Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiHow Edwards Advanced the Democrats' Debate
The wisps of the John Edwards campaign were visible at the beginning of Thursday night's debate between Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Obama led off by saying that Edwards "did such an outstanding job elevating the issues of poverty and the plight of working families all across the country."
Clinton added that John and Elizabeth Edwards reminded the nation "that in this land of such plenty and blessings, there are still 37 million Americans who are living below the poverty line and many others barely hanging on above."In saying she believed "absolutely passionately in universal healthcare," Clinton again referenced Edwards. "If you don't start by saying you're going to achieve universal healthcare, you will be nibbled to death," she said. "And I think it's imperative that as we move forward in this debate and into the campaign, that we recognize what both John Edwards and I did, that you have to bite this bullet."
Obama said both he and Edwards were linked in a mission on congressional ethics. "I think that a lot of issues that both Senator Clinton and I care about will not move forward unless we have increased the kinds of ethics proposal that I passed just last year - some of the toughest since Watergate - and that's something that John Edwards and I both talked about repeatedly in this campaign. That's why I don't take federal PAC and federal lobbyist money."
From that point, the strands of Edwards's populism dissipated into relative Democratic bliss. It was refreshing that Obama and Clinton toned everything down in a race where acrimony was burning bridges to the voters. But the compliments to Edwards are more complicated than the pleasantries.
If, as the stereotypes of this campaign go, Obama represents transformative hope and Clinton represents international Rolodex Day One experience, Edwards significantly tapped into a critical segment of Democratic voters who smoldered with how the world's richest nation fell so far behind on healthcare and its standard of living and lurched into an unnecessary war whose tragedies will haunt us for decades.
In apologizing for his vote to give President Bush the authority to go to war in Iraq, he exhibited a humility that the nation desperately needs from the Oval Office. He moved both Obama to more pointedly point out what is "personal" about this campaign and Clinton to say what she is "passionate" about.
He hurt his common man image with the fancy haircut, house, and hedge funds, but ultimately he had credibility in saying the race was personal in a way that Obama or Clinton are fortunate enough not to have felt. A man who has had to bury a son and has a wife with inoperable cancer could not be running for president for pure ego.
Most important, the Edwards campaign was a reminder that any true change will not be easy. Some people snickered when he talked of an "epic battle" ahead and declared that he would confront Congress with a declaration of healthcare war ("If you don't pass universal healthcare by July of this year, July of 2009, I will use every power I have to take your healthcare coverage away from you"). Many pundits and politicians wrote off his speeches as too angry.
The more accurate assessment is that Edwards's anger - whether you believed it or not - may have just helped forge a more focused Democratic Party. Why else would Obama and Clinton play nice in the Los Angeles debate? They got the message that there is much more to lose that is greater than their individual campaigns.
In Iowa, where he finished between winner Obama and third-place Clinton by getting 28 percent of caucus support, Edwards was successful in charging, "Senator Clinton defends the system and says it's OK to take lobbyists' money." He cut into Obama's support with a more declarative position on Iraq, saying he would immediately withdraw 40,000 to 50,000 troops.
Actually, I am not so sure about the poverty stuff since the last time the Democrats had the White House under Bill Clinton, little was done to stop the exploding wealth gap in this nation. But Edwards gave it a fighting chance of being taken seriously.
In November, Lee Mickey, a 71-year-old retired Iowa "farm wife," said she liked Obama's hopeful message but found Edwards's edge "very, very necessary." Whoever wins the nomination, Obama or Clinton, will need that edge.
Derrick Z. Jackson's e-mail address is jackson@globe.com.
© Copyright 2008 Globe Newspaper Company
19 Comments so far
Show AllI think that we need a consistent primary and general election for President. I favor a proportional system, not winner take all. Winner take all marginalizes the minority, which was not the intent of our nation's founders.
Let's say we all have a primary on the same date. It is proportional and you have to vote for the candidate in the party where you are registered, no crossovers. That makes it ripe for manipulation. In the general election you can vote for whoever you want, without it depending on the party you are registered with.
Ron Paul is to Republicans as D. Kucinich is to Democrats. One can not overstate the influence these candidates have had on their respective party's agendas. I hope this encourages new would be presidential candidates with alternate views to take the idea of campaigning for presidency with some seriousness and not just as statement making. Change is everywhere and everybody has influence. While the extremist cynics cry foul play over D. Kucinich they should be proud of how he has elevated the Democratic agenda to be more forceful and surefooted in their stance against the war. I've seen N. Chomsky speak on C-Span and I am compelled by his unlikely optimism. He says that things are getting better and I'm inclined to believe him.
All this focus on hair cuts!
I thought it was only FOX who embarrassed themselves by commenting on President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's suit.
Third party or fourth party or whatever is a great idea but just an idea right now. Since we are in a winner-takes-all political system rather than a proportional representation system, it is very very tough. The third party has to become a majority party or else we have to change to a Parliamentary system.
Most of all, right now it is just talk. The groundwork has not been laid. Laying the groundwork for such a party will be a very difficult task and will require leaving behind arrogance and self-congratulations. Have to change hearts and minds of a brainwashed people. Shall we begin?
A large percentage of America's voters refer to themselves as Independents. If you want to win, you have to get a lot of them to vote for you.
Since many of the state's primaries are different in their rules for registration and voting, it is harder to tell what the outcome will be.
In the general election however, the Independent vote can make or break a candidate. I do not think that Edwards made the case for attracting the Independent voter.
COMarc, I know Hillary will tack to the right. I'm hoping Obama will tack to the left. That's where he came from. Hillary came out of the right. Time will tell.
kathyodat
Lizard, you left out an important person:
Kucinich: Sacrificed his career to protect the people he served.
Gravel: helped bring the Vietnam war to a close.
Paul: A model of consistency
Nader :Has proven his worth over and over as a defender of the safety and rights of Americans
Edwards: Not really.
kathyodat
A little lip service to Edwards and then its back to their corporate masters. Follow the money.
Only a third party can break the state of plutocracy. If you want change, go Green.
"Personally, i would rather see MOPrmon-fascist romney or corn-pone JHitler Huckabee, or even Crazy and angry Ol' JOhn Mccain be the next president than either Hillary or Barack."
My point exactly.
And completely irrational. Can U say, political suicide?
When you are faced with Bad or Worse, try not to let Worse win.
CV--The problem is that the process (like some carnival game)has been rigged from the start. All of the serious candidates are like so many cigarette brands--once you get past the packaging its the same stuff inside.
When you do ocasionally get a candidate who is different (Gavel, Kucinnich, Paul, or Edwards) they are carefully either ignored or trivialized by those covering "the campaign".
For most of the 6 months prior to 2008 the most consistent campaign story in the MSM media was about who was raising the most millions in donations Hillary or Barack O.
So if you want to chant "tastes great" or "less filling" as the two Bush-lite candidates slug it out for a meaningless Democratic nomnination and pretend that it matters, well and good. Just don't expect the rest of us to share in your delusion.
Personally, I would rather see Mormon-fascist Romney, corn-pone Hitler Huckabee, or even that crazy and angry old man John McCain be the next president than either Hillary or Barack because if the country is to descend into chaos we might as well get it done as quickly as possible.
As much as I love CommonDreams, I have to stop reading the comments here. I've never seen such consistant pessimism, such continual negativity on the Left toward the Left as I find here. It's as if a swarm of RendonGroup sponsored trolls live under this bridge.
If you want real change, you have to be willing to get up and get behind, not the perfect candidate (as such a thing does not exist), but the one that's closest to the change you want to see, that realisticly has a chance at making the grade.
People, we out number them, massively. And we lose elections. Why? Because we assassinate our own candidates while letting the oppositon off the hook. A constant drone of how awful every candidate is makes every choice look worthless after enough repetition and faced with a choice between bad and worse, people opt out instead. That leaves the keys in the ignition for the RiechWing to steal another one.
Spend that built-up lefty moaning function on the wingnuts.
Both Obama and Hillary will tack hard to the right once either gets the nomination. Edwards 'raising of issues' will be quickly forgotten.
If you want real change, you've got to do something besides 'raise issues' and 'change the debate'. That's all you'll get from these attempts to change from within the Dem party. Every four years, all we get is 'raising of issues'. We need something more if we are serious about wanting change.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me continuously, I am a democratic party supporter.
The comfortable answer to our problems isn't going to solve anything. The solution is that the status quo has got to change. The democratic party is only going to offer enough solutions for many of the 'progressives' to think that change is in the air, but the democrats won't change the status quo. The motto might as well be 'stay the course.'
Third party candidacy is the only way to go for me.
http://www.wordsareimportant.com/democraticparty.htm
Look at people's records:
Gravel: helped bring the Vietnam war to a close.
Paul: A model of consistency
Nader :Has proven his worth over and over as a defender of the safety and rights of Americans
Edwards: Not really.
Isn't it strange how Rupert Murdoch, a foreigner was allowed to becoqme a citizen for the purpose of gaining control of an electronic media network which he has been allowed to build?
Strange how the Minutemen and anti-immigrationists don't seem to have any problem with that immigration- immigration due to money and power.
So is that why Ethel K endorsed Barack today? Because he spoke favorably about John Edwards fighting poverty and she THOUGHT it was Obama who toured Appalachia?
That must have been why.
Blaming the corporations alone masks the real issue of an American electorate not paying enough attention to issues. Just the read the comments on a similar article a couple of days ago on this site to get a variety of views.
There is little doubt that corporate money will decide which candidate of both parties win their respective parties' nomination. Corporate money is in the drivers seat. The "big money" will have a seat at the table regardless of which party wins the White House in November. Who will represent you? Only a handful will go to bat against the large corporations. Certainly not enough to make a real difference. Folks, we have lost the revolution of our forefathers. The future looks rather bleak with the exception of the upper one or two percent. Our society is headed towards a third world country.
Good article, as always. Thanks, Derrick. One thing myself and many of my friends are fuming about is that the media squeezed Edwards and Kucinich out. Edwards' message didn't get out to the people of the U. S. This means that only people who accept corporate money or have huge amounts of wealth themselves get to achieve power. So the power is given by the already wealthy to those that are less willing to undermine the wealthy's interests. Clearly, this is not a democratic situation, and hasn't been for some time (maybe forever, but it's much more blatant now than it used to be, at least to this observer).