The Media Begins To Explore Edwards

[KittyWampus]

Let each DU'er take note of the sources. IMO, there seems to be a glint of Truth in what is written here. After hearing Edwards on CSPAN in the weekend before NH, I was appalled at the lack of depth his answers displayed. He does put on a terrific show. I can see how he won his cases as a lawyer. He actually reminds me a bit of Sharpton in this regard.


http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/cline200401301220.asp
MANCHESTER, N.H. -- 10. The John Edwards Monotony. Hear one John Edwards campaign speech and you've heard them all. Literally. He has only one speech. And he gives it again and again and again. By Monday night his pool reporters would gladly have traded places with Guantanamo Bay prisoners. At least you get to hear five different prayers each day. Two reporters who sat behind me at one Edwards event spent the whole speech cursing at him. It is rumored that some reporters can recite the entire oratory by heart. One fellow journalist told me that Edwards's locutions had begun to enter his everyday speech. "Here's the truth -- that's just wrong!" would involuntarily pop out of his mouth. If Edwards makes it to California, expect whole regiments of political reporters to request reassignment to the obituary pages.

..........................................................................................................................................................................................

Here's Business Week Online:

http://tinyurl.com/278qp

It's a line that always gets an appreciative laugh. "The people of New Hampshire are very blunt," North Carolina Senator John Edwards (news - web sites) says at every campaign stop in the Granite State. "They will tell you what's on their minds." Flinty New Englanders love it. But I wonder if New Hampshire voters would be amused if they knew that the candidate used the same line in Iowa. "The people of Iowa are very blunt," he said, invariably to audience chuckles. We'll soon see if South Carolina voters are very blunt.

[DemNoir]

1. Having watched a lot of CSPAN

I can tell you that every candidate gives the exact same stump speech every time. But, the "the people of x are very blunt" did bother me some,it was obvious pandering.

[billyf65]

2. Oh, National Review...

Once again, mouthpieces of the right are beating up John Edwards.

It is pretty obvious that this info is being spoon fed to these guys by the white house (or another candidate, perhaps one that also needs a southern win or two in order to keep soldiering on to The General election).

I mean, come on - it's called a stump speech. A widely known anecdote holds that reporters following RFK's campaign bolted toward the bus when the "some men see things as they are..." quote was unearthed. Bridges to the 21st century, M squared E squared, lock box, you have the power, bring it on...

For crying out loud, the campaign put out a 65-page book of policy proposals to combat the "mile-wide, inch-deep" smears that were certain to come with someone who looks so young and who would make Bush look so inadequate.

Stay on message, avoid gaffes and win. Face it - everyone has to grow into the job of being President.

The Right is quite fond of the "Breck Girl" defense. I guess I didn't expect other Democrats to buy it too.

[genius]

3. I'm from California and I like Edwards even though I'm voting for Dennis.

I even booed Edwards once but he is great on civil rights and labor issues and would probably have an easy time beating Bush.

[uconnyc]

4. IT'S CALLED STAYING ON MESSAGE!!!!!!!!

POLITICS 101!!!!!

Most voters aren't junkies like us. In a place like NH they usually go see a candidate once in person and perhaps watch a debate or two. They ain't watching C-SPAN 24 hours a day or going from 1 JRE rally to another.

Too many idiots in the media.

[faithfulcitizen]

5. Edwards blew the debate...

in a big way. Most of his answers were all over the place, not answering the question, changing the subject, and some just did not make any sense...

When asked about gay marriage, why did he start talking about immigration? truly weird...

the moderate independent provides a good analysis and excerpts from the debate:
http://www.moderateindependent.com/v2i2scdebate.htm

[PurityOfEssence]

7. I absolutely disagree

He went off on an aside, but quickly came right back to gay rights and ticked off a list of very important issues on the subject. That was an amazingly packed and effective short response.

[PurityOfEssence]

6. The monarchists are more scared of him than anyone else

Regardless what one thinks of him, they are terrified of him.

Kerry is dry, and can be painted as an aloof Northeast intellectual, which is almost a deathblow in American politics. He's got lots of votes that can hurt him, and he's lacking some pizzaz, to say the least. (I do like him, though, and he can win too, just not as handily.) Americans HATE intellectuals (similarly to their ickiness about the French) and it's undeniable. Although Clark and Edwards are--as far as I can tell--considerably smarter, Kerry is the one who will be tagged with that epithet. (No knocks against Kerry's circuitry; he's a VERY smart guy, too, it's just that Edwards and Clark are real whizzes.)

Clark did fairly well last night, but he's got his own baggage too. Having praised the administration as much as he did, and being more than a bit of a corporatist, he could lose/turn off some of the left. He's also seriously lacking in the presentation column, although he's improved greatly. The problem is that he can make and has made serious missteps, and he's a bit of a cipher. The Republicans can easily paint it all as typical Democratic self-hatred: we couldn't even find one of our brothers to rally behind, so we had to recruit someone.

I don't want to pick on the Dean people in their moment of frustration, but he's got many negatives and I don't think the positives can come close to overriding them.

Edwards is very appealing accross the board, and now that Iowa erased the "unelectable" concept, his prime hurdle is the perception of experience. When it's shown what he's accomplished in less than a full term as a Senator, and when his platform is dissected--it's all there to be looked at--he will rise in the estimation of many. He's got serious crossover appeal, and won't lose the left. The guy's also got serious star-quality presence, and it's not just looks. Both Clinton and Carville have noticed this, and one would be wise to listen to them.

Come on guys...

He's got a real heart, and he knows how to connect. He could be a true statesman for the ages.