Will Tweedle Change or Tweedle Experience Get My Vote?

Subtitled: One in a cast of dozens of Stalwart Edwards supporter’s endorsement diaries.

Nota Bene: This is a diary that is going to be going up on the Daily Kos, at 1:30am EST, posted as an essay here in case anyone wants to see how the Tweedle Brigades react.

OK, here’s the endorsement: I endorse the principle of voting for a candidate in the primaries. I refuse to be forced into casting a “lesser of two evils” vote in a primary race.

.

..

…

….

…..

….

…

..

.

So, in particular:

• I am endorsing a vote for Senator Obama for any Stalwart Edwards supporter who sees a clear reason to vote for Senator Obama.
• I am endorsing a vote for Senator Clinton for any Stalwart Edwards supporter who sees a clear reason to vote for Senator Clinton.
• And I am endorsing a vote for John Edwards for any Stalwart Edwards Supporter who does not see a clear reason to vote for either Tweedle Change or Tweedle Experience.

Hell, even if I end up in one of the first two camps before March 4th, I probably won’t tell y’all. I’m certainly not going to be an Obama or Clinton supporter, and whether I vote for one of them or Edwards is my own damn business.

Well, that was an awfully anti-climatic endorsement diary. Over the fold, how either Tweedle could win my vote.

First, I understand that I am going to get the talking points copied into this diary, because the talking point copy and paste brigade is going to be out in force. (sic. yes, over there at the Big Orange … not here!)

You don’t think I’ve heard them before? Don’t you think if I found them persuasive, I would see a clear reason to vote for one or both Tweedle by now? Its not like y’all haven’t copied and pasted the exact same shallow talking points in the exact same disregard of the specific context or detail of the ongoing discussion before.

And, no, if you do it, I’m not going to “vote against your candidate”. Your candidate’s campaign is not you … you are just a white noise generator to to keep the netroots from interfering with the corporate marketing campaign. If I start blaming the white noise generator for the patterns I impute to it, someone is going to come along and tell me to take the blue pill in the morning and the red pill in the evening.

Here, however, are three things one or both Tweedle could do to attract my vote.

One. Move out from underneath the lip service to Sustainable Energy Independence to gain protective cover from the “Green Left” and commit to a credible, serious investment in sustainable transport infrastructure. The specific policy I sketched out a couple of weeks ago … electrification of the main trunk freight rail lines combined with inter-regional electric trunk capacity between Wind Surplus regions and major population centers would do. Or something else … use your imagination.

Anyway, that’ll convince me that you are serious about not fighting wars for, or as a consequence of, oil.

Two. A serious commitment to reducing the size of the US armed forced. Something arbitrary in round, easily understood numbers would do … 10% troops levels, 20% budget reduction for big ticket weapons items, closing 100 or more overseas bases.

That’ll also convince me that you are serious about not fighting wars for, or as a consequence of, oil.

Three. Stand up and say clearly and forcefully that you understand that NAFTA model corporate investment agreements are not, at their heart, trade agreements. They are, at their heart, agreements that nations will not interfere with transnational corporations moving financial assets across national borders. And since that bilateral surrender of national sovereignty is a surrender of bargaining power of nations vis a vis corporations, it implies a transfer of income from citizen’s wages to corporate profits. And you realize that you were wrong to collaborate in that surrender of national sovereignty, and are now firmly and forcefully rejecting that surrender of national sovereignty. You will not sign any “trade agreement” that includes any investment rights clause, and will use the US veto in the Doha round at the WTO to prevent any such terms from being incorporated into the WTO.

That’ll convince me that you intend to be the President of the United States, rather than, as Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush, President of the Corporations Domiciled in the United States.

Now, any of those three, they would swing my vote.