the edwards appeal to a loon like me
So I get so much s*it for my few words of praise for a candidate who has not yet proven himself but whom I greatly admire -- Edwards. Alone in a foreign city, abusing the free wireless broadband, I think I've got it: It's not just that he is a lawyer proud of what the law can do (and here, from Code is the chapter where I first confessed irrational affection for such sorts (search on "Cates")), who looks like Kennedy but talks like my mom, and who could debate Bush better than anyone else on the floor of the Senate, it's also that he is, fundamentally, great suits notwithstanding, a populist. Watch.
| Permalink | technorati
Comments (34)
You're just now identifying Edwards as a populist? I guess that's the true measure of how ineffective his campaign has been.
His "Two America" ad is bizarre, because if he proposed to solve all those problems he mentioned, I would surely support him too! (He doesn't seem to support single-payer, only health care for kids. He doesn't support vouchers or promise to get our public schools into the same shape as private ones. His tax plan is to merely cut loopholes, not reduce taxes for those worse off. And he hardly supports campaign finance reform at all! (perhaps not surprising if all his money comes from trial lawyers...))
re shoveldog: right, that was stupid. I don't mean that he is a populist was a surprise. I mean the level of populist rhetoric throughout the ads. I'd never seen the ads before.
Professor,
I understood you. I was just taking the opportunity to express my disappointment with Edwards' campaign. I'm an Edwards supporter, and I had high hopes for him. The media, however, has studiously ignored him, and his campaign has not found a way to break through. Maybe today's endorsement by The Des Moines Register will generate some attention.
You can't really be endorsing a plaintiff's lawyer for Prez can you?
I would think that those who endorse John Edwards endorse the man and his message, not some caricature others invent for him based on the reputation of some in his profession.
I'm with you, Edwards is my favorite. I can't; however, support him because he won't win the nomination. Sure, he can mop the floor with GW; tha's a moot point when he'll never get the chance.
Dave, I see the same thing you do. Here in Chapel Hill, NC, which *should* be prime Edwards country, he doesn't even seem as popular as one might expect. At least, this is what I observe.
I also like the guy, though. I thought I liked Dean for a short while, until realizing it was just his campaign model I liked and not Dean himself.
When you say "I can't support him because he won't win the nomination" it somehow makes sense and seems circular at the same time. What's the deal?
It seems to me that there are several who are starting to feel this way. Maybe more props should be going to his campaign manager.
Maybe Edwards is picking up a little momentum.
Cokie Roberts had some uncharacteristically good things to say about him this morning on NPR.
Not to overemphasize my blogcuz shoveldog's point, but Edwards is peaking at the right time. Is it too late? Perhaps, but those who give him no chance may just find themselves back there in the dust with the defense lawyers, corporations, manufacturers and Lauch Faircloth supporters who have given him no chance at various points of his quite amazing life.
Positive, sunny optimism and an intellectual dedication to the issues Dean just discovered last spring will go a long way, and I think the tide is turning.
Someone needs to be the media story for the next couple weeks - it might as well be Edwards and his "amazing comeback."
Third (dare we hope for second) in Iowa = cover of Time and Newsweek for the week of the NH primary. Who knows what happens then, and South Carolina is right around the corner.
I have kept the faith. Please join in.
His “Two America” ad is bizarre, because if he proposed to solve all those problems he mentioned, I would surely support him too!
As The New Republic Online states in The Case for Edwards - The Wonk" (although the magazine is endorsing Leiberman) Edwards provides details for his proposals unlike his rivals:
For instance, the "position papers" featured on Dick Gephardt's website, covering such issues as pension reform and education, generally consist of a half-dozen or so short paragraphs broadly outlining a few basic proposals (e.g., the creation of a universal pension that would follow a worker through to retirement). Edwards's issue "fact sheets," by contrast, often go on for several pages, broken down into various subheadings and bullet points. Even as you read this, members of Team Edwards are trooping through the snows of Iowa and New Hampshire to distribute a 60-plus-page policy booklet titled "Real Solutions for America." Addressing everything from education to homeland security, the senator offers a veritable smorgasbord of the sort of smart, bite-sized policy proposals that Clinton employed to such great effect. Specifics include a $5,000 tax credit for first-time home buyers, scholarships for prospective teachers who pledge to work in lower-income schools for five years, and the creation of a homeland intelligence agency that would assume the information-gathering duties of the FBI.
And, unlike most high-promising pols, Edwards also explains how he intends to pay for his proposals, listing a range of cost-saving and income-generating measures that include opening more government procurement to competitive bidding, reducing subsidies for major oil and agricultural concerns, shrinking non-security-related federal agencies over the next decade, and repealing specific elements of the Bush tax cuts. It's true that some of Edwards's cost-saving plans may be difficult to achieve--is he really going to abolish the Office of Thrift Supervision and reduce other federal agencies by 10 percent per year for ten years?--but the specificity with which he lays them out allows one to judge them on the merits. Contrast this with the vague platitudes offered by his rivals. As The Washington Post recently complained of Howard Dean's big domestic policy rollout, "[Dean] includes access to affordable health care and child care, help with college tuition, a new retirement savings program and other worthy ideas. But beyond asserting that `we must be responsible stewards, not profligate spenders,' Mr. Dean offers few details about how he would achieve these ambitious goals--and tackle a deficit set to exceed $500 billion this year."
Here is the policy paper Real Solutions for America
For Dean supporters, 2 links on Edwards:
Patriot Act ** Iraq
I support Senator Edwards because he is a man who really can make a difference in this country. He stays above the fray and people are finally starting to take notice. If you haven't heard of him before now is the time to start paying attention. Check out his campaign website and read more about his policy positions...also you can join on on the campaign blog...its great! Thank you Lessig for your kind words about Senator Edwards.
I was very politically active in the 60’s and early 70’s, my primary issues were anti-war, environmental protection and woman’s rights. My activism took on a decidely local flavor while raising my children. My youngest daughter just graduated from college and as I looked around I was very unhappy with the state of our nation. I see this election as one of the most important of my lifetime the issues at hand are the equivalent of the civil rights, woman’s rights, environmental protection and antiwar movements of the past.
I want to be able to look my future grandchildren in the eye and say that I recognized the crisis and was part of the solution.
Knowing that I was going to actively support a Democrat I took a long hard look at the field and I have to say that I was heartened and impressed with what I saw. The people who are putting themselves in front of the firing squad to run in this election are all exceptional – John Kerry has a fabulous record on the environment and has worked tirelessly in the Senate for years, Howard Dean, a Yale graduate and an MD with 20 years of State level government service in Vermont, Dick Gephart a lifelong politician who has worked hard to make the system work for us, Dennis Kusinich the hero of Cincinatti and Joe Lieberman – what integrity – I don’t agree with much of what he has to say but I sure know where he stands. (note-Wes Clark wasn't a democrat yet when I started looking)
Of this group John Edwards is unique because although he has political experience in Washington his experience as a trial lawyer fighting large corporations and special interests is more valuable and separates him from the rest of the field.
There are three things about John Edwards which, I think, make him the candidate who will beat George Bush in the Fall. These things all have equal value so I’m not listing them in any particular order.
1 – Electability – He is the only candidate who has won an election in the South against an incumbent Republican. In his run for the Senate which was his first try for elected office he unseated Lock Faircloth who was a protégé of Jesse Helms. It is important for the Democrats to be competitive in the South because no Democrat has won the White House without winning at least 5 Southern States and we must make the Bush machine work in every state and not be able to take the South for granted while just focusing on the big industrial states.
John Edwards knows how to do this because he has done it.
2 – Campaign Finance Reform – John Edwards does not take donations from Political Action Committees or Washington Lobbyists. He has been in Washington long enough to understand where the problems are without having been there so long that he is tied to the status quo. This election can not be about money – it must be won on ideas. We need someone in the White House who is accomplished at fighting special interests. When we don’t have drug companies and HMO’s writing out Health Care Policy, Oil Companies writing our energy policy and military contractors influencing our military policy then much of what has gone wrong in the country will be corrected.
John Edwards has the best credentials for that job.
3 – A positive vision for the future. John Edwards started this race by writing down a detailed plan describing not only what he plans to do, but how he plans to do it and pay for it. This sixty page book “Real Solutions” impressed me because it demonstrates his faith in us, the voting public, that we care about issues and will spend the time to read through a detailed policy to understand where he stands. He is offering us a positive candidacy based on ideas and a vision of America which is both compelling and possible.
When asked if he can take on George Bush he says:
“I am so ready for this fight, I have been working my whole life for this fight…”
I have been activly supporting John Edwards for president. If feels so good to be part of the solution!
Edwards is really something. A lot of people are warming to his positive, enthusiastic campaign. He's piqued the interest of a lot of people I respect on the left and right. Someone once told me that he's better than any of the other candidates at really reaching small groups of people. The more I hear people talk about him, the more I believe it. If this race doesn't wrap up by the first week in March, he might have a chance.
Prof. Lessig, I appreciate your kind words about Mr. Edwards. I'm a recent convert to the Edwards camp. After leaning towards Dean, I realized that I wasn't backing Dean because I liked him but because I didn't want to back someone who didn't win. When looking at the issues that matter to me, John Edwards seems to be the man for me and almost everyone I know. He's positive and doesn't fight fellow Democrats but fights the true oppenent, George Bush. He has a strong education plan to help students like myself pay for college. He has an logical tax plan to encourage middle class growth with first house tax credits and teacher tax credits rather than tax cuts to the rich. Finally, he's a great speaker (watch him once and you're hooked), who can take Bush on the issues and show people that Bush isn't folksy just wrong.
-Brad
" I’m an Edwards supporter, and I had high hopes for him. The media, however, has studiously ignored him, and his campaign has not found a way to break through."
I don't think you should expect corporate media to embrace a true outsider for President. The media is part of the establishment. They would much rather have you believe that someone who gets the endorsements of Washington insiders will actually attempt to change things. If anything, the media's attempt to ignore Edwards says much about their fear of his success.
Just my two nano-cents:
Aaron S.'s post was a little bizzare. He wrote: "He doesn’t seem to support single-payer, only health care for kids."
That's right, Aaron, he's against health care for people other than children. and...
"He doesn’t support vouchers or promise to get our public schools into the same shape as private ones."
Do you support single payer health care and also support vouchers? Just wondering.
Also, as has been noted above, this: "And he hardly supports campaign finance reform at all!" is about as wrong as it can be. Quite the opposite, in fact. He's the only one who talks about real campaign finance reform (public financing and free tv time) at every speech and appearence. Maybe you're thinking of some other 'John Edwards'....
Great post, Lawrence.
People who consistently attack John Edwards, USUALLY, don't know a lot about him.
Unlike some other candidates like Howard Dean's who is the only candidate running who's NEGATIVES ratings nationally is higher than his positives, AND INCREASING because more people are finding out about him, the more that people find out about John Edwards, the more that they like him!
Moderate Republicans have said that they will definitely vote for Edwards if he is the nominee, but ONLY EDWARDS! He has excellent crossover appeal, and yes, he can definitely not only compete with Bush, but BEAT HIM, anywhere in the country!
So, like I said, keep on bashing Edwards, it's just because what you think you know about him is true...
I meant to say, "So, like I said, keep on bashing Edwards, it’s just because what you think you know about him is NOT true!"
It's easy to mess up a post when people are rushing you off of the internet...
...Peace!
Hear hear. I will caucus for Edwards in my home, here in Iowa, and I relish the chance to do so. What a candidate. Many people on this site support him, and to that, there's nothing I could add to the great words here. To those who have a different candidate, from the D's or R's, there are no doubt plenty of forums for you to find your political home. For those of us here who are Edwards friendly, please be aware that we in Iowa are doing all we can to give him a solid ground to stand on for the rest of the primaries and caucuses.
Thanks for the chance to post here. It is really something to be a part, even a small part, of what's going on in the country.
Pete in Iowa
I have the same problem as you. It seems my peers make fun of me and say who? Edwards? To them, it's like saying I'm putting my bottom dollar behind Nader in 2004. I actually somehow have a certain likeness for ALL of the candidates, when it comes down to it, though I have always -no question - thought Edwards would be all around the best, for every reason. So seemingly sharing the same sentiment, and finding this site to be a revelations of sort - for things that are happening right now - what could be done right now, even at the last minute, to improve their campaign strategy?
Check out his latest ad.
Thanks. I had rather written him off, most-likely due to the spoofs and jokes made at his expense in media. I will try and include him in my daily intake and review.
I don't have any real objection to Edwards; nevertheless I am going to continue supporting Dean. If Edwards manages to pull a Clinton and come out of nowhere to win the nomination, I will not be gritting my teeth when I vote for him. But I am very angry at how our electoral process was subverted in the last election, angry with how our government is a pawn of big business interests, and I want someone who shows that same passion and fire (which Gore/Lieberman was the antithesis of).
Dean comes across, to me, as more of a "real" person; somewhat unscripted, willing to re-evaluate his positions as his understanding matures, strong-willed enough to push on with the unpopular positions when he believes he is right. Edwards reminds me of Clinton in his demeanor, which is not necessarily a bad thing as I think Clinton was an excellent President no matter what you might think of his personal foibles. Edwards has that same "slick" quality, to my mind. He's too "nice"; the job ahead calls for facing some unpleasant facts and undertaking some unpopular tasks, and a "nice" guy probably isn't going to get it done.
An abrasive guy probably won't get it done either. But I'd rather feed big business to a pit bull than a golden retriever.
I think "electability" is a sign of a mentally lazy voter. Electability means you are looking to your neighbors to make political decisions for you.
Smucci, Kucinich beat incumbents three times: in 1977 as mayor of Cleveland, again in 1994 for state senator, and in 1996 for the Congress where he is now. By that measure, Kucinich trumps Edwards. Anyone is electable if you vote for them. Stop buying into the self-fulfilling prophesy of electability.
When it comes to standing up against big industry, the second point of your support for Edwards, I'm impressed with how Kucinich stood up to big energy in Cleveland and supported the local municipal power system (it took years for people to realize he was right and reelected him on that basis with the slogan "He was right"). More recently, Kucinich (and none of the other Democratic party candidates even now) stood up to Diebold by distributing the Diebold memos.
For long term goals of substance, I think universal single-payer health care is worth fighting for (and so does Kucinich by backing HR676). I think complex health care that keeps HMOs in their current position only weakens people's resolve to fight for something better; it gives ammunition to those who want to argue that Americans can't have what the majority of developed countries give their citizens (including Europeans who achieved it after a devastating world war with an economy far worse than Americans have now). I also like that Kucinich actually puts his votes where his mouth is on the USA PATRIOT Act and giving Bush a blank check for war (Kucinich voted against both).
Rob, if you are angry about the 2000 election in Florida, consider that the Democrats there and nationally have done virtually nothing to bring this matter to the public's attention. The Democrats ran campaigns in 2002 without making a national issue out of those thousands of Floridians who had their voting rights taken away (and might still not be able to vote two elections later). We in the public learned about this from Greg Palast, an investigative reporter working for the BBC (see his book "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy"). This, not pregnant chads, is the a big problem that the Democrats and Republicans apparently agree that it is best to keep silent about.
Anyone notice that the Dean campaign now reads like Nader's from 2000? Shows how effective the Greens have been. Now Nader is thinking about running independent, maybe to galvanize the conservative resistance that won't vote Green and won't have Buchanan to vote for in 2004. Good idea!
Lawyers are less the solution than the problem, in many folks' view. A legal system incomprehensible to the average guy that he needs guys in nice suits to maneuver, is doomed. So if Dean manages to Nader-ize DC, that's a good thing. But it seems unlikely. More likely, his (Democratic, remember) cabinet will simply be same old same old. If Dean had any brains, he'd put Nader on the Supreme Court first chance, and get a serious threat out of the way, and send a signal to the liars and thieves that it was time to move out of America.
"Dean apes Nader", I would like to see some specific examples of the similarities between Dean and Nader because I can think of some instances in which they are not similar at all.
Dean rejects a universal single-payer health care system and claims it is politically unrealistic. His health care system is relatively complex and doesn't grant health care to all Americans. In 2000, Nader (as is part of the Green party platform) pitched universal single-payer health care for all Americans. Dean objected to the war but he wants to continue the occupation of Iraq for some unspecified amount of time (which will undoubtedly cost us billions of dollars every month). I don't know where Nader stands on this, but the Greens want to get the US out of Iraq now and transfer authority in some areas to the UN. The Greens rejected the invasion of Iraq because it was based on lies and now the invasion seems to be defended based on very different reasons than those that were specified during the run-up to the war. Nader has been quick to recall how the US backed Saddam Hussein in the 1980's and how the US looked the other way when he was killing people.
Dean and Bush share some things in common: both support WTO, NAFTA, and other so-called "free trade" agreements like CAFTA and the FTAA. The Greens and Nader criticize these agreements which allow corporations to chase the lowest paid employment the world has to offer and require a strong reduction in freedoms we currently enjoy in our copyright regime. Both Dean and Bush support the death penalty (Dean supports it in some cases, Bush supports it in more cases than Dean) while the Greens and Nader want to abolish the death penalty entirely. Both Bush and Dean want to increase the role of corporations in health care (noted by their focus on delivering health insurance to more people instead of delivering health care). According to the Associated Press, both Bush and Dean cut services to local governments causing a rise in state taxes during their governorships[1] (Dean cut state education and infrastructure spending and shifted the burden from state deficits to local governments causing an 87% increase in property tax). Both Dean and Bush gave tax cuts to Enron. Dean and Cheney support civil unions for homosexuals (Cheney said as much in the VP debates in 2000, Dean signed the civil union bill in Vermont). The Greens support fully equal marriage benefits (perhaps even getting the state out of marriage and making marriage defined by one's chosen religion).
The way I figure it, the Greens are real progressives on the issues and they have a history of running candidates that support their views (such as Nader). What I know about Nader's positions would qualify him as being a progressive as well. Dean and Bush, on the other hand, are not progressives on the issues and both have the imprimatur of parties that are not progressive on the issues.
[1] http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DEAN_TAXES?SITE=IADES&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT appears to have expired or somehow gone away.
J.B. Nicholson-Owens
I too am a fan of Kucinich. I have seen him several times in person and each time he has found a way to connect with his audience and bring down the house. I think he is brilliant.
I also agree that electability is a fairly shallow measure of the quality of a candidate. I mention it because as an activist in NH it is the question that is most often asked first. People are deeply concerned with getting rid of Bush. So like the SAT scores which really shouldn't be so important in determing a students eligibility for a given college, we have to consider electability when evaluating a candidate. I ment to emphasize south when I mentioned defeating an incumbant. I don't think Ohio counts as the south although it's considerably south of NH.
On my 2nd point, I still contend that John Edwards has the best credintials for dealing with the special intrests and corporate take over of our government.
And finally, I don't expect to agree with everything my candidate does or has done. I don't always agree with myself upon reflection. It is the quality of the person and the values he utilizes in making decesion which are important to me. John Edwards excells in this regard.
Like all modern politicians, Edwards' programs follow the simple tried and true formula.
Step 1: Take from Paul
Step 2: Give to Peter
It's unfortunate that we don't have a signle politician saying, "Hey, we have a baby boom crunch coming up! We need to quit spending money. We need to quit making new programs! We need to cut now or we are going to have drastic increases in tax in 20 years!". Why won't anyone tell the truth?
Edwards looks and sounds great, but at the end of the day he is making empty promises that will ruin the future of this country.
Because it's hard to get elected that way. Americans tend not to plan ahead, instead waiting for a crisis to develop before taking action. We'll deal with Social Security when it finally does become insolvent; until then, no reason to rock the boat. Also, be realistic: the President can *propose* the plan, but the Congress has to enact it. If you promise to do something and then Congress doesn't pass your program, it's a pretty lame excuse to take back to the voters 4 years later.
J.B. said:
Which is true. Single-payer (properly Government-payer) has been torpedoed by a carefully orchestrated campaign from the health insurance and HMO industries, who claim that it would put millions of Americans that they currently employ out of work, would lead to a reduced level of service with long lines and waiting times for necessary procedures, and finally would just be an un-American, Communist thing to do. Let those wacky Canadians and Swedes and other pinko nations do that, we're going to stick with providing the best health care money can buy (if you have money). This debate was only 11 years ago, have you forgotten it? Single-payer isn't going to fly in this country even if it is the best way to go.
Undoubtedly. Unfortunately we have an obligation to at least try to fix the situation, since we went in there and tore the place up. And if we don't get it fixed right, we're going to be in deeper trouble than if we'd just left Saddam in power. Iraq will disintegrate and the pieces will be fought over by its neighbors, meanwhile terrorists will take advantage of the lack of a strong central government to make the former Iraq their new base of operations against us. It's much closer to our vital national interests than Afghanistan was.
Kucinich's plan calls for 130,000 UN troops to "rotate in" to replace all our forces within 90 days. First of all, there's nowhere near 130,000 troops in the entire UN peacekeeping force today (39,329 in Dec. 2003 according to the UN) so I don't know where he expects them to come from. Secondly, UN troops are not traditionally used in operations where there is no peace to keep. I have no illusions that the presence of U.S. troops is a huge incitement to violence and provides a "target-rich environment" for terrorists; but at least the U.S. troops are not constrained from shooting back or undertaking operations to pre-empt violence through forceful means. UN troops only do this "as a last resort" if they do it at all. I like Kucinich too, I think he's genuinely caring and passionate, but if this is an example of his foreign policy...well, I don't think we're quite ready for it.
Anybody have anything else to say about Edwards? We're kind of off-topic...
Rich Persuad claims "Edwards is the single most aggressive candidate on the subject of campaign finance reform."
Howard Dean has proposed: public financing for all federal elections, letting publicly-financed candidates match rich ones, overhauling the FEC, nonpartisan redistricting for every state, and (reportedly) reducing the maximum contribution to $250.
John Edwards has proposed: banning lobbyist-government connections and contributions, publishing lobbyist and expert witness data.
According to Speaking Freely from the Center for Responsive Politics, the problem of corruption is not that individual members change their votes in response to campaign donations, but that the high cost of running a modern campaign insures only candidates favorable to big spenders get elected.
I can't see how Edwards is "mo[re] aggressive" than Dean. His proposals hardly affect campaign financing at all! (Unless lobbying is slang for slipping money or something...)
Dean's average contribution is $540. Edwards's average contribution is $1279 -- second only to George Bush. The vast majority ($7M out of $10M) of this money comes from lawyers and lobbyists.
It seems clear to me that Dean is more independent than Edwards is. Sure, getting 70% of your money in large quantities from trial lawyers doesn't necessarily mean you're biased, but it hardly makes it look like Edwards is "not owned by anybody" (as he claims in "Right").
Is there something I'm missing here? If Edwards is really serious about campaign finance, why doesn't he support the "Clean Money, Clean Elections" program for all federal candidates? The program has had great success in the states where its been tried (including Dean's Vermont) and I see no obstacle to applying it naturally.
Edwards said he wanted a fair progressive tax system. I pointed out he only proposed to close loopholes. Rich said that closing these loopholes would raise a lot of money. I don't think this invalidates my point -- the tax system is still unfair to poorer people.
jonnybutter asked "Do you support single payer health care and also support vouchers?" I support single-payer health care. I'm don't have a position on vouchers. I brought up vouchers as an example of something that could plausibly be considered a solution to the school problem -- AFAICT, Edwards has proposed nothing that can be.
Rolex Sea Dweller replica watches made with swiss movement ! so cheap and high quality ! accept paypal ,and 14 days money back without reason !