Obama and Edwards: Are Two Reformists in the Race Worse than One?
Barack Obama and John Edwards are touring Iowa with similar campaign pitches. One may have to see his presidential hopes die for their message of reform to live.
Last week in Bettendorf, Iowa, Senator Barack Obama neatly summarized his message to voters in a speech titled "Reclaiming the American Dream." Americans, he said, can't expect to "reclaim that dream unless we put an end to the politics of polarization and division that is holding this country back; unless we stand up to the corporate lobbyists that have stood in the way of progress; unless we have leadership that doesn't just tell people what they want to hear, but tells everyone what they need to know."
If the message sounds familiar, that's because John Edwards has been trying for months to sway voters in Iowa with a similar pitch—his promise to fix a system "broken" and "rigged" by lobbyists and his insistence on candor are the essential ingredients in his campaign. The similarities between Edwards and Obama suggest that the two men are splitting supporters that could potentially coalesce behind one of them, and such a realignment may have to occur for either of the two to beat Hillary Clinton for the nomination.
As it stands, Obama and Edwards have nearly identical positions on the issues. Like the rest of the Democratic field, they support ending the war, fighting global warming, and creating universal health care. They both want stronger border enforcement paired with a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants already in the country. They both support an overhaul of No Child Left Behind and expanded college accessibility. They both advocate economic policies that aid the middle class.
They both champion straight talk. When Senator Clinton did some delicate verbal ballet at a recent debate in order to avoid taking a position on a tricky immigration issue, Edwards said, "America is looking for a president who will say the same thing, who will be consistent, who will be straight with them." Obama immediately followed by saying, "Part of leadership is not just looking backwards and seeing what's popular, or trying to gauge popular sentiment."
And they both blame special interests and lobbyists for corrupting the political system. They are so like-minded on this issue, that they occasionally use the same language. Obama recently told Iowans, "Every four years politicians come before you and talk about health care. And then you see the same results." Edwards said almost the exact same thing a few days earlier. Edwards' explanation why: "Drug companies, insurance companies, and their lobbyists." Obama has the same answer.
Admittedly, the candidates have their differences. Edwards has a more aggressive campaigning style and is more willing to attack the Democratic frontrunner, Hillary Clinton. Obama has attacked weakly when he has attacked at all, and recently said that sharp-elbowed politics may just not be in his nature.
Edwards is also a stronger opponent of free trade and has spent more time wooing labor unions. Having courted online support longer and more intensely than Obama, Edwards draws a lot more backing from the so-called "netroots"—the online activists and donors who frequent liberal political blogs.
And then there is the one big difference in their messages. Obama emphasizes that the key to changing the status quo in Washington is ending divisiveness and partisanship. In the 2004 convention speech that put him on the political map, Obama delivered now famous lines about how there are no "red states and blue states," just "the United States of America." He's been running on that message ever since, using the same rhetoric in a speech in Iowa this past Saturday.
But Edwards doesn't buy it. "I've heard him talk about compromise, negotiation, bringing people together," Edwards said of Obama last week. "I believe there's a fight in front of us…. I don't think we can all sit around a table and be nice to [special interests and lobbyists] and think they're going to relinquish the power and influence they have today. I think it has to be taken from them. And that means you've got to have somebody that will fight."
Even so, during that same campaign appearance, Edwards seemed to acknowledge his similarities with Obama, saying, "The differences between Senator Clinton and myself are much more dramatic than the differences between Senator Obama and myself." Edwards went on to praise Obama for joining him in refusing campaign contributions from political action committees and lobbyists.
With all their similarities, the presence of both candidates in the race probably prevents either of them from gaining ground on Clinton. Both campaigns acknowledge that their hopes rest on Iowa, where the three frontrunners are running roughly neck and neck and neck. With the former First Lady commanding a massive lead in nationwide polls and substantial leads in many of the other early primary states, if either Obama or Edwards places third in both Iowa and New Hampshire he will likely have to pull out before the February 5 super primary. Should that happen, the man still standing could potentially see a boost in the polls as voters re-align their allegiances.
For most voters, shifting from Edwards to Obama (or vice versa) would not be difficult. Supporters of Obama obviously don't mind that their candidate has only a few years in the Senate. Same with Edwards' supporters, who are willing to overlook Edwards' relative inexperience on foreign policy matters. Same with Obama supporters. And both candidates are charming, energetic, relatively young, and male.
It's certainly not a given that all of Obama's or Edwards' fans would flock to the other if their man were to withdraw from the race. But it is a fact of the Democratic race that among the leaders there is only one conventional candidate (who doesn't attack the system) and two unconventional candidates (who do). For Democrats yearning for a president who will take on Washington, the math is clear: Two reformists in the race are worse than one.
Page 1 of 1 
I'll agree with that. The main difference, as you said, is approach. I get the feeling that if the Democrats try to bring people together and form consensus now, we'll end up far to the right of where we need to be. The country's in a bad place, and the interests that have a death grip on our government aren't going to give it up without a fight.
Edwards/Obama `08!
These two absolutely have to get together otherwise they will just be handing it over to Hillary. I'm not racist but Obama needs to take the back seat to avoid the experience question which the republicans and the republicans in democratic clothing
(Clinton) would use against him. To me it seems that the Clinton administration was a preliminary setup for Bush, laying the groundwork for dismantling the constitution and a fiscal surplus for the Iraq coffers. Then daddy Bush keeps his distance, sits back with Bill (skull and bones buddies) smoke cigars and watch Jr. destroy the constitution and get us hopelessly entrenched in the middle east. Now that they've trashed the republican image it's time to flip the other side of that same coin to the democratic face and it's still their coin as long as it has Hillary's face. Now if you think the people responsible for getting our histories most inexperienced moron elected to office are going let someone else take it back then you probably think the subprime disaster was just a greedy accident.
Edwards/Obama 08 the only hope for change.
OBAMA/EDWARDS '08
or
EDWARDS/OBAMA '08
-The only option for seeing anything other than Hillary '08 in February
Amen. These comments are dead-on target. 'We the People" are being used, bruised and abused, bought out, worn out, sold out and laughed at by our Government InCorporated...our war-mongering, privatizing, job outsourc-ing,resource-stealing, environmental-trashing, spying, torturing,greedy, non-accountable...elected Officials [can't leave out the lobbyists]. Add to that the fact that we are being feared, jeered and leared at by the rest of the world, which is in a scary global uproar due to our elected moron. Meanwhile, our national infrastructure is crumbling before our eyes, along with so many other problems 'we the people' face. Factor in NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO, and the fragile state our American Economy is REALLY in and you have a catastrophic equation.
MAJOR CHANGE IS NEEDED IMMEDIATELY; the only hope on the horizon is an EDWARDS/OBAMA ticket for '08. OBAMA/EDWARDS, either way, if they mean what they say, it is a chance for 16 years in the White House, maybe enough time to win the inevitable fight that is coming, to reclaim our great country. Also, any Senator or Congressman up for reelection needs to be voted out. 'We the people' need to start acting like a democratic society and reclaim our country.
Obama/Edwards or Edwards/Obama is a blissful prospect to me, I'm just afraid it won't happen. Hopefully, though! Hopefully! If I was a praying man, that's what I'd pray for.
It's possible they will split the ABC (anybody but Clinton) vote and give her the nomination. Maybe if they broke tradition and agreed to run together for president and vice president, and campaigned separately, they--and we--would come out better.
I don't believe Bush was elected by the people in either election and yes, this country is definitely in a bad place. Let's see if a woman can clean this mess up! GO HILLARY!
Steve, unconscionously you are a white supremacist. The Experience Question is a red herring. What experience? Did Hilary and Edwards show foreign policy experience when they voted for the Iraq War Resolution? Twenty-three other Senators voted against the Resolution. Why didn't Hilary and Edwards cause it to be 25 Senators? How much foreign policy experience did Bill Clinton have when he was elected? Being a governor does not provide one with the experience to be President of the U.S. The person who will be a good President will be someone who can exercise good judgment based on the facts, our Constitution, and what is in the best interest of the nation. On the major foreign policy issue -- Iraq -- Obama has shown good judgment.
Tammy, you state you support an EDWARDS/OBAMA or an OBAMA/EDWARDS ticket, but your remarks indicate that you really agree with Kucinich. Kucinich is the only Presidential candidate that advocates getting the U.S out of NAFTA, CAFTA, and the WTO. He also advocates against the issues that you have mentioned. Obama and Edwards have not. Moreover, the corporate establishment believes that it could co-opt Obama and Edwards. The corporate establishment's position on the issues and Kucinich's position are antithetical. Moreover, the corporate establishment realizes that Kucinich is unlikely to be co-opted. That is the problem with most voters. They believe that attractive candidates like Obama and Edwards are the solution to the problems that you list, but they ignore average looking candidates like Kucinich who actually have a solution to the problems.
At least they don't need scripted questions like Killery-Hillary does. It makes more sense to not vote at all than to vote for her. So, who else you got in mind?
Richard Aberdeen
www.FreedomTrack.com
Kucinich, as flight as he can be, has the most solid answers and solutions to many problems facing Americans nationwide. Unfortunately, Americans love tradition and are unlike to vote for him. Therefore, I find the only plausible mainstream solutions to be Edwards and Obama. I've never looked at the two of them from this point of view and would hope the Obama and Edwards teams come together, create a plan and push on with an unconventional Democrat duo for 2008. The further Republicans and Democrats are on issues of economics and authority of the federal government, the better off America will be. From my understand most Americans are actually left of the major political parties now in terms of economic policies! Why? Politicians are in bed with soulless citizens known as corporations and the puppeteers of said corporations.
There are differences between these two candidates. For one thing, Edwards is going for campaign financing. Edwards has avoided the Democratic Leadership Council and its emollients while Obama has not. He has accepted fundraising assistance from them. Also, Edwards has worked on poverty issues e.g. establishing the Poverty Center at UNC and has helped to keep a spotlight on the plight of Katrina victims by gong down there to help out. The media has shunned Edwards for months while they have given Obama a lot of publicity as they have tried to pose the question to voters as to whether they would prefer a black man for president or a white women. Too cute by half. Besides, much of Hillary’s standing in the polls is due to name recognition and nothing more. She has been able to ride that during this first part of the campaign, hiding the fact that she is a hawk, is in the pocket of Wall Street, and likes to triangulate as much as her husband does but is not as skilled at it.
The title of this opinion piece includes the question: Are Two Reformists in the Race Worse than One? Worse for what? Worse for both of them? I don't think so.
The strength of both helps establish a general sense that profound change is needed and the questions are:
Who is best prepared to provide that change?
What are the changes that need to be made? and
Which steps have to be taken in order to accomplish that goal?
The race is exactly what is sounds like: An opportunity to demonstrate who's in it for the long haul and what the nation can expect by putting the future of the nation in their hands. The race demonstrates who's who in the Democratic Party and later, in American Politics.
Obama's emphasis on Leadership, Edward's on Tenacity in the face of a corrupt political system, Hillary's on Experience, Richardson's on all three plus Tolerance, Dennis's on Idealism: it's grist for the mill, appropriate for the times and keeps the flame burning.
Once again: The real question is what kind of America do we want, who best understand what needs to be done and is most capable of providing that change. The race is and will continue to bring this out, and one thing's already evident:
Much more than a matter of personalities is involved, and no single individual can do it alone. The race will show who's best able to capture and agglutinate the public's interest and create a mass movement.
In the end, that will be the legacy GW Bush (true to Ralf Nader's prediction).
It's a shame things had to come to this point (a wanton squandering of a nations financial and human resources, as well as it's standing in the world community), but better late than never.
Tomorrow's debate should prove interesting.
The title of this opinion piece includes the question: Are Two Reformists in the Race Worse than One?
Worse for what? Worse for both of them? I don't think so.
The strength of both helps establish a general sense that profound change is needed and the questions that need to be asked are:
Who is best prepared to provide that change?
What are the changes that need to be made? and
Which steps have to be taken in order to accomplish that goal?
The race is exactly what is sounds like: An opportunity to demonstrate who's prepared for the long haul and what the nation can expect by putting the future of the nation in their hands. The race also demonstrates Who's Who in the Democratic Party and later, in American Politics.
Obama's emphasis on Leadership and Edward's on Tenacity in the face of a corrupt political system, Hillary's on Experience, Richardson's on all three plus Tolerance and Dennis's on Idealism: it's all grist for the political mill, appropriate for the times and keeps the flame burning.
Once again: The real question is what kind of America do we want and who best understands and is most capable of providing for the nation's current needs.
The race is and will continue to bring this out, and one thing's already evident:
Much more than a matter of personalities is involved, and no single individual can do it alone. The race will show who's best able to capture and agglutinate the public's interest and create a mass movement.
In the end, that will be the legacy of GW Bush (true to Ralph Nader's prediction).
It's a shame things had to come to this point (a wanton squandering of a nations financial reserves, human resources and constitutional heritage, as well as it's standing in the world community), but better late than never.
Tomorrow's debate should prove interesting.
Sorry about the inadvertent duplication of the text.
Being able to preview responses before posting them would help resolve this problem.
Jonathan Stein: Another Shill for Hill! He presently serves up exactly what she would like to orchestrate right now: the blurring of the clear distinction between her closest opponents! There is all the difference in the world between Edwards and Obama. Edwards is Hillary in jeans and a sports jacket. He, too, "knows, and goes, where the wind blows." It happens to be blowing in the "pro-integrity, anti-Hillary" direction just now. On the other hand, Obama's message is clear and consistent. He has said the same things, and voted accordingly, for years. It is a joy to have in Obama a viable presidential candidate who shines clarity and integrity in his statements and his actions - rather than just sound-biting on the subject.
On the contrary to your last sentence:
Eight reformers would be better than one.
Looks like most people understand that the ONLY possible winners would be an Edwards / Obama ticket. Sorry, Hillary supporters -- her popularity is media- and money-driven. But she stands very little chance of beating whichever repukeli-clown the bushdicks shovel off on us, and the most desperately important issue in this country is to NEVER have a bushdick in power again.
If you examine their issues and strengths together, instead of pitting them against each other, Edwards and Obama are a Dream Team. Think of sixteen years of progressive leadership, leaders who listen to the people instead of the "screw you" dictatorship we have now, and the 21st century that we thought we'd have by now. Obama, sir, I like your positions, and admire your energy, but being a media darling is not the same as winning the votes of the hundred million fence-sitters. You and John go sit down together somewhere quiet, and the next time I see either of you, it had better be standing side by side against the bushdicks.
Obama has yet to run in a contested race for national office. You can't count Alan Keyes - a carpetbagger Clarence Thomas clone from Maryland - as a serious opponent.
It could be that both Edwards and Obama have come to the same conclusion and that conclusion is factual....maybe we should listen to Obama and Edwards...and that sounds like a good ticket too....for Pres and V.Pres.
There is a problem with your logic. The primary process, with multiple candidates, helps the American voter make a choice. To call Hillary a front runner before a single vote has been cast is a disservice to the American people. Some perspective ,please. Edwards and Obama do not have the same views. Single payer health care is only one important issue they differ on. This is not about race or gender, it's about the future of our nation and our position in the world. I have just returned from New Hampshire, canvassing door to door (I am a volunteer) in the cold for Richardson and I am happy to report that the voters take their responsibility quite seriously. They know that they have been told that they are for Hillary. They know that the media believes this, the trouble is, they are the ones voting and they just don't agree. From what I've seen up there , the front runners are Edwards, Kuchnich and Richardson (surprised?),
The media, commercial or otherwise, does not get to make this call. The voters do. Please write about issues and not this stuff that is more reminicent of a high school popularity contest. The country is in trouble, the democratic voters haven't yet had a chance to cast their vote. You are telling us that we have no choice, that the contest is over before it starts. Please,Save the analysis for after the primary. Does anyone else see the problem here?
Brilliant insight there, John; you are correct. [see earlier posts] When I took an online poll to see which president I would vote for at that time, my vote would have been for Kucinich. I believe Kucinich could play hardball against the ingrained cronyism that we call our government. He needs more coverage to somehow get his voice heard more by the public masses. And thank you Brenda for your comments, for bringing us back to task. 'We the people' most certainly need to understand our candidates' positions on the issues. It is NOT about gender or the color of one's skin. It is the voice out of the mouth, and whether or not we can believe that voice. Let's see, Kucinich/Obama; Kucinich/Edwards; Kucinich/Richardson...etc. The one thing I AM for sure about is that it CANNOT be HilBillary Clinton. We must enter an age advocating major reforms on almost everything. Otherwise, sadly, the USA will [...or is it 'has'? ] become a small minority of HAVES, suppressing a large majority of HAVENOTS. [My]Our children and future generations deserve better than what we are dealing them presently.
I just don't get it. These people are willing to send their children out to blow themslves up and kill innocent people. And they are called loving parents by Rosie McDonald? All this talk and I have heard nothing about the enemies of freedom, the terrorists. Did we create and do we encourage terrorism? Give me a break! If we don't take a stand against terrorism now, then when? Terrorism is like a cancer that will only get worse.
the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. With strong leadership, WE can do anything. Is the problem simple, no, but if there aren't any shadows, we can see everything pretty clearly. The enemies to freedom are but terrocracy, not terrorists as you would presuppose. If you would recall, the minutemen of Virginia state were anarchists, so really it's defined by whose the State. Are you willing to fight back? Civil defense is one of our strongest suits to fight terrorism, and yet your unwilling to set up a state that encourages free exchange of ideas & other wealth the United States is known for. Believe me, the people are the strongest resource WE have in combatting terrorism, not some paranoid ideology that wants to define terrorism. You already know what terrorism is. Kind of makes me think you're not An American. So piss off if you're going to peddle fear and warmongering at the sacrifice of safety and freedom, because it's a fact if reallocate the power the people will become weaker. Anytime someone is weak they can't defend themselves effectively. If one relies upon someone else for defense response of defense slows down. Therefore if you want initiative in defense your going to have to do it YourSelf with progressive policies, NOT a lockdown that limits our freedom of action which is where we would be headed with another regime of terrocracy for another 4 years. UNITED 2008, let's go down saving lives NOT holding on to conceptions of fear for our safety, uncertainty of circumstances, and policies of intimidation for Gods sake, Bush and Cheney haven't got a clue what the Declaration of Independence is about, I doubt he can read for it clearly states, fight for what you believe with valid reason and restraint. The fool rushes in.
Two reformists are not worse than one. Two reformists are better than one, three would be even better. The only thing holding Clinton back is her refusal to go up against some of the traditional systems in Washington that are obviously flawed and maybe a bad history with health reform. It has nothing to do with being female or with both her opponents being male. Edwards and Obama have nearly identical platforms because they are both right. Obama refuses to attack because he personally doesn't like that approach and maybe instinctively knows Democrats are sick of it too, especially among their own kind. It is too late for Hilary to change her style at this late date without being accused of flip flopping and maybe she feels she has to be tougher because she's female but that's a mistake that could put her out of the running - the people who like her don't care if she's male or female.
I like to think Democrats are a little too intelligent for all that racial, gender garbage. Perhaps a little less back biting and a little more criticism of the real enemy and how they have mishandled this country for years would be more beneficial. All three of the Dems are excellent candidates - no getting around it and 100% better than anything the Republicans have to offer. That alone proves people want change, honesty when possible and a return to ethics. The whole country, red and blue, is sick of the hypocritical fundamentalists who preach one thing and practice another, who promise the bible thumping trailer trash a better world, then starve them and their undereducated kids out of existence. It's a race sure, but too much animosity and name calling within the rank is not going to do anything but cause any one of these three gifted, accomplished, and well qualified people to be put in the position of acting like a Republican. That will be the call that eliminates two of them. So far Obama is winning the least Republican acting run off hands down even if he is a little naive about the potential viciousness of the other side. It would be nice to pull together to get our country back but it
isn't going to happen without a fight and we can't afford to waste the ammunition on those on our side. Cooperate with each other, sincerely and honestly, then go after the coorporations, big business and those too dumb to know better than to believe their toads, Republicans.
Correction. Neither Edwards nor Obama are interested in securing the border. They are interested in converting illegal immigrants into democrat voters as soon as possi-ble.
I don't understand what "stand up to the lobbyists" means. Unless we institute laws to control the lobbyists, they are at liberty to operate indiscriminately. What we need are controls on the lobbyists and on the Congressmen that feed off the lobbyists~
!
Geebus, get over the woman thing. That doesn't make her qualified!
Oh hum their just tweedly dee & tweedly dum...same old same old
