Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Edwards-Obama: Go Edwama

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
Paul Rogat Loeb Donating Member (107 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-05-07 11:29 AM
Original message
Edwards-Obama: Go Edwama
Barack Obama and John Edwards are competing against each other, including some recent sniping. But more than anything, both are trying to stop Hillary Clinton's momentum, and erode her lead in the polls. Suppose each pledged to focus between now and the primaries on their commonalities, and on their real differences with Clinton's priorities and stands. Even more audaciously, what if each pledged to offer the Vice Presidency to the other if they won? This just might be enough to shift the election.

Personally, I'm backing Edwards because of all the leading candidates, I think he's taken the most courageous recent stands on issues from trade and the Iraq war to global warming and domestic and global poverty. But when young voters get excited about Obama, or I see his vast numbers of grassroots donors, I get excited about the possibility that he might bring a new generation into politics, and combine his undeniable charisma with a vision of justice. When I see someone wearing an Obama T-shirt, my spirits lift. Even though I'm backing Edwards, I feel a sense of kindred cause. I've actually gotten a similar sense of shared hopes in conversations with supporters of both Obama and Edwards. And when I suggest the two running as a team, people respond with excitement. They see them together as powerful standard-bearers.

But for now at least, Obama and Edwards are dividing the bulk of the opposition to Clinton, which makes it far more likely that she'll become the nominee. That's a bad outcome for two key reasons: Clinton is likely to so mobilize the Republican base and demoralize many Democrats (particularly that broad section of the base that's angry about the war) as to jeopardize not only her election, but also other Democrats running for state and federal offices throughout the country. In a recent Pew poll, she had both higher unfavorable and lower favorable ratings than either Obama or Edwards.

Yet even if Clinton does prevail, there's a good chance that she'll be led less by principle than by her own desire for power, as witnessed by her refusal to apologize for her Iraq War vote (and her resistance of a withdrawal timeline until just recently), her supportof the recent Kyl-Lieberman amendment that opens a door to war with Iran, and an initial health care proposal so cumbersome and compromised it collapsed of its own weight (with a little help from the insurance and drug companies). Not to mention her mixed record of votes on the highly regressive bankruptcy bill, her cozying up to Rupert Murdoch, and her sitting on the Wal-Mart board for years. Clinton also spent $36 million last November, the most in the country, on a Senate campaign she could have won in her pajamas, while Democratic candidates were desperately scrambling for cash that she could have transferred, and while both Edwards and Obama were pointedly not raising money for their own campaigns, just for others.

But the reasons to choose Edwards/Obama or Obama/Edwards aren't just about an aversion to Clinton, but about the possibilities of shifting American politics. Both campaigns are anchored in genuine grassroots energy, as opposed to wealthy donors and Beltway consultants. Both offer the chance to draw new citizens into politics, for a vision that breaks from the automatic deferral to corporate interests characteristic not only of the Bush and Reagan administrations, but of many of Bill Clinton's policies as well. Where Hillary Clinton abdicated chance after chance to lead the opposition to Bush's destructive initiatives (especially before Bush's polls began to plummet), both Edwards and Obama have repeatedly spoken out (though I wish Obama had more so of late) and worked to rally citizens against them.

Edwards/Obama or Obama/Edwards would draw--in the campaign, and, I believe, in the White House--on Obama's years as a community organizer and experience living abroad and crossing every conceivable cultural line. And on Edwards's gut knowledge of what it means to grow up poor, his willingness to successfully take on some of the biggest corporations in America, and his years since 2004 in traveling the country and listening on issues of poverty. Plus they have eight years of combined Senate experience, most importantly in the degree to which both of them have traveled across the country and genuinely listened to the concerns and struggles of ordinary Americans. Compared to the Republican field, their combined strengths will represent a powerful and hopeful choice.

Clinton is leading right now, through name recognition, sympathetic national media, and nostalgia for the years when we didn't have Bush in the White House, not to mention a tightly controlled campaign that avoids controversial stands. Most Democrats still favor other candidates, but that majority is fragmented, making it hard for any individual candidate to get traction.

For Edwards and Obama to join together would radically change that dynamic. It would let them speak in a common voice, and talk about how much Clinton's vision has been shaped by the pay-to-play nature of Washington's conventional politics. It would allow them to raise the real issues that we face, more fiercely than before. It would let them talk about the kind of administration they could create together.

How could this ticket come to pass? By their talking with each other, to be sure, but also maybe by enough ordinary citizens embracing the idea. I think it's time to initiate a Draft Edwama online petition to begin a groundswell. Perhaps local activists in both their campaigns need to start a dialogue with each other. And maybe, just maybe, the two candidates will sense the potential, begin the conversations themselves, and in the process change the dynamics of this election.

Paul Rogat Loeb is the author of The Impossible Will Take a Little While: A Citizen's Guide to Hope in a Time of Fear, named the #3 political book of 2004 by the History Channel and the American Book Association. His previous books include Soul of a Citizen: Living With Conviction in a Cynical Time. See www.paulloeb.org To receive his articles directly email sympa@lists.onenw.org with the subject line: subscribe paulloeb-articles
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Dawgs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-05-07 11:55 AM
Response to Original message
1. Thank you. I've been waiting for a post like this from an Edwards supporter.
We need to work together to knock Hillary down a bit, and hope that the candidate that comes out on top supports the other one by promising a position in the Presidency. And, vice versa, it would also be nice to see the candidate that is behind support the other candidate when the time is right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DavidDvorkin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-05-07 12:03 PM
Response to Original message
2. I'd love that ticket
And I've thought about it before, but I don't expect it to happen. It's more likely that one of them will start disappearing after Iowa, and then the race will become Clinton vs. the survivor.

That's assuming no Gore, of course.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpeale Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-05-07 12:37 PM
Response to Original message
3. as an Edwards supporter, I could get behind something like this
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
philosophie_en_rose Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-05-07 03:25 PM
Response to Original message
4. I love that ticket.
I could also go for Obwards, but Edwama is also good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zandor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-05-07 03:48 PM
Response to Original message
5. Edwards/Obama or Obama/Edwards???
Kind of a big detail, isn't it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-05-07 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Edwards/Obama
If only because Edwama sounds much better than Obadwards.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-05-07 07:50 PM
Response to Original message
7. I'll lift a frosty one to that!
:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NoGodsNoMasters Donating Member (257 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-05-07 11:10 PM
Response to Original message
8. Sounds good to me.
They'd get my vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PATRICK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-05-07 11:38 PM
Response to Original message
9. Sounds unlikely
Not a vote cast yet, not a hard tumble for either. So who is going to betray their respective campaigns and make the big sacrifice to portray a pair teaming up against he "inevitable"? It is more likely or viable for Gore to step in to "stop Hillary" and none of these shock options are the dramatic shoe in for the other side of the coin.... quite possibly taking out simultaneously ALL of Hillary's opposition in the the rough and tumble and more than recognizing her status without a single vote cast.

Of course when the ballots start coming, the game is engaged. THEN you might see this scenario or more grinding of two powerful viable campaigns against the easy flow of the Clinton base. THEN, and less likely, Gore might have a clear chance to step in, if he could even see clear if it was necessary until too late. As with Dean, even and endorsement might arrive too late except to carry just enough weight to hurt an eventual Hillary candidacy.

Unfortunately, the Edwards' advisers did let it be known that one main strategy, repeating the fatal expectation of 2004, was that one of the other rivals would fade. But no, here we have the wonderful triangulation that actually works in America, Dems successfully divided, even if legitimately, for their own dangerous undoing. Both Obama and Edwards seem up against the wall of a similar dilemma and neither with a chance to make Hillary fade before the votes and expensive ads start flying. Kerry did fade. Hillary is simply slipping through the initial tests. So no one really knows anything solid enough to radically alter the standoff.

In other words we have to wade through the actual votes, beset by big money and media and lessons unlearned. The usual, in other words. the only REAL solution would be for a silent partnership, for Obama to give up a questionable hope of becoming Veep and both risking their individual candidacies equally in taking on Clinton. That is, the risky appearance of ganging up, which is what it would be.
Not many friendly democratic options and both by now are too committed to their campaigns and followers to give up on the voters. Which these sort of plans seem to encourage. In this kind of scenario I would find myself drifting illogically and surely toward Dennis Kucinich. Nothing then would be solved in my case.

Welcome to history. The only effect you can have is to campaign for your candidates among the people.
And wait.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 09:01 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC