Am I the only one who gets the sense that this speech 
from John Edwards isn’t going to really get the senator anywhere? He’s sort of in that limbo-zone between frontrunner and fringe that nobody wants to be in, and he seems to think being kind of bold will get him out of that rut. But the thing is, like his post-2004 rediscovery of movement liberalism and regret for the Iraq War – wouldn’t this speech have had more potency if he had given it before he was running third to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama? That is, it’s not hard to give a tough speech when you’ve got (relatively) nothing to lose as opposed to one when you’re leading the pack.
I like Sen. Edwards a lot but I just feel like his campaign has been stuck in the muck for a long-ass time and they are nowhere near digging out.
Depends. In the blogsophere, which does deserve some credit for turning out the vote for Dems in the 2006, the speech resonates.
Taylor Marsh posted an interesting study in which Obama and Hillary get the most press, with Edwards a distant third. I did a quick scan on my own last night to see if it held water. It does, and the majority of the PR Edwards gets is negative, as Media Matters can prove. Why? Edwards is taking on the establishment as whole and believes there needs to be real reform, but most of all, other media outlets, Olbermann withstanding from MSNBC, won’t admit that Fox News is not a legitimate news organization. Edwards said no to them this year, and it has rackled all of the media, not just Fox.
Wait till the weather gets cold before you declare the campaign over
It’s also important to remember that national polls don’t really mean much — Iowa flips the game around like nobody’s business. And in the polls with tight likely caucusgoer screens, Edwards is still leading there.
Tough speeches are needed right now. The country is facing severe challenges. People are facing very hard times. We need to take on the corporate elites. How will that message get out?
Edwards cannot control what the consolidated media decides to present as news. They helped take us to war. Edwards cannot control what bloggers decide to write. However in 2006 the progressive bloggers were united in taking down the Republicans.
This year the progressive bloggers seem to be timid and not willing to promote who they think will be the best president. They seem to have bought the idea that Democrats in the primaries have to be nice to each other. So how do we differentiate? Is this the year that having a minority candidate is the most important issue? Or is this the time that we need a bold leader?
I don’t quite understand your post. You seem to be blaming Edwards for the fact that the media has chosen our front runners, and most people do not access information to determine otherwise. If you like Edwards he needs the same passionate support that he is demonstrating. At the very least his ideas need support. Edwards is passionate about making this country work for the majority of Americans. He cannot win when the progressive bloggers also sit on the sidelines and do not write why they think he is the right person for these times. Of course if you don’t believe that, then it could be that you need to support one of the others.
Is this the year that having a minority candidate is the most important issue? Or is this the time that we need a bold leader?
Why can’t we have both?
I’m a huge fan of John Edwards. He seems to have the most well-conceived policy ideas and is campaigning from a position of true conviction rather than one of calculation.
Now that I’ve said that, here’s my question: does he seem to be lacking a bit of his 2004 “fire in the belly” this time around? That has certainly been my impression, after having seen him in a 2004 rally, then again a few months ago (as well as in the AFL-CIO debate in Chicago).
This is a very cynical way of looking at things. John Edwards has been talking about rewarding work over wealth, honoring work, taking on bad trade deals, fighting big companies his whole political career. He’s using more urgent language now, but the message hasn’t changed.
For still too many young people there is no sense of urgency as we slide down the gullet of fascism.
Out of the top three, I agree with Edwards’ positions the most. However, I think the taint of the ‘04 lose killed his chances in ‘08.
That said, perhaps he could help boost the Democrats chances by giving powerful speeches now and rallying around the winner at the convention. Maybe he could be given a position in the Cabinet to help promote his ideas.
Edwards does not impress me. He’s too shiny.
I don’t think there is any “there” there.
I agree with the above about waiting until the weather is cold before declaring him gone.
From where I stand Obama and Clinton look like bickering schoolchildren, and Edwards is smart enough to stand back from that, but not too far back to be forgotten. I call that a decent strategy for now.
My problem with Edwards is that he’s a nice guy from North Carolina. Hillary… we already know she has a mean streak. Obama, well, he’s a black man, everybody “knows” that black men aren’t wimps. But Edwards got his butt whipped by Dick Cheney in the Veep debates in 2004, and didn’t know how to handle the Swift Boating of his blog team, how will he handle it if he himself is the one getting Swift Boated?
Then there’s the taint of having been associated with the pathetic Kerry campaign, which adds yet more disquiet to the netroots’ assessment of Edwards.
Don’t get me wrong. I like the guy. He’s a nice guy. A sincere guy. A guy who really cares about America. He reminds me a lot of Jimmy Carter, another nice, sincere guy who really cares about America. And that’s the problem in a nutshell — Carter was not an effective President, and there’s this doubt that Edwards would be an effective President.
- Badtux the Politics Penguin
Duros62, are you aware that your “bold leader” wants to work with Republicans like Tom Coburn? I want to like Obama….I really do. And I think he has potential. But he is naïve if he thinks you can reach across the aisle to this current generation of Republicans. They would stomp him dead and spit on his corpse if they could; simply defeating him will not be enough for them. I just fear that he will crumple in the face of ferocious Republican opposition.