It's about here ... next Thursday, the Iowa caucus is upon us. This is followed by New Hampshire and a slew of other races, including New York in February, in rapid succession. The focus in the media still seems mostly to be H v. O on the Democratic side, even though the race in Iowa is very close. And, there is some concern about Obama from progressives, the sorts who do not think HC is the best option. Atrios summarized things thusly:
Shorter Candidates
Obama: The system sucks, but I’m so awesome that it’ll melt away before me.
Edwards: The system sucks, and we’re gonna have to fight like hell to destroy it.
Clinton: The system sucks, and I know how to work within it more than anyone.
This is my knee-jerk feeling as well. I'm open to have it tempered, but it is not just an empty fear either. I have referenced the Krugman take that Obama is not aware that you cannot just go above the fray ... you have to choose a side, since there are sides. There is a wrong group, and thinking you can be above the fray and to appeal to "one America" ala his speech in the Democratic Convention in 2004 is somewhat naive. See also, a recent column by Joe Conason, which was referenced here not too long ago as well. JC surely favors Clinton over Edwards, but he in effect raised similar concerns from a slightly different angle. [See his second from last Salon piece; his most recent raises another red flag.] These are people who's judgment I trust, and they are not alone.
To be honest, it is not like I think Edwards is the IDEAL candidate, particularly because I still am not sure if he has the experience and gravitas for the job. But, we take what is given, and since all the Republican choices are no gos, you go with the likely Democratic options. Dodd's latest move against telecommunication immunity is great, and he's above Clinton surely in my book, but you also have to look at the fact he is definitely a longshot. At best. And, if Obama is going to weenie, see also the fact he wasn't there to help Dodd -- not the first time he didn't use the bully pulpit of the Senate for good -- I question it. Ditto, remember calls for "electability" in 2004? -- many suggest Edwards is the one they favor in the general. And, to be blunt, I'm mad, and want someone who acts like he is too.
And, look here -- in a Krugman approved blog entry -- to get an idea of what "system"* is involved and what "party" must be fought. [Interesting piece on the "Powell Memo" cited as well.] The entry is particularly useful in that it provides a long view, reminding us that we are not just up against one group of dubious characters, but a group that took advantage of a long term strategy. [Such "why" analysis is a major value of blogs, especially to get an overall feel of such issues.] One that better helps explain why they were able to seize the day when the opportunity opened in front of them. I often do not look at the long haul and big picture in such a fashion, but there is surely enough truth to the account supplied.
More evidence why the Democrats have to take the opportunity here -- various things leaning their way (including retirements) and some openness (and desire) for a different way, and not choke. Or settle. Well, the true beginning of the road to November will begin momentarily. Let's see.
---
* Sandy Levinson: "Like John Edwards, [David Broder] is willing to say that 'our system is broken' without ever recognizing that relationship between our system and our Constitution."
I doubt Edwards, especially given his service as a senator, is unaware that the Constitution affects how things are done in D.C. It still does not quite explain why this last president was so much worse than most others. Edwards also is probably aware that pushing for constitutional change is a bit of a non-starter. If anything, the first step would be to convince the current system is so broken that it needs change. You do not really skip the first step, pushing for change before a need for it is accepted.
And, citing the veto power does not convince. Our Constitution provides Congress (and others) a means to restrain the President, if they have the wherewithal to use them. The Constitution alone is not at fault for the failure to do so. Check out the blog piece. Is the problem the "Constitution," or a "certain system" that was allowed to be bred under its terms? And, trusting the people to demand better leaders who do a better job at promoting the ends of the Preamble has been done before.
Or, does SL want him to promote his little pipe dream of a people's convention as if this was 1787?