NRO: Edwards is the New Anti-Hillary

Even the enemy admits: "Edwards a threat to Hillary!" Much has been made of the new schedule recommendations to the DNC from last weekend all over the blogosphere. They benefit Edwards to a surprising degree, but NRO has officially launched a new meme. I know, I know - NRO friend or foe? However, the analysis by Ryan Lizza is pretty consistent with what we've been saying here this week. The article is also behind a firewall, so you won't read it unless you pay for it. The sacrifices I make for the cause...

Edwards is the anti-Hillary of 2008. Although the article states that we get one of these anti-Hillary designees every six months or so, the Edwards "ascendancy" is for real and I think Edwards deserves the laurel - or laurels, whatever.

Follow me below the fold to discuss the NRO story.  

Why John Edwards may be Hillary Clinton's greatest threat in 2008, subscription only - if you don't want to buy it then I don't blame you.

THE ASCENDANT CANDIDACY OF JOHN EDWARDS
Poll position
By Ryan Lizza

It's now official: John Edwards is the new anti-Hillary. If you're not familiar with the term, "the anti-Hillary" is the shorthand used by political junkies to describe the Democratic candidate who will inevitably emerge as the principal alternative to Hillary Clinton, whose money and star power make her the dominant force in Democratic presidential politics...

Edwards's turn as the anti-Hillary has been building through the summer. First, there was the news last month that he was number one in The Des Moines Register's poll of likely 2008 presidential candidates, besting Clinton by four points. Political observers took notice and saw a savvy strategy at work: While shunning the Beltway press, Edwards had been moving around the country assiduously courting labor unions and quietly repudiating his support for the war in Iraq. His anti-Hillary bona fides were sealed on Saturday, when a Democratic National Committee (DNC) panel approved a plan to bookend the New Hampshire primary with contests in Nevada and South Carolina, creating a schedule that seems tailored to Edwards's strengths.

This week I wrote a diary discussing the National Journal article about Edwards and his strategy in the 2008 race: National Journal: Where's Edwards?. Marc Ambinder describes how Edwards, unlike other prospective candidates - save Feingold, is the only one positioning himself to take Hillary on the offense. He states that other candidates are waiting for her to "trip up" or "stumble" while Edwards wants to have a discussion about her core values and positions. Edwards has positioned himself well to contrast his message and platform with the centrist agenda that Hillary is running on called the "American Dream Initiative". Edwards wants to take the issue of moderation on positions vis a vis the DLC in the Democratic party out to the voters. No more wiggle words, guys. Give us a Dem with some "courage and strength and backbone."

Kos wrote a front-pager that same day discussing a possible outcome of the new schedule: 2008 calendar: Edwards the HUGE winner. The new schedule looks like this, if the RBC recommendation is accepted and NH and IA accept the DNC's decision:

  • Iowa (caucus): 1/14
  • Nevada (caucus): 1/19
  • NH (primary): 1/22
  • SC (primary): 1/29
Then the window opens on February 5, 2008. Kos speculates that the new schedule is so tilted to Edwards's strengths, NV - unions and SC - home state that went for him 45-30 in 2004, that Dems might just blow - off NV entirely to concentrate on NH. Kos also speculated that Edwards's chief rival would be Richardson in NV, that's something that was only briefly discussed in my NJ diary and only in the comments section.

We get a different perspective today from Lizza on the new schedule and it's impact on the 2008 race.

Iowa

The front-loading of the process--there will be four contests in 15 days--may create so much momentum for the victor in Iowa that he or she wraps up the nomination before any of the other 46 states get to vote. Edwards's strength in Iowa rests on a unique mix of assets that no other candidate can currently match: He has both high positives and low negatives--in other words, lots of friends and few enemies. An unknown candidate like Warner has neither, and a too-well-known candidate like Clinton has both. The reason for Edwards's healthy political profile is that he surged into second place in Iowa in 2004 during the final week of the campaign and was thus never a target of negative campaigning. This time around, he will be hit early and often, but he will start the race from an enviable position.

Plus, Edwards never left Iowa after 2004. Party bigwigs locked him out when Christy Vilsack came out for Kerry and Harkin came out for Dean and he's been building and building on the ground ever since. He learned what it takes to win and he's been putting it together ever since Kerry decided to bail out on election night 2004 for fear he'd be called a "sore loser". Source: Some Might Call It Treason: An Open Letter to Salon

Also, if Edwards starts getting hammered as the front-runner in Iowa, I don't think that'll go over too well. He's well liked in the state, "Johnny's just like us, he understands what it's like." The high favorability ratings that he enjoys are his to maintain. The number one reason that the DMR gave for their endorsement of Edwards in 2004? He ran a positive campaign on the issues. So what happens when the negative ads start flying? What happens when the anonymous "staffer" quotes start appearing in the press day after miserable day in the lead up to the vote?

I'll tell you what happens, that strategy backfires that's what. That is indeed an enviable position to be in. Edwards, unlike the other candidates in the field, controls his own destiny in Iowa. That includes Hillary if Edwards's numbers hold.

Back to the story...

Nevada

Edwards seems to be the candidate making the greatest strides with the labor movement. It all started in 2004 when, trying to differentiate himself from John Kerry after the Iowa caucuses, Edwards attacked Kerry's stance on free trade and tried to scrape together some union backing. Only one union supported Edwards in that short, quixotic bid to overthrow Kerry: the textile union UNITE, which had supported him in his 1998 Senate bid in North Carolina. It has continued to be an important alliance.

Edwards's success with unions, one of the institutional pillars of Clinton's campaign, has started to rattle Hillaryland. In March, when Change to Win, the new labor umbrella group that includes UNITE HERE and several other large unions, held a convention in Las Vegas, only one prospective 2008 candidate spoke to the group: Edwards. But Hillary Clinton happened to have a friend in town as well: Bill. According to a labor source in Nevada, Clinton's husband flew in and met secretly with seven union presidents at the Change to Win convention. His message: Don't commit to anyone, and give Hillary a fighting chance. A spokesman for Bill Clinton confirmed the meeting took place but says 2008 wasn't discussed.

The union story will be a big one next time around. Nevada was chosen specifically to give unions, an important Democratic constituency, a bigger say in the early rounds of voting. In 2004 unions were all over the map. SEIU endorsed Dean, Kerry got AFL-CIO, Gephardt was also a labor favorite and Edwards got UNITE. But the landscape has changed since then. Edwards must be considered the front-runner for labor support because of his work with the service unions in particular. He has said:
  • "unions are the best anti-poverty program ever invented."
  • "if a Republican can join the Republican party by signing his name to a card then every worker in American should be able to join a union by signing their name to a card."
  • "just as the industrial unions built the middle-class of the 20th century, so too the service unions can build the middle class of this century."
Who else in the race has that message now? No one.

Edwards has also been campaigning for "Hotel Workers Rising Tour" since last year. In February he headlined a tour with Danny Glover. They went to San Francisco, LA, Chicago, Boston. Edwards even went to Honolulu last month to do the same. They blurb him on their website, check it out. There are 60,000 UNITE members in Las Vegas, that's where all the votes come from in the state, by the way. Who is going to be their candidate come 2008? No one can predict, certainly not me, but you've got to think that this message and this work that Edwards is doing now will pay off in the caucus.

Back to the story...

South Carolina

Clinton's firewall, if she is defeated in an early contest, is South Carolina, where she is counting on the Clinton name to help her among African-American voters, who make up about half of the Democratic primary electorate. But Edwards was born in the state, and his anti-poverty pitch seems in tune with voters there. He also won the South Carolina primary by 15 points in 2004.

And he won it (45 - 30) when the exit polls indicated that a majority of Democratic primary voters wanted an electable candidate. That candidate was emerging as Kerry by the time SC rolled around because he had won IA and NH in a complete reversal of his poll position in 2004.

I have to like Edwards in this anti-Hillary position, but I think it's more than just the flavor of the month thing. I think Edwards has earned his way to the spot by going out and working core Democratic values and constituencies hard. He flies all over the place to support the grassroots trying to raise the minimum wage at the state level. He's even going to Montana next month, not a source of reliable Democratic electoral votes, to bring some star power to the grassroots efforts out there. And they got a lot of grass in Montana, the kind that cows eat.

He hasn't been playing the beltway game. He hasn't been "shaking the trees" for money, but as a trial lawyer he can raise the millions that he'll need in a heartbeat. He's out with real people everyday, vested in their interests and concerns. He attends and headlines fundraisers for other candidates instead of working his donor list and cutting checks from his PAC. So far this year he's raked in 6.5 million for down ballot candidates, second only to Hillary at about a million more. Edwards has just announced on his blog that he'll let you vote on the Congressional candidates that he does one of these fundraisers for; you have until August 4.

If we see another anti-Hillary candidate emerge by the first of the year, let's apply the same test that Edwards currently meets.

  • Does the candidate have voter support? Check, the DMR poll out of Iowa.
  • Can the candidate raise enough money to contend? Check, he's a trial lawyer and he's currently doing it for other candidates.
  • Has the candidate built a real network of supporters out on the ground where organization and dedicated warm bodies matter? Check, the effort nationwide to raise the minimum wage and the union work.
  • Does the candidate have big ideas and a message that inspires people? Check, check, check. Poverty; Universal health care; predatory lenders; college for everyone; unions for all workers; fairness, hope and opportunity for the middle-class and a morality frame in his message that is unequaled in the field.


Tags: Democrats, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, New Republic Online, One America, Ryan Lizza (all tags)

Comments

94 Comments

Re: NRO: Edwards is the New Anti-Hillary

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us
This just in...

ELIZABETH EDWARDS IN DES MOINES, July 27, 2006

She looks awesome, even though her plane had no a/c and her hair went all squiggly. Some OAC bloggers attended and wrote the event up:

Elizabeth In Des Moines

The Joy that is Elizabeth Edwards

She started a smack down with Joe-mentum folks:


From the first link:

Regarding what makes a great Dem, she did have something to say about Joe Lieberman.  She mentioned how if he does not win his primary, he will run as an independent. Her comment:
Let me be clear,  we cannot have this.
In the end though, it's Ned's call whether he wants anyone to come in any surrogate for him.

by mbair 2006-07-28 05:25AM | 0 recs
Re: NRO: Edwards is the New Anti-Hillary

NRO? You linked to TNR. Now as a former reader of TNR I could understand the confusion... but seriously, did I miss something?

by molly bloom 2006-07-28 05:59PM | 0 recs
Re: NRO: Edwards is the New Anti-Hillary

I think it stands for New republic online

by adamterando 2006-07-28 06:01PM | 0 recs
Re: NRO: Edwards is the New Anti-Hillary

I thought NRO was National Review on Online

by molly bloom 2006-07-29 01:54PM | 0 recs
Re: NRO: Edwards is the New Anti-Hillary

Hillary, Hillary what are we gonna do with you?   She does not make any sense.  She grandstanded the DLC gathering in Denver touting a watered down  and  severely weakened version of what John Edwards has been saying all along.  And of course it is well known that the DLC is "Democrat Lite" (no carbs, no calories, no guts when it comes to the issues).   So asside from taking a 'centrist' (do nothing) view, she has as a major backer Rupert Murdoc.  Just these moves alone on her part, make her unsuitable presidential material.   What real change can she offer from the B#%h years when her backers are a big part of the B#%h problem we need to change to right the country.

John Edwards is my choice.  By the bye - Great picture of Elizabeth, mbair.

by Bumpa 2006-07-28 06:16AM | 0 recs
Re: NRO: Edwards is the New Anti-Hillary

Swiped it off the OAC event report diary, but provided a link.

I just love it, even the hair. It works for me and I couldn't believe it when she went after Joe-mentum. Iowans have all the fun. pea green...

by mbair 2006-07-28 06:48AM | 0 recs
Re: NRO: Edwards is the New Anti-Hillary

Great diary and great explanation as to why I believe Edwards is by far the best presidential candidate out there. He's already got my vote and support.

I still dream of an Edwards/Obama ticket in '08.

by adamterando 2006-07-28 06:21AM | 0 recs
Re: NRO: Edwards is the New Anti-Hillary

dunno about that one. I think it'll be Edwards/Clark, that's unbeatable. You reassure the voters on National Security and then they just fall in love with the candidate and the family.

by mbair 2006-07-28 06:45AM | 0 recs
Re: NRO: Edwards is the New Anti-Hillary

Yeah I'm still just speculating. I agree that that ticket may be painted as too weak on National Security (but really the repubs will say that about every Dem ticket, look at 2004). But the thing about Obama is that EVERY person I know and especially those that do NOT follow politics closely, LOVE Obama. He's their hero. He's too green to run for prez, so I think VP would be a good spot for him.

by adamterando 2006-07-28 07:52AM | 0 recs
Re: NRO: Edwards is the New Anti-Hillary

I just now had a conversation about Obama at the "water cooler". You might be right, the two of them together would be an amazing ticket for the party to put out in front.

by mbair 2006-07-28 08:45AM | 0 recs
Re: NRO: Edwards is the New Anti-Hillary

A couple of one term senators?

by Sitkah 2006-07-28 09:11AM | 0 recs
Re: NRO: Edwards is the New Anti-Hillary

Yeah I can't ever think of a one-term Democratic senator that won the highest vote total in his state's history that ever went on to win national office.

JFK WAS a republican wasn't he? Oh wait.....

by adamterando 2006-07-28 09:18AM | 0 recs
Re: NRO: Edwards is the New Anti-Hillary

JFK served in the House before the Senate. He had some gravitas.

by Sitkah 2006-07-28 09:26AM | 0 recs
Re: NRO: Edwards is the New Anti-Hillary
He was also Catholic, which he overcame.
If he can do that, I have a feeling Edwards can overcome his (in your opinion) lack of gravitas.
Both were natural politicians and had that ever coveted "authentic" quality.
by adamterando 2006-07-28 09:37AM | 0 recs
Re: NRO: Edwards is the New Anti-Hillary

He was also Catholic, which he overcame.
If he can do that, I have a feeling Edwards can overcome his (in your opinion) lack of gravitas.
Both were natural politicians and had that ever coveted "authentic" quality.

I realize you probably didn't mean anything by it, but as a Catholic American, I'd rather not think I need to overcome anything.

Being Catholic, or Jewish, or Muslim, or an atheist, or anything else shouldn't be considered a disability in the political world, it should be considered a part of who you are.

John F. Kennedy was Catholic, but he didn't "overcome" it, he acknowledged it, and then went on to win because he inspired people with his ideas, and ran a good campaign. (The same way I expect one Senator Russ Feingold to win in 2008, by the way). To say he overcame it is to imply that there's something wrong with being Catholic, which about one billion of us disagree with.

Frankly, I don't really care about Edwards' lack of gravitas. What I care about is his ideas and proposals for the future, and his ability to inspire people with confidence in him and his vision.

I gotta say, though, so far, I'm not inspired.

by Fitzy 2006-07-28 11:24AM | 0 recs
Re: NRO: Edwards is the New Anti-Hillary

You took my comments WAYYYY to literally (not too hard to do in a non-speaking environment).

Of course there's nothing to overcome NOW. In 1960 though, things were a little different. And JFK had to OVERCOME predjudice against Catholics! Just like Jimmy Carter had to overcome predjudice against evangelicals in '76 and Jackie Robinson had to overcome predjudice against blacks in 1947, OK?

by adamterando 2006-07-28 11:59AM | 0 recs
Re: NRO: Edwards is the New Anti-Hillary

Yeah, I'm sorry about that.

Yesterday I was having a bad day, and I had just read something on another blog that had me more than a little angry. Your comment just sort of hit me wrong, and I'm sorry for my misinterpretation.

Looking back today, I feel a bit embarassed. It shouldn't have been a big deal.

by Fitzy 2006-07-29 08:15AM | 0 recs
Re: NRO: Edwards is the New Anti-Hillary

John F. Kennedy was Catholic, but he didn't "overcome" it, he acknowledged it, and then went on to win because he inspired people with his ideas, and ran a good campaign. (The same way I expect one Senator Russ Feingold to win in 2008, by the way). To say he overcame it is to imply that there's something wrong with being Catholic, which about one billion of us disagree with.

That's unfair. The commenter you replied to didn't disparage Catholics he merely acknowledged the reality of the times in which JFK was elected.

In the early 60's it was most certainly a disadvantage for JFK to be a Catholic while running for national office and it is indeed fair to say he overcame that disadvantage. Perhaps the history books have changed but that's the way it was spun in the history I read. Of course, that doesn't imply anything about whether being Catholic was "wrong". Instead, it implies that many Americans held such bigoted opinions of Catholics in 1960 that they wouldn't vote for JFK.

Being Catholic, or Jewish, or Muslim, or an atheist, or anything else shouldn't be considered a disability in the political world, it should be considered a part of who you are.

I agree completely with that sentiment but in this case "shouldn't" has nothing to do with present day political reality in the United States. A Muslim/Atheist ticket will have much more difficulty getting elected President than one that is Christian/Christian. I don't see how that can be denied and acknowledging it should not be something that just can't be said.

The same way I expect one Senator Russ Feingold to win in 2008

Let's hope your expectations prove correct. Feingold would make a great President.

by Curt Matlock 2006-07-28 12:17PM | 0 recs
Re: NRO: Edwards is the New Anti-Hillary

Let's get real about Kennedy's candidacy here.  

I think he was honest about his faith.  Having said that, my mother voted in that election, and she said she was concerned about the Vatican possibly having too much influence in the WH.  She voted for Kennedy because LBJ was named to the ticket.   She is from Texas, and her concerns were shared by many in the South.

So, bottom line, LBJ was named to the ticket to help JFK get more votes there.

A Southern man is more likely to win the WH House than one from the North.

Moreover, someone with "common man touch" will also resonate with voters.  Just think about Edwards' concession speech in November 2004:


The battle rages for the factory worker and the mill worker who says, "I want to work. I just want a job."

The battle rages on for the mother who sits in the emergency room with her daughter and wonders how she is going to pay the bill.

The battle rages on for the young person who's worked hard and wants to go to collect but doesn't have the money to pay for it.

It goes on for the young child who doesn't understand why they are treated differently just because of the color of their skin.

And it rages on for the mother who wants to know why her son was sent over there [Iraq] and will not come home.

This fight will continue in our homes and in our union halls, in our churches, and in our schools, in our offices and over the Internet.

We will keep marching toward that one America and we're not going to stop until we get there.

To whoever said Edwards supporters have hijacked this site, I say put up a good argument other than Edwards' tan about why you think he is not worthy of your potential vote in 2008.  Otherwise I say "Good day sir".

by Benny 2006-07-29 01:48AM | 0 recs
Re: NRO: Edwards is the New Anti-Hillary

Yet, he was perceived as a lightweight until he became President.  Same for FDR.  Same for Lincoln.  

What is gravitas, anyway?

Bush I had an extensive resume but a mediocre mind.  Does that help?

Reagan exuded some grandfatherly gravitas, yet, was an intellectual lightweight.

Bill Clinton never had gravitas, but was one of the sharpest American presidents.  

In some ways, Edwards is sharper than Clinton, and in others, he is just as bright.  You wouldn't know that unless you actually pay attention to the guy though.  He is only a few years old in politics, but he regularly meets with world leaders and has become a vocal force in domestic politics.  You don't get there without talent.  And neither do you become a top lawyer in the country without some superb skills.

Check out this article to get some insight into Edwards:

John Edwards and the Politics of Poverty by John Atlas and Peter Dreier

Definitely worth a reader, for Edwards lovers and haters.

by zeitgeistrover 2006-07-28 01:39PM | 0 recs
Re: NRO: Edwards is the New Anti-Hillary
I agree.  You can't have two first term Senators.
I personally am disappointed in Obama.  He seems very DLC to me.  He just praised "The Hamilton Project" headed by Bob Rubin which is basically Clintonomics 2.0 according to Willian Greider in The Nation. Edwards and Murtha;  Edwards with Clark as Secretary of State and RFK, Jr as AG.  Right now I am reading Byron Dorgan's book "Take This Job and Ship It".  Brilliant!  He would be a perfect fit with Edwards too.  Kathleen Sebelius, Gov of Kansas, needs looking at.  We need anti-Corporatists.  We need Reformers.  Americans want reform.
by Feral Cat 2006-07-28 09:25AM | 0 recs
Re: NRO: Edwards is the New Anti-Hillary

Wasn't Obama the guy who demanded to be taken off the DLC website of up and comming dems?  Was that him or am I getting him confused with someone else?

by jkfp2004 2006-07-28 11:22AM | 0 recs
Re: NRO: Edwards is the New Anti-Hillary

Correct, there's "a bit" of this out in the sphere. Here's kos on the removal, both of them: DLC: Oh, I guess Obama isn't one of us

It's not clear to me what happened. So I'll leave it at the link.

by mbair 2006-07-28 11:38AM | 0 recs
Re: NRO: Edwards is the New Anti-Hillary

Actually the way the country is rigth now I think lack of experience is a bonus.  It seems to me that by 2008 the desire for foriegn policy experience will be far less than it was in 2004, and Americans are going to be looking for an outside, due to the frustration with both parties.

by jkfp2004 2006-07-28 11:20AM | 0 recs
Re: NRO: Edwards is the New Anti-Hillary

Actually the way the country is rigth now I think lack of experience is a bonus.  

I think that was Bush's 2000 platform -- and look where it got us.

by Sitkah 2006-07-28 03:12PM | 0 recs
Re: NRO: Edwards is the New Anti-Hillary

Yes because Edwards = Bush. Come on.

by adamterando 2006-07-28 03:16PM | 0 recs
Re: NRO: Edwards is the New Anti-Hillary

Yes because Edwards = Bush.

You said that, not me.

Come on.

That was pretty much my response to the idea that lack of experience is a positive for being president.

by Sitkah 2006-07-28 04:30PM | 0 recs
Re: NRO: Edwards is the New Anti-Hillary

He's their hero only because they don't know anything about him.  Just like Giuliani.  These are media-made figures who have never been through a tough, wide race where they have been tested in the heat of battle (=campaign).  

I think that Edwards/Richardson would work very well.

John Edwards has all the natural talent and intelligence in the world; and Richardson has the right resume.  

Richardson has experience negotiating with N.Korea and he can solidify the democratic base in the hispanic community.  I believe that Bush gained hispanic voters in the 04 election, getting Richardson on the ticket would help bring those people back into the democratic fold.  

I don't see it happening with Clark though.

But the Veep talk is for later, the real question is about the top of the ticket.  Hmm... this race is going to be interesting.

by zeitgeistrover 2006-07-28 01:10PM | 0 recs
Re: NRO: Edwards is the New Anti-Hillary

Edwards was clueless on national security in the 2004 campaign. He should have cleaned Cheney's clock in the debate and exposed him. Though I have to admit he seems to be learning from his mistakes. I just think his stand on the Iraq war was not as troubling as the way he justified at the time lacked an ability to break down a situation and give it clear thought.

However, he seems to have learned stuff and is willing to admit a mistake. So I am no longer anti Edwards. THe question is if he can make the tough decisions as President. It is no longer acceptable to have a decent president after 8 years of Bush. We need a great President. Gore can be that guy. Clark can be that guy. If Edwards wins the nod, I hope he can be that guy. I will say one thing - the woman who represents the party the best IS NOT HILLARY. It is not Barbara Boxer. It is Mrs Elizabeth Edwards who seems to be the most engaging personality.

Obama is definitely not right as he has not done shit in his political career. He just got a lot of mileage from giving that speech at the convention where people were surprised he was not some angry black man.

by Pravin 2006-07-28 10:46AM | 0 recs
Re: NRO: Edwards is the New Anti-Hillary

Clueless?

Did you turn to the cable news channels after the debate, pravin? *raises eyebrows and wonders* Because those guys are the ones who are clueless.

Everyone said that the debate was a tie as far as merits were concerned.  And when it came to public opinion, Edwards won every poll.  

As for being a great President, Edwards is far more skilled than Gore and Clark put together.

Our greatest presidents in history were ones who had the political genius to bring their vision to life.  Lincoln was a cagey man; FDR was a manipulative man; so on and so forth.  Edwards is both, sincere about the concerns of the working Americans and shrewd enough to do something about them in that place called Washington.

People like Gore and Clark can't be great presidents simply because they lack the kind of political skill needed to change the tide of conservatism that started in the 70s.  To lead the nation, you must inspire the people and convince them that progressive policies work best for America, and Edwards, is the best talent we've got.  He was as good as Clinton after only 5 years in politics (James Carville called him the best stump speaker of his lifetime, better than his own former boss); and today, he is even better.  

by zeitgeistrover 2006-07-28 01:52PM | 0 recs
Re: NRO: Edwards is the New Anti-Hillary

A tie is a loss for me because Cheney made enough idiotic statements to get nailed outright. Edwards was not quick on the draw in that debate. Considering he is a lawyer, I held it against him even more. Edwards did a much better job than Lieberman, but it was not enough. Also his campaigning style smacked more of generic pandering to me back in 2004.

Anyway, that is the past. I am at the point that if he does win the primary this time I won't feel bad and I will support him enthusiastically even if he is definitely not in my top 3 choices.

You say he can govern better than Clark and Gore combined. What makes you think come up with such a superlative? I have seen his wife more assertive and quick witted during interviews while Edwards used to come across so obviously as someone conducting an internal poll before giving out an answer if the question was not a standard one.

by Pravin 2006-07-28 03:14PM | 0 recs
Re: NRO: Edwards is the New Anti-Hillary

Which interviews did you watch? Edwards was straightforward and quick-witted in anything I've watched him participate in.  Office holders are held to their words, and I wouldn't want someone who shoots his/her mouth off without thinking in a high level of authority.  

Btw.  Edwards was known for his quick-thinking in the courtroom.  And nothing he has done since goes against that model.

He was engaging in generic pandering in 2004? Wow.  Just wow.  Your observations are definitely unique; I haven't heard a single soul second anything you've said.

You are entitled to your opinions though.  

And I did say that he can lead better than Gore and Clark.  Why? Because, as I said, a leader needs to be able to connect with the populace and have the political skills to engage them in his cause... Gore and Clark, for each of their expertise in their respective fields, do not have political skill.  And Clark has never even held elected office before.  He will be a miserable failure in office due to that fact.  You can't just go to Washington and get things going without any experience of how congress works, how elections work, how you communicate with people, and how you convince them of your ideas.  He has a very different public service experience.  As for Gore, I love him, but he doesn't have the natural charisma or political talent of Edwards, which are great tools of persuasion.  Governing is not just about policy, it is also about skills to sell those policies.  Edwards has a high level of competence in both: having coherent policies, and having the ability to sell them.  I can't say that about most prospective 08 candidates.

by zeitgeistrover 2006-07-28 04:23PM | 0 recs
Re: NRO: Edwards is the New Anti-Hillary

What has Edwards done in the senate that Gore hasnt been able to do? Wes Clark is sticking his neck out by talking about the middle east while Hillary panders to the AIPAC crowd. Meanwhile Edwards who has been burned in the past, doesn't really do much in helping frame a dialogue on the middle east. He is still pretty green in foreign affairs. FOr a guy you are touting to be the frontrunner, I want him to see him adopt a bigger role in debates about the middle east approach.

by Pravin 2006-07-29 12:28AM | 0 recs
Edwards IS Hillary

Just look at their pro bush-agenda voting records from 2001-2004.

You've seen one NeoDem, you've seen 'em all.

by Sitkah 2006-07-28 08:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards IS Hillary

I was wondering where you were. Thanks for checking in with the neo-Dem mem.

If you think the Edwards platform is DLC then I can't help you. I realize based on our exchange in the last diary, National Journal: Where's Edwards?, that there is nothing Edwards can do to change your mind or earn your support.

See ya next time.

by mbair 2006-07-28 08:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards IS Hillary

there is nothing Edwards can do to change your mind or earn your support.

Correction: There is nothing that Edwards HAS DONE (recent easy-to-make populist talking points aside) to change my mind or earn my support.

by Sitkah 2006-07-28 09:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards IS Hillary

Recent meaning consistently for more than the past year.

Easy meaning going to union rallies across the countries and working with the foundation of the new progressive movement (i.e. service workers).

Talking points meaning having concrete policy proposals that address the worsening economy, declining middle class, and increasing poverty in this country. (how many other democrats are actually focusing on poverty and wage declines in this country?)

Yeah, he's really done nothing. He's not a senator anymore, so obviously he can't vote on anything or bring a bill to the floor. So your argument is a little intellectually dishonest and I think you know that.

by adamterando 2006-07-28 09:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards IS Hillary

What are those concrete proposals? Unless he has a plan to fix the school system, protectionist policies are only a stop gap fix. I hope he at least addresses corporate or government retraining policies for American workers who are out of a job after 20 years of loyal service to a company.

Also there needs to be a focus on retraining workers instead of pandering to unions. Unions have forgotten their original purpose. When a robber baron loots the company, they use that as an opportunity to set the wage scale high for their people too instead of keeping the robber baron in check. Unions also are great at protecting workers when it comes to turf issues but do little to protect whistleblowers who are most in need of union protection.

by Pravin 2006-07-28 03:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards IS Hillary

You cannot tell a 50 year old man who has worked in mills all his life to get re-trained to be an IT Professional, when he is more worried about getting his kids to college and paying for that.  Education and Re-training are modes to be used by the upcoming generation, but there is a whole other generation whose members have worked in the manufacturing sector their whole lives and now all of a sudden, they have to compete with people much younger than them to find some decent job.

If you really want to listen to what Edwards has to say about this issue, follow these two links:

Edwards on Jobs

Edwards on Poverty

I hope that helps.

by zeitgeistrover 2006-07-28 03:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards IS Hillary

I watched. Looks like the same old Edwards to me. And I really can't see that trying to re-invent himself is a positive. That's pretty much the stereotype against NeoDems.

There must to be a Democrat out there with a record and image that doesn't need reinventing.

by Sitkah 2006-07-28 09:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards IS Hillary

No one said retraining an employee to be something totally different. That is such a bad example used in a convenient way to make your point. Also I am not absolving the company of any responsbility in these retraining efforts which would be on the company dime based on years of service rendered. Or give the cut people better severance benefits even if it means the execs can't afford their golden parachutes(look at the Delta mismanagement where Execs protected their pensions while they want to get their workers to renegotiate their pensions. What has the pilots union done in all of this? They should have seen this coming, instead they let the execs raid the company because they can use their benefits as a bargaining chip to get high salaries for their employees. But the employees end up getting the entire shaft when the company goes bad. The union offered inadequate resistance when it saw execs making their own benefits bankrupcy proof. )

By the way, I do believe in unions. BUt I believe Edwards panders to unions.
I believe GM is scapegoating workers health costs for all their current problems and management has to take the primary blame for what is wrong there. But unions have not been exactly a productive force over there. Unions need to reexamine their priorities and strategies as the robber barons of the 21st century are more sophisticated in killing off a company. Unions need to help whistleblowers more. Not just be monitors and raise a snit if a welder did the job of a carpenter.

by Pravin 2006-07-29 07:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards IS Hillary

"Easy to make populist points'??  No one speaks for the poor because they don't vote.  He is not only taking a principled stand, but not a popular stand amongst politicians and he's been doing it consistently and never wavering.  He has also done the spade work.  Has gone to rallys where he was needed to get people to join the Unions.  He has traveled the world and talked to leaders about poverty.  Poverty is what has turned the Middle East against us. Our lack of concern.  I'm sorry, but Edwards is a the real deal. He's wicked smart and will not treat world leaders like guys on the jungle gym.  And this Yankee never thought I would work so hard for a Southern trial lawyer.  But I understand what it's like to sit around a kitchen table and figure out the family finances and this guy and his wife are the only ones out there that really really get it. I feel their commitment.

by Feral Cat 2006-07-28 09:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards IS Hillary

I'm sure you already know this, really just posted for any other readers. If you want to know who "recommends" a diary, then you should click in the right hand column where it reads, "Who's recommended this diary?"

Or you could always post a Breaking Blue item. Whatever works for you: Edwards Supporters Attempt Takeover of MYDD

by mbair 2006-07-28 09:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards IS Hillary

For the record, I was one of the people who Recommended this diary earlier.  I did it because I thought it was a useful and thoughtful analysis that had value beyond just the Edwards analysis.  Not earth shattering but certainly rising above some of the other diaries in terms of substance.  

I thougth the Breaking Blue thing was kind of a cheap shot, although it did make me wonder when two fo the 3 recommendeds were about Edwards.  

I was an early Edwards supporter in 04.  But in hindsight, I don't if he could have done better than Keey did.  As fro now, I am totally open and hoping like hell the field gets bigger and better before 08.  

The most important thing about 08 though, is to STOP WORRYING ABOUT IT THREE MONTHS BEFORE THE CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS.  

Focus people!

Now back to work trying to take back the congress.  :)

by Orlando 2006-07-28 11:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards IS Hillary

Easy-to-make populist talking points?

Why is no other national politician talking about poverty as a serious issue then, if it so easy to talk about?  The truth is that the poor don't vote, and no politician wants to take up their cause.  Also, Edwards isn't just giving talking points, he is giving you solutions and ideas (See here)

And you mentioned somewhere that Edwards is doing this to win the primaries and won't stick to it in the general, well, we can get a hint of it from the 04 campaign.  Edwards actually gave the same Two Americas speech at the convention that he had emphasized in the primaries.  He was later silenced by the Kerry campaign, but as soon as he was out of this, he was back working on what matters to him.

In fact, before Edwards ever joined politics, he was on the board of an anti-poverty organization that helped the homeless and the poor.  His convictions are real, but I'm not too sure about your interest in knowing the reality about edwards ;)

If you honestly were as objective as you are portraying yourself to be, you wouldn't be so dogmatic towards Edwards.  I think.

by zeitgeistrover 2006-07-28 02:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards IS Hillary
Edwards is worlds away from Hilary.  Basically, Clinton was the best Republican President we've had since Ike.  Although, some would say Ike was the best Democratic President we had in the last 60 years.  
We need someone who stands up for working people and that is Edwards.  As far as South Carolina is concerned and African Americans, Edwards is closer in personality type to Bill Clinton than Hilary and really has the ability to "feel people's pain."
Hilary, bless her, is an introvert and comes off a bit cool.  
by Feral Cat 2006-07-28 09:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards IS Hillary

More than the coolness, it is the lack of guts Hillary has. She has pandered incessantly with the entire middle east thing. While she was not the only one who erred in the buildup to the Iraq war, she sees nothing wrong with it. But even worse, it tells us that she will repeat the same mistakes in the future if she is unwilling to see anything wrong. And guess what? She already has proved that by talking irresponsibly about dealing with Iran a month ago.

I am just amazed why people think she should be the frontrunner? If she wasn't clinton's wife, would anyone even have given a shit? She has not made one good stand on national security that took guts. She just did what her donors asked her to.

by Pravin 2006-07-28 12:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards IS Hillary

Hillary's and Edwards' one term records in the Senate match up remakably the same.

That's why saying calling Edwards the anti-hillary is like calling Cheney the anti-bush.

by Sitkah 2006-07-29 02:58PM | 0 recs
Re: NRO: Edwards is the New Anti-Hillary

He's not a senator anymore, so obviously he can't vote on anything or bring a bill to the floor.

Obviously, he's got a LOT of work to do to overcome his pro-bush senate record.

Let him keep at it. Meanwhile, I (and hopefully others) will keep holding his feet to the fire (along with Hillary and some others) instead of jumping on the bandwagon over a few transparent political tricks.

by Sitkah 2006-07-28 09:22AM | 0 recs
Re: NRO: Edwards is the New Anti-Hillary

Look, I was not a big Edwards fan in 2004. I thought he was too smiley and he came across as trying to be fake tough sometimes and was too DLC. I don't think he was ready.

And when he started making the rounds, helping unions and workers, working on poverty, and shunning the DC chattering classes, I was intrigued but still not convinced.

But I really feel that he has gone through some sort of personal transformation (Maybe Elizabeth had something to with it, who knows). But he know longer is an endandgered southern senator trying to act moderate in a conservative state to save his political skin. EVERY action he has taken in the last year shows that. He has been consistently consistent. He is natural. He is not calculating. He is shunning the hated establishment process that continually annoints our presidential candidates years ahead of time (like they're doing with Hillary now). He is doing EVERYTHING right.

What would you like from him? A personal apology on his knees? Would you like him to continually apologize for his war votes (oh wait, he already does that).

Be skeptical of him. Fine. Good, that is smart of you. But if you're going to be skeptical of him, then try to objectively view what he has done with ALL of his actions since the election. And when you continually trot out the same tired lines like,
jumping on the bandwagon over a few transparent political tricks. you lose all of your credibility and come across as a hard-headed, cantankerous, republican-sounding troll. And I don't mean to add the personal remarks, but it is really frustrating that people on these threads and in these diaries have been laying out concrete examples of how Edwards has changed and really is working for a PROGRESSIVE movement in this country (not just working to get himself elected president) and you continue to present the same lame pithy statements that belie the facts.

by adamterando 2006-07-28 09:48AM | 0 recs
Re: NRO: Edwards is the New Anti-Hillary

What "transparent political tricks"?

The only thing transparent about John Edwards is John Edwards.  He says what he believes and stands behind it.  If he thinks he was wrong, he says so.  If he thinks poverty is a moral disgrace, he works hard to DO something about it.

That's the kind of transparency I like.

by nannyboz 2006-07-28 09:52AM | 0 recs
Re: NRO: Edwards is the New Anti-Hillary

But he know longer is an endandgered southern senator trying to act moderate in a conservative state to save his political skin.

In other words, Edwards can spout populism now in order to win primaries, and then later, like Kerry did, assure wealthy backers and DLC corporatists that he's not a "redistributionist" Democrat.

I was not a big Edwards fan in 2004. I thought he was too smiley and he came across as trying to be fake tough sometimes and was too DLC.

You were right -- and still are.

by Sitkah 2006-07-28 09:56AM | 0 recs
He's got the best shot to win back the White House

That has to be Job 1 for us, unifying behind a candidate who is electable and regaining the presidency. Only considering candidates who meet some puritan standards of a fraction of the total electorate (and most voters initially supported regime change in Iraq, they won't be "puritans" on the issue) is a recipe for at least four more disastrous years of the GOP in the White House.

by MeanBoneII 2006-07-28 10:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Unite, Electable

Unite behind your candidate? Electable?

We've heard that losing song before.

And more than TWO YEARS before the election?

No thanks. I'm not jumping on anyone's bandwagon until they prove themselves and stick by their Demoicratic rhetoric not just in the primaries but in the general election campaign.

In the meantime I'll keep holding their feet to the fire because when you demand nothing from politicians, nothing is exactly what you get from them.

by Sitkah 2006-07-28 10:19AM | 0 recs
It's early in the process, but the process...

...has begun.

Everyone will make their own decision in their own time about whose bandwagon to jump on. Making the case for a candidate you support is one of the things political blogs are good for.

by MeanBoneII 2006-07-28 10:28AM | 0 recs
Re: It's early in the process, but the process...

Everyone will make their own decision in their own time about whose bandwagon to jump on. Making the case for a candidate you support is one of the things political blogs are good for.

Making the case why you don't support a candidate (like Lieberman, for instance) is another thing political blogs are good for.

by Sitkah 2006-07-28 01:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Unite, Electable

when you demand nothing from politicians, nothing is exactly what you get from them.

Boy does that sound like a recipe for a fake focus-group driven candidate. Have you been reading Evan Bayh's speeches?

The fact that Edwards is doing all of this, without a huge political consulting nexus telling him what to do, and without being pushed from any outside groups, should show you that he is sincere in his efforts. He IS doing what we demand of him. He's standing up for working people. He's helping the people that most DC political types would say to ignore since "they don't vote and don't have money".

And if you decide not to support any Democratic candidate until they live up to your (odd? contradictory?) standards in the primary, then what are you doing around here anyway? We're here to build a movement, work for candidates we support and to create a governing progressive majority in this country. If you want to sit on your hands until your perfect night in shining armor comes in and has said the same things in the primaries and in the general, then you have been no help in ridding this country of these radical right-wing republicans.

by adamterando 2006-07-28 10:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Unite, Electable

Boy does that sound like a recipe for a fake focus-group driven candidate. Have you been reading Evan Bayh's speeches?

If I want politicians who don't deliver what I believe I'll vote Republican -- or NeoDem.

The fact that Edwards is doing all of this, without a huge political consulting nexus telling him what to do, and without being pushed from any outside groups, should show you that he is sincere in his efforts.

What makes you think Edwards doesn't do polling? What's makes you think he isn't being pushed by liberals to be a lot better than he was in his bush-collaborator past? That's why I'll keep "slapping the Democratic donkey" all the way to the election. Because once you jump into a politician's hip pocket he can then treat you like dirt and start acting against you.

I'll ignore the rest of your post since all it says is "if you're not an Edwards supporter, then leave."

by Sitkah 2006-07-28 01:26PM | 0 recs
So I guess Feingold also is a Bush collaborator?

He voted to confirm John Roberts, if I recall correctly.

Tearing down Democratic candidates because they don't agree with you 100% of the time is not constructive.

by MeanBoneII 2006-07-28 02:12PM | 0 recs
Re: So I guess Feingold also is a ....

He voted to confirm John Roberts, if I recall correctly.

Yes. Feingold did.

Tearing down Democratic candidates because they don't agree with you 100% of the time is not constructive.

I think Feingold is OK. So you see, I don't tear down candidates for not agreeing with me 100% of the time.

But unlike Edwards -- and Hillary, Feingold's fingerprints aren't all over the most odious aspects of Bush's agenda.

MacBeth's wife couldn't wash away the stains of the past, but maybe Edwards can if he scrubs really hard and doesn't revert back to his former self first.

by Sitkah 2006-07-28 03:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Unite, Electable

Good. That is what democracies are for.  Remember that people come first and governments come second.  If I recall right, that would be from Jefferson, but it is also common sense.  

However, some of your rhetoric defies the principles you cite here.  

If you want to hold the politicians' feet to the fire, isn't it also necessary to learn about their ongoing efforts and their positions?  

Yet, your statements about Edwards are so dismissive and dogmatic that it is hard to envision you as an open-minded citizen doing his best to hold the powerful's feet to the fire based on a decent study of their work.    

Simply ignoring their work and throwing out opinions about their personalities are not the hallmarks of a good watchdog of the nation's best interests.

Be skeptical, but not dismissive... because we haven't seen the best of Edwards yet.

by zeitgeistrover 2006-07-28 01:23PM | 0 recs
Re: NRO: Edwards is the New Anti-Hillary

In other words, Edwards can spout populism now in order to win primaries, and then later, like Kerry did, assure wealthy backers and DLC corporatists that he's not a "redistributionist" Democrat

Yes he could. He could also go on a mass murder rampage, grow to 200 feet tall and destroy downtown manhattan. But all of these situations are pure speculation and have no way to verify that they will happen.

And just what makes you think that "spouting populism" is such a sure-fired political trick to win primaries? If that was the case wouldn't Kucinich have been our nominee in '04?
I don't remember Kerry saying much of anything remotely populist in his campaign.

Once again, a lame pithy pointless argument that doesn't stand up to the barest bit of scrutiny.
 

by adamterando 2006-07-28 10:25AM | 0 recs
Re: NRO: Edwards is the New Anti-Hillary

I don't remember Kerry saying much of anything remotely populist in his campaign

There seems to be a lot that Edwards supporters don't remember -- his Senate record being another.

by Sitkah 2006-07-29 08:13AM | 0 recs
Re: NRO: Edwards is the New Anti-Hillary

I don't remember Kerry saying much of anything remotely populist in his campaign

There seems to be a lot that Edwards supporters don't remember -- his Senate record being another.

by Sitkah 2006-07-29 08:15AM | 0 recs
Re: NRO: Edwards is the New Anti-Hillary

attending yearly kos in vegas and being a cspan junkie and attending a hillary fundraiser i've been able to get a good feel for the 2008 sweepstakes...people: we have a deep bench and excellent candidates and i agree that its too early to commit..however edwards no doubt is the real deal : check out the national press club speech..one brilliant idea he has is that our best foreign policy is taking care of biz here: poverty, inequality, health care, voting fraud, etc..."why do they hate us" : disasterous bellicosity and arrogance of the bush junta but also because we are hypocrites: insisting at the point of a gun democracy but not walking the talk...lets keep it civil and not do the circular firing squad thang...

by oregonmoondog 2006-07-30 10:19AM | 0 recs
Re: NRO: Edwards is the New Anti-Hillary

I've tried to be respectful of your intense dislike for Edwards.

Why did you blindside me with the Breaking Blue item?
Edwards Supporters Attempt Takeover of MYDD

And don't try to make it an Edwards take over of mydd.

gregflynn is doing some guerrilla blogging because BlueNC is pissed that Kissell was left off the list posted at the Edwards website yesterday. That blog put up a picture of Edwards depicted as the devil and a "Dear, John - I hate you letter." gregflynn is all over it trying to coordinate some noise in the sphere. So they aren't Edwards lovers over there, not by a long - shot. Half of the posts on that thread express outrage about the Kissell omission and profess "I'll never vote for Edwards because of this."  

The NRO piece just came out yesterday as far as I can tell. So it's news, it's not a coordinated effort to subvert your blog, Sitkah. I just cross-posted here from dailykos because mydd is known for strategy and this is an article about strategy.

by mbair 2006-07-28 11:29AM | 0 recs
Re: NRO: Edwards is the New Anti-Hillary

Yeah that was a cheap shot.

I don't know who decides who gets to post to Breaking Blue, but i hope they yank his privileges.

by dantheman 2006-07-28 12:31PM | 0 recs
Re: NRO: Edwards is the New Anti-Hillary

I've tried to be respectful of your intense dislike for Edwards.

That's your characterization of my opinion of Edwards. Dislike isn't what's it's about. It's about holding him accountable for his  pro-Bush NeoDem record in Congress.

gregflynn is doing some guerrilla blogging because BlueNC is pissed that Kissell was left off the list posted at the Edwards website yesterday.

Whatever that means, it has nothing to do with me.

by Sitkah 2006-07-28 02:46PM | 0 recs
Re: NRO: Edwards is the New Anti-Hillary

Sitkah,

You don't like John Edwards.  Fair enough.  But why?

Not liking is one thing, but ridiculing him is another.  After all, this is the guy who is going to state after state to hold minimum wage rallies and to campaign for unionization of hotel workers.  He has been visiting the poor and other struggling families around the country.  He went to NOLA after the hurricane without any media coverage and met with the victims in private.  And then he returned later over this past spring, with hundreds of college students, to help with the cleanup.  

He is THE driving force behind making poverty a semi-national issue.  He has been emphasizing the condition of and the injustice being done to the poor with a voice that only he has, which is simultaneously compassionate and passionate.

I can fully understand your skepticism.  However, since you mentioned that you are not ready to jump on any bandwagon this far away from the election, why not give Edwards a chance?

If you truly are an informed voter and would like to learn more about each of the potential candidates, of whom Edwards is one, I would recommend you to watch the speech Edwards gave at the National Press Club outlining his vision on combating poverty and America's leadership in the world:

Video:John Edwards talks about poverty, democratic party & American leadership

Once again, opinions are great, but only well-informed opinions have the foundation of reason.  For most people, Edwards was just a face in 2004.  Because his surge (in Iowa) was so sudden, a lot of people never really got to know him for the real thing he is.  If you had listened to any of the townhalls he held in NH (back when he was getting no media coverage), you would have seen a very intelligent, keen, informed, patient, and serious man.  No giggles or oversimplifications, just plain talk full of creative and insightful ideas.  

Listen to the man and then judge.  Edwards is a very charming and good looking guy, but those are the less significant parts of his personality.  The more you'll see of him, the more you'll love.  I promise ;)

by zeitgeistrover 2006-07-28 01:01PM | 0 recs
Re: NRO: Edwards is the New Anti-Hillary

Listen to the man and then judge.

I have listened to him since he began his political career in 1998. His past and present are both relevant to me. And unlike those who are trying to sell him, I haven't reached final judgement.

by Sitkah 2006-07-28 02:51PM | 0 recs
Re: NRO: Edwards is the New Anti-Hillary

Good to hear.

Surprisingly though, you did not mention a single detail in all your posts about what specifically bothers you about him.  And that is what led me to believe that you must have failed to do your homework.

Either way, I hope you check the video I linked to and let it play into your final judgment.  

I'm all for skeptics, but never become a cynic :)

by zeitgeistrover 2006-07-28 03:08PM | 0 recs
Re: NRO: Edwards is the New Anti-Hillary

i Surprisingly though, you did not mention a single detail in all your posts about what specifically bothers you about him.  And that is what led me to believe that you must have failed to do your

I remember Edwards' pro-bush Senate record well enough. Frankly, it isn't worth my time to dig it up and post it. If others don't remember it, or don't care to look it up for themselves, that's OK with me.

They can think and say what they want based on what they know and I'll do the same.

by Sitkah 2006-07-28 09:16PM | 0 recs
Re: NRO: Edwards is the New Anti-Hillary

Surprisingly though, you did not mention a single detail in all your posts about what specifically bothers you about him.  And that is what led me to believe that you must have failed to do your...

I remember Edwards' pro-bush Senate record well enough. Frankly, it isn't worth my time to dig it up and post it. If others don't remember it, or don't care to look it up for themselves, that's OK with me.

They can think and say what they want based on what they know and I'll do the same.

by Sitkah 2006-07-28 09:18PM | 0 recs
Re: NRO: Edwards is the New Anti-Hillary

Surprisingly though, you did not mention a single detail in all your posts about what specifically bothers you about him.  And that is what led me to believe that you must have failed to do your...

I remember Edwards' pro-bush Senate record well enough. Frankly, it isn't worth my time to dig it up and post it. If others don't remember it, or don't care to look it up for themselves, that's OK with me.

They can think and say what they want based on what they know and I'll do the same.

by Sitkah 2006-07-28 09:18PM | 0 recs
Re: NRO: Edwards is the New Anti-Hillary

Surprisingly though, you did not mention a single detail in all your posts about what specifically bothers you about him.  And that is what led me to believe that you must have failed to do your...

Specifics? Edwards voted for the 20001 bankruptcy law, the repeal of ergonomic regulations, Every Child Left Behind,, the Patriot Act, The Iraq Disaster, DHS. That's just off the top of my head.

Guess what? That's Hillary's record too!

What's funny is, all I said initially is that Edwards, rather than being the anti-hillary, has the same record as Hillary and BOY did that strike a nerve!

You'd think Edwards' supporters must have already made up THEIR minds against Hillary! But that couldn't be -- could it?

by Sitkah 2006-07-28 09:30PM | 0 recs
Re: NRO: Edwards is the New Anti-Hillary
Oh get off it. You know you've said more than that.
That tanning remark being a perfect example of that.
You talk on one side of your mouth and claim that you Edwards just has a long way to go to prove himself. Then you spend 60% of the time just bad-mouthing the guy, saying the same lame statements that aren't backed up by the facts (easy to make populist talking points), or talking about how his tan doesn't look natural enough (did you think that maybe you and the lifeguards maybe just have really bad skin?).
by adamterando 2006-07-29 05:58AM | 0 recs
Re: NRO: Edwards is the New Anti-Hillary

you spend 60% of the time just bad-mouth

If citing Edwards Senate record and joking about his perfect tan amounts to badmouthing him, he's in big trouble.

by Sitkah 2006-07-29 08:10AM | 0 recs
Re: NRO: Edwards is the New Anti-Hillary

i If you want to hold the politicians' feet to the fire, isn't it also necessary to learn about their ongoing efforts and their positions?

I'm quite familiar with not just Edwards latest rhetoric, but his recent NeoDem record in the Senate. He's the one who has to keep working to overcome it if he really wants to be the anti-hillary.

by Sitkah 2006-07-28 01:30PM | 0 recs
Re: NRO: Edwards is the New Anti-Hillary

Latest Rhetoric? Isn't rhetoric what Martin Luther King Jr. used to lead the Civil Rights movement?

Don't ever underestimate the power of words; they hold the potential to inspire and form new movements.  And, in Edwards' case as in MLK's case, there are convictions on which the rhetoric is based.

So, let's see, what Edwards has been doing lately:

a) He started a pilot program for his "college for everyone" proposal in the poorest NC county.  Due to this effort, the number of kids going to college in one of the high schools in this county has been doubled (previously it was 40+% and now it is 80+%).  He gave away 300,000 worth in scholarships to see this program through.

b) He has partnered with ACORN to hold minimum wage rallies all around the country.  He was the driving force behind getting minimum wage initiatives on the local '06 ballots, and his presence helped garner the necessary citizen signatures that were needed as he has held rallies for this purpose all over the country in various states.

c) He has partnered with UNITE-HERE to help with the unionization of hotel workers.  Again, he has held many rallies and his participation brought national attention to the issue when NYTimes also covered it.  Edwards has been speaking for unions and labor movements very strongly.

d) Edwards has been studying poverty (and other economic issues of the day) with both an academic and a practical approach.  He spends time holding summits and discussions with poverty experts and doing private research on poverty and economic stratification at UNC, while at the same time he tours homeless shelters, poverty centers, and other civic institutions helping the struggling low-income families.  Some of the solutions he has gathered were presented here.

There's plenty more but you get the idea.  There is a difference between being skeptical and undermining someone's efforts.  What you are doing is making Edwards' work look insignificant, when in fact, he is the one trying to push for progressive legislation and trying to create a progressive mood in the country.  

Question, if you wish.  But don't assert falsely. Because ultimately, you and I, are the ones who pay when a guy who is trying to push for progressive policies fails.

by zeitgeistrover 2006-07-28 02:26PM | 0 recs
Edwards is a strong 3rd for me.

but I think he is a "work in progress"(tm), that is on the right track.

to be fair though, almost any poll around is just name recognition at this point anyway.

However, Edwards does have the advantage of not being an officeholder right now and having the name recognition of being on a presidential ticket before too.

It'd be great to see Edwards get out of the institutional box and campaign for Jack Carter... that would probably help him shore up NV support as well.

-C.

by neutron 2006-07-28 02:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards is a strong 3rd for me.

Institutional box? Didn't the national Journal article point out that Edwards has angered the DC insiders because they believe he is not playing by their rules book?

Check more about it on this dairy

Some very good stuff.  And, I agree, campaigning with Jack Carter sounds great.  I also liked the podcast Edwards and Jimmy Carter did together.  

Who are your first and second choices?

by zeitgeistrover 2006-07-28 02:31PM | 0 recs
Re: NRO: Edwards is the New Anti-Hillary

Latest Rhetoric? Isn't rhetoric what Martin Luther King Jr. used to lead the Civil Rights movement?

Unlike Edwards, King's record and rhetoric matched up. Edwards still has a LONG way to go to undo the damage he helped wreak as a Bush collaborator.

by Sitkah 2006-07-28 02:37PM | 0 recs
Re: NRO: Edwards is the New Anti-Hillary

It takes a big man to admit a mistake.  Something Hillary and Leiberman seem incapable of.  

btw.  Edwards voted against Bush's tax cuts.  He blocked the nomination of one of the ultra-conservative NC judges nominated by Bush.  He co-authored and helped get the Patients Bill of Rights passed in the senate.  He voted against the Partial Birth Abortion.  He gave a touching statement urging the senate to count crimes against homosexuals as hate crimes.  He was the one who advocated and pushed for the sunset clause in the Patriot Act.  He killed the nomination of Charles Pickering "single-handedly," in the words of Ted Kennedy.  I agree that Edwards doesn't have a perfect voting record, but I think he has grown politically over the years.  After all, the guy was only 6 years into politics when he left the senate, his convictions seem clearer and stronger today.  

Lastly, Edwards' record on labor and poverty has always matched his rhetoric.  He was working at a poverty organization even before he got into politics.  As for the foreign policy, he has already admitted that he showed bad judgment.  

I, too, would like to hear more from him though.

by zeitgeistrover 2006-07-28 03:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards IS Hillary

They will, if someone gives them a reason to.  They have not had a champion, or anyone who understands their lives, let alone someone who can help them. Edwards, if given the national stage, can inspire these people to get engaged again.

btw, I'm assuming you were talking about the poor.  

by zeitgeistrover 2006-07-28 02:54PM | 0 recs
Re: NRO: Edwards is the New Anti-Hillary

Even his tan looks contrived!

by Sitkah 2006-07-28 04:34PM | 0 recs
Of all the silly blog comments

This one ranks high on the scale. Denouncing candidates by their tan? I think you were not being honest with yourself when you said you hadn't made up your mind upthread

by molly bloom 2006-07-28 05:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Of all the silly blog comments

Like all jokes, of course it's silly.

When the candidates have all announced, then I'll make up my mind. In the meantime -- and beyond -- I'll continue to call 'em like I see 'em and jerk their supporters' chains if they get to humping their leaders' legs in public too much.

So lighten up, and have some fun at the politicians' expense! If you can't criticize and make fun of them once in a while, what are they good for? And if you can't take my little critiques without getting upset, the GOP is going to tear your heart out yet again.

by Sitkah 2006-07-28 09:07PM | 0 recs
Re: NRO: Edwards is the New Anti-Hillary

That comment belongs on a freeper page. Not helpful.

by adamterando 2006-07-28 06:13PM | 0 recs
Re: NRO: Edwards is the New Anti-Hillary

I live in AZ and go swimming every day -- and neither I nor the lifeguards at the pool have a tan that even and dark.

Someone needs to tell Edwards that tanning booths are bad for the skin.

by Sitkah 2006-07-28 09:11PM | 0 recs
Re: NRO: Edwards is the New Anti-Hillary

You have to agree, if Edwards really voted for all of the worst pieces of the Bush agenda, he needs to account for that.

It doesn't matter so much that he knows what to say to the public if he votes against them when he gets the chance.

No I'm not a troll. I'm Feingold/Dean/Clark/Gore type. I've just heard of "assurances" he made to donors during the 2004 campaign.

He's a lot more polished in public than any of the people I support, I just want to know that he's not just saying the right thing.

by ugottabkidding 2006-07-29 08:07AM | 0 recs
You have to agree, confirming Roberts, who...

...already is advancing all of the worst things the theocrats want to impose on society, is something Feingold needs to account for.

It doesn't matter so much that he knows what to say to the public if he votes for against them when he gets the chance.

by MeanBoneII 2006-07-29 08:22AM | 0 recs
Re: NRO: Edwards is the New Anti-Hillary

No I'm not a troll.

It's a shame that you have been made to feel you have to add, "No I'm not a troll,"  along with your opinion of Edwards. Some of his supporters are doing him a great disservice by creating such a climate.

People should be able to say what they want without being called ugly names -- or thinking they might be.

by Sitkah 2006-07-29 01:22PM | 0 recs
Edwards voted against the blank check for...

...the war when he realized Bush wasn't going to do what he said and give the inspectors a chance or build a real international coalition.

Edwards helped put the sunset provisions in the Patriot Act, which was going to pass no matter what.

Feingold voted to confirm Roberts, but to his credit voted against Alito.

None of our leaders are perfect, and when in the minority they work within the system to try to minimize the damage.

by MeanBoneII 2006-07-29 08:28AM | 0 recs
Re: NRO: Edwards is the New Anti-Hillary

None of our leaders are perfect

And some are much more imperfect than others.

by Sitkah 2006-07-29 01:35PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------