Letters to the Editor
-
Edwards the Timid
I think that the real reason Edwards has not endorsed anyone is that he is very cautious, bordering on cowardly. How else to explain his vote for the Iraq War and his support for the death penalty?
Don't get me wrong, I like Edwards as politicians go. He might have been a better candidate than Obama in the general because of well, the white thing. But still, he is kind of cowardly.
At least we don't have Hillary, whose negatives now exceed her positives in national polls. She would have been DOA.
-
Why Joan Walsh Hasn't Endorsed Clinton
This blog post could just as easily have been titled "Why John Edwards hasn't endorsed Clinton," but of course, it isn't, because it's written by Joan Walsh.
One has to wonder... Joan has identified that those who don't have doubts about Hillary are "Hillary-shills" -- does she realize that she herself is one?
Make no mistake, Salonistas. This is Joan's "Bronx Cheer" to all the reader letters from her previous blog post, in which those of us who are not among the Hillary shills have called her on the carpet for a repeated pattern of obvious pandering concern-troll and passive-aggressive blog posts attacking Obama and making excuses for Hillary and her campaign's egregious errors and inexplicably poor judgment.
We can see what Joan is doing. She panders...we call her on it, and her resposne is to give us more pandering, more cherry-picking of her favorite anti-Obama articles. By pointing to these sorts of articles, she is behaving exactly like her chosen candidate is -- she's finding a surrogate to make her ugly arguments for her, so she can claim to be above the fray.
In the end, the blog post we WANT to see is "Why Joan Walsh Hasn't Endorsed Clinton."
Because she has done so in deed, every step of the way.
-
Edwards v. his competitors
Please consider the question in light of the NYTimes's profile of Edwards (one of a frontpage series on the candidates last fall; sorry I don't have the link.) It described the hard sell pitch for the vice presidency that Edwards made to Kerry after his (Edwards's) efforts for the presidential nomination ended. He followed up this successful pitch by throwing some major wrenches into the works of the Kerry campaign - some of it petty, egotistical but significant stuff. That article was the first step in my journey from Edwards to Obama. Could it be that, contrary to the speculation and gossipiness of the article, that Edwards's invitation to Obama was an attempt at a replay - and that these comments from his camp are sour grapes?
-
The Edwards Plan
Who knows what the man thinks, but I expected that he had kept quiet in hope that no matter who won the nomination, he'd be good vice-presidential prospect that could lend either candidate support in the south.
I further speculated that Obama wasn't interested, because an Obama/Edwards ticket is rather vulnerable to the "inexperienced" line of attack.
The notion that it might be purely a matter of inter-personal dynamics hadn't occurred to me, but it certainly is possible.
I think Obama needs a VP who can be strong where he is weak. My pick would be Bill Richardson - his ample foreign policy experience and modest demeanor could be just the right thing to help America rebalance it's position in the world. Not to mention, with the Republican's stance on immigration, his appeal to hispanic voters could be an asset.
-
Deadwards should endorse Billary already, and quit pussyfooting
Yeah, yeah...
Obama blew it. Speaking to Edwards on the day he exited the race, Obama came across as glib and aloof. His response to Edwards’s imprecations that he make poverty a central part of his agenda was shallow, perfunctory, pat. Clinton, by contrast, engaged Edwards in a lengthy policy discussion. Her affect was solicitous and respectful.
Whatever. It's nice that HR Clinton gave Edwards' loafers a good tongue-polishing, but if he thinks her rightist, Republicratic, corporatist campaign will add anything to his poverty issue, he's dreaming. Clearly, he wanted a good old-fashioned ass-kissing, and didn't get that from Obama (who remains to Clinton's left, and is likelier to push for real poverty reform than Clinton), so he holds out for some more bootlicking from the Clintons. That he'd even consider Clinton as the more palatable alternative to Obama shows where his head's at in this.
Note to Edwards: HR Clinton's husband first cut the poor loose in the 90s, and had the brass balls to call it "welfare reform." If that's the kind of candidacy he'd like to get behind, go for it. But don't expect him to be more than a Faustian political footnote henceforth.
-
Edwards is right: Obama is in many ways more conservative and more timid that Clinton.
Obama's health care plan is less progressive than Clinton's. His proposed rescue plan for distressed homeowners is less progressive than Clinton's. He has mimicked the Repugs' critique of Social Security as being in crisis (it's not). He sucks on animal protection laws when compared to Clinton.
The only reason I voted for Obama over Clinton is because the media hate her with an irrational passion, and we Democrats have got to win in 2008. Howver, she would make a better President -- although I have hope that once he wins, Obama can be persuaded to adopt much stronger progressive stances.
-
So ....
if Obama botched it so badly, why no Clinton endorsement? What does it say about her that Obama has allegedly alienated Edwards but Edwards still hasn't give Clinton a desperately sought endorsement?
Recent polling has also cast doubt on the value of an Edwards endorsement.
Nice effort, though. Spin Edwards' neutrality as a rejection of Obama.
-
Assyrian
"This blog post could just as easily have been titled "Why John Edwards hasn't endorsed Clinton," but of course, it isn't, because it's written by Joan Walsh."
No. No it couldn't. The bit was about what Obama did wrong given an obvious positive. In fact, the presupposition is that Edwards WANTED Obama from the get go, and that a face-to-face meeting dissueded him on personal grounds. Given your logic the article could have been title "Why Edwards hasn't endorsed Lyndon LaRouche" and gone on about how Edwards read the a LaRouche pamphet he found on the floor of a train and found it moronic.
Your endorsement of your candidate (and mine by the way) approaches vapid hyperbole and even conspiracy theory hysteria.