The problem with having such high standards is that none of the candidates get even close to meeting them.

Edwards is running, has been for absolutely ages, and sure isn't going to change his mind should his email list tell him not to bother.

Edwards would make a good president but as for being a progressive, that's just not credible until he wins office and starts to govern like one.

I'm sure that we can nitpick every candidate to death, and we'll find things that we don't like. At some point, does the constant squabbling over every perceived slight get to be too much? No doubt Matt will have some witty retort, but I find criticizing Edwards for the manner of his announcement to be more than a little petty. When we are in the business of writing about politics on a daily basis, maybe nitpicking is just the natural response to slow news days.  

Dear John Edwards:  Unlike our Matt Stoller, I do not insist that you kiss my little corner of the webroots ring.  Of course, Matt's [insert noun here] is somewhat bigger than mine is.

The silly season is silly when irrelevant posts like this one appear on MyDD. Sheesh.. Gladly John Edwards isn't here to try and please the likes of Matt Stoller et al.

Dean did the something similar with his decision to opt out of the public financing system.

Parsing a vague statement by his aids made to the New York Times as a way to rip Edwards shows that your standards are a bit too high. There will never be a candidate who can match your high bar. I guess the closest thing was the Dean campaign, which as we all saw, that was mostly a mirage altogether.

I rarely disagree with Matt, but this is one case.

Placing massive importance on being honest with your supporters is significantly lower on my priority list than a candidate who supports progressive issues to the fullest, something that at this point in the game appears to be only Edwards.

Yet again using unknown and unsubstantiated sources.  I don't know who the 'aides' that the New York Times is attributing, nor do I know if what they are saying is true.

However, I will say that I've been in frequent contact with various people working for the One America Committee.  All of them have been hoping that Edwards would run.  Most of them believed that Edwards would run.  But most of them also pointed out that everyone thought Warner and Bayh would run as well.

Most importantly, they all said, up through yesterday that Sen. Edwards had not yet made a final decision.

It sure looks like Sen. Edwards has made his decision.  I don't know when he did, but I'm not going to blast him because some anonymous sources are giving saying that it is different from when other people are saying.

Actually, upon re-reading the Edwards' "Big Decision", I noticed that he doesn't ask for input regarding his decision at all. Edwards simply says that we have to make a decision, and he asks the recipient, "Are you ready?" He's asking for a commitment, not a Yes or No on a run for president.

It's a much more Dean-like approach than you make it sound in your NY Times citation, Matt.

Not sure what the "risk-averse Obama box" is or how this would put Edwards into that box. Nor am I sure how being risk-averse relates to the transformational definition from your earlier post. it seems that logically one can be transformational in terms of representing people and risk averse in some respects (but not others). Might you clarify?

The email kind of annoyed me, but I shrugged it off.  But he's been being coy for a few weeks.  Not announcing when everyone knew he was going to run was better politics.  

I took the email, which was sent to diehard Edwards supporters, not the netroots, as looking for genuine feedback on how and why to run.  It's message development and building buy-in for all the right reasons.

In that it was sent to Edwards diehards, it was sent to those who already knew he was running.  No harm no foul for me.

And again, I'll return to a point I made on another Edwards-related thread, that gambling a run for presidency when he's thiiiiiis close to the most influential job in the world on a message of economic justice and opportunity is a risk only someone who truly intends to govern as a progressive would take.  

There can't be ideological purity because there is no such thing as a unified ideology that I've come across, especially where the term "progressive" is bandied about.  There certainly won't be a "pure" approach to campaigning and certainly not to governing.  

That John Edwards has given enough of a rat's ass to set up an interactive website not simply for culling of email addresses for fundraising, has had embedded vloggers travel with him and film him candidly, and to show up as an activist in his last two years earns him enough to respect in my book to more than cover himself for sending out what might be misconstrued by some as a disingenuous ploy.

And he's going to be on a conference call tonight himself with those who have set up One America Corps in their communities.   Those kinds of things indicate to me that he intends to run as and govern as a progressive.

From the same NY Times article:

But there are less obvious advantages as well. Mr. Trippi said that when Mr. Dean declared for president in June 2003, they timed his announcement for a week before the deadline for the release of campaign finance reports.

The idea was that the excitement built by the announcement in Vermont would result in a surge of contributions that would allow Mr. Dean to surprise the political world with a display of his grass-roots financial support. Mr. Dean's big fund-raising report that month proved to be one of the biggest boosts of his campaign.

This announcement/formal announcement game is silly, as you correctly state.

But I don't see why Edwards should unilaterally disarm. Vilsack announced candidly and "thematically", and he appears at the very bottom of this article. Clinton and Obama, who do what the media requires of them to get coverage, appear very near the top.

Edwards' staff should keep their mouths shut. They don't have to lie, but they should know when to say, "you'll have to ask the senator that." And Nagourney should have gotten this quote from Edwards or stuffed it where the sun don't shine. The unstated purpose of this article was to take the mickey out Edwards' likely announcement.

A "smidgen of doubt," to use Nagourney's phrase re: Clinton and Obama (mention #2), still exists about Edwards. He could say, "my wife and I have talked about it, and I have reluctantly decided to stay in private life."

I remember when Howard Dean "polled" his supporters regarding pulling out of public financing.  What isn't frequently mentioned is that decision had already been made, the overwhelming support of those who voted in the poll acted as a way of validating that decision.

So, how is the Dean decision different than the Edwards decision?

This is exactly how I felt when I read that quote.  If he already decided, why e-mail supporters asking them about whether he should run or not?

I appreciate what he's doing, particularly his emphasis on New Orleans.  Still, it all feels a bit fake to me.

Also:  I didn't vote for Kerry in the primary in 2004, and I wouldn't vote for him again.  Still, Edwards has Kerry to thank for being as visible as he is, and he does seem to be taking that for granted.  In every interview I have seen or read with him, he seems more than willing to throw Kerry under the bus to make himself look better.

This was a dumb move and the fact that people are so desperate to defend Edwards that they defend his pageant is a clear sign that silly season has truly begun.

C'mon Matt, this is taking nitpickiness to a whole new level. Are you going to scrutinize every single detail of every presidential candidate? Hmmm, you're in for a very long and torturous campaign season then. I don't like John Edwards because I feel he's a real faker and I can see his schtick from a mile away. Sorry, he's too one-dimensional for my taste.

But hitting him on such minor things like this Matt is real petty. There are bigger things to criticize him for, and this is surely nowhere even close to important or even relevant by any stretch.

The role of leaders is to set out their agenda, how they see the problems and how they see the solutions to the nation's problems and then let the voters decide which candidate's vision/solutions most closely matches their own.

The idea of leaders being vessels for their "followers" to fill (by majority email?) reminds me of Marv Levy's comment about football coaches, when they let the fans make the decisions, they'll soon be sitting with them...because the decisions will be poor ones not based on intelligence, critical thinking and knowledge of all the facts.

It's also an essentially false premise since anyone with the chutzpah to run for president is going to be even more opinionated than we are and is going to be guided by their own vision for the country.

JFK mused that we elect our representatives to show good judgment, intelligence and to even disagree with popular opinion when they saw things differently.

So Edwards' (or any candidate) offering voters a chance to speak their minds directly to them is a good thing. Criticizing candidates for still following their own "star" seems unrealistic and unfair.

I want to know what the candidate thinks so I can judge whether I want him/her as my representative.

I'm waiting to hear his announcement statement,and what he says once he gets into the race.

This entire post is silly.  It isn't even really worth discussing.

Get some sleep or something, dude. You're embarrassing yourself.

this seems like a whole lot of nothing.  

Matt, if this is the kind of thing that gets you upset, then it is going to be a very long and difficult campaign for you, and you are going to hate everybody.  

What you are witnessing is a professional operation methodically and painstakingly building a sense of excitement for a candidate's announcement.  99.99% of the population, and 99.98% of the people who vote in primaries, aren't following the twists and turns with the level intensity as you, because they have day jobs that don't involve, um, blogging.  

They will see an email from Edwards, or the article about the email, saying he is thinking of announcing.  Most of them will vaguely know that Edwards has most probably decided to run, and most of them are probably ok with that because, um, it's really not nearly as big a deal as you are making it.  But more importantly, this 99.98% will have Edwards back in their head as a possibility, and will start thinking about him seriously as a candidate again.  

To condemn Edwards and his campaign for this tactic is basically a ludicrous position to take.

maybe. ?? I got the email, too, and saw it as a "heads up, something's gonna happen soon" notice. But maybe I read it that way because of other hints picked up here and there. The email was, of necessity a little mysterious. I just never read the "Are You Ready?" question as a "Should I run?" question.

Guess I'd feel bad if that email faked me out, though, and maybe it could have been worded more clearly ... I'm just not sure it's totally Edwards' fault that some folks got faked out. :\  

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/st ory/0,,-6306593,00.html

In what looks like another staff fuckup, Team Edwards went live with the website a day early.

Maybe they were shook up by this thread calling them lying bastards and couldn't stand it any longer.

The fuck do I know? Might could be the early release will squeeze an extra day out of the coverage instead of stomping on it.

Proof of the pudding is eating up the media coverage, so let's see what happens. I'm afraid he's gonna get crushed by Ford-Still-Dead stories anyway.

The hard way (at the Big Orange) is that if you have to go into your own post a dozen or more times to defend yourself (and especially if no one else really has your back), then you've probably screwed up and should quit digging.

Campaigns have always been and will always be full of gimmicks.  The Dean campaign was full of clever gimmicks and they mostly worked.  This is nothing more than that.  No harm, no foul!  Those SO concerned about how candidates approach the netroots should scrutinize the use of the campaign blog and email list to build support, a volunteer army and raise money.  And whether that building process brings people into the process.  That really hasn't begun yet.

That said, I think Edwards is the only serious candidate that might actually give the netroots serious credence.  But of course he should make up his own mind.  He is running to be the leader of the free world, not Mayor of Blogland!

How about his clear and forceful position on warrantless NSA wiretapping and his petition calling for a filibuster of the Alito nomination?  

I do not know who else among the 2008 hopefuls Matt has criticized or extolled, but Edwards has, on two crucial issues, offered a refreshing contrast to other net-savvy Southerners who might be having second thoughts about seeking the Presidency...  

1. Edwards is a necon
   
2. The Edwards campaign was so "shook up" by Stoller's post it announced a day early
   
3. Stoller scrubs comments that threaten him

...up to ALL OF US to change America. Check out what he says today in New Orleans. "What I want to see us do is, instead of waiting for the next politician to solve this problem, I want to see America harness itself to solve this problem."

As far as the e-mails: It's been obvious that he's put all the pieces in place to run and was reaching out to his supporters. I'm sure he expected an overwhelmingly positive response, and I'm sure that's what he received.

Oh good...As though Edwards is Billy Bob T in "Bad Santa".  

Stoller has a very objective viewpoint of Edwards, doesn't he of all Dem pols, doesn't he..

or not.

Great reporting, Matt.  

And from this CJ video, Edwards says "I want America to harness itself".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWRmwlMsG yw

Ah Matt,

It was a way for him to gather email addresses from forwards.  Just like the cynical "oops, someone let the cat out of the bag" statement about his announcement tomorrow.  Hell, he's been announcing it for more than a week. (Gotta make sure the photogs are all there to see him lift a shovel.)

Cynical and calculating...

There are politicians who are manipulators and people in politics who are leaders.  I'll leave it completely up to you whether you swallow the Smilin' Johnny photo-op in NOLA and buy his 'I care about poor people' persona.

"cynical and calculating..." snip

"There are politicians who are manipulators and people in politics who are leaders.  I'll leave it completely up to you whether you swallow the Smilin' Johnny photo-op in NOLA and buy his 'I care about poor people' persona."

Goodness from this poster: Is your comment not cynical and/or calculating as well?

Jeppers, I prefer a positive message and answers once in awhile.   W tries to be on both fronts, but fails, miserably.

I like Edwards message of visioning..and doing.

Refreshing to me.

Matt,
Why don't you just come out and say which candidate you like instead of this game of playing cute by saying who isn't up to your standards (Hillary, Obama, Edwards so far)?

Oliver Willis

Matt -

Edwards IS a progressive candidate -- he has proved so not just in words, but in deed and action. And a lot of the previous comments are correct -- sometimes decisions are hard, sometimes you "know" you're going to do something if only you could get past that nagging feeling you might not ought to.

If the ticket had been Edwards-Kerry instead of Kerry-Edwards last time around, we'd likely be living in a different country right now --> and we'd be home from Iraq concentrating on domestic issues. Little more progressive than that.

Jessica

but listen. What other candidate would hold a closed bloggers session, and not make a face when asked to pose with a potted sunflower?

There might not be, but I still feel like you're judging Edwards on the wrong terms, Matt.
    He's clearly a guy who thrives and excels at strategy. He's not going to hand over the strategic reins much; he's never been one to show all his cards. And why should he have to?
     When you look at the list of candidates he was out supporting, I don't think you can argue that the guy has been ignoring or rejecting the grassroots.

It's a super-crappy system, and if someone can figure out how to work out while working towards progressive objectives, that's a good thing for all of us. Dean's campaign proved that the MSM won't tolerate a candidate who doesn't pay it sufficient heed.
 That ain't the real world. I'm all for idealism, but can we try to steer clear of utopianism? Historically, it never ends well.

Well, I was thinking of supporting Edwards for president but it seems that he pissed off Matt Stoller, so I'll have to look elsewhere.

Come on, Matt, have a little faith.  You're "not convinced there is a difference?"  Well, good Lord, Edwards just announced.  HRC and Obama haven't even done that much yet.  And if you're looking for differences, what about Richardson?  Vilsack?  Even Kucinich?  Assuming HRC and Obama get in, can you really -- honestly, and with a straight face -- suggest that's a "weak field"?  I can't get on board with that, I'm afraid.

As for concerns about a genuine progressive candidate, I think you ought to give Senator Edwards another look.  How many candidates on either side of the aisle have talked seriously about ending poverty, have talked seriously about our moral obligations as a nation, or have talked seriously about energy independence or real health care coverage for all Americans or global warming... Tell me who, and I'll give them every consideration, I swear I will.  

I don't know, Matt.  I'm not asking you to change your mind, really.  Just pay some heed to a lot of these comments.  And try and stay positive.      

Matt,

Bless your heart for at least bringing up these issues. This man is running for President of the United States after all; an office that seeks the utmost dedication and responsibility. In regards to the grassroots, first, let me ease your fear that WHOEVER wins the nomination for the Democrats in 2008 has a tremendous opportunity to tap into the grassroots.  Howard Dean, since taking over the DNC has implemented a 50 state strategy which I'm sure most of you are aware of.  For many reasons, this plan provides a unique opportunity to once again put the party in the hands of the people. Furthermore, it helps keep Democrats organized in all fifty states.  They are on the ground RIGHT NOW and have been since 2004.In some states like Alaska and Mississippi, who were ignored by Democratic strategists in the past, these places have doubled, tripled and quadrupled their Democratic prescence with this plan.  The DNC's plan is to keep these people on the ground this year, next year and for years to come.  It is with this expansive infrastructure, that the next Democratic nominee has a phenomenal opportunity to tap into the grassroots, whether that be Mr. Edwards or someone else.

even with your update this seems like a mountain out of a mole hill. how does being progressive or not for example mean do what matt wants? even if that's not the intent, that's the feel of your pronouncement. it's like the other day when I questioned obama, and was told that I was being racist for doing so. You frame the conversation for a no win situation for anyohe who disagrees with you. I know you got to do catchy headlines and such to but I just feel this is much ado about nothing.

The guy really cares.  I've known him since before his election to the senate. (His home town was in the NC district I tried to represent) He's a good guy. He's working hard trying to win this, to represent all of the people. He's not just acting like he cares, or playing some kind of a role.

Heck, David Bonier (the former House Democratic Majority Whip) is working for him.  David gave me money and I didn't have "a rats ass" of a chance to win the seat away from the republicans. Bonier really was as close to a "saint" that has ever been elected to congress.  He wouldn't be working for anyone less than the "real deal."

If Edwards is guilty of anything ...it's of caring too deeply and of trying too hard!!!

Its never wise to speculate about someone, or their personal motives. Always ask someone who knows them before making it up as you go along.

In case anyone is still reading (and I hope you all are), please remember that a candidate is not his aides.  "Aides" are often young and inexperienced, especially when a candidate doesn't represent corporate interests and get "seasoned consultants."  Between his not so savvy aides, and the natural viciousness of the NY Times, something came out screwy.  Edwards, and his wife/partner Elizabeth, have been reaching out to the netroots for over a year now through the oneamerica.com website.  

Edwards is very hip to messaging and is a passionately sincere man; I've seen him in person and he's magnificent. We in the netroots can fundraise to get him the kind of staff he deserves.

Matt,

Your update is correct when it says that Edward's "email in and of itself wasn't a particularly big deal."  (I would also question your doubts about Edwards being a progressive, but I will save that for the future.)

With respect to this email, keep in mind that Edwards sent this email to a limited universe, his email list of past supporters.  This was NOT an email polling the entire netroots universe.  

With respect to this limited audience, the vast majority of people already knew that Edwards was going to run.  This audience has received dozens of emails from him since the end of the campaign in 2004, with a flurry of them coming in the last year.  It has been evident for some time now...say for the past six months...that Edwards was going to run.  It was just a question of when he would announce this publicly.  And, of course, the national media has been reporting for at least a week now that Edwards was going to publicly announce in New Orleans after Christmas.  

What, then, was this email about?  First, it was designed to inspire his supporters with a certain rah-rah spirit:  "Are you ready!?"  Second, the email sought to tell his supporters that he was about to "publicly announce," and that they might be interested in paying attention to the news in the next few days.  Hey, pay attention!  Of course, ostensibly by "the publicly announce rules" he couldn't actually say this, so instead, he said:  "I'm getting ready to take this effort to the next level."

Lastly, the email was designed to serve as kind of a "Hello, are you out there?" email.  He asked you to email him if you felt you were "ready" to help , which to me, suggested he wanted to find out how many people on his list are actually reading his emails!  I thought this was a little bit much, but I understand that such a thing can be helpful to a campaign.  Very likely, the people who emailed back will be "starred" as special supporters.  :)

It must also be kept in mind that there is something fundamentally different (if not historic) going on with Edwards this time around.  Several months ago, Edwards began to organize a national grass roots effort to fight poverty.  He calls the effort OneCorps.  Since his call to action (yes, he emailed his list on this effort several times) dozens of OneCorps chapters have formed around the country, all of them charged with "Fight(ing) poverty in their local communities; addressing important local needs through community organizing and service projects." Good people coming together to do something about poverty in their local communities?  I call that a positive development, whether their efforts are large or small.  

What this is going to mean is that Edwards will be running for president, for the next two years, while simultaneously, his grass roots supporters will be encouraged to meet, discuss, plan, and actually do something to alleviate suffering and poverty in their local communities.  This is an excellent idea.  I do not believe this has ever been done before.  I don't think this was part of Robert Kennedy's campaign in 1968, and I know that Dean didn't do this in 2004.

The wonderful thing about Edwards doing this is that, win or lose, he will actually have accomplished something much bigger and better than just a presidential campaign.  Presidential campaigns have an unnerving tendency to expend tremendous amounts of time and energy.  Why not harness that time and energy to ADDITIONALLY inspire people to organize and do good works?  

Edwards kind of touches upon this novel "win or lose positive result aspect" of his campaign when the aforementioned email closes with this:

"I can't promise you where this will ultimately lead. But I can promise you this: if you're on board, we'll launch a renewed
commitment to change our country from the bottom up. We'll always speak from the heart. And together, we'll reach out to millions of people to let them know it's still okay to dream big dreams, and do everything we can to make them real --because that's what America is all about.

So the only question is: Are you ready?"

To Gpack3 sent Wed 27 10:24:53 -

You hit the nail smack on the head !  Your "Jesus" quote is totally correct.

Please. Jesus Christ could not get elected. He's weak on defense ("Love your enemies"). He's come out in favor of tax increases ("Render unto Caesar...") He spends far too much time hanging out with prostitutes, and to top it off, he's a Jew. That does not play in the red states.

As for John Edwards. I'm a supporter.  I also was (and, in some sense, still am a Deaniac).  

Except for the MSM totally misrepresenting his "scream" comment, he could very well have been the nominee.