[Welcome, Digby readers!]
Nothing became John Edward's campaign for the Presidency more than the manner of his leaving it.
As noted by Lambert, that was some damn speech.
Let me note, in response to some of the comments in that thread, I don't think his talk of "one America" was any kind of sop to Obama.
More likely it was meant to make clear that one of his central campaign themes, the fight for economic justice, is a unifying one for all liberal/progressives, (sorry, but I refuse to stop calling myself a liberal), the middle class, the working class, the working poor, and those too poor and marginalized to find employment, as well as being a reference to Michael Harrington's formulation of "the other America," which JFK made part of his campaign in 1960, especially in those visits to West Virginia, where grinding poverty was on such conspicuous display.
It wasn't just the speech, though, the theatrics were perfect in their multiple meanings - NOLA, the Ninth Ward, Habitat For Humanity, Elizabeth at his side, surrounded by family and friends, new ones and old ones, and the meaningful symbolism of their commitment as a family, right after the speech, to join in with a community dedicated to raising up housing out of the watery ruins of New Orleans, a gesture that said, yes a candidacy was ending but not the movement whose values and ideas that candidacy was meant to embody.
All that said, and swallowing the lump in my throat, what are we to make of Edwards' campaign and its failure to get sufficient traction to take him through Super Tuesday; what can we learn from its strengths and its weaknesses, what worked, what didn't, and why?
I hope you weren't expecting that I have the answers. Thinking about what they might be is my purpose.
So let's start with Jon Cohn, who put up a piece about Edwards yesterday at The New Republic. Because most of the magazine is behind a subscription wall, let me give you a sense of it.
On why Edwards' perpetual third place position in the campaign wasn't about his political skills:
As anybody who attended his town meetings could attest, he may have been the most effective campaigner of all—capable of establishing an instant connection with audiences, then sweeping them up with a moving, coherent story about what was wrong with America and how he proposed to fix it. Edwards was also, I would argue, a more versatile campaigner than his rivals. He was terrific working the grassroots, much like Obama, but also excelled in the debates, just as Clinton has. As his advisers were constantly reminding reporters—most memorably, through this priceless video—focus groups frequently named Edwards the overwhelming "winner" in those televised exchanges. Alas, a media preoccupied with the Clinton-Obama rivalry rarely seemed to notice.
So, what went wrong?
Still, if Edwards wants to blame somebody for his defeat, he shouldn't look at the media. He should look at himself. And I mean that in the best sense possible. Edwards' biggest problem may have been that he was too compelling—so compelling that his rivals effectively adopted his agenda. From the beginning, Edwards was positioning himself as the champion of Americans struggling to get ahead financially. And rather than simply offer populist rhetoric, he backed it with a serious, comprehensive set of policies.
By the time Clinton and Obama had fleshed out their respective agendas, however, there simply wasn't that much difference among them. Pundits frequently criticized Edwards for his unabashed populism and, it's true, his rhetoric was the most openly confrontational of the three leading Democrats. But in terms of what the three were actually proposing to do, the agendas were virtually identical—not to mention widely popular, if the polls are to be believed. We're all populists now.
Edwards alone can't take credit for that; Clinton and Obama would have endorsed some of the same policies anyway, given the country's problems and their similar ideological pedigrees. But Edwards still played a key role in setting the standards for the debate. And no issue showcases this more than universal health insurance.
Cohn, whose field is health care, has a little backstage gossip on why none of the candidates have submitted a single-payer plan.
Edwards was assisted in these efforts by a terrific policy team, including James Kvaal and Peter Harbage, not to mention his wife, Elizabeth. Not only was she an early and consistent advocate for universal coverage. She apparently pushed hard for embracing a true single-payer system—something, I am told, Edwards came very close to doing. He decided against it, largely it didn't seem politically viable. But he always made a point of telling audiences that his plan created a new public insurance plan into which anybody could enroll—and that, if enough people joined it, eventually his plan would evolve into a single-payer plan on its own. If that happened, he said, he was just fine with it.
Let me note that Hillary's plan also contains such a public insurance option, which does leave the door open to single payer in the future. I'm not clear on whether or not Obama's plan has such an option, but without a universal mandate, there is no single payer option at all.
Until I read Cohn's discussion of one of Edwards' particular strengths, I hadn't realized what it is, precisely, that I've been missing from Obama's performance, so heavy on the unity theme, so vague about the vision of what kind of America exactly it is he wishes to unite us in support of.
Which brings me to the one thing I'll miss most about Edwards' campaign: His intuitive sense of how to sell policies. On the health care issue, for example, it was Edwards who offered the best rationale for requiring everybody to buy insurance—a controversial measure that Obama, for example, has not endorsed. Eschewing the complicated, if valid, policy arguments about adverse selection, he invoked a simple analogy: It's like Social Security. Everybody has to pay in so that everybody can benefit. Edwards was also savvy about taxes. Unlike so many Democrats, he didn't flinch at the accusation that some of his proposed programs would require new spending, leading eventually to more taxes. He would simply say yes, that's right—and they're worth it.
His pitch wasn't always perfect; as my friend Mark Schmitt recently reminded me, he sometimes seemed confused about whether he was fighting for the poor, the middle class, or both. (Ideally, it should be the latter.) But overall he got a lot more right than wrong.
Bill Clinton had that ability, Hillary, not so much. Sigh.
I can only assume Obama has it, God knows he has the gift of oratory, but I'd appreciate some demonstration of his ability to sell specific liberal policies, since implementing a genuinely progressive vision as President will depend on exactly that ability.
Cohn's whole piece is worth a read, and just in case it isn't behind the pay wall, here's the link.
Equally interesting was Ed Kilgore's response to Cohn, also at The New Republic.
I couldn't agree more with Jonathan Cohn's assessment of Edwards' policy proposals and their impact. Indeed, I'd go further: His bold and imaginative health-care plan headed off what appeared to be an irresistible stampede of progressives towards a single-payer system as the only alternative to a timid, confusing, incremental approach. And let's remember that Edwards' effort to inject economic inequality and poverty into the debate began in 2004, and never flagged for a moment since then.
But while Jonathan generously suggests this is why Edwards really "won" on a conceptual level and among policy wonks, any honest assessment of his campaign has to consider why he actually lost in reality, and among voters. Any fact-based evaluation of the Edwards campaign has to deal with a couple of realities:
Let me take a moment to caution readers not to assume that Kilgore is reciting DLC talking points. It is true that Kilgore has a long association with the DLC, but I've been reading his posts at TPMCafe, and its given me an awareness that there are DLCers and then again, there are DLCers.
Kilgore's reference to single-payer as a political non-starter is a fairly consistent position among progressive health care wonks, but Kilgore isn't extolling incrementalism. He's extolling Edwards for having been the first to find a way to avoid it.
Remember, Edwards' plan, and Hillary's knock-off of it, don't nibble at the edges of universal coverage. Their plans are an implementation of universal coverage, and now, with a minimum of disruption to those who have some form of coverage, including government programs, (which would include S-CHIP for example), while preserving some choice, and starting to introduce the kind of efficiencies of scale that are needed if we are ever able to get a handle on our rising health care costs, which are always used by the opponents of universal health coverage as a scare tactic: How will we afford it? The right answer is better than if we stay totally dependent on a fractured private health sector that has done nothing to keep down costs.
Okay, now try to not become incensed by Kilgore's next point:
His message was a remarkably faithful and wholesale adoption of the Crashing the Gates-style netroots analysis of the parties, of Washington, of the Clintonian Democratic tradition, and of galvanizing value of "fighting populist" rhetoric. It was crafted with the help of the maestro of this approach, Joe Trippi. Yet it did not rouse much in the way of support from its intended audiences. In the end, most of the Deanian excitement in the campaign flowed to Obama, who consistently deployed a rhetoric of post-partisanship that is anathema to the point of view advanced by Edwards, as Edwards himself suggested on many occasions.
No, I don't think Kilgore is attacking the netroots; he interacts with us regularly at TPMCafe. Nor do I accept entirely Kilgore's analysis, but facts, as Al Gore has reminded us, are often inconvenient:
While no one will ever know how Edwards would have fared had he won Iowa, his campaign ultimately appealed to the same kind of voters he won in 2004 with a very different message: moderate-to-conservative white men. His exceptional weakness among African-Americans, in 2008 as in 2004, provides a cautionary tale about the breadth of appeal of "populism."
It is quite simply a fact that John Edwards was able to enlist enthusiasm across racial and class lines when interacting with voters personally, but that the campaign never found a way to translate that success on the wholesale level into success on the retail level, even in Iowa, where he and his family had practically taken up residence. He inspired locally, but not globally.
...Edwards is obviously a very talented person who could be of great value to any Democratic administration. But his political strategy just wasn't as good as his policies or his own personal abilities. And the failure of his candidacy should make progressives spend some time considering whether the "fighting partisan populist" perspectives on how to expand and mobilize the Democratic base are now as outdated as the conventional wisdom they replaced.
The "why" of that reality is something we all need to think about, although I'm too much of a populist at heart to buy into Kilgore's final formulation.
First of all, there is a lot more to "populism" than Kilgore acknowledges. One doesn't usually think of the Sixties as an outburst of populism, but that is certainly one strand of the civil rights movement, as well as the student movement that started in Berkeley with Mario Savio; both were all about grassroots participation in the institutions of which they were the grassroots. Even the SDS, before it gave way to the evils of vanguardism, was all about "participatory democracy."
Part of the problem for Edwards was Obama's co-opting of that aspect of populism, minus the fighting mode and rhetoric. Not that Edwards didn't articulate his belief in the active definition of citizenship, never more so than in his speech yesterday. But that broader issue seemed to get lost.
There is also the structure of our primary campaigns, which mitigate against real dialogue, between voters, between candidates, and between candidates and their potential voters. Edwards' personal beliefs, policy positions and the politics of his positions began to get boiled down to slogans and talking points, and the repetitiveness became numbing.
Which brings us to the biggest missing piece in both Cohn's and Kilgore's analysis, the role of the media.
You should be able to see immediately why John's populism was anathema to the SCLM
. They view voters as members of a passive audience, whereas populism assumes the grassroots are made up of citizens to whom public institutions, like government and the media, are ultimately answerable, and that when they are not, public activism is a vital answer.
Our SCLM is always on the hunt for hypocrisy, although their understanding of the concept is one dimensional. How can John Edwards be an authentic populist, a champion of the poor and the marginalized when he is handsome, accomplished and rich. Elizabeth Edwards' desire to build her own mansion was portrayed as somehow over the top, as if the Washington townhouses and summer homes typical of most journalists makes them tribunes of the people. Yes, the square footage indicated that it was to be a huge house, although little attention was paid to the fact that some of that footage was to be taken up with an indoor tennis court and swimming pool, which might have been especially attractive to a family in which the mother had already had one bout with cancer, and everyone had full knowldge that a second one was a possibility.
That such a formulation would have applied to FDR, JFK and to Bobby Kennedy, not to mention Teddy Roosevelt, was a point occasionally made by guest commentators, very occasionally, and naturally, such calls to think historically were ignored.
The haircut, the mansion, the grooming video, and the use made of them by the usual rightwing meme-makers, aided immensely by the happy collaboration of the media, from Maureen Dowd all the way to the dizzy heights of broadcsst stardom and the estimable biographer of that great generation, Tom Brokaw, one of the great dullards of all time, are too well-known to go into here. Digby has done brilliant work excavating this particular swamp, although I don't have any specific links for you, (the search function on her site is inoperable), but here is a superlative piece by Jamison Foser at Media Matters that sketches in the bigger picture against which the attacks on Edwards as yet another Democratic girly-man need to be understood.
What the press mainly did to Edwards was to ignore him. Remember the brilliant speech on foreign policy John gave at Pace University? Totally ignored, not a hint anywhere in the SCLM that anyone even knew he gave one. You can read it and the updates made by the campaign to the speech here. Read it and weep, because I think you'll agree that it is the most fully developed vision among all three of the top candidates, of what our relationship to the rest of the world ought to be, as well as a brilliant critique of what's wrong with our current "war on terror>" More tragically, it's one that I believe a large majority of Americans, including independents, would have happily embraced as a genuine and much needed change from the poisonous policies of George W. Bush.
Nothing illustrates better the role of the media in undermining Edwards' campaign than the manner of its coverage of his leaving of it.
I was watching MSNBC, but I'm sure it was typical, since the same themes and attitudes about Edwards have been ubiquitous across the media. Mrs. Allen Greenspan was anchoring, and trying to fill the time before Edwards made his appearance, she noted the fascinating schisms in the Democratic Party, although she called them "threads," but divisions was clearly what she meant. Then Chris Matthews responded to Andrea's request for enlightenment on how you could have the suave Obama and the down-home populist Edwards in the same party with the nuttiest analysis I've ever heard; Democrats, it seems, are divided into the regular, traditional Dems, divided among old-fashioned interest groups, which are essentially populist, and the outsider/insurgents, who are upscale and intellectual, examples given were Gene McCarthy, Paul Tsongas and Bill Bradley, and whose main interest is in an abstract notion of ethics and good governement, Clinton being in the former camp, Obama being the idealistic good government guy. And before any of you jump on this particular circus wagon regarding Obama, remember, we're talking about Chris Matthews.
Once Edwards had spoken, the general tone was respectful, as Xan pointed out here, the way people tend to be at a funeral. Even so, the expensive hair cut came up, and all the rest, with special emphasis on the fact that Edwards ran such a different campaign than he had in 2004, as if nothing that might have happened in the interim could have changed his views. This lead immediately to the question of whether or not Edwards had suffered from an authenticity gap, running as an angry populist.
Jim Warren of the Chicago Sun-Times rejected the notion that someone rich can't take the positions Edwards had, pointing to the Kennedys and FDR, but he then went on to explore what fascinated him about what they'd just seen, which was the awful emotional deflation we had been watching, covered up, to be sure, by a brave front, but just think what it must have meant to Edwards, so confident as a top trial attorney, having to confront this stunning electoral defeat, and on and on. Yes, they all agreed, they had been watching an intensely sad moment.
That nothing about this description comported with anything we had just viewed mattered not.
Of course we can assume that there was pain and disappointment for everyone associated with the Edwards' campaign in coming to terms with its suspension, but that funereal note had been introduced exclusively by our media monitors. I'm bothering to go into this kind of detail to make clear to us all that our media is not only uninformed about policy matters, but it is just as clueless, just as mired in cliches, just as incapable of reality-based reporting when it comes to understanding what our politics are all about.
There was nothing funereal about Edwards speech, or any aspect of the occasion. There was no display of anything but satisfaction that his campaign had made some kind of difference and there was a clear and compelling call to community and to action within a liberal/progressive movement, both at the grassroots and at the electoral and governmental levels, from which Edwards draws comfort and inspiration, and within which he and Elizabeth will remain active.
One more link, which had I discovered it earlier, I might not have bothered with this post, so close to mine and so good is the analysis of Meteor Blades writing at Daily Kos; be sure to read it.
- leah's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 1+[encrypted]+#b94+
Printer-friendly version
Front page
Comments
The fucking press chose our President again
I don't know what to do about that, but I feel I'd rather put energy there than into Hilbama.
They delegitimized Clinton (in the eyes of many, and it's still happening).
They stole Gore from us.
They fucked Kerry brutally.
And they stole both Edwards and Paul from us.
That's sick and it needs to stop. I'm not sure how to do that.
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Re: The fucking press chose our President again
Surprised that you didn't mention the theft of Kucinich, the most courageous fire-breathing, Goliah daring, David of all, who was #4 nationwide among Dems but got shut out from the debates even after winning a court order.
Re: the press, they're still at it too
Heard one guy--a regular on one of the cabloids but I forget which one, iirc his title is "political analyst" or somesuch so is supposed to be just a soul of objectivity--run a line yesterday that I suspect is going to be going around.
The gist of it was (paraphrase): "If the Democrats go with Hillary she's going to have a hard time against McCain. If they go with Obama all bets are off and who knows what will happen" implication being he could clean McCain's clock, coattail every downticket race including dogcatchers, and probably cure leprosy with a touch from the hem of his garment.
If called on it he would no doubt say with all sincerity that he wasn't trying to imply any such thing, just to say that Clinton's a known element and Obama isn't, never had a black man run this kind of race, youngest candidate in years against the oldest ever, blah blah blah, all he meant was that many factors make an Obama candidacy hard to predict.
After which he would pout at our unfairness to the media.
the last time
...Digby linked over here was for Lambert's "...Harmful", if I remember correctly.
the woman's got a good eye for great writing.
great, great post, Leah.
my thoughts
I think the biggest problem with John Edwards campaign was the fact that he was neither black or a female. Those are two really huge 800 pound gorillas in any room.
There will always be identity politics, and the MSM did their best in reinforcing it whenever possible. I think all the oxygen just got sucked out of the environment and his message was lost. The MSM surely didn't report on his comings and goings like they did the other two remaining candidates. It was their preferred narrative.
Lambert's right
The SCLM
fucked us over yet again. And it happened when Obama entered the race. Suddenly, the storyline was going to be Clinton v. Obama--never mind that there were 7 other Democrats running--and everyone was assigned a role.
This is a wonderful post, Leah.
The issue is who owns the press
The major news outlets are all owned in whole or in part by the same corporate thieves that have wrecked this country.
Edwards dissed the corps. Big time. He fought them as a lawyer, and he put together policies that would challenge their hegemony.
Sometimes the best way to get rid of someone is to ignore them. Edwards was shut in the cooler, where his campaign died for lack of air.
This is very much like with the ideas of Gore.
If people generally became aware there were things they and their government could do that would get us all off the hell-bound train, it would cut into the Company's bottom line.
No Hell below us
Above us, only sky
No Hell below us
Above us, only sky
One other thing....
I think you are quite right that it was really the media's near-refusal to acknowledge Edwards most of the time (and to slime him the rest), that made the real difference, but I was interested in this article at The Black Commentator:
Edwards did have a tough time precisely because he was competing with The First Black and The First Woman and all that Moment in History stuff, but even his pointed visits to New Orleans never overcame the fact that he didn't dog-whistle for blacks and women. Obama and Clinton never had that problem.
Yes, I saw that (perhaps at the Sideshow)...
... and I agree.
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
I agree Avedon, anon or not
I'm so glad you offered that link. I should have checked out "The Black Commentator," which always has something important to say. I was trying to get at the importance of the failure to enlist the imagination of black and Latino voters with the Kilgore stuff; always better to go the source.
wasab, I agree that the press made a big deal of identity politics, but I think Kelly B is right, as usual, that emphasis was consistent with a right-wing hatred and a corporate suspicion about the group loyalties of certain ethnic groups who tend to lean left. In fact, I think that emphasis was meant to wound both Obama and Hillary, as pandering to minorities, not necessarily Edwards.
"Identity politics" is to be portrayed always and forever as bad politics, according to our SCLM
. Now there are problems with identity politics, but its use by the media is almost entirely pernicious. No group is only about ethnicity, for instance, Latinos can be union members, they can be school teachers who are also union members, they can be small business owners who abhor unions and lean toward Republicans, and the same is true for African-Americans, some of whom have lived through times when unions were as racist as the rest of this country.
Another way of looking at what Avedon points to is that Edwards couldn't quite unify the various planks of his platform, which did touch on womens' issues, damn, his wife is a living embodiment of them, and did include issues that touch the lives of many African-Americans and Latinos, and did include more awareness of the issues relating to a return to constitutional governance most of us are crazed about, than the other two front-runners did, but somehow he couldn't find the links between these strands, which made it easier for the media to stereotype him, but also had the effect of limiting the sense of scope in his campaign.
I wanted Edwards too, but I
I wanted Edwards too, but I always thought his speeches needed to emphasize inspirational themes. He always had a depressing story of someone who lost a job or couldn't get health care. I know this sounds shallow, but people are drawn to Obama's inspirational talk rather than Edward's litany of depressing stories. Just a little different framing and more inspirational speech and I think he could have eclipsed Obama. I think Edwards can sound every bit as inspirational as Obama, but kept telling those depressing stories. Keep the stories, just find an inspirational angle to them. Sorry, but that is my impression.
Great piece... and corporate media will be our ruination
I cannot accept the narrative of "poor Edwards, trying to get traction against two rock star candidates..." That is too convenient to let the traditional, corporate-controlled media off the hook for this disservice to our country. They were two rock stars for one reason...The media created them as such!
The media clobbered Gore...they clobbered Kerry...and they marginalized the best candidate who just happened to have been the candidate that polled best for the general election against any potential Republican candidate. Coincidence? I don't believe so... Our media owners seem to prefer having a Republican as President. The proof of this will be when they change their tone as they cover our "rock star" Democratic nominee, Barrack Obama. They have done all they could to lead Democrats to the candidate most easily beaten by...John McCain, the candidate they just so happened to help overcome a truly awful campaigning effort. The narrative for the general is already written and waiting to go to press..."Mr. Tough and Experienced vs Young Upstart Out of His Depths." I hope I am wrong.
Edwards was on the ticket four years ago and had the best campaign messages this cycle too...He only needed equal time in the media to have dominated this race, but had to try making up for the lack of exposure one door at a time. This is a disgrace on the part of a media using our public airwaves.
I find it interesting that Obama scored so many endorsements in the last week ahead of Super Tuesday and ahead of John Edwards dropping out. My guess is that Dems in Washington want a break from the Clinton years and got nervous about the anti-Clinton vote being split two ways. They made their choice, leaving Edwards to see the futility of staying in the race. I wonder if he was actually pressured to drop out as the only way to help avoid Hillary Clinton as the inevitable candidate. His endorsement of Barrack or Hillary will be very telling.
I will vote for any Dem, but I would love to have Edwards as the VP on any ticket, and maybe we will see this great person as president yet...eight years from now.
The Village will never let Edwards NEAR power
What they heck would they want an effective Attorney General for?
I say the nation needs healing...
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Hmm, hit_escape, you remind me of something
This is a piece I've only seen on an "AP" page and is a companion piece to an article on the mythologization (I think the word he uses is "Disneyfication") of Lincoln at the new Presidential Library & Museum in Springfield IL.
The story I quote from here is a more general piece on how the presidency and Presidents all get mythologized both as individuals and the office in general. Worth reading in its entirety but here's the part that your words reminded me of. The authors of this one are Ted Anthony and Ron Fournier fwiw:
Obama's hardly the only candidate sifting through the presidency's DNA for the myths of 2008. Name most any presidential gene, and odds are it's already being cloned (though Chester A. Arthur's pool probably remains unplundered).
[snip]
John McCain is a latter-day Teddy Roosevelt, a swaggering, barrel-chested reformer in an era of societal transformation and cynicism toward public institutions. Mitt Romney, tall and handsome with a movie star's smile, likes to bask in Ronald Reagan's aura. Andy Jackson might appreciate Mike Huckabee's economic populism. At the same time, some mythologies might need a rest: As an unpopular Bush hobbles off into the sunset, no candidate this year is playing the cowboy.
[snip]
We've been spun to for generations, and it has hardened us into a nation of cynics who live in a time when "truthiness" has actually become a plausible notion. Because those weren't just advisers in Vietnam. Nixon was a crook. Clinton did have sexual relations with that woman. Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction. Brownie wasn't doing a heckuva job.
[snip]
The gospels of the presidency — the books of Weems, Sandburg and Manchester — are not odes to saints and gods. They may not be entirely facts, but neither are they entirely lies. They are eloquent, practical guidebooks to our culture — not quite "The American Presidency for Dummies," but road maps toward the goals we want our leaders to pursue and the values we want them to embody.
To take the measure of America in 2008, you need more than facts and figures and polls. To truly find its soul, you need to channel the American imagination, too. And on Election Day, whoever harnesses that power of mythology most adeptly has the best chance of becoming part of the myth.
Then, only reality can get in the way.
(I figure the Fair Use Fairy is less likely to notice that this snippage is a bit long if I hide it in comments.)
So I'm agreeing with you hit_escape (luv the nym btw)--whether you call it "playing the race and gender card" or "mythologizing," USians seem to be suckers for the Shining City on the Hill and Over the Rainbow and similar symbols to suggest that Things Arent' as Bad as They Seem, It's Always Darkest Before the Dawn* and Tomorrow Is Another Day (also high on the moronicity scale imho) and the like.
There is a place for the sob stories, if only to reassure people that they're not the only ones deep in the shit pool and that the existence of said pool raises the question of who built and maintained such an enclosure for so many people.
*Which btw always struck me as perhaps the stupidest line ever invented, although it beats the original proposal, "It's Always Brightest Just Before Sunset" which just made people snicker and point fingers at the speaker and nominate him for tribal jester.
CBS kicked him on the way out the door.
I actually heard a pollster on CBS say that night that "Edwards voters were more likely to say that the country wasn't ready for an African-American or female president." More likely than who? People who voted for an African American or a female? Brilliant. So if one person felt that way, that would be "more likely". They also used the "millionaire trial lawyer" prefix, made sure to mention that Edwards voters tended to be less educated, and in general seemed to be insulting his supporters as much as him.
Don't overlook the establishment and the money
Edwards was the always the outsider here. The media played a role here but they were not the only ones locking Edwards out. Follow the money. Obama is an exceptional person but he is probably an even more exceptional politician. He has been on the fast track with big Democratic donors and lobbyists for years. Think Nike and a 16 year old Andre Agassi.
We are left with two establishment candidates after Edwards dropped out. I personally think the insiders of the Democratic party ruled out Edwards from the beginning. This started as a contest between Hillary and Obama (the anti-Hillary). Call me cynical but I think it was over for Edwards before it even started. Obama started out with a big leg up from Daschle, Durbin and it just went up from there.
The DLC cut out Edwards....
And did Kennedy just recently decide to endorse?
Here are a few more articles for those interested:
Teacher and Apprentice
Obama's K Street Project
Barack Obama Inc.: The birth of a Washington machine
The Return of Tom Daschle: Former senate leader offers Obama guiding hand - and possibly more
His record had nothing to do with it?
There are/were obviously a lot of reasons why JE never caught fire. How can his voting record not be considered in this analysis? His votes while Senator were not at all reflective of his positions as a candidate. I know that he disavowed those votes and I know that he repped a conservative state and those are definitely mitigating factors. But still...
At the end of the day, it was Jon's record as a Senator that basically undercut any advantage, ideologically and policy wise he had against Obillary. Those votes, on bankruptcy bill, the war etc.. were just enough to make Jon not a slam dunk. Then he is left competing with a massive fundraising disadvantage, a massive "personal reflection of societal change (not black or female)" deficit and simply doesn't have that overwhelming policy or intent advantage.
The Senate record/The Cheney debate?
I was a longtime Edwards supporter, and while I agree he got a raw deal from the media, I think it may be more complicated than that--in the media-savvy (read: *aware* the media's trying to screw Democrats over) netroots, Obama got--and gets--a lot of support.
I think Edwards' Iraq vote played a role. Even though he apologized for it, if Iraq was a very important issue to you, you might be inclined to go with Obama.
I also think Edwards' record in the Senate vs. Obama's in the state Senate came into play--Obama can point to that bill about videotaping confessions everyone thought would be impossible to pass. Politics isn't just a game of "what can you do for me now?," it's "what did you do for me earlier?" Edwards needed to highlight his achievements/progessive proposals from the Senate years more (starting with his defending Bill Clinton in the impeachment trial, perhaps?) and draw a straighter line from then and now. And he did have a more conservative voting record back then.
Finally, when I was trying to persuade an Obama friend to come over to the Edwards side back in May, he pointed out that he had wanted Edwards to tear Cheney apart in '04, and Edwards hadn't. A little thing, maybe, and perhaps the Kerry campaign is to blame there, but that could have had an impact.
A few additions to the
A few additions to the litany above...
1) Edwards' voting record was a problem. I loved Edwards' rhetoric, but I could never entirely trust him.
2) Single-payer will remain a political non-starter until we get behind it and push. This is a matter of moving the Overton Window
. If the wingnuts can make torture acceptable to bipartisan majorities of both Houses of Congress, surely we can sell single-payer. I consider Edwards failure to embrace it an enormous failure of nerve and a huge missed opportunity to make single-payer viable.
3) Edwards was a terrible match for Kerry. I'm not sure who could have done well on the bottom end of a Kerry ticket, but Edwards didn't work and was utterly misused by his running mate. That Cheney debate was horrible, but the core problem was the partnership that never worked. One wonders whether Edwards would have done better this year if someone else had lost the Vice Presidency for the Democrats in 2004.
4) Edwards' Southerness hurt him enormously among many Northeasterners. I cannot tell you the number of conversations I've had over the last four plus years with people who essentially don't trust him because of his accent.
That's a good point - I didn't trust him for a while.
His record in the Senate is the reason it took me so long to come around to supporting him. Too long. It wasn't just the war - he was pretty DLC in those days. But he made a very sharp break from them in '04.
Disappointing post and comments
Edwards, who I support, made several mistakes in addition to evil media and being Wasp.
- His campaign team was not professional. Campaigns are run by cutthroats; his team was headed by congressman Bonior - a thoughtful progressive with a mild demeanor. Not what you need. Trippi is a trip; again he was not a smart choice.
- Edwards was not very good in talking with each group in its own language. Obama, for instance, is a salamander and relates to every group as if he is part of the group (never mind the contradiction - the cult members never suspects St. Obama).
- Edwards joining Obama in attacking Hillary was a grave mistake. It made him a second banana and that is awful and, in my view, demeaning.
- Then there is the Obama factor. After adapting many of Edwards ideas, Obama with his multi-speak; progressive believe that he is progressive, independent believe that he is close to them and not much of a Democrat, the educated (but not very savvy in my view) believe that he is a very sexy (as in appealing) candidate and centrists, for a good reason, know that he is one of them; overshadowed Edwards. After all, he was a genuine and single tone.
- Edwards also couldn't and wouldn't use the racist card the way Obama employed it to great success against Hillary. What could he say that Wasps are discriminated against?
- Now we get to the Netroots. Well, many of them, including those who wrote weeping obituaries to Edwards withdrawal, were worshiping Obama more than your suicide bomber does. Actually, TPM, Matt Yg., HuufPo and others were not much different than the MSM, except they didn't talk about his hair cut.
The meaning of this primary election
It can, I think, be argued that Edwards failed not because his message was too challenging or too transformative, but precisely because he himself was not radical enough. For all his presumed earnestness he is still a rich middle-aged white man, and we’ve had a long run of those that brought us to the unhappy circumstance we have today. The withdrawal of Edwards means an unequivocal opening up of the Presidency of the United States to people of color and to women, and that reality is more radical and more profoundly progressive than any set of proposed economic or social policies ever could be.
I’ll not be mournful of Edwards. He’s a young man (from my aged perspective) who will have plenty of opportunity to show that his recent populist, progressive commitments are real; if he does so convincingly he will have another opportunity for the Presidency, and a better chance at reaching it than he did in this cycle. Meantime, as Carter and Gore have shown us, people of good will can have great influence for the common good outside of political office; Edwards has the same opportunity.
With Obama and Clinton as the two remaining Democrats, which ever of them wins the nomination and regardless of whether or not they actually are elected, the decidedly progressive, liberal objective of universal electoral democracy has been achieved. We are witness to an historic moment: for the first time in our country, the 65% of our population that is either female or non-Anglo can realistically aspire to our highest electoral office. That we as a nation have managed at last to overcome the prejudice that eliminated from consideration the talent and ability in two-thirds of our population is a major achievement, a progressive moment that stands in triumphant condemnation of the bigotry of the past.
If it is true that Edwards’ exclusion is in large measure due to the machinations of the power elite and their MSM manipulators, they have in my estimation hastened their own demise. Until this primary, women and people of color have, however grudgingly, accepted that they could not successfully compete. Those days are over, they will never return, and if the MSM helped make it so then I must, derisively, tip my hat in thanks.
In all honesty I did not think that I would live to see this day. On reflection, I am more than anything encouraged and hopeful for the future.
A Chicano Perspective on the Edwards Campaign
I am the Chief-Jefe of the Chicano Veterans Organization located here in the Sonoran Desert, and I found the Edwards Campaign somewhat "out to lunch" in that his senior advisers were not up to snuff for their lack of any attempt to accomplish the requisite 'wrap around' of the Spanish-speaking communities throughout America.
By way of background, I endorsed John Edwards as "my candidate".
And here is my endorsement statement for your consideration:
________
Put me down for the John Edwards column
When the Super Tuesday Presidential Primaries arrive into my neighborhood, I will be voting for John Edwards. Thus, be so advised.
And why?
I want the opportunity in future years to advocate my issues and to a candidate, that if elected, is not wedded to the 'establishment'. So, to put it in today's context, permit to explain my reasoning in much greater detail. And being the infernal Optimist that I am, elections are all about Hope.
1. My Issues:
Languages. I am of the belief that if our children don't commence learning and simultaneously, English, Spanish, and Portuguese from Kindergarden foward, our children will not become globally competitive, and in particular, this Indigenous Hemisphere. To wit, we will continue to permit the 'nativists' to determine our future. However, none of the candidates--Edwards, Clinton, or Obama, share my view. And consequently, I have a long row to hoe in the years ahead for my advocacy, and pardon the agricultural metaphor.
Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns. Edwards is advocating such a systemic, and in which I agree wholeheartedly. Thus, a positive checkmark for Edwards.
Academic-Military Draft. Given that none of the candidates, Edwards, Clinton and Obama support a military draft, their opposition is the traditional position of the Democratic Party. Thus, opportunity abounds for me. Consequently, Edwards will have to be convinced and which will take considerable effort in the years ahead. And to do so, the "door opening" exists given his determination to address poverty in an innovative manner. As such, the Academic-Military Draft addresses both national security and poverty directly, without any fluffiness or puffery embedded.
Universal Health Care rolled-into the VA's Medical Systemic. When it comes to the politics of universal health care, Edwards, Clinton, and Obama are determined to accept the insurance industry as the continuation for being the driving force for the 'economic' component of health care. Sadly, it's that economic component that overrides the 'political' component, and to our detriment. Consequently, my advocacy in the years ahead is to convince Edwards on his support for the notional that Congress has the "responsibility" to pay for universal health care and it's the President's responsibility to craft the "Basic Package" of Medical Goods and Services, that each of our fellow citizens will receive.
And with respect to my Four Issues, currently, Edwards is in agreement with me regarding Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns. With the remaining three, we are still at odds, but perfection in politics is neither desirable nor achievable.
2. The requisite "authenticity":
Edwards, will, at the end of the political day, be recognized as a candidate of "power" and to me that is important. And if this power is utilized competently and wisely, Edwards will be able to accomplish far more than either Clinton or Obama. Additionally, Edwards has the determination and skill set to bring the Republican senators in Congress forward for Progress.
Clinton, will, at the end of the political day, be recognized as the Democratic Party's "establishment" candidate and will adhere to the standard operating proceedure where money is the overriding factor for any level of "influence" when it comes to addressing particularized issues. And as Chicanos, we are not overly wealthy and we have very little in the way of discretionary income to compete effectively with the sharp elbows of competition.
Obama, will, at the end of the political day, be recognized as the candidate that best represents the new horizon for the "second generation" to paraphrase President Lyndon Johnson when he signed the Civil Rights Act and all the legislation that followed. He is a unifying figure, and of that I have no doubt, but "personality" does not provide competent attention to particularized and important issues. Historically, Chicano politics has been predicated on personalities of leadership, but as a community of self-interest, we must remain wedded to our issues, and accept nothing less no matter how tempting it would be to participate in a poltical behavior for personality.
And finally, there is much good to be said about both Clinton and Obama. However, there is much good to be said about Edwards, as well. Thusly, Edwards has now become "my candidate".
And in closing, the Chicano Veterans Organization will not provide an "institutional" endorsement for any candidate, but on a personal note, I will and now do so.
Jaango--posted on January 16, 2008
________
Now, I posted this endorsement here at Corrente for the sole purpose of a discussion on Universal Health Care. To wit, I advocated that UHC could best be accomplished by "rolling" it into the VA's Medical and Hospital Systemic. As such, the "basic package" of the medical "goods and services" would be the responsibility of the Executive Branch and Congress would be tasked with creating the financial schematic to make sure the bills were paid in a timely manner. And in doing so, the Republicans in both the House and Senate, would have a difficult time defending their historical status quo.
Additionally, the advantage of UHC conducted by the VA, would create a new political nexus in America in which the low-income, seniors and military vets would become effective participants in order to protect their health care. Thus, a boon and a reinvigoration to the overall Democratic electoral effort, and for many years to come.
Of course, Edwards and his senior advisers were already wedded to their 'half-step' for health care. And Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are following and not leading on UHC. In constrast, I anticipate that Senator John McCain will achieve his Party's nomination, and if so, he will cater and pander to America's military vets and military retirees, as he did in South Carolina. Of course, if the Democratic candidate cannot break this "lock" that McCain has, success in the General Election will be difficult for our Party's nominee.
And lest we all forget, military vets and military retirees kept McCain afloat politically despite the lack of monies, since McCain has captured the American Legion and the VFW, and the Democrats are unwilling or not cognizant of this splendid opportunity found within this demographic
segmentation.
Of course, I am a Digby reader, and she does not have her reply apparatus operating, and so I am posting here.
Respectfully Submitted
on the Southern white guy thing:
That actually was a plus, because people thought he was less liberal than he really was (just as they think Obama and Clinton are more liberal than they really are simply by looking). And that would helped fight the whole demonizing of liberals thing that happens all the time because the country wouldn't see him as liberal as much as others. And us Northeasterners know that only Southern white guys get to be Democratic Presidents--northern ones don't, and sitting Senators don't either. Much of the South won't vote for Northerners, and demand Southerners on the ticket--and we need 50 state strategies.
I hope to God he doesn't endorse either Clinton or Obama (altho his "backbone" comment in his speech was definitely a warning, i think). I'm still voting for Edwards on Tues here in NYC and want him to keep getting delegates, and hope (but don't think they'll hear) that the party takes notice that people still wanted more than just 2 poor choices.
The voting record mattered
I know labor people who are either for Obama or Clinton who distrusted Edwards for his failure to do any lifting to repeal Right to Work in N.C. Someone posted here a week or two ago that the Labor movement would bear a heavy responsibility for not backing Edwards. But this is the other side to that coin. Incidentally, the Chicago Tribune had an article today how one of the Maytag unions in Illinois that Obama likes to talk about is endorsing Hillary because he hasn't done anything for them
Johnny came lately, and while he sounded real good, there were those who didn't and wouldn't trust him. So, he was never the no-brainer choice his strongest supporters might have wished he was, though I am sorry to see him out.
Edwards never was a no-brainer, true
But I always thought he articulated the problem correctly: overweening corporate power.
I don't see that from either Hillary or Obama--but with seemingly the entire Village
hopping aboard the Unity
Pony
, I know which candidate the Village
thinks will serve their interests better. That's the lesson of Obama's latest travesty of progressive positions, Harry and Louise ads. The OFB
keeps saying that Obama will turn progressive later, when it's possible, but come on: What kind of leadership and "change you can believe in" is that?
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Bullshit Obituary
You know, that's really just bullshit. I didn't quote what follows either, but that was even worse. The media blackout of John Edwards really did account for almost all of why his candidacy failed.
So you don't think I'm saying John Edwards is without flaws, here are his two biggest mistakes, as I see it:
-His career up until about 2007 was horrid. It really does require a leap of faith on our part to believe he's changed like he says he did. I probably believed he did, but he's a politician with a hideous record, all the same.
-I think he focussed too much on "poverty." From a moral standpoint, that's a good thing. From a tactical standpoint, it's a bad thing. Elections are generally won and lost on the backs of the middle class (and young people are making a strong turnout this year). The political interests of the poor and middle class are almost exactly the same, but it's a sad fact of life that the middle class doesn't realize it. "Poverty" means poor black people taking my hard earned money with their color TVs and cadillacs. That's what "poverty" means to most Americans, and it's a tactical mistake to talk about the poor when you could have been talking about the middle class.
Those were the two biggest problems with John Edwards. And yet that accounts for maybe 10% of why his candidacy failed. The other 90% was the media blackout.
Hollow promises ...
Those were the two biggest problems with John Edwards. And yet that accounts for maybe 10% of why his candidacy failed. The other 90% was the media blackout.
More than 10% surely. Steve Clemons had a post (can't find the link, sorry) on Edwards and all the 'monsters' he swore he would 'kill' once he is at the WH. Kill, kill, kill was the motto. Perhaps we should give a little bit more credit to "the people" here. In this case, their verdict on Edwards obviously was BS!
An interesting take here.
Ah, the few and far between monsters
Good to know they're not of concern.
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
About those monsters ...
Not that they are not of concern, Lambert. It's just the way he was going on about it, it did not sound genuine, did it? Populism may be good but the world has become a bit more complicated lately and unless you can back it up, it's just demagoguery. But let's say he was genuine. As the commentator noted above, he might have had good proposals to slay those monsters, but his record showed clearly if anything else that he lacked judgment to begin with. The moment he apologized for all that misjudgment, he had already lost.
As well, lacking in most evaluation that I have read on Edwards is the fact that he may have been playing in Clinton's backyard, when viewed from a neocon/progressive perspective. Remember that Clinton has to all intents and purposes secured Murdoch's backing (the Media?) while Edwards had that of the Herzliya crowd (make that Podhoretz and his ilk). One of them had to go. Murdoch wins this one.
Edwards repeated Dean's miscue: he came out
in front of The Flying Spaghetti Monster and everybody in favor of doing things to help the poorest Americans as well as the not-quite-poorest Americans.
Some of the things he saw the country as needing required that (gasp!) the NOT-poor Americans would have to pay their fair share of the burden, rather than merely reaping the benefit, of our common goods while pocketing bigger and bigger chunks of our gross national product.
The media may not have feared John Edwards, but they certainly couldn't afford to let him reach the White House. And since they'd already sabotaged Howard Dean with an incessant barrage of falsehood in 2004, they had to find another trick to fend off the next challenge. Hence the blackout on Edwards, whose passion and advocacy remain the truest Democratic ideals available. I quote the man:
But I do hear it. We hear it. This Democratic Party hears you. We hear you, once again. And we will lift you up with our dream of what's possible.
One America, one America that works for everybody.
One America where struggling towns and factories come back to life because we finally transformed our economy by ending our dependence on oil.
One America where the men who work the late shift and the women who get up at dawn to drive a two-hour commute and the young person who closes the store to save for college. They will be honored for that work.
One America where no child will go to bed hungry because we will finally end the moral shame of 37 million people living in poverty.
One America where every single man, woman and child in this country has health care.
One America with one public school system that works for all of our children.
One America that finally brings this war in Iraq to an end. And brings our service members home with the hero's welcome that they have earned and that they deserve.
I will be proud to vote for this man in the Texas primary.
He speaks for me.
We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0
1 John 4:18
I coudn't disagree with you more
Gene:
Well, if you don't think torturers and murderers by spreadsheet are monsters, the Kool-Aid must have been quite something. Ever hear of the banality of evil?
Re Edwards:
I've written this comment before, so I won't say it again. In short form:
Obama starts out OK, and now is sliding right as fast is he can. That's bad judgment.
Edwards started out green in DC, and took awhile to suss out the bullshit. When he did, he moved progressive. That's good judgment.
Give me the man who grows and changes in the right direction. The arc of history bends toward justice, and that plays out in individual lives.
As far as populism not being appropriate for a complex world. Granting, arguendo, the appropriateness of the word, the world of the Gilded Age and the Robber Barons was pretty complex. It's the worst form of presentism to think that all our problems are new.
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Just make it stop!
Yes, he did, I agree, but it wasn't enough, and not enough of the people who might have agreed with him heard the message.
We have to face that. How are you going to advance that message in the teeth of an administration that won't be naturally friendly to it?
Does it even matter if Clinton or Obama is president? I am still thinking I'll toss a coin to decide my vote on Tuesday. When I think of policy differences I lean Clinton. When I think about electability I lean Obama - especially after Bill's not-so-excellent weekend.
Each candidate has strengths and weaknesses, and at this point, all I can say is "Just make it stop!". I'm sick of thinking about it. It is not in the cards to get a president who articulates opposition to overweening corporate power so we'll have to find another way to move the Overton Window
to the left.
One possible way to get optimistic that maybe we're being too pessimistic. Realize that either Dem knows that when he/she gets in, opposition to overweening corporate power can be a popular position and that playing the card may be a good move. They won't play it as consistently as Edwards would have, but it's a weapon in the arsenal, especially when they get into trouble. I see nothing to indicate that overweening corporate power is more popular today than four years ago and much to indicate that it's less so.
But we have opponents and they are not beaten yet. That's our job.
Reversion toward the mean
Also known as "If something cannot go on forever, it will stop."
A situation where Bill Kristol, Ted Kennedy, Paul Volcker, and the surviving members of the Grateful Dead are all in support of a single candidate is unique in my experience. It seems that a large part of the country is engaged in "creating its own reality" in the form of a government of national unity, or in the form of projecting their deepest desires onto a blank slate (the oratory is virulent exactly because it is so vacuous).
One could argue that anybody who's in the know, especially in financial matters, is shitting their pants, and Obama seems like the only way out, and especially the only way out that doesn't involve accountability. If so, the competing interests will come into play again soon enough. (Was Obama's rightward slide on Social Security a dog whistle to Moody's? I'm guessing yes.)
Or one could argue that if Obama wins the nomination, our famously free press will start taking the view that elections are a mere formality, because the problems are so great they need to be solved now. The bond market picks up the phone, Bush and Cheney resign, Pelosi takes over, invites Obama into her cabinet, gives him a leadership role while he's still running....
Or one could argue that movements like Obama's -- charismatic figure at the head, dedicatedMR SUBLIMINAL Rabid fans following, and everybody jockeying for position in the new order of things -- rarely end well. One thinks... Oh, of Germany in the 30s. Weimar, I hasten to add.
Or one could see everything through the lens of two political dynasties in conflict, like the Bourbons and Napoleon III. That doesn't bode well for a Constititutional outcome.
I have to say I'm with VL. If the situation is as bad as I think it's going to be, I want somebody vetted and tested at the helm. That can only be Hillary. And I don't give a shit what anyone says, Bill Clinton's comments weren't racist. If he's one of the people around Hillary -- do we even know who Obama's inner circle is, besides Axelrod and Joe Lieberman? -- that can only be a good thing.
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Fury like a woman scorned
When it comes to putting a hurt on Bill Kristol and his VRWC
buddies and coming down hard on the consolidated corporatist media, I’m persuaded that vengeance will be a stronger motivation for Hillary than will be the love-fest Obama is getting. The Revenge of Hillary is to me a more appealing prospect than Obama’s proposed cuddling, and fear of Hillary may be why so many like Kristol are pushing for him.
(Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned / Nor hell a fury like a woman scorned. "The Mourning Bride" (1697) by William Congreve)
My theories...
I think the most important reason Edwards lost is that he told the truth, and it was an uncomfortable truth the media didn't want to hear. So they froze him out. Edwards was too honest about the reality of conflict with the right, and rich corporations, being necessary if any progressive gains were to be made; he was too honest about needing a spine to stand up to them and fight; this is something that the media would rather not touch on. It really scared them. They are much more comfortable with the nonthreatening "bipartisan" Democrats who agree to do whatever the right tells them, such as agreeing recently to Republicans' desire for tax cuts to help avert a recession. That generated a ton of approving media opinion about Congress' wonderful "bipartisanship."
The media does not do well with uncomfortable truths. It does not do well with standing up to conservatives itself. It took them years to admit that Bush had lied about Iraq... and that they'd failed to call him on it. Edwards' style is not theirs; their style is to submit to conservative power. His message runs against their grain.
On top of all that, Edwards also had far less money than Obama and Clinton, because he decided to go for public financing instead of PAC and corporate money. But I think he was right to do it.
I think there were a number
I think there were a number of reasons (some stated above, including the media blackout) why he never caught on. The trust issue was a big factor, no doubt, as well as the contradiction between his votes and his record and what he was saying this election. And the accent thing.
What I find strange is that he never connected with Black voters (or any other non-white constituency, that I am aware of). For a Southerner, that is just strange, in my experience. With Black voters he consistently polled in the single digits and as far as I can tell neither he nor his supporters (for the most part) ever tried to find out why.
Trippi might want to try and figure it out before he signs on for another campaign... from what I recall, Dean also only connected with a fairly narrow, primarily white constituency.
I know this would be evil to say, but...
"He mentions the 16th president in almost every speech; when critics charge that Obama is raw and overly ambitious, he notes that both he and Lincoln were inexperienced, little-known Illinois politicians when they set sights upon the White House."
... would that mean, sir, you intend to preside over a country torn by civil war, caused by regional economic rifts and racial hatred, which would require the cessation of the frayed Constitutional rights we're trying to preserve through civilized means?
But, that'd be wrong.
Anonymous coward: "Wrong" is not the same as "inaccurate." n/t
We can admit that we're killers ... but we're not going to kill today. That's all it takes! Knowing that we're not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0
We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0
1 John 4:18
wordy mcword, Sarah.
And I hate playing the Lincoln card, don't I just, but dammit I'm tired of these neo-Straussian head fakes and emotional manipulations substituting for cogent policy proposals that can be just as stirring and fiery -- because people know when they're hearing the truth about their lives.
Has anyone done research on whether Mr. or Mrs. Obama resemble Mr. and Mrs. Smith, in having some University of Chicago Straussian training on participatory democracy assassination? Cause a girl doesn't get to be a V.P. of U. Chi. without being in step with one or two professors and donors....
[cgeye]
that Lincoln guy--he was a fighter, i believe? ; >
one who took our country to war? (altho i guess it was all for "unity", and not ending the horrors of slavery or Southern insanity, or ...)
No matter how you flip the coin
... it always has another side.
lambert, I can, and have, as you may remember, argued every side of this. I make the case for Hillary to friends (long time progressives) besotten with Obama and I can do the reverse. I was, two or three weeks ago, in the approximate position you are occupying now - I merely abandoned hope that Edwards had a chance of winning earlier than you did (while I still planned to vote for him on Tuesday while he was in the race). I proclaimed Hillary my second choice over Obama, for all the reasons you cite.
And yet, now I'm not so sure. There is this nagging issue called electability. Clinton starts with heavy negatives. Obama doesn't but he hasn't been severely tested. I don't think Bill Clinton was stoking racist passions, but I don't really know what the fuck he thought he was doing. I'll chalk the remarks about Jesse Jackson to stupidity and/or fatigue. Still, they hurt the cause.
And so we're left with Hillary Clinton with a more progressive platform and a proven(?) deficit in electability (by poll numbers - but explain her New York Senatorial campaigns then) - and Barack Obama making all these dog whistles to the right - though fairness compels me to add that in the debate last night he convinced me he's serious about repealing the Bush tax cuts - and an inspirational quality that won't quit - but also the skeletons in his closet haven't been fully aired.
I literally can't find a reason to vote for either that I can't trump in my own head with a counter-reason for the other one.
I THINK I may be leaning to Obama now -- but check back in five minutes.
Which leads me to the Overton window.
The question is HOW you move it. Is it the President who moves it or the other forces acting in society. I don't want to say "zeitgeist" because that's too mystical. But let me say this. Ronald Reagan did not shove the Overton window right. It was the 30 year well-financed campaign of movement conservativism that did that. Reagan occupied the seat and gave a few well-timed shoves that might have helped the cause.
Did George W. Bush shove the O.W. further to the right - or was it all the work done by PNAC and the Religious Right over the years? Sure, he pushed the window hard, harder than prudence would allow, and seemed to get away with it in 2004, but hasn't that fueled the leftwing counterpush more than the right at this point? I would have to answer yes. Where would we be today if Bush had decided to leave Terri Schiavo and Social Security alone. Perhaps in a worse place.
Did FDR shove the OW to the left? He sure helped, but he would never have been successful if there weren't strong movements on his left that he could be seen as coopting to some extent.
So I'm thinking that the Overton Window
will be moved not so much by the President as by the various and sundry manifestations of "the people". Hillary may be a fighter, but would she have people fighting with her? Obama may not be as much of a fighter, but would he have the sense to go along with a populistic fight that develops outside of him? I'll answer that with a resounding maybe.
Gotta run now to shovel snow. See you on the barricades.
Oh and what the fuck is this, Corrente? Did you dumb down the math questions? 33 + 1? cmon!!! I need my daily mental arithmetic workout.
You answer your own question, stivo
You write:
And the Conservatives who are jumping ship from the Republican Party in the search of a new front organization that will keep the cocktail wienies coming, and maybe even start talking their talkin points, which campaign are they joining? Why would that be, I wonder?
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
BREAKING: Calvin Coolidge's wetnurse's great-great-grandniece
twice removed just endorsed Obama!
Daily Kos is Daily Obama now, and way too many endorsement diaries--the "new kind of politics","future, not the past" guy seems to be wrapping himself entirely in both Dem and GOP establishment figures.
Edwards had his chance in the Senate and as candidate
And he didn't take it. He was repudiating his positions in the Senate throughout this campaign. And then when he had a opportunity on the ticket as Vice President, he didn't introduce us to this current incarnation of him. So the fault was with Edwards. He found his religion too late...after too many of us were disappointed with his lack of consistency...the fact is, he made no mark in the Senate in 6 years. The fact is, he did not stand out in the run for the 2004 Presidency nor particularly as vice president. People took that into consideration. And they didn't trust him for it.
Edwards' may have been authentic this time around...and for those he convinced of that...his failure to ignite this Presidential race..is certainly disappointing. But his strategy of attacking Hillary and bonding with Obama also revealed a political expediency that damaged his credibility...because it was not true that Obama and he were more alike than Hillary and he.
So Edwards lost...and gained no traction...because he couldn't be trusted. He had not shown good judgment in the past...even the recent past when he elevated attacking Hillary over questioning the new prince Obama...thus leaving Obama on an undeserved pedestal. This was not noble. And this did nothing to move his principles to higher ground.
Worse, by omission, he buoyed Obama without ever attacking Obama's underlying assumptions about post partisanship and his non universal health plan.
Edwards was a hypocrite. That's why he lost traction.
To Lambert
Lambert, I think you should read this. Maybe you won't change your mind. Maybe you will. But at least you won't be able to say that you didn't know.
On Edwards vs Clinton
Lily, two observations about your comment above.
Re. Edwards' VP trip: To be fair, according to Steve Clemons, it was Kerry & the party at that time that told him to put a lid on his populist discourse, the "Two Americas" thing and all. Still, that Edwards did not put up a fight does say something about his character: wimp, opportunist, lack of moral fibre, etc.
Re. His propping up of Obama. That just confirms the theory that he was indeed playing in Clinton's backyard. Someone at Booman's mentioned how much Clinton seemed to be cringing from him during the debates and how much she seemed genuinely to dislike him. She knew the game he was playing but could not mention it because she would be outing herself. Indeed, at that point in the process, Edwards was more dangerous to her than Obama, especially as Edwards was starting to get traction according to the polls. Yes, Edwards WAS going after Clinton and in the process elevating Obama, but NOT because he was more like Obama. Quite the contrary!
Words that confuse
Your point is not made. What remains is some convoluted theory about Edwards being in Clinton's backyard..while the neophyte Obama wanders free in the pasture. Try simple declarative statements so I can understand why Obama is above it all and doesn't merit the same examination of his principles and practices. Obama is a product of rough Chicago politics. He had fundraising that matched Clinton's from the get go.(although I suspect that to raise that much money so soon, something was afoot...by whom I don't know) So I'm not sure of the point you are making.
Edwards reinforced an Obama as reformer image although there is little substance to confirm that assessment. This failure to dig deeper reflects Edwards self consciousness about his own failures as a reformer when he actually had some power as a US Senator and as a VP candidate. He could have pushed back against the adviser advice given to Kerry. He could have gone on the attack with a message other than the two Americas. But the fact is, he remained invisible...and passionless. That was a lacking in him. And that less than exemplary past dogged him into this race. Making other excuses for it is just weak.
Bottom line...had he attacked Obama on real concerns instead of Clinton, he might have won some primaries. But he failed to abide by principle...and his tactics cratered.
To Gene...
Pepsi... Coke. Or do you think Obama wants 100,000 more troops as part of a program of outdoor recreation?
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Right you are!
Lambert, at least we agree on this. It IS a Pepsi/Coke thing. The way I see it: It's a question of picking the one with the potential to do less damage.