Did anyone see the Edwards speech from 2001 that was on CSPAN today?

[LittleClarkie]

I sat and watched it, and sorta wished the person I was looking at was the same guy who ran for prez and then veep. He was more serious and lawyerly, and I think he'd swallowed part of his accent.

But he was talking very sincerely about one of his cases, the one in which every doctor but the asshole at the insurance company thought that the person he represented should get physical therapy. It was a Frist-type doctor, in that he had never seen the patient, but was making a diagnosis from miles away.

But I digress.

There was no huckster. There was none of that "Aw shucks" personae. Just a sincere person.

I wish he'd have campaigned more like that. I know it's in him. I don't know who taught him to do what he was doing on the campaign trail, but he didn't come off much of the time as terribly sincere, even though I'm sure he was.

[halobeam]

1. I didn't see it, but I know the Edwards you are referring to.

The man who when he wasn't campaigning was unique, very much himself. He won my heart and my support when I saw "it" in him too. When he campaigned, he "had" to get tougher, talk tougher. It screamed of a candidate, listening to his advisor's as to "who" he should be, instead of who he really was. Bad move in my opinion, he is wonderful when he is his true self. I hope this is something he has learned.

[LittleClarkie]

2. Even in his farewell speech on the Senate floor

I, being a Kerry supporter and all, paid close attention when he brought up Kerry. He clicked into, then back out of, sincerity. I appreciated the sincere words and emotion he showed in regard to his former running mate.

But I was amazed that I could tell when he was being sincere, and when he was just giving the rest of the speech.

[PurityOfEssence]

3. Thanks for saying that; he's a pretty unique bird

One of the sad things about the sorting out of last year's election is that he's not in government anymore. What with his wife's cancer and his anti-poverty work, it's probably good for him to be in the wilderness for awhile.

There's been too much rancor between Clark supporters and Edwards supporters, and I know I'm responsible for plenty, so it's good to hear musings like this.

Two of the gifts the guy has is his ability to connect and his extreme polish: he doesn't misspeak, and he's the kind of guy who can talk with cabbages and kings. I can't think of any other candidate (except maybe Mosely-Braun) who didn't blurt out some boner that had to be retracted or explained. Besides that, he's someone whom hinterland conservatives can be seen talking with without recriminations from home. That's golden.

What people forget about the presidency is that it's a job for diplomacy and statesmanship, and for someone with relatively little government experience, he's remarkably sophisticated. Trial lawyering is a real performance art, and it's great training for politics; remember: he was in the trenches for twenty plus years, and even his adversaries respected him. Elizabeth likes to point out how he was always underestimated, and he finessed many a skilled opponent. Hell, he whupped Jesse Helms' hand-picked boy in a rather conservative state in his first campaign.

Sadly, the way one runs is often not the best representation. As you know, I was a partisan for him as early as '01, and what really drew me to him was that he was fighting a version of populist class-warfare. His ringing quote was that "the only thing George Bush respects is wealth." It's just plain silly that Dean was characterized as the leftist of the bunch; he was one of the most conservative of the 9 or 10 guys and gal on the stage. Edwards had a rural platform, was steadfast against the Bush tax cuts and really connected with lots of us due to this.

The right was scared to death of the guy; you'll note that some of the biggest statistical thieveries in the '04 election were in NC.

Rest assured, though, he'll be a power in our country's future. Whether he ever holds office again or not, he'll be a player. He's out there raising money, and he helped Hackett. Not only that, he's got an extraordinary wife and they're both as down-to-earth as they are brilliant. The guy's a star, and I can't really think of that many others on either side of the aisle who have that oomph.

Thanks again.

[Skwmom]

4. The "right was scared to death of the guy?"

Was that why the local conservative radio shows were pushing so hard for Edwards during the primary? A personal injury attorney whose poverty rhetoric is not backed up by his actions would be a disaster for the Democratic Party. To win on a populist message the Democrats would need a believable messenger (not someone the Republicans could easily attack as a pandering political opportunist). Of course, one ad with a voice over containing his famous channeling speech would be enough to hand the victory to the Republicans.

[VOX]

5. STILL hammering away with the "channeling" bit???????

More than a year later. Amazing. He never did anything like this -- and it's been documented here time and again.

And yes, Edwards was the one potential candidate that the right wing was truly afraid of. He was the first one of the entire field to be targeted by their machine -- it was the usual smears: "liberal voting record, out of touch, blah, blah."

The right wing knows that Edwards has a gift for connecting with people across the board. They *should* fear him.

[LittleClarkie]

6. The RW radio pundit here in Milwaukee was scared shitless of the guy

when the Wisconsin primary came around, some Republicans in our open primary voted for Edwards to mess with Kerry and make him have to spend money. The pundit freaked. "Don't you know Edwards could win! He's too much like Kennedy!"

So yeah, I agree. Scared. to. death.

They were going to smear anybody. Edwards would have needed to answer the smear better than Kerry did. But yeah, they had guns ready for all the candidates.

[blm]

7. I absolutely agree that the NC vote was rigged because I worked NC

during the campaign and a day didn't go by when a Republican would come in to the office complaining about how there was no way they'd vote for Bush again. (Mainly based on the defecit and war)

Anyway, we would sell as many yard signs in 4 days as the entire 2000 campaign did in NC. And it was week after week after week.

[PurityOfEssence]

9. comparisons between exit polling and unverifiable electronic voting

were amazing in that election. It's shocking how they correlate.

Exit polling--the gold standard measurement--was within a point or so in FL, OH and NC where there was a paper trail, but where there wasn't, it was 4 points or so in favor of Junior. It was ALWAYS in favor of Bush, which is itself statistically ridiculous. If I remember correctly, there were areas in NC that were as much as 11 points off, which were the most suspicious of all.

The very idea that citizens' votes are subject to private enterprise is OUTRAGEOUS. Voting shouldn't be a cynical game; it's a right. To not allow source code to be examined because we have to kneel before the great god of private enterprise is morally indefensible. It's been drummed into our heads for years now that the "free" market is the only way to do ANYTHING. This is crap. It's ideological bigotry blindly exalted to the realm of religious fervor.

Anybody who argues against completely transparent and verifiable voting is a lying criminal and should be called such. A citizen's vote should be secret to avoid retaliation, but it should be verifiable and sacred. We have the technology. Arguments of cost are crap. Not only is the will of the people to be fairly determined, it is to be honored.

Cost is a spurious argument, since many districts threw budgets to the wind to get systems that would do their bidding.

There's a very simple way to make all voting verifiable without intruding on the secret ballot: give a printout to every voter with a sequential voter number, and tag each vote with this number. If any foul play is suspected, compare votes to printouts.

Anyone who objects to this is a charlatan and should be called such in public.

[LittleClarkie]

10. No problem

But I'm not really a Clarkie. More of a Kerry person who used to be a nominal Clarkie. He was my beginner candidate, was Clark.

But I'm also a unity gal.

[Time for change]

8. I think I look at it a little differently than you

I never really noticed a time when I thought he wasn't sincere. Or, maybe I just accept that politicians can't be sincere all of the time.

Anyhow, I always thought he was a great candidate. I volunteered in both his Presidential and Vice Presidential campaigns, and I believe that even with all the vote theft that he would have won had he headed the ticket (Nothing against Kerry, I just thought that Edwards would have been a great candidate).