The Nation chooses not to endorse, but they have a pretty good run down on the Democratic candidates for the presidency. I didn’t find much at all to disagree with, which is unusual in these unsigned editorials. My only complaint is that they didn’t mention Chris Dodd. Unless Dodd can get to 15% in the polls in Iowa in a hurry, his campaign will be over. And that’s a shame because Dodd has the best record on the issues over his long career. He did get the Iraq War vote wrong, but so did Edwards, Biden, and Clinton (and Kerry). But Dodd is no newcomer to the progressive cause. He sent an email out today saying his crowds in Iowa are much bigger now that he stood up to Harry Reid on the rule of law and our civil rights. I’m glad to hear it. I’d love to see Dodd come in fourth in Iowa. I’d like to see him stick around. But if his campaign is doomed, we’re going to have to make a choice between Edwards and Obama.
I can definitely live with either one. What I can’t seem to do is make up my mind between them. As for Hillary, the Nation put it well:
Indeed, a Hillary Clinton administration could see a revival of her husband’s advisers and their procorporate neoliberal policies. Certainly the presence of familiar and high-priced pollsters and lobbyists in the upper echelons of her campaign, as advisers and donors, is a worrisome sign. (Both Obama and Edwards have declined lobbyist donations.) The experience Clinton touts is likely to frustrate the change she promises. To be sure, her election would represent a historic breakthrough for women, and a Clinton presidency even modestly responsive to an ascendant left would be far better than a Clinton presidency triangulating in the wake of the Reagan revolution. But there’s little reason to believe it would make ample space for a progressive agenda.
Actually, I expect them to strangle the progressive agenda in its crib.