Fair question, and here's your answer.
Unlike many who let their beliefs regarding single issues such as abortion or gun control determine which candidate they vote for, regardless of the candidate's position on other issues, I look at the totality of the positions.
Right now, my chief concerns are:
1. Iraq - Semites have been in strife since Abraham. Who did we think we were to alter that? The Crusaders were much more ruthless than us, and they failed after three attempts. Where we are now is either kill them all, or get out. Edwards strikes a reasonable middle ground - we can't pack up and leave today, but we need to start making arrangements to decamp. Beyond that is the practicality of what is being done to the Army and Marines. The generals have been saying for a couple years we cannot maintain the pace with our current force structure, and Bush/Rumsfeld made no attempt to remedy that. Think China, Iran and NK have not taken notice? I look for them to get rambunctious as a result. It's time to fix our forces and prepare for what's coming next.
2. Constitution - Bush and his renegade AG have shredded it. Now that we will have some oversight (so popular during the Clinton Era), I believe things will come out that will shock the American conscience.
3. A level playing field - 'Free markets' (how can they be free with corporations putting their thumbs on the political scales?) are nothing more than the laissez faire the US practiced from 1780-1930. A system that did not produce a middle class, make education available to a wide segment of America, or lead to high levels of home ownership. It took the New Deal to do that. Why? Because, replicating what the Founders did, the New Deal separated power (thus decreasing the abuse of it) and gave the laborer some say in his work life. The corporatists never forgave FDR (a traitor to his class) and have worked day and night to overturn his legacy. We are nearly there, and I believe it is time for the pendulum to swing the other way.
Edwards fits into that better than any other candidate out there. Hillary is wrong on Iraq, and as a sitting senator, did not oppose the Bush disembowelment of the Constitution. I don't even think she would tread water on working issues - see her position on the BK bill and NAFTA.
Good answer. While I disagree in the following ways with some of your ideas, I find the way you state them, and your general demeanor to be refreshing.
Para. 1. I agree about 75 percent. Fighting a war half assed is about the STUPIDEST military tactic I know. I disagree with your statement that Pres. Bush doesnt also have a plan to "De-camp". Before that plan can be implemented, however, certain conditions MUST be met, or it will be a bloodbath on the scale of the killing fields of cambodia, for exactly the same reason.
The US military, despite all Big Media's caims to the contrary, is not completely tied up in Iraq. We still have 80 percent of our Air and Naval forces available, as well as 3-5 MEU(SOC)'s. We have the capability to annihalate just about any country on this planet and still not have to move any major troops out of IRAQ. China and N. korea know this. Iran knows it as well, but is in fact eager to test our resolve do to so, due to Abinajahbs desire to usher in the "12th IMAM", as well as his belief that the USlacks the will and stamina to fight a MAJOR war. remember, he came of age3 during the US embassy siege of 79' That in and of itself was an OVERT act of war, and should have resulted in immediate retaliation. Carters failure to do so emboldened the radical Islamic factions, and sowed the seeds we are reaping in the middle east today.
Para. 2 is correct in stating that the constitution is being shredded, but your timeline is off. This has been going on for DECADES! The patriot act simply made it more official, and big media made a bigger stink about it, therefore most short memoried Americans falsely assume its something new.
Par 3, I feel, is the most off base. The new deal, while, along with WWII, lifted us up from the depression, also granted the FEDERAL govt unparralled power over the state level. This in and of itself shredded the 9th and 10th amendment. There was also back then considerable rumblingss that FDR "knew" about Pearl Harbor, and allowed it to happen to give him a reason to go to war. Sound familiar? The difference, however, is that FDR refused to capitulate, cut or run, or except anything other than the total unconditional surrender of the AXIS powers. (Of course, he didnt have an opposition party willing to sacrifice American lives to get back into power, either)
I dont know Edwards personnally, and havent tracked his career that closely, so I shall refrain from comminting until I have done more research. I believe, however, that barring some MAJOR gaffe by Clinton, she will get the nomination. It will be similar to Dole's nomination in 92. He was about the worst CANDIDATE the repubs could have picked, but he won the nomination simply because of his high standings in the party. I feel the Dems may make the same mistake.
I wil admit, however, that most of this is a hunch, so, who knows?
