THIS IS NOT ->Delawareliberal


Monday, March 06, 2006


John Edwards Embarrassed Himself on Meet the Press

I've been a John Edwards fan in the past. I might even be one in the future. However, right now I have a big problem with Edwards. If he wanted to, he could be a strong voice of opposition to BushCo. The problem is, he wants to keep it on the down low until Iowa. Here is matt Stoller on the topic:

Now I like John Edwards. He's a smart, thoughtful, nice guy. But he's also extremely cautious and in the firm grip of Beltway-itis. His appearance on Meet the Press, where he refused to bring up Bush's lies on Katrina, is a case in point. John Edwards is going to run for President, and if he does not start to make a case for why he is a different type of candidate, he will not even make a dent in the field. He will be the Bob Graham of 2004. His instincts are cautious, excessively so.

John Edwards has greatness in him, the possiblity of becoming a transformative American figure. But it's just potential right now, completely unrealized, and I see no indication that he is serious about realizing it.

Via by Matt Stoller, Sun Mar 05, 2006 at 08:22:43 PM EST

As much as I'd like to hear Edwards cutting loose with his best stuff, caution may be warranted; that's his call. After all, it's early, and the guy has to get nominated first. Maybe he remembers what the party did to Howard Dean when Dean came out swinging hard this soon.
What happend to Dean was that Karl Rove put a poltical hit out on him by running ads that gave the impression that Dean was too liberal to win.

The press picked up the story and the chickenshit Iowa Dems pulled the trigger. End of story.

Rove got to run against the guy he wanted to run against - John Kerry.
I totally disagree... watch Edwards on RWH to see him criticize Bush. The fact is that Edwards is more interested in being the voice for the democrats' future rather than the anti-bush. Bush is done, he is in the part of his presidency where he is at 34%, he has lost his clout. The people now realize that Bush is an idiot, now they want to know if the dems are any better or not? And, Edwards showed them a bit of what we offer: he talked about college for everyone, about Russian-American relations, about creating assets for the poor, etc.

The party activists might be stuck on Bush, but people need to realize that most voters (even most democratic primary voters) are looking for a vision for the future. 08 is going to be the year when after 50 years, we'll have open primaries in both parties... this time it isn't about criticizing the guy in the White House, it is about making clear where we are going next. Edwards understands that, and ego-centric progressive democrats like matt Stoller who only view the world from their own point of view rather than a big-picture view are misguided by their own egos. And, you can taste Stoller's ego when he talks about seeing the potential for greatness in Edwards but thinks that Edwards is probably not willing to realize that potential. Any reasonable person has to go: WTF? Since when did greatness lie in pandering to your base? What would've Edwards established by harping on Bush's failures when he has already said that he consider bush the "worst president of my lifetime." And, really what makes Stoller thinks he is the guru of "greatness?"

Edwards was the guy Rove feared the most (as reported by numerous news outlets), and it was because Edwards wasn't just the anti-bush, he actually had his own vision and liked to talk and focus on it.

A minority of us might be obsessed with Bush, but most americans are just tired of him and want to move on. Edwards can be the leader on moving us towards that better future for our country. And, there is a difference between being a leader and an attack dog. We'll be better off if we realize that.

Edwards isn't keeping low, he criticizes the republicans regularly, but he is more concerned about policy ideas that will further this nation forward - and rightfully so.
visit Edwards' website and blog at It is full of speeches and petitions against bush. He isn't soft on bush, but he realizes that the democrats have to be more than just the anti-bush, who is in the dumps anyway.
John Edwards is worthless. He is as fake as they come. He's running on poverty issues and worker's issues? The guy's a multimillionaire. He has no "street cred" anymore on those issues. He has no executive experience and limited experience in the Senate. Talk about on-the-job training! This is the wrong guy for Democrats, who do have options.

He has no "greatness" in him, and there are much better choices on the Dem side like Richardson and Warner. If people want to hear a true liberal, who doesn't fake it, then listen to Feingold. He could never be President, but if I were a Democrat, he'd be the real thing for me.
Your comment proves that democrats not only have to fight against republican mafeasance - they have to fight against a republican lie that has taken root in the minds of other democrats. That lie is that voters equate "telling the truth about Bush" to "pandering to the base".

Bush is not dead. He may be losing Congress, but he executive orders. The few minutes that democratas get on shows like 'meet the press' don't need to be wasted by the likes of Edwards posturing for some love from the DLC.

But I guess it could be worse, it could be Biden trashing his fellow democrats in order to chase a few Iowans.
He's running on poverty issues and worker's issues? The guy's a multimillionaire.

Yup, that millionaire Edwards is a traitor to his class.
Maybe Edwards is just holding back because he's said it all before.

Here's a good read from Edwards from last September, riffing on Bush/Katrina:

Down in New Orleans, hundreds of thousands of people lost their homes and untold numbers lost their lives because the levees we built were too weak and too low. We knew better, but we didn't act because we didn't want to look. That's how it is with the moral foundations of our society.

All over this country, too many children are growing up in harm's way -- and too many lives are being washed away -- because the levees we've built are too weak and too low.

When a 13-year-old girl thinks there's nothing wrong with having a baby that will drive them both toward lives of poverty, we haven't built the levees high enough. When 15-year-old boys become fathers, then walk away, get shot, or go to jail, we haven't built the levees high enough. When young people spend more time going to meth labs than chemistry labs, we haven't built the levees high enough.

We know better, but we don't act because we don't want to look. If we believe in community, we must find the courage to do what communities do: Together, we must stand side by side and man the levees.

#1 - That can be read as an indictment of Democrats as much as Republicans.

#2 - So Edwards can consult with speechwriters and make a speech. What in his background makes anyone think he can get anything done as President?

The D's are much better off with Bayh/Richardson/Warner. Running Edwards/Kerry/Clinton/Biden, the D's run the risk of another Senator with no executive experience versus a Republican (Romney/Allen/Giuliani) with that experience. Unless, of course the R's make the mistake of running McCain.
Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home


November 2005   December 2005   January 2006   February 2006   March 2006   April 2006   May 2006   June 2006   July 2006   August 2006   September 2006   October 2006   May 2007  

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]