The Media might be coming around to Edwards - thanks to the liberal message

[cross-posted on my blog Madison For Edwards]

It's 55 degrees and sunny in Wisconsin in the month of March.  Miami University (my alma mater) is in the NCAA tournament for the first time since the Wally Sczerbiak days.  And the mainstream media has had two good stories about John Edwards in one weekend.  Is the world coming to an end?  All signs point to yes.

More importantly, back to those stories in the press.  As I wrote on Saturday, the New York Times had an interesting, well-written story on Edwards working the ground in Iowa in the Saturday Times.  And today, the Washington Post follows them with a story on Edwards.  In the story from Dan Balz, "New John Edwards Sells Less Biography, More Liberal Issues", the WashPo finally talks about Edwards the candidate of 2008.  He is "more serious and his elbows are far sharper than they were four years ago" and "his positions have more edge." The thrust is that, as the title suggests, "an emphasis on biography has given way to a focus on issues, where there has been a demonstrable shift to the left." 

And tacitly, the article acknowledges that the mainstream media has not exactly been paying as much attention to the 2004 nominee for Vice President.  "Although he labors in their shadows, Edwards has drawn attention from the party's two glamour candidates, Sens. Hillary Clintion and Barack Obama." While outlets like the NYTimes and WashPo have virtually led the charge to key in on the "rockstars" of Clinton and Obama, it has been mostly up to the alternative outlets, like blogs Daily Kos and MyDD to raise the profile, especially among grassroots/netroots activists and the Democratic rank-and-file, of a candidate that is truly offering a vision for this country beyond plattitudes and flowery rhetoric.  Although former trial attorney and senator Edwards is no stranger to intense and intensely engaging speeches.  But there is a difference in the words and lectern-content of Obama/Clinton and John Edwards.

In Edwards' own words from the WashPo article:

"Some of what is being characterized in that way is the result of me being strong and clear about where I stand and not being soft and muddy.  I think that we're in a place in American history where any serious presidential candidate and the president of the United States need to be clear what they want to do for the country."

Being strong and clear, not soft and muddy?  Offering a vision for the direction of our country at a pivotal point, coming off of four years of a disasterous presidency that exposed the utter failure in practice and philosophy of modern American conservativism?  It's like this is someone who wants to be a Democratic president and has not only learned the lessons of contemporary politics but also has at his core real values and an understanding of how to communicate them in a way that resonates with people and their own values.  For Democrats, this offers a not-just-refreshing but indeed inspiring change from the dominance of mushy and electorally-deficient "centrism" and triangulation.  For Americans, this offers a real change and almost fundamental revolution in what we can expect of politics and how public affairs can impact our lives positively.

As if John needed to add an exclamation point on himself as a candidate and as a political persona:

"I should make absolutely clear: Nothing has changed about John Edwards as a human being and my value system.  It's exactly the same as it's always been, which is wanting to give people the chances that I've had."

For those cynics who have tried to chalk up Edwards' allegedly newfound liberalism (and importantly, his ability to articulate liberalism as in line with American values) to a calculated 'ploy' to appeal to Democratic primary voters, this is a direct repudiation of their claims.  And this is important.  Those cynics are the ones who see messaging and 'political positioning' as strictly "politics," just do not get it that politics and public affairs are about more than consultant-driven elections and governance - they are about who we are as a people and what do as a body politic regarding everyone in our society and our society at-large.  One does not 'position' him- or her-self to win votes.  They express their values and their vision to make clear how he or she will govern and what that means to voters and citizens.  That might just be the biggest difference between Clinton/Obama and Edwards.  Politics is a vehicle for positive change and the improvements of peoples' lives and not a vocation where complex choices and issues are reduced to, at worst, the results in opinion polling or political capital.  

And this is not just the candidate making this clear, reinforcing that as a politician, he is not the "public face" of a political operation but instead a true leader.  Here is another bit from the article:

"He knows what he wants and believes it with a passion," said David E. Bonior, a former congressman from Michigan who is Edwards's campaign manager. "I think he's very confident about his values and beliefs and he's expressing that."

David Bonior shares Edwards values.  As elected officials and as people, they have both been friends of and advocates for working families, the labor movement, and those who seek a better world through politics and public affairs.  And that is key.  Edwards' campaign team is assembled not of the 'best' D.C. consultants, although there are some heavy-hitter political operatives onboard (Ed Turlington comes to mind first).  It is made up of people who share the values and vision of John Edwards.  This is not so much a campaign for the presidency, but instead an electoral contest that is the natural outgrowth of a movement for progressive action towards actualizing American liberal values.

Just to ice this cake a wee bit more, I have to include another quotation from the story:

"It's not about political calculation and incremental change. We're going to bring about the real changes, the transformational change that's needed in this country."

That's John Edwards, candidate for president.  Since when have Democratic candidates talked like this?  Even if you were one of the aforementioned cynics, I would ask what kind of political calculation this is?  The conventional wisdom is that safety, 'moderation' and seeking the ideological center so as not to 'offend' the sensibilities of any voters is the way toward electoral success.  Especially in a national campaign for president.  So either John Edwards gets it that being true to oneself and offering a clear, distinct and progressive vision makes for good politics, or this is really who John Edwards is.  My gut, my instincts, and my head tell me that it's both.

But to place in the "world is definitely ending" file, Bob Shrum actually made a statement that made sense - and one totally out of character with his past work, especially that of 2004 (which sunk the Kerry campaign).  

"I think he has a strategy to meet the party where it is," said veteran strategist Robert Shrum, who was an adviser when Edwards first ran for the Senate in 1998. "It's a party that wants fundamental change, not just in Iraq but on issues like health care. He's going to meet the voters where they are. I think he believes, and I think he's correct, that the old strategy of triangulation won't work in Democratic primaries -- and certainly won't work for him."

He's meeting the party where it is?  Meeting the voters there too?  Is that Bob Shrum for real?  Regardless, (and it blows my mind to say this) Bob Shrum is right about Edwards (to a point - he seems to cling to that consultant mindset of 'political positioning') and right about American politics.  Expressing your values as a person (as a candidate) and articulating them in a way that resonates is good politics - and it's good for the progressive movement - and really, the American people have liberal values at their core; so a candidate authentically communicating that is making serious political hay while doing the right thing.

So there you have it - a progressive movement candidate is running in a way that advances liberal values and the connection to them among the populace and he is doing well politically with it.  I can't imagine a more simple reason to back John Edwards.  And among the many reasons that he is my guy, this might just be the most important.  

Please feel free to join me in supporting John Edwards and make a contribution via the Wisconsin For Edwards ActBlue page.

[original post at Madison For Edwards]

Tags: John Edwards, mainstream media, progressive message, progressive movement (all tags)



Re: The Media might be coming around to Edwards -

I don't have anything to add. You said it all.

by adamterando 2007-03-11 01:21PM | 0 recs
Re: The Media might be coming around to Edwards -

Thank you very much.

by Peter from WI 2007-03-11 01:43PM | 0 recs
Re: The Media might be coming around to JRE

It's about damn time the MSM showed up and started being more sober.  They've been partying too hard in DC with Clinton and Obama.  I have some sympathy for Chris Dodd as actually he's a decent candidate.   But I picked my candidate early on: John Edwards.

by benny06 2007-03-11 01:38PM | 0 recs
Re: The Media might be coming around to JRE

You know that's interesting.  I think the same thing about Dodd (and Edwards for that matter).  

by Peter from WI 2007-03-11 01:43PM | 0 recs
Re: The Media might be coming around to JRE

The problem for Dodd is the same for Clinton, in one way: they are perceived as Northeasterners, and it's hard to break the mold as a candidate to win general elections other than just the NE or California.

Before you in the NE jump all over me, I can speak with a little credibility here. I lived in NE for 8 years, and saw the rise of one pol that I thought was great: the late Paul Tsongas.  I voted for him in the primaries as many in Mass and also NH did.  

Another NE pol I have been noticing for awhile is Jack Reid of RI.  I've often thought that if JRE got the nomination, he would make a nice running mate.  (Actually I think Webb would great, but one of my friends from Va sez we can't have him because they need him).  He's kind of a middle of the road guy, military experience, on the right committees at the moment.   I'd have to go back and look at his voting record, but when I've watched him in hearings on C-SPAN, he asks questions that are salient and not grandstanding in nature.  Unfortunately, I've seen Mrs. Clinton make good, sharp comments, but I don't hear good questions from her often.  

I think the next Dem nominee is not going to be from the NE.  It will be either a Southerner or a Westerner.  After seeing Fred Thompson say on FN considering a jump into the race,  we will need someone who can talk to anyone easily.  He's the potential candidate to watch (along with Hagel), not Newt.

by benny06 2007-03-11 01:59PM | 0 recs
Re: The Media might be coming around to JRE

Republicans hate Hagel.  He has awful fav/unfavs among conservatives.

by jallen 2007-03-11 02:02PM | 0 recs
Re: The Media might be coming around to JRE

I think the issue is less geography and more candidate personality and ability.  Can they connect with people?

John Kerry was easy for the right to paint as an out-of-touch, librul northeasterner that didn't understand regular people and wouldn't do right by them, totally defining the narrative, because he was not, as a candidate, very engaging, truly wooden (as opposed to Al Gore, who was just tarred that way in 2000), unwilling to fight back, and just reallly sort of tin-eared and flat-tongued.  

Obama could be the candidate, but while he does have a certain charisma to him, I don't feel like he really connects with people - almost like he's talking at people, hoping to fire them himself.  John Edwards, on the other hand, speaks with people, connects with them and inspires more of a passion of "let's do this together."  It's the difference between a Paul Wellstone and a Ted Kennedy (I love Teddy - I am naming a dog of mine Teddykennedy).

What about getting a running mate from outside of elected office?  I think that that would be an interesting twist for a candidate at this point.  Is there a businessman/woman who would add a lot to a ticket?  

But from within the public sphere, Jack Reed would be a DARK darkhorse.  He's a decent senator, but I can't see him adding much in terms of the message of the Edwards campaign.  I honestly think Russ Feingold would - but thankfully for us here in WI, it looks like Russ is more than happy to take on the challenges of the Senate with aplomb.  

Obama of course, would make some sense - but I think he's best served finishing out his senate term and then heading back to Illinois and running for governor in 2010, either filling the top of the ticket from an indicted Rod Blagojevich or challenging him in a primary (neither is a favorite of the Chicago Machine so it would be very interesting).  Then he could run for president in 2016 having served a term in an executive role and showing the kind of leadership experience and capacity he does not have right now (which Edwards does), maybe serving the first part of a second term or more likely leaving the governor's mansion after 2 years to start a full-time campaign.

For now, I'm happy to just focus on the next 10-12 months and doing everything I can to get Edwards the nomination.

by Peter from WI 2007-03-11 02:57PM | 0 recs
Re: 10-4 Idea

Of Obama running for governor.

by benny06 2007-03-11 03:00PM | 0 recs
Re: The Media might be coming around to JRE

See though there are a LOT of people who do feel he connects well with people and he is speaking to them.  I am one of them, as are many many other supporters.  In fact I know many that feel he does this as good if not better than Bill Clinton with this.  Its all opinion of course, but just want you to know that there are many would disagree with you.

As for governor, if he does not get the nomination or the VP slow, then I hope he does run against Blago.  Blago is about to sell the state college loan programs to private institutions, which is going to screw a lOT of people.  I want to see him gone.

by yitbos96bb 2007-03-11 09:45PM | 0 recs
Re: The Media might be coming around to JRE

Peter, you seem to be suggesting that Edwards has extensive leadership experience.  He is a good man, but I'm not sure what great leadership experience he has over Obama.  He has only held one elected office and it was one term as a senator.  He does have more campaign experience, and he has done a lot of good over the last two years while out of office, but then so did Obama when he served as a grassroots organizer and Obama has held elected office longer than Edwards or Clinton, albeit it was at the state level.  Not suggesting that Edwards is a bad leader, just saying I don't see anything in his resume that suggests extensive leadership experience over Obama as you seem to suggest.  Please enlighten.  Thanks!

by yitbos96bb 2007-03-11 09:50PM | 0 recs
Re: The Media might be coming around to JRE

Trial attorneys are executive-types in running cases - especially large ones.  Also, serving in a significant leadership capacity associated with a law firm.  

Running the UNC Center on Poverty, Work, and Opportunity is executive-type experience.

Working with labor over the past two years in an expanded capacity, including mediating and negotiating.  

John Edwards has had a career of varied experiences.  Obama has been a career legislator.  You get locked into thinking and working like a legislator and that doesn't play out as an executive.  

by Peter from WI 2007-03-12 10:20AM | 0 recs
Re: The Media might be coming around to JRE

Edwards is 8 years older than Obama, so he does have some extra experience.  But to insinuate that running large trial cases gives one some grand experience for running the country is a bit much.  Maybe you are a trial lawyer and that is the basis of your opinion... I'm not sure.  It IS good leadership experience and does bring some skills that would be useful in office... selling one's idea to the public, convincing others to support your ideas, etc., but it is NOT the same as being a Governor or a President or that sort of executive level.

Obama was a state legislature for 8 years.  He has been a US Senator for 2.  This is hardly the argument to call someone a career legislature.  20 years?  Sure, I'll give you that argument then... but Obama has ONLY served in any type of legislature 4 more years than Edwards.  That hardly makes him a career legislature.  Besides, the US senate and State Senates are completely different beasts... its like saying that being a Mayor of a town is the same as Governor of a state.  Or that a city council is the same as a state legislature.  It isn't.  You need different lines of thinking and working styles to be successful in these different capacities.  Sure there are SOME things that are the same, but not really as many as you seem to imply.

Edwards has 20 years of legal experience which is formidible and a boon to him.  In this time, He ran his own law firm for 6 years... while definately impressive, still not what most would call extensive leadership experience.  Had he been a head of a lawfirm for 20 years, sure... but 6?

He served less than 2 years at UNC Center on Poverty, Work, and Opportunity.  While a good thing, this was a part time position.  I would say his experience running a law firm is better example than the UNC Center, due to the part time nature of the position.  He was doing a lot of other things at that time, speaking engagements, wall street advising etc.

Obama has a variety of experience as well.  Again to say all he is is a career legislature is an insult to the man.  Yes he has served some time in the legislature, but he also did other stuff before and DURING that time as well... including a limited law practice and teaching.  

Obama worked for 3 years directing a non-profit project assisting local churches to organize job training programs for residents of poor neighborhoods before he went to Harvard and got his law degree. This is some some strong organizing and executive leadership experience.

After Harvard, Obama was a director of Project Vote, helping to register 150,000 voters for the 1992 election, some strong executive type leadership experience.

He began working at a law firm specializing in Civil Rights and voting rights legislation.  He was an Associate for 3 years and then became Of COunsel when he was elected to the State Senate.  Obama also Taught Constitutional law for 11 years, again another example of leadership experience.

He does have some nice legislative leadership experience, including 2 years as chairman of the Senate Health and Human Services committee in Illinois.

One could take your legislative argument and apply it to any occupation, INCLUDING trial lawyers.  One could easily say that Trial lawyers are locked into a certain style and line of thinking and work other careers like that.  Personally, instead of stereotyping, I'd rather look at the man or woman instead.

Overall, do I think JRE has more work experience than Obama... well that is without a doubt... he IS 8 years older than Obama.  While I would agree he does overall have more leadership experience, it is not this super EXTENSIVE amount you claim it to be.  If Edwards was a 3 or 4 term Governor, I'd give that to you.  If he ran his own firm for 20 years, I'd give it to you as well.  But most of all, I object to your statement that he is a career legislator.  The man's work experience has been varied, and like Edwards, there is one overwhelming theme... Obama (like Edwards) has dedicated his life to helping people.  From Grassroots Organizing, teaching others, legislative initiatives, and working as a civil rights lawyer, Obama has dedicated himself to helping his fellow man, especially those who can't always help themselves... a virtue I respect in both Obama and Edwards.

Now you will probably disagree with me and really there isn't much I will say that will change your opinion nor what you will say that will make me buy your argument that Edwards has extensive executive experience more than Obama.  I just write this so that those who are not partisan to either man might see both your and my side of the debate and make an informed opinion.

by yitbos96bb 2007-03-12 01:06PM | 0 recs
Re: The Media might be coming around to JRE

Actually I think you make a lot of good points.  No disagreement on the fact that Obama does indeed have a tremendous wealth of experience in public affairs.  And excellent experience at that.  I should also say that he and I both got our starts in organizing with the same group and I was living in Chicago at the height of Obamamania Part I.  I should also say that Obama is my #2 choice, and I think he would probably make a good president.  

[If Ted Sorensen thinks so, I gotta say that that means something to me - being a student of the Kennedy political years (both John and Robert, the latter being my hero).  If only Averell Harriman, Kenneth O'Donnell and Arthur Schlesinger Jr. could weigh in...)]

But I think Edwards would make an excellent president.

I am not a trial lawyer.  I work on the executive team at a large software company.  

In that both John and Obama were in charge of high-profile senate offices, they have leadership experience in that sense as well as what you have laid out above.

However, the primary distinction here is what it takes to be a good executive-type.  And that primarily boils down to vision and execution.  Legislators work somewhat sequentially, focusing on getting bills passed.  And while some of this includes having a broader vision and how those bills fit in, it is not quite the executive type.

Executive vision is all-encompassing and goes from larger, abstract concepts to a policy-level to a lever-level to an administrative level.  One, I feel like Edwards has always articulated a vision for this country than most any other public figures.  Two, his campaign has focused on a vision, while Obama's, to this point, has been focused on a vision of what politics is like - a very legislator-like vision.  

John's vision has come out like an executive's, with principles and values that underpin ideas, and policy ideas and directions that flow from it all.  And his experiences lend themselves more to executive-type visioneering.  I would the criticism on Hillary that her vision is very legislator-like as well.  It is checklist and bottom-up.  

I liken the difference to Platonic versus Aristotelian metaphysics (go ahead, check out that obscure reference).  I'll try to say more later, but I need to get back to work and carry out some executive duties.

by Peter from WI 2007-03-12 01:45PM | 0 recs
Re: The Media might be coming around to JRE

We will have to agree to disagree.  I think Both candidates offer a fine executive vision and would do a good job... neither one to me seems to have an extensive advantage over the other.

by yitbos96bb 2007-03-12 11:17PM | 0 recs
Re: The Media might be coming around to JRE

Just a small point some people forget about being a trial attorney, especially with some of the stereotypes out there. 99% of the time isn't spent in trial, its rare that cases actually go to trial. In fact good trial attorneys try their damndest not to get to a trial by "winning" a case before then. A lot more time is spent collecting evidence, finding experts, going over documents, discovery, depositions and negotiating. Most cases Edwards would have been involved in would have settled before ever going into trial. Especially in large cases it takes a tremendous amount of leadership and management to run large tort cases, especially against the large corporations with large teams of counsel in opposition.

Not trying to make it more than it is, but some ppl have an inaccurate "Perry Mason" image of trial attorneys. There is a lot more involved than giving a good opening and closing.

by okamichan13 2007-03-12 02:10PM | 0 recs

I think you both are wasting your time arguing between Obama and Edwards about experience. If experience is the key you should be supporting Richardson or maybe Biden. In fact both Edwards and Obama have enough experience for me, but their attraction is definitely not their experience, except in how it illuminates their thinking and person (eg. I think it speaks highly of Obama that he has community organizing experience). Both Obama and Edwards' strong suits are their charisma and intellect and positions and leadership ability, not their experience.

by jujube 2007-03-12 06:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Experience

someone speaks some sense..

thank you!

by serge in dc 2007-03-12 06:34PM | 0 recs
I'm glad the media's

waking up--you need media attention to get votes and money--although I wouldn't want the attention to be too great at this point. I like his position as what Balz calls an "undervalued commodity." I sometimes wonder if my gauge of his potential is skewed by my support for him, because it seems obvious that he's got a great shot to win. The math isn't complicated: credibly courting the base + strong in early states + most electable of the Big 3 + been through it before = one strong freakin candidate. The best thing for Edwards is that Obama has chosen to run a cautious general-election-type campaign. For a few months there, there was an opening on the left, which Edwards is now filling. With is celebrity, Obama could have drown Edwards early had he chosen to run an insurgent-style progressive campaign. Instead he opted for a platitude-driven, consultant-designed opening to his campaign, and Edwards had to be relieved even as the media swooned over Obama. And continues to swoon. I'm glad to have the spotlight on Obama and Clinton for the next sixth months while Edwards quietly kicks ass.

by david mizner 2007-03-11 02:28PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm glad the media's

I think that what is interesting is that Edwards still polls the highest of any of the top three among independents and Republicans (?) even though the story has really been his "tack to the left."

Here in Wisconsin, there are some fairly large Republican donors who will be supporting John, simply because they think he is the right candidate for the job of president and because they appreciate his vision and authenticity/realness, even if they won't always agree with him on issues.

by Peter from WI 2007-03-11 02:59PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm glad the media's

Do you have a link to substantiate this?

by yitbos96bb 2007-03-11 09:52PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm glad the media's

This is not the kind of thing that gets publicized this early in the campaign.  You'll have to take my word for it.  It's also the kind of thing you find out by having one foot on the 'inside' and the other on the 'outside'.

by Peter from WI 2007-03-12 06:38AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm glad the media's

I'm sorry... I could say HRC is attracting 100% of Republican voters, or Obama is garnering the biggest support among Independents... Without proof to back it up, they are just empty statements.  I respect your "insiderness", but from the National polls I have seen, your statement that Edwards is attracting Republicans and Independents just doesn't seem to be supported.  I again ask you to show some polls, endorsements, something to prove you assertion.  

by yitbos96bb 2007-03-12 07:11AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm glad the media's

Unless you are JUST talking about Wisconsin... given the little polling that has come from the state, that would be more believable without the proof to the statement.

by yitbos96bb 2007-03-12 07:13AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm glad the media's

I don't have the links to the polls, but they are out there.  I'll try to find some tonight.  But no guarantees.

As for the Republican donors in WI, I really can't say too much other than what I've shared so far.  Nobody wants their name out yet (and these guys and gals are 'risking' some political friendships by coming out for Edwards - so their ducks need to be in line).  

Like I said, you'll just have to trust me on that one - I wouldn't lie about that kind of thing.

by Peter from WI 2007-03-12 10:10AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm glad the media's

Not accusing you of lying, just saying I think you may unintentionally not be taking all polls into account.  And I wanted to verify your claims were national rather than just Wisconsin... since as you stated there are few polls... two technically, but only one with any real numbers... the other was November of 2006 before anyone had announced.

by yitbos96bb 2007-03-12 01:09PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm glad the media's

Nationally, John has performed well among non-Democratic voters.

In WI, there is not enough data to make a conclusion.  But I do have ward x ward and county x county breakdowns from the primary.  This weekend, I set about doing some analysis, and I found that in the rural and/or more heavily Republican or swing counties, he did better than any other candidate (we have open primaries in WI).  Likewise, in my targeting data file, which includes ward x ward performance for all elections over the past 6 years, in the limited analysis that I did (there's something like 2,500 polling places, and I looked at maybe 250), in the swing-ier areas, John did incredibly well in key municipalities.  

by Peter from WI 2007-03-12 01:49PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm glad the media's

As I said, Nationally, I have seen polls with Obama doing exceptionally well with independents and moderate republicans.  I just don't feel the data supports the hypothesis that NATIONALLY Edwards will do better.

As for Wisconsin specifically, that I would defer to you.  It wouldn't surprise me though.  

by yitbos96bb 2007-03-12 11:20PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm glad the media's

Also, there's been only one poll, done by Strategic Vision (R), for Wisconsin.  It was laughable at best, and the political media and operative types on both sides of the political aisle and those within the different camps dismissed it.

by Peter from WI 2007-03-12 10:21AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm glad the media's

i don't know whats up with edwards supporters on mydd..they mislead and make stuff up

they'll take a poll where edwards is down 10 points to hillary and say edwards is leading.. they'll take a poll where edwards is up 1 point and say he is leading when the margin of error is more than 1 point...

or they'll say something and go "trust me..."

guys.. take a course on polling or something and chill out... i know you want edwards to win but making stuff up, pulling numbers out of context etc ain't going to make it happen..

by serge in dc 2007-03-12 10:14AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm glad the media's

I am not talking about any effing polling when I talk about there being Republican donors who are supporting Edwards.  You don't get polls on that stuff.

When it comes to Edwards doing well amongst independents and Republicans (better than other Democrats), there are definitely factual polls out there.  If it were not the case, I wouldn't cite it.  I just don't have it 'on' me right now.  I'll work on it later.  

by Peter from WI 2007-03-12 10:24AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm glad the media's

I think some of the national polls and for example the recent one in Ohio support this. Edwards tends to do better among independents and Replicans than Clinton or Obama. I would imagine especially in the south.

by okamichan13 2007-03-12 08:57AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm glad the media's

But there are also polls that say the opposite.  I haven't seen a consistent trend to support this statement.  Hence why I am asking for Peter or someone else to actually show the trend lines supporting this statement.  

by yitbos96bb 2007-03-12 09:57AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm glad the media's

First off, I don't get trendlines?

I think you mean show polling with trendlines.

by Peter from WI 2007-03-12 10:11AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm glad the media's

Trendlines from the polls yes.  

by yitbos96bb 2007-03-12 01:10PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm glad the media's
though your guy if finally getting some press, I do disagree with Obama running a cautious campaign.
Obama is running one that is different and hard to pin down.  He just does things different and his way.  Both are good candidates.
by vwcat 2007-03-11 08:21PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm glad the media's

obama is not running a campaign to win the mydd vote whereas edwards is...we'll see how it shapes up

by serge in dc 2007-03-11 08:36PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm glad the media's

Do you mean that Obama is not consciously looking to get support from MyDD or that his campaign is just generally not oriented towards MyDD-types?

by Peter from WI 2007-03-12 10:12AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm glad the media's

i think its pretty clear what i mean.

he's not pandering to the blogging community as opposed to edwards who seems really concerned about what people on mydd think.

but winning mydd and winning the primaries are two different things.

frankly its frustrating reading the posts around here.. making polls up ("trust me"..yah i'm the guy with the pro edwards me... NOT!), misleading pro edwards diary titles (edwards leading! oops he's 10 points down)... comments being removed if they are not the "i'm glad the MSM is now covering edwards even though i support obama" (those get positive ratings! shock!)

by serge in dc 2007-03-12 10:19AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm glad the media's

Pandering would imply a conscious and calculated effort to 'win' a certain bloc of voters.  Read the WashPo article - that's clearly not the case.  

That Edwards has come out in a way that aligns with the general philosophical ideas about politics, power, and ideology of folks on MyDD should be something we applaud - if only because it validates the netroots' ideas.  But probably more importantly, because there is a candidate that 'gets it.'

I don't know what this is:

"misleading pro edwards diary titles (edwards leading! oops he's 10 points down)... comments being removed if they are not the "i'm glad the MSM is now covering edwards even though i support obama" (those get positive ratings! shock!)"

What are you talking about here?

by Peter from WI 2007-03-12 10:28AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm glad the media's

Yeah I have to agree with Peter... I don't think Edwards is pandering to the blogosphere.  If he was, he would have come out immediately about the blogger incident and refused to accept their resignations when they grew tired of the BS with Donahue.  He is running his own campaign, same as Obama.  

by yitbos96bb 2007-03-12 01:12PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm glad the media's

I also think that it is clear at this point that there are two candidates that have a legit shot at the kind of people that make up the netroots - and we are an important bloc, not because we are votes or a large bloc of votes, but instead because we are the grassroots campaign machines.  The two are Edwards and Obama.  And it's not because they are actively courting the netroots through a coordinated strategy, it's because of who they are and how they are running their campaigns.  My contention of course, is that Edwards really gets it, independent of us, and that Obama is teetering on the precipice of really getting it too.

by Peter from WI 2007-03-12 01:51PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm glad the media's

Now if only we could all get along, stop the anti-Obama posts and the anti-Edwards post and work to take out Hillary.  Lets clear the field and then we can snipe at each other.  I guarentee you will find more anti-Obama attack posts made on here over the last 6 months than Anti-Hillary attack posts (and anti-Edwards attack posts as well) and the infighting makes it easier for HRC to win.

by yitbos96bb 2007-03-12 11:23PM | 0 recs
How about no anti-Dem "attack posts"?

Point out candidates' flaws or disagreeable positions if you want, debate the horse race if you must, but why not save the "attacks" for Giuliani or Thompson or Huckabee or McCain?

by jujube 2007-03-13 12:55PM | 0 recs
Of course Obama

has run a cautious campaign. It doesn't (necessarily) reveal much about Obama's character, and it might prove to be a good strategy, but there's no question that the first weeks of his campaign have been cautious. He could've barnstormed the country championing a rapid withdrawal from Iraq or decrying inconomic inequality or discussing a plan for universal health care; instead the singular message to emerge from his first months is that politics is broken. He seems intent on offending no one.

by david mizner 2007-03-12 05:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Of course Obama

i don't believe this is true..

by serge in dc 2007-03-12 06:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Of course Obama

Some people don't believe the earth is round.

Doesn't make it flat.

Obama has run a cautious, top-down campaign whose message is "politics is broken and I am a uniter."  It would be a lot easier for me personally to support Obama - he has tremendous potential and most of my friends that are marginally connected to electoral politics have swooned over him at one time or another.  But he has just come out so flat and Edwards has just been the right guy for this for a long time.

by Peter from WI 2007-03-12 10:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Of course Obama

I agree with you on his message, but his campaign also has a strong bottom-up portion as well.  Once we are said and done, you will see the first candidate who has run two types of campaigns... a TOp-Down and a Bottom-Up.  The way he is starting reminds me a lot of the Primaries... Many on here seem to think this is a sprint and it isn't... he is running slow right now, but you will see the fires grow as they did in the Illinois primaries as time goes by.  You may think he came out flat, but there are MANY MANY MANY people who would say you are wrong... but it is all opinion. He may not have your vote, but he also has many others at this point in time.

by yitbos96bb 2007-03-12 01:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Of course Obama


maybe you are the one who believes the earth is flat..

obama is consistently polling better than edwards nationally....i'm not going to go into all the reasons i think edwards is not the best candidate etc.. i've written them ad nauseum and i got better things to do...

edwards is very popular on mydd... thats great..

but all your editorializing and misinterpretations don't change much... tired of reading all your bias... you're an expert on the obama campaign? pardon me if i happen to think obama's campaign so far is a fairly good one.. he's raising mega bucks and his stories have been favorable... people ten to like him..he is solidifying support in the african american community..whats he done thats so terrible??? pay the parking tickets?? not issued a detailed health care plan?? 11 months before the first primary?? why would he?? edwards is doing so, perhaps , because he is running from behind..

this election is not going to come down to whether one candidate rejected an invitation to a fox news debate (two or three days prior by the way..) or not.. much as people around here seem to think so..or how much coulter cash he raised...

frankly i'm tired of all your pro edwards spiel
why don't you go to the edwards blog??? that goes for lots of you.. this isn't an EDWARDS blog... there are other candidates and some of us like them or haven't made up our mind on who we like.. we don't mind your misinformation about how edwwards is doing great and obama is doing horrible which has been a consistent point being made by numerous pro-edwards bloggers over the past few days.... i don't buy it..  

doing great where??? do you have any evidence that he is actually doing any better than he was??? of course not.the primaries are still a long time away.. everyone has said from the beginning that edwards is a player...

i mean take this post..its propaganda..we're subjected to the words of bonior who happens to be edwards' campaign manager???? isn't that a little biased???

who cares what bonior says..we know he's bs-ing as its his job..

just cause you write it don't make it true


by serge in dc 2007-03-12 02:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Of course Obama

You are tired of hearing about Edwards huh.....I can't tell you how sick I am hearing about Obama this and Hillary that on MSM...quite frankly, as I think most Edwards supporters are as well. We have a serious, inspiring, charismatic and ELECTABLE candidate with great ideas and he basically gets shunned by the media. Frustrating to say the least. Forgive us for trying to support our candidate.

by rbrianj 2007-03-13 01:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Of course Obama

Obama is every bit serious, charismatic, inspiring and electable as Edwards.

by yitbos96bb 2007-03-13 07:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Of course Obama

I agree on everything you said, except electable. I my opinion he is electable in the the Racism and xenophobia is alive and well in this country. To think otherwise is naive.

by rbrianj 2007-03-13 10:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Of course Obama

His style will change.  He has said his current course is general... much of it due to large crowds, etc.  He wants to introduce himself to voters in a positive way... he doesn't have Edwards advantage of having campaigned for President since 2003.  He has said in May or June that he is going to be switching to the more traditional one on one, face to face issue style of campaigning that is necessary to be viable in New Hampshire and Iowa.  

by yitbos96bb 2007-03-12 07:18AM | 0 recs
Go Ducks!

And I don't think Edwards has much of a shot. Secretary of Labor, perhaps? Future governor of North Carolina, hopefully.

by mihan 2007-03-11 04:20PM | 0 recs
Re: The Media might be coming around to Edwards -
I'm an obama supporter but, I am glad your guy is getting some press.  I'd like to see this a contest between these two with Hillary far far down in the polls.
Well, by summer.
In the meantime, though I root for my candidate I am glad yours is getting some press.
by vwcat 2007-03-11 08:19PM | 0 recs
Re: The Media might be coming around to Edwards -

Agreed.  A 3 way race that is close will be much more interesting and hopefully will get more people involved in the process.  If I can't have Obama up by 30, a close 3 way or a close 2 way between JE and Obama are ideal.

by yitbos96bb 2007-03-11 09:53PM | 0 recs
Edwards - thanks to the liberal message

Great diary.  The people are seeing it, maybe the media will start seeing it also.  John Edwards will bring transformative change.

by littafi 2007-03-12 10:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards - thanks to the liberal message

another post stating opinion and attempting to turn it into fact... dissapointing...

"people are seeing this"

who? no one in my building has said anything? i don't see anyone in the street saying anything? the poll numbers have hardly changed with edwards still in third place

"john edwards will bring transformative change"

like he did as a senator?? which change??? he's changed opinions quite a bit you know....

i'm outta here.. this is a dissapointing thread ... its a bunch of edwards' supporters just making up favorable stuff about their candidate and adding a few "obama is running a terrible campaign..".."come out flat he has" etc

by serge in dc 2007-03-12 02:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards - thanks to the liberal message

there is nothing wrong with opinion, until we have a primary, thats about the most we are going to get. Not sure why it should bother you, why not make a post about your candidate and express your own opinion?

I'm not sure why you are disappointed in what people are posting. The thread was created by an Edwards supporter and many posting here obviously would also be Edwards supporters. I'm not really sure why you should expect anything different.

Through your posts you obviously have a strong dislike for Edwards - as is certainly your right. so honestly I'm not sure what you expect by posting here. No one is forcing you to agree with them. If you don't like this thread, then simply move on.

by okamichan13 2007-03-12 02:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards - thanks to the liberal message

Kind of like when you make comments about Edwards being a "terrible" senator who would not have gotten reelected in North Carolina if he had chosen to run again?

Pot. Kettle. Black.

by Vox Populi 2007-03-12 03:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards - thanks to the liberal message

wrong! i did not make that comment..someone else did..

i may have agreed..not sure..but i did not make it

just FYI

by serge in dc 2007-03-12 05:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards - thanks to the liberal message

That's the same thing as when Lieberman, Clinton and others say "Some people say Democrats are weak on terror.  I'm not weak on terror."  This is a roundabout way of saying Dems are weak on terror, without actually saying it.

by Vox Populi 2007-03-13 05:07AM | 0 recs
Re: The Media might be coming around to Edwards -

Who gives a frick about the media junta?

Let me tell you all the God's honest truth ---

Edwards is a plebe that the kingpins put their money on.

Why would they do that?

Because these slick cats have it all figured that they themselves are all nuts!

So they get this poor bastard to fix all the disasters they have created.

Of course, this is a total crap-shoot. Just like Bill Clinton.

But these guys are not oblivious! They know how to hedge their bets.

Yes, Virginia, there is such a thing as a gamble!

by blues 2007-03-12 07:03PM | 0 recs
Re: The Media might be coming around to

I feel saddened by today's discoveries. I recently searched the internet for answers.

I've been loyal to FOX NEWS for the past decade. But I seriously want to know why they never report on The Federal Reserve. I just saw this video on YouTube and it's very interesting. It makes Bill O' Reilly look like a lunatic so maybe it's a conspiracy nut's video. I'm not sure. If I knew how to blog I would blog this clip.

by seanhannityfan32 2007-03-12 07:37PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads