 |
| by Paul Szep |
If you want to know why I remain a proud independent voice from so many other progressives,
all you have to do is look at the MoveOn.org endorsement,
which just went to Obama. Health care is one issue that doesn't stand the
smell test if you look at Obama. But evidently giving a speech in 2002, while
standing beside Clinton on Iraq in the Senate, also doesn't matter. Neither
does the fact that it is Clinton who has offered real legislation on
Iraq, something most progressives are also ignoring.
The media constantly berates the presidential candidates for not telling
us enough of where they stand on the crucial issues of the day. Well, in yesterday's
Democratic Presidential debate in Los Angeles (1/31/08), Hillary Clinton brought
up once again one of her most important pieces of legislation currently in
Congress that would prevent President Bush from unilaterally negotiating a
long-term security pact by executive agreement with Iraq's Maliki government,
which might provide for, among other things, permanent US bases — a pact,
in short, that is likely to bind future presidents to Iraq for years to come
(100 years, if John McCain has his way). Senator Clinton is demanding that
Congress approve any deal with Iraq as a treaty or by majority vote of both
houses. She has even recruited Barack Obama to cosponsor the measure, and
he has agreed to do so. And she has the support of General Wes Clark, members
of the out-of-Iraq House caucus, and many others. Here then at a crucial juncture
in America's most disastrous calamity which has now lasted longer than the
second world war, Senator Clinton has proposed a serious measure to forestall
Bush's imperial ambitions. And, in this most transformative presidential election
of our time, where is the coverage? And where is the credit?
As for MoveOn.org, Clinton stood up for them in the Senate during the Petraeus
kerfuffle. Barack Obama ducked that vote (just like he did Kyl-Lieberman). But
MoveOn members endorsed Obama anyway. Yeah, that's the way to hold those politicians
accountable. That'll show 'im.
It brings me to John Edwards.
If 2008 is different, it will be largely thanks to Mr. Edwards. He made a
habit of introducing bold policy proposals — and they were met with
such enthusiasm among Democrats that his rivals were more or less forced to
follow suit.It’s hard, in particular, to overstate the importance of the Edwards
health care plan, introduced in February. … ..… .. Furthermore, to the extent that this remains a campaign of ideas, it remains true that on the key issue of health care, the Clinton plan is more or less identical to the Edwards plan. The Obama plan, which doesn’t actually achieve universal coverage, is considerably weaker.
He didn't get near the support he deserved
from progressives. He worked for it too. You can quibble about a lot of things
regarding Edwards as a senator. If you want to talk in adjectives alone, calling Edwards
slick or whatever slam you want to bring, I'd say just take a look at Obama's
record. You'll find that and more. But during the primaries, when compared to
Obama, if you're looking for an anti Hillary, Edwards was the guy. Few seemed
to care. He didn't get the coverage and he didn't have the flash (or the cash).
Oh, but he did have one thing: IDEAS. Isn't that something progressives are
supposed to covet? Clinton's got ideas too, lots of them, but if you don't like
her as a candidate, you had to choose. So they did. Barack Obama over John Edwards?
I don't see it and don't understand it and never will. Maybe someone can explain
it to me.
But until that happens, all I see is progressive confusion. Good meaning people
falling for glitz, glamour, facade and flash over substance, whether you're
talking Clinton or Edwards. I'm proud to stand independent of that herd.
Comments are closed.