It's Official: John Edwards Is Definitely Running For President
You knew this was coming, but still, it's now official: John Edwards is definitely running for President. Edwards' formal announcement was scheduled for tomorrow, but MSNBC has just reported that the Edwards campaign accidentally let the news slip on line today. It seems the Edwards camp inadvertently posted his new campaign web site a day early before quickly shutting it down. Edwards adviser Jennifer Palmieri confirmed that her boss is officially in the race, telling MSNBC: “Better a day earlier than a day late." The official announcement is still set for tomorrow in a Katrina-ravaged neighborhood in New Orleans, a setting designed to highlight Edwards' signature issue of poverty.
Advertisement
Looks like someone got a little antsy, lol.
December 27, 2006 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
It would matter if the announcement were itself the story but its not. What Edwards has that, to this point, no one has does is a clear theme and even a platform to run on. My sense, certainly my hope, is that we hits the tv interview circuit tomorrow morning, he'll have enough to say about the need for leadership that does not hurt Americans for its own gain (such as we've had) but instead works actively to help achieve a fairer America, with opportunity for all (and the cute dumbies that ask questions on tv morning programs will let him say it), that the announcement itself will fade and the story will be the campaign.
In any event, I'm glad he's in, I'm glad he's announcing in New Orleans, and I'm hoping that folks will take a look at what he's been saying for the past few years, since its a message we desperately need.
December 27, 2006 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Based on his performance as a vice presidential candidate, I would say that Edwards has no fight in him. He disappeared for months at a time when he was needed to pound away at Bush's record. I have no enthusiasm for his candidacy despite my alignment with many of his positions. If ya can't fight, ya can't win. I want a fighter. Although I have much less in common with Hillary and once swore not to support her, I think she has more fight in her than all of the other candidates put together. She will do what one needs to do to win in this day and age.
Raindog
December 27, 2006 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
With a Yankee woman running to the right and a Yankee African American running to the center -- could it be Edwards can do his own form of triangulation and run as the white southern guy but with a left of center populist message?
December 27, 2006 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some people have irritating mannerisms. Those people rarely succeed at national politics. Edwards has that overly cheerful glowing smile, which so often looks out of context to me. I couldn't take him seriously in 2004. I'm just hoping he has learned a lot since then, and will be an obviously serious candidate this time around. I like his focus, very much.
Hoppy in Sacramento
December 27, 2006 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I met JE several times during the 2004 campaign and my feeling was that although he lacked the depth of Kerry, he complemented JK's strengths well. As a candidate and speaker he is magnetic, as a Senator, his resume is slim, but as many have pointed out, a long term Senate seat gives the opposition a lot to cherry-pick which many have suggested is why Governors are often more successful in presidential campaigns than Senators. That said, I like the guy, I like his message and I think he has the cohones to lead as a progressive populist.
All the other candidates (except of course, Dennis the Menace - affectionately attributed) seem to be selling their own personal brand of deal with the devil.
Also I was on the ground for Kerry in Iowa during the 2004 primary. Our last minute numbers showed Kerry ahead with Edwards close behind. And that's how it turned out and all the media hype about Howard was well, history. It could very well happen the same way again as Edwards is polling ahead in Iowa and Nevada and on Clinton's heels in NH.
My guess for the Democratic ticket in 2008?
Edwards-Obama
December 28, 2006 12:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Edwards/Obama could turn out to be a very good guess. I think they would win in a landslide.
December 28, 2006 4:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please, Great Buwahumma, let it be so and not Hillary/Obama.
December 28, 2006 8:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
He did NOT complement Kerry. He was supposed to hammer away at Bush and Cheney while Kerry took the high road but he never did. Weeks would pass during the campaign in which he received no coverage. You cannot win in this world if you will not fight. Edwards has no fight in him.
If the ticket is Edwards-Obama then the democrats will lose. I hate to say it but I think Hillary is the only candidate so far who has what it takes to win. Feingold also had it but sadly he is not running.
Raindog
December 28, 2006 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Listening to the Edwards announcement this morning, I was impressed by how many starkly oppositional words and phrases he used. It was rather striking rhetoric for a so-called mainstream Democrat. We shouldn't try to just achieve foreign policy objectives by using "raw power." He reaffirmed that his vote for the war was "a mistake" and that those who voted for the war have a responsibility to tell the truth now about Iraq -- that a surge is wrong and that we have limited influence over what happens there.
He sounded not just smart but relaxed and genuine -- an improvement over his 2004 stump performance, I must say.
I was troubled in part by his emphasis on voluntarism, which was not anchored carefully enough to an agenda of what it could achieve to inspire nor connected to the need for government enough to avoid being interpreted as hostile to it in typical centrist and right-wing fashion. Plus, it risked sounding moralistic, which turns off more people than it inspires. His future communications on this theme should be more clearly in keeping with the template, "If we work on X together, we can achieve Y."
He also was a little vague on the domestic and foreign policy visions that would guide his candidacy. On foreign policy, for instance, cooperation and moral leadership are worthy themes, but as buzzwords they are not enough. We used them in 2004 to little effect. He needs to come up with policy positions that give the words meaning and context, and also to explain a bit what these values would generally look like in action. That capacity for vision would distinguish him from the field.
December 28, 2006 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink