Bourgeois Deviant

Wednesday, July 12, 2006

Edwards Feingold '08 Please

I was surfing about the internets and came upon this post. For a long time now, I have been of the opinion that Edwards, prior to his acceptance of Kerry's vice-presidential slot offer, had a really good message with regards to poverty. I am pleased that, with the exception of the time spent campaigning on the Kerry bandwagon, he's kept it up.

The link mentioned above alludes to The Great Society of the mid 1960s. Currently, the Democrats are all over the place on a great many hugely important issues. While I am a fan of diversity generally, I don't think it is productive when it results in a divisive diaspora within the current Democratic Party. I don't think that the balm to cure the party's woes is to revert to visions of its former self, necessarily. However, the post made me think about periods of America's history where there was a lot of hope and faith in our public leaders.

In my waking memory there aren't any times like that. Clinton's election in 1992 came close, but the partisan divide was present and growing aggressively. People were nuts about Reagan, but he was mired in Iran Contra and being a crotchety but loveable father figure. Perhaps that’s what the country thought it needed at the time, but we call the 80's the "Me" decade. My view of that time is that it gave us the Taliban, a war on drugs that was completely unnecessary, much self centered narcissism (not Reagan's fault, but just an unintended byproduct of the era in general), and a boatload of nationalistic hubris in international affairs which we are largely paying for today. But I am just ranting. I digress. If there was a lot of hope during the Reagan years, it was soiled or false.

So, excluding Carter, Ford, Nixon and Johnson, we are left with Kennedy. Sure the guy had extra-marital affairs and probably abused amphetamines or barbiturates, but the nation was, in retrospect, nuts about him. Camelot and all! He got us out of the Cuban Missile crisis and asked the great question "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." An excellent question indeed. In Kennedy we had a young, charismatic guy with a vision. He inspired people to participate.

It is not my intention to say that Edwards is the next Kennedy. However, he fits the type more than any of the other potential hopefuls. And to have Russ Feingold as his running mate would put balls and further integrity on the ticket. He was the only guy to try to reprimand the President in any palpable way for the gross ineptitude that has led us to our current state of affairs. Plus, demographically, the combo totally rocks! Edwards is a southern boy and Feingold is rock solidly from the heartland.

Of the other obvious possibilities, it’s not my intention to slight Hillary, but she is so divisive that I disqualify her from my consideration primarily because if she were nominated, the acrimonious partisanship would escalate to such a nasty degree that any hopes of positive gains in getting people to be interested in government again would be shot to hell.

Work is distracting me too much. This is all I can cogently (if that) string together right now. Chew on it and let me know how it tastes.

Labels: , , , , , ,


  • It tastes OK to me. I agree re: Mrs. Bill Clinton. Until the country is truly ready for a strong woman or an African American man, my picks (hilary and obama) should sit and simmer.

    We need to win, so whoever gets us there gets my vote. Sad but true.

    By Blogger Martha Who?, at Thursday, July 13, 2006 5:47:00 PM  

  • On another note... is Mrs. BD ready to POP any day now??? Inquiring minds are DYING for information. How will we find out the news? Tune into BD, or is there an email list out there...?

    By Blogger Martha Who?, at Thursday, July 13, 2006 5:49:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home