This message was self-deleted by its author

[karynnj]

47. Thanks for your incredibly thoughtful response

I do agree with you about the fact that some people CAN"T make the caucuses. I agree that a national holiday could make it easier for many, but there will still be some who can't make it - some obvious examples are medical personnel and people in service industries like hotels and restaurants. But, my thoughts were along the same lines when I suggested proxies for those with valid reasons - at least for the first ballot. They will miss the later dynamics, but I would think it would be far too complicated to include directives for all possibilities. (I really would not want power of attorney like delegations for those later actions because the potential abuse would be there. )

As to Edwards, I don't think anyone who supported him because of his positions and what they thought he was has anything to be ashamed of. In fact, we all really only have a very two dimensional view of who a candidate is. In most cases, image is very tightly controlled. In the case of both Edwards and Obama, there was no a huge amount of history that you could look at to verify that he was who he said he was. Here, there is the odd thing that having little history means there are fewer of the real conflicts between the ideals and the political needs that someone with a longer history always has.

In addition, I suspect that anyone who is capable of the oratory that is needed to move people - one of the most valuable traits in a politician also has the ability to use words to paint a picture you can believe in. It has to be tempting for anyone with that gift to use it to avoid taking responsibility for mistakes and to improve their own position. When it is honest, it is both powerful and inspiring. The question for me is always are they real. I faced this in 2004 - when I was far more swept away by John Kerry than any politician since Kennedy (and I was 10 then!). Yes, I know that I was one of the few. In his case, his long history was there and it showed - for those who sought it out ( and that wasn't easy), that he was the real deal. However, even given that history, the truth is that I did not really know him as a person.

After 2004, as a member of the DU JK group, I met people who worked in important enough roles in 2004 to have met the ticket. I was impressed with their loyalty and fierce protectiveness of Kerry. When the stories that ended Edwards public life started to circulate, many of them - all of whom disliked Edwards from 2004 - said the one thing they believed to be good about him was he was extremely close on every level with Elizabeth and these rumors were unlike;ly to be true.

As to being impressed with his 2008 positions, I think back to Prosense's excellent well backed up posts showing he was running on what was a slightly tuned up version of Kerry's platform in 2004 -- which was more progressive than his 2004 platform -- which was more progressive than his votes in the Senate. That every Kerry strategist and bundler with Kerry when he opted not to run went to (mostly) Obama and some to Hillary - and NONE to Edwards was one reason that I never considered him. The other was the opinion that he was mediocre at best in the 2004 general election and that I had not liked him in the 2004 primaries.

Note that NONE of my reasons related to the platform he ran on in 2008 or his moral character.