You probably didn't read it, but Mike echoed the same thoughts in his reflection on the Edwards Announcement in NH, today.

Edwards also held a round table with local bloggers, and Mike comments on that, too.

You can find it over at Blue Hampshire.

Read The Progressive Presidents --

Read it, and understand -- the limits on the window of opportunity for Progressive reform . . .

John Edwards has what it takes -- does he have the gravitas and vision and wisdom -- to do what needs to be done?

It brings back memories, were you around to hear this speech yourself?

"And so, my fellow americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country. My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man." ~ JFK

and he made a great President

I think Reagan proves that one can be both. People have often stated that the problem with Clinton was not that he wasn't a good leader as a President, but that he left nothing in his wake in terms of a movement. The GOP has sustained itself for almost 20 years off of the Reagan revolution. The reality is this- if you want to capture a generation of Americas with a vision of progressivism, I would say that the next Democratic President must, not just should, but must, be both.

Why is this true? Because for good or ill the modern Presidency sets the tone for the country. For what it thinks. For how it sees itself. Indeed, we regularly show that here in what we say of Bush, a lame duck President, who has so influenced our conciousness that we can't help but think of him when we say "Republican."

When the American public thinks of Democratic, or progressive, and, if we want them to understand that means something good, then it must come first from the symbolic power that is the American presidency. Never forget, the power of the President is what he symbolizes as much as how he leads.

If it sounds like Edwards is retroing to the Clinton era it's because he loves lifting other people's ideas and comments.  
He just did that yesterday in re: to his lack of experience.  He pointed to Cheney and co.
Well, over a month before obama said that and Edwards repeated it verbatum.
It seems this guy doesn't have much in original thought.

If it sounds like Edwards is retroing to the Clinton era it's because he loves lifting other people's ideas and comments.  
He just did that yesterday in re: to his lack of experience.  He pointed to Cheney and co.
Well, over a month before obama said that and Edwards repeated it verbatum.

Perhaps that's because it is an apt point to make for all who face the charge of inexperience.  

I was pretty excited about Barack Obama after reading his book. I really would like to see a capable leader break the ethnic minority or gender barrier in 2008... but I'd be more than pleased with Edwards as president. He was not born with a silver spoon in his mouth and knows what it's like to have to make ends meet. When was the last time we had a president who understood the plight of us working stiffs?

We here in NC have followed him and I think he is genuinely sincere.

Edwards has my admiration and respect for the work he's been doing. He would definitely have my vote.

...of community-minded everyday people to start repairing the damage done to America by the Bush administration and the Republican Congress.

It might be a very apt thing to say about Al Gore.  Gore is clearly very committed to fighting global warming.  He has international stature.  And he clearly could have chosen to throw his hat in the ring long before now--at least in the "exploratory committee" sort of way.  But being President could actually be a distraction from that.  And, in the larger scheme of things, stopping global warming is certainly more important.  So framing the question either/or makes a lot of sense for him.

But Edwards, OTOH, simply strikes me as someone who realizes what it will take to govern effectively, which is an energized base to help counter the other pressures he will face.  There will be no time to organize such a base once he's in office.  Clinton thought he didn't need it, since he was going to cut deals that would be win-win for everyone.  He didn't figure on folks who'd rather see everyone else lose.  And he came up with bupkis.

It just seems to me that Edwards knows better. Which shouldn't really be that hard to figure out.

Just compare: Reagan was a B-movie actor with a movement behind him who sold arms for hostages to turn around and finance terrorists, and he had to publicly apologize for about a milisecond. Clinton was a flat-out genius with an endlessly network, but no movement at all, and he got impeached for a blowjob.

I think we should be turning this around: what's any Democrat doing running for President who isn't also trying to build a movement?  Because they're damn sure going to need one once they get elected.

Otherwise, it's hello Harry & Louise, hello Ken Starr all over again.

Nancy,

Edwards, I think, is going to be BOTH the nominee and the leader of a grass roots movement dedicated to doing good works through volunteerism.  And what's wrong with that?  (I cannot see the downside of this, but maybe it is worth discussing any downsides you can envision.)

I posted some thoughts on this yesterday in some diaries here, and others have suggested some interesting aspects of this approach at the Ezra Klein link that you provide.  With apologies for the length of this, and for recopying some thoughts (skip it if you have already read it), here are my thoughts on Edwards' approach to running for president.

The upcoming Edwards campaign is NOT going to be a traditional campaign, and as such, it is going to puzzle some people, particularly those who want, and expect, a traditional campaign.  

There is something fundamentally different (if not historic) going on with Edwards this time around.  Several months ago, he began to organize a national grass roots effort to fight poverty called OneCorps.  Since his call to action, dozens of OneCorps chapters have formed around the country.  Good people coming together to do something about poverty in their local communities?  I call that a positive development, whether their efforts are large or small.  

What this is going to mean is that Edwards will be running for president, for the next two years, while simultaneously, his grass roots supporters will be encouraged to meet, discuss, plan, and actually do something to alleviate suffering and poverty in their local communities.  This is an excellent idea.  I do not believe this has ever been done before.  I don't think this was part of Robert Kennedy's campaign in 1968, and I know that Dean didn't do this in 2004.

The wonderful thing about Edwards doing this is that, win or lose, he will actually have accomplished something much bigger and better than just a presidential campaign.  Presidential campaigns have an unnerving tendency to expend tremendous amounts of time and energy.  Why not harness that time and energy to ALSO inspire people to organize and do good works in their communities?

What this is going to mean is that Edwards speeches from here on out will likely emphasize BOTH what he plans to do if elected, and what YOU, as a citizen, can do for your country.  For some traditionalists (and dyed in the wool cynics), I imagine this dual approach will be difficult at times.  They will demand the traditional;  they will demand the meat and potatoes of politics.  Stop talking about volunteers and what people can do!

Personally, I have some concerns about how early this particular presidential campaign is starting.  Do we really want to have candidates telling us, again and again and again, what they want to do as president for two straight years?!  

Think about it.  Don't you think the American people might get tired of listening to the same laundry list over and over again?  Yes, it is true: people do get tired of politicians talking about themselves.  The possibility of "wearing out your welcome" is going to be a factor this time around.

So...a major advantage of the upcoming Edwards campaign is that he can spend the next 2 years not only talking about himself, but ALSO about the good works that good people are doing.  

For many of us who have worked in Washington DC, then returned to the world outside the beltway, there is a gnawing sense that true change, fundamental, progressive change must come from the people, the grass roots.  We need to inspire people to be better, to work together, to do good work, and vote accordingly.  That is the true promise of America, not wars, greed, poverty and pain.  Edwards wants to be a catalyst for that progressive change, and he wants to take that progressive spirit to Washington as our next President.  Sounds like a good idea to me.

Elizabeth Edwards is someone I would vote for without her husband running.  She seems free to be who she is in public, and has nothing to apologize for. While one can failry claim that Hillary has nothing to apologize for either, one can't help watching her and think of triangulation, think that she is at some level where she is out of sheer naked ambition, not just core principle. This is not the case with Ms. Edwards.

Now is the time for vision, not triangulation; ideals and goals, not pure politics. Mrs Clinton, while a capable candidate does not inspire me, Mr. Edwards and his wife do. I like President Clinton, and loved to hear him talk, but his pure political instinct always stuck in my craw a bit. His gift for emotional connection made it easy to overlook his flaws. Not so much the case with Hillary. Her convictions seem to have taken a back seat to her desire to be President since her selection to Senate. If nominated, I'll certainly vote for her because I think she at least knows what the right thing to do is, the only question will be whether or not she thinks its in her political interest or not.

I think Edwards is being very smart.

Hillary and Obama are clearly staking out the middle.  Edwards had his most success in his last campaign with his rich vs. poor speeches.  So he's staking out the ground as the liberal candidate.  (Though your post doesn't mention anything substantive like what he actually said, I notice.  But from what I read, that's the strategy.)

He sounds pretty good to me.....cetainly a huge improvement over Kerry and Gore (though the movie star Al seems to have upgraded his huffy boy act).

We'll see how he does under the media lights and in head to head competition.....I like what I see so far.

Also, the best web presence I've ever seen.

   Nancy Scola asks us to compare John Edwards to Gandhi and asks why he hasn't created a private peace corps.  No, neither Edwards nor anyone else in America today can bear comparison to Gandhi, Jesus or Buddha.  Scola is disappointed that John Edwards didn't create a private peace corps.  By her standard is anyone other than Millard Fuller or Jimmy Carter qualified to run for President?  
   Maybe someone can offer me a reason other than trashing someone who is not their candidate why the personal attacks on Edwards on this blog.  Are these unfair comparisons coming from Mark Warner supporters who realize that Mark Warner might be a vice-presidential candidate for Obama or Clinton but not Edwards?  
   Personal attacks on Democratic candidates for "sincerity" is advancing the agenda of the Republican party and the corporate media.
Every Democratic candidate for President in the last 40 years have been subjected to "character" attacks by the corporate press.  I don't like Mark Warner's objections to rolling back Bush's regressive tax cuts; maybe Ms. Scola can give a substantive reason why she is opposed to Edwards.  
                           

Maybe someone can offer me a reason other than trashing someone who is not their candidate why the personal attacks on Edwards on this blog.

I don't have a candidate.  If the election were today, I'd vote for Edwards.  But I don't believe he believes what he's saying.  That's why I "trash" him.

Great post.  There's several distinctions bouncing around in this thread:

• movement leader vs. nominee
  
• movement vs. transactional
  
• movement vs. network

Another other way to think about what Edwards actually did in his announcement, though, is line up two more distinctions:

•  framing vs. staging
  
• movement vs. mission

Nancy pulls out the line about action now and calls it the framing of the speech, but I would argue that Edwards signalled a big shift in that announcement through staging.

What we saw in the framing was not new.  It combined Dean's call for political entrepreneurism, Warner's call for effective management, Bill Clinton's call for global initiatives, and Edwards' own call to end poverty.  A new pan, perhaps, but the same cake mix.  If Edwards was Mr. "Two Americas" before this announcement, new hehas become Mr. "Two Managed Well America's that The Power To Take Global Action--Right Now!"  It's all great, but it's now all there at the same time.

Given all that, I think what was actually novel in the announcement was not what we heard, but what we saw.  And what we saw was not the framing of a campaign, but an attempt to stage a campaign as a mission.

Now, "mission" is a loaded word, but what I mean is mission in the sense of a sectarian assignment, not a military assignment.  Mormons go on a mission (e.g.).

The Uganda videos, the NoLa footage, the "join us" frame--I think all this indicates that Edwards wants his campaign to be seen as a mission.

A mission is different from a movement because (1) it focuses on going to a specific place and (2) it is defined in terms of solving a particular problem.  A movement is more general,  more about defining an identity.  And so I saw the NoLa announcement as the emergence of a mission campaign in a landscape defined by magazine cover principals.   I'll  be very curious to see if this staging continues in the Edwards camp or if it is just an opening strategy.

Either way,  it was very interesting.

aldon -- I said that I thought Edwards' effort was real.   But I also agree with you that in the end if enough people get activated because of his efforts it does not matter how sincere he is.

I caution that however sincere he is -- there will be relaspes towards the transactional -- its human nature.

clarkkent -- I really have no idea -- I worked for Jerry Brown for Attorney General of California, and for John Hall in NY 19 (both won)  and Kweisi Mfume (Maryland US Senate) and Nancy Skinner (Michigan) (both lost) among others this cycle.   2008? Gore? Obama? Edwards?  Maybe even Hillary?   Dude I got in my car and drove to Burlington VT for some guy almost no one had heard of at the time.  I learned a lot of lessons about Presidential politics long before 2004 -- one of them is to work for the candidate you believe will make a difference -- not necessarily the one you think will win -- and if you are lucky you may pull off a victory -- but you will certainly make a difference.   Dean proves the point.

Edwards poverty battle is a response to a widely expressed criticism of Dem presidential candidates of the last two cycles--that we have no ideas. That we stand for nothing. Indeed, the Repubs have taken to calling themselves "the party of ideas"--a strong implicit criticism that we have none.
Fighting poverty has a long and illustrious history has a Progressive/Democratic clarion call, and has resulted in many of our greatest accomplishments of the last 100 years.
Edwards has picked the "big idea" with the best pedigree in the modern history of the American left. His candidacy will be tonic to the disappointment of many who have complained that Democrats lack the strength of their convictions. Best of all, he is setting a high bar for the campaigns of the other candidates, which augers well for a primary of progressive values and ideas that Democrats haven't had in a long time. I'm impressed on a couple of levels now and warming up to him.
Is he sincere, or is he going to turn into Tony Blair/Bill Clinton and abandon Progressivism for the center (or further right)? I don't know.

and wrote this about the event...

"In the end, if Edwards wins the nomination and becomes President, I don't think he will think he ran a successful campaign if the only thing people do is vote for him."

I agree that he wants to lead a movement that makes America a better place.  I believe he thinks being President is the best place for him to lead this movement.

>> Until his resignation yesterday, he was Director of the Center on Poverty, Work, and Opportunity at the University of North Carolina School of Law. <<

Read his resignation letter and the Dean's reply to see what they achieved in two years. Not everyone who joins the University accomplishes this much in such a short time.

>> His One America Committee PAC has worked with "grassroots coalitions in Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, Ohio, Montana and Missouri to organize and pass minimum wage ballot initiatives." <<

I wasn't aware that Edwards was behind the effort in these states.

>> He's launched a National Day of Action on Jannuary 27th of next year. <<

And supporting the blogs with advertisement of it!  

I'm sorry, but no one who is building a new house on a 100 acre estate in Chapel Hill is going to lead a progressive movement. Courting progressivism is just a way to fulfill Edward's ambition.

Nancy, if you're still looking for links, Christy at fdl had a WSJ link to a piece on Edwards & poverty:
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB1 16725461738460888-DKBN5q33LHyc29eGAxKupK ab_YE_20070126.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top

I think the important question here is: what can we do to help make the good stuff in Edwards message ( or whoever else's)viable?  The backwards-looking stuff on mydd- he's not Dean, he didn't trash Bush's NOLA response enough, etc- is useless and depressingly passive.
  The MSM does  personality trait second-guessing   enough. We sacrifice  our  own ideals w. stuff like "yeah, that's what I care about, but I say it a lot better."
     You either care about the ideals enough to advocate for them  whenever and however you can, or you don't.

Edwards "progressive" organization, OneCorp, is more of an Edwards 2008 organizing base than any kind of "progressive movement".

The idea that it will end with Edwards 2008 campaign is suggested by the names of the chapters such as "OneCorp 2008" and "Rancho Cucamonga for Edwards".  Edwards should have at least had them change their names to protect the innocent.

It was kind of funny looking at the Edwards2008/OneCorp website. They have an "activity" list for each chapter, all with the default "Can's collected". Edwards must have been remembering his elementary school food drives as "progressive" events.

Looking at OneCorps through the lens of Edwards New Orleans announcement venue, the "biggest" OneCorp chapter in Louisiana is "Geaux Edwards". No cans collected. No events scheduled. There are some Edwards rallies listed as events, also some "Informal Coffee" get togethers. Tsk, tsk. Weren't they supposed to be out rebuilding New Orleans?  

I like Edwards, think he'd make a good president but sheesh...between the New Orleans announcement that missed New Orleans and the transparent "OneCorp for Edwards" Potemkin "progressive movement", he is looking as tone deaf as Kerry was in 2004.

I really am still trying to absorb all of this. It has been puzzling me for days. Is this really an effective way to get elected? Is it an effective way to get America to solve problems outrside of government?

I get the difference between transactional and transformational, but I do not think reinventing the service wheel (we already do have Americorps, Habitat for Humanity, Red Cross, and literally thousands of service organizations, non-partisan, that people can volunteer for) is authentic.

GHW Bush had a thousand points of light. We have faith groups doing good work (and bad). Really, there is a limit to the non-governmental sector and to people's spirit of volunteerism.

We need a defense of GOVERNMENT. In some ways, Edwards undercuts the Democratic brand and argument when he says we cannot wait for the election.

In my opinion, we need to get the American public interested in politics again. Our youth, for instance, are highly involved in community service projects of all types. On our college campuses students are falling over each other to do service. "Service learning" is all the rage as courses are added to the curriculum and increasingly being added to graduation requirements in college and high school. But try to get someone to spend real time on a local campaign for school board. It's like pulling teeth.

Maybe the service hook is a good one to trick the apolitical or less political into actually being involved in a campaign. If so, brilliant.

But let's say this, like so many other good campaign ideas, catches on. What will he have then? Competing service corps? Does every campaign have to have a service corps to be authentic?

How about this: Gore, Obama, Clinton (pick your favorite) just says this:

"Yes, we do need community service and I urge you to do a lot of it, whether as a part of Mr. Edwards's "One Corps" or as a part of the many other fine organizations listed on my website. In fact, I know most of you already are involved in community service. But when it comes time to elect a President, and to govern the country, you should work with me  . . ."

Yesterday on Hardball Edwards was asked what it is that distinguishes his candidacy from Obama, Clinton, etc. His answer was just the service corps thing. I really wonder about that. How will his service corps solve the #1 issue of the coming election, Iraq and foreign policy?

Again, I think service is wonderful, movements are good, and Edwards is good. Maybe this is a brilliant campaign move (sucks the oxygen out of the service supporters). It sure is interesting.

 I think you're misreading  how Edwards is positioning his campaign.
  The service corps is both a microcosm and a metaphor for what he's saying. In terms of the public dialogue and our collective self-definition, there's been a hug void of empathy and moral obligation.
   Had you been seeing WSJ eds. like that, um, ever?

  Since  the Clinton administration eliminated welfare and ennabled corporate greed, we've lived in
an everyone out for themselves society. They framed the discussion in terms of pragmatism- that this is the  maximally functional for society work.
   But we've seen out that unchecked corporations  and a every man for himself AREN'T all that functional or pragmatic.  Edwards, I think, is trying to get back to a JFK, FDR approach and say that society is  in fact most  functional when it HAS collective and moral  ambitions.
   The service corps  ought to embody that approach, then.
      What's bothering me is that mydd-ers are sounding stuck in the Clinton logic. That there's a choice to be made between functionality and idealism- only we call it "transformative" or "transactional."
 Dean  transformed through transactions. He should be proof that it's possible, not a counter-argument.

In the last two years, here is a partial list of what the former senator has done or credits himself with having done.

The words italicized (by me) couldn't surely be a sly allusion to the possibility that Edwards may have padded his resumé just a tad?

Edwards really had an impact on me in the 2004 race.  We did not interact much but every time we did interact I came away with more and more respect for him.  The reason I caution about candidates relapsing into their old transactional ways -- is that its not entirely their fault.  A long shot campaign can be transformational because it has nothing to lose so it can say what it wants to say.  
Then suddenly you have a chance to win and so you start to watch what you are saying -- and suddenly you are not transformational anymore -- you have become just another transactional politician.  So I agree with you that we all need to be part of renewing transformational politics in our democracy.

This has been a most interesting thread. I've managed to get a little PO'd a few posts back at the absolute smugness of people talking about how food drives are lame. You all might not think so if you had ever had to go to a foodbank. Millions of American children go to bed hungry some nights.

If this is a campaign of and for people, can you tell me a better way to reach the very poor then contributing to their well being? Can you think of a better way to get their vote then showing that someone cares about them? Doesn't "we the people" mean all of us?

It's obvious that I'm not as politically sophisticated as most of you here. I had to go and find out the difference between tranformational and transactional (thanks Trippi) but I have been poor. I've been in a place where all I had was some time to donate, and time to vote.

So, you sophisticated political movers and shakers can all make fun of Edwards for making poverty an issue and trying to address it and I'll keep a positive attitude and wish him well.

I have followed Edwards' campaign closely since he came to national attention in 2003, and I agree with the earlier comment that he got a rotten deal from the media. We really do have two Americas, but we need only one. We also have two potentially excellent candidates to consider: John Edwards and Al Gore. In my humble opinion, no ticket could whip the Republicans easier than Gore/Edwards. If Gore runs, and gets in the lead for the nomination, the question will be if Edwards will play second fiddle to Gore. Both of these guys could be very good for the country. Gore will attack global warming and Edwards will begin the emergence of only one America. Obama is a good guy, but in these desperate times, we desperately need to retake control of the country, and I more easily place my faith in reason, science, technology, and experience than in emotion. Let me mention the worst case scenario. Which of these three candidates is the most likely to get shot? A dead president doesn't accomplish much.

I am not sure how wheer he lives and how he lives is a determinant in what he is and does. Bill Gates is one th the richest people in the world in American History...and no one does more with his money for good causes than Bill Gates...hands down.....so the argument that Edwards has milliosn and lives in a multimillion dollar home is irrelevant.......for one thing at that level of running for President, they pretty much all are millionaires...its a pointless, meritless argument....