Steve Kirsch has done an analysis of why he believes John Edwards is the candidate who should be the Democratic nominee; the one who can defeat any of the Republicans (including Fred Thompson). The analysis focuses on global warming and Iraq, and points out where both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have been at best timid on these issues.
Right now I'm leaning towards Edwards myself, though I can't say it's with the same kind of "YES! That's the guy!" fervor with which I signed onto the Dean campaign in 2004. I don't dismiss lightly the criticisms that my sister and others from North Carolina have about Edwards; that he ran for Senate and before his first term was even up he was already running for president, then bailed after that defeat. Of course, Illinois residents could say the same thing about Barack Obama. There's also something just a wee bit glad-handing about Edwards, a nagging sense I have of a bit of incipient phoniness. I haven't forgotten Edwards' initial support of the war, something that was supposed to be an irrevocable dealbreaker in my mind. But a blunt admission that he was wrong, rather than the kind of "If I'd known then..." tapdancing that Hillary Clinton is doing goes a long way towards earning my forgiveness.
All that said, when I look at my options, and especially when I look at how the Republicans are STILL beating his infamous haircut to death, I keep coming back to Edwards as the guy I'd like to see win the nomination. Part of this is that I'd like to see a guy who comes from humble beginnings, made a shitload of money and didn't become an "I got mine and fuck you" Republican out there on the campaign trail as a continued reproach to the notion that wealthy people must by definition be Republicans. And part of it is that the obsession with the haircut, like the obsession with the "Dean scream" in 2004, tells me loudly and clearly that Edwards, not Clinton and not Obama, is the Democrat they fear the most.
(h/t: Nicole Belle at C&L)
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire