Specifically, back from my family vacation during which I had no internet access of any kind. It was interesting getting all my news from the NY Times I bought occasionally or from CNN Headline News which I watched very infrequently. For example, I learned a tiger killing someone in San Francisco is as important a news story as an assassination of a major political figure in Pakistan for one thing. I also rediscovered that family is what is most important to all of us, whatever family means to you. I hope and pray your families all had a wonderful holiday season.
It’s Iowa Caucus day and I’m exhausted — not from the political coverage, just plain old worn out. My body is not made for lots of physical activity anymore and that’s what our trip entailed. However, despite my fatigue I have given some small thought to whom I’d like to see do well today. So here are the two candidates I endorse and recommend to anyone participating in the caucuses in Iowa, or who will be voting in the upcoming primaries this month.
First, I would ask you to support Chris Dodd, because I believe in rewarding good behavior. Frankly I don’t care what his motivations may have been, but almost single handedly he forced Harry Reid to back down on passing George Bush’s “I can spy on whomever I want and no one can stop me or my pals in the telecommunications industry” FISA legislation. He deserves our thanks, our money and maybe your vote, if you can spare it. I’d like to see him remain in the race as long as he can. Doing well tonight would be one way for his campaign to keep going.
Second, I have, like many others in the blogosphere, decided that John Edwards’ message resonates with me more than the message of anyone else running for the Democratic nomination. I’m sorry, but I just don’t trust Hillary Clinton or Barrack Obama, based on who is contributing to their campaigns, if for no other reason. Edwards comes across as a man on fire — a sincere, heartfelt, authentic progressive. I love Dennis Kucinich for all that he has done, but his campaign is dead in the water right now. Edwards has the momentum, and supports much of the same political agenda that Kucinich does. If I was an Iowan I’d be an Edwards’ supporter today.
And, for a very personal reason, I would like to see Elisabeth Edwards as First Lady. Having two people dear to me, my wife and my sister, recently suffer from, and endure treatment for, cancer, I can’t tell you how much I admire her, and also her husband for standing beside her. Many, many marriages founder after a health emergency like Elisabeth has gone through, and continues to go through. Many husbands especially leave their wives after a breast cancer diagnosis. John has stood with Elisabeth all the way through her journey, and that speaks highly for his character in my book. I believe the two of them together would make a powerful force for change in this country. Indeed, they would make the most powerful and effective political couple for change in the White House since Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt in my opinion. And boy are there a lot of changes that have to be made.
So that’s my 2 cents worth. I don’t normally post much about the horse race aspects of politics here. That’s BooMan’s beat, and he does a great job with it, far better than I could do. But BooMan does let me post here without censorship or editorial control (though I’m sure there are times he wishes he had taken the time to edit my write first and ask questions later style of blog posting), so I might as well tell you what I’m thinking about who I would like to see become our next President. Doesn’t mean much in the grand scheme of things I suppose, at least not by my lonesome. Blogs, however, aren’t about a few alpha dogs leading the pack, they are about the great mass of “We, the People” taking charge of the alpha men and women whom we permit to govern this country as our representatives.
So, now I’ve had my say. I’d love to hear your thoughts. This is a conversation after all.
And, finally a belated Happy New Year to you all, in what I hope will be a far better year, one filled with more justice, more liberty and more happiness for all of us in these United States of America.
Steven D
“Edwards supports much of the same political agenda that Kucinich does.”
Total nonsense.
Ok, tell me why.
Well, a quick look at their “on the issues” page should tell you that, Stephen. I just went through and did a quick scan of their various ratings. As you can see, they couldn’t possibly be any more different.
(Edwards Kucinich)
Here goes (Cut and paste from a previous comment):
I find Edwards-mania bizarre and Edwards himself dishonest and phony. Dishonest because the shrillness of his discourse stands in total contrast with his policy positions: If he “refused compromise” about a Europe-like single payer health care plan… ok I would buy that. But all this noise about a compromise healthcare plan that is quasi indistinguishable from those offered by his bought-and-paid-for rivals? Same on trade: While Nafta and Cafta may get the ignorant mightily excited, the fact is they are a tiny side-show when it comes to trade and globalisation and US jobs. What matters is the World Trade Organisation and membership in it. If Edwards came out against the WTO I would find him credible (irrespective of whether I agree with him or not), but playing outraged for the crowd while never even mentioning the WTO, is just taking people for a ride and setting them up for more disappointment. The tough but honest thing would be to explain to Anglo-Everyman and Everywoman that in a globalizing world their edge is eroding fast, and they had better get off their fat Anglo asses and learn, because what they know today won’t cut it tomorrow in a world that’s learning fast while much of America is caught in self-centered delusions.
Edwards’s rage is cheap. I watched him for an hour on Rose. Where does he want to take the country he is asked. Back to the America of Truman and Eisenhower, he answers. It cracked me up.
This is your radical champion? You people crack me up. You are acting like starved zoo animals: getting all excited over a half-rotten bone.
(P.S I don’t have to tell you why I know Kucinich will tell you much the same thing…).
Follow the money. Clinton & Obama have a lot of pretty words, but Edwards appears to be more than platitudes. Populism & the ability to say “I was wrong” are big factors for me.
The conventional wisdom is that Edwards is too “angry” to win. I say screw it, after 7 years+ of Bush we SHOULD be angry.
Needless to say, we should also consider the ‘conventional wisdom’ utterly dysfunctional.
Personally I have become angry at and frustrated with the state of affairs in this country. I don’t see why that should dissuade me from supporting a candidate who feels the same way; quite the opposite, in fact.
Of course not! The CW also seems to dictate that passion is irrelevant to civil engagement — while, for example, the CW also dictates that the passion of the Religious Right was crucial to Bush’s political ascendancy, let alone the fortunes of his entire bloodsucking party since Reagan gave them their props.
So then: passion is only irrelevant for progressives –nay, harmful. (Alas, poor Howard, I knew him well. That guy was insane!)
It’s almost funny.
The truth be known, the possibility of progressive passion makes them shit their pants.
That is why The Village Elders must sharpen their pencils and quash it at all costs.
‘Course, passionate energy (which is tremendously powerful) must be intelligently harnessed, directed & utilized, especially when it comes to the collective. Ergo the crucial nature of coalition. Passion without directive force threatens no one.
This is why the denial of one’s own passion, or the marginalization of passionate energy under political organization, is senseless. It’s an immense source of raw power both individually & collectively.
Not to be co-opted, either. Passion isn’t distinct from intelligence.
intelligence as in conscience.
I’m sorry to digress, but this is expressed beautifully, and extends to all facets of our lives.
Hopefully, it didn’t take you a decade to realize that like it did for me!
I know you didn’t mean this in a personal, outside of our political lives or screenname identity, but it has touched me personally all the same. Thank you.
‘…family is what is most important to all of us, whatever family means to you. I hope and pray your families all had a wonderful holiday season.’
What about the people who have no family—literally NONE!
Family a pretty broad concept to me. And if I didn’t say something that offended someone I’d probably be dead. That said, no offense was intended.
Well… go find them.
I have two dozen or so immediate family members, and in a great surprise to all of us, I seem to have bloodline DNA ties with one of them.
My twin sister was born 1500 miles away and about 6 months after me. (We have no common relatives, but we do share a brain.) My kid brother and I have blood ties ten or eleven generatons back (ten for me, 11 for him. That’s why he’s the kid brother in spite of being a year older than I am.)
(I also have relatives. I don’t know who or how many or where they are, and don’t have any good reason to care. They’re all dead, though some of them may not yet be aware of that.)
Of course no offence was intended. I wouldn’t expect that of you, not at all, believe me, and I’m not offended. I just find the fuss about how great family is often a bit hypocritical, to say the least, not necessarily in your case. It’s all part of the Grand Restoration we’re going through which will lead no where except to more grief. As things worsen, the family becomes the last resort. If you have people close to you, no matter what the relationship, great. And if you don’t and feel well, great. If you don’t and feel bad, I hope things get better for you. There are relations in this world which transcend what most people understand under ‘family’. Have you noticed family policies in U.S. politics? Great, huh?
Well I agree “family” is a code word by conservatives for a lot of crap I don’t agree with.
Edwards is the candidate of the left and the one we should support. His populism cuts to the source of everything that is wrong with Republicanism. But he just seems to lose on all the intangibles. In spite of his age, he seems boyish and lacks the flair of say, an FDR or Kennedy. In other words, the content is right on liberal/progressive, but the form is weak.
No offense, shergald, but you obviously haven’t been watching the speeches I have.
I hear him too. But when I ask, why is he the third candidate in this race, I can only understand it from some other perspective. Your explanations are…???
No doubt there are a lot of reasons that I don’t know about, but in my opinion one important factor is that the corporate media have tried very hard all along to make this a two way horse race between Clinton and Obama. It seems to me that they tried either to ignore Edwards altogether (along with the rest of a very promising stable of Democratic candidates) or damn him with faint praise. And I think the reason they have is because Edwards’ populist message scares them. As well it should. That’s my take anyway.
There was a pretty interesting diary over at the orange place a couple days back about this very thing.
Happy new year, Steven!
Thank you. Still very tired but glad to be home.
A very happy New Year to you and your family.
Thank you very much. Glad to be back home both in the real world and in the blogosphere.
Happy New Year — welcome back! (I was just wondering this morning where you were… figured it was holiday/family time)
Yes. Poor Booman was deserted by most of us front pagers. Looks like he made it back alive, though, lol.