E.J. Dionne on "John Edwards wager"

[DemDogs]

Here's a couple of short clips from E.J. Dionne column on JOhn Edwards. Full text at: http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=18460

John Edwards' wager
Beaten, 2004 veep nominee bets on passion over positioning

... What if the Democrats' challenge is about passion, not positioning? John Edwards is wagering a lot, maybe his whole political future, on that list of what-ifs. The 2004 vice presidential nominee, the guy with the dad in the mill who gave the most remembered stump speech of the Democratic primary campaign, will rejoin the debate with a new speech in New Hampshire on the first weekend in February. From the sounds of an interview at his Georgetown row house earlier this week, Edwards intends to pick up where he left off in that "Two Americas" discourse of his.

"It needs to be clear to the country what our core beliefs are, and the last thing we need is strategic maneuvering," Edwards says. "What people want to see is leadership and strength and conviction. This is about what's inside us. It's not about how we get to the right place."

...

Moral issues matter, Edwards says, but Democrats won't look moral by getting into a bidding war over how often they can invoke the name of God. Instead, Democrats should speak with conviction about an issue that has always animated them: the alleviation of poverty. "I think it is a moral issue, it's something we should be willing to fight about and stand up for," he says.

[Cha]

1. I'm happy about this..I for one am

glad to be hearing from Edwards again..I didn't want him to drop off the face of the Earth just because he isn't in the Veep position in D.C.

That belongs to Attila the Hun.

[FreedomAngel82]

53. Yay

I really like Kerry and Edwards. I wish they were still working together. Do they still talk and stuff?

[iamjoy]

2. Go, Johnny, Go!

I got warm just thinking about him in blue jeans and a blue button-down shirt. The suits made him look too smarmy, and why the heck did he want to wear red ties anyway?

I wonder how Elizabeth is doing, I think about her every now and then.

[IndianaGreen]

3. Edwards is dead in the water

His support for PATRIOT and the immoral war in Iraq has made him damaged goods. Edwards has no political base, and as a candidate he will become a Democratic version of Lamar Alexander.

[w4rma]

5. He can include me in his base. (nt)

[captainslack]

19. Me, too!

[Eloriel]

7. Not just his support, but his

CONTINUED support, as if the "value" of standing up for and defending the wrong choices you made is more important than getting it right eventually and maybe admitting you made a mistake.

I really like John Edwards -- right up until I remember not JUST that he voted for the war, but that he defended that wrong-headed, immorally wrong, unjustified and unjustifiable war vote vehemently every time he was asked. It's a HUGE turnoff, and it keeps me from trusting him about anything else, which is a shame because I think (or maybe would just like to believe) that while he CAN be a slick huckster lawyer type, there's a core of honest to God goodness within him.

:shrug:

[iamjoy]

27. It Was A No Win Situation

The IWR, I mean.

The Republicans are very good at that. Look how they made Max Cleland out to be against the U.S. 'cos he voted against the Dept. of Homeland Security (which he did because of the labor provisions in it).

So, if you voted against the war, you don't love your country and you're willing to let Saddam Hussein come nuke us. It takes too long to explain otherwise - how many people know that Bob Graham's vote against it wasn't out of any dovish motives (quite the contrary) but that he felt war in Iraq would distract from the war on terror? Once one voted for the war, should he/she admit the mistake and get painted as a flip flopper? Or admit to being deceived on intelligence (by the Bushies) and look like a fool? Nope, Edwards stuck by his decision, and maybe it was more a matter of pride and saving face than politics.

How do you respond without saying "but" when asked "Saddam Hussein is gone, don't you think it's a good thing?" If you say we don't know yet (which is probably the most honest and thoughtful statement), they throw the rape rooms & all Hussein's atrocities in your face. After that, sorry folks, have to go to commercial and when we come back...

We live in a world of 30 second sound bites.

The only response I have now to that "ends justifies means" crap is if you go to a restaurant and order the meatloaf, and they bring you fried chicken and you tell them they got your order wrong, are you going to be happy if they say, "Well, our fried chicken is really a good thing."

[KittyWampus]

8. Maybe To YOU But This Leftie Is Giving Edwards A Fair Chance

which is what I promised I do when he was picked as VP.

Hey John! I'm still waiting for your to prove yourself... let's see your best stuff!

[IndianaGreen]

9. Let me know when Edwards turns against the war in Iraq

Every day he is silent on this horrific war that he voted for, is a day in which he is an enabler of Bush's crimes.

[DemDogs]

16. Nonsense

Enabler? Did you eat your children for dinner, too?

[DaveinMD]

21. war is not the only issue

Economic issues matter just as much to me.

[AP]

23. And to some libs, the war is an economic issue that Edwards can do a ...

better job of framing in terms of progressive values (ie, beyond simply, "the world's scary I know how to wage a modern war better than anyone else") -- as FDR did with WW2.

Edwards did that in the debates. Here's the transcript:

JENNINGS: I'd like to continue in this vein a little, if I may.

Senator Edwards, many people, I think, believe that the greatest security threat to the United States in the 21st century is the possible confrontation between the West and Islam.

Now, I know and take for granted, having heard you before, that you respect Islam. But could you take a minute to tell us what you know about the practice of Islam that would reassure Muslims throughout the world who will be listening to you that President Edwards understands their religion and how you might use that knowledge to avoid a confrontation, which, as Tom alluded earlier, might indeed end up sending sons and daughters from New Hampshire to war.

EDWARDS: Well, I have been in these parts of the world. I have been in Pakistan, met with President Musharraf, been in Afghanistan, met with then interim chairman — interim head of the government Karzai. I have met with other Islamic leaders around the world, discussed with them the problems that their country and their people face.

I would never claim to be an expert on Islam. I am not. But I do believe that Islam, as in a lot of other faiths that we as a nation embrace and lift up, that I have shown respect for faiths that are different than mine my entire life. I think I do understand the tragedy of the day-to-day lives of people who live in Arab countries, who live lives of hopelessness and despair.

I think that contributes to the animosity that they feel toward the United States.

And part of our ongoing vision — my ongoing vision for America includes getting at the root causes of that animosity toward the United States, which means being able to communicate, not just with the leadership, for example, in Saudi Arabia, but being able to communicate directly with the people...

JENNINGS: Do you think, Senator...

EDWARDS: ... to express...

JENNINGS: Do you think that we suffer and will suffer at the policy level because we do not know enough about the practice of Islam?

EDWARDS: I think we have a responsibility when we deal with the leadership of these countries. Our relationships, Peter, have been at the leadership level. And we see the results of that. We have ongoing relationship with the Saudi royals, with President Musharraf, with Chairman Karzai. We have relationships with the leaders of these Islamic countries.

The problem is, we have no relationship with the people. And not only do we have no relationship with the people, it's absolutely clear that they feel great animosity toward the United States. We need to, first, be able to communicate directly with the people.

Second, find opportunities. For example, President Musharraf said to me when I met with him: They desperately needed a public school system as an alternative to the religious schools, where their kids are taught to hate Americans.

We need to take advantage of the opportunities available to us and our allies, to reach out, not just to the leaders of these countries for our own purposes, but also to develop a relationship for the people themselves so that they understand what Americans care about and that we actually care about the peace and prosperity of the entire world.

[ultraist]

73. Did you hear any of his speeches during the campaign?

He was very outspoken against how Bush was handling Iraq. What Democrats DIDN'T vote for the war? Clark would be out, he spoke very positively about the *election* and how it was a good thing.

Who does that leave?

[calimary]

81. I'd be happy to give him another look - but he better be quicker on

the uptake.

Perhaps it's because I was led, by everything I'd heard and read about him and the many testimonials on his behalf, that he was this unbeatably alluring candidate who could talk circles around any opponent, with MANY salutes to the eloquent way he presented his cases in court.

But, I watched his nomination acceptance speech at the convention, and I watched him debate dick, and I was just totally UNDERWHELMED. It was NOT a slam dunk by any means. After the huge build-up he had, I was expecting a fabulous speech, world class, the "speech-of-his-life" type affair. And it was SERIOUSLY underwhelming. He left SO MUCH out. There was SO little in terms of catchy phrases and quotability beyond "Hope is on the way" and "Help is on the way." Those were fine, but that was it, and it took some of the teeth out of 'em in my opinion (all this is, mind you, my opinion).

And then during the debate - I'd say near disastrous. He let cheney get away with SO much without challenge, rebuttal, or ANY zingers. I was left SCREAMING at my TV at least a half-dozen times, about good ones that got away. He let so much stand. He pissed away so many opportunities to stick the knife in and twist it and do it in a charming way that left hardly any fingerprints. SO MANY missed opportunities.

Both he and Kerry seemed intent on pulling their punches and not zeroing on the kill. Every single time. They preferred gentlemanly face-slaps when the situation required body slams.

So, frankly, I'm still waiting to be impressed by Edwards. He has not lived up to his PR. I'll be glad to wait. I'm not yet ready to refuse him the benefit of the doubt. But he just completely underwhelmed me. BIG disappointment. HUGE, as a matter of fact. At least to me.

[saracat]

11. Baloney. I think that his vote for the war was wrong

but his current stance is 100% correct. At least he stood by what he believed. I think it was wrong, but like many others, I didn't have a vote.I like Edwards and would vote for him in a heartbeat. But I continue to respect Kerry who , in spite of the naysayers is doing great things in the Senate, and I think there is more to come.Keep your eye on the Gonzoles issue. I think the admin is going to come crumbling dowm. Not yet but soon.

[IndianaGreen]

13. Iraq is this generation's Vietnam

Politicians will be judged on their stand on the war, just as 35 years ago politicans were judged on their stand on the Vietnam War.

[PeaceProgProsp]

18. Like RFK? RFK supported JFK's Vietnam policy, only tacitly criticized

LBJ on Vietnam, and probably had plenty of Senate votes on Vietnam that would have been fodder for IndianaGreen, Class of '68, and RFK tried to run a campaign on the progressive values of being anti-poverty and pro-civil rights.

Meanwhile, the anti-war protesters supported Eugene McCarthy.

RFK would have been a great president, as would Edwards -- and for many of the same reasons.

They both would have had a mandate formed on progressive ideas and would have been able to implement things such as a withdrawll from foreign interventions and an anti-imperialist foreign policy that didn't scare Americans into thinking that Democrats weren't interested in the safety of its citizens, but would have convinced them that not ruining the rest of the world (that sharing American values with the rest of the world) makes us all stronger.

RFK backed off on Vietnam and reframed the debate for the same reason JRE did.

It's amazing that we have so many lessons from history, yet activist Democrats would rather exhume McCarthy rather than RFK.

[DaveinMD]

25. very good points

well done.

[IndianaGreen]

39. Wayne Morse voted against the Tonkin Gulf Resolution

which was the IWR of its day. He was silenced by the 2-major parties for his opposition to the war (does this sound familiar?). Gene McCarthy challenged LBJ on the war at a time when Democrats were demanding signed loyalty cards from the rank-and-file (does this sound familiar also?).

It wasn't until McCarthy did remarkably well against LBJ that Bobby Kennedy decided to run.

We are reliving the Vietnam War except that instead of slaughtering Buddhists we are now slaughtering Muslims.

BTW, the Christian fundamentalists supported the Vietnam War as vociferously as they do the Iraq War.

Nothing has changed except the faces of the dead and wounded!

[AP]

44. If nothing has changed, then a Yes vote on IWR isn't sin qua non of...

...a shameful career.

Wayne Morse and Ernest Gruening were the only two senators dissenting. In the Senate in 1964 were the following people:

BAYH, Birch Evans
BOGGS, Thomas Hale, Sr.
BYRD, Robert Carlyle
CHURCH, Frank Forrester
DODD, Thomas Joseph
ERVIN, Samuel James, Jr.
FULBRIGHT, James William
GORE, Albert Arnold
GRUENING, Ernest
HUMPHREY, Hubert Horatio, Jr.
INOUYE, Daniel Ken
KEFAUVER, Carey Estes
KENNEDY, Edward Moore
LONG, Russell Billiu
MANSFIELD, Michael Joseph (Mike)
McCARTHY, Eugene Joseph
McGOVERN, George Stanley
MONDALE, Walter Frederick
MUSKIE, Edmund Sixtus
PROXMIRE, William
RIBICOFF, Abraham Alexander
RUSSELL, Richard Brevard, Jr.
SALINGER, Pierre Emil George
STENNIS, John Cornelius
TALMADGE, Herman Eugene

So, you tell me. Was the Tonking Gulf Resolution the defining moment of these politicians' careers? Not even McCarthy dissented, and he ran as an anti-Vietnam candidate!!!!

Humphrey, Kennedy, McCarthy, McGovern, Mondale -- how many people refused to even consider them for President when they ran because of their vote on the TGR? And if they did, would that have made sense?

As for RFK, he may have had an opening vs LBJ becaue of Vietnam, but his campaign avoided the issue of Vietnam, which is why the students didn't support him. Now, anybody who thinks RFK would have lost had he been nominated needs to think about this. And you would also need to think about the fact that we did run an anti-war candidate who did lose.

[IndianaGreen]

52. Birch Bayh was among the early opponents of the Vietnam War

at a time when it was not popular to do so. Birch Bayh, no relation to Evan Bayh in terms of character, quickly became Nixon's nemesis in other issues such as Supreme Court appointments.

You make a valid case that using the Tonkin Gulf Resolution as a model, a "Yes" vote on IWR does not equate to a shameful career. There are some differences, though. The Administration's claims about WMD in Iraq were debunked in the British press and elsewhere as quickly as they were made. The truth about the "incident" involving the USS Maddox, which led to the Tonkin Gulf Resolution and the escalation of the Vietnam War, was kept secret for years. It wasn't until Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers that the American people realized the extent to which they had been lied to by the Johnson Administration.

Another significant difference is that once the truth about the US involvement in Vietnam became known, you didn't find too many people saying that they would have still voted for the Tonkin Gulf Resolution had they known then what they subsequently found out. How many politicians are still saying they would have voted for IWR despite the lies they were told by Bush & Co?

[AP]

58. Actually, the comparison probably is even more apt, considering the...

...fraudulent nature of the Gulf of Tonking incident.

According to the documentary Fog of War -- IIRC -- people in DC were very aware of the problem with the evidence immediately.

I think the situation was actually that the US WAS attacked by NV in the Gulf a few days earlier and was so unprepared to respond that it took two days before they were able to analyze the shrapnel and determine its source. When they realized what had happened, the fraudulent attack took place.

So the situation was they couldn't make a big fuss out of the first attack because it took so long to figure out what it was they would have looked absurd making a big deal about it, so the second "attack" gave them the chance to feign the outrage they would have stirred up if they were quicker to act the first time.

I would be very surprised if Democrats with connections to the WH and Senators on the foreign intelligence committee were totally aware of the whole charade when it happened. Certainly, the Fog of War didn't treat this like it was a big mystery that took years to figure out. Very low level people interviewed for the film knew exactly what was going on at the time.

As for people regretting their Gulf of Tonkin vote, the only time I've ever heard anyone regretting their vote on it was Robert Byrd over 30 years later, and Byrd is Democrat who swings back and forth between outrageous positions. He has stood in the way of as much good progressive legislation as he has made progressive statements about Republican behaviour. Regretting that vote was probably just his way to make sure liberals didn't hate him too much for getting in the way of health care reform (ie, if he had a more consistent liveral record, he wouldn't be apologizing for that vote).

If there was any hand-wringing about Gulf of Tonkin votes between 1970 and 1975 or since (other than Byrd), I'm not aware of it. I think most people were perfectly willing to separate the blame. A lot of very good Democrats may have given LBJ and Nixon authority, but sensible people realize that the buck stops on the president's desk when it comes to blaming the people who come up with the awful strategy for protecting the nation's safety.

I'm still amazed that so many people today would rather blame Democrats (by way of their votes on the IWR) than Bush for the conduct of the invasion (and Sadaam is actually a bad person, unlike the N. Vietnemese).

[AP]

48. I thought I might get a comment on my post above.

[DemDogs]

60. Vietnam without the youth opposition

Mostly in colleges the question is will there be a draft, not when will bring our troops home. Me, me, me. Sad.

[AP]

70. When Nixon ended the draft, the student's stopped carring about

the next election.

[ChiciB1]

32. DITTO, DITTO, DITTO!

Dissembling on the way! This too will end! I've always felt politics are somewhat cyclical and "We Shall Overcome!"

The Boy King Idiot is flaming OUT!

[DemDogs]

17. Three negative posts -- one author

All you are doing is kicking the post back to the top. Think about it.

[stray cat]

20. He has my support.

I think he is a true populist and I could definitely get behind his campaign. We need someone to speak for the people.

[John_H]

29. Who has a bigger base?Edwards or all Green candidates combined?

[ChiciB1]

31. By 2008... It Should Be Forgotten!

I just hope Elizabeth doesn't have a bad time of it and takes a turn for the worse!

She's a CLASS-ACT. Saw her on C-Span and she can really deliver a speech and she answered questions like a CHAMP! I was really impressed. Very Very intelligent and so engaging.

[high density]

36. Yeah, I was wondering what the hell his "political base" is as well.

Edwards is a lot of talk and has a great PR campaign behind him, but beyond that I'm not impressed with him.

[IndianaGreen]

40. Edwards needs to hold a political office, or else he will be relegated

to the role of a Lamar Alexander, a nice gimmick (the shirt in Lamar's case, the two Americas sound bite in Edwards's case).

[ultraist]

75. Edwards had more support during the primaries and for VP than...

any candidate aside from Kerry.

Did you miss all of the campaigning for Edwards for VP and all of the polls that had Edwards as #1 pick for VP?

Kerry didn't choose him because he had no base! LOL! Edwards' email list was HUGE and he turned it over to Kerry when he was chosen as VP. Edwards came in second in nearly every primary and won two primaries.

Granted, Dean did very well in the primaries early on and had a big grassroots base, but Dean is not looking to run in 08, he likely will get the Chair.

[Clark2008]

54. Hahahahaha!

Is Johnny gonna don plaid shirts? ;)

[DemDogs]

61. Read the article: Edwards will be working on poverty and work issues

Can't believe this comment comes from a Clark supporter, who served in the military (mixed record with high and low points), used that service to say he couldn't align with a political party (lots of Rs and Ds in the military IF it is important to them, came out of the service and the Republican dinner circuit, made money on the boards of companies, including one that sold our personal travel information and he didn't raise his voice (not working or not caring?) decided to be a Democrat, leaked his announcement on the day of Edwards' announcement, and bumbled his way out of the primaries.
We can take this silliness from Kerry people or Gephardt people; they earned the right to make the criticism. Not Clark people.

[Clark2008]

68. Your post proves to me you don't know a thing

about Clark.
And I'll make any comment I want about the son of a mill worker.
How 'bout I ask your boy Edwards why he hosted rallies at Serb Halls? The Serbs tried to assassinate Clark, for your information.
I'm sorry, petty little inaccuracies in your post are NOTHING compared with the slap Johnny boy tried to put out over Clark with those Serb Hall appareances.
Keep your comments to yourself if you don't understand the issues. Mmm-K?

[AP]

71. Are you talking about the Serb hall in Wisconsin where Clinton, Carter,

LBJ and JFK all appeared?

In May 1987, in order to accommodate increased business and the need for renovations, a 31,000 square foot addition became a part of Serb Hall. With the new additions, the complex now had a capacity to serve up to 2,000 persons with two beautiful air-conditioned halls, two lounges, a drive-up window, remodeled bowling alleys, new office facilities and a huge remodeled kitchen area, serving a complete menu for groups of all sizes. The entire Serb Hall was again renovated in late 1999.


Many, many important rallies have been held at Serb Hall and some of the famous persons who have visited an/or spoken there over the years include: John and Jackie Kennedy, Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Lyndon Johnson, Ronald and Nancy Reagan, George Bush, Bill Clinton, Dick Chaney, Hubert Humphrey, Edmund Muskie, George McGovern, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Jerry Kleczka, Governor Tommy Thompson, Mayor John Norquist, Mayor Henry Meier, Police Chief Harold Brier, Clement Zablocki, William O'Donnell and the list goes on. As one NBC producer covering one of the rallies so aptly put it, "Serb Hall has been a must stop for local, state and federal office seekers for many years."


American Serb Memorial Hall continues to serve extraordinary hospitality to the people of Greater Milwaukee.

http://www.serbhall.com/aboutus.asp

[AP]

82. Hello?

To paraphrase you, please keep your comments yourself if you're just hear to make up shit.

[AP]

83. "Many, many important rallies have been held at Serb Hall..."

[AP]

84. "and some of the famous persons who have visited and/or spoken there"

[AP]

86. "over the years include: John and Jackie Kennedy..."

[AP]

87. "Jimmy Carter..."

[AP]

88. "Lyndon Johnson"

[AP]

89. "Bill Clinton..."

Clinton Stamp of Approval on Edwards

...

“I do. I like the choice,” Clinton said. “I like him. And I like the fact that John Kerry made the choice deliberately—obviously thought about it and got himself comfortable with it.” The two-term Democratic president rebuffed concerns about Edwards’ not even six years Senate experience.

“First of all, John Edwards is an able, smart, hard working person who has rendered good service to the Senate and has done some good work on the Intelligence Committee, which I think is important because it’s one of the big issues that we’re all honestly grappling with now. It’s not a partisan issue; we’re all honestly grappling with how to get the intelligence capability we need to deal with terrorism and the other security challenges of the 21st Century.

“I think it’s good because he’ll add a lot of energy to the campaign. I think he’ll help us in some parts of the South and the border states, in the Midwest. I would expect it to be a boost in North Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, maybe Louisiana, southern Ohio. I think it’ll help in a lot of places.”


Clinton on Analysis: Edwards Good for the Ticket

...

Of Edwards, Clinton used a phrase he has placed upon his own memoirs, which Americans are plodding through right now. “He’s got a very compelling life story, not only his own personal life story {the son of a millworker becoming a multimillionaire lawyer}, but the loss {of a son in a car accident in 1996} he and his wife suffered. I remember he was in the White House with his son…about two weeks before it happened.

...

http://www.evote.com/index.asp?Page=/features_section/2004-07/07092004election2004.asp

[Nederland]

74. Nonsense

Voting for IWR didn't prevent JFK from winning the nomination, and if anything that vote will be a lot less relevant in 2008.

[janx]

4. Good for him!

:toast:

We need to be hearing more of this and less of the opinion that people need to be more like the Republicans.

[moggie12]

6. Good going John -- I still think he might've won in '04 n/t

[pscot]

10. I caan't say who I'll be voting for in '08

but if Edwards can carry the message forward in the meantime, more power to him.

[Sparkly]

12. I completely agree with him that poverty is a moral issue

And I was glad to read that he's "planning to set up a center to study ways to alleviate poverty..." That's excellent. :thumbsup:

[cali]

14. I agree

I totally respect that Edwards speaks up consistently about poverty. He's one of the very few pols doing so.

[rodeodance]

15. and health care, and housing, and and and ...are moral issues

[Kilkenny5]

22. I'd vote for him

I'd vote for him over Hillary or Clark.

[Wiley50]

24. I love what edwards says and I like him alot, But

I also know, for sure, that he was an invited guest at last years Bilderburg Conference.
So I'm just not sure about him for that reason. The elites have taken to creating astroturf populists. Look at shrub.
I'd sure like to believe he's the real deal.

[sandnsea]

26. Return of the working class

It's true if the lower income groups had voted, Kerry would be President. It's a low turn-out group. But it's also true nobody has been speaking to them or for them in at least 40 years. Edwards says alot of right things in this article, without being devisive. That's what I always liked about him. Look forward to his speech and new poverty center. I hope he differentiates between working class and poor though, because the group he's talking about doesn't care about the poor at all, if they aren't working.

[DesEtoiles]

28. We can win with Edwards

the rednecks like that he is a self-made man

[IndianaGreen]

42. Wes Clark can run circles around Edwards

and he is not a lawyer!

[Clark2008]

55. And Clark would bring home a red state or two

We know from experience that Edwards didn't.

[IndianaGreen]

57. Never put on the ticket someone that cannot win their own state

Edwards supporters are conveniently forgetting that one of the reasons they lobbied for Edwards as Kerry's running mate was that Edwards was expected to make the South competitive and perhaps bring in a red state or two. Both expectations failed to materialize.

Wes Clark will be a stronger candidate in 2008 than Kerry, Edwards, and Hillary.

[AP]

67. Kerry didn't change his "you can win without the south" strategy after

picking Edwards.

They campaigned a few times in Missouri, but that was pretty much it. They spent the rest of their time in Wisconsin, Michigan, andn Ohio, and Edwards did help win those states (except for OH).

[ultraist]

77. Not true!

The Kerry campaign didn't do shit in the South to try to swing it. I volunteered in NC and saw first hand how little they did.

The Kerry campaign wrote off the South early on, that's a well known fact. Why do you think Dean is talking about campaigning in the South and NOT writing it off again? Because it HAS been written off.

Blaming Edwards for Kerry's loss makes no sense. The Kerry campaign made a big strategic mistake by writing off the South. I doubt this will happen in 08. It wont happen if Dean gets the Chair.

Dean endorsed Edwards after he dropped out of the primaries because he understands how important it is to have a candidate that can connect with regular people and speak to the heart of the Democratic party core values. That's Dean's plan, that's Edwards' plan.

[ultraist]

76. What red states did Clark win in the primaries?

Edwards won NC and SC. Blaming Edwards for the fact that the Kerry campaign didn't spend any money to speak of in the Red states and that people don't vote for VP, is absurd.

[faithfulcitizen]

85. uh....OK?

[PurityOfEssence]

72. Clark is a corporatist, and your fear of lawyers is ridiculous

People are nowhere near as filled with disgust for lawyers as you've been suckered into believing. Many consider them the last champions of the downtrodden.

Your stance of disregarding negatives is shockingly violated by your fear of not being loved by siding with a lawyer. Lest you forget, too, Edwards' advocacies are consistently of siding with the weak and deserving against the strong and brutal.

Clark has many good things going for him, but on the very simple calculus of electability, he's whupped six ways from Sunday by John Edwards: it's a media world, and Clark comes of as halting, bewildered and uncertain. The wounds of last year's tussles heal over time, but reality is reality, and this is an age of TV campaigning: they're both pretty, but Edwards is comfortable, down-to-earth and focused on the economic fairness issues. He was this way from the beginning, whereas Clark ran a foreign policy campaign.

You hate the war vote. I hate it too. It was ginned up right before an election ('02) with the whipped-up frenzied fear from 9-11 to force it through. What Kerry and Edwards were told privately was NOT the same information that Junior had, and that leaves the former two in a very odd position: say that they're suckers and thus unworthy to lead, call the big daddy president a liar, or walk the middle ground. Clark counseled at least one Representative to vote for the resolution (which, incidentally PROMISED that all avenues of negotiation would be exhausted) and Dean was very cagy on the subject before the vote too. It's one thing to SAY how you'd have voted, quite another to stand to account. If anyone deserves praise, it's Kucinich, and you'll note that his best friend of the primary contenders is Edwards.

For sheer political oomph, Edwards has it over Clark hands down. Edwards also never sucked the dick of corporate power, praised the Administration or used political pull as a corporatist to try to help give personal information of individuals to the encroaching entities within the Pentagon.

It goes back to the early arguments during the primary: it's easy to say what you would have done when sandbagged with a highly charged vote based on hysterical information that hid the qualifications, but it's an entirely different thing what one did when called to account.

Now, to open old wounds: Clark lied about Edwards' and Kerry's votes on tax cuts. For Edwards, it was an act of extreme bravery to continually fight against them and vote them down, since he came from a rather red state; coming from Massachusetts, it wasn't such a stance for Kerry, but admirable nonetheless. Yet even though it was months after Dean had attacked the four Senators (who had ALL voted against the tax cuts), Clark repeated the lie over and over in Tennessee to win, and when confronted by Edwards about it, hid from responding and then released a vicious falsehood that Edwards had voted 76% of the time with the Republicans. Character matters.

ANYONE running from the left in this corporate dominated media had better have his/her snoot clean, and Edwards easily wins the prize for making the least mistakes. That matters.

The childish idea that "we will win" and rub "their" noses in it is silly; it's just as silly for us as it is for the reactionaries. The country is so evenly divided that people will have to make more than just a show of a conciliation with the other side of the aisle. This is where Edwards wins handily: he's a backwoods homespun Methodist, and many of the right can allow themselves to be seen dealing with him, whereas they can't with a Kerry or even a Dean.

[ultraist]

78. Excellent points! Edwards was a people's advocate attorney!

He represented regular people who had been screwed by big corps and doctors.

That's why NADER endorsed him during the primaries because he was and is an advocate for "the people."

Edwards was regarded as "The People's Senator."

[ChiciB1]

30. Yeah, Go Johnny, Go!

I saw him at a Rally in St. Pete, FL about 2 weeks before the election and he was SUPERB!! And yes, WHAT A LOOKER!

I got to shake his hand and was really enchanted. He can really fire up a crowd and it was a FANTASTIC RALLY!

I loved it, and all the while the speakers were booming GO, JOHNNY, GO! as he left across the Bay! I was "high" for hours and hours!

[dolstein]

33. I still think we should have nominated Edwards

I voted for Edwards in the primaries. Edwards, unlike Kerry, actually had a vision of America that he could communicate to regular folks. Edwards, unlike Kerry, had the potential to be competitive in a handful of Southern states. Edwards, unlike Kerry, came from a modest background, like our last three Democratic presidents (Clinton, Carter and LBJ). Edwards, unlike Kerry, was actually personable and likable. But hey, Kerry served in Vietnam - doh!

[AP]

34. Although I supported JRE, I was reluctant to draw that conclusion...until

I reread the deliberative poll. If you look at the numbers, you can see the difference that Dems needed to beat Bush.

A national experiment in citizen deliberation took place on line with scientific random samples from Jan 19 until February 26, 2004. 266 eligible voters deliberated online about the candidates and the issues in the presidential primary season. Their views were compared to two "control groups," scientific random samples who did not deliberate but answered the same questions. These control groups numbered 346 and 546. Altogether more than 1158 eligible voters participated in this experiment which will continue until the general election this fall.

...


In contrast to conventional polls and the primaries to date, where Kerry has maintained a wide lead over Edwards, our participants came to like Edwards as well or better. After deliberating, on a "feeling thermometer" (scored from 0 to 100) they rated Kerry at just over 55 degrees and Edwards at just over 56. On another set of questions asking how well the traits “sincere,” “intelligent” and “thinks like I do” describe each candidate (a scale also scored from 0 to 100), Edwards was perceived significantly more positively than Kerry, averaging 66 versus 61.


Edwards' strength vis-à-vis Kerry appears to stem from a greater appeal to Republicans and Independents. Post-deliberation, our Republican participants rated Kerry's traits at about 43 (somewhat to the negative side of the neutral point of 50) but Edwards' at 57, a statistically significant difference. Our Independent participants rated Kerry at 61 but Edwards at 66, a close to statistically significant difference. (Our Democratic participants rated the two about the same.) Among both Republicans and independents, these ratings are significantly more positive among the participants than in the control group for Edwards but not Kerry, indicating that deliberation increased Edwards' advantage.


Furthermore, in a hypothetical November matchup against President Bush, Edwards fared significantly better than Kerry. While Kerry and Bush were tied at 47%, roughly a quarter of the participants favoring Bush in that matchup said they would be undecided or would prefer Edwards if the choice were instead between Bush and Edwards. In all, 48% said they would vote for Edwards and only 37% for Bush, if Edwards were the Democratic nominee. The contrast with the control group, which showed a similar but significantly weaker pattern, was highly significant statistically (26% of Bush supporters defected in the experimental group while only 12% defected in the control group). These results suggest a strong appeal of Edwards among Independents and Republicans.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/btp/march04-poll.html

[DemDogs]

62. Persuasive reasons. Thanks. (n/t)

"... in a hypothetical November matchup against President Bush, Edwards fared significantly better than Kerry. While Kerry and Bush were tied at 47%, roughly a quarter of the participants favoring Bush in that matchup said they would be undecided or would prefer Edwards if the choice were instead between Bush and Edwards. In all, 48% said they would vote for Edwards and only 37% for Bush, if Edwards were the Democratic nominee."

Hard to argue with that.

As for all the Edwards couldn't win his own state, he wasn't at the top of the ticket and the campaign didn't advertise in the state. Not because Edwards wasn't popular, but because Kerry wasn't.

[DemDogs]

63. Persuasive reasons. Thanks. (n/t)

"... in a hypothetical November matchup against President Bush, Edwards fared significantly better than Kerry. While Kerry and Bush were tied at 47%, roughly a quarter of the participants favoring Bush in that matchup said they would be undecided or would prefer Edwards if the choice were instead between Bush and Edwards. In all, 48% said they would vote for Edwards and only 37% for Bush, if Edwards were the Democratic nominee."

Hard to argue with that.

As for all the Edwards couldn't win his own state, he wasn't at the top of the ticket and the campaign didn't advertise in the state. Not because Edwards wasn't popular, but because Kerry wasn't.

[pdxmike]

35. Let's not eat our own

I'm a Deaniac who hates the IWR as much as anyone. But come on people! We need speakers like Edwards who are truly gifted and can inspire the average shmo. Would I prefer that he had voted against the IWR? Sure. At this point, I bet he wishes that as well. But that didn't happen. Let's move on. People like Edwards, Clark, Boxer and Obama(yes, even with his Rice vote...aaargh!!) are/should be the face of the party. With Dean at the helm of the DNC, I could be actually optimistic about our party.

fingers crossed.

[shance]

37. Absolutely Mike. The Edwards are terrific people and have brought

so much new energy and enthusiasm into the party and into politics.

We have many wonderful individuals in the Party who care deeply about our country and what is happening right now. They are certainly two of them.

[mattclearing]

38. Wow. That's awesome.

That's the kind of talk I want to hear. Republicans are morally bankrupt when it comes down to it.

Resurrecting the war on poverty is a great move, and there's little political downside, because Edwards has nothing (no office, no legislative initiatives to protect, etc) to lose.

[cbear70]

43. go Edwards!! n/t

[quinnox]

41. 2008 is looking more like a replay of 2004 every day

John Kerry, John Edwards, Wes Clark, all might be on the ballot again!
But of course the heavyweight Hillary Clinton might also be an addition to this mix in 2008.

[ProgressiveDepot.com]

45. I like John Edwards, Question is...

how does a guy who doesn't have a lot of political experience in office (not just campaigning) and who has given up the office he had, continue to be relevant for the next four years. Is his run in 2004 enough to make him legitimate again 4 years from now? I admire his convictions, but, hindsight being 20/20, pulling a Joe Lieberman would have been the better choice for him so he would remain in the Senate and his name would be out there more often over the next four years. (Not that it helped Lieberman, but that's a whole different issue.) Of course he could have lost both his Senate seat and the presidential race and his political career would be over for sure, but I'm sure he would have won.

[AP]

47. Perhaps Edwards thinks poverty is going to be a very relevant issue in 08?

Lincoln's Federal experience was limited to one 2-year term in the House ten years before losing a Senate race in '58 (one which was marked by Lincoln's oratorical skills). Lincoln then spent two years travelling the country talking about slavery, which he thought was the most important issue of the day. In 1860 he won the election. OK, he won it for two reasons: he was talking about issues that were relevant to people, and because he had the support of the railroad industry.

Nonetheless, so long as Edwards is talking about issues that help people to make sense of what is happening in their lives over the next two to three years, I don't think voters are going to care that he's not in elected office.

Who doesn't think Clark is going to make a credible run for office? He's basically just going to be serving on boards of directors and talking and writing about the war.

[Larkspur]

46. Sounds like Edwards is finally getting what Dean has been saying all along

[DemDogs]

49. What? Read the Dionne piece again

This was what Edwards was saying during the primaries. Dean never talked about poverty and the moral implications. Edwards ALWAYS did. At the very least it was the core of his stump speech.

I am not spitting on Dean. But you all have to get some perspective.

[AP]

50. In fact, Dean didn't think that some of the tax burden needed to shift off

of working people an on to top incomes. He said that the US was in too deep of a hole for the middle class to expect not to keep paying taxes at the level they're paying.

On the other hand, Edwards was saying that people who work for a living need the tax break -- needed to have the tax burden lifted a little and shifted -- so that they could work more efficiently to pull the economy out of the hole.

I think it revealed a very fundamental difference in how Dean and Edwards saw class issues.

[DemDogs]

51. Edwards gave first wealth vs work speech

Edwards said he would make the tax cuts permanent for those under $200,000, but wouldn't lower them further. Edwards found additional revenues for the government to make up for making those permanent. Dean said he would roll back the whole income tax cut for everyone.

In most other respects they were on the same page. Edwards gave a wealth vs. work speech at Georgetown and about six months later Dean gave almost the exact speech at ... you guessed it, Georgetown. In the end, they agree on being more fiscally disciplined, which is the important thing.

[Eloriel]

64. And your version of the "facts" reveals a very fundamental difference

between your take (fantasy) and reality. Your version is spin, pure and simple -- not an accurate characterization of Dean's position at all. This is, of course, nothing new for you. Further, you are conflating two separate issues (more about that in a minute).

Dean continues to speak frequently and passionately about the growing gap between rich and poor, about the unfairness and just plain WRONG-ness of Bush's tax cuts benefitting primarily the wealthy. He cites the Gay 90s, the "Gilded Age" as the historical equivalent of where we are now, an age which eventually led to the Roaring 20s and the Great Depression.

He said that the US was in too deep of a hole for the middle class to expect not to keep paying taxes at the level they're paying.

One thing you may forget, or perhaps never knew. Americans did NOT particularly want a tax cut. In all the polls prior to Bush's tax cut, when given the chance Americans overwhelningly preferred the surplus be used for such things as social spending, paying down the national debt, and saving for a rainy day over getting a tax cut. IOW: Americans do NOT believe they're overtaxed. (WHy do you?)

Second, what Dean was talking about was completely different from what you say Edwards is talking about. Dean was talking about the enormous, crippling, literally nation-destroying debt. Trillions of dollars in debt. According to you, Edwards wasn't talking about that (which IMO is irresponsible if he doesn't want to address it), but the economy:

On the other hand, Edwards was saying that people who work for a living need the tax break

and I consider that pandering - pandering to the poor as well as the GOP. Why not tell Americans the truth -- that they don't believe they're overtaxed and prefer social spending and fiscal responsibility and that everyone is going to have to participate in getting fiscal responsibility restored?

On the other hand, Edwards was saying that people who work for a living need the tax break -- needed to have the tax burden lifted a little and shifted -- so that they could work more efficiently to pull the economy out of the hole.

Again, that's an entirely different matter than the debt/deficit. I'm sure it's a good idea, but it's NOT mutually exclusive with fiscal responsibility.

You also need to remember (tho I'm sure it would be too much to ask for you to actually give Dean props on such a matter), Dean is a deficit hawk AND fiscal responsibility is a top priority for him (nor would he ever let pandering draw him off the mark). HIS TRACK RECORD is to install fiscal responsiblity in order to be able to implement social spending.

It's not a class issue for Dean. You can TRY to make allegations that Dean is an elitist, but it really doesn't work -- not unless an "elitist" to you is anyone who isn't the son/daughter of a mill worker. That would include me -- and altho I grew up the daughter of the equivalent of a mill worker, I don't define of think of myself that way 24/7. Dean WAS born into a family of wealth -- and spent all of his adult years starting at college (if not before) getting way, way beyond that. I think it's pretty unattractive of you who seem to care so much about issues of class not to get that about him. Neither Edwards nor the issue are served by your unwillingness to do so.

[AP]

66. You're not even disputing my characterization of Dean's position.

You're just saying that pollign showed that the middle class didn't want their burden relative to the wealthy reduced.

Regardless of what polling showed, it's the relative tax burdens between the middle class and wealthy that has a huge impact on the disappearance of the middle class. You say that Edwards was pandering by having an argument that reflected that theory. I say that he had a better sense of what's going on in America than Dean.

You're personal insults notwithstanding, you're post is excellent evidence of what I was saying in my previous post.

Dean and Dean supporters just had no appreciation of how the allocation of the tax burden actually influences the productivity of the economy and therefore the size of the deficit. If you can't have money to put your kids in good schools, how are they going to get enough education and opportunity to maximize the value of their labor?

Overburdening the middle class relative to wealthy people is not the way out of the US's economic problems. This was the central theme of Edwards's candidacy. The logic is plain as day to me. I'm not surprised that a Dean supporter doesn't see it. But come on. Reread my post and then reread yours. You're proving my argument.

This isn't about elitism. It's about economic theory and I guess to a degree it is about class.

[AP]

69. And, incidentally, you accuse me of spinning and ignoring facts, yet...

...in the same post you write:

"you are conflating two separate issues (more about that in a minute)" and " According to you, Edwards wasn't talking about {the debt} (which IMO is irresponsible if he doesn't want to address it)"

and then you say in response to my statement, "On the other hand, Edwards was saying that people who work for a living need the tax break -- needed to have the tax burden lifted a little and shifted -- so that they could work more efficiently to pull the economy out of the hole"

you say:

"Again, that's an entirely different matter than the debt/deficit. I'm sure it's a good idea, but it's NOT mutually exclusive with fiscal responsibility."

Edwards is talking about reducing the debt by making the middle class more productive.

Look, we tax earned income at twice the rate we tax unearned income for America's most economically productive citizens. Edwards wanted to shift the tax burden off of work so that people who work could work even more efficiently in order to make the economy work better.

It's IS the same issue. It's not an entirely different matter. Dean not seeing the class differences between working for a living and living off of unearned income was a major blindspot for him. It was a major problem with his candidacy.

[Capn Sunshine]

56. One more in the army

no matter who said what first, we need a little emotion and passion of a positive nature, and Howard Dean and John Edwards both provide this in spades.

[ultraist]

79. Did you ever hear Edwards primary stump speech: Two America's?

Poverty was the centerpiece of Edwards' main platform during the primaries.

Dean is now talking about how we need to return to our core values and he is correct. Edwards has been saying this since the primaries. They both are on the same page and that's a GOOD THING. NO MORE REPUKE LITE, but a return to our traditional Democrat values.

It really doesn't matter that Edwards said this first, the important thing is that we have a coalition building on what needs to be done to restore our party to what it once was.

[Pallas180]

90. "return to what it once was" YESSSSS!!! If Edwards or Dean had

ben the candidates, there would be a democratic prez now.

Kerry held Edwards back and as a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure
Kerry betrayed Edwards and screwed him over.

I worked Edwards' speeches and saw him up close.

He's sincere, charismatic, and a powerhouse besides coming across as
a very decent person.

[no name no slogan]

59. Glad to hear Edwards talk about this. Kucinich needs the company

Of course, I could also point out that Dennis Kucinich was making this a major theme of his '04 campaign. For example, his "weapons of mass destruction" speech:

We have weapons of mass destruction we have to address here at home. Poverty is a weapon of mass destruction. Homelessness is a weapon of mass destruction. Unemployment is a weapon of mass destruction.

He used this statement many times during the campaign. Of course, you wouldn't have known it watching the MSM.

The more voices we have, making poverty the moral issue that it truly is, the better.

[ultraist]

80. Dennis will never be a viable Presidential candidate

This is about a prospective presidential candidate. I adore Dennis and he is a true liberal. He happened to favor Edwards over Kerry and I think it was because Edwards focused on core Democratic values like poverty whereas Kerry didn't.

It's absurd to pit Dean against Edwards when Dean endorsed Edwards during the primaries. BOTH Dean and Edwards are saying the same thing: Return to our core values and DON'T write off the South.

[ThorsHammer]

65. I like his last paragraph, and think it could work

I don't think that a Democrat is going to win the 'moral values' vote by being GOP-lite on things like gay marriage, abortion, etc. However, if he can redefine the issue to get poverty and opportunity for all as the moral issues, I think he can win. There are always going to be many more little guys (those not in the top 5% of wealth) that the Democrats can appeal to with the right message.