Nice article about Edwards from the Boston Globe

[iris5426]

Someone from another Edwards group emailed this to me, thought I'd share :)


Boston.com THIS STORY HAS BEEN FORMATTED FOR EASY PRINTING
The Boston Globe
DERRICK Z. JACKSON
How Edwards advanced the Democrats' debate

By Derrick Z. Jackson, Globe Columnist | February 2, 2008

THE WISPS of the John Edwards campaign were visible at the beginning
of Thursday night's debate between Democratic presidential candidates
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Obama led off by saying that Edwards
"did such an outstanding job elevating the issues of poverty and the
plight of working families all across the country."

Clinton added that John and Elizabeth Edwards reminded the nation
"that in this land of such plenty and blessings, there are still 37
million Americans who are living below the poverty line and many
others barely hanging on above."

In saying she believed "absolutely passionately in universal
healthcare," Clinton again referenced Edwards. "If you don't start by
saying you're going to achieve universal healthcare, you will be
nibbled to death," she said. "And I think it's imperative that as we
move forward in this debate and into the campaign, that we recognize
what both John Edwards and I did, that you have to bite this bullet."

Obama said both he and Edwards were linked in a mission on
congressional ethics. "I think that a lot of issues that both Senator
Clinton and I care about will not move forward unless we have
increased the kinds of ethics proposal that I passed just last year -
some of the toughest since Watergate - and that's something that John
Edwards and I both talked about repeatedly in this campaign. That's
why I don't take federal PAC and federal lobbyist money."

From that point, the strands of Edwards's populism dissipated into
relative Democratic bliss. It was refreshing that Obama and Clinton
toned everything down in a race where acrimony was burning bridges to
the voters. But the compliments to Edwards are more complicated than
the pleasantries.

If, as the stereotypes of this campaign go, Obama represents
transformative hope and Clinton represents international Rolodex Day
One experience, Edwards significantly tapped into a critical segment
of Democratic voters who smoldered with how the world's richest nation
fell so far behind on healthcare and its standard of living and
lurched into an unnecessary war whose tragedies will haunt us for decades.

In apologizing for his vote to give President Bush the authority to go
to war in Iraq, he exhibited a humility that the nation desperately
needs from the Oval Office. He moved both Obama to more pointedly
point out what is "personal" about this campaign and Clinton to say
what she is "passionate" about.

He hurt his common man image with the fancy haircut, house, and hedge
funds, but ultimately he had credibility in saying the race was
personal in a way that Obama or Clinton are fortunate enough not to
have felt. A man who has had to bury a son and has a wife with
inoperable cancer could not be running for president for pure ego.

Most important, the Edwards campaign was a reminder that any true
change will not be easy. Some people snickered when he talked of an
"epic battle" ahead and declared that he would confront Congress with
a declaration of healthcare war ("If you don't pass universal
healthcare by July of this year, July of 2009, I will use every power
I have to take your healthcare coverage away from you"). Many pundits
and politicians wrote off his speeches as too angry.

The more accurate assessment is that Edwards's anger - whether you
believed it or not - may have just helped forge a more focused
Democratic Party. Why else would Obama and Clinton play nice in the
Los Angeles debate? They got the message that there is much more to
lose that is greater than their individual campaigns.

In Iowa, where he finished between winner Obama and third-place
Clinton by getting 28 percent of caucus support, Edwards was
successful in charging, "Senator Clinton defends the system and says
it's OK to take lobbyists' money." He cut into Obama's support with a
more declarative position on Iraq, saying he would immediately
withdraw 40,000 to 50,000 troops.

Actually, I am not so sure about the poverty stuff since the last time
the Democrats had the White House under Bill Clinton, little was done
to stop the exploding wealth gap in this nation. But Edwards gave it a
fighting chance of being taken seriously.

In November, Lee Mickey, a 71-year-old retired Iowa "farm wife," said
she liked Obama's hopeful message but found Edwards's edge "very, very
necessary." Whoever wins the nomination, Obama or Clinton, will need
that edge.

Derrick Z. Jackson's e-mail address is jackson@globe. com.
© Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company

[yy4me]

1. The article is good but the printing of this OP was "too little,

too late. I've been a Globe subscriber for a million years and never saw them show such obvious bias as this race. Hardly any coverage od the Edwards campaign. I know this was a nationwide situation but it stinks, For most of the Media it seems the better headlines consisted of first black man, first woman.

I think the issues are not the issue. It is now race and gender that are the qualifying factors. Lets hear a little more about HOW either Clinton or Obama plan to solve our problems.

[Lugnut]

2. It is a nice article but...

It pains me to hear and read all the praise directed at John Edwards now that he's no longer a candidate.

[iris5426]

3. I know me too...

Now that he's not a threat they're allowed to give him positive coverage.

Or something like that.

:puke: