We all know the facts: John Edwards co-sponsored and voted for the 2002 AUMF in Iraq. Barack Obama repeatedly spoke out against it at that time at some risk to his future career ambitions, although he was in the Illinois State Senate and therefore, not in a position to vote on the resolution himself.
In 2005, Edwards wrote his famous OpEd piece, "I Was Wrong", apologizing for his vote after having left the halls of the U.S. Senate. Obama, meanwhile, voted in favor of supplemental funding bills for the Iraq war/occupation/conflict/crisis/quagmire let's not go down the semantic rabbit hole, stay on topic please, people! once he ascended to the U.S. Senate.
Some Democrats support Edwards in the Democratic Primary because he has apologized for his vote, and for other valid reasons. Some Democrats support Obama because of his early stance against the war, and for other valid reasons.
Please follow me below the fold for a cautionary tale.
Earlier today, several diaries were posted on the topics of Edwards and Obama's various positions on the war, and the comments devolved, as we see on a too-regular basis here, into what has become a daily flame war between each of these good candidates' supporters.
Friends, we are not going to help our candidates or our causes by hurling invective. Calling either candidate nasty names, repeating the slime hurled at them in the media, and getting personally insulted (or being personally insulting) does not further our long-term goal: To have an effective, strong Democratic President elected in 2008. An illustration from around my neck of the woods:
A True Story: How To Elect A Wingnut Over Several Great Democrats
Once upon a time, there was a very odious Congressman named Henry Hyde. Mr. Hyde represented IL-06, a suburban Chicago District in what has been for many years a traditionally Republican dominated area.
One day in 2003, a grass-roots champion decided to challenge Mr. Hyde's seat. Her name was Christine Cegelis, and she built a campaign organization from the ground up, with thousands of dedicated supporters. By the time the 2004 election came around, Ms. Cegelis came very close to beating Mr. Hyde. So close, in fact, that by the next campaign cycle, Mr. Hyde decided it would be better for him to take his fat Congressional pension and return to private life.
Oh joy! An Open seat ripe for the taking! Ms. Cegelis got straight away to work on getting elected to that seat; and when she learned that a former aide to Texas Republican scumbag Tom DeLay and current Repbulican member of the Illinois legislature, Peter Roskam, was going to run on the Wingnut ticket, she redoubled her efforts.
Then along came Lindy Scott, a local college professor who decided to challenge Ms. Cegelis in a Democratic Primary. All was friendly between the two camps, however, and each worked hard and built their team.
As the campaign filing deadline neared, however, an "establishment" candidate emerged. Tammy Duckworth was an Iraq war vet who had served her country proudly and had her legs blown off in an attack on her helicopter to show for it. She was lucky to live. But she was also very committed to public service, and when asked by members of the US Congress whether she might be interested in running for the seat, she said yes.
That's when things got ugly. Some of Cegelis's supporters were understandably angry that the candidate they had supported for so long long now had competition from not one, but 2 Primary candidates. Mr. Scott and his campaign vowed to support the Primary winner; Duckworth's campaign vowed the same. The Cegelis campaign was silent.
On March 21, 2006, Duckworth won the Primary, by a slim margin. Many Cegelis supporters not only were let down, but actively campaigned against Duckworth and bad-mouthed the national Democratic politicians who had supported her run. They repeated lies about Duckworth that originated in the wingnut's campaign. And guess what? Peter Roskam is now representing the neocon agenda from the 6th Congressional District of Illinois.
<center>* * *</center>
If the moral of that story is not obvious to you, I am at a loss for how to make my point. If you see a diary posted by a supporter of another candidate that you feel is unfair to your candidate, hold the poster responsible, not the candidate. It is getting sickening around here to see fellow Democrats getting pissed off at one candidate or another because of the behavior of some of their supporters. How does that help in the long run?
Some writers are better than others at sticking to the issues; some are sincere in their support but go over the line in bashing the competition. Also, consider the source: There are posters who have been banned for trollish behavior in support of their candidate, and then try to come back again and and again and, sadly, again.
It happens on all sides. Most supporters are capable of, and indeed do, make great cases for their candidates without insults and slights. The ones that don't, well, instead of getting our blood pressure up over it, recognize that those kinds of efforts should reflect more on the "supporter" than on the candidate they purport to promote.
Next year, we will all need to work together.
I don't care how badly the Republicans' prospects look this far out. I don't care how great our field is in comparison to theirs. I don't care whether it's a front pager, a diarist or a commenter. Victory in 2008 is not a foregone conclusion. It bears repeating, so I will repeat it here:
Next year, we will all need to work together.
Thank you for your consideration, and may our best candidate win!