Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiThe Edwards Campaign: What Went Wrong?
John Edwards must be soooo frustrated. He and his strategists read the polls carefully, then crafted their campaign to reflect what most Americans really believe. The cost of living keeps going up, while the real buying power of our incomes scarcely rises at all. We worry about how we'll pay for health care, college tuition, and retirement costs. The economic future is insecure for all of us -- except for the wealthy corporate elite, who have rigged the system and bought the government so they can keep us down while they wallow in their skyrocketing wealth.
That is indeed what most Americans tell the pollsters. So the voters should have flocked to a populist champion, a scrappy man of the people who vowed to fight the corporate interests, to stand for the little guy (FDR's "forgotten man") and never quit until the fat cats were all defeated.
But something went wrong. Or, more precisely, some things went wrong. No campaign ever fails for just one reason. Some say the frightened corporate media torpedoed Edwards. Some say Edwards, a sleek rich cat himself, was the wrong messenger. He just wasn't believable. His populist message seemed invented out of thin air to save a failing election bid. All true -- but perhaps not crucial. In the past, wealthy politicians have invented populist messages and done quite well, despite media opposition.
I suspect the critical failing in the Edwards campaign was the way they framed their message. In their frame, America was divided into a small elite of winners and a vast populace of losers. Now it was time for the losers to fight back and even the score.
That frame was a huge gamble. It depended on voters seeing themselves not just as ordinary little guys but as losers: insignificant forgotten people, pushed to the margins of society, neglected by the people who really matter.
That's too bitter a pill for most Americans to swallow. Although most do worry about the future and blame the rich, a majority also tell the pollsters that right now they are not doing too badly financially. They have enough to sustain the time-honored American faith that we are all -- at least most of us -- middle class. More importantly, they cling to another time-honored faith: Through their hard work, they will raise children who will do even better. To label themselves losers would be to label their children losers, and that's just going too far.
Most Americans did not want to believe Edwards was speaking about them. So what they heard was a message about reaching out to help somebody else: the real losers, the poor. It would be a grand and glorious nation if candidates could win elections by saying, "Let's all us middle class folks reach down to pull the poor out of poverty." Maybe some day we'll reach that point. But we are nowhere near there yet, as John Edwards found out the hard way.
What could the Edwards campaign have done differently?
They could have studied the "Community Values Communication Toolkit," put out recently by the Campaign for Community Values (CCV) at the Center for Community Change. The CCV assembled a team to study the same question the Edwards campaign had to answer: How can we frame messages that will swing vast numbers of voters to the progressive side? But they came up with a very different answer.
The CCV frame is not about a fight between losers and winners, or good guys against bad guys. They urge us to frame every issue in the language of community: "We are all in this together. From the richest to the poorest, we are all part of the same community. No one is excluded. No one's best interests conflict with anyone else's. We all rise (or fall) together. If we stand together, we'll all climb the same ladder of opportunity."
The CCV framing approach recognizes that the language of "us" against "them" is the source of the problem. Any "us" versus "them" frame pushes everyone to see American society divided into competing groups. It tells us, as Edwards told us, that we must choose sides. And when push came to shove in the Democratic primaries, most people refused to choose the side of the poor and oppressed. If they have to choose sides, most will side with the (mythic) comfortable middle class against the poor. So the language of "us" against "them," however well intentioned, can never be part of the solution.
Edwards' frame also told people that they should, and must, fight for themselves against the evil others. It appealed mainly to self-interest. However unintentionally, it echoed the traditional principle of the free market: Take care of yourself; We'll all do best if we each pursue our own best interests. It reinforced the very idea that has created so many of the problems that Edwards promised to solve.
The CCV toolkit does not suggest we should drop individual concerns completely out of our progressive frame. Americans generally want everyone to have a chance to follow their own path in life, to stand up and be counted, to pitch in and pull their weight. The trick is to detach those values them from the old rugged individualism of "looking out for number one," which no longer works (if it ever did) to strengthen the whole society.
Now we have to reattach individualistic values to the overriding idea of community, to move from "What's in it for me?" to "What's in it for all of us?" "It's time for everyone to take personal responsibility for improving the whole community," the new frame says. "We all live here together -- rich, poor, and middle class alike. No one is really an enemy to anyone else. Let's all care together, and we'll all share in the benefits that come from pulling together for the common good."
Edwards and his strategists probably thought they were saying that. And if you just look at the substance of their policy proposals, they were offering a powerful shift from the free market brawl of each against all to a new vision of community, where each cares for all.
But it's not just what you say, it's how you say it. That's the whole reason for paying close attention to framing. Their frame undermined the content of their message.
I hope the next candidate who wants to carry the progressive banner studies the "Community Values Communication Toolkit" long and hard. It may offer the key that he or she needs to win the prize that eluded John Edwards.
Ira Chernus is Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder and author of Monsters To Destroy: The Neoconservative War on Terror and Sin. chernus@colorado.edu
138 Comments so far
Show AllEdwards is far and away the best Dem, but his critical failing was two fold:
1. Elections are really auctions, with the corporate elite shaping the institutions.
2. The public is largely uninformed of the issues and vote based on personal qualities with celebrity aspects dominating.
Yeah, it would be like having a madman or serial killer living next door.
They are both sounding an awful lot like John Edwards.
Could be worse, you could be voting for Canadian Prime Minister.
15% of Canadians would rather vote in U.S. election: survey
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/02/01/poll-cbc.html
I think the percentage was higher last time - everyone wanted Bush out.
Yeah me too Vaudree. I have never felt so bad about a coming election. Maybe Edwards gave Hillary his book on his platform. She suddenly sounds like him now on the issues. I do believe if she is elected, John Edwards will be on her cabinet. Hope so.
drick, I was guessing and that is the usual one. Wondering whether speculating is less offensive than e-mailing someone and asking why he dislikes someone. I would like to know, though.
RE: - Not because she's a woman — we need more women in politics — but because she is a corporatist.
Agree with you there. My hatred of Hillary "I see Imaginary people" Clinton came when she went on the air after Michael John Hamdani shared his fictions with the FBI (after the RCMP refused to believe, after checking out his story). Before that I could go either way and over look a few flaws for an intelligent woman in office.
I am a bit shocked that my deciding moment is a bit of a non-issue here. She hurt Canada by doing that. And, even before that, we heard stories such as the elderly Muslim woman who needed two canes to walk being stripped searched at the Canada-US border. Before that there was a warning out to anyone of Middle Eastern descent not to travel to the US.
That said, if Obama does something even worse, I'll go for Hillary. If it is a choice between Hillary and a Repugs, I'll go Hillary.
RE: - I haven't a clue whether Obama will be any better, but we can still "hope".
So you are voting ABC? I wish I knew more about Obama and not this hyped up stuff that keeps turning up.
RE: - He did give his personal barber $400 for a haircut ~Vaudree~. The barber and hair stylist left his shop and went to where Edwards was staying that day, quite a distance.
So it was partially for being on call and partially a thank you? That makes more sense if he went to where Edwards was. Well, seems that a certain portion was for travel and making the house call (allowing Edwards to keep to his busy schedule). It also seems, by what you tell me, that this particular barber usually charges him much less. This fuller explanation actually makes Edwards look like a good considerate person who doesn't take advantage of people. Thanks! :)
(I should be red in the face for dismissing it, but I am so proud of Edwards).
RE: - Edwards hands out large sums of money to people and helps many who are down and out too and helps to get them back on their feet. That is a fact that is not publicised.
Nor is Edwards the kind of person, judging from my short glimpse of him, that would want it crassly publicised. I took the hint from when Edwards went down to New Orleans that that was probably where the unspent donations went - either that or to regain his seat in the Senate or for VP.
RE: - It is a damn shame he is not going to be our president.
I could not agree with you more. I was looking forward to tomorrow, but I still feel let down.
He did give his personal barber $400 for a haircut ~Vaudree~. The barber and hair stylist left his shop and went to where Edwards was staying that day, quite a distance. We don't know how many other customers he could have taken if he had not closed up shop for over half a day.
The press caught the story and the story was printed. Edwards is not a cheap skate, the barber also is a friend of his. Edwards hands out large sums of money to people and helps many who are down and out too and helps to get them back on their feet. That is a fact that is not publicised. You ever read "Doctor Hudson's Secret Journal"? Edwards is like that man. It is a damn shame he is not going to be our president.
vaudree writes:
Does anyone know what Chernus's view is on homosexuality? I can't find mention of it right now.
Trying to find a clue for the reason behind this unfair rewriting of history. But my guess is that Edwards had a policy which Chernus disagreed with profoundly and I want to know what it is.
----------
It would be easy enough to ask him, instead of making insinuations. Professors have public email addresses. But since I've known him for a number of years, let me offer this brief, and scandalously incomplete, biography.
Ira Chernus has anti-war credentials dating back to the Vietnam era. He teaches (among other things) the history of non-violence. I don't make a habit of announcing other people's religions, but he is certainly not a Christian Conservative. To answer another baseless speculation, he is also not a homophobe. (That sort of bigotry has an uneasy time in Boulder, Colorado.) And finally, as politically-active CU-Boulder professors go, he is remarkably well-behaved!
I happen to think that Prof. Chernus's "framing" analysis (though consistent with his research interests) is only a small piece of the reason for Edwards' failure to make it to the convention. Many other causes have been enumerated above, and no doubt several of them are true simultaneously. Reality is rarely as simple as political theory attempts to make it. If Ira had any particular bone to pick with John Edwards, he never mentioned it to me over coffee.
Personally, I did plan to support Edwards on Tuesday, though I'd hoped I could do it as my second preference after Kucinich. Neither is an option now. I still plan to show up, if only to vote against Hillary Clinton. Not because she's a woman -- we need more women in politics -- but because she is a corporatist. I haven't a clue whether Obama will be any better, but we can still "hope".
Hey, there are always things that a candidate could have done better or differently. But how much of the overall result did this count for? Think that Edwards did remarkable considering that the deck was stacked against him.
RE: - Obama will have some shield against overt racism (though perhaps not in the privacy of the voting booth) whereas Hillary has to take the full brunt of sexism, which is alive and well in these United States.
That is both Clinton's strength and disadvantage. We know more about Hillary Clinton - she has been in and out of the news for years. Obama we heard him give a good speech at Convention with people telling us before hand that we were about to hear something remarkable and then the next thing we know Oprah is convincing him to run for President. There are certain things that we know about Clinton that we may suspect (but don't know for sure) about Obama.
Concede that there is more sexism than racism in the world right now and that many of the comments concerning Clinton are uncalled for. On the other hand, there have been many female party leaders.
Concede also that the Repugs would prefer to face Obama than Clinton but because Clinton is the greater threat to Ronnie Reagan's legacy - which both McCain and Romney are running on. Clinton does have better debating skills, but Obama is a fast learner and whoever gets the nod will have a whole team behind them preparing them for debates. Also, unless Obama implodes - people are in the mood to punish the Repugs for 8 years of Bush.
Then again, just thought of something - Obama would have an advantage with McCain/Romney that he doesn't have against Hillary. Obama can't use Bill's record against Hillary, but he can, if he gets the nod, against McCain/Romney. Whoever, between Clinton and Obama, gets the nod, can use the other's selling points as their own since they all, to show unity in the party, have to rally behind whoever gets the nod.
RE: - I mourn the loss of Edwards the candidate, but he put forth issues and polices that Hillary and Obama have adopted, and for that we should be grateful to him.
Or appear to have adopted. I get lost in the words, but my gut is not convinced that they have - yet.
RE: - Some folks probably got turned off by his $400 haircut
Come on! How do any of us know how much Edwards pays for a haircut! Ok, maybe it was in the news but I didn't catch it, but I would have guessed it cost $50 at the most - unless you figured he had a die job and his hair straightened at the timeas well. It is those things that bring the cost of a hair cut up.
I may be wrong, but this sounds like the type of story someone made up. He's a man - their hair cuts don't cost as much. Also, Elizabeth's hair, though it looks really nice, never had that over done at the salon look to it that some have. Usually a wife spends more on her hair than a husband does.
RE: - His stands on most of the issues were better than those of Obama and Hillary.
Agree profoundly. Now where do we go from here?
I think that McCain and Romney would prefer Clinton/Obama to Edwards in a debate. Clinton/Obama can muddy the water a bit by making it seem as if they agree with Edwards more than they do - and if Edwards doesn't get the chance to counter them because (conveniently) time is out. But in a Dem verses Repug debate Edwards would have equal time and they would have been painted into a corner of trying to promote market solutions for everything against Edwards.
RE: - Ira Chernus,….. It would be well stated that one of the far right so called christian conservitives, wrote the demise of Edwards campaign, or could we say that one of the fat hogs that feeds in the public trough wrote this
So that is why Ira Chernus was so happy with Edwards dropping out.
RE: - You are correct however, the biggest and most serious problems we face, is not if Obama, Hillary or Johnny McCain are elected, the major problem is the melting of the Arctic's tundra and the release of methane gas.
Yet, McCain and Romney will probably be trying to convince everyone that this is a good thing. Think of the advantage for corporatations being able to use the North West passage year round - and how :rolleyes environmentally friendly it all is gas-wise not having to take the long way around to those markets. And think of all the minerals one can mine there now that the ground is unfrozen. Who cares about a few scrawny polarbears anyway. Before you dismiss this as pure sarcasm - they are thinking that way already:
http://www.cbc.ca/national/blog/special_feature/the_big_melt/index.html
Your point. My take on it. Did not disagree with you this time either Kem.
I sometimes use other's comments as an excuse to bring up related points. I'm not going to change. Thank you in advance everyone who gives me a lead in. I am not out to get anyone.
Ok, Hillary does have a legitimate reasons for accusing me of that, but I am open about that. I would like to have a reason for voting for Obama other than the privilege it gives me to shit on the graves of racists. Haven't found one yet. Haven't found a reason to trust Clinton more than Obama yet either - I might if someone can come up with a good reason for me to do so.
If anyone wants to give me shit for mostly agreeing with them - so be it.
RE: - Well as I recall, Obama recieved about 33 to 35% of the vote there, Edwards came in a very close second and the press and media ignored Edwards excellent showing.
Seems that Kucinich and Gravel supporters are ignoring this fact, in there interpretation of recent history as well. I remember Henry Champ (the Washington correspondent) telling us, at the time, to ignore Edwards's good showing because he is almost out of money - and that it was really over for him - despite his good showing.
Usually, Henry Champ is pretty good at filling Canadians at the CBC in on the gossip in Washington, but here, it seemed like blatant whitewash. I don't understand why Henry Champ lied so blatantly. Either his whole shick (sp?) is whitewash or he figured that his contacts in Washington would stop giving him their little tidbits if he promoted Edwards. Probably a bit of both - since this is probably not the first time.
There seemed to be an active "ignore this" movement.
RE: - New Orleans after Katrina is just one prime example. They will for the large majority vote for Obama, __ wait and see.
The Clintons have one trick up their sleeve concerning NO which might cut into this support for Obama - they have Frank Stronach, the founder of Canadaville, in their corner. Frank's daughter Belinda is good friends with Bill - they've done charity work together. I am not making a prediction on this one. I don't know how well this will work for the Clintons. They won't show Frank Stronach to the white voters - but with two Clintons, one can talk to the black voters while the other one is across town taking to the white voters.
RE: - ~Vaudree~ your writing: __ "KEM, as for Hillary, you don't spread false rumors about Blah Blah Blah". What in hell are you babbling about there?
Used edit/find for the first four words so that is not a direct quote. Michael John Hamdani is not a made up story - it is just that the link to it is so long that it stretches the page. This incident created great doubts in my mind which need to be overcome before I can even think of supporting Hillary when there is anybody else left in the race.
I think that the issues surrounding Maher Arar are very important in the election because of what he represents - how the President will treat the most marginalized. What is the difference between what the Bush administration did to Maher Arar and how it treats Iraq veterans! It is the same idea that certain people are expendable.
We both agree that John Edwards wanted to put a stop to rendition and wanted to take care of Iraq veterans better. What I would like to see discussed is who out of Clinton and Obama will stick up for these people with Edwards gone. It is not always the popular thing to stick up for those most marginalized - it was considered the cool and popular thing to put Japanese Canadians into Internment camps (and Japanese Americans as well). When push comes to shove - who among the remaining two will chose what is right over what is popular?
We may not agree on who will be more easily swayed by popular opinion to do the wrong thing - though, I am not too sure who is myself. David Suzuki said soon after 9-ll that he feared that the Muslims would be treated like he and his family were - he was close.
RE: - Edwards communication skills were less than sterling. He could have framed his message better!
Edwards mannerisms are also very Southern and strikingly different than those of his two main opponents. The Camera angle catching them sideways made them look a bit - er - what word can I use that won't get me in trouble. I noticed that when the other two made hand gestures that we never viewed them from the side - and hand gestures definitely look better from a front view. (I mean the side that had no one on the other side).
Edwards's time was restricted and he won the last debate he was in, despite the odds. I figured he did well.
RE: - Obama and Hillary will not talk about POVERTY and economic inequality, and corporations.
Obama is talking about Wellstone and Edwards a lot in his speeches. I wonder how long this will continue, though.
RE: - They might have ignored him, but they didn't "trash" him.
Depends on how you define "trash" - which you two are doing differently. What you call "ignoring" is a form of trashing. No, they did not insult Edwards policies or the way he dresses or his hair-cut that much. They did the more indirect stuff. They made it seem as if voting for Edwards was a wasted vote even when he was in second place - they told us that he was out of money and it was only a matter of time before Edwards dropped out so this second place showing really didn't mean anything. Then they acted as if Florida meant something. And, in between, they treated Edwards like the Canadian Media treats the NDP. This is not laziness.
Every election the media tells everyone that it is between the Liberals and the Conservatives. Then the Liberals get a hold of NDP voters and tell them that voting NDP will give you a Conservative government - so NDP voters change their mind at the last minute and vote Liberal. This strategy often works even in places where Liberals have no chance of winning the seat - resulting in the NDP barely losing out to the Conservatives for it.
RE: - If there had been much voter interest in Edwards, or if he had attracted a lot of campaign contributions, the media would have given him more coverage.
Doesn't the media rely on corporate sponsership in the way of TV commercials to pay for their programming?
RE: - Politics in America is largely about personality.
That seems scary to me. Personality is what Hitler and Reagan had in common. I get the feeling that Obama words things in a way that people with opposite opinions are left with the impression that he agrees with them. In a fair debate, he could get called on that more often. The closest to a fair debate Obama had been subjected to was the last one where he lost to Hillary - and there are things which neither seem eager to bring up.
Personality only works if no one gets called on anything - or if the person calling them out does so in a way that is difficult to follow.
RE: -Most people weren't even willing or able to go to candidates' web sites to read in depth policy statements, or make the effort to hear them in person.
If they did, Edwards is an easier read than Obama's is - it is like they don't really want you to read it. Haven't went to Clinton's - but I am sure someone here has and can point me into something which shows me how she plans to treat the marginalized - kick them or give them a hand up.
F the frames! I'm sick of spin, one way or the other. All the time wasted on framing, while the think tanks are one step ahead- always. As the ann coulter- " it's a man babee"- saying that if Mccain gets the nod she will work for Hillary. Kind of like Brer Rabbit asking not to go into the biar patch. I can see her down in her spidy hole laughing her arse off as she runs us all off the cliff.
No more spin. Speak the bloody truth! That is it . Period. End of story, and keep at it like a bull dog. People really do know the truth when they see it. Why can't we have the candidates we want in this country? Is there any way to save this election? F the spin though, we need a dream team of constitutional scholars to knock this embedded group of magicians and spinmeisters out of the park.
Edwards is now out of the race. Corporate media's fingerprints are all over his policial corpse. At the same time they were finishing Edwards off they were raising McCain from the dead. Mccain's platform seems to be more wars, illegals aren't going home, jobs that left the country aren't coming back. Look who benefits from a McCain presidency: military industrial complex (more wars), corporate America (cheap labor illegals stay), corporate America (jobs to cheap labor markets abroad aren't coming back). A McCain presidency offers everything for corporate America and nothing but more misery for the middle class and working poor.
Okay ~Jack Carrell~ I'm ready to go. I understnad that if we flew through space to another star system and then found a water planet suitable for life, it would take 50,000 years to reach another star with our current technology. Then of course we'd have to hope that star's system had a liveable water planet that has unranium, oil and coal deposits so we could screw it up too.
You are correct however, the biggest and most serious problems we face, is not if Obama, Hillary or Johnny McCain are elected, the major problem is the melting of the Arctic's tundra and the release of methane gas. And another thing is, if you have ever had chicken pox, you can get shingles. That really is a painful disorder and there is a vaccine for it.
You can probably tell I'm tired of this dumb issue anyway. Hillary is the dealer's choice and we may as all well vote her her cute ass and hope she stops the global warming. She'd better lock her hubby up in a bedroon closet first, no need of having the temperatures rise in the White House. Hey, if Hilary is elected think of all the stupid jokes Jay Leno and Letterman can tell.
Its seems that most, have an answer and a reason for why there is failures and successes in each candidates campaign. Like I said open your eyes boys and girls, men and women. Its always been said that hind sight is Twenty Twenty... reflect back on the past seven years.....reflect back to when our space programs took a big shot in the old kazoo.....We are history, if we dont get a move on. STOP and THINK about it for a moment, that's all I am asking you all to do, PONDER IT FOR A MOMENT......Space flight technology, thats the answer...I think I hold the formula to that answer... rattlinjack@blackfoot.net ..... All aboard?
Jack D. Carrell
Ira Chernus,..... It would be well stated that one of the far right so called christian conservitives, wrote the demise of Edwards campaign, or could we say that one of the fat hogs that feeds in the public trough wrote this......... There is the vast majority of the populus feeding at the public trough, its no wonder that the vote swings to the corporate fat cats. They,the republicans planed it that way, so now what? Take it laying down? Or should we do somthing about it, somthing constructive?? There is a way! And its not through the likes of Chernus... And it wont get done by everyone sitting around taking pot shots at one another, we need to get in the same boat and row like hell, and by the way, all rowing in the same direction... If we don't the headline story will read,...The demise of the nation. We should forget about this political bull shit, its done, its over, the corporate demon dogs have won on the political scene. We need to focus our concernes on this this planet,... this world, or has everyone forgoten. We are over due for extenction, unless we clamor together with a singleness of our minds and with one, accord, and that is to survive. THERE IS A WAY......
Don't forget that Barrack Obama is a Senator from Illinois. I'm sure Oprah has been supporting him in his career for a long time and by now she probably has a close personal relationship with him as well. I think both he and Hillary have much to be admired. They have played the Washington game as the rules dictate and is expected of them and they have both achieved success within the existing structure. There are very few heros out there who rise above the status quo, risk their lives, change the system and save the world. Those who do, usually only get to the rise part before the system eats them alive. These two are not going to be among them, even though we could really use someone like that right now. But Obama and Clinton are hardly the bottom of the barrel as far as American Senators go. Their politics are not mine and I won't vote for either of them, but I like both of them better than I did Kerry.
You suggest this framework: "We are all in this together. From the richest to the poorest, we are all part of the same community. No one is excluded. No one's best interests conflict with anyone else's. We all rise (or fall) together. If we stand together, we'll all climb the same ladder of opportunity."
OMG - did you ever have a landlord? Did you ever work in a place where some people were laid off, some had their work doubled at no extra pay and some got million $ bonuses? Did you ever fight in a war without proper protection and see contracters getting huge amounts of money with no accountability?
One of the problems of this country is a lack of a Parliamentary system so minority opinions can never get a foothold and grow. Another is that we believe that unlike every other place in the world, we do not have a class system. As long as we keep up that illusion, we are ready to be shorn.
Edwards' message was overwhelmed by years of misinformation. It's about time somebody said it even if the public is not ready to think too hard.
WmC
if he had attracted a lot of campaign contributions, the media would have given him more coverage.
You are aware, aren't you, that Edwards took no lobbyist money for his campaign. Attorneys' organizations supported him financially, but they hardly have a union or a lobbying group. Yes, the media might have covered Edwards more fully if he'd been on the corporate money-take, but that was one of the planks in his platform -- that he did not accept corporate-lobby money for his campaign.
We see the exact same National TV news here that is seen in Florida and in every state ~WmC~. Edwards was ignored and that's trashing in my opinion. In our state, the newspaper's editorial endorsments are how most of the the people vote. Edward's major lack of success was due to the unfair media. Whether Edwards was the best candidate is a matter of opinion. His stands on most of the issues were better than those of Obama and Hillary.
There are probably a hundred reasons why Edwards' campaign didn't work, and not just one.
Of course the media is partly responsible (I have to disagree with the idea that the media is only interested in selling copy and would have focused more on Edwards if they thought he would attract viewers because if that were the case they would have focused more on Kucinich, as well, which they didn't).
Yeah, his association with Kerry probably hurt him, too.
Maybe the Big Corporations' not liking him had something to do with it, as well. They sure enough didn't like Kucinich, who was far more of the populist champion that Edwards was.
And his voting for the Iraq War when he was talking about bringing troops home probably didn't help, either.
Some folks probably got turned off by his $400 haircut, although that seems silly to me. But what the hey.
I don't know, maybe most Americans don't feel like they're losers and resent someone's telling them they are, but that's a wild guess, if you ask me. Personally, I think most Americans have been turned into losers by the policies of the Bush administration. The whole world has, actually, especially with the spectre of global warming hanging over our collective heads. Let a politician try to tell anyone that, though, and see where that gets them. Not even Kucinich really delved into that topic very much. The only one who did was Gore, but he didn't run.
What turned me off Edwards, though, was that he tried to conspire with Hillary to make Kucinich invisible, prior to when the MSM did, but that's just me. Can't speak for everyone else.
The bottom line in American politics is that you've got to do the best you can, if you want to get elected, to do two things: tell the people what they WANT to hear, and avoid telling the Big Corporations what they DON'T want to hear, all at the same time. And that's almost impossible.
Having read all the comments so far, I want to way that I appreciate everyone's thoughtful responses to Edwards' withdrawal from the race. To summarize what I agree with on comments above:
1. The main stream media, for whatever reasons (conspiracy, laziness, lack of interest, etc.) did not give the Democratic candidates equal treatment. Edwards, Kucinich, Dodd, Richardson, Biden were all good candidates, but their messages got lost in the celebrity coverage of Hillary and Obama. Money (or lack of it) may have played a part, but when McCain beat Romney, it makes you question how much money plays a factor.
2. Politics in America is largely about personality. Hillary is a Clinton and there is still a lot of Clinton love out there. Obama is charismatic (to many, not to me), and to use Biden's characterization, "clean and articulate". With the cachet of "historic" choice between a woman and black candidate, the white men got lost in the shuffle.
3. The electorate is lazy and/or unengaged. As an Edwards campaign volunteer in NH, I can attest to the fact that most people I talked to were undecided until just before, and even on the day of, the primary. I don't think this is because people are stupid, but perhaps ignorant (there's a difference). The majority of Americans don't obsessively read political web sites, but instead get most of their information from a local newspaper and/or local/national television/radio (see above about mainstream media). Most people weren't even willing or able to go to candidates' web sites to read in depth policy statements, or make the effort to hear them in person. I hardly think people decided on a candidate based on campaign mailings. See No. 1 and No. 2
I'd like to call out comments above by poxonyou and Karita Hummer, as I agree most strongly with them. I also agree that the author of this article has some kind of agenda against Edwards.
Lastly, to my friend KEM PATRICK, who has written so much and so well in support of Edwards: I too have come down on the side of Hillary now that we have to choose. It's disheartening to see the animosity of the left towards her, when the alternative, Obama, is pretty much the same, but without the experience. Hillary has gotten where she is *in spite* of being a woman, and deserves credit for that. Obama will have some shield against overt racism (though perhaps not in the privacy of the voting booth) whereas Hillary has to take the full brunt of sexism, which is alive and well in these United States. I agree that Obama is less likely to win in the general election against McCain (who is the likely nominee). At least with Hillary, we know their attack method, and as she puts it herself, she knows how to fight them.
I mourn the loss of Edwards the candidate, but he put forth issues and polices that Hillary and Obama have adopted, and for that we should be grateful to him. I'll be disappointed if he endorses Obama, but I won't think any less of him. I'm proud to have worked for him, and I hope he continues to have a voice in bringing about the changes we need in this country.
"Edwards did not campaign in Florida, the media had ignored him or trashed him there." -- Kem Patrick
They might have ignored him, but they didn't "trash" him. And even if they had, it would have had little impact on people's opinion. (After all, newspapers' endorsements have almost no impact on voting behavior.)
If you want to say that the news media are lazy, I would agree. That the average voter is ignorant? Ditto. But the media are primarily interested in selling copy. If there had been much voter interest in Edwards, or if he had attracted a lot of campaign contributions, the media would have given him more coverage.
The media beat Edwards, and to BLAME him is to "blame the victim" which is also the American people.
WE have been deprived of the candidate who best represents the people, and who was MOST ELECTABLE.
Americans are now corporate puppets.
Obama and Hillary will not talk about POVERTY and economic inequality, and corporations.
For SHAME you women and blacks!
You won't notice because the corporations will be too busy giving you a drama show about "historic" candidates, and the amazing "civil discussion."
Edwards was not the best messenger for the message he was preaching. His voting record and personal habits betrayed his rhetoric.
One additional point: Edwards communication skills were less than sterling. He could have framed his message better! He also failed to use graphics to communicate the great divide between the rich and the rest of us. Graphics communicate 1000 times faster in the human brain than do words or text.
Look to American Indians for instruction on how to live in community. Western lifeways and classification systems cannot properly communicate the dynamics of community living.
Hi ~WmC~ I agree with you that Edwards message was not always the best, that which we saw on the news at least. He did very well in the debates, his message was for the most part excellent.
But it sure isn't "complete nonsense" that our media trashed him from the get go. In the few states where the people were able to recieve his message, Iowa, and New Hampshire, he did very well. No candidate can go door to door in EVERY state and have grass roots type meetings with the voting public.
The media has a great deal of influence on elections and they should give equal time to every candidate. They don't, they pick their favorites and trash the others. Edwards was trashed by the media, he was the best candidate and the big corprations didn't want either Kuninich or Edwards. __ They won, the press has the ink and the media has the air time and mega corporations own them.
Edwards did not campaign in Florida, the media had ignored him or trashed him there and he saw it would be the same in most other states, he wisely dropped out. __ That's a shame. Indeed the press and media, pretty much control who we have in public office and that's the Fascist way of doing business.
~Vaudree~ your writing: __ "KEM, as for Hillary, you don't spread false rumors about Blah Blah Blah". What in hell are you babbling about there? You do that type of bull often and it disturbs me. You have your opinions and I have mine. I don't jump on everything you write, repeat your posts and then offer my diverse opinion in an attempt to make you look foolish. Then Bill comes in and ORDERS me to lighten up, tells me you aren't out to get me. I don't think you are out to "get me", but I do know you constantly tell me I'm wrong about almost any and everything.
Well, maybe at times I am wrong and maybe you are, I don't bother you in the manner you do to me and to many others. Usually I ignore your posts, unless I see the words KEM, because you display such superior knowledge than everyone else here and I can't keep up with your incredible thought process.
I consider it complete nonsense that an MSM "conspiracy" was responsible for Edward's demise. (And I voted for him in the Fla. primary.)
The public had a good opportunity to listen to his message and it just did not resonate. I think it could have had he taken a different tack. Instead of blaming "corporate greed" for the "two Americas" we now have, he should have pointed out Congress' role in enabling the corporacracy/oligarchy to gain control. But, of course, that would have involved admitting his complicity.
Hey Grumpy, you ask what happened in Iowa?
Well as I recall, Obama recieved about 33 to 35% of the vote there, Edwards came in a very close second and the press and media ignored Edwards excellent showing. All they talked about was Obama and Hillary. Lots of college students voted for Obama in Iowa. It is not just the African Americans who prefer Obama.
If Iowa had a population of 50% black voters, Obama would have swamped it there, just as he did in South Carolina. I didn't believe I was assuming, the vote count in South Carolina in two presidential primaries is a fact not an assumption. Based upon that fact and factoring in human nature and the history of African Americans in our society, how they have been treated, I formed my personal opinions. To this day, African Ammericans for the majority are not given the opportunities whites are, New Orleans after Katrina is just one prime example. They will for the large majority vote for Obama, __ wait and see.
Naomi Klein liked John Edwards.
Elizabeth struck me as an intelligent woman who genuinely liked people - good natured, comfortable and (then) radiant. She was the best of the first ladies last time and I haven't changed my mind.
Speaking of endorsement - I don't know if any of you have heard about Paul Cellucci, the former ambassador to Canada - but Canadians certainly have. Since Giuli is out, Paul Cellucci is planning to back McCain. For what Canadians thought of Paul Cellucci (Week of March 21, 2005):
http://www.cbc.ca/mercerreport/backissues.php?season=2
Oprah strikes me as borderline republican. What does she believe in other than people who write fiction shouldn't pretend its real.
RE: - Just don't like those blanket assumptions!
I just got the heating bill blankets are good. Think I will nuke me some more green tea hot chocolate to warm my fingers.
poxonyou February 2nd, 2008 8:15 am:
"Of course, it's unlikely Obama will be a completely progressive, populist, anti-war president,"
It is unlikely that Barack Husein Obama will be president at all! But that fact seems to escape his starry eyed "hopeful" supporters. Even if he were 1/2 as "progressive" as his supporters like to make him out to be, it is no matter. He is unelectable in the general election.
grumpyoldlady - That one woman I mentioned is just one example, I know many such Women who will support Clinton because of their view that she is a highly competent WOMAN! and they will chose that over an equally competent man, mainly because of their view that men have screwed things up, and a WOMAN can fix it. As for Oprah's public endorsement of Obama, it was because he is black! It was also because, like her, he seems acceptable to the main stream. There are a couple of good talk shows on public radio that focus on black social issues and black politics. Guess what, they all discuss Obama specifiably because he is black! You may not like the fact that people will vote bases on these things, but that does not change the reality of the situation.
Probably as much because this is a community of thinkers and theorizers and justifiers and inquisitive minds as any other reason this was ignored in this long list of comments, but one major factor in the failure of John Edwards' campaign was his wife's health.
I'm sure just about every factor mentioned in this comment list was part of it. Prior failure in the presidential arena, wrong time for his candidacy given the two remaining candidates and their power bases leaving too little left, and media marginalizing him and making come true their stance that he was simply the strongest of the marginalized candidates among the Democratic contingent...these all were there, certainly.
But, for me, the day his campaign was left with a known end date somewhere just before or just after Feb 5 was the day he and Elizabeth announced discovery of her incurable cancer. Ever after that date, every appearance was well-attended by folks who cheered them and seemed particularly in love with Elizabeth, but even those cheering knew that this was a dead candidacy. They were there to show support for the Edwards family more than the candidacy, and many may not even have voted or caucused for Edwards, themselves, when it came time to decide.
Just reflecting on how it felt that day last year when I heard the news, none of the rest of it mattered to me, not that day. I was an Edwards supporter as much because of Elizabeth Edwards as because of her husband--it is now a well-reported part of American history that a strong and intelligent First Lady can have a huge influence on how a presidency and its success are measured--for better or worse--and she would have been one of the very best, ever.
The truth was that the 3 front runners were fairly moderate and in the past were probably indistinguishable. Edwards changed his campaign to be more populist and progressive probably because he realized he had no chance of winning if he ran moderately like before. The 2 Americas theme from last campaign was strengthened. Maybe he did change his positions, but it is a bit hard to buy without evidence.
Obama on the other hand became the #1 most progressive senator last year with his votes. He didn't need to campaign as a progressive/populist as much because his record already reflected that. Instead, his campaign seems to be much in line with this CCV study/tool kit, and it appears to be working. Of course, it's unlikely Obama will be a completely progressive, populist, anti-war president, but neither would have Edwards or Clinton. We just need to get one of them in power and do the hard work ourselves like we did during the Clinton years. Or, we can live in fantasy land and vote 3rd party, then wait another 4 years to vote 3rd party again, and again, or be bitter and complain endlessly about how the president isn't progressive enough, without doing anything to affect change.
Kem,
"If you believe otherwise, wait until the votes come in where the voting population is not over 50% African Americans and compare them with the votes where the opposite is true."
Well, only 2% of the population of Iowa is black. What happened there?
Look, you may or may not be right in your assumptions, and I'm not saying that race or gender is not a factor with some voters. I'm just saying that it's a bit insulting of the black voter to make a blanket assumumption that they would vote for a candidate, even a horrible one, just because he's black. I don't know that historical voting patterns bear this out. It's the same as assuming that all women will vote for any woman candidate, regardless of her qualifications. I wouldn't, and haven't. If that were true, we would have had a woman president long ago. The majority of Iowa women also voted for Obama, not Hilary.
Just don't like those blanket assumptions!
vaudree, I think you make a lot of good points, and KEM, lighten up, don't be so quick on the draw, I don't think vaudree is out to get you.
Edwards was the only option outside of Kucinich.
But Hillary got the women vote, despite being pro war and bought by Wall Street and AIPAC (Coulter says she will back Hillary if McCain is the Republican nominee). Obama was getting the black vote, but I think this was not very significant except in SC. Obama is backed by the war monger Brzezinski who will likely run his foreign policy. LOL.
I can not take Hillary in office, yet I fear Obama will be smeared somehow if he is nominated(we already know Hillaries dirt) and then we get the Kissinger backed McCain, or the Bible thumping Huckabee, or Big Dig Romney, or maybe the super Fascist Bloomberg if he gets in.
We deserve the misery that is to come and are so doomed.
Corporate media has a lot to do with it.
Kem - I have never said that you are full of it. If I disagree with you at all, it is usually over something small. Most of the time you bring up something that needs to be talked about - often giving me an excuse to bring up some point or another. Concede that I have not forgiven Hillary yet - and that I am also unsure whether Obama has any substance. Know that I have to choose between the two of them.
In the system you have, third parties are better for Senate or Congress races. I am not saying you disagree or agree with this thought, I don't know. But it was a good place to bring it up.
I do get more shit from you for adding onto a thought than actually for agreeing or disagreeing with you. C'est la vie! Bon chance mon ami.
Unless I can find a significant policy difference between Obama and Clinton that I can trust, I will probably vote to shit on the graves of racists (ie for Obama).
RE: - COMarc, Your words here are spot-on, and this is why Edwards won't endorse either of them yet, and I hope he doesn't until they use this time to really talk to Americans!
Agree. Edwards said that both Clinton and Obama made a pledge to him - so Edwards is probably going to see who keeps the pledge the best.
Talking To Americans. Now there's a thought! Think that they may be doing that already - Obama and Clinton.
Talking To Americans - part I:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=GuyfmvnwoG8
RE: - Meet the new boss, same as the old boss…
Won't be fooled again?
The corporate MSM has effectively squashed the progressive movement in America.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...
And that is the way it is BEFORE Super Tuesday in the good OLD USA!
COMarc, Your words here are spot-on, and this is why Edwards won't endorse either of them yet, and I hope he doesn't until they use this time to really talk to Americans!
"So, both candidates had a chance to talk to the American people openly about corporate power. Both failed to do so. Who cares who scored debating points. Its doesn't matter. Both lost because both failed to build the foundation they'd need in the general election."
And KEM, what you said is also dead-on -
"The MAJOR problem Edwards faced was the sorry ass media, they shit all over the best candidate. That is it in a nutshell."
What went wrong? Nothing. Just ask the Republicans, the Corporate Media and the DLC. The fix was in. It all went exactly as planned. Clinton is their dream candidate. Second choice - Obama. The election is over. The good guys lost.
Certainly John Edwards made some tactical errors in his campaign. I believe he took some poor advice from his staff and his speech writers were not the best, his TV ads were not great either. He also did not have the money needed to continue and win __ and he was not going to stay in and come in second or third. After the South Carolina and Florida votes, the handwriting was on the wall.
The MAJOR problem Edwards faced was the sorry ass media, they shit all over the best candidate. That is it in a nutshell. Had the press and media treated him fairly, he would have been the winner in every prmary except South Carolina, and he would have had the donations necessary to go on. He refused money from mega corprations and lobbyists and that also hurt him. It wasn't just one thing, the media who rightfully feared his presidency ruined his chances ____ and ours.
Well ~Vaudree~ since you have once again told me I'm full of it, and that's your opinion. I'll say that you often don't know what the hell you are talking about and that's my opinion.
While I don't necessarily agree with Chernus' analysis of what went wrong with Edwards' campaign, I do believe that this is what is fundamentally wrong with America. And it isn't a frame -- it is the chief weapon, along with fear, of imperialist oppression. Divide the people amongst themselves and keep them fighting and blaming the "other" for everything while the little band of elites rob us blind. It is the only way they can maintain control. This is why we foment civil war in Iraq, because if the people were united we would have been thrown out years ago. And if the people of this country ever united and realized that we were all in this together and that life would be so much better if we pooled our resources and applied them to the best solutions to make these problems go away once and for all we could have the society we all dream of living in. It is all within our reach, but we need to work together to get there. As long as we buy into the notion that we should only be concerned with ourselves and shouldn't be expected to contribute to a common good, we are literally doomed.
Naomi Klein mentioned John Edwards by name in her article "Disowned by the Ownership Society" (a couple above this) and no one is curious as to why? Tsk tsk.
RE: - As a Canadian in our own problematic parliamentary democracy, at least the Prime Minister has to face the opposition in Question Period
The American idea that one should respect your President/Prime Minister certainly goes out the window during Question Period. No sense of Patriotic Correctness in Question Period is there! Note that, according to the rules, you can't actually call an MP a liar, but there is - er - a way around that:
Monday, January 28, 2008 (edit/find word "truth")
(example)
Hon. Bryon Wilfert: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the applause is premature. This was a full 10 days after the Canadian Forces had stopped transferring detainees to the Afghan authorities because evidence of torture had been found.
The minister rose in the House and assured us the agreement was working when he knew full well that what he was saying was not the truth. How can the minister justify a blatant misrepresentation of the facts? How can he explain not telling the truth?
To watch it live on line, go to cpac.ca
Or wait a day or two and you can read the transcript (scroll down and click on date):
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/housechamberbusiness/chambersittings.aspx?View=H&Parl=39&Ses=2&Language=E&Mode=...
RE: - I agree that terms "winners" and losers" are unpalatable
I did not recall Edwards doing a reverse rendition of Queen's We Are The Champions. What I find unpalatable is Ira's insistence than he did. Anyone who starts an article with "John Edwards must be soooo frustrated" seems to be taking substantial glee in John's departure - I want to know why.
Why does Ira feel the need to celebrate John's decision? Why won't Ira come clean with why he wanted John Edwards out of the race. What is Ira hiding - why won't he tell the American people the truth!
RE: - You don't believe blacks will vote for another black just because they are black. I do believe the South Carolina primary proved otherwise.
Some of that was an ABC vote - they wanted Clinton stopped and figured that Obama was the only one to do it (because the media said it was between the two of them). There will be some who will vote for Obama because he was black. There was some who will vote against Obama because he is black. There are some who will vote for Obama because he speaks like the elite among American comics - the televangelist. There are studies that say tall politicians have an advantage over short ones. There are other studies that say the politician who raises the greatest amount of money has the greatest probability of winning.
What we know about John Edwards is that he would rather die that go after those who would vote against Obama because he was black. That was a demographic that Edwards would say the polite Southern version of fuddle duddle to.
RE: - We whites have no conception of what it is like to be an African American and have had to deal with what they have over the years.
We don't have a complete conception, but I wouldn't say that we have no conception. Mark Critch was is a graveyard in South Carolina and said "that is the sound of racists rolling over in their graves":
http://www.cbc.ca/22minutes/
It would be like sticking it to Hitler by having a Jewish German Chancellor (their version of President).
RE: - As for Obama, just why did Oprah endorse him?
Mummy Dearest not only endorsed him, she convinced him to run. Anyone have any idea what Oprah's politcs are? What is she against? What is she for? How much money has she put into Obama's campaign?
Kem - As for Hillary - you don't spread false rumours about Canadians or exploit America's fear of Muslims just because it is the popular thing to do at the time. Japanese Canadian internment was the popular thing to do at the time of WWII. Ukrainian Canadian internment was the popular thing to do during WWI.
Chunga's Revenge - hope Hillary does a better job for the people than Kim Campbell or Margaret Thatcher or Angela Merkel. Would she support a Georgina W Bush or a Georgette W Bush or a Georgia W Bush? GWB could have a sex change if that is all it would take to make GWB a better President.
RE: - It's an attempt to revive an unpopular free-market, pro-business agenda behind the leadership of someone whose personal history suggests an affinity with the exploited and oppressed.
So is Lee accusing Obama of giving evil a nice body? Ok, been watching Shrek III with Doris and she has a point.
RE: - 1. A lazy media, obsessed with glamor and glitz and novelty, basically an entertainment medium (consolidated corporate owned) (From Day 1, they covered nothing but the two celebrities.)
I noticed that I saw better clips of Edwards speaking in the CNN debate on line than I saw on CNN. They looked at the moments he hemmed and hawed the most and played those rather than the moments during the debate that he shone. That is not laziness. Laziness is CBC and CTV showing only the clips that CNN allowed them to show of the debates - f-word copy-write laws!
RE: - 4. The Democratic Party not willing to self examine itself regarding lobbyists
Have you been following the Mulroney-Schreiber affair in Ethics committee?
Brian Mulroney's lawyer sent his former chief of staff, Norman Spector, a threatening letter. Norman Spector said that he was going to talk about money changing hands in Sussex Drive. The threatening letter makes me think that what Spector has to say is very damaging. How long will this take before big names in the American Military lobby start coming up.
Sussex Drive=White House
Brian Mulroney=Ronald Reagan, Papa Bush
The Dems will have to start dealing with corporate lobbyists (or appear to) whether they like it or not.
RE: - Edwards was competing against two charismatic personalities. Toward the end he became redundant, repeating the same narrow theme over and over again.
When you don't get much air time, the tendency is to keep the message simple. There is, as you say, a downside to keeping it simple.
It has nothng to do with credit ~Grumpy~.
It's blood really is thicker than water. Race is a factor, and I'm certain it would be for me if I was African American. Al Sharpton was not the best candidate running ___ far from it. Nevertheless, he did recieve over 90% of the black vote in South Carolina, as did Obama, even though Martin Luther King lll endorsed John Edwards. The African American community wants a black president and no wonder. They are still being persecuted here because they are not white and they would rightfully have a belief, that a black president would do a lot of good thngs to help end racial discremination. It probably would. If you believe otherwise, wait until the votes come in where the voting population is not over 50% African Americans and compare them with the votes where the opposite is true.
Wow Chunga, if that's all they got on Obama he is definitely my man.
What's worrisome is that Nader and Moore seemed to throw some support at Edwards. Does this taint them also?
Though I lost pretty much all respect for Mike Moore in his Fahrenheit 9/11 when he lied that no Iraqi had killed Americans. I didn't forget the USS Stark.
It wouldn't have mattered how Edwards framed his message, it was the wrong message for corporate America (aka the media)-- he wasn't their candidate and he had to go.
Obama has Goldman Sachs and half of Wall Street bundling for him. He is their candidate. And he has Oprah. My god, in 04 I used to dream of Oprah endorsing Kucinich.
Hillary has the DLC machinery working for her and probably the Republican party, along with the healthcare lobby. Could be a bit of a showdown, but either way, we are not the ones who will be deciding. There will be a scream, or dark-skinned adopted child, an Arabic middle name, evil push-polling, swift boating, or something that will come along once the real powers that be have made their decision so that it will be obvious to everyone else what the only choice is. But we will not be the deciders.
I have traveled to remote corners of Venezuela and Mexico and have been absolutely astounded at their understanding of the nuances of global geopolitics as well as their local situations. Even among folks who are materially impoverished and have never stepped foot in a classroom. Especially among the indigenous, you find an ancient world view that we would consider "progressive", and a solidarity and natural ability to organize that made me realize how completely ignorant we as Americans really are. NONE OF US KNOW WHAT TO DO. We are fairly paralyzed in the face of oppression. Even those of us who have a sense (like us here) of what needs to be done, don't really know how to get it done or make it happen. When I visited this little community in Chiapas -- people with no electricity or running water or floors, and they were faced with paramilitary repression and corporations that were literally trying to steal their land away out from under them - they knew what to do, and they did it, and they won. When they overthrew Chavez in the coup, the people of Venezuela knew not to trust the media, not to trust the military, and they knew how to organize and risk their own lives against the riot police and demand their president back (and they got him back!). I do not find that poverty in this country has any such impact on the consciousness of Americans. Just go to the impoverished rural south and see who they vote for.
I am not so sure this country is really worth fighting for. Mostly because the people we are supposedly fighting for don't want us fighting for them. As Al Gore said in An Inconvenient Truth, there are a lot of people in congress who refuse to acknowledge global warming because once they do, the moral imperative to make massive and fundamental changes becomes inescapable. There are a lot of citizens like that, also. They don't want to face what that means and the kinds of changes they will have to make. I will fight against a government or a system for peace and justice all day long as long as there is some solidarity among the people, but if I'm just out there all alone, what is the point? In a democratic society, the majority rules, and if the majority wants to live in a totally fu**ed up corporate capitalist system, who am I to tell them any differently?
Edwards lost my wife when he advocated, instead of national health insurance, a privately-based health insurance plan that the IRS would enforce. The U.S. private health care system consistently bungles a certain set of chronic diseases such as Gulf War Syndrome, chronic fatigue syndrome and chemical sensitivity. My wife is a sufferer.
She doesn't want the Gestapo to prop up and enforce a lousy health care system. She wants a good and efficient health care system.
Edwards managed to not convince people that he was fundamentally different from the other cowardly Democrats. Actually, he's a bit of a war hawk.
As a carefully positioned lesser of three evils, Edwards didn't stand out much. He wasn't a Kucinich. He was just enough to the left to be cut clean out of conservative media publicity, which did hurt him.
Hillary brought out the women's vote, and Obama brought out the rainbow coalition. That's tough to beat even for a good candidate.
Oh good gawd ! What went wrong with Edwards should be obvious. It was his goddamn voting record when he was Senator that disabled his "populist" campaign. Now I understand that he can't frame debates because as a trial lawyer you learn not to. As a trial lawyer, your only job is to win not to think. Anyhow, at no point could Edwards pick out a single issue he voted on and say "I proudly voted for/against it and I will continue to fight for/against it as president !" Not all of us are FORGETFUL JONES ! Edwards can't expect to fool voters into forgetting his past voting record when he was senator.
Chunga,
Well, I guess if you consider one "Woman" to be representative of the entire female population, so be it.
"As for Obama, just why did Oprah endorse him?"
How should I know? Ask Oprah. She has a website.
KEM,
"You don't believe blacks will vote for another black just because they are black. I do believe the South Carolina primary proved otherwise. Not just this last one, Al Sharpton won there with over 90% of the black vote when he ran for the presidency."
And maybe it proved that those voters liked his policies better than those of the other candidates? Your argument assumes that black voters will vote for any black candidate, their quality or qualifications not withstanding. Isn't that a bit patronizing? I prefer to assume that black voters are as informed and discriminating as any other voter, and just as concerned with the quality of the candidate as I am. The same goes for female voters.
Sheesh, give people a little more credit.
Not socialist. After Nader's and Moore's blessing, there was a very brief attempt for Edwards to be recast as a populist generalist. If it weren't for Hillary and Obama, he might have won. Hard to say whether the corporate media or the crypto-neocons in the DLC are more to blame.
I agree that terms "winners" and losers" are unpalatable and a re-framing of language was needed. However the real "problem" of Edward's message was that it is a socialist message and needed a working socialist candidate to articulate it. Then the resulting explosion of the "media torpedo" may have sparked some life in people. Or not. Really it's up to us as a class.
As a Canadian in our own problematic parliamentary democracy, at least the Prime Minister has to face the opposition in Question Period and cannot be isolated for long periods of time. How one man or woman as president can be expected to solve the daunting problems faced by the American working class is beyond me.
~Grumpyoldlady~ You don't believe blacks will vote for another black just because they are black. I do believe the South Carolina primary proved otherwise. Not just this last one, Al Sharpton won there with over 90% of the black vote when he ran for the presidency. We whites have no conception of what it is like to be an African American and have had to deal with what they have over the years. They will vote for Obama big time because he is a brother and I don't blame them for it. For another thing, Obama seems to be a very good man.
Personally, now that Edwards has dropped out, I'm voting for Hillary, I believe she will do a better job and she may have John Edwards on her cabinet. We will still have his expertise in a high position of authority and with a Democratic Congress, Hillary will make changes, lots of good changes. And I don't care what Bill did in the Oaal Office during his breaks when he was the president. We sure as hell weren't in the sad and busted shape we are now.
grumpyoldlady February 1st, 2008 8:37 pm -
Well I beg to differ with you. I was at dinner with some friends the other night and the Woman of the group, a feminist, is a Clinton supporter, she likes Nancy Pelosi too. So I asked her how much of her supprot for Clinton had to do with her impression of HRC as a feminist, and her view that a qualified woman was the best choice. Guess what she agreed with me. As for Obama, just why did Oprah endorse him?
The following was posted by Bob K over on another thread, I repost it here in response to the ever predictable dougnwagner:
"In Latin America, they've got a name for the kind of politics that Sen. Barack Obama represents: neoliberalism with a human face. It's an attempt to revive an unpopular free-market, pro-business agenda behind the leadership of someone whose personal history suggests an affinity with the exploited and oppressed."
THE OBAMA MYTH
http://www.counterpunch.org/sustar11042006.html
Karita,
Good analysis. Excellent suggestions.
Now, having gotten my fur back in order...
I'm not sure why John Edwards did not get more support among the electorate. He raised some important issues, especially regarding campaign financing and the widening gap between the rich and the rest of us. I think there is something to the argument that Mr. Edwards is haunted by the spector of the failed Gore/Edwards campaign, unfair as that stigma might be in light of the shady goings-on during that election. Perhaps the apparent imbalance between his populist message and his personal lifestyle did play a part. I thought that Edwards appeared more mature and statesmanlike during this campaign, and I'm hopeful that he will have a significant role in the next administration if the Democrats can pull off a win.
I think this article has some merit, but fails because it is too reductionistic. At most, it identifies a part of the problem.
Let's start with Iowa. Because I was there as a volunteer, I witnessed the impact Edwards' message had on everyday people. In one instance in Fort Dodge, many came in undecided, and many left decided for him. When people heard him, they became convinced. But Superstar, celebrity, history, and downright dirty tricks (of really great magnitude -large numbers of students being bussed in), contributed to a defeat there. (The Caucus system itself is questionable as a way to choose candidates is distorted by who can get there (and students and young people can get there in droves.) (Therefore, I think the numbers may not have reflected fully the general population of the state.)
Frame might have been one part of the problem, and emphasizing community might have helped,though, indeed, it was a big part of Edwards' message, too. I think that Edwards could have done a better job of defining and explaining corporate community responsibility.
The biggest culprits (and I do call them culprits, because for me John Edwards was far and away the candidate with the greatest integrity and the best programs) were, imho, the following:
1. A lazy media, obsessed with glamor and glitz and novelty, basically an entertainment medium (consolidated corporate owned) (From Day 1, they covered nothing but the two celebrities.)
2. Campaign Finance Law that permits such big donations from corporate heavies.
3. Haphazard election systems (registrations occurred minutes before the caucuses (with no Identification required)
4. The Democratic Party not willing to self examine itself regarding lobbyists
5. A dumbed down, poorly informed and inadequately educated populace/citizenry, leading to apathy and indifference.
I would suggest the following solutions:
1. Media reform
2. Campaign Finance Reform
3. Election Reform
4. Party Reform
5. More emphasis on civics in schools
Karita Hummer
San Jose, CA
Ira's close but no cigar.
Edward's 2 Americas is antithetical to the American narrative.
There are no classes in American society. (Or so the narrative goes. We're Americans all with an equal chance at success. Individual choices and actions result in one's prosperity.)
Of course, this narrative is false. The best indicator for an individual's economic success in America is whether their family has had economic success. It's a club, it's a political party, it's the media, it's business.
One can not get elected by arguing against this American narrative. Only more pain and poverty for many will defeat the narrative. And that is the course America is on.
The failure of the American Narrative.
http://www.pewtrusts.org/our_work_ektid31108.aspx
Okay, guys, you're getting Twinklebunny's fur up!
It is ludicrous and stupid to assume that women would vote for Hilary Clinton simply because she's a woman, or that blacks would vote for Obama simply because he's black. Just as it would be ludicrous and stupid to assume that the white men who would vote for John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul, etc. would only do so because those candidates are white men.
Egads, what a load of crap!
"If the Democratic party is made up of 60% women who are in love with Bill Clinton who has been selling our countries assets to the Arabs and he is making jillions of dollars and the ladies do not see this, maybe we should never have given them the right to vote."
Nobody gave us the right to vote. We took it.
Hey, Ryan!
How was that for anger? Pretty good, huh? I'm smiling again now, but I was pretty pissed for a minute there! I'm catching on! :)
Rich M: I think you are wrong about Latin Amrerica's poor. They are not as politically sophisticated as you suggest. When you have been treated as unimportant all your life , it isn't sophisticated to vote for someone who considers your welfare important. Chavez didn't use platitudes, he has promised and delivered on measures to empower the people and improve their standard of living. Is it politically sophisticated to vote for a person who has reduced poverty, eliminated illiteracy, and brought free health care to the poor, often for the very first time? In America people vote for governments that deliver platitudes as a platform, and excuses as accomplishments. Unsophisticated? No, rich. When most Americans are poor they will become "politically sophisticated".
Edwards never got any traction with the issues he brought up in part because lots of people are apathetic. Elections are not about issues, but emotions. It is a popularity contest and the father figures or glamorous win. Kucinich, the most rational progressive candidate, could not compete on glamor, and apparently Edwards despite charisma didn't have whatever else despite being the best on issues. Given the shove by corporate media and all the money from corporations and this is the horse race we get. I think politics is rather hopeless, but better Clinton or Obama than Dr. Strangelove, anti-choice McCAin. I threw away my vote for Howard Dean in California last time. Once again can't vote for the withdrawn-candidates-of-choice without throwing my vote away.
I thought this article was self-serving as well as off-base, and I have to question whether an author who can claim that working people "have no enemies" has ever spent much time on a picket line or in a community that's just been abandoned by a runaway corporation.
There is a place for warm talk about "community" and "we're all in it together," but those are meaningless slogans unless the real obstacles to the realization of the words--absurdly excessive corporate power and the absurd wealth of the top 1%--are challenged head on. I praise John Edwards for being willing to do that. The only way we can ever all be in it together is by being willing to challenge the people who want it all (power, money) for themselves. Politics is about conflict, and nice words and wishful thinking won't change that reality. Likewise, spending all day worrying about "framing" might help some Democrats when a few more votes, but it won't alter the underlying power realities, which Edwards was willing to name in the way no mainstream Democrat has done in at least 20 years.
Edwards was competing against two charismatic personalities. Toward the end he became redundant, repeating the same narrow theme over and over again. With so much excitement going on nearby he may have become overshadowed.
He became overshadowed by the personalities of his two close competitors, a black and a woman. Each, on the basis of identity alone, stoked up a great deal of excitement and drew many followers. After all, history is being made in this race.
Through the novelty and strength of personality of his two parallel contenders Edwards became diminished.
Each of Edwards' competitors had some other basic advantages as well. Obama has an unusual amount of charisma for a presidential aspirant. Hillary is a Clinton and her appeal is clearly fixed on the base of Bill Clinton's presidency. Bill Clinton made sure, for a time, that the voters understood voting for Hillary would be a "twofer," returning to the good times before George Bush. A time of comparative peace and prosperity. (If Bush had not been so bad this would at least be debatable.)
Change, hope, perhaps even optimism, but certainly competitiveness, are so firmly in the air today George Bush is rarely even alluded to. It's all about who will lead us out of the morass into a better future. Barack, race aside, has an enormous charisma, which I find convincing. Or at least hope it's expressive of something real. Hillary is a woman candidate with ties to both the past and the future. If she is selected I hope she's not as contrived and cynical as she often appears to be.
In the midst of all this, Edwards merely spoke of the poor. I was for him because I believe ending poverty should be a priority in our country. For decades it has been ignored and I thought it was time for someone to bring this national tragedy front and center once again. What's more, we all know corporations have too much power in our country.
But considering the other huge problems facing us Edwards may have over emphasized this one issue. And he began to sound redundant while all the other excitement (which I attempted to briefly describe above) was taking place. Edwards simply ran out of gas.
Both parties and the media are so completely corrupt that reform is no longer possible through normal political means."
That about sums it up folks . . . .
Conciousness means nothing without social movements. Latin Latin Americans have known about, and lived under, imperialism for centuries now. What they have now, more than before, is social movements that are decentralized (not depending on singular leaders) and participatory. I agree with you that they are more sophisticated and have a heightened political conscious. The fact is that that is the case for the majority of the world's poor countries, even more than you or I sitting here online arguing in a rich, industrialized country. What allows them to transfer their consciousness into action is the medium missing in this country, a decentralized and participatory social movement. In Venezuela that social movement is taking over some of the roles of the state. I admit that formation of a social movement can only come about by acquiring a consciousness. However, since the media doesn't it provide it for them there either, their daily lives forces them to understand their plight. Maybe an economic crash would wake the fools who live in this country up.
My basic point is that the medium which allows them to put their consciousness and ideas into action is the movements they've created. Without the movements that consciousness would lead to nothing. Without those movements the politicians they've elected would be reduced to glorified public speakers.
Grant (6:51 pm ) asks, "If the media is to blame for Edwards and people like Edwards' rejection how do you explain the success of the left in Latin America despite the fact that the media is just as much, if not more, biased than the media here?"
- It's because Latin Americans are more sophisticated about politics than USAans. They have a much higher level of political consciousness. Working class Latinos understand from an early age that the rich are their class enemy. They understand that Yanqui imperialism has harmed them terribly. By contrast, in the US, most people have never heard of "US imperialism." They think imperialism is just something that the Brits did in the 19th century. And they think "the class struggle" died a hundred or so years ago.
I also suspect that Latin Americans understand that the media is bullshit & can't be taken seriously. USAans, on the other hand, still really believe that CBS or ABC or the NY Times is the official word on things. USAans are mesmerized by their media. The Stupid Bowl this weekend will prove this to anyone who doubts it. The only reason the media do "All Britney, All the Time" is because they know there's a mesmerized audience out there that laps it up.
A Ralph Nader presidency would be a dream come true. This guy is better than Gravel, Paul, and Kucinich combined! A snowflake has a better chance in hell.
He lost because he wasn't an alternative. He didn't offer anything but platitudes like the others. Platitudes are what everyone else was offering: "change," "healthcare," "peace," are all meaningless words. He was also MIA during Bushco's reign of terror. He did nothing to stop the robberbarons from looting the people's treasury. There was never a fillibuster or civil disobedience on behalf of the so-called opposition. He's exactly the reason why people like myself no longer consider themselves democrats. He was a coward.
One question that I forgot to ask: If the media is to blame for Edwards and people like Edwards' rejection how do you explain the success of the left in Latin America despite the fact that the media is just as much, if not more, biased than the media here. If the media is controlled by the same interests and are just as adverse to change what accounts for the huge difference in the success of the left there than here?
Well Thought Shaman the myth that anyone can become one of the rich and powerful few is, after all, the American Dream. And as you point out, most people still buy into it, that is why American Idol is so popular. Changing the myth of the power of individualism over the good of the community as a whole is not going to change any time soon, and the truly powerful like it that way, so what if they have to allow an upstart like Bill Gates into the club every now and again. And if you think about it that was part of Bill Clinton's popularity, he grew up poor and became president.
Sorry, I really disagree with your premise, Mr. Chernus. You assume that most Americans HEARD John Edwards discuss the issues. They haven't.
I think this analysis explains what "went wrong".
It is short enough to repost here.
The Left will eat itself - a few thoughts about John Edwards and self-loathing among progressives
January 31, 2008
Martin Bosworth wrote in his piece on John Edwards' withdrawal from the Democratic Presidential race: "Edwards did not fit the assumed narrative the media wanted to run with in this campaign–he was the outsider, the guy who wasn't campaigning on experience or the audacity of hope. Moreover, he was speaking painful truths about class, corporatism, and how our lives are dictated and controlled by the power elite. So the media machine cranked up the distortion and tried to smear him into oblivion with stupid trivialities. Yet, through all that, his message persevered."
If this is true, why is JE out of the race?
What Edwards is really doing is paying the price for being a white guy at the time of historic (and mostly just) back lash against the "aristocracy of white guys" that has been the target of the concerted efforts of "liberals" who aren't liberal at all. What these "liberals" (too often media pundits) are are ideologues who proclaim that someone would make a better (read "more media interest worthy") Presidential candidate simply because that person is a) a woman or b) an African-American. Justice is one thing - ideology is another - this is ideology at its most reeking…. Yes, I hear your scornful retorts: "These are the times that try [white] men's souls…" yadda, yadda….
I don't say this to discredit Hillary or Obama, both of whom have real merit. I say this because the drive to push forward a woman or black candidate is (I fear) a media creation that allows the media then to control the narrative of the Democratic campaign - and the election. And the Democratic Party, which plays the sucker to every narrative the media creates for it, is playing the sucker again.
John Edwards has addressed overtly and directly real issues plaguing our country at this historical moment - the shift toward a class system that the "Repugnacans" have engineered - and their systematic removal of any realistic opportunity for those in the rapidly developing underclass to better themselves. Edwards, like me, Sam Smith, and many others across this country, has been able to work hard, gain success, and rise to a position of both (in a relative sense) wealth and power because of the past social and economic policies of the Democratic Party. I don't begrudge him any of his success the way the entitled scions of the Right do - to do so would be to repudiate my own life. What I find most repellent in The Left's rejection of JE is its own smug self-righteousness that it is doing so for the "correct" reasons.
Not so. The Left is rejecting Edwards because he reminds too many of us in the Left® of what WE came from - how we scrambled and worked and took advantage of opportunities made available by FDR, HST, JFK, and LBJ. It's easier to glom onto the myth of Hillary as a deserving member of her gender or Obama as a deserving member of his race (despicably patronizing behavior masquerading as visionary open-mindedness) than to stand up and say "offering opportunities for people to better themselves has been and should always be a basic tenet of the Democratic Party." That would mean supporting Edwards - who espouses these positions - and rejecting the more fashionable idea of supporting Hillary or Obama because they represent a "historic opportunity."
Poll after poll has shown that Edwards would defeat John "I'm a war President, too" McCain in a general election. Neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama has fared as well.
I told the members of S&R privately weeks ago that I believed McCain would be the Republican candidate and that he might well defeat Obama or Clinton. And, in another media manipulated tilt at the windmill of history, the Democrat Party (let's just buy into the humiliation that the Republican rulers of the media heap upon us, shall we?) will lose the 2008 election - and relegate our children and their children to lives increasingly indistinguishable from those of kids in those countries who provide us with illegal immigrants.
I'm reminded of the way Sam Smith and I have often laughingly scoffed that the only Marxists left are those wearing tweed in tony offices in universities. The closest they ever get to the "revolution" is the occasional Cuban cigar obtained from a Canadian friend. Those of us who've benefited from the Democratic Party's social and economic policies that allowed us to get educations and move up the economic and social ladder are like tweedy Marxists. We're interested in opportunity as an intellectual abstract.
In plain English, too many of us are full of shit. Opportunity is only opportunity if it's at work on the ground helping kids do better than their parents. Edwards has spoken to this issue in ways that no other Democratic candidate has - or seems interested in doing. What the Democratic Party needs now are people who vote Democratic because they see a tangible gain for themselves in doing so.It's not about race or gender - it's about message.
As my grandfather, a North Carolina tobacco farmer, used to say, "there are fools - and then there are damned fools." The Democratic Party has, I believe, shown itself to be in the latter group by rejecting a candidate whose message has more in common with those Democratic Presidents mentioned above than either of the remaining candidates.
We will soon, I fear, be able to rue our decision at our leisure.
=====
Edwards didn't fit the framed "historic candidate" hype, which replaced all considerations of issues unless they were presented by the two historic candidates. And their issues weren't John Edwards' issues.
As for me, I believe that until Americans can look at political candidates not through the filter of race or sex but can rather see candidates through the filter of issues that are important to us all, we have not moved ONE step beyond sexism or racism.
Nobody proves they're free of racism by enthusiastically endorsing a minority because that person is a minority. Nobody proves they're free of sexiam by enthusiastically endorsing a woman because she's a woman. That freedom from racism and sexism is won when people are able to see where political candidates stand on issues that address the needs of all Americans, not a way to assure themselves that finally they have a public chance to show everybody they're not racist or sexist.
THIS, to me, is the frame (only "historic candidates" are in our enthusiastic sights) into which the media has cast this presidential race, and it scares the hell out of me, given the destruction that GW Bush continues to wreak on America.
COMarc, many here agree with your calls to action. Thinking about who won or lost in a particular instance such as a debate takes nothing away from the need for a multi-pronged approach to enable people to engage and vote in their and the collective self-interest.
For the record, it is very hard to have an effective government of the people, by the people, and for the people when most of the people "buy" into the model/game that "they can be one of the rich and powerful few." Unless people at large stop playing this game, there will always be an entity, corporate or otherwise, controlling access and shaping (or determining) outcomes in any sphere of influence.
Obviously you paid attention to the fact that I used the WORDS the problem lies with the American people and ignored why I said it. If you actually looked at what I said you'd see that while you arguing against my position you raised many of the same points I did.
People in this country have had it nice over the years. They voted for politicians who did illegal and immoral things (taking out governments American investors found objectionable, the inhabitants of those country's opinions didn't count, subverting or severely weakening democracy here & elsewhere, stealing resources from the poor countries and standing in the way of their development, etc). Americans turned their heads and, outside of a small minority, did nothing. Most of them either attacked those who did something as "extremists" / "far left" or took their paycheck from the interests who profited off of the imperialist ventures and pretending like they didn't know what was going on. Sometimes they didn't know what was going on. Anyway, what happened was that people's view of what democracy is became warped. Since this country imposed its will on others and since there were large rewards for Americans all they needed to do was vote for the politician they liked then went back to their lives. That isn't a democracy, that's voting for nobles to run your life and not challenging the system because they pay you off. There was no participation from the general public, there was no direct input from the public in either major parties' decision making, there was no class consciousness with people outside the country in the same position as themselves. Everyone thought and thinks like they're capitalists and the workings of government was for the elites.
Along the way however, because there was no public participation in the workings of government, in economic decision making, in either of the major parties, because there was extreme ideological rigidness, the social & governmental institutions, our morals and our society began to crumble. As people in the poorer countries have begun to control their own resources they've left less for us (those darn people are so selfish, not letting us monopolize resources in their country) and we see our standard of living declining as well as the government and its institutions crumble from elite cronyism.
Don't accuse me of being a Leninist. I've been involved in grass roots democracy my entire adult life. I believe in bottom up, decentralized democracy and I'm willing to be that my ideas on democracy, not leftist elite rule, are more radical than anyone you know. I wasn't saying that some small group of leftist intellectuals should run society. I was saying: 1. If FUNDAMENTAL change is going to happen you should expect and anticipate what you've seen from the media. If you'd like examples go to zmag.org and read the articles about what is happening in Venezuela and Bolivia. See how little the reality in those countries has to do with your perceptions thanks to an organized international media campaign, despite the fact that Venezuela is democratic in ways this country has never been and the vast majority support the government. See as the same elite interests we have to fight here subvert democracy, in Venezuela they actually dissolved every branch of government, the constitution that was voted on in a national referendum and established a military dictatorship. The only thing that re-established the democracy was the uprising by the mass movements that don't exist here. 2. That you are expecting single candidates like Edwards to go up against these interests in the absence of mass social movements when he (and those to his left) are in the extreme minority in HIS OWN PARTY. He's in a more extreme minority ideological obviously in the Republican camp, the corporate media, Wall Street and the international investor class. Give me a single example of fundamental change that happened in the absence of a mass movement behind the candidate for change that has been successful over the long run. It has never happened and it never will.
We agree that democracy, organizing and agitation has to happen. I'm saying that you shouldn't expect that to deliver results until it goes from what it is now (a small minority, of which I am a proud member of) to a much larger movement. You also shouldn't be surprised or expect anything else from the entrenched interests who own the media. If you agree that fundamental change needs to happen then you should see the situation for what it is and prepare for the fact that much more costly and difficult battles lie ahead. Media figures are going to protect the interests of those who own the media, pointing out that they have the effect they do is like pointing out the existence of gravity. Expecting candidates any different than the corporate controlled Clinton in this environment is pure fantasy.
Vaudree typed:
From the beginning, the media harped on the message that a vote for Edwards was a wasted vote and, even those who liked his ideas, were convinced that he was a lost cause.
Yes. This was true ALSO of Huffignton Post and Air America. This shows that these so called progressive media outletts are just another MooveOnishbutnotreally attempt to fool the base while folding it back to the DLC scum WHEN IT CAME TIME FOR THE ELECTIONS.
EITHER READ THE HISORY OF THE CIA'S LEFT GATEKEEPING ENCOUNTER MAGAZINE (1950-64) OR WE WILL ALL CONTINUE OUR devolution into stuttering and mewling goat-people, who probaby cant even spell.
Nothing more than a psy op studied at some communications school probably in the Spring of 1957.
"Maybe Obama will…"
Don't hold your breath.
Dang! I sent $50 to Edwards' campaign just last week, and I was really looking forward to voting for him next week.
Unlike Obama, he was willing to point the finger at Wall Street and their minions on K Street. I give Edwards and A for effort, but he became too much of a single-issue candidate... for poverty.
I'm not among the really downtrodden people that he spoke of so well, but the same forces that keep so many Americans mired in poverty are also trying to turn the rest of us into "middle class sharecroppers"... working hard, always in debt, never getting ahead.
I was hoping he'd help us all understand the connection between lower class poverty and the middle class struggle to just stay afloat.
Maybe Obama will...He might have more ideological "room" after he dispatches Clinton.
"Will Obama amd Hillary team up?"
Hillary Clinton is too smart for that, she knows Obama would be the kiss of death for her campaign in the general election.
COMarc - You make a good point there. I think that the fact is that as long as the Democratic party continues to ignore it's base, and to be nothing more than Republican enablers in their actions, they will continue to have a credibility problem.
I personally think progressives need to abandon the Democratic party all together, they do not really care about progressive ideals so why pretend?
Of course, the reason these two are on TV now and Kucinich and Edwards aren't is precisely because these two both fail to challenge corporate power. Thus they are acceptable to CNN and allowed time on the air to talk about other stuff that isn't nearly as important as the basic fact that we've stopped being a government of the people, by the people and for the people.
When we talk about who won or who lost a debate, we've already lost. We've fallen into the horse-race mentality that the corporate media promotes.
If neither candidate worked to educate the populace about what I've been talking about, then they both lost. They may not know it today or next Tuesday. One will 'win' next Tuesday, but they still both lost. They lost because as soon as the corporate media has tilted the Dem nomination to the more corporate friendly candidates like Obama and Hillary, then in the General Election they'll turn hard on whichever 'won' and favor the Republican ... again. Just like they did with Kerry in 2004.
So, both candidates had a chance to talk to the American people openly about corporate power. Both failed to do so. Who cares who scored debating points. Its doesn't matter. Both lost because both failed to build the foundation they'd need in the general election.
When you say the problem is the American people, where does that lead you? Is the next step just to throw up your hands and give up? Or is it to abandon democracy and go for some sort of totalitarian leftist rule that will give the stupid people what the new elite decides they need.
If you look back to the 19th century, the American system of public education was regarded as a pillar of democracy. And its no coincidence that the right and the corporations have been steadily attacking the public schools for the last 40 years. Denying funding and controlling the curriculum. Attacking the teachers unions and trying to divert the money to private rightwing schools by vouchers.
So yes, we have a very uneducated American population out there. But to me, that just tells me we have work to do. We have a lot of education to do to teach this uneducated population what's really going on and how they are being manipulated. To teach them that democracy is one of those "use it or lose it" things, and that if they stay home watching American Idol then they'll find they live in a country that sends their jobs overseas for more corporate profits.
Again, there's no magic bullet for this. No single act that will change things overnite. Just a lot of hard work and organizing and teaching.
What bugs me about most leftwing campaigns is that they fail both to see this and account for it, and also they fail to do anything about it. They seem to think if they just frame the message differently next time it will change. But it won't. And they never seem to do the long-term organizing and building that's required.
For instance, now that the Edwards campaign has collapsed, what does it leave behind. Did it build a party or a political movement? Did it work to educate citizens about these very issues of education and corporate control of the very basics of political discussion? No, it doesn't seem like it did to me. And that's the problem. Every campaign is focused just on its narrow chance of winning. Where to me instead every campaign should be focused on building an educated political movement. Build that, then one day we'll see we can win. If we keep failing to build that, we keep seeing this same BS over and over about how tactical failings or a poor job of framing caused our defeat. We have to be smarter than that.
The corporate media is a part of what sunk the Edwards campaign. But its too simplistic to blame it all on them. They are just one of several control mechanisms that make sure that we only get a choice between pro-corporate puppets on election day.
The problem I have with Mr. Chernus' original article is that blaming it on the 'framing' of the message is just plain wrong. I've been seeing that line of BS for most of the last 20 years. There's this constant whine from the Democrats that just framed the message wrong. Or that if we just write letters to the editor the corporate media will realize their mistake and then cover our issues and our candidates.
We have to realize the corporate media is the enemy. Or at least one battalion in the enemy forces. We must never run a campaign that relies on corporate media giving us coverage because they simply won't. We need to and want to challenge corporate power in this country, and they are subsidiaries of these same corporations. No amount of 'framing' of a message is going to make these media subsidiaries act against the interests of the corporations that own them.
We need to educate the American citizens about some very basic facts. We need to educate them to the point where they know that the candidates that get favorable 'news' coverage and that run the corporate funded ads on the corporate media are the candidates that are going to support the corporations and screw them. We need to drive towards an educated electorate that automatically knows that a candidate supported by the corporate media is the candidate that they should never vote for. They need to learn that the candidate that fights for their interest is the one you won't see on the corporate media, that won't be running corporate paid-for ads, and that is probably the one being slammed and smeared by the corporate media.
This isn't as impossible as it sounds. When you look at poll numbers, the media in this country polls down around used-car dealers in terms of trust and credibility. We just got to hammer on these facts and teach the citizens around us what's going on. No magic bullet that will do this. We just got to do it by one conversation at a time with our fellow citizens, or one meeting at a time as we organize. But we need to hammer this message constantly. One thing we can learn from the corporate media is the way they hammer at messages constantly over a long period of time to get a desired effect. We need to target the corporate media in exactly the same way.
There's a big payoff for doing this. We can take out one of the pillars that prop up this system of corporate control. We just got to punch and hit and hammer and attack over and over and over and over. Then one day we'll look up and see that when the corporate media backs a candidate its the kiss of death for that campaign. That's what we want.
Like he was too good to be true BLIGH? My wife wondered about that. I didn't. I trusted him. I never knew of his lying about anything. Can't say that about any of the others, Dems, Repugs or Greens.
agreed greener,
And, we certainly need for more USAns to get re-aquainted with poverty - hopefully sooner rather than later.
My feeling is that Edwards lost simply because most people did not believe him.
It was pretty close~Shaman~, they both scored points. Obama showed a lack of leadershiip ability at times and he cleverly twists facts to suit his agenda. He is the best orator I have ever seen. That's "smart" politics. Of course, do we really want another "smart" politician? If Obama turns out to be the Demo nominee, he has my vote. Since Edwards is out of it, I prefer Hillary. Will Obama amd Hillary team up? I seriously doubt it.
People here are placing too much blame on the MSM. On the one hand many here want people here to think for themselves, and simultaneously argue that the MSM needs to forcefeed the people the "right kind of message." So many don't want the MSM to be a forum for the people, instead many want them to just switch sides. Sheesh!
Lizard, well done on picking up on the state of the people. BTW, I didn't get a chance to congratulate you for an earlier post on abortion which indicated that you also picked up on the argument about abortion being about morals and not about life.
Marlene D. Trick:
You are right on. The issue is the American people, not the politicians or elites. The American people are simply inadequate. They spend too much time thinking about how to please themselves to care about anything else. Consume and thou shall be happy! Let's eat and forget everything!
vaudree, funny - I watched debate and thought Obama won it because he showed he belonged in the same league and provided evidence that he can think ahead and knows his limitations. Hillary came off as someone who, while well-versed in policy and issues, just cannot make the "right" decision looking ahead into the future.
The general consensus is that the media ended Edward's campaign. Of course they did! Otherwise we would have to think ill of the American people. Americans are victims! Poor us! We're so intelligent, sensible, and open minded! If it weren't for that hateful media our true goodness would shine through for all to see! America! Land of the almost free, and home of the not so brave! Edwards does not remind anybody of the strict father who took care of us. Clinton and McCain, on the other hand, are mummy and daddy! Accept it, the pattern isn't going to change. Don't blame the media, don't blame anybody. Like it , or not, this is the will of the people. Why? Because the people of the US are PRIMITIVE! Live with that!