I'm going to take a brief break from the regularly scheduled Edwards-promotion to briefly explain why I'm supporting a candidate: not a particular one but any one. I was prompted to write this post by Chris Bowers, who criticized me yesterday for supporting Edwards. He wasn't criticizing the substance of my pro-Edwards pieces, mind you, but the fact that I'm writing them.
And you are not shilling for Edwards? Then what is this?My Case for John Edwards
John Edwards for President
What's his proof that I'm "shilling?" The fact that I'm writing pro-Edwards diaries. That, and some colorful praise I had for this awesomely awesome speech by Edwards.
(As an aside, that thread led Bowers, he of the translucent skin, to ban me from Openleft. I'm proud of the "punishment." Openleft, in its intolerance of even mild dissent and its distaste for vigorous debate, is neither open nor left. Maybe Openleft's sleeping with the Establishment will eventually produce an interesting or popular blog, but it's not going so well so far. I, too, used to take a regular paycheck from People for the American Way and didn't find it especially edifying. And now, as if striving for irrelevance, Openleft is lending indirect support to a gaffaholic conservative, corporate Democrat.)
It's easy not to support a candidate. That's what I did in every presidential election prior to this one since 1992. (I voted for Nader in 2000, in New York.) If you remain uncommitted, you don't have to contend with the candidates' imperfections, the inevitable low points in campaigns. You can go through the election cycle pretty much cringe-free. You don't suffer dissappointment. You're perfect, in a sense, above it all, or beneath it. Believe me, I could write angry, righteous posts about the insufficient progressivism of the Democratic contenders. I could write those in my sleep. In fact, I think I have.
Supporting a candidate, although more difficult than remaining neutral, brings its own rewards. You join in common cause with a diverse group of activists. You serve as part of an informal communications team, countering the MSM's distortions. You contribute to one of the most powerful debate-shaping instruments in poltics: a presidential campaign; win or lose, Edwards has already nudged the poltiical center of the party, if not the country, to the left. Most important, you help the campaign to become better.
Without a sizable base of committed netroots supporters, Edwards would be less likely to take positions that piss off Big Money and the DC Establishment. And he wouldn't have attracted Joe Trippi, who, in turn, wouldn't have become a dominant player in the campaign. And he wouldn't be financially viable right now. And he couldn't credibly claim to be heading the most bottom-up, people-powered of the campaigns. And to the extent that my constructive crticism--my calls for Edwards to move left--have any impact at all, it's because I'm a supporter. Otherwise, I'd be just another obscure critic. I don't think I'm flattering myself to think that I, along with Edwards's other online supporters, have embolded the campaign.
So no, Bowers, to promote a candidate on the blogs is not to shill, it is to engage in an honorable and useful form of politics.
****
Okay, so there's this guy who needs to get to Europe. It's essential. Maybe the fate of humankind doesn't depend on it, but then maybe it does. Certainly, many lives are at stake. To try to traverse the ocean this guy is given a choice of vehicles: a hot air balloon, a motor boat, or jet. "Which do you want?" he is asked. He shrugs. "I don't care," he says, relaxing. "I mean, They all could get me there."
I'm tired of seeing people in the blogs casually claim that any of the top-tier Dems could get us there. This is probably true--and besides the point. They all could win, and they all could lose. The important question is: who is most likely to win?
Like a lot of people in the netroots, I'm wary of arguments based on a candidate's electability. It's an elusive and relatively empty virtue. If you vote just on the basis of electability, you risk, like someone who marries for money, cheating your heart and losing in the end.
But.
But, it's pretty important, a candidate's ability to win. Very important. In a fundamental sense, there is nothing more important.
And when gauging a candidate's electabilty, there is no factor more important than how or she performs in the states where the election will be decided. National polls mean nothing: just ask Al Gore. So these latest numbers from Survey USA are rightfully attracting attention. By any measure you want to use, Edwards is the strongest candidate against all the GOP contenders in four states that Bush narrowly won in 2004: New Mexico, Iowa, Missouri, and Ohio.
Clinton supporters will argue that by the time the election arrives, all the candidates will have negatives as high as hers, and that she's best equipped to handle the rightwing attacks. Obama supporters will argue that he's still an unknown quantity in swing states, and that he brings in new voters that tend to elude polls. These arguments are reasonable but they both rely on events that have not happened and may not happen. Edwards is a strong general election candidate today, now, and stands to get even stronger.
What most voters know about Edwards is that they like him. They know he's a lawyer who ran for vice president and got a fancy haircut. And his wife has cancer: they like her too. And they may remember his Two Americas stump speech. When they study him after he wins the nomination, they'll see a passionate pol with a message well-suited to the mood of the country, which is hungry for progressive change. His economic populism appeals to Reagan Democrats, who to a large degree determine the choice made by swing states in the industrial midwest. His anti-K-street message of reform appeals to another important swing group: the Perot voters. His plans to revive rural America will help him in swing states in the west and the south. If Repubs are stupid enough to nominate Romney and Dems are smart enough to nominate Edwards, we could be a looking at a 40-state victory. I mean, Alabama and Kentucky would be in play.
So as Democrats decide how to get there from here, I strongly sugggest we take the jet.
|
|
|
Permalink :: 101 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
