Clinton, Edwards pick up key Iowa endorsements
Hillary Clinton is about 15 blocks away this morning participating in a "Town Hall Meeting" for "Good Morning America," bullshitting her way through audience requests for specifics about her health care plan, and then later today, picking up the endorsement of former Iowa Governor and one-time presidential candidate himself, Tom Vilsack. (I'm certain the Disney Corporation, ABC-TV and GMA have extended similar broadcast invitations to candidates Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel in the interest of fair access.)The endorsement by Vilsack comes as no surprise. The former head of the self-described "third-way" Democratic Leadership Conference has been in bed with the Clintons, Terry McAuliffes, Bob Shrums, James Carvilles, and Rahm Emmanuels for years. Under his watch, as before, the DLC backed the Iraq debacle and publicly scolded Democrats who spoke out against it. Only in a last ditch effort to gain traction for his flailing presidential bid did Vilsack call for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, and few activists were fooled. (To steal author Camille Paglia's assessment of Hillary: all politicians are actors, and he's a bad one.)
High atop Sherman Hill overlooking downtown Des Moines and the Science Center where Clinton is speaking this morning, I have made the decision to make public today my decision to back Democrat John Edwards in 2008. The final decision came after watching Edwards with his wife Elizabeth on "60 Minutes" last night. I've always had a strong gut feeling about Edwards' personal and professional character, and that was vividly on display last night just as it has been the last few months as Edwards has repeatedly and humbly apologized on the campaign trail for his Senate vote surrendering congressional authorization-- and by extension, oversight-- on the Iraqi war. The right wing shouldn't have a monopoly on "values voters" by any stretch of the imagination.
My support for Edwards continues to be conditional upon his support for immediate redeployment from the battlefields of Iraq's Civil War, and his willingness to engage Iraq's neighbors, Iran and Syria, in helping to bring about stability. I support his call for the immediate creation of a NATO force to stop the genocide in Darfur, his attention to developing a new energy economy, and a plan to pay for the first year of college for anyone willing to work part-time. Edwards has been the most aggressive advocate in the race for fighting poverty, both rural and urban, which I believe, particularly after Hurricane Katrina, should be the Democratic Party's #1 political mission in helping to renew once again its healthy electoral majority. More than any other major candidate, Edwards seems to realize that this national crisis is tied directly to the availability and quality of good jobs and health insurance, and unlike Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, he has outlined a plan for universal health coverage.
I don't share the thoughts of some progressives who are writing today that "60 Minutes" and Katie Couric were out of line in asking very personal questions of John and Elizabeth Edwards over his decision to continue the pursuit of the White House even as her cancer has returned. I think its basically just angling for one's candidate to accuse the news coverage of being unfair, and I'm no stranger to that, Lord knows, but it's also a manifestation of a real fear that is inherent in too many liberals-- fear of having to answer for one's own beliefs and decisions. (Along these same lines, Rep. Emmanuel, a former Clinton advisor, has ordered freshman Democrats away from the Stephen Colbert political comedy show.)
John and Elizabeth were not granted a 12 minute interview ten months before the Iowa Caucuses for John to outline for America the specifics of his health care plan. (We can only wish that network television news operated that way.) They were given 12 minutes to discuss a very serious decision they had both just made. Slate.com reports this week that-- at least statistically-- the metastasis of Elizabeth's bone cancer has decreased her survival rate for the next five years from 85 to 20%, and I wanted to know just as much as anyone else rather the decision to continue with the campaign had more to do with John's political ambition than a commitment to public service they both share. I came away thoroughly convinced that it is the latter. In fact, I venture to say I would not be writing an endorsement of Edwards today without having heard the candidate answer the questions posed by a tenacious Couric. (Transcript here.) Hopefully, it's the beginning of a journalistic strategy that will extend more consistently to all other public officials and candidates for office.
John and Elizabeth Edwards will not get a free ride from anyone, and frankly, it needs to be that way. Politics is-- and should be-- a rough business. I think they understand this as well. Their "private life" stopped being that as soon as he entered public service, and especially so, after they made the decision to push forward last week. I think the dignity they've been displaying will propel Edwards in the race, and you won't see them complain if Elizabeth's health, or their coping with it at least, prove a political asset. It very well could now that their campaign packs the same emotional wallop with the public as the campaigns to elect the first black, Mormon, or female president. It will not only be a character test for them to deal with on the campaign trail, but a character test for the GOP and the Clintons as well, and their highly-tuned corporate smear machines.
As for the other candidates: I've never warmed to Dennis Kucinich, who's displayed a healthy amount of inconsistent behavior and political priority through the years, and former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel's been gone too long. Joe Biden is the Senator from Visa and Mastercard (both headquartered in Delaware,) that is, a betrayer of all working Americans during the debate surrounding bankruptcy legislation in 2005, and along with another candidate, Chris Dodd, simply too much a part of the old-Senate-guard of neutered-Dems of the Tom Daschle era, who were steamrolled by Dick Cheney and Karl Rove.
Barack Obama, for all his rhetoric, has still only been in the Senate for two years, and a completely indistinguishable two years at that, spending most of his time falling in with the corporate goons of the caucus, keeping his mouth shut about the toughest issues, and even now, spending his stump time more focused on flattering voters and soft rhetoric about dead presidents than on straight talk about America's future.
I regret Sen. Russ Feingold's decision not to enter the race this winter. He's a man of uncommon courage in Washington, and the disappointment of his bowing out crossed my mind again last week when I heard the Edwards clan had scheduled a press conference to discuss Elizabeth's health and the future of that campaign. Perhaps that's part of the reason I found it necessary to act now in pledging my volunteer time and this on-line space. No American needs to be reminded the strong candidates are few.
I chose Edwards as my anti-Clinton choice. There's a battle on for the soul of the Democratic party that has to be won before any meaningful social movement can proceed in this country, whether it be for environmental change, or to end American imperialism or our national hostility towards the poor. Hillary Clinton will not get my vote under any scenario at this point, regardless of her opponent, and that should be interpreted the way I intended it-- as at least one individual threat from a voter in the left-wing of the party, with almost a full year to do something about it. I won't hesitate, like I didn't last time, to cast a principled third-party protest vote in the 2008 election, if I'm left with a choice between two candidates who don't represent my values.
There's a certain protected class in Washington that is getting rich on the backs of hard-working Americans and the lives of Iraqis. And by my estimation, a disproportionate number are decision-makers in the Democratic leadership in Washington. They run their campaigns and caucuses to the middle, bending over for right-wing zealots, and punishing party members of principle-- throwing them to the wolves who attack their patriotism. Then they expect the progressives to accept the lesser of two evils in the general election after they've strong-armed, if not entirely purchased, the nomination process.
Hillary is going to continue to hope she can move forward behind the anti-Bush cyclone and ride her name recognition and campaign warchest to that nomination. (Incidentally, at what point do you have more money than you can spend? All she can buy with it are TV ads that increase her visibility, and 40 percent of Americans already know her well enough to tell pollsters they would never vote for her.) She'll continue to claim the war was a mistake, but refuse to say she made a mistake in authorizing it, leaving her vulnerable to the same attacks that sunk John Kerry, and leaving our military in its ruined state. She'll stick her finger in the air, and wait for others to lead the way on questions such as whether homosexuality is immoral, or whether her own pursuit of national health coverage in 1993 was a mistake. She should be promoting her foresight on that issue, like Al Gore does with Global Warming, but the hard fact is that she no longer believes in it, or much of anything except the pursuit of power. She's not that same public advocate. She's a triangulating, unprincipled opportunist like her husband, and she's willing to sell out everything that he did, not the least of which was the future of the Democratic party.
John Edwards is our strongest alternative.
posted by CM @ 9:44 AM
4 Comments:
Edwards was my second choice (after Howard Dean) in the last round of caucuses, not least because I found his supporters thoughtful in the reasons for their support. The Edwards camp were also very reasonable as we tried to find common ground to maximize the number of delegates awarded to what I hope I can still call my progressive wing of the party.
Let’s just hope Chris doesn’t meet these same people this year, because to him they’ll be vile horse traders and triangulators. And ultimately he will have absolutely nothing to believe in except pure abstraction.
Chris, you are a rare breed, and that’s a blessing and a curse. I will never ridicule your single-mindedness, but I am (as you know) frustrated by it. You acknowledge that public officials are up for public scrutiny, yet you deny the proven scientific fact that the act of observing something changes that which is being observed.
Politicians are trapped below a certain level of prominence and power when their ideas become too extreme for a large number of citizens. That is reality, and it's also democracy. Our country's perception of what is extreme is horribly askew, but if you want to change that, make sure kids get educated and that the media isn't totally monolithic (ie. elect a democrat). We have been careening on the edge of fascism, but we don't have to elect Chris Moeller or Jesus Christ to get off the guard rail and back on the road. Once we do that, we pull over at a rest stop, vomit with relief, and decide which way we need to be heading.
It’s also mildly insulting to hear you mention the possibility of the first Mormon president in the same sentence with the most viable black and female candidates the U.S. has ever seen. I know you’re not playing identity politics, because you are above them. I also feel that the way “minority group membership” is generally handled only minimizes serious candidates who have devoted years to public service/ public betrayal. However, please consider that a white woman and a black man have enough riding against them without going out on a limb over every progressive issue. After all, the Right will tell you that liberalism is about entitlement, and that’s all that blacks and women want.
I am disappointed by Clinton on many counts (read: especially: the war), and I may well end up caucusing for Edwards as my first choice this year. However, to say that you would never vote for her (not if she ran against Charles Manson) ignores reality: not only political reality (the Realpolitik to which she subscribes) but the everyday, lived reality of the poor and disadvantaged people to whom you feel such affinity. How much good did those people get out of your principled third-party protest vote cast from high atop Sherman Hill?
I wish I could be happier supporting for Clinton in the primary. If she ends up with the nomination, though, I will throw my volunteer time (if only I, too, had a blog...) behind her, and happily, too. Bill Clinton wasn’t the best president we’ve ever had, and neither would Hillary be (and neither would John Edwards). But none of them would be the worst (you know who I’m talking about here).
And, Chris, when I said that your declaration never to vote for Hillary put you in bad company, I don’t know if you got the significance. Of those 40% who will never vote for her, how many are well-informed, high-minded political junkies like yourself, and how many tack on the implicit (or explicit) “because she’s a woman”?
I believe that proportional representation is an essential component to bringing about the kind of social justice that you care so deeply about. Identity isn't nothing--it might actually make for social change at a rate we can't even conceptualize with the pathetic degree of "minority" representation we have now. Identity runs deep, and a woman, or a person of color, or a homosexual knows that better than anyone--and I guess by “anyone,” I mean a straight white male, since everyone else falls into one or more of those first three groups.
Now, this “identityification” doesn’t apply to the small number of closeted, self-loathing gays, or sold-out black republicans, or class-adhered, self-negating conservative women currently in power--but it does apply to Obama and Clinton. They just know that only a very careful, painfully moderate-seeming woman or black guy has a snowball’s chance in hell of being elected to the country’s highest office (and here it’s your theorizing against all the strategists and power mongers in Washington).
I agree that the democrats have taken the wrong tack in moving to the middle and learning to love getting gut-punched. But I also don’t think the right-wing strategy of absolute purity can work for progressives. Why? Because outside the right wing, people think too much to unite completely around one or two issues. We don’t agree 100%, and we care too much about ideas to sacrifice large chunks of rational thought in exchange for dominion.
We still want power, though--and, at this absolute environmental, military, and economic crisis point, it’s not dramatic or self-aggrandizing to say that we also need it. In order to get power, we have to disavow any adherence to the “absolute purity” track. In other words, get off the high horse, get pragmatic, respect people for what they do right, and work tirelessly for the outcomes you want, not the ideal you fetishize.
Peace,
Emily
The guy who gets you will know he's alive every day he's with you. Hot damn.
If I demanded absolute purity in my candidates, I wouldn't be backing Edwards. I have chosen to work within the two party structure, despite its limitations, every campaign cycle since voting age, and even before. I operate completely from a mindset of pragmatism, despite your sincere and understandable doubts, and that pragmatism was born of experience and education. I took my last gut-punch in January of 2004 when your candidate, and mine, Howard Dean, had his meaningful campaign turned into a joke by establishment Democrats in Washington and the media, supposedly because he flipped out, yelling into a microphone on a prehistoric sound system at Val Air Ballroom in West Des Moines.
This is how corporate politicians and their media mouthpieces operate, and I refuse to bring a knife to their gunfight. Joe Lieberman didn't get pragmatic about his party when the party rejected him in Connecticut. He re-entered in the race, beat Ned Lamont, and cost Democrats a true majority in the Senate. As soon as Dean's 50 state strategy (as DNC chair) resulted in historic electoral gains last November, it wasn't 24 hours before James Carville was on TV blaming him for costing Democrats even more seats. This is because Dean is a threat to Carville's seat of power and his ability to sell more books co-authored by his wife within the Clinton/Bush cartel.
"Respecting people for what they do right" ends when my goals no longer walk a parallel path, just like it ended with George W. Bush sometime after he voted against the Wild Card playoff system as general partner of the Texas Rangers, his last act of sound judgement, and you'll have to e-mail me if you want the roll call of everything Hillary Clinton's done to betray my ideals, and yours. I'll add only here the Patriot Act and the confirmation of Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts.
Power's not GIVEN in compromise, it's TAKEN by convincing such a large plurality of the American populace that your cause is just, that our national representatives, most of whom are spineless reprobates, can no longer afford to side with their corporate paymasters.
Despite history's major storyline, FDR didn't advance New Deal programs because he was a courageous visionary. Ultimately, he made the right decisions, but it wasn't without Henry Wallace acting as farm collectivist revolutionary in the cabinet, Huey Long demonizing him as an east coast elitist among populists in the south, and Norman Thomas running against him every four years on the Socialist Party ticket. How do you think a radical like Roosevelt ever became an acceptable "moderate" candidate to begin with? It was only by comparison.
I a modest grass-roots volunteer and a singular voice in the broad, albeit collectively very impactful blogosphere during a potentially revolutionary time. I am neither a candidate for office nor an insider who has the private ear of any of the major candidates. On-line muckraker and stubborn Midwestern mule are my roles to play.
Why don't you two get a room? Any more of this multi-syllabic flirting and I'm going to have to "vomit with relief"
It is like listening to Diane and Frasier argue. Emily, that is in reference to a TV show called Cheers.
~RS~
Emily has got to be about 23. Chris, on the other hand is quite old.
Post a Comment
<< Home