Update below
Krugman reminds us why some progressives are turning away from the Clintons, and why remaining dems should follow Edwards lead.
It’s starting to feel a bit like 1992 again. A Bush is in the White House, the economy is a mess, and there’s a candidate who, in the view of a number of observers, is running on a message of hope, of moving past partisan differences, that resembles Bill Clinton’s campaign 16 years ago.
Without a doubt, the GOP has played “for keeps” dirtier politics when a democrat is in office, than we see with the “win-at-all-costs” Clinton campaign politicking, and I think Krugman confuses this with the overall term of dirty politics. The phrase dirty politics encompasses many different tactics with vastly different outcomes. But Krugman also points a finger to why I personally have not been able to support Obama.
Whatever hopes people might have had that Mr. Clinton would usher in a new era of national unity were quickly dashed. Within just a few months the country was wracked by the bitter partisanship Mr. Obama has decried.
This bitter partisanship wasn’t the result of anything the Clintons did. Instead, from Day 1 they faced an all-out assault from conservatives determined to use any means at hand to discredit a Democratic president.
And more importantly:
Second, the policy proposals candidates run on matter.
I have colleagues who tell me that Mr. Obama’s rejection of health insurance mandates — which are an essential element of any workable plan for universal coverage — doesn’t really matter, because by the time health care reform gets through Congress it will be very different from the president’s initial proposal anyway. But this misses the lesson of the Clinton failure: if the next president doesn’t arrive with a plan that is broadly workable in outline, by the time the thing gets fixed the window of opportunity may well have passed.
Quite frankly Edwards has not been as vague as Bill was when he first ran for president, he has a comprehensive plan, and Edwards has offered a message of progress rather than playing politics, that even Krugman notices.
Standing next to a patch of collard greens, John Edwards told a crowd of Georgia voters Sunday that he is the presidential candidate who best understands them.
A day after his third place finish in the Democratic primary in his home state of South Carolina, the former senator from North Carolina stressed he would continue to run a campaign focused on progress not politics, pointing a finger at his feuding Democratic rivals, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
“I’m about doing the things that need to be done to improve your lives,” Edwards said. “I’ve been watching a lot of time being spent tearing each other down. I’m about building you up.”
After the excesses of the GOP, two years ago dems came out, independents came out, and voted for a change. As I noted the other day, the person that will most accomplish (not offer) a change in excesses in Washington, will be the person that takes the giant steps.
Update: via Kevin, we find Stormy has some more. I have to give you a teaser:
Unfortunately, Krugman skirts the larger issue–the one at the core of many of our problems: Power brokers–powerful ex politicians, ex-governmental appointees and ex-military who now sell their services and influence to the highest bidder.
Edwards refuses to take money from PACS; the same cannot be said of Hillary and Obama.
This is a must read!
[...] at Angry Bear gets his point and adds to it. Archcrone gets it, too, as does Ron [...]