Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

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:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Nobel Laureate Slams the Bible, Calls It "A Catalogue of Cruelties"
Mario de Queiroz

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
As Foreclosure Nightmares Increase, Will More Homeowners Pay Off Their Bankers in Violence?
Scott Thill

DrugReporter:
Lies About Marijuana Drive People to a Much More Harmful Drug -- Booze
Steve Fox

Environment:
Why Max Baucus' 'No' Vote on the Climate Bill May Really Help Its Passage
Jeff Mcmahon

Food:
Despite Censorship By Beef Magnate, Michael Pollan Spreads Message About the Real Price of Cheap Food

Health and Wellness:
Do We Really Want to Enshrine Insurance Monopoly into Law? This and 5 Other Complaints About the Health Bill
John Nichols

Immigration:
NYC Marathon Raises Question of Who Is American Enough?
James E. Johnson, Jr.

Media and Technology:
How Biased Media Can Brainwash You
Melinda Burns

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
4 Ways the Stupak Amendment Deprives Women of Access to Abortion
Jessica Arons

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Fetus-Shaped Potatoes? Going Undercover Inside the Weird World of Right-Wing Abortion Foes
Ann Neumann

Rights and Liberties:
"My Kids Want to Hide Their Identity; They're Scared Someone Will Attack Us": U.S. Muslims Being Targeted
Jaisal Noor

Sex and Relationships:
Instant Sex: Has the Digital Age Destroyed Relationships or Made Them Better?
Vanessa Richmond

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Why Natural Gas Is Not a Clean Energy Panacea
Stan Cox

World:
With Unemployment at 40 Percent, Afghan Teens Enlist in Army, Police
Lal Aqa Sherin

More stories by John Nichols

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

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."

But the former senator's most effective statement at the Des Moines Register debate on Thursday was one that reflected his deep level of engagement with working people in the upper Midwest, an engagement born of long months spent in Iowa and neighboring states -- at a time when Clinton and Obama were spending considerably more time fighting over who had better relations with the media moguls on Hollywood's A-list and in the suites of Manhattan's mortgage manipulators.

Edwards got to know workers in Iowa. He stood with them in their struggles.

Turning a broad question about human rights toward the specific issue of trade policy, the former senator said that human rights, human needs and human values "should be central to our trade policy."

"But," he added, "if you look at what's happened with American trade policy, look at what America got: Big corporations made a lot of money, are continuing to make a lot of money in China. But what did America get in return? We got millions of dangerous Chinese toys. We lost millions of jobs.

"And right here in Iowa, the Maytag plant in Newton closed. A guy named Doug Bishop, who I got to know very well, had worked in that plant, and his family had worked in that plant literally for generations. And his job is now gone. The same thing, by the way, happened in the plant that my father worked in when I was growing up. It is so important that we stop allowing these corporate powers and corporate profits to run America's policy, whether it's trade policy, how we engage with China. This is not good for America. It's not good for American jobs. And it's not good for working people in this country."

That's an issue Edwards has taken far, far more seriously than his opponents in what is now a three-way race in Iowa. And that seriousness has benefitted the former senator.

Remembering the workers who have been battered by the failed trade policies of the Clinton and Bush administrations matters. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, both supporters of recent trade agreements, have never connected on the same level. Edwards, who once had a shaky record on these issues but has come to be a passionate proponent of fair trade, comes across as the candidate who gets it. That's why he won the debate in Des Moines. That's why every serious survey that has been conducted in recent days shows him within striking distance of the Iowa win that once was assumed to be Clinton's for the taking and that was then supposed to be Obama's.

No one who is watching the rapid evolution of this race is any longer counting Edwards out in Iowa -- or in the rest of a yet-to-be-defined race for the Democratic nomination.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: election08, edwards

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
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]

» You are right Posted by: Philip Newton
What should be their base is gonna sink the Dems - again
Posted by: Ivann on Dec 28, 2007 10:00 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have been in touch with a young guy (26yo) in NH for quite a while. He works "in security" at nights so I presume he isn't that well qualified or well-off. He does have some equity in a condo a fact of which he is rightly proud. He voted for Bush both times & resents the fact that the Dems "would use his taxes on lay-abouts & illegals". He constantly carries on about Jesse Jackson & Al Sharpton. All the failings of the current administration pass under his radar screen. He gets his input from Fox News. He derides John Kerry as a flip-flopper (he is a big swift-boater) but says he will vote for Romney ignoring his flip-flopping. He is big on the military (btw the Canadian army are a bunch of pussies). I will never understand how the Repigs hold on to the support of people this this.

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

» I know that guy, too Posted by: sliver
» RE: I know that guy, too Posted by: melindyrose
Democrats
Posted by: willymack on Dec 28, 2007 10:24 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We're speaking of the Democratic hopefuls in a COMPARITIVE sense here, folks. Let's not lose sight of the zeros the rethugs have fielded so far, and the fact that the "worst" demo is far and away better than the "best" rethug. In my perfect world Kucinich would be president, Obama the VP, and Edwards the Attorney General, the better to prosecute the criminal bushies. If Edwards gets the nod, the I'd like Kucinich for VP and J. Kerry for AG, the better to prosecute the criminal bushies.

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

This asshole of which you speak is known as "MY BASE"
Posted by: Ellie1 on Dec 28, 2007 12:32 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
by the republicans. They depend on angry, uninformed idiots to keep their power. That is why they worked so hard to control the media-keep the trolls stupid. And they have succeeded. The American public is generally damned stupid and /or uninformed. We need a draft so assholes like this will get disgusted, scared, and angry (something tells me they will ALWAYS be stupid).

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

I was there
Posted by: alphakat on Dec 28, 2007 1:21 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...at the Iowa debate and it helped finally push me completely into the Edwards camp. It was amazing to see how all the Dems acted when the camera wasn't on them. Biden was more impressive than I expected except that he and Obama were like a couple 14 year olds talking in class while the other candidates had the floor (which I found incredibly rude), Obama also looked as if he couldn't care less about being there when the camera wasn't on him - then when it pointed at him it was like "show time", Richardson seemed to struggle to put his thoughts together in the time frame required and Dodd was alternately funny and fiery but not particularly impressive. At the end of 90 minutes, Edwards and Clinton were the two that came across as consistently intelligent, attentive, energetic, on the ball and well...presidential...with Edwards pulling ahead with his strong answers and his unflinching comments about getting big money out of Washington.

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

Separate but Equal Rights for gays
Posted by: redfrog on Dec 28, 2007 2:52 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Edwards is fine with separate but equal rights because it doesn't show up on his personal radar screen. Oh, he'll get there after everyone else and their ducks get there. Meanwhile, the voting block isn't big enough for him to see his stance as a violation of constitutional guarantees. This is a leader? Not so much. So it is Kucinich for me; he doesn't just carry around a little book, he has read it and takes the spirit of the Constitution to heart even when it is unpopular to do so. I want to see more than a mind at work, I want to know what it is working on.

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

» Red Herring from redfrog Posted by: Prairie Waif
Edwards Shares The Same Foreign Policy Agenda
Posted by: shinseiji on Dec 28, 2007 2:57 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
See RUSSIA’S WRONG DIRECTION:
WHAT THE UNITED STATES
CAN AND SHOULD DO

Seems that someone who is the most popular politician in the world - V. Putin - and relaunched its economy is taking Russia in a fairly correct direction. But of course that is the problem for the American regime, dedicated as it is to the ultimate destruction of Russia as a viable state. Clintons' support for his criminally drunken predecessor, the thankfully deceased Yeltsin, together with the deliberate attempt to wreck the Russian economy via "shock therapy" prescriptions are the proof.

Edwards in his CFR article demonstrates that he shares this vicious agenda.

Remember, when you vote for the candidate, you vote for the whole candidate. And foreign policy is the most important issue facing the USA today.

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

Hacking Democracy: Vote or Revolt?
Posted by: Cathyc on Dec 28, 2007 4:57 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You Americans (most of you anyway) are as insane as the CATHOLICISED Irish! Total dickheads!!!

Check out HACKING DEMOCRACY on Google Videos, just to give you some idea of what you're up against.

NB: There's 300 million of YOU and there's - what, a couple of dozen of THEM. What are you waiting for? For them - or yourselves - to evolve into humans?

You first... no, you first.... no, you first.... no, you...... aw, no, you first...
I'll hold the door open for you..... :-)

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

Watch Out
Posted by: ProgressiveManiac on Dec 29, 2007 6:28 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Do you recall when Howard Dean seemed like the likely Democratic candidate? Even the media seemed to like him until one day he was asked what he would do about media concentration. Break'm up he said.

Within days, the media did a hatchet job on him. They created his hysterical scream - and the gullible voting public bought into this new story that he was unstable and a bit crazy.

I think we can expect another round of this with Edwards if it starts to seem there is any possibility of him winning the nomination. I say another because of the haircut flap; they've already made their initial attack on him.

The corporate masters do not want Edwards. The corporate media will do whatever they must until the Edwards candidacy is destroyed. The media is pretty effective at this and the public is still not sufficiently resistant to this sort of manipulation.

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

political dynasties and getting to hear Edwards
Posted by: CJC on Dec 29, 2007 9:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks to Tom Degan's post at the top of the list. If there's no other reason to oppose Clinton's nomination that is it - Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton. The MSM hardly mentions this. It's a "fog fact", hiding in plain sight.

Also thank you to alphakat's "I Was There" and Progressivemaniac's "Watch Out."

I haven't watched any of the debates myself and of course the MSM reports what it wants us to know, so alphakat's description of what is happening off screen is telling. And I completely agree that the MSM focuses on Clinton and Obama and so the MSM bias is part of the story that it's hard to find out about.

Remember the 2000 MSM coverage? Too many journalists were taken in by GWB's apparently genial personality and criticized Gore for his brown suits. How could so many have been so gullible? The world is paying a very high price. Have any in the MSM apologized for failing to report the real news?

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

Edwards!
Posted by: jr9657 on Dec 29, 2007 11:20 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you for an article by a writer who also gets it! It is about time Edwards receives the recognition he is long overdue for. Thanks!

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

Edwards is Our Man!
Posted by: AlohaTerry on Dec 29, 2007 2:52 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I urge all my fellow Progressives to back John Edwards---a man who got wealthy, yes--but how? By fighting Big Insurance, Big Pharm, etc. He is a CHAMPION!
Dare I say it...the Repigs and MSM give Edwards NO coverage because they WANT HillBill or Barack to win because they can BEAT them--a Woman with a checkered past and a half-Black guy whose name sounds Muslim...with the nitwits that make up 90% of the Voters, they will tweak the Election just enough--and we'll have Rudy the Ghoul-iani, or Huckster-able, or Mutt Romney--it will be another 8 years of corporate takeover!
John Edwards is Our Best--possibly Our ONLY Hope!

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

Edwards' voting record doesn't match his rhetoric
Posted by: CharliePatton on Jan 1, 2008 12:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Edwards is not a "populist" or a "progressive". Have a look at his voting record:

02/02/2000 Bankruptcy Reform bill Y
03/23/1999 Kosovo Resolution Y
10/25/2001 USA Patriot Act of 2001 Y
09/14/2001 Military Force Authorization resolution Y
11/19/2002 Homeland Security Act of 2002 Y
05/21/2004 Condemning Iraq Abuse of Prisoners resolution NV
10/11/2002 Use of Military Force Against Iraq Y
05/18/1999 Religious Memorials at Schools Amendment Y
2/18/2001 No Child Left Behind Act Y
06/24/2004 Defense Department FY2005 Appropriations bill Y
09/25/2003 Terrorism Information Awareness bill NV
07/17/2003 Terrorism Information Awareness bill Y
04/03/2003 Appropriations for Operations in Iraq Y
10/16/2002 Department of Defense Appropriations, FY2003 bill Y
08/01/2002 Department of Defense Appropriations, FY2003 bill Y
07/18/2002 Military Construction Appropriations Act FY2003 Y
0/18/2001 Military Construction FY2002 Appropriations bill Y
09/26/2001 Military Construction FY2002 Appropriations bill Y
10/14/1999 Defense Department Appropriations bill, FY2000 Y
06/30/1999 Cuba Travel Ban Amendment Y
06/30/1999 Foreign Operations FY2000 Appropriations bill Y
04/29/2004 Internet Access Tax bill Y
03/19/2003 ANWR Oil Drilling Amendment Y
07/13/2000 Death/Estate Tax Amendment Y
06/20/2000 Hate Crimes Amendment Y
05/20/1999 Juvenile Crime bill Y
10/28/2003 Michael Leavitt, Adiminstrator of the EPA NV
02/03/2000 Alan Greenspan for Chairman of the Federal Reserve Y
01/24/2001 Norman Y. Mineta for Secretary of Transportation Y
01/24/2001 Thompson for Secretary of Health and Human Services Y
01/23/2001 Martinez for Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Y
01/23/2001 Anthony Principi for Secretary of Veterans Affairs Y
03/02/2004 Firearms Manufacturers Protection bill NV
10/03/2000 American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act, 2000 Y
11/09/1999 Two Year Minimum Wage Increase Amendment N
11/09/1999 Three Year Minimum Wage Increase Amendment N
6/11/2002 Hate Crimes Bill Y
10/22/2003 Reduction of SPAM bill NV
09/25/2003 Do-Not-Call Registry bill NV
09/16/2003 FCC Media Ownership bill NV
09/19/2000 U.S.-China Relations Act of 2000 Y

Sorry, but that is not the voting record of either a "progressive" or "populist."

It's the voting record of a Republican.

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

Nader endorses Edwards!!!
Posted by: UnEasyOne on Jan 1, 2008 1:49 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From POLITICO:

MUSCATINE, Iowa — Ralph Nader unleashed on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton Monday — criticizing her for being soft on defense spending and a chum of big business — and expressed his strong support for John Edwards.

In an eleventh hour effort to encourage liberal Iowans to "recognize" the former North Carolina senator by "giving him a victory," the activist and former presidential contender said in an interview that Clinton will "pander to corporate interest groups" if elected.


Alternet has a piece and a link.

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

Kucinich "endorses" Obama. Or doesn't...oh, fire up another bowl
Posted by: Philip Newton on Jan 1, 2008 6:50 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Single digit (as in, raised middle finger)Kucinich said this today:

Kucinich: "Back Obama if I’m not viable"
Posted: 04:00 PM ET


Kucinich is encouraging his supporters to make their second choice Obama.

DES MOINES, Iowa (CNN) — Dennis Kucinich urged supporters Tuesday to make Barack Obama their second choice in the Iowa caucuses, an unexpected boost in the closing days of this wide open race for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Kucinich told backers to vote for him on the first ballot Thursday, but instructed them to support Obama if he did not reach the 15 percent threshold needed to be viable in the caucuses.

“I hope Iowans will caucus for me as their first choice this Thursday, because of my singular positions on the war, on health care, and trade,” Kucinich said in a statement released by his campaign. “This is an opportunity for people to stand up for themselves. But in those caucus locations where my support doesn't reach the necessary threshold, I strongly encourage all of my supporters to make Barack Obama their second choice. Sen. Obama and I have one thing in common: Change.”

With Obama competing with Hillary Clinton and John Edwards for every vote, Kucinich’s support could potentially be critical in Thursday night’s caucuses.

Kucinich did not fully endorse Obama, and said this statement only pertains to the Iowa caucuses, and only if he does not reach viability on the first ballot Thursday.

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

  • 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.

Advertisement
Advertisement