What Bugs Me About John Edwards

by: Matt Stoller

Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 15:29


John Edwards confounds me.  His policy positions are great, he's a good speaker, and he focuses on the divisions of power in this country that I care about.  I couldn't figure out why I'm holding back on supporting him except for a nebulous 'trust' issue.  But I think this post by Mike Caulfield at BlueHampshire and this one by rikyrah at Jack and Jill Politics illustrate my concern better than I could.  Caulfield goes into a story about an acquaintance of his who has been broke for some time who doesn't see herself as poor, and then discusses Edwards not being able to connect on the theme of poverty.  Rikyrah talks about Elizabeth Edwards' recent comment that John can't get traction because he's not black or a woman. 

Both posts frame him in the same place.  Let's start with Caulfield.
Matt Stoller :: What Bugs Me About John Edwards
So why pull all these problems under a poverty umbrella? It's pretty simple really. The "poverty problem" is a middle class construction with Christian overtones -- by pulling these together in a poverty platform Edwards gains the right to talk about these in moral terms. It's difficult to talk about the skyrocketing price of milk as a moral issue, but tied to poverty, you can do that. Same with health care, education, childcare, and labor.

This, of course, has been the dream of the Democratic consulting class for a while -- that we on the left can counter the empty moralism of the right with a rousing indictment of our nation's true moral failure: the failure to provide those that fall through the cracks of our economy with enough to live decently.

That sounds right to me.  If you look at the support Edwards is receiving among primary voers, it's relatively high among white college educated folk, and low among the working class.  Edwards is also doing poorly among blacks and women, but instead of understanding that the candidate's moralism is condescending and out of place, Elizabeth Edwards gets a little racist and rikyrah calls her on it.

"We can't make John black, we can't make him a woman," said Edwards, referring to Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and New York Sen. Hillary Clinton during an interview with Ziff Davis Media about the Internet's role in the 2008 presidential election. "Those things get you a certain amount of fundraising dollars."

Now, pardon me, but MAYBE Clinton and Obama EXCITE folks and get them to give their money. I find no charm in Hillary Clinton, but maybe there are those who do. I have, though, been in several crowds for speeches by Barack Obama, going back to when he was running for the Senate. Whatever ' IT' is, he has it. I've gone routinely where I'd be the only speck of pepper in a sea of salt, and I've seen it - the Obama Effect. I can't explain it, but some folks have 'IT' and others don't.

You shouldn't be hating on Obama because he has 'IT'. Because he stepped into the void that Edwards believed he had staked out for himself in 2008.

And, I have to ask, with all this gnashing of the teeth by the Edwards campaign:

WHEN HASN'T THIS COUNTRY ELECTED A WHITE MALE AS PRESIDENT?

You'd think, reading the Esquire cover, that the last Four Presidents have been Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Bill Richardson with Condoleeza Rice in there for good measure.

John Edwards is talking about poverty, but he's not talking to poor people.  He may say that women's rights are related to economic issues, but Clinton is actually framing her arguments around language women use.  Edwards is talking as a college educated white guy to other college educated white guys.  It's the white man's burden, and while well-meaning, it's a little racist and annoying.  I mean come on.  There is no conspiracy to keep white men out of the Presidency.

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
What Bugs Me About John Edwards | 122 comments
Funny (4.00 / 8)
How whenever someone posts that quote by Elizabeth Edwards, they never seem to post the paragraph right above it:

The Web can be liberating. "It's about bypassing the sieve of the mainstream media," says Elizabeth Edwards, wife and confidant of Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards. "The idea that you have people standing between you and the voter is diminished, and the capacity to speak directly empowers candidates to trust their own voices." With Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama hogging media coverage, campaigns can push their messages without paying for ads.

Damn.  Sounds distinctly less racist in that context, doesn't it?  Here's another quote from that same article:

In at least some campaigns, the Internet pros have penetrated the inner circle. "This is the new reality: the Internet people are at the most senior table," says Elizabeth Edwards, the candidate's wife and adviser, herself an early proponent of online campaigning. "Trippi reports to John. It's a straight line. Whenever there is a process of trying to get out a message, or engaging people on an issue, the Internet is honestly the first place we start."

Well, now, that first soundbite sounds less and less sexy when you begin to consider it in the full context.  Which neither Matt nor rikyrah did.  Y'all were suckered by Matt Drudge.

For the record, here is the complete article.  And here is some additional context.

I have no problem calling candidates or their surrogates out when the situation calls for it.  But taking quotes out of context just to make a point is just plain stupid.

um (4.00 / 6)
That doesn't change the context at all.
[ Parent ]
read the whole story (4.00 / 2)

[ Parent ]
i did (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Just curious... (4.00 / 5)
Do you actually believe that the gender/race of Hillary and Obama doesn't help with building excitement for their candidacy by way of fund raising and media coverage? I don't think it's racist to admit that maybe people are excited about the prospect of electing the first woman or African American POTUS. To say Elizabeth's comment was racist is over the top IMO, I think it's common knowledge that there is extra excitement around their candidacies because Hillary is the first viable woman candidate and Obama's the first viable African American candidate.

On a side note, I heard Thom Hartmann drop your name yesterday on Air America. He said he has growing admiration for you!

Netroots Director for Oregon Senate Candidate Jeff Merkley

[ Parent ]
Edwards Is Invisible In The Media (4.00 / 2)
The reason John Edwards is not getting any traction is that the media has made him invisible.  I heard it discussed on Hardballs a few months ago.  The Republicans were most afraid of John Edwards and least afraid of Hillary. 
[ Parent ]
you aren't alone (0.00 / 0)
although I have a feeling that on some sites, you'll get reemed for these comments. 

http://www.dailykos....

I don't normally note this diary, but I also didn't delete it.  I moved from a solid in his column to an undecided.  I'd been leaning Dodd until seeing him on C-span recently.  What he said and how he said it at Yearlykos made me consider Dodd.  The C-span interview took me right back out of that column.

I've heard time and time again from friends in NC (btw, they are african-american) that when he would visit their churches, they felt only like they were a backdrop.  They do not say the same thing about Kerry, Clinton (Bill) or Gore. 

Someone recently asked me if anyone has sealed the deal for me yet.  And no, there isn't a one.  I suppose, I'll just be happy with whomever wins the nomination and sit out this process this year.  All in all, I'd be happy with 4 of these candidates, 1's a complete crazy (no one calls Jim Hoffa Jimmy, how does he not know that?) an other is someone I've worked for and don't much care to see as Pres.  And one other makes me very uneasy in terms of race.  My daughter is bi-racial. 

When it comes to issues of race, I'm hyper-focused. I know it.  I've also learned to trust my instincts on this one.  Only takes one time of meeting a racist to make you realize that you need to trust those moments when you sti back and have to say, wait, there's something off here. 

[ Parent ]
You misunderstand (4.00 / 1)
When we suggested you READ the interview, we actually intended that you UNDERSTAND the interview.

Did her comment clang sharply on oversensitive eardrums?  Yes, it clanged on mine.  But when you read it, it is clear she had no intent in the least to mean anything remotely racist or sexist by the comment.

Seriously, do you doubt there is a feeling among liberals and democratic activists that now is the first opportunity we've ever had to put our money where our mouths have been and elect an African American or a woman to the Presidency?

Many of us have dealt with some internal conflict over just this issue.  You honestly deny that much of the media focus on these two fine candidates does NOT come from the fact that either one of them would be an historic "first" in the White House?  Good Lord, both of them have focused a good part of their rhetoric on that very point.  Obama said just last week that the moment he is sworn in, America changes forever, because his dauthers will be playing on the front lawn of the White House and his wife will be first lady.  You know what?  That's a damn good point, and a damn good point in Obama's favor as a candidate.

Now, Matt, are you going to call Obama racist?

Am I racist?

Please, don't hold back.  Let me know what you really think.

So why don't I support Obama or Clinton?  Well evaluating the candidates on their merits and on their stated positions and policies, I find I agree with John more - I like what he wants to do. Plus, I (unlike certain other bloggers, ahem ahem) am loyal.  John's my guy.  He's been my guy since 2002.

I don't have the luxury of flying off the handle at the drop of a hat and turning on people who have been very good to me. 

You really, really, really, really need an editor, Matt.  for crying out loud.

[ Parent ]
lol nt (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
um, yes it does (4.00 / 5)
Instead of being, as you call it "Elizabeth Edwards gets a little racist", it turns out to be a simple reality about why the Edwards campaign goes to the Internet -- to counter free media time that the first viable woman candidate and the first viable African receive.

I don't think acknowledging reality is even a "little" racist, and the reality is that particularly at the beginning of this primary season, Clinton and Obama got a lot of ink and air time because they are firsts. For any candidate to break through that required new approaches.  That's what the conversation was about, and including the other information most definitely makes a difference in reading and interpreting this statement.

[ Parent ]
Why Is Obama A Viable Candidate and Not Edwards (0.00 / 0)
I don't believe that Elizabeth Edwards is a racist.  The media has chosen its election story.  A white woman or a black man will get the nomination.  Why isn't Edwards a viable candidate?  He was in the Senate longer than Obama and has more gravitas.  Its group think.  Edwards haircut--Hillary, ruthless--Obama, a new kind of politics from a Washington outsider.  From what I read about Obama, none of this is true.  They call him the K Street boy because his campaign is run by the lobbiests he decries.  But you won't hear it on mainstream media.  They have decided that Hillary is a witch and Edwards is a dandy.  This is how we got Bush. Write or call the media if you support John Edwards and ask why he has disappeared from the radar screen.
[ Parent ]
How does the preceding sentence not change the ... (4.00 / 7)
... context of the following sentence?
With Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama hogging media coverage, campaigns can push their messages without paying for ads.

"Those things get you a certain amount of fundraising dollars."

Without the context, it sounds as if "those things" are, one, being black, and two, being female, when with the context it is clear that the free media given to Senators Obama and Clinton for various reasons, including of course the appealing narrative of possibly the first black or female President (resp.), is the "those things" in question.

However, that is not the slightest bit racist, so the isolated paragraph is far more widely quoted, since it makes for a far sexier media story.

And, after all, falling for the sexier media story is what the progressive blogosphere is here for ... isn't it?


[ Parent ]
she was clearly refering to race and gender (0.00 / 0)
Okay, Edwards supporters -- let's not lose ourselves in pretzel logic.

This was the quote:

"We can't make John black, we can't make him a woman. Those things get you a lot of press, worth a certain amount of fundraising dollars. Now it's nice to get on the news, but not the be all and end all."

What was "those things" supposed to refer to?

I'm not sure what Bruce means by "the free media given to Senators Obama and Clinton for various reasons, including of course the appealing narrative of possibly the first black or female President (resp.), is the "those things" in question."

--So, it was race and gender, or it was something else?  Also, you seemed to have changed the quote, without adding an elipses, in a way that changes its meaning.

Um-- it may not have been a racist comment, just perhaps an impolitic one, showing the wariness that the campaign isn't going as smoothly as was hoped.  But the "broader context" doesn't illuminate the quote very much.

[ Parent ]
not when you refuse to read it (0.00 / 0)
you're exactly right.
[ Parent ]
Not really (0.00 / 0)
I don't see that the paragraph above had any impact whatsoever on the tone of what Elizabeth Edwards said. I don't think the quote was out of context at all.
[ Parent ]
Out of context it could be, as Matt tries to (4.00 / 4)
make it, "a little racist". In context, it is simply why the Edwards campaign goes to the Internet as much - because the first viable woman and the first viable African-American candidates of course receive more free media attention.  Elizabeth wasn't saying they wanted to make Edwards into Clinton or Obama, only that he doesn't have the immediate hook that those two had and still have.

But of course if one doesn't want to see the difference, one won't.

[ Parent ]
In fairness to Edwards, (4.00 / 3)
I think the "moral" problem of "poverty" is a Catch-22. 

On the one hand, I don't think you can call a poverty platform a purely political one.  It is not possible, IMO, to see the struggles of people who are living with little to no money and not have it tug at some basic part of you that's human (which is the part that I have no problem calling the "moral" part, and that I think needn't have Christian undertones).  Also, I really don't see a way to mobilize political action without really trying to connect with people on that level.

On the other hand, no one wants a hand-out, which is why people without money feel uneasy as being the beneficiaries of the "poverty platform."  I know.  I grew up dirt-poor, in the ghetto, raised by a single parent who couldn't have collected child support even if the IRS could find the guy who should have paid it.  As a result of some good luck, I now find myself as Edwards' intended audience--a 27-year-old white guy with an advanced degree, which is why perhaps I can easily see both sides.  Trust me, the majority of people who were in the welfare office with my mom and I felt bad about being there, and hearing politicians refer to "the poor" and how much "they need our help" is tantamount to a virtual welfare office.

So.  I like Edwards' call for us to focus on this.  I also like that it's a moral call.  However, when talking about "poverty," I think candidates should avoid talking about people.  Talk about what is wrong with our system that enables poverty, as if poverty were some living entity.  But when talking about the lives of people who, by definition are in poverty but don't want the pity that piggybacks on that word, I think candidates should talk about what it's like for people to not be able to afford basic necessities.  In other words, be specific. 

As any author will tell you, "show, don't tell."  Don't tell people that you care about an issue as broad as this, instead, tell them that you understand how it feels to not be able to afford milk, and how you want to address that.  Don't tell them that you understand what it's like to be poor and therefore unable to afford milk.

The call is still a moral one, and can still be about the conditions that create that nefarious beast, Poverty, but connect with people based on what they experience in their daily lives.

Which is what any good politician should do about any issue.

Then why (0.00 / 0)
Wasn't a single question about poverty asked at the YearlyKos presidential forum?

I found that incredibly interesting, after all the arguments on blogs about John Edwards being the best because he's the only one talking about poverty.

Thanks for the post, Matt.

Politics is a strong and slow boring of hard boards.

[ Parent ]
what does this mean? (4.00 / 3)
For the forum, there was a panel that selected the questions from a larger pool. You should ask them if there were any questions about poverty.

There were several questions that touched on poverty in Edwards' breakout session.

Join us at the Missouri community blog Show Me Progress!

[ Parent ]
Correction clarkent (0.00 / 0)
There were not several questions that touched on poverty in Edwards' breakout session.  There was only one, which was the first question, when the young lady framed the question as to how could John Edwards' continually talk about poverty while he supported the death penalty.

I blogged about that very question here: http://www.blogforde...

[ Parent ]
I have no idea (4.00 / 2)
I have no connection with YearlyKos.  I'm also not sure how to take your second comment.  Like you, I enjoyed Matt's post, and was simply talking about the dangers inherent in discussing poverty, and thought I made it clear that I like the fact that Edwards is doing so.
[ Parent ]
only one talking about poverty?!?!?! (4.00 / 3)
Obama's made at least 2 MAJOR speeches about poverty.  He got attacked all over the white media for at least one of them. 

The Chicago Tribune and other white, republican media outlets went after him hard after his speech where he invoked the term "quiet riot".  Obama has outlined a huge plan to deal with issues of poverty. 

And Obama's speech about the quiet riots, sadly, is on the verge of turning into stark reality, as Lawndale (Chicago neighborhood that was the site of Dr. King's crusade in Chicago, and much violence in the late '60's) nearly broke out into a race riot just this past week.
http://www.barackoba...
http://www.barackoba...
http://www.barackoba...

I don't know where Clinton's at on this, or any of the other candidates, but Edwards is far from the only one. 

[ Parent ]
Ah yes (0.00 / 0)
You are correct - David Axelrod has in fact opened up his breifcase and taken several old edwards speeches and put them in Obama's hand.

How could I foget?

[ Parent ]
Identity politics (4.00 / 6)
I read the Edwards campaign complaint as a criticism of a certain weird species of identity politics -- that you have to be non-white or non-male to speak authentically about poverty, because those minorities are overrepresented among the poor.  The fact that Edwards grew up "poor" seems to disappear in light of his white maleness and current wealth.

But who cares about his corporeal identity -- I sure don't!  Hillary is, I believe, not a whit more progressive because she is female.

And regarding supposed condescension in Edwards' approach? I don't buy this either.  He is making a moral argument to the whole country, not to poor people.  It's refreshing to be asked to think of others and our commonality.  And frankly, our anti-poor culture is so strong that it's almost impossible to ask middle class people, no matter how jeopardized their current status is, to make common cause with the poor out of self-interest.

Authenticity is the key concept (4.00 / 1)
You don't have to be Black to speak authentically about poor people. For whatever reason, John Edwards just can't close the deal. It's not because he's white or wealthy. I think Bill Clinton actually did a great job at it.

I really admire Edwards for the campaign he has run in this primary, and I like him as a person, from what I can tell of him. But the fact of the matter is his framing is totally off on this. And the framing he and his campaign have chosen, combined with the way he delivers his messages, just does not sit well with people.

He's basically tone-deaf, as is his campaign. And this comment by Elizabeth totally makes the case. The one white-guy frontrunner candidate can't catch a break in fundraising because he's white? That is so not going to fly.

Politics is a strong and slow boring of hard boards.

[ Parent ]
er... (0.00 / 0)
What's the correct framing, then?

Join us at the Missouri community blog Show Me Progress!
[ Parent ]
At the risk of repeated myself, (4.00 / 1)
Elizabeth was talking about why the campaign goes to the internet. So your condescending comment doesn't fly either.

On another question, however, how is John Edwards' efforts to focus attention on poverty issues and the threats to the middle-class different from other candidates doing the same thing? For example, Obama's Fighting Poverty issues page starts with

There are 37 million poor Americans. Most poor Americans are in the workforce, yet still cannot afford to make ends meet. And too many poor Americans are single mothers who are raising children.

[ Parent ]
Major Dem Candidates Find a New Audience On the Internet (0.00 / 0)
I used to watch CNN all the time until they changed their foremat from news to commentary, 24-7.  Now I get all my news from the Internet, where I can read it unfiltered by the likes of Ann Coulter.  When you watch CNN, MSNBC and FOX see how many advertisements you see about Joining The Military, Visiting Saudi Arabia, New Pharmaceudicals, etc.  These sponsors are paying for the content of the news.  Scary isn't it when less than 5 corporations control the news we watch.  This is why we need to keep the internet neutral or we will have no place to go to get the truth.
[ Parent ]
Um, your own preconceptions are showing (4.00 / 6)
Bill Clinton did a great job at what? Feeling your pain as he signed into law the worst welfare "reform" in the history of the program? Yeah, Bill is a great showman -- people still seem to think he actually cared about something other than himself.

If Edwards can't "close the deal", just maybe that's because Americans don't give a shit about poverty until it happens to them. What makes Edwards different is that he talks about poverty as a symptom of what's gone wrong in America. His underlying call is for economic justice as a moral issue. To me that is far above what anybody else is saying.

As far as Elizabeth Edwards's remark, would you really deny that the possibility of electing the first black or female president doesn't account for a certain amount of media attention and contributions? It is exciting. Why pretend otherwise? But straight talking is clearly as much anathema to Dems as it is to Republicans.

[ Parent ]
maybe it is exciting (0.00 / 0)
but why complain about it?
[ Parent ]
Who complained? (4.00 / 1)
Read the thread.
[ Parent ]
Elections Should Be Decided By the Electorate Not The Media (0.00 / 0)
Bill Clinton was a great president.  He wasn't supposed to win but Ross Perot entering the race gave him the traction he needed to pull out that Election and the media spent the next 8 years trying to destroy him.  Since Reagan the republicans have done everything they could to destroy the middle class.  Except for that 8 year blip when we created 22 million jobs, balanced the budget, and secured social security for 50 years.  Back comes a Bush and we are worse off than we were in 1991.  Ask yourself why the media pushes Obama instead of Edwards, when Obama continues to go down in the Polls, why he has the most money.
[ Parent ]
Agreed. (4.00 / 6)
The Edwards' are in a difficult position in that they know that the media has been unfair to them, but how do they fight back w.o. sounding paranoid to your average low-info. voter?

  The poverty argument may speak to a framing failure on Edwards' part, but to say that it's inappropriate to talk about poverty in moral tones is senseless.

  And once you start talking about "Christian overtones," that's just flat-out prejudice. It's one thing to object to the substance of what he's saying; quite another to judge  him by his relegion.

  Any number of great Democrats have been wealthy white men acting out of, and voicing allegiance to, moral convictions. 

the conspiracy against whites (2.00 / 2)
Two quotes from Ad Nags' piece on Edwards last week stand out for me:
"They want me to shut up," an unsmiling Mr. Edwards said to an audience in Creston, Iowa, on Thursday - remarks that were videotaped by an Edwards campaign worker and posted both on YouTube and the popular liberal Web site MyDD.com. "Let's distract from people who don't have health care coverage. Let's distract from people who can't feed their children. Let's talk about this frivolous, nothing stuff."

"They will never silence me," he continued, not explaining who "they" were.


"The hair commercial was Joe's idea," Mrs. Edwards said. "Your choice on the hair stuff is to say this is not important, or make a joke at yourself or get angry at it because you know who is pushing it - we know who is pushing it and what campaigns are associated with it," she said, without elaborating. "He thought of a 30-second way to make the point."
Maybe, just maybe, people aren't buying one more Edwards transformation.  I like where he is right now, but this whole The Man Is Trying To Shut Me Up conspiracy thing is just juvenile.
conspiracy against whites? (4.00 / 1)
What a bunch of BS.

Join us at the Missouri community blog Show Me Progress!
[ Parent ]
Then who is trying to silence Edwards? (4.00 / 1)
The sugar trusts?  The coal syndicate? 
[ Parent ]
Who do you think doesn't like a candidate (4.00 / 1)
who challenges conventional wisdoms, doesn't want to be part of the DC elites, doesn't step aside for the inevitable candidates, wants to get Big Oil, Big Pharma, insurance companies out of the influence-peddling business?
[ Parent ]
Hmm. (0.00 / 0)
Obama has a much more aggressive anti-corruption platform to restrict the power of lobbyists than Edwards does, and he's not being silenced.  Edwards just says he'll "fight" them, but doesn't explain how he'll magically win these fights.
[ Parent ]
While lobbyists in Congress (4.00 / 2)
are one thing, I do give Edwards credit for taking on big corporations as a lawyer. He's obviously got the skills in that regard to fight like hell and win as an underdog.

Netroots Director for Oregon Senate Candidate Jeff Merkley
[ Parent ]
completely different ballgame (0.00 / 0)
Courtrooms have rules to ensure a fair argument, and judges to enforce them.  Courtroom battles are decided by disinterested parties.  Edwards was always guaranteed a fair hearing in court.  Etc.
[ Parent ]
Really, and what is that (0.00 / 0)
to identify bundlers? What else is part of Obama's plan?
[ Parent ]
Read it yourself: (4.00 / 1)
It's right here (12-page PDF).
[ Parent ]
He isn't the first. (0.00 / 0)
To challenge entrenched interests. There is nothing new about the Edwards narrative. That does not mean its bad, but to pretend that he is the only candidate who will challenge entrenched interests ever is just dishonest.
[ Parent ]
No, he's not the first or only (4.00 / 2)
but, at least IMO, he's the strongest one in the field right now.
[ Parent ]
Who is pushing (0.00 / 0)
the story?
[ Parent ]
Exactly. (0.00 / 0)
I like Edwards and agree with the majority of his platform. But this is already one of the most tired narratives of the election season.
[ Parent ]
Could it be... (4.00 / 1)
the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy that some other Dem exposed a while back? Must have been another tinfoil hatter, I guess.
[ Parent ]
that makes little sense (0.00 / 0)
If Edwards is that far to the left, wouldn't the Republicans relish a chance to take him on in 2008?
[ Parent ]
No they wouldn't (4.00 / 1)
because inspite of his populist agenda when he really talks to people they do not see him as far to the left.  The truth is that he is not really far to the left, it just seems that way to the corporatists because they have been running the country on the backs of the middle class.

Join other progressives at EENRblog
[ Parent ]
No. (0.00 / 0)
There is not a single left-right spectrum, on which "too extreme" equals unpopular and unelectable. 

Economic populism is very dangerous to the GOP.  It's also very dangerous to the interests of the DLC and the New Dem coalition.  Economic populism is very dangerous to the economic establishment that funds all of the GOP and half of the Dems, and the GOP is NOT eager to run against a well-articulated economic populism in a high visibility presidential campaign.

The method used by the economic establishment to fight economic populists is to strangle them in the elite media before their campaigns can get off the ground and before their messages can be widely disseminated.  I realize that sounds conspiratorial, but I do think it is true.  The elite media, along with the "x can't fundraise / isn't serious" narrative, is the tool of choice to fight off economic populism.

Which of course is exactly what the Edwardses were saying here and in other instances.

Sherrod Brown, Bobby Casey, and Jim Webb all got elected on economic populism, but they each had the explicit blessing of Chuckie Schumer.  Bobby Casey actually had power on his own, because his dad had established an independent political legacy, but Sherrod Brown and Jim Webb could both have been crushed by the elite media had the signal been sent out, and under normal conditions, probably would have been.  Because it was so obviously time to elect some Democrats to establish a check on the president, I think a lot of the powers that be backed off, and the media understood that victories by Brown and Webb were acceptable. But again, they also had the explicit greenlight from Chuckie Schumer and his donors.  Edwards doesn't have that; in fact, for some reason or another, "everyone in the beltway hates Edwards."  I actually don't know what that reason is, though it might be related to this.

[ Parent ]
whuh? (0.00 / 0)
I have trouble believing that the media would take orders from Chuck Schumer.  If anything, Harold Ford's loss really takes the wind out of that balloon, b/c who would be a more media-friendly, "safe" Democratic face?
[ Parent ]
Edwards Scares The Republicans (0.00 / 0)
The populist message which Edwards delivers terrifies the republicans, so they work to make him invisible.  He must be silenced or the ordinary Americans will take notice.  Notice what passes for news today--for instance the Bridge Collapse.  In other times you would have had the Mine Workers Union, the media would have talked about other mine disasters this last year and the fact that mine regulations were made voluntary instead of mandatory by this administration.  But instead we get endless news conferences by the Mine owner. What passes for news is the latest missing blonde or misbehaving black athlete. The name of the game is to figure a way to get to the people without the media's filter.
[ Parent ]
Is the Average American juvenile? (0.00 / 0)
adamb is saying that, because of Adam Nagourney's description of Edwards' 30-second soundbite-framing of the issue of unfair/immaterial press coverage, spoken by Edwards so the Average Joe hears and connects with Edwards (and I believe that they do), it's "juvenile". I'm not sure how I can reasonably respond to this bluntly arbitrary analysis other than to say that I certainly don't agree. I suspect the average American understands exactly what Edwards is talking about when he gives them that 30-second lesson. Is the average American "juvenile" or are they misinformed by a media that doesn't do its job as it should? Do you think there's a better way, in 30 seconds, to explain to Americans that Edwards cares about what's most important to them and how he's different than some of the other 2008 candidates?
[ Parent ]
You quote Nagourney? (0.00 / 0)
Nagourney is one of "them" trying to shut him up.

Nagourney is a notorious "boy on the bus"  he puts his own opinions into how he frames stories, even how he quotes candidates.  I've seen him distort quotes that I was in the room to hear.  I've seen him do it to edwards.

I CALLED him on it, and he looked at me and denied he was going to do it and then the next day, his article did EXACTLY what he denied he was going to do.

So if you're going to run with this line of attack, find something else other than a bad reporter to rely on.

[ Parent ]
Edwards (4.00 / 5)
I also think Edwards has been great on the issues and is quite politically talented. Besides the things you mention, a couple of other things bother me enough to be supporting Obama. First, I get uncomfortable when he calls poverty the "cause of his life." It's great that he was a successful trial lawyer. It's a good profession, and I'm sure he saw some things during his career that inspired him to enter politics. But John Edwards has not spent his entire career fighting poverty--that's misleading, and disrespectful to people who actually have. There are many different kinds of law that deal directly with issues of poverty and inequality (in fact, Obama practiced in one of these areas). And while I think the New York Times article was a little unfair for not acknowledging any of the Poverty Center's efforts, I do think it was established with his political campaign in mind. It was not staffed entirely by sociology professors, but seemed to be laden with campaign operatives. Again, I think it did good things and demonstrated that Edwards really cares about talking about poverty and working to end it, but I think it was largely an effort to tie in the issue to his campaign and provide a platform.

Also, while his change in positions and rhetoric following the 2004 loss largely accommodated my own political sensibilities, I can't help but feel that they were a bow to political reality more than a great moral awakening. The co-sponsor of the Iraq war who ran in 2003 as an heir to Bill Clinton's throne offered one of the least comprehensive health care packages and was opposed to civil unions. 2004 saw the rise of activism associated with the Dean campaign and the subsequent takeover of the DNC. The party was headed in a new direction. Edwards also had to know he wasn't going to be the DLC/insider candidate in 2008 with Hillary Clinton looming large, and thus needed a change in his game. Hillary Clinton has been a fairly reliable liberal vote in the Senate, a couple of high-profile and regrettable mistakes notwithstanding. My reason for not supporting her in the primary is that I've never trusted her Presidency to be about more than her: I felt she was all too willing to throw the progressive movement under the bus if we were no longer politically popular/convenient. I hold some of the same fears with Edwards: what happens if there is a backlash against us in the 2010 midterms, similar to 1994? Will President Edwards be like candidate Edwards of 2008, candidate Edwards of 2004, or, perhaps worse, Edwards the Senator (who spoke in front of the DLC)?

I do think Edwards is much more likely than Hillary to stand up for our principles in that scenario. I give him credit for his bold positions on many of the issues in the campaign, even if they were politically necessary for his campaign. Particularly, he was one of the first to publicly admit his war vote was a mistake. While Obama may have stepped on his turf upon entering the campaign, and while Edwards may be critical of Obama at times, I think their mutual presence makes each a better candidate, and Edwards is my #2.

Nice post, (4.00 / 1)
although I'm not as convinced as you that Edwards' focus on poverty was as simple a political calculation as you suggest.  I think that, after the 2004 race, he realized that running a traditional campaign wasn't the right way to go, and so he figured to highlight something that has always been important but was not part of his central platform for political reasons.

FWIW, I'm undecided between Obama and Edwards, but think that the competition will make each a better candidate.

[ Parent ]
thanks (0.00 / 0)
I think he's always cared about poverty (how could you be a Democrat and not care about it?), but I think he's treading on dangerous waters trying to get mileage out of his past experiences. On the calculation thing, I was thinking about a lot of other issues, like gay rights, the war, health care, felon voting, the DLC, etc. that he's changed his position on since 2004. All of these things in combination, corresponding with the moment the progressive movement was coming into its own, are really disconcerting to me. He was a DLCer when they were en vogue, and he's a progressive when we're all the rage. Like I said, I like his positions and his campaign, but elections are more than a checklist for me.
[ Parent ]
I think the amount of money he spent ... (0.00 / 0)
... on polling this year compared to his previous run gives an indication of when he was following the CW regarding crafting the politically adroit platform, and when he decided to advance what he thought were solutions to problems the country faces.
[ Parent ]
Feelings (4.00 / 6)
I really don't much care about the candidates' innermost feelings. I care about what they see and what they promise to do about it. Edwards is the only one besides Kucinich seeing and articulating some of America's deepest problems. He's talking about fundamentals, which may indeed be poor framing for an American pol, but he has pretty much single-handedly forced all the campaigns to push beyond the calorie-free pablum we've come to expect.

Maybe the difference is that I'm mad as hell, and Edwards expresses that and stakes his chances on making real change. The rest of the frontrunners are basically middle managers who will tinker with this and that and try to make things a little better. I think we're past the point where any of that matters. We need fundamental change and Edwards is the only one who seems willing to recognize that elephant in the room.

I started leaning toward Obama but his stuff is getting harder and harder to distinguish from a Zoloft commercial. We hear a lot of claims that Edwards is distant from "real people", but I have to wonder how much you can be with real people and still think there's One America. His hallmark card view of present reality is starting to get seriously disturbing. Bottom line, he's kind of channeling JFK while Edwards channels LBJ. I think JFK's time has passed, but we could really use an LBJ, smarter about stupid wars this time, again. Nonetheless I could happily work for Obama in the general. And about Hillary, the less said the better.

[ Parent ]
I agree.... (0.00 / 0)
...totally. Edwards is saying that to survive this nation needs to change in major ways.

Obama...The Hill....same ol', same ol'.

Either of them will be disaster for the Democrats and as for being 'progressive' they say one picture is worth thousand words so....

Here is mine....

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
feelings (4.00 / 1)
well, if those are your feelings on the candidates' feelings on the issues, there they are.

I think your mistaken, however, when you associate Obama as a middle manager who is trying to make little changes. I would refer you to a couple of plans which I believe are unparalleled among the entire field of candidates:

-Obama's Urban Poverty Plan
-Obama's Ethics Reform Package

I would hardly call either of the above "tinkering," as I think they go further on the issues than any other candidate has as of yet. Obama has caught a lot of flack for not having a mandate in his health plan, which I think the Edwards campaign and its supporters have woven with his rhetorical style into a narrative that Obama is "tinkering" while Edwards offers real change. I just don't see that as being true, and in any case I find the way Obama has led his life and his resulting world view far more impressive.

Also, the jury is still out for me on the health care mandate. I'm a single-payer advocate, and I'm uncomfortable forcing people into the system as it currently is. Also, I'm a college student, and in less than 2 years I will be off of my mother's employer-based plan. Depending on the job I get out of school, I may be joining the ranks of the uninsured as a matter of convenience, and wouldn't want to be forced to give up a substantial portion of what will likely be a very limited income from a job in the non-profit sector because I'm being forced to buy health insurance. I know it's probably a bad bet, but I'm 21 years old.

[ Parent ]
Obama Is Not An Agent Of Change (0.00 / 0)
Why has Obama alligned himself with the very lobbiests he decries?  Obama is same old same old.  His best pal in the Senate is Lieberman.  Obama talks about the Reagan revolution like its a wink to the big boys.  I'm with you.
[ Parent ]
bzzt (0.00 / 0)
His closest ally in the Senate, and mentor, is Dick Durbin.  With which "lobbiest" [sic] has he aligned?
[ Parent ]
bzzt. (0.00 / 0)
There was an article in the Hill.com and one in the Boston Globe blog.  However, I am unable to link them for you.  Just type in Obama and lobbiests what the real story.  This should get you to a number of stories. 
[ Parent ]
Sorry, no. (0.00 / 0)
Not my job to do your homework.
[ Parent ]
The system as it currently is? (0.00 / 0)
Forcing health insurance companies to:
* accept all comers who pick their plan, irrespective of existing conditions
* offer plans with terms equal to or better than the public plan
* through the same point of access as the public plan
* in direct competition with a public plan

... I don't get how that fits the description:

Also, the jury is still out for me on the health care mandate. I'm a single-payer advocate, and I'm uncomfortable forcing people into the system as it currently is

On the point of the appeal of being a free rider on others:

Depending on the job I get out of school, I may be joining the ranks of the uninsured as a matter of convenience, and wouldn't want to be forced to give up a substantial portion of what will likely be a very limited income from a job in the non-profit sector because I'm being forced to buy health insurance. I know it's probably a bad bet, but I'm 21 years old.

As the system is currently constructed, the bet is that you probably won't get sick, and if you do and need serious treatment, you will be treated, go bankrupt, and someone else will end up picking up the tab.

And, yes, the bankruptcy will be a terrible experience and your standard of living is likely to take a sharp hit, but the fact that you end up miserable does not actually fund the expense.

However, under Edwards plan, if you take a job at a very limited income, a substantial part of the cost of the plan will be covered by your tax credit, plus a smaller amount by the 6% "pay" side of the play or pay, so rather than taking a free ride on all users of the system in the event that your gamble on health does not pay off, you get a heavily discounted ride up front from tax credits, funded by increasing taxes on those who make $200,000+ ... that is, the contribution to your health care costs as a limited income worker will be determined by their ability to pay, and not be how much medical care they need that bear the cost shifting from covering free riders.

Plus, by slashing the out of pocket cost of preventative health care, you will in fact be less likely to be seriously ill, since you are much less likely to refrain from seeking preventative care due to the additional cost. And that will reduce the risk that you will needvery expensive health care.

[ Parent ]
Just a little backround (4.00 / 5)
Before he entered politics he spent lots of time working with the Urban Ministries and Habitat for Humanity. He built two learning labs in NC for kids who couldn't afford computers and tutoring. Elizabeth spent everyday for two years tutoring kids for free. They've given and helped numerous NC shelters, libraries and schools. So, even though his law career may not be directly linked with fighting poverty, he did other things in the area, that make me believe that it has been a cause he's fought for, for a very long time.

Netroots Director for Oregon Senate Candidate Jeff Merkley
[ Parent ]
Matt (4.00 / 6)
I really don't understand why you keep conflating how Edwards is polling in certain groups with who he is speaking to. Do poor people really feel that Edwards is condescending, or have they just not heard his message?

  A lot of low income people literally have no idea what's going on in politics. For example, after the Urban League forum, I took the train home. On the platform, I was holding an Edwards sign and a bunch of bumper stickers, and a woman in her mid-30s wearing her janitor's uniform asked me what office he was running for. I told her "President." She then asked me if he was a Democrat or Republican. I have plenty of similar anecdotes from working in my mixed-income neighborhood, as well as with our One Corps chapter around St. Louis.

Join us at the Missouri community blog Show Me Progress!

hmmm (4.00 / 1)
A lot of low income people literally have no idea what's going on in politics.

Leaving aside the disturbing tone of that sentence, I would say that a lot of middle and upper income people literally have no idea what's going on either. We're not exactly the most engaged country in the world.

That said, there is a point to the "speaking to" vs. "condescension" issue. Obama's Promise Neighborhoods plan is very empowering of local people for whom the project is aimed, and from his rhetoric and (especially) his extemporaneous remarks, it is often readily apparent you're listening to a former community organizer. These things definitely matter, and it's not always the case that the person who simply talks the most about poor people is going to get the most traction.

[ Parent ]
good point about middle and upper income voters (4.00 / 4)
But my point still stands. I've talked to a lot of people that literally didn't know who was running for president besides Clinton and Obama. 99% were low-income.

The poor people who I talk to who support Obama don't say anything about poverty, either. They are excited to support an African-American, they like his message of unity, they like that he was against the war from the start. They never say anything about his approach to poverty issues.

Join us at the Missouri community blog Show Me Progress!

[ Parent ]
The poor (0.00 / 0)
Poor people are not supporting your candidate because they are not paying attention? That is a very desperate argument. Edwards has gotten plenty of exposure when he ran for vice president in 2004. The only state that Edwards is less than 20% behind the front runner is Iowa. This is even though he has already visited New Hampshire and South Carolina a combined 57 times. You can't blame poor people for his lack of traction in states were there is high media saturation about his campaign.

I you want health care, work hard. If you want universal health care, vote for liberals.
[ Parent ]
Actually (4.00 / 1)
I run into this all the time. Plenty of people either don't realize he's running for president, or they don't even know who he is.

Join us at the Missouri community blog Show Me Progress!
[ Parent ]
And (0.00 / 0)
You live in New Hampshire and South Carolina and have conducted recent scientific polls?

I you want health care, work hard. If you want universal health care, vote for liberals.
[ Parent ]
My problem with Barack Obama (4.00 / 6)
Read my comment below for background.

Here's my problem with Obama, and with Clinton for that matter. 

While they are both willing to engage in talk about poverty, they both seem to see the solution in simply growing the economy rather than addressing the distribution of wealth in our society.

They've managed to throw out the 20th century, and take us back to the naive assumptions of classic Liberalism.  In short they are not progressives, nor are they populists.

In his keynote speech at the launch of the Hamilton Project (If the DLC is the CIA, these guys are the NSA. They accept the loss of the 20th century as a given, and denigrate the legacy of FDR, Truman, and LBJ.) Obama went on about how "education" is the key to addressing the problem of poverty, thereby reinforcing the idea that there hasn't been a fundamental shift in our society, whereby the link between increaes in productivity and wages has been severed.

In Obama's worldview, the poor are poor because they are uneducated.  Poverty becomes a sign of moral failure, and the idea that the precepts of equality that we hold dear in our poltical life are dismissed when discussing the economy.  The idea that democracy belongs in the workplace as much as the home place is given short shrift.

How is this in any way progressive or populist?

[ Parent ]
Edward's rhetoric (0.00 / 0)
What will Edwards do to end poverty beside talk about it? He has a healthcare plan that is only marginally better than Obama's. He will end Bush's tax cut for those making over 200K per year; Obama has promised virtually the same thing.

If anything the poor are realists and are wary of politicians with big promises.

I you want health care, work hard. If you want universal health care, vote for liberals.

[ Parent ]
Unions (4.00 / 4)
John Edwards has been a loyal supporter of labor unions.

He called them the best way to fight poverty in America, and he's not afraid to use the word with any audience. And he didn't only talk the talk, he's walked the walk, walking picket lines in support of workers all over the US dozens of times over the last 4 years.

[ Parent ]
Tons of things!!! (4.00 / 3)
OMG! He's got so many proposals on the table right now, funding the first year of college for low income kids, a stepping stones jobs program, creating 50,000 green collar jobs a year, second chance schools for high school drop outs, he's proposed working bonds to help low income families save money, he's got a plan to rein in on predatory mortgages, creating a home rescue fund to help families facing foreclosure, raising the minimum wage to $9.50, he's got plans to rein in on credit card company and predatory lending abuses.....he's got so many plans to help alleviate poverty. Here are just a few links to some of his proposals that will help lift people out of poverty:
http://johnedwards.c...
http://johnedwards.c...
http://johnedwards.c...
http://johnedwards.c...
http://johnedwards.c...
http://johnedwards.c...

Netroots Director for Oregon Senate Candidate Jeff Merkley
[ Parent ]
I think (4.00 / 2)
you should read Obama's plan to address urban poverty. It doesn't seem like you really understand where he is coming from on the issue at all.

Here's a diary I wrote about it on MyDD, and here's a link to the official copy of the plan (7-page PDF).

[ Parent ]
poor are not poor because they are uneducated (4.00 / 2)
however, american schools in poor neighborhoods are a joke--a complete and utter joke.  the focus on education isn't to moralize poverty its to give parents and kids who live in those neighborhoods a fighting and fair chance.
[ Parent ]
Ok (4.00 / 2)
But do you really think that the reason why America has income inequality is because of a lack of education?

And if we focus on education, what about the kids who don't want to go to college, should they be condemned to poverty because they don't have a college degree?

Is the problem something that relates to economic laws, or is it that employers have been successful in destroying unions and undermining the idea of solidarity that formed the basis for the New Deal that they've been able to void the post war social contract?

The problem as I see it, is one of the changing distribution of gains, which the chart I posted show have not been favorable to people who live by work rather than wealth.  And this is a phenomenon that occurs economy wide, it's not a matter of education level.  It's about the greatest theft in human history, facilitated by people who've told us that unless we allow inequality we will not have economic growth.

We need someone who is willing to say that we have to address the distribution of wealth in society, and that this can not be done by growing the economy alone.

[ Parent ]
OMG (0.00 / 0)
You have to be kidding me if you don't believe that

America has income inequality is because of a lack of education?

Education is the key to success in America.

As a person who grew up in an urban environment and raised by a single mother, I was taught one thing:

they can try to strip you of everything...your job...your dignity...but they can never take away your education.

[ Parent ]
You have totally misunderstood the issue (4.00 / 1)
My mother said the same thing to me and I believed her and became a teacher and school administrator and have tremendous respect for education.

However my mother and father were immigrants.  They worked hard and at times were exploited.  Their time on the job was worth at least to earn enough to feed and look after their family.  They didn't always get it.  The best thing that happened to my family was my father got a job and became part of the Steelworkers union.  That afforded them to support me through university.

One's value as a human being and a worker is not predicated on the level of education.  We need waiters, and garbage men and cashiers in grocery stores.  Education levels do not need to be college degrees, but these people who work hard and long hours deserve respect and a living wage.

Job structures such as outsourcing to India are impacting computer specialists and leaving them unemployed.  Education is not the whole answer for everyone or structurally for society.  It can be for an individual, but a government needs to look at the issues with the complexity in mind.

Join other progressives at EENRblog

[ Parent ]
Welfare reform and global trade agreements (4.00 / 1)
Don't forget that the Clinton's were in power when the conservative welfare reform was signed into law.  Also they were in power when many of the global free-trade-American job export agreements were made law!  So no, they are not progressive minded, and for that matter, they seem not working class supporter minded either.  So what majority voter block does support teh Clintons now??
[ Parent ]
What majority voter block (0.00 / 0)
So what majority voter block does support teh Clintons now??

I suppose you mean the same one that showed Joe Lieberman with an unassailable lead at this point in 2003.

[ Parent ]
Look (0.00 / 0)
If you are a Repub, you are not going to vote for a Dem even if that Dem is Repub-like in their historical actions.  If you are a liberal, you are not going to be happy with a Dem that has a voting record which supports repub economic ideas.  If you are a member of the vast working class (union types in the past), you may be confused about the Clinton brand of politics, and that is understandable.  However, that brand of politics is very open to swift-boating type sabotage from the Repubs because the Clinton actions were so two-faced and politically schizo to begin with.

So I say again with respect to Clinton mostly, but maybe it applys to Obama somewhat (hard to say since he is so inexperienced with little record of doing much), who are her/his main large reliable voting blocks given this schizo political idealogy shown over the last 17 years?? 

[ Parent ]
Its My Problem With Obama Too (0.00 / 0)
Simplistic answers to difficult problems.  Its so iritating because it gets us nowhere.  I believe that Franklin Roosevelt was the greatest president of all time.  But you won't get on TV if you say that.  Its a damn shame.
[ Parent ]
And these are the many people, especially, (0.00 / 0)
women that Clinton MUST get to the polls, if she is the candidate.
[ Parent ]
What if we change the words? (4.00 / 5)
Instead of "moral" issue, how about a "values" issue?  I went to a disabilities forum put on by the Edwards campaign in NH, he wasn't there but his staff were, including his campaign manager, and I came away after listening to many disabled people, and people who work with the disabled community, thinking about the values I care about, and how I, and others, really need to be honest about looking at our values, and then finding a candidate who would lead us to really work for those values.  That is what I find in John Edwards.
I am a white female Democratic grassroots activist, and all the people like me I know are liking John Edwards best. I think that is interesting. I have no problem trusting him, but I have a lot of problems trusting Hillary or Obama. 
The issue a lot of people here talk about is healthcare, and that may be the major draw of Edwards.  At least that is what I am hearing.
I also wonder how much of the Hillary stuff is name recognition, and how much is the "inevitability" (she's going to win so let's get on board now) that seems to have replaced "electability" as the mantra we had in 2004. 
I'm concerned (4.00 / 7)
with the "poverty" narrative that the media have characterized as the heart of the Edwards campaign. I don't think that really cover the broader issue which is inequality. 

It's easy to talk about poverty as a candidate, because there's a belief that through growing the pie you can make every one better off without changing the distribution of the slice.  But to talk about inequality is something altogether diferent.  With poverty, the presumption is that it is an absolute, and that with a certain amount of goods and services, someone ceases to be "poor." Say we have a 100 people and one pie.  With the poverty narrative even if that means that one person gets 2/3rds of the pie, and the 99 get the other 1/3rd, they are still better off is their piece of the pie is larger than before the pie grew.  Their wealth has increased in absolute terms, even if it has remained the same or worsened in relative terms.

If we have an ineqaulty narrative, then the absurdity of this situation is exposed, and we have economic democracy.  In which the presumption that all are equal and the great disparities in power are anti-democratic, extends not only to poltics but also to economics.  The implication is the distribution matters.  You can't grow your way out of poverty wiithout addressing the unequal distribution of wealth in society. Distribution matters. 

A recent experiment at UC San Diego showed that the utilitarian assumptions about human behavior that form the basis of the poverty narrative are not replicated in reality.

Behavioral economists at UC San Diego recently conducted a study in which tokens were distributed among experimental subjects, with a few getting a concentrated chunk of the wealth and a majority getting little. They offered the "poor" subjects the opportunity to pay a price to take money away from the rich. The catch was that rather than being redistributed, the money would simply disappear. Economic orthodoxy predicts that few would snap at the chance, since they'd be paying for something that would confer no direct benefit. But they did. In spades.

Though only one data point, it suggests that people have a profound sense of economic fairness, that we are all, more or less, intuitive socialists. As far back as Edmund Burke, conservatives have suspected as much and feared democracy for that very reason. Read James Madison in the Federalist Papers and it's clear that many of the Constitution's undemocratic elements were designed to prevent the expropriation of wealth from an outnumbered elite.

This central tension between laissez faire capitalism and the redistributive whims of a democratic electorate isn't discussed much. But it can poke through the surface during moments of clarity, such as the last election, when minimum wage increases passed in every state-red and blue-where they were on the ballot.

In an interview with The Progressive, Elizabeth Edwards talked about her husband's campaign in similiar terms, suggesting that while the media have made "poverty" the focus of his campaign, in reality he's focused on ineqaulity.

Q: What's the answer for your husband?

Edwards: It's the continuing inequity. We still have a middle class that lives on a razor blade. So sometimes when you say poverty, you neglect a large portion of the population about whom he's deeply concerned. It's the two-income trap. It's more likely in America that your parents will file for bankruptcy than divorce. We think of divorce as so prevalent, but we all know that happens because somebody moves out of the house. But when bankruptcy happens, they stay there, they close up, and you don't feel what's going on. But what that means is we have all these families under stress, constantly. And then we have the people who are trying to get out of dire distress. You hear that thirty-seven million people in this country live in poverty, and fifteen million people-fifteen million- live in deep poverty, which is $7,800 for a family of three.

Q: It's unimaginable.

Edwards: It is unimaginable. What do you hear these other people saying? Not one word. It's fine to go give a speech on inequity. But I don't for a minute think it's what drives these other candidates. I don't. Maybe it's not a failure of their heart but a failure of their communication. But I know what drives John. So I know how he would lead. He would lead on the same things he talked about before he was running. And if people didn't talk about it before, and they do talk about it while they are running, I'm not convinced they are going to do the same things.

I think that if Edwards wants to win he has to escape from the trap of being cast as the "anti-poverty" candidate and has to break through into the media with a message about inequity.  I think he's trying, and frankly I think that the criticisms of his campaign for this exhibit an ignorance of the reality of life from most Americans, and and isolation from that world that leads pundits to fixate on issues that are of little concern to people trying to eke out a living.

A Risk Edwards Has To Take (0.00 / 0)
Elizabeth Edwards is appealing to the angry straight white male in a reverse-politically correct way.

Neither Obama nor Hillary could do the same with their respective "black" or "woman" cards without serious political damage, most likely among those same independent-leaning Democratic and Republican straight white males.

This is Edward's political reality.  Considering his weakening position in the polls, he can't afford NOT to play this card.

Although I'm a Clinton supporter, I can't say I blame him.  While it is indeed a political tactic, it's a tactic that Edwards simply has to risk trying.

Edwards Risk need to break out from the pack. (0.00 / 0)
If Edwards is going to break out, he needs to have a Iraq policy that leaves no residual force in Iraq. Similar to Richardson, but a more resonable time line for complete withdrawl. He has the platform to make this case un-like Richardson.

He must point out that the leaving a significant residual force in Iraq will not end America's involvement in the war or US combat casualities.

[ Parent ]
Wasn't EE simply trying to be humorous? (4.00 / 2)
That was my take.  I didn't see anything else about it, and thought people are reading stuff into it.

Also, the whole "authentic" and "fake" thing.

To me, Edwards always strikes me as pretty "real", the primping of the hair aside.  But a lot of people, such as yourself, seem to feel he isn't authentic.

And of course, the opposition exaggerates that sense, to smear and invalidate Edwards.

I just don't see it, however.

What does "authentic" mean, anyway, except as one of those narrative issues, that avoids the reality of the situation.  In this case, avoidds the reality of what his positions are, and also avoids the realities of where he came from, and grew up with.

Now, in terms of the message about poverty reaching poor people, there is something to that.  There is a better way to speak to that issue, and that is address real fears, and offer programs that give individuals hope - but not lump people into people "at poverty". 

Authenticity is one of those fake issues ... (4.00 / 6)
... created by punditry to avoid engaging in the messy details of thinking policies and politics through. And in the environment created by Big corporate media, once you can fake authenticity, like George W, you can fake anything ...

... well, except for the real world consequences of real world actions.

The impression I get is that if Edwards is elected, he will try to get re-elected by getting as much enacted from as many of these policies as possible and trying to persuade enough people to re-elect him to finish the job. And given that, even though I think he is being sincere about committing himself to the cause of poverty, it doesn't really matter. He'll act as if he was sincere, and since he is a very smart and politically talented workaholic, acting as if he is sincere is sure as hell  a damn site better than a sincere mediocrity, or someone who aspires to actually be a "uniter" instead of a political fighter.

And if enough of that platform gets enacted, we will probably need an Obama to hold onto the gains while polishing off any rough edges that are certain to show up with any dramatic reform agenda ... but not until we actually have the policy gains to defend.

Going straight in with a New Politics "bringing both sides together" agenda plays into the hands of the defenders of the status quo, and the status quo sucks badly after the radical right movement has had their hands on either the legislative branch, executive branch, or both for most of twelve years.

On the "college educated ... talking to ..." point, that's just nonsense. I work in a warehouse at the moment, and I can tell you that the only smatterings of politics you will hear is unhappiness with George Bush and cynicism regarding politicians in general.

If Edwards can get his message across when ordinary working families are paying attention, he'll get traction. And of course that dictates a large part of his campaign strategy ... the effort to try to get to that position at that time.

And that includes his poverty messaging ... "that's just wrong", "America is better than that" is precisely what he has to say if he wants to get his message across to a good chunk of the warehouse workers on $8/hour.

When it comes down to it, that seems far more likely to be what bugs Matt Stoller about John Edwards than anything he mentioned ... that John Edwards openly appeals to the myth of America the Good Country to bind together a progressive agenda capable of bridging the class canyon separating blue collar working families from the knowledge worker class.

There are dangers to that myth ... substantial dangers. But there are far more serious dangers of blowing one of our rare opportunities to achieve substantial reform on multiple fronts if we do not knit our platform into that myth.

[ Parent ]
Poverty vs. Class (0.00 / 0)
I think his personal experience is much more about Class than anything to do with Poverty, which is why his pronouncements of how he has devoted his life to the issue rings so hollow and false.  Whenever pressed to talk about a personal experience, he always chooses to recount a story of how his Father brought the family into a restaurant and when they saw the menu they had to leave.  This isn't about shame of poverty, it is about the shame of feeling lower Class.  I had similar experiences in my childhood but we always laughed about it afterwards because we weren't ashamed of who we were. If Edwards was truly poor growing up they wouldn't have gone in there in the first place.  I think it's why he instead of using the term "rich" to describe himself, he often uses the term "privileged" instead, one is about money, the other is about class.  It explains the excessiveness of his house, it explains why he chose a law profession which really is about making the rich pay, more so than helping the poor. The money he got for the family who lost their little girl did not help the poor, but it certainly brought down the rich and powerful.  There's more Robert Moses in John Edwards than there is Mother Teresa.
Edwards tries too hard to campaign based on his race and gender (0.00 / 0)
I think that this is a good way of describing it.  On the stated issues edwards is decent enough, but he is just trying to win based on his race and gender and I don't like that.

He doesn't try to campaign based on his ... (0.00 / 0)
... race and gender the slightest bit ... if that's too hard, where does he go from there?
[ Parent ]
Don't drink the kool-ade, Matt! (3.20 / 5)
Brave John has enough of a climb, fighting the continuing Media brownout on him. Pushing the ludicrous notion of racism only fuels their hunger for cheap, easy "news". Why do their (and the Republicans) work...especially if it is flawed?

If you think Obama is experienced enough to be president...why not develop that notion. It IS what people are concerned about. And if you think Hillary is impartial and progressive enough...develop that notion. It's two of her weaknesses, I believe.

Edwards, to me, seems like a nice combination of progressiveness, experience, talent, skill-sets, passion and magic.

It's easy to pick through people's garbage. It is more difficult to see the highest branches of a mighty Redwood. To catch birds, put salt on their tail.

-Dave

observations (0.00 / 0)
They are observations -- but they don't help me much to explain the trust connect to Edwards that is still missing.
Edwards speaks for me.  And I still don't know why I don't trust him.  These observations address the issue but they don't really get there either.
obama supporter defends edwards (4.00 / 6)
the edwards' poverty meme is being over-simplified.  most people don't know poor people and quite frankly they don't want to.  while i agree it appears that much of the political stuff is lip service, i can't help but remember all those 'two america' speeches. that speech resonated with me. as someone who has lived in both america's i know what he is talking about.  why do we say white trash, when we mean poor whites?  why do we gawk at the boys in the hood.  it is clearly another world.  it is not knowable, unless you live there.  it is invisible and most people would like to keep it that way.  i love that john and elizabeth are keeping this on the front burner.  i think it is long overdue and mis-understood.
You are a gentleperson and a scholar (4.00 / 4)
As an Edwardian, I appreciate your equanimity.
I have great respect for Obama, but tend to think he might be the ace-in-the-hole for 2016...as he will be well-seasoned by then.
The Clintons have had their tuen, and did a fine job. Edwards has had 8 years to think about what it would take to be the President...since he was on the short list for Gore...who unwisely chose Lieberman. But alas, Edwards may not have been ready at the time. Leberman gets more unready every day, it seems.

Here's to the great Democratic Candidates of 2008! They are all awesome human beings.

-Dave

[ Parent ]
Of course there is not (4.00 / 4)
" a conspiracy to keep white men out of the Presidency".  That is a straw man statement ending your post.  White men have always been the ones elected.  That is why there is interest in other possibilities.  It does make for an interesting narrative and Elizabeth is just pointing that out.

However the issue still remains who is best to be president at this time.  I would love to vote for a woman or a minority, however on the issues Edwards is way ahead and I believe that is who we need now.  I really think Obama would be a great president in 20016 when he is more seasoned and has developed a stronger vision.  Also I think Edwards is the fighter we need now.

The nebulous trust issue is one that I think is a personal thing that different people have about others.  Who knows what that really means?  I don't trust Clinton as much as I would like to.  But I don't dwell on it and try to look for facts to base my judgment on.  People trusted Bush because they could have a beer with him.  If they had examined facts we would be ending the Gore administration at this time.

Join other progressives at EENRblog

Clinton, Edwards, Obama etc. (0.00 / 0)
Clinton has been running an excellent campaign from the first day. Her theme of "invisble Americans" covers the same ground as Edwards but actually connects with the voters.

After his name first surfaced Obama had an excellent opportunity for months to create a campaign that could potentially connect with voters but as we have seen in recent weeks it has fallen short.

The Edwards campaign had a lot of potential has fallen even shorter than Obama in crafting a theme that voters could understand and connect with and has spent much of their time in controversies that had no potential to gain any votes.


BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog

Don't Underestimate Edwards (4.00 / 1)
I think he is well positioned to be the big story if he does better than expected & wins or finishes a strong second in Iowa.  I dust don't think that most voters are paying attention to the differences between the candidates yet.  Edwards will get a fair chance and the media is going to want & need a storyline that is more interesting than Hillary crusing to the nomination.  If Edwards fades, however, it's good news for Obama.  Whoever is the clear alternative to Hillary will pick up support from the also-rans. 
[ Parent ]
A lot of the dynamic of the race also depends ... (0.00 / 0)
... on whether the slow, steady slide that some polls show for Hillary in NH is real, and if it is, how long it goes on. If she is second and fading in NH come January, a post-IA bump could well put Edwards in second in Hew Hampshire, generating an awfully lot of Obama vs Edwards coverage going into NV and SC.
[ Parent ]
Hillary Can Walk The Walk (0.00 / 0)
Obama talks pie in the sky but who has developed the relationships to get things done--only Hillary Clinton.  She is ready from day one to bring back Robert Rubin probably the best Secretary of the Treasury in a long time, as well as many others from the Clinton adminstration who are prepared to fix this mess.  Obama wants to be JFK when what we need is FDR. Carter was a good man but like Obama he had not developed relationships to forge policy decisions.  Maybe by 2016 when this country is in better shape we can afford Obama right now we need to clean the mess created by this administration by bringing in people who know how to hit the ground running.
[ Parent ]
Where Do I begin? (4.00 / 6)
"There is no conspiracy to keep white men out of the Presidency."
My first thought here was, "Well, of course there isn't." Neither John nor Elizabeth Edwards have indicated that they believe that. A reader could easily take your concerns about the whiteness and maleness of Edwards and, depending upon their own perceptions, think of your own comments as unnecessarily race and gender-involved. To be honest, I did. Haven't we bloggers here on this discussion already gone far beyond the boundaries and limitations of old stereotypes? I hate to go into self-revelation, but I'm a woman from a family of mixed race myself. I could feasilby support any of these candidates (I support John but will work for any of them) without one thought about race or gender. A woman and a black American who are both running history making campaigns are important hallmarks of how we've gone beyond old sterotypes about race and gender. So why are we pointing at John calling out his whiteness when what Elizabeth is talking about is MSM's exclusivity? If MSM is saturated with news stories about two and only two at the cost of filtering out most other candidates, I'd have to say she's correct that the internet is the best place to counter that unfair amount of free air time that the two campaigns are getting. I seldom hear them speak about anyone except the two. Am I wrong? Tell me how plentiful press doesn't equate to great fundraising dollars. We have several 24/7 cable news networks. One would expect a bit more variety from them. 
Well said, except that on the last point ... (4.00 / 2)
We have several 24/7 cable news networks. One would expect a bit more variety from them.

... we may hope for more variety from them, but this is like the ice cream venders on the beach. The people on the beach are best served if they are spread fairly widely apart, to reduce the walk to the ice cream ... but but each one can capture a bigger market by moving toward the other, so if they are free to move around, they will end up close to each other, near the biggest concentration of sun worshipers.

That's why the odd one out is Fox News, because they had a deliberate strategy of pushing the public discourse in the direction of the radical right wing "conservative" movement, and by sticking to their chosen ground of radical right wing propaganda, they have pulled the big corporate media in their direction.

[ Parent ]
There's a guideline on DKos I've always liked (4.00 / 2)
It goes, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Now, it seems to me that accusing one of the leading Democratic candidates (and his wife - classy, that) of being racist and condescending is a pretty damn extraordinary claim to make. And your evidence is what, exactly? That Elizabeth pointed out the undeniable fact that a certain percentage (and no, nowhere near all - but then, she never claimed that) of Obama's and Hillary's support derives from the fact that the election of either of them would be a historymaking moment for purely demographic reasons, and your nebulous, totally unsupported personal impressions. That "evidence" isn't extraordinary - though the fact that you'd try to present it as evidence at all is.

And if I sound maybe just an eensy bit angry in the above, that's only because I damn well am. I'm normally okay with, or even welcoming of, your particular brand of highly-aggressive commentary (yes, even when it's targeted at the guy I'm backing for the Presidency), but this just went way the hell over the line.

I'm certain that Matt has (4.00 / 3)
his heart in the right place, however this is one of those times when his head is firmly lodged elsewhere.
[ Parent ]
Yeah (0.00 / 0)
That sums up what I was getting at pretty well.
[ Parent ]
That coule be what's causing the ... (0.00 / 0)
... discomfort in the gut.
[ Parent ]
Issues (0.00 / 1)
I think that this shows why it is good to have edwards in the race.  He shows what an issue race still is in America.

Hopefully though the discussion wont go too far and have those older white democratic men staying home. 

I don't think that edwards strategy of trying to make women and minorities angry at him will be good for his chances at being elected though.  Edwards wouldn't be talking like this if he thought he still had a serious shot I think.

[ Parent ]
Since there is nothing sexist or racist ... (4.00 / 1)
... in Elizabeth's remarks in their original context, that would suggest that the effort to make woman and minorities angry at the Edwards campaign does not, in fact, come from within the Edwards campaign.

Given the Drudge Report and Instapundit role in pulling it out of context and spreading it around, the Right Wing Noise machine would seem a more likely source of that effort.

[ Parent ]
Thought it might be instructive to find out (4.00 / 2)
what the reporter who spoke with Elizabeth Edwards had to say.  It seems he does think the context is relevent, so let's look at what he has to say.

The CIO|Insight article in which EE's comments appeared was authored by Ed Cone, with this title, "The Web 2.008 Campaign." The subject of the article was the use of new technologies in political campaigns.

The article section with the Edwards quotes begins:

Web video and social networks are two of the hottest technologies for Campaign '08. Video is ready for prime time, social networking is a relative unknown.

So, having set the context for this section, the full paragraph contained the quote that Drudge

The Web can be liberating. "It's about bypassing the sieve of the mainstream media," says Elizabeth Edwards, wife and confidant of Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards. "The idea that you have people standing between you and the voter is diminished, and the capacity to speak directly empowers candidates to trust their own voices." With Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama hogging media coverage, campaigns can push their messages without paying for ads.

Notice that it is Cone who says that Clinton and Obama are hogging the media coverage.  Right now, I think Edwards has 130 videos up on YouTube and his campaign has used videos extensively to get his message out, as Elizabeth says, "bypassing the sieve of the mainstream media."

On his blog, Ed Cone reported Aug 7th about the way Drudge and others were making something out of the EE quotes. Interesting, his entry is labeled 'context' -- he recognizes  that the context IS important.

Elizabeth Edwards said some insightful things about net campaigns in a long article about net campaigns. One of the things she said about using the web to create buzz when other candidates are sucking up all the media oxygen was kind of spicy, as it implies that at least some of the attention given to her husband's rivals is for reasons other than their excellence as candidates. She's worked somewhat similar ground before.

The stuff about integrating databases at the state level and figuring out how social networks translate into votes seems a lot more important than the dig at the media and/or Obama and Clinton, but I guess it doesn't make such a sexy soundbite.

What I find most interesting about Ed Cone's comments on all this is that very last part "it doesn't make such a sexy soundbite."  I thought progressive blogs were about getting beyond the soundbite world.  Maybe I was wrong.

From a personal perpective... (4.00 / 3)
I've known Ed Cone for several years now, and I would suspect that his tongue was firmly in cheek when he wrote that bit about a sexy soundbite. We've even had discussions on the matter, and I was the one arguing for sexy (or pregnant) headlines. I feel sure he shares my lamentation that the concentrationability of the American public has been systematically reduced by our cut, cut, cut soundbite media.

Not sure what you know about Mr. Cone, but let me say that he is largely responsible for blogging in North Carolina, as he designed and hosted the first Blogger Conference in NC, and has been doing so ever since. I am sure the Edwards' realize their debt to him and his great work...and I should think the feeling is mutual.

As far as "Clintama" or "Hillack" hogging the media...it should be apparent that Edwards has been all but shut out of the mainstream media, and FOX in particular. Although there, the disdain is mutual. Points go to Edwards for standing up to their disgraceful disservice.

Just my two cents...

-Dave

[ Parent ]
While I don't know Ed Cone, my read (0.00 / 0)
also was that he was using a bit of sarcasm re: the "sexy" comment.  I think that's why I liked the last line in his blog story so much.  This effort to reduce everything to a soundbite, or to take a full article so completely out of context to find a soundbite diminishes my view of traditional media these days, and as I said, I don't expect to see such behavior used so blatantly here.

Send Ed our thanks for his hard work in NC, and for responding to the way his words were being used.

[ Parent ]
Policy Please (4.00 / 7)
I'll never understand this fascination with "feelings" and "bugs."  Elizabeth Edwards may have some problems with her phrasing, but her underlying point that policy should matter more than race or gender remains a good one.  We are voting for a policy and a platform contained within a fleshy body called the president.  It doesn't matter what flavor that flesh comes in.  Genitals and pigmentation don't propose legislation, veto or sign bills, or conduct foreign affairs.  Only policy does these things.

Edwards is the most electable progressive the Democratic Party has had in decades.  I know this because of his policy stances and his performance in general election head-to-heads - things we in the intellectual community outlandishly call "hard evidence."  Now, if Edwards becomes president and pulls a Bill Clinton on us, I will be the first one to call him a liar, and I will not support him for re-election.  That's what should be done when elected officials welch on their policy platforms.  I have no idea how to hold someone accountable for my "gut-feelings" or their lack of "charisma."  Those things should have almost no currency among civic-minded adults in the public sphere. 

Rudy is a Tyrant

Colbert's Gut (4.00 / 3)
While reading your post, I was reminded of Steven Colbert at the White House Correspondent's Dinner, where he flayed and barbecued nearly everyone there, and talked about getting all his information from his gut. A hilarious bit, through and through. Go see it.

I share your disconcertivity regarding Matt's gut-wrenching sqieeze on what he percieves as truth, but may well be indigestion. Colbert sums it best.

Granted, gut feelings, feelings, intuitions all have a place in politics, but it is too easy to defer to them when rationality falls short in its opposition research.

Democrats should quit shooting each other, and start deconstructing the Republican Noise Machine that may well engineer yet another dubious victory.

[ Parent ]
I'm one of your fans Matt, but.... (4.00 / 7)
Matt,

I've been reading you since the Draft Clark days, and on BOPnews and MYDD and here. I generally like your posts very much, but you tend to lose me everytime you get into the "nebulous 'trust' issue" wordings. I recall your use of this type of wording fairly often to express that something that you didn't like about Dean, both in the primaries and in the DNC chairman fight. I was a Dean supporter, but always hated that label, "Deaniac," and was still a regular reader of other candidates' sites.

I would call myself an Edwards' supporter, though so far he is the one that has impressed me the most. I don't really understand what your objections are though, and certainly don't believe that John or Elizabeth has racist views. I don't really believe that any of the Democratic candidates have racist views.

And I don't see what is wrong with this:

"The "poverty problem" is a middle class construction with Christian overtones -- by pulling these together in a poverty platform Edwards gains the right to talk about these in moral terms. It's difficult to talk about the skyrocketing price of milk as a moral issue, but tied to poverty, you can do that. Same with health care, education, childcare, and labor."

Ok, it's a middle class construction, but what political campaigns aren't? Is it wrong that they found a way to talk about skyrocketing prices in moral terms? To me, this is part and parcel of what politicians do, what they must do.
 

Sometime you write well (0.00 / 0)
This wasn't one of those times. 

You should keep trying to figure out why you don't feel good about John Edwards because this article doesn't ring true.  Plenty of time to figure it out.

Maybe Matt is the Elitist? (0.00 / 0)
Unacceptable (4.00 / 1)
This is totally unacceptable.

You owe the people who post here an apology, as well as John and Elizabeth Edwards.

I'm not even an Edwards supporter, and your post dripping with sarcasm, framing of racism and ad hom attack on both John and Elizabeth Edwards is indefensible.

I don't know what you are trying to accomplish by posting such crap, all I know is I am repulsed by looking at it.


What Bugs Me About John Edwards | 122 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox