I Cogitate
| Recent Posts | My Best Blogs | Archives | Favorite Quotes | Links | Contact |
Obama or Edwards or ?
Barack Obama took the early lead for my support and vote in the continuing run-up for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination because not only was he talking about a re-emphasization of the common good in our country, he was also energizing an extraordinary spectrum of people--beyond the grass roots--iin a way not seen for many years. Obama was coming across as the candidate best-suited to reach beyond the base, attractive to more 'crossovers' than anyone else.
But John Edwards is closing the gap for me with his pronouncements about economic fairness and populism.
What I am looking for is a revolt away from the delusion of 'facts-don't-matter-because-we-create-reality' syndrome that is our current and continuing political malady. I also want an invalidation of the 'greed-is-my-almighty-but-of course-we-don't-dare-say-that' licentiousness that permeates the mindset and actions of the current powers-that-be.
Above all, I want a reduction in the corporation-domination of our government, a denunciation of such followed by deliberate action. We must end the influence created by the big bucks political largesse.
But the condundrum is how does a candidate mount a serious presidential campaign--an excessively costly undertaking--without calculatingly gathering in the vast donations of the economically powerful?
Anyway, here's a quick look at my take of both candidates:
Obama apparently has drawn the line at accepting direct lobbyist and political action committee donations but he has a number of powerful people throughout his campaign staff that have no interest in changing how the power structure operates politically and economically today. He's also willing to take what I call 'one-degree-of-Kevin-Bacon' donations, meaning those from friends and relatives of lobbyists.
Here's the opening of Alexander Bolton's March 29, 2007 article "Obama's K Street project" in The Hill:
"Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is benefiting from the support of well-connected Washington lobbyists even though he has prohibited his campaign from accepting contributions from them and political action committees (PACs).Go here for the rest.
While Obama has decried the influence of special interests in Washington, the reality is that many of the most talented and experienced political operatives in his party are lobbyists, and he needs their help..."
Obama has talked about transformation and, of all the candidates on either side, he evokes a greater sense of hope. He comes off as the antidote to our current bleakness.
So, can Obama not be overly influenced by the existing power structure in America? Can he override the payback expected from his wealthy donors? Can he retain the 'change agent persona' applied to him and be influenced more by his humble beginnings than his current status?
As for Edwards, a millionaire former trial lawyer, he is saying more of what I want to hear--such as the necessity for leveling the economic playing field.
But Edwards also had involvement in the Fortress Investment Group, an enterprise primarily involved with hedge funds and whose leaders lean heavily towards Democratic political donations. Edwards left Fortress in December 2006 when he announced his candidacy for president but he has received a large number of political donations from various Fortress staff.
My initial problem with Edwards, which is why I cast my lot with Obama, boiled down to his genuineness. Far to often for me, it was difficult to ascertain if it was Edwards the politician speaking or Edwards delineating what he truly believes.
So then is it appropriate to simply focus on what Edwards is espousing during his campaign and trust he will followthrough if he is victorious? Should one believe that he will produce health care coverage for every American, work towards eliminating poverty, create greater influence for the average American, etc.
To his credit, Edwards also espouses transformation, dommestically and internationally. Here's a quote from one of his recent speeches:
"...What we used to call foreign policy has such a profound effect on our everyday lives that there really is no such thing as purely foreign policy anymore. Trade policies affect jobs and wages here and throughout the world. Energy policy affects climate change here and all over the world, and it impacts domestic and foreign security. Poverty is an issue for us here - I could talk about that all day long - but poverty is also an issue directly related to the rise of terrorism and our place in the world economy. A well-known politician from a neighboring state used to say that all politics is local. Today, all policy is local. We are not going to solve these problems with the usual approaches. These challenges are too big, too connected, and too complicated to be answered with the same old politics of incrementalism. Meeting them requires more than just a new president--it requires an entirely new approach. To build the America we believe in requires fundamental, transformational change. Not change for the sake of change, but change for the sake of getting to where we know the country and the world can be, should be, and needs to be. Not incremental, baby-step changes, but invigorating, uplifting, challenging, daring, boundary-pushing changes that address the root causes and understand the complexity of our challenges..."Here is Edwards in an Associated Press article from January 25, 2004:
Q: After the inauguration, what would be your first action as president?Go here for the rest.
A: I will introduce legislation and sign executive orders to limit the influence of lobbyists and special interests in Washington. These measures will include: preventing candidates for federal office from taking contributions from Washington lobbyists; closing the revolving door between lobbyists' shops and government jobs; shining a bright light on lobbyist influence; and stopping the war profiteering in Iraq
Maybe a removal of the undue influence of big money donations can't be accomplished, especially if a candidate is to have a serious chance at competing. Howard Dean ran out of funding last time around despite the donations from millions of ordinary people and this certainly had an effect on his presidential campaign aspirations.
So my quest for reformation and the candidate who believes in it and will work to implement such continues.
But I still need to determine who is a true believer and who can best accomplish it? Plus, how pragmatic am I willing to be?
top
RSS feed
| Recent Posts | My Best Blogs | Archives | Favorite Quotes | Links | Contact |