) I'll just say Edwards will endorse whomever he thinks is will win - that's why this has all proved to be so "difficult" for him. I mean, come on.
What a wanker. John, you're an OK guy and all, but you couldn't even get elected to a second term in the Senate, and really, what the hell makes you think you ever had a chance at the Presidency? You're just a less divisive version of Lieberman, dude. Your only real claim to fame is that Kerry, being the godawful candidate that he was, thought you could add something to his campaign. You did. Another reason not to vote for him. Go home, and spend some quality time.
I've long noted that those who sneer at "identity politics" in general tend to both misunderstand what it is we're actually deciding on in these elections, and are poseurs who's supposed love for policy is really just about seizing some moral high-ground in an argument undertaken more for the sport of winning than any sort of passion.
The truly passionate about issues tend to be the ones who happily engage anyone willing to discuss in good faith (as Katherine attempted with Petey). The truly passionate about winning will sneer at those attempts of reasonable disagreement.
Many others have been over the fact that we are not electing a collection policy proposals, to be immediately ratified upon our preferred candidate's inauguration. We're electing a person who's tenure as our leader will very likely be defined by choices made in the face of unforeseen circumstances. As such, personal history, biography, legislative history are as much, if not more, important windows into the character of the candidates, and character matters . Just about anyone in Washington can get a bunch of consultants and wonks together and churn out a white paper that they think is politically expedient (and lol @ anyone who thinks Edwards whole "leading on policy by going hard left on bread-n-butter econ. issues" somehow wasn't politically expedient in a Democratic primary against a well-known and well-liked-by-the-working -class Establishment candidate. yeah, that was all about principle, and not about poaching away Hillary's base. Sure.)
That's been my worldview for a while now, but never has it been more re-enforced than by Petey, in this thread, from his elevation of one esoteric detail of one policy to put above all else, because, he insists, we are electing a collection of policies...all the way to this:
Mere acknowledgement of my ideological and strategic supremacy would suffice.
Kind of ironic that those so obsessed with winning would be so bad at it. Your strategic supremacy? Please, how does that dovetail with your atrocious record of prognostication throughout this entire contest? You know, the skills necessary for one are pretty much entirely the skills necessary for the other: understanding voter behavior, building coalitions, etc etc. And yet, you've been wrong at literally every turn. From Edwards winning Iowa and the nomination in a walk, to Edwards marginalizing Clinton in NH so that he and Obama can go toe-to-toe and the Dems can choose their fighter, to the Dems now not choosing their supposed fighter, to the belief that healthcare is a much bigger issue with the voters than it actually is...you've displayed nothing but a consistent and frightening disconnect from both political and societal realities.
And a less-arrogant man would've stalked off in shame by now, self-banned from the site. But you have the hubris to not only return, but return triumphantly while in the throes of a second consecutive defeat, this time backing Clinton, will still righteously insisting that you are, in fact, right, and you do, in fact, have access to the OBJECTIVE TRUTH THAT WILL GET UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE PASSED. So far, though, we don't have any evidence that you even understand what politicians must do to win a caucus of 225,000 people, let alone what is needed to get 55,000,000 million votes and then persuade twice that number to get behind your agenda once in office.
The fact that you've been reduced to self-parody at this point and seem totally unaware of that fact...well, I don't whether I should be disturbed, or just laugh.
Poor old Petey. He really is the Sancho Panza of the 2008 election, destined to trail plump and sad behind one lunatic after another.
Posted by yazzil | February 13, 2008 7:50 PM
Ok, now I know which I should do. Definitely laugh.
I supported Edwards. But I do not in the least find HRC's published claims of what she would do regarding health care convincing enough to want to support her candidacy.
Furthermore I think it would be a terrible idea, although one I could deal with if I had to, to return to the type of failed politics of the Clinton / DLC- led 1990's Democratic Party, whose greatest purpose was to sideline liberals while promising in advance their goals before the inevitable betrayals, and which continually bled support for over a decade, so far as to lose a Congressional majority from 1994 to 2006.
"For example, FDR running on behalf of balanced-budget moderation prevented him from putting forward any kind of ambitious progressive agenda."
Pretty much every rule in politics has notable exceptions.
FDR is a highly notable exception to the rule that's held firm for the past 40 years that Presidents generally domestically accomplish nothing more than what they ran upon.
If Obama wins and ends up being like FDR, I'll obviously be a very happy Petey. But the Carter and JFK models of running on nothing and thus accomplishing nothing seem much more likely outcomes of an Obama win to me.
"Furthermore I think it would be a terrible idea ... to return to the type of failed politics of the Clinton / DLC- led 1990's Democratic Party"
Ironically, I think it's the Goolsbee-ism of the Obama campaign that makes it the one most similar ideologically this time around to the '92 Clinton campaign...
No matter how frequently the Goolsbee example is cited, it isn't the majority of the Obama program or his backers, and compares quite favorably (when it's not identical) to the broad range of backers of HRC.
Not everyone who has chosen to back Obama over HRC has done so naively or with fantasies and music videos playing in their heads, just as everyone who backs HRC isn't stupidly wishing they could wind back the clock to a fantasy of the 1990s which never existed.
There is simply no comparison now of the Obama campaign in 2007-2008 and the 1992 Clinton effort which ran on populist themes but was linked to a serious, wealthy and concentrated effort to derail the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, i.e., the DLC and similar organizations.
Such organizations are what make the difference, not just the isolated ideologues, and it was the systematic thrust of the move to enact right wing business / Republican initiated policies with a minority of Democrats in order to shut down the Democratic liberals which characterized the major policies of the Clinton-led Democratic era.
Similarly, I am glad that the early HRC attempt to award nearly all of U.S. health care to the 5 largest HMO's and insurers who drafted her plan nearly in toto ended up failing. It was a terrible idea, but one which entirely represented the big business fetishism of the anti-liberal ideologies and organizations which defined the 1990s Democratic "successes".
"Pretty much every rule in politics has notable exceptions."
For you to claim it's a rule, you actually have to show it's a rule. All you've been able to do was show that Bush passed two things early in his term. Assertion is not an argument.
"For you to claim it's a rule, you actually have to show it's a rule. All you've been able to do was show that Bush passed two things early in his term."
To look at the post-'68 era, I think the Bush the Younger, Clinton the Maler, Reagan, and Carter all are perfect examples of Presidents whose domestic accomplishments were dictated by their initial campaigns.
Bush the Elder and Nixon don't apply because they never had a Congressional working majority to accomplish anything at all domestically.
We have zero examples in the post-'68 era of a President who was able to accomplish more domestically than what was dictated by their initial campaigns.
Not everyone who has chosen to back Obama over HRC has done so naively or with fantasies and music videos playing in their heads
Especially since the music videos are pretty terrible.
Edwards is jealosy of Obama. He resented that he could not get his message heard. Now, he is looking to make sure he backs a winner, so he is not a 3 time loser. Its all about John Edwards in spite of the new packaging.
Go Obama
It will be interesting to see who Edwards endorses if he does at all. I think the Janitors union lack of endorsement is what killed him. But they had the right to choose whoever they wanted. It's a free country right? yeah, right.
Anyway, for those people who are afraid to vote for a loser, just remember this, from what I can count, Lincoln failed in local and national elections about seven times before he was elected President of the United States. Just some trivia to remember, in regards to any person who runs for president.
Unfortunatly it did not have a happy ending for him, but I don't think it had anything to do with his politics, his family was severely in debt.
So, just remember, freedom does not always come right away, sometimes it is filled with failure.
It will be interesting to see who Edwards endorses if he does at all. I think the Janitors union lack of endorsement is what killed him. But they had the right to choose whoever they wanted. It's a free country right? yeah, right.
Anyway, for those people who are afraid to vote for a loser, just remember this, from what I can count, Lincoln failed in local and national elections about seven times before he was elected President of the United States. Just some trivia to remember, in regards to any person who runs for president.
Unfortunatly it did not have a happy ending for him, but I don't think it had anything to do with his politics, his family was severely in debt.
So, just remember, freedom does not always come right away, sometimes it is filled with failure.
It will be interesting to see who Edwards endorses if he does at all. I think the Janitors union lack of endorsement is what killed him. But they had the right to choose whoever they wanted. It's a free country right? yeah, right.
Anyway, for those people who are afraid to vote for a loser, just remember this, from what I can count, Lincoln failed in local and national elections about seven times before he was elected President of the United States. Just some trivia to remember, in regards to any person who runs for president.
Unfortunatly it did not have a happy ending for him, but I don't think it had anything to do with his politics, his family was severely in debt.
So, just remember, freedom does not always come right away, sometimes it is filled with failure.
MESSAGE
MESSAGE
MESSAGE
MESSAGE
Comments closed February 27, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
What do you make of this? I'm not completely familiar with Radar. Is this Onion style parody, or is this going to get more press?
Posted by Craig | February 13, 2008 3:39 PM