John Edwards: Give 'em hell. Hope and fighting

Run time: 02:16 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhygJwm7lT8   Posted on YouTube: November 13, 2007 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: November 13, 2007 By DU Member: MalloyLiberal Views on DU: 1927

 

Edwards will make good on his promises once he is elected. He will fight hard for us!

He can stand up to the corporate sponsors but not to their public servants?

If Edwards really wants to take the lead--how about standing up against the murderous illegal idiot son administration.

that Hillary is so far ahead in the polls.

I think there are several discouraging reasons for this, a big one being that far too many people have bought into the media frame that the candidate who raises the most money is the best candidate and deserves a vote.

The *appropriate* frame is that the candidate who takes in the most special interest money should be taken with an incredibly large grain of salt on just about every issue. Hillary for example has taken more money from the health care industry than any other candidate, democrat OR republican. In that context, how can she be trusted to reform health care to the benefit of most Americans?

www.theyoungturks.com

I read a newsweek (I believe) story about an Iowan voter who they said was an important politico in her county, and she said she USED to be for John, but now that Hillary is tromping on him, she candidly says, "I don't (back) losers".

Yes, she said losers!

amazing... the ridiculousness of her comment notwithstanding, I am let down that an important person in ANY of the Iowan counties could be so pathetically void of reason to claim that she wouldn't continue backing someone she thought would end up losing. Don't you like Edwards for what he stands for, then why would you not continue to back him since he is someone that registers with at 5% like Biden, Obama and Richardson - does she not remember John Kerry coming out of nowhere?

Sheesh... great, some mental giants are going to help decide our candidate, I see.

Hillary in Iowa. I think Edwards will keep fighting until he wins. I never thought he would be on the ticket in 2004. He is amazing, and this is his best speech yet. He is the candidate to watch.

And Clinton and Obama BOTH attacking him today shows that they both think he's got momentum.

He's lambasting Edwards when he just voted for the Peru FTA last week?!?
And - voted for the Oman FTA last year! - with NO labor or environmental standards.

and Edwards ground game will win Iowa. And then we throw out all the conventional wisdom.

... that she's so far ahead in the national primary preference polls ... they are as soft as ice cream on a hot summer day at this stage of the race. What is important is that all the New Hampshire polls show her falling back down below 40% and the CBS News NYT poll will tomorrow show Iowa in a statistical dead heat, Hillary/Edwards/Obama 25/23/22.

If she loses both Iowa and New Hampshire, the race will mutate into Edwards versus Obama. An important part of that is that no campaign frame is more vulnerable to bad news in actual events than the "inevitability" frame ... all those who jumped on board because they expected her to be the winner will jump ship and go to either Obama or Edwards, giving two surges and one collapse.

This is why the corporate media do not like three way races ... its too freaking complex with too many variables.

We kick butt on those :D

I know the mass media tells us day after day that HIllary is so ahead in the polls, but did anybody actually confirm that it is true what they say? Anytime there is an online poll or a phone poll conducted on the radio, Obama, Edwards, Kucinich, Gore win..hillary does not even stay close. Can it be that media really wants her to win, not that it is actually a fact that she is ahead in the polls? I think they are lying!

President would make for warm fuzzy type stories for the soft-brained crowd - read that "ratings". (and NO, I'm NOT saying that women are soft-brained! Said malady is equally shared by both genders). Then there'd be all the cutesy news slants and endless blather that would have absolutely NOTHING to do with governing or turning this nation in a new direction.
Man, I'd LOVE to see a woman in the Oval Office. Just not THIS woman. She's NOT fit to incur REAL change for the nation or our party. John's the best equipped (and situated) to do that. I want universal health care, for instance. You won't even get consideration of that from Dame Hillary.

You're exactly right on health care. I'm a broken record, but it's worth repeating over and over again:

Hillary has taken more money from the health care industry than ANY other candidate, democrat *or* republican.

That's astounding to me, the fact that people are applauding Hillary's fund-raising and suggesting (directly or indirectly) that it somehow *proves* she's the best candidate. And the media helps frame it that way as well (again, largely implicitly), but I guess that part isn't so surprising.

Now, it's important to point out that, unfortunately, until we have publicly funded elections (and to a lesser extent some form of run off voting, at least for primaries) ANY *viable* candidate will be subject to special interest money to *some* extent.

Before anyone flips out over the word "viable", I only mean to say that it's simply unrealistic to believe that (as I've written before) the candidate who's taking in 5% of the money and polling at 1% has any chance of winning. Don't get me wrong, I know it's horrible that it's that way, but it's the sad reality. This imaginary candidate might be the best progressive ever, and have brilliant ideas.

But in my opinion, pouring time, emotion and money into getting this type of candidate (you know, Mr. 1% in the polls) elected makes less sense (because it's unrealistic) than does pouring that same emotion, time and money into making public funding of elections THE number one issue for Americans.

If we have public funding of elections, we won't have to choose between watered down corporate candidates who we half heartedly support (cough, Hillary, cough, cough) and true progressive candidates who simply don't rake in enough special interest money to make people think they are legitimate (aka, someone who won't win).

right..just like John Edwards said it is simply not enough to elect ANY or A democrat for president. He pointed out that when hillary tried to do something with health care in 90s, we had a dem president, a dem controlled legislative branch, etc...and still no universal health care happened because lobbyists killed it. SO, as JOhn said...we need to elect the RIGHT democrat...and sure Hillary would not be that RIGHT person to bring any change..she still wants to kiss asses of lobbyists and corporations!

go John!

"I'm just telling the truth and they think it's hell"

Proud John Edwards must be of being a founder, along with Joe Lieberman and others, of the DLC's New Democrats.

A shared heritage for John Edwards and the DLC:

http://www.dlc.org/search_results.cfm

where he's been. I care far more where he's going.

That's part of the mistake people make with Hillary. They assume that, for example, on health care she'll fight hard for the people like she did in 93.

Times have changed. She's taken in more money from the health care industry than any candidate, democrat or republican. To ignore the influence that money would have on her, and on such crucial issue...I couldn't do it.

but it's always funny to see a post like this and know the true history of Edwards and the DLC:

http://johnedwards.meetup.com/365/?gj=sj5

"New member: Richard
Joined August 28, 2007

"Hello, all! I joined because as far as I can see, John Edwards is the only non-DLC candidate in the running who, has a prayer of winning. Obama has already sold out and Hilary is the queen-bee of the DLC establishment which has led us over a cliff."

Assuming you like Edwards as a candidate he's clearly far less of a DLC type compared to Obama and especially Hillary. His stances and policy proposals on labor, wages and trade (and health care) make that quite clear.

Personally, I like him because those domestic issues are important to me. Yes, foreign policy is important, but I feel like a good secretary of state can more than make up for a lack of experience on the part of a given president in that regard (it's a common problem for most presidents).

Also, I balance potential to win with who I want. I think too many people go too far one way or the other.

A lot of the time you end up with people who'll vote for someone who (figuratively speaking) has raised $10 and is 2% in the polls. Well, while this candidate might have BRILLIANT ideas it's clear he/she has absolutely NO chance of winning (This is why I support run-off voting for primaries by the way).

On the other hand there are also far too many people who think the candidate who raises the most money MUST be the best candidate. The media also seems to frame it this way, and it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy as people see high poll numbers (for Hillary in this case) and then contribute to the polls with an attitude of "well, the polls have her ahead so I guess I'll vote for her".

So I'm in the middle. I want someone who has *some* chance of winning but also promotes a strong pro-middle class platform.

PS---For anyone who says Edwards can't care about the poor and middle class because he has money, I call BS. FDR was the most economically progressive (and pro-poor/middle class) president in our history, and he was RICH. In fact, he had far more money than Edwards has today.

I wonder what, exactly, this phrase "DLC type" means, beyond a stereotype from some popular kos diary.

Edwards is establishment DLC by definition, and he and his positions are splattered all over the DLC web site, and he has been heavily involved in the DLC organization and its events.

So is the demonization of DLC inappropriate, or is the guilt by association of people to DLC appropriate?

I'd say it's those candidates who are considered to be super centrist and moderate and tend to have economic policies (in particular) that favor big business over the average American, but maybe that's just me.

If you want to compare and contrast a perfect example, look at Bill Clinton's trade policies (NAFTA and GATT) and Hillary and Obama's stances on trade (Peru FTA, etc.).

Which of those candidates wants to *dramatically* raise the minimum wage? Who is also pushing hard for labor protections?

But hey, don't take *my* word for it:

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2007/10/26/edwards-gets-tough-on-business/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/edwards-huckabee-the-r_b_71934.html

PS---BTW, another example of why I'm not a huge fan of Bill Clinton is the Telecom Act of 1996. Absolutely horrible for our media.

and I think all of your points are great, not that it matters what I think.

I just don't get Edwards as some kind of new freedom liberal.

Best to you and your commitment to justice and progress!

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/edwards/edw073002sp.html

And also you should consider John Edwards 20 year career of FIGHTING Corporations in courtrooms.

I have been following John Edwards since the early days of his last presidential campaign. I first recognized him as a candidate via a mail solicitation during that campaign in which he clearly stated his values and what he thought he could do for Americans. He has not wavered from that message ever. He still reflects on the same values and ideals...that is not a politician...that is somebody walking the walk. He honestly believes he can make a difference...

The only way to change this country is to change the paradyme..."If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you always had"

After much thought, and trying to be completely logical and rational about it, but not forgetting my roots or personal beliefs/wishes, John Edwards seems to be the best possible successful candidate the Dems could come up with in 2008 to almost insure victory.

I have become convinced that Hillary is a sure loser. The republicans and neo-con, controlled mainstream media will eat her for lunch, and I think she'd lose to Mitt, Rudi, or McCain. Even Obama has a better chance. However...

I'm not naive enough to believe that either a woman or black man has a chance, in these times, alone.

That's why I think an Edwards/Obama ticket, announced in advance of IOWA, is the best hope for the Dems, the country, and to stop this Clinton retread. We need new faces and ideas, not old names and ideas attached to them, whether rightfully or otherwise.

I have major problems with both Edwards and Obama, but I think the only way the Dems are going to take the white house in 2008 is a completely new and original approach. I would urge the Edwards and Obama camps to work together soon, and stop this certain losing Hillary train.

Edwards/Obama 2008. I think that's the most certain Dem ticket winner in 2008.

:hi:

I think Edwards/Obama is a great idea, but well after primary season ! Let's let the voters choose first.

It may surprise us :toast:

Catchawave, thanks for the welcome, but I think you missed my point. I think the way the system is set up, waiting AFTER the primary season, or even BEFORE Iowa or BEFORE New Hampshire, would be useless. If Hillary is crowned after New Hampshire, she will roll on and be unstoppable.

I'm proposing that the way it's all set up, with that ridiculous last staged Hillary rally/debate, Edwards and Obama have to get together NOW, before Iowa, and if it's basically a three way tie in Iowa, with Clinton getting about a third as well as Obama and Edwards, Clinton will bury Edwards and sweep past Obama. After NH, and the earliest primaries in SC, Nevada, etc., if Hillary's in the clear lead, the DNC or whomever are pulling the strings behind the stage, along with the mainstream media, it will be way too late to challenge her. Edwards and Obama will drop out, and they'll all get behind her in this "unity" charade.

I'm very upset at what I've seen. They marginalized Gravel, then eliminated him from the debates. Kucinich (who I actually prefer to Edwards but who I don't think has a realistic chance) will be next to be eliminated from the debates.

Edwards and Obama camps have to unite and very soon. They should run as a TICKET before Iowa or at the latest before New Hampshire. Think then of the CHOICE the dems will really have. I'm not even sure they could do this, run as a ticket, and be on the ballot that way, but that's all just another part of the set up.

I am saddened by what I'm seeing. I think Hillary Clinton is a SURE loser if she gets the nomination. And it's too crucial, the dems HAVE to take back the white house in 2008, the stakes are too high. We can't go with Hillary, I predict here and now she would lose. I wish I could shake all of her supporters and relate to them how misguided they seem to me.

If Edwards and Obama can't run as a ticket in Iowa or NH or get on the ballot that way, then they could come to an agreement to just ANNOUNCE that a vote for either is a vote for both. Hold a joint press conference, tell the truth. Besides Hillary's policies, the key here is electability, and she's a sure loser if she's the nominee. I'd bet the farm on that, folks.

Edwards and Obama joining forces NOW or SOON is the only way to stop this party boss/mass media machine, set up of Clinton as the default nominee and yet ANOTHER republican in the white house come 2009. imho.

I know, he is considered third, but he is going to win Iowa, & after that, he will gain huge momentum.

He has the message. Inequality. Disappearance of the middle class. Us against THEM.

Now, I am a Kucinich girl, myself. However, this is my prediction for what will happen. Lord knows I could be wrong.

That is my wager.