I loved reading this analysis of the Democratic presidential candidates. I especially loved and agree with the conclusion.
One of my favorite parts:
I appreciate that some voters wish for a candidate who has always held the same positions regardless of changing conditions. I understand that it gives people the illusion of confidence in consistency. But we are living in a world of liquid chaos where events on the other side of the globe over which we have no control and even less understanding can shape and affect our lives. I want a candidate who is equally fluid, dynamic, and authentically responsive to change and who constantly reasses and refines his or her understanding of a changing world. (I’m not talking about a Romney, who shifts in the wind, but one who authentically reasses based on changing circumstances.) Edwards was wrong in 2003. In 2003, Edwards stood with his constituency, the majority of whom supported the AUMF. It is easy for Obama to say he opposed the AUMF from the beginning (so did I). But Obama was not in the Senate at the time, so we don’t really know how he would have voted had he been subjected to the same pressures. I want to know how a candidate responds to mistakes and errors. We have seen a President who refuses to acknowledge mistakes. Do we really think we are going to get one who never makes any?
And this part:
I am not saying that Edwards is a Kennedy or a Lincoln, or an FDR. We can’t know that. We can’t expect that. We can only ask who, of all the candidates, has seen outside the “box” of current thinking and postulated a new direction that promises greater equity and justice for the greatest number of people? Yes, Obama symbolizes hope for greater inclusion of all within the system. And Clinton suggests a return to the system that Bill mastered in the 90s. But Edwards is the only candidate who has challenged the core assumption that the system, though flawed, just needs a new leader to make it work better. Clinton suggests we just leave it in her hands. Obama talks of including all within it. Only Edwards focuses on taking power away from those whose money and influence have warped the system, and changing the playing field to eliminate or at least improve its inherent flaws. And he is right.