| Update: The Edwards campaign responds to criticism on the Lincoln bedroom portion of the speech by pointing out that many politicians have used the Lincoln bedroom to reward supporters, and by emphasizing the need to move forward.
By the way, did you know that Mitt Romney opposes birth control? (h/t Feministing)
On Sunday I wrote that John Edwards was stuck between Clinton and Obama on both change and experience. According to voters in a recent CBS poll, 60% of Democratic primary voters thought Edwards had the right experience to be President, compared to 80 for Clinton and 41 for Obama. Only 34% of voters saw Edwards as a candidate with fresh ideas, compared to 67% who saw Obama and 42% who saw Clinton as having fresh ideas. I argued that since change and experience are currently emerging as key themes of the Democratic primary, Edwards would need to improve his positioning on those two themes to gain traction.
Well, this morning in New Hampshire, in what his campaign is billing as a major speech, Edwards laid out his vision for change. In it, he develops and intensifies some of his ideas about Washington, lobbyists, and corporate influence. Despite it's billing as a major speech, I would characterize it as a change in degree rather than a change in direction.
He has a two-point plan for change (albeit a very ambitious one): first, end the corrupt Washington system, then implement bold ideas. Here's Edwards:
If we are going to meet the challenges we face and prevail over them, two principles must guide us -- yes, we must end the Washington game, but we must also think as big as the challenges we face. Our ideas must be bold enough to succeed and our government must be free to enact them without compromising principle or sacrificing results.
He also spells out why an Edwards' presidency represents real change:
Real change starts with being honest -- the system in Washington is rigged and our government is broken. It's rigged by greedy corporate powers to protect corporate profits. It's rigged by the very wealthy to ensure they become even wealthier. At the end of the day, it's rigged by all those who benefit from the established order of things. For them, more of the same means more money and more power. They'll do anything they can to keep things just the way they are -- not for the country, but for themselves.
…
The choice for our party could not be more clear. We cannot replace a group of corporate Republicans with a group of corporate Democrats, just swapping the Washington insiders of one party for the Washington insiders of the other.
The American people deserve to know that their presidency is not for sale, the Lincoln Bedroom is not for rent, and lobbyist money can no longer influence policy in the House or the Senate.
It seems pretty clear to me that he's going after Hillary Clinton here with the Lincoln bedroom thing (and elsewhere, with his remark about triangulating), although he doesn't mention her by name. It's completely fair for Edwards to point out that Clinton takes lobbyists money and he doesn't, especially after he comments at Yearly Kos about lobbyists representing real people. But I think he might be over-stating the case a bit. There are real differences between Democrats and Republicans, even corporate Democrats and corporate Republicans (unless they're also Bush Dogs. Then they're pretty similar). Equating the Clintons' with big business Republicans just reminds me too much of Nader.
Despite that, I think his two-point plan for change and his analysis of the Washington system are right on. Although he had criticized lobbyists and corporate interests before, I'm not sure I've heard him put it quite this baldly. If he doesn't win, he's going down swinging, and kudos to Edwards for that. I can't get behind his speech 100% because I'm a little hazy on the specifics of changing the game in Washington. I agree we need to, but how? Lawsuits? Revolution? As hopelessly square as negotiation sounds in comparison, I actually do actually understand what it means. Elsewhere in the speech he endorses public financing for elections, which I believe the other candidates support as well, so maybe that's what he means?
I'm very curious to see how this plays out. Though he doesn't quite spell it out, he hits on a key question, both for progressives and for the country as a whole: Does a return to Clintonism (to the extent that Hillary Clinton represents one) represent real change? I'm torn, because I've certainly think the Bush years represent real change when compared to the Clinton years, so in that sense, a change back would be a real change. On the other hand, I'd like to see a little more change than that. We'll see if this helps him on change. |
