Edwards Aims To Focus on The Positive and Says Anger At Bush Won't Prevail

[sharonstone]

Democratic presidential contender John Edwards said yesterday that beneath their deep anger at President Bush, Democratic voters have a strong yearning for a positive message that the party's eventual presidential nominee must convey to have any chance of defeating Bush next November.
After months of almost nonstop campaigning in the key early states in the nomination process, the senator from North Carolina said he is convinced that voters "need leaders who are running for president who aren't talking about what's wrong, but talking about what we together can do to make it right. And I think that's the component I absolutely believe will decide this election at the end of the day."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28251-2003Nov11.html

[dbt]

1. Earth to Edwards:

Buh-BYE, and thanks for flying Totally Clueless Airlines!

:freak:
dbt

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. The candidate

needs to have a strong message of what he will do, but in that message must be what Bush has done wrong. Kind of hard to say you'll restore Constitutional rights unless you mention who took them away. Also, the candidate must appeal to the people, and get the people involved and excited in the campaign. That is the only way to defeat Bush, imho.

[JNelson6563]

3. marketing 101

Here is what is wrong with product X.

Mine is better, here's why....

Julie

[ibegurpard]

4. I absolutely demand anger at Bush from the candidate I support

Of course they have to offer a positive alternative as well and if that's what he means then I can't disagree.

[bowens43]

5. Anger at bush works for me

and for nearly everyone I know.

[AP]

19. Yeah, if it's working too well. Bush will pull a Johnson and Dean will...

...lose to Frist, Hagel, Jeb Bush or Tom Ridge.

[JI7]

30. is that like torricelli in new jersey ?

the republican had no appealing message of his own. the only support he got was based on people voting against the torch based on his personal problems and not policy which the democrats were able to fix easily by putting up lautenberg instead. i can't see bush doing he same thing, but something i worry about everyday is that they will replace cheney and maybe some other administration figures and give the perception that anything bad that happened was a result of those people, and that now they are gone and they got someone better things will be ok. he might get someone like bill frist who is very conservative but doesn't come across in a bad way as people like cheney and trent lott.

[AP]

31. EXACTLY. Now, can anyone find an example of candidate-directed anger...

...working?

And you're right about the team. Bush spends a lot of time passing the buck. One result of this is that changing the team will be perceived as changing the things you didn't like about Bush.

Even simply moving around people might be enough to make people think that everything Dean was complaining about is no longer relevant.

[DrBB]

6. Flame if you must, but he's basically right

Been proved time and again in US politics. This is always the challenge of non-incumbent candidates, b/c obviously if there's nothing wrong with the present guy, why are you running? But it's axiomatic. You have to identify yourself as a "for" candidate, not an "against" one, no matter how pissed off your base is, in order to win. Doesn't mean "don't criticize our nice GOP brethren," but it does mean you have to define a predominantly positive message and image. Edwards obviously thinks there's some open territory here to stake his claim to. Is he wrong?

[papau]

7. You and Edwards are correct - hang Bush, but 75% of message is future

Never stop dreaming about tomorrow needs an 04 version. But I don't see that that is missing - just not the primaries main motivator.

For the record, the media ignores the fact that the Bush future is to continue to tear down Medicare and Social Security and help for education, the environment, keeping jobs in the US, all the while saying that we need more tax cuts, and then saying you are cutting/changing the above programs to save them in light of the lack of money. Seems GOP lies are OK with the media. Can you imagine what the Boston Globe would do to Kerry if he was as two faced as Bush?

[AP]

20. The media can spin anti-Bush feelings to help Bush. But they can't spin

a well-formed message about what you're for.

Just look at the end of Meet the Whores with Edwards. Russert was trying to spin anti-Bush feelings to make Edwards look bad. However, Edwards turned the tables on that strategy by saying it was about policy not personality.

[IndianaGreen]

10. Edwards is not the one to carry that message

After Clark whips his ass in SC on February 3rd, Edwards should withdraw from the race and prepare to return to private practice.

We might forgive Kerry for his IWR vote by virtue of his long liberal record, we won't forgive Edwards who is still a rookie.

[AP]

22. You are not the same I.G. who used to write reasonable, well thought-out

posts, are you?

[PurityOfEssence]

59. That's ridiculous; by your very own logic it's absurd

Someone with less experience in foreign policy is more to blame for being misled by the administration than someone with a great deal of experience? That makes absolutely no sense.

You hate Edwards. You post continuously with a rage and hunger to destroy the man, to the point of smearing and slander from some righteous self-proclaimed dispensation to disregard truth or fairness. You're on a mission, and it's tiresome. Don't cloak your missives in some kind of propriety, you're engaged in systematic hatchet work.

Why on earth is someone who's been steeped in the intelligence information for decades somehow less at fault for being suckered than a newcomer?

Let's also remember that Edwards gave up an incredibly lucrative career to go into public service, and in our service, he's made many hard stands that were alienating to his base but done out of his beliefs.

Edwards is more to the left and more socially responsible than either Clark or Dean; what's your response to that?

[dusty64]

8. We have MUCH to be angry

about and the reasons need to be highlighted. However, I don't entirely disagree with this. An agenda in stark contrast to that of the rethugs has got to be advanced. One that benefits the People and the Planet instead of the superwealthy and multinational corporations would be a sure winner. I'm looking forward to hearing about the candidates plan for our future and hope it will get some attention in the corporate media.

[matcom]

9. Memo To Edwards

you are out of touch.

MY anger ain't goin' away any fucking time soon John.

[AP]

24. It's probobaly no bad thing to out of touch with DU'ers and in touch with

the sentitments which actually result in winning election strategies.

If there's one thing I've noticed, it's that DU'ers tend to be pretty bad at picking winners in elections.

[Rebel_with_a_cause]

11. There's not a lot to be positive about

In fact, I can't think of a thing.

[dArKeR]

12. Why does GOP hatred and anger (without merit) towards the Dems.

work for the GOP Whores but not visa a versa?

[AP]

23. Republicans don't use it to win elections as their ONLY strategy.

Name ONE race in which the CANDIDATE ran on simply being against EVERYTHING the other candidate stood for.

Republicans detest Hillary, but did hating Hillary win them an election against her? No. Being nasty to Hillary (when Lazzio crowded her on stage) was the nail in Lazzio's campaign. Too many women saw every bullying boss and boyfriend they ever had in that pugnacious idiot's behaviour. It was the end of his campaign.

Gore looked dumb when he did the same thing to Bush.

Anger is too easy to turn against the person wielding it.

[dArKeR]

29. You've got only one exception case got any others to prove your point?

[AP]

32. Torricelli/Lautenberg in NJ. LBJ/Goldwater. Nixon/McGovern.

You have to be for something. Not against everything. And you have to define yourself in terms of what you want to be, and not in terms of things you don't like which are outside of your control.

Do you have any examples of anger and anti-everything working?

[jenk]

13. Edwards is right, negativity 24/7 will kill

we need solutions and a direction, Edwards offers that

[lumpy]

16. The only solution

to the Iraq guagmire is either the second coming of Christ or to get the hell out while we are still half-way intact. The solution to our debased foreign relations is to hang head and beg forgiveness for being an aggressive arrogant bully nation. The solution to the many domestic problems created by Bush is to come up with a modern FDR solution of some sort. The person who conveys this to the public is my candidate.

[lumpy]

14. The fact of Bushco's evil ways

still hasn't sunk into enough American's minds and with some it makes no difference at any rate. Anyone interested in ousting Bushco has to be relentless in bringing to the public the truth of what Bush has done to the people of Iraq, to the world and to this country. I haven't heard from Edwards what positive message he has to repair the mess Bush has made of foreign relations, an answer to the quagmire Bush created in Iraq and an answer to Bushco's future plans for changing the world scene. Maybe he has some solutions to domestic problems, fine. But he is out of touch if he thinks most Americans want to hear mere feel good messages. This damage Bushco has created is unprecedented in US history. In recent history only Hitler's Nazi party comes in a close second.

[ablbodyed]

15. I'm afraid that nice guys....

finish last. When you're dealing with completely unprincipled opponents than you have to be as ruthless as they are. That's one main reason why we're in ths deadly serious predicament: we played by the rules while our ENEMIES DIDN'T!!!!!
Yes have a vision, but go for the jugler, and go for it, and go for it, and go for it, until they're defeated.

[AP]

17. Right on. Too true. History has taught us this lesson.

And thinking ahistorically is for losers.

[supernova]

18. He's right

Those of us who are the party faithful, who would be Dem no matter what, certainly are angry and that needs to be acknowledged by the candidates, including Edwards. If he can't do that, then he will lose the nomination.

However, general elections here are about the future, not the past. The candidate has to give people a solid vision of the future to win. That's what JFK did, that's what LBJ did, Bill Clinton. Hell, even RR understood that basic principle.

How much you wanna bet that * will run on a message of "the war is still on; I have to keep at it"? He'll run on a platform of fear. That is a golden opportunity for us. We must offer a more positive vision of the future in the general election.

Anger should be our motivating force, not our main message. Let's use it wisely.


Edit: I see it's started already. Thanks Matcom.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=214357

[lumpy]

25. Elections are about the future, not the past ???

Hell, we are living in the PRESENT. We make the future by not living in the past. Dreaming is nice but doesn't guarantee squat. Anger is the best motivator for right or for wrong.

[supernova]

27. Well, D'uh

Thank you oh zen master. I feel much more centered now. :eyes:

[lumpy]

33. My pleasure, superrnova

glad you realize that only 'thinking about tommorrow' is not the answer.

[supernova]

34. Oh get off your high horse

lumpy.

Sarcasm apparently goes over your head. I'm not suggesting some pie in the sky approach. Reread my message. You obviously have not understood.

edit: spelling.

[lumpy]

42. Read my post # 16

No, I did not understand your post, still don't. I could only assume that you were advocating speak soothingly and forget the big stick. Sorry if I misinterpreted.

[supernova]

44. Read my post #43

Yes, you did misinterpret.

[AP]

35. As good with sarcasm as with campaign strategy.

[AP]

28. Give me ONE example of ANGER winning ANY election, state or federal.

Name one candidate who ever won simply by angrily defining him or herself as the oppositie of the person he or she ran against.

It has never happened.

LBJ said that one of the Republicans primary contenders (I forget which one) was never going to beat him because he only defined himself in terms of what he was against (specifically, LBJ, and everything LBJ was for). It was true then, and it's no less true now.

McGovern ran a campaign of being against Vietnam, so Nixon removed Vietnam from the table at a stage at which it was too late for McGovern to create an indentity based on anything else. That's the other problem with defining yourself as oppositional to something outside your control. If it gets too close, the person with control can remove the thing which defines you.

You have to define yourself in terms of things over which you have control, and which are positive images and ideas. Being for middle class oppotunity, being for everyone pulling a fair burden, being for a safe America, being for the idea that you're going to untap everyone's potential -- those are things which the other side can't take from you.

[lumpy]

39. Flowery rhetoric without the substance

and ability to control like being for middle class opportunity,, everyone pulling a fair burden, being for a safe America, untapping potential, the things that the other side can take from you. How many times can we hear this sort of rhetoric of positive images and ideas The things that dreams are made of. The very stuff that Bush promised and couldn't deliver. Who can?

McGovern may not made the presidency, but he sure in hell influenced/made aware a lot of the US public who were willing to become angry enough to protest and if you don't believe this influenced the decision to withdraw from Vietnam you are wrong.

The potential candidate for the presidency can come up with positive plans, withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible even if it means defeat, make diplomatic reparations/amends to our European allies/the world for Bushs,s administration's lack of diplomacy and aggressive policies, and use some sort of FDR solution for our failing economy, maybe regulatory solutions, make work programs,etc. At the same time pound into the US public the fact that Bush has brought more problems to the US and the world than he has solved.

[AP]

40. Still no examples of the angry winner?

And since when have nicely articulated ideas been a liability? Never, that's when.

[AP]

41. McGovern could have gotten US out of Vietnam FASTER if he WON.

Duh.

[supernova]

43. And you're disagreeing with me how?

on campaign strategy. We're saying the same things. Think about it.

The potential candidate for the presidency can come up with positive plans, withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible even if it means defeat, make diplomatic reparations/amends to our European allies/the world for Bushs,s administration's lack of diplomacy and aggressive policies, and use some sort of FDR solution for our failing economy, maybe regulatory solutions, make work programs,etc. At the same time pound into the US public the fact that Bush has brought more problems to the US and the world than he has solved

I never said we shouldn't express our anger. I never said that shouldn't be *part* of the electorial process. I said that shouldn't be the only message we have.

Again, let's use our anger wisely.

[goforit]

21. Edwards is now officially a GOPr running for the Dems!!!!

Adios Edwards!!!!

Edwards ands Kerry down in two days!!!!

Time to focus on the right guy AMERICA!!!

[AP]

26. Certified by the DU Ministry of Bad Campaign Strategy?

Do you have any other pronouncements you'd like to make?

[Snellius]

36. So do it. Don't talk about doing it.

This always seems like a weird message: "We have to be more positive". So if you want to be more positive, just be more positive. Just to say we need a more positive message, just says we don't really have a messsage or we would tell you, but when we get one, it will be positive. Just do it, Edwards.

[AP]

37. That's what Edwards IS doing.

But some people are so obtuse, sometimes it helps to have it described in a front page Wash Post article at various points in the campaign, and then have people discuss the nuances at places like DU.

[Snellius]

46. Why is it positive to replace Dean-bashing for Bush-bashing?

Much of this criticism by Edwards really seems directed at Dean. Bash Dean because he bashes Bush. I agree Democrats need to have an optimistic message but implicit in the anger against Bush is the positive message of liberating this country from all the reactionary forces that Bush represents. I don't hear Edwards' message as more or less positive than anyone else.

[AP]

47. Lauging out loud over this one.

The time Edwards has spent talking about Dean specifically as proportion to the time he has spent talkinga bout being President: .000000000000000001%

If Dean is running the wrong kind of campaign, that's on Dean.

It's not a Dean bash to explain what a good campaign looks like.

[fshrink]

38. Get over it shoo bidoo bam bam, get ooooover it wha wha wha wha

[demdave]

45. Edwards has the right message in this, otherwise he hasn't a chance though

The seething anger of the DU does not translate into votes when it is exposed to the voters at large. Ranting and raving on this site serves it's purpose, entertainment. Even here, though, we have to self-censor posts that cross the boundry of good taste, acceptability, reason and even the law. What if all these blemishes were splattered across the major media? How long would John and Jane Q. Public listen?

[AP]

48. Edwards on Voters' Anger Toward Bush (Real Audio)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/mmedia/politics/111103-7s.htm

[janx]

49. But it's not an either/or situation.

Anger at Bush does not necessarily translate into a lack of hope. Many of us who are angry at Bush have hope and energy for a restored America!

[AP]

50. But run on only one and not the other and you'll lose.

[janx]

51. Of course!

.

[supernova]

53. Exactly AP

That's what we're trying to say. Thanks.

And I don't get that Edwards is saying anything different here.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

52. Anger can win the Demcratic nomiation

and lose the election. Edwards is right.

[supernova]

54. Yes,

Unfortunately that's the dilemma and the balancing act all of our candidates face. It remains to be seen how they'll work that out.

[sendero]

55. All of this "anger is bad"

All of this "anger is bad" nonsense is starting to sound like a winger meme.

Anger is like anything else, too much is bad, but some can be a great motivator. And it's not like we have nothing to be angry about.

[AP]

56. Then why can't anyone cite a single example of it working?

Yet, over and over again, we see examples of hope triumphing over anger and fear.

[sendero]

57. A single example?

How about the most important one, the energizing of the Democratic base? I can already hear you trying to claim that is not the case, but it absolutely is. Oh, here's another one, the ascendency of an unknow governor to the top of the Dem field.

I'm not saying that anger cannot be a destructive force. But to say it always is so is incorrect.

And truthfully, the fact this idea is suddenly popping up everywhere makes me smell RW talking point. From "anger", no matter how justified, it is easy to leap to "Bush* haters" and paint the entire movement as unjustified. Which of course is total BS.

[AP]

58. All I'm asking for is one example of an opponent-directed angry campaign

succeeding.

Hitler used anger to introduce fascism to Germany, and he used anger about racial others to encourage genocide. Anger is easy to harness for bad ends. It's almost impossible to motivate people to do good things and to think clearly when they're motivated by anger.

Why do you think FDR didn't simply use people's fears of Hitler and of poverty to get what he wanted.

He probably could have rammed through every single policy he wanted and he could have packed the Supreme Court, and he could have done a million things if he didn't think the only thing to fear was fear itself. There is an essential incompatibility between exploiting anger and trying to achieve good ends.

If you fertilize the ground with anger, the seeds that take hold are the ones the reactionaires and the fascists sow. This is way Dean doesn't do well in the head to heads with Bush. When people think of his anger, they think, hmm, yes, maybe these are dangerous times. I'll vote for the authoritarians, the Republicans.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

62. Come back to us when Dean defeats Bush

then we'll agree anger is the way to go.

[sharonstone]

60. Your Days are number Monkey

Judgement day is comming closer and closer to you, now you can run but you cant hide baby.

[ThorsteinVeblen]

61. What the hell has Edwards ever done to win an election?

it is his ilk, currently leading the Democratic party, that has been losing elections since 1994.

Fuck Him.