John Edwards
I was channel surfing last night and alighted on Fox News, which I usually zip by quicker than I zip by home shopping channels. And it was the Bill O'Reilly Show, which most nights I'd rather gargle with bleach than watch. But he had Bill Maher on, who usually can hold his own with any crackpot right-winger, so I hung in there.O'Reilly asked Maher who he favored of the Democratic candidates. Maher demurred, saying he didn't like to endorse anyone, but he thought John Edwards was the most electable. O'Reilly raised his eyebrows and told Maher that he was crazy, that Edwards changed his mind daily and is left-wing.
That O'Reilly thinks Edwards has no chance makes me think he does. I'm sure O'Reilly scoffed at Bill Clinton's chances at this stage of the campaign back in 1991. And I think Maher is right. Edwards is the most electable candidate the Democrats are running.
I'm not sure who I'm going to vote for yet. I think New Jersey is moving up their primary, so my vote might actually mean something (it has been in June for years, when all of the shouting is over). Democrats, being people of principle, have a habit of not seeing the big picture, and thus send a flawed candidate to be slaughtered in a general election. The two front-runners, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, are immensely appealing and I would be tickled pink if either of them of were to occupy the White House. But they both have big negatives: Hillary is despised by a good portion of the population (unfairly, I think) and Obama might turn some off because of perceived inexperience (was Bush Junior experienced? If so, experience is way over-rated). Also, of course, they happen to a woman and an African-American, respectively, which allows bigotry to enter the picture.
Edwards, it seems to me, has no drawbacks other than his policies and that he was a personal injury lawyer (and he once got a $400 haircut). I don't think anyone finds him particularly offensive, and he has just enough of a golly-gosh corn pone spin around him to make him appealing to moderates, even though he does have some progressive beliefs (I think he's spelled out the most comprehensive agenda for benefiting the poor in this country, and he's rabidly pro-union).
If I think of an ideal ticket, it would be Edwards-Obama, with Hillary getting Attorney General or something like that. I think that ticket could do quite well in a general election, especially against an empty suit like Mitt Romney.
Also, of course, they happen to a woman and an African-American, respectively, which allows bigotry to enter the picture.
ReplyDeleteWell, yes, but ... I really hope this wouldn't affect your vote. It'd be hard enough for a black man (or a woman) to be elected in this country without Dems voting against him out of fear of the bigots.
As a general matter, I know this will sound overly strident, but there's nothing that I think is less "big picture" than electability arguments. After the Kerry campaign in '04, I can't believe a Democrat in the land would have the temerity to play that stupid game.
No, that wouldn't affect my vote.
ReplyDeleteYou and I have disagreed about playing the electability game before, and I'm unconvinced. I'm nto sure what you mean by using John Kerry as an example--do you mean he seemed unelectable (a liberal from Massachusetts) and came pretty close, or that he looked electable and still botched it? I think he was pretty unelectable to begin with, and it was only the unpopularity of Bush that helped him come close.
But the most common reason I heard people give for nominating Kerry in the first place was that he was the most "electable" due to his military past. The big rap against Dean was that he was "unelectable".
ReplyDeleteBut even putting 2004 aside (and yes, I know I brought it up), the plain fact is that Clinton, Obama, and Edwards are all plainly electable in 2008. Rejecting any of them on electability grounds is just falt-out idiocy.
I'm not directing this at you, specifically, by the way. I'm just frustrated in general by Democrats' reluctance to be "people of principle", and their tendency to try to game their vote.