Edwards SC Ad: I'm Running On Behalf of The Working Man And Woman
John Edwards has a new ad in South Carolina, pitching his populist message. The ad shows Edwards speaking a to a multi-racial crowd, talking about his own working-class background:
"I'm running for president because of 54 years of my life," Edwards says, "I have believed to my soul that the men and women who worked in that mill with my father were worth every bit as much as the man who owned that mill."
Advertisement
Dear god, can you please just drop out so we can end this goddamn infighting over the nomination???? It is obvious that the vast majority of the party doesn't want Hillary, so can we stop dividing that side and just finish this?
January 11, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Edwards is the best candidate for working people. But when his inspiring words fall on the deaf ears of mainstream media reporters, they are like pearls before swine. Talking heads, pundits, wealthy supporters like Oprah, John Kerry, David Geffen, etc. are entitled to their opinion. I just don't think they have a clue about the fears of the working men and women of this country today. Our jobs are going overseas, our social security, pensions, and now our 401K's are disappearing, our health care costs are skyrocketing, our kids' college costs are thru the roof. Our public schools are getting worse and worse. Edwards 'gets it.' If only he got a bit more coverage, people would follow him in droves.
January 11, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Grover-rover,
Please explain: in Iowa, Edwards gets 30 percent of the vote, Obama is up to 38 and Hillary down to 29. In NH, Edwards only gets 17, Hillary goes up to 39, and Obama remains about the same at 36. Edwards success would seem to be at HILLARY's expense.
Do you have any evidence at all that Edwards is dividing a side? I suspect Edwards is taking some policy-oriented voters away from Obama, but odds are he's taking even more working-class, high-school educated voters away from Hillary. Edwards drops out -- Hillary increases her lead.
January 11, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd also like to see Hillary defeated and that's why I think John should stay in the race. He's the only one capable of defeating her.
January 11, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
grover_rover wrote on January 11, 2008 12:01 PM:
Dear god, can you please just drop out so we can end this goddamn infighting over the nomination???? It is obvious that the vast majority of the party doesn't want Hillary, so can we stop dividing that side and just finish this?
Comments like this one are slowly and surely ensuring that that I will be supporting Hillary if Edwards does ever have to drop out. I know I shouldn't attribute Obama supporters' comments to the man himself, but it is hard to avoid.
Kos offered some advice on this:
http://kos.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/9/93912/04225/727/433534
January 11, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Would the candidates that have nothing to say [Clinton and Obama] please get out of the way and let the strongest candidate get some press?
January 11, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
grover, this is the most important part of the election. After the press narrows it down, policy is no longer part of the election. At that point, all input from voters stops.
January 11, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agree with EFP @ 12:46 that Edwards staying in the race is one of the few things that keeps policy questions open.
Look at what's happened since NH: the debate is all about 1) sexism v. racism, which is worse, or 2) whose limited experience is more relevant. A race limited to Hillary and Obama is likely to be more of the same: comparative identity politics and resume-measuring.
January 11, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
It would, however, be nice if Mr. Edwards would finally come up with a nice synonym for "mill".
January 11, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
The people of this country own the airwaves. Why do we run elections where the winner is the one who can buy the most airtime from people who don't own it?
January 11, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like how it starts out with, "I'm not running for President because of something I read in a book." Ha! Yeah, John: books are for jerks- they never teach you nuthin'. The only thing worse than self-righteous intellectuals is self-righteous anti-intellectuals...Uh oh, I'm turning into a wanna be H.L. Mencken...gotta go!
January 11, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
mill worker is definitely preferable to something like textile worker or factory worker because it carries the feel of the day after day grind of that type of work
see Richard Cohen's latest editorial piece on the biggest change of all: public financing of elections
now that the other 2 candidates have basically co-opted Edwards campaign platform I guess people feel he's done his part and should retire...I disagree, he is the best thing that's happened to the campaign--his message is spot on--and I hope he stays on thru the convention not matter what--if only to keep the progressive message at the forefront of the campaign
January 11, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I assume his book comment is his way of contrasting his working class upbringing to the more privileged lives of BO and HC, something a lot of SC folks can relate to. He's walked a mile in their shoes. Have you smart boy?
January 11, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, phil james. You friend of the working man, you. Far be it for some blue blood aristocrat "smart boy" like myself to point out the banality of criticizing all that Big City book learnin'. (Although I'd point out that a little book learnin' is going to help these voters when the trade agreements Edwards supported takes their jobs! Hooray for things you learn in books!)
Edwards' father was a foreman in mill in a small Southern town. That is...middle class, at least. First of all, if you're white in a Southern town in the 50's, you're already better off than some folks. Second of all, if you're employed in a small Southern town in the 50's, you're better off than some folks. Third of all, if you've got a manufacturing job in a small Southern town in the 50's (60's, whatever), you're better off than some folks. Finally, if you're a foreman, a semi-management position, you're better off than a lot of other people in the small Southern town. (Even though I'm "smart boy", I had an uncle who was a foreman for GM.) So don't give this blue-collar horseshit; the guy seems blue collar because he has an accent and Yankee fuckwits immediately think the guy couldn't have possibly had a comfortable upbringing.
If Edwards meant to contrast himself with Obama/HRC's upbringing, he could've gone about it better than to say he wasn't running because of "something he learned in a book", with the word "book" just dripping with disdain. But he didn't. He wants to play on people's populist anger against people who are literate and proudly so. 'Cause he's a demagogue.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to drink some champagne while I read Richard III. Alfred! Bring me my champagne!
January 11, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Edwards is the best candidate for working people. But when his inspiring words fall on the deaf ears of mainstream media reporters, they are like pearls before swine.
Yeah, looks like the mainstream media is suppressing this Edwards comment thread too.
January 11, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Edwards must be smarting from the Kerry snub. Maybe if he had only lied once instead of twice to Kerry, he could have won the endorsement.
January 11, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again the book comment was a statement on how he had walked in their shoes and has been fighting their fight for many years. The book comment was followed immediately by his statement that he wasn't told by a political consultant that he should run. This is not anti-intellectual, it's anti-triangulation, anti-DLC, anti-Hillary. has nothing to do with populist anger against intellectuals (whatever the hell that is) its about populist anger against the great triangulators that are bought and paid for by the corporatocracy. Now be careful not to choke on that champagne.
January 11, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is like we are watching the 2004 campaign over for Edwards. He gets a spurt in Iowa, does not get much of a bounce from it in New Hampshire and then gets progressively weaker as the campaign moves to other state. One difference: Edwards won South Carolina in 2004 and that seems like a remote possibility in 2008.
January 11, 2008 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yesterday, here in Iowa, we just lost another manufacturing plant... a now familiar refrain.
This type of economic message should front and center in this Presidential Election... at least I know what Edwards thinks is important. 'Cause honestly, after watching BO and HRC campaign here in Iowa all summer long I still can't tell you what they believe in.
TPM, the MSM and vacuous talking heads on the boob tube keep refering to the Edwards campaign message as "populist" like that's a bad thing. Or at least that it's not on the same elevated plane as the 'real serious' candidates. But this country has to start looking past the rock star attributes of fund raising, clothing, tears, platitudious messages that defy action and examine where we are going to be in another ten years.
If we don't actively reset our national policy compass to stop the largest transfer of wealth in the history of the world from the bottom 90% to the top 10%, if we don't have national policies that work to 'float all boats' then we will sink as a society and as a nation.
Edwards had some VERY bad votes as Senator (backruptcy, Iraq) that really gave me pause. The fact that Edwards said flatly in response to a direct question at a campaign stop here "I made a mistake on those two votes and I won't do that again" (and then proceeded to explain his thinking at the time and why it was wrong for five minutes until campaign aides started waving arms from the back) helps but the fact that BO and HRC continue to make VERY bad decisions in the senate makes their candidacies worse.
We need the President to use the bully pulpit to change America's internal conversation and force Congress to take actions that will, if not benefit the bottom 90% then, at least stop hurting us at the benefit of our neighbor living in their gated-community down the road. Edwards should get more credit for advocating that position.
January 12, 2008 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink