The Edwards Makeover - TNR on why he's got the MOST substance

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=1PG8xUv1nktTTzJc7riDTX%3D%3D

f you believe the mythology surrounding John Edwards, this should be the moment where he makes someone cry. About 100 people have come to Greeley Park on a cloudy Sunday to listen to the North Carolina senator, and an elderly, hunched-over man named Donald High, who has trouble walking, has risen to ask Edwards a question.

A similar visit to a New Hampshire belt factory back in February became legendary among the senator's aides when workers were left practically weeping. So, when High asks what Edwards will do about the fact that "people are getting laid off in this country by the thousands" while "there are still all these imports coming in destroying the quality of the goods in this country," I'm not the only one expecting a response of Clintonian empathy from the famously smooth ex-trial lawyer. Instead, Edwards launches into a detailed riff about tax incentives. He goes on at length about how we can replace the jobs that have already left with "economic revitalization zones" and a new "national venture capital fund," both of which would help attract entrepreneurs and businesses to hard-hit areas of the country. John Edwards--the guy with the pretty face and light resume who was expected to compensate for his lack of policy acumen with a compelling biography and an uncanny ability to connect with voters--has become a wonk.

Edwards spent the first half of the year largely focused on raising money, and he now barely tops Carol Moseley Braun in most polls. But, for months, his advisers have cautioned that it is all part of the plan. "We've been operating under this quaint theory that the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary take place in January, and we've calibrated our strategy accordingly," says David Axelrod, one of Edwards's top advisers. The town-hall-style meeting in Nashua is just one in a long series of late summer stops in Iowa and New Hampshire to finally introduce the senator to the voters. But, while this tour has long been anticipated, what wasn't foreseen was the metamorphosis that has accompanied it. Whereas the old Edwards often replied to queries with Southern-accented platitudes, the new Edwards spews statistics and answers voters' questions with a sometimes overwhelming arsenal of specific proposals. Indeed, while the media have focused on the improbable success of Howard Dean, over the last few months Edwards has developed perhaps the most detailed and coherent domestic agenda of any of the Democratic candidates..................

-----------------------------------------------------

Even though he may not be the flavor of the month, I'v noticed some pretty 'with-it' left-leaning media that I think is subtely or outright supporting Edwards. TNR, Bill Saletan, he's the only candidate that the daily show doesn't diss, everyone needs to really take in his problem-solving platform combined with his dominance of electoral and demographic, and natural appeal, and it's practically a no-brainer.

More people will see it as he gets out face to face with voters. He is exceptional.

probably hard because his campaign isn't based on wishful thinking

Oh well, at least someone else's with me here.

Yes, he's certainly an extraordinary guy, all right. Unfortunately, the Deanies are almost a religion now. (Hey, he's a good man, too...)

It's all too early to tell.

It does seem like the media's just trying to totally ignore him, though.

The I-absolutely-must-be-right-at-all-costs-and-"my"-candidate-is-the-best types do wear one down after a bit.

We should honorably try and assess who they are, who we like the best, who would be the best for the most and who has the best chance to win. Number 2 seems to be the font of most energies, but that's human nature.

What are his statements about Bush and pre-emptive strikes?

Why does he support buying into Medicaid/Medicare instead of the Federal program? What's the cost difference between that plan and Kerry's and Gephardt's, if you know?

When he's asked about farmers, why does he always talk about rural community invigoration instead of helping family farms against corporate farms?

Any particular foreign policy speeches, statements or interviews that shows he's got a vision for third world countries and terrorism?

I need these questions answered before I can even think of Edwards again. I like him, but his proposals have come up short against Kerry, not to mention he has way too many of them and would be labeled 'big government' in the general election.

but requires the least new spending of any major candidates so far.

He doesn't think America can afford complete universal health care or make a permanant health care policy law until we lower the deficit completely and turn the economy around.

about foreign policy

http://www.johnedwards2004.com/page.asp?id=62
http://www.johnedwards2004.com/foreign_policy.asp

unlike Kerry, Edwards hasn't waffled about the fact that he voted for it and use misleading rhetoric to anti-war leaning audiences. That is what is the most prudent if you want the respect of the electorate in my opinion.

Edwards has also talked about the fact that we need to show the world that the war wasn't for oil, and he actually said that many of the contracts that have been given out for rebuilding and other things in the WOT have made him furious, because it puts more unneeded fuel on anti-american fire and he mentioned Halliburton's contracts in Iraq and Guantanamo specifically at his townhall in Portsmouth that I went too.

Edwards bought the 'Iraq is a threat' line lock, stock and barrel. That scares me way more than Kerry addressing the situation thoroughly and honestly and consistently.

His health plan costing the least is a plus. I'll think about that. The other thing with it was he said he'd require all parents to insure their kids. A law? Put parents in jail if they don't comply? Do you know what he means by this?

I haven't heard him go after the contracts or else I've just forgotten, but I'm glad to hear it. Not surprising, he doesn't seem to be for unregulated corporatism. That's a message that could really play right now, with so many jobs disappearing. Gephardt supports global labor rights which is good too. I'm actually not sold on anyone. I've just been impressed with Kerry's thorough analysis of every single issue I've seen printed. But I'm not so sure the masses would warm up to him.

Thanks!

But didn't Kerry vote to authorize * to use force in Iraq? And since you said Edwards "bought the Iraq is a threat line lock, stock and barrel" and thus voted for the resolution, I take that to mean you think he is both ignorant and foolish.

So considering that, Edwards' vote was based on ignorance and foolishness, but Kerry's vote was based on politics and polling. Which is worse?

Please don't respond to any more of my posts regarding Kerry's position. Sandnsea. Easy to remember. I prefer not to put people on ignore because you may have other views I would like to read.

But, one last time. I understand why Kerry voted for that authorization based on his own statements. I understand that there were aspects of the evidence about Iraq's weapons programs that could cause a reasonable person to express alarm. I understand what the authorization actually stated and exactly what Kerry was authorizing Bush to do. The authorization for military force was to give Bush the muscle he said he needed to force UN action and force Saddam to comply. It specifically called for serious cooperation with the UN. It specifically authorized action for that purpose or to protect U.S. security. Bush lied. Bush failed to seriously engage the itnernational community. Manipulating the evidence in the SOTU and Powell's UN presentation happened well after that vote. Nobody knew the extent that this Administration had gone to pressure the CIA and distort the intelligence coming out of the CIA.

Kerry expressed concern about Bush's preventive strike policy. He expressed concern about war replacing diplomacy. He expressed alot of concern. In his final analysis though, IF Saddam proved to be a threat to the U.S., he decided military action was a viable, final, option.

Edwards expressed no concern about the preventive strike policy or any other concern about the appropriate measures for waging war. Yes, that concerns me much more than Kerry's reasoned stance. Dean's very similar stance is more favorable to me than Edwards'. I'm not completely familiar with Graham's stance, but if it is that terrorism is the priority and he was not convinced Iraq was a terrorist threat, that is more reasoned than Edwards. Even though Graham voted no because he thought there should be more leeway to militarily fight more terrorist groups. I disagree with that, but I understand his reasoning to get where he got. I just don't with Edwards. Bush said war, so Edwards said ok. I don't respect that at all.

The bottom line is he still voted for the damned resolution which means he trusted Bush to use his power provided by the resolution correctly and responsibly. We all know how that worked out.

Again, you can spin it all you want, but a yes vote is still a yes vote. He cowardly went along with the game just like Edwards.

And by the way, I couldn't give a rat's ass if you put me on ignore me or not. It's obvious you're a Kerry psychophant.

I am trying to respect yours and am just asking you to respect mine. On this one issue, that's all. I posted to somebody else because I am still looking at other candidates and was just expressing my concerns about the difference between Edwards and Kerry. I hate to think that I can't debate the candidates on this board without you and a couple of other people constantly jumping in about this damned war vote. No wonder Clinton said to move on, he probably knew it would end up being a Democratic quagmire and we'd end up beating up each other more than Bush.

I'll tell you what pisses me off more than anything. Bush isn't going to be held responsible for what he's done. Because if only people who voted no on the war are allowed to speak out, that's not enough to make the case. It also skews the case. Bush intentionally implemented a plan to manipulate and lie to the people AND to Congress. Guess what? Lying to the people isn't illegal. Lying to Congress is. Can't go down that path if Congress is going to be attacked too. Oh well, more important to be righteous than to expose the Bush Cabal.

Thanks, I so fucking appreciate that after I took off work for a month in order to pour over every document I could find, compile the pertinent quotes, write up a petition and work to get it in front of every Congressman and newspaper I possibly could, that my own fellow Democrats help derail it. Yeah, I'm really fucking happy about that. Your attitude hasn't been any more beneficial than Bill Clinton's.

No more on the war vote, please, okay?

I didn't know you did that. thanks.

I could see how the war vote would be a sensitive subject. I haven't picked a canidate either, but I must admit Kerry's yes vote has turned me off of him to some degree, though I agree with him on other issue.

I applaud you on your activism and apologize for the hostility.

its all coming and with a vision you won't be anticipating.

here about Edwards. To me, it seems that the most interesting commentary in the media about the candidates -- the things which are most thought-provoking -- have to do with Edwards. This is definitely not replicated here at DU.

I was quite amazed by the amount of "south-bashing" when I started posting on D.U. and I don't think that this and the dearth of debate about Edwards are unrelated.

I have picked up on a sentiment some have expressed that there is resentment that they are being told to run Edwards against Bush because only a southerner can beat him. These threads must have happened before I came because I have never seen one. Bush is by no means a real southerner, did not poppy go home to Kennebunkport all the time during his reign, which was quite a ways above the Mason-DIxon line the last time I checked.

I wonder if there is some covert classism going on here. Having been to the area of S.C. where edwards grew up I can say it's definitely po folks country, and cotton mills like the one his father worked in host some of the most abominable working conditions, second only to slaughter houses in this country. Maybe for all their elitist intellectualism some people can't stomach the idea of running a candidate that comes from poor white trash.

The fact that he is a centrist doesn't help his cause at all, but he's aligned with Kerry on just about every issue and there is plenty of spout here about him.

Who knows. (At this point I wouldn't be surprised if someone jumps in and rips me a new a--hole on why Edwards sucks.)

Edwards's candidacy. Edwards's central message is about class and opportunity. Whereas this is the central element of most Americans' expirience of America, I think it goes over the heads of most DU'ers.

Yes, on some days I do refer to D.U. as "demographic underground".

...I think this also has alot to do with folks not liking Kucinich:

"I wonder if there is some covert classism going on here. Having been to the area of S.C. where edwards grew up I can say it's definitely po folks country, and cotton mills like the one his father worked in host some of the most abominable working conditions, second only to slaughter houses in this country. Maybe for all their elitist intellectualism some people can't stomach the idea of running a candidate that comes from poor white trash."

I notice both Kucinch and Edwards are running, or have run, more populist campaigns. You'd think Kucinich would have really caught on w. the left, but he hasn't.

I also lived in the South for many years and am familiar w. the populist political tradition down there, which is why I find Edwards really interesting. He is the first southern populist since, well, maybe Fred Harris from Oklahoma (back during the primarys that led to Carter nomination) to run for prez.

Clinton did have that common touch too, but he ran a more centerist campaign.

its all timing and Edwards, being the man to beat for the domination, knows it apparantly better than the rest.

Summertime polls are about as significant as smiles on dogs.

Prepare to be amazed !

Dog smiles are VERY significant.

but to be fair, all dogs are smarter than mine !

Whippets are cute, shed little (nearly hypo allergenic) and don't bark much but the are dumb as stumps !

His appearances have been fairly positive, but in a very vague way. He was exceptionally polished in the Iowa forum. He'll have to fire up the engines a lot more before he replaces Dean or Kerry.

I initially was impressed with Kerry but the more he tries to connect with John Q Public, the worse it gets. It's a shame that Bush is so great at acting like what Edwards really is, and got over by doing that, yet what Bush really is is Kerry, in terms of economic station, yet Kerry falls flat and people fawn all over Bush.

I really like Kucinich. Dean reminds me of Dana Carvey's church lady for some reason and I just can't get past it. In a perfect world, Kucinich would be my choice. I'm glad there is plenty of time to decide. On pure charisma and strength of presence alone, John Edwards is unbeatable. And I love it when he calls shrub a phony.

"I initially was impressed with Kerry but the more he tries to connect with John Q Public, the worse it gets. It's a shame that Bush is so great at acting like what Edwards really is, and got over by doing that, yet what Bush really is is Kerry, in terms of economic station, yet Kerry falls flat and people fawn all over Bush."

You are SO right. Bush does act like what Edwards really is. Kerry is going to be a TOUGH sell the public. Love his politics, but Rove will have a field day with both him and Dean. An Edwards campaign would make it MUCH and I mean MUCH tougher for the B*shies.

"I really like Kucinich. Dean reminds me of Dana Carvey's church lady for some reason and I just can't get past it. In a perfect world, Kucinich would be my choice. I'm glad there is plenty of time to decide. On pure charisma and strength of presence alone, John Edwards is unbeatable. And I love it when he calls shrub a phony."

Kucinich- agreed and agreed.
Edwards, I couldn't agree with you more. And I love it when he calls * a phony too!

I'm just trying to think about this logically. Who is the best candidate, who will make life a living you-know-what for The Cabal, who can WIN? IMO, Edwards is it.

and doesn't go for any hikes in the woods.

What's his campaign manager going to do, start getting down to business in December? It's August already.

and Clinton wasn't running for VP.

It's totally true that you have to pace yourself.

able to go. I committed to go to the Edwards meetup which weirdly is scheduled for the same time as his townhall meeting, I hope they will change it.

and this is no disrespect to Edwards

Clinton was a prime political specimin

and in ways both similar to and different from Clinton.

(Oh, and I bet people said of Clinton at this point, "I say this with no disrespect for Clinton, but he is no JFK, who was a prime political specimen." -- JFK evolved into Clinton which is evolving into Edwards; each was/is the perfect candidate for the moment in American history in which each won/will win.)

Edwards is the perfect candidate to run at this time and against Chimpy.

Who else is ready for some Chimp stomping?

you may be surprized. VERY surprized.

that was the RW radio host talking point when he announced his candidacy. It's part of a national effort to keep him from being nominated by either ignoring or bashing him.

He wouldn't veep for Kerry because Kerry could never win any of the red states that Edwards could(at the top of the ticket) even though Edwards and Kerry have the most friendly relationship of any of the candidates. Edwards-Kerry makes worlds of political sense though.

He would never veep for Dean, because anyone who would want to be the runningmate of another Mondale-like loser at the veritable 1st stage of his political career is a frigging moron. Dean has also lied about Edwards record, consistently implied that he is part of the "non-democratic" wing of the party, and Dean's cult-members have rudely booed Edwards, only having Dean come on and not apoligize yet insult Edwards further. Not to mention Dean would nominate a running mate with more military credentials

Edwards wouldn't run with Gephardt because they have showed the most disagreement about healthcare plans of any candidates.

those 3 and Edwards are the only ones who could probably get the nomination until something big changes

I don't think I've bashed Edwards once here (apart from general bashing of the senators who voted for the tax cut, the Patriot Act, and the war in Iraq.) Unlike you who just bashed Dean rather magnificently (and called his followers "cult-members" - nice touch.)

Edwards'campaign gives everyone the impression of fluff. "Mah daddah waz uh millwuhkuh," "Ah faght fer reguler 'Muricuns," etc.

Democrats better realize they aren't going to win unless their natural constituents -- the people who actually talk in the way you mock -- vote for the Democratic nominee.

Many say that Bush's announcement on caps on medical malpractice suits, which he announced in N.C. in no way accidentally, was a direct jab at Edwards, a trial lawyer. It's obvious they aren't at all threatened by Dean, heck, they are probably endorsing him.

As far as south bashing threads go they are generally started by the same person everytime. It took me a while to realize that, but now that I have I just ignore them. With regards to the above comments you referred to, this in a nutshell is a show-casing of just how stupid elitist intellectuals can be and why pukes control the senate, house and presidency and may overwhelmingly control the supreme court in short order.

God, it so totally sucks that pukes are so much better than us at appealing to the common man and woman. Some in our party desperately need to look down at them (at anyone really, and pick up Ann Coulter's slander if you think that repubs don't have our number with regards to this) , and boy howdy does that ever cost us on election day.

Why is this so hard for people to understand?

our region of the country has elected every Democratic president since FDR with the exception of JFK.

1960 kennedy red nixon blue

It seems to be OK for Northerners to be biased against Southern candidates, but those same people object when we factor in that our candidate HAS to appeal to Southern voters to win.

Edwards could win NC and FL at least.

Edited to say: We're ALL Americans first. Don't forget that. North/South. Who cares? I care about AMERICA.

would be the southern states he'd be most likely to win,(in addition to WV) a combined 48 electoral votes

he'd also have a lesser but still great chance to win Tennessee and Arkansas, a combined 17 votes

and if all the things that a new england liberal would need to even win New Hampshire and nevada occur(second recession, etc) a candidate like Edwards could very well win in GA, VA, and LA. A combined 37 votes.

None of these states would be close to competative if the nominee were Dean or Kerry, except maybe Florida with a Kerry/Graham ticket, and even that would be a tossup or lean Bush state then.

...all of them), which forces the Republicans to spend more money everywhere, which means they have less to spend in their tight states (MI and FL), which gives Dems an edge.

that a GOP dollar spent in Georgia is a dollar they can't spend in New Hampshire.

the Deancinich and sometimes Kerry arguments about electability are quite often very empty

they also don't like to think about the fact that most southern congressional candidates(including those in NC, SC, GA, FL, and AR WOULDN'T want to campaign with anybody like Dean. He is a great asset for the GOP.

No, I don't think dems should only nominate southern candidates for president forever. But in this election, right now it's either 2 stereotypical percevedly limosine-liberal guys from the 2 most liberal states, a big-city career politician with a record of losing, or a southernor.

for CLASS. I've said this here dozens of times: a mechanic in boston, and fast food worker in LA, a hairdresser in Lousianna, a lobster fisherman in Maine all hear that accent and think, not that this guy is from the south, but that this guy is from the same social class roots I'm from, and it's true.

One of things I love about Edwards is that I know that that accent says something to people about where he's from, in a class sense, and that a lot of people Democrats need to energize (ie, middle and working class people who are getting destroyed by the Bush administration) are going to have a chord struck by that accent.

I meant our region (the South) has provided the candidates who have won every election for the Democratic party since FDR with the exception of JFK*






* and he had LBJ as a running mate

All the "I'm your brother" crap + zero message is why Edwards is near the bottom of the pile.

I'm glad they're finally adding some meat to their campaign.

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

http://www.johnedwards2004.com/page.asp?id=171


***snip***

For the first time in history, every child in America will have health insurance. My plan will also provide significant help to those adults without health care and small businesses that are struggling with their health care costs. My plan strengthens our public health safety net, and it takes bold steps to keep costs down.

But this plan is about more than coverage, it is about a new ethic of responsibility. Government has a responsibility to expand opportunity and live within its means. Drug companies, insurance companies, doctors and lawyers have a responsibility to keep costs down. Businesses have a responsibility to do right by their workers. Those of us in public life have a responsibility to offer proposals we can achieve and that don't pass the buck to future generations. And parents have a responsibility to make sure their children get health care, and we have a responsibility to make sure they can afford it.

******

***snip***

My plan is simple, affordable, and fully paid for. Here's how it works:

First, I propose a new bargain with America's parents to make sure every child gets health insurance. If we're going to fix our broken health care system, the responsible place to start is with the greatest injustice—uninsured children...

We have a responsibility to make sure every family can afford health insurance, and every parent has a responsibility to see that their children have it. To start, we'll make insurance affordable by offering parents a refundable tax credit for health coverage and access to high-quality, low-cost plans. Families who are already meeting their responsibility and face the soaring costs of health care will get the tax credit, too. Parents can use the tax credit to buy health insurance through their employers or parents can cover their children through CHIP.

If you're the average parent who is already covering your kids through your job, my plan will mean only one thing: a new tax break, about $300 a year for a typical family. And if you've always wanted to cover your kids but couldn't, my plan will give you the chance. For poor families, my plan covers every penny of the cost. If you and your spouse have two kids and make around $60,000, you'd have to pay just over a dollar a day to cover all your kids. And if my plan were passed, then 25,000 children in New Hampshire who don't have health insurance would get it.

******

***Snip***

I focus on the sector of our economy that needs help most – small business. Small business is the engine that drives our economy, but small businesses don't have the purchasing power like big corporations to offer insurance.

For small businesses that want to do the responsible thing, I would fund every state to create a purchasing pool that cuts red tape and premiums. We will also offer tax credits to many of those small businesses with low-income workers.

This plan also fulfills our responsibility to strengthen the health care safety net. States are making deep cuts to Medicaid because of this President's fiscal crisis. These cuts affect the poor and the disabled and his latest block grant plan will cause even deeper cuts. Our public hospitals and emergency rooms are understaffed and over crowded and need more support not less.

I will double resources for public health clinics just like this one. I want clinics to be able to keep longer hours so they can serve working families. They need to be in convenient locations: next to schools and shopping malls so parents can use them. And I want to offer mobile clinics that come to the isolated and rural communities too often forgotten by our health care system.

***Snip***

And unlike this president, I will live up to my responsibility. I will keep my promise to make sure Americans get what they pay for from HMOs and insurance companies by enacting a real Patients' Bill of Rights which I co-authored with Senators John McCain and Ted Kennedy.

*****

***snip***

I believe that one of the great causes for our nation is to ensure that every child begins their life in this country on equal ground—with the health care they need to live healthy and prosperous lives. Unlike this administration, an Edwards Administration will be dedicated to equal opportunity for all, and special privileges for none. This is the America I believe in—a place where our values and sense of responsibility are used to meet our greatest challenges and build a country that moves closer to our shared ideals.

*****

Good policy, mixed with down-home appeal wins elections. He's had a great economic, social, and health plan from the beginning. People just haven't been looking or listening.

I know where Edwards stands on the issues, and I am a calm and rational person. If the Edwards people are interpreting analysis of their candidate's campaign as an attack on southerners, they aren't listening.

Whenever Edwards opens his mouth, he talks about his paw and how he fights for regular people. People are seeing a millionaire trial lawyer of all people say,

"Hi, I'm John Edwards, a regular guy who fights for regular guys. I was born a regular guy, my daddy was a regular guy, and I really, really love regular guys. I have several regular children and a regular wife I love deeply. If you love America as much as I do, help me fight for regular people."

Indeed, Edwards has a serious message problem, and this is why he is behind Lieberman, Gephardt, AND Sharpton on his own turf in nearby South Carolina.

I'm glad I know who his daddy is. It makes me want to vote for him more. It matters who Bush's daddy is (ex CIA-chief, ex-Pres, current Carlyle director).

By the way, who was Dean's daddy? He worked for Pan American in Africa and China, and made lots of $$ on Wall St. It looks like both Dean's father and brother were in the CIA. Interesting that Dean won't tell anyone anything about his daddy. In fact, if I were a Dean supporter, I'd really want to spin the idea that we shouldn't care who a guy's daddy is (even though we know it matters), and I'd especially want Edwards to shut up about it.

My father is a regular guy too. Does that mean you should vote for him for president?

Think about how absurd this is.

and what matters with edwards's -- which relates to who his father is -- is that Edwards earned everything he got. He didn't inherit anything from anybody.

Who his father is matters a great deal.

When Clinton ran, it was VERY significant, symbolically, that Clinton's father was dead before Clinton was born. Clinton was running against the son of a Wall Streeter and a Senator. Well, the Dems are running against the son of a President, and it REALLY matters who the candidate's father was (or wasn't).

It is very very important.

Where you come from, and where you go from there says a lot about a person.

trouble me.

I like what I've heard Dean, Clark, and Graham say about these issues.

how about what they'd do.

Just on the patriot act how about. Do you like that Graham was the dem author of the act? He's been pretty silent about it because of that.

Dean and Clark also don't have as liberal a position about the act, or as big a history of being a thorn in Ashcrofts side, as Edwards, who has written actual legislation that would curb privacy and civil liberties infringement and as president would create a civil liberties watchdog group

So I don't really don't know how a person decides that those 3 are any more with you on those issues other than Dean on Iraq

Clark hasn't become a candidate, nor has he actually apposed any of the things you mentioned above

and Dean, until an unprecidented shift in public opinion occurs, would lose 42-48 states on a good day.

Your posts indicate that you are too succeptable to rhetoric and talking points.

I suggest, if you like those 3, support Graham, because he's actually a candidate(unlike Clark) and he could win 270 electoral votesm unlike Dean

Compared to Dean and Kerry, Edwards IS my brother. The way I've experienced life in America is WWWWAAAYYYYY closer to the way Edwards has experienced it. And I'll tell you something: this fact is definitely reflected in the things each of these candidates care about and talk about. "Zero message"? I guess you can characterize it that way if you were spinning against the guy, but I, for one, hear 100% message totally on the same page I'm on every time Edwards opens his mouth.

I have lived in FL since I was a kid.


If your boy gets the nomination tell him not to worry about campaigning south of Maryland*



*DC's not a state but it does have three Electoral Votes


btw- John Edwards didn't come with a dowery like that Silver Spoon-Howard Brush Dean lll.

but it always comes out sooner or later. Actually, Edwards doesn't even have an accent, to me. He sounds like many people I know, probably including myself.

How is that southern bashing? Does Edwards plan on winning solely on the basis of his accent?

I hope the Edwards campaign isn't banking on it.

Nice try. Now run along, go back to your cave.

Buh-bye.

most people would take your post as elitist, condescending and just the thing that gets dems creamed in national elections.

You might want to hold your tongue till Edwards actually begins campaigning and listen closely to what he says.

All this emphasis on summer campaigning is silly. Dean had to in order to avoid disappearing without funds. Don't mistake that for some new early start to things. (No offense Deaners, its something he needed to do.)

Clinton, LBJ, and Gore all had southern accents.

Anti-rural bigotry- the last "acceptable" bigotry in America.

and it (that accent and all it brings) plays pretty well on the national stage.

Explaining why Edwards is doing poorly is not bigotry.

Edwards cannot beat Lieberman, Gephardt, and even Al Sharpton in nearby South Carolina.

I rest in my case.

others candidates COMBINED! He was born in Seneca, SC which is about a half an hour beyond Clemson. This area of SC used to be nothing but cotton mills (and in this case "used to" means in the good old days, now the mills are closed and it is pretty bleak, I know a woman who drives from Seneca to Spartanburg every day to work at BMW) and this is a sector of people who can really identify with his roots. When I was down there they were begging you to work; all the folks whose parents had worked in the mills were going to work in auto parts factories, or the fiberglass plant, or frigidaire. Without these companies there is nothing in that area but Clemson and Lake Hartwell. Just three years ago unemployment in SC was 3%, I lived down there and had a great job; now it's as bad as everywhere else and unemployment is up to 8%. I think some folks are protesting too much, but the money raised speaks for itself.

he's raised over a million and a half dollars in texas and california each, one of the reasons I think he can do well on super tuesday. The south and west will support him

you'll know because the leaves will be falling from the trees.

Polls now are meaningless.

http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1368914

nice try

if that is how he comes off, my answer is yes. And please note, I was born and graduated from high school in North Carolina. My father who was born and still lives in North Carolina agrees w/me.

My sister, brother-in-law and nephew, all of voting age, and all having lived in NC for over 15 years all love Edwards to pieces. Many members of their Presbyterian Church do to. Their neighbors don't that much, but that's because they're fairly upper-middle class, and many of their neighbors are, well NOT progressive...

He does not come off that way to me. Bush does, but he's a fake. I respect what Edwards says about his past, hell it's refreshing to me. But I don't require an elitist candidate. And I still haven't figured out who "everyone" is.

...since when?

I hate to say this, but Edwards has a long row to hoe given his poll standings.

it's journalists aren't dogmatic drones like much of the nation, but they consistently lean left, are fair, not sharply partisan, and clever

like the daily show

like Slate

...Andrew Sullivan is or was an editor, so I figured it as a neoliberal/neocon type of mag.

The new editor is Peter Beinart.

TNR is not neocon

It is to the left on economic and social issues. I would define their foreign policy as Wilsonian.

TNR strikes me as "neoliberal" (as does Slate, btw), and not too distant from oldschool neoconservatism, i.e. what the neocons were saying before the cabal came into power.

This is a good critique from the left.

here is the TNR wiki, which I take to be reasonably balanced.

On several issues, TNR does not in fact consistently lean left. They have been hawkish for years, adamantly so, and the current editor Peter Beinart, has been known to criticize Democrats for being "ultra-doves." On foreign policy in general, TNR is on the right end of the spectrum. On domestic issues, their record is mixed, having criticized social service programs and affirmative action. They are neither obviously nor consistently on the left of the political spectrum in this country.

The claim that they are not "sharply partisan" is hard for me to swallow. They are loudly pro DLC. In this primary they have been full of praise for Lieberman, and have denounced Sharpton with much vitriol. Peter Beinart in particular has not hesitated to argue that the Dems sorely need a hawkish stance, and he's made the same arguments about electability that we hear from From and Reed. That's what I would call sharply partisan. If you mean by "not sharply partisan" that TNR doesn't offer much in the way of substantial criticism of the Republican agenda, then I'd be inclined to agree.

This piece on Edwards was interesting to me, despite their biases, and yet I got a little irritated with the swipes at Moseley Braun, Dean, Gephardt, Kerry and Kucinich. While some of those swipes were coming from the Edwards campaign, the author Lizza's opinions were clearly reflected in the way negative comments were selected, framed, paraphrased, or just plain gratuitously injected into the story. Of course, the absence of any criticism of Lieberman or Sharpton should tell you something, or rather a couple of things. South Carolina any one? Oh, but this was story about the New Hampshire campaign. Uh huh, Uh huh.

And just look at how Lizza charcterizes the DLC. Makes it sound almost liberal. There's absolutely no mention of the criticisms that surrounded the Philadelphia convention or Bruce Reed's view of the Party and it's campaign. Sin of omission. That's definitely a sign of bias.

All in all, I chalk this one up as campaign literature. I kind of like Edwards, so it didn't totally offend me, but I resolutely object to the assertion that this represents objectivity, fairness, and lack of political bias.

since 1918.


Nuff said.

We need more of that spirit around here. Be careful about spelling words wrong, though, people might think you are an ignorant southerner.

Muchas Gracias to all the Unbelievers for keeping this thread kicked. Love to all of you. ; )

and if you'll look closely at the answers from the non-Edwards supporters here, you just might see we ARE interested in what he has to say. If he's the candidate against Bush, he's got my vote. But it sure would help if I knew he stood for the things that are important to me. Name calling and cute doesn't cut it. I want substance. If you want to provide his stands on the issues, and compelling reasons why people should vote for him, I think you'll find that people are ready to listen.

He:

voted for the Patriot Act

voted for Homeland Security

voted for an anti-disability and anti-civil liberties judge

voted for fast track trade authority

voted for Yucca mtn

voted for *'s war resolution**

voted for the bankruptcy bill

voted to exempt fuel refiners from liability

voted against regulation of drinking water

And he did not bother to vote on an Iraq investigation

If the Patriot Act is your litmus test you need to purge Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, Patrick Leahy, and the rest of the Dems save Russ Feingold from the party.

Also, why did your boy, Dennis Kucinich vote for the Flag Burning Amendment?

That is the most reactionary piece of legislation to come down the pike since the Alien-Sedition Act.

Ten issues = a litmus test????

Why did you pick out one issue out of the ten I listed? Besides, none of the Dems you listed are running for president.

I have no idea why Kucinich voted for the horrific flag burning amendment. I have seen no explanation in articles or on this board as to why he voted that way. Maybe one of the Kucinich supporters could answer your question, as Kucinich is not my "boy".

But if Tom Harkin were running, I guarantee you he'd get better shift on DU.

If people don't like Edwards, fine. But it makes me laugh when they try to make him out to be some anti-environmentalist neo-con. It's gross misrepresentation.

And, HE VOTED AGAINST FAST TRACK. Geez! Do you even bother to actually revise your list when someone corrects you, or is it just copy/paste all the time?

He voted against the final fast track bill when his worker provisions were taken out.

Kucinich voted for that god awful Flag Burning Amendment.

http://216.239.53.104/search?q=cache:umw94mW1iBwJ:www.witnessforpeace.org/pdf/fast%2520track%2520vote%2520sheet%2520senate.pdf+fast+track+John+edwards&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

It is too late to edit my post, but in future posts, that issue will be cut from my list.

That brings the number down to nine votes on major issues I disagree w/Edwards.

But then, tjdee, you know the major issue, I, along w/Justicefor All and NOW have w/Edwards. He has lost a huge voting bloc w/that vote and how he hid from the public while casting that vote.

when he's the only serious candidate with civil liberties/rights protection as a central element of his platform. He would create a department of civil liberties and civil rights, which would protect Americans from the dangerous parts of the patriot act, AND he would reorganize intelligence to give more congressional oversight over the governments spying powers that are currently given to the FBI and DOJ.

Why would you support Dean if he supports both acts(homeland security and Patirot) just as much as any other serious candidates do, AND unlike Edwards, has no concrete proposals to implement civil liberties protections into law

was directed to tjdee, not you. She knows what issue I meant, ad nauseum. (The issue, not you, tjdee.)

That issue was not the Patriot Act, so back off and learn to read.

just like the fast track thing that you shouldn't have had on there, just like how you used to say he wrote the patriot act

I just want to know how your choice of candidate is any better if not worse on the patriot act or homeland security than Edwards

I guess I'll just take the nonresponse as "he's not better"

on the Patriot Act? You intruded on my post to another DUer when you, apparently, did not understand the issue I was discussing.


What part of back off do you not understand?


I despise how Edwards voted to make my already miserable life and the lives of my disabled brethern, more miserable when he FUCKING DIN'T HAVE TO!

Of course, when I add in his other votes I disagree w/, my dislike for him is even greater.

now we have one issue readers.

Actually, TNR is to the left of the National Review and the Weekly Standard and to the right of the Nation and the Progressive on the Israel-Palestine issue.

In any case , the new editor, Peter Beinart has been critical of the excesses of the Sharon government.

I'm pro-Isreal

Pro two state solution

and

not a big fan of Sharon

Is that nuanced enough for you.

And let's not hijack this thread.

to describe a multi-opinionated magazine, because they've had some pro-hawkish middle east articles, needs to go easy on the new-left pro-PLO garbage. You wanna call it Likudist, which it isn't, fine.

But you need to understand that throwing around the term Zionist is a red-flag.

Sorry, I think that Israel and jews deserve to be allowed to feel safe and not be wiped out, guess that makes me a Zionist. I guess need to stop spending so much time in Miami.