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.

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.