Michael Carmichael
|
|
|
archived: 31 Dec - 6 Jan, 2007 Back Next UPDATED: December 31, 2006 EDWARDS CHALLENGES OBAMA Today, John Edwards will announce his candidacy for the presidency from New Orleans, a nice touch. Then the freshly announced candidate will fly to Iowa for an online town hall meeting this evening. Edwards appears to be a very serious candidate, and he has proposed a progressive agenda based on withdrawal from Iraq; support for universal health care; ending poverty; fighting global warming and decreasing our dependence on foreign oil. With his platform, Edwards is the most progressive major candidate now in the race, and he represents a serious challenge to Barack Obama who has so far avoided boldly staking out his positions on the issues. Edwards represents a dangerous threat to Obama in Iowa, New Hampshire and in the southern primaries where the nomination will be decided. Edwards will bring an element of progressive populism to the race. On the debating platforms of 2007, John Edwards should make easy work of Hillary Clinton bringing the fight for the progressive grassroots directly to Barack Obama. That should be an interesting contest, because Obama will have a distinct advantage among the Afro-American community - the bedrock of American progressivism - especially in the South. Thus, 2007 is shaping up as a contest between John Edwards and Barack Obama - if the latter chooses to enter the race. Edwards’ bold move may force Obama to enter the race by making his agenda clear before his opponent grasps control of the progressive center of the American body politic. Let us hope that Edwards learned a lot from his experience as the Vice Presidential nominee on the ticket with John Kerry. According to a variety of reports, Edwards was reluctant to engage in criticism of his opponents - even when they were George Bush and Dick Cheney. For instance, he vetoed any criticism of Bush and Cheney at the Democratic National Convention in Boston - one of the worst in our history for it produced no discernable “bounce” for the ticket. While Edwards may not have been the sole person who demanded the veto on criticizing Bush and Cheney, he was known to be enthusiastic about it - a fundamental mistake that relegated the ticket to a decided disadvantage from which they never really recovered. This year, Edwards must prove his ability to engage directly with the platforms and backgrounds of his opponents and argue convincingly against each and every one of them. With his background as a highly successful plaintiff’s attorney, he should really have very little difficulty in making the psychological metamorphosis to political gladiator that is mandatory for a heavyweight presidential contender. His candidacy in 2004 showed some promise, but his performance in the primaries was lackluster allowing John Kerry to gain an early advantage and to drive home from Iowa without any serious threat ever emerging from Edwards. I am utterly convinced that my Christmas Eve letter to John Edwards urging him to move decisively to the left of Obama - or stay out of the race - had absolutely zero impact on his agenda - for I received no reply, even though I was responding to his email requesting input. On the 24th of December, I wrote the response below to John Edwards’ email of the same date.
North Carolina was my home for 29 years. During that time, I graduated from high school; went to university and entered politics. While living in North Carolina, I worked in five Democratic presidential campaigns beginning with RFK, Eugene McCarthy, Hubert H. Humphrey, George McGovern and Jimmy Carter.
Electing Jimmy Carter in 1976 was a high water mark in American presidential history, and he delivered the goods as a progressive president who never ordered US troops into combat; achieved the unachievable with the peace between Egypt and Israel; launched the Environmental Protection Agency and appointed women and minorities to a plethora of important positions in the US government for the first time in our history. President Carter’s latest book: Palestine: Peace not Apartheid will be considered his greatest work by generations to come, and he has set the gold standard by which all future former presidents will be judged.
Today, America is only just emerging from her most severe constitutional crisis - that driven by the extremist ideology of neoconservativism that has attacked the constitution like never before in our history.
The Democratic Party is the only institution now capable of altering the course of American constitutional history - just as it did during the Great Depression; the Cold War and the aftermath of the Watergate crisis when we faced a plethora of social and political challenges.
There will be many in the Democratic Party who do not realize the profundity of the crisis America is facing in the 21st century. Far too many Democrats will say we should steer a moderate course; aim for the safety of the middle ground; accommodate those who believe we are threatened by terrorists, immigrants, minorities, Muslims, gays and the very openness of our free society.
Our greatest president, FDR, said that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. Today, we must offer a new agenda to the fears, prejudices and perverse spirituality of the neoconservative juggernaut.
Unfortunately, Senator Hillary Clinton has chosen to follow the middle course that will lead her into a brick wall of failure. For her cautious centrism, she cannot be considered a serious presidential candidate. In my judgement, Senator Clinton should demur from the presidential contest to remain a leader in the Senate. The rising prominence of Senator Barack Obama appears to offer a sharp contrast with Senator Clinton’s centrism, but it is still too early to tell. This is a great shame for Senator Obama, who has done little to reveal himself as a forcefully progressive Democrat even though he has command of a ringing and, at times, visionary rhetoric.
My advice to you is simple - unless you can surpass Senator Obama’s grasp of visionary communication and convey a clear and progressive message of political realignment - a platform that mandates a fundamental reform of our foreign policy and national security along progressive lines that will be acceptable to the global community; that reinvents our military while scaling it down from 745 bases scattered amongst 130 sovereign nations; that places a more proportionate tax burden on the wealthiest Americans while lifting the tax burdens on the poorest and guarantees each and every American equal access to health and medical care - you should not stand for the presidency.
Let me be even clearer - unless you move decisively to the left of Senator Barack Obama - do not run. Do not even think about it. It would be a total waste of your valuable time and resources.
Since the re-election of Ronald Reagan in 1984, I have been based in Oxford, England, but I remain attentive to progressive Democratic politics. If you wish to contact me, please, do not hesitate to do so.
Respectfully yours,
Michael Carmichael
Last Update: 01/06/2007 |
