Obama vs. Edwards: What's the Difference?

Filed under: US Elections

071217-edwards-obama-hmed-340a2.hmedium.jpg

If you think about it, it's hard to explain why Barack Obama dominated John Edwards at the polls. They're almost identical in background: leftist wealthy lawyers who've served a bit of time in the Senate. In fact, it can easily be argued that Edwards has more experience, given that he's previously been a vice-presidential candidate and has a longer period of service in the Senate. Try to explain how they differ significantly at the policy level, and you'll be hard-pressed. The one major difference, of course, is that Obama is black -- but that's supposed to be an obstacle for him to overcome, isn't it? If it were, what superior qualities could we point to that Obama has over Edwards that allow him to overcome it? Is he, in fact, greatly benefited by being black, giving the lie to the notion that America is a racist nation? Is he, in fact, trading on his race? Is America that advanced as a nation?

What do you think?

Feel free to add your own answer in the comments section (all other types of comments will be deleted).

Social Bookmarking:

del.icio.us |

digg |

technorati |

stumble upon |

furl |

Comments

vova says:

Walter E. Willians, one of my favorite pundits and a great black American (and most of my favorite conservative pundits are black Americans) calls people like B. Hussein Obama and John Edwards pimps: poverty pimps, compassion pimps, race pimps (or race hustlers). They are shakedown artists, so it doesn't matter whether the person who hits you on the head and picks your pocket has a lot of melanin or no melanine. Same difference

Aris Katsaris says:

The main difference between Obama and Edwards is that Obama is seen as a figure of reconciliation by almost every moderate in America, and moderates desperately want such reconciliation.

The people who not only don't hate what America is doing to itself but actively loving the discord and mutual bashing, people like Vova and yourself who condemn as latte-sipping traitors (or atleast idiots at best) 50% of your own nation, will never see that. You love civil strife, you cackle over it, you spew your hatred and laugh over it, and mock in contempt everyone who has a different idea. Then you call us fags, wimps, and whatever other insults crosses your minds, and think you've proven yourself macho over it.

So, you'll never see why a reconciliatior and truce-maker would appeal so much to moderates, because you'll never be able to understand someone who doesn't despise 50% of their nation.

And btw, Kim, this post once again violates the founding guidelines of Publius Pundit, about how its members should avoid discussing American politics since that's not what the blog is about. Want me to repost those guidelines again, in case you missed them last time I did so?

La Russophobe says:

ARIS:

How dare you lecture me about founding guidelines of this blog? Who the hell you do you think you are, little "man"? I'm the dominant contributor right now and I decide what is and isn't blogworthy. If you don't like the blog, don't read it you outrageously arrogant imbecile.

Your suggestion that America desperately desires some undefined "reconciliation" that only Obama and not Edwards is able to deliver is the blabbering of an imbecile. You don't offer ONE SINGLE SHRED of value in your comment in terms of substantiation of your bizarre theory, and if you are talking about racial reconciliation then you are endorsing the theory espoused by this post.

I guess you're suggesting that if Obama gets the nomination, lots of "moderate" Republicans are going to cross the aisle to vote for him regardless of his liberal stance on issues and his weird associations with extremists like Farrakhan. If that is indeed what you are saying, you're utterly deranged.

Aris Katsaris says:

"How dare you lecture me about founding guidelines of this blog?"

How dare I? What are you some aristocrat who's been insulted by a mere peasant? How democratic of you. It's called "Post a comment", it's not called "Post your agreement".

Hypocrisy is there to be revealed. Facts are to be shared. Facts are on my side -- you've been violating the founding guidelines of the blog. I don't see you dispute that fact. How dare I? It doesn't take much courage, trust me. I doubt you'll hire assassins to kill me for my criticism of you so there's really not much daring involved here.

"Your suggestion that America desperately desires some undefined "reconciliation" that only Obama and not Edwards is able to deliver is the blabbering of an imbecile."

Calling it blabbering or calling me an imbecile, is not a very eloquent refutation of my idea.

"You don't offer ONE SINGLE SHRED of value in your comment in terms of substantiation of your bizarre theory,"

If I was like you I'd ask about how "dare you" determine what's of value and what isn't. My "substantiation" comes from the speeches that first made Obama famous and defined his message and are repeated time and again throughout his campaign. "We are not a collection of Red States and Blue States — We are the United States of America” - "We are one people, we are one nation" - "we're not as divided as our politics suggests."

Edwards' message was different, and was one about labour fighting against lazy wealth. Only problem with his message were that people don't really want class warfare just yet. They're tired of all warfare right now.

But there's no option of "They had different messages and Obama's message appealed more" in your poll.

"If you don't like the blog, don't read it you outrageously arrogant imbecile. "

I like this blog in the same sense that I like exposing hypocrisy and there's tons to be found here, mate. So I think I'll keep visiting, and I'll keep using *facts* to expose that hypocrisy, not the mere namecalling that you tend to utilise.

La Russophobe says:

ARIS:

Do you really think that a significant number of visitors to this blog pay attention to your comments? If so, that's real egomania. The only thing you're "exposing" is your own pathetic lack of achievement.

For your information, in last month the visitation of this blog was at the highest level since May 2007 and nearly double what it was in February 2007. The posts about which you complain as alleged departures from what you arrogantly feel you have the right to proclaim is our "mission" have just as many comments as, and often more than, the ones you haughtily "approve" of, and generate as much if not more traffic.

Let's be clear: You're not a member of this blog and have no right to determine its mission. As far as I know, you've never once submitted content for our consideration, and virtually never add value in the form of links with your comments. Your comments are TOTALLY DEVOID of constructive suggestions, but full of lame bile and poison. You're obviously frustrated by and jealous of the amount of attention this blog receives, utterly incapable of doing something "better" yourself. As such, I pity you.

wow says:

'The only thing you're "exposing" is your own pathetic lack of achievement.'

Gee Kim, are you aware of the psychological phenomenon known as 'projection?'

I've never seen Aris, or any of the people that criticize you, suggest that they are weak, insecure, or pathetic. Rather, they take you to task for rather blatantly departing from the founding ideals of this blog (as well as basic decency). Rather than responding to these criticisms, you start calling them names.

However your constant harping of your own importance, and your obsessive need to cite readership statistics, suggests a profound lack of self confidence. Kim, no one cares how many readers you get; we have no way of determining how many agree with you and how many are drawn to the freak-show of blatent anti-Russian racism you display. Furthermore, as you should very well be aware as a 'scholar' of democracy, very stupid and evil people are often quite popular (Hitler Chavez and, in your opinion at least, Putin were all elected, after all)

jordan shoes wholesale says:

sometimes,wholesale shoesis a best way to buy shoes,and u can gain so much discount from
Shoes wholesale,there are so many person like the same style shoes ,so
wholesale designer always try their best to design.in fact,so many youth prefer
wholesale athletic shoes,they enjoy it,because they're so comfortable.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL: http://publiuspundit.com/mt/contages.cgi/695