4 posts tagged “edwards”

Sean says...

John Edwards is my choice for the 2008 Democratic Party Presidential Nomination.

Change is not something you represent, it is something you do. This election season we Americans have the opportunity again to make a change in who is president of our nation. The challenge to select a candidate in 2008 is to choose one for who they are rather than who they are not. The other candidates physically represent change, but are they a change from the norm? Is what they are saying a strong vision? Are they offering valuable solutions to America's problems that are innovative or even correct? 

Edwards has always swayed me since 2004 with his talk of the Two Americas. Under President George W. Bush, our nation has focused on national security issues because of the reaction to the horrible disaster on September 11, 2001. However, the struggle of every American to realize their American dream economically immediately took a back seat.  It took the tragedy of New Orleans to expose us to the tragedy of our own economic strata. And it has taken the collapse of our housing market nationwide to realize that Americans are thinking more about consumption than future.  It is Edwards who saw this in 2004 and he continues to build on it as the nation and the world is ravaged by economic change.  He is the true inheritor of Robert F. Kennedy's mantle. 

Bobby Kennedy said once, "Some men see things as they are and say 'Why?' I dream things that never were and say, 'Why not?'" I beleive John Edwards emulates this visionary statement George Bernard Shaw penned and Bobby Kennedy strived to make us follow. Bobby was struck down before his moment was realized, but its John's time now. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are the exciting candidates of the media and are unfortunately catching the curiosity of the camera.  But John is still there fighting. It is his belief in his own message, himself, and the nature of the discriminating voter that John Edwards will build his coalition and take the prize. 

Why does John deserve to be OUR president?

1) An economic plan that makes sense and is integrated with real numbers and real goals that meshes agriculture, energy, health care, and trade into a sensible idea that includes all Americans.

2) A renewed call for a war on poverty to improve ours and our neighbors lives and opportunities for our children's future. (If you watch any clip this is the one to help you decide if he is good enough.)

3) A strong commitment to ending the war in Iraq.

But how does he help families like Stefan and mine? Edwards is for civil unions but understands that our issues are more than just some sort of legal partnership, dare I say legally recognized marriage. It is about job discrimination and financial security that our gay and lesbian community require to also survive not unlike the greater community does. But what about his "journey" and comfortability with gay and lesbians in general that many have asked questions about? How does he differ from the other candidates?  He differs because he is questioning his own faith and soul about the issue of marriage in general. How many presidents really have said that?  And with the fact that he surrounds himself with people like his wife Elizabeth and others who support our causes, I beleive he is getting closer in his decision. But in the overall stance on our issues, my own faith tells me that he will be the one to lead our nation into changing more than the others. Humility of self is more important in my president.

We all have to make a choice. Some might feel that Edwards should just give it up based on recent results. But we still have many states to go through and many tests to meet over the next month. Great oration without substance does not a great president make. Edwards has the oration and substance to inspire us and lead us to greatness. It is recognizing that leadership over the directing of who matters in this race by the media that will lead to change. I hope you will change with me and vote John Edwards for President.    

...my campaign for Edwards now begins by trying to convince Stefan who is still undecided.

 

 

Sean says...

As I posted before here, Stefan and I are trying to figure out who to support on the Democratic side and so we have been watching the debates when we can. Hence, we watched the Democratic debate in Nevada this week. I could post the whole debate here to be a little more inclusive, but I will be "bad" and do some editing on my own. I thought this was a great debate in terms of telling what the candidates are about. I am reposting about it to link the parts of the debate I felt moved me toward Clinton and Edwards and further away from Obama.  I will say I will support the Democratic nominee regardless, unless an viable independent alternative is made available.  Stefan, I believe, will as well.

This is the part of the debate that I think really swayed my thinking. Unfortunately, you can't forward to the specific parts easily so start the first video at the 3 minute mark and let run. Start the second video from beginning. The points bridge across the end of Part 3 and the beignning of Part 4 of the segments. (Further segments are also available on YouTube.) These parts deal with how these three would run the country.  Perspective and method are big failings of our current commander-in-chief and I think we need to ask these questions about how he or she will approach the position and judge for ourselves, like in an interview, who is the best candidate to hire.

 

 

Sean says...

Stefan and I watched the Nevada Democratic Presidential Debate the other night and was struck by the real substance that was discussed here. In both our minds Hillary Clinton was the most commanding. Edwards did a great job of contrasting although NBC's/MSNBC's Tim Russert and Brian Williams were unfair with their distribution of questions, mainly leaving him out through the first portion mainly (this was the portion where the two hosts were taking on Clinton and Obama with the race discussion).  What questioning struck me the most was the discussion on what the candidates strengths and weaknesses are and the discussion of whether the president should be a chief operating officer of the government.

Obama said he was a great visionary and coordinator of disparate sides while being weak in his own personal organizational skills, requiring assistance in managing paper and details around his desk. Hillary said she was a passionate champion for many causes and knew how to organize efforts to move things along, but her weakness was her vigilence was sometimes seen as too impatience and inconsiderate of others speed in acting on their commitments in moving forward. Edwards said he was a born fighter. He was someone who fought all his life to get where he is from menial beginnings, but he thought his weakness is that he is too empathetic of those he meets one-on-one and it makes him more angry when he tries and pursues change. I thought this was very honest and very true of each. Each is a leader even though you may have a different opinion. However, Obama has some substance issues, Hillary is seen as too strident, and Edwards is scene as too much of a pitbull lawyer.

On the question of the Chief Operating Officer, Obama began the answering which was precipitated by his own comments to a newspaper board in Reno. Obama felt that the president should be a visionary leader who sets the bar to reach and selects the right people to manage it. The president isn't a micromanager. Clinton disagreed and said teh president is a visionary leader, a goal setter, and the manager of the bureaucracy - because vision goes no where unless you manage the bureaucracy to change and hold it accountable. Edwards followed with Hillary's line of answering.

This in my mind was a HUGE tell of who I am voting for. Hillary began to look presidential to me here and continued with that strength the rest of the debate. She really impressed me more than she ever has. Edwards also has pulled me along. I like how Edwards is a fighter and Hillary is an advocate. I just don't see from looking at Obama's past how he is either. Incredible oration does not a president make - just ask William Jennings Bryan. Plus in survey after survey I seem to be trending Edwards in blind questions about candidate positions. However, Hillary got me with her experience debate and the thought of "Nixon opening China" belief.  So what I am saying is that I think Obama does not have a chance at my vote in the primary period at this point. Maryland votes Feb 12, so I will pick my final choice at that time regardless of who has momentum.

Stefan will I am sure post his own thoughts in a separate blog... I am just he mouthiest of the two of us on politics. (smirk followed by dimple twist to the cheek).

 

Side note: I saw this comment by David Gergen on CNN.com after this debate. I thought this was a great sign that he and others will seek the death of a hated military practice to the gay community.  

A post-script to last night's Democratic debate: Clinton, Edwards and Obama each told Tim Russert they would enforce laws requiring universities to allow military recruiters on campus. As a long-time advocate of restoring ROTC to major universities, I just want to add that a huge stumbling block now is the "don't ask, don't tell" policy of the military, which is seen at many schools as highly discriminatory against gays and lesbians. If that is amended -- as growing numbers in the military think should happen -- we will have a much better chance of persuading schools to honor service in the armed forces in the ways that they should.

Here is what we (Sean and Stefan) both think!

Sean says...

Well the Iowa Caucuses are over and Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Mike Huckabee won.  It's now on to the New Hampshire Primary. 

Huckabee is the intimate candidate (who I usually say when talking to Stef) has the "crazy" (although some might say unconventional) ideas.  He gave a great victory speech tonight that truly drew you in and made you like him. I am impressed by his delivery and his ability to communicate without seeming like the loon he truly is.  

Obama gave the speech of a leader.  Surrounded by adoring crowds he gave the speech from a pulpit that talked about hope, history, and change. Why did it still leave me unimpressed?  I feel like I am missing something about Obama (despite MANY emails from my friend Keith as to why I should be on the Obama train). Now I won't be voting for Huckabee of course because well he believes being gay is a choice, that being homosexual is ok as long as we don't practice it, and that creationsim is a valid theory. But Obama has a shot at my vote and I am not running to jump on his band wagon for some reason. My earlier post which really dismissed his impact is proven wrong of course and that is ok because this is one contest. But with Chris Dodd and Joe Biden dropping out now and the field winnowing, what do I do to get excited about someone I am just not getting into?

I am excited that in the Democratic race alone there are viable female, African-American, and Hispanic/Latino candidates!  And I think this is where a lot of people are getting excitement because truly race is being conquered as a barrier in our time in an arena where there truly was a barrier based on personal choice. However, is because the potential of historic significance a reason to vote for someone? I remember being in 7th grade and being excited about Jesse Jackson (yes I was in 7th grade now so it makes good sense since I didn't understand what was wrong with Jesse at the time) in 1984. Jesse I believe finished 3rd in Iowa that year which was truly a break through. Hillary Clinton finishing third is a break through as well since she basically has finished better than any female presidential candidate has done ever as well. 

But in the end I just don't have Obama fever.  I really haven't caught any one candidates fever actually. So what can anyone do, say, or argue to sway me toward the light of political hysteria for any of the Dems still standing? Is it just me? As I age am I becoming harder to impress and excite? Do I need political viagra?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stefan says...

Romney scares me because his beady-eyed stare is too Ted Bundyesque.

Huckabee frightens me because he is an eloquent, dynamic speaker, who conveys authority...whose ideas and messages are dangerous. 

Richardson blew it for me during his performance at the debate on Logo a few months ago.

Obama concerns me because of his youth and inexperience, despite his charimsa and likeability.

Edwards looks the part (he is certainly shiny and handsome), but I'm still not convinced...yet.

Clinton has the intellect and the experience, but I worry about her electability (of course, that's a little bit like a run on a bank, isn't it?)

Who is left?  Well, as long as they are left, and not right...  :-)  381 more days until Dubya is outta there!  http://www.backwardsbush.com/