John Edwards...

[thom1102]

You know, I am not trying to bash this guy, but everytime I hear him speak, all I hear him talk about is how humble his roots are. Now I think that is great, and it is a nice story, but come on! Let's talk about what you are going to do. What's your message, beyond "I come from a blah blah blah..." If this guy wants to be a serious contender talk issues, and get some fire. I was just watching the AFL-CIO debate, and was he off that night, or is this all he's got? I keep hearing that he is the next JFK, but beyond his youth, where are the similarities?

[PaDUer]

1. Drop him an email

and let him know..I'm certain other people are feeling the same way. If he continues on w/ the same ole, he's going to be in the same ole place in 2004.

[tjdee]

2. I get so sick of hearing about JFK. JFK died, okay?

No offense, LOL, I was just reading the thread about Dean being the next JFK.

I love me some Kennedys. But even JFK wasn't JFK when he ran for and won the presidency. Trying to hitch a candidate to JFK's aura is not fair to the candidate or JFK.

As to Johnny Reid... I don't think he was particularly aflame at the AFL-CIO forum. He was fairly good, but he's got better.

People get sick of hearing it, but two things:
1-There are many people who don't watch every forum and listen to every speech like we do. I guarantee you there were a number of attendees who didn't know a thing about Edwards.

2-You remember it, don't you? You remember that Edwards is the one with the mill worker daddy. From a communications perspective, Edwards is being very clever. A lot of things are said at those forums/debate things--you walk away not remembering too many exact things. Edwards wants to make sure that people remember that he's the one who knows what it's like to be a working man, to have the concerns of a working man/woman.

As to the comparisons to JFK--they're both "young"(Edwards is FIFTY), optimistic, and good looking. They both had young children during their campaigns. That's about it (unless your an Edwards supporter, LOL, then you hope they have another thing in common!)

[DagmarK]

3. He is trying to impersonate Bill Clinton!

Not having cable.....I finally got to see a clip from the recent debate and I was dumbfounded. He's impersonating Bill Clinton. Now, I think Edwards has a platform and all but.....man... he must have watched A LOT of videos of Clinton and practices in front of the mirror. Same intonation, same pauses, same tone of voice. Even the same punctuated speech.

**rolling eyes**

[chimpymustgo]

15. DagmarK, he's not. Edwards is quite his own man. And a good one.

They both have southern accents, but other than that I don't see any similarity in Clinton's and Edwards' speaking styles.

Edwards is often called the next Clinton because he's southern, handsome, smart and an awesome campaigner.

But I find their personal styles quite different. Please visit Edwards' website to watch his new tv ads (which are terrific), and read his positions on job creation, health care, the environment, domestic security, civil liberties, civil rights, etc. outlined in a new 60 page booklet.

www.johnedwards2004.com

[Poiuyt]

4. Shields and Brooks on PBS

Interesting. On the Shields and Brooks political segment on The News Hour With Jim Lehrer, Mark Shields said that Edwards will be the next big movement with Brooks (the conservative one) nodding in agreement. That was the end of their segment so they didn't get to elaborate. But they both thought that he would be the next popular candidate.

I know nothing about Edwards, but I'm keeping open minded about everyone at this point.

[burr]

5. You're not alone...

Edwards IMHO, is what I call a spam candidate. He is more spin than substance, and he draws attention from other candidates in this crowded race who do have a well thought out agenda to sell to the public if nominated. Other candidates that I believe fit this category are Bob Graham and Joe Lieberman. I once believed that Braun was in this category, but she is providing more ideas as the campaign progresses. However she still needs to provide more specifics or plans on how to accomplish these goals.

If the three or four spam candidates of this race would drop out, then the five or six that were left would each have more time to discuss their proposals in debates and to draw media attention. Also Graham and Edwards could hold on to their Senate seats, which the Republicans are zeroing in on for pickups.

[GBD4]

8. Disagree, at least on Graham

Senator Bob Graham, like most of the candidates, is providing plenty of substance. Check out his 41-page economic plan which details facts and figures such as job creation, taxation, etc. I'd say he has a clear vision and agenda, a nation with a very progressive tax rate for appropriate government investment coupled with an open, accountable administration. And while I am not much of an Edwards fan, he just released a 60-page book outlining some of his policy ideas. So, I think all of the candidates are doing a great job with discussing the issues. Style over substance was indeed the case earlier, but I think the debate has moved to the substance stage at this point.

[burr]

11. I will have to pickup the Edwards book...

Graham has the potential to lay out more specifics. But he doesn't seem to be doing this, for example his website provide a rather lame description of what his plans are for covering the uninsured.

[OKNancy]

26. Edwards has a gameplan

This has been mentioned on a previous post, but in case some didn't catch it: Edwards plans to do the same thing he did successfully in his run in North Carolina. He raises lots of money and at the very end of the campaign, he buys a lot of TV time. So I expect that in Iowa and New Hampshire, that Edwards will have a last minute push.

He also plans to go hard after the votes in the early Feb. primaries.
He has raised the most money of any candidate here in Oklahoma and as I understand it, plans to make a big splash here. Oklahoma has twice as many delegates as New Hampshire, so a poor showing in NH would be totally wiped out three weeks later with just one state...not to mention South Carolina and the others. Edwards' biggest rivals in Oklahoma ( as of now) are Gephardt, and Lieberman. I don't like those two, so for now, I'm supporting Edwards.

[TheDonkey]

6. I agree, still like Edwards though

He just doesn't have the power and fire that this party needs to get energized and excited. He seems like same'o same' o southern politican (Clinton Jr). I saw him give a speech live and the crowd was just not pumped and he really just gave lines and lines of policy with out much passion.

A good guy but he needs more experience to know what people like on the campaign trail, not just a large stockpile of cash.

[burr]

9. Lines of policy...

that is something I have not seen from Edwards as a candidate.

He always does the same thing...goes into that story about mill workers, his notable career as a lawyer, and ends by answering questions with sympathy not an agenda.

A great strategy, but eventially folks see through the BS.

[AP]

19. It isn't BS though. It's the real deal.

It's not like dressing up as a cowboy, driving around on a truck clearing brush, and faking a TX accent.

By making real biography and issue, and connecting biography to policy positions, Edwards is shedding light on the reality of who Bush is, and this is going to be worth a ton of votes as it catches fire.

Duh.

[burr]

23. I don't vote for the dressers, real or fake.

Edwards has the biography, as we all do, what he needs is some well thought out policy.

[chimpymustgo]

25. Read all about Edwards' policies. He just published

a 60 booklet, "Real Solutions for America". Please visit:

www.JohnEdwards2004.com

health care, job creation, environment, civil liberties - and more.

[burr]

30. Nice try...

I just went through the book's sections on healthcare, crime, and job creation...what a load of bullshit! If it came in my mailbox and I started reading it, it would go into the trash can with the rest of the junkmail and advertisements I get dumped with. It is a goddamn sales pitch, with little or no substance. Clinton had more substance in any single section of "Putting People First", than this piece of garbage.

[tjdee]

33. What, did you read only the summaries?

Just because the booklet doesn't read like a PhD thesis, doesn't mean there are no policies there.

For instance, in jobs, for starters:
*increase in minimum wage of at least $1.50
*10% tax cut to companies that produce products here and keeps jobs here
*The REACH fund for entrepreneurs and small businesses
*Rural areas that have lost jobs will be designated Economic Revitalization Zones eligible for aid, encouraging business investment.

I think it is written in a way to explain to a bus driver in Montana what Edwards wants. Or a waitress in New Mexico who doesn't spend every day on an internet politics board.

I personally have worked with a number of working adults in the inner city, for example, who are put off from politics because many politicians talk in wonkish language that turns them off.

Also, when you consider that any plan he has is subject to Congressional approval, I find that a candidate's mindset and thoughts about a certain topic can sometimes be just as effective as a specific policy point.

[burr]

I wish!!

All the candidates support increasing the minimum wage...except maybe Lieberman.

A 10% tax cut to companies, they will just hire even lower paid workers here while they continue to underpay workers in other countries. We need some penalities, not tax cuts for these people!

And zones will get aid to promote investment. Does this mean more Walmarts and the shitty ass jobs of the future?

Excuse me, but this is not what I call an agenda. If you are looking for a little more depth in a policy agenda try Kucinich's or Dean's webpages.

One more thing...I do construction and landscaping. And I'm not exactly what anyone would call wealthy, just living on the edge from day to day.

[AP]

46. Who else is talking about making cap gains tax more progressive?

Anyone? Anyone? Buehler?

[tjdee]

47. May be policies you don't like, but they are policies.

First you said you weren't seeing an agenda, now you're saying he does have one, but it doesn't count because you disagree with it. Also, I was using jobs as an example. There are plenty of other policy points, such as his wanting to tax investment income of the super rich (making over 350K) at the same as earned income for everyone else. Etc. etc. etc.

Also--
How would companies hire lower paid workers here if the minimum wage here is raised?

[burr]

48. more spam than beef...

To your last question...hire more illegal immigrants and fire and then rehire your current work force as part timers at a reduced pay minus the benefits and retirement. That way you cut the price of paying your current employees, while busing in tempworkers and illegal immigrants to do the unskilled labor.

In terms of taxing investment income for those over 350K, is this a capital gains tax increase he is pushing for? Most wealthy executives already reduce their earned income down to around 250k, and then get most of their millions off of investment income.

If Edwards really wanted this to work, he would tax them based on the amount of investment income that is hit by capital gains, not based on earned income.

[dansolo]

49. I wouldn't compare him to Clinton

Good looks do not equate to charisma. Clinton has a way of speaking to people that just draws you right in. It is a gift, and you either have it or not. Edwards does not.

[Donny247]

7. You doubt Edwards? These amazing ads will change your mind

Take a look at these ads that Edwards has started running and then come back and tell me whether or not he's a viable candidate. They are spectacular, especially compared to Dean's

Edwards is the only candidate who is liked by both the DLC and the Left (Nader speaks VERY well of him). He's telegenic, southern and articulate, and he scares the shit out of the Bush cabal. He has a positive populism that comes across as sincere and down to Earth. He's been described by Joe Biden as "the best natural candidate I've ever seen." He also realizes that you win campaigns by running on broad themes, not specifics. You may not like it, bro, but that's politics. Once again, check out these ads and you'll see what I'm talking about.

http://www.johnedwards2004.com/television-ads.asp

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. Nader Likes John Edwards

because as a trial lawyer he kicked corporate ass.

This is one issue where Ralph Nader is on the side of the angels.

[burr]

12. He seems to prefer Kucinich over Edwards...

<http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1057915888321100.xml>

Liking doesn't = endorsement

I like Edwards too, and everyone liked EIK!

[PurityOfEssence]

13. It'll be in any speech of his; if you only listen to short speeches...

...that's all you'll hear.

Listen to his town hall meetings. Listen to him answer questions and relate to individuals.

Yes, it's annoying, but if you think that's all he says, you're not watching anything of any length.

[thom1102]

14. Your right, I haven't watched him at length,

I have watched him in his most public appearances, the way most of the average voters are going to see him, and he needs to be better than that if he wants to win the nomination. He just isn't really setting himself apart from the rest of the pack (which, by the way, they all should be doing at this point).

[PATRICK]

16. stump speech vs. Dean freewheel

Probably the public isn't focsussing as much as the activists who are probably ready to vote now and end the suspense. So Edwards is doing the traditional single message repetition, being his own ad whenever he gets a forum. Still, Dean certainly is not locked in or feels he has to relase a position paper before taking a new campaign tack. The trick is to relax, even if you are behind. More give and take, more originality.
At least LOOK like it.

Again this is another case of anguished anticipation here that the nation is not tuned for yet. If he campaigns too one dimensionally he will flame out probably but I don't see that in Edwards or his managers. He is building a two part campaign of person and solid innovative policy(to counter his inexperience) and it seems to be working quite well without the drama Dean has brought into the race elsewhere. That will change when they really meet on the primary fields close to selection time. the best man willwin, I hope, and no I don't have a crystal ball or complete confidence WHO that might be.

[chimpymustgo]

17. Patrick, you are one of the few around here who does not

have a crystal ball. LOL.

But I do think Edwards' has a well thought out strategy to define himself and get his message out.

Have you seen his tv ads? Wow.

[AP]

18. Uh, hello, does anyone remember '92?

When you think you're hearing the same thing over and over from a candidate, it means they're getting their message out. It's the stump speech, you know. And, because you pay more attention than most people, you think you're hearing it too much. But 90% of the people listening to any one stump speech are hearing it for the first time. If something sounds repetitive, it means lots of people are hearing it. Furthermore, if you hear the same thing over and over, it means the candidate's meta message is consistent. Only candidates with consistent messages will win. I got real bored of Clinton's 'Boy from Hope' stump speech with one year to go, but Clinton got REAL elected.

As for the substance of the speech, you're fooling yourself if you think this a bad message. Biography is probably 95% of what a candidate is. Symbolically, it was unbelievably significant that Bush I was a son of a senator and Clinton's salesman father was dead before Clinton was born. I think the only people who get upset about Edwards's biography are the ones who are worried that it speaks to a serious truth about the significance of Dean's and Kerry's biographies.

[thom1102]

20. I am not worried about Dean or Kerry's biography...

In the interest of full disclosure, I am in the Dean camp, but I am trying to sort out who I want as my back up. I am split between Edwards and Kerry, and I want to lean towards Edwards because of the Southern Clintonesque appeal thing, but I want fire in my candidate (probably why I like Dean in the first place) and I am not seeing it in Edwards yet.

[AP]

22. I was going to make this the subject of its own post:

If you're looking for a VP, forget the notion of 'balance'. The days of picking someone to balance the ticket are over. Canidates now pick the guy who is just like them to emphasize that they really believe they're right for America. Clinton picked someone just like him, and so did Bush II. If you think Dean is right for America, and you're looking for a VP, pick the guy who is exactly like Dean. VPs reinforce the things you think are right about your candidate.

That's why I think Edwards should run with someone like Ruth Ann Minner, someone who came from humble roots and worked their way up -- someone who understands that America should be about equal opportunity on a level playing field, and see class mobility as the test of that promise.

[thom1102]

35. No, not a VP,

An alternate, in case Dean doesn't make it. A number two choice for the primary. My dream ticket would be Dean/Clark, but if I can't have Dean at the top of the ticket, who would I rather?

[tjdee]

21. Clinton got 'real' elected, hehehehehe.

Funny.

Haven't seen you around lately, AP...or, maybe we've just been reading different threads.

:hi:

[burr]

24. I guess this makes policy only 5%...

If biography is 95% of a candidate, then in 92 and 96 I would have been voting for Perot. But I supported Clinton because his policies were the best of the three candidates. I think biography doesn't mean anything without policy. People will not support a great-looking cardboard cutout, they need to know where this person will take the country.

Is biography important? Sure...if you are seeking to size up the charector and honesty of your candidate. But this is not all you need to win votes, it is only the initial qualifier. The issues drive everything else.

[AP]

27. about 90.25%, because 95% of policy flows from biography.

...at least with an honest candidate. 95% of Clinton's and Edwards's attitudes about policy stemmed from their experience of American life. 100% of Bush's does.

[tedoll78]

28. Question:

Where are you getting these numbers? Especially the "90.25%"

Some people arrive at their policy positions through critical thinking, correct?

[AP]

32. Experience, observation, and history.

Do you disagree? For those of you out there who may be literalists, those numbers were my estimation based on experience, observation and history. I'd be happy to argue their accuracy. If anyone has a different estimation, please feel free to make arguments. But I suspect the proof would be in the pudding. E.g., Edwards will have the best chance of winning the election because of the combination of biography and policy. Incidentally, 90.25 is 95% of 95%, so that's where I got that number, with four significant figures, but it should really be two (smiley face).

[tedoll78]

39. lol

Siginificant figures.. hehe..

I understand and agree that background does effect policy positions, but I think logic should codify them more than anything else. A person with a wealthy background who is skilled in critical thought can arrive at the same policy postions as a person with a more humble background who is similarly skilled.

[AP]

40. To me, it's amazing how shackled people are by their experiences

Of course, this isn't the rule of life in America, it's just that, more often than not, people who seem smart and nice, have opinions formed by experiences that were quite privileged and unique, and they don't realize it.

In George S's book, All Too Human, there is a passage about how Clinton insisted that the most important thing for all his nominees and appointees to have was an experience of American life which was shared by most people. Of course there were exceptions to this rule, but there was a very good reason why Clinton wanted to make sure that his judges and executive appointees knew what it was like to grow up without a ton of privileges and opportunities which didn't require much effort to pursue.

I guess that, for the same reason that people who are priveliged often don't get what it's like not to be privieleged, people who aren't privileged understand what it's like. You never forget where you came from. I guess this is complicated stuff. But the bottom line is that there's a very obvious nexus between Edwards's biography and his policy, and it will cetainly click with so many voters that it could make him the surest bet against Bush (and you'd get a president of FDR-dimensions as part of the deal).

[tjdee]

44. FDR was rich! JFK was rich!

Just giving the other side here, as burr does below with the eloquent "humble roots my butt" post...

[tjdee]

31. Two questions for you:

1-How do you account for Bush's 47%?? His issues/policies were that good, LOL?

2-How much do you account for Congress' involvement in a presidential candidate's policy statements? I think it's about 60 biography/personality and 40% issues because of this: a president can do very little without Congress. That's why I crack up when Kucinich talks about repealing NAFTA, the Patriot Act, etc.

While it's good to know where a president stands specifically on the issues, it's more important, IMO, to know a candidate's mindset and where he's coming from. Congress will do what it will do, but I want to know my president has a some kind(moral? populist? political?) compass (values?) guiding him.

This is part of what makes me uncomfortable about Dean. His supporters tout the fact that 'you can't pin him down', but guess what--if something comes up, I want to know enough about my president to reasonably predict what he's going to do.

[dansolo]

51. "You can't pin him down"

does not refer to his specific positions. It refers to the characterizations that others make about him. I find it funny that if you listen to the conservatives, he is a flaming liberal, and if you listen to the liberals, he is just left of Bush. The truth is that he is somewhere in the middle. What I like is that he is willing to try things out even if they are unpopular, and he is willing to admit if things don't turn out as hoped. I would much rather have that from my candidate than someone who will make all sorts of promises that I know will be unrealizable (e.g. Kucinich talking about personally eliminating NAFTA)

[ModerateMiddle]

29. I've heard quite a number of things he intends to do

why haven't you heard them?

Stump speeches are just that - things that get said over and over, because most people do NOT listen to every speech a candidate makes. There are brand new folks at each event, and they DO need to hear the basics. At this point, the biography is one of the most important things - that and one or two general initiatives they'd like to take.

For instance, Edwards, knowing what it is like to have the major employer in town shut down, wants very much to encourage companies to keep their manufacturing jobs in this country, and will provide tax incentives for them to do so. He will impose taxes on those companies who move their hq offshore to save taxes.

He wants not only to provide for children to have health insurance, he wants to demand that parents sign their kids up for it - move it up the priority list for struggling families, in other words.

He wants to help pay for kids to go to college if they'll work x number of hours while going to school.

What are your candidates goals and programs?

[chimpymustgo]

34. I'm amazed at the number of people who try to ignore Edwards'

accomplishments and serious policy ideas. I think he faces strong biases here because he's southern and handsome.

[Pastiche423]

37. There are no biases

He is simply a warmongering DLCer that is not strong on anything but telling people about his humble roots.

If I wasn't already against him for his voting record, I would be now from hearng about his millworker daddy and sharecropping grandpappy, ad nauseum.

Then when you add into the mix that he does not listen, nor repond to his constinuents, he has little to offer.

[Speed8098]

50. You don't like anybody

From what I see, you don't like anyone. Maybe I've missed it, but who do you like for 04?


And please back up this statement:

He is simply a warmongering DLCer that is not strong on anything but telling people about his humble roots.

After you go to his website, http://www.johnedwards2004.com/ I'll listen to your diatribe.

[tjdee]

38. Too good looking and too young looking.

Good looking people sometimes experience a backlash from 'serious' minded people in 'serious' businesses. Usually, the backlash is stronger in people of the same sex.

They usually think of them as getting where they are based on their looks and appeal to the opposite sex. As in "you only like that guy because you find him attractive."

Beautiful women in business are not taken nearly as seriously as regular looking women. They may be better liked, but not seen 'as smart as' unless they 'prove' themselves. You know, the ever popular 'who's she sleeping with to get that job?'

I think another part of it may be that he has such a young looking face--not so much his inexperience, after all, what experience did Ross Perot have in government, and look how many people voted for him.

If John Edwards looked like Tom Harkin, DUers would take him much more seriously. As it is, they vote *very* similarly, and look how well Tom Harkin is regarded around here compared to Edwards.

[thom1102]

36. I think it's because it is the first thing out of his mouth.

[Corgigal]

41. John Edwards is going to be in my hometown

at 2:30 today and our family got an invite. We are going to go listen to him. I know he believes this is his area because we are in the south but he's not my first pick. However, maybe he will say something that makes me pull for him. I want to see how it handles himself in front of a bunch of "regular" folks.
Nothing wrong with being a pretty man, in fact in my neck of the woods I knew some women who voted for Bush because they thought he was a nice looking man. Of course I would freak and say, well he will kill your child for oil but everyone is entitled to their opinion.

[chimpymustgo]

43. Please come back and give us a report, Corgigal.

Hope it's a good one.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

42. Humble roots my butt.

Nixon had "humble roots".
Reagan had "humble roots".

FDR was a rich kid, so was Kennedy.

Big deal.

What's his "solution" for the war in Iraq? That he voted FOR?

A featherweight running for VP.

[AP]

45. Nixon had humble roots...

...and tried to raise the minimum wage, protect the environment and do a couple other things that made him hated by the far right wing of his party (so they sabotaged him). Wealth and Democracy sets out this argument better than I can. Reagan had humble roots and was a New Deal Democrat for most of his life before the McCarthyism transformed him and before he got dimentia. When he started becoming demented, the far right wing of his party used him as a figurehead, behind which, they perpretrated lots of evil. JFK was a catholic immigrant outsider to most people, and he had the benefit of running in the 60s when people were in love with James Bond, and playboys, and everyone felt rich after the booming 50s. Class didn't matter so much then. FDR was a class traitor, and, according to Sid Blumenthal's last book, develop great sympathy for the working person as a result of his own health problems (and his wife was a raging feminist socialist, fortunately).

There's no firm rule, but c'mon, do you really believe that Clinton's biography wasn't the most important aspect of his candidacy? The political, economic and social realities of 2004 are even more accute than the ones were in 1992 which made Clinton's biography so significant.