Edwards Gains Most Converts at California Democratic Convention

I wrote this for today's Beyond Chron, San Francisco's Alternative Online Daily

This weekend, all the major Democratic presidential candidates attended the California Democratic Convention in San Diego to solicit support from the party faithful.  Although getting out of Iraq was top on the mind of party delegates, Hillary Clinton's campaign had a surprising show of support - but she lost most of the crowd by refusing to apologize for initially supporting the War.  Barack Obama was treated like a rock star and gave a powerful speech, but despite being the only major candidate who opposed the War from the start failed to do what he should have done: hit a home run the way Howard Dean did in 2003.  John Edwards did not have much of a campaign presence at the convention until he spoke on Sunday morning, when many of the delegates had already left.  But for those who stuck around to hear Edwards speak, his concrete progressive proposals coupled with a passionate and eloquent message won many converts on the Convention floor - including possibly myself.

The political context behind this year's convention was similar to the convention four years ago, which was held on the weekend before George Bush invaded Iraq.  Back then, delegates were angry at an imminent War based on lies, and furious at their party for rolling over without a fight.  John Kerry, the choice of the party establishment, was booed for having voted for the War - and John Edwards was likewise heckled.  Meanwhile, Howard Dean came out of nowhere to give a feisty and eloquent speech against the War that electrified delegates and catapulted him into the "movement" candidate of 2004.  

This year, the Convention was held immediately after Congress voted to withdraw from Iraq, and right before President Bush's expected veto this week.  Party activists were nervous about whether their leaders in Congress will succumb to the President's blackmail - and still angry at many Democrats for having supported the War in the first place.  A sizable number called for the impeachment of George Bush and Dick Cheney, meaning they did not have the patience for a party leadership that is nervous to take bold initiatives.

But Hillary did not get the John Kerry treatment at this convention, and her campaign had a surprising number of supporters.  For example, the LGBT caucus on Friday night felt like a Clinton campaign rally, despite her husband's betrayal on gays in the military and same-sex marriage.  State Senator Christine Kehoe announced her support for Hillary at the caucus, because she has "supported the LGBT community throughout her whole public life," and as President has promised to end Don't Ask Don't Tell.  I asked if Hillary would also work to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act that her husband signed - but Kehoe could only tell me that she would ask her that question the next day.

Clinton's speech on the Convention floor was surprisingly well received, as female delegates wearing "Impeach Bush" stickers enthusiastically waved Hillary campaign signs.  She vowed to be "ready to lead" a country that is "ready for change," and spoke passionately about universal health care - while acknowledging her prior failure to get it done.  She spoke about immigration reform, vowed to fix "everything wrong" with No Child Left Behind, and to follow California's lead on energy independence.

But when the speech shifted to Iraq, Clinton lost most of the delegates and began to get scattered boos.  Hillary has said repeatedly that she would not have voted for the War if she knew what she knows today, but unlike John Edwards has refused to apologize or take any responsibility for her failure.  She criticized the Iraq War for being "one of the darkest blots of our history" and said that Bush had ignored military advisers, all the while saying nothing about her complicity in the matter.

While Hillary had a strong organized base at the Convention, Obama's campaign had a more grassroots feel and his supporters were more enthusiastic.  He got a true rock-star welcome as he walked up to the Convention podium, as throngs of young people ran up behind him and stayed in the aisles during his speech.  "We have a cynicism where politics is a business and not a mission," said Obama, as he criticized a "foreign policy based on bluster and bombast has led us to a war that should have never been authorized and should have never been waged."

Obama vowed to "turn the page" on this era of cynicism - providing an interesting contrast with Clinton, who seemed to promise a return to the good old days of her husband's administration.  Obama said he was proud to have opposed the Iraq War back when it was not popular, and he also credited the party activists for having opposed it then as well.  "We knew back then that this War was a mistake," he said.

Referring to Congress' passage of withdrawal legislation, Obama reminded the crowd that we were now "one signature away from ending the War." But while Hillary Clinton said that Bush will veto the legislation and so she would end the War on her first day as President, Obama said "if the President refuses to sign it, we will find the 16 votes that we need to end it without him.  We will get this done.  We will bring our troops home."

Barack Obama is a passionate and charismatic speaker, and delegates who had never heard him before were impressed and enthusiastic.  But as someone who has heard him speak twice in the last two months, I did not feel that he offered much different this time.  His speech undoubtedly fired up the crowd and gained new converts to his campaign, but it did not serve as a catalyst for his campaign the way that Howard Dean's speech did at the 2003 Convention.  While it helped his campaign, he's still the insurgent candidate trying to take on the front-runner.

In fact, the largest criticism I heard from delegates afterwards was that Obama's speech was big on inspiring rhetoric but small on substance.  While many were frustrated with Hillary Clinton and her refusal to apologize for Iraq, they argued that she provided more policy detail on other issues than Obama did.

By the end of Saturday, delegates had also heard speeches from various presidential candidates who have absolutely no chance of winning.  Mike Gravel said with a straight face that he was going to be a "most unusual President," and lauded the California initiative process as a model for his national initiative process.  Chris Dodd gave a decent speech with substantive policy goals, but came off as too stiff and did not pick up traction.  And while Dennis Kucinich had some ideas that could steer the debate in a positive direction, his New Age talk was so over-the-top ("America is waiting for a President who is a healer") that I felt high on marijuana just by listening to him.

John Edwards did not address the delegates until Sunday, because he was at the South Carolina Democratic Convention on Saturday - the only presidential candidate to attend both conventions on the same weekend.  With a campaign that has focused on poverty and workers' rights, Edwards has picked up substantial support among labor unions.  But his campaign was invisible at the Convention until he showed up on Sunday, when many of the delegates had already left San Diego.

But those who heard him speak were impressed because he was more passionate and progressive than Hillary, and far more substantive than Obama.  Edwards was the only candidate besides Bill Richardson (who spoke later) to mention the genocide in Darfur, the only candidate to focus on the gap between rich and poor, the only to acknowledge the problem of race in America, and while everyone else talked about universal health care, Edwards was the only serious candidate to talk about single-payer.

"I voted for this War," said Edwards, "and I was wrong.  I am speaking with every fiber of my being to get out of Iraq." Edwards spoke forcefully about the President's threatened veto of the withdrawal legislation from Iraq, and urged Congress to not back down.  "If the President vetoes that bill," he said, "it is George Bush who is not supporting the troops.  Congress needs to show strength and courage."

Edwards spoke forcefully about poverty in America, and listed the most comprehensive economic justice agenda of any candidate - starting, he said, with a national living wage. "If you can join the Republican Party by signing a card," said Edwards, "every worker should be able to join a union by signing a card.  We ought to ban the permanent replacement of scab workers."

While Clinton and Obama both called for universal health care, said Edwards, "it's not enough to say you'll do it without creating a specific plan." He suggested requiring every employer to provide health care or else create a fund - and give Americans free choices on what health care system to get.  "And that may end up being single-payer," he said.  Edwards said his plan will cost $90-120 billion a year, "and I can pay for it by getting rid of George Bush's tax cut."

As the front-runner, Hillary Clinton needed to not bleed support - and her mistakes at the Convention caused her to lose ground.  Barack Obama is her main challenger, and he needed to do another Howard Dean speech to catapult him into front-runner status and thus change the dynamics.  He may have inspired more people, but it did not shift the momentum for his campaign.  But John Edwards did a better job converting new supporters to his side, which is why he was the "winner" of this year's California Democratic Convention.

As someone who has always opposed the War and want "Anybody But Hillary" to win the nomination, I came into this Convention about 90% for Obama and 10% for Edwards.  While I have not made a firm decision and my opinions may change between now and February 2008, I am now more likely to support John Edwards because he was both passionate and substantive.  Delegates who were still at the Convention felt the same way, as the Edwards campaign table ran out of stickers within minutes after his speech.

Send feedback to paul@beyondchron.org

Tags: Barack Obama, California Democratic Convention, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards (all tags)

Comments

26 Comments

Re:

Ah subjectivity disguised as fact... Unless of course you did manage to talk to absolutely every last person there AND get their response AND make sure they were actually telling the truth.  

by yitbos96bb 2007-04-30 09:21AM | 0 recs
he's reporting his impressions

I don't think he tried to make it sound like he conducted a scientific survey.

I am for Edwards myself, but I encourage all undecideds to take their time and look thoroughly at the choices.

by desmoinesdem 2007-04-30 09:56AM | 0 recs
I don't think he claims

to be speaking for every single person that was there. Note he started off strongly in Obama's camp.

By most accounts I have seen elsewhere Edwards did give a very strong, if not the strongest speech there.

by okamichan13 2007-04-30 11:39AM | 0 recs
Re:

I don't see it disguised as fact, yitbos.  This is his impression, and he was an Obama supporter before.  Read some of his older stories.

As neither you nor I were at the convention, I think it unfair for us to criticize the diarist.  His is one impression and he is sharing it here.  Calm down :)

by Vox Populi 2007-04-30 03:13PM | 0 recs
Re:

I'm simply sharing my impression of his article and the title of the diary... saying he gained the most converts is incredibly subjective, IMO, the title presents it as fact.  Had he said Edwards gains converts at California Democratic Convention then I wouldn't have made the comment I did... whether the seeming context of the article was written as fact or opinion ultimately is up to the reader... I feel he was insinuating it as fact, when it isn't fact at all... But the title does insinuate fact and not opinion and that is the main reason for my comment.  A misleading headline is irresponsible journalism to me and I made a comment on it... I'm not upset or mad and would have called this out had it said CLinton or Obama... its a pet peeve of mine.

by yitbos96bb 2007-04-30 05:18PM | 0 recs
Good diary!

Thanks for the run down of events. It sounded pretty exciting. I'm an Edwards supporter myself. Thanks for your take.

by cosbo 2007-04-30 09:33AM | 0 recs
Wishful thinking disguised as fact....

by Mystylplx 2007-04-30 09:44AM | 0 recs
By "most"...

the diarist apparently means "him".  But interesting diary nonetheless.

by rashomon 2007-04-30 10:01AM | 0 recs
To the Obamamites

Jealous much?  Be mad at your candidate.  He's the one with no substance.

by Edwards Supporters United 2007-04-30 10:51AM | 0 recs
Re: To the Obamamites

I don't think I've ever seen you make a comment without trash talk. You can leave that out of it.

by clarkent 2007-04-30 10:57AM | 0 recs
Check out Calitics.com

From the posts at Calitics, it looks like Edwards did quite well in California this weekend.

by clarkent 2007-04-30 11:10AM | 0 recs
Accurate reflection

I was there, and this diary is a very accurate reflection of the events of this weekend.  The author's summaries of each speech, and the audience reaction, are accurate to my experience as well.  

Yes, I'm an Edwards supporter, but that doesn't change the fact that a very large fraction of the delegation from my Assembly District, many of whom were previously undecided or leaning Obama, tromped off the floor, missing the first part of Richardson's speech, to go to the Edwards supporter meeting after his speech.  A friend took off his Obama button, moving from Obama to undecided, and described Edwards's speech as the best of the convention, "a 1000 ft home run."

I didn't talk with anyone who had decided based on this weekend that he or she is going to support Obama or Clinton.  So, the title is probably pretty accurate -- Obama and Clinton already have many supporters, but Edwards probably gained more than they did.

by asahopkins 2007-04-30 11:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Accurate reflection

With what YOU talked too... YOU did not talk with everyone.  That Edwards converted the most is purely opinion... and if a Clinton or Obama supporter had made the claim, there would be quite a few nasty comments on here.

by yitbos96bb 2007-04-30 05:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Accurate reflection

So you admit that the Obama supporters are making nasty comments, but they are justified, because of course, other would have made such comments.

An interesting circular argument to be nasty???

by pioneer111 2007-05-01 09:26AM | 0 recs
Re: To the Obamamites

How many people did you speak to?

by Mystylplx 2007-04-30 11:49AM | 0 recs
Re: That's BS

No its not BS.  I'm saying I have a problem with what i consider an irresponsible headline and the inference that one candidate gained the most supporters.  Its a completely subjective POV and not iron clad fact as the title and the artice infer, IMHO.

The article insinuates to me that Edwards converted the most people at the convention.  The TITLE absolutely infers it as fact.  My problem is with the word MOST.  Its subjective... you spoke to several but not every person, not even a majority.  Had the Title said he gained converts and had the article not tried to insinuate the MOST, I never would have said a word.

by yitbos96bb 2007-04-30 05:24PM | 0 recs
Re: To the Obamamites

And I have no problem with THAT... saying he converted the most is what I take issue with.

by yitbos96bb 2007-04-30 05:26PM | 0 recs
If you were an Obama supporter before

then surely you would know that Obama's speeches are less policy focused and more value oriented and rhetorical than Edwards'? This couldn't be any news could it? I am frankly a bit sceptical to your "conversion"...

by Populism2008 2007-04-30 06:36PM | 0 recs
Re: If you were an Obama supporter before

Well if you look at his previous diaries they're somewhat pro-obama more than anything else. And the only mention of Edwards is with the "I feel pretty" youtube video.

So maybe his Obama support wasn't rabid support, but it definately seems to be support for him nonetheless. And perhaps he wasn't against Edwards, it was just more of a benign neglect where he hadn't really looked into him yet.

Whatever the case, it'd be pretty silly to accuse someone of faking their support for Obama and then switching to Edwards in order to create some false narrative in a freakin' diary on mydd. Enough with the conspiracy theories.

by adamterando 2007-05-01 03:37AM | 0 recs
Re: If you were an Obama supporter before

ha, that's a new one...

by Jerome Armstrong 2007-05-01 05:10AM | 0 recs
Re: I think both Edwards and Obama Did Well

It sounds like both Obama and Edwards both did very well.

Obama's speech is posted at his site the response seems very strong.  NPR said there was a line all the way down the concourse of people waiting to get in and volunteer for the Obama canpaign.

I would encourage people to look at my diary on the issue of policy vs image, "The Dangers of Groupthink and Political Correctness" at http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/4/30/1710 54/214#commenttop I think it is relavent to the discussion here.

by upper left 2007-05-01 06:01AM | 0 recs
Re: I think both Edwards and Obama Did Well

He was particularly strong, a fact confirmed by a staffer who saw him speak.  But this is a very well informed crowd and his lack of specificity hurt him, especially compared to Edwards.  I was wowed by Obama, and did not get a chance to see Edwards speak, but can confirm what Paul wrote that Edwards seemed to have moved the most people to his side of any candidate.

by juls 2007-05-01 09:47AM | 0 recs
Re: I think both Edwards and Obama Did Well
The audio of the speech is online at his website.
Give it a listen.
by adamterando 2007-05-01 03:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards Gains Most Converts at California Demo

by pioneer111 2007-05-01 09:27AM | 0 recs
polls

A little off thread, but relative the the presidential candidates.

American Research Group, who was responsible for the only 3 Iowa polls ever released not showing Edwards in first place (two showed him tied for first) just released one showing Edwards up by 4 in Iowa and solidly ahead of Obama in New Hampshire.  This is even though ARG uses flawed screens that allow way too many non caucus voters take part in the poll.  Their first two Iowa polls were so bad that 2 of them in a row showed Clinton with a 20% bounce compared to every poll released before or after them.  Their third poll showed Clinton with 1% ahead of Edwards.  So either ARG is slowly fixing thier sceens, which shows that thier first two polls were just as flawed as all the polling experts thought, and the same experts (at Pollster) where right to claim that every RELIABLE Iowa poll (14 of them)has shown Edwards is in the lead (he tied for first in two of them but one was the only IA poll to include Gore.

However, it is more likley that Edwards' Iowa momentum has cought up with ARG's screens.  If ARG would have fixed their screens it would have been after the backlash was at it's tipping point(after the second poll that gave Clinton 20 points out of nowhere).

I also think, that although Edwards is probably ahead of Obama a few points in New Hampshire there is no way that he is ahead of Obama by has much as ARG has him.  If he is then that is great in my book but there are 14 other polls to back up ARG having Edwards in first in Iowa (most have him ahead by significantly more than the the 4% ARG has him aheahd)and there are only 2 or 3 (at max) polls that show Obama behind Edwards in NH, and they both show it to be a close 3 way race.

ARG probably has SC in the right order (Clinton, Obama, then Edwards) but as in New Hampshire the amount that it has between each candidate is exagerated.

If ARG (for once in their 2008 polling, at least of Iowa) is right, which I hardly doubt, then as an Edwards guy, he has time to make up ground in SC.  A win in Iowa gives him momentum to use his labor support in Nevada (which hasn't even kicked in yet) to win there.  That gives him the momentum to win in New Hampshire (which for him means at least second).  By then the primary will be about substance and electability a lot more than it is now and I think that with the wins behind him he can at least come in second in SC (and stay in the race) or for more likely SC will come around, as it did last time.

I'm just saying that there is good in these polls for everybody.

If your an Edwards fan you got to love that even ARG has him ahead in Iowa, and everything changes after Iowa.  New Hampshire looks good but remember that ARG has been WAY OFF numerous times in 2008 so considering it a tight 3 way race (which all the other polls show) in that state is a better bet.  As for SC, he has some room to make up but is damn early and he wasn't necessarily kicking ass there this time in 04' (at least not consistently).  Most pundits (not that they are always worth listening to, and they have been HUGE ASSES regarding Iraq today) think Iowa will matter more because the media will be so ready to call anybody the winner of anything.

If you're an Obama fan then "fughetaboutit" (the polls I mean) ARG is not reliable and your guys strength is that his momentum could change the dynamic of the race.  His SC endorsemnets are a definite plus.

If you're a Clinton fan then, well, where you dropped on your head as a child?  J/K.  Good job in NH and SC, only  one problem, ARG is now notorious for giving your girl unreal advantages.  They've done a lot to give the Clinton Inflated Poll Theory credibility.  Her approval rating is low and dropping and when electability becomes a real issue I don't know what that is going to mean for your "madame president in waiting".  She did good at the debate, but she did so by surpassing expectations.  Next time, expectations will be where they always should have been.  No one ever said that she isn't intelligent.  It's her, uh, how should I put this...authenticity...that has always been in question.  Now she will have to do more than just not be shrill sounding to "win".  But relax, you always have Mark Penn, it's no like he was fired from the last presidential campaign he worked for or anything.  I mean it's not like HE was the one who told Gore to ditch his focus on the environment. Oh, wait, I forgot, that was him.

Back to the Edwards people.  One upside for us.  The first of (what CT said would be more) "why are Obama and Clinton saying no to MTP Meet The Candidate series / Hardball College Tour / extensive interviews without things being "off limits" stories came out today.  Maybe some of the critism is unfair (I don't think it is) but at least our guy is getting credit for not being afraid to answer hard questions.  If only MSNBC will not wait until an hour and 45 minutes after the next debate to mention him we'll be good.  Speaking of the CNN debate, why are Obama and Clinton no showing?

And why is Mike Gravel about to pee his pants that he is getting so much news coverage.  I saw him on CSPAN a year ago announcing so I have had him as a frequent source of comedic relief in my life for a long time now.  Anyone who hasn't seen some of his older performances should go to his website and look at the videos. They are hilarious.  In fact, the day most of us thought Edwards was dropping out (because of Elizabeth's health) I kept going to Gravel's site to try to cheer myself up.  The best clip is when he gets mad at Stephanoupolos for his expensive suit at the AFSCME forum.

by Edwards Supporters United 2007-05-01 03:51PM | 0 recs
Re: polls

ESU, a ittle tip. Keep you comments short. If you have more than three paragraphs to say, consider writing a diary.

by clarkent 2007-05-02 03:23AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


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