Why I'm Voting for Barack Obama

There's not a liberal America and a conservative America - there's the United States of America.

That's a statement I believe with all my bitter, partisan, bleeding liberal heart. I believe it because I know too many conservatives who, if the chips were down, would come to my rescue in a New York minute. I believe it because I know too many liberals who love their country with a fierce sharp pride that brings tears to their eyes when they see their flag wave. I believe it because there's an awful lot of people out there who don't even know the difference between liberal and conservative, but they do know that America was founded on the concept of freedom and justice for all.

This has been a hard post to write, but one I've known I should. I really, really want Barack Obama to be elected President, as much, if not more, than I wanted Howard Dean to be the Democratic nominee four years ago. And we all know how that turned out.

So I'm a little afraid to jinx his candidacy, to admit how much I really long to see this happen. I've even taken to being flippant on other blogs about my choice of candidates, when the truth is, I'm convinced Barack Obama is the only candidate who will be able to push a progressive agenda (one which includes universal health care, higher taxes on millionaires and most importantly, global warming fixes) through Congress. Not even Howard Dean could have done that.

First, though, I'll say why I'm not supporting the other candidates. For a combination of superficial and substantive reasons, I really don't like John Edwards. First, he has the kind of Southern accent I can't stand. He sounds like a mush mouth good ole boy, not so much nails-on-the-chalkboard grating as gum-on-the-sidewalk cloying. Ewww. Not all Southern accents are as annoying, but his is, and if he becomes president, I'd have to listen to it pretty often. Double ewww.

Second, he was a trial lawyer for most of his life, and while I would be the first to argue that trial lawyers are a necessary part of our legal system (someone I know once referred to them as the lions of a capitalist system, keeping the rest of the savanna on their toes) being an "ambulance chaser", as many people mistakenly think of them, isn't particularly good preparation for being president. He'd be great working in an adversarial system like Congress, but for some reason he quit after one term in the Senate, where, by the way, he didn't take a lot of adversarial positions. And one position in particular really pisses me off. He voted for the war. How could anyone have done that, when there was plenty of evidence then regarding what almost everyone now acknowledges to be the truth. Back then I knew, and plenty of others knew, that invading Iraq was a truly awful idea. John Edwards either didn't believe that, or didn't know, and both positions are inexcusable in a U.S. Senator.

Which brings us to Hillary Clinton. I would actually prefer a HRC presidency to a John Edwards', because I think she's got the talent and skills to be president. Unfortunately, even if she came up with the most progressive and brilliant agenda possible, one I'd heartily endorse, she'd never get it passed, not as long as there were 40 Republicans and conservative Democrats to oppose her. Many people note that she's able to work effectively with Republicans in the Senate, and she is, but you don't hear them bragging about it back home. They want to get re-elected, and working with one of the most hated "liberal" figures in American politics won't help them get re-elected in Alabama. If she were president, they'd almost be honor bound to oppose her, which is a real shame, but there's not much she can do to change that. More importantly, I also don't want to fill the White House with former Clintonites again. They had their day in the sun, and I'm sick to death of people like James Carville pontificating as if the Democratic party he knows hasn't changed. We've come a long way, baby.

And do we really want to start a precedent of giving former presidents a back door into the White House?

The other candidates don't stand a chance of being nominated, but lately Christopher Dodd has been showing a lot of promise. I'd like to see him take a bigger role in the Senate. He could take over from Harry Reid and I'd be happy. As for Bill Richardson, well, take it from me, New Mexico politicos are just not ready for prime time.

But enough negative campaigning. Why am I supporting Obama? It's not just because he was always against the war, and it's not just because he gives a great convention speech. And it's not just because he's the hottest candidate out there, both in looks and in the enormous enthusiasm he generates.

He's a talented politician, yes, but he's been off his game in more than one debate performance. (Fortunately for that, since Americans seem to prefer voting for debate losers.) I can't even say I've agreed with all the choices he's made, that "judgment" question. I'm sure if I looked hard, I'd find one or two votes I disagree with. But as someone (that same someone) once said, if you're looking for a candidate you agree with all the time, then run yourself.

It really comes down to the whole picture, one that's been painted not just by the candidate but by others' reactions to him. I like the way Barack Obama makes other people feel, the way Republicans (real Republicans, not the politicians who've come to represent the Republican party) aren't afraid of him. Once when I was home in Louisiana, I bought a large book with his face on the cover at Barnes and Noble. When my apolitical sister-in-law, who's probably never voted for a Democrat, saw it, she said "Hey, we like him!" That statement has stayed with me, and I've puzzled over it.

Why do Republicans like Barack Obama so much?

I guess I could ask the same question of myself. Most of my friends and acquaintances, in the real world at least, are Republican. That's the sort of circles I live in, and always have. So I think I understand, better than most liberals, how the other side really thinks. Part of this understanding was due to a book someone gave me (that same someone again) called Moral Politics by George Lakoff. A few years ago, Lakoff was all the rage, then Kos and a few other liberal bloggers started to make fun of his ideas on framing, and he sort of disappeared. But while Lakoff didn't have much of a clue how to go about framing progressive (don't use the word liberal, he said, we've already lost that one) policies and ideas, the premise and the thinking behind the concept is sound.

Republicans (and Republican-lever pulling Independents) really want the same things liberals—err, progressives—do, but they think about things differently. As proof—aren't we progressives constantly quoting polls that say a majority of Americans feel the same way we do about budgetary spending—wanting less defense spending, more education spending, and universal health care—yet they still vote Republican, or for unacceptably conservative Democrats.

Our side just doesn't know how to play the game. Or more specifically, we don't know the right language to use.

Knowing how to approach a Republican, and increasing numbers of people who call themselves Independents, is crucial in a successful politician. Not one who is just successful at getting elected, but one who is successful at achieving a mandate (something Bill Clinton never had). One who can get a majority of the country behind his or her general policy goals.

When I saw Barack Obama almost four years ago at the Democratic convention giving his famous "blue America/red America" speech, I knew immediately that he got it. He really knew how to do what George Lakoff could only theorize, how to appeal to people who worked hard all week, who went to Little League games on Saturday and church on Sunday, and voted, most of the time, for rabidly conservative Republicans who did not represent their values! My neighbors. My family. My friends. And most importantly, to sell those same people liberal ideas.

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't care if Barack Obama appeals to the Jonah Goldbergs, the Bill Kristols, even the Andrew Sullivans of the world. I do care if he appeals to a majority of American voters, who, when conservative pundits turn on him, won't stop supporting him, because they like the way Barack Obama sounds. They like his tone. Because it turns out you really do catch more flies with honey, or more specifically, hopeful language that inspires rather than alienates.

A lot of liberals, particularly liberal bloggers, who are fond of thinking too much, seem confused by this. If Republicans like you, you must be wrong. I suspect they have confused my neighbors and friends with people like Jonah Goldberg and Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich, people who appeal to the worst instincts and motivations of Americans rather than their best.

That, in its clichéd nutshell, is why I think Barack Obama will be the best president we ever had. Far, far better than Bill Clinton, who cared nothing for progressive values and immediately caved when he got to the White House and found out that with no mandate, he couldn't even sign an executive order allowing gays to serve openly in the military. Barack Obama didn't come from a town called Hope, but he sure does give it to a lot of people. That's what many of us have been looking for. Someone who believes in the fights that are worth fighting, believes that they're winnable on their own merits. Someone who believes that everyone in America wants what's right and good and safe.

Someone who knows that we all, deep down, just want to leave a better world for our children.

We have to have a candidate who appeals to more than the 50-plus-1 percent. We don't need another close election, a continuation of the divided country we began to develop when Bill Clinton was elected, with 43 percent of the vote and a Congress full of conservative Democrats and Republicans who immediately sensed his weakness.

Barack Obama, who instinctively uses language that inspires Democrats, Republicans, Independents, young, old, black, white, and Americans of all stripes, can deliver that mandate in a way that no other candidate I've seen, in all my 30 years of close—and extremely partisan—political observation, can.

He talks about "Obama Republicans," the opposite of "Reagan Democrats." Ronald Reagan wasn't a moderate Republican, far from it, just as Obama is no moderate Democrat. Reagan was, however, adept at speaking to those who might ordinarily disagree with him. The Great Communicator, they called him. Up till now, we've never had a candidate capable of that sort of political realignment, while keeping true to his core Democratic beliefs.

What else? Oh yeah, Barack Obama's a great basketball player, as I joked on Roxanne's site. But there's a serious point there: if you've ever watched, or played, pick up basketball, you know it takes a hard fighter to win. Barack Obama's not afraid to throw a sharp elbow or two, which he'll need to do when he's president. After all, there are still a lot of those rabidly conservative politicians just waiting to block his shot.

And if that's not reason enough to convince you, well, he is the hottest candidate out there. Imagine that handsome smile on the wall of your local Social Security office! Maybe we could even clear a spot on Mt. Rushmore for that chiseled jaw.

If you're an American abroad, you can vote on February 5 in the Democrats Abroad Global Primary.

Comments

[Maxine]

Writing as the one woman in Britain who was not extolling Gordon Brown before he took over from Blair (it took them all about 2 weeks to flip to the opposite position and start to slag him off), I am sorry to read what you write about Hillary Clinton as I would like to see her as president (from the options on offer). I don't doubt what you write about her -- it is a pity that so many people in the USA seem to hate liberals and successful women so intensely that a combination of the three (liberal, successful and woman) could never be accepted. Obama seems an insubstantial figure.

[HumanityCritic]

Obama is a substantial figure in American politics, I couldn't agree with you more - Obama is our best shot at healing this country domestically and internationally. I don't want to jinx his run either, but I also hope that he gets the presidency.

[Chris in Oxford]

Wonderfully written, Kathy. Obama has my support as well, here's hoping for a good start tomorrow in Iowa. Thanks for the Dems Abroad link. I need to take a look - I was planning to vote absentee in Florida, but maybe that's a better option.

[catherine]

Very well written, but we will have to agree to disagree. I had a blog post about Obama having anti-gay preacher on a Southern tour which is a non-negotiable for me.

Also, I think he shows a lot of promise. However, he has no hands on experience with foreign affairs which hasn't worked out very well for our country. He made some wrong votes on an energy bill. Additionally, he has missed so much of his job that his voting track record is woefully incomplete. It makes harder to judge him on issues that way.

[KathyF]

We will have to disagree then, because for me, having an anti-gay supporter at a rally pales in comparison to voting for a war in which thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people have died.

And he's got quite a few years, and thousands of votes, in the Illinois senate.

[Mike]

I must admit, quite frankly, that I haven't been paying much attention to the presidential — um — race as I should, simply because I don't think that whoever is permitted to be elected will make much of a difference, and because that person won't be Kucinich.

As for hating Hillary, it has very little to do with her being a successful woman (well, maybe not for Republicans) and everything to do with my belief that she and her husband are the worst things that ever happened to the Democratic party. Their triangulation strategy marginalised the Left as the party went Right, was rigourously copied by Tony Blair and his NuLabour apparatchiks, and had the same effect here in the UK. The net result has been a million deaths in Iraq and a probably irreversible accelleration in the impending destruction of civilisation as we know it.

So, no, I'm not really a big fan of either Bill or Hill.

[KathyF]

Mike, I pretty much agree: Bill Clinton was the weakest president we ever had, and partly, I think, that was due to the fact he never had a mandate, winning with less than a plurality. He quickly realized that with gays in the military, and from then on backed down whenever possible. No wonder, really, he took up with another woman. He was probably trying to prove his manhood in the non-political realm.

[Serge]

"...I wanted Howard Dean to be the Democratic nominee four years ago. And we all know how that turned out..."

The word for me that night after the New Mexico primaries was 'heartbreak'. None of this year's Democrats excite me the way Dean did. I'll vote for whoever gets the nomination, but that's about it. Now, if Al were to finally change his mind...

[KathyF]

Serge, I was in charge of planning the victory party for what we were sure would be a Dean victory. Yes, heartbreak is watching 4 dozen balloons slowly deflate while you drink as much as you can to forget about the returns coming in over the tv monitor.

[KathyF]

One more note: Obama and Edwards have almost identical track records when it comes to missing votes (and, ironically, equal to McCain's). (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/presidential.xpd)

And Obama has sponsored one piece of successful legislation, compared to 2 for Hillary and 0 for Edwards, who basically did nothing while in the senate except co-sponsor the Iraq War Resolution.

[Tara Dharma]

well laid out thoughts, here. I have good and bad feelings about Obama, Clinto and Edwards. I love that Chris Dodd stayed in DC to stymie Bush's efforts to control congress. Now that's leadership.

I'm not sure if any of the candidates can deliver what I really want, because what I want is radical change. Our system of government is set up to thwart radical change and support gradual, moderate change. Add corporations and big money interests to the mix and we really start to lower the odds of meaningful change.

[Hannah]

My mom's the BEST when it comes to choosing the best candidate! Go mo-om, go mo-om

[Roxanne]

I'm supporting Edwards because I really really hate Oprah.

[John]

Excellent arguments and I'd probably support them if I thought the Democrats were truly offering any alternatives to the Republicans. I do admit, though, that I'd like to see Hillary in office for the simple reason that the U.S. should, finally, acknowledge that women are equally capable of governing as men...and probably more so. And, despite his accent, I like Edwards and I think Obama has a lot going for him. But, I am afraid none of them are offering what we need: a strong, articulate, persuasive candidate who would force us, the American People, to face the fact that we've been swindled and have contributed to the cause. I'm lookin for a candidate who will be a true uniter, someone who will shoot straight and tell the middle class that, like it or not, taxes will have to be raised to pay for the Bush extravagances. I'm looking for someone who will tell the truth, someone who will leave the platitudes to the Republican idiots. Someone who will say: "America, it's no longer an option. We address global warming or our children will die at our own hand. America, health care must be addressed right now, today, or we'll all be guilty of ruining the lives of our children and grandchildren. America, we've been an imperialist, obnoxious, aggressor for too long; we have to admit we've been bullies and tyrants and have wrecked the world with our attitudes and our expectations of worship by the rest of the world."

I'm one of those whose eyes tear up at the sound of America the Beautiful, but I'm one who tears up even more when I see that we have allowed ourselves to become so smug, so self-assured, that we have allowed our leaders and ourselves to mistreat the rest of the world. We have allowed ourselves to abuse natural resources as though we had divine rights to them. I'm looking for someone whose independence is strong enough to shape the message I long to hear. The middle class doesn't need tax cuts! We need to step into the fray and contribute our fair share to fixing this world's problems!

Obama is a nice, well-meaning guy. He's one of many. I want someone to stop being nice to us and demand accountability, not only from government, but accountability from its citizens, from you and me.

I'm off the soapbox. I apologize for taking so much time and so much space.

[nancy]

John(above)for Prez!!!
I couldn't agree more, John, that we desperately need that type of strong leadership. I really want someone who will remove our congresspeople from the clutches of corporations...someone who will give the governance of our country back to the people...that's not Hillary nor is it Obama, I'm afraid.
I wish Kucinich stood a chance because he certainly tells it like it is. Lately Chris Dodd has been very impressive, showing spine rarely seen in either house of Congress. But, assuming I must choose from among the corporate-media-chosen "top three", I think it must be Edwards for me. I know he made a terrible mistake voting for the War Powers Act, as did many others. At least he admits it readily, and pledges to bring all combat troops home from Iraq within 10 months of becoming president. Polls I've seen show him as the candidate most likely to win the general. Most important to me, I'm convinced he means it when he says he will fight the corporatists in order to return our government to the people.
Obama is certainly my second choice, although I think the swift-boaters will have a wonderful time making fictitious (and probably effective) ads about his name and his background.
Just my 2 cents.

[KathyF]

Nancy, Edwards did nothing to fight the corporatists when he was in office--look at his record. It's very conservative, and anti-union. Forgive his Iraq vote if you will, but he also voted for the Bankruptcy bill. He's at the point now where he'll say anything to be elected. 10 months? He pulled the number out of a hat. No military leader has advised that short of a redeployment schedule.

HIs vote on Iraq showed he will do whatever he thinks is politically popular. He's still doing it.

[nancy]

Obama didn't have to actually vote on Iraq, so we can't be sure how he would have voted. Please understand that I like Obama, but Edwards has me convinced he'll be more of a populist. And the polls have me convinced he can win in November.

Edwards' union endorsements:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/03/AR2007090300167.html

Edwards isn't the only one who has proposed rapid redeployment... Consistent with the Iraq Study Group report, Obama introduced a bill in Jan 07 to bring the combat troops home by March 08,(which is a good thing, by the way):

http://obama.senate.gov/press/070130-obama_offers_pl_1/index.php

I'll look further into the other things you mention above. - N

[KathyF]

Nancy: I don't like to post comments verbatim from other blogs (in this case, Politico's Ben Smith blog) but this one struck me:

This is the record of the guy that they praise(things that they(left bloggerheads) are supposedly against).--John Edwards voted for No Child Left Behind. Voted against funding NO Child. Now he wants to fix it?- He voted for the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy -3 times.- He voted against the estate tax.- He voted for the Bankruptcy Ripoff bill('01). - He voted for bankruptcy reform which has hurt many lower income families in this country.- Edwards voted for the Packer Ban and the Right to Work bill.- He voted against restricting consolidation of Big Meat Packing.. He voted against public financing -2 times. - He vowed not to take public financing and now he has conveniently changed his tune and the party will carry this burden. There is no legitimate plan after Iowa.- He voted against the Wellstone VA funding amendment. - He voted for free trade in China.- He acted like he was critical of offshore tax shelters for the wealthy in 2004, and then in 2005 he worked as a consultant for the Fortress Investment Group whose hedge funds were incorporated in the Cayman Islands. They foreclosed on homes in LA and even Iowa. - Edwards voted for storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada (which IMO Nevadans will not appreciate). - John Edwards has the worst environmental record according to the League of Conservation voters ratings? '59 for JRE----- 96 for Barack Obama'. -- Edwards CO-SPONSORED and promoted(in videotaped speeches) Lieberman's S.J.RES.46, the Iraq War Resolution, and also later voted for it in the full Senate to authorize the use of military force against Iraq. KYL-LIEBERMAN comes to mind. The more I look into John Edwards' record, the more troubling it is. Because the support for the war has gone down, are these hawks trying to play both sides of the fence? He didn't read the NIE report and lied and said he had at one point. - In the 2004 VP debate, Dick Cheney brought up John Edwards' senate record, John Edwards clammed up. In this past CNN debate, when Hillary Clinton brought up his record , John Edwards sat down and clammed up, again.- So-called electability gave us John Kerry/John Edwards in 2004(Edwards never brought a single southern state to that ticket). John Edwards lost his home state. Edwards lost his home county?Moore County?by more than eleven thousand votes, 24,714 to 13,555. He also lost his hometown by more than 300 votes, 506 to 191(to GWB).- He is not a terrible person, he is just not a winning ticket. There is a devastating interview with George Stephanopolous where he seems to apologize for every bad vote while he was a senator. He referred to the war on terror this campaign season as a bumper sticker(will not help in the GE). Bad judgments over and over again should not give him the keys to the White House. Good judgment matters. Being a serial apologizer is not good enough.

[Diane]

Not being a Democrat, I do not feel very enthusiastic about any of the "viable" candidates, though a couple of the so-called "crazy" ones appeal to me. With the possible exception of those men--who will never be considered seriously--I will not consider electing another white male to be the leader of this country.

I do believe that the election of either Obama or Clinton would be a social victory because it is way past time that a woman or minority person became president.

I cannot join in calling Obama "progressive" because of his stand against the rights of the LGBT community. It is particularly onerous to me when women and minorities (and that would include Clinton)--who have had to work against oppression all their lives--refuse to work against oppression against others. I could not abide this trait (among many others) in Colin Powell, and I cannot abide it in Obama and Clinton.

There is no social restriction in this country against bashing women, and the press--including the "liberal" press--is having a field day with Clinton. Conversely, they have (so far) given Obama a pass. This will definitely help him get the nomination and even get elected. It is ironic because--if he had dark skin--he would probably not even be a senator, much less a presidential candidate. That's America.

I think Republicans may like Obama because he is pretty business-friendly. I think we could do a lot worse than elect him president. If he is the nominee and/or elected, I will not be unhappy. I will never get the president I want, and it is far, far better to get an Obama or a Clinton or an Edwards than a McCain or a Romney.

[nancy]

Hey, Kathy,
I've been looking over all the Edwards material you offered. Have you checked out the claims made by the blogger in his/her comment you posted here, because it seems there may be vast misinformation, as well as misleading innuendo and opinion, in the blogger's apparent unwarranted smear of Edwards' voting record. (See below some links to his voting record on various bills.) Please correct me if I'm mistaken.
Kathy, I think Edwards is the 'real deal' from everything I've read. I think his record indicates he is for 'the people' and not for the corporations. If you can give me more places to look, I'll keep doing the research, but I haven't found any reason to suspect Edwards in insincere.
I'd really like a link to the Stephanopolous/Edwards interview referred to in the blogger's comment if you can find it.
As far as electability goes, I think it's clear that Bush/Cheney stole the 2004 election, and since Kerry/Edwards actually did win (as did Gore in 2000,) Edwards probably contributed to that success.
-N
EDWARDS' VOTING RECORD was found at VOTE-SMART.ORG:
Edwards votes AGAINST BUSH TAX CUTS for the WEALTHY:
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V3004&can_id=21107
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V3006&can_id=21107

Edwards votes AGAINST DRILLING in ANWR:
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V3243&can_id=21107

I personally was not in favor of No Child Left Behind, but the Dems were united in favor of it, which had overwhelming bipartisan support, by the way. Here's that link:
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_member.php?cs_id=V3149&sort=party
The bill sought to close the achievement gap with accountability, flexibility, and choice, so that no child is left behind.
Project Vote Smart's Synopsis:
Vote to adopt a conference report that authorizes $26.5 billion to update and reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which was enacted in 1965.
(Only 3 Dems voted against NCLB)
Among the votes in favor were:
Clinton, Biden, Boxer, Dodd, Kennedy, Durbin, Murray, Corzine, Byrd

[nancy]

And as long as we're stretching the rules a bit and posting from other blogs today, a January 1 poster at Huffington pretty well sums up for me why I'm for Edwards. Excerpts are included below or click me for the entire article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-welsh/the-edwards-imperative-b_b_79015.html?view=print

excerpts:

Edwards should be Democratic nominee because he is the most progressive and electable of the top three candidate and the only one who understands that entrenched interests like the telecoms, banks, credit card issuers, health insurers and oil companies aren't voluntarily going to make some sort of "bipartisan happy consensus" that costs them billions of dollars and a ton of power, whether doing so saves millions of lives, trillions of dollars and makes the country prosperous and safe or not.

Just is not happening.

And anyone who thinks it is (hello, Mr. Obama) is both living in a fantasy land and certainly is suffering from amnesia, because nothing, nothing in the last 30 years, indicates that megacorporations are giving up any power, even a small amount, without a fight to the death.
[...]
Voting for Clinton is taking on an old scarred fighter with a bad win/loss record. And all of this is before we get to Mark Penn, the union-buster, being her chief right hand man.
[...]
Then there's Barack "Consensus" Obama. It's hard to even take this seriously. In 2007 the Republicans in Congress killed, through technical filibusters, almost twice as many bills as any Congress ever has. [...] Oh, sure, I understand that Obama and many Americans would like to go back to the land of consensus-driven politics, where there's a center and where everyone works for what is best for America by splitting the difference. It's a pretty picture. But there's no middle left.

There's no room for splitting the difference between torturing and not torturing. There's no room for splitting the difference between selling illegal wars based on lies and not selling illegal wars based on lies. There's no room to split the difference between respecting the Constitution and not respecting the Constitution.

There's no middle left and anyone who thinks that the vast majority of Republican Senators will respond to good will is living in a world of denial. Nothing, absolutely nothing, in Republican behaviour in the last 7 years indicates that will happen. [...] Which leaves us with John Edwards: who wants to kick ass, take names, and help the middle class stop getting reamed out by credit card companies, banks, oil companies, Wall Street and all the other invertebrates whose existence is based on sucking blood from ordinary people while denying they have any responsibility for how pale and weak the middle class has become.

[...] compromise, tried for damn near 20 years, has gotten us nothing but our teeth kicked in, our lunch money stolen and thousands of soldiers and probably a million Iraqis dead. And strangely, despite not having 60 votes at any point during their period of rule, the Republicans got through most of what they wanted.

So perhaps the key to getting Republican votes isn't to come forwards sniveling on ones knees asking what the price for the votes is. I suggest the key is to have a president aggressively make the case that the American people want health care, want lower oil prices, want fairer credit card policies -- a president who is willing to go the wall over it.

That's what John Edwards is offering. What Obama and Clinton are offering is, in effect, nothing more than what has already been tried and failed. [...]

It's time for a new approach, and amongst the three front runners in the Democratic field, that means Edwards. As with FDR, if his approach works, he will be both the most loved and most hated man in America, and some will wring their hands about how divisive that is. But if "unpleasantness" is what is needed to stop going to war illegally, to end the shredding of the Constitution and to stop the destruction of the Middle Class, so be it. An unwillingness to really fight means that those who will [i.e.] the Republicans, will walk all over those who won't.

The time for the failed politics of compromise is over.

Now it's time for John Edwards.

[Foodie]

Zowie--good piece, Kathy F--I have Obama's mug on a sticker on my laptop. I, too, want the guy--and of course the notion of a "black" family living in The White House delights me...
And also--you can write reams about Edwards and I will never be convinced or interested. He bores me utterly,I think he's a guy who wants to be Prez, period, and as I have commented here previously, why?? No interest in being a Senator after many many people killed themselves to get him elected, etc etc

[nancy]

Well, Foodie and Kathy, my friends, my fellow Deaniacs, I'm surprised you aren't for the one real 'fighter' in the race. I find him anything but boring. I do like Obama - he gives great speeches - and will work for his election if he's the nominee, but right now we don't need an appeaser or a compromiser. We need someone with the courage to reign in corporate influence, not continue business as usual. I still want my country back.
And, for what it's worth, Michael Moore agrees with me ... sort of, anyway.
Here's what MM says:
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?id=220
(or click me) And now I'm done...all done...we'll see what happens in Iowa, because this might all be moot anyway. We'll probably get 'Ms. Inevitable' as our nominee anyway.

[Foodie]

Hi, Nancy!! Howard!!
Calvin Coolidge apparently never said "the business of America is business" but still, corporations, large and small, employ many Americans and have influence for good as well as evil. I am less concerned with who funds a candidate than with what the candidate thinks on the issues and if said candidate can rally good people to sit around his/her table as advisors.

[Katharine]

Kathy, I'm commenting really late on this post, but it's terrific and puts into words better than I can why Obama is the best bet. And now I see that Iowa has proven you right!

[KathyF]

Never too late, Katharine!