Original at:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/31/20493/5193/215/447267
Buyer's remorse: Missing John Edwards yet? (Update)
by Straightforward
Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 05:50:17 PM PST
Caution appears to be the theme of the evening between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, which is a grave disservice to me, to mine, to my community, to my state and my nation -- not to mention what passes for my party today. The chief result of John Edwards's departure from the primary race seems to be detente between the remainders on the field. Press your mute button, and they might as well be running mates already, whether it's Obama-Clinton or Clinton-Obama. The sweet pleas for Edwards voters weren't convincing, in my opinion.
"This is the passionate cause of my... public service," says Hillary about health care, the words haltingly spoken because they're so unnatural to her. Mimicry has never been her strength, and she wears Edwards's words and themes like an ill-fitting coat. Yet we're presumed to accept the performance, and she appears satisfied by it, because Edwards himself isn't there to offer, in himself, a contrast between the real and the artificial.
Obama, meanwhile, appears equally satisfied with his lot this evening, as he's comfortable retreating into the conceptual, the academic, and isn't pressed to raise his game to the gut-checking energies of Edwards on the stage. "No, it's not a swipe" against Hillary when he adopts Edwards's position on pushing back the influence of lobbyists in Washington, and indeed it isn't a swipe. Detente requires comity. After the tragicomedy of the "snub" of Hillary in the House chamber on Monday night, it's best to make nice, show we can play together. Would Edwards, drawing clear distinction between his and Hillary's views on lobbyists, would he have soft-pedaled in response to Wolf Blitzer's question about a "swipe"? He didn't in the past, time after time.
Hillary garners applause for opposing "the health insurance and the drug companies" in her answer about lobbyists' influence. That's nice. She didn't oppose their checks, any more than Obama has. I recall a candidate declaring that he'd never accepted any of that money, that he would ban them from working in the White House, so there was a measure of credibility in opposing lobbyist influence. "You can't 'nice' these people," he said. "We can't trade their corporate insiders for our corporate insiders." But he's gone, and what we have is detente now. Corporate fat cats can relax in that detente.
Is this what we have instead of a primary contest now? It reminds me of the criticism of the Democratic National Convention of 1988 when planners adopted off-colors -- off-red, off-white and off-blue -- for the convention hall. Pale shades of the real thing in 1988, and pale shades of the real thing in 2008. Edwards seems to have taken the debate with him, leaving behind only a self-satisfied garden party.
I wondered through today how the two would address the wounds that each opened last week. Obama slammed Clinton on being a lapdog to Wal-Mart, and ABC's discovery of documentary film of Clinton's decided lack of activism against Wal-Mart's union-busting rhetoric seems to support Obama's attack. But in response to Obama last week, Clinton slapped him with his questionable dealings with the "slum-lord" Rezko of Chicago. The legal system of Illinois caught up with Rezko in recent days, giving credence to Clinton's charge. It looks like even these developments are covered by the new detente -- you don't twist the knife in my back, and I'll not grind the shiv in yours.
This is where we are: choosing between two lesser lights when we could have had the real thing.
What a choice.
No comments:
Post a Comment