Edwards Reconsidered (Norman Solomon, former Kucinich supporter)

[chimpymustgo]

Thursday, 03 January 2008
by Norman Solomon

-snip-

But Edwards was the most improved presidential candidate of 2007. He sharpened his attacks on corporate power and honed his calls for economic justice. He laid down a clear position against nuclear power. He explicitly challenged the power of the insurance industry and the pharmaceutical giants.

And he improved his position on Iraq to the point that, in an interview with the New York Times at the start of January, he said: "The continued occupation of Iraq undermines everything America has to do to reestablish ourselves as a country that should be followed, that should be a leader." Later in the interview, Edwards added: "I would plan to have all combat troops out of Iraq at the end of nine to ten months, certainly within the first year."

Now, apparently, Edwards is one of three people with a chance to become the Democratic presidential nominee this year. If so, he would be the most progressive Democrat to top the national ticket in more than half a century.

The main causes of John Edwards’ biggest problems with the media establishment have been tied in with his firm stands for economic justice instead of corporate power. Weeks ago, when the Gannett-chain-owned Des Moines Register opted to endorse Hillary Clinton this time around, the newspaper’s editorial threw down the corporate gauntlet: "Edwards was our pick for the 2004 nomination. But this is a different race, with different candidates. We too seldom saw the positive, optimistic campaign we found appealing in 2004. His harsh anti-corporate rhetoric would make it difficult to work with the business community to forge change."

-snip-

It’s hard to think of a single major issue — including "the war," "health care" and "trade" — for which Obama has a more progressive position than Edwards. But there are many issues, including those three, for which Edwards has a decidedly more progressive position than Obama.

But the most disturbing part of Dennis’ statement was this: "Sen. Obama and I have one thing in common: Change." This doesn’t seem like a reasoned argument for Obama. It seems like an exercise in smoke-blowing.

-snip-

Presidential candidates have to be considered in the context of the current historical crossroads. No matter how much we admire or revere an individual, there’s too much at stake to pursue faith-based politics at the expense of reality-based politics. There’s no reason to support Obama over Edwards on Kucinich’s say-so. And now, I can’t think of reasons good enough to support Kucinich rather than Edwards in the weeks ahead.


Norman Solomon’s latest book is "Made Love, Got War: Close Encounters with America’s Warfare State." For more information, go to: www.normansolomon.com


http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/3172/32/

**********

I hope supporters of EVERY candidate will think about these points. And consider.

[mike_c]

1. I cannot adequately express my disappointment in DK for his tacit endorsement...

...of Barak Obama. None of the top three dem candidates pass muster for me, but Obama's wishy-washy triangulation and outright dishonesty on the issues that DEFINE Kucinich's campaign makes his endorsement very difficult to accept. There is little that he-- or anyone else-- could say that would make me support Senator Obama's candidacy. I'm surprised he would even try. Clinton and Obama are both antitheses of the ideals that Kucinich stands for, at least in my mind. Edwards-- well, it's hard to say, given the shift from his Senate record to his current rhetoric. But OBAMA? I cannot comprehend it.

[LWolf]

2. I don't consider it any kind of endorsement.

I don't think it should be spun that way.

That said, I don't like it either. If I can't vote for DK, I sure as hell wouldn't give that vote to Obama.

[Nordmadr]

3. I continue to not get the option to vote for the

people I most hoped to see in office. By far, my top two hopefuls for Presidential candiates were Al Gore and Russ Feingold. With neither running, we are left with second tier candidates in my opinion. I like Dennis, but he clearly has no shot to win and I do not care for his trying to get others to throw their support behind Obama; a candiate that I see as having few things in common with DK. Why don't you just quit the race if you are going to do that?

As it stands now, Edwards would get my vote, though the party candidate will likely be well established before I ever get that opportunity to choose.

I see Hillary as more of a triangulator than a leader, and Obama doesn't strike me as particlularly progressive and seems to pander a bit more than I like.

These are my opinions. Take 'em or leave 'em, subject to change.

Olafr

[chimpymustgo]

4. I hope all this talk of deal making doesn't suppress turn-out.

What's going on today - with pronouncements of throwing support, denials of pronouncements - is unsettling.