Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Behind the Edwards Surge: Right Message at the Right Time

By John Nichols, The Nation. Posted December 28, 2007.


The anti-corporate message of the Edwards campaign has hit a nerve.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by John Nichols

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Much was made of Illinois Senator Barack Obama's superb speech to a huge crowd of Iowa Democrats at the mid-November Jefferson-Jackson Day dinner in Des Moines. Without a doubt, it helped to propel Obama ahead of New York Senator Hillary Clinton in polls conducted in the weeks after the event.

But Obama's speech in November may not turn out to be the definitional statement of the fight for Iowa.

What could turn out to be the most critical comment of the campaign came from John Edwards in the last debate between the Democratic contenders -- and the former senator from North Carolina may well claim the caucus-night victory that is the reward for delivering the right message at the right time.

It wasn't a great rhetorical flourish. It wasn't even a new statement. Rather, it was a particularly pointed and effective restatement of the core anti-corporate message of his campaign.

But it came precisely when Iowa Democrats were getting serious about the caucuses. And it gave Edwards the boost he needed to get back in the competition -- and, he is, very much in the competition now.

No serious observer of the December 13 debate in Des Moines doubted that the standout performance, and the standout message, was that of Edwards.

Indeed, undecided voters assembled in focus groups that watched the debate for the major television networks rated Edwards off the charts. That's going to help the 2004 Democratic nominee for vice president as the Iowa caucuses approach. Despite the intense focus on the campaigns of New York Sen. Hillary Clinton and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, most polls suggest that Edwards is very much in the running in Iowa. And rightly so.

To a far greater extent than Obama or Clinton, Edwards has struck at the heart of issues that should matter most in the race to replace not just George W. Bush, but the Bush agenda of corporate giveaways, job-crushing free trade deals, war profiteering in Iraq, and subprime mortgage profiteering in Indiana, Idaho, Illinois and, yes, Iowa.

Edwards summed up his increasingly aggressive and powerful anti-corporate themes with a declaration: "What makes America America is at stake: jobs, the middle class, health care, preserving the environment in the world for future generations.

"But all those things are at risk. And why are they at risk? Because of corporate power and corporate greed in Washington, D.C. And we have to take them on. You can't make a deal with them. You can't hope that they're going to go away. You have to actually be willing to fight. And I want every caucus-goer to know I've been fighting these people and winning my entire life. And if we do this together, rise up together, we can actually make absolutely certain, starting here in Iowa, that we make this country better than we left it."


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: edwards, election08

John Nichols is The Nation's Washington correspondent.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
EDWARDS FOR PRESIDENT
Posted by: Tom Degan on Dec 28, 2007 1:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the Democrats know what's good for them (that's the trouble with these idiots - they neever do), they'll quicly get behind an Edwards candidacy. Every poll has him beating - easily - every potential Republican challenger. Every poll has Hillary Clinton losing handily. Now, based on that knowledge, who do you think these stupid fucking Democrats are about to hand the nomination to?

Wake up Dems! I know! I know! You want to see a woman in the White House. Of course you do and so do I. It's going to happen in our lifetime, I'm sure of it. But I am also dead sure of this: It's not going to be that woman.

How is this going to look in our history books?

1. Washington
2. Adams
3. Jefferson
4. Madison
5. Monroe
6. Adams
7. Jackson
8. Van Bueren
9. Harrison
10. Tyler
11.Polk
12. Taylor
13. Fillmore
14. Peirce
15. Buchanan
16. Lincoln
17. Johnson
18. Grant
18. Hayes
20. Garfield
21. Arthur
22. Cleveland
23. Harrison
24. Cleveland
25. McKinley
26. Roosevelt
27. Taft
28. Wilson
29. Harding
30. Coolidge
31. Hoover
32. Roosevelt
33. Truman
34. Eisenhower
35. Kennedy
36. Johnsom
37. Nixon
38. Ford
39. Carter
40. Reagan
41. Bush
42. Clinton
43. Bush
44. Clinton

Do you get my point?

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY.
"The Rant" by Tom Degan

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: DWARDS FOR PRESIDENT Posted by: Sissy
» RE: DWARDS FOR PRESIDENT Posted by: Tom Degan
» RE: DWARDS FOR PRESIDENT Posted by: seenaymah
» RE: DWARDS FOR PRESIDENT Posted by: Sissy
» RE: DWARDS FOR PRESIDENT Posted by: Tom Degan
» RE: DWARDS FOR PRESIDENT Posted by: Sissy
» RE: DWARDS FOR PRESIDENT Posted by: progressiveview
» RE: DWARDS FOR PRESIDENT Posted by: zorro
» RE: DWARDS FOR PRESIDENT Posted by: Doubtom
» I'll say it again!!! Posted by: dsmidiman
» RE: I'll say it again!!! Posted by: peacefullaim
» RE: DWARDS FOR PRESIDENT Posted by: zeek2
» Liberals don't get it Posted by: Philip Newton
» RE: Liberals don't get it Posted by: Jas1317
» RE: Liberals don't get it Posted by: Philip Newton
» RE: Liberals don't get it Posted by: Sissy
» RE: Liberals don't get it Posted by: Philip Newton
» More myth making...... Posted by: CatDad
» RE: More myth making...... Posted by: Philip Newton
» RE: More myth making...... Posted by: CatDad
» Gay Republicans Posted by: Prairie Waif
» RE: Gay Republicans Posted by: CatDad
» RE: Liberals don't get it Posted by: hagwind
» RE: Liberals don't get it Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: Liberals don't get it Posted by: Basenjis
» RE: Liberals don't get it Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: Liberals don't get it Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: Liberals don't get it Posted by: Philip Newton
» You said it better Posted by: Philip Newton
» RE: DWARDS FOR PRESIDENT Posted by: RobbieUMD
» RE: EDWARDS FOR PRESIDENT Posted by: progressivegrannie
Edwards Rocks!
Posted by: Pirate1 on Dec 28, 2007 1:40 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My heart is with Dennis Kucinich's message but I know he hasn't got the charisma necessary to win the nomination so my primary vote will be for Edwards. We can't really afford anything less if we hope to have a habitable planet in fifty years.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Where *IS* Dennis? Posted by: Prairie Waif
» RE: dwards Rocks! Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: dwards Rocks! Posted by: zeek2
treez
Posted by: kam on Dec 28, 2007 1:41 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Edwards 'surge' IS a reality here on the ground in Iowa. We have been pretty sure all along that this would be the case, but have been very discouraged by the high poll numbers of both Clinton and Obama since the early summer.

Keen historical observers of Iowa Dem caucusers had figured that Hillary wouldn't make much in the way of inroads with the party regulars, as she was seen as being 'unelectible' by so very many -- so the feeling is strong that a lot of the previous polling has been driven by the 'let's vote for the popular one'-push-push-push from the main stream media -- and therefore her numbers are much more 'soft' than the MSM is trying so hard to make us believe.

So, HA!, to all of that. John Edwards has always had Iowa's 'heart', and that will once again be proven on Jan. 3rd. Oh, sure, Iowans may greatly enjoy 'playing the field' and flirting with the instense courtship that the Clinton and Obama campaigns have so relentlessly have been laying on us all. And, true, some have caved in and started to actually believe that the so-carefully scripted language of Hillary and Barack that comes out of their mouths must mean that they really, really do plan on carrying through with all those grand policy proposals.

But all it usually takes is one live Edwards event to convince them otherwise -- because John Edwards' words come not just from some speechwriter, but from deep in his heart. You can see it in his face, feel it in the room, and know it when he touches your hand. I've seen the 'transformation' happen with many people exactly that way.

Having gotten to know John and Elizabeth over the last five years has made me believe that this country needs him desperately, because more than any of the other candidates -- and Dodd, Richardson and Biden all get tips of the hat for their long careers that should have propelled all of them past Hillary and Obama from the get-go -- Edwards truly wants to change the direction of the country because he cares about people. American people. YOU people.

The needs of the citizens come first with John Edwards, and the belly-aching of the anti-regulation corporate world come last. We have become a nation where clean air and water, safe food and toys, fair elections and equal access to healthcare have been lost to the supposed 'self-regulation' of industry.

Don't be fooled -- a Clinton or Obama administration would carry on pretty much just like the one we have now when it comes to making the government work for The People.

An Edwards administration will never forget that the nation will grow and thrive only when its people can believe again that their government has their best interests at the top of the agenda.

The 'winning ticket' for November? Easy -- Edwards/Obama, Edwards/Dodd, Edwards/Biden, Edwards/Richardson -- take your pick.

But please, please, leave Hill/Bill out of it.

KAM, in Ames

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: treez Posted by: Tom Degan
» RE: treez Posted by: Lauren
» EXACTLY! Posted by: ordaj
» RE: treez Posted by: lisaisalefty
» RE: treez Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: treez Posted by: lisaisalefty
» RE: treez Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: treez Posted by: lisaisalefty
» RE: treez Posted by: lisaisalefty
» RE: treez Posted by: zorro
» RE: treez Posted by: zorro
» Zorro, Where IS Kucinich? Posted by: Prairie Waif
» RE: treez Posted by: zeek2
» RE: treez Posted by: zeek2
Edwards: our only hope
Posted by: Markson on Dec 28, 2007 1:50 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The press has everyone fooled into believing the Democratic contest is about Obama and Clinton, so called "judgment" versus "experience." That is bull. Both of these candidates are frauds. Clinton is...well...hopeless to put it gently. Yet Obama is the exact opposite of what he claims to be, in that his voting record is the same as Clinton's, especially on foreign policy. So much for "judgment."

Edwards is the only candidate who has not been afraid to lead on progressive issues, laying out specific policies that will work. This man will fight on behalf of us--and win.

Please, vote for this good man. Neither political image nor lineage will restore America. But John Edwards can.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: dwards: our only hope Posted by: Tom Degan
» RE: dwards: our only hope Posted by: warrior woman
» RE: Edwards: our only hope Posted by: hagwind
» RE: dwards: our only hope Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Good comment Posted by: CharliePatton
» RE: dwards: our only hope Posted by: bloggeddowninMKE
» RE: dwards: our only hope Posted by: zeek2
Et tu, Nichols???
Posted by: World Citizen on Dec 28, 2007 1:54 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What a shame -- that a really intelligent thinker and writer like John Nichols should fall prey to the message of the "anti-corporate, anti-poverty, anti-Iraq War" imposter, John Edwards, whose message is straight from the Dennis Kucinich campaign. You remember Kucinich -- the man that Gannett Newspapers and the AARP bumped from that debate that Nichols says was handily won by Edwards? You remember Kucinich -- the only member of Congress who actually went to work and wrote "Articles of Impeachment" that John Nichols discussed in his book, _The Genius of Impeachment_? You remember Kucinich -- the man who led 125 other House members to vote "NO" on the authorization for Bush to take us into an illegal war when John Edwards co-authored the bill? Kucinich -- the man who voted 100% against funding an illegal war while Edwards voted 100% for funding the invasion and occupation? What a sad day it is when the authentic candidate who has campaigned to repeal NAFTA, CAFTA, and withdraw from the WTO to rescue U. S. workers and small businesses from disaster; who has proposed the only "not-for-profit"/single-payer, universal healthcare plan; who has a clear 12-step plan for getting the U. S. out of Iraq -- is prevented from getting his message out because he refuses to accept corporate donations and stands up to corporate insurance companies like the AARP! Edwards is a man of many contradictions -- an ambitious charmer who has won the hearts of a public all too eager to embrace his appealing message but not willing to think beyond the "top three" corporately acceptable candidates. I'm dismayed that such a sensible man as John Nichols was swayed by such a contradictory candidate.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: t tu, Nichols??? Posted by: lisaisalefty
» RE: t tu, Nichols??? Posted by: Lauren
» THE SITUATION Posted by: zorro
» How about Edwards/Kucinich? Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» Actually, Kucinich is Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» See my SIMILAR Posts Above? Posted by: Prairie Waif
» RE: t tu, Nichols??? Posted by: texshelters
» RE: t tu, Nichols??? Posted by: peacefullaim
» RE: t tu, Nichols??? Posted by: biginJapan
» Hey, 'biginJapan' Posted by: fsuthai
» I give your post a 5 Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: t tu, Nichols??? Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: t tu, Nichols??? Posted by: Basenjis
» I'm afraid you are right Posted by: WhuThe?!?
Maybe now the media will be forced to acknowledge Edward's existence
Posted by: UnEasyOne on Dec 28, 2007 2:22 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But you can count on this: the corporate lackeys of the MSM will do everything possible to undermine him in every way possible.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Treez
Posted by: kam on Dec 28, 2007 4:19 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wait just a doggone minute! "... the only authentic candidate..." -- HUH??!!

Sorry, pal, but Dennis is most certainly NOT an 'authentic' candidate THIS time around, NO way!

The reason that's sooo E-Z to prove is the same exact one that the DM Register used to not 'qualify' him to be in their debate -- Dennis doesn't even have an OFFICE in the entire state of Iowa, let alone a STAFF!!

Now, last time, in '03, he DID -- I know because I gave Kucinich his very first event in the state in Feb., on the same day as he announced his candidacy, a house party in Ames that drew 75 very interested-in-him-in-advance folks, who were thrilled to have a chance to see and hear him up close. And after that he put together a state staff -- not very big, and not very well funded, but at least he actually showed up here and campaigned! Geez, I oughta know -- he kissed me three times during it.

But, you see, in 2007 dear Dennis has entirely taken this 'what-the-heck-are-you-thinkin'-Dennis??' silliness to his great disadvantage, as NONE of the people in that room are supporting him this time -- because he HAS NO CAMPAIGN!! No office, no staff, no nothin' -- nada. Just Dennis on a plane to events where he can get free media attention, like debates and forums, and somebody sending out e-mails, and that's just about it.

Is that clear enough for you, Bucky?

We are just scratching our heads here and laughing out loud at all of the 'controversy' surrounding the Register's not-hard decision that he didn't meet their criteria for inclusion in their debate -- because their 'decision' wasn't seen as a problem around here.

See, we all love Dennis to death -- but why he's playing around with being a 'candidate' this time is an absolute mystery to us, other than to serve his own ego. Look, he doesn't even attempt to make ANY campaign appearances here even -- not a one, that I'm aware of. If he WAS a 'serious' candidate, wouldn't he kinda need to actually 'show up' and campaign here in Iowa, hmmmm?

Most of those Iowans who supported Kucinich the last time have already committed to John Edwards for the '08 caucuses, with good reason, as Edwards is the only candidate who even comes close.

Grouse all you want, but Kucinich isn't an authentic candidate in this election cycle.

KAM, in Ames

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Treez Posted by: Lauren
Edwards can't win
Posted by: AGB100 on Dec 28, 2007 5:27 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Politics of Envy (Soak the Rich) won't resonate with the American people for long. Edwards represents the trial lawyers and Big Labor. Unfortunately for both INTEREST GROUPS, labor has been exported to China and India BECAUSE both labor and capital moves to where they get the most results: The BIGGEST BANG FOR THE BUCK. Basic economics proven by the efficiency of the markets. As for the trial lawyers, ask yourself why medical costs have risen to astronomical heights, and why, if you're a woman, you cannot get a gynecologist or find one through your insurance company.

While you're at it, ask your doctor.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Edwards can't win Posted by: patsy6
» RE: dwards can't win Posted by: Lauren
» RE: dwards can't win Posted by: Thucy
» Typical Repocon Talking Point Posted by: rgoalierob
» Everyone hates lawyers like Edwards... Posted by: hurricane hugo
» RE: There is no more BIG LABOR Posted by: JackieGiles
Corporate Cash
Posted by: dayenta on Dec 28, 2007 5:51 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Clinton is a Republican in drag. Obama is eloquent but vague, and hasn't made any policy statements that pique my interest. They both suck up the corporate cash like a couple of crack whores. So, to whom will they be beholden if elected? Edwards has raised millions WITHOUT taking corporate contributions. He was my choice anyway, but this just confirms it. Kucinich would make a fine vice president, so folks can get over the "image " problem, and elect him president next.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mr.
Posted by: Spock on Dec 28, 2007 6:30 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
AMAZING! Amazing hat so many people believe this latest charade passing as another election has so many believers, that is. It's like pro wrestling, I suppose - silly theatre for the dim-witted. I've been watching this nonsense for fifty years now, the same tired, hackneyed, and pseudo-political posturing and lies - all serving the corporations who OBVIOUSLY own government in the U.S. How in hell do you folks believe you can have representative government in the midst of 56,000 lobbyists, lobbysists in Washington for reasons do obvious? How can anything with a brain bigger than that of a mouse view our history since WW-2 and still doubt that we are "governed" by corporate military industrial complex? How (and why) do you think 20,000,000 illegal aliens from Mexico got here? Why do you think almost nothing is made in the U.S.? Why are literally millions of jobs being handed over to foreigners by corporations who still do business in the U.S.? How can they get away with that? How the hell can a people and electorate be so stupid (do you suppose a media owned by the same corporations might have something to do with it?)? "People have the government they deserve." Michel de Montaigne.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Mr. Posted by: Democritus
» RE: Mr. Posted by: lisaisalefty
» RE: Mr. Posted by: peacefullaim
» RE: Mr. Posted by: Theodore
» RE: Mr. Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: Mr. Doubtom Posted by: lisaisalefty
» RE: Mr. Doubtom Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: Mr. Doubtom Posted by: lisaisalefty
» RE: Mr. Doubtom Posted by: Doubtom
» Illegal Aliens?? Posted by: RedAaron
Sad state of American politics
Posted by: Democritus on Dec 28, 2007 6:38 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's face it: any Democratic nominee would be better than any Republican one. The GOP has put up a slate of the sorriest losers imaginable--from Mafia Rudy, to cross-kissing Mike, to reactionary Ron, to TV Fred, and to chameleon Mitt. That being said, why not vote in the primary for the best Democratic candidate for the country? At this point, I think that Edwards is second-best. The best being, on the basis of his actual stands and voting records, none other than Dennis Kucinich.

Even if you think Dennis won't win the nomination--based on specious reasoning concerning a lack of charisma--a strong primary vote for him would surely influence the candidate who does win the Dem nomination.

It's beyond me why voters get out their crystal balls during primary season and try to predict what might happen in a general election. The democratic process only works when people vote for whom they think is the best canidate. Everything else is simply a political version of no-limit Texas Hold 'Em poker. And that, my friends, is gambling.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I totally hear you, but Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: I totally hear you, but Posted by: Democritus
» RE: I totally hear you, but Posted by: whatzaname
» I'm with you Democritus... Posted by: fsuthai
See You In Iowa!
Posted by: dustinblythe on Dec 28, 2007 7:07 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article, and the others that have appeared on Alternet, detail but a few of the reasons that I will be spending my New Year's Eve/Day in Iowa, working for John Edwards. I have grit my teeth, lo these many months, while the media (in general) has framed this as a "Clinton-Obama" race. I have watched as the once "inevitable" Clinton juggernaut, and it's supporters, have lowered their expectations in Iowa. "Hillary may not win in Iowa". And they have tried to spin a potential loss to their advantage. "If Edwards wins, he's actually beating Obama...which helps Hillary..." I have watched the Obama-Oprah supernova. But now it seems that John Edwards is peaking at just the right time. When it comes to experience, do not count out the guy who has run in Iowa before.

Two more points: when it comes to Dennis Kucinich, I agree, he is a progressive's progressive. But how much stock can you put into a candidate when he does not even have a staff in Iowa? A candidate like Kucinich, who does not have a lot of money or strong support in the polls, needs a good showing in an early state to gain momentum. I wish him, and his supporters, well but it does not seem to be in the cards for Dennis Kucinich in 2008.

Lastly, take a look at the ad to the left of the page for ONE. At the risk of seeming presumptuous, what other candidate spoke out about global poverty? I think Mitt Romney may have mentioned it lately, but John Edwards was the first to come out and address global poverty and it's role in global terrorism, the world economy and the environment. Talk about a "no brainer"; if you are concerned about global poverty, John Edwards is your candidate.

For more information on this or any other issue or if you want to make your own Iowa road trip for Edwards, see: WWW.JOHNEDWARDS.COM

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I HOPE THIS SUDDEN AWAKENING IS FOR REAL
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Dec 28, 2007 7:40 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We need a president who puts the needs of the people on his 'to do list'. Make sure people are able to earn a living the way their parents did. What they do after work is their own business. Corporations require oversight, it's always been that way. Bring back the rules. In order to move forward we have to go backward a little. Edwards seems to know what's wrong and he means to do something about it. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Right Person
Posted by: Southern Gal on Dec 28, 2007 8:14 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is no doubt in my mind that John Edwards is the right person to be president of the United States of America. I have been an Edwards supporter since he was the Democratic Senator for North Carolina. I have seen him interact with the people that he represented when he held meetings for people to discuss their issues and shared his thoughts and positions. He always had a competent staff and if they didn't know the answers they got back to you. He is real. He does care about the people that he represents. His wife Elisabeth is real. They are both intelligent and can think on their feet. Edwards knows the issues and has the right priorities. Global poverty and corporate greed have done more to perpetuate wars, mayhem, environmental damage,and abuse of human rights than any other issues. We need a voice of reason and sanity with human interests at heart in the White House.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Edwards for the people
Posted by: outlander55 on Dec 28, 2007 8:21 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hilary is "Bush Lite". Just another corporate tool. Obama would have you pay for Health Care than have Universal Heath Care (more of the same that we have now). They both talk about "affordable Health Care" (meaning: more obscene profits for insurance companies).
John Edwards is the only candidate that is running for the people of America. As a trial lawyer, he took on the corporations to fight for the "people" he represented. He got justice for the common man. Yes, he made money from it, but doesn't he deserve to get paid when he does his job?
John Edwards has stated publicly that when he is elected, he will challenge his Cabinet and Congress to come up with a Universal Health Care plan in six months or he will use his Presidential power to revoke theirs. Now, this sounds like a candidate that cares more for the people than any insurance company or special interest group.
Edwards has vowed to take on K Street and the special interest groups that have fouled the American experiment.
Believe me, Corporate America will do its' worst to see that Edwards won't be elected, but if the "people" gather behind him, we can beat the corporations down to where they belong; as employers and not masters.
I have been behind Edwards since the beginning, and I will continue to support him by educating people about the good changes he can accomplish for America.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's got to be more than talk
Posted by: C-Dawg Blake on Dec 28, 2007 8:36 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While the Edwards talk was right, the Democratic candidate who actually sponsored legislation against corporate lobbying--on the first day of his latest legislative session--was Barack Obama. Not Kucinich. Not Edwards. Not Clinton or Biden or Dodd or Richardson.

Obama also sponsored legislation on electoral fraud, climate change, and stopping the asinine rush to military intervention in Iran. In November, two weeks after his Iran resolution, I shook Obama's hand and said, "Thank you for your resolution on Iran."

He stared squrarely at me. "We're keeping on that," he replied.

He gets it. Beyond that, no one else has the capability to get things done--to involve the other side, whether the other side of the aisle or the other side of the world--as much as Obama. A devout Republican friend of mine just made his first political contribution--to Obama. People who talk to me about Obama feel realistic hope for the first time in decades. The dude can drive left.

I'm not about bashing Edwards. He just will never inspire Muslims around the world. It won't happen. He won't retard partisan D.C. idiocy. He won't unite a polarized, dysfunctional country. If we want substantive change after the election, Obama is the genuine article.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Edwards is the best of the sorry lot
Posted by: Philip Newton on Dec 28, 2007 8:48 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I will vote for Edwards, but not with great enthusiasm. Kucinich has no chance. On the other side, Mike Huckabee is the only true populist in this hunt, but he'll be crucified by the bedroom liberals on the Left Coast happily sucking up to the corporate whores from the National Review, et al.

We get the leadership we fight for -- and we get what we deserve.

Edwards is the best of a very sorry lot. He gets my vote, provided he survives his own party.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]