Oh man, Nezua you're giving me a headache. PLEASE do not compare Obama to Joe Lieberman, it's really so unfair. I'd point out that the opposite is true - there are many similarities in fact between the Lamont/Lieberman dynamic and the Obama/Clinton. Poo pooing the "what we've gotta do to get elected" while not acknowledging that the man started life as a community organizer with the IAF in the South Side of Chicago and has said, written and voted plenty that makes many of us believe that he really is an agent of progressive change is unfair.

well, you have added fairness to the post, then!

its not unfair to compare a man who claims he was mentored by another man with that man. a man who keeps trumpeting bipartisanship and "crossing party lines" and "uniting" etc.

i'd appreciate hearing more on that. on your thoughts about this time during which we need justice, and the man is only talking about getting along. that is actually what i mean to be the core of this post. thoughts?

ps, my friend, "poo-pooing" does seem to be a dismissive way of avoiding talking about how a man who claims real change is using an old, old tactic—and thats giving him the benefit of the doubt, that its only a tactic—which is "saying something opposite to what i mean to get elected." i mean at best, that's not Real Change. its politics as usual. and at worst, he is saying just what he means.

i want real change, too! and i want to have hope in whomever gets elected or nominated! i do. please assume that when you read this. and i hope you can see by the links i've put up to my old posts that i've always tried to be fair with obama and still do. but i'm not ready to believe in someone just because they are a good politician or have done good work before. not at this juncture. i need to know these abuses and crimes will be addressed. and that he is brave enough to face down all the entrenched powers that stand to benefit from all this "bipartisanship unity."

Good food for thought Nez. And loved your imagery when pointing out anyone with half a brain, and a smidgen of conscience stands way taller than King George.

I agree we need to get beyond the bipartisan crap. Getting along is no good if it just means cowtowing to idiots. But I think Myrna's got a point in saying his experience should matter. (Of course if that was all true -- everyone would be behind Richardson, he clearly has the best "leader of the free world resume among candidates)

I haven't decided who I'll support yet. And I hate to say it but even though Richardson and Edwards are probably the best Dem candidates, tend to believe it'll be a showdown between Obama and Clinton. The truth is among this lot of candidates any dem is better than the scary GOP haters available. So, I'm going to carefully try to cast my vote for the most electable Dem.

"but i'm not ready to believe in someone just because they are a good politician or have done good work before."

A friend once told me you can't truly believe in something until you question it. And while I think you bring up valid points about his speeches calling for hope and change, but without real meat behind that -- I also think think you shouldn't dismiss "good work they've done before." His actions before he got all presidential can show a glimpse into the persona.

And for what its worth, he does seem genuine. I mean to say, he'd genuinely listen to people.

i'm not against him. i want more than anything else to think he is just doing what he has to to get in power. and of course i agree that any dem is going to be better for the nation than the Republicans, good lord. and sure, i'm ready to support him. i am just more inspired by edwards' stance. but again, obama cant take quite the same stance.

you are right—i dont mean to simply entirely discount the past work obama's done. past work means a lot! i just meant i have real questions. and the past doesn't entirely answer them.

i prefer richardson's experience. i prefer edwards' fight and plan. i worry greatly over mushy speeches that just lift up my heart, and dont speak to events today as i see them needing to be addressed.

but if it comes down to obama vs huckabee in nov (i sort of think it will, and i sort of think obama will take it all the way) of course i'm behind obama.

but it's not over yet. obama is not promised new hampshire. and honestly, i do hope edwards takes the nomination over him. his cojones and agenda just speak more to me of concrete changes i can apply to real events in my mind.

it's really too bad all the dems aren't getting behind the same things. i miss dodd's fiery "restore the constitution" talk.

Jesse Jackson's critique of Obama over his reaction to Jena was rather vague and snide, his own son publicly disagreed with him on the critique, and he backed off from it, perhaps because he correctly realized his point wasn't very strong.

I like Edwards too. But if you completely set aside their present speeches and positioning and look ONLY at their records, in elected office and out of elected office, I think Obama has the better and more well-rounded one.

When you set aside records and look only at images and current positioning... Because of race, I think Edwards can afford to seem fiery and uncompromising. Obama can't afford to.

I'd be happy to campaign for either of them. After all, Edwards is a good ol' Southern boy... and I'm saying that in totally unironic way, as another Southerner. But right now Obama has the edge for me.

thank you for the info on jesse jackson's comment. that makes me feel better. gotta run, rest will have to wait—

what would be really awesome is if Edwards won, with Richardson as the VP, and then if Richardson went on to be president. I think he is Edwards logical choice of VP, I really do.

I'm basically with you on all this, Nezua, so I'm afraid there may not be much content to this comment :-)

One big reason I'm more of an Edwards supporter than an Obama supporter is that I can see an Edwards/Obama ticket (and I can see it handily trouncing all Republican comers) — but I can't see an Obama/Edwards ticket. Edwards almost certainly won't take a VP candidacy spot again, and I can't say I'd blame him. And VP Obama running for the Presidency when Pres. Edwards's terms are up is more appealing to me than Freshman Senator Obama, no matter how much hope he's got. I'm from Massachusetts, and while the election of Deval Patrick, who is a close friend of, and uses very similar rhetoric to, Senator Obama, to the governorship in 2006 surely was a triumph of hope, the past year of proposal after proposal being shot down or stonewalled by an uncooperative legislature, and Patrick's apparent inability to muster any significant pressure on said legislature despite his huge grassroots support in the election, also shows that hope plus a couple bucks gets you a small coffee at Dunkin' Donuts. Of course the analogy isn't perfect: Obama's got a lot more government experience than Patrick did. On the other hand, I have no trouble believing the US Congress will be even more recalcitrant than the MA legislature, and there are harder problems to fix on the national scale than in one small, moderately liberal state on the coast.

Which is to longwindedly say, I agree, hope's good, but hope plus willingness to correctly identify the problems and fight significant opposition to fix them is better. Makes a less pithy bumper sticker, I guess.

(I'd also have loved to see Richardson do better, no doubt, and if I were the Iowa Caucus, he'd either have won, or been a close second, none of this 2% nonsense — I hope very much that he ends up offered Sec'y of State or some similarly influential position, where he could do an awful lot of good.)

the republic that never happened is in a deaththrow.

bipartisan means letting the fox devour the chickens.
just like rodney king said, why cant we all get along.

well the ruling class is indifferent to us the 90% population.

obama is a corporate lackey, hillary, also.

john edwards is not the shining white knight but he
seems to scare the rulers, who do not even mention him
on cnn.
he is not dead yet.

like all the other peasants when it comes to the actual
vote, the lever will be for whoever is on the democratic
ticket.

diebold, blah, blah.

sinclair lewis was right, but mc.cain is the perfect answer.
brain damaged patriot to the death. maybe he is already dead.
he is like that funny little man with the sqaure moustache in
\defense of the 'homeland'. hmmmmm springtime for hmmm?

perfect storm to be a good german indeed.

"maybe he is already dead"

jajajaj!

If what you say about Edwards being able to take the challenger stance and Obama not being able to do so is true, will we ever be in a place that a person of color who is true to their cause of justice can be elected? This is a powerful statement I think. Its not new and I think its pretty obvious...I just needed to remark on it and grieve a bit.

Perhaps Obama, even if he were to win and implement his bi-partisanship, could open the door a bit for the next person of color a little more widely. Its hard for me to balance out the priority of that over the justice we all want so badly. I guess I'm wondering outloud about a case for incrementalism. Because I like what Edwards says too - but he doesn't move the ball down the field of opening up these closed doors at all.

And I can't help but think of one of the African American women I work with who, when she overheard me and another co-worker discussing the Iowa results today, walked passed us and held her fist in the air saying "Obama!!" Only to then tell us that she still doesn't believe a black man can be elected president today in this country.

And by the way, I think Hillary sold her soul to the oligarchy a long time ago, otherwise I might be saying the same thing about her and the possibilities of a woman president.

well, for me, i definitely think he can get elected president. in fact, were i to lay down my money, would bet most on him.

If what you say about Edwards being able to take the challenger stance and Obama not being able to do so is true, will we ever be in a place that a person of color who is true to their cause of justice can be elected?

take/not/ever...i wouldn't boil it down quite so harshly. we are moving in increments, as you say. we are. i have no doubt a black man as well as a woman will be elected president, and clearly very soon. if not now then very soon.

i may be wrong, but i read from your comment that you take the opposite position that i do. that it IS more of an advance just to have a black man as president. more so than having a wealthy president who works for the poorer, and cuts out the huge corporate interests from pulling his strings.

but that, too, is a very dichotomized and probably oversimplified frame, too. perhaps a false choice. i don't know. i don't know all of obama's record, nor edward's i wont pretend i do. or what they will do, once elected. its a tuffie. obama does present an appealing emotional and philosophical direction. yet, when i think of edwards, i think of a specific agenda that i can imagine having very specific effects upon our country. but i also have to admit i have only linmited exposure to both.

"implement his bipartisanship". i guess i'd like to know just what that means. what it would look like. because i can imagine some pretty upsetting manifestations of such an idea at this point.

i'm not expert. just thinking it out as i go.

I suppose my thoughts about Obama are pretty confused right now. I think it comes from comparing what I see during this campaign with what he wrote in his first book "Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance" which was written long before he started to run for the Senate, much less the presidency. The story he wrote of his life showed him to be someone who struggled with his identity in a pretty deep and honest way. And it is, like so many people of color, a complicated identity. I often wonder what's really happened for him since he wrote that. If there is any of that man left in there I wonder what he would/could do as president.

I was a little worried that you were not going to get knee deep in the politics this year Nez, and of course, being also another hard core political junkie, disappointed about that.
But hey, we're still addicted. As a political junkie, I like your definition of the affliction. I like it a lot.
I hope you can hang on to the roller coaster this year until November. A wild ride is ahead certainly. Keep that megaphone raised to your mouth, I'm listening up and on the same ride. New Hampshire next stop.
For the junkies, it doesn't get any better than this.

i sort of always feel a little sickly afterward. guilty, indulgent, deviant, and as if i've wasted my time. but you know. the ill feeling fades and i forget why i keep away from the stuff. and there i am, writing about the horse race again. hooked.

I think you said very well what I thought after hearing The Speech. I like him too, I guess. But I'm cynical enough not to have a great deal of hope in the political process or those who claim to represent us. And the whole Unity/One America thing offends the Radical POC in me.

He's better than some of the alternatives though.

I love the detergent bottle!

I have never thought that any of Obama's rhetoric carried any weight. Perhaps because I find it asthetically inane I judge its content harshly. As Nezua said -- and thank you for saying more loudly than I have been of late -- we're chock-full of fucking hope. It's the dearth of justice that's the issue. That is the bedrock concept that government is founded on. Take that away and the results are always perverse.

I have yet to hear anything that suggests that Obama is really as unselfish as we need the president to be. Anything. I've had this position since Sharpton easily outclassed him in the Democratic Convention (after which Obama took a cheap shot at Sharpton). I've always viewed Sharpton with a jaundiced eye, but he's done more for blacks, fuckups and all, than Obama has.

It should be clear to everyone that Obama is, frankly, all talk. He and Clinton are extremely similar candidates. Their agenda is very much pro-aristocracy with populist concessions thrown in to sugarcoat the continuing bonanza for Thems That Get. Edwards was a stronger candidate from jump, just like in the last election. Any time any candidate -- any -- touch an issue that no one in the media likes, that's a good sign. I don't know if Edwards can really help allieviate poverty. But it's clear he will make an attempt. Obama will make no such attempt. He hasn't the political savvy or the interest (or neither) in doing so.

Being the first black anything always has a profound cachet. Has anyone considered what the implications of electing the First Black President are if that President proceeds to do a crappy job? Think about it. We get one shot to do it right and we elect a guy who thinks just like all the rich white people we elected before. What does that say about our country? ("Our" is used loosely.)

Still catching up, and I don't want to to wear out my welcome at your casa, so I hope you'll bear with me.

I said in another thread that your words made me rethink my stance on Edwards. I've got a deep seated visceral fear/disgust/mistrust reaction to southern white males, but I've been trying to reevaluate him honestly, and I keep seeing that Edwards has been pushing Clinton and Obama to me more progressive, more leftist, more out there. His presence in the race has forced the other two to try to meet him further from the center than they would otherwise have been. That's something I wouldn't have seen if I hadn't seen your earlier post about Edwards. So thank you.

And on a more flip note: I missed eight grade graduation because my teacher finally looked up and paid attention during the Pledge and saw that I was defiantly seated and not saying a damn word, something I hadn't been doing for over a year. I've never known someone who made the same protest at the same age, and it makes me so happy to know I wasn't the only pissed off fourteen year old out there.