I am Supporting Obama and Edwards

I have tried desperately to choose between Edwards and Obama to make an endorsement of one of them for the nomination, but voila I cannot. Both of them have embraced a message of change (and in light of yesterday's developments it is needed more than ever) that is both believable and inspiring. Both men possess extraordinary political skills and the message of change together by both candidacies is the best avenue for this blogger.

Why I am not supporting Dennis Kucinich.

First, obviously, Kucinich possesses the best democratic message that harkens back to the new deal. If he had a chance I would most likely support him (I can hear my friend in law school telling me: "if you supported him he would have a chance"). Regardless, this is Kucinich' second time around and he has not gained the necessary traction and it appears he is the wrong messenger. I loved Nader's candidacy more than Kucinich because of his massive political skills and believe if given the chance he would have caught fire. Regardless, Kucinich is a monumental Congressman - from his organizing of a rebellion in the house to vote against the war in 2003 to his impeachment of Cheney that is where he belongs and he should focus as he has two primary challengers. Mike Gravel has been wonderful, but he too never had a chance in this media driven society. And I think his candidacy was more of a message anyway.

Why I am not supporting Joe Biden, Bill Richardson and the rest.

More of the same across the board. From Richardson's leadership in the DLC to his oil ties, to his ridiculous comments about gay people, no thanks. Is there any doubt however if Senator Clinton wins the nomination he will be the V.P. choice?

Why I am not supporting Hillary Clinton.

There was a tremendous opportunity for Hillary Clinton to embrace change and embrace the message of peace, workers rights, and the shrill of corporations. But, at heart Senator Clinton is much like her husband in that they adore corporatism over democracy. Her health care plan which did not receive the scrutiny it should have was essentially a pay-off to the insurance industry in placing a mandate upon us, the people, rather than a mandate upon the government to insure people. It is this philosophy that I find the most dangerous, aside from her abysmal foreign policy record in support of the war and the dreadful Iran resolution that she so willingly voted for.

Our country needs a different direction, one embracing openness of government, Mrs. Clinton will be more of the same secretive deals that the Bush administration has shown us. We need transparency in government, not hiding one's records as to repel scrutiny. I don't think we really want the 90's back with the hatred spewed our way. We need a different direction and that is precisely why I will not support her. She does not offer one.

Why I support John Edwards

I don't much care about the $400 hair cut or the hedge fund stories. They are minor in my mind when you consider what former Senator Edwards stands for right now. Let me be clear, I did not support him in 2004. I was irritated by his vote for the war and his saber rattling regarding Iran during the 2004 election. As the election proceeded it was clear, however there was something likable about Edwards and his "two Americas" did not seem to be just fodder for the media.

Today, as we approach the Iowa caucuses Edwards message has been pointed and steady. As John Nichols wrote in the Nation: "Edwards has struck at the heart of issues that should matter most in the race to replace not just George W. Bush, but the Bush agenda of corporate giveaways, job-crushing free trade deals, war profiteering in Iraq, and subprime mortgage profiteering in Indiana, Idaho, Illinois and, yes, Iowa." And again: "What makes America America is at stake: jobs, the middle class, health care, preserving the environment in the world for future generations."

"But," he added, "if you look at what's happened with American trade policy, look at what America got: Big corporations made a lot of money, are continuing to make a lot of money in China. But what did America get in return? We got millions of dangerous Chinese toys. We lost millions of jobs.

"And right here in Iowa, the Maytag plant in Newton closed. A guy named Doug Bishop, who I got to know very well, had worked in that plant, and his family had worked in that plant literally for generations. And his job is now gone. The same thing, by the way, happened in the plant that my father worked in when I was growing up. It is so important that we stop allowing these corporate powers and corporate profits to run America's policy, whether it's trade policy, how we engage with China. This is not good for America. It's not good for American jobs. And it's not good for working people in this country."

This has been the central message of the campaign and strikes at the heart of what is happening in America. We are a corporatist nation. Whether it is Blackwater and Halliburton in Iraq or New Orleans, or Exxon or Walmart, we are a nation that takes care of the capitalists and not its people. Edwards understands this better than any other candidate and is delivering a populist campaign that is truly inspiring. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both voted for the recent trade agreements that will be a handout to corporations and not to the workers of these countries. Edwards clearly stands for regular people, unlike any Presidential candidate since Ralph Nader.

Why I support Barack Obama

I was and am becoming increasingly angrier at Obama mainly for his sell-out on the free trade agreements and his skip of the Iran vote. Though, he has increasingly embraced the message of change mainly due to Edwards haranguing of him. He has his own message of change; to stop the bickering and just get things done, which Paul Krugman has called incredibly naive. But, is there something more to Mr. Obama? Are we judging Obama as a change candidate through the lens of all the other change candidates we seek: mainly Kucinich, Nader and now Edwards.

My interest in Obama peaked and I headed toward Edwards fast, but that momentum stopped when I went to France. Speaking with French citizens about the possibility that a person of color named Barack Obama could represent the free world was to put it mildly, "foreign" to them. "It will never happen in France" was the response which incited a discussion of all of Europe with the same results. An African-American President would truly be historic much like a woman President in America that is without question.

You combine this historic opportunity with Obama's change message, he believes in universal healthcare (though his proposal is not quite universal) he no doubt wants an end to the occupation in Iraq and is the only "top tier" candidate that did not support the war from the beginning. His policies about energy, ending the war, the environment are virtually the same as John Edwards. He has embraced the need for New Orleans to be rebuilt not in the fashion as is currently being done ala the Shock Doctrine. And he has been the most vocal of the candidates about crisis in Sudan.

So, it is either Edwards or Obama for me. I know, it is a little chicken s***, but both are acceptable to lead the democratic party into the future. I don't know who I will vote for on February 5th. I will let Iowa decide for me. It certainly looks like Obama has the best chance to challenge Senator Clinton for the nomination. But, if Edwards wins Iowa, which many feel is the most likely scenario, one never knows.