I could give you a lot of policy-related reasons why I think that John Edwards is a better Democrat and a more progressive candidate for president. But really, the ideas being put forward by Obama, Clinton and Edwards are not all that different. And if you look back at Edwards record, he doesn’t look as liberal as the other two.
But what has become clear over the past 6 months is the reason why senators other than JFK never get elected president: their records just don’t look very good. And in this congress, that is as true as it has ever been. The Democratic-controlled congress has had very little success in checking Bush’s egregious policies and passing legislation. Even the hearings and investigations have petered out when Bush stonewalled requests for documents and testimony. Bluster. Nothing.
Now, you can argue that isn’t Obama’s fault, nor Clinton’s.
Isn’t it? Isn’t some of it their fault? where has their leadership been? has the boogeyman rightwing media conspiracy somehow hidden their accomplishments? I don’t think so… How will Obama and Clinton defend the failures of their congress, and their failure to lead?
John Edwards has escaped the stigma of the Senate, and thus is able to preserve his image as an effective advocate for the hardpressed American voter. He is not capitulating to Bush on a weekly basis. That is why he consistently outpolls all the Republican candidates, while Clinton and Obama do not.
Unfortunately, it seems the only way that Edwards can win the nomination is if the other two leaders self-destruct, or destroy each other.
I kind of hope that happens, because I don’t think Clinton and Obama are showing the American people what it takes to get elected president.
Just an observation. Just my humble opinion.
