|
I really admire John and Elizabeth but there is a reason why he dropped out of the race. His message resonates with people who want change, who want to erase poverty in America, but a vote for John is not going to bring him back to the campaign.
It's admirable to vote for him to keep his message alive. People should do this if their hearts are really into it. But even John knows that he was a politician. The media didn't give him a fair shake. That is obvious, but he got out of the race because he realized that the political winds changed from 2004 to 2008.
Edwards was simply fighting an uphill battle, and didn't get enough traction with people who really desire real change. In many ways he is part of the past, given that he ran in 2004, and people resoundingly want a break from politics as usual. One candidate, the established candidate, wants to believe she can bring about change even when the barometer has said that her 35 years haven't gotten us very far.
My feeling is that he is still playing the consummate politician. One of the two candidates in the DEM party running for the presidency will get the DEM nomination. It will not be Edwards.
John made some rather strange political moves, some that undermined his core values. The two most important ones were the war authorization, in which he voted for, and the bankruptcy bill that put poor people in worse shape. Those two votes confound me. He is a good man, but he did not make his case that he could take care of all Americans. Because of that his campaign went south, with many democrats believing they could get what he has to offer with Obama and Clinton.
This is just my opinion, but I think he should endorse since he's out. Not doing this leads me to believe that he's playing an artful game of politics with the American people. It feels the same as the political calculus he and Hillary used for their war vote. It undermined many Americans, many injured Americans, many dead Americans.
If you have doubts about whether a war should be waged, you should never send people to start a war; even if you think it's going to last one day. Edwards apologized but this is why neither he nor Clinton get my vote.
It was his judgment that should have mattered then, and if he wanted to end poverty then he shouldn't have voted to give Credit card companies more money with that bogus bankruptcy bill. He, like Clinton, lacked good sound judgment.
Edwards should endorse now. He should endorse the candidate, either Obama or Hillary, that embodies the core belief that America is better when we are united and, strong. Only when we are united for this cause can the specter of poverty be erased.
Bottom line:
This is why I'm for Obama. He laid it out plain and simple in a number of debates. Obama got it right when Clinton and Edwards got it wrong.
Obama was against the war. Clinton and Edwards voted for the war. Obama was against that bad bankruptcy bill. Clinton & Edwards voted yes. Obama was against the Kyle/Lieberman amendment. Clinton was for it. Obama is for transparency. Clinton made many decisions in secret.
Who has the best judgment in my opinion? Obama. YES WE CAN!!!!
|