Probably the post that sums up my feelings about John Edwards' recent withdrawal from the race was written by Nicole:
The plain fact is that neither [Clinton or Obama] is talking enough about the things that matter to me--the decline of the middle class, family values as something more than a shorthand way to slap down gays and lesbians, the unbelievable growth of wealth among the corporate cronies enriched by the current administration--the very things that John Edwards came out swinging for every day.
Many people didn't like his "anger". I did. It seemed to me that he was the only one on the stage who was actually angry enough to make real changes in a system that--as far as I can see--has gone terribly awry.
Edwards seemed like he knew there's fundamental problems with the way our government works, and he was going to do something about it. Neither Clinton nor Obama strike me as folks who will fundamentally alter the DC establishment way of doing or looking at things, but both have incorporated many of Edwards' populist planks. They get it. It's going to be much better with either Clinton or Obama in the White House. Bank on it.
Folks who have been reading LiTW and the B'Birds for a long time know how I feel about a Nader campaign. Don't go there. It's a clear choice. A vote for Nader is a vote for the radical conservatism of President Bush. Period. My friend, the Notorious Mark T, is, as always, a fervent Naderite. Mark feels that both Obama and Clinton are "too conservative," that we deserve better, more liberal candidates. I disagree with Mark: I think both Obama and Clinton are good candidates, given the nature of presidential politics. (But then I'm an Eisenhower Republican.)
The bottom line is this: John Edwards already pushed the issues left, John Edwards already set the tenor of the 2008 election. It's already about a lot of progressive issues, thanks to John Edwards. So...why is Nader running? He can't win. He's not going to influence the candidates at all. At best, he can hand the presidency back to the GOP.
But even if what Mark T wrote is true, that both Obama and Clinton are too conservative, the important thing to remember is this: change is not going to happen through the presidency. Nor should it. Change starts with each of us. Let's alter things from the bottom up. Here in Montana, for example, we may not get much of a say in who's President, but we do have a voice in the outcome of our state legislative race. Volunteer. Donate. Write letters, knock on doors. Do something about it.
I don't think we've seen the last of John Edwards. That is, decidedly, a good thing.
In his Presidential campaign, Edwards was an amazing and consistent voice for a new vision of America. He spent the past four years studying and giving serious thought to what a new social contract would look like and rolled out serious policies on health care and other items well before his opponents. And he talked about some issues -- like the challenges facing rural America -- that seem to be more overlooked by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
A few weeks ago, after Iowa, I thought Barack Obama was likely to emerge as the stronger "change" candidate and I changed my loose allegiance from roughly for Edwards (still the only Presidential candidate this cycle who has seen a dime of my money) to roughly for Obama.
During this period, a friend asked me what I thought of John Edwards ending up in the Cabinet to pursue the same challenges and opportunities he discussed on the campaign. What would an Attorney General John Edwards or Secretary of HUD look like? It's an interesting question.
But it made me wonder -- what if he returned to the social sector and dedicated himself to the cause of economic justice in the same way that Al Gore has found a new life as the evangelist of global warming?
This country's history is full of political leaders whose greatest acts came outside of government. During the time between 2004 and 2008, Edwards' actions fighting for the minimum wage, organized labor, educational opportunity, and other policies were all seen as political maneuvering to help gain the White House. Eschewing the world of elective office might be a way to rework that question.
At this point, though, I think every Democrat in America owes John Edwards a debt of gratitude. He brought a deeply progressive and substantive tone to this race that was impossible for either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama to ignore.
However he decides to keep pursuing his goals, I wish him, Elizabeth, Cate, Emma Claire, and Jack the best.
In a recent segment on his show with progressive talk show host, Ed Schultz, Bill O'Reilly had this to say:
ES: I think (Edwards') message is strong and he has tremendous conviction, but I think he needs a little bit more material than just the "Two Americas" talk, he got to get a little bit deeper...
BO: Well, we're still looking for all the veterans sleeping under the bridges, Ed, so if you find anybody, let us know, because that's all the guy said for the last three nights...
ES: Well they're out there, Bill. Don't kid yourself.
BO: They may be out there, but there's not many of them out there. Okay? So if you know where one is, Ed...
ES: Well, actually...Now, wait a minute...one in ..
BO: Ed, Ed. If you know where's a veteran, sleeping under a bridge, you call me immediately, and we will make sure that man does not do it. Is not there.
The profound ignorance in these remarks spurred me to write a letter to O'Reilly, and challenge him on his word.
The text of the letter is below the fold. Copies were sent to Keith Olbermann and John Edwards.
Okay, 96 percent of the New Hampshire precincts are reporting and it looks like Hillary Clinton narrowly defeated Barack Obama, 39 to 37 percent, or by about 8,000 voters. Edwards finished a distant third, as expected, with 17 percent. I'm glad I stayed up the extra hour or two. Obama gained a whole percentage point during that time!
Wow. Given what the polls were showing just yesterday...an Obama blowout...rumors of Clinton ready to drop out of the race...man, that was some turnaround. So. Record turnout, mostly headed to the Democrats...and they turn out to vote for Clinton? Yes, I'm puzzled. The media's primed to ascribe her success to her "real moment," but...a ten-point shift on a news story that happened a day before the election? It's easier to assume that the polls were dead wrong. Or something.
Various & sundry thoughts.
The Iowa caucus distributed its second-tier delegates to the top tier candidates. The New Hampshire primary did not. Would a similar system have benefited Obama, or Clinton in New Hampshire? Or Edwards, as it apparently did in Iowa?
Turnout was huge. Again, as in Iowa, the majority of new voters came out to cast their votes in the Democratic primary. The numbers were ridiculous in Iowa: the top Republican there would have finished fourth in the Democratic caucus. In New Hampshire the Republican winner, John McCain, would have finished third. It's early, but the Republican party has a steep hill to climb. People are flocking to the Democratic party. We talk about the down-ticket effect here in Montana: consider what a huge influx of Democratic voters in swing states like Iowa and New Hampshire mean to all the statewide races there. Remember, one of the Senate battles to watch in '08 is over Republican John Sununu's New Hampshire seat. I bet he's sweating bullets tonight looking at the number of young voters showing up to vote in the primary.
Did Clinton's moment have an effect on women voters? Did Gloria Steinem's op-ed in today's New York Times strike a chord? According to CNN's exit poll, women favored Clinton, 46 to 34 percent. (Men favored Obama, 40 to 29 percent.) In CNN's Iowa entrance poll, women favored Obama, 35 to 23 percent. (Men also favored Obama, 35 to 30 percent.) That's a huge jump, folks, twenty-something points. More on the woman thing tomorrow.
We got ourselves a race here!
Oh yeah, John McCain won New Hampshire. His victory speech, one word: zzz-zz-zzz. Dude looks old.
Just wanted to bring your attention to the sordid underbelly of David Brooks' column today, which while praising Obama left, right, and center, took this gratuitous shot against John Edwards:
He's made John Edwards, with his angry cries that "corporate greed is killing your children's future," seem old-fashioned. Edwards's political career is probably over.
It's the conventional "wisdom." Edwards is toast. Why hasn't Edwards dropped out? He's dead in the water. Some folks on the left see the Iowa caucus -- what with Obama's message of bipartisanship (and flying pigs) polling so well -- as an end to progressive populust economic policy. (As obviously does Brooks.)
A couple of things to remember. First, both Clinton and Obama took Edwards' lead in setting policy. Universal health care? Withdrawal from Iraq? Edwards took the stand, it polled well, Clinton and Obama scurried to match his stance. Ezra Klein said it best, Edwards "set the agenda and finished second."
Second, Eric Kleefeld noticed something interesting about the caucus results, compared with pre-caucus poll: if such a comparison can be made, then it appears Edwards was the biggest recipient of second-choice delegates. What does that mean? It could mean that, as second-tier candidates drop out of the race, Edwards' numbers improve. Also, if the primary gets ugly, it's likely Clinton and Obama who take the swings at each other. Edwards could end up smelling like a rose in a couple of weeks. One word: youneverknow.
And third, and the most striking fact about John Edwards' results at the Iowa causus are the results, compared to the Republican candidates. According to the The Group News Blog, some 356,000 Iowans voted during the caucus. Of those, 20.5% -- or approximately 73,000 -- pulled for Edwards. That's more votes than Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney earned combined. That's about a thousand less than Romney, Huckabee, and Giuliani combined.
While Edwards may not win the Democratic nomination, Edwards' populist policies outpolled nearly the entire Republican field in the Iowa caucus. End of his career? Death of his message? Where are the columns dedicated to the death of the Republican party as a national force in politics?
If I'd voted yesterday, I probably would have voted for John Edwards. If I was voting today, I'd probably vote for Barack Obama. Truth be told, I like Edwards more, but these fields inevitably narrow and I really like Obama quite a bit as well.
Sa la vie.
Have to say, though, that it is tough for me to swallow Colby's thoughts, knocking Obama's chances because he brought out new voters and young voters. The truth is, youth voting has been on the uptick for two cycles in a row, with every indication that it will tick up again in '08. Getting upset with Barack Obama for doing well in this regard is like getting mad at a swimmer for performing well in water -- ideally, that's what swimmers do.
And, ideally, political leaders give previously disenchanted people enough, yes, hope to get involved.
So good for Obama.
What of the Republicans? I have to admit, I'm slightly taken aback by the loathing for Mike Huckabee. He kinda strikes me as the GOP equivalent of the Dems' Bill Richardson. Fairly charismatic Governor of a mid-size state who is generally in touch with the base of his party on some key issues, but is also a bit out of whack on some key economic stuff.
If Richardson had won Iowa, would the Democratic establishment be trying to tank him the way the GOP establishment is trying to destroy Huck? Doubtful, but who knows? They did go after Dean in a fierce (though less fierce) fashion.
I'm curious to see how the Republican's evangelical base, the people power of their party, reacts to this obvious condescension. I know I'd get pretty pissed. The question (perhaps inartfully worded) is whether they turn the other cheek. Or maybe they've come with a sword to cast the money changers out of the tent. Who knows?
Ron Paul's fervent base turned into tepid support. John McCain is the establishment's new man now that Romney has faltered. Fred Thompson, beating McCain, is strangely forgotten.
And we waltz on into New Hampshire.
No predictions on NH -- at least not until some post-Iowa polls come out. But on the GOP side, the big question is this, if Iowa's Corn lovers went for Hucking, will the Granite State go for the chiseled Mitt?
While we're on the topic of the Iowa Democratic caucus, one of the most important "events" that take place during the proceedings is the designation of a second-choice candidate for those candidates that don't win 15 percent support during the caucus. As a result, second-tier candidates may have a role in deciding who wins the caucus by directing their supporters to back someone else.
Kucinich has already asked his supporters to back Obama. (An interesting choice, given that he backed Edwards over Dean in 2004. Why the nod for more conservative candidates?) And Ralph Nader asked his supporters to go for Edwards.
Christopher Dodd says he won't make any deals during the caucus. Presumably, his supporters will decide for themselves who to back.
The big mover and shaker and Iowa could be Bill Richardson, who enjoys about 10 percent of support in the state. Given that the top three Democratic candidates are polling about even, even a few percentage points one way or the other could significantly alter the outcome of the caucus. According to an "exclusive" in today's Iowa Independent, Richardson is planning to throw his support behind Obama, a surprise, given the buzz that Richardson was angling for the VP spot on a Clinton ticket after his defense of the New York Senator during a recent debate.
(In an unrelated matter, check out the poll numbers from MoveOn.org members. It pretty much mirrors the composition of national Democrats, doesn't it? With two exceptions, of course: about twice as much support for Kucinich as found in national polls, and an undecided amount that hovers near ten percent.
So much for MoveOn.org being a "radical" organization. In reality, it appears to be a mirror of rank-and-file Democratic supporters...who make up a plurality of the entire electorate...)
A recently released CNN/Opinion research poll has been used to tease out the story that Mike Huckabee would get slammed in general-election match-ups against the top tier of Democratic candidates. It's a muddle-headed conclusion to draw from the poll, IMHO, because it's just too early to say. After all, no political junkie really knew much about Huckabee before he shot up in the Iowa polls, how could Joe and Jane Six-Pack in Alabama , Ohio , or California be expected to know the Arkansas Governor?
John Edwards is, by far, the most acceptable candidate in these national polls. And it's been that way since the beginning of the race.
Righties and DC insiders, naturally, are befuddled. And why not? Edwards' poll results tip the inside-the-Beltway narrative of the conservative heartland on its head. Ross Douthat even goes so far as to speculate that the reason people like Edwards is that they think he's more conservative than his Democratic peers. Still Edwards has always been to the left of the Republicans, and yet he thrashes them all.
And on some issues Edwards is more conservative, notably those important to the gay/lesbian community, which may explain his place in the Democratic polls. Or perhaps Democratic primary voters ascribe to the insider rhetoric that liberal = unelectable.
Instead of overanalyzing these and other poll results and turning them inside-out, maybe it's time for the DC punditocracy to accept the simple fact that populist progressive anti-corporatism is a powerful and appealing force in national politics.
Another MSU-B poll came out, this on Montanans' attitudes towards the 2008 presidential candidates. McCain (49 positive/29 negative) won the favorable/unfavorable matchups for the GOP, with Giuliani (44/40) and Romney (24/38) chugging behind. (No word on Huckabee.) For the Democrats after Obama come Edwards (36/35) and Clinton (31/59). (No word on Dodd.)
I'm not terribly shocked at Clinton's huge unfavorable rating. It kind of goes along with what we've said on this site: a Clinton nomination would not go over well here, based on the present numbers. Still, Clinton's managed to budge her unfavorables quite a bit among Democratic voters quite a bit this year, so if anybody could overcome the prejudice against her, it's New York's junior Senator.
Twelve percent of those polled said they would not for for a woman for president. Period. Welcome to Montana!
I am a little surprised about Romney's numbers. Besides indicating either nobody's heard of him here, or the poll is an outlier, what gives here? Why is he so unpopular? Is it his religion? I doubt detail of this flip-floppin' snake's unpopular gubernatorial record has filtered out West among the common woman yet, so I can't imagine what else would be taking him down.
John Edwards unveiled the latest of his well thought out plans for moving this country of ours out of the dark ages and back into the enlightenment. I can't believe we are back living in a feudal system gussied up with a new name...free trade capitalism.
Like his other policy statements, John Edwards returns to the real definition of freedom as our founders intended. With freedom comes responsibility. If we want to hunt, fish, and frolick in the mountains, we just better take care of the environment. Edwards has what I call the "Grown Up Campaign".
Markos has poll numbers for the Big 3 Democrats versus the Big 3 Republicans in Missouri, Ohio, Iowa, and New Mexico. In all of the states except NM, Edwards runs stronger than Clinton. In some cases, he runs significantly stronger.
New Mexico is polling a bit oddly compared to other Rocky Mountain states and I don't know of any explanation for it. It might very will be that Clinton runs stronger among the Hispanic population, which is sizeable in New Mexico.
I'd be remiss in not noting that I think electability itself is a pretty awful way of picking candidates. But a lot of Democrats seem to really love it, so these differences are worth highlighting, especially since the CW seems to continue to be that Hillary Clinton is the strongest candidate in the general election.
(Note: I posted this at Daily Kos recently, and based on a pretty good response I'm trying to give it a little more exposure. Hope you don't mind the crosspost)
John Edwards is pretty good when it comes to the credit card industry. To be sure, he has made an issue out of it, while I can't find much anything about the issue on either Hillary Clinton's or Barack Obama's websites. I'll give credit where it's due: He's willing to take on issues that matter to real Americans.
But then the flip-side of that is that I'm addressing this diary to him, and not to the others. They should listen too. But I think Edwards is the only one who might, and maybe is the one who can make the best political use as well.
The John Edwards for President campaign has bought 2 minutes of air time to follow Bush's spin on the surge tonight, Thursday, Sept. 13 at 9PM EST. 30 second commercials don't work. This is yet another bold move by the most wicked smart of the candidates. He'll appear on Larry King Live afterwards. If you have $10, please help pay for the ad at:http://johnedwards.c...
Paul Krugman has aptly predicted what will happen when General Petraeus makes his much-ballyhooed September report:
Here's what will definitely happen when Gen. David Petraeus testifies before Congress next week: he'll assert that the surge has reduced violence in Iraq - as long as you don't count Sunnis killed by Sunnis, Shiites killed by Shiites, Iraqis killed by car bombs and people shot in the front of the head.
Here's what I'm afraid will happen: Democrats will look at Gen. Petraeus's uniform and medals and fall into their usual cringe. They won't ask hard questions out of fear that someone might accuse them of attacking the military. After the testimony, they'll desperately try to get Republicans to agree to a resolution that politely asks President Bush to maybe, possibly, withdraw some troops, if he feels like it.
Krugman goes on to explain why Petraeus' report is cooked: the White House is writing it, it counts only certain types of deaths (folks shot in the back of the head, say, as opposed to folks shot in the front), it leaves out car bombings, and counts enclaves already "ethnically cleansed" as progress.
All independent reports show no progress in Iraq.
Krugman also points out that the majority of Americans are against this thing and want it to be over.
The Missoulian has the audio of Edwards' speech. Here's the best part - IMHO - of the speech:
"The world needs to see us as out there, meeting our responsibility to humanity. And no one in this room should doubt it. America, the most powerful, the richest nation on the planet has an enormous responsibility, not just to ourselves, we have a responsibility to humanity. And when America doesn't meet that responsibility, we cannot lead. And when we don't lead, there is no leadership. The world is in chaos. And you see that chaos happening right now, unfolding right this minute in front of your eyes.
"Today, there is an entire generation of young people in the Muslim world sitting on the fence. On one side is bin Laden and al Qaeda. On the other side is America. Which way will they go? That depends on us. Because if they see us as bullying, selfish, and expanding American power, it will drive them in the other direction. If, on the other hand, they see America as a force for good, if they see America as the light - the country that I grew up in - where the rest of the world says, America, that's who we want to be like, it will pull them to us like a magnet.
"And this is where all of you come in. I wish I could tell you that, as president of the United States, that I can do these things alone. I cannot. That's a fantasy. The power and the strength in America is in places just like this, in communities just like this. I've seen, up close, the great movements in American history. I grew up with the Civil Rights movement. I know where it started. It didn't start in the Oval Office. It started in places just like this. Where young people, with strength, and conviction, and courage, spoke up. They marched. They started a movement. And they changed this country. The same thing happened in ending the long and bloody war in Vietnam. The same thing happened in bringing a brutal apartheid regime down in South Africa. I feel the same movement happening right now all across this country, on ending this war in Iraq.
"But the truth of the matter is, your country needs you. It does. It needs you to take responsibility. It needs you to take action. Your voice needs to be heard. It desperately needs to be heard. To paraphrase Ghandi, you have to be the change you believe in. You can't wait for someone else to do it.
"I listen to George Bush as little as I can get away with...but...when I hear him, this is what I hear: stay home! watch television! Dick Cheney and I will take care of you! I don't want that crowd taking care of me, first of all I don't trust them! On top of that, that's not America! That's not who we are! We don't stay home and cower in the corner! We are strong! We are bold! We are righteous! We go out - when we see something wrong, we speak out!
"That's what we need in America. We need a movement in America again, we need a movement to make this country what it's capable of being..."
Update (by Matt): 700? Try over 1,000. Capacity for the ballroom is 1,000 and we had to shut people out. I know 'cause I was one of the volunteers who was among the last 10 or so to enter. So there would have been more if we could have let everybody in. I'll have some other thoughts soon.
John Edwards was in town yesterday and gave a forceful and brilliant 30-minute speech in the university ballroom. I had my video camera, but the battery died just when the speech really got moving, when Edwards was asking us to sacrifice to put America back on its rightful place of prominence in the world. (And New West's take.)
KPAX has its video segment online, but it's crappy coverage to say the least. (Why don't these people just put online the whole speech, unfiltered and uncommented, alongside their little interpretation? It wouldn't cost them any extra, and folks might just be able to make up their own minds what were the important parts of the speech.)
The appearance was an overwhelming success. The organizers planned for 300 to show; I heard from a facility person that the number was closer to 700. Jim Farrell thinks the event may attract other candidates to the state. And certainly Mitt Romney's already been here, although not to as open an event as Edwards.
Good times. Hopefully we can get a transcript...and I'm sure Matt will comment, too.
Chris Cillizza covers the fact that the Gov is introducing Edwards tonight and wonders about the political overtones of such a statement:
In an interview today, Schweitzer said that Edwards "says out loud what I say every day here" when it comes to the overpowering influence of lobbyists on the legislative processs. "Lobbyists are not the fourth branch of government," said Schweitzer. "They don't run the government, but they act like they do."
[...]
Schweitzer added that Edwards' willingness to come to Montana -- a state ignored every four years by presidential candidates -- also appealed to him.
This isn't an endorsement. Brian also said that if he does endorse, it would probably be for Bill Richardson, his fellow Western Governor. Even that, though, is unlikely.
Still, as anyone can note, Brian Schweitzer is a lot of things. Stupid is not one of them. He knows that appearing with Edwards will be read into -- and he's willing to do it, my guess is, because Edwards is his preferred candidate of the top 3 right now.
That preference shouldn't be a surprise for anybody. Schweitzer being gung-ho for Hillary would be jaw-dropping. And while Barack Obama has a lot going for him, he doesn't share Schweitzer's populist style. Edwards does, as Brian himself explains.
John Edwards will be at UM at 4:45 tonight. I think I'll be volunteering at the event (not a formal endorsement, although I don't think it is a secret that I'm an Edwards fan, even if some right-wingers are intimidated by his looks).
I've also bought my ticket -- 'cause I'm glad to see a candidate make his way to Montana.
Fitting for both (post) Labor Day and John Edwards' visit, it's a good time to mention that Edwards won the endorsement of the steel and mining unions yesterday:
Wearing blue jeans and a windbreaker displaying the U.S.W. and U.M.W.A. logos, Mr. Edwards spoke for about ten minutes to union members and supporters who gathered outside the Mellon sports arena here. He used the opportunity to highlight his health care plan, trade policies and the issue of safety for mine workers in the wake of the Utah mine disaster.
"I promise you that when I am president of the United States we will not have a mine company executive who is responsible for the safety of mine workers," he said. "We will have somebody who actually understands what needs to be done to keep workers safe who are toiling in the mines every single day."
Of course Edwards isn't the only Democratic candidate to win union endorsement. Chris Bowers has the union endorsement scorecard. Chris Dodd is the big surprise on this list, having won the nod from the International Association of Firefighters, a big deal in post-9/11 politics, but Senator Clinton's also receiving a number of endorsements.
In a related presidential campaign politics, Senator Edwards has been going after typical inside-the-Beltway politics, calling our government a "rigged system" against working- and middle-class Americans and Hillary Clinton an eager participant in that system.
"From my time in the White House and in the Senate, I learned you bring change by working in the system established by the Constitution," Mrs. Clinton said at an early afternoon rally in Concord, drawing a pointed contrast to the outsider messages of Mr. Obama and Mr. Edwards. Referring to the Roosevelts and Johnson, she said, "They got big things done because they knew it wasn't just about the dream, it's about the results."
"I want to work within the system," Mrs. Clinton said. "You can't pretend the system doesn't exist."
Er...that's not very inspiring. Business as usual, eh Senator? Count me out. We need some serious reform to pry the dominance of corporations from our government, not Republican lite.
