If you have "no place to go," come here!

Give me one reason to stay here

vastleft's picture

An unintentionally excellent argument from Dick Morris about why JRE should stay in the race:

John Edwards... helps Hillary Clinton if he stays in the race and boosts Barack Obama if he pulls out.

The more I look at Obama, the more my comfort that he’ll govern to the left of Hillary just keeps fading and fading. I’m not dissing him because he isn't as angry and progressive as Edwards. I'm dissing him because he isn’t as angry and progressive as the Clintons.

Right now, he’s with Bush on the tax-cuts-will-save-the-economy bandwagon. He’s with Bush on the "Social Security is in crisis" bandwagon, which the public vehemently rejected even when Bush was at his height of influence. When push comes to shove (as it did when he got to the Senate and didn’t stick with his anti-war position), he seems to run at least as far to the right as Hillary, including some serious saber-rattling about the Middle East.

He seems convinced that every rightward tilt he makes will make him a bigger “healer” of the dreaded divide that the shrill hippies caused in the 1960s and those oh-so-liberal Clintonites caused in the 1990s. Hillary’s centrist talk and record aren’t a whole lot better, but she seems to be taking an increasingly progressive tack as the campaign goes on.

The opinion polls consistently show that most Americans – not just us Taxachusetts types – are deeply disappointed in Congress for not following a more progressive path, especially about Iraq.

Even with a war on, 9/11 (for which Bush was lionized for failing to prevent) still as a fresh topic, the world’s least charismatic candidate, and a media in the pocket of the right, Kerry still got almost half the votes and was just one state's disputed vote count short. Ditto with Gore, but he actually got more votes than Bush.

So, the notion that the Democratic brand starts at a substantial disadvantage just doesn’t hold water. Post Iraq-realization, post-Katrina, etc., etc., there is a golden opportunity to offer something different. Not “change” as a slogan, but a repudiation of the failed policies of the Reagan-Bush-Bush revolution.

I don’t sneeze at Obama’s relative "electability," but if that's the issue, how about going with the candidate who wins the "head-to-heads"?

But Obama is, day-by-day, revealing himself as almost certain to be more disappointing than Bill Clinton was to a true progressive.

So, Dick, if you want my guy to fold his tent, you'll need a better argument than that he helps Hillary edge past Barack.

No votes yet


where4art's picture
Submitted by where4art on

What Morris says may very well be true, and who knows for sure if that's a bad thing?

I made a contribution to Edwards' campaign today. Not because I think it'll help him win (although I sure wish he could), but because he deserves support for working so hard to buck the system and put the anti-corporate message out there... and the longer he does it, the better.

It makes me crazy, how much "liberal" support Obama has; I just don't get it. A lot of his support seems to be just plain anti-Hillary... but it's such a mistake to presume that he's more progressive than she is. Where's the evidence? The policy positions posted on Obama's website, which he seems to undermine every time he opens his mouth? Even Markos has said he's voting for Obama in the primary because he's the most viable alternative to Hillary, although I haven't seen him make a real case for why the priority should necessarily be Anyone But Hillary (he just says Edwards will never go the distance, so he's voting for Obama; which isn't exactly making a case).

Anyway, I'm voting for Edwards. He seems to have a reasonable degree of support here in California; and if he can stay in a while longer, maybe he'll have enough delegates to have an effect on things at the convention.