Reply #106: sure likability is only one part of it

[GreenArrow]

I don't really dislike Obama or Hillary either (okay, Hillary maybe a little) and I think they are representative of corporate power over us. I take it as a given that they are in bed with corporations. I don't like that either. But I do dislike Edwards, intensely, and when he was facing the fire, he voted the wrong way, and defended those votes just as passionately as he now defends his new positions, much better positions than his earlier ones.

But I don't trust him. That's the bottom line. His conversion is too pat. He offers no explanations. If he were offering these new insights outside the realm of electoral politics, that is, in the middle of a Presidential campaign, or while still engaged - say a second Senate term) - I might give them a bit more credence. Simply saying you were wrong is meaningless so long as one does not explain what one was wrong about, and nor is simply saying one was wrong equivalent to an apology. This is why Edwards is less trustworthy. He's paid no dues, yet still acts like he's entitled to a reward. His diametric change of positions opens him to all sorts of charges of opportunism, pandering, dishonesty, phoniness.

As it is, while I don't see C or O really doing anything about corporate power, they aren't really making a serious issue of it. Edwards, on the other hand, is, and I see him doing so not because he intends to really initiate any sort of sweeping, fundamental changes, but because he believes that sort of rhetorical appeal can help him get elected. It's not that I think C or O would do a better job of taking down corporate power, it's that I don't think any of them is going to do so. Edwards' health plan is a good indicator of how he's going to deal with corporations. If he thinks he's going to have some sort of mixed plan, he will be "negotiating" with those people.

As for the country preferring personality/looks/charisma over principle/position, yeah, I think it does, in part. And it wants someone to tell it what it wants. The country picks who it likes, not necessarily what's good for it. I was a Kucinich supporter; the country either does not know the guy, does not believe in his issues, or trust that he is capable of getting things done. Or some combination of the above. For whatever reason, he doesn't inspire. Yet, I think he, more than any other candidate, sees some of the hard truths this country has to and refuses to face, and none of the other candidates running is going to face them either, though they might dilute them in an attempt to make them palatable to the masses, and placate those who have expressed disaffection with the order of things. Obama's not going to face those things. Hillary is not, and neither is Edwards. Honestly, I don't think a single one of them has any business being President. I expect little of value from any of them. They look tolerable only in comparison to those on the other side.

Would you vote easily for someone you didn't like? Didn't trust?