This ploy by Edwards confirms all of the doubts I started having about him as the 2004 general election neared. He is utterly lacking in gravitas. He's slick, and he's shallow. In Hollywood terms, he's not a leading man but a one-note character actor. While he can fill up a medium size hotel meeting room with his energy, he does not fill up the big screen. Remember how he seemed to deflate before our eyes in his debate with Dick Cheney, disappointing many of us who then had high hopes for him.

This stunt on "taking away Congress' health insurance" is something you'd expect from someone deeply in the back of the pack trying to get recognized--it's worthy of a Tancredo or a Duncan Hunter, not someone serious about being the President of the United States.

It's mindless "applause line" politics at it's absolute worst. I was hoping the discerning Iowa Democrats would react tepidly to the part of his J-J speech where he trotted out this cheese, but the audience lapped it up. Oh well, but serious Presidential candidates should not treat good live audience reaction to idea as a substitute for substantive analysis of the idea. Only a demagogue does that. I hope Edwards continues to get called out on his latest stunt.

This is just one tactic toward getting meaningful healthcare legislation passed; he wouldn't be "squandering" his first 100 days on this single piece of legislation. Don't be silly.

As for his "gravitas" and seriousness as a candidate, how is this worse than fielding "stock" questions during a candidate's purportedly unrehearsed Q&A?

"I'm shocked.

Shocked, that gambling is going on in this establishment!"

Does the good professor consider it deceptive to fail to disclose that his wife donates to Obama?

If you want to praise Edwards for a transparent, demagogic stunt -- on the ground that it draws attention to one of our most important issues -- go ahead and do so. But just don't defend Edwards when he pretends at the debates to be the candidate who is willing to level with the people and always tell them the truth, and when he criticizes Hillary for shading things or engaging in traditional politician tactics.

As many who read this comments may know, I support Obama and have been very critical of Hillary. But Edwards is now no longer my second choice -- not just because of this stunt but because his transformation this year from a moderate to a Kossack and from Mr. Sunshine to Huey Long is far phonier than even the admittedly somewhat phony Hillary reinventions we all have witnessed over the years. He has now literally apologized for most of his major votes in the US Senate -- votes that almost perfectly matched the DLC agenda when that agenda looked to many like the formula for a Dem to get 51% of the national vote. He voted for the China MFN deal. He voted for No Child Left Behind. He was against repealing NAFTA. He not only voted for the Iraq war, but was one of the Co-Sponsors of the AUMF resolution. And now says he was wrong on all of those! Apologies are great--they are better than stubbornness--but at a certain point a politician who was repeatedly wrong during his time in office should maybe do what ordinary humans do when they find they are not very good at their job. Try something else. I must admit I admire the chutzpah of those who run for President rather than hide after a period of wrong votes, but I certainly don't feel like voting for them.

It would be different if Edwards' early political career was marked by mistakes and his later career showed a change in viewpoint and a consistent record, but Edwards' whole damn career was just one six year term, and he does not want us to judge him by how he voted during that term. Give me a break.

The reality is that Edwards was a calculating pol when he was in the Senate, who believed DLC-like Democrats were the wave of the future. The nation has moved left after the disastrous Iraq war, and more importantly the Dem Party has moved left, so magically Edwards 2008 is a down-the-line lefty.

Obama ain't perfect either, but he is by far the most consistent over time and genuine in tone, substance, and tactics of all the major candidates in either party.

Matt,

You're right this is pretty lame as far as "scandal" goes...though I don't think it has really been described as such. The haircut stuff is ridiulous as well.

What this is though is foolish rhetoric. Empty rhetoric. It means nothing and makes him look silly. People calling him on it is perfectly fine by me.

There are certainly other (and better) ways to pressure congress.

'outside the beltway' wrote:
"that seems deceptive so is the "listening tour" that plants questions."

~ ~
For "outside the beltway" and all those political virgins who think it is something unusual and never-done-before-Hillary's-campaign-did-it, it is COMMON practice for campaigns to ask people in the audience to ask questions of candidates or their rivals.

Get a grip, folks.

This is NOT -- contrary to what John Edwards hints at -- the same thing as when George W. Bush EXCLUDES anyone but rabid supporters from his events and then has "plants" ask questions his handlers know the dimwit can answer.

Hillary CAN answer any question thrown at her. In this one case, one of her aides wanted to be sure Hillary had a chance to discuss global warming, so they asked some young woman to ask a question about global warming -- NOT a specific powder puff question, just a question to make sure the issue was discussed.

Oh, the horror of it. (sneer)

loki and Keith-

i see your points on rhetoric and chances for success. i think it's fantastic that we can be in a forum where opposing viewpoints are welcomed, as well.

however, i reject that this tactic isn't "bipartisan". he would be pressuring both dems and wingnuts.

also, the reason HRC failed in the 90s wasnt her tactics per se. big pharm and insurance companies lobbied as hard as they ever have with, as you pointed out, a DEMOCRATIC congress to kill it.

this is most likely still the case with the current congress. we all know that universal health care is acheivable. it's time to ratchet up the pressure. if it takes "empty" threats against rich congresspeople to get a 5 year old boy with leukemia the treatment he needs, then i'm not sure i see the harm of words when people are dying in america because of lack of health care.

call me radical, but this type of rhetoric is way overdue.

You go, pc!!!

Matt:

I think you are partially right, Big Pharma and the insurance industry were the biggest opponents to getting HRC's bill passed. But, as I recall, she took a very nasty line with her fellow Democrats as well. She didn't solicit their involvement--essentially pass this bill or else.

Here's an excerpt from a Huffington Post article that highlights what I'm talking about:

At a retreat for Senate Democrats, Hillary was asked by Bill Bradley, "whether the Clinton's failure to meet their promise of submitting health care legislation to Congress in one hundred days... would make it more difficult to win passage... Perhaps some substantive changes might be required in the interest of realism, Bradley suggested. No, Hillary responded icily, there would be no changes because delay or not, the White House would 'demonize' members of Congress and the medical establishment who would use the interim to alter the administration's plan or otherwise stand in its way....
[Bill] Bradley and [Pat] Moynihan later said they were flabbergasted at Hillary's words and attitude that afternoon, but each came to believe that the incident was indicative of something more revealing about her character... 'That was it for me in terms of Hillary Clinton,' Bradley said many years later. 'You don't tell members of the Senate you are going to demonize them. It was obviously so basic to who she is. The arrogance. The assumption that people with questions are enemies. The disdain. The hypocrisy.'"

I've been going on here for a couple of days trying to show people who are swallowing the campaign- and media-fueled myths re who is the real progressive Democrat and who is the real corporate shill Republican Lite who sided most often with the Republicans when it counted - with their votes of support in the Senate.

But why would you consider facts about Edwards/Clinton head-to-head Senate voting records from me? I'm an admitted Hillary supporter. How about some takes on the facts from some noteworthy non-Hillary supporters? This also addresses some of the Senate "leadership on legislation" issues that some have been raising to try to attack Senator Clinton.

FROM:
Democratic Underground, The Left Coaster:

Monday - Oct 8, 2007
Is Hillary Clinton a "Corporate Democrat"?

by eriposte

SUMMARY and CONCLUSIONS

This post examines the allegation that Sen. Hillary Clinton is a "Corporate Democrat" - namely, a person who is beholden to "Corporate America" and who is more likely to support "corporate interests" as President than the interests of average or middle-class Americans.

I find that the existing evidence, based on her Senatorial voting records compiled by Progressive Punch, Americans for Democratic Action, AFL-CIO and SEIU, does not really support this allegation. Indeed, the evidence suggests that Sen. Clinton's voting patterns are substantially and surprisingly progressive (ranging typically from 90-100%), including on corporate or labor issues. There are certainly serious issues where Sen. Clinton has unfortunately taken anti-progressive positions (e.g., her vote for a version of the Bankruptcy Bill in 2001), but the data reviewed here suggests that overall, she is far more progressive than corporatist. In the absence of additional or new data, I have to conclude that the label "Corporate Democrat", as applied to her, is inappropriate and extraordinarily misleading. In other words, while it is true that she has strong links to corporate America and corporatist interests, there is little or no evidence that she systematically votes in lock-step with those interests or even significantly in line with their positions.

(Emphasis Added)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2264470#2268139

FROM:
US News and World Report
February 8. 2004

A Freshman Phenom
Maybe he didn't pass too many bills in the Senate, but John Edwards sure was a star
By Angie C. Marek

Since he was elected in 1998, Edwards has evolved from a rank-and-file liberal to a moderate Democrat, slipping from a 90 percent rating from the liberal Americans for Democratic Action in 1999 to a 70 percent rating in their most recent survey. He's now known for co-operating with moderate Republicans and focusing on healthcare and intelligence issues, although the Senate has passed just three bills bearing his name.

But since he didn't make big waves with his legislative record, Edwards stuck with his oratory.

"He's the type of guy you just want in your frat," says Stuart Rothenberg, editor and publisher of the Rothenberg Political Report, "and that charming charisma helps on Capitol Hill." He won coveted spots on the Intelligence; Commerce; and Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions committees and cosponsored legislation with Republican Susan Collins to speed up access to generic prescription drugs.

(Emphasis Added)

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/040216/16edwards.htm

Keith-

You bring up a good point. The nation is tired of a president who is standoff-ish with congress. and on the great majority of big issues (Iraq, Gitmo, energy reform, etc. etc.) i'm sure that they (President Edwards and congress) will work hand in hand with each other. but, universal health care is an issue that congress will only accept kicking a screaming. the lobby for Big Pharma and insurance is much larger than the "Anti-Gitmo-closing" lobby.

perhaps it is premature for edwards to step up this rhetoric. but i think it was pretty much inevitable at some point. Thoughts?

I was a supporter of John Edwards but now I find him a prissy moaner. He is always angry at everyone else because he is down in the polls. As Senator Dodd said What is Edwards so angry about lately. I don't know him anymore.

I do have to wonder why our neocon media is having a love affair with Obama. The man is a 2-year senator who has no real experience and has missed 200 votes since he has been in the Senate. Could it be that the media sees him as the weakest candidate in the bunch? Its very easy to be consistent when the media only asks softball questions.

Matt:

I think that it is premature to say that congress will only accept universal healthcare kicking and screaming. As I recall (I wasn't paying particular attention to politics or healthcare in 1993), there wasn't a big uproar/demand for universal healthcare. In short, I don't think America was ready. I think 2009 will be a different story. It's much more of an accepted issue today.

The other point is that if he adopts this rhetoric right out the box, I think it makes it extremely difficult for him to get anything else done, whatever the merits. Trust me, the Republicans will remember oversight and that Congress is a co-equal branch on January 20, 2009.

I believe experience counts, but it's not everything. Values, judgment, and the record that I have amassed in my state also should count for something. I've worked hard to create good jobs and to educate people. My state now ranks first in the country in job growth this year, fourth in income growth, fourth in reduction of poverty, third in overall economic performance, according to a major news magazine. That's because we believe in investing in education and in jobs. And we have to change in this country. You know, my wife, Hillary, gave me a book about a year ago in which the author defined insanity as just doing the same old thing over and over again and expecting a different result. We have got to have the courage to change. Experience is important, yes. I've gotten a lot of good experience in dealing with ordinary people over the last year and month. I've touched more people's lives and seen more heartbreak and hope, more pain and more promise, than anybody else who's run for president this year. I think the American people deserve better than they're getting. We have gone from first to thirteenth in the world in the last twelve years, since Mr. Bush and Mr. Reagan have been in. Personal income has dropped while people have worked harder. In the last four years, there have been twice as many bankruptcies as new jobs created. We need a new approach. The same old experience is not relevant. We're living in a new world after the Cold War, and what works in this new world is not trickle down, not government for the benefit of the privileged few, not tax and spend, but a commitment to invest in American jobs and American education, controlling American health care costs, and bringing the American people together. That is what works. And you can have the right kind of experience and the wrong kind of experience. Mine is rooted in the real lives of real people, and it will bring real results if we have the courage to change.

It's O.K., colonpowwow, I get the same reaction to posting the truth here as well. See you all tomorrow!!!

Belated edit: that should be "claim for the President powers that are shared with the LEGISLATIVE BRANCH," not the Executive.

Oops! Leon's going to shift over to Hillary in the general. Sorry.