While Republicans languish with candidates they just can’t get behind. And with Fred Thompson more of a question mark than anything else. The Democratic field is stealing the show, and deservedly so. Sunday’s debate was exciting, vibrant, and very educational. I give straight A’s to Wolf Blitzer of CNN on an outstanding job of controlling the debate and keeping the candidates on topic. It really makes a difference when you don’t have to figure out which question the candidate is answering because he sure as hell isn’t answering the one that was asked. I don’t know about you, but that drives me crazy.
Sunday’s debate showed that the Democratic Party is indeed a Party of ideas, and we heard a lot of good ones in the debate. The biggest issue of course was the war in Iraq. On this issue I have to go with Edwards. His admission and apology for his original vote to authorize the war in Iraq counts for a lot. And his belief that we need to get our troops out of harms way now is right on. Obama seems too careful on this and other issues, perhaps revealing his lack of experience. Clinton’s refusal to acknowledge her original vote on the Iraq war along with the over practiced, scripted answers makes her just feel wrong.
Richardson, Biden, Dodd, Gravel, and Kucinich I’m afraid are just filling out the ledger so to speak. Gravel and Kucinich are more of a side show than anything else. Their almost loony attempts to gain traction by impugning the other candidates makes the idea these guys actually believe they could end up in the White House, I’m sorry, but just laughable.
Richardson, a fine governor, and Biden, and Dodd, both top notch Senators, don’t have that indefinable spark that just says “leader.” I wouldn’t mind seeing these guys in the cabinet though. They have some great ideas on how to deal with today’s issues.
So it boils down to Clinton, Obama, or Edwards. And with the Republican Candidates continuing to support Bush’s war in Iraq, it looks pretty likely one of them will be the next president. For me it was the moment Edwards described how Clinton and Obama had voted against funding for the war in Iraq, but had made no argument defending that vote. He said that was legislating and there was a difference between legislating and leadership. Clinton and Obama angrily defended themselves, but nothing they said could detract from the obvious fact that Edwards was in control of the debate.
John Edwards was the winner in this correspondent’s opinion. He has the experience, intelligence, and foresight to be a great president. And out of this field of Candidates he has made the only true commitment to improving the living standard of the working class and the poor. And he is the only Candidate fully committed to bringing us into the twenty first century with universal health care. Look for him to win the New Hampshire primary and then things will really change.
********************************
Devin Barber, Politics Correspondent
Devin’s column, “Left Of The Right” published every twice weekly to Gather Essentials: Politics is a Blue Collar Democrats take on current political news.
Devin was raised by proud Roosevelt Democrats. Being the son of parents counted among the throng of Americans displaced by the Great Depression has given Devin a deep rooted passion for causes dealing with the poor and the working class.
You can find all of Devin’s columns at http://gather.com/leftoftheright
You can keep up with Devin’s postings and his Gather activity by joining his Gather network. Just click here: http://kiwina58.gather.com and then select the orange “Connect” button on the left-hand side of the page.You can find Devin and other Political Correspondents, plus celebrity content and plenty of other politics experts at Politics.gather.com.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 33
Technical staff: Bush the Balrog
Good review, hon.
Thanks for the update! I've been an Edwards supporter since 2004 but he's got a lot of catching up to do to get on the ballot. I'm hoping that the caucus states will boost his standing.
The people of this country have watched the current president pull our nation down in ways that frankly, even I thought was impossible and they are not about to elect another Republican. The Republican Party hasn't been in this tight a spot since Carter trounced Ford in 1976. I realize this must be a very scary time for Republicans. But remember you Righties, "if you want to live like a Republican, vote for a Democrat."
Appreciate the links! While I am definitely an Edwards supporter, I'm doubting his ability to come back and win this. I do agree that he is more liberal than Hillary but the liberal/conservative thing is badly overdone as one can easily see from the financial wizardry of the incumbent.
If you think about it I can't see the Republican party nominating McCain because he doesn't toe the line on party discipline adequately and is something of a loose cannon. That is generally completely unacceptable to Republicans and not really popular with Democrats. Republicans like a candidate like Ike or Ronnie, one who can't find his way to the White House bathroom with the party leading him by the hand!
I agree that McCain would pull Democratic votes and a lot of independent votes. Us independents like to see a little "loose cannon" in our candidates sometimes! The people who hate Hillary don't really count as they, at least for the most part, wouldn't vote Democratic if their life depended on it! Hillary is the most right leaning of the Democratic candidates.
Guiliani won't appeal to the right wing religious fundamentalists because of his social stands on abortion and gay marriage. This would be a powerful loss for the Republican party as it has been the edge that elected the shrub. I don't believe Bush has any significant religious feelings but he recognized the potential of that voting block when he was trying to get his father elected. Bush the greater refused to pander to that block and you can see where it got him. His son didn't make that mistake!
A lot can change in a year and a half and either party may elect their man (or woman) president in 2008, I agree. It's not a done deal. Clinton is definitely the main stream candidate but Abraham Lincoln was not when he won so who knows? If you'll recall, Bush the greater was considered to be unbeatable following the Gulf war but that didn't translate to a win two years later.
Your conservative Republican analysis, Dick Morris, is convinced that Hillary will be the next president as he is certain she will bring about 10 million female voters out who don't normally vote. I'm not even certain that she'll get the nomination because of the potential difficulty electing a woman. A similar problem applies to Obama with a black background. I, like you, don't want to underestimate the ability of people in this nation to exhibit gross intolerance manifest as race bias.
Personally, I see the 2008 race as a definite horse race with the outcome in question till it gets here! Just hope we don't get another election by Supreme Court fiat.
And yes Rich, I CAN predict the future... be afraid... be very afraid.
This is indicative of the type of ideas put forth in these columns. Behold, the yellow-dog liberal, who is so certain that their ideas are universally popular.
The people want leadership, not agendas or political grandstanding. They won't get that from John Edwards, just take a look at his website. You'll find it filled with many of the traditional ideas of the left. He has very little in the way of new ideas, if he has any.
Hillary has a chance, if she can break the traditional liberal mold, show some real leadership. Obama could, too, if they can break loose of the liberal Democrat mold. Don't count on it, as the primaries are about appealing to your base and to do that means kow-towing to the liberal left in the case of the Democrats. This pushes their candidates to say more and more liberal things, which makes it hard to return to the center in time for the general election.
I'd like to see a return to the old Democratic party, a party that was big enough for liberals and conservatives, a party of ideas and HOPE, instead of the modern Democratic party. Between 1930 and 2000, the Democrats went from "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself" to "the only thing we have is fear."
Gee, that's the first time I've seen "yellow dog" used in conjunction with the Democratic party. I guess it's a good a versatile adjective!
In assessing the candidates one must remember that the candidate must win the nomination before running against the opposing party! Candidates tend to ease closer to the party faithful in the primary and then make a smooth segue to the middle for the general election, and that's what you are seeing with all candidates except perhaps Guiliani as he is kind of out of the mold for a modern Republican.
All three main Democrats are busily engaged in this process. Once in office I would expect Hillary to be pretty much centrist and Edwards and Obama to lean a little more to the left, though not all that far once in office. For understanding and utilizing power I think Clinton has the edge but she also brings baggage, not necessarily of her making, to the table. Both Edwards and Obama have little actual record or bad baggage to kill them. Actually, Obama is positioned nicely if he can squeak by Clinton. Edwards needs some of the Caucus states to get him up to speed.
I don't see any deficit of leadership more significant than has been much of the time in the past. FDR, Kennedy and Clinton were the "leaders" in the Democratic party who became president. Ronnie was the only Republican who demonstrated significant leadership and his was offset by a tremendous lack of knowing what was going on. Mention a Johnson or a Nixon and we're not tailing great leaders back then. Ike was a great military leader but a farce in the White House.
Truman was not a great leader as such. I believe he was a great president for several reasons and faced several difficult decisions in his tenure. Carter was not a leader but I believe history will hold him to be a far better president than is currently thought. He, Truman and Ford probably hold the record on integrity in my lifetime! That's a scarce commodity today and one which is much needed!
I understand your feelings so I'll try to explain my viewpoint.
If Carter did nothing else, bringing morality and ethics back to Washington DC, if only for one term, was a major contribution.
He did exactly the same as presidents before and after about the cold war - we held our own. Because of his actions the hostages were eventually able to return, alive, to this country. The failed rescue attempt was not Carters fault as he was not the commander in the field who failed to recognize mechanical problems. You'll notice that the abortive attempt did not extract retribution on our hostages, do you wonder why? Because Carter had sent to the Ayatollah by private courier, the message "If you put one of the hostages on trial or harm one of the hostages, the United States will invade Iran!"
Were I a hostage that's the kind of leadership I'd want from a president! He stayed in the oval office rather than politic around the country, knowing it would cost him the election in all probability. He felt that was the right thing to do under the circumstances.
Do you blame Carter for the oil embargo? If so, why? And what did he do to cause high interest rates? To blame him you need some kind of cause and effect relationship. It's entirely possible that if he had gotten the gasoline tax increases he sought we might not be in Iraq killing American boys right now. Who knows? And the "bad" economy at that time was easier for many people to make a living in than it is today! We all thought the price of gasoline was outlandish but look at what we're paying now!
I repeat, I believe history will hold him to be a far better president than is currently thought.
It seems to me we get the president we need at regular intervals throughout history, Washington to start with, Lincoln in 1860, FDR in 1932 and Truman in 1944 and JFK in 1960 come to mind. I believe that these persons left an indelible mark on our nation's history that cannot be denigrated or dismissed. I hope we continue to get the leaders we need, recognizing that some of them were not recognized as "great leaders" but were still what we needed when.
However (you knew this was coming!), this piece of yours is so blatantly nonobjective that it detracts from the overall message you're trying to convey. Only a true blue (no pun intended) Democrat partisan could possibly truly believe that the list of Democratic candidates are as vastly superior to the GOP slate as you at least imply, if not actually say. When November 2008 rolls around, and a number of different kinds of events and behaviors occur that neither you nor I have any possibility of knowing what they will be, that neither nominee will be viewed as vastly superior in every way.
By the way, I was born in Spokane, and grew up in Lewiston and Coeur d'Alene!
No sh*t? That's way cool man. I graduated from Coeur d'Alene Sr. High in 77'. I think there is no better place to live than right here in the Inland Empire.
But I do in fact see the Democratic field as more superior to the Republican field than ever in my life. I've been watching the political pendulum swing Right since Reagan, and Bill Clinton helped keep it stuck on the Right un-naturally through the senseless scandals he brought on himself. But now that pendulum is swinging to the Left and this time it has rockets strapped to it. Disatisfaction with the Republican Party, combined with the changing demographics in the electorate will make the losses the Republican's sufered in 2006 look like nothing in 2008.
And Rich, Just because I choose not to address your off-the-wall rantings doesn't mean I don't read them. They're just too rediculous to take seriously.
I have to agree with Devin that the candidates on the Democratic side are stronger by far. That said, two of them have built in drawbacks, black and woman, which they must overcome because many voters aren't ready to accept either. Two of the top candidates on the GOP side have built in drawbacks as well.
And I must agree with Greg that by the time of the election it will tend to even out and will be a horse race by the time the election takes place!
You're dellusional Rich, anyone who thinks a rediculously high wall, topped with poison tipped spears built on the Mexican border is a serious idea is, well... a wingnut.
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm