Fighting For Us Vs Squabbling with Each Other

I'll admit for a day or two I was a little shelled by the results in Nevada.  Things didn't go so well in Nevada for my candidate, John Edwards. But then something went terribly, terribly right in Myrtle Beach last night.  Edwards reminded me why I support him and, indeed, why I spend time involved with politics at all.  It's not because of horse race intricacies or keeping score on political pot shots.  Reacting to the increasingly personal and largely irrelevant back and forth between Clinton and Obama, John Edwards brought the debate back to what a Democratic debate should be about::

"This kind of squabbling -- how many children is this going to get health care? How many people are going to get education because of this? How many kids are going to get to go to college because of this?" Edwards said to cheers from the crowd.

"I respect both of my fellow candidates, but we have got to understand this is not about us personally."

Throughout the debate, Edwards was the candidate bringing the discussion back to people's real concerns and the real fight that needs to be waged in this country.

Before the debate some in the media were redoubling their efforts to drive Edwards out the race and erase what he and his supporters stand for from the election. We can't let it happen, and Edwards made it a bit tougher for them with performance in Myrtle Beach. I am not going to blow too much sunshine up anyone's patootie, it's a long long climb for Edwards to reach the nomination.  But with Obama and Clinton feud getting nastier and less edifying each round, I feel myself in no rush to pick a bandwagon.  Apparently I am not alone, as this reporting from Nevada shows:

In the precinct 7054 meeting, the Obama camp sent a cadre of supporters over to the unaffiliated participants. They repeated the familiar talking points of the national campaign, calling Obama "the candidate who can change Washington to work for the middle class," adding that Obama was "the only candidate who could restore hope for the American people."

Clinton supporters waited and listened closely to the Obama pitch. When their opportunity came, two older women told a group of four unaffiliated women that "Clinton would represent our interests because she is a woman," arguing that Clinton "understands us; Obama can't."

The intense contest for the Edwards voters turned many of them off. A majority of the Edwards supporters decided to sit out the contest and not caucus for either Clinton or Obama. This result was dumbfounding for many of the Obama supporters who were shocked that the Edwards supporters would not join their camp.

Edwards campaign precinct captain Mike Prior said that he convinced the Edwards camp to decline to vote in the second round because their refusal to support either Clinton or Obama would serve as a protest vote. Prior said that he was "for Edwards from the beginning," and was proud of Edwards' role in the primary process because "Edwards set the agenda and forced the other candidates to respond." Prior had not lost faith in his candidate even after the Edwards defeat. "He is a fighter. That's better that someone who can give a good speech or shuffle papers any day," Prior said.

Maybe it's only a coincidence or the calendar, but when Edwards has been pushed aside, the issues and focus on policies and real people have been pushed aside too. And the political discourse has has degraded rapidly.  When Edwards is in the fight, the fight becomes about people and health care, and poverty and the environment.  When he's cut out, it's about whose corporate law clients were shadier.

And that's why we can't give up.  As the campaign has gone on, Edwards has lead on all of the issues, if not in the polls. From health care, to trade, to poverty, to rejecting the Global War on Terror, or pushing back on a new war with Iran John Edwards has lead and the others have followed, though often, not as closely as I'd like.  

Of course, as many of you know, Martin Luther King III made a point on the holiday to celebrate his father's legacy to note much the same thing:

I appreciate that on the major issues of health care, the environment, and the economy, you have framed the issues for what they are - a struggle for justice. And, you have almost single-handedly made poverty an issue in this election.

You know as well as anyone that the 37 million people living in poverty have no voice in our system. They don't have lobbyists in Washington and they don't get to go to lunch with members of Congress. Speaking up for them is not politically convenient. But, it is the right thing to do.

I am disturbed by how little attention the topic of economic justice has received during this campaign. I want to challenge all candidates to follow your lead, and speak up loudly and forcefully on the issue of economic justice in America.

From our conversation yesterday, I know this is personal for you.  I know you know what it means to come from nothing.  I know you know what it means to get the opportunities you need to build a better life. And, I know you know that injustice is alive and well in America, because millions of people will never get the same opportunities you had.

I believe that now, more than ever, we need a leader who wakes up every morning with the knowledge of that injustice in the forefront of their minds, and who knows that when we commit ourselves to a cause as a nation, we can make major strides in our own lifetimes.  My father was not driven by an illusory vision of a perfect society.  He was driven by the certain knowledge that when people of good faith and strong principles commit to making things better, we can change hearts, we can change minds, and we can change lives.

So, I urge you: keep going.  Ignore the pundits, who think this is a horserace, not a fight for justice.  My dad was a fighter.   As a friend and a believer in my father's words that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, I say to you: keep going.  Keep fighting.  My father would be proud.

(Emphasis Added)

As a Kos diary said yesterday, Don't Mourn Organize. Because more far more than any candidate in this race John Edwards has given voice to the cause I believe in and given voice to the people who have to little a voice in our country. What most of us are for isn't just the candidate, but the cause and the voice that he represents.  



Display:


Re: Fighting For Us Vs Squabbling with Each Other (2.00 / 5)

Let's get some Myrtle Beach mojo.


by MassEyesandEars on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 12:55:02 AM EST

Re: Fighting For Us Vs Squabbling with Each Other (none / 0)

Obama made a mistake going after John Edwards, because, though not electable, Edwards' agenda is just the one that Obama should be favorable toward.

Hillary is the Democratic nemesis here as well as Bill Clinton, who still believes that taking Republican positions is the right strategy. Obama rather needs to incorporate Edward's populism, be more antiCorporation, and not fear the word, "poor," even while trying to appeal to the middle class.


Click on Peace, Propaganda, & The Promised Land and learn the truth about the I/P conflict.
by shergald on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:07:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fighting For Us Vs Squabbling with Each Other (2.00 / 4)

Excellent post.

MLK III said it so well: his father would be proud of John Edwards.

As The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., said in the Letter from Birmingham Jail:


Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states. I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham.

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1 /15/103510/201/153/437167


by TomP on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 01:02:12 AM EST

Re: Fighting For Us Vs Squabbling with Each Other (none / 0)

Maybe it's only a coincidence or the calendar, but when Edwards has been pushed aside, the issues and focus on policies and real people have been pushed aside too. And the political discourse has has degraded rapidly.  When Edwards is in the fight, the fight becomes about people and health care, and poverty and the environment.  When he's cut out, it's about whose corporate law clients were shadier.

If Edwards was leading you'd see him brought into the squabbling too.  When a candidate is far ahead or far behind he or she can stay above the fray or the fray stays above him.  Everybody looks a lot better then they aren't being scrutinized.


John McCain defends Bush's Iraq strategy.
by recusancy on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 01:11:53 AM EST

Re: Fighting For Us Vs Squabbling with Each Other (2.00 / 4)

He's been consistenly the same candidate that we saw in this debate.

What I said in another thread applies here:

He's a mirror. If Obama is the Rorshach Test and Clinton is nostalgia/revenge, then emotionally Edwards is a mirror.

It has occured to me why people must believe that Edwards is fake or insincere or will not be capable of accomplishing what he talks about. I mean, if you don't believe that he's faking it, then  he becomes a mirror into who you are, doesn't he?  I am wondering if not only identity politics is a problem, but also the inherit lack of faith in our own values? Are we still whipped?


by bruh21 on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 01:26:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

sadly, many people do think he is insincere (2.00 / 1)

That perception hurt him among some Iowans for sure. The media do their best to keep that idea in people's minds by not failing to mention the haircut or some other such crap whenever they mention the substance of his arguments.

Rich people who donate to local charity projects get fawning profiles in the paper and on the local news.

But a rich man who wants to change our national policies toward the less fortunate, and our public discourse about economic justic, is branded a hypocrite by cynical journalists.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:28:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: sadly, many people do think he is insincere (none / 0)

I think the perception stems from his 2004 run where quite a few people found him kind of annoying and truth be told, I was one of them. I found him annoying in interviews where he would not just get to the point and he sounded kind of mushmouthed for a guy who is supposed to be a great lawyer. The Pelosi Jr. HBO documentary did Edwards no favors though Pelosi tried a hit job on Dean and it didn't work because I actually thought Dean came across just fine as hard as Pelosi Jr. tried to slant it differently.

Having said that, he is one of my top choices now. I already see hit pieces where people who hate Hillary or Obama want Edwards to drop out so they feel their candidate wqill benefit the most and do not have patience for a "spoiler". This is why I support the power of third party. And Edwards has effectively become a THIRD PARTY POV to the two major parties we are facing in the primary - OBama and Hillary. The press should still give him respect to allow him a fair chance of succeeding in a still early stage of this primary. Also, even if he doesn't succeed, giving Edwards a fair chance of expressing his views will force Obama and Hillary to pay more attention to Edwards POV and coopt them in their campaigns which is a win situation for those who support Edwards for his views. This is where I feel third parties or POVs are useful even if they can act as a spoiler. If you want to render the third party/POV factor irrelevant, then do something to attract his voters.


by Pravin on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:31:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh nooo (none / 0)

this was NOT the Edwards we saw in the NH debate.

THIS was the Edwards I was calling for before.

Remember?


by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:34:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh nooo (none / 0)

You misunderstand the post.

It's not about what mistakes Edwards made, but whether even a perfect campaign would matter in today's environment.

I readily agree that Edwards didn't run the best campaign he could have run and made mistakes, but I also wish you would aknowledge that even if he did it might not  have necessarily mattered. I don't have time to look up the links, but Chris Bowers had an excellent post on how narrative by the media trumps all. If they decide not to cover you, your campaign is done no matter what you do. This is true of both the Democrats and the GOP. The stats on media coverage of Edwards demonstrates my point regarding how his campaign was done in by the  media before NH or IA. Can you dispute the numbers? THe point here now is that he is also done in by where the American people are. I am not convinced that they are ready for change.


by bruh21 on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:02:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Disagree (none / 0)

Who COULD have won Iowa but he let Obama go unscathed.

And winning Iowa could have changed everything for him.

Trippi killed him. Just killed him.


by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:07:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Disagree (none / 0)

you underestimate the power of the media to control the narrative. i really did find bowers discussion of whats been happening with the GOP candidates instructive- who is considered top tier or not versus who is considered an also ran etc. i simply take what bowers said and considered it in terms of media coverage of edwards. one of the things that i argued with davide mixner about on this blog is this very point. ia and nh only matters if the media says it does. on the GOP said, you can see that as plain fact right now in this country. its a scary thought ,but its the reality. bowers gave  a great example- what if the media in 2000 had decided gore won simply because of the popular vote, what woould have happened?


by bruh21 on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:12:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Disagree (none / 0)

 I found myself for the first time actually liking Edwards in a debate last night.  Think about why that is.  Edwards came across as less calculating about what is best for him (usually siding with "go after Hillary full bore") and finally let Obama have it as well.  That is called being fair with criticism, something he has not always displayed in the past.  Had he, he might be in a much different position today.

As for media power itself: Obama has the media mostly fawning about him, whereas Hillary's share of the media attention is majority negative.  Yet, she seems to be beating Obama and seems strongly positioned for a major jump forward on Feb. 5.  The media may have ignored Edwards, but negative pieces on a constant basis aren't any better.   I think the media as an entity is baffled, consternated and downright dismayed at their ineffectiveness and inability to influence the Democratic nomination process.

I think the power of the media is overstated here.


by georgep on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 12:29:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Disagree (none / 0)

she has a 15 year narrative that gives her a huge advantage, bot in the positive in the primaries, and negative in the GE. something i have said to you for quite a long time.


by bruh21 on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 01:00:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Disagree (none / 0)

i sense a need by you and others to give some kind of concious effort to what i am talking about. intent or lack of it is irrelevant.


by bruh21 on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 01:01:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Disagree (none / 0)

Can you restate.  Your post does not appear to make much sense left as is.  

If it is written in the context I think it may be, let me state that I could care less what the poster's name is.  If someone states that the media is anointing a candidate, then I will respond to it with my take, as I believe the opposite to be true.  Hillary is winning despite the media going to bat for Obama.  Edwards could have found a way to do the same.    


by georgep on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 01:17:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Disagree (none / 0)

sorry i do this in between working. i am talking about the media, not posters. the media need not intend bad narrative to create it. peo seem to want to ascribe maliciousness to the media as a group-- ie, conspiracy etc. maybe you can  point to one or two or whatever, but it's kind of irrelevant to my point about the media. i am arguing an almost market failure approach to understanding how bad actors or otherwise game the system. jon stewart , of all peo, first discussed this back in 2004 with the swiftboating of kerry.


by bruh21 on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 02:14:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't think it was Trippi (none / 0)

I am talking to others involved with the campaign to figure out why Edwards did not take on Obama more last fall.

I don't think it was Trippi's influence. I think that field reports from all over Iowa during the summer and early fall suggested that the battle would be between Edwards and Clinton, period.

Someday I will write a diary on this, when I have more information.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:12:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

would love to read it (none / 0)

What a miscalculation.


by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:42:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh nooo (2.00 / 1)

One other point- a diary that I am meaning to eventually write- there are two things that are winning this cycle- identity politics and more importantly triangulation. more important than Edwards, this is the concern that I had with this election. edwards was the only voice remotely not triangulation.  This will mean several very bad things, none of which  you or others will like regarding the GOP and its ability come back into power in the next decade.


by bruh21 on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:09:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fighting For Us Vs Squabbling with Each Other (2.00 / 3)

Edwards was the winner tonight, hands down.


by kristoph on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 01:17:22 AM EST

Re: Fighting For Us Vs Squabbling with Each Other (2.00 / 1)

i appreciate this post, and it's emotions, and it's information. i have full-moon insomnia, which has been well-spent here.


by greenbird on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 02:19:34 AM EST

Re: Fighting For Us Vs Squabbling with Each Other (2.00 / 1)

phooey.  Obama did the same thing.  he pointed out that viewers weren't interested in the back-and-forth but how they would get health care -- and that got a round of applause.

i'm so bored of the St John nonsense.  if he wasn't so far behind, he'd be going for whoever's throat was in his way.  just like he did in 2004 when he attacked Dean relentlessly -- and usually behind the scenes.  he gets to pretends he's above it all because he's so far behind.


by subboy on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 02:23:16 AM EST

Re: Fighting For Us Vs Squabbling with Each Other (none / 0)

Whether it is his fault, Hillary's fault, or the systems fault is irellevant. There is no way you can pretend that Obama is fighting for the rest of us the same way Edwards is right now, and I say this as someone who adores Obama and plans to vote for him (not that my state will matter.)


Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America
by JDF on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 04:19:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

St. Johnny the Phony (2.00 / 1)

"i'm so bored of the St John nonsense."

I couldn't agree more! The guy is a joke. He has been beaten in two different election cycles by two entirely different sets of opponents dozens of times. He never wins. Nobody wants him or votes for him. But he won't drop out. And yet, somehow, he is all for "the people."

Um...no, he is a self-serving politician who changes his tune to suit his ever-more desperate candidacy. Originally, he intended to run as the anti-Iraq war candidate. When that didn't fly, because his record didn't support such a claim (the guy sponsored the damn war resolution), he trotted out his warmed-over "Two Americas" anti-poverty schtick from his last failed campaign. Again, though, the record does not support his stand. During his one term in the Senate, he was a moderate and a centrist. He certainly was not the redistribute the wealth revolutionary he purports to be now.

The further he falls behind, the more radical his views get. When he knew he would lose in Iowa, he announced, for the first time and on the day of the caucases, that he would remove all US troops from Iraq within 10 months of his inauguration.

During the LBJ/MLK flap, he denigrated LBJ as a "Washington politician," yet that is what Edwards himself once was, and what he aspires to be again.

The guy is transparent as glass and phony as a three dollar bill, and yet we get post after adultory post treating him a rock star, and diary after maudlin diary telling us we should vote for him because the diarist has a sick parent. Get a clue. All 3 remaining Democratic candidates say they want universal health care, St. Johhny has no monopoly on virtue.

And, no, "the media" is not "blacking him out" because Edwards endangers entrenched corporate interests. Again, he's a centrist, Southern Democrat, not Leon Trotsky. The media doesn't cover him because he is mutiple time loser who has no chance to win the nomination.


by freemansfarm on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:07:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: St. Johnny the Phony (none / 0)

I agree.  There are many good people supporting him including my sister and my good friend who I would rather spend time with than just about anyone.  But I do not see him the way they do.  I don't really think he means what he says and I think he has overplayed the angry populist card.


ABO... Anybody but Obama. I LIKE the democratic party.

by MollieBradford on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:28:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: St. Johnny the Phony (none / 0)

Yeah, you find Obama terrible. You find Edwards insincere. You only bow to Madame Hillary.


by Pravin on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:33:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fighting For Us Vs Squabbling with Each Other (2.00 / 1)

The first half was like being on the blogs, but I really appreciated Edwards bringing us back to the realities of the situation. I hope the voters did too.
by benny06 on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 05:00:37 AM EST

Re: Fighting For Us Vs Squabbling with Each Other (2.00 / 2)

This post is exactly why I want Edwards to stay in the race. He may be getting only 15% of the vote, but he's shaping 85% of the debate.

Just imagine what that debate would have looked like last night if only the two "glamor candidates" had been on stage.


by Bob Miller on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 07:24:13 AM EST

Meh (none / 0)

Edwards was fine last night, but he did his share of squabbling and was quite the attack dog in previous debates.

IT is easy to NOT squabble when you are not under attack.


by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:26:15 AM EST

Re: Meh (none / 0)

And your comments are full of it. JRE was right to ask questions. If you don't believe in true democracy, then so be it. JRE is the ONLY net neutrality candidate. If you think Clinton or Obama will deliver net neutrality to continue the discussion, then to quote Bill Clinton, you are in "fairy tale land."
by benny06 on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:44:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh geezus (none / 0)

I get enough of this crap from Obama supporters.

And wtf does net nuetrality have to do with my commnet?


by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:28:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh geezus (none / 0)

Considering you are a Clinton supporter, take my words more seriously. NET NEUTRALITY
by benny06 on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:58:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Meh (none / 0)

As someone who wants to see John Edwards shine in the debates, I think you are being way too sensitive about Big Tent's comment. Let's face it. Edwards got in a little asquabbling in previous debates. The difference is he is not the frontrunner anymore. So he doesn't have to get into a heated fight with the top two.


by Pravin on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:34:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

No, you're wrong (2.00 / 1)

Edwards attacked with gusto when it was necessary, but he attacked on the ISSUES, not on the influence of Bill Clinton or on Obama's Rezko connection. That's not squabbling. That's called debating.


by grayslady on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:17:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Edwards did plenty of personal attacks (none / 0)

on Hillary earlier.

He is no saint.

He did great last night.

I like his political style.

But please, no new cults.


by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:29:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, you're wrong (2.00 / 1)

Edwards made a comment about the Hillary "crying" episode, for crying out loud!
Let's not be blind followers here.
by Pravin on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:35:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I get what you're saying (none / 0)

but Obama simply doesn't talk about the issues the way Edwards does, and I lack the confidence that he would be a tough enough negotiator if he were elected. I worry that he would be too conciliatory and go too far toward the Republican position in the name of consensus.

In the general, I would vote for Obama and GOTV for him. But if I lived in a state that had not voted yet, I would stick with Edwards in the primaries.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:35:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm fine with that (none / 0)

and I agree.

Here's my point, the Edwards that showed up last night, the one willing to confront Obama should have been there the whole time.

He did not fight to be the Hillary alternative. He ceded it to Barack Obama.


by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:48:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

the media would never have let him (none / 0)

become the main Hillary alternative. Look at the national media coverage Obama got between December 2006 and summer 2007, the magazine covers, the tv profiles. They did not want to make room for Edwards.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:16:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the media would never have let him (none / 0)

DMD, I respect you very much but there simply wasn't a media conspiracy.   I've worked as a scratch journalist a couple of times in my life.  Obama is/was New! Exciting!!  He captured the imaginations of a lot of people and the news media just followed the story, frankly with about as little depth as they usually do.  Now, as Gertrude Stein said about Oakland, upon closer examination there is no there there.  But see what Mencken said about the American voter.

Indeed, one of my major reservations about Obama is the whole rock star phenomenon..."movement" politics don't do anything for me because they ultimately depend on human individuals at their center who ultimately become deified by the True Believers.

I think in some ways we ask too much of our politicians, in others not enough.   Instead of running the government in a competent and efficient manner in a direction we like, we start making them the repository of our collective hopes and fears.   I don't think it's sound for the voters and I don't think it's healthy for the politicians.   But you'll notice that the political processes haven't even given a nod in my direction.  :")

Fwiw, I thought Edwards did very well last night.  But way too little, way too late.  He may have saved enough of his vote, keeping it from melting, to guarantee Obama's win in SC.   But he won't win SC and after February 5 he'll be a footnote in the horse race though he may still have an effect in the on-going dialogue.


by InigoMontoya on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:31:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the media would never have let him (none / 0)

The core problem I have with your analysis abouth the media is that the end results keep ending up the same in politics with regard to which sides or forces win. What do I mean by this? what i mean is that although its not a conspiracy, it is a reinforcing of a narrative and frame that repeats itself. triangulation as the big winner this cycle. the establishment or safe predictable democratic strategies as the winner. different faces, same shit. what's winning is the reinforcement of the status quo. in such an argument you dont need intent. just laziness or indifference. i dont  just blame the press for this- when i read someone say "i love edwards, and i agree with him, but i won't vote for him in the primary because i don't think he has a chance of winning the nomination" - I think wow that's the power of lazy narrative at work and in full force.


by bruh21 on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:57:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the media would never have let him (none / 0)

Yes, I understand you don't like the results.   Or how many people--and I'll even stipulate a degree of laziness--digest the political process.  But you might as well rail against the incoming tide as to complain about human nature, which is a fixed part of the political chessboard.  

A successful campaign, any successful campaign, has to take human nature into account.  E.g., likability is a really dumb criterion in evaluating candidates but I might as well join you in railing against the tide as have any hope that it wouldn't matter.


by InigoMontoya on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 12:10:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the media would never have let him (none / 0)

One of the most destructive things you can do is not listen when someone is saying something to you. You just did that to me. This isn't about the results. At least not in the way  you  mean. It's about looking at the macro picture of what's happening in politics without regard to candidates. As I mention to BTD above- this is also happening on the GOP side, and I don't like any of their candidates at all. but I do see a set of actions that are taking place that are strikingly similar to what's happening in the Democratic party. You also make a flawed argument. What we see today isn't necessarily representative as you say of 'human nature" That's a cop out and just reinforces what you want to believe. Or to put another way- are you seriously arguing that the press has always been like this in their coverage? Seriously, because that's the only way y ou can make the 'human nature' argument stick. Other wise, it is you , in your attempt to justify the way things are now, who are trying to convince yourself of something more fundamental than what is actually occuring.


by bruh21 on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 12:41:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the media would never have let him (none / 0)

The problem isn't the press coverage, it's that reduction, via human behavior, of multi-sided contests to two-sided contests as quickly as possible.  It's a matter of perception:  when people see the main contest as being A vs. B, then C is always an afterthought.   C breaks into the meme defining the contest only if A or B falters.

And, yes, I understood that your objections stood outside the current crop of candidates.

You want people to approach elections in a different way than they do.   Absent some transforming event, none of which I see, they're not going to.  To which you object.  Shrug.


by InigoMontoya on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 12:55:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the media would never have let him (none / 0)

a) its not historically true that primaries have always been a reduction to 2.

b) your argument is an argument for innertia. i dont see how  you don't triangulate under your analysis


by bruh21 on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 12:58:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the media would never have let him (none / 0)

I can think of one notable exception right now but primaries almost always winnow to two very quickly.

I am not arguing for inertia.   My argument recognizes that inertia exists and must be taken into account.  One could wish the inertia didn't exist but it's like asking the sun to stop its movement across the sky.


by InigoMontoya on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 03:38:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the media would never have let him (none / 0)

I understand the point you're making here but I do think you need to broaden your analysis just a bit.

Consider how they do things on the Republican side.  Where did Fred Thompson's candidacy come from?  Were reporters REALLY that fascinated by the idea that a two-bit TV actor would jump into the race?  Maybe there's a little of the novelty factor, but it's also driven by forces within the GOP establishment who know how to work the media and really really wanted Thompson to be a factor.  Now, ultimately he was a wet blanket, but he doesn't exactly campaign like John Edwards either.

Progressives are only starting to figure out how to get what they want from the media and it behooves us to think about this more deeply, instead of just saying "he was old news, it was inevitable that he would get written off."  Package John Edwards a little differently - and I'm not just talking about stuff his own campaign could have done - and maybe you get a different result.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 01:07:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the media would never have let him (none / 0)

peo ignore this. how the media essentially create and destroy campaigns. the numbers from journalism.org which i dont have in front of me right now illustrates the point. by oct 2007 the coverage of edwards versus the other two obama and clinton was staggering -- if i am remembering something like 10 percent edwards and the rest clinton and obama.


by bruh21 on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 02:17:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the media would never have let him (none / 0)

On paper, Thompson looked at least credible in terms of filling a broader ecological niche on the Republican side than did the other candidates.  Moreover, if RedState.org [don hazmat suit when visiting] is any indicator, the Republican activists among their version of the netroots found quite a bit of hope and favor surrounding Thompson's entry, disappointment about his performance, both of which seem fairly objective reactions to me.

The initial media focus on Thompson was warranted.  So was the ultimate media skepticism and dismissal.


by InigoMontoya on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 03:42:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the media would never have let him (none / 0)

Well if you want to look at it in those terms, obviously Edwards fills a gap in the storyline.  It's a conscious choice whether to write that story or not.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 05:22:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the media would never have let him (none / 0)

A gap in the story line is not the same thing as a compelling story.   Every iconic conflict in our literature, from "Beowulf" (the Old English poem, not the movie) on, is of an A vs. B template.   You start with one character and then there's the "bad guy" or "adversary" or whatever you want to call it.

Personally, I like the notion of political ecology:  any one niche can be filled by only one candidate.  The most common template is Establishment and Insurgent.  If there is more than one in any given niche, that contest gets resolved early.  

The Republicans this year have a chance of giving us the rare three-sided conflict due to just the nature of their base:  the Jingoist, the Ogliarch, and the Ayahtollah.   I think the Ayahtollah is in the weakest position and as he fades, competition for his support will heat up between the other two.  Even there, there's a cascade effect where once you're seen as not viable among the top two, it goes downhill fast.

I think you have to go back to 1948 when Dewey beat out Stassen, Taft, Vandenburg, and a boomlet for Douglas MacArthur to get the Republican nomination when there were many strong players even at the convention.

 


by InigoMontoya on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:22:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fighting For Us Vs Squabbling with Each Other (none / 0)

People complained when Obama shrugged off Clintons attacks early on, and now people complain when he confronts them head on.  I guess he just can't with some people.


What would LBJ do?
by Socks The Cat on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:29:22 AM EST

Heh (none / 0)

True dat.

But Obama hamstrings himself by pretending he is gonna transform politics.


by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:30:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dream the impossible dream (none / 0)

Anyone who thinks that partisan divisiveness in D.C. would end if Obama were elected is fooling themselves.   The Republicans aren't going to suddenly say, "Oh, now we'll play nice" instead of obstructing virtually every Democratic initiative.

Legislatively, I would work across the aisle when I could, steam roller them when I couldn't.   Having Congressional majorities with the White House will give Democrats a chance to implement much of what they haven't been able to do with Bush in the WH.

There's a sentiment in some quarters, based on false premises, that we can "all work together."  Bullfeathers.   You can't "work together" if one side is determined to be a jingoistic unilateral player in the Middle East and the other isn't, when one side wants to keep in place the Bush tax cuts that favor the wealthy and one doesn't, when one side wants to screw labor and the environment and one doesn't, when one side wants to perpetuate the appointment of judges like Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas and one doesn't, when one side is anti-Choice and the other side is pro-Choice.   Not only are these not compromisable issues, they are not compromisable world views.  

Beyond that, I think the Democrats need to move aggressively to politically demolish the entire neocon power structure.   I suggest as a template the solution that Rome imposed on Carthage at the end of the Third Punic War.


by InigoMontoya on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:22:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fighting For Us Vs Squabbling with Each Other (2.00 / 4)

I tuned in the debate last night, ready to try and figure out who I would now support after Edwards' poor showing in Nevada. It took about 5 minutes for me to reach a very clear decision.

John Edwards.


by greenvtster on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:55:37 AM EST

stop blaming the media (none / 0)

the people who are voting in primaries, who are watching debates, seeing candidates and taking their choice seriously are not choosing Edwards.  His message is not effective at this time.  Or he is not an effective messenger.
There is a certain amount of delusion in the mass of supporters for any candidate.  Edwards is all but out of this and it is the fault of his campaign. They have done the best they could, but it just has not worked.  
Look, anything can happen but everyone including Edwards supporters knows the chance of Edwards getting this nomination is minimal. The chance of him getting enough delegates to be "king maker" is also minimal. He is going to have to decide if he really wants to hang in and be the default Dennis Kucinich, telling everyone how is the purest and most righteous candidate. People either aren't buying it (like me) or they don't care.

I thought he did well last night but people know he is not going to win, it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy unfortunately, and most will not waste their vote on him.


ABO... Anybody but Obama. I LIKE the democratic party.

by MollieBradford on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:18:31 AM EST

thanks for this post (none / 0)

I've already caucused for Edwards, but if I hadn't voted yet I would still be sticking with him.

For me it is simple: he is talking about the issues in a way that Clinton and Obama never have and never will.

One of them is extremely likely to be the nominee, and I will vote for that person in the general, but in the primaries I hope Democrats will support the candidate who best articulates their values and their vision for what the party stands for.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:33:02 AM EST

Re: Fighting For Us Vs Squabbling with Each Other (none / 0)

All three of them have similar policies. I want to see how they bring them forward. And the past and personality means something. None of them are perfect and none of them are imperfect. But I think the squabbling bring attention to some truth. One truth is that Obama is not a demi-god. He is not a pure religious figure. He is a typical Chicago poll. Not unwilling to go negative and fight dirty. And having lots of interactions and common projects with really bad charachters like Rezko. Does not make my candidate Clinton, or my second choice Edwards, a saint. And the Republicans with take the imaginary halo off of any of our candidates.


by maxstar on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:06:14 AM EST

I stuck with him (2.00 / 1)

I voted early this weekend in Illinois.  I proudly voted for John Edwards.  He needs to stay in this race not only for the issues he brings up but also because he presents the best possibility to derail Hillary from the nomination.  As long as he picks up 15-20% of the vote he will be picking up delegates.  If he does not, the delegates get split in two and I just don't believe that can be a winning formula for Obama.


A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy. - Teddy Roosevelt
by minvis on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:13:40 AM EST

Edward is a dead man walking (none / 0)

And I don't say that in any malicious way. This is politics and he's collapsing. He fought the good fight, he's a good guy but he's fading. He'll do well in SC or should do. If he doesn't Clinton could come surprisingly close to Obama. Thereafter it's over for him because he's probably going to be in mid single figures.


by ottovbvs on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:23:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I think what minvis and other feel (none / 0)

is that the general election is the time to vote for the lesser of two evils.

The primaries are the time to stand up for the candidate who best represents the Democratic Party, as you see it.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:19:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think what minvis and other feel (none / 0)

If posters on this site are any indication it appears that minvis is now in a minority amongst Edwards supporters.  I know you are leaning towards Hillary over Obama, but was surprised to find that posters Tarheel and rssai are of that same mind, that Obama is actually behind Clinton in their esteem.  There are many Edwards supporters who have recently made similar statements, which is an interesting phenomenon.  


by georgep on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 01:11:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think what minvis and other feel (none / 0)

I am frankly stunned that some of the more, uh, "vocal" Edwards supporters - like Tarheel, annefrank, Vox - have become so harsh towards Obama in recent weeks.  I mean, we share a lot of the same critiques, but I was not expecting this at all.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 01:21:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think what minvis and other feel (none / 0)

Also remember that I live in Illinois and have seen Obama run for office and speak way before this presidential election.  That may color my perception of him.  

Now, I don't know how old the other posters, like Tarheel, rssai, etc. are, but my opinion of Hillary is also fairly negative because I was in my 20's and 30's during the Clinton administration and I remember having such high hopes for progressive change from them and being very sorely disappointed with NAFTA, Don't Ask Don't Tell, and "Welfare Reform".


A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy. - Teddy Roosevelt
by minvis on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 05:56:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fighting For Us Vs Squabbling with Each Other (none / 0)

Yesterday, at debate Barack Obama accurately predicted that the stock market may have a problem tomorrow due to some other country's stock market having low numbers and Wolf shot back, no one knows what will happen on the Stock Market tommorow.  Well, apparently, Obama DID and was able to have the foresight to connect the dots!


by bacalove on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:44:45 AM EST

Re: Fighting For Us Vs Squabbling with Each Other (none / 0)

Um, I realize you think Obama has some amazing predictive powers, but in reality everyone who follows the markets knew there would be a big problem today.  I think the other candidates even commented on it as well.

The reason is that all the overseas markets, like Tokyo for example, were way down in trading yesterday.  Because of the MLK holiday, there was no trading on the US markets.  But everyone knew that because of the crash overseas, when the market finally opened on Tuesday it would not be pretty.

I don't recall the comment you attribute to Wolf Blitzer but just between you and me, the guy is kind of a dope.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:28:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fighting For Us Vs Squabbling with Each Other (none / 0)

I'm sticking with Edwards.  Obama and Clinton...UGH!Once Obama said he wasn't "invested" in the causes of the 60's-70's,,,which are still extant...that was the last straw.  Black voters should see this...MLK Jr. understands.  I saw another older black leader on who also described the nature of the fight today, now about class and economic justice rather than color...what MLK was discussing at the time of his death.

I think Lewis Black already knows that Democrats could very well lose in '08 with the two losers whom the press are pushing...


by Gloria on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:55:12 AM EST

Re: Fighting For Us Vs Squabbling with Each Other (none / 0)

Nice  Two "losers"?  

FYI, the press has been largely hostile to Clinton (there goes your "the media is pushing" theme) and if these two are losers, what does that make those who come/came behind them?  Victims?    


by georgep on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 01:06:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.