I always considered Hillary Clinton the worst mainstream Democratic Presidential candidate. She was an awful centre-right hawk, eager for war and very moderate in senatorial reforms.
Obama was only slightly less hawkish - and pretty much the same on domestic issues. But, even worse than Clinton, he lacked lacked an senatorial combativeness, which would've allowewd her to pass at least some o her lacklustre, DLC Democrat, bills.
Obama - instead - lectured on bipartisanship. Councillatory accomadation was to be his modus operandi. He would "work with" thus utterly opposed to his legislative agenda in order to pass his legislative agenda. A true formula for success.
If you were a progressive who didn't see the banality of this, I pity you. The sense of disillusionment must be great.
But there was one electable candidate from the Democratic mainstream who I think would've done a better job in office: John Edwards.
True - his senatorial record is a bit too moderate. But he was the sole candidate to build up a progressive populist base, campaign and work with people in plight, and show a committment to enacting change - regardless of what the Republicans thought. Plus he had the courage to scorn the Great Friend of Corporate Welfare - Ronald Reagan - while campaigning. A Nader endorsement only brightened his prospects.
Imagine - if only he'd been elected and had a higher standard of marital fidelity. You could have an almost progressive Democrat in office, leading the US and world away from catastrophe.
24 Oct 2009, 12:02 am
