Hillary Clinton is widely knocked for carefully considering every position and pandering any response to curb favor with her immediate audience. In contrast, Barack Obama is widely lauded for his eloquence and charisma from the stump. And yet neither Democratic frontrunner took advantage when given the opportunity to condemn the ignorant social stance of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Peter Pace.
Why is a politician playing it safe newsworthy? Because one of their rivals actually said something, something right, something that makes sense. That politician's name is John Edwards.
When asked the simple question, "Is homosexuality immoral?" in reference to General Pace's comment, Edwards did not try to massage any nuance into his response. "I don't share that view," he told CNN's Wolf Blitzer. "And I would go further than that ... I think the 'don't ask, don't tell' [policy] is not working. And as president of the United States I would change that policy."
Was that so hard? Why couldn't Obama and Clinton have been as clear in rebuking the general?
I like nearly everything I hear and see out of John Edwards, yet he has been largely relegated to "third wheel" status by the left- and right-wing media. Why are we not giving this guy more of a chance? I'm not saying he is my choice – in fact, PatRoW is not nearly ready to endorse any of the Democratic candidates – but clearly Edwards is a viable candidate. Don't believe me? Check out some of Edwards' qualities compared with other people in the presidential discussion:
· He has a tangible platform and can speak passionately about an issue to which the entire middle- and lower-class can relate.
· He is young, charismatic and engaging.
· He is a strong family man.
· He can admit a mistake and ask for forgiveness without sounding like a wimp, coward or insincere jackass.
· He is whip smart.
I think it's silly that Edwards trails Hillary and Obama by such large margins and am fully confident that, barring any extraordinary circumstance, he will close out 2007 within striking distance of his rivals. However, we shouldn't wait that long to give Edwards his due as a realistic contender. And, I'm as guilty of this as anyone, we shouldn't only talk about him when someone brings up homosexuality.
3 comments:
I'm totally with you on this. It kills me that every morning I see Obama and Clinton on the news, but hardly ever hear Edward's name mentioned.
It's far to early in the cycle for the media to have written him off the way they seem to want to.
All of these Democratic candidates are tree hugging liberals who have no back bones and say what the crowd they are with wants to hear.
Wow, Phil. That's some intelligent debate you got there. Why don't you call them all "poopy-heads" while you're at it.
Personally, I embrace the "liberal" tag and think more Democrats should as well. If you're interested (and I'm sure you're not), click on "liberal" in the Labels section on the right column.
Post a Comment