John Edwards turns on his fellow Democrats (Salon)

[TwilightGardener]

By Michael Scherer

Aug. 30, 2007 | WASHINGTON -- Last week in Hanover, N.H., John Edwards shot off a rhetorical signal flare. "I want to go one step further," he said. Something new was coming. This wasn't going to be just another stump speech about the "Two Americas" -- one for the rich and one for everyone else. He was about to attack his own party, the Democratic Party, which he likes to call "the party of the people."

"The choice for our party could not be any clearer," he continued. "We cannot replace a group of corporate Republicans with a group of corporate Democrats, just swapping the Washington insiders of one party for the Washington insiders of the other."

Of course, he never named the fellow travelers targeted by his broadside. But he left plenty of clues, given Hillary Clinton's time in the White House and Barack Obama's record fundraising. "The American people deserve to know that their presidency is not for sale," he said, "the Lincoln Bedroom is not for rent, and lobbyist money can no longer influence policy in the House and the Senate."

Of course, he never named the fellow travelers targeted by his broadside. But he left plenty of clues, given Hillary Clinton's time in the White House and Barack Obama's record fundraising. "The American people deserve to know that their presidency is not for sale," he said, "the Lincoln Bedroom is not for rent, and lobbyist money can no longer influence policy in the House and the Senate."

In one way, the onslaught was not surprising. In the ecosystem of the Democratic primary, Edwards is both the liberal lion and the populist prairie dog. He loves bashing corporations and their big wallets, and he often blames lobbyists for the nation's ills. It's a tried and true posture. He won his first Senate race in 1998 as the self-branded "People's Senator," running numerous ads that tied the incumbent Republican to "PACs and Washington lobbyists." He won a slot on the Democratic ticket in 2004 by promising to blur the dividing line between the haves and the have-nots.

But this summer, as he has struggled to gain traction in the polls in the early primary and caucus states, Edwards has taken a new turn. For the first time in his career, he is running for office by criticizing segments of the Democratic Party, the institution he has long held up as the only hope for restoring economic justice in America. In particular, he has tried to paint Democrats who continue to accept money from corporate lobbyists or political committees as part of the problem, not the solution.

--snip--
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/08/30/edwards/

[Rodanthe]

1. Lemme ask you a question, if I might.

How do you win if you don't separate yourself from the pack and if you don't turn on your competitors?

[Trajan]

3. There have been Democrats turning AGAINST Democrats ....

Here at DU for about 15 months now ....

It's been pretty damned ugly .....

[Rodanthe]

4. How did your post

answer my question?

[Trajan]

5. One of the rules that DOESNT exist at DU ....

All post replies must directly answer questions posed by poster who posted post ....

Nope .... nowhere does it say that ....

Go look for yourself ..... ain't there ...

[Rodanthe]

7. okay, so rather than answer my post,

you'd rather spam the thread with irrelvent shit. Got it. Thanks for playing.

[Trajan]

9. You wasnt asking me a question .....

You were asking the OP ...... I am NOT that person ......

DU is full of posts like mine .... commentaries and rhetoric ...... get used to it ...... grow a skin, bud ....

I see you are new, and hence unfamiliar with this territory ...... I can see you leaving soon .....

Just a hunch ....

[Rodanthe]

12. heh. Shirley you jest.

My skin is thick as rawhide and you have no clue........I'm not leaving anytime soon.....your hunch is....uh....WRONG....You don't know me from Adam so don't pretend like you do. If you came here looking to pick on a n00b, you picked the wrong one. But, good luck trying to break me.

[Trajan]

14. Pfffffffft ......

I'm already under your skin, little one .....

If you had a skin, you wouldn't have responded as you did .....

QED ....

[Rodanthe]

15. Keep telling yourself that your important to me if that helps you sleep

at night.

Again, don't misunderestimate me. Although I am kinda slightly amused in a really kinky sorta way with people who self aggrandize their importance on a message board. But, I also tend to think that those kind of people have nothing going on in real life. You aren't one of those people, now are you?

[Trajan]

16. Yes I am ......

Please tell me more .....

Cmon ......

[Rodanthe]

17. What do you want to know, oh person with HUGE

sig line pic?

[Adelante]

21. Oh person with disabled profile calls out person on

sig line pic

Welcome to DU :hi:

[Rodanthe]

23. What's a disabled profile?

And what does it have to do with sig line pics?

And thanks for the welcome. :)

[TwilightGardener]

6. I didn't write the headline, I just bring the article and back away!

[Rodanthe]

8. why?

why would you post an article you can't defend/debate?

[TwilightGardener]

10. I offer it for reading/discussion. I am not an Edwards supporter, but

I don't dislike him either--I don't think he did anything wrong, myself, but I thought others might find Scherer's take on him thought-provoking.

[Rodanthe]

13. well, doesn't that make for an interesting discussion?

:eyes:

[Trajan]

2. Classic Fallacy of Accent ....

Edwards turns on his fellow Democrats ....

Edwards turns on his fellow Democrats ....

OK ..... I admit: Im a fellow Democrat ..... and I am turned on .....

He has one SEXY idea of two Americas ......

[robinlynne]

11. because dems who accept money from corporations ARE part of the problem.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

18. Hillary and the corporate Carville crew turned on this party long ago

when they listened to Dick Morris and adopted triangulation, screwing over labor, turning off the base, losing Congress the governorships and statehouses and dooming us to 6 years of one-party rule by the GOP
The Clintons made a lot of Bush's actions possible. The war on the middle class couldn't have happened without NAFTA, GATT, WTO and trade with China.

[1932]

19. Here's Edwards's dilemma as I see it. As more primaries are clustered early

money is going to matter much much more than it did in 2004.

So, as we learn that more primaries are moving forward, Edwards needs to do two things: he needs to stake out territory that's clearly different from his well-financed opponents, and it would help if that territory also undermines the money advantage they have.

He actually seems to be doing that well with his criticism of lobbyists. I think that resonates well with voters, it is coherent in that it integrates well with his other themes, it explains why he has less money right now, and it sets him apart from the pack.

[Bluebear]

20. 'We cannot replace a group of corporate Republicans with a group of corporate Democrats'

You said it.

[Adelante]

22. The truth about corporate bundling

would be something to hear. It's no different than taking money from lobbyists or PACs except the money is coming in through the back door and nobody's gotta know nothing about it. As Mike Gravel says, "Follow the money" - if only we could.