I was just at an Edwards event last night in Boston. One of his "Small Change for Big Change" events. There was a lot of enthusiasm in the room from folks coming to see him. The event could have been run a bit better (check-in list was completely random, the event room was FAR too small for the number of folks showing up (over 500), and nothing happened for the first 35 minutes of the 1 hour event except mike checks and a lot of sweating), but I put that down more to the local advance crew than to the national campaign.

Talking to folks there, before and after the event, there seemed to be a genuine feeling of "positivity" and hope with the campaign. Sure, what he said when he was there was canned stump speech, except for the update on the Red Sox score, but everything any candidate says between now and the primaries is going to be some variation on a theme they're trying to drive home.

I'll grant the Times that the excitement level with the campaign may not be at the samed fevered pitch as with Barack or Hillary, but I think a lot of Dems are interested in substance over style this time around, and the Edwards campaign has that in spades. The media just has to stop trying to handicap the horse race, and I think Edwards will stand out.

Jesus... are we going to get you guys doing a Dean and Kerry II campaign? Where we get the DLC corporates in the Clinton campaign dragging up crap to pull down the democratic candidate AGAIN//!

Whose the source? Carville?

There's a big difference between a theme that's serious and a campaign that's "joyless." I certainly hope there are more than a few screwballs on staff to keep everyone loose.

That said, Edwards is running a serious campaign about the future of America. The pressures on everyone but the rich are excruciating. Of all the candidates on both sides, Edwards seems to be the guy that fully comprehends the scope of the situation. That's not to say that Clinton or Obama can't comprehend what's going on, just that they haven't yet. I just wish he didn't get a $400 haircut.

If there's anything anti-Edwards you'll read it here first! And if there's anything positive about Edwards - you can be sure it'll be in a short round up piece.

Well, he's using the haircut pricetag as a punchline now. Basically saying that only in America can a son of a mill worker get ahead in life and pay $400 for a trim...

At the event, he mentioned poverty, as well as the war, the middle class, global warming, education, and quite a few other topics. Right now, he's the only candidate that I've seen talking about it at the level it should be.

The word "joyless" only showed up once in the article. It is interesting that it made the headline of this post. It is also abundantly clear that Matt Bai either did not attend many Edwards events, or did not pay any attention. He is turning out enthusiastic crowds and he is great with them.

Senator Edwards runs a campaign that is, as others have pointed out, serious and substantive. This may cause him trouble in a world of trivial horse-race journalists, but he is for real and he is willing to step out on substance. That doesn't mean he still can't be optimistic and turn out supporters. Indeed, his ideas for a better country and a better world are more optimistic than any other candidate. Less canned, less programmed, more daring.

Who knows, maybe the voters are ready for this unorthodox approach. Maybe, just maybe, the voters have been ready for this for a long, long time.

True. Other progressive bloggers have criticized his previous articles on Democrats. But - we can be assured TPM-EC will highlight a biased author writing a hit piece on Edwards.

True, and I apologize for not making my point clear. Poverty isn't the issue where Edwards makes his mark, ironically enough. Iraq is. While everyone else is handwringing over inches, Edwards is pushing for miles in terms of getting out of Iraq.

Or rather, I don't think that Obama or Clinton fully understand the political landscape beyond the Beltway. That's understandable because the high-priced political advisors that Edwards is avoiding (or ignoring) are all from the Beltway. And these advisors are running campaigns for the 2004 Democratic Nomination.

Reading the comments here, I thought this had to be a negative article but its the opposite. The article puts John Edwards in a good light as to his sincerity about the issue of poverty.

Yes. Matt Bai's signature style is : liberal who finds he must criticize the democratic candidate- any democratic candidate. I can't think of a conservative analog. Mostly they run to a piquant criticism or two before the hagiography sets in- except for the peasants- with-pitchforks cohort who're mostly longing for our very own Pinochet.

Did you watch the video or read the text of Obama's speech at Hampton College to the Black Ministerial Alliance? His use of the term "quiet riot" and his discussion of poverty in the urban, African American community certainly indicates that Obama "gets it." After all, Obama is the guy who was a community organizer in Chicago's south side and the one who represented this community in the Illinios legislature for eight years, longer than either Edwards or Hillary have served in the US Senate.

I don't mean to be overly testy about this issue, but I find it offensive when Edwards supporters act as though their guy is "substantive and serious" about poverty and Obama is "superficial and lightweight." I would be willing to bet a large sum that Obama understands poor people in general, and poor black people in particular, in ways that neither Edwards or HRC do. The fact is that he has to be very careful to not be "ghettoized" by the media as the "black candidate" or worse yet the "angry, black candidate."

Progressives need to look at the candidates life experience. Who has been on the front lines working for civil rights and poor people? Who has demonstrated that they were more interested in helping people than accumulating wealth and power? I am not saying that Edwards or even HRC do not have sincere concern for these issues, I am saying that I think Obama has had a longer and deeper commitment and that he will fight for these values and issues if elected.

This article seems to fall into the current MCM* thrust of either dissing or ignoring Edwards--and studiously avoiding his actual issues.

As Krugman wrote in this week's columns, and Somerby has been pounding away at for years, the MCM runs against Dems and takes any and all opportunities to undercut their campaigns.

Edwards seems to be one they really, really, really want to see not get the nomination. However, any Dem nominated will get the usual MCM treatment. Until the corporate interests no longer see the Republican policies as the best for their interests, we will see an MCM unable to report fairly on political campaigns.

*MCM--Mainstream Corporate Media

BTW, anyone know if there's a way to keep the comment if one clicks to another site for, say, source material? Everytime I've clicked back, my comment is erased. Frustrating. Is this a bug or a feature?

Anyway, upshot is that the joyless comment comes in Paragraph 18 (10 of which a line-line dialogue), and the preceding writing is a picture of an exhausted and downbeat candidate who answers questions about what to do with "I don't know."

So, mentioning the joyless description is actually capturing the opening of this article. I'm not sure how many will read the entire thing--or just write Edwards off as a loser.

It is not an easy to read description of the man or his campaign.

As a New Yorker, I can sincerely say: up yours.

It is a magical city, one of the purest expressions of America as it could be, maybe should be. Most of us wouldn't trade it for anywhere else in the world.

Did you read the whole article? The word "joyless" does come up only once, but the paragraphs around it describe a campaign, and a candidate wearied by the meaningless mini-events he has to attend.

I say if he doesn't like it, he shouldn't do the fake photo ops, like holding up a hammer and banging at 8 nails at a habitat for humanity photo op. But he still has to, I think, shake hands at the shipyards and talk to real people.

Open up the source material in a new window or, in Firefox or (I have heard) the very newest version of IW, a new tab.

Yes, agree with Fisher. There is a tendency in this piece to assume "mainstream" economic and poverty theory is settled, and Edwards is judged--sometimes--by his distance from this mean. There is also a the author's tendency, here and there, not to so much argue a point as to assert ...

But, still, hardly a negative piece, and in many places trenchant