The only thing standing between electing a true progressive president (because there is a candidate running who is a true progressive and his name is Dennis Kucinich) is Hillary Clinton and Americans like the creator of this new blog Hillary Attacks (not to be confused with HillaryAttacks.BarackObama.com which has happened), who feel Obama and Edwards are the only people who are viable other than Hillary. Americans like Jed, the creator of this blog, suffer from a lack of imagination, are suppressed by reality, and are victims of the erosion of thinking in America which Democrats have helped create. If only they had faith in the masses and joined in mass support, we would be one step closer to "regime change." Instead, Jed has allowed his mind to be "institutionalized" by this spineless, hapless, gutless Democratic Party.
Here is why he thinks Hillary should not be elected president:
I'd vote for Hillary over a Republican in a heartbeat, but I don't think she represents the future of the Democratic Party. I think she's become a part of the system which she once sought to change, and that system isn't working for America. Of the three major candidates, she's taken the most hawkish positions on foreign policy issues, including continuing combat missions in Iraq and taking a hard-line on Iran. Finally, I don't think she is a popular enough leader to help expand the Democratic majority in Congress.
Continuing on, he lays out why he would be happy with Obama or Edwards.
I support John Edwards primarily because of his progressive domestic agenda, including universal health care, corporate reform, and economic equality. Moreover, he would be a strong candidate for the party, growing the Democratic majority in Congress so he can enact his legislative agenda.
Barack Obama would make a great President. His opposition to the war when it was still popular and his ability to bring people together are the signs of a true leader. Like Edwards, he would elect more Democrats to Congress, and would redefine the Democratic Party as an agent of change.
Jed is a victim of all the lines of thinking the powers that be wish Americans to tow. He believes Obama is anti-war yet if any American that reads his speech in 2002 where he came out against the war will see he was against the war because it was “dumb” and not because he is against war in general. He believes Obama can bring people together. But for what? What kind of policies would Obama be uniting people for? As for Edwards, he believes Edwards has a progressive agenda.
Well, let me tell you. If his agenda is progressive, then I am a member of the religious Right. All Edwards promises is that he will make sure government functions if he is president. Gee, that's inspirational...
Here is what a domestic progressive agenda looks like: single-payer health care, repeal of NAFTA and withdraw from the WTO, and when corporations abuse the privilege to be on federal land, kick them off. Also, bust up some of these conglomerates that have too much power in America. That’s a progressive domestic agenda.
All of this comes nonsense comes from Jed’s feeling that Edwards and Obama are the only viable candidates out there other than Hillary. Therefore, it’s either Edwards or Obama.
I left some comments and was lucky enough to get some responses.
Question: What do you think a progressive like Edwards or Obama should stand for?- Advertisement -
What do you think makes Edwards or Obama capable of defeating a Republican?
Does it matter what they stand for? Is it enough to say Americans will just vote for whatever Democrat in November because they do not want another Republican in the White House?