Edwards: We can't win on anger

[ringmastery]

http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-edwards-dean,0,6519669,print.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines

Edwards on Dean: 'We Can't Win' on Anger


By RON FOURNIER
AP Political Writer

December 12, 2003, 1:29 PM EST

WASHINGTON -- Toiling in Howard Dean's political shadow, Democratic presidential rival John Edwards said Friday he's offering voters a campaign of optimism, inclusion and substance -- a far cry, he suggests, from the fiery rhetoric and partisanship that have fueled the front-runner's ascent.

"If all we are in 2004 is a party of anger, we can't win," Edwards said in remarks prepared for delivery Friday to the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco.

"If all we are is divisive and angry and if all we do is attack President Bush and each other, then we will not win the White House in 2004," he said in a speech that aides billed as a critique of Dean's campaign methods. "And we won't deserve to."

[Wetzelbill]

1. I just really like John Edwards, not sure if he is right on this issue

or not, but I think highly of the guy.

[spooky3]

2. Please note that Edwards did not criticize Dean.

It is just as reasonable to speculate that he is talking about others who are attacking Dems. I'm sure John would agree that Dean has made a number of specific, positive proposals, though he would certainly argue that his are better (otherwise, why is he running?).

Journalists love to put words in Edwards' (and other Dems') mouth.

[spooky3]

3. And i still love the idea of a Dean/Edwards ticket and hope they do too.

[RetroLounge]

38. Bull hockey, and you know it.

If Kucinich or Kerry were the front runner, would Edwards be talking about this at all?

I doubt it.

If he's not angry, he's not paying attention.

and if you think all Dean is about is anger, then you are not paying attention either.

[spooky3]

70. Sorry, we disagree, and please don't presume to tell me what I "know"

or put words in my mouth (or post).

Gephardt, Kerry, Kucinich, Edwards, Sharpton, Clark, and Lieberman all have appeared angry to me in the debates at various times. In some cases, I think they exaggerate the appearance of anger to make a point. Braun hasn't but she may disguise it well or I missed it.

I have said nothing to the effect "all Dean is about is anger" nor has Edwards.

[arewethereyet]

75. "appeared angry" excellent observation

it is one thing to "appear angry" it is quite another to be angry.

Think back and you can probably recall many instances where Clinton would display some anger but he would generally complete that point and finish up with that warm smile.

This is about retaining control of one's emotions. A leader sho can't is no leader. Even gang leaders know this.

[arewethereyet]

73. Kerry and Kucinich do not succomb to anger

so it would not need to be pointed out. For that matter neither do Gep, Lieberman, Braun, Sharpton or Graham. Which makes them all better statespeople than Dean.

If the shoe fits, too bad. This needed to be said and it could not have been said better. I read and re-read, that was a terrific speech.

[HFishbine]

4. I get it already

and I agree. But talking about optimism is not the same as creating a sense of optimism. Come on John, you're on the right track, stop analysing the process and start giving us reasons to actually be hopeful.

[polpilot]

23. 3rd tier attorney good with 12 north carolina jurors. eom.

.

[spooky3]

26. evidence?

I don't know many 3rd tier attorneys who are both honest and self-made millionaires.

[arewethereyet]

45. 3rd tier atturnies advertise on busses

no point in trying this if you cannot make a decent case.

[AP]

36. Listen to the speach. He gave me a LOT of hope in that speach.

[beaconess]

67. Sort of like the difference

between talking about race and civil rights and actually having DONE something about race and civil rights, eh?

[sandnsea]

5. We must have a superior vision

We can be angry at Bush all we want, but we have to have a superior vision to beat him. They are quickly doing everything they can to alter the landscape for next year's election. If we have a better vision for the future, we can beat him anyway. Edwards is right.

[Wetzelbill]

12. Kucinich is my boy, however it would not hurt my feelings at all

to see a Kerry-Edwards ticket. Been saying that all year.

[JohnKleeb]

13. thats my ideal ticket if DK withdraws

if you get Edwards at VP, that will open the way for my dream for AG who is Spitzer, the New Yorkers tell me great things. I agree with you on that for a ticket Bill, should DK withdraw :( I dont want that to happen but should it, I would support Kerry, and Edwards would be on my list for VP.

[Wetzelbill]

14. Spitzer would be a fantastic AG

Almost as good as the one we have now. Cuz we all know Ashcroft is the man. (or not)

DK better not withdraw. We need him for what he says, at the very least. His words are what are important, not where he is sitting in the polls.

[JohnKleeb]

20. Something tells me we are gonna get a present in Iowa

:D
Dont get me wrong, I am for DK till end, but should :( happen, Kerry would be my candiate I think which would be ok because I like Kerry.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

31. Spitzer for AG?

Hell, I'll take Spitzer for President!

[pistoff democrat]

6. Edwards just

keeping getting better every day!

[Patriot_Spear]

7. Mr. Edwards, you can't win a fight without anger.

And this is a fight. If you think the other side is pulling punches you are in la-la land; and if you're not angry about what's going on then you are definately too complacent to be the candidate to oppose Bush*.

I like Senator Edward's forward looking policies, but you can't take a lukewarm appraoch to something is important as this.

[ringmastery]

10. there's a difference

between being angry and having a forward thinking vision and positive outlook and being an angry SNL caricature.

Look at the clips Bush used of Dean in this commercial. This is what we are up against.

Independent and swing voters will get scared from a person like Dean if all they see of him is an angry little man.

http://www.georgewbush.com/angrydemocrats/

[Patriot_Spear]

15. If Bush* is allowed to frame the debate and our candidate, you'd be right

But Dean has shown so far that he is innovative and aggressive in combating the Rove generated image you're putting foward of Dean.

I think Dean will go on be aggrerssive and as other candidates fall away his record and Bush's* failure will come more into focus.

But in this case, Anger is a powerful tool being wielded artfully by the Dean Campaign. I offer no apologies for my just anger at what the Bush* mis-adminstration has done to this country.

[arewethereyet]

76. if you are susseptable to anger then you WILL be led by the nose

losing this liability is the only way Dean can avoid losing.

[Very Good Dem]

19. You're damned right we're angry

now what?

THAT'S what voters in the general will want to know. And we'd better have an answer.

[arewethereyet]

77. be angry if you want

don't force your leader into making this mistake

[Wetzelbill]

21. as a veteran of a many a fistfight, I have won a few without being angry

:)

[Selwynn]

22. Yes, actually you can.

In fact anger is not synonymous with determination and courage and is usually the enemy of what's right.

Especially when anger is just anger for the sake of anger, an end unto itself, it degenerates into everything awful. If a person can after getting angry at injustice, move from anger to positive action, a message of hope and outreach, compassion and justice, then something good can happen.

There is also a difference between vindictive, hateful anger that comes from the place of a black hard that "hates" things, and anger that comes from a broken heart, from a place of being so overwhelmed with empathy for suffering and injustice and the destruction of cherished things that it moves you to positive action.

I don't believe dean demonstrates enough of the latter, and he demonstrates and awful lot of the former. We can't win on the former.

[AP]

37. FDR's campaign theme song: "Happy Days are Here Again"

You can win with optimism and hope.

Name ONE Democrat who won with anger.

They've ALL won with messages of hope and optimism.

[sandnsea]

46. My son never won a fight with anger

He was a boxer. He always won fights with preparedness, mental toughness and intelligence.

(Some people fought wars, some people went skiing.)

[arewethereyet]

51. anyone who fights and wins knows this to be true. Anger loses.

Always.

It is the clever contestant that manages to evoke anger in an opponent as its the quickest path to victory.

Not that Clark is a good general but even he knows not to act/speak out of anger. It's as good as surrendering.

[arewethereyet]

47. you will never win a fight WITH anger

anger overrides the brain, cut off the head (cloud it with anger) and the body dies.

And you need to understand that there is a difference between passion and anger. Passion works for you, anger against.

Edwards has passion, Dean has anger. The contrast is stark and obvious.

[Silverhair]

68. Anger clouds judgement. Calm deliberate determination wins.

I played poker professionally for a few years. I always loved it when somebody at the table started steaming. Unless they got super lucky, they always starting losing when they played angry. They lose their judgement.

[slor]

8. THE HELL WE...

CAN'T ROOOOAAARRRR!!!

[AWD]

9. Anger respnds....

Today in a response, Anger (D-America) had a two-sentence statement.

Why not? The Republicans did it.

[bowens43]

11. Righteous anger is a mighty force......

it is a unifying force. It won't win over any republicans but it will energize the base and pull some of the fence sitters into our court.

[arewethereyet]

49. Righteous INDIGNATION is a mighty force

and a unifying force. Anger is the Devil's best friend. Anger will repell the undecided, passion can attract. And do not mistake Dean's mein for passion, its anger and it will betray him every time.

[mmonk]

16. While Dean has to show more

substance than anger, the fact remains we are all angry.

[PurityOfEssence]

17. He's not saying you can't be angry, just that it can't be the core message

Listen to your non-aligned and apolitical friends, and you'll see the wisdom of this. He's been damn harsh on Junior, on a personal and a policy basis, and he's been harder on Ashcroft than any of them. His point is that anger will energize the base and the fringes, but it will not make friends.

I think he's right. He's a true cosmopolitan uniter, and his warmth is overwhelming to me. It's not timidity, it's just a warning to avoid cheap-shotting and being so shrill that people turn off to you.

Remember: conservatives paint themselves as the party of "order" and "civilization" (yeah, it's horseshit) so anyone screaming against them just reinforces their claim that we're savages. It's tough to run against conservatives; in a way, they're the status quo, and to say that they're wrong is akin to saying that all the sweep of human history and the accomplishments of civilization are wrong. Think about it. This is how Hitler worked: opponents were tarred as decadent and destroying the roccoco beauty of soaring human achievement; he was profoundly anti-atheist, because to him they were the ultimate enemies of Western Civilization. It's tough, but change always is.

In a way, we're fighting to stop the voices of fear that came back to stop all the changes from the 60s and 70s, and this is natural: most people are afraid of change, and even when many benefit from the changes, they will fight to keep things frozen in time and understandable. Take heart, though: even with the ugliness of the Reaganites and neo-cons, the cat's out of the bag, and there's no going back.

[mlawson]

24. Ding, ding, ding!!! Thank you. n/t

[mmonk]

27. So

is he above it all?

[spooky3]

33. nope, he's just keeping it in to get his message out.

[MGKrebs]

18. Sounds like criticism to me.

"offering voters a campaign of optimism, inclusion and substance -- a far cry, he suggests, from the fiery rhetoric and partisanship that have fueled the front-runner's ascent. "

I mean, the message is that Dean is NOT offering optimism,inclusion, or substance, isn't it?

Not that I care. Howie can take care of himself.

But anyway, most of the Deaniacs I hang out with feel BOTH: Anger AND optimism. And inclusion is THE most exciting thing about the Dean campaign to me. Some may say I am deluded, but I feel connected. Even my sorry butt gets to communicate with people at DFA every now and then. Hell, Zephyr Teachout stayed at my house this weekend. I've been on three confernce calls with the Gov. and Saturday night was a video conference. How much more connected can you get for a slacker?

If they ignores what we say, that's another matter, but we get to say it directly to them over and over.

[spooky3]

25. You're quoting the journalist and his perceptions, not Edwards.

Edwards' message is that EDWARDS is offering optimism, inclusion, substance, etc.

The listener can decide for him/herself who is NOT offering those things.

Personally, I think several of the candidates have come across as angry at various times but this is NOT a problem unless it is the ONLY thing that the candidate conveys.

[Joe Lieberman]

28. Edwards has excellent ideas for our country

nt

[JI7]

40. Hello Senator

.

[neverforget]

29. Will anger bring in the swing voters needed to win the election?

As a Democrat, I'm cool with the anger thing, especially today being the 3rd anniversary of the Stealing of Democracy. However, the independent swing voters are the ones that need to be convinced. I'm afraid that anger will turn them off and keep them home, or worse, vote for Shrub. Anger alone will not beat the Republicans. We need a plan with vision, but most of all, we need to offer hope. Hope for the future and optimism of what lies ahead.

[AntiCoup2K4]

30. If John Edwards isn't angry about what has happenned to this country....

...in the last three years, my question to him would be "What planet do you live on, Senator?"

[spooky3]

32. He didn't say anger was wrong. He just said he offered more than that.

Please see PurityOfEssence's eloquent post above.

[AP]

35. Edwards IS angry. He says anger is the easiest emotion to stir

when Bush is the subject. But he says that you can't offer ONLY anger and expect people to see you as the solution to their problems.

Edwards also said that when he talks to Americans who are hurting, the feeling they espress more often than anger is optimism. He would rather tap into that.

He also points out that FDR ran on hope ("Happy Days are Here Again" was his campaign theme song!).

Edwards says that FDR didn't campaign on the idea that it was the voter's fault for not being angry enough at Hoover.

[Gloria]

39. AP, I've been meaning to ask about your sig picture...is the baby

in the picture Edwards' son who was killed in the car accident???

[AP]

41. Yes it is.

Or, at least, I'm almost certain it is.

This picture is from the Raleigh News & Observer site. You'll have to click around to find them. All the pictures have captions, and, if I remember correctly, this is a picture of John Edwards and Wade Edwards.

[Curious Dave]

54. YES!

I'm fairly new here, but in a week of serious DU addiction, this is the best thing I've read yet! Thanks for posting :)

[AP]

74. Why, thanks for the compliment.

Please feel free to share this idea with your friends and neighbors!

[arewethereyet]

53. if he was happy about recent history, would he be running ?

of course he is angry. The difference is that he does not allow anger to choose his words, dictate his actions or re-actions or cloud his mind. He uses the result of that private feeling to serve as a focus to direct him surely forward.

All anyone has to do to put Dean on the defensive and thereby ineffectual is to get him angry. And anybody can do that.

This is a terrible trait for a statesman. Not even Teddy Roosevelt for all his bluster succomed to anger.

[mzmolly]

34. Edwards lecturing Dean on how to win?

[Pastiche423]

42. I feel the same sentiment

[arewethereyet]

44. he needs it but no, or he would have just attacked him like the others

and not been diplomatic about it.

[QC]

50. I must surely be mistaken....

but didn't you post, just a few hours ago, an indignant thread about people taking cheap shots at our own candidates?

Surely mine eyes must deceive me.

[Very Good Dem]

52. What makes you think he was addressing Dean?

As much as some Deanies think their guy is the center of the universe, there are a few other people in the world that Edwards could have been talking to.

[arewethereyet]

43. I could not be more proud of Edwards for this

it was exactly what the dems NEED to hear,
it was eloquent and not spiteful,
it was timed perfectly and delivered as only a real statesman could.

and God help us if dems area not listening. Is there ANY question that he really MUST be the nominee ? Its money time people. Listen to your heart but DO NOT turn off your brain in the process. This is too important to screw up.

[He loved Big Brother]

48. We maybe cannot win on anger

But we will "surely" lose without a decent amount of it.

[yaledem]

55. Edwards recognizes the crux of the issue

First of all, lets get something out of the way.

Am I angry at Bush, bordering on hatred? Oh yeah.

Do I believe that the GOP plays dirty? Of course.

Does anger have a place in politics? Sure. Should it be the basis of a presidential campaign? No.

Edwards is absolutely right about the GOP anger losing the elections for them in 96 and 98. They hated Clinton so much, they thought that if they were able to convince other people that he was the antichrist, they'd win. Clinton, on the other hand, kept a positive outlook, focused on what he was doing for the country, and eviscerated the Repugs with a smile on his face.

This is what drives so much of the Bush Hatred - seeing him put out a radical agenda, and then walking around with a sunny demeanor all the time. It drives me up the wall. Most voters, however, don't see it that way, and when presented with a choice between angry democrat attacking Bush's policies and a happy Bush doing his doublespeak routine, I'm afraid which one they'll pick.

If, however, we can put a Democrat up there who is tirelessly optimistic, critical without being shrill, and likeable by people in all parts of the country, we're going to kick some serious ass come Nov. This is the way I've felt for quite some time, and I feel like Edwards is the best personification of that. I'd be happy to work my ass off for any of the 9, but I'm afraid that with 5 or 6 of them it would be a losing effort.

[Hep]

56. What's this we stuff?

Edwards can't win at all.

[QC]

57. Think of the Clinton Era Republicans. They were plenty angry.

They were so angry that the mention of Clinton's name would send them into sputtering fits of apoplectic rage. They made an entire industry of their anger. They put getting Clinton above everything else, even the good of the country.

And what happened in the 1998 election?

They suffered the worst loss of House seats in generations. (In fact, you have to go back to the 1820's to find another time when the opposition party lost House seats during an off-year, second-term election.) Newt Gingrich resigned in disgrace, followed soon by Bob Livingston.

And Bill Clinton left office more popular than Bush is right now.

I don't understand why it's so hard to understand what Edwards is saying here. He didn't say that we should have no anger. He did say that we should have more. Blind, unreasoning fury--like what afflicted Gingrich and Barr and the rest of that bunch--does not win. Righteous anger with a sense of purpose and a hope for something better does, however.

Why is this so hard to get? Sometimes I wonder if DU has been hit with an epidemic of binary thinking or something.

[calimary]

58. The hell we can't! That's what's finally got so many of us fired up!

Our anger, and the reluctant acknowledgment of it. And when they acknowledge it (they meaning columnists and newspaper reporters and pundits), they usually explain where they think the anger comes from, hence the list of fiery issues that people definitely need to be reminded about.

Kerry would have us "get over it" about the stolen election in 2000. We do that, and we "get over" the last of our will to win anything.

[Eloriel]

59. He keeps saying that as if

that somehow defines the front runner.

Unfortunately, it reveals him to be either misinformed or a liar. Which is it, Mr. Edwards?

[Dr Fate]

60. I think "liar" is a bit strong...

...does this guy deserve to be called a liar for expressing a legitimate concern?

I for one think we do need some anger- we at least need to point out Bush's lies and failures to contrast ourselves to-

But that does not make a good DEM like Edwards a "liar"

We are tearing down DEMS throughout this whole process and its not a good thing...

[Pastiche423]

62. Maybe not a liar

in the conventional sense, but by omission, Johnny boy is a hell of a liar.

Btw, what makes him a good Dem? Do you support the Iraq invasion?

[Dr Fate]

63. Please- we are going to need to get together...

tearing down DEMS in 2003 & 2004 is bad medicine That's why you wont see me do it.

I think Edwards is a "good DEM" because I agree with about 75-85% of his positions...

I agree with Bush somewhere near 0%. The math is solid on this one...

[Eloriel]

69. You object to my characterization of Edwards as a liar

as Tearing down Dems -- where's your objection os Edwards' MIScharacterization of Dean as "tearing down Dems"?

[AP]

71. Where's Edwards's mischarcterization of Dean? You have a 70 page thread so

far in which most of the sensible posts say that Edwards is exactly right about this issue. And the posts which claim he isn't are all, basically, "the emporer DOES have clothes! The emperore ISN'T naked."

Guess what. The emporer has no clothes.

[arewethereyet]

72. in statesmanlike fashion, without name calling

Edwards is pointing out the dangers of this style of argument.

He could have been distasteful and made an angry accusation of Dr dean personally but it would pretty much invalidate his argument to resort to anger himself.

You don't have to like the message but the message it true and its been true for thousands of years.

Dean's anger trip is a loser.

[DjTj]

64. His stance on Education, taxes, and campaign finance make him a good Dem..

...and he has also consistently critized Bush's handling of the war since it started.

I did not support the Iraq invasion and did not support his IWR vote, but I support what John Edwards wants to do with Iraq now, which is bring in the UN and internationalize the effort.

[Dr Fate]

65. It's hard to find any politican that you agree with 100%...

...I think Edwards is basically a good man and a good DEM...

[beaconess]

66. You don't understand

Anyone who doesn't kiss Howard Dean's ass, swoon upon his every word and kiss his picture every night before bed deserves to be called a liar, a Bush apologist and any other negative characterization that comes to mind.

Get it?

[RevolutionStartsNow]

61. He's absolutely right!

Anger may get us started, but we need HOPE to keep us going. The kind of HOPE that causes people to raise almost $700,000 in 3 days. The kind of hope that causes almost 5,000 people to travel to deathly-cold Iowa in January to knock on doors. The kind of hope that writes over 100,000 letters -- by hand -- to undecided Democrats in Iowa and NH.

Anger may get our attention, but without HOPE, there is no action.