What Richard Robert said: John Edwards sure can give a very inspiring speech.
Plus, I would really enjoy voting for a candidate who says stuff like, “On my first day in office, you have my word that Guantanamo will be closed”.
Have any other candidates taken that pledge?
I think most of what Edwards says is empty rhetoric. He says now it was a mistake to vote for the Iraq War. Sure, it is easy to say that now. It would have been nice if he (and other Democrats) stood up to the Bush Administration before the war. I think he’s just politiking to gain votes from the liberal base of the Democratic Party with this Gitmo comment. I have troubling believing anything Edwards says. For instance, he keeps going on about these “Two Americas.” Well, Edwards is a multi-millionaire living in a mansion who gets $400 haircuts. Why should we believe him?
I’m not sure if you have made up your mind yet on a Democratic candidate, but why (assuming you do) would you prefer Edwards over Obama? Or Kucinich? I know Kucinich is not “electable”, and I guess that may be good enough reason not to vote for him, but he was against the war from day one and has said he would bring home the troops on his first day in office.
I personally prefer Obama because, as of now, he is not a typical politician and I think we need someone like him to change the course of politics in this country. He has also been against the war from the beginning (although he wasn’t forced to go on record). I’m sure he will make a similar pledge on Gitmo soon.
Obama has many, many attractive qualities. There are, however, three things about him that make me wonder. First, he has tried to run as a guy who doesn’t need to take detailed positions on things. I like candidates with detailed positions on things like health care(Edwards is very strong here). Second, Obama has a tendency to a rhetoric of triangulation. I didn’t like it when Bill Clinton did it, and I don’t like it now. Third, a national political campaign is a cauldron like almost nothing else except maybe the Presidency itself. Almost no one gets it right the first time. This is Obama’s first go, and we haven’t seen how he holds up to the big crushing test which will hit his campaign eventually. Until then, he feels risky. Edwards and Hilary Clinton have been through the fire. (I’m a little doubtful about Sen. Clinton, but that’s for other reasons.)
Kuchinich isn’t a serious candidate and I’m not even sure that he’s a serious person, although he does have some good things in his platform.
Maybe it’s because I’ve lived in North Carolina for several years, but when I look at John Edwards, I see a conniving, manipulative, self-serving machiavel.
Of course it’s easy now for Edwards to come out against the Iraq War and claim he erred in his vote — he has to if he wants to have any credibility with the Democratic base. But let’s not forget that as a Senator, he was on the Senate Select Intelligence Committee (which has oversight ove the CIA, DIA, NSA and NRO, among other agencies). If he wanted to show any fortitude or courage, he would have come out then against Bush’s scheme and used his position on the committee to at least bring attention to the issue. As far as I know, he didn’t do this.
In addition, there is also what anon was getting at about Edwards seemingly oblivious hypocrisy with his tired “two Americas” speech on one hand and his $400 haircuts and $6 million dollar mansion on the other. I don’t know if the UM Law Library is 28,000 square feet in area. And Edwards better have a damn good healthcare plan, because he’s one of the reasons that healthcare is rising. But I guess we should be glad that he possesses the unique ability to channel an unborn child during a trial so he can tell the jury what the child is experiencing before it is born.
The thought of Edwards in another national office scares me. While he has more experience on the national level than Obama, Obama strikes me as a much more genuine person (I guess about as genuine as a politician can be). But like Obama, I don’t think Edwards has really been subjected to that much media scrutiny. He seemed to be overshadowed by Cheney in 2004, and in a field as large as there is now for 2008, it’s hard to attract much individual attention without doing something out of the ordinary. I think hardly anyone would disagree that Hillary has the most experience in dealing with a hostile media circus. But then again, I feel that if the Democrats were to nominate her, they would basically concede the southern states to the Republican nominee, even if it happened to be Romney.
With all that said, I think the Democrats and Republicans are in a situation much more similar than they are willing to admit. Painting with broad strokes, each candidate has his (or her) drawbacks, and there’ s not one on either side that seems to jump out and capture the minds of the moderate voter. Of course, we still have over a year until the 08 election, and I’m sure that by the time it rolls around, people will already be whispering about 2012.
Dear Dan
Thanks for the link, but Richard Waldmann is my brother.
Thanks again
Robert
Dear Anon
Actually, I have no idea whether most of Edwards’ speech was is empty rhetoric as I was commenting on Mark Kleiman’s summary of the content of Edwards’ speech. I would really really like to vote for professor Kleiman for president (maybe I’ll right his name in on the primary ballot if I can’t make up my mind). Ditto, by the way for prof. Froomkin.
As to alleged hypocricy — I don’t care. I am not St Peter. I don’t even fish. I am not decided who should be in heaven, I am deciding who should be in the White House. I care about the policy candidates would implement. If I meet every candidate for whom I ever voted when I end up in hell, I won’t repent and not just because it would be too late.
I judge them by the effectiveness of their policies not by the content of their character.
Hell I voted for Clinton twice.
“I judge them by the effectiveness of their policies not by the content of their character.”
Character does have an effect on whether someone will actually implement the policies that they’ve been going on about during their campaign. I don’t care about a politician’s sex life, family life, religion, or any other personal matters. However,if someone has a propensity to say whatever it takes to get elected, that person is probably less likely to follow up on his or her campaign promises.
(Just to clarify, I was asking the author of this blog who he prefered — although it wasn’t very clear in retrospect)
“As to alleged hypocricy — I don’t care. I am not St Peter. I don’t even fish. I am not decided who should be in heaven, I am deciding who should be in the White House. I care about the policy candidates would implement.”
In certain cases, I would absolutely agree with you. My personal feelings on the ongoing farce known as the war on drugs aside, I would have absolutely no problem with a candidate who admitted to using drugs in the past get up and give a speech telling kids not to use them. But I think Edwards’ situation is different, perhaps fundamentally so. His ongoing actions suggest that he either (1) doesn’t believe the very message he preaches, or (2) somehow thinks himself exempt from it. To put it another way (and yes, I realize these two men and their respective situations are not 100% analogous), who is ever going to believe Ted Haggard the next time he starts preaching against sin and vice?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying absolutely that Edwards doesn’t believe his own message. It’s just that, to be cliche, his actions at the moment are speaking much louder than his words. And I think that, if he wants to have even a long shot at the White House, he should let up on the $400 haircuts and start promoting a consistent message.
I’m puzzled by this comment about Edwards. Was FDR a hypocrite? How is Edwards different from FDR in this regard?