Leaving Edwards For Obama
My brother-in-law Kevin just sent me an email that pretty much sums up where I stand on the primary :
So here’s the deal. I’ve decided to switch camps and vote for Obama. I just don’t feel Edwards is going to do it and I have such a seething case of Clinton backlash right now, i.e. Bill and his Jesse Jackson comments, I am committed to doing whatever I can to help him beat Hillary. The Clintons, in my opinion are Rove Lite and on some days not that less filling. They seriously must be stopped. I have had it with the Democratic elite and them ramming candidates down our throat. Most importantly however, I feel I won’t sacrifice the ideals of an Edwards vote with a vote for Obama. I think it goes without saying I don’t have similar feelings for the Clintons.Last night, I was sincerely moved, at some points to tears, when I heard Obama speak about uniting all Americans. I believed him. That’s why I decided to volunteer my time to his campaign. I went down today to the Obama headquarters in Pasadena and worked the phones for a bit. They set me up so I can do it from home. It was really exciting, calling people who were on the fence and some already Obama supporters. They were Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. I haven’t been this optimistic about political renewal since I turned 18 and voted for Dukakis.
So it goes without saying that I’m involved in the Obama campaign now, and I’m asking those people who I’ve shared common views with regarding Edwards to reconsider voting for Barack Obama in the primary. I hope you don’t find this pushy or at all off putting, but I deeply believe that in this election we have a chance to get our system back and I think Obama is the President to make that happen.
I still think that Edwards would make the best candidate of the three, but after losses in Iowa and South Carolina, he’s already missed his chances to shine. If he couldn’t do well in the state he spent the bulk of his money trying to win or his home state, then there’s no way he’s going to win the Super Tuesday states.
If I was ambivalent about whether Clinton or Obama won, I’d probably still vote for Edwards, but I have some pretty strong opinions about the top two candidates. I think Obama’s campaign has already shown itself adept at organizing people and attracting independents, so I think he’s easily the most electable candidate for the Democrats. Clinton(s), on the other hand, is boring, predictable, divisive, dishonest, and running on a record that was mediocre at best. With the current thinking that Edwards is only staying in the race to “play kingmaker”, I don’t feel like seeing my vote for Edwards turn into a 50/50 chance that he might throw his lot behind the candidate I like. So I’m going to cut out the middleman and vote for Obama.
Besides, even before I read this, I’ve been warming up to the idea of John Edwards as a crusading attorney general in the Bobby Kennedy mold.
12 comments »
Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post or for TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Do you read XKCD? The author of XKCD has a rather compelling set of reasons to prefer Obama (in the case of Obama vs. Clinton) in regards to geek issues. I’ve sort of been sitting out choosing who I wanted to vote for, but after reading that I think I’ve made up my mind.
Comment by mokiejovis — January 28, 2008 @ 5:06 am
I wish I could see some differnce between the Clinton’s platform and Obama”s.Which candidate would get the U.S. out of iraq,and Afghanistan?Which candidate would dump the “patriot act”,and the military commisions act?Which one would fire Blackwater? Which candidate would push for criminal charges for the neocon’s who lied us into this shamefull unjust war?Which candidate would protect the privacy rights of citizens?The candidate who would fight to reverse the damage done by the Bush administration,could win by a landslide,if they would only address these issues.Senator Obama is certainly the finest speaker we have,I will wait to hear him address how he intends to undo the damage done by the Bush gang concerning our freedoms and our global reputation.I would love to hear him say he would try to reverse all the laws and directives enacted by the neocons,and that he would seek charges concerning the rampant criminal acts commited by Bush and his cronies.If Senator Obama fails to address these concerns directly,then his finely crafted speechs will amount to empty rhetoric for me,and even if he wins the nomination,my conscience will only allow me to will cast my vote for Cyntia Mckinney in the general election.A candidate can not claim to be against the Bush cabal and not reverse the damage done by laws and policies put in place by these crooks.I may have missed Senator Obamas thoughts on some of these issues,I will watch The Talent Show and hope to learn he has taken some position on these topics.
Comment by pogo — January 28, 2008 @ 7:24 am
Amen. I agree with you and Kevin. I decided to vote for Obama in the last few days also for the very same reasons. And it has been said that Clinton is the only one who can unite the Republicans. John Edwards would make a good AG but he just can’t get traction as the top of the ticket, too bad. As soon as I finish this post I am giving money to Obama too.
Comment by Becky — January 28, 2008 @ 9:13 am
Ditto. (Minus the part where you were interested in Edwards.)
Comment by Joe — January 28, 2008 @ 6:03 pm
I have been dreaming of Patrick Fitzgerald as attorney general, but John Edwards would be good too.
Comment by SuperSloMo — January 28, 2008 @ 8:08 pm
During Bush’s SOTU, when the President claimed that the US “surge” in Iraq was a success, Sen. Clinton stood and applauded. Sen. Obama kept his seat.
Game, set, and match to Obama.
Comment by joel hanes — January 29, 2008 @ 11:42 am
During Bush’s SOTU, when the President claimed that the US “surge” in Iraq was a success, Sen. Clinton stood and applauded. Sen. Obama kept his seat.
Game, set, and match to Obama.
Is this true? If so … wow.
Comment by Cakesniffer — January 29, 2008 @ 12:19 pm
Is this true?
Estas verdad. Richtig. Pravda.
link
Comment by joel hanes — January 29, 2008 @ 12:41 pm
Oh, wow! Obama didn’t clap at one point in Bush’s SOTU? Wow! Talk about change! Of course, this needs to be weighed against the fact that he’s been voting to continue funding for the occupation, failed to initiate any attempts to end the occupation, and refused to say that, if he was elected President, he would get the troops out of Iraq by 2012. But I guess that’s all outweighed by his lack of clapping.
My view on Clinton vs. Obama is much like pogo’s. Give me a platform difference that’s actually meaningful in reversing the enormous abuses of the Bush Administration. If Obama isn’t vigorously working to reverse a massive illegal wiretapping program that spys on every single American without the use of warrants, I can’t get too excited about his support of “machine-readable government information standards,” any more than I would get excited by a steward on the Titanic who promised me a free smoothie.
Comment by Autumn Harvest — January 30, 2008 @ 7:59 am
My “wow” was not about Obama’s staying seated, which obviously should be the response of any thinking human; it was about Hillary’s apparently enthusiastic response.
Comment by Cakesniffer — January 30, 2008 @ 3:13 pm
…Of course, this needs to be weighed against the fact that (Obama)’s been voting to continue funding for the occupation, failed to initiate any attempts to end the occupation…
Oh, come on! A presidential candidate like Obama would receive nonstop whacks over the head if he had done that…doesn’t support the troops, unpatriotic, blah-blah-blah.
Comment by Doobie — January 30, 2008 @ 8:41 pm
Doobie, I’m not sure that trying to end the occupation of Iraq is that politically unwise, if handled correctly. But perhaps you are correct. Perhaps Obama doesn’t want end a monstrously wrong and unwise military occupation because it’s good politics for him not to. But that doesn’t really impress me as showing him as the candidate of change.
Comment by Autumn Harvest — February 1, 2008 @ 9:22 am