In Apparent Criticism Of Obama, Edwards Will Fault "Academic Theory Of Change"

Comments (73)

DTM wrote on December 27, 2007 3:31 PM:

Well, that approach might work in a courtroom, where the system is by design adversarial and ultimately a judge or jury picks the winning side.

But in the real world of legislation, as opposed to the real world of litigation, the system is designed to favor the status quo and thwart change in the absence of a broad working coalition.

Keith wrote on December 27, 2007 3:31 PM:

Nobody who takes their money and defends the broken system is going to bring change.

One would think that he's talking about Clinton here.

jstipich wrote on December 27, 2007 3:37 PM:

Haven't we been fighting and accomplishing nothing for almlost 8 years ? I'd say we need to change our tactics and get something done.

John wrote on December 27, 2007 3:40 PM:

This line of resoning perfectly supports what I've believed all year:

Edwards for Attorney General!

Obama for President!

nogo war wrote on December 27, 2007 3:42 PM:

Please list the top ten times Dems in Congress have gone to the junction with Cheney/Bush as examples of "fighting"

(Why is it a Republican minority was able to stymie/shut down Dem initiatives this year and Dems were not able to when we were minority?)

della Rovere wrote on December 27, 2007 3:44 PM:

if we are to change America, change its direction, then everything will be thrown at us. Obama seems to think his good looks and charm, with a rational argument thrown in, will effect change. Clinton seems to think only a facelift on the Bush administration is needed. The Republican legions however seem to have a more realistic assessment of the fight. I am glad Edwards seems to understand this point.

MJM wrote on December 27, 2007 3:45 PM:

It's kind of surprising that throughout this campaign, it seems like no one has bothered to point out that Edwards' talk about taking on corporations is no less vague and idealistic than Obama's talk about bringing diverse interest groups together to solve problems.

DTM wrote on December 27, 2007 3:49 PM:

nogo war,

Actually, outside of national security issues, the Democrats were pretty effective at thwarting the Bush Administration's agenda. For example, the signature domestic policy item for Bush's second term was supposed to be an overhaul of Social Security, and of course that ended up going nowhere.

framecop wrote on December 27, 2007 3:49 PM:

Another negative-leaning Edwards story on TPM...gee, what a surprise.

John Edwards has been saying that forever.

It's a criticism of a PERSPECTIVE, not of a PERSON. If Obama holds that PERSPECTIVE, then that's his problem.

yesterday gone wrote on December 27, 2007 3:53 PM:

this from the guy who invested millions in a offshore, tax dodging hedge fund. a hedge fund that foreclosed on katrina victims. you are taking the word of someone guilty of collusion lecture people about compromise.

how did edwards fight for people who were driven to medical bankruptcies?

simply agreeing to meet with ceos in order to negotiate is not "compromise."

Keith wrote on December 27, 2007 3:56 PM:

della Rovere:

I suggest you read Obama's re-tooled stump speech, because you seriously misunderstand his approach.

Nick wrote on December 27, 2007 3:58 PM:

jstipich: "Fighting"? Quaking in fear of the DC punditry is not "fighting" by any definition. I want someone to call the GOP the assholes they are and tell the people why.

Kaine wrote on December 27, 2007 4:00 PM:

Framecop, I don't see this as negative leaning.

Perhaps the second half of the headline could be seen that way, but only if you were specifically reading into it.

Ava wrote on December 27, 2007 4:00 PM:

della Rovere - If you think Edwards actually BELIEVES all that stuff, you obviously don't know your candidate very well. Edwards was an ambulance-chasing lawyer and when he was in the senate, Edwards didn't fight for the average Joe. Twice (in 2000 AND 2001) he voted FOR two of the WORST pieces of bankruptcy legislation ever crafted (totally written for credit card companies and banks), which eventually paved the way for making it super difficult for consumers to file for bankruptcy. Given that Edwards says he's "MR HEALTHCARE" and he knows that HALF of all bankruptcies are due to healthcare costs, it's funny that he would vote for that legislation TWICE. Edwards talks out his butt and his supporters eat it up.

Kaine wrote on December 27, 2007 4:03 PM:

Does anyone know of a good place to look up voting records for legislators? Perhaps one where you can filter out some subjects and focus on others?

AJ wrote on December 27, 2007 4:03 PM:

Edwards is exactly right. Obama is the anti-change candidate in policy terms, his post-partisan approach is a recipe for the status quo.

Tom wrote on December 27, 2007 4:03 PM:

Great job of setting up the distinction: Obama is one of those Northern elitists who sits in his ivory tower talking about change and dreaming of everyone getting along. Edwards is on the ground, fighting for change and getting results.

Donald wrote on December 27, 2007 4:04 PM:

I've been a big Obama supporter throughout the campaign (as far as money and personal interactions are concerned anyway). But this excerpt me throw Edwards a donation today. He really hit the nail.

This solidifies for me what I got from the Krug's piece for Slate yesterday. Obama's "let's-all-get-along" attitude is dreamy but it's not going to bring about real change.

(jstipich, I really don't think we have been fighting for the past 8 years. Barack definitely offers change from politics-as-usual in his promise of open arms and willful compromise, but the promise of a fight would be just as big a change. What fight do you think we've been having? The story of politics-as-usual in the post-Clinton years has been the Democrats grinning and bearing it. I mean no disrespect to what we accomplished in 2006, but we stumbled blindly into that almost entirely on the force of Bush and Congressional Republicans being colossal screw ups.)

yesterday gone wrote on December 27, 2007 4:06 PM:

edwards tries to differentiate himself by mocking compromise. but his prescription to address the problem, by agreeing to negotiate with congress instead, leads him to the same place as obama.

alter points out the illogic of edwards' argument:

jonathan alter: When I asked Edwards how any agreement could be reached without at least talking to these players in the system, he said he would offer a seat at the table to members of Congress who represent their interests. In other words, it's OK to have the congressional stooges there, but not the interests that pull their strings?

edwards thinks he can pull wool over people's eyes with sophistry.

Al in Austex wrote on December 27, 2007 4:10 PM:

Ava is right not only did Edwards vote for that awful bankruptcy bill so did Biden -
I am still hoping that Gov Richardson can do some good on Super Tuesday out west .

yesterday gone wrote on December 27, 2007 4:14 PM:

Nick wrote on December 27, 2007 3:58 PM:
jstipich: "Fighting"? Quaking in fear of the DC punditry is not "fighting" by any definition. I want someone to call the GOP the assholes they are and tell the people why.

this is what obama has pledged to do. first, you get the players to the table. if they are unwilling to play ball, then obama would use the power of the bully pulpit to call them out.

it doesn't make sense to throw rocks before agreeing to meet to see what they bring to the table. obama would have tapes and transcripts to show ceos acting obstructionists, giving him more ammunition to use against them.

yesterday gone wrote on December 27, 2007 4:31 PM:

della Rovere wrote on December 27, 2007 3:44 PM:
Obama seems to think his good looks and charm, with a rational argument thrown in, will effect change.

it isn't obama who is preoccupied with brushing his hair.

susie wrote on December 27, 2007 4:34 PM:

I used to like Edwards, but I think now that his main reason for running for President is because he wants to BE President. It's has to be about his ego, because if it weren't, he would get out of the race. There is no way (and he has to know this as a smart man) that he can compete against the organization of Clinton on Feb. 5th. He wants to be the anti-Clinton, but he has no real shot. He should step out of the way and let Obama, who does have the organization and money to compete, get the job done.

If Edwards supporters really want change in DC - seriously, don't cut off your nose to spite your face, as a vote for Edwards is pretty much a vote for Hillary. She wants him to win in Iowa because she knows he can't go the distance against her. Remember that!!

John, NY wrote on December 27, 2007 4:49 PM:

Edwards is the biggest phony of the democratic primary season. He made his money from the insurance companies and by representing the hedge funds in NY and the wallstreet. He is certainly the Mitt Romney of the Democrats.

Abe wrote on December 27, 2007 4:55 PM:

susie, that's kinda a dumb criticism. Everybody running wants to BE president. I agree that Obama seems like he's put a whole lot more thought and experience into his approach than Edwards, who right now thinks "sound and fury" qualifies as a theory of change. Well, it doesn't. This is a Democracy and you don't get anything done by convincing people to obstruct you. All you get is piss in your eyes and egg on your nose and nothing to show for it.

An Edwards win is a Hillary win. That's how the pundits will end up spinning it, mark my words. Hopefully Obama pulls this out.

Michael A wrote on December 27, 2007 5:03 PM:

Agreed john ny, just check out his voting record concerning his one senate term. Particularly voting to invade iraq for political purposes and after a couple of hundred thousand dead americans and iraqi's, oops sorry about that. Give me a break. All his rhetoric is just so empty and not supported by the facts. But that's politics.

EricD wrote on December 27, 2007 5:04 PM:

I think that Edwards is right. The public must demand change, not just that we try to get along. Getting along will perpetuate the status quo.

It is time to get along after we get some of our rights back. They should know going in that we are not satisfied and will go to the mat. It is they who evade and deflect, only to win and then ignore what the people actually want. That will no longer happen. We do not take their shit anymore.

It was like when Anthony Weiner of NY called them the Republic Party.

Here's the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsqprEihjXg

If you are a Democrat, watch it, then tell me this does not give you chills.

They virtually own the playing field, but always want more. They only give when they must, and then not to give, but to protect long term interests.

It is time to expose the corruption using the very best tools of technology and manipulation. So long as it is not deceptive. We can and will win on the issues.

That is what I think Edwards can do.

CalD wrote on December 27, 2007 5:08 PM:

You know, win or lose, John Edwards can have the satisfaction of knowing he's made his mark on the political discussion this year. There's simply no doubt in my mind that we have spent a lot more time talking about poverty, the plight of the working poor, trade policy and the importance of organized labor to the health of the middle class than we would have if Edwards weren't around.

della Rovere wrote on December 27, 2007 5:12 PM:

yesterday gone

You are certainly right. I wrote the Edwards campaign after that saying I did not send him my money to pay a portion of his haircut. But after one gets past your zinger, we still have to change this country and it cannot be done in my opinion without confronting right wing partisanship and their willingness to fight-to-the-bitter-end on every issue. Clinton seems comfortable with the Republican framework but not with its implementation; I am not sure of where Obama is in terms of policy...his appeal to bipartisanship and to a new politics reminds me of the cooperation of the moderate Democratic and Republican Senators who came together and "saved" the right to filibuster and then promptly approved all the far right judges Bush and the loonies wanted. That isn't change; that's rhetoric.

dajafi wrote on December 27, 2007 5:21 PM:

I take Edwards at his word that his positions and priorities as president would be fairly distinct from how he voted and what issues he emphasized as a senator. I think the 2004 campaign--really his first exposure to national politics--and other events from Elizabeth's illness to Katrina did radicalize him. These days we all assume Robert F. Kennedy was sincere, and he was probably a bigger establishment figure through his late 30s than Edwards ever was.

I like Edwards and would happily support him if he won the nomination--which I couldn't do for Our Lady of Perpetual Triangulation. But I prefer Obama because I think his judgment is sharper and his tactic--persuasion first, then bringing pressure to bear as needed--is more likely to work than the frontal assault on entrenched power that Edwards seems to be touting.

But as I said in another thread here, we don't really know. I just think the attacks on Edwards as a "phony" are pretty overblown and tough to credit.

DTM wrote on December 27, 2007 5:25 PM:

dajafi,

I think the basic problem is that Edwards has not been a public official at any point since his claimed conversion. Which doesn't prove he is not sincere, but it also means the new John Edwards has never been tested.

della Rovere wrote on December 27, 2007 5:30 PM:

Ava above wrote:

"della Rovere - If you think Edwards actually BELIEVES all that stuff, you obviously don't know your candidate very well. Edwards was an ambulance-chasing lawyer and when he was in the senate, Edwards didn't fight for the average Joe. Twice (in 2000 AND 2001) he voted FOR two of the WORST pieces of bankruptcy legislation ever crafted (totally written for credit card companies and banks), which eventually paved the way for making it super difficult for consumers to file for bankruptcy. Given that Edwards says he's "MR HEALTHCARE" and he knows that HALF of all bankruptcies are due to healthcare costs, it's funny that he would vote for that legislation TWICE. Edwards talks out his butt and his supporters eat it up."

I have no illusions on Edwards. I prefer what he is saying now to what Clinton and
Obama are saying now. I prefer what he has been saying over the last three years to what Clinton and Obama said over the last three years. I prefer Obama's original opposition to the war and occupation of Iraq to Edward's and Clinton's vote to authorize military force. Who knows where these three will be and what they will do if elected? I do not. You seem to passionately feel you do. Do you have special powers?

ellen wrote on December 27, 2007 5:34 PM:

CalD, glad to see someone else point this out too. We owe Edwards that debt of gratitude. He's really been the pacesetter on policy and hard issues in this campaign, more power to him.

yesterday gone wrote on December 27, 2007 5:37 PM:

dajafi wrote on December 27, 2007 5:21 PM:
I take Edwards at his word that his positions and priorities as president would be fairly distinct from how he voted and what issues he emphasized as a senator. I think the 2004 campaign--really his first exposure to national politics--and other events from Elizabeth's illness to Katrina did radicalize him.

sounds lovely, but this isn't what edwards says when asked to account for his conversion in interviews. his tendency is to dodge the question instead.

pmorlan wrote on December 27, 2007 5:44 PM:

Politicians of every stripe have tried to negotiate with insurance companies, etc. and none of them have accomplished very much (except getting campaign donations). Edwards has experience actually beating them at their own game. We don't need another politician to give us more of the same. For once let's use our common sense and vote for the guy who has a track record of winning against them.

DTM wrote on December 27, 2007 5:46 PM:

pmorlan,

Again, though, there will be no judge or jury to decide who has the best arguments, so Edwards' experience as a litigator seems to me to be of dubious value.

JJF wrote on December 27, 2007 5:52 PM:

I think there's a reason so few sitting senators are elected president, and I wonder if voters are going to elect one this time. The desire for change is palpable and I doubt the message of conciliation wins in the end.

Edwards is exactly right in what he's saying these days, and it seems others are getting nervous. We could be in for some suprises early '08.

yesterday gone wrote on December 27, 2007 5:55 PM:

pmorlan wrote on December 27, 2007 5:44 PM:

Politicians of every stripe have tried to negotiate with insurance companies, etc. and none of them have accomplished very much (except getting campaign donations).

not so. obama has faced off against the insurance lobby before. battles can be won at the negotiation table. from the union leader:

As a member of the minority party of the Senate for six of his eight years there, Obama wrote a health insurance law that covered an additional 20,000 children, a welfare reform law, an earned-income-tax-credit law for working-poor families, and death penalty reform that passed unanimously. During his last two years in the majority, he sponsored 780 bills, 280 of which became law.

yesterday gone wrote on December 27, 2007 5:59 PM:

(for the union leader piece, you have to scroll down to the middle to see the article.)

john mccutchen wrote on December 27, 2007 6:06 PM:

By Popular Demand! The Full Video of the Greatest Speech of 2008 Campaign http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPtg-gvgWhE

Anonymous wrote on December 27, 2007 7:29 PM:

yesterday gone, do you actually think anyone cares about triple-H at this point? It is beyond idiotic to talk about hair. Please stop it. You are lowering our collective discourse with this nonsense.

Edwards has very specific policy proposals. If you do not like them, just explain what it is about them you do not like. If you are a real Democrat, I imagine you will find very little to disagree with. If you do, then state the problem explicitly.

Triple-H is a series of right-wing exaggerations of meaningless trivia, like Gore claiming to have initiative on the Internet. It is meaningless that he got an expensive haircut, has a big house and worked for a very brief time for a hedge-fund. Who cares! It is his detailed policy proposals that we like.

yesterday gone wrote on December 27, 2007 7:35 PM:

anon, what is triple H?

i only brought it up to counter della's claim that obama was relying on his good looks.

della Rovere wrote on December 27, 2007 3:44 PM:
Obama seems to think his good looks and charm, with a rational argument thrown in, will effect change.

oleeb wrote on December 27, 2007 7:38 PM:

The Obama and Clinton people will rationalize anything to construct an argument that allows them to think their chosen candidate is for change when nothing could be further from the truth.

Edwards is dead on correct and all those who come up with reasons why fighting for change won't work are the same kind of pussies that regularly capitulate to the same interests in DC. The way every significant change has come in this society is by fighting for and winning it whether the minimum wage, labor laws, environmental protections, etc... The Clintonistas and Obamaites can carp and claim that fighting isn't the way to win, but there's no history whatsoever of compromise winning significant change for the American people: none at all. That's because if you don't fight for change it won't happen.

yesterday gone wrote on December 27, 2007 7:40 PM:

it if was just one story, i could overlook edwards' hair obsession. but i also saw edwards speak at a florida democratic convention a few years back where he bragged about being chosen by people magazine for their sexist politician cover. you'd have to be blind to overlook edwards obvious streak of narcissim. real populists don't obsess about their looks.

yesterday gone wrote on December 27, 2007 7:47 PM:

Anonymous wrote on December 27, 2007 7:29 PM:

It is meaningless that he got an expensive haircut, has a big house and worked for a very brief time for a hedge-fund. Who cares!

oh i see what you mean by triple h.
i dont begrudge him his house. as for edwards working for a hedge fund, he argued all through during 2004 against tax dodging american companies. for him to turn around and take a job with such a company is nothing but hypocrisy.

Anonymous wrote on December 27, 2007 8:11 PM:

Thanks John McCutcheon for the link to Obama's speech. It is a very good speech and it touches on a lot of my concerns about Obama. I am glad he is addressing many of these issues. One point he made...it is not serious perhaps since it was mostly rhetorical flourish...and yet it touches at the heart of a lot of the reservations I and others have about Obama. He addresses the Edwards criticism directly, says we don't need more "heat" we need more "light". In a sense he is correct; in a sense he is very incorrect. There is a very great anger amongst many of us at Democrats who do not and have not answered Republican lies and slanders with forceful and intense denunciation. Obama himself has been strangely quiet for the past four years on Iraq; other leaders such as Gore and Carter, to an extent Edwards, pundits like Krugman have
led. Obama did not. So I think many of us do not want the "light" he calls for; we do want "heat"... certainly more than has come from the Democratic leadership. Clinton is particularly guilty in this given her de facto position in the party; Bill Clinton even more so. (It was precisely for this reason his claiming to be against the war from the beginning struck such a raw nerve amongst those of us who ACTUALLY did oppose the war actively.) But as you say, the speech is really good.

Anonymous wrote on December 27, 2007 8:15 PM:

Yes, but what is the exact policy disagreement that you have with him? That is all that matters, not hair or brief part-time jobs. Edwards wins over people with the specificity of his policies, for example Krugman. Also, he has convinced many of us that he is ready for the long battle ahead.

roo_P wrote on December 27, 2007 8:19 PM:

oleeb:

Edwards is dead on correct and all those who come up with reasons why fighting for change won't work are the same kind of pussies that regularly capitulate to the same interests in DC.

This is a good criterion. The problem I see for your guy, here, is that his record when he was in the Senate to me seems a bit less "working for change"-like than Obama's. See http://www.govtrack.us or Vote Smart, for example.

So in order to effectively use this argument, I would expect to see some type of explanation why this is no longer the case for Edwards.

yesterday gone wrote on December 27, 2007 8:30 PM:

Anonymous wrote on December 27, 2007 8:15 PM:
Yes, but what is the exact policy disagreement that you have with him? That is all that matters, not hair or brief part-time jobs. Edwards wins over people with the specificity of his policies, for example Krugman. Also, he has convinced many of us that he is ready for the long battle ahead

i've noted specific policy counter arguments before. here are a couple.

the president of AETNA loves the idea of mandates.
http://lori.mydd.com/story/2007/11/21/12130/640

from bob reich: Hers [hillary] requires that everyone insure themselves. Yet we know from experience with mandated auto insurance – and we’re learning from what’s happening in Massachusetts where health insurance is now being mandated – that mandates still leave out a lot of people at the lower end who can’t afford to insure themselves even when they’re required to do so. HRC doesn’t indicate how she’d enforce her mandate, and I can’t find enough money in HRC’s plan to help all those who won’t be able to afford to buy it.
http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2007/12/why-is-hrc-stooping-so-low.html

scroll up to see jonathan alter's counter to edwards.

yesterday gone wrote on December 27, 2007 8:33 PM:

Anonymous wrote on December 27, 2007 8:15 PM:
Yes, but what is the exact policy disagreement that you have with him? That is all that matters, not hair or brief part-time jobs.

if edwards is caught out being hypocritical with his past voting records and choice of job, how does he still have credibility for anything he has to say?

pmorlan wrote on December 27, 2007 9:12 PM:

I read a piece in the Boston Globe (the paper that endorsed Obama) on Dec. 25 that compared Obama to Kerry. It was really funny because that's how I see him too when I see him on the campaign trail during the voter Q & A's. He's kind of long winded like Kerry.

"Obama's intellectualism appeals to voters who consider it an elixir to what they see as President Bush's willful ignorance. "The guy's got a brain," said Cindy Kleeman, a 54-year-old clothing business owner from Bedford, N.H., who is still undecided.

But at times he comes across as a know-it-all, even condescending. Campaign appearances can feel like graduate seminars. That could present some risks as he courts primary voters in the home stretch, particularly in blue-collar areas.

Perceptions of past Democratic candidates as preachy sophisticates - a label that dogged Senator John F. Kerry in 2004 and former Massachusetts governor Michael Dukakis in 1988 - have doomed campaigns"

They also made this observation that I think will hurt him if he were to become the nominee. Again I have visions of Kerry.

But while supporters praise Obama as a deep thinker, that can be a hindrance in a political climate that values sound bites, bumper-sticker slogans, and the clarity of yes-or-no answers.

Indeed, Obama's stump speeches can be more cerebral and loping than cogent calls to action. He has struggled in debates to encapsulate his thoughts in digestible nuggets.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/12/25/law_professor_obama_embraces_nuance_on_trail/

Anonymous wrote on December 27, 2007 9:13 PM:

more character attacks

sharon wrote on December 27, 2007 9:18 PM:

The Edwards supporters can never say exactly what it is he'll do to take on these big bad corporations. He talks big and tough but how exactly is he going to take them on? How is he going to accomplish anything by calling them names and antagonizing them? He can't just shut them down and make them go away. How exactly is he going to carry out this big fight against them? I've never heard a single word from Edwards and his supporters about how he is going to accomplish a damn thing.

Anonymous wrote on December 27, 2007 9:36 PM:

pmorlan wrote on December 27, 2007 9:12 PM:
I read a piece in the Boston Globe (the paper that endorsed Obama) on Dec. 25 that compared Obama to Kerry. It was really funny because that's how I see him too when I see him on the campaign trail during the voter Q & A's. He's kind of long winded like Kerry.

did you listen to obama's jefferson jackson dinner speech?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=tydfsfSQiYc

the man was on fire.

Anonymous wrote on December 27, 2007 9:36 PM:

pmorlan wrote on December 27, 2007 9:12 PM:
I read a piece in the Boston Globe (the paper that endorsed Obama) on Dec. 25 that compared Obama to Kerry. It was really funny because that's how I see him too when I see him on the campaign trail during the voter Q & A's. He's kind of long winded like Kerry.

did you listen to obama's jefferson jackson dinner speech?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=tydfsfSQiYc

the man was on fire.

yesterday gone wrote on December 27, 2007 9:36 PM:

pmorlan wrote on December 27, 2007 9:12 PM:
I read a piece in the Boston Globe (the paper that endorsed Obama) on Dec. 25 that compared Obama to Kerry. It was really funny because that's how I see him too when I see him on the campaign trail during the voter Q & A's. He's kind of long winded like Kerry.

did you listen to obama's jefferson jackson dinner speech?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=tydfsfSQiYc

the man was on fire.

mejhova wrote on December 27, 2007 9:48 PM:

on the plus side, isn't it great that the democrats are laying out clear alternatives, in nonconfrontational ways, and offering the american people different paths? experience vs. change, "academic change" vs. "real-life change", these are great debates that elections ought to be based on. how lucky the democrats are to have candidates who have brought these kinds of issues to the front. this is what a campaign ought to be about: visions about the future!

DemAC wrote on December 27, 2007 10:02 PM:

pmorlan,
I understand why you find Obama quite Kerryesque, although personally I liked Kerry far better than I like Obama. John Kerry wasn’t – and isn’t – all full of himself.

The differences between the two however outweigh the similarities. Kerry had extensive political experience and is a most thoughtful voice on foreign policy and defense policy. Obama is neither, but on the other hand he is clearly better than Kerry on the stump and obviously connects better with voters on a personal level. Not unimportant skills for a politician. Add a decade or so of experience and accomplishment and Obama will be very good some day; and then (election 2016 or so) he will definitely transcend John Kerry as a candidate.

yesterday gone wrote on December 27, 2007 10:06 PM:

experience doesn't mean anything without judgement.

DemAC wrote on December 27, 2007 10:19 PM:

yesterday gone,
Don’t be pessimistic. I’m confident that with increasing experience and accomplishment Obama can improve the weaknesses in his judgment.

yesterday gone wrote on December 27, 2007 10:27 PM:

you know it's hillary who lacks judgement. she supported iraq war, celebrated the destruction of beirut and engaged in saber rattling against iran.

DTM wrote on December 27, 2007 11:03 PM:

oleeb,

You are setting up a false dichotomy (that one must either fight in the particularly way that Edwards wants to fight, or capitulate).

Take, for example, the passage of the civil rights acts during the Johnson Administration. That was the culmination of a long "fight", but that fight eventually took the form of Johnson building a broad and bipartisan coalition.

Or indeed take the Social Security Act of 1965, which created Medicare and Medicaid. That was also the result of a long fight over healthcare, but in the end most of the groups opposing those efforts saw the writing on the wall and became part of the process of crafting the legislation, and that Act also passed with bipartisan support.

So yes, a fight of some sort is usually required. But those are some examples of how successful fights often end in broad working coalitions.

John wrote on December 28, 2007 12:11 AM:

Edwards is right about rhetoric vs. reality. If he had served in the Senate he would have shown an unwillingness to compromise, to always fight for the little guy and would have introduced bill after bill to stop corporate greed. And that's why this argument rings so genuine, so true, so pure, like a virgin singing to a dove in a meadow.

He would have been the ultimate firebrand populist if he'd ever had a chance, just one chance to make his imprint on legislation. He'd have worked night and day for li'l guys everywhere. That would've elegantly illustrated the difference between the "academic theory" of rhetoric and "reality."

I just know it.

notanumber wrote on December 28, 2007 12:26 AM:

DTM is full of crap.

We can see how successful Reid and Pelosy have been with his "real world" approach.

wetzel wrote on December 28, 2007 12:32 AM:

I'm actually really happy with Clinton, Obama, and Edwards. I'm so blissed out by our candidates this year that I just wish they would endorse each other and get it over with. Form an alliance and triumvarate for the next twenty four years! Turn the GOP back into the Whigs!

Seth Chandler wrote on December 28, 2007 2:06 AM:

Obama's ad Clinton's approach leaves the Rethugs and the corporations with all of their ill-gotten gaines and just tinkers around the margins. Atrios summed it up perfectly a couple of weeks ago:

Obama: The system sucks, but I'm so awesome that it'll melt away before me.

Edwards: The system sucks, and we're gonna have to fight like hell to destroy it.

Clinton: The system sucks, and I know how to work within it more than anyone.

But in the real world of legislation, as opposed to the real world of litigation, the system is desi wrote on December 28, 2007 2:20 AM:

"But in the real world of legislation, as opposed to the real world of litigation, the system is designed to favor the status quo and thwart change in the absence of a broad working coalition."

This is an utterly absurd statement. Radical change is always caused by a small group of committed activists who take power. Have you not been paying attention the last seven years, during which time we have undergone unbelievably radical change?

CalD wrote on December 28, 2007 3:13 AM:

Lyndon Johnson was kind of a curious example to be bringing up in this context. In the senate, LBJ was the penultimate DC insider. Nary a leaf fell in the district that without his knowing. A seasoned old war horse of a political player, he knew every twist and turn in the system and where every body was buried. His intimate knowledge of the workings of the senate and every string pulling every member of the congress who mattered, combined with the sheer force of his indomitable will, enabled him roll over nearly anything or anyone who got in his way like the proverbial steamroller.

The White House was a different story. As president, LBJ, the great white shark of the senate, was a fish out of water. Oh, he could still stare a man down at 50 paces and knew just about everything there was to know about domestic policy, but the times called for foreign policy and national security chops. Lacking any broad background of his own in those areas, he was almost completely at the mercy of his cabinet and advisers and the results, as we all know, were disastrous. It's kind of a shame though, that LBJ will always be remembered for the Vietman war and not his domestic accomplishments.

Donald from Hawaii wrote on December 28, 2007 3:15 AM:

Keith: "One would think that [Edwards is] talking about Clinton here."

He could just as easily be making a reference to Michelle Obama, who until recently served as a corporate attorney in charge of public affairs at the University of Chicago Medical Center.

I hope he wasn't -- it's her husband who's the candidate here, and not her. Unless they're somehow deriving a direct profit from the candidate's activities, family members should be off-limits.

Jacob wrote on December 28, 2007 4:32 AM:

"I'll take 'em all behind my Daddy's Mill and show 'em who really means business! Yee-haw!"

What the hell is Edwards proposing exactly? I agree wholeheartedly with the anti-corporate sentiment, thank God for it, but his actual legislative record is less populist than Obama's! How does an anti-corporate executive actually work (it's very telling, and sad, that I can't think of any State or Federal reference points except Spitzer as AG). And why do people mistake Obama's calm tone for appeasement? Respect the Jedi mind trick: talk about transcendence and cooperation while working toward a progressive agenda.

DTM (first!) makes a good point that this rhetoric is more relevant for a courtroom. Obama for President, Edwards for AG!

Or, if Edwards crushes Obama in Iowa, Edwards for President, Obama for VP.

But please, no Hillary for President. (maybe Chief Justice or Senate Leader?)

john in MA wrote on December 28, 2007 7:52 AM:

"...but his actual legislative record is less populist than Obama's!"
Never underestimate the value of losing a tough race. Remember that Edwards was largely muzzled during the '04 race. He got few opportunities to say even his (then weaker) message, and never was permitted to stray into anything more exciting.
My wife and I go shopping for presidents in NH - we see whoever we can when they come to speak. The differences between '04 Edwards and '08 Edwards are incredible. The new message is much more focused and realistic, deeper and more in tune with real life. I can't even imagine the changes between '00 and '04.
We were not Edwards supporters after we saw him in '04. We walked away disappointed. But this time we both support him strongly over the other candidates. The main reason is his new, clearer understanding of the problem (corporate ownership of the gov't) and the solution (a determination to fight).
As for those who think fighting is an unworkable idea, remember there will be no gunfights at high noon - it's all negotiation in the end. But Edwards knows that Dems have negotiated away the farm for the last 15 years. In courtroom terms, he knows when to fight and when to settle, and when to fight long enough to get the settlement you need. Today's Dems lack that confidence to stand fast.

obamaoverrated wrote on December 28, 2007 11:07 AM:

Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards have all been much better senators than Barack Obama. They have been serious, substantive lawmakers who have worked effectively across party lines. Obama has some accomplishments under his belt, but many of his colleagues believe that he has not bothered to master the intricacies of legislation or the maze of Senate rules. He talks about independence, but he has never quite bucked liberal orthodoxy or party discipline. When you consider two candidates for one job, you compare their resumes and weigh their latest experiences most heavily. Whoever distinguishes themselsves with their work ethic and garners respect amongst their colleagues is probably the best qualified for the job they seek. If Obama's colleagues feel he is an opportunist who is more about using his present job to build his resume rather than to actually work for substantive change, then he is just hype, and he is unqualified for the Presidency.

BubbaMcGarth wrote on December 28, 2007 12:58 PM:

Edwards supposedely says:"Compromise and conciliation is the academic theory of change. It just doesn’t work in the real world. Fighting for conviction is the historic reality of change.”

*****We must now "fight" our own citizens,we must now beat them over the head & we must now break their legs for change ?
Is Edwards for real ?Tells you what kind of people support his brand.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)