From a comment:
"Obama just gave a GREAT speech in Plainsfield, Indiana on bringing together those who hate on both sides. Reject what the haters say but understand their anger. We can't solve America's many problems with a divided America. He's back on message and we should be too."
I disagree. We CAN solve America's problems (or start to) with a divided America. And this emphasis on uniting us all is what bothers me most about Obama and why I can't support him.
Political leadership is seldom about uniting a nation. Sure, in the case of a real war such as WWII national unity is a must. Churchill is an example of such inspirational, uniting leadership. But more often courageous and effective leadership requires recognizing real conflicts (such as class conflicts)and mobilizing working majorities for political agendas or just for a particular piece of legislation. It means recognizing that you can't please everyone and that if you advocate for a particular group, e.g., industrial workers in the U.S. through NAFTA reform, you will antagonize other sectors or major employers.
John Edwards understands this as does Hillary Clinton. They also know that the Republicans aren't looking to join hands with the Democrats for the good of all. They know that Mitch McConnell, John Boehner and those they lead will not cooperate with a Democratic president. A Democratic president will need to mobilize Congressional Dems and just enough popular opinion to steamroll over the Republicans. The Republicans will pull out all stops to vilify and indict that president, who will need to accept being loathed by millions of Americans. Obama seems more comfortable with a race for class president which really is a popularity contest. Being president is not.
FDR didn't wait until the nation was united before pushing New Deal legislation through Congress. Lincoln didn't wait for unity in the North before deciding on war; nor did he wait for the support of radical Republicans before setting the course for Reconstruction. Hope and change are vague concepts on which we can all agree (as we view amorphous "change" with our own projections) but issues such as immigration reform will not wait for "unity."
I want a president who will dare to struggle; dare to win. John Edwards seemed clearly prepared to do that. Hillary Clinton is linked to a horrid legacy of triangulation but has always seemed to me more combative and progressive than her husband. She is not seen as a healer and that's OK--I'll go elsewhere for a healer. For president in 2008 I want a resilient fighter who can cooperate with Republicans when appropriate but who surely knows as well as any American the extent of their venality and hypocrisy. Hillary is the toughest and most resilient presidential candidate I've seen in a long time and that's why I support her.