This is a compendium of thoughts I have had about the differences between Obama and the other leading Democratic presidential contenders. All of these statements are in relation to a discussion held on Dailykos.com (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/12/184321/103)
On Obama as Compared to Edwards on Judgement and the Politics of Politics
I don't remember Edwards admitting voting mistakes on the 2004 campaign trail, and granted he cannot diverge from the Presidential candidate's line, but Edwards came out bravely against the very existence of the war after he would no longer suffer any political heat. In short all three candidates are imperfect, and worse, politicians. They do what they think is best to maintain and gain support to win elections. I am not completely 100% happy with anyone. Yet, I believe that these candidates should be seen in more than the Iraq light. I support Obama because I believe his presence will bring something different to DC and he may be able to create a politics that encourages people to work together in good faith. Politics can be and sometimes should be the art of compromise. The question is when to compromise and when not to. We have seen what a lack of negotiation and compromise can do to a nation.
Blogger Mis-perception of Obama as Iraq Sellout (vs. Perception of HRC)
I give (Daily)Kos kudos for the correction. It was the right thing to do. However I have noticed that he is very quick to pass a rash judgement on Obama (perhaps I am biased). But depending on an AP story about a Democratic candidate is sloppy. Sometimes Kos makes it seem like the Obama candidacy is the "Sell Out" Wonder of the World. I also wonder if he is more liberal with HRC because he has low expectations and perhaps his disposition toward Obama is based on the dramatic expression of disappointed higher expectations. The fact that HRC hasn't grabbed a gun and shot an Iraqi herself shows her progressive potential. So HRC may benefit from "the soft prejudice of low expectations."
Democratic Party's Hesitant Votes on Troop Funding
Bush's megalomania is why. I have said this before and I'll say it again. What no Dem. that has voted for funding wants to admit publicly is that they do not trust that Bush will bring troops home if funding is cut off. How could the Congress enforce that? By entering a war of choice, failing to properly, plan, prepare for the ensuing dynamics of a conqured state and failed society and failing to properly supply the troops, the abuse of their tours of duty, etc Bush has shown that he does not give one good goddamn about the troops. Images of US soldiers without equipment or rations on the evening news is exactly what the administration wants to hang around the neck of Democrats. This becomes an easy way to relive the Vietnam delusion (i.e. The Dems lost Vietnam through their lack of will). Do I want the war to end? Four years ago and as much as anybody. But do I believe Bush will leave the US Army to slowly choke to death in the Iraqi desert for political gain and egotistical fulfillment. I like to to think that Dems critical of the war but still voting for troop support actually do give a damn about the troops and can not think of another way, aside from a veto proof vote, to resolve it. As much as I respect John Edwards and see him as a fitting choice he is not much different from HRC on Iraq. All he has done is admit a mistake that should have never been made and more tragically, the mistake was not made based on a belief in evidence or the wrongness of Saddam Hussein or the belief in bringing Democracy to the Middle East. It was done in consultation with Bob Shrum (0-7) and all for political calculation. (UPDATE: I am very happy to see that Obama has committed to no funding without timelines.)
