![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
For what's little it's worth, that's my endorsement for Iowa, and my first choice for the nomination.
I've been on the fence between Edwards and Obama, with also a strong liking for Dodd and wanting Kucinich's campaign to be propelled, beacuse he rasise issues that need exposure. But neither Dodd nor Kuchich have the personality to win in November, nor do they stand a chance of being nominated. The effective field is Edwards, Obama, and Clinton.
Let's leave discussion of Clinton aside, except to say that I think more highly than many of you do, but I still think we can do much better.
Obama and Edwards are each the best candidate to address one of America's overwhelming needs.
Obama has the greatest capacity to restore pride in our democratic institutions, undoing the damage that the New Left, followed by decades of Reaganism have done in making us reject our birthright as citizens, opting instead to be merely residents. Nobody since Kennedy has come close to Obama's ability to make of us an active citizenry. If an Obama presidency went well, Kennedy would be surpassed and nobody since Lincoln will have been as effective at this vital task.
Edwards is positioning himself to address the fundamental, back-breaking inequalities built into our system. His and anyone's ability to make headway there would be limited, but Edwards may well make as much progress as FDR did, and would almost certainly do better than anyone since LBJ.
Neither need is dismissable in this context. Obama's skill is needed, almost as an emergency. But Edwards' bringing more people into effective enfranchisement though not permanently obviating the need for more civic consciousness, would give us time for that, as a move toward dictatorship during a time when more people are gaining minimal security is quite unlikely.
So my choice comes down to who I believe would be more certain to achive their task. I have doubts about both. Edwards is simply too good a liar to ever be entirely trusted. I'm not saying he lies often; I don't hink he does. But on those occasions when he has, he seems perfectly believable. His record as a senator, though progressive—especially on economic issues—for someone representing North Carolina, is not in tune with his positioning since 2004. So there is a degree of doubt in that Edwards may be intentionally deceiving us, to gain the presidency for some other purpose or purposes.
I have almost total confidence that I understand Obama's intent. But as anchored in principal as his intent is, he has not yet found a way to navigate the day-to-day temptation to say what will work now, even if it's something he'd not be proud to have said later. And if he'll say whatever he needs to, I think he'll also make whatever deal he needs to, only later coming to the realization that it just wasn't worth it.
I don't believe that being in one's mid-40s means one is necessarily inexperienced. Perhaps when I'm no longer that age, I'll think that mid-40s is too early; but I doubt it. The problem isn't the mid-40s, the problem is that Obama reminds me far too much of myself in my early 20s. Of course Obama's even more articulate and far more charismatic, not burdened by many of the psychological quirks that have kept me from so far achieving what I might have. He would probably be a wonderful President, and I'm sure as hell not claiming that I would have at 23. But the likelihood that Obama would undermine himself with expedient self-deception of a sort he should have gotten over by now seems higher than the likelihood that Edwards is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
I hope they are both Presidents, in good time. I hope Edwards' good time is January 20, 2009.
I've been on the fence between Edwards and Obama, with also a strong liking for Dodd and wanting Kucinich's campaign to be propelled, beacuse he rasise issues that need exposure. But neither Dodd nor Kuchich have the personality to win in November, nor do they stand a chance of being nominated. The effective field is Edwards, Obama, and Clinton.
Let's leave discussion of Clinton aside, except to say that I think more highly than many of you do, but I still think we can do much better.
Obama and Edwards are each the best candidate to address one of America's overwhelming needs.
Obama has the greatest capacity to restore pride in our democratic institutions, undoing the damage that the New Left, followed by decades of Reaganism have done in making us reject our birthright as citizens, opting instead to be merely residents. Nobody since Kennedy has come close to Obama's ability to make of us an active citizenry. If an Obama presidency went well, Kennedy would be surpassed and nobody since Lincoln will have been as effective at this vital task.
Edwards is positioning himself to address the fundamental, back-breaking inequalities built into our system. His and anyone's ability to make headway there would be limited, but Edwards may well make as much progress as FDR did, and would almost certainly do better than anyone since LBJ.
Neither need is dismissable in this context. Obama's skill is needed, almost as an emergency. But Edwards' bringing more people into effective enfranchisement though not permanently obviating the need for more civic consciousness, would give us time for that, as a move toward dictatorship during a time when more people are gaining minimal security is quite unlikely.
So my choice comes down to who I believe would be more certain to achive their task. I have doubts about both. Edwards is simply too good a liar to ever be entirely trusted. I'm not saying he lies often; I don't hink he does. But on those occasions when he has, he seems perfectly believable. His record as a senator, though progressive—especially on economic issues—for someone representing North Carolina, is not in tune with his positioning since 2004. So there is a degree of doubt in that Edwards may be intentionally deceiving us, to gain the presidency for some other purpose or purposes.
I have almost total confidence that I understand Obama's intent. But as anchored in principal as his intent is, he has not yet found a way to navigate the day-to-day temptation to say what will work now, even if it's something he'd not be proud to have said later. And if he'll say whatever he needs to, I think he'll also make whatever deal he needs to, only later coming to the realization that it just wasn't worth it.
I don't believe that being in one's mid-40s means one is necessarily inexperienced. Perhaps when I'm no longer that age, I'll think that mid-40s is too early; but I doubt it. The problem isn't the mid-40s, the problem is that Obama reminds me far too much of myself in my early 20s. Of course Obama's even more articulate and far more charismatic, not burdened by many of the psychological quirks that have kept me from so far achieving what I might have. He would probably be a wonderful President, and I'm sure as hell not claiming that I would have at 23. But the likelihood that Obama would undermine himself with expedient self-deception of a sort he should have gotten over by now seems higher than the likelihood that Edwards is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
I hope they are both Presidents, in good time. I hope Edwards' good time is January 20, 2009.
