Theories Of Change Redux

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 06:11:40 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Speaking for me only

Here's post that will make all candidates' supporters angry. I am disappointed with all the candidates in the race now. For years I have advocated a politics of contrast and Fighting Dems fighting for the Common Good.

At first blush, I fully expected to support John Edwards who made these concepts a centerpiece of his campaign. He moved the debate back to Democratic values and helped push the other candidates towards this vision. But there were some substantive problems that I had with Edwards, on trade and immigration, that made support of him difficult for me. Later his unfair attacks on Hillary Clinton and his alliance with Barack Obama, despite his very real difference of view on theories of change, made rejecting Edwards quite easy for me.

More . . .

My problems with Barack Obama's political style have been well documented by me at this site and others. I do not and have not ever questioned his commitment to a progressive agenda -- I have ALWAYS questioned his theory of change, which I think will lead to no progressive accomplishments at all. His unity schtick is a recipe for triangulation and capitulation. It will not work imo.

Obama has changed nothing in this regard, but I am still hopeful that if he becomes President, he will learn these hard lessons. He is an incredible politician, with a good heart and is a Media Darling. For all these reasons, I have given him my conditional support, but always prodding for more. The truth is my hope is based on next to nothing. But I still hope.

As for Hillary, I think she a a good person and a good Democrat, whose commitment to progressive change seems unassailable to me. I find the smears and attacks on her by supposed progressives unconscionable. That is why I defend her most of the time -- the attacks on her are simply ridiculous.

My problems with Hillary stem from her instinct for caution and incrementalism. This is because of the views of her main political advisors, especially the awful Mark Penn. Couple that with the powerful Media hatred of her, the hatred of her by Republicans and the manner in which she energizes their base, I simply can not see Hillary as an effective progressive President.

So, in this political environment of great promise for REAL progressive change, I think we are faced with a hard truth - NONE of the candidates we have are up to the job in my opinion.

So what now? Well, I choose promise and possibility as well as an easier path to victory in the election. That to me means Barack Obama. All the while I will be prodding and pushing for more fight and more commitment to being the voice for the progressive agenda. The middle of a Presidency is not the time to wake up to political realities.

I guess I am voting and supporting with hope in my heart. I have little else to go on.

< BET's Bob Johnson' s Comments About Obama | Shifting Focus >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Theories Of Change Redux | 73 comments (73 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

The more I look at Obama (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by Alien Abductee on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 06:35:41 PM EST

the more I question not whether he's committed to a progressive agenda but what he thinks a progressive agenda consists of. DLC is not progressive, IMO, and that's what he is.

But there are no good choices. Winning a supermajority would compensate to some extent for the weakness of his theory of change as well as for Hillary's learned caution. At this point I'm in favor of whichever of them looks most likely to be able to win that kind of majority.

Could be (none / 0) (#23)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 06:39:57 PM EST

Maybe I am misreading him.

Maybe HE IS fighting for the agenda he believes in - a centrist moderate one.

Maybe McCaskill and Ben Nelson understand him better than we do.


I think that's closer to the truth. (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by andgarden on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 07:05:29 PM EST

that fact that we don't know (none / 0) (#36)
by white n az on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 07:09:58 PM EST

is part of the problem. he has ducked votes that would have clarified his positions.

There is a simple fact that Hillary punched home on MTP...if we are to consider his deeds and not just his words, Obama seems to be an empty shirt.

I am still stuck with the notion that Edwards is correct...you cannot nice some people to get them to relent on their control (health care industry being a prime example).


Naral backs him up (none / 0) (#45)
by Jgarza on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 07:53:23 PM EST

on the ducked votes. This has been debunked.


Planned Parenthood actually (5.00 / 1) (#47)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 07:56:40 PM EST

and it actually is quite murky to be truthful about it.


no way (none / 0) (#49)
by white n az on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 08:00:20 PM EST

He ducked Kyl/Lieberman vote and then had the gall to criticize Hillary's vote. That single act alone told me what I needed to know.

As for whatever votes he did or didn't duck in the Illinois Senate, I think the people who studied the activities going on when he was there would know but that isn't exactly what I was referring to.


He came out (none / 0) (#54)
by Jgarza on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 08:10:40 PM EST

against it that day.


: No (none / 0) (#56)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 08:17:10 PM EST

He didn't.

: see...that's just the thing (none / 0) (#62)
by white n az on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 08:41:34 PM EST

if he thought it was important enough to comment upon it, it's his job if not his duty to be there for the vote. He wasn't there, didn't vote. Hence ducking a vote is a very fair assessment.
Now if Obama becomes the Democratic nominee, I will have absolutely no problem voting for him BUT he has sponsored no reaching legislation, has voted nearly identically to Hillary (exception noted above) and compared to Hillary, who actually has co-sponsored legislation with Republicans, this notion that Obama is the candidate capable of eliminating bitter partisanship seems to me to be his fantasy.
In reality, the partisans have been pounding on the Clintons for a lot of years but should Obama get the nomination, there will be an effort to slime him that will make the Clintons appear to be angelic.
But I'm getting off track here...Obama had a chance to cast his vote on Lieberman/Kyl and punted.

So what if Obama wins. Charisma vs No Charisma (5.00 / 1) (#59)
by Saul on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 08:25:04 PM EST

Here is the refreshing candidate who says I am different I will not be like all the politicians that currently rule in DC. I will make change. I will be different. I like Obama and I like Hilary equally well but let us say Obama is elected. Do you think that the republicans and the democrats are just going to belly up and give him everything he promised. The truth is he will have to succumb to the dirty tricks of politics that he so hated and was running against from in order to get anything done of the things he promised. So now a person that was going to be so different and so refreshing may end up being just like all the other politicians he was so running against in his very first year of office. Unless the democrats win a major victory in both houses he will be powerless to do anything. You got to have power to rule and get major pieces of legislation passed and you get power by having your party control everything. Look at what happen to the Democrats that got elected in 06. They were going to change the Iraq war before 08. Not enough power. Johnson is a good example of power. You don't need charisma just power. Johnson had no charisma, was not really liked by the public like Obama is liked or like Kennedy was liked but he had extreme power. He got that power by being a good crook. Ironically though he passed more major pieces of legislation up to now than any other president except for FDR. How did he do it? Power my friend, power. Unfortunately its all about power.

i disagree but support your decision (none / 0) (#1)
by neilario on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 06:22:12 PM EST

Hey big tent,

I do think you are wrong abut electibility. I actually think that Bo is the only candidate that could loose the general for us. My reasons are that he really has not been vetted. and there is way too much dirt under the carpet [ resko, flip flops,experience, faux lobbying bill on and on]. i think the repubs are gonna kill him and he really doesnt have the grit to fight back. I think he really kinda believes he Should be just elected because he is inherently fabulous, and the mud is gonna knock him to the ground over and over. I think mccain would kick his butt.
BUT i do believe in and respect your decision making process. I think we should all treat each other with the respect we would want to be treated. I may be for HRC and you ultimately for Bo [ and maybe you can help push him in an effective direction] but as long as you,i and evryone comes to a reasoned decision ... well, thats all we can ask.

That's just one girls opinion. may the best candidate win. And may they win because of their positions... :]

They won't win because of their positions (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 06:27:25 PM EST

they are almsot identical.


: a 3rd party entry like Bloomberg (none / 0) (#63)
by white n az on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 08:45:00 PM EST

puts the Republicans into play and makes it entirely possible for them to win the presidency but I agree, without a significant 3rd party entry to split the vote, the Democrat candidate, should win relatively comfortably.

totally disagree (none / 0) (#2)
by athyrio on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 06:23:24 PM EST

as I feel Obama is not electable now or ever, as the republicans will throw all their slim and it will find its mark.....

You may be right (none / 0) (#5)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 06:26:42 PM EST

My political opinions have not been that sound this year.


evidence (none / 0) (#8)
by Jgarza on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 06:28:25 PM EST

that the slim will stick is?


I think the fact Resko is a Chicago (none / 0) (#30)
by oculus on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 06:46:58 PM EST

power-broker, bundler for Obama and others, and under indictment 9not connected with Obama) will adversely effect Obama during before, and probably after the general election, given the trial is supposed to start in Feb. 08. I also think Obama's admission he used coke as a young man will "stick" in the GE, probalby not later.


20 years ago (none / 0) (#32)
by Jgarza on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 06:56:05 PM EST

Clinton's admission of smoking pot didn't Rezko has been known about for months. It hasn't stuck yet.


: Pot isn't coke (5.00 / 1) (#39)
by Militarytracy on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 07:15:16 PM EST

And Obama just doesn't have that slick willy toe playing in the dirt awwwww shucks shrug.

: Just my speculation, but it isn'tthe (none / 0) (#33)
by oculus on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 06:58:06 PM EST

GE campaign yet so who knows.

Sound bite: both HRC and BO are (none / 0) (#3)
by oculus on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 06:25:02 PM EST

electable, but "Hillary hate" will prevent HRC from accomplishing anything once elected?

More or less (none / 0) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 06:25:52 PM EST

: I'm trying to grasp how this (none / 0) (#25)
by Militarytracy on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 06:40:41 PM EST

will be so. She'll be so hated that nobody will pull with her?

nice post (none / 0) (#6)
by Jgarza on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 06:27:21 PM EST

I think you might get along with Laurie Kilmartin

I hope people can understand (none / 0) (#15)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 06:31:58 PM EST

where I am coming from better from this.


: Cheese and rice (none / 0) (#40)
by Militarytracy on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 07:18:19 PM EST

I'm really sick of this stuff and seeing it come from these people.........I haven't read any of that till now. That's sad!

WHAT? (none / 0) (#9)
by Militarytracy on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 06:29:38 PM EST

You didn't upset me. Say something about my momma.

Wears Army boots . . . (5.00 / 3) (#11)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 06:30:57 PM EST

Now, MT, are we going to (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by oculus on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 06:31:50 PM EST

buy that Hillary hate will gum up HRC's opportunity to be an effective President? That makes me very sad for the status of women in the U.S.


As you yourself said (5.00 / 2) (#17)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 06:33:59 PM EST

Better to NOT have my support.


You have to agree the Media Misogyny (5.00 / 2) (#22)
by oculus on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 06:38:50 PM EST

would likely continue throughout an HRC Presidency, and, if Matthews is correct, and if Bill Clinton continues his life long pattern of adultery, the sheer power of sympathy plus a few well-calculated one liners and welling-up of eyes incidents would make her the ruler of the free world.


: Heh (none / 0) (#24)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 06:40:31 PM EST

Just don't get all worshipful (none / 0) (#10)
by Militarytracy on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 06:30:37 PM EST

and fricken annoying okay?


I only worship (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 06:31:27 PM EST

myself . . .


what about annoying? (none / 0) (#16)
by Militarytracy on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 06:32:29 PM EST

Scout Finch says don't be annoying. (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by oculus on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 06:34:16 PM EST

And BTD obeys Scout Finch (none / 0) (#19)
by Militarytracy on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 06:35:37 PM EST

Stay tuned, but I seriously doubt it. (none / 0) (#21)
by oculus on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 06:36:17 PM EST

Heh (none / 0) (#27)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 06:41:57 PM EST

I am sure Scout Finch is a wonderful writer, I just never had any interactions with her that I recall.


Scout Finch is a good writer and (none / 0) (#28)
by oculus on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 06:42:51 PM EST

thinker and, I assume, with no facts, relatively young.


: No idea (none / 0) (#29)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 06:45:10 PM EST

Never (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 06:41:07 PM EST

annoy myself.

too busy worshipping . . .


: And letting others annoy you? (none / 0) (#31)
by oculus on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 06:48:19 PM EST

Oh Yeah, and Edwards is better (none / 0) (#13)
by Militarytracy on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 06:31:39 PM EST

and I'm sorry you can't see that ;)

Not me (none / 0) (#34)
by koshembos on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 06:58:55 PM EST

I prefer incrementalism on hope that has no base. My reading of Obama leads me to believe that he will be more centrist than Bill Clinton. The motivation is simple: everything he has done far this campaign was in the service of ad hoc goals (e.g. racism of the Clinton something he should have been run out town for doing). If elected, his ad hoc goal will be to succeed, that is, join the center and be friendly with the Republicans.

As I said many times in comments, Obama scares me based on everything he has done. I don't read intentions; I only read lips.

Since Hillary was mentioned: there clearly is a left wing conspiracy against the Clintons. It was inherited from the right wing one.

Democrats are in a terrible shape! We have no good candidates.

all I can do at this point (none / 0) (#37)
by athyrio on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 07:11:16 PM EST

is pray hard for this nation and vote for Hillary as this late in the game, in my humble opinion, she is the only one that has the guts and stamina to get this done....Obama isn't tough enough and will just start on his next four years the first day of his administration and we don't need that....It is too late for Edwards to win, so I will now vote for Hillary....

BTD- My objective reading of this is - (none / 0) (#41)
by Judith on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 07:22:06 PM EST

you dont actually know what his positions are, but you think he has a better chance of getting whatever they are passed. And you hope whatever they are they turn out to be good.

So you arent for Obama because you cant define what that means, but are against a cautious HRC, who may actally get things done that you know of and agree with - just too slowly for your taste.

So you are voting for speed of the unknown versus the difficulties of the known.

Pretty sure this position is for (none / 0) (#42)
by oculus on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 07:28:00 PM EST

today only.


Occulus - why did you think (none / 0) (#53)
by Judith on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 08:10:26 PM EST

Jeralyn would be afraid this thread would "blow up" as you noted in the new thread on Rudy in Fla.? I have noted nothing particularly disagreeable in here. It has been rather tame reading aorun dhere...at least the times I have been able to visit briefly.


J has "cleaned" at least one (none / 0) (#57)
by oculus on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 08:20:35 PM EST

of the threads today, that's why.


: In fact, my comment in J's post (none / 0) (#61)
by oculus on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 08:26:52 PM EST

disappeared also!

and before anybody thinks (none / 0) (#43)
by Judith on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 07:30:18 PM EST

I am mad becasue I supoort HRC - may I simply point out that I think it takes guts to honestly put yourslef out there and show your reasoning. I dont agree with your cloncllusions, but unlike a lot of people you havve actually thought about it.

I am for slow and steady wins the race. Poeple who dont put the lid on the blender before they hit the "high" button tend to make a mess. And a mess is what we already have.

That's it. That's all I got. Best -


Perfect (none / 0) (#44)
by RalphB on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 07:46:12 PM EST

I could never have said it that well, but YES!


: wish I could type (none / 0) (#48)
by Judith on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 07:58:01 PM EST

my hands got very cold today and are still thawing.

He said they (none / 0) (#55)
by Jgarza on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 08:12:13 PM EST

are almost identical on the issues.


So let me get this straight! (none / 0) (#46)
by LadyDiofCT on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 07:56:01 PM EST

So let me get this straight. You question Obama's theory of change, which will lead to no progressive accomplishments. You are wary of his unity schtick as 'a recipe for triangulation and capitulation'. You support Obama because why? 'He is an incredible politician, with a good heart and is a Media Darling'

You will not support Hillary Clinton, why? Because, in your words, 'she a a good person and a good Democrat, whose commitment to progressive change seems unassailable'. You believe her problems stem from an 'instinct for caution and incrementalism'. Do you honestly believe that caution and incrementalism are negative qualities in our next President? Good God, have you learned nothing over the last 7 years. Get your head out of the clouds.

The Republicans hate her (everyone knows they hate almost everyone) and the news media hate her (this is frighteningly patholgical, does anyone really know why?) Hillary Clinton is the best candidate we have had in a long time to solve America's problems and the one who can get the job done! What we don't need is another annoitment of a president by the press and the Washington elites. Another president without experience who talks in lofty platitudes.

: You would do a terrific job (none / 0) (#51)
by oculus on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 08:02:47 PM EST

introducing Hillary Clinton on the campaign trail. I admire your conviction.
I too believe Hillary Clinton is electable and will be able to influence Congress to get things done. I am a little worried what things though, in light of her AUMF and K-L votes. Otherwise, I think she is right on target.

well said (none / 0) (#50)
by athyrio on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 08:00:24 PM EST

There is no doubt in my mind that Hillary deeply cares about the American people....I am not so sure about Obama as he has spent his career climbing the ladder....No track record to speak of and maybe is just a tad ambitious....

: I would like to know more about his (none / 0) (#52)
by oculus on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 08:03:50 PM EST

work in CHicago in community organizing. Not enought to read his books, but I am curious.

No, no perfect candidates (none / 0) (#58)
by Maryb2004 on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 08:23:11 PM EST

especially in this election. I agree with you on Obama and I'll be voting for him on February 5. I'm looking for transformational change and I think he has the best shot at it even though he is far from perfect. However, if Hillary ends up being the candidate I will support her. Fully. She's a very competent person. I just I think we need more than competency now. We need that intangible something that allows a president to tear down the existing order and transform us as a country. We may not get it with Obama but I'd rather try for it than not.

So, with that, I'm outa here until at least after my primary. This has been an abysmally long election season, made worse by the disintegration of dKos into partisan bickering. I've successfully avoided most partisan candidate diaries at dKos since September. I didn't need them to make a decision and I didn't find them interesting. And sometimes the partisans made me irrationally dislike the candidate they were pushing and that isn't fair to the candidate.

So it was nice to have this site as an alternative. It was nice to have non-election topics. And even with election topics, it was a refreshing change to have you bashing Obama - a partisan bashing his own candidate. (Yeah, even when you claimed to be for Dodd). I'd stick around and keep arguing with you right up to my primary if the site hadn't changed. But it did. Hopefully it is a temporary change. So I'm going to do real world things for a while, hang out at some other sites and then I'll check back and see how things are here once some more elections are held.

: Well (none / 0) (#60)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 08:26:26 PM EST

February 5 will end this, despite the claims it will not.
I amlikely to keep bashing though.
Sorry about that.

The candidate of my dreams (none / 0) (#64)
by chemoelectric on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 09:02:00 PM EST

The candidate of my dreams would be like Oliver Sacks, except a politician rather than an neurologist.

Obama actually seems to me the least like this of the big three, but I favor him over Clinton because I would rather take a chance than vote for status quo. I favor Edwards over Obama mainly because Edwards seems more mature than Obama.

My fourth candidate is me but I can't stand that guy.

Glad I stopped by and found this post (none / 0) (#65)
by standingup on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 09:51:56 PM EST

I usually just lurk here. In fact this is probably my first comment.

I find myself feeling disappointed with the 2008 slate of candidates too. The packaging or good marketing of a product rarely convinces me. At this point, the talk of hope, change and bipartisanship are little more than the way Obama has chosen to market himself to the nation. I am more practical and probably a bit too cynical for most people.

I share many of the same concerns that most express about Hillary, minus the hatred that some have toward her. Edwards had greater appeal to me in 2004 than this cycle.

The uncertainty of how compromise and bipartisanship will work in an Obama administration concerns me. We will probably have at least one if not more Supreme Court appointments in the next administration. Will this present a situation for compromise that could lead to a nominee that leans too far to the right? Or how would he handle the inevitable pressure to fix Social Security following Moody's recent warning that it spending on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security threaten the U.S. credit rating? These are just a couple of the looming questions that keep me from embracing Obama.

: Per the Moody's warning... it has been noted that (none / 0) (#70)
by bronte17 on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 12:26:17 AM EST

they have been suspiciously biased in their warning.
The vast gaping hole of $8 Billion monthly burnt up in Iraq while they are having the vapors over Social Security.
Social Security is not the boogeyman that is threatening the credit rating of the United States.
It's just a scare tactic so bush can ram through his priorities.
Obama taught Constitutional law at Harvard. If anyone has the authenticity to address the merits of future Supreme Court Justices... it would be him.

It's simple really... (none / 0) (#66)
by bronte17 on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 11:46:04 PM EST

Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush...

Clinton?

Again?

Chelsea? (none / 0) (#67)
by oculus on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 11:49:56 PM EST

BTW, what is Jeb doing these days?


Chelsea is an accomplished young woman (none / 0) (#68)
by bronte17 on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 12:19:24 AM EST

and her star should shine brightly for the future.

But for now, for the health of our republic and democratic institutions, we should have a breath of fresh air blowing through.

It's time to step into the 21st century without any baggage... as much as possible. We have too much work to accomplish to get bogged down with old wounds and hatreds redux.


I suspect the last thing Chelsea Clinton (none / 0) (#69)
by oculus on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 12:21:21 AM EST

would ever want to do is run for public office.


: Twenty years from now... who knows (none / 0) (#71)
by bronte17 on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 12:30:53 AM EST

That is an entire generation and the world will be very different. As will she.
Oxford educated in international economics is nothing to sneeze at... and this nation may well call for her expertise at some point in the future.

Post script: Cowboys lost, T.O. (none / 0) (#72)
by oculus on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 01:44:15 AM EST

was crying behind his dark glasses, per AP story.

Common good (none / 0) (#73)
by Wile ECoyote on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 05:36:43 AM EST

who determines that? Too bad individualism is not in the lexicon here.

Huh? (none / 0) (#74)
by thomasn528 on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 12:01:06 AM EST

Later his unfair attacks on Hillary Clinton and his alliance with Barack Obama, despite his very real difference of view on theories of change, made rejecting Edwards quite easy for me. [...]

So what now? Well, I choose promise and possibility as well as an easier path to victory in the election. That to me means Barack Obama.

Huh? You like Edwards because he's a fighting Dem, then you reject Edwards because he "unfairly" attacks Clinton, and makes an "alliance" with Obama who has a different theory of change than Edwards' better one... so now you're for Obama?

Sounds to me like you're mainly confused about what you're looking for. If you want a fighting Dem, elect Edwards. If you don't, don't pretend you do.