Edwards' New Strategy Against Obama: Who Can Best Deliver Change, A Lover Or A Fighter?

from TPM: http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2008/01/edwards_new_strategy_against_obama_who_can_best_deliver_change_a_lover_or_a_fighter.php


January 4, 2008, 9:50AM

With the candidates already stumping in New Hampshire, the thing to watch now is how Edwards and Hillary retool their approaches to adapt to the new political realities that have been created by Obama's seismic win last night.

Today in New Hampshire he employed a contrast with Obama that we haven't heard before: (http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/01/edwards_claims_to_be_seabiscui.html)

"I am not the candidate of glitz; I am not the candidate of glamor," Edwards said. "I am the candidate who will fight with every fiber of my being every step of the way."

Edwards' approach now is to cast yesterday's results as simply a Hillary loss and a victory for an abstract desire for change, rather than a victory for Obama, as well as casting the rest of the contest as a head-to-head battle between himself and Obama for that change mantle. Hillary has been airbrushed from the picture, in Edwards' telling.

And as the above references to "glitz" and "glamor" suggest, Edwards wants this contest with Obama to shape up as, "Who can best deliver change -- a lover or a fighter?"

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2008/01/edwards_new_strategy_against_obama_who_can_best_deliver_change_a_lover_or_a_fighter.php

he's talking about how hard he's fighting to end it.

Or when he spent the last few years working for a hedge fund that invested strongly in subprime lending. Has Edwards ever actually fought for anyone but himself? I mean, in a manner that did not strongly benefit either his financial situation or his career?

of course, he fought for his clients against medical malpractice. The argument that his 'career' should not have benefited from those efforts makes no sense at all.

his legal career, in which he made himself tens of millions of dollars. I don't mind that he benefitted from that; I don't think there's anything wrong with seeing an opportunity and taking it. On the other hand, when there's such a huge financial incentive to do what he did, it isn't evidence that he's willing to fight for people other than himself.

Being a trial lawyer is not immoral. It is not, however, evidence of morality.

just an argument. some love.

No longer representing North Carolina in the U.S. Senate, Edwards directed the Center on Poverty, Work, and Opportunity at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and chaired the Center for Promise and Opportunity (http://law.unc.edu/Centers/details.aspx?ID=425&Q=3), a nonprofit organization dedicated to studying and alleviating poverty.

Edwards toured ten major universities in order to promote "Opportunity Rocks!", a program aimed at getting youth involved to fight poverty.

Edwards and his wife began the Wade Edwards Foundation in their son's memory; the purpose of the nonprofit organization is "to reward, encourage, and inspire young people in the pursuit of excellence." The Foundation funded the Wade Edwards Learning Lab at Wade's high school, Broughton High School in Raleigh, along with scholarship competitions and essay awards.

During the summer and fall of 2005, he visited homeless shelters and job training centers and spoke at events organized by ACORN, the NAACP and the SEIU. He spoke in favor of an expansion of the earned income tax credit, a crackdown on predatory lending, an increase in the capital gains tax rate, housing vouchers for minorities (to integrate upper-income neighborhoods), and a program modeled on the Works Progress Administration to rehabilitate the Gulf Coast following Hurricane Katrina. In Greene County, North Carolina he unveiled the pilot program for College for Everyone, an educational measure he promised during his presidential campaign, in which prospective college students will receive a scholarship for their first year in exchange for ten hours of work a week.

some lawyers wouldn't take the Lacky case, Edwards did, when the company offered 100 thousand dollars for a child that insides were sucked out by a faulty pool pump, by a company that had already had trouble with the same pump...EDWARDS said no an brought home 25 million and now the child is home with it parents and being fed still 5 hours a night, if Edwards had gone for the 100 thousand that child would be in some kind of home the parents couldn't aford to keep her home theey were poor. And the list goes on for cases just like this that Edwards handled

Not evidence of immorality, not evidence of morality. Might be a guy who wants to help people, might be a guy who wants to make millions of dollars for himself.

very well compensated for this work.

One could say that Obama fought to make sure folks could vote when he worked for Project vote.....he just didn't profit from it.

How is Edwards a better fighter? Because he got paid millions, while Obama didn't? :shrug:

what an absurd argument to suggest that he shouldn't have benefited from his work.

"The effect of his work has reached beyond those cases, and beyond his own income. Other lawyers have filed countless similar cases; just this week, a jury on Long Island returned a $112 million award. And doctors have responded by changing the way they deliver babies, often seeing a relatively minor anomaly on a fetal heart monitor as justification for an immediate Caesarean."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/31/politics/campaign/31EDWA.html?ex=1199595600&en=d2c0270df8c07f83&ei=5070

It's about incentive, and what drives one to do what is good and right.

I'm saying that Obama didn't have the incentives and he still did what was good.

Edwards did.

Just like when Edwards stated that he worked for the Hedge-funds to earn a salary (he states that as his first reason)and also to learn about how the markets worked. Why did he need a salary so badly that he would go to work for some shady operation that he should have known was suspect.....

or Kind of like Edwards co-sponsoring the war. Why did he have to do that? Was there an incentive to have jumped on the war wagon that hard......or was he doing it because he thought it was "right" to become the poster boy for Democrats for war?

I can't think of much that Edwards has done that didn't have some kind of benefit in it for himself. Even his apology was done for more than simply wanting to apologize...otherwise, he wouldn't have waited three years....and do it shortly before deciding to run again.

He would have gotten the nomination, if Clark the half republican hadn't been thrown in the race to stop Edward, who was behind that, was the corporates alread afraid of the North Carolina Graduate, did they think he would clean them up even then. I guess they did!

made him be a pushover in the six years preceding that. Damn that Kerry, always controlling Edwards.

Fighters alienate.
Lovers enchant.

Fighters have to take things by force.
Lovers have things given to them.

Fighters make opposition dig in their heels.
Lovers make people weak in the knees.

I don't know: I've always like a good lover.

bush and his republican enablers?

Fight them by defeating them in the Senate and the House. Fight them by taking the White House. And do that by being a lover, not an angry hypocrite.

and, there's more than a hint of hypocrisy (and hubris) in your desire to "defeat" republicans by "being a lover."

Casting Edwards in your one-dimensional mold is cute for an argument, but bears absolutely no resemblance to Edwards or the reality of the political arena in which these issues are debated and dispensed.

"And think not you can direct the course of love, for love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course."

I think we may be seeing EVOLUTION here! (I can only hope)


Woooo Hooooo GOBAMA!

I am hoping LOVE finds us worthy, cuz what the world needs now, is.........

people that will be the recipients of Obama's love will go weak in the knees. Chaney's proteges will take him out.

easy...

He's a hypocrite and nothing more.

hypocrites? Who really has enough power to perfectly effect all that we say or believe.

Are you proposing a love-in with the republican nominee?

has not ever actually tried to effect anything he has said. He talks a great game, but he's never backed up his words. He can bitch about corporations harming the little guy, but he spent the time between elections working for a predatory hedge fund backing subprime loans. He can bitch about unaccountable money in politics, but shrugs his shoulders and claims he can't control his "supporters'" ad purchases. He can complain that Hillary and Obama aren't trying hard enough to end the war, but he was one of its biggest supporters his entire term in the Senate (and was still a supporter in 2004--in fact, he only stopped being a supporter once the public turned against it).

A love-in? Don't be silly. There's a difference between bipartisanship and surrender.

many people in this country, IMO are tired of fighting. They are sick of the divisiveness and Obama is the only candidate really speaking to the unifying the country. I think we have underestimated how weary many Americans are of the partisanship.

will they be moved by 'love'?

I tend to lean toward Edwards. I'm merely pointing out that many Americans see things differently....I don't think most Americans are DUers or Freepers, they are way more middle of the road and simply want to get along.

but maybe that's just me. :shrug:

no peace with the republican warmongers.

We are the peacemakers...remember?

Why do we want to be like them. They are assholes and only divide and fracture this country. Why would you want that to be our approach? I thought we were way better than them... and much more intelligent.

Plus, Edwards wants Republicans in his cabinet....so that he can hear a lot of voices before he makes decisions....in case he's wrong or makes a mistake.

Isn't that compromising with those who are supposed to be enemies? Or will you favorably translate that to mean Edwards' brand of Republicans will happen to be those who do no harm, although Edwards neglects to tell us who they are?
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071204/NEWS09/712040382/-1/caucus

a stretch

Also I've found a quote by Abraham Lincoln that i think Fits Obamas attitude

When the conduct of men is designed to be influenced, persuasion, kind unassuming persuasion, should ever be adopted. It is an old and true maxim that 'a drop of honey catches more flies than a gallon of gall.' So with men. If you would win a man to your cause, first convince him that you are his sincere friend. Therein is a drop of honey that catches his heart, which, say what he will, is the great highroad to his reason, and which, once gained, you will find but little trouble in convincing him of the justice of your cause.

*insert 50 swearwords of your choice* but luckily its not him we will be dealing with at the time

Obama had an good record of accomplishing things in the state senate, he also have managed to pass some nice and useful things in the US senate, so I'd say his style works yes

there are two more modern quotes or sayings that also fits Obama: he speaks with a soft voice and carries a big stick, and he has a iron hand in a velvet glove

There is little need to use force if he can get things accomplished with a soft voice or gentle hand

sheesh

It simply would not be his first choice unless it was needed

Unless my memory is wrong he has talked about meetings and such being aired on c-span by default, as such it would actually be a whole lot harder for most Corps and groups to try and twist things into their favor(smile, you are on TV)

Crossover voters sent the signal that they reject GOP policies.

They may have been swayed by Obama's media saturation, etc., but they're also wary of candidates who profess to want to work with the GOP.

creating an image for others to catch.

they ALL posture and pose for 'others'

It's what most Democrats should say, similar to Al Gore's acceptance speech in 2000. I loved Edwards' "Two Americas" stump speech in 2004 and I approve of his promising to fight against big money and corporations. Can he be trusted? Probably he will disappoint in some ways, but I say we give him the chance. It's certainly no worse a result than Hillary or Obama's promise not to fight the corporations or big money and their constant adoption of rightwing talking points. I still think of 'fiscal responsibility' as a Republican talking point.

Obama's criticism of him being "angry" doesn't do anything for me. I want angry! I don't want bipartisanship. I want prosecutions. I want convictions and prison sentences. I want my pound of flesh for everything these criminals have done to this country over the last 7 years. The minute someone tells me he's going to unite the country I scoff. We don't need unification. We need to dominate the right and take them down a few pegs. I want a real fighter and not some Nancy Pelosi in a man-suit.

Now if you remove a fair chunk of their power base(the moderate republicans and right-leaning indeps) you weaken them in a much more effective way methinks, aswell as empowering the Democratic power base

Also what proof do you have that Edwards is a 'real fighter' all I've heard from him is fiery rhetoric and little action(his senate record does not show him as a great fighter for liberal causes)

Obviously i fully agree with the convictions and prison sentences on those who have broken the law

We need folks who are willing to stand up to corporate interests, in and out of government, and DEMAND our rights, and DEMAND they adhere to the rule of law. Tete-a-tetes just won't do the trick with these entrenched interests.

And, he's certainly fought against the medical establishment for his clients, paving the way for more responsive treatment and care from the providers affected.

I don't support Edwards and I don't dislike Obama enough to say I won't vote for him in the general election. My criticism of Obama is is limited to his claim that he will unite the country. I think what turns me off more about Obama in not him but some of his supporters and their general dissing of other candidates for committing the same sins Obama has committed. It's just that I see an awful lot of starry eyed worship for someone that is not that much different from the rest of the pack.

but all the campaigns have their bad apples, I'd simply just skim their post briefly and if it is bad/foolish/et al then just skip their post(personally i have a mental sheet in my mind where i mark people of all campaigns if i deems their posts to be flame bait and similar, 5 marks and i just automatically skip their posts without even caring to skim them, unless the thread is an topic i consider important or i know from past experience they actually have some knowledge in it)

I do disagree that he is just one of the pack tho, i wouldn't go as far as to say worship, but i do consider him one step above the other two in the lead

to heal.

We ALL want to heal, but we have to FIGHT to get their boot off of our throats.

get our way--I'm telling you why Obama won and Edwards didn't. Obama appeals to a nation that is tired of the protracted Repub/Dem battle--that's apparently a winning message, and if we want a Dem President, that's going to be what gets us in there. Not a promise to whoop Repub ass and put a chicken in every pot.

and what they did to a medal winning war hero? What do you think they would do to our "healer" man?

Chomp, chomp, chomp and spit out the bones.

they have respect for him--that will help inoculate him from some of the worst. And he'll hit back against the rest. Kerry was very easy to make fun of, as was Gore. Obama--there's nothing there to mock.

I think I'll pass.

The world would laugh at a "Peace and Love Brother" approach. I want someone who'll remember: "Don't Tread on ME" instead of changing it to: "Please step softly!"

change is an insult to the intelligence of the voters. The Great Depression was a change, as well as Roosevelt's New Deal which followed it.

However, the New Deal only came into existence because FDR was prepared to fight tooth and nail for it, at the risk of his own murder "at the hands" of your current corporatists' predecessors. Most certainly not by looking for common ground and shared aims with them.

Forum Name General Discussion
Topic subject Continuing the Fight in New Hampshire
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2591791#2591791
2591791, Continuing the Fight in New Hampshire
Posted by helderheid on Fri Jan-04-08 12:46 PM

Posted by Amy Rubin
January 3, 2007 at 12:42a.m.

It’s been a long, hard fight. The media wanted to make this a two-person race. Corporate America and Wall Street executives wanted to buy this election. But John Edwards fought them every inch of the way. And tonight we shocked the Washington establishment and proved to everyone that this is without a doubt a three person race - it's a dead heat. Now it's our turn and as John Edwards said tonight:

"Change won, the status quo lost, and the fight is on to see if we're going to have the kind of change we need to save the middle-class."

In just a few hours, John will be on a plane, on his way to New Hampshire to join us all and continue this fight. We need you to join us, to come out in full force over these next few days and help us take back our country.

John and Elizabeth will be traveling across New Hampshire from Berlin to Manchester over the next few days.

Find an event near you and RSVP today: www.johnedwards.com/nh/events

For months we’ve been working together, preparing for this moment - fueled by a deep-seated belief that we deserve better. These months of hard work are finally culminating into an exciting and victorious finish…but we’re not there yet. We have a lot of hard work in front of us. We need to talk with and reach out to as many New Hampshire voters as we can over these next four days and we need every single one of you to join us in these exciting final days.

Click here to volunteer:

http://johnedwards.com/nh/volunteer/signup

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AE847UXu3Q

yea, I know it's a cheap shot. but don't set yourself up for it. geez, he's just like Kerry - just blindly walking into these kinds of attacks. I like the guy but it's just too easy to throw that line back at him.

and people try and argue that Obama will get ripped to shreds. What about when you throw your enemies a softball like this?

if only to highlight what he was actually referring to. This preceded the quote in the op:

" . . . the New Hampshire primary "will not be about celebrity. It will not be about glitz. It will be about who can galvanize this movement because that's what this is, a movement for change . . ."

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/01/edwards_claims_to_be_seabiscui.html

Any other fight - other than for his own ambitions?
Hey, dude - where's my 2004 vote?

and, the votes WERE pursued through candidate initiated lawsuits. I'm sure Blackwell in Ohio is just fine with Democrats blaming the nominees for his successful obstruction of those investigations and lawsuits.

Just let the country think Bush won....
I wouldn't have begrudged them not winning such a fight - if at least he had accomplished what Gore did: have people know this was a theft.
Sorry, but his wife is still ill - how is your first argument supposed to reassure me?

whatever rocks your boat, I suppose.

Those who have voted GOP ought to be the ones searching their souls for where they went wrong and what THEY might do to change. How did the burden to apologize/change get placed onto the media's favorite whipping boy, the Left?

We should continue to try and wrest control of the allegedly democratic party from corporate control. Where the GOPers want to go from here is their problem. I, for one, am not going to stop fighting for my country.