Hope, Competence, or Confidence

[Two Americas]

What distinguishes Edwards from the other candidates is confidence.

Obama offers "hope." Hope is what you have when you lack confidence. We hope that we can succeed, and we ask everyone to hope along with us, and we all pretend that by merely hoping we can make it happen. Hope is important, and obviously people are yearning to have hope and are attracted to his message. He will lead us in the hoping, and we will all hope together.

Clinton offers competence. She will competently run things the way they were in the 90's. But there is no real confidence there. "Let's try again" is more like it, with the emphasis on "try." If we fail, well it was that vast right wing conspiracy again. You know what you are getting, and what you are getting is the best we could ever have - then they say "plus! She's a woman. That has to be a good thing, right? You aren't some sexist who is opposed to a woman being president, are you?"

Edwards, in stunning contrast to the other two candidates, is confident - confident in himself, confident in his supporters, confident in the people, and confident in the traditional principles and ideals of the Democratic party. Neither Clinton nor Obama have any confidence in those principles and ideals, nor in the people. They think we need something new, or that we need to repackage those principles and ideals in some way, or to be "realistic" and work our way up to those principles and ideals, or that "hope" will magically disappear the struggles.

That confidence is reflected in Edwards' supporters in an important way, and we should point this out when we can. One thing you can say about Edwards supporters - and you cannot say this about the supporters of the other candidates - there is absolutely no doubt as to where we stand. There are a few starry-eyed Edwards groupies - there always are with any candidate. But there is a remarkable consistency and focus among Edwards supporters. There is no hidden agenda with Edwards supporters, no need to interpret or divine what we are saying or thinking.

With the other candidates, it is very difficult to tell where people stand. Most of their expressions of support reflect their candidate - in Clinton's case, arrogant and defensive and appealing to authority and "facts" of various kinds. There is no confidence there, just "reality" - whatever that means. With Obama, there is a vague mystical feel to the whole thing, that people either "get" or they don't. One must hope that Obama is what one thinks they are hoping for.

As difficult as it is to get a clear picture from the supporters of those candidates as to why they are supporting them, every now and then an agenda emerges that is completely at odds with what they say the rest of the time. For example, someone has been posting that electing Clinton would be the best revenge ever against those who tormented President Clinton. Of course, that revenge motivation is some sort of movie script or fantasy, and very emotional. Settling a grudge with the right wing is a very shallow motive, and concedes that the right wing has much power over us and that striking back at them - in essence continuing to dance with them - is more important than anything else. It also rests on the assumption that half of people in the country are the enemy.

Obama supporters, when pressed, have revealed some very disturbing things. Keep in mind that no Edwards supporter needs to be pressed, nor is there anything disturbing to be discovered in any of us. More than one Obama supporter defended Obama's glamorization of Reagan with remarks such as "sure Reagan was not good for the uber-left. No one is denying that, and neither is Obama." In other words, they share the view of the Reaganites that the trouble in the 60's was caused by the "uber-left." They want to disappear the old left and the old struggles, and have a DLC version of Reagan's hope and optimism. Other Obama supporters whom I trust have confided in me that they do not believe that Obama could ever win the general, but that they still feel compelled to support him because they "believe" in him. They don't care if he can win, he is "right" for them, and that is all that matters.

We can see that in both cases, the supporters of Obama and Clinton have no confidence. They are hoping for some magical fantasy scenario to beat the Republicans. They are more interested in being "right," more interested in indulging themselves in a dramatic Hollywood script or fantasy - "just imagine if a woman could be elected president and she could drive all of those fundy right wingers crazy." That is what they want, that is what they fantasize, so that is what they support. They are already conceding the general when they think this way. They are already prepared to say "oh well, I made the best choice, and I an right by God, but the people are too stupid so they get what they deserve."

So to recap-

Whether you agree with them or not, you always know where Edwards supporters stand, and there is no hidden agenda. That is not true with the supporters of the other two candidates.

Edwards is confident, the other two candidates are not. Watch the body language, the facial expressions, the tone of voice. Edwards can never be tripped up, because of this confidence. He answers quickly, and without hesitation or defensiveness. There is no difference between what he says and what he believes. He is not trying to follow a script and keep it straight in his mind. He isn't worried all the time about making a mistake.

[lisainmilo]

1. Edwards will make a great president! n/t

[smokey nj]

2. Excellent post as always, TA

I read a post last night in the thread about the "One America" myth in which the author stated that Obama is the only candidate offering "hope" that we can "bridge the gap." How? That was the first thing that popped into my head, and the second think I thought was how is that any different from what's been done up to this point? Is he a Presidential candidate or a lottery ticket?

If Hillary Clinton is the nominee, voting in November will be like choosing between a yeast infection and necrotizing fasciitis. Although one is significantly less dangerous than the other, I'd rather not have to choose between either.

As for the arguments against John Edwards, I don't think so but maybe he is a pandering phony. But he's the only candidate pandering to me and addressing my concerns.

[Beaverhausen]

3. Wonderful post and I agree. Have you posted this elsewhere on the site?

If you haven't please do. :hi:

[Two Americas]

5. thanks Beaverhausen

I wanted to speak freely without starting a mud-slinging match out there. The supporters of the other candidates are so angry and defensive as it is.

[Plucketeer]

4. You nailed it!

<- we need this fella!

[SeattleGirl]

6. Thanks, TA.

I don't doubt that Clinton and Obama really want to win the Presidency, but I think you're right about them following a script, and trying to keep things straight in their minds.

Edwards isn't perfect, but who is? What I often see in the posts of the supporters of the other two candidates is a lot of defensiveness, and a feeling that they don't want to consider the reality that their candidates aren't perfect either. That their candidates are without fault, and that anyone who points out their faults, their contradictions, doesn't know what they are talking about.

I don't want to spend all my time doing that. And with Edwards, I don't feel that I have to.

[Two Americas]

7. yes

Thinking about the Clinton campaign, they are drawing us into the same old fight on the same old terms that we lost in the 90's. That is probably why Obama's message is so appealing to people, especially younger folk.

There is something disingenuous about the Clinton campaign. The fight they want us to embrace is not our fight. It is a fight between the upscale educated liberals - a faction of the aristocracy - against people we are supposed to hate - rednecks, fundies, stupid people. In other words we are supposed to see the people who have been duped by the right wing propaganda as our enemies, and we are supposed to see ourselves as the beautiful enlightened ones who paternalistically and condescendingly know what is good for the people. The Clintons and their followers do not trust, or even like the people.

At the same time we are being asked to see the wealthy and powerful as not such bad guys, and we are being asked to compromise and work with them. They would have us believe thaty corporate aristocratic rule over our lives is OK, so long as the the liberal faction of the aristocray is in power. We had that in the 90's, and we can see where that led.

[asdjrocky]

8. My Dad used to say that.

"Hope is what you have when you lack confidence." But not quite in those words. This is a great, good post TA.

I'll tell ya what friend, post this in GDP, and we'll tag team the idiots.

I want to be able to K&R this.

[Two Americas]

9. what do you think Rocky?

Not too inflammatory for GDP?

[asdjrocky]

10. I think it's the truth....

And you know how Obama and Hillary fans hate that.