Edwards Sharpens Attack On Clintons And "Corporate Democrats"
As noted earlier, John Edwards gave a speech today in which he sharpened his attacks on what he called "corporate Democrats," cautioning against "swapping the Washington insiders of one party for the Washington insiders of the other."
Edwards' indictment of the corporate Dem establishment -- and his warning against "nostalgia" -- is meant to be taken as an attack on the Clintons, though it's certainly not limited to them and is intended as condemnation of a whole class of Beltway insiders.
The full text of the speech is now available, and it's worth a look. We have it after the jump.
The quick and not terribly profound thing I want to point out about this is that it's interesting to note that both Barack Obama and Edwards are using Hillary as a foil in similar but also different ways. Obama is pointing to her as a pillar of the failed Beltway foreign policy establishment that has brought us a failed foreign policy status quo. Meanwhile, Edwards is hitting her as representative of what he's labeling the corporate Dem establishment.
Both Obama and Edwards are trying to cast themselves as the race's real change agent on different fronts -- though there is some overlap -- with Hillary as the foil to both efforts, something that's probably inevitable in part because of her frontrunner status.
The speech is getting some rave reviews, with Matthew Yglesias calling it a very strong speech, and Marc Ambinder asking: "When was the last time a major presidential candidate delivered such a singularly populist speech?"
Meanwhile, Amanda Dobbins over at The Huffington Post accuses Edwards, in his reference to abuses of the Lincoln bedroom, of "channeling GOP politicians." And Taylor Marsh says that this attack is "straight out of the right-wing playbook."
Readers, we really want to hear from you on this one. What do you think of the speech?
It's after the jump.
Update: I wasn't clear enough here. The basic (and obvious) state of play is that both Obama and Edwards are making bids to be seen as the leading genuine progressive alternative to Hillary -- Obama on foreign policy, Edwards on economic issues, though there is some overlap. Stirling Newberry thinks that this speech cements Edwards' position as "the essentially progressive major candidate."
Full speech:
This election is unlike any we have faced before. The stakes are higher. And the challenges we face as a nation are greater than at any time in memory.We as a nation must choose whether to do what America has always done in times like these -- change direction and move boldly into the future for the sake of our children, if not for ourselves, or wander in the same stale direction we have traveled in our recent past.
The choice we must make is as important as it is clear.
It is a choice between looking back and looking forward.
A choice between the way we've always done it and the way we could do it if we dared.
A choice between corporate power and the power of democracy.
Between a corrupt and corroded system and a government that works for us again.
It is caution versus courage. Old versus new. Calculation versus principle.
It is the establishment elites versus the American people.
It is a choice between the failed compromises of the past and the bright possibilities of our future. Between resigning ourselves to Two Americas or fighting for the One America we all believe in.
As always, at these moments, the choice we make is not for us, but for our children and our great country. And this time, like no other time, the consequences for our children are truly profound.
Will we halt global warming, protect our environment and humanity from the cataclysmic consequences of inaction and leave our children a livable world rich in the resources that were left to us?
Will we prevail against terrorism by stopping those who would harm us and winning over the minds of those who have yet to take sides so that instead of an ever more dangerous and war-torn world, our children live in a nation that is safe, strong and once again viewed throughout the world as a truly moral leader?
Will corporate greed be all we value as we move further into the global economy, or will we put workers and families first, so that all jobs pay fair wages, every American has health care and corporate profits work for democracy and not the other way around?
Will we face our future as individuals, each of us asking, "What's in it for me?" Or will we return to the central value that makes our nation great? That we are all in this together and each of has a responsibility to the common good.
The choices we make will determine not just the quality of life our children will inherit, but the fate of the world we leave behind.
To succeed for our children where we have too often failed for ourselves, we must choose a new course. Those wedded to the policies of the 70s, 80s, or 90s are wedded to the past -- ideas and policies that are tired, shop worn and obsolete. We will find no answers there.
But small thinking and outdated answers aren't the only problems with a vision for the future that is rooted in nostalgia. The trouble with nostalgia is that you tend to remember what you liked and forget what you didn't. It's not just that the answers of the past aren't up to the job today, it's that the system that produced them was corrupt -- and still is. It's controlled by big corporations, the lobbyists they hire to protect their bottom line and the politicians who curry their favor and carry their water. And it's perpetuated by a media that too often fawns over the establishment, but fails to seriously cover the challenges we face or the solutions being proposed. This is the game of American politics and in this game, the interests of regular Americans don't stand a chance.
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.
Politicians who care more about their careers than their constituents go along to get elected. They make easy promises to voters instead of challenging them to take responsibility for our country. And then they compromise even those promises to keep the lobbyists happy and the contributions coming.
Instead of serving the people and the nation, too many play the parlor game of Washington -- trading favors and campaign money, influencing votes and compromising legislation. It's a game that never ends, but every American knows -- it's time to end the game.
And it's time for the Democratic Party -- the party of the people -- to end it.
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's time to end the game. It's time to tell the big corporations and the lobbyists who have been running things for too long that their time is over. It's time to challenge politicians to put the American people's interests ahead of their own calculated political interests, to look the lobbyists in the eye and just say no.
And it's time for the American people to take responsibility for our government -- for in our democracy it is truly ours. If we have come to mistrust and question it, it is because we were not vigilant against the forces that have taken it from us. That their game has played on for so long is the fault of each of us -- ending the game and returning government of the people to the people is the responsibility of all of us.
But cleaning up Washington isn't enough. 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.
One without the other isn't good enough. All the big ideas in the world won't make a difference if they have to go through this broken system that remains controlled by big business and their lobbyists. And if we fix the system, but aren't honest with the American people about the scope of our challenges and what's required of each of us to meet them, then we'll be left with the baby steps and incremental measures that are Washington's poor excuse for progress.
As Bobby Kennedy said, "If we fail to dare, if we do not try, the next generation will harvest the fruit of our indifference; a world we did not want, a world we did not choose, but a world we could have made better by caring more for the results of our labors."
But if we do both -- if we have the courage to offer real change and the determination to change Washington -- then we will be build the One America we dream of, where every man, woman and child is blessed with the same, great opportunity and held to the same, just rules.
For more than 20 years, Democrats have talked about universal health care. And for more than 20 years, we've gotten nowhere, because lobbyists for the big insurance companies, drug companies and HMOs spent millions to block real reform. Instead, they've grudgingly allowed incremental measures that do nothing but tinker around the edges -- or worse, they've hijacked reform to improve their own bottom line. So today, more Americans go without health care than ever before. Instead of prescription drug reform that brought down the cost of drugs, the lobbyists for the big drug companies got us a prescription drug bill that boosts drug company profits but doesn't cut patient costs.
I have a bold plan to finally guarantee true universal health care for every single American and cut health care costs for everyone. My plan will require everyone -- business, government and individuals -- to contribute something to reach universal coverage. And I am honest about the cost: $90 to $120 billion a year, and I'll pay for it by repealing the Bush tax cuts for families above $200,000. If we end the game in Washington, we can finally have a health care system that treats the health of all our people with equal worth.
Dependence on foreign oil is smothering our economy and choking our environment. Everybody knows it -- politicians from both parties have been calling for energy independence for 30 years. So what did the oilmen in the White House do? They handed the keys to the corridors of government over to the lobbyists for the big oil companies and let them literally write the energy bill. Now, gas prices are through the roof, carbon emissions are unchecked, and global warming is likely getting worse.
When I am president, we will cap greenhouse gas pollution and ratchet it down every year. We will avoid mistakes like nuclear power and liquid coal. We will invest in clean renewable energies generated in America and create a new era in efficient cars, made by union members here at home.
And look at our economic policies -- from top to bottom, they're a twisted reflection of American values. Instead of expanding opportunity for all and preventing special privileges for any, they hoard opportunity and protect special privileges for the very few at the very top.
Trade policy is all about corporate profits for big multinationals and not at all about lifting workers' wages or creating American jobs. The tax code provides breaks for hedge fund managers -- amazingly, even Democrats backed down from asking them to pay their fair share when Wall Street lobbyists put the pressure on. By the time a decade of corporate opposition to a minimal increase in the minimum wage is overcome, even its own supporters admit that the increase isn't enough -- so another decade of corporate opposition begins anew, and workers lose again.
It's time we put our economy back in line with our values. Let's restore fairness to our tax code by insisting on a simple principle -- nobody in the middle class should pay higher taxes on the money they make from hard work than the wealthiest pay on the money they make from their investments. Let's restore opportunity and responsibility to our trade policy by requiring that every new trade deal puts workers and wages first. Let's reward work by strengthening unions, raising the minimum wage, cutting taxes on working families and with a national commitment to end poverty within a generation.
And let's support our troops and end this war in Iraq. We should immediately withdraw 40-50,000 combat troops immediately and have the rest out in about a year. And when President Bush refuses to act, Congress should use its funding power to force him to act.
None of this will be easy, but all of it is possible.
I know. I've been doing it my entire life.
I am the son of Wallace and Bobbie Edwards. My father had to borrow $50 to bring me and my mother home from the hospital. I am here today because, like all the people my father worked with in the mill, my parents got up every day believing in the promise of America, and they worked hard -- no matter what obstacles were thrown against them -- to give me the chance for a better life.
That's the promise at the heart of the American Dream. What matters to our generation is of little consequence -- in America what has always mattered most is the consequences for our children and their children after them. And no amount of power or money gives anyone the right to break that promise with our future.
I have stood with ordinary Americans at the most difficult times in their lives, when all the power of corporate America was arrayed against them. I have walked into courtrooms alone to face an army of corporate lawyers with all the money in the world. I have walked off the Senate elevator and been besieged by an army of corporate lobbyists. And I have beaten them over and over again.
But let me tell you one thing I have learned from my experience -- you cannot deal with them on their terms. You cannot play by their rules, sit at their table, or give them a seat at yours. They will not give up their power -- you have to take it from them.
We cannot triangulate our way to real change. We cannot compromise our way to real change. But we can lead to real change. And we can start today.
Nearly ten years ago, I made the decision that I would never take a dime from a Washington lobbyist -- I wasn't going to work for them, and I didn't want their money.
Because in the courtroom, when you present your case to the jury, you can offer facts and evidence, you can argue your heart out -- and I have -- but the one thing you can't do, is pay the jury. We call that a bribe. But in Washington when an oil lobbyist gives money to office holders to influence our energy policy, they call it politics. That's exactly what's wrong with this system.
Money flies like lightning between corporations, lobbyists, and politicians. We need full public financing to reform the system once and for all. But we don't need to wait to reform our party. Two weeks ago, I called on all Democrats to reject contributions from federal lobbyists. To tell them -- we know that you give money to influence politicians on behalf of your corporate clients. Well, we're not going to take it anymore. Your money's no good here.
I repeat that challenge today. Let's show America exactly whose side we're on. We can reform our party and truly be the party of the people. And we can expose for all time who the Republicans in Washington are really working for.
There are 60 lobbyists in Washington for every member of Congress. The big corporations don't need another president that looks out for them -- they've got all the power they need. I want to be the people's president.
A few weeks, ago I met a man named James Lowe in Wise, Virginia. James spent the first fifty years of his life without a voice -- literally without a voice -- because he didn't have health care. All he needed was a simple operation to fix a cleft palate. That a man in the richest country in the world could go unable to speak for 50 years because he couldn't pay for a $3,000 operation is something that should outrage every American. We are better than that. America is better that that.
It's a stark reminder of our broken political system that leaves millions of Americans without a voice in their government -- a government that is supposed to work for them.
But it doesn't have to be that way. And we can change it together.
We must think big and end the game.
It's not about being ready to grab the reigns of establishment Washington and stand on the side of corporate elites. If it is, there are plenty who will do a better job than me at protecting the status quo, and preserving the policies and politics of the past.
It's about being ready to lift our country up, reform our party, and remake our government in line with the values of our people. It's about real change and a new vision that meets the challenges of the future and inspires the American people to work together for the common good.
We're all angry at what George Bush has done to our country. But with courage and conviction, with an unblinking eye on the future we believe in and an unbending knee on the road to get there, not only can we undo the damage, we can transform the world. No matter what life has thrown at us, Elizabeth and I have always chosen to be optimistic about the future -- and determined to make a difference as we strive toward it everyday.
I carry the promise of America in my heart, where my parents placed it. Because of them, I believe in people, hard work and the American Dream. I believe the future belongs to us if we only dare to seize it. And I believe to seize it, we must blaze a new path, firmly grounded in the values that first made America great. We must cast aside the established ways of Washington and replace them with the timeless values of the American people. We must end the game controlled by a privileged few and restore the promise that America owes to us all.
On that new path lies One America, where possibility is unbound and opportunity is the birthright of every American. Where the voices of the people are heard again in the halls of government, and government heeds their call. One America, where every individual takes responsibility for our common good, and the chance to reach one's God-given potential is every individual's common right.
I am the son of Wallace and Bobbie Edwards.
And I believe in the promise of America.
I think it is a great speech, and the Clintons did rent out the Lincoln bedroom. I don't want to see the Clinton's in the White House again. The speech was great. It hit on the Clintons and Bush and lobbyist.
August 23, 2007 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
it'll certainly make lots of noise...
August 23, 2007 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Edwards is largely correct in his assessment if the stituation. Good for John for speaking out.
Clinton is the wrong choice for the Democratic Party and America.
John Edwards or Dennis Kucinich are far better choices . . . Oh yeah . . . As Obama will be chiming in on this subject in two to five days . . . Him, too.
August 23, 2007 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree it's a great speech, very strong in its assault on the Clintons and the triangulating, establishment-courting, essentially complacent policies and politics they represent. As a policy analyst I'm skeptical of some of the "solutions" Edwards proposes... but as others (Mark Schmitt maybe best) have noted, it's silly for presidential candidates to offer too much in the way of specifics since Congress ultimately will write the measures anyway. It's enough to set out goals and visions.
On some level, though, I think Obama and Edwards are out of tune with the times. Both have been compared (and have compared themselves to) Bobby Kennedy--but if Bobby Kennedy hadn't been the brother of a martyred president, he wouldn't have enjoyed the platform and visibility to express his idealism and call the country toward great deeds.
Hillary Clinton doesn't have Bobby Kennedy's laudable dreams or, I think, his nobility of spirit... but she does have his platform and visibility, by virtue of the Bill Clinton presidency and the media's endless fascination with her. In our debased culture, that's probably enough to get her the nomination, and maybe the presidency. The failings of this setup aren't fully evident, though, until a president whom half the country detests and of whom the entrenched interests have no fear takes office.
August 23, 2007 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great speech. I've been waiting for Edwards to do this. Since when is it a Republican talking point to decry big money influence. I always hated it when Clinton had fundraisers stay over in the White House and when Bush did it too.
This is a game changer of a speech.
August 23, 2007 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Edwards' speech was excellent, IMO. I also believe it was honest.
August 23, 2007 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
A thing of beauty.
it's as though Edwards has been channeling what the progressive blogosphere as been saying for many years
folding on Iraq, the pharma drug benefit, are all the "corporate" democrats.
a beautiful speech. Taylor and the other woman are focusing way too much on 5 words instead of the other 500
August 23, 2007 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't Edwards a corporate guy? He worked for Fortress!
August 23, 2007 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
rssrai = part of the problem. And where was Greg with some truth? Really sad.
Digby:
And Obama should know better than to use that old Lincoln bedroom trope. Does he think the right wing won't use the exact same made-up nonsense against him?
Perhaps someone should tell him about how the Washington Post helped gin up that controversy on behalf of the GOP congressional scumbags, even going so far as to count Chelsea Clinton's slumber party guests in the Lincoln Bedroom controversy.
Jesus. Sometimes I don't think we deserve to win. We can't seem to stop helping the other side, even when they are down and out.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007_02_01_archive.html#117103171515460011#117103171515460011
modo hates Hillary, maybe as much as you do. She also lies like a rug. You might just be ignorant.
OBAMA, MAN OF THE 90's: Good God! We’ve been seeing Obama described as “The Change!” But how seductive are the themes of the 90's—the nasty themes dreamed up by the RNC’s gang of thugs and dissemblers? Yesterday, a dazzling young Democrat vouched for an iconic old RNC charge:
OBAMA CAMPAIGN (2/21/07): We aren’t going to get in the middle of a disagreement between the Clintons and someone who was once one of their biggest supporters. It is ironic that the Clintons had no problem with David Geffen when was raising them $18 million and sleeping at their invitation in the Lincoln Bedroom.
Good God! That came from Robert Gibbs, of Obama’s campaign. The idiot Dowd had cited the Lincoln, three separate times, in her column about Geffen’s comments. Now, Obama—and truly, his book is just dazzling—was pimping this stale bullsh*t too.
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh022207.shtml
A big list of rnc lies that liberals/progressives/whatever nut ball thing rubes want to use today keep repeating:
http://www.google.com/custom?q=Lincoln+bedroom&sa=Google+Search&cof=AH%3Acenter%3BAWFID%3Ac32a032061318778%3B&domains=dailyhowler.com&sitesearch=dailyhowler.com
More:
http://www.dailyhowler.com/h022502_1.shtml
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh022107.shtml
August 23, 2007 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Short term bad (how long before the words "class warfare" come oozing out of Hillary's mouth/), long term good (as in, everyone knows what Edwards is saying is true, but nobody's saying it). Saying the rhetoric here is "straight out of the GOP" or whatever - come on. As if this was or is the critique that the GOP makes of the Democrats! Ridiculous hyperbole, and completely misinformed take on the whole situation as well. This is strong rhetoric, but well within both the bounds of propriety and reality.
Of course this is going to resonate with people who pay attention to day to day politics in a skeptical way, and to those who turned the whole soap opera off long ago as being an entirely corrupted, bought-and-paid for dog & pony show. Absolutely. It is also a very strong attempt to differentiate not just from HRC, but from BushCo. as well - the most corporate-controlled administration the US has ever known, and hopefully, will ever know.
It is an important point, it can hardly be stressed enough right now, what a potential turning point this country is at. We have gone down myriad wrong roads, and our chances to turn back in some cases are already long gone, but there are still some things we can go back and try to do the right thing on. No candidate will do poorly by me to bring this up, and elaborate, over and over again.
August 23, 2007 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can't get much better than that, speechwise. I expect and hope that this becomes his stump speech. It's a masterwork of progressive populism, the thing he's been working toward for--well, really all his adult life, or since he started battling corporations in the courtroom. It reclaims his narrarive from those in the press (and in rival camps) who sell the smear that his populism is new. It reminds people that it was in his job description to take on corporate power.
August 23, 2007 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry, but what on Earth are you talking about? Is any of this on-topic? I can't understand a thing you're saying.
August 23, 2007 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Matthew Yglesias is a paid whore. Nuff said.
August 23, 2007 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is already chimed, and this isn't really breaking much new ground for Edwards either. They've both been in "taking on the lobbyists" mode for quite a while now...
August 23, 2007 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for that, Greg. I checked them out.
Those two wanted Edwards to concentrate on the Harding Broom Closet maybe?
I suppose we will be hearing lots more about haircuts and big houses and that he and Elizabeth should be living in a rented shack in Mississippi if he thinks so much of poor people.
Love it as much as some others will hate it.
Best, Terry
August 23, 2007 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
He has been, yes, but shhhhhhhh. He was also a co-sponsor of the war authorization, and is against gay marriage. There are things wrong with the guy, for sure, and I don't buy Bill Maher's claim that Edwards will necessarily fare best in the GE, but I do thank him for speaking in this manner, any politician who wants to help rebuild our political system into something that has at least a chance of working properly is at least partially good with me...
August 23, 2007 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good grief -- is everyone completely forgetting who John Edwards is? He was the darling of the centrist democratic establishment -- groomed and promoted as the new BUBBA by the DLC last presidential election. The reason he is posing as a populist is because he is desperate. His corporate-loving NAFTA chums now have a "real" Clinton running -- so the only place to go is to tack father left than Obama. His method is to claim for his own and one-up everything Obama talks about. "Choose me" says Edwards -- I will give you Obama ideas in a safe white package with a downhome drawl that will carry Dixie -- and by the way, my son died, my wife has cancer and I am the best candidate to feel your pain. All I can think of when I hear him speak is that he is a calculated opportunist on a par with Mitt -- third rate, but with enviable presidential hair.
August 23, 2007 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
In this speech, Edwards uses a lot of populist rhetoric and he implicitly attacks the Clintons. But he does not really describe how the system of campaign finance, election laws, and nomination processes leads to the two-party dominance we see today. Without proper analysis and problem definition any talk of problem solutions are mostly ineffective. Unfortunately at this stage of the game this is unlikely to happen.
And more importantly, Edwards does not really demonstrate why he is uniquely positioned or best able to make the needed (but still undefined) changes happen.
August 23, 2007 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry but if you look at the comment I was commenting on then yeah it's right on topic.
It's reading and comprehension. You have to do both. Just a suggestion: Try decaf
August 23, 2007 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's high time for DEMOCRATIC candidates to take a strong stand against the insidious politics of moneyed interests. If some candidates (or one candidate in particular) think the reference is to them, so be it.
Edwards is dead on here: Lobbyists will give to and seek to influence whoever is in power. While some may be associated with one party or another, it's irrelevant once the power changes hands. I know; I used to be a lobbyist, I delivered my share of checks and know it was much easier to get into an office to make my case afterward.
If the Democratic Party is really going to be the party of the people, we need to stop this and stop it now.
I'm sorry that people I respect like Taylor Marsh think this is right-wing talking points against one of our own. To me, this is common sense and every Democrat should get on board.
August 23, 2007 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
wtf is that about?
August 23, 2007 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Me thinks Obama and Edwards look like a workable President/VP team--if you are a supporter of charismatic, intelligent and thoughtful politicians/leaders.
August 23, 2007 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
And once upon a time, Hillary Clinton was a principled progressive... people change.
Edwards was talking about these themes by January 2004, when his campaign briefly caught fire, and was working on poverty issues after the '04 election long before it was clear that Hillary Clinton would get in and claim the Democratic Establishment mantle. I'm not sure Edwards was ever as "DLC" as you characterize him here, but I think his moral/political arc in some ways does resemble that of Bobby Kennedy--who began the 1960s as perhaps the Establishment Democrat par excellence.
I am guessing you are an Obama supporter. So am I. But Edwards is a lot closer to my beliefs than is Sen. Clinton, and I would have absolutely no problem supporting him in the general.
August 23, 2007 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Edwards is a phony.
August 23, 2007 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even more importantly, nothing at will change if one doesn't speak out about the problem in the first place.
The huge gulf separating the working class from the privileged has continued to widen over the past decades including the time when Mr. Hillary Clinton was shredding the safety net for poor people and looking after the needs of upper class folk.
First you got to drain the swamp before you fight the alligators.
That is what Edwards is about.
Man oh man, is Chris Matthews going to be upset.
Best, Terry
August 23, 2007 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
You see Edwards as "posing" and "desperate." I see someone who has thrown off the handlers and DC-insider consultants to stand up for what he truly believes and to argue for the changes our Party and our country truly need.
The last person to stand up to the Party was Howard Dean when he ran for DNC Chairman, and his 50-state strategy--treated with condescension when announced--has resulted in an insurgence of Democratic gains and wins across the oountry.
As to your "safe white package" crap, it's just that. He isn't claiming Obama's idea; Obama is spouting Edwards-lite. So go crawl back under your Republican rock.
August 23, 2007 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think both Obama and Edwards are on to something with the lobbyists, but they really are only focusing on the symptom (lobbyist influence) of a larger problem (government disinterest in promulgating laws for the benefit of the PEOPLE (not just corporate interest)). The first one who articulates this point, is going to control this ground. Until then, they are both just circling around the issue (IMHO).
August 23, 2007 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
No he isn't a corporate guy!
He worked for a company, but working 2 years or less doesn't make one a corporate guy.
That would be Clinton!
August 23, 2007 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fine speech, but I'm not sensing a lot of substance, or anything really new. These are all nice sentiments, but I want concrete promises.
What precisely are you going to do to decrease lobbyist influence over American politics. Earmarking and campaign finance is all part of the picture, and I admire his support of public finance of elections and refusal of lobbyist/PAC money. More importantly though, how will he push these reforms through, when even many Democrats aren't on board?
Also, this is sort of a minutiae of his argument, by why does nuclear energy get such a bad rap with the left? Here's what Edwards says about nuclear power:
When I am president, we will cap greenhouse gas pollution and ratchet it down every year. We will avoid mistakes like nuclear power and liquid coal. We will invest in clean renewable energies generated in America and create a new era in efficient cars, made by union members here at home.Nuclear energy is safe, feasible, abundant, and immediately available, our only near-term route to significant energy independence. All the geopolitical problems resulting from the hydrocarbon hungry economies of the world would be greatly alleviated by this sort of switch. It's really the only scalable, effective and currently technically feasible option available (though other alternative energy sources are great as well, and will hopefully continue improving). The current generation of nuclear reactions is significantly safer than the plants of the Three Mile Island/Chernobyl era. While nuclear fuel is also limited, if breeder reactors were built, this would eliminate that concern for the foreseeable future. People are understandably concerned with nuclear waste disposal, but the Yucca Mountain complex (if it's ever completed) just about eliminates these concerns. Besides, the environmental and safety dangers this complex would present aren't any more significant than landfill dangers. We've been appropriately (mostly) managing landfills long before nuclear energy was even imagined.
Environmentalists seem concerned nuclear waste is going to seep out of the complex built inside a mountain, and into local water supplies. Fortunately, engineers took this concern into account, choosing the site because of its remarkably dry climate, and complete isolation from civilian water sources. Considering the apocalyptic predictions of those raising global-warming awareness, it seems odd to compare those concerns with nuclear waste disposal. As experts have shown, spent nuclear fuel is virtually innocuous unless exposure is extensive and long term. That means, even if there was a spill somewhere, the biggest concern would be clearing the mess for traffic. Engineers have designed the Yucca Mountain complex to safely contain nuclear waste for many centuries, effectively eliminating the problem.
If a candidate is opposed to our one viable, scalable, practical way out of the energy crisis and geopolitical-entanglements resulting from the dependence on hydrocarbons, he better have a damn good reason.
August 23, 2007 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like Edwards, and I like the speech, but Obama is "Edwards-lite"?
That's just delusional. In terms of legislative record, actual policy and actions in this campaign, etc, Obama kills Edwards in terms of anti-corruption, anti-lobbyists, campaign finance, ethics, etc etc. I mean, engage with reality here.
August 23, 2007 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the best thing that could happen is for Edwards and Obama to team up together for the best interest of the Democratic party and send these Clintons home.
Both of these men offer far more to the party than Hillary and Bill and all their baggage.
I would like Edwards and Obama to campaign together as a team.
Maybe all the Dems need to do is flip a coin then at the national convention as to who would head the ticket.
I just think this combination is a winner, a winner for America, a winner for democratic issues and a winner for the Democratic Party.
Somehow we have to break the Clinton stranglehold on our party. They have not earned the right to go back to the WH and continually remind the world and the nation of how they previously disgrace the prestige of that office.
I wish they would just go home and allow the counry to move forward. Out of the 90s, out of their sex scandal and out of all those investigators that Hillary has out there to keep track of Bills' girl hopping.
August 23, 2007 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
John Edwards is right on with this speech and it will strike a chord with many.
He is my choice for 2008! He has my vote.
August 23, 2007 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a good speech.
I think all the Dems need to start taking Hillary on more directly or just get out of the race and let the coronation begin.
August 23, 2007 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Hillary needs to be called on the carpet for all her flip flops, her failures and gaffes on foreign policy (like GeorgeS did in the ABC debate), the failures of Bills administration and both Obama and Edwards need to hit her hard by highlighting how she has done nothing in the Senate.
To heck with this 'united' dems...that helps Hillary not Edwards or Obama as she is the frontrunner and only trying the blur the differences between herself and then.
Hillary needs to be knocked off for Edwards or Obama to have a chance.
Edwards and Obama also need to join forces against Biden and Dodd who are Hillary's chorus.
In fact, I would be happy if there were only 3 folks on that stage from here on out.
Kucinich isn't serious, Biden has said he isn't and Dodd isn't serious either.
Let them host two separate debates. One for those guys and one for the other top 3 candidates.
That way Gravel,Kucinich can get enough time to speak.
August 23, 2007 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting. I hadn't thought much about how a 3 person debate might work until I read your comment, and then it occurred to me that -- duh! -- you'd have a simple majority effect with 2 against 1. If Edwards and Obama could work together to emphasis their commonalities, they might be able to seriously cut into Clinton. If, however, they each took it as an opportunity to audition for the anti-Clinton role at the expense of one another, Clinton would probably be the ultimate beneficiary.
August 23, 2007 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, you are probably right...Hillary would whine like a whinny girl wailing that she was being beat up on by two mean little boys.
August 23, 2007 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. The notion that we can't make arguments against Clinton that right-wingers also make is logically bankrupt. Next thing we all have to support Bill's affair with Monica because the conservatives hated it... or the Rich pardon. If Edwards was making vague allegations about Whitewater, perhaps, but the Clintons are not above criticism, and suggesting they are is demeaning to all of us.
August 23, 2007 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Edwards says the system is rigged - our tax structure and laws are written to reward wealth - not work! He's been saying that several months.
August 23, 2007 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you to a large extent on the nuclear energy issue. It think it is likely to be part of our solutions to global warming and foreign reliance on energy.
But the waste issue still concerns me.
If you took nuclear waste from a power plant today, how many years would it be before it would no longer be dangerous? I was under the impression that the waste needs to be stored for thousands of years, not a few centuries. I'm seeing references on-line about the need to store the waste for 10,000 years. Does that sound right?
I also don't have the same faith in engineering that you do. We build bridges that fall down and tunnels with ceiling tiles that fall off and crush people. We build levies that burst and drown people. And space shuttles that blow up. So its hard for me to have blind faith in nuclear power facilities, let alone storage facilities that have to survive thousands of years without being compromised by unforeseen geologic and climate change events.
August 23, 2007 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
With the Clintons selling their $oul to Murdoch -he'd be the FIRST guest to sleep in the Lincoln bedroom in a Hillary prez.
Hillary/Murdoch08
August 23, 2007 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most definately NOT a republican -- I am a progressive democrat supporting Obama this time around. I am also an admirer of Kucinich, although I realize he won't be winning the nomination.
Last election Edwards campaign themes were mostly concocted by his DLC advisors. FYI it was the DLC along with their candidate Edwards that worked overtime to kill off Dean -- he was the real threat because they saw him as too liberal to win in the general. Further, it was the DLC that pushed for Edwards to be on the ticket with Kerry. Edwards didn't help carry the South.
By the way, I don't like or trust Hillary either -- she is conflating her experience with Bill's. Well, if she wants to play that game, I will hold her responsible for many of Bill's lousy policies (NAFTA, DOMA, Don'T Ask etc.) and also abusing the trust of his supporters. I hated what the republicans were doing to him, but after his perjury, Bill really should have had resigned and let Gore have a chance to run as an incumbant against Bush. I still think its likely Gore would have prevailed without that horrible cuckold image that Clinton left him with. But I digress...
Great you think Edwards is golden and has seen the light -- thrown off his shackles -- and of course to disagree with you is to be a republican. If you like what Edwards is saying in his speech, have you been supporting Kucinich? No one can doubt Dennis' sincerity or what he says is really the truth. Just no one thinks he can get elected in our political culture that is so obsessed with image. So we grasp at someone with better hair -- more telegenic -- Edwards or Obama take your pick. I just trust and am inspired more by Obama and I don't buy Edwards self-narrative or appreciate his race baiting. Mark my words, he will have no problem moving just as fast back to the center again if he gets the nomination.
August 23, 2007 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
well, i'm not sure what drugs you are on, but what you're saying has nothing to do with the original post, and makes very little grammatical sense on its own.
August 23, 2007 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds like a good idea - however many Obama supporters still think Obama could win the nomination because he has more money.
August 23, 2007 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Originally posted at Politico/Ben Smith:
What's interesting here is that Edwards's messaging actually helps Obama.
Edwards says: "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."
Obama says: "It's not enough just to change parties. We've got to change the politics."
The "downbeats" of these messages are quite similar, but the "upshots" are quite different.
Edwards uses his opening hook to talk about "cleaning up Washington" and taking on the establishment.
Obama uses his to call for "common sense" over "conventional thinking."
The problem for Edwards is that Obama, too, is hitting "anti-establishment" and "anti-lobbyist" notes -- but is hitting them in a more savvy way.
Here's a theory:
Obama is using anti-establishment and anti-lobbyist as a negative -- but ultimately only supporting -- version of the more positive theme of "commonsense v. conventional."
Because Obama is using these negative and positive versions in tandem, voters hear the adversarial undertone of the negative version whenever he utters the positive. But the fact the negative undertone registers as adversarial, not combative, helps Obama.
Indeed, Obama frames even his negative version in terms of "starving the influence" of the establishment and lobbyists -- which looks presidential -- rather than in terms of Edwards's "taking them on," which looks angry and desperate and small, by comparision.
But while voters don't generally elect the angry candidate, they do like a fighter. What happens, though, is that when Edwards hammers the establishment and lobbyists, it is the (negative) "angry revolutionary" associations that stick to him, while -- because (1) voters generally link Edwards and Obama to anti-"Washington" critiques but because (2) Obama doesn't adopt Edwards's combative tone -- it is the (positive) "fighter/reformer" associations of Edwards's rhetoric that stick to Obama.
Indeed, there is a sense in which the harder -- and more angrily --Edwards hammers on these critiques that both he and Obama are making, the freer Obama is to focus on selling his more appealing approach to the same problem.
Moreover, while undertones of Edwards's "revolutionary" message are embedded in Obama's more pragmatic and reform-minded politics, the reverse is not true.
The net effect is that when voters focus exclusively on Edwards's rhetoric, what they hear are the rumblings of another perpetual catfight by a different name. Instead of Democrats v. Republicans, it's the people v. the establishment in mutual headlock.
When they focus exclusively on Obama's rhetoric, they are much more likely to hear "getting things done."
And at the end of the day, most of the electorate is concerned less with whether the Oval Office is occupied by a Democrat or a Republican than with whether the President can actually get things done in a way that advances American values.
Otherwise, nobody would write a single word about Mike Bloomberg.
August 23, 2007 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think they would be a great team as well. They would be like Clinton / Gore, only cooler.
August 23, 2007 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hellooo! while Edwards was fighting corporations for the little guys - Hillary is the millionaire candiate who spent her legal career DEFENDING corporations at the Rose Law Firm. Please make a note of it.
August 23, 2007 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even Michael Bloomberg is giving a major policy speech on poverty.
Did you see Larry Summers on Charlie Rose this week? WHOA! he's come a longggg way from Clinton's centrism - channeling Edwards, talking about economic inequality and the vast poverty in the richest nation on earth.
August 23, 2007 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eric, it is time to nip this populism in the bud with another headline about Clinton's poll numbers. [ Just kiddin']
I was feeling into the palpable difference between the deeper and more sober reflections on this post sparked by a candidate's major speech........and the 'taint so, tis too' uphill slog/clog that threads after one of those headlined poll reports. It is like the difference between looking at someone's snapshot and being present in the landscape.
August 23, 2007 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, Hillary has done a not inconsequential amount of little-guy-defending, its just that for some reason, she seems more embarrassed about having helped 'the little guy' than about defending corporations. she has plenty of experience with both...
August 23, 2007 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
For Edwards and Obama supporters alike then, aren't we really in trouble? In other words, Edwards and Obama voters are likely to care about the same issues, and vote for their candidate on similar principles. Those voters who care deeply about campaign finance reform, ethics reform, open government and accountability have, basically, two candidates to choose from during the primaries (I expect HRC fans will object to this -- though I don't know how anyone could argue that Clinton isn't a centrist candidate). Since Obama and Edwards are running on such similar platforms, while Hillary runs a more centrist campaign with no other substantial candidate vying for the same political territory. In other words, the true progressive vote is being split, while Hillary is able to capture the left-overs and the entire moderate portion of the party (which, honestly, is probably the vast majority in the real world).
I guess I've always sort of known this in the back of my head, partly explaining my continued support for Obama. His astounding grassroots support and ability to motivate voters seems the key to defeating an established candidate. Edwards and Dean split this progressive vote in 2004, allowing Kerry (the safe, established candidate) a smooth ride to the nomination. These patterns just seem all too familiar to the 2004 campaign to make those of us dreading another underwhelming, Kerry-esque centrist, compromise candidate winning the primary.
August 23, 2007 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can't agree about nuclear power on a large scale. It is most certainly not the source we want to turn the bulk of our energy producing needs over to. now with the recent discovery within the past few weeks that photovoltaic cells can operate with nearly 50% efficiency, as opposed to approx. 15% efficiency, its time for solar to become the main money investment here. Once this technology becomes more widespread, and more affordable, its going to have serious advantages over all other kinds. But the energy solution is going to come from many sources, not one or two, and nuclear will play a role in there for a while. But its not a wise choice for a long terms solution.
August 23, 2007 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not the problem here. I am just making a comment. Everybody is entitled to their opinions. I think that the Clintons and Bush both used the White House bedrooms as a favor to their big donors (lobbyist, big donors, etc.) I don't think that John Edwards will give favors to his big donors whether it is the White House bedroom or a cushy job. At least I am betting he want. The Lincoln bedroom comment was also a symbolism of how inside Washington politicians plays the game. The Clintons played the game and so did George Bush. John Edwards is saying he will not play the game.
August 23, 2007 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I completely agree with you. That is why I don't think Edwards speech is coming from authentic conviction -- I perceive it as a clever, calculated attempt to knock out Obama. In third place, he's been trying to tag team with Obama all along -- goading him about lobbyist money etc. Obama has his own record to stand on -- he doesn't need John Edwards to make his case.
August 23, 2007 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
And enjoying it for several years.
/c
In the blogosphere every one is an expert, so no one is an expert.
August 23, 2007 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since you asked, let's put it this way:
Edwards is right, the Clinton's are Republican Corporate Globalists, I never planned on voting for Hillary, I never WILL vote for Hillary and if Hillary does by chance win the Dem nomination I will write in another candidate.
And for the record, I have been a registered Dem since I first registered to vote, until this year.
I am now too ashamed to call myself a Democrat and have changed my party affiliation to "no political party".........
August 23, 2007 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is a great speech and I'm glad he made it too.
But Hillary's Rovian attack team is gonna go after Edwards now like a heat-seeking missle. I hope he's ready. It will be brutal.
August 23, 2007 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see the logic, but the second-choice polling numbers (at least the last time I looked, which was several weeks ago) were actually a bit surprising. For both Obama and Edwards voters, the leading second choice candidate was ... Clinton. I'm not sure how to explain that, but it does seem to mean that you can't propel one to victory by getting the other to drop out. In fact, if either dropped out, Clinton's lead would widen.
I think our problem is that we assume that voters divide along a simple issue matrix, whereas the actual elements of voter choice are more complicated than merely alignment with their policies. Just guessin.
BTW, I completely disagree with the comment above that Edwards has been following Obama throughout the campaign. With the crucial exception of the Iraq war, obviously, Edwards has been in front on substantive policy proposals all the way. Being first doesn't make you the best candidate, but to my mind, it does insulate him against the charge of calculating cynicism.
August 23, 2007 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
actually Edwards has been saying "tax wealth the same as work" since 2003
August 23, 2007 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't forget Hillary's well-compensated service on the WalMart board. The Clinton campaigns have received major support from the Walton family. Bill gave a nice payback by leading efforts to relax trade policy with China, allowing the flood of cheap, unsafe,unexpected imports that have sent WalMart's profits to the stratosphere.
August 23, 2007 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's NOT Hillary. Sorry to say, that's enough for me.
August 23, 2007 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
For the deep-pocket corporate lobbyists, Hillary is the best bargain. They bought Bill Clinton years ago and bank-rolled Hillary's very expensive, virtually unchallenged Senate campaigns. Without spending another dollar, they would still own Hillary.
August 23, 2007 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
In these times and this political culture, the truth may be just a novelty, but somehow it is refreshing and really encouraging to hear it.
August 23, 2007 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good analysis. It is interesting as I liked what Edwards had to say, yet the pundits, did indeed call this angry and they thought Edwards sounded desperate and is simply getting angrier and angrier in his attempts to rise from 3rd place.
Your dissection of the underlying tones and pitch match what the pundits are saying.
Edwards is attacking and Obama is offering a pragmatic approach for change.
I like them both and just want someone to effectively topple Hillary.
August 23, 2007 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary is a symbol that has great appeal for some, a symbol for women, and for those nostalgic for the Clinton years.
Thinking people concerned with the nation and the future, I hope, will come to realize that with Hillary there's no there there. What she brings as a symbol is just not worth the baggage, special interest obligations and divisiveness. Next?
August 23, 2007 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
You've stated very well a perspective I hear so often at home and traveling around the country. I never hear support for Hillary. Where are those poll numbers coming from?
August 23, 2007 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wholeheartedly agree. I suppose that is what upsets me so much about The Clintons returning to the WH. Having to defend their dirty tawdry illicit laundry. I have already lived through the BillandHill wars in the 90s. I simply do not want to have to listen to that or attempt to make rationale arguments in support of their past issues.
How in the world can we move forward with progressive policies if we have to constant re-do the 90s and what went wrong and how they will use a new tactic, rather than recognizing that strategically what they are attempting is a failure.
Imagine Hillary triangulating all over again. This woman is a follower she never leads on any issue and if she decided to take a stand..it's a fighting one, where she is on the attack.
That is not progress ..it is nothing but a bar room brawl complete with buxom waitresses for Bill.
NO NO NO NO
Send the Clintons home. No whitewater, no corrupt financial deals, no bedwenches!
August 23, 2007 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary will not go after Edwards. She is only going to attack Obama. She will not give attention to Edwards, he will remain in 3rd place. Hillary does not see Edwards as competition. Obama is her formidable foe and she knows it.
No matter what Elizabeth or John say, Hillary will remain silent.
August 23, 2007 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's true that I'd rather have Obama get the nod, and Edwards on the ticket, but the fact remains I think we're splitting our true change loyalty by dividing between Edwards and Obama. If we all teamed up, HRC wouldn't have a chance. It's just a question of getting one of them to accept the position down-ticket, which, at least at this stage, won't happen.
Definitely something to keep in mind as the attack dogs come out though.
August 23, 2007 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Definitely a fine speech. I don't see it making a ripple, much less a wave, except among progressives. How will he change everything if elected president? I hope and believe that things will change in the direction that he indicates, but the change will be incremental, earned the hard way by many committed people in positions of power and influence. I can't help thinking about Jimmy Carter's energy, intelligence and idealism, and how brief and pitiful was his presidency, because he was alone and powerless in the face of the establishment.
August 23, 2007 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Dependence on foreign oil is smothering our economy and choking our environment. Everybody knows it -- politicians from both parties have been calling for energy independence for 30 years. So what did the oilmen in the White House do? They handed the keys to the corridors of government over to the lobbyists for the big oil companies and let them literally write the energy bill. Now, gas prices are through the roof, carbon emissions are unchecked, and global warming is likely getting worse."
During the run up to the Iraq war and the 2004 election, I pleaded personally with John Edwards' top DLC advisor -- this fellow was helping to craft policy for Edwards' campaign. I told him point blank that the most important issue the dems could speak out about was how our national security was compromised by our dependence on middle eastern oil, that it was distorting our foreign policy and that we needed to get out of there and free ourselves of this toxic relationship. I told him that the dems could inspire and motivate the country to work in a common goal to acheive energy independence. The DLC advisor was dismissive of any talk about oil. "Well what do propose -- a gas tax?" he said incredulously as though that was all I was talking about! He just did not get it -- that this was an issue that needed to be of prime concern to voters and they were waiting for someone to articulate it. So instead John Edwards kept talking about free college and the goodies they could offer to seduce the soccer moms. All the while Bush was marching this country to war -- and John Edwards supported him. Now don't get me wrong -- universal education is a great idea -- but not one that is going to fly when a country is gripped in fear and facing an impending war. This is my indelible impression of Mr. Edwards. Maybe he has changed, but I have trouble taking him seriously.
August 23, 2007 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, for one thing one of Hillary's top fundraisers runs the polling company that CNN uses.
August 23, 2007 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Mark,
It is a terrible dilema, but then I remember the 2000 election. Yes, it can get worse.
August 23, 2007 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pretty predictable. This is probably John Edwards' last shot at this and he pretty much had to go negative sooner or later to have any hope of breaking out of third place. Same is true to a lesser extent for Barack Obama, who has been flat in the polls since April. It's only been a matter of time. You usually don't really see elbows flying under the basket like this before October or November but this year everything is happening sooner.
I don't actually think negative campaigning necessarily comes naturally to either of them though -- a fact that certainly does nothing to diminish either man in my esteem. For example I noticed Barack Obama retreated pretty quickly after that Bush-Cheney Lite crack a couple of weeks ago. Could be attributable to backlash but in his case I wouldn't completely rule out an attack of conscience. I also noted that he passed up a chance to press home the attack after Edwards did his lobbyist money song and dance again in that last debate. Of course there again, part of that hesitancy could spring from an understanding that neither his own laundry nor Edwards' is really any cleaner than Clinton's. They're all pretty decent, really, but none of them are squeaky clean. Or he might have just missed the opening, I guess.
In any case, it would not surprise me at all to see Mr. Obama back off yet again after getting his first shot off. It would also be to his advantage to hang back and let Edwards take his best shot at Clinton while he keeps his nose clean, does the above-the-fray thing and watches for a chance to make a run up the middle.
Edwards has fewer options though. He bet the ranch on Iowa and is now seeing his early lead there evaporate, while at the same time, every state Democratic party in the country seems hell bent on compressing the entire primary schedule into the month of January. So it's doubtful even a big win in Iowa would do him that much good at this point. He hasn't got the cash to slug it out head to head with Clinton and Obama in a multi-state ad campaign and he hasn't really drawn much free media attention for being Mr. positivity and compassion. All the media really cares about is seeing a fight. Looks like he's going to do his best to give them one.
August 23, 2007 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree completely with this, however I think Edwards diminishes his effectiveness by using the reference to the 'Lincoln Bedroom'. This is just too Republican.
August 23, 2007 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sympathetic. I'd be pleased as punch to see either (or both) of them in the White House. I guess the question for me is, how do we team up? My own first instinct was to say, well, one candidate should drop out and throw their voters to the other. But the problem with that is that it's by no means obvious (although very logical to those of us who think in terms of policies) that the voters will head to the appropriate candidate. I made this point way, way down the thread, but maybe it belongs here. The second-choice polling I've seen shows that the majority of both Edwards and Obama supporters have HRC as their second choice. So, if either drops out, HRC's lead actually expands. Short of that, then, I think coming up with criticisms and initiatives that unify Obama and Edwards and heighten the difference with Clinton may be the best bet. I'd love to hear other ideas, though...
August 23, 2007 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree Hillary will not go after Edwards. It is obvious he is the odd man out and that he is now grasping for straws. He doesn't need any help from Hillary.
August 23, 2007 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
How dare we say Edwards is a corporate guy? He is the son of a Millworker! He is also a great populist who also made a lot of money suing insurance companies! It is most unfair that he was criticized for getting expensive haircuts. His latest speech is as good as any of his closing statements.
August 23, 2007 9:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Clintons made the White House a bed and breakfast for millionaire donors, that seems more Republican to me.
August 23, 2007 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Two men beating up a woman: That's your idea of a winning team?
How about Hillary taking out two birds with one stone?
August 23, 2007 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well yes...he's saying that.
It all comes down to whether you're willing to make that bet -- willing to believe that this is any more than a speech, however well written, delivered and sharp in its attacks.
If a skilled politician says well what you strongly believe and want to be true, does that make it true? Does that make it real in terms of likely action by them?
August 23, 2007 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
"well, i'm not sure what drugs you are on"
Well, how would you know?
Anyway thanks for stopping by.
August 23, 2007 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
An aide came to Earl Long wringing his hands after Earl Long had just recently been re-elected governor of Louisiana. The aide told the governor he had a room full of angry supporters who had been promised a bridge for their donations. No such bridge was forthcoming.
"What do I tell them?" asked the panicked aide.
"Tell them I lied," ordered the Earl of Louisiana.
Of course politicians lie.
I will take the politician lying about being a populist over the one lying about doing for the wealthy any day.
If Edwards is lying, it beats the hell out of Hillary telling the truth.
Best, Terry
August 23, 2007 10:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the return to sanity and your astute and intelligent analysis.
August 23, 2007 10:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't it pointless to look for logic in an insane asylum?
Obama has a hard right streak. Obama proposes going along with Republicans and other conservatives because that is all that can be done.
Edwards would fight the bastids on the land, sea and air like a latter-day Churchill fighting the Germans.
And yet generally knowledgeable posters here say the two are about the same and should pair up.
What logic is there in that?
For sure I would vote for Obama in the hope he is lying and for Edwards hoping he is telling the truth but they are hardly the same.
As far as I'm concerned either of them choosing Hillary as a running mate might better choose Lieberman. At least Lieberman has been unmasked for what he is.
Best, Terry
August 23, 2007 10:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The huge gulf separating the working class from the privileged has continued to widen over the past decades including the time when Mr. Hillary Clinton was shredding the safety net for poor people and looking after the needs of upper class folk"
What's the reason for this separation?
How about unrestricted import of cheap labor?
August 23, 2007 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't get the excitement around this speech in the blogosphere. I mean, don't get me wrong, its a nice speech, but its not a great speech.
I mean, the candidate's calling card in this campaign has been his policy heft.
And the keystone of this speech is about cleaning up the washington game in order to clear the path for bold ideas.
And yet--its incredibly light on how to clean up the Washington "game"
Isn't that the most important part? We already have a candidate who's got a long record on the issue and detailed policy proposals on how to get his stuff done. Does Edwards think he can out-do Obama on campaign finance, lobbyist, and ethics reform simply be yelling about it louder?
Mind you, I'm not trying to knock the guy: I certainly like the rhetoric and the tack he's taking here. But I'd like to see him match this rhetoric with the same level of policy seriousness that he's had with the rest of his campaign. Otherwise I'm hardpressed to take it seriously.
August 23, 2007 11:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Terry, you know I love ya, but I think you get Obama all wrong.
Read about his bipartisanship here. Please read it. You'll see that he's not about using bipartisanship to compromise on principle and make bad law. Indeed, the opposite is true: his legislative record suggests he's quite good at finding people in both parties (say, Coburn and Feingold) who share his principles on some issue, and then working with them to get the policy and law right without compromise on principle.
Seriously, there's nothing hard right about Obama at all. Indeed, he has one of the most liberal voting records in Congress and co-authored maybe the most important progressive legislation passed in years.
August 23, 2007 11:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
davai,
Imports of goods made by cheap labor and the flow of workers into this country willing to work for very low wages are only two reasons for the increasing gulf separating the working class from the upper classes and probably not the most important.
Monetarism creating tight money and high interest rates; payroll taxes capped for higher income supporting Social Security and not so incidentally spending the surplus for general expenses with IOU's recorded on the books; welfare for corporations and free enterprise for the poor, disadvantaged and handicapped are all part of giving a bigger and bigger share of the pie to capital and less to worker's wages. In the meantime much of this restricts rather than encourages growth of the pie.
When a politician speaks of the suffering middle class, he means himself and his rich friends rather than you.
Best, Terry
August 23, 2007 11:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I heard that people can change party registration on the day of the caucus/primary in Iowa and NH. Could an attack on Clinton(s) be a way to win independent and Republican votes in the caucus and primary? None of the Republican candidates are exciting Republican voters much. Is it impossible to think the voters might be that sophisticated? If I was a Republican and didn't much care whether Giuliani or Romney was the nominee, why not be a Democrat for a day and try to stop Hillary Clinton? It wouldn't take very many votes in Iowa; according to Wikipedia, only about 100,000 Iowans participated in the caucus.
August 24, 2007 12:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
There have been reports that Obama is actually specifically courting moderate Republicans and Independents, especially of the Christian persuasion, in Iowa, and trying to convince them to switch registration on caucus day.
Which might explain why he did so well on that open-ended question of Presidential support for Iowan Republicans.
read about it here
August 24, 2007 12:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wouldn't argue for a second that Obama isn't very effective in achieving his goals. I have to accept Feingold's word that Obama was superb in helping pass legislation that the two of them agreed on. I was frankly surprised by Feingold's powerful endorsement of Obama's methods.
What Obama's goals are is less clear and, I suspect, even to him they are fuzzy.
I am unalterably opposed to his support of nuclear power that is a favorite of the troglodytes of the right. The same goes for the abominable "clean coal." Obama has dropped support of that goofy nonsense. Use of feed grains for ethanol is an abomination IMO and was supported by Obama because it was of benefit to Illinois corn farmers. I have no idea what his current position is.
Obama's desire to increase the size of the armed forces and carry the flag into new areas while maintaining forces in Iraq and elsewhere is frankly frightening as is the tone of the evangelical messages I hear. Please understand my hearing is somewhat impaired with age. I like to blame it on time in the Army but it is more likely from my wife yelling at me. :-)
I could go on in like vein but Obama's "Amway" candidacy speaks to a model of participatory democracy that is a model for overturning our current plutocratic monstrosity. By itself that would be no mean contribution. Might be more important than all the policies of all the policy wonks put together.
Given everything, I would be delighted if Obama were to be elected president but I do have concerns about what his intentions are.
Best, Terry
August 24, 2007 12:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wouldn't argue for a second that Obama isn't very effective in achieving his goals. I have to accept Feingold's word that Obama was superb in helping pass legislation that the two of them agreed on. I was frankly surprised by Feingold's powerful endorsement of Obama's methods.
What Obama's goals are is less clear and, I suspect, even to him they are fuzzy.
I am unalterably opposed to his support of nuclear power that is a favorite of the troglodytes of the right. The same goes for the abominable "clean coal." Obama has dropped support of that goofy nonsense. Use of feed grains for ethanol is an abomination IMO and was supported by Obama because it was of benefit to Illinois corn farmers. I have no idea what his current position is.
Obama's desire to increase the size of the armed forces and carry the flag into new areas while maintaining forces in Iraq and elsewhere is frankly frightening as is the tone of the evangelical messages I hear. Please understand my hearing is somewhat impaired with age. I like to blame it on time in the Army but it is more likely from my wife yelling at me. :-)
I could go on in like vein but Obama's "Amway" candidacy speaks to a model of participatory democracy that is a model for overturning our current plutocratic monstrosity. By itself that would be no mean contribution. Might be more important than all the policies of all the policy wonks put together.
Given everything, I would be delighted if Obama were to be elected president but I do have concerns about what his intentions are.
Best, Terry
August 24, 2007 12:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thoughtful but you've posted a few times that you see Edwards falling behind in Iowa. But thats a pretty superficial analysis, given that Edwards' base of support hasn't eroded at all. Clinton does best in polls, like Zogby, that are less restrictive in their screen but caucuses are about hard-core, pathological voters only. And Edwards hasn't advertised, while Clinton and Obama have been on the air for a few weeks, yet he's still dead even in 2 of the last 3 polls. As the candidate with the strongest base of support, and the one with far and away the best favorable/unfavorable spread among likely caucus goers, he's actually in very strong shape for Iowa.
You're right that its what comes next that really matters, and its way, way up in the air at this point. There is a massive deadlock among Mich Dems between Clinton supporters who want an early Mich primary to offset a potential loss for her in Iowa, and Edwards supporters who want an early caucus to offset NH. That will start to become clearer this weekend when the DNC tries to take Michigan down; if Dean wants to use it, he's got a lot more leverage with Michgan than he did with FLA.
Lastly, its too early to conclude that Clinton and Obama are going to continue to widen their cash advantage. If Move-On and CtW unions get behind Edwards, that could generate a lot of momentum that can close the gap on Hillary's heavily-big-donor (and thus largely maxed out) 1990's style fundraising .
August 24, 2007 1:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
John Edwards began the year in Iowa a nose ahead of Clinton with Barack Obama a distant third. In May, the Seltzer poll which is really the gold standard in Iowa had Clinton and Obama neck and neck with Edwards 6-8 points ahead of them. Those were the good old days. Most everything we're seeing lately makes it pretty much a 3-way tie or shows Clinton in the lead.
Nationally, John Edwards is running a distant third, 10 points behind Obama and nearly 30 behind Clinton. He is running a distant third in NH, SC, NV, FL, CA, MI and of course, NY. Iowa is the only place he is competitive right now.
Clinton and Obama have both raised at least three times as much money as Edwards and both have three times as much money in the bank. They're also sucking up all the media attention being paid to the Democratic side of the race, while Edwards gets leftovers. So none of the above is likely to change unless someone does something to drastically shift the the dynamics of the race.
Either Clinton or Obama could shake off even a close third place finish in Iowa and still be very much in the race. There is simply no credible scenario that ends with John Edwards securing the Democratic presidential nomination that does not begin with him launching out of Iowa like a bullet from a gun. He's really got little choice but to go on the attack if he wants to stay in it.
August 24, 2007 2:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Chris Mathews is going to love this.
August 24, 2007 3:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with that.
When he speaks i feel like i'm reading liberal progressive blogging.
August 24, 2007 3:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
It wasn't the only theme in the speech. I'm really not at all interested in hearing, yet again, specifics on a policy that lies on the shelf of past promises. It's a waste of my time. I'll evaluate how much passion someone has and how likely they are to achieve any of those goals.
The specifics are useless. I imagine a lot of you will agree with me when you reach your 50's and have heard the same ones over and over again. It is a waste of time in evaluating candidates.
August 24, 2007 6:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your statements fall into the which came first, the chicken or the egg. It seems you are implying that first came the call from Obama and then came the support from Iowa Republicans.
Could easily be the support came from Iowa Republicans first--unless you are somehow theorizing that Obama getting support from Independents and Republicans in national polls is because someone from his campaign called all of them first?
And what's with the "especially of the Christian persuation" phrase? In a country that is majority Christian, it seems to me it would be hard to avoid anyone of the "Christian persuasion".
August 24, 2007 6:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes voters can change their party on the day of the caucus. In NH, independents ask for the ballot they want--Dem or Rep. It seems Bradley (D) actually lost the primary in NH because so many independents asked for the Rep ballot so they could vote for McCain (R).
And, yes, voters are that sophisticated. I was an election judge here in Missouri's open primaries and I know hard red folks who always wanted the Dem ballot in primaries. And there was no "GOP conspiracy" at work. Voters can be that sophisticated.
August 24, 2007 6:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
"John Edwards began the year in Iowa a nose ahead of Clinton..." Really?
Clinton's Campaign Focus Working In Iowa (Newsday, Aug. 22) "Organizational muscle and campaign elbow grease appear to be paying off for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in early-caucus Iowa, where the former first lady has pulled ahead among Democratic presidential hopefuls, according to the latest polling there...DAVID REDLAWSK, director of polling at the University of Iowa, attributed her surge to focused campaigning during which she has spent 11 days in Iowa since July 1, and has opened a total of 19 offices in the state. "Clinton has built an organization in the state and has been fairly aggressive in her campaigning here," Redlawsk said. "[John] Edwards has led most of the year in Iowa. Now, it has tightened into a three-way race."
It really matters, CalD, that folks be honest with what they say here. This may not effect the conclusion in what you write, but I think you lose credibility when some of the facts are whiffy.
August 24, 2007 8:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Only in Hillary world would pointing out differences among the candidates be viewed as "negative campaigning". Toughen up; none of the campaigns have "gone negative".
The push to change primary dates is very interesting. Do you think it is driven by the candidates? If so, who. If so, why.
August 24, 2007 8:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for posting this. I just read the whole thing to my sister over the phone and we cried all the way through. The feeling I've had my whole life is that every time I hoped for something good to happen politically, it failed. Always corruption ruled. Always, people were for sale. And never would a voice like mine be heard. I have never given much politically before, but I'm giving every penny I legally can to Edwards because, even if he doesn't win, I want him saying this. I want him pushing us to be better. And if he wins, I will expect him to be the most extraordinary president we have ever had.
And just because the Right-wingers were out to get the Clintons doesn't mean that they weren't playing every side of the game. I want to see what happens when politics isn't devious and where someone really champions every man. I want to live in a world where good people prosper and greed is not considered a virtue. We need to stop being jaded and make the world what we want it to be.
August 24, 2007 8:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, the quote you posted actually confirms what I just said, as far as it goes anyway. And you know this isn't just my opinion or something. You can go look up all the polling online. Pollster.com has the entire polling history for the state posted one their site.
Edwards began the year with a slight edge over Clinton in Iowa (and who the heck knew who Barack Obama was). Not surprising really since polling that early in the season tends to be about name ID more than anything else. John Edwards was already well known to Iowans of course. His performance there in 2004 was pretty spectacular and he basically never left there after that. And of course everyone knows Hillary Clinton (or thinks they do).
As the campaign developed, while Clinton and Obama were trying to be everywhere at once, Edwards was focusing like a laser beam on Iowa. By May, as I said before, Edwards was pretty much in the catbird seat in Iowa, enjoying a comfortable lead over both Clinton and Obama, who had pulled even with Clinton there by that time. By the beginning of June, people were starting to wonder out loud how a third place finish in Iowa might affect Clinton in other early states and there was speculation that she might just bypass Iowa altogether. Then, as we all know, Clinton put all that talk to rest by rolling into Iowa like a steamroller, lining up Ruth Harkin and probably the top field organizer in the state and deploying a statewide campaign operation almost overnight.
Now of course, it's looking more like anyone's race and if anyone has the edge there it's probably Mrs. Clinton -- although I am less than convinced anyone does. Any way you slice it though, that early lead of Edwards' has evaporated and he's not in a good place to compete with Clinton and Obama without a strong springboard effect out of Iowa. So yeah, for the third time, Edwards pretty much has to change tactics at this point if he wants to stay in the race. No surprises there -- for anyone who has been following the race all year.
August 24, 2007 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Paula,
The good guys win occasionally too or Russ Feingold could not be in the Senate.
Feel much the same way you do at times.
I so want to be a Christian and dream of the bad guys getting theirs but they are the bad guys. :-)
Best, Terry
August 24, 2007 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that it is more that to give Edwards press would expose her underbelly.
Edwards consistantly polls better than Clinton and Obama in Dem-Rep match ups . . .
By being the more traditional Democrat in the race . . . Edwards with face money issues . . .
BUT money is not speech and the worm must turn for us to get our democratic-republic back. Until then . . . Fascist plutocracy remains dominant . . . Oh look, I just made Edwards' point.
August 24, 2007 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink