Edwards ’08

I’m going to remain officially neutral on the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, but I don’t mind admitting that I like John Edwards — who officially threw his hat into the ring this morning — and consider him a strong top-tier candidate.

Former North Carolina senator John Edwards this morning declared his candidacy for president in 2008, sounding a populist call for citizen action to reduce the U.S. troop presence in Iraq, combat poverty and global warming and help restore America’s moral leadership in the world.

Using a neighborhood devastated by Hurricane Katrina as his backdrop, Edwards said New Orleans symbolizes not only the theme of two Americas — haves and have-nots — that was the underpinning of his 2004 presidential campaign but also the power of ordinary citizens to take responsibility for their own futures.

By all indications, the Edwards ’08 campaign will have a very different style from Edwards ’04. The first campaign was slow to embrace technology; the new campaign included a YouTube video. The first one sought support from the DC establishment; the new one vows to be a “grassroots, ground-up campaign where we ask people to take action.”

Edwards also laid out a policy agenda that will be the basis for his campaign: “Provide moral leadership in the world,” “strengthen our middle class and end poverty,” “guarantee universal health care for every American,” “lead the fight against global warming,” and “get America and other countries off our addiction to oil.”

He’ll have some high hurdles to clear — most notably, he’s starting off with practically no money in his campaign coffers — but given his base of support, aggressive outreach over the last two years, his mea culpa over the 2002 vote for the war Iraq, and strong qualities as a campaigner, it’s safe to assume Edwards is going to be a major player in this contest.

In fact, this is going back quite a ways, but I still find this piece from William Saletan, written over two years ago, fairly persuasive.

All the issues Democrats like to run on — education, the environment, the deficit, energy independence — would be vastly more powerful if united under a single theme. Clean up your mess. Take care of your children. Pay your debts. Stand on your own two feet. It all comes down to responsibility.

The Democrat who talks this way most naturally is John Edwards. (I know, I’ve got to stop advertising for him.) He’s the one who frames every issue in terms of values. He’s the one who argued during the presidential primaries that Republicans were favoring unearned wealth over work. He’s the one who connected Republican tax policies to make the point. You don’t have to teach him the language, because he learned it growing up in one of those red states.

What do readers think? A voice for the future or yesterday’s news? I’m all ears.

I’m in. Once Edwards started the “two Americas” meme in ’04, I was wishing for a ticket flip.

  • If Edwards is the nominee, I’ll vote for him without hesitation.

    If I were a betting man, though, my money would be on either Clinton or Obama to get the nod. What the heck, it’s just nice to have a really good group of candidates to choose from for a change. 🙂

  • I like Edwards, but I don’t see that he has much of a chance against Clinton or Obama. I wonder if he wouldn’t be a bit wiser to sit this one out. He’s still a young man with plenty of time to run again, but two consecutive presidential losses would, I think, tend to undermine a candidate’s credibility should he attempt to run a third time (or to run for Congress again).

  • I’m glad he’s running, even if, like James Dillon, I don’t think he’ll get the nomination. He’s a good candidate. I’m most excited about him, Obama, and Clark. Let’s hope for a good race with a lot of qualified candidates!

  • Edwards had only one term in the senate, and that ended two years ago. Even as a sitting senator, he’d be a long shot, since we haven’t elevated a senator to the presidency for forty-five years, and even then just barely.

    Nah. Edwards not so much. Same with Obama. I’m not feelin’ it.

  • I like John Edwards, but I feel that the 2008 Democratic ticket will be Gore – Obama. Edwards would have been a better choice for President in 2004 than John Kerry, who was a terrible candidate, and still almost won.

  • “..the theme of two Americas — haves and have-nots — that was the underpinning of his 2004 presidential campaign but also the power of ordinary citizens to take responsibility for their own futures.”

    I always enjoy seeing a ubber rich politician running on the platform that he’s for little guy… especially after he’s made his (multi) millions! Go git ’em, John!

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/27/AR2006122701483.html

  • Yeah, yeah, yeah here we go again:

    “He can’t win” “He’s not electable” “Let’s go with someone who can win!”

    Echoes of 2004… we went for candidate none of us really liked, but who we all thought was ‘electable’. We should have trusted our ears. Kerry can’t complete a simple sentence. Edwards is immediately understood by all. I have no problem with Edwards or Obama or any Democrat who can talk to the people. I like Edwards message in 04 but thought he couldn’t win, so I supported Kerry. Not this time… I’m going with who speaks to my heart and I don’t give a damn if the conventional wisdom says they can’t win.

  • I’d like to see Edwards get the nod, too – for a very simple reason: I think he’d make a thoughtful, reasoning and excellent president. Unfortunately, the choice is likely to be made on the basis of who can beat the Republican nominee, and a lot of strategists are going to go with Obama (who I also like) or Clinton (who I like less and less). Still, there’s a chance. To the best of my recollection, Edwards never struck back for all the childish criticism leveled at him by the Republicans (remember the “Breck Girl” thrust, as if physical attractiveness is some kind of cheat tactic?), and never forecast an outcome to the Iraq mess that hasn’t paid off in spades.

  • I like Edwards, especially because he’s articulate and has a vision. It’s nice that a rich guy has empathy for the poor and middle class.

  • John Edwards is a great candidate and the first one in modern times to at least appear to be genuine.

    * I don’t think any focus group invented his parents’ discussion about whether they could afford college.
    * I don’t think pollsters won him those court decisions against big corporations, nor did they direct him to offer fellow Democrats during the impeachment hearings the benefits of his legal advice.
    * I don’t think advertising execs told him to kill his son in an auto accident or give his wife breast cancer or the courage to survive both.
    * I don’t think the DNC flacks told him to renounce his earlier permissive vote regarding Iraq.
    * I don’t think the party leadership, ever triangulating lest they should something important, inspired his “two Americas” jeremiad.

    John Edwards is his own man and, in spite of being tied to Kerry’s bumbling campaign, a fresh face on the political scene. I favor Edwards/Obama in ’08 (though I’d gladly work hard for almost any Democrat).

  • After Gore, Edwards is my 2nd choice. After that:
    Clark
    Obama
    Somebody
    Hillary
    Somebody, anybody
    Biden
    Poke me in the eye with a stick

  • The reason John Edwards has empathy for the middle class and the poor is because thats the way he grew up. That’s why he can talk about poverty in an articule and convincing way.

    I would vote for Edwards over Hillary and Obama and I think due to his hard work in Iowa and his natural base of support in South Carolina (since he was born there and he won the primary in ’04) gives him a great chance to win the nomination.

  • There will be a lot of voters, a mere 22-and-a-half months from now, who will not have moved beyond the fortified barriers of both race and gender. Those voters will neither support Obama nor Clinton.

    There will be a lot of voters who have moved beyond one of those barriers, but not the other.

    And—there will be those who “have” moved beyond both.

    Simple facts. Uncomfortable to discuss, yes; but facts they are, just the same.

    Maybe the discussion should be about “who’s electable” AND “who best represents the multilayered message of the Party.” This “either/or” debacle is what fractured things in 2000, and 2004.

    And this thing needs to be taken out of the “national” picture, and presented on a state-by-state level. The two previous Presidential cycles demonstrated the power that a single state can carry—think Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004. The effort must be made on a state-to-state basis; no merely to garner the electoral vote, but the popular vote as well….

  • I’d vote for Edwards without hesitation, but I’d also vote for Clinton or Obama without hesitation. Who I would vote for in a primary I still don’t know. I’m probably most excited about Edwards right now. I really like that he speaks about all issues as values issues, as Saletan says. My morals and values are very strong, and I relish the idea of hearing Edwards articulate them to the country.

    But we do still have two years to go, lots of posturing, lots of candidates still to throw their hats in the ring. Clark was my favorite Dem running for the nomination in 2004, followed by Dean, so if Clark or Dean ran again I would give them both good consideration.

    For example, I am, like all of us, very concerned about the disaster that Iraq has become, and I’m very worried about what it will mean for our security, the war on terror(ists,) and our international moral leadership and credibility if we pull out. So I optimistically hope that someone can offer a plan to fix Bush’s ongoing tragedy in Iraq rather than simply get out and leave it to fester. No Democrat has figured out how to pull it off yet, from what I can tell. And no Republican has the credibility to be taken seriously on the issue anymore.

  • I think Edwards has earned and deserves a shot, and I’m glad he’s taking it now. HC remains problematic for many folks, and the public still doesn’t know much about Obama, so to consider Edwards unelectable is goofy at this stage.

    As for the media… they’ve already started raising doubts about a millionaire running on a platform in support of the little guy (as noted above, also MSNBC), which I suppose they think is less problematic than the current millionaires who ran on platforms to skewer the little guy. (?) If memory serves, FDR was no pauper. Besides, one can be affluent and still realize that the strength of the nation depends on a vital middle class. One might even say a vital middle class is in the enlightened self-interest of the affluent. At least those who look beyond the quarterly P/L statements.

    Anyway, I look forward to seeing what Edwards has learned since the last go round. My guess is he’s going to surprise a lot of folks who don’t know he hasn’t been sipping mint juleps on the front porch.

  • Re: #7

    I always enjoy seeing a ubber rich politician running on the platform that he’s for little guy… especially after he’s made his (multi) millions!

    This describes every politician AFAIK – so what’s your point?

  • I don’t know if he’ll get the nomination, but it will be nice to be able to vote for The Right Guy (in the absence of Al Gore) at least once in 2008.

    Edwards/Obama in 2008!

  • Go get ’em, Johnny Sunshine. The point CB quotes about a unifying theme for Democrats to run “their issues” under is well-taken, and it’s why I have a hunch that Edwards and Obama both have an edge over Our Lady of Perpetual Triangulation.

    Maybe I’m naive, but I believe that Americans–Democrats in particular–like to be called to a higher purpose in our country and in the world than “just keep shopping.” Edwards explicitly is doing this, and Obama’s whole appeal is based in the notion of reconciliation and an overdue end to the brutal partisan warfare that’s dominated our politics since 1988. Contrast this to Hillary, who seems set to run a cult of personality campaign with a personality that’s really not very appealing–unless you’re into “scripted and calculating.”

    I’m still leaning toward Clark, whom I think would be the best president of the bunch. But I’d be very happy to support Obama or Edwards, and am more than open to Gore or Richardson.

  • Yeah, JRS Jr., Edwards did make his millions – by going after Republican Ignoranuses (Ignoranus – an idiot who is simultaneously an asshole) like you and turning you into your natural self: a Defendant.

    I bet if you took a shower, you might be able to wash off the Bozone (Bozone (n.) The substance surrounding stupid people that stops bright ideas from penetrating), but it’s highly doubtful, since your entire existence demonstrates the danger of prolonged exposure to the Dopeler Effect (Dopeler effect (n.) The tendency of stupid ideas to seem smarter when they come at you rapidly).

    You remind me of Darrell over at Balloon Juice – someone just commented there that John keeps Darrell around as his reminder of why he’s no longer a Republican. You’re here to remind us of what a drooler is.

  • I can see John and Elizabeth going around the world…healing the wounds that this current administration has brought to all of us.

  • “I’m going with who speaks to my heart and I don’t give a damn if the conventional wisdom says they can’t win.” – DT

    Fine sentiment. I agree.

    “…Somebody, anybody
    Biden
    Poke me in the eye with a stick” – JoeW

    Does Lieberman (you don’t think he’s going to run eh?) fall above or below the stick poking?

    “I can see John and Elizabeth going around the world…healing the wounds that this current administration has brought to all of us.” – eddiejoe

    There I again agree.

    As others have said, there are a lot of good possible candidates out there even without Bayh (whom I did not really consider in the first place).
    Gore
    Edwards
    Richardson
    Clark
    Clinton
    Biden
    Obama
    … after that I really don’t care. Sorry Vilsak and Dodd but nothing about you appeals.

  • “This describes every politician AFAIK – so what’s your point?”

    Not every politician runs primarily on a populist platform.

    Yet, I am sure Edwards experience working for the hedge fund over the last two years affords him the opportunity to understand just how tough it is for the lower and middle classes in the US these days. (For those of you who don’t know, a hedge fund is typically an investment vehicle for the ultra rich. I can assure you this fund has done very, very well in this economic environment since a Japanese Bank recently took a 15% stake in it for almost $1 billion).

    As Tommy Boy points out, it’s probably just all my “bozone.” But I have I just have a little trouble with the ubber rich, who continue to work for the ubber rich, that run primarily on a grass roots, populist platform. Doesn’t it make you question a candidate’s credibility just a tad on the matter?

    http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/oct2005/nf20051013_3314_db016.htm

  • “Is it possible that Secretary Baker has a conflict of interest, which should have precluded him from co-chairing a study group whose final report promotes privatization of Iraq oil assets, given his ties to the oil industry? Is it possible that our troops are dying for the profits of private oil companies?”

    The guy who said the above words gets my vote. Go Dennis!

  • Lance: After the stick in the eye would be, battery acid in my ears, double amputation, life in prison, and probably a few other things that are escaping me before I’d hit Lieberman.

  • Dont be so quick to count Edwards out. He is situated very well for the expectations game. He has the best ground force in Iowa right now, and currently leads in Iowa polls. So the national press will expect a win by Clinton, Obama or Vilsack in Iowa – and Edwards will likely make a better-than-expected showing. Then, in Nevada, he is in great shape with labor in a state that Clinton and Obama have not done much in yet – so again, ripe for a better-than-expectations showing for Edwards. Were he to win two of the first four and come in second – or even third – in the other two, he would come out of the starting gates in exceptional shape and garnering huge publicity.

  • I would vote for any qualified Democratic presidential candidate in 2008 who would be strong on legislation benefitting average Americans, especially the candidacies of Edwards, Obama, Gore, and, yes, even Senator Hillary Clinton, who, though I’ve opposed her previous positions regarding the Iraqi War, has been a strong advocate of legislation benefitting average Americans including those of my state of New York, who she represents exceptionally well.

  • I think Edwards is great but I just don’t know what has changed since 2004 except that he is two years older. The more I think about the Dems in 2008, the more I think the nomination is Al Gore’s to lose: he was robbed in 2000, has been consistently right on Iraq (unlike Hillary), and will not have a problem with either cash or name recognition… I wrote a story on this at http://www.minor-ripper.blogspot.com

  • Re #24

    I hate responding so late but why does Edwards wealth disqualify him from wanting to help the poor? Your argument seems to be that for a candidate to have credibility in addressing poverty the candidate must be impoverished himself. Does it matter at all then that Edwards grew up impoverished? Does it matter that Edwards is probably the realization of the elusive American dream: the self-made man? Does it matter that Edwards has been spending the last two years combatting poverty? None of these things lend him credibility?

    And why pick on Edwards in particular for being rich? Bush is rich as hell, and I’m guessing you’re probably an ardent supporter of Bush and probably other wealthy politicians. Yet Bush’s wealth comes from his birth, and he’s infamous for failing in business time and again, requiring his father to bail him out (a pattern that seems to be repeating today,) and Bush hasn’t exactly been attentive to the poor, and his bumbling, insensitive response to Hurricane Katrina is a tragic example of that.

    It appears that your issue is Edwards’ choice of platform. You take issue with the fact that Edwards is concerned with poverty at all. To you, this is what is fundamentally wrong about Edwards. That is just shameful.

  • Edwards notion of “end poverty” is like what a bishop says when he wants you repeat for your sins, or the mullah who praises though encouragement for one to become a suicide bomber, it’s a notion that preys on the stupidity and gullibility of people, many of whom are poor, for an illusion of some mendacious and unattainable reward. Amazing, now we know who his supporters are — and where he made his millions, at that. Shame.

  • Comments are closed.