if anyone is for alleviating poverty, it's obama. his entire bottom-up democracy lays the groundwork for helping move more people out of poverty. at least obama's still in the running and can actually do something about it, as opposed to edwards who put off a lot of folks. unlike edwards, who foolishly laid the blame solely on business. that was my beef with edwards.
But now two months have passed since Edwards dropped out—tempus fugit!—and still no endorsement. Why? According to a Democratic strategist unaligned with any campaign but with knowledge of the situation gleaned from all three camps, the answer is simple: Obama blew it. Speaking to Edwards on the day he exited the race, Obama came across as glib and aloof. His response to Edwards’s imprecations that he make poverty a central part of his agenda was shallow, perfunctory, pat. Clinton, by contrast, engaged Edwards in a lengthy policy discussion. Her affect was solicitous and respectful. When Clinton met Edwards face-to-face in North Carolina ten days later, her approach continued to impress; she even made headway with Elizabeth. Whereas in his Edwards sit-down, Obama dug himself in deeper, getting into a fight with Elizabeth about health care, insisting that his plan is universal (a position she considers a crock), high-handedly criticizing Clinton’s plan (and by extension Edwards’s) for its insurance mandate.
the article goes on to say that obama needs diplomatic skills. perhaps, he's just not going to be bullied by anyone: if you don't do this then i won't do that. what kind of mentality is that? perhaps, obama really is a president for the people. perhaps, these so-called "elders" ought to stop viewing him as a young senator and start seeing him for the leader that he is. i think that's what's really going on here. obama, in his campaign alone, has done more to change politics than any of these goons, who've spent years trying to matter.