The importance of affirmative action v. Edwards

[Onlooker]

Since our nation's inception, our country has been ruled by one gender, one race, and mostly one religion. Some of those men have been great. Most liberals have positive opinions of Jefferson, Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Kennedy, for instance. But, because of our nation's religious and cultural heritage, it developed in a way that has excluded people of color, women, as well as non-Protestants (with the exception of Kennedy) and gays from the presidency.

By engaging in affirmative action to get Obama or Clinton elected, we will open the presidency up to well over half of Americans who are currently excluded. As a result, we will have far more choices of candidates in the future. It will also be a symbol of equality. True, this argument penalizes John Edwards, but tell me if we keep excluding women and blacks, when are they going to achieve a critical mass of candidates so that one can succeed?

What are the two or three compelling facts about John Edwards that make you support him? Are you sensitive to the fact that in 230 years this country has never even once had a black or women President or Vice President? If that fact doesn't seem bigoted to you now, when will it? In 50 years? 100 years? At some point, the election of white men is more than just coincidence going on here; it's a manifestation of institutionalized racism or sexism.

I could see supporting Kucinich or Gravel whose stands are in some cases dramatically different than those of the front runners. But, overall, all the other candidates are fairly similar. At least based on his web page, I do not see dramatic differences between Edwards and Obama, and even those with Clinton aren't that profound. What are the two or three compelling facts that make an Edwards' victory more attractive than the opportunity to open up the presidency to everyone?

[slick8790]

1. Ridiculous, absolutely appalling.

I will not vote for someone simply to "open the presidency". We've been fucked by 8 years of George bush, and we need the BEST candidate to win, not the one who's a minority. Voting for someone just because they're a woman or black is as bad as not voting for someone because they're a woman or black. Vote the issues, jesus.

[Onlooker]

3. I asked what are the compelling issues

Where does Edwards stand out so overwhelmingly for you, on what issues, over the other candidates?

[slick8790]

5. Poverty, for one.

No one else is taking on the issues of the working poor more than John Edwards. No one else is talking about the stranglehold corporations have on America like he is either. He's one of the few people I think truly understands what's wrong with this country and what we need to fix.

[Onlooker]

19. Actually, have you looked at Obama's platform in that regard?

At least on inner city poor, he has a far more comprehensive plan than at least Edwards and Clinton.

[last1standing]

2. How is this different than asking people to support someone because they're white?

Bigotry is bigotry and it doesn't belong in a Democratic forum.

[cali]

4. I take it you've been a staunch opponent of affirmative action

and just like the wingnuts consider it bigotry. I take it you also oppose those who insist that we need a southern white male as a nominee- the way oodles of Edwards supporters do.

[ecstatic]

15. Bigotry is your inability to see how the pattern will continue

until people like you and others start giving people who look different a chance. Edwards is no more qualified than Clinton or Obama, so what makes him the best choice? Why do we have to continue putting up the same old thing?

[chimpymustgo]

6. Should we vote for a midget? A GLBT? An Asian? For that reason? Sorry.

Not good enough. I'm choosing on ideas and leadership. John Edwards.

[The Traveler]

7. Regrettably

I cannot support either Clinton or Obama with enthusiasm, despite what I consider the very valid considerations you provide above. I am very time pressed at the moment, so I shall paraphrase another poster's very brief characture of their policy models. This is a characture ... bearing more than a superficial resemblance to the subject but deliberately distorting/emphasizing certain features. As such, it does both injustice and justice to all concerned.

Clinton: The system sucks, but nothing better is possible and I can make it work better,
Obama: The system sucks, but most of these problems will melt away before my rational discourse and reasoned coolness.
Edwards: The system sucks, and it must be destroyed and replaced.

As I said, charactures of their policy models, not to be taken literally.

But of those three positions, I find myself most aligned to that of Edwards. Ultimately, neither gender nor race are very important to me when considering who to support ... so my primary focus must be on policy positions.

[Redbear]

8. Nice summary.

I think the OP's point is valid.

But Im still voting for Edwards.

[More Than A Feeling]

9. Edwards' campaign isn't about him.

It's about us. We've been taken advantage of and taken for granted as the wanna-be kings and courtiers of the beltway and Wall Street have had the poisonous gall to think that what is best for them is best for all of us, and that we are ignorant ingrates. You can't just walk into a situation like that and change things without understanding the power dynamic and communicating that understanding.

It's time to stop pretending that the system can work for us as it is, or that it can be changed by gentle words and a new face. That's why I'm for John Edwards.

[Armstead]

10. It's only one consideration among many

If the candates were close enough in appeal to me, that would be a factor. I'd love to be able to enthusiastically support a woman or an African American.

But this time around, the other characteristics of the candidates are not close enough for that to be a deal maker for me.

I dislike what Hillary represents and who she represents, and the fact that she will be perpetuating Elite Dynastic politics more than affirmative action.

I like Obama better, and can happily live with him as the nominee. But, regardless of his race, I get a "Where's the Beef?" feeling of vagueness about him. If all he brings to the White House is a different skin color, that's not good enough.

I believe Edwards has a much better grasp of the real problems facing this country, and the core issue of concentration of wealth and power. I also believe he has the smarts and the toughness to perform well in office.

[BrklynLiberal]

11. The best way to honor the rights of all people is to elect the best candidate..whatever their gender

or race. To vote for them for either of those reasons is the same as NOT voting for them for those reasons.
I am voting ofr the person I feel is best qualified...race and/or gender are not the factors that I consider the most important in my choice.

[Omaha Steve]

12. There were gay rumors of several presidents

"W" was in whats her names book about a college friend. Lincoln was another. Was a gay in the closet? I don't give a damn. To bad none ever came out after getting elected.

[Onlooker]

16. Yeah, but when will America be ready to elect someone who's out? n/t

[Omaha Steve]

18. Nobody even mentions Native!

Let somebody whose family didn't get here on a ship after 1492 run and win.

[OHdem10]

13. When it becomes obvious that the Media is providing

Affirmative Action--creates resentment in trenches.

[ecstatic]

14. This is partly why he is my 3rd choice

Besides his horrendous f-ups while in the Senate, we have two more experienced, and more qualified candidates in the race who happen to be minorities. All things being equal, why not try something new and give the minority candidates a shot?

[JustAnotherGen]

17. Hmm

The color of the skin doesn't matter to me nor does gender (bi-racial woman is replying here:-) ). I want to pull the lever for the candidate I think most closely matches my point of view. That's what it comes down to for me.


I don't have millions and millions of dollars like JRE. I don't live in a mansion. I didn't come from 'nothing' - But I do very, very well. I do well as a result of the opportunities my parents were able to 'buy' for me - if that makes sense?

I want every American who is living in poverty or straddling that line in our shrinking middle class to do well - to have health care - to have a job that allows them to not only put a roof over their end, but enough to save and and enjoy life as well.


For me? I'm a member of Edwars One Corps. To me? John Edwards represents people like me that go in work in Food Banks in Northern New Jersey - even if it means car pooling from chi chi poo poo Somerset County to do so . . . all the way down to Camden. So what if wear a JRE 2008 button when I do so?

The poorest of the poor are in Camden NJ - they need to see that someone, somewhere gives a shit. And that man gives a shit.

Just because you have money - doesn't mean you don't care.

As well, I've had breast health issues, and have lost an Aunt to Breast Cancer. He isn't talking shit when he says he can't imagine what a woman does that can't afford basic health care . . . I read stories about women my age (early thirties) dying of breast cancer and say, "There but for the Grace of Good Luck and Fortune go I." I'm fortunate enough to have had health insurance that covered not mammograms - oh no - those are crappy machines for young women - but Breast MRI's.

He GETS that.